April 1, 2026 • 60 mins
On Wednesday night, Rich reacts to the Artemis II space shuttle launch to the moon. Then, a Somali fraudster in Minnesota gets a light sentence after stealing over a million dollars. Plus, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) hears oral arguments on the 14th Amendment birthright citizenship case, and former federal prosecutor and Chief of the DOJ's Criminal Division, Doug Burns, weighs in.
Subscribe to "Rich Valdés This Is America" on iHeartRadio and follow @RichValdes on social media, Roku's Festiva TV, and the official "Rich Valdes - This is America" Rumble.com channel.
RichValdes.com
Subscribe to "Rich Valdés This Is America" on iHeartRadio and follow @RichValdes on social media, Roku's Festiva TV, and the official "Rich Valdes - This is America" Rumble.com channel.
RichValdes.com
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is America with Rich Valdez, powered by politiweek dot
Com and.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Rich Valdees is with US former Christian Administration official.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
You work at Chris Christie be in full ustas on
a lot of public service stuff.
Speaker 4 (00:18):
Rich Valdez calumnist now with the Washington Times.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
This is America, Richiev.
Speaker 5 (00:23):
You're on the air with the Nation of.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
The Nation with America with your host, Rich Valdez.
Speaker 6 (00:30):
What's up, America.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
I am Rich Valdez Valdez with an s at Rich
Valdez on all of the social media.
Speaker 6 (00:37):
Welcome to the.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
Wednesday night edition of the program. Blessed and honored to
be here with you. Eight seven seven Valdez one eight
seven seven valadest one. Welcome to our late night national
town hall conversation right here from Times Square, New York City.
And check this out. It's uh big news today, right
big news on all fronts. President Trump addressing the nation.
I've got that. I've also got T minus ten seconds
(01:02):
and you're thinking T minus ten seconds to what, well,
T minus ten seconds until lift off?
Speaker 5 (01:08):
Check this out and here.
Speaker 7 (01:09):
We go ten nine eight seven rs, twenty five engines
L four three two one, booster, Ignition and lift off.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
A good roll pitch.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Roger right, a pitch.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
On time, passing thirty seconds to the lights. Integrity passes
the ultimate Ego target Milestone. Mission Control Houston.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Seeing good performance of four made engines, Space.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Punk system core Stage Integrity three miles in altitude traveling
more than twelve hundred miles per hour.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
That is the NASA Artemist launch that happened earlier today.
And this is the second time the United States is
going to the Moon. I know somebody right here, come on, rich,
you don't really believe the first moon landing. Yeah, I
tend to be on the global side of things. I
like to believe in the matrix. So I say, yes,
(02:19):
this is our second one, and Amen, Praise God, Hallowlujah.
Now why do I say that? Well, you know one time,
I've shared this a few times. If you're a long
time listener, you probably heard this story three times already.
But I once, when I served in the Chris Christian administration,
I was invited by a colleague to attend the New
Jersey Hall of Fame induction ceremony at New Jersey Performing
(02:39):
Arts Center in Newark, New Jersey, and all sorts of
New Jersey heroes were in the green room backstage, you know,
waiting to be honored. I was kind of like a
fly on the wall, like, wow, I can't believe I'm
in here. You know, authors like Mary Higgins Clark and
actors like Hm has a father and a son, I
(03:03):
want to say. And he was married to Zaida Jones.
I forget his name right now.
Speaker 5 (03:07):
Kurt Russell? Is that who that was? No, that was
the other one.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
Maybe it was anyway him, He was there, He was
inducted that year at Eric LaGrand the football player was there,
and so was doctor buzz Aldron buzz Aldrin.
Speaker 5 (03:21):
We were talking.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
We spoke for about twenty minutes, maybe closer to half hour,
who knows. We were hanging out in the back there,
and he was telling me all about his time being
the second man on the moon and what that was like.
And I thought that was pretty cool. I'll tell you
about that in a moment. But another astronaut, Victor Glover.
Victor Glover is the pilot of Artemis two, and he
(03:44):
told a reporter who asked him a DEI question, you know,
one of those what's it like being the first black whatever?
And I could say I've had some experience with this, right,
you know, being in syndicated radio, being in local radio
in a major market like New York City, all sorts
of things that I've done in my career. Believe it
or not, People what's it like being the number one
Hispanic or what's it like being the first Hispanic to.
Speaker 5 (04:03):
Do this, or blah blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 4 (04:04):
And I think to myself, you know, you just cheapened
everything that I just worked for by saying the first,
this the first, that it makes people think that you're
only there because right. And the reality is if it
were this easy to do and everybody would be doing
it right, or at.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
Least the people who want to do it would do.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
It, It's not the case, right, So I think that
shouldn't be the question, or shouldn't be the lead question.
But that is what ended up happening here to mister
Glover and who's quite likely a PhD in something, so
quite likely doctor Glover. But he's about to give his
response to this question about you know, Black History Month
(04:44):
and Women's History Month, and he gives a great response.
Speaker 8 (04:48):
Listen to this A big question, and I want to
highlight I guess maybe one's facet of this is the
tension I call it. I live in this, you know,
this dichotomy between happiness that a young woman and can
look at Christina and just physicalize her passion or her interests,
or even if it's not something she wants to do,
she can just be like girl power and that's awesome,
(05:08):
And that young brown boys and girls can look at
me and go, hey, he looks like me and he's
doing what and that's great.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
I love that.
Speaker 8 (05:14):
But I also hope we are pushing the other direction
that one day we don't have to talk about these first,
that one day this is just and I listen to this,
that this is the human history. It's about human history.
It's the story of humanity, not black history, not women's history,
but that it becomes human history.
Speaker 4 (05:32):
How about that. I think I've been saying stuff like
that for years. But he said it's so much better
than I had to have or do. And kudos to
him again, Victor Glover, the pilot of Artemists.
Speaker 5 (05:41):
Two.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
Excuse me, so I thought that was pretty cool. Now
excuse me he had to clear my throat again and
again because I'm getting my voice back. Anyway, back to
this story. Now, I think that's important. Why because too
many people oftentimes, Yeah, somebody, I'll preface it by saying this,
(06:04):
somebody once I believe they were trying to pay me
a compliment and not a backhanded, you know, snide remark,
and said, wow, after listening to my show, Wow, finally
a Latino with some sense. I really think this person
was so dumb that they didn't realize how offensive this
(06:25):
comment was. Now I don't necessarily offend easily, but I
just thought to myself, really, you know, I was more
offended for the rest of the world, right that had
to see that, then for myself. But finally a Latino
that makes some sense to make. I mean, what's Marco Rubio,
What's Ted Cruz? There's plenty of Latinos that makes sense, right,
(06:45):
So this guy's clearly just uninformed.
Speaker 5 (06:48):
He's ignorant.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
But people, I think, oftentimes just don't understand that by
trying to include one's ethnicity, it can in fact cheap
in the experience or be a little bit of a
backhanded comment. And I include my ethnicity, my culture because
I'm proud of it, because I like it, and quite frankly,
(07:10):
when I was a young dad and my kids were
watching Dora the Explorer. I thought it was great that
Dora would, you know, teach people things. And I figured,
you know, one of my early radio mentors told me,
you got to teach people things. If they don't learn
two new things at least listening to your show, you're
not doing it right.
Speaker 5 (07:31):
And I would listen to old YouTube tapes.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
Of Bob Grant, right, and how he would get into
these soliloquies of being discontent, right, being malcontent I should
say about certain things, right, a caller that got on
his nerves, or something that Governor Cuomo, the senior Mario
Cuomo had done, and you know, and he would say things,
(07:56):
you know, in Italian.
Speaker 5 (07:57):
He would grumble.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
You know, it was funny to me, It was very funny.
It was funny to most of the audience. And I
thought that's great.
Speaker 5 (08:05):
You know.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
It's kind of like he was like an old Italian
grandpa in some ways.
Speaker 5 (08:10):
And I figured that was good shtick.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
And I really am like that at times, you know,
when I'm shaking my head and palming my whole face
because of I'm embarrassed for someone else's stupidity, you know,
I am in my head thinking n even the epio,
but sometimes they escape and sometimes they don't. Anyway, enough
about that, let's get back to doctor Buzz Aldron. So
(08:36):
I was backstage with Doctor Buzz Aldron. He was being
honored into I think, being inducted into the New Jersey
Hall of Fame. And because he had a connection to
New Jersey, I lecture if he was born in New
Jersey and then moved or had attended school in New Jersey,
but either way, he was there.
Speaker 5 (08:52):
Really cool guy, and you know we're talking, he says.
Speaker 4 (08:55):
So you know, I was supposed to be the first
guy to come out because my last name is Aldron
and an Armstrong, Neil Armstrong is aar and I was
al so we figured we'll do it alphabetically, and I
came out first, he said, But honestly, I was scared.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
I was scared. I was like, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
He's like I pretended like I was deferring to, you know,
Neil Armstrong, but I said, go right ahead, you go.
So he let Neil Armstrong go and be the first
man to walk on the moon, and he went behind him,
and being the second man. Then he also added a
couple of things and I don't know if it was
you know, hyping it up or whatever, but a couple
of days he shared that I believed, you know, he said,
(09:36):
I was very curious to see what gravity was like.
You know, we had some sense, but we were in
these moonsuits, and he said there was like a vacuum shoot,
like a container where you could get things out of
your suit, he said, So he decided to own the
title of the first guy to urinate on the moon,
and he did, and he said it floated away, So
(09:58):
that was pretty funny. Something else that he said he did,
and I think this is appropriate being a holy week,
he said that he took communion with him just in
case it was going to be his last, and he
had a communion wafer and some Saint Joseph's communion wine
with him, and he did that, and he took communion
while on the moon. So I thought that was a
really cool story that I hadn't seen anywhere before. So
(10:21):
I kind of felt special that buzz Aldron told me
this stuff. I'm sure he's told you know that story
a thousand times. But bottom line, it was a great
story and it was great to meet buzz Aldrin. Honestly,
to date, he's only the only astronaut I've ever met
like face to face and shaking their hand. So kudos
(10:41):
to the United States for going back to the Moon
and in my opinion, winning the space race, both for
science and for military like we do with the Space Force.
And in a little bit we're going to have President Trump, right,
good old President Trump's going to be weighing in on
what's up with Iran. I guess another ultimatum or maybe
(11:04):
some good news like a deal. What else did I
want to talk about? There was something else here. Let
me look at my notes stand by Spaceship to the Moon,
Artemis Trump's speech.
Speaker 5 (11:15):
Oh, the Supreme Court ruling. We're gonna get to that.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Doug Burns is going to join us, and we're going
to break that down as well. And I think it's
probably a good time for me to take a little
pause here. But before I do, I want to remind
you to make sure you are subscribed on Rumble, you
are subscribed on YouTube, you are subscribed to Rich Valdees.
Wherever you can subscribe. I recommend that you do. I
don't really ask for much around here. I've never asked
(11:38):
you for any money, never ask for anything except for
you to subscribe, So please do subscribe if you want
to watch our program on Roku TV. There are ninety
million subscribed households. We're very proud of that. Feel free
to do that. There's a direct link for that at
valdesk TV and that is translated into Spanish for those
(11:58):
who want to watch Rich Valdes espanon and I'm coming
right back. We're gonna talk a little bit about Somali fraud.
Why do they let these fraudsters go? What's up with
all of that?
Speaker 5 (12:08):
Right? That's what I want to know. So we're gonna
do that.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
Plus we're gonna get into President Trump's speech and a
couple of thoughts on what's coming up ahead. We got
a jobs report that's coming up ahead. Some grumbling too.
I'm hearing rumors all over the place that there's gonna
be a shake up in DC. I don't know if
that's gonna happen at Foggy Bottom. I don't know if
that's gonna happen at the Pentagon. I don't know where,
but I'm hearing heads are gonna roll anyway. More than
comes straight ahead. I'm Rich Feldez.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
This is a this is a.
Speaker 9 (13:02):
Massive family fraud operation in the state of Minnesota, and
one person has been sentenced. The sister has been sentenced
to six months in prison. This family stole over five
point six million dollars from the Minnesota taxpayers. They had
a small restaurant and they said during the years of
twenty twenty through twenty twenty one they fed one point
(13:23):
seven million people in one year in their small restaurant.
They were able to siphon out five point six million
dollars from Minnesota taxpayers, and the liberal activist judge sentence
the sister to just a short six months in prison.
The sister her house will be seized, her car will
(13:44):
be seized, and one hundred and fifty thousand dollars she
has in her bank account will be seized. But all
of that is fraudulent money. It's not her money, it's
Minnesota taxpayer money. And after her six month sentence, she's
going to have to pay back four hundred thousand dollars.
Which do you go to prison for six months if
you could have five point six million dollars. The liberal
(14:05):
activist judges, they don't care about the hard working people
in Minnesota. All they care about is protecting their Somalians
because they're Somalians. Is who votes for them? Another slap
in the face to all the hard working Minnesotians.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
What's up, America? Welcome back is rich val Valdez with ans.
Happy to be with you, and I want to get
into this case. A lot of people very upset about people,
Somali fraudsters and whatnot getting caught out there and then
getting a slap on the wrist. So we're going to
get into that with somebody who knows what's going on.
He was the boss that had Hanscho chief of the
(14:38):
Criminal Division in New York for the Department of Justice.
His name is Doug Burns, and he's with us now.
Doug Burns, welcome back, Thank you now.
Speaker 6 (14:46):
Doug.
Speaker 4 (14:46):
You know when I saw this case, I honestly I
thought of you because you always come on the show
and you always tell me something and you always say,
you know, politics and law don't mix, and that rang
through my head because I was watching this and I
was saying, you know, people don't want to see fake
accountability is what I'll call it.
Speaker 6 (15:05):
They want to see real accountability.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
They want to see somebody twenty eight million dollars stealing
twenty eight million dollars and then getting a year in
jail and whatnot. But what occurred to me in that
moment was, listen, these types of things they happen pretty often, right.
Deals are cut all the time to get to the
next person in a fraud ring and a trafficking ring
and a drug ring. And again that's me and my
(15:28):
layman's understanding of what's going on.
Speaker 6 (15:30):
So talk to us a little bit about that.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Yeah, it's an absolutely perfect example of a couple of principles.
One is that law and politics don't mix. Two is
that people who are not trained in law, and I'm
not being pompous forget trained and law. People who don't
have any experience in prosecutions or criminal cases will often
just jump right in over their ski tips, and it
becomes very embarrassing. So let me explain, at first blush,
(15:54):
and in fairness to everybody who jumped in over the
ski tips, at first blush, it seems terrible. Guy, a
defendant who stole one point one million dollars in funds
that were supposed to go to meals programs. A judge
just gave him a year. That's outrageous. That's terrible, okay,
But nothing could be further from the truth because as
(16:15):
a veteran of forty years, this was what we call
a star cooperator, not complicator. The guy came in, he
threw himself on his sword, he admitted the crime, and
then he cooperated and they ended up making a whole
series of cases against other people that they wouldn't otherwise
have made. Now, cooperation without getting into a house seminar
(16:35):
is probably the number one area in criminal law. Fascinating area.
How it works, what it means. You can have philosophical
objections to it. In other words, in a perfect world, Rich,
we'd like that guy to cooperate and still get a
really hefty sentence, But it doesn't work that way because
we need to incentivize criminal A to give us criminal
(16:55):
BC and D. So here what I think you're will
find really particularly interesting is that the government was recommending probation, okay,
and I've seen that many many times, because again, a
person who steals a million one ends up making all
kinds of criminal cases for the government. And then human nature.
(17:16):
A very interesting human nature point is the government often
develops very positive feelings about those type of individuals, and
I've been in what we cynically call love fest sentencings
where dagents race to the court house to be there
to tell the judge how great this person's cooperation was, etcetera, etcetera.
But again, the way the system works is we use
(17:37):
one criminal to go after other criminals and we end
up rewarding them for it. And that's exactly what happened here.
Speaker 4 (17:44):
So in a case like this, this is what you're
saying is really not unheard of. This is not somebody
getting a sweetheart deal. No, this is someone cooperating, and
we're likely going to get a lot more fish from it.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Yeah. I mean, also, let's talk price tags. Criminal lawyers
are going to tell you all the time that we
know how to put a price tag on a case,
which means, in simple English, you know, oh, my friend
was just arrested for drunk driving. They cited him with this. Well,
the first question is what's the normal disposition that's given
to everybody in that particular courthouse. So I've been in
(18:17):
one point one million dollar fraud cases all day long
for forty years, and in federal court, I had a
client in a million dollar case and he got two
years okay, with very light cooperation in that particular case.
So basically you'd be looking at three four years on
a straight plea, two years with some cooperation, one year
(18:37):
or less, or even probation with really stellar cooperation. But
the point is, this wasn't any kind of sweetheart deal.
I'm not defending this individual. I'm just giving you the
excess and as the day to day legal realities and
the fact that the matter is. I mean, I've been
in drug cases where guys are facing twenty years and
they walked out of there with two three years because again,
they gave sensational cooperation.
Speaker 6 (19:00):
You know.
Speaker 4 (19:00):
The only reason this even caught my eye was because
I happened to be on vacation, right. I was talking
to somebody who said that a family member of theirs
had gotten involved. I was in the Dominican Republic and
somebody said, oh, I have a cousin or something that
bought a place very close.
Speaker 6 (19:16):
To here, huge mansion.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
And I was like, wow, must be nice, yea, And
they said no, no, he's doing five years for that.
Speaker 6 (19:23):
And I was like, five years, what do you do?
Speaker 4 (19:25):
And they said, oh, he stole a bunch of money
through fraud through the PPP loans during COVID about twenty
five or twenty seven million dollars, something big number like that,
and through multiple names, multiple people's fake entities, but it
all went to him and they said, and he got
in trouble and he's got to do five years. And
(19:45):
in my head I was thinking five years, twenty five
million dollars, he's coming home and I was like, did
they take the money?
Speaker 6 (19:51):
And they were like, no, they couldn't find the money.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Well, I said, you come out and you have the money.
But I think your audience might find it interesting if
I addressed what was I going to say to Rich
Valdez if the guy didn't cooperate at all. I was
fully prepared to come on and say, look, that seems yeah,
that seems like a light sentence to get a year,
by the way, in the weeds, quickly he got a
year and a day Rich. And the reason for that
(20:15):
is that.
Speaker 6 (20:15):
On oh yeah, that's like legal trickery, right.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Well, on a sentence greater than a year, you're entitled
to certain reductions. So that's where we come up with
that year and a day thing. But the point is
I was prepared to say that it seemed light and
exactly what I just said two minutes ago, which is
normally'd be talking three to five years with no cooperation,
maybe two years with some decent cooperation, and then in
(20:39):
the ballpark for provision without standing cooperation, defined as you
made a half a dozen cases that they never would
have made it.
Speaker 6 (20:46):
Yeah, it's amazing.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
You know, they say crime doesn't pay, but when you
look at some of these things, you go, hey, I
don't know, I'll put it on a scale.
Speaker 6 (20:52):
We'll see.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
As you said, though, but it's interesting and it's cynical.
But it's so critical is if the guy still has
the forty five million dollars, he does four out of
the five years, we'll just call it hypothetically, and it
comes out and he's got forty five dollars.
Speaker 6 (21:06):
Yeah, I think that was his thinking, too. Absolutely unbelievable.
Speaker 4 (21:11):
He goes, we're coming right back with Doug Burns, former
chief of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice,
thirty eight years in private practice as a defense attorney.
He knows where the bodies are buried, and he's here
with us. Now, don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
This is America. This is America.
Speaker 5 (21:37):
The forty fifth President, Donald Trump thinks it's an honor
to speak with Rich Valdez.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
Very good.
Speaker 5 (21:47):
The honor is all yours. Conservative talk with a dash
of Sofrito.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
Now here's Rich Valdez.
Speaker 4 (21:58):
And of course continue news coming out of the Supreme Court.
We continued a conversation with Doug Burns, former chief of
the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. Spent thirty
eight years as a defense attorney, and he knows this
stuff really really well.
Speaker 6 (22:12):
Inside and out.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
Doug Burns talk to us about this birthright citizenship case.
Speaker 6 (22:17):
I know there was a lot of news coming out of.
Speaker 4 (22:19):
The Supreme Court yesterday where there was some agreements, some disagreement.
Speaker 6 (22:23):
Talked to us, break it down.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Well, largely misunderstood, you know again, partially the media's fault.
Partially the fault of people who jump over the ski
tips to use the phrase I used earlier, you know,
without knowing what they're talking about. Once upon a time,
the United States Supreme Court decided a horrible, horrible case.
It is generally considered the worst case they've ever decided.
I know you've heard about it, dread Scott. In the
(22:45):
dread Scott case, the Supreme Court of the United States,
believe it or not, incredibly held that African Americans were
not United States citizens K and again it goes into
the history books as the worst decision ever. After the
Civil War. To enmity that Congress, they amended the Constitution
with a series of post war amendments thirteen, fourteen, fifteen,
(23:08):
and in the fourteenth Amendment they put in a clause
saying that anybody born in the United States and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof. And I must sarcastically note that
the mainstream media has largely scrubbed out that language, no surprise,
but anybody born here and subject to the jurisdiction is
a US citizen. Fast forward the movie to today, and
(23:31):
the concept is, well, wait a minute, if two people
entered the United States illegally, and of course the left
is going to go, oh, they're undocumented. They really didn't
break the law. Put that to the side. But the
point is the offspring of two people who came here illegally,
under their theory, those are United States citizens. President Trump
(23:51):
is dead set against that. He's made that clear for
years and years. He signed an executive order to eradicate it. Now,
jumping around just quick executive order may not be the
way to go. But just put that to the side.
The bottom line is the Supreme Court is now going
to determine whether or not the offspring of two people
who entered it illegally is a US citizen. And I
(24:12):
think this is a good chance. They may cut it back,
they may eliminate it.
Speaker 4 (24:15):
Seriously, rich, fascinating stuff, Doug Burns, because you made a
point about the media scrubbing out to the jurisdiction thereof,
and obviously this is an important point, and talk to
me about or talk to all of us about why
it's such an important point, because I've made the rudimentary argument,
as you've probably heard many people make to friends of
mine that are in favor of this. Matter of fact,
(24:37):
I had one friend who called me one day and
he said, oh, I got to tell you.
Speaker 6 (24:39):
He's from Cuba. He's born in Cuba.
Speaker 4 (24:41):
And he called me and he says, you know, I
got to tell you there is a document in your country,
our country, that is perfect. He said, this is a
perfect document. It's called the Constitution. And he said, I
spent the last few hours reading it and rereading it.
He said, I got to tell you his birthright citizenship thing.
It's not going anywhere, because it's plain as day in there,
and it says if they were born here, they're citizens.
(25:02):
And I said, well, I mean there's a couple of
things there, and I said, you got to look at
some of the context, right. The senators who were debating that,
the senator who proposed it, the arguments he made during
his proposal in the Senate back then, they were around
who was making examples like if an ambassador is here
on official business and has a baby here, does that
baby automatically become a citizen? And he was making the
case at the time that most ambassadors are representing their country,
(25:27):
not the United States, so they would want their kids
to be citizens.
Speaker 6 (25:30):
Of their country.
Speaker 4 (25:31):
And it opens up this question of you know who's
right and who's wrong. So talk to me about why
you think the media is leaving that up.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Well, here's the problem. Even that individual you were talking to,
if I were talking to him, I would say to him, oh,
your view is that anybody born here is a US citizen.
And he would look me in the eye as sure
as the sun's going to set them and say yes, absolutely.
And then I would say, well, are you aware that
if somebody's parents are diplomats, and they're here physically in
(26:02):
the United States, and the child's born here, that child
is not, repeat not a US cid. Is in are
you aware that if the parents in my just law
school hypothetical swear allegiance through a country other than the
US as their first allegiance, that baby is not, repeat
not a US citizen. They probably don't even know that. Okay.
(26:23):
So the point is there are a bunch of statutory exceptions.
And what I've said, and I said just today on
a media segment, is that Congress should consider simply adding
a new exception, which says, and the offspring of two
people who broke the law, violated United States law to
enter the country are not United States citizens. That would
(26:46):
be the remedy. And I think it's going to be
interesting because I do like Crystal Ball awards because I
got one on the tariff case and some other stuff.
But here I think the Supreme Court may turn around
and say that it's really up to Congress and the
statute and so on and so forth. But again they're
way off base when they don't understand that it's not automatic.
(27:07):
And then, by the way, and I think you'll love
this you have an unbelievable hypocrisy point, legal hypocrisy point.
So Anthony and Scalia real quick believed in textualism. You
look at the text of the Constitution and that's it.
You don't need to go any farther. And they ripped
them for decades. That's a terrible approach. You have to
look at the context they lectured us. Now all of
(27:29):
a sudden, they're all Scalia disciples. It's in there. It
says that if you're born here, you're a citizen. That's it.
We don't need to look any further.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Look at the hypocrisy of that, you know, Doug Burns,
that's interesting stuff because I would think even if Congress
and I agree with you, I think whenever the Supreme Court.
Speaker 6 (27:45):
Can punt, they do.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (27:47):
Right.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
The last thing they want to do is figure out
the law. In my opinion, what they're supposed to do.
If that were to happen, and they were to put
a clause like this, how does that affect this scenario
that we had originally Where I am in the country
legally being ambassador to Timbuctoo and I have a baby here.
Does that mean my baby gets to be American? Just
because the other I'm here working.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
The other exceptions would remain. What I thought you were
going to ask me is what somebody asked a guest
this morning on a segment that I thought was interesting.
It wasn't me. They said, you know, one of the
biggest principles of all in law cases is retroactivity. Obviously,
so the question that was posted again is, well, wait
a minute, what's going to happen with all of the
people who've already been born and are citizens. In my view,
(28:31):
controversial as it might sound, and I haven't really thought
it through, I don't think you could necessarily strip them
of the citizenship. I think those who had been born
would probably retain it. But then going forward, anybody born
as the offspring of two people who broke the law
to come here would not be a citizen.
Speaker 6 (28:50):
Yeah, I listen, it makes sense to me.
Speaker 4 (28:52):
I know that this is one of those split the
babies inarios where you're not going to get everything you want.
But presuming I mean the Supreme Court says we're not
doing anything here, Congress needs to figure this out.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Yep.
Speaker 6 (29:06):
Do you think that.
Speaker 4 (29:07):
There's politically the ability to get that done with the
margins that we have.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
That's a great question, and I think unfortunately the answer
is now and you're read in my mind because the
margins are too thin. You look at what's going on
with the Save Act without digressing, just unbelievable in the
weeds speaking filibuster, regular philibuster, should we blow up the filibuster,
so translating that to this, I do not think that
(29:35):
they would be able to eradicate birthright citizenship. And then lastly,
it is just the obvious editorial about people's ignorance who
just you know, again, we covered it earlier, but it's
worth repeating, just jumping in and saying that, you know,
this is outrageous. Of course their citizens. By the way,
what was interesting too is that another related conundrum came
(29:56):
up during the oral argument, which is what you call
wealthy people flying into the US to anchor their kid
as a US citizen and then just go back home.
That somebody said, maybe I heard it wrong, so we'll
just hang a caveat. But somebody said there were five
hundred companies. You believe that rich five hundred companies engaged
(30:17):
in contacting me Doug Burns hypothetical wealthy Canadian. We'll just
call it to have me and my wife fly in
here and have my wife delivered a baby here and
have the prestige of my kids a US citizen. That's
a whole other aspect of this which should be a
which they really should address also in my opinion.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
I agree, you know, And again just to add to that,
I had Peter Schweitzer on this show who said that
he'd discovered through research he was doing, that there are
companies in China doing this as part of their subversion,
trying to have Chinese. They're born here, they bring them
back to China they're actually Chinese, but when the time
is right, they're eighteen, they could come back here and
(31:01):
vote because they're citizens, athlete, and this is their plan
to you know, kind of control the vote in the
United States. That's pretty scary stuff. So do you think
the court takes any of that into account? Is there
a plan B, a silver lining where maybe they take action.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Well you used the keyword punt, and I was glad
to hear you say that, because they do do that
when they can, and there are actually legal principles you know,
that come into play with that. And one of the
justices said it today. I forget who it was. They're like,
if we don't need to reach the constitutional question and
we can adjudicate the case on other grounds, you agree
that that's something we can do. That's code speak for
(31:37):
punting your word. So again, I'm going to be extremely
interested into seeing the way this comes out. There was
a big case in eighteen ninety eight. It's so interesting,
the long kim Arc case. But when I read it,
and I haven't re read it, so a little fairness footnote,
But when I read it, awhile back, I did not
think it was really squarely on point for the idea
(31:59):
that off spring of two people who came here legally
should have automatically your It was really a different discussion,
had to do with Asians, had to do with the world,
not World War two because it was an eighteen India,
but it had to do with just different issue than
what's presented now. But to answer your key question, I
think the Supreme Court is going to find any way
they can to not really adjudicate it on the merits.
Speaker 4 (32:21):
Honestly, I agree with you and I think that your
analysis is right, and I hope they were both wrong.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
I hope I agree with it.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
And they do something good for the country. Doug Burns.
Let everybody know how they could follow you online.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
Well, I'm at Doug Burns Law on X that's my
main thing. I'm not that active on it, but I
enjoy it, and you know that's about it. And I'm
retired from practicing law happily.
Speaker 6 (32:46):
Rich amen to that.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
When I was a little kid, the first thing I
wanted to be when I grew up was retired.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
So, my friend, I'm the CEO of Retirement inc. Richie.
Speaker 6 (32:58):
Love that. Love that. I can't wait to get trouble
with you.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Yeah, the VP when you're in town.
Speaker 6 (33:02):
We'll do I meangoes.
Speaker 4 (33:03):
That's Doug Burn's, former chief of the Criminal Division at
the Department of Justice, retired from his practice as a
defense attorney.
Speaker 6 (33:10):
Doug, thank you, sir.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
My pleasure. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 4 (33:12):
Ont okay, I mean, he goes. We shall continue with
El Trompito. What did El Trompito have to say about Iran?
That's coming up straight ahead, keep it locked right here.
I'm rich oldesk.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
This is America. This is America. He's got the best
(34:08):
head of hair and podcasting. This is America with rich Valdez.
Speaker 4 (34:18):
All right, he goes, welcome back, Rich Valdez, keeping your
company this evening and happy to be with you.
Speaker 5 (34:24):
You know where to get me at Rich Valdez.
Speaker 4 (34:25):
I'm all of the social media at Rich Valdez and
ed trumpy, though he had a few interesting things to
say in the Oval office when he was asked what
kind of threat is facing US tech companies from Iran?
Speaker 5 (34:37):
Check this out?
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Government threatened a munch of US companies today in the region,
including Google, Apple with.
Speaker 10 (34:44):
What what are they threatening them with? Pp guns? Well,
that's you know, how much left to threaten?
Speaker 2 (34:49):
My question for you is are you I don't know?
Speaker 10 (34:51):
I mean, what are they You may have said, what
are they threatening them with? I don't know. Tell me
how did they threaten them?
Speaker 11 (34:58):
All?
Speaker 2 (34:59):
I know whether they're threaten?
Speaker 10 (35:00):
What does that mean? He said, something that has to have.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
The government talk with these companies help them.
Speaker 10 (35:08):
You don't even know what the threat was. What was
the threat?
Speaker 1 (35:10):
I haven't heard of.
Speaker 10 (35:11):
What was the threat? Did they say they're gonna blow
them up? They're gonna hit up the knock you know
what They're not gonna do. They're not gonna hit them
with a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 4 (35:21):
They're not gonna hit them with a nuclear weapon. And
that is the truth. And you gotta love it Trumpito
for just calling stuff out. And you also got to
think this poor guy trying to make his living as
a reporter, and this is the question that he asks, right,
So he gets a follow up for clarity, threaten them
with what he says, you know they've threatened US tech
(35:42):
companies instead of just saying, it's my understanding it's a
cyber attack. But he was afraid to because he didn't
have it on good authority, or he didn't have his
ducks in a row or whatever it is. So he says,
I don't know what the threat is. So then what's
the question, right, what is the US prepared to do
to help whomever with whatever if we don't know what
the threat is. President Trump makes an excellent point and
(36:03):
he embarrasses this guy, showing the world yet again that
the fake news reporters are fake news and when they're
not even being fake news, they're just being weak. You've
got to know what you're talking about. Unbelievable anyway, President
Trump giving his Oval Office address, some of my friends
in different areas of life shared with me that President
Trump was going to announce that we'd now taken out
(36:29):
a bunch of their infrastructure and really decimated Iran, setting
them back a decade in just how they operate, in
addition to their supply lines and whatnot. And he did
not make that because there was some act of good
faith that came from the Iranians leading to him giving
(36:50):
a very innocuous speech saying much of what he said before.
And of course many of you think, well, why on
earth would he have an Oval Office address nine pm
on a Saturday just to repeat stuff we already know. Well,
that's a great question. That is the million dollar question.
And that's why I tend to believe some of the
rumors I'm hearing that. You know, they had two speeches
(37:12):
lined up in the prompter, and these people had a
deadline do this by this time or else, and they
were able to do it probably, you know, in a
nick of time. And he kept his word and gave
his you know, innocuous speech that didn't affect anybody. Really,
It wasn't any major breaking news that we needed to
have an Oval Office address for in the middle of
(37:35):
the night.
Speaker 5 (37:36):
Just my thoughts. I'd love to know your thoughts.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
Let me know, drop a voice note, if you want
call us, leave a message hit me on social media
on any of the platforms, not as a direct message
because I don't check those as often, but as a
comment somewhere. I'll definitely get back to you. I want
to know your thoughts. I want to know what you think.
And of course the number here eight seven seven Valdas one,
eight seven seven Valdess one.
Speaker 1 (37:58):
You know, this.
Speaker 4 (38:00):
War in Iran, I think we just hit thirty three
days and I have to say, nobody wants to go
to war, but this is a master class in going
to war. Yes, you know, different things happen right different.
You know, we've lost thirteen men. There's you know, still
a risk of losing you know, other things. You know,
(38:24):
whether it's ships with mines that they're putting out there,
or a couple of their gorillas that have you know,
over the shoulder rocket launchers and maybe take out a
helicopter or a plane or something like that.
Speaker 5 (38:36):
That risk is always there. It is war.
Speaker 4 (38:38):
But by and large, the United States has pretty much
flattened a pretty major military right. Solomoni was not somebody
that people took lightly, and the IRGC was known for
being tough and they are tough, and they're fighting, they're valiant.
Speaker 5 (38:56):
I don't want to, you know, I feel.
Speaker 4 (38:57):
Like sometimes as Americans, especially those of a who have
not served, we tend to underestimate everyone because we have
the biggest and best and baddest military that everybody else's
just doesn't compare. And that's true, it doesn't compare, But
it doesn't mean that they won't defend themselves. And it
doesn't mean that they're totally ineffective either, right. They're effective
to a point because they don't have the same capacity.
(39:20):
We do, same training, the same ability, same budget, And
I would never want to minimize the enemy number one,
because that minimizes our troops. It's like, what am I
giving you a high five for if you're fighting somebody
who can't even fight. No, no, no, these guys can fight,
and our guys fight better. So kudos to the American military.
(39:40):
Always grateful for the men and women in uniform in
every branch, including Space Force, in the Coast Guard, and
their friends in NASA. Right as we just took a
lap to the moon. So anyway, that's the latest on Iran.
I think, you know, maybe tomorrow before the end the weekend,
hopefully early next week, a couple of more deadlines will
(40:05):
be imposed and some more progress will be achieved. It's
really not much to talk about here, but as soon
as we do have a development, they'll bring in one
of our military people that can add some flavor. Today's
a little light to the conversation because I think that's important. Now,
something else I want to get into. I'm going to
say for the next segment. You know, it's one of
those contemplative things where we look at some of the
(40:28):
things that are going haywire in society and then talk
about it and hopefully end on a very positive note,
like I try to. And that's coming up straight ahead,
So you keep it locked right here again, I'm Rich Valdest.
Make sure you are subscribed and that you're sending a
text link to one of your friends if you think
this show or any of our previous shows might benefit somebody,
you know, I would love that. I love having new
(40:50):
people join the party and especially being able to communicate
with you guys. Sorry for not including some of your
calls lately, and just trying to catch up on a
lot of stuff with different breaking news and honestly with
my voice coming and going since I got back from
my little world tour and all that stuff.
Speaker 5 (41:04):
So keep it locked right here. I am Rich veld Dance.
Speaker 1 (41:08):
This is America, This is America. He's making podcasting great again.
(41:30):
This is America with Rich.
Speaker 5 (41:32):
Valdas, all right, and he goes, welcome back. Holy Week.
Speaker 4 (41:43):
Holy Week, We're closer and closer to Good Friday, closer
and closer to Easter, the resurrection of our Lord and Savior,
Jesus the Christ. And I'm always happy around this time
of year for these moments. So blessed, blessed Holy Week
to everyone, top of them, to you. I like to
say that in my little Scottish it's not even Scottish,
it's actually my brother is married to a young woman
(42:06):
who was born in the United States, but her parents
one was born in the United States, the other one
was born in Ireland. And as we've always known her
and Nana Rose, she is you know, might some of
my kids call her. She is you know from Ireland.
She is a darling woman, absolutely darling woman, and she
has the most beautiful barogue. And listening to her to
(42:28):
speak through the years, I've picked up a little bit
not quite Gaelic, but this is what you hear from me.
So anyway, I don't do it as good as she does,
nor as good as the guy from the Lucky Charms commercial,
but I give it a shot every now and again. Now,
I wanted to talk to you about something very salient,
something very important, something huge huge. But honestly, there's several
(42:52):
things and I wrote them down and I can't find
exactly where I wrote them.
Speaker 5 (42:55):
You know, that's called being prepared. I was prepared.
Speaker 4 (42:57):
I prepared a lot, actually, but oh man, this this
is a big one. I'm gonna have to leave this
for maybe Friday or Monday, but I can tease it
makes it this way, you keep coming back. This is
about a series of events, four or five six different
individuals in different states, all arrested for the same thing
(43:19):
or being investigated for the same thing. What is the
thing again? I'm not gonna talk about it now, but
I'm just gonna bring it up. Teachers ranging in age
from twenty seven to forty seven that are having sexual
relationships with their students. And because they're young people, you know, miners,
(43:41):
you can't see what these students look like. I want
to know, is this some women, many of them are women,
women teachers, and I'm wondering, are these male students, Is
this like the kid from the basketball team that's like
seven feet tall and looks like he's in college, I
want to know, or are these like pedophile women that
are interested in small children. I don't know the answer,
(44:03):
but it's alarming how many articles came up when I
clicked on one, and these are all within days of
each other. So this is an ongoing thing, and I'm
gonna do a little bit more research on this and
we'll bring it up. But let me tell you absolutely wild. Now,
I wanted to finish with one thought here about the
Supreme Court. As you know, we're talking about the this
(44:27):
birthright citizenship case and the fourteenth Amendment, and I did
have a clip. I'm going to play it for you
because it's it's a back and forth. It's a little
bit of an exchange between Cecilia Wang, the ac LU
attorney on this case, and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito,
(44:49):
just so you can have an idea of what a
little bit of this back and forth sounds like.
Speaker 5 (44:53):
Check this out.
Speaker 12 (44:56):
Not subject to any foreign power is pretty straightforward. So
let me give you these examples. A boy is born
here to an Iranian father who has entered the country illegally.
That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth, and
he has a duty to provide military service to the
(45:19):
Iranian government. Is he not subject to any foreign power?
Speaker 11 (45:24):
Not within the meaning of the eighteen sixty six Act,
Justice Alito. And that's clear from wonkim Ark. And it's
clear from the debates what the framers meant by the
phrase not subject to any foreign power was referring to
the ambassador exception. If it meant what the government contends, basically,
not a subject of any foreign power, that you were
that another country considers you a you sanguinous citizen, then
(45:48):
lawful permanent residence all foreign national.
Speaker 12 (45:51):
Ordinary public, ordinary public meaning of that would certainly encompass
that boy, would it not, Justice Alido?
Speaker 11 (45:59):
If if you think that the language of the eighteen
sixty six Act was ambiguous, as Wang kim Mark says,
the shift to the language of the fourteenth Amendment, which
is the operative text, certainly clears up any ambiguity.
Speaker 12 (46:11):
What I said about a boy born to an Iranian
father is true of children born here to parents who
were nationals of other countries. If I'm correct, it's true
to a child who's born here to Russian parents, it's
true to a child who's born here to Mexican parents,
they're automatically citizens, are nationals of those countries, and have
(46:35):
a duty of military service. Atures seems like that that
makes them subject to a foreign power.
Speaker 11 (46:44):
But again, Justice Lato, that would have meant that the
children of Irish, Italian and other immigrants, which Wankmark refers
to and the debate the Framers refer to, would not
have been citizens either, because if the only test is
whether that US born child is considered a citizen by
(47:06):
another country under their usanguinous laws, then no foreign nationals children.
Speaker 2 (47:12):
Well, in all.
Speaker 12 (47:14):
Of those cases, the parents could be naturalized, and then
the children would be derivatively nationalized naturalized when the parents
were naturalized.
Speaker 4 (47:30):
So that gets a little bit into the weeds, but
it's truly what the crux of this argument is, right,
This is truly where we're at. People are very interested
in knowing if you are here on vacation, if you're
here working in the United States as a representative of
a foreign country, whatever your reason for being here, including
(47:51):
being an illegal alien, came here on a ninety day
visa for a vacation never left. Do you get all
the rights, privileges and a citizenship that comes with being
an American if your child is born here. And I
have to say, it doesn't seem like it makes sense, right.
It seems like everyone is saying, of course it does.
Read it, and I read it, and I get to
(48:12):
the same conclusion that Justice Alito came to. So I
don't know how this is going to go. If I
had to be a betting man, and we probably should
have brought this up with Doug Burns. But if I
was a betting man, I would say Justice Alito is
likely going to be along with Justice Thomas in.
Speaker 5 (48:32):
The dissent if they don't win.
Speaker 4 (48:35):
If they do win, then you know they'll be part
of the majority and writing, you know, the majority opinion.
So we're going to see how this goes. But I mean, honestly,
on its face, it just doesn't seem fair. I can't
think of another country in the world where this is allowed.
But again, is that a fair litmus? No, it's really
not right. We have a constitution, it's in writing, and
(48:56):
people are looking at what we have in writing and
they're saying, I understand and to say this, we have
a constitutional question, a dilemma, and we're bringing it to
the court now. The problem I think we have is
that we have justices that are not entirely, entirely well versed,
in my opinion, in the law, and that they were
(49:17):
appointed more for political purpose than for their astuteness when
it comes to understanding the Constitution. And I don't say
that to be mean. I say that to be honest. Right,
I can tell you this. I would have question within
myself if a president said, the next person I nominate
(49:40):
to Supreme Court, it's going to be a Hispanic man,
and then I get nominated to the Supreme Court, I
would feel slighted in that it wasn't my jurisprudence and
my ability as a jurist throughout my career that brought
me to this point. No, it was whom my parents
it's are. And I think that's totally inappropriate. But that
(50:03):
is what Joe Biden said, and that's how we got
Katanji Brown Jackson, and by and large, maybe less words
but very similar outcome, Justice Sonya Sotomayor. And I don't
mean to minimize them, all right, I'm really not. This
is not a personal insult. I'm just saying when you
play the politics of diversity, equity, and inclusion and say
(50:24):
that the court needs to look like this, that whatever. Now,
the court needs to look like people that are experts
in the constitution based on the Senate confirmation and they
were confirmed, so they deserve to be there. Granted, I
take exception, especially to Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, because President
Biden put her in that position saying that he was
(50:44):
going to nominate a black woman. How do you, you know,
put that out there. It just seems like the wrong
thing to say. You should say, I'm going to pick somebody,
and if it happens to be a black woman, then great,
you'll get this balance that you guys are looking for.
But I'm going with the person that's best for the job,
not the best suited black woman for the job, just
the best suited person for the job. And I understand
(51:07):
the people that push back on me are saying, well, rich,
if we think like that, then we may never get
the other person because they'll always be an abundance of
white men because this country has a majority of white men,
So how will you ever get the other person? And
I would argue against that, saying that there is you know,
(51:29):
academia is just like every other economy right when you
look at it in the sense of the free market,
you can prevail. Now they push out conservatives. But if
you're a good conservative and you want to go to
a law school that you tolerates conservatives and you want
to stand out in the legal community, I think you
(51:51):
can do that as long as you know where you're going.
It's probably won't be as easy as saying, hey, look,
I'm a Marxist and I want to talk about you know,
like Bell's theory of critical theory and whatnot. But all
that aside. Bottom line here is you can stand out.
You can try and make a case for yourself. And
(52:12):
I don't think anybody needs to put their thumb on
the scale to allow that to happen. That would indicate
that you on your own can't do it. And I
think that's just a mistake. I really do anyway, and me,
he goes, that's all I've got. We will continue this
discussion and all the others see who's on the chopping
block in Washington, d C. Is there going to be
(52:32):
a shakeup in the Pentagon? Is there going to be
a shape up at shake up, excuse me, at the
Department of Justice. What's happening, where it's happening, what's the
latest with Iran and everything else that's going on. Plenty
to discuss, So keep it locked right here for tomorrow
and the next day. We'll actually yeah, tomorrow, the next day,
and then we've got Easter, the Resurrection, and of course
(52:52):
next week I want to get into the jobs reports
that's coming out on Friday, and I'll probably get to
that on Monday. So anyway, thank you for tuning in,
Thanks for sticking with me this long. I appreciate it.
Good to be back in the saddle. My voice is
i'd say fifty sixty percent of where it needs to be.
Hopefully it'll be better in the next couple of days.
I start approxima, Take care, good night, and God bless
you America.
Speaker 5 (53:13):
I'm Rich Valdez.
Speaker 1 (53:17):
This is America.
Speaker 3 (54:25):
U Satis Usa, Sai Sai
This is America with Rich Valdez, powered by politiweek dot
Com and.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Rich Valdees is with US former Christian Administration official.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
You work at Chris Christie be in full ustas on
a lot of public service stuff.
Speaker 4 (00:18):
Rich Valdez calumnist now with the Washington Times.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
This is America, Richiev.
Speaker 5 (00:23):
You're on the air with the Nation of.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
The Nation with America with your host, Rich Valdez.
Speaker 6 (00:30):
What's up, America.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
I am Rich Valdez Valdez with an s at Rich
Valdez on all of the social media.
Speaker 6 (00:37):
Welcome to the.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
Wednesday night edition of the program. Blessed and honored to
be here with you. Eight seven seven Valdez one eight
seven seven valadest one. Welcome to our late night national
town hall conversation right here from Times Square, New York City.
And check this out. It's uh big news today, right
big news on all fronts. President Trump addressing the nation.
I've got that. I've also got T minus ten seconds
(01:02):
and you're thinking T minus ten seconds to what, well,
T minus ten seconds until lift off?
Speaker 5 (01:08):
Check this out and here.
Speaker 7 (01:09):
We go ten nine eight seven rs, twenty five engines
L four three two one, booster, Ignition and lift off.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
A good roll pitch.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Roger right, a pitch.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
On time, passing thirty seconds to the lights. Integrity passes
the ultimate Ego target Milestone. Mission Control Houston.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Seeing good performance of four made engines, Space.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Punk system core Stage Integrity three miles in altitude traveling
more than twelve hundred miles per hour.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
That is the NASA Artemist launch that happened earlier today.
And this is the second time the United States is
going to the Moon. I know somebody right here, come on, rich,
you don't really believe the first moon landing. Yeah, I
tend to be on the global side of things. I
like to believe in the matrix. So I say, yes,
(02:19):
this is our second one, and Amen, Praise God, Hallowlujah.
Now why do I say that? Well, you know one time,
I've shared this a few times. If you're a long
time listener, you probably heard this story three times already.
But I once, when I served in the Chris Christian administration,
I was invited by a colleague to attend the New
Jersey Hall of Fame induction ceremony at New Jersey Performing
(02:39):
Arts Center in Newark, New Jersey, and all sorts of
New Jersey heroes were in the green room backstage, you know,
waiting to be honored. I was kind of like a
fly on the wall, like, wow, I can't believe I'm
in here. You know, authors like Mary Higgins Clark and
actors like Hm has a father and a son, I
(03:03):
want to say. And he was married to Zaida Jones.
I forget his name right now.
Speaker 5 (03:07):
Kurt Russell? Is that who that was? No, that was
the other one.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
Maybe it was anyway him, He was there, He was
inducted that year at Eric LaGrand the football player was there,
and so was doctor buzz Aldron buzz Aldrin.
Speaker 5 (03:21):
We were talking.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
We spoke for about twenty minutes, maybe closer to half hour,
who knows. We were hanging out in the back there,
and he was telling me all about his time being
the second man on the moon and what that was like.
And I thought that was pretty cool. I'll tell you
about that in a moment. But another astronaut, Victor Glover.
Victor Glover is the pilot of Artemis two, and he
(03:44):
told a reporter who asked him a DEI question, you know,
one of those what's it like being the first black whatever?
And I could say I've had some experience with this, right,
you know, being in syndicated radio, being in local radio
in a major market like New York City, all sorts
of things that I've done in my career. Believe it
or not, People what's it like being the number one
Hispanic or what's it like being the first Hispanic to.
Speaker 5 (04:03):
Do this, or blah blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 4 (04:04):
And I think to myself, you know, you just cheapened
everything that I just worked for by saying the first,
this the first, that it makes people think that you're
only there because right. And the reality is if it
were this easy to do and everybody would be doing
it right, or at.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
Least the people who want to do it would do.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
It, It's not the case, right, So I think that
shouldn't be the question, or shouldn't be the lead question.
But that is what ended up happening here to mister
Glover and who's quite likely a PhD in something, so
quite likely doctor Glover. But he's about to give his
response to this question about you know, Black History Month
(04:44):
and Women's History Month, and he gives a great response.
Speaker 8 (04:48):
Listen to this A big question, and I want to
highlight I guess maybe one's facet of this is the
tension I call it. I live in this, you know,
this dichotomy between happiness that a young woman and can
look at Christina and just physicalize her passion or her interests,
or even if it's not something she wants to do,
she can just be like girl power and that's awesome,
(05:08):
And that young brown boys and girls can look at
me and go, hey, he looks like me and he's
doing what and that's great.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
I love that.
Speaker 8 (05:14):
But I also hope we are pushing the other direction
that one day we don't have to talk about these first,
that one day this is just and I listen to this,
that this is the human history. It's about human history.
It's the story of humanity, not black history, not women's history,
but that it becomes human history.
Speaker 4 (05:32):
How about that. I think I've been saying stuff like
that for years. But he said it's so much better
than I had to have or do. And kudos to
him again, Victor Glover, the pilot of Artemists.
Speaker 5 (05:41):
Two.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
Excuse me, so I thought that was pretty cool. Now
excuse me he had to clear my throat again and
again because I'm getting my voice back. Anyway, back to
this story. Now, I think that's important. Why because too
many people oftentimes, Yeah, somebody, I'll preface it by saying this,
(06:04):
somebody once I believe they were trying to pay me
a compliment and not a backhanded, you know, snide remark,
and said, wow, after listening to my show, Wow, finally
a Latino with some sense. I really think this person
was so dumb that they didn't realize how offensive this
(06:25):
comment was. Now I don't necessarily offend easily, but I
just thought to myself, really, you know, I was more
offended for the rest of the world, right that had
to see that, then for myself. But finally a Latino
that makes some sense to make. I mean, what's Marco Rubio,
What's Ted Cruz? There's plenty of Latinos that makes sense, right,
(06:45):
So this guy's clearly just uninformed.
Speaker 5 (06:48):
He's ignorant.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
But people, I think, oftentimes just don't understand that by
trying to include one's ethnicity, it can in fact cheap
in the experience or be a little bit of a
backhanded comment. And I include my ethnicity, my culture because
I'm proud of it, because I like it, and quite frankly,
(07:10):
when I was a young dad and my kids were
watching Dora the Explorer. I thought it was great that
Dora would, you know, teach people things. And I figured,
you know, one of my early radio mentors told me,
you got to teach people things. If they don't learn
two new things at least listening to your show, you're
not doing it right.
Speaker 5 (07:31):
And I would listen to old YouTube tapes.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
Of Bob Grant, right, and how he would get into
these soliloquies of being discontent, right, being malcontent I should
say about certain things, right, a caller that got on
his nerves, or something that Governor Cuomo, the senior Mario
Cuomo had done, and you know, and he would say things,
(07:56):
you know, in Italian.
Speaker 5 (07:57):
He would grumble.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
You know, it was funny to me, It was very funny.
It was funny to most of the audience. And I
thought that's great.
Speaker 5 (08:05):
You know.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
It's kind of like he was like an old Italian
grandpa in some ways.
Speaker 5 (08:10):
And I figured that was good shtick.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
And I really am like that at times, you know,
when I'm shaking my head and palming my whole face
because of I'm embarrassed for someone else's stupidity, you know,
I am in my head thinking n even the epio,
but sometimes they escape and sometimes they don't. Anyway, enough
about that, let's get back to doctor Buzz Aldron. So
(08:36):
I was backstage with Doctor Buzz Aldron. He was being
honored into I think, being inducted into the New Jersey
Hall of Fame. And because he had a connection to
New Jersey, I lecture if he was born in New
Jersey and then moved or had attended school in New Jersey,
but either way, he was there.
Speaker 5 (08:52):
Really cool guy, and you know we're talking, he says.
Speaker 4 (08:55):
So you know, I was supposed to be the first
guy to come out because my last name is Aldron
and an Armstrong, Neil Armstrong is aar and I was
al so we figured we'll do it alphabetically, and I
came out first, he said, But honestly, I was scared.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
I was scared. I was like, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
He's like I pretended like I was deferring to, you know,
Neil Armstrong, but I said, go right ahead, you go.
So he let Neil Armstrong go and be the first
man to walk on the moon, and he went behind him,
and being the second man. Then he also added a
couple of things and I don't know if it was
you know, hyping it up or whatever, but a couple
of days he shared that I believed, you know, he said,
(09:36):
I was very curious to see what gravity was like.
You know, we had some sense, but we were in
these moonsuits, and he said there was like a vacuum shoot,
like a container where you could get things out of
your suit, he said, So he decided to own the
title of the first guy to urinate on the moon,
and he did, and he said it floated away, So
(09:58):
that was pretty funny. Something else that he said he did,
and I think this is appropriate being a holy week,
he said that he took communion with him just in
case it was going to be his last, and he
had a communion wafer and some Saint Joseph's communion wine
with him, and he did that, and he took communion
while on the moon. So I thought that was a
really cool story that I hadn't seen anywhere before. So
(10:21):
I kind of felt special that buzz Aldron told me
this stuff. I'm sure he's told you know that story
a thousand times. But bottom line, it was a great
story and it was great to meet buzz Aldrin. Honestly,
to date, he's only the only astronaut I've ever met
like face to face and shaking their hand. So kudos
(10:41):
to the United States for going back to the Moon
and in my opinion, winning the space race, both for
science and for military like we do with the Space Force.
And in a little bit we're going to have President Trump, right,
good old President Trump's going to be weighing in on
what's up with Iran. I guess another ultimatum or maybe
(11:04):
some good news like a deal. What else did I
want to talk about? There was something else here. Let
me look at my notes stand by Spaceship to the Moon,
Artemis Trump's speech.
Speaker 5 (11:15):
Oh, the Supreme Court ruling. We're gonna get to that.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Doug Burns is going to join us, and we're going
to break that down as well. And I think it's
probably a good time for me to take a little
pause here. But before I do, I want to remind
you to make sure you are subscribed on Rumble, you
are subscribed on YouTube, you are subscribed to Rich Valdees.
Wherever you can subscribe. I recommend that you do. I
don't really ask for much around here. I've never asked
(11:38):
you for any money, never ask for anything except for
you to subscribe, So please do subscribe if you want
to watch our program on Roku TV. There are ninety
million subscribed households. We're very proud of that. Feel free
to do that. There's a direct link for that at
valdesk TV and that is translated into Spanish for those
(11:58):
who want to watch Rich Valdes espanon and I'm coming
right back. We're gonna talk a little bit about Somali fraud.
Why do they let these fraudsters go? What's up with
all of that?
Speaker 5 (12:08):
Right? That's what I want to know. So we're gonna
do that.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
Plus we're gonna get into President Trump's speech and a
couple of thoughts on what's coming up ahead. We got
a jobs report that's coming up ahead. Some grumbling too.
I'm hearing rumors all over the place that there's gonna
be a shake up in DC. I don't know if
that's gonna happen at Foggy Bottom. I don't know if
that's gonna happen at the Pentagon. I don't know where,
but I'm hearing heads are gonna roll anyway. More than
comes straight ahead. I'm Rich Feldez.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
This is a this is a.
Speaker 9 (13:02):
Massive family fraud operation in the state of Minnesota, and
one person has been sentenced. The sister has been sentenced
to six months in prison. This family stole over five
point six million dollars from the Minnesota taxpayers. They had
a small restaurant and they said during the years of
twenty twenty through twenty twenty one they fed one point
(13:23):
seven million people in one year in their small restaurant.
They were able to siphon out five point six million
dollars from Minnesota taxpayers, and the liberal activist judge sentence
the sister to just a short six months in prison.
The sister her house will be seized, her car will
(13:44):
be seized, and one hundred and fifty thousand dollars she
has in her bank account will be seized. But all
of that is fraudulent money. It's not her money, it's
Minnesota taxpayer money. And after her six month sentence, she's
going to have to pay back four hundred thousand dollars.
Which do you go to prison for six months if
you could have five point six million dollars. The liberal
(14:05):
activist judges, they don't care about the hard working people
in Minnesota. All they care about is protecting their Somalians
because they're Somalians. Is who votes for them? Another slap
in the face to all the hard working Minnesotians.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
What's up, America? Welcome back is rich val Valdez with ans.
Happy to be with you, and I want to get
into this case. A lot of people very upset about people,
Somali fraudsters and whatnot getting caught out there and then
getting a slap on the wrist. So we're going to
get into that with somebody who knows what's going on.
He was the boss that had Hanscho chief of the
(14:38):
Criminal Division in New York for the Department of Justice.
His name is Doug Burns, and he's with us now.
Doug Burns, welcome back, Thank you now.
Speaker 6 (14:46):
Doug.
Speaker 4 (14:46):
You know when I saw this case, I honestly I
thought of you because you always come on the show
and you always tell me something and you always say,
you know, politics and law don't mix, and that rang
through my head because I was watching this and I
was saying, you know, people don't want to see fake
accountability is what I'll call it.
Speaker 6 (15:05):
They want to see real accountability.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
They want to see somebody twenty eight million dollars stealing
twenty eight million dollars and then getting a year in
jail and whatnot. But what occurred to me in that
moment was, listen, these types of things they happen pretty often, right.
Deals are cut all the time to get to the
next person in a fraud ring and a trafficking ring
and a drug ring. And again that's me and my
(15:28):
layman's understanding of what's going on.
Speaker 6 (15:30):
So talk to us a little bit about that.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Yeah, it's an absolutely perfect example of a couple of principles.
One is that law and politics don't mix. Two is
that people who are not trained in law, and I'm
not being pompous forget trained and law. People who don't
have any experience in prosecutions or criminal cases will often
just jump right in over their ski tips, and it
becomes very embarrassing. So let me explain, at first blush,
(15:54):
and in fairness to everybody who jumped in over the
ski tips, at first blush, it seems terrible. Guy, a
defendant who stole one point one million dollars in funds
that were supposed to go to meals programs. A judge
just gave him a year. That's outrageous. That's terrible, okay,
But nothing could be further from the truth because as
(16:15):
a veteran of forty years, this was what we call
a star cooperator, not complicator. The guy came in, he
threw himself on his sword, he admitted the crime, and
then he cooperated and they ended up making a whole
series of cases against other people that they wouldn't otherwise
have made. Now, cooperation without getting into a house seminar
(16:35):
is probably the number one area in criminal law. Fascinating area.
How it works, what it means. You can have philosophical
objections to it. In other words, in a perfect world, Rich,
we'd like that guy to cooperate and still get a
really hefty sentence, But it doesn't work that way because
we need to incentivize criminal A to give us criminal
(16:55):
BC and D. So here what I think you're will
find really particularly interesting is that the government was recommending probation, okay,
and I've seen that many many times, because again, a
person who steals a million one ends up making all
kinds of criminal cases for the government. And then human nature.
(17:16):
A very interesting human nature point is the government often
develops very positive feelings about those type of individuals, and
I've been in what we cynically call love fest sentencings
where dagents race to the court house to be there
to tell the judge how great this person's cooperation was, etcetera, etcetera.
But again, the way the system works is we use
(17:37):
one criminal to go after other criminals and we end
up rewarding them for it. And that's exactly what happened here.
Speaker 4 (17:44):
So in a case like this, this is what you're
saying is really not unheard of. This is not somebody
getting a sweetheart deal. No, this is someone cooperating, and
we're likely going to get a lot more fish from it.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Yeah. I mean, also, let's talk price tags. Criminal lawyers
are going to tell you all the time that we
know how to put a price tag on a case,
which means, in simple English, you know, oh, my friend
was just arrested for drunk driving. They cited him with this. Well,
the first question is what's the normal disposition that's given
to everybody in that particular courthouse. So I've been in
(18:17):
one point one million dollar fraud cases all day long
for forty years, and in federal court, I had a
client in a million dollar case and he got two
years okay, with very light cooperation in that particular case.
So basically you'd be looking at three four years on
a straight plea, two years with some cooperation, one year
(18:37):
or less, or even probation with really stellar cooperation. But
the point is, this wasn't any kind of sweetheart deal.
I'm not defending this individual. I'm just giving you the
excess and as the day to day legal realities and
the fact that the matter is. I mean, I've been
in drug cases where guys are facing twenty years and
they walked out of there with two three years because again,
they gave sensational cooperation.
Speaker 6 (19:00):
You know.
Speaker 4 (19:00):
The only reason this even caught my eye was because
I happened to be on vacation, right. I was talking
to somebody who said that a family member of theirs
had gotten involved. I was in the Dominican Republic and
somebody said, oh, I have a cousin or something that
bought a place very close.
Speaker 6 (19:16):
To here, huge mansion.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
And I was like, wow, must be nice, yea, And
they said no, no, he's doing five years for that.
Speaker 6 (19:23):
And I was like, five years, what do you do?
Speaker 4 (19:25):
And they said, oh, he stole a bunch of money
through fraud through the PPP loans during COVID about twenty
five or twenty seven million dollars, something big number like that,
and through multiple names, multiple people's fake entities, but it
all went to him and they said, and he got
in trouble and he's got to do five years. And
(19:45):
in my head I was thinking five years, twenty five
million dollars, he's coming home and I was like, did
they take the money?
Speaker 6 (19:51):
And they were like, no, they couldn't find the money.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Well, I said, you come out and you have the money.
But I think your audience might find it interesting if
I addressed what was I going to say to Rich
Valdez if the guy didn't cooperate at all. I was
fully prepared to come on and say, look, that seems yeah,
that seems like a light sentence to get a year,
by the way, in the weeds, quickly he got a
year and a day Rich. And the reason for that
(20:15):
is that.
Speaker 6 (20:15):
On oh yeah, that's like legal trickery, right.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Well, on a sentence greater than a year, you're entitled
to certain reductions. So that's where we come up with
that year and a day thing. But the point is
I was prepared to say that it seemed light and
exactly what I just said two minutes ago, which is
normally'd be talking three to five years with no cooperation,
maybe two years with some decent cooperation, and then in
(20:39):
the ballpark for provision without standing cooperation, defined as you
made a half a dozen cases that they never would
have made it.
Speaker 6 (20:46):
Yeah, it's amazing.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
You know, they say crime doesn't pay, but when you
look at some of these things, you go, hey, I
don't know, I'll put it on a scale.
Speaker 6 (20:52):
We'll see.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
As you said, though, but it's interesting and it's cynical.
But it's so critical is if the guy still has
the forty five million dollars, he does four out of
the five years, we'll just call it hypothetically, and it
comes out and he's got forty five dollars.
Speaker 6 (21:06):
Yeah, I think that was his thinking, too. Absolutely unbelievable.
Speaker 4 (21:11):
He goes, we're coming right back with Doug Burns, former
chief of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice,
thirty eight years in private practice as a defense attorney.
He knows where the bodies are buried, and he's here
with us. Now, don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
This is America. This is America.
Speaker 5 (21:37):
The forty fifth President, Donald Trump thinks it's an honor
to speak with Rich Valdez.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
Very good.
Speaker 5 (21:47):
The honor is all yours. Conservative talk with a dash
of Sofrito.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
Now here's Rich Valdez.
Speaker 4 (21:58):
And of course continue news coming out of the Supreme Court.
We continued a conversation with Doug Burns, former chief of
the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. Spent thirty
eight years as a defense attorney, and he knows this
stuff really really well.
Speaker 6 (22:12):
Inside and out.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
Doug Burns talk to us about this birthright citizenship case.
Speaker 6 (22:17):
I know there was a lot of news coming out of.
Speaker 4 (22:19):
The Supreme Court yesterday where there was some agreements, some disagreement.
Speaker 6 (22:23):
Talked to us, break it down.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Well, largely misunderstood, you know again, partially the media's fault.
Partially the fault of people who jump over the ski
tips to use the phrase I used earlier, you know,
without knowing what they're talking about. Once upon a time,
the United States Supreme Court decided a horrible, horrible case.
It is generally considered the worst case they've ever decided.
I know you've heard about it, dread Scott. In the
(22:45):
dread Scott case, the Supreme Court of the United States,
believe it or not, incredibly held that African Americans were
not United States citizens K and again it goes into
the history books as the worst decision ever. After the
Civil War. To enmity that Congress, they amended the Constitution
with a series of post war amendments thirteen, fourteen, fifteen,
(23:08):
and in the fourteenth Amendment they put in a clause
saying that anybody born in the United States and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof. And I must sarcastically note that
the mainstream media has largely scrubbed out that language, no surprise,
but anybody born here and subject to the jurisdiction is
a US citizen. Fast forward the movie to today, and
(23:31):
the concept is, well, wait a minute, if two people
entered the United States illegally, and of course the left
is going to go, oh, they're undocumented. They really didn't
break the law. Put that to the side. But the
point is the offspring of two people who came here illegally,
under their theory, those are United States citizens. President Trump
(23:51):
is dead set against that. He's made that clear for
years and years. He signed an executive order to eradicate it. Now,
jumping around just quick executive order may not be the
way to go. But just put that to the side.
The bottom line is the Supreme Court is now going
to determine whether or not the offspring of two people
who entered it illegally is a US citizen. And I
(24:12):
think this is a good chance. They may cut it back,
they may eliminate it.
Speaker 4 (24:15):
Seriously, rich, fascinating stuff, Doug Burns, because you made a
point about the media scrubbing out to the jurisdiction thereof,
and obviously this is an important point, and talk to
me about or talk to all of us about why
it's such an important point, because I've made the rudimentary argument,
as you've probably heard many people make to friends of
mine that are in favor of this. Matter of fact,
(24:37):
I had one friend who called me one day and
he said, oh, I got to tell you.
Speaker 6 (24:39):
He's from Cuba. He's born in Cuba.
Speaker 4 (24:41):
And he called me and he says, you know, I
got to tell you there is a document in your country,
our country, that is perfect. He said, this is a
perfect document. It's called the Constitution. And he said, I
spent the last few hours reading it and rereading it.
He said, I got to tell you his birthright citizenship thing.
It's not going anywhere, because it's plain as day in there,
and it says if they were born here, they're citizens.
(25:02):
And I said, well, I mean there's a couple of
things there, and I said, you got to look at
some of the context, right. The senators who were debating that,
the senator who proposed it, the arguments he made during
his proposal in the Senate back then, they were around
who was making examples like if an ambassador is here
on official business and has a baby here, does that
baby automatically become a citizen? And he was making the
case at the time that most ambassadors are representing their country,
(25:27):
not the United States, so they would want their kids
to be citizens.
Speaker 6 (25:30):
Of their country.
Speaker 4 (25:31):
And it opens up this question of you know who's
right and who's wrong. So talk to me about why
you think the media is leaving that up.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Well, here's the problem. Even that individual you were talking to,
if I were talking to him, I would say to him, oh,
your view is that anybody born here is a US citizen.
And he would look me in the eye as sure
as the sun's going to set them and say yes, absolutely.
And then I would say, well, are you aware that
if somebody's parents are diplomats, and they're here physically in
(26:02):
the United States, and the child's born here, that child
is not, repeat not a US cid. Is in are
you aware that if the parents in my just law
school hypothetical swear allegiance through a country other than the
US as their first allegiance, that baby is not, repeat
not a US citizen. They probably don't even know that. Okay.
(26:23):
So the point is there are a bunch of statutory exceptions.
And what I've said, and I said just today on
a media segment, is that Congress should consider simply adding
a new exception, which says, and the offspring of two
people who broke the law, violated United States law to
enter the country are not United States citizens. That would
(26:46):
be the remedy. And I think it's going to be
interesting because I do like Crystal Ball awards because I
got one on the tariff case and some other stuff.
But here I think the Supreme Court may turn around
and say that it's really up to Congress and the
statute and so on and so forth. But again they're
way off base when they don't understand that it's not automatic.
(27:07):
And then, by the way, and I think you'll love
this you have an unbelievable hypocrisy point, legal hypocrisy point.
So Anthony and Scalia real quick believed in textualism. You
look at the text of the Constitution and that's it.
You don't need to go any farther. And they ripped
them for decades. That's a terrible approach. You have to
look at the context they lectured us. Now all of
(27:29):
a sudden, they're all Scalia disciples. It's in there. It
says that if you're born here, you're a citizen. That's it.
We don't need to look any further.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Look at the hypocrisy of that, you know, Doug Burns,
that's interesting stuff because I would think even if Congress
and I agree with you, I think whenever the Supreme Court.
Speaker 6 (27:45):
Can punt, they do.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (27:47):
Right.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
The last thing they want to do is figure out
the law. In my opinion, what they're supposed to do.
If that were to happen, and they were to put
a clause like this, how does that affect this scenario
that we had originally Where I am in the country
legally being ambassador to Timbuctoo and I have a baby here.
Does that mean my baby gets to be American? Just
because the other I'm here working.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
The other exceptions would remain. What I thought you were
going to ask me is what somebody asked a guest
this morning on a segment that I thought was interesting.
It wasn't me. They said, you know, one of the
biggest principles of all in law cases is retroactivity. Obviously,
so the question that was posted again is, well, wait
a minute, what's going to happen with all of the
people who've already been born and are citizens. In my view,
(28:31):
controversial as it might sound, and I haven't really thought
it through, I don't think you could necessarily strip them
of the citizenship. I think those who had been born
would probably retain it. But then going forward, anybody born
as the offspring of two people who broke the law
to come here would not be a citizen.
Speaker 6 (28:50):
Yeah, I listen, it makes sense to me.
Speaker 4 (28:52):
I know that this is one of those split the
babies inarios where you're not going to get everything you want.
But presuming I mean the Supreme Court says we're not
doing anything here, Congress needs to figure this out.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Yep.
Speaker 6 (29:06):
Do you think that.
Speaker 4 (29:07):
There's politically the ability to get that done with the
margins that we have.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
That's a great question, and I think unfortunately the answer
is now and you're read in my mind because the
margins are too thin. You look at what's going on
with the Save Act without digressing, just unbelievable in the
weeds speaking filibuster, regular philibuster, should we blow up the filibuster,
so translating that to this, I do not think that
(29:35):
they would be able to eradicate birthright citizenship. And then lastly,
it is just the obvious editorial about people's ignorance who
just you know, again, we covered it earlier, but it's
worth repeating, just jumping in and saying that, you know,
this is outrageous. Of course their citizens. By the way,
what was interesting too is that another related conundrum came
(29:56):
up during the oral argument, which is what you call
wealthy people flying into the US to anchor their kid
as a US citizen and then just go back home.
That somebody said, maybe I heard it wrong, so we'll
just hang a caveat. But somebody said there were five
hundred companies. You believe that rich five hundred companies engaged
(30:17):
in contacting me Doug Burns hypothetical wealthy Canadian. We'll just
call it to have me and my wife fly in
here and have my wife delivered a baby here and
have the prestige of my kids a US citizen. That's
a whole other aspect of this which should be a
which they really should address also in my opinion.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
I agree, you know, And again just to add to that,
I had Peter Schweitzer on this show who said that
he'd discovered through research he was doing, that there are
companies in China doing this as part of their subversion,
trying to have Chinese. They're born here, they bring them
back to China they're actually Chinese, but when the time
is right, they're eighteen, they could come back here and
(31:01):
vote because they're citizens, athlete, and this is their plan
to you know, kind of control the vote in the
United States. That's pretty scary stuff. So do you think
the court takes any of that into account? Is there
a plan B, a silver lining where maybe they take action.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Well you used the keyword punt, and I was glad
to hear you say that, because they do do that
when they can, and there are actually legal principles you know,
that come into play with that. And one of the
justices said it today. I forget who it was. They're like,
if we don't need to reach the constitutional question and
we can adjudicate the case on other grounds, you agree
that that's something we can do. That's code speak for
(31:37):
punting your word. So again, I'm going to be extremely
interested into seeing the way this comes out. There was
a big case in eighteen ninety eight. It's so interesting,
the long kim Arc case. But when I read it,
and I haven't re read it, so a little fairness footnote,
But when I read it, awhile back, I did not
think it was really squarely on point for the idea
(31:59):
that off spring of two people who came here legally
should have automatically your It was really a different discussion,
had to do with Asians, had to do with the world,
not World War two because it was an eighteen India,
but it had to do with just different issue than
what's presented now. But to answer your key question, I
think the Supreme Court is going to find any way
they can to not really adjudicate it on the merits.
Speaker 4 (32:21):
Honestly, I agree with you and I think that your
analysis is right, and I hope they were both wrong.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
I hope I agree with it.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
And they do something good for the country. Doug Burns.
Let everybody know how they could follow you online.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
Well, I'm at Doug Burns Law on X that's my
main thing. I'm not that active on it, but I
enjoy it, and you know that's about it. And I'm
retired from practicing law happily.
Speaker 6 (32:46):
Rich amen to that.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
When I was a little kid, the first thing I
wanted to be when I grew up was retired.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
So, my friend, I'm the CEO of Retirement inc. Richie.
Speaker 6 (32:58):
Love that. Love that. I can't wait to get trouble
with you.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Yeah, the VP when you're in town.
Speaker 6 (33:02):
We'll do I meangoes.
Speaker 4 (33:03):
That's Doug Burn's, former chief of the Criminal Division at
the Department of Justice, retired from his practice as a
defense attorney.
Speaker 6 (33:10):
Doug, thank you, sir.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
My pleasure. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 4 (33:12):
Ont okay, I mean, he goes. We shall continue with
El Trompito. What did El Trompito have to say about Iran?
That's coming up straight ahead, keep it locked right here.
I'm rich oldesk.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
This is America. This is America. He's got the best
(34:08):
head of hair and podcasting. This is America with rich Valdez.
Speaker 4 (34:18):
All right, he goes, welcome back, Rich Valdez, keeping your
company this evening and happy to be with you.
Speaker 5 (34:24):
You know where to get me at Rich Valdez.
Speaker 4 (34:25):
I'm all of the social media at Rich Valdez and
ed trumpy, though he had a few interesting things to
say in the Oval office when he was asked what
kind of threat is facing US tech companies from Iran?
Speaker 5 (34:37):
Check this out?
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Government threatened a munch of US companies today in the region,
including Google, Apple with.
Speaker 10 (34:44):
What what are they threatening them with? Pp guns? Well,
that's you know, how much left to threaten?
Speaker 2 (34:49):
My question for you is are you I don't know?
Speaker 10 (34:51):
I mean, what are they You may have said, what
are they threatening them with? I don't know. Tell me
how did they threaten them?
Speaker 11 (34:58):
All?
Speaker 2 (34:59):
I know whether they're threaten?
Speaker 10 (35:00):
What does that mean? He said, something that has to have.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
The government talk with these companies help them.
Speaker 10 (35:08):
You don't even know what the threat was. What was
the threat?
Speaker 1 (35:10):
I haven't heard of.
Speaker 10 (35:11):
What was the threat? Did they say they're gonna blow
them up? They're gonna hit up the knock you know
what They're not gonna do. They're not gonna hit them
with a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 4 (35:21):
They're not gonna hit them with a nuclear weapon. And
that is the truth. And you gotta love it Trumpito
for just calling stuff out. And you also got to
think this poor guy trying to make his living as
a reporter, and this is the question that he asks, right,
So he gets a follow up for clarity, threaten them
with what he says, you know they've threatened US tech
(35:42):
companies instead of just saying, it's my understanding it's a
cyber attack. But he was afraid to because he didn't
have it on good authority, or he didn't have his
ducks in a row or whatever it is. So he says,
I don't know what the threat is. So then what's
the question, right, what is the US prepared to do
to help whomever with whatever if we don't know what
the threat is. President Trump makes an excellent point and
(36:03):
he embarrasses this guy, showing the world yet again that
the fake news reporters are fake news and when they're
not even being fake news, they're just being weak. You've
got to know what you're talking about. Unbelievable anyway, President
Trump giving his Oval Office address, some of my friends
in different areas of life shared with me that President
Trump was going to announce that we'd now taken out
(36:29):
a bunch of their infrastructure and really decimated Iran, setting
them back a decade in just how they operate, in
addition to their supply lines and whatnot. And he did
not make that because there was some act of good
faith that came from the Iranians leading to him giving
(36:50):
a very innocuous speech saying much of what he said before.
And of course many of you think, well, why on
earth would he have an Oval Office address nine pm
on a Saturday just to repeat stuff we already know. Well,
that's a great question. That is the million dollar question.
And that's why I tend to believe some of the
rumors I'm hearing that. You know, they had two speeches
(37:12):
lined up in the prompter, and these people had a
deadline do this by this time or else, and they
were able to do it probably, you know, in a
nick of time. And he kept his word and gave
his you know, innocuous speech that didn't affect anybody. Really,
It wasn't any major breaking news that we needed to
have an Oval Office address for in the middle of
(37:35):
the night.
Speaker 5 (37:36):
Just my thoughts. I'd love to know your thoughts.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
Let me know, drop a voice note, if you want
call us, leave a message hit me on social media
on any of the platforms, not as a direct message
because I don't check those as often, but as a
comment somewhere. I'll definitely get back to you. I want
to know your thoughts. I want to know what you think.
And of course the number here eight seven seven Valdas one,
eight seven seven Valdess one.
Speaker 1 (37:58):
You know, this.
Speaker 4 (38:00):
War in Iran, I think we just hit thirty three
days and I have to say, nobody wants to go
to war, but this is a master class in going
to war. Yes, you know, different things happen right different.
You know, we've lost thirteen men. There's you know, still
a risk of losing you know, other things. You know,
(38:24):
whether it's ships with mines that they're putting out there,
or a couple of their gorillas that have you know,
over the shoulder rocket launchers and maybe take out a
helicopter or a plane or something like that.
Speaker 5 (38:36):
That risk is always there. It is war.
Speaker 4 (38:38):
But by and large, the United States has pretty much
flattened a pretty major military right. Solomoni was not somebody
that people took lightly, and the IRGC was known for
being tough and they are tough, and they're fighting, they're valiant.
Speaker 5 (38:56):
I don't want to, you know, I feel.
Speaker 4 (38:57):
Like sometimes as Americans, especially those of a who have
not served, we tend to underestimate everyone because we have
the biggest and best and baddest military that everybody else's
just doesn't compare. And that's true, it doesn't compare, But
it doesn't mean that they won't defend themselves. And it
doesn't mean that they're totally ineffective either, right. They're effective
to a point because they don't have the same capacity.
(39:20):
We do, same training, the same ability, same budget, And
I would never want to minimize the enemy number one,
because that minimizes our troops. It's like, what am I
giving you a high five for if you're fighting somebody
who can't even fight. No, no, no, these guys can fight,
and our guys fight better. So kudos to the American military.
(39:40):
Always grateful for the men and women in uniform in
every branch, including Space Force, in the Coast Guard, and
their friends in NASA. Right as we just took a
lap to the moon. So anyway, that's the latest on Iran.
I think, you know, maybe tomorrow before the end the weekend,
hopefully early next week, a couple of more deadlines will
(40:05):
be imposed and some more progress will be achieved. It's
really not much to talk about here, but as soon
as we do have a development, they'll bring in one
of our military people that can add some flavor. Today's
a little light to the conversation because I think that's important. Now,
something else I want to get into. I'm going to
say for the next segment. You know, it's one of
those contemplative things where we look at some of the
(40:28):
things that are going haywire in society and then talk
about it and hopefully end on a very positive note,
like I try to. And that's coming up straight ahead,
So you keep it locked right here again, I'm Rich Valdest.
Make sure you are subscribed and that you're sending a
text link to one of your friends if you think
this show or any of our previous shows might benefit somebody,
you know, I would love that. I love having new
(40:50):
people join the party and especially being able to communicate
with you guys. Sorry for not including some of your
calls lately, and just trying to catch up on a
lot of stuff with different breaking news and honestly with
my voice coming and going since I got back from
my little world tour and all that stuff.
Speaker 5 (41:04):
So keep it locked right here. I am Rich veld Dance.
Speaker 1 (41:08):
This is America, This is America. He's making podcasting great again.
(41:30):
This is America with Rich.
Speaker 5 (41:32):
Valdas, all right, and he goes, welcome back. Holy Week.
Speaker 4 (41:43):
Holy Week, We're closer and closer to Good Friday, closer
and closer to Easter, the resurrection of our Lord and Savior,
Jesus the Christ. And I'm always happy around this time
of year for these moments. So blessed, blessed Holy Week
to everyone, top of them, to you. I like to
say that in my little Scottish it's not even Scottish,
it's actually my brother is married to a young woman
(42:06):
who was born in the United States, but her parents
one was born in the United States, the other one
was born in Ireland. And as we've always known her
and Nana Rose, she is you know, might some of
my kids call her. She is you know from Ireland.
She is a darling woman, absolutely darling woman, and she
has the most beautiful barogue. And listening to her to
(42:28):
speak through the years, I've picked up a little bit
not quite Gaelic, but this is what you hear from me.
So anyway, I don't do it as good as she does,
nor as good as the guy from the Lucky Charms commercial,
but I give it a shot every now and again. Now,
I wanted to talk to you about something very salient,
something very important, something huge huge. But honestly, there's several
(42:52):
things and I wrote them down and I can't find
exactly where I wrote them.
Speaker 5 (42:55):
You know, that's called being prepared. I was prepared.
Speaker 4 (42:57):
I prepared a lot, actually, but oh man, this this
is a big one. I'm gonna have to leave this
for maybe Friday or Monday, but I can tease it
makes it this way, you keep coming back. This is
about a series of events, four or five six different
individuals in different states, all arrested for the same thing
(43:19):
or being investigated for the same thing. What is the
thing again? I'm not gonna talk about it now, but
I'm just gonna bring it up. Teachers ranging in age
from twenty seven to forty seven that are having sexual
relationships with their students. And because they're young people, you know, miners,
(43:41):
you can't see what these students look like. I want
to know, is this some women, many of them are women,
women teachers, and I'm wondering, are these male students, Is
this like the kid from the basketball team that's like
seven feet tall and looks like he's in college, I
want to know, or are these like pedophile women that
are interested in small children. I don't know the answer,
(44:03):
but it's alarming how many articles came up when I
clicked on one, and these are all within days of
each other. So this is an ongoing thing, and I'm
gonna do a little bit more research on this and
we'll bring it up. But let me tell you absolutely wild. Now,
I wanted to finish with one thought here about the
Supreme Court. As you know, we're talking about the this
(44:27):
birthright citizenship case and the fourteenth Amendment, and I did
have a clip. I'm going to play it for you
because it's it's a back and forth. It's a little
bit of an exchange between Cecilia Wang, the ac LU
attorney on this case, and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito,
(44:49):
just so you can have an idea of what a
little bit of this back and forth sounds like.
Speaker 5 (44:53):
Check this out.
Speaker 12 (44:56):
Not subject to any foreign power is pretty straightforward. So
let me give you these examples. A boy is born
here to an Iranian father who has entered the country illegally.
That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth, and
he has a duty to provide military service to the
(45:19):
Iranian government. Is he not subject to any foreign power?
Speaker 11 (45:24):
Not within the meaning of the eighteen sixty six Act,
Justice Alito. And that's clear from wonkim Ark. And it's
clear from the debates what the framers meant by the
phrase not subject to any foreign power was referring to
the ambassador exception. If it meant what the government contends, basically,
not a subject of any foreign power, that you were
that another country considers you a you sanguinous citizen, then
(45:48):
lawful permanent residence all foreign national.
Speaker 12 (45:51):
Ordinary public, ordinary public meaning of that would certainly encompass
that boy, would it not, Justice Alido?
Speaker 11 (45:59):
If if you think that the language of the eighteen
sixty six Act was ambiguous, as Wang kim Mark says,
the shift to the language of the fourteenth Amendment, which
is the operative text, certainly clears up any ambiguity.
Speaker 12 (46:11):
What I said about a boy born to an Iranian
father is true of children born here to parents who
were nationals of other countries. If I'm correct, it's true
to a child who's born here to Russian parents, it's
true to a child who's born here to Mexican parents,
they're automatically citizens, are nationals of those countries, and have
(46:35):
a duty of military service. Atures seems like that that
makes them subject to a foreign power.
Speaker 11 (46:44):
But again, Justice Lato, that would have meant that the
children of Irish, Italian and other immigrants, which Wankmark refers
to and the debate the Framers refer to, would not
have been citizens either, because if the only test is
whether that US born child is considered a citizen by
(47:06):
another country under their usanguinous laws, then no foreign nationals children.
Speaker 2 (47:12):
Well, in all.
Speaker 12 (47:14):
Of those cases, the parents could be naturalized, and then
the children would be derivatively nationalized naturalized when the parents
were naturalized.
Speaker 4 (47:30):
So that gets a little bit into the weeds, but
it's truly what the crux of this argument is, right,
This is truly where we're at. People are very interested
in knowing if you are here on vacation, if you're
here working in the United States as a representative of
a foreign country, whatever your reason for being here, including
(47:51):
being an illegal alien, came here on a ninety day
visa for a vacation never left. Do you get all
the rights, privileges and a citizenship that comes with being
an American if your child is born here. And I
have to say, it doesn't seem like it makes sense, right.
It seems like everyone is saying, of course it does.
Read it, and I read it, and I get to
(48:12):
the same conclusion that Justice Alito came to. So I
don't know how this is going to go. If I
had to be a betting man, and we probably should
have brought this up with Doug Burns. But if I
was a betting man, I would say Justice Alito is
likely going to be along with Justice Thomas in.
Speaker 5 (48:32):
The dissent if they don't win.
Speaker 4 (48:35):
If they do win, then you know they'll be part
of the majority and writing, you know, the majority opinion.
So we're going to see how this goes. But I mean, honestly,
on its face, it just doesn't seem fair. I can't
think of another country in the world where this is allowed.
But again, is that a fair litmus? No, it's really
not right. We have a constitution, it's in writing, and
(48:56):
people are looking at what we have in writing and
they're saying, I understand and to say this, we have
a constitutional question, a dilemma, and we're bringing it to
the court now. The problem I think we have is
that we have justices that are not entirely, entirely well versed,
in my opinion, in the law, and that they were
(49:17):
appointed more for political purpose than for their astuteness when
it comes to understanding the Constitution. And I don't say
that to be mean. I say that to be honest. Right,
I can tell you this. I would have question within
myself if a president said, the next person I nominate
(49:40):
to Supreme Court, it's going to be a Hispanic man,
and then I get nominated to the Supreme Court, I
would feel slighted in that it wasn't my jurisprudence and
my ability as a jurist throughout my career that brought
me to this point. No, it was whom my parents
it's are. And I think that's totally inappropriate. But that
(50:03):
is what Joe Biden said, and that's how we got
Katanji Brown Jackson, and by and large, maybe less words
but very similar outcome, Justice Sonya Sotomayor. And I don't
mean to minimize them, all right, I'm really not. This
is not a personal insult. I'm just saying when you
play the politics of diversity, equity, and inclusion and say
(50:24):
that the court needs to look like this, that whatever. Now,
the court needs to look like people that are experts
in the constitution based on the Senate confirmation and they
were confirmed, so they deserve to be there. Granted, I
take exception, especially to Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, because President
Biden put her in that position saying that he was
(50:44):
going to nominate a black woman. How do you, you know,
put that out there. It just seems like the wrong
thing to say. You should say, I'm going to pick somebody,
and if it happens to be a black woman, then great,
you'll get this balance that you guys are looking for.
But I'm going with the person that's best for the job,
not the best suited black woman for the job, just
the best suited person for the job. And I understand
(51:07):
the people that push back on me are saying, well, rich,
if we think like that, then we may never get
the other person because they'll always be an abundance of
white men because this country has a majority of white men,
So how will you ever get the other person? And
I would argue against that, saying that there is you know,
(51:29):
academia is just like every other economy right when you
look at it in the sense of the free market,
you can prevail. Now they push out conservatives. But if
you're a good conservative and you want to go to
a law school that you tolerates conservatives and you want
to stand out in the legal community, I think you
(51:51):
can do that as long as you know where you're going.
It's probably won't be as easy as saying, hey, look,
I'm a Marxist and I want to talk about you know,
like Bell's theory of critical theory and whatnot. But all
that aside. Bottom line here is you can stand out.
You can try and make a case for yourself. And
(52:12):
I don't think anybody needs to put their thumb on
the scale to allow that to happen. That would indicate
that you on your own can't do it. And I
think that's just a mistake. I really do anyway, and me,
he goes, that's all I've got. We will continue this
discussion and all the others see who's on the chopping
block in Washington, d C. Is there going to be
(52:32):
a shakeup in the Pentagon? Is there going to be
a shape up at shake up, excuse me, at the
Department of Justice. What's happening, where it's happening, what's the
latest with Iran and everything else that's going on. Plenty
to discuss, So keep it locked right here for tomorrow
and the next day. We'll actually yeah, tomorrow, the next day,
and then we've got Easter, the Resurrection, and of course
(52:52):
next week I want to get into the jobs reports
that's coming out on Friday, and I'll probably get to
that on Monday. So anyway, thank you for tuning in,
Thanks for sticking with me this long. I appreciate it.
Good to be back in the saddle. My voice is
i'd say fifty sixty percent of where it needs to be.
Hopefully it'll be better in the next couple of days.
I start approxima, Take care, good night, and God bless
you America.
Speaker 5 (53:13):
I'm Rich Valdez.
Speaker 1 (53:17):
This is America.
Speaker 3 (54:25):
U Satis Usa, Sai Sai
Popular 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.
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
The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe
When a group of women from all over the country realise they all dated the same prolific romance scammer they vow to bring him to justice. In this brand new season of global number 1 hit podcast, The Girlfriends, Anna Sinfield meets a group of funny, feisty, determined women who all had the misfortune of dating a mysterious man named Derek Alldred. Trust Me Babe is a story about the protective forces of gossip, gut instinct, and trusting your besties and the group of women who took matters into their own hands to take down a fraudster when no one else would listen. If you’re affected by any of the themes in this show, our charity partners NO MORE have available resources at https://www.nomore.org. To learn more about romance scams, and to access specialised support, visit https://fightcybercrime.org/ The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe is produced by Novel for iHeartPodcasts. For more from Novel, visit https://novel.audio/. You can listen to new episodes of The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe completely ad-free and 1 week early with an iHeart True Crime+ subscription, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. Open your Apple Podcasts app, search for “iHeart True Crime+, and subscribe today!