Jack Smith Gets SUBPOEANED, Autopen Orders Get VOIDED & Clarence Thomas DESTROYS Liberal SCOTUS Case
December 4, 2025 • 46 mins
It's a busy time in the world of lawfare, thanks to communist judges on the bench. Jesse Kelly opens the show discussing the impact of communist judges on America. He is then joined by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan to discuss a new subpoena against Jack Smith. Senator Ron Johnson also joins the show to discuss what he's learned about Operation Arctic Frost. It all wraps up with a conversation about the Supreme Court and Joe Biden's autopen orders with Alex Swoyer.
I'm Right with Jesse Kelly on The First TVChoq: Visit https://choq.com/jessetv for a 17.76% discount on your CHOQ subscription for life
Vandy Crisps: Ready to give MASA or Vandy a try? Get 25% off your first order by going to http://masachips.com/JESSETV and using code JESSETV.
Cowboy Colostrum: Get 25% Off Cowboy Colostrum with code JESSETV at https://www.cowboycolostrum.com/JESSETV
Follow The Jesse Kelly Show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheJesseKellyShow
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
We're going to talk about power the judiciary. Jim Jordan
is going to join us. We have Senator Ron Johnson here.
These guys have all kinds of things on their mind tonight,
and I'm right, let's talk about power, power, and the
(00:26):
judiciary and why we're seeing so many things that we're seeing. First,
it's hard for normal people to understand how evil people
look at power, you know, because I would venture a
guest that you don't live your life seeking it out
so you can use it for your friends, for yourself,
(00:46):
and to punish your enemies. It's kind of a odd
way to look at life, right. You probably don't want
your kids to grow up and think in those terms.
And so because that's not your value system, it can
be hard to relate to people whose value system it is.
But it's really important not that you become that, but
(01:06):
that you understand that's how communists operate at all times.
Everything is about the acquisition of power and then using
power to reward your friends and punish your enemies. It's
how they look at everything. And when I say that,
it's easy to think, well, yeah, that's why they want
(01:28):
to be United States presidents. That's why they want to
be senators. That's what the No, it's more than that,
you see, they will seek out even the most minute
amount of power so they can use it on behalf
of the revolution. Maybe it is the office of the Presidency,
maybe it's the local librarian and everything else in between.
(01:52):
The local librarian doesn't have a great deal of power.
She can't raise your taxes, open up your border. She
only has a week little bit. Her little bit of
power is what books go? Where should we display this
book here or that book there? What kind of guests
are invited for the free reading they're doing for kids
(02:13):
on Saturday. So with her minute amount of power, she
makes sure the LGBTQ demon books are set right at
the front of the kiddie section. And she's already arranged
for you, the taxpayer, to pay for a drag queen
and come read to your children with his penis hanging
down on Saturday. This is how communists think. In normal
(02:35):
people are always taken aback by communists because they don't
think in this way. So, before we get to the
judiciary specifically, what is real, genuine powers? What's almost the
height of power? You know, we all, all of us,
we are fascinated by the concept of organized crime. Hopefully
(02:57):
you're horrified by it, but everyone's fascinated by Maybe it's
the Italian mafia, drug cartels, biker gangs were fascinated by it.
This underworld of powerful people who control territory, do crimes.
But what's real power? Is it all the guns? Is
it a willingness to commit murder? That's never been historically
(03:22):
the real power of organized criminal organizations Mexico, we'll make
it about the cartels. Which ones gain power. They're the
ones who find a way to buy off the judicial system.
You know, in Mexico, if you hear a story, read
a story about a couple people shot in the head,
(03:43):
left in the ditch on the side of a road,
do you know there's a reasonable chance it was the
cops who didn't Cops will show up at a restaurant,
throw you in handcuffs, throw you in the back of
a squad car, and go shoot you in the head.
Owning the power of the justice system is probably the
height of power in any country. It probably exceeds political power.
(04:08):
The power of a CEO certainly exceeds the power of
the librarian. Judicial power. Having the legal system not just cops.
Of course, we're talking about judges, we're talking about prosecutors.
When the legal system, when you have the power of
the state, it's worth so much more than the power
of all your guns and your willingness to commit murder.
(04:31):
We routinely point out to clownish idiots on the left,
certainly ones that achieve power in the justice system, and
we mock them, and rightly so, but we should understand
why they're there. I mean, Kaitanji Brown Jackson has probably
exhibit A for this. This woman still can't believe this
is real. This woman is a Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Female empowerment.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Sick.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
I like it too.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
I think what I like about it is that I
am having a very strongly negative reaction to it, like
I hate it, which makes me think it must be brilliant.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
That's a Supreme Court justice. She's on the bench for life.
This woman, this woman here calling black people essentially disabled.
This is a Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop
of a world that was generally not accessible to people
with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because
these folks were not able to access these buildings. The
idea in section two is that we are responding to
(05:53):
current day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage
minorities and make it so that they don't have equal
access to the voting system. Right, they're disabled. In fact,
we use the word disabled in Milligan. We say, that's
a way in which you see that these processes are
(06:16):
not equally open.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
So why put her there? We're mocking her. I'm laughing
at her. You're laughing at her. We're rolling our eyes.
They must feel so stupid. No, no, you see, you
would feel stupid. I would feel stupid if I said, hey,
you you'd be a perfect Supreme Court justice. You go
sit on the Supreme Court. And then they went and
(06:39):
sat on the Supreme Court and routinely proved themselves to
be brain dead. I would have some level of embarrassment,
wouldn't you. Oh gosh, I can't believe he's one of ours.
What did we do? But that's because you don't think
like the communist does. The communist is not concerned about
embarrassment at all. The communist is not concerned about intelligence qualifications,
(07:01):
and they're concerned about your laughter. The communist is concerned
about what power. The point is Kaitanji Brown Jackson, for
the duration of her time on the Supreme Court, will
be a reliable communist. Ally, she will spend every waking
moment fighting tooth and nail on behalf of her friends
(07:23):
and trying to destroy her enemies. It's just simply about power.
And look, it's not like she's the only judge in
the country. Every day we wake up and pick up
the newspaper, or at least the digital version of it,
and there's a new outrage about a judge here, an
injunction there. But we should understand that's why those judges
(07:44):
were put into place. They weren't put there to preside
over cases. They weren't put there to accurately interpret the law.
That's childish thinking in the mind of the communists. That's
how you think. That's how I think those judges are
there to help the revolution. Who's exhibit A for these
judges who are issuing all these nation wide injunctions, Judge Boseburg.
(08:09):
Boseburg's the one is the name most people know by now. Certainly,
if you're a political person, you know all these nation
wide injunctions, and then you dig in more into Justice Boseburg,
and you find out he was the judge giving legal
cover to Arctic frost, that ridiculously illegal investigation by Jack
Smith and the FBI hoovering up text messages and phone numbers.
(08:31):
How could that be legal? Well, all you had to
do was find a judge, a revolutionary in judge's robes,
and he'll give it the sign off on everything, Judge Boseburg.
Eric Swalwell. By the way, Eric Swowell, the guy who
has mortgage fraud allegations draped all over him. Right now,
guess which judge just randomly got a signed to the
(08:54):
case of Eric Swohwell, you guessed it, Judge bo Boseburg.
Now I'm gonna say this. We have a long, hard
road ahead of us, you and I do to fight
back against the communist revolution in this country. There are
so many battles we have to fight believing we're never
(09:15):
lacking a battle. If you wake up and you're bored
politically and you're looking for something to do, there's always
something local race and national race, this group or that group,
there's always something to do. But there is something that
is true. We're gonna have to acknowledge it. We can
never see victory, final victory over the communists until we
(09:36):
root out the communists from the justice system in this country.
I'm talking about the judges, I'm talking about the ages,
I'm talking about the das. Until we root communist revolutionaries
out of the justice system in the country, we will
never be able to see final victory because that's where
(09:58):
so much power lies. I mean, Somalia is hot in
the news right now because Somalia is a disgusting country
full of fraud and they abuse women. It's just basically
the worst place on planet Earth. And because our politicians
are evil satanic monsters, they brought as many Somalis into
the United States as they possibly can, and surprise, surprise,
(10:20):
now they're murdering people, robbing cars, and committing fraud all
over the place. Well, Keith Ellison is the Attorney General
of Minnesota. Surely he's all over all these cases. Right, Yeah,
I'm sure he's gonna get right on that.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
Most importantly, we're not going to turn our backs on
our neighbors. But because of course, Somali immigrants are good
for Minnesota, just like mung immigrants are good for Minnesota.
Mexican immigrants are.
Speaker 6 (10:44):
Good for Minnesota.
Speaker 5 (10:46):
German, Italian, Irish, Norwegian immigrants are good for Minnesota, and
Anionami and Dakota people are good for Minnesota. They are
together what makes us us.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
I'm sure the Somali investigations are forthcoming. You know why
he's there. He's there to take the incredible power of
his office and reward his friends, protect his friends, and
punish his enemies. How do these attorney generals, how do
these ages look at their role? Well, we're going to
(11:22):
go listen to Clarence Thomas. You see, Christians, Christianity itself,
Communism has always viewed it as the enemy. They've been
at war with it forever. I know, your skinny jeans
wearing pastor won't mention it on Sunday. You might offend somebody.
But they're at war with Christians and Christianity. And what
would they do if you had the power of the age.
(11:43):
They do things like this.
Speaker 6 (11:46):
Did you have complaints that form the basis of your
concern about the fundraising activities here?
Speaker 7 (11:55):
We certainly had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers, that.
Speaker 6 (11:59):
Petition crisis pregnancy center.
Speaker 7 (12:02):
So I think we've been clear from the outset that
we haven't had complaints about this specific.
Speaker 6 (12:07):
So you had no basis to think that they were
deceiving any of their contributors.
Speaker 7 (12:12):
I don't I don't think that's correct, your honor. I
think we had carefully canvassed all of the public information
that has provided on the website of First Choice in
making a determination that we wanted to initiate an investigation.
Speaker 6 (12:27):
But you had no factual basis.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
The Office of Attorney General identified a pregnancy center helping
women Choose Life, a pregnancy center that didn't even have
complaints against it, and they launched an investigation to destroy it,
because that's how communists use power. We can never reach
(12:56):
the mountaintop. We can never see final victory over the
communists until we root them out of our justice system.
All that may have made you uncomfortable, but I am right.
Somebody who knows a little something about Judge Boseburg is
Jim Jordan. We're going to talk to Jim Jordan about
that in just a moment. Now. Maybe you're thinking I
(13:18):
lack energy for this fight. I can't do this. I'm tired.
That's just because you haven't been taking your natural herbal
supplements from chalk. I'm not tired. I feel fantastic. I'm
ready to rock and roll. You know, herbal supplements are
going to have you feeling good, right, That's really what
it's about. It's about you getting home from work, getting
(13:40):
home from school and not being completely out of gas,
counting the seconds until you can crawl into bed. What
if you could get home from work and feel fantastic
all the time. That's how I feel because I've been
taking a male Vitality stack from Chalk for years. Took
it again this morning, every single morning. Greatest thing I've
ever done in my life, from my personal life, for
(14:01):
my business life. Try it. It's the Christmas season right now.
There are specials. Go get a subscription Chuck dot com,
slash jessetv. We'll be back. Ardic Frost continues to get
(14:25):
uglier and uglier the more we know. We find out
now they were hoovering up the freaking the Chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee's phone records for two years. These
people have some guts. I'll give it. I'll give from that.
Joining me now, Congressman from the Great State of Ohio,
home of the Ohio State buck Eyes. Congressman Jim Jordan
so what exactly were they doing to you?
Speaker 8 (14:48):
Getting your phone records?
Speaker 9 (14:49):
They know who you called, who called you, when you
called them, how long you were on the call, and
if you initiated the call, anew where you were at
because they get bounce it off the cell tower. So look,
they're not getting content, but they can pattern your life.
I mean every morning, when my wife's not here in DC,
I text my wife, so they know that all he
tells text into this number. They do, and you call
your brother, you call your best friend, you call your college,
(15:11):
you call the president, They know who you're that.
Speaker 8 (15:14):
That is creepy to me.
Speaker 9 (15:16):
So they were doing that for all kinds of members
of Congress, all kinds of American citizens because they thought
somehow there was this grand conspiracy to promote alternative electors
and change, like what are you talking about? And President
Trump was somehow going to be prosecuted because he was
the architect of this grand conspiracy.
Speaker 8 (15:35):
That's how ridiculous it is.
Speaker 9 (15:38):
And the things they did to like again, members of
Congress and for me, we found out it was for
two and a half years, which makes no sense because
they go clear back to I believe it was January
of twenty twenty so before the election, before January sixth.
Speaker 8 (15:55):
What the heck is that about?
Speaker 9 (15:57):
Again, I think when you talk about the weaponization of government,
this is it, you know, in a in a nutshell.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Congressman, do you get the impression that they actually thought
there was a grand conspiracy or it's just just the
bottom line of how these dirty comedies have always operated.
You take control of the judiciary and you use it
to attack your political opposition, and if that means harassing
Jim Jordan and finding out when he Texas wife, well
that's just a nice benefit.
Speaker 8 (16:25):
I think it's probably both.
Speaker 9 (16:27):
I do think these are you know, I always say,
what's what's the I always say not all Democrats are crazy,
but the left that controls their party is, And the
left is truly out to get President Trump. We've seen
that time and time again over the last decade. So
I do think it's driven by these people are probably
probably left leaning Democrats who are like, we're gonna get Trump,
(16:47):
we know he's bad. That that kind of crazy mindset.
So I think it's that plus. But I think it's
also like, you know, we're just going to go after it,
and because we believe that we're We're willing to go
after our enemies and and go to whatever length we can,
whatever means we think is appropriate.
Speaker 8 (17:02):
But yeah, these guys were serious.
Speaker 9 (17:03):
I just read that book by the left journalist Caro
Lenig called Injustice, and it chronicles this whole thing after
January sixth and what happened at the Justice Department. And
it's amazing, how you know she thinks Jack Jack Smith is,
you know, just a saint. And all these guys who
you know, Windham and Bratt and Cooney and Olsen, all
(17:26):
these guys who worked at the Justice Department, who worked
on Artie Frost and then became part of the Special
Council's investigations.
Speaker 8 (17:32):
How great these guys are.
Speaker 9 (17:34):
So there's just a mindset that the left has, and
I think that's that's kind of what strikes. I mean,
think about the subpoena for our phone records, my phone records.
It said, you can't they said to the judge, you
can't tell Verizon, Verizon, you can't tell the customer in
this case me, you can't tell the customer that the
Justice Department got his phone records because we think he
(17:56):
might be might tamper with evidence, might be a flight
like I was going to leave the country. This is
the dumbest stuff I've ever seen. But that's what these
guys did. That's the subpoena Day signed. That's what they sent.
Judge okayed it and Bryson couldn't tell me that's crazy,
but that's what they did.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Well, Saint Jack Smith just got referred to the DOJ
for obstruction of Congress by you. What does this mean?
Does he get wrung up for something? How does this work? No?
Speaker 8 (18:26):
No, no, I want to a slight correction. Wyndham, his deputy.
Speaker 9 (18:31):
We referred to Justice Department for obstructing our investigation. Wyndham
is the guy who signed off on a lot of
these subpoenas. What we did today is we actually sent
a subpoena to Jack Smith to come in and sent
for a deposition. So we have subpoena or excuse me,
we subpoened Wyndham to come in for a deposition. He
claimed all kinds of things, tried to obstruct our investigation.
So we referred him to the Justice Department for prosecution.
(18:53):
And we don't do this often. I mean, the facts
got to be there. We rarely will do that, but
we did it. In the case of Wyndham, because we
think he earned it. We think he deserves it, We
thought it was warranted with Jack Smith today that we're
sending out a subpoena. We want him to come in
for a deposition. We want to ask him about all
the things we've been talking about, the countless number of
members of Congress that he got phone records on, and
(19:16):
a host of other issues that we think are important.
Now we've deposed Wyndham, we've proposed Bratt, we've opposed Cooney,
and we're going to depose others who were part of
his investigation. But we subpoena Jack Smith the day to
come in for his deposition.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Judge Bosburg is somebody. It's a name well known by
this point in time. On the ride, he's mister injunction guy,
mister Ardit Frost guy. He always seems to be there.
Now he miraculously got the Eric Swalwell case. What a miracle.
What can be done about this guy?
Speaker 9 (19:45):
Well, we've done some things legislatively, you know, on this
injunction issue, to name one where we said you can't
if a federal judge, and there's like, I think seven hundred
of these around the country. If they issued an injunction,
it should only apply to the parties in the case
in that respective jurisdiction. So that build WIT's passed the House,
it's over in the Senate. We hope the Senate will
(20:07):
take it up and pass it. So we're working on
some things legislatively. We're doing our oversight, and as you know,
there have been members, actually one member even of our
committee who's filed impeachment resolution against mister Boseburg for some
of the actions he's taken. So we're taking this step
by step. Typically, typically you don't impeach judges unless they're
(20:27):
engaged in like truly criminal behavior, or they're showing up
drunk on the job, or you know, something something crazy
like that. If it's based on decisions, there's always the
remedy of the appellate court. So historically our country has
not looked at impeachment for bad decisions. But in this case,
if you just take this gag order, this non disclosure
order that Boseburg signed for a number of my colleagues
(20:51):
who that the Justice Department was getting their phone records on,
what's the remedy. There's no there's no appeal process because
the person who's been agreed doesn't know because the judge said,
Verizon at and T you can't tell them. So there's
no there's no remedy to the concern there. So I
do think this is Bozburg Getion's kind of some unique territory,
(21:13):
and we're looking at all option as we as we
move forward. But we're taking this step by step, and
of course the next step is Jack Smith coming in
for his deposition.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Congressman, is there any part of you, I mean, I
understand you're a tough guy and wrestler and whatnot. Is
there is there any part of you that feels bad
for the University of Michigan. I mean, they don't win
now and now they couldn't now they couldn't even beat us,
And I mean it, I'm almost head. I'm almost sympathetic
at this point in time.
Speaker 9 (21:41):
Well, it's been as you know, Jesse, I love the
buck guys from Ohio coach at Ohio State, but I
went undergrad the University of Wisconsin and the Badgers have
had a tough, tough couple of years as well.
Speaker 8 (21:52):
We actually have It's interesting we're talking today.
Speaker 9 (21:54):
We actually have a bill on the floor that we
think will help the situation.
Speaker 8 (21:59):
This what's called the Score Act.
Speaker 9 (22:00):
We think it's a good step to help give a
little more parody, to make sure we have opportunity for
all student athletes, not just football and basketball, but the
Olympic sports and women's sports as well, and our bill.
I also think we try to remember with this legislation
that it's supposed to be about getting an education.
Speaker 8 (22:19):
You know, right now, we have a situation.
Speaker 9 (22:20):
We get a lot of people who played five years
and transfer four times and never get a degree, maybe
never go to class. For goodness sake, they just played
sports and okay, but you know, I thought it was
supposed to be student athlete. So we got some legislation
that we think can be helpful around the board. But yeah,
I'm not losing a whole lot of sleepover Michigan losing
to the buck guys and the buck guys being number
(22:41):
one and undefeated on the season.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
It is a shame, isn't it. It's a shame. Congressman,
thank you, sir, I appreciate you. We have Senator Ron
Johnson joining us in a moment. He's going to talk
a bit more about this Arctic frost stuff and I'm
gonna ask him the FBI, Patel, the Butler assassination. Are
we getting what we need? Do we think we have
(23:05):
an ally there? We'll talk to them about that before
we talk to him about that. I'm gonna eat some chips,
all right. I eat a lot of chips here in
the studio. If you go to the kitchen, you're gonna
see chips, and you're gonna see Vandy crisps is what
you're gonna see. I love them. I'm a potato chip
man and a corn chip man, and potato chips are
(23:26):
horrible for you. What happens when you pull your finger
out of a bag of potato chips, the kind of
buying the grocery store. They're all covered in grease and terrible,
and you know it's bad for you. You know that Vandy
crisps taste better. And there's three ingredients, no seed oil,
stuffs made of beef, tilos, salt, potatoes. They're fantastic, multiple flavors.
(23:50):
You can eat chips guilt free. That's what Vandy Crisps
delivers to you and to me. And I need that
because I'll die without chips. Don't die. Go to vandycrisps
dot com and use the promo code JESSETV. We'll be back. Well,
(24:16):
Ardic Frost is not done. It's not going away. The
little we've found out so far appears to be just
the tip of the iceberg. Senator Ron Johnson, by the
grace of God, is still all over this thing, which
you can understand, being as how he was a victim
of it. Joining me now, Senator from the state of Wisconsin.
Senator Ron Johnson. All right, Senator, apparently we have new documents,
(24:38):
more documents coming. But what's new and what's coming.
Speaker 10 (24:42):
Well, we're trying to get to information kind of dribs
and drabs, unfortunately, but we're trying to understand more the
predicate behind these things. Again, in general, they wanted to
criminalize what, for example, John Kennedy did in providing of
electors when there were disputes over some states accounts, perfectly legitimate.
(25:05):
Al Gore should have done that he might have been
president United States said, the Supreme Court actually seen some
ultimate or also slavey electors from al Gore. So again
they're trying to criminalize that behavior. But bottom line, this
is a massive partisan dragnet designed to cripple the Republican Party.
They don't care who they're going after. Obviously targeting Trump, yeah,
(25:25):
targeting a few members of Congress. But I think it's
most disturbing is that they've targeted just ordinary Americans like
keep pointing to the thirty eight Wisconsinites. Again, god fearing,
country loving law enforcement supporting people also in Jack Smith's crosshairs.
It's really despicable.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
No, it is despicable. You said you're getting it in
dribs and drabs, Senator. I understand there are legal ways
things have to be done, so I don't want to
speak out of turn here, but why dribs and drabs? Why?
I mean, you're a senator. Can't they just go drop
the files on your desk and say here they are.
Speaker 10 (26:01):
They have a review process, and there are legitimate things
that probably need to be redacted on some of these.
My biggest issue, I think, my biggest concern continues to
be the FBI and Private Justice do not have the staff.
I mean, they obviously had to terminate people. A lot
of partisan leftists left because they certainly couldn't serve in
Trump administration, and with all the law fair undertaken by
(26:23):
people like Jim troopis the person of high integrity who
just happened to be the lawyer for President Trump in Wisconsin.
They're destroying the man million dollars in legal fees, got
him up on felony forgery charges. So again, it doesn't
take too many people to hang in the public square
before other folks get in line. So it's difficult for
Pambondi and Cash Hotel to hire the numbers of people
(26:46):
they need to do all the work that needs to
be done.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
Are we confident they're going to be able to and
do you have a time frame on that? Because I
understand what you're saying is true. I have all kinds
of friends in Washington that tell me the same thing.
We don't have the horses. We don't have the horses. Well,
are we hiring the horses? Are the horses out there
or are we out of horses?
Speaker 8 (27:07):
Again?
Speaker 10 (27:07):
If you're up and coming lawyer in a law firm
that you know other lawyers who represented Trump were blacklisted,
if you see what they've done to Judge troopis, would
you say, oh, I want to join the trumpdministration for
three years and have my entire legal career destroyed again?
That is the most despicable part of the law fairs.
(27:27):
It's bad enough, you know, being a target of it,
but the impact it has across the board. So no,
this is a real problem. It's a real issue.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Let's focus on the Butler assassination because the lack of
information we have is amazing. But maybe we don't lack information.
Maybe it's just a simple solo shooter that wasn't working
with anybody else. I find that difficult to believe. But
I don't know everything. What do you know? What's cash
Betel's saying what happened in Butler?
Speaker 10 (28:01):
So this isn't going to very satisfy you very much either.
We don't know much. Again, I pretty well assumed when
President Trump took office put his people in place, takes
a couple of months to get geared up, but they
would want to get to the bottom of this. All
of a sudden, we're on the anniversary of the assassination
attempt and we're looking at our own Bipartis investigation really
(28:24):
hadn't gone very far. But that's where I kind of
geared back up. So we still know what's happening. So
I issued a very friendly subpoena to cash Rettel kind
of to nudge him say, the American people need to
know this, and we just haven't gotten much. We've got
some more information out of the Pennsylvania State Police. We're getting,
for example, different videos that type of thing out of
(28:44):
different sources. Again, we're doing our investigation, and you can't
spell every little piece of information as soon as you
get it. But we still have a long way to go.
I don't know much about We're not getting information out
of the administration there. We're hoping maybe some of the
telephone carriers and stuff will give us more information. But
there right now, from my standpoint, far more unanswered questions
(29:07):
than we have answers for.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
You, Senator, to get specific. You at one point in
time told us on this show that there was a
gentleman there in a suit in the immediate aftermath of
it who was hoovering up pictures from the cops of
the whole scene. And you track down his phone number.
Turned out he worked for the ATF and lawyered up
when you reached out to him. Did anything ever come
(29:28):
of that?
Speaker 10 (29:30):
I don't believe we've talked to that individual yet either
that they keep him pretty well shielded from us. So no,
this is you know, Jesse, I know it's not very satisfying.
There's only so much I can do. We can keep requestioning,
we can issue subpoenas. It's difficult for Congress and for
subpoenas generally, we generally use subpoenas to get people to
(29:53):
volunteer information. People don't like to be issued subpoenas, but
enforcing those is very difficult.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
Speaking of enforcing subpoenas, Peter Navarro, s thieve Ben and
these men went to jail because they said no to
Congress when the subpoena came down. Judge Bosburg just said, no,
is he going to jail?
Speaker 10 (30:14):
I can't make that prediction. But we're not gonna let
up on Judge Bolsburg right right now. What he's doing
is he's hiding behind the grand jury protected six e material.
And what we need Pambondy in this administration do is
request that the courts unseal that. So right now, Judge
Bolsburg is hiding behind the fact that these are grand
(30:35):
jury protected information that again he's in charge of ceiling,
he won't unseal him. We really need to start putting
pressure from the administration to get him to unseal that information.
I don't have the authority to do it myself, but
we've requested that from Pambondy.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
FDA just came out and said ten kids died of
the COVID vaccine, so of course the number is probably
higher than that. We had every medical institution, political institution,
media institution in this country telling parents they had to
do that or Aiden, Jaden and Braiden will die and
kill Grandma on the way, And now we have kids
who were dead. Is anybody ever going to be held
(31:14):
to account for that? Because there are a lot of
jaded people in this country, myself included.
Speaker 10 (31:18):
To be honest, first of all, that is just the
tip of the iceberg. It might be a good first
baby step, but that's all it is, you know, for
somebody like myself who've been monitoring veyors since early in
twenty twenty one, we're up to a closer thirty nine
thousand deaths worldwide associate with the COVID injection. Twenty four
(31:38):
percent of those occurred on the day of injection within
one or two days, so I know it doesn't prove causation,
but man, that's correlation. That federal health officials definitely should
have been concerned about in tracking. You can put that
same concern about all the vaccine injuries on the childhood
schedule as well. There's a great book just out by
Aaron Sri Vaccines Amen. I'd recommend you and all your
(32:01):
listeners read that. It's it's really a very good source document.
Now almost the seven of work, and it'll tell it'll
talk about the religion of vaccines and the belief system
absinute science.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Uh.
Speaker 10 (32:15):
We do not do adequate uh you know, double blind
placebal control studies on any of the tribes with vaccines.
We we've not done any. The studies are so unbelievably underpowered,
and it's all about getting that license. And then once
you've been licensed, once you have FD approval, now you
have liability protection. And then nobody, not the people who
(32:36):
approved it, not the pharma soup companies, nobody wants to
follow up on adveragey events following that. So now this
is a completely corrupt system. These federal agencies have been
completely captured the people. Just like cash retail and pan
BONDI are dealing with these partisan bureaucrats that are burrowed
in the agencies trying to sabotaze what they're doing. Bobby
Kennedy faces the exact same issues. So that that fact
(32:59):
that we know about ten of them, that's an internal
memo leaked. I'm not sure it was supposed to be
leaked or or whatever. But that is just the tip
of the iceberg. You know, people like doctor Peter McCollough,
they reviewed autopsies, which by the way, were very difficult
to obtain during COVID because they didn't want to know
what was causing all these sudden adult deaths. Remember, remember
(33:20):
that we always know about SIDS infant death syndrome. All
of a sudden we had SADS, sudden adult death syndrome,
and what happened to that? But what about all these
sports figures, these news personalities dropping over at their workstation
around the field of play. You know, they were recovered
oftentimes on local news, but not on national media, not
(33:42):
part of the COVID cartel there. So no, this is
just the tip of the iceberg. It's it's really what
motivates me. It's one of the main reasons I ran
for a third term when I'd rather just go home,
is we need to expose all of this the corruption
of our pharmaceutical industry, of our faith federal health as
users be regulating them quite asty, the corruption within establishment
(34:05):
in medicine cures that they won't even look at. There
could be a whole lot cheaper. We've got a real
problem with medicine. And this is coming from a dad
whose child was saved by the miracle of modern medicine
with the you know, open our surgery at the age
of eight months. So it pains me to talk about
our medical establishment that save my daughter's life.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
We've got real problems with it. Don't retire, senator, please,
You're one of the few we actually need there. Thank you.
I appreciate it. Well, it's a big reason why I
drink cowboy colostrum every morning. Honestly, I never used to
be that guy, but that's why I put cowboy colostrum
(34:48):
in my coffee every single morning. I don't want to
go to the doctor. I don't trust them. I don't
trust the medical institutions in this country, and so my
plan it'll fail eventually, but my plan is to avoid
the doctor as much as possible. My gut operates better
with cowboy colostrum in my coffee. It just does. I
(35:11):
was told by someone who had all kinds of stomach
problems that that, hey, this is great for your gut.
It's great for your gut to fixed all my problems.
That so I just started pouring it in there, you know,
heartburn every now and then, kind of normal stuff gone.
My gut operates like I'm twenty years old again. Go
try some. It's delicious, by the way, I put the
chocolate in my coffee. But they have vanilla and strawberry
(35:32):
and all that cowboycolostrum dot com code jessetb. Try it bad,
We'll be back.
Speaker 8 (35:50):
Well.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
This auto pen stuff. Trump loves to talk about it.
He even has Joe Biden's portrait up in the White
House and it's a picture of the auto pen, which
is hilarious, by the way. But he's always talking about
how Joe Biden's auto pen executive orders they're all non invoid,
and the pardons that are they're all noll and void.
But it's one thing to say, it's another thing to
(36:10):
have that actually be true. Let's ask Alex about that.
Joining me now. Alex Sawyer, author of the book Lawless,
Law Fair. She writes, well, she's the editor at large
for the Washington Times. All right, Alex, how does this work?
Can he do this? Is he doing this? I don't understand.
Speaker 3 (36:29):
I think that he is going to try, and so
I think the answer is yes and no. To be direct,
so he can pretty much outdo reverse all of President
Biden's executive orders. We see presidents do this all the time, right.
Usually when a new administration comes in, they do away
with what the prior administration did by executive order. That's
(36:50):
why they always say, try to go through Congress because
it sticks. And so with Biden's autopen when it comes
to executive orders, yes, Trump can just reverse those. When
it comes to legislation that might have been signed by
the autopen or pardons, that's quite different. And in fact,
I was doing a little bit of research because this
question has come up so much, and there looks like
(37:12):
there's actually precedent. I think it dates back all the
way to the eighteen hundreds. But in relation to pardons,
something to the effect, I'm guessing it was a little
bit of dicta.
Speaker 4 (37:20):
I need to dig into the case more.
Speaker 3 (37:22):
But that pardons are pretty permanent and that there's nothing
that says in the Constitution that must be signed by
an real signature rather than an autopen So, you know,
I think that there's a hard chance that the president
can make an argument that he can reverse President Biden's pardons.
But of course I love to cover the Supreme Court,
and if a challenge like that were to arise, it
(37:43):
would be one of my highlights to cover for sure.
Another unprecedented Trump Well.
Speaker 1 (37:50):
Good, let's talk about what you love the Supreme Court,
because Trump is banking on some ws there for some
things that are coming down the pike. You've written about this,
what's coming? Are we going to win? Are we going
to cry?
Speaker 4 (38:02):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (38:03):
So you know what, there's some interesting cases that are
pending waiting for decisions right away. So first of all,
we've talked about the Trump tariff issue. I think you
and I have talked before about that, and so really
the Supreme Court could issue a decision on President Trump's
argument that he has to implement tariffs in a way
that's based on emergency powers. Essentially that he cites the
(38:25):
trade deficit and the issue with fentanyl flowing in the country. Now,
small businesses had challenged that. They had said, no, it's
really a Congress that should be the one that lays,
they lay and collect taxes, they should be the ones
that have the authority with tariffs. So that has been
before the Justices. They could really issue a ruling anytime,
and I know the President the administration wants them to
do so, so they can go ahead and you know,
(38:47):
further their teriff agenda.
Speaker 4 (38:48):
So that's one that could come anytime.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
The other one that is super interesting, obviously with all
the news about the National guardsmen being shot here in DC,
is there's a case before the Supreme Court pending about
the President's attempt to deploy National Guards to Chicago.
Speaker 4 (39:04):
So that's been briefed.
Speaker 3 (39:06):
Anytime, the Justices could could really, like I mean today,
they could issue a decision in order about whether the
President has the authority to issue National guardsmen to Chicago.
And we see this in lower courts. I think we've
talked about how DC Court SIVI rule. There's also been
a pelic courts out in the Ninth Circuit. We've seen
challenges with La Portland, various cities that have been fighting this,
(39:28):
and so how the Supreme Court rules it will be
very important, will be guidance for lower courts if they
go in other cities for example. And then lastly, one
of the topics that has been huge is the whole
jerrymandering issue with like the Texas Map in California.
Speaker 4 (39:43):
I'm sure you've covered this.
Speaker 3 (39:44):
We might have talked about this previously, but the Texas
Map is actually before the Supreme Court and they let it,
you know, the one where basically Republicans were able to
I think there's like five new seats that they were
able to maneuver by changing district lines.
Speaker 4 (39:59):
In the Supreme Court has.
Speaker 3 (40:00):
Allowed at least temporarily for that new map to take effect.
And so now that those briefs are in, they could
issue a decision whether or not to stay that way,
stay the course, or to reverse that and halt the
new map. And that's just interesting because we know, you know,
California is doing the same trying to cancel out five
Republican seats. We're going to probably see other states blue
(40:20):
and red try to do the same. So how the
Supreme Court comes down there will also be interesting guidance
going forward.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
Alex say, I know you probably hate it when I
ask you this, but I always have to ask. I'm
uniquely interested in those dairy Mandarin cases because it's the
House of Representatives at stake here, Do you have any
kind of a sense of which way that's going to go.
Surely they're not going to do something like allow California
to do it and not allow Texas, Right.
Speaker 4 (40:49):
Right, that's absolutely true. Now.
Speaker 3 (40:51):
The way that these cases are getting before the justices
are that people are making arguments that the way that
the lines are redrawn is basically racial discriminate. So a
lot of these gerrymandering cases get before the Court because
they have to make basically a voting rights or a
civil rights argument. The Court already has a case before
it right now, pending that they heard oral arguments in
(41:11):
earlier this this I think it was at the start
of the term in October, if I remember, right, And
it has to do with maps out of Louisiana and essentially,
if they're going to do away with part of the
Voting Rights Act, which deals with the majority minority districts,
a group of white voters have basically challenged non black
voters instead that having a second minority district has disenfranchised
(41:33):
it basically violated the Fourteenth Amendment, that they're using race
as a factor in drawing these lines, and that that's unconstitutional.
So how they come down on that could impact what
they do with these Jerring Mandarin cases because if they,
you know, were to say yes, like we side with
these voters in Louisiana, that really makes some of these
claims trying to challenge and these gerry mandering maps hard
(41:55):
because they have to point to race a racial discrimination,
and doing so they can point really to partisan or
political gerrymandering. The Court has previously said, you know that
that's a political question that's not one for the courts
to decide. So it kind of looks like the only
way to really get your gerrymandering case before the Justices
is to find some sort of racial undertone. So we're
(42:16):
gonna have to kind of see if the Justices have
any sort of appetite for.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
That, we have any sense about this idea of birthright citizenship,
and if this is something the Supreme Court's finally going
to be done with because this is so we can't
have a country like this, Please tell me they're going
to address this situation.
Speaker 3 (42:36):
I feel like, Jesse, I feel like you asked me
this every few times that we get to talk, and
every time I want you, I would love to be able,
like I said, to cover the autopen challenge. All I'd
love to be able to cover the birthright citizenship challenge,
but I really have.
Speaker 4 (42:52):
No idea what the court would do.
Speaker 3 (42:55):
Usually they take cases where there's been circuit splits, where
courts have ruled certainly different ways on issues. And my
understanding is I have an immigration or reporter. He's actually
our editor or political editor, Stephen Dining at The Washington Times.
He covers this in and out, so he's the expert
with how the lower courts have been treating the birthrights.
Speaker 4 (43:13):
This and ship issue.
Speaker 3 (43:14):
But my understanding is I think many of them have
ruled against the administration, so it's more likely than not
the justices wouldn't want to touch something unless there's a
circuits but we'll see. I'd have to go back and
look at my notes and check on that, but yet
to be determined. That's one of the things I always
look at, is how have lower courts treated this? If
there's any confusion in lower courts, then yes, there's usually
(43:34):
a likelihood that the justices will weigh in.
Speaker 1 (43:38):
What about Letitia James, Is she finally going to go
to jail?
Speaker 3 (43:42):
Yeah, so the whole Letitia James James Comey situation with
the Clinton appointee basically dismissing those indictments. It's very interesting
because the whole I guess critics of these indictments could argue,
and they tried to argue, is that these two individuals
can't be reindict it as well, specifically Comy, because of
(44:04):
the Statute of limitations.
Speaker 4 (44:05):
However, there is a federal law that says that if.
Speaker 3 (44:08):
There was a technicality with a charging document, that there's
like a I guess, a six month extension. So I
could see the administration making that argument, but first possibly
trying to go back with a new US attorney, someone
else in Lindsay Halligan's position, and presenting to the grand jury,
getting a new indictment, and then trying to make that
argument citing the federal law that hey, the first charging
(44:29):
document had airs, we get six more months to correct that,
and here we have a new indictment. Now with Letitia James,
her case is a little different. She doesn't have the
Statute of limitations rule. So, just like I mentioned, with
the replacement of Lindsay Holligan, whoever wants to step in
that position, even someone from the Justice Department. I guess
since we're talking about Mortgagequad could come in here and
present the case again to a grand jury, get another indictment,
(44:54):
and go forward prosecuting her. So, you know, I think
she's more in a tough position than Comy just because
he can try to rely on that statute of limitations argument.
But yes, I would not be surprised if the Trump
administration goes and tries to get new indictments for both
of them, because really it's the process is part of
the punishment, and drawing this out for either you know,
Comy or James is part of what the President and
(45:15):
his administration would like to do.
Speaker 1 (45:19):
Good. That made me feel better, Thanks, Alex, I appreciate it.
Lighten the mood next, all right, it's time to lighten
the mood. And as you're well aware, if you watch
(45:41):
the show at all, you're well aware of how much
I enjoy Democrat pandering. It's just one of my favorite
things in the world. They're just so nakedly shameless about
the pandering they'll do to every single interview the different group.
It's one of my favorite things in the world. It
makes me laugh to no end. Jacob Fray is the
mayor of Minneapolis. He's someone who very much wants to
(46:04):
keep getting re elected mayor of Minneapolis. So if you
want to keep getting elected mayor of Minneapolis, you got
to learn to oblah the local lingo. Here's how that goes.
Speaker 11 (46:15):
That's not American, that's not what we are about. And
we're gonna do right by every single person in our cities.
And so to our Somali community. Daman Shabka Somali, ad
Unul Minnesota, Gottahan, Minneapolis, Jan Janila Hai Juan ku gereb
(46:41):
to Ganahan.
Speaker 1 (46:47):
It let's see them all
We're going to talk about power the judiciary. Jim Jordan
is going to join us. We have Senator Ron Johnson here.
These guys have all kinds of things on their mind tonight,
and I'm right, let's talk about power, power, and the
(00:26):
judiciary and why we're seeing so many things that we're seeing. First,
it's hard for normal people to understand how evil people
look at power, you know, because I would venture a
guest that you don't live your life seeking it out
so you can use it for your friends, for yourself,
(00:46):
and to punish your enemies. It's kind of a odd
way to look at life, right. You probably don't want
your kids to grow up and think in those terms.
And so because that's not your value system, it can
be hard to relate to people whose value system it is.
But it's really important not that you become that, but
(01:06):
that you understand that's how communists operate at all times.
Everything is about the acquisition of power and then using
power to reward your friends and punish your enemies. It's
how they look at everything. And when I say that,
it's easy to think, well, yeah, that's why they want
(01:28):
to be United States presidents. That's why they want to
be senators. That's what the No, it's more than that,
you see, they will seek out even the most minute
amount of power so they can use it on behalf
of the revolution. Maybe it is the office of the Presidency,
maybe it's the local librarian and everything else in between.
(01:52):
The local librarian doesn't have a great deal of power.
She can't raise your taxes, open up your border. She
only has a week little bit. Her little bit of
power is what books go? Where should we display this
book here or that book there? What kind of guests
are invited for the free reading they're doing for kids
(02:13):
on Saturday. So with her minute amount of power, she
makes sure the LGBTQ demon books are set right at
the front of the kiddie section. And she's already arranged
for you, the taxpayer, to pay for a drag queen
and come read to your children with his penis hanging
down on Saturday. This is how communists think. In normal
(02:35):
people are always taken aback by communists because they don't
think in this way. So, before we get to the
judiciary specifically, what is real, genuine powers? What's almost the
height of power? You know, we all, all of us,
we are fascinated by the concept of organized crime. Hopefully
(02:57):
you're horrified by it, but everyone's fascinated by Maybe it's
the Italian mafia, drug cartels, biker gangs were fascinated by it.
This underworld of powerful people who control territory, do crimes.
But what's real power? Is it all the guns? Is
it a willingness to commit murder? That's never been historically
(03:22):
the real power of organized criminal organizations Mexico, we'll make
it about the cartels. Which ones gain power. They're the
ones who find a way to buy off the judicial system.
You know, in Mexico, if you hear a story, read
a story about a couple people shot in the head,
(03:43):
left in the ditch on the side of a road,
do you know there's a reasonable chance it was the
cops who didn't Cops will show up at a restaurant,
throw you in handcuffs, throw you in the back of
a squad car, and go shoot you in the head.
Owning the power of the justice system is probably the
height of power in any country. It probably exceeds political power.
(04:08):
The power of a CEO certainly exceeds the power of
the librarian. Judicial power. Having the legal system not just cops.
Of course, we're talking about judges, we're talking about prosecutors.
When the legal system, when you have the power of
the state, it's worth so much more than the power
of all your guns and your willingness to commit murder.
(04:31):
We routinely point out to clownish idiots on the left,
certainly ones that achieve power in the justice system, and
we mock them, and rightly so, but we should understand
why they're there. I mean, Kaitanji Brown Jackson has probably
exhibit A for this. This woman still can't believe this
is real. This woman is a Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Female empowerment.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Sick.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
I like it too.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
I think what I like about it is that I
am having a very strongly negative reaction to it, like
I hate it, which makes me think it must be brilliant.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
That's a Supreme Court justice. She's on the bench for life.
This woman, this woman here calling black people essentially disabled.
This is a Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop
of a world that was generally not accessible to people
with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because
these folks were not able to access these buildings. The
idea in section two is that we are responding to
(05:53):
current day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage
minorities and make it so that they don't have equal
access to the voting system. Right, they're disabled. In fact,
we use the word disabled in Milligan. We say, that's
a way in which you see that these processes are
(06:16):
not equally open.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
So why put her there? We're mocking her. I'm laughing
at her. You're laughing at her. We're rolling our eyes.
They must feel so stupid. No, no, you see, you
would feel stupid. I would feel stupid if I said, hey,
you you'd be a perfect Supreme Court justice. You go
sit on the Supreme Court. And then they went and
(06:39):
sat on the Supreme Court and routinely proved themselves to
be brain dead. I would have some level of embarrassment,
wouldn't you. Oh gosh, I can't believe he's one of ours.
What did we do? But that's because you don't think
like the communist does. The communist is not concerned about
embarrassment at all. The communist is not concerned about intelligence qualifications,
(07:01):
and they're concerned about your laughter. The communist is concerned
about what power. The point is Kaitanji Brown Jackson, for
the duration of her time on the Supreme Court, will
be a reliable communist. Ally, she will spend every waking
moment fighting tooth and nail on behalf of her friends
(07:23):
and trying to destroy her enemies. It's just simply about power.
And look, it's not like she's the only judge in
the country. Every day we wake up and pick up
the newspaper, or at least the digital version of it,
and there's a new outrage about a judge here, an
injunction there. But we should understand that's why those judges
(07:44):
were put into place. They weren't put there to preside
over cases. They weren't put there to accurately interpret the law.
That's childish thinking in the mind of the communists. That's
how you think. That's how I think those judges are
there to help the revolution. Who's exhibit A for these
judges who are issuing all these nation wide injunctions, Judge Boseburg.
(08:09):
Boseburg's the one is the name most people know by now. Certainly,
if you're a political person, you know all these nation
wide injunctions, and then you dig in more into Justice Boseburg,
and you find out he was the judge giving legal
cover to Arctic frost, that ridiculously illegal investigation by Jack
Smith and the FBI hoovering up text messages and phone numbers.
(08:31):
How could that be legal? Well, all you had to
do was find a judge, a revolutionary in judge's robes,
and he'll give it the sign off on everything, Judge Boseburg.
Eric Swalwell. By the way, Eric Swowell, the guy who
has mortgage fraud allegations draped all over him. Right now,
guess which judge just randomly got a signed to the
(08:54):
case of Eric Swohwell, you guessed it, Judge bo Boseburg.
Now I'm gonna say this. We have a long, hard
road ahead of us, you and I do to fight
back against the communist revolution in this country. There are
so many battles we have to fight believing we're never
(09:15):
lacking a battle. If you wake up and you're bored
politically and you're looking for something to do, there's always
something local race and national race, this group or that group,
there's always something to do. But there is something that
is true. We're gonna have to acknowledge it. We can
never see victory, final victory over the communists until we
(09:36):
root out the communists from the justice system in this country.
I'm talking about the judges, I'm talking about the ages,
I'm talking about the das. Until we root communist revolutionaries
out of the justice system in the country, we will
never be able to see final victory because that's where
(09:58):
so much power lies. I mean, Somalia is hot in
the news right now because Somalia is a disgusting country
full of fraud and they abuse women. It's just basically
the worst place on planet Earth. And because our politicians
are evil satanic monsters, they brought as many Somalis into
the United States as they possibly can, and surprise, surprise,
(10:20):
now they're murdering people, robbing cars, and committing fraud all
over the place. Well, Keith Ellison is the Attorney General
of Minnesota. Surely he's all over all these cases. Right, Yeah,
I'm sure he's gonna get right on that.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
Most importantly, we're not going to turn our backs on
our neighbors. But because of course, Somali immigrants are good
for Minnesota, just like mung immigrants are good for Minnesota.
Mexican immigrants are.
Speaker 6 (10:44):
Good for Minnesota.
Speaker 5 (10:46):
German, Italian, Irish, Norwegian immigrants are good for Minnesota, and
Anionami and Dakota people are good for Minnesota. They are
together what makes us us.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
I'm sure the Somali investigations are forthcoming. You know why
he's there. He's there to take the incredible power of
his office and reward his friends, protect his friends, and
punish his enemies. How do these attorney generals, how do
these ages look at their role? Well, we're going to
(11:22):
go listen to Clarence Thomas. You see, Christians, Christianity itself,
Communism has always viewed it as the enemy. They've been
at war with it forever. I know, your skinny jeans
wearing pastor won't mention it on Sunday. You might offend somebody.
But they're at war with Christians and Christianity. And what
would they do if you had the power of the age.
(11:43):
They do things like this.
Speaker 6 (11:46):
Did you have complaints that form the basis of your
concern about the fundraising activities here?
Speaker 7 (11:55):
We certainly had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers, that.
Speaker 6 (11:59):
Petition crisis pregnancy center.
Speaker 7 (12:02):
So I think we've been clear from the outset that
we haven't had complaints about this specific.
Speaker 6 (12:07):
So you had no basis to think that they were
deceiving any of their contributors.
Speaker 7 (12:12):
I don't I don't think that's correct, your honor. I
think we had carefully canvassed all of the public information
that has provided on the website of First Choice in
making a determination that we wanted to initiate an investigation.
Speaker 6 (12:27):
But you had no factual basis.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
The Office of Attorney General identified a pregnancy center helping
women Choose Life, a pregnancy center that didn't even have
complaints against it, and they launched an investigation to destroy it,
because that's how communists use power. We can never reach
(12:56):
the mountaintop. We can never see final victory over the
communists until we root them out of our justice system.
All that may have made you uncomfortable, but I am right.
Somebody who knows a little something about Judge Boseburg is
Jim Jordan. We're going to talk to Jim Jordan about
that in just a moment. Now. Maybe you're thinking I
(13:18):
lack energy for this fight. I can't do this. I'm tired.
That's just because you haven't been taking your natural herbal
supplements from chalk. I'm not tired. I feel fantastic. I'm
ready to rock and roll. You know, herbal supplements are
going to have you feeling good, right, That's really what
it's about. It's about you getting home from work, getting
(13:40):
home from school and not being completely out of gas,
counting the seconds until you can crawl into bed. What
if you could get home from work and feel fantastic
all the time. That's how I feel because I've been
taking a male Vitality stack from Chalk for years. Took
it again this morning, every single morning. Greatest thing I've
ever done in my life, from my personal life, for
(14:01):
my business life. Try it. It's the Christmas season right now.
There are specials. Go get a subscription Chuck dot com,
slash jessetv. We'll be back. Ardic Frost continues to get
(14:25):
uglier and uglier the more we know. We find out
now they were hoovering up the freaking the Chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee's phone records for two years. These
people have some guts. I'll give it. I'll give from that.
Joining me now, Congressman from the Great State of Ohio,
home of the Ohio State buck Eyes. Congressman Jim Jordan
so what exactly were they doing to you?
Speaker 8 (14:48):
Getting your phone records?
Speaker 9 (14:49):
They know who you called, who called you, when you
called them, how long you were on the call, and
if you initiated the call, anew where you were at
because they get bounce it off the cell tower. So look,
they're not getting content, but they can pattern your life.
I mean every morning, when my wife's not here in DC,
I text my wife, so they know that all he
tells text into this number. They do, and you call
your brother, you call your best friend, you call your college,
(15:11):
you call the president, They know who you're that.
Speaker 8 (15:14):
That is creepy to me.
Speaker 9 (15:16):
So they were doing that for all kinds of members
of Congress, all kinds of American citizens because they thought
somehow there was this grand conspiracy to promote alternative electors
and change, like what are you talking about? And President
Trump was somehow going to be prosecuted because he was
the architect of this grand conspiracy.
Speaker 8 (15:35):
That's how ridiculous it is.
Speaker 9 (15:38):
And the things they did to like again, members of
Congress and for me, we found out it was for
two and a half years, which makes no sense because
they go clear back to I believe it was January
of twenty twenty so before the election, before January sixth.
Speaker 8 (15:55):
What the heck is that about?
Speaker 9 (15:57):
Again, I think when you talk about the weaponization of government,
this is it, you know, in a in a nutshell.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Congressman, do you get the impression that they actually thought
there was a grand conspiracy or it's just just the
bottom line of how these dirty comedies have always operated.
You take control of the judiciary and you use it
to attack your political opposition, and if that means harassing
Jim Jordan and finding out when he Texas wife, well
that's just a nice benefit.
Speaker 8 (16:25):
I think it's probably both.
Speaker 9 (16:27):
I do think these are you know, I always say,
what's what's the I always say not all Democrats are crazy,
but the left that controls their party is, And the
left is truly out to get President Trump. We've seen
that time and time again over the last decade. So
I do think it's driven by these people are probably
probably left leaning Democrats who are like, we're gonna get Trump,
(16:47):
we know he's bad. That that kind of crazy mindset.
So I think it's that plus. But I think it's
also like, you know, we're just going to go after it,
and because we believe that we're We're willing to go
after our enemies and and go to whatever length we can,
whatever means we think is appropriate.
Speaker 8 (17:02):
But yeah, these guys were serious.
Speaker 9 (17:03):
I just read that book by the left journalist Caro
Lenig called Injustice, and it chronicles this whole thing after
January sixth and what happened at the Justice Department. And
it's amazing, how you know she thinks Jack Jack Smith is,
you know, just a saint. And all these guys who
you know, Windham and Bratt and Cooney and Olsen, all
(17:26):
these guys who worked at the Justice Department, who worked
on Artie Frost and then became part of the Special
Council's investigations.
Speaker 8 (17:32):
How great these guys are.
Speaker 9 (17:34):
So there's just a mindset that the left has, and
I think that's that's kind of what strikes. I mean,
think about the subpoena for our phone records, my phone records.
It said, you can't they said to the judge, you
can't tell Verizon, Verizon, you can't tell the customer in
this case me, you can't tell the customer that the
Justice Department got his phone records because we think he
(17:56):
might be might tamper with evidence, might be a flight
like I was going to leave the country. This is
the dumbest stuff I've ever seen. But that's what these
guys did. That's the subpoena Day signed. That's what they sent.
Judge okayed it and Bryson couldn't tell me that's crazy,
but that's what they did.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Well, Saint Jack Smith just got referred to the DOJ
for obstruction of Congress by you. What does this mean?
Does he get wrung up for something? How does this work? No?
Speaker 8 (18:26):
No, no, I want to a slight correction. Wyndham, his deputy.
Speaker 9 (18:31):
We referred to Justice Department for obstructing our investigation. Wyndham
is the guy who signed off on a lot of
these subpoenas. What we did today is we actually sent
a subpoena to Jack Smith to come in and sent
for a deposition. So we have subpoena or excuse me,
we subpoened Wyndham to come in for a deposition. He
claimed all kinds of things, tried to obstruct our investigation.
So we referred him to the Justice Department for prosecution.
(18:53):
And we don't do this often. I mean, the facts
got to be there. We rarely will do that, but
we did it. In the case of Wyndham, because we
think he earned it. We think he deserves it, We
thought it was warranted with Jack Smith today that we're
sending out a subpoena. We want him to come in
for a deposition. We want to ask him about all
the things we've been talking about, the countless number of
members of Congress that he got phone records on, and
(19:16):
a host of other issues that we think are important.
Now we've deposed Wyndham, we've proposed Bratt, we've opposed Cooney,
and we're going to depose others who were part of
his investigation. But we subpoena Jack Smith the day to
come in for his deposition.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Judge Bosburg is somebody. It's a name well known by
this point in time. On the ride, he's mister injunction guy,
mister Ardit Frost guy. He always seems to be there.
Now he miraculously got the Eric Swalwell case. What a miracle.
What can be done about this guy?
Speaker 9 (19:45):
Well, we've done some things legislatively, you know, on this
injunction issue, to name one where we said you can't
if a federal judge, and there's like, I think seven hundred
of these around the country. If they issued an injunction,
it should only apply to the parties in the case
in that respective jurisdiction. So that build WIT's passed the House,
it's over in the Senate. We hope the Senate will
(20:07):
take it up and pass it. So we're working on
some things legislatively. We're doing our oversight, and as you know,
there have been members, actually one member even of our
committee who's filed impeachment resolution against mister Boseburg for some
of the actions he's taken. So we're taking this step
by step. Typically, typically you don't impeach judges unless they're
(20:27):
engaged in like truly criminal behavior, or they're showing up
drunk on the job, or you know, something something crazy
like that. If it's based on decisions, there's always the
remedy of the appellate court. So historically our country has
not looked at impeachment for bad decisions. But in this case,
if you just take this gag order, this non disclosure
order that Boseburg signed for a number of my colleagues
(20:51):
who that the Justice Department was getting their phone records on,
what's the remedy. There's no there's no appeal process because
the person who's been agreed doesn't know because the judge said,
Verizon at and T you can't tell them. So there's
no there's no remedy to the concern there. So I
do think this is Bozburg Getion's kind of some unique territory,
(21:13):
and we're looking at all option as we as we
move forward. But we're taking this step by step, and
of course the next step is Jack Smith coming in
for his deposition.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Congressman, is there any part of you, I mean, I
understand you're a tough guy and wrestler and whatnot. Is
there is there any part of you that feels bad
for the University of Michigan. I mean, they don't win
now and now they couldn't now they couldn't even beat us,
And I mean it, I'm almost head. I'm almost sympathetic
at this point in time.
Speaker 9 (21:41):
Well, it's been as you know, Jesse, I love the
buck guys from Ohio coach at Ohio State, but I
went undergrad the University of Wisconsin and the Badgers have
had a tough, tough couple of years as well.
Speaker 8 (21:52):
We actually have It's interesting we're talking today.
Speaker 9 (21:54):
We actually have a bill on the floor that we
think will help the situation.
Speaker 8 (21:59):
This what's called the Score Act.
Speaker 9 (22:00):
We think it's a good step to help give a
little more parody, to make sure we have opportunity for
all student athletes, not just football and basketball, but the
Olympic sports and women's sports as well, and our bill.
I also think we try to remember with this legislation
that it's supposed to be about getting an education.
Speaker 8 (22:19):
You know, right now, we have a situation.
Speaker 9 (22:20):
We get a lot of people who played five years
and transfer four times and never get a degree, maybe
never go to class. For goodness sake, they just played
sports and okay, but you know, I thought it was
supposed to be student athlete. So we got some legislation
that we think can be helpful around the board. But yeah,
I'm not losing a whole lot of sleepover Michigan losing
to the buck guys and the buck guys being number
(22:41):
one and undefeated on the season.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
It is a shame, isn't it. It's a shame. Congressman,
thank you, sir, I appreciate you. We have Senator Ron
Johnson joining us in a moment. He's going to talk
a bit more about this Arctic frost stuff and I'm
gonna ask him the FBI, Patel, the Butler assassination. Are
we getting what we need? Do we think we have
(23:05):
an ally there? We'll talk to them about that before
we talk to him about that. I'm gonna eat some chips,
all right. I eat a lot of chips here in
the studio. If you go to the kitchen, you're gonna
see chips, and you're gonna see Vandy crisps is what
you're gonna see. I love them. I'm a potato chip
man and a corn chip man, and potato chips are
(23:26):
horrible for you. What happens when you pull your finger
out of a bag of potato chips, the kind of
buying the grocery store. They're all covered in grease and terrible,
and you know it's bad for you. You know that Vandy
crisps taste better. And there's three ingredients, no seed oil,
stuffs made of beef, tilos, salt, potatoes. They're fantastic, multiple flavors.
(23:50):
You can eat chips guilt free. That's what Vandy Crisps
delivers to you and to me. And I need that
because I'll die without chips. Don't die. Go to vandycrisps
dot com and use the promo code JESSETV. We'll be back. Well,
(24:16):
Ardic Frost is not done. It's not going away. The
little we've found out so far appears to be just
the tip of the iceberg. Senator Ron Johnson, by the
grace of God, is still all over this thing, which
you can understand, being as how he was a victim
of it. Joining me now, Senator from the state of Wisconsin.
Senator Ron Johnson. All right, Senator, apparently we have new documents,
(24:38):
more documents coming. But what's new and what's coming.
Speaker 10 (24:42):
Well, we're trying to get to information kind of dribs
and drabs, unfortunately, but we're trying to understand more the
predicate behind these things. Again, in general, they wanted to
criminalize what, for example, John Kennedy did in providing of
electors when there were disputes over some states accounts, perfectly legitimate.
(25:05):
Al Gore should have done that he might have been
president United States said, the Supreme Court actually seen some
ultimate or also slavey electors from al Gore. So again
they're trying to criminalize that behavior. But bottom line, this
is a massive partisan dragnet designed to cripple the Republican Party.
They don't care who they're going after. Obviously targeting Trump, yeah,
(25:25):
targeting a few members of Congress. But I think it's
most disturbing is that they've targeted just ordinary Americans like
keep pointing to the thirty eight Wisconsinites. Again, god fearing,
country loving law enforcement supporting people also in Jack Smith's crosshairs.
It's really despicable.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
No, it is despicable. You said you're getting it in
dribs and drabs, Senator. I understand there are legal ways
things have to be done, so I don't want to
speak out of turn here, but why dribs and drabs? Why?
I mean, you're a senator. Can't they just go drop
the files on your desk and say here they are.
Speaker 10 (26:01):
They have a review process, and there are legitimate things
that probably need to be redacted on some of these.
My biggest issue, I think, my biggest concern continues to
be the FBI and Private Justice do not have the staff.
I mean, they obviously had to terminate people. A lot
of partisan leftists left because they certainly couldn't serve in
Trump administration, and with all the law fair undertaken by
(26:23):
people like Jim troopis the person of high integrity who
just happened to be the lawyer for President Trump in Wisconsin.
They're destroying the man million dollars in legal fees, got
him up on felony forgery charges. So again, it doesn't
take too many people to hang in the public square
before other folks get in line. So it's difficult for
Pambondi and Cash Hotel to hire the numbers of people
(26:46):
they need to do all the work that needs to
be done.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
Are we confident they're going to be able to and
do you have a time frame on that? Because I
understand what you're saying is true. I have all kinds
of friends in Washington that tell me the same thing.
We don't have the horses. We don't have the horses. Well,
are we hiring the horses? Are the horses out there
or are we out of horses?
Speaker 8 (27:07):
Again?
Speaker 10 (27:07):
If you're up and coming lawyer in a law firm
that you know other lawyers who represented Trump were blacklisted,
if you see what they've done to Judge troopis, would
you say, oh, I want to join the trumpdministration for
three years and have my entire legal career destroyed again?
That is the most despicable part of the law fairs.
(27:27):
It's bad enough, you know, being a target of it,
but the impact it has across the board. So no,
this is a real problem. It's a real issue.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Let's focus on the Butler assassination because the lack of
information we have is amazing. But maybe we don't lack information.
Maybe it's just a simple solo shooter that wasn't working
with anybody else. I find that difficult to believe. But
I don't know everything. What do you know? What's cash
Betel's saying what happened in Butler?
Speaker 10 (28:01):
So this isn't going to very satisfy you very much either.
We don't know much. Again, I pretty well assumed when
President Trump took office put his people in place, takes
a couple of months to get geared up, but they
would want to get to the bottom of this. All
of a sudden, we're on the anniversary of the assassination
attempt and we're looking at our own Bipartis investigation really
(28:24):
hadn't gone very far. But that's where I kind of
geared back up. So we still know what's happening. So
I issued a very friendly subpoena to cash Rettel kind
of to nudge him say, the American people need to
know this, and we just haven't gotten much. We've got
some more information out of the Pennsylvania State Police. We're getting,
for example, different videos that type of thing out of
(28:44):
different sources. Again, we're doing our investigation, and you can't
spell every little piece of information as soon as you
get it. But we still have a long way to go.
I don't know much about We're not getting information out
of the administration there. We're hoping maybe some of the
telephone carriers and stuff will give us more information. But
there right now, from my standpoint, far more unanswered questions
(29:07):
than we have answers for.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
You, Senator, to get specific. You at one point in
time told us on this show that there was a
gentleman there in a suit in the immediate aftermath of
it who was hoovering up pictures from the cops of
the whole scene. And you track down his phone number.
Turned out he worked for the ATF and lawyered up
when you reached out to him. Did anything ever come
(29:28):
of that?
Speaker 10 (29:30):
I don't believe we've talked to that individual yet either
that they keep him pretty well shielded from us. So no,
this is you know, Jesse, I know it's not very satisfying.
There's only so much I can do. We can keep requestioning,
we can issue subpoenas. It's difficult for Congress and for
subpoenas generally, we generally use subpoenas to get people to
(29:53):
volunteer information. People don't like to be issued subpoenas, but
enforcing those is very difficult.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
Speaking of enforcing subpoenas, Peter Navarro, s thieve Ben and
these men went to jail because they said no to
Congress when the subpoena came down. Judge Bosburg just said, no,
is he going to jail?
Speaker 10 (30:14):
I can't make that prediction. But we're not gonna let
up on Judge Bolsburg right right now. What he's doing
is he's hiding behind the grand jury protected six e material.
And what we need Pambondy in this administration do is
request that the courts unseal that. So right now, Judge
Bolsburg is hiding behind the fact that these are grand
(30:35):
jury protected information that again he's in charge of ceiling,
he won't unseal him. We really need to start putting
pressure from the administration to get him to unseal that information.
I don't have the authority to do it myself, but
we've requested that from Pambondy.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
FDA just came out and said ten kids died of
the COVID vaccine, so of course the number is probably
higher than that. We had every medical institution, political institution,
media institution in this country telling parents they had to
do that or Aiden, Jaden and Braiden will die and
kill Grandma on the way, And now we have kids
who were dead. Is anybody ever going to be held
(31:14):
to account for that? Because there are a lot of
jaded people in this country, myself included.
Speaker 10 (31:18):
To be honest, first of all, that is just the
tip of the iceberg. It might be a good first
baby step, but that's all it is, you know, for
somebody like myself who've been monitoring veyors since early in
twenty twenty one, we're up to a closer thirty nine
thousand deaths worldwide associate with the COVID injection. Twenty four
(31:38):
percent of those occurred on the day of injection within
one or two days, so I know it doesn't prove causation,
but man, that's correlation. That federal health officials definitely should
have been concerned about in tracking. You can put that
same concern about all the vaccine injuries on the childhood
schedule as well. There's a great book just out by
Aaron Sri Vaccines Amen. I'd recommend you and all your
(32:01):
listeners read that. It's it's really a very good source document.
Now almost the seven of work, and it'll tell it'll
talk about the religion of vaccines and the belief system
absinute science.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Uh.
Speaker 10 (32:15):
We do not do adequate uh you know, double blind
placebal control studies on any of the tribes with vaccines.
We we've not done any. The studies are so unbelievably underpowered,
and it's all about getting that license. And then once
you've been licensed, once you have FD approval, now you
have liability protection. And then nobody, not the people who
(32:36):
approved it, not the pharma soup companies, nobody wants to
follow up on adveragey events following that. So now this
is a completely corrupt system. These federal agencies have been
completely captured the people. Just like cash retail and pan
BONDI are dealing with these partisan bureaucrats that are burrowed
in the agencies trying to sabotaze what they're doing. Bobby
Kennedy faces the exact same issues. So that that fact
(32:59):
that we know about ten of them, that's an internal
memo leaked. I'm not sure it was supposed to be
leaked or or whatever. But that is just the tip
of the iceberg. You know, people like doctor Peter McCollough,
they reviewed autopsies, which by the way, were very difficult
to obtain during COVID because they didn't want to know
what was causing all these sudden adult deaths. Remember, remember
(33:20):
that we always know about SIDS infant death syndrome. All
of a sudden we had SADS, sudden adult death syndrome,
and what happened to that? But what about all these
sports figures, these news personalities dropping over at their workstation
around the field of play. You know, they were recovered
oftentimes on local news, but not on national media, not
(33:42):
part of the COVID cartel there. So no, this is
just the tip of the iceberg. It's it's really what
motivates me. It's one of the main reasons I ran
for a third term when I'd rather just go home,
is we need to expose all of this the corruption
of our pharmaceutical industry, of our faith federal health as
users be regulating them quite asty, the corruption within establishment
(34:05):
in medicine cures that they won't even look at. There
could be a whole lot cheaper. We've got a real
problem with medicine. And this is coming from a dad
whose child was saved by the miracle of modern medicine
with the you know, open our surgery at the age
of eight months. So it pains me to talk about
our medical establishment that save my daughter's life.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
We've got real problems with it. Don't retire, senator, please,
You're one of the few we actually need there. Thank you.
I appreciate it. Well, it's a big reason why I
drink cowboy colostrum every morning. Honestly, I never used to
be that guy, but that's why I put cowboy colostrum
(34:48):
in my coffee every single morning. I don't want to
go to the doctor. I don't trust them. I don't
trust the medical institutions in this country, and so my
plan it'll fail eventually, but my plan is to avoid
the doctor as much as possible. My gut operates better
with cowboy colostrum in my coffee. It just does. I
(35:11):
was told by someone who had all kinds of stomach
problems that that, hey, this is great for your gut.
It's great for your gut to fixed all my problems.
That so I just started pouring it in there, you know,
heartburn every now and then, kind of normal stuff gone.
My gut operates like I'm twenty years old again. Go
try some. It's delicious, by the way, I put the
chocolate in my coffee. But they have vanilla and strawberry
(35:32):
and all that cowboycolostrum dot com code jessetb. Try it bad,
We'll be back.
Speaker 8 (35:50):
Well.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
This auto pen stuff. Trump loves to talk about it.
He even has Joe Biden's portrait up in the White
House and it's a picture of the auto pen, which
is hilarious, by the way. But he's always talking about
how Joe Biden's auto pen executive orders they're all non invoid,
and the pardons that are they're all noll and void.
But it's one thing to say, it's another thing to
(36:10):
have that actually be true. Let's ask Alex about that.
Joining me now. Alex Sawyer, author of the book Lawless,
Law Fair. She writes, well, she's the editor at large
for the Washington Times. All right, Alex, how does this work?
Can he do this? Is he doing this? I don't understand.
Speaker 3 (36:29):
I think that he is going to try, and so
I think the answer is yes and no. To be direct,
so he can pretty much outdo reverse all of President
Biden's executive orders. We see presidents do this all the time, right.
Usually when a new administration comes in, they do away
with what the prior administration did by executive order. That's
(36:50):
why they always say, try to go through Congress because
it sticks. And so with Biden's autopen when it comes
to executive orders, yes, Trump can just reverse those. When
it comes to legislation that might have been signed by
the autopen or pardons, that's quite different. And in fact,
I was doing a little bit of research because this
question has come up so much, and there looks like
(37:12):
there's actually precedent. I think it dates back all the
way to the eighteen hundreds. But in relation to pardons,
something to the effect, I'm guessing it was a little
bit of dicta.
Speaker 4 (37:20):
I need to dig into the case more.
Speaker 3 (37:22):
But that pardons are pretty permanent and that there's nothing
that says in the Constitution that must be signed by
an real signature rather than an autopen So, you know,
I think that there's a hard chance that the president
can make an argument that he can reverse President Biden's pardons.
But of course I love to cover the Supreme Court,
and if a challenge like that were to arise, it
(37:43):
would be one of my highlights to cover for sure.
Another unprecedented Trump Well.
Speaker 1 (37:50):
Good, let's talk about what you love the Supreme Court,
because Trump is banking on some ws there for some
things that are coming down the pike. You've written about this,
what's coming? Are we going to win? Are we going
to cry?
Speaker 4 (38:02):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (38:03):
So you know what, there's some interesting cases that are
pending waiting for decisions right away. So first of all,
we've talked about the Trump tariff issue. I think you
and I have talked before about that, and so really
the Supreme Court could issue a decision on President Trump's
argument that he has to implement tariffs in a way
that's based on emergency powers. Essentially that he cites the
(38:25):
trade deficit and the issue with fentanyl flowing in the country. Now,
small businesses had challenged that. They had said, no, it's
really a Congress that should be the one that lays,
they lay and collect taxes, they should be the ones
that have the authority with tariffs. So that has been
before the Justices. They could really issue a ruling anytime,
and I know the President the administration wants them to
do so, so they can go ahead and you know,
(38:47):
further their teriff agenda.
Speaker 4 (38:48):
So that's one that could come anytime.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
The other one that is super interesting, obviously with all
the news about the National guardsmen being shot here in DC,
is there's a case before the Supreme Court pending about
the President's attempt to deploy National Guards to Chicago.
Speaker 4 (39:04):
So that's been briefed.
Speaker 3 (39:06):
Anytime, the Justices could could really, like I mean today,
they could issue a decision in order about whether the
President has the authority to issue National guardsmen to Chicago.
And we see this in lower courts. I think we've
talked about how DC Court SIVI rule. There's also been
a pelic courts out in the Ninth Circuit. We've seen
challenges with La Portland, various cities that have been fighting this,
(39:28):
and so how the Supreme Court rules it will be
very important, will be guidance for lower courts if they
go in other cities for example. And then lastly, one
of the topics that has been huge is the whole
jerrymandering issue with like the Texas Map in California.
Speaker 4 (39:43):
I'm sure you've covered this.
Speaker 3 (39:44):
We might have talked about this previously, but the Texas
Map is actually before the Supreme Court and they let it,
you know, the one where basically Republicans were able to
I think there's like five new seats that they were
able to maneuver by changing district lines.
Speaker 4 (39:59):
In the Supreme Court has.
Speaker 3 (40:00):
Allowed at least temporarily for that new map to take effect.
And so now that those briefs are in, they could
issue a decision whether or not to stay that way,
stay the course, or to reverse that and halt the
new map. And that's just interesting because we know, you know,
California is doing the same trying to cancel out five
Republican seats. We're going to probably see other states blue
(40:20):
and red try to do the same. So how the
Supreme Court comes down there will also be interesting guidance
going forward.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
Alex say, I know you probably hate it when I
ask you this, but I always have to ask. I'm
uniquely interested in those dairy Mandarin cases because it's the
House of Representatives at stake here, Do you have any
kind of a sense of which way that's going to go.
Surely they're not going to do something like allow California
to do it and not allow Texas, Right.
Speaker 4 (40:49):
Right, that's absolutely true. Now.
Speaker 3 (40:51):
The way that these cases are getting before the justices
are that people are making arguments that the way that
the lines are redrawn is basically racial discriminate. So a
lot of these gerrymandering cases get before the Court because
they have to make basically a voting rights or a
civil rights argument. The Court already has a case before
it right now, pending that they heard oral arguments in
(41:11):
earlier this this I think it was at the start
of the term in October, if I remember, right, And
it has to do with maps out of Louisiana and essentially,
if they're going to do away with part of the
Voting Rights Act, which deals with the majority minority districts,
a group of white voters have basically challenged non black
voters instead that having a second minority district has disenfranchised
(41:33):
it basically violated the Fourteenth Amendment, that they're using race
as a factor in drawing these lines, and that that's unconstitutional.
So how they come down on that could impact what
they do with these Jerring Mandarin cases because if they,
you know, were to say yes, like we side with
these voters in Louisiana, that really makes some of these
claims trying to challenge and these gerry mandering maps hard
(41:55):
because they have to point to race a racial discrimination,
and doing so they can point really to partisan or
political gerrymandering. The Court has previously said, you know that
that's a political question that's not one for the courts
to decide. So it kind of looks like the only
way to really get your gerrymandering case before the Justices
is to find some sort of racial undertone. So we're
(42:16):
gonna have to kind of see if the Justices have
any sort of appetite for.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
That, we have any sense about this idea of birthright citizenship,
and if this is something the Supreme Court's finally going
to be done with because this is so we can't
have a country like this, Please tell me they're going
to address this situation.
Speaker 3 (42:36):
I feel like, Jesse, I feel like you asked me
this every few times that we get to talk, and
every time I want you, I would love to be able,
like I said, to cover the autopen challenge. All I'd
love to be able to cover the birthright citizenship challenge,
but I really have.
Speaker 4 (42:52):
No idea what the court would do.
Speaker 3 (42:55):
Usually they take cases where there's been circuit splits, where
courts have ruled certainly different ways on issues. And my
understanding is I have an immigration or reporter. He's actually
our editor or political editor, Stephen Dining at The Washington Times.
He covers this in and out, so he's the expert
with how the lower courts have been treating the birthrights.
Speaker 4 (43:13):
This and ship issue.
Speaker 3 (43:14):
But my understanding is I think many of them have
ruled against the administration, so it's more likely than not
the justices wouldn't want to touch something unless there's a
circuits but we'll see. I'd have to go back and
look at my notes and check on that, but yet
to be determined. That's one of the things I always
look at, is how have lower courts treated this? If
there's any confusion in lower courts, then yes, there's usually
(43:34):
a likelihood that the justices will weigh in.
Speaker 1 (43:38):
What about Letitia James, Is she finally going to go
to jail?
Speaker 3 (43:42):
Yeah, so the whole Letitia James James Comey situation with
the Clinton appointee basically dismissing those indictments. It's very interesting
because the whole I guess critics of these indictments could argue,
and they tried to argue, is that these two individuals
can't be reindict it as well, specifically Comy, because of
(44:04):
the Statute of limitations.
Speaker 4 (44:05):
However, there is a federal law that says that if.
Speaker 3 (44:08):
There was a technicality with a charging document, that there's
like a I guess, a six month extension. So I
could see the administration making that argument, but first possibly
trying to go back with a new US attorney, someone
else in Lindsay Halligan's position, and presenting to the grand jury,
getting a new indictment, and then trying to make that
argument citing the federal law that hey, the first charging
(44:29):
document had airs, we get six more months to correct that,
and here we have a new indictment. Now with Letitia James,
her case is a little different. She doesn't have the
Statute of limitations rule. So, just like I mentioned, with
the replacement of Lindsay Holligan, whoever wants to step in
that position, even someone from the Justice Department. I guess
since we're talking about Mortgagequad could come in here and
present the case again to a grand jury, get another indictment,
(44:54):
and go forward prosecuting her. So, you know, I think
she's more in a tough position than Comy just because
he can try to rely on that statute of limitations argument.
But yes, I would not be surprised if the Trump
administration goes and tries to get new indictments for both
of them, because really it's the process is part of
the punishment, and drawing this out for either you know,
Comy or James is part of what the President and
(45:15):
his administration would like to do.
Speaker 1 (45:19):
Good. That made me feel better, Thanks, Alex, I appreciate it.
Lighten the mood next, all right, it's time to lighten
the mood. And as you're well aware, if you watch
(45:41):
the show at all, you're well aware of how much
I enjoy Democrat pandering. It's just one of my favorite
things in the world. They're just so nakedly shameless about
the pandering they'll do to every single interview the different group.
It's one of my favorite things in the world. It
makes me laugh to no end. Jacob Fray is the
mayor of Minneapolis. He's someone who very much wants to
(46:04):
keep getting re elected mayor of Minneapolis. So if you
want to keep getting elected mayor of Minneapolis, you got
to learn to oblah the local lingo. Here's how that goes.
Speaker 11 (46:15):
That's not American, that's not what we are about. And
we're gonna do right by every single person in our cities.
And so to our Somali community. Daman Shabka Somali, ad
Unul Minnesota, Gottahan, Minneapolis, Jan Janila Hai Juan ku gereb
(46:41):
to Ganahan.
Speaker 1 (46:47):
It let's see them all
Host
Jesse Kelly
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.