The Autopen Plus the Epstein Files

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
There's a development in the anti Trump lawsuit that the
State of California brought against Trump for his deployment of
the California National Guard without Gavin Newsom say so. And
I think this is what Gavin Newsom desperately needs. I've
talked about this before, I had an article about it

(00:21):
in National Review. I think this is Newsom's last shot.
I think fighting Trump on immigration stuff is Newsom's last
chance to get some kind of political relevance and to
maybe shift the narrative on him, to get people to

(00:42):
forget about his actual, you know, defining record, which is
being a not very good governor, having this large catalog
of non partisan coded failures, failures that it doesn't matter
if you're a liberal, it doesn't matter if you're a conservative.

(01:03):
They're bad, They're really bad, heavily criticism worthy failures. We
had horrible wildfires in twenty nineteen, twenty twenty. We had
horrible wildfires again in twenty twenty five, after he had,
you know, five years to think about the problem, addressed
the problem, work on the problem, and it didn't help
the new housing construction. There wasn't enough of it being done.

(01:23):
In twenty nineteen when he took office, there's still not
enough of it being done. Homelessness was bad in twenty nineteen,
it's worse than twenty twenty five, and he spent twenty
four billion dollars on it with no trackable results, you know,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Newsom has
problems where it's either it's just something bad that no
one likes, or he flip flopped. You know. He says

(01:48):
that boys playing girls' sports is deeply unfair, but he
does nothing to change the policy at the California Department
of Education when the Trump administration presses them on it,
and now they're getting sued. So he has all of
these policy failures, and I think if he wants to

(02:12):
win the Democratic primary, he's got to change the narrative
because otherwise, all the other figures on that Democrat primary
debate stage, whenever they have their first you know, primary debate,
it'll probably be in November of twenty twenty seven, December
of twenty twenty seven, something like that, they're going to
rip him to shreds. So Newsom, I think that's why

(02:41):
he jumped head and feet first into this lawsuit against
Trump for Trump's deployment of the National Guard. He has
to try and even there was all this this, well,
is Kevin Newsom's going to try and get himself arrested.
Newsom should want to get arrested. I think what Newsom
needs to do, I guess his best remaining shot anyway

(03:04):
at the twenty twenty eight nomination is to make himself
the country's leading anti Trump martyr. And he very intelligently.
I mean, I mean, it's not rocket science or anything.
And it's not all his decision. I'm sure it was
Rob Bont's decision in part. And again I'm not crediting

(03:26):
them too much. It's again, it's not rocket science to
do this. But they file the lawsuit against Trump, not
in a court in the Los Angeles area. They file
the lawsuit in the Northern District of California, which is
the federal district, I guess basically because it involves the

(03:47):
California National Guard, Newsom was able to do the lawsuit
pretty much anywhere in California. So he files the lawsuit
in the Northern District of California, which is the most
liberal judicial district in all of California, one of the
most liberal judicial districts in the entire country the Northern

(04:07):
District of California. So for those who don't know the
federal court system for your first level of your lawsuit,
So if you're bringing a claim that's under federal law
or some kind of interstate claim, you sue in federal court.
For most other things you see in state court. The
federal court system is broken up into different regions of

(04:29):
the country. If you have a smaller state, your whole
state might just be one region or a district as
it's called, so the District of North Dakota, the District
of Montana. Okay. If you have a larger state, your
state might be divided up into multiple districts. We in

(04:51):
Fresno live in the Eastern District of California, which I
think also includes like Sacramento. There's the Northern District of California,
which is San Francis going to the Bay Area. There's
the Southern District of California. There's the Central District of California,
which has some of Los Angeles, Southern District of California,
whi's different parts of Los Angeles, and the judges within

(05:15):
all the federal district courts are nominated by a president
and confirmed by the Senate, just like a Supreme Court
justice or an appellate court justice, like on the First
Circuit Court of Appeals, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
et cetera. We in California, we are we live under
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ninth Circuit Court of

(05:38):
Appeals is the appeals court. They hear the appeals from
all the district courts in California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Hawaii, Alaska,
a bunch of western states. Okay, So Newsom files this
lawsuit in the Northern District of California, and it just

(05:59):
so has happens that the Northern District of California is
maybe the most left wing judicial, the most left wing
federal district court in America. There are sixty five judges
who hear cases in the Northern District of California. All

(06:20):
but two of them were nominated by Democrat presidents. There
are two judges who are like on senior status, which
means they're kind of quasi retired that they don't take
a full docket. So it's usually that's reserved for older
judges who serve for you know, X number of years.
So there's one George W. Bush judge and one George HW.

(06:43):
Bush judge in the Northern District of California. All the
other judges, all the other judges are Democrat appointees. The
judge who got assigned to Newsom's lawsuit about the California
National Guard is none other than the brother of long
time time left wing Supreme Court Justice Stephen Brier. This

(07:04):
is Charles Brier. He's literally Stephen Brier's brother. And Stephen
Brier was indisputably, I think, the leading liberal on the
Supreme Court from I don't know, from for a pretty
large stretch there until he finally retired. He retired I

(07:28):
think in twenty twenty two, but for the prior you know,
at least decade plus, Brier was sort of indisputably like
the senior liberal, the senior most ideological, the kind of
leading intellectual light of the left wing of the Supreme Court.

(07:49):
And I think he's he was, certainly over time, I
guess he kind of got eclipsed by Elena Kagan, who's
certainly the Court's leading liberal light today, the only certainly
the smartest of the three liberal justices on the Court,
Elena Kigan Briar is so, anyway, the judge handling this

(08:15):
case is Stephen Bryer's brother, the most liberal Supreme Court
justice has a brother who's also a federal judge in
San Francisco. All right, so Charles Bryer is hearing this case,
and Charles Bryer issues immediately after the case is filed
and Newsome slash Rob Bonta, the Attorney General. They seek

(08:37):
a temporary restraining order to stop the president from deploying
the National Guard, which let's just get into how crazy
that is. The president is in charge of the military.
The California National Guard is part of the military. The
president also has total authority to protect federal build and

(09:00):
federal employees indisputably, and it seems that and so what
the president was doing with the deployment of the National Guard.
The President wasn't deploying the National Guard to arrest protesters
in Los Angeles. The President was deploying the National Guard
to protect federal buildings and to protect and federal personnel.

(09:28):
That's all it was. Okay, it wasn't worth sending out
the National Guard to arrest immigrants. No Ice is lawfully
detailed to do that. The National Guard was just there
to protect buildings and stuff. So Briar's ruling on this

(09:53):
was took everybody by surprise for how wildly partisan and
extreme it was, and to grant a temporary restraining order
for it was also really extreme. So what is a
temporary restraining order? When you file a lawsuit making a
claim that the government is somehow violating, making some claim

(10:16):
that someone is inflicting some kind of harm on you,
and you make the claim that this harm that is
being committed against you is so great and the damage
is so irreparable, and you have such an obvious likelihood
of succeeding on the merits that you're asking the judge

(10:37):
for a temporary restraining order basically to enjoin to stop
your opposing party from doing this bad thing to you.
And the temporary restraining order, the timetable for it is
very short. You file your evidence, your brief for why

(10:58):
you want the judge to issue the temporary restrain training order.
The judge usually has to rule on it within a
very narrow time frame. The other side might get a
very narrow window in which to respond, and the judge
has to make a ruling very quickly about basically, okay,
do we impose a temporary restraining order to stop whatever
the harm that's being alleged here for the duration of

(11:20):
the lawsuit, because the idea of being well, look, I
can't just wait out the whole lawsuit while this person
is inflicting this harm. I'm losing money. There's irreparable harm
being done. If this is allowed to continue for the
whole duration of the lawsuit, I need the judge to
act quickly. Well, the idea that a tro would be
granted in this situation seems crazy. I mean, the president

(11:43):
has pretty clear authority to direct the military. So Judge
Brier got overturned. So Briar grants this temporary restraining order,
saying that Trump cannot deploy the National Guard basically because
I think that the ordinary means of deploying the National

(12:03):
Guard is that the president does it through the governor
of that state and knew some sord he never didn't
do it. I refused, so he can't do it, which
is like, okay, well, this is overstepping. The governors don't
have veto power. This is like a sort of like
an administrative thing. But the governor is like the mouthpiece

(12:27):
communicating it. But you know they have a ministerial role,
not a decisive role, judges. The governor of a state
doesn't have veto power over the president and the president's
decision to deploy the national guard. Case in point, Alabama
was refusing to integrate their schools in violation of the

(12:48):
various civil rights acts. So President Kennedy deployed the Alabama
National Guard over the objection of the governor of Alabama. Okay,
so you don't need the governor designed off anyway. Now,
the judge in this case again, Judge Charles Bryer, Stephen

(13:12):
Brier's brother, he got smacked down for that, for his
granting of that tro by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Okay,
so mildly chastened. He's still, though, assigned to the case.
He's still handling this case of the state of California

(13:33):
suing the United States saying that they can't deploy the
National Guard. And what does Briar do. Briar wants to
hold a trial about whether or not the Trump administration
is violating what's called the posse Comatatus Act. Okay, so

(13:58):
what is the posse commatatus Act. Passcomitatus Act was signed
in eighteen seventy eight by Rutherford B. Hays, And it's
a law. It's a federal law that limits the power
of the federal government to use federal military personnel to
enforce domestic policies. Okay, So it's sort of this limitation

(14:24):
the federal government puts on the deployment of the military.
It basically it originally only applied to the Army. Then
in nineteen fifty six, it got applied to the Air Force.
In twenty twenty one, twenty two, it got expanded to

(14:45):
the Navy, the Marines, and Space Force. Okay, so it
doesn't limit the Army, National Guard or Air National Guard
from under state authority from acting in the law law
enforcement capacity within its home state or an adjacent state
if invited by that state's governor. The Coast Guard is

(15:08):
kind of exempted from all this because the Coast Guard's
main thing is kind of policing the coast and busting
up drug dealers, okay, trying to bring in dope through
America's ports. All right. So the argument here is Trump
is using the military to do police work in a

(15:30):
way that's inappropriate under the Posse Comitatus Act. This is
silly again. What was Trump using the National Guard for?
He was using the National Guard to protect federal buildings
and federal personnel. That's it. He obviously he wasn't using
the National Guard to arrest people. He wasn't using the

(15:50):
National Guard to detain people. On ICE's behalf, I think
it's obviously within the scope. But what does Judge Briar do.
Briar said, you know, California makes this claim in their
lawsuit that the Trump administration is acting in violation of

(16:10):
the Posse Comitatus Act. So Briar decides to grant a
trial over this question. What do you have a trial for?
A trial is when you have disputed questions of fact. Okay,
if both sides agree on the facts, you don't have
to have a trial. If you have a lawsuit where
someone's alleging some kind of violation and both sides completely

(16:34):
agreed all the stated facts, there's actually not a factual dispute,
then you don't need a trial. A lot of times
in criminal law you need a trial because it's the
defendant saying no, I didn't shoot that person. It's the
prosecutor saying yes, you did shoot that person. Will we
have a disagreement on the facts, we have to have

(16:55):
a trial. Let's have a jury decide what happened. Now,
this is, for the most part, a legal disagreement between
Trump and California Gavenwsom. It's not really a factual disagreement.
No one's really disagreeing on the fact But what Brier

(17:15):
wants to do is basically, have both sides be presenting
what the National Guard's doing and pretend a have this big,
long drawn out affair. When we return, I'm going to
explain why the long drawn out of fair is precisely
what Gavin Newsom wants. Why Gavin Neusom should be doing
cartwheels right now. That's next on the John Girardi Show.

(17:37):
In the lawsuit between Trump and California, Gavin Newsom and
Rob Bonto bring a lawsuit to stop Trump from deploying
the California National Guard. The judge in the case, the
super left wing Charles Bryer, brother of former Supreme Court
Justice Stephen Bryer, is granting a trial to assess the

(17:59):
fact to determine whether or not the Trump administration violated
this law called the Posse commatatu sect. Now, I think
this is ridiculous. I don't think there's actually much of
a factual disagreement. Well maybe there is, I don't know.
It doesn't seem like there is about what the Trump
administration is doing. I think Trump using the National Guard

(18:27):
to protect federal buildings and federal personnel does not violate
the Passikommatatus Act. Possi Commatatis Act deals with basically, don't
have the military do police work. And that's not what
the military is being asked to do. The military is
not being asked to detain people on behalf of ice.

(18:49):
They're not being asked to do deportations or anything like that.
They're just there to protect federal buildings and federal personnel. Okay,
So I just don't think that it constitutes anything that
violates the Possi Coomatatites Act. But it's not even really
the merits of this that I think is important. It's
the fact that there's going to be a trial. Newsom

(19:14):
is probably Gavin Newsom is probably doing cart wheels right
now because this is the exact kind of thing he
wants and needs. Right As I've written and reiterated on
this show, Gavin Newsom can't run for president really on
the strength of anything he did as governor, because he

(19:36):
was not a good governor. He's still not. He has
just failure after failure after failure, and non partisan failure
after non partisan failure. So he needs to change the narrative.
He needs to make this not if he's running for
president in twenty twenty eight. It can't be about his record.
It has to be about him as the shining Night

(19:59):
here to save the Democrats. How Why Because he's the
guy who stood up to Trump. He's the guy who
fought Trump. He's the guy who fought against Trump in
this no King's sort of thing. I don't know if
the No King's slogan has already kind of fizzled out,
by the way, But that's what Newsome wants to be.

(20:23):
He wants to be the martyr, victim, fighter, warrior, king,
the brave, you know, one of the three hundred Spartans
in Thermopolis, standing there in the breach, fighting against the
forces of evil. That's what he wants to be. And

(20:45):
the way he does it is with a prolonged, protracted
legal fight against Trump on favorable terrain the northern District
of California, and Judge Briar's courtroom is his THERMOPYLI he's
got favorable for making this great, this great stand and

(21:06):
what Judge Briar is doing, Briar is granting a trial
again on the idea on the claim that Trump, by
deploying the National Guard violated the Posse Commatadis Act. If
you have a big, long trial, and I'm sure they're
going to try to put every camera they can in
that court, it allows Newsome to win rhetorical point after

(21:28):
rhetorical point after rhetorical point because Judge Briar is clearly
dead set on he Judge Briar clearly hates Trump. He
doesn't think anything Trump did with this was good. And
there's no way that Banta and Newsom are going to
lose this case or are going to lose this trial.

(21:52):
So Newsom will be able to trumpet. Look at what
we Look at what the judge in this case found,
Look at how we you know, look at there's more
and more the evidence in this televised trial that I'm
sure CNN and MSNBC will be rushing to have cameras
in the courtroom. Look at what we've done. It's this
constant photo op for Newsome for something that is really

(22:17):
still first and foremost on most Democrats' minds, which is
stopping Trump, fighting Trump, opposing Trump. That is still the
number one issue. If Newsom is the best in that
regard in the minds of most Democrat primary voters, that
washes away a multitude of sins. They won't care as

(22:38):
much that he never got an inch of the high
speed rail train completed. They won't care as much that
he gave medical to illegal aliens and then had to
shamefacedly withdraw it because he didn't have enough money in
the state coffers to do it. They'll forget about the
wildfires and the homelessness and all that, or at the
very least, that's the best shot Newsom hats all right.

(23:01):
When we return, I want to talk about some immigration stuff,
the asylum system and some kind of sort of the
unfair back and forth whiplash of American immigration policy. That's
next on the John Girardi Show. The biggest whiplash back
and forth on American immigration policy between Trump Biden Trump

(23:27):
was with how we dealt with asylum claims. So I
want to break it down and there's a certain aspect
of how Trump is dealing with asylum claims and I'm
not actually crazy about and I think it's this unfairness
that is kind of I don't know, it's crying out
for a congressional solution with a law that honestly takes

(23:53):
more than the fifty votes that were acquired for the
most recent reconciliation. Build one big beautiful bill. And this
is a problem that I don't think the one big
beautiful bill solves. And it's a problem that's going to
be right back at it if a Democrat wins in
twenty twenty eight, Okay, and that will have that we'll

(24:13):
have another whiplash from Trump, Biden, Trump to whoever else. Okay,
if a Democrat wins in twenty twenty eight, let's say
it's AOC, We're going to see this whiplash of Trump, Biden,
Trump AOC. All right, asylum claims. What's an asylum claim?
How has this system been abused under Democrat presidents? All Right? Normally,

(24:39):
if you want to immigrate to the United States, you
apply for some kind kind of visa, some kind of
work visa, and you try to get on a necessary
track for eventually getting naturalized or eventually getting a green card,
or you know, there's a normal process. However, some people
wind up at our border in more dire circumstances where

(25:06):
they don't have time to ask for permission to get here,
and they got to get here. The classic example is Florida.
All of a sudden, we see someone on a raft
of a raft made out of old fifty seven Chevy
tires that are all lashed together, and a dehydrated Cuban

(25:27):
flops onto the shores of Miami Beach. He says. Police
come up to him and said, this guy immigrated here illegally.
They bring him in front of immigration authorities and they say, look,
what are you doing here? You don't have permission to
be in this country. The guy says, listen, I didn't

(25:47):
exactly have a choice. I was in Cuba and Fidel
Castro was gonna kill me and my whole family. So
we took some tires, we lashed them together, we made
this little raft. We floated ashore. We're here in Miami Beach.
I'm sorry for breaking American immigration law. I had bigger
problems to deal with. I would like to make a
claim of asylum. Please that's what asylum is. Okay. Someone

(26:14):
is facing some kind of extreme danger back home, they
don't have other options, and they are fleeing to the
United States to try to get asylum. So we have
an orderly legal process for how to assess an asylum claimant.

(26:39):
We got to see if what they're saying is actually
true or are they trying to game the system, because
I mean, basically the thought is, if you make an
asylum claim, it's kind of a way of bypassing the normal,
longer process of attaining some kind of legaliency in the

(27:00):
United States and the ability to work here. So but
you know you can't. So you can't just dismiss out
of hand an asylum claim. Either, this person is saying
they were gonna get killed by Fidel Castro. What are
we going to do. We can't just send them back
without considering their asylum claim. So what do you do? Well,

(27:22):
Federal law says when someone comes to a point of
entry making an asylum claim, they are to be detained.
That's what federal law says. They're to be held in
detention until their asylum claim can be heard by an
immigration judge. Okay, and there's this whole you know, trials, processes,

(27:43):
et cetera for assessing an asylum claim. So the process
under American law is more or less reasonable, more or
less fair. You know, No, it's not just a free
ticket into the United States if you show up and
say the word asylum. No that you can't just cut

(28:05):
the line of the normal American immigration process. We don't
want people making asylum claims who just want to come
to America because there's less crime, even or who just
want to come to America because there's more economic opportunity. Well,
everyone wants to come to America because there's more economic opportunity.
Lots of countries have worse crime than the United States.
We don't extend asylum to all of those people. Asylum

(28:27):
is reserved for people in really serious dire situations. Again,
you're fleeing Cuba because because the castros are going to
kill your family. Now, the problem is that that's precisely
how people have been using the asylum system, and it's

(28:49):
because of Democrat policies. Now, well, remember what I said
that federal law says someone who's made an asylum claim
is to be detained until their claim can be hurt.
Here's the problem we don't have enough beds to actually

(29:13):
enough detention facilities to actually hold all the people making
the asylum claims. We have this huge number of people
making asylum claims and we don't have enough beds to
hold them all. So what do we do with them? Well,

(29:34):
you have a couple of options. The Trump administration's solution
was remain in Mexico. Okay, if you're making an asylum claim,
you have to stay in Mexico while we wait while
until your turn comes up for us to hear your
asylum claim. So we actually there's sort of a twofold problem.

(29:56):
One we don't have enough beds. Two we don't have
enough immigration judge. Okay, so each immigration judge has a
backlog of about one hundred gazillion asylum claim cases that
they have to hear that they're not going to get to.
You know, if you're just getting into the line of
having your asylum claim heard, your hearing isn't going to

(30:17):
be for another two years or something, all right, And
why do we have so many asylum claimants? We have
so many asylum claimants because people think it's a way
to bypass the normal immigration process. Most of the people
making these asylum claims, are making phony asylum claims. They're
making them for economic reasons. They're not making them because

(30:37):
of grave risk of personal harm reasons. And you've also
got people making asylum claims from like Central American countries
who walked all the way through Mexico, much of which
is safe. Not all of it, certainly, but there are
a lot of safe parts of Mexico, and maybe Mexico

(30:58):
just doesn't want to take these people. Mexico is busy
are about demanding that America have an extremely porous border
because it's a huge source of income back into Mexico
and sort of a release valve for Mexico to have
all their sort of more dissatisfied citizens go away from
Mexico rather than stay in Mexico and affect them kind

(31:18):
of change. But they also have sort of punitive measures
that they take sometimes for their sometimes for their southern border. Anyway, Yeah,
you have these people passing through many parts of Mexico
that are quite peaceful to get to the United States,
all right, So that there are all these abuses to
the asylum system. So you have this huge backlog of cases.

(31:38):
People are supposed to be detained until their asylum claim
is heard, we don't have enough beds, we don't have
enough judges. As a result, we have this backlog cases.
So what do you do well? The Trump solution was
have them remain in Mexico. The Biden solution was to
parole these people from their detention that they're post to

(32:00):
have under the law and allow them into the United States.
So this person and so they allowed the asylum system
to genuinely be the cut the line, get in America

(32:20):
free and easy system. Hi, i am here making an
asylum claim. Why, oh, someone the cartel said they would
kill me in my hometown. The cartel did not say
that they would kill this person in their hometown. Oh okay, okay,
Well you've made your asylum claim. You downloaded the CBP

(32:43):
one app as you were walking up here, as you
were about to cross the border. While you were still
in Mexico. We had you download the CBP one app.
We preauthorized your parole from your statutorily mandated detention during
the time frame in which you were supposed to be detained,

(33:04):
so until we could hear your claim, your asylum claim.
So you're free. You're free to go go into the
United States. Welcome to America. And with that procedure, millions
and millions and millions of people got into the United
States and didn't show up for their asylum court date. Okay, oh,

(33:30):
come into the United States and just you know, be
sure to show up for your court date in two years.
Oh yeah, we'll definitely come back to you know, yeah,
we'll definitely be there for that. And meanwhile, this person
has gotten into the country and god knows where they went.
Maybe they went to Chicago, maybe they went to New York.
Maybe they went to Los Angeles. Maybe they went to
San Francisco. You maybe they went to Fresno. You have
no idea where this person is. Now. Trump had reversed

(34:01):
that back with the re establishing of the Remain in
Mexico policy. Trump is doing some things that I think
can long term, really really help alleviate this problem. One,
increasing the number of detention beds for people who are
making asylum claims so that they can stay somewhere and

(34:23):
actually be detained so they don't either have to remain
in Mexico or have to go into the United States. Two.
Massively expanding the number of federal immigration judges. This can help.
This will help clear the backlog of asylum claims and
allow people's asylum claims to be heard more quickly. Okay,

(34:44):
so these were two urgently needed things that the OBBB does. However,
it's just my fear again that you know, this, this
parole thing that Biden did, there's no clear legal authority
Biden had to parole people from their needed detention. And
that was the heart of it was Biden was breaking

(35:06):
the law allowing these people into the country, and states
weren't able to stop him because it was sort of
they didn't really have standing to sue, and it was
sort of this insoluble problem that Biden was able to
do this and no one really had good legal grounds
to sue him to stop him from granting this parole.

(35:28):
So that's still I think an open question. And if
AOC is elected president in twenty twenty eight, I think
we're going to go right back to this same problem.
Yes there will be more immigration judges. I don't think
she'll fire the immigration judges. Yes there'll be more detention beds.
I don't think she'll deconstruct the detention beds. But I
could see a president AOC taking the posture of I

(35:49):
think it is inherently immoral to detain anybody as part
of the immigration process. And as a result, I'm going
to parole everyone who's detained, everyone who's supposed to be detained.
The CVP one app will be right back up again.
People will be able to get the app. AOC doesn't

(36:09):
mind the Biden immigration policies. She doesn't mind it at all.
So in short, I think the OBBB is gonna help,
but I could still see this whiplash. Now when we
return the practical effect of this whiplash and the one
Trump immigration policy I haven't really been thrilled with. Next,

(36:30):
on the John Girardi Show, there's a human side to
the bad immigration policies of the Biden administration, and then
the flip flopping between Republican and Democratic administrations where real
human beings get kind of caught in the middle. So
people came to the border, they made asylum claims. Biden,
I think unlawfully granted these people parole in order to

(36:56):
let them into the United States. So these people are
in the United States, they have a piece of paper
saying you need to return for your asylum claim hearing
at a certain date. Well, the Trump administration just communicated
to all these people, we're actually changing the terms of
your parole. You got to get out of the country

(37:16):
in a week, seven days. And I got to say,
this is kind of unfair. Look, no one's angrier at
you know, Biden granting these people parole in the first
place than me. I don't think it was lawful, But
these people are acting in reliance on what the United
States government told them. You're allowed to be in the country.

(37:40):
Come back for your hearing in a year. Look, if
they don't show up for their hearing, bust them, or
you can change the terms of their parole. Say okay,
we're changing the terms of your parole. You need to
get out of here in forty five days. You need
to get out of here in even thirty days, sixty days,
whatever it is. Seven days. I mean, you're going to
turn these people into illegal aliens, whether they want to

(38:01):
or not. It's going to be too difficult for them
to uproot their whole lives and get out of there
in seven days. And I think this is the unfairness
of America's immigration problems. We need to actually pass a
real law with sixty votes in the Senate to resolve
these immigration problems that'll do it John Girardi Show, See
you next time on Power Talk