5-2-25 - 8am - First 100 Days Polling and Imigration & Judges

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, oligarchs is the latest buzzword that I'm really getting
sick of.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
Oh, so it makes too much money here in oligark,
you're holding down the little guy. Come on, how many
people is? Oh?

Speaker 1 (00:14):
I don't know, Elon and musk employ it's an eye
popping number.

Speaker 3 (00:21):
You ever see those I don't. I don't know what
they're called, but I see them on my Facebook feed
a lot where it will have and what that talkback
reminds me of is one that I just saw recently
about the world's largest companies, and it will start back
at a certain date, like I think this one started

(00:42):
back in the nineteen fifties. And then it's it's a
graph that you know, it moves up and down as
it goes through as the little clock over here goes
from you know, nineteen fifty five to nineteen fifty six,
all the way up to you know, twenty twenty two,
twenty twenty three, twenty twenty Yeah, and you see the
companies move up and down and up and down and everything. Right,

(01:04):
I don't know what those kind of graphs are called.

Speaker 4 (01:06):
Well, they're interesting and fun.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
They're fascinating to watch how.

Speaker 1 (01:09):
The companies change over time. And what takes the fighting spot? Yeah, yeah,
because I was. I was watching one either yesterday or
day before, and I kept waiting for Apple to pop
in because I didn't know what.

Speaker 3 (01:24):
I was trying to guess what year Apple would pop
in to whatever there. Maybe there were twenty or thirty
on that list, I don't know, probably probably twenty maximum.
And I kept waiting and waiting, and I was way
earlier than what I thought. I mean I was. I
was thinking it'd be like two thousand and two or no. No, no, no,

(01:44):
it was much much later.

Speaker 4 (01:46):
The late seventies, early eighties.

Speaker 3 (01:47):
No, no, no, no, for to be one of the
top companies. It wasn't until like twenty, like twenty nineteen
or twenty twenty or something, maybe even Yeah, and then
it jumped up and then it stayed there. How do
you a Ramco? I think bumped it a couple of times,
Microsoft bumped it a couple of times something Anyway, A
couple of companies bumped it a couple of times. But

(02:09):
you know when when the clock finally ended at whatever
end of twenty twenty four, it was number one, But
it's I remember seeing Tesla finally pop up in that list. Too.
I'm just fascinated by those, by those because what it
gives you a little perspective on time, It also gives
you a little perspective on how much things change. And

(02:34):
I think, no segue, but I think this is somewhat
of a segue. Is I noticed earlier on the Cairon
for Fox, which I guess I should shouldn't be surprised,
but it was like, really Fox or he masters the obvious?
It was somebody of the effect. What did what did
I say to you? Dragon? Something about Hillary Clinton?

Speaker 4 (02:56):
Clon bashes Trump?

Speaker 3 (02:58):
Hillary Clinton bashes Trump. And then over here on CNN
at almost exactly the same time, it was just people
upset Trump moving too fast? And I thought, what, what's
too fast? Is there a speed limit there?

Speaker 1 (03:14):
Weren't you just complaining a moment ago about all of
the White House emails?

Speaker 2 (03:20):
Well?

Speaker 3 (03:21):
I did. I actually did complain about the White House
emails because it's I've got.

Speaker 4 (03:25):
To unsubscribe from the White House email there, I'm getting
too many.

Speaker 1 (03:29):
Are you really complaining about the guy that's leading the
free world is working too much?

Speaker 3 (03:36):
It is amazing how much stuff they're pushing out and
how much stuff he's doing compared to what was that
guy's name that we never.

Speaker 4 (03:48):
Saw Joe Pudding except when.

Speaker 3 (03:50):
He was carrying the Shay's Lounge out on the beach
of Rohoba to go lay out in the sun. And
oh my gosh, Well that leads me to the numbers,
because the cabal is absolutely convinced that this is, I mean,
the lowest approval rating for any president in his first

(04:10):
one hundred days since FDR. Really, let's see ABC News.
This was at the beginning of the week, Trump has
the lowest one hundred day approval rating in eighty years. Now.
The ABC News Washington Post poll, which was conducted actually

(04:31):
by IPSOS to mark one hundred days in office, that
was just one of probably dozens where Trump's approval rating
was dipping below forty percent for the first time. But
there's a problem with that. The posters who are showing
the worst numbers for Trump are also the posters who
got the election almost entirely wrong. For example, I just

(04:54):
gave you the ABC headline trump has lost one hundred
day approval rating in eighty years. Well, the Washington Post
IPSOS poll showed Trump at on thirty nine percent approval
in their final poll of last year's election cycle, they
had a three point lead for Kamala Harris. Ipso's other

(05:16):
poll for Reuters had a two point advantage for Harris. Nationally,
Trump ended up winning the popular vote by one and
a half points. So that's how far off they were. Now,
CNN their polling is conducted by some company called SSRs.
I thought that was like, those were antidepressant drugs you took, Oh,

(05:38):
those were SSRIs. This is SSRs. They their polling put
Trump on a paltry forty percent approval rating last week.
So where was CNN and their poster SSRs. Where were
they at an election day? Well, they had Harris ahead

(05:59):
in the state of North Carolina, six points ahead in Wisconsin,
and five points ahead in Michigan. Let's go to the
New York Times. So it's all you know, it's New
York Times and they partner up with SIEMA College and
they do their poll and that's often tabled the most
respected poll. They have Trump on the one hundred days

(06:21):
this week out of forty two percent approval rating. So
guess where they were when you look at their performance
in the swing states, which is now what about six
months ago? They had Harris leading by three points in Nevada,
Harris leading by two points in North Carolina, Harris leading
by two points in Wisconsin, and Hair's leading by one

(06:43):
point in Georgia. And actually they they had Trump leading
only in Arizona. Well, what's the reality? He won every
single swing state. So conveniently, the only other polling firm
that has Trump's approval rating at one hundred days below
forty percent is the Associated Press, who did not publish

(07:09):
a voting intention poll in all of twenty twenty twenty
twenty four. So I don't know, but let's go into
the editorial rooms, the editorial boards of all of these
esteemed members of the cabal. You would have thought they
might have thought twice about rehiring or partnering up with

(07:31):
the same posters after the debacle of November. But for them,
the show just goes on. I'm just astonished at how No,
I'm not, I'm not either astonished, it's not the right word.
I'm just amazed at how they just continue to put

(07:55):
those numbers out and then everybody, because you know, you
know how the cabal works. It's like, you know, the
wire Service writes the story, AP writes the story. The
New York Times writes the story, and then the Denver
Compost picks it up, and then it gets spread out
to the Boulder Camera. It gets spread out all over
same is true all over the country. You know, the

(08:15):
Chicago Tribune will pick up a paper a story from
the Associated Press or the New York Times, and then
all the little local newspapers around Chicago, in the ininter
lands of Illinois, they'll they'll publish the same story, and
so they feed it out like like like a cancer,
they just feed it out everywhere. I don't know, but

(08:36):
it just seems like at some point wouldn't we just
say you don't have any credibility whatsoever. But I'm kind
of interested in what's happening in the polls themselves too.
It's the same problem as in November, because they are
This goes back to a conversation. It kind of goes
back to a conversation Dragon and I are having during

(08:57):
the break. Remember when I played the sound by about
Bernie talking about the oligarchs control of the media, and
I said, well, wait a minute, Bernie, the the oligarchs
are the ones that you're bitching about that own the
media are all a bunch of lefties. They are all
a bunch of socials. They are all a bunch of
anti trumpers. And what did you say to me? Dragon?

(09:20):
Come on, come on, what did you say to me?

Speaker 1 (09:24):
We're gonna gloss over the fact that we're just gonna
skip over that.

Speaker 4 (09:29):
I'm confused now, right.

Speaker 3 (09:33):
Dragon, kumfry out? Why I did? He said? Dragon was like,
you're just gonna gloss over the fact that he's saying
the oligarchs on the media that the right, the right, right, Dragon,
I just said that the oligarchs are all that on
the media, are all a bunch of lefties. So Dragon
wasn't paying attention. Yep, it's Friday, right, of course I

(09:54):
would say it's to day Indian whisel. Dragon wasn't paying attention.

Speaker 4 (09:58):
Huh.

Speaker 3 (09:58):
But let's let's go. Let's go back to what's the
fundamental problem in the polls. And I think it's the
same in November as it is in May or actually
be technically in April. They over represent the Harris voters,
they over represent the Democrats. The CNN poll had more

(10:21):
twenty twenty four Harris voters than they did Trump voters,
So I don't know, kind of like up there on
the Fox News tyron. If the headline is Hillary Clinton
criticizes the Trump administration. If you out, if you out
poll or overpoll or whatever, the appropriate appropriate term would

(10:44):
be Harris voters about how's Trump doing in the first
hundred days? I guess you're going to get the outcome
that you want. Poster John McLaughlin pointed out that the
IPSOS poll also has more Harris voters than Trump voters. Well,
what about the New York Times. The sample is composed

(11:08):
of thirty eight percent twenty twenty four Trump voters to
thirty eight percent Harris voters. Trump won the popular vote,
and if you want an accurate survey of voters as
they are in twenty twenty five, then you need to
reflect that in the sample. So while they did not

(11:28):
oversample in the New York Times survey, they kept it equal. Well,
that's not how the election turned out. You think that
you would slightly over by what one point five percent?
At least maybe slightly more one point five percent, which

(11:49):
is the margin by which he won in those swing
one overall, So you're still under sampling those who voted
for him. So if you sampled exclusively those who voted
for Donald Trump. It still wouldn't be the one hundred

(12:10):
percent approval because there are those who voted for Donald
Trump who still think, oh, you know, this isn't what
I voted for. Or he's moving too fast, or he's
doing too much, or I disagree about tariffs, or I
disagree about Ukraine, or I disagree agree about the Iranians,
I disagree about the Hoho Thies something. The point is
no pulling is perfect, but I am confident that some

(12:31):
posters get closer to the truth. There's a firm called
JL Partners. They sample a way based on the twenty
twenty vote to make sure that they've got the right
amount of Trump twenty twenty four voters, which means they're
going to have slightly more than they do Democrat voters,
and then they use a mixed method approach. They include

(12:52):
in app pulling that picks up voters as they're say
gaming or they're doing online shopping on their phones, which
I like the approach to some degree because that picks
up less politically interested, less politically motivated voters. And it
turns out that when you look at all the posters,

(13:13):
it made them the most accurate poster of last year,
and one of the only firms to give Trump a
popular vote lead in their pulling leading up to the
twenty twenty four election. Now let's think about them, though,
because not all of their numbers are rosy for Donald Trump.
According to them, the approval rating is around forty five percent,

(13:36):
which is still down from fifty percent just a few
weeks ago. Now, the decline in Trump's ratings in the
last few days, I think is probably real. It's just
not as dramatic as the cabal wants you to think
it is. And I think there I think they're due
to some systemic aversion to Trump, which there is. At

(14:02):
one of these meetings that I was at, the whole
thing about Trump came up and someone just made a
really broad, generalized and not reading the audience there are
about six of us, and not reading the audience, just
made a really derogatory comment about Trump voters. And I
had to make, in a split second, make a decision

(14:22):
do I start arguing and completely derail this meeting or
do I just ignore it now? And and I did.
I just chose to ignore it because it's like this
meeting has gone on long enough. I kind of want
to get out of here. There is a systemic aversion
to Trump, and I think there's something else going on too.
And it's kind of like me off handily commenting about Gee,

(14:44):
I unsubscribe from the White House emails because there's just
too many of them. Well, honestly, I'm not reading all
of them. I'm only looking at the subject matter, and oh,
that one interests me, not that one doesn't. So read
delete delete delete, read, delete, delete, delete, delete delete read.
That's kind of what I'm doing right now. But that
points out that their messaging is I think twofold one.

(15:09):
They really are trying to point out just how damn
busy and how they are full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes.
We're going to try to keep doing as much as
we can for as long as we can, because they've
got to get the momentum going to get up to
the point where they vote on the reconciliation bill to

(15:32):
avoid the tax hikes and get the tax cuts in
and get all the other stuff in that they want.
And so I understand this is exactly what this is
what I voted for anyway, I voted for this soul
called chaos. But I think Trump needs to do something
just a little different than what he's doing right now,

(15:52):
and that is I think he needs to let me
back up. If you've listened to me for any length
of time, you've heard me say during the Biden administration
that what we have is a lack of leadership. We
need someone to point out where we are, but we

(16:14):
need someone to point out we're going there, that's where
we're going. We're going to go to the top of
that hill, or we're going to the end of that trailhead,
or we're going to that point on the compass, whatever
it might be. Tell us where you're taking us. And
while I think Trump does a little of that, I

(16:35):
don't think he does enough of that. I don't think
he gets it in or puts it in real layman's terms,
and some of it I don't think he can. For example,
China and the tariffs on China, I don't think it
would be beneficial to point out that what he's really
trying to accomplish. I know, bear with me. I do

(16:58):
believe that he is trying to rejigger the trade imbalance
between the United States and China, and I really do
believe that part of the plan is to move some
of that manufacturing out of China, preferably to the United States,
but also to other countries, you know, move it to

(17:19):
India for example, of our you know, one of our allies,
move it to Japan or South Korea. But why because
he really is trying to destroy the Chinese Communist Party.
And as much as he talks about, oh, I know
shegen Ping, we're friends. Why we know each other for
years and we talked, I really do believe that in

(17:41):
his heart of hearts he wants to help topple Shi
jine Ping. And you really just can't come out and
say that. So with China, maybe he needs to be circumspect.
But the other stuff, I really wish there was more
of just a very basic eighth grade level explanation of
of we've been here and describe, you know, which he's

(18:04):
very good at. He's always willing to talk about how
bad things were for the past four years, but casually
mention that, but say, but here's where we're going, and
now we're going to a new golden age. But tell
us what that golden age is.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
Now.

Speaker 3 (18:20):
I don't think it makes a big difference for republics,
but I don't care about republicans, right now I care
about the midterms. So I want people that are already
thinking in terms of the midterms, or who will start
thinking about the midterms to know that, oh, there's a plan.
So it's not just chaos, it's a plan.

Speaker 5 (18:40):
Michael, me and AOC gotta get rid of these oli gucks.
Just because I own three homes and I'm making up
Bernie's I'm not an oligarch.

Speaker 3 (18:57):
Actually, you know you are an oligarch because you are wealthy,
you're in the top one percent, and you own multiple homes,
and you're a part of the ruling elite, and so
you are under a very broad definition of oligarch, you
are an oligarch. But don't tell burning that because they
make a brainerd Just a quick reminder, we are asking

(19:20):
you on the text line to tell us kind of
where I'm having a discussion. Actually, it's an argument with
management in sales about what should they be pursuing in

(19:44):
terms of show sponsors, endorsements and that sort of thing.
And my thought is, it's not about what I want,
it's about what you want. And one of the things
that you're interested in, what do you do for recreation
or or what do you you know what kind of activities,
whether it's you know, home remodeling, or it's traveling, or

(20:06):
it's like somebody uh listened, Like we like to do
a lot of outdoor activities like camping and hiking and
you know, skiing and that sort of thing. So at
three three one zero three keyword, Mike or Michael, just
tell me a little bit about those things that you're
interested in, because I'm trying to show management that their

(20:26):
approach is, is anybody listening back asswork? Just it's back
ass work.

Speaker 1 (20:33):
Well, well, it's nice for us to get some kickbacks
when we talk about things that we like. If we
talk about crumble cookies and they're to sponsor the show
and we get money and free crumble cookies, that's fantastic.
But if you don't give two squats about cookies, then
it does no good for it any.

Speaker 3 (20:51):
Anybody, Right, it's the waste of the advertisers money, and
so it's a waste of my breath, it's a waste
of we we don't get any benefit from it's it's
a waste of everything.

Speaker 4 (21:01):
So we need to know what you like.

Speaker 3 (21:03):
Yeah, yeah, there you go. Let's go back to nineteen
ninety six. Who is President Bubba Bill Clinton was president
who controlled the House of Representatives and the United States
Senate the Republicans. Have you ever heard of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act? Ther I r A

(21:30):
right off the time, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act. It was you know they always talked about
we need comprehensive you know, immigration reform. Well, this is
described as comprehensive immigration reform. It had several objectives, strength
and border control, enhance enforcement, and actually address illegal immigration.

(21:55):
There were some key parts of this bill, and there's
a the reason when he get to the bill is
a judge did something on Tuesday that I find unbelievable. No,
I don't find it unbelievable. I find it it's one
more nail in the coffin that's burying the credibility of

(22:18):
the judiciary. And I probably won't have time to finish
this entire story today, So if I don't, I'm just
giving your heads up then you need tune end tomorrow
at ten when I on the Weekend with Michael Brown,
where I'm going into even more in depth on this.
But let's go through what that bill did, passed by
Republicans and signed by Bill Clinton, passed by Republicans, signed

(22:42):
by a Democrat. It increased border enforcement because it expanded
the number of border patrol agents. It added fencing and
technology at the border, and it introduced new penalties for
illegal entry into the country. It criminalized illegal present It
criminalized just being president in the country crossing coming into

(23:06):
the country is a crime. Remaining in the country after
you've come across illegally, that became a crime. It increased
penalties for re entry after deportation, made that a felony.
You've been deported, you come back in again, that's a felony.
And then it expanded the grounds for deportation. It required detention.

(23:27):
You had to be held if you were an illegal
alien during deportation proceedings. And it had a it's goot
different categories, including those with criminal convictions. And I emphasized
those with criminal convictions, because those who had criminal convictions,
either foreign or domestic, can be held while you're getting

(23:51):
kicked out of the country. It imposed listened closely because
this one has been completely ignored. I shouldn't say completely,
it's been significantly ignored. It imposed income requirements for family
based immigration sponsors and restricted access to public benefits for

(24:18):
illegal and legal immigrants. In other words, it was it's
time that we kind of go back to the old
system that show that you've got a sponsor, show that
you have a means of self reliance, show that you
have the means or a job or whatever it is
that you're not going to go on the public goal
that was enhanced in nineteen ninety six. It also authorized

(24:43):
are you listening, Mike Johnston sanctuary cities. It authorized state
in local law enforcement to physically through intelligence, through whatever means,
to assist in immigration enforcement. Then two other things that
are important. It expanded the use of expedited removal proceedings

(25:07):
and it allowed for the deportation without a hearing for
certain illegal aliens. So through an Act of Congress, they
because remember I said, due process is while you have
substantive and procedural due process, every single one of those

(25:29):
has certain limitations and it doesn't mean that everybody gets
all the same thing. Well, in nineteen ninety six, they
allowed deportation without a hearing for certain undocumented or illegal aliens.
And then, of course the final thing that did it
tightened the asylum application deadlines. You had to do it

(25:52):
within one year. That's particularly important because mister Garcia, the
Maryland Father. You know, pocrats don't refer to him as
a Maryland father anymore. They now talk about due process. Well,
that's kind of interesting because he did not file for
his asylum application within the one year refiling requirement, so

(26:14):
he is not entitled a due process and therefore his
subject to deportation. But something happened. On Tuesday the twenty ninth,
a judge in the Eastern District of California by the
name of Jennifer Thurston announced that Customs and Border Patrol
and Immigrations and Customs enforcement officers can no longer rely

(26:37):
upon the very statue that I just described when pursuing
illegal aliens. When you read through the injunction, it sounds
like she pulled up this statute that I just gave
you a general description of, and just on her own,
amended every part of it. The president of the very

(27:01):
tools that Article two of the Constitution gives the president
to conduct foreign policy to deal with immigration, and put
it in the hands instead of a judge where she
could exercise a veto where the president does something that
she doesn't like and the legislature was the Congress was

(27:24):
just kind of like, uh, you may have passed the law,
but I just amended the law.

Speaker 4 (27:29):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (27:31):
I always thought federal judges had power, but I didn't
think they had that much power. When you when you
just skim through this case, it seems fairly pedestrian. It
seems like all the other cases we've heard about. So
in summary, the ACLU sue CBP after their efforts called

(27:56):
Operation Return to Sender had does, several does and arrests
that were in her district, in the Eastern District of California.
It was inland, so it was beyond Remember we've talked
about the one hundred mile mark where you can just
frog march them right back across the border. Well, this
act in nineteen ninety six didn't necessarily extend the one

(28:18):
hundred mile inland border, but it gave ICE and CBP
authority to with certain aliens to go ahead and detain
them and deport them without a hearing. So what was
the lawsuit about. Well, the lawsuit was, well, you're you're

(28:39):
racially profiling, all right, you're using I love this. I
won't get to it today, but maybe tomorrow. You're using
coercive paperwork. Well, if that's enough to get you off
the hook from the federal government, then I would say

(29:00):
the federal government is generally always engaged in course the paperwork.
And then she said there was a shortage of Miranda
style warnings. You know, like you know, you're entitled to
a lawyer, and if you don't want a lawyer, one
will be appointed for you. You know, anything you say
ken and will be used against you in the court
of law. Wait a minute, Wait a minute, there's nothing.

(29:22):
There's nothing in the nineteen ninety six Act about requiring
a miranda warning because these people are not being charged
with a crime. These people are being deported. So Thurston
responded to there was a command that Customs and Border
Patrol agents have to go get a warrant or at

(29:45):
a minimum, there has to be proof of probable cause
of imminent flight. Yeah, and you have to have both
one or both of those before you can arrest any
suspected illegal alien. Well, that again is in complete contradiction
of what the statute says. But when I when I
read her order and it got to the part about

(30:07):
imminent flight, that you only could arrest or detain if
you could show probable cause of imminent flight. I thought, well,
wait a minute. I know I'm being silly here, but
this is what I thought. If you're encountering an illegal
alien and they indicate that they're going to try to fly,

(30:29):
we'll just chase them out of the country. Just keep
chasing them kind of, you know, kind of like a
sheep dog, just kind of hurt them kind of, you know. No, no, no,
you're heading west. No you can't get to the coast. No,
keep going, No, no, head south, head south. Yeah, you're
doing pretty good. No, you know, you're going too far.
He's come back in a little bit and just had
them right back through Tijuana, Tijuana and just had them

(30:49):
right back into Mexico. Yeah. Yeah, I guess your honor.
They were engaged in imminent flight and we tried to
stop them, but they were too fast for us. They
were just too fast.

Speaker 2 (31:02):
Michael, my mom, who was born in Garden City, Kansas
in nineteen twenty three and since passed away as the
only other person I've ever heard use the term rejigger.

Speaker 4 (31:17):
Have a nice one use the term what rejigger?

Speaker 3 (31:21):
Rejigger? Yep. I think it's because that's that's actually where
that my grandfather used a lot. Ah, we need to
go rejigger this thing is not working quite right. Yeah,
and I didn't. I never knew where the jigger was,
so I didn't know how to rejigger it. Yep, I'm
an old soul. I didn't say an old man dragon.

(31:44):
I said, I'm an old soul. So let's go back
to Judge Thurston. Like Judge Thurston Hell, she responded to
all of this going on in her district with an
order that CBP must secure a judicial warrant warrant or

(32:08):
at least show probable cause of imminent flight before you
could even arrest a suspected illegal alien, and that you
cannot secure a voluntary departure unless every single illegal alien,
duly advised by the government of every conceivable right, chooses

(32:29):
to leave their own accord. Now, but that's not what
the law says at all, which is why I say
she's amended this law on her own without Congress authorizing it. No,
just this is judicial tyranny. Now. I have purposely not

(32:55):
looked this judge up because I don't don't care. Now
I can take a guess about who may have appointed
this judge. But I don't care, and I don't want
to say, and if you look it up, don't tell me.
I'll probably look it up at some point. How to
sheer curiosity, because what I'm focused on is her ninety pages.

(33:23):
Ninety pages is I think blatantly beyond her constitutional authority. Now,
lawyers in the crowd are going to argue, Okay, well, Michael,
all of that's fine. What we need now is we
need for the Department of Justice to appeal her ruling

(33:46):
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then eventually
get it to the US Supreme Court. And as a lawyer,
I would say, Okay, that's the process. But how much
longer are we going to allow these judges to do
this kind of constitutional land grab, this blatant overreach before

(34:12):
I don't know, before we just say, you know what,
hold us in contempt. I don't think I've ever in
my lifetime thought to myself. You know, we often talk about, well,
you know, the military will refuse to obey an unlawful

(34:33):
order from the commander in chief. Okay, well, if if
that's good enough. And don't get me wrong, I don't
want to go down this path, but I at least
have to think about this path if the military can
disavow what they'd believe to be an unlawful order of

(34:54):
the commander in chief, and then we go through all
of that process. These judges are forcing people like me
who really do believe in the legitimacy of the judiciary
to start to question that legitimacy. So what will do tomorrow?
If you want to tune in and listen, say, I
don't want to wait till Monday. I'll do it tomorrow

(35:16):
because I want to go into some of the details
of the different sections of this nineteen ninety six Act
and her order and make the case that, you know what, maybe,
just maybe she's mullifying the rule of law.