-
Unknown A
It's open, it's in your face. And the Mayor Adams tweets and says, you know, I never would do that. That's obviously what you did. Everyone can see it. You're in front of Tom Homan basically acting like an extension of the Trump regime, like you're a f ing hostage. Despicable, corrupt individual, a disgrace to the city. He deserves to be in jail for decades. Such as the malevolence of his corruption and the COVID up. And to see Mayor Adams come out and sound so vindicated, I have to say that's a special kind of kick right in the nuts for anyone who loves New York City. They're not stating whether or not the case is weak or strong because obviously they're holding it over his head. Every day that he remains the mayor of this wonderful city is a stain on the city. It's a stain on the Constitution.
-
Unknown A
Hey folks, please like comment and subscribe. And if you want to read what's going on from a pro republic, anti corruption and anti oligarch perspective, subscribe to the Weekly Patriot link is in the description. There is no argument at this point that what we're seeing is one of the most corrupt actions in the history of the Republic. This DOJ action I'm referencing with Mayor Adams, we talked about this actually when it happened and I commented on how brazen it was. But the statements made by the acting U.S. attorney, former now acting U.S. attorney Scalia Clark and the line prosecutor, it's based. But it's also disturbing. Their statements are essentially confirming this is against the law, this is corrupt. As they wouldn't be saying it otherwise. They're incredibly brave and honorable for resigning in this way. Now do I agree with them on everything? Almost certainly not, but Jesus Christ, it's open lies and you read the response.
-
Unknown A
So let's talk about some of the memo's letters. I'm not going to show them to you. You've probably already read them. We went through one of them initially I think either yesterday before, I think it was yesterday even like. So the activist attorney for semis New York sends a letter essentially like you all agree or don't contest that the facts are there to support a corruption case against Mayor Adams bribery case. There's no one's contesting the facts and no one's contesting the procedural propriety of it. They're not arguing in their letters that it's a political prosecution. Now they started saying things like that because they realize they're. Because they have no rationale or queer whether or not. They're gonna be internally, maybe just in the eyes of public opinion if they're watching, which again, maybe that's a little black feeling, but they didn't contest that.
-
Unknown A
The facts are there. We're going to watch some copers in a little bit. Some F tier intellects, lawyers that gather every Friday to like basically glaze Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Pathetic displays. They muted me or something when I was there, just talking shit because they can't stand the heat. But it's really blatanting your face. Yeah. We're not doing it because the case is weak. We're not doing it because the case was started or conducted because of political corrupt reasons. There's no good argument for it. One of the rationale stated is like obviously completely protectual. So all we're left with is the notion that Mayor Eric, Mayor Eric Adams, a corruption, disgusting politician who should have resigned already and who the governor needs to remove from office if he chooses not to. And if she doesn't, I'm not going to support her any Democratic primary in the future.
-
Unknown A
Not a chance in hell they do that. Mayor Adams got to go. And I don't care who tells you you need to grease the right palms or you need to, you know, just wait and see. Nah, nah, he's got to go. Gotta go, gotta go, gotta go. It's open. It's in your face. And the Mayor Adams tweets and says, you know, I never would do that. That's obviously what you did. SDNY has you cold arguing about it in front of everyone. They're deleting notes. Everyone can see it. You're in front of Tom Homan or whatever this loser's name is, basically acting like an extension of the Trump regime, like you're a hostage, despicable, corrupt individual, a disgrace to the city, a disgrace to the country. He deserves to be in jail for decades. Such as the malevolence of his corruption and the COVID up. Shame on the lawyers, some of whom I know by reputation, some of them who are at expensive, high profile big law firms in the city.
-
Unknown A
Shame on them. Shame on the firm that represents him in this corrupt exchange, this quid pro quo. Despicable. And the response by the Department of Justice is nothing short of laughable. Just fascistic language about how the President can't be, you know, and red herrings all the way down. There is no strong denial that this is a political quid pro quo. Threatening increased investigations into other members of the sdny. You know, they're trying to get someone to sign this. They'll find someone. They might have already found someone to sign this motion to withdraw the prosecution. But what a just brazenly corrupt scheme in front of your eyes. You remember, by the way, you remember the IRS whistleblower's. Truth is they don't care about corruption. They're all. They're. They love corruption. That is the MAGA propagandists, spinsters, they love it. They never cared about it. And usually they're not talking about state corruption here.
-
Unknown A
We're talking about real corruption from a Democratic mayor of the most. One of the most democratic states in the world, in the country, certainly one of the most liberal places. And it's filled to the brim in the mayor's office with corruption. And the MAGA apologists want to cover that up because they love corruption and they have no morals whatsoever to stand on.
-
Unknown B
That's.
-
Unknown A
That's a foregone conclusion. We know that already. I'm just telling you what you know. The response from the administration is laughable. They're keeping. They're not stating whether or not the case is weak or strong because obviously they're holding it over his head. They're holding it over his head. It's clear as day. Look at body language in Mayor Adams and look at what he said when he's like, if you don't hold true to your agreement, Mr. Mayor, we're going to come to your office. They said that on Fox this morning. It's brazen. And so obviously they're not going to say this case is weak because they say the case is weak. Now. They don't have the stick, so they can't say the case is weak, actually, because if Mayor Adams steps out of line, they're going to want to use that stick and file it again.
-
Unknown A
And they don't want to see me on the record saying the case is weak in front of the judge. Case should never have been brought in front of the judge. Right. If they were going to say it's a political case, why would you be like, oh, we might bring it again? Wouldn't the attitude be, this case started political, it's so corrupt, we can never bring it again? They're not saying that because they might bring it again for explicitly political reasons if he doesn't. And they're telling the American people they're doing that there's no defense to this shit. All of the usual talking heads don't have any defense to it whatsoever. It's in your face. It's not even contestable so the most I can come up with is like, oh, it's political. Because it happened, what, almost, what, nine months before an election. So what are we doing here?
-
Unknown A
Right? We can't charge corrupt politicians nine months before an election. That's now too political. Even though it's completely within the guidelines. Even though they consult all people need to consult. Jesus Christ. So administration's up. It's completely. And you have these mega conservative Federalist Society people. Lawyers quitting who you know, kudos to them. They swore an oath of the Constitution. They're polling it by resigning. But look at how we are. And that's just. That's the Department of Justice. That's gonna happen in every agency. They're gonna be asked to. To do something against their Constitution. And a lot of them are gonna comply. You see how they're being treated now? And you'll come to learn why this is such a attack on our system by watching this video I'm about to show you. Up's Glee himself. I know a lot of you've already seen it. We're gonna.
-
Unknown A
We're gonna go through it because you start to see maybe my state of mind. Okay, I've been told this is a good idea to get you in my frame of reference. Why am I thinking the way I do? Why do I value what I value? And why am I taking note of what I'm taking note of? I don't think that what I'm taking note of the most sexy thing. But I do think it's most interesting because the truth is the most important protection of our rights is the separation of powers and the structure of government. Let me say that one more time. The biggest protections of our individual rights. Our individual rights is the structure of our government and the separation of powers. You get me? And that's not just my opinion. That's also Scalia's opinion. What good is the Bill of Rights? What good is the First Amendment without the structure of the government being intact?
-
Unknown A
If the rights cannot be enforced by contradicting powers, by separate powers, what good is it? That's what Scalia is about to talk to you about. And why this focus. Myomic focus on the individual rights protections of the Constitution is not thinking clearly. You should see these attacks on the structure of the government, the centralization of authority as an attack on not just the state of our country, but your individual rights, because they're intrinsically connected. Your rights to these growing centralization of power versus the appropriate separation of power. Those are just intimately connected. So what we have right now is the third Friday night massacre. The first Friday night massacre was the IGS. The second Friday night massacre was the Jan.6 prosecutors and FBI agents by the dozens and dozens and dozens and maybe even thousands. And the third is right now with all the DOJ officials quitting en masse because they can't, in good conscious and according to the Constitution, follow this order because they don't want to file this memo because obviously it violates the Constitution.
-
Unknown A
Of course it does. To make your consideration on prosecution decisions based on politics explicitly. So there's no defense for that. And as we watch the Copers as well as we watch the coping lawyers, you're going to see some ridiculous notions. With no evidence, oh, the case was political from the start. Garbage. Complete garbage. No facts to support it. None whatsoever. And to see Mayor Adams come out and sound so vindicated, I have to say that's a special kind of kick right in the nuts for anyone who loves New York City. This man should be absolutely pushed out of office using every means available to Democrats in the city. Every day that he remains the mayor of this wonderful city is a stain on the city, is a stain on the Constitution, is a shame. And as the days trickle on and we don't see action from our Democratic state representatives, state actors, I'm gonna start to be more intense against them and say that they need to go too.
-
Unknown A
Because we can't tolerate weakness within the Democratic Party. We just can't. The time for weakness is over. And if in our own city, where we don't have the same limitations as Congress, where Democrats are in control, we can't muster a resistance to an obviously corrupt MAGA influenced stain of a human being named Eric Adams. If we can't muster that kind of resistance in a place where we dominate, what are we doing, folks? So I'm not going to just play ball. I'm not going to just say, oh, whatever, no, he needs to go. And the Democrats in charge of the state and city need to use their power to make him go. Not in November, when the term's up. Now, it is a clear and present danger. I don't want this motherf cker in his little outfits touring with Border Czar, sending New Yorkers to Gitmo, because that's what's coming next.
-
Unknown A
And if your Democratic state representative doesn't want him gone, they need to be gone. You get me? This is not a unreasonable position. I want to be clear about that. It is not an unreasonable position to demand this. Okay, you could say it's unreasonable to demand everyone in favor of legalized wheat. I agree. I would not be this hard on a policy difference like that. You know, I'm sure there are a lot of tax differences between state representatives and Democrats. That's fine. It is a big, big tent party. So I just want to be clear what we're talking about here. We are talking about being in favor or being a party to or a negligent promoter of outright corruption. The sale, the indulgence. Right. This is like an indulgence with respect to our justice system or not being that. You get me, kind of like sermon.
-
Unknown A
Is it unreasonable for me to say, hey, supporting the Department of Justice, voting for someone who is obviously gonna do all this corrupt shit is a step too far. Where's your line? Not coming out. Even if you say, okay, he couldn't have predicted this was gonna come out. First of all, I laugh at you, but even take one step, alright? Not coming out and saying I regret my vote for Pam Bondi if she does not do X, it is absolutely disqualifying. Everyone has a line for at what point they're gonna say, this Democrat needs to go. Not coming out. This is how reasonable I am. If Fetterman came out and said, I made a mistake, if Pambandi does not come out of DA DA I will acknowledge I made a mistake or this was an error. I should have trusted her. If he does not make such a statement or he does make that statement, I'll say, all right, you know, you can stay in the game, you know, whatever.
-
Unknown A
That's how reasonable I'm being. But he's not gonna do that. And it's a perfectly reasonable line to draw. Perfectly reasonable to demand that our Justice Department not do corrupt quid pro quos. What are we talking about? Why is he in a question? I'm not talking about the Green New Deal. I'm not talking about the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. I'm not talking about something crazy policy wise where, okay, different constituencies, different opinions. No, this is bedrock, basic constitutional principles. Yeah, I don't think you can acknowledge that mistake, David, but it was a big one, a doozy. And one that will continue to haunt us in terms of. I say haunted, maybe that's a bit much different from Anyway, but as a representation of theremin, his weakness. If we allow it to go forward. Right. If we allow the theremin weakness to dominate our party. For him to pressure other Democrats to sign on to MAGA bills, unjustifiable MAGA bills, and to talk shit about people who are Raising legitimate concerns about the state of the country.
-
Unknown A
What are we doing? Therein's gotta go. Anything short of a full disavowal of Pam Bondi is not good enough to just seriously discussing. All right, so I want to show you all the. And if you don't agree from a MAGA perspective, if you're, if you're like, if there's maga. No, I. This is really shout out to the haters. Haters, haters. I need to rise up. Haters. Where my haters. Haters rise up. YCJ stutters. What's the defense to this? There's no defense to it. Do you guys, like, support this? I mean, like, think about the people. Bring up the IRS whistleblower. Like, oh, my God, this sweetheart deal to Hunter Biden. Can you imagine if the president pressured or pushed the Department of Justice, which he obviously did. They came to a deal. It's a policy deal at the highest level. We went to Mar a Lago.
-
Unknown A
Everyone knows this is exactly what's going on. If it's even conceivable that Biden did this with respect to the disarmament. Hunter Biden, oh, my God. By the way, I'm happy to condemn the pardon. Hunter Biden say, that was a corrupt pardon. I've done it. So that's corrupt. I said. I said the preemptive pardons of his own family was impeachable. I said that you'll never see consistency like that among MAGA folk ever. And people are yelling at me right now still that I said that those pardons were unjustified given. And, you know, I still agree that they were not justified. They're horrible pardons, those preemptive pardons. But when you start to see the corruption of this pardon of justice, maybe eventually that shifts, right? I was expecting and continue to expect the most corruption possible. So it's going to be a high threshold before I'm like, okay, it's this bad that the parties weren't justified.
-
Unknown A
So it's gonna be high press because I've expected and have predicted the possible worst level of corruption, like Ukraine, Russian Federation level of corruption of the doj. So it's going to be quite past that for me to say, okay, I was wrong about the part and the partisans were totally cool and justified. But at that point, like, you know, the country's gone, but yeah, there's just no, there's no defense of it. And we're going to try to see what the laid back lawyer crew, these losers amid every Friday have to say about it. But first we're going to go to Scalia. Thank you guys for joining. Really appreciate you guys can like, comment and subscribe. Mean a lot to me.
-
Unknown B
Happy to be back in front of the Judiciary Committee where, where I started this pilgrimage. I am going to get even more fundamental than my good friend and colleague. Like him, I, I speak to students, especially law students, but also college students and even high school students quite frequently about the Constitution.
-
Unknown A
How long have you been practicing law for? So I was admitted to practice 22. But when you're working a law firm, you kind of like start before then doing essentially practice, so about four years. But in terms of like admitted practice, that's 22.
-
Unknown B
Because I feel that we're not teaching it very well. I speak to law students from the best law schools, people presumably especially interested in the law, and I ask them, how many of you have read the Federalist Papers? Well, a lot of hands have gotten. No, not just number 48 and the big ones. How many of you have read the Federalist Papers cover to cover? Never more than 95%. And that is very sad. I mean, especially if they're interested in the Constitution. Here's a document that says what the framers of it thought they were doing. It's such a profound.
-
Unknown A
So he's glazing the Federal papers a.
-
Unknown B
Little bit exposition of political science that it is studied in political science courses in Europe, and yet we have raised a generation of Americans who are not familiar with it. So when I speak to these groups, the first point, these two, I think it's even a little more fundamental than the one that Stephen has just put forward. I ask, what do you think is the reason that America is such a free country?
-
Unknown A
So listen to the words he chooses. What is the reason that America is such a free country? I'm really just being a lawyer. I don't have a degrees or path for me, you don't have a college degree. There are paths. It depends on the state. But they, they are long. But you can do it.
-
Unknown B
What is it in our Constitution?
-
Unknown A
What is it in our Constitution that.
-
Unknown B
Makes us what we are?
-
Unknown A
That makes us what we are.
-
Unknown B
And I guarantee you that the response I will get, and you will get this from almost any American, including the woman that he was talking to at the supermarket. The answer would be freedom of speech, freedom of the press, no unreasonable searches and seizures.
-
Unknown A
So Fourth Amendment, First Amendment, no quartering.
-
Unknown B
Of troops in hope, Third Amendmentless provisions of the Bill of Rights. What did I tell them? If you think that a bill of rights is what sets us apart. You're crazy.
-
Unknown A
You're crazy. He says, if you think it's our individual rights as expounded on in the Constitution, Second Amendment, First Amendment right, this is inclusive of all those rights. Those aren't the things that protect us. The second amendment by itself is not the thing that protects us.
-
Unknown B
Every banana republic in the world has a Bill of Rights. Every president for life, a bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it literally. It was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech into the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech of the press at street demonstrations and protests. And anyone who is. Who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa. That is wonderful stuff. Of course. Just words on paper.
-
Unknown A
Words on paper.
-
Unknown B
What our framers would have called a parchment guarantee.
-
Unknown A
He's saying those rights as expounded in the Bill of Rights, they are not protections absent what? He'll say in a second that by themselves, they are a parchment guarantee. Words on paper.
-
Unknown B
And the reason is that the real constitution of the Soviet Union. Think of the word constitution. It doesn't mean. It means structure. Say a person has a sound constitution. Here's a sound structure. The real constitution of the Soviet Union, which is what our framers debated that whole summer, right?
-
Unknown A
In the summer. What did they do? Did they debate the rights that people get? They didn't debate the rights that they got. They were debating the constitution, the structure.
-
Unknown B
Philadelphia in 1787. They didn't talk about the Bill of Rights. That was an afterthought, wasn't it? That constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the centralization of power.
-
Unknown A
Bingo. The constitution of the Soviet Union did not prohibit what? Prohibit decentralization of power. This is Scalia. So what protects us as Americans? Preventing what? So says Scalia, the centralization of power.
-
Unknown B
In one person or in one party. And when that happens, the game is over. The Bill of Rights is just what our framers would call a parchment guarantee.
-
Unknown A
So once you have centralization of power, once you have all the power now being centralized in the chief executive, the game is up. He says those rights are a parchment guarantee.
-
Unknown B
So the real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our government. One part of it, of course, is the independence of the judiciary.
-
Unknown A
So one is independence of the judiciary. Independence of the judiciary. Independent from what? Independent from what you have. These losers, these fascists, Elon Musk and all of their sycophants talking about during the week that these judges need to be held to account to the political branches. That is fundamentally at odds with what Kali is talking about here. Independent judiciary, independent from politics, independent from the democratic will. There's a connection to democracy. They're appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, but they must be independent from it. As all these conservatives like to say, we don't live in a perfect democracy. I often ridicule them because they have this kind of more narrow version of democracy. But they're correct on the technicality of the pure democracy. Right. We're in a constitutional republic. Yes. It's the case that judges are meant to be independent of the political branches.
-
Unknown A
Yes. So the first thing Scalia cites as part of the structure is the independent judiciary.
-
Unknown B
There's a lot more. There are very few countries in the world, there's a lot more that have a bicameral legislature.
-
Unknown A
Bicameral legislature.
-
Unknown B
Oh, England has a House of Lords for the time being, but the House of Lords has no substantial power. They can just make the Commons pass a bill a second time. France has a Senate.
-
Unknown A
It's honorific.
-
Unknown B
Italy has a Senate. It's honorific. Very few countries have two separate bodies in the legislature, equally powerful. That's a lot of trouble, as you gentlemen doubtless know, to get the same language through two different bodies elected in a different fashion. Very few countries in the world have a separately elected chief executive. Sometimes I go to Europe to talk about separation of powers, and when I get there, I find that all I'm talking about is independence of the judiciary because the Europeans don't even try to divide the two political powers. The two political branches, the legislature, divide them. And the chief executive. In all of the parliamentary countries, the chief executive is the creature of the legislature. There's never any disagreement between them and the prime minister, as there is sometimes between you and the President.
-
Unknown A
Right. So when you hear all of these MAGA Republican legislators saying, hey, he won the election, therefore Congress needs to be servile to the President. United States, that's. That's fundamentally at odds with separation of powers. There's meant to be a division between the President and the Congress. That was the point. There's meant to be a division in the bicameral legislature. All that goes to shit if the Congress just pays deference to the President no matter what, or if the President starts stealing legislative authority.
-
Unknown B
When there's a disagreement, they just kick them out. They have a no confidence vote, a new election, and they get a Prime minister who agrees with the legislature. And, you know, the Europeans look at the system and they say, well, it passes one house, it doesn't pass the other house. Sometimes the other house is in the control of a different party. Party. It passes both. And then this president who has a veto power vetoes it. And they look at this and they say it is. It is gridlock. I hear Americans saying this nowadays, and there's a lot of it going around. They talk about a dysfunctional government because there's disagreement. And they. And the framers would have said, yes, that's exactly the way we set it up. We wanted this to be power contradicting power. Because the main. The main ill that beset us, as Hamilton said in the Federalist when he talked about a separate Senate, he said, yes, it seems inconvenient.
-
Unknown B
But inasmuch as the main ill that besets us is an excess of legislation, it won't be so bad. This is 1787. He didn't know what excessive legislation was. So unless Americans can appreciate that and learn, learn to love the separation of powers, which means learning to love the gridlock, which the framers believe would be the main protection of minorities, the main protection. If a bill is about to pass, it really comes down hard on some minority. They think it's terribly unfair. It doesn't take much to throw a monkey wrench into this complex system. So Americans should appreciate that and they should learn to love the gridlock.
-
Unknown A
What? Now, listen, I don't agree with Scalia. A lot of stuff. Are you trying to defend Scalia when you say she prais her blood? I'm trying to praise Scalia in this moment. Yes. Because he is diagnosing correctly why I am focusing on what I'm focusing on. And I really need to get. So I'm trying to get you a clue into my internal process. Hang on full screen so you guys can see my face, how super serious I am. I'm trying to get you guys to see my process, to understand why it is I'm focusing on the things I'm focusing on in the weekly pay tray, why I'm not focusing on, like, some of these policy issues. We've talked about immigration, like the first one, but it hasn't been the focus. You know, I really care about immigration. I did the paid article on the Lake and Riley Act.
-
Unknown A
Yes. So it's. I'm. I'm reading all that stuff. I'm reading the policy stuff, obviously, the DEI stuff, the trans stuff, are all things that matter me. But the reason why my focus is on the centralization of power is because that is the death knell of the Republican. What turns us into Hungary or to one of these shithole, I'll say it, shithole government countries. I won't call the country themselves shit holes. You know, there's good Russians, there's good Hungarians, there's good people who live in some of these corrupt places. But those systems are bullshit and I don't want it here. This is my home. This is our home. We want to protect it from like obvious and bad pernicious corruption. You know, I've lived in Peru before for a time, for some months. My family's originally from Peru. I was born in this country. But you know, everyone in Peru is looking for bribes.
-
Unknown A
The previous presidents are all like corrupt. You know, you get stopped by the police and you have money for a bribe, you know, so all this stuff starts getting unleashed. And what happens when you have corruption? Corruption is not costless. It's not just that all of a sudden you're have bad outcomes and bad effects on innocent people and you know, problems. But what is it? It's like piracy, It's a deadly loss to the economy. People who don't want to invest in places that are corrupt when they can just be shuttered by a prosecutor or a hell's prosecutor who's not, you know, abiding by the rule of law. So it's really bad. It's the death knell of a republic. So I focus on it and everything that the administration is talking about in usurping Congress's legitimate congressional role in appropriations, purporting shut down agents, people are arguing that it would be acceptable, it would be constitutional, legal, in fact, perhaps for them to go in and take out all the funding for every agency down to $1.
-
Unknown A
And that would be constitutional in their mind. Even though Congress has expressly legislated against that possibility with things like the incumbent act and other stuff. But they're literally arguing for it that yeah, the President has a right to unwindle to Australian agency right. The power to tax is the power to destroy. The power to take the budget from one agency from billions of dollars to $1 to power to destroy it. And that's. That can't be right. That can't be what the constitutional design was. And if you think that's possible in the constitutional design, it's purely for political reasons. If this were the Democrats doing this with an agency you care about or a situation you found politically repulsive, not going to tell me you're going to Say it's your defendant. Say you have the power to do it. It's blatantly unconstitutional. It's. It's a crime.
-
Unknown A
It's literally, when I say it's a crime, I mean the metaphorics. I don't know that it's a statutory crime. I mean, it's like it's a crime in our country. It's a. It's a perversion of what was intended. What I'm trying to preserve, right. In a sense, I see myself in many ways as a conservative. I'm trying to conserve something. I'm trying to defend the country, prevent it from being corrupted, prevent it from being perverted into Russia, into Hungary. That's what they want to take us to. And so the centralization within the United Grant is also part of that. It's also part of that. Even though it's not in the formal sense, the separation of powers of the three branches. It is being done to attack the other branches of Congress, and it's being done to prevent, you know, congressionally enacted checks on the centralization power within the executive branch.
-
Unknown A
So Congress will put conditions on things on when money's supposed to go out, in what circumstances, when people are supposed to be fired, and in what circumstances. Congress is supposed to be the strongest branch of government. That's what was intended. What we have now is approaching, starting to approach a king. And there are people who actually say, yes, we would like a king that's based. Those people, in many ways, are lost. They're lost to me. I don't know that I can help them. And I don't have the time to help all those people. And I don't think you have the time to help all those people either. What I'm trying to reference my comments to are one, our own individuals, our own people to get the plot, because they don't have the plot yet. As Joel says in the chat, our own people don't get the plot some of the time.
-
Unknown A
Some do. Some do. Some critically do. But our leadership, I agree with Joel, is failing us. I do believe that. And then there are people in the middle. There are patriots in the middle who I know. If it's constructed the right way, I know they love this country, too. Maybe I'm not the best messenger for that, but they find something repulsive about what's going on with Elon Musk. They find something repulsive about what's happening if they're just shown it, if they're asked it, if someone who's able to show them these different categories And I know there are conservatives, I've spoken with them, who love this country, who say, okay, we agree on Trump on this, this and that, we agree with him on immigration. If you agree with Trump on immigration, we'll have a fight in terms of policy. But I even get it, we can have legitimate arguments on immigration.
-
Unknown A
That's fine. What we can't have an argument about and, well, I'm going to have the argument about it, but we can't disagree on. At the end of the day, it's going to be, should we preserve this system of government? Should we allow the president to do whatever he wants? That's why I'm like, begging it. And, you know, it affects me emotionally. I'm not going to tell you, stop. A human being. Sometimes I'm going to lash out, sometimes I'm going to be mean. But you need to know it comes from a place of love. And my inside's like, screaming, someone please wake us up. We are going down a dark path. All of this is completely my raw emotions. Sometimes I laugh a little bit because maybe it's a nervous laughter, but I'm trying my best. Whatever I can do to wake us up.