Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 04-17-25_THURSDAY_7AM

Episode Date: April 17, 2025

04-17-25_THURSDAY_7AM

The Bill Myers Show podcast is sponsored by Clouser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at www.clouserdrilling.com. John O'Connor is going to join me here in a few minutes. Former federal prosecutor. We're going to talk about Trump and his judges and his pro bono work that's supposedly coming with him and judges saying, Hey, you can't do that. President Trump was going to win on this one.

Now, since it is conspiracy theory Thursday, we always bring on crazy Gene or some days it's not so crazy Gene. How are you doing Gene? What's on your mind? I'm just as crazy as always. Just as crazy as always. Good, good. All right. So what's on your mind? Well I was just calling to say well there's no way we could have made it to the moon because of that the radiation belt that surrounds the earth would have pried the instrumentation in our vehicle and would have pried us too. The Van Allen radiation belts, right? That's what you're talking about. I have read theories about this for a long time. Of course, probably limited shielding in the Apollo.

But you know what I say about this is that I watched it like everybody else and I built my Saturn. I built a model of the Saturn V rocket, pal. Listen, okay? You know, do you want to destroy my childhood myths just by talking about Van Allen, Van Allen, I can't pronounce by talking about Van Allen radiation belts? Well, Bill, that was a long time ago when you were a child.

At this point in time, I'm sure you're strong enough to tolerate me telling you, you were not with it back then. Now, I know that a lot of people have written on the, well, we never went to the moon sort of thing. And I've read conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. And maybe, I think what if there's anything that gives some possibility of truth to this is that it was so long since we've ever gone back and we make a big deal now about you know going out on Elon Musk's rockets and we're gonna go to Mars and all the rest of this well why should it be all that big of a deal if already been there before all we have to do is

just repeat what we did before and heck we supposedly went to the moon on computer power that's the equivalent of a pocket calculator today okay right so we were good but then we could get by with just the minimum stuff where now we need the maximum stuff and we can't get by well for the time being though it be a myth, but I'm believing in my myth. Do you mind? Is that okay? Well, okay fine. Just go. Fine. I'm not going to argue with you about it. Oh, I know. I know. I can't prove it one way or the other, but I don't know. We sure made a whole lot of drama back in the day if that was a big put on. Well, look what Kennedy said, we're gonna get to the moon before Russia does. And we go to the moon because it's hard. We go to the moon because

it is hard. He said something like that. Well it was hard. It was so hard that we couldn't do it, but we made it look like it. All right, there you go. Crazy Jean for this Thursday. All right. Thanks, Jean. Thank you. You know, if you kind of have a little chuckle about that, what can you do, right? It's 11 after 7. John O'Connor joins me. Proud to have John O'Connor back on. Of course, a long-term federal prosecutor, author of Postgate, How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, covered up Watergate, and began today's partisan advocacy journalism.

He's also host of the Mysteries of Watergate podcast, served as assistant U.S. attorney in Northern California, represented the United States in criminal and civil cases. And I don't know, John, do your eyes glaze over when you look at the conflicts in the judiciary between the judiciary and the current administration. What say you this morning? Welcome back to the show. Good morning. Well, we've got 12 million immigrants in here that are illegal, at least. That's probably modest. Now, the question is, let's say, this is just a little exercise for the audience, let's assume someone went across the Rio Grande and is

still sopping wet. No one would have any problem with a border guard, you know, a guy up putting them in a rowboat and putting them over on the other side. Sorry, this is a border. You can't come in here. You don't have to, you shouldn't have to call in a judge and say, Judge, I just caught a guy and I just want to make sure he has a due process hearing before we return him. Now, and people say, well, that's absurd. You know, this is a border. You don't have hearings at the border. This is all over the world. You just don't do that. But we have federal judges that are now equivalently ruling this way, though, correct? Well, that's my problem. Now what happens is some guy's now immigrated, they didn't catch him,

or as a getaway, he's been around for a couple years or 10 years. Now you want to do the same thing, the courts say, oh, well, you've got to have your due process here. And we know that it's a due process hearing. Well, wait a second. Who says that you have a due process hearing before you leave? If you have any argument, as the Supreme Court suggested in the case with the Boasbergs case with the larger group, you've got something called a writ of habeas corpus. You can always bring a writ of habeas corpus, which is what prisoners do at the same time to try to get out of prison. They file a writ of habeas corpus.

But they don't need to be in court physically. And the judge's clerk can deal with them or whoever it is that deals with them. They can just do whatever, deny it whatever, have a hearing if they think there's compelling evidence in the petition. But I think what happens is in the way things go, I think these judges want to be fair. The normal process is for other disputes is that before you take away someone's right or their property, you have a due process hearing. This is not that situation. I mean, it's like

me coming up to a court and saying, I want a due process hearing. You know, my wife spit bad at me, and I don't think she's, you know, she's right. I want a due process hearing before she does anything. Well, what right do I have to that? What right does someone have? And maybe that's a bad analogy because my wife's not the federal government. But the point is, I think the judges are applying a concept that doesn't fit for border and immigration. I think they're very well-meaning, want to be fair to everyone. It's just fairness gone amuck. Because the more you go out of your way for individual wrongdoers, the whole body politic suffers. And it's one of our

problems today with the kind of morality. We don't think of the morality of the harm to the whole. The whole of us, the whole body of politics suffers when one person gains all the attention and resources of a government. And depending on who you're talking about, John, the numbers of illegal immigrants in this country right now, you're talking about 11, some are saying 20, others are saying really as many as 30 million. And if you go even with 11 million, are you trying to tell me that we're supposed to have 11 million immigration trials and hearings before judges to get rid of people who never were supposed to be here, were never authorized to be here in the first place.

And I think that Vice President JD Vance ended up putting up a post on X talking about this and the morons that were responding to him and said, hey you can't ignore the Constitution either JD, you know, and this is where they were all coming from. And it astounds me that under this this guise of fairness, as you were talking about, that we find ourselves in this situation. What it was just the other day, Judge blocked Trump from evoking the legal status for 530,000 plus of these people who flew into the U.S. under Biden's program. Now the thing is, Biden made that up. He just made that whole thing up. And then when you try to unmake it up, now we have to have

immigration hearings? It has stopped. Where do we move forward on something like this, John? John, Connor? Here's the way I look at it. Those people in favor of these hearings look at the due process clause and it applies to persons, not citizens, persons. No person shall be deprived of blah, blah, blah with that due process of the law. Now the problem with that is the question is not whether these people are persons. They are persons, but they're not being deprived of anything to which they have a right. Ah, you see, that's the important part. You did not have the right of presence in the United States to begin with.

Is that where you're going with me? That's right. That's right. And so when, for instance, Obama, he thinks he's going to be real clever, so he avoids the legislature to keep all these people in the country by coming up with DACA. Well, all DACA is is his executive discretion not to prosecute or take action against these young kids. So it's called delayed action. Well, that's his discretion, but that's discretion that can be taken away by the next person to sit in that seat. It's his discretion to say, I'm not going to prosecute these guys. Well, you don't have a right to that. The president

cannot, with a stroke of a pen, just say you have a right to stay in. No. But he stretches his authority to say, okay, I'm telling my law enforcement people not to take action. He can do that. You can tell the Justice Department, I don't want you to prosecute crimes for the next month. But, but that doesn't give the person who benefits from that a right. They are simply the recipient of, I will call it the grace, the discretion of the executive. But there's no right created. If there's going to be a right created, it should be a right created by the legislature, not by the executive. The executive has power, and that's what Trump wants. He wants executive power. The same way Biden and Obama exercise their discretion, executive power, to let people in. But that doesn't mean you're giving them a right. That takes legislation. So they don't have a right

to be here. And merely because these folks said, come on in, the weather's fine, doesn't mean that they get a hearing before they leave. So I think the way out of this is to say simply everybody has a right to file a petition for habeas corpus. But meanwhile, we're getting you, there's nothing wrong with the executive taking the opposite action to Biden and Obama and getting them out of the country. Okay, now if you think we did it wrongly, okay, you know, then file a petition. If you think you've got some kind of a vested right, maybe in the meantime somebody gave you a green card, okay, it's our mistake. You had a green card. Now we'll look and see whether or not you did anything to deserve losing your green card. Now, that's another matter. And that's the only thing, the only fly in the ointment is that one single

guy who a deportation judge said, okay, you can be deported anywhere but El Salvador. Well, and that was based upon his belief, which is probably BS. Was this Boesberg you're talking about, John? No, this is the second case. This is the second case with the female judge from Maryland. This is the one guy who had... Is this Garcia? Yeah, Garcia. The good family man in Maryland, right?

The MS-13 gangbanger, right? This guy, okay, right? Right, right. Now, he's a terrible guy, but he did have a... He had the right, I suppose, because of his prior ruling, not to be deported to El Salvador, at least that was the order of the judge before. And so the issue is, I suppose the government should have taken a step to undo that order, or they could bring them back and deport them to Tierra del Fuego or something.

But, so that's a little bit different, because in that case they could argue, well, because a judge has ruled, that gives you some right in that ruling not to be deported to El Salvador. But even then, you have the issue of, well, that doesn't mean he has that right forever and ever. If he does something in the meantime, if conditions change, we can change that. Now, again, you're getting into technicalities. I think probably the better part of it, to be very frank, is to say that somewhere a judge ought to rule that it's okay to deport him to El Salvador. I think Andrew McCarthy feels that way of the national review and so forth. I think probably technically that guy's in a class by himself.

Okay. So the Maryland man may have a case, but everybody else... Of course, at this point, though, supposedly this judge is ready to prosecute the federal government or prosecute... I don't know how you prosecute the federal government for defying this order and not bringing back the Maryland man, the MS-13 gangbanger Garcia, to the United States. Well, he's not prosecuting for that single person. That's the interesting thing. That's the fly in the ointment is that single person, but that's in a Maryland court. The Judge Boasberg who has the bigger case, I just read his opinion, it took me a while,

it's a 46 pager, about why he's right and why even though the Supreme Court says that the proper venue for this is habeas corpus in Harlingen, Texas and not the case in Washington, he says, well, even though it's the wrong court, I'm going to spend the next 46 pages telling you why I still have power to punish you guys for criminal contempt. No, wait a minute. The Supreme Court smacked him down, correct?

Right. Right. And Boasberg is saying, I'm going to continue anyway? Really? Yeah. Well, no, he didn't say he's going to continue the case anyway. He says, I have a jurisdiction to find that while you all were in my court, you defied my mighty orders, and therefore, I can find you in criminal contempt for willful disobeying of the order, of my order." And, you know, he puts out evidence about the government, really, frankly. He has a case there, if he really should have had the case to begin with. And so it's a

very technical ruling that, hey, during that half a second that I had the case and before the Supreme Court slapped me down, I had jurisdiction over the case, even though it was only temporary, as it turns out. And even if it turns out that I didn't have the correct jurisdiction, I had it until the Supreme Court took it away from me. Therefore, I'm holding you all in criminal contempt. And I want you to purge yourself of the contempt by bringing these guys back from El Salvador. Are they going to do this?

Can they really make...can this inferior court judge, when I say inferior, it's a lower level court, actually force the Supreme Court and the President to bend to his will? Can he actually do that, you think, John? Well, he's not bending. He would say he's not bending the Supreme Court to his will. He's bending the federal government. He's saying, of course, the Supreme Court's correct, and of course, this habeas corpus

petition can go forward in Washington, D.C. But nonetheless, you screwed me up, you offended me while you were here, you didn't do what I told you to do, and you disobeyed my order. And that's what contempt is. You disobeyed my order several times and willfully, and you gave me nonsense answers. I'm holding you in contempt." So it's a very technical decision. I would even—here's the real problem at the root of it. I mean, I think he's actually correct now, why he bothers to do this and why he bothers.

People would say, well, why does Trump bother to take on these judges and start all these fights? Well, this judge is really starting a fight here. He should just have the good grace to dust himself off and say, okay, I was wrong to say the plaintiffs had jurisdiction in my court. I should have said you have to go someplace else and file a writ of habeas corpus. He used another basis, and the plaintiffs cleverly, trying to avoid having to go to Texas, used another way of challenging... They challenged the designation, Trump's original proclamation. They didn't challenge the actual imprisonment of these guys, they challenged the proclamation

under which they were imprisoned. So the judge went, ha-ha, that's really clever. You did it right. So you can stay in my court because we're now dealing with the underlying proclamation under the Alien and Sedition Act. Ha ha ha. I have jurisdiction in the Supreme court says, no, you don't, you don't have jurisdiction. You never should have taken it. This is habeas corpus. This proceeds in Harlingen, Texas from now on. That's where the people were picked up. That's where they're arrested. That's the proper venue for, you know, for

habeas corpus. So what I'm saying is he's picking a fight that's a very technical, technical fight. Does the Trump administration win this technical fight with Boesberg, you think? Well, the question is that, what I would say is, Boasberg doesn't think, he thinks he has the right to do this. I'm not so sure it's ripe for appeal yet. I don't know if the government appeals this decision or not, or they wait until he tries to hold them in contempt and then they appeal it. Here's the real problem, Bill. Boasberg is now testing separation of powers. Trump, to be fair, especially in the Garcia case, was testing separation of powers, saying, I don't care what you, a judge says, the deportation judge says, we can deport this guy. Now in the Boasberg case, I think it's Boasberg who's testing the limits unnecessarily of

the separation. Remember there is, and Boasberg hinted at it in his opinion, but he jumped right over it. He says, yes, there is some area of action by an executive branch that is unreviewable by a court and is not subject to legislation either. And that executive power is one bill that is not defined. You can't go to a case because there's an area in which the executive gets to make the decision unreviewable by anybody else. Now, the question is, who decides

what's in that executive power? Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, to name three, felt that there was that area, and other people felt the same way, and scholars have felt that way. And if it is within that ambit of executive power, then it isn't reviewable by a judge. A judge, this is the quandary,

because if the executive is right, you can issue all the 46 page decisions you want, you're doing it with a robe on. You're a judge and you're saying it's my decision and here I'm gonna write this decision. No, you don't get it. You don't get to make this decision. It's the executive's decision.

So decide all you want. It's not yours to decide. So you just ignore it, okay. Well, the problem is who decides, so who actually decides, who gets to decide. That's completely left out by the framers of the country. John, that's why I had you on, but I have to tell you,

I can understand people being really confused, because I sure was confused watching this. So, this battle will be playing out. By the way, is there any precedence for the Supreme Court to actually go to a lower court judge and say, by the way, would you show up in Washington, D.C. so we could cane you in the public square? Can we just do that? Well, of course, he's there.

He's in D.C. Oh, that's right. And they can just go down the street in Canem. But basically, if you read the decision and you really are a judicial, you think the judges should decide all these things and that they should decide in the first instance whether the executive gets to make the power. I say this is a conflict as old as time. That's the thing. It's like the old saying of Andrew Jackson, well, the Supreme Court has made their decision. Let's see if they enforce it. Yeah, exactly. Could it just come down to that in which you just say, all right, go ahead and try to enforce it, Judge Boasberg. That's right. That's right. That's what

could happen. And they're saying that people say, oh, Trump's creating a constitutional crisis. I think Boasberg's the one, given the Supreme Court ruling, he's the one now that is naked of jurisdiction. He doesn't have it. It's the court said you were wrong. And he's saying, I know I was wrong, but during the time I was deciding whether I was right or wrong, I had jurisdiction. Yeah, it was my case, and so you should let me do it. You should let me, even though I ended up making the wrong decision, I still had it. I was acting in good faith as a judge, and you lied, cheated, stole, said that you looked, you know, blah blah blah. So technically he might be right, but...

But yeah, so what? I guess ultimately what we're talking about, ultimately, so what? He was offended, and he's also offended by the fact that of course the President of the United States is going out saying he should be impeached. He's a human being saying, hey buddy, I'm going to get you, you know, rather than Trump saying, oh, the judge is a nice guy, but he's mistaken, poor guy. Yeah, okay. John, thank you for trying to explain a very murky bit of legalese on this one. I always appreciate your talk for this reason. And you read the 46 page ruling, so I didn't have to. I just wanted to thank you for that.

Okay? I really... Yeah. This is what I'd like to do. This is fun for me. Okay. John O'Connor once again, and the book, it's an excellent book too.

Gotta get it. I picked up a copy not too long ago. Postgate, how the Washington Post betrayed deep throat, covered up Watergate, and began today's partisan advocacy journalism. John, thank you for your time. Thank you for your eye glazing over that brief. You can kind of explain how we are in this situation right now. Thanks so much. Be well. All right. Take care.

Okay. You too. It's 733 at KMED. One of each, K4, VIN, 0165. ...com. Independent and serving the Rogue Valley for over 40 years. Hi, I'm Duane Barkley with American Rancher Garage, and I'm on KMED. 737, I was up working at a transmitter site yesterday, and a colleague of mine from a different group dropped by. And he was saying, Bill, how long are you going to keep doing this? Because he knew I was 63 years old and I said, gosh, I really don't know.

I'm enjoying it, but who knows? I don't know if I can continue doing it forever, but who knows? And so it just reminded me of Risa Ryan, who is going to be my guest today. She's on the phone right now. She's the CEO and founder of the Unretire Group. And Risa, it is a pleasure having you on.

I think I'm intrigued by what you are offering over there. The Unretire Group. What is this? Because I'm not convinced that traditional retirement, frankly, the last thing I would want to do is to go out and play golf for 30 years, okay? I would look at that as like a hell worse than death, in my opinion. But what do you think?

Go ahead. I would agree. Bill, thank you so much for having me on. The Unretired Group is actually a platform. And what we do is we connect retirees from the industry with companies who are looking for project-based talent. And right now we're just in the insurance industry because that's where I grew up and that's what I know and that's where the people are. Did you say insurance? Did you say insurance, Risa? I want to make sure your phone was a little soft. That's insurance. Yeah, insurance. Okay. But that's you

know, that's reinsurance. And that brokers and agents, it's a huge industry. But you know, it's, there are there's a lot of pressure for us to bring this into financial services, to bring it into health care to bring it into education. There are so many folks who have retired or are close to retirement, that are just not ready to check out completely. I kind of thought that's what you meant by when you said the unretired group.

In other words, I can't tell you how many times that there have been people that I have known or have read about that, all right, here it is, I'm 67 or whatever it is, I'm retiring now and then they dropped out of a heart attack in a week or two. Right, exactly. It's interesting. I think work is, nowadays it's kind of a bad word, unfortunately, and I think that the younger generation looks at it like it may not be the best thing because

for years people have kind of worked to not work. And then the minute they stop working, they kind of realize that, yeah, you know what, this is my identity. It is who I am. And that's a good thing. Humans were made to produce, were made to contribute, were made to work together. And when you stop doing that, it kind of wreaks havoc. And it's, you know, the incidence of depression and depression rates, the studies have shown

that it increases dramatically in the first couple of years of retirement. And you know, that's unfortunate because it doesn't have to be that way. Companies need the skills and the wisdom and the talent and just kind of the institutional knowledge even from those more seasoned employees. And honestly, they're also less expensive than a full-time hire. So what I'm trying to do is change how people think of retirement and how companies think of retirees. Now the unretired group that you have right now, at this point it's only for like insurance people, people that understand the insurance industry. Are you thinking about maybe expanding this to other ones like you

just mentioned? Absolutely. We get loads of interest from folks in the banking sector and the medical field as well. There are nurses that are out there that might not want to work a typical schedule and would like the access to the jobs like we've got on unretire. Now, what would a nurse, are these mostly like online jobs of projects that you would offer at the unretired group?

Well, interestingly enough, the nurses, it's interesting for insurance. There are a lot of nurses that are employed by the insurance industry. You look at workers' compensation and there's a medical component to workers' compensation. When somebody slips and falls at work, they end up at the doctor and you have a nurse that reviews the file and that recommends a course of action. Likewise with auto, there are auto claims that have a medical component to it. So there is definitely a need for nursing skills in the insurance industry and certainly

on the unretired platform will have a place for them. I'm intrigued by this, I really am. And I look forward to seeing more of these kinds of things developing over the years because a lot of people, especially you like your job if you like your job okay you maybe want to keep doing that you don't want to have to do the 40 50 60 hour grind that right and so you're able to do a pick and choose rather than everybody being a Walmart grader is that kind of right right exactly what you're getting nothing wrong with being a Walmart reader no no wonderful and board work is wonderful and

volunteering is wonderful but the thing is the you got paid anybody in in an industry you got paid for 30 and 40 years to do what you're good at doing why and if you liked it like you said why would you stop doing it you certainly don't have to do it for you know 30, 50 hours a week and doesn't have to be a stressful job. But companies need those individuals to keep contributing, to mentor the younger generation, to train them, to just even show them kind of the softer skills that that generation kind of has perfected. The younger generation needs that. Yeah, I'm glad you brought

that up. Now which generation are you by the way, Risa, if you don't mind me asking? I'm like in...I'm 61, so I think we're between baby boomers and whatever the next one. All right, well I'm that way too. I'm 1961, so I'm 63 years old. We're very close in that. In other words, these older generations at least understood the soft skills about showing up to work, being on time,

how to interact with people, et cetera, et cetera. How to talk on the phone? Oh my gosh, how to talk on, well no, I don't wanna talk on the phone? Oh my gosh, how to talk on the phone? Well, no, I don't want to talk on the phone. Just text message, right? That doesn't work necessarily though, right? When customers call. Exactly. Yeah. And it's things like understanding that, all right, there are times during the year or during the month or whatever where you're going to have to work late. And that's not a bad thing. I mean, when I was growing up, we would work until dinner time, go home and have dinner,

and then go back to work. And that's not bad. Work is, you know, there's dignity in work and there's dignity in producing. And it's good for the younger generation to see these more seasoned folks Doing that it's yeah, it's just it's important. It's it's important for It's important for the companies to create that culture and honestly, it's just important for society in general Risa Ryan is the CEO and founder of the unretire group. How do the people find out about that? What's the website for the unretire check Check us out at Unretire.io. Okay, Unretire.io. Is that what that is?

Exactly. Okay, good. Or you can just shoot me an email at Risa at Unretire.io. Okay, Risa, I want to just touch in here. Given that, you know, people have looked at a few trillion dollars of wealth vanishing out of 401Ks over the last few weeks. Now, maybe that'll come back, I don't know, but there's been a lot of drama here. I'm wondering if that might be driving some people to say, well, I may not necessarily retire or don't have quite as much as I thought I did. So are you looking for those people? Are you thinking you're going to see more of that for that reason I don't know yeah yeah yeah for sure but you know it's interesting that inflation has gone up 23 like twenty

point six percent since 2020 and you know so those folks that retired in 2020 probably didn't bake in like eight nine percent inflation in their plan yeah that hit us for a couple of years there. Now, it's leveled off and we're not seeing that, but absolutely those folks who thought they had enough might be a little concerned on the inflation side. But then on the flip side of it too is your investments. Are you going to see what you thought you were going to see from your savings? And so I do think there's going to be some of that where people are kind of rethinking and saying, okay, you know what, if I just pick up a couple of gigs throughout the year,

there's my vacation money, there's my Christmas money. That's not a bad thing. Yeah, not a bad thing at all. My brother, who's a couple of years younger than me, called me up the other day and he'd worked for Airgas, you know, that big Airgas company, big national company, and they obviously wanted him out because well, not only was he older, but he was quite outspoken. Let me put it this way. But very, very competent and they bought him out. And so he's gonna go retiring May 1st. And you can tell when he called me and told me,

it's like, well, there was a little bit of that, what am I gonna do? You know, kind of thing. And he said, well. And he said that he was gonna do some volunteer work and take his skills and that might be fine, but there are a lot of people like that. Exactly, exactly. And you know what's interesting too is that these folks, it used to be when you retired

at 60 or like late 50s in 1960, you only lived like another 10 years if you were lucky and you were retiring from you know kind of difficult jobs like physically difficult jobs transportation and in and industrial coal miner things like that right exactly you were hired and so you looked forward to it work nowadays we're retiring at 60 if you're lucky and if you don't get offered a great package that you'd be an idiot not to take. So you retire at 60 and you're not tired because we've been working in these knowledge jobs and we're fit. This generation has been mindful of exercise and good diets. And so we're in really good shape.

And we're staring, Ben, down at a 30-year vacation because we're not dying 10 years after we retire. We're living another 30 years. And that's terrifying to me and to a whole lot of people. Like you said, what are you going to do? Play golf for 30 years or pickleball? Yeah, so there is no reason why people shouldn't be continuing to contribute and continuing to produce in their fields of expertise. I think this is going to be a trend. I think you're

at the cusp of that or maybe cutting edge on that. And it's unretired.io is the website and it is a company which connects retired professionals with companies and they're looking for projects. And like, you know, we have a contract for a few weeks or a few days, whatever it is, things like that. You can sort of pick and choose, those kind of things. I think this, I think you've got, you've got something here it's gonna be a growing trend. I really do because I don't think that overall, some people may have to unretire and, and well that's, that's one thing. Other people may just say, hey listen, I would, I would like to continue to be, you know, to be productive too and, and you're there. Okay. Yep. Thank you so much for having shared your thoughts of this one and it, it struck me here. To be productive too and you're there. Okay. Yep. Thank you so much for having shared your thoughts on this one.

And it struck me here. I know a lot of people that are kind of on that precipice like, what am I going to do for the rest of my life, right? Exactly. Exactly. Well, send them our way. All right. Hey, Risa, pleasure talking to you.

Thanks for being on this morning. Thanks for having me, Bill. Thanks. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. 770-5633, 770KMD. That was Risa, pleasure talking to you. Thanks for being on this morning. Thanks for having me Bill, thanks, bye bye. Bye bye. 7705633, 770K Media, that was Risa Ryan, she's the CEO, founder of the Unretire Group. I find that just fascinating, I really do.

Whatever's on your mind here, it is Conspiracy Theory Thursday. Of course the Conspiracy Theory Thursday is, maybe you will be forced to unretire. Muahahaha! I don't know. This is The Bill Meyers Show. Freddy's Diner has a great menu, but there can be a downside. 11 to 2 on KMED.

You're hearing The Bill Meyers Show on 106.3 KMED. 754. Open phones for a bit here on Conspiracy Theory Thursday. Diner 62 quiz next hour by the way 770 5633 let me go to Luna tick fringe you wanted to talk a bit about the Trump and the judge thing I was talking with with John O'Connor about that a little earlier. How you doing there lunatic? Fine. Thank you, Bill. Good. I read an article on Zero Hedge yesterday that makes me doubt that Judge Boasberg has a heart that

is in the right place. Oh yeah? He has said that if the DOJ will not prosecute the criminal contempt complaint that he's considering lodging against the administration, he, Judge Boasberg, will appoint an attorney to do so. Really? And to take John O'Connor, former federal prosecutor's point of view, that Boasberg may have had a case for that short time until the Supreme Court said, no, you don't really have jurisdiction,

and he wants to move that forward, continue to do that, chip away at this? Really? He wants to appoint an attorney to prosecute the United States government for a now-debunked decision on his part. Yes. Yeah. Whoa. Impeachment, to me, sounds like the proper approach here, and yet I don't get that, do you? I do. He's powered by ego, not by heart. Yeah, it must be. Appreciate the call. Thanks for making that lunatic fringe.

7705633. Dave's over in the Iron Gate. Hello, Dave. How are you? Go ahead. I'm doing good. Yeah, he's forgot that Donald Trump has the pardon pin. And first off, he asked to name an individual that's in contempt. He can't just name the federal

government. So, and they don't have to tell him anything about that. There were several of those filings that weren't signed by any individual. Are you then implying that President Trump would then, if somehow by some weirdness that this were to move forward, right, that there would be a prosecution, it would have to be of President Trump. That's what the judge is saying, that, you know, the executive violated the rights of the gang bangers, etc. etc. Yeah, except he has no power to do anything with President Trump.

He's trying to go after US attorneys or attorneys handling the case. Well, if he names them as in't content, Trump can just pardon him. All right. Well, the pen may be coming out for a different reason. I appreciate the call. Thanks, Dave. 770-5633, Conspiracy Theory Thursday. Heard a good one?

Anything else on your mind? Hi, good morning. Who is this? Hello? Hello. Hi, Gene. How are you? I'm okay.

Good, good. Are you feeling grumpy or not grumpy today? Well, I'm not grumpy, but I'd like to see that judge brought up on charges of treason. I can recall him having one vote to be the president and he's trying to dictate to everyone in the country as to what he wants, not what is legal, and that makes him a treason. Well, treason is a pretty high bar because practically nobody gets charged with treason these days. I wish that weren't the case, but they don't tend to like to I wish that weren't the case, but you know, they don't tend to like to do that. But I don't know. Well, treason essentially is warring against these United States.

That sort of... Well, you know, I don't know. You know, when you have a judge that is saying that the executive, with executive power, can't get rid of someone who never was allowed to be here in the first place, you could probably say that's warring against these United States, right? Yeah, it is because President Trump was elected. He was not.

Okay. And since he has a D in front of his name, that makes him a wannabe dictator. I don't know if he had a D. I recall correctly, Boasberg was actually appointed by George W. Bush back in the day. I thought he was appointed by Obama or by the one. I better check that out. I could be wrong. Maybe I'm confusing my federal judges right now. Sometimes when you're spitballing, you don't always get it right there. But hey, I appreciate your call there, Gene. You have a great day. Thank you.

Treason, yeah. Shade before eight o'clock. This is KMED, KMED HD1, Eagle Point, Medford, KBXG, Grants Pass. We'll certainly continue a little bit later on here. We're gonna have some open phone time. Captain Bill's gonna join me. He was at a big documentary film festival recently,

and Captain William E. Simpson there, they didn't win, but he saw some really good stuff there, and there was a lot of good conversation that they had there about the wildfire issue. Of course, he's there, and he loves his wild horses, and everybody loves his wild horses, etc., etc. We'll get you the latest on that and how he thinks we're going to go through yet another year of denying the facts that they're talking for us, for us, for us, but it's really about grass, grass, grass. More on that coming up.