Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers
Making the American Farm Strong Again. Team forty seven with
Clay and Buck starts now.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
President Trump has designed that he will invoke his Section
seven to forty of the Home Rule Act power for
the District of Columbia Washington, d C. Which gives the
President of the United States the ability to common deer
the Metro Police Department, which is the local police in Washington,
(00:37):
d C. Because of an emergency situation. We have the
President describing this. Actually, let's let you hear from President
Trump directly on this. It was quite a moment. This
has cut one play.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
It under the authorities vested in me as the President
of the United States, I'm officially invoking section seven forty
of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, you know
what that is, and placing the DC Metropolitan Police Department
under direct federal control. And you'll be meeting the people
that will be directly involved with that. Very good people,
(01:16):
but they're tough and they know what's happening, and they've
done it before. In addition, I'm deploying the National Guard
to help re establish law order of public safety in Washington,
d C. And they're going to be allowed to do
their job properly.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
This is a big move from the President. I'd say
I really like this and support this, and we'll get
into some of the details of this, Clay, but essentially
the President is saying enough is enough DC, which, as
we are very honest with you, I am fond of
the district, as is Clay. We've both lived there. Clay
went to college there. I lived there as a CIA
(01:57):
analyst way back in the day, and then later on
in life as a media personality for a short while,
so we both spent a lot of time in DC.
The crime situation there is way too high. Let's just
put it that way, Clay. They're running all these stories now,
oh crime is the lowest it is. Don't we all
want there to be no crime in our nation's capital.
(02:20):
Shouldn't this be something where we can get some degree
And we'll get into why there isn't bipartisan agreement. There
are a number of reasons for this, but there's a
whole range I think of options and opportunities here to
bring the crime level down to Tokyo levels. I mean,
that's really what we would like to see instead of
(02:40):
we've had fewer carjackings by fifteen year olds, Fewer people
shot and murdered in the streets of our nation's capital
for no reason. How about shooting for none, Clay, how
about deciding that we're not going to allow this madness
to continue because you and I are both familiar with it.
DC was always more dangerous when I lived there than
New York City post Giuliani. Rather New York City, it
(03:03):
wasn't even close. DC was always a far more rough
place to be starting around the early two thousands.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
This is an example of something that Trump is doing
that should have one hundred percent approval that Democrats will
automatically hate. And I think it's indicative of why the
Democrat brand is in the toilet, because whether you are
a Democrat, Republican, or an independent, or just somebody who
doesn't vote at all, you should want our nation's capital
to be safe, no matter what your politics are. You
(03:32):
should want big cities in this country to be safe everywhere.
And I think Trump sees Washington, d C. As a
jewel of the nation. As we talked about last week.
If you look at the rates of murder in DC
compared to virtually every major city in the world. DC
is off the charts, unacceptably violent. And you've got Judge
(03:56):
Janine who is in position now as the DC attorney
of record there. And I think what we are basically
seeing is Trump wants to fix problems that exist everywhere.
And even in that press conference said, hey, we've solved
everything at the border. We are in the process of
(04:17):
resolving many different issues associated with trade and balances and
economic issues and everything else. But even in that press conference,
which was a tour to force, let's be honest, we
went from Joe Biden can't even take a question from
the press without it being written out in advance on
a note card for him to as you said, Buck, yes,
(04:39):
the ostensible purpose of the press conference was to discuss DC.
But Trump took questions on China, He took questions on
Putin and Russia and the situation in Ukraine, basically everything
under the sun, with no preconceived, to my knowledge, knowledge
of where the questions were coming, and he handled them
with a plom Right.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
We'll address that as well. He talked, because, of course,
the press asked him about a big thing on the horizon,
the planned meeting in Alaska of Vladimir Putin and Donald
Trump to try to bring an end to the Ukraine conflict.
Trump got into some specifics. There also some discussion of
well Trump's brought up the transports issue. Clay basically just
(05:23):
to be like, like they are, yeah, just you guys
are nuts. Just to be clear, Democrats, you're nuts. Trump
just threw that in. I appreciate that. You know, you
had to was season the sauce a little bit, you know,
you had to spice it up. He's like, hey, by
the way, you are the lunatics who think that men
should play against women in sports. So not really that
into hearing what the Democrats have to say on any
particular issue. But he also talked about Nvidia with the
(05:48):
deal to sell chips to China. He addressed some of
the concerns around that. So to your point, Clay covered
a whole range of issues and also makes jokes and
it's funny and the whole thing. I mean, it was
a Trump athony. It was a Trump bonanza up there.
You also had Pete Hegseth in the mix, Pam Bondi,
the Attorney General, Judge Janine This is very important. Judge
(06:09):
Janine is the US attorney for the District of Columbia
because there's the police and the prosecution components of this
that have to get aligned. And that's a big deal.
But we've all seen I'm sure law and Order, right.
I mean, I remember waking up hungover in college and
I think I would watch sometimes like six hours of
Law and Order in a row on a rainy Saturday.
Law and order is addictive, but it's the police, you know,
(06:32):
the detectives who investigate crimes, and then the prosecutors who
handle them. It's actually a good way to think about
these issues, Clay. The issue isn't just in DC getting
to the arrests, and Judge Janine made this very clear.
It's what happens to the people that do the very
bad thing once the prosecution is supposed to bring a
case against them. And a huge problem they have in
(06:54):
DC is you have these youths. I think that's how
they're generally referred to in the press, people under eighteen
who are doing very adult crimes.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
And you know this, this gets into this area of Okay,
if you shot somebody and didn't kill them and you're seventeen,
Judge Janin says that you can get probation for this.
This is stunning, right, I mean, if you don't murder somebody,
rape somebody, you know, forcible rape somebody. There's a few
other crimes that she pointed out. You can be sixteen
(07:28):
or seventeen and get essentially as you know, you give
be fourteen or fifteen. By the way, what the heck
is going on when we have a society that is
producing fourteen year olds who are trying to carjack people
fourteen year olds? This is that I went usual in DC.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
I think it's just there's no dads at homes. I mean,
I think you really get down when you have a
fourteen year old trying to carjack somebody. It's a fundamental
failure of parenting because those kids are so young. That
should never be happening. And I think it's that we've
knocked down ads out of so many of these homes.
I bet every fourteen year old in America almost that
is getting arrested for something like carjacking. There is no
(08:06):
dat at home. I'm almost one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Well, that's your going now to even more upstream or
root cause of the problem. And that's obviously true. And
the data on this about and people get very upset
about this, but it is just the truth. We're talking data.
When we talk data and statistics, I don't really care
if people get upset by it. In fact, it's probably
a good thing that people hear data and statistics that
(08:30):
upsets them, because they need to hear it. If they
don't already know it, or they don't already understand the implications,
they need to hear it, which basically means almost every
Democrat that you know. I will say, Clay, I have
a close, close friend who, let's just say, has been
very close to the mayor of DC. And the interesting
(08:51):
thing here is that Mayor Bowser would like crime to
go down and would like to do more. What prevents
her from doing more? Politically speaking, I'm not saying that,
you know, I'm not absolving her here, you know, but
Trump You'll notice Trump isn't as hard on Bowser as
he is on like a Gavin you know, Cavin new
Scum or you know, the mayor of Chicago. I mean,
(09:15):
there are there are people who are in positions of
authority in this country, mayors and police commissioners specifically, and
city councils who are just flatly insane they're pro crime.
They're all Democrats. There are no Republicans who are actively
pro crime. There are Democrats who are actively pro crime.
And the problem in a place like DC is that
(09:35):
the city council is insane and there are considerable contingents
of the black community in d C that react very
angrily and politically to any crackdown by police. So what
this does is it creates a situation where President Trump,
(09:56):
now by federalizing this issue, could radically bring down the
crime rate in our nation's capital. I said could, but
it is possible. And then you would have Bowser, the mayor.
Obviously she's a black woman, she's the mayor of DC,
been mayor for years, is in a sense insulated from
the political blowback among some members of the black community
(10:18):
for the crackdown that will make all members of the
black community and all DC residents safer. This is you know,
this goes very deep. But this is the problem. Why
is there such pushback because Democrats play this game, and
elected democrats, the city council plays this game. Clay people
forget this, and we can get into a little more
of the Home Rule of nineteen seventy three Act and
(10:40):
how to know how to affect DC. Congress has ultimate
responsibility for DC. There's the home rule means that there's
the mayor, and there's there is a local jurisdictional situation
for and you know, you can vote for the people
in charge of your day to life in DC. But
the President Trump actually has some specific authorities as the president,
(11:02):
especially under an emergency declaration like this. Congress not only
can deal with budgets in the district, Congress can override
legislation passed by the DC City Council. And I would
remind everybody that I forget the year, but it was
pretty recent where Congress stepped in to override the DC
City Council making the punishment for carjacking less. Yeah, too
(11:28):
crazy even for Democrats. So this gives you a sense
of what they're dealing with Clay in the city of
well in our capital city.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Yeah, and here is the data that I think ultimately
brings this home. Let me hit you with this as
we as we go into the first break, and I
would just say open phone lines. By the way, we're
going to talk with Congressman Jim Jordan at the bottom
of the hour. He's got some news. We'll discuss what
he thinks about whether there should be more control taken
over of DC, among other things. But Buck, we mentioned
(11:57):
this last week. The White House just shared this. I
want any one out there to defend this, regardless of
your politics.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Eight hundred and two A two two eight A two.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
The twenty twenty four murder rate in Washington, DC was
twenty seven point five per one hundred thousand, right, residents,
Listen to these other cities that aren't exactly known for
being wildly safe. Bogata, Colombia. You heard Trump talking about
at fifteen point one, Mexico City ten point six, So
(12:26):
our murder rate is nearly triple what the Mexico City
murder rate is.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Listen to some of these others. London's is easy because
you can barely measure it per one hundred thousand, which
is what they usually do per one hundred thousand homicides.
Is how you get these numbers. London's is one.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Yes, one, right, But I mean Islamabad do we think, hey,
this is nine? Let's see nine point two, Lima Peru
seven point six, Paris one point six. You heard Buck
mention that London is won and Madrid is under one
Delhi in India is one point five. Havana, Cuba is
(13:06):
one point five. Why would anyone I think this is
a sign of how broken Democrat ideas are. We've got
a clip we'll share it for you eventually of MSNBC
coming in, an analyst coming on and saying, well, this
is the evidence of Trump's racism that he's trying to
crack down on crime and Washington, DC. Their ideas are
broken and they don't want good things to happen if
(13:27):
Trump is involved in them, because that points out how
they were unable to fix things.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
So one of the initial points you made, Clay, this
is something that everyone reasonably rationally should be behind. Democrats won't.
And this is both the right thing to do and
the smart thing to do, the right thing to do
because it'll mean fewer carjackings, fewer murders, fewer rapes, fewer
gang stabbings, which will disproportionately, by the way, mean less
(13:56):
of that happening in the black community in DC. I
already gave the stats. We know what the stats are.
Over ninety percent of those who are incarcerated in the
District of Columbia for crimes committed there are black so
it will disproportionately affect the members of the black community
who are law abiding, who want to be able to
go on the Metro or go to work, or just
walk through the park and not be stabbed or attack.
(14:18):
And it's going to be high profile. This is why
it's smart. It's going to be something that even the
press is going to have to cover. They don't want to,
but they will because it is our nation's capital and
they live there. Where does the media live New York
and DC? If this is going on in their backyard?
Guess what they're going to have to deal with this?
And this can show the failure of Democrat policies on
(14:38):
crime and the success of Trump and the Republicans on
this issue in a way that will become unavoidable. I
think it's a really big deal, a big moment. I'm
very pleased to see the president doing it.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
This was over on was this MSNBC or CNN? It
was one of the Communists Orgists.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
And I'm going to point this out before where you
play it. Of all the opinions I've ever given, I
want there to be less people murdered in America seem
to me to be one of the least controversial takes
in my twenty year media career. Hey, I hate murders,
and I wish less people got murdered. I thought, man,
this is something that everybody could agree with.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
I was wrong. I've been getting lit up over this.
It's really one of the funniest things. Generally, I would
as his cornerman, I would rush to his defense of this.
But this is just weak sauce, stop to bottom. But
here is a former Jeb exclamation point Bush Comms director,
So one of those Republicans who now just is a
Democrat but refuses to say it and goes on Democrat
(15:42):
channels to attack actual Republicans. Here is attacking by name
Clay Travis on MSNBC for saying things that all of
us are saying. But here we go play one.
Speaker 5 (15:52):
This is all power play, right. It's all about the
vibes and the look. And that's why you've got guys
like Clay Travis on Fox News. I guess rooting for
living in a military state right now because they're trying
to demonstrate strength and machiesemo, and it's mostly more about
that than about the policy.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Clay, your testosterone has just overwhelmed the MSNBC table over there.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
By the way, I don't even see how testosterone is
involved in wanting less murders. Are there people with high
levels of estrogen that just want more people murdered?
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Excuse me, Clay. The claim was made that it was
your overwhelming machismo that while driving this.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
I will acknowledge to MSNBC that in comparison to virtually
all of the men that appear on that network, I
would have overwhelming machismo. But this felt like somewhat of
a calculated attack. Buck, because yesterday I'm just media Matters.
Media Matters wrote the headline, this is a real headline
out kicks Clay Travis, federal takeover of DC should be
(16:52):
a test case for whether we can go into other cities,
and then they pulled here's my quote that they said
was so unbelievable. I would like DC to be a
test case for whether we could go into other cities
where far too many people are being murdered and help
to drive down the violent crime rate there as well. Again,
I'm not surprised usually when people come after me or
(17:14):
you for something that we might say, because there are
things that we say that people on the left would
be unhappy about. This, to me is the least being
in favor of there being fewer murders. Is the least
controversial thing I may have ever said in my media career.
But I think it's indicative of their uninability to pick
(17:35):
rational things to fight about, because they're just so reflexively
anti Trump that even things that are not particularly political,
hey let's have less people die in DC, they automatically
line up against him on It really is derangement that
is not getting better.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Well, I'm glad Clay was able to take a moment
to stop smashing beer cans against his face and BELTI
the alphabet with all of his machismo talk about Yeah,
it was amazing. I saw that. I said, Wow, really,
just just throwing elbows at my man, Clay over this one. Dude,
this is not even you've You've say way great, No
(18:13):
one even remembers what you said about Michelle Obama. I
was like, Oh, they're going to come after him on
that one, but nope, apparently not.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
That's like the seven hundred and forty eighth the least
controversial thing that I said yesterday and somehow that's.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
The one that they just This is like when I
got attacked on HBO for my hot take on sports
for Simone Biles not being like the bravest for stepping
out of an event. You remember that one. It's always
the ones that you don't expect. It's always the ones,
you know, the takes that you put out there that
you don't Okay, let's dive into now the crime situation
and this back and forth because I think once again
trumpet well, oh wait no, this was my favorite. This
(18:46):
is my favorite. Ann Jura dajad jiedd Haradas Jurijadus. I'm
not trying to get that one right. Jured Haradus was
on Morning Joe. I did not see this live. Unfortun
my Morning Joe viewing did not catch this one. But
this is the kind of stuff that is being offered up. Well, meanwhile,
(19:08):
Cash Bettel is saying, yeah, FBI just arrested a whole
bunch of very scary, very bad bad dudes, bad people
who have committed very serious crimes who are out there
in DC. So things are already happening. They're already taking
action to take violent criminals off the streets over at MSNBC.
This guy, mister GERARDA. Hardis is saying that this is
(19:29):
what he's worried about. Play two.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
A relatively small crime problem is being used for specific
authoritarian purposes that.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
We know and understand.
Speaker 4 (19:40):
So let's be clear about DC does have a really one,
really big crime problem, which was the January sixth insurrection
incited by the current President of the United States, and
his first action coming back was pardoning all the people
who tried to overturn constitutional republic order in wh DC.
(20:00):
When I go to DC, I'm not afraid of losing
my wallet so much as I'm afraid of losing my vote.
I'm not afraid of losing my wallet so much as
I'm afraid that my children's freedom to breathe will be
stolen in a world where climate change policy is non existent.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Clay, I'm not scared of crime in DC. I'm scared
of climate change. Might be the most perfect distillation of
live MSNBC delusion I have ever heard post COVID. I mean,
it might be the craziest thing, and I'm sure he's
not alone in believing this.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
I think that opposing Trump trying to bring down violent
crime in DC maybe the craziest anti Trump position that
Democrats have taken yet. I look, there are other things
Trump I think has exposed them on men and women's sports,
for instance, but that's a choice they made prior to Trump.
This is a direct response to Trump saying I want
(20:57):
to bring down the overall death rate in the country.
In our nation's capital, I want it to be a
beautiful jewel of a city with low crime, low homelessness,
less graffiti, less waste product everywhere. And this guy comes
on and says that he's worried about climate change more
(21:17):
than he's worried about being mugged. First of all, that's
a lie. There's no one who, especially an effeminate man
like him. There's no one out there walking the streets
of DC late at night that is thinking as they
breathe the air, oh my goodness, I am terrified of
climate change. But thank the Lord, I don't have to
worry about getting somebody knocking me in the back of
(21:39):
the head. That doesn't exist. And this is one of
the things that I think is exposing democrats is that
their arguments are so profoundly inauthentic that even people who
might believe in climate change. Don't believe that argument, And
I'm surprised that guy has kids, because I'm frankly, that's
not an argument that sounds like someone with a functional
(21:59):
penis would make. So congratulations to him on that, I guess.
But this is you know, maybe that's machismo coming out
of me, but come on, like, this is not This
is not a real argument that a rational human being
would make, and he doesn't even believe it, right, I mean,
this is This is the essence I think of their
collapse as a party, why they keep hitting new lows
(22:21):
in support and why they basically have no men in
America that are supporting the Democrat Party. Now would that
have functional brains at all? I think it's arguments like.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
These spoken like the mansplaining machismo expert himself, Clay Travis,
all the machismo just just you know, oh I can't
handle it all. Yeah, man, crime is bad, and anyone
who's lived in DC or spent time there knows that
this has been a member. At one point was the
murder capital of the United States. I understand it's gotten
a lot better since then, but it also got a
(22:53):
lot worse than twenty twenty three relative to where it
has been in the twenty first century. And there's also
more we're evidence they're cooking the books and that the
prosecutors are downgrading felony crimes to non felonies to make
things look better. Anyone who has seen the show The
Wire remembers this, and anyone who's worked in a major
police department knows this is something that is a temptation
(23:15):
for the brass. Oh yeah, we're doing a great job
in this precinct because we're actually not doing the arrests
that we were doing before. Or on the prosecutorial side,
same idea, we're just going to downgrade all these arrests
to something that's not a big deal.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Also, Jan sixth as in some way a you know,
the worst day for America since the Civil War, even
trying to continue to make that argument with just something
that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden tried to sell. There
was barely a blip when Trump pardoned everybody who was
involved in Jan. Six Now, partly that's because Biden pardoned
his entire family right beforehand, but I also think it's
(23:52):
an understanding that they played that for every ounce that
they could, and there's just no juice left in that
in that orange, so to speak. The Team forty seven
podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers Making the American Farm
strong Again. You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay
and Buck.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
More on the DC crime drama. They're still going for it,
they're still pushing it. In fact, Clay something that you
see today, DC files a lawsuit challenging the administration's police takeover.
This just happened today and this is still breaking. So
the District of Columbias filed an emergency motion challenging the
(24:36):
Trump administration's attempt. They're going to have a judge listen
to this. The issue is, I see it here. It's
pretty cut and dry that the president can do this.
So you're gonna have to find some and I know
the Democrats have a million ways. They'll say it violates
the Administrative Procedures Act or something. Don't even knows the
Administrative Procedures Act is. So this is just what they say.
(24:59):
The people who's say they know what it is don't
even know what it is. So I'm wondering where they're
really going to take this and what this judge is
going to say. And we still have the redistricting fight
going on. By the way, the governor California, Gavin Newsom,
has kicked off his campaign for a proposition. Lay your buddy, Gavin.
I think Gavin is still the leading I think he
(25:21):
is the leading Democrat in the country right now. Bernie
Sanders gets more live hype from the tours he does,
but I think Gavin views himself as the alpha male.
We're gonna get into the alpha males Trump and putin
here in a second, but what do you think of
both the DC emergency order challenging this or emergency challenge
(25:43):
I should say to the crime takeover, Well, let's start
with that one. I'm seeing this as they're just making
it worse for themselves. And at this point, all Trump
has to do is just keep doing what he's doing,
and everybody who's opposing him is going to look increasingly foolish.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
It is indisputably the case that Trump as the constitutional
authority to act as he did in Washington, d C.
With that in mind, it is also possible that a
federal district court judge could in the DC area question
whether Trump has that power, particularly Boseburg and the anti
(26:20):
Trump contingent of the district court judges. So the media
will chase whatever the district court judges do. But remember
the Ninth Circuit. I believe one of the federal district
court judges, a brother of Stephen Bryer, if I'm not mistaken,
in the San Francisco area, said that Trump didn't have
the right to call in the guard in LA and
(26:43):
almost immediately that was reversed as it moved up the
legal hierarchy. But it wouldn't shock me if a judge
said that Trump can't do what he clearly can do,
because many of these judges are basically politicians and robes,
and so he can indisputably do this. Warriors everywhere who
(27:04):
have even spent a sintila of time studying this not
a difficult case. But that doesn't mean that some judge
might not say, well, I don't think he could do it,
you know, for some reason, just to write an opinion
to get a lot of attention.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
This is what we're going to see. Are the hashtag
resistance judges in DC willing to remember this is not
an interpretation of like a broad spectrum authority that the
president has. This this is specifically in the district of
Columbia and looking at a law pass the nineteen seventy
(27:38):
three that has been good law for fifty years that
deals exactly with this issue, that says Trump can do this.
This is Trump has thirty days. He can do this.
It says it in the law. Are we going to
have a judge that comes along, I'm i'm I could.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Go out of the fifty to fifty whether just say
that he can't do it. Eventually judges will say he can,
but there might be one judge who says he cannot.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
It'll just It's fascinating though, because you see this, judges
no longer when it comes to Trump and the hashtag
resistant judiciary, they're no longer. There's no longer the fear
of embarrassment at being completely slapped down. Nine oh, remember
when they tried to kick Trump off the ballot in Colorado.
I think they talked about it in Maine, right, but
they actually were moving forward on her in Colorado Supreme Court.
(28:27):
Nine to Ozho even so to mayor even ca Tangi
Brown Jackson. We're like, guys, I mean, we gotta pretend.
We gotta pretend at least, right, this is not even
pretending to care what the law says. This is pretty
close to that for me, based on the reading of
the nineteen seventy three Home rele Act. If a judge
manages to come up with some way to stop Trump
on this, it's just a judge saying I don't like Trump.
(28:51):
They're not even pretending the law matters.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
I also think this is where there should be some
consequences when judges engage and behave that's way outside the
bounds of what the law is. When you get lifetime tenure,
there's virtually nothing that happens to any of these federal
district court judges. Sure there's a measure of embarrassment on
(29:14):
some level for people who want to actually apply the law,
but I think in many ways that's canceled out by
other judges giving them pats on the back and saying,
way to stand up to that tyrant, Way to stand
up to that authoritarian.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
This is what judges should do.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
And honestly, I think if you get overruled nine to zero,
I think you should actually have a consequence, you know.
The A good example is you were just pointing out
the Colorado Supreme Court. Everybody wants to forget about it
because now they're saying, oh, redistricting is putting democracy on
the ballot and all these things. The state of Colorado
(29:53):
voted to pull Donald Trump off of the ballot and
not allow people there to vote for him. The Colorado
Supreme Court said four to three, that's appropriate. We can
do this looking at the federal Constitution. And then the
actual Supreme Court looked at it and said nine to zero, no,
this is unacceptable. But all of those people in Colorado,
(30:14):
there were no consequences for them being wrong. There were
no consequences that we barely even talk about what they
tried to do. And what was it Maine that followed up.
There were multiple states that were willing to get in
line and say Trump was disqualified from being able to
be eligible for president of the United States. If that's
not an actual legal insurrection, what is you know? That's
(30:38):
the phrase Kathy Hokel used to describe Texas redistricting. Pulling
a candidate off the ballot and not allowing your citizens
to vote is to me a level of attack on
basic democracy and the process of it. Were resident that may.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Force judicial overreach seen in the Trump era against Trump,
I could because it's I mean, you think about They
also were just deciding that there was no there was
no process to speak of. I mean, they just said, yeah,
Trump did a thing I don't like, so he can't
be on the ballot.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
You can't and you can't even point to that just
being one judge Buck, which is why I find it
so troubling. The Colorado Supreme Court. I believe there's seven
Supreme Court justices in the state of Colorado voted four
to three, we're going to do this. So that actually
went through the entire Colorado court system and they said yes,
and then they got slapped down nine to zero. And
I'm mentioning it now, and I bet a lot of
(31:35):
you are just now thinking, oh, yeah, I totally forgot
about that. Because there's so many legal process and procedures
that have been put in place since then. I think
that was, of all of them, the most egregious. And
so when you hear somebody like Kathy Hokel, Governor of
New York, say, oh, this is a legal insurrection referring
to Texas or redistricting, I think it's important to remember
(31:57):
what they did legitimately in trying to take Trump off
the ballot, and it had to go all the way
to Supreme Court to put his name on the ballot.
I can't think of anything that's even remotely comparable that
any Republican has ever done that is a legal attack
of a similar nature on Democrats.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Meanwhile, there are Democrats out there. This is as somebody
who's been in Baghdad during a war. I gotta tell you.
Here's Tiffany Cross, Democrat saying, I guess this is over
at CNN, CNNMSNBC. You know, Tomato, Tomato, It's all the
same these days. Here she is saying, Remember, she's upset.
(32:39):
This is cut five. She's upset not because DC is dangerous,
but because there are too many people who are there
to make it safer on the streets. Play five.
Speaker 6 (32:49):
I mean, this is frightening. I kind of disagree with
you both. It's not a distraction, and the way we're
normalizing fascism is frightening. I left DC today it looked
like Baghdad. The way that the National Guard has taken over,
the way that they have militarized the police force there.
It is scary. And so the fact that he has
previously threatened to have Gavin Newsom arrested. He had the
(33:12):
Christy known the Homeland Security Secretary. I mean, for her,
killing puppies is business as usual. She's not in any
position to even be qualified to oversee a department with this.
Ice does not have the authority to arrest anybody. He
is deploying them, like you said, like it's his own
personal police force.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Just ignoring everything that's true and just saying things that
are crazy and emotionally charged, and even a shot about
the Gnomes puppies. In the past, she did leave herself
open to that. But man, I'm not defending it. I'm
just saying working this is a kitchen sig strategy. It's fascism,
attacking Gnome for the dog thing and all this stuff.
(33:55):
She's she's going all in on this instead of just
saying for a second, hold on, well, there are I've
seen plenty of There was an armory near where I
grew up in New York. You see people in military uniforms.
Why is it scary to see people from the National Guard?
Why would that be a bad thing? This is a
little bit like why police on your block should make
you feel safer, and if they don't, you should ask why.
(34:19):
I agree?
Speaker 1 (34:20):
And anybody out there who doesn't want more police is
probably doing something illegal. And here's a big question. Worst
case scenario, Trump does all this additional mobilization of resources
to help try to make DC safer and the crime
rate stays basically the same. That's the worst case scenario,
(34:41):
absolute worst case scenario. Has anybody really considered what happens
if it works. Imagine if Trump brings these resources to
bear on the district of Columbia and suddenly violent crime
drops by forty percent. We'll get what he did on
the border where basically nobody talks about the border. It's
(35:02):
important sometimes to remember stories that were big, Oh, Trump
can't be on the ballot, he's not a constitutionally eligible
to be president.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
It's just vanishes.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
Nobody even mentions it the border, nobody mentions it at all.
Has anybody really thought? This is why I love the
move that Trump is making. I don't see a downside.
Democrats say, hey, we've got too many police. Most people say,
well we should. If you're upset about too many police,
you're probably a criminal. The only person who's upset about
(35:32):
a drunk driving a test check is the person who's
driving drunk. Right, Like, if you're driving, you know, you
know how the person they can catch you, because some
guys are like uh oh, and you turn and go
the opposite direction and they pull you over. If you
see a drunk driving checkpoint, it's probably a sign that
you may have been drinking. The only people upset about
drunk driving checkpoints are people that might have been drinking.
(35:54):
To me, the only people upset about more police on
the streets are people who are actually engaged in criminal behavior.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
But buck, what if it works?
Speaker 1 (36:04):
What if in two months we have a fifty percent
decline in violent crime in DC? What if carjacking plummets.
What if the number of murders plummet? What do democrats
do then? I and worst case scenario, nothing changes, And
the problems are so intractable at DC right now that
(36:26):
more troops and more police on the ground don't impact things.
But I just see this as brilliant when you write
when you analyze risk reward, if the risk is zero
and the reward is massive, that to me seems like
something you should do in all facets of life.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
And that to me is this Yeah, And yet they're
still going to scream about this and say that it
is fascism