4-28-25 - 8am - Media Reaction to Judge Arrested

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Isn't it ironic that Sedir Sanders number is number two
because that's what his draft pick took.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
Everyone have a great day, number two.

Speaker 3 (00:11):
I thought he went like him, though, I'm assuming he's
talking about number two is in fecal dump.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
Oh okay, okay, yeah, yeah, you know I I I
didn't really care about the draft, but I found that
whole scenario fascinating because talk about a meritocracy. Just because
your dad happens to be somebody famous doesn't mean that

(00:42):
coaches around the country, team owners, their general managers, everybody
else is going to go, oh, we need to pick
that guy just because well he's he's so and So's kids,
so and So's kid. No, they care about picking what
they need for their particular organization so that they can win.

(01:04):
Pure meritocracy. And so I just watched the fascination about
Some people were like, I can't believe this is happening,
and other people were like, well, maybe he's not nearly
as good as you think he is, or maybe you
know what, No, I don't want to exit this computer

(01:25):
is so weird. Maybe they don't understand that your perspective
as an observer, because that's what a sports fan is
you're just an observer of You're a so bizarre. You're
an observer of a business activity. At the end of

(01:49):
the day, that's what you really are. Nothing wrong with
I'm just saying's anything wrong with that? You're just an
observer of a business activity. And much like Dragon and
I observed the business ide activity of this organization and think, well,
we wouldn't do it that way, we would do it
this way or this way. But we're not the owners, correct,
We're not the ones that make those decisions. Correct, So

(02:11):
we can talk about it all day long, and it
doesn't it doesn't mean crappy, that's right, doesn't mean didly.
So I found that whole situation hilarious because everybody's a quarterback.
Let's good. I want to talk about judges for a minute,
because in our order of government and our system of government,

(02:35):
they are probably the only people who should don't always,
but should subordinate their personal opinions to the demands of
the law. Politicians, people that run for office, They run
basically saying what they think the law should be or

(02:58):
what they want the law to be, and their whole
personal belief system is and ess it's what we vote on.
When we vote on a politician, you think about every
factor that goes into voting for or against someone, the
way they dress, the way they think, the way they speak,

(03:19):
how much charisma they have or do not have.

Speaker 3 (03:21):
Where they wear a blue suit too well, I know
they wear.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
A blue suit to a funeral. Oh my god. We'll
talk about that in a minute. It's all about personal judges.
Why do you think you wear black robes? They wear
black robes because we don't want to judge the color
of their suit in the courtroom. We want them all
to look uniform and totally neutral. So when that kind

(03:49):
of compact about judges being subordinating their personal passions, when
that's broken, the consequences are awful because if you're a victim,
and by victim, I mean like in this case, you're
the victim of domestic abuse, or let's say you've been

(04:10):
the victim of a contractor that didn't do their job
and you're out the money and so you're suing them
to get your money back, you're a victim, or you
are you're in a criminal court and you've been accused
of a crime that you're not guilty of. You're a victim. Well,

(04:32):
all the defendants when they see this kind of stuff
go on, or when they see somebody being railroaded Donald Trump.
There are even some Democrats who will some publicly, mostly private,
say that, you know that case, or the New York case,

(04:53):
or the Georgia case, or the Marlago case, whatever case is,
the January sixth case, saying, if you go back in
you know, ancient history, which is what prior to November
of twenty twenty four, you would find some Democrats who
would quietly say, yeah, this, these cases really stink. We
shouldn't be doing that. That's when people start to lose

(05:16):
trust in the system. That's when citizens lose trust that
the system operates for their benefit rather than for ideological favors.
So it becomes tempting and then in the emotional heat
of the particularly of the immigration debate, to view the

(05:37):
law as a blunt instrument that needs circumvention. When officials,
that are when government officials they have the cult of
public authority, when they try to nullify the law, it
is the weakest and the most vulnerable who suffer the first.

(06:00):
You probably don't remember, but during when Brown v. Board
of Education was decided and the whole idea that separate
but equal was unconstitutional and that equal protection really did
apply to everybody and you couldn't discriminate. Even though you
were trying to say, oh, we're going to send the
black kids to the black schools, but only it'll be

(06:21):
the same as the white schools. There was this massive
resistance to that because we hadn't become enlightened and we
still believed in it. Fascinating because going back to that
decision in nineteen fifty four, we believed that segregation was wrong,

(06:42):
but a large portion of this popular of that population
believe the segregation is okay. We've gone full circle in
the short what seventy years or so since nineteen fifty four,
to where people are beginning to self segregate again and

(07:04):
when college campuses have programs or Over the weekend, I
told a story about the governor of Washington signed into
law a program that gives one hundred twenty thousand dollars
to black first time home buyers. Now, if you you

(07:31):
get the money gradus, you don't have to show that
you've been discriminated against. You don't have to show any
sort of past discrimination like you would if you were
trying to seek reparations or anything. You just go apply
you you want that. You're a first time home buyer.
Your skin color is black, so you get one hundred
and twenty grand to go buy a home. And then

(07:53):
when you dig into the law you find out that actually,
if you are are you a good citizen and you make
your mortgage payments for a certain number I forget what
it is a certain number of years, you don't have
to pay it back. It's just I know, it's an oxymoron.
It's free money. How could that possibly pass? Muster, How

(08:21):
could that possibly not be discriminatory? Well, go back to
Brown v. Board of Education. The people that opposed the
integration of schools claimed to act in defense of a
higher moral and parody, just like this judge was. She
was acting because this guy was not afford to do process.

(08:43):
Oh yes he was. So when a judge sabotages immigration
enforcement today, they don't advance human rights. They actually degrade
human rights. They trade the universal protection of lawful process
for the arboritu trade dictates the personal preferences. They insert
themselves into the law. They decide what the law is,

(09:07):
as opposed to just saying, oh, here's the law. That
may apply to this case. So what do they do.
They invite even further executive overreach because now the publics
can become even more frustrated with this lawlessness and they're
going to demand even more order, which is a very

(09:28):
dangerous trend toward authoritarianism. So when you let's back up, now,
I gave you the examples in the last hour of
other judges who have been physically arrested. So the criminal
complaint I'm not going to read through. If you want

(09:49):
to hear that, I read through the criminal complaint on Saturday.
The criminal complaint talks about how she did certain things
that were add normal in her courtroom the jury box normally.
In fact, the jury box is a fairly sacred place.
You don't just walk into a courtroom and sit in
the jury box. And the jury boxes are designed so

(10:12):
that they have utter privacy and they're protected from the public.
So there's a door that leads to the jury to
the jury box, and when you exit that jury box
door inside the courtroom, it takes you into a back hallway.
This is true in almost every court room in the country,
Like I would venture to say it's true in every
court room in the country, because they don't want that

(10:35):
jury to have to interact with the public until they're
gone for the day, and then of course you're on
your own. So it leads to the jury room where
they're going to deliberate or where they're going to spend
their time, you know, during a you know, a court
recess or whatever, and it protects them from the public.
So this judge, upon hearing and learning that ICE agents

(10:59):
were outside her courtroom to arrest this defendant when he
was when his case was excused for the day. I
don't want to say it was dismissed, because it wasn't dismissed,
but when that hearing was over and he was allowed
to leave the courtroom, she actually instructed the defendant and
his lawyer to go sit in a jury box because

(11:21):
she was planning malice of forethought. She knew exactly what
she was going to do. She was going to have
them exit through the jury box door so that they
could then lead them outside the back door of the
courthouse through the garage of the back door. However, they
were going to take them out so that he could
avoid being detained arrested by Ice. She knew deliberately what

(11:45):
she was doing. She was violating the law. She was
no different in that regard than the judge in New
Mexico who was actually housing a Trendo Arragua member. Can
you imagine judging that for someone that was waiting to

(12:05):
be Let's say that they were there for a domestic
abuse hearing, just like this guy was. But there were
FBI agents waiting outside the courthouse because he was about
to be arrested on federal rocketeering charges, or federal tax
evasion charges, or federal conspiracy to commit whatever, you know,
some federal crime of some sort. What's the difference between

(12:27):
that and because he is a felon, he's already been
deported once, he hasn't expedited deportation order. What's the difference
between that and any other federal criminal defendant? Would there
be the same outrage? Would I be as upset if that?
If that illegal alien was waiting to be arrested on

(12:50):
let's just say he had committed the crime, the federal
crime of I don't know, insurrection. How about that he
had been he was wonderful a January sixth interaction chart.
I'd still be upset because this country is really unique

(13:12):
in how our judicial system operates. The law is no
respector of persons, no king, no priests, no judge, no
individual finds himself above the law. And what the media
is now trying to convince you is that this judge

(13:32):
did everything wrong and that Ice and the FBI were
wrong to arrest the New York Times. Let's start with
the New York Times. This is from PBS's News Hour.

(13:53):
This is David Brooks, the so called conservative, a commentator
at the New York Times.

Speaker 1 (14:02):
Well, obviously they're trying to send a note of intimidation,
not only to her, but to all judges and maybe
to all Americans.

Speaker 2 (14:10):
But I don't yet know this intimidating. By enforcing the law,
you're intimidating. Well, I might argue that he may be right,
because anytime that we enforced drug laws, traffic laws, murder laws,
whatever laws reinforce, we're actually sending a message to anybody

(14:30):
else I might want to commit that crime. Here's what's
going to happen to you.

Speaker 4 (14:35):
Now.

Speaker 2 (14:35):
Whether the word intimidation is right or not, I would
say no, But it's sending the message that yes, reinforced
the laws equally and no one. Remember Democrats kept telling
us about when Trump was being tried that no one
was above the law. Well, mister Brooks, where did.

Speaker 1 (14:51):
That go specific details of this case, whether she escorted
the guy at the jury door, or whether she's letting
them or it's so that's all Mark, I don't want
to comment on this specific case.

Speaker 2 (15:00):
Yeah, I don't want to come out on a specification
because I don't really want to deal with the facts
that we're in the criminal complaint about what she actually
said and did physically in the courtroom. Yeah, I don't
want to go that direction because that's going to put
me in a box, and I don't want to put
myself in a box.

Speaker 1 (15:13):
But especially on the issue of immigration, there are a
lot of people who are appalled by what the administration
is doing.

Speaker 2 (15:21):
Really, yeah, there are, because there are people in this
country who think that they're they're open border advocates. They
think that we all just let anybody in any time,
doesn't make any difference what your background is, but you know,
whether you're going to live off the government tee for
the rest of your life or what. There are people,
there are truly people in this country that think that
we should not have borders at.

Speaker 1 (15:42):
All, and there will be times for civil disobedience. And
to me, if she, let's say she did escort this
guy out the door, if federal enforcement agencies come to
your courtroom and you help a guy escape, that is
two things.

Speaker 2 (15:57):
Well, I see what happened here.

Speaker 1 (16:01):
One, it strikes me as maybe something illegal, but it
also strikes me as something heroic, really heroic.

Speaker 2 (16:12):
A judge helping someone avoid the long or short arm
of the law by hiding him, basically hiding him, helping
him escape from arrest a judge, and David Brooks has
the temerity to say to kind of strikes me as
something heroic.

Speaker 1 (16:32):
And in times of trouble then people are sometimes called
to do civil disobedience. And in my view, when people
do civil disapience, they have to pay the price. That's
part of the heroism of it, frankly. And so you
can both think that she shouldn't have legally done this
and that morally protecting somebody against but maybe not even
in this case, but in other cases.

Speaker 2 (16:53):
See, he really doesn't want to focus on this case.
He wants to focus on the grand theory. And I agree,
civil disobedience is fine, but you pay the consequences of
civil disobedience, and if there is enough, if there are
enough people who join you in civil disobedience, then you
might be able to effectuate change, which is the all

(17:13):
purpose of civil disobedience. But that's not what she was doing.
She just thought that she wasn't going to have this
guy arrested, and she was going to Jesus doesn't think
that Trump should be deporting people, and so she's going
to do everything she can to prevent that.

Speaker 1 (17:32):
Frankly, a predatory enforcement agency.

Speaker 2 (17:35):
A predatory enforcement agent, there's all you need to know
about David Brooks.

Speaker 3 (17:39):
Wouldn't all enforcement agencies then be predatory? If that's the
ways classifying I mean.

Speaker 2 (17:47):
Exactly, they're all evil, They're all predatory. That's David Brooks.
But listen to do I have I don't have time.
Of all people I want you to hear from when
we get back Andy McCabe, former Deputy director of the FBI.

(18:10):
Wait to hear what he has to say, because, oh, well,
say too, because as a former FBI guy and as
corrupt as he may have been in terms of Rucket Gate, well,
he's on the spot here.

Speaker 4 (18:36):
It is always important to pay attention to the words
that the left and mainstream news media used to twist
a story over the past few days. They were enraged
that a judge was arrested. No, that's not the story.
The judge illegally blocked federal agents and helped a foreign
criminal avoid arrests. That is the story.

Speaker 2 (19:02):
And it's called obstruction of justice by a judge, and
a judge not even like obstructing justice like the you know,
at least the judge in New Mexico wasn't sitting on
the bench, literally sitting on the bench at the time.
He was at home. But while he was sitting on
the bench, he had somebody illegally in his home. I

(19:25):
just all of this is just mind boggling to me.
But it shows the depth of how desperate the left
is to stop us from going down this exit ramp
that we're currently on. Listen, listen to Andy mckabe.

Speaker 5 (19:45):
But it's also not a you know, it's not an
unreasonable complaint. There's plenty of evidence in the complaint to
get you beyond the probable cause phase, all.

Speaker 2 (19:54):
Right, at least he admits that the complaint is valid,
which is where we are right now.

Speaker 5 (19:59):
And I think when you start looking at how the
judge was treated after the events that led to the charge.
So where and when and how she was arrested, and
the fact that she was arrested at the courthouse rather
than her own residence, the fact that she was placed
in a jail cell for hours before her arraignment was
called in the court later in the afternoon. These things

(20:19):
are unprecedented.

Speaker 6 (20:22):
No, they are not.

Speaker 3 (20:23):
It sounds perfectly normal to me, And none of these
things have ever happened to me and barely anybody that
I even know. But that sounds normal to you, doesn't it.

Speaker 2 (20:33):
Yeah, And in fact, I would make the case dragon
that she should have been arrested because they she was
committing the crime in front of them. So no matter
how long it took them to get the affidavit and
get the warrant, the fact that she committed that, what

(20:56):
they did, they just went back to the locus of
the crime. Here's where you committed the crime before. And
you know, we're working nine to five today and so
are you. So here we are. But let me just
make the argument that so what if if we You know,

(21:19):
I've been making jokes about how local law enforcement, this
Colorado State Patrol and different sheriff's apartments and police departments
have been posting on Facebook all the time all of
their camcording cam recordings about their dash cam recordings, about
you know, I stopped this speed or I stopped this
drunk driver, or look I was pulled over and this

(21:41):
guy you know, past this too close or too fast.
Why do you think they're doing that? Because they want
to send the message that they're out there enforcing the law.
And that is a form of If you want to
use the word intimidation, that's fine, it's a form of intimidation.
I also argues the form of public service that you're

(22:02):
trying to inform the public. Hey, this is if this
is what's going to happen. So if it's okay for
the local yogals to do it, it's okay for the
FBI and DHS to do it.

Speaker 5 (22:15):
Typically, upstanding members of the community who have no criminal
history and aren't accused of a violent act are allowed
to self surrender at the time of their arraignment. The
fact that they did not offer that courtesy to her
and instead went out.

Speaker 2 (22:28):
Of their way to treat her harshly, I.

Speaker 5 (22:31):
Believe is an active performative cruelty on behalf of the
Department of Justice, which is not the way any Department
of Justice should be acting.

Speaker 2 (22:39):
Wait a minute, Performative cruelty? Would that be like videos
of FBI agents going through Millennia Trump's personal effects in
our bedroom. Performative cruelty? Would that be like taking photos
of boxes that you've opened and arranging the evidence and

(23:03):
then putting top secret covers on top of or you know,
kind of laying near and then taking photo of that
and distributing that to the public. Is that the kind
of performative cruelty that you're talking about. Or showing up
at the home of a former president that is subject
to and is being protected by armed Secret Service agents

(23:25):
and you show up with an armed SWAT team at
his private residence, I'd say that's kind of performative too.
But now we're outraged. We're outraged because, well, it's a
judge doing something that we don't like. But I want
to go to the experts of experts, the Honorable Chucky

(23:51):
Schumer turning the Trump's immigration pridge.

Speaker 7 (23:54):
This week, Trump's FBI arrested Milwaukee Circuit Court judge kind
Of do Get, who now faces federal charges for allegedly
obstructing the arrest of an undocumented immigrant by ICE agents,
and hearing has been said for May sixteenth. In the
case of a two year old US citizen deported to

(24:17):
Honduras with her mother, the federal judge handling the case
says it appears the child may have been removed without
meaningful due process. Immigration advocates have been warning with.

Speaker 2 (24:31):
The Reverend Sharptons introduced something new to me. I know
of procedural due process and substanty due process, but there's
also apparently meaningful due process.

Speaker 7 (24:42):
You're on the verge of a constitutional crisis. Has that
crisis arrived, Senator, Yes.

Speaker 2 (24:49):
It has.

Speaker 8 (24:49):
Unfortunately because what their Trump wants to be king, the
king doesn't have a constitution. The king just does whatever
he wants, and BEYONDI just goes along with him. They're
trying to intimidate judges. This is not the first time
or the second they've said they want to impeach judges.
They said they're going to go after judges who don't
agree with them.

Speaker 2 (25:10):
Wait wait, wait, wait, wait, Chuck Schumer, didn't he say
something one time about reap the whirlwind, something about that. Well,
I don't remember, but it was I'm pretty sure it
was Chuck Schumer that made some really kind of awful comments, and.

Speaker 6 (25:30):
Your senator from New York across the street to join
a pro abortion rally outside the Supreme Court building, where
he made deeply disturbing comments about two of the justices
sitting on the Supreme Court. He said these words, and
I quote, I want to tell you Gorsic, I want
to tell you Kavanaugh, you've released the whorldwind and you will.

Speaker 2 (25:54):
Pay the price.

Speaker 6 (25:55):
You won't know what hits you if you go forward
with these awful DECI close quote. He certainly didn't mince words.
The minority leader of the United States Senates threatened to
sitting Supreme Court justices based on the potential outcome of
a case they are considering.

Speaker 2 (26:16):
On the potential outcome of a case that they are considering.

Speaker 8 (26:20):
And he just goes along with them. They're trying to
intimidate judges. This is not the first time or the second.

Speaker 2 (26:27):
They yeah, because you've done it too. He said. They
want to impeach judges.

Speaker 8 (26:32):
They said, they're going to go after judges who don't
agree with them.

Speaker 2 (26:35):
Hmmm, just like you did.

Speaker 8 (26:37):
That is so against the Constitution. The Constitution believes and
has been written with the wisdom and the founding fathers.

Speaker 2 (26:45):
Can we apply that wisdom to the Second Amendment or
the Fourth Amendment of that matter?

Speaker 3 (26:51):
What beat me to itvation of powers?

Speaker 8 (26:55):
There should be an independent judiciary. When you go before
a judge, you think that you hope and believe that
that judge is impartial. What Trump, BEYONDI and the whole
Justice Department are trying to do is push that judge,
threaten that judge, so the judge is no longer impartial.

Speaker 2 (27:10):
It is out. Wait a minute, they're trying now. The
judge showed her impartiality by favoring a criminal defendant that
was in front of her on an unrelated charge. She
showed that defendant favoritism by giving him an escape route.

(27:33):
And Chuck has the audacity to cluedge is impartial.

Speaker 8 (27:36):
What Trump BEYONDI and the whole Justice Department are trying
to do is push that judge, threaten that judge, so
the judge is no longer impartial.

Speaker 2 (27:44):
So the judge is no longer impartial. Future tense. She
already did that, She's the one that did it. But
typical Democrat, they don't want to take on personal responsibility.

Speaker 8 (28:00):
Outrageous in both cases. In both cases, you can't believe
what they said. You know, in the case with the
two year old girls, they're saying, oh, the mother wanted
a take her, well, she's entitled to do process. The
father says that's not true. And I don't believe ice
or anything they say because they've made up things so
many times in the past.

Speaker 2 (28:19):
Okay, then let's apply that standard to the Democrats at large.
They lied so many times in the past. I don't
believe anything they say. That's the new standard. We just
can't believe anything that anybody says. These people are out
of their freaking minds, absolutely out of their freaking minds.

Speaker 6 (28:42):
Then is this administration testing the waters of what kind
of rhetoric they can use.

Speaker 9 (28:47):
Around immigration crackdowns?

Speaker 2 (28:48):
I mean, how do you think this is going to
be seeing big picture?

Speaker 10 (28:51):
Well, I do certainly think they're sending a message here.
Look the headline on this was heartstopping. You know, they
arrest a judge stopping.

Speaker 2 (29:00):
I find this so funny. We you know, we've actually
had federal judges impeached too. I can't remember the guy's name,
man in Florida, Uh that was He eventually became a congressman. Yeah,
he gets impeached for corruption on the bench. So since
he's got those qualifications, he runs for congress Alsie Hastings
was his name. It becomes a United States Congressman from

(29:22):
Florida because he got all of his training on the
bench about how to be corrupt and then gets impeached
and removed from the bench and run for Congress.

Speaker 10 (29:33):
But then you look at the facts of the matter,
they're actually pretty bad for her. He does if you
believe the charging document.

Speaker 2 (29:42):
Notice they have to they've got to preserve a little
bit of credibility. If you look at the facts, well,
you know she was wrong, But that's not the issue.
The issue is they actually frog marched her out to
a car.

Speaker 11 (29:58):
Okay, So what it does sound like there were people
Ice agents who had a warrant for this person's arrest
and she gave him the run around and tried.

Speaker 10 (30:09):
To get the man out of the building without them
seeing it. That is obstruction. She'll obviously have her day
in court. But I do think this actually has the
potential to help Republicans based on or the White House,
based on the found.

Speaker 2 (30:23):
Oh see, this is what MSNBC is really concerned about.
This might actually help Republicans, so they take a simple
basic law enforcement action and turn it into what did
I say earlier? Politics has now infused everything, so you

(30:47):
can only view the lawful arrest of a judge who
violated her oath, who violated the is accused of violating
the law, and she gets arrested like anybody else would.
Oh well, we're upset about it because it might help.

Speaker 5 (31:05):
Republicans, Mike, has anybody asked Chuck Schumer who this mysterious
beyond he is?

Speaker 2 (31:14):
I don't know who he's talking about. Now you can
ask him. Uh So, let's go back now to Tom Holman,
and let's talk briefly about the child that was deportive
without due process. He's on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.

(31:35):
Do you think these people would do better at their
show prep? But they don't.

Speaker 9 (31:41):
Was appointed by President Trump said a two year old
American citizen child had been sent to Honduras with the
mother who was deported, but the judge said, quote, there
was no meaningful process. So again, this is another similar
situation and dynamic. Shouldn't there be special care when these

(32:02):
deportation cases involve small American born children?

Speaker 12 (32:09):
So First of all, I disagree with the judge. It
was due process. That female had due processes at great
taxpayer expense and was ordered by the immigration judge after
those hearings, so she had due process.

Speaker 2 (32:21):
Again, this is parenting one on one.

Speaker 12 (32:23):
You can decide to take that child with you, or
you can decide to leave a child here with a
relative or another spouse. Having your assistant child doesn't make
you immune from our laws of the country. American families
get separated every day by law enforcement, thousands of times
a day. When a parent gets put in jail, the
child can't go with them. These If you're an able
togo Ani come to this country and you decide to
have your assistant child, that's on you. You put yourself

(32:46):
in that position.

Speaker 9 (32:47):
Well, when it came to this particular case, you just
pointed out that they could have made arrangements. The father
tried actually to make arrangements, as we understand it through
our reporting, but he and the mother, who were separated
since she was in detention after showing up for her appointment,
was only a lot of very brief phone call. The
father tried to petition to get the child handed over

(33:08):
to an American citizen relative. So the mother had to
make this decision and took the child with her. It
just seems like there could be some more time frame
here around due process allowed. That's what the judge is saying,
is saying there shouldn't have been more of a process here.

Speaker 12 (33:31):
There was due process. A two year baby. The two
year old baby was left from the mother because the
mother signed the document requesting her two year old baby
go with her. That's a parent's decision. I don't know.
I don't think. The judge no specifics of this case.
A two year old went with a mom. The mom
signed a paper saying I want my two year old
to go with me. That's a parent's decision. It's not

(33:52):
a government decision. As a parent's decision.

Speaker 9 (33:57):
The father wrote a note, we have to leave it there. Director,
thank you for your time to.

Speaker 3 (34:04):
The father did not have custody of the child.

Speaker 2 (34:08):
The mom has custody of the child.

Speaker 3 (34:10):
Who is the government to separate the mother from the child,
and they.

Speaker 2 (34:15):
Asked the mother. So it's not like mom, mom's going
to prison, Mom's going to another country. She's going back
to her home country where she's free to go to work,
do whatever she wants to do. Do you want to
take your child with you or not?

Speaker 3 (34:32):
We give somebody who went through a divorce and having
the child separation stuff happening at that time, and me
being the custodial parent, having custody of the kids and
having then the government say hey, I'm going to take
your kids and give them to your to the mother. No,
I had custody of the kids.

Speaker 2 (34:53):
Which is due process already give. We live in a
whack old world. Oh you don't believe me. We'll just
stay tuned. I'll prove the whack over the world. We
love in