June 7, 2022 - Bannon's War Room
48:48
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
unidentified
|
Sailors and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force, you are about to embark upon the great crusade toward which we have striven these many months. | |
| The eyes of the world are upon you. | ||
| The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. | ||
| In company with our brave allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, And security for ourselves in a free world. | ||
| Your task will not be an easy one. | ||
| Your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened. | ||
| He will fight savagely. | ||
| But this is the year 1944. | ||
| Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. | ||
| The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats in open battle, man to man. | ||
| Our air offensive has seriously reduced Their strength in the air, and their capacity to wage war on the ground. | ||
| Our home fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. | ||
| The tide has turned. | ||
| The free men of the world are marching together to victory. | ||
| I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. | ||
| We will accept nothing less than full victory. | ||
| Good luck, and let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking. | ||
| Okay, welcome back. | ||
| Welcome back. | ||
| We're at War Room. | ||
| It is 6 June, the year of our Lord, 2022. | ||
| And of course you heard, right there you heard General Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander. | ||
| What a lot of people, people of study didn't know, he wrote a note one way or the other. | ||
| He wrote a note in case they got driven off the beach, that he was prepared to make a broadcast about that. | ||
| Of course, this was about hitting the beach and going forward. | ||
| The Canadians, the United Kingdom, the Free French, and of course, the United States Army, the Navy's largest armada ever put together by the United States Navy. | ||
| A day of valor and heroism. | ||
| One of the things about D-Day is that I think too much of Modern thought, particularly as young people are taught, it's like D-Day is everything. | ||
| It's just one part of a big conflict, but an absolute incredible day. | ||
| Remember, everybody in the first wave didn't think they would come out alive, and many, many of them lost their lives. | ||
| Okay, so as we commemorate this throughout the show, I want to welcome Senator Mike Lee, a senator from Utah. | ||
| Certainly, you know, one of the reasons that when we shifted from war room impeachment, which I think we had you on back in 19 and the impeachment situation, we shifted the pandemic when the pandemic started back in January 2020 months ahead of everybody. | ||
| After the big steal, when Biden and his regime took office, this whole town emptied out, right? | ||
| We'd had, you know, and it stayed up armored around here on Capitol Hill with the National Guard and up armored troops and Humvees around and all that. | ||
| And I remember at the time, everybody going to Florida and going to Texas and going to Arizona and people, all the conservative movement just kind of fleeing. | ||
| The two things we kept hammering every day. | ||
| That don't believe because I said, oh, it's going to they're going to add a D.C., Puerto Rico and, you know, D.C. | ||
| and Puerto Rico get a couple of new states for new senators. | ||
| There are going to be Democrats and they're going to get, you know, 10 new justices on the Supreme Court or five new justices. | ||
| I said, that's nonsense. | ||
| If we stand in the breach and fight this every day, we'll show the legitimacy. | ||
| But. | ||
| That part about the justices, it would chill people to its bones. | ||
| And I've been saying for a while, I said, hey, this is this is incredibly serious, given where the Supreme Court is today and in the governance of our country. | ||
| And you actually, it turns out, I guess you had the same idea because you've written a stunning book. | ||
| And this is a book that people, not just for the dilemma in today, but really the history of the country, the modern political history, at least from the New Deal forward. | ||
| Saving Nine, the fight against the left's audacious plan to essentially take over the court, pack the court. | ||
| Saving Nine. | ||
| Senator Mike Lee. | ||
| Senator, first off, what inspired you to actually do the research, given everything else you've got to do as a senator, do the research and then write this book? | ||
| I started worrying about this issue, Steve, back in the fall of 2020 during the presidential election cycle. | ||
| In that first debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, Joe Biden was asked point-blank whether he would support packing the Supreme Court, as a lot of the far lefties have been encouraging him to do, and he wouldn't answer the question. | ||
| That told me everything I needed to know. | ||
| That caused me to panic because I knew that Joe Biden, when he was a senator, had called court packing a bonehead idea. | ||
| I knew that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just the year earlier in 2019, had said it was a terrible idea. | ||
| Many people on the left, including Stephen Breyer, the justice who's just about to retire now, had called it a bad idea. | ||
| It's something that almost every American has agreed upon for decades. | ||
| And now, all of a sudden, the left had their candidate who was refusing to take it off the table. | ||
| That sent chills down my spine and so it was within a few months of that that I started writing this book because I saw after he became president, after he put together this commission to look at court packing, I knew he was serious and I knew I had to get ahead of the game to explain to the American people why this is so dangerous and why it's about so much more than just packing the Supreme Court. | ||
| Now, we monitor MSNBC and CNN here non-stop to look at the narratives they're pulling. | ||
| On MSNBC, I can tell you, all the time they come on and they say, well, 9 is just a random number, you know, it needs to be expanded to get various viewpoints, diversity of opinion. | ||
| Go back in time. | ||
| How did we actually get to 9? | ||
| Because it hasn't always been like that, correct? | ||
| How did we actually get to the number nine? | ||
| I lost the connection there for a second. I'm so sorry. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| That's okay. | ||
| How did we get to 9? | ||
| Can you restate that part of the question? | ||
| Yeah, how did we actually get to the number 9? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yep. | |
| So explain this in Chapter 2 of Saving Nine. | ||
| This is done by statute. | ||
| The Constitution actually gives this power to Congress, and Congress may, and from time to time has, made a different decision about where it ought to be. | ||
| We started out at 5, we went up to 6, we went back to 5, we went back up to 6, went to 7, went up to 8 and 9, eventually got as high as 10. | ||
| But we settled at the number nine a few years after the Civil War was over. | ||
| It's been that way since 1869. | ||
| Since 1869, it's been set at nine. | ||
| It's an odd number, so you're less likely to have tie votes, you know, unless there's a vacancy on the court or somebody is temporarily recused from a case. | ||
| You're very unlikely to result in a tie vote. | ||
| But the biggest thing, Steve, is that we just need the number to remain the same. | ||
| There's nothing magical about the number nine, other than the fact that that's where it's been for more than a century and a half. | ||
| We ought not change it for light or transient reasons. | ||
| I can't think of a good reason to change it. | ||
| In theory, one could say, well, you should change it if the court is overworked and understaffed. | ||
| That may be the case. | ||
| No one's making the argument today. | ||
| The only reason they want to change it is to affect the political orientation of the court itself so that they can have more politically driven leftist decisions. | ||
| So you're saying this is by statute. | ||
| So this is a law. | ||
| It's not in the Constitution. | ||
| It's not an amendment. | ||
| This is a law that can be changed by a vote in the Senate and the House? | ||
| That's right. | ||
| Simple legislation can do this. | ||
| No constitutional amendment required. | ||
| That's why I like to say, Steve, in the context of Saving Nine and elsewhere, I've said that packing the Supreme Court It's probably the most dangerous thing that you can do to the Constitution that is not itself unconstitutional. | ||
| Meaning it's allowed by the Constitution, it's just terrible policy to do it. | ||
| I'm going to get to the packing a second, because that was a seminal moment in the New Deal, but I want to go back. | ||
| The progressives have always had this kind of problem when they love the courts when it's with them, but when it's against them, it's not. | ||
| Wilson, in the very first progressive back at the turn of the century, they also had a big problem with the nine, and also about the court itself, correct? | ||
| Yes, they had a big problem with it when the conservatives on the Supreme Court in 1905, in a case called Lochner v. New York, Actually engaged in conservative-motivated judicial activism to strike down minimum wage, maximum hour provisions adopted by the New York State Legislature in the context of bakery employees. | ||
| Look, this judicial activism, the use of the so-called substantive due process, which is oxymoronic and made-up law, but the five Supreme Court justices in a 5-4 decision struck down that law and led to a 32-year era of conservative judicial activism. | ||
| Eventually, the court came to its senses and abandoned that line of precedent, but it took decades. | ||
| And so that's why we see conservative judicial activism and liberal judicial activism are both equally bad. | ||
| What we want are jurists who will just interpret the law based on what it says rather than based on what they wish it meant. | ||
| But it could well be that this approach undertaken in Lochner set the wheels in play, planted the seeds for what would ultimately become an effort to delegitimize the court and pack it. | ||
| Let's talk about that. | ||
| The packing of the court. | ||
| I think a lot of people look at that. | ||
| That's where FDR broke his pick on a lot of his New Deal legislation. | ||
| Walk through the line. | ||
| What happened that led to the packing of the court? | ||
| And then walk us through how he tried to pack it and how it was essentially reversed. | ||
| Okay, so all this stuff started. | ||
| It had its origins at a time when FDR was losing a lot of litigation during his first term as President of the United States. | ||
| Remember, we were in the throes of the Great Depression. | ||
| FDR wanted to be the American savior. | ||
| He wanted to rescue people from the Great Depression. | ||
| And so he kept saying that what we need is a bigger, more robust, more active interventionist federal government. | ||
| And he wanted the federal government regulating everything from labor, to manufacturing, to agriculture, to mining. | ||
| Only there's one problem. | ||
| Nothing in the Constitution makes that a federal power. | ||
| And so FDR sought about to change that. | ||
| He said, well, we ought to have the power in the federal government to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce. | ||
| Which is really crazy, because everything affects interstate commerce. | ||
| The Supreme Court rejected that during his first term. | ||
| During his second term, at the beginning of his second term, he had just come off this high of re-election. | ||
| He felt invincible. | ||
| And so he started threatening to delegitimize the court and to pack it, diluting the influence of the existing justices. | ||
| He proposed giving himself, by statute, the authority to appoint additional Supreme Court justices so that the court could be brought to heel according to his will. | ||
| Now, the sad thing is, Steve, although it failed legislatively, It failed only because it had its intended effect of bullying, intimidating, threatening, and harassing the Supreme Court. | ||
| And one of the justices, Associate Justice Owen Roberts, actually switched his interpretation of the Commerce Clause and created a new majority on the Court to read the Commerce Clause as broad enough to give the federal government the power to regulate anything it wanted, anything that affected interstate commerce. | ||
| We're still paying the price for that, 85 years later. | ||
| With a $31 trillion debt, a sprawling executive branch that includes this massive administrative state that makes most of our laws today. | ||
| All those things are the costs of FDR's court packing plan. | ||
| Although the plan failed legislatively, it left a mark and it left a deep scar that we still carry to our great shame today. | ||
| So, Peep, I just want to go back through this again. | ||
| Although, he was trying to force through the votes and actually change the statute. | ||
| You're saying that the justices, did he flip because he didn't want to see the institutional structure? | ||
| He didn't want to see the institutional structure of the court go down? | ||
| Or was it because he knew that he had the votes? | ||
| He was impartial to whether he Denigrated to the court to the point that it lost its structure. | ||
| He just wanted to win. | ||
| He just wanted his legislation to be upheld. | ||
| And so once he secured that victory, it lost some of the momentum of the legislation moving through Congress. | ||
| It failed. | ||
| Now, different experts disagree as to what would have been the outcome had Associate Justice Owen Roberts not flipped his vote at the last minute. | ||
| And not rewritten the Commerce Clause, creating what was in effect a constitutional amendment of massive proportions. | ||
| If it were an amendment, which it wasn't, but had it been, it would have been among the most significant amendments ever adopted. | ||
| Some believe that the court packing plan failed only because the threat worked and he succeeded in getting what he wanted out of the court. | ||
| My own personal view is that we'll never know. | ||
| But we ought not risk this again because we know what happens when you threaten the court. | ||
| Senator, hang on for one second. | ||
| I want to drill in some more of this and also talk about judicial supremacy. | ||
| Remember, the Supreme Court now is kind of courting off over there today in front of the court. | ||
| A guy chained himself to that high fence. | ||
| They had to come in and cut it off. | ||
| The protesters, which they've only threatened to ramp up here as we get closer to the War Room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Pandemic. | |
| versus Wade decision. Short commercial break. Senator Mike Lee from Utah has written an incredible book, Saving Nine. How he stopped the efforts to crack the court right now. | ||
| Be back in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room, pandemic with Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| The epidemic is a demon and we cannot let this demon hide. | ||
| War Room. | ||
| Pandemic. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| You guys remember here for the first days after the Biden regime took office, we kept talking about the new states that we're going to add of Washington, D.C., the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and also they're going to pack another four or five justices here. | ||
| And that's actually a real a real thing. | ||
| It has to be thwarted. | ||
| It can be done just by statute. | ||
| I don't think a lot of people understand that. | ||
| Senator Mike Lee, Utah, has written a brilliant book, Saving Nine. | ||
| It's a chilling read, and you understand. | ||
| In American Rasputin, they're all over me because we have participatory populism. | ||
| You're going out, you're going to school board meetings, you're volunteering to be election workers, you're volunteering to run for canvassing boards and election boards, and they think that's terrible. | ||
| They don't like that part of democracy, right? | ||
| Well, when you read this book, you'll get chilled that you know that you've got to go ring doorbells for guys to be in the U.S. | ||
| Senate. | ||
| Senator Lee, this is something that's actually doable. | ||
| The scary thing in your book is that a lot of people think it's the Constitution, even I thought it for one time. | ||
| This is actually, with a vote in the United States Senate, you could actually flip this and add another four or five justices, all super liberal progressives. | ||
| They could do it. | ||
| They could do it almost immediately. | ||
| And if they nuked the filibuster, that's the part of the Senate rules that, for most legislation, requires you to get a 60-vote supermajority to bring debate to a close. | ||
| But if they nuked it, meaning if a simple majority of them voted to undo the filibuster rule, it'd be over. | ||
| They could have this passed by noon tomorrow if they wanted to. | ||
| That's what's so scary about it, and that's why I felt compelled to write this book. | ||
| Again, it's not just about the Supreme Court. | ||
| It's not just about stopping the court packing plan. | ||
| This book will give you the tools that you need and the arguments that you need in order to defeat your friends who are hell-bent on expanding the size, scope, reach, and cost of the federal government. | ||
| You'll never lose another political argument that's about the federal government again after you read this book because it will give you the tools that you need to refute those arguments. | ||
| And especially when it comes to tinkering with the independence of the federal judiciary. | ||
| This is very dangerous business they're playing with. | ||
| We've taken for granted for a long time, Steve, the fact that one of the reasons why investment flocks into the United States from all over the world is because we have an independent federal judicial system. | ||
| If we mess with this, that's all gone and that's why we've got to stop it. | ||
| You've written a great book about some of the forgotten founding fathers. | ||
| You've been very focused on the size of government and the administrative state for a long time, and you're one of the top experts in the Senate about this. | ||
| You're also a great constitutional lawyer. | ||
| Let me ask you about this concept of judicial supremacy. | ||
| Did the founders, when it all started, did they ever think that We are where we are now, where the whole nation is kind of on tenterhooks when you have a Roe v. Wade, when you had these decisions. | ||
| It's almost like the executive branch and the legislative branch, they're important, but at the end, it's not like even a referee, but almost like it's an unequal branch of government that is supreme. | ||
| What it says is the final call. | ||
| The founders themselves, in your understanding, ever think we would get to a situation where the Supreme Court's played such an overarching role in American political, cultural, and social life? | ||
| You know, although none of us can be certain what was in the head of any individual founding father, I am convinced, Steve, that they did not think, they did not expect, they did not intend to create a government system in which we would come to regard the Constitution and constitutionality as being synonymous and coextensive with whatever the Supreme Court says it is. | ||
| In other words, they understood that the federal judiciary, at which the Supreme Court is the head, the federal judiciary's job is to resolve disputes regarding the meaning of the law. | ||
| When people disagree as to what a particular statute or constitutional provision means, then the courts can decide that in order to decide that dispute. | ||
| But it's not supposed to go beyond that. | ||
| It's not the case that we should be looking to the Supreme Court as the beginning and the end of every piece of constitutional analysis. | ||
| And I think that's what we've got dangerously wrong. | ||
| That's why this book systematically goes through and debunks a lot of these myths. | ||
| All of Chapter 1 is devoted to explaining what the Supreme Court is and what it's not. | ||
| And this helps debunk some of those myths so that people can understand how their government is actually supposed to operate. | ||
| You said something pretty chilling in the first segment. | ||
| You said that if this was allowed to happen, if the progressives actually were able to break the filibuster and make this happen, which you said they would do quickly, that this would be, to put it simply, to be a post-constitutional, although it wasn't exactly changing the Constitution, it would be that one thing that would put us into a post-constitutional republic. | ||
| What did you mean by that? | ||
| Well, the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary serves as the backstop, the goalie. | ||
| They are the catcher. | ||
| They're the ones who are there when everything else goes wrong. | ||
| They're sort of the people who have got the last clear check on abuses of power. | ||
| And if you take away the independence of the courts, Especially when the legislative branch has already yielded so much of its authority over to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats within the executive branch and to the executive branch generally, including to the president. | ||
| You're left without a check and a balance if the court is compromised. | ||
| And that's exactly the whole purpose of this. | ||
| Make no mistake, Steve. | ||
| They want to pack the court, not because the court's understaffed and overworked. | ||
| They want to do that because they want to bring the court to heel. | ||
| To bring the court into compliance and humble obedience to the president's legislative agenda. | ||
| And that's the problem with it. | ||
| What is your sense, you know, I know someone with a family and someone with all the burdens of being in the Senate is overwhelmed with work, has had to take, you know, so much of your personal time. | ||
| What is your hope for this book? | ||
| Because, you know, you're talking to the largest activist audience out there and people are going to want to get this. | ||
| What is your hope for this book? | ||
| And what do you want people to do with it and to start taking action about? | ||
| My hope, Steve, is that everyone within the sound of my voice will read this book. | ||
| I'm hoping that people will buy it, but regardless of how many buy it, I just want lots of people to read it. | ||
| So if you buy a copy and you're finished reading with it, hand it over to a friend and a neighbor and pass it along so that as many people read it as possible. | ||
| Because once people understand the nature of the problem, the nature of the threat, they will be able to have a favorable influence on federal policymakers. | ||
| So this book is about so much more than court packing or so much more than the Supreme Court or the judicial system. | ||
| It's about protecting the Constitution itself, and it's about making sure that we have a path to restore the separation of powers put in place by our Founding Fathers. | ||
| That separation of powers has been dangerously eroded over the last 85 years, during precisely the same time That has elapsed ever since FDR last tried court packing. | ||
| Now you've got Joe Biden, who views himself as the modern reincarnation of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he's wanting to do exactly the same thing. | ||
| We don't have another 85 years to throw away. | ||
| We don't have another 85 years to saddle our constitutional system with a really, really bad set of policies that make it impossible to function under the Constitution as it should. | ||
| So I want to defeat that. | ||
| That's why I wrote this book. | ||
| Right now you have a, let's be honest, you have, I think, a cultural Marxist atheistic left. | ||
| You've got the Supreme Court in this magnificent architecture. | ||
| It's surrounded by fence. | ||
| All the streets around here are blocked off, right, with federal protective services, not DC cops, not the Supreme Court police. | ||
| I mean, this is heavily protected now because of threats to blow up the Supreme Court. | ||
| Well, we can't, and we shouldn't, and it's yet another reason why we shouldn't accelerate that. | ||
| Look, packing the Supreme Court is like throwing gasoline on that fire. | ||
| things go wrong for people, they immediately turn to this level of potential violence. | ||
| Well, we can't and we shouldn't. And it's yet another reason why we shouldn't accelerate that. | ||
| Look, packing the Supreme Court is like throwing gasoline on that fire. It's a form of constitutional violence because you're saying, unless we can get our way with what's supposed to be an independent federal judiciary, we're just going to force them to do what we want to do. | ||
| And this is yet another form of coercion. | ||
| A form of coercion like unto what we've seen with people showing up at Supreme Court justices' private residences and protesting out in front of them, including some of the justices who have young children in the home. | ||
| This is disgraceful. | ||
| It actually reminds me of a part of Saving Nine in which I describe my own experience as an 11-year-old when my dad was serving as President Reagan's Solicitor General and he filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court. | ||
| Trying to undo Roe vs. Wade. | ||
| These pro-abortion rights supporters showed up at our home. | ||
| I was home alone. | ||
| I went out and argued with them. | ||
| The first thing the woman said to me was, hello little boy, we're not here to hurt you. | ||
| Think about that for a minute. | ||
| You know what they were thinking when they did that. | ||
| Just like these protesters showing up at the homes of the Supreme Court justices, they're there to send one signal, separate and apart from anything they might audibly say, which is, we know where you sleep. | ||
| And that's not something we should tolerate in this country, and that's yet another reason why I wrote this book, is to expose how awful this situation is, how tenuous our relationship with justice and with the judicial system and with liberty itself is. | ||
| We can win this, but the American people have to know what we're facing and what we've got to throw off. | ||
| By the way, on the 28th, I think, when they came down the court ruling on Roe v. Wade, this is going to be, this pack in the court that's expanding the court, is going to be the top topic. | ||
| They're going to be all night long. | ||
| They're going to be on this non-stop. | ||
| So the timing of this book is exquisite. | ||
| Saving Nine by Senator Mike Lee. | ||
| Senator Lee, social media, how do people follow you? | ||
| And we're going to push out all the links to the book itself. | ||
| How do people follow you? | ||
| On Twitter and on Parler, I'm at AtSenMikeLee, and they can go to my website at LeeForSenate.com. | ||
| Senator Lee, exquisite timing on the book, it's fantastic, and people are not going to be able to put it down, so we're going to make sure that everybody in the War Room posse gets a shot at getting this, so thank you so much for joining us today. | ||
| Thank you, Steve. | ||
| Okay, when the Supreme Court comes down in a couple weeks, this is going to be all over the news. | ||
| So get ahead of it. | ||
| Saving Nine by Mike Lee. | ||
| You would not want to put it down. | ||
| Hey, they could actually pack the Supreme Court. | ||
| Okay, short commercial break. | ||
| We're going to go to Michigan. | ||
| We're going to Tapachula. | ||
| There's a lot going on. | ||
| The caravan's on its way up. | ||
| And in Michigan, it looks like they're trying to maybe think about indicting some people for messing with the machines. | ||
| And no, those people would not be Democrats. | ||
| I know you're surprised by that. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| We'll be back in the worm in just a moment. | ||
| Do we have Oscar? | ||
| Okay, can I also get a clock? | ||
| Okay, we're going to get it all set. | ||
| Let's go to Tapachula and Oscar. | ||
| We've got Christine Cronin who's going to join us in Michigan. | ||
| Let's go to Oscar. | ||
| Blue Ramirez down Tapachula with the caravan. | ||
| What's up, sir? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sir, we are stationed right now. | |
| The caravan has stopped right here in the next municipal city that is called Alvaro Bregón. | ||
| It is around 10 miles from where it started. | ||
| Pantapachula people have walked for 10 miles and they stayed here right now at this particular park. | ||
| They're going to stay the night and tomorrow they're going to start walking again at three o'clock in the morning to the next municipal city that is called Huehuetán. | ||
| That is around five miles from here. | ||
| Rest there for a couple of hours and then walk another possibly eight to nine miles to the other city that is called Wixsla. | ||
| That is the process that they are taking. | ||
| A lot of the women, sir, they are now complaining that they got blisters on their feet. | ||
| They don't want to walk anymore and you already have a hundred people that they already surrendered to the International Immigration. | ||
| They don't want to walk anymore, sir. | ||
| It is The humidity, the weather, and ultimately, they just give up. | ||
| It's just a long road, sir. | ||
| Well, it's hundreds of hundreds of miles. | ||
| I mean, it's brutal to walk from the southern border of Mexico to the northern border of Mexico. | ||
| It's not easy. | ||
| So, Oscar, I tell you, Oscar, just hang there for a second. | ||
| We're going to come back to Tapachula. | ||
| This caravan is now up to 12,000 people. | ||
| It's unbelievable. | ||
| I want to go to Christine Caramo quickly because she's running around the state of Michigan. | ||
| There's all these news stories coming out that they're looking to take legal action or to indict people or about messing with voting machines in Michigan, and it turns out it's the current Secretary of State, the Democrat, is doing it against Republicans or conservatives. | ||
| It's very confusing. | ||
| You would think that if things are coming out about messing with the machines for 2020, it would be the Democrats themselves that would be under investigation. | ||
| Can you get straight now exactly what's going on ma'am? | ||
| Okay, we don't have her Let's go back to... Let's go back to... We're going to get this segment right yet. | ||
| Let's go back to Tapachula and... Let's go back to Tapachula and Oscar. | ||
| Oscar, how big is the caravan right now in your estimate? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Do I have Oscar? | |
| Yes, I was presenting. | ||
| Oscar? | ||
| Okay, must not have it. | ||
| Okay, can we reset these? | ||
| Let's see if Denver can get anything rolling here. | ||
| I'll take Christine Karam or I'll take Oscar. | ||
| I'll tell you what, let's go ahead and play this morning. | ||
| Can we go ahead and play what we just cut? | ||
| Is that available? | ||
| Okay. | ||
| We've dropped sync in Tapachula. | ||
| We've dropped sync in Michigan. | ||
| Okay, let's go ahead and play clip three and I'll comment upon it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Guys, this is okay. Hang on for a second. | |
| Let's take a deep breath here. | ||
| Okay, we've got Oscar Ramirez down in Tapachula. | ||
| He's with the caravan. | ||
| The caravan, as you know, we were there last week or two weeks ago. | ||
| Oscar has been down there. | ||
| Tapachula is kind of the city at the southern border of Mexico. | ||
| This is after they come through the Darien Gap and they come up through the The nations are called the frontline nations, right? | ||
| A gathering point is Tapachula, and that's where they actually have these visas that they can cross Mexico. | ||
| A week ago, I think it was a thousand people. | ||
| Ten days ago, it was a thousand people. | ||
| A week ago, it was two thousand people. | ||
| And then over the weekend, it's now twelve thousand people. | ||
| My producer's going to give me a heads up as soon as I get to Tapachula. | ||
| We'll go ahead and do that. | ||
| So, it's 12,000 people, and it's commenced this morning to start heading north. | ||
| Now, what Oscar's been reporting, and that's where we're getting back up here, is already people are starting to fall out. | ||
| Now, one of the things is that in getting this system up, they actually have bus companies. | ||
| The NGOs actually provide buses and transportation so that you don't have to walk the entire way. | ||
| Here's the point. | ||
| The 12,000 people, and it should even pick up steam as it starts coming north, the 12,000 people are headed towards areas they think at the Rio Grande. | ||
| It's going to be Eagle Pass, it's going to be Del Rio, those types of situations. | ||
| So hey, these are coming up. | ||
| So the people in the Rio Grande Valley, And this is why the Texas authorities, we're going to have Ken Paxson here tomorrow. | ||
| Ken has just announced he's looking at investigating Twitter because of the bot situation. | ||
| We are going to talk to Ken about what can the state authorities in Texas do because the federal government is clearly in the back of this. | ||
| You know, he had Mayorkas, and he went down to right outside the Darien Gap. | ||
| Michael Yon saw the Blackhawk or the Apache helicopters about a month or so ago. | ||
| This is what's called controlled flow. | ||
| And nothing shows controlled flow better than these situations with the caravans. | ||
| Now you have 12,000, right? | ||
| And this is the first of many that are coming. | ||
| As Oscar Blue would tell you, he's pretty shocked at the size of this. | ||
| And it's not unruly yet, but as Steve Cortez mentioned this morning when he saw it, It looks like two-thirds to 75% are fighting-age males. | ||
| I mean, these are not children. | ||
| These are not people that would have any form of asylum. | ||
| These are all economic migrants, and they're from all over the world, although I believe most of these are still from Central America. | ||
| There's no Mexicans involved here. | ||
| In fact, the Mexican authorities are totally overwhelmed. | ||
| So this is a situation that we're going to be monitoring. | ||
| Real America's Voice is doing a fantastic job. | ||
| Hang on a second. | ||
| Okay, it's doing a fantastic job on monitoring this non-stop. | ||
| Okay, we've had a few technical problems, but I think we've worked them through. | ||
| Our producers have gotten it straight with Denver. | ||
| I think we have Christine Karamo. | ||
| Let's go to Michigan. | ||
| Christine, can you hear me? | ||
| Christina, can you hear me? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Hi, Steve. | ||
| How are you? | ||
| Hey, so what's going on? | ||
| I'm hearing reports, I'm seeing news articles coming out of Michigan that says people being investigated are about to be indicted for messing with machines. | ||
| I would assume that would be all the Democrats that ran the 2020 election, but they actually say I think there's Republicans. | ||
| Can you tell us what's going on up there? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Actually, what's happening is that you have a sheriff, Dara Lee, who's been investigating election fraud in his county, and the Secretary of State is trying to, and with the help of the Attorney General, of course, is trying to suppress investigation. | |
| See, as you are aware, whenever someone commits a crime, the next thing they need to do is make sure that they cover it up. | ||
| And when you have individuals such as Sheriff Darlee trying to look into these concerns, they're trying to come after him and actually impede on his duty and his right to investigate these crimes. | ||
| If I could just cite for you very quick, a portion of Michigan election law states, MCO 168.941, it is... | ||
| It is hereby made the duty of any police, sheriff, or other peace officer present and having not of any violation of any of the provisions of this act to forthwith institute criminal proceedings for the punishment of such offender. | ||
| So, that's what's going on in Michigan is that, you know, when you have clerks or sheriffs who look into concerns regarding election fraud, then you have Dana Nestle, Jocelyn Benson, And Jonathan Brader would like to try to suppress those investigations. | ||
| So that's what's going on. | ||
| So this, I want to make sure, but they're saying that he, that someone illegally, against the law, tampered with election or voting equipment or election and voting machines. | ||
| Walk us through specifically, what was the sheriff doing? | ||
| And of course, the Secretary of State, who's one of the worst in the country, right? | ||
| And of course, the Attorney General, another terrible Not a terrible one. | ||
| They're trying to put themselves in the middle of this. | ||
| But what are they alleging? | ||
| They're alleging, at least the news articles, that the sheriff or whoever tampered with, illegally tampered with election equipment. | ||
| Can you set us straight? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, all of the details are not 100% clear, but what we do know is that there is an ongoing investigation. | |
| The sheriff is entitled to conduct this investigation and is legally obligated to do so according to Michigan election law. | ||
| And so all the details aren't clear, but there was some investigation into the election equipment in that particular county, and the Secretary of State is trying to suppress that investigation. | ||
| I mean, look what happened to Tina Peters in Mesa County, Colorado. | ||
| Also in Michigan, you had a clerk who wanted some investigation into her election equipment and was relieved of her duties by the Secretary of State. | ||
| So these actors, they're just simply trying to suppress any investigation. | ||
| So all the details are not 100% clear. | ||
| as to what their concern occurred. | ||
| But what is clear is that according to Michigan election law, the sheriff has a right and a duty to conduct these investigations. | ||
| And the Secretary of State and the Attorney General have no business in trying to impede on the sheriff from doing his or her job. | ||
| What appears to be the case is that they are trying to suppress any investigations because investigations will expose the crimes that they committed and trying to defraud the people of Michigan in terms of the election process. | ||
| We have Holly Kaysen on in the next hour. | ||
| One of the folks out there in Colorado about CISA, the CISA report. | ||
| You've had a chance to read it. | ||
| This is one of the big controversies up in Michigan about the machines. | ||
| What is your takeaway now that the federal government has told us, oh, nothing happened in 2020, right? | ||
| Christina Karamo and those people are all crazy. | ||
| However, we've told you before that the machines are bulletproof. | ||
| Now we're saying there's at least a half a dozen ways they can be hacked. | ||
| What say you, ma'am? | ||
|
unidentified
|
You know, my two large concerns with these machines, among many, is one, that the fact that there are cellular modems in these machines. | |
| Anytime you have a cellular modem inside of a tabulation machine, you're asking for it to be hacked. | ||
| I mean, that's just common sense. | ||
| And then the other problem is that they're a proprietary source. | ||
| So our election officials truly do not know how these machines actually work, because the source code, which is the human readable computer language, is kept secret from them. | ||
| So there's a lot of vulnerability, there's a lot of concerns, and we the people have every right to know how our elections actually run. | ||
| And the goal of these election officials to think that we the people don't have a right to know how they actually work, and that we, including our sheriffs, do not have a right to look into this, should scare every person across our country. | ||
| We have every right to know how our elections work. | ||
| We see this report coming out where we are being vindicated. | ||
| We don't really need to be vindicated because we already know what those concerns are. | ||
| But now they're slowly but surely admitting that there are concerns. | ||
| So the next question is what corrective action will be taken? | ||
| And I dare say none because this isn't being broadcast on a large scale and the demonization attempts still go on. | ||
| So we do see a sheriff in our state who is suing the Secretary of State, Attorney General and some members of the Michigan State Police who have turned and become politicized in many regards and are functioning as henchmen to suppress any investigations into our election system on behalf of the Attorney General. So hopefully we will see some corrective action taken that way we can secure our election system because securing our elections is a matter of national security. | ||
| Christina, last question. | ||
| I know we've only got a couple minutes here. | ||
| As a woman of color and also a person of very strong faith, every time they talk about the rise of Christian nationalism, you're on the shortlist for that. | ||
| Tell us how your campaign is coming right now, ma'am. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We're doing well, but of course we need a lot of support from people across the state, and across our nation, to be quite frank. | |
| You know, these authoritarian leftists, these are not Democrats. | ||
| People need to understand that. | ||
| These are not the liberal Democrat neighbors. | ||
| These are authoritarian leftists who are secularists, who cannot stand the thought of Christians getting into power, because one, we cannot be corrupted if we're truly followers of Jesus Christ, and we're not going to bow the knee to their authoritarian agenda, because we know it is designed to usurp the power of the people of America, and they are terrified of that. | ||
| So this is just another demonization scheme where they try to mislabel who we are and try to make it appear that we're trying to establish some theocracy when nothing could be further from the truth. | ||
| As a Christian, it is not my job to compel people to follow Christ. I'm simply to live a Christlike life, and that requires me to serve my neighbor, even those who don't agree with me, even those who can't stand me. | ||
| But this is nothing more than a demonization tactic, because these people do not want Christians in these positions, because we won't bow the knee to their secularist agenda. | ||
| So we just keep steamrolling ahead. | ||
| We keep trying to get our voice and message out there, the way the people of Michigan and America can know that our goal is to serve everyone, no matter what their faith is, no matter what their belief is. | ||
| And these demonization tactics are to be expected from the authoritarian leftists that we're up against. | ||
| Cristina, we've got about 20 seconds. | ||
| How do people get to your campaign to find out more about you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, CristinaCaramo.com. | |
| Cristina with a K, Caramo with a K dot com. | ||
| CristinaCaramo.com. | ||
| Sign up, donate, and learn more about our campaign. | ||
| Keep fighting on, ma'am. | ||
| You're a fighter. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thanks, Steve. | |
| Short break. | ||
|
unidentified
|
short break we'll be back in a moment monitors us sensors us de-platforms us Conservatives have been helpless to do anything about it, until now. | |
| Join Getter, the social media platform that supports free speech and opposes cancel culture. | ||
| On Getter, you can express your political beliefs without fear of Silicon Valley liberals coming after you. | ||
| Getter is led by former Trump advisor and War Room co-host Jason Miller, who saw what big tech did to President Trump and decided to fight back. | ||
| Getter is the fastest growing social media platform in history, with millions of users, including prominent conservatives like Mike Pompeo, Steve Cortez, and Steve Bannon. | ||
| Join Getter. | ||
| It's in the App Store, the Google Play Store, and at getter.com. | ||
| Longer posts, longer videos, sharper and clearer pictures. | ||
| And unlike the Silicon Valley oligarchs, Getter will never sell your data. | ||
| Send a message today. | ||
| Join Getter. | ||
| It's time to cancel, cancel culture. | ||
| It's going to be you, the American citizen, in power, just like Miniman, just like back in the Concord Bridge. | ||
| Okay? | ||
| We're taking action. | ||
| And that action is we're taking over school boards, we're taking over the Republican Party to the precinct committee strategy, we're taking over all the elections. | ||
| Suck on this! | ||
| We're going to take our country back and we're going to put in the right people and we're going to get the right policies. | ||
| We're not going to let you globalist elites and the running dogs for that steal this country. | ||
| One of the tragic side effects of devoting a hearing to the events of January 6th is that we will all have to hear a lot more from him. | ||
| That was Steve Bannon. | ||
| As we know, he's been charged with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress and a trial that's set to begin on July 18th. | ||
| But while this week, most of us will be focused on the events surrounding the last election, the 2020 election, Bannon is already scheming, plotting ahead to do mischief around the next one. | ||
| We just listened to Bannon describe the precinct strategy Much interested citizens, in this case, disciples of the big lie, volunteer themselves for election grunt work in an attempt to completely rewire the foundations of our democracy. | ||
| That plot, and more specifically, Bannon himself, are the subjects of a brand new, incredible piece of journalism in The Atlantic, American Rasputin, which details the way Bannon is attempting to insert a lit bomb into the mouth of American democracy. | ||
| From that piece of reporting, quote, This is the Democratic Party's nightmare scenario. | ||
| The hobgoblin that visits at 4 a.m., the infrastructure of civil servants on the state level, which barely held the U.S. | ||
| together in the aftermath of the 2020 election, comes entirely undone. | ||
| Through democratic means. | ||
| Joining us now, the author of that brilliant piece of reporting, Jennifer Senior, Pulitzer Prize winning staff writer for The Atlantic. | ||
| We love that piece so much too. | ||
| This is, I mean this is a triumph. | ||
| Congratulations. | ||
| Everyone watching should get through the whole thing. | ||
| It takes two sittings to do it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It does. | |
| Let me just first ask you about spending all this time inside Steve Bannon's head. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, my God. | |
| And how much of it he was in mine. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Tell me about that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| I mean, it was bonkers. | ||
| I mean, he's he's this very beguiling combination of he's charming. | ||
| He's insane. | ||
| He's a flim-flam artist and is it insanity like it's crazy and it's not tethered to reality or is it like sadistic he knows how much damage it's doing i think he's generally like monomaniacal i think he's a megalomaniac i think he's a likable megalomaniac i think he's um what would i say i mean i think the real confound here is you can't tell what he believes | ||
| He's truly disorienting in this way. | ||
| He can very easily code switch and start speaking like you and me, sounding totally reasonable. | ||
| You know, when he's off mic and he's not a howling belligerent, he can actually hear my point of view about, say, Ketanji Brown-Jackson. | ||
| You know, like he can actually have a reasonable, rational argument, and then suddenly he's a different guy, and he slowly but surely will start inhabiting this other point of view. | ||
| And for the life of me, four months out, I could not tell you whether he believes a big lie, and neither can most people around him, as best as I can tell. | ||
| Take me through the piece. | ||
| I mean, what is his, you know, I think the scary thing about Steve Bannon and the danger of looking at him as sort of some footnote from the Trump presidency is that he's at it, and he's moved on to the next project, which is sowing chaos in 2024. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, it's to make this permanent, right? | |
| He wants, absolutely, he wants election deniers everywhere, and like the idea of this is so Bone-chillingly dangerous. | ||
| I don't even know where to kind of begin. | ||
| I mean, his idea is basically to make sure that we've replaced all of the infrastructure that currently exists with people who are inclined to blow everything up, to reject election results if they don't suit. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So this is starting at the ground, you know, at the ground level, at the precinct level, it's at school boards, it's election inspectors. | ||
| And you start low, you do the grunt work where you're knocking on doors and you're signing people up. | ||
| And within a matter of years, you can be running elections, you can assume real power. | ||
| And this is what, I mean, this is what makes it Republican endangering. | ||
| It's not a game. | ||
| And there are times that I feel like he has almost this Sportsman-like, you know, it's PT Barnum stuff, and this is our country. | ||
| This is our country, and that's why it's so important. | ||
| Here's what's so shocking, is that all they talk about, all they want is democracy, democracy, democracy, where democracy is predicated upon people working at the institutions of democracy. | ||
| Those are canvassing boards. | ||
| Those are election boards. | ||
| Those are the party's infrastructure, the precinct strategy. | ||
| It is the school boards. | ||
| What did Burke call this? | ||
| The little platoons. | ||
| This is what civic society is based upon. | ||
| Yes, we're an activist audience. | ||
| This show is for activists to get engaged, to use their human agency. | ||
| And these are American citizens. | ||
| And these elites, they're just in shock that people would actually put the channel changer down and go volunteer. | ||
| You know, we're going to have Steve Stern on in the next hour to discuss this. | ||
| To go through it all. | ||
| So I definitely want you to stick around. | ||
| We're going to play some other clips and get into the basics of this. | ||
| We're going to play some other clips from some of the Morning Show and Morning Joe and get into it with Steve Stern who's going to join us. | ||
| And we're going to continue to pound on this because they're absolutely shocked That the American people would actually get up the server. | ||
| And here's the reason. | ||
| The Democrats are not doing it. | ||
| Steve Stern is going to talk to us about that in the next hour, about how you can tell that these Democrats used to have these big places to have these meetings and they don't have many more because the Democrats are just not as enthusiastic. | ||
| And that's the problem. | ||
| OK, we're going to have an incredible next hour and then tomorrow we're going to get up. | ||
| We're going to definitely get Tapachula. | ||
| We had a big technical problem down there, but that's to be As you can understand the linkage and there's a lot of media pouring into there now to back the Real America's Voice. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Kind of shocking content in the next hour. | ||
| We've got some discussion about the precinct strategy and why the left is melting down. | ||
| Also these drag shows that took place in Dallas, Texas over the weekend. | ||
| We're going to have Sabatini, who's running for Congress in Florida, talk about the legislation he's putting, guys are putting in, men and women are putting in in Texas. | ||
| He's going to put it in Florida. | ||
| We got all of it, plus the machines. | ||
| We're going to get down to some technical breakdowns in the machines. | ||
| These six areas they said it could be hackable. | ||
| Stick around. | ||
| We're in Battleground next. |
Export Selection