June 27, 2025 - Bannon's War Room
48:52
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies because we're going to medieval on these people. | ||
| Here's not got a free shot all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you'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? | ||
| MAGA Media. | ||
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
| Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | ||
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Bannon. | ||
| It's Friday, 27 June in the year of our Lord 2025. | ||
| We're on the road today, and for the next couple of days, I want to thank everybody for putting the show together and kind of the last moment. | ||
| We're packed today. | ||
| We're going to have to juggle a lot. | ||
| And here's the reason. | ||
| The last day of the Supreme Court, and they're going to be announcing a ton of major decisions, including birthright citizenship. | ||
| Josh Hammer is going to join us at the bottom of this hour to try to break it all down for us. | ||
| Also, we have Chiproy, MTG, and hopefully a couple of three others from over the cloakroom in the House. | ||
| The Big Beautiful bill, because of issues with this parliamentarian. | ||
| Remember, the reconciliation process is a little bit of a gimmick, but it's one that both parties use. | ||
| What it means is that you don't need to break the filibuster. | ||
| You don't need to get the 60 votes to break the filibuster to get things passed. | ||
| You can do it on a majority of 51. | ||
| And when either party has that, has the control of the Senate, they normally like to do these reconciliations where they can get certain things passed that couldn't get passed. | ||
| They couldn't get 10 votes or 9 votes or 8 votes of the opposite party to do. | ||
| However, there are some real technicalities about that put in by Senator Byrd, who was a real process guy back in the late 20th century. | ||
| And they put in some processes. | ||
| Supposedly, you can't slip policy in there that's not related to budget. | ||
| Last night, they've taken out, in fact, some of the MAGA elements, particularly in Medicaid and certain other things, transgender. | ||
| I know from Sherwood Walter in the crowd, people are very upset. | ||
| Terry Schilling, people are very upset about this. | ||
| There's a lot on the side of Medicaid and other things people are talking about that are not in, going to be in, don't know where it is. | ||
| Thun is working right now. | ||
| We'll try to bring updates. | ||
| Now, that's just on the Senate side. | ||
| Also, it looks like, according to MTG, Chiproy, and others, some of the provisions that they wanted in, that people wanted in that were the more MAGA provisions, looks like it may even been taken out. | ||
| And that includes even some of the tax issues, et cetera. | ||
| So President Trump has announced already he's not leaving for Bedminster, which he was going to do later today and go for the weekend. | ||
| I think he's going to be here. | ||
| And President Trump, once again, is not simply putting the deals together. | ||
| He's going to have to whip the votes. | ||
| He's still demanding that this be on his desk to sign on the 4th of July, which I think is next Friday. | ||
| So a lot going on in the Hill, a lot of horse trading and discussion. | ||
| And it's going to be a work weekend. | ||
| And, of course, we'll be there with everybody. | ||
| At the same time, there's a huge controversy yesterday with Bobby Kennedy in the Make America Healthy Again crowd, which we're part of, about these vaccines. | ||
| We're going to have Mary Holland and other people on in a little while to go through that. | ||
| Josh Hammer will be here to break all the Supreme Court decisions down. | ||
| There's a lot going on on this President Trump shutting down the war. | ||
| The intelligence briefings that we were live yesterday, they were just getting out. | ||
| Obviously, a lot of controversy. | ||
| President Trump said, hey, we've closed the books on this and we're moving on. | ||
| A lot of Democrat feedback. | ||
| He's actually accusing now the Democratic Party of leaking some of the preliminary results, which were not totally accurate. | ||
| So we've got a lot going on today. | ||
| We're going to get on it. | ||
| I want to start with Jim Rickards. | ||
| And Jim, there's discussion now that Steve Witkoff said, hey, their Iranian delegation they're actually going to sit down with next week. | ||
| They're trying to put a deal together. | ||
| There's obviously not going to be regime change or no discussion, regime change to make America great. | ||
| The MAGA movement, who doesn't want to get into an extended war, are really proud of President Trump. | ||
| Although some people said, hey, we shouldn't have any involvement at all, he came in with an overwhelming military strike package, destroyed whatever was there for bomb-making capabilities. | ||
| He obliterated it. | ||
| He's moved on. | ||
| He's actually got people in discussions. | ||
| Can you put this in geostrategic framework, particularly given what happened at NATO, where we finally got the nations of Europe that stepped up to the plate and say they're going to actually put up 5% of GDP for their own defense so they don't have to be protectorates of the United States of America? | ||
| Jim Rickerts, sir. | ||
| Thanks, Steve. | ||
| You're right. | ||
| Steve Lepkoff talking to the Iranians is a very positive step forward. | ||
| Let's hope that happens soon and they make some progress. | ||
| Each side is sort of not showing its hand, but taking its shot literally, and we can kind of go from there. | ||
| I do want to go back to the state. | ||
| Hey, Jim, Jim, can you hang her for one second? | ||
| We got Chip Roy calling from the cloakroom on the phone about what's going on. | ||
| I just want to pin it for a second. | ||
| I'm going to come right back to you. | ||
| Congressman Roy, can you get a status? | ||
| Because it looks very confusing up there on Capitol Hill right now. | ||
| Yes, Steve. | ||
| Good to be on. | ||
| I just got out of a briefing on the strikes. | ||
| I think you just articulated very well about the president's use of force and doing it very well. | ||
| I think they executed it in the fashion that, as you point out, that MAGA Americans are not wanting to be involved in a long-term war, getting involved in endless wars. | ||
| We've been dealing the last 25 years. | ||
| President did a great job. | ||
| We just got a good briefing on it. | ||
| I feel much better about it after listening to those guys. | ||
| And then we'll head up to the House floor and we've got to vote on something that's not really relevant to the BBB, but we've been watching all the negotiations with the big, beautiful bill in the Senate, and the Senate's messing it up. | ||
| I mean, it's the bottom line. | ||
| It's like, you know, we passed a good but not great bill in the House. | ||
| You and I have talked about that. | ||
| Didn't go as far as I would prefer in terms of spending restraint, but at least was a giant step forward in trying to honor our commitment to spending and try to at least think about reducing the deficit. | ||
| Our bill was plausibly deficit neutral or even going down as tariff revenue and economic growth comes in. | ||
| But the Senate is just blowing it up right now with probably another trillion dollars that's in the calculations I've seen. | ||
| Of course, we don't have bill text yet. | ||
| And, you know, they're undermining a lot of the great things we got while they're letting the parliamentarian make decisions. | ||
| They're not doing what they need to do. | ||
| And they're certainly not ending the green new scam, which the president wants. | ||
| So we're going to have a lot of work to do these next few days. | ||
| And I hope the conservatives in the Senate hold the line. | ||
| Guys like Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, Rick Scott, they've been doing a great job trying to negotiate this thing to a better place, but it's not where it needs to be. | ||
| Let me ask you again. | ||
| The Senate's added a trillion dollars. | ||
| What? | ||
| They haven't gotten rid of the Green Nimb scam. | ||
| What else did they do? | ||
| Well, a lot of the important provisions that we put in there are getting stripped out. | ||
| So give you an example. | ||
| Like there was provision in there to end the tax and regulations on silencers. | ||
| That was stripped out. | ||
| There was a provision in there to ensure that there weren't tax dollars going to transgender surgeries. | ||
| That was stripped out in the Obamacare subsidies. | ||
| There was a tax in there to tax these universities, endowments, these liberal universities at 28%. | ||
| That was watered down to 8%. | ||
| There are provisions in there to deal with the food stamps. | ||
| They took out of $100 billion worth of our reforms to make food stamps be going to the actual needy, not the able-bodied. | ||
| And this is all of those things. | ||
| I could go down a laundry list, Steve, and I'm happy to. | ||
| And I'll put out some of the graphics and charts. | ||
| I can get those to your team. | ||
| They're on my social media. | ||
| And we'll keep pushing them out. | ||
| But the key here is, is that when you add all that up, we're not getting the policies we want. | ||
| But importantly, we're losing savings and the cost of this thing is going up. | ||
| Because, look, you and I both want all the tax cuts. | ||
| We want them extended. | ||
| We want them permanent. | ||
| But there's a reality that you got to figure out the math. | ||
| You got to have the spending restraint going alongside that, right? | ||
| So Medicaid, right? | ||
| Our hardworking Americans don't need to have their Medicaid taken away. | ||
| But the able-bodied who should be working, the people that are engaging in fraud, the people that are, you know, abusing the system in a money laundering scheme to enrich hospitals and insurance companies, those guys, we need the reform. | ||
| So that's what's all getting watered down over in the Senate. | ||
| So we're going to keep working on it, trying to get that back. | ||
| And again, the Green New Scam, we want those things to end. | ||
| I mean, again, in the House, Steve, we only, like, I fought like freaking cats and dogs to get 60% of it taken out, right? | ||
| And we think we did that. | ||
| It was a good bill to get rid of the 60% future projects, but it would leave all of the existing projects in place, which personally I don't think is good enough. | ||
| But, you know, you take the deal that you can get. | ||
| Well, now the Senate's watering that down. | ||
| So now we would allow probably half or some significant chunk of future projects, and that's not what termination means. | ||
| You got to end these scam subsidies, or we're not going to have a strong grid, and we're going to continue to empower China. | ||
| They also watered down. | ||
| We had language in our bill to prohibit some of this stuff going to China and the foreign interest for solar panels and batteries and all that stuff. | ||
| They watered that down because most of these guys want to protect their corporate cronies in their states and their districts who are, oh, I need my subsidies so I can have a better bottom line. | ||
| Well, that's not what the American people sent us here to do, Steve. | ||
| The first line of defense is the Senate. | ||
| It's Ron Johnson and Mike Lee and these Hawks in the Senate. | ||
| Do you anticipate that they will get a lot of this change even before it comes back to you guys? | ||
| I'm hopeful. | ||
| Rick Scott, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, you point out very well. | ||
| Those three in particular have been working very hard to try to improve the bill. | ||
| They're holding the line. | ||
| They need to keep holding the line. | ||
| Look, they're going to get a lot of pressure from the White House, which, you know, God love them. | ||
| They're my friends, and we want to get the border money and we want to get the taxes extended. | ||
| We want to deliver for the president, but we got to get something better than we're getting it. | ||
| So these guys are going to have to hold the line. | ||
| We need the White House to put pressure on the moderates, not the conservatives, but pressure on the moderates to stop messing with the deal. | ||
| And hopefully the Senate can hold the line and get it over to us so we can pass it. | ||
| But I can promise you there's a bunch of us over here in the House who are not happy with it if the Senate, you know, if they were letting the Senate send it over to us. | ||
| By the way, you can't see this, but the front page of the Financial Times of London is a massive story. | ||
| Investors flee U.S. long-term bonds in fear of soaring debt, $11 billion outflow. | ||
| And it's exactly because of debt and the deficits. | ||
| Are people up there taking this seriously that now we're not able, kind of like in Japan, where investors are uncomfortable buying 20-year and 30-year bonds from the United States government? | ||
| Steve, finally, way too late, my colleagues are starting to wake up to this reality, which is why we got the bill that we got through the House. | ||
| But the problem is, too many of the senators and too many of my colleagues still don't get the urgency, and they don't understand that to get this done, they're going to have to make tough decisions, right? | ||
| You have to make the hard calls. | ||
| You've got to go look to somebody who built a solar company based on the subsidies and say, sorry, man, you made a bad bet, but we're going to stop the subsidies. | ||
| You know, we'll give you a year to wind it down, but we're done. | ||
| And we've got to look at people and be honest about it. | ||
| We've got to tell people that, hey, Medicaid needs to be there for the hardworking people who depend on it. | ||
| But we're not going to allow the able-bodied to get seven times as much money as the vulnerable. | ||
| We're going to fix it. | ||
| We're going to end the money laundering. | ||
| We're going to end the grips. | ||
| And you've got to tell the hospitals, you're not going to keep getting all of this subsidized money. | ||
| So these guys have got to get serious about it. | ||
| You know, Republicans are always good about the tax cuts, but they're never good about the spending cuts. | ||
| And so here we sit, $37 trillion in debt. | ||
| Chiproy, where do people go on your social media to find you over the weekend? | ||
| I know you're going to be putting stuff up, and it's going to be a long work weekend on Capitol Hill. | ||
| It is. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It is. | |
| I'm not going anywhere. | ||
| Chiproy, T-X-C-H-I-P-R-O-Y-T-X on Twitter slash X. Rep Chiproy is my official account. | ||
| And appreciate you, Steve. | ||
| Keep us, you know, keep the spotlight on this stuff. | ||
| You know, all the posse out there. | ||
| Stay focused. | ||
| We've got to deliver for the president, but we've got to deliver the right bill. | ||
| Not just a bill. | ||
| It's got to be the right bill. | ||
| We've got to stop the spending that's killing our country, driving up inflation, making houses unaffordable, killing capital formation like you just described. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So we got to stick with it. | |
| Chip, thank you very much, Congressman. | ||
| We'll check in with you this afternoon and over the weekend. | ||
| Thanks, Steve. | ||
| God bless. | ||
| Folks, President of the United States is not going to bed, Minister. | ||
| He's sticking around the White House for the weekend. | ||
| The reason is the grind is starting. | ||
| Financial Times of London giving you the bad news right there that long-term bonds, a huge outflow, $11 billion in the quarter. | ||
| Can't sell long-term bonds. | ||
| Very disturbing. | ||
| Now more than ever, do you want to understand it? | ||
| We've got a whole program of how to understand it. | ||
| Birchgold.com, end of the dollar empire. | ||
| This is what's going to happen in Rio and the Rio Reset. | ||
| Not all at once, but slowly. | ||
| Birchgold.com slash Bannon. | ||
| That's the promo code. | ||
| Make sure you get all everything's free. | ||
| Free, free, free. | ||
| Seven free installments. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| One of the smartest guys around, Jim Rickards, is going to lay it out and explain it all to you next in the war room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
America's home. | |
| Can you tell us, were you satisfied with the briefing? | ||
| Yeah, let me give you some thoughts about what just transpired in there this morning. | ||
| We talked about how historic and fateful these moments are. | ||
| This is a historic time that we live in, and this has been an incredible two weeks. | ||
| Of course, it began with Israel's strikes that were targeted against Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. | ||
| They eliminated nearly the entire top echelon of Iran's military command and nuclear scientists. | ||
| Then, of course, this past weekend, the United States acted as we needed to act. | ||
| And we had our military forces, of course, strike the heart of Iran's nuclear weapons program. | ||
| We delivered a major setback that resulted then in a feeble face-saving response from Iran, and immediately thereafter, a ceasefire agreement. | ||
| We want to commend President Trump for his decisive and bold leadership. | ||
| Let me have it. | ||
| Let me have it. | ||
| This is Moore Johnson's happy talk. | ||
| Today, I hope they drilled down, because look, it's total obliteration, but I hope they drilled down on what was the sense of urgency even have to go to this. | ||
| Nobody still answered that question. | ||
| It's one of the reasons Tulsi Gabbard's kept out of these things. | ||
| That is the key point, folks. | ||
| What was the sense of urgency? | ||
| Nobody has come through and put that on the table. | ||
| Jim Rickards, first off, I want to go. | ||
| You got breaking news right now, Rickards, which is huge. | ||
| What happened to the Supreme Court a few minutes ago? | ||
| Well, I'm an analyst, not a reporter, but I happen to be a lawyer. | ||
| The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that these nationwide injunctions by the federal district courts exceed their authority. | ||
| It doesn't mean they can't rule. | ||
| They have to confine those injunctions to their district, to the parties. | ||
| They can't stop nationwide policy in the White House sitting in some district court in Boston or any place else. | ||
| Now, what's interesting about it, it was 6-3, not 5-4. | ||
| Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, which is a big deal, so she's on board with this. | ||
| The case involved birthright citizenship, but that's not what the Supreme Court was really talking about, because that case is going to go forward in the district with these new limitations. | ||
| But the principle that district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions is historic. | ||
| That's going to stop 100 cases on 20 different issues, you know, immigration, environment, EPA, everything else. | ||
| It's going to put these district court judges in their place. | ||
| So this is an historic ruling. | ||
| It's definitive in the sense that it's 6-3, and it's nice to see Amy Coney-Barrett and John Roberts, for that matter, on the right side of it. | ||
| It's a very big deal. | ||
| This is, Jim, because you're a lawyer. | ||
| I'm going to have Josh Hammond on here in a little while. | ||
| This is the way that the judicial insurrection tried to stop President Trump, correct? | ||
| I mean, they judge shop, they go to San Francisco, they go to Rhode Island, they get this judge, and these judges do these TROs and injunctions to shut President Trump's Article II policies down. | ||
| Is that correct? | ||
| That's absolutely right. | ||
| And one of the criticisms of John Roberts for a couple decades is that he cares more about the court and the status of the Supreme Court than about some of the issues in front of him. | ||
| And that actually is the legacy of Bush versus Gore. | ||
| That was Renquist, but that pushed things about as far as they can go. | ||
| So Roberts is attentive to that. | ||
| But what's happening now, and insurrection is a good word. | ||
| These district court judges are not even close on the law. | ||
| This is a judicial insurrection, I think that's a good way to put it. | ||
| Roberts now sees that as the threat to the court. | ||
| When you have members of Congress and people like Mike Davis who know this stuff inside out, saying, you know, the district courts are not in the Constitution. | ||
| The only court is the Supreme Court. | ||
| There's nothing stopping the Congress from eliminating these district courts or getting rid of some of these judges. | ||
| So when Roberts sees that, he says, hey, we have a threat to the court, but it's coming from a different direction. | ||
| I've got to reign these district courts in. | ||
| And they just did it big time. | ||
| And again, birthright citizenship was the issue, but that was not the point the court was making. | ||
| They're saying no more, not quite no more, but nationwide injunctions are going to be rare. | ||
| They're going to be subject to a lot of review. | ||
| And, you know, confine your ruling to your district. | ||
| That's a big deal, because it turns the tables. | ||
| When you have a nationwide injunction, the administration has to go, like, every single illegal immigrant's got a habeas corpus petition. | ||
| And you'll never get there. | ||
| How are you going to deport a million people if you have to have a million court hearings? | ||
| But now what the Supreme Court did, they say confine your rulings To this district. | ||
| That means the White House can go ahead with all the other deportations. | ||
| They're not being stopped. | ||
| Tell the audience, why is 6-3 so important here, sir? | ||
| Well, look, 5-4 would have been enough, but lawyers look at these things. | ||
| These rulings establish precedents. | ||
| The circuit courts are obliged to follow them. | ||
| Well, the district court's going to have to follow them. | ||
| They've just been told to get in line. | ||
| But it just carries more weight. | ||
| I mean, legally, 5-4 would have been the same as 6-3, but 6-3 makes a louder statement. | ||
| And, you know, if you're an up-and-coming, even if you're a liberal or a Biden appointee at the district court level, a lot of these guys and women, they aspire to be circuit court judges. | ||
| What judges actually care about, they don't like to get overruled. | ||
| I mean, independent of where you are in the substance of a case, getting overruled is like a black mark in your copybook. | ||
| And so they're going to fall in line behind this. | ||
| That's why it's a very big deal. | ||
| But it speaks a little louder. | ||
| And particularly, Amy Connie-Barret, people can't quite figure her out because everyone wants to put everybody in a box. | ||
| You know, you're progressive or you're conservative, liberal or maggot, whatever. | ||
| But that's not the box she fits in. | ||
| She's very by the book. | ||
| She's a very good lawyer and a good judge. | ||
| And so for her to come on board, that means that this thing passes a lot of legal tests that the layman might not be aware of. | ||
| It's not all politics. | ||
| The law has a lot to do with it. | ||
| But she's rigorous by the book, and she came out, in my view, the right way. | ||
| Jim, I want to go now to the intelligence briefings. | ||
| They gave it to the Senate yesterday. | ||
| I mean, you've seen the ones at the Pentagon. | ||
| President Trump saying, hey, total obliteration. | ||
| The Senate yesterday kind of broke down on party lines. | ||
| They just gave it to the House. | ||
| My belief is they're not focused enough on the inciting incident, like the urgency on the bomb damage assessment. | ||
| What is your sense? | ||
| You're an Intel specialist. | ||
| I think you worked a while, or you had an affiliation with the guys at Langley. | ||
| What is your interpretation where we stand? | ||
| Just on the Intel part. | ||
| Well, this has its roots in WMD. | ||
| And let me explain why. | ||
| WMD was an intelligence community fiasco. | ||
| Now, whether it was bad analysis, outright lying, or wishful thinking, I'll leave that to the historians. | ||
| But they were just wrong. | ||
| Hang on. | ||
| You're saying back, hold it. | ||
| You're saying, this one's the audience, you're saying weapons of mass destruction back from the 2003 time, from the Iraq war, the weapons of mass destruction, Intel. | ||
| Okay, go ahead. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Correct. | |
| Now, I was not on the WMD case, but I was at the agency in the aftermath of that. | ||
| There was a guy, head of the National Intelligence Council, which is the Creme Daily Cramp analyst, named Dr. Thomas Finger. | ||
| And I worked with Dr. Finger quite a bit. | ||
| And he was put in charge of cleaning this up. | ||
| We don't want this to happen again, so what can we do? | ||
| So what they did, they came up with practically a grammar book, a vocabulary. | ||
| And a lot of the words you hear out of the intelligence community in these leaks and in public testimony, you can't take it as plain English. | ||
| When you hear we assess that, fill in the blank, who says assess in a normal conversation? | ||
| Nobody. | ||
| But that's in this, I'll call it the CIA grammarian or grammar book. | ||
| And they put everything in the context of probabilities because nobody wanted to be certain about anything. | ||
| So whenever you say we assess with something, you didn't do much with a low probability, et cetera, that's not plain English. | ||
| That's these guardrails they put on. | ||
| The problem is when you, first of all, the probability, not to get too geeky, but the degree distribution is a normal curve. | ||
| Well, I'm sorry. | ||
| The real world, terrorism, wars, et cetera, are not distributed in a bell curve. | ||
| It's something called a power curve where really extreme events happen with much greater frequencies. | ||
| They got the wrong model for starters. | ||
| Number two, these words are designed to avoid certainty. | ||
| Well, some things are binary. | ||
| They either happened or they didn't. | ||
| And say, et cetera. | ||
| So Tulfsi and Radcliffe, I think to his credit, has not been out there very much. | ||
| I don't think the head of the CIA should be. | ||
| But they're constrained. | ||
| They're in a grammatical analytical straitjacket. | ||
| And so just to rise to Tulfsi's defense a little bit, now about a month ago, or maybe a little bit longer, she testified that Iran was not making a bomb. | ||
| Those are not her exact words, but that's in effect what she said. | ||
| Well, Trump said they were, and she was wrong, and they bombed it, et cetera. | ||
| But just to give her a little credit, she was being very literal, meaning there was nobody sitting there with a screwdriver putting the bomb together at the time. | ||
| She didn't say they didn't have highly emission radium. | ||
| They do. | ||
| They have centrifuges. | ||
| Why do you enrich the 60% if you're not making a bomb? | ||
| Why are you buried at 400 feet underground if you're not making a bomb, et cetera? | ||
| But Iran was clearly moving in that direction. | ||
| But Tulsi couldn't say they're making a bomb. | ||
| He was doing it very literally. | ||
| Now, one thought, and I don't know this for sure, but I'll just lay it out there. | ||
| How do we know that Tulsi's testimony wasn't part of the covert action? | ||
| Meaning, you know, they flew those B-2s to Guam to head fake, throw everybody off. | ||
| Guam's a long way from Iran. | ||
| Meanwhile, they're coming over the North Pole. | ||
| Trump said, I'm going to give you two weeks to figure this out. | ||
| He bombed them like a couple days later. | ||
| So it was a brilliant execution of a covert action. | ||
| Well, no, clandestine, sorry. | ||
| But the point being, how do we know that wasn't part of it? | ||
| You know, hey, you're sitting there in Tehran. | ||
| Director of National Intelligence just said they're not making a bomb. | ||
| You let down your guard. | ||
| So I'll leave it out there as to whether that wasn't part of the plan. | ||
| But let's assume that she was being literal. | ||
| She's in the straitjacket. | ||
| Now, good analysis, where's the creativity? | ||
| And by the way, the way you solve these problems is something, again, I don't mean to be too geeky, something called Bayes Theorem, which is designed for solving problems when you don't have all the information. | ||
| I always say if you have all the information, a bright high school kid can figure it out. | ||
| The art of intelligence is how do you figure it out when you don't have all the information? | ||
| And they're using the wrong tools. | ||
| This Bayes Theorem is designed for that because you update, update, update based on new information. | ||
| So I think Trump's making a mistake by sidelining Tulsi. | ||
| I think Tulsi had a grammatical straitjacket on because of the work of Tom Finger. | ||
| And I think they ought to tear that. | ||
| I told him at the time, I said, yeah, you've got to fix this problem, but this is not the way to do it. | ||
| Jim, can you hang on? | ||
| I want to keep you here for a couple more segments because we've got a lot more to go through. | ||
| Jim Rickards joins us this morning. | ||
| His capital markets, geopolitics, national security, intelligence expertise, unparalleled. | ||
| In fact, go to Rickardswarroom.com. | ||
| It's a landing page. | ||
| It puts together everything that Jim does here for us. | ||
| You can get access to strategic intelligence. | ||
| That is a C-suite read. | ||
| Now, what I mean by that, chairman of the boards and CEOs, the people that make decisions, the people like President Trump in his previous life as CEO and chairman of the Trump organization. | ||
| It's the type of things people like that read and read every month. | ||
| So get the inside baseball. | ||
| Rickardswarroom.com. | ||
| Check it out today. | ||
| He also throws in for strategic intelligence. | ||
| If you subscribe, he'll throw in a free book, Money GPT, Artificial Intelligence and Currency. | ||
| It'll keep you up at night. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Jim Rickards, Josh Hammer on the other side. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mind you, love you, love you. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Man. | ||
| Okay, I want to thank Jim Rickards for being with us. | ||
| He's going to stick around with us. | ||
| He's got a lot to go through with Jim. | ||
| Josh Hammer joins us now on the big guns over at Article 3. | ||
| Josh, walk us through today. | ||
| There are some big rulings. | ||
| We just got one. | ||
| If you can explain that to us, and you're going to come back and jump in and out as these go. | ||
| But how many of these rulings are going to be, that the Supreme Court still have to give us? | ||
| And are they going to roll these out today, Monday, Tuesday? | ||
| What's your feel? | ||
| So, Steve, I was guessing that they were going to go into next week. | ||
| There are some other tea leaf reading indications, if you will. | ||
| They might actually try to get them all out today. | ||
| For instance, John Roberts has a public event tomorrow. | ||
| Typically, historically speaking, the justices like to get out all of the rulings before they kind of go do their summer session thing and they do the public speeches, the law school seminars, the junkets to Europe, things like that. | ||
| So there are various indications to think that they're probably going to drop some more opinions today. | ||
| But I would not be surprised, certainly, if they go into next week. | ||
| For the past couple of terms, they typically have gone into the first week of July, not the end of June. | ||
| So there is some recent present for that as well. | ||
| Having said that, the opinion that we've already gotten today is definitely one of the most anticipated rulings of the term. | ||
| It's probably my personally most anticipated ruling of the term, with the exception of the Scrimetti case, the transgender case out of Tennessee, which was a tremendous victory that we had a couple of weeks ago. | ||
| But the ruling today is it was teed up as the birthright citizenship case. | ||
| But Steve, as I think you and I discussed on a previous appearance here on your show, the way that this was litigated kind of precluded or at least necessarily steered the justice away from issuing a ruling on the actual 14th Amendment birthright citizenship question, because the way that the lawyers teed it up was about the scope of injunctive relief. | ||
| So the real kind of question that we got an answer to today isn't about whether or not the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause requires birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. | ||
| I hope that we get an answer on that in the next few years, to be clear. | ||
| But the opinion today really only deals with the issue of so-called nationwide injunctions. | ||
| And it's a 6-3 ruling. | ||
| It's written by Amy Coney Barrett, who I've definitely been critical of at times. | ||
| Certainly my Article III project colleague Mike Davis has been quite critical as well. | ||
| But it's a solid opinion. | ||
| And, you know, she does not go the full way. | ||
| This is not a full, fulsome, here's what the Article III judicial power of the Constitution says. | ||
| Here's what it does not say. | ||
| It is not that. | ||
| That is what I wanted. | ||
| And hopefully we get that in the years to come. | ||
| But it is a solid victory nonetheless. | ||
| It effectively says that the notion that there is a power of a court to issue a sprawling universal injunction to bind anyone throughout the country is not a power that exists. | ||
| It is ahistorical. | ||
| It is not the kind of thing that existed in the courts of equity back in medieval England. | ||
| It is not the kind of thing that was adapted into the Constitution in the Judiciary Act of 1789. | ||
| And probably even more kind of mouth-watering, I might say, is just the really dripping with disdain language that Amy Coney Barrett has for Katanji Brown Jackson, the lead dissenter here. | ||
| She accuses Katanji Brown Jackson of opposing an imperial executive branch, but worshiping an imperial judiciary. | ||
| This is pretty fiery language for Amy Coney Barrett, who is not necessarily always the fieriest of the justes on the court there. | ||
| So there's a lot of good stuff in here. | ||
| It is a strong, strong partial victory for the Trump administration there. | ||
| And I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out from here. | ||
| Are you talking about imperial judiciary? | ||
| I mean, this has been the fight where this judicial supremacy, and this is what the progressives have used to chop block President Trump, right, on his Article II powers, everything he's trying to accomplish, with the theory to delay is to deny. | ||
| Is this now, because we just had the Supreme Court ruling the other day about the bad ombres being sent out, and I think that they're going after now judges in Maryland because district judges are not following the Supreme Court, right? | ||
| So is this going to have an impact? | ||
| I mean, these district judges even going to pay attention to this, sir? | ||
| No, it's a legitimate question. | ||
| We are currently at a state where these lower courts are just so brazenly flipping their fingers, not merely at President Trump, but as we saw with Judge Murphy, Massachusetts, so brazenly sticking their middle fingers at their own purported bosses or their own actual boss, I should say, in the Article III hierarchy there, that it's hard to know what it will actually take to try to corral these lower court judicial insurrectionists and actually bring them in line. | ||
| Certainly in my personal capacity, and we at Article III Project, we've been supportive of everything, including jurisdiction-stripping legislation, abolishing judgeships, filing articles of impeachment as necessary against rogue judges. | ||
| Certainly, I think Judge Brian Murphy, the one in Massachusetts, who literally is just straight up ignoring his Supreme Court order that overturned his preliminary injunction. | ||
| I think an impeachment article against Judge Murphy is wholly necessary right now. | ||
| But for all these reasons, Steve, I was hoping for a stronger, a stronger ruling today. | ||
| I was hoping for a definitive kind of Clarence Thomas Sam Alito ruling that says Article 3 of the Constitution, the judicial power, here is what it means. | ||
| It absolutely, unequivocally does not include this so-called nationwide injunction. | ||
| We didn't get that, but it's pretty good. | ||
| It's definitely pretty good. | ||
| What Barrett says is that there is strong reason to doubt on a historical basis the veracity or legitimacy of so-called nationwide injunctions, and they should not be used more than is absolutely necessary to reach the correct ruling. | ||
| Now, there is some kind of lawyerly language in there that you can kind of see how some left-wing NGOs, the ACLU, the open borders advocates, they might try to play with that language there. | ||
| They're still trying to get some nationwide injunctions there. | ||
| And there's also some leeway potentially for the rogue lower court judges to kind of play with it a little bit as well. | ||
| So, again, it's not the full-out, all-out victory that I was hoping for, but it's very good, and I'm certainly quite happy from where I sit. | ||
| Given some of the cases that this court has dealt with over the last few years, where they take something like this local injunction, but they talk about the broader issue that brought it. | ||
| That's why a lot of us on the 14th Amendment were hoping that this is what they were going to do and address birthright citizenship. | ||
| They clearly didn't do that. | ||
| How do you get this back into the system? | ||
| Because I think for those of us that were looking for this case to do it, it's a massive disappointment. | ||
| Not that this is not important, very important, but we thought that there'd be a broader ruling here. | ||
| Is the timing that we got to go back and start the process over again? | ||
| You said a couple of years. | ||
| When you said a couple of years, my heart skipped a beat. | ||
| So, Josh, we look to you for guidance on this. | ||
| What do you think? | ||
| Well, this has to be a merits case. | ||
| The actual substantive 14th Amendment decision to McClaw's question, what does it mean, what does it not mean, that cannot come on the emergency docket. | ||
| That cannot come kind of on the scope of injunctive relief. | ||
| That has to be a standard kind of you file a petition, you file a writ of surreituary, you get the justice to grant it, you have a full oral argument. | ||
| So, look, that's the kind of thing that can be teed up there. | ||
| And certainly this litigation when it comes to President Trump's executive order is not going anywhere. | ||
| If anything, today's ruling kind of sort of has the effect of kicking it down the road a little bit for the rulings or for the reasons that I just said. | ||
| It does kind of then open up the potential gateways for the lower court to say, okay, I mean, this adjunctive relief is not necessary here, but maybe it's necessary here. | ||
| But there is room, I think, for the Trump DOJ and for the Trump Solicitor General's office to try to cleanly tee up this. | ||
| I would hope potentially for the next SCOTIS term. | ||
| Now, here's what I will say, though, Steve. | ||
| I will sound a note of slight caution on this for the following reason. | ||
| If I'm just being very sober here and just trying to call it like I see it there, I am unfortunately not convinced that at this exact time there are five votes on the court to do the right thing on birthright citizenship. | ||
| I really hope that there are. | ||
| I would love nothing more than be proven wrong. | ||
| I think that there are probably two solid votes, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. | ||
| And beyond that, I think that there are a lot of question marks. | ||
| I could see Brett Kavanaugh getting there, maybe Justice Gorsuch, but you're really starting to kind of count votes from there. | ||
| So what I would hope for, and I guess we'll see, is maybe there will be some shakeup on the Supreme Court personnel. | ||
| It's probably not looking great, to be honest with you, because I don't necessarily see Sotomayor or Katanji Brown Jackson retiring or anything like that there. | ||
| But that is my one note of caution there, is that there is an argument to be made that it might be a blessing in disguise that we didn't get that ruling on the Merits Day, because I'm not convinced it actually would have gone in our favor. | ||
| Josh, your run-in-mate there, Mike Davis, has got a solution to send. | ||
| Hopefully, Amy Coney Barrett goes back to be dean of the Notre Dame Law School, but we can only hope. | ||
| Sir, where do people get your writings? | ||
| We'll basically reach out if anything else breaks. | ||
| Where do they get your writings? | ||
| You've got a great new book on Israel and Western civilization. | ||
| Where do people get that? | ||
| Where do they get everything related to Josh Hammer on socials? | ||
| Yeah, so I'm on X, Josh underscore Hammer, Instagram, Josh B. Hammer. | ||
| The book, as you kindly mentioned, is Israel and Civilization, the Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West. | ||
| My show, The Josh Hammer Show, available everywhere. | ||
| Books, excuse me, available everywhere. | ||
| Podcasts are available. | ||
| And then my syndicated column is up at Newsweek, Real Clear Politics, a bunch of other places as well. | ||
| Thank you, sir. | ||
| Appreciate you, Josh. | ||
| Thanks for coming on. | ||
| You bet. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Jim Murkins, before we get back to Intel and geopolitics and strategy, the possibility of impeaching some of these district court justices, because they're giving the middle finger to the Supreme Court, they're giving the middle finger to Congress, they're giving the middle finger to the executive branch and to the American people. | ||
| Your thoughts? | ||
| Well, I doubt that they'll actually impeach them, but starting an impeachment proceeding, you know, kind of beginning to go through the process, is exactly the kind of thing that John Roberts does not want to see. | ||
| Independent of the merits of any issue, that begins to affect the integrity of the judicial system and ultimately the Supreme Court. | ||
| So I would say that that may be a very worthwhile avenue to pursue. | ||
| Not that you get it all the way, but it's one more reason for John Roberts to start to slap these guys down, you know, men and women, but start to slap them down and put them in their place. | ||
| So it's not a bad strategy. | ||
| I doubt it would go all the way, but it will get Roberts' attention. | ||
| It's the kind of thing that will, again, continue these types of rulings. | ||
| And, you know, Josh was exactly right about the substance of birthright citizenship. | ||
| That's going to go back to the district court. | ||
| They're going to have a trial, see how it turns out. | ||
| It's going to work its way back to the Supreme Court. | ||
| And he's right, that may take a year. | ||
| But the definitive ruling today, that you cannot have nationwide injunctions to the district court except in very limited circumstances, that's the law of the land as of now. | ||
| And again, independent birthright citizenship, that affects 100 other cases. | ||
| It's a big deal for that reason, even though, again, Josh was right, it doesn't get to the merits of birthright citizenship. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| But Jim, this is what I understand, is that the Supreme Court ruled the other day about the bad ombres and about how they can, President Trump and his Article II powers as commander-in-chief can send these guys back to other countries other than their own for jailing. | ||
| And immediately you had the guy in Massachusetts, but I think there's also a revolt of federal district judges in Maryland. | ||
| So it's we come out with these kind of rulings and these district judges who are, I think, neo-Marxist just say, okay, fine, we're not doing it. | ||
| So what happens there? | ||
| What happens, like, for instance, this is, like I said, not a definitive ruling, but pretty good. | ||
| If these guys, because you know they're going to do the workarounds. | ||
| Because they're praised as heroes. | ||
| If you watch MSNBC, those district judges are held up as the paragons of the rule of law. | ||
| And anything that supports Trump or the MAGA movement is looked like lawless anarchy. | ||
| So how can we depend on even this ruling being effectuated, sir? | ||
| Well, I would say the Trump Justice Department, Solicitor General's Office and others, they've done a very good job procedurally. | ||
| Boy, they scour the rule books. | ||
| I mean, you can make motions to remove the judge from the case. | ||
| By the way, I'm not against impeachment. | ||
| I think that some of these judges deserve that. | ||
| But even short of that, or if you start it and doesn't go anywhere, you can remove the judge from the case. | ||
| You can appeal the ruling again. | ||
| You get to the circuit court. | ||
| The circuit court can issue various rulings that would favor what Trump's trying to do. | ||
| And bear in mind, a few days ago, the Supreme Court said that there was no bar on deporting illegal immigrants, criminals basically, to countries other than their home country. | ||
| So this guy, I forget his exact name, Garcia, but the human trafficker, wife beater, smuggler, child sex trafficker, et cetera, who's been described as a Maryland dad, et cetera. | ||
| Well, he came back from El Salvador, but he might be on his way to Sudan. | ||
| And the Supreme Court said that's okay. | ||
| So we are getting, look, it's a slow, frustrating process. | ||
| We are getting rulings, but maybe a motion to remove the judge from the case based on that conduct or various ethical considerations. | ||
| These are not taken lightly in the judiciary. | ||
| Jim, can you hang on? | ||
| I'm going to hold you for as long as we can keep you. | ||
| We've got a lot to go through. | ||
| Haven't even scratched the surface, Rickards. | ||
| There was so much going on. | ||
| More room? | ||
| Short break. | ||
| back with Jim Rickards in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Man. | |
| So a capital in turmoil today on the big, beautiful bill, the intelligence, everything else going on. | ||
| The engine room has sent me to always remind me of Andrew Jackson. | ||
| Interesting ruling, folks. | ||
| Now enforce it from President Andrew Jackson, General Jackson, one of President Trump's favorite presidents. | ||
| And of course, the great Andrew Jackson quote, the Bible is the rock on which our republic rests. | ||
| The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests. | ||
| Powerful words and a powerful thought. | ||
| Patriot Mobile, you know Glenn Sturrey and the team have done so much throughout the country and supporting conservative media, conservative causes, but particularly in Texas where they are the rock of Gibraltar down there, and trying to make sure that after a 14-point Trump victory, which is unbelievable because they're kind of the railhead of MAGA, that we're in a situation where Democrats and the Bush apparatus runs the state. | ||
| 972 Patriot, make the switch today. | ||
| Call right now and talk to an American citizen who's on the other than the phone and customer service. | ||
| You can talk about all the services they provide, but the phone service itself is absolutely magnificent. | ||
| 972 Patriots, go there and check it out today. | ||
| Also, one of the reasons why I get jacked up early in the morning, besides Warpath Coffee, is the real organic superfood from Field of Greens. | ||
| Go to fieldofgreens.com. | ||
| You get 20% off your first order. | ||
| You get this. | ||
| I put the powder in water in the morning and drink it right after I get my coffee. | ||
| And man, you feel great. | ||
| You get all your fruits, all your vegetables. | ||
| It's not artificial. | ||
| It's not processed. | ||
| It's real organic superfood. | ||
| Guys, I'm going to need that clock if I'm going to get out of here to understand where we are. | ||
| Thank you, sir. | ||
| That's good. | ||
| Let's go to Jim Rickards. | ||
| Jim, do we have the clip? | ||
| Again, play the clip from Brett Barrick. | ||
| I'll play this and let Jim Rickards have it. | ||
| Poulsen Gabbard testified on Capitol Hill saying that everything had been suspended since 2003 and had not restarted, that the nuclear program had not been restarted by the Iranian suburb. | ||
| So did something change from end of March until this week? | ||
| Was the U.S. intel wrong? | ||
| The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear. | ||
| It was absolutely clear that they were working in a secret plan to weaponize the uranium. | ||
| They were marching very quickly. | ||
| They would achieve a test device and possibly an initial device within months and certainly less than a year. | ||
| That was the intel we shared with the United States. | ||
| I think we have excellent intel in Iran. | ||
| I think we've proven that. | ||
| And that is something that we couldn't possibly accept. | ||
| Whether it would be six months or 12 months or 13 months is immaterial. | ||
| Once they go that route, it's too late. | ||
| And we will not have a second Holocaust, a nuclear Holocaust. | ||
| We already had one in the previous century. | ||
| The Jewish state is not going to have the Holocaust mated on the Jewish people. | ||
| It's not going to happen. | ||
| Never again is now, and we have to act now. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| MTG joins us by phone. | ||
| MTG, they had the security briefing, the intelligence briefing this morning. | ||
| I assumed you went, and that to me is the key point, not the bomb damage assessment, which President Trump obliterated, obliterated the bomb, but actually this. | ||
| Did you come away that there's any sense of urgency, that there's any sense of urgency, there was any sense of urgency to actually begin this entire fiasco? | ||
| Well, actually, I'm on video, Steve, not on phone. | ||
| So I'm here with you all on War Room. | ||
| So I'm really happy about that. | ||
| Obviously, we can't talk about what was said in classified briefings, or I'll get in big trouble for that. | ||
| But I think what's important, the takeaway right now is important that what they have been saying publicly and what President Trump has said is they feel successful in the bombings that they carried out and the ceasefire that has been put in place in pursuing peace. | ||
| However, I will say that Israel, as of this morning, I saw has been bombing Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy. | ||
| So we really hope that this thing is over with and that's yet to be seen. | ||
| So let's turn to the big beautiful bill. | ||
| Last night you were quite concerned. | ||
| We talked to Chiproy earlier. | ||
| You got any better feeling for what's happening? | ||
| The Senate President Trump has canceled leaving day. | ||
| He's going to get an intel brief at 11 o'clock, an update, but he says he's not going to bed minister. | ||
| He's sticking around to kind of put the deal together and whip the vote in the Senate. | ||
| Do you feel any better this morning, ma'am, that this thing's going to be anywhere near having the MAGA codification that we've had before? | ||
| Well, the only thing I can say is that the people will not accept another big fat, basically omnibus type of bill passed by Republicans that does not deliver the agenda that they voted for. | ||
| And I fully 100% stand with them. | ||
| And what's happening in the Senate was shocking yesterday, watching out the provisions, the provisions that we put in that strips away funding from sex change surgeries for children. | ||
| I want to go off on that one for a minute, C, because that's an executive order by President Trump. | ||
| And that is also my most important bill that I have, Protect Children's Innocence Act, that's already passed through judiciary and just needs a vote on the House floor to make it a felony, criminalize sex changes on children. | ||
| So that would be completely unacceptable in the House, not just for me, but a massive majority of Republicans would not accept that. | ||
| Also, the Senate parliamentarians stripped out our provision that stopped Medicaid and Medicare going to illegal aliens. | ||
| That one's also a hard no in the House, as well as the Green New scam tax credits. | ||
| That's absolutely what we are trying to get rid of. | ||
| And that's what people voted to end the Green New Deal. | ||
| So there's many things in there that needs to continue. | ||
| Although, Steve, the Senate parliamentarian did not strike out the 10-year moratorium for AI on states to have their right to regulate and make laws on AI for 10 years. | ||
| I'm going to tell you, that's a hard no for me, a hard no. | ||
| And I'll tell you why. | ||
| There is no legislation currently in Congress for AI, the future of AI. | ||
| So there is no way state rights should be tied behind their back to make regulations and laws for 10 years. | ||
| And I have a lot of support behind me on that. | ||
| I was the first that came out on that one, the first Republican that came out against it. | ||
| But now 40 state attorney generals have written a letter saying absolutely not to the 10-year state moratorium. | ||
| Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders came out against it this week with an op-ed and many other governors across the country. | ||
| So we haven't stopped the fight yet. | ||
| We're going to pass the agenda that President Trump campaigned on. | ||
| We are going to make sure the people get what they voted for and we will not stop fighting up here in Washington until that happens. | ||
| Congressman, what is your social media so people can keep up with you today? | ||
| Because this is a dogfight up there, ma'am. | ||
| Yeah, you can follow me on RepMTG. | ||
| And also, Tucker, I want to let everyone know, Tucker Carlson just dropped his interview with me from this week. | ||
| So please tune in and watch that. | ||
| We will watch it and we will push it out, ma'am. | ||
| Thank you, Congressman. | ||
| Appreciate you. |
Export Selection