August 21, 2023 • 16 mins
In this episode, Congressman Chip Roy from Texas discusses various topics including the upcoming spending agreement deadline, funding for agencies like the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security, the appointment of a special counsel, and the latest Trump indictment. Congressman Roy expresses concerns about funding agencies that abuse their power or fail to fulfill their duties, emphasizing the need for accountability and reform. He calls on Republicans to use their power of the purse to bring about change and criticizes those who talk about issues but fail to take action. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.
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):
So there is a September thirtieth deadline coming up to
reach an agreement on spending. Republicans always talk about how
the Department of Justice has been weaponized against Conservatives, how
the Department of Homeland Security is not doing its job
and its basic function of defending the country defending or
(00:20):
southern border defending or border So why fund these agencies
that are either abusing power or not doing their duty.
That's the question that Congressman chip Roy is asking as
he encourages his fellow Republicans to take up this fight
to not fund these agencies and to stand up for
(00:43):
what they believe it or at least what they've been
saying they believe makes sense. So we're going to talk
to Congressman chip Roy about that. We're also going to
get his take on Merrick Garland naming David Weiss as
a special counsel. Why now, what does this mean and
what should Republicans do about it. We'll also talk to
him about the latest Trump indictment. You know, what are
(01:04):
they trying to do with it? Is it to harm
him or boost him? All of that and more with
Congressman ship Roy from Texas.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Well.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Congressman It's always an honor to have you on the show.
We're approaching this September thirtieth timeline to reach an agreement
on spending. This always happens with Congress, They wait till
the last minute. What should the priorities be for Republicans.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Well, first of all, good to be on as always.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
And look, if it were my play call, we would
not be in our districts, but rather we would be
in Washington. We set out, and you know, all said
and agreed that we were going to pass appropriations bills,
and that's what we ought to be doing. And in
the absence of being able to get agreement on the
appropriations bills before July, or certainly most of them, then
(01:52):
we ought.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
To be back in DC.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
But you know, we're not, and we're probably going to
be in our districts for a few more weeks and
then back in September, and so almost certainly it's going
to be difficult to get appropriations bills passed in September.
So we're going to end up facing the prospect of
the government funding deadline of September thirtieth, and then the
normal DC dance of oh, let's do a two month
(02:17):
two and a half month extension of a continuing resolution
of funding at current levels. That's meaning maintain the status
quo until right before Christmas, where they can then put
in all the pressure to try to get something done
and get a big omnibus bill done in December. Well,
I disagree with that. I mean, our priority needs to
be spending going down to pre COVID levels. We need
(02:39):
to restrain the Department of Homeland Security and focus on
it doing its job and withhold funds until we force
them to pass HR two. Sign HR two, make sure
that we're not releasing people in the United States, and
we need to hold the Department of Justice accountable and
make sure that Department of Justice is being reformed and
(03:00):
restraining funds from being used.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
To carry out political witch hunts.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
I think we can focus on Department of Defense and wokeness,
focus on energy. There's a lot of things we should
be using the power of the purse to change, and
I don't accept the premise that too many of my
Republican colleagues do that, Oh, well, you just have the House.
It's like, no, we have the House, and the House
is the originator of spending bills, and we have the
(03:26):
power of the purse, and we should therefore use that
power to reclaim our country, to take it back for
the people.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Well, and it sort of defies logic too. I mean,
if we see a Department of Justice that is very
clearly weaponized against conservatives, if we see a Department of
Homeland Security that is not doing its basic function, which
is securing the border, you know why you fund them?
Speaker 3 (03:51):
That's my question, And stated even just slightly differently than
why fund fund them, I would state it is do
I not have a more obligation to refuse to fund
them if they're going to be carrying out of policies
or taking actions that are in direct conflict with my
(04:14):
way of life the people I represent. So the border,
for example, is a perfect example, because we're under assault
in Texas. Hell, they're even suing Governor Abbott to get
him to stop doing the job of DHS by trying
to put booyes in the river. But to your point
about the Department of Justice, why would we fund you
said the right way? In what world is it a appropriate
(04:38):
use of my power and the power of the purse
to give another dollar to Merit Garland to continue to
carry out political witch hunts, or to target Scott Smith
in Louden County or Mark Hawk in Philadelphia. We shouldn't
do that. We should demand that they change. We should
demand that they stop the witch hunts. We should demand
that they focus on fentanyl poisonings and sex trafficking and
(04:59):
stopping crime that's harming our communities rather than trying to
carry out the political machinations of the Democratic left through
the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
What's the stomach on Capitol Hill with Republicans in the
House for falling through on some of the things that
you've just laid out. I know you've also called for
Secretary of my Arcus's firing as well. You know, what's
the appetite with Republicans right now for falling through on
some of this stuff.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
The appetite is growing, but in the end, because they
are who they are, politicians in the swamp, the appetite
is only going to be as strong as the pressure
being applied by the people. And that's why I think
it's really important to hear in August that we'd be
(05:46):
having this conversation and forcing the hand of our Republican
members of Congress to do their job. And you know
that's why I put out a letter last week with
my colleagues, fourteen of my Republican colleagues from Texas, to
say that we should not be funding the Department of
(06:08):
Homeland Security unless they pay Texas back, unless.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
They stop releasing people.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Get the President to sign HR two into law and
get alhandra My Orgiest out of his spot as Secretary
of Homeland Security where he is engaging in what I
believe is impeachable conduct. But in the absence of impeaching him,
which I think we should do. Why are we funding him,
Why are we giving him more money? Why are we
saying that that guy should stay in charge? I don't
(06:34):
think we should.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
It is pretty wild to see Texas targeted for trying
to enforce the state's borders, when that's what we should
be doing as a country in the first place.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
The basic duty of the government is to secure the
blessings of liberty, to defend this country, to enforce sovereignty,
to defend us from our enemies for and in domestic
and here we are allowing cartels to have blatant operate
for control of our border.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
The Secretary of Homeland.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Security eyes to us in front of a judiciary Committee,
and we've got Republicans who think we should not impeach
him and we should give him money. I don't understand it.
And every Republican should have to answer that question. And
you know, people go, well, Ship, you know, I've got
at least one prominent conservative Republican who I've heard say, who,
by the way, is who is affiliated and viewed as
(07:19):
someone in the.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Kind of freedom Caucus world.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Who is saying, hey, we should be fighting Democrats, not Republicans. Well,
no kidding, I know that, but I need Republicans to
saddle up, right. I mean, if I'm trying to saddle
up to go fight those who want to ruin my country,
and you go around campaigning saying, oh, yeah, Department Homeland
Security is not doing their job, the border's broken.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Yeah, Well, what the hell are you going to do
about it?
Speaker 3 (07:45):
Because you're not impeaching anybody and you're not withholding funding,
so you're complicit.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
You're part of the problem.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
So a Republican that funds this Department of Homeland Security,
you own it. A Republican that funds this Department of Justice.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
You own it. You can't hide from it, and we
should call them out for it.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
We're going to take a quick commercial break back with
Congressman Chiproy. Why do you think Biden and this Department
of homelwn Security wants open borders? Is it just for chaos?
What do you think is behind that?
Speaker 3 (08:21):
They have no qualms using human beings as their political
pawns to achieve their larger aims. And then these people
to them are just a number and they're just trying
to flood the zone with numbers to transform this country.
They have no problem ignoring sovereignty. They believe in a
kind of new liberal world order where there are no boundaries.
(08:42):
They don't care that, you know, it might undermine our
sovereignty and our strength as a country because they don't
care about that sovereignty or strength. They don't believe in
American exceptionalism. We believe there's something great about this country
and that we are happy to open our doors and
be a magnet for them. You undermine the very rule
of law that causes people to want to come here,
(09:03):
then you're killing the country. We should be exporting the
rule of law to Mexico, exporting the rule of law
to Central America and South America. We should be crushing
the cartels we should be ending the flow of fentanyl
and human trafficking.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
We should be.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Undermining China by creating a strong Western hemisphere to compete
with China and to decrease the pressure where people are
coming here from ho Duras and Guatemala. Let's make those
shining countries by helping and exporting our successful worldview rather
than importing lawlessness in despair. It's absolutely absurd that we're
doing it. And Republicans, I'm going to tell you, they're complicit.
(09:37):
They're as complicit as the Republicans were in the two
thousands who were under the thumb of the Chamber of Commerce.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
You just wanted their cheap labor.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
And now they're just as complicit because they're too gutless
to do anything about it. They're perfectly happy to campaign
about it but then not actually fight the fight in Washington.
And by the way, I mean some of my freedom
colleagues need to get off the damn pot too. I'm
sick of it, right I'm tired of people who go
out there and talk about this stuff and they won't
do it when it matters.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Everything's kind of following apart right now. So if you're
not willing to fight now then, really, what's the point,
you know, I want to you know, we've been talking
about the Department of Justice as well. So Merrick Garland
back I believe it was in March, said that David
Weiss had all the authority he needed to pursue charges
in different jurisdictions. It basically he had all the authority
he needed. But now he named them a special council.
(10:27):
So what changed and why a special council now? And
why David Weiss?
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Well, because all this administration and particularly this Department of
Justice is doing is figuring out how they can have
a beard to cover up exactly what everybody knows they're
up to. So take for example, the first special counsel,
Jack Smith. What were they doing, Well, they didn't need
a special council there, because they're already in an adversarial
(10:53):
position as the Democrat administration, the Attorney General Liberal, and
you're trying to invest to gate the former president a Republican.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
You're already adversarial.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
So your Department of Justice can go through the motions,
you don't need to have a special counsel. But they
wanted a special counsel so they could pretend and say, oh,
we weren't doing this for political reasons. That was a
special council, But they did not want a special counsel
to be out from under their thumb and purview when
they were going after Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. So
(11:26):
they only finally decided to go there when it got
up to the end. And it's a total sham in
order to be able to say, oh, oh yeah, see,
we're doing that. But what it really does is it
allows them to now obvious skate and try to undermine
the congressional investigations which are now starting to provide fruit
for Jamie Comer and a little bit in judiciary putting
(11:46):
forward evidence of what's going on with the irs whistleblowers,
with the testimony last week of Hunter's business partner Archer,
and you know, now the evidence is coming out, they're going, Okay, well, yeah,
let's do a special counsel able to use it as
a beard to kind of cover up what's going on.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
So do we need to do an impeachment inquiry?
Speaker 3 (12:05):
So I believe we do, but I don't want to
do an inquiry unless we're going to follow through and
get the job done. And I don't want to do
the job. If we're not going to present a case
to the Senate that will make Mansion and Cinema and
a bunch.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Of Democrats squirm.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
I think we need to present a strong case. And
I will admit, because I'm not on Oversight, I'm not
looking at all of the evidence that's coming in in
real time right because I'm in Texas right now, and
a lot of that stuff's happened in the last couple of weeks.
But we need to be able to present a really
strong case. But I believe that the amount of evidence
(12:40):
demonstrating corruption, the twenty million dollars, the fact that we
know Biden was at least knowledgeable of the business arrangements
and partners, probably much deeper than we've yet seen. But
every time they follow these dots and they connect the
dots and we get the information, you're seeing not just smoke,
(13:00):
but you're seeing fire. And you know, Democrats now are
admitting that Hunter Biden engaged in illegal behavior and wrong behavior.
Jamie Raskin did that just the other day.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Right.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
He's the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, so he
has to look at that and go all right, yeah,
that's not good. So they're trying to separate Hunter from Joe.
But we all know that separation is somewhere between paper
thin to more likely non existent. So all we've got
to do is pursue that and then go present the evidence.
Now it's not always easy. You don't have a you know,
(13:32):
indictment and a US attorney to do it. But I
think we ought to go down that road. But we
damn well ought to finish the job if we're going
to do.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
It before we go.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Trump obviously now facing indictment out of Georgia. You look
at some of the timeline on the cases and the
trials that he's going to be facing, you know, January
sixth cases, right before the Iowa Caucus, Georgia case, before
Super Tuesday, Alvin Bragg, you know, before another big set
of you know, important primary dates. You go on and
(14:02):
go all of these are you know, carefully selected? Are
they trying to harm him or boost him?
Speaker 3 (14:08):
I believe that what the Democrats are doing is purposeful.
I believe they want to try to pile up indictments,
believing that that will energize the base to stand behind
President Trump, working for him to be the nominee while
they try to bloody him up through the late legal
process and then through the political narrative in hopes that
(14:31):
they can try to kill him after he's the nominee
in the general. I think that's what I think. Democrats
believe that's their best play. They've effectively told me that's
their best play, and so I think it's strategic. And look,
I support the former president. I support the former president's agenda.
But I've endorsed Brondo Santas because look, I've been watching
(14:52):
what he's been doing. He's been taking out sores prosecutors.
He's been you know, taking a baseball bat to Disney.
They got a law pass despite Disney's pressure. Uh, they've
been you know, checking them. They've got He won by
a million and a half votes. He won sixty two
percent of Hispanics, He won fifty percent of single female voters.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
People are flocking to Florida. He took on the.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
Healthcare establishment, he's taken on the education establishment. He's fearless,
and people would love Governor DeSantis if we weren't in
the you know, age of Trump. And I get that,
and and our respect difference is his opinion there. But
that's why I want to move forward and have someone
that can serve for eight years. Do I know will
take on the establishment and can win and has a
history of doing so.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Congressman ship Roy, I know you've got a busy schedule.
You're on the road in Texas. I appreciate you making
time for us. I really do.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
God Bleslie say you take care.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
That was Congressman Chip Roy of Texas. I appreciate him
taken the time to join the show. He's on the
road today, so you know, meetings, chaotic life they live
as members of Congress. I appreciate him taking the time.
Oh to thank you guys at home for listening to
the show every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen
to it throughout the week. I want to thank John
Cassio and my producer for putting the show together. Until
(16:06):
next time.
So there is a September thirtieth deadline coming up to
reach an agreement on spending. Republicans always talk about how
the Department of Justice has been weaponized against Conservatives, how
the Department of Homeland Security is not doing its job
and its basic function of defending the country defending or
(00:20):
southern border defending or border So why fund these agencies
that are either abusing power or not doing their duty.
That's the question that Congressman chip Roy is asking as
he encourages his fellow Republicans to take up this fight
to not fund these agencies and to stand up for
(00:43):
what they believe it or at least what they've been
saying they believe makes sense. So we're going to talk
to Congressman chip Roy about that. We're also going to
get his take on Merrick Garland naming David Weiss as
a special counsel. Why now, what does this mean and
what should Republicans do about it. We'll also talk to
him about the latest Trump indictment. You know, what are
(01:04):
they trying to do with it? Is it to harm
him or boost him? All of that and more with
Congressman ship Roy from Texas.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Well.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Congressman It's always an honor to have you on the show.
We're approaching this September thirtieth timeline to reach an agreement
on spending. This always happens with Congress, They wait till
the last minute. What should the priorities be for Republicans.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Well, first of all, good to be on as always.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
And look, if it were my play call, we would
not be in our districts, but rather we would be
in Washington. We set out, and you know, all said
and agreed that we were going to pass appropriations bills,
and that's what we ought to be doing. And in
the absence of being able to get agreement on the
appropriations bills before July, or certainly most of them, then
(01:52):
we ought.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
To be back in DC.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
But you know, we're not, and we're probably going to
be in our districts for a few more weeks and
then back in September, and so almost certainly it's going
to be difficult to get appropriations bills passed in September.
So we're going to end up facing the prospect of
the government funding deadline of September thirtieth, and then the
normal DC dance of oh, let's do a two month
(02:17):
two and a half month extension of a continuing resolution
of funding at current levels. That's meaning maintain the status
quo until right before Christmas, where they can then put
in all the pressure to try to get something done
and get a big omnibus bill done in December. Well,
I disagree with that. I mean, our priority needs to
be spending going down to pre COVID levels. We need
(02:39):
to restrain the Department of Homeland Security and focus on
it doing its job and withhold funds until we force
them to pass HR two. Sign HR two, make sure
that we're not releasing people in the United States, and
we need to hold the Department of Justice accountable and
make sure that Department of Justice is being reformed and
(03:00):
restraining funds from being used.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
To carry out political witch hunts.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
I think we can focus on Department of Defense and wokeness,
focus on energy. There's a lot of things we should
be using the power of the purse to change, and
I don't accept the premise that too many of my
Republican colleagues do that, Oh, well, you just have the House.
It's like, no, we have the House, and the House
is the originator of spending bills, and we have the
(03:26):
power of the purse, and we should therefore use that
power to reclaim our country, to take it back for
the people.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Well, and it sort of defies logic too. I mean,
if we see a Department of Justice that is very
clearly weaponized against conservatives, if we see a Department of
Homeland Security that is not doing its basic function, which
is securing the border, you know why you fund them?
Speaker 3 (03:51):
That's my question, And stated even just slightly differently than
why fund fund them, I would state it is do
I not have a more obligation to refuse to fund
them if they're going to be carrying out of policies
or taking actions that are in direct conflict with my
(04:14):
way of life the people I represent. So the border,
for example, is a perfect example, because we're under assault
in Texas. Hell, they're even suing Governor Abbott to get
him to stop doing the job of DHS by trying
to put booyes in the river. But to your point
about the Department of Justice, why would we fund you
said the right way? In what world is it a appropriate
(04:38):
use of my power and the power of the purse
to give another dollar to Merit Garland to continue to
carry out political witch hunts, or to target Scott Smith
in Louden County or Mark Hawk in Philadelphia. We shouldn't
do that. We should demand that they change. We should
demand that they stop the witch hunts. We should demand
that they focus on fentanyl poisonings and sex trafficking and
(04:59):
stopping crime that's harming our communities rather than trying to
carry out the political machinations of the Democratic left through
the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
What's the stomach on Capitol Hill with Republicans in the
House for falling through on some of the things that
you've just laid out. I know you've also called for
Secretary of my Arcus's firing as well. You know, what's
the appetite with Republicans right now for falling through on
some of this stuff.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
The appetite is growing, but in the end, because they
are who they are, politicians in the swamp, the appetite
is only going to be as strong as the pressure
being applied by the people. And that's why I think
it's really important to hear in August that we'd be
(05:46):
having this conversation and forcing the hand of our Republican
members of Congress to do their job. And you know
that's why I put out a letter last week with
my colleagues, fourteen of my Republican colleagues from Texas, to
say that we should not be funding the Department of
(06:08):
Homeland Security unless they pay Texas back, unless.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
They stop releasing people.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Get the President to sign HR two into law and
get alhandra My Orgiest out of his spot as Secretary
of Homeland Security where he is engaging in what I
believe is impeachable conduct. But in the absence of impeaching him,
which I think we should do. Why are we funding him,
Why are we giving him more money? Why are we
saying that that guy should stay in charge? I don't
(06:34):
think we should.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
It is pretty wild to see Texas targeted for trying
to enforce the state's borders, when that's what we should
be doing as a country in the first place.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
The basic duty of the government is to secure the
blessings of liberty, to defend this country, to enforce sovereignty,
to defend us from our enemies for and in domestic
and here we are allowing cartels to have blatant operate
for control of our border.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
The Secretary of Homeland.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Security eyes to us in front of a judiciary Committee,
and we've got Republicans who think we should not impeach
him and we should give him money. I don't understand it.
And every Republican should have to answer that question. And
you know, people go, well, Ship, you know, I've got
at least one prominent conservative Republican who I've heard say, who,
by the way, is who is affiliated and viewed as
(07:19):
someone in the.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Kind of freedom Caucus world.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Who is saying, hey, we should be fighting Democrats, not Republicans. Well,
no kidding, I know that, but I need Republicans to
saddle up, right. I mean, if I'm trying to saddle
up to go fight those who want to ruin my country,
and you go around campaigning saying, oh, yeah, Department Homeland
Security is not doing their job, the border's broken.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Yeah, Well, what the hell are you going to do
about it?
Speaker 3 (07:45):
Because you're not impeaching anybody and you're not withholding funding,
so you're complicit.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
You're part of the problem.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
So a Republican that funds this Department of Homeland Security,
you own it. A Republican that funds this Department of Justice.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
You own it. You can't hide from it, and we
should call them out for it.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
We're going to take a quick commercial break back with
Congressman Chiproy. Why do you think Biden and this Department
of homelwn Security wants open borders? Is it just for chaos?
What do you think is behind that?
Speaker 3 (08:21):
They have no qualms using human beings as their political
pawns to achieve their larger aims. And then these people
to them are just a number and they're just trying
to flood the zone with numbers to transform this country.
They have no problem ignoring sovereignty. They believe in a
kind of new liberal world order where there are no boundaries.
(08:42):
They don't care that, you know, it might undermine our
sovereignty and our strength as a country because they don't
care about that sovereignty or strength. They don't believe in
American exceptionalism. We believe there's something great about this country
and that we are happy to open our doors and
be a magnet for them. You undermine the very rule
of law that causes people to want to come here,
(09:03):
then you're killing the country. We should be exporting the
rule of law to Mexico, exporting the rule of law
to Central America and South America. We should be crushing
the cartels we should be ending the flow of fentanyl
and human trafficking.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
We should be.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Undermining China by creating a strong Western hemisphere to compete
with China and to decrease the pressure where people are
coming here from ho Duras and Guatemala. Let's make those
shining countries by helping and exporting our successful worldview rather
than importing lawlessness in despair. It's absolutely absurd that we're
doing it. And Republicans, I'm going to tell you, they're complicit.
(09:37):
They're as complicit as the Republicans were in the two
thousands who were under the thumb of the Chamber of Commerce.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
You just wanted their cheap labor.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
And now they're just as complicit because they're too gutless
to do anything about it. They're perfectly happy to campaign
about it but then not actually fight the fight in Washington.
And by the way, I mean some of my freedom
colleagues need to get off the damn pot too. I'm
sick of it, right I'm tired of people who go
out there and talk about this stuff and they won't
do it when it matters.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Everything's kind of following apart right now. So if you're
not willing to fight now then, really, what's the point,
you know, I want to you know, we've been talking
about the Department of Justice as well. So Merrick Garland
back I believe it was in March, said that David
Weiss had all the authority he needed to pursue charges
in different jurisdictions. It basically he had all the authority
he needed. But now he named them a special council.
(10:27):
So what changed and why a special council now? And
why David Weiss?
Speaker 3 (10:32):
Well, because all this administration and particularly this Department of
Justice is doing is figuring out how they can have
a beard to cover up exactly what everybody knows they're
up to. So take for example, the first special counsel,
Jack Smith. What were they doing, Well, they didn't need
a special council there, because they're already in an adversarial
(10:53):
position as the Democrat administration, the Attorney General Liberal, and
you're trying to invest to gate the former president a Republican.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
You're already adversarial.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
So your Department of Justice can go through the motions,
you don't need to have a special counsel. But they
wanted a special counsel so they could pretend and say, oh,
we weren't doing this for political reasons. That was a
special council, But they did not want a special counsel
to be out from under their thumb and purview when
they were going after Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. So
(11:26):
they only finally decided to go there when it got
up to the end. And it's a total sham in
order to be able to say, oh, oh yeah, see,
we're doing that. But what it really does is it
allows them to now obvious skate and try to undermine
the congressional investigations which are now starting to provide fruit
for Jamie Comer and a little bit in judiciary putting
(11:46):
forward evidence of what's going on with the irs whistleblowers,
with the testimony last week of Hunter's business partner Archer,
and you know, now the evidence is coming out, they're going, Okay, well, yeah,
let's do a special counsel able to use it as
a beard to kind of cover up what's going on.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
So do we need to do an impeachment inquiry?
Speaker 3 (12:05):
So I believe we do, but I don't want to
do an inquiry unless we're going to follow through and
get the job done. And I don't want to do
the job. If we're not going to present a case
to the Senate that will make Mansion and Cinema and
a bunch.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Of Democrats squirm.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
I think we need to present a strong case. And
I will admit, because I'm not on Oversight, I'm not
looking at all of the evidence that's coming in in
real time right because I'm in Texas right now, and
a lot of that stuff's happened in the last couple of weeks.
But we need to be able to present a really
strong case. But I believe that the amount of evidence
(12:40):
demonstrating corruption, the twenty million dollars, the fact that we
know Biden was at least knowledgeable of the business arrangements
and partners, probably much deeper than we've yet seen. But
every time they follow these dots and they connect the
dots and we get the information, you're seeing not just smoke,
(13:00):
but you're seeing fire. And you know, Democrats now are
admitting that Hunter Biden engaged in illegal behavior and wrong behavior.
Jamie Raskin did that just the other day.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Right.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
He's the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, so he
has to look at that and go all right, yeah,
that's not good. So they're trying to separate Hunter from Joe.
But we all know that separation is somewhere between paper
thin to more likely non existent. So all we've got
to do is pursue that and then go present the evidence.
Now it's not always easy. You don't have a you know,
(13:32):
indictment and a US attorney to do it. But I
think we ought to go down that road. But we
damn well ought to finish the job if we're going
to do.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
It before we go.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Trump obviously now facing indictment out of Georgia. You look
at some of the timeline on the cases and the
trials that he's going to be facing, you know, January
sixth cases, right before the Iowa Caucus, Georgia case, before
Super Tuesday, Alvin Bragg, you know, before another big set
of you know, important primary dates. You go on and
(14:02):
go all of these are you know, carefully selected? Are
they trying to harm him or boost him?
Speaker 3 (14:08):
I believe that what the Democrats are doing is purposeful.
I believe they want to try to pile up indictments,
believing that that will energize the base to stand behind
President Trump, working for him to be the nominee while
they try to bloody him up through the late legal
process and then through the political narrative in hopes that
(14:31):
they can try to kill him after he's the nominee
in the general. I think that's what I think. Democrats
believe that's their best play. They've effectively told me that's
their best play, and so I think it's strategic. And look,
I support the former president. I support the former president's agenda.
But I've endorsed Brondo Santas because look, I've been watching
(14:52):
what he's been doing. He's been taking out sores prosecutors.
He's been you know, taking a baseball bat to Disney.
They got a law pass despite Disney's pressure. Uh, they've
been you know, checking them. They've got He won by
a million and a half votes. He won sixty two
percent of Hispanics, He won fifty percent of single female voters.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
People are flocking to Florida. He took on the.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
Healthcare establishment, he's taken on the education establishment. He's fearless,
and people would love Governor DeSantis if we weren't in
the you know, age of Trump. And I get that,
and and our respect difference is his opinion there. But
that's why I want to move forward and have someone
that can serve for eight years. Do I know will
take on the establishment and can win and has a
history of doing so.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Congressman ship Roy, I know you've got a busy schedule.
You're on the road in Texas. I appreciate you making
time for us. I really do.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
God Bleslie say you take care.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
That was Congressman Chip Roy of Texas. I appreciate him
taken the time to join the show. He's on the
road today, so you know, meetings, chaotic life they live
as members of Congress. I appreciate him taking the time.
Oh to thank you guys at home for listening to
the show every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen
to it throughout the week. I want to thank John
Cassio and my producer for putting the show together. Until
(16:06):
next time.
Host
Lisa Boothe
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.