03-02-26_MONDAY_6AM

0:00this hour of the Bill Meyers show podcast is proudly sponsored by Closer Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for more than 50 years. Fight out more about them at CloserDrilling.com. Boy, they really didn't want us talking about Epstein, did they? I'm just kidding. And seriously, I read some headlines about that this weekend. You know, they're just like, boy, they really don't want us talking about this, do they? I don't think the reason why you stir up a splendid little war, but yeah, but hey, I read all sorts of stories about this this morning. But anyway, how are you doing? Boy, it's like 72 hours in which 72 hours ends up equating what 40, 50 years of action here. Just an amazing story, isn't it? The long anticipated US and Israeli action against Iran, the decapitation is still going on.

1:00You know, it's really interesting. Mostly the Democrats are out there protesting this right now. But I feel mixed emotions, even though I feel very happy that I mean, I don't think anyone's really shedding many tears for the Iranian regime. Okay. I think we can all pretty much agree on that. But I am concerned about the Constitution and constitutional order, because just because I like something a president does or the results of what a president does, the process matters to, to me, we'll be talking a bit about this off and on and I'll be talking with some some legal folks this morning, including John O'Connor, who's an attorney and a former federal prosecutor, the author of Postgate. We'll talk with him in about 20 minutes or so. And also Dr. Dennis Powers, retired professor of business law. We're going to be talking a bit about this this morning. Also, a epic times editor is going to be joining me. Sam Dorman, he's an editor with the epic times and

2:01will be focused on more legal issues, including his take on the legality of the attack and what comes next because as much as I am happy with the results so far of what president Trump has done to Iran, I'm always thinking about the expansion of executive power and what happens with the next guy who could be more of an Obama or Joe Biden, what happens with that power. And so maybe I'm completely off base about this, but if we're going to be conservatives and talk about the Constitution, when it would seem to me that as much as I really don't want Jeff Merkley and other people weighing in on something like this, our system says that Congress is supposed to have a say on such matters. And there is talk about a war powers vote and other people are saying that I think it was that Americans were limited government put out a release over the weekend saying that if there was a war powers vote that it would make it illegal to protect Americans, American soldiers in harm's way, which is absolute nonsense in my opinion. But you know, we'll kick it all around. We'll kick

3:06it all around. But we have Iranians and Iranian Americans that are dancing in the street. But of course, I remembered Iraqi's dancing in the street too. Now the one thing I will say though, we have Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, it was spoke a few minutes ago, saved a little bit of that. And here's what he had to say. The Iranian leadership has built nothing except proxies and missiles and drones and deeply buried nuclear factories and facilities. Peaceful nuclear ambitions do not need to be buried underneath mountains. Last June, Operation Midnight Hammer obliterated their nuclear program to rubble. After we told them plainly, that's it. Now make a deal. They arrogantly refused. We said rebuild it and we'll stop you again this time far worse. Well, President Trump, Secretary Rubio, Steve Whitkoff, Jared Kushner, they bent over backwards for real diplomacy, offering pathway after pathway to peace. I watched it. I was there.

4:10They tried over and over and over again, earnest attempts at peace. The former regime had every chance to make a peaceful and sensible deal. But Iran was not negotiating. They were stalling. And that seems pretty clear that they were stalling. I completely agree with Pete on that. But anyway, it's the process. What is the process? And Trump administration says this is not going to be a long-term occupation. Of course, it could be several weeks of fighting. We don't know right now. It's pretty fluid as situation. I think this is Steve, the Marine, Dr. Steven Greenlee. Visited Steve, I think it's your your number up there. How are you doing this morning, sir? It is. Here's is the thing. If President Trump had notified Congress or had asked for Congress's advice and consent, it would not have been a secret a secret operation. Same thing with Baduro. You have these situations. You have to catch the enemy by surprise. And we would

5:12have lost the element of surprise. One other thing, the assassination of this command, not it's a common A. Yeah, yeah, common A. I think under President Ford, assassination ahead to states was a made illegal. So that's the other problem. Well, I think you'd have to. I always remember though, a special line from Richard Nixon back in the day. And I'll bet you remember this too, Steve. If I do, if the president does it, it's not a crime. If the president does it, it's legal. I always remember that. I remember that even when I was a kid in junior high, and I heard that. One last thing is that the president can conduct forces for 60 days without congressional permission. And he can do a lot of it. And they could say that could be extended to 90 days. He can do a lot of damage in 60 or 90 days. So anyway, I just thought I mentioned that.

6:15Again, I'm worried about the most important thing is if they we talked if both in Baduro and in the Persia, the proper name is Persian, not Iranian, but inside the point. It would have leaked. And we would have lost the element of surprise. We were failed. And it would have been much more dangerous. You know what I was wondering about. What I'm wondering about Steve here. And I'll talk to other people and know more about this than I do, too, is that when do you need a declaration of war for anything? Or is that just like kind of moot these days? Is that? We've only declared. We we've declared four times we've declared a state of war already existed because we were attacked. The only time we actually declared war was we weren't at war. And then we then the we declared Congress declared war on Britain in the war of 1812. That's where we started the war.

7:18Otherwise it's like Roosevelt said a state of war existed between the United States and the Emperor of Japan. Many military operations have occurred without the declaration of war. Yeah. And my only concern, like I said, is just because I like something, I always hold myself back because just because I like something like the result of something, I want to be careful that process is followed, too, because process is what reigns us in and and well and keeps us from full blown dictatorships. So you agree on that? You know that kind of thing? Sure, absolutely, absolutely. Or what JD's president Vance said, yeah, yeah, if we do it, then the opposition when they get in office will do it. And he said, they're going to do it anyway. So we might as well do it. All right, Steve. I'm out of here. Okay. Thank you, Steve. Steve the marine doctor, Steven Greenleaf. Now see, he's an interesting fellow because he has both the JD, the judicial,

8:22you know, the law degree and the psychiatry degree. So we can psychoanalyze the attorneys. It's 19 after six on KMED state, state Senator, rather, Noah Robinson joins me because this is another big story here a little closer to home. What about this referendum vote? What's going to happen? We'll check in with him. Hi, I'm Matt Stone with stone heating and air and I'm on KMED. 21 minutes after six, one of the grab a few minutes here with state Senator Noah Robinson and catch up with the the legislative session. We're into the final few days. When does signing die have to happen here? Noah, welcome back to the show as always. Thank you. It's one always wonderful to be on. On Sunday, we're hoping that it will be out early. The sooner we get out, the better Oregonians will be. Yeah, definitely. Now the big question has been when are we going to get to vote on the, on the big O dot Texas, the gas tax hikes, all these other things. This is the huge political lightning rod. And it's like,

9:22it's like it's being tossed like hot potato from the, from the house to the Senate, etc. And then the passing the Senate, what was it last week of Wednesday? Did it pass last week or Thursday? Although I think it was earlier than that. Yeah, I think it was Monday. Okay. Oh, okay. So the change, the real issue has been when will the house pick it up, right? That's been the issue. And today, it's on the schedule from what I understand. Isn't that true? That's right. It's on the schedule on the house today. And as far as I know, we'll be voted on. That the, as soon as it passes the house, assuming it passes the house, which I hope it just thought it was, it was relatively close to the Senate. We had one Democratic council that a couple more Democrats nervous, obviously. They had to postpone it in the Senate because they couldn't get the votes on Friday and it had to go to Monday. So first, we hope it gets defeated in the house. If not, then I expect the governor will sign it immediately, probably same day.

10:24And then the only thing keeping it away from us is the courts. There's probably legal action order because there are a lot of problems with it. Senator, what is it? I'm trying to understand the strategy because I know that the state Senate walked out and denied quorum and boycotted for one day a few days ago. It wasn't the last week or the week before. And supposedly all about stopping this and delaying it. And here we are down with the final few days before the end, in which the, you know, the state legislature has to shut down. It's constitutionally limited. And yet the Senate is still in it sounds like. And the house is still in two. And there's plenty of denial of quorum days that could be done on both sides of the aisle in order to stop these worst of the bills from getting passed. And I'm just kind of curious. Can you explain to me the thought process of why they have all these days in which the state Senate and the state and the

11:27Republicans in the house could deny, but they've only done it one day out of all the tens that they have. Any thoughts on this? The issue simply is that you have to get everyone together to agree. All you have to do, because we have just barely the number of legislators in the Senate. If we lose two, we can't walk out. Then, of course, the debate becomes what things should you walk out over. And I'm happy to walk out over anything. We need to slow this process down. So there's no problem convincing me. But there is, of course, the problem that we have legislation that's worse than moving an election date. So did we walk out over, you know, the gun bills over other things? Yeah, yeah. The gun bills and the STP's of work. And you're right. It's even worse than moving the, you know, the tax vote. You're right. Yeah. And so the so the issue is simply where are the priorities of the other legislatures? And I'm quite sure most would be happy. This, this moving the election date is just such a blatant power graph. It's more annoying

12:30than anything else. The Democrats are worried after everything they did to get it passed. Yeah. Special fashion a month long and everything. They're worried that it will hurt them on the November ballot. And of course, it will because it's shown how out of touch they are. And it would remind people it would be a constant reminder of what the Democrats voted for. And the Democrats were the only ones that voted this in last year. Wasn't that the case this whole thing? That is actually right. But the issue of whether it will hurt the more, I mean, the political professionals assume that being on the ballot with a tax increase will help the Republicans and hurt the Democrats. I am not sure that having the same thing in May, which we will, I expect to feed soundly, won't have just as big or more an impact on the election. That's just a political calculation. But the issue is that the Democrats, the governor in particular, assume that they're politically better off in May. Well, the Democrats have control. And to do such a blatant political maneuver

13:31for political reasons is just wrong. We're preventing people from getting signatures on voter voter pamphlet statements. We're rushing the process. Yeah, because if they end up passing this, let's say that 1599 gets passed today, right? Let's just say that that the worst happens and it gets passed. And you have limited time to be able to get anything into the voters pamphlet. Isn't that right? And that that's one of the reasons why it's so evil, I think, for the Democrats to make sure that they do this. In fact, Ed Diel was mentioning in the paper the other day that another aspect of this Senate Bill 1599 is that a joint committee ends up getting together to write the explanation. You know, and the explanation wouldn't be controlled by Democrats, wouldn't it? You know, for the most part. Yes, that's that those are the two things that are most wrong with this bill. In terms of moving the data, I think it's wrong to touch the processes and the works like this. It was going to be a long time ago in the Constitution. But the two things that are worst about it is number one, the joint committee is bypassed,

14:37and it is very easy to confuse election balance statements. Make it look like yes, means no, and no means yes. Yeah, so the Democrats can write this in their committee to make this look like rather innocuous and fool the people kind of like that what was done with you know, measure 110, right? You could think about that measure 114, you know, for that matter too. There's all sorts of them in which the state ends up putting its it's thumb on the scale, isn't that right? Yes, because it's simply it's the simply a fact that ordinary busy Oregonians when they're in a hurry can easily get mixed up with the statements the wrong way. I see senators both the wrong way on the Senate floor because they're mixed up about what's going on. It's about a comment on them. It's simply you want things to be clear. They're opposed to the tax increase and depending upon how you write the statement, it could look like that yes means no or no means yes. Yeah, and we're political wonks. We dig into a little more deeply, but most regular voters, they don't have that time. They don't pay that attention like a pass statement. I mean, I check

15:39balance carefully myself. And yes, I mean, for years it's been more plugged in. I'm supposed to know. I just, oh, yes, both this way, but I always read it. Are we sure? Because these things can be backwards. And then, of course, the other problem is the the voters pamphlet statements, because right now you'll be able to file one that you have to pay $1,200. But a lot of the people that help gather the signatures know that they can wait $1,200 simply by collecting 500 signatures on their voters pamphlet statement, but they're so little time to gather those signatures. Yeah, we'll be with no time. I don't know whether they're radically possible. But it's basically won't happen. It can't happen. So that's wrong as well. And it's all being done because they think it will help them. Of course, the Democrats are saying, hey, we need to know that they're only argumentized these that make any even the slightest sense is, hey, well, you know, there's a big issue out of the big issue. We need to know right away what the voters will say. Well, I can pretty much tell them what the voters will say. The voters will

16:42say no to it. So you might as well plan that they're saying no. And then, and then be pleasantly surprised if they're wrong, I guess. Yeah, so it will not be pleasant for me. But I know everyone knows that it's going to be voted down. They know that it's not popular. So that's exactly right. That's my point. You just plan for it. You plan for it by we stop wasting money. And we can go into that. But the problem with ODOT is the amount of money they spend on things that they cost four or five times what they should. All right. Now, 41, 45, the gun bill, is that in the house or the Senate? Sometimes again, a little confused about this. And I'm sorry, you know, if I express, you know, confusion about it, do you know its status at the moment, the gun bill? It's in the house. We're hoping it doesn't get to the Senate. And of course, is the very big hot potato in my view worse than the than 1599. And we will see what we can do. And as you point out, all sorts of mechanisms for slowing it down, just like we slowed 1599 down. It's just taking a long time to get to the legislature. Well, let's be honest,

17:45dear Senator, there are enough absence days, unexcused absence days that you guys could just shut down the session right now. And you still wouldn't come run afoul of measure 113. You wouldn't. That's exactly right. And so, and that's in the Senate right now. And there are things that they want to get through. So that's a big pot potato right now. The best thing we can do is oppose that as strongly as possible. I'm going to keep writing emails to the senators. And I was just write everybody's Democrats and tell them the terrible we don't want it. Yeah, make it as unpleasant as possible. Because that needs to be killed. This short session was supposed to be about budget fixes and we're doing the sort of stuff that. Yeah, we're doing big policy bills during this. This is not what this is all about. But I can tell you, it's bad enough during the long session. There's not enough time to investigate things thoroughly. We pass legislation all the time that nobody's thought through. I mean, it's incredible how little d how little individual legislators know about bills they passed. But that senator, imagine this that the the people who

18:48were in favor of the short session getting passed by the voters, they lied to the people because remember they told us it was only going to be about budget touch ups and things like that. Instead, it's cram the worst legislature. You the worst legislation down to everybody's throats quickly without any talk. And the problem is they're sitting here because all the bills that couldn't get through the long session because they were too controversial for one reason or another. It's another chance to get them through. So we take legislation that even for Democrats to sketching the long session. If they hit, we patch it up. Now we can get it through one mob. And it is hectic up here. It's crazy trying to track everything. Final question I have for you. Senator Golden, who of course is going to be resquitting at the end of this year, is his polluter pays bill going to pass this time? Do you know? My guess is no. Okay. I hope not. That would be a that's a travesty on so many levels. It's incredible. But I don't think it will pass. But it's in the category where I make a fuss.

19:50All right. Very good. Thank you very much, Senator. State Senator Noah Robinson, always good talking. We'll have you back. Take care. Thank you, too. Thank you. 632 at KMED 993 KVXG. John O'Connor, returning federal prosecutor, author of Postgate joins me here in a few minutes. And we're going to talk the Epstein depositions of Bill and Hillary Clinton. We're going to talk about legality. What's going on with a ran and a bunch more all coming up. And drinks, pains and Sunday morning encore at nine on KMED. News talk. 1063 KMED. This is the Bill Meyers show. 637. John O'Connor, author of Postgate. How the Washington Post betrayed deep throat, covered up Watergate began today's partisan advocacy journalism. Gelsa Serk does an assistant U.S. attorney in Northern California representing the U.S. did all sorts of work. Friend of the common man. And if he's ever on Fox News, he does not have hair extensions. Welcome back, John. It's good to have you on. Hey, good to be with you, Bill. Although I think he's just giving me an idea. Maybe I should have a hair extension and look like maybe

20:54have my hair look a little better. Well, tell me, Larry, and go for the tell me, Larry, and look, right? You know, that kind of thing, right? Over the weekend here, I was marveling at, you know, there is the look on Fox News. They all have the look and there is the plump lip and the hair extensions if you're in your mid 20s. It's just the way it goes. And it's like the hair, you know, down to your, to your hips, I guess, you know, that kind of thing. It's interesting. Yeah, what I don't understand is why people seem to advertise the fact they've had plastic surgery. If I were a woman who had plastic surgery, I think don't plump my lips up too much. I don't want to make it look like I've had plastic surgery, but that doesn't seem to stop anybody from plump in their lips. Yeah. Well, that is the way it goes these days. If you want to be on TV, but you just want to be in the courtroom, John, and I appreciate your analysis on such matters. And you've paid attention. No doubt to, well, first, let's have a little talk about Bill and Hillary Clinton because, you know, as far as we know, gosh, they declared war on Iran over the weekend just so we don't have to talk about Epstein anymore. I'm just having fun with you. You know that,

21:56but you're sure. Well, I'll tell you this, Bill and Hillary Clinton, there's so much to be explored there because, and after all, you know, the House has the ability to delve into the misuse and abuse of 501C3. And there's never been a nonprofit that's been there's a lot of nonprofit abuse out there. We know that now. But this is one, the Clinton went around. There was an influence peddling operation that was clearly raking in the dough and clearly was giving out state secrets. I mean, we know that. I mean, it's not like I'm making this up. During this whole people talk about this Russia geek thing, Hillary got in, oh, by some estimates, 150 to 300 million in connection with selling a uranium one and approving that sale, which is not exactly a small

22:56amount of money. Isn't that right? No, it is not. But one of the things that people have forgotten about, at least people have talked about that. And clearly, we have given Putin pricing power on a very valuable commodity, the price of which is going up as we speak. And that's uranium. If we want to have nice, if you believe in climate change, you know, the best thing to do is to have a nuclear plants. But anyway, and you don't burn a lot of fossil fuels and do so forth and so on. But the other thing that Clinton did that nobody talks about is she had this stupid Russian reset idea about Skolkovo. Skolkovo was their supposed Russian Silicon Valley. And she got a lot of money from people both in Russia and the United States who would make deals with this Russian Silicon Valley and transfer technology to folks in Skolkovo. Now, somebody was making a lot of money.

24:02There certainly the Clinton Foundation did well there. But yet, defense officials said that this was a blatant transfer of dual use technology, which is usually done on a covert basis. And here is being done over and no one's objecting. Now, did any of this get brought up in the House Oversight conversation with the Clintons to your knowledge? No, none of it. No, none of it. It's out there, I guess, for some reason. Maybe it's too complicated to get into or whatever. But the comments from a quote, and I don't know who it was, I forget who it was, with the Defense Department that was an expert that said that. They knew that there was this very, very sensitive technology that was being different types of sensitive technology. It was transferred to Russian on the guys that were building up a Silicon Valley. Isn't that cute? Aren't we doing a Russian reset? That was Hillary's whole thing. But meanwhile, she's lining her pockets with it. It was an opportunity

25:06for her to make a lot of dough. And you think about it, this woman almost became President of the United States by all accounts should have. I mean, it was just sort of wild that Trump won in 2016. I guess my question here is, why was there, well, this is where I get a little conspiratorial. And you know, I was only like half joking when it's just like, okay, now that we have a war with Iran, so we don't have to talk about Jeffrey Epstein. Is there a possibility that that the so-called House oversight and the accountability when it comes to Epstein and the Clinton Foundation and Bill and Hillary Clinton is really about talking about that and not talking about the actionable bigger crimes, which you're talking about uranium one and the Russian Silicon Valley deal with hundreds of millions of dollars. What do you think about that, John? Well, I'll say just the Epstein thing, the way it's framed is expectations that are never going to be met. You know, to really find, quote, proof, unquote, that somebody slept with an underage

26:11girl is going to be very difficult. Remember, a lot of the girls were not underage and so forth and so on and all that. The likelihood of snagging somebody in this is absurd and I think it's one of those things that and Trump to his discredit, you know, it's just something you launch into and you talk about people hiding things, which they did on Epstein, but there really wasn't a lot of there, there beyond Epstein and you know, in Jelaine Maxwell. So that's so now the war in Iraq or in Iran is, you know, that's something that I'm very happy about. I think that is going to make our country much safer. There's no doubt about it and you look back at what Obama did in giving nuclear and allowing nuclear technology and allowing them to enrich enough for a bomb. And you know,

27:13now we're in 2026. It's right about when Obama would have allowed them to go bananas on whatever they were doing. This would have been their time to shine and once they got the bomb, Katie by the door. I mean, Israel's gone and we would have had to make a real decision as to whether we wanted to defend Israel. Well, I'm kind of curious how it Israel be gone, given that Israel has its own Samson option and, you know, even though they never admitted, everybody knows they have Luke, Nuke's and lots of them. Well, there you are. You're going to find Iran putting Nuke's onto Israel. And I'm not sure that their iron dome would catch everyone of whatever was coming in. And I might put my money on Israel, but Israel if they got a nuke fired against them, Israel's going to fire one against Iran. You're going to find Tehran. And I'm not so sure that anything good's going to come out of that as my point bill. I think that would have really destabilized the world tremendously.

28:15And then, you know, where would the other Arab countries fall into place if Iran really had a bomb? Are they going to lie with Israel or are they're just going to stay out of it? Basically, I think Iran had the vision of really taking over the entire Middle East and making it a teocracy. And they could have probably been more successful. In fact, I think that they may have had more defenders had they not gone and attacked the Gulf States over the weekend. I was thinking, you know, as soon as that ended up happening, I was really kind of scratching my head over. Why would you be, you know, throwing missiles at places that you would hope would band together for Allah? So to speak, you know, I'm getting out here, John. Oh, it was still, I think everybody agrees that knows anything. agrees as just as you said, that this is really a bad idea. All you've done is stiffen the spine of these folks and you forced them into an alliance against your own

29:18country. That's what Iran did. And so it's a very good thing that they did. I mean, this couldn't work out better. Yeah. That now, in some ways, we have united the Middle East over a common enemy. And I think this is very good in general. And once I think the dust clears, the dust settles, I think there's going to be much more stable Middle East. Now, I don't have any illusions that we're going to have a really wonderful democracy in Iran. Yeah. I'm kind of curious what that looks like, John, because we have a track record that we are very good at decapitating regimes and changing regimes and doing this. We have a track record of doing that. We do not have such a good record of what happens afterwards. And so what do you think is going to be a charge of that? Well, first of all, we never should have done that in Iraq. And we should have just tried to say that the original plan in Iraq, the Bush approved, was just cutting off the very top 50 people

30:18and letting, you know, reconstitute the bureaucracy and reform the army and go back to where they would. And we would have had a much stronger Iraq. I think in Iran, again, you've got the same problem. Who is going to take over? See, IRGC can have enough strength to take over. I think whoever takes it over, it's going to be on the basis of military strength. I think it's going to be real hard to get some sort of a moderate in there. So you don't think it's going to be one of those typical we slip in our favorite puppet, that kind of thing, which is normally what we've done. Well, yeah, I mean, can we do it? That's a good question. I mean, can we do it? And I don't know what the force is in Iran that is ready to take over, except for a malign force like the IRGC. We don't want them to take over. There is bad as the, as the mullis are. So I think it's, it's, look, we're not going to have a perfect Iran. I'll tell you that. The only thing we will

31:19get is we'll probably be able to get in there and, and, and clean out. And just whoever's there, they're going to raise their hands. Okay, you can clean out all our centrifuges. Yeah. So keep your expectations to the bad guys are gone. Not exactly like a perfect guy is going to be going in, right? That's right. Okay. And what this points out is all Jimmy Carter had to do a long time ago was prop up the Shaw. You know, send in some troops. We could have controlled the situation. And the Shaw was a friend of ours. And he was for a while was running the country well. And he had his secret service to Savak and, and, but it was a, if I recall correctly, though, the people hated him too, though, because of the secret police. Wasn't that the real bone of contention? I was just a kid back then. So I'm trying to go back to my history. Well, they didn't like the Savak, the secret police. So that was a, a, a malign force, but they also women were starting to, they didn't have to wear their head, head scars, you know,

32:21there were, there was a lot of educated people in Iran. I know. I mean, I live in California, and all the wealthy people here are Iranian. Okay, well, okay. A bunch of, a bunch of, oh, yeah, a bunch of smart and wealthy people came over here. Everybody took off. As soon as the Shaw was down, they said, there's no place for us. They took off and just a highly successful people. I mean, it's just amazing to me and hats off to them. But that's the story of America, all these successful people, whether it's German scientists or Iranian business people come over here. But they could, we could have had a heck of a country had, had Carter had the guts to move in. And that's the problem we see now. Right now, we have Democrats talking about how, see, there was no imminent threat. We shouldn't have done anything. Think of Kamala Harris or President. But you know, you know, logically, they're probably right. But yet does that matter? Well, the question is the word imminent. You know, in the old days,

33:27you know, you worried about the Germans and their army, and there are they get a mass in the Rhine. You know, but once, but the threat is, as long as you are getting to a workable nuclear weapon, that's a threat to us. And that's what, that's what the Democrats don't understand. What's that nuke comes in the ball games over? And, uh, and Obama was so foolish that he almost gave it to him. These guys and Congress don't know any different. They're just, they just think it's really cool to just be really nice to people. And it doesn't work. It just doesn't work. You have allies and you have enemies. And that's always going to be the case. So I guess at this point, we're talking that serious men in the serious times ended up by taking over at this point. That's what happened. Absolutely. Yeah. This is not, this is not mess around when we saw, and these guys are so stupid that they gave us a foretaste of this by that October 7th raid where there were killing babies and rape and women and so forth. That's who they are. That's what they would do. Uh, what Hamas was doing in Israel. And, and if,

34:34if that isn't enough, then nothing is. Uh, this is not a, this is not child's play. And serious men said, look, we got to get rid of this, uh, this threat. And they get it and, uh, and, and, and just by the way, as brilliant as Trump's raid was, I think it's midnight hammer where they took out, uh, at least be great in the nuclear program. That thing was going to get back on its feet. We're probably might have been a year or two away from, uh, a nuke, a nuke. And we said it back a little bit, but they weren't stopping. They weren't stopping. So we know that and are the intelligence of Mossad, of course, who's incredible. Uh, they knew exactly what was going on there. So there's no doubt about it. They're just playing us for suckers. And we're going to basically, once they got a nuke, got help us all. And, and, and remember these inner continental ballistic missiles, I mean, if we stepped in to, uh, help Israel, and there'd be a lot of pressure for us

35:36to do that. And then the event of a conflict over there, uh, you know, our cities are not safe. We were safe a long time ago during the Second World War, we could say, okay, this is, this is happening over there. We don't need to go fight in the Second World War, these Europeans. I wanted to ask you, John, John O'Connor, uh, with me once again, he's the author of Postgate assistant, uh, wasn't assistant US attorney in Northern California. Great legal mind. What do you make of? Did you hear about any attacks with hypersonic missiles? Because supposedly I was reading reports that Russia had sold some to Iran. And I didn't hear anything about that over the weekend or where those knocked out, uh, because there aren't a lot of, uh, defenses for those. I'm just kind of curious. Do you know off top of your head? Well, yet they're really good question. And I think I suspect although we, we have it, I'm looking for these reports. And Israel is wisely not, not, uh, reporting these sorts of things because they're still at, they're still at war. We'll get a report later, but you ask a really good question.

36:36I think Israel, uh, one of the first things they did was to grade the sites that they thought were the most dangerous to them. Okay. That's all I can say. We haven't gotten enough. I keep looking around to see if they, they would tell us more about the sites that are degraded. And of course, we don't really know that, but your question is really, really a good one. And I suspect Israel's asking that same question. Okay. Good. Well, my final final question is back on to you paying attention to the Hildenbillary, uh, Hildenbillary, I'm sorry, Hildenbill Clinton, conversations with the House Oversight Committee last week. And what I'm really wondering about here is that, um, the cynical part of United States, of the United States right now are many of the voters, many of Trump's supporters too, is that nobody ever really does the perp walk because the system seems to be amazingly resistant to outside accountability. Do you think Bill or Hildenbillary ever have to pay a price for the crimes that they have

37:40arguably committed in their life in your opinion? Oh, no, by the way, by the way with Epstein, I'm certain that, for instance, Bill helped Epstein wrangle some money from the salt in the Brunei, who's a real, who's a real pedophile. And, uh, and Bill was helping him. I mean, I'm not saying Bill didn't do a lot of stuff with Epstein that was beneficial to Epstein and Bill might have gotten some cash out of it himself. Uh, I, I don't doubt that at all, but it, but your question is good. The system is built. Remember, you have to convict somebody beyond a reasonable doubt. And, you know, we have all these people in Congress are getting wealthy, including ill and Omar's and other people that just get very, very wealthy. And they know that the system is such that you can't do much about it. You can get paid off. There's so many different ways to pay off a congressman or a politician that don't, um, get into specific, quid, provable, quid pro quo's, you know, as long as everything is kept on the down low, nothing's in writing,

38:45you know, you give, uh, for instance, Omar's husband or whatever, you know, uh, is, suddenly gets a bunch of property. Uh, what is that? Yeah, Paul and Paul Pelosi has an amazingly, uh, accurate stock picking ability, right? But exactly, exactly, exactly. So, and of course, that's the least of the crimes is the, is some sort of insight information is the least of them. If that's all that Congress did, I would be very happy. But the fact is that these people are getting incredibly wealthy so quickly, uh, and it's not usually, uh, at least based the way Paul Pelosi does it and, and, and pick stocks and so forth and so on. So in other words, is everything, including what the House is even doing, is it just political performance art? Is that all we're dealing with right now? I hate to say that, but on, yeah, but on Epstein, that is, I mean, I got to say that in the word, that's all it is. And, and it was a, uh, problem of the Republicans on making, uh, you know, they, they raised expectations about Epstein. Uh, I,

39:49I, I would have raised the fire in their position. I would have raised the issue and then said, well, we can't really do much about it because of the laws protecting underage women and so forth. Hey, and you also have the statutes, statual limitations, isn't that the case? I mean, well, of course you have the statual limitations. You have that. And then you have the idea that in our, law, law work in our criminal investigations, you're not supposed to release stuff. You go out and investigate it unless you have a prosecution. You do not announce anything public. You don't say, well, gee, I almost have Bill Meyer. And here's the evidence we got against them through our subpoenas. And let me put it out there to the public. That's really not good. That's the kind of stuff that a king might do, but democracy shouldn't do. I hate to say it, but they got that information through compulsion through legal compulsion and don't just go out and, um, and that's land or somebody. In other words, this is designed to smear and kill a bunch of smaller fry, but the

40:53worst of the worst will, uh, wriggle away is what I'm hearing. Well, that's, well, that's right. That's right. That's what I'm saying. And I never have been real big on the whole Epstein thing. Unless there was really something sizzling in there, uh, you know, it's, it's, you know, it's just not going to happen. That's all, uh, you know, let's say, let's say, you know, now maybe Bill Gates had an underage girl and that's been taken care of by his own folks, whatever it is, that's not coming out. Uh, so other than something like that, you're not going to get anything, uh, and you're not certainly not going to get anything with your congressional hearing. Uh, so I never had much faith in this. Uh, I do think it raises back up again, um, you know, just blatant misuse of public office. I mean, Bill Clinton was in office and forget about what Hillary's done. I mean, he sold China still has our missile guidance technology. That's right.

41:54Clinton sold them through the morale company. It's a wonderful system. It's not something that never should have gone to them. And now one of the, one of our enemies out there has got our missile guidance technology. You know, I always watch a lot of Godfather clips of those movies on YouTube just for fun because it's one of my favorite movies. I'm, I'm just starting to think that all we're dealing with is just, hey, you know, it's just business every now and then we gotta, you know, have a little war and things like that. And it's just business. Uh, well, except for this, except for this, I really think that in I, I'm conservative. So I have a bias. But the Republicans have generally been clean at least when they're dirty. It's more tom delay petty stuff than it is, George Bush. Uh, you know, there was a clean guy. I mean, Bush never was out there with this handout nor was his father. So there are good politicians out there and good administrations where the whole place wasn't corrupt. Everybody under the Clinton said their handout. What about Biden? Oh, I mean, my God. Yeah. Yeah. We could, we could go all morning

42:59on that. John, I just want to make sure people find out everything about you because your book post gates, very good. It's a, it's a great, great slice of history and told very well postgatebook.com. And we'll have to head you back. It's just such a busy morning news. But I want to pick your brain on some of what we're dealing with. So don't expect to, don't expect much from the house oversight, though. It's what you're kind of priming as well. All right. Yeah. Well, there are many other fish to fry here, but those aren't the current administration and Epstein is not among them. All right. I appreciate your call as always. And thank you so much. Take care, John. Good, buddy. Take care. Attorney John O'Connor. This is KMED and KMED HD1, an equal point met for KBXG grandspass. Whether you're building a new house.