Episode 227: The Gloves Are Off! New Mexico's Democratic Governor Race Drama!

The political landscape in New Mexico is heating up with the Democratic gubernatorial race between Deb Haaland and Sam Bregman taking center stage. What started as a relatively quiet contest has evolved into a strategic battle of positioning, with Holland's team landing the first significant blow by exposing plagiarized content in Bregman's ambitious 189-page policy document. This exchange perfectly illustrates their competing approaches: Bregman aggressively seeking debates while Haaland maintains a more measured stance, highlighting the authenticity questions that may plague her opponent.

Albuquerque's mayoral race presents another fascinating political study. While incumbent Tim Keller leads in the polls with 29% support against former Sheriff Darren White's 16%, the numbers reveal potential vulnerability. With 60% of voters saying "it's time for someone else" and undecided voters outnumbering Keller supporters, the race could be headed for a competitive runoff where Keller's underwater favorability rating might prove decisive.

The healthcare crisis in New Mexico continues to deepen, with a controversial op-ed by attorney Brian Cologne defending trial lawyers while seemingly ignoring the devastating impact of the state's regulatory environment on healthcare access. As one listener pointedly asked: what good is having powerful lawyers when families can't find doctors to treat their sick children? This tension between legal accountability and healthcare accessibility represents one of the state's most pressing challenges.

On the national front, Portland's handling of protests around ICE facilities highlights a troubling prioritization of political positioning over public safety. Despite ranking as America's second most dangerous city, local officials reject federal assistance while simultaneously failing to provide adequate local police protection to affected neighborhoods, leaving residents to fend for themselves amid nightly violence.

We also explore the Trump administration's focus on potential links between Tylenol and autism, the looming government shutdown negotiations, and even tackle the surprisingly complex question of appropriate wedding gift amounts in 2023. From political showdowns to practical advice, this episode offers a comprehensive look at the issues shaping our communities and nation.

Website: https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/
Twitter: @nodoubtpodcast
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NoDoubtAboutItPod/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markronchettinm/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_02 (00:00):
Wildfire, you can't hear myself.

SPEAKER_11 (00:04):
Okay, I gotta admit, I'm pretty fired up for this
episode.

SPEAKER_02 (00:08):
Oh, I'm shocked.
I am I'm telling you, shocked.
Do you know how many comments Igot about you being fired up the
last episode?
Yeah.
People were concerned about yourblood pressure.

SPEAKER_11 (00:16):
Yeah, no, this is different.
This one's different.
This is not me like boiling overfrustrated.
Okay.
Okay.
This is me just watching thedelicious developments that
we're seeing in some of thepolitical races in this state,
and it's cracking me up.

SPEAKER_02 (00:30):
I I'm I might need to write one of your sources who
who I know well, who we knowwell.

SPEAKER_11 (00:34):
Right.

SPEAKER_02 (00:35):
Um, and just tell him to um it could be a him, but
he goes by they sometimes.
No, it's definitely a him.

SPEAKER_11 (00:41):
No, it is definitely a him.

SPEAKER_02 (00:42):
It's for sure a him.
He is a him.
He knows who he is.
He does.
But uh what he sends you, likeyou are it's like a jet fuel for
you.
And you are you like take off.
I mean, I hear you giggling.
Oh, well, it's I hear youcheering.
I hear various, like, oh mygosh, coming out of like your
office.
And I'm like, oh my goodnessgracious, what happened?

SPEAKER_11 (01:02):
Well, no, and this is a simple one.
You know, this is a simple onebecause we were we've been up
shooting an angel fire for theTV show.

SPEAKER_03 (01:08):
Right.

SPEAKER_11 (01:09):
And so I I wasn't able to look at my text and I
didn't see what he sent me.
It's something very simple.
It's from the New Mexican.

SPEAKER_03 (01:15):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_11 (01:15):
It's no big deal, but it is so, it's so delicious
and great that that I justyou're gonna get a kick out of
this.
It's hilarious.

SPEAKER_02 (01:23):
Let's do this.
Let's give everybody just a veryquick bullet preview.
Like, don't go into everythingon everything.

SPEAKER_11 (01:27):
Okay.

SPEAKER_02 (01:28):
It's called the tease mark.

SPEAKER_11 (01:29):
Okay, tease.
Let's tease people.
Okay, the uh Democraticgovernor's race in New Mexico is
heating up.
It's getting try not to laugh.
Try not to laugh.
Okay, keep going.
It's so great these two aregoing at each other.
Okay.
Uh there the new poll is outfrom the Albuquerque Journal on
the Albuquerque mayor's race.
Okay.
We we broke a leaked poll lastweek and it's pretty similar to
what you're gonna see here, butit's super interesting stuff.

(01:50):
So we'll go through that aswell.
We're also gonna talk about uhin the journal today, this is
Sunday, uh Brian Cologne, formerstate official and lawyer, and
actually very nice person,actually, if you get to know
him, really, um, writes aridiculous article about
attorneys in the state of NewMexico and medical malpractice
and how attorneys are wearingthe cape, the Superman cape to

(02:12):
keep it.
Oh, thank goodness.
It was trialing.
It was beyond crazy.
Okay.
And we're gonna get into thePortland issue as well, talking
about Trump sending troops intoPortland and leaders in
Portland, what their reactionis.
And you, this is unreal when yousee that.
And a couple other big issues.
We're also gonna talk just alittle bit more about the autism
issue, really quick.
Quick, and then we'll do uh howmuch money should a wedding gift

(02:34):
cost?
And of course, Sunday game daystrikes again.
Okay.

SPEAKER_02 (02:37):
Okay.
All right, nice.
That's better.
Yes.

SPEAKER_11 (02:38):
It's nice to be better.
All right, that's my quick.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I was toolong before.
Well, well done.

SPEAKER_02 (02:42):
Okay, so this first article that Mark is uh slightly
giggling, uh laughing, I don'tknow, all the things this
morning with this, but okay,here is the headline out of
Santa Fe, New Mexican.
Tensions rise between Demcandidates for governor.
I'll read you just a little bit,and then of course, Mark, you're
dying to respond.
So uh we will get right to you.
Okay, as Democraticgubernatorial candidate Deb

(03:04):
Holland addresses attendees atNuestra Tierra's Gala Friday
night in Santa Fe, tensionbrewed between the former
Interior Secretary and one ofher opponents for the party's
nomination.
The campaign between presumedfrontrunner Holland and her
leading challenger, BernalilloCounty District Attorney Sam
Bregman, was largely quiet andrespectful for months, but

(03:24):
became more openly hostile inrecent weeks.
At a news conference inAlbuquerque last week, Bregman
unveiled a blueprint listing howhe would address crime,
homelessness, energy, education,healthcare, and numerous other
topics, and challenged Hollandto a series of debates.
Holland's campaign responded bymocking sections of Bregman's

(03:45):
plan as quote, absolutegibberish and accusing his team
of plagiarizing sections of the189-page documents.

SPEAKER_01 (03:52):
Oh boy.

SPEAKER_02 (03:53):
There hasn't been a response to the debate
invitation, Bregman's campaignsaid Friday.
Quote, while Deb is sending outPisoli recipes, Sam is ready to
debate the issues that matter,read the subject line on a
Friday email, announcing thelaunch of his website, quote,
days without debate, to trackhow long his request has gone on
answer.

SPEAKER_11 (04:13):
Okay, so let's stop right there.
We have said from the verybeginning that that Bregman's
whole approach to this thing wasgonna be to engage Holland
one-on-one on a debate stage totry to shred her, to try to
expose her for what he believesis sort of a thin veneer of
policy prescriptions andknowledge.
Okay.
Meanwhile, what Deb's gonna tryto do is stay out of this, stay

(04:35):
above it, right?
And not engage him directly.
And what this is a microcosm ofis this whole race.
And this is a microcosm ofBregman.
Bregman goes and produces ahundred and eighty-nine-page
document.
First of all, idiotic.
Sam Bregman didn't sit down andwrite 189 pages.
And clearly he ripped some of itoff, which we'll get into in
just a second when the NewMexican does him the favor of

(04:58):
exposing more of what happenedhere.
But Bregman, the classicBregman, right, just goes out
there, overdoes it, and extendshimself and gets caught.
She, you know, in this, this isthe first real firefight between
the two of them.
Okay.
And Holland is basically comesout on the high end of this
because Bregman goes and thestory becomes why is Bregman rip

(05:19):
ripping off policyprescriptions?
What's going on here?
What's happening?
Now, Sam, a clever line.
You know, Holland is out handingout pasola recipes.
Okay, that that's yeah, that'skind of what he's gonna do,
right?
But if you're Holland and youalways have something to hit him
on, like, hey, by the way,you're a phony, and and people
have brought these up before,and here's where they came from.
What are you doing?

SPEAKER_02 (05:38):
And I'm sorry, a five-point policy uh page.
We know this for for our our ownpersonal case, shouldn't be 189
pages because I'm not sure who'sgonna read it.

SPEAKER_11 (05:46):
It's stupid.
It's it's it's dumb, it's overthe top, and and and it just
isn't smart, right?
I mean, you're just going andlaying up.
Plus, they're not your ideas,clearly.
And that's okay.
They don't have to all have tobe your ideas.
They don't.
You can say, we took this ideafrom here, we took this idea
from there's nothing wrong withthat.
Right.
Nothing wrong with it at all.
But what you're starting to seehere is this thing lay out
perfectly, which is Sam isalready doing the debate
calendar clock, right?

(06:07):
Like you're ducking me, you'reducking me, you're ducking me.
And then Holland is alreadygoing back at him with you're a
phony, you're a phony.
You rip things off.
Just wait.
She's she's just waiting to hithim with the you're a man of all
seasons, right?
You're everything to everybody.
So this is laying out exactlylike we said it would.
So let's keep going here.

SPEAKER_02 (06:24):
Okay.
By turning up the heap, heat, Ihope we can finally bring those
one-on-one dialogues to thevoters where they belong out in
the open.

SPEAKER_11 (06:31):
That is never happening if you're Holland.
Holland's like one-on-one,nothing, sir.

SPEAKER_02 (06:35):
Bregman said in a statement.
Holland campaign spokespersonHannah Minchoff emphasized
Holland's busy schedule andreferenced an article that
appeared on the new website, NewMexico Political Report, that
alleged portions of Bregman'spolicy brief pulled text
directly from documentspublished by federal and state
agencies, among other sources.
For example, a section ofBregman's plan on Native

(06:58):
American education includes along sentence that appears to be
the same verbatim as one in 2019Legislative Education Study
Committee report.
Another section on missing andmurdered indigenous people
contains a couple of sentencesthat are identical to some of
the recommendations presented bythe New Mexico Missing and
Murdered Indigenous Women andRelatives Task Force of 2021.

(07:21):
Bregman's campaign denied theplagiarism charges to New Mexico
Political Report.

SPEAKER_11 (07:26):
Okay, so right there.
So we stop right there.
That's why this article, and bythe way, if I'm Bregman and I
see this article in the NewMexican, I'm knowing where the
lines are drawn.
The New Mexican's gonna be aproblem for him.
Okay, there's no question.
And maybe the New MexicoPolitical Report as well,
probably, right?
So what you're starting to seehere is how the media lines up
and where they're taking theseshots.
So the thought process from someRepublicans, especially, oh, say

(07:48):
Bregman's gonna run as acentrist.
He's gonna do it.
No, he's not.
No, he's not because he's gonnaget pushed to the left.
He has no choice.
Like, and he's already beendoing that.
He's already, Trump's terrible,done and he's doing all this
stuff.
So for all you Republicans whothink, oh, I'm gonna support
Bregman because no, Bregman'sgetting destroyed from the left,
and he is gonna continue to getdestroyed from the left because
that's the way this processworks, and there's no way around

(08:10):
it.

SPEAKER_02 (08:10):
Right.
And let's keep in mind that I,you know, we kind of set at the
very early stages.
Holland's gonna take a page outof Ben Ray Luhan's playbook.
And I mean, you challenged himto debates early on.
He waited until early voting hadstarted before he actually
debated you because he knew hewasn't gonna beat you in a
debate.
And he didn't.
He got crushed in the debate.
Now, obviously, Debates don'tmatter.
Debates don't matter to somedegree, right?

SPEAKER_11 (08:30):
Because they would in this case, though, I think.
You know what I mean?
Like if Holland went around thestate and debated Bregman, that
would be a very bad move.

SPEAKER_02 (08:37):
Well, I I they're not even remotely equal players.
I'm sure, I mean, I've neverseen Bregman on debate, right?

SPEAKER_11 (08:42):
But that's what that's what Bregman is trained
in.

SPEAKER_02 (08:44):
Yeah, he's a district attorney.
Like he's gonna be out therelike he's gonna do it.
Oh no, he's a great one.
I'm sure he's going to uh takeit.

SPEAKER_11 (08:50):
I'll tell you whatever you want to hear.

SPEAKER_02 (08:51):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_11 (08:51):
He will.
Like you walk away from thecase.

SPEAKER_02 (08:53):
I can tell you whatever you want to hear.
And it might change the nextmeeting.
Oh, there's no question aboutthat.

SPEAKER_11 (08:59):
There's no doubt about that.

SPEAKER_02 (09:00):
Anyway, okay, let's go on this last.

SPEAKER_11 (09:02):
Yeah, so this last this last little nugget from
Holland shows shit.
I what what her team did herewas pretty good.
And this is a this is why thesesorts of things you got to be
super careful.
So that's why I would tell you,I think if you're looking at
these two teams right now, thatwhat you're gonna read here
shows you that Holland's teamright now, from what I'm seeing,

(09:22):
was much more on message andsmarter with this than
Bregman's.

SPEAKER_02 (09:26):
Deb has spent the time to go to every county in
the state and hear from NewMexicans to make sure we're best
addressing our state'slong-standing challenges on
education, growing our economy,and keeping New Mexicans safe.
Menschoff wrote in an email.
There's too much at stake to putrushed, plagiarized policy
together.
We look forward to continuingthis conversation closer to
election day.

SPEAKER_11 (09:46):
Hello.
I mean, that is a zinger, andthat that just eats, that is the
winner right there.
So if you're Bregman's people,you're putting all this stuff
together, you're throwing it outthere, you're running and
gunning, and Holland just cutoff the board right behind him
in this first exchange.
Now, is this gonna determineeverything?
No, it's not.
There's a lot that's gonnahappen between these two.
It's September of the yearbefore the election, right?

(10:08):
So we are not, we are by nomeans done.
But but Bregman could take apage out of this and learn, I
gotta be careful.
And Bregman has to be moredisciplined.
He's not disciplined.
He he falls in love with thesound of his own voice, right?
And putting together 189 and thehat and the chaps and the horse,
right?
He gets it, he loves it all,right?
Whatever is called that.

(10:29):
So he's gotta stop falling inlove with that and he's gotta be
more disciplined in the stuff hedoes.
Turning out 189-page policyprescription is stupid.
Like it's just not the smartthing to do.
And so, and by the way, I wouldthink they would run this
through AI too.
So I take 189-page policyprescription, I run it through
AI.
Oh, easily.

SPEAKER_02 (10:45):
And there's so many programs that you can do that on
now.

SPEAKER_11 (10:47):
So it's and so then if you do that, it'll be, oh, by
the way, AI wrote 94% of this,right?
I mean, all of a sudden you, nowI don't know if that's the case,
I have no idea.
But the point being, be carefulin those situations.
But but what I found so juicyabout this article is it is just
playing out exactly the way wesaid it would, which is Bregman
is going to try to engage her inone-on-one, and Holland has to
rise above that.

(11:07):
And if Bregman gives heropenings like this, he will
never come close to her.
He cannot give her openings likethis.
He has to be able to hit her onshe's ducking me, she has no
policy solutions, she has nodepth, she has no ability to do
the job.
And then she, and then when sheturns back on him, Bregman has
to give her nothing.
But if he gives her openingslike, oops, you plagiarized part

(11:29):
of this, that's a problem.
That's the story, and that'swhat happened in the in the New
Mexican.
So that's why in the firstskirmish between these two, it's
Holland won, Sammy B zero.
I'm just telling you.

SPEAKER_02 (11:40):
Okay, let's talk about another race.
The Albuquerque mayor race.
The new journal poll is out.
It's very similar to the onethat we actually uh was it was
that was leaked to us, uh, andwe discussed it in an earlier
episode this week.
Um so it's pretty similar, butit says here the headline here
says Keller leads, but manyvoters are still undecided,
which was really what we talkedabout mainly in the in our
coverage of it, is how how highthe undecided still are.

SPEAKER_11 (12:02):
No, that was your observation, and I think it was
really smart.

SPEAKER_02 (12:04):
I I am pretty smart sometimes, it turns out.

SPEAKER_11 (12:06):
But anyway, I won't brag about it though, because
honestly.

SPEAKER_02 (12:13):
You are fantastic.
It's very true.
Okay, break this down foreverybody.
These graphs, they always like,you know.

SPEAKER_11 (12:17):
Yeah, you know, it's funny because uh when you when
you see a uh this stuff come outin like a governor's or senate
race, they go a lot more indepth than they did here.
Um and so they don't give us asmuch detailed information.
The poll that we got leaked tous had much more detail than
this.
I don't know all the details onwhat Sanderoff did here, uh, but
he's a good pollster, you know,and he always, by the way,
Sanderoff polls for anybody whois in politics knows this,

(12:39):
always have a high number ofundecided.
He is always uh he's a highundecided guy.

SPEAKER_02 (12:44):
I wonder why that is.

SPEAKER_11 (12:45):
He doesn't push people to answer as hard as he
could.
Okay, I got it.
Okay, which isn't bad.
It doesn't make he does a reallygood job.
He's a smart guy.
So it's not like, you know,like, oh, Sanderoff's crazy.
No, not at all.
Not at all.
It does a good job.
But all right, so let's go aheadand look at this graph here.
And so a couple things here, andwhat this tells you.
Else, let's go in on TimKeller's uh vote breakdown
there.
And what it tells you is that uha good portion of you know

(13:08):
Keller's support obviously comesfrom Democrats, right?
That that's that makes sense.
And and even though this is anonpartisan race, it's really
not, right?
And so you see Keller gets 8%Republican support, which is I
can't even believe it's thathigh.
And 28% of independents.
Darren White's votes mainly comefrom Republicans, but White's
numbers with Republicans are alittle soft because Darren's not

(13:30):
a super fire-breathingconservative, which again,
people don't realize this.
In the state of New Mexico andeven in Albuquerque, we have
pretty conservative Republicans,right?
And so, so therefore, you know,there's some, you know, kind of,
hey, what's the deal with withDarren?
Is he enough of a conservative?
I think people will find that hewill be, but but that's a little
bit, that's a little soft.
Luis Sanchez, you know, he's gothis numbers, are what they are.
And then, and again, thosenumbers are still pretty low.

(13:51):
And you go all the way downthrough the rest of the
candidates, they just don't haveany ability to get any traction.
Right.
So the problem you have is youhave a massive number of
undecided, and you have peoplethat just don't have the money
or name recognition to make upthe gap.

SPEAKER_02 (14:05):
Right.
So do they drop out?
That's the question.

SPEAKER_11 (14:07):
No, no, I don't think so.
No.
No.
I think they're just gonna go tothe election day, and it's gonna
be likely Darren and Tim Keller,and then what will end up
happening is they'll likely goto a runoff.
And I think then that changeseverything because then that
puts everybody back in again.
So let's we'll we'll get some ofSanderoff's takeaways here, and
then I'll tell you why I thinkthis is still very much a very

(14:28):
close race.

SPEAKER_02 (14:28):
Okay, Sanderoff says uh quote, on the one hand, Tim
Keller has a comfortable lead ina seven-way race.
Uh on the other hand, he's atwo-term mayor, and there are
still more voters who areundecided than there are voters
who are planning to vote forhim.
In all, 29% of voters surveyedsaid that they planned to vote
for Keller, while 16% said theywould vote for White.
Trilling back further isAlbuquerque City Councilor Louis

(14:50):
Sanchez and former U.S.
attorney for New Mexico, AlexUbaiz, both receiving support of
about 6%.

SPEAKER_11 (14:56):
Okay, so let's go to clip 11.
Have you read what Sandorov saidin clip 11?
Because I think this is where itreally gets actually
interesting.

SPEAKER_02 (15:02):
Meanwhile, Sanderoff also stated the fact that Keller
was the only candidate toqualify for public campaign
financing in this year's race,and that could also be a
significant factor.
Buoyed by the more than$733,000in public campaign funds he
received after qualifying,Keller has maintained a
significant advantage incampaign cash during this year's
election cycle.
The failure of other mayoralcandidates to meet the

(15:25):
qualifications for publiccampaign financing has made it
harder for them to make theircase to voters, Sandra Office.
Bingo said.

SPEAKER_11 (15:31):
Okay, so the people that are locked at two or three
percent are done.
It doesn't, it's just unlessthey're going to flush in a
million dollars and then boosttheir name ID and let this thing
rip in the next two months,they're finished.

SPEAKER_02 (15:42):
Two months.
I mean, early voting starts inthree weeks.
But sorry, they've got to reallyhustle.
But yeah.

SPEAKER_11 (15:47):
Right.
But uh no, and I guess you'reright, you mean six weeks, not
even two months, right?
So yeah.
So sorry, yeah, absolutely.
But but there's a time's goingfaster than you think, Marcus.
It sure is.
But here's what I would sayabout this, and that is that if
Keller has to go to a runoff,again, we go back to these
numbers that we ran last week.
This is clip 12.
Keller is 10 points underwateron his image favorability in the

(16:10):
state.
He's 10 points underwater, okay?
And then this is the number heshould really care about and why
this race is still going to beclose, and Darren White at least
has a chance to win it.
And that is 60% of people sayit's time for someone else.
Okay.
Well, that's someone else iseither going to be Darren White
or nobody.
Right.
That's just the way it is.
And so that's what's going to beinteresting in this whole

(16:31):
process to see how it shakesout.
And again, as we pointed outbefore on a prior show, it is
going to be Tim Keller runningagainst Donald Trump and then
Darren White running against TimKeller.
And so we'll find out who wins.
Do people care more about whathappens in their city?
And so they will independentlyelect a mayor, or are they more
interested in sending Trump amessage for some weird reason
that will never matter?
If you do it.
So I don't know, but we'll seewhat happens.

(16:53):
But again, these numbers fromthe journal pair up pretty
closely with what we saw fromthat other poll.
So that is that Tim Keller,while ahead, has real reason for
concern.

SPEAKER_02 (17:03):
Okay.

SPEAKER_11 (17:03):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (17:04):
All right, let's get let's move on now here to this
is the Brian Cologne piece thatalso came out.
Oh my goodness.
Um, kind of a, I mean, would youcall a self-serving editorial
since he's basically talkingabout like, hey, trial lawyers
good?

SPEAKER_11 (17:16):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (17:16):
I was it's it's, you know, the the don't believe what
you're hearing about the aboutthe shortage of doctors and what
the reasoning behind that is.

SPEAKER_11 (17:26):
Is a groundswell of support in the state of New
Mexico for some sort of tortreform, meaning changing the
rules in which lawyers operateby in the state of New Mexico to
make it more favorable forpeople to come and do business
in the state as a doctor.
We have chased out so manydoctors because we've created a

(17:47):
regulatory environment thatfavors lawyers over doctors.
And so if you do that, you getmore lawyers than doctors.
And when you get sick, good luckcalling your lawyer to help you
feel better, right?
It just doesn't work.
Brian Cologne is a lawyer whohas profited off this system.
And there's a bunch of theselawyers in the legislature and
in the political world of NewMexico who have set up a system
that now have left so many NewMexicans crying out for health

(18:11):
care that they do not receive.
It's devastating.
So to read something like thisis unbelievably self-serving.
But I'll tell you, when peopleget power and people get money,
they will do anything to hold onto it.
Right.
So I want you to read some ofthese and then we'll kind of
discuss them as we go throughthem.
But this is from the journaltoday, and Brian Clone starts by

(18:33):
trying to explain how tough itreally is for the trial
attorneys.

SPEAKER_02 (18:36):
Well, and he says the headline is don't fall for
cartoons.
Trial lawyers aren't theproblem.
Okay, whatever.
Uh, here's this uh the the firstuh part of the article.
Here's the reality trial lawyersdon't get paid unless their
clients recover.
That means we spend months,sometimes years, putting in long
hours and fronting enormouscosts, often hundreds of
thousands of dollars to take onhospitals and insurance

(18:58):
companies.
We take out loans to pay forexpert witnesses, medical
reviews, depositions, and trialprep, all to give our clients,
the victims, the chance atjustice they deserve.
If we lose, we don't just losetime, we lose all of that
investment.
That's the opposite of easymoney.

SPEAKER_03 (19:13):
Okay.

SPEAKER_02 (19:14):
Where's my small, like my the smallest violin I've
ever had in my whole life?
Like, where's that teeny tinyviolin so I can scratch out a
little sympathy song for thisguy?

SPEAKER_11 (19:22):
Again, remember that.
Remember that that argument, himsaying, look, we spend a lot of
money to get these things readyto get this money, versus the
family in Alamogordo with achild with cancer, they can't
get in to see a doctor quicklyenough.
Right.
Versus the the the woman withdementia that could have used uh
a place in a in a home where shecould be treated, we don't have

(19:43):
space for you, versus thethousands of new Mexicans who
call every day for a doctor'sappointment and told it is
months away.

SPEAKER_03 (19:52):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_11 (19:52):
Yes, yes, Brian, that's right.
You you you do.
You do hire those those specialwitnesses to get you some extra
cash.
This is ludicrous.

SPEAKER_02 (19:59):
Yo, it's insane.
It's again making themselvesinto their own victim, which is
ridiculous.

SPEAKER_11 (20:03):
And it is one thing if you have two sides that if
we're talking about a businessdeal of some sort, we're not.
We're talking about yourbusiness, Brian, and you making
money versus new Mexicans whodon't see a doctor.
It's devastating.
It's absolutely devastating.
And I and so what he has to dohere then, because this is such
a ludicrous line and sounbelievably offensive to people

(20:24):
in the state across allpolitical parties who are
suffering, uh, that his littleexplanation is lacking.
So, what does he have to do?
He has to pivot the argument andturn it on its head.
So you don't think it's lawyerversus doctor.
He can't have that, right?
Lawyer versus doctor, he knowshe loses.
So he does this.

SPEAKER_02 (20:43):
Who are we up against?
Not mom and pop shops, not localdoctors who go to work every day
to care for patients.
Our opponents are themulti-billion dollar hospital
corporations and insurancegiants, many of them backed by
private equity firms withheadquarters in Manhattan high
rises.
They have endless legal teams,deep war chests, and a singular
mission to minimize payouts andprotect their bottom line.

SPEAKER_11 (21:04):
Okay, let me tell you something.
Else, let's just leave that clipup there for a second.
That first line, who are we upagainst?
Not mom and pop shops, not localdoctors who go to work every day
to care for patients.
You know why?
You know why he's going upagainst big companies?
Because we have created aregulatory environment in the
state of New Mexico where wehave chased all independent
doctors away.
The only people that can affordto operate here are those big

(21:27):
time companies and those bigtime hospitals.
Those are the only ones.
Everybody else is gone becausethe rates are too high.
They've created this environmentwhere you get these big fat
cats.
And by the way, these fat cathospitals and all these other
corporations, they settleregularly with these attorneys.
But it's the environment and thegall of Cologne to write this

(21:48):
article and say, my gosh, we'renot going against the
independent doctors.
No, you're not, because they'regone.
You already chased them out.
You got rid of them.
You've already fed on thatcarcass.
So now you're feeding on thenext bigger carcass.
The problem is the people whosuffer are everybody in the
state who needs any sort ofmedical care.
It's awful.
And for him to say this is soridiculously insulting.

(22:09):
So they've created this horribleenvironment.
And now they say, oh no, it'sManhattan high rises.
Don't worry about it.
Guess what?
It's not Manhattan high-rises.
It's your aunt that can't get tosee the doctor.
It's the oncologist that doesn'thave time to see anybody in your
family because we don't havethem here.
It's the fact that we arelooking for out-of-state doctors
and to be able to do any sort oftelehealth to other states.

(22:31):
And they're going to shut thatdown.
Your lawyer friends are blockingthat one too, buddy.
So we can't do any of it.
And so you are literally takinghealth care away from New
Mexicans, and then you'resaying, oh no, I don't worry,
I'm just suing these Manhattanguys so I can get mine.
The problem is you are costingNew Mexicans their health care.

SPEAKER_02 (22:47):
And if you want to dive more into the medical
compacts that we're trying, wewere talking about here, where
they potentially could bring indoctors via telehealth to help
the state of uh the folks herein New Mexico.
And it does have some support,like by the governor and
Republicans and some Democrats,but it's gonna get shooed away
because the trial lawyers herein the Senate are gonna say no
to that.
Right.
So if you want more informationabout that, we just covered that

(23:08):
in our last episode.
Go back to that one because thatthat idea is not going away
either.

SPEAKER_11 (23:12):
And the last quote on this in case, in case you you
haven't heard enough of this,there's a cherry on top that
that he has the gall to bring upas well.

SPEAKER_02 (23:21):
But let's be clear the true imbalance of power is
not between trial lawyers anddoctors, it's between vulnerable
patients and billion-dollarcorporations.
Trial lawyers are simply theequalizers.
Oh, they're the equalizers.

SPEAKER_11 (23:33):
He should have his own TV show.
I was gonna say we should putthat.

SPEAKER_02 (23:35):
Well, what is that?
Wasn't that like aSchwarzenegger movie or a no,
it's a TV show called TheEqualizer.

SPEAKER_11 (23:40):
Yeah.
Oh, I think also, uh, I think Idon't know.
It was a TV show, and I think itwas a movie, too.

SPEAKER_02 (23:45):
Yeah, it was like it was either Schwarzenegger or
Stallone.
Anyway, okay, we give families afighting chance.
We force accountability, we makesure the harm done to one person
can't be quietly buried by acompany that would rather hide
the truth than change dangerouspractices.

SPEAKER_11 (23:57):
Okay.
Here's what I would say to everyNew Mexican.
Which is a bigger threat to you?
You know, everybody knows we weabsolutely need attorneys to
stand up for people who havebeen wronged.
But it's just an out-of-balancesystem.
And it's favored Brian Cologne,and he he thinks he can go and
gaslight you into believingsomething that just isn't true,
and that is that he's standingup for you.

(24:19):
Well, guess what, Brian?
When somebody gets sick and theyhave cancer and they knock on
your door, you're gonna beworthless to them.
But boy, you're gonna have anice house while doing it.
I hope it's worth it.
Because people of every stripeand background and political
belief are suffering in thisstate for your largesse.
Every one of you guys.

(24:40):
And you have the guts.
You have if I I want to saysomething else, but you have the
you know what the cojones towrite this garbage when so many
families can't get cannot getcare.
It's pathetic.

SPEAKER_02 (24:53):
Yeah, it's really sad.
I mean, we're we were justtalking to some friends of ours
uh this weekend that aretraveling to out of state, two
different locations to just getbasic care for their eyes and
their hips and things of thatnature that they have to wait
over a year to get in to getinto.

SPEAKER_11 (25:08):
And by the way, all the rich people in the state of
New Mexico, they go witheverything we want, wherever
they want.
Right.
It's the low-income familiesthat can't.
It's the low-income families,you know, that that live across
the state that are like, I can'tgo anywhere.
I can't go to Mayo, right?
They can't go to Houston and goto MD Anderson.
They can't.
They were they rely on a stateand leaders who care enough

(25:28):
about them to make sure theyhave care in the state.
Clearly, they've been let downby this.

SPEAKER_02 (25:33):
I mean, I guess if people really want to do
something, write a letter toyour the Senate, other your your
representatives that are in thestate senate and say the medical
compact deal is a good deal forus.
We need a worst case scenario,give us the telehealth doctors.
If we can't pull the doctors in,at least start with that.
At least start with that.
So, or and write the governorand say that you support that as

(25:54):
well.
I mean, that's one start, Iwould say, for people that get
frustrated and want to dosomething.
And then secondly, I'd vote thetrial lawyers out when their
re-elect campaign is back up.
See who the lawyers are andmaybe don't vote for them this
time, perhaps just.

(26:24):
And you have a special sessionon October 1st, by the way.
We were gonna mention that offthe top.
We didn't really talk about thatvery much, but that was one of
the things we were hoping to seeon the agenda.
And what we've been told so faris that that's not gonna happen.

SPEAKER_11 (26:35):
No, it's likely gonna be uh some of this stuff
where the it's likely gonna betheatrics, okay?
So the House and the Senatedon't want to stay there more
than a couple of days, whichthat's fine.
But uh, you know, what they'relikely to talk about here, like
we need CYFD dealt with.
We need, you know, we need themedical malpractice dealt with.
It looks like Republicans willintroduce those things and
they'll be immediately killed.
Okay, so so don't think for aminute that your Republican

(26:58):
House members and Senate membersaren't gonna introduce those
things.
They are going to.
They're just going to be killed.
CYFD, gonna be killed.
It's all gonna be killed.
Okay.
What will be likely dealt withhere is some vaccine mandate
issues that they're gonna try tobasically put a structure in
place so they can kind of breakoff from what any federal
mandates may or may not be, thatthe state will have their set of

(27:18):
mandates.
Okay.
Then they're gonna do sometheatrical, oh, well, Trump's
could pull funding for this, sowe're gonna guarantee funding
and all this.
It's all theatrics.
There are problems, we all knowwhat they are.
We all know healthcare, crime,CYFD, you know, lawyers.
We we have all the we know whatthe issues are.
They could absolutely be dealtwith, they won't be.
That and that's too bad.

SPEAKER_02 (27:38):
Yeah.
So we'll cover the uh theOctober session.
I'm sure it'll be a short andswift one, and uh, we'll get
some reports out on exactly whathappens for those of you that um
are interested in that as well.
Okay, let's move on to a littlebit of national news.
Yeah.
We've got Trump now saying thathe is going to send in the
National Guard to help,especially around the violence
that's been happening around theICE detain uh detention centers

(27:58):
there in Portland, the proteststhat have kind of gotten out of
control there.
So here we go.
Let's take a look first, though,and let's see what the local
representatives are saying andand and how they're feeling
about all this.

SPEAKER_11 (28:08):
Right, and not even necessarily right.
So we start with Patty Murray,who's not in in Oregon,
obviously.
She's a Washington senator, butthat's the neighboring state,
right?
But when I saw what she wrote, Iwas like, what?
So go ahead.

SPEAKER_02 (28:19):
So she she starts here saying Portland is a
beautiful and vibrant city.
It's not a war zone.
No.
The president needs to keep themilitary out of the Pacific
Northwest.
This is yet another abuse ofpower.
Leaders across America andgovernment, business, everywhere
need to push back.

SPEAKER_11 (28:33):
Okay, so what we're gonna see here in three
different examples are we haveleaders who would la rather let
their people suffer underridiculous violence and have a
political point than solve theproblem.
Instead of working together withthe president, working together
with whoever they need to tomake sure Portland, I I lived
there for a couple years, it'sdevolved into a complete

(28:56):
disaster.
It is, okay?
And so I want you now to listento Portland mayor Keith Wilson.
He also does not want any help.
He would rather, again, letdrugs run rampant, let crime run
rampant, than solve the problem.
He just doesn't want to solveit.
So let's listen to what he says.

SPEAKER_04 (29:12):
President Trump has directed all necessary troops to
Portland, Oregon.
The number of necessary troopsis zero in Portland, in any
other American city.
Let me repeat that.
This is an American city.
We do not need any intervention.
This is not a military target.

(29:36):
The president will not findlawlessness or violence here.

SPEAKER_11 (29:40):
Okay, the president will not find lawlessness or
violence here.
Okay.
Okay, and then Ron Wyden, who'sactually a senator for Oregon,
right?
He he decided that he wouldweigh in by showing video of the
ICE detention center and sayingnothing to see here.
He goes in the middle of theday, okay, when no one's around.
Let's go ahead and just showthis video.
And for those of you listening,you Just see him panning around

(30:01):
the ice detention facility.
Now, never mind the fact thatall the windows are boarded up.
Never mind that fact.
That that that is don't worry,that is actually a design
choice.

SPEAKER_03 (30:11):
Yeah, that's normal.
That is a design choice.

SPEAKER_11 (30:13):
They thought it looked good.
Yeah, it was nice.
They had a designer come in andhave it look good.
So there's nobody there in themiddle of the afternoon.
Okay.
And so you see these three allcome together.
What are you talking about?
This is no big deal at all.
Until you get to nighttime.
And so let's take a look at somevideo.
What happens at night in theseice facilities?
So this is Portland.

(30:34):
Okay?
Go ahead.
And what we've got, for those ofyou listening, that's an
explosion of flashbang grenades.
They're trying ice trying topush people back.
It gets very violent.
And this is night after night.

SPEAKER_02 (30:47):
Yeah, this is what's been happening over the last few
weeks.
This is why Trump has actuallynow stepped in.

SPEAKER_11 (30:52):
Actually, it's been happening for months, right?
But but this is not that longago, right?
And so this constantly happenshere because people like the
mayor of Portland allow it to.
They allow these people to dothis day after day.
And this is what happens.
They're not leaders, they'recowards.
And so they continue to see thishappen.
And you have a city that isdevolved into something that's

(31:13):
completely out of control.

SPEAKER_02 (31:14):
It really reminds me a lot of the mayor of uh
Minneapolis, who basically whenthe riots were happening and
every the buildings are gettingburned down and then suddenly a
police headquarters is abandonedand taken over by writers.
And the mayor's like, let's, youknow, I could smell the tire.
Was it Waltz or with a mayor?
I think it was Waltz's wifesaying, the governor's wife
saying, I could smell the thetires or the the burning of the

(31:37):
fires.
I opened my windows to take inthe protest.
I mean, it's it's thatridiculousness of like, yeah, we
want the chaos.
I don't know why, but we wantthe chaos.
That that's that sounds better.
That's that's a recipe fordesign.
Yeah, it's um crazy.

SPEAKER_11 (31:50):
It's ridiculous.
And so listen to so Fox News dida little story on this just so
you can get a feel for whatpeople in Portland are going
through.

SPEAKER_08 (31:58):
Night after night, this is the scene just outside
the ice facility in Portland.
Hundreds of residents live inapartments just feet away.
They routinely call police aboutthe noise and crime.

SPEAKER_04 (32:11):
They've cornered two women out here.
They need help.
Please in the cop.

SPEAKER_08 (32:15):
But the cops did not come.
Residents on their own.

SPEAKER_07 (32:19):
Damn, it's midnight! We the people need this week.

SPEAKER_08 (32:32):
No arrest was made despite the injuries.
On this night in late June,federal police used tear gas and
flashbangs.
Again, no Portland police insight.
It came out later in court thatone officer told another, if it
were not ICE, we could assistdirectly.
Julie Parrish sued the city toforce police to enforce local
laws.

SPEAKER_06 (32:52):
This is a full-on abdication of police duty in a
four-block radius that impactssome of the most vulnerable
Oregonians that we have.
Now they've said, meh, we'rejust gonna let violent rioters
do this for 80 straight nights,and we don't care.

SPEAKER_08 (33:06):
Portland police responded, we take these
concerns seriously.
At the same time, we arecommitted to protecting
individuals' rights to expressthemselves peacefully.
Is that what that is?

SPEAKER_01 (33:16):
Is pathetic.

SPEAKER_02 (33:40):
Okay, so here's what's interesting.
Here's what I pull from that.
You have the mayor saying, We'rewe don't need federal help.
We can manage our own situation.
It's we're an American city, wecan take care of ourselves.
And in the same breath, theirresponse to not sending local
police officers to protectpeople with these protests in
front of an ICE detentionfacility is well, this is a

(34:01):
federal issue.
We can't we can't intervene.
We would if it was it hadnothing to do with ICE.
So now the answer is okay, sothe federal officers are gonna
step in and help out.
And his response is, oh no, no,no, we don't need your help.
I mean, it's talking out of bothsides of his mouth.
It's ridiculous.

SPEAKER_11 (34:15):
But he he would just rather have a political fight
than solve the problem that it'sit's ultimately leaving your
people.
Again, this is the theme in thestory before this, too.
It's leaving your own citizensthere to twist in the wind
because you don't feel uh thatthey're important enough to care
about.
That's what it is.
I mean, in and the guy from theCascade Policy Institute was
right.
He said it's childish.

(34:36):
It's it is childish.
You act like a child.
You're a petulant child.
And the problem is petulantchildren only really affect
themselves.
But petulant leaders destroy thelives of those who they were
elected to protect.
It's that simple.
And and and I and it drives mecrazy.
But I did look, I just want tomake sure that the numbers were
what I thought they were forPortland.

(34:58):
So for their mayor to stand upand say, Oh, we've made a lot of
progress, things are much saferhere.
Portland is is is all you know,all about farmers' markets and
music festivals.
That's all we are here inPortland.
Are you?
Well, here's a look at the mostdangerous cities in America, and
I'm pretty sure if Ella goes andmoves in just a little bit,
you're gonna see Portland,Oregon at number two.
And Portland's a beautiful city.

(35:20):
It really is, or it was at onetime.
Because they have handled thiscity so incompetently, and
because they have allowedanarchists to reign supreme and
drug-addicted homeless people totake over their streets instead
of getting them the help theyneed, this is what you get.

SPEAKER_02 (35:39):
Yeah.
Okay, well, let's talk a littlebit.
We talked uh a little bit aboutthis in the last episode.
Is there going to be agovernment shutdown?

SPEAKER_11 (35:46):
Right.
And that's two days, two daysaway.

SPEAKER_02 (35:48):
Yeah, it's it's coming, it's gonna be this week,
right?
It'll be this week's news.
So JD Vance uh had a few thingsto say about it on Fox News
Sunday, and so we pulled a clipfrom him.

SPEAKER_00 (35:57):
This government shutdown issue looming uh next
week.
How do you see this?
And and are you opposed to to ashutdown, or do you think there
would be advantages to thatpotentially?

SPEAKER_09 (36:09):
Well, look, we don't want to shut down the
government, Martha, but it'sreally up to the Democrats.
Under our system, you need 60Senate Democrats to vote for the
clean, continuing resolutionthat the President and House
Republicans have put forward.
I think it's preposterous,Martha.
And I think the American peoplereally should pay attention to
the fact that Democrats arethreatening to shut down the
entire government because theywant to give hundreds of

(36:32):
billions of dollars of healthcare benefits to illegal aliens.
I've never seen anything likeit.
I've never seen a politicalparty actually advertising the
fact that they want to shut downevery essential function of
government and they want to usethat as leverage so that they
get more money for illegal alienhealth care benefits.
It's such a stark contrastbetween Republicans who are

(36:53):
trying to put the interests ofthe American people first and
Democrats who I think would wantto take money from the American
people to give benefits toillegal aliens.
We don't want to shut down thegovernment.
But if Democrats refuse to justpass this clean continuing
resolution, that's exactlywhat's going to happen.
And I think the Democrats aregoing to bear the responsibility
for it.

SPEAKER_11 (37:13):
Okay.
Just a couple of quick things.
He I think he accidentallymisspoke.
He said they need 60 Democraticsenators' votes.
They need 60 senators' votes,right?
So they'll get 53 Republicansright off the shoot, right off
the jump, right?
So they need seven or soDemocrats to come along and say
basically provide cloture, andthen boom, the CR goes through
and and and everybody's okay.
But but I don't know if they'regonna get it or not.

(37:35):
But but this is one of thosethings that the party out of
power, which in this case is theDemocrats, usually gets blamed
for the shutdown.
So it one of the thingsDemocrats are trying to do is a
point of leverage is to be ableto say, we want some money added
in to provide more health carefor people who are here
illegally.
Obviously, you know, that thatis an issue that the you know
the Republican Senate's notgonna agree to.
Like it's not gonna happen,right?

(37:55):
I mean, you know, Americans andwith the amount of debt that
we're in and all that stuff,it's it's crazy.
So anyway, we'll see whathappens with this.
But one thing that's kind ofinteresting in all this, and
it's a little bit in the weeds,and and I had some information
on it, and I started to get intoit, and I was like, oh my God,
this is a little in the weeds.
But so the reason they do thesethese CRs is they often
continuing resolution that keepsfunding going until later in the

(38:16):
year when they usually pass thisbig, huge gross bill, which
nobody's really accountable for,and it's not well done.
Okay.
What Speaker Johnson is tryingto do now is he's trying to set
up basically 12 different billsthat would fund different parts
of the government moreaccountably than we are doing
right now.
And it's a really good thing todo.
And there have been Republicansand Democrats who have come

(38:38):
together and said, all right,let's work on doing this.
So they need about seven moreweeks to get it done.
Okay, basically.
And so that's what they'retrying to do in all of this.
So if if Democrats come in andthey say, no, well, you know,
we're gonna shut down thegovernment, well, then that will
blow that whole process up,right?
That'll create a huge issuethere.
And then it will not allow forthe negotiations uh to really

(39:00):
continue in any sort ofmeaningful way.
So we'll see what happens here.
I don't think the governmentwill be shut down.
I hope it will not be, um,because I think it's a it's
usually a bad move for the forthe out-of-power party.
And and I think eventuallyyou'll see a buckling from
Schumer uh eventually to say,okay, we'll we'll do the CR and
try to to work on the fundingissues after that.

SPEAKER_02 (39:18):
Okay.
So we'll cover that on our nextshow.
We'll we should know by then.
Yeah, we will.

SPEAKER_11 (39:22):
We'll know.
Yeah.
What happens?

SPEAKER_02 (39:23):
Okay.
Comey, uh, this Comey indictmentkind of stirring up uh all kinds
of conversation, definitelyonline.
I mean, people are all over themap on this one.
Should this be done?
Should it not have been done?
Uh, it was five days before thestatute of limitations, I I am
is my understanding, would haverun out on doing the uh on
filing this indictment againstComey.

(39:43):
Uh, they put they put kind of avery uh thin uh document out
originally on we really don'tunderstand the indictment
verbatim, other than the factthat they're saying he lied to
Congress when he was um underoath, and that that is uh enough
to file the indictment with moreinformation coming soon, is kind

(40:04):
of the the way that they've beenprocessing this since Friday.
But here is an interesting uhconversation that happened on
CNN, Scott Jennings, our bestfriend, Scott Jennings, that we
love, um kind of talking alittle bit about um his take on
this whole situation.

SPEAKER_10 (40:19):
People that need to be held accountable.
I agree with Joe.
If a grand jury says thesethings should be charged, that's
part of the process.
Now there was another chargethey declined on, so they
obviously looked at it and madesome decisions in the room.
But the fact is, LindseyHalligan walked in there, gave
him some evidence, they lookedat all of it, they charged on

(40:39):
too, and I know people who thinkthey may not be done.
There are people in our uh orbitwho believe that maybe this is a
holding uh matter and there'sgoing to be a superseding
indictment.
And so there may be moreinformation yet to come here,
but every Democrat in thiscountry for years made no secret
about the fact that they wantedDonald Trump and his people

(40:59):
prosecuted, put in jail, andprevented from running for
re-election.
And they opened this box, andnow they're living in it.

SPEAKER_11 (41:06):
So and that is so true.
So we talked about this beforewhen the whole when all the
Trump prosecutions were goingon.
You know, you literally had inthe state of New York, they went
and passed an additional lawthat allowed them to look
further back in history so thatthey could go after Trump and
sue him and and and hurt him.

(41:27):
Uh you know, again, you hadAlvin Bragg doing what he did.
You had Letitia James doing whatshe did, you had what happened
in down in in um Georgia and inFlorida.
I mean, it was crazy what theydid uh going after him, okay,
the way they did.
And now it's like, well, wait aminute, wait a minute.
And so I don't like either sideof this.
I I don't like what was done toTrump and the whole Comey thing.

(41:49):
Again, he had a huge role intrying to create, you know, from
the inside, trying to bring downthe Trump administration.
That did happen.
So all of I don't like any ofit.
It it's just it's brutal.
And so I don't know where any ofthis goes.
Um, but I think the thought thatthat Republicans should just
back away and and let it kind ofgo away, I get why people are

(42:12):
don't want to take thatapproach.
I get why people say you have tohold people to account.
But to what end?
Where does this all end?
I don't know.
And I don't have an answer rightnow.

SPEAKER_02 (42:22):
Yeah, it just seems like uh, you know, the
weaponizing with the JusticeDepartment, all of these things,
right?
I mean, it's going on bothsides.
And we've we talked about whenit was happening, you know, with
Trump, we were like, we don'tlike it there, we wouldn't like
it on the other side.
So be careful what you wish for.

SPEAKER_11 (42:36):
Oh, it's what you live by.

SPEAKER_02 (42:37):
Yeah, be careful what you were like, oh no, no,
no, Biden should do this, Bidenshould absolutely which he did.
He put all the power he hadbehind the Justice Department
and said, We're going to goafter Trump.
We're going to take this guydown and make sure he doesn't
get re-elected.

SPEAKER_11 (42:49):
I mean, that was his whole, he was very assured his
re-election in the process.

SPEAKER_02 (42:52):
Yeah, it's I mean, it's you know, you you think
when we said it then, we'relike, this is a terrible idea,
not just because it's Trump,it's just when did we or when
are we becoming this?
Like it's just an awful circle.
So it'll be interesting to seewhat comes out of this
indictment when we actually getmore information that they're
actually going to.
I mean, I listened to thetestimonies, I listened to the
fact of his 2017 testimony,Comey's testimony before

(43:13):
Congress.
That reached that uh went beyondum it's uh I just blanked.

SPEAKER_11 (43:19):
Statute of limitations, and then 2020 is
the one there.

SPEAKER_02 (43:21):
Right.
And then 2020, he retestifiedagain, saying the same thing.
And that's what they're goingafter.
So it'll be interesting to seewhat happens.
Okay.

SPEAKER_11 (43:27):
Okay, yeah, I want to go back on this Tylenol thing
uh in autism.
Okay.
Uh Marty McCary did an interviewtoday, and by the way, there was
a tweet from Tylenol that wedidn't see when we did our last
show.
Okay, and our point on the lastshow was the fact that the Trump
administration has come out andsaid, look, Tylenol should not
be taken by by women who arepregnant, at least unless it's a

(43:48):
pretty extreme circumstance.
There's just there's too muchout there that's a concern.
Uh, our point was, and as afamily of an autistic child
child, that this is one of thosethings that we love the fact
that that somebody's addressingthe issue, that somebody's
aggressively saying, let's findout what's going on here, right?

SPEAKER_02 (44:05):
It may not just be tyanol, it might be tyanol, we
don't know, right?
Like there's I mean, we believepersonally there's gonna be more
to it than just tyanol.
Absolutely there is.
But like absolutely if there isa health concern with tyanol in
in children in embryo or I meanchildren in utero and toddlers,
it should be addressed.

SPEAKER_11 (44:21):
Yeah, and and so Marty McCary says something
pretty, pretty interesting here.
So for those of you who may notfall on the side of uh, you
know, you may look at Trump andyou may say, Oh my, I have my
problems with Trump, and da dada da da.
Listen to what Marty McCary saysabout their approach to this
whole thing.
And I think what you'll find isit's pretty encouraging.

SPEAKER_05 (44:48):
And I quote, there's a causal relationship between
prenatal acetaminophane and theneurodegenerative disorders of
ADHD and autism spectrumdisorder.
Now, there may be many causes ofautism, and that's the exciting
part of our analyses that we'redoing.
Uh, and it simply may be onefactor with a small effect size,
but uh, we uh uh describedLucovorin uh this week as a

(45:10):
potential treatment for autism.
We've got to do something.
We have this expanding epidemic.
Nobody has really put it frontand center until we got this
charge from President Trump andSecretary Kennedy.
We've done an incredible reviewof the literature, and we're
proud to report in two weekswe're gonna have a first
therapeutic that may help up tohalf of kids with autism.
That's incredible.

SPEAKER_11 (45:31):
Okay, that is incredible.
Okay, and and I want to take youback.
Actually, Ella, let's go to clip28.
This is a tweet from Tylenolfrom their real account in 2017.
And you can just read thetweets.
Here it is.

SPEAKER_02 (45:50):
We actually don't recommend using any of our
products while pregnant.
Thank you for taking the time tovoice your concerns today.

SPEAKER_11 (45:56):
Okay.
Oh okay.
So even Tylenol is saying, eh,maybe not for pregnant women.
Okay, maybe not.
And then that takes us back toclip 27.
And and and I I don't want toget into specifics here, but it
was the Autism Society of NewMexico who came out.

SPEAKER_03 (46:14):
We're part of this article.

SPEAKER_11 (46:15):
It was part of the article from the journal,
pushing back and getting mad atthe Trump administration.
So just this last quote here Ithink is important if we focus
in on just that just the quote,Ella.
Um, and just kind of show usthat there we go.
Perfect.
Thanks.
And and it says this it saysit's very dangerous, and this
again, this is the director ofthe Autism Society of New

(46:36):
Mexico.
It's very dangerous for theautism community as a whole, but
especially for our mothers thatmight feel guilty for something
they did during pregnancy thatwas deemed safe.
We do support the medicalcommunity in saying that Tylenol
is safe, and we want mothers toknow that they did nothing
wrong.
Okay, first of all, you have noidea.
You have no idea what Tylenoldoes in this job.

(46:58):
I would just encourage theautism society of New Mexico
just please, and I don't saythis in any sort of arrogant
way, I don't say this tohumiliate anybody, but as the
Autism Society of New Mexico,please don't get hung up on
politics.
Don't get hung up with peoplewho tell you Trump bad, anything
opposite Trump good.

(47:19):
That's what you got caught upinto right here.
You you went out over your skis,you don't know the first thing
about what Tylenol does.
You don't.
You're not a doctor, you're nota researcher, you don't know.
You're a parent who's beendeeply affected by this.
And I completely respect that.
But have enough respect forother parents who the goal is
not the feelings of currentautistic parents.
The goal isn't like we don'twant you to feel bad about this,

(47:41):
so so we shouldn't support thisresearch.
No.
The goal is let's find outwhat's going on so we don't have
more parents like us.
Like that's what we should bedoing.
Right?
That's what we should careabout.

SPEAKER_02 (47:51):
And I kind of like, you know, I I I don't know if
this is a fair association, butyou know, for years and years
and years, we didn't know theimpacts of smoking and drinking
when you were pregnant, right?
I mean, you look at the oldmovies and the old shows, people
were smoking when they werepregnant, they were drinking and
martinis when they werepregnant.
Because we didn't know theeffects of nicotine and fetal
alcohol syndrome for years untilmore research had been done.

(48:11):
Now, yes, 15, 17-year-oldresearch said that there was no
correlation with certain thingsthat are now coming to light
when it comes to autism andADHD.
Again, we will say this.
Like, what's frustrating towatch on social media channels
now is well, Trump saying thisshows that he's not behind the
science.
And Trump is reporting on othermedical reports and he's

(48:32):
allowing funding to go throughfor more research.
Find the beauty in that.
I don't care if this is a Bidenoperation, a Clinton operation,
or a Trump operation.
I could care less.
What I care about is let's dothe research.
Let's find the most updatedinformation, not something from
20 years ago.
Today's information from realpeople that are dealing with

(48:53):
this as researchers, and let'sfind some solutions because the
400% uptick in autism inAmerica, this is happening in
America, is a huge deal.
And we need to get to the bottomof it.
And that's all.

SPEAKER_11 (49:04):
So yeah.
And if you run an organizationwhere you represent other
autistic parents, trying to jumpinto the middle of a political
fight is a terrible idea.
And just understand that thebest thing you can do is stand
up for families and kids and doas much as we can for research.
And clearly, thisadministration, whether you like
them or not, has made autism abigger priority than past

(49:26):
administrations have, bothRepublican and Democrat.

SPEAKER_02 (49:28):
Right, which we're thrilled with, by the way, that
some lights getting shone on.
Okay, we're gonna end on acouple lighter pieces.
We promised you some lighternews uh last week on our last
show.
So, okay, we're going to someweddings.
We have some wedding invitationsfloating about.
And I just thought this was akind of an interesting little
article here on Market Watchtalking about what is the, what
should you be spending on awedding gift now in 2025?
Like what's the average spend,right?

(49:50):
Um, and it says, here's how muchmoney to give as a wedding gift,
whether it's a close friend,relative, or a distance
acquaintance, a distantacquaintance.
Uh, a couple of things theypointed out was, you know,
there's this old school theorykind of that when you're
invited, you should try tofigure out like how much are
they paying for my dinner or forme to be there, and you should
equate that to your gift.
Okay.
That was kind of the old schoolthought.

(50:10):
Some of you can maybe knew thatalready.
But basically, they they pointout an invitation isn't a bill.
So stop doing that kind of mathbecause you have no idea what
the meal is actually costing.
So it just says that number willlook different for everyone,
depending on finances, where thewedding is, and how close you
are to the couple.
And that's okay.
An invitation isn't a bill.
They go on to say there's noperfect amount to give as a

(50:31):
wedding gift.
Rather, people should decidebased on their own financial and
personal situation.
But they add here, they go into,and this is number 31, Ella.
It says Zola's wedding giftguidelines, which the company?

SPEAKER_11 (50:43):
Zola is like the Wasn't she the uh wasn't she
like on one of those realityshows?
Oh, the Zoila.
That's right.
Yeah, no, forget it.

SPEAKER_02 (50:50):
Okay, no, stop it.

SPEAKER_11 (50:51):
Okay, uh Jeff Lewis's housekeeper.

SPEAKER_02 (50:54):
Yeah, that's right.
Oh, Jeff Lewis.
I loved that show.
Okay.
Uh wedding gift guidelines,which the company calls, quote,
very loose.
So these are just suggestions.
I thought it was kind ofinteresting.
It says that for an acquaintanceor distant relative, you should
give about$75 to$100.
Uh, between$100 and$150 forfriends or relatives,$150 to$200
for more close friends andfamily, or if you're like you're

(51:15):
a member of the wedding party.
Yeah, there you go.
And then increase that giftamount by 50 to 100%.
What if you bring a plus one?
Shut up.

SPEAKER_11 (51:23):
So if you're in the wedding and I have to bring,
well, you, uh, I gotta give a$400 gift.

SPEAKER_02 (51:29):
Well, yeah, that's what they're basically saying.
Or they're just saying, like,try to take into account that if
you have a plus one, uh, keepthat in mind because I mean,
what's crazy to me is the theaverage cost of what people are
spending on weddings per headnow, that is got through, it's
just crazy.
I mean, they said things likeyou can go out on groups to save
money, give like a group gift,uh, you could give a more
authentic, like try to dosomething as like an you know,

(51:51):
something.
So just keep in mind we're gonnahave to like do, you know, do
some math as we figure out likewhat's appropriate now.
And you know, I I guess in myhead, I mean, when I read this,
I was like, oh,$50 is the normalwedding present price point.

SPEAKER_11 (52:04):
Yeah, no.

SPEAKER_02 (52:04):
That's obviously changed.
I'm a little behind the times.

SPEAKER_11 (52:07):
Yeah, so that's why everybody's like not inviting us
to weddings because we were onlygiven the$50 gift apparently.

SPEAKER_02 (52:11):
No, I'm not saying that, but I just think that
number for whatever reason kindof was sticking in my head.
Yeah.
So I don't really know.
I'm not saying we've alwaysstuck to that, but I was
thinking that was kind of thethe number in my head.
So I don't know.
Some people have like apreconceived notion of that.
I just thought I'd show that.

SPEAKER_11 (52:24):
Well, it's good that uh we don't end up, I know I
haven't been in a wedding.
I don't even know the last timeI was in a wedding.

SPEAKER_02 (52:28):
Well, we're old.

SPEAKER_11 (52:29):
That's a good point.

SPEAKER_02 (52:30):
People that wants me in the weddings that we go to
now typically are people's likeeither second weddings, quite
frankly, that if they're our ageor older, right?
Or uh and they're not askinganybody to stand up with them.

SPEAKER_11 (52:39):
That's a good point.

SPEAKER_02 (52:40):
Let alone a couple of uh 50-year-olds.
They're not like, hey, let's letup the 50-year-olds to put on
that bridesmaid dress.
Like those days are over, right?
So let's get to your favoritesegment.
Uh Sunday.

SPEAKER_11 (52:50):
So okay, so here's the thing about where we are
right now.

SPEAKER_02 (52:53):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_11 (52:53):
We're into the fall here, we're into the rut for elk
and stuff, but it's been apretty quiet week on the game
cams.
I'm so sorry.
So I got, but we've got one guywho who came and paid us a
visit.
Um, and so the first the firstshot I got him, I couldn't tell
what it was.
So you can take a look here, andyou just see his big boister.
You see the see the backside ofhim there.
He's a big fella.

(53:14):
You're like, oh my goodness.

SPEAKER_02 (53:15):
By the way, you got you got so many comments by what
you called the deer's um privatearea.

SPEAKER_11 (53:22):
Oh, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (53:22):
Yeah, you and your wing dingies or whatever you
were saying last year.
I'm not sure, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, so you have to come upwith some new language because
you know, well, no, I stand byclose and personal in the case.

SPEAKER_11 (53:31):
But if you look at his backside, I mean he's a like
you can tell, or he or she, Ican't even, I don't even know
which, but but you can tell thebig fella right there, right?
And so, but I couldn't quitetell.
So then he comes back around,and then we got another shot of
him.
And and what you see here isgetting ready for hibernation.
I mean, they've got some look atthe jowls on this cat.

SPEAKER_02 (53:53):
Yeah, this big how big he is massive.

SPEAKER_11 (53:56):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 (53:56):
I mean, we're thinking we were showing some
hunter friends of ours and theywere guessing about 400 pounds.

SPEAKER_10 (54:00):
I mean, unbelievable.

SPEAKER_02 (54:02):
So maybe this, maybe, I don't know, maybe this
is a uh a feature mom gettingready to go into hibernation and
she's just eating as much aspossible.
I don't know.

SPEAKER_11 (54:10):
Oh, there's no question.
I mean, I think now up in thatarea, there's a ton of raspberry
bushes and a ton of differentthings like that.
That's what I think they'relargely feeding on, you know.
But that's a big dude, sir, orwoman, gal, either one, whatever
you're doing.

SPEAKER_02 (54:23):
Yeah, I don't know which is which, but he's not
little, just so you guys knowthat he's massive.
So again, thank you so much forthe reminder that there's a big
old bear just roaming aroundwhere I go walking.

SPEAKER_11 (54:32):
You're welcome.

SPEAKER_02 (54:32):
I love that's my favorite part.

SPEAKER_11 (54:34):
They want no part of you.

SPEAKER_02 (54:35):
So you say, sir, no, he's going to be.

SPEAKER_11 (54:37):
You won't even see.
He also don't want to be myfriend.
It's not like well, no, you'reright.
Like you can't put a saddle onhim and ride him around angel
fish.

SPEAKER_02 (54:46):
Yogi?
Yeah, yogi.
Yeah, it's not yogi.

SPEAKER_11 (54:48):
No, he's not, but he's also not gonna give you any
trouble.

SPEAKER_02 (54:51):
Okay.
I need to answer one thing thatI got a text about this week.
People were looking for our um,don't blame me, I voted for Ron
Ketty shirts.
Okay, because I guess somebodywas worrying them out in about
town and got asked about it.
We have those available on ourwebsite, which is no doubtabout
at podcast.com.
We have them in sweatshirts anddo we have Outlast the Haters?
We have Outlast the Haters onthere.
Yeah, that's a good one.
Yeah, we have Outlast theHaters, we have we have various

(55:12):
uh a few swag type situationsfor our No Doubt About It
Podcast.
It's on our website if you wantto go and purchase any of those
items.
We don't have any of themanymore to mail people.
So we just put them on ourwebsite if you want to purchase
them.
You can go to no doubtabout atpodcast.com and hit the shop
button, and it kind of shows youall the products there.
But make sure if you do go therethat you sign up for our email
as well.

(55:32):
We send out two emails a weekjust to let you know about the
show.
That's it.
And otherwise, please rate andreview our shows, whether you're
on Apple, Spotify, or YouTube.
Please like and subscribe.
Thanks so much, you guys, forstarting off your week with us,
and we'll see you back here onWednesday.

SPEAKER_07 (55:47):
You've been listening to the No Doubt About
It podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate, andreview.
We'll be back soon.
But in the meantime, you canfind us on Instagram and
Facebook at No Doubt About ItPodcast.
No Doubt About It.

(56:07):
The No Doubt About It Podcast isa choose adventure media
production.
See you next time on No DoubtAbout It.
There is no doubt about it.