Happy Friday to us all.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
You could be a big part.
Join us on the phone lines or the text line at eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five.
So it got just PS working hard on the board for you today.
Jazz does help co-host James Santel host of amicus a law review broadcasting right here in the civic media radio network on Saturdays nine to 11 a.m.
He is a former U. S. Attorney and he's a friend of ours.
Jim.
Thanks for sticking around man.
Good to see you.
Good to
Dominion and
Smartmatic and the fact that they were Dominion specifically, I think Smartmatic is still going on, right?
Dominion settled for $7,800 million on the Fox News because they were out there disparaging them and telling lies about Dominion.
Well, today Donald Trump got up in front of the Department of Justice and told the Department of Justice that CNN and MSNBC
uh should be illegal right and that they're doing horrible things and and they're and he's really disparaging goes on this call norm eisen attorney and uh he has the sub stack of the contrarian uh also a founding member of crew a government washdog organization called him violent a violent person
And Joe's point, and if you would kind of give me your opinion on this, is that similar to what we heard from Fox News?
I mean, you know, Fox don't call it news was adamant on it all the time, all the time they were told not to, they continued doing it.
And eventually they were, they settled for hundreds of millions of dollars.
Do you find this in the same vein at all?
And we've got really two different lanes here, right?
You've got, again, as we talked before, you've got people in the public arena who necessarily have to suffer some criticism, right?
And sometimes, and that's the New York Times standard, which again, the president doesn't understand.
That's called actual malice.
You have to show that there's actual malice by CNN or MSNBC or by Norm Eisen or any of these folks.
You knew it was wrong.
You published it with the intent.
Actual malice.
That's New York Times versus Sullivan.
Comes out of the 1960s, and yes, that's right, Martin Luther King, right?
So that's part of this.
And then the other, there's just general defamation, which I would argue, yes, indeed, because this is what Joe has said today.
It's also out there.
You know, this is again, a public official now, not a news agency, attacking someone else.
So you don't really have a, a news aid, you don't have a New York Times for this.
We have a
That's normally how this goes.
And so what is defamation?
Let's do some civics.
There's some law school here down.
Again, defamation.
You have to demonstrate a false statement.
There are many of them, including at the top of the list today, this notion that Norm Eisen is violent, of course, published to a third party, oh yeah, America, 324 million people today.
Causing harm to reputation.
I think Norm Eisen certainly Mary reported before playing that he is standing up against us But they're an awful lot of people think gosh who is this guy?
Reputation being compromised and same with with CNN and MSNBC Absolutely anybody who's under attack today the newspapers was out there and the defendants at fault He does this either the negligence or again with with actual malice knowing what he's doing
You know if you were in law school all the elements of that particular offense are there and You know as we were talking once again about Todd Blanche sitting there.
He's got to be thinking he's a bright guy He's got to be thinking maybe he's not reviewing the elements of the offensive defamation in that moment But he's got to be cringing and maybe going home tonight thinking
What was this today?
And how do I believe that for a minute,
8557 5 to 4842.
Trump also in this screed going after the press and our first amendment rights, uh, throws a statistic, 97.6% of the stories published or written by MSNBC and CNN, according to him, were negative against, against him.
Now that's very specific.
Does that matter throwing kind of numbers like I mean it seems like you all we did some research and when he throws a number up does that
Help his cause or help another different cause what does that matter at
It should matter to every American whether in lawsuit or not And it's the kind of thing that you add into the lawsuit right when you're describing frankly a talking complaint if you will Also you talk about the the references that he makes of course to violence in America being up That's to monster be wrong and in fact all you need to do is go across the street Mr. President to the FBI that publishes these numbers every single year in Virtually all areas not everyone
you all areas as we know well, violent crime continues to decrease.
Not to say that we don't have profound problems in some areas of our nation, but the overall statistics are just completely contrary to what you said, Mr. President.
All those kinds of things, you put those in the context of overall defamation lies, you're telling.
At a minimum, I'm hoping the media will file some Freedom of Information Act requests and say, OK, 97.7.
That's very specific, Dom, as you said.
Show me the Excel sheet that provides them.
Let me get a sharpie, man.
I'll show you.
Right.
And that's where the media, once again, there's an awful lot to do.
That's the kind of thing that somebody needs to ask him about.
Or at least his press secretary.
Where does that information come from?
Where does that information
Of course, she'll take a person like she doesn't know how numbers work.
We also saw in the Kyren during the break the challenges to Donald Trump's executive order.
Apparently, we're up to 123 different lawsuit challenges against the directives of this president.
I mean, and they're very, they're very fine.
You talked to like, like Ron Johnson or any of the Republicans serve in the state of Wisconsin.
Oh, they're off to a hell of a start.
Look how fast we're moving on.
Well, yeah, but now you get 123 court cases.
There's a reason for that because you're overstepping your bounds in
Absolutely.
And in the great majority of those cases, many of them, if not,
all of them in federal court.
We've got federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents and Republican presidents, and almost to a person they're saying no, Mr. President.
The 14th Amendment does not contemplate birthright, the elimination of birthright citizenship.
Mr. President, you do not have the authority to fire all of these people.
on and on USAID.
We can domestic funding, all these kinds of things.
We've just got judges on both sides of the continental United States last couple of days saying, no, no, you can't fire thousands of probationary employees.
These are people who are looking at the law.
And yes, there are preliminary decisions or TROs.
Maybe as some boy they come up to the Supreme Court and John Roberts will invoke what he did back in July and say, well, maybe the president's got that right.
But right now, when we do have federal judges who are enforcing the law, Senator Johnson, you're not being successful and you're being stopped.
The only question once again is, will this president follow the rule of law?
Or does he say implicit in what he's talking about today, I don't care.
I don't care.
I'm not going to do what some federal judge tells me to do.
That's when you have the constitutional crisis.
That's when Americans really need to be in the streets.
Well, isn't the orange one illegally on the street?
I mean he's a convicted felon.
He's a convicted rapist.
Why isn't he locked up?
Well, he was convicted as a civil.
Thank you for the call, Cindy.
And Cindy, I certainly broadly find myself in company with you.
That is, this is Juan Merchan, who should have sentenced Donald Trump
long before he was elected, not just because of that, but he was found guilty by a jury way back in May of last year.
After several weeks, Cindy, as you know well, a jury, unanimous jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.
And there was really no reason in the end to postpone and postpone and postpone that, that sentencing until Donald Trump was elected, until 10 days before he is sworn in and then impose upon him a sentence that really is a non-sentence.
But Cindy,
The solace we take from that is your point, which is we have a president who this day remains a convicted felon of crimes in the state of New York against the people of New York.
No appellate court to this day has overturned that conviction.
That's an important thing to keep in mind.
I mean, if there's no consequence to it, there's no literally zero consequence.
The only thing you lost is perhaps some time because he had to show up to court and he probably had to pay his attorneys a few bucks.
You know, he hates doing that.
That's the only consequence, man.
He got a way with it.
I can't believe those words are coming out of my mouth.
8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2-8-5-5-7-5 Civic.
Mark with the sack.
You're next.
Happy Friday, buddy.
What do you got for us?
Donald Trump doesn't just know who Lincoln is.
After all, he appointed her.
I mean, somebody just must have stuck a piece of paper in front of him.
And he just said, they said sign this here.
And he just signed with us and even knowing what it was at, which I had access like that.
Don't I don't write and checks off to me this bank account for God's sake.
And I wonder if, uh, if in his cases against, uh, the civil cases he lost, when he's going to finally pay up for that, because he can, he'd delay that forever.
I mean, at some point in time, somebody's just going to say, no,
Now it's time for you to pay.
Your appeals are done.
Pay.
Yeah.
And again, there are appeals pending as to that, right?
And so the judgment is, is stayed.
But Mark, you're absolutely right.
These are called enforcement proceedings.
And we saw that again.
They were making reference once again to Rudy Giuliani.
Um, after he defames those two hardworking, um, polling workers in Georgia, eventually there are enforcement proceedings.
And that's what you saw recently.
And he's obliged.
We don't know exactly what he does, but he's obliged to probably give up some property and some.
money there and at some point when these judgments become final again they're all civil judgments against him.
At some point they are and can be enforced and you can yes indeed seize assets and you can go after bank accounts all kinds of civil remedies that can in fact be pursued by successful plaintiffs against him.
Have a great weekend.
Folks, you're listening to the Dom Salvia show.
James Santel, my co-host today, you can check his fine program out on Saturdays, right here on the Civic Media Radio Network, nine to 11 a.m.
Got just piece working hard on the border to come back.
I'm going to dive into some of these cases.
The Trump administration must rehire thousands of fired workers, judges rule.
That's plural judges.
One on the East coast, one on the West coast.
I'm going to get into that as well.
And what does that mean?
Come back with us.
855.
seven five two four eight four two.
office show eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five civic just just PS working hard on the board James Centell my co-host for the day moving on to other topics of legal
Issues
William also pisses.
There we go.
More than California.
Both both ends of the nation Dom as you observed.
Alsup giving us some good language here He says it's a sad day when our government would fire some good employees and say it was based on performance when they know Good and well that it's a lie It was a sham he goes on to say in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.
No, that sounds bad
Right.
Now, if I
Exactly.
Again, these are civil proceedings.
So at least in America to this point, we don't jail people in civil proceedings.
Who knows what the future may bring here.
But when you receive in words like that, a judge is telling you that.
That's the time that you sit back and think, gosh, maybe I need to rethink what I'm doing here because this isn't going well.
Double dial, baby, double dial.
And that's exactly what happens here.
The judge also says, if it's done right, there can be a reduction force within the agency.
And that has to be true.
But you got to do it in the right way.
Both of the judges are saying that.
And frankly, every judge looking at this would say just the same thing.
You can't do what he calls a sham thing.
The concern, once again, is will Donald Trump follow this, right?
A lot of these folks from agriculture, many, many agriculture, VA, treasury, defense, energy, interior, all employees, probationary employees who are supposed to come back to work.
What is the message to them?
Probably the people in those agencies no longer have contact information.
So how do we reach out to them as we've seen before?
It is just so over the top.
impossible to believe that we're doing this now inside the United States
He's looking for the weak spot.
According to the New York Times, the judge, Alsop from San Francisco, said he had hoped testimony from the officials involved in the fireings would provide clarity about the conception and execution of the plans.
He excoriated a lawyer from the Justice Department for failing to produce Mr. Ezel and other potential witnesses as part of his ruling on Thursday.
is all subspecified, that the government would have to allow Noah Peters, a lawyer working with Mr. Mustine, who was detailed to the personnel office to sit for deposition in Washington about the impetus behind the firings.
Here's what the judge said, you will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined.
You are afraid to do so because you know cross-examination would reveal the truth.
And he's right on, man.
Absolutely.
And again, this is a time when individuals, many of whom they're not just functionaries, but they're being told plainly to do this, probably against their, their better judgment and probably knowing that this is illegal.
When you, when you get on the stand, you swear to tell the truth.
If you say, no, no, no one ever told me this.
And there are probably emails and documents about this.
That is a crime.
That's called perjury, right?
And the question is, do these people, as they come in, want to expose themselves to crimes on me?
They want to lay themselves down at the altar.
Well, because if you do what the
A jam?
Here's, here's more illegal procedures called suborning perjury, right?
And that too is a crime.
And there are circumstances again, typically in the criminals.
setting, but not always could be civil as well.
If you as a lawyer, if you're a representative, you're an agency, a legal representative, and you're putting somebody on the stand knowing what they're going to say is false, you have also not only violated the rules of the court, you're arguably in contempt, but you're supporting the representations that you know are wrong.
That too is a crime.
A lot of people got to think about what they're doing here.
Well, the way they
And so what you do then, what the plaintiffs in all these cases will do individually, they'll say, okay, wait, I'm a probationary employee.
I've never gotten a review.
Or in some instances, some of these folks have been forward and said, wait a minute, I've got three months reviews.
They said, I'm fantastic.
Right.
Right.
Deal with that.
And that's why I judge house.
was saying, bring it on.
Let's have those people testify about what really happened here.
They know that the emperor has no clothes.
So there's, there's, there's a lot going on here.
Let's see, according to the New York times, also up again, this is the San Francisco, that ruling was a preliminary injunction intended to remain in effect while the case is tried and a final decision is rendered.
Braiders, the other Maryland ruling is even more short lived, just a two week measure aimed at pausing any more drastic cuts to those agencies while the lawsuit plays out.
Can the government, the DOJ, Trump administration in this case go in and try it out?
change their position.
Cause obviously the judges aren't buying that this is a performance issue.
Can they go back and try to, you know, justify somehow some way, uh, these, these fires?
Cause they're trying to get
They are absolutely.
And they're also addressing time, right?
They've got to come up with something.
An awful lot of people, I think who are probably burning this, maybe, maybe not.
Maybe they're not burning midnight oil, trying to figure out what we do in front of the judge.
But that's the part of this too.
You want to figure out what is our best argument?
Obviously these judges are not buying what we're saying.
Can we find some probationary?
employee somewhere was a bad employee who would have been fired anyway and we bring that one forward that's not going to carry the day but they're looking hard and fast for something something what they should do of course is admit that again there's no basis for doing this reinstate all these people put them back and do the individual performance reviews that would otherwise result in finding some people who are most people are wonderful some of them not so good
James Santel sticking around for another half hour.
We'd like to end the show.
Tell us something good.
We love it.
So make sure you join us for that.
The Trump administration not only going after the media, not only going after government watchdog groups, also going after attorneys.
We're going to talk about that next 855-752-4842.
Welcome back to the Dom Salvia show 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 got just be us working hard for you and James Santel joining me till the six o'clock hour.
Wrapping the show up with telling us something good will be got something good zoom.
We will share it with all.
I want you to join us as well.
It's Friday.
It's a beautiful day here in Wisconsin.
That's always good.
They got to be deep.
Just, you know,
So start by telling us something good.
That'll be the last segment.
Uh, one of our textures, uncle Tony from Columbus, he jumps in.
I think, you know, what we're going to be talking about.
Yes.
Can Jim comment on the law firms?
Trump is targeting being absolute colors by not fighting back.
What?
It seems like it's all about the Benjamins instead of the law with these firms.
Well, Tony, I don't know if I agree with your premise, but counselor, what are your thoughts?
Do you believe Perkins Cooley and these other firms are fighting back?
I mean, they filed court cases, right?
And this is just a matter of getting the information correct.
They've gone in front of a federal district court judge.
Her name is Beryl Howell.
We've talked about it before.
She did a lot of sentencing of those January six folks.
Oh wait, they were pardoned by this president.
But she is out there and she's not taking any of this.
And so the attorneys from Perkins, Coe go in and they say, yes, indeed, this is having a dramatic impact on this.
The president basically discouraging federal officials from interacting with the firm's lawyers.
They can't get into federal buildings, shutting them down, communications shut down.
And indeed, barrel Howell says you can't do that.
She enters again, a temporary order.
It's not permanent.
She goes on.
to say, regardless of what the president dislikes the firm's clients, yes, indeed.
Perkins Coe used to represent a leader in American history and politics.
Her name is Hillary Clinton.
Used to be our secretary of state, a senator from New York.
Regardless of whether the president likes the firm's clients, issuing executive order, targeting the firm based upon the president's
dislike for the political position of the firm's clients or the firm's litigation postures is retaliatory and runs head-on into the well-established protections of the First Amendment.
That's Beryl Howell.
Can't do this.
Stop it.
Knock it off, she's saying, as do virtually all of the other federal judges who are addressing this sort of thing.
Beryl Howell, again, standing up against this kind of oppression.
You can't do this.
And again, it's just because you sign up.
piece of paper, Mr. President, doesn't mean that it's legal, that it's constitutional.
Thank goodness we've got judges like Beryl Howell and others who are saying no.
along the way, also invoking some interesting literary aspects of this.
You'll permit me one of those along the way.
She talks about Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
The judge did.
The judge does this, right?
And she does this from the bench.
Adam and Jess, I know you've got your copies at home and you make reference to these routinely.
She talks about the Queen of Hearts, who in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
At the slightest inconvenience, she says, the judge says, would say, off with their heads, off with their heads, and she compares our president to the Queen of Hearts.
Inconvenienced by all this and saying off with their heads, no, you can't do that.
That's a judge making the point as clearly as you possibly can.
Queen of Hearts.
I mean, that's...
That's telling.
She's putting him in his place.
She had other derogatory things and other rulings saying against him, but referring to him when he calls himself or puts images out there of himself as a monarch and so forth.
I guess a little bit here I wanted to share with the folks specifically.
The law firm said that the implications for the executive order Trump signed had significance beyond one law firm as it was, quote, an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system.
of justice.
Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the president perceives as adverse to the views of his administration.
Whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients, the suit added that Perkins Cooley cannot allow its clients.
to be bullied, apparently saying that the order has already hurt business resulting in, quote, significant lost revenue and harm to clients, it claims, in its complaint.
What a disaster.
Again, not only for this firm, but it sends a message to any other firm out there, right?
This is the deterrent in the wrong direction.
This is negative deterrence.
You take us on, you file challenges to the things I'm doing.
You represent clients I don't like.
I'm going to announce to you, I'm going to identify who you are.
And now you can't
Right, right.
The General Service Administration obliged arguably to enforce the rules established by this president and it sends once again the chilling message on a day that we're also talking about attacking anybody, talking about the media, lawyers also.
Anybody who,
In Donald Trump's view, articulates, if you take supposition contrary to his, those people are not only contrary to what he believes, and that's okay, but they're also acting illegally, illegally, unconstitutionally, and their conduct is so bad, I need to issue an executive order to stop it.
once again, the cynicism dripping from
all of this because
It's the media.
It's individual norm eyes, then, or it's Perkins Cooley, or it's a federal worker, or it's LGBT, or it's pretty much anybody, not Donald Trump and those that kiss his ass, are targets.
And now it's not just, you know, truthing out some social media.
It's just it's got the force of the executive office behind
it and comes after you one day as well If you'll indulge me another literary reference that's not coming out of barrel Howell
but this is from Henry VI, part two.
This is Dick the Butcher.
He and his henchmen, Shakespeare of course, are planning to overthrow the king, right?
And what he says, those infamous new words we all know, the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Now it's the product of the predicate for an awful lot of lawyer jokes.
People get that wrong.
What Dick the Butcher is saying is, we need to overthrow government, we need to become authoritarian, overthrow the king.
How do we do that?
We get rid of the people who are in our way.
Those are the lawyers.
Dick the Butcher wants them gone so that he can take control.
I would offer that Donald Trump may or may not be the Queen of Hearts, may or may not be Dick the Butcher, but in both circumstances, wildly, wildly illegal behavior on behalf of our president that is in the nature of a bully.
Absolutely.
Dick The Butcher, Henry VI, part two, first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
That's what Donald Trump is saying today.
But Dick The Butcher, going after the attorneys, the lawyers like this, I mean, does that help his cause?
I mean, if you want to break down the fundamental structures of this country,
If you get rid of all the lawyers, who's gonna fight you in court?
If you get rid of all the intellects and the professors and all those damn teachers, then you can dictate and how education must be and stand for this.
and kneel for that.
You know what I'm saying?
You're going after all your adversaries one by one, one by one, and pretty soon there's nobody left.
That you've got federal judges, you've got lawyers, frankly, or adversaries between themselves on a regular basis.
They've all gotten together agency heads, people in personnel, people across the board, private sector, public sector.
All of these people, the former U.S.
attorney in the Southern District of New York, people in public integrity section, national security division, all of these people have gotten together and
and illegally without any foundation are attacking this president.
Poor guy.
I mean, president victim over here.
I mean, maybe you don't do the crime, and then you won't be having the investigations.
855-752-4842.
Uncle Tony, he shims back in.
Thank you, Uncle Tony.
He said, thanks for the update.
Was this new because everything I've seen and heard until now said they weren't doing anything.
Sorry about that This was from I guess the 11th.
So a couple of days ago three days ago, Tony And I mean it's not done yet, right?
I we appreciate so tremendously focus.
It's a lot When even when we were preparing for this wonderful broadcast
Lots of things to keep in mind.
And so anyone, the information of yesterday is overtaken by more outrage and more behavior, more conduct.
today and tomorrow, so it's happening very quickly.
Absolutely, absolutely.
And thankfully, we have had a president in the prior term who never even came close to that, all these kinds of things.
Even today's event that started off this broadcast, Joe Biden understood that arm's length relationship and talked about the big picture issues.
But even it went so far as to permit, and I recognize that the callers are going to be jump all over this,
permitted the Department of Justice through a special counsel to indict his own son.
And yes, indeed, we can disagree and we can have disagreements about whether the pardon of that was proper or not.
But the reality is, do you think for one moment that Donald Trump would permit Pam Bondi to indict any of the Trump children?
It would not happen.
Simply would not happen.
We got it.
Oh,
I'm Cornell from Merrill.
This is a book 1776 by McCulloch, and it was a great line in the book.
And he said, Thomas Jefferson said, you have to have free speech in the Constitution, or I will not sign the Constitution.
So it shows that it is so important that we have the free speech.
In our country and this is the book 1776.
It's a great book about the Revolutionary War
The answer is yes the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the protections of our Constitution including the Bill of Rights all the articles and and all of its all of its very very important
support of fundamental rights.
They protect not just citizens.
We forget this sometime, but people who are here, residents who are here, all of those things.
That's why people who are not citizens can go into our courts and have their rights supported as well.
And there are all kinds of processes.
And yes, there can be different standards administratively for how these things are administered by ALJs and others.
But the reality is the protections, including those of the First Amendment, apply across the board to anyone who is here.
That's the grander.
That's the glory of our nation for Tunisia.
But
Right, right.
And so again, a judge will presumably look at this and say, show me the probable cause to believe that this person has engaged in crime.
Again, we don't incarcerate people in this country.
Absent probable cause to believe that there's been a crime committed, right?
And so that's what the hearing next week will be all about.
The government's got to come forward and say that advocacy, whatever you think,
about it somehow is committing a crime under our laws
Yeah.
Hey, great show today for number one.
man.
I learned a lot about democracy.
Yeah, it was an awesome show.
You learned a lot about democracy.
But something good for me is Sue Crawford was great at the debate with Brad Chimmel, which in my mind is
which in my mind is awesome for democracy and fair maps in Wisconsin.
So I, uh, that's my great thing for today.
Anyway, you guys are great.
Awesome.
Bye.
do.
That's right.
Absolutely.
And so we know that this coming Monday is St.
Patrick's day, right?
Right.
And I've talked before about some of the good things that sometimes go on in Washington, DC, lots and lots of things going on there, including.
kids' days, festivals, families, kinds of things.
A couple of them caught my eye because it struck me as, again, a celebration of the heritage of America, our diversity, and especially our Irish residents of Irish heritage.
We've got, for example, you can go to DIY crafters.
You can zip and you can script at St.
Patrick's, I'm sorry, St.
Patrick's themed workshop.
The course is an introduction to modern colleagues
Calligraphy appointed dip pan and ink you get a nibs ink paper and other tools You can celebrate St.
Patrick's Day by learning calligraphy and a second one if that's not enough You can also go to the DACA beer garden.
They're hosting a not only a scavenger hunt throughout Washington DC, but also a murder mystery Does it get any better than that in America?
We celebrate St.
Patrick's Day and all of our residents our citizens of Irish heritage those in
other ways.
Is there any green beer with the calligraphy?
I'm guessing there probably is.
I think great you want to share with the audience.
You know what, Dom?
I don't think I've been able to share something good all week.
All what?
Because we've had so many people calling in and sharing.
That itself is something pretty great.
It is.
However, over this past weekend, I had lunch with my parents, my sister, and her partner.
And just for over two hours, we sat and we laughed and it just was a warm, happy moment.
We hadn't gotten together all five of us in a fair amount of time and just setting aside that time and just being.
goofy and laughing and making gentle fun of each other in public.
Curse of eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two.
AJ from Madison.
He chimes in.
I saw the full moon the other day and was struck with the happiness and the thought of not being able to gaze at it, unlike the sun or the eclipse like Donald Trump did on camera.
I thought of you guys and the tell me something good segment.
All
Len from Madison, something good would be a vote for Robin Hood.
Take from the rich and give to the poor.
Yeah, we could tax them a little more.
That'd be great.
Can we stop doing the opposite?
Yeah, let's do that, Len.
I like that idea.
All right, I'll tell you something.
I got a chance to hang out with my buddy, Fancy Brian, last night.
They had a beer tasting in the big tent and went around.
And I just stuck to the booze.
But Brian, he partook and we learned a lot about lots of European beers.
It was great to catch up with our old friend, a former producer.
So it was great to see him as well.
Next week, St.
Patty's Day on Monday, my daughter's birthday.
I know.
Hey, look at me.
How's that even possible?
That is amazing.
Yeah, you were 5.
12.
So looking forward to that on Sunday, of course, is he busy?
Her birthday is going to be on Monday.
So we're going to have a great weekend.
And of course, next week, I mean, St.
Patty's Day, you know, nothing's getting done on Monday.
I
Thank you.
Just ps.
Have a wonderful weekend Thank you for all that you do and our fair
audience.
You too.
Have a great weekend.
We'll be back on the air on Monday with our favorite Delano Democrat Harvey Cain.
I'll stick around.
Pete Schwab of the Nightlake is coming up next.
Have a great weekend.
We'll see you on the radio Monday.