January 14, 2026 • 46 mins
Change is happening, but maybe not at the speed it needs to be. Example? The FBI. Kash Patel just fired a bunch of corrupt FBI agents. But that's not nearly enough, warns Jesse Kelly. Speaking of change, is Pam Bondi's job in jeopardy? Jesse Kelly and John Solomon discuss that. You'll also hear from Professor William A. Jacobson about the latest Supreme Court case that was just argued. Plus, Congressman Chip Roy provides an uncomfortable update on new legislation.
I'm Right with Jesse Kelly on The First TV
Choq: Visit https://choq.com/jessetv for a 17.76% discount on your CHOQ subscription for life
Masa Chips: Ready to give MASA a try? Get 25% off your first order by going to http://masachips.com/JESSETV and using code JESSETV.
PureTalk: Cut your wireless bill to $20/month—switch to PureTalk now at https://PureTalk.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):
Is Bill Clinton going to jail? Is Pam BONDI gonna
have a job? We have a deep state that's really bad.
Chip Roy's gonna join us. What happened at the Supreme Court?
What a show on? I'm right, you know the story
(00:25):
of Julius Caesar. Everyone's heard of Julius Caesar. I'm certainly
not trying to insult your intelligence, but I'm talking about
kind of the crossing of the Rubicon moment. That's where
we got that phrase. By the way, the Rubicon was
a river in the Roman Empire. If you cross, it
doesn't matter. But what happened with Julius Caesar, what prompted
(00:48):
these wars with Julius Caesar and his army fighting other
Roman armies, Well, many things led up to it, but
one of the main things that led to it was
this basic fact. Julius Caesar was pro consul in a
place called Gauls, France. But in a place called gaul
he was pro consul. He was running things up there,
(01:09):
and the Romans they had a rule law, if you will,
you can't prosecute somebody while they're pro consul.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
While they're in office, you can't prosecute them.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
But your term as pro consul got a time limit
on it. Soon as your term is up, as soon
as you're no longer in office, they can absolutely prosecute you,
do whatever they want to you. And Julius Caesar knew
what they planned to do to him, and Julius Caesar
(01:43):
was left with a choice. You could agree or disagree,
that's not the point of our little story here, but
he was left with a choice. I have to either
use the army I have now against the people who
are going to come after me, or they're gonna get
me if I give up power. They're going to use
(02:06):
their power to get me. Let's talk about the deep
state here, not just what they did, what they're going
to do. We are in obviously there are certain things
that are different, no question, but we are in.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Those of us on the right, we are in a
similar situation here.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
We know.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
We're going to talk a little bit more about that
in a second. We know the things the communists did
when they just had power for four years, all the evil,
horrible things they did, and we know, at least if
you have a brain, you know this, if they come
back to power, they're going to do worse. The only
(02:46):
lesson America's communists learned from the four years under Joe
Biden was they didn't do enough.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
They didn't go hard.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Enough after their political opponents. That's the only lesson they learned.
Have you read any of the latest This former FBI agent,
Timothy Tebow is his name. Again, this is not the
Florida quarterback. He's instead a corrupt communist who was an
FBI agent. He resigned after social media post's anti Trump
(03:17):
social media posts became known. But Tim Tebow at the FBI,
he was really the one that got this Arctic Frost
investigation going. Now, I would like to believe, and I'm
sure you would like to believe, that we live in
a country that is a lawful country. Certainly, people in
the FBI, people in the government will follow the law
(03:41):
and they're going to have to use an actual justification
to go after any US citizen because we live in
a lawful country. We don't want to imagine where like
the Soviet Union, where they can simply pick someone they dislike.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
And then they'll form a case from that.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Yet, every bit of information we have now on guys
like Timothy Tebow shows us that he actually used reporting
from communist outlets like NPR in Washington Post to build
a criminal probe against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
But wait, there's more. Maybe you remember this little tidbit
from twenty twenty.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
The FBI is charged with protecting the rights of all Americans,
including their right to vote.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
While the responsibility to.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
Ensure a fair election process lies primarily at the state
and local level, the FBI takes allegations of election related
violations of federal law seriously. The FBI investigates federal election
crimes that generally fall into three categories, campaign finance crimes,
voter ballot fraud, and civil rights violations. The FBI Washington
(04:55):
Field Office works with our state and federal partners to
engage with other law enforces partners and provide resources about
the FBI's role in elections.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Remember that twenty twenty election the Democrats stole. Yeah, he
was the guy who was in charge of looking into it.
But wait, we also have reporting out now about that
Hunter Biden laptop. You're well familiar with the story by now.
The son of Joe Biden, when Joe Biden was running
(05:28):
for president, turns in a laptop showing he committed an
unending number of felonies. The FBI gets that laptop turned
into them, but the FBI, after looking at it, doesn't
do anything with it. In fact, they buried it. Of course,
(05:49):
this was all in an effort to ensure that Joe
Biden could defeat Donald Trump and the election.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
And guess who.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Guess who was involved in spike the Hunter Biden laptop story,
Tim Tebow. This isn't necessarily just about Tim Tebow, who
should spend the rest of his life in prison if
these allegations are true.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
This is about.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Where we are as a country in the very, very
dangerous game we are now stuck in. Do you remember
former FBI James Comy, Remember what he said on TV.
Speaker 5 (06:28):
I know Republicans these days aren't big in thinking about
principle or precedent. They're going to be deeply sorry that
that disappears, because someday there will be a Democratic president
and there'll be investigations of Republican officeholders. If I'm them,
I sure would want these career people in place making
sure that it's done in the right way. Look, I've
(06:49):
long thought that you could shrink the size of some
of the Department of Justice headquarters units. But this is
like burning down the house and then standing in front
of the pile of ashes and saying, yeah, we really
did need to retile the guests. Right, this is destroying
the place at a cost that's gonna take years and
years to rebuild.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
They're gonna come after us if they take power again.
Now that means we have to do what we have
to take the bad actors now, and we have to
pace them against the wall. Legally, whose job is that, well,
her name is Pam BONDI.
Speaker 6 (07:30):
People have to be held accountable. No one Sean is
above the law. No one is above the law. And
you will be held accountable. And you know, a very
liberal grand jury and one of the most liberal jurisdictions
in the country just indicted James.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Comey.
Speaker 6 (07:45):
Now we know, of course we have to go to trial.
We'll have a great trial team and everyone, of course
is innocent until proven guilty. However, we are going to
trial in this case. And this is just the beginning.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
Yeah, all that stuff got dropped in James homies walking
free to this day. I didn't want to talk about
this to frighten you, but we have to have an
honest assessment of.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Where we are.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
We are Julius Caesar in all they are coming for
us when we give up power. Again, we're not doing
near enough, which of course brings me to Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton, who just decided he was going to skip
a deposition.
Speaker 7 (08:26):
Unanimously by the committee in a bob partisan matter. We
will move next week in the House Oversight Committee mark up.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
To hold former President Clinton in con timpt of congression.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Yeah, okay, yeah, let's chair. Sounds good.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Well, Steve Bannon went to prison for that. Well, we
can't put Bill Clinton in prison. Yes, you can for that.
Doesn't have any kind of immunity for that. Do we
have the guts to do it? Because I promise you
they're going to do it. This is the kind of
un comfortable, squirmy in your chair stuff we have to
(09:03):
be willing to do now because we understand the stakes
of the game. I wouldn't hold my breath though all
that may have made you uncomfortable, but I am right.
John Solomon has been all over so much of this stuff,
and he's going to join us next to break some
of it down. Let me break something down for you.
One percent a year, we are losing one percent of
(09:27):
our testosterone a year. We have lost as you can imagine,
fifty percent in fifty years, our te levels are gone.
There's a reason you see a men's clinic on every
corner of your town.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Now.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Men know it. They're out of energy. Their brains aren't
working well, they're just they're not who they're supposed to be.
So do you think you should go get a needle
jammed in your arm or do you think you should
maybe try some natural herbal supplements first? You know, go
try shock chock will have you turned around. I'm feeling
(10:02):
like a million bucks, naturally, and they'll have it quickly.
You're ninety days probably sixty days, ninety days away, twenty percent.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Increase in your T levels naturally.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Go to chalk dot com, slash jessetv, get a subscription
ninety days away, we'll be back.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Well, there are.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Names that keep popping up as we sift through all
this deep state swamp, what everything you want to call it.
There are names that keep popping up. We just talked
about it in the open Timothy Tebow. No, I'm not
talking about the wonderful quarterback from the University of Florida.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Why do we know these names?
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Well, it's thanks in large part to actual journalists like
John Solomon, founder of Just the News. Okay, John, let's
talk about this. Tim Tebow, let's talk about Artic Frost.
Let's talk about how these investigations originated. Because normal Americans,
people who believe in their country, like to believe that.
Of course, there's a mountain of evidence that builds up
in the FBI finally sees the evidence and then they
(11:13):
decide they're going to go after these dastardly criminals. How
did all this stuff begin?
Speaker 8 (11:19):
Looks like they had a theory of a crime and
then when to try to go out and find evidence,
and they put a lot of people through a grinder
doing so. And that's exactly the sort of criminal justice
system that our founding fathers generated.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Are rejected.
Speaker 8 (11:32):
Back in the seventeen hundreds, the British had a idea
that you could do a general warrant and get everything
about a person's life and see if you could find.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
A crime in it. We rejected that.
Speaker 8 (11:42):
We believed in the Fourth Amendment, we believe that you
don't have your privacy pierced unless there is a reasonable
suspicion that you were engaged in a specific criminal act,
and in the case of Arctic fross. They pick a
crime called conspiracy to interfere in the certification of the election,
and the overt act, according to the memo, is the
(12:05):
submission of alternate electors. Now that's interesting, Maybe all right,
maybe they shouldn't have brought alternate electors to the Senate.
Except twice in American history that happened. In eighteen seventy six,
it happened South Carolina gave two slates of electors, one alternate,
one the winning electors, and then in nineteen sixty John F.
(12:26):
Kennedy did the same thing. In both of those circumstances,
the submission of alternate electors to the United States Senate
was deemed to be a lawful act, to be part
of the right of the American people to rejust grievances
to their government. But somehow, in Tim Tebow's world, in
the FBI's world, in Jack Smith's world, in the Biden
(12:46):
Justice Department's world, the act of several states to offer
the Senate alternative electors suddenly becomes a criminal conspiracy. But
they don't even know who's involved in it. They simply
want to open up a case and then get to
the bottom of it, and that's what Ardic Frost ultimately
is now. The man who drives that process is Tim Tebow,
(13:06):
the agent who had to resign in the summer of
twenty twenty two after embarrassing anti Trump techs came his way.
He's a man that's supervising cases involving Donald Trump, and
he has a clear political bias that he's expressed on
social media, and so he is driving that until these
revelations come out. In fact, we believe the revelation about
(13:27):
a social media was probably driven by agents who were
working for him, who are very concerned about what he
was doing. In artic Frost, what is that. He doesn't
have evidence, he doesn't have an informant, he doesn't have recordings,
he doesn't have emails. What he has is liberal articles
in article in liberal leaning publications like Just Security, NPR,
(13:52):
the Daily Beast, and he's using that to tell is, colleague,
let's open up a criminal case against Donald Trump. And
that is what These emails that we got over the
weekend show a liberally biased agent not forwarding significant evidence,
but instead forwarding theories from liberal anti Trump people and
trying to turn that into a criminal case.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
That's what the Memo show.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Okay, there's a lot to unpack here. I realize you're
a journalist and I'm not going to try to turn
you into a lawyer, but there's a lot to unpack here.
That sounds like a crime to me. That doesn't sound
like me accidentally breaking the stapler at work. If you're
an FBI agent, you can't just pick a citizen of
(14:36):
any stature and decide you're going to try to pace
crimes on them.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
I know he's resigned, but these sound like criminal acts.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
I think that is to be determined. Certainly.
Speaker 8 (14:48):
A lot of the people that I've talked to, including
the director of the FBI now, Cash Betel said he
believes this investigation was abusive in criminal, and he fired
what he called weaponized agents who are involved in it.
Now TiVo resigns before Cash takes over, but some of
the other people that worked on this and participated it.
Cash Bettel last night confirmed he fired because he believed
(15:09):
their activities were corrupt. If the FBI director believes that
this was a corrupt investigation and that people should be prosecuted,
I think we should all pay attention to that possibility.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Where's that going to happen.
Speaker 8 (15:21):
Most likely it's being sent to the grand jury in
Florida that's now being overseen by Jason canonas the Miami
US attorney who seems to be the inheritor of all
the weaponization cases, and he's looking at it to as
a grand conspiracy. That really what went on from twenty
fourteen when the Justice Department in IRS began targeting conservative
(15:43):
tax groups all the way Jack's to the raid on
Donald Trump's home in Florida and Jack Smith's prosecutions of
Donald Trump as one ongoing criminal conspiracy, basically a conspiracy
to deprive innocent Americans of their civil liberties. And so
I think all of this will go there and grand
jurors will make a decision whether they think this behavior
(16:05):
rises to the level of criminality.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Okay, John, Let's talk about Jason for a moment, because
I'm obviously not at all qualified to judge his legal capabilities.
Abilities I guess I should say is this is.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
A gigantic case involving.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Is potentially the prosecution of deep state actors with very
deep pockets and two thousand dollars an hour lawyers.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
You know, people who know this guy. Is he up
to the task.
Speaker 8 (16:34):
He seems to be dialed in. He seemed to get
Pam Bondi to do what others couldn't get her to do,
which was to sign off on the grand conspiracy case.
At the end of the day, the most important people
are going to be the career prosecutors, his first assistant,
who will be in the grand jury. The US Attorney's
not going to be in the grand jur every day.
It's going to be those frontline, grizzled prosecutors in Miami
(16:58):
that are going to go to the grand jury say
this is how we prove a crime to you, and
this is what the evidence shows, and this is why
you should indict.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
Those are the people.
Speaker 8 (17:06):
That are going to either succeed or fail at the
creating the disincentive for future weaponization and to punish past weaponization.
By all accounts, the team that's on this case are
the very best assistant US attorneys that Miami has produced,
people who went up against the drug cartels and they're
well moneyed lawyers and beat them and got indictments and convictions.
(17:30):
So those are the sort of people if you're bringing
a conspiracy case, you want people who spent years building
a conspiracy case against other well funded and aggressive defendants.
And so there's optimism, but there's the reality of what
we've seen. Look, there's been a couple of indictments since
Donald Trump came into office, and they got thrown out, right,
(17:51):
Letitia James gets thrown out of New York, James Comy
for Ly gets thrown out of Virginia. And by the way,
both of those cases are pretty simple cases and said
ex evidence show why therefore he must have lied. The
Trump Justice Department couldn't sustain those prosecutions for more than
a couple of weeks. Will Miami be different, I don't know.
It's a different jury poll, there's a different group of
(18:13):
jurists there. And the key judge, because this grand jury
is in Fort Pierce, Florida.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
It's Judge Eileen Cannon.
Speaker 8 (18:20):
She's pretty well known in America now because she's the
woman that tak on Jacksmith and ultimately dismissed his case,
saying that he was not lawfully appointed as a special prosecutor,
therefore he couldn't bring the charges against President Trump. Jack
Smith doesn't like her. John Brennan doesn't like her. The
Democrats don't like her. Think of Republicans probably like that dynamic.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Yeah, I think so too. Okay, well, all this talk
about the Justice.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Department, of course leads me to reporting from the Wall
Street Journal. Now, granted, I understand the media loves palace intrigue.
Every day there's someone else that Donald Trump is unhappy
with and they're about to get fired.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
I understand all that.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
That's why we were lying on people like you rumors
are Donald Trump. At least they're reporting is that Donald
Trump is unhappy with Pam Bondy. Now he's publicly said
things that have voiced his displeasure with her.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
What's the reality.
Speaker 8 (19:14):
So I think the reality is it's less personal about
Pam Bondy, but more generally concerned that the Justice Departments
had a year and there really hasn't been any accountability
on things that we now have really well documented. So
obviously the buck stops with Pam Bondy, and so I
think the Wall Street Journal can properly assume that he
is frustrated because the buck stops with her. I think
(19:35):
it's a larger question, which is one the Senate was
slow to get us attorney's appointed. Jason was an appointed
for like six months. He didn't get confirmed. We've had
to use some temporary attorney generals and they get bounced
out in New Jersey and Virginia by the court system
and the deep staters that are judges. And so I
think the President's frustration is less personally about Pam Bondy,
(19:57):
who I think he respects, and more about the inability
of the Justice Department in the entire system to take
advantage of the first year of the Trump administration and
get some accountability for things that are well documented. Could
not result in a change in leadership very well, could
I would not be surprised if President Trump were to
name a new Attorney General in the next three months.
(20:18):
At the end of the day, the person at the
top can't solve what has to be done in the trenches,
and that is us attorney's got to get appointed confirmed,
and then they got to get to work, and they
got to get to work in places where they can
get a good grand jury, a grand jury willing to
look at the evidence.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
It's not the politics.
Speaker 8 (20:35):
And I think that Florida seems to now have emerged
as the best bet for the Trump administration to get
some accountability. I wouldn't be surprised if the President removed Pam.
Speaker 3 (20:46):
I wouldn't be surprised if you kept them.
Speaker 8 (20:48):
The problem is going to be downstream, and for the
first time, we have a couple of downstream prosecutors now
working hard. You've got some prosecutors up in New York
looking at the Clinton Foundation and possible criminal conspiracy. R
are deserve And now you got Florida with the whole
weaponization uh cradle.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
And I think that that you know.
Speaker 8 (21:05):
We'll know in six months whether those prosecutors were up
to the task or not.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
John, thank you as always, my friend. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
All right.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Congress is doing stuff. Sorry I even had to say it,
but they are. What are they doing? And how bad
is it? Congressman Chip Roy's going to join us next
to discuss it. Before we discuss that with Chip, I
want to talk to you about other chips. Massive chips, Man,
they're amazing. You know, I'm a chip freak. I know
(21:39):
you're a chip freak, and I know that maybe you've
already done what my wife made me do, and that's
look at the ingredients on the back of the bag.
Is really bad, those store bought chips. It's really, really bad,
all the seed oils filth in there. What are we
going to do? Give up chips? I'd rather give up breathing.
(21:59):
I don't have to give up chips, though, because Massa
Chips is here now. The crunch, the crunch are so good,
the flavors. They even have a churoh like dessert chips.
Lime chips have really grown to love those lime chips
have a narrow whatever you're looking for, Massa Chips has them.
Imagine sitting down and laying waste to a bag of chips.
Guilt free, Massa Chips dot com, slash Jesse TV.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
We'll be back.
Speaker 9 (22:36):
The only way we're gonna have a great future in
America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants, the Dreamers
and all of them, because our ultimate goal is to
help the dreamers, but get a path to citizenship for
all eleven million or however many undocumented there are here.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
Oh but lister being honest, that's like the first time
ever joining me now the wonderful Congressman Chip Roy about
to be Texas's Attorney general. If all goes well, well, Chip,
you've been all over this for quite a while. At
least they're being honest that's got to be a first
for those people.
Speaker 10 (23:10):
Yeah, they're actually admitting what we've all known for a
very long time, and when the President has been very
good and making clear of the American people that this
has all been a political exercise. It's been a political
exercise from the beginning. They want to fill the American
people with people from around the world for political power,
and in so doing, they don't care when little girls
get abused and get sold into the sex trafficking business
(23:32):
and cartels are moving fental in our communities and abusing
those same little girls. They don't care about the criminals
on our streets, the danger that that puts the American
people in. They don't care about the lake and rileys.
They don't care about the Joscelyn nungarrays. They don't care
about the longer list of criminals that Ice just made
clear in Minnesota. We're talking about rapists, murderers, multi time murderers, multi.
Speaker 11 (23:52):
Time rapists that are on the streets.
Speaker 10 (23:55):
And then they hide behind random statistics, which by the way,
they always get wrong, or the criminal records these individuals
have in their home countries and Al Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras
or all around the world, and it's purposeful.
Speaker 11 (24:08):
They know it. We're trying to.
Speaker 10 (24:10):
Call it out, call them out for it, and the
Juiciary Committee literally today as we speak.
Speaker 11 (24:13):
I'll be heading back there in a minute.
Speaker 10 (24:15):
But God bless the President to Mahome and Stephen Viller,
Christy Nome, the great men and women of Ice and
Boarder Patrol.
Speaker 11 (24:20):
We're doing their.
Speaker 10 (24:21):
Job removing these bad actors. But we got to state,
of course, Congress needs to back up the President. We
need to work, we need to codify what they're doing
for permanent belief, and we're nowhere near doing when all
we need to do in Congress, we need to be
bolder and act faster.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Let's talk about what you're doing or not doing.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
As you point out in Congress, what's Hr two, what's
the Pause Act, what's the Save Act?
Speaker 2 (24:43):
What can we get done? What are these things?
Speaker 11 (24:46):
Well, first of all, Save Act. President called them us
to get this pass through the Senate. We've already passed
it in the House.
Speaker 10 (24:51):
Credit to the Speaker and our efforts here to bill
that I author to guarantee the only American citizens vote
in American elections.
Speaker 11 (24:57):
I think we need to take that bill.
Speaker 10 (24:58):
And add to it to encourage that we only have
the same day voting or limited early voting absite ballots
instead of the fraudulent mail in ballots. Make sure we
have voter ID and application at the polls. I think
we can bolster the Save Act. Okay, that's the Senate.
Apply pressure to the Senate to do what they need
to do to move it through. But we also need
to be standing strong on codifying the border. HR two
(25:18):
remember was the bill that we passed. We do not
have an HR two yet this Congress. HR two was
the bill we referenced from the last Congress. There was
the product of the negotiations after the speakers fight, remember
all the drama with the speakers fight on the.
Speaker 11 (25:31):
Floor with Kevin McCarthy.
Speaker 10 (25:33):
Conservatives demanded that we have strong conservatives on appropriations, strong
conservatives on the Rules Committee, and we leverage those positions
to constrain spending and to force us to pass HR two.
Speaker 11 (25:45):
Now what is that bill?
Speaker 10 (25:46):
It codifies virtually everything President Trump is doing right now,
because guess what, we had a President Trump, then we
had a Joe Biden and an allehandra. My orcis we
may end up with that again, and all the good
work we're doing now will get undone. So we need
to codify the abuse of to fixes to the abuse
of asylum, the abuse of parole, the abuse of catch
and release, finishing the wall. Go down the laundry list
(26:09):
of things that are in that bill. We need to
codify it. They should not be controversial. Republicans have voted
for him before, but there are some weak need Republicans
saying we can't vote for that now. We need to
put it on the floor. We need to vote on
it Senate to the Senate and demand that we make
those changes. And the last one is to pause Act.
I introduced that bill to pause immigration. Why we have
too many people here who are foreign born that we
(26:30):
can't even keep up with, the many of whom are
criminals and are undermining our way of life. You have
a Marxist Islamic state that is trying to undo Western civilization.
You have criminals on our streets. Let's just pause immigration.
That's what the bill would do. It's pretty straightforward. We've
done it before. We have fifty one and a half
million foreign born people in the United States right now.
That's almost sixteen percent. It's the highest we've ever had
(26:53):
let's pause, Let's figure out who's here, Let's remove the
bad actors, Let's restore accountability. Let's ensure people want to
acclimate and assimilate to become Americans, and then you can
talk in the future about what any future immigration looks like.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
These we need Republicans now. The mass deportation of illegals
is something that's pretty popular with the American people. So
even if you know, you get a Republican that's not
Chip Roy and he's a little you know, lighting the loafers,
why does he.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Not sign on to something that's politically popular.
Speaker 11 (27:26):
Well, I think some of my colleagues get caught in
a trap.
Speaker 10 (27:30):
I'm trying to be given the benefit of the doubt
of buying into the angel argument that's gotten us in
trouble right, which is what the Chamber of Commerce crowd,
the business crowd, ad workers, homebuilders, a lot of them
are friends of mine and people that I know in Texas,
and they're saying, gosh, our labor supplies getting a little
tough right now. Why because they were using a lot
of illegal labor. And we're telling them you're going to
have to be patient. So we can reset the stage,
(27:52):
reset the entire environment. We may have to deal with
a different labor environment more of our kids. Maybe you
should go to school and learn trades and then go
there rather than going off to get a forty year
degree and who knows what, and be unemployable. We've got
to reset the table, and then when we do that,
we will have workers. We can talk about a guestworker
program or whatever we want in the future. But our
guys get really weak because they're like, oh.
Speaker 11 (28:14):
We're going to lose all our labor.
Speaker 7 (28:15):
No we're not.
Speaker 10 (28:16):
We're resetting the stage. We're making sure that we're doing
it the right way. But if you get rid of
the rule of law, you have nothing left. So we
need to hold the line back to president, remove illegal aliens,
and force the law, stop the flow, codify.
Speaker 11 (28:29):
All of that, and then and only then have a.
Speaker 10 (28:32):
Conversation about what our labor supply looks like when it's
rational and bad actor's been removed, the dangerous people affiliated
with gangs have been removed, we've restored the rule of law.
Nobody's here illegally. Now we can reset and say, okay, now,
but here's the important part, Jesse. I don't want people
here who don't love America.
Speaker 11 (28:50):
I don't want people here who are here at the
shree of law.
Speaker 10 (28:53):
I don't want people here who want to turn Texas
into an Islamic state. And that's what's happening. Is happening
in Plano, it's happening in Houston right you, is happening
all over the country, but in particular in Texas. That's
why I introduce legislation to stop the tax benefit for care,
to start vetting people for sreal law. And we need
members of Congress Republicans to stand up and agree with that,
(29:13):
and then we can actually fix the system. While we
have to House, the Senate and the presidency.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
Chip Obviously, everybody's concerned about our majority.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Are we going to lose it at the midterms.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
We've had tragedy in the House of Representatives, obviously that's terrible.
We've had resignations. One of the good ones from Texas
is leaving to go be Attorney General. I'm not going
to name names. What what's the House going to look
like after the midterms?
Speaker 10 (29:39):
Well, first of all, I think we have a strong
chance of being able to maintain the majority if we lead.
We've done some good things. We've been holding spending roughly
in check. The Big Beautiful Bill had a lot of
really good policies, cutting back the Green New scam, putting
in work requirements, pulling back on Medicaid uses, making sure
that tax policy is pro growth and is putting more
(29:59):
money in the pockets of the American people. In a
lot of those are words people use. This is real
stuff we did that. We should be proud of it.
President Trump is doing great work security the border, making
sure we're strong on the global stage. I applaud what
he did in Venezuela. Let's be strong. Let's not have
endless wars. Let's just exercise our authority for our interests,
for the Western hemisphere, for the American people. So all
(30:20):
of this is good stuff. We should run on it.
We should be proud of it. But we should go further.
We should codify his stuff. We should make these things permanent.
We should pass election integrity so we don't have fraud
in the election. Say back to the things I talked
about before. So I think we do those things, we win.
I think we're going to have a lot of new
people in the House, and that as an opportunity for
us to continue to push and push the House in
the right direction. The American people have a lot of
(30:43):
strength right now when they look through these bills and
they find the garbage and oil field. Rando puts a
good tweet out there and says, hey, look at this
stupid thing in the bill. That's helpful. People like me
have been doing it for a decade. But I'm one
guy or ten guys up here, and we're trying.
Speaker 11 (30:57):
But when we've got an army of.
Speaker 10 (30:58):
Patriots out there being it clear that this stuff is garbage,
we can change the town. I'm sitting in a rules
committee right now in Appropriations bill. I don't support everything
in the bill, and I'll probably vote against it, but
it is a markedly better bill than it would have been.
We've moved in the right direction. We've reduced the overall spending.
We've stopped some of the bad programs. There's still bad
programs in there, and we got.
Speaker 11 (31:19):
To keep moving in it.
Speaker 10 (31:20):
But we're moving the Titanic. It just needs to move
a lot faster than it's moving.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
Chip. Appreciate you as always, my man. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
Supreme Court had oral arguments today. We will discuss those
oral arguments. Now, let me make an oral argument to you.
I know why you haven't.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Switched to pure Talk yet. I know you have.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
AT and T, T Mobile Verizon. I know, and I
know the only reason you haven't switched to pure talk
you think it's going to be a pain, because other
than that, there is no reason. They're on the same towers,
so you're not sacrificing service. They'll charge you less. I
know you want a veteran led business, not a commy
led business, so the only reason would be it's gonna
(32:03):
be a pain. Let me explain something. You keep your phone,
you keep your phone number. We're talking a ten minute
process that's actually pleasant, straightforward, enjoyable. You're locking in savings
ten minutes. Average family saves eight thousand dollars a year.
(32:28):
There is no reason not to switch.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
None. Take the plunge. You will thank me.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
Everyone else does puretalk, dot com slash JESSETV.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
We'll be back.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
Sometimes sometimes you analyze where we're at as a country
and you're feeling good about things. Hey, we're getting people
deported and we're gett inflation down. And then there are
other times where you just take something in and you think, man,
we're in, We're in.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
We're in a.
Speaker 1 (33:07):
Different place than I think we probably should be. The
Supreme Court today is hearing oral arguments involving not one,
but two cases of dudes playing against chicks in sports.
And now now we have to talk about this. Not
only this is Supreme Court have to waste time. We
have to figure out what's going on. Joining me now,
Bill Jacobs and the wonderful Bill Jacobs and Cornell Law
(33:30):
University professor.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Okay, Bill, what's going on with these cases? Why are
there two of them? What's going to be the what
might be the outcomes? Give it to us.
Speaker 12 (33:41):
Yeah, well, where it's otherworldly. As you're indicated, this is
evolving too.
Speaker 7 (33:46):
Law.
Speaker 12 (33:47):
We're in another world now, and I'm going to try
to put us into the real world. In this other world,
we're arguing basically about whether the girls sports or for
girls or are they also for boys who identify as girls?
And that's really what it comes down to. So Idaho
and West Virginia passed laws that, in a nutshell, said
(34:10):
we're going to protect girls' sports and girls sports are
only four biological girls. I don't know if that's the
term they used, but that's what they meant. So those
laws were challenged and actually put on hold because there
were two males, one in each state, who identify as female,
who wanted to participate in female sports, and that's why
(34:34):
we're in the Supreme Court. And I say it's otherworldly,
because this should be the easiest thing in the world. Okay,
this should be, but it's not. And I don't know
which way it's going to go. You would say we
should come out of this oral argument thinking it's nine
to zero, but I think it's going to be five
to four. I just don't know which direction. And they
(34:54):
were taking this very seriously, and it was kind of
humor at one point. I mean, Alito, who's tied with
Thomas for the best justice on the court, asked a
question and we don't have video, but you know he
had an ear to ear grin. He asked the attorney
for the girls to give him the definition of what
(35:16):
it means to be a girl or a boy, and
she said, well, we don't have that definition, which harkened
back to Kaitanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearing, where she was asked,
give me the definition of a woman and she said, well,
I can't because I'm not a biologist. Anyway, that's where
we are. Most of the argument today surrounded levels of review,
(35:38):
a lot of words like heightened scrutiny and strict scrutiny.
So a lot of it was kind of court sort
of jargon as to what can we do to review this?
But when you get down to it, we're literally in
the Supreme Court arguing whether a school district can protect girls'
sports or not.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
Good freaking grief.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Okay, Bill, you said, obviously, in the world of reality,
it's a fairly simple case, but it gets a little
bit more convoluted legally. I'm kind of putting words in
your mouth, but that's basically what I heard. Why what's
the legal argument here? Because for a normal person, this
is obviously a no brainer thing. What's what's the legal
(36:21):
what's the legal hiccups?
Speaker 12 (36:23):
Most of the discussion today was whether these laws violate
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether by
denying equal rights they would say to people they referred
to as trans women or trans girls, whether that violates
some protected right. And one of the indications of where
(36:46):
we are as a society is words like trans woman,
trans girl, as opposed to male who identifies as a woman,
was thrown around by just about everybody today. In fact,
Kaitanji around Jackson through in the term cis gender. If
any of your viewers don't know what that is. That's
(37:07):
describing people who are what we used to call just
normal people, a man who identifies as a man and
a woman who identifies as a woman. But they've created
a whole new term to make it sound like that's
weird and that's strange. So that term was thrown around.
And so the legal claim is that transgender students are
a protected class or an identifiable class, which is entitled
(37:31):
to equal protection of the laws. And it seems absurd
on its face. It shouldn't hold up because a lot
of the dialogue today, a lot of the questions, particularly
from the so called conservative justices, were are you telling
me we can't have separate boys and girls for sports?
And no one's really contending that. What they're trying to
(37:51):
do is say, you're being unfair. Here's a child, a
boy or a girl, whoever it is, and you're treating
them unfairly. And so there was a very circular argument
that yes, we can have girls' sports, but you still
have to treat these other people you know, make an
exception for them, and that's what a lot of it was.
(38:13):
So and that seemed to get some sympathy from Gorsa
to other people. How they're ruled, I don't know, but
there were questions, even from the so called conservatives about
aren't we being unfair to this group of people. And unfortunately,
unfairness is not the normal legal standard. You've got to
find something more firm. We submitted an equal protection project
(38:36):
that I run briefs in both cases, both of the cases,
and our argument was, wait a second, here, you can
not have a term in the law that is completely fluid.
For any given person. You could identify as a male today,
a female tomorrow, the day after that, a mail.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Again.
Speaker 12 (38:56):
You can't have a legal system where everything is fluid
and subject to the subjective thoughts of a person. You
need something objective, and the only objective definition of sex
is biological and that's what we're arguing. Didn't really come
up that fluidity notion in the argument today. Hopefully the
courts will read our brief, But that's why I'm saying,
(39:18):
we're in the never world, where nothing is firm, nothing
is real, it's all what you feel and what you
think and should have somebody have sympathy for you. Well,
what about and this did come up a little bit,
not a lot. What about sympathy for the girls who
are in girls' sports and don't want to have to
compete against males? What about the sympathy for them? That
wasn't a hot topic today. It did come up, But
(39:41):
that's what's missing from this whole equation is you have
girls getting injured, you have girls getting deprived of awards,
you have girls getting deprived of college opportunities because they
don't win awards in their sports. That really didn't come
up a lot today, And that's the saddest thing about it.
Now it might when they actually write the decisions. But
that's what the argument was today is is this unfair?
Speaker 1 (40:06):
When do they actually write the decisions bill this process?
It seems to be so slow for those of us
on the outside looking in.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
When do we get decisions on things like that?
Speaker 12 (40:16):
This one will probably not be until June. I mean,
we're already in January, and it was just argued June
is the end of the term. And we've discussed what
term means. It just means when they issue here their
arguments and issue their decisions, and generally speaking, other than
emergency matters, the term ends at the end of June,
so I think this is one we'll probably get in June.
(40:38):
You know, there are other ones which might and will
be fast tracked, but this one doesn't seem to be
on a fast track.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Okay, what other oral arguments are coming soon? We should
be keeping our eye on.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
Well.
Speaker 12 (40:51):
I think there's going to be more in terms of
other cases. In terms of Trump's ability to deploy troops,
there was a decision on an interim basis not that
long ago where the Supreme Court actually ruled against Trump
in terms of deploying the National Guard in Illinois. So
that's going to be one, and I'm sure that there
will be more of those cases. And of course we're
(41:13):
all waiting for the one that's already been argued, which
is the tariff's case, and we've discussed that before, and
that's going to have just massive implications. That's the one
that every day when the court issues its rulings, everybody's
on X wondering did they rule on tariffs yet. That's
going to just have a cascading impact on the economy
and on the Trump administration if the ruling goes against Trump.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
Something I wanted to ask you about was this Insurrection Act.
Here's Trump talking about, and then.
Speaker 7 (41:45):
We may if we you know, we're allowed to the
most powerful thing we have. We haven't used the Insurrection Act.
Speaker 11 (41:52):
You're considering using this?
Speaker 7 (41:53):
I've always considered it, but we haven't needed it anywhere
forty eight percent of the president's does this country have
used it? Bush used it I think twenty two times.
Speaker 2 (42:06):
What does that mean? What does he want to do?
Can he do it?
Speaker 1 (42:10):
We have hostile foreign city states within our border.
Speaker 2 (42:13):
It seems to be ready made for the Insurrection Act?
Speaker 12 (42:17):
Yeah, Well, the Insurrection Act would be if there is
a rebellion against local government, against state government, and the
inability of the federal government to pursue its business and
its laws, and he would have to invoke that because
generally speaking, the federal government cannot use the US Army,
(42:39):
federal troops, armed forces to do law enforcement. The Insurrection
Act would be an exception to that. And really the
question would be is there a rebellion or not? Is
there what we commonly refer to as an insurrection, And
that's going to be a pretty high hurdle. And it
has been used in the past. But whether it would
(42:59):
amount who adhere, I think remains to be seen. But
that's the ultimate card. And in fact, when the Supreme
Court refused to allow Trump to use on an interim basis,
the National Garden Illinois, they left open the possibility that
he might be able to invoke the Insurrection Act. They
didn't rule on it and really didn't give an opinion
on it, but said that that's the way you need
(43:21):
to go. You need to You can only deploy the
National Guard if you are lawfully able to deploy the
US military what they called the regular forces, and if
those regular forces are unable to handle the situation. So
I think that's the next step, and I think it
depends what happens in any given city. Obviously, it's not
(43:42):
something he wants to do. It's something he's been holding
in his back pocket. But if things got really bad
and we see what's happening in Minnesota, where there is
by almost every I think reasonable measure, we're on the
border of an actual rebellion. We're on the border where
state authorities are suggesting they haven't said they'll do it,
but suggesting they may deploy their local forces local police
(44:07):
National Guard to oppose immigration enforcement. And so I think
we might get to it, but Trump doesn't seem to
be in a rush to get it. He rather would
just have it hanging out there.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
And so, just to clarify one final question, Bill, if
these nutball Democrat politicians in a state like Minnesota try
to deploy their local police or even the National Guard,
and Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, that's going to be
US troops against US troops.
Speaker 12 (44:39):
Well that would be you know, if Minnesota deployed their
National Guard or Minneapolis deployed its police to interfere with
federal authority. Federal authority, at least in the immigration field,
in most fields, has supremacy, you know, And so hope
(45:00):
we don't get to a situation where you have US
Army troops facing Minnesota National Guard or Minnesota police. And
that's why it's so reckless for those local officials to
suggest that that's what they're going to do, and that
you know, is a possibility. Nobody actually really thinks that's
going to happen, because in those situations usually the local
(45:23):
people stand down, like they did with the school desegregation.
As soon as you know, US armed forces were deployed
to enforce segregation of the schools in the South, and
there was a lot of bluster from George Wallace and
others about fighting them. They ultimately back down, and Minnesota
would back down. I don't think we're ever going to
get to that, but to even make that suggestion is
(45:46):
incredibly reckless by people, by the politicians in Minnesota.
Speaker 1 (45:53):
Bill, that's scary stuff, but thank you, I appreciate it, sir.
Light the mood next, all right, it's time to lighten
the mood. And it enlightens my mood to know that
our military is so vastly superior to everyone else. For instance,
(46:17):
we allegedly reportedly used a weapon on the Venezuelans that
had them bleeding from the nose and laying on the
ground rolling around in pain. That's amazing. Go America, baby.
All right, anyway, I'll see them all
Is Bill Clinton going to jail? Is Pam BONDI gonna
have a job? We have a deep state that's really bad.
Chip Roy's gonna join us. What happened at the Supreme Court?
What a show on? I'm right, you know the story
(00:25):
of Julius Caesar. Everyone's heard of Julius Caesar. I'm certainly
not trying to insult your intelligence, but I'm talking about
kind of the crossing of the Rubicon moment. That's where
we got that phrase. By the way, the Rubicon was
a river in the Roman Empire. If you cross, it
doesn't matter. But what happened with Julius Caesar, what prompted
(00:48):
these wars with Julius Caesar and his army fighting other
Roman armies, Well, many things led up to it, but
one of the main things that led to it was
this basic fact. Julius Caesar was pro consul in a
place called Gauls, France. But in a place called gaul
he was pro consul. He was running things up there,
(01:09):
and the Romans they had a rule law, if you will,
you can't prosecute somebody while they're pro consul.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
While they're in office, you can't prosecute them.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
But your term as pro consul got a time limit
on it. Soon as your term is up, as soon
as you're no longer in office, they can absolutely prosecute you,
do whatever they want to you. And Julius Caesar knew
what they planned to do to him, and Julius Caesar
(01:43):
was left with a choice. You could agree or disagree,
that's not the point of our little story here, but
he was left with a choice. I have to either
use the army I have now against the people who
are going to come after me, or they're gonna get
me if I give up power. They're going to use
(02:06):
their power to get me. Let's talk about the deep
state here, not just what they did, what they're going
to do. We are in obviously there are certain things
that are different, no question, but we are in.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Those of us on the right, we are in a
similar situation here.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
We know.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
We're going to talk a little bit more about that
in a second. We know the things the communists did
when they just had power for four years, all the evil,
horrible things they did, and we know, at least if
you have a brain, you know this, if they come
back to power, they're going to do worse. The only
(02:46):
lesson America's communists learned from the four years under Joe
Biden was they didn't do enough.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
They didn't go hard.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Enough after their political opponents. That's the only lesson they learned.
Have you read any of the latest This former FBI agent,
Timothy Tebow is his name. Again, this is not the
Florida quarterback. He's instead a corrupt communist who was an
FBI agent. He resigned after social media post's anti Trump
(03:17):
social media posts became known. But Tim Tebow at the FBI,
he was really the one that got this Arctic Frost
investigation going. Now, I would like to believe, and I'm
sure you would like to believe, that we live in
a country that is a lawful country. Certainly, people in
the FBI, people in the government will follow the law
(03:41):
and they're going to have to use an actual justification
to go after any US citizen because we live in
a lawful country. We don't want to imagine where like
the Soviet Union, where they can simply pick someone they dislike.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
And then they'll form a case from that.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Yet, every bit of information we have now on guys
like Timothy Tebow shows us that he actually used reporting
from communist outlets like NPR in Washington Post to build
a criminal probe against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
But wait, there's more. Maybe you remember this little tidbit
from twenty twenty.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
The FBI is charged with protecting the rights of all Americans,
including their right to vote.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
While the responsibility to.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
Ensure a fair election process lies primarily at the state
and local level, the FBI takes allegations of election related
violations of federal law seriously. The FBI investigates federal election
crimes that generally fall into three categories, campaign finance crimes,
voter ballot fraud, and civil rights violations. The FBI Washington
(04:55):
Field Office works with our state and federal partners to
engage with other law enforces partners and provide resources about
the FBI's role in elections.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Remember that twenty twenty election the Democrats stole. Yeah, he
was the guy who was in charge of looking into it.
But wait, we also have reporting out now about that
Hunter Biden laptop. You're well familiar with the story by now.
The son of Joe Biden, when Joe Biden was running
(05:28):
for president, turns in a laptop showing he committed an
unending number of felonies. The FBI gets that laptop turned
into them, but the FBI, after looking at it, doesn't
do anything with it. In fact, they buried it. Of course,
(05:49):
this was all in an effort to ensure that Joe
Biden could defeat Donald Trump and the election.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
And guess who.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Guess who was involved in spike the Hunter Biden laptop story,
Tim Tebow. This isn't necessarily just about Tim Tebow, who
should spend the rest of his life in prison if
these allegations are true.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
This is about.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Where we are as a country in the very, very
dangerous game we are now stuck in. Do you remember
former FBI James Comy, Remember what he said on TV.
Speaker 5 (06:28):
I know Republicans these days aren't big in thinking about
principle or precedent. They're going to be deeply sorry that
that disappears, because someday there will be a Democratic president
and there'll be investigations of Republican officeholders. If I'm them,
I sure would want these career people in place making
sure that it's done in the right way. Look, I've
(06:49):
long thought that you could shrink the size of some
of the Department of Justice headquarters units. But this is
like burning down the house and then standing in front
of the pile of ashes and saying, yeah, we really
did need to retile the guests. Right, this is destroying
the place at a cost that's gonna take years and
years to rebuild.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
They're gonna come after us if they take power again.
Now that means we have to do what we have
to take the bad actors now, and we have to
pace them against the wall. Legally, whose job is that, well,
her name is Pam BONDI.
Speaker 6 (07:30):
People have to be held accountable. No one Sean is
above the law. No one is above the law. And
you will be held accountable. And you know, a very
liberal grand jury and one of the most liberal jurisdictions
in the country just indicted James.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Comey.
Speaker 6 (07:45):
Now we know, of course we have to go to trial.
We'll have a great trial team and everyone, of course
is innocent until proven guilty. However, we are going to
trial in this case. And this is just the beginning.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
Yeah, all that stuff got dropped in James homies walking
free to this day. I didn't want to talk about
this to frighten you, but we have to have an
honest assessment of.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Where we are.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
We are Julius Caesar in all they are coming for
us when we give up power. Again, we're not doing
near enough, which of course brings me to Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton, who just decided he was going to skip
a deposition.
Speaker 7 (08:26):
Unanimously by the committee in a bob partisan matter. We
will move next week in the House Oversight Committee mark up.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
To hold former President Clinton in con timpt of congression.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Yeah, okay, yeah, let's chair. Sounds good.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Well, Steve Bannon went to prison for that. Well, we
can't put Bill Clinton in prison. Yes, you can for that.
Doesn't have any kind of immunity for that. Do we
have the guts to do it? Because I promise you
they're going to do it. This is the kind of
un comfortable, squirmy in your chair stuff we have to
(09:03):
be willing to do now because we understand the stakes
of the game. I wouldn't hold my breath though all
that may have made you uncomfortable, but I am right.
John Solomon has been all over so much of this stuff,
and he's going to join us next to break some
of it down. Let me break something down for you.
One percent a year, we are losing one percent of
(09:27):
our testosterone a year. We have lost as you can imagine,
fifty percent in fifty years, our te levels are gone.
There's a reason you see a men's clinic on every
corner of your town.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Now.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Men know it. They're out of energy. Their brains aren't
working well, they're just they're not who they're supposed to be.
So do you think you should go get a needle
jammed in your arm or do you think you should
maybe try some natural herbal supplements first? You know, go
try shock chock will have you turned around. I'm feeling
(10:02):
like a million bucks, naturally, and they'll have it quickly.
You're ninety days probably sixty days, ninety days away, twenty percent.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Increase in your T levels naturally.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Go to chalk dot com, slash jessetv, get a subscription
ninety days away, we'll be back.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Well, there are.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Names that keep popping up as we sift through all
this deep state swamp, what everything you want to call it.
There are names that keep popping up. We just talked
about it in the open Timothy Tebow. No, I'm not
talking about the wonderful quarterback from the University of Florida.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Why do we know these names?
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Well, it's thanks in large part to actual journalists like
John Solomon, founder of Just the News. Okay, John, let's
talk about this. Tim Tebow, let's talk about Artic Frost.
Let's talk about how these investigations originated. Because normal Americans,
people who believe in their country, like to believe that.
Of course, there's a mountain of evidence that builds up
in the FBI finally sees the evidence and then they
(11:13):
decide they're going to go after these dastardly criminals. How
did all this stuff begin?
Speaker 8 (11:19):
Looks like they had a theory of a crime and
then when to try to go out and find evidence,
and they put a lot of people through a grinder
doing so. And that's exactly the sort of criminal justice
system that our founding fathers generated.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Are rejected.
Speaker 8 (11:32):
Back in the seventeen hundreds, the British had a idea
that you could do a general warrant and get everything
about a person's life and see if you could find.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
A crime in it. We rejected that.
Speaker 8 (11:42):
We believed in the Fourth Amendment, we believe that you
don't have your privacy pierced unless there is a reasonable
suspicion that you were engaged in a specific criminal act,
and in the case of Arctic fross. They pick a
crime called conspiracy to interfere in the certification of the election,
and the overt act, according to the memo, is the
(12:05):
submission of alternate electors. Now that's interesting, Maybe all right,
maybe they shouldn't have brought alternate electors to the Senate.
Except twice in American history that happened. In eighteen seventy six,
it happened South Carolina gave two slates of electors, one alternate,
one the winning electors, and then in nineteen sixty John F.
(12:26):
Kennedy did the same thing. In both of those circumstances,
the submission of alternate electors to the United States Senate
was deemed to be a lawful act, to be part
of the right of the American people to rejust grievances
to their government. But somehow, in Tim Tebow's world, in
the FBI's world, in Jack Smith's world, in the Biden
(12:46):
Justice Department's world, the act of several states to offer
the Senate alternative electors suddenly becomes a criminal conspiracy. But
they don't even know who's involved in it. They simply
want to open up a case and then get to
the bottom of it, and that's what Ardic Frost ultimately
is now. The man who drives that process is Tim Tebow,
(13:06):
the agent who had to resign in the summer of
twenty twenty two after embarrassing anti Trump techs came his way.
He's a man that's supervising cases involving Donald Trump, and
he has a clear political bias that he's expressed on
social media, and so he is driving that until these
revelations come out. In fact, we believe the revelation about
(13:27):
a social media was probably driven by agents who were
working for him, who are very concerned about what he
was doing. In artic Frost, what is that. He doesn't
have evidence, he doesn't have an informant, he doesn't have recordings,
he doesn't have emails. What he has is liberal articles
in article in liberal leaning publications like Just Security, NPR,
(13:52):
the Daily Beast, and he's using that to tell is, colleague,
let's open up a criminal case against Donald Trump. And
that is what These emails that we got over the
weekend show a liberally biased agent not forwarding significant evidence,
but instead forwarding theories from liberal anti Trump people and
trying to turn that into a criminal case.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
That's what the Memo show.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Okay, there's a lot to unpack here. I realize you're
a journalist and I'm not going to try to turn
you into a lawyer, but there's a lot to unpack here.
That sounds like a crime to me. That doesn't sound
like me accidentally breaking the stapler at work. If you're
an FBI agent, you can't just pick a citizen of
(14:36):
any stature and decide you're going to try to pace
crimes on them.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
I know he's resigned, but these sound like criminal acts.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
I think that is to be determined. Certainly.
Speaker 8 (14:48):
A lot of the people that I've talked to, including
the director of the FBI now, Cash Betel said he
believes this investigation was abusive in criminal, and he fired
what he called weaponized agents who are involved in it.
Now TiVo resigns before Cash takes over, but some of
the other people that worked on this and participated it.
Cash Bettel last night confirmed he fired because he believed
(15:09):
their activities were corrupt. If the FBI director believes that
this was a corrupt investigation and that people should be prosecuted,
I think we should all pay attention to that possibility.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Where's that going to happen.
Speaker 8 (15:21):
Most likely it's being sent to the grand jury in
Florida that's now being overseen by Jason canonas the Miami
US attorney who seems to be the inheritor of all
the weaponization cases, and he's looking at it to as
a grand conspiracy. That really what went on from twenty
fourteen when the Justice Department in IRS began targeting conservative
(15:43):
tax groups all the way Jack's to the raid on
Donald Trump's home in Florida and Jack Smith's prosecutions of
Donald Trump as one ongoing criminal conspiracy, basically a conspiracy
to deprive innocent Americans of their civil liberties. And so
I think all of this will go there and grand
jurors will make a decision whether they think this behavior
(16:05):
rises to the level of criminality.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Okay, John, Let's talk about Jason for a moment, because
I'm obviously not at all qualified to judge his legal capabilities.
Abilities I guess I should say is this is.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
A gigantic case involving.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Is potentially the prosecution of deep state actors with very
deep pockets and two thousand dollars an hour lawyers.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
You know, people who know this guy. Is he up
to the task.
Speaker 8 (16:34):
He seems to be dialed in. He seemed to get
Pam Bondi to do what others couldn't get her to do,
which was to sign off on the grand conspiracy case.
At the end of the day, the most important people
are going to be the career prosecutors, his first assistant,
who will be in the grand jury. The US Attorney's
not going to be in the grand jur every day.
It's going to be those frontline, grizzled prosecutors in Miami
(16:58):
that are going to go to the grand jury say
this is how we prove a crime to you, and
this is what the evidence shows, and this is why
you should indict.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
Those are the people.
Speaker 8 (17:06):
That are going to either succeed or fail at the
creating the disincentive for future weaponization and to punish past weaponization.
By all accounts, the team that's on this case are
the very best assistant US attorneys that Miami has produced,
people who went up against the drug cartels and they're
well moneyed lawyers and beat them and got indictments and convictions.
(17:30):
So those are the sort of people if you're bringing
a conspiracy case, you want people who spent years building
a conspiracy case against other well funded and aggressive defendants.
And so there's optimism, but there's the reality of what
we've seen. Look, there's been a couple of indictments since
Donald Trump came into office, and they got thrown out, right,
(17:51):
Letitia James gets thrown out of New York, James Comy
for Ly gets thrown out of Virginia. And by the way,
both of those cases are pretty simple cases and said
ex evidence show why therefore he must have lied. The
Trump Justice Department couldn't sustain those prosecutions for more than
a couple of weeks. Will Miami be different, I don't know.
It's a different jury poll, there's a different group of
(18:13):
jurists there. And the key judge, because this grand jury
is in Fort Pierce, Florida.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
It's Judge Eileen Cannon.
Speaker 8 (18:20):
She's pretty well known in America now because she's the
woman that tak on Jacksmith and ultimately dismissed his case,
saying that he was not lawfully appointed as a special prosecutor,
therefore he couldn't bring the charges against President Trump. Jack
Smith doesn't like her. John Brennan doesn't like her. The
Democrats don't like her. Think of Republicans probably like that dynamic.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Yeah, I think so too. Okay, well, all this talk
about the Justice.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Department, of course leads me to reporting from the Wall
Street Journal. Now, granted, I understand the media loves palace intrigue.
Every day there's someone else that Donald Trump is unhappy
with and they're about to get fired.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
I understand all that.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
That's why we were lying on people like you rumors
are Donald Trump. At least they're reporting is that Donald
Trump is unhappy with Pam Bondy. Now he's publicly said
things that have voiced his displeasure with her.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
What's the reality.
Speaker 8 (19:14):
So I think the reality is it's less personal about
Pam Bondy, but more generally concerned that the Justice Departments
had a year and there really hasn't been any accountability
on things that we now have really well documented. So
obviously the buck stops with Pam Bondy, and so I
think the Wall Street Journal can properly assume that he
is frustrated because the buck stops with her. I think
(19:35):
it's a larger question, which is one the Senate was
slow to get us attorney's appointed. Jason was an appointed
for like six months. He didn't get confirmed. We've had
to use some temporary attorney generals and they get bounced
out in New Jersey and Virginia by the court system
and the deep staters that are judges. And so I
think the President's frustration is less personally about Pam Bondy,
(19:57):
who I think he respects, and more about the inability
of the Justice Department in the entire system to take
advantage of the first year of the Trump administration and
get some accountability for things that are well documented. Could
not result in a change in leadership very well, could
I would not be surprised if President Trump were to
name a new Attorney General in the next three months.
(20:18):
At the end of the day, the person at the
top can't solve what has to be done in the trenches,
and that is us attorney's got to get appointed confirmed,
and then they got to get to work, and they
got to get to work in places where they can
get a good grand jury, a grand jury willing to
look at the evidence.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
It's not the politics.
Speaker 8 (20:35):
And I think that Florida seems to now have emerged
as the best bet for the Trump administration to get
some accountability. I wouldn't be surprised if the President removed Pam.
Speaker 3 (20:46):
I wouldn't be surprised if you kept them.
Speaker 8 (20:48):
The problem is going to be downstream, and for the
first time, we have a couple of downstream prosecutors now
working hard. You've got some prosecutors up in New York
looking at the Clinton Foundation and possible criminal conspiracy. R
are deserve And now you got Florida with the whole
weaponization uh cradle.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
And I think that that you know.
Speaker 8 (21:05):
We'll know in six months whether those prosecutors were up
to the task or not.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
John, thank you as always, my friend. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
All right.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Congress is doing stuff. Sorry I even had to say it,
but they are. What are they doing? And how bad
is it? Congressman Chip Roy's going to join us next
to discuss it. Before we discuss that with Chip, I
want to talk to you about other chips. Massive chips, Man,
they're amazing. You know, I'm a chip freak. I know
(21:39):
you're a chip freak, and I know that maybe you've
already done what my wife made me do, and that's
look at the ingredients on the back of the bag.
Is really bad, those store bought chips. It's really, really bad,
all the seed oils filth in there. What are we
going to do? Give up chips? I'd rather give up breathing.
(21:59):
I don't have to give up chips, though, because Massa
Chips is here now. The crunch, the crunch are so good,
the flavors. They even have a churoh like dessert chips.
Lime chips have really grown to love those lime chips
have a narrow whatever you're looking for, Massa Chips has them.
Imagine sitting down and laying waste to a bag of chips.
Guilt free, Massa Chips dot com, slash Jesse TV.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
We'll be back.
Speaker 9 (22:36):
The only way we're gonna have a great future in
America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants, the Dreamers
and all of them, because our ultimate goal is to
help the dreamers, but get a path to citizenship for
all eleven million or however many undocumented there are here.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
Oh but lister being honest, that's like the first time
ever joining me now the wonderful Congressman Chip Roy about
to be Texas's Attorney general. If all goes well, well, Chip,
you've been all over this for quite a while. At
least they're being honest that's got to be a first
for those people.
Speaker 10 (23:10):
Yeah, they're actually admitting what we've all known for a
very long time, and when the President has been very
good and making clear of the American people that this
has all been a political exercise. It's been a political
exercise from the beginning. They want to fill the American
people with people from around the world for political power,
and in so doing, they don't care when little girls
get abused and get sold into the sex trafficking business
(23:32):
and cartels are moving fental in our communities and abusing
those same little girls. They don't care about the criminals
on our streets, the danger that that puts the American
people in. They don't care about the lake and rileys.
They don't care about the Joscelyn nungarrays. They don't care
about the longer list of criminals that Ice just made
clear in Minnesota. We're talking about rapists, murderers, multi time murderers, multi.
Speaker 11 (23:52):
Time rapists that are on the streets.
Speaker 10 (23:55):
And then they hide behind random statistics, which by the way,
they always get wrong, or the criminal records these individuals
have in their home countries and Al Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras
or all around the world, and it's purposeful.
Speaker 11 (24:08):
They know it. We're trying to.
Speaker 10 (24:10):
Call it out, call them out for it, and the
Juiciary Committee literally today as we speak.
Speaker 11 (24:13):
I'll be heading back there in a minute.
Speaker 10 (24:15):
But God bless the President to Mahome and Stephen Viller,
Christy Nome, the great men and women of Ice and
Boarder Patrol.
Speaker 11 (24:20):
We're doing their.
Speaker 10 (24:21):
Job removing these bad actors. But we got to state,
of course, Congress needs to back up the President. We
need to work, we need to codify what they're doing
for permanent belief, and we're nowhere near doing when all
we need to do in Congress, we need to be
bolder and act faster.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Let's talk about what you're doing or not doing.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
As you point out in Congress, what's Hr two, what's
the Pause Act, what's the Save Act?
Speaker 2 (24:43):
What can we get done? What are these things?
Speaker 11 (24:46):
Well, first of all, Save Act. President called them us
to get this pass through the Senate. We've already passed
it in the House.
Speaker 10 (24:51):
Credit to the Speaker and our efforts here to bill
that I author to guarantee the only American citizens vote
in American elections.
Speaker 11 (24:57):
I think we need to take that bill.
Speaker 10 (24:58):
And add to it to encourage that we only have
the same day voting or limited early voting absite ballots
instead of the fraudulent mail in ballots. Make sure we
have voter ID and application at the polls. I think
we can bolster the Save Act. Okay, that's the Senate.
Apply pressure to the Senate to do what they need
to do to move it through. But we also need
to be standing strong on codifying the border. HR two
(25:18):
remember was the bill that we passed. We do not
have an HR two yet this Congress. HR two was
the bill we referenced from the last Congress. There was
the product of the negotiations after the speakers fight, remember
all the drama with the speakers fight on the.
Speaker 11 (25:31):
Floor with Kevin McCarthy.
Speaker 10 (25:33):
Conservatives demanded that we have strong conservatives on appropriations, strong
conservatives on the Rules Committee, and we leverage those positions
to constrain spending and to force us to pass HR two.
Speaker 11 (25:45):
Now what is that bill?
Speaker 10 (25:46):
It codifies virtually everything President Trump is doing right now,
because guess what, we had a President Trump, then we
had a Joe Biden and an allehandra. My orcis we
may end up with that again, and all the good
work we're doing now will get undone. So we need
to codify the abuse of to fixes to the abuse
of asylum, the abuse of parole, the abuse of catch
and release, finishing the wall. Go down the laundry list
(26:09):
of things that are in that bill. We need to
codify it. They should not be controversial. Republicans have voted
for him before, but there are some weak need Republicans
saying we can't vote for that now. We need to
put it on the floor. We need to vote on
it Senate to the Senate and demand that we make
those changes. And the last one is to pause Act.
I introduced that bill to pause immigration. Why we have
too many people here who are foreign born that we
(26:30):
can't even keep up with, the many of whom are
criminals and are undermining our way of life. You have
a Marxist Islamic state that is trying to undo Western civilization.
You have criminals on our streets. Let's just pause immigration.
That's what the bill would do. It's pretty straightforward. We've
done it before. We have fifty one and a half
million foreign born people in the United States right now.
That's almost sixteen percent. It's the highest we've ever had
(26:53):
let's pause, Let's figure out who's here, Let's remove the
bad actors, Let's restore accountability. Let's ensure people want to
acclimate and assimilate to become Americans, and then you can
talk in the future about what any future immigration looks like.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
These we need Republicans now. The mass deportation of illegals
is something that's pretty popular with the American people. So
even if you know, you get a Republican that's not
Chip Roy and he's a little you know, lighting the loafers,
why does he.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Not sign on to something that's politically popular.
Speaker 11 (27:26):
Well, I think some of my colleagues get caught in
a trap.
Speaker 10 (27:30):
I'm trying to be given the benefit of the doubt
of buying into the angel argument that's gotten us in
trouble right, which is what the Chamber of Commerce crowd,
the business crowd, ad workers, homebuilders, a lot of them
are friends of mine and people that I know in Texas,
and they're saying, gosh, our labor supplies getting a little
tough right now. Why because they were using a lot
of illegal labor. And we're telling them you're going to
have to be patient. So we can reset the stage,
(27:52):
reset the entire environment. We may have to deal with
a different labor environment more of our kids. Maybe you
should go to school and learn trades and then go
there rather than going off to get a forty year
degree and who knows what, and be unemployable. We've got
to reset the table, and then when we do that,
we will have workers. We can talk about a guestworker
program or whatever we want in the future. But our
guys get really weak because they're like, oh.
Speaker 11 (28:14):
We're going to lose all our labor.
Speaker 7 (28:15):
No we're not.
Speaker 10 (28:16):
We're resetting the stage. We're making sure that we're doing
it the right way. But if you get rid of
the rule of law, you have nothing left. So we
need to hold the line back to president, remove illegal aliens,
and force the law, stop the flow, codify.
Speaker 11 (28:29):
All of that, and then and only then have a.
Speaker 10 (28:32):
Conversation about what our labor supply looks like when it's
rational and bad actor's been removed, the dangerous people affiliated
with gangs have been removed, we've restored the rule of law.
Nobody's here illegally. Now we can reset and say, okay, now,
but here's the important part, Jesse. I don't want people
here who don't love America.
Speaker 11 (28:50):
I don't want people here who are here at the
shree of law.
Speaker 10 (28:53):
I don't want people here who want to turn Texas
into an Islamic state. And that's what's happening. Is happening
in Plano, it's happening in Houston right you, is happening
all over the country, but in particular in Texas. That's
why I introduce legislation to stop the tax benefit for care,
to start vetting people for sreal law. And we need
members of Congress Republicans to stand up and agree with that,
(29:13):
and then we can actually fix the system. While we
have to House, the Senate and the presidency.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
Chip Obviously, everybody's concerned about our majority.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Are we going to lose it at the midterms.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
We've had tragedy in the House of Representatives, obviously that's terrible.
We've had resignations. One of the good ones from Texas
is leaving to go be Attorney General. I'm not going
to name names. What what's the House going to look
like after the midterms?
Speaker 10 (29:39):
Well, first of all, I think we have a strong
chance of being able to maintain the majority if we lead.
We've done some good things. We've been holding spending roughly
in check. The Big Beautiful Bill had a lot of
really good policies, cutting back the Green New scam, putting
in work requirements, pulling back on Medicaid uses, making sure
that tax policy is pro growth and is putting more
(29:59):
money in the pockets of the American people. In a
lot of those are words people use. This is real
stuff we did that. We should be proud of it.
President Trump is doing great work security the border, making
sure we're strong on the global stage. I applaud what
he did in Venezuela. Let's be strong. Let's not have
endless wars. Let's just exercise our authority for our interests,
for the Western hemisphere, for the American people. So all
(30:20):
of this is good stuff. We should run on it.
We should be proud of it. But we should go further.
We should codify his stuff. We should make these things permanent.
We should pass election integrity so we don't have fraud
in the election. Say back to the things I talked
about before. So I think we do those things, we win.
I think we're going to have a lot of new
people in the House, and that as an opportunity for
us to continue to push and push the House in
the right direction. The American people have a lot of
(30:43):
strength right now when they look through these bills and
they find the garbage and oil field. Rando puts a
good tweet out there and says, hey, look at this
stupid thing in the bill. That's helpful. People like me
have been doing it for a decade. But I'm one
guy or ten guys up here, and we're trying.
Speaker 11 (30:57):
But when we've got an army of.
Speaker 10 (30:58):
Patriots out there being it clear that this stuff is garbage,
we can change the town. I'm sitting in a rules
committee right now in Appropriations bill. I don't support everything
in the bill, and I'll probably vote against it, but
it is a markedly better bill than it would have been.
We've moved in the right direction. We've reduced the overall spending.
We've stopped some of the bad programs. There's still bad
programs in there, and we got.
Speaker 11 (31:19):
To keep moving in it.
Speaker 10 (31:20):
But we're moving the Titanic. It just needs to move
a lot faster than it's moving.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
Chip. Appreciate you as always, my man. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
Supreme Court had oral arguments today. We will discuss those
oral arguments. Now, let me make an oral argument to you.
I know why you haven't.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Switched to pure Talk yet. I know you have.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
AT and T, T Mobile Verizon. I know, and I
know the only reason you haven't switched to pure talk
you think it's going to be a pain, because other
than that, there is no reason. They're on the same towers,
so you're not sacrificing service. They'll charge you less. I
know you want a veteran led business, not a commy
led business, so the only reason would be it's gonna
(32:03):
be a pain. Let me explain something. You keep your phone,
you keep your phone number. We're talking a ten minute
process that's actually pleasant, straightforward, enjoyable. You're locking in savings
ten minutes. Average family saves eight thousand dollars a year.
(32:28):
There is no reason not to switch.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
None. Take the plunge. You will thank me.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
Everyone else does puretalk, dot com slash JESSETV.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
We'll be back.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
Sometimes sometimes you analyze where we're at as a country
and you're feeling good about things. Hey, we're getting people
deported and we're gett inflation down. And then there are
other times where you just take something in and you think, man,
we're in, We're in.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
We're in a.
Speaker 1 (33:07):
Different place than I think we probably should be. The
Supreme Court today is hearing oral arguments involving not one,
but two cases of dudes playing against chicks in sports.
And now now we have to talk about this. Not
only this is Supreme Court have to waste time. We
have to figure out what's going on. Joining me now,
Bill Jacobs and the wonderful Bill Jacobs and Cornell Law
(33:30):
University professor.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Okay, Bill, what's going on with these cases? Why are
there two of them? What's going to be the what
might be the outcomes? Give it to us.
Speaker 12 (33:41):
Yeah, well, where it's otherworldly. As you're indicated, this is
evolving too.
Speaker 7 (33:46):
Law.
Speaker 12 (33:47):
We're in another world now, and I'm going to try
to put us into the real world. In this other world,
we're arguing basically about whether the girls sports or for
girls or are they also for boys who identify as girls?
And that's really what it comes down to. So Idaho
and West Virginia passed laws that, in a nutshell, said
(34:10):
we're going to protect girls' sports and girls sports are
only four biological girls. I don't know if that's the
term they used, but that's what they meant. So those
laws were challenged and actually put on hold because there
were two males, one in each state, who identify as female,
who wanted to participate in female sports, and that's why
(34:34):
we're in the Supreme Court. And I say it's otherworldly,
because this should be the easiest thing in the world. Okay,
this should be, but it's not. And I don't know
which way it's going to go. You would say we
should come out of this oral argument thinking it's nine
to zero, but I think it's going to be five
to four. I just don't know which direction. And they
(34:54):
were taking this very seriously, and it was kind of
humor at one point. I mean, Alito, who's tied with
Thomas for the best justice on the court, asked a
question and we don't have video, but you know he
had an ear to ear grin. He asked the attorney
for the girls to give him the definition of what
(35:16):
it means to be a girl or a boy, and
she said, well, we don't have that definition, which harkened
back to Kaitanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearing, where she was asked,
give me the definition of a woman and she said, well,
I can't because I'm not a biologist. Anyway, that's where
we are. Most of the argument today surrounded levels of review,
(35:38):
a lot of words like heightened scrutiny and strict scrutiny.
So a lot of it was kind of court sort
of jargon as to what can we do to review this?
But when you get down to it, we're literally in
the Supreme Court arguing whether a school district can protect girls'
sports or not.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
Good freaking grief.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Okay, Bill, you said, obviously, in the world of reality,
it's a fairly simple case, but it gets a little
bit more convoluted legally. I'm kind of putting words in
your mouth, but that's basically what I heard. Why what's
the legal argument here? Because for a normal person, this
is obviously a no brainer thing. What's what's the legal
(36:21):
what's the legal hiccups?
Speaker 12 (36:23):
Most of the discussion today was whether these laws violate
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether by
denying equal rights they would say to people they referred
to as trans women or trans girls, whether that violates
some protected right. And one of the indications of where
(36:46):
we are as a society is words like trans woman,
trans girl, as opposed to male who identifies as a woman,
was thrown around by just about everybody today. In fact,
Kaitanji around Jackson through in the term cis gender. If
any of your viewers don't know what that is. That's
(37:07):
describing people who are what we used to call just
normal people, a man who identifies as a man and
a woman who identifies as a woman. But they've created
a whole new term to make it sound like that's
weird and that's strange. So that term was thrown around.
And so the legal claim is that transgender students are
a protected class or an identifiable class, which is entitled
(37:31):
to equal protection of the laws. And it seems absurd
on its face. It shouldn't hold up because a lot
of the dialogue today, a lot of the questions, particularly
from the so called conservative justices, were are you telling
me we can't have separate boys and girls for sports?
And no one's really contending that. What they're trying to
(37:51):
do is say, you're being unfair. Here's a child, a
boy or a girl, whoever it is, and you're treating
them unfairly. And so there was a very circular argument
that yes, we can have girls' sports, but you still
have to treat these other people you know, make an
exception for them, and that's what a lot of it was.
(38:13):
So and that seemed to get some sympathy from Gorsa
to other people. How they're ruled, I don't know, but
there were questions, even from the so called conservatives about
aren't we being unfair to this group of people. And unfortunately,
unfairness is not the normal legal standard. You've got to
find something more firm. We submitted an equal protection project
(38:36):
that I run briefs in both cases, both of the cases,
and our argument was, wait a second, here, you can
not have a term in the law that is completely fluid.
For any given person. You could identify as a male today,
a female tomorrow, the day after that, a mail.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Again.
Speaker 12 (38:56):
You can't have a legal system where everything is fluid
and subject to the subjective thoughts of a person. You
need something objective, and the only objective definition of sex
is biological and that's what we're arguing. Didn't really come
up that fluidity notion in the argument today. Hopefully the
courts will read our brief, But that's why I'm saying,
(39:18):
we're in the never world, where nothing is firm, nothing
is real, it's all what you feel and what you
think and should have somebody have sympathy for you. Well,
what about and this did come up a little bit,
not a lot. What about sympathy for the girls who
are in girls' sports and don't want to have to
compete against males? What about the sympathy for them? That
wasn't a hot topic today. It did come up, But
(39:41):
that's what's missing from this whole equation is you have
girls getting injured, you have girls getting deprived of awards,
you have girls getting deprived of college opportunities because they
don't win awards in their sports. That really didn't come
up a lot today, And that's the saddest thing about it.
Now it might when they actually write the decisions. But
that's what the argument was today is is this unfair?
Speaker 1 (40:06):
When do they actually write the decisions bill this process?
It seems to be so slow for those of us
on the outside looking in.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
When do we get decisions on things like that?
Speaker 12 (40:16):
This one will probably not be until June. I mean,
we're already in January, and it was just argued June
is the end of the term. And we've discussed what
term means. It just means when they issue here their
arguments and issue their decisions, and generally speaking, other than
emergency matters, the term ends at the end of June,
so I think this is one we'll probably get in June.
(40:38):
You know, there are other ones which might and will
be fast tracked, but this one doesn't seem to be
on a fast track.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Okay, what other oral arguments are coming soon? We should
be keeping our eye on.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
Well.
Speaker 12 (40:51):
I think there's going to be more in terms of
other cases. In terms of Trump's ability to deploy troops,
there was a decision on an interim basis not that
long ago where the Supreme Court actually ruled against Trump
in terms of deploying the National Guard in Illinois. So
that's going to be one, and I'm sure that there
will be more of those cases. And of course we're
(41:13):
all waiting for the one that's already been argued, which
is the tariff's case, and we've discussed that before, and
that's going to have just massive implications. That's the one
that every day when the court issues its rulings, everybody's
on X wondering did they rule on tariffs yet. That's
going to just have a cascading impact on the economy
and on the Trump administration if the ruling goes against Trump.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
Something I wanted to ask you about was this Insurrection Act.
Here's Trump talking about, and then.
Speaker 7 (41:45):
We may if we you know, we're allowed to the
most powerful thing we have. We haven't used the Insurrection Act.
Speaker 11 (41:52):
You're considering using this?
Speaker 7 (41:53):
I've always considered it, but we haven't needed it anywhere
forty eight percent of the president's does this country have
used it? Bush used it I think twenty two times.
Speaker 2 (42:06):
What does that mean? What does he want to do?
Can he do it?
Speaker 1 (42:10):
We have hostile foreign city states within our border.
Speaker 2 (42:13):
It seems to be ready made for the Insurrection Act?
Speaker 12 (42:17):
Yeah, Well, the Insurrection Act would be if there is
a rebellion against local government, against state government, and the
inability of the federal government to pursue its business and
its laws, and he would have to invoke that because
generally speaking, the federal government cannot use the US Army,
(42:39):
federal troops, armed forces to do law enforcement. The Insurrection
Act would be an exception to that. And really the
question would be is there a rebellion or not? Is
there what we commonly refer to as an insurrection, And
that's going to be a pretty high hurdle. And it
has been used in the past. But whether it would
(42:59):
amount who adhere, I think remains to be seen. But
that's the ultimate card. And in fact, when the Supreme
Court refused to allow Trump to use on an interim basis,
the National Garden Illinois, they left open the possibility that
he might be able to invoke the Insurrection Act. They
didn't rule on it and really didn't give an opinion
on it, but said that that's the way you need
(43:21):
to go. You need to You can only deploy the
National Guard if you are lawfully able to deploy the
US military what they called the regular forces, and if
those regular forces are unable to handle the situation. So
I think that's the next step, and I think it
depends what happens in any given city. Obviously, it's not
(43:42):
something he wants to do. It's something he's been holding
in his back pocket. But if things got really bad
and we see what's happening in Minnesota, where there is
by almost every I think reasonable measure, we're on the
border of an actual rebellion. We're on the border where
state authorities are suggesting they haven't said they'll do it,
but suggesting they may deploy their local forces local police
(44:07):
National Guard to oppose immigration enforcement. And so I think
we might get to it, but Trump doesn't seem to
be in a rush to get it. He rather would
just have it hanging out there.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
And so, just to clarify one final question, Bill, if
these nutball Democrat politicians in a state like Minnesota try
to deploy their local police or even the National Guard,
and Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, that's going to be
US troops against US troops.
Speaker 12 (44:39):
Well that would be you know, if Minnesota deployed their
National Guard or Minneapolis deployed its police to interfere with
federal authority. Federal authority, at least in the immigration field,
in most fields, has supremacy, you know, And so hope
(45:00):
we don't get to a situation where you have US
Army troops facing Minnesota National Guard or Minnesota police. And
that's why it's so reckless for those local officials to
suggest that that's what they're going to do, and that
you know, is a possibility. Nobody actually really thinks that's
going to happen, because in those situations usually the local
(45:23):
people stand down, like they did with the school desegregation.
As soon as you know, US armed forces were deployed
to enforce segregation of the schools in the South, and
there was a lot of bluster from George Wallace and
others about fighting them. They ultimately back down, and Minnesota
would back down. I don't think we're ever going to
get to that, but to even make that suggestion is
(45:46):
incredibly reckless by people, by the politicians in Minnesota.
Speaker 1 (45:53):
Bill, that's scary stuff, but thank you, I appreciate it, sir.
Light the mood next, all right, it's time to lighten
the mood. And it enlightens my mood to know that
our military is so vastly superior to everyone else. For instance,
(46:17):
we allegedly reportedly used a weapon on the Venezuelans that
had them bleeding from the nose and laying on the
ground rolling around in pain. That's amazing. Go America, baby.
All right, anyway, I'll see them all
Host
Jesse Kelly
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.