Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good morning, Michael.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I was just listening to a podcast on my way
to work this morning. I was listening to it again
because I always try to listen to your show multiple times,
and I think today is the perfect day that we
should celebrate Michael Brown. I'm going to order a bunch
of copies of your books. I'm going to tell everybody
I see about Michael Brown and how great he is,
how we should all listen to him.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
I'm gonna do that today.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Yeah, especially today.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Okay, how very considerate of you. Thoughtful, very thoughtful, and
today's probably an inappropriate day to do that.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
So I'm, you know, an inappropriate day or inappropriate day
to do that, just clarifying, yes, And I'm also.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Duly impressed that you woke up this morning and you
thought about that today. Just shows that you truly are
an incredible goober. Now, I think this is the way
the entire day is going to go.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Oh boy, hold onto your butts.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Yeah, because I just pulled up. Dragon and I were
having our pre production meeting and in which we sit
down and we smoked cigars, sip little bourbon uh sometimes
tequila uh, and we talked about the problems of the world.
And we solve all of them, and then we come
out here and just.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Pass out and we tell no one, yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Yeah, yeah. And one of the things that came up
during the conversation was a I can't decide. Well, I
do believe that Trump. President Trump trolls reporters constantly, and
(01:49):
he does that because he does that because that is
when his style, and he knows that those of us
who know if that's what he's doing, kind of get
a kick out of it. But it also gets sometimes
a little boring. So I had I had pulled up
oh here we got I refreshed it yesterday a reporter,
(02:12):
in fact, I think it was Peter Doocey from Fox
News ask the president a question, and of course the
ce and the website, No, the CNN website wants to
play an ad again. So let me just you know,
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah until I can
hit the money.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Do what Well, they need the money, Well, they do.
Speaker 5 (02:32):
Need the money, and we'll get out of it in
just a second.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
And if you were allowed, for some reason to run
for a third term, is there a thought that the Democrats.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Could try to run back Obama I answer you, I
love that.
Speaker 5 (02:46):
I love that.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
That would that would be a good one.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
I'd like that.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
I know people are asking me to run, and there's
all sort.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Of about running for a third term. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (02:55):
I never looked into it. And they do say there's a.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Way you can do it, but I don't know about that,
but I have not looked into it. I want to
do a fantastic job.
Speaker 4 (03:04):
We have four years just about it, almost plus to
four years. Time is flying, but it's still close to
four years.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
And we're getting a lot of credit.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
For having done a great job in the first almost
one hundred days.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
So that's so there it is. Peter Doocey Fox News
poses a stupid, stupid hypothetical. Now it was yesterday, so
naturally I'm kind of interested in. Was that a was
that some April fool's joke? But you did it today
(03:38):
early or what? And and Trump, to his credit, you know,
h well, I don't think there's any way you can
do it, although you know we'll look into it, because
you know, I would you run against back Obama?
Speaker 5 (03:50):
Of course I'd run it.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
I'd love that, but you know you really can't do it.
But you know, we'll look into it, but you know,
we can get and we got four years, and four
years is flying by. If you do a simple Google search,
here are the headlines. Trump tells NBC News there are
(04:12):
methods for seeking a third term.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
No, there's really not.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Ap Trump keeps talking about running for a third term.
The US Constitution says that can't happen. N PR presidents
can be elected twice. Trump could try.
Speaker 5 (04:29):
And runs around that.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Experts say fact check from US News and World Report,
Can Trump run for a third term? National News, US News,
CBS News. Trump says he's looking for ways to serve
as a third term as president. The Guardian you noticed that.
Speaker 5 (04:46):
Now.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
The other thing to learn from this is this. This
is the Google search. I went to the Google machine
and clicked news for here are my keywords, Donald Trump
considers running for a third term. God didn't want put.
I wanted it to be a somewhat affirmative statement, not
a question statement, because I wanted to see what the
(05:07):
headlines were. And course they're they're telling me exactly what
I expected. Variety magazine. Of course, when I'm thinking about
political news, I always turned to Variety. John Stewart slams
Trump for considering the option of a third term. The
Los Angeles Times, Trump says he's considering ways to serve
(05:27):
a third term as president. New York Times. Trump says
he's not joking about seeking a third term in defiance
of constitution. Here's the little blurb unto that one. President
Trump did not rule out seeking the third term in
office on Sunday, telling NBC News that he was not
joking about the possibility. Bull crap. If he wasn't, now,
(05:53):
maybe in his mind he didn't realize how badly he
was trolling. But let's just back up all the way
to Peter Doocey. Why would Peter deucy ask that question? Why, Well,
(06:13):
maybe he's in on it with Trump. I'm just thinking
of all the possibilities. Maybe he's in on it with
Trump or Caroline Levitt, the Press secretary, And you know
they've been you know, they joke in the hallways, they
see you know, these people mill around all the time,
and so so maybe you know, it came up.
Speaker 5 (06:31):
Hey, you know what if I ask the.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
President he wants to run for a third term, and Caroline,
Caroline Levitt says, yeah, you have asking that, because I'm
sure he'll have an answer that we'll just you know,
make the heads explode of people, you know, all across
the country and reporters and everybody else, and they'll run
with it. Let's just see how far, you know, what
he'll do with it. And so maybe they conspire to
actually ask him the question so that he would have
(06:56):
the chance to go troll everybody. But the thing that
drives me the baddiest is not the media, because they're
a bunch of Pavlov's dogs who are just going to
react regardless they've you know, they're desperate to put something
on the website. They're desperate to have something for the
(07:18):
lead story of the evening news. They're desperate for anything
by which they can criticize Trump and try to claim
that he's crazy by thinking that he can run for
a third term. So they do it, and everybody falls
for it. But it drives me nuts. And here's why
it drives me nuts. And yes, I'm criticizing Trump. I'm
(07:41):
criticizing Fox News the Holy Grail, Oh my gosh, it's
like talking about Medicare and medicaid. Michael Brown's criticizing Fox
News and Donald Trump, And I'm criticizing the cabal, and
I'm criticizing everybody, including myself, for spending any time on it.
What's the except that I think it's worth us thinking about,
(08:05):
and it's worth it's worth us thinking about for this
very reason. Why do we put up with it?
Speaker 5 (08:14):
Now?
Speaker 3 (08:14):
I don't think it's necessarily you and me, but you
and I know everybody there. There are people in our
social circles, There are people in our familial circles, and
among our family there are people all around us co workers,
(08:34):
whatever your situation may be, who hear this and believe
it and get all wound up about it. We live
in an age now where I don't think facts matter.
Now the whole Trump running for a third term is
(08:59):
also on top of you may recall I mentioned this
yesterday that I had talked about Greenland on the nationally
syndicated program and how I think we should admit it
as a state. I think for all sorts of geopolitical reasons,
natural resource reasons, national defense, national security reasons, there are
(09:21):
just all sorts of reasons to bring Greenland into the
country as a state. And I cited yesterday and I
cited over the weekend too, the portion of the Constitution
that governs the admission of states into the Union. It's
Article four, Section three, Clause one. New states may be
(09:44):
admitted by the Congress into this Union, but no new
state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of
any other state, nor any state be formed by the
junction of two or more states or parts of states,
without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned,
as well as the Congress. And then this, just for
(10:09):
giggles and grins, let's read the second clause. The Congress
shah of the power to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property
belonging to the United States. And nothing in this Constitution
shall be construed as to prejudice any claims of the
United States or of any particular state.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
That's it.
Speaker 5 (10:31):
That is it. So I told you.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
That I had a listener in the I think it's
the area code four old. No, not four five five
one four No, I'm sorry, three one zero, area code
three one zero, wherever the hell that is. I don't
know where it is. Who said I was wrong? And
that it requires a minimum of sixty thousand inhabitants in
order for a geographical area to be considered as a state.
(10:57):
And I said, no, you're wrong. That that was originally
in the Articles of Confederation. They had a clause in
there that said that of the original thirteen state the
original thirteen colonies, none could be considered as states until
they reached the minimum population of sixty thousand. But the
Articles of Confederation were rejected and instead, in seventeen eighty
(11:21):
nine we adopted the US Constitution, and that's what it says,
there is no population requirement. So I had texted the
individual back and said, no, you know, I did my research.
I kind of think you ought to do your research
and you'll realize that it's not true. Well he comes
back again today and it's and I really do believe, and.
Speaker 5 (11:45):
I'm using him as an her whoever it is doesn't
any difference.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
As an example of there are no facts anymore. I
you know, when I'm death scrolling through Facebook, book or
my ex account, there are so many times that I
run across stories that I I say to myself instantaneously,
(12:11):
that's that's just somebody something that's AI has done this,
photoshop has done it. Someone's just made up this crap.
This is this is so unbelievable that it's it's not true.
And rarely, if ever, do I do any of my
own research on those topics because I know I'm going
(12:33):
to spend any time on it on air. But then
there are stories that are so blatantly false that I think, well,
let me see what other people are saying. So I'll
go back into my ex account or I'll do it
on my Facebook account, and I'll do a search to
find all the stories where that's being talked about. And
if I find that a lot of people are talking
(12:55):
about it, then I think, Okay, well here we go again. Nobody.
And when I say nobody, I'm not talking about this,
I'm not talking about you, because because I know that
now we all fall prey occasionally to false stories. We
all fall prey to something that we think is true
to turn out that's absolutely not true. And we've had
(13:17):
we've had that happen on air, and Dragon I have
fully admitted that we've you know, we've been we've been
played and we've been fooled, and we'll I'm back and
we'll freely admitted and it is embarrassing. But we also
make fun of him because it shows that it can
it can happen to anybody.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
Well, I wake up.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
This morning because I kept looking waiting for this person
to respond, and I finally get the response at let's
see this. Yeah, it was at one o'clock this morning,
one seventeen forty this morning. Uh, Gouber number five six
five six four rights, Michael. Technically, an island with ten
(13:58):
residents could become a state. Let's just stop right there,
because that is factually true. If Congress found a little
piece of land somewhere that had ten people on it
and they wanted to make it a state, and it
wasn't contiguous, you know, it wasn't part of another state.
It wasn't like, let's take the Oklahoma Panhandle of the
(14:18):
Texas Panhandle, or it wasn't like the area of four
corners that you know where you've got that marker, so
you've got but there's really no inhabitants there. There might be,
you know, within a certain square miles, there might be
ten people living there, but Congress suddenly wanted to make
that a state. H Well, now you've got to get
(14:38):
the approval of of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada
because they're they're are Colorado because they're all they're all
right there in that corner. So now you've got to
have the approval of Congress and those four legislatures all
according to the United States Constitution. So when he says
that technically an island with ten residents could become a state,
(15:01):
that is factually true and that is in adherence to
the US Constitution. But he can't stop, and he goes
on and says, I'm talking about practicality. There has you know,
words mean things to me. And he says there has
(15:21):
always been a de facto population requirement for statehood. No,
there has not. The only time that a population was
considered as any sort of consideration about whether we should
(15:41):
any include a certain amount of population was the Northwest
Ordinance of seventeen eighty seven. It established a pro this
this is let me just back up. While the Constitution
grants Congress the power to emit new states, it does
(16:03):
not specify a minimum population requirement, and Congress has never
set a fixed population threshold for Statehood's Arctic four Section
three I've read, I'm not going to read it again.
Congress has historically determined the conditions for statehood on a
case by case basis, often through enabling acts that outline
(16:28):
specific requirements for a territory to become a state. You
need to establish, you know, a legislature, you need to have,
you know, you need to elect a territorial governor. You
need to do you need to do certain things. But
they've never established a population requirement. The closest that it
(16:48):
ever came was the Northwest Ordinance of seventeen eighty seven,
which said, hey, let's establish a process for the territory
to become a state, including a requirement of sixty thousand
free inhabitants. But historically that was not a requirement. It
became a guideline, it was not a strict rule. So
(17:12):
while the sixty thousand population figure for the Northwest Ordinance
was used as a benchmark, Congress never set a fixed population,
and in fact, even with respect to the Northwest Ordinance,
they abandoned it and they never really considered it. Now,
(17:35):
it may seem like you that it's a difference without
a distinction, or even a distinction without a difference, but
it's neither. It's I think that we we come to
believe certain things, and when we get I'm as guilty
as anybody when we get challenged on beliefs that become
(17:59):
in our brains and somebody says, oh, no, look over here,
that's not true. We refuse to believe it. And part
of that is part of a greater problem. We don't
know our history, we've taught, We've become too reliant on
whatever doctor Google tells us, and we just live in
(18:23):
a world now where I honestly believe facts just don't matter.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Trunk can't run for a third term.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
It's prohibited by the constitution because there's some lawyer out
there coming up with some wild idea. Probably so is
it constitutional? Probably not?
Speaker 5 (18:40):
Michael tell Dragon, this is getting a little bit on
the old side.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
Well, you just did, and I don't know. Let me
go to the text line again. The well, there's too
many coming in and I can't I can't find it.
But one, I don't know what you're talking about. Two
(19:08):
I don't have in Oh, I think I possibly could.
I think there is a program that I can pull
up on one of these monitors that has a collection
of sound bites. Now, I also play sound bites from
our clipping service from my laptop or sometimes from from
(19:32):
one of the company computers. But those are all sound bites,
so I don't I truly don't know what you Honestly,
you just don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 4 (19:41):
I do like this tech message, though. Mike Trump could
run as a vice president, kill the president, and then
be elected as president.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
That's the only way, and.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
Which is interesting because I looked at that and I thought,
do I want to talk about that? And I wasn't
going to talk about it, but that you brought it up,
I'll talk about it, okay. And the answer is no.
Speaker 4 (20:00):
I don't think you can murder, right, and you can
still be president.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
You missed the operative verb kill, so that's not protected
by presidential immunity.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
If the president then gets epsteined me.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
But once again, it's Guba number sixty seven ninety one
points it out. Best of all, Mike Trump is getting derailed.
He can maintain momentum if he sticks to the eighty
twenty issues impacting the majority of Americans. Canada as the
fifty first state running for a third term, et cetera,
just fuels the opposition. Putting the eighty twenty issues on
(20:43):
a back burner or at risk of not being completed,
though not an eighty twenty issue. Greenland should be a
friendly negotiation, not a hostile takeover. And I think that's
you know, interestingly, I think this his style of negotiation.
You start at the worst, the least acceptable starting point. Yeah,
(21:07):
we're just gonna take you over.
Speaker 4 (21:08):
It didn't y'all ever Watch pawn Stars. One side starts
with the most amount of money, the other starts with
the least amount of money, and you come to an
agreement in the middle.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
And in this case, Denmark says no way. Trump says, fine,
We're just gonna invade it and take it over. And
what are we doing now now we're having conversations about it. Yeah,
so but yeah, killing the vice president that that's just
not gonna work. And and by the way, if you
go back and you read, uh, I'm just gonna lay
(21:41):
this out here slowly for the kids in the back
of the room, and then I just want you to
contemplate it.
Speaker 5 (21:51):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
The twenty second Amendment, Section one. No person shall be
elected to the office of the President more than twice.
No person shall be elected to the office of the
President more than twice, And no person who has held
the office of President or acted as president for more
(22:19):
than two years of a term to which some other
person was elected. President shall be elected to the office
of the president more than once. But this article shall
not apply to any person holding the office of the
president when this article is proposed. So, but that's immaterial.
(22:41):
But go to the second sentence. No person who has
held the office of the president that's Trump, or acted
as president for more than two years of a term
for which somebody else was elected. No person shall be
(23:03):
elected to the office of the president more than once.
So just stop, because it's it's it's just not going
to happen. And why Peter Deucey would bring the question up,
I think, you know, it's the danger of and I
(23:27):
think sometimes they really do. I don't care how of
a diehard supporter you may be of Trump, and I
do think that the Deucy family probably they probably are
Trump supporters. But sometimes you just can't. It's like asking
me questions that you know are going to derail me.
It's asking me questions you know, it's a squirrel that
(23:48):
I'm going to chase.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Never happens.
Speaker 5 (23:50):
Never happens.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
So sometimes out of just being smart ass listeners, which
I know there's very very few of you. You'll ask
those questions just to see what kind of reaction you
can get. There is some sad news though. On the
White House. A southern magnolia tree that was originally planned
by President Jackson, one of Donald Trump's favorite, is going
(24:16):
to be removed from its position. Now that's how the
story read. Now, we had a tree that we had
to get, uh, that we had to have taken out.
I didn't call somebody and say, hey, I've got a
tree that's dead, could you remove it from its position?
(24:39):
I just found that that that line in the story. Funny,
I've got a dead tree? Could you remove it from
its position? Okay, you want to put us put it
in a different position, right, Yeah, that's where my head went, right.
You need to remove this tree from its position. Okay,
put it over there? Yeah, okay, So where in the
yard do you want us to put it?
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Now?
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Well, I don't I actually I want you to put
it in the back of your truck and take it away. Oh,
this is because of safety concern They have to do
it because of safety concerns.
Speaker 5 (25:09):
And here the thing.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
I find interesting about it, which shows you how much
he loves Andrew Jackson. The announcement was made Sunday, and
because I had an account on Truth Social, but I
never go to Truth Social highlighting concerns regarding the deteriorating
deteriorating condition of the tree is a Southern magnolia. It
originated from Jackson's personal estate down in Tennessee. It was
(25:33):
planned to commemorate his wife, who had passed away prior
to his presidency, and in the post, Trump noted the
tree significant, saying this quote, one of the interesting dilemmas
is a tree planted many years ago by the legendary
President in General Andrew Jackson. Now, attention was drawn to
the tree's current state. Its current condition described by Trump
(25:57):
as being in terrible condition and a very dangerous safety
hazard at a crucial White House location. So the President
was assured and did assure that the trees would would
not be wasted. The historic wood from the tree will
be preserved by the White House staff, adding that they're
going to try to find some high and noble purpose
(26:19):
for it in the future, which I think is kind
of interesting. So we get the Resolute Desk from England,
so maybe the Andrew Jackson tree will be made into
a conference room table or into chairs to put in
the Roosevelt Room. I mean, any number of things. But
(26:40):
I just thought it was interesting because we're going to
change the position. Jared Polus just signed House Built twenty five,
ten forty one, which for me is proof that Jared Polus,
that mouth of his is amazing. He can but that
(27:06):
mouth of Jared Polus is amazing because he can talk
out of both sides of that mouth like nobody's business talking. Gotcha, Okay, yeah, yeah,
I have no clue what you were talking about. He
preaches transparency all the time. You know, I'm going to
be transparent. You know, everybody claims they're going to be
the most transparent administration in the history of humanity. Blah
(27:27):
blah blah blah blah blah blah. Anytime they tell you that,
you know they're lying to you, right, because while telling
you that out of one side of that mouth, out
of the other side of the mouth, he's signing legislation
that actually strips away transparency. And House Built twenty five
ten forty one is one of those that makes the name,
image and likeness contracts that these student athletes are signing
(27:49):
between themselves and taxpayer funded universities confidential. Now, why if
if those students who are playing on a taxpayer funded
university team of any sort, I don't care whether it's football, baseball, hockey,
I don't care what it is.
Speaker 5 (28:11):
We ought to be able to know that.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
But also he has he's also signed legislation that ranchers
that get paid because the imported wolves that might kill
their cattle, they're also protected from disclosure. Well, why we're
paying somebody tax money because your wolf got or your wolf,
(28:36):
your your one of your steers got killed by a wolf,
and we're going to compensate you a quarter of a
million dollars. Why are we hiding that? Why is that
not discoverable? Why is it not subject to the Open
Records Act? And then there was this one I found
(28:56):
taxpayer paid teachers. Public school teachers can now hide their
disciplinary records. Wait a minute, don't parents have a right
to see those disciplinary records? If your teacher has a
long has a rap sheet, let's just call it a
(29:17):
rap sheet. Your teacher has a rap seat rap sheet,
don't you have a right to know before you put
your kid in that class? Or don't you have a
right to ask your child to be transferred from that
class because your teacher has a bunch of disciplined problems.
So the point is, the next time you hear Polish
using that stupid mouth of is to talk about transparency.
Remember all of those things that he's always trying to
(29:40):
hide from you the taxpayers.
Speaker 4 (29:44):
Hey, fellas, yep, I don't believe that it'll happen with
a third term, but.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
Just keep in mind that wouldn't be the first time
a president got a third term.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
Well, it'd be the first time a president got a
third term since the twenty second Amendment. We learned our
lesson with FDR and said, nah, yeah, we're not gonna
do that anymore. And then somebody asked, where's that one dragon? Oh,
actually there's some really good Uh this is Gouber five
four five zero four seven, Mike one. If Trump declares
(30:16):
martial law, can he stay president? Well, actually, you mean
any good You mean like Zelinske, like Zelensky exactly, the
Insurrection Act of eighteen o seven. Very familiar with it
because we actually I sat on Air Force one with
White House Counsel, Deputy Attorney General, the National Security Advisor
(30:39):
and started putting together the papers for Bush to authorize
the implementation of the Insurrection Act of eighteen o seven.
That's a federal law that empowers the President of the
United States to deploy the military, to federalize National Guard
troops within the United States in circumstances in order to
(31:02):
suppress things like civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion.
Speaker 5 (31:07):
And that's how bad things were in New Orleans. And
we are on.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
The precipice of getting that done when Governor Blanco said, hey,
can we have a little more time And Bush said, okay, yeah,
we'll give you twenty.
Speaker 5 (31:18):
Four more hours, which was the death knell for me.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
But yeah, he could invoke the Insurrection Act, impose martial law,
and then become a dictator. Now what do you think
how would he enforce it? See you play all these
scenarios out, and you realize that this is why like
she Jing Ping has disappeared, and at one general has
(31:46):
been disappeared. Another general had a sudden heart attack or something,
and now he's so ill he can't be a general anymore,
and he's confined to his home. Huh, because she Gen
Ping doesn't trust his military, because he has to have
the military in order to stay in power. So at
what point under our system do you think that the
(32:09):
Secretary of Defense or somebody else would say, Nope, I'm
not following that order. That's an unconstitutional order, and we
refuse to enforce it, and we're not going to do it.
You see, we got great checks and balances built into
our system. The problem, the one problem that we do
have in terms of checks and balances is that, well
(32:32):
they're not always enforced. I love this, except it infuriates me.
The guy's name is Ignatio Cruz Mendoza. He's a citizen
of Mexico. He's been removed from the United States, or
some people are arguing that he's been voluntarily returned to
(32:54):
Mexico sixteen times since two thousand and two. So in
twenty three years he's been deported or asked to leave
the country sixteen times.
Speaker 5 (33:14):
Now.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
He was sentenced for reckless driving resulting in death after
killing one and injuring several others in a car accident
here in Colorado in June of last year.
Speaker 5 (33:30):
Now, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (33:32):
I am a lawyer, so I don't know what the
insinuating circumstances are here, but reckless driving resulting in death.
What do you think it's jail sentence was I mean,
it's could it could have originally been vehicular homicide, don't
(33:52):
know whether it was or not, and it could have
been reduced to reckless driving resulting in death. One year
in jail, he was already being released from Jefferson County
Detention Center. According to Denver, seven ICE agents made the
arrest when he was released from jail. And this is
(34:17):
not the only one. March twenty five, Raphael Cabrera Baron,
who has already been removed from the United States twice
convictions for sexual assault on a child. Probably need some
more taxpayer relief shops, is what we need.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
Anyway.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
There's about five or six of them listed here right
here in little Low Colorado. That's what sanctuary city status
will get you. It will get you killed or your
child sexually assaulted.
Good morning, Michael.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I was just listening to a podcast on my way
to work this morning. I was listening to it again
because I always try to listen to your show multiple times,
and I think today is the perfect day that we
should celebrate Michael Brown. I'm going to order a bunch
of copies of your books. I'm going to tell everybody
I see about Michael Brown and how great he is,
how we should all listen to him.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
I'm gonna do that today.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Yeah, especially today.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Okay, how very considerate of you. Thoughtful, very thoughtful, and
today's probably an inappropriate day to do that.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
So I'm, you know, an inappropriate day or inappropriate day
to do that, just clarifying, yes, And I'm also.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Duly impressed that you woke up this morning and you
thought about that today. Just shows that you truly are
an incredible goober. Now, I think this is the way
the entire day is going to go.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Oh boy, hold onto your butts.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Yeah, because I just pulled up. Dragon and I were
having our pre production meeting and in which we sit
down and we smoked cigars, sip little bourbon uh sometimes
tequila uh, and we talked about the problems of the world.
And we solve all of them, and then we come
out here and just.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Pass out and we tell no one, yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Yeah, yeah. And one of the things that came up
during the conversation was a I can't decide. Well, I
do believe that Trump. President Trump trolls reporters constantly, and
(01:49):
he does that because he does that because that is
when his style, and he knows that those of us
who know if that's what he's doing, kind of get
a kick out of it. But it also gets sometimes
a little boring. So I had I had pulled up
oh here we got I refreshed it yesterday a reporter,
(02:12):
in fact, I think it was Peter Doocey from Fox
News ask the president a question, and of course the
ce and the website, No, the CNN website wants to
play an ad again. So let me just you know,
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah until I can
hit the money.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Do what Well, they need the money, Well, they do.
Speaker 5 (02:32):
Need the money, and we'll get out of it in
just a second.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
And if you were allowed, for some reason to run
for a third term, is there a thought that the Democrats.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Could try to run back Obama I answer you, I
love that.
Speaker 5 (02:46):
I love that.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
That would that would be a good one.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
I'd like that.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
I know people are asking me to run, and there's
all sort.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Of about running for a third term. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (02:55):
I never looked into it. And they do say there's a.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Way you can do it, but I don't know about that,
but I have not looked into it. I want to
do a fantastic job.
Speaker 4 (03:04):
We have four years just about it, almost plus to
four years. Time is flying, but it's still close to
four years.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
And we're getting a lot of credit.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
For having done a great job in the first almost
one hundred days.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
So that's so there it is. Peter Doocey Fox News
poses a stupid, stupid hypothetical. Now it was yesterday, so
naturally I'm kind of interested in. Was that a was
that some April fool's joke? But you did it today
(03:38):
early or what? And and Trump, to his credit, you know,
h well, I don't think there's any way you can
do it, although you know we'll look into it, because
you know, I would you run against back Obama?
Speaker 5 (03:50):
Of course I'd run it.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
I'd love that, but you know you really can't do it.
But you know, we'll look into it, but you know,
we can get and we got four years, and four
years is flying by. If you do a simple Google search,
here are the headlines. Trump tells NBC News there are
(04:12):
methods for seeking a third term.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
No, there's really not.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Ap Trump keeps talking about running for a third term.
The US Constitution says that can't happen. N PR presidents
can be elected twice. Trump could try.
Speaker 5 (04:29):
And runs around that.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Experts say fact check from US News and World Report,
Can Trump run for a third term? National News, US News,
CBS News. Trump says he's looking for ways to serve
as a third term as president. The Guardian you noticed that.
Speaker 5 (04:46):
Now.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
The other thing to learn from this is this. This
is the Google search. I went to the Google machine
and clicked news for here are my keywords, Donald Trump
considers running for a third term. God didn't want put.
I wanted it to be a somewhat affirmative statement, not
a question statement, because I wanted to see what the
(05:07):
headlines were. And course they're they're telling me exactly what
I expected. Variety magazine. Of course, when I'm thinking about
political news, I always turned to Variety. John Stewart slams
Trump for considering the option of a third term. The
Los Angeles Times, Trump says he's considering ways to serve
(05:27):
a third term as president. New York Times. Trump says
he's not joking about seeking a third term in defiance
of constitution. Here's the little blurb unto that one. President
Trump did not rule out seeking the third term in
office on Sunday, telling NBC News that he was not
joking about the possibility. Bull crap. If he wasn't, now,
(05:53):
maybe in his mind he didn't realize how badly he
was trolling. But let's just back up all the way
to Peter Doocey. Why would Peter deucy ask that question? Why, Well,
(06:13):
maybe he's in on it with Trump. I'm just thinking
of all the possibilities. Maybe he's in on it with
Trump or Caroline Levitt, the Press secretary, And you know
they've been you know, they joke in the hallways, they
see you know, these people mill around all the time,
and so so maybe you know, it came up.
Speaker 5 (06:31):
Hey, you know what if I ask the.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
President he wants to run for a third term, and Caroline,
Caroline Levitt says, yeah, you have asking that, because I'm
sure he'll have an answer that we'll just you know,
make the heads explode of people, you know, all across
the country and reporters and everybody else, and they'll run
with it. Let's just see how far, you know, what
he'll do with it. And so maybe they conspire to
actually ask him the question so that he would have
(06:56):
the chance to go troll everybody. But the thing that
drives me the baddiest is not the media, because they're
a bunch of Pavlov's dogs who are just going to
react regardless they've you know, they're desperate to put something
on the website. They're desperate to have something for the
(07:18):
lead story of the evening news. They're desperate for anything
by which they can criticize Trump and try to claim
that he's crazy by thinking that he can run for
a third term. So they do it, and everybody falls
for it. But it drives me nuts. And here's why
it drives me nuts. And yes, I'm criticizing Trump. I'm
(07:41):
criticizing Fox News the Holy Grail, Oh my gosh, it's
like talking about Medicare and medicaid. Michael Brown's criticizing Fox
News and Donald Trump, And I'm criticizing the cabal, and
I'm criticizing everybody, including myself, for spending any time on it.
What's the except that I think it's worth us thinking about,
(08:05):
and it's worth it's worth us thinking about for this
very reason. Why do we put up with it?
Speaker 5 (08:14):
Now?
Speaker 3 (08:14):
I don't think it's necessarily you and me, but you
and I know everybody there. There are people in our
social circles, There are people in our familial circles, and
among our family there are people all around us co workers,
(08:34):
whatever your situation may be, who hear this and believe
it and get all wound up about it. We live
in an age now where I don't think facts matter.
Now the whole Trump running for a third term is
(08:59):
also on top of you may recall I mentioned this
yesterday that I had talked about Greenland on the nationally
syndicated program and how I think we should admit it
as a state. I think for all sorts of geopolitical reasons,
natural resource reasons, national defense, national security reasons, there are
(09:21):
just all sorts of reasons to bring Greenland into the
country as a state. And I cited yesterday and I
cited over the weekend too, the portion of the Constitution
that governs the admission of states into the Union. It's
Article four, Section three, Clause one. New states may be
(09:44):
admitted by the Congress into this Union, but no new
state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of
any other state, nor any state be formed by the
junction of two or more states or parts of states,
without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned,
as well as the Congress. And then this, just for
(10:09):
giggles and grins, let's read the second clause. The Congress
shah of the power to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property
belonging to the United States. And nothing in this Constitution
shall be construed as to prejudice any claims of the
United States or of any particular state.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
That's it.
Speaker 5 (10:31):
That is it. So I told you.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
That I had a listener in the I think it's
the area code four old. No, not four five five
one four No, I'm sorry, three one zero, area code
three one zero, wherever the hell that is. I don't
know where it is. Who said I was wrong? And
that it requires a minimum of sixty thousand inhabitants in
order for a geographical area to be considered as a state.
(10:57):
And I said, no, you're wrong. That that was originally
in the Articles of Confederation. They had a clause in
there that said that of the original thirteen state the
original thirteen colonies, none could be considered as states until
they reached the minimum population of sixty thousand. But the
Articles of Confederation were rejected and instead, in seventeen eighty
(11:21):
nine we adopted the US Constitution, and that's what it says,
there is no population requirement. So I had texted the
individual back and said, no, you know, I did my research.
I kind of think you ought to do your research
and you'll realize that it's not true. Well he comes
back again today and it's and I really do believe, and.
Speaker 5 (11:45):
I'm using him as an her whoever it is doesn't
any difference.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
As an example of there are no facts anymore. I
you know, when I'm death scrolling through Facebook, book or
my ex account, there are so many times that I
run across stories that I I say to myself instantaneously,
(12:11):
that's that's just somebody something that's AI has done this,
photoshop has done it. Someone's just made up this crap.
This is this is so unbelievable that it's it's not true.
And rarely, if ever, do I do any of my
own research on those topics because I know I'm going
(12:33):
to spend any time on it on air. But then
there are stories that are so blatantly false that I think, well,
let me see what other people are saying. So I'll
go back into my ex account or I'll do it
on my Facebook account, and I'll do a search to
find all the stories where that's being talked about. And
if I find that a lot of people are talking
(12:55):
about it, then I think, Okay, well here we go again. Nobody.
And when I say nobody, I'm not talking about this,
I'm not talking about you, because because I know that
now we all fall prey occasionally to false stories. We
all fall prey to something that we think is true
to turn out that's absolutely not true. And we've had
(13:17):
we've had that happen on air, and Dragon I have
fully admitted that we've you know, we've been we've been
played and we've been fooled, and we'll I'm back and
we'll freely admitted and it is embarrassing. But we also
make fun of him because it shows that it can
it can happen to anybody.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
Well, I wake up.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
This morning because I kept looking waiting for this person
to respond, and I finally get the response at let's
see this. Yeah, it was at one o'clock this morning,
one seventeen forty this morning. Uh, Gouber number five six
five six four rights, Michael. Technically, an island with ten
(13:58):
residents could become a state. Let's just stop right there,
because that is factually true. If Congress found a little
piece of land somewhere that had ten people on it
and they wanted to make it a state, and it
wasn't contiguous, you know, it wasn't part of another state.
It wasn't like, let's take the Oklahoma Panhandle of the
(14:18):
Texas Panhandle, or it wasn't like the area of four
corners that you know where you've got that marker, so
you've got but there's really no inhabitants there. There might be,
you know, within a certain square miles, there might be
ten people living there, but Congress suddenly wanted to make
that a state. H Well, now you've got to get
(14:38):
the approval of of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada
because they're they're are Colorado because they're all they're all
right there in that corner. So now you've got to
have the approval of Congress and those four legislatures all
according to the United States Constitution. So when he says
that technically an island with ten residents could become a state,
(15:01):
that is factually true and that is in adherence to
the US Constitution. But he can't stop, and he goes
on and says, I'm talking about practicality. There has you know,
words mean things to me. And he says there has
(15:21):
always been a de facto population requirement for statehood. No,
there has not. The only time that a population was
considered as any sort of consideration about whether we should
(15:41):
any include a certain amount of population was the Northwest
Ordinance of seventeen eighty seven. It established a pro this
this is let me just back up. While the Constitution
grants Congress the power to emit new states, it does
(16:03):
not specify a minimum population requirement, and Congress has never
set a fixed population threshold for Statehood's Arctic four Section
three I've read, I'm not going to read it again.
Congress has historically determined the conditions for statehood on a
case by case basis, often through enabling acts that outline
(16:28):
specific requirements for a territory to become a state. You
need to establish, you know, a legislature, you need to have,
you know, you need to elect a territorial governor. You
need to do you need to do certain things. But
they've never established a population requirement. The closest that it
(16:48):
ever came was the Northwest Ordinance of seventeen eighty seven,
which said, hey, let's establish a process for the territory
to become a state, including a requirement of sixty thousand
free inhabitants. But historically that was not a requirement. It
became a guideline, it was not a strict rule. So
(17:12):
while the sixty thousand population figure for the Northwest Ordinance
was used as a benchmark, Congress never set a fixed population,
and in fact, even with respect to the Northwest Ordinance,
they abandoned it and they never really considered it. Now,
(17:35):
it may seem like you that it's a difference without
a distinction, or even a distinction without a difference, but
it's neither. It's I think that we we come to
believe certain things, and when we get I'm as guilty
as anybody when we get challenged on beliefs that become
(17:59):
in our brains and somebody says, oh, no, look over here,
that's not true. We refuse to believe it. And part
of that is part of a greater problem. We don't
know our history, we've taught, We've become too reliant on
whatever doctor Google tells us, and we just live in
(18:23):
a world now where I honestly believe facts just don't matter.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Trunk can't run for a third term.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
It's prohibited by the constitution because there's some lawyer out
there coming up with some wild idea. Probably so is
it constitutional? Probably not?
Speaker 5 (18:40):
Michael tell Dragon, this is getting a little bit on
the old side.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
Well, you just did, and I don't know. Let me
go to the text line again. The well, there's too
many coming in and I can't I can't find it.
But one, I don't know what you're talking about. Two
(19:08):
I don't have in Oh, I think I possibly could.
I think there is a program that I can pull
up on one of these monitors that has a collection
of sound bites. Now, I also play sound bites from
our clipping service from my laptop or sometimes from from
(19:32):
one of the company computers. But those are all sound bites,
so I don't I truly don't know what you Honestly,
you just don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 4 (19:41):
I do like this tech message, though. Mike Trump could
run as a vice president, kill the president, and then
be elected as president.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
That's the only way, and.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
Which is interesting because I looked at that and I thought,
do I want to talk about that? And I wasn't
going to talk about it, but that you brought it up,
I'll talk about it, okay. And the answer is no.
Speaker 4 (20:00):
I don't think you can murder, right, and you can
still be president.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
You missed the operative verb kill, so that's not protected
by presidential immunity.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
If the president then gets epsteined me.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
But once again, it's Guba number sixty seven ninety one
points it out. Best of all, Mike Trump is getting derailed.
He can maintain momentum if he sticks to the eighty
twenty issues impacting the majority of Americans. Canada as the
fifty first state running for a third term, et cetera,
just fuels the opposition. Putting the eighty twenty issues on
(20:43):
a back burner or at risk of not being completed,
though not an eighty twenty issue. Greenland should be a
friendly negotiation, not a hostile takeover. And I think that's
you know, interestingly, I think this his style of negotiation.
You start at the worst, the least acceptable starting point. Yeah,
(21:07):
we're just gonna take you over.
Speaker 4 (21:08):
It didn't y'all ever Watch pawn Stars. One side starts
with the most amount of money, the other starts with
the least amount of money, and you come to an
agreement in the middle.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
And in this case, Denmark says no way. Trump says, fine,
We're just gonna invade it and take it over. And
what are we doing now now we're having conversations about it. Yeah,
so but yeah, killing the vice president that that's just
not gonna work. And and by the way, if you
go back and you read, uh, I'm just gonna lay
(21:41):
this out here slowly for the kids in the back
of the room, and then I just want you to
contemplate it.
Speaker 5 (21:51):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
The twenty second Amendment, Section one. No person shall be
elected to the office of the President more than twice.
No person shall be elected to the office of the
President more than twice, And no person who has held
the office of President or acted as president for more
(22:19):
than two years of a term to which some other
person was elected. President shall be elected to the office
of the president more than once. But this article shall
not apply to any person holding the office of the
president when this article is proposed. So, but that's immaterial.
(22:41):
But go to the second sentence. No person who has
held the office of the president that's Trump, or acted
as president for more than two years of a term
for which somebody else was elected. No person shall be
(23:03):
elected to the office of the president more than once.
So just stop, because it's it's it's just not going
to happen. And why Peter Deucey would bring the question up,
I think, you know, it's the danger of and I
(23:27):
think sometimes they really do. I don't care how of
a diehard supporter you may be of Trump, and I
do think that the Deucy family probably they probably are
Trump supporters. But sometimes you just can't. It's like asking
me questions that you know are going to derail me.
It's asking me questions you know, it's a squirrel that
(23:48):
I'm going to chase.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Never happens.
Speaker 5 (23:50):
Never happens.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
So sometimes out of just being smart ass listeners, which
I know there's very very few of you. You'll ask
those questions just to see what kind of reaction you
can get. There is some sad news though. On the
White House. A southern magnolia tree that was originally planned
by President Jackson, one of Donald Trump's favorite, is going
(24:16):
to be removed from its position. Now that's how the
story read. Now, we had a tree that we had
to get, uh, that we had to have taken out.
I didn't call somebody and say, hey, I've got a
tree that's dead, could you remove it from its position?
(24:39):
I just found that that that line in the story. Funny,
I've got a dead tree? Could you remove it from
its position? Okay, you want to put us put it
in a different position, right, Yeah, that's where my head went, right.
You need to remove this tree from its position. Okay,
put it over there? Yeah, okay, So where in the
yard do you want us to put it?
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Now?
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Well, I don't I actually I want you to put
it in the back of your truck and take it away. Oh,
this is because of safety concern They have to do
it because of safety concerns.
Speaker 5 (25:09):
And here the thing.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
I find interesting about it, which shows you how much
he loves Andrew Jackson. The announcement was made Sunday, and
because I had an account on Truth Social, but I
never go to Truth Social highlighting concerns regarding the deteriorating
deteriorating condition of the tree is a Southern magnolia. It
originated from Jackson's personal estate down in Tennessee. It was
(25:33):
planned to commemorate his wife, who had passed away prior
to his presidency, and in the post, Trump noted the
tree significant, saying this quote, one of the interesting dilemmas
is a tree planted many years ago by the legendary
President in General Andrew Jackson. Now, attention was drawn to
the tree's current state. Its current condition described by Trump
(25:57):
as being in terrible condition and a very dangerous safety
hazard at a crucial White House location. So the President
was assured and did assure that the trees would would
not be wasted. The historic wood from the tree will
be preserved by the White House staff, adding that they're
going to try to find some high and noble purpose
(26:19):
for it in the future, which I think is kind
of interesting. So we get the Resolute Desk from England,
so maybe the Andrew Jackson tree will be made into
a conference room table or into chairs to put in
the Roosevelt Room. I mean, any number of things. But
(26:40):
I just thought it was interesting because we're going to
change the position. Jared Polus just signed House Built twenty five,
ten forty one, which for me is proof that Jared Polus,
that mouth of his is amazing. He can but that
(27:06):
mouth of Jared Polus is amazing because he can talk
out of both sides of that mouth like nobody's business talking. Gotcha, Okay, yeah, yeah,
I have no clue what you were talking about. He
preaches transparency all the time. You know, I'm going to
be transparent. You know, everybody claims they're going to be
the most transparent administration in the history of humanity. Blah
(27:27):
blah blah blah blah blah blah. Anytime they tell you that,
you know they're lying to you, right, because while telling
you that out of one side of that mouth, out
of the other side of the mouth, he's signing legislation
that actually strips away transparency. And House Built twenty five
ten forty one is one of those that makes the name,
image and likeness contracts that these student athletes are signing
(27:49):
between themselves and taxpayer funded universities confidential. Now, why if
if those students who are playing on a taxpayer funded
university team of any sort, I don't care whether it's football, baseball, hockey,
I don't care what it is.
Speaker 5 (28:11):
We ought to be able to know that.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
But also he has he's also signed legislation that ranchers
that get paid because the imported wolves that might kill
their cattle, they're also protected from disclosure. Well, why we're
paying somebody tax money because your wolf got or your wolf,
(28:36):
your your one of your steers got killed by a wolf,
and we're going to compensate you a quarter of a
million dollars. Why are we hiding that? Why is that
not discoverable? Why is it not subject to the Open
Records Act? And then there was this one I found
(28:56):
taxpayer paid teachers. Public school teachers can now hide their
disciplinary records. Wait a minute, don't parents have a right
to see those disciplinary records? If your teacher has a
long has a rap sheet, let's just call it a
(29:17):
rap sheet. Your teacher has a rap seat rap sheet,
don't you have a right to know before you put
your kid in that class? Or don't you have a
right to ask your child to be transferred from that
class because your teacher has a bunch of disciplined problems.
So the point is, the next time you hear Polish
using that stupid mouth of is to talk about transparency.
Remember all of those things that he's always trying to
(29:40):
hide from you the taxpayers.
Speaker 4 (29:44):
Hey, fellas, yep, I don't believe that it'll happen with
a third term, but.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
Just keep in mind that wouldn't be the first time
a president got a third term.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
Well, it'd be the first time a president got a
third term since the twenty second Amendment. We learned our
lesson with FDR and said, nah, yeah, we're not gonna
do that anymore. And then somebody asked, where's that one dragon? Oh,
actually there's some really good Uh this is Gouber five
four five zero four seven, Mike one. If Trump declares
(30:16):
martial law, can he stay president? Well, actually, you mean
any good You mean like Zelinske, like Zelensky exactly, the
Insurrection Act of eighteen o seven. Very familiar with it
because we actually I sat on Air Force one with
White House Counsel, Deputy Attorney General, the National Security Advisor
(30:39):
and started putting together the papers for Bush to authorize
the implementation of the Insurrection Act of eighteen o seven.
That's a federal law that empowers the President of the
United States to deploy the military, to federalize National Guard
troops within the United States in circumstances in order to
(31:02):
suppress things like civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion.
Speaker 5 (31:07):
And that's how bad things were in New Orleans. And
we are on.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
The precipice of getting that done when Governor Blanco said, hey,
can we have a little more time And Bush said, okay, yeah,
we'll give you twenty.
Speaker 5 (31:18):
Four more hours, which was the death knell for me.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
But yeah, he could invoke the Insurrection Act, impose martial law,
and then become a dictator. Now what do you think
how would he enforce it? See you play all these
scenarios out, and you realize that this is why like
she Jing Ping has disappeared, and at one general has
(31:46):
been disappeared. Another general had a sudden heart attack or something,
and now he's so ill he can't be a general anymore,
and he's confined to his home. Huh, because she Gen
Ping doesn't trust his military, because he has to have
the military in order to stay in power. So at
what point under our system do you think that the
(32:09):
Secretary of Defense or somebody else would say, Nope, I'm
not following that order. That's an unconstitutional order, and we
refuse to enforce it, and we're not going to do it.
You see, we got great checks and balances built into
our system. The problem, the one problem that we do
have in terms of checks and balances is that, well
(32:32):
they're not always enforced. I love this, except it infuriates me.
The guy's name is Ignatio Cruz Mendoza. He's a citizen
of Mexico. He's been removed from the United States, or
some people are arguing that he's been voluntarily returned to
(32:54):
Mexico sixteen times since two thousand and two. So in
twenty three years he's been deported or asked to leave
the country sixteen times.
Speaker 5 (33:14):
Now.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
He was sentenced for reckless driving resulting in death after
killing one and injuring several others in a car accident
here in Colorado in June of last year.
Speaker 5 (33:30):
Now, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (33:32):
I am a lawyer, so I don't know what the
insinuating circumstances are here, but reckless driving resulting in death.
What do you think it's jail sentence was I mean,
it's could it could have originally been vehicular homicide, don't
(33:52):
know whether it was or not, and it could have
been reduced to reckless driving resulting in death. One year
in jail, he was already being released from Jefferson County
Detention Center. According to Denver, seven ICE agents made the
arrest when he was released from jail. And this is
(34:17):
not the only one. March twenty five, Raphael Cabrera Baron,
who has already been removed from the United States twice
convictions for sexual assault on a child. Probably need some
more taxpayer relief shops, is what we need.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
Anyway.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
There's about five or six of them listed here right
here in little Low Colorado. That's what sanctuary city status
will get you. It will get you killed or your
child sexually assaulted.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.