12-9-24 - 8am - The Lack of Accountability

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Brownie. Don't you think the FBI could use that tracker
that they put in you back COVID days to figure
out what agent was hanging out with you last night.
Hell's bells. They're tracking the agent, they're tracking both of us.
So they've got us sitting right together there at that table,

(00:21):
just yammering around about Jay six defendants, and they're listening
because the tracker's got a little microphone in there too.
That's right, That's why. That's really That's when I went
to see doctor Juliet sound Relief. She was like, you
don't have tennis. You got some thing in your ear.
It's just feedback. Yeah, it's just that you're just getting
an echo. We just need to kind of turn down
the volume a little bit. So as long as we're

(00:43):
on this kick today about the surveillance state and I
and I said, the one thing that Trump's going the
overarching theme of the first two years of the Trump
administration has to be the word accountability. And that's going

(01:07):
to be tough to do. I'm not saying he can't
do it, So don't start in you know, you're always
on negative. No, I'm a realist, and I understand what
it's going to take to make people in DC accountable.
There was another conversation I had yesterday. It was the
whole lack of accountability, because then I get, you know,

(01:31):
while I'm cross examining him, he's cross examining me, and
of course he's cross examining me about what's really going
on in western North Carolina. But both of us, despite
our back and forth only and I don't mean that negatively,
it was a great conversation. We both agree that there's

(01:55):
just this lack of accountability. And then he also described
the way they use the personnel system to not only
burrow in which is happening, but then also to build
a top heavy organization. You know, I've said that one

(02:19):
of the things. I mean, teacher unions in general, I
think is probably the biggest problem in public education. But
the second biggest problem, the number two problem, is that
it's all top heavy. Go look at your local school
district and see if you can find a breakdown between
administrators and teachers and counselors. Because the people in the classroom,

(02:44):
the people are dealing directly with the students. And I
don't mean like just you know, a principle, it has
an encounter with a troublemaker. But I mean in the classroom,
in the counselor's office, those who deal directly with the
students that affect their learning. And you'll find that of
all the money we're pumping into into public education, that

(03:04):
too much of it's going to this top heavy bureaucracy.
Go look at your local school board and look at
how many people work in the district office. You'll be
You'll be, it'll blow your mind. Well, the conversation we're
having last night is how you know the Hoover Building
is just completely full of people that are our sees

(03:31):
senior executive service, that too many of them unnecessary assistant
assistant assistance. It's just absurd. Well, the NDAA, the National
Defense Authorization Act for this coming fiscal year, it's not

(03:52):
just a defense authorization bill. It is calculated to undermine
Trump's efforts out accountability. For example, the bill codifies perpetual,
perpetual support for Ukraine, It entrenches diversity and Inclusion DEI initiatives,

(04:20):
and it favors all the legacy defense contractors over innovative
companies like you know, Annual Industries or SpaceX. So let's
walk through it's a little tedious, but I want to
give you the receipts. Let's think about Ukraine and Russia

(04:41):
and the provisions that, in essence codify an endless war.
It's Afghanistan all over again. Section thirteen oh three is
an obvious effort to prevent Trump from negotiating peace Ukraine.
It prohibits any recognition of Russian sovereignty over Ukrainian territory.

(05:08):
It prohibits by it lawfully prohibits any recognition of Russian
sovereignty over any Ukrainian territory. So even if Zelensky is
now obviously be challenged in court, but if Zelensky says, hey,
in peace negotiations, I'm willing to give up a little

(05:32):
bit of the bomb bess for you know, for you
guys withdrawing elsewhere or whatever it is, I'll give you
this for that. No, you can't do it because it lawfully.
I shouldn't say lawfully, because I think it's I think
it's on. I don't think you can bind a president
to limited negotiations. But this is what they're attempting to
do by prohibiting the United States from recognizing Russian sovereignty

(05:56):
over any current existing Ukrainian territory. So Congress ensures that
if there's a deal to be made involving any sort
of concessions about territory, which is pretty common when you
think about peace negotiations, that's das it strips the president

(06:19):
of a I think inherently executive tool, diplomatic tool to negotiate. Now,
I think it's unconstitutional. I think it infringes on the
president's powers, the unitary executive. So he's gonna have to

(06:40):
challenge it. So, even though he may ultimately win that battle,
if he walks in on day one, on January twenty first,
he says to Putin and Zelensky, I want to meet
you in Paris. I want to meet you in London.
I want to meet you in Vienna, and we're gonna

(07:00):
sit down and we're gonna hash this out. His hands
already tied. But let's say he reaches a deal. Now,
those two countries can do that, but this country, the
United States of America, cannot recognize any Russian sovereignty over
in any existing Ukrainian territory, even if those two parties

(07:24):
agree to it. Why why would Putin? If Putin knows
this and now Zelensky knows this. Zelensky is going to
immediately backtrack on his public statement that, Okay, you know what,
I might give up a little bit of land if
we can just settle this. This is a direct attack

(07:45):
on the executive's power to prioritize American interests over this stalemate.
This horrific. Just I mean, just Tim and I were
watching Lioness last night. There was a there was a
scene where they're doing some they're doing some operation on

(08:09):
the Iraqi border, and the mission kind of falls apart.
So some of our agents, some of our CIA agents,
and some of our army personnel get caught by these
Iraqis that just come swarming like ants over the hill,

(08:29):
and the apaches are called in and the apaches just
literally just mow them down. Amy, It's brutal, just mows
them down. Well, that's kind of what's going on every
single day in Ukraine and Russia. They get an inch,

(08:51):
they lose an inch. And North Koreans, who have a
military of what five hundred thousand or five million soldiers
and they're governed by a dictator that has zero respect
for life, they'll just keep shipping bodies. They'll just keep
shipping bodies over there, and they'll just keep dying by

(09:14):
the thousands every single day, and they'll just you they
don't care because they die. There is no absolutely no
treatment of the wounded on the Russian side. Did you
know that there are no medics. You you get shot

(09:34):
in the leg as you're advancing somewhere in the bombus
in Ukraine, you get shot in the leg. You're just
left there to bleed out. You better walk it off.
You better find some mud or something and try to
stench the bleeding, because you're gonna bleed out because nobody's
coming to help you. They're gonna step right over. In fact,
they're probably what they're probably gonna do is they're gonna

(09:56):
pick up your gun and they're gonna just keep moving forward,
and they just keep feeding them into the gristmill. Trump
wants to end that. I think any humanitarian would want
to end that. And I get protecting your sovereignty. I'm
not saying you should just give up your sovereignty. But
they've now reached the point and what you know what,

(10:17):
maybe it's important to stop here for a moment, and
how do we get to this point? How do we
get to the point where it is literally just mowing
down men on both sides without any respect to any
norms of warfare, and just I mean, this is World
War One, this is World War one trench warfare. This
is what's going on right now. Because Biden would not

(10:43):
give the Ukrainians what they needed to win now, regardless
irrespective of what you think about the battle, from the
moment that the truth the Russian troops started to amass
on the Ukrainian border, Biden was just like, no, you know,
there's nothing to see here, or oh, it's just a

(11:05):
minor incursion. Remember that, it's just a minor incursion. What
were three years now into this stupid thing? Three years
into it, and who knows how many I think I
think Zelensky admitted sometime over the past week that forty
thousand Ukrainians have died on the front lines. Forty thousand,
I would venture to say four hundred thousand have died

(11:27):
on the Russian side because they don't care. They just
shove them in and now here's Congress. Because Biden just
dribbles out a little bit by bit, doesn't give them
what they need to win, because he's quite frankly, he's
scared of Vladimir Putin. Let me ask you this, do
you think Donald Trump's scared of Vladimir Putin? No, and

(11:52):
being willing to talk to him, being willing to sit
down with him, is not appeasement. Now if you walk
away and just give him everything once, yes, now you're
an appeaser. But that's not Donald Trump. Trump wants both
sides to end this at the same time, trying to
respect as much sovereignty on both sides as you can.
Everybody's blasting Tucker Carlson because Tucker Carlson went over and

(12:16):
had a conversation with oh, brain fart the foreign ministers,
I can't remember his last name now, the Russian foreign minister. Well,
at least Tucker Carlson did it. Do you think at
any time Anthony Blincoln has said to Zarkov, Zarlaf whatever

(12:38):
his name is, Hey, maybe you and I had to
meet in Vienna at least have a conversation. No, because
for them that somehow shows weakness. No, it doesn't. It
shows that you can have two competing thoughts in your
brain at the same time. We want to beat your ass,
but let's talk about it. That's just section thirteen. Oh

(12:58):
three of the current in DAA section sixty four to
twelve of sixty four to thirteen, those two provisions institutionalize
our involvement in Ukraine by mandating continuous assessments. And God,
I'd laughed when I read this. It mandates the creation

(13:22):
of working groups. Oh, the infamous DC working group. We
don't know what to do. We want to keep doing
what we're doing. We want to keep feeding the military
industrial complex. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees want

(13:42):
to make sure their defense contractors keep getting fed whatever.
Forget about what we need, let's just keep feeding them.
And so we're gonna have a working group, and then
they use the term lessons learned. They want to create
this bureaucretic framework that locks us into an indefinite conflict.

(14:05):
That's not about accountability. It's about ensuring that we cannot
withdraw our support without facing internal institutional resistance, which means
whether it's Pete Higgs' Marc lar Ruby, what State National

(14:26):
Security by who are Director of O and B. I
don't care who it is. It's going to take them
appointing their underlings, their deputy secretaries, their undersecretaries, to make
certain that they those undersecretaries appoint people that are going
to go carry out the president's agenda. And if that

(14:50):
means that if a bureaucrat, if a GS fifteen or
an SEES, refuses to do what you say, because well,
the NDAA says, we have to have this working group
and you've got to get approval from the working group. No,
I do not. I'm the under Secretary of Defense for whatever,

(15:12):
and I'm saying you do it, and if you don't
do it, we're gonna terminate you. Now that may take
us a year to terminate you, but we're taking away
your computer, we're taking away your cell phone, we're taking
away your credentials, and you will air quote here, work
from home, and do nothing. And the American taxpayers are
willing to do that for a year while we work

(15:34):
our asses off to kick you out of there. I
guess the point I want to make is there are laws.
These laws will be challenged. That takes time. There will
be firings, those will take time. There will be bureaucratic inertia,

(15:56):
and that will take time. And that means that we
are going to have to recognize that it's not going
to happen by January twenty. First, we're not going to
solve all these problems, and that we're going to have
to continue to support Trump in these efforts to hold
these people accountable. Because as much as as much as

(16:17):
you will hear members of Congress in the Senate, oh
yeah boy, we support Trump's efforts. We support why, we
support the DOSEE efforts, we support the accountability efforts, and
everything else. While they're telling you that to their face,
and they're telling you on the Sunday news shows, at
the same time they're passing laws they're going to make
it even more difficult to do. So the solbs are

(16:39):
not going to stop because they're protecting their turf, and
they're protecting their turf because they're making money on it.
It's the only place I know that you can go
to work and not really produce anything, but somehow you
go in as a popper and come out a multi millionaire.

(17:00):
It's just freaking unbelievable. You know, it's not unbelievable. I've
seen it up close and personal. And then we haven't
gotten to the budget, the actual money. Congress is now
going to require Congressional approval for reallocating defense moneys. So

(17:20):
that's going to neuter Trump's ability to respond to emerging
threats like the border. So Trump's commitment to secure the
southern border is going to be hamstrung by these restrictions,
which are going to leave vital resources locked in less
critical areas. Again, I think that's a violation of the
president's authority. Now let's separate the idea of impounding funds

(17:44):
versus reallocation of funds. What Congress is doing here by
limiting his general transfer authority. The executive has the ability
if you've got a crisis. Oh my god, this happened
to me so many times. There would be some crisis,
whether whether I thought it was real or not. If

(18:05):
OMB determined that X y Z was a crisis, they
would come running to me because I knew I had
a s load of money and say, we're going to
reallocate the five billion dollars you were going to spend
on X y Z, and we're going to reallocate that
over here to ABC. Oh. I could fight it, I

(18:28):
could object to it, but ultimately, the Director of OMB,
and ultimately the president has the authority to reallocate those funds.
But now Congress is trying to take away that ability,
and you thought your marks were gone, Remember how oh,
we we're going to do your marks anymore. Well, guess what.

Speaker 2 (19:09):
What I believe about the FBI for the last forty years,
at least, they're just a terrorist, domestic terrorist group.

Speaker 1 (19:17):
There are a murderous bunch of thugs.

Speaker 2 (19:19):
Look what they did to the weavers in Idaho. They
shot a woman on her own front, fortune killed her,
shot a boy and his dog.

Speaker 1 (19:25):
Look what they did in Waco. They killed women and children.

Speaker 2 (19:30):
The FBI's got to go.

Speaker 1 (19:31):
They kill anybody that doesn't get in line and do
what they want. What about the ATF. What did you
purposely about the ATF mentioning the Weavers in Waco? All

(19:52):
right back to the the National Defense Authorization Act. One
of the things that I try to do is to
be realistic with you. This is not meant to be discouraging.

(20:18):
It's meant to be realistic, Because there's no doubt in
my mind that Susan Wilde's the President's chief of staff
and his director of Office and Management and Budget. They
know all of these things and they're advising Trump about them,

(20:41):
and I'm they're going to be they'll be giving him
good advice about and by the way, Pam Bondy, the
nominee to be the Attorney General, she'll be more than
happy to take on the bureaucracy, to take on the
administrative state. She'll be happy to take on Congress for
that matter. And it's fascinating to me that why while

(21:06):
Congress bemoans the imperial presidency and how the president has
too much power, they nonetheless then take this and try
to strap him of any power that he inherently has
as president, so that he can't exercise any power. Can't

(21:27):
You can't have it both ways. If you're going to
have a CEO of the executive branch to administer the
laws passed by Congress, then you have to and that
president as the authority to respond to the implementation of
those laws based on the priorities and the needs that

(21:50):
the executive branch sees needs to be taken care of.
Then you have to give him some flexibility, but by
requies hiring congressional approval for reallocating defense funds that effectively
neuters Trump's ability to respond to emerging threats like the border.

(22:12):
That's a deliberate chocal designed to obstruct urgent executive action.
And the ear marks that I teased that the bill,
this current FY twenty twenty five MDAA, diverts a humongous

(22:32):
amount of resources to things that Trump has said, specifically
he's going to have Pete Hegsaf or whoever ends up
being the Secretary of Defense to get rid of climate resilience, diversity, equity,
and inclusion initiatives. Those are just pure ideological projects that

(22:53):
take away funds from border security, from modernizing the military,
from recruitment. If you entrench those programs, Congress ensures that
all those device E policies remain embedded in the Pentagon,
and that those programs will obstruct efforts to depoliticize the

(23:14):
military and restore a mission critical, mission focused objective. All
this is going on now. Congress has the ability to
come January third to revise all of this. And if

(23:35):
John Thune, the new Senate Majority leader, as Speaker Mike Johnston,
really want to prove their metal and they really want
to prove that they can, you know, help Trump get
these things done, then they'll do it. And they should
do it. They should at least attempt to do it,
because it will expose those who really do buy into

(23:58):
the idea of reducing government waste and improving government efficiency,
of reprioritizing our spending, of the president's authority to reallocate money.
They can do all of that. So the natural tendency,
though in the cabal, is going to be to blame

(24:20):
the president. He's not following the law, he's not doing
what Congress intended. Well, there's a new Congress and there's
a new sheriff in town. So they ought to work together.
And the Speaker and the Majority leader ought to be
bending over backwards to amend these things, and they ought
to be crawling their respective caucuses because the Democrats aren't

(24:44):
going to Democrats are going to just sit back. They're
not going to do anything, and they're going to laugh
at Trump when he has to fight to get some
of these things done. Section three nineteen, speaking of the
climate that section acts he weaponizes, in my opinion, the
environmental regulations in order to obstruct fossil fuel energy projects

(25:07):
on military installations. You see, even the NDAA affects on
on gas production. So when Congress embeds legal hurdles and
it actually empowers the activists, Congress is trying to guarantee
that Trump's energy independence agenda is going to be stone

(25:27):
walled or stalled at every turn. It's not about sustainability.
It's about sabotaging their efforts to prioritize reliable energy sources
that it will actually strengthen national security. And just to
add a little footnote here to bugaboo dragon and he
had to start refilling the strategic Petroleum Reserve. And one

(25:50):
way to do that stop obstructing fossil fuel energy projects
that happen to be in or near or on military installations. Yeah,
you want a drill, baby drill, drill on some federally
owned land, drill on some military installations. Now, how are
they going to do about entrenching bol policies. We'll go

(26:14):
to section fifty six five sixty nine E that weaponizes
mental health protections that are going to shield protect certain
groups from either reassignment or some sort of you know, scrutiny.
If they seek to remove an unfit like maybe a

(26:36):
transgender individual from a mission critical position, that section will
be used to create endless legal and bureaucratic roadblocks, and
they'll end up in court and they'll fight that through
the federal district court. They'll fight it through the courts
of appeals, and they also want to end up in
the US Supreme Court, and that of course will take time.

(26:59):
Do you think Kung really cares about the impact of
those policies on military readiness? They do not. Ulis paused
just a moment. The headline earlier on one of the
I don't know whether those folks or CNN was how

(27:20):
we're monitoring and troops in Syria. Our troops in Syria,
which has fallen into chaos, are trying to at this
very moment keep ISIS contained so that ISIS doesn't get
into the mix, and so that ISIS doesn't start doing
things that depends upon military readiness and the ability to

(27:46):
supply them with all the arms, ammunitions and equipment that
they need and the personnel that they may need to
contain isis to give Syria a chance. You see what
this new leader of HTS will do area, Well, no,
maybe you can't do that because you're too focused on
DEI and all these other policies. Now a little bit

(28:11):
of good news, but not very much is the Section
eleven fifteen of the INDAA imposes a hiring freeze on
new DEI positions, but it leaves the existing infrastructure in place.
What do I mean, it's just a hiring freeze. The slots,
the positions don't go away, you just can't hire anybody.

(28:35):
So by shielding the entrance bureaucracy, Congress ensures that if
there's any attempt to dismantle those programs, it's going to
require all this justification and all this litigation. That is
a calculated move to block meaningful reform. The good news
in this is I think Trump knows this, and if

(28:59):
Trump no other the chief staff knows it, and the
Director of OMB knows it. Now I'm going to say
something that will probably piss some of you off. Pete Hegeser,
the Defense Secretary nominee, has made it a priority to

(29:21):
get rid of these woke DEI policies. But having just
described everything that I've described this in the current NDAA
that he's going to have to tackle, he's going to
need strong support because I don't think and this is
not at all to detegrate a soldier. Soldiers deal with

(29:49):
the bureaucracy. But that doesn't mean that soldiers have the skills,
the knowledge, and the ability to fight the bureaucracy. So
either Haigeseth is going to have to buckle up himself,
or he's going to have to make sure that he
gets surrounded by people that know how to deal with

(30:12):
this in order to get down into that entrance bureaucracy
and break it up with a sledgehammer. He can issue,
He can issue all of the directives, all of the
you know, the the memos and the policy directors. He
can do all of that he wants that he wants to.
My only question is does he have the skills to

(30:35):
go beyond just issuing the memos to make sure that
he can track and follow the metrics to see that
the personnel or in place to implement those memos that
he might issue. And that worries me because the focus
is obviously on this Secretary of Defense, and I'm not

(30:56):
saying it shouldn't be, but if you if you're facing
an NDA that has these kinds of provisions in it,
you're going to have to have trench warfare inside the bureaucracy.
And in order to win trench warfare, you're going to
have to appoint political appointees way deep into that bureaucracy
and overcome what Congress has already thrown up when they

(31:21):
pass this legislation, and that's going to take a lot
of understanding of how to manipulate the bureaucracy and how
to overcome the bureaucracy. So there I Saidate, oh yeah,
and I'll take a break right now too.

Speaker 2 (31:37):
We've got such a weak rhino Congress and Senate. You know,
it's going to be a miracle if Trump can get
anything done with these guys. I mean they two years
we had the House, they did not beat Jim Jordan,
James Comer.

Speaker 1 (31:50):
I'll talk all Burk nobody. I genuinely agree with that statement,
But I think there's something different. There's something First, let's
start with the fact that the Democrats are in disarray now.
Of course they'll they'll circle to wagons once January third
gets here and the one hundred and nineteenth Congress goes

(32:13):
back into session, so you will have to continue to
battle them. But I think Republicans, while they're you know,
the Susan Collins of the world, the Lisa Murkowski's for
that matter, the John Thunes of John Cornyns, there will
still be Republicans. There will still be those Rhinos that
will be lowed to do anything to support Donald Trump.

(32:37):
What is different is the you know, and I think
it gets overused. But let me explain why I think
it gets overused, the term mandate. I do believe that
Trump got a mandate, but it's not because of the
electoral college count, and it's not because of the popular

(32:58):
vote count, all of which part of a mandate. But
I don't think that's the key. I think it's the demographics.
If you look at the demographics and you see the
improvement of the numbers of people that voted for Donald Trump,
whether they're Hispanics, or their gays, or their transgenders, or
their Methodists, or their Democrats, or their just you know,

(33:23):
old style liberals, or their whatever race or whatever age.
You know, all of that that is the mandate. And
that mandate is that the people in this country are
fed up with the way things have been going, and
they're fed up because of the overreach by the not

(33:48):
not necessarily the Biden administration, because Biden was an empty shell.
Biden was just the vessel by which they got done
what they wanted to get done through Congress. And that's
now done, and we're going to have to remind those yahoos,
those dumbass Republicans that you know, you look at the

(34:09):
numbers that came out and voted for Trump. We can
mobilize them because there are expectations that things be done.
One quick little thing I want to finish before we
move on to the next topic, section ten sixty seven.
This shows you how desperate they are. That provision in

(34:29):
the NDAA requires congressional notification for any executive orders related
to national defense. That is a blatant violation of the
separation of powers, that allows Congress to delay or obstruct
critical military actions. That is an unprecedented overreach that ensures

(34:50):
that Trump's authority is the commander in chief is subordinated
to legislative whims, and that jeopardizes national security. If there's
one where the president has pretty much, not completely, but
pretty much unfettered authority military and defense. Oh. I can

(35:11):
argue some other cases not quite as strongly, but when
it comes to the military and national security, that's the point, guy.
And congressional notification for executive orders, why so you can
bitch your moan about it, so you can rapidly pass
legislation to overrule an executive order. That's a violation of

(35:36):
the separation of powers. So I wanted to do the
NDAA today just to set the tone because between the
nomination of Pete Hayes, who you know, power to him
if he can get confirmed. And then you couple that

(35:58):
nomination with this legislation and you can see what's going
on behind the scenes. They're already and of course this
is the military industrial complex too, trying to preserve all
of their territory. Watch them closely.