We're talking on all political subjects and taking on all colors.
This is Matt Flynn Direct with your host, Matt Flynn.
Matt Flynn Direct can be statewide in live on civic media.
The lines are open 844-967-2789.
No subject is off limits.
All points of view are welcome.
Remember, you're not woke if you don't know history.
You're not woke unless and until you know history,
we're going right to the front lines of history in the making.
And as we speak, there is a charade going on in New York City
and federal court, the E. Jean Carroll case and Trump acting up.
Let's get to it right now.
Let's get to what he's up to right now.
The jury was selected yesterday.
Trump moved to postpone the trial because allegedly to go to his mother
and laws funeral.
The judge says you're welcome to go to a funeral.
You simply won't be there for that day or that part of the day.
But we're not going to postpone this trial.
Then Trump attacked E. Jean Carroll on social media throughout the week.
Yesterday, 22 times, 22 times the attacker.
Personally, said it was a witch hunt, a hoax.
He didn't remember her.
She was doing it for the publicity.
Remember, there's not a gag order in this case.
Gag order is a term of art.
Angeron put in a gag order in the state case for fraud.
The official James's case, that's a state court house,
state courtroom, very close to this federal courtroom.
And that prevents Trump from doing this,
precisely this to court staff.
That was appealed.
And through several appellate layers, it was upheld.
So he's handcuffed and getting Grant's court in this one.
And by the way, there was a gag order in the in Tanya Chutkin's case,
the federal case in Washington, DC.
In this one, what there is is a prohibition against Trump commenting
to the jury publicly.
In other words, if Trump wants to comment,
he is permitted to testify.
But this case is limited to exclusively what damages,
it caused what financial harm, it caused E. Jean Carroll
to have her lie about her again and defame her.
The underlying defamation, the underlying tort,
has already been established.
The correct legal term is collateral.
The staple, you don't need to know that term.
But what it means is, if you got nailed in one trial,
and then you're up in another trial,
the facts that were adjudicated in that first trial,
the trial was still binding on you.
That court, that jury, and it was in the judgment,
said that he had sexually assaulted her, abused her.
He can't overcome that.
He's not even permitted to testify about it.
The judge could put in the jury instruction.
Maybe he will, in the final analysis in this case,
that that's what's happened, all that Trump can testify to,
all that E. Jean Carroll can testify to,
is how badly, especially financially, it affected her.
And remember, you have, in tort damages,
how much it affected her emotionally,
how much she was ostracized by people,
threatened by people, made fun of by people.
She got death threats.
She got messages and emails saying she should be raped.
She should be killed.
She's afraid to go out.
She started to sleep with a gun next to her bed.
A writing contract stride up, ruined her life.
It ruined her life.
One of the things about Trump, that's very unusual.
I've never seen anything like it in all my years of practice,
usually, if there's a trial,
and somebody is nailed for an intentional tort,
like defamation, and there are big damages,
and five million bucks of big damages.
That's the end of it.
They don't continue to lie.
They shut up, it's over.
With Trump, you have a kind of an irrational child,
who continues to scream in the kitchen,
and won't shut up, and won't stop doing it.
And I think he thinks that if this jury comes back
with five million bucks, he'll appeal that.
He'll get a lot of publicity.
And if in the final analysis,
he has to pay five million here, five million there,
he simply takes it as political donations.
I mean, the NRA took massive amounts of money
out of all the small donations to get every month
to fly in luxury trips, by expensive clothes, and all this.
Trump will use it for attorney's fees,
even in cases that have nothing to do with the election.
He'll put out a fundraising appeal
and say, help us fight the rigged elections.
He'll spend it anyway once.
He'll spend it on judgments in this case.
Spend it on attorney's fees in this case.
And he's been getting away with them.
So he doesn't care.
There are two ways to stop him from doing this, going forward.
One way is for the judge to enter an injunction.
Trying to, what was called a prior restraint of speech,
is very difficult under our First Amendment and rightly so.
And there are two kinds of speech,
this commercial speech and other speech.
Commercial speech is a little easier to get an injunction on it.
Some company lies about the other company's product.
It's commercial, but if you say something
about an opponent in politics,
very, very rare to get an injunction.
The remedy usually is the other side sues you for defamation.
And when they win and they get a money,
that money judgment, that's it.
But what do you do if you have someone
who is emotionally disturbed?
Who's a sociopath?
Who's essentially a child emotionally?
Some people, I'm one of them,
think he has early onset argumentative dementia.
Somewhat mentally ill.
What do you do if they're very wealthy,
or at least they have access to money?
And they keep relentlessly spreading the same lie,
producing death threats and rape threats against E. Jean Carroll.
What do you do?
Something that the judge,
the lawyers in this case have not yet done
is to ask Judge Kaplan to enter an injunction, stopping them.
They haven't done it.
That was requested for Ruby Freeman and Shane Moss against Giuliani.
And Giuliani continued to lie the very day of his trial.
Remember he got nailed for $148 or $9 million?
The very day of his trial, he lied again.
He said they did it.
They rigged it.
The jury didn't like that.
And the jury ended up awarding $147 million,
which is a big number no matter who you are,
especially if you're Giuliani.
But what do you do if someone is essentially mentally ill,
psychotic, and is continuing irrationally to lie
and irrationally prompting death threats and rape threats?
What do you do?
Well, this is one of those rare cases
where an injunction would be warranted in my view.
The plaintiffs' lawyers have a different strategy.
And I think it's very, very smart.
I think it's going to work.
In addition to the damages,
how do I reconstruct my wife?
My life says Eugene Carroll to him.
In other words, what amount of money could repair what's happened?
And let's be blunt.
If you lose your arm in an auto accident that somebody else has
fought, let's say the jury gives you $5 million.
In advance, well, you had two arms.
You're not going to sell one of your arms for $5 million.
You're just not going to do it.
All that you can get with the money damages judgment
is some recompense that's inadequate
no matter how much it is.
But the other thing you get in a defamation case like this
is punitive damages.
And punitive damages were a big part of the award against
Giuliani.
And in this one, I could see them after this trial
getting up, plaintiffs' lawyers,
Eugene Carroll's lawyers in front of the jury
and saying, look, what he has done, he's continues to do.
He said it again, 22 times on the first day of the trial.
Tuesday, it was a couple of yesterday.
He's going to continue to say it.
He's going to continue to say things that generate rape
and death threats.
This woman can't go out of her house.
So punitive damages give her $150 million.
At some point, he can go into, not his own backyard,
he'll go into some of these political contributions
and grab what he can.
The question is, at some point, is that going to stop him?
I'm not sure it does.
He'll tie it up and appeals.
My own view is that it's going to require
absolutely going to require an injunction against the guy.
And there's no amount of money that's big enough
to make him stop.
He calls, right in social media, he'll say, this hoax,
this hoax.
Now, today, there was an episode,
the judge threatened to throw him out of the courtroom
because he was told not to talk in a way
that the jury could hear him, not to talk.
Well, what he did was, he would quote whisper and quote
in a very loud voice to his lawyers about it as a hoax.
This is a, this is a setup, all of this kind of stuff.
Now, when he does that, the judge finally
plaintiffs lawyers caught him on it.
And what he, the judge said, look,
you have a right to be in court,
but I can exclude you if you disobey the court.
I've got a better idea.
Did you watch any of the trial of the walk to Trump murder,
or the Christmas murder a few years ago,
they put the guy in a cage, he couldn't shut up,
he kept running his mouth.
So they put him in, basically was a holding cell,
right in the courtroom, those soundproof.
And he would, you know, grimace in all this,
then the judge would activate sound when he had to speak
or to testify.
Do it with Trump.
Do it with Trump.
Put him in a defendant's cage for recalcitrant defendants.
He's going to keep whispering,
he's going to keep saying these things.
He stared at the jury as a select that trying to
menace them, trying to impact them.
And if he starts whispering these things,
he could whisper threats.
Something's got to be done about this guy.
For the rest of his life, he will generate death threats
against people he thinks are enemies.
That's got to stop.
It's got to stop right now.
Coming up, back in the second, coming up.
He lied to the judge about why he wanted
the continuance of the trial coming up.
Go tell that long tongue liar,
go and tell that midnight writer,
tell the rambler, the gambler, the back writer,
tell him that God's going on.
But she had diamonds, DACA.
I'm
fixing the whole.
Well, the rain, again, welcome back to Mad Men,
director, lines are open, eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight, nine.
Well, this is pretty poor.
It's a lion, Donald Trump, crooked, Donald Trump.
Normally people are little smoother than this,
even if they're crooks.
They're not stupid enough to lie to the judge.
It was easily verifiable.
Trump had his lawyers bring a motion to postpone the trial
because his mother-in-law's funeral is this week.
I believe it's Thursday.
So obviously a one-day pause,
and it could still go on.
He has lawyers.
He just wouldn't be there that day,
isn't enough to stop a trial.
So he tried to gin it up into two days.
And so what he told the judge, through his lawyers, he told his lawyers,
he'd be traveling on Wednesday to a funeral,
which is in Florida, he's in New York right now.
And then the funeral's Thursday,
and then it's a hassle getting back.
So let's kick it over a week or two.
Anything for a delay.
Well, an enterprising reporter checked his campaign schedule.
And his campaign calendar says that on Wednesday evening,
he's going to be at a rally in the New Hampshire primary that evening.
He's not going to Florida for a funeral on Wednesday.
He's going to do Hampshire for a rally.
He told the judge he'd be traveling to the funeral.
You know, we're going to talk about this a little later in the program,
but there has got to be more emphasis by constant repetition
that he is lying Donald Trump, crooked Donald Trump.
You cannot possibly permit him to continue to be referred to as former president Trump
and have him shout that Joe Biden is crooked Joe Biden.
What he's doing is he is transferring
all of his faults and they're considerable.
All of his mental illness, all of his incompetence and dishonesty
and just transferring it to his opponent
and then giving an agi-tival
descriptions of it about his opponent.
It's about him.
And as we'll be discussing in a little bit,
it's going to be, it's about time that this, that Biden's campaign
and the Democratic Party has to adjust their campaign strategy.
In the jury selection, there's a difference between selecting a jury
in federal court and state court frequently.
There certainly isn't Wisconsin.
And the federal judge, like any judge, has complete power over his courtroom.
But a federal judge doesn't run for reelection.
He can be a lot tougher on lawyers and on recalcitrant defendants,
which Judge Kaplan, who is a terrific reputation, certainly is.
So there's a thing called the Voidier Post process.
VOIRDIRE, it's old corrupted French from centuries ago,
obviously based on Latin, that is the description Voidier.
You know, you speak, in other words, you find out from the jurors
that you have any prejudices.
Should you not be on this jury?
And in the Voidier process, it came out,
Judge Kaplan asked the jurors, does anybody here think the last election was rigged?
Two of them raised their hand, New York City.
They obviously didn't get paid.
They said, did any of you volunteer in either the campaigns Biden or Trump?
At least one woman raised her hand.
She volunteered for Biden.
So she's not going to get picked.
But the question of how you will list it, that information searching for prejudice,
is very interesting.
In federal court, a lot of federal judges say, all right, you can submit to me if you're the lawyers,
written questions in advance.
And all the side, which ones are going to be presented at the jury?
And I may simply read them,
where I may paraphrase them or say my own, but you're not going to speak to the jury.
Federal judges usually have complete control and litigation process.
In state court, in Wisconsin, certainly, the two lawyers get up and they take turns
and they'll say, okay, they have a list showing who the names and they'll say, Mrs. Jones
in the first row, you said that your husband works for the police department.
What does he do there?
Is he a police officer?
Is he staff?
Or, you know, what does he do?
And that way you start asking about backgrounds,
politely, respectfully, to see if you think that there are jurors who
would be prejudiced one way or the other,
like in a criminal case for law enforcement or for the defendant or whatever.
Now, in this case,
Trump was very, very much part of that process, not by saying anything,
but by intimidation.
There were so many jurors, there were some sitting in the pews behind the council tables,
some in the jury box.
And he would wheel around and stare at them in kind of a menacing fashion.
These people, unless they've been living on Mars,
know who he is.
And they also know what he's accused of.
And they also know that people who have run a foul of him get death threats.
They know that.
You can't prevent him from being there because he is the defendant.
The judge did a very, very good job in telling him,
you can't talk to the jury, you can't sneakily whisper things that you know they're going to hear.
And so forth.
Well,
Eugene Carroll's lawyers and two occasions had to bring to the judge's attention
that he disobeyed the judge.
And he was not only intimidating jurors, but he also
was whispering things in a fake whisper that was really loud enough for jurors to hear
about hoax and rigged and set up and, you know, all this kind of thing.
These discussions with the judge were out of the presence of the jury.
One of them was during a lunch break.
Usually everybody is dismissed for lunch and the judge keeps the lawyers there to go over house
keeping things like this. But the other one, I think, they raise it to the judge and they dismiss
the jury. The jury is not going to hear the argument. And the judge turned on Trump.
And there's not much he can do as long as Trump shuts up of his staring at the jurors.
He was trying to stare at Eugene Carroll on the stand and he's a kind of an intimidation factor.
You may remember the debate with Hillary Clinton where it was sort of like a shark.
Like in jaws sort of trailing her right behind her, trying to throw her off, trying to intimidate her.
Well, in this case, he has eye contact.
And what he is doing is trying to completely subvert the legal process in this country.
Not just from appeals, fake appeals. You know, he has a judge now who's Eileen Mercedes-Canada
and Marlago who's on his side. She's basically advocating for him. But insulting threatening,
threatening so that his loyalists attack people.
Woman came to murder Tanya Chetkin, Judge Chetkin in Washington. She's now a criminal defendant.
She's going to get jail time because of the Trump.
Poor Jack Smith and his family have had to move. They're in protective, protective custody.
Even the law clerk of Judge Angerun. Well, he's doing it here. He's doing it again. Judge
Kaplan has done his best in terms of keeping control. But I strongly think that he is going to have
to, especially after Trump lied to him about one of the postponement sanctioning him.
And that may be putting him in a soundproof cage. Where I'm going to soundproof cage? See how he
likes that. Okay, coming up. A lot of news, a lot of weather and a fascinating poll,
only four out of 30 of Trump's policies are approved by a majority of people in this country.
You'll really want to hear this.
Welcome back to Mad Finn Director. Lines are open. 844-967-2789. I see when the lines do not hang up,
I will get to you shortly. I want to present this segment. This is very, very important.
And it was astonishing to me. Donald Trump has been campaigning on the experts that started at
roughly 30 issues, 30 policy issues. In a national poll, a well-regarded poll,
only four of them are supported by a majority of the people in this country. The rest of them
are not. It's important to know what they are. I'm going to give them to you right now. I'm going to
start with a four that are supported by a majority of the country. That gives you an idea
of why he's campaigning the way he is, and they all apply it to immigration and transgender
issues. 57% of the country, of the people pulled, agree that we should ban hormonal and surgical
treatment for minors who say they're transgender, 57%. 53% say it would be right to legally limit
recognized genders. 56% think it is important to require immigrants to remain in Mexico
while their asylum claims are processed. 51% agree that illegal immigrants should be deported.
That is why immigration and things like transgender issues are at the top of his campaign.
We consider the rest, and I'm not going to go through 26 of them, but I'm going to tell you
some of the lowlights, the highlights, the lowlights of what he says in the support.
Trump advocates eliminating the nonpartisan civil service, which originally was instituted about
120 years ago, the nonpartisan civil service, and having it all basically people he likes, people
who support him. Only 21% of the country agree with him. Much of his own base doesn't agree with
him, 21%. He has campaigned on saying he'll take control over the regulatory agencies, the FCC,
the Food and Drug Administration, all of this. Only 18% of the country agree with him.
He says he's going to use troops, send them into steady military troops to enforce order.
31% of the country agree with him, the rest are not. He said he's going to send troops to
Mexico to fight the cartels. 33% of the country agree, the rest don't. He says he's going to put in
further tax cuts for corporations. He's 23% of the country, and I think that's a good idea of the
rest don't. He says he's going to get rid of Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act.
Now remember 20 and a half million people enrolled in the current enrollment period. Only 29%
of the people in the country agree with him, the rest don't. He says he's going to withdraw
from the World Health Organization. Only 28% of people agree with him, the rest don't.
He said he's going to end aid to Ukraine. He also says he's going to pull this out of NATO.
Only 38% agree with him on Ukraine. There was no Paul question about NATO, the rest don't.
He says he's going to end birthright citizenship even though it's in the 14th Amendment.
Only 38% of the country agree with him, the rest don't.
In another study where he says that he's going to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords again,
only 30% of the people in the country agree with him on that one. And 73% of the country
want to do more on climate change. Here is a chilling statement from people who are going to
really guide an administration if you ever got in. And this is a guy, he's the director,
he's the director, Paul Davis, Paul Danza, I should say, D-A-N-S, director of Project 2025
at the Heritage Foundation. 2025 is a right wing nut plan to essentially destroy a democracy
of Trump gets in, take control of the government. That's why they say 2025 because the elections
November of 24, but the new president and it'll be Joe Biden and he won't be new, he'll be the
incumbent. But if we're Trump, he'd come in on January 20, 2025. Here's what this clown Paul Dan
said, quote, never before as the whole conservative movement banded together to systematically prepare
to take power day one and deconstruct the administrative state. End quote. In other words,
they're looking at taking power for God's sake, not representing the American people and staying
up for the Constitution. Who are the lines? Chad of Greenfield. Thanks for calling. Chad,
what's in your mind today? Hey, hey, Matthew for taking my call. I'm really curious about your
opinion on two topics. Number one, which has happened Monday when Rachel Maddow somehow makes
some decision to censor President Trump, refuses the air's victory speech. I mean, this is more
democracy being shut down. This is more proof that the mainstream media has been out to get him.
It just keeps hurting your case and makes you guys look petty and it just enrages people and
taking them off the bailed in Colorado, censoring his victory speeches. People see this and I
can't believe you guys don't realize this backfires. I'm wondering if you're more what she did or not.
I wish you did inside what of the mainstream network airs and what doesn't air. I mean,
yeah, that's a fair point. Chad is a principal conservative from Greenfield. I always enjoy his
calls and he raises the question after the Iowa victory by Trump. Now, when you say victory is
51%, but it was substantial considering that the other two, Haley got 19 and the Sanders got 21
Vivek Ramaswamy got about eight and there were various nits and lice that, you know, went to other
people. Here's my view on it and you're very kind to suggest that I have part ownership of MSNBC.
I mean, you said you guys, I'm not a part owner of MSNBC.
The way I would handle it if I were a news director and I have great respect from Rachel Maddow.
And by the way, by the way, the whole idea behind mainstream media is it's not a monolith.
Fox News is mainstream media. So is NBC and MSNBC. So is CNN. So are all these things. If you want
to see there's a there's a there's a smorgasbord. There's a buffet of choices and if you want to see
him, you can go wherever you want. However, if you want my opinion and she has no legal obligation to
carry it. My opinion is that if I were a news director, I would carry some of it. He talks for
a long period of time. And a lot of it is BS in line to be very honest with you about the prior
rigged election, all that. But there's some of it that is legitimate where he may say, I won.
Now we're going to go on and win again. And I want to thank Eddie Jones over here and you know,
Knuckles Morrison. Look, I've been at these things. I've seen them. I've been at Democratic ones
and I've seen Republicans on the other side. So I hear what you're saying. No, I wouldn't let him
win back on for, you know, a long, long time in life about stuff about a rigged election. The
the last election wasn't rigged. But it's a legitimate point that you're making that you put
on some of it. And then you fade when he gets naughty. But you know, he won. Okay, great. And all
the pundits can go, well, he should have won by more and all this. I don't buy any of that stuff.
I mean, you know, let him have his innings. That's fine. And so on that one, I guess I would say
I partially agree with you. When it comes to knocking them off the ballot in Colorado,
there are two points of view. That's right now in front of the US Supreme Court. And the US Supreme
Court official decision. And when the issue, the decision is bought in and all the states. And
that'll be that. You're raising the question, is it tactically foolish for the Democrats to have
done that? Because people see it. And then they dig their heels in and all that. The contrary
view is that the 14th amendment says that if you are guilty of insurrection or rebellion,
and when I say guilty, it doesn't mean you have to be, you have to be convicted.
As a result of that, no Confederate officers could hold federal office again. They weren't convicted.
They were pardoned. They were actually pardoned by Lincoln. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee could
not have run for president. They were pardoned by Lincoln to heal the country. So it doesn't
require a conviction. And the question is, did Donald Trump engage an insurrection against the
United States? And I think he clearly did. If you take a look at his speech leading up to January
six. First of all, he said he put out a get saved the Nate card. Come January six. Everybody's
going January six. What the hell is January six? It's the feast of the epiphany. So he's
the epiphany. It's a very, very fine day. But so they show up and he, he riles him up and he goes,
you're not going to have a country. You got to take back your country. I'm going to come up there.
And they went up and five people died. And then 140 officers were beaten and had rain damage.
Some of them. When we got shot, they said, hang Mike Pence. They brought a gallows,
which they didn't make just that day. Let me tell you, you have Van Orden over in the third
district of the congressman who actually showed up there. That's an insurrection. He was the mastermind.
So the country review chat is that if someone breaks the law according to the constitution,
you have to be blind and justice is blind. She has a blindfold on. No fear, no favor to either side.
You have to implement it. The Supreme Court goes the other way. Or if people don't like it and
therefore they dig their hills and so be it. I come down on the ladder, but I understand your
point of view. And their ladder respected analysts would say that it was tactically unwise. But I
believe in enforcing the law. Mike of the nominee falls. Thanks for calling Mike. What's in your
mind today? Hey, Matt, thanks for taking my call. I really appreciate it as always.
Hey, my topic today is immigration. I've called and talked to you about this in the past.
Every, every media outlet that I've seen, whether CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, all showing the polls,
both Democrat and Republican, that immigration is the number one concern. The number one topic
for voters going into the 2024 election. And I just wanted to get your thoughts on immigration.
My, my two cents on it are this. It's the worst that we've ever seen. And I think Joe Biden is
doing it on purpose. And I'll tell you why. And you can look this up if you'd like, Matt, since the
2016 election and into the 2020 election, the margin of victory for the Republicans in the state
of Texas has gradually shrunk. And there's a reason for that. They're immigrating the key
Democrat talking point is we want to find a pathway to citizenship. And a pathway to citizenship
is a pathway to the voting booths. And who are the these illegal immigrants that Joe Biden
lets into the country going to vote for? The Democratic president who allowed them to come into
the country illegally because he refuses to enforce federal immigration law or there are
Republicans that want people to immigrate into this country legally through the legal means.
And it's not just people in Mexico and it's not just people in South America. And the Senate,
the Senate's immigration, the numbers that they just came out with were $350 billion that we have
spent on illegal immigrants in this past year. Okay, let me respond to that Mike. I just have a few
minutes before we go. I appreciate your call. There are two things that you said that I strongly
disagree with. There's one that I certainly recognize. The one that I recognize is the polls do
show that 50% of the people in this so over 50% are concerned about immigration. And they are
and that reflects the polls that I just read. But I don't agree with you is that we spent $350
billion dollars every economist that looks at this even conservative economist say that our net
wealth as a country has been increased by immigration. And I'm not just talking about
you know high-end stuff like the people that started Google or Elon Musk. I'm not talking about
that. The people that come in from Mexico and South America are very hardworking people. And some
of them are entrepreneurs and they start small businesses. They have good family values. And they're
important parts of our country. When it comes to the rest of it, we are going right now. We have to
step away briefly. I'm going to respond further. And then I see when the lines do not hang up.
Coming up, I'm going to respond further on immigration. And we also coming up. You will not
believe what the Texas Environmental Protection Agency locally has done.
Welcome back to Madman Direct. Our lines are open. 844-967-2789. I'm going to quickly respond further
to my friend from Menominee Falls and then get to the lines. Do not hang up. So just responding
just a little further on immigration. The one point on money I don't agree with, I think that
there's been a net increase in wealth in this country because of immigration. But I do agree
with the fact that right now is absolutely broken. And there are people coming in not from Mexico
and South America, but flying in for the Middle East from China and everywhere else. And some of
them are on the watch list. And that's the real problem. And there has got to be a considerable
strengthening of our border. And there should be no illegal immigration. You come in legal. I
couldn't agree more with that. The final thing that my friend just said, though, was that somehow
the reason for it is to get them to vote. And that the reason the Republican Party has diminished
voting in Texas. In other words, fewer votes is simply because there are more illegal people
coming in. First of all, I don't agree with that for this reason. Right now, Hispanic Americans in
this country are opposed to the present immigration policy. They're here and they don't want more.
Joe Biden's numbers in the Latino community have gone down. That's number one. Number two,
the reason why Texas Republicans don't do as well is take a look at who they are and what they do.
First of all, they suppress the Latino and immigrant vote for a long time, even though it was
legal. And the black vote for that matter. They've passed criminal laws that say things like
if you obstruct the view of an observer, it's a crime. And the observers are thugs who stand there.
So you got to open your eyes. The deal is that the reason the Republicans aren't doing as well
is because people don't like what they're doing. And the people who you say are benefiting and voting
right now in the polls are trending more Republican than they were in the past. And that's
something that I think in the Democratic Party we've got to do. So it was a whole basket of
issues that you raised. Always appreciate your calling. But that's my view. We're going to go to
the lines in order. Do not hang up. Leave my friend. Thanks for calling. Leave. What's in your mind today?
Hey, Matt. I'm getting a little tired of this immigration stuff in open borders. It's just
the buzzword that Republicans use to gin up their base. The borders have never been open.
And every time they go on to news and talk about open borders, this goes out to people in the
public. And that's what brings people to the border. They think the borders are open because they're
talking about it. It's never been open. It's just one of the buzzword of the many that Republicans
use because they have no policy. So they got to carry it and vote before. Thanks, Matt.
Excellent point. Excellent. Excellent point. There are a lot of externalities to this. There's a lot
of cause and effect that people aren't taking into account. And the more that we are accused of it,
the more it's going to, if you build it, they will come. And the truth is there are things that
have to be done. And they're not being done. In my view, Biden is doing his best. But there you
have it. A dick of, a dick of Madison, my friend. Thanks for calling. What's your mind? They dick.
Well, I couldn't agree more with that last caller. And the other thing about this is
which party and which president has been trying vehemently to get something done by
part of something and which party is obstructing it at every turn. They don't want this. They want
to keep this out there just like your last caller said. I mean, Biden and the Democrats have been
trying to come with something for ever since he's been an office and they stonewall.
Good point, Dick. I really appreciate your call. Thanks a lot. Bill of a kind of
work, my friend. Your next was in your mind, Bill. Bill of a kind of
work. When he realized it was working in other other states, he purposely wouldn't tell him where he
wanted to send the plant because he wanted it to fail. He's been offered so much money and so
much encouragement to solve the issue and he's turned it all down. Now, I'm kind of redundant.
The other guys that just called in said the exact same thing. We got to step giving these people
credibility for anything and said, look, when you're serious to talk about immigration,
we'll sit out. But don't lie to the American public and say the borders open because like the
last person said, it's not every one of those immigrants have been documented. Every one of them.
And they're getting jobs and they're helping our country and yet the Republicans refuse to face
honesty, integrity, diplomacy. Greg Abbott should be up on charges of disabained federal orders.
Why he he went against federal orders. Well, it resulted in the deaths of a woman and her two
kids swimming across the Rio Grande. It was terrible. Disgusting. Jacob Merimack, my friend,
you're next. What's your mind, Jack? Okay. First of all, the only Republican solution that I've
seen for the so-called immigration problem is the one proposed by our own Ron Johnson closed the
entire Mexican border. Well, do you like vegetable? How about parts for your car? A ton of stuff
comes through that border. You can't close that border and the parts of the Republicans are well
aware of this. This is more part of the general Republican approach to government,
break the government, cut back as much funding as possible, and then blame the Democrats when it
doesn't work. But that's only that's only part of the story. Another part of the story is that
even the millions of so-called undocumented immigrants in this country are a very tiny fraction
of the 330 million people. They're not going to replace us if they're undocumented. They ain't going
to vote because they can't vote. You can only vote if you're a citizen. Finally, there
the largest and according to the estimates that I've seen from a couple of different sources,
very in between two thirds and three fourths of the undocumented immigrants are people who come
into this country entirely, legally, work visas, student visas. They get towards the end of their
visa period and they reply for those visas and they've got a job or they're in school and they
can't get a visa again because it takes so long because all the IONS has been.
Good point, Jack. Very, very good point. Coming up, I see when the lines do not hang up,
I'll get you after the break. Coming up, let a news, a lot of weather and the continuing
resolution fate to keep the government open.