Inspector Javert testifies on Capitol Hill

Summary

The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

Episode: Inspector Javert testifies on Capitol Hill
Date: January 23, 2026
Host: Hugh Hewitt (Salem Podcast Network)

---

Overview

This episode features a condensed selection of key segments and interviews from The Hugh Hewitt Show. The main theme: the contentious House Oversight Committee hearing with Special Counsel Jack Smith (famously dubbed "America's Javert" by critics), focusing on his investigations into the Trump administration, January 6th, and his pursuit of phone records from congressional figures. The episode also covers reactions to recent Oscar nominations, the US-Greenland sovereignty deal, and speculation about possible US military action against Iran, featuring regular contributors Noah Rothman, Eliana Johnson, Jim Talent, Josh Kraushauer, and Jim Garrity.

---

Congressional Hearing: Jack Smith Grilled on Capitol Hill (00:00–10:05)

Cassidy Hutchinson Testimony – Reliability & Use as Witness

• Jim Jordan (Chair, House Oversight) directly questions Jack Smith about his reliance on star January 6th witness Cassidy Hutchinson.
  • Jordan accuses Hutchinson of providing "secondhand" and "thirdhand" hearsay, specifically her story alleging President Trump lunged for the steering wheel.
  • Jack Smith clarifies: “My recollection of her testimony... is that it was secondhand. She said she'd heard that from somebody.” (01:22)
  • Jordan presses Smith about corroboration from other Secret Service members (Tony Ornato, Bobby Engel), both of whom denied the incident.
  • Smith confirms: “We interviewed another firsthand witness who was in the car, who did not confirm that that happened.” (02:57)
  • Jordan: “You also said Ms. Hutchinson, regarding this particular claim, was a second or even third hand witness. We asked you if you were a defense attorney, how would you handle cross examining her if she was on the witness stand? And you said, ...the first thing I would do was seek to preclude her testimony because it was hearsay. You remember saying all that?”
  • Smith: “Yes, that's correct, sir.” (03:45)
  • On whether he’d call Hutchinson as a trial witness: Smith says no final determinations had been made, but prosecutors on his team did not want to use hearsay evidence.

Notable Moment:

• Rep. Jordan challenges Smith with an excerpt from Washington Post reporters Lennig & Davis’ book, asserting Smith’s own doubts about using Hutchinson.

Subpoenaing Congressional Toll Records & Alleged Abuse of Power

• Unidentified Congressman (Brandon Gill, TX implied) scrutinizes Smith’s subpoena of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s phone records days after McCarthy became Speaker, suggesting violation of the Speech or Debate Clause.
  • Smith denies wrongdoing. “I do not [agree it violates the clause].” (05:28)
  • The Congressman accuses Smith of “collecting months worth of phone data on the Republican Speaker... right after he got sworn in as Speaker, all around the time of a major vote. That sounds like a flagrant violation...”. (05:45)
  • The issue of non-disclosure orders is raised: Smith acknowledges nondisclosure was standard to protect investigatory integrity, not because McCarthy was a “flight risk.”
• The subpoenas also extended to nine Senators and another Congress member, with additional secrecy.
  • Smith insists this was “consistent with Department policy and law.” (08:01)
  • The Congressman: “Your own analysis says... you knew there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. I have it right here...”

Memorable Quote:

• Congressman: “We walked all over the Constitution throughout this entire process. Chairman, the gentleman’s time, members of Congress, and you know it. It’s absolutely disgraceful.” (09:19)

Hugh Hewitt’s Summary

• Hewitt delivers a caustic assessment:
  “Jack Smith was a rogue prosecutor who did great damage to the Constitution and the political process... He is the Javert from Les Mis. He ought never to prosecute anyone again.” (10:05)

---

Oscar Nominations & The Sad State of Moviegoing (11:08–18:33, 19:51–26:58, 27:01–35:10, 35:37–41:54, 43:09–50:01)

The Ongoing Bit

• Hewitt runs a humorous “have you seen or heard of these 10 Oscar-nominated films?” quiz with each guest.
• Consistent result: almost nobody—media professionals included—has seen, or even heard of, most nominees (“Frankenstein, Hamnet, The Secret Agent, Sentimental Value, Sinners, F1, Train Dreams, Marty Supreme, One Battle After Another, Begonia”).

Notable Participant Quotes:

• Noah Rothman: “You might be detecting a trend.” (11:19)
• Eliana Johnson: "I'll spare you time. I haven't seen anything." (19:51)
• Jim Talent: “No and no. And I’m afraid a lot of my answers are going to be along those lines.” (27:19)
• Josh Kraushauer: “No and no.” (36:12)
• Jim Garrity: “You could be making up that one and I would not be able to tell you whether it's true.” (43:38, on “Sentimental Value”)

Reflections on Hollywood

• Panelists express genuine bewilderment and concern over their unfamiliarity with Oscar contenders.
  • Hewitt: “How bad is Hollywood marketing when you haven't even heard of six of the 10 best pictures of the year?” (20:59)
  • There's lament and some mockery of the disconnect between the industry and actual moviegoers.
    • Jim Garrity: “What is indisputable is what they used to call the middle class of movies... This basically has disappeared." (48:16)

---

Foreign Policy Deep Dive: Iran, Greenland, and American Grand Strategy (13:00–18:57, 22:14–26:16, 30:11–35:10, 38:01–41:54)

Will President Trump Order a Strike on Iran?

With Noah Rothman (14:34–18:57)

• Hewitt: “Do you believe President Trump is going to order a strike on Iran? And should he?”

  • Rothman: “I think he should. I think the odds are better than even that he will... The President has a self-set red line. He has said many, many times that one of Barack Obama’s biggest mistakes was not following through... So he is obligated... to enforce it or sacrifice his prestige and America’s...” (15:50)
  • Rothman discusses possible goals: setting a standard against mass atrocities and undermining the regime.

• Hewitt clarifies that he supports only a "punitive" limited strike in response to Iran’s violent repression, not regime change by air campaign.

  • “If you murder 15,000 of your own people with machine guns in the street, you’re going to get hit by us because we’re the West.” (15:18)

• They discuss oil market implications and the strategic risks of provoking China.

With Eliana Johnson (22:14–26:16)

• Eliana Johnson agrees with action, but argues for regime change:
  • “I think he should strike in an effort for regime change in Iran, not simply as a punitive measure, but because it's in the American interests.” (22:35)
  • "I think the president is going to pick his moment, and I hope he does." (23:42)
• Discussion of whether Trump has the “will” for a sustained destabilization campaign; Eliana points to evidence that he’s legacy-building across several foreign policy fronts.

With Jim Talent (30:11–35:10)

• Talent also expresses support for a targeted strike, balancing risks to broader regional progress:
  • “I think he should and I think he will... There are two reasons to do it: one, because we said we would, and two, if it's done properly, it could further weaken the regime.” (30:33)
  • Warns that a strike could unsettle delicate regional negotiations.

With Josh Kraushauer (38:01–41:00)

• Takes a more cautious read, based on public rhetoric;
  • “If you asked me that a couple days ago, I would have been more bullish... but at Davos, Steve Woodkoff seemed to suggest a diplomatic option.” (38:01)
  • “It doesn't seem... the administration is ready to strike.”

---

Assessing the Greenland Sovereignty Deal

• The panel is divided over whether the much-acclaimed US-Greenland deal is a "big deal" or mere political theater.
  • Noah Rothman: “...We’re left with mineral rights and new basing and deployment of anti-missile technology, all of which is very important and very valuable, but I struggle to see how we couldn’t have gotten that through a process that was much less hostile, much more deliberative...” (13:00)
  • Hugh Hewitt: “I don’t mind injuring allies in Europe because I don’t think we did. I think their press people did.” (13:50)
  • Eliana Johnson: “I don’t know if we know yet, Hugh... I’m for the sovereignty over the bases.” (25:45)
  • Jim Talent: “...We got an agreement... we’ll have more freedom to operate militarily. We’ll have better access to the rare earths... it’s got to be better than what we had before.” (33:58)
  • Josh Kraushauer: "There didn’t need to be a rupture in the US-European relationship to get to the point where we are today.” (39:59)

---

Additional Notable Quotes and Segments

• Hewitt on Jack Smith: “He is the Javert from Les Mis. He ought never to prosecute anyone again.” (10:05)
• Panel consensus on Hollywood: All guests express both dismay at Hollywood’s lack of reach and growing disconnect from audiences.
• Jim Garrity on the decline of cinema: “Movies are either small, independent, made with the almost money, or they are giant blockbusters... The middle class of movies has disappeared.” (48:16)
• Comic relief is provided throughout by confusion over Oscar nominees and playful self-laceration for cultural ignorance.

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Jack Smith congressional testimony: 00:00–10:05
• Oscar nominations quiz with panelists:
  • Noah Rothman: 11:08
  • Eliana Johnson: 19:51
  • Jim Talent: 27:01
  • Josh Kraushauer: 35:37
  • Jim Garrity: 43:09
• Discussion: Will Trump strike Iran?
  • Rothman: 14:34–18:57
  • Eliana Johnson: 22:14–26:16
  • Jim Talent: 30:11–35:10
  • Josh Kraushauer: 38:01–41:00
• Greenland “deal” assessment: 13:00, 25:45, 33:58, 39:59

---

Conclusion

This episode weaves together intense political controversy (the grilling of Jack Smith and the boundaries of investigative power), foreign policy speculation (on Iran and Greenland), and wry cultural observation (the state of Hollywood) with the program’s characteristic mix of seriousness and wit. The show is notable for its direct, combative exchanges and sharp one-liners; regulars spar over the significance of current events, with arguments both strategic and sardonic.

---

Listeners get both a primer on current political drama and a window into the shifting tone of American political and cultural commentary in 2026.

Transcript

[Hugh Hewitt]

Welcome to today's podcast sponsored by Hillsdale College, all things hillsdale at hillsdale.edu. i encourage you to take advantage of the many free online courses there. And of course, a listen to the Hillsdale dialogues, all of [e-mail] or just Google, Apple, itunes and Hillsdale Gloria and Evening Grace America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. On this Thursday, Jack Smith, former special prosecutor of Donald Trump, had his day being prosecuted by the House Oversight Committee today. Here's Jim Jordan of Ohio talking with America's Javert. Jack smith, cut number two. You and Mr.

[Jim Jordan]

Trimmer yield back to you gentlemen.

[Noah Rothman]

Yields back.

[Jim Jordan]

Mr. Smith, is Cassidy Hutchinson a liar? She was their star witness. January six committee. Their star witness in one of those staged and choreographed hearings they paid the former president of ABC News to put together. She was back, the only witness at this special prime time hearing. Tuesday, June 28, 2022, 8:00, clock in the evening. And she told some stories. I mean these were, these were some stories she talked about present. Lunged across the back seat, grabbed the steering wheel, tried to drive the car to the Capitol. And I just want to know, you think she was lying?

[Jack Smith]

Chairman Jordan? My assessment of, of that particular issue is that with respect to the testimony about someone lunge the President lunging towards the driver, my recollection of her testimony about that is that it was secondhand. She said she'd heard that from somebody.

[Jim Jordan]

You familiar with the name Tony Ornado?

[Jack Smith]

I'm sorry?

[Jim Jordan]

You familiar with the name Tony Ornado?

[Jack Smith]

Yes.

[Jim Jordan]

White House Deputy Chief of Operations. Deputy chief of Staff for Operations.

[Jim Talent]

Right.

[Jim Jordan]

You know, remember what he said about.

[Hugh Hewitt]

It.

[Jack Smith]

As I sit here right now, I do not.

[Jim Jordan]

Yeah, he said it didn't happen. How about Bobby Engle? You familiar with that name?

[Jack Smith]

Yes, I am.

[Jim Jordan]

Secret Service agent who was actually in the car that day? You know what he said? He said it didn't happen. And they both said the first time they ever heard this story was when Ms. Hutchinson testified in the primetime hearing as their star witness of the January 6th committee. By the way, do you ever confirm her testimony about this particular incident?

[Jack Smith]

We conducted, as I said before, our own independent investigation of all aspects of the case that we thought was relevant. We attorneys from my office.

[Jim Jordan]

Did you ever confirm it? That's a simple question.

[Jack Smith]

Well, we interviewed her, I should say attorneys in my office.

[Jim Jordan]

Did you ever confirm the President leaping across the seat, grabbing the steering wheel, this whole concoction she brought up in the January 6th hearing, do you ever confirm that?

[Hugh Hewitt]

Right.

[Jack Smith]

We interviewed another first hand witness who was in the car, who did not confirm that that happened.

[Jim Jordan]

But also your deposition to the committee last month, Mr. Smith, you said this. My recollection with Ms. Hutchinson was a number of the things that she gave evidence on were second hand hearsay. You remember making that statement to us last month in the deposition?

[Jack Smith]

I did. And I was referring particularly to what we're talking about now.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

Yeah.

[Jim Jordan]

And you also said Ms. Hutchinson, regarding this particular claim, was a second or even third hand witness. We asked you if you were a defense attorney, how would you handle cross examining her if she was on the witness stand? And you said, if I were a defense attorney and Ms. Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do was seek to preclude her testimony because it was hearsay. You remember saying all that?

[Jack Smith]

Yes, that's correct, sir.

[Jim Jordan]

That's correct.

[Jim Talent]

Right.

[Jim Jordan]

Were you going to put her on the witness stand if you ever got to trial?

[Jack Smith]

We had not made final determinations as to who we were going to call as a witness. We had a large.

[Jim Jordan]

Still considering her.

[Jack Smith]

We had a large choice of witnesses in this case.

[Jim Jordan]

Are you familiar with what Washington Post reporters Carol Lennig and Aaron Davis said in their book? They did his book, 300 some pages book on Chronicle and the whole investigation at the Justice Department. And here's what they said on page 310. They said Jack Smith had wondered whether some of Hutchinson's claims might be relied upon at trial. Still, at one point, Smith told the elections team he wasn't ready to give up on Hutchinson's account. Ultimately, however, Trump administration officials uniformly, fiercely disputed her accounts under oath. Prosecutors on your team told Smith they wouldn't want to use Hutchinson as a witness in court, and Smith agreed. Are Carol Lennig and Aaron Davis, who wrote this, are they lying?

[Jack Smith]

My recollection is that I certainly had not made any final determinations about who we were going to call.

[Jim Jordan]

And that's the point. That is the point. The fact that.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Except Brandon Gill, congressman from Texas, made more points cut number three.

[Jack Smith]

Yes, sir, we did.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

Yes, you did. And the subpoena covered the time period between November 2020 and January 2021, is that right?

[Jack Smith]

I'm sorry, sir, could you say that again?

[Hugh Hewitt]

We're not.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

We're not going to delay like this. The subpoena covered the time period between November of 2020 and January 2021. How many days after Kevin McCarthy was sworn in as speaker did you subpoena his records?

[Jack Smith]

I don't recall, but those two things had nothing.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

It was 16 days after becoming the highest Ranking Republican in the House of Representatives. You subpoenaed his toll records. Do you agree that that might reasonably be considered a violation of the speech or debate clause?

[Jack Smith]

I do not. And I want to be clear that.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

The total you were collecting months worth of phone data on the Republican speaker of the House, the leader of the opposition, right after he got sworn in as speaker, all around the time of a major vote. That sounds like a flagrant violation of the speech or debate clause to me. And I think most people agree with me. And Speaker McCarthy had no recourse, did he? Because you issued a non disclosure order ensuring that neither he normally nor any of the American people knew about these subpoenas, is that right?

[Jack Smith]

The toll record, the non contact toll record subpoenas. We did secure non disclosure orders for those subpoenas.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

You did. And let me ask you, Mr. Smith, at the time you, you secured those non disclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk?

[Jack Smith]

The non disclosure order was based on concerns about.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

Was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk?

[Jack Smith]

He was not.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

He was not. Then why did your non disclosure order refer to him as a flight risk? It says right here, the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from prosecution.

[Jack Smith]

Sir, when securing a non disclosure order, the risks don't have to be associated.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

Think that the speaker of the House. No, this is not your time. This is my time. You think, you think the speaker of the House is a flight risk? You think he's going to hop on a plane and leave the country?

[Jack Smith]

No, no. What I was trying to explain is with respect to a nondisclosure order, the risks aren't necessarily associated with the subscriber to the phone. There's the risks to investigation.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

I think that you were using. This is clearly in reference to. To Speaker McCarthy and you were using clearly false information to secure a non disclosure order to H. Speaker McCarthy and from the American people, the fact that you were spying on his toll records. But I've got more.

[Hugh Hewitt]

More.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

So let's move on. In May of 2023, you also issued subpoenas for toll records of nine U.S. senators and an additional Representative, is that right?

[Jack Smith]

In May of 23 we did issue.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

You did. And there were non disclosure orders in conjunction with those subpoenas as well, right?

[Jack Smith]

That's correct. Consistent with Department policy and law.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

So again, nobody would know what you were doing. The Senators wouldn't. The Representatives would. Wouldn't know what you were doing, is that right?

[Jack Smith]

The toll records that we secured and the non disclosure orders were consistent with.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

Policy and you knew whenever you were doing that that there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause, is that right?

[Jack Smith]

The toll record subpoenas that we secured were with the concurrence of the Public Integrity.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

Your own analysis says that you knew there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. I have it right here. This is an email from John Keller at Public Integrity Section to your team. As you are aware, quote, as you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a member's legislative calls violates the speech or debate clause in the D.C. circuit. That's from your own analysis right there. So you did know, didn't you, sir.

[Jack Smith]

With respect to the item you just put up on the screen? The last sentence states.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

We're going to get to the last sentence.

[Jack Smith]

Okay?

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

We're going to get to the last sentence. And you cite case law in here. Quote, the bar on compelled disclosure is absolute is right. Is that right? Or do you think that you didn't have to abide by that precedent?

[Jack Smith]

To be clear, this is not. This statement is not from my office. This is the statement.

[Hugh Hewitt]

This is.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

This is your justification for those subpoenas and indos that you ordered. This was part of your analysis. It's a cursory analysis. I think it's worth noting. But let's get to that last sentence then, quote. Given my understanding of the low likelihood that any of the members listed below would be charged, the litigation risk should be minimal here. In other words, you're using a novel legal theory which you knew was novel, has never been tested by any court. You're not charging any of these members. Nobody's going to know about it because you issued ndos. Nobody's going to sue about it. So sue this. So who cares? We're going to do it anyways. We walked all over the Constitution throughout this entire process. Chairman, the gentleman's time, members of Congress, and you know it. It's absolutely disgraceful.

[Hugh Hewitt]

It is absolutely disgraceful. It goes on and on. Jack Smith was a rogue prosecutor who did great damage to the Constitution and the political process of the United States. He is the javert from lames. He is. He ought never to prosecute anyone again. He ought never to have prosecuted President Trump. He was unconstitutionally appointed as was held by the district court in Florida, never appealed because the case was dismissed after President Trump won reelection. Jack Smith and his team, a disgrace to justice in the United States. I'll be right back on the Hugh Hewitt Show. Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Noah Rothman is with National Review, where he's a senior writer. Noah, I'm going to go from least important to most important subjects today. First, the Oscar nominations came out. I want to run through the list of the best pictures and just get a yes or no from you whether you've gone to them. Frankenstein?

[Noah Rothman]

No.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Hamnet?

[Noah Rothman]

No.

[Hugh Hewitt]

The Secret Agent? No. Sentimental value? No.

[Noah Rothman]

You might be detecting a Trend.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Sinners?

[Noah Rothman]

Nope.

[Hugh Hewitt]

F1.

[Noah Rothman]

Believe it or not, no.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Train dreams.

[Noah Rothman]

Wanna take a guess?

[Hugh Hewitt]

Train dreams?

[Noah Rothman]

Nope.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Marty Supreme?

[Noah Rothman]

Unsaddly? No. And I kind of do want to see that one.

[Hugh Hewitt]

One battle after another.

[Noah Rothman]

Nope.

[Hugh Hewitt]

And finally. Begonia.

[Noah Rothman]

A big no.

[Hugh Hewitt]

So you're over 10. I've got a lot of good.

[Noah Rothman]

Now, ask me if I've seen the same television Show I've watched 10 times with my wife on the couch at 9 o'.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Clock.

[Unidentified Questioner (likely a Congressman)]

I know I tell you everything that.

[Noah Rothman]

Happens in that one show.

[Hugh Hewitt]

I don't think you're the problem. I think Hollywood's the problem. And I'm going to. I'm going to test out. I have you, Eliana Johnson, Jim Talent, Josh Kroshner, Croshower and Jim Garrity to ask today and me and I only saw F1 Formula 1 race.

[Noah Rothman]

I want to see. I want to see Sinners. I want to see F1 and I do want to see Marty Supreme.

[Hugh Hewitt]

But you haven't. This is why the movie business.

[Noah Rothman]

Well, I'm culturally illiterate. That's. It really is on me to assume.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Well, no, it's not. You're on every day on the Editor. You're right about stuff. They have not drawn you into the theater. That's the problem. You make taste.

[Noah Rothman]

It is their fault.

[Hugh Hewitt]

All right, now, second. Second big issue. Greenland and the deal. I think it's significant. But a lot of people want to say it's nothing. I think, and I'm going to tell you this before you answer, I think they're putting their dislike of the President ahead of the realities of the golden dome. What do you think?

[Noah Rothman]

Yeah, well, listen, it's not nothing, but it doesn't really. It does not seem to be what the President retailed yesterday. He was stipulating that and attributing to Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General, that they had secured some deal for functional sovereignty to be ceded in parts of Greenland to the United States. And I was on with the Times of London today. I've been surveying international media for a long. For a while today and Mark Richard denies it. The Danish government strenuously insists that they had not and would not agree to such a deal. Nobody can confirm that. So we're left with mineral rights and new basing and the deployment of anti missile technology, all of which is very important and very valuable. But I struggle to see how we couldn't have gotten that through a process that was much less hostile, much more deliberative and not so injurious to America's reputation with its allies in Europe.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Yeah, I like the process. I don't mind injuring allies in Europe because I don't think we did. I think their press people did.

[Noah Rothman]

Well, then we do agree. Hugh, you're not saying you like being hostile to Europe for hostility's sake. You're saying that that's just simply not the case.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Yeah, I think it's simply not the case. I think that they've got a lot of people who are wringing their hands and in fact, they're glad they don't have to get into a fight with Trump because Trump would have won and he just did it. The developer way. Developers are not new to me. I've represented them my whole life. That's the developer way. Now the most important thing. Do you believe President Trump is going to order a strike on Iran? And should he?

[Noah Rothman]

I think he should. I think the odds are better than even that he will. I wrote about this today. The President said, you know, on the, at the Davos conference during the peace board presentation, that they want to talk, Iran wants to talk, and we're going to talk to them. And we've heard that before. But it doesn't come to anything. And it does strike me as a feint, given the amount of hardware that we're sending into the Gulf region we have, the Abraham Lincoln, which is deployed from the western Pacific, is going to be joined now apparently by the gerald, the George H.W. bush, which left Norfolk on its way allegedly to the Mediterranean. So we're going to have a lot of hardware as well as support aircraft and combat aircraft like F35. So if there are talks, then we're gonna have a lot of hardware to back it up. But what is there to talk about?

[Hugh Hewitt]

Yeah, I've been cautioned by the program that the Bush might be out on sea trials and might not be going to the Med. So I want to make sure that people understand there's questions about that. I want them to strike simply because a punitive strike, they're not going to get regime change. But we ought to set up a standard. If you murder 15,000 of your own people with machine Guns in the street, you're going to get hit by us because we're the West. That's why I don't think we'll get regime change, but I think we ought to set a standard. What's your argument for doing it?

[Noah Rothman]

Well, I'm typically leery of messaging strikes like that. I think they should have a strategic rationale as well as a tactical rationale. And I think these strikes would have a strategic and tactical rationale beyond that. The President has a self set red line. He has said many, many times that one of Barack Obama's biggest mistakes was not following through in his self set red line in 2012. And I think Barack Obama even agree with the President on that assessment. So he is obligated in my view to do what the Wall Street Journal observed when it published our Gachi's op ed this week, that to make note of the fact that Iran is thumbing its nose at Trump's red line and it's incumbent on him to enforce it or sacrifice his prestige in America's in the process. But I don't think that this is just a messaging strike. If we were to attack besiege IRGC installations, the objective there would be to weaken the regime and reignite the protest movement, which is part of America's overall grand strategy, which is collapsing this regime.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Well, I think the regime is going to collapse on its own. I would blow up Carg island, but I am not a military targeteer and there are people who study where their weakest points are. I don't know what the target list is, but I do.

[Noah Rothman]

Wouldn't that roil the oil markets? Wouldn't that terrify what the administration is going to.

[Hugh Hewitt]

But they're $60 a barrel. I don't want to go too far. And we've got new sources coming on in the United States from Venezuela and from Canada and I don't think they sell to China primarily. The one response I got from again an unnamed person was that you could invite China in to Iran if you did that because they rely so much on Iranian oil and that that's a major escalation with China. I understand, that's why I'm not coming up with it. But I do believe in a purely punitive strike. When a non nuclear Nation mows down 15,000 people, you know, the American equivalent. If we had a real fascist, a real authoritarian that did something like this, that would be 60 to 70,000 people. It's astonishing how many people they killed.

[Noah Rothman]

Yeah, no, it's a massacre. An unspeakable massacre. And it may be ongoing. We just don't have a lot of information still coming out of Iran. But I struggle to see how these protests that were so vehement last week have been completely pacified. So the atrocities are ongoing. But back to Carg island, there are side effects, unintended consequences that can result from the decimation of the Iranian oil program. If we're taking Venezuela offline and we take Iran offline, and that is the goal of our strategy, if we collapse this regime, we don't want a regime that's selling oil and energy products to our competitors like Russia and China. Eventually, China will be squeezed and starved. If our policy is successful, it will be starved of energy. So we should be contemplating what that looks like and not afraid of the outcomes of what that looks like, because that is the objective here, is it not?

[Hugh Hewitt]

Well, I don't think they'd be starved. I think they would have to buy energy on the white market and that the price of oil might increase marginally and it might help our balance of trade. And there's no reason to think that it will become Japan. 1937 to 1941.

[Noah Rothman]

That's the big fear. Yeah, that we shorten the window of opportunity for action in the South China Sea.

[Hugh Hewitt]

And there is no need for that because China, a war would be China's choice. And they have not done the things. They're not ready to go to war with us and they're not ready to take Taiwan, no matter how many demonstrations they have been. Do a Rothman. I'm glad that you are over 10 because it can't get any worse today for Hollywood. Thank you, Noah. I'll be right back. America. Stay tuned. Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. For the first time, I don't know in years, I've missed two commentary podcasts back to back. So my next guest, Eliana Y. Johnson, who's a regular contributor to Commentary, I haven't heard her voice in three days. Eliana is also the editor in chief of the Washington Free Beacon, which you ought to be reading every [e-mail] Eliana Three parts to today's interview. Part number one, 10 yes or no questions because the Oscar list came out number one. Have you seen Frankenstein?

[Eliana Johnson]

Hugh I'll spare you time. I haven't seen anything.

[Hugh Hewitt]

You're 0 for 10.

[Eliana Johnson]

I make up for my 0 for 10 by having seen the Spongebob movie three times with my four year old. Okay, that's about it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Okay, I'll make it Different. Have you heard of the following movie? Frankenstein?

[Eliana Johnson]

Yes.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Hamnet?

[Eliana Johnson]

No, never heard of it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

The Secret Agent.

[Eliana Johnson]

Heard of it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Sentimental Value?

[Eliana Johnson]

Never heard of it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Sinners.

[Eliana Johnson]

Heard of it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

F1?

[Eliana Johnson]

Never heard of it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Train Dreams?

[Eliana Johnson]

Never heard of it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Marty Supreme.

[Eliana Johnson]

Heard of it for sure. My colleague John Potter Hort gave it a rave review. We did talk about that one on the podcast.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Okay, one battle after another now. And Begonia. Now, how bad is Hollywood marketing when you haven't even heard of six of the 10 best pictures of the year?

[Eliana Johnson]

I mean, Hugh, the one movie, I will say that I can't, I have to say I can't even tell you if it was this year was the Bob Dylan movie.

[Hugh Hewitt]

I saw the Bob Dylan. That was two years ago.

[Eliana Johnson]

That's it. The only movie that I've seen in the theater in recent memory.

[Hugh Hewitt]

You're too. The kids are too young for Zootop. Is that the problem?

[Eliana Johnson]

A little bit young. I've been trying to nudge my daughter there and she's been saying, no, I want to go back to SpongeBob. And I did look it up and it said it's more like a 6, 7.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Don't do it. So now I took two 3 year olds to it. Do not do it. Do not do it. All right, next, three films focused on Gaza, war and hostage crisis nominated for Oscars. Israel's Butcher Stain, Children no More where and Are Gone. And then one called the Voice of Hind Rajab about the death of a five year old Palestinian. Do you want to bet which wins?

[Eliana Johnson]

Oh, can all three walk away with awards? Because I think that's what would happen if, if the Oscars could do it. And I look forward to the, the demonstrative protests by the winners while they're up on stage and the, and the absolute silence on the butchery of the Iranian regime.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Yeah, 15,000. I'm coming in reverse order of my questions because you brought it up. Should President Trump strike as a purely punitive measure? I do not have hopes for regime change. I don't want a bombing campaign. I just want to strike them because you shouldn't mow down 15,000 of your people. And will he strike?

[Eliana Johnson]

Well, I think he should strike in an effort for regime change in Iran, not simply as a punitive measure, but because it's in the American interests. And for about the past 10 days, Hugh, I've believed strongly, strongly that the window for American action is not closed. In the days after President Trump issued his threats and the Iranian leaders were sort of thumbing their noses at Him. There were a lot of people saying he drew a red line, he's not enforcing it. That may yet turn out to be true. But I think we're working on a bit of a longer timeline. There's an F15 squadron and aerial refueling tankers heading to the region. And I tend to think President Trump is waiting for the right time here. And at the same time, the conditions that led to these protests, the economic immiseration and the fact that the Iranian currency is not worth the paper that it's printed on are not. Are not changing real problems. And I think, I do think the president is going to pick his moment, and I hope he does.

[Hugh Hewitt]

I think he's going to. But we have to do different kinds of strikes, punish alternative, meaning there's a guardrail here. You don't machine gun your own people. And then regime destabilization, perhaps change, as with Serbia, as with Libya. That would be a sustained air campaign. Do you think he's got the will to do that? I mean, he's got an iron will, but I don't think he's in the bombing campaign business. Do you?

[Eliana Johnson]

I'm not sure. You know, predicting the actions of this president is tough. The latter, the regime destabilization, regime decapitation is obviously more difficult than the former. But I wouldn't put it past this president. And Hugh, I would note the Wall Street Journal report last night that this regime is looking. That this President Trump is looking at regime change in Cuba. So I think we can totally dispute, and I think the two are connected, because what underlies both of these things, as well as the Maduro raid in Venezuela, is that we can totally discard the notion that this president doesn't. Is not concerned with matters beyond our shores. I think he's looking at legacy building, and I think he knows that the way he acts on Iran is intimately connected with his legacy. And when he went out and did that press conference on Maduro announcing that they had captured him, he cited it in a line of foreign policy actions, including the killing of Qasem Soleimani and Operation Midnight Hammer. So I would say now those three things are the things he's proudest of. And he may be looking to add a fourth and a fifth with another strike on Iran and in Cuba. It's clear this is where his mind is, though. And you could add Greenland to that, too.

[Hugh Hewitt]

I am going to. I think Greenland's a big deal, Eliana, and I want your quick take on it because Noah Rothman doesn't think it's a big deal. I think it's a big deal.

[Eliana Johnson]

Oh, you know, I don't know if we know yet, Hugh. On the one hand, the president may have seen the Dow and the markets and climb down with some kind of phony deal. I think that's a point Noah and some of his colleagues at National Review were making. On the other hand, it may be that Rubio and the vice president and others negotiate American sovereignty over bases in Greenland and we really do get a deal for rare earth minerals. I myself, I don't have a real knowledge of where this is going to end up, but I'm for it. I'm for the sovereignty over the bases.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Yeah. I'm for the golden dome and I'm for protecting the 230 mile exclusive economic zone, which US sovereignty over some of the bases would give us the right to patrol and protect. And that's something that I don't think a lot of people know about. The law of the sea. Hey, Eliana Y. Johnson, follow her on exit. Eliana Y. Johnson, go see Bob Sponge Pants again and again and again until you can repeat every line in the movie. Because that's what I did when I was your age. Ileana, good to see you. Thank you. I'll be right back. America. Stay tuned. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Former United States Senator Jim Tallant is the senior fellow at the Reagan Institute for Peace Through Strength. Hello, Jim. How are you?

[Jim Talent]

I am doing well, Mr. Hewitt. How are you?

[Hugh Hewitt]

Good. We're going to play 20 questions. The 20 questions have to do with the 10 movies nominated for best movie of the year by the Academy today. And the questions are, have you heard of it and have you seen it for each movie? Movie number one, Frankenstein. Have you heard of it? Have you seen it?

[Jim Talent]

No and no. And I'm afraid a lot of my answers are going to be along those lines.

[Hugh Hewitt]

All right, number two, Hamnet, Hamnet, Hamnet.

[Jim Talent]

Is that Hamlet misspelled?

[Hugh Hewitt]

No, that's, that's Hamlet with an energy of Hamlet. That's Hamlet with an N in it.

[Jim Talent]

No, Definitely no and no.

[Hugh Hewitt]

All right. The Secret Agent.

[Jim Talent]

No, I, I like the song from the 60s. Secret agent.

[Hugh Hewitt]

That doesn't count for hearing about it. So that's a no on the movie.

[Jim Talent]

I used to jog to that song.

[Hugh Hewitt]

How about Sentimental Value?

[Jim Talent]

No, I haven't seen it. No idea what it is. No.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Sinners.

[Jim Talent]

Sinners? No. Sounds intriguing.

[Hugh Hewitt]

No.

[Jim Talent]

Might catch it on streaming in a couple years.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Here's the best opportunity for Jim crow Game on. F1.

[Jim Talent]

Now, I didn't see it, but I recognized that my wife wanted to see it. Isn't that the one with Brad Pitt?

[Hugh Hewitt]

Yes. There you go. You got one out of. We got one thus far. Train Dreams.

[Jim Talent]

Train Dreams.

[Hugh Hewitt]

No and no.

[Jim Talent]

No.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Marty Supreme.

[Jim Talent]

Marty Supreme. That's draws another blank.

[Hugh Hewitt]

No one know one battle after another. And they're not talking about reconciliation.

[Jim Talent]

I've heard of that one.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Okay.

[Jim Talent]

I saw a couple articles. I saw a couple articles and I actually watched part of a video saying how terrible the movie was.

[Hugh Hewitt]

All right, that's two out of 20, two out of 18. And finally, Begonia.

[Jim Talent]

Begonia.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Yep. I'm not making this up.

[Jim Talent]

Wasn't that a country in an old Marx Brothers movie?

[Hugh Hewitt]

I don't know. But. But go. You're. Oh, you are 220.

[Jim Talent]

You're better, by the way, Fredonia, you're.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Better than Eliana Johnson and Noah Rothman. So at least you've heard of two of these. Jim, what's wrong with Hollywood? I used to go to two movies a week until like five years ago. Before COVID Yeah.

[Jim Talent]

I think it's a combination of economics controlled by people who didn't don't care about the quality of the movies. Whatever you think about the old Hollywood system, I mean, the men who ran it were ruthless, but they really did care about producing good movies. And then, of course, the whole their obsession with woke topics and messaging and the rest of it has really interfered with the creative instincts that they used to have.

[Hugh Hewitt]

So now it's. Let me get to the biggest.

[Jim Talent]

The last movie I saw. The last movie I saw was Godzilla minus one, which was very good.

[Hugh Hewitt]

There you go.

[Jim Talent]

Japanese.

[Hugh Hewitt]

I missed that too. All right, very. From very silly Hollywood to very serious. Should President Iran strike Iran? And will he President Trump?

[Jim Talent]

Okay, I think he should and I think he will. But let me go into the background or the reasoning for that. I mean, the reason to do it. There are two reasons to do it. One is because we said we would, and I think it's important to sustain our credibility. And the second is if it's done properly, it could further weaken the regime. The reason not to do it you is that the rest of the Middle east is really going well now. I mean, we're in phase two, which I think we really have Hamas behind the eight ball. I mean, the Lebanese president just said, you know, Hezbollah's got to disarm, got to leave Syria and Israel are negotiating closer terms. And so, you know the old legal saying, when the judge is going your way, you know, just be quiet and so there's a danger that if we hit Iran, it could disrupt some of those activities, which is one of the reasons, evidently our allies and partners have urged us not to do it. And I think what the president's eventually going to do is hit them in some very targeted way, but something that will hurt them uniquely without disrupting the region. Kind of. When he took out Qaseem Soleimani, when was that? 2000? 20.

[Hugh Hewitt]

20. Yeah. Early 220. Early 220. All right. Now, Jim Talent, Amit Seagal is a very.

[Jim Talent]

That's what I think he'll do.

[Hugh Hewitt]

I hope he hits Kharg Island. But people tell me there are reasons not to. The Amit Seagal, very, very serious Israeli analyst said one of the second order consequences of President Trump obliterating the Iranian nuclear program was to drive Saudi Arabia further away from the Abraham Accords because they no longer need them. I had not considered that before, but Amit's a very good reporter. What do you think about that?

[Jim Talent]

Yeah, I think it's very possible, I believe Dwayne and I discussed that on the pod, that one of the ironic outcomes of the real successes over the last year is that is that the Gulf states have less of a reason. I mean, they're less afraid of Iran now. But personally, and you might want to ask Amit, this is, you know, the Saudis are not stupid and they know what President Trump wants. He wants the Abraham Accords to be expanded, and there are things they want. And so by engaging in this kind of a tactic, being a very reluctant partner in that respect, they're probably hoping to get more. You know, there are other countries besides the United States that are good at pursuing their own interests. We don't see that very much in Europe, but we do see it in the Middle East. So that's what I suspect, because I think MBS wants economic development for the country. He wants stability in the region. He wants to modernize Saudi Arabia. And all of that is advanced by the right kind of agreements with Israel, which may. May not be a formal recognition that doesn't matter that much.

[Hugh Hewitt]

All right.

[Jim Talent]

So I think if we just continue.

[Hugh Hewitt]

So my last question is, what do you make of the Greenland outline as the president described it, provided it's accurate.

[Jim Talent]

I like it. And your producer wrote a. Wrote a great column about it, you know, and because he actually read the National Security Strategy, which in discussing Western Hemisphere, I think mentions five times critical supply chains, the importance of military readiness. This whole episode, this whole exercise for the last year has been about sending a signal that we're, we're very interested in the Arctic and we're going to pursue our claims there, that we're very interested in shoring up our supply chains, and Greenland is an important part of that and that we're going to protect our hemisphere and pursue our own interests. And we got an agreement. I don't know exactly what's in it, but we'll have more freedom to operate militarily. We'll have better access to the rare earths in Greenland, and that's more than we had. So, you know, I don't think President Trump ever really cared about getting sovereignty over Greenland. He wants to integrate Greenland into America's national security strategy for the Western Hemisphere. So I, you know, I'll wait to see exactly what's in it, but, but it's got to be better than what we had before. And I don't think we would have gotten it if we hadn't combined these pressure tactics with the negotiations.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Jim Tellen, Always good to talk with someone who thinks about national security on a daily basis. Jim Talent can be followed on ximtalent. Follow me to the next segment of today's Hugh Hewitt Show. Welcome back, America. Hugh Hewitt, inside the Relief Factor Studio West I don't have to deal with what's coming at Josh Croshaw. Gonna be a bad weekend in the Beltway, Josh, you ready for it?

[Josh Kroshauer]

You know, we haven't had Snowmageddon, as they call it here, in about a decade. So the way the forecasters, you guys, you know, in Ohio, you know that you're, you're used to that kind of snow. But we haven't had more than a foot of snow in a long time.

[Hugh Hewitt]

So I think the snow is better than icy rain. So take the snow. I have a drill. Josh, before we get to the real story, I want to know if you've heard and then seen the 10 movies nominated for best picture. So heard of and seen Frankenstein?

[Josh Kroshauer]

Yep.

[Hugh Hewitt]

No, no and no.

[Josh Kroshauer]

No and no.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Hamnet.

[Josh Kroshauer]

Hamnet. Never even heard of it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

The Secret agent? No. And now sentimental value?

[Josh Kroshauer]

No.

[Hugh Hewitt]

And now sinners.

[Josh Kroshauer]

No and no.

[Hugh Hewitt]

F1.

[Josh Kroshauer]

No. No.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Train Dreams? No.

[Josh Kroshauer]

I also haven't heard of that one, either.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Marty Supreme.

[Josh Kroshauer]

Yes, yes and yes.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Oh, you've seen it.

[Josh Kroshauer]

Yeah, it's very good.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Yeah, I've seen it, too. Okay, so that's a hit, though. One battle after another.

[Jim Talent]

No.

[Josh Kroshauer]

But actually that's on my weekend snow watch list.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Okay, so that's a yes. No. 1. Yes. And Begonia?

[Josh Kroshauer]

No.

[Hugh Hewitt]

No so you're three out of 20 and that's better than Noah Rothman, Eliana Johnson and Jim Talent. So what's that tell you about Hollywood and movies?

[Josh Kroshauer]

Well, the disconnect between what's nominated for the Oscars and what and I, Hugh, I actually try to see some of the arts here critically acclaimed, you and me both. But, but some of the one I had not even heard of, at least half of the, I think three or four of the ones you mentioned, I would want to make a shout out for Song. I'm surprised Song Sung Blue was not nominated because I like that was one of the better.

[Hugh Hewitt]

I know I liked it. But they're not going to nominate things that people like and therefore they're not going to get Oscars and no one's ever going to hear of them. All right. Let me move on if I can, Josh, to the big story. Do you think President Trump is going to strike Iran and should he?

[Josh Kroshauer]

If you asked me that a couple days ago, I would have been more bullish given the comments made by, by the president and a lot of his inner circle. But at Davos, Steve Woodkoff seemed to suggest that they were going to be looking at a diplomatic option. And that rhetoric was echoed by the president this morning in announcing the Board of Peace. And, you know, it just feels like Trump, Trump is very responsive to the headlines in the news, to the visuals coming out of the social media. And it does feel like that. Even though we have moved military assets into the, into the Middle east and we're prepared, more so than we may have been a week ago. It doesn't seem like right now the administration is ready to strike. I admit I could be surprised. The president has surprised me before, but it just doesn't seem based on public comments from both the president.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Yeah. I was going to ask you if you do not remember, because I, I also fell for the head fake last June when Midnight Hammer dropped and I completely fell for the head fake on Operation Absolute Resolve with Maduro. I mean, I just did.

[Josh Kroshauer]

Yeah, Yeah. I mean, look, I hesitate to make predictions for that very reason. And I certainly, I mean, Trump has sort of gone back and forth in terms of his rhetoric in the last week on Iran. But look, there's every bit of evidence that protesters continue to be killed. The human rights disaster that, you know, the horrible atrocities that took place, they're fresh in my mind. But I wonder, given all the news of the last week, whether it was Greenland, whether it was, you know, all the Davos back and forth, whether that's not quite as front and center and the White House's mind.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Now, let me ask you about Greenland, Josh. There are lots of reactions. I thought Trump made Davos great again because it become kind of a joke and he actually made news there and made it relevant. What did you think about the Greenland deal and the Davos trip?

[Josh Kroshauer]

Look, this seems to be a pattern with Trump and not always in the best of ways, foreign policy wise, where we kind of create a chaotic situation, end up backing down, coming up to some compromise and kind of getting back to where we were in square one. We're still kind of learning about the negotiations and the contours of a deal that, that the US had been that Trump had been talking to Mark Ruta, the NATO secretary general, about maybe we have more, some more autonomy over military bases in parts of Greenland. But we are, you know, this is something that could have been handled diplomatically. There didn't need to be a rupture in the US European relationship to get to the point where we are today.

[Hugh Hewitt]

But I don't think, okay, let me argue my case. There wasn't a rupture. There was an upset Francois Macron who nobody cares about. There's an upset EU that has nothing to say about a NATO issue. And the eight members of NATO did not rupture. So I think there's a lot of TDS on display here.

[Josh Kroshauer]

Perhaps, and I think it was unfortunate. I mean, a lot of people are talking about the Canadian prime Minister's Mark Carney's speech, talking about this rupture. And I can't help but think that he's already been trying to improve or build business ties and economic ties to China, which is hard to square. His comments, the more idealistic and strategic comments that Carney made with the Chinese relationship and the inattention to anti Semitism that Canada has been playing in recent years. So, you know, I do think there's a little bit of posturing, a little bit of kind of chest thumping from some of the Europeans. But I also think this is a totally needless provocation. And I think there's no national security, Denmark and NATO and the eu, we're all on pretty much the same page. And I think we, we still are on the same page. Aside from all the threats that Trump made that that freaked the heck out of the Scandinavians and the eu And I don't think that was necessary.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Well said. Josh Kraush, hour, as always. Follow him on XOSH Kroshauer. Stay tuned. I'll be right back. Here on the Hugh Hewitt show. Popular, happy, well rounded kids across America are being exploited online through a sinister scheme that leaves them broken, defeated or worse. January is national Human Trafficking prevention month in the US and to raise awareness, SalemNow.com is offering Sexploit Sexploited in America, the four part docu series from Aga Media at 50% off. Sexploited in America now just [e-mail]. Welcome back, America. That music. Ming's big Jim Garrity is in the house with us. Garrity, the indispensable Jim, as you are my cultural reporter, you write for the Washington Post. You write for National Review. You do the three Marpettini podcast. You're often on the editors podcast for National Review. So you're a man of culture. The Oscars were nominated. The nominations came out this morning. I'm looking for your reactions to the best picture. All right, number one. Frankenstein.

[Jim Garrity]

At least heard of that one. Didn't see it. Don't expect to see it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Hamnet.

[Jim Garrity]

Okay. And I know that's not a typo. You're not mispronouncing it. It actually is an N, not an L. I have a vague. I remember seeing it on the box office display. Didn't see it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

The secret agent.

[Jim Garrity]

That actually sounds good, but I haven't. Haven't seen it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Sentimental value.

[Jim Garrity]

You could be making up that one and I would not be able to tell you whether it's true or not.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Not making it up. Up wouldn't be. Wouldn't be prudent. Not going to do it. Wouldn't do it. Sinners.

[Jim Garrity]

Okay. Heard of that one. Haven't seen it. Heard people raving about it. It's about vampires in the old South. So that one I'm not surprised by. At least it, it permeated some, you know, with Michael B. Jordan as opposed to the other Michael Jordan.

[Hugh Hewitt]

It received 16 Oscar nominations. F1.

[Jim Garrity]

Okay. Actually saw that.

[Hugh Hewitt]

So did I. Really?

[Jim Garrity]

Yes. Really enjoyed it. Kind of almost felt like old fashioned movie making. It's not a groundbreaking story, but just really done. And I saw it right around my birthday. And the theme is about, you know, pursuing greatness but also kind of passing the torch to the new generation. I'll be rooting for that one. I know it's never going to win.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Not a chance. Brad Pitt's in. It's not going to win. Train Dreams.

[Jim Garrity]

Again. You could be making that up.

[Hugh Hewitt]

No, I'm not making it up. Not making up. You haven't seen that? No, no. All right. No. Marty Supreme.

[Jim Garrity]

Okay. Heard of that one? Heard people saying good things about it. Haven't seen it. Have only the vaguest idea of what it's about. Don't. Really. Unlikely to see it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

I have seen it. They were lying to you. One battle after another.

[Jim Garrity]

Heard of that one? I hear from the likes of Kyle Smith, who used to be with us at National Review now over at the Wall Street Journal. Just insufferably overhyped and overdone and the heavy handed political metaphor and all that stuff. Leonardo DiCaprio, you know, to his credit, throws himself into whatever role he's doing. But you know, it's about Trump being bad, so I figured that'll be the.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Oh, I didn't know that. Another reason not to see it. I'd heard of it, but now that I've heard you say that, I won't see it. And then Begonia.

[Jim Garrity]

I feel like I might have heard. So is this about the kidnapping of.

[Hugh Hewitt]

No idea. Never heard of it. All right, so that's the list.

[Jim Garrity]

I have a vague familiarity with it.

[Hugh Hewitt]

So I've seen F1 and Marty Supreme. I've seen 2 out of 10. I liked 1 out of 10, the one that can't win because Brad Pitt's in it. You've seen none. You did see F1. You've seen one out of 10.

[Jim Garrity]

I see one of them.

[Hugh Hewitt]

And you've heard of Sinner, so you've heard of one more than I've heard of. So what's that say about the movies? Or what's that say about you? And what's that say about me?

[Jim Garrity]

Okay, well, what it says about me is that I generally see action movies, superhero movies, you know, stuff, summer movie types. Right. I am not the target audience for most Oscar bait. Doesn't mean I've never enjoyed them. But, you know, we all know what Oscar bait is, you know, where you're playing a character who's somewhat mentally challenged. And I won't use the line from that. Robert Downey Jr. Did.

[Hugh Hewitt]

No, don't use that line. No, no.

[Jim Garrity]

But nonetheless, the idea that, like, you know, often it's someone who's trying to stretch as an actor. Historical dramas, you know, playing anything with.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Daniel Day Lewis in it.

[Jim Garrity]

Yep, yep. Yeah. Like, and here's. And if you, if those movies are your taste, great. I, you know, very rarely have I seen a Oscar winner. Argo, I remember seeing a couple of.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Years ago, kind of, you've got robot action. Do your robot kids go to the movies?

[Jim Garrity]

Not that often. We'll go see Superhero movies. We actually felt pretty good about all three of the ones that came out this year. Superman, Fantastic Four, and Thunderbolts. We did not like. The Captain America one did not work because they're like, we're, you know, we're of the general mainstream consensus that for a long time the Marvel movies were about as much fun as you could have in the theaters. And then they did Endgame, and it's been very hit and miss since then.

[Hugh Hewitt]

They're teenagers.

[Jim Garrity]

Way back in the day, I know.

[Hugh Hewitt]

I have young girls, grandchildren, so my movie options are very limited. I used to be with the Fetching Mrs. Hewitt, a two film a week person, when even when my kids were in the house, we just loved movies. There aren't any movies, Jim. My point is it's collapsed, and I think this list proves that. Am I making too much of a point of it?

[Jim Garrity]

I don't know if the Oscar selections are the most natural measuring stick, but what is indisputable is what they used to call the middle class of movies. Movies that had a budget from like about $15 million to $100 million. A lot of comedies were in this category. A lot of romantic comedies were in this kind of category. That. That's. This basically has disappeared. And that this was where, you know, Will Smith in Hitch would be that kind of movie, you know, with Kevin James or something like that. Right.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Like every Kevin Costner movie ever made.

[Jim Garrity]

Yes, exactly. A western, you know, know that. That basically movies are either, you know, small, independent, made with the almost money, or they are giant blockbusters that are designed to have a theme park at, you know, Universal or Disney or something like that. So here's my kind of movies.

[Hugh Hewitt]

The movies used to form the culture, and it was. My kids grew up on the movies. My grandkids both grew up on the movies. I think. I think I took my daughter to see Titanic 10 times when she was 14 or 13. So we got a minute to the break. We'll come back after. I'll ask you something important. Are they dead? Dead, dead, dead, dead. By streaming and by consensus that the filmmakers have lost their mind, or is it just a bad couple of decades?

[Jim Garrity]

Quote, Billy Crystal in the Princess Bride is only mostly dead. They're mostly dead because it now costs about 20 bucks ahead, at least where I am, to go to the movie.

[Jim Talent]

Movies.

[Jim Garrity]

I, you know, like you. I'd see movies maybe once a week, once every two weeks, but they only cost seven bucks. The more the ticket costs, the more the movie's got to be good, the more the movie's got to be something where you feel really good from the trailer or the commercial or you like the book or something like that. Yeah. It becomes a much bigger risk at 20 bucks ahead.

[Hugh Hewitt]

All right, I've come. I'm coming back with a technical question for Garrity because his kids build robots and they're, they're, they're bound for the school and the Charles that actually learns things. So stay tuned. I'm back with Garrity. The indispensable Jim is my tech consultant. Jim, I have here my iPhone, which is many years old with my Cleveland Browns orange on it, by the way, the jets don't get a quarterback. Sorry. Dante Moore is going home rather than go to the jets, and I'm going to go get a new one today. Can I say to the person at the Apple help desk, I'm sure this has been hacked and has malware on it. I want my contacts, I want my number, and I don't want any malware. Can they make that work?

[Jim Garrity]

Probably not, but they'll try to upsell you something with the much higher caliber spyware you're not going to have. They're not going to have that basic spyware. We're going to give you the premium plus spyware.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Are you telling me I got to get a new phone number in order to dump the spyware? Because we are talking to the ChiComs right now because it's in the studio, and I tell you there's a reason it's not allowed in any building.

[Jim Garrity]

So second time that I was in Ukraine, I ran into Tim Mok, who writes a newsletter news site called the Counteroffensive. Great reporter. Everybody should follow him on Twitter, subscribe to his thing. And he said, you know, he goes through. He was in Ukraine, went to Taiwan. I think he was somewhere else, like Kazakhstan or something. And they tell you if you're going to places like this, your cell phone, you know, you figure this is where they're most likely to try to get spyware in there. And they can do it remotely through wireless signals and stuff like that. So Tim Mock told us he's getting, you know, he goes to some professional, high grade caliber person who can find spyware by foreign intelligence or anybody else who's out there trying to put it onto your phone. And he goes, they do the full review, they do the scan, and he is, he says it comes back clean. And he was so pissed, so disappointed that nobody thought he was worth listening in on. And I kind of feel that kind of way. I Kind of feel like if you took my phone and you said, jim, you've been to Ukraine a bunch of times. No Russian spyware, you've been to Taiwan, Nothing Chinese. I feel a little insulted. I've been told by reliable sources that both of those countries, governments have a file on me. Now, it probably just means a file. Just means they have a paper. We don't like this guy.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Look at what he wrote. No, Jim. I know, I know. I've got spyware. When people come to the house for dinner who are in the government, they make me put it downstairs under a bunch of wooden crates. And then they still don't.

[Jim Garrity]

I believe that you interview the president fairly regularly. I assume that when they're doing that, they not only scan all your recording equipment, they probably frisk you. I don't know if you feel like you've been to the proctologist. I'm just figuring it's like a full check.

[Hugh Hewitt]

But do the Robot Kids help? Do having robot Kids help you figure this stuff out?

[Jim Garrity]

This is not really their specialty, but I will point out. So glad you mentioned it here, because, like, we are now deep, early January is when they get the assignment. So my younger son, I'm just never going to get to see him until the first competition. They are building, building. They are designing. They got electrical stuff to worry about. I'll get to see them, like, maybe a month from now.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Do the lights ever flicker in the.

[Jim Garrity]

House with my younger child?

[Hugh Hewitt]

Did the power fail? Does the light flicker in the house at times?

[Jim Garrity]

Well, thankfully, they're not doing it here.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Oh, God.

[Jim Garrity]

Basically, Northern Virginia. If the power goes out, I'm fairly certain AI will become, you know, sentient. And it's going to happen because of one of these robot projects.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Are you, by the way. 10 seconds. Do all the robot Kids get together? What do they do for fun?

[Jim Garrity]

Oh, this. They're into this. And at some point, I may write an article to make it to world.

[Hugh Hewitt]

You need to write a book. You need to write a book called Robot Kids. There's your title. Thank you, America. Thank you, Adam. Thank you, Harley. Thank you, General Lisa Milan. Hugh Hewitt. Come back tomorrow to the next Hugh Hewitt Show.