Talking on all political subjects and taking on all colors, this is Matt Flin
direct with your host Matt Flin. Welcome to the second hour of Matt Flin
direct. Come you statewide and live on civic media. Our lines are open 844-967-2789.
No subject is off limits and all points of view are welcome. Well what on the
surface seems to be a disturbing development. I don't think is a disturbing
development but I want to talk about it. I want to talk about it.
Tanya Chutkin is a great federal judge in Washington DC in presiding over the Donald Trump trial
brought by Jack Smith, special prosecutor for the insurrection and the fake electors and all of that.
He had sent for trial on March 4. Today journalist noted it's been taking off the
docket. It's not going to go on March 4. There was an intimation of that earlier she had put
another trial on for April 2nd. That didn't concern me as much because yeah maybe the Trump trial
would go beyond April 2nd. It's very easy then just to take the other one off the calendar.
By taking this off the calendar it's a mute recognition that he has successfully delayed
this with his appeal. So I want to talk about that. I want to talk about what can be done about
that. Here's the deal. She was on track for the March 4 trial. Trump petitioned for the motion
to have the case to Smith because he said he had immunity. That's an absolutely frivolous,
frivolous defense to a felony. For instance if the president of the United States pulls out a gun
and shoots somebody in the Oval Office. The Justice Department has said that he can't be
prosecuted while he is president. You'd think that the Senate and the House would impeach and
convict them but it takes 67 senators and Trump can do anything and you're not going to get 67
senators to convict them anything and I mean that. I mean anything. But what Trump is in effect
arguing is that if he kills somebody he had immunity and even after he leaves the presidency
he can't be prosecuted for it. He can't be prosecuted for it. And one of the judges on the
DC Circuit, the pellet court said so if you killed your opponent you shot your opponent or had him
murdered by hitmen and he used to turn the Navy seals you can't be prosecuted and the lawyer
foolishly said that's right. It's a frivolous defense. He either did or didn't commit a felony.
He is no longer president. He's been tried for it if the jury acquits them fine but if they
convict them he has no immunity now that he's not president not for having committed a felony.
Now the DC Circuit held our oral argument on January 9. They could easily have issued a decision
from the bench. When I clicked on the 7th Circuit for Judge Thomas Fairchild, the Chief Judge,
one of the great judges in Wisconsin history. He was the Wisconsin nominee to the 7th Circuit.
The Federal Court sits in Chicago. Handles Federal Appeals from Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
He was the Chief Judge. I saw cases where they issued it from the bench. They'd say, all right,
all the arguments concluded and then they whispered each other and the Chief Judge or the
presiding judge would say, we've looked at it, we've looked at it, we've looked at the race,
we're going to be issued a written decision but you should know that your defense is denied for
instance in this case. They didn't do that and they've held it up almost a month. Now why are they
doing that? I have the feeling and keep this in mind. There are tarantulas on the Supreme Court
six of them but there are scorpions who were inspired to be tarantulas who were sprinkled throughout
the Federal Judiciary. One of them is Eileen Mercedes-Cannon down in Marlago who's essentially a
Trump slave, a Trump lawyer and yet she's the judge. This is Philip Heismaric in Amarillo, Texas,
who's the one that just flat out banned the abortion pill and a lot of other things. He does whatever,
whatever the freedom caucus wants, whatever and there are a couple of others like that.
Fortunately most of the judges aren't like that and I don't want to give the impression that
just because the judge is Republican or even if he was appointed by Trump that somehow is that way
but they're increasingly some of them. I do not know if any of them run the DC Circuit Court of Appeals
but sometimes you have people on the Court of Appeals who want to be fancy. They want to show how smart
they are. They want to be recognized hopefully to be selected for the Supreme Court someday.
So at least one of these clowns, at least one of these clowns is holding this up so that they can
write a concurring opinion or dissent or something else or somehow modify it so it goes back
to Tanya Chetkin for further consideration. They may say all right well it's absurd to say that
he has immunity for anything but for this particular case does he have immunity. She's already
said he doesn't have immunity. She'll say it again. He'll appeal again. You see what's happening
every appeal requires a brief. It requires oral argument. It gives a chance for further appeal.
He is slow-rolling this thing to get as far into the summer as possible so that if he's the
Republican nominee in July in Milwaukee he'll then say hold off for the trial until after November
and at some point there's enough political legitimacy just because of his nomination
by the Republican Party. It puts a lot of pressure on the judges. It puts a lot of pressure on
the judges and that's exactly what he's doing. That's exactly what he is doing. Now he has to do this
in a couple of other states. Let's take Fannie Willis down in Georgia. They did opposition research
found out that she was having a romantic relationship with one of her fellow prosecutors.
That is not a conflict of interest. If she were having a romantic relationship with the judge
or with the defense counsel that would be a conflict of interest but they're on the same page.
They're on the same side. It's not a conflict of interest. Here is what is going on. The Georgia
legislature passed the law giving them given a commission that they control the right to yank
prosecutors and they seem to be setting her up for an impeachment because they want to protect
Trump. They want to protect Trump. She's a single woman. This guy, his name is Nathan Wade,
is a very, very fine lawyer, former judge, special prosecutor and he is separated and going
through divorce. They can date whoever they want. It's not the Georgia legislature's
responsibility or interest at all. She put in a with attachments that apparently
over 100 page affidavit. In it, she said, look, at the start, when I retained him and he was
retained, it was called a low bono rate, not a pro bono rate and it goes to his law firm.
But it's $250 an hour and I know that sounds like a lot of money but no lawyer nowadays,
especially in large firm charges that unless they're doing it on a semi-pro bono basis because of
the public interest and that's why they call it low bono. This money, that has to be used by
the way to cover office overhead, secretary salaries, everything else. He put in an affidavit today
in which he said we did develop a romantic relationship but we've been friends before
and it was after I was retained. There's nothing wrong with that. Now the Republican is saying, well,
they went on a trip together and he paid for it. Did she reimburse him or is that a gift?
Hey, if they're dating, that's their business. This is a low bono rate. We're going to the
lines. Geneville, Claire, my friend. Thanks for calling Gene. What's in your mind today?
Hi, Matt. Great to see you as usual. You know, these people are making a mockery,
a mockery of our justice system and all of those judges that are playing this game,
and don't lay the hammer down on this guy. What's to say, all people can start utilizing.
Oh, I'm going to investigate somebody that's prosecuting me and they have to have a date with
somebody that I can make look real bad. You know, maybe I'll do that and I'm going to, I mean,
this is a mockery and he's doing it every day. This is why this guy has never been convicted of a crime.
It is just appalling, Matt, and those people that are sitting on this stuff need to start looking
at what America thinks of this legal system and also the Republican control or influence on these
systems need to be stopped and also the very rich that are getting away with all kinds of stuff
behind this thing, putting in the candidates, getting laws way they want to need to be investigated
someday when this dirty rotten mess is over because it's just filthy and I just can't believe
it's happening in our country. Thank you, Matt, and you have a great weekend. You really deserve it.
Thank you for all the work you do. Bye. Well, thank you, Gene, and I love your calls and excellent
call. And let me build on that. There are four criminal cases that he has to extend beyond
November and he's doing it one at a time. In Marlago, he owns her. She kneels before him.
She is deliberately taking months to decide very routine things. She will kick it beyond November
because she is his, she's in his camp. She's representing him basically.
Tanya Chutkin is not, she's terrific, but all of these fake appeals about stupid things like immunity.
He's not the president anymore. Bingo. He has no immunity. That's it. This is stuff that they are
taking their sweet time at. Largely, in my view, not because they're scorpions in the DC circuit or
tarantulas, but because they are full of themselves, pompous as hell, and they're trying to make
themselves look fancy. But then Fanny Willis, they're trying to take her out because she dates
this guy, single woman, the guy is going through divorce. And so what? And then they have Elven
Bragg in New York. Well, Elven Bragg, that's coming up too in March. We'll see what they try to do
with that. But of all the cases, that is the one that, that doesn't have his lured a fact. So
just so you know what's going on with these characters. Okay, coming up and, and good for Genie,
nailing it like she always does. Coming up, step away briefly and you won't believe what an Indiana
legislator did with a gun when he saw some teenagers in the Capitol he did not like.
Now I talk to we've been well. Well, the Magnumethin Director, lines are open 844-967-2789.
Well, here's the piece of work. Here is a piece of work.
This Republican legislator, state legislator in Indiana,
his name is Jim Lucas. He's walking through the Indiana Capitol and he sees five teenagers
minding their own business, you know, clean cut kids. Now normally, you are a halfway decent
human legislature, halfway normal. If you went up to him at all, you might say, hey,
son, son, how you doing? Can I help you here? Um, exciting. You guys want to go into politics,
blah, blah, blah, you know. So it goes up to him. He goes, what are you doing here?
And they go, well, sir, we're here with a group called every town for gun safety advocacy,
every town, EVERYTOWN. Now there's every town in Indiana for gun safety advocacy.
And they're there in the Capitol. The first amendment permits them to do that
to convey their opinions on issues to petition the government. The government means state
as well as federal government. Back in, back in the Bill of Rights, it was the state government.
It was applied to the federal government through the 14th Amendment in 1868.
So what does the guy do? Does the guy go, oh, that's great. You're involved in advocacy. Good for
you and, you know, keep being informed on issues and all that. No, he doesn't do that.
Let's say he is one of these guys on the far right who thinks that any discussion of gun safety
is wrong and loves the NRA even though the NRA goes to Moscow, Russia hangs around with the
Russians where guns are outlawed and the NRA and the Russians would take your gun away in a heartbeat
under the Patriot Act if they thought they could make some money out of it. I'm talking about
the leadership. They're bad news. Okay. Put all that aside. What does this guy Jim Lucas do?
He opens up his jacket and he has a gun. He has a gun in the holster. It's concealed carry.
And he said, that's what we got here. Now, the teens were bothered by, I'd be
damn bothered by that. I go into a, you know, I go into a capital, the legislature, a big guy,
big man. You know, you're a big man. You're fancy pants. Comes up to me and say, what are you doing
here? Kind of a gruff voice. I go, all I'm here because I believe in gun safety advocacy and I'm
going to talk to a couple of the representatives and he opens his jacket. And what does he say?
You know, fill your hand. Draw. What the hell is this? Is this gun smoke? Remember gun smoke,
Matt Dillon? Actually, I like gun smoke. The reason I like gun smoke is you don't have to think
very hard at the end of the show every time Matt Dillon go out on Main Street. Bad guy go out.
Slap leather. They shoot. Bad guy go down. Matt Dillon, Dylan, walk away. The guy must have
gunned down, you know, a couple of hundred people and never had a scratch on it. It was quite amazing.
But in any event, this clown Jim Lucas, you know, throws his gun. You know, that's not right. I mean,
that's not right. A couple of the kids were kind of concerned about this. I'm kind of concerned
about this. I'm kind of concerned about that kind of behavior from public officials. It reminds me
when Marjorie Taylor Green, a couple of the high school kids at Parkland, you know, they were
some of their classmates were gunned down, were walking up to the Capitol in DC and she's
stalking one of them a guy saying, what are you doing? What, you know, scaring the heck out of him.
This is a high school kid. I'm tired of these people going to the lines. Mark from the sack, my friend.
Thanks for calling, Mark. What's in your mind today?
Yeah, thanks. I had a call from a friend earlier, but yeah, this guy, this guy, you're talking
about right now. It's also, he just got convicted of a DUI a few months back.
That was kind of, you know, I got a soccer sentence and probably he should have that because of his
position that that was just kind of discussed in the first place. But this kind of thing right there,
that is a threat after, that's a threat. When you do something like that, that isn't actually
actually a threat. And that the guy should actually get, should face some kind of, some kind of
such if we're doing that kind of thing. And it is just ridiculous that you can get away with it,
you know, that people, you know, they regularly, people regularly get away with this stuff.
I mean that, and thanks again for what you're talking. We'll open the show up with today with
Trump with a secret room that I read that and some of the stuff I saw earlier on that is they're
blaming the FBI for not finding everything right away. I go, well, that's like, you know, that
you mentioned that Donald Trump was supposed to turn all that information over in the first place.
He wasn't supposed to have it scrolled away in places that what the FBI is supposed to go through
with some sledgehammers and knock down walls to make sure there's not secret compartments everywhere.
I just, you know, that it just gets stranger and stranger and this thing threatening with firearms
is just another thing is that because that implies a threat. Here, I'm a gun owner and, you know,
that, but I don't do concealed carry that, because I just don't feel the need. But this is just
insane that these guys regularly, this is not the first time something like that has happened.
And that at least we dealt with severely.
Right. Well, you know, to put it in perspective, if he had pulled the gun out of the holster and
pointed at them, that's the felony. So he was smart enough not to do that. But if a kid, I mean,
these are high school kids, okay, they probably weren't even 18 and they come up and they're all eager,
you know, they're in every town for gun safety advocacy and, you know, gun safety can simply mean
a red flag law. If you've been a little people, it can mean lock the gun up or, you know, whatever.
And he's going to be a macho big man and suddenly he opens his jacket and there's a flat out,
there's a gun and some kind of a holster and they sort of step back. I mean, and they were bothered
by it. No normal person does that. No normal person does that. It's not right. It's not right that
they do something like that. And this is happened before and there's another case where a judge
point pulled the gun out from under the bench and pointed it at a defendant. This has to be
taken care of. This is not just some guy in a bar somewhere with somebody's own age. This is a
state representative. And he is in the capital and people are going to petition him
on gun safety advocacy and the article wasn't even clear what they're talking about. What's
wrong with gun safety out of your mind? I mean, most people who are responsible gun owners want
other people who have training. You know, now some states are going with constitutional carry,
which means they don't even have a license. They don't even have to have any training.
It used to be that you had to have some kind of training. If you don't have training, you know,
you have Yahoo's going in by an AR 15 and have never fired one. And then they start going around
and listen, you know, in the Navy, we had, we run the firing line occasionally. I was not,
this was not a ship where you expected to be in. We had guns. I mean, on the ship, but the officers
weren't, you know, in the old days, what do you have a sword or something and some pirates are
jumping high? But you had to take some small arms training. So we go down to the firing line
and and and practice with 45s. Well, I'd never fired a 45 before in my life. You fire 45. The
kick is like a mule. Your hand jerks up. There was an incident in in Milwaukee a long time ago with
the African world festival where a bunch of guys are chasing somebody and he turns around and he
fires over shoulder and shoots like in the movies. Shoes over shoulder. And of course, the gun
kicks and he picks off a guy in the beard line. You know, I mean, these are sick people. These
are very sick people coming up a lot of advertising, a lot of news and something about the border deal
coming up.
I need somebody. Not just anybody. You know, I need someone. Welcome back to Madeline Director.
Lines are open. Eight, four, four, nine, six, seven, two, seven, eight. Now we go right to the lines.
Joe, a medicine, my friend. Thanks for calling Joe. What's in your mind today?
I'd like to go back to the Marlago story. This is the story that you mentioned in your first
hour that has to do with the fact that the FBI apparently missed two rooms during their search of
Marlago in August before Jackson Smith came on prosecutor Jackson Smith came on in November.
And that includes a hidden room at Marlago. And then what also might be called a locked closet.
And the thing that's kind of interesting about the hidden room is apparently it is for secret
room. Whatever you want to call it, it connects to Trump's bedroom. So a couple of questions here
that I just don't get. Number one, if there's a secret room that connects to Trump's bedroom,
wouldn't the secret service know about that? I mean, I would think for security reasons,
they would know about that. And that information would have, you know, passed hands. And they
would know that prior to going in, they must have searched and looked at, you know, floor plans
about where they're going to go and what they're going to do. As I understand, the warrant said
something on the lines of paraphrasing here that they had the FBI was to search all rooms
used by the president and staff that could house boxes or documents. Okay, not just boxes,
but documents. So you got the one room that's connected to Trump's bedroom, the secret room
that apparently they missed. And then you have a closet, a door that was locked and no one could
find a key. And so the response was to say, gee, okay, and leave. I don't get this. You know,
one comment I saw said that a guy who does home inspectors, somebody who does home inspectors
for real estate, a deal said, if there's a room, I can't access, I write it up and it's in my report.
It's, you don't just, I mean, I'm stunned. I'm just when I'm thinking of all the ways that the
FBI could access that. I mean, number one, go call for a locksmith. Number two, go get a
battering ram. And they didn't do that. So I'm kind of left, left to believe that the FBI did
the kind of search that they wanted to. I don't, and maybe not what was required by the warrant.
So my question would be, where does this project Smith? I mean, he can't, for him to go back in,
doesn't it look kind of bad if he's going to go before a judge and say, gee, the FBI screwed this
this search. So I would like to redo it. Or is it the kind of thing at this point because so much
time has passed, there's no sense to it. Although, how do we know? We still don't know what was behind
that closet. And we still don't know what was in that secret room. Correct? I'm curious for your
reactions, man. Thanks a lot. Yeah, no, very interesting call. Let me defend the FBI and
in this. In other words, there's a search warrant. Obviously, they try to avoid the search warrant
everything, every way they could for a year. They kept saying, please turn these documents over.
And, you know, I'm sure they were inadvertent blah, blah, blah. The full enormity of what he did
didn't really become apparent until, you know, they sent, they sent a subpoena. And then he lied about
complying with the subpoena and then they did the search warrant. Now, human beings are imperfect.
When you're searching grounds as large as Marlago, this isn't like a two bedroom house in the suburbs.
And so it may very well be two things are possible to me. One is when he's president and he's down
there, the FBI goes around and secures it. I don't know that he tells them about his secret room.
And they don't go sniffing around and not take his word for it. And I have no idea how the
secret room is connected. In other words, you know, is it a trap door with a carpet over it?
Is it, you know, some sort of door with a credence in front of it? If I'm an FBI agent or a secret
service and the president wants to conceal a room, this is his bedroom. I mean, all right, you're
walking to his bedroom. There's a credence in a rug and okay. And if he doesn't say, hey, there's
another room there. I don't, I wouldn't take it as gospel that they did know. Number two,
even if they did, you know, is it a closet and that kind of thing? The search warrant,
you go in, they, they miss stuff anyway. They miss stuff anyway. There's stuff lying around
in bathrooms, there's stuff lying around in the bridal dressing room in a closet and all that.
They obviously miss something because he was loading boxes on a plane to bed minister.
And actually, I forget if that was before the search warrant or after, but whenever it was,
they bent over backwards not to do something extraordinary. Now, so I'm not sure they didn't know
about it. Obviously, a real estate agent, if you knew about it. But if this thing is concealed with
a rug or a credence, no, I don't think they pull the furniture out and look around, see if the
president's lying to him. They say, you know, can you tell us about any tunnels or whatever?
Yeah, there isn't. Okay. Well, second thing though, I would say is that, what does he do now?
Can he get a search warrant to go back in and look at the closet in the, and also at the closet
in a second, the hidden room? Sure. Do I think that there's anything in either one of those now?
No, I don't. Not after he is putting stuff on a plane and flying to bed minister.
A better question might be should they search bed minister? And frankly, I've always thought
that they should have, but it can be long gone beyond that. He has properties in New York City,
Trump Tower. He has properties all over the place. He has other golf clubs. He's a golf club in
Scotland. The, the real question to me is, who is he going to sell these to? Nobody goes to
these lengths without intending to get some, some value at him. If you are to the cut closet,
I agree with you. And there's a lock, you know, break the lock. They know how to do that. But
the fact that he hired a locksmith to change locks. Well, this lawyer is in the basement. I mean,
it's pretty, I mean, that to me is very, very evidentiary of, of criminal intent. I mean,
there's no question about it. If they missed one closet in all of Mar-a-Lago, they're human,
you know, they ask somebody, they ask Walter, now that it's a broom closet. Nothing in there. Okay,
well, should they have searched it? Sure. Thanks a lot for calling. Great, great call as always.
I'm going to take you in order. Do not hang up. Tom of Madison, my friend. Your next, what's your
mindy time? Hey, your gun story about Jim Lucas really kind of hit a cord there with all the
violence these guys are coming up with. So I called Jim Lucas's office. And I thought to one of
staffers and I said, you know, you guys really, this is getting to the point where it's,
you know, you're behaving like six-year-olds with your guns and stuff like that. And I said,
plus, you know, when it comes to violence, the head of your party is going to be the one of the most
violent people you can think of. And he said, that's not true. He said, Speaker Houston has never
said anything violent. Where does the base of any acts of violent? I said, who is Speaker Houston?
And he's the head of our party. I said, no, the heavier party is Donald Trump. He's no,
the Indiana Republican party is headed by Speaker Todd Houston. So he was pushing even say Trump
was in their party. It was pretty cool. That's a terrific call, Tom. I'm really glad you did.
I've often wondered when we're on the line of this, like there's how many people do that kind of
stuff like Google something or they'll call somebody. That's a terrific call. Thanks,
stuff for calling. Whisky Paul, my friend. You're next. What's your mind? Hey, Whisky Paul.
Happy Friday, man. Speaking of the FBI, Komi is one of the reasons, maybe the reason
Trump got elected in the first place at the Hillary. That's too much to go into there today by
done. Donald is the reason Trump may not be prosecuted in tell November, Biden appointed
Garland and Garland just dropped the ball on this whole thing or something would be done by now.
So there's a good chance Trump will state him the election in November because we have an attorney
general that wouldn't get involved in time, but just hold Trump mass. And I hope something's
going positive with the border. You said you were going to speak about it. I hope you do because
that's a big deal right now. Thanks, Matt. Yeah, thank you, Paul. Two things. One is,
I am disappointed with Garland. He could have appointed Jack Smith a year earlier.
And if that were the case a year ago, you'd have all this stuff. And there'd be plenty of time
for a trial by delaying it the way he did. And I don't think he did it on purpose. I think
basically he's so cautious and wants to be liked. He was afraid to do it. He was timid. He's
he likes to be present and pleasant and have everybody like him. And you can't do that when you're
a prosecutor by doing it the way he did. He's forcing Jack Smith to do what? Have a criminal trial
in the middle of the Republican convention? The Republicans will nominate him because Nikki Haley
probably is not going to go anywhere. And then if you have, you know, one of the two principal
parties in the country ratifying Trump, there's a political of political legitimacy overlay
to some of these decisions. Some judges will then you say, yeah, I'll delay the trial to December.
But if Trump gets elected, God forbid, and I don't think he will, he doesn't get sworn
into January 20th. But the fact of the matter is that to then do a trial in December and what
put him in jail, you see what I mean? This should have been done a year ago. And another thing I'll say
Jack Smith, I think the world of him should never have filed anything in the Mar-Lago area.
He's going to get Eileen Mercedes-Canada, who's a Trump lawyer basically is what she is.
He could have filed it. Venue is correct. Your restriction was correct in Washington, D.C. That's
where he should have filed it. Okay, Mike, we're saying your next mic, what's in your mind today?
Hey, man. I was thinking, you know, if for the search from Mar-Lago,
yeah, wasn't, uh, okay, Trump is, we'd be kicked out of the house, but wouldn't secret service
still be in that house? Or a place? They're gonna know everything about that and why didn't they
tell anything about it? Right. No, no, no, there should be something kind of, uh,
checking up on them people too. Yeah, Mike, you reason is if you're a secret service, if you're
a lawyer, it got to be loyal or whatever, but if you're doing something wrong, you're doing
something wrong. Yeah, Mike, you, you raised a very good point and it's a spin-off Joe
and Madison did too, but here's the reality. Think of this, the historical background of this.
When the FBI showed up for the search warrant, the secret service was there. There's no question
about it, but they had to interface and talk. You know, if a bunch of guys come walking
in with guns and the FBI agents, the secret services guns, you're likely to get a friendly fire
situation. You don't want them. So the secret service and the FBI did talk about it, but one thing
you got to remember, the secret service was not part of the search. They stood back and number two,
a number of the secret service detail were loyal to Trump and what a couple of them resigned
right afterwards, right after he lost because you remember the Casey Hutchinson's testimony
that some of the secret service basically were protecting Trump, which is fine, but they also
tried to get Mike Pence to get into a limousine and they were going to whisk him away
to effectuate the Green Bay sweep on January 6th. So some of the secret service were more
pro-Trump than they were pro-America. Let me put it that way. So it doesn't surprise me at all
that the secret service would not tell the FBI what to search or what not to search. Number one,
number two, you're assuming that the secret service also knew about the hidden room. Now,
I do not know what is meant by hidden room in this context. I've not seen the details in the
affidavit. If there is going to be an affidavit coming out, but if the secret room is a trap door
in his bedroom into it or a big credenza or a bookcase right up against the wall, no, I don't think
the secret service in his private quarters that he owns and he's owned for a long time starts pulling
stuff apart. You know, they might say to him, look, Mr. President, is there any other form of
access to this room? No, there isn't the windows. That's it. I don't necessarily believe that
Trump disclosed the secret room. And if he didn't, I don't think they go around doubting his word
and start tapping on walls. You know, I mean, remember the old, the old mystery movies, like 19,
you know, set in the 19th century where there's a creek and a, you know, pair of eyes come looking
out of a picture and all that. The guys are weird guy. I'm not sure that he, he did anything for him.
Okay, coming up, we're going to step away and now we're going to talk about the border deal.
I see you on the line. Do not hang up. Get back to you shortly.
Welcome back to Madison Direct. Our lines are open. 844-967-278. Now go right
the lines. David of San Francisco, my friend. Thanks for calling. David, what's your mind today?
Yeah, well thanks, Matt. I don't know if you've ever seen or studied like Matahari. There were a lot
of books written about World War I and the spies that used the big hotels. You know, the famous
old hotels of all of Paris and Berlin and all the different places. And they make a point, like
you were talking about someone behind the painting. Well, that was very normal a hundred years ago.
And I would think that a guy like Donald Trump would make use of a thing like that in his big
places as well as his dumps because blackmail was a major part of and still is apparently a major
part of his lifestyle. All of this hidden money that he seems to have access to, seems to be
coming from in the obeisance. You know, all of these famous Republicans, you know, changing their
tune on a heartbeat. You know, they hate him, but then all of a sudden they love him. Well,
that really smells of blackmail. And so I, and then a second layer of it, it talks about the money
laundromers of World War I who dragged the war on forever and that they didn't really care who
won. They really were into currency speculation. And that smells like what's going on with Congress
and the government shutdown and the border, the fake border issue where they pretend that they're
not going to have a budget this year unless the border is solved. And they will not solve the
budget because they want to use the border as a political issue. And so they will have a government
shutdown which would really suit the currency speculators because America's credit rating would
just drop like a stone. So I just think about World War I and all of the intrigues and
and the history repeating itself with a guy like Donald Trump.
Yeah, interesting call. And I got to say I have a weakness for some of those really
grainy old movies where a couple of guys are sitting in the lobby of a hotel and there's a picture
of a guy. And suddenly they get up to leave and the eyes fall. I get a kick out of that kind of
stuff. I get a kick. I don't get a kick out of it when we're talking to President doing this
and probably concealing it from the secret service quite frankly. But let me talk about the deal.
Schumer announced today they have come to a deal in the Senate. And remember something you have
James Langford of Oklahoma. You have Thune of South Dakota. You have Moscow Mitch. And these sort
of they're very conservative people, but they're not flat out bonkers, flat out Trump nuts. And
apparently the Republicans and the Democrats have come to a deal. Now a lot of them like like people
like Cruz and people like Rand Paul and Hawley and the real bad ones, Mike Lee are not going to go
along with it. But what that says to me. What that says to me is going to pass the Senate. It's
going to be released today or over the weekend and they'll vote on it Monday or Tuesday.
What that says to me is that you'll have their fire brands right wing nuts that will oppose it.
But even if they go unanimous consent and filibuster, there are enough Republicans who said
baloney will stick with the deal. And that means it'll then go to the house. If it
does pass as and Schumer wouldn't say that quite frankly if he weren't certain about it.
And it's voted on Monday or Tuesday. Then it goes to the house. Then Johnson has to decide what
he's going to do. He can stick it in his pocket and not bring it to the floor, but then we are
going to run out of money the first week in March in those pilots and those soldiers that are
getting bombed in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, some of them now, the Red Sea, the hoodies, Iraq, they ain't
getting paid because of the Republican Party. And they weren't going to get promoted because
of the Republican Party for 10 months last year. So I think Johnson is going to have a hard time
trying to pull that off. He can't possibly have that happen. He could try to put through a
continuing resolution and limp us along in other six weeks, which will then screw up our
our bond rating even more, result in more interests. We have to pay. That's totally unnecessary.
And also signal to China that maybe we wouldn't do anything about Taiwan, signal to Russia that
we're not going to do anything about Ukraine and enable our enemies. That's what the Republican
Party is doing. My suggestion is this, Kornin, and this is the guy from Texas who I don't care for,
but he's not as crazy as Kruz. Kornin said, you know, we can't get to the border. He said,
I'll vote for this thing, but we're not going to be able to deal with it because of Trump
in the House. And that's basically what he said. So why don't we just vote on aid to Ukraine
in Israel? And there's also some humanitarian aid in there for Gaza. Let's vote for that,
pass that, and then we'll keep talking about the border. Now, I would prefer to see them do
everything, but it's essential that we get aid to Ukraine and Israel. It's essential that we do
that in my judgment. And so, I mean, at some point, they've got to go and beat up Mike Johnson.
Say, look, you little punk. Yeah, I know you're the speaker. You're second line to the president
and all that, but you're nothing but a punk from Louisiana, okay? And you're lucky to sell
you're here. You probably pinch yourself every day thinking, my God, am I lucky? Well, yes,
you are lucky. So here's what you're going to do. And just the party leaders have to say that kind
of stuff. And they've got to basically get Trump out of this equation. And yes, there will be many,
many of the freedom caucus who who help and moan. But then what he does is he should do exactly
what he did on that 78 billion dollar tax cut, the child tax care credit. He put it on the floor
because it had one majority vote in the Republican caucus, like 107 to 106 or something. You put it
out there and you go to Hakim Jeffery, say, Hakim, you're going to be coming up with 200 Democrats,
aren't you? And he says, yes. And if he says no, then Biden and Schumer on the line,
say, yes. And then there'll be 350 votes. Ukraine aid for Israel aid, some humanitarian assistance for
Gaza. And we show unity. And then you can keep fooling around and screwing around all you want
in the border. I don't like it. Something's got to give, okay? Something's going to give and it's
going to start giving next week. Okay, we're coming to the end of the show. Great show. Great
callers as always. This show is the callers. It's about the callers. Everybody have a good weekend
and stand by for another great show that was having it with Diamond Krut.
Matt then direct would be back same time same place Monday. And I'm signing off for today.
Hey, baby. There ain't no easy way out.
Hey, I will stand for my cry.
