welcome to the Dom Salvia show happy Friday to us all 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 8 5 5 7 5 Civic got just PS working hard on the board James Santel former US Attorney host of amicus a law review broadcasting here on Saturdays as tomorrow From 9 to 11 a.m.
Check out his fine program Jim.
Thanks for coming around man.
Good to be with you again to talk about
It's a lot.
Just so you know.
If you were still in your old job, she would have been your boss.
She would have been my boss, absolutely.
And I will tell you, again, as an entree into this next segment here, I worked for, I believe it was nine different attorneys general, most of them Republican.
And the reality is that, again, you compare the things that those Republicans and
Democratic Attorneys General said, there's nothing like what we're getting from her these days.
Again, nothing even close.
She is a political operative in the Department of Justice, and it is shocking.
It is just shocking to see what she says, to hear what she says.
You're gonna love
your
Many judges need to be removed.
Judge Howell included, Judge Reyes, Judge Bostberg.
These judges obviously cannot be impartial.
They cannot be objective.
They are district judges trying to control our entire country, our entire country, and they're trying to obstruct Donald Trump's agenda.
his notes She was the one who said no no you can't stop transgender people from serving in the military.
That's what she said, right?
I'm James Bosberg obviously stopped the planes and we're still working on that as well Ellen Hollander.
She's from Maryland She was the one who said yeah, I can't get access to the social security stuff a theater Chang said USAID can't shutter them although
basically the agents used on.
So at least she's got her reference points correct, but there are an awful lot of them out there.
All of these people, all of these people, Attorney General Bondi, all of them have to be brought down, as that's what she's saying.
And again, the Fifth Circuit did change that a bit.
It went up to the Supreme Court ultimately, and I know your listeners all know this.
Supreme Court basically said, ah, we don't want to get involved in abortion right now.
Found that there was no standing in the first place.
Kind of suggested, gee, Judge Kazmarek, maybe we should have thought about whether or not the people who were coming forward really had some skin in this game, as they say.
They did not.
And so sent it all back down.
And again, sounds like an activist judge.
And those were the members of the Supreme Court, a majority of those members.
And the good news, again, for your listeners, is that Mifepresto, until this day, remains accessible to Americans.
And Judge Boseberg is a busy judge.
He was assigned to the Signal Gate, which is such a ridiculous name, but the Signal Gate, which is a lawsuit filed by parties, which I'm not sure they have standing to file, but
President Trump calls it disgraceful that this judge, again, who's ruled against you on the trend or our Agua deportations, is now assigned to the signal case.
Your reaction tonight to that.
Laura, he has multiple cases.
I guess it's a wild coincidence against Donald Trump and our administration.
And now he has the signal case.
He shouldn't be on any of these cases.
He cannot be objective.
He's made that crystal clear.
You know, these judges are taking personal attacks to it at many of the cabinet secretaries and these judges across the country.
And again, they think they have authority, but it's going to be short lived.
I don't know
to
exactly and again if you get in front of let's list their names again Ted Chang and James Boseburg and Alina Hollander and Areas and Tonya Chotkin as well When you are the assistant US attorney or you're you're there from the name the division inside of me
and justice.
It's entirely appropriate for a federal district court judge to say, okay, we're gonna talk about the substance of this.
Let's talk about the merits of this request for a TRO.
And I also noted on the front page of the New York Times that the attorney general, your boss, Mr. Assistant United States Attorney, Madam United States Attorney, has called me and then you fill in the blank, the name calling.
And that too, right?
And it
And that kind of thing, it's fascinating, it's horrifying that the attorney general,
the general says that they're doing the name calling.
No, no, it's just the opposite.
And Boasberg has been on the receiving end of more than virtually anything else.
He's approaching the Tanya Chutkin levels, right?
And so again, and beyond that, this is a small point, she knows well that when it comes to the assignment of cases, she was the attorney general in Florida, she was a practicing lawyer.
These things are randomly done.
Do you think for a moment, do you think for one moment in the United States of America, if somebody was saying, oh, get that,
case now to Judge Bosberg, that somebody will not find that out and get that into the media?
Of course.
This is randomly assigned.
You've got civil servants in the clerk's office who are doing this, right?
And so, again, don't mislead.
How cynical to suggest that, again, civil servants are somehow skewing the case assignments now.
Is that what we're doing, Madam Attorney Trump?
They
again.
No.
But let's listen to this.
This is...
not a concern of yours, Inspector General, you know, idea of Inspector General investigation or congressional investigation down the road, you are completely confident that this was, this was a mistake and nothing more than that.
We are.
We are.
And all of our intelligence officials who were on it are confident of that as well.
I mean, do you not know, like, how many Democrats that I know over the years who have been on signal, I mean, of the highest level Democrats?
And that, is that changing in the government now, though, is
not going to be used, or is it going to be used going forward?
Are
you aware of it?
Well, I think signal is a very safe way to communicate.
I don't think foreign adversaries are able to hack signal, as far as I know.
And maybe people just have to keep an eye on their contact list a little bit more carefully going forward.
Absolutely.
We don't have historical records or present records.
When it comes to these lawsuits that may be out there, we cannot produce discovery about significant material communications with the policies that are being discussed, all those kinds of things.
If anything, you want to use all the mechanisms possible to record what you're doing, and there are all sorts of protection.
for that, there's a deliberative privilege, all kinds of things out there.
And beyond that, just the notion that the attorney general who does have some oversight responsibilities with respect to the integrity of processes in America.
This is gonna sound very very wonky, but when I was in Iraq, there are mechanisms inside government.
There are quotes called a siper net account.
Here's here's the here's the acronym the secret internet protocol router network There was one in sitting in front of me for two years at the embassy.
There's another thing of course skiffs.
We've got skiffs all over the place.
Why don't you go in there?
Why are we talking about signal at all anymore?
Why don't we just reaffirm that again when it comes to war engagement bombing Houthi's bomb?
other people, engaging in other things where our armed services are put in jeopardy and we're attempting to do something that is, you know, violent and maybe very necessary, that's a policy decision that's made.
We should be communicating that in the most secure mechanism possible.
How wonderful it would be if my attorney general, and she, again, she's yours as well, if she had come forward and said, instead of attacking this and suggesting we're not gonna have an investigation of all, she had said, you know what, I have written a letter.
to the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State.
And I have reaffirmed the notion that when it comes to these fundamental kinds of things, my National Security Division has confirmed for me, we should be using skips.
We should be using something called JWICS.
It's the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communication System.
Get on your SIPRnet account, do that, and we can ensure.
And then we can also tell Congress, by the way, that from going forward here, we're never gonna do this again.
Boom, you're
Yeah, but do all those super fancy secret networks have emojis?
And of course very problematic and they use these things because they don't want you to find out and It harkens back to the Mueller investigation.
Yeah, and I just pulled this up from CNN back in 2019
Despite the report's comprehensive pages, it could have been longer if Mueller's team had access to more communications, a quote from the Mueller report.
Some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated, including some associated with the Trump campaign, deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records.
In such cases, the office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaries communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
They've been doing this the whole time.
They continue to do it.
They got away with it.
When the Mueller report, they get away with it.
Now the judge has ordered the relevant parties here to hold this data if it's still there.
But he did not expand that order to all other potential signal communications within the government.
So, like I said yesterday, if the lights are dimming, that's the energy being used while the entire government of Trump administration deletes all their signal apps or messages.
Come back with us.
855-752-4842.
Welcome back to this is a lot, but I'm sorry.
It's just PS and James Santel.
It
is a lot.
855-752-4842-8557-5 civic.
Um, talking about Pam Bondi, the attorney general and downplaying, uh, any sort of investigation, perhaps we can play that club one more time.
Uh, if you would, uh, specifically about the.
No investigation needed, according to, don't call it Foxy News, Laura Ingram, and Pam Bond of the Attorney
General.
Not a concern of yours, Inspector General, you know, idea of Inspector General
congressional investigation down the road.
You are completely confident that this was a mistake and nothing more than
that.
We are.
And all of our
And again, in fairness, which I'm trying to find some basis upon, which to be fair to my attorney general, it is good that we identify all the people who should be looking at this, right?
There should be the Inspector General, the Department of Defense, maybe the Department of State as well.
They're supposed to be, until we know, just as we affirm for us today, until they get fired by the President of the United States, they're supposed to be somewhat independent inside.
They should be conducting an inquiry.
They don't indict anybody.
They've got no charging power.
They simply make findings about what happened.
What a great office that would be to answer what the American people want to know.
And then at the other end of the mall, you've got a thing called the United States Congress.
it would be appropriate again i recognize under the president composition of the senate the house is not going to happen for there to be an oversight uh... committee review of this right and and call witnesses in and ask them what happened here and yes indeed here and here's the point
Any attorney general under any administration, regardless of who appoints him, should at a minimum open a file.
What she should have said today to Fox News was, we don't know where this is going.
We have a responsibility under the oath that I took, the Department of Justice.
We need to investigate this to determine whether a crime was committed here.
We don't know.
We don't know any of this.
She comes to that summary without any examination at all.
We have simply opened a file.
I am not confirming for you anything.
about whether there will be civil pursuit of this criminal, that's what you say.
And we're simply, I've assigned good people to investigate this, come back to me, and I may come back to it at some point and say, you know what, we've examined this all, there is nothing to charge here.
But at least pursue the effort while the inspector general is looking at this, while the Congress is looking at this, probably coming all to the same result if they had integrity.
the Attorney General should be at the forefront of that saying, yes, we've opened an investigation.
We will tell you when we're done with it.
That's what a good attorney general does, not a summary conclusion.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we're all we're all
It was a mistake.
You know, what's the mistake that it got out that we found out about it?
Was it a mistake that they added Jeffrey Goldberg to it?
Was it was it a mistake that they were like so cavalierly talking about, you know, trying to shake down Egypt and Europe for the cost of this operation that presumably the year wasn't even talked to about it up front.
I mean, what what?
What part of this is the mistake the mistake that the dude actually was the Hague South was kind of bragging He didn't need to put all the information the timestamp dates of when the bombs are actually going to start dropping I mean he did the whole agenda for the day man.
That was a mistake There are all sorts of things that were a mistake Jim, but she's no problem here.
Nothing there.
What about the fact that this is
According to the American oversight lawsuit an unlawful destruction of federal records and to compel recovery of records created through the unauthorized use of signal if it's unlawful to destroy these records as these things were set to delete and we know
just based on life experience.
This is not the first time that signal or messaging and encrypted apps have been used by this administration.
Guaranteed, man.
So if that's the case, isn't that unlawful?
And this is one of those situations where the cover-up can be worse than the underlying event, right?
We talk about that a lot in American history.
You have an obligation, an oath of office once again to be transparent.
Let me hasten to add that, yes indeed, I mentioned it just in passing before, there's a thing called the deliberative privilege and that's right.
You want to have policy created at the presidential level, at the cabinet level, all across the board, U.S.
Attorney's offices.
You want to be able to sit down with your staff and say, listen, let's talk through this.
And be candid.
And Dom, you've got a different view than I do.
Let's chew over that, right?
Let's figure out, let's talk to the FBI, let's talk to the local sheriff, figure out what's going on.
You don't want all that in the news the following day, right?
You do need to keep records of all that.
cause you want to establish down the road if there's a request for discovery.
If there's an allegation, which is what is permeating all this, that there was some inappropriate motive.
If somebody somehow did intend to throw this out there, and there was an intent to disclose this in some way, you want to have records of all that.
And to your first point, if you are destroying the very records upon which that inquiry can be made, that in and of itself.
can be a crime.
And that's the other reason my Pam Bondi at a minimum.
If she finds that, yes, it was a mistake.
And then afterwards, there were all these attempts to try to suppress the information.
That, again, the cover-up worse than the crime is classic Watergate stuff, right?
the
today?
There's not a lever long enough to pull Ron Johnson's head out of his butt with his latest thing.
I mean, it was just beyond me.
And for all this other stuff, I mean, these people didn't use a skiff.
I looked up what a skiff actually is.
I mean, that's where this should have been discussed.
They wanted to do this so you have a happy, happy joy, joy of people dying.
Did you just pull a happy, happy, joy, joy, red and stimpy on me, man?
I used to love red and stimpy.
Happy, happy, joy, joy.
Yes, you're absolutely right.
This should have been taken seriously, and it wasn't.
And because the reason it wasn't, because these are not serious people, they're not.
And we heard about the concern that so many people had with, with Hegze.
And the dude didn't get 61 days in, man.
It was the 24th that he got confirmed, and it was the 24th of March when this all blew up.
And keep in mind, February
I'm saying man eat two months man and the thing blew up and there's still we still got to deal with this folks come back with us eight five five seven five two four eight four two how does this impact freedom of information acts and we want to get into some of these attorneys some law firms targeted by Trump summer rolling over summer fighting back come back with us oh and don't forget end of it show tell us something good eight five five seven five two four eight four two
back to the Dom Salvia show 855-752-4842 this long-distance dedication going out to Casper love you buddy hope to see you soon join us on the lines James Santel joining us on the desk you can join us as well 855-757 just piece working hard on the board
We've heard from Wisconsin Republicans, elected Republicans, Ron Johnson, Tom Tiffany, uh, Drunkey Van Orden.
Uh, and then we also heard from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Everybody's attacking these judges.
Oh, these, these judges are unconstitutional.
They're, they're throwing out all of.
not all, but lots of Trump's executive orders and going against his agenda and thinking, well, yeah, maybe he's being unconstitutional.
They're doing their job.
Well, whatever it is, the day he says it, which is why we have the rule of law.
We don't want an absolute monarchy, Jim.
And I find this so super offensive, the guy puts a crown on his head and acts like this is a joke.
I mean,
With that kind of attitude, you can come and pluck people off the street and ship them off to be renditioned another.
Oh, wait, what's happening?
We go back to July 1 of 2024.
and Sonia and, and, uh, Kenji Brown Jackson playing the Lena Kagan, all writing these scoria, excoriating dissents with respect to that immunities case.
We forget that the first portion of that written by John Roberts gives the president of the United States of America this incredible amount of power, right?
Talks about the need for a president to be active, to be vigorous, decisive, energetic, speedy.
Um, if you can't be feeble because of feeble executive
implies a feeble execution of government.
That's what the chief, that's the law of the land as articulated by the Chief Justice and our president gets that and frankly he's doing that, right?
I put a lot of responsibility at John Robert's feet and yes indeed this very nice statement that he made early on about all we shouldn't be talking about impeaching, we should be appealing, not nearly enough John, not nearly enough.
We need to be out there with a full-throated
condemnation of this, put it all to an end.
He's done some of that in the past.
I suspect once again, he's intimidated by this fellow who's living in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
It is time for the Chief Justice to be very clear.
that none of this, that this is the rule of law.
He is the head of the federal judiciary and all the people under him are being attacked.
It is time to come forward, John, and defend your people.
It's not his people specifically, but it is the federal judiciary for which he's responsible.
Given that Trump was elected and whether or not they ruled the way they did on that, and I agree with you, this was an overreach by Roberts and I agree with the dissent on there.
But Donald Trump was elected and whether or not they ruled that way, he still would have been elected.
He
still would have dismissed
And I believe Donald Trump still would have gone through with haste, with alacrity and speed and all those things as he's doing right now.
So I don't think that necessarily the actions of this administration have changed any because of that particular rule.
At least not yet.
He's thrown everything at the wall.
Now he'd have done that regardless, in my opinion.
Now the question is, of course, the actions that this administration is doing...
blatantly unconstitutional in many, many regards, and specifically some of these deportation things, man.
I mean, oh my God, I mean, if they can, if you don't have the right to say, no, I'm not a Venezuelan gang member, you know what I mean?
Then they can rendition anybody.
And in fact, the tattoo based upon which you've decided that I am a member of this gang affiliation here,
That's because I like soccer.
And the point of that, we don't know that for certain, is due process, right?
And that's why these people are saying, no, no, these judges cannot do it.
The judges are not.
They're not finding, as a matter of fact, that the 200 people are right now sitting in this high security prison in El Salvador, that every single one of them is or is not a gang member.
We haven't gotten to that point.
If you're attacking Judge Boasberg for what he is doing,
attacking the fundamental notion of due process.
Boseberg, I suspect it may not happen, but Boseberg and the appeals court may well one day say, you know what?
And maybe the Supreme Court, which apparently is going to get this very soon, may well say, you know what, he can use this alien enemies act, he can do this.
We're not even there yet because, and here it is, this is what Patricia Millet said 48 hours ago.
Two to one panel saying no, Judge Boseberg is just fine.
We're supporting what he is doing in this case.
She said the government's removals,
scheme denies plaintiffs and that plaintiffs are these that frankly not maybe not all the 200 but basically it is that and I love this phrase even a gossamer thread what's the last time you use the expression gossamer thread Dom I don't know what that means what's a gossamer thread is basically a light and kind of flighty you think about it in meadow just every kind of a thing very very non-specific substantial insubstantial that's not even a gossamer thread of Dupro
and then she goes on to confirm this as a part of the presentation of the Court of Appeals, DC.
Even though the government, that's Pam Bondi, that's the attorneys I was talking about before we're presenting this case, even though the government acknowledges their right to judicial review of the removability.
We're all in agreement.
that they should have gotten that but they're sitting right now in a prison in El Salvador and maybe they should be there we don't know that maybe they are a threat to our nation we haven't decided that because we didn't afford them something that every single and you don't have to be a citizen if you are here you are afforded the protections of the Constitution and if you don't think that we are it's only for citizens you are wrong
Go back and revisit what it is our country is based upon.
You've got another judge, same, same panel.
Her name is Karen Henderson.
She says, sensitive subject matter alone.
This goes to the power issue that Pambani is talking about.
And again, Henderson, for what it's worth, she's an appointee of George H. W. Bush, been there a long time.
She says, sensitive subject matter alone does not shroud a law from the judicial eye.
Just because this is sensitive, doesn't mean we can't look at it.
She says, we have previously considered the precise sort of question the government contends we cannot.
That's telling Pam Bondi, wrong,
wrong,
the 15th you
And again, this is the thing that's so stunning to me.
Somebody knows when those planes were wheels up, right?
There's a document out there that says, here's the order that's been given.
Here's the manifest.
It's when they left.
Here's when they were in the air.
This information is known.
The judge wants it.
And it's not coming forward.
Why?
Because it probably, the presumption is, because it probably shows that sometime, maybe after Judge Boser said, no, no, you keep those planes on the ground.
Somebody said, we don't care about judges.
They don't have any power.
Send the planes on.
And that's when the Republic, that's quite literally, it's not hyperbole.
That's when the Republic begins to disintegrate because you're not following the rule of law.
You've got a judge's plural saying, don't do this, do not send the student from Tufts University overseas, do not, and even that sending her to Louisiana.
Keep her local here.
We don't know the timing of that.
If you are doing things purposely to undermine what the judges are telling you to do, you are not only in contempt, you're basically ripping up the Constitution and the due process that every single person in this country, all your listeners, regardless of where they are in the political arena, every single one of them.
embraces and would expect if they were on the receiving end of anything from the government.
Right,
So where does that stand?
You know, the administration hiding behind the national security on this contempt issue, whether or not the planes were in the air wheels up at the time he gave his verbals versus written order, all those kinds of things.
Where does that stand as far as the legal process is concerned in number two?
Let's assume they are in contempt
What's the
What's the remedy, right?
So, so plainly Judge Bosberg is not satisfied and continues to yell.
He can use to settle these deadlines.
And at some point, I think he will make a finding of contempt.
The question then is, as we've talked before, what do you do with that?
Right?
Again, as, as Andrew Jackson said to Supreme Court many, many years ago, go ahead and force your order, right?
Well, Judge Bosberg has some capacity here, doesn't have an army, doesn't have as the U.S.
Marshals.
Ooh, but they're inside the Department of Justice, right?
That's another bit of a challenge here.
He does have the capacity, depending upon the kind of contempt to jail someone.
And if somebody at some mid or high level purposely made the decision on the 15th of March to send those planes in the air knowing that there was an order prohibiting that, that person is a contempt, and he can find that indeed you need to spend some time behind bars because of the violation of the court directive, not because of a violation of the criminal law,
And beyond that, beyond that, what's next?
Again, you've got the Court of Appeals affirming what Judge Boasberg is doing.
I am hearing just this afternoon, not surprisingly, that again, you're my Solicitor General is now asking the United States Supreme Court to review all of this.
And again, where we've seen this in a couple of cases before, now the Supreme Court, presumably, would get involved to try to figure out who is right, who is wrong.
John Roberts has another chance, John, to redeem yourself.
Do the right thing here.
These are all federal judges.
You're absolutely right.
And the question is, again, you're absolutely right.
He enters a judgment of contempt.
He orders someone jailed for some period of time.
The pardon power is pretty extreme, right?
We know that.
It doesn't apply to cases of impeachment, but beyond that, it's fairly broad.
Even so, even so, at some point, as we've talked before, and I know this sounds, again, hyperbolic
and preps over the
U.S.
Marshall, take Mr. Johnson, take Ms.
Phillips into custody and keep them in custody.
And then, and then again, maybe the president is going to release that person promptly, but for a moment, for a moment, that would be the appropriate thing to do because you've violated a basic tenant of a republic.
We follow the rule of law.
We do.
It's an emergency petition.
Once again, the so-called, you know, the shadow docket, they're taking up very quickly.
They've got 64 cases.
They're gonna somehow insert this one in, presumably, if they decide to review it, they don't have to.
They could keep things in place as they are, but if they do decide to review it, then they'll do some expedited, presumably some expedited briefing or a argument.
Does the President have the right to use that, to use that, again, 19th century law of finding, again, that we are at war?
and that these are aliens who are, again, compromising our national security.
That's the core issue, and that's what the judges are, again, very strongly indicating, again, this two-to-one panel saying that the Venezuelan migrants likely to succeed in their claims.
The government cannot use that wartime law.
That's what they already found.
So that's gonna be the core of this, depending upon what Judge Boesberg does.
It could be wrapped up also in a contempt citation, too.
All this could, depending upon how they define what they're reviewing,
They could take all of this or very little of it, carve it out, figure out what they want to decide.
But that issue, that issue about whether or not the underlying invocation of the law by this president is legal.
That should be before them.
And have John Roberts tell us that we were at war with Venezuelan gang members right
Also, some additional news on this topic.
We'll get to your callers.
Your calls, folks, be patient in the next segment.
Tell us something good, then we'll talk more about these topics.
New York Times is reporting that Trump's efforts to deport migrants to places other than their country of origin hit a new roadblock today when a federal judge issued a temporary order.
requiring the administration to give migrants an opportunity to contest their removal on the grounds that they might be at risk of persecution or
judge Brian Murphy who sits in Boston or to the government to give migrants a chance to contest their removal to a so-called third country under a federal law that limits deportations to places where the deportees quote life or freedom would be threatened he also cited a United Nations treaty against torture
eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five civic who do we see who was taking the pictures of the DH in front of the prisoners what's her name I'm gonna get back to it she was down there you know she cosplays her role homeland
security maybe
Cut.
Welcome back to the Dom Salvia show eight five five seven five two four eight four two eight five five seven five Civic last segment of the day if you got something to say you want to hit us up Tell us something good.
That's how we end the day the week.
It's been a week It's kind of a lot.
It's a lot Let's get to the colors you're lining up.
We do appreciate you playing along Kurt from Madison.
You are up.
Welcome Kurt.
What do you
got for us?
I'm curious, given the the debate between BS and Crawford that they're both judges, would it be kind of fun to have them both swear on Bible that everything they see is the truth and all truth, nothing but the truth?
Yeah, thanks to this 70 degree day Yeah, I got it was destroyed to landscaping last year
I was able to get the whole thing raked and seated, and now I'm drinking my Bloody Mary with my beer chaser.
When you take the oath to tell the truth the whole truth and you do not
do that and something that's material and provably wrong, you are committing perjury.
It's a tough thing to prove.
It's a tough thing to prove, but nonetheless, if it is that clear, black and white, and you knew at the time that what you were saying under oath is wrong, you've got the intent to commit the
Well, I wanted to say that regarding the earthquake and Myanmar
my brother.
I was horrible.
My brother lives in Thailand.
And not too far from where it happened.
He had 7.7 earthquake.
Yeah, but he's okay.
complaining.
Because because he started smart off, he was complaining that he couldn't get his nap.
Uh, thank you, Margaret.
Yeah.
Terrible earthquake and Myanmar, uh, lots of people to build is down.
It's, it's not a great scene.
So I'm glad your family is okay, Margaret, thinking of all those folks.
Enjoy the days.
You never know when years is coming.
Eight, five, five, seven, five, two, four, eight, four, two.
Another point, part and point.
When we are overseas with an entity called the United States Agency for International Development, that's the kind of thing that we do.
We support people who have absolute meltdown crises and people die.
The agency all but shuttered today.
It's over.
There are 900 people left.
They're inside the Department of State and we do not have that capacity now.
To assist, I'm not saying in Myanmar we'd be there right away, but that's the kind of thing that our nation has always done and we're not doing that anymore.
That's tragic.
Hi, Tom.
I've got a joke to hopefully cheer everybody up for Friday night.
Okay.
Knock, knock.
What are you now?
Well, but something that I got is that my union contacted me today and said we will do our Hardest job to make sure that you are not let go.
that's why you're here.
Absolutely.
First, something good is that civic media.
If we didn't have civic media in the state of Wisconsin and actually around the country through the app,
We've got one less outlet of media that's not just corporatized, but actually just faxed.
So I think the fact of having civic media is a very, very positive thing and everyone needs to realize what it would be like without civic media.