Speaker 1: You're listenings KFI AM six forty the bill Handle Show
Speaker 1: on demand on the iHeartRadio f KFI AM six forty
Speaker 1: bill Handle Here. It is a Monday morning, December twenty third.
Speaker 1: It is my last day here for the year, coming
Speaker 1: back the first Monday in January. Neil is out today,
Speaker 1: Amy is out all week, Michael Monks is filling in.
Speaker 1: And it's sort of going to be a modified week.
Speaker 1: For example, Gary and Shannon will not be here. They
Speaker 1: will be playing the best of Gary and Shannon. You know,
Speaker 1: there was a discussion of when I am not here
Speaker 1: various times of the year to play the best of
Speaker 1: the bill Handle Show. Then I was told there's no
Speaker 1: such thing as the best of the bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2: It doesn't exist. Okay, Well, the answers that question, doesn't it. Now.
Speaker 1: A story about a former Republican congressperson out of Florida,
Speaker 1: Representative Matt Gates. Matt Gates interesting guy. He's been in
Speaker 1: Congress for eight years, probably the most unliked congressperson across
Speaker 1: the board by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress than
Speaker 1: we have seen in many, many years. He was the
Speaker 1: leader of the group that ousted Kevin McCarthy hated and
Speaker 1: does hate Joe Biden, one of two people that heckled
Speaker 1: Joe Biden during his State of the Union address, the
Speaker 1: other one being Marjorie Taylor Green. I mean screaming at
Speaker 1: the President during the State of the Union, calling him
Speaker 1: a liar.
Speaker 2: I mean just it was just crazy.
Speaker 1: I mean the State of the Union, just the way
Speaker 1: government is running used to be that the President was
Speaker 1: at least his State of the.
Speaker 2: Union address was sakra saint.
Speaker 1: That is one of the high lights of the year
Speaker 1: for presidential delivery of news or rhetoric or where he.
Speaker 2: Wants to go. That's all gone because of people like
Speaker 2: Matt Gays.
Speaker 1: So the Ethics Committee of Congress has been investigating him
Speaker 1: for years, and there were rumors out there that he
Speaker 1: paid women, including a seventeen year old girl, for sex purchase,
Speaker 1: used illegal drugs, including in his Capitol Hill office, and
Speaker 1: as a result of those allegations, the investigation went forward.
Speaker 1: There was an argument as to whether or not they
Speaker 1: should even release that report, why because he's no longer
Speaker 1: a member of Congress member that he was nominated as
Speaker 1: Attorney General.
Speaker 2: That fell apart very very quickly, and.
Speaker 1: Then he resigned well, because he was going to be censured,
Speaker 1: probably because of the Ethics Committee. What's kind of interesting
Speaker 1: about this is there are more Republicans than Democrats on
Speaker 1: the committee because Republicans control Congress. It was a secret
Speaker 1: vote to release this this report. And by the way,
Speaker 1: an argument is, and it makes sense to me, the
Speaker 1: guy's no longer in Congress, he's no longer in government,
Speaker 1: in office, in government, and under any circumstances, what good
Speaker 1: does it do to release the report. That's how that's
Speaker 1: how much he's hated. And it was a secret vote,
Speaker 1: and we have no idea who voted for. What we
Speaker 1: know the majority voted for the release of this report
Speaker 1: from the Ethics Committee. Now was it a close vote.
Speaker 1: I'm willing to bet no, because this guy was hated
Speaker 1: so much to this day, he denies any of that happen,
Speaker 1: even though they have emails, they have texts, payments, Venmo
Speaker 1: payments made to these women, like a dozen of them
Speaker 1: from him. Witnesses, none of that happened. It's all lies,
Speaker 1: and what is it. It's a political witch hunt, that's
Speaker 1: what it was. All of these claims of improper conduct
Speaker 1: were simply a smear campaign invented by his political enemies
Speaker 1: read the Democrats and even some members of the Republican
Speaker 1: Party in Congress.
Speaker 2: Now it gets even better than that.
Speaker 1: First of all, when he resigned from Congress, and he
Speaker 1: had to resign in order to run for Attorney General,
Speaker 1: although I don't know or he had to be vetted
Speaker 1: by Senate. I don't know if you had to actually
Speaker 1: resign until you're actually nominated and confirmed.
Speaker 2: Don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 1: But he quit Congress, and I think for a lot
Speaker 1: of this reason, and then was going to be vetted
Speaker 1: by the Senate, who was vote whether he used to
Speaker 1: be confirmed or not as Attorney General.
Speaker 2: That was never going to happen. So he withdrew.
Speaker 1: And when he did resign, he said that he plans
Speaker 1: to spend the coming years fighting for President Trump. I
Speaker 1: think eight years is probably enough time in the US Congress, though,
Speaker 1: last week on x he posted the idea of returning
Speaker 1: to Congress as House Speaker. Now, how is it possible
Speaker 1: that you don't have a congress person as House speaker?
Speaker 1: Has it ever been in the history of United States
Speaker 1: a House speaker that was not in Congress?
Speaker 2: No, is it possible? You bet?
Speaker 1: You you don't need to be a member of Congress,
Speaker 1: to be the speaker according to the rules. Do you
Speaker 1: know that there's only one position in the United States
Speaker 1: where you don't have to be a judge or have
Speaker 1: any legal background to be.
Speaker 2: On the bench.
Speaker 1: You know what that position is an Associate Justice of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. You need no legal background whatsoever to
Speaker 1: be a prior judge.
Speaker 2: Every other judge you need.
Speaker 1: A legal background, Appeels court, district court, state court, you
Speaker 1: all have to. Everybody's got to be a lawyer, not
Speaker 1: the US Supreme Court, speaker, not a member of Congress,
Speaker 1: although that's never going to happen. So Matt Gates going
Speaker 1: down and not really. I mean, it's just who didn't
Speaker 1: know that he was a pig? You know, paid women
Speaker 1: for sex, lots of them, had sex when he was
Speaker 1: doing drugs, you know.
Speaker 2: I mean that's not necessarily.
Speaker 1: Bad because I did that when I was in my twenties,
Speaker 1: had sex high.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to go through that story. I think
Speaker 2: I think we're going to leave that one alone. What
Speaker 2: do you think? Okay?
Speaker 1: Now, every year I do something about Santa Claus because
Speaker 1: I find Santa Claus one of the more interesting historical
Speaker 1: figures because it has gone all the way from ancient
Speaker 1: Turkey to modern day commercialism and the politics, and there
Speaker 1: are a lot of politics involved with Santa Claus and
Speaker 1: going back to the Civil War and statements in favor
Speaker 1: of the North. So really where Santa Claus started. And
Speaker 1: when we talk about the beginning of our Santa Claus,
Speaker 1: sort of the myth of Santa Claus, it's the modern
Speaker 1: day Santa Claus that we think of going to the
Speaker 1: malls and seeing at a store. Mall actually started in
Speaker 1: AD two eighty near Petera and Turkey, where the first
Speaker 1: mall that was ever created came up in the first
Speaker 1: two hundred years of the common era. That's not true,
Speaker 1: by the way, they didn't have eighteen hundred years ago,
Speaker 1: but it's.
Speaker 2: A nice thought.
Speaker 1: So the legend of Saint Nicholas, and we know Saint
Speaker 1: Nicholas is Santa Claus, except wow has it changed. And
Speaker 1: he was known he came up as a saint as
Speaker 1: a protector of children and sailors and then he morphs
Speaker 1: by and incidentally, this feast day of his not Christmas,
Speaker 1: December sixth, was the anniversary of his death. Because remember
Speaker 1: he's a saint and saints are revered and the anniversary
Speaker 1: of their deaths are really the holidays. Well, by the Renaissance,
Speaker 1: Saint nick is now the most popular saint in Europe.
Speaker 1: Saint Nicholas, even after the Protestant Reformation, where you know,
Speaker 1: we don't want saints very much, we don't like him,
Speaker 1: he still.
Speaker 2: Had a positive reputation. How about America.
Speaker 1: When did he become a deal in America? Well, you
Speaker 1: literally go back to the beginning of our country. December
Speaker 1: of seventeen seventy three, and the next year New York
Speaker 1: newspaper reported that a group of Dutch families were there
Speaker 1: to honor the anniversary of his death. Now, how did
Speaker 1: he get his name Santa Claus? Well, his nickname in
Speaker 1: Dutch is Center Claus. In eighteen oh four, there was
Speaker 1: a member of the New York Historical Society distributed woodcuts
Speaker 1: of Saint Nicholas at the society's annual meeting.
Speaker 2: Again, this was not very much Christmas, but.
Speaker 1: The engraving included images of Saint Nicholas filling stockings with
Speaker 1: toys and fruit hung over a fireplace. Okay, now we're
Speaker 1: getting it together. Where Saint Nicholas becomes Santa Claus. In
Speaker 1: eighteen oh nine, Washington Irving helps popularize this when he
Speaker 1: writes the history of New York and then gift giving,
Speaker 1: which was part of the old celebration of Saint Nick,
Speaker 1: becomes a Christmas celebration. The holidays rejuvenation starts in the
Speaker 1: early nineteenth century. Stores begin to advertise Christmas shopping in
Speaker 1: eighteen twenty. In the eighteen forties, newspapers were creating separate
Speaker 1: sections for holiday ads, offering now features of the newly
Speaker 1: popular Santa Claus. That's when it morphed. In the early
Speaker 1: eighteen nineties, the Salvation Army needed money to pay for
Speaker 1: their Christmas meals they provided for needy families.
Speaker 2: They started to dress up. There actually homeless people at
Speaker 2: that time.
Speaker 1: Homeless man dressed to Santa Claus ringing the bell today.
Speaker 2: I just went to a store. The other day.
Speaker 1: I went to a rouse and there was this little
Speaker 1: old lady ringing the bell asking for donations. I started
Speaker 1: screaming at her, why aren't you dressed as Santa Claus.
Speaker 2: What's all this about? Oh, we don't do Santa Claus anymore.
Speaker 2: Come on, give me a break.
Speaker 1: And then it goes on, I don't have much more time.
Speaker 1: We should have done this for two topics. At least.
Speaker 1: In eighteen twenty two there was a minister Clement Clark
Speaker 1: Moore wrote a poem for his kid, His daughter's an
Speaker 1: account of a visit from Saint Nicholas, that is, the
Speaker 1: night before twas the night before Christmas. And then we
Speaker 1: have Thomas Nast during a civil war dresses up a
Speaker 1: Saint Nick that's going back. And then in the United States,
Speaker 1: Santa Claus now is flying from his home on Christmas
Speaker 1: Eve to deliver toys to children all over the world,
Speaker 1: his sleigh, of course, led by his reindeer Dasher Dancer, Pranson, Vixen, Comet, Cupid,
Speaker 1: Donner and Blitzen, which is a law firm that's very famous. Rudolph,
Speaker 1: of course comes into being years later with the red nose,
Speaker 1: actually because originally Rudolph was depicted as an alcoholic reindeer
Speaker 1: with that glowing red nose, and that disappears where now it's.
Speaker 2: Simply a beacon. It's like a headlight. Isn't the Rudolph's
Speaker 2: nose a headlight? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know this story. It's just I just like
Speaker 1: the historical part of it. And I was trying to
Speaker 1: be stupid and it worked beautifully. Cono, was that like
Speaker 1: a bad attempt at humor? Yeah, I know, I'm embarrassed.
Speaker 2: I am.
Speaker 1: I am humiliated by the segment. I just did stupid moronic.
Speaker 2: The jokes didn't work.
Speaker 1: Okay, talking about stupid moronic and the jokes didn't work.
Speaker 1: Hey thirty on a Monday? Do they have a case
Speaker 1: with Wayne and me?
Speaker 2: Good morning Wayne, Good morning sir.
Speaker 3: So the way, did you ever did you ever figure
Speaker 3: out what they call Rothko paintings?
Speaker 2: That style? No, what I believe Are you thinking of
Speaker 2: color field?
Speaker 3: No, I'm not, because I believe that is the discipline
Speaker 3: that he is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't you know, I don't know. I know
Speaker 1: it's very modern modernistic, it's but I don't know what
Speaker 1: the school is, you know, Impressionism, Cubism, I don't know.
Speaker 2: It's abstract art.
Speaker 3: And anyway, okay, I made for you today a theme.
Speaker 3: Do they have a case? Both cases have the same
Speaker 3: device in common. It is an ankle monitor case. One
Speaker 3: right here in downtown LA in federal court. This woman's
Speaker 3: on trial for selling some meth and part of her
Speaker 3: release conditions is she wears an ankle monitor that monitors
Speaker 3: her location at all times, and there's certain places she's
Speaker 3: not allowed to go. So they're in court for jury selection.
Speaker 3: Her ankle monitor keeps beeping, and the defense attorney says,
Speaker 3: you know, her thing's beeping, and if jurors are sitting there,
Speaker 3: they're gonna hear it beeping, and then they're gonna know,
Speaker 3: and then they'll be it'll it'll prejudice her in the
Speaker 3: front of the jury, just like if you had somebody
Speaker 3: in shackles. And the judge goes, all right, I get it.
Speaker 3: I hear what you're saying. So let's do this. The
Speaker 3: next time we take a break, we'll just cut the
Speaker 3: thing off of her. We'll just cut it off of her,
Speaker 3: and we'll tell pre trial services what happened, and then
Speaker 3: after they.
Speaker 2: Could put another one on her.
Speaker 3: So they bring in the jury and it's beeping again,
Speaker 3: and the judge goes, hey, let's have a recess right now,
Speaker 3: doesn't tell the jury why, and then cut the thing
Speaker 3: off and they proceed with the trial per normal.
Speaker 2: She's convicted.
Speaker 3: Now, she appeals and says that the beeping of her
Speaker 3: ankle monitor, as brief as it was, tainted her trial
Speaker 3: prejudiced her in the eyes of the jury, that it's
Speaker 3: the same thing as if she was in shackles and
Speaker 3: the jury saw the shackles, which would be unconstitutional under
Speaker 3: existing law, and therefore the trials should be thrown out.
Speaker 3: And the government says, shackles and an ankle.
Speaker 2: Monitor are not anywhere near the same thing.
Speaker 3: The reason you don't let people in shackles be seen
Speaker 3: by the jury has to do with First of all,
Speaker 3: it was because you don't want the person to be
Speaker 3: in pain, because they need to defend themselves, not so
Speaker 3: much because the jury might think ill of them, but
Speaker 3: also because shackles. The jury would look at a person
Speaker 3: in shackles and think, oh, they must be dangerous. An
Speaker 3: ankle monitor is down on your ankle. People don't think
Speaker 3: you're dangerous because you're wearing an ankle monitor. It's certainly
Speaker 3: not causing you pain. They're too different for her to
Speaker 3: have a case. What does Bill Handle.
Speaker 1: Say, Ooh, Actually, the court could have gone either way
Speaker 1: on that very easily, simply by saying that the beeping
Speaker 1: of the ankle mind does tell the jury that there
Speaker 1: is an ankle monitor there, and therefore the connection is
Speaker 1: there is something wrong especially when what other reason would
Speaker 1: there be for an ankle monitoring. My question is did
Speaker 1: the jury know that it was an ankle monitor that
Speaker 1: was beeping?
Speaker 2: That's question number one. Question number two.
Speaker 1: If they did know that an ankle ankle monitor was beeping,
Speaker 1: is that enough to cross the threshold of prejudice against
Speaker 1: the defendant?
Speaker 2: And I'm guessing you know, it could go either way.
Speaker 1: It really depends on the appeals court, which you know,
Speaker 1: are they pro defendant are they pro prosecution.
Speaker 2: I am going to say.
Speaker 1: That the court said that it didn't cross the threshold,
Speaker 1: that it did not meet the level of.
Speaker 2: Prejudice that was necessary to undo the trial. That's my guess.
Speaker 3: I'll answer your first question. They all agree. Everybody agree
Speaker 3: read to proceed on the theory that the at least
Speaker 3: one juror heard the beeping and knew it was an
Speaker 3: ankle monitor.
Speaker 2: Okay, Now the crux of.
Speaker 3: The case is your second question, And so you youth,
Speaker 3: what do you The appeals court said that that I
Speaker 3: think crossed the line.
Speaker 1: I would say that it did not cross the line,
Speaker 1: and therefore the defendants case, she's not going to get
Speaker 1: a new trial.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 3: I think they said it a different way, but I
Speaker 3: think you're both saying the same thing. What they said
Speaker 3: is she could not show that there was any prejudicial effect.
Speaker 2: On her okay.
Speaker 3: Over over the possibility or the likelihood that a juror
Speaker 3: knew she was wearing an ankle monitor, and she does
Speaker 3: not get a new trial. Okay, all right, yeah, right,
Speaker 3: she got she got a lenient sentence.
Speaker 2: By the way, so because because of the argument come
Speaker 2: back or in general, she got a lien.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, she got a They had the trial,
Speaker 3: she was convicted, she got a lenient sentence, and then
Speaker 3: appealed on the ankle monitor beeping thing. Huh, Okay, it
Speaker 3: gets to keep her lenient sentence because it doesn't come
Speaker 3: back down to the judge who might feel like, hey,
Speaker 3: I did you.
Speaker 2: A solid, I did you two solids.
Speaker 3: I made them cut your ankle monitor off right away,
Speaker 3: and then I gave you a lenient sentence, and then
Speaker 3: you appeal and now you're back.
Speaker 2: But that didn't happen. Was there any argument?
Speaker 1: Did the judges the appeals court talk about the possibility
Speaker 1: that the jurors were under the impression that she had
Speaker 1: a smoke detector in her purse?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 2: No, that didn't that didn't come up? Okay, just wondering,
Speaker 2: Just want to stand the case.
Speaker 3: Again, just to see if I missed it though. All right,
Speaker 3: both of these cases involve an ankle monitor. Here's the case.
Speaker 3: It's very different than the last one. So this on
Speaker 3: trial for illegal gun possession, and one of his conditions
Speaker 3: is also that he wear an ankle monitor. Yet he
Speaker 3: is able to elude monitoring to go kill a rival.
Speaker 3: How could this have happened? You may ask yourself, Well,
Speaker 3: this gentleman has uh let me find it in the
Speaker 3: in the opinion, because it's funny the way.
Speaker 2: It's worded here.
Speaker 3: It is he has one natural leg and one removable
Speaker 3: prosthetic leg.
Speaker 2: And what do you think happened? He took off his leg.
Speaker 3: They put it on the wrong leg. They put it
Speaker 3: on his fake leg. And you're exactly right. He took
Speaker 3: off that fake leg, left it at his house.
Speaker 1: He has a spare, and he wasn't hopping, so he
Speaker 1: wasn't He didn't hop out of the house.
Speaker 2: No, he put on.
Speaker 3: His spare and he went to the part of town
Speaker 3: he was specifically forbidden to go to because his rival
Speaker 3: was there, and he killed his rival. So now the
Speaker 3: family is suing the United States government over this grievous error.
Speaker 3: Here's the thing you need to know. It was not
Speaker 3: any government employee that put the thing on the wrong leg.
Speaker 3: It was a contract company called Sentinel, and it was
Speaker 3: somebody at Sentinel that put it on the wrong leg.
Speaker 3: But the family is suing the United States government, and
Speaker 3: the government says, you can't sue us over this. Now,
Speaker 3: you might think it's just because you can't sue the
Speaker 3: US government. Normally, what do you have to have to
Speaker 3: sue the US government? Permission from the US government. That's
Speaker 3: normally how it works. They have to give you permission
Speaker 3: to sue them. There is an exception, though, and it's
Speaker 3: this Federal Tort Claims Act, where in certain circumstances you
Speaker 3: can sue the government, but you still can't sue them
Speaker 3: if the thing you're suing about was a discretionary act.
Speaker 3: You could sue them if they're doing something they have
Speaker 3: to do and they screw it up and you get hurt,
Speaker 3: but not if it's discretionary. So here's what you're gonna
Speaker 3: have to decide. They're suing the government. They're not suing Sentinel,
Speaker 3: the private company that contracted with the government.
Speaker 2: And the theory of the suit is negligent hiring.
Speaker 3: By hiring this company and entering into the contract, that
Speaker 3: the US government was negligent in the hiring of Sentinel. Wow,
Speaker 3: so here's the thing. The government says, that's a who
Speaker 3: to hire is a discretionary decision. We just side who
Speaker 3: to hire or contract with or who not to, So
Speaker 3: it's discretionary. You're not allowed to sue us for this.
Speaker 3: And the plaintiffs say, well, there's a lot of rules
Speaker 3: and regulations about government contracting. There's even the Federal Acquisition
Speaker 3: regulations that have all kinds of policies and procedures and
Speaker 3: stuff you got to do. So we say it's not
Speaker 3: discretionary because it's subject to so many rules. And the
Speaker 3: US government says, well, we say it's discretionary because there
Speaker 3: are a lot of rules, but the ultimate decision who
Speaker 3: to contract with is discretionary.
Speaker 2: It's interesting, say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you, that's an interesting, interesting case in the sense
Speaker 1: that I wouldn't have even filed. I would have filed
Speaker 1: straight out. The screw up was the government because Sentinel
Speaker 1: is an agent agency rules applies here where you know,
Speaker 1: you hire someone and they screw up. They're doing it
Speaker 1: on your behalf.
Speaker 2: So I you know, that's where I would have gone.
Speaker 1: And as far as discretion and not discretion, is the
Speaker 1: court ordering ankle bracelet or an ankle monitor?
Speaker 2: Is that discretionary, Well it is on the judge. Was
Speaker 2: that taken into account? I don't know. I am guessing that.
Speaker 1: And again these are guesses because they're I mean, it's
Speaker 1: pretty close. As far as I'm concerned that the government's
Speaker 1: argument about the discretionary part is not going to fly
Speaker 1: because there's enough out there that puts the government at
Speaker 1: risk for being sued.
Speaker 2: That's where I would go on this one.
Speaker 1: As far as the other cause of action, I would
Speaker 1: have filed on that on that cause of action.
Speaker 2: But what did the appeals court say?
Speaker 3: Well, they said that there is still enough discretion in
Speaker 3: government hiring, in contracting, that who to hire is a
Speaker 3: discretionary act and therefore you cannot sue.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I got that one.
Speaker 3: You brought up some Once again, this happens, and people, folks,
Speaker 3: it's not something that happens constantly, but from time to time.
Speaker 3: Bill Handle is smarter than any of the judges or
Speaker 3: lawyers in these cases. And This is one of those
Speaker 3: occasions because you talked about that once Sentinel is working
Speaker 3: for the government under a government contract, that they are
Speaker 3: in essence agents of the government.
Speaker 2: And wouldn't that mean.
Speaker 3: When they are ordered to put an ankle monitor on somebody,
Speaker 3: that's not a discretionary act for them.
Speaker 2: That's a required act. And that's where I would have gone,
Speaker 2: which they screwed up.
Speaker 3: Yep, And therefore there would be an opening to sue Sentinel.
Speaker 2: That's where go through the government. Yeah, That's that's where
Speaker 2: I was going.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And so I don't know why they only sued
Speaker 3: the government.
Speaker 2: I don't know why they are not as smart about
Speaker 2: it as as you just work. Thank you for that.
Speaker 3: I guess this probably doesn't stop them.
Speaker 2: Hopefully they're listening to this show.
Speaker 1: And you would think that they would have gone with
Speaker 1: both theories and hope one sticks.
Speaker 2: And that's usually the case.
Speaker 1: If A doesn't work, then we're still arguing A and B,
Speaker 1: and if that doesn't work, here's theory C. Hopefully something sticks.
Speaker 1: And I'm surprised that it didn't go that way.
Speaker 2: Wayne. Thank you. We'll catch you next year when we
Speaker 2: start doing this. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: In six one six January sixth. That's it, guys, we're done.
Speaker 1: It has been a very pleasant year maybe, and it's time.
Speaker 2: To say goodbye. I do you know what. It's almost
Speaker 2: like a eulogy here.
Speaker 1: Right, uh so, Happy Christmas as they say in England,
Speaker 1: Happy Hanukah as they say here.
Speaker 2: It's going to be a.
Speaker 1: Fun year next year as we look at a new
Speaker 1: presidency coming in President President on Musk. Yeah, President Musk, Yeah,
Speaker 1: pretty much. I was gonna I was almost going to
Speaker 1: say President Trump, but who are we kidding? All Right, guys,
Speaker 1: have a good one. I'll catch you at the beginning
Speaker 1: of next year. Coming up, Gary and Shannon, except it's
Speaker 1: best of Gary.
Speaker 2: And Shannon because we're already in that week.
Speaker 1: This is KFI AM six forty more stimulating talk radio.
Speaker 2: You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 1: Catch my Show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
Speaker 1: and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.