Transcript
Due Process, that’s not old fashioned is it? (Hour 2)
The Dom Salvia Show · Fri Mar 21, 2025
Broadcasting across the state of Wisconsin on the Civic Media Radio Network and around the world on the Civic Media app.
This is the Dom Salvia Show.
And now, here's your host, Dom Salvia.
And welcome to the Dom salvia show.
Thank you so much for tuning in You can be a part on this gorgeous Friday 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 just piece working hard on the board James Santel my co-host for this our host now faces own show amicus a law review right here in the civic media radio network Saturdays 9 to 11 a.m.
Jim thanks for sticking around man always fun, and I know we got
So much.
This is so much.
And we only have so much time.
Um, I want to, we also end the show by telling us something good.
Um, but I'm going to start out by something good because I'm hearing, uh, Bernie Sanders and AOC out on the road.
And, you know, I've been lamenting and a lot of us have what's going on.
Who's doing what?
Who's a, who could we look to for, for leadership in these times, these troubled times?
Um, always love me some Bernie Sanders and starting me to love me more, some AOC.
Uh, so indulge me.
If you will, uh, Bernie and AOC out on tour like Nevada and Arizona, they're going around having these discussions.
A few short clips from Bernie and then one from AOC.
And then we will move on to other topics, but I got to get this out there because it's been something that's been bothering me all week long.
So if you would please just you did the hard work.
Thank
We will not allow you.
to move this country into an oligarchy?
People like Musk spending $270 million to elect Trump as president and then becoming the most important person in government.
Does anybody think that has anything to do with a democratic form of society?
Hell no it doesn't that's why it is one of the reasons it is so offensive Let's talk about social security Also a couple headlines regarding social security from dredge report social security commissioner threatens to shut down Agency the commerce secretary only fraudsters would complain about a missed social security check That's over the top of the line.
Excuse
And they're going after social security.
Some of you may have heard Trump talking about all of these millions of people, 200 years of age, getting social security.
It's a lie.
I know you will be shocked to hear that he lied.
Yes, lie.
a lie.
He
So we are gonna fight Trump and his oligarchic friends.
We're gonna take on their effort to move us to an authoritarian society.
But we have got to do something else.
We have got to ourselves have a vision
for the kind of country we want to become.
This is coming from their appearance in Arizona.
Medicaid, Medicare.
and Social Security were promises that we as a people have made to each other about the kind of country we are and the kind of society we want to live in.
And I don't know about you, Arizona, but I want to live in an America that guarantees health care to every person.
I want to live in America that has a living wage for every person.
I want to live in America where you have free speech to express yourself and not be afraid of getting put on a list or deported.
But these promises that we've made, they are not
They are promises from politicians to the people, or they're not charity from billionaires to everyday Americans.
They are promises we have made to each other.
Neighbor to neighbor, friend to friend, teacher to student, family member to family member.
that we want to live in a society that is not depraved, not every person for themselves, but all of us standing together.
This is the promise that we make to each other as Americans.
And again, not always to put a legal cast on things, but what AOC is talking about is a contract with a small C. It's a social contract.
It's a moral contract.
It's a human rights contract that, yes, indeed,
established by the Congress but nonetheless where does Congress come from that's us those are the people and she's talking about this agreement this contract that has been made decades ago into which many people have now contributed billions of dollars quite literally and cannot breach that social contract that's what she's talking about as to Bernie again what 80 83 years old and note as well to what I think is your implicit if not explicit point um where the Democrats remember again
Bernie Sanders is not a card-carrying Democrat,
right?
He ran for the presidency on the ticket, but he is still, again, from his home state, obviously, but 83 years old and is the advocate now.
And as this old stop oligarchy tour began, my recollection is he said, I was holding back for a few weeks just to see if what the Democrats would do, who would step forward?
And he said, no one.
at least not with the volume and the ferocity that he has taken on.
And so he is stepping forward, a non-democrat and independent, he's not a Republican certainly, but an independent in America voices.
And that also speaks to who we should be.
This should not be a political issue, it should not be a partisan issue.
Regrettably, it does take leadership.
And I think to your point, where is that voice of solid democratic leadership?
And that's what he's also bemoaning by doing this.
He's in Colorado today.
A number of visits there.
Same kinds of themes.
Huge crowds.
This is not a matter of a man going out there and not finding a group of people who want to hear him.
This is just the opposite.
America is responding to this.
Where are the Democrats who should be out there in every single state saying and articulating those same important contract messages?
with each other.
I'm not sure they all necessarily, number one, have the ability to connect with people like like burning AOC do number one.
Number two, you know, I've always got different motivations and I got it.
I got to bring up this Chuck, this boat in the Senate, man, Chuck Schumer, you know, leading the this the Dems leading the Dems is that where we're calling it, you know, joining with Republicans and getting nothing for it.
And a couple of things I take
problems with.
And I know it's already said and done, but I think it goes to the point of why people are so angry right now.
Before this most current continuing resolution, we were working on the last continuing resolution, right?
And
Well, they pissed all over.
They want nothing to do with it.
They're not honoring the last continuing resolution.
So why would you engage another continuing resolution with disinterested and nefarious parties?
Number one, they're already not doing it.
So what makes you, gives you any confidence they're going to follow this continuing resolutions?
If you're worried about this, you know, fighting right now politically, every day you move closer to the midterm elections, if they would have held firm, if they would have challenged the Republicans to at least come up with something, offer me something, instead of nothing, um, that any political damage would probably have been forgotten by the time the midterms run around if you're looking at it from a political calendar.
Of course, they needed those Democrats.
And they came and they got nothing for it.
Zero zilts nada.
That's not leadership.
That's not dealmaking.
That's acquiescing.
Who to blame?
Short-term gain.
A pain, long-term gain.
What are the Republicans always saying?
Oh, it's gonna hurt for a while.
Well, there you go, Republicans.
If they don't come to try to earn Chuck Schumer's vote and their lack of action, their lack of dealmaking causes, that short-term pain of government getting shut down,
Well, who's gonna own that?
The Republicans would own that.
I saw some polling prior to that vote.
Most people, it wasn't overwhelming, but most people would put the blame for a shutdown on the Republicans.
Come on, man.
They got a mandate, right?
And finally, it would own the news cycle, man.
It would own the news cycle.
Everything would be on the government shutting down.
That would be the conversation every single day.
Now it's free.
Now it's wide open, man.
They don't have to worry about that hanging over their head.
Hell, they can have does go to the Pentagon.
They can do whatever the hell they want, because they don't have to worry about the repercussions of their lack of action, their lack of dealmaking with the Dems.
And she was just gave it away.
And I know the raging Cajun came out recently, says, well, maybe there's some long term wisdom to this.
Well, that cat was right on one thing like 30 years ago, and he's been going to that same party ever since.
Sorry if I don't buy that.
So, man, no, Chuck Schumer, man, you got, go, where's the, and I'm not in the Senate.
I don't know, no, but damn, it looks to me like they gave away everything and got nothing for it.
Jim, sorry for the rant.
What do you think?
And again, recall that this particular deal was put together, the budget, which again, you know,
It is stunning beyond just the immediacy that we don't have a budget in this nation, right?
Congress is completely failing.
Your points could not be better stated.
Just historically, when these things have happened, I have lived through several of them.
I've administered offices when indeed the government is set down.
It is uncomfortable.
But it sends a message.
And when you come out at the far end, politically, things I did not get involved in, you've got some benefit to having done that.
What if you had held out at least for a couple more days over the weekend into the following week, and then, as you say, send a message to America?
Send a message to those people showing up in Colorado today with AOC and with Bernie who want some pushback on this.
Here's what we're doing for you.
And again, to your very important point, here is what we've gotten out of this.
And we've also gotten perhaps some agreement about the ways in which we are going to, even resolutions about what the president is and is not doing, we're going to reaffirm this notion that indeed Congress has a role to play, a big one, the big one when it comes to money in America.
He's sticking around for the entire hour You can join us as well eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five civic
Let's talk about, let's talk about the, the cases, uh, specifically the, these deportation cases and how the judge is dressing down the department of justice.
You know, look, that crap will use to work for Jim.
Man, really gone downhill since you left, man.
And also these law firms, man, this Paul Weiss law firm, man, is this extortion?
They get an executive order.
They give up $40 million of pro bono.
I'll take that money.
Come back with us.
with them
We are the one you've been waiting for, eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two, eight, five, five, seven, five.
Civic got just PS on the board in the tunes.
Man, I love you, rock girl.
And James Santel, host of Emacus, a law review right here on the Civic Media Radio Network Saturdays, nine to 11, eight AM.
Thank you, Jim.
We got some callers.
Let's get to them before we get into this administration's struggles in the federal court.
Wisco Paul, you are up.
Happy Friday, my friend.
Welcome.
What do you got for us?
Good afternoon, gentlemen, first show today.
Basically, in my words, Schumer laid on the ground with his, you know what, in the air, and there was no fight.
We needed a fight here.
It was time to fight, and he didn't do it.
And I think he would be gone down the road here.
This is the old guard of the Democratic Party, and this includes our last president, Biden, Schumer.
They're playing by different rules, the old rules, they don't apply anymore.
And my question, Jim, right now, it seems like the courts are fighting back, which is, which is good, I hope.
Do you think they're going to be able to hold because really they, you know, Trump controls a lot of the agencies himself and he's trying to prove that he can do whatever he wants.
But
It is my hope the courts will hold and once you're opinion on that, Jim, and you guys have a great weekend.
Right now it is the federal district court judges who are the guardrails against what we're seeing in America.
And again, to a person, almost to a judge in particular, there've been a couple here and there, but they go off on real small technicalities.
Almost every single judge who's addressing any of these things, including
The Musk team's access, for example, the Social Security Administration, all these kinds of things are out there.
USCID, fun.
It goes on and on.
We know them.
There are two numers on the list.
Almost all of them are the guardrails right now.
And why is that?
Well, it's because, in part,
They've got lifetime tenure, right?
And they've been appointed again by Democrats and Republicans alike.
This is across the board.
These judges are saying no, the Constitution says that if you're born in America, you are indeed a citizen.
That is not a question that we need to to figure out anymore.
They're saying that there are the other guardrail.
Paul, the question, the issue that you raise is what happens as these things go up to the courts of appeals?
There are certainly courts of appeals that will uphold those kinds of things.
And then we get to the Supreme Court, which is the big one, right?
And we know, as Dom indicated early in this very broadcast, concerns about what would happen there.
We know I seem to do it every single time.
I'm with Dom and Jess on this wonderful show, reciting once again what John Roberts told us back in July, eight months ago.
He is the one.
He is the one who put all of this in place.
by saying we need to have a strong, a vital, a nimble, can't have a feeble executive, can't have feeble government, you need to be able to respond quickly and decisively, and Donald Trump has done just that.
Now, it may well be, and we'll talk about it, I believe in just a couple of minutes, maybe that John Roberts is having some buyers remorse here.
He has pushed back a little bit this week, not very much.
But right now, I think you're right.
And thank goodness for federal judges saying no, you cannot do this.
And we're approaching very much a, again the words, but the phrase bandied about way too much, constitutional crisis.
If in fact our president continues to say, as he has done, I don't care.
I'm not doing what you're telling me to do.
That's when, that's when we no longer have Madisonian answers to this.
And that's when the nation truly is, Republic is in jeopardy, as Sonia Sotomayor said.
Let's talk about this, this, this case.
So writers are reporting that the, this judge who black Trump's administration from be deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members of their 1798 law say government lawyers have been intemperate and disrespectful in court filings.
I mean, yeah, you think, but let's, let's talk about this, Jim.
The premise that they are using a 1798 law, well, we're not at war.
So doesn't it, is that
right off the bat BS bunk, right?
We're not in wartime.
We don't, it's not invasion.
There's no war.
Congress has to declare war.
You can't just do it.
Can't have a police action, Nixon, Trump, Bush, whatever.
Let's talk about the gym.
Where do you stand on this case right now?
And how do you think the judge is responding?
The judge once again, again, his name is Joe James Bosberg.
He is the chief judge.
He's the chief trial court judge in Washington, DC.
He is once again exhibiting from my perspective an awful lot of patience.
Remember this began a week ago tomorrow when these planes were in the air and the judge Orly from the bench said, call the back, bring the back here and get on the phone and bring the back here.
He has been attempting for this past week to try to figure out whether or not your Department of Justice, my government violated his directive to bring those planes back.
And he still doesn't have an answer.
There's a hearing again this afternoon.
No readouts on that yet.
But he has been very patient.
And my play on this is, again, that the alien law that is being invoked here is nice try, creative, creative Department of Justice, but not going to get you anywhere here.
Now there's also this notion, well, maybe these are state secrets.
And maybe we need to raise that one.
That one comes up fairly late this week.
The judge is patience is waning when he says to you that you're woefully insufficient.
Government has evaded its obligations.
Those are not good words.
And here is where this should end up candidly.
If indeed, if indeed someone inside the government knew about this order was told to bring those planes back.
It did not.
Then you issue in what's called an order to show cause.
You find someone in contempt and you know what the penalty for contempt is.
Somebody spends some time.
behind bars, quite literally.
And maybe that's the response that the guardrails right now, district court judges need to do.
Maybe it may or may not be a secretary around the cabinet level table, but maybe somebody who's responsible for this, who's out there talking this way, needs to be jailed as a way of saying, no, no, you do in fact follow what the courts are saying, and you do in fact follow what I said.
Don't you dare think about disobeying my orders.
Folks listening to the down salvia show come back with us James Santel just PS your calls a 5 5 7 5 2 4 8
According to the Washington Post, the judge said the government must decide by Tuesday whether would be invoking the state's secret privilege and demanded the government submit a sworn declaration that there are ongoing cabinet-level discussions and whether to do so Friday morning before the hearing, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche complied with that request.
Further, the government has separately appealed Bolsberg's temporary restraining order blocking the use of the Alien Enemies Act to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which has scheduled oral arguments on the matter for Monday.
Come back with us, 855.
752-4842.
Welcome back to The Dom.
This will be a show 8-5-5, 7-5-2, 4-8-4, 2-8-5-5, 7-5 Civic just PS on the board.
James Santel, host of Amicus, a law review.
Check his fine show out on Saturday mornings, 9 to 11 a.m.
sticking around for the next two segments.
Of course, a final segment of the day, folks.
Tell us something good.
It's Friday.
Tell us something good, then we'll get to your questions and comments as well.
We're talking about the Trump administration's use of this Aliens Enemies Act to justify these deportation planes to El Salvador that carried Venezuelans.
I mean, call me crazy, but okay.
A little bit more on the reporting here at the gym.
And then we have some sound of Attorney General Pam Bondi.
I want to play that.
And then we'll get your thoughts, counselor.
Always
Always good to hear from her.
She's on Fox News a lot, man.
I'm just saying that job must be pretty cush.
The administration said in court filings of the US immigration and customs enforcement investigated each migrant sent to El Salvador to verify their alleged
ties to the trend day, uh, Ruga gang, Ruga, Arugula, uh, Robert Sina, the acting ice field director in Harling, Harlingen, Texas, acknowledged that quote, many of those deported under the act do not have criminal records in the United States, but, but that does not indicate that they pose a limited threat.
So.
Um, and just it may well be that that that that they're basing this on that precedent from during World War two, one of three times this was invoked.
when we imprisoned in the western states of this nation, citizens of the United States, because their ancestry happened to be Japanese, Karamatsu, Supreme Court endorses that, that's the precedent that we're now relying upon with respect to these Venezuelan immigrants.
Well, our lawyers are working on this.
We will answer appropriately.
But what I will tell you is this judge has no right to ask those questions.
You have one unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policies, trying to control the Alien Enemies Act, which they have no business presiding over.
There are 261 reasons why Americans are safer now.
That's because those people are out of this country.
The judge had no business, no power to do what he did.
And well, he came in on an emergency basis on a Saturday with very, very short notice, if any, to our attorney to run in the courtroom.
You know, and this has been a pattern with these liberal judges.
You just spoke about that.
It's been a pattern with what they've been doing.
This judge had no right to do
that they're meddling in foreign affairs.
time.
my
Oh my goodness.
Simply wrong.
Simply wrong, wrong, wrong.
An unelected federal judge.
No, all federal judges are unelected.
They're all appointed Madam Attorney General.
Does she have the authority to interpret the law?
Yes, that's that's
has the early part of the 19th century when the Supreme Court said it is decidedly the purview of the courts to decide what the law is.
No business presiding over this.
Of course there is.
When you have people who are present in the United States of America, you do not have to be a citizen.
You are entitled to the protections of our Constitution.
I can go on and on with the things that are completely wrong with what my attorney general has said this past week.
And I was prompted once again, and I'm going to pursue this, to figure out where she went to law school.
It happens to be a place called Stetson Law School.
It's in the Panhandle.
It's in Gulfport, Florida.
And I would ask some member of the media to go to the dean, go to the provost, and say, this is what the attorney general said.
Is this what you are teaching at this law school?
And if you are, by the way, we need to talk to the accreditation people at the American Bar Association.
This is so fundamentally wrong.
Again, it is cynical.
I know I've used that term multiple times this afternoon.
It is cynical because she thinks that just by saying he's got no power, no jurisdiction, can't do it on a Saturday, and this particular law cannot be reviewed by a court, that somehow people will believe that.
All of that is completely wrong.
How about this, Madam Attorney General?
We disagree with the judge in his interpretation of the law.
And we are going to argue that with him.
We're going to argue that to the Court of Appeals.
But we're not saying that he's got no business doing this.
This is, once again, Donald Trump, a page from his book that simply says, federal judges, as his borders are, has said, we don't care what they say.
We're going to do whatever we want.
And now my attorney general is saying that.
Look in vain for any attorney general, including, including Merrick Carland, including previous attorneys general, would say something like this with a straight face.
They never said it at all.
It is shameful once again that the chief federal law enforcement officer would articulate these fundamentally, not only inaccurate, but misleading and deceptive things to the American public.
That's James Santel 855 752 4842.
He's a former US attorney.
He has an educated opinion on these matters concluding from the Washington Post in all opponents have filed more than 130 lawsuits against Trump's executive orders and other actions federal judges have issued about three dozen injunctions while the administration has one fair favorable rulings in a little more than a dozen
cases.
So there we go.
855-752-4842.
Let's get to some of our callers.
CJ, you are up.
Happy Friday, CJ.
Welcome.
What do you got for us?
Well, thanks for taking my call down.
And, you know, Mr. Santel used to take my call.
I try calling them on Saturdays, but
You
Well, you wanted something positive at 77.
man.
But here's the thing, you know, amicus means impartial.
And I rarely hear both sides of the issue.
because there's only one party fighting to keep Venezuela and terrorists in our country.
No,
Here's the point.
You're wrong.
Let me tell you why you're wrong.
If I may interject and I'll let you go.
No, I'll let you go.
But here's, you can't say Venezuela and terrorists, right?
Because they haven't been convicted of anything.
Most of them don't even have criminal records, CJ.
So, I mean, how do you know they're Venezuelan terrorists other than you're repeating the same thing this administration is saying?
Don't people have a right ban?
I mean, what if the next administration comes in and says, hey, CJ, he's a terrorist.
I'm shipping him out somewhere.
Shouldn't you have right to due process?
Well, I believe that the DOJ will do that.
But there's only one party that's fighting to keep them in America.
You're absolutely wrong.
What they're fighting for is due process, CJ.
Do you understand that?
I would want you to have the same due process.
You can't just be taking people off the streets, shove them on a plane, saying they're X, Y, or Z.
Just claiming that's what it is.
You don't even know if there's any American citizens on there, dude.
We don't know.
They've admitted, they have admitted that some of them don't even have criminal record, CJ.
So, you know, be careful what you wish for next time it might be you.
You didn't care what the 21 million that broke into our country.
Broke it, come on.
You don't care that they're identified.
Now all of a sudden you care, Dom.
care.
And CJ, what Judge Bosberg is doing is precisely what Dom said.
I'm not concurring with him just because he's right, but he happens to be right about this.
Judge Bosberg has said,
There is a challenge to the action of the government under this particular law.
Under our rule of law principles, I, the federal judge, have an obligation to entertain that challenge.
I am trying to figure out whether or not the government has violated the law, violated the Constitution, violated due process.
He has not made any determination in part because now we're going on the seventh day.
and the United States Department of Justice has failed to answer five fundamental questions.
Things like, when did the plane leave?
Who was on the plane?
Where did the plane land?
What was the exact timing of this?
That's what the judge is wrestling to figure out.
And again, the Department of Justice up until this afternoon has not given him the answers that he has needed to ensure that whatever his decision is,
And it hasn't been made yet.
Maybe he's going to find that indeed the law was followed here, that he didn't have jurisdiction somehow.
You have to rely upon the process to get to a good result.
And that's the frustration with what's going on right now.
And again, I myself, in 30 years of prosecuting and defending cases, civil litigation, criminal litigation, if a judge looks at me, CJ, and says to me, Mr. Santel, I want you to answer these questions.
And he's not asking about atomic theory or relativity.
He's asking for something that can be on a list, names of people who are being treated at the VA, names of individuals who are involved in particular search,
I go back to my office right away and I say, I need to get that information.
The things the judge is looking for, CJ, are within the knowledge right now and they've been there for a week.
And the Department of Justice, presumably because, as Tom just said, the information once revealed will indicate that indeed, again, we don't know this for sure, but that the decision to send those planes out took place after.
after the judge from the bench said, keep those planes on the ground.
That's contempt.
And that is also part of the system that CJ you would embrace too, because that's the part of our due process system.
I'm not sure anyone really care if someone shipped CJ off to El Salvadorian prisons, but I would, I would fight for you, man.
Maybe a little bit.
I'll pick up a phone call and make a call.
Let's see.
Let's text somebody.
855-752-4842.
Jim, let's get to this executive order.
The president went up to three law firms that he deems as enemies.
And this one, Paul Weiss, they acquiesce.
They apparently are going to, what?
Provide $40 million with a pro bono services.
Extortion!
Again, Paul Weiss is not a small law firm.
This is big law, capital B, capital L, just so all our listeners understand that.
And in particular, the civilian Mark Pomerance is a former prosecutor.
What did he do?
He previously oversaw that in Manhattan DA's investigation, Donald Trump's alleged financial crimes.
And that's why Mark Pomerance's name sticks in Donald Trump's craw.
That's why, like as he's done with the other law firms, the president issues this order and say, you can't come into federal buildings shutting you down.
The law firm comes back and, again, acquiesces, capitulates to Donald Trump and says, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Again, we'll provide you $40 million.
You got the number just right there.
And oh, by the way, this I find stunning.
As a part of bowing to this threat, the firm acknowledges that Promerance had done something wrong.
I would be very interested to know exactly what it is that the law firm, again, this big law firm, Paul Weiss Rifkin,
things and others that are out there, what exactly did he do other than fulfill his duties to pursue investigations as a prosecutor?
Stunning.
Stunning.
You know, short-term gain for long-term pain?
I mean, what does this say about the industry in general?
I mean, we know they're going after the lawyers.
We know we're going after the media, right?
They're just on all...
They're going after everything all the time everything all the time and it's like a second Eagles song around here folks come back with us Tell us something good eight five five seven five two four eight four two hour last seven of the day of the week Let's end it with a smile on our face
Welcome back to the Dom salvia show love the one you're with I love all of you James Santel host of amicus a law review Broadcasting right here on the civic media radio network Saturdays us tomorrow 9 to 11 a.m.
Got just ps on the board I'd like to wrap the day up with something good and we'll get to some topics if we have some extra time But just you want to you want to lead the way today
So in the past couple of weeks, whenever we've talked about something good, I've always gone back to Washington DC to find something there that is good and indeed not breaking that trend today.
It is that time when right around the pool there and just adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial, the cherry blossoms are now in full bloom.
It's the Ashino cherry trees on the title basin there and again a little history here given by the given to the US by Japan about a hundred years ago Symbolizing the country's friendship and our cultural connections.
You can go to Washington DC right now and participate in the Hanami, which is a Japanese word for flower viewing
And you can also attend other things right there on the shore, on the crest, on the side of the tidal basin, celebrating this wonderful thing about international relations, the positive things that come back from that, even in the form of trees that continue to blossom there this week in Washington, D.C.
yeah um there's something good for our country it's the fact that we haven't had a crisis that tested out the character of our commander in chief so it's not like
the Kennedy or the Johnson or the Nixon Troubles, he's got nothing on his plate.
So that's the crisis that we have.
But you have a good point.
Um, to date, we'd have been had anything terrible happen and that will.
Keep our keep our fingers crossed John great observation.
Thank you for that.
Yeah, it's a good day Keeper going folks.
You never know.
All right, so I told you yesterday am I good in the bad, right?
My bad was I finished on my peanut butter indeed
But my Girl Scout peanut butter sandwiches,
The bad of course was that I didn't get to hang out with Jim in studio today.
We're remote and I always appreciate you coming around even on the video screen Jim.
So that was a bad thing.
The good thing was
Jim didn't bring treats in for me today to keep me fat.
You're so grateful.
Every time you come in, you bring in some gloriosos treats, man.
And even if you sneak around like you stick them in the studio before we can
get in here, I'm like, come in.
different people.
I
Uh, thank you James Santel for coming on as always, man.
I know we got a lot.
We, we got a lot left a lot on the cutting room floor, but we'll get to it perhaps next week.
Uh, and folks, you can check out Jim's show tomorrow.
It's called amicus, a law review broadcast right here on the civic media radio network from nine to 11 AM.
doing deep dives into many of these topics.
Check it out.
Just PS.
Thank you so much for all that you do.
Another great week.
Thanks so much.
And you folks out there have a wonderful weekend.
And stick around.
Pete Schwab of the Nightlight is coming up next.
We'll see you on the radio