just accomplished with this prosecution. and, truth to tell, that is going to diminish the legal system paul: right. for sure. it is going to the highly politicize is it. but i think a lot of republican attorneys general out there and prosecutors are not going to be the least bit reluctant about doing this sort of thing. paul: we re on the road to bolivia. and if that isn t unfair to bolivia. bill, is this going to make any difference to the republican nomination at all? some do you think that trump will not be the nominee? no. i think it s going to make donald trump and his supporters double down. they, he s been saying all along that he s being treated unfairly, that no one not named trump would be indicted for these kind of crimes, alleged crimes. and i think he s right about that. so there are, you know, those polls show overwhelming amount of people that don t care about the conviction paul: right. but there are some. that means this is some that a do care. the questio
point at this point? look, this is tricky stuff. you don t want to give aid and comfort to people who actually, you know, hate poor people. or who despise poor people. don t care about trans and gender kids, don t care about gays ellen lesbians, don t care about people of color. don t care don t to give karen comfort to those folks. i m talk about the people who care. the people who really care, but who may be speaking in ways that are confusing or alienating, or come across as so morally superior, or so intellectually elevated, that other people who care feel left out. in other words, trying to fight alienation, you can create alienation. in terms of trying to fight exclusion, you might create exclusion. and that s just the moral hazard of trying to move things forward. i think we have to take that moral hazard seriously, those of us who do care, i don t want to do anything that s going to make it harder for us to deliver justice. the way we re talking sometimes, i think it s actu
to avoid the unimaginable from happening. and it can be involved in what s called lawful conduct, the idea of not just having the commission of a crime or otherwise, but engaging in paper that you are entitled to be engaged in, it s not criminal. but because there s either a series of lapses of judgment, or your prudence is not there, you can be held to account in that scenario. are you suggesting that, by virtue of the fact that other people were also responsible to ensure gun safety, it would absolve another? if you re talking to me, absolutely not. and again, you re using the language in the concept of negligence of do care, that is not what we re talking about. it s quite clear under either theory, under new mexico law, i ve spent some time with a new mexico blow this afternoon. you must show criminal negligence. and that is a much different and higher concept. so, you can say, there was an absolute duty, as she saying in the paper, you re totally right, any place that gun went t
speak. so the thing about firing firefighters as opposed of firing chief diversity officers is we actually need firemen or buildings burn and people die. is the city worried they won t have an effective fire department if they keep this up? do they care? i think many do care, but a lot in the leadership are afraid to stand up and say so for career enhancement threat of losing the career. the biggest part is the mayor came up and stated that mpd, which is the police department can afford to lose 20% to the vaccine mandate and that the fire department could also stand to lose similar numbers, which is nowhere near accurate. we barely got through the past p ascouple months, especially the last month as it was people were guys were working guysg, and gals vaccinated , were workingeded 24 or 48 , 60 , 72 hours in a row just to keep that apparatus manned. and there were several timespa