In this episode of The Truth with Lisa Boothe, Lisa sits down with Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett for an in-depth look at the explosive case surrounding Tyler Robinson, the man accused of assassinating conservative leader Charlie Kirk. Jarrett walks through the evidence prosecutors say makes this a strong case, the challenges of seating an impartial jury in today’s hyper-politicized climate, and why allowing Robinson to appear in civilian clothing could influence public perception.
Lisa and Gregg also explore the legal path to the death penalty, concerns about politicized prosecutions, and the broader implications this case holds for the justice system. The episode closes with a breakdown of recent U.S. military strikes on Venezuelan drug cartels, including the constitutional and legal justification behind the operations. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Truth with Lisa Booth, where we get
to the heart of the issues that matter to you. Today,
we're going to talk about Tyler Robinson, Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin.
I feel like the world really hasn't been the same
since September tenth, since Charlie Kirk's public execution. We're going
to talk about the mountain of evidence that is stacked
(00:21):
up against Robinson. Will he get the death penalty? And
then also will some of these conspiracies that we're hearing
on the left and the right, will that impact? Will
that tain't the juror prool We're going to ask Fox
News legal analyst Greg Jarrett, a colleague of mine. He's
also a best selling author and a former prosecutor. You
know who he is. He's got a lot of insight
(00:42):
and a lot of these things we're going to ask him.
We might also talk about the oj Simpson trial as well,
or their parallels to that was sort of the publicness,
the political nature of it. How much is all of
a different how much of a difference does that all make.
I'm also going to get his take on Letitia James
sort of escaping justice and the Supreme Court is looking
at a whole bunch of things that might change the
(01:04):
political landscape. We're going to get Greg Jarrett's take on
that and so much more. Stay with us. Well, Greg Jarrett,
it's colleague from Fox News. It's great to have you
on my podcast. I really appreciate you making the.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Time my pleasure, Lisa. So we all.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Saw the horrific public execution of Charlie Kirk. Just a
horrendous time for the country. Tyler robertson face court for
the first time today. I mean from what you're the
attorney here, but from when I'm looking at it. You know,
they've got DNA forensics, they've got surveillance, you know, footage,
they've got what seems like admissions as well. How do
(01:47):
you describe sort of the evidence against him right now?
And you know how strong is this case against him
from your perspective.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Well, it's compelling. It's overwhelming evidence of guilt, provided that
the government government, when they seized, for example, documents, followed
the rules. Did they make sure, for example, that they
had obtained a search warrant when they went into his
(02:18):
home and found documents, when they seized his computer and
accessed it. I have to think that they did follow
the rules and you know, got the proper search warrant
to avoid what is typically a challenge by defense attorneys
under the Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure to try
(02:41):
to toss out the incriminating evidence. That's a standard move.
We saw it recently play out in the Luigi Manzioni case.
He's the accused assassin of the healthcare CEO, and there
became quite a debating court pre trial as to whether
(03:03):
or not that evidence should be tossed. I'm sure that
it will not be, but you got to follow the rule,
so you know, the the evidence is considerable. I mean,
he allegedly confessed to one or more members of his
family who convinced him to turn himself in, and then
there's the text messages to his roommate that are highly
(03:27):
incriminating att but admitting that he did it. So it's
a pretty strong case.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Do you think, you know, do you think there's any
culpability on behalf of the roommate. Obviously he's not been
charged with anything, but what do you what do you
make of the roommate?
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Well, it's a provocative question. If you look at his
responses in the text messages, he seems surprised at what
you know his roommate, the accused did, But if he
aided and embedded in any form or fashion, he can
(04:05):
be charged as an accessory before the fact, and if
he did anything at all to assist or to cover
up evidence, he could be charged as an accessory after
the fact. Now, I haven't seen any of that evidence
that would incriminate the roommate, but we just don't know yet.
(04:28):
It's still early.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Do you think when those things have already happened, would
he have already been charged to this point if they
believe the incredit incredit, the evidence existed, the incriminating evidence existed,
or have people been charged at a later point in
these sorts of investigations.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Yeah, I think typically as soon as you gain the evidence,
you file the charges. The assassination happened in September, considerable
time has gone by so that enforcement, including the FBI,
can marshal together whatever evidence they have. And I would
(05:06):
think that you're correctly if if they had such evidence,
an indictment would have been rendered by now. But you know,
you never know.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
You know, there's concerns. Obviously, this is highly political you know,
Charlie Kirk was a public figure. It's been widely reported about.
You know, we sort of have conspiracies going on in
both left wing and right wing circles. Is it going
to be difficult to find an impartial jury or do
you worry a little bit about a tainting of the
(05:37):
jury pool given just the political nature the publicness of
all of this.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
You know, I covered the OJ Simpson case from beginning
to end nine months in Los Angeles, where I used
to practice law, by the way back in the mid
nineteen nineties, and there was a high profile case with
a tremendous amount of pre trial publicity. That was it beginning,
(06:06):
you know, with a slow speed chase, and yet they
were able to find what the court determined to be
a fair and impartial jury. He was acquitted, So that
sort of neutralizes the argument of pre trial publicity extending
to the detriment of the accused. He was acquitted. I
(06:29):
think most of America, along with myself and I knew
it back then, have come to realize that he was
dead bank guilty, and a civil jury determined it too.
I mean, I've never seen such overwhelming evidence of guilt
in any of the thousand trials that I've covered or tried,
(06:49):
so you know, I think you always have to be
cautious about pre trial publicity. But I was happy to
see the result today where the judge decided that there'll
be cameras in the courtroom at least for today's proceeding.
I think that will extend to the trial. You know,
the sixth Amendment, the Bill of Rights guarantees public trials.
(07:10):
It is the ultimate form of accountability when the government
prosecutes somebody. And if we're going to have faith and
confidence in our justice system, we must be able to
see it at work with our own eyes. And you know,
our framers did away with the secret star chambers in Europe,
where the public never knew whether the legal process was
(07:32):
fair because it was hidden behind closed doors. That was
anathema to America's principles of freedom and transparency. And you know,
public trials have a great deal of benefits. When people
can watch and listen to the evidence and testimony. It
caunteracts misinformation that often proliferates in high profile cases. It
(07:57):
deters perjury when a person knows that the public is watching,
and I think it gives more effective and professional trials.
When the judges and lawyer lawyers know that there is
a larger public audience, they prepare more, they try harder,
(08:17):
and you know, often the general public is excluded from
trials for practical reasons. There are only limited number of
seats in any given court room. What about the people
who can't afford to travel to the venue to watch
a case in which they have an interest. But you know,
in the high tech media age, trials are now accessible
to everyone and at any time. You can watch it
(08:39):
at home live, or you can record it and watch
it when you come home from work, and it enhances
the public's education about our justice system. So I think
the judge's decision today was correct.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
So this is Rana, But just a follow up question
to the oj trial. Wasn't he acquitted for more or
less political reasons? Like there were a lot of racial
political attentions at the time following the Rhyne and King riots.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Yeah, you know, the case should have been tried in
the Santa Monica jurisdiction where he would have I think,
received a much more fair and honest trial. And the
moment that gil Garcetti, the DA decided for convenience sake
to move it to downtown Los Angeles. I sat on
(09:30):
the air at the time, this is trouble, and you know,
I know La like the back of my hand, and
I tried cases there and I knew the moment that happened,
it was going to be trouble for the prosecution because
people in downtown Los Angeles back then in the nineteen nineties,
and you know, all the riots and the Rodney King
(09:51):
and so forth, they distrusted cops. And this is a
cop case, the O. J. Simpson case, and so you
they didn't believe the police when they took the witness stand,
and they were more than willing to buy into the
absurd argument by the defense that the blood evidence had
(10:11):
been planted by police to incriminate O. J. Simpson. It
was ludicrous, and yet they were looking for a hook
because they hated cops. And the other part of the
equation is Johnny Cochrane, who was a very fine Lawyer's
passed away since but you know, he turned it into
(10:32):
a race case when race had nothing whatsoever to do
with it, and so that of course inflamed the jury
and the not guilty of verdicts were the result.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Yeah, that's interesting, you know, because it's interesting because obviously
you had mentioned like social media, we have a different
level of sort of reach in terms of some of
these big public trials. But it's sort of like a
little bit of politics have kind of always been injected
in a lot of these things. To your point with
the OJ so the Utah judge, tiny grap has allowed
(11:05):
Robinson to appear in street clothes. How much do visuals
like that impact a jurist perspective, like how important are
those little things?
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Well, sometimes it's the little things that end up mattering. Now, look,
I was a defense attorney and I've always been in
favor of civilian clothes in court appearances, particularly where you know,
cameras are there, because that information, those images get dispensed
(11:37):
to the general public. And when you see somebody in
an orange jumpsuit creates the presumption of guilt, and of
course we operate on the presumption of innocence. And it's
a small matter when you get right down to it, really, well,
I mean, why does he need to be wearing a jumpsuit?
Give him, you know, some khaki pants and a blue shirt,
(12:00):
and you know, make sure that you're not prejudicing the
potential jury pool with negative images. So it's the right
decision in this case. It should always be that way.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
You know, Utah prosecutors by understanding a file notice to
seek the death penalty. Do you think this will be
a death penalty case with Robinson? Do you think he'll
get the death penalty?
Speaker 2 (12:27):
You know, it's hard to say. I've always been against
the death penalty ever since I read the closing argument
by the fame defense attorney Clarence Darrow and the Leopold
and Loeb case back in nineteen twenty five. And you know,
(12:48):
you can read his closing argument online. There have been
books that published his closing argument, and he made a
great many valid arguments, but the one that always resonated
with me was that how do we tell society that
it's wrong to kill when we as a government kill.
(13:14):
And he also argued that it is a far greater
punishment to spend the rest of your living days in
the equivalent of a cage death by lethal injection or
hanging or firing squad or whatever it has been historically
(13:34):
is easier, according to Clarence Darrow, and I think he
made some valid points about that. So you know, I've
always been against the death penalty, whether or not it'll
go that far. In this particular case, it's certainly ripe
for that under the law, a cold blooded assassination, assuming
guilt is established in a court of law by the jury.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
I mean, I would be for the death penalty, but
because I would argue that Tyler Robinson. You know, because
sometimes in these incidents, like in a lot of these
school shootings or what have you, like, there's sort of
an understanding and uh, a desire to be killed in
the mission, right, we see a lot of right, like,
there's sort of this expectation like that's what they want,
(14:21):
you know, they want to go down, that's their anticipation.
With Tyler Robinson, Uh, it didn't seem to want to
you know. Obviously he exited the scene and he was
you know, took to some planning in his exit, and
so he clearly didn't want to die in the process.
And so for me, I don't know if it's a
(14:43):
worse fate for someone his age just spend the rest
of his life in jail or die, because clearly he
didn't want to die.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Yeah, it's a moral question. Yeah, and I appreciate both
sides of the equation. It's just for me. I i'ved
at my own moral determination decades ago. I was a
teenager when I read the Leopold and Loeb case in
Clarence Darrow's defense, which was the most brilliant two day
(15:12):
closing argument ever brought the judge to tears any rate.
I you know, there are very few assassins who go
on suicide missions, although one can argue perhaps that's exactly
you know, what the young attempted assassination assassin did in
(15:35):
you know, trying to take out President Trump on the
campaign trail. But you know, most most people who kill
try to get away with it. And I've never seen
any valid, credible study that says the death penalty is
a deterrence to murder. But if somebody can produce one,
(15:56):
let me know.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Well, you know, I would probably argue that I you know,
I think if someone's committed to conduct murderer, I don't know,
you know, clearly the laws and the books aren't to
turn either, right, so they're they're committed to doing something wrong,
and you can try to do things to put up
hurdles in terms of you know, not if you have
(16:18):
a criminal record not being able to stain the weapon,
but then they stealed up right. We do, we do
our best to put up a roadboox with some of
these bad guys. But you know, unfortunately, or you look
at someone like Tyl Robertson, for instance, who didn't I understanding,
didn't have the history that you know, would have flagged
necessarily him doing something like this, right and that that
(16:39):
that seems to be the case often and these sorts
of things. How long do you think this trial will take?
When do you think they'll get Charlie Kirk and his
family will get justice?
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Well, as long as they don't have Lantito as the judge.
It was famously the judge and the OJ Simpson case.
If Frankly shouldn't take that long, I would would say
a month. I'm just guessing here. I think what may
be lengthy is upon conviction than the penalty phase. And
(17:15):
I you know, I can tell you from experience, and
I've been a lawyer for forty five years that really
that's what these defense attorneys are going to be focusing on.
They're going to try, like Darrow, to save their client's life.
And you know, it's often a calculation of aggravating versus
(17:44):
mitigating circumstances. And you know, the aggravating nature of it
is the assassination itself a very violent act, planning in premeditation.
Clearly there was that, according to the government, and so
all of those are you know, aggravating circumstances. Are there
(18:07):
any mitigating? Again, Darrow is useful. In the Leopoldan lob case,
he cited not mental illness per se, but a diminished capacity.
That these were two troubled young men who had kidnapped
Bobby Franks to try to prove that they were smarter
(18:27):
than anybody else and could get away with the perfect crime.
And but their history growing up was, you know, two
deeply troubled kids. And so I think we may see
some of that in the Tyler Robinson case, mitigating circumstances
(18:47):
of some form of diminished capacity that you know, he
had demons, and that the court should take that into consideration.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Got to take a quick commercial break more with Greg
Jarrett on the other side, you know, before we move
on to another topic. Is there anything you think we've
missed in the discussion about Tyler Robinson and anything that
happened today that should be brought up.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
No, I think that's about it. I think there'll be
two phases of this, the challenge to the evidence by
the defense. I don't think it will succeed, and then
a second, of course, will be the trial itself. But
I you know, based on what we know, what's been
made public so far, it's pretty compelling evidence of guilt,
(19:39):
and so I think the defense will really try to focus,
you know, make prosecutors prove their case, try to poke
holes in it whenever you can. But I think they've
probably reconciled themselves to the fact that their client will
be convicted and then the real battle begins to save
his life.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
That makes sense. So it looks like New York Attorney
General Letitia James is going to escape this mortgage fraud
case that's been brought against her. The Justice Bermittfield again
to indict her. This is the second time this has
happened with her. There's a grand jury in Virginia that
(20:21):
rejected the prosecutor's leadest attempt to charge her previously. Why
do you why do you think that is? Is there
just not enough evidence there is? This? Is she sort
of being politically protected or or you know, how do
you see it.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
I think she's being protected by the grand jurors. And look,
it doesn't surprise me one bit. She was originally indicted
by a grand jury in Alexandria, but of course a
judge in the West String District issued a ruling that
(21:06):
the interim or acting US attorney had been improperly appointed.
Now that's on appeal. I'm not sure they filed the
appellate papers yet, but the Department of Justice and the
Attorney General said they're going to appeal that ruling. Now,
if they prevail on appeal, let's say it goes Supreme
(21:29):
Court Court says, wait a minute, the President has the
sole power of appointment and Congress can't take that away.
Then the original indictment is reinstated as it was, and
so she would then be prosecuted. But in the meantime,
(21:51):
it doesn't surprise me that second and third attempts to
reindict her with a different US attorney the helm failed
because once the first indictment was handed down, this became
an intense and very public political football. And you know,
(22:11):
grandeurors don't live in isolation, they don't live in a bubble.
And you know, once this became politicized thanks to Letitia James,
thanks to Democrats, thanks to the media. I think those
grandeurors reacted in a very partisan way by saying, well,
(22:35):
you came back to us, now we're not going to
do it all over again. And there were two different
grand juries here, understand. So last week it was a
Norfolk grand jury. This week it was an Alexandria, Virginia
grand jury. In both decided not to reindict. But that
(22:55):
doesn't mean that the original one might still exist if
the appellate court reverses the decision to dismiss the US attorney.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
So we're talking about the strikes on the Narco terrorists,
the Venezuela and Narco terrorists. Obviously, those on the left
have raised questions of legality and facts, and former members
of the military and intelligence on the left, members of
(23:30):
Congress did a video sort of instructing military individuals that
they don't have to follow unlawful orders. They have not
outrighted said specifically that they believe the strikes are unlawful,
but have sort of said that, you know, they think
it's in limbo, and they have pointed to that are
these strikes legal and if so, like what's the justification
(23:53):
for them.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Well, these are venezuela and drug cartels smuggling deadly fentanyl
and cocaine into the United States. That's the position of
the Trump administration. And they say, you know, and we
know this that more than three hundred thousand young Americans
have been killed as a consequence. I mean, it's essentially murder.
(24:18):
And the administration has every legal right to defend its
citizens from the lethal poison by using lethal military force.
It's always been that way. It's more than a right,
it's a duty of the president, and it is absolutely
lawful under both US and international law, and it complies
(24:42):
fully with the law of armed conflict. Hey, look, Maduro's
murderous regime is behind the smuggling. We know that, we
have proof of that. And the cartels are officially designated
by our government as armed terrorist organizations and as such
(25:03):
their enemy combatants. They can be legally targeted by Trump
under the President's Article two constitutional war powers. And know
you don't need consent from Congress because it was given
by Congress long ago when they approved the Authorization for
(25:24):
Use of Military Force it's known as the AUMF. Now
that resolution granted the President the power to act against
terrorism of any kind, and his only obligation is to
notify Congress, which he did and as a precaution, I mean,
(25:45):
the White House received approval in advance from the Department
of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, written opinions citing the
Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, and US law. Look, you know,
past presidents Lisa have used the so called War on
(26:05):
Terrorism statutes, the au MF principally to take similar actions.
I mean, Democrats and their media handma maidens, you know,
are raging against Trump, but they didn't seem to care
when Barack Obama went after terrorism targets with deadly drune strikes,
routinely carrying out the so called double chaps Obama approved.
(26:31):
I think it's five hundred and forty strikes killing thirty
four hundred people. Biden did the same thing in Yemen,
in Syria and Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. When Obama and
Biden did it, it was perfectly lawful. When Trump does it,
it's somehow war crimes. No, it's not. That's legally absurd.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Well, I think too, you know, to your point with
President Trump designating the cartels as foreign terror organizations. He's
fighting the war against these narco terrorists in the same way,
to your point, as we have fought you know, Islamic
terrorists in the past. And so he's basically saying that
they're not dissimilar. And so it seems like that's sort
(27:14):
of the disconnect where obviously those on the left aren't
seeing it from the same perspective.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
Yeah, I mean, there are a wide variety of terrorists
and terrorism. One form of it is you know, deadly
poison that is introduced into the United States in the
form of pentanol and other synthetic opioids. I mean, if
it were mustard gas, would we be complaining now? And
(27:41):
you know, under the law of armed conflict again the
Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions more recently, enemy combatants can
be lawfully targeted with deadly force in any hostilities, those
who are detected. And that's really what the law of
(28:03):
armed conflict is all about, to protect certain classification of individuals, civilians,
medical workers, religious personnel. Wounded, six soldiers, prisoners of war.
Well that's not what happened here. Other drug traffickers were
not mere innocence and non participants. They were enemy combatants,
(28:25):
as I say, and therefore they receive no protection whatsoever
under international law. It's pretty clear what do you.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Make of the argument from the left, because they'll say, well,
look like pentanol is coming from Mexico, it's primarily transferred
via land or you know, even if look at cocaine,
it you know, typically comes from you know, Colombia, and
now Venezuela serves is a transit hub for at least
you know, some cocaine, but it's not you know, that's
(28:57):
not where the producing is coming. And the bulk of
it's coming from me Go or Colombia from cocaine. So,
you know, do you think there's a justification in that,
like why target Venezuela.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Then, well, as President Trump said, Colombia may be next,
and if the Mexican government doesn't do anything about their cartels,
we may have to take action ourselves. Look, this is
a president who ran on a great many different platforms,
but one significant one was to stop the deadly flow
(29:29):
of poisonous drugs into the United States from countries like Venezuela,
from Mexico, from Colombia, and the ingredients coming from China,
which are then shipped to those other countries. And you know,
this is part of his fulfillment of the promises he
made to the electorate that voted him in office for
(29:53):
giving him a mandate to do precisely what he promised
he'd do.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Click break stay with us. If you like what you're hearing,
please share in social media or send it to your
family and friends. You know, obviously we're still waiting on
some big Supreme Court cases that will dictate things like jerrymandering. What, Kate,
what are you looking for? You know, what sort of
(30:19):
on I know you had mentioned one specific ruling that
you're waiting for with President Trump and firings, but sort
of what's on your radar? What are you paying attention to?
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Well, it's it's obvious that the Supreme Court will never
intrude on cases of political jerry mandarine, only in cases
of racial jerry mandarine. Now, that was their decision an
important case back in twenty nineteen, and it was reiterated
(30:52):
more recently when the Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's bid
to stop the most recent redistricting in the state of
Texas that was done by Republicans, and they said there's
no racial bias here in this remapping. This is all political,
(31:17):
and we have no jurisdiction to get involved in politics.
So I think that has a very significant impact on
other states. As long as the redistricting is not done
for racial reasons, states can do as they please and
(31:37):
the Supreme Court will not interfere, and that applies to
both jerrymandering in blue states as well as red states.
The other significant case I listened to the oral arguments
on Monday of this week was on whether Trump has
the authority to fire an individual on the Federal Trade
(32:01):
Commission the FTC, and it's pretty clear that the Justices
are going to side with Trump that as chief executive,
he of the executive branch, he can fire agency appointees
with or without cause. You know, when the FTC was
(32:22):
set up in nineteen fourteen is a so called independent commission.
Congress passed a law at the time that usurped the
constitutional power of the president. They took part of his
power of appointment away, and it was wrong then, it
was wrong now, and it was wrong when the Supreme
(32:46):
Court ninety years ago, in nineteen thirty five, the so
called Humphreys Executor case, cited that nineteen fourteen statute, and
they stopped the president from firing an FTC commission was
it was a stupid decision. It was you know, it
(33:07):
tortured the constitution. And the result of that errant decision
was ginormous. It's been catastrophic since nineteen thirty five. It
essentially created a powerful fourth branch of government, this alphabet
(33:29):
soup of bureaucracies that are accountable to no one, and
they rage out of control. And you know, Gorsch pointed
that out in particulares. Since when do we have a
fourth branch of government? It's nowhere in the constitution. It
is anathetical to the very way that our founders set
(33:51):
up our constitutional republic. So I think the Supreme Court
is clearly going to reverse the Humphrey case of nineteen
thirty I've been finally and belatedly restore presidential power over
not just the FTC, but dozens of these rogue federal agencies.
The president will be able to fire just about anybody
(34:14):
except saving accept let's say, the governors of the you know,
Fed Bank, the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
Yeah, I feel like we should prepare for those on
the left to light their hair on fire because looking
at the high profile cases are going to be decided soon,
birthright citizenship, there's a transgender healthcare one about banning transgender
surgeries for minors, and you know, pubity blockers and all
(34:45):
that stuff. And then there's a religious charter schools one.
There is another immigration, and then other cases on the
docket that they're either going to hear or considering. You've
got the voting rights one that we discussed, the Louisiana
Voting Rights Act one, and then a campaign finance one.
There's going to be.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
Yeah, it's going to be.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
It's going to be.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
You know, according to my account, he's won seventeen straight
in overall twenty three, which is an incredible I mean,
that's like to use a baseball analogy, that's that's like
a Ted Williams batting average. I mean, it's it's astonishing,
especially when you consider he's only been in office for
(35:29):
eleven months and ten months really, so you know, they'll look,
he's had more than four hundred lawsuits filed against him.
Every time he sneezes somebody, you know, Democrats run to
court and uh, you know, file a lawsuit against him.
(35:50):
So everything's being challenged but you know, I look at
a lot of these cases that are brought against him,
and they're silly and frivolous, and you know, he's able
to overcome it in the higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court.
You know, too many of these district court judges have
(36:10):
totally disavowed the rule of law and decided to make
their decisions because they hate Trump. I mean, they're suffering
from a terminal psycho pathology known as Trump derangement syndrome,
and so they just ignore the law and they rule
against Trump almost routinely, and you know, it's a shame.
But it is then up to the higher courts to
(36:33):
correct those mistakes.
Speaker 1 (36:37):
It will be Yeah, you said it's only been, it
feels like it's been. I think we're living in dog
ears because he moves so quickly, so it feels like
it does the amount of news we cover on a
daily basis. He's keeping us busy and he's keeping us employed. Gregs.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
Yeah, it's hard to keep up with a guy, I mean, sir.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Every time and every time I out number, there was
like always some breaking news or he gives some press
conference and then makes news.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
Oh I know, it's incredible. He doesn't get much sleep.
Speaker 1 (37:10):
I know we need sleep. Though we might not need sleep,
but we need sleep. Greg Jarrett, I appreciate you very interesting,
good stuff.
Speaker 2 (37:19):
Oh anytime, Lisa, happy to be on with you. I
consider it to be a pleasure to get to talk
to you.
Speaker 1 (37:26):
Oh well, I appreciate that when we will definitely have
you back soon.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Okay, take care.
Speaker 1 (37:30):
It was Greg Jarrett. Appreciate him for making the time.
Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday,
but you can listen throughout the week. I also want
to thank my producer, John Katsio for putting the show together.
Until next time.
Welcome to the Truth with Lisa Booth, where we get
to the heart of the issues that matter to you. Today,
we're going to talk about Tyler Robinson, Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin.
I feel like the world really hasn't been the same
since September tenth, since Charlie Kirk's public execution. We're going
to talk about the mountain of evidence that is stacked
(00:21):
up against Robinson. Will he get the death penalty? And
then also will some of these conspiracies that we're hearing
on the left and the right, will that impact? Will
that tain't the juror prool We're going to ask Fox
News legal analyst Greg Jarrett, a colleague of mine. He's
also a best selling author and a former prosecutor. You
know who he is. He's got a lot of insight
(00:42):
and a lot of these things we're going to ask him.
We might also talk about the oj Simpson trial as well,
or their parallels to that was sort of the publicness,
the political nature of it. How much is all of
a different how much of a difference does that all make.
I'm also going to get his take on Letitia James
sort of escaping justice and the Supreme Court is looking
at a whole bunch of things that might change the
(01:04):
political landscape. We're going to get Greg Jarrett's take on
that and so much more. Stay with us. Well, Greg Jarrett,
it's colleague from Fox News. It's great to have you
on my podcast. I really appreciate you making the.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Time my pleasure, Lisa. So we all.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Saw the horrific public execution of Charlie Kirk. Just a
horrendous time for the country. Tyler robertson face court for
the first time today. I mean from what you're the
attorney here, but from when I'm looking at it. You know,
they've got DNA forensics, they've got surveillance, you know, footage,
they've got what seems like admissions as well. How do
(01:47):
you describe sort of the evidence against him right now?
And you know how strong is this case against him
from your perspective.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Well, it's compelling. It's overwhelming evidence of guilt, provided that
the government government, when they seized, for example, documents, followed
the rules. Did they make sure, for example, that they
had obtained a search warrant when they went into his
(02:18):
home and found documents, when they seized his computer and
accessed it. I have to think that they did follow
the rules and you know, got the proper search warrant
to avoid what is typically a challenge by defense attorneys
under the Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure to try
(02:41):
to toss out the incriminating evidence. That's a standard move.
We saw it recently play out in the Luigi Manzioni case.
He's the accused assassin of the healthcare CEO, and there
became quite a debating court pre trial as to whether
(03:03):
or not that evidence should be tossed. I'm sure that
it will not be, but you got to follow the rule,
so you know, the the evidence is considerable. I mean,
he allegedly confessed to one or more members of his
family who convinced him to turn himself in, and then
there's the text messages to his roommate that are highly
(03:27):
incriminating att but admitting that he did it. So it's
a pretty strong case.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Do you think, you know, do you think there's any
culpability on behalf of the roommate. Obviously he's not been
charged with anything, but what do you what do you
make of the roommate?
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Well, it's a provocative question. If you look at his
responses in the text messages, he seems surprised at what
you know his roommate, the accused did, But if he
aided and embedded in any form or fashion, he can
(04:05):
be charged as an accessory before the fact, and if
he did anything at all to assist or to cover
up evidence, he could be charged as an accessory after
the fact. Now, I haven't seen any of that evidence
that would incriminate the roommate, but we just don't know yet.
(04:28):
It's still early.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Do you think when those things have already happened, would
he have already been charged to this point if they
believe the incredit incredit, the evidence existed, the incriminating evidence existed,
or have people been charged at a later point in
these sorts of investigations.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Yeah, I think typically as soon as you gain the evidence,
you file the charges. The assassination happened in September, considerable
time has gone by so that enforcement, including the FBI,
can marshal together whatever evidence they have. And I would
(05:06):
think that you're correctly if if they had such evidence,
an indictment would have been rendered by now. But you know,
you never know.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
You know, there's concerns. Obviously, this is highly political you know,
Charlie Kirk was a public figure. It's been widely reported about.
You know, we sort of have conspiracies going on in
both left wing and right wing circles. Is it going
to be difficult to find an impartial jury or do
you worry a little bit about a tainting of the
(05:37):
jury pool given just the political nature the publicness of
all of this.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
You know, I covered the OJ Simpson case from beginning
to end nine months in Los Angeles, where I used
to practice law, by the way back in the mid
nineteen nineties, and there was a high profile case with
a tremendous amount of pre trial publicity. That was it beginning,
(06:06):
you know, with a slow speed chase, and yet they
were able to find what the court determined to be
a fair and impartial jury. He was acquitted, So that
sort of neutralizes the argument of pre trial publicity extending
to the detriment of the accused. He was acquitted. I
(06:29):
think most of America, along with myself and I knew
it back then, have come to realize that he was
dead bank guilty, and a civil jury determined it too.
I mean, I've never seen such overwhelming evidence of guilt
in any of the thousand trials that I've covered or tried,
(06:49):
so you know, I think you always have to be
cautious about pre trial publicity. But I was happy to
see the result today where the judge decided that there'll
be cameras in the courtroom at least for today's proceeding.
I think that will extend to the trial. You know,
the sixth Amendment, the Bill of Rights guarantees public trials.
(07:10):
It is the ultimate form of accountability when the government
prosecutes somebody. And if we're going to have faith and
confidence in our justice system, we must be able to
see it at work with our own eyes. And you know,
our framers did away with the secret star chambers in Europe,
where the public never knew whether the legal process was
(07:32):
fair because it was hidden behind closed doors. That was
anathema to America's principles of freedom and transparency. And you know,
public trials have a great deal of benefits. When people
can watch and listen to the evidence and testimony. It
caunteracts misinformation that often proliferates in high profile cases. It
(07:57):
deters perjury when a person knows that the public is watching,
and I think it gives more effective and professional trials.
When the judges and lawyer lawyers know that there is
a larger public audience, they prepare more, they try harder,
(08:17):
and you know, often the general public is excluded from
trials for practical reasons. There are only limited number of
seats in any given court room. What about the people
who can't afford to travel to the venue to watch
a case in which they have an interest. But you know,
in the high tech media age, trials are now accessible
to everyone and at any time. You can watch it
(08:39):
at home live, or you can record it and watch
it when you come home from work, and it enhances
the public's education about our justice system. So I think
the judge's decision today was correct.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
So this is Rana, But just a follow up question
to the oj trial. Wasn't he acquitted for more or
less political reasons? Like there were a lot of racial
political attentions at the time following the Rhyne and King riots.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Yeah, you know, the case should have been tried in
the Santa Monica jurisdiction where he would have I think,
received a much more fair and honest trial. And the
moment that gil Garcetti, the DA decided for convenience sake
to move it to downtown Los Angeles. I sat on
(09:30):
the air at the time, this is trouble, and you know,
I know La like the back of my hand, and
I tried cases there and I knew the moment that happened,
it was going to be trouble for the prosecution because
people in downtown Los Angeles back then in the nineteen nineties,
and you know, all the riots and the Rodney King
(09:51):
and so forth, they distrusted cops. And this is a
cop case, the O. J. Simpson case, and so you
they didn't believe the police when they took the witness stand,
and they were more than willing to buy into the
absurd argument by the defense that the blood evidence had
(10:11):
been planted by police to incriminate O. J. Simpson. It
was ludicrous, and yet they were looking for a hook
because they hated cops. And the other part of the
equation is Johnny Cochrane, who was a very fine Lawyer's
passed away since but you know, he turned it into
(10:32):
a race case when race had nothing whatsoever to do
with it, and so that of course inflamed the jury
and the not guilty of verdicts were the result.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Yeah, that's interesting, you know, because it's interesting because obviously
you had mentioned like social media, we have a different
level of sort of reach in terms of some of
these big public trials. But it's sort of like a
little bit of politics have kind of always been injected
in a lot of these things. To your point with
the OJ so the Utah judge, tiny grap has allowed
(11:05):
Robinson to appear in street clothes. How much do visuals
like that impact a jurist perspective, like how important are
those little things?
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Well, sometimes it's the little things that end up mattering. Now, look,
I was a defense attorney and I've always been in
favor of civilian clothes in court appearances, particularly where you know,
cameras are there, because that information, those images get dispensed
(11:37):
to the general public. And when you see somebody in
an orange jumpsuit creates the presumption of guilt, and of
course we operate on the presumption of innocence. And it's
a small matter when you get right down to it, really, well,
I mean, why does he need to be wearing a jumpsuit?
Give him, you know, some khaki pants and a blue shirt,
(12:00):
and you know, make sure that you're not prejudicing the
potential jury pool with negative images. So it's the right
decision in this case. It should always be that way.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
You know, Utah prosecutors by understanding a file notice to
seek the death penalty. Do you think this will be
a death penalty case with Robinson? Do you think he'll
get the death penalty?
Speaker 2 (12:27):
You know, it's hard to say. I've always been against
the death penalty ever since I read the closing argument
by the fame defense attorney Clarence Darrow and the Leopold
and Loeb case back in nineteen twenty five. And you know,
(12:48):
you can read his closing argument online. There have been
books that published his closing argument, and he made a
great many valid arguments, but the one that always resonated
with me was that how do we tell society that
it's wrong to kill when we as a government kill.
(13:14):
And he also argued that it is a far greater
punishment to spend the rest of your living days in
the equivalent of a cage death by lethal injection or
hanging or firing squad or whatever it has been historically
(13:34):
is easier, according to Clarence Darrow, and I think he
made some valid points about that. So you know, I've
always been against the death penalty, whether or not it'll
go that far. In this particular case, it's certainly ripe
for that under the law, a cold blooded assassination, assuming
guilt is established in a court of law by the jury.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
I mean, I would be for the death penalty, but
because I would argue that Tyler Robinson. You know, because
sometimes in these incidents, like in a lot of these
school shootings or what have you, like, there's sort of
an understanding and uh, a desire to be killed in
the mission, right, we see a lot of right, like,
there's sort of this expectation like that's what they want,
(14:21):
you know, they want to go down, that's their anticipation.
With Tyler Robinson, Uh, it didn't seem to want to
you know. Obviously he exited the scene and he was
you know, took to some planning in his exit, and
so he clearly didn't want to die in the process.
And so for me, I don't know if it's a
(14:43):
worse fate for someone his age just spend the rest
of his life in jail or die, because clearly he
didn't want to die.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Yeah, it's a moral question. Yeah, and I appreciate both
sides of the equation. It's just for me. I i'ved
at my own moral determination decades ago. I was a
teenager when I read the Leopold and Loeb case in
Clarence Darrow's defense, which was the most brilliant two day
(15:12):
closing argument ever brought the judge to tears any rate.
I you know, there are very few assassins who go
on suicide missions, although one can argue perhaps that's exactly
you know, what the young attempted assassination assassin did in
(15:35):
you know, trying to take out President Trump on the
campaign trail. But you know, most most people who kill
try to get away with it. And I've never seen
any valid, credible study that says the death penalty is
a deterrence to murder. But if somebody can produce one,
(15:56):
let me know.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Well, you know, I would probably argue that I you know,
I think if someone's committed to conduct murderer, I don't know,
you know, clearly the laws and the books aren't to
turn either, right, so they're they're committed to doing something wrong,
and you can try to do things to put up
hurdles in terms of you know, not if you have
(16:18):
a criminal record not being able to stain the weapon,
but then they stealed up right. We do, we do
our best to put up a roadboox with some of
these bad guys. But you know, unfortunately, or you look
at someone like Tyl Robertson, for instance, who didn't I understanding,
didn't have the history that you know, would have flagged
necessarily him doing something like this, right and that that
(16:39):
that seems to be the case often and these sorts
of things. How long do you think this trial will take?
When do you think they'll get Charlie Kirk and his
family will get justice?
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Well, as long as they don't have Lantito as the judge.
It was famously the judge and the OJ Simpson case.
If Frankly shouldn't take that long, I would would say
a month. I'm just guessing here. I think what may
be lengthy is upon conviction than the penalty phase. And
(17:15):
I you know, I can tell you from experience, and
I've been a lawyer for forty five years that really
that's what these defense attorneys are going to be focusing on.
They're going to try, like Darrow, to save their client's life.
And you know, it's often a calculation of aggravating versus
(17:44):
mitigating circumstances. And you know, the aggravating nature of it
is the assassination itself a very violent act, planning in premeditation.
Clearly there was that, according to the government, and so
all of those are you know, aggravating circumstances. Are there
(18:07):
any mitigating? Again, Darrow is useful. In the Leopoldan lob case,
he cited not mental illness per se, but a diminished capacity.
That these were two troubled young men who had kidnapped
Bobby Franks to try to prove that they were smarter
(18:27):
than anybody else and could get away with the perfect crime.
And but their history growing up was, you know, two
deeply troubled kids. And so I think we may see
some of that in the Tyler Robinson case, mitigating circumstances
(18:47):
of some form of diminished capacity that you know, he
had demons, and that the court should take that into consideration.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Got to take a quick commercial break more with Greg
Jarrett on the other side, you know, before we move
on to another topic. Is there anything you think we've
missed in the discussion about Tyler Robinson and anything that
happened today that should be brought up.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
No, I think that's about it. I think there'll be
two phases of this, the challenge to the evidence by
the defense. I don't think it will succeed, and then
a second, of course, will be the trial itself. But
I you know, based on what we know, what's been
made public so far, it's pretty compelling evidence of guilt,
(19:39):
and so I think the defense will really try to focus,
you know, make prosecutors prove their case, try to poke
holes in it whenever you can. But I think they've
probably reconciled themselves to the fact that their client will
be convicted and then the real battle begins to save
his life.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
That makes sense. So it looks like New York Attorney
General Letitia James is going to escape this mortgage fraud
case that's been brought against her. The Justice Bermittfield again
to indict her. This is the second time this has
happened with her. There's a grand jury in Virginia that
(20:21):
rejected the prosecutor's leadest attempt to charge her previously. Why
do you why do you think that is? Is there
just not enough evidence there is? This? Is she sort
of being politically protected or or you know, how do
you see it.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
I think she's being protected by the grand jurors. And look,
it doesn't surprise me one bit. She was originally indicted
by a grand jury in Alexandria, but of course a
judge in the West String District issued a ruling that
(21:06):
the interim or acting US attorney had been improperly appointed.
Now that's on appeal. I'm not sure they filed the
appellate papers yet, but the Department of Justice and the
Attorney General said they're going to appeal that ruling. Now,
if they prevail on appeal, let's say it goes Supreme
(21:29):
Court Court says, wait a minute, the President has the
sole power of appointment and Congress can't take that away.
Then the original indictment is reinstated as it was, and
so she would then be prosecuted. But in the meantime,
(21:51):
it doesn't surprise me that second and third attempts to
reindict her with a different US attorney the helm failed
because once the first indictment was handed down, this became
an intense and very public political football. And you know,
(22:11):
grandeurors don't live in isolation, they don't live in a bubble.
And you know, once this became politicized thanks to Letitia James,
thanks to Democrats, thanks to the media. I think those
grandeurors reacted in a very partisan way by saying, well,
(22:35):
you came back to us, now we're not going to
do it all over again. And there were two different
grand juries here, understand. So last week it was a
Norfolk grand jury. This week it was an Alexandria, Virginia
grand jury. In both decided not to reindict. But that
(22:55):
doesn't mean that the original one might still exist if
the appellate court reverses the decision to dismiss the US attorney.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
So we're talking about the strikes on the Narco terrorists,
the Venezuela and Narco terrorists. Obviously, those on the left
have raised questions of legality and facts, and former members
of the military and intelligence on the left, members of
(23:30):
Congress did a video sort of instructing military individuals that
they don't have to follow unlawful orders. They have not
outrighted said specifically that they believe the strikes are unlawful,
but have sort of said that, you know, they think
it's in limbo, and they have pointed to that are
these strikes legal and if so, like what's the justification
(23:53):
for them.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Well, these are venezuela and drug cartels smuggling deadly fentanyl
and cocaine into the United States. That's the position of
the Trump administration. And they say, you know, and we
know this that more than three hundred thousand young Americans
have been killed as a consequence. I mean, it's essentially murder.
(24:18):
And the administration has every legal right to defend its
citizens from the lethal poison by using lethal military force.
It's always been that way. It's more than a right,
it's a duty of the president, and it is absolutely
lawful under both US and international law, and it complies
(24:42):
fully with the law of armed conflict. Hey, look, Maduro's
murderous regime is behind the smuggling. We know that, we
have proof of that. And the cartels are officially designated
by our government as armed terrorist organizations and as such
(25:03):
their enemy combatants. They can be legally targeted by Trump
under the President's Article two constitutional war powers. And know
you don't need consent from Congress because it was given
by Congress long ago when they approved the Authorization for
(25:24):
Use of Military Force it's known as the AUMF. Now
that resolution granted the President the power to act against
terrorism of any kind, and his only obligation is to
notify Congress, which he did and as a precaution, I mean,
(25:45):
the White House received approval in advance from the Department
of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, written opinions citing the
Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, and US law. Look, you know,
past presidents Lisa have used the so called War on
(26:05):
Terrorism statutes, the au MF principally to take similar actions.
I mean, Democrats and their media handma maidens, you know,
are raging against Trump, but they didn't seem to care
when Barack Obama went after terrorism targets with deadly drune strikes,
routinely carrying out the so called double chaps Obama approved.
(26:31):
I think it's five hundred and forty strikes killing thirty
four hundred people. Biden did the same thing in Yemen,
in Syria and Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. When Obama and
Biden did it, it was perfectly lawful. When Trump does it,
it's somehow war crimes. No, it's not. That's legally absurd.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Well, I think too, you know, to your point with
President Trump designating the cartels as foreign terror organizations. He's
fighting the war against these narco terrorists in the same way,
to your point, as we have fought you know, Islamic
terrorists in the past. And so he's basically saying that
they're not dissimilar. And so it seems like that's sort
(27:14):
of the disconnect where obviously those on the left aren't
seeing it from the same perspective.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
Yeah, I mean, there are a wide variety of terrorists
and terrorism. One form of it is you know, deadly
poison that is introduced into the United States in the
form of pentanol and other synthetic opioids. I mean, if
it were mustard gas, would we be complaining now? And
(27:41):
you know, under the law of armed conflict again the
Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions more recently, enemy combatants can
be lawfully targeted with deadly force in any hostilities, those
who are detected. And that's really what the law of
(28:03):
armed conflict is all about, to protect certain classification of individuals, civilians,
medical workers, religious personnel. Wounded, six soldiers, prisoners of war.
Well that's not what happened here. Other drug traffickers were
not mere innocence and non participants. They were enemy combatants,
(28:25):
as I say, and therefore they receive no protection whatsoever
under international law. It's pretty clear what do you.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Make of the argument from the left, because they'll say, well,
look like pentanol is coming from Mexico, it's primarily transferred
via land or you know, even if look at cocaine,
it you know, typically comes from you know, Colombia, and
now Venezuela serves is a transit hub for at least
you know, some cocaine, but it's not you know, that's
(28:57):
not where the producing is coming. And the bulk of
it's coming from me Go or Colombia from cocaine. So,
you know, do you think there's a justification in that,
like why target Venezuela.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Then, well, as President Trump said, Colombia may be next,
and if the Mexican government doesn't do anything about their cartels,
we may have to take action ourselves. Look, this is
a president who ran on a great many different platforms,
but one significant one was to stop the deadly flow
(29:29):
of poisonous drugs into the United States from countries like Venezuela,
from Mexico, from Colombia, and the ingredients coming from China,
which are then shipped to those other countries. And you know,
this is part of his fulfillment of the promises he
made to the electorate that voted him in office for
(29:53):
giving him a mandate to do precisely what he promised
he'd do.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Click break stay with us. If you like what you're hearing,
please share in social media or send it to your
family and friends. You know, obviously we're still waiting on
some big Supreme Court cases that will dictate things like jerrymandering. What, Kate,
what are you looking for? You know, what sort of
(30:19):
on I know you had mentioned one specific ruling that
you're waiting for with President Trump and firings, but sort
of what's on your radar? What are you paying attention to?
Speaker 2 (30:29):
Well, it's it's obvious that the Supreme Court will never
intrude on cases of political jerry mandarine, only in cases
of racial jerry mandarine. Now, that was their decision an
important case back in twenty nineteen, and it was reiterated
(30:52):
more recently when the Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's bid
to stop the most recent redistricting in the state of
Texas that was done by Republicans, and they said there's
no racial bias here in this remapping. This is all political,
(31:17):
and we have no jurisdiction to get involved in politics.
So I think that has a very significant impact on
other states. As long as the redistricting is not done
for racial reasons, states can do as they please and
(31:37):
the Supreme Court will not interfere, and that applies to
both jerrymandering in blue states as well as red states.
The other significant case I listened to the oral arguments
on Monday of this week was on whether Trump has
the authority to fire an individual on the Federal Trade
(32:01):
Commission the FTC, and it's pretty clear that the Justices
are going to side with Trump that as chief executive,
he of the executive branch, he can fire agency appointees
with or without cause. You know, when the FTC was
(32:22):
set up in nineteen fourteen is a so called independent commission.
Congress passed a law at the time that usurped the
constitutional power of the president. They took part of his
power of appointment away, and it was wrong then, it
was wrong now, and it was wrong when the Supreme
(32:46):
Court ninety years ago, in nineteen thirty five, the so
called Humphreys Executor case, cited that nineteen fourteen statute, and
they stopped the president from firing an FTC commission was
it was a stupid decision. It was you know, it
(33:07):
tortured the constitution. And the result of that errant decision
was ginormous. It's been catastrophic since nineteen thirty five. It
essentially created a powerful fourth branch of government, this alphabet
(33:29):
soup of bureaucracies that are accountable to no one, and
they rage out of control. And you know, Gorsch pointed
that out in particulares. Since when do we have a
fourth branch of government? It's nowhere in the constitution. It
is anathetical to the very way that our founders set
(33:51):
up our constitutional republic. So I think the Supreme Court
is clearly going to reverse the Humphrey case of nineteen
thirty I've been finally and belatedly restore presidential power over
not just the FTC, but dozens of these rogue federal agencies.
The president will be able to fire just about anybody
(34:14):
except saving accept let's say, the governors of the you know,
Fed Bank, the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
Yeah, I feel like we should prepare for those on
the left to light their hair on fire because looking
at the high profile cases are going to be decided soon,
birthright citizenship, there's a transgender healthcare one about banning transgender
surgeries for minors, and you know, pubity blockers and all
(34:45):
that stuff. And then there's a religious charter schools one.
There is another immigration, and then other cases on the
docket that they're either going to hear or considering. You've
got the voting rights one that we discussed, the Louisiana
Voting Rights Act one, and then a campaign finance one.
There's going to be.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
Yeah, it's going to be.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
It's going to be.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
You know, according to my account, he's won seventeen straight
in overall twenty three, which is an incredible I mean,
that's like to use a baseball analogy, that's that's like
a Ted Williams batting average. I mean, it's it's astonishing,
especially when you consider he's only been in office for
(35:29):
eleven months and ten months really, so you know, they'll look,
he's had more than four hundred lawsuits filed against him.
Every time he sneezes somebody, you know, Democrats run to
court and uh, you know, file a lawsuit against him.
(35:50):
So everything's being challenged but you know, I look at
a lot of these cases that are brought against him,
and they're silly and frivolous, and you know, he's able
to overcome it in the higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court.
You know, too many of these district court judges have
(36:10):
totally disavowed the rule of law and decided to make
their decisions because they hate Trump. I mean, they're suffering
from a terminal psycho pathology known as Trump derangement syndrome,
and so they just ignore the law and they rule
against Trump almost routinely, and you know, it's a shame.
But it is then up to the higher courts to
(36:33):
correct those mistakes.
Speaker 1 (36:37):
It will be Yeah, you said it's only been, it
feels like it's been. I think we're living in dog
ears because he moves so quickly, so it feels like
it does the amount of news we cover on a
daily basis. He's keeping us busy and he's keeping us employed. Gregs.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
Yeah, it's hard to keep up with a guy, I mean, sir.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Every time and every time I out number, there was
like always some breaking news or he gives some press
conference and then makes news.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
Oh I know, it's incredible. He doesn't get much sleep.
Speaker 1 (37:10):
I know we need sleep. Though we might not need sleep,
but we need sleep. Greg Jarrett, I appreciate you very interesting,
good stuff.
Speaker 2 (37:19):
Oh anytime, Lisa, happy to be on with you. I
consider it to be a pleasure to get to talk
to you.
Speaker 1 (37:26):
Oh well, I appreciate that when we will definitely have
you back soon.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Okay, take care.
Speaker 1 (37:30):
It was Greg Jarrett. Appreciate him for making the time.
Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday,
but you can listen throughout the week. I also want
to thank my producer, John Katsio for putting the show together.
Until next time.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.