3.25.2025 -- NLS -- Trump, Tariffs, and Tough Justice Debates

On this episode with Neal and Julie, they cover a wide range of topics, from the political landscape surrounding Donald Trump’s policies and governance style to the ongoing debates about border control and tariffs. Neal discusses how upholding the law is sometimes perceived as authoritarianism after long periods of leniency. They also explore issues related to voter registration, economic policy, and the ideological struggles within political parties. Additionally, they touch on criminal justice, including the challenges of prosecuting sex offenders and the debate over capital punishment. The show wraps up with a preview of their upcoming discussion with Senator Doug Ricks regarding a proposed death penalty bill for the worst child sex offenders. 

Let’s talk advertising. When you want to advertise on the radio, you call the station, right? But what about Facebook, Instagram, Hulu, Disney+, Peacock, and other streaming platforms?

You could try clicking around, reading books, or taking online courses to figure it out—or you can let us handle it. At Sandhill Media Group, we’re your local experts in both radio and digital marketing.

Visit SandhillMediaGroup.com today.

Sandhill Media Group
The Sandhill Media Group LLC consists of 7 radio stations in East Idaho

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

You want to show us? And good morning. It is 807 on Newstalk 1079. Welcome to this Tuesday. That would be called Human Error and I want to welcome you after, by the way, a little bit of a vacation. Much needed. I mean, nobody cares, but I it's been a minute since I've taken time other than like the holidays when you always take Christmas off for Thanksgiving.

The last time I took any paid time off was last April. And, my daughter and I drove down to see the, the second Great American Eclipse that came across Texas, and I just I said, I got to take a little time, like, I need, a couple of days off. So it ended up looked at the calendar and was able to squeeze in, little out of town trip.

We we live in a beautiful region, by the way. And I don't just mean East Idaho. I'm talking about the American West and drove down last Friday, actually last Thursday and spent Friday in Bryce Canyon National Park. Then on Saturday we spent the day in Zion National Park. And then Sunday day before yesterday, we did the Grand Canyon, and it was three national parks in three days.

And I know there's so much more to see in each one of these parks, but we, I put on I think it was over. I kept an odometer, one of my trip meters for just the trip over 2100 miles in about four days, I guess five days total. That's a lot. And I'm happy to be back. I woke up this morning thinking I get to go back to work like I'm.

I'm excited. There is a lot happening. I was pretty good at not marinating in the news cycle. I will always check just to make sure some major scandal hasn't been brewing. And and I always want to keep sort of an ambient level of being informed. And so I would check the headlines now and then, but, I, I will say it's, I'm amazed and I don't know if you're experiencing the same thing, but I am amazed at the degree to which the left has scared themselves into thinking Donald Trump is the next Pol Pot, that Donald Trump is the next Adolf Hitler, or you know what?

Name your historic dictator name your favorite. Who's your favorite historic date? Is it is it, Lenin? Stalin? Stalin was up there. I will tell you. Stalin was up there. Pol Pot may be small potatoes compared to Stalin, but you have Hitler, who, for whatever reason, Hitler's kind of the the gold standard of historic totalitarians. So I don't know what grade of totalitarian they think Donald Trump is becoming that's unfolding before our eyes.

I don't know if they think that he is like Fidel Castro, banana republic tinhorn dictator, or is he like continental dictators like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin was like like what? What level of dictator do you all on the left think Donald Trump is becoming? And how? Because if Donald Trump's becoming a totalitarian, he's doing a lousy job of it.

He's actually reducing the size, the scope, the power, the reach of our centralized federal government. I have never seen a dictator in my life that became a dictator. By reducing the power of government. Can anyone name name one? It meant, you know what? Maybe it's a he could have written a book. Frugal dictators like like dictators rooted in frugality.

That might be. That might be the new the new way to do this. You know what? Limit the size of government. And that's dictator. Okay, enough tongue in cheek here for a moment. I told you before, Donald Trump was elected in anticipation that it was very likely he would get elected, that for a stretch of time, upholding the law will feel like authoritarianism to some because they have gone on for so long enjoying the flood of illegals coming across our border.

They have reveled in the forgiveness of student loans. They have, and I could go on and on and on about the lawlessness of Joe Biden and really overall the lawlessness of the Democrat Party. And so when you come along and you say, no, you've been violating the law, you've been ignoring the law, we're going to start to enforce the law that's going to feel like authoritarianism to you.

Let me give you one really quick example. I've got somebody I want to play for you here, but I want to give you a very quick example. Imagine if for four, let's say four years, because that's a that's a neat timeline to use here, neat and tidy. If I said to you, okay, for the next four years you can get on I-15 and go as fast as you would like between Utah and Montana.

No cops, no tickets, no nothing. In fact, not not only will there be no cops, there will be cops on the side of the road in the median clapping for you as you drive by at 97mph. So not only will the government not ticket you, the government will cheer you on in this four year reprieve from speed limits.

Well, you get used to that. You get used to getting in your car and never having to worry about a ticket. And getting from Pocatello to Idaho Falls in 22 minutes, like you're like, this becomes life. This is a luxury and I like it. Okay? We'd all like that. I mean, would probably have, you know, friends who didn't make it because that would be an extremely dangerous situation.

But whatever. All right. You got used to being able to get in your car and go as fast as you want. Well, imagine if after that four years, you had someone come along and say, guess what? We're going to start enforcing the speed limit again. If you got pulled over after four years of being used to going as fast as you wanted, without consequence, without screw, at least legal, consequence or criminal consequence, then you would feel like that cop pulling you over, asking for your license had a noticeable German accent asking you for your papers.

Like they would feel that way because you would become so accustomed to not having to, adhere to this thing called the law. And I warned you. I told you it's gonna feel to some like it is authoritarianism simply because Donald Trump is upholding the law. You know, I, I find the left uses words like unusual or Trump is is doing this very rapidly or as though you can that government power has to be used at a certain pace.

Like it would be like saying, okay, you can pardon people in prison, but you can't pardon them fast, just like you. You can't pardoned a whole bunch all at once. You have to pardon like once a week. You can't. There's no limitation on speed. They're there. I can't see in the Constitution where it says, well, you have presidential power, but it has to be slow.

No, he's using his power. He's using it efficiently. And and he's putting it forward and people are wigging out about it, and they are substituting their own unease and plugging it into the category of this is unconstitutional. This is in violation of, well, something and I don't know what. Well, I'm not the kind of person that just says, well, cry harder libs.

That's not really me. I actually don't like the fact that for much of America, the hope that one side of America feels the other side of that coin is fear. Palpable fear. I read to you, I'm not going to read it on air because I don't want to name who wrote it, but it's a it's a guy who's a liberal that lives in the region.

It was so over the top, dramatically. It's palpable using words like like, stop it, okay, Donald Trump, his term will come to an end in 2029. Is that right? Yeah. January of 2029. He will no longer be president. Someone else will be. It's very possible the last name of that someone else could be JD Vance. It could be.

Well, that's not a last name, but it could be Vance. It could be DeSantis. It could be, hopefully not Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez or Pete Buttigieg, whatever. But it's going to be a four year term. He's going to get a lot done, and it'll be a lot of things that America has needed for a very long time.

It is cutting back the waste and the fraud and the abuse. Now, you can point on the dolly where cutting out waste, fraud and abuse has hurt you. That's fine if you want to go through that exercise. And for those people who've lost their job, I'm sure the pain is real. But the pain doesn't represent unconstitutionality, and it quite frankly doesn't represent cruelty.

I'll tell you what's cruel is continuing to employ people and charging the American taxpayer for it, for jobs that should not exist. And if they do exist, they should be the business of the private sector. That's what's cruel here. It's not that people lose their jobs, it's that other people had to pay for their jobs that weren't and it wasn't necessary.

So I'm I'm thrilled. I do. Like I said, I find it unfortunate that my excitement, the fact that I'm thrilled, the fact that I'm hopeful, the fact that we've been wanting this for so long and now we're watching it happen, we're seeing the size of government get reduced, is translating. Is your fear to me that sad? I think there's an a whole media narrative of that seems to be getting some legs, and it's taking on a level of organization now, like they've kind of recovered from the the trauma of Donald Trump getting elected.

And it feels like they have an action plan now. And part of that action plan is let's convince a big chunk of the country that Donald Trump is a dictator, and we now have an oligarchy. That's the new word, which I think it's I think it's falling flat. I think, if I were to go out, this would be an interesting experience.

But I, I have neither the time nor sufficient desire to do this, but I'd like to go out to a busy place with a microphone and a camera, and I'd like to walk up to 100 people. And I would ask them, define oligarchy. I want to see how many people actually even know what that term is. And we actually we talked about this.

So a few days ago I think early last week. And I'm going to tell you something. Life is an oligarchy. Every political system in the world is an oligarchy. Every single one of them. So it's a term that is largely meaningless. What it means is the people that have the wealth have more political power than others, right? That's how it works.

If you go to China, you're going to find wealthy Communist Chinese members, which, by the way, if you go back to the original writings of Karl Marx, there weren't supposed to be any rich people. So I, I don't know how all of that works, but communism has never actually unfolded the way Karl Marx envisioned it to be. But the communists are proud of it by the blood.

They're proud of communism, but they're always seems to be really wealthy people. Even Bernie Sanders, who's a I mean, he's a socialist, but he he's in that he's in that quasi shared area of collectivism where he has a fondness for Marxism. But socialism is about as far as he can go and still be, viable. But even Bernie has multiple homes and leads a lavish life.

He's he's not he's not one of the the average people out there working in the salt mine, the the from each according to his ability, to each according to his knee. Like none of that even matters because the people perpetrating it, they're the ones that get to have the multiple homes. All right, so Bernie's a fraud. I will tell you that, Bernie.

Now, I believe that he believes what he says. And in that regard, he's not a fraud, but he doesn't live what he says. He's quite wealthy. I don't know how, but he's quite wealthy. So you have that, and I, I here's what I would say, and I, and I really mean this genuinely because I, I do not get joy from others pain.

There are people that we all probably know who are living, waking up with a genuine and I'll use the word again, palpable. Fear. Nobody actually uses the word. I mean, they do, but I do. You ever say in everyday language back and forth, it's palpable? No. Like writers write that to sound more authoring, but they're whatever it but they're they're suffering pain from it and fear and they don't like it.

And they are miserable because this is now Donald Trump's America and I would ask them and, and if, if I can play quasi mental health counselor here, I would ask them this question. Your day to day life. How is it changed where you go to get groceries, who you associate with, where you work now, if for some if you worked in a federal position and it was provisional or whatever they call it, maybe you did lose your job and I'm sorry for you if you did.

But for the most part, your lives are just the same. It really hasn't changed. And so there is this manufacture out there of this external threat that you think is there, but it really isn't there. Trump loves America, and he is going to look out for America with things like tariffs that you disagree with and don't like. But I think that maybe you disagree and don't like them because it's Trump's idea.

It's well, it's Trump's action. Tariffs have been a very long idea. They've been around a long time. And you think that Donald Trump invented tariffs. And because he did they're bad. That's not that's not true. Let's look at what's happened now Hyundai. We had another another situation where Hyundai has announced that they are investing billions of dollars, for I believe it is a, a steel plant.

Here's the clip. It's pretty quick. South Korean auto giant Hyundai will announce a $20 billion investment in the United States when its chairman visits the white House today. Sources say that that pledge includes $5 billion set for a steel plant in Louisiana, with plans to hire 1500 employees and produce next generation steel for Hyundai and Kia cars.

That move comes after similar investment commitments from SoftBank and chipmaker Taiwan Semiconductor earlier this year. Okay, this is why Trump did the tariffs. It wasn't actually to get money from other countries though. That could happen. And we'll take it. He got it because he knew that they would plug in the threat of tariffs into their calculus of how they're going to survive as a car company.

And many of them said, you know what? We're going to move to America. We're going to increase our operations in America. That is how we're going to survive. And that's Trump knows this and I am I've been probably more disappointed then than anything that very, very smart people who just happen to not like Trump cannot seem to absorb this.

They do. They understand it, they know it, but they've got to go with their firmware, which is I'm going to pretend my IQ is 98 instead of the 115 that it really is. And I'm going to pretend I don't understand that Donald Trump is changing the calculus for these multi international companies that will increase our manufacturing base through this.

Dan Jones had a really interesting point and he's made this before. We played a very similar clip to this 2 or 3 weeks ago. But listen, if progressives have a politics that says all white people are racist, all men are toxic and all billionaires are evil, it's kind of hard to keep them on your side. And so we might want to think about if you're chasing people out of the party, you can't be mad when they leave.

And maybe if we had a different politics, we actually said dignity for everybody. Everybody's respected and we need you more. People might stay okay. That starts to get some applause and, look, the part of me did not want to play this clip because that is the common sense point that if enough libs understand, absorb and incorporate into their functioning, they're going to get back on track and they're going to become a, threatening party again.

But I don't know that they will. Like, I see the vast majority of them not being Van Jones, not being sensible, not thinking logically about what keeps people loyal to a set of ideas and ideals. And after a while, shame, shame, shame can be a powerful magnet, you know, like like, if you're if you suffer from white guilt, something brought you to that point.

And you liked it. And I think it's kind of like my relationship with with, talkies. See, I, I got past flaming hot Cheetos years ago. Talkies are the hottest ones you can buy. They still, you know, there's enough pain there to keep me going. But there's another one I don't even remember. It's a certain kind of Pringles my kid brought over, 3 or 4 weeks ago, and he's like, dad, you got to try these.

And this is super hot salsa verde flavored thing. And, it's it is painful. It's pain. And I love it. And I think for some on the left, that white guilt, that that sense of I am going to feel guilty for my white, pale, whitey white skin makes them feel more important somehow, like, virtuous in recognizing that I'm bad because I'm white and it it keeps them.

Now it's a toxic relationship, but it keeps them addicted to it that only lasts so long. And after a while, all you've done is you've chased the white people out of the party. You've chased the rich out of the party because their their fuel tank of shame is empty. They don't have any more to give. We're going to take a break.

We'll be back after this. On Newstalk 179.

All right. 834 on Newstalk 179, Neil Larson. Julie Mason on this Tuesday. And if you'd like to reach the program. 20854210792I am not sure how Jasmine Crockett is going to avoid getting into trouble calling for violence against Ted Cruz. It's this is was a crazy clip. Just don't know what she's thinking she can get away with. Listen to this.

I think that you punch. I think you punch. I think you're okay. You. You okay with punching? You know, I think, And I love Colin. And I think towards the end, he started to punch a little harder. But, like, it's because, I mean, like, this dude has to be knocked over the head, like, hard, right? Like there is no niceties with him, like, at all.

Like you, you go clean up on him. Right? Okay. Like she's literally calling for violence against Ted Cruz. I don't know, I that's is that a criminal thing? Like, if you incite violence against an elected official, number one. Number two, if I were Ted Cruz, I would sue her. Yeah. I hope Ted Cruz does something on the personal level.

I think she needs to be censored in the house. You can't talk about a Senate member like that. Yeah. So something needs to happen there. I do not know what this girl is doing either. This was not the person who was placed into this position. So she was given this position. She was appointed there. Yeah. She was given this position as a she was a beauty pageant girl.

She has control of the English language. Yeah. This new ghetto version is manufactured. I don't understand why it's going to come back to haunt her. So it's congressional cosplay. Yes. Absolutely. Yeah. It is weird. It is really weird. She, she she can't conjugate a verb anymore. She has to start changing the English language to sound so she fits culturally, I don't know, that's not who she was when they put her into this position.

Okay. It would be interesting to go back and find some old video of her and do a side by side. Yeah, I've watched a couple of them and she's not the same girl. Weird. But Aoki's done very much the same thing. It was a cosplay and she. That's true. She bounces in and out of it. Kamala bounces in and out of it I, I stumbled across the old video of her and Marjorie Taylor Greene and oh girl, baby girl.

I'm like, what was that? Yeah. Where did that come from? I don't know, I don't know what that means. Something about Let's Play or something I, I'm like, what? What are you doing? Yeah, yeah. It's, you know what? It's it's actually kind of unfortunate because this girl is a smart girl. She came from privilege. She had the ability to, attend some really great schools.

And so that's when I say she has a command of the English language. She does. This is a choice. Yeah. So let's talk about Elon Musk for just a minute. By the way, there is a hearing right now where intelligence chiefs, are testifying on Capitol Hill. It looks like it's in the Senate. I saw Gillibrand, sitting there.

And, it's the fallout over that, over the leak. So we may check in on that. Tulsi Gabbard is, talking right now, but I I'm driving through Salt Lake yesterday. Julie, and, I, I can't remember if I pass the Tesla or the the Tesla passed me, but there was a bumper sticker that had a cross through Elon.

So basically it said no. Elon. And I laughed because I thought that's just a bumper sticker saying don't vandalize my don't hurt my car. I don't like Elon. I have a Tesla, but I don't, but I, I, I don't like Elon Musk. That's so what's so I saved this x earlier today that matches exactly what you're saying, which is it's a report.

It was on lives of TikTok and it's a report out of a local news station, Cacae news. I'm not sure. It's in Wichita, Kansas. So this clip went viral while you were on vacation. It's a guy walking up to a Tesla. He's leaving a restaurant or something. He's in SpongeBob SquarePants pajama pants. Okay, so, yeah. And he walks along and keys the Tesla.

Oh, my. And so that clip went viral. Well, guess who owned the Tesla? A wheelchair bound disabled woman who drives a Tesla because it helps her. Oh, well done, you guys. Good job. Moral. Well done. Well, and we talked about this yesterday. I would bet you, if you could analyze where Tesla owners are collectively, politically. I bet you they they lean left.

Yeah. Side note, Tesla stocks up quite a bit now, it did take a tumble. So it's leveling. But this idea that they were going to harm Elon. You know, I don't even know who thinks they have that kind of power I don't know you're going to get prosecuted. Not only that X is now has been valued at the purchase price, which within what, 2 or 3 years, it's back to where it was.

They said that he was going to destroy it, that it wasn't going to be worth anything. Well, now it's back to to what it was worth. And I would imagine it's just going to grow in value from here on out. I would believe that, there is going to be a protest in Boise. This is it. Saturday. I think it's on Saturday.

Yeah, yeah. It's the National Day that everyone's called for. Going back to our the clip you played Jasmine Crockett. That's her birthday, March 29th, and she wants everyone to protest at a Tesla dealership for her birthday. Okay. Yeah. So, that will, you know, fit in Boise. I wasn't going to, but now that I know it's her birthday, I'll be there.

Yeah. How narcissistic is that? Well, listen to the woman talk. Wow. Okay. Yeah. So we'll we'll kind of watch that protest in Boise, see how it goes. I would guess that a lot of these protests, since they have been announced, are going to have counter protests across the United States. I might get a little ugly in some of these places.

Well, we just had, gentleman who lives there in the Treasure Valley. He's going to go to the, the counter. So basically. Yeah, we'll we'll see, see how it goes. I almost feel like I'm talking about the region. Like, I don't understand what these people are. Think they're going to accomplish. What? Like what? What are they trying to accomplish here other than looking like horrible people who damage property?

I'm not sure. This isn't this doesn't coalesce people because I know Democrats who would never harm a car. They wouldn't do it. Yeah, they're just not those kind of people. And they're embarrassed that their party has people like that in it. Are the is the protests calling today to vandalize? I'm sure there will be bombings and stuff if they can get away with it.

The problem is, as they've advertised, that they're going to be there, so there's not likely going to be that they're going to get caught. They're not overtly calling to vandalize. No, it is just to protest. Okay, gotcha. But there's been dealerships already that. No, I understand that. I'm just saying the premise of the protest is not let's go vandalized Teslas.

But even though that will happen. Okay. So, yeah, but what I find funny is people who, if you go back before Doge, people who didn't like Elon Musk were very clear to point out he didn't found Tesla because apparently he didn't he he joined as an investor. And then he kind of took over because he's Elon Musk.

But they try to distance him from the success of Tesla. But now they they it's like white on rice you know like they're they are inseparable now even though they tried to downplay Elon's role in the success of Tesla before they're just inconsistent. Oh absolutely. And again, you're going to take it out on a car that has performed well, has led your Green New Deal.

Yeah. So you just don't even care about climate change anymore, obviously. Right. And with with that being said, other electric car manufacturing capabilities like was at Ford, I think it was Ford who scrapped their electric car and, and, and curtailed it way back because they weren't making money because Tesla was doing it so much better. Yeah. You either believe in the Green New Deal or you don't believe in the Green New Deal.

What I think you actually believe in is hatred. Yeah, right. Well, yeah, they're they're the environment only matters so far Julie. Like. Yeah. It's only important. Yeah. When I can worship at the altar of it. But if I've got, if I can worship at the altar of hatred over worshiping at the altar of Green New Deal, I'm going to choose hatred.

Trump in his his joint address to Congress, he made reference to this. He could solve. Oh. There's a heckler. Interesting. They've hauled someone out of the, Intel hearing, but, I'm sure it might be Karen. It it might be. She looks like a Karen. But, Trump could cure cancer. Democrats would find a reason why they like cancer.

Yeah, there would be some sort of problem with it. Well, like, look at Elon's getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse. And the left is defending the waste, fraud and abuse. It's crazy. It is crazy how the hatred is supreme. Yeah. It is. All right, Let's break. It's 844 on Newstalk 179. We'll be back after this. Will check in with the Intel hearing, see how that's going.

Just ahead.

All right. It's 850 on Newstalk 178. Nielsen and Julie Mason. Julie, the bill and I forget the number 183 comes to mind. I think it's House Bill 183. That applies the death penalty to the worst child molesters. Not every case is going to warrant this, but, we are, actually working on an interview with Senator Doug Rex to talk about this and, your your thoughts on, on this particular bill.

Obviously, in Idaho, the only crime that can give put you on death row is First-Degree murder. I, I have some really interesting questions that maybe people didn't think about. And as Neil and I were talking about this on commercial break, our our questions kind of mirror each other. I the initial gut reaction. Right. Of course they should be on death row.

They're horrible. Yeah. I think they're horrible human beings. Yeah. And I have been incredibly frustrated with the sentencing structure for some of these, especially child pornography cases. It is a very gentle slap on the wrist and they are back out doing whatever they want to do. However, I would love to know how many ideas. How many did you consult judges?

Did you what was the background work on deciding if this law could be implemented by those who are going to be asked to implement it? Yeah. So, you know me, I always want to have the discussion of intentions versus outcomes. I love the intention of this bill. Oh, perfect. Yeah. The worst child molester they have in my mind.

They've worse than murdered someone because you've taken the any normal life away. But the suffering doesn't end. The suffering will go on for the rest of their life. So it. In some ways you can argue it's worse than murder. So I, I fully am on board with this. At the same time, here's what I think you have to ask.

And it's not me opposing the bill, but you have to ask in terms of the practical application, will this change the way county prosecutors prosecute these crimes? Because I want this person to get the full extent of of the law. You and I are both we share the same frustration that too many of these people get writers and they, you know, six months they're out and there and and I feel like it like I said, in in some ways this is worse than murder.

So how do they get six months? And then they, they go on and kind of live a normal life, like has I guess as normal as they, whatever their normal is. But, I don't want prosecutors under prosecuting because, well, the death penalty is hanging out there and, and maybe they just will have the discretion whether or not to pursue the death penalty.

I don't know where the discretion lies. Can the judge say yes? You can prosecute no. On the death penalty. Do juries have that call? Like, who gets to say yes and no to how the death penalty is applied in these cases? All these will be good questions for Doug Riggs. And let's look it up from the opposite side, which is maybe some times they put it on the table as a bargaining tool to not have this go to court.

Yeah, that's true too, because one of the one of the very difficult things about taking one of these cases in front of the jury is at Retraumatize is the person who was victimized, you know, they in order for it to probably, result in a guilty verdict, they're going to have to go on the stand. The victim is going to have to go on the stand.

Yeah, that's a lot, especially if you were 12 or 13. Well, it's a revictimized ation in a. Yes. So maybe it's a bargaining tool. Maybe that's a positive thing that's kind of come to it. It could. Yeah. And and that and that's true. All right. 854 on Newstalk 179 we'll be back. In.

All right. To 907 on Newstalk 107, I Neil Larsen, Julie Mason and you via the Stones Automotive Group. Colin Text line (208) 542-1079. Right now, Capitol Hill A hearing is underway. Tulsi Gabbard was just testifying. This is Senator James Lankford. This is in the fallout of that signal chat. Lee, let's listen to special interest aliens. This is something this committee in the Homeland Security Committee tried over and over again to get details on.

The Biden administration was unwilling to be able to share in the details in the special interest aliens, which a great amount of frustration. The comment came often back to us, is that FBI is going to track all these individuals and to be able to identify them, even though it was 70,000 a year that were coming into the country.

You just walked into this position and trying to get your feet on the ground in so many different issues that are outstanding on that. I raised you the issue of individuals that are currently illegally present in the country going through a process, but are listed as special interest aliens by definition from the administration. Those are individuals that we don't know their level of risk, but whether they're considered a national security risk, but we don't know anything else about them from there.

So how are you trying to get on top of the number of people that are criminally aliens in the country, but also these special interest aliens that come from terrorist areas? Thank you. Senator, I appreciate your question. As far as the FBI is concerned, you hit on it criminal. So we are focused across our interagency partners at DHS, ICB pieces and elsewhere to identify through our information sharing networks that we have stood up with state and local law enforcement to provide us the details on any criminal evidence relating to any of the individuals you highlighted.

And if there is a nexus there, a case will be open. Excuse me by the line agents who predicate a lawful and factual basis to do so. And we will further refer that matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution. We are reviewing all of these cases anew, and we will report back to you, Senator, with some fidelity on the.

All right. That, of course, is, Kash Patel. And by the way, most of the networks are carrying this hearing live. Yeah, I think that they think this is a gotcha moment for Republicans. Yeah. And so I think that's why you're getting CNN and ABC carrying this live, because they're hoping to be like, this is a horrible administration.

I think they're looking for that. I don't think they're going to find it in these hearings. I don't either, but you're right. It has the smacks of narrative building. Let's let's go to the phones. Caller, how are you today? Good, good. I want to give a perspective on the, the sex offender law that they're they're giving, few years back, I interviewed some detectives in Salt Lake for, I was doing my undergraduate work and about their sex offender issues, and they told me they had 400 cases that year, and they they put the question to me.

It was how many of these people are registered sex offenders? They're doing all the offending. Would you guys have an idea? You know, out of 400 what they told me? No idea. Zero. The problem is, is everybody looks at the sex offender registries as the boogeyman. That's that's out there. But the offenders are fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers.

So what's going to happen when somebody is molested and they think, well, grandpa could be put away forever? Or they're going to kill my dad, you know what I mean? Yeah. Right. Yeah. So. So the fear is, if you make these crimes worthy of capital punishment, then that makes victims even more reluctant to report them because they don't want their dad.

They don't want their uncle or their grandpa to actually die and be executed. So it may actually work in reverse. Is that what you're saying? That's kind of my my thought because, you know, you get into the ugly thing of this whole thing and 99% of them are family members that are the offender. So, you know, we teach stranger danger and all these other things, and, and, the schools, but they don't teach about the fact that, you know, the parents need to be putting it out there, that, hey, these advances can come from your family members and.

Yeah, and, approach it that way, because in my years in law enforcement and working with sex offenders, usually once they're caught, recidivism isn't as high as everybody thinks. It's only, you know, under 20%. So that was my thought that, they need to think about it. They're going to do it. So. Yeah. All right, well, thank you for the call.

I appreciate that. I well, in the same way that a lot of these crimes go unreported, I don't know if we can fully tell recidivism rates either. Like, that's. Yeah, I, I think 20% is low. I think 80% is high. I think it's probably somewhere in the middle. Yeah. Of that. And it probably depends on how they're collecting the data.

Whether or not I, the recidivism rate is, is just a portion of me hoping that sex offense crimes have a better sentencing structure, capability. Because I don't think there's a lot of deterrent if you get to go to the, you know, a day camp type situation for six months. And while you're there, in order to help, rehabilitate you, you actually get free college courses, and you get that.

I understand the concept behind doing that, but there's really no punishment there either. Yeah, you're right, I understand we're trying to rehabilitate the person and get them out and doing better in the community. I am all for that. But by just going simply that route, you're avoiding the punishment route of it as well. And I think it should be a combination of the two.

Well, I think there it appears there's some conflicting information, like there's one here that says the observed sexual recidivism rates of sex offenders ranged from about 5% after three years to about 24% after 15 years. But the very same website said recidivism of adult sexual offenders. Found ten found a sexual recidivism rate of 39% and its recidivism rate for any charge of 74%.

So yeah, it may it may be hard to encapsulate exactly what it is because there's so many variations of sex offenses. So yeah. So let me give you an example for people going, no, there's not. Yes there is. If you are 19 and your girlfriend is 17 and you've been put on the sex offender list, you're not you're going to be that.

You're not the keeper fattening. And no, no, you're not a threat to 16 year old girls everywhere. No. Right. And so but those in some studies or some data collection, those sex offenders will be placed in that data point, which brings the recidivism rate down. Yeah. That's. Yeah. You're right, you're right. Yes. Right. Yeah. So and that that was another angle.

Julian, I'm not saying that I would oppose this bill, but I think you have to put everything on the table. Yeah. And we'll ask that, if and when we actually have them set. It's okay. It is set Thursday, 730. Okay. So we're confirmed for Thursday. We'll ask him that it does this reduce the likelihood that that these crimes get reported?

Because I, like the last caller said, I believe he is right, that a lot of times this is these are family relationships. You don't you don't want capital punishment for your dad. You know, you might think broadly, globally, capital punishment for anybody who commits these crimes. But when it's real, I, I do feel like and and, you know, sex offenders are going to tell their victims.

Yeah. I don't say this to anyone because I could die. If you tell someone like they're going to use that as a manipulation tool. Absolutely. And just like all crime, there's a reason that if a, if a woman dies and she's married, the very first person they look at is the husband. Yeah. It's a crime of opportunity. Abuse of little children is no different.

It it's a lot more likely when there's opportunity available. Right. And I have cited it on here before that in Covid the rates of at home child abuse went through the roof because people were at work, but daycares were closed. Right. And so uncle was taking care of kids or whatever. And that because it was a crime of opportunity, child abuse rates went through the roof.

So said, let's go back to the phones, caller. Welcome to the show. Hey, how are you this morning doing doing pretty well. What's up? Hey, just one point I would bring up two. I think that the other caller had a good valid point, but also the offenders with that serious of a charge might consider not doing the offense more so than if they had a lesser charge or lesser possibility.

Oh, so as a deterrent. So that's what he's believing that. Yeah. That one of the good side effects of this bill potentially being signed into law is that the deter the deterrent part of it. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Which hey guys, thank you for the call, which I that you're right. This I think you have to factor that into.

It's a good argument for, and again, I don't know what the stats are. He may be exactly right. Sometimes, though, I think that people, you know, when you look at I don't think we see lower murder rates in states where the capital punishment is in place. So I don't know that it's a deterrent because criminals expect to get away with it, or they're committing their crimes in such a, rage that they're not thinking about consequences.

Yeah. So what you just said goes back to what I mentioned in the last hour, which is I think that lots of times, capital punishment being a possibility in a state gives the D.A. or the state prosecutors leverage in a plea deal. That's true. A bargaining bargaining chip, you know. All right. 918 208542 107 nine let's go back to the phones.

Caller welcome. How are you today? Caller go ahead. You're on the Neil Larson show. Oh thank you. Yeah, I had two comments on the topic here this morning. And with the child sex offenders. And my first comment is typically there is a offender who offended the accused. So it's like a cycle and finding out, you know, the the long the who offended who like and typically it's, it's a family member type of situation like, like during Covid type of thing.

And the second comment is where they trust in their clergy, or they go to the bishop and they deal with it internally with the council, and nothing happens. And then they re-offend. And I feel like that is something that needs to be addressed. And holding those with authority responsible. So let me, and I agree with you, but I want to go back to your first point about sometimes the offenders were victims at one point in their life.

How how does that play into your thought about this particular law? Well, I, I think this law is very strong. It's a very like. It's a big leap. I, I don't know if the law addresses that, but I do feel like there needs to be something in the law that says, well, not necessarily in the law, but one person taking the fall for generational abuse.

Like, that's my personal feeling about that. Okay. So I have seen this in some crime cases that I've covered that when if you're in a state where the judge gets to decide the actual sentencing, the jury might recommend a sentence, but the judge actually gets to decide the sentencing, which is how Idaho works. So let's say it goes to a jury trial and the judge gets to actually decide the sentence.

The judge will factor in the concept of generational abuse in determining if this the highest sentence should be given. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Do they do they prosecute to the I guess it goes by if they do want to prosecute. You know uncle or grandpa because of the generational abuse. I, I'm not seeing that in what I'm covering.

I'm not seeing that there. So let's compare this to, like, a kid who shows up and shoots up a high school. There's several states now where the parents can be prosecuted for not parenting that child strong enough, and the child having the ability to have a gun. And then go in and create horror. Right. So I'm not seeing that same kind of response in child abuse cases that they're going to hold a parent responsible or an uncle responsible for the behavior of the current abuser.

Makes sense. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you for the call. (208) 542-1079 like I look at this and I, I appreciate what you said, Julie, because there is room there for the in the sentencing process to take that into account. But the crime is the crime. The harm is the harm. And if a child is abused, it doesn't matter that their abuser was abused 30 or 40 years earlier, that that has no bearing on the harm that's caused to that child.

And so I look at it, whatever we have to do to stop the cycle, we need to stop the cycle and not and not sort of like and I believe I believe in compassion. I believe in redemption. But in this particular crime, you have to stop the cycle. And even if that means one person takes the fall, as the caller said, for generational abuse, then so be it.

You just have to stop that cycle somehow. Yes, I completely agree with that because the the victim is still 100% a victim, no matter who victimized the person. Yes, they're still a victim. Yeah, yeah. And and I think there's also you, you venture into a really tricky area too, where a if someone is an abuser and they were the abused, are they getting a pass.

And I don't ever want to give a pass for that kind of behavior. We can never say, well, it's okay because or I understand it because that behavior just needs to be condemned and punished. And, and we need to do whatever we need to to put a stop to it. Yeah. That for me this is no different than the the defense that people have for pedophilia.

They say, well that's just how they're, they're wired. That's their sexual preference. And we can't hold them to a level when that's their sexual preference. No. Yes you can. Yeah a victim is a victim. And I'm sorry if that is your, the the, you know, the intended version of how you operate. That doesn't mean. That's right. I like some people like to speed.

They like the thrill of speeding. That doesn't mean you should do it right. That's right. Okay. Just because you have a desire to do it doesn't mean it needs to be forgiven. I'm a velocity attractive person. Like what? Yes. Right. Yeah. So yeah, the victim is still the victim. And that should always be just like when I talk about education and that the child should always be the premier.

Yeah. Responsibility and education. The victim should be the premier responsibility in these prosecutions. So there's one. And we've got to take a break here in a moment. But I want to talk culturally for just a moment. I've been frustrated through the entire debate about porn in libraries, and that the changing of the language from pedophile to minor attracted person.

The left has been working very, very hard over time, really, to soften how horrific child sexual abuse is. One of the reasons why I do support this law I think I mean the devil's in the details but in general I support it. Is it firmly culturally keeps sex between a parent or a, not a parent but an adult and a child in that realm of absolutely not.

This is so horrific. You deserve the death penalty for for doing that to a child where the left has been very active, trying to almost normalize it and and change the language. So it's not in the language of, of, you know, creepiness or criminality or, or whatever they, they've been trying to I don't know how many of them want to make it mainstream, but they want to soften the IT factor of pedophilia, and I absolutely will oppose them on that.

You know, there's no doubt if you listen to this program, you know, my my feeling that the thing that I applaud the most about the left is that the child is forgotten. Yeah. In everything. Yes, everything. Abortion, education, sex abuse, the child is forgotten. And that cannot be a cultural standard. We accept. Yeah. No, no. And this creates a bright line, and I, I like that.

All right. 926 on Newstalk 179 quick break. We'll come back and continue if you'd like to join us. 208542 179.

You know, that's really a, a good point about the left and how children, the left will put children on the convenience and pleasure scale of adults. And that should never be ever, ever. No, they're the innocent in all things. Yeah. And until until the left decides to start protecting kids. I can't respect their arguments. Yeah, yeah. Which is why I don't respect the teachers union.

It's. It's not about protecting kids. It's about protecting adults in their jobs. And I've got issues with that. Well, for teachers unions, the kids are just a means to the end for them. It's just like, well, these little snot nosed brats have to have a teacher, and I get to be the one to do that. So, yeah. Yesterday I had a Timberline and I didn't do it.

Okay, we'll do that right here. Glad to answer your question. He said, what would happen if the family members had a weighted say in the punishment? They are consulted almost always, if a guilty verdict comes in, especially, if it's a delayed sentencing, like Idaho has, that the family members get to write letters, they get to, and you saw this in the the, Lori Vallow and the Chad Daybell trial.

Those family members got to come up and give their like statements. Yeah. At the sentencing hearing. And the judge takes all of that into consideration. And a lot of DA's will actually, before they put together a plea deal will go to the family and say, how do you feel about this? Pulido so the the family of the victim, especially if there's a death is consulted often.

Yeah, you know, on the trip, listen to a Dateline a couple of Dateline podcasts and I, I can only listen to about one because I get done just these people whose lives have been upended by murder. And anyway, I just, I think about, like, we think about our lives and the things that cause us misery or pain or whatever.

I when we talk about kids who are being sexually abused, like my heart just aches for them. What what if you're a kid and you're being repeatedly abused by an adult? You have no way out, no. Hey, I mean, you do, but you don't see it like you don't. You can't stand up to the person. You're vulnerable. You're.

And I just I can't imagine that is not any kind of life that I can identify with. Like, I, I didn't have anything like that growing up. But when you think of what that must be like for someone in that situation, life must just be a living hell for them. And I just my heart breaks for them. Well, I, what I've seen as a lot of these kids create these alternate realities that they close in to.

Yeah, it's there, it's there. I don't like this word safe place, but that's what it is. Yeah.

All right. To 930 now on Newstalk 179. All right. Let's chat about Timberline home and a new, recliner that they're offering here at Timberline Home. It's called the Z recliner. What it's designed for to actually sleep in, because there is 10% of Americans who don't sleep in their beds. And so this recliner was created so that you could have zero gravity, that you could have massage, you could have heat, two could have different recline options, because sometimes people don't like to lay completely flat.

They sleep better if they're elevated a little bit, especially if they have breathing problems or lung problems. That is an option with the Z cleaner. And there is another huge perk. They have a special fabric that they use on the Z cleaner. It's infused with minerals to speed up the blood flow by up to 30%. And they have scientific, studies that back this.

So I would encourage you head on down to Timberline Home, ask them about the Z cleaner, ask about the scientific studies, figure out if this is going to be something that'll work for you. There are. There is an additional $300 right now off of all Z cleaners, but it's only for a limited time. So if you need better sleep and the Z cleaner can help you with that, get on down to, Timberline home, 711 East Anderson in Idaho Falls.

Or you can go to shop timberline.com. Okay, Julie. Should I play the Lee missile clip? How he thinks that we shouldn't even have a voter registration? Yeah. System. Listen. Okay, so, like what? Well, we could eliminate all voter registration laws. See, when Democrats get in charge, we try to protect voting rights. We don't make voting easier.

Now, I'm all for voter eligibility requirements. I might we might disagree about what those requirements should be. But, you know, I'm going to say that like there should be an age limit to vote. I might say 16, you might say 18, but I'm not going to say eight. Right. So we're going to agree that there should be voter eligibility requirements.

But once you're eligible, why do you have to preregister? Why why is that even a thing? It wasn't a thing in this country at the founding. We didn't have voter pre-registration in 1787. We didn't have voter registration in 1821, we only started having voter registration, generally speaking, after the Civil War. Why do you think that is? Because a bunch of freed African slaves were migrating up north, and all of a sudden New York was like, we need some registration up in here, right?

A bunch of immigrants from Europe, mainly, Ireland and Italy, we're coming to New York. People were like, oh, we need some registration in here. If you're eligible to vote, you should be automatically registered to vote. And that is how they do it everywhere else but us. Everywhere else but us either has automatic registration or some other form of forced registration for everybody so that you don't have, okay, blah blah blah.

Yeah, I'm like, how long do we have to listen to racism over and over and over again? And it's always racial and out. Yeah, always. And I'm just thinking, how inconvenient has it been for you, Julie, to be a registered voter? I have moved it was very easy. I moved, I went in and registered. I have kids who left the state.

They were registered here as soon as they turned 18, because I believe that that was good parenting on my part. Yeah. Then they had to switch their registration. Do you know how easy it is? Oh, it's so easy, so easy. It's so easy. I don't even remember what I had to do to do it. It was like none.

You can do it. Same day right there. Like it takes no time at all. Well, I'll give you an example of of kids. I had kids who just moved from California to Utah. They did it all online. Yeah, 100% online. And then when you show up, you show your driver's license to cross-reference. Yeah, that's not a lot to ask.

No, the ones in Arizona, it was a little bit more difficult for my daughter because she had had a name change when she got married, so there was an extra hurdle to get over. Was not difficult at all. The son in law did it right online. Well, this is new. Like I, I haven't heard this in a while, if ever, that we shouldn't even have to be registered to vote.

Well, registering to vote is not designed to be cumbersome. It's designed to make the system secure. And I think he's trying to make an issue that it. Well we didn't start doing it until after the Civil War. Well yeah. Because that's when the country was coming into the modern age. I don't know if what he's saying is even true, that nobody else does this, that everyone else, nobody else has voter registration.

I, I for some reason, I feel like if I were to do a little research right now, I would find other countries that do have voter registration. I think he probably would too. I, I think that that's a stretch for him. I also think all he does is make himself look stupid here, because it's absolutely not about racism.

And if you bought into that argument, then you're the one who's not being intellectually sound. Yeah, it is about security. We we need to have the, the right people or we need to have the correct people within the geographical boundaries voting in the correct races. Well, you you either have to be arguing racism and not what we're saying here.

I'll explain in a second. Or fraud. Okay. Racism in that you don't think minorities have what it takes to be registered to vote. That's racism. Not thinking everybody should register to vote. That's not racism. That's equal application. That's just I believe everyone can be registered to vote. Or are you saying that our system is fraudulent. Like what?

What is it that you're arguing for here. I don't think he knows what he's arguing for. Other than he's going to scream racism and he's going to he's going to manipulate, manipulate things to make it work that way. When the whole system began. Yeah, of course, registration wasn't happening because they witnessed that they needed to start registering.

We also didn't have computers. We also didn't have public transportation or our own transportation. We didn't have the capability to make it happen quick and swiftly and and accurately. He's arguing for something that all those options didn't exist back in the 1800s. Should we live exactly like the 1800s and everything else that we do? Yeah. Well, it's so weird.

I've never understood this. Okay. Right. Right here. Countries with automatic registration. Sweden, Germany, Canada and Denmark automatically register eligible voters. Countries requiring active registration. The UK and some Australian states require voters to register, though processes are often simpler than in the US. And then there's other countries where voting is compulsory. You have to vote. It's like like registering for selective service, I guess.

Australia, Belgium and Brazil require both registration and voting with penalties for failing to vote. Okay, so he's just not being he's just not being accurate and blowing smoke like he's just throwing out stuff that isn't true to support his cause. And again, this is one of those things that, oh, well, if another country allows, women to be beat in the streets if their face is shown.

Okay, we might as well do that here too. Like, yeah, I'm. I want a system that's designed for the security of my independence, not based upon what other countries are doing. Yeah, I know it. That's so weird to me. Like, we have to base our system on mimicry. Like we have to look. Oh, we have to do what other countries are doing.

I've never understood that argument, and I've always had a negative viewpoint of people that that make that case. Well, the European countries don't do this. Yeah, well I didn't if I wanted to live in Europe, I live in Europe. Yeah. I want to live in America where my freedoms are secure. That only applies in certain things though, like they want us to have the same medical care system as socialist countries.

But then when we point out that a lot of these countries are banning additives that RFK Jr wants to get rid of in the United States, they don't have an opinion on that. Yeah. Because he's after they think he that he's a kook. Yes. Right. Right. Yeah. All right. It's 938 Newstalk 1079 quick break. We'll come back and continue after this.

If you'd like to reach us on the Stones Automotive Group calling text line (208) 542-1079.

I really don't know if I understand why this hearing is getting so much attention. Even Fox is carrying it wall to wall. They're kind of meandering on topics, too. Yeah, they're going all over the place with different things that these directors have had to handle narcotics coming in and yeah, like it's it feels very tedious. Well, you know why they weren't prepped?

Yeah. This happened yesterday. They're holding the hearing today. I don't think they have their now say different ducks in a row. Officials face questions on the China threat. Like there's another facet to this. Yeah I I'm not going to carry this I think it's all over the place. Yeah. So this person says one concern I have about voter registration is blue state staying ethical.

My husband has lived in Idaho for six years since college, and has been registered here for at least four years. He still gets a mail in ballots sent to his parents house in Washington. Oh, wow. That's that's crazy. That is crazy. And by the way, John Bel Jeannie has 13 of the 16 sweet 16 teams. Correct. He is in sports.

We should have trusted him. I should have asked John to fill out my ballot. Yeah. I wonder how many I've got. One. Two three. Four. Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Nine. Ten. I only have 11 of the 16 on some of the upsets I saw, like because I did a little bit of research as Neil and I were filling out our brackets.

There was some concern about Saint John's. There was? Yeah, they felt like that was a weak number two seed. I didn't see any concern about Arkansas coming up through like, there was no talk that Arkansas was going to be this sleeper team that walked its way through the tournament, and they've performed far above what their seed was.

Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's that's true. 10th seed. Now they play Texas Tech. Yeah. Well there is it that different than BYU you know. Yeah. So we need to talk about we might have enough time here. So McNeese beat Clemson. 12 seed. Yeah. The team manager for McNeese goes by the name aura. Yeah. He has now more.

And I l money than the whole entire team because of his persona. He has deals. He has everything. He wears these crazy outfits. He walks out with these gigantic boom boxes. He does anything the team asks. Yeah. And, he became kind of the superstar of that team because there was really no information done about all of the McNeese players.

But there had been like these. Yeah, you know, feature articles on aura, the team manager. And so a lot of the, the bigger sports networks picked it up real quick. And he has even more nil money now. Wow. Super fun for him. Yeah. Like so fun. That's cool. Okay. We did not talk about this. I can't remember which team it was.

It looks to me like he traveled right before he traveled. He took three steps. They never call it, but he told it. Maryland? Yeah. This Maryland, he totally traveled. Yeah. I'm like, he takes three steps. I'm like, that needs. Yeah. That's. That was the game shouldn't be decided with controversy like that. Yeah. Lots of talk online about that.

People citing the, the, the first step gets to be included in picking up the possessions. So no, it wasn't an. Yeah. He traveled. Yeah. I think he traveled to. But it never gets called. No. Ever. Also, is his name Bobby coach Hurley for UConn? Yeah. As he walked off the court, I believe it was Baylor was waiting to go on the court.

They were the next team to play. They lost by one bucket, two points. And he walked off the court and said, good luck. I hope they don't f you like they left us, meaning the refs, the refs. There was a journalist in the tunnel, caught it. It went wild. Now it's being reported this morning that that journalist is saying that a team representative threatened him in the tunnel and said, if you put that video out there, I will make sure you lose your job.

Did he put the video up? He did put the video out there. And so now UConn is being investigated. Oh wow. Yeah. For the the intimidation against. Yes I mean the coach can pop off right. That's that's fine. Him and whatever. Yeah. But he's got the money. He's got the money. Yeah. But the intimidation is what's being investigated.

Did the did the reporter get anything on tape like the intimidation on tape at all? I haven't seen the intimidation anywhere. I guess it could come out later. Maybe, I don't know. Wow. What exactly was the threat? You know, he said he would ruin his career and his life if he put it out there. Oh, well, at least that's according to the journalist.

We've only got one side of the story right now. So you know what? The cover up is always worse than the crime. No, I'm serious in politics and in sports. Like just let her take the fine people would be like okay he's he's hot I get it. And there was a lot of people who agreed with him.

Yes. Just literally take the fine. Yeah. Pay ten grand or whatever it is. That's nothing to him. And then yeah that's an I don't I actually don't think in today's sports environment that that would be bad press. Yeah. I think most people like he's a passionate coach. Of course he says things like that. Yeah. So agreed. Here we go.

This is the face. I hate. The other side of me. Out of this cage. Embrace to take your life of me. Tell me, tell me, tell me I'm not crazy I. There's a psycho in my head I'm making me feel like I'm living up all right. To 946 on Newstalk 179, it's The Neil Show. And if you'd like to reach us.

(208) 542-1079 right now, Senator Mark Kelly is grilling Tulsi and I'm going to tune in Julie. But the first time he makes a reference to Donald Trump, we we back out okay okay. So find information. Yes it does okay. Controlled unclassified information according to DoD includes information that is information that has not been approved for public release. Would you, of what's been disclosed publicly of the signal chain?

Would you would either of you feel that that would be approved for public release? Miss Gabbert? The discussion that took place in that signal chat group was, a conversation reflecting, national security leaders and the vice president around, the president's objective. So yes or no, would you approve that for public release? I don't feel I can answer that question here because of the nature of this, because of the nature of a private discussion that took place between individual leaders and our government, it would make sense that you would not approve it for public release, wouldn't it?

There are other factors that I that would go into that consider, Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes or no? I wouldn't approve the release of classified information. Again, as I've said, I'm not talking about classified information, Mr. Ratcliffe. I'm talking about information that has not been approved for public release. That is information that is considered controlled, unclassified information. The, the principles that would have been on that would have been individuals capable of approving that for public release.

Do you I mean, I got 20s the deliberation as to whether or not we should launch a strike on another country. Would you consider that classified information, miss Gabbard? Well, the information was not classified. This is not this is not I'm not talking about this. I'm just talking about deliberation as from principles as to whether or not we should launch a strike on another country.

Would you consider that classified information? I'm not talking about what happened this week. There are other factors that would go into determining that classification. Mr. Ratcliffe, the deliberation between principles in our national security apparatus about whether or not to strike another country, would you consider that to be classified information? Decisional strike, deliberation should be conducted through classified channels.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I just want to return Mr. Ratcliffe to your answer there in part, Senator Kelly, it's been raised at several occasions now in this hearing about whether classified information was discussed in this chat, and you mentioned about the secretary of defense being what you called, I think the original classification authority.

Correct. I think it's important for the public to understand that although you and Director Gabbard, our original classification authorities on many matters, you're not that for all matters that might be classified in the government. Is that right? That's correct. So if the Secretary of State has classified sensitive diplomatic details, that's his authority. If the Secretary of Energy is class of sensitive classified information about our national laboratories, that's his.

And the two of you can't speak to other departments who had their own original classification authority, in which, of course, as director Garver said, ultimately rests with one person the president of the United States. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that it looks like the vice chairman wants to weigh in as well, just very briefly.

I mean, I think it's strange the audience and the watching public's credibility. If we're talking about timing, I don't recall packages. That somehow this would be okay to put out or just, frankly, senior American officials trashing Europe. I've been around this for a while. This is not information you generally put out. And the notion there's not even acknowledgment of, hey, gosh, we screwed up.

It's stunning to me. And the idea somehow, well, none of this was classified, but we can't talk about it here. You can't have it both ways, okay? They're wrong if it's an accident. Yeah, if it was an accident, you didn't. And they admitted that this that's already been admitted by the white House, that this person was added to the chat.

I accidentally shouldn't have been there. There is this. I feel like Julie, this, on a serious seriousness scale from 1 to 10 is maybe a 4 or 5. And the Democrats are acting like it's a it's a 10 or 11. Like it's just yeah, it was a mistake should not have happened. But they're using this as a big political gotcha, which I think underscores how desperate they are.

Can I bring up another time that the Democrats did this, that I felt like was horrible and we all had to just run with it and dismiss it? At the conclusion of the Russian collusion hoax investigation, all the cell phones were destroyed. Yes. All the information on them gone, all the cell phones destroyed. And we were, we were told, as the American public, sorry, why can't we?

If it was good for you, why can't they say that here in this meeting? Sorry, we're not going to share that classified information. Yeah. Why doesn't it go both ways? It's a good question. All right. We'll wrap it up after this. 953 on Newstalk 179.

Here's, Warner's going off. Let's listen. Got it on paper. If you got it here, it's not classified. Stand by your position. Or is this just one more example of a careless approach to how we keep our secrets in this administration? With apologies to Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our witnesses for being here.

I want to explore a little bit about Ukraine, and I'll direct this to to Director Ratcliffe. For director Crews, the ATF assesses that, quote, the grinding war of attrition in Ukraine, quote, will lead to a gradual but steady erosion of Kyivs positions on the battlefield. Are Ukrainian forces at any significant risk of collapse this year?

First. Go ahead. Before I turn it over to, Director Ratcliffe. I think both sides are working through the equipment that they need, the industrial base. They need to support that and the personnel that are required to man all of that equipment and be on the frontlines. And, as we see the battlespace in the various portions, whether it's in Kursk, whether it's in any of the four oblast, we see areas where, Kyiv will struggle to, prevent the slow, attritional grind.

We do not see, an imminent collapse in any of the, Line of control, battle spaces at this point. And then vice versa. That answers my question. Unless you want to add something. Director. Whatever advantages in manpower and materiel, they have, can Russia maintain its operational tempo without significant changes to how it's conducting the war?

I think our assessment from a military, perspective is that, Russia has the ability to sustain its campaign longer than Kyiv would. Now, when that, timeline hits, we do not have, an assessment of, but I believe that if this were to go on for more, than the remainder of this year, both sides would have, a significant challenge, maintaining their defense industrial base as well as their operational ops tempo longer than this year.

That is correct. And they will each have difficulty at various points throughout the spring, summer and fall as well. Thank you. Director Ratcliffe says continuing the Russia Ukraine war, perpetuates strategic risk to the United States of unintended escalation. Yeah, I think so, yeah. Remember, for a little while after Trump won in 2016, the Democrats started having catchall protests like just a bunch of people show up and gripe about whatever it is you're going to gripe about today.

Yeah, I feel like this hearing is just a catchall. It's just a let's talk about Ukraine for a minute. Let's talk about the threat from China. Let's talk about the Democrats. Want to talk about the leak. Yeah. And, yeah. It's you. Yeah. Maybe that's the purpose behind it. Going all over the place is it gives the media less to run.

Yeah, it could be coordinated. Yep. Coordinated. Oh, here we go.

I think we may have left with it. Bumper music. That's okay. Bring it back in with the, bumper as well. 957 our time now on Newstalk 1079 Julie and I were just lamenting this Senate hearing that's going on. I'm not sure what it is. It's in the Senate subcommittee of potpourri topics, because that's their meandering leg. For a minute.

They talk about troop strength in Ukraine, and then they're talking about the Chinese threat, and then they're talking about narcotics. And then the Democrat gets all upset about the the text breach in the leak. And I'm like, wow, I, I would be like, okay, I want to bring up, I think we need more gluten free products in the cafeteria in the basement of the Dirksen Building.

I'm stuck on that subcommittee. Potpourri or potpourri? I think it should be poopy. Yes, because there's a whole lot of stinky stuff going on. Yeah, plenty. Plenty of that, for sure. So. Okay, tomorrow, do we have Senator Crapo? We do. Yeah. Good. Confirmed. We will have Senator Crapo joining us tomorrow. So maybe we'll get his opinion on this.

I also want to let you know on Thursday we will be talking with Senator Doug Ricks about this death penalty bill for the worst of the child, sex offenders. And so, it passed both houses right on the governor's desk. Yes. Waiting for governor's signature. And so, Yeah. Okay. Well, I, I it's a it's a important discussion to have.

Yeah. I think it's, I think there's a lot of nuance to a lot of things to consider with it, but I think it's, it's important other states have done this too. We're not the only ones. I think DeSantis mentioned that in his comments. Absolutely. So I anything that helps protect the child more, that's just our concerns. Is this really going to be used to help protect the child more?

Have a great Tuesday Julie and I back tomorrow night is a see serious.