3-5-25 - 9am - Zelenskyy Has Run Out Of Road and Cabal Loosing Credibility

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Just remember Michael Bobert and Green were not ever removed. No,
I'm not saying they should have been, but I think
that Bobert and Green and Joe Wilson's behavior was, in
terms of decorum inappropriate. Last night, Al Green would not stop.

(00:25):
Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Bobert screamed at Biden, which
I thought was wholly inappropriate. Joe Wilson just yelled from
the back of the of the chamber, you lie, and
that was it. Still inappropriate. The reason Al Green got
removed is because he would not stop, and he was

(00:48):
right down front. He was right behind you know, where
the Supreme Court justices and the military commanders set and
in the road right next to them are now they're dignitaries,
and he's right there, like maybe four or five rows
away from Trump and just screaming and shaking his cane

(01:09):
and being I mean, at one point it was so
disruptive you couldn't hear what Trump was saying even though
the microphones were focused with him. That's how loud he was.
So he should have been removed. But again, inappropriate decorum,
that's the issue. Bilber Number twenty six fifty Rights Michael,
I've got to disagree, disagree a little bit with your

(01:31):
assessment of the Biden administration. While Biden wasn't doing much, well,
stop there. That was my point. Biden himself wasn't doing much.
Everything else you say in your text message is absolutely correct.
But I'm talking about for uh, for a dep wood
like Joy Behar, the six weeks of Trump seems like

(01:54):
six years because Trump and his administration are doing so
many things. I come in here every morning with so
much show prep that I rarely get to I bet
I don't get to fifty percent of what I come
in here ready for, not near what I'm ready for.

(02:14):
I mean, there's just so there's just so much out
of the fire fire hose right now. So my point
about Joy Behar was it seems like six years to
you because when you looked at the former president Biden,
he wasn't doing anything. Doesn't mean the administration wasn't doing anything,
because you go on to point out the administration was
doing a lot, imposing record breaking numbers of new regulations

(02:37):
that those of US IF business have been feeling oppressed
with for the past few years. The difference is that
all the crazy amount of rules REGs in general overreach
were not reported by the news media. The news media
once think things to seem smooth and quiet under Democrats
while totally freaking out over anything the Republicans do. Bingo
Your Precisely Correct eighteen seventy three writes the genesis of

(03:03):
the conflict between Democrats and Republicans is the slow change
to socialism, and Trump has seen as blocking as a
blocking force to this, Bingo and then this. Now. I
want to be careful with this one because someone will
do it, but I don't want all of you to
do it. I don't want more than one of you

(03:23):
to do this. Michael, someone should gift you Jake Tapper's book.
I wonder if we'll get a publisher's copy of the book, huh,
because I get all sorts of stupid things in the
mail all the time. Books that's like, really use I
think you don't pay any attention about this program is

(03:45):
to send me that book, because that's not something I'm
going to talk about. Here's what I do want to
talk about this hour, though the British Broadcasting Corporation in
a headline Zelenski's conciliatory letter to Trump suggests he's run
out of road, written by James Waterhouse posted this morning. Now,

(04:08):
what I find interesting is he's run out of road.
For a brit colloquialism is kind of the equivalent of
you don't hold any cards, but oh no, you can't
say that. So uh voldemor Zelensky's decision to submit to

(04:28):
President Trump suggests that the Ukrainian leader has indeed run
out of political road, according to the BBC, which is
interesting because the BBC typically cheerleads for Zelensky while attempting
to always undermine the American president and the BBC the
British Broadcasting Corporation funded by British taxpayers, and we now

(04:54):
find out because of DOGE also partially funded by USAID,
so American expayers a fully I shouldn't say fully, but
a predominantly funded government propaganda machine. So after that confrontation
last Friday in the Oval Office, resulting from Zelensky starting
a row with the VP, there was a pause in

(05:16):
usaid for Ukraine. Well that didn't take long, did it.
Within hours, Zelensky issued a statement that pledges something which
I'll tell you in just a minute what it said.
But do you remember the screaming, the hollering, the bitching

(05:37):
and moaning again, the ringing of ends, and the gnashing
of teeth because Trump said, Okay, we're gonna pause eight. Now,
the the practicality of Trump saying I'm going to pause
aid is very difficult to carry out. Now, it does happen,

(05:58):
don't get me wrong, it does happen. But when the
President says to the staff, he's sitting behind the Resolute Desk, hey,
all that aid going to Ukraine, pose it, Well, that
doesn't mean that boom, everything stops right then, because you
have a pipeline of aid that is already well, it's

(06:20):
already in the pipeline. It's already flowing to Ukraine. It's
already landed in London or Paris or Warsaw, and it's
on a train, it's on trucks, it's on however it's
being moved or it's being wired, and it's already gone
from you know, it's gone from the US treasury to

(06:41):
and I don't know exactly the details. Does it go
to the Ukrainian treasury or does it go to an
in you know, a go between that finally gets to
the Ukrainian treasury I'm not sure, but it's flowing. So
when he stops, it's like when you start turning the
water off. You're watering your yard, your yard, and you

(07:04):
look out, Okay, it's got enough. You start to turn
it off. You don't just unless you got some sort
of magic fossil that I've never seen. It doesn't just
instantaneously stop. Let's say you've got a sprinkler system. Well,
you have to go to the sprinkler, you have to
go to the controller, You got to push the button
turn it off. However, you turn yours off and then

(07:25):
you watch the water pressure drop. There's still water coming
out until the pressure's gone. Well, it's the same way
with AID. That aid is that's in the pipeline, continues
until it gets to its point of its destination, and
then it stops. Now that that's in the pipeline, just
like in my sprinkler system, there may still be some

(07:47):
water in the hose or in the system, in the
underground sprinklers, so in the pipes there are still water there.
All Trump said was we're gonna stop it now. Well, everybody,
I shouldn't say everybody, the media, the cabal in this
country starts. Oh, my god, Ukrainians are gonna die and
it's going to be the end of civilization. It's the

(08:07):
end of the world. Uh. Trump knew exactly what he
was doing, because within hours of that occurring, Zelensky issued
the statement pledging quote, this was on X. This is
before the letter, but on X, my team and I
stand ready to work under President Trumps strong leadership to
get a piece that lasts well. Isn't that interesting? So

(08:31):
you didn't hold all the cards, so your little tit
for tat in the Oval Office didn't work out as
you thought you was going to work out. I don't care,
you know what, I frankly don't give a damn. Frankly,
my dear, I don't give a damn. Whether that was
pre planned by one side, both sides, any side, I

(08:53):
don't care. It had the effect that you would have
expected to have. He writes in Well, no, let me
first say what the BBC argues, because this is pretty interesting.
Washington's hostile rhetoric, that Oval Office meeting and the pausing

(09:16):
of US military aid have forced him Zelensky to bend
to Trump's peace vision. That's a bad thing. I mean,
they want you to think it's a bad thing. The
BBC goes on to say that it notes that while
European leaders largely backed Zelenski following his White House show

(09:38):
down with Britain and France, even pledging peacekeeping troops quote
may clear peace would still require US involvement. You have
to be an idiot not to realize that just because
Trump paused AID doesn't mean that we're just walking away.

(10:00):
And you don't think that Keir Starmer or the Crone
or I don't know, I don't know. I don't think
the new guy in Germany has been announced yet, or
for that matter, in Warsaw, you don't think that they
knew that for this war to continue, it would have
to have American backing. Because the Europeans are spending too

(10:24):
much money buying Russian oil and natural gas than they
are spending on fighting that war. So of course we're
going to have to have American involvement. Because most European
the Natal Alliance, they've allowed their militaries to shrivel, absolutely shrivel,
and Trump has rightly frequently accused them of being delinquent

(10:46):
on their alliance defend spending obligations, preferring instead what are
they doing well, they're spending their money on illegal aliens,
on all that migration, on the stupid, absolutely stupid net
zero policies, and should their welfare programs. They're actually working
against us and our sanctions against the purchase of Russian

(11:10):
oil and gas by I don't want my people freezing
to death. I want them to I don't want them
to not be able to drive their delivery trucks. I
don't want the eighteen wheelers to shop stop delivering goods
and products to my citizens. So maybe we should have

(11:31):
come to or maybe they should have come to this
country and said, well, but they couldn't. I was gonna said,
maybe they should have come to this country and said, hey,
we'll buy all the LNG we need from you. But
they couldn't do that because the previous dufus shut down
those LNG transport systems, the ports, which he didn't even
realize he did, according to Speaker Johnson, And why should

(11:56):
we subsidize Europe's expansion of their welfare programs and that
stupid net zero policies. Even we're beginning to recognize in
this country that the net zero policies don't work. The
BBC goes on denote with his European allies acknowledging that
they still need the United States, Washington seems to still

(12:19):
be the only place for him to turn to. Duh
BBC master of the obvious. So Zelensky is already compromising.
He's you heard Trump read the letter. Well maybe you didn't,
but Trump read the letter last night. Interesting. I find
the logistics and the timing not surprising in the least.

(12:44):
So in Ukraine and Kiev, they know that Trump's about
to give a speech, they know that He's going to
mention Ukraine. So what does Zelensky do his at that
poor ambassador, his poor chief of staff. I honestly feel
sorry for them. I don't think. I really don't think

(13:06):
that his ambassador to the United States knew what he
was going to do, and she sat there with her
head in her hands, like, oh, my dear God delivered
me from this. So I think when they got back,
they probably reading the Riot Act and said, look, we
need the United States. We need them for a peace deal,

(13:30):
and we need them if we're going to continue to
fight or else the Ruskies are just gonna run over us. So,
knowing that Trump was going to speak last night, hey, sleep,
prepare a letter and tell them that you're ready to
sign a deal that would do exactly that. And that's

(13:51):
what happened. They sent the letter and Trump read it
during the speech. Until then, Silenskia had been refusing to
countenance the ceasefire or certain deals with that so called
security guarantees. Effectively, it promised from the United States to
go to war with Russia if a ceasefire is broken.

(14:14):
Trump made it clear to Zelensky that he is in
no position to dictate terms to us, and now we
know that Zelensky recognizes that too. I want to say
one more thing about Ukraine. So I've been going back
and forth with a friend of mine. He disagrees with

(14:37):
the history that I gave on Monday, and he is, uh,
You've heard me refer to him before as having been
involved in Moldova setting up their new government posts breakdown
in the Soviet Union back in the nineties. I mean,
he spent considerable time there. But he and I disagree

(14:58):
about the history. He has his sources. I've got my sources.
I told him what you know, the history lesson I
did on Saturday and I did on Monday. I gave
him the sources where I got that information. But what
I found interesting was we do agree on one thing,

(15:22):
and that is what Trump is trying to accomplish. So
in fact, let me pull up. I don't normally do this,
but Andy won't mind. He had written to me that
Let's see, I don't want to read the whole thing

(15:43):
he says. But blaming Ukraine or saying that Ukraine's in
reference to Trump. But blaming Ukraine or saying that Ukraine
or the West provoked Russia is historically factually wrong. I
wrote back and said, provoked isn't the correct term. Bush
and Obama both gave Putin the wink in the nod

(16:05):
when it came to Georgia and Crimea. Obviously the country,
not the state that was and I know provocation is
a strong term. That's why I said Bush and Obama
both gave Putin the wink and the nod when it
came to Georgia and Crimea. Because we didn't have any

(16:26):
sort of diplomatic, military, or international or public response to that.
We just let it happen. And Andy says, I agree.
I was upset about it at the time and I
still am. The point is, we opened the door for Russia.

(16:47):
We opened the door for this. Michael, did anybody recognize
anti American lemmings over the cliff? The Democrats are those
the lemmings of which you speak. So I've had a

(17:11):
chance to dig through a little bit. So this this
is kind of dangerous on my part. But regarding the
Supreme Court denying the Trump administration's request to block a
lower court ruling that would force the State Department to
pay out about two billion dollars in foreign aid now
despite concerns that the order was legally dubious and that

(17:33):
much of that money would be unrecoverable. Nonetheless, the court
denied there the administration's request. You know, I want you
to understand procedurally what happens here. So the trial court says,
you can't. You can't block this money. You have to
let that foreign aid flow. That's in the DC District Court.

(17:58):
That goes to the d C Court of Appeals. The
Court of Appeals upholds the lower court and says, yes,
we agree with the trial judge. The money has to flow.
The Department of Justice takes that to the US Supreme
Court on an emergency request and says, look, would you
at least stay in other words, would you at least
stop what the DC Court of Appeals is doing until

(18:24):
we can consolidate all of these cases going on all
over the country about what we can and cannot do,
which is a legitimate request, because you're getting different appellate
divisions around the country coming up with different rulings, some saying, oh,
in this bucket of money, yes, you can freeze that.

(18:48):
Over here in this bucket of money. Another you know
that might be the Fifth Circuit, and over here on
the Ninth Circuit they're saying, no, you cannot do that.
And I pick out those two circuits because the Fifth
is generally conservative, the Ninth is pretty liberal. So the
Supreme Court is gonna have to deal with this at
some point because all of these you can't What's the

(19:11):
reason I say to Supreme will ultimately have to deal
with this is because you have one party here that
will not change, and that's going to be the federal government,
the executive branch. So despite the different rulings of the
pellate courts all around the country, there's one common denominator,

(19:32):
and that's the federal government, which is trying to stop
spending some of this money. So it raises a constitutional
issue about the power of the presidency to do so.
And so, now, can the court just let all of
this stand? I mean, yes, of course they could. They
could let all of the different opinions stand, but that's

(19:53):
going to create a hodge podge of opinions that depending
on where the money has been allocated or where where
the money is actually going to be spent. You may
be able to freeze it over here because of geography,
but you can't freeze it over here because of geography.
And that makes no sense whatsoever, because money's fungible, and

(20:15):
it all has to do not with the money itself,
but the power of the executive branch under Article two
to say I'm not going to spend that money. Justice
Samuel Alito Bingo, joined by Associate Justices Thomas Gorsuch and

(20:35):
Brett Cavanaugh, dissented rather forcefully because they're warning that the
ruling gives an unchecked district judge, the trial judge, the
power to compel massive taxpayer funded payments without higher court review.

(20:55):
Alito wrote this, I am stunned. He called the lower
court's actions a lawless order that disregarded sovereign immunity and
basic judicial restraint, he says. Additionally, the unsigned majority opinion

(21:16):
provided no rationale for its decision, leaving the public in
the dark about why the Court's liberal wing, along with
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Comba Barrett, cited
against Trump and his campaign pledge. So the ruling means
I didn't mean to imply I was quoting them just
as leto. That's my take. The ruling means that the

(21:39):
administration must now follow through on the massive payout, despite
their argument that the funds, once dispersed, are going to
be gone forever. So alitos descent really ripped into the
Court's unwillingness to intervene. He argued that the ruling effectively
rewards judicial overreach and forces a expenditure of taxpayer dollars

(22:03):
without the executive branch being able to exercise their proper
right of oversight. He then goes on to criticize the
district judge for blocking an appeal and for setting an
arbitrary thirty six hour deadline for the payment, ensuring that
in essence, that money's going to be spent before anybody

(22:26):
in the executive branch can provide any sort of meaningful review.
Now no explanation has been provided by the justices who
decline to stop the order, which leaves open questions about
their legal reasoning and obviously their willingness to allow single
judge to dictate executive branch spending. That I think is

(22:49):
probably the most important thing, because the ruling comes amid
all these growing concerns over judicial activism and the Supreme
Court refusal to reign in rogue district courts. It also
goes to the very heart of Article two about the
executive power or hang on, because here is the question,

(23:18):
what does this I want to read it for verbatim.
Do not Article one. I want Article two? Do do
do do do do doot do? Article two, Section one,
Paragraph one. The executive power shall be vested in a
President of the United States of America. The very first sentence,

(23:43):
So you have the legislative power. Congress can make the laws.
They have the power of the purse. Raising revenue starts
in the House, Spending bills can start anywhere. So Congress
appropriates and say we want to spend money on xyz here.

(24:04):
Executive branch, now go forth and spend money. Executive branch
looks at it and says, we're not going to spend
this money yet because we don't have in place proper
protocols to make sure that the money is spent appropriately.
Or there's some foreign policy reason, which foreign policy is
in the jurisdiction of the executive branch of how we're

(24:26):
going to or that goes against our foreign policy, so
we're going to impound those funds, or we're going to
resend those funds, we're not going to spend them. That
sets up a clear, distinct opportunity for the court to
interpret What does it mean when it says that the
executive power, in other words, the administration of the government

(24:51):
shall be vested in a president of the United States.
It doesn't say some It doesn't say these executive powers.
It says the executive power shall be invested in a
president of the United States of America. So what's the
limits of it are? What are the limits of that power?
In the I was gonna see if I can find

(25:15):
part of the descent. Now I don't. I'm not gonna
do that. I thought there might be parts of the
descent I could I could read to you that would
give you a better idea of why I think it's
an important case. But it is, and we'll see what
the court does. In addition to a promo that I

(25:36):
just cut during the break for tomorrow's program about something
that Disney's going to do, I want to give you
a little hint. Uh. You know. The website five thirty
eight five thirty eight dot com originally found by what's
his name, Nate Silver back in Gosh, back in the
mid two thousands, sometimes but mid two thousands, I mean

(25:59):
like two thousand ten or something. It gained prominence and
it gained a lot of credibility for a real clear
statistical approach to elections. They correctly called Obama's twenty twelve election,
but then its reputation began to kind of suffer, if
not just absolute disappear, because they miscalculated the twenty sixteen election.

(26:24):
They gave Hillary Clinton an eighty one percent chance of victory,
totally underestimating Donald Trump's strength in the swing states, and
then they overestimated democratic performance in twenty twenty, so it's
almost like they, oh, we screwed up twenty sixteen, Now
let's overestimate over in twenty twenty. So they just kind
of lost all credibility. Then ABC News acquired five thirty

(26:46):
eight back in twenty eighteen twenty twenty sometime, but cut
most of its staff. A couple of years ago, Nate
Silver departed, he started his own website. Well, it's now
come to light that ABC News is going to shut
it down. Now. The brand will still technically exist under
the ABC News umbrella, but the original site and its

(27:10):
independent operation are completely being completely dismantled. Why because it's
lost all credibility. The Wall Street Journal first reported that
last night, the ABC News magazine shows twenty twenty in
Nightline are consolidating into one unit, resulting in job cuts.
Where's the Media. ABC is also going to eliminate the

(27:32):
political and data driven news site five point thirty eight,
which had about fifteen employees. Where's the Media? So even
ABC News is recognizing that having this site under their umbrella, well,
though still technically own the name, they'll ow the domain,
they recognize that it's lost all credibility. Do you detect

(27:53):
a trend here? The cabal is beginning to understand that
by losing credit, by not being objective, you lose eyeballs,
you lose viewers, you lose listeners, you lose all of that.
And was that result in loss of advertising, you start

(28:13):
to shrivel and you eventually go away. President Trump did
a great job, and it was just hilarious when he
called Pocahontas to Elizabeth Warren. It was just amazing the
way he did it. And he just exposed the Democrat
Party what they are all about period kicking her egg.

(28:41):
I think the Democrats expose themselves for what they're all about.
Trump just happened to come in and just speak the truth,
and they showed us, showed us that they don't want
to they can't handle the truth. That is what they
really did. Two stories here that I'd like to one

(29:01):
is dragging the left over her on the table that says,
how ugly is your job making you? New? Online tests
calculates the impact of work on your looks now many
of you, and the story goes on to say that
skin experts have devised a nifty online calculator that will
reveal whether one's job is causing them to age prematurely. Now,

(29:24):
I don't know that if your how old Nancy Pelosi
eighty five or eighty six years old? I don't know
how old Nancy Pelosi is, how old she is? Did
you look at her last night. Did you look at
al Green last night? Did you look at any of
them last night? Did you see Bernie? I? And they
were all pretty damn ugly. But it raises the question

(29:46):
is their job causing them to look ugly? According to
the calculator, being hunched over at the computer for hours
at a time can lead to poor posture and other maladies.
Whether you work from home full time or commute daily
to a building side, our research will reveal how your
job may affect the way you age. Well, I would

(30:07):
say that, you know, maybe being a congressman is making
you age even more rapidly than you expected to age.
Other risk factors for this level of aging include exposure
to harsh chemicals such as cooking smoke or car exhaust,
night shifts that disrupt sleep, leading to defined wrinkles, decrease
skin elasticity, and sagging around the jaw line, the cheeks

(30:28):
in the neck. Well, I guess this story doesn't apply
because all of that's work, and I don't see that
these y'all whos are actually doing any work at all,
So I don't think that we can claim that their
work is causing to be ugly. I think that being ugly.
It's just a part of what is it that politics

(30:50):
is Hollywood for ugly people. The other point I'd like
to make is, and this is where I mentioned how
I despise these people politicians. They hardly ever recognize the
very problems that they cause. But then when those problems
hit them, the first thing they do is they start
screaming like stuck pigs. And here's the case in point.

(31:11):
There was a story yesterday in UH on the color
in the Colorado Sun, and it's talking about how crime
at the Colorado State Capitol is now way out of control.
Staffers are running into the street to avoid crazy people
chasing them. There's shootings, there's robberies, there's muggings all around
the Colorado State Capitol. Huh. Meanwhile, Mike Johnston today, rather

(31:37):
than dealing with that problem, is testifying before Congress about
how great a sanctuary city is. Well, it doesn't matter
that you and I have been pointing out the crime
problem in downtown Denver for what years now we understand
how bad it is because we don't go downtown anymore.
But now that the politicians and some of their staffers
have encountered with the same crime that we've been screaming

(31:58):
about some might get done, But then again, the Democrats
controlled Denver and the state Capitol, so the truth is
nothing's going to get done. Legislator has gotten so bad
that legislators have asked Denver Mayor Mike Johnston to help
provide security because of the growing criminal activity and the

(32:20):
harassment around the State Capitol building. Now, the last I looked,
I thought that the Colorado State Patrol provided security to
the Colorado State Capitol Building. Where's the Colorado State Patrol? Uh,
why aren't you asking them to do that? We already
pay their taxes throughout the entire state. We all pay

(32:41):
their taxes. But no, you want the Denver Police Department.
So now that the Pullet Bureau is suffering like the
rest of us, now they want something done about crime.
So while the Democrats are busy in the state Legislature,
in the state pult Bureau, while they're busy trying to
take away your guns, they beg for security to protect themselves. Yes,

(33:07):
that's why I despise these people.