Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to Western Sieve. In today's Bonus Interview,
Speaker 1: I'm sitting down with Attorney Edward Cohen, and we're going
Speaker 1: to talk about some issues that I think are things
Speaker 1: that everybody should be invested in. We're going to talk
Speaker 1: about the efficacy of plea bargaining and whether or not
Speaker 1: it's fair or joust or maybe it's just more efficient,
Speaker 1: which is important. Don't get me wrong, I think that
Speaker 1: it is. We're also going to talk about the value
Speaker 1: of the Fifth and then the Fourth Amendments, your right
Speaker 1: against self incrimination, and your right to be free from
Speaker 1: unlawful searches and seizures.
Speaker 2: All these things are important, and all of them are.
Speaker 1: Kind of in the political zeitgeist as it were right now.
Speaker 1: Then this is a little bit of a different interview.
Speaker 1: Mister Attorney Cohen, excuse me, is not coming here to
Speaker 1: sell you anything. He's just coming to share some of
Speaker 1: his expertise. And since this is an area that I'm
Speaker 1: kind of familiar with because of past experience as well,
Speaker 1: you know, I thought it would be interesting to hear
Speaker 1: him out, and so I hope you enjoyed the interview.
Speaker 1: I think it's an episode where you'll learn something and
Speaker 1: hopefully come away with some important tidbits of advice should
Speaker 1: you ever find yourself in an unfortunate situation, and I
Speaker 1: truly hope that you don't, or maybe that you know
Speaker 1: someone that does.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: Without further ado, after these quick messages, here is an
Speaker 1: interview with Attorney Edward Cohan, and we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about a lot of things.
Speaker 2: All right, welcome back.
Speaker 1: So, as I mentioned in the introduction, we're doing something
Speaker 1: a little bit different today. You know, we're going to
Speaker 1: do some more contemporary stuff, but I mean we might
Speaker 1: get into the history of some of these things as well.
Speaker 1: So I am sitting down, as we mentioned in talking
Speaker 1: to a Atorney Edward Cone, and we're going to be
Speaker 1: talking about a bunch of different things today. But I
Speaker 1: think that these are interesting subjects that I think everybody
Speaker 1: deserves the right to know about. And certainly if you've
Speaker 1: ever been touched by the justice system, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: very fond of telling kids that the the of the
Speaker 1: three branches that we're involved in, you are more likely
Speaker 1: to be touched by the judicial system than the other two. Directly,
Speaker 1: that is more most likely than going to.
Speaker 3: Be the case.
Speaker 1: And I think We're going to start today by discussing
Speaker 1: plea bargaining, and everybody probably has a rudimentary understanding of
Speaker 1: what that is. But I think what I'm going to
Speaker 1: start with, Attorney Cone, is by asking you what is
Speaker 1: plea bar Let's define it for the audience for those
Speaker 1: who aren't aware, and give me your sort of first opinions,
Speaker 1: and then I think we'll go back and forth and
Speaker 1: debate this a little bit. Is it's kind of in
Speaker 1: my wheelhouse as well?
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, so I think so. Plea bargaining is generally
Speaker 3: where a person's charged with a crime and this states
Speaker 3: or or the government uh offers them some sort of
Speaker 3: uh non trial resolution which is negotiated usually between a
Speaker 3: defense counsel and the prosecutor and the case and the
Speaker 3: goal is to try to keep you know, the the
Speaker 3: courts flowing the and not getting bogged down on cases
Speaker 3: that should not be litigated. And often it's good for
Speaker 3: the defendant, certainly, especially in a case where they're guilty.
Speaker 3: They could uh get an offer that they maybe not
Speaker 3: maybe we're not get otherwise, and and perhaps maybe even
Speaker 3: doing probation or some sort of depending on the crime.
Speaker 3: Of course, you know, how serious the crime is, avoid
Speaker 3: doing some jail time, things of that nature. And usually
Speaker 3: it's pretty ef I would say, you know, eighty percent
Speaker 3: of the time it's going to work out well usually
Speaker 3: for both sides to resolve the case. And then, of
Speaker 3: course there's the twenty percent of the time where it's
Speaker 3: not where a person's going to feel like they're kind
Speaker 3: of forced into settling the case, where they don't feel
Speaker 3: good about pleading guilty to something, or they think that
Speaker 3: they have a good case to go to trial, and
Speaker 3: you know, sometimes they weigh those things and a person
Speaker 3: can end up pleading guilty to something that they didn't
Speaker 3: do to avoid going to trial and losing and going
Speaker 3: to prison. So those are the downsides of it. Most
Speaker 3: of the time it works out pretty well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's interesting, you know.
Speaker 1: So first of all, what I want the audience, I
Speaker 1: want you to also understand about plea bargaining is, let's
Speaker 1: say you reach an agreement with the states or the
Speaker 1: federal government for that matter. What every client needs to understand,
Speaker 1: the defendant needs to understand is well, that's not an
Speaker 1: ironclad thing, because it is in every jurisdiction I've ever
Speaker 1: been in.
Speaker 2: Ultimately up to.
Speaker 1: The judge to decide what is the fairest and most
Speaker 1: correct response in the matter, and we can kind of
Speaker 1: have a I guess a little bit of a philosophical
Speaker 1: debate about some of that if we want to, and
Speaker 1: why don't we just we'll start there for a moment
Speaker 1: and talk about, you know, is there value in plea
Speaker 1: bargaining when the party that's going to be executing the sentence,
Speaker 1: which is the judge, is the person that's going to
Speaker 1: be handing it down, isn't privy to it until they're
Speaker 1: told what it is in court?
Speaker 2: You know, Should a.
Speaker 1: Client be allowed to rescind a guilty plea if the
Speaker 1: judge is not going to go along with the plea agreement?
Speaker 1: I mean, that's I think that's a reasonable debate. What
Speaker 1: do you think about that? And I give you my
Speaker 1: thoughts in a moment too.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I absolutely think that a defender should
Speaker 3: be allowed to withdraw their decision to plead get if
Speaker 3: the judge is not going to go along with what
Speaker 3: was agreed to. I think that that, uh, that should
Speaker 3: be a you know, a nationwide rule that you know,
Speaker 3: you should be able to get out of it if
Speaker 3: the judge says, hey, that this is not kosher. I
Speaker 3: don't think this is a good result. Maybe they don't
Speaker 3: feel maybe they don't feel that it's uh makes sense
Speaker 3: or logical. But pardon me, sorry about that though it's
Speaker 3: my fault and uh anyway, So yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 3: do think a defendant should be able to get out
Speaker 3: of that situation in those circumstances. Most of the time,
Speaker 3: as as as you in your experience to probably adamants,
Speaker 3: you know, judges usually go along with whatever the parties
Speaker 3: work out. You know, most of the time, they're they're
Speaker 3: cool with it, unless it sounds really a lopsided for
Speaker 3: some reason. But yeah, I mean, like if there's a
Speaker 3: if there's are if there's an agreement to no jail,
Speaker 3: for example, and a court says, well, I'm inclined to
Speaker 3: give your clients some time because I think it's kind
Speaker 3: of a heinous offense, then the defendant should be allowed
Speaker 3: to withdraw us plea and not you know, answer into
Speaker 3: that agreement and go to trial or whatever he or
Speaker 3: she wants to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's kind of interesting though.
Speaker 1: I think I was trying to think back of it
Speaker 1: while you were talking. I think I can actually only
Speaker 1: remember one time when a judge informed everyone on the record, listen,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to go along with this, So you
Speaker 1: can withdraw your plea if you want to.
Speaker 2: Most of the time, you.
Speaker 1: Know, well, I guess that's not true, because sometimes, you know,
Speaker 1: you have a general agreement as to what's going to happen,
Speaker 1: and then you're arguing over let's say, the amount of
Speaker 1: conditional jail time or something like that, and then in
Speaker 1: that circumstance, there's no expectation of having it. But I
Speaker 1: think the overall question that people have about plea argans
Speaker 1: a lot of the time is like, well, what is
Speaker 1: what's more important to a society, efficiency and efficacy or
Speaker 1: getting the right answer? Not to say that juries always do,
Speaker 1: but you know, where should we come down on that spectrum?
Speaker 1: And I think it's a fair debate, and I could
Speaker 1: take either sides of everyone.
Speaker 3: You don't, Yeah, it's definitely a fair debate, Adam, I
Speaker 3: I agree. I think that. I mean, in my view,
Speaker 3: I think the nature of the offenses should govern that
Speaker 3: whole equation essentially. So if you know, violent criminals should
Speaker 3: should certainly not be getting good good deals that non
Speaker 3: violent criminals get. I mean, so if they're a threat
Speaker 3: to society, if they're a danger, if they committed us,
Speaker 3: you know, a violent offense, for they attempted murder, murder, raped,
Speaker 3: something like, you know, excessive, then those people certainly should
Speaker 3: not get the same kind of uh expectations that a
Speaker 3: non violent criminal would. So, uh, that's my position on it.
Speaker 3: I think I.
Speaker 1: Guess I'm I'm I'm a little bit of an outlier
Speaker 1: on this part of it. Is just the simple fact
Speaker 1: that I love trials and really enjoy enjoyed that part
Speaker 1: of the process when I was doing it. So I
Speaker 1: think I tend to come down more on the side
Speaker 1: of here's what I'll offer if the person wants to
Speaker 1: plead guilty. If not, that's fine, we'll try the case,
Speaker 1: you know, because that's what the We built this court
Speaker 1: for that reason.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: We spent all this money, and this wood is this
Speaker 1: mahogany is really nice, so maybe we should let some
Speaker 1: people see it from time to time. I would argue,
Speaker 1: and you can disagree with me on this if you
Speaker 1: want to, that the efficacy of plea bargaining is undercut,
Speaker 1: not primarily by the plea bargaining process itself, that is
Speaker 1: actually undercut by the bail process, and that there's a
Speaker 1: tremendous power imbalance that winds up being created when a
Speaker 1: defendant cannot post bail and has to sit in jail
Speaker 1: awaiting the outcome of the case. That the problem isn't
Speaker 1: how we're bargaining. The problem is that process. That if
Speaker 1: we could fix that, then that would level the scales
Speaker 1: a little bit more.
Speaker 2: What do you think agreed? Disagree?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean yes, I mean, I mean I would
Speaker 3: agree with that as a general rule. I think that again,
Speaker 3: I think it comes down to the nature of the offense.
Speaker 3: I mean, uh, you know, not violent criminals should not
Speaker 3: be getting bail or low bail or easy bail because
Speaker 3: society might you know, be affected by that. And I'm
Speaker 3: a defense lawyer and I'm saying that, I mean, nobody
Speaker 3: wants violent criminals on the street who could harm other
Speaker 3: people if they're being charged with the violent offense. That
Speaker 3: being said, you know, there are people who who you know,
Speaker 3: who do wind up sitting in jail longer than they
Speaker 3: should waiting for their case to be resolved because they
Speaker 3: can't afford to to bond out. And uh, you know
Speaker 3: that's I think that's incredibly unfair and and certainly as
Speaker 3: long as they're not a threat to society, and you know,
Speaker 3: they should be able to uh to not have to
Speaker 3: sit in jail waiting for their trial. You know, they
Speaker 3: have a right to a speedy trial. But but we
Speaker 3: we we we both know that that speedy is not
Speaker 3: really speedy, right, It's it's it's not speedy. It's it's uh,
Speaker 3: there's there's nothing speedy about the justice system at all.
Speaker 3: It's it's it's a slow process that people hate being
Speaker 3: involved in when they're there. But uh uh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: I mean I think it's a sexial like you mentioned
Speaker 3: Adam to to to you know, balance those things out,
Speaker 3: and so that's that's my take on it.
Speaker 1: But even you know, thinking about the violent offender that
Speaker 1: you brought up, because you know, the purpose of bail
Speaker 1: is is usually usually two things. It's it's to ensure
Speaker 1: the person, the guy it's usually a guy sorry, sorry, folks,
Speaker 1: shows up you know, to court.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's step one.
Speaker 1: Step two is you know, okay, well, maybe we have
Speaker 1: to protect the public from some of these things, you know,
Speaker 1: but unless you have someone who is a you know,
Speaker 1: just an absolute habitual offender, you know, I would always argue, well, well,
Speaker 1: the public can be protected by bail conditions.
Speaker 2: So those who aren't aware of what I'm.
Speaker 1: Talking about is that the court can set the bail.
Speaker 1: Let's just say they said it one hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: is a bad case, Okay, something something bad happens, But
Speaker 1: then they can also set conditions on that.
Speaker 2: And in the federal system.
Speaker 1: I could have you checking in with a US Probation
Speaker 1: and Parole agent if I want it to, or if
Speaker 1: the judge wanted to. And we don't, by the way,
Speaker 1: normally set cash bail in federal court. We always kind
Speaker 1: of took the position of we either think you're going
Speaker 1: to show up or you're not, and that's all that
Speaker 1: there is to it. So, you know, to to that extent,
Speaker 1: I would argue, no, I don't think that that. I
Speaker 1: don't think that the bail should be overly set because frankly,
Speaker 1: we can deal with it with conditions. And also, isn't
Speaker 1: this guy innocent until proven guilty?
Speaker 3: Yes, that's a great point, and there's they're certainly supposed
Speaker 3: to be innocent until proven guilty. Yeah, I get it. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I think that, you know, I've you know, Over the
Speaker 3: twenty three years that I've been been a lawyer, I
Speaker 3: haven't had any issues with bail for any of my
Speaker 3: clients because most of them are you know, are haven't
Speaker 3: been horrific or you know, super violent people, so there
Speaker 3: was never a major dispute about it. But yes, I understand,
Speaker 3: and I certainly from a from a laypersons standpoint, if
Speaker 3: a person you know gets charged there, you know, their
Speaker 3: their first offense, their first time they're in the system,
Speaker 3: they may be shocked about how the process works and
Speaker 3: and how how bail can high and then it's showed
Speaker 3: and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I also think one of the problems, and
Speaker 1: I hate these by the way, I hate bail schedules.
Speaker 1: Bail schedules are when the usually when the I actually
Speaker 1: hate it when the legislature intervenes in general in the
Speaker 1: court system. I don't like it when they're structuring mandatory
Speaker 1: minimum sentences or changing the way that things function. A
Speaker 1: mandatory minimum, folks, would be like a floor to say like, Okay,
Speaker 1: if somebody does X, Y or Z, you cannot sentence
Speaker 1: them below.
Speaker 2: Whatever that number is.
Speaker 1: And to me that's always just been utterly pointless, Like no,
Speaker 1: judge would ever go below it's a you know, a
Speaker 1: first degree sexual assault case. No judge is going to
Speaker 1: go below that number anyway. It's it's absolutely pointless to
Speaker 1: put it in there, and all it does is it
Speaker 1: takes the ability of the court to be versatile away.
Speaker 1: And I hate bail schedules for the same reason. The
Speaker 1: bail schedule is typically when the legislature says, well, this
Speaker 1: is how much the bail is going to be set
Speaker 1: for these things, Because then what happens is you may
Speaker 1: have an indigent person, a very poor person, who can't
Speaker 1: actually set one hundred and fifty dollars cash bail, believe
Speaker 1: it or not, maybe three hundred dollars for a petty offense,
Speaker 1: and so now they're sitting in jail because of it.
Speaker 1: To me, that is grossly unjust and grossly unfair.
Speaker 2: Do you have on.
Speaker 1: Bail schedules in Arizona where you practice.
Speaker 3: No, we don't. I mean, so it's not an issue here.
Speaker 3: I mean, yes, I'm familiar with it. I've practiced in
Speaker 3: three different states over the years, But no issues with
Speaker 3: that here. As far as as far as a bail schedule,
Speaker 3: I would agree that we really shouldn't have the legislature
Speaker 3: involved in setting these things, because we want abundant discretion
Speaker 3: to be with the courts, because you know, make your arguments,
Speaker 3: and if your argument is good, then the judge he
Speaker 3: or she is gonna you know, hopefully be logical and
Speaker 3: reasonable that situation. So yeah, I would agree with that.
Speaker 3: That makes no sense to have any kind of preset
Speaker 3: things that takes the discretion out of the judge's hands.
Speaker 3: So it's good to have it there where it should be.
Speaker 1: I think the most egregious example of that that I
Speaker 1: encountered was there was a rule I actually don't know
Speaker 1: if it's in place anymore, but there was a rule
Speaker 1: in the federal system at least that there was a
Speaker 1: five year mandatory minimum if it was a drug offense
Speaker 1: that involved a gun, if they found a gun you
Speaker 1: know there, and I distinctly remember one young man who,
Speaker 1: you know, he had essentially a hunting rifle, was arrested
Speaker 1: with not a very large amount of marijuana, okay, but
Speaker 1: received a five year mandatory minimum sentence because there was
Speaker 1: nothing that the judge could do about it. That to me,
Speaker 1: is a complete miscarriage of justice. That's not how the
Speaker 1: system should operate.
Speaker 3: Agree, Yeah, I agree with that. I think that that's overkill.
Speaker 3: What's the point of putting that guy in jail for
Speaker 3: five here? I mean, people who do things that are
Speaker 3: far worse get less time than that. So yes, I'm
Speaker 3: not a big fan of that kind of mandatory minimum either.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And you know, part of it is is, you know,
Speaker 1: you always I worked with a there's a federal judge
Speaker 1: once since she kept a post a note on her
Speaker 1: computer with just the number that it costs to incarcerate
Speaker 1: someone for one year, just as a reminder of what
Speaker 1: all this is, because I think we have to remember
Speaker 1: at the end of the day that you know, the
Speaker 1: United States incarcerates more people than anywhere else on the
Speaker 1: planet Earth, all right, and that's more than authoritarian China,
Speaker 1: more than Iran. And then some you know, the IRGC
Speaker 1: might just kill them, so that might not that's maybe
Speaker 1: not an issue they have. But you know, the point
Speaker 1: of it is, you know, for for a society. And
Speaker 1: I'll just ask you a question on this, because I
Speaker 1: think it's a good philosophical question for a society that
Speaker 1: prides itself so much on liberty and equality and it's
Speaker 1: justice system, Why are we throwing so many Americans in
Speaker 1: prison for so long.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean that's ah, that's the mystery. It's it's
Speaker 3: a great point, I mean, with the point you made
Speaker 3: at them with with with being Americans. Liberty is so
Speaker 3: precious to us, and and it's you know, freedom of this,
Speaker 3: freedom of that, freedom of the other thing. You know,
Speaker 3: there's all kinds of freedoms that that we that that
Speaker 3: we value. So why are there so many people in jail? Uh?
Speaker 3: I think that's you know that that's probably the subject
Speaker 3: of a of a thesis for somebody who wants to
Speaker 3: write their PhD on Hunter or something. You know, it's
Speaker 3: like very complex, very complex question because you know, I
Speaker 3: would say in my experience, most states, if they're if
Speaker 3: they're non violent, their risk of doing time is far
Speaker 3: less than somebody who's violent. I mean, I just did so.
Speaker 3: And of course if they have an extent it's a
Speaker 3: criminal record, you know, that makes them more susceptible to
Speaker 3: to doing time. And sometimes it's unavoidable because certain states
Speaker 3: have sentenencing guidelines that they go by or statute says
Speaker 3: you know that X, y Z, and those things make
Speaker 3: things complicated. If someone has a prior record, So as
Speaker 3: you as you mentioned before, with mandatory minimums, you know,
Speaker 3: it's a challenging subject. Definitely a challenging subject that that
Speaker 3: is difficult to answer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one of the things that I always kept, you know,
Speaker 1: I mentioned the judge who had the number for the
Speaker 1: amount that each person was going to cost the taxpayers,
Speaker 1: because we have to pay for this at some point,
Speaker 1: and that's something that we have to remember.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: We can all applaud, you know, like a massive sentence
Speaker 1: for a relatively small thing, some things like well, that good,
Speaker 1: that person's gone, but it's like, yes, but that's going
Speaker 1: to cost you. You know, not only is it going
Speaker 1: to cost you what it takes to incarcerate them, but
Speaker 1: that is a person that is no longer a part
Speaker 1: of the economy in a productive sentence, in any way,
Speaker 1: shape or form. They are now purely a drag on society.
Speaker 1: And so the number that I always kept in my
Speaker 1: mind was the number thirty two.
Speaker 2: And the reason that.
Speaker 1: I kept that in my mind was because studies have
Speaker 1: shown that reviticism, the chances of you reoffending plummet if
Speaker 1: you're a male after the age of thirty two. So
Speaker 1: like on once you get to that age, the odds
Speaker 1: of you continuing to reoffend go down almost to zero
Speaker 1: in most cases, which is kind of remarkable. And it's
Speaker 1: kind of remarkable that we don't see that more often.
Speaker 1: Are those arguments that you ever hear. It's something that
Speaker 1: I would bring up quite frequently.
Speaker 3: Well, that's a great statistic. No, I was unaware of
Speaker 3: that specific number, and I am. I think it's fascinating.
Speaker 3: I think it's fascinating that. I mean that males over,
Speaker 3: you know, thirty two are over, you know, they're their
Speaker 3: chance of repeating, of being a repeat defender. Plumbt. I
Speaker 3: would say that that, you know, that's a great number
Speaker 3: that the legislators in different states need to take into
Speaker 3: account so that they can, you know, so that sentencing
Speaker 3: guidelines make sense, you know, because it there seems to
Speaker 3: be a trial penalty. And I Protestant in Michigan, Massachusetts
Speaker 3: and Arizona all over the years, and there's a trial
Speaker 3: penalty like it seems in every state that that I've
Speaker 3: practiced in, where if you go to trial and you lose,
Speaker 3: you're gonna get hammered, you know, with with more time
Speaker 3: than had you pled pled guilty or perhaps zero time
Speaker 3: if if you plead guilty. So those things certainly play
Speaker 3: a role as well. And uh, I think that number
Speaker 3: is an is an important number that needs to be
Speaker 3: taken into account for sure.
Speaker 1: Kind of pushing on that point too, I don't how
Speaker 1: is that fair? Like, how is it fair that someone
Speaker 1: who exercises a right that they have under the constitution
Speaker 1: to a trial by jury.
Speaker 2: It's in the constitution, folks. You can go look it
Speaker 2: up right now if you want to.
Speaker 1: How is it fair to punish someone purely for executing
Speaker 1: that right. They may feel that they are innocent, and
Speaker 1: isn't that they're right? I mean, why should they be
Speaker 1: punished for that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's unfair as well. I mean I've
Speaker 3: always thought thought it was unfair. It's just a reality
Speaker 3: that that people have to deal with, and so they
Speaker 3: have to weigh that with the in the plea burnening process. Okay,
Speaker 3: so what are they going to face if they try
Speaker 3: it and lose? What? You know? And I don't have
Speaker 3: an easy answer as to how to you know, resolve
Speaker 3: that issue. It's definitely unfair. It's certainly unfair, and I'm
Speaker 3: sure judges find it to be unfair too if they
Speaker 3: have sentencing guidelines to go by by statute, the guidelines say, okay,
Speaker 3: the person has to get you know, a minimum of
Speaker 3: two and a half years for whatever for for for
Speaker 3: this offense. And uh, you know it's punitive for sure,
Speaker 3: you know, even even potentially for somebody who's guilty. You know,
Speaker 3: if somebody committed a defense but but thinks that the
Speaker 3: case against them is weak, why why can't they Why
Speaker 3: can't they try the case and and uh and see
Speaker 3: what happens or kind of roll the dice. And I
Speaker 3: think that the issue of judicial economy comes in there.
Speaker 3: You know, you don't want to waste money having a
Speaker 3: trial or you know, in a situation where the person
Speaker 3: should have been smarter to take a plea bargain. But yeah,
Speaker 3: that's always been something that's been a sticking point for
Speaker 3: me too over the years, and thankfully I haven't had
Speaker 3: to deal with it too often.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's to me, it's always again one of those questions.
Speaker 1: And when whenever that happens, you know that there were
Speaker 1: some judges who would say, okay, well put the deal
Speaker 1: on the record first and have the person say that
Speaker 1: they don't want it, and we'll go to trial and
Speaker 1: then they'll get something else if they lose.
Speaker 2: Right then and there, it seems to me like.
Speaker 1: The whole like we're actually pulling the curtain back from
Speaker 1: the machine for a second, and we're saying like, Okay,
Speaker 1: this is actually just about efficiency. This isn't actually about justice,
Speaker 1: this is this is just purely about efficiency, and we're
Speaker 1: just going to let you know it right now, you know.
Speaker 1: And that's and and to me, that's always struck me
Speaker 1: as a little bit unfair. Like if you think it's
Speaker 1: a reasonable offer to extend to a defendant, then how
Speaker 1: does them exercising their constitutional right make that an unreasonable
Speaker 1: proposition going forward like that? To me, I've always been
Speaker 1: a little bit surprised when judges do that. Then I've
Speaker 1: always been I mean, I know why. I know why,
Speaker 1: because they don't want it to come back on you know,
Speaker 1: appeal and all that. But like it seems silly. But
Speaker 1: speaking of constitutional rights, I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: and ask you a little bit about it.
Speaker 2: Issue that was in the news just the other day.
Speaker 1: You know, for those who are unaware, the always forget
Speaker 1: think a center for disease or something like that. Anthony Faucip,
Speaker 1: You guys remember the COVID guy right like he was.
Speaker 1: He was just before Congress, and I think over one
Speaker 1: hundred times pled the fifth, which is your your constitutional
Speaker 1: right not to incriminate themselves. But at then this morning
Speaker 1: they voted in committee and it sounds like charges will
Speaker 1: be referred to the Department of Justice for him exercising
Speaker 1: that right. And it seems like the argument is, well,
Speaker 1: he received a pardon for his conduct during COVID, so
Speaker 1: you know he shouldn't be allowed to take the Fifth.
Speaker 1: I disagree with that for reasons I can get into,
Speaker 1: but I wanted to ask you what you thought about it,
Speaker 1: because I do think the Fifth Amendment is one of
Speaker 1: the most important and next to the Fourth, which we
Speaker 1: can get to in a second, most important amendments that
Speaker 1: we have that protects us. So what is your just
Speaker 1: sort of gut feeling about that situation, given your given
Speaker 1: your years of sperience and role in the courtroom.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean it's a complex question. So when I
Speaker 3: first see the question objectively, and I'm I'm looking at it,
Speaker 3: I'm thinking, Number one, he has a right to invoke
Speaker 3: the Fifth as often as he wants. Why should he
Speaker 3: be a witness against himself? He doesn't have to be,
Speaker 3: So why would he want to be moreover his attorney,
Speaker 3: whoever that attorney is, Because he had an attorney with him.
Speaker 3: As I recall, you know, it would be malpractice for
Speaker 3: the attorney not to tell him to invoke the fifth.
Speaker 3: He has to tell him to do that so he
Speaker 3: doesn't incriminate himself. So you got to you got an
Speaker 3: attorney bound by these ethical rules that you know, I
Speaker 3: can't let my client screw up here, So just you know,
Speaker 3: take the fifth every time, which is what any good
Speaker 3: lawyer would tell their client to do. And at the
Speaker 3: same time, you want, you know, the Congress wants answers,
Speaker 3: the public wants answers. So from a pure criminal standpoint,
Speaker 3: I think that you know that you know, he absolutely
Speaker 3: to invoke the fifth there if he thinks he's going
Speaker 3: to incriminate himself, and his lawyer has to tell him
Speaker 3: to do that. So if those two things are in play,
Speaker 3: you know, it's not really going to be a substantive
Speaker 3: hearing or a helpful hearing. You know, it's not going
Speaker 3: to be. I mean, I think he's kind of caught
Speaker 3: between a rock and a hard place.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I tend I mean, obviously I agree with
Speaker 1: you on that. I think I'm a stickler for the
Speaker 1: constitution folks, So sorry about that, but like, I think
Speaker 1: we did spend a lot of time working on this,
Speaker 1: and like we should probably stick with it.
Speaker 2: It's worked for Turnered in some years.
Speaker 1: I didn't go back to tour in fifty because that
Speaker 1: goes back to the Declaration of Independence with preseeds the constitution.
Speaker 2: Guys, look it up. We had the Articles of Confederation.
Speaker 2: It was a thing. It sucked.
Speaker 1: But you know, for me, it comes down to this
Speaker 1: question of and I'm going to be honest with and
Speaker 1: please don't send me an angry email. Okay, please don't
Speaker 1: send me an angry email, because I'm not familiar with
Speaker 1: the full text of the pardon that doctor Fauci received.
Speaker 1: But what I'm wondering is, you know, does it cover perjury,
Speaker 1: you know, because it could be well, we're not looking
Speaker 1: for answers about what happened during COVID, you know, we're
Speaker 1: just looking for what Honestly, I think most of the
Speaker 1: time on both sides of the Aisle Congress is just
Speaker 1: looking for sound bites for social media.
Speaker 2: They don't actually want to do anything.
Speaker 1: But you know, there maybe they're just looking for contempt
Speaker 1: because I don't a pardon for conduct in COVID if
Speaker 1: correct me, if I'm wrong, that that would protect him
Speaker 1: from a contempt or from a perjury proceeding if he
Speaker 1: contradicts himself.
Speaker 3: Right, No, we no, we're not. And and I haven't
Speaker 3: seen the actual pardon either, but that's an excellent point.
Speaker 3: I think that, you know, I mean, uh, regardless of
Speaker 3: the pardon, he doesn't have immunity to testify against Conrad
Speaker 3: right openly. And you know he hasn't been granted that.
Speaker 3: And whatever his pardon was for, it was probably for
Speaker 3: something specific or semi specific. And so yeah, I mean
Speaker 3: I think that he I think that any smart person
Speaker 3: in his situation. What I don't like Anthony Fauci just
Speaker 3: you know, I don't think he did a good job.
Speaker 3: And I think there's a lot of a lot of
Speaker 3: crap going on there. But still, I mean, as a
Speaker 3: you know, as an objective attorney, I would say that,
Speaker 3: you know, taking the fifth is completely smart. His attorney
Speaker 3: told him to do it, he's listening to counsel. His
Speaker 3: counsel I think, must tell him to do that in
Speaker 3: that situation. So there's it's kind of like unavoidable. I
Speaker 3: think if they're you know, if they really think that
Speaker 3: he committed something outside of the guidelines of whatever that
Speaker 3: pardon is, then then you know, refer to the Justice
Speaker 3: Department and see what happens, you know, I mean, but otherwise,
Speaker 3: just trying to get him just to tell a lie
Speaker 3: under oath, yeah, I don't think is very honorable, you know,
Speaker 3: just it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I tend to agree with you.
Speaker 1: And you know, I go, I go back and forth
Speaker 1: on Anthony Fauci, and you know, he by the way,
Speaker 1: you can look him up back by the way, there's
Speaker 1: like a you can go all the way back into
Speaker 1: the I.
Speaker 2: Believe George H. W.
Speaker 1: Bush era, and some of the past history on him
Speaker 1: during the AIDS epidemic wasn't particularly great either. So you know,
Speaker 1: it's I'm not an apologist for the guy, but you know,
Speaker 1: as I said, I am an apologist for the Constitution,
Speaker 1: and I don't think that we should be engaging in
Speaker 1: fishing expeditions.
Speaker 2: Like like you just said.
Speaker 1: If look, if you think that you have charges that
Speaker 1: you can bring against him, and I've had conversations with
Speaker 1: attorneys about this then then bring the charges. We'll have
Speaker 1: a trial you know, or you know, or we'll have
Speaker 1: motions about it. We don't need to we don't we
Speaker 1: don't need to go this bizarre run around through it.
Speaker 1: But let's let's transition again. I do want to talk
Speaker 1: about the Fourth Amendment because I'm fascinated by the Fourth Amendment,
Speaker 1: you know, and actually before we get going, can you
Speaker 1: just go ahead and give a quick two second overview
Speaker 1: or the a couple second overview of the Fourth Amendment,
Speaker 1: because let's make sure everybody knows what the heck we're
Speaker 1: talking about.
Speaker 3: A certain seizure basically is the is what uh the
Speaker 3: Amendment protect people from. So so basically, you know, uh,
Speaker 3: people have a right to not be searched or stopped
Speaker 3: by police and you know, unless they had probable cause
Speaker 3: to do so. And it's most commonly in criminal cases
Speaker 3: where someone gets pulled over and you know, when can
Speaker 3: the police search the vehicle? When can they search the trunk?
Speaker 3: When can they you know, how do those things come
Speaker 3: into play? And so generally speaking of they the police
Speaker 3: have to get a warrant to to do law a
Speaker 3: lawful search. You know, it depends on that the facts
Speaker 3: of every case, you know, each each each case is different.
Speaker 3: But it's obviously important because you don't want someone searching
Speaker 3: your house without a warrant. You don't want to start
Speaker 3: someone searching your car unless it's, uh, they have cause
Speaker 3: to do so, or or there's a warrant and it's uh,
Speaker 3: it's it's supposed to protect people from unlawful search and seizures,
Speaker 3: and and usually it does a pretty good job of
Speaker 3: doing that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I always remind people that, you know, all
Speaker 1: these amendments include and the Constitution proper, they're historical documents.
Speaker 1: You know, they grew out of a time, and they
Speaker 1: grew out of a time when you know, we were
Speaker 1: concerned that you know, we had just gone through a
Speaker 1: period of British rule and redcoats could just stop you
Speaker 1: if you were in Boston, for example, and and turn
Speaker 1: out your pockets and so on and so forth, and you.
Speaker 2: Can't do that.
Speaker 1: I would think this is a good question for attorneys,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, as in my current professional work
Speaker 1: with a lot of young people who are about to
Speaker 1: go into college. Let's just say you're you're you're at college,
Speaker 1: you're walking down the street, you're on the right of
Speaker 1: the ballgame and a cop stops you and say I
Speaker 1: want to stop you and talk to you for a bit.
Speaker 1: What would you advise a person to do in that circumstance. I, yeah,
Speaker 1: just a random stop, I would I would certainly tell
Speaker 1: somebody to not saying anything and to tell them that
Speaker 1: you know, they're invoking their constitutional rights and they would
Speaker 1: like to like to like to continue on with their day.
Speaker 3: But of course, uh, you know, if they're there would
Speaker 3: have to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion. In some
Speaker 3: cases it just depends. And as as a rule, they
Speaker 3: can't do that because you know that you've done nothing
Speaker 3: wrong just walking walking down the street. So my recommendation
Speaker 3: to two people most of the time as well to
Speaker 3: you know, not not to talk to police. They're not
Speaker 3: they're not there to help you. They're not there to
Speaker 3: assist you. Typically they're they're there to see if you
Speaker 3: might want might incriminate yourself. So never good to to
Speaker 3: to talk to uh police typically when you're UH. When
Speaker 3: they're when you've been arrested and they're trying to interrogate you,
Speaker 3: ask for a lawyer. Always ask for a lawyer. I
Speaker 3: want a lawyer. And then you know, go from there,
Speaker 3: don't do anything on your own. Uh is usually the
Speaker 3: recommendation that I would give people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you know sometimes when I when I
Speaker 1: talk to two folks, I tell them link if you
Speaker 1: if you're going to ask anything or say anything, and
Speaker 1: response to them, I say, put your hands up in
Speaker 1: the air like in front of you. I got nothing
Speaker 1: and ask a simple question, officer. Am I being detained?
Speaker 1: You know, because that then shifts the legal and you
Speaker 1: guys don't know anything about that, but that that then
Speaker 1: starts to shift the legal burden of what they have
Speaker 1: to show. And technically, if you are detained, you should
Speaker 1: be given your rights at that point. If you're not
Speaker 1: free to just turn around and walk away, it's it's
Speaker 1: a different kind of stop at that point. And so,
Speaker 1: but that I completely agree with you.
Speaker 2: Listen.
Speaker 1: I worked with some great officers. There's there's no doubt
Speaker 1: about it. But then you know, I work with some
Speaker 1: I work with someones who I guess skip science class
Speaker 1: because what they learned about the scientific method was you
Speaker 1: picked the conclusion and then you cherry pick the evidence
Speaker 1: that leads you to that conclusion, which is not what
Speaker 1: you are supposed to do. But I'm interested in your
Speaker 1: take on the Worth Amendment as it kind of stands
Speaker 1: right now. You know, with with our current Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and the way jurisprudence is going, do you does it
Speaker 1: seem like the Fourth Amendments getting whittled away at all?
Speaker 1: Or are we coming into a period where we might
Speaker 1: actually see a little bit of a strengthening.
Speaker 3: Wow, that's a great question, I would say. I mean, uh,
Speaker 3: I can go. I could go either way on those
Speaker 3: two possibilities. Certainly, I think that you know, I I
Speaker 3: was hoping that Supreme Court was going to be a
Speaker 3: little more logical and reasonable than they then the current status.
Speaker 3: And certainly I don't think it's also that great to
Speaker 3: have nine lawyers in in DC, you know, running the
Speaker 3: country and steering, steering, steering things constantly, because you know, really, uh,
Speaker 3: we're they were spoke to be the weakest branch of
Speaker 3: the of the three branches, and and now they're like
Speaker 3: the strongest branch. Basically, basically, you can't do anything unless
Speaker 3: unless the Supreme Court SAT says you can do it.
Speaker 3: And so I certainly hope that that the that the
Speaker 3: Fourth Endment will will be strengthened over the years and
Speaker 3: that and and uh, you know, more secure for your
Speaker 3: average citizen. I don't really know, you know, my personal
Speaker 3: take on it as far as uh, you know, the
Speaker 3: current status of things. I think that uh, I don't
Speaker 3: deal with it that much with uh, with the criminal
Speaker 3: cases that I defend, which is good. I mean, I
Speaker 3: mean I don't see so many too many violations of
Speaker 3: that issue, but certainly others can. Others may may differ
Speaker 3: depending on what what their practice is. Like you know, Sorry,
Speaker 3: I kind of went off on a tangent.
Speaker 2: No, that's all right.
Speaker 1: I think where where I start to get a little
Speaker 1: bit concerned is with artificial intelligence and how that's going
Speaker 1: to be utilized by different law enforcement agencies. To me,
Speaker 1: that's where I see a potential slippery slope because now
Speaker 1: you have I mean, you didn't really have the ability
Speaker 1: to analyze massive data sets, whether that's video or audio
Speaker 1: or you know, yet you could wire tab everybody. Sure,
Speaker 1: but like, what are you going to do? How are
Speaker 1: you going to go through all of that?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 1: Well, now you, I mean you could if you wanted to.
Speaker 1: I don't know, are you Are you all worried about that?
Speaker 1: Because I have to be honest, I'm a little bit concerned.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I understand your your concerns. Logical I'm a logical person,
Speaker 3: and certainly AI, you know, it has all kinds of
Speaker 3: possibilities that scare people and make people happy. At the
Speaker 3: same time, you got someone like, oh, well, you know,
Speaker 3: it's going to make our lives so much easier. It's
Speaker 3: gonna you know, but yeah, that's a great point. We
Speaker 3: definitely don't want them, you know, uh, you know, uh,
Speaker 3: wire taping people just you know, willy nilly. You know,
Speaker 3: I don't want people knowing what I talk about in
Speaker 3: my home. I don't want people, you know, not knowing
Speaker 3: what people talk about in their own homes that they
Speaker 3: have they have a right to that privacy. So uh,
Speaker 3: I'm hopeful. I mean, you know, some of these you know, uh,
Speaker 3: these data centers scare me too, you know, like how
Speaker 3: many data centers do we need? I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 3: uh so I'm I'm leria AI and at the same
Speaker 3: time hopeful that it that it will but help us.
Speaker 3: But but I I certainly can see the uh, the
Speaker 3: possibilities and the problems with it creating all kinds of
Speaker 3: issues and giving the government more more power than they
Speaker 3: should have certainly to hurt somebody's Fourth Amendment rights. That's
Speaker 3: what I was going to say. I'm sorry, yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, and I think, like you, you know, the
Speaker 1: counter argument is going to be, well, it'll be okay
Speaker 1: because the person will have their day in court. But
Speaker 1: the problem is is, you know, once an arrest or
Speaker 1: something hits the news, like, there's there's no taking that back,
Speaker 1: you know, there's that you can't you can't put that
Speaker 1: genie back in the bottle. And for you know, how
Speaker 1: however much I might crow about innocent until proven guilty,
Speaker 1: you know, that's not That's not how.
Speaker 2: Everybody sees it.
Speaker 1: But you kind of brought up one last thing that
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask your opinion on because it was
Speaker 1: I think it's a very illustrative point in that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and the judicial branch was was definitely supposed
Speaker 1: to have them the weakest branch under the Constitution. In fact,
Speaker 1: if you want, you know, you can go pull up
Speaker 1: the article of the Constitution, Article three, that discusses the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. It is one sentence, there shall be a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court like that. That is the sentence. It doesn't
Speaker 1: say that there should be nine people. It doesn't say that.
Speaker 1: How it is very very vague as to what the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court should be. Compare that to Article one on
Speaker 1: the legislative branch or Article two on the executive branch,
Speaker 1: and you'll see very quickly what the founding fathers and
Speaker 1: the Framers spent their time on.
Speaker 2: And it wasn't that.
Speaker 1: And I agree, I think it's really problematic that the
Speaker 1: Court is now effectively legislating from the branch. That's effectively
Speaker 1: what they are doing. I mean, we're not even going
Speaker 1: to give administrative agencies as much discretion as we used
Speaker 1: to under a recent ruling. I think that's very problematic
Speaker 1: because I think it creates distance between the people and
Speaker 1: the law that shouldn't exist. The distance between the people's House,
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives, and the voters is a lot closer.
Speaker 1: What do you think about that? I mean, that is
Speaker 1: my biggest concern with all of this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean I would say that there's a lot
Speaker 3: there with regard to the Supreme Court. Yes, they were
Speaker 3: supposed to be the weakest branch. If you look at
Speaker 3: some uh look history, sometimes a president, an early president
Speaker 3: would ignore what the Supreme Court said if they thought
Speaker 3: it was ridiculous and then it didn't make any sense.
Speaker 3: I'm not too crazy about federal judges being appointed for life.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that's ridiculous. I think that that
Speaker 3: creates a problem. I think that that, you know, that
Speaker 3: leads to that branch being so powerful. And uh, I'm
Speaker 3: not crazy about them legislating from from the bench, like
Speaker 3: you mentioned. I mean that that's what they're doing. They're
Speaker 3: you know, Uh, I think they got it wrong on
Speaker 3: a few things recently with the with the whole with
Speaker 3: with immigration, and uh, I don't think I don't think
Speaker 3: illegal immigrants should be rewarded with citizenships the United States
Speaker 3: if they come here legally. I think that that that's logical,
Speaker 3: it's common sense. We're not going to give them a
Speaker 3: reward for doing something unlawful, and I think that the
Speaker 3: president should have authority to make sure that that doesn't happen.
Speaker 3: I have no problem with people getting citizenship if they
Speaker 3: come and come legally. So I would say that that
Speaker 3: they've gotten some things wrong recently, very very disappointed. I'm
Speaker 3: not crazy about them having the last word, So I'm
Speaker 3: not I'm not a huge fan of the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: in comparison to the other two branches in our constitution.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I mean, I suppose the counter argument
Speaker 1: would be, well, you know, they the Supreme Court has
Speaker 1: no choice. They must up in because our Congress is
Speaker 1: so woefully inefficient and inept at this point.
Speaker 2: This is one of the.
Speaker 1: Least effective congresses, I believe since certainly since World War Two,
Speaker 1: and I think almost going back to the Civil War,
Speaker 1: which is any time you have to go back to
Speaker 1: the Civil War, that's not a good thing, folks. But
Speaker 1: you're right, you know, and even early on in our history,
Speaker 1: I mean Andrew Jackson in a relatively famous case involving
Speaker 1: a Native American tribe, when the chief Justice at the
Speaker 1: time was the most famous one, John Marshall, found against
Speaker 1: what the president wanted famously said, John Marshall has made
Speaker 1: his decision, let him enforce it, which of course he
Speaker 1: could not do because the Supreme Court lacks an army,
Speaker 1: which is kind of what you would need to do
Speaker 1: those things. So I hope we are not going towards
Speaker 1: any sort of showdown like that, because I think, given
Speaker 1: the current political climate, that could be a real breaking point.
Speaker 1: And I hope that we can continue to sidestep that
Speaker 1: as much as humanly possible, but I don't know.
Speaker 2: Time will tell. Well, listen, we've had a great conversation.
Speaker 1: I got to flex some muscles I haven't flexed a
Speaker 1: long time, so that was really fun. And you know,
Speaker 1: you're in Arizona right now. So if anybody's in need
Speaker 1: of a lawyer at Arizona, as I mentioned, you know,
Speaker 1: you're the guy, right, You're the person that they should
Speaker 1: look up.
Speaker 2: I hope that you're not.
Speaker 1: By the way, if you're listening to this, I hope
Speaker 1: you're not not that you don't live in Arizona.
Speaker 2: I hope you don't need a lawyer. But thanks so much.
Speaker 2: This has been really fun.
Speaker 3: Thanks Adam for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Now, not to put too fine a point on it,
Speaker 1: because obviously we've had a long interview to explain a
Speaker 1: couple of my perspectives, but you know, before we go,
Speaker 1: I think it's just important to recognize that the American
Speaker 1: system is really.
Speaker 2: Founded on one of the.
Speaker 1: Core concepts of a liberal and I mean small l
Speaker 1: when I say that, I'm talking about traditional Western liberalism
Speaker 1: and liberal democracy. One of the cornerstones of a liberal
Speaker 1: democracy is the rule of law and the idea that
Speaker 1: the law is applied evenly to everyone. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: often find myself saying, listen, what's good for the goose
Speaker 1: is good for the gander when I'm talking to different
Speaker 1: people about contemporary politics. And what I mean by that
Speaker 1: is that it's fine if you're okay with what the
Speaker 1: current administration is doing, and I support some of the
Speaker 1: administration's policy decisions as well, But if you're okay with
Speaker 1: whatever the operations may be, then you have to be
Speaker 1: okay if a future I don't know, democratic president does
Speaker 1: the same things. If you're not okay with it, then
Speaker 1: in general, that's probably the wrong direction to go, because
Speaker 1: the rule of law specifies that if this guy does it,
Speaker 1: then the next guy is going to be able to
Speaker 1: do it, and so on and so forth. The guardrails
Speaker 1: that were put in place by our founding fathers and
Speaker 1: the framers of the Constitution were put in place because
Speaker 1: of their historical experiences with Great Britain, and I think
Speaker 1: that it's not too early to be reconsidering what they did.
Speaker 1: I mean this, they did it for a very good reason.
Speaker 1: A lot of our constitutional protection exist for reasons that
Speaker 1: maybe we don't fully understand. Today because we didn't live
Speaker 1: through a government that didn't respect the rights of its citizens.
Speaker 1: But I think that we were guided in our foundation
Speaker 1: by extremely wise individuals, and I think it's wrong of
Speaker 1: us now to start to walk away from some of
Speaker 1: those things. Yes, religious persecutions of the type that Europe
Speaker 1: experienced in the seventeenth century and into the eighteenth century,
Speaker 1: those are, by and large, in the Western world relics
Speaker 1: of the past, But that doesn't mean that they can't
Speaker 1: come back, or that we should ignore the protections that
Speaker 1: the founding fathers put in to make sure that we
Speaker 1: have those rights. It's really important for us to protect
Speaker 1: and value the Constitution. And remember, when you swear an
Speaker 1: oath to this country, you don't swear an oath to
Speaker 1: a person. This is not Ancient Rome, this is not
Speaker 1: the Empire. We're not swearing to Caesar. You are swearing
Speaker 1: to a concept, to an idea of a government. And
Speaker 1: that idea is epitomized in the value of our constitution.
Speaker 1: And yes, as I said repeatedly throughout the interview, I'm
Speaker 1: a little bit of a stickler for the Constitution. What
Speaker 1: can I say, I really like it, I really think
Speaker 1: it is important and I think that we need to
Speaker 1: hold to it in the future, and I hope that
Speaker 1: we all remember that in the times to come, that
Speaker 1: the Constitution matters. If in the next four years we
Speaker 1: have a different president and they don't respect the Constitution,
Speaker 1: then we need to hold them to it, because that's
Speaker 1: the rule book, folks. That's what we all agreed to
Speaker 1: when we started to play this game. And you don't
Speaker 1: get to change the rules midstream because.
Speaker 2: You don't like the outcome.
Speaker 1: Our founding fathers thought it was important that we had
Speaker 1: a set of guiding principles, and the law is a
Speaker 1: principal part of that. And for better or for worse, again, what.
Speaker 2: Can I say.
Speaker 1: It may be old, it may be a little worn
Speaker 1: in times, but gosh, I still really love that Constitution,
Speaker 1: all right. So this was again a little bit of
Speaker 1: aside today, But when the opportunity came across my desk,
Speaker 1: I thought we would take a chance. And you know,
Speaker 1: it's summertime. I've got a little bit of extra time
Speaker 1: in my hands, so why not. And I think in
Speaker 1: the end it was worth it, and I hope you
Speaker 1: enjoyed it. If not, sorry, we'll be back on to
Speaker 1: the regular feed in a moment and you can get
Speaker 1: back to the history that we all.
Speaker 3: Know and love.
Speaker 1: So until next time from Western SIEV signing off.