Nov. 19, 2024 - Bannon's War Room
48:57
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| Together, Trump's candidates constitute an attempt to wreck the American government. | ||
| All three of Trump's most high-profile picks, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, and Matt Gaetz, are defined publicly, both by the things they've said in the contempt they have for the role of the departments they're now going to lead, and the views that they have that are in stark contrast to many of the Republicans who have now been asked to vote to confirm them to lead those agencies. | ||
| Here's how Steve Bannon reacted to the choice of Matt Gaetz as AG. Matt Gaetz is the fiercest of the fierce warriors. | ||
| He is the firebrand of firebrands. | ||
| He's going to hit the Department of Justice with a blowtorch. | ||
| And that blowtorch is a guy named Matt Gaetz. | ||
| I could say a lot of things about Bannon, but at least he says it all out loud, right? | ||
| And he's been saying it for years. | ||
| Trump's picks are part of this project that Bannon has described for years now publicly as the destruction of the administrative state, the fulfillment of a vision Bannon has been fighting for for years. | ||
| Here he is making that point earlier today. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We're going to burn some of these institutions down to the ground because you know why? | |
| They need to be burned down to the ground. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I think that the first time that Steve Bannon ever said the phrase, and it actually is the deconstruction of the administrative state, which is the same thing as the destruction of it, but I think the first time he said it out loud to everybody in the world was in February of 2017 at CPAC. Where he was, the Trump forces were ascendant at that point. | |
| Steve was in the White House at that point. | ||
| And he was, I think, interviewed on stage at CPAC by Reince Priebus. | ||
| Or at least was on stage with Reince Priebus. | ||
| I think it was Priebus talking to Bannon. | ||
| And Bannon talked about the big priorities in the Trump term. | ||
| He talked about nationalism in terms of foreign policy. | ||
| He talked about nationalism in terms of economic policy. | ||
| And then the third thing he talked about was this deconstruction of the administrative state. | ||
| And, you know, it's a... | ||
| Steve is not only someone who's been saying this out loud forever, from the moment they walked in the doors there in January of 2017 until now, when Trump was out of office. | ||
| He's also someone who is unlike Donald Trump. | ||
| An extraordinarily well-read and sophisticated thinker. | ||
| And when I say sophisticated, I don't want anybody to think that that means I think he's a good thing in terms of some of these thoughts. | ||
| But I mean, he is someone who has thought a lot about this stuff. | ||
| He's read his he's read his Lenin. | ||
| And that's what this is, really. | ||
| It's a it's a Leninist project. | ||
| And I think to your point, Nicole, I think there's a lot of things going on with these with these. | ||
| Some of it is directed at the media. | ||
| And that's the frame that you were just putting on it, which is to create chaos. | ||
| And in terms of how we cover it. | ||
| But it's also I really importantly, these are tests of the Republicans in the Senate. | ||
| It is not a coincidence that that Trump dropped the Matt Gaetz announcement to basically break up John Thune's welcome party, his victory party, as having won as majority leader on the on the Senate side, on the Republican Senate side. | ||
| It was like dropping a turd in his punch bowl at his party, basically, and sort of saying, okay, This is the most unacceptable or among the most unacceptable people you could ever put in this job. | ||
| Now, Mr. | ||
| Thune, pass him, please. | ||
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Pray for our enemies, because we're going medieval on these people. | |
| I've got a free shot of all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you'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. Vance. | ||
| It's Monday, 18 November, Year of Our Lord 2024. | ||
| Okay, we're going to have Jeff Clark is going to do a reprise of the little bit we had on the morning show. | ||
| Because we have to talk about the big fight is the confirmation fight. | ||
| They're getting to the judges fight, which we will talk about in the second hour. | ||
| Clark's here on this. | ||
| I guess what they're taking to be a radical idea about the president forcing both houses of Congress into recess where he would put some of these nominees forward. | ||
| Of course, a firestorm at Capitol Hill today, really Pete Hexeth and Matt Gaetz drawing the fire. | ||
| I think it says a lot when you see Nicole Wallace and Hallman and all MSNBC and the focus on Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hexeth, Matt Gaetz. | ||
| right now uh... christy noem and believe it or not rfk jr getting a pass, which I guess is some strategy there. | ||
| We're going to talk about Tina Peters out in a nine-year prison sentence in Colorado. | ||
| I've got Julie Kelly here. | ||
| The NBC News is doing some amazing reporting on the Justice Department. | ||
| And the lawyers there leaving in droves before Matt Gaetz arrives. | ||
| And also we're going to go to Silicon Valley. | ||
| Brian Costello is going to be here talking about the venture capital firms there and their involvement in all this. | ||
| So we'll get to that in a moment. | ||
| Honored to have Nicole Shanahan join us. | ||
| She was a vice presidential candidate. | ||
| With RFK came forward and supported President Trump. | ||
| Nicole, the reason I wanted to have you on here is to kind of kick this off. | ||
| We haven't had a lot of opportunity to really focus on what RFK is doing over HHS as he starts to man up and will be announcing it. | ||
| And his whole thing of make America healthy again, a huge aspect of that that nobody's talking about and that we pray President Trump is just as aggressive as he's been on these other nominations is the US Department of Agriculture. | ||
| Can you just walk our audience through? | ||
| Because you spent a lot of time on this. | ||
| That merger, when we talk about Make America Healthy Again and everything RFK is going to do with big pharma and big medicine and that whole biopharmaceutical industrial complex, you're coming at it from a different angle, and that's agriculture. | ||
| Walk us through your construct, ma'am. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| First, thanks for having me, Steve. | ||
| It's a real honor to be here on your show. | ||
| Well, it's going down right now. | ||
| The nomination for head of the USDA is happening right this moment. | ||
| And there's an opportunity for the first time ever to get somebody in there who's a real farmer, who's going to look out for the small family farms, and who's going to revitalize our soil systems. | ||
| I came to agriculture through a very narrow lens of looking at climate change Almost 10 years ago now, and I'm a technologist here in Silicon Valley, and I looked at every one of the climate schemes that they had brought up, | ||
| that were being brought up and sold as these green energy programs, and none of them made sense to me, looking at just the science and just the business of it. | ||
| If we just look at carbon, Through this myopic lens of we have excess CO2 in the atmosphere, and that is allegedly leading to a heating and climate change and climate change patterning. | ||
| If you just look at it through that, and you spend time on the science, and you realize the opportunity of soil, And you realize the many, many benefits of tending to our farmland. | ||
| There's about 900 million acres of farmland in the United States. | ||
| And you look at the history of our relationship with soil. | ||
| When you don't take care of the soil, you get the Dust Bowl. | ||
| When you don't take care of the soil, people go hungry. | ||
| When you cut down American farmland, you get inflation. | ||
| You get expensive food products because the supply chain We saw that during the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdowns. | ||
| So you can't talk about any of these really big issues like inflation or climate without actually addressing the soil. | ||
| You can't talk about health without addressing the soil. | ||
| In this country, we use an enormous amount of glyphosate. | ||
| Glyphosate has been tied for decades now to all kinds of autoimmune issues and cancers. | ||
| In fact, Bayer and Monsanto, Bayer acquired Monsanto, has paid out over $11 billion in damages due to people getting sick From glyphosate and farmers getting sick and these very well defined cancers that have been defined and linked conclusively to glyphosate exposure. | ||
| You cannot address so many of the issues we have in America without addressing the USDA. Tom Vilsack, the current head of the USDA, he was the head of the USDA under Obama as well. | ||
| It's even hard to call him a commodities guy. | ||
| He is somebody who is a puppet who's put in there to keep this whole system running as it is. | ||
| He's made no major changes. | ||
| To say that he's dedicated anything towards things that liberals care about, such as conservation, we've seen no movement there. | ||
| The farm bill, something we don't hear much about that we really ought to be listening and paying much more close attention to in terms of what's going into it. | ||
| These are five and then 10-year bills, budgets. | ||
| The next one that's up right now is going to be the first 10-year farm bill that exceeds a trillion dollars. | ||
| So this is stuff that we have to be paying attention to. | ||
| Calling it the Farm Bill doesn't even make sense. | ||
| It's over a trillion dollars mostly going to the SNAP program. | ||
| Food stamps and very healthy food. | ||
| Hang on for a second. | ||
| As you know, this is a populist nationalist show with a huge mega audience, and we always try to support the little guy. | ||
| But when you have 900 million acres, and we love family farms and the family farmer and the little guy, but isn't that just fond nostalgia for an America that's passed? | ||
| I mean, to feed America and to feed the world... | ||
| Or to help feed the world. | ||
| Don't you need massive agribusiness? | ||
| Don't you need Archer Daniel Midland? | ||
| Don't you need Masanto? | ||
| Isn't this something that scales up and why people, I think, appreciate the fact, you know, your show, Back to the People, and all your things are related to family farmers and the soil and all the stuff that's going. | ||
| Isn't that just nostalgia, ma'am? | ||
| I don't think so. | ||
| I've looked at the science, and when you take care of the soil, you get long-term yields. | ||
| You get higher yield in the nutritional density of the food. | ||
| So if you really do want to feed people, you have to tend to the soil. | ||
| And look, if there's large-scale production that is producing High nutrient-dense foods, I'm all for it, but those nutrient-dense foods have to actually translate to healthy people, and that's not what we have going on right now. | ||
| We have commodities, massive commodities, that a lot of it results in high fructose corn syrup. | ||
| Which we know doesn't nourish human bodies. | ||
| We know causes all kinds of dysregulated behavior in small children. | ||
| So this is not about nostalgia. | ||
| I mean, I'm not sure how to reference this idea of nostalgia. | ||
| I'm talking just strictly efficiency about if we want to invest dollars in to healthy people, we have all the land We have more land. | ||
| Actually, in the latest consensus of the 900 million acres that we have in the United States, we're farming only about 500 million acres of them. | ||
| That number is going down year over year. | ||
| And in fact, here in the state of California, where we produce half of the fruits and vegetables in this country, half of the fruits and vegetables come from the state of California. | ||
| And the state of California currently has a plan to cut water down 40%. | ||
| To farmers, which means we're going to lose 40% of the fruit and vegetable production coming from the state of California, which is responsible for half. | ||
| I mean, so this is merely looking at it strictly through the lens of, you know, not flowers and bunnies and things. | ||
| I'm looking at it strictly from a business lens. | ||
| Hang on one second. | ||
| We're going to go to break. | ||
| That was a great answer. | ||
| No, we have... | ||
| Nostalgia for the small farmer too, but you come at it from science and from technology. | ||
| We're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| We're going to return in a moment. | ||
| Johnny Kahn takes us out with American Heart. | ||
| You know, one of our anthems here, one of my favorite songs. | ||
| We're packed today. | ||
| These cabinet nominations, and I think Nicole Shanahan's got some recommendations as she tries to shake up the United States Department of Agriculture in the MAGA Revolution. | ||
| President Trump is a blunt force instrument for change, an anti-systems person, as is RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Gaetz, and the rest of their compatriots now into the Department of Agriculture. | ||
| Incredibly important as it works together with HHS to make America healthy again. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Back in a moment. | |
| I suggest you take a look inside Cause I think you changed already You went and lost your Here's your host, Stephen K. Band Okay, RFK Jr. | ||
| is putting together his team at HHS and getting ready for what will be a firestorm by Big Pharma and Big Medicine when he comes forward in that nomination process. | ||
| I had a chance to spend a few minutes with RFK Junior at Mar-a-Lago on Friday, and we caught up with the great Tony Lyons. | ||
| Nicole Shanahan was the vice presidential candidate running as an independent on the ticket with RFK. | ||
| She's very focused on the agricultural department. | ||
| Just so just to make I just want to frame this. | ||
| First time you've been on, and I want to make sure our audience is very focused on family farms and the small farmer. | ||
| The current head of the USDA, this is his second turn in the barrel. | ||
| I think it was Obama's. | ||
| He's now under Biden. | ||
| He's been the governor of Iowa, which is obviously one of the states that are the breadbasket of the country and the world. | ||
| Are you saying, and he's a guy with a liberal perspective, progressive, are you saying he's failed? | ||
| To make the changes that a Nicole Shanahan or the people she supports to head the USDA would make? | ||
| I mean, I think most of the audience would find that shocking. | ||
| He's worked for Obama, arguably the most progressive president of modern times. | ||
| He's now back with Biden. | ||
| He's had two shots in Iowa. | ||
| I think people are kind of stunned. | ||
| He has not helped a small farmer. | ||
| He does not have the perspective you have that you think is a cornerstone of make America healthy again, ma'am. | ||
| Yeah, it's hard for me to categorize Tim Vilsack as either corrupt or uninformed and quite stupid. | ||
| I think it's more of the former. | ||
| I think that there's a great deal of corruption that has been hidden under the mask of progressive values around conservation and climate management. | ||
| And I'm really concerned having seen some of the actions under this administration, how they have treated farmers around this country like criminals. | ||
| We've seen more raids of small family farms, organic farms. | ||
| I mean, this wasn't happening in the 90s. | ||
| We've seen attacks on raw milk production. | ||
| We've seen raids of Amish farms in this country. | ||
| I've seen the words conservation and aquifers floated around. | ||
| But when you actually look at the behaviors, here in the state of California, we've been out of a drought for the last three years. | ||
| Now would have been the time to invest. | ||
| I have a full map of every farm in the state of California. | ||
| And how we should have been investing in those farms and restoring those aquifers. | ||
| Instead, they're paying farmers to fallow their lands. | ||
| They have a pilot program here to fallow their lands. | ||
| And we know that California is a testbed for these policies. | ||
| And if they work here, they spin them out into the rest of the country. | ||
| Tom Vilsack has very much been a puppet of what I think is this climate death cult that looks at human and human needs through this very negative lens. | ||
| And they are blind to this whole other body of science, the body of soil science that says if we restore the soil organic matter, S-O-M, soil organic matter of our soil by like 5%, We can pay off an enormity of our carbon debt and our emissions debt. | ||
| And we get the added benefit of feeding people healthy, nutritious food. | ||
| Because when you increase the soil organic matter of our lands, it goes directly into the seeds and the roots and the leaf. | ||
| And we get to consume all of that. | ||
| You're very focused on this, on the current, what's going to happen in the USDA. Walk us through. | ||
| Who do you recommend that, if you were talking to President Trump right now, who do you recommend that President Trump and his transition team put forward as the new leadership in the USDA? And what do you want them to focus on? | ||
|
unidentified
|
You know, the beneficial thing. | |
| Remark that I'd like to share right now, full of optimism, is that we have a list of 20 people who would all be amazing, amazing leadership of the USDA. And these are farmers. | ||
| These are people who work with other farmers and train other farmers in need and help turn farms around who are going into debt. | ||
| Farming is a hard business and we have got some of the best farmers. | ||
| In the world, in this country, and we are not leveraging that expertise. | ||
| But if I'll give you some names, amongst those that we think would just be wonderful, Congressman Thomas Massey. | ||
| We know he's very busy right now. | ||
| If you know Massey, he's tried many times to present bills that are very pro-farmer, very protective of the family farm, and really all about food freedom. | ||
| If not Thomas Massey, we've got this wonderful farmer, Jimmy Emmons, who is loved by the left and loved by the right and loved by every farmer he meets and is just this jovial, wonderful, brilliant man who's a farmer and who is loved by the left and loved by the right and loved He was a farmer first, became a soil scientist. | ||
| He's got a huge following. | ||
| And the list goes on there. | ||
| There's Frank Nicely, who's wonderful. | ||
| He'd be a great deputy secretary at the USDA or ahead. | ||
| He's a Republican member of the Tennessee State Senate. | ||
| He's fantastic. | ||
| Also a farmer. | ||
| Also understands the bureaucracy. | ||
| He understands where the money is, where the bodies are buried. | ||
| And, you know, this list goes on and on. | ||
| And I've published it on my ex- Who I'd love to see out there. | ||
| The thing we have to remember is we have every tool to turn this around. | ||
| And this is something that's going to impact every budget item related to the government. | ||
| Real quickly, the audience loves learning nomenclature. | ||
| When you've used this term, food freedom, what does that mean? | ||
| It's the right to grow our own food, and it's the right to be able to afford a lifestyle that lets us thrive as human beings. | ||
| One of the biggest issues around food freedom today is that we aren't able to grow, for example, Dairy products the way that we'd like to. | ||
| We are now on the precipice of being forced to inject our cattle with the mRNA vaccine. | ||
| So just like we talk about medical freedom for humans and the desire to not have mandates telling us what we have to put in our bodies. | ||
| Food freedom is an extension of that. | ||
| We want the ability to eat meat that isn't full of these inputs. | ||
| We'd also like to be fully informed. | ||
| I mean, let's talk about the Nuremberg trials, right? | ||
| The idea that humans have a right to be fully informed about what they're putting into their bodies. | ||
| Food freedom is a really big part of that. | ||
| Okay, Nicole, so hang on. | ||
| So MSMEC, the Progressive Channel, they would say, in fact, when they see this tonight or tomorrow, they'll say, look, if you let a nutcase like Bobby Kennedy take over HHS, every kid's going to have measles and every other disease. | ||
| And if Nicole Shanahan has her way at the USDA, you're going to be drinking raw milk and other dairy products and getting all kinds of... | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| modernity. | ||
| They want to take America back to the 17th, 16th, 15th, 16th century. | ||
| And these things are impractical. | ||
| They can't scale. | ||
| And Shanahan's almost as dangerous as Bobby Kennedy. | ||
| Your response, ma'am? | ||
| I am very pro-science. | ||
| In fact, we are just on the frontier of probably one of the most exciting scientific discoveries, which is the soil microbiome. | ||
| There is so much life in a handful of healthy soil, and we are going to understand how that soil interacts with our health and can actually feed us In ways that we haven't even explored in terms of crop production. | ||
| I think that if you talk to a PhD here at Stanford University who's studying ecosystem science, and you ask them, what is the most interesting breakthrough area of the field of conservation? | ||
| They're going to tell you it's this microbiome. | ||
| There is this whole world of life under our feet. | ||
| And we can solve so many of humanity's greatest issues by exploring the majesty of soil. | ||
| Nicole, you've got a foundation. | ||
| You have a venture capital fund. | ||
| You've also got a media platform. | ||
| Walk people through where they can go, because I'm telling you, the audience is fascinated about this. | ||
| We're a huge believer in the family farm and the little guy, particularly against agribusiness and this farm bill, which you're correct. | ||
| It's not simply that SNAP is food stamps. | ||
| But the food, they're not really buying food. | ||
| They're buying food product, right? | ||
| And this is what's destroying the health of the country. | ||
| So I think you and I would talk to Bobby, though, about eating the Big Macs on President Trump's plane coming back from the UFC. I guess he got so jacked up in the gladiator arena, he lost himself on the french fries. | ||
| Where do people go for all your platforms and following you on social media, ma'am? | ||
| Well, first of all, I'd like to put a plug in for Big Macs. | ||
| I think we can make Big Macs great again. | ||
| And I grew up eating McDonald's, and it's really not so much the fact that it is a Big Mac. | ||
| The Big Mac is a genius invention. | ||
| It's delicious. | ||
| But it's the contents of the Big Mac. | ||
| It's the quality of the meat. | ||
| It's the dough conditioner in the dough that is linked to all kinds of GI issues. | ||
| We can make Big Macs great again. | ||
| And frying french fries in seed oils, it'd be much better. | ||
| If we could fry our french fries in beef tallow or coconut oils. | ||
| I mean, there's so much we can do and innovate around in terms of healthier food science, especially at scale and especially with, you know, these branded American nostalgic things. | ||
| Like, I grew up eating Happy Meals. | ||
| So, but to answer your question, you know, check me out on X. I am very, very active on X. Many of the posts, the majority of the posts are my own, and that's me just, you know, sharing what my heart wants to share and getting information out there in a timely way. | ||
| We'll get you on X and we'll put the other ones up. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| Thank you, Nicole Shanahan. | ||
|
unidentified
|
honor to have you on here man here's your host Stephen K. | |
| Welcome back Jeff Clark joins me. | ||
| Jeff, Julie Kelly in a moment. | ||
| NBC News is reporting that Merrick Garland was stunned and shocked about Five November's results, and that the senior lawyers in the Justice Department were weeping openly about the results, and now they're all panicked. | ||
| They're checking their passports. | ||
| They're lawyering up. | ||
| They say, we didn't do anything wrong, but Trump and these evil people like Jeff Clark are coming after us. | ||
| And Matt Gaetz, your thoughts, sir? | ||
| Look, Steve, I spent a total of six and a half plus years at the Justice Department in two different presidential administrations. | ||
| I can tell you and the audience with great assurance that at no point did I ever break down weeping about any election results or even any case results were supposed to be adults at this point, right? | ||
| I was about to say men, and I recognize that maybe that's a little bit... | ||
| I think these reports are amazing in that they show the nature of the people who've come in under the Democrat umbrella. | ||
| And, you know, I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. | ||
| I hear that they're making arguments of, you know, well, we're going to have to be Well, welcome to the club. | ||
| I've spent the last four years being bedeviled by those things just for doing my job at the Justice Department. | ||
| And, you know, if there is some turnabout on that from the new Congress and from any investigations that might take place, you know, that's what they signed up for when they started weaponizing the Justice Department against their political opponents, Steve. | ||
| Walk us through. | ||
| They're freaking out. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| About this proposal you put forward to actually get... | ||
| To get to that point, we've got to get Matt Gaetz and Todd Blanch and people actually in the Justice Department. | ||
| And all day long, they're talking about, oh, they're going to block this, although it's pretty evident no other Republican congressmen have come forward. | ||
| Well, first of all, I don't think anybody's come forward and said they actually will not vote for Matt Gaetz. | ||
| Murkowski and I think Collins have indicated that he's got a tough sell. | ||
| But walk us through, and if Denver can put up... | ||
| His report, at least the eight-pager, and we have, I guess, a 37. | ||
| Walk us through this eight-pager, because there's two things out there now. | ||
| President Trump's talked about this Act of 1998 that he's prepared to use, and you're offering him another alternative in case we can't go through the normal process of advice and consent in the Senate to get his nominees across the finish line. | ||
| Let me start, if I could, Steve, by talking about English law. | ||
| So the English king had two sets of powers. | ||
| Eventually the parliament made inroads against the first one especially. | ||
| But the king could have the power to dissolve the parliament or to suspend it or what was called pro-rocket. | ||
| And the framers, in their wisdom, you know, completely appropriate, since they wanted to have three standing branches of government that were co-equal, they denied to the president the analog of the power to dissolve Congress. | ||
| It's a body that continues in existence from election to election. | ||
| The president doesn't have the power to do that. | ||
| But they decided that some form of the power to prorog essentially would be conferred on the president. | ||
| But they put another check and balance on it, Steve. | ||
| They put on it the idea that the president can order the two houses of Congress into a recess. | ||
| If the two houses disagree with each other as to whether to go into that recess. | ||
| And so if that disagreement between the houses exists, the president can send them into recess for as long as he sees fit. | ||
| And there are arguments floating around from the Wall Street Journal, from Ed Whalen, for the National Review, from Andy McCarthy. | ||
| Hang for a second. | ||
| Hang for a second. | ||
| The Republic's been around. | ||
| The Constitution is, what, 235 years old. | ||
| We're coming up next April, folks, the 250th anniversary, so that's a quarter of a millennium, of the shot heard around the world, Lexington and Concord, next 19 April 2025. | ||
| Has this ever been tried anywhere in any presidency? | ||
| And has it even been discussed, what you're talking about? | ||
| This is where one house would say, I want to go into recess. | ||
| The other house wouldn't. | ||
| And the president can use that one house saying they want to go into recess. | ||
| So this kind of is a reveal why Mike Johnson, who has nothing to do with confirmations, said out of the blue, oh, well, I support the recess nominations process. | ||
| So Johnson could put the House into recess. | ||
| And Trump could use that House recess to force the Senate to force, if Mitch McConnell and John Thune didn't want to do it, to force the House into a recess and then put his nominees through? | ||
| Short answer is yes. | ||
| And what the president's given in the Constitution is a tie-breaking power. | ||
| If the two houses disagree with each other, the president can send them both into recess. | ||
| Where is that in the Constitution? | ||
| That is in the article about adjournments, and it goes to, you know, normally, right, the houses decide for themselves when they're in session. | ||
| Well, the Senate has not been out of, was never out of session the entire first Trump presidency. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| Mitch McConnell did not trust, this was a, the only reason he did that was because he did not trust Trump to slide in a couple of nominations, correct? | ||
| They created this pro forma process where they basically gavel themselves in and they were sublimated. | ||
| Supposedly in session, but they really weren't in session. | ||
| But the Supreme Court upheld that in this case called Noel Canning versus the NLRB. And so, you know, now it's well established that the Senate can use these pro forma adjournments and they're not, you know, pro forma coming into session when they're actually not there doing business. | ||
| The Obama administration tried to say that during those, you know, sessions where they're They're actually in recess and therefore President Obama had the recess appointment power. | ||
| But the Supreme Court disagreed. | ||
| They said that, as we read the Constitution and its history, a recess of three days or less is clearly insufficient to trigger the recess appointment power. | ||
| For recesses 10 days and longer, they said that that is long enough, then the power definitely exists in the president. | ||
| And then they said that recesses essentially between the 3 days and the 10 days presumptively are not long enough in order for the president to use the power. | ||
| So if the president wants to use the power and not have it be questioned, a recess has to last 10 days or longer. | ||
| And could the House say, I want a 10-day recess? | ||
| And the President can force the Senate into a 10-day recess, and then he can put certain of his nominees through? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And so here are the response arguments. | ||
| Is it Whelan or Whelan? | ||
| Whelan, Ed Whelan. | ||
| Ed Whelan at National Review, put up a National Review online? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Ed Whalen disagreed with you? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And who is Ed Whalen? | ||
| Ed Whalen was at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. | ||
| So Office of Legal Counsel is the internal law firm for the Justice Department. | ||
| It kind of writes the opinion letters. | ||
| When you give them an executive order, they write essentially an opinion letter and make sure it's constitutional, correct? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| They're very serious people. | ||
| Yes, and indeed others... | ||
| And Ed Whalen is a very serious individual? | ||
| He is, yes. | ||
| You know him? | ||
| I do, yeah. | ||
| I've worked with him. | ||
| And, you know, I think he's a good guy. | ||
| I sort of tweeted about him today. | ||
| Look, you know, our kids had even played together at one point when we were both younger men. | ||
| Had a play date? | ||
| We went, you know, mutual friend. | ||
| All of our kids were playing out in the house in Arlington. | ||
| And he's a very smart guy. | ||
| Like, I appreciate him. | ||
| Did he take you to task on this? | ||
| Or was it around the edges? | ||
| I think maybe he thinks he did, but I didn't think it was a very effective response. | ||
| So one of his responses, which he had launched before me, and now then he kind of used it and put it in motion against me as well, is this idea that there would not be a disagreement between the houses about recess, but rather the Senate would simply decide to stay in session. | ||
| So this seems to me to be quite a semantic argument, Steve. | ||
| So let me indulge your viewers and you to use what one of my law professors used to call a homely analogy, by which he would mean he would try to take some complicated legal subject and turn it into something everyone could understand. | ||
| So I'm going to blast back. | ||
| I'm 12 years old. | ||
| I'm over a friend's house and we're shooting baskets against the backboard on his driveway. | ||
| And I say, hey, this has been fun, but why don't you come over to my house and we'll play air hockey? | ||
| And he says, no, I want to keep playing basketball and shoot the hoops, right? | ||
| Well, what Ed is saying is that there's essentially an agreement about, disagreement about whether to keep shooting hoops. | ||
| There's not a disagreement about whether to go over to my house and play air hockey. | ||
| But in reality, they're just the flip side of each other. | ||
| A recess and a continuance of the Senate in session are just binaries, like two different sides of the same coin. | ||
| So to say that it's a dispute about staying in session versus in recess, it's inherently a dispute about whether to take a recess. | ||
| Therefore, if the two houses disagree, whatever the Senate tries to say, like, well, we're not disagreeing with you about a recess. | ||
| We just want to stay in session. | ||
| I don't think that's going to be good enough to stop the president from using this power if he wants to. | ||
| Your scheme or your proposal here to the president, would you use it after he tried, what was the act in 1998 that today he actually said? | ||
| I believe he said on a true social or said, if John Thune does not move my candidates, my nominees through quickly, On an orderly process, I will use this, what, the Avoidance Act of 1998? | ||
| So that statute's called the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Steve, the FBRA. And it arose out of disputes with a Clinton official, Lonnie Chen, who seemed to serve at the Civil Rights Division forever without Senate confirmation, and so they put this act in place. | ||
| But before I kind of unpack that act a little bit, Let me say, look, whenever you're dealing with relationships between the political branches, you're dealing with a situation in which deals can be made, in which arrangements can be struck. | ||
| Maybe the president talks to the Senate and he leads senators and there are few people that he wants to try to get recess-appointed. | ||
| And there are others that he makes an agreement, they'll go through the full process or whatever. | ||
| These kinds of things may be taking place behind the scenes, and I think the framers anticipated that before you go to the cudgels about something that might actually show up in the courts, you exercise those softer, persuasive tools that you have. | ||
| All right, so now about the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. | ||
| Hang on, because we're going to go to break. | ||
| You can stick around, right? | ||
| Sure. | ||
| What the left is saying on TV and the Democrats are that these appointments are in your face to actually take the government and start to tear it apart. | ||
| And they, defenders of the established order, are going to use the powers in the Constitution to Of the Senate basically being the Human Resources Department. | ||
| And that the FVRA option that President Trump, I think, tweeted out earlier, and that Jeff Clark's idea are kind of these radical tools that one reaches for when one can't get a cabinet nominee through a standard process. | ||
| Your response, sir? | ||
| Quick response is this case that I discussed with you, Noel Canning, which is the leading precedent on the recess appointments clause. | ||
| It's one where Obama was using it. | ||
| He tried to put people on the National Labor Relations Board during one of these short kinds of non-recesses because they didn't go for long enough. | ||
| I didn't hear anything from the Nicole Wallaces of the world or the New York Times about how terrible it was that Obama was trying to put recess appointees in. | ||
| It's only when they think their ox is being gored that they magically turn around. | ||
| Indeed, I retweeted it today. | ||
| Somebody put clips of Lawrence O'Donnell, and I think it was Nicole Wallace, but it might have her wrong, but at least Lawrence O'Donnell. | ||
| Put out clips saying, you know, there's a constitutional power called the Recess Appointments Clause, and the president clearly has this power, right? | ||
| So, you know, it's time for those clips to get jammed back in their face, right? | ||
| If Obama's exercising the power, they're totally good with it. | ||
| But if Donald John Trump wants to, they say no. | ||
| Okay, hang on. | ||
| We got a lot to get to. | ||
| Julie Kelly's going to join us. | ||
| We got Brian Costello about the venture capitalist and business with the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| Now maybe an investigation is going to go on. | ||
| We're going to talk to Tina Peters' lawyer. | ||
| Jeff Clark's going to stick around. | ||
| We've got a lot going on. | ||
| Birchgold.com slash Bannon. | ||
| Or go to Bannon at 989898 to get all the information from Birch Gold. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Back in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| Okay, Mike Lindell joins us. | ||
| Mike, we missed you this morning on the morning show. | ||
| The audience is hankering for a deal. | ||
| What do you got for us, brother? | ||
| Well, as you see, the bathrobes came in, everybody. | ||
| All the new bathrobes are on sale for the War Room Posse, but we're running the flannel sheets. | ||
| We ran out a couple colors, but you guys get them. | ||
| There's only a limited stock in of the flannel sheets. | ||
| It's Steve's favorite. | ||
| It's the War Room Posse's favorite. | ||
| They're as low as $59.99. | ||
| There they are, all the Most of them are still in, you guys, but there's very low supply. | ||
| Get them while you can at this price. | ||
| They're normally as high as $99.98, $50 off just on that one, $59.98. | ||
| And then if you go to the website, scroll down. | ||
| There it is, everybody, free shipping on your entire order. | ||
| And no matter what you order, there's the planal sheets. | ||
| We have the robes like I'm wearing. | ||
| There they are, right? | ||
| All the MyPillow clothing that's in, that's a warm room exclusive. | ||
| And remember, we have the 988 MyPillows. | ||
| If you've never tried a MyPillow, get the multi-use MyPillow, 988 and free shipping. | ||
| I mean, you can't beat that. | ||
| If you've never tried, go, I'm not gonna try it. | ||
| You try it, it'll be the best, most amazing pillow you ever slept on. | ||
| And the mattress toppers, the mattress toppers, you guys have all took advantage of those. | ||
| The mattress toppers, 100% made, the USA, the queen size at $99.98. | ||
| I mean, it's the lowest price in history. | ||
| And king size, I think, is $20 more. | ||
| But you guys, it'll turn any bet into the best bet in history. | ||
| So it's a win-win-win. | ||
| You're helping MyPillow employees. | ||
| We love sponsoring the War Room, the best show on TV. And you're helping yourself to the best sleep and best products in history. | ||
| I'll tell you, you can't beat the new robes coming in, everybody. | ||
| Thanks, Steve, and thanks, War Room Posse. | ||
| You guys have been absolutely amazing in supporting our employees. | ||
| Mike, we love you, and you did such a great job on election integrity. | ||
| We actually won in a landslide. | ||
| Thank you, brother. | ||
| Got a lot of work to do. | ||
| Paper, ballots, same-day voting. | ||
| I got it. | ||
| And count the same day. | ||
| Can we play the call over for Julie Kelly? | ||
| Let's go and play it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
How has the choice of Matt Gaetz changed the equation, or has it? | |
| It has, and that's the difference. | ||
| There was worry about congressional investigations. | ||
| They expected that. | ||
| But the choice of Gaetz, which was, I think, a real surprise to many people inside the DOJ, And everywhere. | ||
| Everywhere, yes. | ||
| He's a lawyer, but he's had no experience prosecuting cases. | ||
| But most of all, he is a firebrand loyalist, a very vocal supporter of President Trump. | ||
| And it's seen by people as a choice. | ||
| It's someone who trusts, who Trump trusts, and someone who, given the ethics investigation, sort of owes Trump. | ||
| Trump is sort of protecting him by giving him this new job just before the ethics report comes out. | ||
| So it has raised fears that there could actually be criminal investigations and prosecutions by the Trump administration of career DOJ and FBI officials. | ||
| How would you quantify or can you quantify? | ||
| That plays much, much longer. | ||
| We'll play that maybe the next hour with Jeff Clark. | ||
| Julie Kelly, NBC News is reporting that Merrick Garland was shocked and stunned by the results, that senior officials in DOJ were weeping on Tuesday the 5th in the evening as the results came in, and now they're petrified. | ||
| One of the segments all day long In every show, one segment is about the fear inside the Justice Department for, of course, these uncalled for criminal investigations. | ||
| Your thoughts, ma'am? | ||
| Yes, I think it's legitimate. | ||
| I've talked to people who are closer to DOJ than I am who say that the fear And terror is real, not just among top DOJ officials, including Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team. | ||
| We could talk about his being a flight risk and leaving as Mark Zayed is recommending top targets to flee the country around Inauguration Day. | ||
| Just crazy talk. | ||
| But that even lying prosecutors are terrified that they are going to be investigated, which they should. | ||
| For violating the 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 8A constitutional rights of January 6 defendants conspiring with the FBI and federal judges to deny due process to Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom had no criminal record, | ||
| committed no crime, but nonetheless had their lives destroyed at the hands of this bloodthirsty DOJ led by Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, And, of course, the D.C. U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves. | ||
| So the fear is real. | ||
| It is gratifying to see the tables turn on this vengeful DOJ who has destroyed so many lives over the past four years. | ||
| And I'm sure that they're shocked, Steve, because I was in courtrooms leading up to Election Day seeing how they're treating J6ers. | ||
| There was no indication that they thought for a minute Donald Trump would win. | ||
| That the January 6th, what they call the Capitol siege investigation would end, that pardons would take place, and furthermore, the tables turned, as you said, the hunted becoming the hunters, which is precisely what's happening. | ||
| Mark Zayed, the lawyer, he's actually saying that Brother Jack Smith should exit the country starting the afternoon of the 20th of January. | ||
| Am I correct in saying that that's what he said? | ||
| He did not say it specifically, but Mark Zayed, as you know, the lawyer who represented Eric Kiaramella, sorry, it's been a while since I've said his name, the so-called whistleblower in Ukrainegate that prompted the first impeachment of Donald Trump, | ||
| also Mark Zayed, just a longtime dirty, dumb operative, openly recommending that people who fear prosecution, and this is DOJ officials but also past officials, From the National Security State, John Brennan, Jim Clapper, he also listed Liz Cheney, this article in Politico listed Liz Cheney, to leave the country around Inauguration Day. | ||
| Now, why would he say that? | ||
| Is he saying, well, these officials, former and current, should wait to see what Donald Trump does on Inauguration Day, sign executive orders related to pardons or investigations? | ||
| Also, his acting attorney general and acting DCUS attorney, more importantly, will really decide how to investigate those offices, right? | ||
| Main justice, the special counsel's office, and then the DCUS attorney investigating what happened in that office with those prosecutors and investigate. | ||
| Are they going to wait to see what happens the first few days and decide from there if they're going to become fugitives and not return? | ||
| Keep in mind, Steve, where was Jack Smith and David Harbaugh Also, one of his top prosecutors in a classified documents case that I covered. | ||
| They were at the Hague in 2022, overseeing the war crimes trial of the former president of Kosovo. | ||
| Mayor Garland dispatched them here from the U.S. They could easily go back. | ||
| Julie, just hang her for one second and hold through the break. | ||
| Tina Peters' lawyer, Jeff Clark, will still be here. | ||
| Tina Peters' lawyer is going to join us. | ||
| And Brian Costello, talk about Silicon Valley's participation in all this. | ||
| Birchgold.com slash abandon the end of the dollar empire. | ||
| I will get into more of that in the second hour. |
Export Selection