time once again for Fridays with Corey. I don't know, it just doesn't sound as good as Tuesdays with Corey. I thought about whether we should, is it very important for the name to always do it on Tuesday? Because it's a good joke. I think it's funnier to do it on Friday and complain but it doesn't. It doesn't work. It doesn't work. Professor Corey Brechneider is a constitutional law professor. When the state speaks is his book. I started it last night. A couple of my listeners actually purchased it. The first chapter is about the First Amendment and speech. So I wanted to talk to you about that. I wanted to talk to you about impeachment, congressional immunity. And does a candidate have immunity? Can a candidate for office body slam a reporter, get arrested and not be able to campaign? But first you were in England attending a First Amendment conference. How was that? I was terrific. I was hosted by a professor at University of London, University College named Jeff Howard. And it focused on all the issues that we're talking about free speech on campus, the issue of incitement and how you deal with terrorism and issues of free speech. And it was really a great series of talks and discussion with a nice turnout too. It's in a weird building, really interesting building at the University of London that has the, I think it's the stuffed body of Jeremy Bentham who's like in the first floor. Was Jeremy Bentham kind of like the precursor to communism? No, I think he was sort of, it was an attempt in the 19th century to rationalize politics and to kind of get bias out and to try to base politics on empirical evidence. He's the first... Was it utilitarian? Utilitarian, yeah. That's sort of his contribution. He's kind of a founder of economics and he thought basically you should, you had a simple idea, you should make policy to always make more pleasure and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. And he thought you could kind of do that with an empirical formula about pleasure. Did he predate Marx? Yes, yes. Well, I guess they were, I have to look. They were both 19th century and I think they were contemporaries. They overlapped in their dates. And they have his stuffed body there. Yes, it's pretty odd on the first floor. University College London. I don't get that.  Something like that. That is, that is very creepy. Yeah. Great conference. Yeah. What was the most surprising thing that you learned during the conference? There was a lot. There was a terrific talk on free speech in India and how censorship works through a variety of different mechanisms, including Rushdie was banned through basically the law of tariffs and importation. Sam and Rushdie, the Satanic verses. Exactly. There was a fatwa on his head. Yeah. Because he, I guess, insulted the Ayatollah in Iran. Correct. And he was banned, I think under blasphemy laws in India, but they didn't do it by just outlying the reading the book. They did it by outlying the importation of the book. Kind of like the D.H. Lawrence ban in the United States. Uh-huh. I don't know about that. Is that how they did it as well? I think so. Uh-huh.  And he was pushing in that direction why it is that maybe caring about advocacy of terrorism. I mean, this was before the events recently happened that it might be important to outlaw certain forms of advocacy of terrorism, not just not to have the strict rules protecting it that we have in the United States under the First Amendment. Did you hear anything that spoke to you about the virtues of censorship? Was there anything where you said, hmm, maybe... I should rethink it. Yeah. Well, his talk, I thought, was pretty profound. You know, his point was, and there was another talk like this, that speech has an effect, that the marketplace of ideas just left to work freely in the way we were talking about last time just doesn't always work. And you know, I'm still a defender of our jurisprudence, but recent events show the power of that kind of argument, I think. I was given pause by that argument and others like it. A lot of times I go for the national lampoon, let's shock for the sake of shocking you and you know it's, you know, I don't mean it. Yeah. Well, that's what I was saying. Last time we spoke is you were defending, I thought it was a very good discussion, but you were defending these restrictions. And I just started wondering how they would work given your profession and your willingness to floor the boundaries that they could easily, I mean, it's just something for you to think about that they could easily be turned certainly on comedians and that case about Hustler magazine that we talked about come out a different way under a different regime and that might have a, you know, career consequences for you. Yeah, I got spooked. I don't want to get into specifics, but I had a sleepless night last night because somebody spooked me taking one of my lines out of context, literally out of context. Certainly as a matter of censorship, I think if you put restrictions on viewpoint or on content when it comes to comedy that there's a danger that you restrict, you know, good stuff coming out or comedy that's meant to enlighten rather than to harm. Now, there is another example of that that really does push the boundaries and it's this comedian in France, you know, who is a racist and has this sort of racist salute and it really doesn't, to me, from what I have seen seem defensible or Charlie Hebdo actually in some of those cartoons. I don't think that they're defensible what what the cartoons are doing. And I know that they claim to be attacking religion generally, but they tend to focus on Islam in a way that makes me feel like skeptical about that claim.  Basically, I think that finding something offensive certainly isn't a good way to regulate. And even if it goes beyond offense, that it really attacks kind of core values of equality under law, not not in order to enlighten, but in order to punch down, that the right way to handle it isn't is an imprisonment. It's that we have other techniques that we have to be able to use. So yeah, I'm, you know, in this conference, I defended this rule on campus to complete protection for all viewpoints. But also being vigilant, even about certain kinds of really bad humor, you know, sometimes another joke in response might be the right response or sometimes criticism. Or don't laugh. Or don't laugh. Yeah. I know some comedians think even that goes too far. They're worried about PC culture. And I've heard comedians saying they don't want to perform on campus. And I could see the worry that that sort of condemnation of some humor can go too far. But other kind of extremists in France, those two examples that I gave show that, you know, you sometimes even humor is doesn't get a free pass. I think we've got to be critical about it too. And making jokes about a person who isn't famous. I'm not going. I'm not asking for. This was week one. Yeah, I know. But making jokes about somebody who isn't famous is unacceptable. Even if you take to Facebook or Twitter, so if you start attacking somebody on Facebook and Twitter, who isn't famous, they can then come after you for is it slander if it's written about them? Yeah, I mean, we were talking one of our sessions about that case involving Hustler magazine and the cartoon depicting a preacher as a drunkard, even though, you know, he wasn't and the question of whether or not that was grounds for suing under the libel laws or libel is written. So I guess Facebook would could be potential libel case. And there's protection in lying about public figures in a way there isn't about private figures. Are you a public figure if you take to Facebook? Yes, you know, that's like the Andy Warhol question, right? I mean, now we are all famous 15 minutes, maybe 15 minutes a week or something. So I don't know that I haven't seen that in the courts. It would be a fascinating question whether or not like somebody with a thousand friends who post once a week and has 30 likes, whether or not they're a public figure. Now, some people on Facebook have five friends and zero likes. So I think they wouldn't be, but that that other case might be a good one. I've noticed that there are people who are tried in the court of Facebook opinion. There have been some accusations, criminal charges against certain people. They're probably true. And it's to some degree, people are going to the court of Facebook opinion, because they feel this individual won't be prosecuted in the courts. How do you for a shaming? Is that what you're thinking of like cases where somebody is shamed for being a sexual harasser? Yeah, yeah. Huh, that's interesting. I mean, you don't have due process in those cases. It's not criminal punishment. So the war, you know, the rights question isn't as severe as it is there. So doing that does raise due process issues. But on the other hand, the consequences aren't as bad. I don't know. We'd have to talk about a specific case, but I can imagine in an egregious instance where there was a worry about, you know, the danger that somebody posts, the same way you might tell a group of friends that you might tell your Facebook friends about that person. I think that might be defensible. And then you can imagine the other extreme where somebody who's really innocent is, you know, libeled and their reputation is destroyed by a kind of mob mentality. So these, you know, these questions are always in the details, I think. Right. I'm surprised we're not saying more of that. A case, there doesn't seem to be a case yet going to the Supreme Court involving Facebook and Twitter and libel, right? There have been certainly some Facebook cases. I'm just trying to remember what the most recent one was. Yeah, I'd have to look, but that could be something that I could look into for an action. Right. I mean, it just seems, it seems that, and I always have this who cares attitude. I always say where there's smoke, there's fire. If you, if somebody's making an accusation, there's probably some truth to it. You probably did something that you shouldn't have done. Then I always go to better a few men go to prison then. Right. Then a couple of innocent guys walk free. Right. You got that balance wrong. We flipped that around. What's the original saying? It's something like better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent goes to prison. And that's why we tilt our system of justice, the presumption of innocence. Because I always said with Clarence Thomas, yeah, better a few men have their lives destroyed so that the rest of us learn how to behave. Right. Right. I mean, what's interesting about the question you're raising now is it isn't that question. You know, I'm, I think that's right. You want to design a system of criminal justice in a way that really has a very strong presumption of innocence. And that takes away the very real possibility that people will be prosecuted for things they didn't do. But now when it comes to criticism, there's a little more leeway, you know, and it's not the same as imprisonment. Now that isn't a free pass. John Stuart Mill worried about punishments, social punishments like shaming, because he thought they could have the same kind of punitive impact of social isolation that criminal punishment would. But it's certainly on a scale, I think, less awful than having your liberty deprived. And there might be more leeway for, you know, not exactly that 10 to 1 formula that we think of in criminal justice. There's a special election yesterday in Montana. Right. And a Republican candidate, Greg, I don't know if I'm pronouncing this right, Greg Gianforte, they say he reportedly body slammed a reporter for The Guardian, Ben Jacobs. But if you listen to the audio, it's probably worse than a body slam. It sounded as though he was punching the reporter. Can you arrest a candidate for high office, a sitting congressman? And why is it a bad idea? What did our founding fathers think about arresting Congress people and candidates? Maybe there's an argument to the contrary, but I think that's an easy case that just because you hold an office, it doesn't make you immune from the law. So if you violate it, if I listen to the audio, too, it seemed like a clear assault, basically. Allegedly, I guess I don't know the full facts because I wasn't there about listening to the audio. And if that was, if it turns out that this was just a straightforward assault, the fact that he's running for office doesn't immunize him in any way.  And the same is true, even if he was a sitting congressman. There are some protections. There's something called the speech and debate clause that protects at a pretty high level what's said in parliamentary debate, for instance, by sitting congresspeople. But they're not in any way immunized. And neither is the president, by the way, from criminal law. My readings of the Constitution, my understanding is that our founding fathers had a fear that congressmen could be arrested to keep them from speaking in the well of the Senate or speaking in the house on a bill. Are there any protections against that? There are two. There's something called the speech and debate clause, which immunizes the speech, basically, of members of Congress from being subject to prosecution. And if they're talking on a public matter, for instance, and it's like the discussion we're having earlier, and they make a mistake, I think that does immunize them in certain instances. There's also this strange, which this congressman maybe had read and misinterpreted to think and applied to him, this clause of the Article 1, Section 6, that says, the senators and representatives, shall in all cases accept trees in the felony and breach of the peace be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of their respective houses and in going to and from the same. But the courts, my understanding, have just narrowed that clause so that it actually doesn't immunize congressmen from being arrested for, say, assault. And certainly it doesn't immunize, even in the plain language, a candidate for office. So there is this sort of worry, I think, about political arrest and prosecution. But at least in our system now, the rule of law takes precedence. I don't know if there's anything left from that clause, but certainly it doesn't immunize a congressman from being prosecuted for a crime.  Can the FBI arrest somebody?  Now, I mean, what were they trying to get at? I guess that, you know, think of the crime of sedition, of speaking out against the president. Now, under our current First Amendment law, you have a right to criticize the president, but imagine some interpretation of the First Amendment that allowed congressmen to be arrested for criticizing a president. I mean, these are all hypothetical, but I wonder if that would be a way of resurrecting the clause. But, you know, in normal criminal prosecution, where there's not any of these issues that are not at stake, there is no longer and not an immunity from prosecution. This congressperson, a candidate for office, sorry, you know, he's out of luck, I think, as far as the law is concerned. Worst case scenario, I'm the president of the United States. I have a flunky, as my attorney general, I have a flunky as the head of the FBI. The FBI could arrest people. Yeah. I, as president, can't order somebody to be arrested, but I can instruct secretly the FBI to arrest somebody, right? Well, I mean, you know, the whole issue in the current controversy over firing the FBI director is whether or not the president was acting in an improper way to, in that case, impede an investigation. Now, a president should not, under any circumstance, be dictating to law enforcement who to arrest or not for political reasons. That's not their prerogative. It's supposed to be an independent decision. Now, you know, some people have focused on whether or not the president would have been breaking the law in impeding an investigation, in the sense that he could be subject to criminal prosecution. And I think that's a pretty interesting issue. But the question of impeachment is not that. The question is whether he was doing something that really impeded him from the kind of independence that he's obligated to as the president of the United States. So even if his action towards Comey wasn't a criminal violation, it could have been the kind of high crimes and misdemeanors political crime, you might call it, that the founders were focused on. It isn't a legal issue impeachment. It's one that involves a political decision about the fitness for office and how severe a violation took place. It's a political decision, not a criminal decision. It's not even a constitutional decision. It's a decision that the House and the Senate have been authorized by the Constitution to make. And there's a standard, high crimes and misdemeanors, but no, that shouldn't be understood as, you know, a felony or some criminal violation. It's a distinct, distinct thing. There's a terrific article by a colleague of mine named Keith Whittington in the Washington Post that discusses this, and I highly recommend it. And this is an expert on the history of impeachment. And that's his argument that I fully endorse. You know, we shouldn't view the oath as just mandating obedience to the law in a narrow sense. The oath obligates the president to the role and the constitutionally delegated role of president. And he's violating that role if he tells the FBI director to stop investigating him. I turn on MSNBC and it's, we got him. Today we got him. Yeah. He's, he's gone to prison and they're going to give him a chair and that's how it's being presented to us is smoking gun, we got him. And what you're saying, this is not going to be a criminal prosecution. It's going to be a negotiation. It's going to be the Republicans deciding whether or not he's politically viable.  That's all this is. It's the court, it's the court of public opinion. I'd say it's partly that that just realistically, yes, there is no impeachment without the Republic, some Republicans, not all of them, by the way, but just a small sliver of them to stand up and say, this is unacceptable. But what I don't think is right, and I want to make sure that my views distinct from it, is the idea that it's just politics in the sense of, you know, we hate this guy, let's get rid of him. I don't think that there is an obligation of the political branches to use a principle. And the principle is it's defined by this phrase, high crimes and misdemeanors, but what it really means is something like what the 25th Amendment says, unable to carry out the Constitution or unwilling or, you know, deliberately indifferent to the requirements of the Constitution. Now the President is not supposed to be in the business of retaliating against political opponents or, in this case, impeding investigations against his own wrongdoing. And if he's done that, and that's an if, but if it turns out, then they're obligated, I think, to use impeachment in order to defend the Constitution. That's how it works. So the fact that it's not a trial in a court of law doesn't mean that it's just up to the political branches to do what they want. They also have constitutional obligations. Nobody should body slam a reporter. Right. There are laws against this.  To us, Greg Gianforte, the guy running for Congress in Montana, who did this, not allegedly, you listen to the audio, it's obvious. But if it gets into a courtroom, they're going to say, this reporter provoked me, he threatened me, and he won't go to prison. There are things that should be and there are things that are, and if I'm Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, I'm going to say, just fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, they're not going to impeach me. There are things Trump should be doing, but he doesn't have to. And if he just fights, there's no way to get rid of him. Maybe. You know, the Republican Party, and I hope that this comes up again, has a long tradition of caring about the Constitution. It's not too long ago that the Tea Party's main thing was, you know, careful reading or a strict reading of the Constitution. And I have to believe that there are some percentage of members of the House of Representatives elected by the Republican Party who still care about the Constitution. And if that's right, and I'm sure it is, they've got to find the strength and the courage to stand up and say, if, and again, it's an if, the President was deliberately impeding an investigation of himself by firing the FBI director, then that's an impeachable offense. That's their obligation. And it's not about party, it's about this other thing.  And partly, I think, Elliot Richardson, for instance, cared about the Constitution. But he also cared about the preservation of his party. And maybe that's the other thing that will get them to vote for impeachment eventually, is that the Republican Party cannot survive if it's just the party of Donald Trump. It is supposed to be also, like the Democrats, a party of constitutional principle. The more I listen to you, the more I realize he ain't going anywhere. I wish you were right. Everything you're saying is right. You stand for the Constitution. I don't think the Tea Party ever stood for the Constitution. They were AstroTurf. They were set up by the Koch Brothers just to challenge Obama and the stimulus package. I do another show with a guy called Dan York in New England. And listeners can find the recordings of them on my website, CoryBretzschleider.com. And, you know, I think it's fascinating because a lot of his listeners were Tea Party people. And a lot of them were tempted to vote for Trump. And I think a good portion did. But you'll hear on those tapes, you know, I just try to engage them on the level of the Constitution. If I talk to them as a Brown professor or as a Democrat, we're not going to get anywhere. And in fact, that's how the conversations often begin is with them slamming Dan for having this liberal Brown professor on. But if we just talk about, as you and I often do, too, the Constitution, they sometimes can be won over, you know, because I think there are some percentage of people, including members of the House, who really care about the foundational principles and are not just a Trumpist nationalist. He does not, I should say. I am absolutely convinced. I don't think there's a question about it that he does not care at all or know much about the United States Constitution. But I know there are some members of the House who do. There are some members of the House who do, but not enough to stand up for what's right. I just don't. I know that Nixon was up against a Democratic House. There are circumstances that were different. And, you know, you would have to win over some percentage of Republicans. But his look, yeah, there is the kind of real politic part of this. And his rating, his approval ratings are tanking. And the lower and lower they get, and especially in districts where there are Congresspeople, Republicans who are being threatened in the next midterm by Democrats, I think they've got to sort of think to themselves, both from a principled perspective, the ideal that I'm talking about, and also from a self-preservation perspective, it might be time to jump ship. By the way, he's threatening some of these people with going after them if they oppose them. I don't see how, you know, you could have dignity and not stand up to even the president if he talks to you that way. So we just need a sliver of them. And I, you know, assuming again that the investigation goes the way that it might, which is that he was impeding this investigation. And then, yeah, they're obligated to stand up. The FBI is an independent police organization, but they're part of the executive branch. Right. They're not part of the judicial branch. Right. The FBI director does answer to the chief executive. Well, he answers to the attorney general, who is part of the executive branch. But as you saw in the instance earlier on, when the decision, remember, in the travel ban case was made by the acting attorney general to not defend it. That was what she wanted to do. What Sally Aitz was saying at that time is that, you know, she doesn't work for the president in the sense that he can direct her to legally do what she's going to do. She has an independent obligation to uphold the Constitution. And she wasn't going to defend something that was clearly unconstitutional. Now, in this case, it's a similar sort of issue. The attorney general and the FBI director have an obligation to not use law enforcement for political purposes. They don't do the bidding of the president. He can't direct them to do something that's illegal, for instance. So are there are there specific laws? Are these norms or these specific laws? I think they're norms. They're largely not the impeachment norm. People are arguing about this. There's a question about whether he obstructed justice, which is a legal question and a question of prosecution. And that's one question. But I guess what I would say is, even though that is an issue here, apart from that, there is a question of what I would call constitutional norms. And you don't you don't direct the FBI to do your political bidding. And that's impeachable, if you do, it's impeachable. But again, I'm going to be Steve Bannon.  The mistake that Nixon made was he released the tapes, he let them listen to the tapes, stand your ground and nothing will happen. Well, I mean, that, you know, now we're now we're going to have a big disagreement, because if he would have done that, that would have been a true constitutional crisis. In fact, when we talked earlier about obeying judicial orders, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered Nixon to hand over those tapes. And the fact that he even paused for a moment, he did turn them over. But at there was a question during the proceedings, whether he would. And that was part of the first order, part of the Articles of Impeachment, the article, the argument against him that I'm sorry, I should say it was part of the argument against him for impeachment, that he was threatening to undermine the judiciary by threatening to disobey judicial orders. If Trump really refused to obey the court's outright, that is up there with the most impeachable things he's done. It's certainly on my view cause for impeachment. And why did we decide that the Supreme Court has primacy over the executive branch? Isn't that a separation of powers issue? That was decided in a case called Marbury versus Madison, which is about judicial oversight. And the ultimate being the ultimate enforcers of the Constitution. Nixon famously said when the president does it, it's not illegal. He was wrong. President can do all sorts of unconstitutional things and it's the role of the court to stop him if he does or her. And that's a core, maybe that core idea of our constitutional system. So in Marbury versus Madison, they say that the final decision rests with the Supreme Court in any conflict between the three branches of government, the Supreme Court will always win out. I think that's probably putting it too strong. And there is an idea that Jefferson had of what's called departmentalism, that the president has also a role in thinking about the Constitution and an obligation to enforce it. But I think that Marbury, although it's a very interesting case in that it is really about the court refusing to accept more power than it was granted by Congress. They strike down an act of Congress expanding their power, which is a sort of weird use. But at the same time, what's famous about the case is it's clearly a statement about the court's ultimate role as the interpreter of the Constitution. And later cases, I think, make clear that when the executive does something that directly conflicts with the Constitution, and it's in the area, like, for instance, judicial proceedings in the example of the tape, that the court has to be listened to and has to be deferred to. So no president can defy, and I don't think any president ever has defied, and we could look into that, a direct judicial order. That's an impeachable offense. And if he did that either in the travel ban case or does that in the future, then that is, in my mind, clear grounds for impeachment. Right. There's the famous quote from Andrew Jackson. Right. Yeah, he never disobeyed a judicial order. He's talking about this case involving the Trail of Tears that didn't involve the federal government. He's commenting on it. But he's not saying that I'm going to disobey a judicial order. And to my knowledge, he never disobeyed a judicial order. So when Bannon and all these other people sort of try to use that as an example as a precedent for what Trump might have done in the travel ban case or might do going forward, I think they're just wrong on the history. The court doesn't have its own police. They cannot, as Jackson said, enforce their rulings. Right. Which is why they have, I guess, supremacy, because they're the moral arbiters. But it's also why it's so delicate. You know, that's why I'm kind of, this is the kind of thing that only a constitutional lawyer maybe gets really emotional about. But if you think about it, what is it that makes the system work? The courts do not control the military. They do not control the budget in the way the Congress does. They're not the commander in chief the way the president does. It's the norms of obeying judicial orders. That's what keeps the constitutional system operating. And if you have some, I don't know, I'll try to use a more measured term, some president who doesn't know the norms, who doesn't understand the constitutional system, and he does something which is unprecedented, which is outright defying judicial orders. That actually is such a big deal, it threatens the collapse of the system. And it's not something that I think we can allow. I'm wondering about the levers of power that the executive branch has to act at the will of 38% of this country who want Trump to drain the swamp, punch reporters. And I'm listening to you and I'm thinking, well, it sounds like the Constitution does give the president all the buttons he needs to push for tyranny. It's there. Oh, yeah. That's what's so scary. He has been pushed back. But if you think of how it's by courts, and it's by advisers telling him he better listen, and if there are people pushing him in the other direction they haven't been listened to. And the reason why all this matters so much in these first few months have really been a victory for constitutional democracy is because the founders, people think they're paranoid about it, but now we know from this example that they're not, that the executive is so powerful that he or she could topple the entire system. They could become like a dictator or king. And in fact, if you look at constitutional regimes around the world, that sometimes happens. That a so-called president becomes a dictator. And that's a real risk here. It has been. I mean, it didn't go that way. The Wall Street Journal has sort of been criticizing people for being overly paranoid about the threat of dictatorship. But the fact is that we haven't gone anywhere close to that direction because people have used the institutions.  And it's a big, big deal. People might be bored of the details of the travel ban case. We've been talking about it at length. But that is a big deal, not just because of the issue, but because of the separation of powers and the fact that the executive has stopped the president in that area. Talking to you, I realize I'm not helping by saying, I don't see him being impeached.  Listening to you, I truly understand that we're at a point of conflation between politics and law. It's where the two things come together. And unless the people stand up for the rule of law, we're going to lose it. That was beautifully put. And you know what you're saying, I guess, echoes a lot of the sort of way that we're used to talking about politics in this country. That, you know, what are the Republicans going to do? It's the horse race. It's prediction. And that's fine.  I don't want to be naive. And that's why I did that with you. But we've also got to think about the principles. And in this case, the stakes are so high that I think impeachment absolutely has to be on the table in order to prevent the possible slide in the direction that has not happened, but that there's no reason why if this president got more popular, more successful and more emboldened, why he wouldn't necessarily go in that direction. And the wearing down of the public will is what people like Steve Bannon want. In other words, when I say to you, Trump firing Comey is legal, there's nothing we can do about it, right? I mean, theoretically, you could just keep insisting he's the president. He can do that. This executive branch, I do think, you know, I have to we all not just me have to think more about this and learn more about the facts. But there is a there are statutes that prevent as criminal statutes that prevent the obstruction of justice. You can't go in. I mean, let me give you just an extreme example. That's not an issue here.  Or that was a weird phrase, do crimes to you. I like that right threaten you.  And if the president did something like that, then it doesn't matter that he's the president. You can't do that. It's just you can't obstruct a criminal investigation. Now, did that happen here? It's not clear. But even if it didn't, what I'm saying is we have this other concern about upholding the Constitution. I'm a senator. I'm a congressman. On the floor of the Senate, I say something horrible about person who isn't a public figure. Can I be sued? It's an interesting question. Like in the speech and debate clause, imagine you're talking about somebody in Congress on the floor of the house that's not a public figure and you libel them. An interesting kind of inquiry would be whether or not you get more protection for that speech than you would under the normal First Amendment rules. And you might. I think that's a good, very interesting issue. Because I would run for Senate just for the right to go after Howard Whitaker. Oh, okay. There's a guy named Howard Whitaker who I would just like to slander and libel for the rest of my life. It would be worth having to be a senator. I should say, as usual, it's a hypothetical question. I don't know Howard. And I don't know that you'd even get the protection, right? Because the speech and debate clauses I think meant to protect speech about public matters. And if you were just getting up on the floor of the Senate and libeling somebody who's a private figure, it is an interesting case. But I'm not sure that you'd get more protection than you would under that. Right. And the president can't sue a senator for saying horrible things about him. You know, I did want to say something about this body slam case that sort of brings us back to our first topic, which is the issue of, you know, something is going on in this country where people are acting in a way and saying things that are so beyond the norm. I mean, the idea that somebody running for office is involved allegedly in an assault. And at least even if it's not an assault in a kind of act of violence with a reporter, these videos of people saying racist things in stores and anti-Islamic things. Part of the Trump era is about the specific constitutional issues that we're talking about. But in the book, I mean, which you brought up in the beginning, one of the things I'm worried about is, you know, in a regime that's so protected by in a nation, it's so protected by the First Amendment. And again, I love the First Amendment and the free speech protection of all viewpoints. It could allow for the what I call a hateful society to evolve as a matter of norms, that it would protect all sorts of views that could become what could lead a society to become against the basic ideas that are also in the constitution of equality of all under law. And I worry that not just one story, but all of these add up to that kind of norm erosion. And, you know, the government has to find other ways of fighting back. We don't have the ability to just outlaw racist views in this country. But if we're not going to outlaw them, I think we need to find other ways of pushing back against those that norm erosion. The really frightening thing about this Gianforte, when he issued his denial, he referred to the Guardian reporter as a liberal journalist. Oh, wow. Can I sue a sitting president? Could I do a class action suit against Donald Trump? If I find that the Republicans just aren't performing their due diligence, could you and I form a class action suit against a sitting president? There were ongoing lawsuits about Trump University, for instance, and that Paula Jones law case makes clear that they don't stop just because somebody gets the presidency. And the president is too busy argument or the president is above the law. None of those arguments have ever been rightly accepted by courts, and they shouldn't be. So if there is a, you know, we'd have to think about what this lawsuit was. If you're asking whether we could just sue the president for being bad at his job, I'm not I'm not sure about that. But certainly these other real cases involving fraud, for instance, the president is not immunized as a result of his office. Paula Jones and Trump University were civil suits that predated their presidencies. Right. I don't think we've ever had an example of a sitting president sued for what he did while in office. Isn't it kind of accepted that you can only sue a president after he leaves office? You can't know. And in fact, there is an ongoing suit that's extremely important that we haven't mentioned. I don't think on this podcast, but that we should spend time talking about involving the emoluments clause. And what the emoluments clause says is that the president can't benefit from foreign governments. And there's a domestic component to that, too. And what this lawsuit is worried about is that because the president has not has not really distanced himself enough from his own assets that things like his hotel in Washington, which are being visited by foreign governmental dignitaries, are benefiting him in a way that violates this emoluments clause. And this is a really serious lawsuit brought by some of the top constitutional lawyers in the country, including Lawrence Tribe and my friend Zephyr Teachout. And you know that suit, we have to keep a close eye on it. It certainly does concern ongoing actions by a sitting president. And you know, I think they've got a really good claim there. Again, we've learned today that you can't be cynical.  Yeah, can I just say something about that, David? That point, I just thought was kind of for me, anyway, was profound because what you were doing is so common by so many of my friends and people who are on television and who are on radio is to just sort of say, you know, well, we can't we can't beat them or we can't do this because the political situation is such that it's not not achievable. And I think that while it's important to be realistic, we also have to talk about what's constitutionally required of us. And then we have to demand that the Republicans and maybe a sliver of them is all we need to their duty. That's what's happening in these town meetings, for instance. And you could see them rethinking, you know, their absolute support for the president of the United States. And there are ways through persuasion, I think, to get us out of that mentality of acquiescence. If Trump were realistic and the Republicans were realistic, Trump wouldn't be president. Right. If we were if we were realistic, we wouldn't be giving tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent. Here's the thing that was not realistic a year ago, that a reality TV show host with no experience in government, who knows absolutely nothing about the basics of our constitutional system, including as I argued before, I think how a bill becomes a law is going to become president of the United States. It's just seems not realistic. And this guy imagined that it was realistic and he pushed the boundaries and changed them for the worse. So we've got to start doing that too, I think. And, you know, using our imagination, talking about things that don't seem immediately possible and imagining the future in a kind of broader way. The Supreme Court doesn't have a town hall, but they do take the temperature. Yeah.  Had there been just this outrage to gay marriage where it was unacceptable by a vast majority of Americans, is it Obergefeld? I can't pronounce. They would have ruled differently, right? I like that phrase, take the temperature. I think that they're aware of politics and some decisions are informed by it. But their obligation is to not be partisan, certainly, and to be independent. But, you know, I don't know, the healthcare case is a good example. The fact that Roberts voted to uphold the mandate and to leave at least the basic structure of Obamacare in time. I have to believe that part of that was informed by a realization that had they struck down the entire piece of legislation that there would have been a backlash that would have really threatened the court's legitimacy. So, yeah, the court has to be realistic about the fact that it has to keep its currently pretty high level of support and that it can do things to undermine its own legitimacy. Well, this has been amazing once again. Let's talk about your bike trip. Okay. Was it through Normandy, Burgundy, Chablis? Burgundy. We started in my French is non-existent. But after the London trip, I met my wife in Paris and we went down to Burgundy and we rented bikes there and we had an amazing experience just biking around for a few days. Terrific. Did you do digital detox? I thought of you because there was there were things happening and I thought he's going to want to fly home. Well, in our email exchange, you asked me if I could put my mic in the saddle back. And I didn't think about it. Were you able to let go? Yeah. No, we just we're not really on email or any of that stuff. Be honest. What's the longest period you went without email? Four hours.  Yeah. And it's like somebody's putting sandpaper to your insides, right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I thankfully was not like doing it at meals or anything like that. There was a guy we had like this kind of amazing meal in Burgundy. One of these just really beautiful French meals and there was a guy in the middle of this pretty nice restaurant taking phone calls. So that I didn't want to be that guy. He was doing it in Spanish, which was kind of, you know, he's a Spanish guy, but yeah. And the French allowed that? It was really uncomfortable. They were clearly very bothered by it. But the format was a pretty formal restaurant. And I think they were trying to figure out like, does the formality keep us from criticizing him? Does it demand that we criticize him? And there are only maybe 10 people in the restaurant, but they did not say anything. They let him. He also did a thing that I both was bothered by, but thought was pretty funny, which is it was a former Abbey, the restaurant. And he kept playing on his iPhone publicly for the restaurant, Gregorian Chant. So that was really odd. That was rude or funny. Dining in France is a religion. It's sacred. And rightfully so. Sitting down and having a meal together truly is a spiritual experience that the French get, the Italians get. I'm surprised that they put up with that. Yeah, I think this guy was deliberately trying to, I don't know, mock this, that how solemn, solemn it was. And yeah, it started talking. But he was being really nice to them at the same time too. He was sort of, I don't know, it was like this very interesting rebellion. He was introducing himself to everybody. He wasn't a mean guy, but he was mocking the formality of it, definitely. Well, we learned a lot today. The thing I learned, I'm just going to repeat it because this has been very valuable for me and the listeners. The thing we learned today is you can't be cynical in order for a rule of law to sustain. It's the role of the citizenry to hold not just our lawmakers, but our judges. We have to hold their feet to the fire. We have to make them enforce not just the laws, but the norms and what's acceptable. We have to speak out and say, this is acceptable. This isn't acceptable. The proto fascists want us to throw up our hands and say, there's nothing we can do. Yeah, well said. Not really, but I'll take the compliment. And I appreciated that exchange. No, you kind of, I mean, in a way that's sort of trying to resist is the cynicism. And you saw that and I really do appreciate what you just said. One of the first people I interviewed on the show was the late Tom Hayden. And for some reason, they don't teach the Port Euron statement. It would be good for us to talk about at some point. Yeah. And he said to me, you know, you sound really smart when you're cynical, but you're not smart.  They want you to be cynical. And I never forgot that. And that's beautiful. Yeah. From the important person. And, you know, when you watch television, I just really, I mean, I just can't believe the degree to which people are doing this horse race thing. And, you know, over the summer, when, when, before I knew you, but while I was doing a lot of this radio show, what I loved about Dan York and still love about him is that he just doesn't do that. He doesn't just sit there and say, who's up? Who's down? It's such a banal, boring and unscientific way of talking about politics. Politics is about aspiration. And if you turn it into this lame horse race thing, I think you just miss what it what it's supposed to be about. And other people have figured it out. By the way, Donald Trump realizes that it's not about what's realistic. It's about what you make possible. And that's why he's unfortunately doing is gotten to the position that he's gotten to. Right. And cynicism is intellectually lazy. It is. Yeah. It's a very lame way to. You'll come back next week. I didn't push you away. Love it. OK, great. Thank you. I've been pushing so many people in my life I've pushed away. Not me. No, not at all. I had a sleepless night. I there were a couple of jokes that I told just for the sake of shock. And I'm thinking I need to rein it in. And I did get my wake up call about the First Amendment. I've been very glib about censorship. But suddenly it applied to me. And I thought, hmm.  You could offend people. But it's also the case that people are not going to listen to just, you know, academics talking in the abstract. You need people to connect. And humor is in our culture the number one way that people connect. And, you know, so it's great. This combination of comedy and also extreme seriousness and, you know, depth about issues. So I really, again, appreciate it. And I want to thank our listeners. I would have done this regardless. It's heavy lifting. The structure of the show is such that I put the heavy lifting on near the end. I start off light and fluffy and fun. I was pleasantly surprised by the vast number of listeners who enjoy this are asking me to put it on earlier. There are a lot of great listeners who, yeah. And I've seen it on you on Facebook and Twitter. And thanks for listening. I appreciate it. Yeah. Well, thank you for doing this. And as my mother says every week, you don't deserve them. She's of two people. She said, you don't deserve Obama. And you don't deserve Professor Corey Bretschneider, author of When the State Speaks. Okay.  Thank you. I'll talk to you next week. See you.


What's up guys and gals? We're back for another episode of Trading Basics. This is episode 5 and today We are going to talk about stop losses All right, so the first thing we're going to talk about today is defining risk Risk levels can be based on two aspects. They could be based on a price aspect or they could be based on a time aspect Okay, so if it is price based It's going to be a price level that if broken invalidates your trade thesis This could be a higher high or a lower low or any movement in price that is not as you have predicted so this 414 level 475 609 levels these are price-based Risk levels that you could use whether you're trading this long or short Next we're going to talk about sizing based on your risk so You can have a max dollar loss Okay, the max dollar loss could be that you want to only risk $50 per trade So that means that if you have a 50 cent risk You're going to divide your dollar risk that you want to risk per trade So you take 50 cents divided by $50 and that equals a Maximum size of a hundred shares that way when you enter the trade You're going in with a maximum of a hundred shares because you know if you stop out you're only going to lose 50 bucks Modern Rock has a great Quote here is having a max dollar loss having a max loss doesn't mean taking your max loss on every losing trade That means that your max daily dollar loss should be different from your max dollar loss per Trade which is exactly what I've explained there the mental stop is Mentally saying yourself saying to yourself that if this price breaks a certain level you're going to exit your position for a loss But again, what if you don't? What if you decide to hold this position and it continues to run against you because you chose a mental stop Rather than a hard stop Mental stops are for the more disciplined traders So They're a common practice for discretionary traders, but again, they're very dangerous for the undisciplined or the new trader That just doesn't know themselves yet Stubbornness lack of discipline hope These are all emotions that if you struggle with them you should not be using mental stops You should in turn look to hard stops


What's good, Joshua Ross back again with another video. So we got to talk about this clip that was sent to me involving Grayson Waller going off on someone apparently insinuating that wrestling isn't real and it's fake. They were doing an interview with him and L.A. Knight. They're doing an interview for a morning talk show talking about the upcoming elimination chamber paper view that's going to be in Australia. So I'm guessing they were talking about it and in somebody felt the need to, you know, insinuate that wrestling is fake and Grayson Waller wasn't having it. So I definitely want to check this clip out, see what's going on here. This was sent to me in the intercluster discord and it's on Twitter on the WrestleOps Twitter page. So we're going to check this out because this is wild. Um, once again, I don't know why people feel the need to go around and and saying wrestling ain't real and wrestling is fake. I promise you, you say that to a wrestler. They will show you very quickly how real it is. Let's get right into this one. I'm a full screener. So you guys can see this. Let's see what Grayson Waller had to say, man. Dignature, finishing moves. Can I give you? Yeah, can you like? Oh, can you show it? Oh, it's like a signature move or you talking about one of them. Oh, I think it actually just showed on the screen there. If I do that, it's not going to be a good day for anybody like our floor manager. Maybe he's actually our floor manager is leaving this week. Yeah. And he's sort of not enough. That's that's not for me. You want to go ahead and take this one? Look, you know, I don't think you understand.  Like I'm going to punch you straight in the jaw. The actual disrespect that you have even talking to me. Oh, this is the same real. I don't know. Don't act all tough. Don't act all tough. Oh, hey, Grayson is standing on business. He's like, hey, hold on.  You're taking this as a joke.  Get in the middle of this. You kick back. Get him out of there. Get him out of there. Get out of there. You guys come here and try and disrespect that. Are you kidding me? I'm not disrespecting you. You're all right, man. I know we love you. He said, no, you're all right, ma'am.  And they're like, nice, just sitting there, just just chilling. Oh, wow. Trash talking, you get out of here. You get out of here. You take that trash talking. You get out. I want to have these guests disrespected like that. Mitch, you get out. Oh. I never thought you were tough. Wow. Hmm. That was very interesting. Grace said, oh, no, you think you think this is a joke? Oh, okay. Now, granted, this could all be a work, too. This could definitely be a work. WWE has been known to allow their wrestlers to kind of do stuff like this, you know, make it seem as if it's real. So this could be a work. This definitely could be a work. But at the same time, this also could be something real. Maybe Grayson did feel a little disrespected. One of the producers come up there. Let me add them. Let me add them. Like it's a joke. And it's like, no, bro.  So it could be real. That's that's the crazy thing. We don't know if it's a work or not. But I did see people commenting under this initial tweet showing Grayson Wallace some love. I like this. I like this. I'll punch you. I'll punch you for real. We'll have to call it call the police for real. Like you think this you think I'm a joke. You think this is a joke. Like if I hit you for real, it's going to be some problems. And that's the thing that some people still to this day don't understand. Yes, wrestling has predetermined matches, but the moves that they do in the ring, most of the moves, not all of them, but most of the moves they do in the ring are legit real. We've seen just a few times this week with it. Well, within the past couple of weeks, people actually getting hurt. We just saw it. I believe with Austin Theory and Carmelo Hayes. He ended up getting hurt. Seth Rollins ended up getting injured from the match he had with Jinder Mahal a couple of weeks back. I think it was Kofi Kingston. I ended up kicking the guy that Giovanni. I think I think that's Giovanni. Yeah, I think he ended up kicking, drop kicking Giovanni or something like that. And he ended up getting a concussion. They had to call off the match. Those are real injuries. Those are real injuries. You can't fake really being hurt. So if it's all fake, then all of that is not real. Now granted, sometimes they do storyline injuries, but a lot of times we're not a lot of times, but sometimes people get hurt like Charlotte Flair. She recently just got hurt and gonna miss many months. Go tell her that's fake. And people just ignorant. They don't know any better. They just think it's all fake. It's like, no, these guys and girls go out here. They legit put their bodies on the line. You tell someone to take a suplex that's never taken a suplex before. You tell someone to do a cross body off the top rope to someone that's never done it before. That person that's never done it before, after they did it, asked them was that fake or not? You can't fake that. You can't fake falling through a table. You can't fake falling on someone. You can't fake getting suplexed. Sometimes those punches are stiff and real. We've seen it. People go rogue sometimes or get a little bit too excited and they punch someone. So you get a receipt. Those things are real. So if this is a work, this was pretty entertaining. If this wasn't a work, shout out to Grayson Waller standing up for the wrestling business like, hey, bro, I'll punch you for real. And they'll really have to call the cops.  So appreciate Grayson Waller.  They think it's all fake. But actually, you get inside that squared circle. You try to do some of those real wrestling moves on the mat.  I promise you that. But comment down below. Let me know. Do you guys think this was a work or do you guys think this was actual shoot? This was actually real and Grayson Waller really felt some type of way or do you all think this was just a big work? But I appreciate all of the support you guys showing on channel Road to 150K.  Appreciate y'all kicking it with me. See you on the next one. Peace.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jasper's case breaks calm coming at you with 2020 Panini honors football five-box random team break number four Lot of great sudden. This is from a fresh case to a fresh case of honors a very big. Thanks to Everybody here for getting in on the action Thanks to the people who bought their spots straight up Congrats to the people who won their spots and the second half is already in the store All 32 NFL teams are in let's roll it. Let's randomize it Three and a six nine at times for names and teams one two three four five six seven eight and Ninth and final time after nine We got Daniel down to on hell three and a six nine times for the teams one two three four five six seven eight And ninth and final time After nine times we got the Jaguar's down to Buffalo All right Daniel Lyman with the Jaguar's annual cats with the Titans Scott with the Giants Robert with the Panthers Dolphins and Falcons Matt with the Ravens Austin with the Bengals Sean with the Lions Nick with the Packers Scott with Scott with I'm all the way in column Z Scott with the Saints Tom with the Vikings Sean Oh with the Chiefs Colin with the Buccaneers Matt with the Seahawks Paul with the Steelers PJ with the Niners Aaron with the Broncos Colin with the Washington football team Tom with the Bears Brandon with the Eagles Kyle with the Patriots Aaron with the Cowboys PJ with the Jets Colin with the Chargers on hell with the Texans Matt with the Raiders Sean with the Colts Sean M with the Browns Robert with the Cardinals Steve with the Rams and on hell with the Buffalo Bills So let's get all this on one screen sort by column B now while you're considering trades We'll pop open this case right here of 2020 honors football and we'll see which half we're gonna do Correct second half of this case that we're popping open is in the store right now. I think the previous breaks PJ We were doing loose boxes So that's why the numbering seems a little off generally speaking odd numbers are the first half of a case and even numbers are at second Half, but we had some loose boxes that we were working through but this is a fresh case second half in the store right now Jasky's case breaks calm one two three for the left side four five six for the right side And it's one I'll be the left side this half in the store now All right, Lynn. Let's flip back to this screen right here. We're gonna pause the video when we come back We're gonna see if there's any trade then the break stick around BRB Welcome back everybody a little bit of trade chatter, but in the end no deals were done here in honors football random team number four Thanks everybody for spending a bit of your Monday night with us. I appreciate it All right, so let's see what we're gonna get out of this 2020 see you Thomas 2020 Panini honors football Let's go see what we got take out that first All right Glen what's going on right first out of the gays Willie Gay jr To 70 for the chiefs That'll be for Sean. Oh, we got Joe Thysman Redskins It's gonna be for calling the Washington football team. That's the 25. All right first hit is Chris Strevler Rookie Otto for the Arizona football Cardinals 15 out of 25 that'll be for Robert Flores and over here is A gold vinyl rated rookie Alvin Camara Wow lights Camara action one of one That looks sharp Saints Scott Blackwell who won that spot in a filler break got randomized the Saints and now All aboard the big hit express That's a beauty. It's just the first box next box. We got rookie Joe burrow 23 out of 70 that'll be for the Bengals Austin and we got Jordan Love To 20 11 out of 20 for the Packers next over with Green Bay at first encased card is Michael Pittman, Jr 5 out of 10 for the Blue Horses Got the honor sticker right there It's gonna be Sean O'Leary and the Colts and the big hit here is another one of one It's Jordy Nelson indelible ink and that's a Raiders edition of Jordy Nelson and that's Matt Lieber with the Las Vegas Raiders and All aboard the big hit express Out of fives and under get the world famous train whistle, of course three boxes to go Stuff is loaded Boys and girls next half is in the store. Jasper's case breaks calm Clyde Edward de Lair To 70 for the Chiefs Sean with Kansas City on hell with the Buffalo Bills Eight out of ten gets the Jake from State Farm Then we got a nice rookie auto Justin Jefferson Minnesota Vikings that'll be for Tom Who bought that spot straight up and got last spot mojo and it's two out of three All aboard We have here another train whistle, maybe yes two out of two Andre Reed Legendary signatures on that nice sharp-looking flawless card Buffalo On hell who won that spot got randomized the bills All aboard the big hit express Could these all be train whistles stuff is pretty loaded next one Second half in the store Jasper's case breaks calm I've got Jonathan Taylor To 70 for Sean and the Colts and another Colt Peyton Manning That is 14. Oh, sorry check that four out of 15 Whoo, and look at this card coming up 2020 rookie auto for the Bolts Justin Herbert Colin who got a spot straight up Got randomized the Chargers Rewarded with the Justin Herbert autograph to 25. Oh, we got an original So the honors originals are buyback. So the difference is So like these they actually print extras of these cards just in case They need to replace it for some reason due to maybe damage and transit or whatever the case may be So they'll have these extra ones that they'll send back out to Alvin Camara and he'll sign in someone will hand number it and whatnot So they'll do that right This is an actual buyback from the from the original product hence the original sticker on there and it's Duke Johnson Browns five out of 25 So you'll see the sticker on there Cleveland this is for you Sean Maddock won that spot got the Browns gets the Duke and the final box. Good luck. Thanks everyone for getting in Got Patrick Queen 41 out of 70 for the Ravens Matt with the purple birds Another bird team right here. That's one out of five Russell Wilson for the hawks of the sea Matt Lieber with both bird teams and a train whistle Matt All aboard the big hit express The rookie auto is Jerry Judy for my rivals the Broncos It's gonna be for Aaron and Denver 29 out of 49 and the last one here is a Julius peppers one out of five autograph And you can see the honor stamp Kind of hard to see but you see the honor stamp right in the middle right at his waist Julius peppers prism autograph one out of five Green Bay Packers next over all aboard Whoo, thanks everybody another nice honors break in the books second half in the store plus a couple fillers that we got to do but I'm sure once you want you once you know about this quality those should go pretty quickly So get in on it Jaspie's case breaks calm. I'm Joe Jaspie and I'll see you next time for the next break


Hi, I'm Christophe. We are here at the Embedded World 2020 and I'm an engineer at Fritech France. I'm working as a hardware and software developer. I'm doing also some technical support and I was in charge of developing this carrier board for the new FICO STM32 MP1. It's a result of a partnership with ST Microelectronics and this new processor has a microcontroller unit M4 and a microprocessor unit based on Cortex M87. And it also has a M4 in there, right? Yes, it has a M4 of course. And what we want to show you is that it's a really interesting product when we want to do real-time applications but also graphical. So here it's a demo with our brand new kit. We've got the sum here based on the STM32 MP1 and I can show you how the demo works. So we have a graphic running on Linux. We can control the motor here. So the motor starts and every motor control part is running on the M4 MCU. So it's a real-time application and the graphic is running on Linux. So with the Cortex A7 motor processor unit. This is a full Linux over there. This is a full Linux. Here we have what we call a stroboscope so we can measure the speed which is here and we see the motor is stable because the three black patterns are not moving. So graphical allows to do all the control stuff with the human interface machine. All the values come from the M4 firmware running. So real-time application is good for the M4. This is a very unique solution. STM32 MP1 and also... Yeah, it has competitors but this one has an ecosystem from STM32 MP which is really interesting for reusing existing codes. So for clients who already know the STM32 that's really easy to use this new broad processor. And what's the advantage of working with Phytek on doing this? Are you able to do some custom implementations? So the advantage is of course the sum to do a new design from this sum and also we provide the BSP for Linux which is based on the STM32 OpenState Linux and for the M4 you can reuse the STM32 MPU package which is really interesting when you want to use the M4 processor. So when you want to do projects for industrial real-time applications like automation for automotive or any industrial field, this processor is really interesting. And by being in France, the French office, you're also close by the STM32 working collaboration with them? It's a really good partnership because we can speak the same language and they have really good support and so we are working together for the success of our customer project. And what would you say about the STM32 MP1? It's kind of new but it came out like last year?  We had the first chip and it was the mass market and now we are in the step of having many customers for it so we can now say to our customers we can help you start your project and you can buy our kits and try every possibilities of these kits and we can help them because we have a support hardware or software support and yeah, we can do... Many different ideas around the STM32 MP1. How about updates? Did ST provide some updates since last year? Yes, they provide updates continuously and by tech always keep this update so we are always in line with their software and also of course the hardware, we always take the last touch chip and so yeah, for the next start in our kit is I think a good step to start.


Craft presents the Great Gilder Sleeve. Cheese company makers of Parque Marchion and a complete line of famous quality food products presents Harold Perry as the Great Gilder Sleeve. Craft brings the Great Gilder Sleeve every week at this time, written by John Whedon and Sam Moore. We'll hear from the Great Gilder Sleeve in just a moment. Perhaps that the delicious golden cheese food is so nourishing and so easily digested, so useful in a hundred appetizing ways, you'll find it a wonderful help in menu planning. For a tempting main dish, blend Pabstet's mellow cheddar cheese flavor into nourishing and economical macaroni and argrotten dishes. Or melt Pabstet into a smooth, luscious cheese sauce for vegetables, hard-cooked eggs, chicken or fish. For lunchbox sandwiches or quick company treats, spread delicious Pabstet on crackers or between layers of enriched bread. Yes, there are hundred different ways Pabstet can please your family and guests. And especially important these days, Pabstet helps supply important food elements, muscle-building milk protein, food energy, milk minerals and important vitamin A. So for delightful menu surprises, buy wholesome nourishing Pabstet. Whenever you can, serve this delicious golden cheese food, Pabstet. Now let's see how things are going in the Great Gilder Sleeve. Like all candidates for public office, he finds it expedient now and then to retire from the strain of campaigning and spend a day quietly in the bosom of his family, denying himself to all but photographers. Today is Saturday and Gilder Sleeve has planned such a day. No photographers are clamoring at his door, but if one happened by now, he'd find the great man standing on the front porch with his niece Marjorie surveying his acres and sampling the morning air. Just breathe that air, Marjorie. Go on, breathe some of it. Wonderful. Where else can you get air like that? You know, I wouldn't live anywhere else for a million dollars. Neither would I. You take where Judge Hooker lives even. Of course, there's only three blocks from here, but somehow the air isn't the same. I notice the difference the minute I turn the corner. I think it's spring that's turned the corner. What do you mean? We'll see how green everything is. Why, in another week, the lilacs will be out. It's really here, Uncle Mort. It's spring. Yes, it's spring. What is it the fellow says? Spring with its eternal promise? I don't know. Spring, spring, the lovely thing. Why, Uncle Mort? I'm a poet and I don't know it. You know, you get awfully silly in the spring. Well, who doesn't? Come on, let's sit down here on the swing and be comfortable, my dear. You gotta remember to put some oil on that. Remind me next spring. Oh, I love spring and I love this place. I love every tree and every bush and every little thing about it. Yeah, I wouldn't take a million dollars for it. And the grass. See how green it is. You can almost see it growing. I can almost see me mowing. Oh, well, Leroy's a big boy now. Where is Leroy? He ducked out right after breakfast. Do you want him? No, let him go. What's he up to? I don't know. He borrowed a quarter from Birdie before he left. He'll probably never see it again. I've told him time and again. He's not... Birdie? Is that you? Yeah, you, Mr. Gilseed. Out on the porch. Come on out. Mr. Gilseed, you going downtown today? I wasn't planning to, Birdie. I doubt if I even stir off this porch today, it's so comfortable here. Oh, shucks. I should have asked Leroy. He was going anyway. By the way, Birdie, I understand you lent Leroy some money this morning. Yes, well, I... Now, I've told Leroy he's not to ask you for money. And I've asked you not to lend him any. Well, I wouldn't say I lent it to him exactly, Mr. Gilseed. You wouldn't? No, sir. I just advanced it to him. The distinction is a highly technical one, Birdie. It's what? Lending and advancing. The distinction is scarcely perceptible from where I set. I'm sorry, Mr. Gilseed. You ain't coming through so good this morning. I say, what's the difference between lending money to Leroy and advancing it? Well, advancing money is where you're going to get it back compared to lending it is where you kiss a goodbye. Leroy's going to pay it back. Well, see that he does. What did he want it for anyway? Oh, he made me promise not to tell. No, Birdie. Here comes Leroy on his bicycle. Yes, you better ask him. Oh, my goodness. Don't do that. One of these days, he'll break his full neck. No such luck. I got a spring. Stick in your short tail. What were you shopping for? Present. And who may I ask, were you buying a present for with money which you borrowed from Birdie when I told you repeatedly you're not to do so? Well... Could you give me that again? What's the matter with everybody around here? I speak English, don't I? Excuse me. I've got to look into it. Leroy, who is the present for? Miss Goodwin. Miss... Well, Miss Goodwin, eh? Leroy, what's back of all this? Nothing, huh? Nothing at all. He just wants to get promoted. That's all. June is coming. I do not. Out of this, Sean. But if you didn't wait till the last minute every day, he'd do your homework. Now, Marjorie, I'll handle this. Leroy? Yes, Sean? I'll do it for this sudden burst of generosity. Gosh, I don't see why everybody has to get so suspicious all of a sudden. Answer me. What prompts the giving of this rich gift? Don't you know? Tomorrow's Mother's Day. Mother's Day? And you're planning to give Miss Goodwin... Yeah, you want to see it, it's super. I got it right here. What? Pay the buck and a half for it. It's the darnst main knit shop. I saw it in the window. A buck and a half. There. How do you like it? What is it? It's a pin cushion. What do you think? It's blue. So I see. It's got pins in it, too. And they're hard to find, aren't they, Marge?  Well, that's very clever. A buck and a half. You think she'll like it, Uncle? Well, it's a very pretty pin cushion, my boy. The only thing is... Well, I'm going to wrap it up nice. I'll make it with you and give it to her so she'll get it in time for... Don't you think she'll like it, Uncle? Oh, it's very pretty, Leroy. Very. It ought to be. It cost a buck and a half. It's very generous of you to want to give it to her, Leroy. The only thing is... Well, my boy, women are funny in some way. Not Miss Goodwin. She's swell. That's not what you used to say about her. I think she's swell. You want to make something out of... No, children. What I'm trying to say, Leroy, is I think that's a very fine pin cushion. Buck and a half. I also think it may be rushing things just a little to give Miss Goodwin a present for Mother's Day when she's not your mother, not yet. She won't be our mother anyway. She'll be our aunt. Oh, gosh, I thought she'd like it.  I'm sure she'd like it, my boy, but as I say, women are apt to be touchy about these little manners. They don't like to think of themselves as whistler's mother. Uncle Moore's right. But I'll tell you what you do. Now, why don't you save it and give it to her for a wedding present? When? Well, when we get married. When is that? Yes, when are you going to get married? Well, that's a little indefinite. You mean she ain't saying? No, we have a definite understanding about it, Leroy. We have a definite understanding. All right, when is it? Well, we decided, your auntie Eve and I, that it would be too complicated to try to get married at the same time I'm running for mayor. Well, then why run for mayor? You have a point there, my boy. But Eve is very anxious to have me do it. She wants me to be the mayor. In fact, she promised that if I win the primaries in June, that same day she'll name the date of our wedding. And if you don't win, what then? Christy's going to win, Leroy. Yeah, but what if he doesn't? Well, we haven't really gone into that, my boy. Well, you better go into it. I don't want to get stuck with a pincush and the cost of buck and a half. Yes, sir. Want to be anything else, Dr. Needham? No, that's all I think, Mr. Peavey. You'll be sure and thank Mrs. Peavey, won't you? I don't know how we could run a church supper without her. Well, she enjoys it. Well, Peavey, you old son of a gun. Oh, hello, Dr. Needham. Good day, Mr. Gildesley. I didn't see you when I first came in. That will be 25 cents, Dr. Needham. 25 cents. And the penny tax, of course. Of course. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Hey, Mr. Gildesley. That's right. By the way, Doctor, I may be requiring your services before long. Oh, so? In what capacity? Well, you may not have heard. I'm engaged to be married. Well, that will be a pleasure, Mr. Gildesley. A real pleasure. Good day. Good day, Mr. Peavey. Good-bye, Doctor. Good day. Bye, George. He's a pretty good fellow. I wonder if he heard me say son of a gun, Peavey. I wouldn't worry about the doctor. He has a great sense of humor. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. He says that every time he pays a penny tax. Yes, I know. Well, what can I do for you this afternoon? Not a thing, Peavey. I just dropped in to chew the fat for a while if you're not busy. Not at all. Is the happy day really drawing nye for you, Mr. Gildesley? Right after the election. I'll be the happiest man in the world. She's the finest woman I've ever known. Woman is a noble sex, Mr. Gildesley. I'd say it was the nobler of the two sexes. You're right, Peavey. Now, you take Mother's Day.  Yeah, that's true. Probably a good thing, too. Well, Judge Hooker. Hello, Peavey. Well, Gildersley, busy campaigning, I see. And I'm just resting for the moment, Judge. Peavey and I are talking about the nobility of women. Women. Give me a pack of razor blades, Peavey, and a bottle of those liver pills. Sour grapes, Judge. All right, laugh, Gildy. You're no better off than I am. Well, now, I wouldn't say that. Mr. Gildersley was engaged to be married, you know. Yeah, I know, I know. But there's many a slip twix the cup and the lip. And Gildersley ought to know. No, I'll see you here, Hooker. You better get it in writing, Gildy. Just a year ago, you were waltzing up the eye with Lila Ransom. This is different. No, I don't think Mr. Gildersley has anything to worry about. You don't know, Peavey. Women are tricky. No, not tricky, Judge. Just cautious. Oh, how do you mean? Well, I can remember Mrs. Peavey when she was getting ready to name the day. I was with a wholesale drug firm at the time, Dunneger and Holtz, it was. And I can remember the day she said she'd marry me, just as plain as if it was yesterday. Well, how could any man forget it? Yes, sir. I called on her one Sunday afternoon. I used to call on her every Sunday afternoon, as a matter of fact. And I'd always take along some little token, a bouquet of flowers or a box of taffy. We were both very fond of taffy in those days. Come on, Peavey. What happened? I'm coming to it, Judge. I used to ask her to name the day every couple of months or so, and on this particular afternoon, I asked her again. I'll never forget her answer. What does she say, Peavey?  So here I am in my own drugstore. Yeah. What if you hadn't opened your own store? She would have married him just the same. No, I wouldn't say that. Mrs. Peavey has a mind of her own. See, Guilty, that's women for you.   That may be true of some women, but not Eve. Eve is different. Eve will marry me whether I'm elected or not. Are you sure, Guilty? I'm positive. What's more, I'm going right over and find out. In the middle of the morning? Sure. That's a matter of the morning. Nothing, Throckmorton, except that I was just going out. Would you like to come in just for a minute? I'll come in for a minute and stay the rest of the day. Throckmorton, aren't you... I'm taking the day off. Oh, is Mayor Tawrliger taking the day off? Oh, Eve, a man can only campaign so much. That's no way to win an election. Let's forget the election. Wouldn't you like to take the day off and have a little fun? I can't. And I don't think you should either. Oh, come on, Eve. Besides, I've got something I'd like to ask you about. You can ask me about it tonight. I'll be waiting in a few minutes. Eve, don't I mean anything to you? Of course you do. Only the thing... Eve, there's something I've got to know right away. What's that, Throckmorton? Well, I've got the thinking. I'm just wondering. We get married in June, huh? Maybe. Right after the election? It all depends. Depends on what? Throckmorton, that reminds me. I wrote my mother about you. I never do a thing without consulting mother. Would you like to hear what she said? Well, I told her I'd met you and how kind you'd been to me and what an important man you were getting to be. Is that all? Just about. Would you like to hear what she said about you? Well, some other time. But right now, Eve, I've got to know where I stand. Suppose I don't get elected. I refuse to consider that possibility. So should you. Of course I'm going to keep right on plugging away, Eve. I'll do my best. And you win. I'm sure you will. What if I don't? Let me show you what mother said. I've got a letter right here. Let's see. The weather has been rather chilly, so on, so on, so on.  Oh, here. Mr. Gildersleeve, from your description, sounds very forceful and dynamic. I'm sure he has a real future in politics. There. Politics? What about my other future?  Maybe I have. What did she say about that? I don't have to tell you everything, do I, darling? Well, I want to know where I stand. Well, our engagement's been announced, hasn't it? I've been engaged before. What I want to know is, I don't get elected.  I won't consider that possibility. In fact... Oh, dear, they're blowing for me. I've got to go. But, Eve, can't you answer a simple question? Later. See you tonight, darling. Now. Now where am I? My George, if I didn't know her so well, I'd say she was tricky. The Great Gilded Sleeve will be with us again in just a few seconds. Now, more tempting ways to serve Pabstet, the delicious golden cheese food. Children simply love the wholesome, nourishing cheese goodness of Pabstet, so here are some special treats for the youngsters. Before serving vegetable soup, crumble Pabstet and let its mellow cheddar cheese flavor blend extra richness into this tempting soup. Cream potatoes and cream spinach made with Pabstet are sure to be greeted with oz and oz of delight. And between meals, crackers spread with Pabstet are treats that hungry youngsters will light into with lip smacking satisfaction. There's just no end to the tempting ways of serving nourishing Pabstet. So, whenever your dealer has a supply on hand, ask for the familiar round flat package and buy this delicious golden cheese food, Pabstet. Delight the whole family. Remember, it's the original whole milk cheese food, so be sure to ask for Pabstet. Now, let's get back to the Great Gilded Sleeve. He's been at losing loose ends ever since his inconclusive talk with Eve Goodwin, so he's spending the afternoon alone at home, moodily trying to read, to listen to the radio and to keep Leroy's dog out of his chair. Now, however, comes an interruption. Oh, now what? Oh, now what?  Well, good afternoon, Lila. Hello, Throckmorton. I hope you don't mind my dropping over, but it's such a lovely day. Oh, glad to see you. Come in. Get out of here, Jeep. I just couldn't stand being cooped up over there another minute and I just thought, well now, I'll just go have a nice, friendly visit with Throckmorton. Oh, fine. I've just been sitting around not doing a thing. Come in and sit down. Thank you. It's nice in here. I've always liked this room. You have? Hmm. I've always liked this couch, too. Ah, seems like old times, just the two of us here. Doesn't it, Throckmorton? Yeah, just like old times. I'm terribly happy for you, darling. About Eve, I mean. That's good. She's a fine woman. One of the finest women I ever met. Really? She is a fine woman. When is the happy day to be, Throckmorton? Uh, we have a sort of a flexible arrangement. Probably in June. Oh, June's a lovely month for wedding. Just think a year ago. You're being awfully nice about this whole thing, Leela. Oh, but I think Eve is so perfect for you. You're almost as tall as she is. I'm... I'm sure most people will never notice. When she wears low heels, I'm taller than she is. Well, of course I don't suppose she'd want to wear low heels very often, but honestly I don't think those are the things that matter at all. It's the understanding between two people at matters. Well, Eve understands me perfectly. I just wish I could get to know her better. I'm certain she must be terribly interested. Oh, she is. Fine talker. Very well informed, but she's never boring.  I suppose so. I don't suppose you ever think about us anymore, do you, Throckmorton? Us? We had some happy moments. A few. I like to remember them sometimes. We had a lot of fun, Leela.  And we played checkers for two hours. And I didn't win one game. You always were too smart for me, Throckmorton. You weren't trying. Oh, yes I was. Do you remember that afternoon we went out for a picnic, just the two of us. And we just lay on the grass and looked up at the clouds. Yeah, I remember. We didn't talk sensibly or think about anything. We just acted like two silly people who in love all afternoon. Wasn't it silly? No. What was silly about it?  Ha, ha, ha. Are you still ticklish, Throckmorton? Now, Leela. Leela. Leela. I shouldn't have done that, I know. You can if you want to. My mush. Go ahead and tickle me, Leela. No. Leela. Oh, Throckmorton, you mushed. Oh, Throckmorton. We were swept away. Oh, Throckmorton, how can I ever face Eve? How can you face her? What about me? Don't worry about it, darling. He was so understanding. I'm sure she would realize it was just a slip. Oh, she'd never forgive me. Oh, of course she would, Throckmorton. I only hope she can forgive me. It was my fault, Leela. It was all my fault. Well, I forgive you.  I'm not worthy of her. I'm not worthy to touch the ground she walks on.  How could I do a thing like that? I must be no good. Well, Mr. Gilda Sleeve. Oh, Dr. Needham, we meet again. Yes, we meet again. I suppose you're out for a little stroll. Yes, I usually take a little constitutional after supper Saturday evening. Sets me up for Sunday. Will I be seeing you in church tomorrow? Oh, yes, yes, you certainly will. Good, good. I am. I felt the need of church lately. The world needs the church, Mr. Gilda Sleeve. If the world but knew it. You're right, doctor. You're absolutely right. Goodbye. It's the only thing to do. I'll just throw myself on her mercy. I'll just say to her, Eve, I've been a bad boy. Please forgive me. I'll just say to her, I don't know how it happened to Eve. I didn't mean to do it. It just happened. I'll say... Throckmorton. Hello, Eve. Well, come in, silly. I wasn't expecting you quite so early, but... Oh, am I too early? Well, I could go away and come back again. Oh, nice, since I'm glad you came early. Now we can have a nice long evening together. Well, aren't you going to take your hat off? Oh, forgot. I'll take it. Thanks. There. Now come in the living room. Thanks. Well, darling, aren't you going to kiss me? It's quite proper, you know we're engaged. Eve. Yes? Nothing. There's something troubling you, Throckmorton. What is it? It's nothing. Not a thing. Oh, you're tired then, poor dear. Why don't you lie down here and stretch out on the sofa? Come on. Well, where were you? I'll just kneel here beside you. I'm the one who should be kneeling. Oh, no. No, just stretch out and relax. That's it. You've had a hard day, haven't you? Well, it has been rather strenuous. What have you been up to since I saw you? Huh? Guess who I saw on the way over here? Dr. Needham. Oh, really? You're such a fine man, Dr. Needham. Yeah, only he always gives you the feeling that he can see right through you. We must go to church tomorrow, Eve. I'd love to go with you. Yeah, we must do that. Eve. Yes, Throckmorton? Nothing. Darling, you're troubled about something I can tell. There's something you want to tell me. No, no. Sit up a moment. Huh? What for?  There.  Your forehead feels hot. It is. Let me stroke it for you. Your fingers are so cool, Eve. So cool and sweet. This will take all the pain and all the worry and all the weariness away. Oh, Eve, you're wonderful. So sweet and understanding. There's not much a woman can give a man Throckmorton if she can't give him understanding. And you do. You understand so well. Eve. Yes, darling? Nothing. All right. Just lie quietly. Don't tell me if you don't want to. Oh, but I do. I mean, there's nothing to tell, really. Nothing much. Then it can't be anything to worry about. No, it isn't. The whole thing is silly. Completely silly. It didn't amount to raw beans. It was just... Eve. Yes? Do you believe that a kiss means anything? Do I believe that a kiss means anything? Well, that's hard to say. It all depends. No, I don't think the kiss itself means anything. It's the thought behind it. Exactly. That's the way I feel. I mean, after all, there are kisses that you just... And then there are other kisses. That's it. Sometimes you kiss somebody and it means no more than a slap on the back. Well, I've never thought of it that way. And then there are other kisses that are special. Like this. Bend down the ease. Gracious, I'm losing my hairpin. Oh, Eve, you're wonderful. That's what I like about you.  Well, a girl can only try. I should have known. You're not like the others. You're wonderful. And I'm a dope. Oh, no, Throckmorton. Yes, I am. I'm a dope. Would you believe it? I've been worried to death all afternoon. Oh, what about? The silliest thing in the world. Leela Ransom came over this afternoon and we were sitting around talking. And one thing led to another. And before I knew it, I slipped her a quick kiss. And all the rest of the day, I worried about it. Can you beat it? Eve is something... How could you, Throckmorton? How could you? You leave that woman and come over here? But Eve, it didn't mean anything. You said so yourself. Gosh, it didn't mean anything more than the slap on the back. It may have been a slap on the back to Mrs. Ransom, but it's a slap in the face to me. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm very tired. I'm very tired of a number of things. I give up. I give up. I... She's right. I was a bad boy. There's a strange situation. While other foods are being rationed, we're urged now to cut loose and fill up on eggs. It seems this country has more eggs right now than it knows what to do with. And a very good thing to do with them is to eat them. There are good reasons for this sudden surplus. The hens have been going all out for victory. And at the same time, we're hard up for storage facilities and crates to pack the eggs in. We have to keep them moving direct from hen to consumer. It's a good thing, really, because doctors tell us that eggs have what it takes. They say we'd all be healthier if we ate them at least once a day. Not only do eggs supply many of the things we missed with those steaks we're not getting, but they have a specialty of their own. They help prevent polygraph. Right now, because of the surplus, eggs are cheaper than they're likely to be for some time. So it's a good chance to lay up a little extra health against hard times to come. Personally, Mr. Carpenter, I make a practice of eating two eggs for breakfast every morning, rain or shine. I was just about to remark, Mr. Gildesleeve, I've never seen you looking better. Oh, I never felt better. Well, you heard what the man said, folks. Let's eat all the eggs we can get while this surplus lasts, because if we don't, the farmers are going to start laying off hands, and when the lean season comes around again, we'll be right back where we were before. Yeah, and that would be ridiculous. Good night, everybody. Mr. Carpenter, speaking for the Crab Cheese Company, makers of Marque Marchand, and we'll listen again next week for the further adventures of The Great. This is the National Broadcasting Company.


Capital budgeting is the process companies undertake to plan, justify, and purchase long-term capital projects. Usually these projects require large sums of money. This picture is an example of items that would require capital budgeting to acquire. You can see the factory and some machinery, etc. These assets are commonly known as long-term plant assets or capital assets or property plant and equipment, PPNE, for short. Capital budgeting analysis depends on a number of things. I've simplified them here into three general categories. The availability of funds to undertake new projects, the importance and criticalness of the project, and risk and return of a project. Capital projects can either be stand alone projects where there are no competing alternatives or the company has funds available to acquire all the projects that meet minimum requirements or mutually exclusive projects which involve choosing from competing alternatives, usually because funds are limited. This concept of having to choose between various projects because funds are limited is called capital rationing. The data needed to complete capital budgeting depends a little on the techniques used, but in general we need to look at the cash outflows and the cash inflows created by the potential project. You can see some examples on the slide. The final piece of information needed is the cost of capital. This is the average rate a firm pays investors and creditors for the use of money. Firms finance capital projects with a combination of debt like loans and bonds and equity like stocks and retained earnings. We call the former debt financing and the latter equity financing. In general a project needs to create a return greater than the cost of capital. For example, if you borrow a thousand dollars from a bank at a rate of 5 percent interest and invest that in a project that earns 12 percent, you would be better off doing the project because the return is greater than the cost of funds invested. The cost of capital is often referred to as WAC which is the weighted average cost of capital or sometimes called the discount rate. There are four primary methods used to do capital budgeting techniques. They are the payback period method, the accounting rate of return method, net present value method, and the internal rate of return method. Although I don't know any company doing the accounting rate of return, I think that might be really old school. So there are examples of videos on the other methods which I strongly encourage you to watch. Finally, here are the six steps to capital budgeting analysis. They are 1. Identify potential projects. 2. Forecast the cash inflows and outflows for the project. 3. Analyze the project using appropriate capital budgeting techniques. 4. Choose from the best from the alternatives. 5. Apply capital rationing. Again, this is an important concept. Firms don't have unlimited resources so capital rationing basically means which projects they can do based on the limited amount of cash.  A post audit. Usually companies go back after five years or so and see how the actual project performance compared to the initial budget.