9-6-25 The Weekend Hour 3: Time for Cameras in the Courtrooms. CSPAN?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
To night, Michael Brown joins me here the former FEMA
director talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no Brownie. You're
doing a heck of a job the Weekend with Michael
Brown broadcasting live from Denver, Colorado. You've tuned into the
Weekend with Michael Brown. So happy to have you joining
the program today. You know, we got rules of engagement.
You gotta follow the rules on this program if you
want to tell me anything or ask me anything. We

(00:22):
have a text line that has opened twenty four hours
a day, seven days a week, so whether you're listening
live or delayed, or on the podcast, you can always
TMA tell me anything or AMA ask me anything on
your message after numbers three three one zero three three
three one zero three keyword micro Michael. I'd appreciate it

(00:43):
if you would go follow me on social media. I'm
most active on x formerly Twitter, and that's at Michael
Brown USA at Michael Brown USA. And if you would
be so kind as to subscribe to the podcast, well
we'll send you a check for a couple of thousand dollars.
We we like to play like politicians, so follow, you know,
subscribe to the podcast, you get a check. Now. The

(01:05):
check is going to be hot, or it's gonna be
one of those, you know, big giant cardboard checks, not
worth anything, but you'll get a check. On your podcast app,
search for the Situation with Michael Brown, the Situation with
Michael Brown, get subscribed, leave a five star review, so
we can always climb up in the algorithm, and that
will download for you all five days of the weekday

(01:27):
program that I do Monday through Friday out of Denver,
plus the weekend program, so you'll get all six days
of Michael Brown, and that'll that will solve all your problems.
It'll solve all your problems. A couple of quotes, but
I'm not going to tell you who they came from yet.

(01:48):
The country, according to this person, is past the point
of constitutional crisis. Government officials, this person says, are past
the rubicon. Government officials are abusing their power for social
media clicks, and they're abusing their power to get stats

(02:09):
for press releases. The Department of Justice, according to this person,
is past the point of losing credibility, and in fact,
the Department of Justice, according to this individual, is playing
cops and robbers like kids. The same individual says it

(02:31):
is September four, which was what Thursday. By Thursday was
a busy day, wasn't it. It's September four. As of now,
we still have a constitutional democracy. All of those statements
were made by an individual by the name of Zia Fruki.

(02:52):
I don't know, ze I can do I can figure
that without Zia Faaruki Faaruk fa r u Qui Hm,
who is he? Who is this person? Oh? I just
happen to have his website up. Zia M. Feruki was

(03:15):
appointed as a United States magistrate judge on September fourteen,
twenty twenty. Now. A magistrate judge is a It is
a type of federal judge. Their role is somewhat limited.
That depends on the assignments they get. But they're kind

(03:36):
of like a lower level trial judge. They do ministerial duties.
They have preliminary hearings, they might look at search warrants.
It's just well, they're magistrate judges. I don't have to
describe it. He has both a bachelor's and a jurist

(03:57):
doctorate from Georgetown. He was a litigation associate at Lookiefar
in DC, one of the big big firms. He focused
on government investigations and general commercial litigation. He served for
twelve years as a federal prosecutor in the US Attorney's
Office in Saint Louis and DC. He prosecuted cases involving terrorists,

(04:19):
use of terrorist use of cryptocurrency, North Korean weapons proliferation,
darknet sites dedicated to child exploitation, theft of antiquities. He
also represented the Department of Justice at numerous conferences across
the globe on financial crimes, crypto and national security issues.

(04:39):
Do you want his phone number? I get his phone
number right here. It's on the website. You can go
to DCD dot US Courts dot gov and you can
read all about him. Well, I just read you everything
about him. Why do I even talk about him? Because
everything that I told you that he said, he didn't

(05:02):
say it on x formerly Twitter, he didn't say it
on Facebook, he didn't say it on a TikTok. He
didn't say it on a set of MSNBCCNN, Box News
or any of the other cable channels or any of
the networks. He's not a Democrat candidate for office. He's

(05:22):
not even an online Democrat Party influencer. He's just a
federal magistrate Judge, I'm not trying to diminish it, but
I'm pointing out that this guy think about those comments,
because every comment that I told you he made, he
made in a federal courtroom in DC. Why why would

(05:46):
he go on a tirade like that, Well, he was
handling a case of Edward Dana. Edward Dana is a
career a career criminal, nine convictions, twenty three arrests, who
was on probation at the time of his arrest back

(06:07):
on August seventeen. And when he was arrested, he was
in the midst of another violent act. He was vandalizing
a restaurant while drunk, and Dana told the cops when
he was arrested that he wanted to quote kill the president.
Judge Janine Piro, who is the now US Attorney, I

(06:30):
don't think she's acting anymore. I think she's been confirmed.
I need to double check on that she is either
acting or is the confirmed US Attorney for the District
of Columbia, an incredibly powerful and important position. She was
trying to indict Dana on one simple charge. You can

(06:55):
find that charge in Title eighteen, which is the Federal
Criminal Code eight seventy one making threats against the president.
He did say you wanted He told the cops, I
want to kill the president. He was arrested on the
federal charge on August twenty one. He was released on
August twenty second by one of this magistrate judge's colleagues.

(07:20):
Despite having that career criminal record nine convictions, twenty three arrests,
he was arrested while on probation. At the time of
his arrest back on August seventeen, he didn't even spend
twenty four hours in jail. What this? So we're a

(07:44):
sick country, as we talked about in the first couple
of hours. We're all because we're unhealthy. We're also sick
because we are ruled in our judicial system by a
bunch of judges and a bunch of prosecutors, not Jeanine
pirounch of prosecutors around the country and judges who caught

(08:05):
ale criminals. I find it fascinating. Now, remember Judge Piro
was trying to indict him on one count. Now other
counts too, obviously of vandalizing the restaurant, but one count
of violating eighteen USC. Section eight seventy one making threats
against the president. Now, Pierro did not drop the case

(08:29):
because she didn't have any evidence. She was forced to
resort to a misdemeanor charge because the DC grand jury
refused to bring a felony indictment that was being sought
by the Trump Department of Justice, something that the magistrate
judge actually misrepresented in his stupid meltdown that he had

(08:50):
on the bench. What's the point of all of this?
Stay tuned. It's the Weekend of Michael Brown. Text line
three to three wins zero three keyword Michael Michael go
follow me on x at Michael Brown USA. Hmm, the
case was dropped because of a lack of evidence. Really,

(09:12):
hang on, hey, welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown.
Glad to have you with me. I appreciate you tuning in.
If you want to find one of our three hundred
and fifty plus affiliates around the country, go to this website,
Michael says go here dot com. Michael says go here

(09:34):
dot com, pull down the how to listen tab and
you'll find all the affiliates when they air the program.
When they reair the program. So, if you're traveling around
the country or you're looking for a local radio station.
You can find it at that website, or you can
always use your iHeart app and search for the Weekend
with Michael Brown or the Situation with Michael Brown, and

(09:54):
you can listen Monday through Friday from six to ten
Mountain time, and on the weekend whenever your affiliate carries it.
We're only generally we're always on noon to three Eastern time,
ten to one Mountain time. We're talking about this judge
in the DC District Court, Zia Farouk. I'm just gonna

(10:17):
say Farouk or lack a better way to pronounce it.
So Jean Pierre Jeanine Piro, US attorney for the District
of Columbia, is in the case or is in the courtroom,
seeking one count against this guy violating Title eighteen, Section

(10:38):
eight seventy one making threats against the president. Now, remember
he was arrested. This guy named Dana was arrested on
federal charges on August twenty one, released on August twenty
second by one of this judge's colleagues. Despite this guy
having twenty three arrests, nine conviction and was on probation
at the time that he was caught vandalizing the restaurant

(11:00):
drunk and threatening to kill the president. Now, she did
not drop the case, Judge Piro, the US attorney. Piro
did not drop the case because she didn't have the evidence.
She was forced to resort to a misdemeanor charge because
another DC grand jury refused to bring the felony indictment
that was sought by the Trump Department of Justice, something

(11:23):
that the magistrate judge when he was going off in
his tirade, misrepresented during his meltdown. But you guys, listen
to me on the weekday, not what might wile about.
Butts are the most important thing. I'm gonna say comes
after the butt. This magistrate Judge's conduct is just one

(11:46):
more glaring example of judges acting badly during Trump's presidency.
It occurred in Trump one point oh, and I think
it's even worse than Trump two point zero. Earlier in
the day, NBC News had published a piece featuring comments

(12:07):
by you remember this story. NBC News published a unbelievable
story in which they quoted a dozen unnamed federal judges
who slammed the United States Supreme Court for overturning their

(12:27):
decisions related to the Trump administration and the Supreme Court
didn't give enough of an explanation about why they overturned
the judges ruling, well, whoop poop de doo. The Supreme
Court does not owe you an explanation. You are what's
called an Article three judge, including these magistrate judges. You

(12:52):
are there solely because Congress decided the only you know,
the only court that is established by the the US
Constitution is the US Supreme Court and such other inferior
courts as Congress may designate. So you're there solely because
the Constitution says that if Congress wants to create some

(13:15):
inferior courts to hear cases before they get to the
Supreme Court, it can do so, and it can take
you away, it can take you out. So here here
are And I think I think it was an even
dozen of federal judges complaining that the Supreme Court is

(13:35):
overturning our decisions. Oh, we're so upset, and you're not
telling us why. The reporter of this story for NBC News,
Ken Delenium, wrote this with tensions so high for the
judges said they believe the Supreme Court and specifically Chief
Justice Roberts, the head of the head of the Judiciary,

(13:58):
should do more to defend the courts. One judge was
quoted in this report complaining about the Supreme Court that
the Supreme Court doesn't have our backs. Then another said
that the Supreme Court's decision in favor of the administration
helped the president quote undermine the lower courts and leave
judges feeling that we're being thrown under the bus. What

(14:25):
you are an inferior court, meaning that and I don't
mean it well, I do mean inferior in both the
literal meaning, meaning that you are under the Supreme Court.
But many of these judges and many of these courts
are indeed inferior too, meaning they don't meet the standards

(14:46):
of the Supreme Court. And by the way, you kind
of report to the Supreme Court and you're required to
follow the Supreme Court's rulings, and they don't owe you.
You know sometimes that they've got work to do too,
They've got a lot of And if they decide that
they're going to overrule you and say no, you can't
that injunction is overturned, then you know what your job

(15:08):
is to overturn the injunction as the Supreme Court ordered
you to do and move on. If there's any group
that's responsible for creating trust and then creatoring the trust
in the federal judiciary. I think it's these judges themselves.

(15:31):
They are, as one story reported, collectively bringing dishonor to
the phrase your honor. Think about this. We have courts
all over the country uniformly halting Trump policies with little
or no forethought, no deliberation, just making superfluous political statements

(15:54):
that demonstrate the very bias that they continue to claim
is nonexistent. Do you know that since Trump took office,
at least two federal judges have accused the president of
acting like a king's that's not being very judge like.

(16:14):
That's not being neutral in your rulings or in your comments.
That's being political. Other judges have suggested that Trump is
a racist, a bullyan autocrat. They've called him lawless. In fact,
The New York Times recently documented inflammatory statements made by
a dozen federal judges just over the past couple of months.

(16:38):
And the problem is it's not their outbursts, it's also
judicial overreach, and that judicial overreach, in some cases has
resulted in harsh condemnation from a handful of more thoughtful judges.
Andrew Oldman who is a judge on the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals. He has denounced the judiciary's boundary breaking

(17:03):
behavior as transmugrifying the least dangerous branch in de robed
crusaders who get to play act as multitudinous commanders in chief.
That's a bunch of lawyerly language. But he's saying, wait
a minute. You're just a judge and your role is
to decide cases. Your role is not to pretend that

(17:27):
you're the commander in chief and that you get to
make executive policy. Your job is to interpret the Constitution
or to apply the Constitution to executive actions, or to statutes,
or to cases. Justice score such a Colorado has addressed this,

(17:50):
and I want you to hear what he said, because
I have a theory and I think it's time that
we adopt that theory. So Weeken with Michael Brown, stay tuned.
We'll be right back tonight. Michael Brown joins me here,
the former FEMA director of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie,

(18:13):
You're doing a heck of a job the Weekend with
Michael Brown. Hey, welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown.
Glad to have you with me. I appreciate you tuning in.
We're talking about this magistrate judge in the DC Federal
District Court who goes on a tirade and an NBC
News publishes a report in which twelve federal judges all complain,

(18:34):
bitch and moan about the Supreme Court overturning them and
that sometimes we don't even get a reason and we
just feel like, you know that you're you are just
abusing us, and well maybe maybe you are the ones
that are abusing the system. There is there are standards

(18:56):
for judges. I know you may find that hard to believe,
but there are standard for judges. There's a judicial code
of conduct. Judges need to appear at all times to
be objective, fair, not biased one direction or the other.
And this is and has been an ongoing problem in

(19:17):
our system for generations, but it's gotten worse with Trump.
And somehow they feel emboldened that they can, in the
course of a hearing talk about how you know what
Trump is doing is driving us to a constitutional crisis.
Now I want you to stop and think for it. Think.

(19:39):
I know that not mating this audience is a lawyer,
but I want you to think like a lawyer for
a second. You're in a courtroom. You have the prosecutor,
you have the defense council. This is a criminal case.
So the prosecutors at one table maybe has a couple
of staffers with him or her, and directly two your

(20:03):
left or right, depending on how the courtroom set up,
is another lawyer, and the defendant is sitting over there.
Who's the one person out of let's say the prosecutor
and an assistant, the defense counsel, and the defendant, and
then the judge. The judge has a bailiff. The judge

(20:25):
has a court reporter, So you have four you have
seven people in the courtroom, not counting the bailiff and
the reporter who are not really participants. The bailiff is
there to ensure the quorum, to ensure the safety of
the judge and the people in the courtroom, and the
reporter is there to take a record of everything that

(20:48):
is said, to transcribe the hearing. So of the five people,
the two of the prosecutor's table, the two of the
defense table, and the judge sitting at the bench. Out
of those five people, who should be the most neutral, objective,

(21:12):
unbiased person in that courtroom the judge. The judge is
there to hear the prosecution, to hear from the defense,
and to make a decision about whatever the issue is.
If it's a preliminary hearing, should that defendant be held
over for trial? If it's should the defendant be granted bail,

(21:36):
then you're to decide should there be bail or not bail,
and you'll hear from both sides, and you're to make it.
You're to make an objective decision on that issue, whatever
the issue might be. You are not there to lecture
about a constitutional crisis. You are not there to lament

(21:57):
that Trump is a dictator, or that he's lawless, or
the he's out of control or he's doing or that
he's or for that matter, that he's the best president
in the history of civilization. Your job is none of
those things. Your job is to decide the legal issue
in front of you. So when judges start commenting about

(22:19):
someone who's not even in the courtroom, the president, or
they're talking about how the Department of Justice is acting lawless, no,
that's not the issue in front of the courtroom. Now,
if a prosecutor is acting with lawlessness, that's a different issue.
That's not what's going on here. Last month, Associate Justice

(22:43):
Neil Gorsuch noted that there's suddenly this pattern of judicial
what he called insubordination. He said, quote, so this is
now the third time in a matter of weeks this
Court has had to intercede in a case squarely controlled
by one of our He wrote this on August twenty. First,

(23:03):
all these interventions should have been none necessary. But together
they underscore a basic tenet of our judicial system. Whatever
their own views, whatever their own views, judges are duty
bound to respect the hierarchy of the federal court system
created by the Constitution in Congress. Lower court judges may

(23:24):
sometimes disagree with this Court's decision, but they are never
free to defy them. These magistrate judges like Zia what's
his name, are actually infected with Trump derangement syndrome. How

(23:45):
can you have any sort of confidence in the judicial
system if you've got a judge that is talking about
Trump being a dictator, or that we're facing in constitutional
crisis because Trump got elected president, or the Department of
Justice is acting lawlessly, that they're acting, you know, outside
their jurisdiction. They're they're they're out of control. If if

(24:11):
any group is responsible for creating the trust in the judiciary,
it's the judges themselves and associate Justice nor such is
absolutely right. Lower courts can disagree with the Supreme Court's decision,
but you cannot defy the Supreme Court's decision, which leads

(24:34):
me to what I think needs to happen. Now, some
people you may disagree with this, but I want you
to think s SPAN. When you think c SPAN, what
do you think, Well, they don't comment. I mean, I
know they've got shows where you can call in and
I'll have a guest. But se SPAN's primarily known for

(24:56):
what just cam in a hearing room or cameras in
a you know, an event, No commentary, just wall to
wall video of the event. Now, Republics in Congress, they're

(25:19):
not really showing any appetite for confronting what I believe
to be judicial misconduct. Oh, they might write a nasty letter,
they might post something on X you know this judge
is acting improperly or something. But even the most egregious
examples of bias. Think of Judge Boseburg. That's the powerful

(25:43):
chief judge of the DC District Court, the one who's
basically been throwing out all these cases and has been
hearing all the cases about Trump. Even that's not enough
for House Republicans to start even just an impeachment inquiry.
Not even if they passed articles of impeachment against Judge Boseburg.

(26:05):
They won't even have a hearing about whether they even
should or not. Republicans should act as a disinfect Republicans
should act as that ray of sunshine. It's time to
bring cameras into the courtroom. And I'm not talking about
your local news channel. I'm not talking about some freelancer.

(26:30):
I'm not talking about people being able to bring their
phones in and videotape everything going in the courtroom. I'm
talking about a established protocol and c span for me
at least, seems to be the stereotypical standard. No commentary,
just three four cameras, whatever it takes to provide a

(26:55):
wide angle view of the courtroom and the audio so
that everybody can hear what's going on in the courtroom,
and you just someone's earra you have a technician that
just turns the cameras on when the judge walks in
and turns the cameras off when the judge closes the
hearing because I want us to start hearing what these
federal judges say. I want the puppet, I want Congress

(27:20):
because you and I could send emails and write letters
and make phone calls to our senators and our congressmen
about how these federal judges and these magistrate judges are
out of control. Nothing's going to happen. But if you're
able to begin, and you know why, nothing's going to happen,
because how do I know this went about? Send me
because I'm hearing about this, And so I start doing

(27:42):
some research about justice score such comments, and I start
finding articles about this judge and Gene Judge Piro having
to deal with this Yahoo and so only by digging
into it. I'd love to play you audio. I'd love
for you to be able to actually hear what this
judge says. But it doesn't exist. Well, it does exist,

(28:03):
but it's never going to be released because there are
audio recordings made and there is a trans a transcript
made of everything the judge says. But you've got to
have access to Lexus and Nexus. You got to pay.
I think the cheapest you can get Lexus Nexus for
is probably about one thousand dollars a month, and people

(28:25):
aren't going to do that. So why not have the
camera and why not have it be a c span
like camera. Why are taxpayers prevented from watching or at
least hearing, what happens in federal court rooms. Judges are
not entitled to privacy from the public eye. They've got

(28:46):
lifetime job security, they have total near insolarity. So judges
ought to give get more scrutiny, not less scrutiny. Now,
if you've got a concern about protecting the identity of jurors,
well that can be cured. You've set the cameras up
where the cameras are at an angle where you can't

(29:08):
see the jury, or maybe it's just audio only. I'd
be happy with audio from a court room, which, by
the way, you get from the US Supreme Court. Why
don't we get it from the lower courts? And then
I think all government briefs ought to be made available
free of charge, because then you can see you might

(29:30):
have affidavits. The judge said this, you could read the affidavit.
In other words, what I'm saying is it's time for
transparency in the federal judicial system. Now, in terms of
state courts, i'd like to see it, but states are
kind of wacko. It have to be really tight for

(29:51):
state courts, but for federal courts, I think it's time
to shine the flashlight so we can see and hear
what's going on in federal courts. I'll be right back
as always. I want to thank everybody for tuning into
the Weekend with Michael Brown. I know it is a

(30:14):
holiday weekend, last weekend, and maybe some of you are
still on vacation, but for tuning in or listening to
the podcast, interacting with me on X whatever it is.
I appreciate the audience, and I always want to make
sure that you understand that I know how much how
important you are to the program. I wanted to move
on to something else, except there are a couple of

(30:35):
text messages that I want to address, and the first
one comes from Goober number seven eight zero three, who writes, Michael,
why can't judges be fired? Well, they can be fired. Well,
let's talk about these federal judges. Federal judges can and
have been impeached in the past. Alsey Hastings is the
most I shouldn't say the most, I think the most

(30:58):
recent one who it's been a couple of decades ago,
he was impeached for corruption, bribery. He went on to
become a US congressman. He's now deceased, but he went
on to become a US congressman. See, it was training
as a federal judge in Florida. You take your training
as a federal judge about how to take bribes, engaged

(31:18):
in corruption, and then when you get impeached for being
a federal judge, well, now that you've learned the tricks
of the trade, then you run for Congress and you
become a US congressman. Man, we got It's a great system,
isn't it. Well, he was impeached. He gets impeached just
the same way a president gets impeached. Which is what

(31:39):
drives me nuts about these stories about some of these
judges like Judge of Boseburg and this magistrate judge and others.
Why aren't Republicans at least holding impeachmenting inquiries that would
start in the House of Representatives, that would start in
the Congress on the House side, And an inquiry is simply, hey,
let's have hearings, let's conduct an investigation, and let's see

(32:03):
whether or not this judge violated, you know, some criminal statute,
or violated the Code of Ethics, or continually does the
wrong thing morally ethically, however you want to categorize it,
because an impeachment is not a criminal process. It's a
political process. So if you're looking at a judge who

(32:28):
says things like this magistrate, judge did, well, I think
that's a violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. He
is showing bias, he is showing that he's not being
fair and impartial, and I think he can be impeached
for that. So Congress, the House of Representing, the House
Judiciary Committee could start an investigation. They could amass and

(32:49):
accumulate evidence of this judge's showing a bias, of showing
of prejudice against parties, or whatever the evidence shows. And
if it shows that he is biased and he doesn't
have the judicial character that we expect federal judges to have,
then they could hold an impeachment hearing in the House.

(33:12):
And once that hearing's done, if the committee votes to impeach,
that goes to the floor of the House of Representatives.
So four hundred and thirty five members would get to
vote whether or not to impeach and impeachment is like
an indictment. And let's say a majority of those in
the House said yes, we're going to impeach this judge

(33:35):
zeal So if they get the requisite number of votes
in the House, then those articles of impeachment go to
the US Senate, and in the US Senate then they
would have a trial. Now the judge might resign before
then because he doesn't want to get impeached. He doesn't
want to run the risk, so he resigns mission accomplished,

(33:58):
or he fights it, and now you have a trial
in the Senate, and the trial could either result in
him being impeached and removed from office. And in fact,
you can impeach him remove him from office, and as
part of that conviction also say and you can't hold
another judicial position again. They could do that. The other

(34:22):
thing that could occur is that some of the parties
that face judges like this could file bar complaints. They
could file a complaint with the Federal Bar, they could
file a complaint with the Supreme Court. They can file
a complaint with you know, if they sit in Colorado,
you know they're probably a member of the Colorado Bar Association,

(34:42):
So they can file a bar complaint with the Colorado
Bar Association, which would look at it and take it
to the Supreme Court in Colorado has a disciplinary committee.
That disciplinary committee would look at the charges brought against
this judge and determine whether or not the judge should be,
you know, have their law license suspended or taken away. Well,

(35:03):
that wouldn't necessarily get them off the bench, but it
could lead to an impeachment or it could lead to
a resignation. There are lots of remedies the plays. There
are a lot of remedies, and at some point we're
going to cross the rubicon where so many of these
federal judges continue to defy the US Supreme Court, So

(35:24):
the US Supreme Court may start taking action. Congress could
take action, individual parties, individuals could take action. Hell's bells.
If I knew of a federal judge that was consistently
doing this, and I wanted to stand up and I
wanted to take a position against this judge, I could
go file the complaint myself. But for some reason, it

(35:46):
doesn't happen. And I know the reason. The reason that
doesn't happen is because raise your hand. If you had
ever heard of this judge and what he was saying.
Before today, I thought, out of across the entire country,
maybe a couple of you have, But I would venture

(36:07):
to say that most of you in this audience have not.
There's nothing wrong with that. Why would you hear about it?
You don't spend twenty four hours a day, seven days
a week researching stories like I do. You don't have
access to next Lexus and nextus unless you're just a
nut job paying outrageous fees for it like I like
I do. You wouldn't hear about these things. This is

(36:30):
why I'm with the cameras in the courtroom. And that
doesn't necessarily mean it's going to solve the problem. What
it does, though, it means that now we have the
opportunity to actually hear what judges are saying, to actually
see and hear what's happening in these federal courtrooms. I
want us to see it sunlight. It's the best disinfected.

(36:51):
It's the weekend with Michael Brown. Thanks for tuning in, everybody,
Have a great rest of your weekend, and guess what
I'll see you next weekend. Ay, you went w