1-23-25 - 7am - Trump Attacks FEMA and Economic Immigration

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
One of the events this week that's very interesting, especially
when people are melting down about Elon being too close
to Trump is one of the executive orders Trump had
signed was to remove the electric car mandate. That obvious
lee would hurt Elon's business. He didn't go and throw

(00:21):
a temperature afterrum. Trump was doing what Trump thought was
best for the country.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Did she say Elon Musk? Was that the name she used? Correct? Yes,
Kyl Hitler.

Speaker 3 (00:34):
Oh boy, god, I may swerve into that, but I
must swerve into something that was not absolutely not planned
for this hour. So Dragon I were just casually walking
back from our little break, you know, nosing around everybody's
desks and messing people's papers up, and you know, just
generally being the hold wireless mouses because they're only good

(00:58):
for us.

Speaker 2 (00:58):
You take one from one computer and put it over there. Yeah,
then they can break out. Yet, Yeah, that's what Dragon does.

Speaker 3 (01:05):
And the newsroom stopped me and said, Michael, we need
we need to come over to KOA and talk about
what Trump said about FEMA. And I, well, what did
he say about FEMA? I don't know, you know, like
I'm on air, I guess what. Well, apparently last night
on this interview that he did with Hannity, which I
didn't watch. Uh, the President made a statement that blows

(01:31):
my mind.

Speaker 4 (01:32):
They have a small majority. You went through over two
hundred since we've got here, and we have breaking news
today that we'll get to in a minute, and especially
as a release to the border and some other issues.

Speaker 5 (01:45):
And but you're going to need.

Speaker 4 (01:48):
To do some of these things legislatively. How you will
probably play the largest role in uniting them both in
the House and Senate reconciliation. The Senate a very strict,
you know, rules governing how they can do it. One
big beautiful bill, two bills?

Speaker 6 (02:04):
Do you care?

Speaker 5 (02:05):
At this point, I.

Speaker 7 (02:05):
Don't care, as long as we get to the final answer.
I like the concept of the one bill. I guess
I said one big beautiful and that's what everyone faces.
Actually it's sort of a nice sound to it.

Speaker 5 (02:16):
But I do like that concept. It could be something else.

Speaker 7 (02:19):
It could be a smaller bill and a big bill.
But as long as we get to the right answer now,
I will say that Los Angeles has changed everything because
a lot of money's going to be necessary for Los Angeles,
and a lot of people on.

Speaker 5 (02:35):
The other side want that to happen in North Carolina.
To this, well, they don't care about North Carolina.

Speaker 7 (02:41):
The Democrats don't care about North Carolina. What they've done
with FEMA is so bad. FEMA is a whole another
discussion because all it does is complicate everything. FEMA has
not done their job for the last four years. You know,
I had FEMA working really well. We had hurricanes in Florida,
we had Alabama tornado. But unless you have certain types

(03:02):
of leadership, it's really it gets.

Speaker 5 (03:05):
In the way.

Speaker 7 (03:06):
And FEMA is going to be a whole big discussion
very shortly because I'd rather see the states take care
of their own problems if they have a tornado someplace,
and if they let that state. Oklahoma is very competent.
I love Oklahoma. Seventy seven out of seventy seven districts.

Speaker 5 (03:24):
And that's never been done before. I did it three times.
I've been think of it three times. Never been done.

Speaker 7 (03:30):
Ronald Reagan had the record six fifty six out of
seventy seven. I got seventy seven out of seventy seven.

Speaker 5 (03:37):
So they have to love a place like that.

Speaker 7 (03:38):
I love Oklahoma, but you know what if they get
hit with the tornado or something.

Speaker 5 (03:42):
Let Oklahoma fix it you don't.

Speaker 7 (03:43):
Need and then the federal government can help them out
with the money. The FEMA is getting in the way
of everything, and the Democrats actually use FEMA not.

Speaker 5 (03:53):
To help North Carolina. It makes no sense. So I'm
stopping on Friday.

Speaker 7 (03:59):
I'm stopping in North Carolina first up, because those people
were treated very badly by Democrats.

Speaker 3 (04:06):
Oh wow, something that I've been screaming about for twenty
five years or more. When FEMA was first started in
nineteen seventy nine by Jimmy Carter, it was a consolidation
of a lot of our old civil defense programs which

(04:27):
had to do with continuity of government, continuity of operations,
the black ops programs that FEMA oversees, the undisclosed locations.

Speaker 2 (04:39):
All of that.

Speaker 3 (04:40):
And then it was because Johnson Eisenhower and some others
had turned to the civil defense agencies to help in
some natural disasters that Carter took it one step further
and created through the Stafford Act, created FEMA. Well, like

(05:01):
every government program that has ever existed in this country,
it ballooned way beyond its original intent. The purpose. The
original purpose of FEMA was simply this to financially assist
states when a natural or a man made disaster. It's

(05:25):
called the all Hazards approach, meaning any kind of hazard,
whether it's man made or natural, occurs in a state
and it is beyond the capacity of that state, either
with personnel, equipment, money, whatever, beyond the capacity of a
state to deal with it. The purpose of FEMA was

(05:47):
to come in and assist that state and primarily assists
that state financially. In other words, it was up to
the states, so that like we already have, every state
has a mutual aid agreement with other states. Colorado has

(06:10):
mutual aid agreements with states that surround us, with states
away from US, like California or Texas, and those mutual
aid agreements are agreements that say, hey, listen, if something
really bad happens in your state, we will offer some
of our resources, some of our equipment, personnel, some of

(06:31):
our materials to help you respond.

Speaker 2 (06:33):
To that disaster.

Speaker 3 (06:34):
Well, that's as it should be, because the federal government
is not one of the states, although people think that
it is. And so what FEMA would do originally was
they would through the Stafford Act, which established what's called
the Disaster Relief Fund FEMA would just provide some reimbursements

(06:59):
to the states, because if you have let's just say,
in Colorado, Colorado has a horrible wildfire season like California,
and it drains all of the fire resources that Colorado
had budgeted for firefighting, and it was so bad that

(07:23):
Colorado had to ask some neighboring states, would you please
send some firefighters to help us fight these fires. Well,
if Utah or New Mexico sends firefighters to fight fires
in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah have to backfill those positions.

(07:44):
And sometimes if they bring their own equipment, then New
Mexico and Utah have to backfill that equipment because their
first and foremost duty is to their citizens. So FEMA
would step in and help reimburse New Mexico in Utah
for those backfilled costs and would help Colorado if they

(08:05):
you know, if they dipped into their they were expected
to dip into their reserves, and if they were still short,
then FEMA would make up that difference. So it was
a very limited scope of authorities, a very limited scope
of responsibility. Well, comes along Bill Clinton and James Lee Witt,

(08:27):
who I consider to be a friend he's a Democrat
from Arkansas who was the emergency manager in Arkansas. I
do I consider James Lee to be a good friend.
And but but James Lee knew as Bill Clinton did.
They really knew the political influence that FEMA could have,
So they created what I termed CNN disasters, because you

(08:53):
got to remember Fox's Fox didn't really appear on the
stage until what nineteen ninety six or something. But CNN
is the dominant cable news channel. Well, CNN being the
dominant new cable news channel at the time, they needed
to fill twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.
So if if a disaster occurred, and again let's just

(09:15):
let's use Colorado. Let's say that Colorado, and this is
a good example because this shows how the government program grows.
Let's say that Colorado had a record setting blizzard, record setting,
a longer lasting, more snow, more wind, and it costs

(09:37):
more for Colorado for snow removal than it had ever
cost before. And CNN was covering because you know were
you know, I seventy was shut down. There were trucks
on the sides of the highway out on the eastern plains.
The gates were down, cars were stranded, the hotels were full.
Lineman suddenly became a city of you know, one hundred

(09:58):
thousand people, and it was just all over the news.
News news, news news. Well we called that a CNN
disaster because it was covered by CNN, and now everybody
in the country was like, oh my gosh, We've got
to go help poor Colorado. Well that would lead to
the governor of Colorado requesting a presidentially declared disaster for

(10:22):
Colorado for a blizzard. Well wait a minute, Blizzards happen
in Colorado just about every freaking year. So why should
this people, the taxpayers of other states pay for Colorado
snow removal because I had a record blizzard. Well, this
is where the government programs begin to grow. So then

(10:44):
FEMA developed a formula. I don't remember the precise details
of the formula, but if the record snowfall was a
record for a certain period of time, and don't hold
me to these numbers, I'm just gonna pull numbers out
of my buddy again. But let's say that the record
snowfall appeared over a seventy two hour period, that that

(11:05):
was going to be the standard. If that record snowfall
occurred over a seventy two hour or greater period. Then
FEMA would step in and supplement or sometimes completely cover
the cost of snow removal.

Speaker 2 (11:22):
Now that's absurd because.

Speaker 3 (11:24):
Colorado, knowing that we're going to have blizzards, should budget
and plan for that. And my theory was always this,
when FEMA steps in and says, oh, don't you worry
about it, we'll cover it. Well, that's like teaching your kid, hey,

(11:45):
if you cry enough, we'll give you your ice cream cone.
Well the kid learns to cry, cry, and scream all
the time, throw a little fit in the grocery store.

Speaker 2 (11:55):
I will, I will, Mommy, I'm on ice cream. So
governors wait, I want some money. I want money, And.

Speaker 3 (12:01):
So presidents started dolling out the money and they used
FEMA to do that. And now everything gets covered to
the point that, for example, you know that during Katrina,
I had a huge housing problem.

Speaker 2 (12:18):
Now why was it my problem?

Speaker 3 (12:20):
It was my problem because over time people expected FEMA
to start providing housing. Look at western North Carolina. Everybody's
pissed off because FEMA has been slow. In fact, I
would argue THEMA has been absent in North Carolina and
they have not been providing the temporary housing that they
should have been providing. You haven't seen trailers. They tried

(12:42):
to cut off the temporary assistance for housing for people
to live temporarily in hotels or apartments or whatever. They
started cutting that off until there was a public outrage,
and then they started extending that. And so now FEMA
is spending all this money for temporary housing. Well, where's
North Carolina? You see, Suddenly they're expecting taxpayers all over

(13:03):
the country to pay for that.

Speaker 2 (13:07):
Now, I'm not trying to be cold hearted here.

Speaker 3 (13:10):
But since when do we expect all taxpayers to cover
the costs of a disaster in another state. Well, that's
happened over time. So by the time I get to
be the FEMA director, by the time I become the
Undersecretary of Homeland Security, it has just blossomed into this
huge program where we're providing ice and water and housing,

(13:34):
we're providing we're covering for all sorts of expenses for
state government. And remember I talked about this in California.
Maybe it was on a Saturday program, but normally, and
again an example of how government grows. Normally, FEMA would
reimburse a state seventy five percent of the cost of

(13:59):
responding to disaster, because the theory was that we wanted
the states to have skin in the game, don't just
depend upon the Feds to cover everything. Well, my old boss,
just like Bill Clinton and just like Obama, and just
like every other president's done, they tell the states, oh,

(14:21):
look that's so bad, We'll cover one hundred percent of
the costs. So the states know, hey, we don't have to.
We can budget for homelessness, we can budget for illegal aliens,
we can budget for light rail. We instead of you know,
my Michael Brown minute this morning is about how bad
Colorado roads and highways are. Well, that's because we have

(14:43):
our priorities screwed up. We're not spending money on roads
and highways. We're spending money on light rail. And if
we have a you know, if we have a big,
big ass blizzard, we don't have to spend money on
that because femal will come in and pay for it.
So Trump is right, and it is proof of my
proposition that the more FEMA became involved, the more dependent

(15:07):
states would become upon the federal government. And that's what
we see happening today. So when Trump says he'd like to,
you know, get rid of thema that states ought to
be taking care of them this themselves. I think he's
he's right. Do you know that according to recent information,
Congress typically appropriates around twenty billion dollars every single year

(15:33):
to the disaster relief funds. That's the fund that FEMA
has that we use to reimburse states for their costs
or that we use at the federal level to pay
for things that we are now expected to do provide
temporary housing, or to provide you know, people are screaming

(15:56):
about you know, people need cash. Well, so they expect you,
as a taxpayer in Colorado to provide cash to a
fire victim in California. Instead of California doing that, or
instead of you know, a private charitable.

Speaker 2 (16:11):
Organization doing it, they expect the government to do it.

Speaker 3 (16:16):
The most recent FY twenty twenty four budget allocated twenty
point twenty six billions of the fund. But what happened,
Well that's going to be depleted because of the California
wildfires and North Carolina. So now Congress will come in
and because Congress went because here's what Congress thinks, Oh,

(16:36):
if this happens to my state, I want to make
sure that every other Congressman knows that I voted to
give THEMA more money to cover their state, so when
I need money in my state, they'll do the same
for me. So the Disaster Relief Fund has become this gigantic,
humongous disaster relief fund that while twenty billion dollars might

(16:58):
be the average, I guarant that it will exceed that
every single year, depending on how many disasters they're So
this is another example of Trump being a disruptor.

Speaker 2 (17:11):
Now can he get it done?

Speaker 3 (17:12):
I doubt it, mister President, all off of my services.
Do you want me to help you dismantle it? I'll
come and help you dismantle it. At least get it
out of DHS. At least get it back to its
original intent. That would be a miracle in and of itself.
You see how government programs always just continue to grow.

Speaker 6 (17:33):
Michael, Doesn't it make more sense to have the surrounding
fire departments in California that aren't on fire just pull
their resources down, like from Northern California from mid California,
instead of having guys drives all away from Colorado, Washington, Oregon, wherever.

(17:53):
Doesn't that make more sense and financially.

Speaker 3 (17:57):
Will they do that? See, I think, with all due respect,
I don't think that the magnitude of those fires is
easily comprehended because all we see are these you know,
videos or these photographs of it that they're well beyond

(18:18):
the capacity of you could take. Look, some fire departments
can't some let me relate it to Colorado. I used
Liman earlier. Linman can't afford to send there, and I
don't know, maybe they got one, maybe they have two trucks.

(18:38):
Maybe I should use Yuma. Uma, Colorado probably has one
fire truck. Well, they can't afford to send that one
fire truck because then that leaves Yuma completely without any
fire protection whatsoever. But the major cities, those that have
some capacity to do so, are doing so. But the

(18:59):
fires are of such a magnitude that it's going to
take more than just California firefighters. Plus, with these types
of fires, it also takes some very specialized firefighters. You
gotta have smoke jumpers, you got to have people who
know how to put out forest fires. And yes, you
can argue that California should have done more in terms

(19:21):
of building its resources to fight these kinds of fires,
and I would agree with that. But that's why we
have specialized teams all over the country that can go
in and fight that particular kind of wildfire. And those
are all coordinated by the National Fire Center up in Idaho.

(19:41):
So there will be in Colorado, for example, there will
be some smoke jumpers. There will be some specialized, highly
trained firefighters that will take some of their equipment and go,
But so will they in California. But it's you need

(20:04):
thousands of firefighters on these fires. So yes, first and
foremost you come from your own state, but then it's
of such magnitude that you bring them in from other states.
Think about when power goes out. When power goes out,
utility companies send trucks from everywhere, I mean almost all

(20:27):
fifty states. Now, maybe they won't drive all the way
from California to Florida, but they'll certainly drive from Texas,
they'll drive from Illinois, they'll drive from New York all
the way down to Florida. Because it's in the best
interests of the utility companies to get those utilities restored
as quickly as possible, so they'll they'll use Florida itself.

(20:49):
Florida Power and Light. FPL will send as many people
as they can, but they still have ongoing operations. This
is what fascinates me about. You know, when a disaster occurs,
the disaster, just like these fires, people tend to think

(21:10):
that everything else shuts down, that lax downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood,
everything is just shut down and all they're doing is
fighting fires. But that's not true. Life goes on and

(21:32):
that's why there's there is always it and this really
pisses me off, but there is always There'll be some
you know, intrepid reporter that will find somebody, you know,
just going to the grocery store, and they'll stop and
interview some you know, some poor grandmother that's coming out
of the grocery store with the basket of groceries, and
you know, she's just spent her life savings by the

(21:52):
basket of groceries, and uh, don't you care about the
people that are you know, lost their homes. I'm sure
she does, but it's not affecting her directly, so she's
still living her life. Well, just as she's still living
her life. The other parts of the city of Los

(22:16):
Angeles still expect fire protection. There are still there will
still be fires that break out in a house or
a warehouse or a building, and they'll still need firefighters
to go fight them. Same as true in San Diego
or Bakersfield, or you know, San Francisco, or you pick
any city in California. They still have their jobs to do.

(22:40):
If you know, it's it's like, you know, when when
there's a blizzard in Colorado. Using Dragon to me as examples,
when there's a blizzard in Colorado, they my heart still
expects us to broad cast, so we have a choice.

(23:03):
Dragon doesn't have much of a choice because he really
has to do it from in there. His job has
to be done from in that control room. So if
it's really bad, they'll put Dragon in a hotel room
over here so that he can get into the studio.
They will offer me the same thing, but I'll just
say no, I'll just stay in my pajamas and just

(23:24):
go downstairs at my studio and just do it my
pajamas rather than to drive in, although I would prefer
to be here. So while everyone else is, you know,
laid down and hunkered down and they're stuck in their
homes and businesses are closed, firefighters are still working cops
are still working, the grocery stores will still be open

(23:47):
depending on how bad it is, and we'll still be broadcasting,
just like in.

Speaker 2 (23:56):
During Katrina.

Speaker 3 (23:59):
W I think is the n O R the station,
the iHeart station down there, it was still broadcasting when
everything was going on in the Carolinas. I was being
interviewed by iHeartRadio stations in the Carolinas during Hurricane Helen
because they had like, like, we've got giant generators here.
They had giant generators, but they also went to competitors

(24:22):
and broadcasts from competitor stations. Because life goes on, and
it's it's it's no different than you can be in
Denver and down in Douglas County because of the Palmer
Divide kind of beginning and going on down south, we

(24:44):
may be getting a hell of a snowstore and it's
completely sunny up north. Well, where do you draw the
line between, Oh, it's snowing in Douglas County. So in
Arapahole County, we gotta we gotta stop everything too. It's
just this weird thing that life goes on. Life goes on.
I keel over right now, what did Dragon do? Dragon

(25:06):
would plug something in he may or may not call
nine one one. You know who knows, he may or
may not call nine one one, But something will continue
to be broadcast. I may be dead as door nailed,
but something will still be broadcast on this station. Well,
best way right. Scott Bessent, who's been nominated by Trump

(25:30):
to serve as the Secretary of the Treasury, is pushing
back on these mass immigration proponents who are now claiming
that illegal immigrations sometow is a boon to the American economy.

Speaker 2 (25:42):
Have you heard that? What?

Speaker 3 (25:44):
Well you any number of congressmen, any number of you
know the view. They've all talked about, how well, who's
going to clean your house, who's going to do your laundry,
who's going to pick your strawberries, who's going to you know,
harvest the avocados, who's going to do this, who's going
to do that. It's as if we never had avocados
and strawberries and housekeepers and landscapers and carpenters and everything

(26:08):
before you know, Biden started letting in you know, thousands
and thousands every week. No, we always had them. But
the argument is that somehow that if we stop illegal
immigration into this country, it's going to destroy the economy.
So Biscin is over on Bloomberg Radio and the host

(26:29):
are claiming that the mass deportation of illegal aliens is
somehow going to lower our gross domestic product by upwards
of at least four percent, is going to stunt job growth,
and so Bissent bluntly says that illegal immigration actually erodes
our per capita GDP and lowers the quality of life

(26:50):
for American citizens. He disputes the claim that illegal immigrations
somehow boosts the GDP.

Speaker 2 (27:00):
It's a.

Speaker 3 (27:03):
It's a pretty interesting argument, particularly considering that the only
people are here really talking about it that has any
economic sense is Scott Bessent.

Speaker 8 (27:15):
The American Immigration Council.

Speaker 7 (27:17):
That say that coun produce.

Speaker 8 (27:18):
GDP by four point two to six point eight percent.
The Economic Policy Institute found that without immigration, the prime
age workforce would have essentially seen no growth at all
in the past quarter century. What is the economic impact
potentially of the kind of deportation he's talking about. Where
would you find those workers otherwise?

Speaker 9 (27:34):
Well, let's go back, because I find all this pretty duplicitous.
For my entire career, probably most of your entire lives,
the academic economists said, oh no, absolutely, the unauthorized new
arrivals do not put downward pressure on wages. Then lo
and behold in this cycle, when we had the massive inflation,

(27:55):
we get, whether it's eleven million new arrivals or as
President Trump thinks, twenty one million new arrivals, it does
push down wages on the bottom quintile, which I think
is abominable. These are working people Americans who are seeing
their wages get pushed down. So now it's what I
always believed, what you could see, what you could observe,

(28:17):
it does push wages down. And you know, I would
just say I dispute those GDP numbers because if it
were good, why wouldn't we just have a road from
Tara del Fuego to the Rio Grand and let everybody
who wants to come in in. We could double GDP,
but per capita GDP per American would drop substantially. It
is about American citizens' standards of living.

Speaker 2 (28:40):
I love this because you what he does, he does
what I love to do.

Speaker 3 (28:44):
Okay, let's take your argument and let's take it to
its logical conclusion. If illegal immigration improves gross domestic product
for individual Americans. Then let's build a super highway, which
is what Biden did, and just let them all in.

Speaker 2 (28:59):
How's that work out for you? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Speaker 10 (29:03):
Democrats eighteen sixty three. If we don't have slaves, who's
going to pick the cotton? Democrats twenty twenty five, if
we don't have a legal immigration, who's going to clean
our houses?

Speaker 2 (29:16):
Oh?

Speaker 10 (29:17):
Some things never change.

Speaker 2 (29:20):
That's brilliant.

Speaker 3 (29:22):
That's uh, you get a gold star today. So going
back to Trump for a moment and me trying to
catch up with all the executive orders just within hours,
this is one of the ones that he signed back
at the Oval Office.

Speaker 2 (29:38):
I think he.

Speaker 3 (29:39):
Launched what can only be considered a really major strike
on the censorship industrial complex. And that was his first
step in fulfilling his campaign promise that he was going
to dismantle and destroy a regime that conspired to silence
dissent from the ruling class or the doxy and it

(30:01):
came in the form of an executive order called Restoring
Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. Now, what it's
trying to do is to get the federal government out
of the speech policing gain and deprive that censorship regime
of the tax dollars that are indeed its lifeblood. It

(30:22):
also holds the key to deterring such behavior going forward
by calling for a government wide investigation into federal led
censorship under the Biden administration, which then could result in
some sort of remedial actions taken by Congress. That is,
justice for the speech police, a critical deterrent to future

(30:42):
assaults on not just us, but actually on the government itself.
In the executive Order, he writes, the Biden administration trampled
free speech rights by censoring a American speech on online platforms,

(31:02):
coursing social media companies and other third parties to moderate,
d platform or otherwise suppressed speech that the federal government
did not approve. In fact, that really goes way predates Biden.

(31:23):
Think about this, It even occurred under Trump. Now it
wasn't Trump in this case, and it wasn't anybody that
Trump had appointed, But it was that deep state that
then started grooming all the social media platforms to look
for stories about the hundred Biden laptop. And you know,

(31:45):
make sure that you suppress those stories, that you block
anybody or you deplatform anybody. Remember the New York Post
itself got d platform for publishing a story before Musk
owned x X to Twitter at the time took the
story completely down, and I think even Miranda Divine that
wrote the story may have been deplatformed herself for a while.

(32:10):
And then they colluded with third party cutouts to pressure
the social media companies into censoring derogatory views about election integrity,
which I always found fascinating. You don't have to believe
that the election was stolen to believe that there was
election fraud. I believe there's fraud in every election. The

(32:35):
question is is how much fraud is there and how
much of that fraud can we eliminate.

Speaker 2 (32:41):
But there was a.

Speaker 3 (32:42):
Time when if you talked about that on Facebook or
on What's now X, you would either be suppressed, you
would be shadow banned, or you might even get deplatformed.
It was a holely society censorship model that the Biden
administration used, and Trump is taking it head on.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
I think this.

Speaker 3 (33:07):
I think these executive orders so far now, I have
not read all of them yet. I'm still working my
way through all of them because what I'm doing is
I'm looking at them to see, first of all.

Speaker 2 (33:20):
They're all going to be subject to lawsuits.

Speaker 3 (33:22):
Somebody somewhere's going to file a lawsuit, But do they
have good legal authority? Is there a good legal basis?
And how many of them are going to require once
they determine, you know, what they claim is true is true?
How many of them are going to require congressional action

(33:43):
to remediate the problem that the executive Order has pointed out.
I don't think this is one of them, because this
is something that's done solely within I shouldn't say solely,
but primarily done within the executive brand, and under a
in the theory of a unified executive.

Speaker 2 (34:02):
The president has the authority to stop that kind of behavior.

Speaker 3 (34:06):
And besides, the government cannot do through a third party
that which it is prohibited by doing directly by the Constitution.