Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Some 500 did not think so of -- raw -- judge Andrew Napolitano is here this is outrageous.
And this is lawyers gaming the system for their own possible benefit do you think.
It is outrageous that the legislature of the state of California -- not the free market but the legislature of the state of California decided.
How high these counters should -- Because that's the problem when the government interferes with the free market -- the -- -- better how to serve it's -- -- customer Starbucks.
What -- politicians and legislature yet the politicians in the legislature in California.
Mimicking what happened under George H.
Bush in the congress with the Americans for disabilities act decreed.
Thou shalt not make.
Counters above and whatever it is it's it's a remedies -- range it's not -- -- -- -- -- legislature said that -- -- accountants have to be at least this is yes and it -- on that basis that the lawyers -- so look I dislike these suits as much as you do because they.
They -- the court.
Cost of doing business for everybody.
And because that's a class action.
It encompasses in -- and that a lot of innocent people.
Has bent over backwards more than almost any other company with which the American public feels every day.
To accommodate the unique needs of its customers the only reason this legislation exists is not because a Starbucks but because of the legislature trying to tell Starbucks how to do business.
The legislature as this facilitated this.
One case I think it's conspiracy of lawyers in the legislature in California saying thinking.
Let's make account of this thought you don't consume -- selection USQ would do.
It's viewed as shouldn't have been that he shied away from conspiracy.
You always think of about one point but yet but it -- his may -- -- Just think that it hit it -- I'm moving completely away from Starbucks -- had no connection whatsoever are.
Online it won't mind intelligent service to -- I want my eight spooks when a minute you can react like saying -- -- these machines used in precise -- -- facial expression.
I want the intelligence services of my country to line.
Publicly and in public.
I want the truth to be wrapped in a phalanx of lines as Churchill said.
I want to confuse my enemy not informed them -- strongly that.
Do the statutes against perjury apply to everyone -- officials say the government -- it because general clapper.
General clapper a person's work for the government his entire life and taken out of all the constitution also took an oath to tell the truth.
He could declined to answer.
He -- said congressman I'll answer in another environment where I could discuss these things more freely.
Those would've been lawful.
Truthful answers which wouldn't have signaled anything to the people that all I -- -- much about and that -- -- -- he lied under both my answering no when the answer.
Yes yes Roger Clemens who who spent five million dollars fending off a frivolous prosecution for lying about the contents of his veins if you're allowed to lie and around I don't go much further and I'm not talking about general clapper in his -- principle to appearances before congress though I'm saying that I want to win.
I'm in a battle with terrorists want to confuse them so I don't find guys who are on my side developments and yet we did this this and that under total loss under oath to want to do that because if you meet -- just in all the time this is not going -- lawyer this is this is truth and morality.
Stewart -- -- you who -- -- accept the existence of conspiracy -- can't keep track record I think I've got -- sister outside organized at.
-- have -- had a half up half.
If you make an exception for the obligation to tell the truth under -- for government officials where will that exceptions to try to -- -- that position -- -- of pop pop up all other -- -- line -- -- -- -- -- -- we're -- I -- -- South Africa it judge.
Not that -- performance on my part.
We -- you make your money.
But after the -- Charles -- delivers.
Filter by section