Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
It's Senator Pete Records showing us onthe phone line. Senator Records, thanks
for the time today, my pleasure. Thank you very much for having me
on. All right, well,you know, we got to talk about
it was it wasn't really a circusbecause nothing really happened, but that's kind
of the problem. Yesterday the articlesof impeachment for Alejandro Myorcis, the Secretary
(00:24):
of Homeland Security, that was deliveredearlier this week to the Senate, and
the conversation at least happened yesterday wherethe Democrats killed both articles of impeachment pretty
quickly. Can you check me throughwhat the day was like and what your
expectations were. Yeah, absolutely so. The House managers the previous day had
brought over the articles of impeachment,and yesterday we were sworn in as a
(00:49):
Senate to be able to hear theevidence, and then right off the bat,
Leader Schumer basically at a point oforder saying the articles were unconstitutional,
and we offered a number of pointsof order or inquiries or whatever to point
out even though it was not debatable, we were trying to make a point
(01:12):
about how he was risking with president. You know, there had been twenty
one previous articles of impeachment over thelast two hundred and twenty seven years,
every one of whom was scheduled fora trial. Now Ford did not result
in a trial because the person wasexpelled or resigned before, but everyone was
scheduled for a trial. And whatshot was used a parliamentary procedure and got
(01:34):
every single Democrat to vote for it. So fifty one out of one hundred
senators voted for it, and hewas able to get the Democrats to vote
to say it was unconstitutional because andget this, this is what I said
that the charges the two articles didnot rise to the level of high crimes
(01:55):
in this demeanors. So he wassaying, basically, hey, this is
a policy issue, this is notactual breaking of the law. However,
if you looked at the House papers, you saw the first article was about
wilful disregard law. And you canmake a great case that my workers was
wilfully disregarding the law because he saidin a memo in twenty twenty one,
(02:20):
the fact that an individual is aremovable nonsenizen. Notice he doesn't even see
say illegal alien, which is whatthe way law reads. And he says
the fact that an individual is aremovable noncess and therefore should alone not be
the basis for an enforcement action againstthem. He's basically saying that if somebody
crossed the boarder illegally, you don'thave to deport him. That's not what
the law says. So he's basicallytelling Immigrations and Customers enforcement not to enforce
(02:40):
the law. That there looks likea wilful disregard to the law. And
if you look at the results,there was a fifty seven percent decrease in
the arrests of criminal aliens and asixty seven decrease in deportations of criminal illegal
aliens. So you know, firstof all, so you can say right
there that one example very clear thathe was just regarding the law. And
you can go on and talk aboutthe prole function that has allowed last year
(03:06):
one point two million people into thecountry. That is a huge abuse of
that. So there's a case tobe made for that. And then the
second article was about to reach publictrust, and this goes back to basically
my Orcis is coming in misleading conceCongress. On April twenty eight, twenty
twenty two, my Orcis testified repeatedlyto the House Judiciary Committee that his department,
Department fold Land Security, possessed operationalcontrol of the southwest border, including
(03:30):
its satatory definition. And of coursethat's just patently not true, like it
was not in control, it's outof control. And so there to me,
says again a case to be madefor willful or for public reach,
public trust. And so this isnot a policy dispute. This is about
is my orcis doing his job andwe did not get a chance to hear
the evidence. We did not geta chance for trial. And basically what
(03:52):
this is saying setting of future precedents, because again this was asked. One
of the inquirers was asked of thePresident of the said if this was at
a president, she said yes.So now in the future, anytime the
housemens over impeachment articles a future Senate, if it's of the opposite party,
we'll just be able to say,nope, we're not going to take it
out. There will be no trial. Can you imagine what would have happened
if Republicans had said Donald Trump's impeachport trial were not going to happen because
(04:15):
it was unconstitutional, didn't matter.Oh, the left would have gone bokers.
This is really a huge, hugeblack day in our country's history.
It's a bad day for the Senatebecause it's really undermining the institution of the
Senate and it just gets the Democratswilling to throw norms out the window to
their own partisan political benefit. Andthat is not what this country is about,
(04:41):
that's not what our founder's frames asand it's really to the jutriment of
our countries they're doing it. Speakingwith Senator Pete Ricketts on the heels of
yesterday, as he explained, they'rejust no interest in the actual trial of
the impeachment articles for Alejandro. Myorcis. I have to ask, and I
(05:02):
asked this frequently because this is animportant topic of conversation, and maybe I
just don't possess the necessary knowledge tounderstand what is there to be gained by
having such lax border rules that myorcus is overseeing. Well, I,
of course cannot tell you exactly whatthe administration's thinking, because they don't talk
(05:24):
to me and tell me, youknow, what they're doing or why.
But you know, there was thiswoman, a congress woman from New York,
AVEC. Clark, who sat ona zoom call that she needed more
illegal immigrants for redistricting purposes. Andthere's giving you a window to at least
how some Democrats are thinking about this, that if they have more people who
(05:44):
are legal coming across the border andthey go to states like New York and
California, both of whom were losingpopulations, the states like Texas and Florida,
obviously New York California being blue states, Texas Florida being red states.
If you're losing population and you wantto replay, and you have a bunch
of people across the boarder illegally comingup to your states, when we count
the census, we don't count citizensanymore. We only count pets, right,
(06:10):
So you can maintain your population thatway. And in fact, Senator
Haggerty has a bill which I'm aco sponsor of, that instructed the Census
Bureau only to count citizens. Andthat makes sense, right because only citizens
can vote. And so we actuallygot this bill an amendment, this bill
as an amendment to be voted on, and every single Democrat voted against it,
(06:35):
every single one. They all votedto continue counting everybody rather than just
counting citizens. So I got totell you again, I can't tell you
for sure what's going on here,But when a Democrat Collers woman says something
so blatant like I need more illegalimmigrants for redistricting purposes, then you know
it really makes you wonder what isgoing on here? Well? Yeah,
(06:58):
I mean, I don't know howthe public has come confidence in this,
but this would be a great argumentfor why you should be voting red come
November. I think. All right, so Senator Rick could welly at me
making that argument about what but yeah, it's absolutely another proof point. Right.
Well, I think the next topicof conversation is where do we go
from here? Because I know thatthere's some opponents of the idea of impeaching
(07:19):
a sitting cabinet member. Was Okay, you're going to impeach him and then
they'll appoint somebody else in what willactually be accomplished? Is there any next
step now that he's not going anywhereand I don't know if we expected him
to go anywhere anyway, even witha trial, But what's next for the
border in what can be done?Because we know more and more people on
(07:41):
the left are admitting that there isa crisis there. Now, what's next
for what the border's going to looklike with an implachement trial, we would
have had a chance to hear theevidence and determine guilt or innocence. But
we also would have had an opportunityto talk about just what a disaster our
southern border is. And then theDemocrats wouldn't have had to defend that.
And maybe that's one of the reasonswhy they didn't want to do this,
(08:01):
because they know it's not defensible.It's indefensible what's going on our southern border.
President Trump brought border crossings, illegalborder crossings to a forty five year
low. President Biden has all thesame tools present Trump did, and so
when he said when Biden says heneeds Congress to act, it's not true.
He's got all the tools he needs. He can implement things like remain
(08:22):
in Mexico right keeping everybody wants toseek US oil of here in Mexico till
they get their hearing. He shouldend his abuse of parole. You know,
again, under the Biden or underthe Trump and Obama administrations, about
fifty six hundred foreigners were patrolled intoour country every year. Because the president
has that power to do it supposedto be done on a case by case
basis. Last year, Biden paroledone point two million people into this country
(08:45):
one point two million, and thewhole class of the people not on a
case by case basis. It's acalear abuse of his power. So he
could stop that because that's creating moreincentive for people to come here illegally.
When Biden came into office, heimmediately issued Vince first hundred DA ninety four
executive actions do things like stop deportations, stop building the border wall, ending
the remaining in New Mexico policy.He reversed Trump's Internal and Immigration Force them
(09:11):
executive action. So Biden has thetools to be able to do stuff.
We need to keep putting pressure on. People need to call the White House,
right the White House, Email theWhite House and tell them they are
tired of this president ignoring the nationalsecurity crisis, the humanitarian crisis, the
sex trafficking, the child trafficking,the drug trafficking, that has all been
made postle by his open border policies. And ultimately, at the end of
(09:35):
the day, we're going to havean election in this country and we need
to get a new president. Well, this is certainly something that we're going
to be keeping an eye on thehappenings in Congress. Never fail to surprise
us in the way that things arechanging. And I just want to ask
this Senator of p recor is joiningus on the phone line. I know
(09:56):
that this is in your chamber,but I just wanted to ask because it
feels like this is something that couldcontinue to be a storyline. But there
is growing pressure on Mike Johnson nowthe Speaker of the House, and there
seemingly is growing support potentially for ifhe introduces a foreign aid package that there
are going to be some Republicans thatare going to be looking to oust him,
(10:18):
much like they ousted Kevin McCarthy.Is this a big problem in the
Republican Party or is this a loudminority that is trying to really stir the
pot with this stuff. Well,I think the continued instability and leadership of
the House is a problem for theRepublican Party. What we want is for
people to be confident that we aregoing to do the right things to manage
this country. And if we don'thave leadership available to push forward on the
(10:43):
important topics like securing our southern border, I believe that will undermine people's faith
in the Republican House numbers, soI am concerned about it. I think
we need to make sure that we'redoing all we can to secure our border,
and that's the most pressing national securitieswhich focused on and that's that's where
I think that Leader Johnson can reallytry and make a difference there. It's
(11:05):
definitely something to pay attention to andkeep in mind, and we always know
that we have a direct line tothe Senate thanks to Senator Pete Ricketts among
others. Thanks so much, senatorfor being a part of our show today
and thanks for the information. Greatthanks evering, have a good one.
Yep, you too.
It's Senator Pete Records showing us onthe phone line. Senator Records, thanks
for the time today, my pleasure. Thank you very much for having me
on. All right, well,you know, we got to talk about
it was it wasn't really a circusbecause nothing really happened, but that's kind
of the problem. Yesterday the articlesof impeachment for Alejandro Myorcis, the Secretary
(00:24):
of Homeland Security, that was deliveredearlier this week to the Senate, and
the conversation at least happened yesterday wherethe Democrats killed both articles of impeachment pretty
quickly. Can you check me throughwhat the day was like and what your
expectations were. Yeah, absolutely so. The House managers the previous day had
brought over the articles of impeachment,and yesterday we were sworn in as a
(00:49):
Senate to be able to hear theevidence, and then right off the bat,
Leader Schumer basically at a point oforder saying the articles were unconstitutional,
and we offered a number of pointsof order or inquiries or whatever to point
out even though it was not debatable, we were trying to make a point
(01:12):
about how he was risking with president. You know, there had been twenty
one previous articles of impeachment over thelast two hundred and twenty seven years,
every one of whom was scheduled fora trial. Now Ford did not result
in a trial because the person wasexpelled or resigned before, but everyone was
scheduled for a trial. And whatshot was used a parliamentary procedure and got
(01:34):
every single Democrat to vote for it. So fifty one out of one hundred
senators voted for it, and hewas able to get the Democrats to vote
to say it was unconstitutional because andget this, this is what I said
that the charges the two articles didnot rise to the level of high crimes
(01:55):
in this demeanors. So he wassaying, basically, hey, this is
a policy issue, this is notactual breaking of the law. However,
if you looked at the House papers, you saw the first article was about
wilful disregard law. And you canmake a great case that my workers was
wilfully disregarding the law because he saidin a memo in twenty twenty one,
(02:20):
the fact that an individual is aremovable nonsenizen. Notice he doesn't even see
say illegal alien, which is whatthe way law reads. And he says
the fact that an individual is aremovable noncess and therefore should alone not be
the basis for an enforcement action againstthem. He's basically saying that if somebody
crossed the boarder illegally, you don'thave to deport him. That's not what
the law says. So he's basicallytelling Immigrations and Customers enforcement not to enforce
(02:40):
the law. That there looks likea wilful disregard to the law. And
if you look at the results,there was a fifty seven percent decrease in
the arrests of criminal aliens and asixty seven decrease in deportations of criminal illegal
aliens. So you know, firstof all, so you can say right
there that one example very clear thathe was just regarding the law. And
you can go on and talk aboutthe prole function that has allowed last year
(03:06):
one point two million people into thecountry. That is a huge abuse of
that. So there's a case tobe made for that. And then the
second article was about to reach publictrust, and this goes back to basically
my Orcis is coming in misleading conceCongress. On April twenty eight, twenty
twenty two, my Orcis testified repeatedlyto the House Judiciary Committee that his department,
Department fold Land Security, possessed operationalcontrol of the southwest border, including
(03:30):
its satatory definition. And of coursethat's just patently not true, like it
was not in control, it's outof control. And so there to me,
says again a case to be madefor willful or for public reach,
public trust. And so this isnot a policy dispute. This is about
is my orcis doing his job andwe did not get a chance to hear
the evidence. We did not geta chance for trial. And basically what
(03:52):
this is saying setting of future precedents, because again this was asked. One
of the inquirers was asked of thePresident of the said if this was at
a president, she said yes.So now in the future, anytime the
housemens over impeachment articles a future Senate, if it's of the opposite party,
we'll just be able to say,nope, we're not going to take it
out. There will be no trial. Can you imagine what would have happened
if Republicans had said Donald Trump's impeachport trial were not going to happen because
(04:15):
it was unconstitutional, didn't matter.Oh, the left would have gone bokers.
This is really a huge, hugeblack day in our country's history.
It's a bad day for the Senatebecause it's really undermining the institution of the
Senate and it just gets the Democratswilling to throw norms out the window to
their own partisan political benefit. Andthat is not what this country is about,
(04:41):
that's not what our founder's frames asand it's really to the jutriment of
our countries they're doing it. Speakingwith Senator Pete Ricketts on the heels of
yesterday, as he explained, they'rejust no interest in the actual trial of
the impeachment articles for Alejandro. Myorcis. I have to ask, and I
(05:02):
asked this frequently because this is animportant topic of conversation, and maybe I
just don't possess the necessary knowledge tounderstand what is there to be gained by
having such lax border rules that myorcus is overseeing. Well, I,
of course cannot tell you exactly whatthe administration's thinking, because they don't talk
(05:24):
to me and tell me, youknow, what they're doing or why.
But you know, there was thiswoman, a congress woman from New York,
AVEC. Clark, who sat ona zoom call that she needed more
illegal immigrants for redistricting purposes. Andthere's giving you a window to at least
how some Democrats are thinking about this, that if they have more people who
(05:44):
are legal coming across the border andthey go to states like New York and
California, both of whom were losingpopulations, the states like Texas and Florida,
obviously New York California being blue states, Texas Florida being red states.
If you're losing population and you wantto replay, and you have a bunch
of people across the boarder illegally comingup to your states, when we count
the census, we don't count citizensanymore. We only count pets, right,
(06:10):
So you can maintain your population thatway. And in fact, Senator
Haggerty has a bill which I'm aco sponsor of, that instructed the Census
Bureau only to count citizens. Andthat makes sense, right because only citizens
can vote. And so we actuallygot this bill an amendment, this bill
as an amendment to be voted on, and every single Democrat voted against it,
(06:35):
every single one. They all votedto continue counting everybody rather than just
counting citizens. So I got totell you again, I can't tell you
for sure what's going on here,But when a Democrat Collers woman says something
so blatant like I need more illegalimmigrants for redistricting purposes, then you know
it really makes you wonder what isgoing on here? Well? Yeah,
(06:58):
I mean, I don't know howthe public has come confidence in this,
but this would be a great argumentfor why you should be voting red come
November. I think. All right, so Senator Rick could welly at me
making that argument about what but yeah, it's absolutely another proof point. Right.
Well, I think the next topicof conversation is where do we go
from here? Because I know thatthere's some opponents of the idea of impeaching
(07:19):
a sitting cabinet member. Was Okay, you're going to impeach him and then
they'll appoint somebody else in what willactually be accomplished? Is there any next
step now that he's not going anywhereand I don't know if we expected him
to go anywhere anyway, even witha trial, But what's next for the
border in what can be done?Because we know more and more people on
(07:41):
the left are admitting that there isa crisis there. Now, what's next
for what the border's going to looklike with an implachement trial, we would
have had a chance to hear theevidence and determine guilt or innocence. But
we also would have had an opportunityto talk about just what a disaster our
southern border is. And then theDemocrats wouldn't have had to defend that.
And maybe that's one of the reasonswhy they didn't want to do this,
(08:01):
because they know it's not defensible.It's indefensible what's going on our southern border.
President Trump brought border crossings, illegalborder crossings to a forty five year
low. President Biden has all thesame tools present Trump did, and so
when he said when Biden says heneeds Congress to act, it's not true.
He's got all the tools he needs. He can implement things like remain
(08:22):
in Mexico right keeping everybody wants toseek US oil of here in Mexico till
they get their hearing. He shouldend his abuse of parole. You know,
again, under the Biden or underthe Trump and Obama administrations, about
fifty six hundred foreigners were patrolled intoour country every year. Because the president
has that power to do it supposedto be done on a case by case
basis. Last year, Biden paroledone point two million people into this country
(08:45):
one point two million, and thewhole class of the people not on a
case by case basis. It's acalear abuse of his power. So he
could stop that because that's creating moreincentive for people to come here illegally.
When Biden came into office, heimmediately issued Vince first hundred DA ninety four
executive actions do things like stop deportations, stop building the border wall, ending
the remaining in New Mexico policy.He reversed Trump's Internal and Immigration Force them
(09:11):
executive action. So Biden has thetools to be able to do stuff.
We need to keep putting pressure on. People need to call the White House,
right the White House, Email theWhite House and tell them they are
tired of this president ignoring the nationalsecurity crisis, the humanitarian crisis, the
sex trafficking, the child trafficking,the drug trafficking, that has all been
made postle by his open border policies. And ultimately, at the end of
(09:35):
the day, we're going to havean election in this country and we need
to get a new president. Well, this is certainly something that we're going
to be keeping an eye on thehappenings in Congress. Never fail to surprise
us in the way that things arechanging. And I just want to ask
this Senator of p recor is joiningus on the phone line. I know
(09:56):
that this is in your chamber,but I just wanted to ask because it
feels like this is something that couldcontinue to be a storyline. But there
is growing pressure on Mike Johnson nowthe Speaker of the House, and there
seemingly is growing support potentially for ifhe introduces a foreign aid package that there
are going to be some Republicans thatare going to be looking to oust him,
(10:18):
much like they ousted Kevin McCarthy.Is this a big problem in the
Republican Party or is this a loudminority that is trying to really stir the
pot with this stuff. Well,I think the continued instability and leadership of
the House is a problem for theRepublican Party. What we want is for
people to be confident that we aregoing to do the right things to manage
this country. And if we don'thave leadership available to push forward on the
(10:43):
important topics like securing our southern border, I believe that will undermine people's faith
in the Republican House numbers, soI am concerned about it. I think
we need to make sure that we'redoing all we can to secure our border,
and that's the most pressing national securitieswhich focused on and that's that's where
I think that Leader Johnson can reallytry and make a difference there. It's
(11:05):
definitely something to pay attention to andkeep in mind, and we always know
that we have a direct line tothe Senate thanks to Senator Pete Ricketts among
others. Thanks so much, senatorfor being a part of our show today
and thanks for the information. Greatthanks evering, have a good one.
Yep, you too.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.