Speaker 1: To night. Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA
Speaker 1: director of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie,
Speaker 1: You're doing a heck of a job. The Weekend with
Speaker 1: Michael Brown. Hey broadcasting live from Denver, Colorado. It's the
Speaker 1: Weekend of Michael Brown. Really happy to have you joining
Speaker 1: the program today. I always appreciate you tuning in, whether
Speaker 1: you tune in during the weekday or on the weekend. Now,
Speaker 1: you know a couple of rules of engagement. If you
Speaker 1: want to engage with the program. The easiest way to
Speaker 1: do it while we're on live, or but you can
Speaker 1: do at anytime, is to send me a text message
Speaker 1: that on your message at the number is three three
Speaker 1: one zero three three three one zero three. Just use
Speaker 1: a keyword Mike or Michael. Or if you want to
Speaker 1: on social media, the best place to engage in social
Speaker 1: media is on X formally Twitter, and that's at Michael
Speaker 1: Brown USA, at Michael Brown USA. So give me a
Speaker 1: follow right now. Go do that. So the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice on I Forget Now Wednesday or Thursday confirmed finally
Speaker 1: a settlement quote in principle that they've reached in the
Speaker 1: thirty million dollars wrongful death lawsuit that was filed on
Speaker 1: behalf of the estate of Ashley Babbitt. Remember Ashley Babbitt,
Speaker 1: the young soldier that was killed by a female soldier
Speaker 1: that was killed by a cop inside the capitol on
Speaker 1: that day that democracy almost died January sixth, twenty twenty one. Yeah, finally.
Speaker 1: Now terms of the settlement have not been disclosed. I
Speaker 1: don't know what the specific terms are, but there was
Speaker 1: a hearing this week in front of Judge Anna Rays.
Speaker 1: Both sides during this hearing indicated that it could be
Speaker 1: at least a month before the final agreement is before
Speaker 1: the agreement is finalized and then made public, which is
Speaker 1: not uncommon in these They do this they go into
Speaker 1: the courtroom to announce that, Hey, we judge, we've got
Speaker 1: the framework for a settlement agreement. So we would ask
Speaker 1: you to put everything on hold, you know, stop the schedule,
Speaker 1: stop the discovery, stop the motions, and everything else. Give us.
Speaker 1: In this case, they asked for thirty days or more
Speaker 1: to finalize the agreement. So that's pretty normal. Everything's going
Speaker 1: to be worked out. So what Let's go back a
Speaker 1: little bit. In January of last year, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: Judicial Watch a great organization. If you're not aware of it,
Speaker 1: just go online and check it out. Judicial Watch. They
Speaker 1: represented Ashley's widower, Aaron, and they filed a complaint under
Speaker 1: the Federal Torque Claims Act, and they accused the government
Speaker 1: of causing personal injury and death caused by the negligent
Speaker 1: or wrongful acts or omissions of one or more employees
Speaker 1: of the federal government. So you remember what happened around
Speaker 1: I don't know two thirty three o'clock in the afternoon
Speaker 1: on January sixth, Michael Byrd, the Capitol Police lieutenant, shot
Speaker 1: Ashley in the shoulder. She and other protesters were remember
Speaker 1: they were packed in this small air outside the Speaker's
Speaker 1: lobby where two protesters had smashed in windows. According to
Speaker 1: the lawsuit quote, Ashley was ambushed when she was shot
Speaker 1: by Lieutenant Michael Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled,
Speaker 1: you killed her. She was thirty five years old at
Speaker 1: the time. She was completely unarmed, and if you recall,
Speaker 1: she was just always just bumfuzzles me because every cop
Speaker 1: that you know, every cop that I know, every cop
Speaker 1: that I've ever represented or dealt with, or had any
Speaker 1: occasion to talk to about this knows that before you
Speaker 1: fire your service weapon, that you want to make certain
Speaker 1: that the subject that you're trying to kill is in
Speaker 1: your line of sight and that there's nobody else around,
Speaker 1: or if there's somebody else around, then you either have
Speaker 1: to you know, you got to make a split second decision,
Speaker 1: a nanosecond decision. Do I fire and if there's somebody
Speaker 1: standing next to or behind the person that I'm trying
Speaker 1: to stop, do I run the risk that I might
Speaker 1: hit them? Or do I pause and run the risk
Speaker 1: that I might get killed. Well, in this case, there
Speaker 1: were armed cops right behind Ashley Babbitt, So if she
Speaker 1: were presenting a threat to Captain Bird, they would have
Speaker 1: or could have seen it, and they could have disarmed her.
Speaker 1: They could have arrested her, they could have taken her
Speaker 1: to the ground. There's a number of things that they
Speaker 1: could have done, but they didn't do anything. Now somewhat
Speaker 1: in their defense, I'm only what I'm really trying to
Speaker 1: do is point out that Captain Bird wildly shot into
Speaker 1: a crowd in my opinion, and hit Ashley Babbitt, and
Speaker 1: or he deliberately took aim at her and shot at her.
Speaker 1: But if you recall that video. They're in the stairwell
Speaker 1: and the crowd is pushing upwards, and she's kind of trapped,
Speaker 1: and she's kind of being pushed upwards too, and they're
Speaker 1: being pushed toward a As you reach the top of
Speaker 1: the stairs, there is a door. And then as you're
Speaker 1: looking at the door where Ashley would be standing, to
Speaker 1: the left of that door, there are windows, and you
Speaker 1: can see through the windows that on the other side
Speaker 1: of the windows, perpendicular to those windows is a door
Speaker 1: that goes into the Speaker's office. So, Captain Bird, I
Speaker 1: just want you to think about this. If you were
Speaker 1: Captain Bird, but you weren't a cop, and you were,
Speaker 1: let's say, in your home in that situation, and you
Speaker 1: could close your door and lock your door, and the
Speaker 1: people that were in a other in a stairwell or
Speaker 1: on a patio or something and trying to break into
Speaker 1: your house, but they had not yet broken into your house,
Speaker 1: would you have been justified in opening the door, stepping
Speaker 1: out and wildly shooting, And perhaps you shot somebody that
Speaker 1: was standing out in the yard that had seen the
Speaker 1: commotion and stopped to see what was going on, Because
Speaker 1: that's in essence what he did, and I think in
Speaker 1: that situation it would be a pretty close case in
Speaker 1: so far as whether it was self defense or not.
Speaker 1: But that's it was clearly not self defense here, because
Speaker 1: you had cops in the stairwell, you had him behind
Speaker 1: not only the door that was keeping the crowd at bay,
Speaker 1: but you had him inside the door that led into
Speaker 1: the Speaker's office. And absent any facts that I'd not
Speaker 1: been able to find anywhere in the lawsuit, there was
Speaker 1: no reason why he couldn't have closed the door and
Speaker 1: escaped and left and gone somewhere else. But instead he
Speaker 1: chose to open the door, stick his arm out, and
Speaker 1: fire into the crowd. That was on January sixth, Now
Speaker 1: the Speaker's lobby. Protesters had smashed some of those windows,
Speaker 1: but no one had gone through the windows. The lawsuit
Speaker 1: seat says Ashley was ambushed when she was shot by
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Michael Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you
Speaker 1: killed her. Now. The Department of Justice under Sleepy Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: announced in April of twenty one that it had closed
Speaker 1: an investigation into the killing. Biden's Department of Justice determined
Speaker 1: that Bird did not violate Ashley's civil rights and in
Speaker 1: a press release that they sent out in April of
Speaker 1: twenty one, So just a mere three four months after
Speaker 1: the event. It's pretty fast investigation, isn't it. The press
Speaker 1: release said this, as this requirement has been in turn
Speaker 1: violating her civil rights. As this requirement has been interpreted
Speaker 1: by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence,
Speaker 1: or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of
Speaker 1: intent required. And then what happened, Well, it kind of
Speaker 1: got even worse. It's the Weekend with Michael Brown. Text
Speaker 1: the word Michael Michael three three wednes zero three. If
Speaker 1: you like what we do on the weekend or you'd
Speaker 1: like to listen to the podcast, that's real easy to
Speaker 1: do on your podcast app. Search for the Situation with
Speaker 1: Michael Brown The Situation with Michael Brown. Once you find mapp,
Speaker 1: you hit that subscribe button, leave a five star review,
Speaker 1: and they'll give you all five days a weekday program
Speaker 1: plus the weekend program. More about this Biden investigation next. Hey,
Speaker 1: so we came with Michael Brown. Thanks for tuning in.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you joining the program. Be sure and follow
Speaker 1: me on x formerly Twitter at Michael Brown USA and
Speaker 1: the text line three three one zero three keyword Micha
Speaker 1: or Michael. So they said under the Biden administration, the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice cleared Michael Bird, Captain Bird. And then
Speaker 1: he gets promoted. He gets promoted despite a long record
Speaker 1: of personal and professional misconduct. He's the guy you or
Speaker 1: may not remember this story, but you remember prior to
Speaker 1: January sixth, twenty twenty one, when there was I mean
Speaker 1: it was a national news story. I forget whether it's
Speaker 1: a tourist or a Capital employee, but somebody walked into
Speaker 1: a Capital visitors center bathroom. Now, if you're not familiar,
Speaker 1: they've and you and I paid for it. They spent
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of dollars to build a visitor center
Speaker 1: on the east side of the of the US Capital
Speaker 1: so that you come in through this you know, giant entryway,
Speaker 1: and you you know, there's all sorts of you know,
Speaker 1: like museum like displays, and then of course you know,
Speaker 1: you get uh, you get badged or you get your
Speaker 1: little pass and then you go through a tunnel and
Speaker 1: then you come out into the rotunda. And so it's
Speaker 1: a way to funnel all of the visitors in through
Speaker 1: one way. It's it's enhanced security. It's a TSA like protocol.
Speaker 1: It's really kind of stupid in my opinion. But nonetheless, uh,
Speaker 1: and what's really stupid is how much money we spent
Speaker 1: on it. But one of those tourists has to pee
Speaker 1: real badly or I don't know, maybe number two. I
Speaker 1: don't know, but they got to go to the bathroom.
Speaker 1: It'd be but they've been waiting in line forever drinking
Speaker 1: too much diaco, and they and they walk into the bathroom,
Speaker 1: go into a stall, and holy crap, there's a gun.
Speaker 1: So they report the gun to the you know, they
Speaker 1: stepped back out, you know, find it, you know, a
Speaker 1: Capitol police officer somewhere, and say, oh, there's a gun
Speaker 1: in there on the toilet. So you know, they immediately
Speaker 1: you know, block everything off and go in and oh, well,
Speaker 1: guess what it was Captain Bird's service weapon. I guess
Speaker 1: he had to take a whiz real badly or I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe number two, but whatever, he took his
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, took his gun out of his holster
Speaker 1: and set it on the toilet or on the floor.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure where it was and got up and
Speaker 1: finished his business and walked out and left his gun. Wow.
Speaker 1: And he got promoted. Yes, and that's the guy that
Speaker 1: shot Ashley Babbitt. But that's not the only thing. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of other stuff that only one place that
Speaker 1: I know, maybe other places did, the only one place
Speaker 1: that I know of reported it. And it was all
Speaker 1: because Congressman Barry Laudermic Laudermilk back in twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: wrote a letter to the Department of Justice about Captain
Speaker 1: Bird and they were conducting a review a hearing, and
Speaker 1: his Captain Bird record was uncovered during this House Administration
Speaker 1: Oversight Subcommittee investigation into just the General Capitol Police disciplinary process.
Speaker 1: And in the letter, the chairman, Barry Laudermick, he's a
Speaker 1: Republican from Georgia, wrote this this subcommittee. His debt is
Speaker 1: dedicated to ensuring that the US Capitol Police has autonomy
Speaker 1: from political pressures so it can make operational and personnel decisions. However,
Speaker 1: based on the information obtained by the subcommittee regarding the
Speaker 1: US Capitol Police as handling a Capital Bird following January sixth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, and his significant disciplinary history, I have
Speaker 1: concerns the congressman wrote about the Capitol Police's decision to
Speaker 1: promote him to the rank of captain, and then they
Speaker 1: go on to describe five incidents, actually more than that,
Speaker 1: because some of these contain more than one incident, but
Speaker 1: five categories one. In two thousand and four, there was
Speaker 1: an incident where Captain Bird, who was off duty, shot
Speaker 1: his weapon at a stolen vehicle as it was driving
Speaker 1: away from him out of his neighborhood. You and I
Speaker 1: do that, we're probably going to get charged with menacing
Speaker 1: or unlawfully discharging a weapon or shooting with you know,
Speaker 1: and if we'd hit somebody, perhaps manslaughter because at that
Speaker 1: point you're not justified in shooting somebody. In fact, don't
Speaker 1: even hit with him in his car. It was just
Speaker 1: a stolen car. Now how he knew that, I don't know,
Speaker 1: but that's what he did. Twenty fifteen, a fellow officer
Speaker 1: filed a conduct Unbecoming an Officer complaint after Captain Bird,
Speaker 1: again off duty, confronted this other cop while the cop
Speaker 1: was working at a high school football game in an
Speaker 1: incident that apparently had a bunch of racial overtones. The
Speaker 1: third he got a thirty three day suspension in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: This is what for his leaving the gun in the
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill bathroom in the visitor center, a thirty three
Speaker 1: day suspension. Fairly relax, I guess he also was he
Speaker 1: failed to pass He failed to pass a routine background
Speaker 1: check just after January sixth, when he was trying to
Speaker 1: purchase a shotgun for home protection after the United States Capitol.
Speaker 1: The police was working to provide Bird a department issued shotgun. Instead,
Speaker 1: he failed the training Wait a minute, I'm sorry, now,
Speaker 1: I don't shoot my shotgun a lot. I used to hunt,
Speaker 1: you know, pheasant and quail all the time, but I
Speaker 1: haven't lately. But I'm not quite sure how you fail
Speaker 1: a training program in the use of a shotgun. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's different for a cop. I don't know. And then lastly,
Speaker 1: there were three three referrals to the Capitol Police Office
Speaker 1: of Professional Responsibility for records that they could never find.
Speaker 1: What was the disciplinary complaint against Captain Bird. This is
Speaker 1: one of those cops where I think most good cops
Speaker 1: would say, we don't want this guy to be a cop.
Speaker 1: But the Biden Department of Justice found no wrongdoing, no
Speaker 1: wrongdoing whatsoever. Now, Bird's name was initially concealed by the
Speaker 1: cabal and the Capitol Police for months because of the
Speaker 1: anger over Ashley's killing. During a really I would call
Speaker 1: it a softball interview with Lester Holt in August of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, Captain Bird refilled himself for the first time,
Speaker 1: and of course, during that interview he portrayed himself as
Speaker 1: the victim, not the perpetrator. And then his name was
Speaker 1: held from the public for more than seven months because,
Speaker 1: according to Bird, he kept getting vile threats. Now lester
Speaker 1: Holt at least did note the names of officers involved
Speaker 1: in fatal shootings are often immediately released. Bird said during
Speaker 1: that interview, they talked about killing me, cutting off my head,
Speaker 1: very vicious, cruel things. But then, when prompted by lester Holt,
Speaker 1: Bird claimed that some of the threats were racist in nature.
Speaker 1: Now I don't know, never mind that he's a black
Speaker 1: cop that shot and killed a white woman. I thought
Speaker 1: it was usually, you know, the other way around. Bird
Speaker 1: had the audacity tell lester Holt in that interview quote,
Speaker 1: I believe I show I showed the utmost courage on
Speaker 1: January sixth, I want to choke when I say that
Speaker 1: it was later learning response to these Freedom of Information
Speaker 1: Act requests from Judicial Watch that Bird and his pet
Speaker 1: had been housed in a VIP suite at Joint Base
Speaker 1: Andrews and Maryland for more than six months from about
Speaker 1: August to twenty one through February twenty two. It cost
Speaker 1: the taxpayers about thirty thousand dollars. Bird got a thirty
Speaker 1: six thousand dollars retention bonus in August of twenty one,
Speaker 1: all because they were just trying to protect him. Wow. Uh,
Speaker 1: as Reverend Wright might say, the chickens are coming home
Speaker 1: to roost. Good for Ashley Babbitt's widower, good for Ashley
Speaker 1: Babbitt's family, and good for Ashley Babbitt. Justice is starting
Speaker 1: to be served. What's the date again? Oh yeah, it's
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. So Michael So meeging with Michael Brown.
Speaker 1: Text the word Michael Michael to three three one zero three.
Speaker 1: I'll be right back tonight. Michael Brown joins me here,
Speaker 1: the former FEMA director of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie,
Speaker 1: You're doing a heck of a job The Weekend with
Speaker 1: Michael Brown. Hey, So, Weekend with Michael Brown. I appreciate
Speaker 1: you tuning in. Don't forget the text line, the numbers
Speaker 1: three three, one zero three keyword Michael, Michael, be sure
Speaker 1: and go follow me on except Michael Brown USA. So
Speaker 1: the reason I want to spend so much, First of all,
Speaker 1: I'm spending time on this particular story because I personally
Speaker 1: and I have no relationship it's the Babbitts with her husband,
Speaker 1: her family, or anybody else. I do have relationships with
Speaker 1: law enforcement, and I do obviously have. I mean, I
Speaker 1: got relationships on Capitol Hill. And I'm just an American citizen.
Speaker 1: I'm just a plain, old, simple American citizen. And what
Speaker 1: happened on January sixth was not insurrection. By God, If
Speaker 1: that was an insurrection, and we, as conservatives want to
Speaker 1: take over the government, we need a whole new group
Speaker 1: of people, because that's not how you take over the government.
Speaker 1: That wasn't even a good riot. I mean it was,
Speaker 1: it was a pretty crappy riot. You had to have
Speaker 1: you had to have these agents provocateur inside the group
Speaker 1: of people that were storming the Capitol in order to
Speaker 1: get them to really, like, you know, go on in.
Speaker 1: Was what was that I forget the guy's name, the
Speaker 1: one guy that everybody kept ignoring that they wouldn't prosecute,
Speaker 1: but they just kept you know, you gotta go in,
Speaker 1: go in, go in, just egging everybody on. You know,
Speaker 1: Jimmy Christmas. Can you imagine George Washington trying to get
Speaker 1: the revolutionaries. Come on, come on, guys, we're going to
Speaker 1: cross the Delaware. Come on, get in the boat. Come on, boy,
Speaker 1: get in the boat. Get in the boat. I mean that, uh,
Speaker 1: January sixth is such a joke, an insurrection. So anyway,
Speaker 1: that's the reason I focus on this because the cabal,
Speaker 1: the left, the Marxists in our midst have focused on
Speaker 1: this incessantly, and it's all about you know, you think
Speaker 1: about all of those people that Trump pardoned, that rotted
Speaker 1: in that nasty, horrific DC jail. I mean, I've seen jails,
Speaker 1: not all over the world, but I've seen jails in
Speaker 1: a few places around the world, and it's probably one
Speaker 1: of the worst I've ever seen in my entire life.
Speaker 1: And yet we just let people languish there for charges
Speaker 1: that in virtually any other jurisdiction for doing exactly the
Speaker 1: same thing. Trespassing, Oh my god, trespassing. We gotta throw
Speaker 1: you in jail. With that any bond that would not happen,
Speaker 1: I don't think in ninety nine percent of the other
Speaker 1: jurisdictions across the country. But it happens in DC. Why
Speaker 1: because they got to send a message. It was all
Speaker 1: about sending a message. And it just pisses me off.
Speaker 1: And then Ashley Babbitt and it's something that we watched
Speaker 1: on television. I mean, you can still I'm sure you
Speaker 1: can still find it on YouTube unless they've tried to
Speaker 1: censor it, but you can still watch the entire incident unfold.
Speaker 1: And it just infuriates me. And you think about I mean,
Speaker 1: it's twenty twenty five and we're just now getting at
Speaker 1: least the framework of a settlement in which you and
Speaker 1: I as taxpayers. This is something I want to make
Speaker 1: sure you understand that this settlement will be paid for
Speaker 1: out of the United States Treasury. Now, the US Capitol
Speaker 1: Police may or may not have any sort of insurance
Speaker 1: coverage that may pay for part of these settlement monies,
Speaker 1: but even if it does, you're still paying the premium
Speaker 1: as a taxpayer for that insurance policy. And now that
Speaker 1: liability is I'm sure they will deny liability in the
Speaker 1: settlement but now that the insurance company looks and says, well,
Speaker 1: we had to pay out, and you know, and it
Speaker 1: could have been if this was a typical lawsuit where
Speaker 1: somebody had sued a local comp for violating their civil
Speaker 1: rights and they were suing let's just say the city
Speaker 1: in County of Denver where I'm sitting, the insurance company
Speaker 1: would be driving that litigation, not the city and County
Speaker 1: of Denver, because the insurance company and the insurance defense
Speaker 1: lawyers are the ones that have to make the logistical, legal,
Speaker 1: all of the procedural decisions because they're the ones whore
Speaker 1: can be paying out. So they know all the details
Speaker 1: about what happened on January sixth. So once this settlement
Speaker 1: is a is reached, whether it's thirty thousand dollars, three
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars, thirty million dollars, three million dollars, whatever
Speaker 1: the number is, is immaterial. The insurance company will know what
Speaker 1: they paid out. And even if there is a clause
Speaker 1: in the settlement that says, you know, the US Capital
Speaker 1: Police and the US government and you know, buying through
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice denies any and all liability, and
Speaker 1: it's just agreeing to this settlement in order to just
Speaker 1: you know, save the cost of litigation. The insurance company
Speaker 1: still knows that there was liability, and so what will
Speaker 1: they do. They'll either refuse to renew the policy or
Speaker 1: they'll renew the policy at a higher premium, which you
Speaker 1: and I will pay for. Now, that's all assuming that
Speaker 1: there is an insurance policy. So either way, you and
Speaker 1: I are paying for this. We're paying for the wrongful
Speaker 1: actions and the violation of Ashley Babbitt's civil rights because
Speaker 1: of a cop that should not even have been a cop.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, yeah, I firmly believe you. If you
Speaker 1: know any cops, I want you to go ask convince,
Speaker 1: if you know of a bad cop on your force,
Speaker 1: would you rather get rid of that cop or are
Speaker 1: you willing to let that bad cop stay on your force?
Speaker 1: Ninety nine point nine percent of the cops will tell
Speaker 1: you they want that bad cop off the force because
Speaker 1: it makes their job more difficult. It may it it
Speaker 1: he increases the potential for liability. Nobody wants to be
Speaker 1: a CoP's partner because they know he's a nut job,
Speaker 1: or that he's a whack of doodle, or he's not
Speaker 1: very well trained or he's got anger issues, whatever it
Speaker 1: might be. Cops don't like bad cops, and if a
Speaker 1: good cop does like a bad cop, then they're probably
Speaker 1: not a good cop. So yes, this story really gets
Speaker 1: me wound up. So Biden's Department of Justice refuses to
Speaker 1: do anything, covers everything up. So then that the House,
Speaker 1: the House Oversight Committee or a House administration committee starts
Speaker 1: to do this investigation and they uncover all of these things,
Speaker 1: and then youjudicial watch, God bless you, Judicial Watch. On
Speaker 1: behalf of Ashley Babbitt's husband files the wrongful death lawsuit
Speaker 1: for Ashley Babbitt's the state, and after all of this litigation,
Speaker 1: we finally reached the point where, oh, you know, it'skind
Speaker 1: of like, we didn't need a bunch of new laws
Speaker 1: to stop the border invasion. We just needed a new
Speaker 1: president well justice. We didn't need a judge or anybody
Speaker 1: else to deliver justice in Ashley Babbitt's case. We just
Speaker 1: needed an attorney general who saw right from wrong and
Speaker 1: understood that, hey, this is something that is just ultimately
Speaker 1: wrong and for which we are liable and for which
Speaker 1: we need to do just compensation. That's the difference between
Speaker 1: Democrats and Republicans. Now, Trump has been very vocal has
Speaker 1: remained a strong supporter of Babbitt. He actually had used
Speaker 1: that's her name quite a bit during campaign rallies and
Speaker 1: even during interviews. According to reports, Trump called Mickey Witthoff,
Speaker 1: that's Ashley Babbitt's mother on January nine, twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: and asked her to tell the January six ers that quote,
Speaker 1: I love them to keep their chins up, because he
Speaker 1: knew what he was going to do. And on January twentieth,
Speaker 1: the day he was inaugurated, Trump issued a blanket pardon
Speaker 1: with the exception of thirteen January six ers for the
Speaker 1: individuals that were charged in that estopole like investigation and prosecution.
Speaker 1: It was conducted by the Biden Department of Justice. Over
Speaker 1: on Newsmax, Greg Kelly was interviewing Trump and Trump told
Speaker 1: Kelly that he would look into both the progress of
Speaker 1: the lawsuit and the actions of Michael Bird. In fact,
Speaker 1: he said during that interview, I'm a big fan of
Speaker 1: Ashley Babbitt, and Ashley Babbitt was a really good person
Speaker 1: who was a big Magafan Trump fan, and she was
Speaker 1: innocently standing there. They even say trying to sort of
Speaker 1: hold back the crowd, and a man did something to
Speaker 1: her that was unthinkable when he shot her, and I
Speaker 1: think it's a disgrace. So here we are. There'll be
Speaker 1: another hearing in the matter sept for May twelve, and
Speaker 1: the judge will get an update, a status update on
Speaker 1: the settlement agreement. And just to caution you, the terms
Speaker 1: of that agreement may never be disclosed unless the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice chooses to do so. Normally, these are kept
Speaker 1: confidential and rightfully so, except in this case. Wait a minute,
Speaker 1: it's the Department of Justice, and he was a public employee.
Speaker 1: And I assume in thee I assume in the course
Speaker 1: of the litigation that the Department of Justice recognized that
Speaker 1: if they really took this thing to trial, and I
Speaker 1: believe this from the bottom of my heart, that the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, that Pam Bondi and her aides looked
Speaker 1: at this case and they got briefing from the litigators
Speaker 1: that were trying the case and said, where are we
Speaker 1: what does it look like? Tell us all the pros
Speaker 1: and the cons. And I bet the cons far outweighed
Speaker 1: the pros. And they looked at it and said, you
Speaker 1: know what, we take that to a jury, they're going
Speaker 1: to find liability and it's going to be much more
Speaker 1: that we have to pay than if we agree to
Speaker 1: settle the case. And I think that's why the case
Speaker 1: is being settled, and rightfully so. So once again, I
Speaker 1: don't care. I don't care what you think about tariffs.
Speaker 1: I don't care what you think about the border. I
Speaker 1: don't care what you think about, you know, Ukraine, or
Speaker 1: the Iranians, or Hamas or anything else for that matter.
Speaker 1: For right now, what I want you to think about
Speaker 1: right now is that the Trump Justice Department is actually
Speaker 1: delivering justice. It's the weekend with Michael Brown. The text
Speaker 1: line numbers three three is one zero three three three
Speaker 1: one zero three. Hey word Mike or Michael, go follow
Speaker 1: me on except Michael Brown USA. Right back, Hey, It's
Speaker 1: the weekend with Michael Brown. Thanks for tuning in. Text
Speaker 1: line number three three, one zero three, keyword Michael, Michael
Speaker 1: will go follow me on except Michael Brown USA. The
Speaker 1: the Canadians had an election this past week, and they
Speaker 1: may have thought they were voting to kind of poke
Speaker 1: Trump in the eye, and obviously this punishment for ribbing
Speaker 1: them about, you know, becoming the fifty first state, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, or annexing them, or the tariffs or whatever.
Speaker 1: But what they ended up doing, now, I find it
Speaker 1: fascinating because a lot of people would blame Trump for
Speaker 1: this that if Trump had kept his mouth shut, then Paulavert,
Speaker 1: who was the uh Conservative running to be prime minister,
Speaker 1: could have beat this globalist by the name of Mark Carney,
Speaker 1: who actually won. But he won, he only won a minority.
Speaker 1: He's only a minority government. So he's Mark Carney, the
Speaker 1: Prime minister elect is going to have to go out
Speaker 1: to all these other radical groups and form a you know,
Speaker 1: get a coalition together this is the bad thing about
Speaker 1: a parliamentary system, and get all these you know, other
Speaker 1: black old groups together with him to form a majority government.
Speaker 1: But to just show you how what they really did
Speaker 1: was just stomp on the gas of liberal craziness as
Speaker 1: they were already going off the edge of the cliff
Speaker 1: into moral collapse kind of like we were. Here's an example.
Speaker 1: A Quebec superior court judge ruled that limiting the legal
Speaker 1: affiliation of children to one or two parents is unconstitutional. Huh. Now,
Speaker 1: with globalist social engineering Marxist in charge like that, I
Speaker 1: guess the constitution just says whatever they want to say
Speaker 1: at any given moment, and I guess that's what they
Speaker 1: mean by living constitution. Now, the ruling is not about
Speaker 1: step parents. What it applies to is a situation where
Speaker 1: a family is multiple adults involved in a relationship before
Speaker 1: the child's conception. In other words, I don't know a
Speaker 1: bunch of swingers. You know, you know one woman has
Speaker 1: got you know, five or six lovers. I imagine whatever
Speaker 1: you want to imagine. I'll lead. I'll leave that up
Speaker 1: to you. That is, you know, whether it's a thrupple,
Speaker 1: a quadruples, whether you know YadA, YadA, YadA whatever. Presumably
Speaker 1: an entire orgy's worth of copulating degenerates will qualify as
Speaker 1: that child Gold's parents. Doesn't matter about DNA, they don't
Speaker 1: have to do a paternity test or anything else, but
Speaker 1: they'll get all the welfare benefits for having dependent children.
Speaker 1: So I guess this is whatever it takes to desecrate
Speaker 1: and destroy the fundamental unit of civilization, the family, in
Speaker 1: accordance with the wishes obviously of Karl Marx, because that
Speaker 1: was one of the objectives of Marx is make the
Speaker 1: government of family, make the nuclear family irrelevant example number two.
Speaker 1: More than fifteen thousand Canadians are euthanized annually. Some are
Speaker 1: even asking to die because they can't access the proper
Speaker 1: healthcare in Canada's socialized healthcare system, or they asked to
Speaker 1: be euthanized out of loneliness as much as they do
Speaker 1: out of illness. There's one Canadian doctor that is admitted
Speaker 1: to killing more than four hundred people. Story says. A
Speaker 1: medical association has even urged doctors to suggest euthanasia to
Speaker 1: their qualified patients. Indeed, the push for euthanasia can apparently
Speaker 1: become quite aggressive at times, including just before cancer surgeries.
Speaker 1: Oh well, we're gonna do this surgery on YouTube, take
Speaker 1: out the polyps in your prostate. But you know what
Speaker 1: if you thought about just dying, you know, because instead
Speaker 1: of doing this surgery, we could just euthanize you, or,
Speaker 1: as the paragraph said earlier, out of loneliness. That's really sad.
Speaker 1: But then again, I'm not sure that anybody should be
Speaker 1: surprised by what Canadians discovered just past abortion on the
Speaker 1: slippery slope of moral decay made advocates the euthanasia group
Speaker 1: may consider it for the best that Canada is actually
Speaker 1: euthanizing itself by subjecting itself to what's equivalent to demographic obliteration,
Speaker 1: literally demographic obliteration. The Canadian government has a website. You
Speaker 1: can find it at Canada dot ca, a forward slash
Speaker 1: immigration refugees. Immigration is a defining feature of Canada. It
Speaker 1: has contributed and continues to contribute to Canada's economy and
Speaker 1: society and longstanding meaningful ways. With the exception of indigenous
Speaker 1: peoples who have called these lands home since time immemorial,
Speaker 1: everyone who lives in Canada is an immigrant or the
Speaker 1: descendant of an immigrant. In the same way that immigration
Speaker 1: is created the Canada that we all enjoy today. Immigration
Speaker 1: is central to our future. I wonder if people in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Portugal, France,
Speaker 1: where they're now beginning to realize, oh, we took this
Speaker 1: just a step too far and we need to start
Speaker 1: backing off, if they would agree with what the Canadian
Speaker 1: government is saying, always find it fascinating. Then we can
Speaker 1: look across the pond see what's going on over there.
Speaker 1: As I say often, you know, just like I'd point out,
Speaker 1: we can look to California, New York, Illinois and kind
Speaker 1: of see what's happening, you know, elsewhere in the country.
Speaker 1: We can also look to Europe, and we can look
Speaker 1: to Southeast Asia. We can look to the Chinese Communist
Speaker 1: Party social score system there and see what they're trying
Speaker 1: to do here. Well, the same is true with immigration.
Speaker 1: That's why, according to the Canadian government, this is why
Speaker 1: they write Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Canada launched an Immigration
Speaker 1: system for Canada's Future in close collaboration with other government departments.
Speaker 1: We undertook extensive engagement to explore how Canada's immigration policies
Speaker 1: and programs can support a shared vision for our country future. Now,
Speaker 1: don't you find it interesting that they want to kill
Speaker 1: their own citizens off by euthanizing them, because well, I've
Speaker 1: been waiting to get the surgery, you know, my cancer
Speaker 1: surgery for six months, and while I'm waiting, it's now
Speaker 1: metastasized and I'm dying, So go ahead and kill me anyway,
Speaker 1: or there's nobody to come and talk to me. I'm
Speaker 1: living alone. I'm dying of loneliness, so go ahead and
Speaker 1: kill me anyway. So, yeah, they'll do that, They'll go
Speaker 1: euthanize their own citizens, and I guess, in a kind
Speaker 1: of perverted form of a great replacement theory, we'll kill
Speaker 1: our citizens and just import people from third world craphole
Speaker 1: countries so we can look to our north now not
Speaker 1: just to the east, but to the north, to see
Speaker 1: the direction that we might be headed. And so weekend
Speaker 1: with Michael Brown text the word micro Michael to three
Speaker 1: three wednes zero three, be right back and went