10-17-25 - 6am - Indictment of John Bolton

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, It's seven point fifteen Central Time in the evening.
As I'm listening to your podcast as I normally do,
and you're talking about the intimacy of radio and how
people listen to you and what they're doing when they
listen to you. Well, I'm shoveling manure in a barn,

(00:23):
me and the horses.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
And you could have been a whole lot worse.

Speaker 3 (00:27):
No, actually, I think that's very appropriate. So I'm just
shoveling the manure into his head, and he's just shovling
the manure that is on the floor into the pile.
Just one pile of maneuver to another pile of maneuver.
That guy's just surrounded by manure. Lucky him. Last so,

(00:51):
we had the grand jury in Maryland that has now
indicted former UN Ambassador and National Security advisor John Bolton
the mustache mustache, and there was a lot of discussion
about it on the news last night, and of course
if you go over to CNBC and other places, it's

(01:16):
really all about the indictment is, well, let's do this one.
That's what. Now, this comes from MSNBC. We had, you know,
I think they've shifted from Hitler and Nazis to stall
it again. Uh MSNBC Norm Eisen talking to some talking head.

(01:39):
I don't know who she is night Frankly, don't care.

Speaker 4 (01:41):
Willfulness and the instructive evidence and the contrast there.

Speaker 5 (01:46):
Yeah, with all respect to Christy, this is based on
what we know now, way too soon to compare to Trump.
There's no indication that Bolton uh to hide the material
when he was notified of the investigation. Indeed, if you

(02:06):
look at the record, it looks like the Biden administration
passed on the prosecution. There's no indication that Christy. There's
not a single document specified in this indictment apart.

Speaker 3 (02:19):
From diary entries.

Speaker 6 (02:21):
For centuries senior.

Speaker 5 (02:24):
Government officials have kept diaries. That's not the same as
a document that's mark ts as ci. And when you
look at the pattern, Biden wasn't saying prosecute my enemies.
He wasn't naming the enemies. When you look at the
pattern here, it reminds me of what the head of
Stalin's secret police, lavent To Baria, said to Stalin, show

(02:46):
me the man, I'll find you the crime. That's what
they're doing with John Bolton here. So I think because
it's classified. We don't know what the evidence is, whether
it's benign or concerning. I think we need to reserve judgment.
But given the suspicious circumstances, boy, I would not rush

(03:06):
to say that we know that Bolton is guilty or not.
This is a place where innocent until proven guilty. In
the context of how Trump has behaved and his Justice Department,
that axiom is underlined, highlighted and in bold. Well to
that point, Jacoby, before I kick it over to John uh.

Speaker 3 (03:29):
That can compare and contrast that. Although I don't have
it anywhere in my I can't find anywhere in our
nobody has it. Last night I had gone to late dinner,
came back and Hannity he was on. I never watch Hannity,

(03:54):
but Hannity had Jonathan Turley and Trey Goudy on. As
you know, Trey Goudy is a former federal prosecutor trake
out he is. I thought he was always very good
as a congressman. He was very good in hearings at
cross examining witnesses, and he was on a tirade last
night saying the exact opposite of what norm Eisen was saying.

(04:16):
In that sound bite, and he was going on about
the documents that are included in the indictment. Now, remember
this indictment came from a grand jury. I know the
old saw you can get a grand jury to indict
a ham sandwich, But this is still an independent grand

(04:38):
jury who can on their own make a decision. If
you're trying to indict the ham sandwich, and the grand
jury is looking at you're trying to indict this ham sandwich,
meaning there's there's no there there a grand jury will
I think ninety nine point nine percent of the time
will say no, we're not going to return an indictment.
We don't think there's enough evidence here. I think this

(05:01):
whole ham sandwich analogy is really an indictment of you
and I as citizens, when we're asked to serve on
a grand jury, that we'll just do whatever the prosecutor says.
Maybe there was a time back in the forties or
fifties when that was true. I don't think that's true anymore.
I think that most American citizens look at grant at

(05:22):
their service on a grand jury as a very serious
solemn obligation, and they will look at it and if
they don't believe that it's if the prosecutor is presenting
evidence to indict a ham sandwich, and the ham sandwich
was just you know, soured oaugh bread and ham and cheese.
It's like, no, we're not going to indict it. There's
no crime about being a ham sandwich. And Trey Gally

(05:45):
was going on in very specifics. Now, obviously he wasn't
repeating what was in the documents. He was only referencing
the documents that were referenced in the indictment. But Gaddy
was talking about these documents if they say what they

(06:05):
claim they say in the indictment, that this is a
very serious charge. And Eisen is right. Everybody keeps a journal.
I kept a journal. But what I was careful of
in the journal that I kept was I would keep
notes of meetings. I would keep notes of things that happened.

(06:26):
I would keep notes about everything. And you know, I'm
still working on converting that journal into a book. There
is nothing in that book or in that journal that
would require me to go to the CIA or the
White House or anybody else, or to the NSSAY or
just any of the three letter agencies and say, hey,
by the way, would you review this to make sure

(06:48):
there's no classified material in there, because I didn't put
a classified material in there. John Bolton did do that.
And Trey Gawdy was on this tirade last night about
how it's just when you look at the markings on
the documents, which they may show the cover sheets or

(07:10):
a summary of what's in there without disclosing the actual
substance of what's in the documents. At least from Trey
Gatty's point of view, this is a very serious indictment.
Then yesterday yesterday they or this morning they had Jonathan
Turley on.

Speaker 4 (07:29):
I just want to go on through some of the
documents that he had, So there was some infro FOE
on future attacks, foreign intaeil sharing, adversary covert action, sensitive
human here's.

Speaker 3 (07:43):
What he's listening. The transmitted documents allegedly included intelligence intel
on five things, future attacks, foreign intelligence sharing, our adversary,
covert actions that we're aware of, sensitive human intelligence called

(08:05):
human human intelligence sources, and our own covert operations and assessments.
If that's the substance of what was in the documents,
it is a serious violation.

Speaker 4 (08:18):
Intel sources and covert operation in assessments.

Speaker 6 (08:24):
Just face value.

Speaker 4 (08:26):
You know, you can talk about political targeting all of that,
but that is damning evidence from the Bureau.

Speaker 3 (08:34):
It's very damning.

Speaker 7 (08:35):
And we still have to learn about the timeline of
when this information was transmitted. But certainly this information is
classified at the highest levels because this is information to
get people killed. I mean, this is the type of
information that, if it gets out, can reveal sources and
methods that represent really threatening consequences for national security. And

(08:58):
keep in mind that in an earlier case, a federal
judge said that he could not force Bolton to bring
back and destroy all of the books that he had
published with this company, but he said, you did undermine
national security. This book does that, and so that's sort
of the context here. And the other thing about this

(09:20):
lawrence is that this was a long standing series of objections.
He was investigated during the Biden administration before that was scuttled,
but he had basically defied a lot of the objections
from the intelligence community. And now this indictment says that
he was sending this information to what appears to be
his wife and daughter, who of course have no clearances,

(09:42):
and that it might have even been hacked by the
Iranian government.

Speaker 6 (09:45):
Or its associates.

Speaker 4 (09:47):
I know it's not necessary to prove intent, but it
does make it more difficult for him that they warned
him before he decided to do this, and yet he
kind of stuffed at it and could proceeded. I want
to go to this comments back in Jayuary twenty twenty three.
This is what he had to say about handling classified

(10:09):
documents as watch it.

Speaker 8 (10:11):
That sets a bad example for the thousands of other
people in the federal bureaucracy who have security clearances, because
if the people at the top can be casual about
it and then get away with it, that is not
a good lesson to teach.

Speaker 4 (10:26):
It's like one of those moments audacity for me, like
how could you be so strong? And then we find
all this information.

Speaker 7 (10:36):
Well know, Lawrence, those clips, I can tell you he's
a criminal defense attorney probably rule out his ever being
put on the stand, because while the court might not
allow those to be admitted initially, they very well could
be admitted to impeach him or rebuck him. And I
don't think he can take the risk because he looks
like an utter hypocrite. I mean, this indictment really shows

(10:56):
a level of casual treatment of intelligence information.

Speaker 3 (11:01):
It's quite shocking.

Speaker 7 (11:02):
He comes across like a teenager in a chat room.
I mean, he's sending this stuff by email. After all
the controversies that we have had for years about trying
to secure this type of information and lawrence. There's two
arguments here.

Speaker 3 (11:17):
That will not work.

Speaker 7 (11:19):
One is, well, this is just old classified material that
doesn't fly. The question is is it classified or not?
That's why jurors tend to view these is rather cut
and dry questions. The other argument, which sort of was
suggested by his counsel, as well, everyone does this. This
is just keeping a diary. That's not going to work

(11:39):
either you know, whether you transmit the document or the contents.
It's classified and it's subject to these criminal laws.

Speaker 3 (11:48):
I think Curtly makes the most cogent argument about what's
really going on here. But regardless of any of that,
let's go to what the other side say. Let's go
to Anderson Cooper last night and.

Speaker 9 (12:06):
A former federal prosecutor, I mean, eighteen count indictment of Bolton.

Speaker 3 (12:11):
Do you think it's warrant?

Speaker 9 (12:12):
Well, this is why Donald Trump's abuse of the criminal
justice system and the FBI is so problematic. This was
an investigation that has been going on for some time,
I think, preceding Donald Trump's presidency. And it's a quite
detailed indictment, as Caitlin just said.

Speaker 3 (12:30):
But the problem is.

Speaker 9 (12:32):
That Donald Trump talks so much about John Bolton. He
talks so much about going after his enemies and using
the criminal justice system to do that. We have seen
very very weak, thin, perhaps meritless indictments of Jim Comey
and Letitia James recently, and so that puts a very
different gloss over John Bolton's indictment.

Speaker 6 (12:54):
This one is different than those.

Speaker 9 (12:56):
This is a much more thorough investigation, and if the
allegations are.

Speaker 6 (13:00):
True, it is a crime.

Speaker 3 (13:03):
Stop. There was an investigation of Bolton conducted during the
Biden administration, there was an investigation conducted prior to that,
and Trump one point zero, so the guy's been investigated.
Trump leaves office, the investigation carries over to the new
Department of Justice, they investigate it. Biden nixes the investigation,

(13:28):
says no, I wonder why, because maybe Biden was guilty
of the same thing. And then Trump comes back in.
They revive the investigation, they take it to a grand jury,
and they get the indictment Congressman Dan Goldman, the guy
you just heard, the congressman from New York. Well, you know,

(13:49):
Trump keeps talking about going after his enemies. Trump keeps
talking about going you know, politicizing the Justice Department. Trump
keeps talking about this blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Well,
when the talking heads and the legal commentators in the
press and the Democrat Party carry on all of their
bullcrap over indictments of antagonists and President Trump, last night

(14:12):
I thought to myself, well, let's do a compare and contrast.
So I want you to think about who's been indicted,
who's been charged that has either a personal relationship, a
business relationship, political relationship, or worked for or is related

(14:35):
to Donald Trump. And then let's think about those who
are none of those that are others that are Democrats.
Bear with me. I want to I want to read
you names, some of which you'll recognize, most of which

(14:57):
you will not, but at Google Search will review that
these are Let's see, I've got one, two, three, four, five, six, one, two, three, four, five, six,
thirty six minus two thirty four names. Yeah, I'm gonna
read you thirty four names. Donald Trump, Donald Trump Junior,
Eric Trump, Avalka Trump, Maloney Trump, Baron Trump, Walter Nata At,

(15:19):
Allen Weisberg, Jeffrey Comey, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Martin Meadows,
Jeffrey Clarke, Kenth Cheeseborough, General Flynn, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort,
Pete Navarro, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, David Schaeffer, Shawn Hill,
Stephen Lee, Robert k Lee, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison,
Floyd Trathy and Coodie, Sydney Powell, Michael Roman, Scott Hall,

(15:40):
Ryan Smith, Mister Hays, Kim Vanderwood, Stanley Grod, Army Fracello,
Kathy Bardon, Jenna Ellis, Mishaw Maddock, Mary and Sheridan, Marie
and Henry Roserook, William Choate, George Papadopoulos, Clifford Frows, Frost,
John Haggard, Timthany King, Michelle Lundmn, James Renner, Christian bobt Myra,
Rigus Ken, Thompson, Tyler Boya, Nancy Cobble, Jack Kaufman, Boris Yesson,

(16:05):
Anthony Kleine, Jim Lannon, Robert Montgomery, Samuel Moorehead, Lorraine Pellegrino,
James Tropis, Greg Saffrason, Kelly Ward, Kelly Ward, Michael Ward,
Kathleen Lanham, Eileen Reich, Sean Maheen, Michael McDonald, James de Granafield,
Jesse Law, James Hindle. The third what are those? Those

(16:26):
are the thirty four people that have son nexus to
Donald Trump who have all been indicted, convict tried, or
convicted in many cases. Some have had him overturned on appeals.
But they've all been gone after during the Biden administration.
And I made a list of other people, all of

(16:48):
those people that were told that Donald Trump is using
to politicize a justice department. Now I just read you
thirty four names. Are you ready for all the other names,
those that are apparently being you know, somehow nailed to
the cross, They're being persecuted and prosecuted because Donald Trump's

(17:11):
going after his enemies. You ready? Let me take a
deep breath and get them all in, James, call me Letitia, James.
So the people a list first, some in different cases,
multiple cases. But you got some seventy different defensive subjects
named in one of the many cases, both civil and

(17:31):
criminal cases brought by partisan Democrat prosecutors or state's attorney
generals between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty four, and I
probably left out some. That's just trying to use Google
to find as many as I possibly can. They have
incurred tens of millions of dollars in personal financial hardship,

(17:51):
as well as having to live with fear for themselves
and their family that one day their political views might
land them in jail. And on the other hand, we
got to James coming Letitia James. Huh, so what do
we have to think about this?

Speaker 4 (18:06):
Hey, Mike, I always trying to take notes on all
those names, and I think I missed a couple.

Speaker 6 (18:10):
Can you can you repeat all those again?

Speaker 3 (18:12):
Please?

Speaker 6 (18:13):
Thanks?

Speaker 3 (18:14):
No, but is it up on the website.

Speaker 2 (18:17):
There's no need to repeat any of those names. It
is posted at Michael says go here dot com. Michael
created a beautiful chart that has been posted Michael says
go here dot com.

Speaker 3 (18:28):
The reason I put it in chart form is I
want you to see just visually the number of people
that they've gone after for just having a relationship with
Trump versus you got Letitia James. Let's think about the arguments.

(18:49):
The argument on Letitia James if true, now again, again,
you know, she's intocing until proven guilty if she really did. Now,
every time that I fill out, you know, a a
loan application or a credit application or anything else, and
they asked, like, you know, use of proceeds, what you're

(19:11):
going to do, or they they want to know what
your income is, blah blah blah. I'm really careful about
that stuff because at the bottom, you signed something that
says that that you you affirm under penalties of perjury,
that this is all true and correct. Now, is what's
the likelihood that if I misstate you know, you know, oh,

(19:35):
I didn't really look at my uh, you know, last
year's tax return to see what my justic gross income was.
But I thought it was in the in the in
the you know, in the in the I thought it
was somewhere within the box of you know, twenty two
point six million dollars. I met twenty two dollars and

(19:55):
sixty cents. It was somewhere in there, And I put
twenty two dollars in seven many sins. I'm not too
worried about that, But if I did put twenty two
point six million dollars, I would be worried about that. Now,
let's think about all those names, those those whatever it
was thirty four names that there's actually more names than that,

(20:19):
but I could have come up with seventy. But there
were some that I was just questionable about. But let's
think about the thirty four that I named. They have
incurred tens of millions of dollars in legal fees, and
not just legal fees oftentimes, if you're you know, I
used to tell clients this, I want to go sue

(20:42):
somebody because they you know, they said something bad about
me or they did something wrong, and I'd look at them,
I go, Okay, you know what, this is something where
you can probably win the case, but the damages are
going to be minimal. So let's say that the damages
are going to be let's just say five thousand dollars. Yeah,
I can probably collect five thousand dollars for you. Are

(21:03):
you willing to spend you know, several days off work
because you're gonna have to go do depositions? And trust
me that every time a deposition is scheduled, oh, we're
gonna spend a couple of hours and depositions. It never
is a couple of hours in depositions. It's always longer
than that. You've got breaks, you have objections, you got sidebars,

(21:25):
you got everything going on, or then you actually go
to a trial. We all the trials scheduled for five days,
so this five days. You can't just say, hey, judge,
you know what. I know this is my case and
I know I sued them, but I can't afford not
to go to work because I'll lose my job. So
you know, I don't using my vacation or sick days,
so I'm not gonna be in the courtroom. The judge

(21:45):
are gonna make no, then I'm gonna dismiss the case.
You're gonna be here, so you have to take off
time for work. These people are no different. They're no different.
You think about, oh, what's in the Sydney out the
lawyer from wherever she was from down south. She really

(22:07):
couldn't practice much law while she's trying to defend herself
in a criminal court case. So she's missing that income
in addition to having to spend all the income to
go defend herself in a criminal case. So they have
they've incurred tens of millions of dollars in legal fees

(22:29):
and they have lost tens of millions of dollars in
lost income, the personal hardship, the emotional toll that it takes.
I'm just telling you, as you know you don't believe me,
as the capitalist this afternoon, what it's like for someone
to have to go through a case. Even if you're
on the winning side, even if you're one of Capitalist's clients,

(22:50):
and you're more likely than not going to win and
you're going to have a nice payday at the end,
that still you've got to relive everything that caused, you know,
the death of the loved one. You've got to go
through all of that. Criminal case is no different except
there's one big difference, and that is you face the
possibility of losing your freedom. So they live in fear

(23:16):
for themselves and their family that one day their political
views might land them in prison. Why was all of
this done. It was all done in an effort to
keep Trump from effectively governing in Trump one point zero,
and we often forget trying to keep him from running
in twenty twenty four. Now, you probably recognize the two

(23:39):
names that I read to you at the end, James
Comy and Letitia James. But not included in that list
are all of the witnesses forced to incur legal fees,
and they had to incur financial hardships in responding to
subpoenas or sitting for interrogations by partisan prosecutors. They had

(24:01):
the well funded Lawfair. They had norm Eisen. Norm Eisen
that you heard talking over on MSNBC comparing you know
Trump's to Stalin. Really show me the man and I'll
find you the crime. Norm Eisen is one of those
who funded and engaged and practiced the law Fair against Trump.

(24:26):
He and his team worked with Democrats in Congress all
the time to go after Trump. And then there he
is on MSNBC having the audacity that Cahon needs to
talk about Stalin. When Donald Trump says that partisan miscreants
behind the efforts targeting him and his supporters have got
to be held accountable for their actions, those comments are

(24:48):
made not just on behalf of himself, but everybody else
who's gotten caught up in the circle of Donald Trump. Now,
most of the individ had their worlds turned upside down
by the decisions of people like Jack Smith, who we
talked about earlier this week, Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Fanny Willis.

(25:09):
Now I want you to think about some of them.
Fanny Willis does George's Supreme Court has said, you know what,
you cannot proceed. In fact, you can't get anywhere near
this case. That case is probably dead and it's dead
in the water. But what was she doing? She's virtually
lost her career in an effort to use law fair
to unjustly go after Donald Trump, you know, which reminds me.

(25:33):
That's the other thing I would tell clients. Are you
willing to risk? Because as Huey Long says, there is
always something? Do you really want to go sit for
a deposition where they can ask you about anything and everything?
Now that it may not be admissible in court, but
in a deposition it is. So, mister Smith, how do

(25:54):
you and Sally Jones get along? Does missus Smith know
about Sally Jones? Fanny Willis? Suddenly we find out about
her and her boyfriend. The guy that has no experience
in rico prosecution whatsoever, is now appointed as special counsel
to prosecute her Rico. Okay, he's against Donald Trump and

(26:16):
that relationship. I'm laughing to myself because it blows up
in court. So her zeal to go after Donald Trump
is costing her her career. But so far only Comy
and Laticia James have been put under a microscope of

(26:36):
a federal criminal charge only two versus thirty four or
depending on how you count, maybe up to seventy. Now,
how's that going to affect Comy and Latitia James?

Speaker 9 (26:53):
Today?

Speaker 6 (26:53):
Is Jay seventeen of the government shutdown?

Speaker 3 (26:57):
How's there we be holding.

Speaker 6 (26:58):
Out barely making it through?

Speaker 3 (27:07):
I don't know now is the fact is this working?
Is this government controlled microphone working?

Speaker 2 (27:15):
I was thankfully able to go to Chick fil A
though yesterday, Oh.

Speaker 3 (27:18):
You know what, since I don't have time to finish
this now, can we do the Chick fil A thing
right now? Can we do that? So yesterday we did.
There was a story about Chick fil a French fries
and how the waffle fries have now been there. Well
they're just crappy. So Dragon was on a mission. You know,
he only volunteers for the things. You know, most people

(27:41):
volunteer to, you know, go save their country. He goes
to save the fries.

Speaker 6 (27:46):
I do what I can.

Speaker 2 (27:47):
Yeah, we came out because we were talking about women
can't make a decisions. And then you even know what
you want for dinner. Then they got at the foods
and yeah, I brought up the Chick fil a fries.
They're just really crappy now and soggy and you're done.

Speaker 3 (28:00):
And I had not heard that, And so I go
on to some AI platform and find out that, oh
my gosh, there's a whole.

Speaker 2 (28:08):
Controversy over a lot of text message came in said
the same thing, and you know, you can't even ask
them to make the fries crispy, And like, you know what,
I'm gonna have to do that experiment on my own.
So yesterday, yeah, after my workout, around three forty five,
almost four o'clock, I go to the Chick fil A
off a Parker drive up. The parking lot is practically

(28:30):
empty because it's not lunchtime, it's not dinner time.

Speaker 6 (28:32):
Smack dab. In the middle of those two times.

Speaker 3 (28:34):
You went to make sure that there was that you
weren't asking for something that they would obviously say, know,
because they're trying to keep everything moving.

Speaker 6 (28:42):
We're not gonna do that right now.

Speaker 3 (28:43):
I got.

Speaker 2 (28:44):
So it's like, all right, I know the fast food industry.
I know it's like this is the perfect time. I
pull up like I said, there's nobody in the parking lot.
There's one car in the two lane two lane drivers
like all right, this is a perfect time.

Speaker 3 (28:55):
I go.

Speaker 2 (28:56):
I walk in, rather than you know, clog up the
drive again.

Speaker 6 (29:00):
You go through the drift, which.

Speaker 3 (29:01):
I thank you for your sacrifice. Could you actually had
to get your ass?

Speaker 6 (29:04):
It's difficult.

Speaker 2 (29:06):
So I go inside and there's one family, you know,
a father and a son in the corner eating and.

Speaker 6 (29:14):
Meat and that's it. It's like perfect. So I walk
up to the counter.

Speaker 2 (29:18):
I was like, yeah, hey, can I get a you know,
number one large fries and you know orange orange soda place?

Speaker 6 (29:24):
Oh, also, could you.

Speaker 2 (29:26):
Could you like make the fries extra crispy for me?
The last time they've just been a little blat And
he's like, yeah, we don't do that, we don't.

Speaker 6 (29:34):
Offer that anymore. I was like, that's a real bummer, man,
it used to be really good.

Speaker 2 (29:37):
He's like, yeah, krispy fries were my go to and
unfortunately it's become a real big thing around here.

Speaker 3 (29:43):
And when he told me that, I thought, wow, it's
become a really big thing here. Now do you want
to take bets on how long? Now remembers peace starts.
They're now ripping them in pea starts or something. And
you said that you actually had to pull some.

Speaker 6 (29:58):
Apart right there.

Speaker 2 (29:59):
You know how sometimes that the waffles can get stuck
together and everything. So I pulled those apart and they
were practically raw. They just I don't feel like that
they cook them long enough.

Speaker 6 (30:10):
So that I was like, hey, can you make crispy?
He's like, nah, it's a whole big thing.

Speaker 2 (30:13):
And he kind of sheepishly looked around because you know,
they've got the staff of thirty people.

Speaker 6 (30:18):
Are just serving the you know, the two people that
were in there.

Speaker 3 (30:23):
Now it's kind of becoming a thing. Yeah, So what
they taste like? Did they taste different? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (30:33):
I mean the past couple of times that we've gone there,
they're just they're just underdone and it just doesn't taste
like the normal Chick fil A waffle fries.

Speaker 3 (30:42):
Could you tell whether or not the I mean, was
the peace starch? Obviously the peace starch is because it
comes from yellow peas, so it's not gonna be you know,
like your fires aren't green.

Speaker 2 (30:53):
I will say that they are not golden like they
used to be.

Speaker 6 (30:57):
They're not.

Speaker 2 (30:59):
They are still there's still like yellow and potato looking,
but we would things get get you know deep, they
get that little golden brown and just they just weren't
that done.

Speaker 3 (31:13):
This is the new coke?

Speaker 2 (31:14):
Isn't without them saying it's the new coke, it really
feels like it. And then to that one cash year,
he was like, yeah, it's kind of become a thing.

Speaker 3 (31:23):
So that tells me that obviously you weren't the first
guy that's ever gone in and asked for, Hey, can
I get my fries crispy? This right?

Speaker 2 (31:32):
And the fact that he said, yeah, we used to
offer that, but we don't. Now it's become a thing.

Speaker 3 (31:38):
It's like, ohokie, and here's what here's what bothers me.
So you know, I said yesterday, I used to be like,
you know, a platinum guy on the on the Chick
Filight app But then I just kind of quit going
for some reason. I don't know why, because I was
too busy doing other stuff. But and I said, I

(32:00):
kind of crave a Chick fil A sandwich. And we've
talked about it, and now you've kind of persuaded me,
or not getting persuaded me. You have kind of made
me think, rethink, do I really want to go now.

Speaker 6 (32:11):
Well, the sandwich was still delicious. Change of the sandwich.

Speaker 3 (32:14):
It's a combination of the waffle fries in the sandwich
that makes a Chick fil a America. He can't keep
effansteing up up like this. You got to stop it,
stop it.