Legal experts rally around Supreme Court ruling keeping Trump on ballot: 'Stern warning' to 'radical

0:00 The topics and opinions expressed in the following show are solely those of the hosts and their guests, and not those of W FOURCY Radio. It's employees are affiliates. We make no recommendations or endorsements for radio show programs, services, or products mentioned on air or on our web. No liability explicitor implies shall be extended to W FOURCY Radio or its employees are affiliates. Any questions or comments should be directed to those show hosts. Thank you for choosing W FOURCY Radio. Hello and welcome. Good to have you with us. I'm Bill Martinez. We've got Paul Kamanar with us. Paul is the Washington, DC lawyer who is also counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center. It's a public interest watchdog group. I'm going to talk about all things Trump, talk about the latest Scotis decision, that heads are still brain bruised over it, and Paul is the one to walk us through it all and straighten out some of the confusion that's going on. Paul, welcome the show. Good to have you with us. Thank you Bill for having me my pleasure. Well, before we get into all things Trump, first of all, let's talk about Scotus's decision to make sure that Donald Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican Party, that his name is on the ballots and that states no longer can arbitrarily remove his name from the ballot. Yeah, you're absolutely right.

1:30 That was a nine to zero decision that was expected. I was there in the court room when they had the or argument a few weeks ago, and it was clear from the questioning that it was going to go on Donald Trump's way. Now, there was some dissent, so to speak. It's actually what's called a concurrence by the three liberal justices that complained that the conservatives on the court went too far. That they all agreed that the states don't have authority to keep federal officials off the ballot. They're certainly okay to keep state candidates off the ballot, that's the state law. But then they said that the conservatives went too far and said that the only way that this provision of the Constitution can be enforced is by having Congress passed what's called enabling legislation.

2:28 And they got all out of source for the Court going that far. But frankly, they didn't need they went far because that's what they require to do. In fact, Congress already passed enabling legislation in nineteen forty eight saying that if you're guilty of insurrection rebellion, and even if you are aided or assisted in that, the Fourteenth Amendment, by the way, doesn't provide for that. It's only if you engage in it. So here's a statue that's broader, and it covers everybody, not just those who took an oath of office.

3:09 So I don't know what they were complaining about, because Congress did pass this law in nineteen forty eight, and that's all in the book. So it was only clear that Congress should be the one to basically fill in the blanks of what this amendment makes, especially because the Fourteenth Amendment, Section five says that Congress shall have the authority to enact enabling legislation for all the provisions in this amendment. So it really was they're going out of a way for a cheap shot at the conservative majority. Well, Paul, the operative term here is guilty, right, I mean, there's no guilt. There hasn't even there. You know, it's been I guess guilt in the court of public opinion if you bifurcate the numbers, you want to look it that way.

3:53 But even then that's not the rule of law. You know, public opinion doesn't dictate, you know. So Donald Trum was never he was never even I mean it was suggested, but he was never really indicted. Even with the impeachment. They didn't impeach him for insurrection. They just kind of, you know, try to color up the narrative. But that's really unfair, isn't it. It is? And Jack Smith, who's the special consul, filed the indictment here in d C for Trump allegedly interfering with the election, and he did not charge insurrection or inciting the riot or any of those things. And therefore it's clear that they couldn't prove that number one and number two. If the states were allowed, like Colorado did and Maine and Illinois, they could say, oh, he's a guilty of instruction because that's what we think it is. There will be no due process, you know, no real evidence, no standard of proof. So it was clear that the states could not have this patchwork quilt of their own interpretation what an insurrection is in order to keep Trump off the ballot, Paul. What's so confusing here is the left continues to stick to their story no matter what, whether we're talking January sixth, the narrative that you know now here. Recently I heard somebody say, well, President Trump didn't order the National Guard to be there on the premises, but that's not his job. His job is to authorize,

5:26 and it's clear and inarguable that he authorized the National Guard. It was up to Mariel Bowser and Nancy Pelosi to order the National Guard in. Is that correct? Yeah, that's my understanding. Meriel Bowser, for your listeners, is the mayor of the district of Columbia that has the authority to bring the Guard out. So yeah, that's clear that you know, he did authorize it, and they had the authority to actually move those troops in there. But also there was the responsibility of the Capitol Hill Police and Nancy Pelosi to have security, and they were warned by the FBI several weeks ahead of time saying, hey, we got some people coming here. We think there may be some trouble based on the chatter we're saying online. And yet they did not put up the barricades. They put up these a little silly bicycle racks, and they were totally unprepared for it. And therefore you see what happened. Well, you would think for all the money that we authorized, we the people taxpayers, paid for this increased security. What happened in the Summer of love with Antifa Black Lives Matter attacking you know, DC and across from the White House. In fact, they even had to put the President underground to protect it. They were that concerned about it. You would think that that would have been a practice, a dry run drill for what it would have happened for January sixth. And like you say, with all the

7:01 detail and pre information that the FBI had, I mean, this is almost seeming like there was a this was a setup. Paul, Yeah, well that's there's some charges on that. I'm not sure if I would go that far, but what it was was clearly a drop in the security there. And when the January sixth Committee started to investigate all this, a couple of their requirements and the authorizing statue was investigate the security, what went wrong? Why did it go wrong? Who's accountable for letting the security down? And you didn't hear anything about that during the age. All you heard was the bad things that the protesters did and so forth. So they dropped the ball and they didn't want to really investigate it because it would show the shortcomings and the faults from Nancy Pelosi and the Capitol Police and the DC police. See, Paul was so frustrating. It requires, you know, attorneys such as yourself and other fair minded people to draw back from it to help us understand because the mainstream media, it's like, and this is where I say the fix was in, and I get it. Is an attorney, you need to you know, you're here to talk about what's what's been proven, and what I'm throwing up here is some smoke and we haven't been able to find the direct fire. But that's the nature of DC politics. You get plausible

8:31 deniability, you get these narratives that are out there, anonymous reporting. The mainstream media seems to be disinterested in really getting down to the truth to what actually happened on January the sixth, or even why January the sixth even happened. Paul, Yeah, yeah, that's right. And like I said, they really didn't do any investigation as to the lack of security you had FBI agents testify that the cf issul was given to the proper authorities a couple of weeks ahead of time. And you know, Nancy Pelosi allegedly said, well, we don't want to have too much security because that won't look right to show that we're at right. Yeah, the optics of it all, well, you know, there's negligence on their part on that. Yeah. But meanwhile, you've got hundreds of people that are sitting in jail without due process and in some now, you know, some of the truth is coming out that there's been overreached by judges. There's been some modification of sentences. Yes, you know, this could be the beginning of some indication. I would hope that there could be some fairness. But meanwhile, I don't know how you remedy three years of incarceration. Uh. And the way this thing has been adjudicated, Paul, Yeah, No, And what you're referring to is a couple of weeks ago the DC Court of Appeals here they should have ruling that one of the provision that the prosecutors were using to enhance the senses was

10:05 unlawfully applied and therefore a lot of these January six ers were going to have their senses reconsidered and may not erase them, but it will certainly reduce them. But moreover, Uh, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear from one of the January six ers two charge charges of obstructing a congressional proceeding. And the argument was that, wait a minute, that that did not apply to this case, because that provision they're citing, UH came from the Sarbanes Oxley legislation, which was designed to prevent companies from destroying their documents UH and their hard drives if the government's investigating, and so that that didn't apply here.

10:54 There was no January six ers who were destroying uh their documents or or their videos on their phone, etc. No. But what the government is saying was, well, you were destroying evidence. Well what's the evidence. Well, let's see, let me make this up to prospers. Aha, there were votes cast by the Electoral College in that box that was sitting there in Congress, and you were trying to get into that box and tear up the vote. I mean, the thing is really ridiculous. And so but here's the thing. Donald Trump, who's charged in DC with four counts the two major counts are the obstruction counts that are before the Supreme Court, and they're going to hear that case later this spring. So if the court rules in favor of the January sixtheres, that's going to basically deep six and cut to the knees of the indictment here against Donald Trump exactly. Well, it's interesting, you know, going along that line with sarbangez Oxley and the destruction of legal documents and you know evidence you got Hillary Clinton's case, I mean, that is clear she destroyed evidence. You have even the January sixth committee which was told to maintain that evidence and everything that they had processed on behalf of we the people not to not to deep six that information. And the committee

12:26 meanwhile went ahead and defiantly got rid of all that evidence that they utilized that we you know, cost it cost us millions of dollars all this research and investigation, and they deep six that. So how are they not culpable in breaking the very law that they're accusing the Jay six ers to do it? Well, I'm not sure in terms of how much they deleted. I know they deleted some of the stuff, but a lot of that information was released by Kevin McCarthy when he was speaking the House UH to the January sixth defendants. So a lot of the video, hundreds of hours are out there in the public domain. But speaking of destroying evidence, we want to change the subjects a little bit. The the UH Robert Herr report that went after Joe Biden for his misuse of classified documents, right uh, and her report said, well, we're not going to prosecute Joe Biden because he's an old, doddering old man and he forgets things, and the Jerry's going to have sympathety sympathy for him, and and therefore we're not going to prosecute him. Well that's a bunch of who we number one but number two? Uh. Briden gave some of this information to his ghostwriter, and the ghostwriter recorded some of the interviews with Biden, and the ghostwriter destroyed his video his audio tapes of

13:58 the interview. And know you read it, Harry Pertson, at least you're going to go after this guy for destruction of evidence. Right. No, they said, we we got some of that, we retrieved it in other ways. I said, I mean, it's amazing how they're letting that go. And of course tomorrow we'll hear from Robert Hurr before Congress about this whole report about the investigation of Joe Biden and hiss a misuse of the classified documents. Paul, how can you blame the everyday American looking at all things d C, Donald Trump versus Joe Biden, anything Trump versus you know, DC politics as being you know, unfair and targeted. I mean, the way they've gone after this president and uh and basically made it obvious that we're not dealing with a single tear justice system and that late justice. Somehow the blindfold is lifted from one eye when it comes to things that are for liberals versus conservatives. Well, you're absolutely right, and they make no bones about it.

15:11 I mean, just look at the investigation in Georgia by Fanny Willis. Exactly when she was running for off she said, I'm going to get Donald Trump. Well wait a minute. You know, it's sort of like in the Soviet Union where Stalin's head of his secret police was his body was show me the man, and I'll show you the crime. You know, the United States is supposed to first find if there is a crime and see who done it. So you saw Fanny Willis use this two tier system of justice, and then you see Alvin Bragg in New York who's going to be having his trial the end of this month in terms of the so called hushpuny payments to store Me Daniels and whether that violated any law, And of course it did not, because that was a non disclosure and those are made every day in this so that's but they're saying, well, okay, so what's the crime. Let's make one up. Oh, well, you recorded it wrong in your business papers, and therefore there's a you know, paperwork violation here on that. But even that is well, wait a minute, you know in the New York law, that's a little nicolin dimesticator. How does that right to the level of a felony? Right, yeah, Well, here's how they're doing it. They're saying, Aha, we're going to argue that you violated federal election campaign law because that payment to Stormy Daniels should have been a federal campaign contribution to your campaign, and that's the federal crime. Number one. Alvin Bragh, I'm sorry, you're a local prosecutor. You don't

16:44 have authority to make up federal crimes number two. The two agencies that do have authority, the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department, took a pass on that there, so you go, well, what's going on? And even if they were right about that theory. I used to work at the Feller Actual Commission. I do some campaign finance law, and the law is if you get an unlawful contribution the campaign, which they said, this is, the rule is you're supposed to give it back to the donor. So let me figure it. So by Trump gave the money illegally to his campaign to some you know, for the Stormy Daniels, he's supposed to campaign, not to give the money back to him. So it's going from one pocket to the end. Where's the harm? I mean, it really is ridiculous that they're making this stuff up like this. Well, it is ridiculous, but unfortunately it does injury to you know, Donald Trump's credibility and and influences, you know, people's desire to want to vote for him. It's kind of like, you know, Joe Biden. They said that according to some polling evidence, that if the people were aware that the Hunter Biden laptop was legitimate, which the FBI knew it was, but didn't didn't say anything about it. They allowed fifty one intelligence officials within our government to sign a letter saying that was Russian disinformation and the FBI knew that it was wrong. Well,

18:17 you know, so clearly that kind of narrative has an impact because the polling said that, you know, roughly fifteen nineteen percent of them, you know, people who voted for Biden said had they known that was the truth, they would not have voted for him. And here they're perpetrating a lie, a clear lie about Donald Trump, just in this particular case, but that seems to be the consistent pattern that's out there. Paul, Yeah, no, you're right, and it is a two to system of justice. And part of this investigation on the Hill, the impeachment inquiry, is bringing forth evidence about how Hunter Biden, Joe Biden Sun was basically shaking down Chinese interest Barisma in Ukraine to get millions of dollars that went to at least ten members of the Biden family. And the liberals say, well, wait a minute, we haven't seen any money going directly into Joe Biden's account. Well, number one, that's not true. There's a forty thousand dollars check from his brother James Biden and his wife to Joe Biden. And they said, well that's let's see. Oh, I'll try. It's a repayment of the loan. But they can't find any paperwork on that. And number two, under bribery laws, a person can still be found guilty if not only he gets a benefit, but his family members get benefit here. So it's clearly

19:47 there's a criminal activity going on with respect to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and the money. Not to mention the classified documents case, you know, they're going after Trump on that, and and Joe Biden had classified documents here at the Penn Biden Center at him in his garage next to his corvette, et cetera. And they said, it's wilful, but you know, we're not going to go after because he's a rail he's frail. But wait a minute. He had that State of the Union speech the other night. Oh yeah, right, he's yeah, this guy's sharp as attack. Yeah. Well, you can't have it both ways. Yeah, well, unless you're a liberal. We're talking with Paul Kaminari. He's the Washington DC lawyer who's also counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center of Public Interest watchdog group. You know, Paul, you're you're an attorney, and you kind of understand and you see the small ball and the big ball of this whole orchestration and this targeting of Donald Trump. And meanwhile, uh, we we have a democratic republic that's hanging in the balance here. Uh what, what's what's your comments carry on this situation? Well, you know, not only is that the dual system of justice, it also goes after the integrity of our whole government and the Justice Department. We're acting like a third world country here where the person in power is going after his chief political opponent. And that's what's underminding

21:21 and eroting the public's confidence in our whole legal system. Now. To be sure, Donald Trump has made some advantage of him being persecuted because his poll numbers have gone up, to be sure, but can you imagine what they would be if he wasn't having to be distracted with all these lawsuits and indictments and so forth. So it is hampering his ability to campaign out there to the public as well as financially. I mean, he just had a post a ninety million dollar Bond yes esterday on that case in New York to civil case with g Carroll on the defamation, et cetera. So it really is amazing. They're just piling on here, and it's something that we'll have to But you know, he's still leading in the polls in some cases by four or five points exactly, which is amazing because the amount of pain that the country is in because of the results of the policies of one Joe Biden and the Democratic Left. You wonder, go, gosh, are you telling me that over forty percent of the country is satisfied and they're winning under these policies.

22:45 Yeah, exactly, I mean they you know, we the public is really fed up with a lot of this. The Democrats are, except now that they're a little happy with that State of the Union message. But that really wasn't a State of the Union speech. Let's be honest. That was a dump speech. It was a campaign rally. He misused the provision in the Constitution that requires the president to give a State of the Union to Congress, So so it wasn't stump speech. And uh uh he you know, basically lied about a lot of things, especially with the immigration issue. Uh you know, he couldn't even get Lake and Riley's name correct, even though he was holding up her button that Marjorie Taylor Green gave him, and he said, oh, uh yeah, Lincoln Riley. And then he said, hey, what's the big deal here? She was killed by uh an illegal?

23:37 Oops? I should have said a documented he was killing. But he goes thousands of legals kill people, So what's the big deal here? I mean, that was totally outrageous, Like there's moral equivalency there. It's crazy, it really is so so. But you know, we'll see what happens. Uh. That's why I guess what I'm concerned with. Bottom line is that again, the amount of enthusiasm for Donald Trump, in spite of all the legal issues that are going on. I think, you know, more and more Americans are seeing it for what it is. I mean, look what's happening. I mean, Blacks in record numbers, I mean double digit over twenty percent are leaving the Democratic tent and going to support Donald Trump.

24:19 Hispanics in notable numbers as well. It's I don't know how it's sustainable and how the Democrats are going to be able to you know, do some Shenanigans like they did in twenty twenty. Will leave it at that, because it doesn't seem like our government is much interested in finding out if, in fact, we had a free and fair election. In twenty twenty. We're told that it was free and fair. We're not supposed to question it whatsoever. And you know, he is the president of the United States, and this is what we have to deal with. But I mean, we were told the same thing with John F. Kennedy, that you know, it was a clean election. And now we find out sixty years later, the Democrats, by their own admission, are saying, well, if the facts known, yeah, we kind of we juiced the system there in Illinois, and we worked some numbers there Illinois, and I think there was another state that was involved as well. And you know, they sixty years later, you know, they they admitted, which is kind of amazing, you know, and they're so blatant about it. It reminds me of Harry Reid in the well of the Senate. If you remember this, I think I will see this till the day I die. I mean, his his obstinence and his defiance in talking about Mitt Romney and how he lied about Mitt Romney, and his response was, Hey, he didn't get elected president, did he?

25:44 Oh you're talking Yeah, you're talking about Harry Reid, who used to be head of the ko Kooks Klan in West Virginia. Yeah, that Harry Reid. Yeah. Oh no, I'll tell you. You're talking about Harry Reid, the head of the Senate. Oh and that. Yeah, Okay, you're right, take that cheap shot at Robbie for sure. But it wasn't just Mitt Romney. It was our Democratic Republic. I mean, how dare you undermine what we believe, you know, should be fair, a free and fair election, and you're going to, you know, you're going to deposit into the system such poison and you think that it's acceptable because the ends justify the means. Well, that's true. And then you got the double standard here. I mean, you can go back and see videos on Nancy Pelosi the House floor saying that the election for George Bush that was rigged, the voter, the voting machines in Ohio were rigged, and so forth.

26:45 So it's okay for the Democrats to complain about a rigged system, but not for the Republicans to do that when they have some legitimate evidence of that. And now that gets into this whole issue of election coming up in terms of security voter ID. I mean, the Democrats are wanting to have all these illegal image immigrants coming in to quickly give them a voting privileges and send a mail in ballots and so forth. So that's really disrupting and undermining our whole political system. Here. Well, here you've got I don't know, seven ten million illegal immigrants coming into our country at least at least, and Joe Biden has made it obvious that he wants them to vote, and you can't blame them. I mean, you know, I don't know if you saw this informal poll that Rachel campus Duffy had conducted the illegal immigrants. She was at the border and asked them, who would you vote for? One hundred percent? Paul hundred percent, said Joe Biden. Of course, because he's inviting them in, come on in, yeah, get all these freebies.

27:56 I mean, crazy people are paying for it, and uh, you know, I mean they have no understanding of our of our government. And then on top of that again which everybody emits, which drives me nuts ball, they're going to tell you this, this drives me crazy. Is all these illegal immigrants. These aren't just your you know Ellis Island type immigrants. These are immigrants that are behold into the cartel. You cannot get across the border unless you've paid the piper and you've committed your soul and your allegiance to the cartel. And uh, if you don't, you you're not crossing the bridge. Yeah, there's a lot of that. Plus you have actually, uh terrorists who are coming across that are on the terrorist list exactly and they don't know where they are. Uh. And you have all the feedanyl coming in by these illegal immigrants who are carrying that in and killing are citizens as well as physically killing them like we did I did with some like Lake and Riley and so forth. So it really is a sad state of affairs. And you know, you're not going to have a country if you have if you don't have control of your borders. I mean, there are those who've been waiting in line legally from other countries, including Mexico, who say, I'm applying the legal way because even some of the immigrants that are here that did come the right way, that are citizens, they're objecting to the way that otherwise could cut in line like this, because it's not fair to have that

29:27 done in that way. Well, how about the sponsors, Paul, the sponsors of legal immigrants, say, look at will support and make sure that they are not a burden to their communities. Right, And so now their jobs that they were, that were available to them before are becoming a little bit slim pickens because you have all these illegals that are coming in and willing to undermine and work for less. And so it's lose lose all the way around. And you know, and you know, we can't seem to find enough money, you know, with EBT cards going to these illegal immigrants.

30:10 I mean I've heard as much as five thousand dollars on an EBT card housing allowed for them. And then of course now you have these Blue states that are going, we can't, we can't, we can't afford this anymore. But Joe Biden and the Democrats, it's almost like a little bit of an LBJ kind of thing. You know, he's telling all the Blue states hanging there. I know it's tough right now, but what we're importing are all these future Democratic voters. So for a little bit of pain that you're having to endure right now. Don't worry. We're going to end up having full control and we'll control the treasury to such a degree that this is only going to be a minor inconvenience. Does that make sense? Yeah, I can see that that's sort of a way to trying to play this. And you know you have New York Bay or Adams objecting to this, saying, hey, we can't taken anywhere we're full. Uh in Chicago, they have that problem. Uh. And so they're filling the pain, like you said.

31:07 Uh, but in the long run, I think they're playing the long game here to make sure that they get enough voters in to make this a one party Uh. Exactly. They got to they got to replace you know, the Blacks that are leaving, the Hispanics that are leaving. H they've lost their ace and a hole. And uh so this kind of is that answer to secure their power and control, no doubt, Paul. Uh, let's update the people if we can. On the Hunter Biden story, we touched on this. Yeah, he's being investigated, he's come to Congress now he's actually showed up answering some questions where are we on this? Well, yeah, so, so he did come up to Congress eventually after thumbing his nose at a subpoena a month or so ago. Uh and and uh. The criminal case again instead of spending in California, he had to go before an arrayment there for six tax charges, three of them felonies, and he pled not guilty. But he's got so that trial is going to probably go take place, I would say later this fall, but we'll see when that happens.

32:22 But what's really disappointing about that is that the prosecutor, David Weiss, who by the way, also filed that gun charge against him in Delaware, so that case is still pending, that he never went after him for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act. And that's the serious charge that our organization, the National Legal Policy said, we filed a complaint three years ago with the Justice Department saying, hey, Hunter Biden, the pen Biden Center, University of Pennsylvania, should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act for being an agent of China of Burisman, Ukraine by trying to promote the propaganda and their views political views here in the United States by going to the Vice President Biden and other cronies they have here in the government, and he never registered for that, and so the tax chargers are very serious. But you know, I think, you know, come election, whether Biden wins or not, I'm predicting that he's going to pardon his son lest he be found guilty and have to serve some jail time because the charges here call for at least a couple of years of hard time in prison. There's no way this can be oh, slap on the wrist, do forty hours of community service and everything's fine. Because these are serious tax chargers, you know, taking tax

33:54 deductions for ten thousand dollars to join a sex club and he says, oh, that that's a business expense. You know, I don't know whether he was in the business of making porn movies, et cetera, but these are all serious tax charges. And his excuse was, well, I was strung out on drugs and alcohol. But when they asked him during the deposition, you know, what did you do to earn all this money? That's when he says, well, look, I'm a lawyer. I know all this stuff. But when asked about you know, all the other things about the money's going to these different LLCs, et cetera. He you know, feigned confusion. Oh, I was on drugs and strung out, so I'm not sure about that. So he's trying to get away with that. But just so might and family have an excuse, you know, a profile or a binder of excuses to use. You know, I'm feeble minded, I'm old, I fall over my feed, I'm drug addled, I'm sex addicted.

34:59 I guess all those excuses come into play. The other thing, you know, going back to what you mentioned earlier in terms of in terms of hout, Hunter Biden did not comport with foreign registration. I mean that was that was the trouble that Paul Manifort got thrown into jail in solid in faced solitary confinement for something like six to eight months. Yeah, he did it a lot, a lot as well as with the tax charges. So yeah, it's fine to go after him for violated Foreign Ages Registration DECT, but not not Hunter Biden, who was doing at least the same kind of thing in terms of getting money from foreign countries and foreign businesses and doing their bidding here in the United States. Paul, what's wrong with our country. I mean that we find ourselves at this point where, like you say, I mean it's untenable. We can't have a dual tiered system. This is this is not America. I mean, you know, this is really heartbreaking. I say for you know, people who came here to realize the American dream.

36:07 You know, I would say for my father who fought in World War Two, anybody who fought and defended this country. Veterans of our country, you know, three members of our family. You know, before accounting my father, you know, you joined the military to defend our country. I mean, this is you know, you know, we owe it. I say, we, the greater corporate entity of America owes it to everyone that supported our country and defended our country to you know, get this thing back on track and get control and revive this constitutional republic. Yeah. Amen, you said very well that this is a constitutional republic, and unfortunately we're seeing it being undermined by by the liberal Democrats who are trying to tear it down for their own political gain. And Paul, the other thing that I've noted here is that Joe Biden and the left have gone so far left that it's really dragged the Republicans with them, and they think they're compromising, and in a sense, they are, but they're compromising with an extreme left. They're not compromising with the Democratic Party that existed, you know when you and I were growing up, right, Yeah, you're right. You know, where's the Scoop Jackson's of the world, you know, the moderate Democrats where you could compromise and together do good things for this country. So so we're missing that

37:40 and now the left wing, the aocs of the world, are taking this country clearly in the wrong direction. And it's unfortunate. But you know, we're trying to keep people honest here in d C with our organization as best we can, but it'll take everybody to to do that. They're all community, whether it's going to your school board meetings and and and going after this uh gender affirming nonsense that's going on. Uh and and uh uh you know, either running for office if you can't, or at least supporting those local races and and and uh uh national races that support the democratic values that we all fought for. Like you said, Paul, this is where you know, it's so important the work of the national legal and policy center, this public your public interest watchdog on behalf of the American people because we have to coalesce behind a vision to you know, uh, I know Trump has done a great job in encapsulating the idea of making America great again. But you know we've on this show have tried to remove it and and I say remove it. Take it out of party politics. Part and party politics is what has us here. We've got to refocus on the things that all Americans can agree on or mostly agree on, and and that's what we need, a

39:10 coalescing behind a vision of what America is. I think Katie Brett in her counter to the Estate of the Union, you know, the junior senator from Alabama, I thought she did an outstanding job in you know, presenting the case for America coming together. Yeah. I mean there's also the complaints about her her using the kitchen as the backdrop for it, and some of her well they were ridiculous, Paul. They're complaining because she made a reference to a twelve year old rape victim, a human traffic victim, right, and they want to take exception, Well, that didn't happen during Biden, Like, Okay, so you're going to invalidate the testimony in the story. Well, let me tell you. If you want to know what's going you know, you go go to these human trafficking camps. Are sure hear about these women what they're experiencing today, and guess what, it's pretty consistent with what happened to that twelve year old. But all wasn't somebody who you know, was you know, came out of the Biden administration's uh, you know, purview or regime. Then somehow it means less or no, you're you're right.

40:27 I mean, the larger issue is the immigration whether it was uh the one that's going on now with Biden, which is ten times worse than what it was before. But I think there were some complaints about about some of the delivery and so forth, which which was unfortunate because the underlying message was a good message. I agree with you there, but uh, I think it could have been delivered a little bit better. But nevertheless, you know, people can differ about that. Yeah, I think that again for those of us that want some hope that uh, you know, are in need of leadership, we've we've got to have somebody who can pull this all together.

41:07 And I don't know, uh, you know, maybe there needs to be an intermediary because of the divisiveness, because of the stark division in our country that has been resulting from you know, those on the left, which go back you know to Barack Obama, uh, you know, carried forward with Nancy Pelosi and and uh of course Joe Biden. I will include the mainstream media. I will include the weaponized three letter agencies of our government that seem to have a self interest as opposed to a corporate you know, greater American interest that is good for all Americans. No, I quite, I quite agree that there needs to be a fundamental change here. But in the meantime, we've got to fight the fight that's been brought to us right now by these so far left activist and try to counteract that in order to try to bring some semblance, like you said, to the political debate by bringing forth some reasonable proposals that I think we could all agree on. Well, and that's the deal. We have to be in that area to where we can you know, have the discussion. First of all, can we reason together? I mean, look at I believe that the corporate, the corporate potential of all of everybody's input into the problem can serve us all better if

42:37 we're all in agreement as to what we want to accomplish. And I think for the most part, I know people on the left, and I'm not talking the far left, but I know people who have a democratic, you know, worldview. I'm not offended by that. I'm saying, look at that's necessary. We don't need to be siloed altogether. We need to have the diversity of viewpoints here to where we can arrive at a solution that's win wins. So the cumulative intelligence of three hundred and let's say, forty five million people, I think outweighs a handful of you know, self appointed ruling elites who think they know better, that have no success record. They come to the public square and they talk as if they're all that in a bag of chips, and what do they got to show for it? They have more losses than Victory's Paul. I don't want to hear from them. I want to hear from people that are doing something constructive, that are adding to people's day, that have a vision to make America, to take the resources that are available to us and maximize it in such a way to where we're you know, we're excited about being an American that we're serving not only our own interests, but the world interest like what we did when America, you know, suddenly became the dominant ruling power in the world because we were an example, we were a moral authority to the world. And that since now has been clipped. And you know, as Marco Rubio so eloquently put it back in twenty fifteen, he said that our allies no longer trust us and

44:13 our enemies no longer fear us. Right, that's a good way to sum that up. I agree, And you know, we all kind of year it for the days of Ronald Reagan, who was able to sit down with Tip O'Neil, who Speaker of the House, and come to agreement on a lot of issues. But I think those days are long gone, and now we're in the situation we find ourselves in just a matter of you know, meeting the battle where it's been brought to us. Right. No, I agree, I agree, Paul, But I think that we're going to have to go through you know, this could be a generational issue, and we're going to have to go through a phase of having to you know, clean up all the messes in the aisles that are you know, throughout our government.

44:58 And it's not going to happen overnight. Unfortunately, power and control being what it is, you know, these these uh self appointed elites are not going to let go of power easily. This is going to be a battle royale that will take place, uh maybe another revolution of its own making and design that you know. I hear people often say, Bill, I think America is right for a revolution, but I don't I don't want a war. Well, I don't know how you control that, because it's not like all of a sudden you're going to be able to reason with the other side and they're going to put their guns down or put down their you know, you know, their their power leverages down and say okay, we surrender.

45:45 It's not going to happen, you know that way right. Well, there's one maybe a little light at the end of the tunnel with respect to some of the legal issues, and that's you mentioned the alphabet agencies here in town. The elite, whether it's the E. P A or the SEC, where they're going around passing these regulations the Congress never intended and they're getting the courts to go along with it. Well, there are two cases that were argued recently in the Supreme Court that's going to revisit their authority to do that. It's called the Chevron doctrine, and that's a case from some twenty thirty years ago where the courts said, hey, look, if the statute the Congress passed is not clear, we're going to defer to the agencies to interpret it, and therefore, if they come up with some wacko regulation, we'll put our rubber stamp on it. But now you've got some good conservative jurists on the Court, especially Justice Gorcius and Kavanaugh, and the Thomas and Alito, were saying, wait a minute, Wait a minute. Congress is supposed to pass the law. The courts are supposed to interpret it, not some unelected a group of bureaucrats who make this stuff up. So stay tuned for those decisions to come down this spring, and that could be a sea change in the way the government workers done with respect to regulations that affect a lot

47:16 of the American people. Well, Paul Kevin, I really got a couple of minutes left here, but real quick, speaking of the Supreme Court, once again, you have a president during the State of the Union attack I believe, attack the Supreme Court and kind of put them un noticed. You know. Barack Obama, if you remember, did that when we were debating Obamacare. He fired a salvo over the bow of their boats. And here you've got Biden letting off of salvo regarding Roe v. Wade. What did you make of that? Yeah, no, I thought that was very improper for Biden to do that. He basically looked the justice of the square of the eye and said, uh huh, you know you overturned Roe v.

48:02 Wade. Well, we're going to have the last laugh because in your opinion you mentioned that this is going back to the states and that women have the electoral and political power to do something. So just you wait, members of Supreme Court, we're going to have the last laugh on that. It really was unseemly, and actually there was an interesting editorial in today's Wall Street Journal by a attorney who I know. He's a senior attorney who's clerked for the Supreme Court, and he said, you know, those justices shouldn't even be there because the State of the Union message in the Constitution says that the President shall address Congress about the State of the Union. And it was only back about you know, the mid or late sixties that the justices started to go there and giving some kind of semblance of legitimacy to this political thing. So I think, you know, in the future they should not attend. And of course Justice Thomas Clarence Thomas an Alito don't haven't been attending those for quite a while, and maybe they should do that, but it was still improper for Biden to give them a potshot or two during the State of the Union.

49:22 Well, Paul Kamenar, once again, we appreciate the time. Thank you so much for being with us. He's the Washington lawyer who's also the counselor of the National Legal and Policy Center of Public Interest watchdog. Paul, how can people be in touch and find out more about the n l PC. Yeah, great, Yeah, just go to our website n LPC dot org RG and you'll see all all the legal actions that we're doing, also the stuff for going after the Woe corporations, going after Hunter buying it and so forth. But it's NLPC dot org and we're a small nonprofit group and we would appreciate it support you can give us exactly. Paul Kemnar again, thank you so much for being with us. Take care, have a great day. Thank you, and thank you ladies and gentlemen for being with us and sharing a part of your day. For more information on the show, you can go to Bill Martinez Show dot com. May God bless you and keep you. May make his face shine upon you and be gracious unto you.

50:21 Thank you so much, have a great day. God bless