Feb. 9, 2024 - Bannon's War Room
48:54
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| You know, initially, the president of Mexico, Sisi, did not want to open up the gate to allow humanitarian material to get in. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I talked to him. | |
| I convinced him to open the gate. | ||
| I talked to Bibi to open the gate on the Israeli side. | ||
| Mr. President, for months when you were asked about your age, you would respond with the words, watch me. | ||
| Many American people have been watching and they have expressed concerns about your age. | ||
| That is your judgment. | ||
| That is your judgment. | ||
| That is not the judgment of the press. | ||
| They express concerns about your mental acuity. | ||
| They say that you are too old. | ||
| Mr. President, in December, you told me that you believe there are many other Democrats who could defeat Donald Trump. | ||
| So why does it have to be you now? | ||
| What is your answer to that question? | ||
| Because I'm the most qualified person in this country to be President of the United States and finish the job I started. | ||
| Do you believe that? | ||
| Do you believe that? | ||
| Do you believe that, guys? | ||
| Mr. President, why are you overestimating yourself? | ||
| Thank you everyone. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The discussion was painfully slow. | |
| Painfully slow, that's right. | ||
| Painfully slow. | ||
| And I just thought, who's in pain? | ||
| That adverb is such a, it's doing so much work editorially. | ||
| You're in pain because it takes too long? | ||
| It's just very clear, just contained in that adverb is this kind of siren call that's leaping off the page about him understanding exactly how this is going to resonate. | ||
|
unidentified
|
As a prosecutor, did Robert Herr and his team cross the line here? | |
| The White House case is, you already explicitly laid out in this report why you're not going to prosecute Biden. | ||
| It is unnecessary and over the top to list out all these things why you think a jury would be sympathetic to him. | ||
| Part of that report was an outrage, was a disgrace. | ||
| I mean, the idea that he would make such a big point of Biden being elderly is not something a prosecutor needed to do. | ||
| That report didn't have to be 300 pages. | ||
| I mean, that report showed that Merrick Garland again made the classic Democratic mistake, which is, I know, I'll appoint a Republican, a Republican partisan, That's what I'm wondering. | ||
| Unnecessary. | ||
| No, it never works. | ||
| James Comey trashed Hillary Clinton in very similar way. | ||
| When he when he said we're not going to pursue charges, he then trashed her. | ||
| What what her did is exactly the same thing. | ||
| He exonerated him, but with the other hand, raised these really unnecessary points. | ||
| But I'm wondering, unnecessary. | ||
| You would never need to put that to help justify why you're not going to bring a case. | ||
| The issue in this investigation was criminal intent. | ||
| That's the difference between the Trump case and the Biden case. | ||
| But when Biden's people discovered classified information in one of the offices, they called in the archives, they cooperated with the FBI, and they told the truth. | ||
| Donald Trump lied and obstructed, at least according to the indictment, extravagantly, endlessly. | ||
| That's what a prosecutor should be talking about, not Biden's elderly quality. | ||
| Joe and Mika, the president echoing the language in the report when he said, yes, I am a well-meaning and an elderly man. | ||
| In a moment that should have been a vindication for him, that there are no charges warranted against him, and let's turn the page, the White House obviously, as John said, felt the need to rush out there at 8 o'clock at night from the White House and get in front of and push back on some of the other language, the gratuitous language about his mental acuity. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, look, I think that when you look at a very bad day for President Biden, and then you compare it to Donald Trump with 91 counts, sexual assault, fraud, sex with a porn star, and everything he says every day, the day that President Biden had yesterday is like just another Tuesday for Donald Trump, with far worse This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | |
| another. It's true. I'm not as freaked out by this without the 91 counts. Exactly. | ||
| And this is the primal scream of a dying regime. Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people. I got a free shot. All these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. | ||
| It's going to happen. | ||
| And where do people like that go to share the big lie? | ||
|
unidentified
|
MAGA Media. | |
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | |
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| It's Friday, 9 February in the year of our Lord 2024. | ||
| As I said last evening on the show, before we cut to the Tucker interview with Putin, 8 February 2024. | ||
| Mark that down on your calendar. | ||
| I think that is the day we broke the fever. | ||
| It is the obviously the most significant day on combined forces that we've had since President Trump's return from Mar-a-Lago to for the restoration project to reclaim the White House with a legitimate president, not an illegitimate regime. | ||
| And it's all starting to crater around them now. | ||
| President Trump just absolutely relentless. | ||
| I've got we got a lot to cover when we go through it, but I've got to start with this with the Department of Justice. | ||
| Let's be blunt. | ||
| This was an indictment. | ||
| And if the feckless hapless Republican Party has one ounce of manhood left, And most of that manhood has to be delivered now by people like Elise Stefanik and Marjorie Taylor Greene and Nancy Mace and Lauren Boebert, which is kind of a disgrace. | ||
| Right? | ||
| You've got some great ones like Matt Rosendale, who, big announcement I think with Rosendale in a little while, we're gonna try to do it live here, and Matt Gaetz and others, but there's not enough. | ||
| And I mean action. | ||
| And this needs action. | ||
| So we get so much else to get to and we're going to get to it all and we're going to connect dots and make sure we make the linkages of why this was a turning point. | ||
| But we have a not just a crisis on the country and an invasion on the southern border. | ||
| We now have a more central and this is kind of a cancer. | ||
| Eating at the heart of this Republic and it is Once you think it through it makes sense because it gets back to the steel the big steel in 2020 and why they had to do it and With the instruments they use for it Bill McGinley He joins me from the West Coast from L.A. | ||
| today, and Bill is one of the most respected election lawyers in our movement in the Republican Party. | ||
| Bill was Cabinet Secretary in President Trump's first term under President Trump. | ||
| Bill, willfully, so first off, I tell you what, Bill, right before I bring you out, can I play, do we have the clip that started it, the first clip with the media? | ||
| Because this was, the Biden regime made a massive mistake last night. | ||
| This is how bad this report is. | ||
| They felt they needed to roll him out last night. | ||
| Let's go ahead and see. | ||
| I want to go ahead and show you the media's reaction to this. | ||
| Let's go ahead and play that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. President, for months when you were asked about your age, you would respond with the words, watch me. | |
| Many American people have been watching and they have expressed concerns about your age. | ||
| That is your judgment. | ||
| That is your judgment. | ||
| That is not the judgment of the press. | ||
| They express concerns about your mental acuity. | ||
| They say that you are too old. | ||
| Mr. President, in December, you told me that you believe there are many other Democrats who could defeat Donald Trump. | ||
| So why does it have to be you now? | ||
| What is your answer to that question? | ||
| Because I'm the most qualified person in this country to be President of the United States and finish the job I started. | ||
| Thank you, everyone! | ||
| Bill, when we talked yesterday, because you've always got the smartest insights, you said, Steve, this was an indictment. | ||
| Her New Garland would not indict him for the classified document, which he obviously should have. | ||
| But her basically wrote a bill of indictment. | ||
| And now it's the American people's responsibility to bring this home. | ||
| Walk me through your assessment of this, of her investigation, this report and Biden's, Biden and of course, regime media's response, sir. | ||
| Yeah, I mean, I think when you actually read her report, you see that he lays out the elements of the crime and he basically provides the evidence that would satisfy it. | ||
| He just goes to the mens rea or the mental capacity of the president to say that because of his bad memory, because of his age, I don't think I could secure a conviction. | ||
| And that is a lot different than what we're seeing with President Trump, where they're taking overly broad readings of the law and trying to get him any way that they can. | ||
| They're throwing mud against the wall to see if something will stick. | ||
| This H.E.R. | ||
| report is an indictment of President Biden. | ||
| It may not be a legal one, but it certainly is a political one. | ||
| And you almost get the impression that H.E.R. | ||
| understood that he was not going to be able to bring an indictment or that Garland would never sign off on it or an intent to indict. | ||
| And so what he does is he almost imposes his own punishment. | ||
| By actually describing his interactions with the president during the interviews, but also what he sees on the tape with the president's biographer. | ||
| And I think the word was painfully slow. | ||
| They were back in 2017. | ||
| That's not even 2023. | ||
| That's 2017. | ||
| And so what I think this really does is that it opens Pandora's box. | ||
| For President Biden, because number one, the report is out there. | ||
| It speaks for itself. | ||
| It is issued by the president's Department of Justice. | ||
| And frankly, there's just no way for the president or his legal team or his comms team to be able to refute this because he's quoting verbatims. | ||
| From the interview, he's showing the pictures of the boxes that are falling apart, containing some of the nation's most sensitive documents. | ||
| And I think Biden, it just exposes Biden for what we all suspected. | ||
| And that is that he's really struggling with his memory and he's not really up to the job. | ||
| And I think that yesterday really was a turning point for him because now the press doesn't have to be the one to really break the confidence with the Biden White House to say this is what we're seeing. | ||
| Robert Herr basically gave them the document for them to point to so that now they can ask these questions, go after him on it. | ||
| On a technical basis, because Biden tried to, in MSNBC, right out of the box, try to say, well, he didn't do anything near what Trump did. | ||
| But the conclusion is he willfully, and I want to quote, he willfully retained and disclosed classified information. | ||
| That's a quote from the report, is it not? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Brother McGinley? | ||
| Yes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| Also, they also, yeah, go ahead. | ||
| Go ahead. | ||
| No, all I was going to say is I felt like I was reliving the Comey press conference with Hillary Clinton. | ||
| Where he basically laid out the elements of the crime, basically proved the crime, but then said, I'm going to exercise prosecutorial discretion and not charge. | ||
| And so we see this time and time again with Democrats because they're trying to heal the nation by not bringing the charges. | ||
| But when it comes to a Republican, it's full steam ahead. | ||
| And so I think it really feeds into the narrative. | ||
| President Trump had a great day yesterday because all the Biden DOJ did, everything that happened with the news media and the coverage yesterday, showed that President Trump is being persecuted and that the nation really is tired of this two-tiered system of justice. | ||
| One thing I found striking, and look, I'm not a lawyer but in my reading of it, didn't they also say that these tapes, some of the tapes with the biographer, or the guy that was the ghostwriter for the memoir, didn't the guy go back when he knew there was an investigation, didn't he go back and actually erase some of the tapes that dealt with the classified information? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| And then they decided they looked at it and decided, well, we're not going to charge him on that because we don't think we can secure a conviction on that as well. | ||
| So it's almost like you looked at, you know, the fact pattern that Jack Smith looked at down at Mar-a-Lago and basically they reached the exact opposite conclusion. | ||
| I think, I think, you know, this, like you said, I think yesterday was a real turning point. | ||
| Especially the American people who care about justice, who want Lady Justice to be blind and not partisan, that this is going to be something that I think is going to continue to be a central issue in this election. | ||
| And I think President Trump, by plowing ahead, having a great day before the Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment argument that I think we'll get to in a minute. | ||
| But I think the contrast is Biden continues to rely on the deep state and the insiders to help protect him. | ||
| And then to sick them after President Trump. | ||
| But when you look at what this report discloses, I mean, another thing that that a lot of people haven't focused on at one point in the report, her says, well, you there's no way that somebody really with good memory or anything else would put such sensitive documents into a box that is falling apart. | ||
| Nobody would ever believe that a former vice president would do that with such sensitive documents. | ||
| And therefore, we think that weighs in favor that the jury would be sympathetic to the president and not convict. | ||
| So it was almost like the really bad storage of these documents out in the open in a box that's fallen apart somehow weighed as evidence that the jury would never convict the vice president. | ||
| And they said he was essentially a feeble old man and they would take pity on him. | ||
| Hang on for one second, we're taking a short commercial break. | ||
| We're going to return in the War Room with Bill McGinley in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wait till they're all gone! | |
| We rejoice when there's no more! | ||
| Let's take down the C.C.P.! | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bamm. | ||
| Okay, I haven't had a chance to put it up, but I am going to put it up on Getter. | ||
| Getter is the free app that you can follow me on and all of my thinking as we put up new stories of the day besides the War Room. | ||
| But I am going to put it up. | ||
| And here's two things we want to do. | ||
| I just don't know if we're programming. | ||
| We're going to get Mike Davis and maybe one or two others like a Bill McGinley. | ||
| What I want to do is, and I got to figure out how to work with REV on this, but we're going to do two specials. | ||
| One, we're going to break down the entire oral argument. | ||
| Yesterday, the Supreme Court was so important to this country from a historical basis and from understanding the Constitution. | ||
| It was just mesmerizing. | ||
| We're going to take both hours of that and have a number of experts. | ||
| And what we're going to do is do a program. | ||
| We're going to break it down in its entirety and have people come in and analyze it. | ||
| And I think you'll find it very enriching. | ||
| I don't know when we're gonna do this, but we're gonna do it quickly, and I will put that together. | ||
| In addition, Tucker's interview with Putin, I mean, Putin gave a master class yesterday, and look, he's a seriously bad guy. | ||
| I mean, KGB head and, you know, not to be trusted, but he gave a master class in how world historical figures think, and how they think about historical process. | ||
| He also went into A little bit channeled to War Room on the dollar and on the use of the dollar as an economic weapon. | ||
| And in fact, I gave a rant on that back in, I think, 20 and 21, which Jim Hoffman, those guys, pulled and put up on Gateway Pundit. | ||
| We're going to break down all of the Putin thing with, like, hopefully Jack Posobiec, if I can commandeer him and a couple of other people. | ||
| So those are two things we're going to do. | ||
| Make sure you go to birchgold.com slash war room to get the end of the dollar empire. | ||
| When we do this Putin thing, or if you read the Putin transcript that Hoft has up on Gateway Pundit right now. | ||
| You will see that this is what I've tried to put into the end of the dollar empire. | ||
| We're trying to give you the information, the same types of information, so you can get the same framework as world leaders. | ||
| Because once the working class and middle class in this country have access to that information and can start to think in that framework, the world changes. | ||
| The world changes big time. | ||
| That's what this whole show, that's the whole rationale for the show. | ||
| So, I will commit to do that, and we're going to think it through, but go to Birchgold.com. | ||
| It's totally free. | ||
| The four installments of the end of the dollar empire. | ||
| I'm working on a fifth installment that we hope to get out before CPAC, which will be on the central bank digital currency. | ||
| Why is our Federal Reserve printing fiat currency and working on a digital currency while the rest of the BRICS nations, as Putin kind of alluded to yesterday, the central banks are buying gold at record rates. | ||
| Bill McGinley, I agree with you, sir. | ||
| I think yesterday we crossed the Rubicon. | ||
| It is one of the most important days since President Trump, if not the most important day, I think overall, since President Trump left office for many, many, many reasons, which we'll try to get into the rest of the show. | ||
| I want to concentrate with you on remedies. | ||
| We essentially have a bill of indictment. | ||
| Her heroically did this. | ||
| And I think Garland realized he couldn't block that at DOJ. | ||
| Otherwise, they'd have a firestorm and Garland would be stuck in a very uncomfortable situation of actually indicting a sitting president for this. | ||
| To get around that, he allowed her to give this bill of indictment. | ||
| What are the options now? | ||
| Since there's not going to be a formal legal process with DOJ, what are the options available to the American people right now of what we should have the War Room Posse focused on to make sure that justice is served? | ||
| I think, number one, you're exactly right. | ||
| And as we've discussed, this was a political indictment, not a legal one. | ||
| And that means that whatever the remedies are going to be, are going to be down the political track. | ||
| So the first one is that every member of the Biden cabinet is probably going to be asked by the press, are there active discussions about the 25th Amendment and whether Kamala Harris, Vice President Kamala Harris, should be installed as acting president for whatever reason, call it mental incapacity or anything else, but is he not up to the job? | ||
| If you remember in the Trump administration, some young man wrote an op-ed that the New York Times published and it led to every member of the cabinet being asked about, are there active discussions about the 25th Amendment? | ||
| I think that that standard is probably going to be applied now to the Biden cabinet, and at every press availability that they have, they're going to be asked about the H.E.R. | ||
| report. | ||
| They're going to be asked about what the cabinet member thinks of the statements, whether they've seen anything like what H.E.R. | ||
| describes, and then whether there's any active discussions amongst the Biden cabinet about whether the 25th Amendment should be invoked or under active discussion so that they can determine Um, whether they should invoke it or not. | ||
| Number two, I do think that, um, uh, Mr. Comer and Mr. Jordan, uh, in the House of Representatives, the chairs of the, of the Oversight and Judiciary Committee, um, I think would be, uh, well advised to, to have a hearing on this and to figure out and try and find out from others what other instances have there been, like the Hura interview, where the president may not have really kind of had a grasp of what was happening or his memory had failed him. | ||
| Because this is an official government document that Mr. Herr put out that really kind of lays out a troubling situation. | ||
| Put aside partisan politics. | ||
| Put aside any sort of electoral advantage that you think you can gain from this. | ||
| Right now, the special counsel, through the Attorney General, has put out a document That says we've got a serious problem at the top. | ||
| We think we could have indicted the President, but for the fact that we think that he has poor memory, he's elderly, and he's just a sweet old man. | ||
| And that's not really the standard that we want for the Commander-in-Chief or the President of the United States at a time where American service members are under constant barrage from Iran and its proxies, where you have a land war in Europe, Where you have China aggression against Taiwan and in the South China Sea and North North Korea's firing missiles. | ||
| Plus, you have all the other typical national security issues that the president has to handle on a daily, if not nightly basis. | ||
| And so it raises a very serious question about whether we are up to what we're doing. | ||
| And is the man who was who took the oath of office making the decisions or has been delegated to his staff? | ||
| And I think that those that is squarely within Mr. Comer's jurisdiction. | ||
| At the oversight committee. | ||
| Hang on, hang on, hang on. | ||
| You would bring, in that hearing, you would bring her in? | ||
| Is her, uh, he would be able to testify as to his findings? | ||
| Her and other people associated with this investigation, they would be able to testify? | ||
| The investigation is concluded. | ||
| He produced his report. | ||
| Um, his whole report was nothing but an explanation about why they, um, why they declined to prosecute the president or the biographer. | ||
| I don't think. | ||
| I mean, remember, the report was submitted to White House counsel. | ||
| Was there anything in there where they would want to invoke executive privilege? | ||
| The report was submitted to the intel agencies to make sure that anything that they were publishing didn't satisfy or didn't contain classified documents. | ||
| They wanted to scrub this report to make sure that once it was published, there were no mistakes on their end for what they were investigating President Biden for. | ||
| So I think it would be perfectly appropriate for them to call Mr. Her up and have a conversation with him to try and flush some of this stuff out. | ||
| Because what I really want to know is, what are some of the other instances that didn't make it into the report, given that they limited it to 300 plus pages, that could still be out there? | ||
| This is a very serious issue, and I think our adversaries across the world are reading this report and mixing it up with the intel that they have in other instances, and I don't think it paints a very compelling picture of the United States right now. | ||
| Could you also begin, as the third part, could you also begin immediately impeachment about his ability? | ||
| I mean, is there a possibility? | ||
| Because he's commander-in-chief and clearly can't perform his functions. | ||
| You saw that last night when he mixed up Mexico and Egypt when he's trying to impress people with his memory and his ability, his cognitive ability. | ||
| Do you believe simultaneously you can also begin impeachment, at least an impeachment inquiry into this very topic? | ||
| Yes, I mean, they've already got an impeachment inquiry open. | ||
| I think it would not be a heavy lift for them to add this as well. | ||
| And to be able to look at the H.E.R. | ||
| report and all of the instances that are detailed in it about the memory elapses and everything else. | ||
| I mean, this is something, this is a serious question. | ||
| There were multiple commentators across cable networks last night. | ||
| So this isn't just, you know, the manga or conservative wing of the Republican Party saying this. | ||
| I mean, there was discussed on a lot of different networks last night about what to do about this and what's the damage to the Biden presidency. | ||
| And I think from Biden's standpoint, he should want a very quick inquiry on this to either put it to bed, if he can refute it, or so that the nation can basically figure out the best path forward. | ||
| Impeachment could be on the table, depending upon the results of the HER hearing and what evidence they can develop. | ||
| We just I know you get a bounce, but I would like to hold you through for your thoughts on the 14th Amendment, your quick thoughts on that. | ||
| But just in the time we have remaining here, you were Cabinet Secretary. | ||
| The process, the 25th Amendment, he's not removed immediately. | ||
| There is a process. | ||
| That process would be Vice President Kamala Harris really going through and talking to the Cabinet members. | ||
| And doesn't the House of Representatives get involved here also, at least the Speaker of the House? | ||
| What's the process for invoking the 25th Amendment? | ||
| He's not removed immediately. | ||
| There's actually an inquiry period, is it not? | ||
| Yeah, I mean, there's a bit of an investigation, but basically it's a majority of the cabinet plus the vice president, and they notify the president pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House that the president is not in a position to serve and that the vice president then would step up as acting president. | ||
| And so it's never been done. | ||
| I mean, every time that the 25th Amendment has been invoked, it's been because the president's gone under general anesthesia, voluntarily did it, transferred power to the vice president until he was able to resume the duties. | ||
| And so this would truly be a historic event. | ||
| But I think given the contents of the H.E.R. | ||
| report, as adopted and published by the Biden Department of Justice, I think we all have to ask some very serious, sobering questions about what is actually happening there and whether something needs to be done because the threats at the southern border, the international threats we're facing, and any other sort of crises that a president has to deal with on a typical day, we need to understand that the Commander-in-Chief is able to handle those. | ||
| Bill, hang on for one second. | ||
| I want to talk about the monumental hearing yesterday at the Supreme Court. | ||
| How do we get up early and get jacked up? | ||
| Warpath Coffee, The Dark Roast, Mariner's Blend. | ||
| Go to warpath.coffee slash... War Room. | ||
| Slash War Room for your discount. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Short commercial break. | |
| Bill McGinley on the other side. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Bamm. | |
| Bill, give me your thoughts on this historic development yesterday at the Supreme Court. | ||
| Look, I think number one, what we saw was what happens when President Trump and his attorneys are given a chance before an objective tribunal to present legal arguments where they're actually going to weigh the merits of both sides' arguments. | ||
| It was rather refreshing as opposed to seeing what's happening in New York and some of the stuff that's been going down in Georgia and other places. | ||
| I do think that most observers and almost everybody believes that the Supreme Court is going to reject what Colorado did and what Maine have done in trying to bar President Trump from the ballot. | ||
| They really have no constitutional basis for it, and I think they may do it on a couple of grounds. | ||
| Number one, the office of the president is not listed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as one of the offices where that would apply. | ||
| Um, where that section would apply, but also number two, we can't have an ad hoc, uh, patchwork of states, uh, similar to what the, the, the chief justice and others, even the liberal justices were saying, um, where they can really determine who becomes the president by barring them, um, from the ballot, uh, on the basis of this, which is really a stretch from the language of the 14th amendment. | ||
| And I think, you know, one thing to really to focus on, I want everybody to go back and look at the transcript. | ||
| But at one point, I believe the attorney for Crew, who was arguing to bar President Trump, talked about, look, if the court goes against us, they put us put him on the ballot and he is elected. | ||
| This may ultimately be a decision not for the court, but for the Congress of the United States under the Electoral Count Act. | ||
| No. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| they raise the specter of that as well. | ||
| So I think that what President Trump, while he is going to get a victory, I believe, before the Supreme Court, because this has been a fanciful theory that I think has really been stretched beyond the legal limits of where it can apply. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't think this fight stops. | |
| Clarkson, Jeff Clarkson follows here. | ||
| No, Jamie Raskin last night was on television, was on MSNBC. | ||
| Raskin said it's going to be for the new Congress. | ||
| Well, he says what the Supreme Court's going to determine is whether he can be on the ballot. | ||
| He said it's up to the new Congress to determine whether he can actually, is he an insurrectionist and actually serve. | ||
| He said on January 6, That's where that will come down. | ||
| We'll drill into that. | ||
| Folks, they ain't gonna ever give up, okay? | ||
| We had a red-letter day yesterday. | ||
| They don't care if the Supreme Court's 9-0. | ||
| That's why the lawyer put it into the transcript. | ||
| Jamie Raskin went into quite a bit of detail on MSNBC last night, saying, hey, well, they may rule 9-0 that he can be on the ballot in all these states. | ||
| That doesn't mean that he actually can hold the office, and that will be determined by the new House. | ||
| Joy Ann Reid didn't quite pick up on that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
She thought it was Speaker Johnson. | |
| He said the new house that would come in on January 3rd. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So, folks, just strap in. | |
| Strap them high and strap them tight. | ||
| McGinley, what's your social media? | ||
| So on Getter, it's McGinleyWJ. | ||
| And on Twitter, it's WJMcGinley. | ||
| Bill, thank you so much for taking the time. | ||
| I know you're busy this morning. | ||
| Thanks. | ||
| Great insights. | ||
| Thank you for having me. | ||
| What McGinley's saying is that this is beyond partisan politics. | ||
| This is a national security issue. | ||
| Remember, just before Christmas, you had Austin that was offline for at least a couple of days. | ||
| Even his own staff didn't know that. | ||
| And remember, the National Command Authority is two people, the guy who makes the decision to fire the nuclear weapons, and then the other guy who actually works the mechanics of how the nuclear weapons are fired. | ||
| Austin would be the mechanic, but Biden would be the, although he's illegitimate usurper, He has the power to order that, and he's clearly not up to the task. | ||
| That's quite obvious. | ||
| Heard, told you everything you need to know. | ||
| Congress, with a couple of hearings, you can get a lot more. | ||
| You got to bring the biographer in. | ||
| I don't know why they're not indicted. | ||
| How did he how did he erase tapes after they knew about this and who around Biden actually told him to do that or work with him to do that or maybe implied that he should do that? | ||
| Do I have, is Jeff Clark ready? | ||
| Ready to go? | ||
| I tell you what, can I play the Gorsuch? | ||
| I want to play, I've got a short clip, I want to show you the type of intensities there, and this is the great Justice Gorsuch, really field stripping the attorney for Colorado. | ||
| Let's hear this, and then we'll get to Jeff Clark. | ||
|
unidentified
|
He speaks about disqualification from holding office. | |
| You say he is disqualified from holding office from the moment it happens. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| So it operates, you say, there's no legislation necessary. | ||
| I thought that was the whole theory of your case. | ||
| And no procedure necessary. | ||
| It happens automatically. | ||
| Well, certainly you need a procedure in order to have any remedy to enforce the disqualification. | ||
| That's a whole separate question. | ||
| That's the de facto doctrine. | ||
| It doesn't work here. | ||
| Okay, put that aside. | ||
| He's disqualified from the moment. | ||
| Self-executing. | ||
| Done. | ||
| And I would think that a person who would receive a direction from that person, the president, former president, in your view, would be free to act as he or she wishes without regard to that individual. | ||
| I don't think so, because I think, again, the de facto officer doctrine would nevertheless come into play to say this is... No, de facto, that doesn't work, Mr. Murray, because de facto officer is to ratify the conduct that's done afterwards and insulate it from judicial review. | ||
| Put that aside. | ||
| I'm not going to say it again. | ||
| Put it aside, okay? | ||
| I think Justice Lee is asking a very different question, a more pointed one, a more difficult one for you, I understand, but I think it deserves an answer. | ||
| On your theory, Would anything compel a lower official to obey an order from, in your view, the former president? | ||
| I'm imagining a situation where, for example, a former president was, you know, a president was elected and they were 25, and they were ineligible to run office, but nevertheless they were put into that office. | ||
| No, no, we're talking about Section 3. | ||
| Please don't change the hypothetical, okay? | ||
| Please don't change the hypothetical. | ||
| I know I like doing it too, but please don't do it, okay? | ||
| Well, the point I'm trying to make is that- He's disqualified from the moment he committed an insurrection. | ||
| Whoever it is, whichever party, that happens. | ||
| Boom. | ||
| It happened. | ||
| What would compel, and I'm not going to say it again, so just try and answer the question. | ||
| If you don't have an answer, fair enough, we'll move on. | ||
| What would compel a lower official to obey an order from that individual? | ||
| Because ultimately we have statutes and rules. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| That was a school. | ||
| Boy, am I so glad I had a little bit to do and worked on the Gorsuch situation, selecting him and then getting him through. | ||
| Just magnificent. | ||
| Jeff Clark. | ||
| And that's why I want to take the whole thing and break it down with people like Clark and Mike Davis and others and McGinley. | ||
| It'd be a great exercise for people. | ||
| Jeff, just yesterday, the lessons in history, the law, the Constitution, like I said, you know, I'm not a lawyer. | ||
| I'm fascinated by all of it. | ||
| But to see some of the heavyweights there really going at it. | ||
| Give me give me your assessment of yesterday. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| So first, let me comment on that Justice Gorsuch exchange. | ||
| One thing to understand is that the lawyer that you're hearing, you know, try to grapple with Gorsuch's penetrating questions is a former law clerk of his on the Tenth Circuit. | ||
| So Gorsuch, you know, did not give him any slack. | ||
| And I think actually he was probably pretty disappointed in his former law clerk in terms of those answers. | ||
| And look, what Gorsuch is getting at, based on a question that Alito asked, is that you can have a gap in the presidency, right? | ||
| Someone gets elected president, they're in the chair, and some lower official says, hey, he's not the real president because he was disqualified under Section 3. | ||
| I can take that unto myself because he was disqualified immediately. | ||
| from the time he purportedly engaged in an insurrection, and therefore I don't have to obey his orders. | ||
| You just raised the issue of the nuclear chain of command. | ||
| What happens to the nuclear chain of command? | ||
| This is an intolerable situation, Steve. | ||
| That's what Gorsuch was getting at. | ||
| Your theory makes no sense because its outcome would lead to things that make no sense. | ||
| You have to have a situation In which there is an unbroken chain from president to president so that you always know who's in charge of the executive branch. | ||
| And my overall assessment, Steve, of yesterday is that, look, it was like a wrestling cage match where you got Jonathan Mitchell, who did a great job for President Trump, in there. | ||
| And then you have a tag team against him, a lawyer, the one you heard there in the Gorsuch clip. | ||
| What is your overall assessment? | ||
| They're being criticized, you know, and MSNBC is going nuts that they didn't really deal with, which is what they want. | ||
| Trump is an insurrectionist. | ||
| They're going nuts last night and this morning. | ||
| The after-action report, people should understand, the hot takes, they were stunned. | ||
| Weissman, they were stunned right after it was over because of what a beatdown it was. | ||
| But then as they regrouped later in the evening and today, they're saying they just worried about the politics of it and the implementation of it. | ||
| They didn't get to the fact that you have to, that Trump is an insurrectionist and therefore cannot hold the office. | ||
| Your thoughts, sir? | ||
| Well, that's the issue they want, Steve, and that's why the trial judge in Colorado Basically said, you know, on page 100, 100 or so out of 103 pages, that Trump was not holding an office that was disqualified because he wasn't on the list of disqualified offices. | ||
| It starts with senator, goes to representative, and then there's a hierarchy on down. | ||
| But then, you know, the vast majority of our opinion before that is that Trump was an insurrectionist, right? | ||
| I think that actually may have been exactly where Justice Katonji Brown-Jackson was going yesterday. | ||
| She was basically seeming to attach herself to the theory that Bill McGinley just mentioned, which is that Trump is not on the list of disqualified offices in terms of running for the presidency again. | ||
| But I think what she may try to do is replicate what the trial judge in Colorado did, which is to say that Trump engaged in an insurrection, but I'm sorry, for whatever reason, the framers of the 14th Amendment decided not to put the president on the list, my hands are tied. But I did not see the other justices going in that direction, right? Like just give me one, I'll give you one example of Justice Kavanaugh. I mean he asked the very straight-up question of, you know, how can | ||
| you say that President Trump engaged in an insurrection? | ||
| He wasn't tried for it. | ||
| He's not been convicted of it, right? | ||
| So I don't think that the other eight justices, or other seven at least, you know, put Justice Sotomayor in her own category, that they're going to go for some opinion that goes on at length about insurrection issues when they have a, you know, some kill shot or other to get rid of this case. | ||
| And it's actually a situation, Steve, where It's an abundance of riches. | ||
| It's an embarrassment of riches, really. | ||
| There are so many ways for this case to be thrown out and for the Colorado Supreme Court to be rejected. | ||
| You know, it's hard to say exactly which one they're going to pick. | ||
| There were two that Jonathan Mitchell focused on yesterday that I did not see any real response from the other side to. | ||
| One is that there's a case called Term Limits. | ||
| Where the Supreme Court said, Justice Kennedy writing, that the Constitution sets the qualifications for office and the states cannot vary those. | ||
| And that that's what's happening here. | ||
| Colorado is varying the requirements for election because the 14th Amendment doesn't tell you what you need to do to run. | ||
| It only says that if you meet the criteria, and I don't think that President Trump here meets those criteria, but even if you grant for sake of argument that he does, that then he cannot hold office. | ||
| And so Jonathan Mitchell argued, look, you have to sort of let the election play out. | ||
| If President Trump gets elected, then Congress would get a chance to decide whether to lift that purported disqualification. | ||
| And none of that's ripe right now. | ||
| And so Colorado is varying the constitutional requirements of office for the presidency, and it can't do that. | ||
| And then, you know, the other things that he were arguing, we've talked about before, like this is something, you know, under Griffin's case, where Right after, in the reconstruction period, former Chief Justice Salmon declared that the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not self-executing. | ||
| You need a statute. | ||
| Indeed, Congress enacted such a statute in 1870. | ||
| What's left of it is a criminal provision for engaging in insurrection against the United States. | ||
| But as Justice Uh, Kavanaugh pointed out, President Trump has not been indicted or convicted of that. | ||
| So, however you look at it, this case is all wet. | ||
| Uh, hang on for one second, I just want to hold you through. | ||
| That was Salmon Chase, the former Secretary of Treasury under President Lincoln, later on the Supreme Court. | ||
| Short break, Jeff Clark next. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Batt. | |
| There are two issues out there that are a specter of kind of anxiousness and anxiety. | ||
| One is the credit card debt, and a lot of you folks, these issues with credit cards. | ||
| The other is taxes, particularly they got, I don't know, another 15,000 IRS guys. | ||
| If you had problems filing or if you're behind. | ||
| Because of COVID, for whatever reason, you're getting letters from the IRS, whatever. | ||
| Make sure if you call the number the IRS sends you in the letter, you automatically waive your rights. | ||
| This is why Tax Network USA is a service that you should go to TNUSA.com right now. | ||
| Get all the information. | ||
| This is a highly technical area and you should just check it out. | ||
| But don't let whether it's credit cards or back taxes. | ||
| Do not let the anxiety and the angst and the worry start to consume your life. | ||
| There are services out there and people out there that can help you work through this. | ||
| It's all process. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Just trust the process. | |
| But go to Tax Network USA today. | ||
| TNUSA.com and just check it out. | ||
| Get the information. | ||
| Talk to the experts. | ||
| All of it. | ||
| Find out, not just your rights, but also the process to sort this out. | ||
| All of these things can get sorted out. | ||
| Do not fret. | ||
| Be not afraid. | ||
| I think, as our Lord and Jesus Christ said one time, right? | ||
| Be not afraid. | ||
| Okay, you have to say, huge day, inflection point, cross the Rubicon, all of this, and we're going to drill down so much more on what's going on about these, but it's never over with these people. | ||
| Just remember that. | ||
| They have control and they're not going to give it up until we grab it. | ||
| And they're still gonna fight you then. | ||
| Jamie Raskin on TV last night. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You gotta, you know, God bless Jamie Raskin. | |
| He's a fighter. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Like, Mark Elias is a fighter. | |
| I mean, I can't stand what they're fighting for, but I certainly would like to have a couple of those guys on my side. | ||
| Because they're relentless. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Jamie Raskin's a Clark, and this is why I love Clark, because Clark's a fighter. | |
| He's relentless. | ||
| Although he may not be like me, yelling and screaming and banging on the table, he comes out for more logical, lawyerly brilliance. | ||
| So Clark, Jamie goes on last night, Congressman Raskin goes on and says, hey, hey, hey, you know, it could be 9-0, it could be 8-1, and I hear all these guys pontificating, but don't worry, that just means he's eligible for the ballot. | ||
| It doesn't mean he's actually eligible to actually be president, and we will decide that, the new House will decide that on January 6th. | ||
| And Joy Ann Reid didn't catch it. | ||
| She thought it was the current House with, you know, Johnson. | ||
| She's kind of dismissed it. | ||
| It's the new House that will be elected in November that really takes its oath, I think, on January 2nd or 3rd next year. | ||
| On the 6th, is Jamie Raskin correct? | ||
| Do we have another fight here coming on the 6th of January, particularly if through some miracle they take the House of Representatives, sir? | ||
| Steve, the ironies here are delicious, and you're right, they're absolutely relentless. | ||
| And where Jamie Raskin is coming from is, you know, his father was a communist. | ||
| The Heritage Foundation in the 80s did a whole report about his father's ties to Soviet communism, and I think that's the tradition he comes out of it. | ||
| So let's appreciate the irony. | ||
| 2017, January 6th, Jamie Raskin leads objections on the House, you know, on that process to President Trump being seated, arguing that, you know, the election's been corrupted, right? It was all fine then. Somehow it's not fine for President Trump. Now you come to 2020, President Trump starts talking about the powers of states to redesignate their electors. That's all an attempt to overrule the will of the people. | ||
| That's illegitimate, right? And then we come to now, and first they launch an effort to say, hey, each individual state can decide for itself whether to keep Trump off the ballot, which I think is a ridiculous proposition. And the Chief Justice yesterday thought that was ridiculous and thought it would just create... | ||
| Warring states against each other, disqualifying their preferred candidates on one side or the other, which makes no sense. | ||
| But then, you know, they're going to come to their own January 6th, and you're right. | ||
| If they decide that, you know, they have the votes in the House, then they'll say that President Trump is illegitimate. | ||
| They're the ultimate decider of that question, not the Supreme Court, because they're the ones who decide how to count the Electoral College votes. | ||
| And even though they've amended the Electoral College Act to try to outlaw what President Trump was talking about with John Eastman, and that Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig had said was a valid way of approaching things in an Atlantic Magazine article back then, they're suddenly going to turn around 180 degrees. | ||
| It's like whiplash. | ||
| And they pivot from their Supreme Court strategy in this Colorado case to on January 6, 2025, saying, oh, sorry, President Trump can't be seated. | ||
| It's totally contrary to their whole theory that there was no ability for Mike Pence to decide how to proceed based on objections to the 2020 election. | ||
| And for the states to look at those questions, they're tied around in knots. | ||
| The only unifying position that they have is that there cannot be Trump, right? | ||
| And they'll try to win however they can at the Supreme Court. | ||
| If they don't win there, they're going to try to win on January 6, 2025. | ||
| They just won't stop. | ||
| That's the internal logic. | ||
| Remember this. | ||
| All the stuff you hear on cable TV and MSNBC and the Atlantic Magazine, New York Times, it's all just, stop Trump. | ||
| I don't care if it's the Federal Reserve, it's Jamie Raskin in the House, it's what they're doing in Colorado, it's the intellectuals on the Upper West Side at their cocktail parties in Georgetown. | ||
| It is stop Trump. | ||
| Why is it stop Trump? | ||
| Because you, this audience. | ||
| They do not want a populist, nationalist movement. | ||
| To take over the apparatus of this government. | ||
| And they're going to fight you every step of the way. | ||
| And they're going to bring... One day they're going to argue one thing, the next day... It's kind of like the Soviet Union, right? | ||
| This is all... This is raw, pure fight for power. | ||
| It has nothing to do with justice. | ||
| It has nothing to do with equity. | ||
| It has nothing to do with our Constitution, or what our Republic has been, or what our framers or founders did. | ||
| Nothing. | ||
| Clark, once again, you're fantastic. | ||
| Can't wait to see your confirmation hearing as Attorney General. | ||
| I want the TV rights for that. | ||
| How do people get to you between now and then, sir? | ||
| Sure, Steve. | ||
| Just one quick last comment, which is, look, one of my favorite lines from 1984 is, you know, you wake up one morning and we were always at war with East Asia, right? | ||
| Even though the prior day we were not at war with East Asia. | ||
| That's how communists work. | ||
| So I am at Jeff Clark U.S. | ||
| on Getter and X and at Real Jeff Clark on Truth Social and the Center for Renewing America Which is filed a complaint against Jamie Raskin for his ethical lapses is at AmericaRenewing.com, Steve. | ||
| Jeff Clark, every now and again that Harvard College undergraduate what liberal arts education comes through. | ||
| Thank you very much, sir. | ||
| And thanks for the quote from 1984. | ||
| Thank you, Steve. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's true. | |
| It's 100% true. | ||
| One day you wake up and you're at war with these guys and the day before they were your greatest allies, right? | ||
| That's communism. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| We're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| Remember Joe Allen, who I got a bump to the afternoon show. | ||
| I got so much going on. | ||
| Joe Allen's going to be here. | ||
| We're talking about artificial intelligence and cyber right now. | ||
| That is in your life. | ||
| You may not know it's in your life. | ||
| Why? | ||
| There's six trillion dollars of equity locked up in homes throughout the country. | ||
| The cyber guys armed with artificial intelligence are going to feast on that. | ||
| Don't let them take 80% of your net worth. | ||
| That would be your home. | ||
| Go to hometidalock.com. | ||
| Go there today. | ||
| Check it out. | ||
| Immerse yourself in information. | ||
| Short commercial break. |
Export Selection