Transcript
Contempt for Constitution, Citizens, and Courts (Hour 1)
The Dom Salvia Show · Thu Feb 20, 2025
Thank you so much for tuning in.
You could be a big part.
Join us on the lines, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two.
Jess P S working hard today.
Good to see you.
Just thank you.
And jazzed as hell.
My co-host for the day, James Santel, former U S attorney, host of amicus, a law review broadcasting right here on the civic media radio network on Saturdays nine to 11 AM.
Jim, welcome back.
Hey, Jim, are you looking for a job?
Apparently.
Even a job I used to have, right?
Right.
A Milwaukee ZEOS attorney is out amid Trump's effort to clean house at the Justice Department.
You know, got to get rid of the old justice and bring in the new justice.
Those
Right.
This is so it's good to be measured in a time when everything else is unmeasured, right?
This is one of those stories that should not have people upset, just because U.S.
attorneys, including Greg Hanstead, who was, frankly, I...
promoted him to my first assistant position many years ago, I worked with him.
And he knew, as did I, that when you apply to be the U.S.
Attorney and the President nominates you, the Senate confirms you, that there will come a time at the end of the presidential term when you too will leave.
It's not always right away, it's not always January 20th, but it will come and it happens in every administration.
You are no longer a civil servant, which we've talked about a lot, you are a political appointee.
Now the job itself is not political, which is weird and odd.
shouldn't be.
But the reality is that this particular decision by the White House is perhaps one of the only
This is just a new administration.
The new guy gets to get his team and that's just how it is.
How did it go?
And I saw a list of U.S.
attorneys in the Milwaukee area.
I think the general sent them out there.
And you were down there on the list quite a bit.
That was some time ago.
There's like probably five or six cents.
And so when Matt leaves the office, then, after the end of Trump number one, once the same thing happens, the first incident becomes an acting.
And then at some point, the new president, as Joe Biden did, appoints someone new.
That was Greg.
Lots of that really revolving.
But again, you've also got my criminal chief elevated to the first assistant position.
His name Rick Frohling.
Rick Frohling is now the acting US attorney.
unlikely, and no, Rick quite well, unlikely that he will apply to be the US attorney.
There'll be somebody else there.
But for now, he is the one who's more than keeping the lights on, all very competent people.
But again, the progression, the succession, if you will,
But just as a procedure question, just curious, if it's the
The assistant has been there.
As you said, Rick Frohling, first U.S.
assistant attorney since 2015.
He's now named the acting U.S.
attorney.
Why, why does this go with the U.S.
attorney?
I mean, why not go down the list?
Why not get rid of Rick and everybody else?
You know what I mean?
What is it about that top one that makes that the, the one who recycled out with the new, when the new administration comes in?
I
Once again, it is this fiction that somehow these appointments are political, but it's both the U.S.
attorneys and get this, you know,
United States Marshals are also nominated by a president confirmed by the Senate.
You've got all sorts of other agency heads, other special agents in charge.
You name the agency they're there.
They don't go through that process.
A lot of this is an acronym that's going back to 1789.
It doesn't make a lot of sense.
These should be candidly, maybe not indefinite civil service appointments, but the notion that they are political and therefore we've got to get rid of this person, whether it's Jim Santel or Matt Krieger.
or Greg Hanstead or someone else there going back even long before I was there.
because they are so politically steeped and all of their decisions are premised upon what the Republican platform or the Democratic platform would say, that's simply wrong.
We just don't talk about those things because we don't have to.
Issues of crime and prosecution, issues of civil litigation are guided by, should be guided.
Historically.
departments of justice, most good US attorneys and attorneys generals will tell you it is not to be directed.
by a political direction here.
And again, I will tell you a story that many of my colleagues have been repeated recently.
Every single term, the U.S.
attorneys get together every year to talk about policy and that sort of thing.
At the end of my term, we all gathered, yes, that's right in the West room of the White House, the West Wing, on the East room of the White House of that building, and Barack Obama addressed all of us and said, you know what?
You are not my...
attorneys.
You don't you don't represent me.
you represent the people of the United States of America.
What
Exactly, he could have come in and he didn't do it, and he started with that, Dom.
It wasn't about, he wasn't even talking about you, the weather here in Washington or, you know, who had won the World Series, that kind of thing.
He was talking from the very start about the rule of law.
In this administration, we've got the present Attorney General Pam Bondi, not only specifically saying,
We are working for this president, but also establishing through the protocols and the policies of her own office, that the president can pick up the phone and direct who it is who should be indicted, who should not be, what litigation should be initiated, which shouldn't be.
Again, the president can describe very generally focuses, but not specifics in this administration.
The tradition that I knew for the 30 years that I was there is gone.
That's James Santel.
He's a former U S attorney, a host of amicus, a law review right here on the civic media radio network on Saturdays, nine to 11 AM.
A lot of thoughts here.
Let's talk about another US attorney, this one from the district of Columbia.
Yes.
Apparently, according to raw story, a rep, Robert Garcia, a Democrat, he posted a letter that he received from US attorney, Edward Martin on the department of justice letterhead, asking about his attacks, quote unquote, on Elon Musk.
Oh, this is interesting.
Now this is what the, I guess that newly appointed
U.S.
Attorney in DC.
This is what the letter said to a Democratic lawmaker.
As U.S.
Attorney for the District of Columbia, I receive requests for information and clarification.
I take these requests seriously and act on them with letters like this one you are receiving.
Martin began not indicating who sent him the quote-unquote request, according to the author of this piece.
The U.S.
Attorney goes on, at this time, I respectfully request that you clarify your comments from February 12th of 2025.
Man, these guys work fast, man, eight days ago.
During a live interview with CNN when asked how Democrats can stop Elon Musk you spoke clearly quote What is what the American people wants is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight?
This is an actual fight for democracy the letter continued
Now, Musk, of course, you're talking all about Musk.
Now, Garcia was accused of making a threat against Musk while talking about the political battle between Trump and the Democrats as a bar fight.
Quote, this sounds to me like a threat to Mr. Musk, an appointed representative of President Donald Trump, who you call a D blank, blank K. I can't say it.
and government staff who works for him.
Their concerns have led to this inquiry.
We take threats against public officials very seriously.
Jesus.
Sorry.
And I look forward to your cooperation with my letter of inquiry after request.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Please respond by February 24th.
Should you have further questions?
Yada, yada, yada.
Uh, the, uh, rep Garcia, Congressman Garcia replied.
So if you criticize Elon Musk, Trump's DOJ will send you this letter.
Members of Congress must have the right to forcefully oppose the Trump administration.
I will not be silenced.
Um, so many things to unpack there.
Wow, dude.
Okay.
So, uh, and you just said, you know, historically speaking, generally speaking, these are not, that seems very politically political to me, sir.
Do you think that was an actual threat?
I do not.
I do not.
And again,
perhaps Congressman Garcia could have avoided this if he had said, Democrats have got to be up for the fight.
And it's just that, you know, that adjective, the bar fight, it sounds as if you've got knives pulled and you don't.
He's talking about pushing back on all of these things that are happening right now.
He's not talking about going down to Georgetown and taking on a musk in a bar fight with bottles broken and those kinds of things.
And so it's concerning to me.
number one, that in a city where an awful lot of criticism is heaped in all directions, right?
This is the kind of thing, frankly, the attorneys general for whom I worked, which included Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch and certainly Janet Reno, on a regular basis, right?
They are attacked.
They are attacked viciously by members of Congress.
I hate to say that's exactly what they bought into, but that's sort of the
Absolutely.
And again, Eric Holder was at one point held in contempt by Congress.
Was he happy about that note?
Did he make comments about Congress people, about their reasons for doing that?
Of course he did.
That's number one.
So we talk about the language.
And second, I'm concerned that the U.S.
Attorney in the District of Columbia, the largest United States attorney's office,
in the nation they handle not only the federal cases but we would call the the state cases as well in Superior Court there is at this time spending his time writing a letter to a congressman obviously it's intended to get exactly the response it gets which is gosh maybe you have crossed the line and the not so subtle implication of that letter of course is congressman we may be opening a file on you because maybe you have committed a federal crime the answer is you have not and I'm really hoping
I'm hoping and again I do not know Ed Martin he certainly has been a loyalist but hoping that Ed Martin
Public consumption for Trump's consumption.
That's what this is for folks are listening to the Dom Salvi show James Santel joining me today You can do so as well eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five civic It's a phone line.
It's a text line.
Don't forget the end of the show last segment of the day Bring it tell us something good in the show and a positive note got a lot to get to today.
Things are going great in the Trump administration Just ask him also cash Patel head of the FBI.
Hell.
There's probably a file on you now Jim.
I think
probably are also also congressman Derek Van Norton.
Well, he is working hard for the Wisconsin citizens.
He wants to impeach a federal judge who had the temerity to stop Elon Musk.
Come back with us.
Thank you for listening to the Dom Salvia show that musical long-distance dedication going on to our pal Casper Hey, man playing drums singing hard.
Appreciate you, brother 855-752-484-2855 75 civic just ps on the board James Santel joining me today former U.S.
Attorney host of amicus check them out Saturdays 9 to 11 a.m.
Right here in the civic media radio network Derek van Orden, Wisconsin
Congress but I can't believe this guy still around he's working hard for the American people for you and he wants to
Impeach a judge US district judge Paul Engelmeyer issued a preliminary injunction blocking Doge on February 8th in response to a lawsuit filed by Democratic attorneys general including Wisconsin's AG Josh Call.
The judge was appointed to the bench by Obama.
The lawsuit claimed Doge cannot legally access treasury records that include social security numbers and bank account details.
Why not?
I mean, what's
In response to the injunction, Musk accused the judge of being quote, a corrupt judge, protecting corruption in his social media platform X. He needs to be impeached now.
And he didn't the call.
Derek Van Orden.
I mean, and this isn't even a young kid.
I mean, he's going after a judge.
Van Orden and the Republican from prohibition introduced a bill Tuesday to begin the impeachment process, which accuses the judge of high crimes and misdemeanors quote.
Paul Ingemeyer, as a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, engaged in judicial misconduct when he halted President Donald J. Trump's executive order establishing and implementing the President's Department of Government Efficiency on Purely Political Grounds, demonstrating clear bias and prejudice against the President and the 74 million Americans who voted for him, Derek Van Orden Resolutions State.
The second story in as many minutes almost in which we've got somebody doing something I would say it's for the consumption of maybe half over the entire nation But half of the nation you don't would say it's for the consumption of one who happens to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue That's what this is all about.
It's going nowhere and the thing that people should have their hair on fire about is not the predicate for these articles of impeachment
It is this notion that someone who has not been confirmed by the Senate, let's go back and say just this too.
There is no such thing as a department of government efficiency.
That does not exist, right?
Only the Congress can put that together.
Only a Congress can establish an agency.
So we've got a false construct here.
We've got somebody who I suspect has never undergone a background check of the sort that, frankly, all the U.S.
attorneys do, all the nominees do, and he and his group of... Yeah, but he's rich.
He's rich.
He's rich,
Apparently not.
Apparently not, right?
Americans then show up at the IRS doors and they say, give us your information.
This is one unlike the departures of U.S.
attorneys where Americans should be in the street.
Oh my goodness, you're going to get all of the tax information, income, all sorts of property information, not just social security numbers, but records of going back many years, records that basically reveal all kinds of things that are protected by law.
I'll give you another reference point.
If during the course of opening a legitimate investigation inside the US Attorney's Office or inside Maine Justice in Washington, DC,
I feel that there is something financial that is appropriate to know what is the income
I have to make an application to get this tax information as the U.S.
Attorney, right?
Because you've got so many protections appropriate.
You can't
Apparently you cannot and there's an application process.
And again, if you have not established a sufficient basis upon which to do that, you can't simply say, well, we're opening a criminal file and therefore let's get tax records.
You've got to have some financial aspects, something about the property, what they've been doing.
Probable cause?
Probable cause.
some employment information, all those kinds of things.
The United States attorneys, 92 of them are on the country, can't get this information.
But Musk and his wonderkins show up and they say, give it to us.
And so going back again to what our local congressman has done here, this is ridiculous.
This is absurd.
I would like to think he knows better, but I don't know.
And hopefully, hopefully some cooler minds, even on this issue, will prevail.
And this will be going nowhere once again, because it should go nowhere.
This is all made up.
And yes, to be clear, the president has,
put together a piece of paper with his very dramatic signature at the bottom and shown it all around.
And yes, he's doing all kinds of things just because the president signs off on something doesn't make it legal.
And once again, there's a manner of putting together mechanisms not only for establishing new things you want to do inside government, but also addressing those things that are out there.
There are an awful lot of things that Congress can and should be doing oversight.
How many times have we talked about that?
They're not going to be
We only got a couple of minutes left in the segment.
Are you satisfied?
Generally speaking with the, with the pushback, you know, legally speaking and the judges and some of their decisions on this.
I mean, Chuck can allow for some of the stuff to go through, but this judge did not.
What's your sense?
It's kind of overall.
And there are others playing the on birthright citizenship where saying you must be joking and that's happening around the country.
Most of the craziness out there is being met by federal judges who are laughing at the, quite literally, quite literally laughing and saying, well, where are the attorneys talking to the president?
And so you do have federal judges and I think they are the bulwark against
some of this those opinions those decisions of course go up to courts of appeals and where might they end up they might end up we can also get together at the United States Supreme Court and we know that eight months ago the Supreme Court gave Donald Trump the authority to do what he's doing talked about this muscular vibrant need to move quickly and decisively can't be hamstrung by things like criminal cases or frankly even other things
they all those wonderkins and Elon Musk himself should be concerned about that because the opinion from the Supreme Court says nothing about the underlings It's always talking about the president and that's the question if people take assignments from the president Are they also covered the answer is probably at least under this order not?
Attorney joining me all day today.
You can chime in as well.
855-752-4842.
Come back with us.
the dom salvia show eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five civic just bs is on the board james santel former u.s.
Attorney host of amicus a law review joining me for the day across the table jim thank you for joining me talking about the the efforts of doge not a department not i mean not a department so it was just called oh
I'll let me, and even that, I have to tell you, this is very much in the weeds, but how do you, and I assume that they've got some letter from somebody, but even to get access to any federal office, including a U.S.
Attorney's Office in Madison or Milwaukee or Green Bay, you have to have an access card, right?
How are these people just walking in and getting access?
It just defies logic across the board.
That's a small aspect of this, but also stunning to me.
There's an article from Washington Post Trump comes close to the red line of opening defying judges experts say Faced with judges orders to block certain initiatives the Trump administration has found ways to tell courts it still has the authority to act We're not withholding the money Jim.
We're just putting it through a different
process to make sure that it's, you know, being allocated properly.
It's a new process.
We're being efficient here.
And, and so they're slowing it down.
I mean, they're not, they're not, not giving it.
They're just, this is taking them longer.
I'd rather, I'd rather owe it.
to you forever than
And so in addition to this news coming out of the Wall Street Journal today, the federal judge, John McConnell, this is a couple of weeks to go down.
I think we talked about Rhode Island.
He also said that again, this is a judge who previously
You said you can't you can't just withhold all these federal domestic funds out there said stop doing it temporary restraining order and they continue to do it and the judge comes out and says You're failing to comply with my order.
We have a word for that.
It's called contempt And and this is also this is also again in the category of hair on fire today This is also when the system begins to break down right because if you've got a federal judge with the Supreme Court or a federal district court judge there on a life
time appointment confirmed by the Senate once again they've got this authority to do all this and another and they say this is what it's got to be and yeah maybe we're going to change things down the road you got a number of hearings coming up more appeals a federal judge tells you to do something and the answer is no I'm not doing that
That's that's when the Republic begins to crumble that is again a phrase often bandied about with wild with wild abandon is a constitutional crisis That's getting getting close to it if not right in the middle of that when again Judge McConnell says you're in violation of my order and again the White House says I don't
Back from the Washington Post, McConnell accused, this is the judge, accused the Trump administration of violating his order after nearly two dozen Democratic state attorneys general told him millions in funding for clean energy and transportation projects were still being impounded by the Trump administration.
That's supposed to be impounded.
We'll go there next.
The Justice Department responded that it had worked in good faith to comply with McConnell's TRO.
but believe some funding was exempt from the order and could still be frozen because it had been paused by a separate action.
The office of management and budget, the judge rejected the idea, writing that his order was quote, clear and unambiguous.
And there are no impediments to the defendant's compliance.
Unequivocal.
Nice, nice try,
But once again, if you've got to do these kinds of, of legal and even linguistic gymnastics to get what you want,
You know you know that you're not building your arguments on a strong foundation this judge is calling them out Hopefully again will enter the the permanent TROs when these things go up to the second circuit there in New York or the DC circuit in DC other places around the nation That the appeals courts will also say no no this is wrong as we said before the concern is when this gets up to the Supreme Court Will John Roberts likewise say yeah, this is a bridge too far you are now violating the clear Commission
the clear commission of the law, which is that when the legislature passes a budget, and yes, there's an appropriations process, and there's an allocation for all kinds of A-words out there that are part of the process, but the president has the obligation to do what?
To execute on that.
That's where
the
And you don't, and this is what got Richard Nixon in trouble, it's the impoundment word that you just used, Dom, right?
You can't simply say, well,
Another branch of government has done this.
I'm not going to follow that or if you do then and a judge tells you no, no, Mr. President or more than a madam president You can't simply be out there freelancing it.
You need to abide by that this White House is not and that should also have people frankly in the streets as we're beginning to see a groundswell of that happening in America
We had one initially out in Washington, and they're at various stages along the way.
They will...
probably be appealed because once again, the lawyers there say that there's this jurisdictional language inside the 14th Amendment says, well, but you've got to be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States of America.
And therefore, for example, if you are not actually the born of people who already are here, don't have jurisdiction over them.
Therefore, we don't have jurisdiction over you and you can't be a citizen.
That also, of course, brings too far into the
the ambit of prohibited people are Native American Indian population, right?
It's just absurd.
And yet again, I will not say high marks, very low marks for trying to find some language to justify what they're doing.
The good news is for your listeners across the country, judges are not.
buying this and hopefully again if it gets to the Supreme Court this absurd notion hopefully the Supreme Court won't even take it and say no no the lower courts have got this just right.
that the U.S.
appeals court rejects Trump's emergency bid to curtail birthright citizenship.
They rejected the request to stay the nationwide injunction.
A Trump-appointed judge says courts have never recognized an exception to birthright citizenship.
Cases are pending before two other appellate courts as
exactly right you've got appeals court judges around the country saying the same sort of thing shutting all this down Typically again the United States Supreme Court one of the bases upon which it grants review is well There's a split in the circus.
It's good to have a uniformity across the way.
This is not that situation I would hope that John Roberts and the others would look at this We know that least three members of the Supreme Court would not grant certiorari on this, you know
the entire Supreme Court would say, yeah, our lower court, federal appeals court and district court judges have gotten this right.
Let's look at some of the other 62 or 63 cases we've got pending right now.
Let's spend our time on those.
And again, the Trump administration through the Solicitor General, your Solicitor General right now, you should know is advocating for just the opposite, right?
Your Solicitor General.
If indeed you've got three, four, five, six appeals courts and all of these cases are being appealed.
Number one, highly likely the Supreme Court would consolidate all of them so they're not doing this piecemeal.
And second, you'd like to think that they would issue one of these unsigned orders sometime on Friday at 9.15 at night saying, no, no, we're not going to be doing any review here.
And it goes away.
And the law then remains the law from the appeals courts.
House.
Yeah, yeah, we
The president has already signed 73 executive orders.
That is more than double the number signed by Joe Biden and more than quadruple the number signed by Barack Obama over the same period.
and I mean, executive, what?
I mean,
We'd like to do these other things.
We would like, for example, to bring the Department of Education to an end here, introduce legislation.
That's the only way that can be done.
Do some of that.
He's not doing any of that.
So the very fact that he's got
His numbers are higher on this.
I'm trying mightily to figure out a good analogy to this.
Again, just because it's so unprecedented, nothing is coming to mind.
The numbers game, Carolyn, is not what you want to seize upon.
It's the merits of these things and 99.9% of them.
He's done a couple of things which are okay around the edges.
Most, the great majority of them are abject craziness.
You know what
mean?
How dare you, Caroline Levitt, because what she's really doing is she's playing to the lowest common denominators in our nation, right?
People think, oh, did you hear that?
Add fish fries tomorrow night around Wisconsin, other places.
People are saying, did you hear how effective our president's being?
He has already issued all these, and that Obama guy, that Biden guy, they weren't attentive to this.
He's working hard.
She's sending this message that somehow the numbers of these translate into substantive changes to the good in America.
It is so cynical she's relying upon the with due respect.
to the population America, the ignorance and the lack of familiarity and the lack of basic understanding how civics works in America, she's relying upon that.
And of course, that's the basis upon which Donald Trump has built his entire political career.
It
Today marks one month of President Trump's return.
Oh my God.
Tell us about it.
And there is no denying this administration is off to a historic
of fans and suck
He is packed eight years of transformative action, restoring this nation, restoring our laws, restoring fairness, restoring economic opportunity, restoring national security.
No president comes close to what Donald Trump has achieved over just the last 30 days.
And at some point, don't you go home too.
And again, I still believe that people like Stephen Miller, I believe that they are not, plainly, they're not operating the best interests of the government or the people.
Frankly, even of this president,
but that's a road too far, I recognize.
But he's got to go home at night and say, you know what, guess what I just said today?
And let's watch that on the CBS Evening News.
And I'd like to think they're chuckling wildly because once again, they're deceiving at least a significant portion of the American population.
Shame on you, Stephen Miller.
James Santel, former U.S.
Attorney, host of Amicus, a law review broadcasting right here at the Civic Media Radio.
Now, on Saturdays, on Saturdays, Jim, I'll be checking you out this Saturday, 9 to 11 a.m., but we got him today.
We got him early.
You can join us as well.
Get to the callers and the text coming up next,
855-75-CIVIC.
And welcome back to the Dom salvia show eight five five seven five two four eight four two just PS on the board James Santel former US Attorney host of amicus joining me today going to get to the lines right now.
I got some textures out there to executive orders.
Who cares who had the most big max is the most important contest.
Well, I think we know who that was eight five five seven five civic.
We'll go to Gail from Kenosha.
Hey Gail, welcome.
What do you got for us?
Yes.
With all the lawsuits against Trump, doesn't that take taxpayers' money to defend those off?
does.
Yeah.
Yeah, and so what you've got are you've got now the lawyers in Dom is going to love this as they say it inside your Justice Department Who are not enforcing the environmental laws who are not enforcing the civil rights laws because we know the civil rights division has been all but shut down But they're running around the country now necessarily and they're appearing in these federal district courts quite literally across the country and They're representing you they're saying I represent the people
the United States of America.
And because of that, now they're salaried people, so it's not as if they're private attorneys who are getting paid by the hour and a contingency fee.
But it's a resource question, right?
Gail, and so you've got it right in the head.
If you're not doing the real important work of the people and of U.S.
Attorney's Office and partner justice in all sorts of areas, including national security and antitrust and tax and environment and all kinds of things out there, civil rights, civil cases generally,
If you're not doing that, you're doing this
Yeah, go ahead.
Yes, I have one more question about the people that they're deporting, and they probably have to leave all their possessions behind, or most of them, and some might be sentimental, some might be their pets.
Do these people have a chance to like sue in the future?
Even here on the 20th of the month into this presidency, you are protected by the Constitution of the United States of America by virtue of your being here, right?
It's not just citizens and residents.
And if there has been what's called an improper taking, that means exactly what it sounds like if the government has taken, this is why, for example, you've got a process of eminent domain when the government comes in and says, you know what, we need to use your property to make a street or something else.
There you go, right down the street here, right?
If the government does that, if it takes your property, it has to compensate you.
And that applies to all kinds of things across the board, including the kinds of claims that you're identifying right now, Gail.
If the government has improperly treated you...
you've got a cause of action.
Now you need lawyers yesterday to find the statutory basis behind it.
And so it is not an easy thing to do.
And Gail, as you've identified, you've got people are leaving quickly right now because of, and that's part of this too, right?
It's to send this sense of fear, drop everything, leave your pets behind, leave your possessions, your worldly possessions.
I've seen some
you're here, you know working in the dairy farms with a with an inaccurate wrong social security number You're probably not, you know collecting a whole lot of money.
You can afford to use to pay for attorneys.
I mean it's just saying so.
Yes.
Yes, it's sure you can't
But, you know, can you afford it?
That's the question.
855-752-4842.
Cindy from Appleton, you will be next.
Welcome, Cindy.
What do you got for us?
Well, I'm calling what the convicted rapist is doing is an evil contest.
He's out to get as many evil points as possible.
Yep, absolutely.
I mean, this would be funny, but it's so freaking scary.
I don't understand how people are still, I mean, I can't believe the people that are still supporting him.
I had another woman tell me today, oh, the whole thing about social security, that's the truth.
All these people are collecting it.
That shouldn't be, and I'm just like, that is not true.
true.
They're just buying into this crap.
And that, you know, that's, that's of course the hard thing to deal with is our friends and family and people around us that buy into it and not go.
You know what I mean?
And even as we talked a little bit about yesterday, you know, this whole doge thing and Elon Musk, oh, you know, sometimes we're not going to battle thousands.
We're going to get some things wrong.
Well, in their, in their, one of their lineups of the receipts, they had an eight billion dollar number where an eight million dollar number should have been.
And Cindy, to your friend who says that all these things are terrific.
And finally, we're getting social security all cleaned up.
Ask your friend, Cindy, if she is comfortable with the notion that there are 20 year olds, again, presumably without background checks, we're going in and getting your friends fina-
financial data, employment information, health data, addresses for anyone with a social security number, health data, all those kinds of things.
When Elon Musk comes knocking at the door of the Social Security Administration, and yes, indeed, the acting director resigns.
Her name is Michelle King.
She says, you know what?
I cannot count and says, I cannot stand by and watch this happening because it's so contrary to what the law says.
And all this information is one day in the hands of these people, once again, who do not have government.
clearances and all these other things that are necessary for the integrity, the operational government.
How does your friend feel about that?
That her financial information, social security number, frankly, a lot of people have other financial things in there are exposed to non-governmental parties.
Some of the things that I say will be incorrect.
