10-6-25 - 9am - Temporary Protected Status and Two Bullets to the Head

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Freddy.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
I'd love to go help protect some of those ICE agents,
but there's just one problem. I don't think I have
good enough trigger discipline.

Speaker 3 (00:13):
I yeah, I needed that, Thank you, I absolutely needed that.
Whether you're where I want to go next, let's do this.

(00:36):
I'd intended to talk about the temporary protected status that
Venezuelans have and fidi's Supreme Court decision bringing it to
an end. This is another example of how and when
I give you a timeline about this case. I bet

(00:57):
there's something in this timeline that you don't remember or
that you never knew. Let's just start with the timeline.
Let me just walk through a timeline for a moment.
Donald Trump, on his last full day in office during

(01:19):
his first term, which would have been January twentieth of
twenty twenty one, it was Donald Trump who first granted
temporary protective status to Venezuelans in the United States. Are

(01:44):
you okay? Yeah, the same Trump today who is fighting
to revoke temporary stratus and has been uphelp with it's
rain court. He's actually the first one to grant it.
In fact, it wasn't January twenty, it was on January nineteenth.
It was the day before. On January nineteenth of twenty
twenty one, Donald Trump authorized the granting of Temporary Protected

(02:06):
Status for all Venezuelans and the United States, both lawfully
and unlawfully, protecting them from deportation.

Speaker 1 (02:15):
Trump granted TPS.

Speaker 3 (02:18):
His rationale for doing so was because of turmoil in
Venezuela caused by the communist Maduro, leading many opponents of
the madeial government to flee the country. Now, by statute,
temporary Protected Status is granted for a period of either six,
twelve or eighteen months. At the end of the term,

(02:38):
it either expires on its own or it can be extended.
There is a process that's set forth in the statute
for extending temporary Protected status for another six, twelve or
eighteen month period, and that is all dependent upon an
evaluation that is determined by the Department of Homeland Security

(02:59):
Secrit Derek So the first the Donald Trump Temporary Protected
Status for Venezuelans was set to expire July twentieth, twenty
twenty two, eighteen months after it was granted by Donald
Trump July twenty twenty two, Joe Biden as president. But

(03:22):
the way that TPS works is that it only applied
to Venezuelans that were in this country prior to that
first grant on January nineteen of twenty twenty one. Iny
Venezuelan who arrived in the United States unlawfully and without
status that temporary protected status after January twentieth, twenty twenty

(03:46):
one were not called or I'm sorry, we're not covered
by Temporary Protected status, so they weren't TPS. They weren't
called TPS immigrants.

Speaker 1 (03:57):
So let's call that group group number one.

Speaker 3 (04:00):
Group number one granted by Donald Trump, and they had
arrived after they had arrived before he had granted it. Then,
on July eleventh of twenty twenty two, Alexandra Mayorcus remember him,
Secretary of Homelandsecurity, He announced that Venezuelan TPS would be

(04:22):
extended for another eighteen months because he found, based on
his authority under the statute, he found the conditions in
Venezuela had not changed since Trump had done it originally. Now,
Temporary Protected Status requires that you register with Customs and
Immigration Services CIS in order for your TPS status to

(04:46):
be effective. May Orcus gave those Venezuelans in Group one
in the country without status until September nine of twenty
twenty two to register. Then on September eight, the day
before that deadline occurred, May yorkist changed the temporary Protected
Status extension and ordered that it would run for eighteen

(05:09):
months starting on that date September eight of twenty twenty two,
but would still only covered Venezuelans in the country before
January twenty twenty one and who had registered with CIS
before September ninth. I know, convoluted, but I'm just giving
you the timeline now. The new expiration date a temporary

(05:31):
protected status for Group one under the Trump original Trump
grant was March four, twenty twenty four. What changed was
the Biden administration's approach to border enforcement. In the twenty
months that took place or that existed between January twenty

(05:57):
twenty one and September twenty twenty two, the Biden administration
allowed millions of illegal aliens to flow into the country unchecked.
That started the word to spread all across Central and
South America, and that meant that the floodwaters of illegal
aliens increased, you know, multifold.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
That in turn led to.

Speaker 3 (06:20):
Illegal aliens from all over the world deciding, hey, I
got to get to Central and South America, and with
the Maduro government in Venezuela being a willing ally, Venezuela
too get to somewhere in central South America so that
I can travel to the United States Mexican border where
I know now the Bidy administration will just let me in.

(06:42):
And that is precisely what happened. But remember, as I
noted earlier, six months before the Group one extension was
set to expire, Mayorcus added another eighteen months for that
Group one that extended the temporary protected status for them

(07:05):
from March twenty four to September twenty five to the
end of last month. Now go back to October third
of twenty twenty three, Mayorcus redesignated Venezuelans for temporary protected status.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
What does that so? What does that mean?

Speaker 3 (07:24):
That mean that he granted protection from deportation to anybody
from Venezuela who entered the country illegally between January twenty
twenty twenty one, the original date that Trump did it,
and October third of twenty twenty three, which means that
all the illegal aliens that the Biden border policy had
allowed in but who were not covered by the original

(07:45):
Trump protective temporary protected status, got it. They got that
temporary protected status because of may Orcus, so that redesignated
created what I would call Group number two, and they
were granted eighteen months of temporary protected status. That coverage

(08:07):
would not end until April three of twenty twenty five. Now,
if you've managed to follow along, you know we've got
two separate groups from Venezuela. Group one led in by
the Trump administration because of chaos and economic collapse in Venezuela,
and Group two, led in by the Biden administration simply

(08:29):
because they threw the border opened to millions who came
through Central America or Mexico. Group one's protected status expired
this past September tenth. Group two's temporary status expired back
in April of this year. So then on January seventeen

(08:52):
of twenty twenty five, three days left in the Biden administration,
may Orcus again extended the status for Group two an
additional eighteen months beyond April to October third, twenty twenty.

Speaker 1 (09:06):
Six, a year from now.

Speaker 3 (09:10):
Even though they were still they were there were still
nearly four months left before the end of the eighteen
month term that he had granted to the Group two
in October. He wouldn't hadn't extended it anyway January seventeen,
twenty twenty five, trying to eliminate confusion between the members

(09:30):
of the two groups and to aid Customs and Immigration
Services to aid them. Let me be sure I got
this right to aid them in the processing of their registrations.
Group one was extended to this past September ten to

(09:52):
that new date in October next year, which now gave
them the same expiration date as Group two. But the
problem is in effect even though a protected status by
statute was supposed to run only six, twelve or eighteen months.
That's by statute may Orchis issued temporary protected status they

(10:15):
would apply to any Venezuela in the United States prior
to October third of last year, covering twenty months of
the Trump administration. The practical effect of that is it
included Trenda Rogua gang members, it included inmates led out
of Venezuelan prisons to come to the United States, and

(10:36):
it reportedly let patients in Venezuelan mental hospitals come into
the United States. So let's fast forward to Trump's inauguration.
Eight days after Trump has inaugurated the second time, acting
pursuit to an executive orders.

Speaker 1 (10:54):
Signed by Trump.

Speaker 3 (10:55):
On the first day in office, the Secretary of Homeland
Security Christine signed an order that vacated her predecessor may
orcus actions on January seventeen. So when she did that,
she stated that the April third and September ten dates

(11:15):
for ending temporary protective status for Venezuelans were back in place.
That launched the law fair. The lawfair against those actions,
claiming that Secretary know didn't have the authority under the
statue to vacate the decisions by her predecessor, or alternatively,

(11:37):
they want to argue if she did have the authority,
then those illegal aliens claim that she violated the Temporary
Protected Status Statute and therefore violated the Administrative Procedure Act
because she acted arbitrary and capricious at every step. The

(11:57):
Trump administration opposed the lawsuit on the ground that the
district judge in San Francisco lacked jurisdiction over the decision
making under the explicit terms of the statue passed by Congress.
This is an example of the lawfare that we have

(12:17):
to engage in in order to do these deportations lawfully
and fight the rules for radicals that are being implemented
not just in the streets but in the court room.
So the District Court in San Francisco and the Ninth

(12:38):
Circuit twice ruled against the Department of Justice after the
first set of denials, resulting in a preliminary injunction nationwide
against anybody with temporary protected status. The Supreme Court granted
a stay of enforcement of that injunction.

Speaker 1 (12:57):
What does that mean?

Speaker 3 (12:58):
That means the Supreme Court you cannot enforce the injunction
and Secretary Nome can proceed with eliminating to protect the
status for both groups one and two. Now, the Justices
did not explain their reasoning when they set aside the
lower court decision, but it had to have disagreed with

(13:19):
the lower court's view that either the planners were probably
going to prevail on the merits or that the government
wouldn't suffer any irreparable harm, which are the two standards
by which you overrule a temporary injunction. Then it goes
up again. By going up again, I mean it goes
up to the court again. The second time around. The
lower courts both relied on the fact that a trial

(13:41):
had now taken place, and that now we have witness testimony,
we have documentary evidence supporting the issuance of an injunction,
evidence that was not given the first time they asked
for an injunction, And both the lower courts and the
Ninth Court came to the conclude usion that the permanent

(14:01):
injunction should now remain in place that would extend temporary
protected status out to next October, as ordered by may Orcus.
Last Friday, the Supreme Court again acted pursuant to a
stay requests sought by Trump's Department of Justice, and this

(14:24):
time the Supreme Court blocked the permanent injunction, a victory.
Without commenting on all the supposedly crucial evidence that had
been heard in the trial court reviewed in the Ninth Circuit.
The Supreme Court just said very briefly that while the
posture of the case was different the second time, the
same considerations that warranted the staying of the preliminary in

(14:47):
junction the first time were still present, and it still
stayed the District Court's permanent injunction in validating Secretary of
Numes January twenty eighth order. Now this, in my opinion,
the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the
Supreme Court agrees that the District Court in San Francisco

(15:10):
did not have jurisdiction to consider the claims altogether both
Group one and Group two. On that basis, all the
accumulated evidence that was presented in the lower court is
now irrelevant because the district Court was always acting in
contravention of the denial of jurisdiction provided for by Congress

(15:31):
in the statute that Congress said the courts cannot and
do not have jurisdiction over these decisions. Now, let me
make a footnote here that goes back to our discussion
about what happens if the court if we just ignore
the court's order and I said, we need to follow

(15:54):
the law otherwise, what have political chaos. Here's an example
of where we followed the law, and in both times
the law came out on our side. The court looked
at it and said, we're going to vacate the permanent
injunction like we vacated the temporary injunction.

Speaker 1 (16:17):
And my guess is.

Speaker 3 (16:19):
Because they looked at what the injunctions were based on
and said, well, wait a minute, you have the jurisdiction
to issue an injunction here. Now, I don't know, because
this was just a percurium decision. Mean, they did it
without signing any opinions. So there may be a division

(16:39):
of opinion among the six justices who granted the stay
as to why the District Court like jurisdiction, and if so,
we'll eventually find out about that when the case is
fully heard and gets to the US Supreme Court. The
relief ordered by the district judge back to the trial

(16:59):
level in San Francisco was that Secretary Nomes decision that
got rid of may orcus extensions was invalid and it
restored the extensions granted by Mayorcus.

Speaker 1 (17:12):
So, with the.

Speaker 3 (17:12):
Supreme Court now having sat both the preliminary and the
permanent injunctions aside, the original expiration dates for both Group
one and Group two are restored pursuant to Nomes decision.

Speaker 1 (17:27):
Recall from all.

Speaker 3 (17:30):
The above that I've just said, Group Tuesday was April third,
twenty twenty five. That's about six months ago, fightly over
six months ago. And group's date was September tenth, that
was three weeks ago. The point is this, all of
it is a whiling. All of that is awaiting, regardless
of your statue, of your temporary protective staffs status, all

(17:53):
of that ise whelands down the country illegal illegally are
subject to deportation. Remember that when you hear about oh
I had to point detect the stabs.

Speaker 4 (18:03):
No, Michael, this outcry that you know, people are being
arrested in just horrible circumstances.

Speaker 1 (18:11):
Oh my gosh.

Speaker 4 (18:12):
He was pulled out of his apartment in the middle
of the night and he wasn't even wearing any clothes.
The only reason crying foul some us, that is, is
because it's ice. This kind of stuff has been going
on with regular police forever, and.

Speaker 1 (18:28):
Now we just decided it was bad because it's ice.

Speaker 3 (18:31):
Silly, it's crazy dragon, it's really crazy.

Speaker 1 (18:39):
Sure enough, it is crazy down, crazy down.

Speaker 5 (18:43):
Well, we had found even last week, late last week,
early last week that the more anti ICE people killed
the the detainees than Ice.

Speaker 1 (18:52):
So good job out there, exactly, very good job.

Speaker 3 (18:57):
You've probably heard the story but now, but it fits
in with the whole Olensky thing. So Virginia Democrat Attorney
General nominee J. Jones, if you see a picture of him,
he kind of looks like a young he's a spartacus. Yes,
he wants to be the next spartacus of attorney generals.
He is now under intense bipartisan criticism because the text

(19:21):
messages from twenty twenty two run for office. Expect your
text messages to become public at some point. And in
these text messages he fantasized about shooting the then Republican
speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, a guy by
the name of Todd Gilbert. In these private texts to

(19:43):
a Virginia Republican delegate by the name of Kerry Coyner,
j Jones said, in a hypothetical scenario involving only two
bullets and three people, Gilbert, who was then the Speaker
of the House, Adolf Hitler, and Polepot, he would choose
to shoot Gilbert every time and use both bullets to

(20:06):
the head. He also used them inflammatory language about disrespecting
the graves of his political opponents, saying that if these
other delegates and other people had they died, he go
piss on their graves. Well, at least this time some
Democrats had some backlash. Of course Republicans did, but I

(20:30):
would expect that.

Speaker 4 (20:32):
Now.

Speaker 3 (20:32):
Jones responded, but you'll hear in a minute, by accepting
full responsibility, expressing deep regret, an embarrassment, Yeah I would too,
and issuing a public apology to Gilbert and his family.
He said that he had reached out personally to apologize,
but admitted he cannot take back the words, only offer accountability.

Speaker 5 (20:53):
A little bit of clarification here. These are texts between
him and.

Speaker 1 (20:56):
Whom Kerry kanyor Coyer.

Speaker 3 (21:00):
She's a Virginia House delegate, that's a state rep.

Speaker 5 (21:04):
So this isn't something that he posted on Twitter, Facebook
or Instagram or anything.

Speaker 1 (21:09):
This is just a.

Speaker 5 (21:11):
Private conversation between two individuals.

Speaker 3 (21:14):
Yes, okay, yes, yes. Now there's a heated debate.

Speaker 1 (21:22):
Heated debate.

Speaker 3 (21:23):
The heated race in Virginia between Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail
Spangberger and Lieutenant the current Lieutenant governor win some Earl Sears.
Now Sears and the Vice President Vans called jones remarks

(21:44):
disqualifying demand that he withdraw from the race. Trump weighed in,
labeling Jones a radical left lunatic and urged his I
meet he withdrawal too. Now, those that tension in that
Virginia ray, this is an attorney general's race.

Speaker 1 (22:03):
We can only wish for something as hilarious here.

Speaker 3 (22:05):
I mean, it's not hilarious in the sense that you
make threats to put the bullet in two bullets. You
got choice the Attorney general, Hitler and pol Pott. You
only got two bullets. And this guy's comments are I'd
use both bullets on the then Speaker.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
Of the House. Wow, there must be a lot of
bad blood there.

Speaker 3 (22:28):
But I bring it to your attention because it comes
a bit amid this broader national conversation about political violence
and extremism. Right wing terror incidents on the decline, but
an increase in politically motivated left wing violence, and that
underscores the discord and the use of Eleskey's rules for

(22:52):
radicals by the left. Now, in summary, jones inflammatory and violent,
hypothetical comments have sparkandeed of political firestorm and it does
call for me anyway. It really does call into question
his fitness to serve as Attorney General, and both parties
are now scrutinizing the limits of what is acceptable political
discourse as Virginia approaches this critical election. So what took place,

(23:22):
That's what I find so freaking hilarious. Take a listen
This comes courtesy of the ABC affiliate and it is.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
At a Richmond. I don't know who the.

Speaker 3 (23:40):
Inter I don't know who the pundit is, the reporter
for ABC News, but this is the Virginia Attorney General
candidate Jay Jones response the.

Speaker 6 (23:51):
Former Republican Speaker of the House Hitler, a man who's
responsible for killing six million Jews and then a Cambodian
dictator who's also a response for the death of over
a million people. You said in that scenario quote two bullets,
Gilbert would get two bullets to the head.

Speaker 1 (24:08):
What were you thinking?

Speaker 7 (24:10):
You know, Tyler, thank you for having me and for
giving me the opportunity to apologize, and I sincerely am
from the bottom of my heart. I want to express my.

Speaker 5 (24:20):
Remorse and my.

Speaker 7 (24:21):
Regret for what happened and what I said. That language
has no place in our discourse, and I am.

Speaker 1 (24:28):
So remorseful for what happened.

Speaker 7 (24:30):
I actually reached out to Speaker Gilbert this afternoon to
apologize to him and to Jennifer and to their children,
because I know that they are angry and furious, and
they are well within all of their bounds to feel
that way because what I said was unacceptable, and I
accept responsibility for that, and I want them to know,
and I want the people of Virginia to know that

(24:51):
I am so deeply, deeply embarrassed and that I understand
the gravity of what I said, and I am so
apologetic for it from the bottom.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
Of my heart.

Speaker 3 (25:00):
In this, I'm sure he is that he got caught,
and whomever his press secretary or PR person or whatever
is has really well versed him in the kind of
cover every base. Reach out to your opponent, talk about

(25:21):
the kids, how they have fear in their hearts, everything,
and it's all your responsibility, and you thank accountability for it.

Speaker 1 (25:26):
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Speaker 3 (25:29):
And I'm not trying to diminish his apology. It very
well may be sincere I don't know and I'm not
involved in that race, and I don't frankly care. I
go back to.

Speaker 1 (25:41):
You said it, and I know you regret it.

Speaker 3 (25:43):
In fact, I'm sure you regret it, and I'm quite
certain you certainly regret having got caught having said it.
My question is, why would you say that in the
first place. That's what I'd like, you know, how we
whenever there's a murder. Oh my gosh, we got to
find the motive of the murder. What was the motivation
for motive? Gotta find mode moddy motive, motive, motive motive.

(26:06):
I like to know what what cause you say that?
I mean, I guess I've got thousands of text messages.
I guess I go through. I don't think i've I
don't ever recall, even jokingly. Oh, I might have said,
you know, I kill for this, or that, you know
I killed have a really good margarita? Right now, I

(26:27):
killed have a really good I killed have a decent producer.

Speaker 1 (26:30):
You know I killed have one. Ever, that wasn't the joke.

Speaker 5 (26:35):
Now, I'm really big on context. Here is there a
text messages prior and after that as to what they
may have been speaking about at the time. And the
person he was texting is a person who's he's a
friend with or is this just a co workers it's
a coworker? How did thissation come about?

Speaker 4 (26:54):
You?

Speaker 3 (26:54):
Let's see here here's what Here's what I can find
from both National Review and a couple of other sources.
It goes like this, you weren't simply asking questions and
you know it, I generally was. I wasn't attacking you.
I was trying to understand your logic. You weren't trying
to understand you were talking about hoping Jennifer Gilbert's children

(27:16):
would die. Yes, I've told you this before. Only when
people feel pain personally do they move on policy. There's
a little context for you. This is what the coworker,
this is what a co legislator at the time.

Speaker 1 (27:33):
He was a legislator, a friendly.

Speaker 3 (27:35):
No, actually on the other side of the aisle. He
was a Democrat, she was Republican.

Speaker 5 (27:39):
So this is something be so even I'm I'm trying
to fight the urge to sit there and say text
messages from years ago or what could get this man canceled.
It's not like he put this out on Twitter. He
didn't put this out in the universe. It's just between him,
a private conversation between him and a coworker. Granted, this
coworker is not a friendly so I don't think you

(28:00):
would even jokingly say something like that to somebody non friendly.

Speaker 3 (28:06):
Which is my point. I would never I don't think
i've you and I should go do a word search
of all of our text messages over the past two
or three years. I don't I doubt I've ever said
I'd like to go kill somebody, or if I only
had if I only had two bullets and I had
three people, I had you and two other people in

(28:26):
this building, that I'd choose both bullets for you, even jokingly.
That's just that's just not the way I joke. But
I've also always assumed that all the text messages, you know,
I can. I can go delete all the text messages
I want between me and Dragon if Dragon doesn't also,

(28:46):
because you're on my phone too, right, correct, Yes, So
assuming that Dragon has his phone backed up to the cloud,
then I can delete all I want to. In fact,
I've actually done this before. There are people that I
haven't texted in a long time, and I will just
delete the text messages, and then a year later or
two years later, I've had people text me back again

(29:09):
when I haven't talked to him for two years, and
bank the entire text chain shows back up in my
text messages again. So unless we both delete them, I've
always assumed that any text message I send at some
point could be disclosed by the other person. Now, Dragon,
out have to kill you if you do. But you know,
I'm just I'm joking.

Speaker 5 (29:33):
I'm not joking.

Speaker 1 (29:33):
Take a break, Oh it is break time, Mike.

Speaker 8 (29:36):
Any comment on the mass shooting in Montgomery, Alabama, that
occurred over the weekend that the media has elected not
to cover two dad, twelve wounded that occurred outside of
a nightclub catering to the African American community, where two
groups of shooters began shooting wildly at each other and
into the crowd.

Speaker 1 (29:55):
No, I haven't seen the story. No comment.

Speaker 5 (29:58):
I think that might have been his point.

Speaker 1 (30:00):
Yeah, well, I.

Speaker 3 (30:03):
Am now curious about it, and we'll see how soon
it shows up on the list of mass shootings around
the country. Here's the attorney general candidate in Virginia.

Speaker 7 (30:17):
That language has no place in our discourse. And I am.

Speaker 1 (30:22):
So remorseful for what happened.

Speaker 7 (30:24):
I actually reached out to Speaker Gilbert this afternoon to
apologize to him and to Jennifer and to their children,
because I know that they are angry and furious, and
they are well within all of their bounds to feel
that way, because what I said was unacceptable, and I
accept responsibility for that, and I want them to know,
and I want the people of Virginia to know that

(30:45):
I am so deeply, deeply embarrassed, and that I understand
the gravity of what I said, and I am so
apologetic for it from the bottom of my heart.

Speaker 6 (30:54):
In this election, you're asking Virginians to vote for a
man who compared his political opponents to mass murderers. Isn't
that type of rhetoric disqualifying for someone who's seeking statewide
office here in Virginia.

Speaker 7 (31:07):
Well, the rhetoric has no place on our landscape, no
place in our discourse. And again for that, I am deeply,
deeply sorry. If I should have never done it, It's
very embarrassing to me, and certainly I regret it.

Speaker 6 (31:18):
The National Reviews article which came out today says, after
those text messages were sent to carry Corner, you picked
up the phone and called her. You said, according to
the article I'm quoting, Gilbert's wife could watch her own
child die in her arms so that Gilbert might reconsider
his political views.

Speaker 7 (31:36):
Did you say that the bottom line is that the
language is unacceptable? And again, I deeply, deeply, deeply wish that.

Speaker 1 (31:41):
It hadn't happened. I didn't hear denial in that I have.

Speaker 7 (31:46):
Spent the entire day really regretting all of it, and
I certainly wish that it hadn't happened. And I'm sick
to my stomach when I read those words.

Speaker 5 (31:56):
Your point was, what dragon, He's not even saying that. Hey, guys,
it was a joke. There was more context going on.
We were just having a laugh in good time, and
I figured i'd say this to be funny.

Speaker 1 (32:06):
No, none of that, None of them nowhere.

Speaker 7 (32:09):
And certainly they're objectionable, they're abhorrent. They have no place
in Virginia, no place in this country's discourse. And so again,
I am so deeply, deeply sorry.

Speaker 6 (32:18):
A lot of politics is about trust. I can think
of nothing more horrific than a mother having to hold
her dying child. How can Virginians trust a man who
said something so horrific, so callously?

Speaker 1 (32:32):
Well again, I am yeah again. What's your question, mister?

Speaker 5 (32:36):
It was just kind of curious. A good question by
the journalist would have been, did you reach out and
apologize at the time, because the person you were texting
called you out on it?

Speaker 1 (32:45):
Yeah? Now, did you.

Speaker 5 (32:46):
At that time say yep, you're right, my bad, I'm sorry.
I was trying to be funny. It didn't work out.
Let me go reach out to him right now and say, dude,
I've said something really appropriate, inappropriate, and I'm sorry.

Speaker 1 (32:58):
Fact I go back to it.

Speaker 3 (32:59):
He said something to the effect of she said please stop,
and he said l O l okay okay.

Speaker 1 (33:06):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (33:07):
Yeah, and you wonder why rules Drolinsky. Yeah, you can
probably find a free copy somewhere