Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, I'm really glad to hear that your mom is
okay and that you went back to help her. Do
you think you could have stayed a couple more days
so we could.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Hear Jimmy again.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
This is what I absolutely just despise about my audience
is they totally get it.
Speaker 4 (00:20):
They hate you as much as you hate them, and.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
They're as passive aggressive and as much of a smart
ass as I am. Which you know, this program is
just a bud light for smart ass passive aggressive a holes.
And she sounds like a nice lady, but she's a
passive aggressive, smart ass a.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Hole, right, So this is her, this is her home.
She's come home.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Greg and I were just talking about we have to
do this thing about what.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
The core values are, something almost like an employee evaluation.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
Self evaluation, right, And I'm all in the dither about
it because I don't know how to answer some of
the questions. And Dragon told me he just well, well
Dragon gave Dragon answers. Let's just put it that way.
Ask yourself, this is under core skills. Consistently the culture
(01:17):
consistently embodies company values and encourages others to do the same. Well,
I first have to question what exactly are the company values?
You know, I know what the mission statement says, I
know what the HR manual says, but that's that's a
whole different ballpark, that's a whole different city than what
(01:40):
really are the core value?
Speaker 4 (01:42):
You're going into this thinking that somebody is actually going
to read this stuff. I went to to it thinking
it's just a bunch of corporate mumbo jumbo. And if
my boss wanted to give me an employee evaluation, he
could come talk to me and have a sit down
with me personally, and I can tell him exactly how
I think I'm doing.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
And I one hundred.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Percent agree with that. However, going back to the talk
back about how.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
I argue with myself, Yeah, there's that.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Well, so I sit down and you know the lawy
your brain is reading consistently embodies company values and encourages
others to do the same. Okay, well, what are the
core value?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
I mean, if if.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
There's core values, and then there's the core value.
Speaker 4 (02:24):
And don't we have the poster in the basement that
says iHeart own everything.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Right, But then there's the question have I influenced others
in a positive way?
Speaker 4 (02:38):
Nope, you never have.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Ah does the does the spouse of my producer count
because I think I like you?
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Because I think, you know, I like her, she likes me.
I think I've influenced her in a positive way because
we both get to beat up on you. I mean,
I get to say things about you on air that
she doesn't have the audience that she can say those
things to which she likes.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
For me to say.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
So you know I've made her, I've made her happy.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
True.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
And that's so that'll be my answer to that one.
I guess I don't know. There's a hearing today about
and again, this is all because when you, when you
drove as much as I did over the past several days,
(03:37):
you're listening a lot of podcasts. You're listening to Fox News,
You're flipping over occasionally to CNN or MSNBC. And I
learn in listening to all of that that there's a
hearing today in Massachusetts about our favorite al salvadoran illegal alien,
kil mor Abragio Garcia. And everybody is well, and I'm
(04:05):
convinced that the judge wants to not his going to
but the judge wants to release mister Garcia on bond.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Except that he probably.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Knows that if he does, he'll immediately be arrested by
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement once again and immediately deported. And
the left on at least on the well, what you're
actually doing is you're listening to a assimulcast of Fox
(04:42):
News and CNN and MSNBC on serious EXMP And I
got to tell you, those on the left are apoplectic.
They are so afraid that that might be what happens.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
And this is awful because he's just a dad.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Don't talk about human trafficking or sex trafficking or anything else.
So let's go through Kilmar Abrago Garcia's deportation, because I
think that it was lawful. When it comes to federal law,
(05:19):
clarity is not optional. A judgment's meaning hinges on precise language,
and at least should not be determined by wishful interpretations. Right,
you got the plain meaning of the statue, you got
the plain meaning of a court like the Supreme Court.
(05:39):
You've got just read the opinion. It kind of speaks
for itself. And if you're trained as a lawyer, then
assuming you pass the bar exam, you should be able
to interpret the court's ruling fairly easily. Now, sometimes you've
got to really because it's a convoluted argument, you got
(06:00):
to really read through it. And if you're going to
in this case, if you're going to be representing mister Garcia,
you've got to really read closely the cases that the
Justice's site in order to make sure that your argument
can overcome those cases. When when immigration attorney the two
(06:21):
immigration attorneys Andrew Rossman and Simon Sandoval Mushburg or Massenburg,
I think, when they stood before District Judge Paula Zenus
and claimed that their client, mister Garcia, had been illegally
deported to Al Salvador. Then you're at least I'm prone
to ask a base on what show me the document.
(06:46):
Explain to me the legal rationale upon which you make
that assertion. Well, when you dig into it, you find
out the answer is both studying and troubling because there's
no document at all, not even the one.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
That matters the most.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
Because the only extant legal order that's governing mister Garcia's
deportability Guess what it is, I want you to guess now,
there are Remember they're arguing that his that he was
illegally deported to L Salvador. All right, So on what
(07:23):
basis do you make that claim? Because the only legal order,
the only one out there anywhere that governs mister Garcia's
deportability is this. It's a final withholding of removal order
issued by an immigration judge in October twenty nineteen that
(07:49):
says unequivocally that removal to Guatemala is barred, not El Salvador,
where we.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Send him, but Guatemala.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
That order is still binding, that order still is in existence,
final withholding of removal. You can't send him to Guatemala. Okay,
we'll send him to El Salvador. El Salvador is not
the same as Guatemala. I you know, go look on
the map. You know, do you still have a map
(08:20):
somewhere on Alice?
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Got a globe? Anybody got a globe? Look on there.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Guatemala, El Salvator, two separate countries. Yet all I heard
on the damn media and all these democrats is that
the order prohibited deportation to any country, implying that the
order of with the the order of removal, which only
said you can't send him to all you can't send
(08:46):
send him to Guatemala. Every Democrat. Everybody on CNN at
MSNBC keep claiming that the order prohibited deportation to any country.
So one of the implying, they're implying that Garcia was
entirely protected from removal to any country, and that is
(09:08):
kids categorically untrue.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
It's a lie. Be busy.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
You ever want to travel with me, We should just
do the show from a bus sometime and I'll just
sit up front, facing everybody on the bus and I'll
just I'll just listen to MSNBC and c because you'll
have to listen along too, unless I put headphones on,
because I want you to hear what I'm hearing so
(09:37):
you can listen to me scream at the radio, so
you can listen to me scream at serious excent.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
The ruling.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
Back in twenty nineteen restricted deportation only to Guatemala, which
means that any other destination, including his home country of
Al Salvador, is fully permissible under the law. Here's the
conclusion in the document. The respondence application for asylum is
(10:08):
time barred without exception. In other words, you waited too long,
you can't apply for asylum. There are no exceptions. However,
they write he has established past persecution based on a
protected ground and the presumption of a well founded fear
(10:29):
of future persecution. The Department of Homeland Security has not
shown there are changed circumstances in Guatemala that would result
in the responden's life not being threatened, or that internal
relocation is possible and reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the
respondence application for withholding under the Immigration Act is granted. Finally,
(10:54):
his claim for asylum fails because he has not shown
that he would suffer torture. That's not a footnote. That's
the premise upon which this entire case, this entire ruling
from from the trial court all the way to the
Fourth Circuit of the Supreme Court, was predicated, and it
is wrong. So let's go back to this October tenth,
(11:18):
twenty nineteen ruling. The immigration judge was David M.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Jones.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
It's publicly available. It clearly and explicitly grants Garcia withholding
of removal to Guatemala, not with removement. It doesn't withhold
removal to any other place, just Guatemala and its sites,
gang related threats and persecution of his family by Barrio
eighteen operaties that reside in Guatemala. DHS didn't contest the point.
(11:46):
They just agreed not to deport him to Guatemala. And
that is the you know, I could just stop right there.
That's the limit of the order. So what happened when
he gets deported to Alison, his native country, and that's
the jurisdiction where he has citizenship. His lawyer's scream no,
(12:11):
that's wrong, the media screaming that's wrong. Even the judge screams,
that's wrong. And so eventually did a majority of the
US Supreme Court, and every single one relied to varying
degrees on representations made by those lawyers that the twenty
nineteen order barred deportation to El Salvador.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
But you can do.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
Pulled up, do a word search, search for the word
el Salvador. No language exists in the ruling. It's a ghost.
It's a fabrication. It's a fiction that somehow has metastasized
through the legal system unchecked. That's why I'm watching this
case today so closely because I can't wait. I don't
know what DHS attorneys are going to argue. I don't
(12:56):
know what these two y'all whos are going to argue
I can't wait to see how the judge justifies that,
you know, not granting him bail. And I know why
I doesn't want to grant bail because he knows that
DHS will immediately, you know, apprehend him unless this judge,
Unless this judge decides to let him have calmed out
through a back door. But I think DHS may have
(13:18):
learned their lesson on that one, and I would hope not.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
I would hope that.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
This federal judge hasn't learned her lesson and that are
his lesson and he actually lets Garcia, you know, go
through a back door out, then maybe we can actually
hold a federal judge in contempt.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
That would be fantastic, wouldn't it.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
So to understand the magnitude of this error, I want
you to think about what happened next. The Justice Department,
who initially represented the government, assume the order said what
Garcia's lawyers claimed it said, that's a huge error. You
(14:02):
call into Capitalist's show this afternoon and asks Dan, Hey, Dan,
when a lawyer makes an assertion in a trial court,
do you just assume that what they say is true
or do you double check it? I guarante MT you, Dan,
capitlais double checks it. But no, this stupid DOJ lawyer
(14:22):
took the opponent's lawyers at their word, and for that
misplaced trust, the DOJ lawyer gets put on leave and
then eventually gets fired by Pam Bondy. Now, in the
world of political scapegoading, which I have to know a
little bit about, that's a gold metal worthy performance. So
(14:45):
where are we?
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Meanwhile?
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Judge Zenas sly faced with the uncomfortable fact that her
rulings may have been premised on some would say a
mischaracterization of the law. I would I would call it
a lie about the law. She's now attempting to backfill
the gap, so she's asked Garcia's lawyers to produce his
immigration file, his A file, the authoritative record of his
(15:10):
immigration history, all of his applications, and all of the
court orders. Guess what their response is, We lost it.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
Just let that.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
How many times do we hear from I don't care
whether it's private lawyers, government lawyers, it's the you know,
it's Biden's team, it's somebody on Trump's team, it's somebody
in the FBIDJ. It's a court room somewhere, a well,
I don't know. We can't find it. We lost the emails,
your honor, we lost the documents. We can't find them.
(15:47):
The legal team arguing that the Trump administration committed an
illegal illegal deportation not only failed to present the documents
supporting their claim, they can't even locate the file that
might clarify the record. But however, I guess who does
have a copy DHS. They've got a copy of the
(16:08):
relevant order and it clearly shows that Garcia was not
protected from removal to El Salvador. This, then, is what
you call the Steelman case of fraud. Knowingly or through
negligent misrepresentation was committed upon this court, and it culminated.
It resulted in a legally improper demand that the government
(16:31):
go get this yahoo who was lawfully deported under the
plain meaning of a judicial order and bring him back
to the United States. The judge should be embarrassed. I
mean the judge should be embarrassed to the point that,
you know, hold those lawyers in contempt for misleading the court.
(16:51):
And I would be so embarrassed I would want out
of the case. I would want to recuse myself and
say I allowed myself to before I wouldn't say this,
but I would be thinking to myself, I allowed these
lawyers to pull the wool over my eyes. I think
I should just sign this case to somebody else. Let
somebody else deal with that, because I've got a really
cool murder try case over here, or I've got a
(17:13):
really cool tax case or something, or I've got a
really cool kywalking case, anything but this one.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Hey, Michael, you asked us to bifurcate our brain. Now
I've got the I've got the ice pick inserted up
my nose. How deep do we go? And then what's
the next step. I just don't know what the process is.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
Well, you can do it. You can either just hold
the ice pick now. First of all, make sure the
ice pick is at a probably about to the ground
at about a forty five degree angle.
Speaker 4 (17:50):
And when you go in, make sure you go past
the crunch.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
Yes, yes, And I'd like to do it like usually
before and after the show. I'll use one nostril, you know,
before the program, the other nostril after the program. And
I like to just take the palm in my hand
and just jam it up, you know, just real quickly,
because that crunch is sometimes a little difficult to get through.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
You just and then one nostril counterclockwise, the other nostril clockwise.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
Yeah, yeah, and then yelp, and then you know what.
Then you're a Democrat. Or you could be a federal judge,
or you could be a lawyer for mister Garcia. Yeah,
or you could be a radio talk show. It's like me,
you could be any of those things. I'm just glad
(18:45):
you understood the definition to buifurcate. Most people think that's
a lobotomy, but it's not that. Bifurcation is an entirely
different procedure. You know, I should leave more often because
I come back with an entirely new appreciation for the
dumbasses out in this audience. The scary part is, I
(19:06):
do not want to hear on KDVR tonight that women
found dead and home with ice picking nose with KHW
blaring in the background.
Speaker 4 (19:15):
I just don't want to hear that local radio host
contributes to death.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
We knew he was crazy from the beginning. So let's
think about this judge for a moment. By the way,
before we go to the judge, let me let me
go to this text messages zero two three eight writes Michael,
I closed my mortgage company in two thousand and six.
By my calculation, that's about nineteen years ago, and I
still have files in my basement from that corporation. How
(19:45):
are we allowing these lawyers to get away with this
nonsense because nobody cares anymore. Nobody gives a ratsass about anything.
I don't think, which is why so we see you
do this program. This is why I need to quit
worrying about filling out my student Core Values thing. I'll
just in fact, I'll just have that with the dogs
fill it out for me. We'll do that earlier or later, earlier, later.
(20:08):
Where am I? What am I doing here? Think about this?
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Judge?
Speaker 3 (20:13):
So, Judge Zenas in her opinion, she absolutely assumed the
worst about the Trump administration, and so she issued an
opinion that's just melting dripping with moral certitude that Garcia's
deportation amounted to an affront to the United States Constitution.
(20:34):
But her outrage kind of like the outrage of the
Fourth Circuit panel that affirmed her, was grounded on a
supposition that was absolutely false. The decision does not bar
removal to al Salvador. But did the judge read the
order herself. Obviously not. She could have required, Okay, we'll
(20:56):
produce you know it's not and it's not the judges responsibility,
it's the lawyers. But she should She should have said
to the lawyers, uh, may I see that document. Produce
into that document into evidence. I want to see it.
She didn't do that. She could have require the production
of the document before she issued her rulings. She didn't
(21:17):
do that, So what does she do. The one thing
she did do was she presumed malevolence on the part
of the executive brands, where she should have demanded proof
in her own courtroom. She didn't care what the lawyers said.
I think her mind was made up. And listening to MSNBC,
(21:41):
reading the Washington Post, the New York Times, every they're
all claiming and repeating the falsehood that Garcia's deportation was illegal.
I heard words like lawless, rogue, out of control, but
lawlessness returning a man to his home country when the
(22:01):
law is specifically allowed for it, and not returning into
a country that the law said you cannot take him
to that country. I think the lawlessness. Lawlessness is in
the court room, lying to a federal judge and persuading
the Supreme Court to co sign on the error. You
might you know, you may be thinking to yourselves right now, well,
(22:23):
how do the Supreme Court get involved in this? Because
they rely on the trial record.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
So they didn't know they have no, they don't go out.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
In fact, they purposely and I think rightfully so focus
their decisions on the record in front of them. So
the record has the lawyer saying this is what the
order says. The court takes that transcript at face value.
They don't go and say, hey, clerk, go dig up
(22:58):
that order, we want to read it. That's not their job.
Their job is to base their decision on the trial
record in front of it.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
Hill.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
There was cost to this too, because now Immigrations and
Customs Enforcement, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland
Security are now tied up in this quagmire. Think about
what we went through. This judge ordered Garcia to be
retrieved from Al Salvador, so they did that. They took
(23:31):
him to Maryland. He now faces federal charges of human trafficking,
a bunch of other charges. He could spend years now
in the US prison before being sent right back to
El Salvador.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
All because lawyers.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Misrepresented the contents of a plainly written order. You know,
legal staff are being disciplined or removed. Judges are scrambling
to rationalize how they came to believe something that was
never written. This is not a harmless area. It is
a systemic breakdown, and it is fueled by ideological bias.
It's compounded by legal negligence, and it's being sanctified by
(24:11):
judicial inertia. In the world of lawyers, we often ask
what it takes for a statement to be true. This
is why I am. I am honestly at times mentally exhausted,
(24:34):
and I'm mentally exhausted because I in trying to decide
which stories to bring to you. It first has to
peak my curiosity, but then I have to go through
this entire process of determining is the story relieve and true?
It is the uh is the sound bite?
Speaker 2 (24:57):
You know? This?
Speaker 3 (24:58):
This is why I almost all sound bites that I
play or rely upon on this program come from what
I would consider to be reliable sources, only in the
sense that it's the mainstream media, not because I think
they are quote reliable, but because if I ever find
(25:19):
out that what they were reporting is false, then, boy,
can I have fun with that, proving to you once
again that you really shouldn't believe anything that you hear
or read on the national news, whether it's the Denver
Post for that matter, that the Denver Gazette, or any
of the local television stations or in particular, the networks
(25:41):
or the cable news stations. Question everything. In law, we
ask what must exist for an action to be lawful? Well,
here we've got the answer. Deportation to else Salvador was
lawful because the only controlling judicial order which said you
(26:07):
can remove him, but you cannot remove him to El Salvador,
I mean to Guatemala. That was true on October ten,
twenty nineteen, and it remains true today on July sixteenth,
twenty twenty five. If these judges want to pretend otherwise,
(26:30):
or the lawyers want to pretend otherwise, the media is
pretending otherwise, that's manipulation. And you're being manipulated. And while
I worry about you being manipulat which I honestly do,
I'm really concerned about the judicial system. Trump derangement syndrome
(26:52):
has gotten it is. I'm try and think of the now.
It's it's not like COVID nineteen because we found out
that was a bunch of bullcrap. Maybe it's like measles
because I have a theory I'm thinking about doing it
this week about why is this measle outbreak occurring? Well,
(27:14):
my working theory is illegal aliens, illegal aliens and not
getting the measles vaccine. They're not They're not not getting
the measles vaccine because Bobby Kennedy Junior might be anti vaccine.
They're not getting the vaccine because they don't want to
go to a public health clinic. Because I know they're
(27:36):
here illegally and they're subject to deportation. But this whole
fiasco is really threatening the integrity of the judicial system.
The Supreme Court needs to slap these people down and
slap them hard. These lawyers, quite frankly, I can't imagine
(28:01):
I've told you before, I can't imagine lying to a
federal judge. I don't know whether some of the text
lines said they ought to be disbarred. Maybe they should.
They certainly need to be disciplined. They, you know, for
whatever whatever amount of time, including the salaries of the
(28:23):
government lawyers, the salaries of the judge, and the clerk
and the bailiffs, the courtroom time, the overhead, all of
the costs, all of the costs of the proceedings. Where
those lawyers gave false information, they ought to be held
in judicial contempt and ordered to pay the costs of
those hearings. That's the least they should be held accountable for.
Speaker 5 (28:46):
Michael, you keep running an ad where you say I
or myself. You correct yourself, but really, come on, Michael,
You're better than that. This is like your ad you
recorded in your bathroom I.
Speaker 4 (29:01):
Or myself where I say that I'm trying to call
which one that one?
Speaker 2 (29:05):
I don't know?
Speaker 3 (29:06):
I look, I freely admit this. Sometimes I get going
one hundred miles an hour, and do I screw up?
Speaker 4 (29:14):
Your brain moves faster than your mouth.
Speaker 3 (29:16):
Yes, So I deeply, deeply apologize. I'm so sorry. You
come and do it for four hours and see how
you do.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
Won't be the first, It wasn't the first mistake. Won't
be the last.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
No, it won't.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Do you know what's going on tomorrow? Our democracy? Four
hundred mostly peaceful protests trying to undermine the results of
the last selection.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Here we go again.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Crowds on demand CEO Adam Swart revealed in an interview
this week and his company was offered a twenty million
dollars contract for an AstroTurf nationwide anti Trump demonstration schedule
for Thursday. Crowds on Demand is the largest protest company
in the country, Dragon White, Why are you not doing this?
(30:03):
We can be making a feezis boatload of money. Oh,
it's the largest protest company in the country, he says,
noting that they specialize in corporate publicity and celebrity publicity.
But to a Democrat, the kind of shallow, height based
world of morally evacuous celebrities is that's real life to them.
(30:26):
Think about all the money that Kamala Harris blew buying
promotions from Oprah and Beyonce. Now, the purpose of this uprising,
the mostly peaceful protests tomorrow, let's see, is like many
of the nation uh, like many other recent nationwide days
of protests, including the now infamous No Kings Day. The
(30:47):
good trouble lives on protests or being organized by the
five oh five oh one movement. They've gotten no traction.
It's not going very well.
Speaker 6 (30:57):
Have the organizers of the July seventh, teenth demonstrations approached you.
Interests aligned with the organizers of the July seventeenth movement
have approached us, and in fact we rejected and offered
that probably is worth around twenty million dollars.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Twenty million dollars, correct, I mean this is a nationwide thing, right.
Speaker 6 (31:20):
It's not to say I would have made twenty million
dollars personally, but the value of the contract would have
been worth around that amount nationwide to organize huge demonstrations
around the country. But personally, I just don't think it's effective,
So it's not. I'm not trying to call myself virtuous for.
Speaker 3 (31:41):
Did you wonder who offered the twenty million dollars? Who
offered him twenty million dollars to help pay for the crowd,
Because I can tell you what we do know. It's
not anybody that wants to do well for the country. No,
they want to tell the country into a socialist, communist
bragel
Speaker 6 (32:03):
Mm hmm.
Michael, I'm really glad to hear that your mom is
okay and that you went back to help her. Do
you think you could have stayed a couple more days
so we could.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Hear Jimmy again.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
This is what I absolutely just despise about my audience
is they totally get it.
Speaker 4 (00:20):
They hate you as much as you hate them, and.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
They're as passive aggressive and as much of a smart
ass as I am. Which you know, this program is
just a bud light for smart ass passive aggressive a holes.
And she sounds like a nice lady, but she's a
passive aggressive, smart ass a.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Hole, right, So this is her, this is her home.
She's come home.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Greg and I were just talking about we have to
do this thing about what.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
The core values are, something almost like an employee evaluation.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
Self evaluation, right, And I'm all in the dither about
it because I don't know how to answer some of
the questions. And Dragon told me he just well, well
Dragon gave Dragon answers. Let's just put it that way.
Ask yourself, this is under core skills. Consistently the culture
(01:17):
consistently embodies company values and encourages others to do the same. Well,
I first have to question what exactly are the company values?
You know, I know what the mission statement says, I
know what the HR manual says, but that's that's a
whole different ballpark, that's a whole different city than what
(01:40):
really are the core value?
Speaker 4 (01:42):
You're going into this thinking that somebody is actually going
to read this stuff. I went to to it thinking
it's just a bunch of corporate mumbo jumbo. And if
my boss wanted to give me an employee evaluation, he
could come talk to me and have a sit down
with me personally, and I can tell him exactly how
I think I'm doing.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
And I one hundred.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Percent agree with that. However, going back to the talk
back about how.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
I argue with myself, Yeah, there's that.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Well, so I sit down and you know the lawy
your brain is reading consistently embodies company values and encourages
others to do the same. Okay, well, what are the
core value?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
I mean, if if.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
There's core values, and then there's the core value.
Speaker 4 (02:24):
And don't we have the poster in the basement that
says iHeart own everything.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Right, But then there's the question have I influenced others
in a positive way?
Speaker 4 (02:38):
Nope, you never have.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Ah does the does the spouse of my producer count
because I think I like you?
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Because I think, you know, I like her, she likes me.
I think I've influenced her in a positive way because
we both get to beat up on you. I mean,
I get to say things about you on air that
she doesn't have the audience that she can say those
things to which she likes.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
For me to say.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
So you know I've made her, I've made her happy.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
True.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
And that's so that'll be my answer to that one.
I guess I don't know. There's a hearing today about
and again, this is all because when you, when you
drove as much as I did over the past several days,
(03:37):
you're listening a lot of podcasts. You're listening to Fox News,
You're flipping over occasionally to CNN or MSNBC. And I
learn in listening to all of that that there's a
hearing today in Massachusetts about our favorite al salvadoran illegal alien,
kil mor Abragio Garcia. And everybody is well, and I'm
(04:05):
convinced that the judge wants to not his going to
but the judge wants to release mister Garcia on bond.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Except that he probably.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Knows that if he does, he'll immediately be arrested by
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement once again and immediately deported. And
the left on at least on the well, what you're
actually doing is you're listening to a assimulcast of Fox
(04:42):
News and CNN and MSNBC on serious EXMP And I
got to tell you, those on the left are apoplectic.
They are so afraid that that might be what happens.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
And this is awful because he's just a dad.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Don't talk about human trafficking or sex trafficking or anything else.
So let's go through Kilmar Abrago Garcia's deportation, because I
think that it was lawful. When it comes to federal law,
(05:19):
clarity is not optional. A judgment's meaning hinges on precise language,
and at least should not be determined by wishful interpretations. Right,
you got the plain meaning of the statue, you got
the plain meaning of a court like the Supreme Court.
(05:39):
You've got just read the opinion. It kind of speaks
for itself. And if you're trained as a lawyer, then
assuming you pass the bar exam, you should be able
to interpret the court's ruling fairly easily. Now, sometimes you've
got to really because it's a convoluted argument, you got
(06:00):
to really read through it. And if you're going to
in this case, if you're going to be representing mister Garcia,
you've got to really read closely the cases that the
Justice's site in order to make sure that your argument
can overcome those cases. When when immigration attorney the two
(06:21):
immigration attorneys Andrew Rossman and Simon Sandoval Mushburg or Massenburg,
I think, when they stood before District Judge Paula Zenus
and claimed that their client, mister Garcia, had been illegally
deported to Al Salvador. Then you're at least I'm prone
to ask a base on what show me the document.
(06:46):
Explain to me the legal rationale upon which you make
that assertion. Well, when you dig into it, you find
out the answer is both studying and troubling because there's
no document at all, not even the one.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
That matters the most.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
Because the only extant legal order that's governing mister Garcia's
deportability Guess what it is, I want you to guess now,
there are Remember they're arguing that his that he was
illegally deported to L Salvador. All right, So on what
(07:23):
basis do you make that claim? Because the only legal order,
the only one out there anywhere that governs mister Garcia's
deportability is this. It's a final withholding of removal order
issued by an immigration judge in October twenty nineteen that
(07:49):
says unequivocally that removal to Guatemala is barred, not El Salvador,
where we.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Send him, but Guatemala.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
That order is still binding, that order still is in existence,
final withholding of removal. You can't send him to Guatemala. Okay,
we'll send him to El Salvador. El Salvador is not
the same as Guatemala. I you know, go look on
the map. You know, do you still have a map
(08:20):
somewhere on Alice?
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Got a globe? Anybody got a globe? Look on there.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Guatemala, El Salvator, two separate countries. Yet all I heard
on the damn media and all these democrats is that
the order prohibited deportation to any country, implying that the
order of with the the order of removal, which only
said you can't send him to all you can't send
(08:46):
send him to Guatemala. Every Democrat. Everybody on CNN at
MSNBC keep claiming that the order prohibited deportation to any country.
So one of the implying, they're implying that Garcia was
entirely protected from removal to any country, and that is
(09:08):
kids categorically untrue.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
It's a lie. Be busy.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
You ever want to travel with me, We should just
do the show from a bus sometime and I'll just
sit up front, facing everybody on the bus and I'll
just I'll just listen to MSNBC and c because you'll
have to listen along too, unless I put headphones on,
because I want you to hear what I'm hearing so
(09:37):
you can listen to me scream at the radio, so
you can listen to me scream at serious excent.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
The ruling.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
Back in twenty nineteen restricted deportation only to Guatemala, which
means that any other destination, including his home country of
Al Salvador, is fully permissible under the law. Here's the
conclusion in the document. The respondence application for asylum is
(10:08):
time barred without exception. In other words, you waited too long,
you can't apply for asylum. There are no exceptions. However,
they write he has established past persecution based on a
protected ground and the presumption of a well founded fear
(10:29):
of future persecution. The Department of Homeland Security has not
shown there are changed circumstances in Guatemala that would result
in the responden's life not being threatened, or that internal
relocation is possible and reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the
respondence application for withholding under the Immigration Act is granted. Finally,
(10:54):
his claim for asylum fails because he has not shown
that he would suffer torture. That's not a footnote. That's
the premise upon which this entire case, this entire ruling
from from the trial court all the way to the
Fourth Circuit of the Supreme Court, was predicated, and it
is wrong. So let's go back to this October tenth,
(11:18):
twenty nineteen ruling. The immigration judge was David M.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Jones.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
It's publicly available. It clearly and explicitly grants Garcia withholding
of removal to Guatemala, not with removement. It doesn't withhold
removal to any other place, just Guatemala and its sites,
gang related threats and persecution of his family by Barrio
eighteen operaties that reside in Guatemala. DHS didn't contest the point.
(11:46):
They just agreed not to deport him to Guatemala. And
that is the you know, I could just stop right there.
That's the limit of the order. So what happened when
he gets deported to Alison, his native country, and that's
the jurisdiction where he has citizenship. His lawyer's scream no,
(12:11):
that's wrong, the media screaming that's wrong. Even the judge screams,
that's wrong. And so eventually did a majority of the
US Supreme Court, and every single one relied to varying
degrees on representations made by those lawyers that the twenty
nineteen order barred deportation to El Salvador.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
But you can do.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
Pulled up, do a word search, search for the word
el Salvador. No language exists in the ruling. It's a ghost.
It's a fabrication. It's a fiction that somehow has metastasized
through the legal system unchecked. That's why I'm watching this
case today so closely because I can't wait. I don't
know what DHS attorneys are going to argue. I don't
(12:56):
know what these two y'all whos are going to argue
I can't wait to see how the judge justifies that,
you know, not granting him bail. And I know why
I doesn't want to grant bail because he knows that
DHS will immediately, you know, apprehend him unless this judge,
Unless this judge decides to let him have calmed out
through a back door. But I think DHS may have
(13:18):
learned their lesson on that one, and I would hope not.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
I would hope that.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
This federal judge hasn't learned her lesson and that are
his lesson and he actually lets Garcia, you know, go
through a back door out, then maybe we can actually
hold a federal judge in contempt.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
That would be fantastic, wouldn't it.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
So to understand the magnitude of this error, I want
you to think about what happened next. The Justice Department,
who initially represented the government, assume the order said what
Garcia's lawyers claimed it said, that's a huge error. You
(14:02):
call into Capitalist's show this afternoon and asks Dan, Hey, Dan,
when a lawyer makes an assertion in a trial court,
do you just assume that what they say is true
or do you double check it? I guarante MT you, Dan,
capitlais double checks it. But no, this stupid DOJ lawyer
(14:22):
took the opponent's lawyers at their word, and for that
misplaced trust, the DOJ lawyer gets put on leave and
then eventually gets fired by Pam Bondy. Now, in the
world of political scapegoading, which I have to know a
little bit about, that's a gold metal worthy performance. So
(14:45):
where are we?
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Meanwhile?
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Judge Zenas sly faced with the uncomfortable fact that her
rulings may have been premised on some would say a
mischaracterization of the law. I would I would call it
a lie about the law. She's now attempting to backfill
the gap, so she's asked Garcia's lawyers to produce his
immigration file, his A file, the authoritative record of his
(15:10):
immigration history, all of his applications, and all of the
court orders. Guess what their response is, We lost it.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
Just let that.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
How many times do we hear from I don't care
whether it's private lawyers, government lawyers, it's the you know,
it's Biden's team, it's somebody on Trump's team, it's somebody
in the FBIDJ. It's a court room somewhere, a well,
I don't know. We can't find it. We lost the emails,
your honor, we lost the documents. We can't find them.
(15:47):
The legal team arguing that the Trump administration committed an
illegal illegal deportation not only failed to present the documents
supporting their claim, they can't even locate the file that
might clarify the record. But however, I guess who does
have a copy DHS. They've got a copy of the
(16:08):
relevant order and it clearly shows that Garcia was not
protected from removal to El Salvador. This, then, is what
you call the Steelman case of fraud. Knowingly or through
negligent misrepresentation was committed upon this court, and it culminated.
It resulted in a legally improper demand that the government
(16:31):
go get this yahoo who was lawfully deported under the
plain meaning of a judicial order and bring him back
to the United States. The judge should be embarrassed. I
mean the judge should be embarrassed to the point that,
you know, hold those lawyers in contempt for misleading the court.
(16:51):
And I would be so embarrassed I would want out
of the case. I would want to recuse myself and
say I allowed myself to before I wouldn't say this,
but I would be thinking to myself, I allowed these
lawyers to pull the wool over my eyes. I think
I should just sign this case to somebody else. Let
somebody else deal with that, because I've got a really
cool murder try case over here, or I've got a
(17:13):
really cool tax case or something, or I've got a
really cool kywalking case, anything but this one.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Hey, Michael, you asked us to bifurcate our brain. Now
I've got the I've got the ice pick inserted up
my nose. How deep do we go? And then what's
the next step. I just don't know what the process is.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
Well, you can do it. You can either just hold
the ice pick now. First of all, make sure the
ice pick is at a probably about to the ground
at about a forty five degree angle.
Speaker 4 (17:50):
And when you go in, make sure you go past
the crunch.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
Yes, yes, And I'd like to do it like usually
before and after the show. I'll use one nostril, you know,
before the program, the other nostril after the program. And
I like to just take the palm in my hand
and just jam it up, you know, just real quickly,
because that crunch is sometimes a little difficult to get through.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
You just and then one nostril counterclockwise, the other nostril clockwise.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
Yeah, yeah, and then yelp, and then you know what.
Then you're a Democrat. Or you could be a federal judge,
or you could be a lawyer for mister Garcia. Yeah,
or you could be a radio talk show. It's like me,
you could be any of those things. I'm just glad
(18:45):
you understood the definition to buifurcate. Most people think that's
a lobotomy, but it's not that. Bifurcation is an entirely
different procedure. You know, I should leave more often because
I come back with an entirely new appreciation for the
dumbasses out in this audience. The scary part is, I
(19:06):
do not want to hear on KDVR tonight that women
found dead and home with ice picking nose with KHW
blaring in the background.
Speaker 4 (19:15):
I just don't want to hear that local radio host
contributes to death.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
We knew he was crazy from the beginning. So let's
think about this judge for a moment. By the way,
before we go to the judge, let me let me
go to this text messages zero two three eight writes Michael,
I closed my mortgage company in two thousand and six.
By my calculation, that's about nineteen years ago, and I
still have files in my basement from that corporation. How
(19:45):
are we allowing these lawyers to get away with this
nonsense because nobody cares anymore. Nobody gives a ratsass about anything.
I don't think, which is why so we see you
do this program. This is why I need to quit
worrying about filling out my student Core Values thing. I'll
just in fact, I'll just have that with the dogs
fill it out for me. We'll do that earlier or later, earlier, later.
(20:08):
Where am I? What am I doing here? Think about this?
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Judge?
Speaker 3 (20:13):
So, Judge Zenas in her opinion, she absolutely assumed the
worst about the Trump administration, and so she issued an
opinion that's just melting dripping with moral certitude that Garcia's
deportation amounted to an affront to the United States Constitution.
(20:34):
But her outrage kind of like the outrage of the
Fourth Circuit panel that affirmed her, was grounded on a
supposition that was absolutely false. The decision does not bar
removal to al Salvador. But did the judge read the
order herself. Obviously not. She could have required, Okay, we'll
(20:56):
produce you know it's not and it's not the judges responsibility,
it's the lawyers. But she should She should have said
to the lawyers, uh, may I see that document. Produce
into that document into evidence. I want to see it.
She didn't do that. She could have require the production
of the document before she issued her rulings. She didn't
(21:17):
do that, So what does she do. The one thing
she did do was she presumed malevolence on the part
of the executive brands, where she should have demanded proof
in her own courtroom. She didn't care what the lawyers said.
I think her mind was made up. And listening to MSNBC,
(21:41):
reading the Washington Post, the New York Times, every they're
all claiming and repeating the falsehood that Garcia's deportation was illegal.
I heard words like lawless, rogue, out of control, but
lawlessness returning a man to his home country when the
(22:01):
law is specifically allowed for it, and not returning into
a country that the law said you cannot take him
to that country. I think the lawlessness. Lawlessness is in
the court room, lying to a federal judge and persuading
the Supreme Court to co sign on the error. You
might you know, you may be thinking to yourselves right now, well,
(22:23):
how do the Supreme Court get involved in this? Because
they rely on the trial record.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
So they didn't know they have no, they don't go out.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
In fact, they purposely and I think rightfully so focus
their decisions on the record in front of them. So
the record has the lawyer saying this is what the
order says. The court takes that transcript at face value.
They don't go and say, hey, clerk, go dig up
(22:58):
that order, we want to read it. That's not their job.
Their job is to base their decision on the trial
record in front of it.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
Hill.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
There was cost to this too, because now Immigrations and
Customs Enforcement, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland
Security are now tied up in this quagmire. Think about
what we went through. This judge ordered Garcia to be
retrieved from Al Salvador, so they did that. They took
(23:31):
him to Maryland. He now faces federal charges of human trafficking,
a bunch of other charges. He could spend years now
in the US prison before being sent right back to
El Salvador.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
All because lawyers.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Misrepresented the contents of a plainly written order. You know,
legal staff are being disciplined or removed. Judges are scrambling
to rationalize how they came to believe something that was
never written. This is not a harmless area. It is
a systemic breakdown, and it is fueled by ideological bias.
It's compounded by legal negligence, and it's being sanctified by
(24:11):
judicial inertia. In the world of lawyers, we often ask
what it takes for a statement to be true. This
is why I am. I am honestly at times mentally exhausted,
(24:34):
and I'm mentally exhausted because I in trying to decide
which stories to bring to you. It first has to
peak my curiosity, but then I have to go through
this entire process of determining is the story relieve and true?
It is the uh is the sound bite?
Speaker 2 (24:57):
You know? This?
Speaker 3 (24:58):
This is why I almost all sound bites that I
play or rely upon on this program come from what
I would consider to be reliable sources, only in the
sense that it's the mainstream media, not because I think
they are quote reliable, but because if I ever find
(25:19):
out that what they were reporting is false, then, boy,
can I have fun with that, proving to you once
again that you really shouldn't believe anything that you hear
or read on the national news, whether it's the Denver
Post for that matter, that the Denver Gazette, or any
of the local television stations or in particular, the networks
(25:41):
or the cable news stations. Question everything. In law, we
ask what must exist for an action to be lawful? Well,
here we've got the answer. Deportation to else Salvador was
lawful because the only controlling judicial order which said you
(26:07):
can remove him, but you cannot remove him to El Salvador,
I mean to Guatemala. That was true on October ten,
twenty nineteen, and it remains true today on July sixteenth,
twenty twenty five. If these judges want to pretend otherwise,
(26:30):
or the lawyers want to pretend otherwise, the media is
pretending otherwise, that's manipulation. And you're being manipulated. And while
I worry about you being manipulat which I honestly do,
I'm really concerned about the judicial system. Trump derangement syndrome
(26:52):
has gotten it is. I'm try and think of the now.
It's it's not like COVID nineteen because we found out
that was a bunch of bullcrap. Maybe it's like measles
because I have a theory I'm thinking about doing it
this week about why is this measle outbreak occurring? Well,
(27:14):
my working theory is illegal aliens, illegal aliens and not
getting the measles vaccine. They're not They're not not getting
the measles vaccine because Bobby Kennedy Junior might be anti vaccine.
They're not getting the vaccine because they don't want to
go to a public health clinic. Because I know they're
(27:36):
here illegally and they're subject to deportation. But this whole
fiasco is really threatening the integrity of the judicial system.
The Supreme Court needs to slap these people down and
slap them hard. These lawyers, quite frankly, I can't imagine
(28:01):
I've told you before, I can't imagine lying to a
federal judge. I don't know whether some of the text
lines said they ought to be disbarred. Maybe they should.
They certainly need to be disciplined. They, you know, for
whatever whatever amount of time, including the salaries of the
(28:23):
government lawyers, the salaries of the judge, and the clerk
and the bailiffs, the courtroom time, the overhead, all of
the costs, all of the costs of the proceedings. Where
those lawyers gave false information, they ought to be held
in judicial contempt and ordered to pay the costs of
those hearings. That's the least they should be held accountable for.
Speaker 5 (28:46):
Michael, you keep running an ad where you say I
or myself. You correct yourself, but really, come on, Michael,
You're better than that. This is like your ad you
recorded in your bathroom I.
Speaker 4 (29:01):
Or myself where I say that I'm trying to call
which one that one?
Speaker 2 (29:05):
I don't know?
Speaker 3 (29:06):
I look, I freely admit this. Sometimes I get going
one hundred miles an hour, and do I screw up?
Speaker 4 (29:14):
Your brain moves faster than your mouth.
Speaker 3 (29:16):
Yes, So I deeply, deeply apologize. I'm so sorry. You
come and do it for four hours and see how
you do.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
Won't be the first, It wasn't the first mistake. Won't
be the last.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
No, it won't.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Do you know what's going on tomorrow? Our democracy? Four
hundred mostly peaceful protests trying to undermine the results of
the last selection.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Here we go again.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Crowds on demand CEO Adam Swart revealed in an interview
this week and his company was offered a twenty million
dollars contract for an AstroTurf nationwide anti Trump demonstration schedule
for Thursday. Crowds on Demand is the largest protest company
in the country, Dragon White, Why are you not doing this?
(30:03):
We can be making a feezis boatload of money. Oh,
it's the largest protest company in the country, he says,
noting that they specialize in corporate publicity and celebrity publicity.
But to a Democrat, the kind of shallow, height based
world of morally evacuous celebrities is that's real life to them.
(30:26):
Think about all the money that Kamala Harris blew buying
promotions from Oprah and Beyonce. Now, the purpose of this uprising,
the mostly peaceful protests tomorrow, let's see, is like many
of the nation uh, like many other recent nationwide days
of protests, including the now infamous No Kings Day. The
(30:47):
good trouble lives on protests or being organized by the
five oh five oh one movement. They've gotten no traction.
It's not going very well.
Speaker 6 (30:57):
Have the organizers of the July seventh, teenth demonstrations approached you.
Interests aligned with the organizers of the July seventeenth movement
have approached us, and in fact we rejected and offered
that probably is worth around twenty million dollars.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Twenty million dollars, correct, I mean this is a nationwide thing, right.
Speaker 6 (31:20):
It's not to say I would have made twenty million
dollars personally, but the value of the contract would have
been worth around that amount nationwide to organize huge demonstrations
around the country. But personally, I just don't think it's effective,
So it's not. I'm not trying to call myself virtuous for.
Speaker 3 (31:41):
Did you wonder who offered the twenty million dollars? Who
offered him twenty million dollars to help pay for the crowd,
Because I can tell you what we do know. It's
not anybody that wants to do well for the country. No,
they want to tell the country into a socialist, communist
bragel
Speaker 6 (32:03):
Mm hmm.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.