January 14, 2026 • 13 mins
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 (00:00):
In Milford today is National Dress Up Your Pet Day. Well,
our next guest was able to find a costume. This
is just so cute dressed up his dog as Thomas Massey. Oh,
you've got to go to Brian's blog page and meet
Thomas Paulsy The judges next Chucking Vermont fifty five KRC,
(00:25):
the Talk Station, A.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Thirty fifty four CARC the Toss Station, Judge Ednapolitano. Can
you hear me? Are we experiencing technical difficulties this morning?
Judge Strecker's trying to iron them out as we speak.
Judge cannot currently hear my voice, although I see his
face on the zoom connection. He's kind of fading in
and out. Congress Mam Massey, I know you're busy holding
(00:52):
on online waiting to hear from the judge.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Something about a dog dressed up with Thomas Matthew that
I catch that you did.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
It's your dog apparently dress up your Pet Day or something.
But Congressman Thomas Massey is literally listening right now. He is.
He decided to hold after my conversation in the last
segment with him because he wanted to hear what you
had to say today. Welcome back to the Morning show, sir.
It's a pleasure having you.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Well, thank you, Brian. I'm sorry but we can't see
each other. I don't know what the technical glitch is.
And I did not know that the greatest defender of
the Constitution in the modern era was on right before me,
or would have come on a little bit earlier so
that I could hear what he was saying. But Thomerson, Massy,
thank you for taking the time to listen to us.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Well, you know you would have enjoyed You would have
enjoyed the conversation. In your column, which I read an
assault on the Republic. You're very critical of Donald Trump,
and I understand that, and you know I occasionally, and
I'm warning my listening audience, do not call Joe Strecker
and complain about the judges thoughts and commentary. Joe has
nothing to do with it. It's kind of crazy. He needs.
I'm your critical in any way, shape or form, of
(02:01):
Donald Trump. The phones light up and just Drecker gets
the brunt of the argument. But quite often they're not
seeing through to the legal arguments that you are making.
They're only hearing the criticism of the person who is
cot runs contrary to your perception of the law. But
one thing I wanted to take from your column, which
(02:23):
can spring from it. In the last segment, we talked
to Congressman Thomas Massey about the law that is on
the books which forced the government to release the Epstein
files by I guess it was the nineteenth last month
or something. They didn't do it. There's apparently a million
plus documents behind the scene. Bondie won't release them. No
one will release them. They're going to have to go
to court. They may might have to file a contempt hearing.
(02:45):
There is no fidelity to the rule of law. This
is not faithfully upholled in the Constitution and the laws
of the United States of America. And I quite frankly
am puzzled by the whole thing. But here's yet another
illustration of fast and loose with the well the power.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
You know, I have been arguing, and I do this
with deference and respect here listeners, not to arouse them,
but I've been arguing that there's a direct line to
be drawn between what's happening in the streets in Minneapolis
and what happened in a bedroom in Caracas. This is
all and what happened in the speedboat and fishing boat
(03:29):
killings in the Caribbean. This is all a specie of
might makes right. This is all a specie of rejecting
the laws. When the president takes his oath of office,
he promises to faithfully exercise his duties. The Constitution Convention
debated over the word faithfully, and Madison quite properly was
(03:52):
worried that without that word in there, presidents would take
the oath as carte blanche to enforce the laws they'd
liked and forget about the laws they dislike. But by
putting the word fatally in there, the president and everybody
in the executive branch, including the Attorney General, is subject
to the laws, whether they like them or not. Congressman
(04:12):
Massey happens to have ridden the crest of a wave
which resulted in all members of Congress but one voting
for this legislation, legislation that three days before it was
voted on, the President was still twisting arms to try
and get people not to vote or not to sign
(04:33):
the discharge competition. So the Congress's voice is loud and clear.
Oh yeah, The President reluctantly signed this legislation. As the law,
she has no choice but to comply with it. He
can leak all he wants to the Wall Street Journal
that he doesn't like her. He can tell you, as
(04:54):
attorneys all he wants. You guys are losing too many cases.
But when it comes down to jacks, the DOJ is
not enforcing the law when it has to be enforced
against themselves.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Yeah, and as Massey pointed out, you know, it's a
new law, so it supersedes some of the earlier laws
that were on the book that some are arguing are
being violated because the new law says, release all the
Epstein files, including the FBI in records, and maybe the
settlement agreements that have been reached between some noted notables
and anybody who might have been molested. You know, as
(05:28):
he pointed out, you know, you can't tell me with
a million files and maybe five million documents, only two
people have been held accountable for this, Julane Maxwell and Epstein.
I mean, there's just too much there there and it
just ends up demanding the American public demands of all
political stripes. Give us the damned documents, let us draw
(05:50):
our own conclusions.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
That's what the law says, correct, and Congressman Nasty is correct.
As a matter of law, a newly enacted just like
a subsequently enacted amendment to the Constitution. Trump's lowercase te
that which preceded it. Congress is presumed to intend to
(06:14):
have overridden whatever might be inconsistent with what it has
just enacted. So the Epstein Transparency Act is the law
of the land. In the Attorney General, she keeps claiming
she has four hundred lawyers and one hundred FBI agents
going through the files. Nobody believes that it couldn't possibly
(06:34):
be taking them that long. What are they redacting when
they retact? Congressman Messy knows that's better than if they
have to say what it is, not who it is,
but what it is. This was redacted because it identified
a thirteen year old girl who was abused on the
day that to put that in the margin. They have
done that. None of these reactions explain in the margin
(06:57):
what is being redacted or why it was retacted. It
is clear they don't want to do their job. Dan
Bongino resigned over this. I'm not a Dan Bongino fan,
but I believe he's been intellectually honest in this respect.
It is clear something's being hidden, and they're going to
drag their feet as long.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
As they can, obviously, And of course that just ends
up raising burning questions like how come Donald Trump campaigned
to releasing the Epstein files and then immediately did one
to eighty after he was elected and said there's no
nothing to see there. I'm sorry, man, I can't abide
by that, whether it's a Republican or Democrat or anybody
else in office. And apparently, as you point out, overwhelmingly
(07:40):
approve the legislation to produce them. This is the first
time I've seen an exercise and bipartisanship along this level
in as far back as I can remember.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Correct, you know, Congressman Massey, in the most divisive partisan
era in modern memory in the congres demonstrated that when
you articulate clearly a value, and when the value resonates
in people's hearts hear the truth, you can achieve a
(08:11):
bipartisan goal. I can't imagine the Congressman Massi's voting record
coincides with Congressman Rowe Kahana Ball, but in this respect,
they achieved a marvelous bipartisan role because they appealed to
people's sense of truth and honesty and fairness. And they
(08:34):
did this in the most radically partisan Congress in recent memories,
Congress so radically partisan that the leadership of each party
doesn't even want to talk to each other.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Well, going back to Congressman Massey's record, he did bring
that up in spy the way Donald Trump might lead
you to believe, calling him, I believe the worst Republican
congressman that exists. Nine percent of his votes went with
the republic Party judge of Politia. So he's got a
sound record. If you just don't look at any one
given piece of legislation or anyone given position, can I
(09:10):
pivot of a real quickly, sir? The oral arguments on
in connection with upholding the transgender sports bans that exist
in a multitude of states, argued yesterday, And in spite
of the fact that I did practice law for quite
a long time, I don't consider myself a constitutional lawyer,
but I will profess in reading not just the entire opinion,
(09:31):
in just reading the summaries of it. A lot of confusion.
Considering that someone calling themselves a sex that they're not
already confuses me. The line of questioning back and forth.
I'm sorry I had a difficult time working my way
through it, even though the general consensus from the legal
experts is the Supreme Court looks like it'll be upholding
the transgender sports bans. Any reaction from what you've read
(09:54):
about the arguments yesterday, Sir, I could.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Not agree with him all you much as much of
what Justice Kavanaugh said was psycho babble out of the
editorial pages of newspapers that have nothing to do, nothing
to do with the law. Even my former debate partner
and longtime friend and Princeton classmate, Justice Alito, I thought,
(10:21):
got off into the weeds. The issue here is the
right of the states to legislate for health and safety
versus the commands of the Congress that the state not
discriminate on the basis of sex. What does that word
mean In nineteen sixty four, when the first of these
(10:42):
statutes was written, and in nineteen seventy two, when the
second of these statutes was written, it meant gender. Today
it has such a broad meaning that it has anything
whatsoever to do with sex. My person I admire most
on the Court was did not tip his hand yesterday.
(11:03):
Justice to Gorsuch he's the one who wrote the opinion
along with the liberals on the Court, applying the Civil
Rights Act of sixty four to LGBTQ, even though the
Senate expressly rejected that in sixty four twice because they
used a word sex, which today means sexuality. So it's
(11:26):
hard to fathom what is meant by this word today
compared to what it was meant by it two generations ago.
But it's pretty clear this will be five to four,
the Chief Justice with the conservatives and Gorsage with the liberals,
upholding the right of the state to protect little girls
(11:48):
from competition by biological boys.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Well, let's hope that common sense prevails. And look how
far we've come. Where you and I would agreed all
day long, as would every single physician on the planet,
that sex is whether you're a male or female, defined
by your chromosomal reality. Boy, we have gone way, way,
way the hell away from that. But that's what was
thought about and discussed when they passed the title nine, right,
that's all they were considering context right.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Then, when they passed the when they passed this stuff
in sixty four and seventy two, the concept of gender
transitioning wasn't even in the wildest imaginations of Ballmaker's much
less doctors.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Reinvent history much in the way they're reinventing the language
and definitions that we use radically, sounding like or well
in the ministry of truth. The judge entered Apolitano. God
bless you, sir. I know the Congressman mass who has
been enjoying the conversation, and I appreciate your support to him,
and he appreciate heates his I know you appreciate his
(12:50):
support of you.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
Sir.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
We'll have you on next Wednesday. Do it again. God
bless you, and thanks again for your commentary.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Sir. Thank you all the best to Congressman Massy, to
you and to your audience.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Ryan appreciate it much. It's eight forty four right now.
If you have Kersey the talk station
In Milford today is National Dress Up Your Pet Day. Well,
our next guest was able to find a costume. This
is just so cute dressed up his dog as Thomas Massey. Oh,
you've got to go to Brian's blog page and meet
Thomas Paulsy The judges next Chucking Vermont fifty five KRC,
(00:25):
the Talk Station, A.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Thirty fifty four CARC the Toss Station, Judge Ednapolitano. Can
you hear me? Are we experiencing technical difficulties this morning?
Judge Strecker's trying to iron them out as we speak.
Judge cannot currently hear my voice, although I see his
face on the zoom connection. He's kind of fading in
and out. Congress Mam Massey, I know you're busy holding
(00:52):
on online waiting to hear from the judge.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Something about a dog dressed up with Thomas Matthew that
I catch that you did.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
It's your dog apparently dress up your Pet Day or something.
But Congressman Thomas Massey is literally listening right now. He is.
He decided to hold after my conversation in the last
segment with him because he wanted to hear what you
had to say today. Welcome back to the Morning show, sir.
It's a pleasure having you.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Well, thank you, Brian. I'm sorry but we can't see
each other. I don't know what the technical glitch is.
And I did not know that the greatest defender of
the Constitution in the modern era was on right before me,
or would have come on a little bit earlier so
that I could hear what he was saying. But Thomerson, Massy,
thank you for taking the time to listen to us.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Well, you know you would have enjoyed You would have
enjoyed the conversation. In your column, which I read an
assault on the Republic. You're very critical of Donald Trump,
and I understand that, and you know I occasionally, and
I'm warning my listening audience, do not call Joe Strecker
and complain about the judges thoughts and commentary. Joe has
nothing to do with it. It's kind of crazy. He needs.
I'm your critical in any way, shape or form, of
(02:01):
Donald Trump. The phones light up and just Drecker gets
the brunt of the argument. But quite often they're not
seeing through to the legal arguments that you are making.
They're only hearing the criticism of the person who is
cot runs contrary to your perception of the law. But
one thing I wanted to take from your column, which
(02:23):
can spring from it. In the last segment, we talked
to Congressman Thomas Massey about the law that is on
the books which forced the government to release the Epstein
files by I guess it was the nineteenth last month
or something. They didn't do it. There's apparently a million
plus documents behind the scene. Bondie won't release them. No
one will release them. They're going to have to go
to court. They may might have to file a contempt hearing.
(02:45):
There is no fidelity to the rule of law. This
is not faithfully upholled in the Constitution and the laws
of the United States of America. And I quite frankly
am puzzled by the whole thing. But here's yet another
illustration of fast and loose with the well the power.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
You know, I have been arguing, and I do this
with deference and respect here listeners, not to arouse them,
but I've been arguing that there's a direct line to
be drawn between what's happening in the streets in Minneapolis
and what happened in a bedroom in Caracas. This is
all and what happened in the speedboat and fishing boat
(03:29):
killings in the Caribbean. This is all a specie of
might makes right. This is all a specie of rejecting
the laws. When the president takes his oath of office,
he promises to faithfully exercise his duties. The Constitution Convention
debated over the word faithfully, and Madison quite properly was
(03:52):
worried that without that word in there, presidents would take
the oath as carte blanche to enforce the laws they'd
liked and forget about the laws they dislike. But by
putting the word fatally in there, the president and everybody
in the executive branch, including the Attorney General, is subject
to the laws, whether they like them or not. Congressman
(04:12):
Massey happens to have ridden the crest of a wave
which resulted in all members of Congress but one voting
for this legislation, legislation that three days before it was
voted on, the President was still twisting arms to try
and get people not to vote or not to sign
(04:33):
the discharge competition. So the Congress's voice is loud and clear.
Oh yeah, The President reluctantly signed this legislation. As the law,
she has no choice but to comply with it. He
can leak all he wants to the Wall Street Journal
that he doesn't like her. He can tell you, as
(04:54):
attorneys all he wants. You guys are losing too many cases.
But when it comes down to jacks, the DOJ is
not enforcing the law when it has to be enforced
against themselves.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Yeah, and as Massey pointed out, you know, it's a
new law, so it supersedes some of the earlier laws
that were on the book that some are arguing are
being violated because the new law says, release all the
Epstein files, including the FBI in records, and maybe the
settlement agreements that have been reached between some noted notables
and anybody who might have been molested. You know, as
(05:28):
he pointed out, you know, you can't tell me with
a million files and maybe five million documents, only two
people have been held accountable for this, Julane Maxwell and Epstein.
I mean, there's just too much there there and it
just ends up demanding the American public demands of all
political stripes. Give us the damned documents, let us draw
(05:50):
our own conclusions.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
That's what the law says, correct, and Congressman Nasty is correct.
As a matter of law, a newly enacted just like
a subsequently enacted amendment to the Constitution. Trump's lowercase te
that which preceded it. Congress is presumed to intend to
(06:14):
have overridden whatever might be inconsistent with what it has
just enacted. So the Epstein Transparency Act is the law
of the land. In the Attorney General, she keeps claiming
she has four hundred lawyers and one hundred FBI agents
going through the files. Nobody believes that it couldn't possibly
(06:34):
be taking them that long. What are they redacting when
they retact? Congressman Messy knows that's better than if they
have to say what it is, not who it is,
but what it is. This was redacted because it identified
a thirteen year old girl who was abused on the
day that to put that in the margin. They have
done that. None of these reactions explain in the margin
(06:57):
what is being redacted or why it was retacted. It
is clear they don't want to do their job. Dan
Bongino resigned over this. I'm not a Dan Bongino fan,
but I believe he's been intellectually honest in this respect.
It is clear something's being hidden, and they're going to
drag their feet as long.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
As they can, obviously, And of course that just ends
up raising burning questions like how come Donald Trump campaigned
to releasing the Epstein files and then immediately did one
to eighty after he was elected and said there's no
nothing to see there. I'm sorry, man, I can't abide
by that, whether it's a Republican or Democrat or anybody
else in office. And apparently, as you point out, overwhelmingly
(07:40):
approve the legislation to produce them. This is the first
time I've seen an exercise and bipartisanship along this level
in as far back as I can remember.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Correct, you know, Congressman Massey, in the most divisive partisan
era in modern memory in the congres demonstrated that when
you articulate clearly a value, and when the value resonates
in people's hearts hear the truth, you can achieve a
(08:11):
bipartisan goal. I can't imagine the Congressman Massi's voting record
coincides with Congressman Rowe Kahana Ball, but in this respect,
they achieved a marvelous bipartisan role because they appealed to
people's sense of truth and honesty and fairness. And they
(08:34):
did this in the most radically partisan Congress in recent memories,
Congress so radically partisan that the leadership of each party
doesn't even want to talk to each other.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Well, going back to Congressman Massey's record, he did bring
that up in spy the way Donald Trump might lead
you to believe, calling him, I believe the worst Republican
congressman that exists. Nine percent of his votes went with
the republic Party judge of Politia. So he's got a
sound record. If you just don't look at any one
given piece of legislation or anyone given position, can I
(09:10):
pivot of a real quickly, sir? The oral arguments on
in connection with upholding the transgender sports bans that exist
in a multitude of states, argued yesterday, And in spite
of the fact that I did practice law for quite
a long time, I don't consider myself a constitutional lawyer,
but I will profess in reading not just the entire opinion,
(09:31):
in just reading the summaries of it. A lot of confusion.
Considering that someone calling themselves a sex that they're not
already confuses me. The line of questioning back and forth.
I'm sorry I had a difficult time working my way
through it, even though the general consensus from the legal
experts is the Supreme Court looks like it'll be upholding
the transgender sports bans. Any reaction from what you've read
(09:54):
about the arguments yesterday, Sir, I could.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Not agree with him all you much as much of
what Justice Kavanaugh said was psycho babble out of the
editorial pages of newspapers that have nothing to do, nothing
to do with the law. Even my former debate partner
and longtime friend and Princeton classmate, Justice Alito, I thought,
(10:21):
got off into the weeds. The issue here is the
right of the states to legislate for health and safety
versus the commands of the Congress that the state not
discriminate on the basis of sex. What does that word
mean In nineteen sixty four, when the first of these
(10:42):
statutes was written, and in nineteen seventy two, when the
second of these statutes was written, it meant gender. Today
it has such a broad meaning that it has anything
whatsoever to do with sex. My person I admire most
on the Court was did not tip his hand yesterday.
(11:03):
Justice to Gorsuch he's the one who wrote the opinion
along with the liberals on the Court, applying the Civil
Rights Act of sixty four to LGBTQ, even though the
Senate expressly rejected that in sixty four twice because they
used a word sex, which today means sexuality. So it's
(11:26):
hard to fathom what is meant by this word today
compared to what it was meant by it two generations ago.
But it's pretty clear this will be five to four,
the Chief Justice with the conservatives and Gorsage with the liberals,
upholding the right of the state to protect little girls
(11:48):
from competition by biological boys.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Well, let's hope that common sense prevails. And look how
far we've come. Where you and I would agreed all
day long, as would every single physician on the planet,
that sex is whether you're a male or female, defined
by your chromosomal reality. Boy, we have gone way, way,
way the hell away from that. But that's what was
thought about and discussed when they passed the title nine, right,
that's all they were considering context right.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Then, when they passed the when they passed this stuff
in sixty four and seventy two, the concept of gender
transitioning wasn't even in the wildest imaginations of Ballmaker's much
less doctors.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Reinvent history much in the way they're reinventing the language
and definitions that we use radically, sounding like or well
in the ministry of truth. The judge entered Apolitano. God
bless you, sir. I know the Congressman mass who has
been enjoying the conversation, and I appreciate your support to him,
and he appreciate heates his I know you appreciate his
(12:50):
support of you.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
Sir.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
We'll have you on next Wednesday. Do it again. God
bless you, and thanks again for your commentary.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Sir. Thank you all the best to Congressman Massy, to
you and to your audience.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Ryan appreciate it much. It's eight forty four right now.
If you have Kersey the talk station
Brian Thomas News
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.