1-18-25 The Weekend Hour 2: The Department of Justice Must Be Accountable To The President

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Tonight, Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director
of talk.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
Show host Michael Brown.

Speaker 3 (00:03):
Brownie, No, Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job
the Weekend with Michael Brown.

Speaker 1 (00:08):
Hey, welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. We're
t minus forty eight hours in counting until well, I
was going to say until the country starts to turn around,
but I think the country's already starting to turn around,
and I want to address that later on in the program.
But we're already beginning to see some people starting to
self deport. The International Monetary Fund has come out and

(00:30):
they've talked about how they are revising their prediction for
growth in the US economy in the first couple of
years of the Trump presidency, we're already starting to see well,
like Meta and Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg is like, h you
know what, maybe the days of trying to violate free
speech and trying to censor people, maybe those days are

(00:52):
over now. I don't care. I don't care what the
motivation is. They're doing it, and they're doing it because
there's a new sheriff in town. So you can bitch
about and moanum all you want to about. Mark Zuckerberg
playing both sides of the fence, but you know what,
he's playing our side of the fence right now. That
doesn't mean that you have to embrace Mark Zuckerberg and say,

(01:12):
oh my gosh, he's seen the light, he's been red pilled. No,
you don't have to say that at all. Just recognize
that the mere fact there's a new sheriff in town
is already changing things. And I find it fascinating. And
I think Trump himself is probably doing as much to
affect that change by his demeanor, his actions, his seriousness,

(01:35):
his appointments, Everything that this transition team is doing, and
everything that the election, that the that the campaign team
was doing, says that he really is changed. And as
I've told meny of you before, I think he's changed
because one, I think it's like giving a kid, not
that he's a kindergartener, but you give a kid in

(01:58):
kindergarten er grade school of time out because they did
something wrong, and you know, they may be they may
be mad as they sit in the corner, but they
do realize they're sitting in the corner because they did
something wrong. Now, set aside whether you think the twenty
twenty election was sold or not stolen. Just forget that
for a moment. The effect of Trump losing that election

(02:23):
legitimately or illegitimately gave him time to consider and see
about losing and also think about how he was attacked
about Russia. Russia, Russia, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment. You know, we're
going to go after you know, General Flynn, We're going
to go after all these people. He's on campaign manager
Paul Maniford, and then he sees what this administration does,

(02:48):
and then and people argue with me about this. And
then there are three assassination attempts. There was Butler Pennsylvania,
where except for just a slight turn of his head,
we would have seen his brains blown out on television.
And then there was a guy on the golf course
at I think it was at Bedminster, right, I think

(03:09):
that golf course. And then there's the third one that
occurred in California, which to this day the Marshal's Office says, well,
we don't really think this was an assassination attempt. But
there was a guy near a rally that had a
bunch of different passports, his photo but different names of
what of cash and a cash of weapons. H just

(03:30):
happened to be near Trump or was looking for an opportunity.
So maybe that wasn't an assassination attempt, but perhaps there
was an assassination plot. So I think three times. There's
nothing that will shake your soul more than a near
death escape. Not that I've been through one, but I

(03:54):
know people who have and it's changed them. And I
think the four years for this time out of Trump
caused him to really stop and think about things. How
he campaigned, how he's I mean he is. Have you
seen have you seen the official photos? The official portraits
taken by the new White House photographer. Amazing, simply amazing

(04:16):
in my opinion. And for those who say it looks
like the mug shot, I don't think it looks anything
like the mug shot, the mug shot out of Georgia.
There may be a slight same tilt to the head,
but if you look closely at the eyebrows, you look

(04:36):
closely at the eyes, the lighting, everything, the demeanor is
just I would describe the new photos. If you haven't
seen them, you should go look at them. I think
they may be on my Twitter or my ex timeline.
I'm not sure but you'll find them all over the place.
It's just a look of resolve and don't try me,

(05:02):
don't push me. It's an amazing photo anyway. So we
came with Michael Brown. If you want to send me
a text message, it's easy to do. You can do
it anytime. I read every single one of them on
your message app. This is the number three three one
zero three three three one zero three. Just start your
message with the word either Mike or Michael. Tell me
anything or ask me anything, and don't forget to follow

(05:23):
me on X It's at Michael Brown USA. Go do
that right now now. I don't mean tomorrow, I mean
like right now. Go do it right now at Michael
Brown USA. Hey, welcome back to the weekend of Michael Brown.
Glad to have you with me. I appreciate you tuning in.
If you want to send me a text message, it's
easy to do on your phone or whatever your message

(05:44):
app is. Use this number three three one zero three
three three one zero three. Start your message with either
the word Mike or Michael. Tell me anything or ask
me anything, and then do me a favor and go
follow me over on X formerly Twitter. It's at Michael
Brown USA at Michael Brown USA. So one of the
reasons I think there's already change occurring is, well, we

(06:07):
have some empirical data of that, but also because of
these nominees that had been heard so far, Rubio Rubio
for State, Pambondy for Justice, Pete Hexeth for Defense, Chris
Wright Energy Lee Zelden. Although I get a little fuel
little issues with Leezelden at EPA and others, but particularly

(06:31):
during Pam Bondy's Senate confirmation hearing, there was this kind
of bizarre consensus that emerged, and that was an argument
that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General should
be independent of the president. Now, there's a difference between
being independent of the president and being willing to tell

(06:53):
the president that you're wrong, or we can't do that,
or I won't do that, and if you force me
to do that, and I'm going to quit. And we
have examples of that if you go back to the
Nixon in the Watergate era, when Nixon was trying to
get his attorney Attorney's General to do certain things and
he had to go through two or three of them
and they just said, no, we're not going to do that.

(07:14):
It's illegal, and they and they resigned. But this idea
that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General should
be independent of the president is kind of bizarre in
my opinion, because that would make the Department of Justice
some kind of fourth branch of government that's free to

(07:35):
go chart its own course. It would be unbound by
the constitutional framework. And I think that what they're doing,
although it might be politically fashionable because it's been so
weaponized by the Biden administration, but I think it's wrong
because it ignores the architecture of the Constitution, thevets all

(07:57):
executive power in the president. We have what's called a
unified executive, and the executive under our constitution is essentially
the CEO of the executive branch, and all that power
remond remains in that individual. So to me, the Department

(08:20):
of Justice and the Attorney General must remain under the
president's direction, because as the Constitution and the theory of
a unitary executive demanded, it be so Article two of
the US Constitution, which is the executive branch portion of
the Constitution, that's all executive power in a single individual.

(08:45):
Who is that, Well, it's the president. It's not a
negotiable clause. It's not a suggestion. The framers, wary of
the paralysis and what and the inefficiencies that you would
have if we had adopted the Article of Confederation, wanted
a structure where authority in the executive branch flowed directly

(09:06):
from the President. In Federalist Number seventy, Alexander Hamilton argued
that the energy, the accountability, and the decisiveness in governance
requires a unitary executive that would be unencumbered by fragment
and control. You know, I'm in charge of this, but
somebody else's in charge of something else. And so the

(09:27):
Department of Justice, as a part of the executive branch
falls squarely within that principle of a unified executive. I
say all of that because I want to go back
for a moment to some of the portions of the
hearing confirming the nomination of Pambondi to be the next

(09:50):
Attorney General. Now they have not yet voted in committee,
but I think they will. She will get the nomination.
I mean, she will get confirmed by the the committee.
It will then go to the floor of the House,
of the floor of the Senate, and I think all
fifty three Senators will vote, and she'll become the next
Attorney General. I think she might even be able to

(10:10):
pick up a few Democrats. John Fetterman, I'm looking at
you for example, but take this as an example.

Speaker 4 (10:18):
Like the President, I believe we are on the cusp
of a new golden age where the Department of Justice
can and will do better if I am confirmed. Lastly,
and most importantly, if confirmed, I will fight every day
to restore confidence and integrity to the Department of Justice

(10:40):
and each of its components. The partisanship, the weaponization will
be gone. America will have one tier of justice for all.
In all this work, I'll collaborate closely with this committee.
I will work with all of you as I've committed

(11:01):
to do when I met with almost all of you,
and I will partner not only with the federal agencies,
but with the state and local officials throughout our great country.

Speaker 1 (11:14):
But you know, she started out, but as the President
and I agree, this is what we're going to do,
and that's her job. Her job is not necessarily to
take orders like you know, and the President's not going
to say, Pam Bundy goes to so and so. But
the President could say, look, have you conducted an investigation

(11:36):
into so and so because I think so and so
might be up to something that's just wrong or unethical,
or or you know, maybe, you know, maybe Jack Smith
ought to be looked at. That doesn't means she's going
to go prosecute Jack Smith, but it means that she might,
at the President's request, investigate Jack Smith. Now, what's wrong

(11:59):
with that? The Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with that in
my opinion, because the ultimate decision whether or not to
prosecute is hers, because that's the authority vested in the
attorney general. She still reports to the president, and she still,
you know, for lack of a better phrase, takes orders
from the president. But she still makes all of these

(12:22):
decisions as the attorney general about what she will do
and what she will not do. I don't know why
that there is so much controversy over her nomination. I
don't get it other than the fact they they don't
like the fact. And this is pretty typical. Democrats object

(12:43):
to what they do if it's done by somebody else.
And so we know that we have an Attorney General,
Merrick Garland, who will also be out of office come
noon on Monday, who has at the direction of the president.
Gone after the new president, the former president who has

(13:04):
cooperated with and sent some of his team to Letitia James,
the Attorney General of New York to help prosecute Donald
Trump the Saint n Juan Marsham's courtroom with Alvin Bragg,
the DA in New York. So they object to the
fact that this Attorney General may see wrongdoing or wonder

(13:24):
if there's wrongdoing, and if there is a predicate for investigating,
they will go investigate. They don't like that. And as she.

Speaker 4 (13:37):
Says, if confirmed as the next Attorney General of the
United States, my overriding objective will be to return the
Department of Justice to its core mission of keeping Americans
safe and vigorously prosecuting criminals.

Speaker 1 (13:57):
I love the way she says that she doesn't specify
any particular crime, any particular individual, but she instead says,
I'm going to focus on a category of individuals, criminals. Well, duh,
that's what your job is. That's like a DA. If

(14:18):
a DA gets elected in your area, in your county,
your state, their job is to prosecute criminals. Now they
may initiate investigations on their own, or they may investigate
things that come up to them through police reports. Well,
the same thing's going to happen here, and it's driving
the Democrats nuts. The notion of this independent Department of

(14:45):
Justice is often couched in lofty terms or lofty lofty
rhetoric about impartiality. In reality, the lofty rhetoric actually undermines
the very accountability that is good governance. The presidents elected
by the people. The president answers to the people directly.

(15:05):
The Attorney General, by contrast, is neither elected nor subject
to the same public scrutiny. If the Department of Justice
were truly independent, as Democrats seem to want it to be,
at least under Pambondi or under Donald Trump, it wouldn't
answer to anybody but itself. And that's a dangerous concentration
of power. That is Soviet style justice. Consider how that

(15:31):
might work. If the Department of Justice were completely independent,
it could pursue policies or investigations that contradict the president's mandate.
So now you've got to schism within the executive branch. Worse,
it risks turning justice into a political weapon wielded by
entrenched bureaucrats rather than an individual. That's there by the

(15:53):
people's will. So without presidential oversight, the Department of Justice
could easily just devo into an unelected, self perpetuating institution,
if you would, a fourth branch of government in everything
but name. So, for much of American history, the Department
of Justice subordination to the president remained unquestioned. From Jefferson

(16:19):
to Reagan, they all operated under the assumption that the
Attorney General served as their legal advisor and their enforcer
of executive policy. So where did this idea that the
Department of Justice was going to be independent come from?
And I know many of you listening right now are
thinking that, Well, I've always thought that the Department just

(16:40):
was supposed to act independently. Well, you've been taught that,
because when you go back in history, you'll understand how
we got to where we are today. Because where we
are today is not exactly a unified executive Let's go
back to Watergate. Let's go back to the seventies, because

(17:03):
for me, that's really from my historical perspective, that's really
where this cry for an independent Department of Justice grew
the loudest. Because Nixon, in his abuse of power, left
all of us really upset that a president could so
willingly violate the law and not be held accountable. But

(17:26):
if we're going to react to just one president's failures
by abandoning our constitutional principles, I think that's kind of stupid.
The solution to corruption is not autonomy. The solution to
corruption is accountability. As Justice Scalia warned, the creation of
independent executive officers risked undermining the very structure of the constitution.

(17:51):
So how would this work? That's next? Don't go away.

Speaker 5 (18:00):
Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of
talk show host Michael Brown.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
Brownie, No, Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job.

Speaker 3 (18:06):
The Weekend with Michael Brown.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
Hey, you're listening to the Weekend with Michael Brown the
weekend before we get a new president. In that fantastic.
If you like what we do on the weekend, i'd
encourage you to listen to the weekday program, which airs
from six to ten Mountain time. You can find it
on your iHeart app, your laptop wherever you listen by
searching for this station station six point thirty KHOW six

(18:29):
thirty KHOW in Denver, and you can listen on the
weekday mornings from six to ten Mountain Time, or you
could download the podcast and it's easy to subscribe to
the podcast. Whatever podcast app you use, just search for
the Situation with Michael Brown. Once you find that the
Situation with Michael Brown hits, subscribe and that'll give you

(18:49):
all five days of the weekday program plus the weekend program.
And I appreciate you doing that. So back to Pam
Bondy in this idea of a unified executive and how
the Department of Justice must answer to the president. I mean,
in the most simple terms, if the Attorney General doesn't
answer to the president, who do they answer to? You

(19:13):
didn't elect them, I elected, I voted and elected Trump,
or maybe you voted for and elected Biden and failed
to elect Kamala Harris Well. Whomever they appoint and gets
confirmed with the advising consent of the Senate, they don't
get there because of you and me. They only get

(19:34):
there because the president chose them. And quite frankly, most
of us don't have much influence on who a president
selects to be in their cabinet. That's a highly personal
choice the presidents make, and so if they don't answer
to the person who selected them and They're not a

(19:57):
separate branch of government. They're not the fourth branch of government,
or the or six or any other branch or government.
They're part of the executive branch. Then who do they
answer to if it's not the president? You don't want that.
I don't want that. But why is this going on? Well,

(20:17):
things like this, for example, this is all you listeners
in California. Why the hell do you do this? Do
you know why your state sucks? In my opinion? Look,
California is a gorgeous state. I love California. There's not
a lot about California in terms of that I don't like.

(20:38):
Couldn't you you, Well, you might be able to pay
me enough to live there, but you probably couldn't afford
to pay me that much to live there. But what
you know, you're in the shape that you're in because
you keep voting people like Adam shiff In. So, Adam
schiff is the new junior Senator from the state of California.
Here he is questioning Pam Bondy, Trump's nominee to be

(21:02):
the attorney general. And I want you to listen to
the question will you commit? He starts the question will
you commit? Well, I don't care the entrant.

Speaker 5 (21:17):
No, let me turn to some California particular concerns. I'm
grateful for your acknowledgment of the trauma we've been through
with the fires. That is not over. We will need
your help in going after those who are committing arson,
or who are eluding, or the inevitable fraudsters who will

(21:40):
take advantage of the situation to trying to defraud, to
price gouging as well as price gouging. Indeed, on the
subject of price gouging, and we talked quite a bit
about the twenty twenty election. The twenty twenty four election
was about the high cost of living. I hope you
will demonstrate a willingness to go after anyone who's engaged

(22:02):
in price gouging. I think the oil companies are engaged
in price gouging. The price of the pump in California
is through the roof. Are you willing to take on
even powerful interests like the oil industry if you determine
that they are gouging consumers?

Speaker 1 (22:18):
Yeah? Wait a minute, price gouging. Uh, what role does
the government have? Somebody out on the text line. Sorry,
I'm not going to go look at your particular text
up right now, But had texted, can Trump do anything
about the price of eggs, because you know, between between
av and flu and all these flocks of chickens that

(22:40):
are having to be you know, eliminated, euthanized, and stupid
states like Colorado requiring that chickens be you can only
sell cage free eggs in Colorado. Price of eggs in
Colorado's skyrocket. That's not price gouging. And even if it

(23:01):
was price gouging, you know what price gouging really does.
Price gouging allows people access to products that they might
not otherwise get. You know, when a disaster occurs, and
I know many people are going to disagree with me
about this, but when disasters occur, if and I've seen

(23:24):
this happen, and I have no problem with it. You know,
taxpayers provide water and ice as examples to disaster victims.
So if you're living in Houston, Texas, and I use
Houston as an example because I saw this happen in Houston.
It happened during oh there was a tropical hearing named

(23:46):
the Tropical Store. It happened back in the early two
thousand and one period, and it just pretty much destroyed
the University of Houston Houston Medical Center, a lot of
the laboratories underground. But anyway, it was a pretty devastating
tropical storm. So the President declared it a disaster, and
to the victims are without power and water and things,

(24:07):
we provide water and ice and stuff. Well, there were
some entrepreneurs who had their own independent truckers, had their
own eighteen wheelers, and so they went to some place
in Oklahoma and they bought bottled water at whatever the
going rate was for bottled water in Oklahoma where there
was not a high demand, and they bought that water

(24:29):
for it. Let's just say, I don't know whether these
numbers are true or not. I just use the numbers
as examples. And they bought the water for let's say
a dollar a bottle, So a six pack of bottled
water cost them six bucks. And so they loaded their
own eighteen wheeler up, spent their own money to fill
that eighteen wheeler with all bottled water, then filled that

(24:51):
eighteen wheeler up with diesel, and they drove from Oklahoma
City through Dallas all the way to Houston. And they
get to Houston and they find a spot where they
can pull off on the side of the road and
they sell bottled water at two dollars a bottle twelve
dollars a case. They bought it for six. Do you

(25:11):
know that's against the law. Do you know that in
most states that's called price gouging. I call that the
free market. Nobody's forcing you to buy that water. But
if you really desperately need water and someone's made it
available to you at double the price you could get
it in Oklahoma City because Houston's been decimated by a

(25:32):
tropical storm, you're probably going to buy the water. Otherwise
you're going to go without. Now, there may be other
organizations that are charitable organizations that buy the bottled water
at a dollar and they give it away for nothing,
for free. So if you don't want to pay the

(25:52):
two dollars a bottle because it's convenient, but you want
to drive around for a while and find some free
bottled water, but you can do that too, Well, why
is that okay? Mis selling it for double the price
you bought it for. Why is that price gouging? Because
what you're doing is you're providing a product that might
not otherwise be available in that particular locality for whatever reason.

(26:16):
There are times when you know, have you ever done this?
So I usually fill my cars up at either Sam's
or Costco, because generally that's the cheapest gas in town,
but a convenience store when I'm out running errands and
I realize I've gotten lower than I usually get because
I usually try to not get much lower than half

(26:37):
a tank, but I realize, oh, I really am low
on gas. I'll pull in at a convenience store and
I might pay fifty cents or even a dollar more
per gallon for that gas. Well, is that price gouging? No,
I'm paying for the convenience because I need gas or
I want gas right then, right there, So I'm willing
to pay the extra dollar a gallon to get it.

Speaker 6 (26:58):
What's wrong with that?

Speaker 1 (27:00):
Anyway? So here's Adam Shift all about, Oh my gosh,
the energy companies are price scouging the price of gasoline
in California. No, actually, the price of gasoline in California
is high because of all the regulations and the standards
that the refineries have to meet in order to meet.
You're absolutely inconceivable and absurd standards for you know, net

(27:21):
zero or whatever carbon you've got. All this specially blended
gas that the refineries have to retool to produce gasoline
just for California. That's why your gas is higher, not
even taking into consideration, you're extraordinarily high gas tax. But
oh no, Adam, shift energy companies, evil energy companies, price scouging.

Speaker 4 (27:41):
I handled the VP oil spill Senator when I was
Attorney General for the State of Florida. Right now, as
an immediate concern, I would be concerned about helping you
in California with all the criminal acts that I'm sure
are happening throughout your state, with the looting, which is
just and this is just from me watching it on

(28:02):
the news. You've been there on the ground. The crime
is rampant in California and it's only going to get
worse based on these fires and what happened. And price
gouging is when people come in and they try to
raise the price of goods, water, essential commodities. When people
have lost their homes, and not everyone lives in a
big home. Most people don't, and people have lost everything

(28:24):
that they have had, and.

Speaker 1 (28:26):
There are people that can provide them with water or
you know, kerosene or propane or whatever at a reduced rate,
and there are those who will want to provide it
at a higher rate because maybe people want it right
now and they don't want to wait until somebody comes
along with a charitable So I disagree with her about this,
but the point is, will you commit to prosecuting the

(28:46):
energy industry, regardless whether it's for price gouging or whatever,
because it's not necessarily Adam Schiff here is not necessarily
talking about and increasing gasoline prices because of the wildfires
in California. He's just talking about he doesn't like energy
companies and the price they charge for gasoline. So will
you go after the energy companies? And also will you
go after the energy companies because they're destroying the environment,

(29:10):
they're causing climate change? You know, there are a lot
of lawsuits around the country where they're suing the energy
the producers because they think they're causing climate change. Well,
what if Trump doesn't want her to do that, then
she should make a decision that she's going to do
what Trump has been mandated to do, and that is

(29:31):
to stop this tomfoolery about climate change. Critics argue that
the Department of Justice independence somehow preserves impartial justice, keeps
lady Justice blind. But that's a false dichotomy because accountability

(29:51):
to the president doesn't preclude impartiality. Rather, it ensures that
the Department of Justice's actions align with the broader goals
of the elected president. The autonomy that many people cry for,
like Adam Schiff, risks impartiality being replaced by unaccountable partisanship.

(30:15):
You know, there are other countries that have independent prosecutural
bodies that they try to use as models, but those
comparisons ignore the US Constitution, which does not provide for
an independent executive brands agency. Unlike a parliamentary system like
in the United Kingdom, where those bodies may coexist with

(30:38):
a fragmented executive, we rely on a single, unified executive
to function effectively. So Pambondi, you got to stay right
where you are, maintain your allegiance to the president. I'll
be right back. Hey, you're listening to The Weekend with

(31:02):
Michael Brown, and I really do appreciate you doing that
if you would. If you're listening and you're new and
you want to find an affiliate around the country, it's
really easy to find one of our three hundred and
fifty plus affiliates By going to this website, Michael says,
go here dot com. There, when you get to that
landing page, Michael says, go here dot com, pull down
the how to listen tab, and you'll find all the

(31:24):
affiliates when they air the program and when they reair
the program. Plus you'll find the icons to follow me
on social media, the bio. You can listen live on
that page. There's all sorts of things you can find
on that page. But that's that, Michael says, go here
dot com. The after all the destruction that the Black

(31:47):
Lives Matter thugs have done, burning down you know, Kenosha, Wisconsin, Minneapolis, Portland, Oregon, Chicago,
you name it. What are they known for? Well, probably looting.
What would happen if he made one of these Black
Lives Matter individuals a mayor well, a Georgia mayor who

(32:10):
both being the country's first Black Lives Matter organizer elected office,
is now facing scrutiny for using about twenty thousand dollars
of taxpayer money for international travel and a bunch of
other questionable purchases. South Fulton Mayor Khalid Comu was accused
this week of using a city issued purchase card in

(32:31):
December for unauthorized spending on a trip to Africa for
food and other expenses, and told her around twenty six
thousand dollars, according to a councilwoman who's reported about the
case this week. Now, I wonder if Kamu bumped into
fellow dumbass mayor Karen Bass from Los Angeles on his

(32:52):
trip to the Motherland. You know, she went to Ghana.
They get all the warnings about you know, the National
Weather Service, the Fire Department, everybody, everybody in California was
warning about extreme fire danger. This is going to be
worse than we ever expected. It could be possibly the
worst ever. And she says, Okay, well, then I'm gonna
go to Ghana. Yea, you'll recall that I played for

(33:16):
you when Bass refused to say why she was in
Ghana when La started to burn despite all the warnings
about the impending crisis. Now, this city councilman in South
Fulton has denied any wrongdoing. Documented also an extended trip
to Ghana last month on social media, according to WSBTV

(33:37):
in Atlanta, showing him on videos at a party and
also attending a concert in the capitol. I would say, well,
what you were expecting something else, then has another little
tidbit for your weekend enjoyment. Twenty twenty five is still

(33:57):
pretty young. It's as we're broadcasting today, it's only the
eighteenth day of the new year, and yet it's likely,
actually unlikely to produce any idiocy to top this statement,
but James Clyburn, the Democrat for South Carolina, regarding the
disastrous Joe Biden, it's.

Speaker 3 (34:20):
It is always a pleasure to have you on the program.
It is notable. I think that President Biden sent so
much of his address with warnings, knowing the influence of
Elon Musk and moving the movement to Trump from Mark Zuckerberg.
You know him, well, what does it say to you
that he spent so much time in this farewell speech

(34:42):
as a warning as much as a victory.

Speaker 6 (34:44):
Lab Well, thank you very much for having me. You know,
I always say, in fact, it was a title of
my memoirs, Blessed Experiences, and I say it in that
book that all of us can be no more nor
nor less than what our experiences allow us to be.

(35:06):
Joe Biden has had a set of experiences that allowed
him to understand what it's like to grow up on
hartscrabble road to get an opportunity, get a public education,
and go on to give public service and to give
back in a very public way. He knows from his experiences.

Speaker 2 (35:30):
That this society that we have, this great country that
we live in, thrives on people having opportunities. He talked
about that all the time. And if we are not careful,
we will allow the elite to be the only ones educated,

(35:54):
we will allow the wealthy to be the only ones
who can make a decent living, or.

Speaker 1 (36:01):
We will allow the president to be the one that
can make oh, I don't know, eight million or was
it twenty million, somewhere between eight and twenty million dollars
from the Ukrainians and the Chinese and a bunch of
other people. Wow.

Speaker 2 (36:13):
Really, Oh, yet the affordability of the home on a ship?

Speaker 1 (36:20):
How's that gone for you under the Biden administration? Hang tied.
I want you to hear more from James Clyburn, because
this is the elitist telling you how lucky you are.
I'll be right back