Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 30, 2024 - Bannon's War Room

51:52

Episode 3793: Dems Plan To Pack SCOTUS; The Permanent Government In DC

Participants

Main voices

ben harnwell

14:17

mark paoletta

12:51

rand paul

05:07

Appearances

Clips

elie mystal

00:10

jake tapper

00:08

joe biden

00:45

joy reid

00:09

kash patel

00:35

steve bannon

00:15

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		And from my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas.
		And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.
		You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S.
		Senate rather than hung from a tree.
joe biden ▲ ● ▼		Calling for a constitutional amendment called no one is above the law amendment.
		It holds... I mean this sincerely, it holds no immunity for crimes former president committed while in office.
		I share our founder's belief that the president must answer to the law.
		The president is accountable for the exercise of the great power of the presidency.
		We're a nation of laws, not kings and dictators.
		The decision can be boiled down to the title of one case, Trump versus the United States.
unidentified		This idea of a constitutional amendment, it's met with a great deal of sentimental support.
		How practical is it?
		Have you thought about how that would actually unfold?
		Well, you know, they have to be adopted by a majority, super majority of the states, in addition to passing through the Congress.
		I suspect that this could go fairly quickly.
		You have to understand what a truly bizarre aberration the Trump versus United States decision was.
		It is very peculiar.
		It creates an immunity that is not found in the Constitution anywhere.
		Except the Constitution has one immunity.
		It's for legislators.
		To protect them from being harassed and attacked by the executive branch so they can go about doing their duty.
		So the Founding Fathers thought about this and they put in immunity for certain types of legislative officials, for certain types of legislative conduct, but not things like treason.
		And then along comes the Supreme Court and says, no, no, the founding fathers got it wrong.
		We know better than they do.
		They never mentioned immunity for the president, but we're going to make that up and we're going to give that to him.
		And by the way, we'll include treason.
		It just makes no sense.
		So I think it's going to be.
		It's a pretty rotten decision, and things that are rotten tend to stink, and stinks tend to stick, and I think that moves the public.
		The real interesting things I find with Project 2025 is that there's no section on the Supreme Court, right?
		And the reason why there's no section on the Supreme Court is because they already have it.
		They've already captured it.
elie mystal ▲ ● ▼		And so Project 2025 is looking to make the DOJ work hand-in-hand with the Supreme Court, which has already gutted the Voting Rights Act, which has already gutted affirmative action, literally made it illegal.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		This is the primal scream of a dying regime.
unidentified		Pray for our enemies, because we're going medieval on these people.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		You're not going to free shot all these networks lying about the people.
unidentified		The people have had a belly full of it.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		I know you don't like hearing that.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		It's going to happen.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼		And where do people like that go to share the big line?
unidentified		MAGA Media.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼		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?
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved.
unidentified		War Room. Here's your host, Stephen K. Babb.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Good morning. Hanul Hiyatahel on Tuesday 30th of July, anno dormini, 2020.
		A little later on the show, we're going to be discussing Anthony Blinken, I think probably to date the highest administration official now demanding election integrity, saying that every vote has to count and calling on folks.
		electoral transparency.
		Obviously he's not interested in the United States of America, but we'll be looking at
		that a little later on in the show and digging down what the consequences might actually
		mean for the United States itself as we prepare for November 5th.
		What many commentators, including this one here, will speculate will also be an issue
		confronting election integrity.
		First of all, Mark, pay a letter.
		We're going to discuss, I think probably the most substantial issue facing the United States right now.
unidentified		There are a couple of things here to do.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		With these Biden proposals, some of them involve being a formal constitutional amendment, others simply achieved by legislation.
		I wonder if you could sort of break down the difference between what's going on here.
		But we're talking, as I see it, there are three substantial things here.
		There's the there's the presidential immunity.
		There were the term limits and this sort of this process for Good morning, Mark.
		Could you explain what the process is for these three things?
		And then we'll discuss the realistic prospects of actually seeing them arrive formally.
mark paoletta ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Thanks, Ben.
		Thanks for having me on.
		You know, this continues the ratcheting up on the Supreme Court in particular by the left to destroy it.
		Biden's proposal.
		One is this this constitutional amendment.
		No one is above the law.
		Some crazy thing like that.
		As Chief Justice Roberts said, It is the law, right, in terms of immunity for a president
		that's baked into our Constitution and its separation of powers, with the executive power
		being wholly vested in the executive.
		And so that's why he has immunity from our founders and they set up the Constitution.
		This is going nowhere fast, fast.
		A constitutional amendment, supermajority in the Congress and then out to the states and a majority, I think it's three quarters.
		I haven't even looked at this recently because it's going nowhere.
		More focused on the attacks on the court.
		But essentially it's going nowhere.
		It'll never get ratified.
		There is no support for it.
		And Biden is just throwing a sop to the left because he's a failed president.
		The more nefarious ones in my view are these proposals on the Supreme Court and what Biden proposed is an 18 year term limit on Supreme Court justices.
		And what he calls an enforceable code of ethics.
		With respect to the—both of them are unconstitutional, I'll tell you why—with respect to the 18-year term limit, you know, the Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, you know, in the Constitution.
		It says for good behavior, which has been interpreted to be for life.
		And that's important because we don't want justices, in my view, and I think the founders' view, to be worrying about their life after being on the court for 15 years or whatever, okay?
		We want them to be Honest and impartial and have no concern about kind of where they go from here.
		So I think it's a good system.
		But if you're going to change it, you need a constitutional amendment.
		What Biden does, and I think it's tracking off, you saw the most vicious attacker of the Supreme Court, Senator Whitehouse, a hypocrite par excellence, but is that They would have the president appoint a justice in the first and third year of their presidencies, essentially adding nine justices to the Supreme Court and then taking away the jurisdiction for the most senior justices to be able to sit on cases.
		So it's not like you're term limiting.
		They could sit on the Supreme Court.
		The proposal would be to deny those justices the ability to sit on most of the court's cases.
		That's clearly unconstitutional, but it's this end run around a constitutional amendment, okay?
		It's a wacky idea that will never happen, but that's what they're pushing.
		That's what White House has been pushing.
		That's what this Biden proposal pushes.
		So that the first person that would be affected by that is Justice Thomas.
		He would be basically disqualified from sitting on cases, okay?
		He wouldn't be off the Supreme Court.
		He would basically be just like a senior justice.
		And then the second part of Biden's proposal, Um, is, uh, this so called enforceable code of ethics.
		The Supreme Court has an ethic, a code of ethics.
		Okay.
		They've been following codes of ethics for many, many years.
		There's no ethics crisis.
		There's no one who can point to a single case or anything where justice had a conflict of interest or that, you know, shape their, their jurors prudence.
		Um, but because of all the hubbub last year on the attack, the code, the court did adopt one that essentially packaged up what they had been following.
		Right.
		And, and, and, and now Biden, And actually, Elena Kagan, shockingly, say that you need some kind of outside body that will enforce that code of ethics.
		OK, and there's some suggestions it would be lower court judges.
		But that's unconstitutional, right?
		The Supreme Court is established in the Constitution.
		All lower courts are created by Congress and they are inferior courts.
		So to have like lower court judges sitting to rule on ethics allegations or recusal complaints against their bosses is Unworkable, but also unconstitutional.
		And all it is, is to get sort of the camel's nose under the tent, right?
		To allow all these sorts of ethics complaints on all crazy things, like just the absurdity, right?
		Of somebody flying a flag at their home, and they should be disqualified from a case, or you should be impeached for doing something like that, right?
		That's what they want.
		They want a system that's going to allow an avalanche of ethics complaints To go after the justices and then have these other lower court judges, some of whom may have it in for these justices, right, to rule on it.
		And so it's it's not constitutional because there's nothing that can sit on the Supreme Court.
		And at the end of the day, people will say, well, who will do it?
		Our system is set up where it's the Supreme Court.
		These are good people on the Supreme Court.
		Right.
	We may disagree with their opinions.
	We may think they're too liberal.
	We may think whatever, but they're good.
	Ethical people.
	And until somebody shows otherwise, you know, this is a fool's errand to advocate for what's called an enforceable code of ethics.
	We can talk more on those things.
	I'll talk about Congress and how unethical they are, but go ahead.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Mark, so basically the Supreme Court itself can strike down quite legitimately any legislative sort of act that would limit their discretion as unconstitutional, if that's what you're saying.
		So this is a purely performative act then on behalf of President Biden to release this proposal.
		Is that right?
		Is it totally performative?
		Is that right?
mark paoletta ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's performative.
		Again, let me put it this way.
		Yes, it's not going anywhere right now.
		If the left wins in November, I do believe that the left has just jumped the shark.
		And when I say the left, I mean the Democrat Party.
		And if they win the presidency in the House and Senate, I do believe they will pack the court.
		This thing about term limits and all that stuff, they can enact that.
		I don't think the Supreme Court would go along with it.
		But it is dangerous in the sense that if they win in November, I do think that they will destroy the Supreme Court as we know it.
		And it's not an overstatement to sort of say, like, we will descend into or we could descend into Venezuela-like, you know, chaos.
		We saw a great country where the socialists, communists took over the Supreme Court.
		They packed it from, I think, 14 justices to 24.
		And I think it's like 45,000 opinions that were all in favor of the government.
		And so it is dangerous.
		It's not going anywhere right now.
		But it is dangerous and must be pushed back on.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		It was FDR, right, who first presented formally this concept of court packing in order to get through his unconstitutional National Recovery Act.
mark paoletta ▲ ● ▼		But let me point something out on that, Ben, because, you know, people talk about about FDR and sort of how he failed, but he didn't fail, right?
		I mean, there was some blowback on it, but at the end of the day, you know what he did?
		He broke a justice, Justice Owen Roberts.
		There's this old saying you may have heard.
		A switch in time saved nine.
		And that's because the Supreme Court was striking down FDR's unconstitutional New Deal, a massive expansion of federal power.
		And he went after them and wanted to pack the court.
		And what happened is that Justice Owen Roberts switched his vote under the pressure.
		Right.
		And so that's what I thought.
		And so he didn't need to pack the court.
		He now had a Supreme Court to vote on his new deal.
		OK.
		Mike Lee has a great book, Saving Nine, that goes through this.
		And so the point is, I think the left thought they could do that this time around and break some of our justices.
		OK.
		And it didn't happen.
		And that's a good thing.
unidentified		Right.
mark paoletta ▲ ● ▼		The strength of the conservative justices to not bend to the left's assaults.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		We've got 40 seconds.
		I'm going to ask you the question now.
		Perhaps you can give me your response after the break.
		But you know, the one thing that I admire about the Democrats Even someone flailing and failing and disappearing, like President Biden, is that they're always normally on the attack.
		They're always pushing us onto the back foot into the defensive posture.
		I'm going to pick up on what I think was Ellie Mistel, who said it in the cold open, that what was lacking or absent from Project 25 are what Trump's proposals for the Supreme Court would be.
		I sort of think that there's a legitimate point in that.
		Because I think it's an opportunity for the GOP now, not for the GOP, for Trump, for Donald Trump himself, to suggest a constitutional amendment.
		And in five seconds, we're going to the break.
		But my question would be, why can't we have a constitutional amendment limiting the number of Supreme Court justices?
unidentified		Here's your host, Stephen K. Bamm.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back here with Mark Paletta from the Center for Renewing America.
		Mark, we were just talking about FDR and his threat, successful threat, to pack the Supreme Court.
		He would have had no power, not even implicitly, to to make that threat were the Constitution to have fixed the
		number of Supreme Court justices, which as far as I'm aware has changed through time, right?
		I think it started off with seven or something and then grew up to nine towards the end, I
		don't know, of the 1800s.
		But nine, I think, has been fixed for well over a century.
		If nine were the number, however, that was fixed in the Constitution, no president, not Donald Trump, not Joe Biden, no future president would be able to make this threat and have it hanging over the Supreme Court's head.
		So in talking, following on from Ellie Mistel's point in the cold open, Why doesn't the GOP, instead of reacting always to what the Democrats are doing, why don't we come forward with our own proposal for a constitutional amendment fixing the number of Supreme Court justices?
mark paoletta ▲ ● ▼		Look, I think nine is a great number.
		There are some efforts on the right to have a constitutional amendment.
		There's an ally, Roman Buehler, has a group I think called Saving Nine, which advocates for a constitutional amendment.
		Look, even if you had a constitutional amendment, right, just like you're seeing with this presidential immunity, the left could say, we want a new constitutional amendment to increase it to 13 or whatever, right?
		So you're always going to have the left trying to battle, you know, to control the court, whether it's by packing it or taking away their jurisdiction or things like that.
		Again, Ellie Mistal is just furious that we've been very successful.
		President Trump appointing three justices that have revolutionized American jurisprudence in a good way back to its founding principles.
		Uh, you know, starting with Justice Thomas back in 91, uh, and him laying out this, this, this roadmap, uh, for the current court.
		But, you know, I, so I think project 2025, I haven't read, uh, their, their, their, their, their work.
		I know there's a lot of great ideas in there.
		Um, but on this, I think it's, they were more focused on the executive branch type things.
		But look, you know, if there's an amendment for nine on the Supreme Court, that would
		be great because the left wants to make it harder, certainly, Ben, to try and control
		the Supreme Court.
		But I do think even if you had a constitutional amendment, you know, there could be a threat
		of getting another one.
		Right.
		So it's really winning the power, the idea that we want an independent court.
		If you look at the polling, like 90 percent of the American people want an independent
		court.
		So when you think about that, that means, you know, left or right, like this is a separate
		branch of government that should be that should be independent and not bullied by and not
		be a rubber stamp for Congress.
		That's what makes our country so great and so wonderful.
		The left doesn't like it though.
		And we always have to fight these battles.
		I do think this is our greatest Supreme Court in a hundred years and it's worth defending.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Here's a question for you, Mark, on term limits, which I think you said earlier for the Supreme Court.
		I mean, the whole thing, all of it is unconstitutional from start to finish, right?
		But just to keep the discussion open for term limits when it comes to the Supreme Court, the proposal itself comes from Joe Biden, who's been grifting as president now, or resident, I should say, White House resident.
		But this is a guy who spent like nearly 50 years in the Senate, right?
mark paoletta ▲ ● ▼		Here's a grifter as a senator.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Fifty years.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Why don't we fight back and say, before we discuss term limits for the Supreme Court, let's discuss term limits for the House of Representatives and the Senate?
mark paoletta ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, look, I've been somebody that, you know, the American people know when they want to get rid of their their representative or their senator.
		And, you know, let let let the battles and elections play out in that way.
		There's term limits on presidents.
		It is funny that Joe Biden, who should have left after his first term, but didn't understand how incapable he was, decided to run for a second term.
		So but it's it's just an attack on the court.
		to try and lessen their role in our constitutional structure.
		So, term limits, and some people, I think on the right, have suggested term limits for justices.
		I don't agree with them.
		And if you think about it, what is it to do?
		It's supposed to keep pace with the times.
		It's supposed to, I'm not exactly sure what it's supposed to do.
		What I find, right, is that these lifetime justices from the old days, the liberals,
		who tried to change the constitution to keep up with the times, right?
		That's what they were doing.
		That's exactly what they should not be doing.
		So, you know, whether a justice has been on the court for 10 years or 30 years, our greatest Supreme Court justice has been on the Supreme Court for 33 years.
		That's Clarence Thomas, okay?
		And it's first principles.
		It doesn't matter how long you've been on the court.
		If you're doing your job, right, it doesn't matter, right?
		First principles, constitutional principles are immutable and they stay that way
		if the legislature wants to change things.
		So I found that long-term serving justices like Justice Brennan, right,
		tried to kind of keep up with the times and change the constitution in a living constitution way.
		And that's a terrible idea.
		So I'm not sure what term limits would do to that other than make them more susceptible to post-employment sort of opportunities and kind of affect their jurisprudence that way.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think, and this is what scares me, because knowing how the how the Uniparty works, how Republicans and Democrats alike are very able to work together when it's to maximise their own power and lack of accountability.
		I think the consequence of this is that it would bring the Supreme Court more under the control.
		of Congress, fundamentally.
		And looking at Biden's proposal as is, of having these 18-year term limits and then
		up to 18 justices, it would politicize.
		If you think the court is politicized at the moment because Senate needs to confirm the
		president's nomination.
		Having this process would massively politicize the Supreme Court a lot more.
		Mark, just before you go, what would you suggest the posse needs to look out for as these proposals start to be talked about?
		And I understand and I agree with you that they're not really going to go anywhere.
		But what should people be looking for in terms of immediate developments?
mark paoletta ▲ ● ▼		First of all, Ben, that was a great, great point.
		Really well said on how it will increase the politicization of the court and the congressional control over the court.
		Look, you know, all of these ethics complaints, that's what that's what they're coming out with now.
		Biden's come up with this proposal.
		So all the Democrats are running in behind him to prop up all of these lies about Justice Thomas, about Justice Alito.
		You know, read and get out there and defend the Supreme Court.
		You can follow me at Mark Palletta on X or my website MarkPalletta.com.
		That's got a lot of information about why this court is an ethical court, this court
		is a superb court, that all of these attacks are partisan and meant to undermine our greatest
		institution right now in the United States.
		And again, just to go back on to Congress, there are no conflict of interest laws for
		So Sheldon Whitehouse gets to vote on things that directly affect his wife's clients.
		And they allow somebody like Bob Menendez, a foreign agent, a paid foreign agent, walking around the halls of Congress for years when the Senate Ethics Committee did absolutely nothing.
		And this guy's still in the Senate.
		He's been convicted.
		So talk about ethics.
		Talk about enforceable ethics.
		They are hypocrites.
		They are the biggest hypocrites in the world when they attack the Supreme Court.
		Fix your own house.
		They're at 17% approval, 68.5% disapproval.
		The American people despise Congress.
		And they have the audacity to go after ethical and honorable people like Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.
		It's despicable.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Mark Payletter, thanks very much for coming on the show today.
		You are the perfect guest.
		You even spontaneously produced your own social media references for folks to go to.
		We'll catch up with you soon.
		And thanks for the debriefing.
		God bless.
mark paoletta ▲ ● ▼		Thanks, Ben.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Let's quickly go to the short video we have now for Paul Dance, and then we'll bounce straight off that.
joy reid ▲ ● ▼		It is imperative that every American understand what Project 2025 is about and how it would affect every single one of us if it was ever enacted.
unidentified		It's remarkable that Trump, this is even a remarkable thing to say, but the most extreme things that Trump says he tends to say for white Christian audiences.
		statement about he could walk down Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody in the leg, that was at
		Evangelical College that he made that statement. So I don't think this is hyperbole. I mean,
		I really do think, like this document, we are getting in real time a telegraphed statement
		about what they intend to do. And it's an authoritarian, white, Christian, nationalist
		vision, where, as you said, it's white Christian men who are at the top of the power pyramid.
		The word order appears over and over in ordered society, a well-ordered society, ordered liberty.
		All that is code for hierarchy, right? It's this old 19th century vision that has this ancient,
		and it's not all Christians to be sure, but this older vision of a white Christian America
		really baked into the center of it. So it alarms you the most.
		There's actually two sentences.
		Out of all this 900 pages that I think were the most chilling to me to read, I'm just going to read them here.
		They said, an individual must be free to live as his creator ordained in order to flourish.
		Our Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought.
		Now, who gets to define that ought?
		The very next sentence gives us a clue.
		The pursuit of the good life is found primarily in family, marriage, children, Thanksgiving dinners, and the like.
		So that other 900 pages, that's in the foreword, this document.
		The other 900 pages really are about that 1950s Norman Rockwell vision of a white Christian America, you know, with white Christian men and their heterosexual marriages kind of reigning up here and everybody else knowing their place.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Paul Downs, we've got like a minute before we head into the break.
		Could you just sort of give us a very quick response to that?
		Is that what Project 2025 is?
		Is it Norman Rockwell's 1950s vision of white Christians?
		Is that really what this project's about?
unidentified		This project's about restoring self-governance.
		It's about putting Americans back in the room of their own government.
		What it isn't about is drag queens running around on the south lawn of the White House and being saluted as the bravest people.
		No, the bravest people were the ones who fought and died and sacrificed for this country over 200 years.
		And it's not what we're seeing, the blasphemy, the Olympics, And this really diabolical group.
		So, you know, to the extent that people want to live and let live, we're for that, but we have to be free to follow it in each his own religion.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Perfect response, Paul.
unidentified		We'll be back in two minutes after the break.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Government gangsters are the group of individuals, career bureaucrats, who have been installed by what we call the Deep State into every agency and department in the United States government.
		Had Donald Trump not won in 2016, he would not have exposed the flank of the Deep State and their weapon of choice, the two-tier system of justice.
		From Russiagate, to Hunter Biden's laptop, to Joe Biden's classified documents case, to January 6th, to the 51 Intel letter, and everything in between.
		We would never have learned that.
		These people are dangerous and vindictive, learning from their mistakes and perfecting ways to hide their corruption.
unidentified		It is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Welcome, welcome back.
		The petrodollar is crumbling before our eyes.
		Saudi Arabia just declined to renew the 50-year-long petrodollar agreement, which means the U.S.
		dollar's global dominance is now riding on fumes.
		How much longer until the dollar crashes in value?
		Nobody knows for sure, but it's always best to be prepared.
		I believe owning gold is the best solution.
		Why?
		Because gold safeguards your savings outside the dollar-connected financial system.
		So if a crash happens, your hard-earned money will be protected inside precious metals.
		Plus, with a gold IRA from Birch Gold Group, you can move your IRA or 401k into physical gold without paying any taxes or penalties.
		To learn more, get a free info kit on gold IRAs by going to birchgold.com-bannon.
		That's birchgold.com-bannon.
		Birchgold Group is the gold company that helps patriots defend their savings.
		So take a stand right now.
		Go to birchgold.com-bannon and get your free info kit on gold I always welcome back here with Paul Dancer.
		Twenty twenty five presidential transition.
		Project Director Paul, at the beginning of the show we had this segment in the Cold Open where the folks, I think it was MSNBC and Ellie Mistel specifically, highlighted the absence from Project 2025 of any suggestion to do with the Supreme Court.
		Before we dig further into recent developments with Project 2025, could you just give us your response to Ellie Mistel there?
		Why is there nothing in the 900 pages on the Supreme Court?
unidentified		Well, I guess my first take is a little encouragement that he may have actually read some of it,
		notwithstanding the blanket lies they say.
		He's correct.
		We don't talk about it.
		The project, like Mark had said, is really an approach to the executive branch.
		That is looking at what to retake the government and put people back in place.
		This government of buying for the people.
		We have to start with the executive branch where the president really is the sole repositor.
		of the executive power.
		So yes, we don't address the Supreme Court.
		And you know, Ali, for his, you know, he's a curious character that he's even opining
		on legal structures.
		I think he struggled in memory service to even pass the bar exam in New York state.
		So, you know, just to get a glimpse of the misinformation, though, that comes out of their mouths and this great disinformation campaign that was a hoax against the project and President Trump, I think is important for the listeners to know.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think it's the sign that what you're suggesting in these 900 pages is so important and necessary, also with regards to fulfilling the MAGA agenda.
		It's a sign of that, that you can see the level of opposition, the fact that the vested interests And their allies in the mainstream media are going on so hard attacking this, your work, not only of your effectiveness, but of actually what this might mean to fulfilling the MAGA agenda.
		So there's nothing underhand about the lack of proposals in there.
		There's nothing sinister about your reforms.
		potential reforms for the Supreme Court are so dramatic, you're not even putting them in Project 2025.
		It's simply because you're concentrating on the office of the executive in this instance.
unidentified		Yeah, that's correct.
		I think, you know, we obviously also don't go much into congressional rules and the operation of the Legislative branch.
		But to be clear, you know, this project, why it unnerves them to such an extent is that, you know, the jig is up.
		We got their number.
		What Kash Patel is talking about there is really the operation of the deep state.
		And those of us who are outsiders, You walk into this government and you realize there is a permanent government in Washington.
		And it's it works to the exclusion of people listening to this broadcast and all over the country to solve the earth.
		People who make the world go every day.
		The reality is that in order to take this back the swamp isn't going to drain itself.
		We need outsiders coming in and committed to doing this.
		And it's not impossible.
		With Project 2025, we built a pathway to encourage folks to do this.
		Now, to be clear, the misinformation, this is not Donald Trump's Project 2025.
		This was stood up years ago in 2022 as really a coming together of the conservative movement.
		We brought over 110 groups together.
		And this is what also rankles the left is that there is a unified group of conservatives on the right that we're not you know in our kind of sibling rivalry constantly.
		But we've come together and on important areas and really outlined that the threat That we don't accomplish what we need to do is really the architecture of this progressive government that's been built up.
		And it's only when you kind of realize the operating system the matrix that we're dealing with that you can begin to affect change.
		So that's the real threat.
		You know when we we lay out personnel proposals like Schedule F That really is a signal that, you know, why the president is the democratic mechanism by which the people indicate which policies they want.
		But why should there be a group of folks right below the president who are countermanding and counteracting what the voters just asked for?
		And that's really the essence of it.
		So at the end of the day, the great conceit is that Project 25 is actually here to restore our constitutional republic.
		What you're seeing from the left is not an assault on Project 2025.
		It's really Projection 2025.
		Who is the dictator?
		Who has been acting?
		Who is in charge of these lockdowns?
		Who forced people to take the jab in order to put bread on their table for their kids?
		Who are the people who are monitoring and de-platforming people on social media who are criticizing Who are the people who are surveilling Catholics en masse?
		Those are the folks who are operating in the 1984 environment.
		And Project 2025 is just calling it out.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Paul, we're going to go in a moment to a live feed discussing the failures with the Secret Service operation to defend President Trump.
		Before we do that, there's a question I think of absolute vital importance that I have to put to you.
		Watching as closely as I did, and I'm sure you did as well, Trump's first administration, the problem with the resistance within the bureaucracy, within the system to him, that went all the way up, resistance that went all the way up to, quite overtly, all the way up to the cabinet.
		What you did, I think, with this project, 2025, was really, I think, the most concerted effort,
		probably the only effort I've seen, especially with regards to what you were talking about
		before on Schedule F, to come in this time and not have those errors, that crisis of hitting
		and going to the bureaucracy next time around.
		If it weren't for this document, for your 900 pages of research and suggestions,
		I am not aware of any similar work that has been done here so that when it comes round to the second administration,
		there won't just be a repeat of this like last time.
		I mean, as far as I'm aware, that's the case.
		There's no other substantial work on how to wheel Schedule F for an incoming Trump administration beyond the work that you guys have done with all the NGOs and all the participants and all the think tanks allied together work on this.
		I'm not aware of any other work that is being done on this to help give suggestions to the next Trump administration.
unidentified		Well, there's a causal link relationship between what you're going to go to that.
		How did the president, former president, get assassinated?
		And then back up to, well, we have a weaponized Department of Justice and we have very little political control.
		That's really, you know, we correct these efforts.
		We don't get Butler.
		Pennsylvania.
		You can't divorce one from the other.
		Now, there is a work.
		It's Agenda 47.
		That's the president's campaign.
		And that's where people really should turn.
		But Project 2025 was four-part.
		And the initial proposals and policy we put forward two years ago were to kind of guide any conservative coming aboard, throwing his or her hat in the ring.
		This is what conservatives want to see.
		But to be clear, it only changes when people get involved.
		And that's the other elements of Project 2025.
		It's a recruiting effort.
		It's a training effort.
		And it's really an encouragement of setting the map because, you know, it's from God's, you know, from the President's lips to God's ears that change is going to happen.
		It really happens below him or her.
		And and that's the importance of recognizing that personnel is really the cornerstone of the change we need to make.
		And the left has done this.
		You know we're just iterating on what the left does.
		We're reverse engineering.
		I'm kind of your community.
		You know you're a community organizer and chief if you will.
		But We are one-tenth the compliment of what the left does, and it's important that people keep heart and drive.
		As Steve says, it's the power of this audience that's going to make the change.
		And free banning, I didn't want to go off without we need to we have our most powerful, you know, voice on our side of the movement, one of the most powerful thrown in the break here.
		So if you need a daily reminder, we should have a countdown clock or something, you know, tie yellow ribbon around the trees when I grew up the Iran hostages, but he is he's a hostage for freedom right now.
		And we have to realize what we're against.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		I think there were 98 days to go.
		So definitely on that point, for folks listening active on social media, even as we're going out on a hashtag Tree Steve, just to synthesize what you were saying there on regards to this schedule, you didn't use the words, but you came close to the schedule.
		Personnel is policy, right?
		OK, Paul Dams, thanks for coming on the show now.
		We're going to just, it was a perfect segue of what you were saying about the lapses now on defending the president.
		We're going to go hand over to this live feed.
		Just before we do that, Paul, where do people go quickly to keep up with your contributions to the debate?
		Where can they get the Project 2025 tone?
unidentified		Sure.
		I'm new to social media, but join me.
		I'm at Paul Dan's on Truth and Paul Dan's USA on X, kind of a walk the walk.
		Now I'm learning to talk the talk, if you will.
		But, you know, join me there and also check out Project 2025.
		If you want the truth about Project 2025, go to project2025truth.com, and that will direct you to dispelling a lot of the misinformation, disinformation of the left.
		And you should push that out.
		Push back against some of your neighbors and their groups.
		Just completely fallacious stuff.
		We don't even mention Social Security.
		So when they start saying Trump's Project 2025 wants to take away our Social Security, neither of those things are true.
		It's not Trump's, and we don't even talk about Social Security.
		It's just one big bald-faced lie.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		I might just quickly add, before we cut to this live feed, that JD Vance has a lot of strong following on this show amongst the War Room posse.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		I might just add now that he has written the forward right to Project 2025.
unidentified		Again, another piece of misinformation, this is all in real time.
		He wrote a foreword to a forthcoming book by the President of Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts.
		Project 2025 is, you know, a foreword is actually by Dr. Roberts in that book.
		But again, you know, we've had supporters from all over.
		The bottom line is the left doesn't actually want you to read the book.
		They just want to make things up.
		It's a great conceit and a really diminishment of their own side to say things that we support or not.
		But the bottom line is it's all about President Trump's, in this case, his Agenda 47.
		So these are offerings that all think tanks do on the left and the right.
		This is kind of what think tanks do.
		So the fact that they're gaslighting about it is really extraordinary.
		But Remember, it's a deflection from all their failed policies and their dictatorial ambitions to come.
		If you liked your doctor, you can keep it.
		The new future we should be talking about is if you like your house, you can keep it.
		If you like your car, you can keep it.
		Because that's where this is going.
		Celebrate your last cheeseburgers, because if Kamala has her way, we're all going to be eating bugs.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		We're definitely going to come back to the Democrats.
		Gaslighting later on in the show as we dig down on Tony Blinken's call for election integrity in Venezuela.
		Paul, Dan, thanks very much for coming on the show.
		We'll catch up again with you soon.
		God bless.
unidentified		God bless.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		OK, we're going to hand over now to this live feed and we'll be back here in studio a little later.
unidentified		Was stuck or siloed in that state and local channel.
		I will tell you though that there were Our tactical elements did have not only did they have embeds from Butler County ESU with them, but they also had radios on the tactical net It is troubling to me that we did not get that information as quickly as we should have.
		We didn't know that there was this incident going on, and the only thing we had was that locals were working an issue at the three o'clock, which would have been the former president's right-hand side, which is where the shot came.
		Nothing about man on the roof, nothing about man with a gun, none of that information ever made it over our net.
		So that will change?
		Yes, sir.
		We are working right now to figure out the interoperability and also make sure that we do have access to those channels, whether through a counterpart system or some other means.
		Very good.
		Ranking Member Paul, I recognize for your questions.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		Director Rowe, I'm encouraged by your attitude, what you brought here today, what you've talked about as far as immediate changes that you've made, and I hope you'll follow through with that.
		I'm encouraged by the fact that you acknowledge that it's indefensible that the roof was unattended.
		Would you say the roof being unattended breaches standard protocol for setting up a security perimeter?
unidentified		What I would say, Senator, is that that roof should have had better coverage, and we will get to the bottom of if there were any policy violations.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		I would think indefensible would go along with breaching protocol, and I can't imagine how indefensible would not be breaching protocol.
		What I would caution, though, is that I sense, you know, and you're the Secret Service, and these people are your friends, and they are heroic people who do good things.
		You're correct, sir.
		friendships blind us from responsibility. So someone's in charge of the security
		at the zone. Would the Secret Service be in charge of the entire operation and
		they work with law enforcement but they're in charge. The person in charge
		of the entire operation is the Secret Service not the local police. You're
		correct sir this is a failure of the Secret Service. So that's what I mean.
		And look, I don't wish anybody harm.
		I appreciate the bravery of the Capitol Hill Police.
		I was at the shooting at the ball field.
		I've heard a hundred shots coming my way.
		Fortunately, none came to me.
		But I appreciate the bravery of all the people who protect us.
		But there's also the idea that there are certain mistakes that don't make you a bad person, but they're just inexcusable if you made that mistake.
		So, for example, let's say you determine, well, local police should have been on there, and they told us.
		And local police says, no, they didn't tell us to do it, and it's a he said, she said.
		Still, ultimately, the agent in charge should be walking the grounds and say, there's a roof 100 yards away from the stadium with a clear sight.
		Someone's got to be on the roof.
		Local police, I told you to get on the roof.
		Get on the roof.
		Or you put the secret service.
		So ultimately, the buck doesn't pass along to somebody.
		Whoever's in charge is in charge.
		But really I think it would be helpful to all of us.
		I know the process has to be meted out, but there needs to also be a process for protecting the next Trump rally.
		The fact that whoever was in charge in Butler next week is not in charge of a rally in Las Vegas.
		And so I think you really should say that.
		You should simply say that the leadership from that event is going through a process, but until that process, they won't be in charge of the Democrat National Convention.
		That would reassure a lot of people that they won't be in charge of security until it's determined.
		Can you tell us something to that accord?
unidentified		Yes, sir.
		So I can tell you that the team planning the Democratic National Convention, that is a national special security vet.
		That team has been on the ground.
		That's from D.C.
		with support from our Chicago field office.
		But I just want to reiterate that our Pittsburgh field office staff They are wearing this harder than anybody right now in the Secret Service.
		They feel completely demoralized.
		And what I'm trying to do is also let them know that, listen, they need to be focused on the mission at hand.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		I also have to walk a tightrope here and make sure that I am not I understand and I have great respect for all the officers but ultimately someone had to be in charge and someone made a terrible error and it's an error of judgment.
		The big error is the roof.
		But another big error is we have 90 minutes of a suspicious person.
		Now, Senator Durbin mentioned the rangefinder.
		None of these are enough to shoot a suspicious person, but they certainly, you would think, would be enough to stop the proceedings.
		That's where I think you get to the second major management or judgment error of this.
		Now, Trump's done probably a hundred rallies like this.
		How often at one of his rallies are there 90 minutes of looking at one person and at least a half a dozen pictures of that person?
		How often does that happen and is it against protocol to let a proceeding go on when you've got a suspicious person?
		90 minutes worth of people talking about this person and we don't stop the proceeding.
		Does that defy protocol?
unidentified		So, Senator, so while there's 90 minutes in total from when he's first identified by local law enforcement, we have about a 30-minute window.
		But in no time is there anything ever communicated about weapon or harm.
		And I think that's where the threat— You're not talking about a weapon.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		You shoot people with a weapon.
unidentified		Sure.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		Without a weapon, we're talking about people you stop and say, he had a backpack, which was probably big enough to have the AR-15 in it.
		In all likelihood, the backpack has the weapon in it.
		So a guy with a big backpack would never get to the perimeter.
		So once again, a big mistake was not having the perimeter wide enough to prevent people from shooting outside the perimeter.
		But the thing is, he would have never gotten through the perimeter, right?
		His backpack would have been checked.
		But people with big backpacks are very suspicious.
		And I would think he's been seen six times.
		But you got 20 or 30 minutes of knowing about it.
		But the thing is, there's all kinds of chatter going on about this.
		And you would think the chatter going on with the local police is on a police radio.
		And a policeman with that radio is standing in the control tent.
		So you get that communication.
		So there's a huge and massive breakdown.
		But really, my question is, how often has this happened at other rallies where there's a half a dozen pictures and 90 minutes of people talking about a suspicious person?
		I just can't imagine that it's real common.
unidentified		So, Senator, at rallies, there are people that come to the attention of law enforcement for a variety of reasons.
		And, you know, if they come to our attention for some other activity that might You know, put it a little bit.
		Hey, we probably need to go check that individual out.
		This happens, and that's why we attempt to locate them.
		That's why it's important for us to try to find them.
		And it's important to have the information.
		And so local law enforcement did their very level best to try to locate him.
		They did provide us the photos 30 minutes prior.
		It's just he evaded any detection by law enforcement.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		But once again, it's the overall person in charge.
		It's a terrible breakdown.
		It's a terrible management decision not to have stopped it.
		There was a chance to stop the proceeding.
		And the question is not whether there's enough information to take down an individual.
		It's a much lower standard to say, hey, we're going to wait until we get this individual.
		The roof and the 90 minutes of it both, I think, are failure of your protocol.
		And I think when that's determined, the person who made these decisions can't be in a position of authority again.
unidentified		Senator Klobuchar.
		Thank you very much.
		Thank you to all of you for holding this hearing.
		I appreciate it, Director Rowe, and we had the classified briefing and also today the taking responsibility for the agency and your own personal emotion and reaction to your visit and what had gone wrong.
ben harnwell ▲ ● ▼		Senator Klobuchar has announced this.
		Senator Rand Paul there that we heard for the majority of that segment, you can understand somewhat his frustration.
		But as far as I'm concerned, you know, I heard enough.
		I think the guys in Denver will be listening to this whitewash in real time as it goes out.
		If there's anything breaking, we'll cut back to it.
		We're coming up to the break now in just one minute's time.
		And then after the break, towards the beginning of the next hour, we'll have Sam Faddis, who's going to give us a response to some of what we heard just now.
		My first reaction listening to this stuff go out live.
		Firstly, there's no sense of anger.
		On behalf of the Secret Service guy who was talking.
		Secondly, he tried to personalise it and talk about the fact how gutted the guys are in Pittsburgh down on the ground.
		This wasn't, you know, my instinct is, if you want to summarise my instinct about when I heard the words protocol, I reached for my gun.
		This isn't about protocol or protocol errors.
		The system, Steve Bannon and Alex Jones said this was going to happen months before it happened.
		It's not about protocol errors or management.
		There's more going on behind this.

▲