Welcome to the Mccarthy report. The pot gas, where I rich Larry, discuss with Andy Mccarthy, the latest legal and national security issues this week. What else the tests games case in the latest on moral law go? You are, of course, looking to enact view pot, gasped summaries, you not already following a stream service, you can find us everywhere from spotify itunes oblique. If the thought gas and Annie Mccarthy the glowing indeed gushing our views they deserve on itunes and now without further. Hu. I welcome to this very podcast through the miracle zoom, none other than any mccarthy wretch, our I'm getting anywhere you doing great. Here in the media, the beautiful midwest for a few days awesome I have we got to

that there is a devoted listener. Who who told me a while ago? She always skips the first two minutes, because she doesn't doesn't care about it and the baseball talk, but I gotta do some baseball talk cause we had the sir. Friend, night the other other knights were I then Aaron judge shits number sixty to tie ruth and then the yankees go on to win the game in a walk off with a walk. Of grand slammed butter for me that- I was kind of the technical, the season I dont think the pussy is gonna end well for the yankees, but just how having that game happen, makes it all worthwhile and just seeing judge such a good guy such a professional consummate yankee, not not Seeing that anyone knows it didn't it. Tying ruth, which is done than done want one other time legitimately. Ninety five years was quite credible, yeah

and I was talking to a producer radio producer this morning, rich before we got on it. I didn't know this, but I was told that the judgment, Is he tied for the batting title like he's, got a real shot at the trip? Yeah he's a little bit of it. As of I dunno where it is right now, but as of yesterday was slightly ahead, so he was leading the triple crown. That's amazing, I don't think we haven't had a triple crown winner in in he dons in sixty seven That was just risky right. It's I was told correira had one after that every question, but but it's most is rare as something else that happened on sunday for our new york of listeners, which is the year the mets yankees the giants at all one on the same day, which is why first side: thousand nine. I think first husband,

it's also not as incredible that more rare than the triple crown yeah alright. So we have this big civil case from Tish James, which has been building for some time. I had the indictment of Alan wise Oberg, the the long time chief accountant at the trump organization as a first step here and now she she laid out this big dramatic case that you think there's a little less than missy I there or wouldn't be just as a civil soon, but get give us give us that they picture here. I might ten see is to think rich that, with all things with tis james, that there is less than meets the eye and is always less there than meets the press conference, which gets the witch, in which these things were announced. I would remind people and

anyone who listens to our part- yes, knows that I'm not a big andrew cuomo van, but you know James did this long investigation of cuomo when she was thinking about run if the quabos job and she figured it out I did, I'm still not satisfied is completely legal to dump the whole investigation like two volumes worth out into the public debt and it ended up being the end of quabos political career at least You don't for, though, for the foreseeable future and let you know after the dust settled not a single civil case was filed by Tis james. On the basis of the other information. She gathered not us. Single prosecutor in the state of new york, which has, I think, sixty four counties

opened an investigation or filed any charges on the basis of the information that James put out. So it was a big, political show, and it involved a bunch of evidence that no prosecutor thought could be proved in court on the standards that apply to chrome proceedings now flash ahead to the trunk case. Which, by the way She ran on bringing the trump case right. I mean her trunk was the major part of her campaign. And this is one of the very unsavory parts of the new york justices It's this way in a lot of states as well, and particularly a one party control cities, unlike the federal system where say bill bar or merrick garlon to become attorney general. They get appointed, they have to get there. By the senate, it usually a big deal in this had hearings,

out whether the attorney general candidate is the kind of person who will views a prosecutor, aerial powers, political weapon. That's that's deemed to be disk. Our flying in those hearings at least They they nod in that direction, whether they really mean it or not. You can debate but a big deal that if you want to run the department of justice you gonna keep. Political interference out of it. This big trope that they always do about how you know you you, your oath, is to the institution, not the president and all that kind of stuff. That's the federal system and its appointment system in york state all of the prosecutor, abs and the state attorney general job or political they're. All elected positions, politics infects them and unfortunately, in new york, it's no longer a desire trade in peace who were running for law enforcement officers that they will.

Enforce the law without fear or favour, and without by s that you know the progressives who run new york want their political there, legal authority to be used as a political weapon, so right then being disqualify applying for Latisha James that actually turned out to be a big asset in her campaign So she ran on getting trump and now you know she did everything she could to try to get trump. And now I guess she they figure she's got em, but I would just point out to people this is the Aim investigation that started in the sun: district of new york. What was it now four years ago and the federal Prosecutors didn't run with the case because they thought that you can't build a criminal case on Michael Cohen's credibility and when they finally got access to all of trumps financial records which sir

response when he was the district attorney of of manhattan, got access to by going to the supreme court twice, they end Finally, there was nothing in there that they could that they felt like they could indict trombone. So What tis James has is the crumbs from their table. Which she has weaved into a two hundred and twenty page criminal complaint I'm sorry civil complain. That's a very important distinction. She's under criminal due process, will she doesn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but I also think rich the most important thing Maybe that's the thing, that's least discussed, which is often the case, and that is this case is gonna take forever, She's gonna be long gone by the time. This works its way through the system, so just like. Cuomo thing: she did she are big media splash? She put it out there and now you know. She's and it never gets better for her after today or after yesterday,

Because now you know people start picking through what she has charged, which the prosecutors didn't think was strong enough to debates a case on but I don't think she's that worried about it, because I think that you know it's going to take a long time. She's had her splash and now she goes on to the next thing. She won't even be around by the time this gets settled if it ever does, So so. How often is that approach get a pursue something with the civil suit like this? It's often done. rich in financial cases in in federal proceedings like frequently see wonder when the justice department does a big securities fraud case They usually work in conjunction with the s. And yes, he see- will file a civil suit at the same time that the just justice department files, the indictment And they do that because the resources reasons built that unity as he can throw their resources at a joint investigation, but they're, not

but do it unless, at the end of the rainbow they get to bring their own charges, so that frequently happens but you know what I would stress is what happened here. Is the process is locked in. They decided there wasn't a case and didn't bring one and james is better. Thickly running with the case that they wish they could have brought, but residence, was strong enough to bring criminal charges and I think, rich and poor with the obvious point here is, criminal trials, a jury trials. You know even Well, most cases don't go to trial. When you indict a case, you have to think about it as how are we going to prove this to the jury every case, works that way, even though you know upwards of ninety percent of them, don't go to trial. what's the one thing that you want in a fraud case more than anything else, a victim? In fact, if you talk about the kind of dollar figures that The James is talking about. In this case, you want lots of victims,

you want Bernie made off kind of the kind of evidence where you have you know said, sack after sad sack who lost his or her shirt by Europe, ass, their raw, like savings, lost the kids college to wish it must be a that's what you wanted in a jury, trial and its noticeably absent in the two hundred pages or two hundred and twenty pages of Tis james's complaint is a victim. Tromp was dealing with sophisticated. Financial actors he's a sophisticated financial actor, Everybody knows who, it is in this or that I feel like our pal david bonds and could address this better than I could. But the fact of the matter is: If deutscher bank is gonna line, you a couple of hundred million dollars, they're not gonna, take your word for it. On what your assets are worth you up they have their own praises, they do their own due diligence, and you know that the price-

With this case, in terms of the lack of a victim is, let's say, I'm trump May I maybe I don't want to say that, but you don't let let's, but for pretend for second and you go to a bag, and you say you know I need to borrow fifty million dollars, I'm worth a hunt, I'm worth a billion dollars, So you can trust me to pay back the fifty million dollar along now. What if they it? What what if it lets lets us and disbelief and pretend that the bank is not going to actually do its own due diligence, they're sticking to take trumps word for it and what, if at all, that and instead of being worth a billion dollars, he's worth a hundred million. But you give him alone on the assumption that he's worth the billion. If he he's back alone. Who got hurt you don't nobody? Guy

If thou, should he have done it? Should you should you misrepresent yourself, of course not, but you know it, it kind of happens all the time in business that I mean the reason they pay the accountants and the lawyers that they pay is because they want to minimize data tax liability. And they want to maximize their borrowing level. and their insurance coverage. That's a skilled! That's what you! If that's, what you pay these guys you know, could Julian's dollars the two to carry out. So what I found when I was a prosecutor toward the yeah, the end of my time doing cases I had a couple of big accounting fraud cases and what I found was unlike ordinary crimes there. are very hard put the cases to prove like tis james is a complaint

there's all kinds of references to what's known as gap which europe is generally accepted, accounting principles, Remember that from like the enron case or something yeah exactly well, the reason Those cases don't end well, like the reason that you know Andrew Weissmann ends up getting to the supreme court and getting getting his case thrown out unanimously. The rest that happens in these financial cases and they are so difficult is gap- is a very poor fit for the criminal law because What we want in the criminal law are right line rules where the average person absolutely knows what the law requires and so you can see how that applies to things like murder and theft and bank robbery, and that kind of thing right when you're dealing with gap instantly find is there's these. These

the cavernous areas where everything is about judgment and There's a lot of abstruse calculations that have to be made. There is a lot that has to do with thumb things that are intangible but that add value to an enterprise, there's a lot of gauging. The likelihood that everybody who owes you money is going to pay. You money the likely that all of the revenue streams that you're anticipating are going to come through. There's a lot of estimation that goes on and what I found in these cases is when, when somebody misrepresent something- and you know this- whopping gulf between what the truth is and what the person represented. That's a plausible case

but a lot of time is not a whopping golf lot at times like you know the answer with two hundred- and you say, thirty, five somebody might have looked at much someone who knows what they're doing might look at this stuff and say G. That was a was upset the audacious estimate. it's something that I wouldn't do as as an appraiser or an accountant and then ask em gap. Is it crime, like you know whether china, and they say no, not really. You know it's possible of, like things lined up the right way, maybe maybe they're projections would have been if it becomes its very elusive compared What you want in the criminal law which a bright line rules where everybody knows what the difference is between right wrong and that's why these cases is so hard to do There are obviously goes too far with trunk said when this came up. years ago, wishes at the values whatever's in my head in our whenever. I think it is right that is right.

The crazy, on the other hand, either. But, but you do have these- you went over the deer, a couple, these items in your piece about that the game. Sued, but he says, is tower residence was three times it's real size to devalue. At three hundred twenty seven million. He said that value of moral those ten times what tish James' estimate is at seventy five million, although that might be low but balling it he and that these rent controlled tramp tramp park avenue apartments were unrestricted, thus making them more valuable, and then I don't I understand this one, but I think I do but are not harmed censure. I should say so into conservation easements on trump properties whose values were inflated and they write off. The exaggerated value of the easements is charitable deduction, so he'd say: look the ducks can walk here, and this. This golf course is worth you know, a billion dollars to do this eat this little duck path. I have given. You is worth it

fifty million, and that that's a terrible reduction that basically what fried, in other words, if the if the ducks tiger. Woods could walk there instead of the ducks. It would be worth more right, so I'm giving and giving the ducks a pathway and many rights ought to be the pathway. And the thing is they get there? You know they get them to inflate with the value of the overall property. Even with the eastern, and then you write off these been as a charitable deduction that you ve given for the betterment of mankind. The planet. Can you still say mankind, I'm sorry that can't on this project Ok, you're still in these were forum for tax. Purposes are getting subsidies or business advantage or all the above yeah. It's basically there's three things rich. That that she focuses on One is tax advantage and you know,

score. Would I would point out to people is that there are many areas in the law where it's completely legal, to have a different ex basis for an asset than what the real value. Is you know, for example, if you, if you our home. What your tax bases that sail depends on how you acquired the home in the first place like did you buy it and then hold it for twenty years in case you, your tax basis is what you bought it for in the first place and that's how they measure the profit or did you inherited, in which case you at a brand new tax bases that wouldn't have been the tax bases that the unit the personal originally had so there's all kinds of there's all kinds of ways in which the law, makes it legal to have a different tax value. Something then the regular value, but

a lot of what is done is to try to minimize tax liability, which everybody from Joe Biden non down does but you're not. This is what the again I buy, always feel like I have to say I'm not like carrying a torch for tromp here, but I just others be that he's being singled out for this one? I think this kind of behaviour There's a lot more common than you would. You would gather from listening to test james and then the other two things which I would say, is you try maximize insurance coverage. So you want your assets to be of an. Inflated value as you can, because then, if anything happens. You you know your claim on them. You want to minimize premiums. Obviously what you want to maximize what your protection is and then, in terms of of your ability to leverage your ability to to borrow money.

You know you want to maximize that as well, so you know what what he did is what pretty jeffrey business does, which is that Europe, to the extent that they are dealing with what their level gene is going to be and what their insurance cover just going to be. They want to maximize the value of their assets and, to the extent they have tax liabilities. They want to minimize it so that the defense I saw the stuff adjusting to go in and say: well, actually, you just have a square foot is wrong you're. Not in our case If the closet is the right way or there's loft space in the apartment or whatever these nooks and crannies, that you're you're, not looking at the the formal for plan and and I actually have moral law, though? Is you know this incredible place? It's a club, that's suicide. It is worth you know ten times you think, I'd just serve get out that way. Yeah. I think that's right where you know what they'll say is you're you're. You know homing in on these? These small details

when there is a much bigger tapestry that this is all a part of which would make it you're coming in on immaterial in the long run and then- I'll just say like she's wrong. If they can, if they can show that she's wrong on a couple of basic things, that would be very bad for her case of, for example, when this news broke yesterday, I was asked you're on none, The Maccallum show on fox and right. After I was on He brought her rallo on hereafter of europe and I I hadn't heard this though I haven't. I haven't check parallel oneness antonov, he's writer or not, but he said that you not to the extent that tis James says that moral argos worth seventy five million, not when a trump say one hundred and thirty nine million. I think what What her rather said is that there is another property that was just sold by a relatively prominent person. Witches

very close by morocco, but a less desirable property than moral logo and then when for something like a hundred and fifty seven million, yeah seventy five sounds low to me, I'm not I'm not that the real estate guy, but I just spend a lot of time on zillow during the pandemic and seventy five south LA yeah. Well, one thing I would say about that, though, in terms of the dynamic of a trial- and you know, people who are accused can get a lot of rhythm and can get a lot of leeway from a jury. People who are the accusers can't so, if, if at all is the tish james is guilty of the same thing that she's accused tramp of exception is exaggerating on the lower end, then that's much worse for her than it would be. for him, exaggerating. On the other hand, you know because, he's, the one who is the burden of proof

he's the one who is making the accusation and she's the one who's gonna drag him through this process. So if it turns out that is people crawl through these two hundred and twenty pages and now start like measuring how good her numbers are, that that she's got some lockers and near that's gonna, be really bad for her case and this is the cases heard before jury. Eventual I I would be stunned if this ever gets to it. I think this is going to take years rich, mom and I'm not exactly sure what the within new york civil procedure rules are in terms of how how big the jury is, and whether they have to be unanimous or not in some places they can have like gum it. What was that big celebrity trial that we just had However, the giant up, yeah johnny depp, where I think that was what was this seven people on that jury

and I think it was unanimous, but I can't remember if it had to be so like but state by state this different rules and sometimes it matters. What the you know, what the size of the controversy is. What laws are at issue how how big the jury is and whether it has to be unanimous and not the constitution. As I see it, the constitution does not require unanimous jury and in the civil code, In any case, we really fell down and our johnny depp amber her trial coverage. Did we have any? I don't I think so it can be a legal podcast yeah. I know I know I I mean I have to draw some lines: you're, rich yeah. Alright, let me click on a plus plug and then we'll get to mar a lago and our plus digital subscription service at national view, dot com. Your way round our meter pay wall, you no longer have to dance around trying to use

different browsers, and what not to defeat our pay. Why does pay up make self? Not a citizen and pay while goes way if used up and log in the ads. Also go away. They'll still be a few, but not ready the obnoxious ones that the probably driver crazy at them and then you can dig deep deeper into our community. If you want to, you can comment on, articles bothers you can be part of a private facebook group. You join us cause in vain we have a live in person meter come up on the west coast, pretty soon hear if you're in the area and your site, a friend or pass you'll, get exclusive, invite that says, a great deal all round. We have first time rates for new subscribers, pretty much any any given moment. So, given already, please check it out. Joint tens of thousands of fellow national EU readers as an an are plus

number so annie. I all hapless use the royal we here since you're right about this one, but we predicted that this this case my go very well for a judge cannon that is at the right image yeah eileen cannon YAP, is who were shattered. special master ruling, which you thought didn't make sense on a number of browns, and now it's been wholesome and shot into at an on those on those very grounds. But again the scope picture than old digging. So The eleven circuit last night reversed judge cannon as We anticipated her rolling with a was kind of weak, It was a emphatic rejection of her position. The three judge panel was made up of two trumped judges and a one obama appointee, but it was a unanimous decision,

and really they they thoroughly rejected her reasoning it was a narrow appeal because the justice, the fort and only targeted, the classic I'd information aspect of the case, so the out of the eleven thousand documents that were seized at mar a the only thing the justice department wanted to appeal was the hundred classified documents because they say that they need that to continue their investigation and judge. cannons rolling had deprived them. Had not only said that that those hundred documents had to go to the special master which the government of at the two, but also that they were not allowed to use the documents in their criminal investigation and toll special master, had finished the privilege review so the core, appeals last night ruled in the government's favour on both those questions bay equally. They said the trumps legal,

and were bogus, undertone of it was all, but a surprised at that. Judge cannon could have indulged some of the arguments that does that she indulge basically reject this idea that dumb trample brought this suit. and have to show that the documents eat that he says. Declassified are actually declassified, trust me, playing this game, where he's trying to get the court to all that the gulf it's on the government to prove that the documents classified, but at this point- not talking about a criminal prosecution. This is a civil law suit, the trump brought and, if he says, documented declassified, in his on him, to show that I saw them What of appeals did not accept his claim that the documents were declassify or his claim that he had any need to have access to them. At this point they rejected judge,

cannons theory for why she had jurisdiction. No, the trumps constitution rights had not been. I waited in connection with the search, which is the most important aspect of equity jurisdiction. So but you know pretty thoroughly rich. They rejected what the. Judge cannon ruled, however, because the justice deplore since appeal was narrow special master will still be in place. Judge dearie will he'll be reviewing the other eleven thousand plus documents, but justice department is really that concerned about those? What they really care about is the young, the classified documents, and interesting running through all of this is that Tromp lawyers have said, the reason that they don't but did not, one who were forward. They are evident

that they say they may be able to produce that trump declassified. These documents is that they anticipate that he will be indicted or that he may very well be indicted, for closer I'd information offences and they don't wanna play their defence out until that happens, though, was so dear, is reviewing the documents for potential executive, privilege, correct executive yeah. Now the justice department already says that they've gone through it for attorney. Privilege and they separated out about five hundred and fifty. arguments that, on a very broad test, you like basis, the anything that could conceivably have been attorney climb, fervors like if it had a lawyers name on it. They assume that it might be attorney climb privilege, so they ve already separated out those five hundred and fifty documents, which are I understand it or not. The classified documents and judged areas. Gonna do is go through the rest of them, but I think he's gotta.

In that trunk doesn't have executive privilege and in I don't see how we can ignore what the eleven circuit said last night about the whole question of whether you don't judge cannon had jurisdiction, to order a special master in the first place. Now that's not again the governor didn't challenge that, but I expect the judge theories. Going to find, the trunk doesn't have executive privilege and that he'll move through this pretty rapidly? She gave him mom, it and gave him till November thirtieth to finish the end the patient was that was going to include the a hundred classified documents she was gonna handle in the first round, so that that could be done? It hopefully few days now, that's not an issue. But in the meantime the justice department is going to start giving trump copies of the other things that were seized and I think They'll be able to identify and pretty short order what they say as executive privilege. I think, dear

will, probably find trump doesn't have executive privilege and the whole thing may go faster than people. Think, and does it doesn't make sense going back to did do classification? I agree with it lawyers say: look, we're we're not gonna. Tell you why we think it's declassified as we might need that in it. That's a criminal case? Does it make sense not to broadcast said in advance, as it is at a sound legal strategy, or is it just dancing around. They didn't have anything to say. It's probably bows. I mean that avail wanna. They don't want to plan their feet, defence lawyer. You want to see The government has before you think through how you gonna do your defence. Now, what to be clear. I am not saying that people manufacture their defences, but that does happen sometimes but a good lawyer, is gonna want to see what the other side has before you before you figure out how you're going to attack the case.

So? The last thing you want to do is plant your feet before You see what the government is going to allege because you can't take that back and they can use it against you a charge, but the problem that the the problem. The lawyers have here you'll be shocked to hear this bridge. problem. The lawyers have is trump. You know they're trying to play close to the best in court. And make an argument to the judges that you know it's really important for their defence strategy purposes that they keep their cards close to the vessel. point and then trump goes out and gives a speech where he says, he's, declassified everything and then fact, last night I think he said he doesn't have to do anything, except imagine that their declassified and what is the life? So you know the judge. Is the judges, obviously you're a rub, a very hard for him to it's hard for them to

gave a sound legal argument when that, when the client, campi control and what's your guess on percentage eyes at this one results and indictment, I'd, say seven and ten mile So, let's quickly go to Martha's vineyard, where famously emphasis infamously, depending on your point of view, run santa's flew fifty migrants, somewhat bizarrely from San antonio, but his argument is that a lot of people end up in florida, which is true, so he's going to cut them off at the source, and this, of course, called cousin, enormous controversy. There now a lawsuit against the scientists from a couple of these migrants, alleging that their misled and promise to all sorts of benefits that didn't emerge early, seven immersed yet have you got a chance to look at that suit? I have

rich. I think this is, I think dissenters is great to do this and I hope what what gets expire, after this, which hasn't gotten enough attention is the fact that the government for years has been doing exactly what the scientist it. You know it puts me go on planes, puppy puts people in buses and it seeds them at the united states without any notice to the state govern instead are involved. So they ve been doing from the beginning and yet I understand that all that I'm supposed to now say you know it's terribly use people as pawns in your, u no political battles and all that I must These are people who come to the united states illegally, and we have a federal statute on the books that the united states government wants to put a won't enforce. That says, people who are in the country illegally is supposed to be detained. till the end of their proceedings. So if you

to tell me that it was a terrible thing to do to somebody who had no right to be here in the first place that they were going to be taken. point a rather than point b, and maybe misrepresentations got made too? I mean really the reason they were in the country is air miss. Presenting that they have asylum, claim bread to worry about what representations were made to them to go to Martha's friggin vineyard yeah. It isn't a practical matter, as, as I've said as a matter of policy, I like the way arizona is doing it. They make sure there's consent are the members I want to go there? They put him out of us and they say in new york city. Look there. There could be there in four days wherever I just think that the right way to do it, but there's nothing wrong with moving around, as you point out there that they are being moved around regardless and we ve had a policy that relied on the illegal immigrants choice. You know their dumping by the age ass. Two of these private pro immigrant groups in that they ask them where they want to go, and then they broker them getting a getting a a bus. Take

and these migrants wanted to go somewhere near boston, ended up somewhere near boston and have cut If the migrant lottery right, I mean the these are fifty migrants who are going to be totally taken care of and were sleeping on, the streets, some of them, according to the if the officials, but before getting on this flight and now now they're going to be very well taken, care of and and cape cod or or wherever but that they also just as a legal matter that minor standing they signed releases so it can be very hard for them to come back and Oh my gosh, he did this terrible thing thing to us When I signed a document, say: ok, we're we're going in and will hold a? U harmless legal yeah I do get all that and legally it all correct. Then, if they saw on the way. then the knock have much of a legal claim, but I have to say rich. I mean the whole idea that you know we got their consent before we we put them,

we sent them to mar a lago water or outside kamala harris his house or wherever they send them. Next, how come we don't have to give our consent to whether they come in the country and the first point of funny really love us amidst lordship wits, like feel like we're living in an alternative universe and the problem, in an immigration enforcement has always been an had this argument with the with people for years. You know the the federal role in immigration enforcement, is something that was basically derived by the courts. The operating assumption at the beginning of our republic was that the states themselves, going to deal with law, enforce the law and order issue included, including who was trespassing and not their territory, now they created a federal role for this, which inevitably the supreme court, turned into not only a federal role but federal control,

problem with this has always been that the people who will living with the problem are in places like EL paso and the apple. what deciding what to do with bout. The problem are the poor medical elites in washington who were completely insulated from the problem, and that's that problem with having big government solutions to things that are not big government problems there you're, obviously border enforcement is a is a federal responsibility, but you know they've. Basically, done everything they could to now. The fight to negate the ability the state governments to deal with immigration so that its to washington exclusively to take care of it and they want to enforce the law. yeah yeah. It is washington controlling things not so they can enforce the law the way they liked, but so that they too, they cannot enforce it. The way they like and justice. The perversity of of ending in there? I guess there still fighting in the court's it's it's still

legal cases over this If the diversity of ending remain in mexico, which is so neatly, took care of the problem we're dealing with, which is bogus asylum claims? Where you make the claim and you get into the united states and then you're never going to leave. Even if your clot claim is rejected, day in mexico. Let you do that and if you have your claims, legit, ok, that the rules already you get in local now, what light marthas Martha's, you want in their case, but otherwise you just stay in mexico and go home. You know how can anyone possibly object to that? the the Biden. People can be treated as If there's some moral outrage and just to talk to her friend mark great about this here today, in he he he is skeptical of the argument. Oh they're doing this because they they want immigrants to to vote for them. Eventually I mean it, he he thinks that's part of it I'm putting words in his mouth here so mark. If you hear this, forgive me, but he was saying you know that the end of the day, just they don't think we have the moral right to exclude these people and that's a the bottom of it and that's why you have this de facto open order,

and and migrants deciding where they want to go if they're slightly misled, you know they end, but a really tony summer island. You know it's an outrage, not afraid and look rich, even if even if Biden, somewhere in his addled brain realises that this is wrong and that politically, it's probably gonna be catastrophic at some point for the Democrats, may it be simple soon. I think what we ve seen on issue a issue across the the board is that if the progressive left somethin badly badly enough, he he basically did it, doesn't matter what it whether it thinks it's a good idea, not he feels like he has to accommodate them in that and as other points out they want this. You know they wanted badly whether it's because they don't think we have a moral right to have a border, whether their true.

the transform the country or whether it's a little bit of both the fact is they want it, and it would it's like a third rail for democrats too, to be sensible on this issue and my favorite statistic that we ve talked about the west number I think this was the last time we discussed this was probably a while ago. Is that the binding? illustration has reduced the budget for detention of illegal aliens and for enforcement, so you know we had about thirty six thousand units to house people, and now they ve they're gonna cut that down to thirty So, as the problem is getting worse, there actually lowering the detention space to my mind, common sense, says that if you only have thirty six thousand spaces to detain people, then you can't let more than that

six thousand out here. Actually I mean that's what allowed that would seem to be. So that's all the time we have for this ep. So this part gaston and produce buddy incomparable sarah, should he thinks it more for listening and thank you any mccarthy thank for it