11-16-24 The Weekend Hour 2: Jack Smith Winding Down Lawfare Against Donald Trump

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good night. Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA
director talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie, You're
doing a heck of a job the Weekend with Michael Brown. Hey,
welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Really glad
to have you with me. I appreciate you tuning in.
Don't forget to be sure and follow me on X
It's at Michael Brown USA. At Michael Brown USA. Go
give me a follow right now. And if you want

(00:22):
to send me a text message, it's really easy to
do on your message app. Whatever message app you use,
doesn't make any difference. The numbers three three one zero
three three three one zero three. Just start your message
or use somewhere in the message either the word Mike
or Michael one or the other. So going back to
the New York Times for a moment, because I don't

(00:45):
want to I want to move on from the editorial,
but I want to talk for a moment about how
the rats in the Department of Justice are beginning to
jump ship and Jack Smith and everybody that works for Jack.
Let me make make sure you understand. Jack Smith is
the specially appointed prosecutor whose appointment was ruled unconstitutional, but

(01:12):
by Judge Eileen Cannon down in in Palm Beach for
that appointment is unconstitutional, and just very briefly, because I
really do want you to understand this, her reasoning was
that he's he is an officer of the Department of Justice,

(01:34):
and as an officer of the Department of Justice, just
like any other US attorney, he is required to be
confirmed by the United States Senate, and he was not.
In addition to that, he was given an unlimited budget,
not subject to any appropriation either within the Department of
Justice or from the US Congress, both of which make

(01:58):
his appointment unconstitutional. And I think that she made the
right decision, and they've appealed. They the Department of Justice,
have appealed that decision, and my gut tells me that
they're probably glad that they're going to dismiss this case
and hopefully all these cases, but in particular that one.

(02:20):
And the reason why is because if the US Supreme
Court rules that this would affect Republican presidents too. But
if the US Supreme Court were to rule if that
kind of special council appointment is unconstitutional, that would apply
to any future attempts to appoint a special Council to
go after anybody, whether it be a president or vice president,

(02:43):
a member of Congress, or you were me. The Constitution
is clear for those offices you must have Senate confirmation,
and they didn't do it. So I think in a
way there's a kind of a quiet sigh of relief
in side the DOJ that that case is probably going
to go away, and so that issue will not go

(03:06):
before the US Supreme Court, which means that a Democrat
president could try it again, and if they get a
different judge, that other judge, someone other than Judge Eileen
Cannon down in Florida, but maybe a judge in the
DC Court of Appeals in the DC Circuit might actually
rule in their favor and say, oh, yeah, it is constitutional.

(03:28):
Either way, it would eventually end up in the US
Supreme Court. But the New York Times confirmed this past
week the Special Council Jack Smith and his entire team
of prosecutors planned to resign before Trump takes office on
January twentieth. Now, my guess is this was probably painful

(03:50):
for the authors of this memo, but devln Barrett and
Glenn Thrush, two reliable mothpieces for DOJ said in this
press release that Jack Smith's office is quote drawing up
its plan for how to end the cases against the
incoming president Donald Trump. Now, it's unclear whether Smith will

(04:14):
file any sort of confidential report summarizing what his work was,
which is, by the way, a requirement under the Special
Council rules or the Department of Justice. So if he
was willing to take the appointment and knowing that it's

(04:34):
probably unconstitutional, at least Judge Cannon thinks his appointment was unconstitutional,
why in the hell does does anybody be believed that
he would file a requirement or file a report which
is a requirement under DOJ Special Council rules. Well, I
have a reason. Here's why I think he would file
a report, because they're vindictive and they have a vendetta.

(05:00):
Regardless of whether a report is required or not, the
one way for Jack Smith to get in his final
licks before closing the door behind his stupid ass leaving
office would be to file a report that outlines the
case against Donald Trump. Now that's why they also filed

(05:23):
I guess it's probably within the past thirty days they
asked the court for permission to file all of the evidence,
including grand jury testimony, which is supposed to be kept confidential.
They filed all of that information because they were hoping
to influence the election, and obviously it did not well,
or actually maybe it did, And maybe it did because

(05:44):
maybe some of the app maybe some people actually read
that and said, oh, yeah, this is a vendetta. So,
according to The New York Times, Jack Smith finds himself
once again on the defensive because House Republicans are prepared
to investigate the investigators. Now, when I read that story,

(06:11):
I kind of yawned and kind of under my breath said, BFD,
so what because House Republicans Republicans in general, like to
investigate right, and quite frankly, I personally admit I kind
of enjoy their investigations. I enjoy the hearings. I love

(06:31):
using sound bites from the hearings, you know, regards to
who it is. But some of these people that conduct
these hearings, on these investigations get some really good sound bites,
and it's all often maybe I'm just perverted, but I
get a lot of enjoyment sometimes seeing some of these
witnesses twist in the wind when they're getting really a

(06:55):
good cross examination. About why did you do this? Why
didn't you do that? But here's what Republican lawmakers often
failed to do, and that's to hold anybody accountable. Do
they impeach anybody? Oh? Yeah, well they impeached Hondro Mayorcis,
the Secretary of Homeland Security. And where did that go? Now,
you can't blame all of that on Republicans because Chuck Schumer,

(07:18):
the Senate Majority Leader, refused to have a hearing as
he's required to do under the Constitution. Over on the
Senate side, Republican lawmakers are just going to have to
learn that in how would I describe this in the

(07:39):
Donald Trump era, In the post twenty twenty four election era,
at least for the next two years, Republicans ought to recognize.
Let me add a little context before I make my point.
You know, the cabal is suffering greatly in terms of

(08:03):
their Nielsen ratings and in terms of their financial stability.
CNN is reported to ready to lay off lots of
people with high, high salary contracts. Chris Wallace has said
he's leaving I think his contract with some ten to

(08:23):
fifteen million dollars a year. MSNBC. They're laying people off
their ratings are in the tank. Both CNN and MSNBC
their ratings have plummeted, and Fox News ratings have gone
up some fifty percent. So they recognize that what they've

(08:43):
been selling people aren't buying. So I say that because
in the in the Trump era, in these next two
and four years, and I keep you'll hear me continue
to emphasize two and four years because it's only guaranteed

(09:04):
for the next two years that we actually have a
majority in both the House and the Senate. I think
we'll keep the majority in the Senate come to twenty
twenty six midterm elections. I think the numbers are our
favor there. But in the House it's questionable. And history
shows us that the party in power tends to lose

(09:25):
House seats in the midterm elections immediately following them taking power.
So we got to pay attention to that. Let's get
back to the New York Times talking about Smith finding
himself on the defensive. It's the Weekend with Michael Brown.
Text the word Michael Michael did three three one zero
three hang type, I'll be right back. Hey, Welcome back

(09:48):
to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to have you
with me. You know, if you like what we do
on the weekend, you can also listen during the weekday
on your iHeart app or on your computer. Search for
this radio station in Denver, six thirty khow, six thirty khow.
I do a morning drive program from six to ten
here in Denver, and you can listen to that online

(10:09):
or through your iHeart app, and you can get five
more days of me. Think about that, five more days
of this. So we're talking about Jack Smith and how
the Rats are starting to jump ship, and Smith is
kind of getting on the defensive because the Republicans are
saying that we don't care whether you leave or not.

(10:30):
I mean, they do care whether he leaves, but we
don't care whether you leave or not, because we're going
to go ahead with these investigations anyway. We're going to
investigate the investigators, and I believe that they should be
doing that if we're going to have look. One of
the things that makes this country different from all other
countries is and don't spew your coffee when I say this,

(10:51):
but we adhere to the rule of law. We believe
that if two parties enter into a contract, that that
contract can be abrogated or torn apart, except upon agreement
of the parties or a violation of the terms of
the contract by one party or another. That's what makes
the economy hum. It's why people can, you know, buy

(11:12):
houses or real estate, why they can enter into supply contracts.
It's why we can. It's it's why we can do business.
It's why we can we can live in freedom and
liberty because we have the rule of law, and that
rule of law is supposed to be adjudicated on a
you know, lady justice is blind. Well, in this case,

(11:36):
Lady Justice was not blind, and it was obvious that
this was lawfair against Donald Trump. And now that he's won,
they're beginning to recognize that, Uh oh, we're kind of
holding the bag here. What are we going to do again?
Going back to Barred and Thrush, the two reliable mouthpieces
for the DOJ, said that Republican law makers have told

(11:58):
the Justice Department officials who had worked on the Trump
cases to preserve all of their communications for the investigators.
That is a sure sign that a new balance of
power in Washington will make Jack Smith among those being
hunted by congressional investigators and others as it should be,
because if we allow democrats. Now, let me think of

(12:23):
my words careful. I'm not looking for revenge. I'm looking
for accountability, even though I kind of would like to
see them, you know, get a little taste of their
own medicine. I'm more concerned about all of us, me,

(12:45):
all of us that live outside the Beltway, all of
us that don't have, all of you that don't have
the experience that I do inside the Beltway understanding exactly
how that place works. I went the rest of the
country to know what I know about how DC operates,
because the more that you understand about how DC operates,

(13:07):
and how and how horrible these people can be if
we hold them accountable, if we pull back the curtain
and show what they did in terms of the lawfare,
and then make certain that you know, whether it's me
or anybody else, that we convey to every single person
that's in the sound of our voices as talk show hosts,

(13:31):
a reminder that if they can do it to Donald Trump,
they can do it to anybody, and that if they
can do it to anybody, then we really have no
foundation for any sort of rule of law in this
country whatsoever, which means the Republic dies, and while we've
already lasted them longer than any other republic, that doesn't

(13:52):
mean we should just go ahead and die. We have
to try to do everything we can to preserve the
republic even longer, and perhaps it will serve, as you know,
for future generations, as a lesson in how to preserve
the republic. You think about the past two years longer
than that. Specifically, I'm seating about the past two years.

(14:14):
Cable news hosts, the talking heads, the cabal, all the
self described legal experts reported and hung on every single
word that Jack Smith uttered in the courtroom, every single
move that he made, salivating over their vision of the
war crimes prosecutor hauling their longtime nemesis Donald Trump after
the gulag in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit. That's been

(14:39):
their objective. Why now there are if you've ever seen
the I think it was the HBO series Billions where
they the I like, I forget the actor's name, but
he plays He plays the US attorney for the Southern

(14:59):
District of news Or, probably one of the most powerful
US attorney positions in the entire country. Why because Wall
Street's located there, well, that particular character has a vendetta
against his protagonist in that series, and his vendetta gets
in the way of the rule of law and he

(15:21):
cuts corners and he and he really kind of bastardizes
justice all in hopes of just getting actual acts the protagonist. Well,
he wanted. This character in Billions wants to do the
same thing to Acts the billionaire that Jack Smith wants

(15:42):
to do to Donald Trump, and that is to haul
him off in handcuffs an annoynge jumpsuit because they want
to You ever seen, Probably not a very good example
to use on the radio, but if if you've ever seen,
you're ever been pheasant hunting, and you know, you get
a really beautiful pheasant, the dogs flush them up. You

(16:05):
take your shot, dog brings you back a pheasant. You
pick it up by its neck. It's dead, it's hanging there,
and you hold it up for your fellow hunters to see.
Look at this beautiful bird I just got, and I'm
gonna take it home and fry it up and have
fried pheasant delicacy. That's what they want to do to
Donald Trump. They want to hold him up like that

(16:26):
dead pheasant, and they want to do that as a
signal to anybody else that dares do anything that the
Democrats don't approve of, we're gonna do the same thing
to you, or to you or to you. So not
only did that picture of holding Donald Trump's head like
a dead pheasant, that never happened. So now Smith himself

(16:52):
is the target of a criminal investigation. Jim Jordan one
of the investigators in the House, Very louder Milk another
House member louder Milks from Georgia. I think they sent
a letter to Jack Smith demanding the preservation of all
of his records and that they may ask him to

(17:15):
publicly testify. Now, I think that's a no brainer because
Jack Smith, who never says a word anywhere publicly, who
insists he would do all of this talking through court documents,
needs to be forced to explain himself to you and me.
After all, he's kind of like a CIA agent with
a black ops budget that nobody can see. I want

(17:37):
to know what he's been doing, how he's been spending
his money, and what the memos say to each other.
We deserve to know that. So the Weekend with Michael
Brown takes the word Mike or Michael to this number
three three one zero three. I'll be right back tonight.
Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of

(17:59):
talk show host Michael Brownie. No, Brownie, you're doing a
heck of a job The Weekend with Michael Brown. Hey,
welcome back to The Weekending with Michael Brown. So we're
talking about Jack Smith and the Document's Case, which is
the case down in Florida where Trump ostensibly violated the
National Archives Records Administration's rules and the Presidential Records Act

(18:23):
by keeping, allegedly by keeping documents that he was allowed
to keep at mar Lago. And you may recall it,
it's important remember some of the details that the FBI
conducted an early morning raid on the former president's residence.

(18:43):
I always said that one of the key concerns I
had about the Document's case was an obstruction of justice charge.
Now I don't know the ins and outs. I don't
think anybody outside the lawyers do. But there was no
reason for that raid whatsoever. Even if Trump himself was

(19:05):
refusing to turn over documents the lawyers were surely, surely
the lawyers were in negotiations with the FBI in the
Department of Justice or Jack Smith for that matter, the
National Archives and Records Administration about well, let's let's go
to arbitration, or let's have a mediator, or let's just

(19:28):
have conferences. Hell's bells. Let's let's let's rent a conference
room somewhere in Palm Beach or Miami or someplace, and
let's get a secure facility. Hell's bells. You know that
the FBI has a secure facility somewhere in Miami Dade County,
and so let's let's get that secure facility. Let's bring
all the documents in and let's go through to see

(19:50):
if we can reach an agreement on what documents he
can keep and not keep. You think about corporate litigation.
Two corporations fighting over a contract and they're going through
the discovery phase. We want all of your emails, we
won all your records, we went all of this. Oftentimes
they'll bring in a third party person, a third party

(20:10):
to go through and help everybody work through what's going
to be exchange, what's not going to be exchanged. Sometimes
the courts will even order that. But there was no
attempt that I'm aware of. Are this being reported of
any attempt to do that? So here we are today

(20:34):
Trump has won an overwhelming victory. As we said earlier,
the owner of the Scotis blog, a lawyer Bliety of Goldstein,
wants to have all of the cases against Trump dropped.
And Jack Smith has announced that he is going to
drop the January sixth case and the Document's case. But

(21:01):
the investigators in Congress still need to do an investigation
because what you and I have witnessed is third world
kind of ten horned dictator bull crap, and somebody needs
to be held accountable because there was other shenanigans going
on that was never widely reported. For example, what are

(21:24):
the lawyers in Smith's team? Jay Brad has been accused
of threatening one of the defense lawyers in the documents
case down in Florida, trying to get the client to
flip on Trump, which is not only elite what's obviously
against the bar rules, the rules for the lawyers, but

(21:46):
it's also illegal. You're trying to coerce a witness. Well,
he ought to be required to testify in front of
the investigators. What were you good? What were you trying
to do here? Because I want the American public to
know that if this is true, again underlying if it
is true. This ought to scare the Jesus out of you,

(22:11):
because this is an FBI in a department of justice
that is literally, I'm not trying to exaggerate here, that
is out of control. There's no justice in this department
of Justice. I heard somebody referred to it. I was
driving around somewhere yesterday and they're referring to as the
Department of Injustice, and I thought, being that's exactly right.

(22:32):
You got locked and loaded on one guy that you
wanted to destroy for political reasons, and you pulled out
all stops to get him, including trying to flip witnesses.
Well back to Jay Bratt, his fingerprints were all over
the Bogus case all the way back to twenty twenty one,
when he the lawyer that worked for Jack Smith, went

(22:55):
to the Biden White House at least two times, and
then he joined three f BI agents during a voluntary
search of mar A Lago in June of twenty twenty
two looking for government papers. And then he fought aggressively,
as it was described in some of the documents, behind
the scenes, to pursue the armed FBI rate of mar
A Lago. In August of twenty twenty two. You know,

(23:18):
now I mention those dates, I want you stop and
think about something because I want I want, I want
this personal to you, because this is the kind of
thing that can happen to you when you have out
of controlled prosecutors that are not seeking justice, but they're
seeking vengeance. They're seeking to make a martyr out of something. No,

(23:41):
they don't want to make a martyr out of somebody,
but they want to make an example out of somebody.
And if they can do it to a former president,
they can do it to you. Why did the dates
make me think of? Think about how long ago August
of twenty twenty two was. And now imagine for you,
Donald Trump. Now I want you to think back in

(24:02):
your life all the way to August of twenty twenty two. Now,
I don't know, have you changed jobs since then? Have
you retired, have you got a new job? Have you
had financial difficulties? Has inflation hurt you? You got a
problem with the irs, You get a divorce, somebody in
the family gets sick. Well, now imagine all of those

(24:25):
kinds of things going on, and at the same time,
the FBI and the Department of Justice are running you
through the ringer on bogus charges because they want to
make an example out of you, Manute. Very few of us,
if any, have the stamina, the monetary resources, or for

(24:48):
that matter, just the willpower to fight that kind of thing.
Think about some of these January sixth defendants. Some of
these January sixth defendants have been in jail for four years,
four freaking years, and they haven't had a trial yet.

(25:08):
That's third world country bullcraf. Trump ought to pardon I
want to be very specific here. Trump ought to pardon
anyone who even if they did something wrong. Let's say
that there's somebody sitting in jail right now in the

(25:31):
District of Columbia jail that broke a window in the
US Capitol. That's vandalism. Well, the fact that for that
act they've been languishing in jail not able to bond
out for almost four years now, even though they committed

(25:51):
what I believe a crime. And if they have, if
they had this individual on crime breaking a window in
the US Capitol building, they should have tried and they
probably would have gotten six months in jail or six
months probation. But they were never languished around for four
years in jail, even upon a conviction. So even those

(26:11):
people I think should be pardoned by Donald Trump. Now
for those who actually committed a crime, they broke windows,
they vandalized, they hit a cop, or whatever, if they
have gone through the trial and they have been sentenced,
then they ought to what if their sentence is reasonable.

(26:33):
And I don't actually know what a reasonable sentence is
for striking a cop. It varies from state to state.
But let's say it's a year in jail. If they
have already served a year in jail, then they ought
to have Then at this point they ought to be pardoned.
If they haven't yet finished their year in jail, Trump
ought to commute their sentence to time served and let

(26:53):
them go. Because there are too many questions about provocateur
that stirred up that crowd, and there are too many
people that on that day simply got caught up trying
to go to a legitimate protest, that get caught up
in the crowd. So, for example, the grandmother, we always

(27:14):
talk about the grandmother who was charged with trespassing for
simply walking into the building, realizing, oh I'm in the
wrong place, turned around and walked out, and they and
they come after her pardon her. So think about what
you've been doing for the past two three years, and

(27:35):
then imagine that you're you're a defendant like Donald Trump. Now,
Donald Trump's you know, worth billions of dollars. He's got
more stamina than than most seventy eight year old men
that I know of, and he's able to somehow just
push through all of this. But most men I know
that they're that that are that age, No, they would

(27:58):
have given up long ago. If you have an uncle
or grandfather, a father, or someone who's Donald Trump's age,
and you think about them going through all of this
stuff for the past three or four years, how would
you feel. You'd probably want them out of there too.
Josh Gerstein over at Politico reports that the Department of

(28:21):
Justice employees are terrified about Trump coming back to the
White House. Huh, I wonder why, because if Trump holds true,
and by the way, the appointment or the nomination of
his personal lawyer that represented him in the New York
cases as the Deputy Attorney general brilliant move, Absolutely brilliant move,

(28:42):
because that's one hell of a lawyer. And as deputy
Attorney General, he'll have the portfolio to go in there
and clean that house out, which it certainly needs. It's
the Weekend with Michael Brown. On your podcast app, search
for this The Situation with Michael Brown, The Situation with
Michael Brown. Once you find that, you hit subscribe. You

(29:03):
might give a five star review too, But hit subscribe
and then that will automatically download the weekday program plus
the weekend program and you'll have all the Michael Brown
you need. Hang tight, I'll be right back. Hey, welcome
back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to have
you with me. If you as send me a question
or a comment, it's really easy to do on your

(29:26):
massw japp. Whatever you use doesn't make any difference. The
number is three three one zero three thirty three one
zero three. Just start your message out with one of
two words, Mike or Michael. For those of you who
are graduates of public education, probably use the word Mike
since it's simpler. Mi ikee at rack real quickly, let's

(29:50):
go to CNN for a moment. CNN reports this now.
I'd love to play the SoundBite for you. Today we
were having technique difficulties. One Justice employee told CNN that
people inside the Department of Justice are safety planning before

(30:12):
I continue? What the hell does that mean? Hey, we
got a new Boston town. Really, I'll get the safety
team together. We got to start planning our safe departure
from here. It's kind of like you've seen in the
movies where you know, you've got some sting operations set
up somewhere and suddenly you've been discovered and and the

(30:34):
mob or somebody's moving in on you, and everybody starts.
You know, they're they're shredding papers, and they're burning stuff,
and they're just scrambling around. Can't you see that? Going
inside the Department of Justice in downtown d C. They're
all scrambling around, they're burning documents, they're shredding documents. They're
running for the hills. I heard that statement on CNN.
I mean I just laughed out loud. Safety planning, What

(30:57):
are you scared of? Huh? Another person told CNN that
some are even considering whether they need to hire lawyers. Well,
you know, as a lawyer myself, I would say you
should always hire a lawyer. You should always hire lawyers.
But you have to ask yourself here, why you work

(31:20):
for the freaking United States Department of Justice? What do
you need a lawyer for What have you been doing?
What are you afraid of? Oh, are you afraid of
the same thing might happen to you that's been happening
to Donald Trump. Is that what you're afraid of? Huh?
Well imagine that. And then according to seeing another official
within DJ said that I don't mean to laugh at this. Well, yeah,

(31:44):
I do strike that year, I do mean to laugh
at this. Says that there's a general sense of depression
among the lawyers that worked on these cases that these
Republicans are going to investigate. Really, you got to say,
you have a general sense of Russian What do you
think you did? This? A lot of these what do
you think you did to the grandmother that on January

(32:06):
sixth of twenty twenty one was just you know, hey,
I think I'll go up and join the protest that
Alex Jones and Olly ackbar are gonna hold up on
the northeast corner of the US Capitol' I'm gonna go
up there because you know, I love American I'm gonna
go up and I'm gonna walk up to the Capitol

(32:27):
and Grandma gets caught in the mob. And next thing, no,
Grandma is going through the doors of the US Capitol Building,
and Grandma's just smart enough to know, Oh, I think
I'm in the wrong place. And Grandma turns around, and
Grandma still gets arrested. Oh if you have if you're
a lawyer inside the Department of Justice and you have

(32:48):
a general sense of depression, sucks to be you, doesn't it. Well,
think about what sucks to be that grandmother. I have
no sympathy for you whatsoever. Go find some xanax or something,
or go get go, get go, get medicated, because you're
going to need more of it. And again, I'm not
trying to be vengeful here. I just want justice. I

(33:09):
just want accountability. That's that's what's going on. And I
think their fears justified. There are so many cases where
the defense lawyers determine that the prosecutors actually withheld exculpatory evidence.
What does that mean? There's well, there's something called the
Brady rule. And the Brady rule is a Supreme Court

(33:31):
decision that require mandates that if you're a prosecutor and
you have evidence that goes to help show the innocence
of a defendant, you are required to give that to
the Defense Council. Exculpatory evidence. And there are their story
after story after story of where these Department of Justice

(33:52):
lawyers withheld that exculpatory evidence and violated the due process
rights of those January sixth defendants. And they also systematically
misused that eighteen Usc. Fifteen twelve C. Two. That's the
obstruction statute that was put in place after the Inn

(34:12):
Run scandal. How many of your old enough remember the
Inn Run scandal where they cook the books. Well, that's
that criminal code eighteen Usc. Fifteen twelve c two has
to do with the destruction or alteration of documents, and
that doing so in a financial crimes case or in

(34:37):
a document's case is obstruction of justice. Has nothing to
do with Donald Trump contesting an election. What document did
he obstruct? What document did he alter? What document did
anybody on January sixth? Unless they took a piece of

(34:57):
paper off somebody's desk, what did they obstruct? Well, if
you recall last summer, the Supreme Court concluded that the
Department of Justice unlawfully applied that criminal code in the
January sixth cases, but not before hundreds were charged with it,

(35:19):
and not before over one hundred percent of prison based
on that charge, whose charges will now have to be
reviewed on I have to come back to that trial
court and most likely be dismissed. And now we got
Matt Gates. I'm not a fan of Matt Gates, just

(35:40):
being totally honest with you. I think he may be smart,
I don't know, and the ethics investigation against him may
be politically motivated. I don't know. I haven't seen it,
But I don't know that he has the gravitas to
be the United Statestorney General. But I do know this

(36:02):
about Matt Gates. He is a pretty strong record of
confronting some of these bad actors in the Department of Justice,
including the FBI director. But whether he gets confirmed or
not as immaterial to me, because the Deputy Attorney General,
Trump's personal lawyer has a strong record of winning, and

(36:25):
that's who will probably be doing the heavy lifting. Anyway,
It's the weekend with Michael Brown. Takes the word Mike
or Michael to three three, one zero three, don't go away.
I'll be right back.