Speaker 1: What's going on. Thank you so much for listening to
this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon
to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you
want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream,
my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron,
go to dpeakclendershow dot com, make sure you hit the
subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your
smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for
your support. So the Robed Resistance, the Robed Resistance. I
was happy to see Politico actually acknowledged that this is
a real thing, that this is occurring. Not that I
needed Politico to affirm my observation, but considering what we
heard at the White House Correspondence Association gala the other
night about how media needs to admit if they've made mistakes,
and they gave an award to Alex Thompson because he
alone was the only reporter who could determine that Joe
Biden maybe slipping a little bit, and he did the
story before anybody else months after the election and the coup.
But I just feel like it's good to acknowledge when
somebody in a legacy or mainstream media outlet like this
that covers the White House, covers politics, that they that
they recognize the thing that is obvious to us all.
It's good, right. It's a shared it's a shared sense
of what is occurring. Right, A lot of people lament
Back in the olden times when we only had three
TV stations, everybody had a shared sense of what is
true and what is not. Because the media acts as gatekeepers.
It is by definition a gatekeeping kind of operation industry.
And I'm not saying that as a slur. I am
a gatekeeper as well. You are too. On your social media.
You don't retweet and repost every single thing. Okay, well
some of you do. I know who you are. But
some people just regurgitate everything, but not everything, right. They
don't post things that they don't agree with usually, So
everybody is acting as sort of an aggregator and a gatekeeper,
and the media has done this since its inception. That's
the core function is to look at the universe of
stories that are out there and then to aggregate down
the things that are most important that you're going to
now devote your time and energy to reporting on. But
the downside of that, obviously is that yes, you may
have a shared sense of what is true and real
and what's happen in the world, but the gatekeeping function
restricts other stories that might actually be as important or
more important than the stories that the gatekeepers have allowed
to pass through. So again, kudos to Politico for writing
one of the most powerful wings of the Trump resistance
may be at risk of losing a crucial tool. What
is this nationwide injunctions aka lawfare? Democrats lefty groups suing
in front of allied judges and getting temporary restraining orders
or injunctions against Donald Trump's executive orders or actions, and
it blocks Trump from implementing his agenda because they can
block him at the legislature. You know, they lost the
White House, and so this is the only thing that
they can do to gum up the works and run
out the clock. And that is the point here, right,
It's to drag everything out so long that Trump's tenure
ends before he is able to implement lasting change. They
ask the question, what is the extent of lower court
judges power to block a president's policies nationwide? That's the
core question that the US Supreme Court now has agreed
to hear arguments on next month. If the High Court
grants the Trump administration's request to limit or lift three
nationwide injunctions blocking his bid to end birthright citizenship, it
could cripple the ability of President Donald Trump's opponents to
seek and judge's ability to grant these blocks entirely. Right.
It's it's getting worse right this, These abuses are getting
worse and more voluminous, partly because Donald Trump has been
doing a lot of stuff. Right. When you're cranking out
executive orders at a clip like we're seeing, then you're
going to get a commensurate amount of lawsuits that are
going to be venue shopped to judges that agree with
the Democrats the plaintiffs, and then you're going to end
up with more and more and more of these injunctions.
And I think you know, part of the problem in
kind of going over this topic is that sometimes it
is appropriate, sometimes you should be able to do this,
but sometimes you shouldn't, and so you got to differentiate
on a case by case basis. It is sort of
a Cloward Piven effect, right. The old what sociologists who
came up with this plan back in the sixties, the
idea being to overwhelm the entire system with applicants for
all sorts of government assistants and payments, and the idea
is to strain, if not bankrupt, the system in order
to force a collectivist shift among the elites to allow for,
among other things, a guaranteed income for people to not
even work. Just everybody gets a guaranteed income. That was
one of the end goals. Politico says. Federal judges across
the country have already applied the remedy to halt key
parts of the president's agenda in lawsuits challenging anti diversity initiatives,
cuts to federal medical research, the pause on refuge admissions,
and a freeze on nearly all federal grants spending. Such
limits on the executive branch, according to the Trump administration,
prevent the government from functioning properly. And they are correct
about that, right. An administration that comes in and says,
you know, we're promising to do X, Y and Z
when we're in charge of the administration or the executive branch,
and is then blocked from doing those things. Yes, right,
you are preventing the government from functioning properly. President Joe
Biden's Department of Justice also asked the Supreme Court to
limit lower courts nationwide injunction powers because once again, remember
the other team gets an at bet, they get to
play too. And the Biden administration tried to stop states
from blocking actions by the federal government that these Republican
led states opposed. So you know, three years ago, this
was the argument being made by the Biden administration. The
justices at the time did not take up that request.
Conservative members of the Court have been public though, about
their desire to restrain the broad applications of nationwide injunctions, right,
because some of these lawyers with the wardrobe change, these
lefty lawyers that win judge ships or get appointed to
the bench, they are abusing their powers. That's why it's
called lawfare, all right. So spring is here a time
of renewal and celebrations. You've got graduations, weddings, anniversaries and
the special days for mom and dad. Your family's making
memories that are going to last a lifetime. But let
me ask you, are all of those treasured moments from
days gone by? Are they hidden away on old VCR tapes,
eight millimeter films, photos slides? Are they preserved? Because over time,
these precious memories can fade and deteriorate, losing the magic
of yesterday. At Creative Video, they help you protect what
matters most. Their expert team digitizes your cherished family moments
and transfers them onto a USB drive, freezing them in
time so they can be enjoyed for generations to come.
I urge you do not wait until it's too late.
This spring, celebrate your past. Visit Creative Video today and
let them preserve your legacy with the love and care
that it deserves. Creative Video Preserving Family Memories since nineteen
ninety seven, located in mint Hill, just off four eighty five,
mail orders are accepted to get all the details that
create a video dot com so Politico. Kudos to Politico
for recognizing that the lawfare is one of the most
powerful wings of the Trump resistance, and they may be
losing a crucial tool, the ability to go in front
of a single judge that hates Donald Trump, who then
issues an injunction to prevent Trump from doing stuff. Now
the Supreme Court has agreed to take the sub they
could declare that trial judges can enter injunctions that apply
only in the geographic districts where they are appointed. So
if you take your case to Charlotte and you win,
it would only affect whatever jurisdiction Charlotte covers. That's it.
Or the Supreme Court might restrict trial judges from issuing
remedies that go beyond the specific litigans in a particular case.
So if I were to bring a challenge a complaint
and I win, the Supreme Court could say, well, it
only applies to me. You can't create an entire class
of plaintiffs that haven't been designated as an official class,
and that takes time. Think like class action lawsuits. You know,
you got to put out all the postcards, you got
to send them all out, you got to get people
to sign up, and then you got to kind of
vet everybody, and then if you're successful, you get like,
you know, a dollar eighty two in some settlement. Right
three members of the High Court's right flank have already
made clear they would all but eliminate lower Court's power
to issue nationwide injunctions. Those justices would be Clarence Thomas,
Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsich. Because last year they wrote
an opinion. Gorsets wrote an opinion. The other two signed
on warning that injunctions and other relief should be limited
to the named plaintiffs in a case, rather than applying
across the country. Gorsetch wrote, quote, retiring the universal injunction
may not be the answer to everything that ails us,
but it will lead federal courts to become a little
truer to the historic limits of their office. Okay, so
what is he saying there? He's saying that these lower
court Democrat judges have abused their authority. They have usurped
the norms. Right, This power traditionally was very very limited.
The use of it was very limited. But in recent
years it has grown more and more prolific, more and
more sweeping, right covering the entire country. I mean, heck,
you got that guy Boseburg on the bench up in
what DC or New York. He's like, now broken the
boundaries of America. He's demanding El Salvador do stuff. Justice
Brett Kavanaugh also has indicated that the Court should review
the appropriateness of nationwide injunctions, but that that doesn't give
us any indication as to which way he may go
on this right, And I don't put a whole lot
of stock in predictions on how justices are going to
rule on various things. People make all sorts of speculations.
Your court watchers say that it looked like this was
going to happen. You don't know that, Okay. The wild
cards are John Roberts, Amy, Cony, Barrett, because they have
not offered clear signs yet of what their views on
this subject are. So if you were to get rid
of nationwide injunctions, there could be real costs. According to
Rick Hassen, a prominent election law expert at UCLA's Law School,
a fave of the left, he described a scenario in
which Trump's efforts to end automatic birthright citizenship is upheld
in one circuit court but not in another, leaving people
in one region of the country who are going to
face consequences during that period, sometimes consequences that might not
be undone. Right, So, yeah, you live in California and
you're an illegal alien and you have a child, and
now that child is a citizen. But you live in
in Arkansas and same thing, but now that kit is
not a citizen.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: It's going to create problems because you'll have all of
these different circuits with different ideas and different rulings. And
so the application of those laws then are different for
those people in those jurisdictions. Abolishing these national injunctions would
mean a tougher fight for the many groups suing the administration,
if only because it will add to the constant legal
uncertainty and chaos that sometimes enables Trump's policies.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Well, there's another reason that makes it more difficult for
these groups is that they actually have to go and
litigate in front of multiple different judges across the country.
It limits their ability to venue shop, forum shop, judge shop. Right.
They now have to make these arguments to a wide
array of judges in different areas of the country with
different judicial philosophies, and you may get different results. See.
That's why it would be difficult for these groups during
the time it takes for cases to percolate all the
way up to this US Supreme Court, the administration would
have authority to continue policies and practices that some courts
have already temporarily put on hold. Hassen said quote. Part
of the problem is that Trump is doing so many
things that are extraordinary that lead to litigation that have
to be resolved on an emergency basis. See it's Trump's fault.
It's Trump's fault that we have to sue him for
trying to follow immigration law or something. And that's how
you end up also with these crazy judges like the
one that got herself arrested up in Minnesota, I believe,
or yeah, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Yeah. Here's a great idea. How
about making an escape to a really special and secluded
getaway in western North Carolina. Just a quick drive up
the mountain and Cabins of Ashville is your connection. Whether
you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon, maybe you want to
plan a memorable proposal, or get family and friends together
for a big old reunion, Cabins of Asheville has the
ideal spot for you where you can reconnect with your
loved ones and the things that truly matter. Nestled within
the breath taking fourteen thousand acres of the Pisga National Forest,
their cabins offer a serene escape in the heart of
the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally located between Ashville and the
entrance of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, It's the
perfect balance of seclusion and proximity to all the local attractions,
with hot tubs, fireplaces, air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi Fi grills,
outdoor tables, and your own private covered porch. Choose from
thirteen cabins, six cottages, two villas, and a great lodge
with eleven king sized bedrooms. Cabins of Ashville has the
ideal spot for you for any occasion, and they have
pet friendly accommodations. Call or text eight two eight three
six seven seventy sixty eight or check out all there
is to offer at Cabins Ofashville dot com and make
memories that'll last a lifetime. I'm actually going to talk
with Will Chamberlain. He is the senior council at the
Article three project.
Speaker 2: Will.
Speaker 1: How are you, sir?
Speaker 2: Good? Great to be with you, Pete, Yes, sir, thanks.
Speaker 1: For making time for me. I appreciate it today. So
I went over a little bit political had a recent
article going over how the US Supreme Court is going
to look at these nationwide injunctions. But it's part of
this case over birthright citizenship, and so I guess the
first question I've got is is this even something that
the Supreme Court can actually rain in? Because it feels
like these lower court judges are abusing their powers, and
I don't know how the Supreme Court would actually get
at that to codify it.
Speaker 2: I mean if they you know, the Supreme Court has
a lot of discretion at least with regard to you know,
the essentially the procedures of the courts below them, certainly,
and you know what authority they have to issue injunctions,
I mean equity, which is where all this comes from,
and is really a judge made concept. It's judge made law.
So on the I mean, obviously Congress could put a
stop to it, to it too, and you know, impose
restrictions on the lower courts. That's within their authority. But
I think the Supreme Court could do the same thing.
Speaker 1: So how would that look If you've got different district
courts issuing different rulings, you could have like a patchwork
of the application of the law throughout the country.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, but that's already the case. I mean, that's
actually the way the law works now in a lot
of different instances. Right. There's a lot of cases where
you have disagree with each other on the point of law,
and that's often ultimately leads to the Supreme Court stepping
into try and make the law uniform. Across the country.
But the idea that I mean, yeah, there are certainly
issues where the law is functionally different in different circus,
and probably will be until the Supreme Court gets a
chance to weigh in in a proper case.
Speaker 1: I got an email question from Chris. He says, what
executable accountability is there if the injunctions are ignored? I
guess by the administration.
Speaker 2: I mean accountability nothing. I mean, there's no there's no
other than the accountability is impeachment by the House and
conviction by the Senate. The president is the head of
the executive branch and in charge of all federal law enforcement.
There's no independent enforcement agency above the president that could
force him to obey the Supreme Court. There is just
the remedy of impeachment.
Speaker 1: So do you think that that is That's sort of
the second goal of the law fair that we're seeing
is to induce this refusal to follow an injunction in
order to then you know, stack up a case for
imp if the Democrats win back control.
Speaker 2: That might be part of it. Yeah, I think that
I could easily see that being the logic. You know, basically,
try and get to a point where you essentially force
the administration to defy a court order because the court
order is lawless, the court order doesn't respect core Article
two prerogatives. And then in a couple of years we
could see, yeah, we could see some sort of impeachment
attempt based on that.
Speaker 1: So what what's your assessment of this of this fight
this is it does it rise to the constitutional crisis level?
Or is it is this sort of like a natural
testing and pushing back one branch against another.
Speaker 2: I think it's it's more, you know, the push and
pull of an executive branch that's finally decided to assert
its authority and the judicial branch being staff of a
bunch of people who despise the president and are trying
to push back on that. I think that's really I've
said this before, but the constitution crisis is being created
by some unbelievably aggressive district court rulings.
Speaker 1: So are there any that particularly stand out?
Speaker 2: Oh? I mean, there was there was the order by
the DC district judge to turn planes around once the
planes were already in mid air. There was a different
DC judge who ordered USA to disperse funds without a bond,
wildly outside of jurisdiction. Because you know, and jurisdiction is
sort of a routine theme where it's like courts don't
actually have the authority to issue the release they're issuing.
So you know, a DC district judge doesn't have the
right to demand that funds be dispersed because that's the
contract matter and that goes to the Court of Federal Claims.
The DC judge who ordered planes turn around didn't have
jurisdiction because it's a habeus issue, so it needs to
be brought in the court where the person is being
held or was most recently held. So you have this
consistent problem where district judges are like, oh, the Trump
administration is violating the law, and then they're violating the
law themselves because they're not even looking at whether they
have the authority to issue a decision in the first place.
Speaker 1: Do you think that Trump and the administration should consider
looking at suspending habeas for deportees.
Speaker 2: I mean they should look at it. I think I
don't think it's necessary, But there's a world in which
if I mean that is the underlying in a world
where the Supreme Court imposes unbelievably ownerous restrictions on individual deportations.
I think that'll be necessary. I just I think that
there's a there's a democratic legitimacy problem. President Trump was
elected to engage in mass deportation. He ran on the platform.
The Biden administration facilitated a mass invasion. If the judiciary
is going to forward the democratic will of the people
on an issue at this central to our country, then
I think that, you know, the president should look at
all options available to him to achieve what he ran
on and what he legitimately should have the right to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, let me shift gears up to Milwaukee
County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan. This is the this
is the judge. Yeah, that apparently helped an illegal, a criminal,
violent criminal, illegal alien, helped him escape out the back
door to avoid arrest by ice. She then got herself
arrested for that obstruction. I would say, have you ever
heard of anything like this? But I think we actually
did hear about something like this during Trump's first term,
when a different judge did a similar thing. I guess
it speaks to sort of the same kind of mindset
that has infected a lot of these leftist lawyers with
wardrobe changes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean in the sense It's a really great
metaphor for what the federal judiciary is doing as well.
The difference is the federal judiciary has lawful authority to
decide cases, so they can't be prosecuted for just deciding
a case incorrectly and there and thereby you know, protecting
illegal aliens. But the state court judge didn't have any
authority to do anything like that, and yet took it
upon herself to, yeah, shove this person through the jury
door and try and help them get out of the
building before I scot them.
Speaker 1: Right, you have you read the details, like who else,
like the victims were in the court with them and
saw this all play out, Like it's just it's it's
an am amazing, just tone deaf thing to do, just
offensive thing to do for an officer of a court.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was incredibly audacious. I mean just in the
level of entitlement. You know, I've been reading a lot
about immigration recently, in the sort of history of the
asylum movements and a lot of the NGOs that work
in immigration, and you have to understand, these people think
they're like Harriet Tubman running the underground railroad. They they
just they think they're farts nut stake. They think they're
so righteous that the law is just there as a
tool to be used, but it's not something they need
to obey because their righteous cause is more important than
the law.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it really is. It really is amazing. Thank goodness,
the the Ice folks caught the guy outside the courthouse
where having we had a similar thing happened right here
in Charlotte last week. Our sheriff confronted some ICE agents
that were picking somebody up outside the courthouse, which, of
course now they're allowed to do. Like the Ice agents
are allowed to affect these arrests on public property as
long as it's not inside of a courtroom. I believe
if it's out in the hallways or out on the courtyard,
they can do this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's this is the United States of America. You know,
the state of North Carolina is not independently sovereign. We
don't get to tell federal authorities to go away. That's
not how this works. Like the most basic part of
a Constitution of supremacy clause, the federal government is supreme
to the states. There are certain rights reserved of the states,
but when federal authorities are engaged in federal law enforcement,
i e. Immigration enforcement, the States don't get to tell
them go away. I mean outside of like the limited
context of inside a courtroom.
Speaker 1: Right, which I think we can all understand why if
you're you know, running a court, that would make sense.
You don't want to be, you know, tackling people and
arresting them right in front. But it's a controlled environment.
It just makes sense. It's the courthouse, or it's the jail,
Like that's the safest place to take somebody into custody.
It's it's bizarre, right.
Speaker 2: You don't have go to their house, you don't have
to go with guns. You know they've been disarmed. They're right,
you know, they're around other law enforcement. Like, it's a
very safe place to affect arrests, which is why it's
perfectly sensible for ICE to want to do it in
a courthouse.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Will Chamberlain, the senior counselor at the Article three Project,
go to talk with you, sir, Thanks a lot for
your insight, appreciate.
Speaker 2: It, absolutely always kind Pete, all right.
Speaker 1: If you're listening to this show, you know I try
to keep up with all sorts of current events, and
I know you do too. And you've probably heard me
say get your news from multiple sources. Why well, because
it's how you detect media bias, which is why I've
been so impressed with ground News. It's an app and
it's a website and it combines news from around the
world in one place so you can compare coverage and
verify information. You can check it out at check dot ground,
dot news slash pete. I put the link in the
podcast description too. I started using ground News a few
months ago and more recently chose to work with them
as an affiliate because it lets me see clearly how
stories get covered and by whom. The blind spot feature
shows you which stories get ignored by the left and
the right. See for yourself. Check dot ground, dot news
slash pete. Subscribe through that link and you'll get fifteen
percent off any subscription. I use the Vantage plan to
get unlimited access to every feature. Your subscription then not
only helps my podcast, but it also supports ground News
as they make the media landscape more transparent. I do
not know what airport this is, but they hung like
a twenty by twenty foot painting of Icarus on fire
falling from the sky. Why would you do that in
an airport. Why kind of awkward, I mean, not as
awkward as I don't know, say Bill Belichick interview on
Sunday Mornings. But also, did you see the scandal about
Donald Trump's blue suit? You wore a blue suit to
the Pope's funeral, and like somebody took a crop shot
photograph everybody around him wearing black, Trump's wearing blue and
you're not supposed to wear a blue suit. And then
when you zoom out, you see like Prince William wearing
a blue suit. You see like all these other people
wearing dark blue suits as well. Now, I don't know
if it raised arises to the scandalous level of Obama's
tan suit, which was scandalous, whereas Ronald Reagan's tan suit
was pretty norm But yeah, I don't know. Maybe you
know what, maybe Trump goes with the tattered like grassmowing
sweatshirt that Bill Belichick wore during his interview, Like do
that too, Like just start wearing that? Do not get it?
Speaker 2: All?
Speaker 1: Right? So protesters were out there protesting as they are
known to do outside the FBI after in Milwaukee, after
agents arrested a Milwaukee judge accused of helping a man
evade immigration authorities. The case has escalated. That's the word escalation.
That's the word. If you don't believe me. Here is
a compilation put together by Western Lensman over on Twitter
of the calcifying narrative.
Speaker 3: We begin tonight with the escalation in the President's crackdown
on illegal immigrations.
Speaker 4: Today's dramatic escalation in the Trump Administration's conflict with judges,
with the Trump administration signaling a major escalation in its
deportation efforts.
Speaker 1: Today, an escalation and the Trump Administration's battle with the judiciary.
Speaker 2: Tensions between local and federal authorities of our President Trump's
immigration crackdown escalated today.
Speaker 1: We began this hour with a major escalation of the
Trump Administration's cracked down or immigration as.
Speaker 4: We begin with what appears to be a major escalation
in the Trump Administration's deportation efforts, and what is a
major escalation in the battle here in DC over immigration
and deportation.
Speaker 1: This feels like an insane and reckless escalation from the
Trump administration. Arresting a judge. I will tell you you
are not alone, is a dramatic escalation, more.
Speaker 4: Aggressive moves, more escalation.
Speaker 1: With Trump's escalation of his migrant purge.
Speaker 3: This kind of escalatory action.
Speaker 1: This is a dramatic escalation. Escalation, escalation, escalation, escalation, escalation.
You see an immigration and escalation and escalation. Props to
the guy who used the was it escalatory escalator or
something where I didn't want to say an escalation. There
is a reason why they all are saying the same thing.
It's because somebody wrote it, probably the AP. I have
the AP article here in second sentence, the case has
escalated a clash, has it? Is this an escalation or
is this the results of your own actions? When a
judge breaks a law, then law enforcement goes in and
arrests the judge, just like the judge down in where
was it Arizona or something? Or California where the judge
and his wife asked if some MS thirteen or TDA
gangbanger guy wanted to stay in their poolhouse. I don't
know if he was actually cleaning the pool while he
was there. But to me, if you're breaking the law
and you're aiding and embedding, obstructing, or harboring, and you
know a wanted person, whether they're illegal or not, it's
not an escalation to then arrest you for doing that.
It is the natural outcome of your actions, right, it's
the reaping phase. All right, let me jump over here. Well, say,
John Doe, Welcome to the program, John Doe, how are you.
Speaker 2: Hey, How are you doing? Pepe?
Speaker 3: Hey, I'm your friend that you met at the Yes, Yes, sir,
I just wanted to share a story. Well, first of all,
what you're talking about with the judge makes me sick
to my stomach. Yeah, I mean, it is absolutely ridiculous.
But I wanted to share a story when I was
in law enforcement, how our judges treated us at the
municipal level. I was working and I got a phone
call from a judge that was actually in the middle
of a trial that took a recess to let us
know that the person that was on trial had an
active warrant and he wanted us to wait for him
outside of the courthouse so we could take him in
the custody.
Speaker 1: Oh. So, like the complete opposite of what this Milwaukee
judge did.
Speaker 3: Correct, correct, And that's how I, truly, and I hope
most people believed how judges and law enforcement on all levels, municipal, federal.
I mean, that's how we should get along and work
to get together cohesively versus trying to evade or help criminals.
Speaker 1: Right if the law, If as an officer of the court,
the judge is supposed to be applying the law, and
they know that there is an active warrant out for
somebody's arrest, then you would think it would be their
duty as an officer of the court to alert the
proper other officers of the of the court to go
and pick the person up.
Speaker 3: And that's that's exactly what this judge did. And literally
in the middle of the court, Hey, come get them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well you dropped. I'm sorry you dropped out there.
Uh so he said, literally, that's right. I said, literally
in the middle of the court. Then then you dropped out.
What happened in the middle of the court.
Speaker 3: In the middle of the trial. He took a recess
to let us know to get them and rest them
on the court on the property of the court.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well yeah, because again it's a controlled environment. They've
gone through security, so you know they don't have weapons
coming in, and you got law enforcement all over the place.
It makes sense.
Speaker 3: And I just want to say there are good judges
out there. Yes, obviously this one is just not there.
Speaker 1: No, definitely not. Hey, John, appreciate the call. Man, good
to talk with.
Speaker 3: You, Yes, sir, thank you.
Speaker 1: All right, take it easy. The protesters out in front
of the FBI were chanting, because again that's what protesters do.
They were chanting, well, unless they're doing the die ins
right where they just lay down on the ground. They
were chanting. Immigrants are here to stay. That's what they
were chanting. Immigrants are here to stay. So again, like
they're telling you what they believe the border policy should
be and what we witnessed under the Biden administration, and
is it they want open borders, they don't want any deportations.
All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you
so much for listening. I could not do the show
without your support and the support of the businesses that
advertise on the podcast, So if you'd like, please support
them too and tell them you heard it here. You
can also become a patron at my Patreon page or
go to dpetecleanershow dot com. Again, thank you so much
for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.