August 21, 2025 • 36 mins
In this episode, Lisa interviews Senator Eric Schmitt about his book, "The Last Line of Defense." They discuss how the left uses the courts to advance its agenda and the importance of conservatives fighting back through strategic litigation. Topics include government censorship, COVID-19 mandates, student loan forgiveness, and woke ideology in schools. Sen. Schmitt highlights the need for judicial accountability, exposes double standards in legal treatment of Trump and Biden, and warns against progressive prosecutors undermining law and order. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Purchase Senator Schmitt's NEW Book HERE
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 joined by Senator Eric Schmidt, author of the new
book The Last Line of Defense, How to Beat the
Left in Court. From exposing big tech censorship in Missouri
versus Biden, to fighting woke ideology and open borders, he
shares battle tested strategies for conservative victories in court.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
So we'll dive into his book. We'll tackle the Russia hoax.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
We'll also explore why the courts are the ultimate battleground
for America's freedoms. Let's get to it with Senator Eric Schmidt. Well,
Senator Eric Schmid, it's great to.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Have you on.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
We were just talking about how I had you on
when you were the Missouri Attorney General and then also
after you've been elected. So it's great to see all
the amazing things that you've been doing. And I'm looking
forward to digging into this book that you're out with now.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
So appreciate you making the time, sir.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Yeah, it's great to be back with you, Lisa.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
So do you think it'd be fair?
Speaker 1 (00:59):
So the book's The Last Line of Defense, How to
Beat the Left in court. Is it fair to say
that the left is more litigious than the right tends
to be?
Speaker 4 (01:08):
Yeah, I think so, And I think for a long
time conservatives kind of seated a lot of that territory.
I mean, look, the more lawyers are left leaning than
right landing for a long time, even when I was
in law school in the late nineties or stil this
discussion of a living constitution, all this nonsense. But I
think conservatives now and why I wrote the book the
(01:28):
last line of defense, we need to be prepared to
fight on all fronts, and the courtroom is another one
of those fronts. So you've got the legislative fights that
are always out there, You've got the court of public opinion.
Of course, you've got the executive branch. But the courts,
I think are really important. And what this book is
the Last line of Defense, How you beat the left
in court, which you can get on Amazon right now.
It's really kind of a field manual from the front
(01:50):
lines of the battle against the left wing law fair machine.
And when I was Attorney general in Missouri, so when
President Trump was out of office and you saw the
COVID lockdowns and the vaccine mandates and the.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
Open borders and the.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
DEI struggle, sessions, and the ESG requirements and the censorship regime.
We stood up and we fought back and we won.
We took the vaccine mandate case the Supreme Court, we won.
We had the student on debt forgiveness scam that would
cost half a trillion dollars of taxpayers.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
We took that to the Supreme Court. We won.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
We filed in Missouri versus Biden, which was the censorship case.
They exposed it before Elon Musket even bought Twitter. And
so this book really is kind of a playbook for
how we fight back and how we win the future.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
So it's about those stories. It's about what was it.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
Like to take the deposition of Anthony Fauci, What came
out of that, Elvis Chan, who was this FBI agent
who was pre bunking the Hunter Biden laptop story even
though they had it in lining these social media companies,
What was all that like the landscape, what did it
look like, and what were some of the decisions we
made to fight back. But more importantly, I think it
just sort of it puts the marker down that for
(02:56):
conservatives in the future, we got to be willing to.
And this isn't written for lawyers. I mean, I hope
lawyers read it. I hope ags read it, but this
is really for you know, your audience, the people who
were engaged every day kind of a behind the scenes
view of what this thing's all about.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Well, I'm not a lawyer, so that's good, we're not.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
So I always appreciate things being in layman's terms, you know,
talk about I believe it was Missouri versus Biden, the
you know what you had reference previously with the Biden
walk us through, like the censorship that you were saying,
and sort of what we discovered through your lawsuit against
the Biden administration over censorship.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
Well, if you remember, you know, just something seemed off.
You would see Jim Jimsaki at the podium saying things
like we're flagging this for Facebook, and Biden would say
things like they need to do more, they're killing people.
And then they floated this idea of a disinformation Governance board.
You remember this as just Orwellian where the government was
going to decide what the truth was and what you
(03:59):
could see here. And so we figured this was kind
of the tip of the iceberg. So we just made
a decision. I, as a trained general, said you know
what we're going to do. We're going to sue these
people for violating the first of them rights of citizens
because they have to be censoring people.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
And so we gathered all the public data that was
out there, all.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
The statements, what we knew, we knew people had been deplatformed,
and what we sought then a strategic decision. Normally, when
you follow lawsuit like that and you're trying to stop
the government from doing something, you seek an injunction right
away that basically tells them they have to stop. What
we did instead was we knew we were going to
be called conspiracy theorists. We knew it was going to
(04:35):
be labeled a lawsuit just to get attention or something
like that. So we asked the court for discovery first,
and the court granted it. And what we found was shocking.
And this was when my eyes were really kind of
opened up, because we got documents, emails, text messages, read
thousands of pages of this stuff where there were these
special secret portals set up between high rank and government
(04:56):
officials and senior executives at Facebook at Twitter telling them
you need to take this down and they.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Go do it.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
You had the CDC giving words and phrases to these
social media companies if this is uttered deep platform throttle
these people. I mean, so we all know that the
government can't do that, right the government. The first amend
protects the government from doing it, But they also can't
outsource that either. And that's what we discovered in this case.
It was really mind blowing, and it was this leviathan
(05:24):
of agencies.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
It wasn't just one person.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
This was the CDC, this was SISA, which is the
Cybersecurity arm, it was the FBI, it was the White House,
and they're you know, they're just working methodically to suppress
American's speech and that's illegal in this country. And so
we decided to do something about it. And then of course,
you know, Elon Musk buys Twitter and you got the
Twitter files, and then we have congressional hearings. But before
(05:48):
any of that, it took our lawsuit and the discovery
to kind of flesh a lot of this out, and
we took some depositions along the way, which is.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Also sort of ironic, but I'm sure kind of gives
you a chuckle. And you hear the left now talking
about Texas redistricting, which is something that's happening right now
that like that's a threat to democracy, but not what
you just outlined.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
The whole point about it law.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
And that's also I talk about in the last line
of defense.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
The book that you can get on Amazon is they
have their own playbook, right and COVID.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
If anything, I believe that power doesn't necessarily corrupt, but
power does reveal, and I think COVID in particular expose
the worst tendencies as kind of petty totalitarianism of the
left of what they would do if they had control.
You got to remember, like if you take the DeLorean
back in time, here, like there was police tape around
playgrounds like they were you know, we see some school
(06:50):
districts of fifty plus school districts in Missouri to stop
their mask mandates for kids and to punish kids who
then didn't want to wear masks, they would put them
in the middle of the gym on a stage to
launched by themselves. Like these are grown adults doing this stuff,
and it's totally wild, it's totally crazy. But their playbook
is you have an emergency, real or imagined, you aggregate power,
(07:13):
you do the other ring of people who disagree with you,
and then you silence the send. And so it's up
to us to see when that's happening and have the
courage to stand up. I think what people are really
looking for are just kind of rit large here, is
they want authentic leadership. And to this day, Lisa in Missouri,
when I'm like at the grocery store or a ballgame
or something, what the most common comment I will get,
(07:34):
other than you're really tall, is.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
You aren't really tall though, right, but is.
Speaker 4 (07:42):
Hey, thanks for standing up for our kids. You know,
like that was a weird time and not a lot
of people wanted to kind of stand out, and we
sue these school districts and kids and parents will really
appreciative of that. But anyway, so it's just kind of
lessons learned from that. But more importantly, we've got our
own playbook now and we want and I wanted to
share that in the book Last Line of Defense, how
to Beat the Left and Court.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Well, and we're saying the left really try to use
at least particularly I mean, I know there's a Supreme
Court ruling about it, but really trying to use some
of these injunctions, these nationwide injunctions to shut down President Trump,
particularly on what he's trying to do with the border
and like deport all these illegal aliens that were allowed
under the past four years of the bid adminstration. I know,
(08:25):
Speaker Johnson, I think it was in two thousand. Merch
of twenty twenty five said that something like seventy percent
of all injunctions against presidents since two thousand were against
President Trump, and ninety two percent of those were from
Democrat appointed judges. So like, how do we counter that,
I guess, you know, countering the left really trying to
(08:45):
use the courts to shut down President Trump's immigration efforts.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
It's a great question, and if people are interested in that,
I do think the book will be illuminating because I
think that the central issue in fighting back, because you've
got to be tough to do it. You've got to
fight back like this Solstener General of the United States now.
John was my solicitor general in Missouri. So we're populating
the ranks now with people who know how to fight
and win. And I think President Trump was the one
that ushered in this kind of new era of the
Republican Party. Anyway of being tough and fighting back. But
(09:12):
the good news is, even though you will see some
of those district court random district court decisions, by and large,
as those cases have made their way up to the
appellate courts and certainly the Supreme Court, that they've been struck down.
So whether it's on programming or personnel, think of like
USAID stuff or the ability to fire people, they can
do that. And the courts have weighed in on that. Immigration,
on deportations, remember they made a big deal with Judge
(09:33):
Bosberg and all that. But ultimately the Supreme Courts slapped
those guys down and they can move forward with deportations.
And then on nationwide injunctions, the Supreme Court about a
month ago said, yeah, can't you've been abusing these nationwide injunctions.
That's not what these are fords for the parties involved,
not one district court judge in a corner of the
country deciding policy or foreign policy for that matter, for
(09:54):
the President of the United States and the whole country.
So I think what's happened is people have wised up.
We're not afraid to fight. We have a composition now
in the courts of enough judges in key positions that
rule on the law as it is, not how they
want it to be.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
And that's a huge shift from thirty years ago.
Speaker 4 (10:13):
Like thirty years ago, you still had a really liberal
Supreme Court that believed in a living constitution that it
just meant whatever you wanted to mean. In the left
and the Democrats knew they had a super legislator at
the end of the day that would just try to
arrive at a result. That has changed. And so since
that's changed, we got to know what the rules are
and we got to know how to fight back. And
(10:33):
again that's what the Last Line of Defense book is
all about.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
I agreed on fighting power with power, and I think
that's something that you know, we didn't do as much.
And you're right, like President Trump sort of introduced this
more like muscular conservatism, you know you did as Attorney
general in Miserury. And we're seeing that from Governor DeSantis
as well and some of these other red state governors,
really fighting power with power. But I guess, you know,
(10:59):
my only concerned about all of it, and I just wonder,
like how much are we see getting too much power
to like the judiciary, and you know, like does Congress
need to step up and take back control of powers
because obviously like separation of powers, it's very important, and
you know, I worry that like judges are sort of
(11:20):
dictating laws in the country versus Congress, and so like
I guess what's your you know, like what do you
make of that?
Speaker 2 (11:28):
And like what can we do?
Speaker 1 (11:29):
You know what I mean? Like if are we blurring
sort of like the separation of powers here?
Speaker 4 (11:33):
Like think of it this point here. Yeah, here's how
think about I think there's two points to make. The
first is if you really think about what these fights
are about that end up in the judiciary. Like, let's
just take the student loan to deff forgiveness case. Right,
we saw we had standing because Missouri had a student
loan servicing agency that the bureaucrats didn't what means sue.
It didn't matter I suit anyway because I was a
(11:54):
training general and you could do it. But we sued
we had standing, and we want what would we really
doing there? It wasn't the court saying that the president
it's a good idea or not. They were saying Congress
hasn't passed the law that gives you the ability to
do it. So to your point, that's Actually, what we
are fighting for, what the Democrats are fighting for in
(12:14):
the judicial system, is for one judge to say, yeah,
it doesn't really matter if Congress said something or not.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
We're deciding that this is the right thing to do.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
If you listen to Judge Justice Jackson, and you know,
and even her own liberal colleagues on the Supreme Court
or criticize her, she basically just wants to kind of
weigh in on policy matters. That's not the role of
a judge, you know, that's not the role of judge.
So I think we are fighting for what does the
Constitution say about this, What do the laws pass by
the legislature, the Congress say about it?
Speaker 3 (12:42):
It's an expression of will to people.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
The second part of the answer, I think is Congress
does need to do a better job of sort of
reasserting itself. Think of the administrative state that's gained so
much power over the years. Part of that's because Congress
has said, oh, I voted for the greatest bill in
the world, but I can't believe this agency did that.
So one of the things we need to do is
make our laws more prescriptive, not give us much deference
(13:05):
or authward to these agencies, because if you think about it,
it's really counter to the to the idea of our republic.
Our republic's based on self government and accountability. If you
hand over so much responsibility to a faceless bureaucrat that
nobody's ever heard of, that person's not accountable to anybody.
So I think to be true to kind of our
founding and what this separation power is all about, the
(13:26):
article one branch or, Congress needs to be more specific
and if an agency, by the way, wants to do something,
Congress should have to red lighted or green light it,
right Like if you say we want to regulate this
because it's going to have this kind of economic impact
before it can go intof fect, Congress should should have
to vote on it. And that's a more structural reform
that's harder to get to. But the right answer.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
We've got to take a quick commercial break more with
Center Eric Schmidt. On the other side, Justice Brown kind
of lost me when she couldn't define what a woman
is like I tend to ignore people who you know
or as a nonsensical is that But on the student
loan forgiveness, I mean Biden knew, I mean, don't you
think that Biden knew that inevitably a court would strike
(14:10):
it down.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Like it was just it was for like with a
glant election ploy.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Right, it was just to try to get younger voters
to say, hey, look I'm doing this before. I think
it was before the midterms if I remember correctly, it was, right,
Wasn't it Like it was kind of like a cynical
election ploy.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Right? It was.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
And in the book Last Line of Defense, I start
the chapter by talking about when people run for class president,
the things that they promise. That's kind of what it
was like. But but remember what he said with the
Supreme Court when we won. He said, well, the Supreme
Court said I couldn't. I'm gonna do it anyway, So
he tried to kind of get around it. So for
all of the like President Trump's not going to follow
(14:46):
court orders, which of course he has followed every single
court order, Biden was the one saying, I'm just going
to ignore it. But yeah, I think it was an
election ploy.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
But here's the.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
Truth of the matter, which we get into in the
book too, is that case the Supreme Court oral arguments,
it all came down to standing, like does somebody have
the right to sue who has been injured by this
right who has been injured by it because you have
that's what standing is.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
And if Missouri, if we would not.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Have filed that lawsuit the case, would they would have
let it go like it would have happened, because it
would say, well, nobody has standing who's brought a lawsuit
against and that we can rule against Biden on. But
because we had a loan servicing agency that we argued
was going to lose money because if you wipe away
all this student loan debt, you know, that's what this
entity does. That gave us standing and that's why we won.
(15:37):
And I think that's kind of the cool part about
the book. The last line of defense that people can
order right now is it breaks down some of those
things that you know, like are kind of in passing.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
In a twenty four hour news cycle, but kind of.
Speaker 4 (15:48):
Breaks down like why did that happen and what are
the implications of that moving forward?
Speaker 1 (15:53):
You know, I know one issue that you address that
we've sort of seen in an alarming way is wilk
ideology in schools, and you know, depending on the state
and depending on the school system, you know, where they're
like kids can go to a teacher and be like
I'm trans and like the teachers are not going to
go and tell the parent and just sort of like
(16:14):
this lack of parental rights and parents being sort of,
you know, kept out of the business of their kids.
It's really like this fight over who owns the kids?
Right is is it like the state? Is that the
school or the parents? So I guess what do you
talk about in the book there? And like what can
parents try to do to reclaim their power over their
(16:34):
own kids.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
Well, I'll just give you an example. This is in
Middle America. This is in Springfield, Missouri. Okay, this is
not like New York City. This is Springfield, Missouri. Some
parents were concerned that, like some of this stuff was
happening in their schools, this kind of woke ideology, and
they asked for documents from the school, like, hey, was
there some presentation about this in the school district?
Speaker 3 (16:54):
Wouldn't give it to them.
Speaker 4 (16:55):
A state legislator then said, hey, I would like to
see these two and they said, well, that's going to
cost you one hundred and twenty thousand dollars for all
the printing costs. Right, That's how we became aware of it,
and then once we found out about it, I said, okay,
well we're in charge of enforcing these laws, you're going
to provide the documents. And then once once we found
what was actually being part of this this these trainings,
(17:17):
it was again as shocking. There there are teachers essentially
being taught to divide the room by race that they
wanted to They wanted to push down this oppression matrix,
all these kind of like the gender person man and
all this kind of weird stuff that they wanted to
keep hidden from parents. And I think by the act
of us exposing it and we sued them for hiding it,
(17:40):
it turned over that school board like that was the power.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Of the information.
Speaker 4 (17:44):
And if you think about it, that no investigative journalist
from you know, a liberal rag was going to pursue that.
We had to do it in the AG's office because
they know their their interests are aligned. They're the you know,
the left coalition, which you know, like during COVID when
we would sue for mass mandates, they would say, you know,
they would have some quote unquote verified team or fact
(18:07):
checkers say well, actually, masks are very effective, and they
had no studies to back it up, right, They had nothing,
and I was being interviewed by reporters who literally were
still not allowed in the newsroom. They were in their
cars with masks on their face, interviewing me about, you know,
trying to get school districts to stop force masking kids.
They were asking me questions like why are you trying
to harm children? And it was just a wild and
(18:27):
crazy time. And I don't think we should forget about it,
Like I think there's a tendency to kind of like
memory hohole all that stuff, But we shouldn't because that's
what they did with a little bit of power that
they had at that moment. And we're on the other
side of the fever dream now. But part of the
reason why I wrote the Last Line of Defense, How
to Beat the Left and Court, was that we got
(18:47):
to document this and we have to have a playbook
because it won't be the last time you referenced this
threat to democracy thing. Look, they justified unprecedented lawfare against
the former president who as soon to be President again,
Donald Trump, to go after him, to try to throw
him in jail for the rest of his life, to
bankrupt his family, all because he was a quote unquote
threat to democracy was all bs. But that's their playbook,
(19:08):
and if we want to win, we got to know
how to fight.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
So that's why we wrote the book.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
And I want to get to that point in just
a moment. But something I just thought of with COVID.
So I had Senator Ram paul on and he said
that Bryden signed Anthony Fauci's pardon with an autopen, and
so if he wants the Department of Justice to charge
Fauci for lying before Congress and test the autopen on
(19:34):
the pardon theory in court in the courts, what do
you make of that strategy?
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Is that sort of like a plausible.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Direction that all of this like Biden investigation stuff will
go in or you know what?
Speaker 4 (19:48):
Yeah, So I chaired the subcommittee on the Constitution in
the Judiciary Committee. We actually had a hearing on the autopen.
We were the first ones to have a hearing. You know,
there's a lot of people looking at it. DOJ's looking
at it, the House looking at it, the Senate's looking
at it. And the central question is, well, there is
two One is no president has ever done prospective pardons, right, Like,
(20:10):
basically he was pardoning family members and other people in
his administration for things.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
That they hadn't been charged with. That's never been done before.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
So the power of a president to pardon is pretty expansive,
but it probably doesn't include that, and he was doing that.
But to your question specifically, we you know, had experts
in their field coming and talk about it. Think of
it this way, like if you have a contentious family
dynamic and the matriarch or the patriarch passes away and
(20:39):
you have a will, a dispute about the will, right,
the most important question that's going to be asked, and
there's some change in the will at the last minute,
like the deathbed kind of changed, You're going to ask, well,
was that person of sound mind? Did they know what
they were doing? And if the answer to that is no,
it's null and void, right, it doesn't. It's the change,
doesn't it did not effect suited. The same would be
(21:01):
true here with the autopin, like if he doesn't know
what he's doing, that would that would negate the pardons.
And then also you know we are we are actually
seeking documents from the archivist, who happens to be Marco
Rubio by the way, right now, he's got like a.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Thousand, so many jobs.
Speaker 4 (21:18):
I saw him itself, so I got a letter coming
your way, not as Secretary of State, but as the
archivist of the United States.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
He's lucky, he's lucky. He looks so young. He's a
lot of jobs.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
But basically, there should be a paper trail, like for
every time that autopin was used, there should be a
paper trail what for. And there's some speculation. I actually
I think a whistleblower has come forward and said that
he was just being presented, like here are the kinds
of things you would be signing for, like and not
individual pardons. Well, individual that's very important because when you're
(21:52):
pardoning somebody like he did for murder or rape or whatever, like,
it's about that individual instance. Like it's not like you
pardon everyone who ever got a conviction for marijuana possession
or something, right Like, it's got to be about the person.
So that's another reason why I think what they were
doing at the end was so flawed and right for
(22:12):
legal challenge because we just never saw anything like it,
and you probably had this, you know, the staffer competition.
You know, at the end of like what you could
actually get autopen to sign what crazy nonsense? Could you
actually get the autopen to sign? And who knows that
Biden was even knew what was going on, which is.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
You know, really concerning.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
And also just concerning, like obviously this is the guy
who's like, you know, in charge of the nuclear codes and.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
Yeah yeah, like yeah, like world War three, right.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Yeah, and he's got no idea like who he doesn't
even know his name? You know, it's like, well weekend
at Bernie's presidency, you know, on the weaponization of government
against President Trump and all the documents that have been
put out with it from the Trump administration about the
Russia hoax.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Do you think, I mean, is anything ever going to
be done about it? Though?
Speaker 1 (23:00):
Because I mean I know that there are like, you know, indictments.
I don't know if there's be any indictments, but there's
been there are what are the criminal charge it referred
criminal charges or whatever it is. But like, do you
think anything's actually going to be done about it? Because
I think, like so many people are used to like
all this chatter and noise, and we hype things up,
and we over promise and we underdeliver, and then the
(23:23):
base is just really frustrated feeling like they've kind of
been had you know, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
No, I I yes, I get that question a lot,
and I do think knowing what we know now from
the disclosures from.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
Tulsa Gabbard, which, by the way, if you.
Speaker 4 (23:39):
Want to understand why they were so hell bent on
President Trump never getting back in office again.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
This would be exhibit A because they knew they had
something to hide.
Speaker 4 (23:47):
It could also explain by the way the mar Lago
raid that they were so obsessed with with guns drawn
and going through the first ladies, you know, underwear drawer
like it's crazy. But answer your question, yeah, I think
there should be indictments, and I think they probably will come.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
And now you know, from the legal perspective, Biden probably has.
Speaker 4 (24:10):
An immunity from the Trump case from when he was
in office, and then you have the key player, but
there's no immunity for like a presidential candidate. There's no
which was what Hillary Clinton. There's no immunity for Clapper,
there's no immunity for Brennan, and there's no immunity for Comy.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
I would say those three are the most likely.
Speaker 4 (24:32):
If there's going to be indictments, and I think there
should be that would get pulled into that, and the
theory would go, yeah, the statute of limitations may have expired.
But a conspiracy charge is different. Conspiracy is when you
like the fuse here and something happens much further down
the road and you don't even necessarily have to be
intricately involved with what happened at the end of the rainbow.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
But if you began this.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
Conspiracy to defraud the people of the United States, I
think they can and probably should be held accountable to that.
And I think that's what we're gonna see.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
I don't know that.
Speaker 4 (25:03):
I mean, I'm not like giving insight in field he
or anything. I just suspect that there's enough out there
now in that indictments are gonna come in.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
Criminal referral is what I was trying to think of.
And you know, and the more logo thing was really interesting. Well,
one I loved how Milania Trump, like if your guys,
so you might not have paid as much attention to this,
but like during her first inauguration, she has this like
really beautiful, like soft blue like Ralph Lauren outfit, and
like looked really happy and cheery and like you know,
(25:34):
light and then during this last inauguration, she'd like the
VS for Vendetta hat and this like super tailor and
suit and like even in her first lady portrait this
time around, she's like at the desk in a suit,
like looking like I'm you know, I'm coming for you,
Like I've got your number right. So it's like you
can just see the difference between like her first the
first inauguration, the way she was dressed and interacting. Even
(25:55):
her first portrait, like she's like smiling, it's all like
soft and hat and then like the second one, it's like,
you know, you mess with.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
The wrong family.
Speaker 4 (26:04):
Yeah, yeah, the difference in his two portraits, like you know,
the side by side on his two portraits, and then
of course you had the mug shot in between, which
was like this great rallying cry. I mean, I think
they they still can't. This part explains partly why the
Democrats are so lost. They put they went all in
on trying to demonize half the country and essentially destroy Trump,
(26:27):
his family and MAGA, and they lost. Like they went
all in on that, that was their streat, and they lost.
And now they didn't just lose the electoral map, they
lost the popular vote and.
Speaker 3 (26:39):
Now they don't know what to do.
Speaker 4 (26:40):
They don't have a messenger, they don't have a message,
and they're still trying to kind of like deal with
the Trump Arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
And I don't think they've hit rock bottom yet.
Speaker 4 (26:47):
And I think again, President Trump has taught us what
it means to kind of fight back in this historic comeback.
And you know, like I said, you know, when I
was Attorney General Missouri and you know, he was out
of office and.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
We had to kind to hold the line.
Speaker 4 (27:01):
That's kind of how viewed my job in hindsight now
and right about in the last line of defense how
to beat the left and court, which you can get
on Amazon, is it was a crazy time and we
held the line until the cavalry could arrive. And that's
what happened in November twenty twenty four. The people spoke up,
and thank god, they did well.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
And I think the problem for the left too is
they were exposed as hypocrites because then we found out
Joe Biden had all these classified documents and like, including
from his time in the Senate, which is like really
really illegal because he must have probably taken them out
of like a skiff and he didn't have the authority
to declassify, Like you know, president is the ultimate declassifier
or classifier of documents, and so like, you know, the
(27:40):
I feel like the Trump stuff was more gray area
because you know, the president does have the ultimate authority,
but then he also had classified documents from being a
vice president who doesn't have the same authority.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
So it's like, you know, and then.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
They basically like coordinated with Biden's team, and like there
was no show of force, there was no like showing
up guns blazing, and like what he did was that
thousand times worse than the gray area that they try
to put President Trump in.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
Yeah, well and think about it. It was also in
his garage. These boxes were in a garage. Well, hunter
Biden was standing like the guy who could have been
compromised by foreign governments, you know, like that's just another
layer to it. And if you remember the only well
what they said was the reason they didn't charge him
was is he wasn't competent to stand trial. Like that's
what Robert Hurr said, He said, this guy's too far
(28:27):
gone to stand trial. I mean, yet he was still
president United States. And so at the time I wrote
a letter calling on all the cabinetmbers, you know, to
invoke the twenty fifth Amendment, because if he can't stand trial, like,
how is he making these important decisions. Of course, they
did nothing, which then was later exposed, you know, in
the debate, and they were hiding all this from the
American people. You know, you had again that the three
(28:48):
days after President Trump announces he's running again, what happens.
You have Assistant DA in Atlanta meet with the White
House Council. You have the number three person of DJ
go to Alvin Bragg's office, you have Jack Smith appointed
and goes down this to try to throw him in jail.
I mean, it was a very coordinated effort to make
sure this man never got back into the White House.
And I just think they still can't believe it happened.
(29:11):
And I was an earlier in early indoors for a
President Trump, maybe the first or second senator. And the
reason why, first of all, I think that the man
connects in such a unique way with the American people.
And I went up to his trial in New York
and I went back with him to Butler after the
second time. And it is a singular political figure I've
never seen anything like it. I mean, I just turned fifty,
(29:33):
so it's young for the Senate, but I don't know
how young that really is. So I just never see
anything like it. And I think his connection with the
American people is pretty unique. And what we're able to
do now, think about it in Congress, to hold these
very slim majorities, to move an agenda, it's really because
of his ability to come back and harness the hopes
(29:55):
and the desires of the American people. And I think
everyone's responding to that, and that's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
We were only ten years old in Mason. We're going
to say fifties, very young.
Speaker 3 (30:03):
A quick break.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
If you like what you're hearing, please share on social
media or maybe send it to a friend or a
family member.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Stay with us.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
It's interesting now because we're saying, Letitia James potentially be
in some major hot water over mortgage fraud allegations, and
the same thing with Adam Schiff, Like I believe in
some documents she said her dad was her husband, and
so you know, there's maybe a little bit of projection.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
With all of that stuff from them, do you yeah.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
Well, I think again, I thought they were playing for keeps.
They were trying to put him away. They knew what
he They never forgave him for coming down the escalator
in the first place, and so they concocted this made
up Russia Gate thing to try to well not to
try to but to spy on him when he was
a candidate to try to derail his first term. Then
they use the Russia hoak stuff for the censorship stuff,
(30:55):
which we outlined in the book Last Line of Defense.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
When we followed the Missouri versus Biden.
Speaker 4 (30:58):
Lawsuit, we found out that this whole like Russia misinformation
thing was there was there fig leaf for all the censorship.
They would say, oh, this is misinformation or the laptop's
misinformation or you know whatever. They just used it for everything,
and then they continued that narrative to say this guy
was a threat to the country. We got to stop
them and the links that they went to. Thank God though,
and this is I think it's affirming for the Republic,
(31:21):
is that the American people sat in their own jury
box and watched all this play out, and they rendered
their own verdict, and they they wanted reform and they
wanted him back.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
So, you know, the did give me comfort. You talk
about sores backed prosecutors. I guess, like, why do you
think George Soros wants to be such a destabilizing force.
You know, he's like this hedge fund guy. Is it ideology?
Is it like financially motivated?
Speaker 2 (31:49):
Like what do you.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
Think is behind his desire for such disruption across the
country and destabilization.
Speaker 4 (31:57):
Well, if you, if you kind of are, show you
the history of Marxism. What you really need for societal
change is a people to sort of lose confidence in
everything and kind of chaos, you know, And so COVID,
think about think about what COVID was like. People couldn't
interact anymore, You couldn't go outside unless unless you were
(32:21):
protesting quote unquote systemic racism. Then they made an exception
for you and people. I think was that at that
point in that summer, people knew it was all bs.
Speaker 3 (32:30):
But that's what Soro see arbitrage.
Speaker 4 (32:32):
The system was relatively inexpensive to finance these local prosecutors
because there's only one person in that county or that
city who can prosecute crime.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
That one person. World needs a.
Speaker 4 (32:41):
Hell of a lot of social workers, I guess, But
you only get one prosecutor to make charging decisions, and
if you could corrupt that system, then people would look
around and they would see violent crime and they would
want something very different than kind of what we have.
And I think he views that as his inrun to
change the system, to flip it over, and to have
(33:02):
this kind of neo Marxist regime in the tip of
the spirit where these prosecutors that he was funding. And
you know, I think I hope people are kind of
waking up to this. I think again we're moving on
a little bit from that. But that fever dream that
we were in for at least four years was just
it was defined by this you know, lockdowns and you
(33:23):
know social unrest and an expansive regime in the White
House that just was didn't care about individual liberties, that's
for sure. So so anyway, I mean, again, why I
wrote the book, I'm not you know, we had one
of those in Saint Louis. I wrote the book Last
Line Defense. We took on the kN Gardner, who was
(33:43):
a local Sores funded prosecutor. If you remember, in Saint Louis,
she went after the mccloskey's who dared to come out
and defend their home as the rioters were coming by
like that was a flashpoint, and those people were on
their way to the mayor's house a Democrat mayor to
protest outside her home and terrorize her family. And along
the way they passed the mccloskey's home, and it was
(34:03):
a private street and there's that, you know. Thankfully, the
confrontation didn't get you know, violent in that way. But
she decided instead of charging a lot of the rioters
that summer, that who she was going to charge were
the mccloskey's And so we stepped in and said no,
in Missouri, we have the castle doctrine. People can defend
their life and their property and there was nothing wrong.
Speaker 3 (34:22):
With what they did.
Speaker 4 (34:24):
So anyway, you just had these flashpoints along the way
that I think we're instructive, and again, what the book
is really about is to kind of walk through the
behind the scenes, what was that like, What was it
like dealing with Soros prosecutor. In fact, we had a
case where I prosecuted through a quirk of a conflict
of interest, took kind of a you know, when you're
attorney general trying a case yourself.
Speaker 3 (34:43):
Not many people do that, and.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
There's a lot of risk associated with it, But I
tried a murder case in the city of Saint Louis,
and my message when we got the verdict was there
is somebody in this town who cares about the people
and their safety, right. And so there's just a lot
of that kind of stuff in the book that I
think people who aren't lawyers, who track this stuff daily,
who listen to your show, are going to appreciate. Because
(35:06):
there was so much on the line, we were able
to fight back and win. But more importantly, now we
can't forget those lessons, right, There's going to be more fights,
whether it's like climate alarmism, when they say, oh, there's
some emergency and you can't you know, drive this kind
of car anymore. And you know, we just have to
have the willing to push back, willingness to push back
and fight back.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
And then before we go, you know, what do you
hope people take away from the book?
Speaker 2 (35:30):
What's the call to action here? You know, how do
we protect freedoms moving forward?
Speaker 3 (35:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (35:34):
I mean this is this isn't just like history. It's
a playbook. It's concrete, it's actionable. I think Left Wing
Lawfair is one of the most important stories of the
second Trump administration, and this is how we beat them,
and a lot of it just comes down to courage,
it really does it. We got the law on our side,
we have common sense on our side that people are
with us. We just have the courage to fight on
(35:55):
all fronts. And that's why I wrote The Last Line of.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
Defense, Center Eric Smith.
Speaker 1 (35:59):
The Last Line of Defense, How to Beat the Left
and Court is out. Now go get it, Senator. Really
very interesting stuff, very interesting book. Really enjoyed this conversation.
I really appreciate you making the time, sir, Thanks Lisa.
That was Senator Eric Schmidt, author of the new book
The Last Line of Defense, How to Beat the Left
and Court. Really interesting conversation. Appreciate him for making the time.
(36:20):
Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday,
but you can listen.
Speaker 2 (36:23):
Throughout the week.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Also want to bike my producer John Cassio for putting
the show together.
Speaker 2 (36:26):
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 joined by Senator Eric Schmidt, author of the new
book The Last Line of Defense, How to Beat the
Left in Court. From exposing big tech censorship in Missouri
versus Biden, to fighting woke ideology and open borders, he
shares battle tested strategies for conservative victories in court.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
So we'll dive into his book. We'll tackle the Russia hoax.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
We'll also explore why the courts are the ultimate battleground
for America's freedoms. Let's get to it with Senator Eric Schmidt. Well,
Senator Eric Schmid, it's great to.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Have you on.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
We were just talking about how I had you on
when you were the Missouri Attorney General and then also
after you've been elected. So it's great to see all
the amazing things that you've been doing. And I'm looking
forward to digging into this book that you're out with now.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
So appreciate you making the time, sir.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Yeah, it's great to be back with you, Lisa.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
So do you think it'd be fair?
Speaker 1 (00:59):
So the book's The Last Line of Defense, How to
Beat the Left in court. Is it fair to say
that the left is more litigious than the right tends
to be?
Speaker 4 (01:08):
Yeah, I think so, And I think for a long
time conservatives kind of seated a lot of that territory.
I mean, look, the more lawyers are left leaning than
right landing for a long time, even when I was
in law school in the late nineties or stil this
discussion of a living constitution, all this nonsense. But I
think conservatives now and why I wrote the book the
(01:28):
last line of defense, we need to be prepared to
fight on all fronts, and the courtroom is another one
of those fronts. So you've got the legislative fights that
are always out there, You've got the court of public opinion.
Of course, you've got the executive branch. But the courts,
I think are really important. And what this book is
the Last line of Defense, How you beat the left
in court, which you can get on Amazon right now.
It's really kind of a field manual from the front
(01:50):
lines of the battle against the left wing law fair machine.
And when I was Attorney general in Missouri, so when
President Trump was out of office and you saw the
COVID lockdowns and the vaccine mandates and the.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
Open borders and the.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
DEI struggle, sessions, and the ESG requirements and the censorship regime.
We stood up and we fought back and we won.
We took the vaccine mandate case the Supreme Court, we won.
We had the student on debt forgiveness scam that would
cost half a trillion dollars of taxpayers.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
We took that to the Supreme Court. We won.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
We filed in Missouri versus Biden, which was the censorship case.
They exposed it before Elon Musket even bought Twitter. And
so this book really is kind of a playbook for
how we fight back and how we win the future.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
So it's about those stories. It's about what was it.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
Like to take the deposition of Anthony Fauci, What came
out of that, Elvis Chan, who was this FBI agent
who was pre bunking the Hunter Biden laptop story even
though they had it in lining these social media companies,
What was all that like the landscape, what did it
look like, and what were some of the decisions we
made to fight back. But more importantly, I think it
just sort of it puts the marker down that for
(02:56):
conservatives in the future, we got to be willing to.
And this isn't written for lawyers. I mean, I hope
lawyers read it. I hope ags read it, but this
is really for you know, your audience, the people who
were engaged every day kind of a behind the scenes
view of what this thing's all about.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Well, I'm not a lawyer, so that's good, we're not.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
So I always appreciate things being in layman's terms, you know,
talk about I believe it was Missouri versus Biden, the
you know what you had reference previously with the Biden
walk us through, like the censorship that you were saying,
and sort of what we discovered through your lawsuit against
the Biden administration over censorship.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
Well, if you remember, you know, just something seemed off.
You would see Jim Jimsaki at the podium saying things
like we're flagging this for Facebook, and Biden would say
things like they need to do more, they're killing people.
And then they floated this idea of a disinformation Governance board.
You remember this as just Orwellian where the government was
going to decide what the truth was and what you
(03:59):
could see here. And so we figured this was kind
of the tip of the iceberg. So we just made
a decision. I, as a trained general, said you know
what we're going to do. We're going to sue these
people for violating the first of them rights of citizens
because they have to be censoring people.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
And so we gathered all the public data that was
out there, all.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
The statements, what we knew, we knew people had been deplatformed,
and what we sought then a strategic decision. Normally, when
you follow lawsuit like that and you're trying to stop
the government from doing something, you seek an injunction right
away that basically tells them they have to stop. What
we did instead was we knew we were going to
be called conspiracy theorists. We knew it was going to
(04:35):
be labeled a lawsuit just to get attention or something
like that. So we asked the court for discovery first,
and the court granted it. And what we found was shocking.
And this was when my eyes were really kind of
opened up, because we got documents, emails, text messages, read
thousands of pages of this stuff where there were these
special secret portals set up between high rank and government
(04:56):
officials and senior executives at Facebook at Twitter telling them
you need to take this down and they.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Go do it.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
You had the CDC giving words and phrases to these
social media companies if this is uttered deep platform throttle
these people. I mean, so we all know that the
government can't do that, right the government. The first amend
protects the government from doing it, But they also can't
outsource that either. And that's what we discovered in this case.
It was really mind blowing, and it was this leviathan
(05:24):
of agencies.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
It wasn't just one person.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
This was the CDC, this was SISA, which is the
Cybersecurity arm, it was the FBI, it was the White House,
and they're you know, they're just working methodically to suppress
American's speech and that's illegal in this country. And so
we decided to do something about it. And then of course,
you know, Elon Musk buys Twitter and you got the
Twitter files, and then we have congressional hearings. But before
(05:48):
any of that, it took our lawsuit and the discovery
to kind of flesh a lot of this out, and
we took some depositions along the way, which is.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Also sort of ironic, but I'm sure kind of gives
you a chuckle. And you hear the left now talking
about Texas redistricting, which is something that's happening right now
that like that's a threat to democracy, but not what
you just outlined.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
The whole point about it law.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
And that's also I talk about in the last line
of defense.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
The book that you can get on Amazon is they
have their own playbook, right and COVID.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
If anything, I believe that power doesn't necessarily corrupt, but
power does reveal, and I think COVID in particular expose
the worst tendencies as kind of petty totalitarianism of the
left of what they would do if they had control.
You got to remember, like if you take the DeLorean
back in time, here, like there was police tape around
playgrounds like they were you know, we see some school
(06:50):
districts of fifty plus school districts in Missouri to stop
their mask mandates for kids and to punish kids who
then didn't want to wear masks, they would put them
in the middle of the gym on a stage to
launched by themselves. Like these are grown adults doing this stuff,
and it's totally wild, it's totally crazy. But their playbook
is you have an emergency, real or imagined, you aggregate power,
(07:13):
you do the other ring of people who disagree with you,
and then you silence the send. And so it's up
to us to see when that's happening and have the
courage to stand up. I think what people are really
looking for are just kind of rit large here, is
they want authentic leadership. And to this day, Lisa in Missouri,
when I'm like at the grocery store or a ballgame
or something, what the most common comment I will get,
(07:34):
other than you're really tall, is.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
You aren't really tall though, right, but is.
Speaker 4 (07:42):
Hey, thanks for standing up for our kids. You know,
like that was a weird time and not a lot
of people wanted to kind of stand out, and we
sue these school districts and kids and parents will really
appreciative of that. But anyway, so it's just kind of
lessons learned from that. But more importantly, we've got our
own playbook now and we want and I wanted to
share that in the book Last Line of Defense, how
to Beat the Left and Court.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Well, and we're saying the left really try to use
at least particularly I mean, I know there's a Supreme
Court ruling about it, but really trying to use some
of these injunctions, these nationwide injunctions to shut down President Trump,
particularly on what he's trying to do with the border
and like deport all these illegal aliens that were allowed
under the past four years of the bid adminstration. I know,
(08:25):
Speaker Johnson, I think it was in two thousand. Merch
of twenty twenty five said that something like seventy percent
of all injunctions against presidents since two thousand were against
President Trump, and ninety two percent of those were from
Democrat appointed judges. So like, how do we counter that,
I guess, you know, countering the left really trying to
(08:45):
use the courts to shut down President Trump's immigration efforts.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
It's a great question, and if people are interested in that,
I do think the book will be illuminating because I
think that the central issue in fighting back, because you've
got to be tough to do it. You've got to
fight back like this Solstener General of the United States now.
John was my solicitor general in Missouri. So we're populating
the ranks now with people who know how to fight
and win. And I think President Trump was the one
that ushered in this kind of new era of the
Republican Party. Anyway of being tough and fighting back. But
(09:12):
the good news is, even though you will see some
of those district court random district court decisions, by and large,
as those cases have made their way up to the
appellate courts and certainly the Supreme Court, that they've been struck down.
So whether it's on programming or personnel, think of like
USAID stuff or the ability to fire people, they can
do that. And the courts have weighed in on that. Immigration,
on deportations, remember they made a big deal with Judge
(09:33):
Bosberg and all that. But ultimately the Supreme Courts slapped
those guys down and they can move forward with deportations.
And then on nationwide injunctions, the Supreme Court about a
month ago said, yeah, can't you've been abusing these nationwide injunctions.
That's not what these are fords for the parties involved,
not one district court judge in a corner of the
country deciding policy or foreign policy for that matter, for
(09:54):
the President of the United States and the whole country.
So I think what's happened is people have wised up.
We're not afraid to fight. We have a composition now
in the courts of enough judges in key positions that
rule on the law as it is, not how they
want it to be.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
And that's a huge shift from thirty years ago.
Speaker 4 (10:13):
Like thirty years ago, you still had a really liberal
Supreme Court that believed in a living constitution that it
just meant whatever you wanted to mean. In the left
and the Democrats knew they had a super legislator at
the end of the day that would just try to
arrive at a result. That has changed. And so since
that's changed, we got to know what the rules are
and we got to know how to fight back. And
(10:33):
again that's what the Last Line of Defense book is
all about.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
I agreed on fighting power with power, and I think
that's something that you know, we didn't do as much.
And you're right, like President Trump sort of introduced this
more like muscular conservatism, you know you did as Attorney
general in Miserury. And we're seeing that from Governor DeSantis
as well and some of these other red state governors,
really fighting power with power. But I guess, you know,
(10:59):
my only concerned about all of it, and I just wonder,
like how much are we see getting too much power
to like the judiciary, and you know, like does Congress
need to step up and take back control of powers
because obviously like separation of powers, it's very important, and
you know, I worry that like judges are sort of
(11:20):
dictating laws in the country versus Congress, and so like
I guess what's your you know, like what do you
make of that?
Speaker 2 (11:28):
And like what can we do?
Speaker 1 (11:29):
You know what I mean? Like if are we blurring
sort of like the separation of powers here?
Speaker 4 (11:33):
Like think of it this point here. Yeah, here's how
think about I think there's two points to make. The
first is if you really think about what these fights
are about that end up in the judiciary. Like, let's
just take the student loan to deff forgiveness case. Right,
we saw we had standing because Missouri had a student
loan servicing agency that the bureaucrats didn't what means sue.
It didn't matter I suit anyway because I was a
(11:54):
training general and you could do it. But we sued
we had standing, and we want what would we really
doing there? It wasn't the court saying that the president
it's a good idea or not. They were saying Congress
hasn't passed the law that gives you the ability to
do it. So to your point, that's Actually, what we
are fighting for, what the Democrats are fighting for in
(12:14):
the judicial system, is for one judge to say, yeah,
it doesn't really matter if Congress said something or not.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
We're deciding that this is the right thing to do.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
If you listen to Judge Justice Jackson, and you know,
and even her own liberal colleagues on the Supreme Court
or criticize her, she basically just wants to kind of
weigh in on policy matters. That's not the role of
a judge, you know, that's not the role of judge.
So I think we are fighting for what does the
Constitution say about this, What do the laws pass by
the legislature, the Congress say about it?
Speaker 3 (12:42):
It's an expression of will to people.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
The second part of the answer, I think is Congress
does need to do a better job of sort of
reasserting itself. Think of the administrative state that's gained so
much power over the years. Part of that's because Congress
has said, oh, I voted for the greatest bill in
the world, but I can't believe this agency did that.
So one of the things we need to do is
make our laws more prescriptive, not give us much deference
(13:05):
or authward to these agencies, because if you think about it,
it's really counter to the to the idea of our republic.
Our republic's based on self government and accountability. If you
hand over so much responsibility to a faceless bureaucrat that
nobody's ever heard of, that person's not accountable to anybody.
So I think to be true to kind of our
founding and what this separation power is all about, the
(13:26):
article one branch or, Congress needs to be more specific
and if an agency, by the way, wants to do something,
Congress should have to red lighted or green light it,
right Like if you say we want to regulate this
because it's going to have this kind of economic impact
before it can go intof fect, Congress should should have
to vote on it. And that's a more structural reform
that's harder to get to. But the right answer.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
We've got to take a quick commercial break more with
Center Eric Schmidt. On the other side, Justice Brown kind
of lost me when she couldn't define what a woman
is like I tend to ignore people who you know
or as a nonsensical is that But on the student
loan forgiveness, I mean Biden knew, I mean, don't you
think that Biden knew that inevitably a court would strike
(14:10):
it down.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Like it was just it was for like with a
glant election ploy.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Right, it was just to try to get younger voters
to say, hey, look I'm doing this before. I think
it was before the midterms if I remember correctly, it was, right,
Wasn't it Like it was kind of like a cynical
election ploy.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Right? It was.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
And in the book Last Line of Defense, I start
the chapter by talking about when people run for class president,
the things that they promise. That's kind of what it
was like. But but remember what he said with the
Supreme Court when we won. He said, well, the Supreme
Court said I couldn't. I'm gonna do it anyway, So
he tried to kind of get around it. So for
all of the like President Trump's not going to follow
(14:46):
court orders, which of course he has followed every single
court order, Biden was the one saying, I'm just going
to ignore it. But yeah, I think it was an
election ploy.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
But here's the.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
Truth of the matter, which we get into in the
book too, is that case the Supreme Court oral arguments,
it all came down to standing, like does somebody have
the right to sue who has been injured by this
right who has been injured by it because you have
that's what standing is.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
And if Missouri, if we would not.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Have filed that lawsuit the case, would they would have
let it go like it would have happened, because it
would say, well, nobody has standing who's brought a lawsuit
against and that we can rule against Biden on. But
because we had a loan servicing agency that we argued
was going to lose money because if you wipe away
all this student loan debt, you know, that's what this
entity does. That gave us standing and that's why we won.
(15:37):
And I think that's kind of the cool part about
the book. The last line of defense that people can
order right now is it breaks down some of those
things that you know, like are kind of in passing.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
In a twenty four hour news cycle, but kind of.
Speaker 4 (15:48):
Breaks down like why did that happen and what are
the implications of that moving forward?
Speaker 1 (15:53):
You know, I know one issue that you address that
we've sort of seen in an alarming way is wilk
ideology in schools, and you know, depending on the state
and depending on the school system, you know, where they're
like kids can go to a teacher and be like
I'm trans and like the teachers are not going to
go and tell the parent and just sort of like
(16:14):
this lack of parental rights and parents being sort of,
you know, kept out of the business of their kids.
It's really like this fight over who owns the kids?
Right is is it like the state? Is that the
school or the parents? So I guess what do you
talk about in the book there? And like what can
parents try to do to reclaim their power over their
(16:34):
own kids.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
Well, I'll just give you an example. This is in
Middle America. This is in Springfield, Missouri. Okay, this is
not like New York City. This is Springfield, Missouri. Some
parents were concerned that, like some of this stuff was
happening in their schools, this kind of woke ideology, and
they asked for documents from the school, like, hey, was
there some presentation about this in the school district?
Speaker 3 (16:54):
Wouldn't give it to them.
Speaker 4 (16:55):
A state legislator then said, hey, I would like to
see these two and they said, well, that's going to
cost you one hundred and twenty thousand dollars for all
the printing costs. Right, That's how we became aware of it,
and then once we found out about it, I said, okay,
well we're in charge of enforcing these laws, you're going
to provide the documents. And then once once we found
what was actually being part of this this these trainings,
(17:17):
it was again as shocking. There there are teachers essentially
being taught to divide the room by race that they
wanted to They wanted to push down this oppression matrix,
all these kind of like the gender person man and
all this kind of weird stuff that they wanted to
keep hidden from parents. And I think by the act
of us exposing it and we sued them for hiding it,
(17:40):
it turned over that school board like that was the power.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Of the information.
Speaker 4 (17:44):
And if you think about it, that no investigative journalist
from you know, a liberal rag was going to pursue that.
We had to do it in the AG's office because
they know their their interests are aligned. They're the you know,
the left coalition, which you know, like during COVID when
we would sue for mass mandates, they would say, you know,
they would have some quote unquote verified team or fact
(18:07):
checkers say well, actually, masks are very effective, and they
had no studies to back it up, right, They had nothing,
and I was being interviewed by reporters who literally were
still not allowed in the newsroom. They were in their
cars with masks on their face, interviewing me about, you know,
trying to get school districts to stop force masking kids.
They were asking me questions like why are you trying
to harm children? And it was just a wild and
(18:27):
crazy time. And I don't think we should forget about it,
Like I think there's a tendency to kind of like
memory hohole all that stuff, But we shouldn't because that's
what they did with a little bit of power that
they had at that moment. And we're on the other
side of the fever dream now. But part of the
reason why I wrote the Last Line of Defense, How
to Beat the Left and Court, was that we got
(18:47):
to document this and we have to have a playbook
because it won't be the last time you referenced this
threat to democracy thing. Look, they justified unprecedented lawfare against
the former president who as soon to be President again,
Donald Trump, to go after him, to try to throw
him in jail for the rest of his life, to
bankrupt his family, all because he was a quote unquote
threat to democracy was all bs. But that's their playbook,
(19:08):
and if we want to win, we got to know
how to fight.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
So that's why we wrote the book.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
And I want to get to that point in just
a moment. But something I just thought of with COVID.
So I had Senator Ram paul on and he said
that Bryden signed Anthony Fauci's pardon with an autopen, and
so if he wants the Department of Justice to charge
Fauci for lying before Congress and test the autopen on
(19:34):
the pardon theory in court in the courts, what do
you make of that strategy?
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Is that sort of like a plausible.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Direction that all of this like Biden investigation stuff will
go in or you know what?
Speaker 4 (19:48):
Yeah, So I chaired the subcommittee on the Constitution in
the Judiciary Committee. We actually had a hearing on the autopen.
We were the first ones to have a hearing. You know,
there's a lot of people looking at it. DOJ's looking
at it, the House looking at it, the Senate's looking
at it. And the central question is, well, there is
two One is no president has ever done prospective pardons, right, Like,
(20:10):
basically he was pardoning family members and other people in
his administration for things.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
That they hadn't been charged with. That's never been done before.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
So the power of a president to pardon is pretty expansive,
but it probably doesn't include that, and he was doing that.
But to your question specifically, we you know, had experts
in their field coming and talk about it. Think of
it this way, like if you have a contentious family
dynamic and the matriarch or the patriarch passes away and
(20:39):
you have a will, a dispute about the will, right,
the most important question that's going to be asked, and
there's some change in the will at the last minute,
like the deathbed kind of changed, You're going to ask, well,
was that person of sound mind? Did they know what
they were doing? And if the answer to that is no,
it's null and void, right, it doesn't. It's the change,
doesn't it did not effect suited. The same would be
(21:01):
true here with the autopin, like if he doesn't know
what he's doing, that would that would negate the pardons.
And then also you know we are we are actually
seeking documents from the archivist, who happens to be Marco
Rubio by the way, right now, he's got like a.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Thousand, so many jobs.
Speaker 4 (21:18):
I saw him itself, so I got a letter coming
your way, not as Secretary of State, but as the
archivist of the United States.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
He's lucky, he's lucky. He looks so young. He's a
lot of jobs.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
But basically, there should be a paper trail, like for
every time that autopin was used, there should be a
paper trail what for. And there's some speculation. I actually
I think a whistleblower has come forward and said that
he was just being presented, like here are the kinds
of things you would be signing for, like and not
individual pardons. Well, individual that's very important because when you're
(21:52):
pardoning somebody like he did for murder or rape or whatever, like,
it's about that individual instance. Like it's not like you
pardon everyone who ever got a conviction for marijuana possession
or something, right Like, it's got to be about the person.
So that's another reason why I think what they were
doing at the end was so flawed and right for
(22:12):
legal challenge because we just never saw anything like it,
and you probably had this, you know, the staffer competition.
You know, at the end of like what you could
actually get autopen to sign what crazy nonsense? Could you
actually get the autopen to sign? And who knows that
Biden was even knew what was going on, which is.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
You know, really concerning.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
And also just concerning, like obviously this is the guy
who's like, you know, in charge of the nuclear codes and.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
Yeah yeah, like yeah, like world War three, right.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Yeah, and he's got no idea like who he doesn't
even know his name? You know, it's like, well weekend
at Bernie's presidency, you know, on the weaponization of government
against President Trump and all the documents that have been
put out with it from the Trump administration about the
Russia hoax.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Do you think, I mean, is anything ever going to
be done about it? Though?
Speaker 1 (23:00):
Because I mean I know that there are like, you know, indictments.
I don't know if there's be any indictments, but there's
been there are what are the criminal charge it referred
criminal charges or whatever it is. But like, do you
think anything's actually going to be done about it? Because
I think, like so many people are used to like
all this chatter and noise, and we hype things up,
and we over promise and we underdeliver, and then the
(23:23):
base is just really frustrated feeling like they've kind of
been had you know, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
No, I I yes, I get that question a lot,
and I do think knowing what we know now from
the disclosures from.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
Tulsa Gabbard, which, by the way, if you.
Speaker 4 (23:39):
Want to understand why they were so hell bent on
President Trump never getting back in office again.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
This would be exhibit A because they knew they had
something to hide.
Speaker 4 (23:47):
It could also explain by the way the mar Lago
raid that they were so obsessed with with guns drawn
and going through the first ladies, you know, underwear drawer
like it's crazy. But answer your question, yeah, I think
there should be indictments, and I think they probably will come.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
And now you know, from the legal perspective, Biden probably has.
Speaker 4 (24:10):
An immunity from the Trump case from when he was
in office, and then you have the key player, but
there's no immunity for like a presidential candidate. There's no
which was what Hillary Clinton. There's no immunity for Clapper,
there's no immunity for Brennan, and there's no immunity for Comy.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
I would say those three are the most likely.
Speaker 4 (24:32):
If there's going to be indictments, and I think there
should be that would get pulled into that, and the
theory would go, yeah, the statute of limitations may have expired.
But a conspiracy charge is different. Conspiracy is when you
like the fuse here and something happens much further down
the road and you don't even necessarily have to be
intricately involved with what happened at the end of the rainbow.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
But if you began this.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
Conspiracy to defraud the people of the United States, I
think they can and probably should be held accountable to that.
And I think that's what we're gonna see.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
I don't know that.
Speaker 4 (25:03):
I mean, I'm not like giving insight in field he
or anything. I just suspect that there's enough out there
now in that indictments are gonna come in.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
Criminal referral is what I was trying to think of.
And you know, and the more logo thing was really interesting. Well,
one I loved how Milania Trump, like if your guys,
so you might not have paid as much attention to this,
but like during her first inauguration, she has this like
really beautiful, like soft blue like Ralph Lauren outfit, and
like looked really happy and cheery and like you know,
(25:34):
light and then during this last inauguration, she'd like the
VS for Vendetta hat and this like super tailor and
suit and like even in her first lady portrait this
time around, she's like at the desk in a suit,
like looking like I'm you know, I'm coming for you,
Like I've got your number right. So it's like you
can just see the difference between like her first the
first inauguration, the way she was dressed and interacting. Even
(25:55):
her first portrait, like she's like smiling, it's all like
soft and hat and then like the second one, it's like,
you know, you mess with.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
The wrong family.
Speaker 4 (26:04):
Yeah, yeah, the difference in his two portraits, like you know,
the side by side on his two portraits, and then
of course you had the mug shot in between, which
was like this great rallying cry. I mean, I think
they they still can't. This part explains partly why the
Democrats are so lost. They put they went all in
on trying to demonize half the country and essentially destroy Trump,
(26:27):
his family and MAGA, and they lost. Like they went
all in on that, that was their streat, and they lost.
And now they didn't just lose the electoral map, they
lost the popular vote and.
Speaker 3 (26:39):
Now they don't know what to do.
Speaker 4 (26:40):
They don't have a messenger, they don't have a message,
and they're still trying to kind of like deal with
the Trump Arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
And I don't think they've hit rock bottom yet.
Speaker 4 (26:47):
And I think again, President Trump has taught us what
it means to kind of fight back in this historic comeback.
And you know, like I said, you know, when I
was Attorney General Missouri and you know, he was out
of office and.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
We had to kind to hold the line.
Speaker 4 (27:01):
That's kind of how viewed my job in hindsight now
and right about in the last line of defense how
to beat the left and court, which you can get
on Amazon, is it was a crazy time and we
held the line until the cavalry could arrive. And that's
what happened in November twenty twenty four. The people spoke up,
and thank god, they did well.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
And I think the problem for the left too is
they were exposed as hypocrites because then we found out
Joe Biden had all these classified documents and like, including
from his time in the Senate, which is like really
really illegal because he must have probably taken them out
of like a skiff and he didn't have the authority
to declassify, Like you know, president is the ultimate declassifier
or classifier of documents, and so like, you know, the
(27:40):
I feel like the Trump stuff was more gray area
because you know, the president does have the ultimate authority,
but then he also had classified documents from being a
vice president who doesn't have the same authority.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
So it's like, you know, and then.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
They basically like coordinated with Biden's team, and like there
was no show of force, there was no like showing
up guns blazing, and like what he did was that
thousand times worse than the gray area that they try
to put President Trump in.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
Yeah, well and think about it. It was also in
his garage. These boxes were in a garage. Well, hunter
Biden was standing like the guy who could have been
compromised by foreign governments, you know, like that's just another
layer to it. And if you remember the only well
what they said was the reason they didn't charge him
was is he wasn't competent to stand trial. Like that's
what Robert Hurr said, He said, this guy's too far
(28:27):
gone to stand trial. I mean, yet he was still
president United States. And so at the time I wrote
a letter calling on all the cabinetmbers, you know, to
invoke the twenty fifth Amendment, because if he can't stand trial, like,
how is he making these important decisions. Of course, they
did nothing, which then was later exposed, you know, in
the debate, and they were hiding all this from the
American people. You know, you had again that the three
(28:48):
days after President Trump announces he's running again, what happens.
You have Assistant DA in Atlanta meet with the White
House Council. You have the number three person of DJ
go to Alvin Bragg's office, you have Jack Smith appointed
and goes down this to try to throw him in jail.
I mean, it was a very coordinated effort to make
sure this man never got back into the White House.
And I just think they still can't believe it happened.
(29:11):
And I was an earlier in early indoors for a
President Trump, maybe the first or second senator. And the
reason why, first of all, I think that the man
connects in such a unique way with the American people.
And I went up to his trial in New York
and I went back with him to Butler after the
second time. And it is a singular political figure I've
never seen anything like it. I mean, I just turned fifty,
(29:33):
so it's young for the Senate, but I don't know
how young that really is. So I just never see
anything like it. And I think his connection with the
American people is pretty unique. And what we're able to
do now, think about it in Congress, to hold these
very slim majorities, to move an agenda, it's really because
of his ability to come back and harness the hopes
(29:55):
and the desires of the American people. And I think
everyone's responding to that, and that's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
We were only ten years old in Mason. We're going
to say fifties, very young.
Speaker 3 (30:03):
A quick break.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
If you like what you're hearing, please share on social
media or maybe send it to a friend or a
family member.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Stay with us.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
It's interesting now because we're saying, Letitia James potentially be
in some major hot water over mortgage fraud allegations, and
the same thing with Adam Schiff, Like I believe in
some documents she said her dad was her husband, and
so you know, there's maybe a little bit of projection.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
With all of that stuff from them, do you yeah.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
Well, I think again, I thought they were playing for keeps.
They were trying to put him away. They knew what
he They never forgave him for coming down the escalator
in the first place, and so they concocted this made
up Russia Gate thing to try to well not to
try to but to spy on him when he was
a candidate to try to derail his first term. Then
they use the Russia hoak stuff for the censorship stuff,
(30:55):
which we outlined in the book Last Line of Defense.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
When we followed the Missouri versus Biden.
Speaker 4 (30:58):
Lawsuit, we found out that this whole like Russia misinformation
thing was there was there fig leaf for all the censorship.
They would say, oh, this is misinformation or the laptop's
misinformation or you know whatever. They just used it for everything,
and then they continued that narrative to say this guy
was a threat to the country. We got to stop
them and the links that they went to. Thank God though,
and this is I think it's affirming for the Republic,
(31:21):
is that the American people sat in their own jury
box and watched all this play out, and they rendered
their own verdict, and they they wanted reform and they
wanted him back.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
So, you know, the did give me comfort. You talk
about sores backed prosecutors. I guess, like, why do you
think George Soros wants to be such a destabilizing force.
You know, he's like this hedge fund guy. Is it ideology?
Is it like financially motivated?
Speaker 2 (31:49):
Like what do you.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
Think is behind his desire for such disruption across the
country and destabilization.
Speaker 4 (31:57):
Well, if you, if you kind of are, show you
the history of Marxism. What you really need for societal
change is a people to sort of lose confidence in
everything and kind of chaos, you know, And so COVID,
think about think about what COVID was like. People couldn't
interact anymore, You couldn't go outside unless unless you were
(32:21):
protesting quote unquote systemic racism. Then they made an exception
for you and people. I think was that at that
point in that summer, people knew it was all bs.
Speaker 3 (32:30):
But that's what Soro see arbitrage.
Speaker 4 (32:32):
The system was relatively inexpensive to finance these local prosecutors
because there's only one person in that county or that
city who can prosecute crime.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
That one person. World needs a.
Speaker 4 (32:41):
Hell of a lot of social workers, I guess, But
you only get one prosecutor to make charging decisions, and
if you could corrupt that system, then people would look
around and they would see violent crime and they would
want something very different than kind of what we have.
And I think he views that as his inrun to
change the system, to flip it over, and to have
(33:02):
this kind of neo Marxist regime in the tip of
the spirit where these prosecutors that he was funding. And
you know, I think I hope people are kind of
waking up to this. I think again we're moving on
a little bit from that. But that fever dream that
we were in for at least four years was just
it was defined by this you know, lockdowns and you
(33:23):
know social unrest and an expansive regime in the White
House that just was didn't care about individual liberties, that's
for sure. So so anyway, I mean, again, why I
wrote the book, I'm not you know, we had one
of those in Saint Louis. I wrote the book Last
Line Defense. We took on the kN Gardner, who was
(33:43):
a local Sores funded prosecutor. If you remember, in Saint Louis,
she went after the mccloskey's who dared to come out
and defend their home as the rioters were coming by
like that was a flashpoint, and those people were on
their way to the mayor's house a Democrat mayor to
protest outside her home and terrorize her family. And along
the way they passed the mccloskey's home, and it was
(34:03):
a private street and there's that, you know. Thankfully, the
confrontation didn't get you know, violent in that way. But
she decided instead of charging a lot of the rioters
that summer, that who she was going to charge were
the mccloskey's And so we stepped in and said no,
in Missouri, we have the castle doctrine. People can defend
their life and their property and there was nothing wrong.
Speaker 3 (34:22):
With what they did.
Speaker 4 (34:24):
So anyway, you just had these flashpoints along the way
that I think we're instructive, and again, what the book
is really about is to kind of walk through the
behind the scenes, what was that like, What was it
like dealing with Soros prosecutor. In fact, we had a
case where I prosecuted through a quirk of a conflict
of interest, took kind of a you know, when you're
attorney general trying a case yourself.
Speaker 3 (34:43):
Not many people do that, and.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
There's a lot of risk associated with it, But I
tried a murder case in the city of Saint Louis,
and my message when we got the verdict was there
is somebody in this town who cares about the people
and their safety, right. And so there's just a lot
of that kind of stuff in the book that I
think people who aren't lawyers, who track this stuff daily,
who listen to your show, are going to appreciate. Because
(35:06):
there was so much on the line, we were able
to fight back and win. But more importantly, now we
can't forget those lessons, right, There's going to be more fights,
whether it's like climate alarmism, when they say, oh, there's
some emergency and you can't you know, drive this kind
of car anymore. And you know, we just have to
have the willing to push back, willingness to push back
and fight back.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
And then before we go, you know, what do you
hope people take away from the book?
Speaker 2 (35:30):
What's the call to action here? You know, how do
we protect freedoms moving forward?
Speaker 3 (35:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (35:34):
I mean this is this isn't just like history. It's
a playbook. It's concrete, it's actionable. I think Left Wing
Lawfair is one of the most important stories of the
second Trump administration, and this is how we beat them,
and a lot of it just comes down to courage,
it really does it. We got the law on our side,
we have common sense on our side that people are
with us. We just have the courage to fight on
(35:55):
all fronts. And that's why I wrote The Last Line of.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
Defense, Center Eric Smith.
Speaker 1 (35:59):
The Last Line of Defense, How to Beat the Left
and Court is out. Now go get it, Senator. Really
very interesting stuff, very interesting book. Really enjoyed this conversation.
I really appreciate you making the time, sir, Thanks Lisa.
That was Senator Eric Schmidt, author of the new book
The Last Line of Defense, How to Beat the Left
and Court. Really interesting conversation. Appreciate him for making the time.
(36:20):
Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday,
but you can listen.
Speaker 2 (36:23):
Throughout the week.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Also want to bike my producer John Cassio for putting
the show together.
Speaker 2 (36:26):
Until next time.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.