10-10-25 - 8am - SCOTUS Elections Case

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Holy Michael, you've got more grammar Nazis in your audience
in Argentina in the nineteen nineties.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
That's funny.

Speaker 3 (00:10):
That is funny. That's actually that's a that's a good
comparison too. And the sad part is I is one
of them.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
I is one of them. That's that's that makes it
even worse.

Speaker 3 (00:24):
The US Supreme Court is getting ready to hear a
really important case about American elections. And no, it's it's
it's not a case to do what we wish could happen,
and that is, you know, like maybe throwing illegitimate office
holders out by their hair. But if this case goes

(00:44):
the right way, it could have a very strong preventive effective,
speaking of which, just use the word preventive. You know,
there are two ways preventative and preventive. Do you know that, dragon,
I prefer the extra tea? Do you preventative? Yes, that's

(01:06):
a good one. Bet everybody null on that one for
a moment. Anyway, it might have this preventive effect by
making sure that these kind of detailed evections of these officeholders, uh,
maybe don't need to be undertaking in the future. Well
what I what do I mean by that, Well, let's
go back to the beginning. Well, but when I was

(01:29):
a kid, Judicial Watch Tom Fitten's Judicial Watch. I subscribe
to Judicial Watches newsletters and the website. It probably is
one of the most one of the most effective organizations
in the entire country at exposing and pushing back on corruption.

(01:51):
And they do it primarily through litigation. But I would
also add that it's it's well, it's all forms of litigation.
It might be Freedom of Information Act requests, it might
be you know, filing a meekus briefs in the US
Supreme Court, or intervening in other cases. But they use

(02:15):
the legal system in a way that when we bitch
and moan about lawfare and everything that the left does
in terms of lawfare, judicial Watch is out there on
its own, not on its own, because there's lots of
other organizations that do this too, But I would put
Judicial Watch in the top ten of using the court

(02:39):
system to obtain justice, to shine the light, the disinfecting
sunlight on all of the crap that goes on behind
the scenes. Well, they've struck again with oral arguments for
the lawsuit titled Michael J. Boast, Laura Pallastrini and Susan

(03:02):
Sweeney versus the Illinois State Board of Elections and Bernadette Matthews.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
Huh, what the hill's up, Michael.

Speaker 3 (03:10):
That's a lawsuit that's in response to a previous decision
finding that this Republican representative, Congressman Boast, who's a Republican
from Illinois's twelfth district, and the plaintiff electors lack standing
to sue the state of Illinois over its policy of

(03:31):
counting ballots received as late as two weeks after election
day so long as they are postmarked in time. Kind
of like some other states we know looking around. So
as long as you got your ballot postmarked on election day,

(03:54):
those ballots kind of dwindle in day after day after
day until you've got an ballots to count that, Oh,
your person's going to win. This is from Judicial Watch.
Illinois counts mail in ballots received up to two weeks
after election day. Petitioners who are candidates for federal office

(04:16):
claim that under controlling federal law, that is two weeks
too long. As a result, Illinois is counting unlawful ballots
and producing inaccurate vote tallies while simultaneously hurting petitioners reached prospects.
Those are the plaintiffs while hurting their prospects at the
ballot box and injuring their pocket books. Everyone from the

(04:39):
United States, meaning the US government, to the American Civil
Liberties Union and the ACLJ agrees that petitioners have standing.
Illinois disputes that remarkable consensus only by ignoring common sense
and the dangers produced by the Seventh Circuit's rule, and

(05:00):
by imagining nonexistent waivers that did not deter the Seventh
Circuit from denying standing because Congressman boasts electoral prospects were
too bright and his pocketbook injuries were too speculative. It
is wrong because candidates have standing to challenge the rules

(05:22):
that govern their elections, especially when their merits. Theory which
must be credited for standing purposes is that the challenged
rule produces any inaccurate final tally. At a minimum, the
candidate has standing when as here, he plausibly alleges that

(05:44):
the challenged rule will harm his electoral prospects and reduce
his bank balance in his campaign coffers because he needs
to pay campaign staff an extra two weeks. And the
decision is dangerous because it forces judges to play political prognosticators,
skews standing rules to favor certain kinds of candidates, and

(06:07):
funnels election disputes to the worst possible context, namely after
the election judges or after the election, where judges are
asked to declare political winners. This court, the Supreme Court
should reverse. Now over just the News. That's the website

(06:31):
run by John Solomon. He is a good reading providing
further detail. You gotta go read it. Solomon writes, Currently
fifteen states in Washington, d C. Accept mail in ballots
postmarked by election day if they are received after the election.

(06:52):
According to ballot Pedia, the states are Alaska, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and
West Virginia. Why does this matter because this case, this
case isn't going to invalidate the ridiculous laws that these

(07:15):
states have allowing late arriving ballots to be counted. Interestingly,
Tom Finton has a separate case in front of the
Supreme Court on the late ballot issue. Now, if the
plainness in this case are given the desired relief, then
the critical question of standing will get addressed and pave

(07:39):
the way for those candidates who are set to be
robbed in future elections to make their case before a
court over what are widely perceived has unfair election laws,
like in Colorado universal mail in voting, which has a
lot of low hanging fruit to use against. It amazes

(08:00):
me that the President of the United States can somehow
lack standing over his own race for the most important
powerful office in the world. Yet every single activist group
under the sun can lodge a case in front of
some cherry picked judge to challenge any executive order that

(08:20):
Trump issues to address the widespread issues and electoral corruption.
If you recall, Trump had dozens of lawsuits tossed over
standing over the issue of standing, both before and after
the twenty twenty election. I hope I haven't buried the
lead here. What is standing. Standing means that you have

(08:45):
a legitimate reason to be in front of a judge
and you have standing to bring that lawsuit, meaning that
you face irreparable harm. You have a actual case in controversy,
meaning that there are facts that are taken as a whole,

(09:07):
mean that you have an issue that the court ought
to decide when I was involved in a lawsuit where
the lawsuit was kicked out because they claimed that I
didn't have standing. It was a lawsuit in Colorado where
as a taxpayer, I was challenging that the bid process

(09:32):
that was going on because I didn't think the bid
process was conducted in accordance with open meetings laws, the
bid laws, blah blah blah, all sorts of reasons. The
trial judge threw it out because while the lawsuit was
in one county, I was the resident of another county.
Now the lawyers wanted to appeal it because clearly a

(09:55):
taxpayer in Colorado ought to have standing to challenge anybody
in anywhere in the state because if corruption or illegal
bid rigging, or not following the proper procedures in awarding bids, whatever,
any taxpayer ought to have the ability to challenge that

(10:17):
that activity. But the judge said I did not. I
believe that I did, because I'm a taxpayer who has
a vested interest to see that the laws of this
state are followed.

Speaker 2 (10:31):
Because these laws are.

Speaker 3 (10:33):
While they may be conducted by a group of county commissioners,
are nonetheless established by state law. And I'm a citizen
of this state. That's what standing is.

Speaker 2 (10:45):
Now.

Speaker 3 (10:46):
We've probably talked a lot in detail about some of
these twenty twenty post election challenges which took place while
President Trump was fighting to stay in the White House,
and I've outlined the difficulties in assembling that people have
had in assembling high quality cases with so little time

(11:07):
to compile the information and file the suit on time.
Take Kerry Lake down in Arizona. The Kerry Lake team
found this out two years later and still managed to
put up the best fight against the corrupt courts that
I've seen since everybody found out that elections had gone

(11:29):
to hell in a handbasket. Now, a lot of President
Trump's lawsuits were tossed because the courts went heavy on
calling everything too generalized or not specific enough. Wait a minute,
it's too generalized or it's not specific enough. And this
was also the fate of the most important and most

(11:50):
strongly constructed suit. Texas Attorney General Kim Paxton's team filed
a lawsuit Texas versus Pennsylvania. Filed that case with the
Supreme Court that December. It alleged that Pennsylvania's failure to
abide by its own election laws which handed the state's
twenty electors to Joe Biden had disenfranchised texas thirty eight

(12:15):
electoral votes. How did Paxton get stand How did Paxton
approach it? I think exactly the right way. He made
the issue about equal protection. Eighteen other states signed on
to put it in very layman's very basic terms. If

(12:38):
one cheat, if one state cheats, or one state doesn't
follow election law, and that act or those acts result
in the election being given to someone other than who,
though other states believe was the real winner. Giving the

(13:00):
electoral college votes to Joe Biden instead of Donald Trump,
well that disenfranchises the electors in all those other nineteen
states because now their electoral votes don't really count because
they voted for the guy that would have won but
for Pennsylvania cheating. So when you make the issue about

(13:25):
equal protection, that's pretty good, and I think that's a
very legitimate basis on which to challenge. But they may,
but thanks to the issue of standing, the Supreme Court
tossed it out and with it any real hope of
Trump's staying in power. The Supremes wrote that Texas had
quote not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner

(13:50):
in which another state conducts its elections. Now I disagree
with the reasoning, but then again, I'm not the Supreme Court.
I'm not even a Supreme Court justice, so I don't
get a vote. But I think their reasoning was wrong
in that case because it does affect them how other
states conduct their elections, and whether you can show or not,

(14:11):
you can at least allege that's the way they're conducting
their elections is unfair, that that disenfranchises the voters in
the other states. Put it very simply, all states need
to play by the same rules, and they need to
play fairly. And if they don't play fairly, then all

(14:32):
the other states ought to have the option to challenge
that state's way of conducting elections. Now, ultimately, I think
the Spring Court will take this case, and I think
ultimately the Supreme Court will decide in judicial watches favor,
and I think this standing issue will be resolved.

Speaker 2 (14:53):
Now both.

Speaker 3 (14:55):
The congressman his judicial watch lawsuit, it is not going
to give another state's attorney general the standing to suiver
elections half the country away. But if candidates are deemed
to have standing to bring election lawsuits before the injury occurs.
That will serve as a deterrent for those who think

(15:17):
they can cheat on elections and then hide behind the
difficulty in challenging those results. When when some of these
antiquated election laws came into existence, election rigging, well that
was done the way that Boss Tweed would do election rigging.

(15:39):
For example, the Tweed Ring manipulated elections in a variety
of ways. It would hire people to vote multiple times,
and of course they had sheriffs and temporary deputies protect
them while they were doing that unlawful voting. Tweed the
Tweed mahab with stuff bal boxes with fake votes, and

(16:02):
then bribe or arrest election and inspections who questioned the methods.
As Boss tweeted himself later admitted, the ballots made no result.
The counters made the result. Sometimes the ring simply ignored
the ballots and falsified the election results. Tammany Hall candidates

(16:22):
often received more votes than there were eligible.

Speaker 2 (16:26):
Voters in a district. Well, where have we heard that before? Now?

Speaker 3 (16:32):
Fast forward to today, Tammany Hall, is it really gone?
Or is it taken on a new form? Voted voter
rolls universal, no excuse mail in voting ballot harvesting, concentrated
power and corruption seated inside mega counties large enough to
overwhelm the rest of the state, or a group of

(16:54):
counties located in something may be called the front range.
Challenge election malfeasans is not easy. Finding advocacy groups and
parties who have standing and then assembling a case that
fits the letter of the law is exceedingly difficult, even

(17:14):
before you think about or consider the high bar set
by the courts who don't want to be responsible for
impacting major elections, either on the front or the back end,
or even when warranted, even when they should be deciding
those cases. In some states, law stipulates that the challenging

(17:37):
party must be able to pinpoint as many fraudulent ballots
as separate the winner from the loser, so that a
candidate losing by ten thousand votes must be able to
identify all ten thousand votes, not ninety nine to meet
the bar, and with them need to have more on

(17:59):
tap to deal with.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
Any challenge.

Speaker 3 (18:03):
Hip filing deadlines, difficulties associated with challenge electure results. No,
this case might fix some of that.

Speaker 1 (18:10):
Good morning doom, Good morning gloom. Hey, Michael, I think
there's a phrase called something like take to win or
something like that. It's raining today, so apparently you can't
truck in the rain. I get to listen to you
guys live where I usually listen on the podcast. So
I just wanted to say hey and ask.

Speaker 4 (18:33):
You how you're doing.

Speaker 1 (18:33):
I never hear any goobers ask you how you are doing.
So I hope you and the red beard guy are
doing well.

Speaker 3 (18:42):
Well, that's nice, And then I think about it. They
never leave a talk back like good to hear from you.
How are you doing everything? Okay?

Speaker 4 (18:53):
They're always asking questions of you and demanding things of.

Speaker 3 (18:55):
You, right like talk about this, do this correct grammar? Yeah, yeah,
we mispronounced that word. Or you didn't put the comma
you don't believe in the Oxford comma, blah blah blah blah.

Speaker 4 (19:06):
Did you really take your dog to the dry cleaners?

Speaker 2 (19:08):
That's right?

Speaker 3 (19:09):
Oh that was the best one of all. Yes, I
take the dogs with the dry cleaners. Yeah, my god,
is expensive mistaking them the dry cleaners too?

Speaker 4 (19:21):
But how are you, Michael?

Speaker 2 (19:23):
You know Dragon, I'm doing pretty good. How are you here?

Speaker 1 (19:25):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (19:25):
Same here?

Speaker 4 (19:27):
So real complaints still employed badge work this morning, So
I'm good.

Speaker 3 (19:31):
Yeah, let's see, I've learned more than I ever thought
I would know about Florence. I think I've been through
Florence a couple of times in my lifetime.

Speaker 4 (19:41):
Oh, we know about all the restaurants.

Speaker 3 (19:43):
Yes, uh fifty five ninety Michael and Dragon. Quincy Steak
This sounds like Columbine Steakhouse up in Federal. Quincy Steakhouse
in Florence is awesome. That's all they serve. Monday through
Thursday is is Filet Mignon. They have Philip mignons on.

(20:03):
I hear that's a really good cut. I love Philip
mignons So you know, I guess why as a snob,
i'd say Phile Mignon. But I'm not a snob. Monday
through Thursday is Filet mignon. Friday you through Sunday is
prime Rib. Are you a prime rib guy?

Speaker 4 (20:21):
I can get down. I get down with both, for
flake Mignon or prime rib. I'm just not a.

Speaker 3 (20:26):
Prime rib guy. I think it's because I've had too
many prime too much prime rib at like parties where
you know, or you go to conventions and there's always
a buffet line and they're slicing the prime rib at
the end of the end of the line, and it's
never really.

Speaker 4 (20:44):
That good, well because it's been sitting out on there
cooking for however long.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
Yeah, so you know, I'm just like, can I have
a piece that's at least somewhat peak.

Speaker 4 (20:54):
If you're gonna get one, you've got to get one
made for you, not for everybody.

Speaker 3 (20:58):
Yeah, So I just so, I just it's it's sound
like ordering Ruben sandwiches unless you're in a true Jewish
New York style deli. Ordering a Ruben sandwich in a
like a bar or a restaurant anywhere else is a

(21:19):
crap shoot.

Speaker 4 (21:19):
Like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna.

Speaker 2 (21:21):
Get, exactly.

Speaker 3 (21:22):
So I had a client meeting with some of the
salespeople on Wednesday. I forget what day it was, but anyway,
one day this week and I ordered a I'm looking
at the menu. It's it's a sport We were at
a sports bar, and I'm looking at the menu and
I see the Ruben and I'm thinking, I really like
to have a Ruben sandwich, but I'm not willing to
take the crap shoot. Just can't take that risk. I

(21:44):
can't you know what, My life is more important than
taking the crap shoot on a Ruben at a sports bar.

Speaker 2 (21:50):
So, of all things, what I instand? Now?

Speaker 3 (21:53):
Wait a minute. First of all, think about how stupid
this was a shrimp. No, I had on a white shirt. Surprise, right,
you're shot? Yeah, I had on a white shirt. And
I'm having a lunch meeting with a client. You know
how I am in food? Most of my food. You
can you know what I had because you can look
at my shirt. It's on your shirt, right, so on

(22:14):
my shirt. So I'm looking at the menu and I'm like,
I don't want a burger. You know there's another damn burger.
I don't want that. Oh they have hot dogs.

Speaker 4 (22:23):
You can go after like wings.

Speaker 3 (22:26):
So I order a chili dog. Oh boy, Now I'm
the first to order the last No, yeah, the last
person order. She the the white person, is walking around
the high top and she just casually mentions, my favorite
thing on the whole menu is our Ruben. Our Rubens

(22:47):
is the best ever. Like, you know, I don't like Rubens,
except this is a really good Ruben.

Speaker 4 (22:52):
What what unsolicited?

Speaker 3 (22:54):
I'm solicit advice? So she comes back around with, wait
a minute, I'm gonna change my order. Are you serious
about the ruben? Mm hmm, all right, give me the ruben.
The ruben comes out, and what's the scale? One to ten,
one to one hundred? What what scale?

Speaker 2 (23:12):
You in? Seven and a half? Eight?

Speaker 4 (23:16):
Well that's pretty good.

Speaker 2 (23:16):
Yeah, right it was edible for for bar food. Yes,
it was edible. So she was right. So I had
a ruben.

Speaker 3 (23:24):
Still not it's not like the bagel deli or I mean.

Speaker 4 (23:30):
It's it's clearly not Jewish jelly food, right, you know
it with seven out of ten, that's that's impressive for
the bar.

Speaker 2 (23:36):
Yes.

Speaker 3 (23:37):
Back to Florence. Quincy Steakhouse in Florence is awesome. That's
all they serve. Monday through Thursday is for today, Mignon,
I want to, they say, and Monday or Fridays through
Sunday's prime rib. You get a wedge salad. That's actually
a step up because usually it's just the bags of
salads they get at King Soupers and they just dump.

Speaker 4 (23:58):
It in and stop with the wedge salad. You just
cut a head of lettuce in half, put it on
a plate and said this is a salad. No it's not.
Stop it. You're being cheap, not fancy.

Speaker 3 (24:12):
I like wedg salads, but I always have to have
them chag because I hate blue cheese. So I get
the wedge salad. But can you alter it, like no
blue cheese within ten miles? And then I don't care.
You got a really nice Italian dressing or you got
a really nice ranch dressing or something.

Speaker 4 (24:29):
Give me a good caesar salad or.

Speaker 3 (24:32):
If caesar salad, of course, I'll do caesar salad. Of course,
I'll do the caesar salad. That's the entire menu. Oh,
wed salad and baked potato, that's the entire menu. No
chicken nuggets, just a cut of dead cow. I'd request
a day passed from Canyon City and meet you.

Speaker 2 (24:46):
All in Florence.

Speaker 4 (24:48):
You buried the head line.

Speaker 3 (24:49):
I'm thinking we can have a listener gathering in Florence, Colorado.
There'd be at least two which is more than a
United stand, but we'd.

Speaker 4 (24:59):
Have listeners almost half the audience.

Speaker 2 (25:02):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (25:03):
Half the audience is in Florence, which really kind of
bothers me. But I think about it. Half our audience.
And by the way, he says, I could get a
day pass from Canyon.

Speaker 4 (25:13):
City as I said, you you buried the lead here.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
Really is that a.

Speaker 3 (25:21):
Day pass because you're on some sort of like special
incarceration or you're a guard. I think it's a When
he said day pass, I'm thinking you're on a work
release program. Yeah, okay, So we would have the truck

(25:43):
driver that scares the crap out of us because we
think that's right, because we think he's back crap crazy.
And then we're going to have somebody that's an inmate
with the day pass, and you and I are going
to be in Florence, where half the people in Colorad
have no idea where Florence is, and we're gonna get

(26:05):
a tour of supermacs by his brother in law.

Speaker 4 (26:08):
As long as you've got your backpack with you, I'm fine.

Speaker 3 (26:10):
Okay, all right, I'm not sure they're gonna let me
in that's with the backpack. Yeah yeah, so we go
in completely unharmed. So I don't but it might be fun.
Or this one fifty five sixty six Mike put Harris.
I assume you mean Kamala Harris. Maybe you meet Richard Harris.

(26:30):
I don't know, and the leaders of hamas in the
same room. They'll commit suicide. Uh there was another one here,
but boom boom boom boom boom boom.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
Yeah that's enough. That's enough. Just take a break early,
I'll be right back, Randy.

Speaker 1 (26:52):
Sounds like plans are coming together, like Peas and Carris.

Speaker 4 (26:55):
We just got to figure out.

Speaker 2 (26:56):
A date.

Speaker 4 (27:02):
About the twelfth Tuesday of next month.

Speaker 2 (27:08):
There.

Speaker 3 (27:11):
You know, I have that personality that is just really
curious and is also somewhat masochistic.

Speaker 4 (27:20):
You want to know, but it'll hurt.

Speaker 3 (27:23):
It's like, I know this is gonna hurt, but wow,
that really sounds fascinating.

Speaker 4 (27:33):
Maybe he can make you a good rubin.

Speaker 3 (27:36):
I wouldn't eat anything that he fixed. He could open
a can of pork and beans and hand it to
me and I wouldn't touch it.

Speaker 4 (27:44):
It happens a lot less now, but we used to
get a lot of food delivered to the building. Oh yes,
And we would have notes and signs up saying listener
food and it's just basically saying don't touch.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
Or eat at your own risk pretty much. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (28:00):
Yeah, And so while we like, you know, Dragon, I
love crumble cookies. Someone brings us crumble cookies which people
have in the past, or donuts.

Speaker 2 (28:19):
I still think about that. And cake?

Speaker 4 (28:21):
What's the cake place? The gluten free cake place?

Speaker 1 (28:24):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (28:24):
Yes, yes, good, yes.

Speaker 3 (28:27):
Because you don't know what happens from the time they
pick it up until they actually deliver it.

Speaker 4 (28:30):
If it's if the box is still sealed from like
Crumble or the donut place, I think I can probably
How easy is.

Speaker 3 (28:37):
It to unseal and reseal a box of cookies from?
Come from, you dumb ass? Come on, use your use
that brain a little bit. Among the many privileges that
are enjoyed by those who do not identify as members
of the disfavored race like Caucasian, you can now add

(28:58):
lower gym fees. Our Studios, a trendy wellness gym based
in Halifax, Nova Scotia. So I know many of you
will be going openly promoted a thirty dollars drop in
rate for white visitors while offering a heavily discounted fifteen
dollars rate exclusively for BIPOC customers. Michael, what's buypuk that's

(29:25):
for black, Indigenous and people of color customers. Now I
know just enough about Canadian anti discrimination laws to know
that that's a violation.

Speaker 2 (29:36):
Of the anti discriminate discrimination laws.

Speaker 3 (29:39):
But however, you know, with dumbasses firmly in control in Canada,
the law only cuts one way. It only applies one way.
When racism has finally been overcome, which I thought it
has but apparently not, then only Caucasians will have to
even pay gym fees at all. I'm looking at the

(30:01):
menu from our studios. Class passes thirty dollars a class
one studio drop in Canadian thirty for one Class one
X class pass to be used at any studio. Rest
not included, valid at all studio rest not included for
six months. Oh but right below that is the bipuck

(30:25):
drop in rate Canadian fifteen dollars one class bipuck drop
in rate parentheses black Indigenous person of color of course
color is col Oh you are collude, valid at all studios.
Rest not included for six months. Wow, even the Canucks

(30:45):
have gone crazy, totally crazy. But we shouldn't be surprised
by that, whatsoever? Right I told you about I've ever
done that one. Let's see. Oh yeah, this one. It's
pretty good because we can read. You do taxpayer relief shots.

(31:07):
Let me do sheriff for Grady Early Sheriff Grady Judd.

Speaker 5 (31:11):
I've spent my entire adult life in law enforcement, and
I have never heard of one law enforcement agency not
helping another when they call for help. Until this weekend,
when a chief of patrol or the Chicago Police Department
instricted the police officers not to run in and help

(31:36):
their colleagues who were calling for help, who were under
attack by a bunch of people clearly violating the law.

Speaker 2 (31:47):
That's scary. Let me give you the antithesis of that.

Speaker 5 (31:51):
We had a single man resists ICE agents and get
away from them in our community.

Speaker 2 (31:59):
We sent a.

Speaker 5 (32:00):
Helicopter, a Drone K nine, and fifty law enforcement officers
to surround an area and we found that guy who
violently resisted ICE and we locked him up in jail.

Speaker 2 (32:15):
Where he should have been. If you allow.

Speaker 5 (32:18):
Anarchist and criminals to run wild in your community, people
will die, people will be shocked. Now, let me say
this for other law enforcement leaders across this state and nation.
You need to be standing up saying the same exact
thing that I am, Amen, Because when you have a

(32:41):
breakdown of the rule of law, when you allow anarchist
criminals to take over the streets and attack.

Speaker 2 (32:52):
Law enforcement officers and then not send them help. That's
a slippery slope.

Speaker 3 (32:59):
A real supery slowly text faver The shots coming up
next