5 Troubling Facts About Special Counsel Jack Smith, Plus Dems Pushing Spending & Gun Control!

with you after Thanksgiving. I hope you had a great time with your family. I know you played some basketball and beat up on some younger family members, so we should have that moment to gloat for you. Well, my nephew, Diego, who's now twenty three, I've been playing basketball with us since he was about three. I will say he was captain of his high school team and he's a very good ball player. And so we went out Friday, played about three hours, so there's good news and bad news.

We went to his old high school gym. I teamed up with a coach. There. We played old guys against young guys. Old guys won. In fact, we won repeatedly. I think I think one game we won fifty to four, not that you were, not that you're keeping count at all, right, well, of course us. But the depressing thing is then at the end of the day, after about two hours of hoops, we then I then played Diego one on one for

about an hour and unfortunately he beat me. Now, now it was it was pretty even for a kid who's twenty three and as a heck of a ball player. The last game he beat me sixteen fourteen. We played a fifteen win by two, So I was pretty happy with that. If I hadn't screwed up and missed a layup, I would have beaten him. But I screwed up in missed a layup. Say, I know that this will be admitted from the podcast probably about ten years from now, right when the scores changed. So we enjoyed the moment

while absolutely all right. So a lot of people over the holidays took a break, and there was some news that broke right before Thanksgiving, and it was news about the special prosecutor looking at Donald Trump. And then we got the name of the guy who's going to be the special prosecutor. And the question is, obviously who is this guy? We now know something about him. We know that he's one not an unbiased guy, which is exactly what they tried to claim when they announced a special prosecutor.

And two, he's a guy that also had deep connections to the lowest learner and the irs when they were targeting conservative and Tea party groups. Now, if that's your resume, so exactly a guy that's unbiased, it sounds like they brought in a killer to take down Donald Trump, using the government and everything that he could have his disposal

with a special prosecutor. Well, I think they're five things to know about Jack Smith, and they're all relevant, they're all important, and they're all being underreported by the corporate media. Number One, remember this guy was hand selected by Merrick Garland. Marek Garland could have appointed any special prosecutor he wanted. He picked Jack Smith. Marick Garland knows exactly what he's doing. The hard partisans at DOJ know exactly what they're doing.

They appointed Jack Smith to indict Donald Trump. That's why he's in there, is to bring the indictment and to prosecute him. It was the deliberate choice of partisans at DOJ. Now, how do we know that their choice was actually a good one? From the perspective of a left wing partisan. Well for other facts, when Smith was head of the Public Integrity Unit, this is actually not the first presidential candidate or potential presidential candidate Smith is prosecuted. Smith his

office led the prosecution of Bob McDonald. Bob McDonald was the governor of Virginia. The time he was governor of Virginia, he was viewed as a credible and even a serious potential Republican presidential candidate. And then Jack Smith's office prosecuted him. They prosecuted him for essentially bribery. And there was a big donor in Virginia that had given a series of gifts to McDonald and his wife that that certainly looked in proper and raised significant questions about at least appearances.

But Smith got a conviction convicted him of multiple federal counts. That case went to the US Supreme Court. Do you know what the US Supreme Court did with it? I'm guessing it was probably one of those moments they said no, so they reversed the conviction. And what do you think the vote was in the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction? Only because I feel like I haven't said her information here. It was not good if you were on the team of the prosecution trying to go after him. Well, the

vote was unanimous. It was nine to zero. And that means every single justice, all of them, including the left wing justices, voted to vacate the conviction. Now, let me tell you why what happened. You had this donor that gave gifts to the governor and his wife. But in order to convict him, you had to show that the governor did an official act, essentially, that it was bribery in exchange for an official act like signing a bill or vetoing a bill or issuing an order. Well, he

didn't do any of that. What he did is he set up a couple of meetings and he hosted a party. And the theory of Jack Smith's office was that was enough to be bribery. And here's what the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts troth the opinion. It's a unanimous opinion.

I'm just going to read it. Setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling an official or agreeing to do so merely to talk about research study to gather additional information, however, does not qualify as a decision or action on the pending question of whether to initiate the study. Simply expressing support for the research study at a meeting event or call, or sending a subordinate to such a meeting event or call similarly does not qualify as a

decision or action skipping forward. Otherwise, if every action somehow related to the research study were quote an official act, the requirement that a public official make a decision or take an action on that study or agree to do so would be meaningless. Now let me tell you a little bit more about what the unanimous Spring Court said. Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time.

The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that public officials were here from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns. Whether it is the union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore power to their nameborhood after a storm. The government's position would cast Apaul a potential prosecution over

these relationships. If the union had given a campaign contribution in the past, or the homeowners invited the official to join them in the annual outing at the ballgame. Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse. Now, who all agreed with this? Let me turn to the next paragraph of

the Supreme Court opinion. This concern is substantial. White House counsel, who worked in every administration from that of President Reagan to President Obama, warned that the government's quote breathtaking expansion of public corruption law would likely chill federal officials interactions with people they serve and thus damage their ability to

effectively perform their duties. Six former Virginia attorneys general for Democrat and two Republicans also filed an amicus brief in this course, echoing those concerns, as did seventy seven former state attorneys general from states other than Virginia, forty one Democrats,

thirty five Republicans, and one independent. Now I want you to realize that means the guy who's been appointed to head this led a prosecution against someone who was a sitting governor, against someone who was a serious presidential candidate. It ended his presidential candidacy and his career in essence ended his career, and he got the entire thing thrown out unanimously by the Supreme Court as a breathtaking expansion of federal authority. That's who Merrick Garland is appointed. Almost

no one has reported on this fact. That's a pretty bad initial characteristic. But there's more. You mentioned, Lois Learner. Yeah, let's talk about Lewis Lerner, Senator. I want to go into the media and how they're covering this. But before we get to that, I want to tell everybody about our amazing sponsor, Patriot Mobile. If you've got a cell phone, and nine nine percent of Americans do, how would you like to know that with every phone call you make,

you're supporting conservative causes. Well that's what Patriot Mobile does. And they use the same cell towers that you're on right now, meaning you get the same exact coverage that you're getting right now. Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative mobile phone provider. They are a force for conservative values.

Why because they take a portion of every bill that you pay and they find conservative causes, candidates and organizations that believe in the sanctity of life, freedom of speech, and the Second Amendment, and they're winning. If you're ready to have your dollars matter when you're paying a bill, switch to Patriot Mobile. They can save you money over

what you're paying right now. They can save you and your family money, and they even can save your business or small business money because they have an entire section of the business that's just dedicated to businesses. They offer the same nation wide coverage as all the other major carriers, but the difference is you actually get to stand up for what you believe in every time you pay that bill. So go online to Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict.

Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict. You'll get free activation and other major offers and you can call them nine to seven to Patriot. That's nine seven to Patriot, use the promo code Verdict. All right, now, Well, let's go back and remind people because they may have forgotten where what Hulois owner was, what was going on at the time,

what administration was in charge. When you use the the irs to go after an attack conservative and Tea party groups and Christian groups, groups of faith, just because you wanted to silence him and the federal government was used to do this. Well, that's right. So this is during the Obama administration, and what happened during the Obama administration.

Lois Learner headed a section of the IRS that the Treasury Inspector General called out for improperly targeting TEA Party groups, conservative groups, pro life groups, pro Israel groups, and for persecuting them. And it's worth noting. So my new book that just came out, Justice Corrupted, how the Left has weaponized the legal system. There's an entire chapter called the IRS Comes Knocking that details and lays this out. So I would encourage folks go by the book Justice Corrupted.

You can read all about this. But you know today's sort of fevered partisan pitch. Democrats might say, oh, there was no IRS scandal. Well, you know who disagrees with that, Barack Obama. Barack Obama. Here's what Barack Obama said publicly. By the way, I'm reading from the New York Times quote Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I'm angry about it. This is a quote from Obama. It should not matter what political stripe you're from. The fact of the matter is the IRS has to operate

with absolute integrity. So that's what Obama said the day after the Treasury Inspector General report came out. So he was embarrassed. They were caught weaponizing the IRS and targeting their opponents. Now what happened subsequently too, And by the way, it was a brilliant point in his career when he had that press conference. He played it perfectly politically because he came out and looked like he was angry. How dare the government do this? How dare the irs do this?

I'm angry, this is wrong. I'm on your side, America, even though he was the guy that was in charge of them actually doing this. And yet understand the timing. Also, the Tea Party rose up in two thousand and nine and two and ten in response to Obama's excesses. In two thousand and ten, we had a tidal wave election retook the House with a massive majority that was fueled by the Tea Party. Yeah, Obama was going into his reelect in twenty twelve, and he was worried about the

Tea Party. He was worried about millions of Americans he had angered. Look, I got elected in twenty twelve. I was elected by the Tea Party those activists. I wouldn't be in the Senate without the Tea Party and so the IRS targeting the Tea Party it was a very real political threat that the White House was concerned about that they sicked the government on to try to stop

and it had a real effect. These activists began getting subpoenas, began getting investigations, began spending thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees I detail in the book Justice Corrupted how Tea Party activists It wasn't just the IRS, OSHA FED. All sorts of federal agencies would descend upon them as they used the muscle the

machinery of the federal government to target their enemies. Well what's Jack Smith's involvement in this, Well, he is at the time the head of the Public Integrity Unit at the Department of Justice. Can you explain what that unit supposed to do in general? Because it sounds like it's a do good or position. It sounds like this is above reproach kind of position. Why would we even bring

that up that that's where he was. So so it's an important role, but it's a role that prosecutes public officials, So whether Democrats or Republicans, when there's official corruption, when there's bribery, the job of it is, look if you if you have a crook in office who's on the take, they ought to be prosecuted and sent to jail. So that's an important office. The question is what kind of

job did Jack Smith do when he ran it? And we know number one, he went after Bob McDonald and the unanimous Supreme Courts slapped him down for a breathtakingly overbroad reading of the law. That does not that's not a point in his column unless you want a partisan to go after Donald Trump, in which case it's a great point in his column if if you're looking at it from a left wing partisan lens. But but how

about Lois Lerner? So in twenty ten, The New York Times wrote an article entitled donor Names Remain Secret as rules Shift, which opened with an anecdote about a conservative group, and that was much of the basis for what Lois Lerner did subsequently targeting the irs. What did Jack Smith do? After reading it, Smith wrote to DJO colleagues and let me quote check out the article on the front page of the New York Times regarding misuse of nonprofits for

indirectly funding campaigns. This seems egregious to me. Could we ever charge eighteen USC. Section three seventy one conspiracy to violate laws of the USA for misuse of such nonprofits to get around existing campaign finance laws and limits. IRS Commissioner Sarah ingram oversees these groups, let's discuss tomorrow, but maybe we should try to set up a meeting. So he saw this and said, hey, let's go after these tea party groups. Let's set up a meeting. Let's go

after them and an opportunity. He sought to basically abuse the office which he was supposed to be in that was supposed to be looking at corruption of the fish. And by the way, the IRS in turn sent twenty one discs containing one point one million pages of nonprofit tax return information, including confidential taxpayer information, to the FBI in advance of this meeting with lois Lerner. The documents were sent to then FBI Supervisory Special Agent Bryan's Fitzpatrick.

The fact that Jack Smith's reaction to this is let's get another overbroad interpretation of the law to go persecute and notice he's not concerned about people on the left. He's not concerned about Democrat dark money. He's concerned about the same conservatives that Lois Lerner was targeting, the same political enemies of the Obama White House. And by the way, here's what the Treasurer Inspector General concluded in twenty thirteen.

Quote the IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review TEA Party and other organizations. And when the IRS settled the case, ultimately, the IRS explicitly admitted that his actions quote were wrong and quote for such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology. You know, it didn't happen. Lois Learner was never prosecuted, which if you go back to there were Republicans that were calling for a special prosecutor

back then. To look at all this, you're talking to one of us who loudly called for a special prosecutor. And that's the first time you probably heard this guy's name because they kept using his own words as part of the reason why they said we need a special prosecutor for the way that he was acting. Well, and it's even more than that. So the Inspector General report comes out, the President of the United States says he's angry in the American people have a right to be angry.

Eric Holder is the Attorney General, incredibly at the time, the most partisan attorney general would ever had until Lorenda Lencha, now until Merrick Garland. They keep ratcheting it up and getting more and more partisan. Eric Holder, when this happened, pointed not a special prosecutor, but just appointed a prosecutor

withindoj to examine it. That prosecutor happened to be a major donor to Democrats, a woman, I think her name was Barbara Bossman, if I remember correctly, who had given over six thousand dollars to Obama and to the DNC. I stood on the Senate floor and publicly called on Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor who was not, in fact a major donor to democratsdojag nort it. Not only that when Lois Lerner was subpoened and came before the House of Representatives, she pled the fifth she refused

to testify. The House of Representatives voted to hold her in contempt of Congress. You know what never happened. She would never prosecuted for a contempt of Congress. You know why, because the only person that can prosecute is the Attorney General, is the Department of Justice, and Eric Holder refused to prosecutor. And by the way, Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress, never prosecuted. Amazingly enough, he chose not to prosecute himself. I mean, the corruption is deep, but it's

not just that. So you have number one, Jack Smith is handpicked by Merrick Garland. You have number two the debacle of the failed prosecution of Bob McDonald unanimously reversed by the US Supreme Court. You have number three Smith's involvement and significant involvement in the cover up of Lois Lerner and the irs targeting of Conservatives and the refusal to prosecute it. But you have something else also, you have his wife. Now, who is his wife? Looked, normally

someone's spouse shouldn't be central to it. But his wife. You know what, His wife reminds me of. His wife reminds me of the prosecutor that Eric Holder chose his wife. It turns out like that prosecutor is a donor, a donor to whom to Joe Biden, what year twenty twenty his wife gave a thousand dollars to Joe Biden. Okay, so she's a Democrat. She supported Joe Biden, she's opposed Trump, all right, A lot of people fall into that category. There are whole bunch of people that gave money to

Joe Biden. That's not necessarily disqualifying. What else did she do? She was a producer of a documentary on Michelle Obama entitled Becoming Now you start getting out there, Wait a second, she's a donor to Biden. She's a producer of a documentary. I would ask even look, ask yourself, how many partisan democrats do you know? Yeah? Did any of them produce a movie a puff piece on Obama? No? And by

the way, that's not the only movie she produced. She also produced a movie called Dark Money, which is an attack on Citizens United, an attack on free speech. So his wife, as a MovieMaker, has been an activist, but a left wing activist that is both pumping up democratic politicians and also leading the propaganda effort to tear down the ability of individuals to speak in the political world. And those individuals are almost always on the right, the

left opposed is sure. Suddenly you read his comments a little bit differently that when Jack Smith is reading The New York Times. He says, hey, can we creatively prosecute them and go after them? This is a prosecutor who Merrick Garland put in there for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to indict and to prosecute Donald Trump. And it is the weaponization of the Department

of Justice, and I think it's disgraceful. Let's go back to the prosecution of Bob that you mentioned a moment ago, and how important that is, because the people need to understand the definition of success here is just getting an indictment. Even if you get him in indictment and you prosecute and you find him guilty, right, that would be a dream.

But if it gets overthrown down the road, does it really matter, Because, as you mentioned, Bob's career was over the moment he got indicted, really the moment they started the investigation. You don't come back from that. And so my point is it's not necessarily putting Donald Trump in jail. They just as you said, just want to indict them. They want to do it in a place it's going to be easy. We mentioned that on the last podcast when we talked about this, and then it's just saying okay,

we'll keep you out of the White House. That is success. They hate Donald Trump, but they also have a self righteous certitude that they believe what they are doing is just and good, and therefore everything in the furtherance of it is just and good as well anything that hurts

Donald Trump, or for that matter, hurts Republicans. Remember, this is the same Merit Garland that has signed off as authored a memo to the FBI telling them to target parents as domestic terrorists if they speak up at school boards. This is the same Merrick Garland that has authorized FBI agents to storm the homes of pro life activists with machine guns drawn at the crack of dawn while their

children scream in the background. The left and part of the reason they do this is because the corporate media doesn't report on it. So the facts I'm talking about it had no one's talked about it. Have you seen? You can read it in something like the Washington Examine, or you can read it on right wing media. But

where's ABCCBS, NBC. How come they haven't talked about the failed Bob McDonald prosecution And why did Biden put the guy in charge of that by the way, why not go interview the guy and go what did this doud your career? Would this dud your life? Would this doud your family? How much did it cost you financially? Where's that profile piece that should have immediately come out? Hey, you were prosecuted by this individual. This is what they did to you. It all got overturned. Did you ever

get your life back? And the answer I think we all know would be no, I didn't get my life back. Now, look, I will say so. Trump put out a statement blasting Smith and in particular focusing on his wife, and immediately the left has risen up. How dare you attack his wife?

And listen, If that were the only criticism, it would raise questions, but it might not alone be disqualifying when you put his wife being a Democrat don or his wife producing a movie on Barack Obama, his wife producing a propaganda film on on so called dark money, on top of leading the failed McDonald prosecution unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court, and Smith's deep involvement in the lowest learner scandal. You know, it's like, actually, I don't even

have to say what it is like. It is almost exactly like what Merrick Garland did, which is taking the person in charge of the troit Field office of the FBI, who had the absolute disgrace of a sham going after the people that allegedly targeted Governor Gretchen Whitman to kidnap and murder. And when that story broke, we were horrified, said, okay, if they want to kidnap and murder someone, they should go to jail for a long long time. Well doj

brought the prosecution and ended up everyone they prosecuted. Not a single one they took to trial was convicted on any account. And the reason, the basis for their getting off was entrapment. That the FBI had essentially suggested the idea and was pushing the idea the special agent in charge of that office. That I mean, you want to talk about one of the ugliest black eyes on the FBI. That and again I discuss this at length and justice corrupted?

What did what did Merrick Garland do? That special agent was moved to DC and put in charge of the January six prosecutions, again going after the political enemies of the Biden White House. You do your political work well, no matter what the outcome is we give you a promotion, but even worse, you do your political work horribly. Yeah, you demonstrate you're a partisan, even though you're an incompetent partisan, and you lose either having the jury throughout your case

or having the Supreme Court unanimously throughout your case. That's fine. Your job is to be a pitbull and bite. What happens next is not your concern. That's what how this, Biden, and we'll give you your next big keep biting. That's the job they expect is attack, attack, attack, facts be damned, lawb damned, and that is incredibly dangerous. Last question on this before we move on to the spending bill. That's important, but I think people want to know how does this

move forward now? Is it gonna be quick? What's the timetable here? Or do they drag it out and try to hold over Trump's head since he's decided he's going to run president, or do they try to get him indicted quickly and then try to actually go to a trial. I mean, give us your guests on the playbook here of what they're looking at. I think they want to move quickly. When Merritt Garland appointed Smith, he said that the appointment is not going to slow down the timetable

at all. I think that was one of the conditions of its Smith has a reputation for being a very aggressive prosecutor, for moving quickly. He is an attack dog. That's why they brought him in attack. I believe we will see Trump indicted within a year, and I think, in all likelihood within the next six months. I think by June of twenty twenty three, this dj will have indicted Donald Trump. And that's all for political calendar reasons. Yes, we exactly that that they want to go after him,

they want they hate him. It is not driven it's not driven by facts or law that they view it. Look, if you were a vampire hunter in the fifteenth century, facts or law didn't matter. If you encountered a vampire, you wanted to drive a stake into him. That's how they view Donald Trump. And it is with the same self righteous indignation that they're going after him and that this is an indictment. They started with a conclusion, we're going to indict Trump. Now they're trying to figure out

on what go Let's go figure out some basis. Who knows they're going to figure out whatever has something because they don't even care it sticks down the road. They want to nail him to the wall and they'll figure out a basis. Look, these are the same This is the same political team that impeached Trump not once but twice and is now suddenly discovering that the shoe is on the other foot. Sah, I want to move to

the spending bill. That looks like Democrats are going to try to ram through some serious spinning measures before Republicans gain control of the House. This is something you're going to try to do. Write before the holidays. I'm referring to Christmas, obviously. What's going on with this bill real quick, because people need to understand they're about spend a lot of our money. So yeah, So there are two ways that the federal government is funded. One is through appropriations bills.

And in an ordinary cycle, you have thirteen appropriation bills that cover each of the different cabinet agencies and that are passed through the ordinary regular course. Congress almost never does that anymore. There's so much dysfunction in Congress that regular appropriation bills don't don't move anymore. Congress doesn't do

its job. That means that instead government is funded either with what's called an omnibus, which is grabbing a bunch of those appropriation bills lumping them all together in one gigantic, trillion dollar plus bill. What does omnibus means? So many people hear this, it's a big Washington word. What does it actually mean for people? Because I get asked it all the time on my show, I don't know. Lots of buses, I comnibus. I was wondering if there was

some way to that where that even came from. I am sure there's someone that knows the etymology of it. It means a whole lot of crap crammed into one. It costs us a lot of money. And by the way, they contrast that sometimes they refer to a minibus, and a minibus is basically a smaller omnibus, and and many is modifying. But omnibus is grabbing the appropriation bills and all ramming him into one giant bill that you then

pass up or down, usually with no amendments whatsoever. The other way government is funded is through what's called a continuing resolution YEP. Now, continuing resolution is much shorter, and it usually just continues government spending at the level it is at currently for a fixed period of time. Sometimes you have a continuing resolution. It's usually referred to as a c are. Yeah. Sometimes you have it for a day or a week. Sometimes you have it for a

few months. And that's usually what happens from the third of a government shed down, right, we see we see it midnight on a Saturday evening. A CR that's going to last for a week or six days or three days whatever, so the government keeps functioning. So we are right now in a CR. The CR expires the second week of December. Now there's a reason that Democrats wanted it the second week of December. They wanted at number one,

after the election when they knew what would happen. Ye. But number two, they want it right before Christmas because lawmakers get really fidgety before Christmas. They want to go home, they want to be on vacation, and historically they're willing to pass all sorts of bad crap just to get home, to get out of town and go home for Christmas. And so there is right now a pending and important debate in the United States Senate. Should we pass an omnibus in December or should we wait until next year

to take up appropriation bills. Now, I view the answer as a no brainer. Hell no, we should not pass a Democrat omnibus in a lame duck session. And here's why. Why would we want to pass into law funding for the government through September thirtieth of next year through the end of the fiscal year with all the Democrat priorities that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have signed off on.

When a month from now we're going to have a Republican House of Representatives where we will have far greater leverage to pass appropriations that reflect Republican priorities, sure, rather than Democrat priorities. So that means we'd be you'd be in favor basically a CR yes, until the new Congress gets in that everybody just voted for, which obviously makes sense. If you care about the voters, you care about what they said and the will of the people, you would

wait until them to do it. So, and I help lead a group of conservative senators and a handful of us publicly urged our colleagues, let's pass a CR until January February of next year. Wait till the new Congress gets in and then pass an appropriations bill, either appropriation bills or an omnibus. With a new Republican House of Representatives,

there's a big battle playing out. What is happening is Republican leadership, and in particular Mitch McConnell, and also the outgoing ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Richard Shelby, who's retiring, and also the incoming ranking member the Appropriations Committee, Susan Collins. All of them want to pass this omnibus bill in the lame Duck. They're perfectly fine with the

priorities of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. And it is an open question whether all it will take is ten Republicans rolling over and agreeing with the Democrats and they'll pass this omnibus. And a bunch of those Republicans who are likely to roll over are retiring Republicans who are getting ready to be FatCat lobbyists. They want all the things in there, the pork bill spending that helps them with the lobby and an omnibus is filled with pork barrel spending. It's filled with I mean, it can be

a couple thousand pages. Nobody has read the thing. It is put together but throw it in there your line of what you want and to get your vote. Now, let me give you a historical context, because you might say, okay, well, what typically does one do in modern times when there has been a change of control of Congress. No Congress in modern times has passed an omnibus and let me

let me, let me focus on it. Since nineteen ninety four, control of the House has changed hands in four midterm election cycles nineteen ninety four, two thousand and six, two ten, and two eighteen. Never before has the outgoing House majority passed an omnibus appropriations bill during the lame duck session following the election. Let me give you those four Let's break it down a little bit to give some substance.

Nineteen ninety four historic massive Republican victory. Republicans won a majority in the House for the first time in forty years. But the one hundred and third Congress, the Congress there had already done its job. It had already passed the thirteen appropriations bills before the lame duck session, so there were no appropriations bills before it. It didn't pass any so ninety four it didn't happen, all right, How about

two thousand and six. Two thousand and six, she had a Republican president, George W. Bush, and Democrats took both chambers, the House and Senate. Yeah, the outgoing Congress proposed eleven appropriations bills for fiscal year two thousand and seven, just two had been passed before the lame duck session. During that session, what had Congress do passed two short term continuing resolutions extending the date of appropriations through February. So

that's what happened. When Republicans were losing control to the Democrats. They said, Okay, we can't pass our appropriations. We'd like to, but we can't. And by the way, they had a Republican president, so you want to talk about a very comparable situation, And they said, let's do a cr and let the new Congress figure it out. How about twenty ten,

another big Republican takeover. Republicans retake the House in twenty ten, the one hundred and eleventh Congress failed to pass even a single regular appropriations bill, so instead three continuing resolutions were passed to extend government funding. And then finally twenty eighteen, not that long ago, Democrats took control of the House Prior to the twenty eighteen lame duck session, Congress passed two minibus appropriations bills, so not all of them crammed together.

They contained five smaller spending bills and a continuing resolution that was before the lame duck. During the lame duck, lawmakers passed to continual resolution to provide funding through December twenty first. Congress then failed to agree on another short term continued resolution, resulting in a funding lapse, a government shutdown until the next Congress convened. And by the way,

that was driven by the Democrats. That was the Chuck Schumer shutdown, which of course the press didn't cover because it was a Democrat shutdown and so that that doesn't count. So literally, since nineteen ninety four, this has never happened, and it comes down to the exact same question. Listen,

this uh this podcast is coming out Monday morning. Monday at five thirty pm, we're going to have the cloture vote on the marriage bill, and we're going to find out today at five thirty pm whether three of the twelve Republicans who decided to embrace gay marriage are going

to stand up for religious liberty or not. And it will come down to if three of those twelves say I will vote no on cloture unless Mike Lee's religious liberty amendment is added to the bill, not given a fake updown that it will love to be one and the same written into the bill. We'll find out at five thirty to day whether three of those twelve have the courage to do that. The question on this omnibus

is the same thing. Are there forty one Republicans in the United States Senate who say, hell no, we are not passing a Schumer Pelosi year long appropriations bill in the lame duck session when we're getting ready to have a Republican House of Representatives. It ought to be that Republican House who negotiates with sadly the Democrat Senate and adopts appropriation bills in January or February. That's a critical issue.

I can tell you our leadership in the Senate wants to pass the Schumer Pelosi bill, which is just a shocking I say shocking. It's not shocking if you know the players, but it is shocking when you just run back the house you're even in this situation. I also want to ask you about this you know, is there a possibility if this gets into a fight, because this is the new threat. You and I are both fans

of the West Wing. There's a great episode in the West Wing about why you don't shut down the government when they were going through a government shutdown. I remember watching one of the characters, Josh Slime, and he's like, you don't shut down the government, and here's why they blame you. They'll find every person to claim they're having the worst day of their lives. They'll put it on

TV and this is why you don't do it. And now we see that be the threat anytime someone's like, well, if you don't do a cr or you don't do what we tell you we're gonna do, and you shut down the government, right, all hell's going to break loose. Is that now basically used every single time you guys get to this point where it's a moment where you must stand up with that, well, you will blame you

for shutting down the government. So it is, and we will have subsequent podcasts that go into depth on government shutdowns, on the history of it, what they mean, because we're getting ready to move into a new era where that could happen with a Republican House and a Democrat president where we could face shutdowns in the next two years.

And you know, I've talked on this pod about how I helped lead the leadership fight against Mitch McConnell, and one of the central questions I said is are we willing to use the lever of government funding to fight for anything? And leadership was unwilling to commit to fighting literally for anything for the next two years, which is a big part of why people are so frustrated. What I will say on this fight right now, will the

media characterize it as Republicans want to shut down the government? Yes, because the media is the left wing of the Democrat Party. They are dishonest and propagandists, so they've always characterized it as that. The irony of Josh Lyman in the TV show The West Wing is he was suggesting the media would blame the Democrats for shutdown, and the corrupt corporate media never does that. It's always the Republican fault, no matter whether it's the Democrats or not who do it.

But here it's a simpler question because we can easily pass a CR. Yeah, we can pass a CR and extend funding through January February, which means the government doesn't shut down. The only reason we wouldn't pass the CRS if Democrats refuse to do so. If they say, nope, give us the Pelosi Schumer funding bill, or will shut down the government. Now, will the Biden White House and the krupt corporate media even then say it's Republicans shutting

down the government. Yes, Will Republican leaderships say the same thing? Maybe? One of the great ironies of these battles is Republican leadership is often on the side of a Democrat White House. But here the question ought to be real simple. Let's kick the can down the road a couple of months and let the new Congress elected by the American people that have given Republicans the majority. Let the new Congress decide do the spending bill for the new Congress in essence.

But by the way, what the Democrats are going to want to do is they're gonna want to roll everything they can in the lame Ducks. So they're gonna want to roll not just the nominitivus spending bill, They're gonna want to roll the debt sailing into this also, because those are the only two levers the new Congress has. If you want to change any policies, you either have spending or the death ceiling, the two and only two.

So what are Schumer and Pelosi going to do. Let's take both of those levers away and let's kick it down as far as we can so that we render the new incoming Republican House toothless. I get why Pelosi wants to do that. I get why Schumer wants to do that. I get why Biden wants to do that. But why in the hell would the Republicans do it?

Would the Republicans do it? And so I can tell you we've already had some really vigorous arguments in the Senate Republican conference room, and we're going to have really vigorous arguments over the next couple of weeks. Over Thanksgiving, there was something else that happened that I think was shocking.

My phone blew up. Full disclosure. I have a family in law enforcement on a gun store, and I started getting text messages because Joe Biden came out and said something about this basically lame duck session that you're about to come back to coming after people's guns, but not just guns that they've been talking about for years, all now semi automatic weapons. And I want you to see the clip from Biden and tell the American people, is this something to worry about or not? Take a look.

The idea we still allow semi automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. It's sick. It has no social redeeming value, zero none, not a single solitary rational for it. It's a profit through your gun manufacture. Can you do anything about gun laws during the lame doctor, I'm gonna try. What will you find it. I'm gonna try to get rid of a saltway. I'm gonna try. That came out of nowhere. Obviously, never let a crisis go to waste

democratic motto. Here, they see an opportunity because of the shooting that happened, and they said, okay, let's go after guns again. Now it's all semi automatic weapons. They even put out a press statement from the White House. Could this go somewhere in the lame duck? So I don't believe it will. One of the things to understand watching that clip, Joe Biden has no idea what he's talking about, Like when he says there's no socially redeeming purpose behind

some automatic weapons. If you asked him what's the semi automatic weapon, he doesn't know. Yeah, I know, it's hard. Probably doesn't even realize he's been hunting with semi automatic shotguns, which is a semi automatic weapon that he now says no one should own, even though he probably has used one of his life. In fact, it's based on the paperwork. The gun that hunter Biden's you know ex lever threw away his ex sister in law was a semi automatic

weapon as well. So and look that this. Folks that listen to Verdict are smart or educated and informed, you know what terms mean. But many of the Democrat advocates of gun control have no idea what terms mean. Many of the reporters and editors in the corrupt corporate media have no idea what terms mean. So they use the word assault weapon, which is a made up term that essentially means scary looking weapons. It's weapons that look like

machine guns. But let's take the words semi automatic. For someone that doesn't know anything about guns, they hear the word automatic and they're like, well, okay, that's got to be a machine gun, right, and it's worth just explaining the listeners. And you guys know this, but maybe not everyone knows this. An automatic weapon, a fully automatic weapon is a machine gun and you hold the trigger down and multiple bullets come out. Think Rambo spraying a machine gun.

The military uses M sixteens. They're fully automatic machine guns. Those are weapons of war. That's a phrase the Democrats like to use. Machine guns are weapons of war. They have also been functionally illegal in the United States for over eighty years. That means if you and I actually you can buy one because you have a gun store. You can have a very specialized permit to get a

fully automatic machine gun. And it's very hard to do, by the way, even with our permits, even in the store, the amount of government paperwork, and I'm not necessarily complaining, I'm just saying it is still not easy. As a practical matter, it is functionally illegal for an ordinary citizen to own a fully automo matic machine gun. So what a semi automatic mean? Semi automatic means and you know this, well, you pull the trigger once a single bullet comes out.

You pull the trigger a second time, a second bullet comes out. So for each trigger pull, another bullet is fired. Now you can contrast that to say a revolver. A revolver where you have to cock the hammer and then pull the trigger, and then you cock the hammer and pull the trigger, that's not semi automatic. There is an additional action, or say a bolt action rifle, where you have to cock the bolt and then fire. An enormous percentage of firearms in the United States are semi automatic.

A great, a great many pistols, shotguns, rifles are semi automatic. That is, when Joe Biden says there's no reason to sell a semi automatic weapon, he's talking about banning a vast swath of fire arms in America. The majority of them that are bought and sold every day are semi automatic in this country. And the one that say my life and shooting was semi automatic. The one that was given to my grandfather, to my dad, to me is semi automatic. The shotgun that I use hunting, that was

given down for my family was semi automatic. This is not some new scary weapon of war thing that they're trying to obviously put out there. But it worries me because even but see, the Dems are taking advantage of people who don't know what the word semi automatic means, and when they hear him talking about they're picturing Rambo with a machine gun. That's what they see in the

camera in their mind because they're ignorant. And I don't know if Biden ever knew what a semi automatic weapon is, But today, with his diminished mental capacity, I'm confident watching that clip, he has zero idea what he's saying. Is there anything that listeners need to do, do they need to call about this? Or do you think this was him just shooting off the cuff or is this genuinely something Democrats to try to sneak in their last minute?

So I think it's him shooting off the cuff pun intended. I think the chances of it passing into law are zero point zero zero percent. Might the House take it up and pass it? Sure? I mean, look, I don't know what the House will do on the way out, and the Democrats might decide they want to want a virtue signal, but to have it passed in the Senate would take sixty votes, and even as bad as the Republican conference is, they're not going to be sixty votes

for any sort of firearms ban. We had the battle over the gun control bill earlier this year that some Republicans signed up on. It didn't come remotely close to what Biden is talking about. And I will say, let's pause for a second and reflect on the predicate. Why is Biden talking about this now? And the reason is, of course, because you had this horrific shooting at the gay night club in Colorado. Now, look, I hate murderers. I think we need to be incredibly vigorous going after

violent criminals. I think we need to I've been leading the fight for over a decade to vote more law enforcement resources to getting violent criminals off the street before they commit crimes. It is an amazing you know, this shooting, the incident broke, and of course that it was targeting gay and lesbian individuals at a gay nightclub. Corporate media was in paroxisms of joy the incident broke because it fit their narrative perfectly of targeting the LGBT community with

a mass shooting. Therefore, we should confiscate everyone's guns. And then suddenly the narrative took a horrible wrong turn from their perspective. Number One, we found out initially that the mass murderer had previously threatened to blow people up, including his own family, with a bomb, and hadn't been prosecuted.

That was kind of a wrinkle because it raised obvious questions why didn't they lock the guy up the last time he threatened a crime before he committed and killing his own family, threatening yes with the bomb, blowing up his own mother. But then the narrative came to a screeching halt when he filed a pleading in court that indicated that he identifies as non binary and uses the pronouns they and them, And suddenly you could hear the

corporate media doing a collect it huh, what's it? Yeah, And magically the story disappeared, gone, just totally gone, instantly, And it is reminiscent of the horrific Christmas parade murder in Waukeshaw, where again you had a black left wing racist who a George Soros DA had repeatedly led out of jail with a slap on the wrist, who drove his red suv into a Christmas parade, murdering innocent people,

running over the dancing grannies, murdering children. And that story was in the news for about four seconds because now, look, I will say this I think the Colorado shooter ought to be prosecuted and put to death. I believe in capital punish you could murder, especially mass murder, you deserve to die. See how many Democrats will say that. But I'll say this also, which is if this guy had been a right wing Trump supporter wearing a MAGA hat,

it would still be leading the news tonight. The press would spend two months putting this guy front and center. If he'd been the guy who allegedly attacked Jesse Smolley until we discovered it was made up, Yeah, then the

press would have gone crazy. But suddenly because the mass murderer identifies as non binary, never mind, because the narrative matters more than anything, and so they'll find another instance to blow it up to advance their political agenda because it's not about journalism, it's not about facts, and it's not about stopping crime. No, it is about their political agenda. Well,

and you'd think you've learned from the situation. If the guy threatened to blow up his own family, maybe we should prosecute that, Maybe we should put them into prison, Maybe we should get the mental help, whatever it may be. They will completely overlook all the warning signs that come. We start seeing this happen more and more. You see

where there's multiple shooters. Now there was warning signs before, there's mug shots, before there's police interaction, before, there's serious mental issues before and immediately every time in many of these cities, the liberal prosecutors do not go after these people, and they never go back and look at that first part of the story there, which I think is the most frustrating for so many Americans and the victims who

are hurt in these situations. Well, and look again, in my last book, Justice Corrupted, I have an entire chapter that walks through the George Soros prosecutors in case after case after case where they let violent criminals go and they turn around and commit more violent crimes. We're in the city of Houston where tragically we've seen left wing judges and a left wing county judge in particular, who've advanced cashless bailpol sees that have resulted in murderers being released.

And an amazing thing, when you release murderers, they turn around and commit more murders. And that if you want to stop murders, mass murders, or even single murders, I'm against all murders. If you want to stop them, the answer is not to disarm law abouting citizens. It's to go after the criminals. Lastly, Center Thanksgiving was very weird. If you're watching the TV, it was almost like Democrats really didn't want you to enjoy Thanksgiving with your family.

Joy Read came out with this diet tribe basically why you shouldn't be enjoying Thanksgiving. And before you play it, which we're going to your second, let me just point out on Thanksgiving, I wouldn't watch enjoy Read. I was watching football, And let me just say, you've been in this business two damn long. If you turn joy Read on, you're doing something wrong. Man. I got it sent to me and I was like, wow, that's interesting. This is how much these people can't enjoy even a holiday. Take

a look at this. Thanksgiving, the day we gather with friends and family to enjoy turkeys, stuffing, mashed potatoes, and publican pie. We throw on the game, catch up on our lives, and then discuss or quite possibly argue about religion and politics. For millions of Americans, it's a day of cherished traditions and as Americans, we certainly value those traditions, but it's also important to unpack the myth of Thanksgiving.

It is a holiday riddled with historical inaccuracies, built on this myth that the Indigenous welcomed their colonizers with open arms and ears of corn, a simplistic, fairy tale interpretation of a sixteen twenty one encounter between Indigenous tribes and English settlers that erases the genocide that followed. It's the truth Republicans want banned from our textbooks, because here's the secret they want so desperately to keep. We are a

country founded on violence. Our birth was violent. In sixteen nineteen, a ship with more than twenty enslaved Africans landed in Virginia, ushering in two centuries of America and slavery that left millions in chains are dead. And when those humans and bondage were finally free, a terrorist organization that was a card carrying member of Polite society, the Ku Klux Klan, picked up where the Civil War ended, using violence to maintain white supremacy. The clan and it's ilk are still active,

and as Americans, we continue to choose violence. Where do you want to get on that clip. Look that clip is the modern American left. The hate America, and they are devoted to lying about America. They're also hopelessly naive. So her comment that America was founded on violence, alright, alright, I got news for you. Every country in the history of civilization was founded on violence. The history of mankind

is tragically or not tragically, a history of violence. By the way, the Native American tribes who were here were conquering each other and going to war with each other. And throughout history, whether it is Europe, whether it is Africa, whether it is Asia, you have millennia of one nation conquering another, one tribe conquering another. That has been as Thomas Hobbs, the great Philosopher said, the state of nature

is nasty, brutish, and short. Yeah. So one of the things the left tries to do is to suggest that aspects of human nature that are true about America are uniquely evil about America. So we were founded on violence, unlike the utopian souls that have lived everywhere else. Secondly,

so she immediately goes to sixteen nineteen. This is the sixteen nineteen project, the incredibly revisionist history, false portrayal of America's History that was written by The New York Times now the sixteen nineteen Project postulates that America's history didn't begin in seventeen seventy six with the Declaration of Independence. It didn't begin with the signing of the Constitution. It began in six nineteen, when the first ship carrying slaves

arrived on America's soil. It also postulates that America's history is irredeemably racist, and that today we are irredeemably racist. It also claims the American Revolution was fought in order to preserve slavery. That latter claim is so absurd that multiple very well respected historians like James McPherson, like Gordon Wood have denounced it as ridiculous, as false. It was so bad the New York Times was forced to issue a correction because it was indefensibly false. What the left

doesn't tell you listen, was slavery horrific. Yes, slavery is the original sin of the United States of America. Did indescribable murders and tortures occur under slavery? Yes? What the left doesn't tell you is America is not unique in slavery. In fact, most societies Throughout history, slavery has been a significant component of it, whether in Europe, whether or not Africa,

whether in Asia. Slavery has been consistent for millennia. What is unique about America's not slavery, Tragically, that's been much of human existence. What's unique about America's emancipations? What's unique about America's that we rode into our founding documents the Declaration of Independence says we hold these truths to be self evidence that all men are created equal. That was you want to talk about a radically revolutionary statement, all men,

not just some, not just based on race. Those documents that, in turn those principles, and of course the Declaration goes on to say that are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty in the pursuit of happiness. Those principles became the basis for the abolitionists, became the basis for incredible patriots like Frederick Douglas, who argued slavery was fundamentally incompatible with American values, and

became the basis later for the civil rights movement. What she also doesn't say she talks about the Ku Klux Klan. You know what she doesn't mention. There was a Democratic party that was the Party of the Kla Klan. The Klan was founded by Democrats, populated by Democrats. Nathan Bedford, forres, the founder of the Klan, was a delegate to the eighteen sixty National Democrat Convention. If you look at Klansman,

by the way, fast forward to Jim Crow Laws. Jim Crow Laws, almost every single one of them was written by a Democrat politician in order to prevent the voters from voting Democrat politicians out of power. And by the way, Joy Reid would say, well that was that. That was

long ago, not today. Well, let's go today. The governor of Virginia just over a year ago, and a guy named Ralph Northam chose to have a picture in his yearbook of a man dress as a klansman and a man in blackface, and he said he could have been one of those two, meaning it could have been the klansman. That was the Democrat governor of Virginia just over a

year ago. How about today the sitting President of the United States, Joe Biden, the guy who doesn't know what day it is, Joe Biden, just over a decade Ago gave the eulogy of Robert Byrd, a grand cyclops of the ku Klux Klan, had been the Senate Democratic leader

in the Senate. He described him as a great friend and mentor and even implied that America might be able to different if you want to become president, Joe Biden, Look, I gotta say, if you can't stand up and say, I've never given a eulogy at the funeral of a klansman, Yeah, maybe I ought to be a little more cautious about giving hectoring race lectures. But Joy Reid doesn't tell any of that. Instead, she wants to advance the false and pernicious lie attacking America. And to be clear, look, were

atrocities committed against Native Americans? Yes, that is part of our history, she claims. Republicans want to erase that history. Now, Yeah, not true. We tell the full history, just not the partisan slant that says America is evil and uniquely evil. And the answer is to become a communist society, which is what these advocates of the sixteen nineteen project and what these advocates of critical race theory, they are Marxists.

They advocate communism, that is their solution to this. And so the reason joy Read and other leftists hates Thanksgiving is the same reason that they hate Columbus Day. It's because they hate America and they believe fundamentally the founding of the United States of America was an evil act and we are an evil country. I think that is perniciously false. And I believe the United States of America has done more good than any nation in the history of the world. And we have is that glorious history

to be proud of. And I will point out the party that you and I are members of, the Republican Party, was founded to end slavery. We were founded in opposition of slavery. The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, was elected and signed the Emancipation Clamation. And so it is a dishonest history if you only paint America as bad. But that's what leftist do. The other part that was hilarious is I was looking at the White House and their Twitter feed and I'm like, well, maybe joy Red took

over the Twitter feed. Is part of her thanksgiving to the White House. I don't know, but if look at this tweet, and I love it because you can see right at the bottom is obviously scheduled nine am perfectly. Native American roots are deeply embedded in this land. The Native American the Heritage Day, we honor the enduring cultures and contributions of all Native Americans and recommit ourselves to fulfilling our nation's promise of equal dignity and respect for all.

I'm fine with that, but it's like, can we just have a normal Thanksgiving and just enjoy our time with our family? Are do you have to, like somehow in essence remind everybody how bad America is. That's what they're trying to do here. Well, it is and it's interesting. So apparently all right, so leftists have renamed Columbus Day as Indigenous people, Yes, because the heroism Christopher Columbus and

discovering the New World cannot be celebrated in their world. Now, apparently this is new to me that they're not allowed to call it Thanksgiving, that they've renamed Thanksgiving Native American Heritage Day. And look, I get the White House seal right there. So it's not a joe. Look, I think Native American heritage is wonderful, should be studied, should be celebrated. It's part of the history of this country, A very important part of the history of this country. But so's thanksgiving.

Damn it. Yeah, But like the effort at renaming is because they're embarrassed. And I want to give a contrast. When our nation started, George Washington on October third, seventeen eighty nine issued a proclamation, And if you will indulge me, it's not very long. I want to read Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation, New York, three October seventeen eighty nine, by the President

of the United States of America. A proclamation whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and to humbly implore his protection and favor.

And whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint Committee, requested me to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably

to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. Now, therefore, I do recommend an assign Thursday, the twenty sixth day of November next to be devoted by the people of these states to the service of that great and glorious being who is the beneficent author of all the good

that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our seer and humble thanks for his kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation, for the single and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of His providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late War, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable

and rational manner in which we have enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge, And in general, for all the great and various favors which He hath

been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the Great Lord and Ruler of nations, and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions. To enable us, all, whether in public or private stations, to

perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually. To render our national government a blessing to all people, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, To protect and guide all sovereigns and nations, especially such as it have shown kindness onto us, and to bless them with good government,

peace and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us, And generally, to grant un demand kind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best given under my hand. At the City of New York, the third day of October, in the year of Our Lord, seventeen eighty nine. George Washington. History matters, History matters. Can you imagine one sentence of this being

uttered by the current President of the United States. This is a nation worth defending, And you know what it's not just Washington and knew that it's not just listeners to this podcast, it's millions of Americans across this country. And I got to say, there was a video you sent me on Thanksgiving. You texted it to me, and it warmed my heart. I turned around and I texted it to my entire family and I said, watch this. It is beautiful, and ultimately I tweeted it out to

the world. But but I want to close this post Thanksgiving Verdict with just watching a video of of one American who still knows what is beautiful about this nation and still loves it. Can we play this video? Oh my god, maybe look at the Texas It's all okay saying, which everybody, I'd tell you what when I send that

to you. It was one of the coolest videos. I rarely get choked up, but I watched that and to see that man talk about Cuba, talk about communism, talking about fedow Castro, and talk about this the first paycheck, as he put it, where every hour counted, it makes you not take this country for granted. And I love that moment because it was It made me. It reminded me of what how thankful I need to be to live in the greatest country in the world. It is

utterly beautiful. Uh. It brought tears to my eyes on Thanksgiving. It brings tears to my eyes now. And I just want to say to everyone, God bless America. I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving, and Merry Christmas to all. This is verdict.