Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / Biden FURIOUS at DOJ, Demands Trump be put in Jail, plus Deep Dive into Colorado Supreme Court Argument

Transcript

Biden FURIOUS at DOJ, Demands Trump be put in Jail, plus Deep Dive into Colorado Supreme Court Argument · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

0:01
Speaker 1: Welcome.
0:01
Speaker 2: It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you,
0:04
Speaker 2: and we have a jam packed show for you today
0:06
Speaker 2: that deals with not only some shocking news coming out
0:09
Speaker 2: of Israel, but also the Supreme Court decision on taking
0:13
Speaker 2: Donald Trump off the ballot in Colorado.
0:15
Speaker 1: We're going to dive.
0:16
Speaker 2: Into both of those, but before we get to that
0:18
Speaker 2: center a story that no one seems to be talking about,
0:21
Speaker 2: and that is some breaking news that apparently Joe Biden
0:25
Speaker 2: was demanding that the Attorney General Merrick Garland put Donald
0:28
Speaker 2: Trump and his opponents in prison. And it's very angry
0:33
Speaker 2: that he didn't start the investigation to Trump earlier so
0:37
Speaker 2: they wouldn't have to I guess be running against him
0:39
Speaker 2: right now for the presidency. Your reaction to this coming
0:42
Speaker 2: out from Politico's reporting.
0:45
Speaker 3: Well, Politico reported quote in recent weeks, President Biden has
0:48
Speaker 3: grumbled aids and advisors that had Garland moved sooner in
0:52
Speaker 3: his investigation into former President Donald Trump's election interference, a
0:56
Speaker 3: trial may already be underway or even if concluded. According
0:59
Speaker 3: to two people granted anonymity discuss private matters, that trial
1:03
Speaker 3: still could take place before the election and much of
1:05
Speaker 3: the delay is owed not to Garland, but to deliberate
1:08
Speaker 3: resistance put up by the former president and his team.
1:11
Speaker 3: In other words, the White House is complaining, damn it,
1:14
Speaker 3: if only Merrick Garland had gone sooner, we could have
1:17
Speaker 3: locked Donald Trump up in jail. But that's not their
1:20
Speaker 3: only complaint. Beyond that, they are furious, volcanically furious with
1:27
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice, with Merrick Garland. Garland, why get
1:31
Speaker 3: this because they haven't been political enough. Well, we have
1:36
Speaker 3: discussed at great length on this podcast how this is,
1:39
Speaker 3: in my judgment, the most partisan and political Department of
1:42
Speaker 3: Justice in history doesn't matter, not enough for Joe Biden
1:46
Speaker 3: in the White House. Here's what Politico reported quote. Joe
1:50
Speaker 3: Biden has told aids and outside advisers that Attorney General
1:54
Speaker 3: Merrick Garland did not do enough to reign in a
1:57
Speaker 3: Special Council report stating that the President had diminished mental faculties,
2:01
Speaker 3: according to two people close to the president, as White
2:05
Speaker 3: House frustration with the head of the Justice Department grows,
2:09
Speaker 3: the report from Special Counsel Robert Hurr ultimately cleared Biden
2:12
Speaker 3: of any charges stemming from handling of classified documents that
2:16
Speaker 3: were found at Biden's think Tank at his home. But
2:19
Speaker 3: HER's explanation for not bringing charges that Biden would have
2:23
Speaker 3: persuaded the jury that he was a forgetful old man,
2:27
Speaker 3: up ended the presidential campaign and infuriated the White House.
2:30
Speaker 1: So get this.
2:32
Speaker 3: They're not particularly happy that the Department of Justice is
2:36
Speaker 3: not indicting Joe Biden. They're not celebrating that, DOJ's perfectly
2:41
Speaker 3: happy to say, Yep, one standard applies to Joe Biden.
2:44
Speaker 3: A totally different standard applies to Donald Trump. Donald Trump,
2:47
Speaker 3: we sent in stormtroopers, we go raid mar A Lago,
2:50
Speaker 3: we prosecute him. But Joe Biden, he does the same thing.
2:54
Speaker 3: Nothing to see here. None of that makes them happy.
2:56
Speaker 3: That's not political enough. The reasoning to J justify that
3:00
Speaker 3: obvious double standard, which we covered on when on Friday's podcast.
3:05
Speaker 3: And by the way, if you didn't listen to Friday's podcasts,
3:08
Speaker 3: you should go back and listen to Friday's podcast because
3:10
Speaker 3: we discussed how in the Special Council Report, the Biden
3:15
Speaker 3: Department of Justice argued that Joe Biden is not competent
3:19
Speaker 3: to stand trial. Now, mind you, that was their explanation
3:22
Speaker 3: for why they weren't prosecuting him. That they couldn't convince
3:25
Speaker 3: a jury that Joe Biden had the mental faculties to
3:30
Speaker 3: be able to form willfulness. That's a remarkable standard. But
3:34
Speaker 3: now the Biden White House is throwing a fit. Well,
3:36
Speaker 3: it's one way or the other. Either he's not competent
3:39
Speaker 3: to be charged or he is, in which case he
3:42
Speaker 3: should be indicted. You can't have it both ways.
3:45
Speaker 2: Well, and that also SAIDs as you and I mentioned earlier,
3:48
Speaker 2: a major precedent. If the president's not being able to
3:51
Speaker 2: be held accountable in their words, for things that he
3:54
Speaker 2: did wrong wilfully taking classified documents, you would assume that
3:57
Speaker 2: same logic would didn't extend to anything that deals the
4:00
Speaker 2: Biden crime family. And then to have it and say
4:04
Speaker 2: this the other way, as you just described it, it's
4:06
Speaker 2: like they believe that this government just does and makes
4:09
Speaker 2: up the rules for them that apply to them in
4:11
Speaker 2: any which way they want, regardless of the law of
4:14
Speaker 2: the land, regardless of the Constitution, regardless of what it
4:18
Speaker 2: does to other people's lives, including now going after Donald
4:21
Speaker 2: Trump and people around him.
4:23
Speaker 3: Well, and that's dangerous. It is dangerous when the Department
4:26
Speaker 3: of Justice becomes thoroughly politicized, when it becomes a weapon
4:31
Speaker 3: to attack your enemies, a weapon to insulate the president
4:34
Speaker 3: and his allies. And when it becomes simply a political tool.
4:39
Speaker 3: And even though Merrick Garland is happy to be thoroughly,
4:44
Speaker 3: thoroughly political, it's not enough for the Biden White House.
4:48
Speaker 3: They want him to literally behave like an extension of
4:52
Speaker 3: the DNC.
4:54
Speaker 2: When you talk about this reporting, will any of this
4:56
Speaker 2: come back do you think to haunt the president here?
4:59
Speaker 2: Especially for the fact that if now Garland's been named
5:02
Speaker 2: in this way publicly and that people are frustrated, is
5:04
Speaker 2: there a chance that Marylyn Garland may now start to
5:06
Speaker 2: stand up a little bit more to the president because
5:08
Speaker 2: now he's taking this heat directly from the president behind
5:11
Speaker 2: the scenes that we're learning about in the news. I mean,
5:13
Speaker 2: that's embarrassing to his legacy at bare minimum.
5:17
Speaker 3: You know, I doubt it. I have no reason to
5:19
Speaker 3: suspect that Merrick Garland has yet to demonstrate any willingness,
5:23
Speaker 3: any inclination to stand up to Joe Biden or political
5:26
Speaker 3: pressure so far, and we're three years in. You know,
5:30
Speaker 3: it's striking that this is also not new. Joe Biden.
5:35
Speaker 3: Remember when he was campaigning, he said he wasn't going
5:38
Speaker 3: to put pressure on the Department of Justice. But here
5:42
Speaker 3: play this clip and then this is a clip from
5:44
Speaker 3: Joe Biden in twenty nineteen, and he's jabbing his finger
5:47
Speaker 3: in Peter Deucey's face in Iowa on reports that President
5:55
Speaker 3: Trump had President had pressured Ukraine's president to investigate the
5:59
Speaker 3: Bile and Crime family. And here was his response. Give
6:02
Speaker 3: a listen.
6:03
Speaker 4: Trump deserves to be investigated. He is violating every basic
6:09
Speaker 4: norm of a president. You should be asking him the question,
6:13
Speaker 4: why is he on the phone with a foreign leader
6:15
Speaker 4: trying to intimidate a foreign leader?
6:17
Speaker 1: If that's what happened, that's a fures what happened. You
6:20
Speaker 1: should be looking at Trump.
6:21
Speaker 4: Trump's doing this because he knows I'll beat him like
6:24
Speaker 4: a drum, and he's using the abuse of power and
6:27
Speaker 4: every element of the presidency to try to do something
6:32
Speaker 4: to smear me. Everybody looked at this, and everybody's looked
6:36
Speaker 4: at it and said, there's nothing there.
6:38
Speaker 1: Ask the right questions about me.
6:40
Speaker 2: Ask the right question. There's there's two things about that
6:43
Speaker 2: equip center. One the queer cognitive coline. Even since yeah
6:47
Speaker 2: in twenty.
6:47
Speaker 3: Didn't speak that clearly. Now, I mean It really is amazing.
6:50
Speaker 3: In just a few years, four years later, he can't
6:54
Speaker 3: articulate even a single, clear, forceful, decisive sentence like he
6:59
Speaker 3: did then.
7:00
Speaker 2: And not only that, but he also saying, you guys
7:03
Speaker 2: need to go after Trump. He's basically telling the media
7:07
Speaker 2: you don't ask me questions about what I've done.
7:09
Speaker 1: He says I've been quered, which by the way, was
7:11
Speaker 1: not true. That's a lie.
7:12
Speaker 2: But he's also saying, like, get in your place, do
7:15
Speaker 2: your job, go after Donald Trump. And now it seems
7:18
Speaker 2: that he's lost some control over this media that he's
7:20
Speaker 2: had control over for the last three plus years.
7:23
Speaker 3: Yeah, that final line there, asked the right questions. His
7:26
Speaker 3: attitude is the corporate media works for him. They're supposed
7:30
Speaker 3: to ask the questions he tells them to, and they're
7:33
Speaker 3: supposed to shut up. As we discussed at length on
7:36
Speaker 3: Friday's podcast, the disastrous press conference Joe Biden did after
7:40
Speaker 3: this special Counsel report, suddenly the media wasn't following orders anymore.
7:45
Speaker 3: They were actually asking real and hard questions, and he
7:48
Speaker 3: was flabbergasted and angry, and to be clear, his efforts
7:52
Speaker 3: to try to push the Department of Justice to be
7:55
Speaker 3: his political attack dog. This is not new. On In
8:00
Speaker 3: March thirty first, twenty twenty three, the New York Times
8:02
Speaker 3: reported the following quote, but he does have opinions in
8:06
Speaker 3: the past. Mister Biden privately told his close circle of
8:09
Speaker 3: advisers that mister Trump posed a threat to democracy and
8:14
Speaker 3: should be prosecuted for his role in the events of
8:17
Speaker 3: January sixth, according to two people familiar with his comments.
8:21
Speaker 3: Amazing the same two people keep popping up. He also
8:25
Speaker 3: told confidence that he wanted Attorney General Merrick B. Garland
8:30
Speaker 3: to stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take
8:34
Speaker 3: decisive action. This has been over and over again, the
8:40
Speaker 3: approach of the White House and the approach of Joe Biden.
8:43
Speaker 3: He believes DOJ and the FBI and all of the
8:46
Speaker 3: machinery of government is part of his partisan apparatus to
8:51
Speaker 3: attack his enemies and to protect himself above all else.
8:55
Speaker 2: I'm going to tell you about our friends of her
8:56
Speaker 2: Patriot Mobile. For ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America
9:00
Speaker 2: because only Christian conservative wireless provider. And when I say
9:04
Speaker 2: only trust me, they're the only one. Patriot Mobile is
9:07
Speaker 2: a great support of the show. That's one of the
9:09
Speaker 2: reasons why I love them. I'm proud to partner with
9:12
Speaker 2: great commanies at sport, conservative Christian values. And when you
9:16
Speaker 2: switch to Patriot Mobile, not only do they give you
9:18
Speaker 2: dependable nationwide coverage, giving you the ability to access all
9:22
Speaker 2: of the major networks, meaning you get the same exact
9:25
Speaker 2: coverage that you have right now. You get that same
9:28
Speaker 2: coverage you've been accustomed to. But without funding the woke left,
9:33
Speaker 2: you may not realize that Big Mobile supports Democrats and
9:36
Speaker 2: Democratic causes and candidates and Planned Parenthood with millions and
9:41
Speaker 2: millions of dollars in donations. That's why when you look
9:44
Speaker 2: at my cell phone the top left, it says the
9:46
Speaker 2: word Patriot. I know every month when I get my bill,
9:49
Speaker 2: I am supporting conservative causes that I stand behind. They
9:53
Speaker 2: actually at Patriot Mobile take about five percent of your
9:56
Speaker 2: bill every month and they give it back to free
9:59
Speaker 2: speech organization, religious freedom organizations, organizations that support and protect
10:04
Speaker 2: the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, as well as
10:07
Speaker 2: our military, our veterans, our first responder heroes, and our
10:10
Speaker 2: wounded warriors. They have one hundred percent US based customer
10:14
Speaker 2: service team that makes switching easy and you can keep
10:16
Speaker 2: your same cell phone number you have right now, keep
10:19
Speaker 2: your same phone if you have that you have right now,
10:22
Speaker 2: or upgrade to a new one. Plus the team will
10:24
Speaker 2: help you find the best plan for your needs and
10:26
Speaker 2: many times it can save you big money every month.
10:29
Speaker 2: So go to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. That's Patriot
10:34
Speaker 2: Mobile dot com slash verdict, or call them and make
10:37
Speaker 2: the switch nine seven to two Patriot. That's nine seven
10:40
Speaker 2: to two Patriot. Get free activation when you use the
10:43
Speaker 2: promo code Verdict that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict.
10:47
Speaker 2: Or call them nine seven to two Patriot. That's nine
10:50
Speaker 2: seven to two Patriot.
10:52
Speaker 1: Senator.
10:53
Speaker 2: One other thing I want to ask you when it
10:54
Speaker 2: comes to this story. Axios came out and they are
10:59
Speaker 2: now basically reporting that it is a five alarm fire
11:03
Speaker 2: inside the White House's press department. Right now, it is
11:06
Speaker 2: a five alarm fire because the White House is now
11:08
Speaker 2: in this impossible position to fight to defend Biden's competency,
11:13
Speaker 2: his fitness to be president of the United States of America,
11:17
Speaker 2: and the damage control doesn't seem to be playing well
11:20
Speaker 2: with new pulling out and the Sunday morning shows. We're
11:23
Speaker 2: talking about this, Joe Biden has lost the media on
11:26
Speaker 2: this front as well, and it matters because his team
11:29
Speaker 2: is scrambling to counter the her report.
11:33
Speaker 1: They say the president.
11:34
Speaker 2: Is an elderly man with a great memory. Right, that's
11:37
Speaker 2: Joe Biden's word, but the report said it's an elderly
11:40
Speaker 2: man with poor memory.
11:42
Speaker 1: You've seen a lot.
11:43
Speaker 2: Of these political stories and how the tides can turn quickly.
11:47
Speaker 2: Is this going to be the undoing of the Biden
11:49
Speaker 2: presidential campaign?
11:51
Speaker 1: Can they overcome this?
11:52
Speaker 2: I know the aids are trying, but it seems like
11:54
Speaker 2: they've completely lost control of the story.
11:57
Speaker 3: Look, this is a political crisis from their perspective. What happened?
12:01
Speaker 3: You know, there's an old line that a gaff in
12:03
Speaker 3: Washington is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. In
12:07
Speaker 3: this instance, the Department of Justice of Joe Biden accidentally
12:11
Speaker 3: told the truth and they're now dealing with with with
12:14
Speaker 3: a political emergency.
12:16
Speaker 1: What to do about it?
12:17
Speaker 3: Biden responded by holding a press conference in which his
12:20
Speaker 3: his meandering, rambling answers confirmed everything said in the Special
12:26
Speaker 3: Council report, and including at one point one of the
12:29
Speaker 3: elements of the report that demonstrated why his memory was
12:34
Speaker 3: so failing. Is it said he could not remember when
12:37
Speaker 3: his son had died. And when Biden is defending that,
12:40
Speaker 3: he points to some rosary beads that that that that
12:43
Speaker 3: he wore, that that were given to him, and he said,
12:45
Speaker 3: we're given to me by where we were given to
12:46
Speaker 3: me by. And then he can't remember, can't remember what
12:50
Speaker 3: the details are about the rosary beads. That, to put
12:55
Speaker 3: it mildly, is not a good look when you're trying
12:57
Speaker 3: to demonstrate that you have a good enough memory to function.
13:01
Speaker 3: If you can't actually remember your response to that attack,
13:05
Speaker 3: that's a problem.
13:06
Speaker 2: It is a problem, and it's going to be one
13:07
Speaker 2: that I think it's going to be a big advantage
13:10
Speaker 2: for Donald Trump moving forward. I want to also get
13:12
Speaker 2: into two other major stories here that need to be
13:16
Speaker 2: on everyone's radar screen.
13:19
Speaker 3: And by the way, let me say something real quick also.
13:21
Speaker 3: So I was yesterday down at mar Lago with President Trump,
13:26
Speaker 3: and I'll tell you I couldn't help but think the
13:31
Speaker 3: contrast between the two men, because even though Donald Trump
13:34
Speaker 3: is just slightly younger than Joe Biden, he was his
13:38
Speaker 3: usual self. He was on the ball and quick and
13:41
Speaker 3: ready to fight and strong. And the contrast to the
13:46
Speaker 3: incredible loss of faculties from Joe Biden. It really struck me.
13:51
Speaker 3: I spent quite quite a while with President Trump last night,
13:54
Speaker 3: and it is night and day, and I think that
13:57
Speaker 3: is going to be evident to the voters every day
13:59
Speaker 3: from now until election day.
14:01
Speaker 2: When you spoke with him quickly, I just want to
14:03
Speaker 2: ask you what was his mood about this election?
14:06
Speaker 1: I mean, he's under fire all over the place.
14:09
Speaker 2: We're going to talk in a moment about the Supreme
14:11
Speaker 2: Court and what's going to happen there with Colorado and
14:13
Speaker 2: your predictions on that.
14:14
Speaker 1: But what was his demeanor?
14:16
Speaker 5: Like?
14:16
Speaker 3: Very positive, very confident. He was in a good mood.
14:19
Speaker 3: He was laughing, he was feeling good. He was he
14:23
Speaker 3: was having dinner at dinner at Marlago. He was having
14:25
Speaker 3: dinner with with with Milania and with with Baron Trump.
14:28
Speaker 5: Barons.
14:28
Speaker 3: Now like six foot eight is really a tall kid,
14:32
Speaker 3: and he was in good spirits all night.
14:35
Speaker 2: That I want to move to Colorado real quick and
14:38
Speaker 2: talk about this, this Donald Trump versus Colorado Supreme Court.
14:43
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court heard the Trump ballot oral arguments. The
14:48
Speaker 2: justices appeared very skeptical of removing him from the ballot,
14:53
Speaker 2: not just in Colorado, but it seemed like in theory
14:56
Speaker 2: anywhere in the country, this is what you had predicted,
15:00
Speaker 2: And you said you were hoping that we would have
15:02
Speaker 2: a Niner decision. Some of these on the left were
15:05
Speaker 2: actually out there attacking Colorado's arguments. Give a recap of
15:09
Speaker 2: kind of now what your thoughts are and what happened
15:12
Speaker 2: in court.
15:13
Speaker 3: Well, I think the oral argument very much confirmed what
15:17
Speaker 3: you and I said on this podcast. The day after
15:21
Speaker 3: the Colorado Supreme Court decision came down. I said in
15:25
Speaker 3: that immediate next podcast, I said, this decision is an outrage.
15:28
Speaker 3: It is lawless, It is completely contrary to the rule
15:31
Speaker 3: of awe of the Constitution, and it is the gravest
15:34
Speaker 3: assault on democracy of our lifetimes. And I predicted then,
15:38
Speaker 3: I said, the Supreme Court will take the case. They
15:41
Speaker 3: will schedule it quickly for decision, for oral argument, they
15:45
Speaker 3: will decide it quickly. They will reverse this decision. And
15:48
Speaker 3: I said at the time, I think there's a very
15:50
Speaker 3: significant chance that they reverse it unanimously. Well, almost every
15:55
Speaker 3: element of that prediction has already come true. They took it,
15:58
Speaker 3: they took it quickly, they scheduled it for an exceptionally
16:00
Speaker 3: accelerated oral argument. It was argued on February eighth. The
16:04
Speaker 3: justices right now, I think, are scrambling to write their opinions.
16:08
Speaker 3: I expect a decision from the Supreme Court within the
16:12
Speaker 3: next couple of weeks. I think as quickly as they
16:13
Speaker 3: can get the opinion finished, they'll get it out. But
16:15
Speaker 3: I do think they will feel some real urgency. I
16:19
Speaker 3: think we will have a decision in the month of February,
16:22
Speaker 3: and I continue to think there is a very real
16:26
Speaker 3: chance that it is a unanimous decision. The oral argument,
16:29
Speaker 3: every one of the justices who ask questions express serious
16:33
Speaker 3: skepticism as to the position of Colorado, and it's worth
16:37
Speaker 3: let's just play play some of these exchanges. So let's play,
16:41
Speaker 3: for example, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson.
16:45
Speaker 6: From rising again in the context of these sort of
16:49
Speaker 6: vocal elections as opposed to focusing on the presidency.
16:54
Speaker 5: Well, two points on that Justice Jackson.
16:56
Speaker 7: First is that, as I discussed earlier, there isn't the
16:59
Speaker 7: same history of states regulating ballot access at this time,
17:03
Speaker 7: So ballot access rules to restrict presidential candidates wouldn't have
17:08
Speaker 7: wouldn't have existed, they wouldn't have been raised.
17:10
Speaker 5: One way or another right.
17:11
Speaker 6: But I'm not making a distinction between ballot access and
17:13
Speaker 6: anything else.
17:14
Speaker 5: We'll understood.
17:15
Speaker 7: But the more broad point I want to make is
17:17
Speaker 7: that what is very clear from the history is that
17:20
Speaker 7: the Framers were concerned about charismatic rebels who might rise
17:24
Speaker 7: through the ranks up to and including the presidency of
17:27
Speaker 7: the United States.
17:27
Speaker 6: But then why didn't they put the word president in
17:30
Speaker 6: the very enumerated list in section three. The thing that
17:34
Speaker 6: really is troubling to me is, I totally understand your argument,
17:38
Speaker 6: but they were listing people that were barred, and president
17:42
Speaker 6: is not there, and so I guess that just makes
17:45
Speaker 6: me worry that maybe they weren't focusing on the president.
17:49
Speaker 6: And for example, the fact that electors of vice president
17:54
Speaker 6: and president are there suggests that really what they thought was,
17:58
Speaker 6: if we're worried about the charismatic person, we're going to
18:01
Speaker 6: bar insurrectionist electors, and therefore that person is never going
18:06
Speaker 6: to rise.
18:07
Speaker 7: This came up in the debates in Congress over section three,
18:10
Speaker 7: where Reverty Johnson said, why haven't you included president and
18:14
Speaker 7: vice president in the language? And Senator Moral responds, we
18:18
Speaker 7: have look at the language any office under the United
18:21
Speaker 7: States yes.
18:21
Speaker 6: But doesn't that at least suggest ambiguity and this sort
18:25
Speaker 6: of ties into Justice Kavanaughs point. In other words, we
18:28
Speaker 6: had a person right there at the time saying what
18:32
Speaker 6: I'm saying. The language here doesn't seem to include president.
18:36
Speaker 6: Why is that? And so if there's an ambiguity, why
18:39
Speaker 6: would we construe it to as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out
18:45
Speaker 6: against democracy.
18:47
Speaker 7: Well, Reverty Johnson came back and agreed with that, reading
18:50
Speaker 7: any office is clear.
18:51
Speaker 5: The Constitution says about twenty times.
18:53
Speaker 6: No, I'm not going to die. So let me just
18:56
Speaker 6: say so, your point is that it's that there's no
18:59
Speaker 6: ambiguity with having a list and not having president in it,
19:03
Speaker 6: with having a history that suggests that they were really
19:06
Speaker 6: focused on local concerns in the.
19:07
Speaker 1: South considered she wasn't having it at all.
19:12
Speaker 3: Yeah, looks there are times at Supreme Court arguments where
19:16
Speaker 3: justices try to hide where they're coming from. That's not
19:19
Speaker 3: one of them. That's one of the central arguments being
19:22
Speaker 3: made by Trump. It's one of the central arguments that
19:25
Speaker 3: I made in the amicus brief that I filed on
19:28
Speaker 3: behalf of some one hundred and seventy members of Congress,
19:31
Speaker 3: which is that President of the United States is not
19:34
Speaker 3: enumerated in Article fourteen, Section three and does not fall
19:38
Speaker 3: within the broader and more general terms. And that is
19:41
Speaker 3: emphatically what she's saying. Now, give a listen to Justice
19:46
Speaker 3: Gorsicch and he's coming every bit as hard.
19:49
Speaker 2: Before I do that, I want to tell you about
19:50
Speaker 2: Blackout Coffee. I mentioned it earlier, And if you want
19:53
Speaker 2: the best cup of coffee that you're going to get
19:54
Speaker 2: in the morning without the woke left agenda, you've got
19:58
Speaker 2: to check out Blackout Coffee ere one hundred percent committed
20:01
Speaker 2: conservative values. From the sourcing of the beams to the
20:04
Speaker 2: roasting process, customer support and shipping. They embody true American
20:09
Speaker 2: values and they accept no compromise on.
20:11
Speaker 1: Taste or quality.
20:12
Speaker 2: There's a lot of coffee comanies out there that are
20:14
Speaker 2: really woke. Stop giving your money to leftist companies and
20:18
Speaker 2: get yourself the best cup of coffee you can get
20:21
Speaker 2: with a hardcore conservative group of individuals that started it.
20:25
Speaker 2: One hundred percent great coffee, one hundred percent America, zero
20:29
Speaker 2: percent woke agenda. Go to Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict.
20:33
Speaker 2: That's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Vertict and use a promo
20:38
Speaker 2: code Vertict for twenty percent off your first order. I
20:41
Speaker 2: start my day with Blackout Coffee every day.
20:43
Speaker 1: And I love it. Be Awake, not Woke.
20:46
Speaker 2: Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict. Promo code Vertict for twenty
20:51
Speaker 2: percent off your first order Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict.
20:55
Speaker 2: All right, take a listen real quick to Justice Neil
20:58
Speaker 2: Gorschitz at the Supreme Court, back and forth with Colorado's attorneys.
21:03
Speaker 8: He speaks about disqualification from holding office. You say he
21:07
Speaker 8: is disqualified from holding office from the moment it happens, correct,
21:12
Speaker 8: but nevertheless it operates. You say that there's no legislation necessary.
21:18
Speaker 8: I thought that was a whole theory of your case,
21:20
Speaker 8: and no procedures. It happens automatically.
21:23
Speaker 7: Well, certainly you need a procedure in order to have
21:25
Speaker 7: any remedy to enforce the disqualification.
21:28
Speaker 8: Which I under that's a whole separate question. That's the
21:30
Speaker 8: day fact of done. More here, Okay, put that aside.
21:34
Speaker 8: He's disqualified from the moment self executing done. And I
21:40
Speaker 8: would think that a person who would receive a direction
21:44
Speaker 8: from that the president, former president, in your view would
21:48
Speaker 8: be free to act as he or she wishes without
21:51
Speaker 8: regard to that individual.
21:53
Speaker 7: I don't think so, because I think again, the the
21:55
Speaker 7: officer doctrine would nevertheless come into play to say this.
21:58
Speaker 8: Is now the fact that that doesn't work, mister Murray,
22:01
Speaker 8: because the fact the officer is to ratify the conduct
22:04
Speaker 8: that's done afterwards and insulate it from judicial review.
22:08
Speaker 9: Put that aside. I'm not going to say it again.
22:10
Speaker 9: Put it aside, Okay.
22:11
Speaker 8: I think justice leaders ask a very different question, and
22:14
Speaker 8: more pointed one and more difficult one for you, I understand,
22:17
Speaker 8: but I think it deserves an answer. On your theory,
22:21
Speaker 8: would anything compel a lower official to obey an order
22:27
Speaker 8: from in your view, the former president.
22:31
Speaker 7: I'm imagining a situation where, for example, a former president
22:34
Speaker 7: was you know, a president was elected and they were
22:36
Speaker 7: twenty five and they were ineligible to unless.
22:39
Speaker 8: We're talking about sections, and please don't change the hypothetical. Okay,
22:44
Speaker 8: Please don't change the hypothetical. I know I like doing
22:46
Speaker 8: it too, but please don't do it.
22:48
Speaker 9: Okay.
22:48
Speaker 8: The point I'm trying to make is he's disqualified from
22:51
Speaker 8: the moment he committed an insurrection. Whoever it is, whichever
22:55
Speaker 8: party that happens.
22:57
Speaker 9: Boom, it happened.
23:00
Speaker 8: What would compel And I'm not going to say it again,
23:02
Speaker 8: So just try and answer the question. If you don't
23:04
Speaker 8: have to answered fair enough, we'll move on what will
23:06
Speaker 8: compel a lower official.
23:08
Speaker 9: To obey an order from that individual?
23:10
Speaker 7: Because ultimately we have we have statutes and rules center
23:14
Speaker 7: for many people that made me have never heard oral
23:17
Speaker 7: arguments before.
23:18
Speaker 2: There's no cameras in the court, but there is this audio.
23:21
Speaker 2: This is what I would refer to as a beat down.
23:24
Speaker 3: Yes, look that was brutal. And the basic back and
23:28
Speaker 3: forth we're hearing is typical of oral arguments. You know,
23:31
Speaker 3: people think of a Supreme Court argument and they often
23:33
Speaker 3: imagine some grand oration. They imagine, you know, doctor King,
23:39
Speaker 3: I have a dream. They imagine, you know, John F.
23:42
Speaker 3: Kennedy giving some rousing speech. But that's not what Supreme
23:46
Speaker 3: Court argument is. It is typically two lawyers standing there.
23:51
Speaker 3: Usually they have thirty minutes each, and they are laying
23:55
Speaker 3: out arguments as to where why their side should prevail.
23:58
Speaker 3: And almost the entire argument consists of the nine justices
24:02
Speaker 3: asking questions and asking very difficult questions. And you're hearing
24:05
Speaker 3: that back and forth, and it shows the weaknesses of
24:08
Speaker 3: the arguments. Now, in that instance, Justice Gorsa just saying,
24:10
Speaker 3: look to the Colorado lawyer, your theory is the instant
24:14
Speaker 3: and insurrection happens, and a president participates in it that instant,
24:18
Speaker 3: that president is no longer eligible to be president, and
24:22
Speaker 3: in fact he cannot hold the office instantaneously. And also
24:26
Speaker 3: your theory is that it is self executing, which means
24:30
Speaker 3: Congress does not need to pass any legislation to get
24:32
Speaker 3: forced to it, to give a procedure to it. It
24:35
Speaker 3: just in the ether instantaneously makes him you're not president anymore.
24:39
Speaker 3: And so he's asking him, well, if by operation of
24:43
Speaker 3: the Constitution, in that instant he's not president, why would
24:46
Speaker 3: anyone in the government listen to him from that moment on?
24:50
Speaker 3: And the lawyer had no answer to that. He couldn't
24:54
Speaker 3: give any He tried to dodge, he tried to change
24:57
Speaker 3: the hypothetical. That did not go, well, yes, that's not
25:01
Speaker 3: what you put on your resume one day.
25:03
Speaker 1: If you're arguing on behalf the Colorado voters.
25:05
Speaker 2: The part where he's like, I know what you're trying
25:07
Speaker 2: to do here, but don't do that again.
25:08
Speaker 1: Stop it.
25:09
Speaker 2: If you can't answer move on. That's the beat down
25:11
Speaker 2: at the Supreme Court.
25:13
Speaker 3: Yeah, and here listen to a little bit more from
25:15
Speaker 3: Justice Gore such on a similar line of questioning.
25:19
Speaker 9: That this court is held.
25:21
Speaker 8: You're not contesting this or asking us to revisit that
25:24
Speaker 8: decision in Thornton or term limits or whatever you want
25:26
Speaker 8: to call it, that it has to come from some
25:29
Speaker 8: federal constitutional authority.
25:30
Speaker 5: No, we are not your on it. Okay.
25:32
Speaker 8: And here we're not talking about the qualifications clause. Right,
25:37
Speaker 8: nobody's talking about whether he's thirty five years.
25:40
Speaker 9: Old or natural borns, about whatever. Right, not an issue, okay.
25:44
Speaker 8: We're talking about something under the fourteenth Amendment and Section three.
25:49
Speaker 8: So that's where you have to find your authority.
25:51
Speaker 9: Right.
25:52
Speaker 7: We find our authority in an Article two in state's plenary
25:55
Speaker 7: power to run their.
25:56
Speaker 8: Election federal election. But this is for a federal office.
25:58
Speaker 8: It has to come from the content Institution. And you're
26:01
Speaker 8: seeking to enforce Section three.
26:04
Speaker 7: We're suggesting that in their broad power to determine them
26:08
Speaker 7: to select presidential electors in any manner they see fit,
26:11
Speaker 7: they can take account of Section three and apply Section three.
26:14
Speaker 9: Could they do it without Section three?
26:16
Speaker 8: Could they disqualify somebody for a you know, on whatever
26:20
Speaker 8: basis they wanted outside of the qualifications clause.
26:24
Speaker 5: That would run into term limits.
26:26
Speaker 8: We think so, right, So it has to come back
26:28
Speaker 8: to section three. And if that's true, how does that
26:32
Speaker 8: work given that section three speaks about holding office, now
26:36
Speaker 8: who may run for office. There's a point mister Mitchell
26:39
Speaker 8: was making earlier, and I just wanted to give you
26:40
Speaker 8: a chance to respond to it, because it seems to
26:42
Speaker 8: me that you know that you're asking to enforce in
26:45
Speaker 8: an election something context a provision to constitution that speaks
26:51
Speaker 8: to holding office. So it's different than the qualifications clause,
26:55
Speaker 8: which is all about who can run and then serve.
26:58
Speaker 7: Yeah, I don't know that it is for other qualifications
27:01
Speaker 7: for office. Similarly, talk about eligibility for the office. There's
27:05
Speaker 7: nothing unconstitutional about a thirty year old trying to get
27:08
Speaker 7: on them.
27:09
Speaker 8: Except for this disability can be removed right under section three.
27:12
Speaker 9: That's what's different about it.
27:14
Speaker 2: I mean, he's not letting up there. And these are
27:16
Speaker 2: really not that hard a questions. It's just when you
27:19
Speaker 2: have not a lot to back it up in Colorado,
27:23
Speaker 2: you're in trouble.
27:24
Speaker 3: Well, they are hard questions because Colorado's argument is stupid.
27:29
Speaker 3: It's just not right. It's not what the Constitution says.
27:32
Speaker 3: You had four partisan Democrat justices in Colorado who hate
27:37
Speaker 3: Donald Trump, and they hate Donald Trump so much that
27:40
Speaker 3: they're willing to say to the voters of Colorado, you
27:43
Speaker 3: don't get to vote for him. I hate him so much,
27:46
Speaker 3: I'm scared you voters might choose to vote for this man.
27:51
Speaker 3: So I'm going to take him away. But it does
27:53
Speaker 3: not have a basis in the text of the Constitution,
27:56
Speaker 3: which is why Colorado's position is going to lose, all.
27:59
Speaker 2: Right, which, by the way, is why I have to
28:01
Speaker 2: play Quarence Thomas, one of your favorite justices here going
28:04
Speaker 2: back and forth with Jason Murray, and he asked a
28:08
Speaker 2: very simple question, and it's one that was just brilliantly
28:12
Speaker 2: done by Clarence Thomas, and I want to get your
28:14
Speaker 2: reaction to it.
28:15
Speaker 1: Listen to this.
28:17
Speaker 10: The concern was that the former Confederate States would continue
28:21
Speaker 10: being bad actors, and the effort was to prevent them
28:26
Speaker 10: from doing this. And you're saying that, well, this also
28:28
Speaker 10: authorized states to disqualify candidates. What I'm asking you for,
28:34
Speaker 10: if you are right, what are the examples?
28:37
Speaker 7: Well, your one of the examples are states excluded many
28:40
Speaker 7: candidates for state office, individuals holding state offices.
28:44
Speaker 5: We have a number of published cases of states.
28:47
Speaker 10: I understand that, I understand the states controlling state elections
28:53
Speaker 10: and state positions. What we are talking about here are
28:57
Speaker 10: national candidates. I understand you look at Phoner or Foot,
29:04
Speaker 10: Selby Foot or McPherson. They all talk about, of course,
29:09
Speaker 10: the conflict after the Civil War, and there were people
29:12
Speaker 10: who felt very strongly about retaliating against the South, the
29:18
Speaker 10: radical Republicans, but they did not think about authorizing the
29:22
Speaker 10: South to disqualify national candidates.
29:26
Speaker 9: And that's the argument you're making.
29:28
Speaker 10: And what I would like to know is you give
29:30
Speaker 10: is do you have any examples of this?
29:34
Speaker 7: Many of those historians have filed briefs in our support
29:37
Speaker 7: in this case, making the point that the idea of
29:40
Speaker 7: the fourteenth Amendment was that both states and the federal
29:43
Speaker 7: government would ensure rights, and that if states failed to
29:45
Speaker 7: do so, the federal government certainly would also step in.
29:49
Speaker 7: But I think the reason why there aren't examples of
29:51
Speaker 7: states doing this is in idiosyncratic one of the fact
29:54
Speaker 7: that elections worked differently back then.
29:57
Speaker 5: States have a.
29:57
Speaker 7: Background power under Article two tenth Amendment to run presidential elections.
30:03
Speaker 7: They didn't use that power to police ballot access until
30:06
Speaker 7: about the eighteen nineties, and by the eighteen nineties everyone
30:10
Speaker 7: had received amnesty and these issues had become moot.
30:13
Speaker 2: I mean, it's amazing that Colorado took it this far,
30:16
Speaker 2: because to me, this seems like there's a decent chance
30:19
Speaker 2: this could be exactly what you thought.
30:21
Speaker 1: It could be a unanimous decision or even an eight
30:24
Speaker 1: to one.
30:25
Speaker 3: Well, and to underscore that, so we played. Obviously, Justice
30:28
Speaker 3: Thomas and Justice Gorsich are conservatives. But let's listen now
30:33
Speaker 3: to Justice Elena Kagan. And remember what I said at
30:36
Speaker 3: the outset, which is that I believe this had a
30:39
Speaker 3: very good chance of being unanimous. I think the Chief
30:41
Speaker 3: Justice desperately wants it to be unanimous, and I think
30:44
Speaker 3: the way it gets to be unanimous, in particular, is
30:47
Speaker 3: the Chief Justice goes to Elena Kagan, who I think
30:50
Speaker 3: is the smartest of the liberal justices. She was the
30:53
Speaker 3: former dean of the Harvard Law School. She was former
30:56
Speaker 3: Solicitor General of the United States. She's very very smart.
31:00
Speaker 3: Listen to Justice Kagan asking the Colorado lawyer Jason Murray questions.
31:04
Speaker 2: If you're like me, you probably start off your morning
31:06
Speaker 2: with a really good cup of coffee. And if you
31:08
Speaker 2: don't get that good cup of coffee, you're probably a
31:10
Speaker 2: little irritable. Now, look, I start my morning early. I
31:12
Speaker 2: start on the radio at seven AM. I have got
31:15
Speaker 2: to be awake and be in a great place to
31:18
Speaker 2: get the show going. And if I don't have a
31:20
Speaker 2: cup of coffee, it's a problem for me. Now, when
31:22
Speaker 2: I get my cup of coffee in the morning, I
31:24
Speaker 2: want to make sure it's not a woke company that's
31:27
Speaker 2: getting my money.
31:27
Speaker 1: You know which woke companies I'm.
31:30
Speaker 2: Talking about right now that are in the coffee business,
31:33
Speaker 2: And that is why I want you to know about
31:35
Speaker 2: an incredible brand, Blackout Coffee. They are one hundred percent
31:39
Speaker 2: committed to conservative values. This coffee is one hundred percent
31:43
Speaker 2: America and zero percent woke.
31:46
Speaker 1: The world maybe up in flames.
31:48
Speaker 2: Bidenomics is a complete and total disaster, but it doesn't
31:51
Speaker 2: ruin my day because I could start my day with
31:54
Speaker 2: an America first cup of Blackout Coffee. You need to
31:57
Speaker 2: try them, and I'm going to give you a way
31:58
Speaker 2: to try them and save money while doing it. From
32:01
Speaker 2: sourcing the beans to the roasting process to customer support
32:04
Speaker 2: and shipping. They embody true American values and they accept
32:08
Speaker 2: no compromise on taste or quality.
32:10
Speaker 1: And that's one thing that's important for me.
32:13
Speaker 2: I want a premium cup of coffee in the morning,
32:16
Speaker 2: and that's what I get every day with Blackout Coffee. Now,
32:19
Speaker 2: let me save you some money so you can try
32:21
Speaker 2: Blackout Coffee because once you switch, you'll never going to
32:23
Speaker 2: go back to that woke coffee you're drinking. Now, go
32:26
Speaker 2: to Blackoutcoffee dot com, slash verdict, use the promo code
32:30
Speaker 2: vertict for twenty percent off your first order.
32:33
Speaker 1: Yeah, twenty percent.
32:34
Speaker 2: Off Blackoutcoffee dot com, slash vertict.
32:38
Speaker 1: Be awake, not woke.
32:39
Speaker 2: That's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash vertict promo code vertict. Take
32:44
Speaker 2: a listen to this very interesting back and forth between
32:48
Speaker 2: Justice Kagan and the Colorado lawyer Jason Murray.
32:51
Speaker 7: Justice Kavanaugh, there has to be some process for determining
32:54
Speaker 7: those questions, and then the question becomes, does anything in
32:57
Speaker 7: the fourteenth Amendment say that only cat Ungress can create
33:00
Speaker 7: that process? And Section five very clearly is not an
33:04
Speaker 7: exclusive provision.
33:05
Speaker 5: It says Congress shall have power.
33:07
Speaker 11: It maybe put most boldly, I think that the question
33:10
Speaker 11: that you have to confront is why a single state
33:13
Speaker 11: should decide who gets to be president of the United States.
33:17
Speaker 11: In other words, you know, this question of whether a
33:19
Speaker 11: former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again
33:24
Speaker 11: is just say it. It sounds awfully national to me.
33:29
Speaker 11: So whatever means there are to enforce, it would suggest
33:32
Speaker 11: that they have to be federal national means. Why does
33:36
Speaker 11: you know if you weren't from Colorado when you were
33:38
Speaker 11: from Wisconsin, or you were from Michigan, and it really,
33:43
Speaker 11: you know, what the Michigan Secretary of State did is
33:46
Speaker 11: going to make the difference between you know, whether candidate
33:50
Speaker 11: A is elected or Candidate B is elected.
33:53
Speaker 7: Matt seems quite extraordinary, doesn't it, no, your honor, because
33:56
Speaker 7: ultimately it's this court that's going to decide that question
33:59
Speaker 7: a federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the nation.
34:03
Speaker 7: And certainly it's not unusual that questions of national importance
34:07
Speaker 7: come up.
34:08
Speaker 11: Well, it's suppose this court would be saying something along
34:11
Speaker 11: the lines of that a state has the power to
34:13
Speaker 11: do it. But I guess I was asking you to
34:15
Speaker 11: go a little bit further and saying why should that
34:17
Speaker 11: be the right rule? Why should a single state have
34:21
Speaker 11: the ability to make this determination not only for their
34:25
Speaker 11: own citizens, but for the rest of the nation.
34:28
Speaker 7: Because Article two gives them the power to appoint their
34:31
Speaker 7: own electors as they see fit. But if they're going
34:34
Speaker 7: to use a federal constitutional qualification as a ballot access determinant,
34:39
Speaker 7: then it's creating a federal constitutional question that then this
34:43
Speaker 7: court decides and other court's other states. If this Court
34:47
Speaker 7: affirms the decision below determining that President Trump is ineligible
34:50
Speaker 7: to be president, other states would still have to determine
34:53
Speaker 7: what effect that would have on their own states law
34:56
Speaker 7: and state procedure.
34:57
Speaker 2: I mean if we affirmed I mean Center, even she
35:02
Speaker 2: someone you would expect would be on the side of
35:03
Speaker 2: Colorado not really having it either.
35:06
Speaker 5: Yeah.
35:06
Speaker 3: Look, and as I said, I don't think any justices
35:10
Speaker 3: are going to vote with Colorado. I think we're going
35:11
Speaker 3: to see in all likelihood of unanimous decision. And she's
35:15
Speaker 3: focusing on you know, earlier we played Katanji Brown Jackson,
35:18
Speaker 3: and she was focusing on the fact that that president
35:21
Speaker 3: is not an officer that has specified in the Fourteenth Amendment,
35:24
Speaker 3: Section three. Justice Kaige's pointing out, well, why does one
35:28
Speaker 3: state get to do this? And if one state gets
35:29
Speaker 3: to do it, couldn't another state do something different? What
35:31
Speaker 3: do you do with that? And let's let's do one
35:34
Speaker 3: other clip which emphasizes that point. And you remember we
35:38
Speaker 3: did an entire podcast talking about the amicus brief that
35:41
Speaker 3: I filed. And this was an argument that I made
35:44
Speaker 3: on behalf of one hundred and seventy members of Congress,
35:46
Speaker 3: and I think it's a really powerful argument. Let's listen
35:49
Speaker 3: to Justice Alito asking about that argument in particular.
35:53
Speaker 12: Thank you, Thank you, Counsel Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, I
36:00
Speaker 12: suppose there's a country that proclaims again and again and
36:03
Speaker 12: again that the United States is its biggest enemy.
36:08
Speaker 13: And suppose that the President of the United States, for
36:11
Speaker 13: diplomatic reasons, think that it's in the best interests of
36:15
Speaker 13: the United States to provide funds or release funds so
36:20
Speaker 13: that they can be used by that country. Could a
36:24
Speaker 13: state determine that that person has given aid and comfort
36:29
Speaker 13: to the enemy and therefore keep that person off the ballot.
36:33
Speaker 5: No, you're on earth.
36:34
Speaker 7: This Court has never interpreted the aid and comfort language,
36:36
Speaker 7: which also is present.
36:38
Speaker 3: So that's another enormous problem. With Colorado's argument, which is
36:43
Speaker 3: that if Colorado is able to throw Donald Trump off
36:46
Speaker 3: the ballot, you're going to see other states act. You're
36:48
Speaker 3: going to see red states throw Joe Biden off the ballot.
36:51
Speaker 3: And the hypothetical that Sam Alito asked, it's a very
36:54
Speaker 3: good hypothetical. He's obviously talking about Iran, and Iran is
36:59
Speaker 3: led by an Eyela who chanced death to America, who
37:02
Speaker 3: has murdered hundreds upon hundreds of servicemen and women, American
37:07
Speaker 3: servicemen and women, who's the biggest funder of state funder
37:10
Speaker 3: of terrorism in the world. And Joe Biden has flowed
37:14
Speaker 3: one hundred billion dollars to the IYAHTOLA. Now, as Justice
37:18
Speaker 3: Alito pointed out, Biden argues it's for diplomatic reasons. But
37:23
Speaker 3: under the argument of Colorado, you could some other state
37:27
Speaker 3: could say, well, no, we conclude you're giving aid and
37:29
Speaker 3: comfort to our enemy, so Joe Biden is off the ballot.
37:32
Speaker 3: And the lawyer's answer was just well, no, no, no, no,
37:36
Speaker 3: that's a different provision. So no, no, we like Joe Biden,
37:39
Speaker 3: so you can't do that. I think that demonstrates that
37:43
Speaker 3: the theory behind this decision is insupportable, and it leads
37:47
Speaker 3: to chaos, and it fundamentally leads to judges battling each
37:52
Speaker 3: other to decide elections rather than the voters deciding elections.
37:57
Speaker 3: And so I'm going to reiterate, I think the chances
38:00
Speaker 3: that the US Supreme Court reverses this decision are one
38:04
Speaker 3: hundred percent, and I think the chances are significant more
38:09
Speaker 3: likely than not that the decision will be unanimous, and
38:13
Speaker 3: I think we will get it this month, the month
38:15
Speaker 3: of February.
38:16
Speaker 1: It's going to be very interesting to watch. Don't forget.
38:18
Speaker 2: As always, we do this show on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays.
38:22
Speaker 2: Make sure you hit that follow button if you're listening
38:24
Speaker 2: on Apple or subscribe or auto download button wherever you
38:28
Speaker 2: get your podcasts, and we do a week in review
38:32
Speaker 2: if anything you miss that. We talked about biging the
38:34
Speaker 2: week on Saturdays as well, so if you want to
38:36
Speaker 2: get that as well, it is auto downloadable as at
38:39
Speaker 2: any time. Just hit that button wherever you get your podcasts,
38:43
Speaker 2: and Senator and I will see you back here on
38:44
Speaker 2: Wednesday morning,