Speaker 1: Broadcasting from the Hip Hop Weekly Studios. I'd like to
Speaker 1: welcome you to another episode of Civic Cipher, where our
Speaker 1: mission is to foster allyship, empathy and understanding. I am
Speaker 1: your host, Ramsey's job. Big shout out to q Ward
Speaker 1: who is in the City of Angels getting you the
Speaker 1: coverage that you need and out there making it happen.
Speaker 1: And have no fear. He will be back in the
Speaker 1: studio soon enough. But in the meantime, we have a
Speaker 1: very special guest in the studio with us today. He
Speaker 1: goes by the name of Vladimir Gagic. He is an independent,
Speaker 1: non partisan political and legal commentator. He's a former lawyer
Speaker 1: and a social media influencer found online at Toxic vlad
Speaker 1: that's t xikv la D.
Speaker 2: So welcome to the show with thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I appreciate you coming on. And the crazy thing
Speaker 1: about kind of the goings on right now around the
Speaker 1: country is that one of the things that we were
Speaker 1: concerned about when we did the episode on Project twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five when we had to kind of cover the
Speaker 1: rulings from the Supreme Court once Trump took office and
Speaker 1: his attempts to circumvent certain rulings and ultimately limit the
Speaker 1: powers of the courts. Is that for a lot of folks,
Speaker 1: they don't really know what that means or how that looks.
Speaker 1: People hear words like authoritarianism, they hear words like tyranny.
Speaker 1: They hear all these sorts of things, and they sound
Speaker 1: like scary words. But you know, there's a way that
Speaker 1: folks can do this legally, and that Trump is doing this,
Speaker 1: and the lay person who doesn't you know, work with,
Speaker 1: you know, the law very closely, may not know about it.
Speaker 1: So what we're going to do today is try to
Speaker 1: bring folks up to speed on what's happening and maybe
Speaker 1: even what things folks can do to support their lawyers
Speaker 1: as the lawyers support communities around the country, and so
Speaker 1: stick around for that and so much more. But before
Speaker 1: we go any further, it is time, as always for
Speaker 1: some Ebony excellence, and today's Ebney excellence comes from Black
Speaker 1: Enterprise out of Charlotte, North Carolina. For those that know,
Speaker 1: Charlotte is one of the country's premier cities for black
Speaker 1: owned businesses, and a new effort from Kathy Dawkins and
Speaker 1: other members of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Black Chamber of commerce
Speaker 1: is set to create a hub designed specifically for those businesses.
Speaker 1: According to The Charlotte Observer, the Chamber acquired an unused
Speaker 1: property and has poured resources into transforming the building into
Speaker 1: what Dawkins called a one stop shop for professionals in
Speaker 1: small businesses and hopes of helping entrepreneurs, improving Charlotte's economic growth,
Speaker 1: and fighting food insecurity. The Innovation Center, as the property
Speaker 1: is now known, will feature an agritech program for farmers,
Speaker 1: event spaces for businesses and business meetings, co working spaces
Speaker 1: for startups, entrepreneurs, and nonprofits, as well as a retail
Speaker 1: store and a distribution center for small businesses. The Chamber
Speaker 1: spent approximately thirty thousand dollars to acquire the building and
Speaker 1: is in the process of launching at three point seven
Speaker 1: million dollar fundraising campaign to attract funding but the necessary
Speaker 1: renovations to accommodate the chambers vision for the space, and
Speaker 1: this obviously is very important, especially in trump two point
Speaker 1: zero America, where things like this that you know, there
Speaker 1: have historically been funds delineated for programs like this, community improvement,
Speaker 1: things like that, those sorts of things are limited, particularly
Speaker 1: insofar as marginalized communities are concerned. So anybody doing anything
Speaker 1: under this current administration, we want to make sure that
Speaker 1: we shout them out. We also want to take the
Speaker 1: time to shout out you know, North Carolina, it is
Speaker 1: a resilient state and Charlotte is a resilient city. And
Speaker 1: for those locally that tune into us on ninety eight
Speaker 1: point seven every Sunday morning, So big shout out to
Speaker 1: Charlotte for holding us down out there. All right, So
Speaker 1: Vladimir Gagic there are Well, you know what, before we
Speaker 1: get into the weeds here, we wanted people to know
Speaker 1: who they're hearing from. So talk a little bit about yourself,
Speaker 1: a little bit about your journey, and then we'll get
Speaker 1: into the weeds, just so folks know, you know what
Speaker 1: it is that you have to offer this conversation.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you for having me on the show. Absolutely,
Speaker 2: it's nice to be here.
Speaker 3: I was a former attorney. I was a lawyer for
Speaker 3: about twenty years. I was born in Europe. My folks
Speaker 3: are from the Old Country Eastern Europe, Yakaslavia. They escaped
Speaker 3: communism back in the day. I was born in France.
Speaker 3: We moved to Sunny Slope in the eighties, went to
Speaker 3: school u of A University of Arizona two times, became
Speaker 3: a lawyer in two thousand and two, and I've basically
Speaker 3: been working as a criminal defense lawyers for twenty two
Speaker 3: years until the last couple of years that changed, and
Speaker 3: then I went on I want on social media just to.
Speaker 2: Tell everybody would happen to me. Okay, that's where I am.
Speaker 1: Well, I think twenty years certainly does qualify you to
Speaker 1: help us make heads or tails of what's going on
Speaker 1: nationally right now. Now. I also want to frame the
Speaker 1: conversation we're about to have, because again, for folks that
Speaker 1: don't know kind of what's going on nationally, for folks
Speaker 1: that are just coming to this conversation, it certainly does help.
Speaker 1: So you and I know each other through the National
Speaker 1: Action Network, the Phoenix, Arizona chapter, but it is the
Speaker 1: National Action Network. It is all over the country, and
Speaker 1: this is a Reverend Al Sharpton's sort of organization. So
Speaker 1: they sent over a statement to me, and I want
Speaker 1: to read it in its entirety because I think it
Speaker 1: helps paint the picture for the conversation we're about to have.
Speaker 1: So for those listening, buckle up. This is going to
Speaker 1: be a bit of a read, all right. Attorneys from
Speaker 1: across the country and even abroad have contacted the National
Speaker 1: Action Network NIX Metro Chapter, sharing deeply troubling accounts of
Speaker 1: disparate and often retaliatory treatment by their respective state bars.
Speaker 1: While many of these stories involve the Arizona State Bar,
Speaker 1: this is clearly a national issue, not a local one.
Speaker 1: We've heard from attorneys who were disciplined over minor clerical errors,
Speaker 1: while others for more privileged backgrounds face no consequences for
Speaker 1: more serious infractions. Some have been disbarred after whistleblowing or
Speaker 1: representing marginalized clients. One attorney was sanctioned for using a
Speaker 1: routine format in a legal document. Another faced retaliation after
Speaker 1: exposing prosecutorial misconduct. These stories share a common thread, a
Speaker 1: lack of due process, selective enforcement, and an alarming lack
Speaker 1: of transparency. Every day, new attorneys come forward asking to
Speaker 1: have their stories told. This is not just about an
Speaker 1: individual grievance, but it is a civil and human rights
Speaker 1: issue affecting the integrity of our legal system. The NA
Speaker 1: and Phoenix Metro Chapter will continue to raise these concerns
Speaker 1: nationally and work to ensure these voices are not silenced.
Speaker 1: Many of the attorneys who have come forward to the
Speaker 1: National Action Network Phoenix Metro Chapter have not only been
Speaker 1: disbarred or disciplined unjustly, but have also suffered devastating personal
Speaker 1: and professional consequences as a result. When an attorney is disciplined,
Speaker 1: especially without due process or for politically or racially motivated reasons,
Speaker 1: the impact goes far beyond professional embarronment embarrassment. It affects
Speaker 1: their ability to maintain a livelihood, to support their families,
Speaker 1: and to serve the communities that rely on them. Their
Speaker 1: client base often disappears overnight, and their reputation is irreparably damaged.
Speaker 1: We've spoken with attorneys who have dedicated their entire lives
Speaker 1: to this profession, some of whom have also served this
Speaker 1: country and the armed forces. They upheld the law both
Speaker 1: in the courtroom and on the battlefield, only to return
Speaker 1: home and face institutional retaliation simply because they didn't align
Speaker 1: with the Arizona State Bar's way of doing things. These
Speaker 1: are not people who neglected their duties or violated ethics.
Speaker 1: These or individuals who stood up for what is right,
Speaker 1: who represented marginalized communities and who sometimes challenge power for
Speaker 1: that they were targeted. This is a systemic problem that
Speaker 1: raises serious civil and hu rites concerns, and it exactly
Speaker 1: why ANA in Phoenix Metro continues to elevate these stories
Speaker 1: and to ensure that attorneys are not signs for doing
Speaker 1: the very thing the profession calls them to do advocate
Speaker 1: for justice. Attorneys from across the country and even abroad,
Speaker 1: have reached out to the National Action Network Phoenix Metro chapters,
Speaker 1: sharing their personal experiences of unfair and disparate treatment by
Speaker 1: state bar associations. This is not an isolated event. This
Speaker 1: is widespread and each day we continue to receive new
Speaker 1: accounts from attorneys whose careers and lives have been derailed.
Speaker 1: These stories must be heard, not just for justice to
Speaker 1: be served in individual cases, but to ensure systemic accountability
Speaker 1: and restore our faith and legal institutions. So a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff going on. Obviously, the lens that we're viewing
Speaker 1: the country is through the lens of Arizona based on
Speaker 1: that document, But this is something that has been happening nationally.
Speaker 1: So how this affects, you know, people on the ground. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the topic of the day is you know, the protests
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles, and on this show, we've covered Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's decisions to ignore the Supreme Court's rulings or circumvent
Speaker 1: the rulings. Indeed, there was a conversation that we had recently.
Speaker 1: I had with a gentleman named Amy Horowitz, who is
Speaker 1: a sort of a Fox News political pundit, and he
Speaker 1: was surprised to learn that the Big Beautiful Bill has
Speaker 1: a section to actually seven zero three zero two which
Speaker 1: seeks to limit the ability of the courts and the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court from enforcing court orders, which would again limit
Speaker 1: the power of the courts, but also allow more power
Speaker 1: in the executive branch of the government. The president himself
Speaker 1: would have more power. And you know, one of the
Speaker 1: big things that happened over the weekend was Donald Trump
Speaker 1: deploying the National Guard in the state of Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: which is something typically that a governor would do. And
Speaker 1: now Governor Newsom is suing him. So I guess the
Speaker 1: question that we're going to start with is is this
Speaker 1: something that why is this something that people should be
Speaker 1: concerned about. Limiting the powers of the judicial branch and
Speaker 1: ignoring the executive branch, ignoring court orders by the legislative branch.
Speaker 3: Well, I would say, in theory, we have three co
Speaker 3: equal branches of government, and the idea is that the
Speaker 3: courts interpret the law. But it's I forget which Supreme
Speaker 3: Court justice or which president was.
Speaker 2: I think it was actually Andrew Jackson.
Speaker 3: You know there was a if you remember Andrew Jackson
Speaker 3: from eighteen twenties, there's a court decision.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember that guy, just the name, but he
Speaker 2: said that commedy divisions.
Speaker 3: Does the Supreme Court have the Supreme Court? The power
Speaker 3: of the Supreme Court to enact its rulings is predicated
Speaker 3: on a president who's willing to enforce it.
Speaker 2: Sure, So in nineteen was in.
Speaker 3: Nineteen fifty four or nineteen sixty four to Brown versus
Speaker 3: Board of Education?
Speaker 2: I think it was nineteen fifty.
Speaker 3: Four, Eisenhower says, I'm going to enforce broad versus Board
Speaker 3: of Education. I'm going to put I think it was
Speaker 3: eighty second Airborne, one hundred first Airborne, and I'm going
Speaker 3: to enforce these kids they can go to school. Because
Speaker 3: if Eisenhower doesn't do that, nothing happens. So how concerns
Speaker 3: should the public be ignoring? It should be very concerned
Speaker 3: it should be very concerned. I will caveat that, and saying, though,
Speaker 3: is he is he ignoring? I mean, can you say
Speaker 3: genuinely that he's doing something different from other presidents? Like
Speaker 3: what is the thing that Donald Trump has done or
Speaker 3: the instrument administration has done that's different from other presidents.
Speaker 3: Because as far as the National Guard goes, I distinctly
Speaker 3: remember after the Rodney King riots that I think the Marines,
Speaker 3: even from Camp Pendleton, were deployed in the Rodney King riots,
Speaker 3: if I remember right, and that was President Busher did that.
Speaker 1: Okay, so the president deployed the Marines, and the now
Speaker 1: things are not the governor the Marines is doz. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So that's actually and that was in nineteen I remember
Speaker 1: Marines walking.
Speaker 3: Through Indy streets in ninety two. You remember that during
Speaker 3: the Rodney Kings, the Rodney King riots. So I don't
Speaker 3: think that's on President Well in New Orleans too, I think.
Speaker 1: So, So here's the thing you're going to know more
Speaker 1: than I do and all of our listeners do. But
Speaker 1: my understanding is that typically a governor calls out the
Speaker 1: national Guard. So there may be what he federalized.
Speaker 3: That's what happened in nineteen fifty four, the president federalizes
Speaker 3: and because so this is actually Browns's board of education.
Speaker 3: The governor didn't want to call out the National Guard
Speaker 3: because he was it was that one.
Speaker 1: What's I know what you're talking about, you.
Speaker 2: Know, siguration now seguration to Mars.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know.
Speaker 2: He didn't want to do it.
Speaker 1: He didn't want to let the integrate the schools, and
Speaker 1: so the president needed to deploy the Star.
Speaker 3: So that's so the ultimately, because I know I saw
Speaker 3: that lawsuits like by Gavin Newsom got to me is
Speaker 3: show like a governor can't sue the president and say
Speaker 3: you can't use the army this way. Like the president
Speaker 3: can bomb anybody he wants. He bombs Cambodia if he
Speaker 3: wants to, He bombs Iran if he wants to. He
Speaker 3: I think it's theatrics on his part, that's what That's
Speaker 3: how I interpret it, because he is the commander in chief.
Speaker 1: Sure. Sure, So with that in mind, this this remember
Speaker 1: when I talked about the big beautiful building section right, right,
Speaker 1: So let's make that live a little bit more because
Speaker 1: that's been widely covered as almost like a secret like
Speaker 1: back door, like a sneaky like provision or section or
Speaker 1: whatever that many of the people that voted on it
Speaker 1: didn't know about. It was rushed and it was like
Speaker 1: really long, and then that was just kind of buried
Speaker 1: in the middle, and it had nothing to do with
Speaker 1: budgets or anything like that. It just kind of limited
Speaker 1: the court's capacity to hold people that violated lawful orders
Speaker 1: in contempt, meaning that the president would be able to
Speaker 1: or you know, anyone, anyone who aligns with the president.
Speaker 1: I'd imagined this is how it will be used, would
Speaker 1: be able to go against a judge's ruling as long
Speaker 1: as they're reacting behaving on behalf of the president, and
Speaker 1: they would kind of exist outside of judicial reach. This
Speaker 1: is sort of my basic level understanding of it. So
Speaker 1: talk about that, right.
Speaker 3: So the way I understood and looked up the law
Speaker 3: is whoever is a plaineff? So this is talking about
Speaker 3: like a pri a party. Let's say it's like someone
Speaker 3: like the not thenac like the ACLU see somebody, right,
Speaker 3: plan parent who sue somebody and the other side isn't
Speaker 3: isn't falling the judge's order that the planiff, the private
Speaker 3: party has to put up some amount of money to
Speaker 3: make sure, it's insurance. Basically, it's what it's saying right.
Speaker 3: The way around it, though, is the judge can just
Speaker 3: make it a dollar. You can literally just say, all right,
Speaker 3: the amount of money the planeff has to post for
Speaker 3: me to enforced to have a contempt order is a dollar.
Speaker 3: So it's not saying what the minimum amount is that
Speaker 3: because there's a security provision, it's requiring security posted by
Speaker 3: the planiff before any contempt order is issued. That's kind
Speaker 3: of boiler plate. As far as I do criminal law, right,
Speaker 3: I'm not a doorce lawyer. I don't see big law firms.
Speaker 3: I don't do any of that stuff. But when I
Speaker 3: did do a little bit of it, like like you know,
Speaker 3: like forcible entry entertainers, that sort of stuff. A plaintiff
Speaker 3: having to put like a bond to protect the other
Speaker 3: guy in case something goes wrong. That's not Adolf Hitler
Speaker 3: or Joseph Stalin. That's pretty straightforward stuff.
Speaker 1: So if that's if that's the case, then why is
Speaker 1: this buried?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: In uh, you can never use much So how could
Speaker 1: how about this? How could this benefit Trump? With what
Speaker 1: many people feel is a very authoritative approach to my
Speaker 1: way or the highway.
Speaker 3: So I get and I understand what you're what the
Speaker 3: question is, and the point being is that he's going
Speaker 3: to ignore a judge's order. And the enforcement provision is
Speaker 3: that a judge says, I'm going to hold you contempt
Speaker 3: if you don't follow my order. And this makes it
Speaker 3: harder for a judge to have a contemporaruling because he
Speaker 3: has the plane if has to post a bond. But
Speaker 3: think about it, though, the problem Okay, so Trump is
Speaker 3: using this this loophole, let's say, to ignore a judge's order.
Speaker 3: He's ignoring a judge's order. What difference does it make
Speaker 3: if that's really the case, if this dude, if this
Speaker 3: president is King Trump and he doesn't care what a
Speaker 3: judge says. Now, what difference does it make if it's
Speaker 3: even easier for him to ignore an order?
Speaker 2: Like what like he's ignoring an order.
Speaker 3: Okay, But it's going to make him easier for ignoring order. Okay,
Speaker 3: So it's going to make him easier for him to
Speaker 3: do what he's already doing anyway, Like what's the well as.
Speaker 1: Far as I think that, I think that at least
Speaker 1: for those of us who've been like paying a little
Speaker 1: bit of attention. Donald Trump is still somewhat mindful of
Speaker 1: the fact that he is playing a game that involves
Speaker 1: all of us. And if he can appear decent enough,
Speaker 1: if he can gives optics, if he can give people
Speaker 1: enough cover to say, see, he's still a good guy.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: If Donald Trump went and like chopped the head off
Speaker 1: of a baby and everyone saw it happen, then he
Speaker 1: would obviously everyone would turn on him. Right, That's an
Speaker 1: evil thing to do objectively, Right, But if Donald Trump said,
Speaker 1: you know, if he manipulated the optics somehow, you know,
Speaker 1: there's a group of people that need to believe Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's version of the truth, whether or not it's the
Speaker 1: shared reality for all of us. Right, and he does
Speaker 1: this in real time, he will change the optics of
Speaker 1: the narrative in real time. And so my estimation is
Speaker 1: that something like this might serve to provide him some cover,
Speaker 1: something to fall back on, something to you know whatever.
Speaker 1: And again, if he's ruling, one of the things that
Speaker 1: he did initially when he was signing all the executive
Speaker 1: orders was, you know, when judges would would hold up
Speaker 1: his executive orders with lawsuits or rulings or whatever, he
Speaker 1: would start to say, oh, well, this judge is an American,
Speaker 1: this judge is you know, somehow it would be the
Speaker 1: judges a personal attack on the judge, rather than accepting
Speaker 1: and respecting the fact that this is a coequal branch
Speaker 1: of government and this is a kill that the administration
Speaker 1: has to we have to meet this challenge, and you know,
Speaker 1: and so forth. So so, having something buried in a
Speaker 1: in a budget bill like this feels a little sneaky.
Speaker 1: And maybe it's to that end, but you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know, so your thoughts.
Speaker 3: So just let me say one caveaty or disclaimers. I
Speaker 3: hate judges.
Speaker 2: I absolutely hate judges.
Speaker 3: I think judges are the lowest form of life on wow.
Speaker 3: So any so, not pro Trump, not anti Trump, none
Speaker 3: of that. Anything that has judges on one side and
Speaker 3: anybody else on the other side, I'm going to side
Speaker 3: with the other side, all right. I don't care snake
Speaker 3: oil salesman. I'm with the snake oil sales. I don't
Speaker 3: care who the other side is. I will never ever
Speaker 3: take side with judges.
Speaker 1: Ever, will you? Will you admit that in this country
Speaker 1: that framework that was established by the Frown founding fathers
Speaker 1: based off of previous empires, going back perhaps to the
Speaker 1: dawn of civilization, where you know, this society learned from
Speaker 1: society society before and so forth and so on. We
Speaker 1: got to where we are, and this is a newer
Speaker 1: country in terms of like superpowers. We got the sum
Speaker 1: total of all that human knowledge and all these great societies,
Speaker 1: and our founding fathers built this country based on that,
Speaker 1: so that this empire could last, you know, like five
Speaker 1: thousand years, like a China or something like that. Right,
Speaker 1: And so far it worked, and so far there hasn't
Speaker 1: been any challenges to the foundation of the country like
Speaker 1: this one. So would you at least would you allow
Speaker 1: for judges to have some place in society.
Speaker 2: I think it's been recent.
Speaker 3: I think, you know, my disdain for judges and the judiciary,
Speaker 3: it's very very recent. I think, you know, I started
Speaker 3: practicing in two thousand and two, thought that all the
Speaker 3: judges back two thousand and two pretty much up until
Speaker 3: twenty fifteen or so ish, were awesome, just awesome, straight shooters,
Speaker 3: like it really worked the way it's supposed to.
Speaker 2: So I think just recently it's changed.
Speaker 3: So what changed. I think the Russia Gates stuff had
Speaker 3: a lot to do with it personally. I think, personally,
Speaker 3: for me, just with my own background and my own name,
Speaker 3: having to share the same first name as the president
Speaker 3: of Russia, I think the Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia all
Speaker 3: the time. I think I felt that personally. I think
Speaker 3: I felt with my name, I'm always the bad guy,
Speaker 3: no matter what, like literally, no matter what, I'm always
Speaker 3: the bad guy. And I think judges are just as
Speaker 3: partisan as anybody else.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, okay, I see what you're saying. So the judges, Yeah, okay, gotcha, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that makes sense all right. Now now for the people.
Speaker 1: For the people, talk like, give us your reaction to
Speaker 1: maybe Trump's general approach to how about this when we'll
Speaker 1: call it, half the country is half the country, for
Speaker 1: the most part, voted for Kamala Harris. Half the country
Speaker 1: voted for Donald Trump. It's typically the way that things
Speaker 1: like that go. Democrats famously lost a lot of They
Speaker 1: lost the White House and then lost the races in
Speaker 1: the Senate and the House, and everything after that became
Speaker 1: at least for a moment, Okay, Now our fight goes
Speaker 1: to the courts. Democrats are going to take their fights
Speaker 1: to the courts, and for a lot of people that
Speaker 1: really respect the two party system in this country, or
Speaker 1: people that respect the coequal branches of government, people that
Speaker 1: expect and respect a democracy where people have voices and
Speaker 1: they can say how they feel, air out their grievances.
Speaker 1: All these people that respect the constitution and so forth,
Speaker 1: things have worked. And when Democrats are down, there are
Speaker 1: still some recourse, there's some path for them to be
Speaker 1: heard and to affirm their reality and have representation. And
Speaker 1: then Republicans are down. They Republicans have never really gone anywhere.
Speaker 1: But you know, the same thing holds true. We saw
Speaker 1: it under Obama. Obama was blocked at every turn. That
Speaker 1: was Republicans exercising their limited power at the time. So
Speaker 1: when Democrats say, okay, after they losing the last election,
Speaker 1: we're going to take the fights to the courts, and
Speaker 1: then again for half the country to see Donald Trump
Speaker 1: ignore the courts or launch a tax on the courts
Speaker 1: based off of things that many folks read in Project
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. You know document, do they have a
Speaker 1: right to be concerned about this because and when people
Speaker 1: say that this erodes the foundation of a democracy, are
Speaker 1: they correct? Your thoughts?
Speaker 2: All?
Speaker 3: Right? So one thing I wanted to say too, and
Speaker 3: you had brought it up. Is about how the provision
Speaker 3: was kind of snuck in at the last minute. One
Speaker 3: thing I will say, though, is you can never be
Speaker 3: wrong by just assuming government is incompetent and lazy and.
Speaker 1: Does everything.
Speaker 3: Don't. Of course there'sences. Of course there's cynicism and evil
Speaker 3: and things like that, but something like that. I have
Speaker 3: a really hard time believing that Donald Trump had this
Speaker 3: master plan of.
Speaker 2: Sticking in this person.
Speaker 1: No, I don't know that it's Donald think I had anything. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's not a writer. But the people that want to
Speaker 1: fortify him, Yeah.
Speaker 3: It's just such a weird It's just such a weird provision.
Speaker 3: And I don't see Trump as being the kind of
Speaker 3: guy who resorts to the technical. Don't look right to
Speaker 3: resort to technicalities like I see. My opinion is the
Speaker 3: appeal of Donald Trump is I'm going to do it.
Speaker 3: I don't care if I have this legal provision or
Speaker 3: I do have this legal provision. He's not the kind
Speaker 3: of guy who resorts to technicalities. The appeal of Donald
Speaker 3: Trump is I'm going to do it because I can
Speaker 3: do it. Period. As far as eroding the democracy is
Speaker 3: I will say this, and this goes back to my
Speaker 3: own name and my own experiences with Russia Gate. I
Speaker 3: saw them, I saw the Democratic Party impeached Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: And I'm not even Russian, right, my name is Serbian,
Speaker 3: so I'm not Russian. But I took it very personally
Speaker 3: that the Democratic Party, of this party of equality, of
Speaker 3: of egalitarianism, of your identity doesn't matter, It doesn't matter
Speaker 3: if you're black, you're white, you're gay, you're straight, you're religion,
Speaker 3: any of that doesn't matter, really really hates Russians. And
Speaker 3: I took that very personally. So I find it very
Speaker 3: rich for all of a sudden the Democratic Party to
Speaker 3: be griping about him fighting the courts and eroding democracy
Speaker 3: when his entire and I'm not saying I agreed with
Speaker 3: his positions or any other politics, and you forget all that.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying that the man was blamed for being
Speaker 3: a Russian agent. And you could not have said that
Speaker 3: about any other country.
Speaker 2: In the world.
Speaker 3: You couldn't have said that about Israel. You can have
Speaker 3: said that about Mexico. You could not have said that
Speaker 3: about any other country but Russia. And I'm still and
Speaker 3: I felt that personally okay
Speaker 1: All right, Well, obviously we have a lot more to
Speaker 1: talk about, so, you know, as we make sense of
Speaker 1: what's going on in the country, hopefully you'll stick around
Speaker 1: for this, Okay, appreciate it.