We engage in a rigorous examination of the legal landscape following Clarence Thomas's mysterious hiatus from the Supreme Court and the potential precedent a pivotal case might set for January 6 insurrectionists. The term "otherwise obstructs" is scrutinized, raising questions about the interpretation of obstruction in the context of the Capitol riot. We also shine a light on possible conflicts of interest at the highest court, questioning the implications for justice and fairness.
The Trump Organization finds itself in hot water, with Don Jr.'s signatures on key documents under a legal microscope. We dissect Letitia James's actions and the implications for the financial dealings within Trump's empire. With Barbara Jones's oversight, we're left wondering what skeletons might tumble out of the organization's closet. Tune in as we also reveal the dubious honor of our 'Shithole of the Week' – a title bestowed upon those whose actions have been less than exemplary.
Finally, we grapple with the weighty issues of international conflict, advocacy for jury nullification, and witness tampering. Our conversation challenges listeners to differentiate between government actions and the will of the people, drawing poignant examples from around the globe. We delve into the sincerity of protests, especially in support of the Palestinian cause, and the inconsistent international response to crises. With a look at the U.S. political landscape, we analyze recent polling trends and the significance of continued activism as the nation approaches key elections. Join us for a deep and critical assessment of the state of our world and the role of justice within it.
We engage in a rigorous examination of the legal landscape following Clarence Thomas's mysterious hiatus from the Supreme Court and the potential precedent a pivotal case might set for January 6 insurrectionists. The term "otherwise obstructs" is scrutinized, raising questions about the interpretation of obstruction in the context of the Capitol riot. We also shine a light on possible conflicts of interest at the highest court, questioning the implications for justice and fairness.
The Trump Organization finds itself in hot water, with Don Jr.'s signatures on key documents under a legal microscope. We dissect Letitia James's actions and the implications for the financial dealings within Trump's empire. With Barbara Jones's oversight, we're left wondering what skeletons might tumble out of the organization's closet. Tune in as we also reveal the dubious honor of our 'Shithole of the Week' – a title bestowed upon those whose actions have been less than exemplary.
Finally, we grapple with the weighty issues of international conflict, advocacy for jury nullification, and witness tampering. Our conversation challenges listeners to differentiate between government actions and the will of the people, drawing poignant examples from around the globe. We delve into the sincerity of protests, especially in support of the Palestinian cause, and the inconsistent international response to crises. With a look at the U.S. political landscape, we analyze recent polling trends and the significance of continued activism as the nation approaches key elections. Join us for a deep and critical assessment of the state of our world and the role of justice within it.
Thank you, apologies to you know. I know all the family of Nicole Brown are listening.
Speaker 2:
I yeah, look, and I hate to be insensitive.
Speaker 3:
And the Goldman's sorry.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, like people did die and their families Well look, families you got. You finally got justice. The real killer is dead, so earlier on Tuesday.
Speaker 1:
Talking about other hated black men. Transition Carol Salad.
Speaker 2:
Nice job, carol. After his absence at the Supreme Court oral arguments on Monday, clarence Thomas was present and participating in oral arguments here on Tuesday for this case that could decide the fate of a number of january 6 insurrectionists. He didn't give any explanation for his absence on monday, although, given that he's 75 years old, maybe he might have had some health issues that have gone on unreported. But typically when, when justices are absent, they participate remotely in oral arguments or um well, yeah, I don't know what the fuck. I don't know what was going on monday. Like, again, it was the beginning of trump's trial, so maybe he was heartbroken that his best friend was was facing or he had to take jenny to the spa after her meltdown because her Lord and Savior was on trial.
Speaker 2:
Maybe that was it she had to escort her to the spa.
Speaker 2:
Well, he was back in action and ready to go on these January 6th charges. This is basically about an instance in which one of the insurrectionists were charged with well, a number of them were charged with the obstruction of official proceeding, but the judge overseeing this one particular case decided that the obstruction charges had been too broad and that they shouldn't apply in this instance. And we'll talk about it further in a second. But we'll get into the text of the statutes, that's US Code 1512C1 and C2. And it states whoever corruptly one alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record, document or other object, or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding, or two otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so.
Speaker 2:
So the argument here is in the defendant's case that statute refers to. Well, in C1, it says a record, document or object, and that is the focus of the obstruction of an official proceeding. And even though it says in C2 that or otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes an official proceeding, it has to relate to some kind of document or some kind of object or some kind of form of evidence that's intended to obstruct the official proceeding, even though, like clearly, part two is a catch-all and it's totally separate from the idea of, like you know, evidence in part one, but, of course, during the oral arguments, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1:
Did they record document or other object? Would Mike Pence count as another object Because they tried to remove him from the proceeding for the purpose of?
Speaker 2:
obstructing, influencing or impeding. You know, I wish someone had made the oral, made the argument in front of the Supreme Court that Mike Pence was an object but no like of the justices. The person who seemed most skeptical of the idea that the DOJ was right to bring these charges in such a fashion was, of course, clarence Thomas, whose wife is a unindicted co-conspirator and in the attempt to overturn the 2016 or 2020 election rather so. Of course, he's going to do whatever he can to bail the insurrectionists out and, like obviously, some of the more conservative justices were skeptical of DOJ's arguments here that these were, um, you know, proper charges and you can't really necessarily count on Trump appointed justices to do the right thing. Um, who knows how the decision will turn out, but the arguments were very interesting. If you have the opportunity, go back and read up on those. Uh, one of the things I was it clearly says or sorry.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, there's a big giant fucking or right there that delineates between objects, documents or attempts to do so, like as far as obstructing an official proceeding. And then it's clear it says or otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so. And violence is clearly a corrupt attempt to obstruct, influence or impede the processional. Like storming the fucking Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power is fairly fucking obvious.
Speaker 2:
Putting their bodies physically in the way and causing security to insist that the Like Congress cowering and hiding for their lives. I think that that's pretty clear that they obstructed an official proceeding.
Speaker 3:
The fact that it had to stop meant it was disrupted. I mean, they weren't standing there going through the proceedings while people were banging down, trying to bang through the door and stirring the Capitol and beating cops. It wasn't like nothing to see here. Y'all, what's your vote? Electors? No People had to be taken to fucking safe rooms and off-site areas and things barricaded. The fact that it was halted is the disruption, the obstruction.
Speaker 2:
Ty, they had to shoot a motherfucker. Yes, to make sure Congress didn't die. They called the goddamn army. Ty, carol, they called the army.
Speaker 3:
Ooh, the mental gymnastics coming out of this court. I don't know what the fuck is going on. I don't know, maybe Clarence didn't come yesterday or go yesterday because he had to get his orders going on. I don't know, maybe clarence didn't come by come yesterday or go yesterday, or because he had to get his orders and maybe meet harlan down in some secret bunker he had to get his marching orders to get his orders, so on how he's supposed to rule maybe you know, because he didn't want nobody knowing like, oh he's, he called out, what's he up to?
Speaker 3:
we need to follow him.
Speaker 2:
So he's like I'm just not gonna show up yeah, he had the nerve to even bring up that some of the january 6 defendants were overly charged and like this is rich coming. I think one of the problems with these supreme court oral arguments is that the lawyers presenting in front of the supreme court are mistakenly respecting the construct as if these are independent jurors and they're just calling, calling ball and strikes. These are bad faith actors exactly, and they know, clarence thomas's wife was at the fucking capitol on january 6th sending him fucking emails.
Speaker 3:
He knows if he rules against the january 6th people he can't go home and if he does, it's one eye open.
Speaker 2:
Sleep time like period yeah, but what I'm saying is, is these lawyers making these arguments? They need to call out the fact that, hey, you bringing up january 6th, clarence thomas, your wife was sending emails trying to overturn the election too.
Speaker 3:
Like the fact that they're respecting this as though these are normal people is fucking insane and that's like this is third good marshall's court yeah or the court that existed when clarence thomas didn't say a word for 10 years and it still had some semblance of credibility respect and credibility, exactly the same as the media treating trump like he's a normal fucking presidential candidate, and not one that tried to to stage a coup like if this is ridiculous, the air and oxygen and the faith that they have it's. It's no more. You have to treat these fools like they are yeah, you gotta, you gotta be.
Speaker 2:
I mean, you basically got a shit post in your oral arguments, otherwise you're gonna get much you're gonna get a fucked up ruling, like you did with, you know, the 14th amendment make some ridiculous ass argument, some ridiculous shit.
Speaker 2:
You don't have to be ridiculous. But I'm saying, like you gotta call out this hypocrisy. Yeah well, you gotta call out this hypocrisy to their faces and make them like wallow in shame, otherwise you're gonna get a fucking ridiculous ass judgment, like with the insurrection is, being put on the ballot again Cause they, you know, read, read the constitution in a way that was insane, but in a way that was mostly convenient for the insurance. Like you, you can't let them get away with it. You got to call it out, otherwise they're going to screw you over and you're going to get decisions made that don't make any sense.
Speaker 1:
That could potentially affect them Well and shaming them in court, as the um, as the attorney is.
Speaker 2:
that's the plan yeah, because you have you not realized, carol? They're going to lose? Like if they're doomed they're going to lose. And then your only shot like if you play it straight, you're going to lose the only shot is to like if you're going to go down, go down on the record with calling those motherfuckers out yeah, yeah, they can't hide from that.
Speaker 3:
That shit is that that court. That's on the record.
Speaker 2:
Right. That no one is willing to say it to them is the reason why they keep getting the skate.
Speaker 1:
I'm just saying I could see why an attorney wouldn't want to say that in court.
Speaker 3:
I'm going to come up with some crazy case and file it, and then I'm going to try to get it to the Supreme Court and then, when I get there, I'm going to say I want to be my own attorney. Can I do that?
Speaker 2:
No, carol, I understand what you're saying, but, like see, what I'm saying is is the process is already rigged and if you don't go to the extreme of calling them out on their hypocrisy, you're going to lose and there's going to be no media coverage of it. They're going to treat it as though they came to a rational decision, even though it was totally irrational, and that's why you like yeah, but um, so late monday night, uh, the surety and the civil fraud judgment that was supposed to be responsible for trump's bond, the night insurance company. They posted a filing late monday, right before the deadline, and the documents state that the bond is backed by a Charles Schwab account with $175 million in cash and this is important in cash or cash equivalents.
Speaker 3:
Sneakers don't count.
Speaker 2:
We'll get back to that in a second. The makers don't count. We'll get back to that in a second. The documents appear to be signed by Don Jr, but the documents also state that it is for a subsidy of the Chubb Insurance Group and not Knight Insurance, which means these documents could be related to the Chubb surety in the E Jean Carroll judgment in the filing of that bond. So it appears as though they might be trying to pull a fast one over on Judge and Gorin's court, which is fucking insane.
Speaker 2:
This is wild to me it's wild, like in a case about fraud where you were found guilty and you're trying to appeal that and post a bond that appears to also be fraudulent be fraud.
Speaker 1:
So he's like trying to double dip the bond for the Eugene Carroll.
Speaker 2:
That's what it looks like yes, in this one instance, but there's also there's so many things about it that are fucking suspicious that it's really even hard to point out one thing in particular, but another thing. So back to this Charles Schwab account with $175 million in cash or cash equivalents. So, first of all, the document says, well, it notes the amount in the account on a particular day, april fit, or rather April 15th of 2014, 2014, april 15th of 2024. And you might know, that day.
Speaker 2:
Well, yeah, not 20, 20, 24. That day might be familiar to you because that is the date of the live golf tournament making its arrival to Trump's golf course in dural, florida, april 15th. So they held the live golf tournament there. And miraculously, on the same day is that? Uh, night insurance knows that that trump has a shrub account with 175 million dollars, exactly the amount of money needed to cover the reduced bond.
Speaker 3:
And that is so funny. Also, it's because Knight turned over all of their financials. But they're like oh my God, I went home, I started vacuuming, I lifted up the couch cushions Voila. Maybe, I don't know, maybe they went to the fucking school of Bob Melendez. I don't know.
Speaker 2:
Well, it's also a lot going on with Knight's claims of being able to you know their financial solvency in terms of covering the bond. It appears as though they don't have enough money, but they keep pointing to their parent company having the funds, but like the whole point of the bond, is Janky Hanky.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, mr Hanky, janky hanky. Yeah, mr hanky. Uh, just, we're, we're going to get enough of weird strange names making their appearances over the course of the next couple of weeks, uh, especially with like david pecker and now mr hanky. But yeah, they keep pointing out how the parent company has the money to cover the the judgment. Uh, should trump lose his appeal? But like, the whole point of the bond is, so the money is there, because whoever won the judgment, in this case leticia james's office, if you post the bond, that saves, you know, her office from having to collect or or having to seize assets or properties, like the money should be there and that this company doesn't seem to have the money. But they're like, oh, you can just get it from my parents. Like that's the whole purpose of the bond is to avoid that, so it just it seems sketch.
Speaker 3:
Don Jr Is in enough fucking trouble. He was what him and Eric both got a couple million dollar fund and, uh, banned for what?
Speaker 2:
Two years from doing business, yeah, but that don jr is signing shit and that this whole this all of this is well that look, that's another thing, and I just wanted to point out that's probably why daddy's name ain't on that shit, because they're like we can't have him out here with a target on his back signing on these documents and sending him to court. So Don Jr Is probably going to take some heat from this Cause. I'm sure Letitia James's office is going to ask for more. We'll further clarify, like when they hold this hearing about approving this bond.
Speaker 3:
Letitia James's office is going to ask all the questions and I'm sure if this is some kind of fucking around like Letitia James' office is going to ask all the questions and I'm sure if this is some kind of they keep fucking around like Letitia James is stupid or something Right, they really do. This isn't what she fucking does. She's brought in billions of dollars from New York. She has taken down trafficking ring. She has went after crypto opioids Tish don't play that, Homie don't play that and they are fucking with the wrong one.
Speaker 2:
Yeah. So if this is some kind of scheme to get Trump out of the bond or some kind of delay tactic while the delay has been effective, she's going to hammer them, and Judge and Goran probably will too. And another thing will too, and another thing. So, of note, barbara Jones, the court-appointed monitor, is still at her position overseeing Trump Organization finances, and so she is supposed to be notified of any transactions of more than $5 million. So if there's anything sketchy about the way this money got into this account, that Knight that, uh, night insurance is using as collateral, uh, she will be able to have access to those documents and we'll be able to present them in court. So I mean again, like, if this is the saudis funneling money into the trump, uh, trump organization, uh, we're gonna know about it, we're gonna about it, I would count that money again because it might be, you know, about $50,000 short, if Julian is in charge of
Speaker 2:
it because.
Speaker 3:
I'm sure he owes some people Cash equivalents could have been the DJ. When they say cash equivalent, I'm assuming that the bricks of cocaine don't count.
Speaker 2:
No, all right, carol, what were you saying?
Speaker 1:
I was saying you think the cash equivalent. That's how they valued the DJT stock and notice it was April 5th. So is that before it crashed?
Speaker 2:
Okay, so here's the thing. I don't know necessarily, the arrangements of whether or not Trump can. I'm actually, I'm actually pretty sure that he's not supposed to be able to use any of the stock as collateral yeah not even selling it off but even using it as collateral.
Speaker 2:
But again, if he does um, so first of all, night insurance. They have like a clause where if the value of the funds in the account dips below a certain amount, trump has to top it off to get it back to the $175 million. So if he's using some of the, the stock is collateral. Well, given that the value of the shares have dropped massively over the course of the past couple of weeks, like he's going to have to continuously keep adding stock to get the balance above $175 million.
Speaker 3:
Maybe he was able to get the ball. Maybe he offered them some stock for the ball.
Speaker 2:
Well, who knows, it's worth?
Speaker 3:
13 cents.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, Well, I mean it's worth. Well, here's the thing If he keeps dropping, it's going to take the entirety of his stock options in the company to cover the 175 million dollars, and then he won't be able to cash out at all so I mean I'm surprised they haven't suspended trading.
Speaker 2:
Uh, it'll have to get it'll have to get a lot lower and supposedly they're planning on issuing some new shares, which which will pump cash into. Yeah well, that'll pump cash into the company, but it'll also like water down the the value of the stock price even more so which is what he was sued for, what the guys, what they were saying.
Speaker 3:
it's like they. It's like watching, like the, the barnum and Bailey of financial transactions, and I just see this clown car in the middle.
Speaker 3:
I hear this music, yeah and this is what this looks like to me, and I'm like, how did any of these people amass any kind of wealth at all, because they are bumbling morons and the shit that they're doing seems so reckless to me and I don't understand how anybody with a modicum of business sense would not just walk the fuck away well, ty, they are walking away because again, if you haven't noticed, the stock peaked at like $70-something per share.
Speaker 2:
It's now down in the 20s, the low 20s, and look at this rate. It could be below $20 per share by Friday and again, I think once it hits that point, everybody's going to abandon ship. It'll be a penny stock before the end of the month. If that's the case, and you know, kudos to whoever shorted the stock at its high. You, a fucking legend. You about to get, you know, a hundred times worth your money here pretty soon. So congratulations on making bank by betting against an obvious pump and dump scheme. You, a genius. Congratulations, bro. All right, so it's time for our shithole of the week award. I myself have a particular nominee, but if there's anyone that you two wanted to put forward, by all means.
Speaker 3:
I mean, I'm all for Mike Johnson, but we need some fresh blood, we need some new meat.
Speaker 2:
Well, mike Johnson is trying to balance the fact that he is controlled by an insane clown caucus but also needs to be semi-responsible, so I'm not necessarily going to nominate him this week, even though he is set to lose his job fairly soon here. I think they're going to move to vacate the speaker. Well, the Republicans are going to move to vacate fairly soon, and then Trump doesn't seem to be too intent on protecting him at the moment. But my personal nomination for the Shithole of the Week award is none other than Clay Travis. He is the host of Outkick, the that kicked off. Clay Travis posted on the interwebs that quote If you're a Trump supporter in New York City who was part of the jury pool, do everything you can to get seated on the jury and then refuse to convict as a matter of principle, do them in the case via hung jury. It's the most patriotic thing you could possibly do Him. Suggesting that in public, suggesting that the jury should engage in jury nullification that is actually a crime.
Speaker 3:
And then explaining to him how to do it on top of that.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, that is witness tampering. That is a felony. He could spend, you know, six months in jail and up to you know a ridiculous amount of money in fines. So hopefully the FBI.
Speaker 1:
It's got to be like per witness right.
Speaker 2:
Hopefully the FBI gets a hold of him. And look. So I live in Nashville, he's from here. He wasn't always like this and he's actually a lawyer. So the fact that he has like taken the position of like outright committing crimes in favor of supporting Donald Trump, I hereby award this shit stain the shithole of the week award. Congratulations, you were jackass. You fucking deserve it. All right kids. Closing thoughts Any anyone want to step up to the plate?
Speaker 1:
No, no matter. I just want to say a quick thing about war. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. That is not the thought. Cool, Cool. I just want to remind everyone about the humanity of others. We shouldn't have to like have a whole topic about it, but like celebrating humanity, anyone like blowing up people because you don't like their leaders, like really fucked up. Like remember your enemies are human and everyone's human, and don't don't be fucking simping for the Islamic Republic in Iran.
Speaker 2:
Fuck Long story short. Yes, If you're, if you find yourself supporting Iran, regardless of how you feel about the conflict the leadership, not the people. No, look, isn't that? I know I guess people tend to conflate those. But yes, when we talk about the Russians or the Chinese or the Iranians or even Hamas, we're not talking about innocent citizens. We're talking about the particular organizations in charge of these decisions, the particular organizations in charge of these decisions and everyone should remember that when you're like laughing about people being killed, In case of point.
Speaker 2:
I met a nice Iranian woman at a restaurant sometime last year, very kind, thoughtful, insightful, educated, like even the Iranian people are people just like you and me. But again, if you find yourself rooting for the government or Iran, you the asshole. In that situation, there's just no, it's just unacceptable to be rooting for the bad guys. In that case, uh Ty.
Speaker 3:
Closing thoughts uh, no, what are you saying? Like here, there's an Iranian restaurant here and the lady is, she's so amazing and I absolutely love it and and I really. We have so such a problem with conflating things that shouldn't be lumped together.
Speaker 2:
Like oh, especially people in their governments. Because again I'm American. We had Trump in charge here. Do I seem like a trump supporter to you?
Speaker 3:
exactly, and so it's like to lump, you know, the palestinian people in with hamas, or the jewish people, the israeli people with nanyahu, or, to, you know, lump in any any people, like, of course, all. Of course all Russians aren't Putin supporters. I mean, you can see that by the turnout that Novani had.
Speaker 1:
And then, at the end of the day, these warring leaders have more in common with each other than they do with their people.
Speaker 3:
With their people. That's a very good point. That's absolutely it, carol, you nailed it. They have more in common with each other than they do with the people they're supposed to be representing. And but, yeah, it's the people that they are representing who are taking the heat and bearing the brunt of the backlash, not those who really deserve it, those who really deserve it.
Speaker 3:
And you know, I have no problem with people standing with the Palestinian people. But my issue with these pro-Palestinian protests and these marches and shutting down bridges what is your end game? What do you want? What do you think is going to happen by this? Because you're not shutting down a bridge in Gaza or you're not shutting down a bridge in Israel, you're not standing outside of the Israeli embassy, you're keeping parents from taking their kids to school, you're keeping people from getting to the hospital, you're keeping people from getting their jobs Everyday, people who have nothing to do with what is going on. And so what is your end game? I don't get it, I don't understand it, and all it does is it detracts away from the what is really going on and how the Palestinian people are really suffering. And I also get upset is because if you really really give a fuck. Then where were you when Assad was bombing Palestinian refugee camps and displacing them with Russia's help in Syria?
Speaker 2:
Okay, it's really difficult to get everyone involved on every cause, but yes, point taken.
Speaker 3:
But if your thing is about the Palestinian people, well, there were Palestinian people in refugee camps in Syria that were bombed, that were displaced, that were killed, that were starved out. Those were Palestinians. But I heard high and low air from you about that, about them.
Speaker 2:
And in that case it's not like Hamas went over there and raped and murdered a bunch of Syrians.
Speaker 3:
No, it was just the leader of the country just killing his own people. But point well made, I feel like you can't no, you can't take up every cause, but if you are this, this, this passionate about it, then you are this. Then you would be taking it on in the interest of anyone in that situation and in my mind, you can't be anti-Ukraine and pro-Palestinian. I don't see that. I don't think that is a sincere point of view. I don't think that's a sincere take. And I'm using those two examples because they are the most prominent, but there are several around the world that can be used and as far as like put in and the same circumstances, but what is the end game? What is it that they want? They just keep saying, using a phrase, without saying how they think that it's going to happen, how they want it to happen and what do they think is going to happen after it happens? Or what is it that they want to happen after it happens?
Speaker 2:
And here let me save you from having to go on even further Like, if you're, obviously, if you're protesting for the Palestinians, how are you not protesting against Hamas? Anyway, as for my closing thoughts, I'm going to stay away from the charged subject of whether or not the it's Carol's fault.
Speaker 2:
I'm going to stay away from the charged debate about whether or not the phrase those people are uttering is even accurate or fitting. I mean, you can? This is one of those times where I sound like a right or white wing a white wing, damn it, I did it again a right wing nut job, where you know, do your own research about the veracity of the numbers that the bad guys are putting out, about casualties and such. But what I will say is that, horrific situation aside, we are reaching a point where things are starting to swing in terms of the polling in the election, and I know you're all going to say the polling is bullshit, it doesn't matter. Ok, well, it matters in the sense that maybe the methodology used by the polls isn't coming see a wild swing from one direction to the other.
Speaker 2:
That is the way in which polling can be particularly valuable, because, while the numbers might not accurately reflect how the election ends in November, what it does show is that election sentiment is moving one direction, and Trump here is moving in the wrong direction, and ever since the State of the Union address, where Biden put to bed this idea that he was suffering from some sort of cognitive decline or wasn't fit to hold office, which was admittedly extraordinarily easy to do when you set the bar extremely low and then he can just get on TV and talk for an hour. Ace job there. Republicans, that was a genius move. You set up Joe Biden to surpass your results immeasurably by doing the easiest thing in the world talking for an hour. We're fucking idiots with the podcast. We do that every week. So even in republicland look, even in a republican- you're sounding like trump look it's late.
Speaker 2:
Um, we do this at night when I'm exhausted and english is harder and fucking harder. But even in a republican leaning poll that just dropped uh, I think it's from Echelon Insights it has Biden up three, now leading 49 to 46. It has Democrats in the generic up by three points and over the last two months that is a seven point swing. So, as I've been telling you, while I am extraordinarily concerned about the outcome of the election and the consequences that we might be facing if Trump wins, I've also been telling you that if you show up to vote, Trump will lose and that the polls are reflecting that and like, just instead of focusing on whether or not the polling is favorable to Biden. You know it's a landmark. It's a sign to show that maybe you need to do in the future how he saved the country from what seemed like an inevitably terrible conclusion in 2020, where we were set to die from COVID because Trump. Even when the vaccines were made available, Trump couldn't get them out to the people. He didn't leave a pandemic response plan. Once he left the White House, the economy was in tatters. We thought the global economy was going to collapse. Biden saved us from all that and the only real consequence is that prices of some items are a little bit higher, even though inflation went down because of price gaps. Share this information with people. Let them know about the job Biden is doing. Like.
Speaker 2:
Once people are aware of the truth and they hear it, their opinions change. The republican party is that's going to continue to deter supporters away from their party and towards biden, like they're. Again. They're talking about removing the speaker of the house. Republicans are doing that. Their speaker of the house is a republican. That's fucking insane. Like it's an election year. Clearly their party's not unified. That doesn't bode well for them. Trump is is going on trial here again. Trial of the century, at least until the next Trump trial and then the Trump trial after that and then possibly the Trump trial after that. That's not going to do him any favors in terms of public support is moving in our direction and instead of like obsessing over the possibility that it could go all wrong, focus on being productive, doing what you can do to ensure we don't lose our democracy. And that concludes this episode of Pardon the Insurrection.