Speaker 1: I'm Josh Hammer, and this is the Josh Hammer Show.
Speaker 1: It wasn't long ago that the Democrat Lawfair complex under
Speaker 1: the auspices of President Joe Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland,
Speaker 1: and epic scumbag quote unquote special counsel Jack Smith. It
Speaker 1: was not that long ago that they were putting Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and others, but namely the then past and future
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump. They're putting him through the ringer in
Speaker 1: every possible way imaginable. During the height of the Democrat
Speaker 1: Lawfair from twenty twenty three into twenty twenty four, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was being prosecuted in not one, not two, not three,
Speaker 1: but four different jurisdiction. Jack Smith was pressing federal charges
Speaker 1: against President Trump in both Washington, d C. And in
Speaker 1: the state of Florida. You had Alvin Bragg, the Soros
Speaker 1: funded hack Alvin Bragg in New York City pursuing charges
Speaker 1: on the whole storm of Daniels Michael Cohen's quote unquote
Speaker 1: fraudulent bookkeeping saga. And then you had Fannie Willis with
Speaker 1: her lover Nathan Wade in Fulton County, Georgia, the home
Speaker 1: of Orlanda. You had them there pursuing Rico charges. Rico
Speaker 1: the statute that Congress first advised to go after LaCOSA
Speaker 1: Nostra or the mafia. Yes, apparently they thought in Fulton County, Georgia,
Speaker 1: that this would be a good statute to use to
Speaker 1: prosecute Donald Trump and his allies who litigated the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty election. Just utterly astounding stuff. Well before you knew it,
Speaker 1: Before you knew it, the Democrat law fair complex was
Speaker 1: up in flames. Jack Smith was disqualified as the special
Speaker 1: council in the Florida litigation if the Florida case that
Speaker 1: he brought was the action stemming from the unprecedented mar
Speaker 1: Lago raid in August of twenty twenty two. This is
Speaker 1: a case pertaining to Donald Trump's allegedly allegedly illegal stashing
Speaker 1: and hoarding of classified documents as a holdover from his
Speaker 1: time in the White House from his first term. Well,
Speaker 1: it was in the summer of twenty twenty four that
Speaker 1: the Florida case was dismissed because the judge, Judge Cannon
Speaker 1: in the Southern Dition of Florida, dismissed it because she said,
Speaker 1: citing a Clarence Thomas concurrence of the US Supreme Court
Speaker 1: in the Trump versus the United States case, Judge Cadden
Speaker 1: persuasively argued that Jacksmith was actually not properly appointed as
Speaker 1: a special counsel. Ultimately, Jack Smith, of his own accord,
Speaker 1: ends up withdrawing the DC case. The DC case being
Speaker 1: his crown jewel. This is his prosecution, essentially alleging a
Speaker 1: stolen election and have various forms of conspiracy to defraud
Speaker 1: the United States. This is all essentially about January sixth.
Speaker 1: This is really the January sixth prosecution. Well well, well, well,
Speaker 1: Jack Smith hadn't heard a whole lot from that guy.
Speaker 1: Have we the tip of the spear, the tip of
Speaker 1: the spear of the Democrat lawfare compicts. You see, think
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden as the Palpatine and Merrick Garland essentially
Speaker 1: as the Darth Vader. They were really the one two
Speaker 1: punch who were who were overlooking all of this. And
Speaker 1: when I say all of it, I actually mean all
Speaker 1: of it. We have barely only scratched the surface with
Speaker 1: what we know thus far about the extent of coronation
Speaker 1: and collusion between these federal prosecutions and the state and
Speaker 1: local prosecutions. I'm actually not even talking about the civil case,
Speaker 1: the civil case that has since gone from Attorney General
Speaker 1: Tis James in New York State, that's actually not even
Speaker 1: a prosecution. It's technically a civil case. This is the
Speaker 1: case against the Trump organization for allegedly trying to defraud
Speaker 1: financial institutions when it comes to bank clons. Even holding
Speaker 1: that aside, we have barely scratched the surface of what
Speaker 1: we know about the coordination between Jack Smith and Fannie
Speaker 1: Willis and Alvin Bragg, the two local prosecutors. We know
Speaker 1: from Jim Jordan, the congressman from Ohio, who was able
Speaker 1: to obtain records showing that there was an unusual amount
Speaker 1: of visitation of the Biden White House from Alvin Bragg
Speaker 1: and or Fannie Willis. Who were they meeting. Were they
Speaker 1: meeting with the White House Counsel's office, Were they meeting
Speaker 1: with the big guy himself. There's a lot left to
Speaker 1: uncoffer and as part of this investigation to try to
Speaker 1: learn the truth about just what exactly went down during
Speaker 1: those those horrific years where the Democrat law fair complex
Speaker 1: took this country to unprecedented, unprecedented, un shartered places. When
Speaker 1: it comes to the use of the prosecutorial power of
Speaker 1: the States in order to target an attempt to bankrupt
Speaker 1: and incarcerate your political enemies. We are barely barely getting
Speaker 1: this ship rolling and House Republicans had Jack Smith. We
Speaker 1: haven't heard from him in a while. He trotted out
Speaker 1: before the House Juuary Committee on Thursday, January twenty seconds,
Speaker 1: and boy was it a doozy. There was just a
Speaker 1: lot of back and forth from this hearing so much
Speaker 1: good stuff to talk about. Brandon Gill, recent guest here
Speaker 1: on the Josh Hammer Show, Connors and Brandy Gill going
Speaker 1: absolutely scorched earth on Jack Smith. A lot of absolute
Speaker 1: fire in that exchange from Congressman Gill, Congressman ship Roy,
Speaker 1: someone else who was very, very very animated about what
Speaker 1: Jack Smith was doing as a result of his January
Speaker 1: sixth probe, which is very closely tied to the still
Speaker 1: ongoing extent of our attempt to learn more about Arctic frost,
Speaker 1: which again was this January sixth related fish nets, this
Speaker 1: fish net of the Merrick Garland era DOJ trying to
Speaker 1: subpoena and acquire a lot of information, essentially just trying
Speaker 1: to figure out who was involved in any extent whatsoever
Speaker 1: when it comes to January sixth, the worst day in
Speaker 1: the history of humanity and events, Congressman Ship Roy, much
Speaker 1: like his former boss and his fellow Texan Ted Cruz,
Speaker 1: recently found out that his phone records were apparently subpoena
Speaker 1: As a result of this, Jack Smith, Merri Garland, doj
Speaker 1: Arctic Frost, hullablu. Here was Congressman ship Roy grilling Jacksmith? Boy?
Speaker 1: Was he animated? Go ahead and watch this one?
Speaker 2: Is this the complete list right here? Let me ask
Speaker 2: you this, Am I on this list? Did you target
Speaker 2: my records and subpoena my phone tool records?
Speaker 3: My understanding is your records were subpoenaed by prosecutors before
Speaker 3: I became Special counsel.
Speaker 2: Well's Stafford put this up on the screen. Thankful for
Speaker 2: the great staff who discovered the email where I learned
Speaker 2: for the first time a few weeks ago, did my
Speaker 2: phone records were indeed targeted? We called AT and T
Speaker 2: and we've learned that they were given to the Department
Speaker 2: of Justice, as this email indicates, because I had been
Speaker 2: in communication with Scott Perry. What are my colleagues here
Speaker 2: in Congress who literally had his phone taken from him
Speaker 2: in front of his family, and of course that we've
Speaker 2: already talked about in this document. It talks about you
Speaker 2: could be in violation the privilege by even obtaining and
Speaker 2: possessing this information if the member objected to the disclosure.
Speaker 2: This happened four years ago, in May of twenty twenty two,
Speaker 2: and I couldn't object because I didn't know. I didn't
Speaker 2: know until about three weeks ago.
Speaker 1: And Chip Roy actually went on and on in this exchange,
Speaker 1: and he's obviously anime and as he should be, both
Speaker 1: fat that he was caught up in this outrageous Arctic
Speaker 1: frost drage. Another amazing point that comic Manroy mede in
Speaker 1: that exchange was he noted that Jack Smith, you were
Speaker 1: actually disqualified. You were disqualified from the Florida case by
Speaker 1: Judge Aileen Cannon. His appeal never ended up materialized when
Speaker 1: the clock essentially ran out. Well, we recently had a
Speaker 1: case where another another acting used a turn. In this case,
Speaker 1: the Trump nominated Lindsay Halligan in Virginia. She was also
Speaker 1: ruled she was incorrectly ruled, but she was ruled nonetheless
Speaker 1: to be improperly serving as he was attorney after the
Speaker 1: clock right now. The weeds are not part of our
Speaker 1: conversation here. But the federal judge in that case ruled
Speaker 1: that a prosecutor who continues to sign his or her
Speaker 1: name in court filings after a disqualification order should face
Speaker 1: disciplinary action or disbarment. And as chip Roy said, the
Speaker 1: Jack Smith, isn't that like, bro isn't it literally exactly
Speaker 1: what you did? And Jack Smith had no answer whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I mentioned Congressman Brandon Gil, Chiproy's colleague from the text
Speaker 1: Republican delegation, and boy, Congressman Gil really was just letting
Speaker 1: it up. Yet again. Let's go ahead and ask you
Speaker 1: watch a clip of Brandon Gill just ripping into Jacksmith.
Speaker 4: How many days after Kevin McCarthy was sworn in his
Speaker 4: speaker did you subpoena his records?
Speaker 3: I don't recall, but those two things had nothing.
Speaker 4: It was sixteen days after becoming the highest ranking Republican
Speaker 4: in the House of Representatives, usubpoenaed his toll records. Do
Speaker 4: you agree that that might reasonably be considered a violation
Speaker 4: of the speech of debate clause?
Speaker 3: I do not, and I want to be clear that
Speaker 3: the toll we.
Speaker 4: Were collecting month's worth of phone data on the Republican
Speaker 4: Speaker of the House, the leader of the opposition, right
Speaker 4: after he got sworn in as speaker, all around the
Speaker 4: time of a major vote. That sounds like a flagrant
Speaker 4: violation of the speech or debate clause to me, and
Speaker 4: I think most people agree with me. And Speaker McCarthy
Speaker 4: had no recourse, did he, because you issued a non
Speaker 4: disclosure order ensuring that neither he nor any of the
Speaker 4: American people knew about the subpoenas.
Speaker 1: Is that right?
Speaker 3: The toll record, the non content toll record subpoena is
Speaker 3: we did secure non disclosure orders for those subpoenas. You did.
Speaker 4: And let me ask you, mister Smith, at the time
Speaker 4: you secured those non disclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a
Speaker 4: flight risk?
Speaker 3: The non disclosure order was based on concerns about it.
Speaker 4: Was Speaker McCarthy a flight she was not all right?
Speaker 1: So just brutal stuff there again, subpeding the opposition party
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House. I mean, who does Jacksmith frankly
Speaker 1: think that he is And don't just take it actually
Speaker 1: from the Republican congressional delegations. Actually was CNN's own in
Speaker 1: house legal analyst Ellie Honig, who actually herself conceded on
Speaker 1: CNN that Jacksmith didn't look so great about his attempt
Speaker 1: to rush these prosecutions prior to the election. Let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and fire this one on from CNN to your.
Speaker 5: Question, Brianna, the last congressman we saw point brought up
Speaker 5: the fact that Jack Smith demanded a trial date four
Speaker 5: months out, five months out in a case involving thirteen
Speaker 5: million pages of documents. There is no defense layer in
Speaker 5: the country who can constitutionally prepare for trial and defend
Speaker 5: his client on that short of time frame. And the
Speaker 5: implication was you were rushing to get this in before
Speaker 5: the twenty twenty four election. Jacksmith did not defend himself,
Speaker 5: by the way, he didn't say a word about that,
Speaker 5: which I found straight. Yeah, it's true, right, it's true exactly,
Speaker 5: and before the election exactly. And Jacksmith has always maintained
Speaker 5: this veneer that he never thought about the election. Of
Speaker 5: course he did. Why would you demand such a quick
Speaker 5: trial day?
Speaker 1: Okay, so the jig is up. The jig is up, Jack,
Speaker 1: That's really what we're getting at here. The jig is
Speaker 1: just totally up. You've been exposed for what many of
Speaker 1: us knew. You were all along a complete and utter
Speaker 1: partisan hack, the front facing part of the Biden Garland
Speaker 1: Democrat law fair phalanx, taking us to the rudeous brink
Speaker 1: of tinpot Latin American dictatorship sub Saharan Africa. Incarcerate, prosecute,
Speaker 1: and destroy your political opponents under the quote unquote rule
Speaker 1: of law by any means necessary. Jack Smith, if he
Speaker 1: had any if he had any sense of decency, any
Speaker 1: sense of shame, would hide his head in a bag
Speaker 1: for the rest of his adult's life. Frankly, he should
Speaker 1: go back to Holland, which memory serves where he actually
Speaker 1: came back the United States from he was living in Europe.
Speaker 1: Unbelievable stuff. So now what now?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 1: I want to see charges filed. I want to see
Speaker 1: investigations further and charge just filed. I want to know,
Speaker 1: and I think most American voters want to know the
Speaker 1: exact extent of the collusion between Jack Smith, Fannie Willis,
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg, and potentially others. Maybe it's James who knows.
Speaker 1: Let's see where the inquiry leads. There are statutes on
Speaker 1: the book for this. There's a criminal Statute eighteen US Code,
Speaker 1: Section two forty one, a criminal conspiracy against rights where
Speaker 1: you conspire to deny the constitutional rights of others. Well,
Speaker 1: that's what they did in this particular case. They're the
Speaker 1: speedy trial, the speedy trial clause. That's constitution rights, free speech,
Speaker 1: definitely constitution rights. I want to see charges brought. The
Speaker 1: American people need justice. How many massive scandals can we
Speaker 1: endure without getting justice or any accountability and just go
Speaker 1: on like as nothing. No, the time for justice is now.
Speaker 1: And in this case, justice means ending politicized justice and
Speaker 1: actually getting charges filed and the investigators continuing. When it
Speaker 1: comes to the dirt bag, quote unquote Roney, Special Council
Speaker 1: Jack Smith say with us, with the break, folks, we
Speaker 1: will be right back. Welcome back. So the big story
Speaker 1: in Washington, d c. Itself today, addition to the fallout
Speaker 1: from Jack Smith's really fire interrogation yesterday at the House
Speaker 1: Usual Community, the big story today is that this is
Speaker 1: the annual March for Life. So, first of all, God
Speaker 1: bless you if you are there in Washington C. If
Speaker 1: you are marching for life, in the March for Life.
Speaker 1: I have not actually ever participated in the Washington d
Speaker 1: C Big National March for Life. I participated in other
Speaker 1: local marches for Life. I most clearly remember doing so
Speaker 1: in Chicago when I was in law school in Chicago,
Speaker 1: when it was really really could it happens in January
Speaker 1: every year, it happens on the anniversary of the Roe
Speaker 1: versus Wade decision from nineteen seventy three, and I just
Speaker 1: remember going out with some of my classmates who were
Speaker 1: also involved as I was in the Law Students for
Speaker 1: Life chapter. I remember going out there in downtown Chicago
Speaker 1: in quite literally sub zero temperatures. But it's worth it.
Speaker 1: It's really worth it, because there is nothing more important
Speaker 1: Franklin in the realm of policy, policy and law then
Speaker 1: this particular issue. I mean, how could it be forget
Speaker 1: about faith? For a second, Faith is obviously deeply important.
Speaker 1: We're all about faith on the show. We're all about
Speaker 1: the religion. Religion, We're all about the Bible. My syndicate
Speaker 1: a calm that just came out earlier today. You can
Speaker 1: find that out that Newsweek, various sale media properties such
Speaker 1: as town Hall, PG Media and so forth.
Speaker 3: There.
Speaker 1: My comm today is about the Ten Commandments litigation in
Speaker 1: the US corpiols for the fifth circuit, which which we
Speaker 1: discussed earlier this week on the Josh Ammershow so, we're
Speaker 1: all about faith, but you don't even need to go
Speaker 1: through a biblical or religious lens in order to land
Speaker 1: on the right side of the pro life issue. I've
Speaker 1: been passionate about this issue for so so long, since
Speaker 1: well before I had my own religious observant awakening in Adulton.
Speaker 1: Because all you need is a modicum of common sense,
Speaker 1: a modicum of understanding of a basic biology, a basic embryology.
Speaker 1: You know, I was reading this, I got acquainted connected
Speaker 1: to this PhD student at the University of Chicago, if
Speaker 1: memory serves it was there in Northwestern won the Chicago
Speaker 1: based schools, and he got PhD at this point probably
Speaker 1: six seven years ago. And his studies dissertation that he
Speaker 1: did was, among things today, was he took a global
Speaker 1: survey of biologists. His survey was roughly four to five
Speaker 1: thousand biologists there, and he asked them, among other questions,
Speaker 1: when does life begin, and the percentage who said the
Speaker 1: life begins at fertilization, which made pro lifers call conception.
Speaker 1: It's the same thing. The egg is fertilized, there the
Speaker 1: percentage of the biologists PhDs who said fertilization was over
Speaker 1: ninety five percent. I don't hear the exact number, but
Speaker 1: it was really, really, really high. There is no debate
Speaker 1: in the scientific literature that life as we recognize it,
Speaker 1: meaning a distinct genetic code, distinct DNA, et cetera, forms
Speaker 1: at the moment that sperm fertilizes egg. And it is
Speaker 1: perhaps for that reason that the pro life fight has
Speaker 1: always been about trying to end abortion. You know, there
Speaker 1: was this information operation that happens around the time of
Speaker 1: the Jackson Versus Women's Health Formance decision, the massive Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decision at the Court that came out in the
Speaker 1: summer of twenty twenty two, three and a half years ago. Now,
Speaker 1: there was this misinformation operation coming from the left. Oh,
Speaker 1: you guys won. Okay, you know, like golf clap. You know,
Speaker 1: we hate it, but you guys won. There you got
Speaker 1: abortion kicked back. The States say it's no longer a
Speaker 1: Fourteenth Amendments constitutionalized issue. There, game over. Let's call it truce,
Speaker 1: to which I said, uh, what truce? This is not
Speaker 1: the result here, buddy. I'm really happy. I'm really really
Speaker 1: happy that the Dobbs case went the way it did.
Speaker 1: Trust me, in fact, was actually my own former boss,
Speaker 1: Judge James Hoe, of these corpials for the Fifth Circuit,
Speaker 1: who sat on the lower court panel in the Fifth
Speaker 1: Circuit out of this underlying Mississippi abortion law that ends
Speaker 1: up getting litigated there. So I followed that case very
Speaker 1: very closely from its earliest instantiation. By the way, a
Speaker 1: sign note before we proceed, I think it's also important
Speaker 1: to note that we still don't have an answer. By
Speaker 1: the way, to the leak, I mean, I think like
Speaker 1: I'm the only one who still thinks about this. There
Speaker 1: was a leak of the sam Alito Penn's majority draft
Speaker 1: opinion in the Dobbs case. That thing leaked to Josh
Speaker 1: Gerstein and his co author of Politico. In early May
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. The Court did some sham investigation, some
Speaker 1: internal investigation where they said, our hands are tied. We
Speaker 1: don't know what we're doing here. What I mean, the
Speaker 1: pool of people who this could be is literally under
Speaker 1: one hundred. We're talking like sixty to seventy eighty people.
Speaker 1: The most the justice, they're lawkirks, the janitorial staff, I mean,
Speaker 1: the list of people who possibly could have had access
Speaker 1: to that is really small. We should know, we really,
Speaker 1: really really should know who leaked that opinion. And I
Speaker 1: think the travesty Frankie that we don't know who it is.
Speaker 1: But in any event, Dobbs comes out and it's a
Speaker 1: very standard history and tradition originalistic opinion from Justice Leo.
Speaker 1: There the issue kicks back to the legislatures. Legislature is implural,
Speaker 1: by the way, not just the States, but also the Congress.
Speaker 1: Congress has an absolute role to play when it comes
Speaker 1: to abortional legislation. Do not let anyone tell you that
Speaker 1: there is no role to play for Congress when it
Speaker 1: comes to trying to legislate on the abortion issue. Section
Speaker 1: five to the Fourteenth Amendments, known as the Enforcement Clause,
Speaker 1: permits Congress to legislate to enforce sections one through four
Speaker 1: of the Fourteenth Amendments as necessary.
Speaker 6: Well.
Speaker 1: Section one fourteen Amendments has the Equal Protection Clause, which
Speaker 1: says that all persons must be treated equally purposiest of
Speaker 1: the law. I'd argue for many years actually that under
Speaker 1: the original understanding of the Equal Protection Clause of eighteen
Speaker 1: sixty eight that unborn human beings ought to be construed
Speaker 1: as persons. Congress should legislate, and God willing, ideally you'll
Speaker 1: have a court who actually rule on these fourteen Amendment
Speaker 1: lines for constitutional parenthood, constitutional personhood. Excuse me, because that
Speaker 1: really is what ought to happen.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: The jodministrant has recently been something of a mixed bag
Speaker 1: when it comes to the pro life issue. So just
Speaker 1: this week, timing it to the March for Life, administration
Speaker 1: to the great credit, is announcing that they are expanding
Speaker 1: what's known as the Mexico City policies. So the Mexico
Speaker 1: City policy is a long standing ban on US taxpayer
Speaker 1: subsization of abortions overseas, essentially ever since Ronald Reague announced
Speaker 1: this thing back in nineteen eighty four. You have Republican
Speaker 1: presidents that institute it, Democrat presidents that rescind it, Republican
Speaker 1: presidences put it back in. It's basically just an ever,
Speaker 1: just a total never ending seesaw. So the trumpministration correctly
Speaker 1: and laudably nobly expanding the Mesco Citney policy now to
Speaker 1: cover not just subsization for abortions overseas, but also subsization
Speaker 1: for gender ideology and DEI programs overseas as well. So
Speaker 1: that's very good. Unfortunately, some other stuff administration has been
Speaker 1: less good. So recently, Donald Trump speaking at the Kennedy
Speaker 1: Center or the Trump Kenny Center, I guess as we're
Speaker 1: renaming it. Trump was talking to Republicans in Congress, encouraging
Speaker 1: them to be flexible on the Hide Amendment. Well, the
Speaker 1: High Amendment is a long standing provision that prevents US
Speaker 1: taxpayer subsization of abortion. Domestically, that there will be no
Speaker 1: taxpayer funds that subsize abortion through Medicaid, Medicare, or Title
Speaker 1: ten or any other federal programs. That would be a disaster.
Speaker 1: There's no need to go weak on the High Amendment,
Speaker 1: the notion that American should not be subsidizing abortion. It's
Speaker 1: actually a very politically popular issue. Republicans do not run
Speaker 1: away from that for a second. That, with all due
Speaker 1: spectmister President, that is very very bad advice. It would
Speaker 1: be a tragic error, and frankly, it would just be
Speaker 1: a total disaster. Similarly, it seems to me that the
Speaker 1: FDA and HHS more generally, under Secretary Bobby Kennedy and
Speaker 1: his underlings there at the FDA are going way way
Speaker 1: too soft on the abortion pill, on MiFi pristone, which
Speaker 1: is known to have extremely dangerous side effects. There, biff
Speaker 1: a pristone should not be readily publicly available. You should
Speaker 1: not be able to just walk into a CVS or
Speaker 1: a Walgreens and obtain this drug. It's a legitimate debate
Speaker 1: as to whether or not, if abortion is illegal, should
Speaker 1: this be legal in the first place? There, I think
Speaker 1: a lot of us, frankly would say notes that, but
Speaker 1: at a bare minimum, at a bare minimum, this is
Speaker 1: not a safe, effective, necessary medication as the abortion law
Speaker 1: describes it. There, and Josh Hawley has been at the
Speaker 1: tip of the sphere of the Republican legislators pushing back
Speaker 1: against that, to his great credit. Now, the broader point
Speaker 1: is this to take us back to the March for
Speaker 1: life and Dobbs and Roe versus Wait, we're not stopping.
Speaker 1: We in the pro life community, and I've been passed
Speaker 1: by this issue for my entire adult life. I consider
Speaker 1: lightlave Rose a friend. I've spoken with the Live Action conferences.
Speaker 1: I found that my Lastuents Live chapter, I'm all in
Speaker 1: on the right to life issue. We are not stopping
Speaker 1: until there is abortion abolition in America. We are not
Speaker 1: stopping until abortion goes the way of chattel slavery. Yes,
Speaker 1: those two issues actually are essentially one and the same.
Speaker 1: Slavery was the subjugation of human beings, treating some human
Speaker 1: beings as not human beings. Abortion similarly is to treat smaller, tiny,
Speaker 1: microscopic human beings as if they are not human beings legally,
Speaker 1: speaking of the exact same fabricated, made up constitutional standard,
Speaker 1: so called substant due process. That's what gave us slavery
Speaker 1: again in dred Scott's and that's what gave us abortion Roverswade.
Speaker 1: The similarities keep on going. Fundamentally, the question is not
Speaker 1: one of states' rights or, as Stephen Douglas would have
Speaker 1: put it, popular sovereignty. Fundamentally, the question is, as Douglas's
Speaker 1: great rival, Abraham Lincoln put it in an eighteen fifty
Speaker 1: four speech, whether or in that context a black man
Speaker 1: is or is not a man? The state's rights or
Speaker 1: popular sovereignty is a dodge. The moral truth of the matter,
Speaker 1: is the unborn person a man, a human being or not?
Speaker 1: We know through our faculties, through a moral intuition, through
Speaker 1: biology itself. The answer that question is yes, and we
Speaker 1: will keep on fighting until that's protected under the rule
Speaker 1: of law. Stay with us with the break, folks, We'll
Speaker 1: be right back on the other side. Welcome back. So
Speaker 1: if the pro life fight is the moral and legal
Speaker 1: crown jewel of all of our contemporary policy and legal fights,
Speaker 1: it is the immigration issue that is a cultural and
Speaker 1: civilizational epicenter. These are really two of the issues that,
Speaker 1: in mindsmation, define what it means to be conservative, what
Speaker 1: it means to be on the right. And immigration, as
Speaker 1: bargain in the show Countless Times, is the one issue,
Speaker 1: the one issue that touches on every single other issue
Speaker 1: under the sun. There's a reason that I care so
Speaker 1: much about. It's similar to the pro life issue. Immigration
Speaker 1: is the issue that affects wages. It affects is the
Speaker 1: labor market. It affects supply and demand for labor and
Speaker 1: for all other goods. It affects day to day security
Speaker 1: when it comes to whether we have criminal aliens, people
Speaker 1: who we do not know, who have not been vetted
Speaker 1: here in the country. Is an issue that affects national security.
Speaker 1: Who do we have here who we are letting in
Speaker 1: to affect our policymakers and affect all the levers of
Speaker 1: power in Washington, See and so forth. It certainly affects culture,
Speaker 1: everything down from language to day to day customers, mannerisms,
Speaker 1: how we think about American civics, American sense of self,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And most importantly, it gets the very nature
Speaker 1: of who we are. Who is the we, the people
Speaker 1: that are sovereign in this country per the preamble of
Speaker 1: the United States Constitution. So I care a lot about immigration,
Speaker 1: and I've been following the Trump ministrations immigration efforts since
Speaker 1: day one. I olthough we would kind of just pause
Speaker 1: and take stock a little bit of how things are
Speaker 1: going thus far for the Trump miministration when it comes
Speaker 1: to an immigration perspective. And I started thinking about this
Speaker 1: a lot because just a truly delectable headline, a delectable
Speaker 1: headline that I saw just with pastcal days, which is
Speaker 1: that Mahmu Koldili. You remember him, the utter miscreant, the malcontent,
Speaker 1: the former Columbia University graduate student there of some sort
Speaker 1: of Syrian background who became just a total total stooge
Speaker 1: of the of the pro Hamas Kafia clad cause there,
Speaker 1: known primarily for his shrieking about the Zionists and the Jews,
Speaker 1: and the this and the that there. The Trump minstration
Speaker 1: has been trying to deport this guy for almost a
Speaker 1: year now, which, by the way, first thing is note insane, insane.
Speaker 1: These are political questions. For two centuries the United States,
Speaker 1: the courts did not get involved when it comes in
Speaker 1: immigration law. There's a long standing doctrine in federal courts
Speaker 1: known as the plenary power doctrine, which essentially means that
Speaker 1: the political branches Article on in the Congress and Article
Speaker 1: two the executive branch have cleinaries that that is to say,
Speaker 1: absolute power and when it comes to the ability and
Speaker 1: the discretion, so if they are so inclined to an
Speaker 1: extent to enforce this nation's immigration laws. That's why, properly speaking,
Speaker 1: I've been arguing for a long time that this actually
Speaker 1: I don't think really such thing as guaranteed Article three
Speaker 1: judicial review when it comes to immigration enforcement. Legislation of
Speaker 1: congressponds to legislation on top of that, and say, okay,
Speaker 1: the court should have I say, here, that's their progative.
Speaker 1: They're allowed to legislate in that arena there, that's not
Speaker 1: constitutionally required. In fact, the very first time, the very
Speaker 1: first time I love this fact, the very first time
Speaker 1: that the United States Supreme Court ever ever said that
Speaker 1: a federal immigration statute was unconstitutional. It came in two
Speaker 1: thy eighteen, the first Trump term, in a case called
Speaker 1: Sessions versus Demaya, which is a constitutional void for Vaguans statute.
Speaker 1: It was actually really our first indication that Neil gors
Speaker 1: sister is going to go a little wobbly when it
Speaker 1: came to legal aliens, and eventually we learned to have
Speaker 1: been the boss dot case transgenderism. Neither here nor there
Speaker 1: anyway in saying that the courts have been as involved
Speaker 1: as they are. The immigration issue is really ground zero
Speaker 1: of what I refer to as the anti Trump digital insurrection.
Speaker 1: But they've been trying so hard. Mark Rubio was talking
Speaker 1: a lot in those early months about mach mu Khalil,
Speaker 1: who is the embodiment, the embodiment of someone who should
Speaker 1: not be here. Is here on a visa. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter whether it's a green card, whether it's a Taurus visa.
Speaker 1: Who cares, You're not a citizen. You're here as legal alien,
Speaker 1: and you are cheering on the US recognized foreign terrorist organizations.
Speaker 1: I got news for you buddy out, like literally leave,
Speaker 1: get the heck out of here. And people say due process,
Speaker 1: due process. No, that's not how it works. If you
Speaker 1: are an alien, I would argue legal or illegal. There's
Speaker 1: a case in nineteen fifty three at the Upreme Court,
Speaker 1: a case called Shaughnessy, Justice Robert Jackson. Just Robert Jackson,
Speaker 1: by the way, who was known as a champion of
Speaker 1: due process, who was the prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials
Speaker 1: against the Nazis there, this guy is no kind of
Speaker 1: anti due process slouch, so he writes in this immigration
Speaker 1: case called Shaughnessy versus the United States ex. Real Mese
Speaker 1: in nineteen fifty three, Justice Robert Jackson writes, quote due process.
Speaker 1: It does not invest any alien with the right to
Speaker 1: enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the
Speaker 1: right to remain against the national will. You see that
Speaker 1: the national will when the national will meaning we the people.
Speaker 1: There's that thing again, when we the people say Sayonara, sucker,
Speaker 1: you're out of there now. If Congress wants to provide
Speaker 1: additional additional due process appard, if Congress wants to say
Speaker 1: that you have a guaranteed Article three, Federal Court hearing
Speaker 1: to contest a deportation proceeding. I guess they're within their
Speaker 1: rights to do that. That would be utterly asinine. I
Speaker 1: have no idea why in the world they would ever
Speaker 1: do such a thing. But we the people do fundamentally
Speaker 1: call the shots here when it comes to immigration. So
Speaker 1: apparently Mack Mukhalil, he gets back to where we start here,
Speaker 1: he's finally going. He's going all the way to Algeria.
Speaker 1: I absolutely just love this. So Tristia McLoughlin, who is
Speaker 1: the DHS Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, said about Mack
Speaker 1: muccleil quote, it looks like he'll go to Algeria. That's
Speaker 1: what the thought is right now. So it looks like
Speaker 1: he will probably go to Algeria. I just love this.
Speaker 1: I can't help a smile. Hopefully there will be much
Speaker 1: much more to come, the so called Maryland man, Kilmar
Speaker 1: Abrigo Garcia. Hopefully that guy leaves and never comes back.
Speaker 1: Hopefully all these other pro Hamas freaks, these Cathia Clyde radicals,
Speaker 1: the people on the campuses, the people in Yearborn, Michigan,
Speaker 1: wherever you are, if you are here and you support
Speaker 1: foreign terrorist organizations, you are here against the national will
Speaker 1: by definition, and you should go. You should leave, and
Speaker 1: if you don't leave, then we will force your hand.
Speaker 1: More generally speaking, it's worth noting that this is the
Speaker 1: first year in a very very long time now the
Speaker 1: number of immigrants living in the United States is actually declining.
Speaker 1: So after fifty years of essentially year in, year out
Speaker 1: immigrant growth, by June twenty twenty five, last summer, so
Speaker 1: America's immigrant population had decreased by more than a million.
Speaker 1: So then you kind of fast forward to current data,
Speaker 1: and we've had a substantially substantial decline in the percentage
Speaker 1: of immigrants who are here. So a lot of it
Speaker 1: actually is self deportation. A lot of it really is
Speaker 1: coming through this CBP one app The administration is essentially
Speaker 1: offering a fee if you want to go ahead and
Speaker 1: voluntarily self deport DHS saying in a press release of
Speaker 1: about a month ago that six hundred and five thousand
Speaker 1: people overall have been deported since inauguration day last January twentieth.
Speaker 1: A fascinating poll that I saw New York Times Sienna Politics,
Speaker 1: which I saw a courtesy of Ryan Gradusky, a blogger
Speaker 1: who is very, very good on these issues. So New
Speaker 1: York Times Sanna poll essentially asked, do you support or
Speaker 1: oppose Donald Trump's Administration's his administrations and deportation of illegal aliens.
Speaker 1: So the overall breakdown is you have fifty to forty
Speaker 1: seven net approval, which, by the way, I mean, how
Speaker 1: many times the media try to bamboozle you and convince
Speaker 1: you of the contrary. How many times have you heard
Speaker 1: that Trump's immigration policy is a net loser, that He's
Speaker 1: going to totally lose it with women and Hispanics? Whatever, No,
Speaker 1: the American people support this narrowly, but it's a fifty
Speaker 1: to forty seven issue. Men deeply supported by nineteen points,
Speaker 1: Women slubly unsupportive, White voters supported by eleven points. Hispanics,
Speaker 1: by the way, still forty two percent support. It's bare
Speaker 1: this policy, these policies are barely underwater with Hispanics. So
Speaker 1: I'm not buying it. I'm not buying the polling hysteria
Speaker 1: on this really really whatsoever. Now, if you look further
Speaker 1: down the cross tabs in this particular New York Times
Speaker 1: sian Ne pol, you will see that some of these
Speaker 1: some of these cross tabs have swung back to the
Speaker 1: median from twenty twenty four to twenty twenty four, this
Speaker 1: great realignment election where Don from only loses Hispanic voters
Speaker 1: by three points, competes very nicely with female voters, with women,
Speaker 1: a younger voters, etc. Or there So some of it
Speaker 1: is regretting to the mean a little bit. Republicans very
Speaker 1: much should keep an eye on that. But the most
Speaker 1: important point is this immigration has to be enforced, whether
Speaker 1: it is in Minneapolis with ice, whether it is in Dearborn, Michigan,
Speaker 1: whether it is pertaining to mach Mu Khalil in or
Speaker 1: around the Columbia University campus in Morning Slide Heights in
Speaker 1: New York City. Immigration law must be enforced. One because
Speaker 1: it's the law, and federal law is supreme this country,
Speaker 1: both as a basic moral matter and legally under Article
Speaker 1: six of the Constitution. But immigration law must be enforced
Speaker 1: additionally for the very simple reason that it's really important,
Speaker 1: that is really really important that we know who is
Speaker 1: in the country and who is not. We don't even know.
Speaker 1: We literally do not know how many illegal aliens are
Speaker 1: currently in this country. I've seen estimates as high as
Speaker 1: just eight million. That just Joe Biden let in When
Speaker 1: I sat down with Larry Elder out in California earlier
Speaker 1: this week on air, Larry said that he'ser potentially as
Speaker 1: high as thirty million, potentially if memory sort of. I think
Speaker 1: that's what Larry Elder said. I mean, we literally do
Speaker 1: not know, but we should because we're a people, and
Speaker 1: we're a country, and we have borders, and we're a nation,
Speaker 1: and you have to know who is here and who
Speaker 1: is not here for every possible reason, and for crime,
Speaker 1: for security, for the economy, for benefits, for this. So
Speaker 1: continue the self deportations, with the CBP one app, get
Speaker 1: e verified, get workforce enforcement, and the biometric visa fraud,
Speaker 1: and get these bumps the heck out of there. The
Speaker 1: polling is not as bad as media says. In fact,
Speaker 1: in many ways it's actually good. Stay the course, mister President,
Speaker 1: Stay with us. We'll be right back. The World Economic
Speaker 1: Forum at Davos, the great globalist junket, coming to an
Speaker 1: end on Friday, January twenty third. A lot of the
Speaker 1: talk was about Greenland. It seems, as we discuss on
Speaker 1: Thursday Show, it seems that Donald Trump came to something
Speaker 1: of an agreement with NATO with Marcrucci the General Secretary
Speaker 1: of NATO, perhaps with the Kingdom of Denmark as well.
Speaker 1: We are still waiting for some of those details to materialize,
Speaker 1: but it appears that at a bare minimum, the United
Speaker 1: States will have increased access to Greenlands. Personally, personally, if
Speaker 1: I'm putting my cards on the table, I actually support
Speaker 1: going further. I hope that an actual deal can be
Speaker 1: reached for the United States to actually formally acquire Greenlands
Speaker 1: as much as we have acquired any number of territories
Speaker 1: in American history. As I mentioned, we have a history
Speaker 1: actually acquiring territory just from the Danes. The US Virgin
Speaker 1: Island stay were formerly known as the Danish West Indies
Speaker 1: prior to the US purchasing them via a treaty in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventeen. We will see where that goes. But other
Speaker 1: news coming out of Davos we saw on the sidelines
Speaker 1: of the junket we saw the formal unveiling of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's Board of Peace. You've been talking a lot about
Speaker 1: this Board of Peace, which is basically his vision. Well,
Speaker 1: it's a little unclearfying what exactly the vision is. So
Speaker 1: the border piece is an international conglomerates, whereas a lot
Speaker 1: of nations involved there, and a lot of folks are
Speaker 1: saying that this looks like it has potential to rival
Speaker 1: the Nine Nations. Donald Trump not actually putting down those rumors.
Speaker 1: In fact, he's actually been fed in the flames potentially
Speaker 1: trying to get a rival to the Nine Nations there.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Nine Nations is just an absolute wretched
Speaker 1: hive of scum and villainy, to use the Star Wars analogy,
Speaker 1: and it really should go the way of the Dodo
Speaker 1: Perd sooner rather than later. So the etend is an
Speaker 1: attempt to phase out the UN with some good old
Speaker 1: fashioned American leadership that I find myself pretty supportive of it.
Speaker 1: Now they're starting, they're starting this Board of Peace thing
Speaker 1: in Gaza. The first task, per Donald Trump and per
Speaker 1: Steve Whitkoff, Jared Kusner and the others who are involved
Speaker 1: with the border piece, the first task is to demilitarize
Speaker 1: and rebuild Gosa, which, to put them mildly easier easier
Speaker 1: set than time. Now, a number of countries have already
Speaker 1: announced that they are signing on to this Board of
Speaker 1: Peace initiative from Donald Trump, a lot of Arab countries.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to read through some of them. Here
Speaker 1: we have Bahrain, Morocco, you have Argentina and Drhagimla. You
Speaker 1: have Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Costvo, Pakistan, Paraguay, Kattar,
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the uae Uzbekistan and Mongolia. So a
Speaker 1: lot of countries, frankly, a lot of Muslim and or
Speaker 1: Arab countries. You will notice that a lot of the
Speaker 1: countries that are not signing up thus far are actually
Speaker 1: a lot of the European powers, right, So France, Germany,
Speaker 1: the UK are not getting involved thus far. They are
Speaker 1: upset that Russia, frankly, has been invited that essentially their region.
Speaker 1: They're also just a little upset over Donald Trump's shall
Speaker 1: we say, aggressive negotiations when it comes to his attempts
Speaker 1: to acquire greenlands for the United States. So the traditional
Speaker 1: European powers are not there. Neither is Canada. In fact,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump having a little bit of back and forth
Speaker 1: on Thursday evening with Mark Karney essentially disinviting him from
Speaker 1: joining there. So this this somewhat funny and also somewhat
Speaker 1: perplexing and bemusing tension between the United States and our
Speaker 1: dubiously friendly northerly neighbors continues. So Dnald Trump obviously a
Speaker 1: big fan of this board. And here was President Trump
Speaker 1: in Davos this week talking about the Board of Peace
Speaker 1: that he has just now launched.
Speaker 6: We have a lot of great people that want to join.
Speaker 6: It's going to be the most prestigious board ever formed.
Speaker 6: The President is a member. We have major countries and
Speaker 6: some need parliamentary approval, but for the most part, everybody
Speaker 6: wants to be on. I have a little bit of
Speaker 6: the opposite problem. People want to be on and we
Speaker 6: didn't ask them. They want to get on, but we'll
Speaker 6: look at the countries. So we're going to have it.
Speaker 6: I think it's the greatest board ever formed. And we
Speaker 6: call it the Board a piece. That's what it is,
Speaker 6: all right.
Speaker 1: So classic Trumpian hyperbole, bragadoshia, the greatest board ever formed. Okay,
Speaker 1: your minelage may vary, mister President, but it's start. I suppose,
Speaker 1: by the way, real quick he was meeting there, as
Speaker 1: you saw in the video with President l CCI of Egypt.
Speaker 1: I wish that the United States under President Trump was
Speaker 1: exerting more pressure on Egypt than we currently are. Egypt
Speaker 1: holds the cards to a lot of these thorny issues
Speaker 1: currently affecting the Middle East and beyond. Egypt is the
Speaker 1: only country other than Israel that has a land border
Speaker 1: with Gaza. And more to the point, Egypt is the
Speaker 1: second largest recipients, the second large recipients of the United
Speaker 1: States foreign aid on a year in year basis. The
Speaker 1: only country higher again is is Israel. So Egypt gets
Speaker 1: a lot of money for various reasons that mostly go
Speaker 1: back to the history of nineteen seventies nineteen eighties. Neither
Speaker 1: here nor there for present purposes. The point is that
Speaker 1: the US has a ton of leverage, a ton of
Speaker 1: leverage on Egypt if it inclines to use it there.
Speaker 1: And I'm not entirely sure that we're actually getting out
Speaker 1: of that relationship what we should be getting there now.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of questions about this whole border piece,
Speaker 1: which again is starting in Gaza. I mentioned the countries
Speaker 1: that have signed up for it. You'll notice that Katar
Speaker 1: and Turkey are two of them. This is emerging as
Speaker 1: something of a sour point of a point of disagreements
Speaker 1: between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister bb Netanyahu Netiyah,
Speaker 1: who has been adamant he's not saying that no Arab
Speaker 1: countries can't be involved. I think he has probably has
Speaker 1: no problem of fact, I guess with Bahrain, the UAE,
Speaker 1: probably even Saudi Arabia being involved here when it comes
Speaker 1: to the post Gaza demilitarization and reconstruction. But Netilla who
Speaker 1: has stridently, stridently objected to Katar in Turkey in particular
Speaker 1: being involved because Katar under the ruling Altani family and
Speaker 1: Turkey under their quarter century long now strong men recip
Speaker 1: type Erdawa. They are massive sponsors and bank rollers of
Speaker 1: the Muzzi Brotherhood and huge sponsors of Hamas, the specific
Speaker 1: Palisane Arab offshoot of the International Brotherhood. And Netiao has
Speaker 1: made very clear that he does not intend to allow
Speaker 1: Katar and Turkey into the Gaza strip. So something here's
Speaker 1: gonna have to happen. I mean Donald Trump's talking, I
Speaker 1: mean they're on the list, they are literally on the list.
Speaker 1: Katar in Turkey and Natiyah was saying that they can't
Speaker 1: be involved there. And again I mentioned that Egypt controls
Speaker 1: one corridor into Gaza. They don't really do much with
Speaker 1: that corridor, but Israel holds most of the keys to
Speaker 1: Gaza there, So how that's going to play out, especially
Speaker 1: coming after this extremely warm visit the natsignat who just
Speaker 1: had to Trump in Florida in late December through New
Speaker 1: Year's Eve. Especially also given the backdrop, given the backdrop
Speaker 1: of the whole Iran the whole Iran confrogation. Let's not
Speaker 1: forget that. Donald Trump also just over the past day
Speaker 1: or so threatens yet again it said that an armada
Speaker 1: and armada which is an old school term for a
Speaker 1: very very big naval and air demonstration of military superiority
Speaker 1: and armada is headed to the Persian Gulf. We already
Speaker 1: have a ton of assets there. The US is Abraham Lincoln.
Speaker 1: This aircraft carry strike group has been headed towards the
Speaker 1: Gulf from the South China state. Just to reiterate my
Speaker 1: stance on the Iran issue right now, I would not
Speaker 1: have encouraged Donald Trump to draw the red line that
Speaker 1: he drew, But he drew a very clear red line
Speaker 1: against the Iranians slaughtering their own people, and they stomped
Speaker 1: all over the bread line. So it is my contention
Speaker 1: I've been arguing for some time now that the red
Speaker 1: line must now be enforced. I can't say who I
Speaker 1: heard this from, but I did hear from a somewhat
Speaker 1: reliable source that potentially could see the President acting on
Speaker 1: that as soon as this weekend. Again, we'll see if
Speaker 1: that transpires, but stay tuned for that now. At the
Speaker 1: same time, the focus of this border piece is not
Speaker 1: just Iran, but is really just Gaza. Gaza is their
Speaker 1: number one initiative. In fact, Mark Rubia said about the
Speaker 1: border piece quote, we are here today because the President
Speaker 1: Trump's vision. If we go back just a few months ago,
Speaker 1: people thought that what was happening in Gaza was impossible
Speaker 1: to solve. No one thought that we would ever come
Speaker 1: to a resolution without more fighting and more bloodshed. So
Speaker 1: the focus really is on in Gaza. And my big
Speaker 1: point when it comes to Gaza in particular is this,
Speaker 1: The problem with Gaza is the people of Gaza. I've
Speaker 1: heard a lot of shatter this week. There are these
Speaker 1: kind of statements of Jared Kushner talking about he's going
Speaker 1: to go in with this Kushner family real estate expertise
Speaker 1: and try to rebuild Gaza. I mean, let's try to
Speaker 1: get like the four seasons and conmunis and you know,
Speaker 1: the Ritz Carlton and Gaza City. And I'm being a
Speaker 1: little facetious here, but that's more or less what they're saying.
Speaker 1: And I mean, I'm trying to think this through. Is
Speaker 1: that possible when like you have these hotels and condos
Speaker 1: whatever over hundreds and hundreds of miles of terror tunnels,
Speaker 1: the Hamas terror tunnel. I mean, how's that going to
Speaker 1: go away? But the bigger point is even this, what
Speaker 1: about the radicalized Arabs in Gaza, all one and a half,
Speaker 1: the two million, whatever the exact population is. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: what are you going to do with them? You're going
Speaker 1: to try to denazify them after kind of like what
Speaker 1: we did to the Germans after World War two? Good luck?
Speaker 1: Good luck? Radical Islam is quite a beast. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure that denotification of this incredibly radicalized jihad, terror supporting organization,
Speaker 1: of this population that supports Hamas palacining as Lama Chihad
Speaker 1: al Kaita isis these people the poll in favor of
Speaker 1: suicide bombings, all these terrible forms of murders jihad, I'm
Speaker 1: not un telling sure how that's gonna happen. Frankly. So look,
Speaker 1: don't get me wrong, I would love this to succeed.
Speaker 1: Everyone wants to see Gaza be made great again, let's
Speaker 1: call it. Everyone wants that. I'm genuinely not sure exactly
Speaker 1: how we get from point A to point B. I'm
Speaker 1: not telling sure, Frankly, that's Steve whick caff and Jack
Speaker 1: Kushner know either, But I certainly know that I'm wishing
Speaker 1: them the best of luck again. As long as katarn
Speaker 1: Turkey guys really just cannot be involved here. That is
Speaker 1: such a freaking insult. Hope you, Jeordy. Today's show folks,
Speaker 1: have a wonderful evening and a great weekend. Josh Hammer
Speaker 1: signing off, we will see you on Monday. The Josh
Speaker 1: Hammer Show is a member of the Trust Project.