July 11, 2024 - Bannon's War Room
48:38
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| Thing that we do have to underline here just so so viewers can can follow what's going on behind the scenes is is the Biden campaign and many Democratic officials do believe that Barack Obama is is quietly working behind the scenes to orchestrate this. | ||
| Reasonable Americans will and do believe that Justices Thomas and Alito are prone and subject to corruption, that the institution failing to punish them is broken, and that, consequently, their impeachment is a constitutional imperative and our congressional duty. | ||
| Corruption, without consequence, infects all it touches. | ||
| And that is why this body, Congress, has a constitutional and moral obligation to hold these justices accountable. | ||
| Moments ago, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York took to the floor to make the case why she introduced articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Samuel Lito and Clarence Thomas. | ||
| The resolution against Thomas says he engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors by failing to report multiple gifts of luxury vacations and travel. | ||
| Impeachment articles against Alito focus on his refusal to recuse from cases related to January 6th despite his indicating sympathy with the efforts to overturn the 2020 election by allowing symbols of support for those efforts to be flown outside his residency. | ||
| So at the heart of all this, right, the heart of what we're talking about when we're talking about this story And the coverage of it is not a scandal. | ||
| There is no wrongdoing. | ||
| The heart of it is the fact that an old man has gotten older. | ||
| And he's gotten older in ways that are not necessarily predictable because aging isn't. | ||
| After having the most stressful job in the world for three years, and it has very clearly taken a toll on him. | ||
| We can all see that. | ||
| And now, in the next four months, he has to do the only thing that may be harder than being president, more stressful, and more demanding, which is to be president while also running for re-election. | ||
| Those are both full-time jobs. | ||
| Beyond the incredible media feeding frenzy that feels like a scandal, is the one very obvious question, which is, at 81, having been the president now, with all that stress, Is President Biden capable of enduring the unbelievably taxing task of running the country and being a candidate who can persuade unpersuaded American voters in order to defeat Donald Trump? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I think that in a sense this is long overdue because what Democrats have served up for a year now is inaction on the corruption scandals that have rocked the Supreme Court. | |
| Some angry letters, some public appearances, but this is a leap forward in terms of seeking accountability. | ||
| And I think what AOC is trying to remind us here is that federal judges serve for life With good behavior, and that Congress is well within its rights to decide that a judge or justice has failed to live up to that standard of good behavior, and that when it does, Congress is really left with no choice but to begin impeachment. | ||
| We've heard for now more than a year from Republicans, well, Congress can't impose ethical rules, Congress can't impose an enforceable code of judicial conduct. | ||
| Well, if that's true, and I'm not conceding it, But if that's true, then that only leaves the impeachment and removal power for Congress, and that is why AOC is using it right now. | ||
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Pray for our enemies. | |
| Because we're going medieval on these people. | ||
| President Trump got a free shot at all these networks lying about the people. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The people have had a belly full of it. | |
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you've tried 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. Bamm. | |
| Thursday 11th of July, anno domini. | ||
| Harnwell here at the helm, filling in for Steve Bannon, who is in one of Joe Biden's federal prisons up until November 1st, keeping him out Of of influence for this general election campaign. | ||
| That's what the Democrats need to do, folks. | ||
| That's not news for you. | ||
| I've got Kash Patel, who's going to be co-hosting with me this morning, former chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense. | ||
| But we're going to go to Mark Palletta. | ||
| Start off now to analyze and break down. | ||
| This initiative on behalf of the Democrats to impeach two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. | ||
| Now, my background, folks, I'll just just give a 30 second to my background in politics as I worked in the House of Commons. | ||
| At 25 to 20 years ago, and then I worked for the same MP who was then elected to the European Parliament as his chief of staff in Brussels. | ||
| I had a couple of insights there in the legislative environment, and I'm going to share them with you now before we cut to Mark, before we speak to Cash. | ||
| These are some of the insights I had working in a political environment. | ||
| There is no idea so crazy that you won't see it mainstreamed from the peripheries and then implemented. | ||
| Bear that in mind as we're talking about AOC now. | ||
| There is no idea so crazy, so delusional, so unreal, so surreal, so absurd that you won't see it in real time being dragged in from the peripheries to the mainstream and then implemented. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Um... | |
| The centre-right response, in this case in the American context, the GOP, the centre-right response will be performative. | ||
| They'll go through the motions of opposing these resolutions. | ||
| They'll be weak, their hearts won't be in it, because fundamentally these guys are in politics for the grift, the revolving door, right? | ||
| They want to do a bit of time in Congress, then they'll go out and do a bit of lobbying on K Street, perhaps they'll go over to the Chamber of Commerce, then they'll go back into Congress. | ||
| It's all like a continuous thing. | ||
| And for them, Donald Trump is not an agent of chaos. | ||
| He's an agent of disruption. | ||
| He's a disruption to their strategic paths of grifting, of institutional grifting. | ||
| That's what the GOP wants to do. | ||
| It wants to be able to do that in peace. | ||
| Donald Trump and MAGA, this great MAGA audience, and the woman, you're disrupting their plans to do that. | ||
| Without distraction. | ||
| OK, so the GOP response will just be performative, as it was, for example, with Steve Bannon. | ||
| I overheard a conversation with a Republican congressman. | ||
| Last week, one of the good guys, I won't mention his name, and he was sort of saying, oh, yeah, you know, I keep thinking about how bad it is, how terrible it is for Steve Bannon to be in prison. | ||
| And I keep saying to myself, I wonder if we couldn't have done more. | ||
| And I felt like saying, guys, you didn't do anything. | ||
| You did absolutely nothing. | ||
| If you'd have really wanted to stop Steve Bannon from going to prison, you'd have passed a resolution when you still had a majority of 20 saying that the J6 inquiry was invalidly constituted and by effect it subpoenas invalid. | ||
| And then you would have given, had something to Steve Bannon's lawyers to go to the Supreme Court. | ||
| And say this is a material indication of how this conviction is unsound, right? | ||
| Those subpoenas were invalid. | ||
| The GOP response will be performative. | ||
| And on the back of it, they'll send out emails and they'll do fundraising. | ||
| That's how they'll counter this manoeuvre by AOC, right? | ||
| This is absolutely fundamental to the security of your republic, what Democrats are doing now. | ||
| The left, third point, the left has to have its way always when it's in power, and the left has to have its way always when it's not in power. | ||
| That is a golden rule in all legislatures around the world. | ||
| Oh, and the fourth thing, which we'll come back to later, and this is my experience having just come out totally vindicated, totally absolved after four years, five years of criminal inquiries here in Italy. | ||
| I repeat, totally absolved. | ||
| There's no such thing as, despite whatever anyone says, there's no such thing as an objective meaning in the law. | ||
| You might think, because I thought, in innocence, having worked in a number of legislatures, I thought, yeah, that's what parliamentarians do. | ||
| They write the law, and then the judges implement it. | ||
| There is no such thing as an objective meaning to the law. | ||
| That law finds its meaning when it When a case arrives before a judge and the judge has to say what it means, that's when a law actually has a meaning. | ||
| We'll come on to that later. | ||
| Right, Mark Paoletta. | ||
| Good morning to you. | ||
| Can you break down for us, because we saw the War Room, we had War Room impeachment, they followed breath by breath, blow by blow, play by play here on this transmission. | ||
| The impeachment of Donald Trump. | ||
| In what way? | ||
| To start off, because this is going to be a big thing now. | ||
| It's not just like five minutes on a podcast. | ||
| We're going to be hitting this day after day after day. | ||
| Because the Democrats have, you know, have taken initiative and they've moved the needle here. | ||
| They brought an impeachment against Donald Trump too, and now they're bringing impeachments against Supreme Court justices. | ||
| This is the new normal. | ||
| Can you play out for us for the war room posse here? | ||
| How does an impeachment of a Supreme Court justice work? | ||
| Is it the same way as an impeachment process for a sitting president? | ||
| Which from memory, you might correctly hear, it was simple majority in the House of Representatives And a two-thirds majority in the Senate for conviction. | ||
| Does an impeachment process for, and I guess this is unprecedented, I guess there hasn't ever been, I don't know, perhaps you could tell me here, whether there has actually ever been an impeachment, either successful or simple process, for a Supreme Court associate justice or chief justice. | ||
| Good morning to you. | ||
| Can you help now sort of explain to us exactly what's going to go ahead now, moving forward? | ||
| Sure. | ||
| This is the dying lashing out of this regime, the progressive regime. | ||
| I really do think that they've been exposed. | ||
| The American people are on to them. | ||
| We need to fight hard and defend this. | ||
| But yeah, AOC has introduced these two articles of impeachment against Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. | ||
| When you read through them, Ben, They're an absolute joke, filled with lies, filled with ridiculousness, right? | ||
| They're just crappy pieces of work and there's no basis for them. | ||
| But even in Justice Alito is being impeached because he literally allowed his wife to fly two flags. | ||
| They don't even have the They don't even name the appeal to heaven flag. | ||
| They say it's a flag associated with insurrection. | ||
| These things are jokes. | ||
| We need to beat them down hard in terms of these resolutions, these articles of impeachment, but they're going nowhere, right? | ||
| It's in the House of Representatives. | ||
| No one believes him, as we're seeing. | ||
| The Democrats say things that they don't believe in, right? | ||
| They say AOC says Joe Biden's fine, sharp as a tack, and he's not. | ||
| Everyone knows that, we've known that, we've talked about that for years. | ||
| It was on full display at the debate and before then, but they are on the run. | ||
| That's why these articles of impeachment were introduced, because they need to deflect They need to get away from Joe Biden, is incompetent, and | ||
| his mental acuity is gone. | ||
| The articles, you want to make a point? | ||
| Mark, Mark, so let me just see you. | ||
| So basically, that's a really important point. | ||
| This is substantially a distraction operation, isn't it? | ||
| As is the fallout, if you can call it that, over Project 2025. | ||
| This is the mainstream media finding non-stories to go with in order to distract people's attention away from the fact that Joe Biden It's no longer mentally competent. | ||
| Is that right? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So Ben, remember, and I've been in this town, we haven't met, but I've been here since 1983, went to law school, been in a number of administrations. | ||
| You know, Bill Clinton bombed a country because he was being impeached, right? | ||
| That was the classic wag the dog movie, you know, distraction. | ||
| So this is what the Democrats do. | ||
| They're tried and true thing. | ||
| My view is they You are right. | ||
| They want to destroy their adversaries, pulverize them. | ||
| Zero tolerance for dissent, right? | ||
| And they go after people. | ||
| They target them. | ||
| They've been targeting Justice Thomas. | ||
| And just by way of background for you, I worked on Justice Thomas's confirmation In 1991, I was a White House lawyer and worked, you know, side by side when those attacks came on him and how they went after him. | ||
| They had lost the battle of ideas on Justice Thomas, right? | ||
| He was coasting to victory, right? | ||
| He would have gotten more than 60 votes, right, in 1991. | ||
| With a Democrat Senate, it was 57 Democrats, and what do they do? | ||
| They pull out the lies of Anita Hill. | ||
| Right, that's what they did. | ||
| This is what they do. | ||
| Impeachment, I was a lawyer at OMB during the Trump administration that signed the legal memo holding the funds for Ukraine, which the president was impeached on. | ||
| I do it again in a second. | ||
| President acted absolutely proper, but that's what they do. | ||
| So they debased impeachment. | ||
| That's what they've done. | ||
| They just made a political act, right, that has no meaning. | ||
| This is going nowhere. | ||
| But we need to use it to expose how awful they are. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Bamm. | |
| Welcome back, folks. | ||
| We're here with Mark Pialetta from the Centre for Renewing America. | ||
| Mark, here's one of the articles, okay, in, if you folks, if you've just joined us, we're talking here about AOC's resolution which he introduced into the House yesterday, calling for the articles of impeachment for Justices, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. | ||
| Here's one of the charges, if you will. | ||
| Refusal to recuse from matters involving his spouse's financial interest in cases before the court. | ||
| Now, he's denied that, right? | ||
| But however... It's not true! | ||
| Here's the point. | ||
| Fundamentally, with my third case that I mentioned in the introduction, Democrats want to get their way when they're in power and they want to get their way when they're out of power. | ||
| What they want is basically what has to be. | ||
| One example of that principle is the partial application of principles. | ||
| Now, even if this were true, and Clarence Thomas says it's not true, Even if this was true, where were the articles of impeachment on Judge Juan Merchant, right? | ||
| Now that is not open to question because the fact that his daughter was fundraising for Democrats on the basis of Merchant's conviction of Donald Trump, that is not in dispute. | ||
| That is objectively appreciated by all sides. | ||
| So look, this is what I focus. | ||
| So the law says a judge, a judge and the Supreme Court abides by the lower court laws, the federal law on recusals, which is you need to recuse if your spouse is a party, a lawyer, I'm going to be a witness or have a substantial interest will be substantially affected by the outcome. | ||
| Ginny Thomas has nothing like that. | ||
| So one of them was her financial. | ||
| She's never done anything in the legal lane. | ||
| She's been a political activist her entire professional career. | ||
| There was no reason for Justice Thomas to recuse. | ||
| I point you to, and I've written a lot about this, there was a liberal judge, as you talk about the partial application, a liberal judge, Judge Stephen Reinhart, who had the same-sex marriage case back in 2011, 2012. | ||
| It's a celebrated case. | ||
| His wife was the head of the ACLU Southern California chapter, and she filed two briefs in the court below that went up to Judge Reinhart, and he didn't recuse. | ||
| And he said, my views are my views, my wife's views are her own, there's no reason for me to recuse. | ||
| The left machinery, the legal ethics experts, Stephen Gillers, they filed a brief in the Supreme Court saying, this is outrageous that you think that Judge Reinhart needs to recuse. | ||
| His wife had literally entered the case, right, in the court below and went up to him. | ||
| She was very vocal on the legal issues in that case. | ||
| So with Ginny Thomas, there's nothing even close to that. | ||
| Another one, Justice Ginsburg's husband was at a law firm that repeatedly appeared before the Supreme Court. | ||
| And she never recused once from a single case, and in fact, ruled in favor of Marty Ginsburg law firm's clients. | ||
| So you see this, you saw Justice Ginsburg literally attack, right, trying to stop Donald Trump from becoming president during the 26th campaign. | ||
| And everyone celebrated And she never recused from a case involving Donald Trump. | ||
| So that is just a complete ridiculous argument. | ||
| There's nothing there. | ||
| It's both consistent with the law that Justice Thomas didn't need to recuse, and the double standards that the Democrats show are just outrageous. | ||
| The second one is that they claim Justice Thomas didn't recuse because of his wife's involvement in the January 6th. | ||
| Full disclosure, I was Ginny Thomas's lawyer during those proceedings before the January 6th committee. | ||
| She went in for an interview, right? | ||
| They went after her. | ||
| They had no reason and no basis to go after her. | ||
| She interviewed for four hours. | ||
| She produced whatever relevant documents they asked for. | ||
| And guess what? | ||
| She wasn't named in the January 6th committee's final report, which was 845 pages. | ||
| These articles of impeachment says she's directing Donald Trump. | ||
| She's advising Donald Trump. | ||
| She's going into the legal strategy. | ||
| She's urging Trump on his legal strategy and the lawyers. | ||
| Jenny Thomas was texting with her friend, Mark Meadows. | ||
| That is not advising, you know, the president on his legal strategy. | ||
| She was so uninvolved that the January 6th Democrat-appointed, right, a completely Democrat-appointed committee didn't mention her once in any hearings or in the final report. | ||
| So she's absolutely had minimal involvement in the January 6th, you know, issues. | ||
| And again, those are sort of, She went to the rally, has nothing to do with the legal issues, okay? | ||
| There's no reasonable basis for Justice Thomas to have to recuse from those issues like presidential immunity and the like. | ||
| Gifts, they claim he didn't disclose gifts. | ||
| It is very clear, okay, and I've written on this a lot. | ||
| 2012, the Judicial Conference had allegations that Justice Thomas was violating the law for not disclosing his trips with his friend Harlan Crow, both on his plane and his boat, okay? | ||
| He has a friend who's wealthy, okay? | ||
| He hangs out with him. | ||
| He goes on vacation with him. | ||
| The Judicial Conference said he had done nothing wrong in 2012. | ||
| He had complied with all the requirements of disclosing trips. | ||
| So this entire section on not disclosing gifts is just a complete lie. | ||
| Okay, the judicial conference, which is the body that runs ethics and ministers the ethics for the judiciary, had taken up this issue in 2012 and ruled that Justice Thomas was in full compliance. | ||
| So right down the line, okay, on every single Okay. | ||
| Harlan Crowe bought his boyhood home to make it a museum, okay? | ||
| His mother lives in that home, okay? | ||
| As part of the negotiation, because she's still living there and he wanted to own this | ||
| home and make sure it wasn't torn down or whatever, he gave her a right to live in it | ||
| for the rest of her life, okay? | ||
| That was part of the negotiation. | ||
| In this Articles of Impeachment, they say he's giving her free rent. | ||
| It wasn't free rent. | ||
| It was an arm's length transaction to preserve the boyhood home of what I consider our greatest living American and our greatest Supreme Court Justice. | ||
| Not a bad thing to do. | ||
| It's a great thing to do. | ||
| Yet this has turned into a crime for these Articles of Impeachment. | ||
| And then you have AOC, right? | ||
| You're talking about this partial sentence. | ||
| Remember the stories on her going to the Met Gala, and she gets a dress and her makeup and all of this stuff, and she stiffs all of these workers. | ||
| She doesn't pay them, right? | ||
| And then there's finally, I think, a New York Times or some sort of story about it, and she finally pays and lies about how there was miscommunication. | ||
| No, she was stiffing working class Americans. | ||
| Because she thought she's entitled, right? | ||
| We're the ruling class. | ||
| Give me my stuff for free, and then I'm going to impeach Justice Thomas for complying with the law. | ||
| It's ridiculous. | ||
| Okay, Mark. | ||
| I do want to come back on the technical procedures on how an impeachment against a sitting Supreme Court Associate Justice would unroll, what the anatomy of this would be. | ||
| It would have to pass the House of Representatives, right? | ||
| So that will never happen. | ||
| And if it were to pass, as we saw with Bill Clinton, right, or even President Trump, it | ||
| goes over to the Senate. | ||
| And they have a trial where they would have, they would presumably invite the justice or | ||
| his lawyers to make his case. | ||
| But it's never gonna get that far. | ||
| But just to answer, to kind of run it through, it would need to be, I think it's two-thirds | ||
| majority of the senators voting to convict the person who's being impeached. | ||
| It'll never get out of the House. | ||
| This is just a stunt. | ||
| This is a publicity stunt by AOC. | ||
| But we do need to fight back hard, Ben, I agree with you, and expose it for what it | ||
| is, which is they are trying to destroy the Supreme Court, right? | ||
| For many, many years, decades, the left has controlled the Supreme Court. | ||
| With President Trump's appointments, right, and Justice Thomas back in 91 as the beginning | ||
| of this great Supreme Court, Alito. | ||
| Roberts in 05, it is now an originalist court. | ||
| The left has never had to deal with that in modern times. | ||
| They had this reliable ally who was gonna implement their left-wing agenda, right, always. | ||
| And so once Trump made these three appointments and the court turned to an originalist court, not perfect, but the best court in 80 years, the court now wants to destroy it and burn it down. | ||
| Intimidate justices which triggered these assassination attempts. | ||
| So they are now on 24-7 protection. | ||
| Mark, I want to come back to that point. | ||
| But first, let's bring in Kash Patel. | ||
| Kash, good morning to you. | ||
| Hey, good morning, guys. | ||
| So you're following this. | ||
| What's your first reading when you heard that AOC had tabled these resolutions of impeachment? | ||
| I thought it was one of those headlines from the Daily, the Honey Bee or whatever that West Coast outfit is that constantly puts on. | ||
| Yeah, there you go, Babylon Bee. | ||
| But I guess it's the reality as Mark was, you know, outlining. | ||
| It's just. | ||
| I guess it's not a surprise because their knee-jerk reaction is to come in over the top and utilize the media to say, this is normal. | ||
| We do this all the time. | ||
| Why wouldn't we do this? | ||
| So if it's the norm, might I propose that we take AOC's articles of impeachment And instead of the names of Thomas and Scalia, we insert the names of every single federal judge that has applied the two-tier system of justice at the behest of Merrick Garland and President Joe Biden, both criminally and civilly. | ||
| Let's just do that. | ||
| How about the House Republicans, since they're not seem to be moving the machinery on impeaching Garland and Wray and holding them in contempt? | ||
| Let's see if we can use their own game board against them. | ||
| And let's see what the media's reaction is. | ||
| Are you telling me That there isn't an actual federal judge out there who, based on AOC's guidelines, actually committed the alleged crimes that she's talking about or the alleged violations of the canons of ethics? | ||
| I think, I don't know, Mark could probably name 50 off the top of his head. | ||
| Maybe let's start with some of the Jan Six folks. | ||
| What do you think? | ||
| Yeah, so again, Ben and Cass, you're putting it right on the head in terms of what the left does. | ||
| I identified that Justice Jackson had failed to disclose her husband's consulting income, right, for malpractice cases for 10 years, right? | ||
| And Russ Vogt and the Center for Renewing America filed an ethics complaint against her with the Judicial Conference. | ||
| It's gone nowhere, right? | ||
| But for 10 years, she's not disclosed her husband's consulting income on her forms. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hey, welcome back to War Room, everybody. | |
| Good to be with the panel. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mark, do we still have you? | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Vance. | ||
| Hey, welcome back to War Room, everybody. | ||
| Good to be with the panel. | ||
| Mark, if we still have you, can you give us a summary of what the House leadership and | ||
| Republican response should be and where everybody can find you and read all the things you're | ||
|
unidentified
|
doing? | |
| Sure, thanks, Cash. | ||
| Look, they need to just expose, this isn't going anywhere, right? | ||
| But they do need to expose and sort of focus on the fact that AOC is weaponizing the articles of impeachment against two justices that they don't agree with. | ||
| It's not a coincidence, right, that the Supreme Court ended the term on July 1st, and these things were filed this week. | ||
| It wasn't a coincidence that Senator Whitehouse filed a criminal referral with the Department of Justice on and asking Merrick Garland to prosecute Justice Thomas. | ||
| It's all because of their opinions. | ||
| It's all because they hate them, and particularly Thomas, | ||
| because he's a black conservative and the left, he triggers their racism, okay? | ||
| That's what's going on with Justice Thomas in a word. | ||
| So they need to, again, it's not gonna go anywhere, but they need to focus on it, highlight it, | ||
| show how the left wants to tear down the Supreme Court, make this an issue for the election, okay? | ||
| President Trump won 2016, in my view, because of the Supreme Court, lots of things, but the Supreme Court and how he was going to appoint conservatives. | ||
| And he did that and fulfilled his promise. | ||
| And it's made it the greatest court in modern times. | ||
| You can reach me at MarkPayaletta on X and I have a website markpayaletta.com. | ||
| All my articles, I have a lot of articles, op-eds defending the court and pushing back | ||
| on these attacks with receipts, statutes, examples, the hypocrisy of the left. | ||
| I urge the posse to go check it out. | ||
| It'll educate you and you will be well-armed. | ||
| And then, of course, I'm at the Center for Renewing America, a fantastic organization run by Russ Vought, who I work with at OMB and the Trump White House, and go to their website for more information. | ||
| Great. | ||
| Thanks so much, Mark. | ||
| Go ahead. | ||
| Mark, before you jump, and we'll be talking about Russ Vought a little later on in the show as well. | ||
| You know who agrees with you on your analysis on this? | ||
| Axios. | ||
| Here's the article that they put out today on AOC unveiling the articles of impeachment. | ||
| Right at the top of the article, second line, it says this, why it matters. | ||
| It's a long shot element of a broader legislative push by House Democrats To rein in the courts after a spate of decisions in June that incensed liberals. | ||
| It's right there in your face. | ||
| This is exactly what this is. | ||
| This is the Democrats trying to rein in the Supreme Court because it's produced decisions that aren't pleasing to Democrats. | ||
| And it's up front in your face. | ||
| And they're not even trying to hide it. | ||
| So I thought you'd be interested, Mark, to hear Axios agreeing with you 100% on your analysis. | ||
| Last thing here, guys, look, the new Supreme Court is just kind of just a game changer in America, right? | ||
| Thank God for Donald Trump's three appointments. | ||
| What you saw was Schumer standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, physically threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on an abortion vote, right? | ||
| That led to this assassination attempt, in my view. | ||
| In 2022, right, you had the Dobbs opinion, right? | ||
| And that was the assassination attempt. | ||
| In 23 was the affirmative action case, right, that struck down race-based affirmative action. | ||
| And they went after Justice Thomas. | ||
| Every single spring now, they will ramp up these attacks in the Supreme Court. | ||
| And this is just the next step, right? | ||
| Criminal referrals and impeachment. | ||
| This is 24. | ||
| Welcome to the new world. | ||
| But here's the thing. | ||
| The left is on the run. | ||
| Right? | ||
| This Supreme Court is the greatest Supreme Court in modern times, and it's going to protect our liberties and the Constitution. | ||
| And this is what the left's response is to try and destroy it, try and make their lives miserable. | ||
| That's why they have 24-7 protection, right? | ||
| Because the left has triggered lunatics to want to go after the justices. | ||
| Mark, thanks very much. | ||
| God bless. | ||
| Catch you tomorrow. | ||
| Thanks. | ||
| This is going to be a developing story. | ||
| This is going to dominate, I think, the conversation for the next few months. | ||
| Kash, let me ask you a question here. | ||
| What do you think, because there are different schools of opinion as to what an incoming Trump administration should do here, should it try to de-escalate the DOJ? | ||
| and try and tone down the tenor of debate? | ||
| Or should instead the Trump administration use the weaponized DOJ to do to Democrats | ||
| exactly what Democrats have been doing to Republicans? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Which side do you come down on this? | |
| We just follow the Constitution. | ||
| They're the ones that project how we are the ones that are rigging and scamming the rule of law and justice in the courts. | ||
| And in reality, we are the ones that have caught them utilizing a weaponized system of justice and intelligence and defense Whether it's Russia, Russia, Russia, whether it's 51 Intel letter, whether it's the bogus Jan 6 insurrection narrative, whether it's the National Guard issue, and whether we're talking about impeachments, the classified documents case, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden's laptop, what have you. | ||
| All they have done is told us we were wrong about every single one of those things, and we were right because we put the truth out. | ||
| And all we have done is wanted the American people to receive the truth so that that's what they use on voting day to elect our leadership in Washington and around the country. | ||
| And since we've been proven right each and every time for telling the truth, they hate us. | ||
| And so I think, look, as a former DOJ National Security Division prosecutor guy, there is no vengeance. | ||
| There's simply the Constitution. | ||
| And we cannot allow the left to preemptively issue headlines as if we are the ones distorting justice. | ||
| If you in the left or anywhere broke the law and you happen to be in a leadership position in government, so be it. | ||
| You must be held accountable, whether it's criminally or civilly, and whoever you worked with to do so. | ||
| We are not going to raise bogus investigations for political headline grabs. | ||
| Like the left is doing, like the AOCs of the world are doing and saying, hey, we have to, you know, impeach these people. | ||
| We don't have anything left to do. | ||
| But yeah, I mean, I mean, the two tier system of justice is something I can rant on forever. | ||
| But I think we got Hammer on deck and let's put him in the hot seat. | ||
| Great. | ||
| Listen, I'm going to hand over to you now, Cash, because you're going to co-host the rest of this segment with Josh Hammer. | ||
| Josh, good morning to you. | ||
| This is an interesting Because which one of us is really in studio and which one of us is using the green screen? | ||
| That's going to set up some debate on the Getta live chat. | ||
| Oh, I'll give a shout out to the Getta live chat, Rumble live chat, Telegram live chat and the RAB live chat before I hand over to Cash. | ||
| Love you guys. | ||
| Fantastic interaction on the live chat. | ||
| Cash, Josh, I'll hand over to you guys now and I'll catch you possibly a little later on today for the evening show tonight. | ||
| Thanks very much. | ||
| God bless. | ||
| Cameron, good to be with you, man. | ||
| I think you look better in studio than anyone I've ever seen before. | ||
| Don't tell that to, I said that to Bannon. | ||
| But what do you think? | ||
| Where does this, so look, we've got, I think everything we've been talking about on the show today leads to the one confluence point that is Joe Biden. | ||
| So what are they going to do with it? | ||
| Like, what is the outcome here? | ||
| Are they really going to take him out? | ||
| How are they going to do that? | ||
| Are they going to keep him in? | ||
| Is George Clooney going to run for president? | ||
| Yeah, Cash, I don't buy it. | ||
| I have been a skeptic of this for over a year now. | ||
| I mean, this conversation has been going on for a very long time. | ||
| It obviously accelerated in the aftermath of Joe Biden pooping his pants in front of the whole world in the CNN presidential debate there. | ||
| But this conversation has been going on slightly more in the background for a very long time. | ||
| And I have said Again, since the beginning, that he's not going anywhere literally as long as he has a pulse. | ||
| Obviously, if he stops breathing and his heart stops pumping, then we have a different conversation there. | ||
| But I have a few reasons for this. | ||
| One is Joe Biden has been here in Washington, D.C. | ||
| for literally a half century. | ||
| He first got here in 1974. | ||
| He has run for president three times. | ||
| The first time was before I was even born in 1988. | ||
| He has wanted this office for essentially his whole life. | ||
| And good luck trying to convince not just him, but his Lady Macbeth wife, so-called Dr. Jill. | ||
| Good luck convincing them at this point to just give up the reins of power now that they have it. | ||
| So that's point number one. | ||
| I mean, I just don't see the actual convincing working. | ||
| And point number two, which is kind of a direct corollary to that, is Every time that you have now a new Democratic backbencher, whether it's some random congressman or Senator Welch from Vermont who just comes out and says he's gotta go, I think Lady Macbeth and Uncle Joe just dig in their heels even further because they still feel piqued, they still feel aggrieved by what happened in 2016. | ||
| It's kind of a not very well kept secret that the Obama and Biden camps don't really like each other very much because Biden felt like he should have been the anointed successor to Joe Biden and then Obama chose Hillary Clinton and we all know what happened there when Donald Trump won that election heard around the world in 2016. | ||
| So you kind of add all this psychology combined there and then there's two other factors that I guess I should probably just also briefly mention. | ||
| So, I had on my own show, The Josh Hammer Show, last week, Trey Traynor, who's a sitting FEC Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, and we kind of got into the nitty-gritty of the actual federal campaign finance law. | ||
| Democrats have a huge, huge problem on their hands if they actually try to change horses midstream like that. | ||
| That's the basic takeaway from my conversation with Commissioner Traynor. | ||
| We are in uncharted waters of uncharted waters when it comes to what happens to the 200 plus million dollars currently sitting in Biden-Harris | ||
| campaign coffers. | ||
| A lot of people in the commentariat are saying, okay, maybe if you swap in Kamala, | ||
| then the money stays there. It's actually not even clear because those donors' cash, | ||
| they donate specifically to the Biden-Harris campaign, not to Harris-Whitmer, Harris-Newsom, | ||
| whatever. So there's some serious, serious legal obstacles there as well. | ||
| And then the final point that I'll make here, which, again, I've been saying all along, recall that this is a political party. | ||
| This is a party that literally chose Katonji Brown-Jackson for the U.S. | ||
| Supreme Court two and a half years ago, when Stephen Breyer retired, literally because she was a black woman. | ||
| They didn't care about the fact that 2% of lawyers across the country happen to be black | ||
| women. | ||
| They didn't care that they limited themselves to 2% of the national lawyer pool because | ||
| their intersectionality, their identity politics, that is their modern day pagan god. | ||
| So good luck at this point trying to shunt aside the first vice president of color, I | ||
| guess would be the correct nomenclature these days. | ||
| It's just not going to happen. | ||
| So I think that this is kind of a grand display of ultimately incompetence and ultimately just impotence from Democratic media elites who are shouting into the ether trying to make this happen. | ||
| But because of all these nuts and bolts factors, I just don't see it happening. | ||
| No, Hammer, thanks for setting me up, and the audience is going to think we had, like, hours and hours to prepare on this, but we literally are just meeting right now. | ||
| I'm going to rant for about 30 seconds and bring you right back. | ||
| On the Kamala Harris issue, I have to rant for a little bit. | ||
| I find it, as an Indian-American, wildly offensive that Kamala Harris, who is half Indian and raised by her Indian mother, is always referred to as black or African-American when her father is from Jamaica. | ||
| If you told that guy he was an African-American, he'd probably punch you. | ||
| And so your point about race politics, identity politics, or whatever you want to call it, and the mainstream media comes in roaring behind them to say, we would love to have a first black woman as president. | ||
| What about her actual heritage? | ||
| I mean, they don't even care what it is. | ||
| They just want to use whatever sells the best. | ||
| And so, you know, that's me on my Indian American soapbox. | ||
| I'm sure the FCC is going to come in here and shut down War Room in a hot minute. | ||
| But while we still have you, Hammer, we'll hold you through the break. | ||
| We've got about 90 seconds. | ||
| You outlined a perfect landscape. | ||
| And I didn't even think of the financials, honestly. | ||
| That's really brilliant. | ||
| Most people aren't even thinking about the hundreds of millions of dollars that is poured into Biden-Harris. | ||
| What happens to that? | ||
| Where do you see it going? | ||
| In about 90 seconds, we'll hold you over. | ||
| But what do you think is going to become of this in the next 30 days, in the lead up to their Democratic convention? | ||
| So I think that Biden's not going anywhere, Cash. | ||
| And the more that he doubles down, I mean, his letter to Congress on Monday was pretty clear. | ||
| I mean, he was really not mincing any words there. | ||
| I guess the best that he can, given the fact that he can't coherently finish a sentence in the English language. | ||
| But he was really not mincing any words. | ||
| And if they just ride this out for another week, look, the RNC, Trump are going to get all the headlines next week. | ||
| So that will be a week where Biden's relatively speaking out of the spotlight again. | ||
| So if they could just ride this out for another week, I think he basically survives. | ||
| At this point, maybe the only thing that would convince him, maybe, is if literally all the Democrat leaders in Congress, so Schumer, Jeffries, all of them, if they just do like an intervention of sorts in the Oval Office, maybe, maybe, maybe. | ||
| But I don't see it happening because, again, the logistical hurdles are so high. | ||
| There are serious logistical legal hurdles preventing this from happening. | ||
| And the more that these quotes get out there, the stupid George Clooney op-ed, the this, the that, you're just feeding RNC and Trump attack ads on the airwaves in October. | ||
| So I think eventually the media and these Democratic backbenchers will shut up and basically get in line. | ||
| So, I'm gonna hold, we got 10 seconds, I'm gonna hold you over, but when we come back, I want to talk about the irony of the 25th Amendment and whether or not these Democratic leaderships that you just outlined will use them. | ||
| We'll be right back, y'all. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Vance. | |
| All right, we're back here in the War Room. | ||
| I got Hammer. | ||
| I'm coming to you live from the sun coming up out here in Las Vegas, Nevada. | ||
| For all you East Coast heathens out there, there is a great American country to the west of the Mississippi. | ||
| I don't know why they allowed me to co-host War Room. | ||
| It's probably the worst idea that media has ever had, but we're going to see how this goes. | ||
| Hammer, we were talking about the 25th Amendment and the irony of The Democrats saying, oh, you got to take out Donald Trump with the 25th Amendment. | ||
| He's incapacitated. | ||
| He doesn't have the ability to govern. | ||
| Explain to us your thoughts on, will the Dems, because we know they have no boundaries and they're the biggest hypocrite, will they actually use the threat of the 25th privately? | ||
|
unidentified
|
And how would that work against Joe Biden? | |
| So the short answer is no, they're not gonna use it. | ||
| It's a fun talking point. | ||
| The 25th Amendment comes up every so often. | ||
| I mean, let's step back and like actually walk through just briefly the history and the context of the 25th Amendment. | ||
| So this was ratified in 1967 in the aftermath of the JFK assassination. | ||
| And they basically did it because it was all the chaos, LBJ getting sworn in. | ||
| And they were just trying to solidify essentially how succession works when a president is incapacitated, is literally comatose, or God forbid, if the president dies. | ||
| You know, it was never meant to be an excuse for a palace coup or an excuse for just some | ||
| sort of internal power struggle between the president and the vice president. | ||
| And more specifically, so it's actually section four of the 25th amendment that people are | ||
| currently invoking here. | ||
| That's a section that provides that when the vice president and a majority of the cabinet, | ||
| or I believe a two thirds majority of Congress, but we really typically focus on the vice | ||
| president and majority cabinet, if they combine to state solemnly and they sign whatever that | ||
| the president is incapable of discharging his duties, then he is removed. | ||
| But, again, Cash, I mean, I don't have to tell you. | ||
| I mean, this is Kamala Harris. | ||
| You know, this is like, this is Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. | ||
| Alejandro Mayorkas at DHS. | ||
| I mean, more accurately, really not at DHS. | ||
| I don't know where he is in any given day because he's obviously horrible. | ||
| Tony Blinken at State. | ||
| I could go on here. | ||
| I mean, the notion that these people are going to agree, a majority of them, to stage a coup against Joe Biden, it's ludicrous. | ||
| It is good political theater. | ||
| It may or may not be good for the country, given the fact that he's a corpse that will keel over and die at any moment. | ||
| But then you get Kamala Harris, so I guess good luck, pick your poison. | ||
| But it's not going to happen. | ||
| And to your point, Sorry, that roster call for me for the first time just illustrated how difficult that would be when you actually went through the names. | ||
| Because I don't think people bother to see who is going to move that kind of machinery. | ||
| But I think there is an individual or individuals in the media that would love to see that kind of machinery. | ||
| And I got cued up for something that I'd like you to comment on. | ||
| Your best friend, Joy Reid, had another nuclear meltdown over religious affiliations. | ||
| And I'd love to get your take on this. | ||
| We've talked about the embrace of religious fervor on the religious right, I mean on the American right, and why it is dangerous. | ||
| The Republican Party in this era of Donald Trump has allowed a small fringe white Christian nationalist movement to control the way the party, and much of this country, operates. | ||
| And so now, proud Christian nationalists are having their moment. | ||
| Not just creeping into the culture, but seeking to revamp and define it. | ||
| Charlie Kirk, professional troll and founder of Turning Point USA, embraces Christian nationalism and says things like, Christians need to view the election as a spiritual struggle to save Western civilization, and that Trump is crucial to restoring morality in America. | ||
| Right. | ||
| The convicted felon sexual abuser equals morality. | ||
| It's the kind of stuff that makes your brain hurt because it makes no sense. | ||
| Then there's the interesting choice by the New York Times to platform a far-right Christian extremist's musings on why he doesn't vote, which is code for, hey, maybe you shouldn't vote. | ||
| Matthew Walther, editor of a right-wing Catholic literary journal, writes, why does anyone vote? | ||
| I ask myself. | ||
| The answer cannot be that we believe that by doing so we will influence the outcome of an election. | ||
| No, actually, that's exactly why I vote and why everyone votes. | ||
| As it turns out, though, the New York Times has since made a correction after internet sleuths pointed out that this op-ed writer did in the two most recent election cycles. | ||
| Wait for it. | ||
| Vote. | ||
| Not voting, of course, means choosing a devastating agenda for LGBTQ people, women and girls, brown and black people, basically anyone who doesn't look like Charlie Kirk or Matthew Walker. | ||
| Okay, Hammer, there's only so much of Joy Reid I can take, and since I don't support Christian nationalism, I guess that makes me a communist of some sort, or maybe a racist, or I don't even know what. | ||
| But I know you're in D.C. | ||
| for NatCon, and you're the perfect guy to comment on what she was blathering on about. | ||
| What's your take? | ||
| Yeah, good old joyless Joy Reid is my buddy from home calls her. | ||
| Look, so I am here for NatCon. | ||
| You know, Cash, my panel that I spoke on two days ago, actually, was titled, Separation of Church and State Has Failed. | ||
| And, you know, this panel was interesting because I'm Jewish, one of my co-panelists was Catholic, and there were two Protestants on the panel, and we all agree that so-called separation of church and state, which, by the way, is not actually there in the First Amendment. | ||
| If you actually read the First Amendment, it very simply says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. | ||
| It says nothing whatsoever about a so-called separation of church and state wall, which comes from this... basically a tweet. | ||
| It comes from a 233-word letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802. | ||
| It's crazy. | ||
| But more generally speaking, this debate over nationalism and Christian nationalism... Look, America was founded as a deeply religious country. | ||
| Now, it's true that they said Congress shall make no law respecting an official state religion. | ||
| But it was actually just a federalism provision. | ||
| Clarence Thomas has said this over and over again. | ||
| He's totally right. | ||
| They did that so that the states could actually establish their own churches. | ||
| And in fact, they did that well into the 9th century. | ||
| In fact, that noted far-right fascist bastion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had an established church of Congregationalism all the way until 1833. | ||
| I think Connecticut might have gone even longer there. | ||
| So the notion that religion in public life was anathema to the founders has no credibility whatsoever. | ||
| The founding was deeply, deeply inspired by the Bible, by scripture. | ||
| Benjamin Franklin famously wanted The Great Seal of the United States to be Moses parting the Red Sea for the Israelites to cross from Pharaoh and the Egyptian pursuers there. | ||
| A number of other examples as well there. | ||
| Look, America, Keshe, and I say this as a Jew, America is a better place when it is a more Christian place. | ||
| America is a more powerful country when Christians are emboldened to be more publicly and visibly and politically active Christians in the public square. | ||
| Christians are better, Jews are better, all Americans are better, and the country is better as a whole. | ||
| I think you can tie basically a direct line from declining church attendance in this country to so many of the woke maladies that we are currently facing. | ||
| And the idea that you have to be a white man to say this, it's just absolutely nuts. | ||
| I don't buy it for a second, Cash. | ||
| We got 30 seconds left. | ||
| I think you surmised it pretty well. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Just somewhere everybody can find you working on in your book. | |
| Yeah, so I'm on Twitter at Josh underscore Hammer. | ||
| Instagram is JoshBHammer. |
Export Selection