Saturday, Sep 5

This is the Ken Pittman Show on 1420 WBSM. I'm not even going to play Van Halen this morning. No, Paul. I have Paul here, who obviously does a great sports show before I come on, but he's also an attorney and we are coming off of a very interesting day in New England law. We have the Clancy trial, it was a missed trial, and I was worried that it wasn't going to be declared a mistrial. I think this judge is a little starstruck with Reddington, and Reddington embarrassed him yesterday, if it was anybody else who would have laid into him, but he just kept his cool and said this is why he did this, and he didn't agree with his description of how things were done. But I thought there was going to be ... Kevin Reddington is an agent for chaos. If there's anything out of the ordinary, he's going to capitalize on it. I was so worried that he was going to get his way yesterday, Paul. Yeah, well you and I both know Kevin, and we're watching him, and of course he's become a household name really at the national level now because of this trial. He did have some nice things to say about the judge. He knew the judge when he was an attorney, so a lot of times you go against people and it can get contentious, but then you know the person for a long time, you've had cases with them, you've kind of developed respect for them over a long period of time. But in this case, obviously it's a high stakes case. It's a case where, I mean, talk about the stakes being high, they couldn't be higher. It's a real high profile case. So Kevin Reddington, he's a competitor. He wants to win, and so he was really swinging for the fences and going for the jugular. The only thing I would say, I didn't really care for his comments about the one juror, the note came in that it was 11 to 1, and they were deadlocked, and they- Named the gender. And then they talked, and the note was the gender, and the judge repeated it. But then afterwards, Kevin Reddington kind of went after that juror and said, you know, it's his fault that this didn't happen, and bopped him off. So I mean, that juror, you know, that juror is purportedly doing the best they can to go through the evidence, to sift through the evidence, to listen to the evidence, to try to apply the facts to the law, and just because that juror didn't agree with you doesn't mean that that juror should be told that they were, you know, not doing things right, and they weren't listening, and they, you know, there should be a not guilty, and blah, blah, blah. Well, no, you still have that one juror that disagreed and felt that she was guilty of something, and, you know, I don't know that it's really productive or, you know, something that you want to see where a lawyer is going after a particular juror because the juror didn't agree with you. I think that juror is the only person in that room that there was evidence that he was trying to make sure those kids saw justice. You know, again, we have a situation where this woman strangled those kids to death. And people, you know, you can gloss over that, but that means something very particular. For those who don't know, you don't die in a few seconds when you're getting strangled. Even an infant takes a lot more time than you probably think. And not to interrupt you, Paul, but Noah was not explored the murder weapons, the exercise bands. I'm sorry, but that should have been introduced as a premeditated piece of article of evidence. You look around a room, you've got to take some time and consider elastic bands as your murder weapon. That is a particular odd choice of weapon, right, for all the things that she could have done. And to wrap those things around and around and around and around and around the necks of those little babies and watch their faces turn blue and all the horrible things that she witnessed and caused and then went on to the next one and then went on to the next one and then called her husband and pretended everything was okay at home. I'm sorry that, you know, she claimed a voice caused her to do it. There is no case that I can recall where a schizophrenic wasn't worn down over a long period of time by the voices they claim to hear or demonic inspiration. It's not an 18 minute ordeal where they just overtake you and wear you down. Well, you know, you could make that same argument probably for a serial killer. You know, a serial killer has some kind of mental affliction that results in them getting pleasure out of being a serial killer, you know. But no one would excuse the serial killer based on mental illness. No, it is a mental. You know what I mean? So and pedophiles too, and you could go on and on. So there are a lot of horrific crimes conducted by people that are crazy. You know what I mean? So the fact that this woman has this defense, and I understand, you know, women will tell you about postpartum depression when men, we don't know what that's like. So I have a lot of respect for women, but I don't think it should be an excuse. I know. You know what I mean? That's the problem. The reason I say come on. I'm sorry to interrupt again, but maybe too much coffee already. I don't think that the comment is saying that we're men, so we can. Well, but, you know, we could say, all right, ladies, you don't know what it's like to have testosterone in your blood. And we get angry and you don't understand it. You know what I mean? We're going to do that to guys who will go around killing. Right. You know, I understand there is a chemical hormonal imbalance postpartum. Some of it is severe and some of it causes. But I don't like the fact that you can say that you're using that to escape accountability. It's not an LTK. Right. It isn't. I'm sorry, but you don't get you don't get a mulligan after doing something like that. Yeah. So I don't know where they were. Eleven to one. Attorney Kevin Reddington seems to think that it was eleven to one to acquittal. Now, I don't know if that's complete and total acquittal because they didn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Or was it going to be not guilty by reason of insanity? Now, if it's not guilty by reason of insanity, I can kind of at least understand that verdict. But if it was just going to be not guilty outright, I can't understand that verdict. Right. We don't know what it was going to be. I think she's criminally insane. Right. I think she's guilty. And I think she should be kept in a mental institution or a psychiatric ward of a prison for the rest of her life, if not for 50 years. I mean, something like that. And now look at the copycat things that are happening around the country. We have a woman who was following this case closely in Illinois, and she shot her 18 month old in the head. I mean. So what are you going to say? I was mentally ill. That's why I did it. You know what I mean? Yes. I'm not. I'm not buying it. You know what I mean? I, I think that, you know, she should be held accountable. And I don't know why it would be 11 to 1. Now, again, as an attorney and, you know, somebody that was a prosecutor, defense attorney for many years, I won't. In fact, this is going to be 40 years that I passed the bar exam. I passed the bar exam, luckily, the first time because I was a pain in the neck. But anyway, you know, I believe in the system of, you know, before I can take away, you know, Ken Pittman's freedom, we have to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And then it's up to the government to do so. And if they can't do it, they can't do it. Okay. That's all true. But in this case, we have a situation where someone is saying, yes, I did it, but, you know, I'm mentally ill. So now it's a situation where, okay, you really have to convince me a lot to say that you didn't have these to say the men's array, like the mental understanding of knowing right and wrong and all that, you know, man, that's a tough one. You know what I mean? Again, we have three children that were strangled to death and we really shouldn't forget that. She knew what she was doing. She knew it was wrong. Otherwise, you and I agree on this one. I think my evidence that she knew what she was doing and she knew it was wrong in particular after she did these terrible things. She called her husband while he was out running errands and on his way home and acted as though everything was okay. And I didn't mention anything. And then there were people that, I don't know, they seem to think that he had some kind of involvement in this. I don't. Ridiculous people. Yeah. No, I got, I agree with you a hundred percent. And you know, the thing is, you know, um, even Kevin Reddington, he didn't want to say it because they asked him about that and he said, well, you know, I'll let his testimony speak for himself because you know, he, anything that takes the blame off of her, he's got to kind of step back from it. But I think he even said, Hey, the internet, I can't explain the internet. The internet just runs wild. He, he, he understands it's not credible to make that implication. Right. And he didn't, he didn't want to come out and actually say it, but you could tell that when he said the internet just runs wild. I think that's true. So for folks who don't understand, of course they looked at the husband. That's the first person you look at. And here's, here's my, here's my, uh, position on that. You know, he didn't do it because he called nine one one and she's still alive. If he did this, she would not be alive. Right. Then he would have called nine 11. Right. But he also has an air tight, not present alibi. He was not possibly there at the time of the deaths. He just wasn't. And for anybody who has any doubt at all, listen to the audio tape. There's no actor in the world that will come close to his organic reaction to discovering those bodies. It is horrific. Absolutely. Awful. Yeah. And so anybody who's entertaining that, just please get it out of your head. This is the thing that worries me, you know, about people that have an opinion about a trial and it happened with the Karen Reed case too. You know, people are outside of the courthouse chanting with signs and all that. And I'm thinking to myself, well, wait a minute, you know, here's the thing, right? The jury that's in the room that hears all of the evidence for weeks at a time that has to sift through the evidence and make determinations about credibility and everything else. They're the ones that have to make this determination, but people that just take a position when they haven't heard all the evidence and they haven't been in that room like the jury is when they're not listening to the instructions of the judge. And then they have opinions to the point where there'd be a mob outside of the court. You know, that's a dangerous kind of thing. Like how would you like to be that one juror that held out in this 11 to one, they're going to find out who it is because the other jurors are going to talk. And then the next thing you know, Mr. Smith, who's just the juror who didn't really, he's just doing his civic duty. He didn't pick this situation to be in. And, you know, the poor guy might be getting chased around and harassed and this is a group of unstable and you, you probably 99% not going to agree with me. These people who are outside having fun and celebrating and all this stuff and and looking for attention and consider themselves Internet sleuths or whatever. These are the same woman that would be behind Governor Haley in that recent bill she signed. All right. No, but I think the other way there is an area where I disagree there. I think in a lot of these cases, you know, the conspiracy theories and all that tends to come from the right. You know, it tends to be like the MAGA people that tend to be the Russia. Yeah, well, yeah, I know you can pick examples on both sides. Yeah. But there are a lot of people on the other side. I'm like, where did you get that opinion? But anyway, it comes from all over the I'll even I'll even add to that. You know, I mean, Tucker Carlson without corporate management, you know, keeping him under control. Now he's on his own. Right. The only time he makes a splash is with these bizarre conspiracy theories. And that's the only way he's monetizing anything. All right. Right. So it's about making money. Of course, there's a ton of money in conspiracy. And here's another point I want to make. Not only going back to 9-11. Yeah, not not only would you not want to be the juror that held out. Right. And you actually have to give credit to a jury. I mean, picture yourself in a jury room and it's 11 to 1. But you have this abiding conviction. He's a hero that you have to stand up to the rest of it. It's like, you know, the 12 Angry Men story, which is fantastic. Some movies are made of, you know, and you're that person. OK, now, how would you like to be the husband who comes home, finds his children strangle to death? His wife is mentally ill. He calls a plea, does everything that he's supposed to do to try to, you know, deal with this matter. Right. This case goes to trial. It's a hung jury. But yet there are people that think he did it. So he's probably walking around like, you know, I'm an innocent man who just lost my three children. And people are looking at me like I'm a murderer. Like, how would you like to be him? You know what I mean? A terrible, more admissible evidence of of premeditated. She kind of disarmed him and said she was having a good day, you know, because he's been worried about her behavior. Yeah. He did not want to be away away from the kids and her for periods of time. He went out after she kind of convinced him she was having a good day and things were OK. And then, you know, while he was out, that's when she did. Maybe you could say that he shouldn't have done that and he shouldn't have left the kids with her. Maybe you can say that. But, you know, it's hard to say. Like, there's no way he could have predicted that she would kill them. You know what I mean? Like, even if you have a wife that's struggling with mental health, the thought that your wife, mother of those children, could kill the children is probably beyond what he would foresee. You know what I mean? If she and I'll say this, too, if she's capable of doing and I want you all to think about graphically what she did, how long it took and the actions that were taken, all of that, if she's capable of doing that to her own children, there is no act that is going to be too evil or too unspeakable for her to commit. Right. So that's why I think, you know, whether it was, you know, going to be not guilty by reason of insanity or whatever the result was going to be, she really should be in some sort of a placement, probably for life. You know what I mean? Because, you know, a lot of times years later, something like this will happen to say, well, 20 years from now, you're going to have a doctor that says, well, no, she's cured now, you know. But, you know, can you can you ever really be comfortable that this person is cured? You know what I mean? Another legal question for you, because I think I know the answer, but I don't. So she had before this all happened on her health, health care forms. She had to do not resuscitate in certain scenario kind of thing for herself. Yeah. OK. And she goes into a coma and they had to they had to really work to get her to stay alive. And when she came out of the coma, when she started coming to the first thing she did was remove her husband as the proxy. Now, I get it because, look, she murdered his children. Right. But she also saw that he defied that the do not resuscitate. Or did he? Can can a hospital allow somebody suspected of three murders? Can they just honor the do not resuscitate request while the law is looking to try them? Because if she died before the trial, she's not guilty. They never she's that she's. Yeah, right. Well, she ends up paying the penalty of, you know, can the state stop a DNR if this person's wanted because they look, they resuscitate people on death row. Yeah, it's interesting why they didn't follow the request. You know what I mean? Well, is there is there a legal precedent? Yeah, I don't know. I don't know that. I have to look into that. I don't feel so bad now. Yeah, no, no. I mean, you know, people, you know, many areas of the law there are. Yeah. So, you know, I hadn't looked that one up, but maybe maybe I'll look into that. But yeah, I mean, it's it's a fascinating case. I do think that the judge had no choice but to do the mistrial. And then that was so unusual that interlocutory appeal. Now, if I took an interlocutory appeal, there's no way a single justice is going to get on Zoom in five minutes like they did. I have to think 80 percent of the audience is not going to understand that term. So just yeah. So you take an appeal during the trial. So the trial wasn't over yet. So, well, there was a mistrial given an hour, but then you can. Yeah. So then he can take in what they call an interlocutory appeals appeal in the middle of the hearing and to get the judge in the SJC. Now, again, this is a high profile case, but to get a single justice, you can get a single justice, you know, 48 hours or something like that. But the single justice in one hour and they actually televised the Zoom argument, you know, I don't know if you saw that. I did. And then the judge took it under advisement and then concluded that I would have given him four hours, to be honest. Yeah. And that was unfair. But but for the single justice, the overrule, the trial judge, the single justice would have to conclude that the trial judge made some kind of an error. Right. And it's very difficult to do that. You know what I mean? Unless, you know, the trial judge would have to do something almost egregious before a single justice is going to overrule that. But what's the judge to do? I mean, if they were deadlocked, it doesn't matter if it was eleven to one or six to six or whatever it was, they were deadlocked. So I think the judge did the right thing by doing the mistrial. I don't think that the, you know, argument that that last juror didn't follow the law or didn't do this or didn't do that is going to result in double jeopardy attaching. And I think that, you know, the prosecution has every right to retry or if that's what they want to do. There is a phenomenon going on with the left in this country. Oh, no. And well, it's an observation made by a former producer here on my show, Bob Grant, who's now down in Florida. But I agree with him. There's a Barabbas syndrome going on. What does that mean? That means people are backing Barabbas, the killer, and not wanting Christ to be released. But Barabbas, the killer, Luigi Mangione, is a cult following. Tyler Robinson, the assassin of Charlie Kirk, a cult following hero. Right. Yeah, well, those those things, those things are not good. But that's happening here. And yeah, I don't know if it's happening from a from a political lens, though. I think it's becoming clear it's a left right thing for the most part. But you're right. This crosses. There's definitely some crosses. But Karen Reed was more right. Yeah. Coming from the right that she was not guilty. I thought a cop killer. All right. We're going to come back. We have the privilege of having attorney Paul Santos stay over for a bit longer. Thank you for listening. We'll be right back. OK, we're back. And I'd like to hear from you guys to five oh eight nine nine six oh five. And we're talking about the Aaron. I'm sorry, Eric, keep doing it, my friend, Aaron Clancy is going to kill me. Lindsey Clancy is being tried for the murder of her three small children. It went to a mistrial yesterday. And it's just a bizarre circus of events with star attorney, defense attorney Kevin Reddington. And I'll give the prosecution like a D plus grade overall. I thought they let too many things slide. I thought they went too many things on unchallenged or unexplored. I think they you know, they had a good case. So, you know, they laid it out. And I think it's very difficult not to imagine she didn't do it. But people know there are some people out there that did adhere to the crazy conspiracies that it was not her. It was it was the husband, which is a physical impossibility, by the way. Zero chance. And I'm a licensed private investigator. It's zero chance. Right. OK, I agree with you. I absolutely agree with you. In fact, we know a lot of the players here, which makes it even more fascinating for Ken and myself. We both know Kevin Reddington a little bit. And Bob Jones was a long time, long time. Very good private investigator, Bob Jones. Yeah, we know him very well. In fact, he's my private investigator. As a matter of fact, it was kind of funny. I texted him a few weeks ago before I realized he was on this case. So he texts me back. He calls me back. I'm like, Bob, you know, I got something you like to do. And I like goes, well, I'm I'll do it, you know, because the thing I wanted him to do was only like a half an hour thing because I'm going to do it. But, you know, I'm kind of tied up with this case. I'm like, what case is that? He goes, the Clancy case. Oh, you're on that. I said, oh, yeah, I know you do work for Reddington, too. You know, yes, I was chatting with him a few minutes. But yeah, he was standing in the background. And, you know, Kevin Reddington announced all the people that helped him. I mean, he's got a big team there. Who's paying for all this, by the way? Is this a court appointed to go fund me? Yeah. You know, that's another thing. Let's compare this with there's a mother who died in a fire. She ran. She she she rescued the first child, got the child out. She ran back into the burning house and was ready to collapse. She got a second child. She didn't make it out of the house when the fire department went in. The child was still alive because the mom covered her, covered her body with her own and the mom died in the fire. Right. You know, GoFundMe raised forty six thousand dollars for her. You get a woman here who strangled to death three small children. She's raised over a million dollars. Yeah. You know, these cases kind of a country are we living in now? Yeah. We get into these. I don't know. You're right. I mean, yeah, somehow these cases, once they become really popular and they become like the thing of the day and the the case of the day and the thing of the day, whatever it is, you know, it just spirals out of control. And, you know, the Internet can be very influential. You know, if you're looking at stuff and, you know, you're getting presented with stuff that you see and you get persuaded by it, but then what you have to ask yourself is, wait a minute, I'm looking at some information, but, you know, where's it coming from? And is it accurate? You know what I mean? Like could be different than what the jury heard, you know? So you have to be very careful, you know? Well, I mean, but the overall behavior of this country, it's like where there's a mass psychosis going on, like I don't understand. Well, yeah, I mean, you know, you could say for both sides, but I'm not picking on one particular side here. But I'm saying, you know, it is a culturally, morally we are so different than we were 25 years ago. Yeah, and I don't want to get into a spiral out of control about the president. But, you know, you can like the policies and all that. But, you know, even at the debate, when, you know, you're talking about penis size, if you go back like 20 years, 25 years, you would your your ratings would immediately plummet because you said something vulgar. You know, now I think we've started this whole thing. Like you can't be vulgar enough. Well, he used the code name hands. Yeah, I know that something I got to tell you, I was laughing my rear end off when he said, I got these hands right here. And let me tell you, there's no problem there. I'm like, I can't believe that this is happening in a presidential debate. That's what I mean. When he when he first came on stage, it was like a cartoon character. But didn't it kind of start with him? You know what I mean? Like maybe it was there underneath, you know, because you look at like the debates of like, say, Jimmy Carter and, you know, Ford, you know, or even the Kennedy debates or any of the debates. Even Reagan Mondale, even though it was you really wanted to beat the other side and it was contentious, there was kind of like a respect for the other side. But that's all thrown out. You know what I mean? A little Marco and this guy and this, you know, this is like, I don't know what kind of down in the dirt a little bit. Well, I think I think people there was a decorum where the decorum you realize that you're debating a person who could very well be the next president of the United States and you treat him like that. Right. And then when the other person won. Right. The other person won. The losing candidate would always call the winner, congratulate them and then would say to their supporters, hey, thank you very much supporting me. You know, but I lost the Ken Pittman and now Ken Pittman is our president and I want to give him support. We're going to stand behind my opponent now. He's now our president. Good luck to him. You know, and then there'd be a note in the in the resolute desk and all this kind of stuff. You know, I think we should try to go back to that on both sides. You know what I mean? Just have some respect for the other guy. You know, what we ended up with, though, is a guy who if you roll him up into one, he's he's Don Rickles, Ebenezer Scrooge and Daddy Warbucks. Right. All rolled into one. And that's that's how he operates. Is that the best we can do? Wow. Is either that a Kamala Harris? Yeah, we could have giggles. Yeah, we don't want to be in place right now. We don't want to relitigate. Well, without really relitigating that whole thing. Well, they would have been so better off. They denied the party the right to choose their candidate. Well, the the people like out in the public who, you know, have a D next to them when they vote and so forth. You know, I think we would have liked an opportunity to have an emergency primary. Absolutely. Scott Lang went on this show and predicted that would happen. Yeah. And I always thought I was like the guy. Now, the guy from Arizona, the astronaut there, Kelly, I always thought he was good. Now, a lot of people didn't like it when he said, hey, you have a right to disobey an illegal order. And people get upset about that. But as far as his background, you know, a guy from a swing state, a little bit more moderate of a hero in the sense that he's an astronaut and everything else. His wife got, unfortunately, shot, which is a terrible thing. But, you know, somebody like that or like a Shapiro again. Swing spare. You know, Jackie, I mean, yeah, some good. Yeah, some good brand shares, you know. And if you nominate somebody from a swing state, you know, like you got to think that Shapiro is going to take Pennsylvania. Well, if you take Pennsylvania, you know, you're halfway there. You know, Democrats biggest problem right now is their identity politics. They didn't go with Shapiro. Good brand, because he's Jewish. That's what happened. Yeah, that's that's what happened. Somebody, Joe Biden said, I know one thing. My next vice president is going to be a black woman. You don't know if the black woman's the best candidate. Great. Yeah, no, I agree with that. I agree with that. I mean, that's exactly the opposite of what Martin Luther King was calling for in America. Well, this this guy, Kelly, right, as a Mark Kelly. Is that who I'm talking about? Yeah, Mark Kelly said he happens to be a white male. But so what? You know what I mean? You're probably going to get more of the moderates. Unfortunately, I hate to say that, but AOC is leading your Democratic. Yeah, so no, but if you're like a Trump person and you're kind of a little, you know, leery about Trump, are you going to vote for Mark Kelly or are you going to vote for AOC? You know, it's not even close. Like we like as as the Democrats, we've got to try to get those moderate Republicans to vote on our side this time. I'd like to see a return to presidential timber, right? Yeah. I mean, AOC. I mean, I saw I saw her on was a face donation or something. And, you know, again, people giggled. You can giggle and still be intelligent. You know, I do. I'm actually I'm doing a lot of different stuff, singing and doing stand up comedy and everything else. And I have a little bit of an offbeat sense of humor, but like to consider myself intelligent. But, you know, I'm watching AOC in the interview and just she was all giggly and silly. And I don't know. I mean, whether you agree with the politics or not, I didn't really think of her as presidential timber. You know what I mean? No, I think, you know, if I agree with her politics. Yeah, no, no. I know. You know, here's the other thing, too, right? You know, the Democrats, the far left Democrats call themselves a democratic socialist, you know, now code for communists. Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't go that far. But but but here's the thing, a democratic socialist. OK, what a terrible brand name to call yourself. You know, progressive. I can understand because a lot of times if you listen to Bernie Sanders and I know you're going to disagree with most of what Bernie Sanders says, but if you actually listen to Bernie Sanders and then you play back like FDR, some of the stuff that FDR said, Franklin Roosevelt, some of the stuff that Harry Truman said, Harry Truman was a big proponent of Medicare, for example. You know, so so a lot of the stuff that they say is similar to what Franklin Roosevelt said. And they call Franklin Roosevelt a communist. They call Franklin Roosevelt a socialist. They call Harry Truman a socialist. You know, we went through all that party, you know, 10, 15 years before FDR. Yeah, I mean, this party was mainstream in American politics. Well, you know why we had the depression. Right. So we have the depression. Right. So people are thinking, OK, this economic system failed us. Right. Right. So people are in bread lines. So now you have people signing up for the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, industrialists are jumping out of buildings. Yeah, right. And all that. And a lot of people say that FDR saved capitalism because what he does, he put some constraints on. I know some people can say too many constraints, but, you know, made it so that, you know, you have capitalism, but you have some restraints. You know what I mean? Because really, when I talk about capitalism, socialism, all the Western democracies, even the United States, are really a mixture of capitalism, socialism. You go to Buttonwood Park, that's socialism. You go to East Beach, that's socialism. You know, you go to the zoo, that's socialism. But these things were there in the very beginning. Yeah. And yeah, you know, so you got to have a mix. But the fire department parks, it goes back to the before the Constitution was ratified. No, but I'm just giving you an example of things that all of us contribute to that are for the social good for us all. You know what I mean? You remember the preamble of the Constitution? We the people. It says that we are to provide for the national defense and then and then promote the general welfare, which is a very different word by design. So I think it truthfully, the practice then was to encourage charity in the private sector. And now it's all on the government. So people now run for office. They feel very generous with other people's money and giving to giving giving it to other people who are doing a little worse off. Right. And I don't I think we should get back to encouraging more private charity as well. I think that was that's the goal of the Constitution. We've gotten away from that. But my only point is, is that, you know, like we don't have, you know, the beaches and, you know, the parks and things like that. You know, if you sold the private sector, they might put condos on the beach and regular people wouldn't be able to go to. No, no, no. There's got to be some balance. So there is some balance. Yeah. And I don't think you're not going to find a serious a serious person who's a conservative calling for, you know, privatizing fire departments and parks departments. It's not going to happen. And people understand that we have certain things that we expect the government to provide for. And we're not going to get in the way of anything. Well, and then the other side, too, like, you know, the mandamis of the world are going overboard in the sense that, you know, the government shouldn't be running like the grocery stores and things like that. You know, when you start talking about the means of production, that's when you're talking about full blown socialism slash communism, whatever. But, you know, I do think that, you know, the balance is what we're talking about, the balance of the common good versus, you know, like you and I have talked about this before, the concentration of wealth, concentration of wealth is I mean, we're going back to the Gilded Age consolidating right now. So now what do you do about it? Right. So you can say, well, they earn the money, so we haven't got the right to take away from them. But we've allowed so many things to go. I mean, there's a number of businesses, mega businesses, Google app. I mean, the monopolies never supposed to happen when watching it. People are pedestrian because they can pay good money to stay out of the way of it while they're in office. Well, Teddy Roosevelt was the trust buster. Remember that? You know, I mean, so I mean, at some point, you know, I think we the people kind of have to do something. But then that then you walk, then you get into, OK, you've got like this billion and trillion dollar company, right? They'll say like, well, who are we to say that we're going to tax them more? Who are we to say that we're going to break them up? But sometimes, you know, the concentration of wealth gets so far out of control that you have no choice but to step in and say, hey, you're going to have to pay a little more. You're going to have to contribute a little more to society. And, you know, I think that's what Franklin Roosevelt preached, you know. But there's a little misleading, a little intellectual dishonesty going on when people say billionaires don't pay taxes. No, they do. They pay a considerable amount. No, but if you look at it percentage wise, you know what I mean? Yeah. But but, you know, like let's say you have a three million dollar cap. If you make more than three million dollars, we're going to nail you for 70 percent, right? That guy's going to shut his business down. He's going to come back next year. He's going to go skiing. He's going to go to his summer, his winter home. I mean, believe me, they're going to go overseas. You can't do that. You have to be careful. Look at what's happening to California, Massachusetts, New York. Billions of dollars are fleeing those states as a result. Well, because you don't have, you know, tax policy at the national level. You know, you have you have states competing with each other. Who's Bernie Sanders? If you did it at the national level, then you wouldn't have. Well, Kentucky has a better deal in Massachusetts or the state has a better deal than that. It would be at the national level, but you can leave the country. Well, right. What I would say, though, right, is that if, you know, after World War two, and I know that was a kind of a unique time in our history, the top tax rate was 90 percent. You know, so like, you know, somebody like AOC says it should be 70 percent. I was just a communist. Well, we used to have it at 90 percent when Franklin Roosevelt was president into the Truman administration, even when, you know, Eisenhower was in there to talk about what would happen is nobody ever paid the 90 percent because when you get to the 90 percent, it forced people to reinvest in their businesses, hire more people so that there's more of a contribution. And let's talk about that period of time, because the rest of the industrialized I know was flattened. We were the only one. So we were we were kicking butt, selling to everyone. And everybody in America is making all kinds of money. Well, everybody else is rebuilding. And that's the only reason we had those conditions. Yeah, right. So you're saying that that wouldn't work now? No, now everybody's rebuilt. Now everybody's competing. Right. But but nobody ever paid the 90 percent because you could deduct you know, when you hire people or when you reinvest in your business, then, you know, you get a deduction for that. Yeah. So nobody ever paid it. So it kind of like forced businesses to hire more people, reinvest, you know, because the average run of the mill worker, I don't know what they're going to do now that we have AI and all this other stuff and the concentration of wealth. The average run of the mill person, you know, really doesn't have a lot of options, I don't think, in this next economy that we have. Well, there are a ton of jobs that are not only the tech jobs. There's all kinds of jobs coming. People all across the world have invested in the United States. And I'll give you an example. We were supposed to hear a report of about fifty five thousand jobs in August. There's one hundred sixty six thousand. It's coming. It's coming. The reinvestment of America is happening. All these places are getting built up. It's kind of, you know, in the next president, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican, is going to enjoy a much better economy, assuming this thing in Iran is settled by that. And Iran's running out of resources here that I think I think within the next few months, we'll we'll hear about the regime fleeing to maybe Turkey or Russia or somewhere like that. I think I think the downfall is coming. But, you know, Trump may have cost himself the midterm elections. I still think it's better than having a nuclear bomb in Iran's possession for them to deliver as they see fit, especially when they have a death to America rally every Friday. But, you know, they you know, Obama had that that deal with Iran and it seemed to be decent. You know what I mean? But Trump, but Trump rips it up. Yeah, but he ripped it up just because somebody else did it. You know what I mean? Well, well, it's not right. They were supposed to go no further than three point six, seven percent in enrichment of uranium. Right. They got to 20 percent. Yeah. And they got 24 days to allow inspections to come in. So Obama said, we want to go in. All right. You get 24 days to move all your nuclear materials. That's insulting. It's not right. Well, maybe, maybe. But I mean, you know, nobody wants them to have a nuclear weapon. And, you know, at least right now we're at war. You know what I mean? Right. Hillary Clinton, Barack Biden. They all said if they are building nuclear weapons, we will blow them up. So the question becomes, what are they doing? I mean, the they got to 60 percent uranium enrichment, which is only weapons grade. I remember the woman who was in charge of intelligence. She was up there in front of Congress saying, oh, yeah, they don't have any. We they don't have any uranium and all this. And the next thing you know, we're saying they do. And we're bombing them. Your own your own intelligence person is saying something different. But anyway, I do want to make a quick point about the taxes, because if somebody is a trillionaire, right, trillion dollars is almost unfathomable how much money that is. OK. So even if a trillionaire is paying 10 percent in taxes. Right. And you and I are paying 20 percent. Right. It takes like a million of us to reach the level of their 10 percent. So. So. So in other words, you say, well, they're paying more than us. Well, yeah, because 10 percent of the trillion is more than 20 percent. Like a hundred thousand. But you realize Elon Musk, we're talking about because it's only one trillion. All right. No, but there's ninety ninety nine point nine percent of his wealth is in stocks. Right. Zero point one percent. Does he have cash or cash that he gets to enjoy? And it's probably a lot of money, right? A trillion dollars we're talking. But ninety nine point nine percent of his money are in stocks. And he's not allowed to sell them and turn it into cash because it would collapse the market. There's a lot of reasons. You know, this is regulations is destabilizing the market. He has to keep those stocks in a lot of those cases. He can't just like say, you know what, I'm done, I'm out. I'm just going to boom and have a trillion dollars of cash. I guess I was mattress just as a general rule. OK, without getting in too far into the weeds. All right. I think just the general thought is, is that if you make that kind of money, which is just like this, you and I have talked about this, just just just unbelievable concentrations of wealth. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, you know what? We're going to just go up with your number a little bit. You know what I mean? Like the top tax rate used to be thirty nine point six percent for a long time. They should do away with the cap on Social Security. They dropped it to twenty five percent from thirty nine point six. Why? Why? Why are you giving more money to somebody that doesn't need it? I would even say stop. Drop the cap on on Social Security. They should. Yeah, that would help a lot. They won't do it until they have to. I think they're going to have to soon. But, you know, Elon Musk, you know, this this this oligarch, this demon that's been created by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, you know, 160,000 jobs have been created by Elon Musk, 600,000 indirect jobs and then 800,000 other jobs that get further work. He's created six thousand millionaires, including cafeteria workers in his businesses. That's why you need people like this. No, I'm not saying you don't need people like that. But what I would say is that I don't think it's, you know, so egregious just to ask these types of people to pay a higher percentage, that's all. I mean, we like I said, the top rate used to be thirty nine point six percent. I think that was OK. Well, the top 10 percent pay 67 percent of all taxes. That's because they have all the money, you know. Well, right. But, you know, when you talk about, oh, they don't pay this taxes. So they build it. They build an industry, right? Their industries are paying utilities. The utilities are taxed. The property is taxed. Right. They're taxing everything. They're taxing all the products that they they use wholesale to build their products. Everything is taxed. When you get up in the morning, your cable bill, you're getting taxed for watching TV. You're getting taxed for turning on your lights. You're getting taxed for starting your car. They're nailing you every which way. It's really a spending problem we have with this government. Well, you know, the big, beautiful bill, right? Blew a hole in the deficit. There's even worse than when the Democrats were in charge. You know what I mean? So like the idea that it's only the Democrats that run up the bill. This last bill that's being run up right now is like the national debt is like spinning out of control. But yet people from the right don't bring that up too much. They used to have the debt clock, you know, but now I don't see the debt clock anymore. Well, you know, the debt clock, a lot of it has to do with all the money that was printed during the pandemic, too. We have to keep them. No, but that was a long time ago. And both presidents, that happened with both Presidents Trump and Biden. But yeah, it was necessary. But, you know, at the same time, now we are now one hundred and seven billion dollars better off in the in the trade deficit, which adds to our debt. Yeah. But why are we why are we spending almost 100 percent of GDP? You know, that's that's the only time we ever did. That was World War Two. Do you think do you think Kamala Harris would have spent any less? Well, I mean, this big, beautiful bill. I mean, most of the Democrats were against it. Most of them predicted most of them predicted that it was going to spiral the the debt out of control. And I've I've always been critical. I didn't like it when when the Democrats were in charge and the debt was spinning out of control. So I thought, well, maybe the Republicans will do something about that. They're just as bad if not worse. I guess it's interesting. Seven years later, the Democrats now and now interested in talking about the economy first term. The first term Donald Trump was in office was a remarkable turnaround on the economy until the pandemic because he his policies were working and kicking ass. Well, well, right. That was just a continuation of Obama. Oh, my God. No, no, wait a minute. No, wait a minute. In 2008, we had that big collapse, right? Yeah. And where were the Barack Obama was in the Senate within the majority when that happened, too, by the way. Yeah. Oh, all right. But Bush was president. But yeah, OK. Yeah. So then we have the the Great Recession where they got the biggest recession since the Great Depression. They call it the Great Recession. So then we haven't had a recession since the first thing he did. So was it was it was the. So we've had this continuation of growth since 2010, regardless of who the president is. What about his seven hundred and eighty seven billion dollar stimulus? That was a flop. Well, you mean that first year? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, that was one of the worst decisions ever. We went forward with that. Nobody wants to talk about that. That's out. That's a trillion dollars. You know, by the time Obama, one of his last terms, the deficit, his deficit was 300 billion. You know, now it's a trillion. He cut into the he cut into the he shrunk the debt. Yeah, I mean, the deficit. He didn't get rid of it, but it lowered. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, now we're in the trillions. It's just, you know, the last time we had a reported surplus. Ninety nine. No, it was two thousand to two thousand and one. Actually, yeah. George Bush was the president. But it was a Bill Clinton. It was Bill Clinton's administration that was responsible for that. So when when they, you know, the country, they balanced the budget under Newt Gingrich and the and the big deal they made. And it was it was great. But I'll give Bill credit for that economy, but not Bill Clinton. I'll give Bill Gates and I'll give, you know, Steve Jobs. Well, you have the dot com boom. We were the only ones building this stuff. And now the rest of the world has caught up. But we that's why we thrived. It wasn't so much. You know, Bill Clinton stayed out of the wave and I'll give him credit for that. Right. We had the dot com boom. Yeah. So no matter who was president, we probably would have had surplus. Bobcat Goldthwait could have been the president and we would have had a surplus. Yeah, that's probably true. It's not my policies. Well, anyway, interesting stuff with the the Clancy trial and all this other stuff going on. I happened to turn it on yesterday afternoon. I'm like, wow, look at this. CNN is there. Fox News is there. The MSNOW is there. All the Boston stations, you know. And then Kevin has that press conference that went on for, I don't know, was it 20 minutes or something like that? He looks tired. So is faceted. Yeah, he's got to be like, what, mid 70s? Yeah, yeah. And he never wants to retire, I guess. You know, I'm not a fan of his clientele, but I think I am. I'm always just very respectful of the guy because he's got a brilliant legal mind. And his son is an attorney, too. Very sharp. No kidding. Yes. Kevin Reddington's son. So he is passing along to the next generation. Huh. I saw Bob Jones then. I'm like, oh, that's my private investigator standing in the back. Yeah, I wasn't surprised because Bob Jones is a long time. He used to work in the DA's office for a long time. And Kevin Reddington's in the area. That does not surprise me that they have a relationship. Yeah, he worked, I believe, a long time for PINA in the DA's office, Bob Jones. And then once the new administration came in, I'm not sure he worked with Walsh. I think he left when Walsh came in and then he went into a private practice and he's been there ever since. But really good guy, smart guy. You know, you need something you like. Kevin says you text him in the middle of the night, which I would never do. I've never had a situation where I text him in the middle of the night. But he says he texts him in the middle of the night. And Bob Jones drops everything to to do what needs to be done. So a good guy. And I know as a private investigator, I'm sure you look at some of this and say, yeah, you know, it's it's it's good work and things that you can really help an attorney. Though I think again, getting back to this crowd outside of the Plymouth courthouse. Yeah, I don't like this trend. I don't I don't like these super fans, these these Internet sleuths, the ones who are crime buffs, they call themselves. And they want to podcast. They want to do all these things. And they they don't know a damn thing. No. And they act as though it's they know what's happening. Nobody else does, because they read as capitalism. Yeah. Well, there's a lot of fools out there, too, though. All right. Every one of you that I'm just having a laugh with you. I know. I know. But, you know, chanting that Timothy Cruz has proven himself to be corrupt, you know, because of the right. The Lindsey Clancy trial. You can just look like a damn fool. What do you want to grow up? I mean, don't don't you want the prosecutor to look at the strangulation of three children and look at it and say, you know, we're going to hold this person accountable? I mean, any DA would prosecute that case. You know, many people are glossing over that. Yeah. And sympathizing with because now now you're looking at the big brown eyes and the sad girl in the wheelchair. Did what what led her to this? Right. Why don't you concentrate and think long and hard about that half an hour of hell on earth that that when those kids went through? OK, because it is brutal and it is gruesome. But it happened and she did it. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. And people outside, you know, when when you're a mob outside of a trial, you're really there just to try to intimidate the jury. And the jury is trying to do the right thing. They're not supposed to be. It's not supposed to be mob rule. You know, I remember when I was in college, it was a professor. There was kind of a comedian professor, you know, Professor Shanti from Mass Diamond, funny guy, you know, just talking about the Renaissance. And apparently for years and years, the pope was always Italian. Pope was all the time. It was all Italian, you know. So one year they had a pope that I think it was either Polish or something like that. And they and John Paul. Yeah, yeah. That was years later. But then it's like in the 1500s or something. So apparently they were they were leaning towards having a pope that was an Italian, you know. So so you know how when the pope dies, the cardinals go in. Yeah. And they're in the private room and they're they're waiting for the Holy Spirit to say who's going to be the next pope, you know. Is your engine burning oil or antifreeze? So outside outside is this mob chanting, we want an Italian pope. We're not Italian, right? And so so the professor said, well, luckily, the Holy Spirit came through and they put it on an Italian pope. So the point of the story is, is that you don't want a mob outside trying to intimidate what's supposed to be a process. You know what I mean? So the woman, the woman should be punished for trying to get pictures of the jury. I mean, that's intimidating a witness. I probably disagree with you 60 percent of the time, something like that when I listen to your show. But I'm with you on this one. I think somebody is is not being held accountable. You know, I don't know. Two legal minds were not isn't about ideology. Yeah, I have a hard time when somebody makes an excuse, because like we've said, I've dealt with mentally ill people, mentally ill clients. And it is sad when somebody is mentally ill. And I've seen people who are significantly mentally ill. But that doesn't mean you can kill. You know what I mean? And if you kill, I mean, like we said before, anybody that's a anybody that's a serial killer, anybody that has one of these warped minds, you could say that they're not functioning properly in their brain. But that doesn't mean they escape accountability. You know, I am. I grew up with a guy in Brockton, defenseless, physically defenseless, autistic guy. And he downloaded something that should have put him in jail. But he reported himself. It was child pornography. Oh, he reported himself to the police minutes after. And then I come to find out he's hearing voices. And you know what he did after the police left? They said, all right, all right, but don't do it again because they understand he's harmless and that he's got problems. They didn't even do anything to him, even though he reported himself. They went to his apartment. He jumped out of the window of the fourth floor of his apartment building. And he didn't die. But I visited him and he was by then he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. And I said, well, I don't know. That's that's for people who hear voices. And he started nodding. He said, I'm hearing voice right now. And it it's something that was described to me that it's tireless. It's nonstop. And eventually you you just want to follow the directions to make it go away because that's the promise that it'll stop if you do this. This it doesn't happen in 18 damn minutes. I don't I don't find that plausible at all. I don't care what anybody tells me. And it's that's not the only one I've read a lot about this. You know, I've taken psychology courses in college. And it's not an 18 minute ordeal that you go through from voices that drive you to do something as crazy as she did. Yeah, right. No, I agree. We're going to come right back to Paul Santos, attorney Paul Santos. Then we'll flip this up a little bit because it's a fantastic sports show. I just want to cover what was spoken about this morning on this important week in sports. All right, we are back here in the studio. Paul Santos is with me. I got a couple of minutes here, but just wrapping it up. The Circus Act of the Clancy trial. We're going to have to do it again, Paul. Well, I would think that the prosecution really has no choice but to try it again. You can't just let these deaths go by. You know what I mean? So I would think that with the mistrial, I do think that the judge's decision that it's a mistrial is going to stand. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't stand. And so now the prosecutor has to make a decision. What do they do? You know what I mean? And then they were talking about making a deal. I don't know. I mean, maybe if you come in with a manslaughter or something like that, I don't know if, you know, the fence would be open to that. You know, if I'm Cruz, I go to the bullpen. I pull those girls out of there. They did not do a good job, in my opinion. So you would retry the case with somebody else? Yeah. The different different prosecutor. It's thought, you know, who did a great job is the Aaron Hernandez case. I thought that Bristol County prosecutors were tremendous. Yeah. I mean, I'm a Republican. I voted for him. And the assistance that they had there, Katie Rayburn, who I know is now a judge and some of the other prosecutors, they were right. And the judge, she was no nonsense. She didn't let the defense attorney, you know, create havoc with all these motions and all that. And Aaron Hernandez, he didn't think he was going to be convicted. He said they're kind of cocky. And I think he was shocked when he got convicted. But they did a really nice job prosecuting the case. The forensics were right on the money. You know, Bristol County compared to Norfolk and Plymouth has handled themselves in national cases much better. I think so. All right. So what I didn't hear was your prediction for the New England Patriots. Yeah. Ten and seven. I had seven. Same as me. Yeah, I did. I had ten, seven. Carrick region. Ten and seven. You know, I did. I broke it down by AFC East. I thought they'd be five in one in the AFC East. Agreed. And then I went through the home games. I thought maybe they'd be around 500 and home games and then maybe the road games, maybe a game over game under, you know, 500. They're not going to have an undefeated road record like last year. No, no, no, no. But I think you're right. Thanks for joining me today. Thank you very much. We always have a lot. And I get a lot of people tell me, say, I like it when you hang out with Ken. I'm like, well, we appreciate that. Well, I noticed people don't call. They want to listen. All right. Have a great rest of your day. Same to you. Thank you. All right. I'll be back in just a little bit. You are more than welcome to call. We want to hear from you. 508-996-0500 after I return. WBSM and W258DR, New Bedford, a Town Square media station.