Episode 5189: SCOTUS Victory Upholding Deportations; Free Tina Peters
Episode 5189 dissects a president’s Iran strike justification—citing $6B nuclear claims, 47 years of alleged war, and 56% moderate disapproval—while a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling upholds deportations for asylum seekers failing torture standards. Tina Peters’ nine-year prison sentence for preserving election records contrasts with Sonia Lewis’s probation, sparking calls for Governor Jared Polis to pardon her amid grassroots wins like Texas’s Proposition 10 and Illinois precinct chair battles, where Annie Pritchard fought back against establishment coups. Geopolitical tensions tie U.S.-Iran moves to China’s economic shifts and Iran’s potential hardline succession, framing Peters’ fight as both a legal and political flashpoint. [Automatically generated summary]
No more stupid wars, no more forever conflicts, no more being the policeman of the world.
Except this time, because this time it is him doing it, the only one brave and strong enough to do what other presidents thought was too risky.
It's not Iraq or Afghanistan.
It's more like Venezuela, he said.
Decisive, strategic, brief, and necessary.
Because roughly eight months after their nuclear program was obliterated, it needed to be obliterated again because they could have nukes in a week or they could have nukes in a month.
Because they can't have short-range missiles, because Iran was going to strike first and we needed to join in to protect ourselves, because the Iranian people needed liberation, because the regime is evil, because it's a rogue terrorist regime that has been chanting death to America for 47 years, because they were presented with a unique opportunity to strike, and because Iranians weren't fast enough in their negotiations.
They said all of those things.
All of those have been explanations for this war.
And it's dizzying.
It's also confusing.
Which is probably why we've seen official after official come out to sell it, yelling at, lecturing Americans who might be questioning it.
And anytime an incumbent in Texas goes to a primary, they're usually in a, it is more likely than not that they're going to lose because this means half of the electorate has voted against them.
And the most right-wing voters show up to a primary.
John Cornyn absolutely needs this endorsement for his survival, but he also needs other things to go his way as well.
The son of Ayatollah Khomeini is the top contender for Supreme Leader.
Quote, the son of Iran's slain theocratic leader is a top contender to replace his father to steer the embattled Islamic Republic in its worst conflict in decades.
That's according to people familiar with the matter.
He would likely opt for an even more hardline direction as supreme leader, Iranian officials and analysts say.
This feels like the worst possible outcome, what has already been the loss of American treasure in the form of six lives, that we take someone out who's replaced by someone that the Wall Street Journal says is, quote, even more hardline as Supreme Leader.
And I think he represents a real element within Iranian society, not just the government and the regime, but Iranian society.
You know, we tend to look at things through the American prison and point out all the very odious and heinous acts that Iran has committed over the course of the last number of decades, particularly since the revolution.
The Iranians look at us and they say, okay, the CIA and the Brits overthrew the democratically elected prime minister, Mossadegh, in 1953.
We armed, equipped, and trained the Sabak, which was the Shah's secret police that tortured and oppressed Iranians across the board.
You know, we have engaged in different types of bombing activities.
We invaded Iraq.
We killed Qasem Suleimani.
We assassinated some of them.
So they keep saying, you know, it's eye for an eye, and we can go back into history.
The big question is, how do we move forward and get out of this cycle of violence and retribution?
But the Iranians are looking at us and saying, boy, they're raining hell down on them.
And I also heard the reports that the Israelis say that they're going to kill the next supreme leader.
Obviously, it's a war on their religion in many respects as well, given the combination of religious and political leadership in Iran.
So again, this is so messy.
And again, I'm just aghast that a U.S. administration engaged in something like this without thinking through the implications, the repercussions, and where we go from here.
It is just appalling.
unidentified
Caroline, I'm going to move some.
Supreme Court's Immigration Impact00:13:27
unidentified
Go ahead.
Carolyn, could you tell us about the president's current thinking about ground troops and whether they could be used if they were to be sent into Iran?
Well, they're not part of the plan for this operation at this time, but I certainly will never take away military options on behalf of the President of the United States or the Commander-in-Chief.
And he wisely does not do the same for himself.
I know there's many leaders in the past who like to take options off of the table without having a full understanding of how things could develop.
So again, it's not part of the current plan, but I'm not going to remove an option for the president that is on the table.
I've seen the news reports where this grand jury has sent out a lot of subpoenas to a lot of these Democrats, bad actors who engaged in this unprecedented Republican lawfare against Trump, his aides like you and Peter DeBarro, his allies, January 6th supporters, Pirates, Christians.
I've come on your show countless times since the Mar-a-Lago raid talking about this weaponization, this lawfare.
I have very publicly called for accountability for this.
I would say retribution is a crucial component of justice.
I very publicly push Jason Redding Kiñones.
My good friend is the Miami U.S. Attorney.
And I have very publicly said, I hope that Jason puts all these asses in jail.
So, you know, of course, I don't know what the grand jury is doing because that would be illegal, but I am very happy with the news reports that I'm hearing.
Yeah, it's a nine-to-nothing decision, and it was by Justice Katanji Brown Jackson.
So, this is like a unicorn decision.
Uh, and it's an important one.
It's a Supreme Court decision that talks about how our immigration system handles claims of persecution, claims of torture by these illegal aliens who are coming to America.
There was a Salvadorian citizen who fled to the United States with his wife and his minor child back in 20, I think it was 2020, if I'm not mistaken.
He had in his hometown back in El Salvador, he had got beaten up a few times.
His brother got shot.
But when this family moved to different parts of El Salvador, it was fine.
It was mostly peaceful, as we say, with BLM.
But he didn't face violence if he moved to other parts of El Salvador.
It was only when he moved back to his hometown that he faced this hometown rivalry or whatever it was against his family.
And so, then, of course, like all these illegal immigrants do, they come to the United States illegally.
So, he came here, he gets caught, he claims asylum.
He claims that if he gets sent back home, that he's going to be tortured.
And you have federal immigration judges.
Immigration judges work for the justice departments, they're appointed by the attorney general.
They are executive branch officials, and that is intentionally set up by Congress because immigration, the laws are written by Congress, but the enforcement is an executive branch function.
And so, this immigration judge said that this guy, his wife, and his kid didn't meet the standard for torture.
Adios, Pablo, you're going back home, or whatever the hell his name is.
And that was that decision was upheld on appeal through the justice departments, through the Board of Immigration Appeals.
And then from there, it goes to a federal court of appeals.
It goes in this case, the First Circuit.
And the First Circuit, which is dominated by liberals, correctly held that this guy didn't meet the standard, and they is strong deference.
There is substantial deference, very strong deference to the executive branch when they make these determinations related to immigration, related to torture, and asylum cases.
And so, the Supreme Court nine-to-nothing upheld that.
And this is important in this respect, Steve.
It reaffirms that these decisions are not for these activist Democrats judges to make.
You can't run to a federal district court judge in Boston or New York or LA or one of these other liberal hellholes and have one of these district court judges upend the process to free their illegals, right?
Because I want to say, I want to go through how they've been trying to jam up the deportation system by using a very important 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court.
So, Mike, here's what I don't get, but this was the way that they were using.
Particularly the first line, as you know, the most radicals are the front line of the federal judiciary.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but back a year ago, when President Trump, when we first started everything, not simply the border, but also ICE and immigration enforcement, this was a way that they were chop-blocking us.
And you're telling me the entire time the Supreme Court, it finally took time to get there, but the Supreme Court is united that this method can't be used in the future?
So the Supreme Court did not directly address the structure of the immigration system that broadly, but this was a nine-to-nothing decision.
Like that, that rarely happens.
Justice Jackson, the most liberal of all of them, the most political and liberal of all of them, wrote this opinion for the majority.
And there was no controversy around the fact that Congress writes our immigration laws.
The executive branch enforces and adjudicates our immigration laws, both through ICE, arresting these illegals, and then U.S. immigration judges who are executive branch Justice Department officials appointed by the Attorney General who decide these matters.
This is immigration.
This is separate from other matters we have before the federal courts.
There are different due process concerns for illegal immigrants than for American citizens.
American citizens have more due process.
They have Article 3, due process.
These illegal immigrants do not, right?
They go through the U.S. immigration courts, and then it goes through the federal, to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals or whatever it's called.
That's an executive branch court.
And then it only goes to the federal court of appeal after that, the relevant geographic federal court of appeal after it's exhausted through the Justice Department system.
And the courts of appeals give substantial deference to the findings of these immigration courts.
So the idea that you're just going to come in here and illegally come into our country and get caught and then say, oh, I need asylum.
I'm being persecuted back home because my drug dealer down the street is beating me up.
That's not going to fly, right?
And so it's very important for the nine to nothing decision of the Supreme Court.
Up on Capitol Hill, they're running around about President Trump's Article II powers, either the War Powers Act or they want to bring guys up for testimony.
Your thoughts right now legally with the authorization that President Trump has, does he have everything he needs?
Will the Senate somehow try to step in here or the House try to step in here on the War Powers Act or try to thwart his use as commander in chief in his Article II power, sir?
We went into this in detail, but no, the president has the full power as the commander-in-chief under Article II of the Constitution to fight back against the war that Iran has declared against the United States.
You don't need to wait for a congressional declaration of war when you're already at war.
If a foreign country has already declared war against the United States, we don't need a declaration of war from Congress.
The president, as the commander-in-chief under Article II, has to defend our country, has to repel attacks.
And President Trump also has power under congressional authorizations going back, for example, to 2002 when Congress authorized the president to fight back against international terrorism.
It related to Iraq, but it also related to the terrorist proxies in Iran, right?
Iran declared a war against the United States 47 years ago.
They've killed thousands of Americans since then.
And the president does not need any authorization from Congress to fight back and crush Iran.
And he does not, look, we have not had a declaration of war since World War II.
With the War Powers Act, every president since that was enacted in 1973, every president for the last 53 years, 54 years, whatever it's been, has said that that War Powers Act is unconstitutional.
And no president, Democrat or Republican, has ever complied with the War Powers Act.
President Trump is on the most solid legal grounds, and there's no question if he is challenged in court.
We'll have a discussion of the Save America Act tomorrow and what's really happening and why it's jammed up in the Senate.
It makes the endorsement of Cornyn even more, if that's a possibility, even more mind-boggling.
But greater minds than I.
I want to say something about the Warren Posse's agency.
You saw that last night in the stunning victory on Article 10, the proposition, excuse me, Proposition 10 in the Texas primary.
Just amazing.
Final numbers are in, I think, basically 95 to 5 and also almost 2 million votes.
I think 1,981.
Just extraordinary with no money.
It was all grassroots.
And the voters, voters of Texas and the grassroots have spoken.
This was a grassroots effort.
So many grassroots organizations with no money, just the elbow grease.
And then the voters of Texas.
So this is going to be important.
We got a big, huge action plan back of this.
We're going to roll out over the next couple of days.
And we'll have a discussion about Save America and getting the going to both Article 3 and also going to Bill Blaster with Grace and making sure we can talk to people.
But, you know, I think the Senate's pretty dug in that they don't want to do it.
We did not get a chance to address it in depth this morning.
I wanted to take a crack of a day.
Apollo Pappas joins us.
He's the host for Tina Peters show, where Tina Peters is incarcerated in a Maximum Security Prison, women's prison in Colorado.
Apollo, so last night, I think it was, Polis put out, I think, a tweet and went through kind of this long detail of why he was thinking of granting clemency or a pardon.
I think that Tina Peters used an example of some other person.
The Hill newspaper, the leading political newspaper up on Capitol Hill, kind of the center left paper there has a huge article about it, particularly focused on the blowback that Polis is going to get from the left.
Get us up to speed.
What is happening?
The president has given her a federal pardon, but so far hasn't been able to effectuate it.
I know a lot of people, people in this audience, you guys, we had the Tina Peters 500, I think, what, 15 days ago or 16 days ago.
Walk us through what's happening right now.
Is this real?
And is it your recommendation and the other people on the Tina Peters team that we put additional pressure on Polis or would just stand down and see how this develops, sir?
And I mean, Polis is in a bit of a difficult position because as his own post called out, there is a glaring discrepancy between the justice, if you call it that, that was applied to Tina Peters and his friend Sonia.
But there's a bigger gap there than most people realize in that the news states, because you have multiple sentences where Tina was given three charges for one misrepresentation of the liar Jerry Woods versus Sonia.
It is very real.
He's clearly signaling that, yes, I do see something unavoidably wrong with this situation.
And at least on its face, he seems to be inclined to do something.
I think he should do so immediately because right now you have an issue for all of Coloradans.
It's not a right or left issue.
Tina Peters' treatment is a civil rights issue.
And the biggest glaring discrepancy, in addition to multiple charges being accounted for Tina Peters versus one for Sonia, is that Tina Peters' actions actually stem from her carrying out her sworn duty as clerk of Mesa County.
So she was preserving election records that her image showed the Secretary of State, Jenna Griswold, who is currently calling for Polis not to grant her clemency in any way, deleted them with her trusted build.
So it's very real.
I hope that Polis does do so immediately and doesn't wait.
The optics that he might face from some of those who have been brainwashed or are afraid of the Tina Peters story because of what she actually did is going to be dwarfed by the message it's going to send if he waits on this.
There's no reason for him to.
And he does have policy for the governor's office regarding clemency.
And I don't believe he should wait for the entire appeals process to carry out.
We don't know how long that's going to be.
And I hope he just acts on it because she deserves to be out.
The Colorado Department of Corrections is not keeping her safe.
She's had now five, six incidents.
The last one, of course, resulting in the 29-year-old inmate who assaulted her being let out on parole just weeks later.
She's now out.
And Tina Peters has been bounced around to the special housing unit they refuse to call solitary and say that's the best they can do to protect her.
She's not safe.
They're not making the situation any better and they're not solving the problem.
So Tina Peters shouldn't be there in the first place.
And this would be a good step for Jared Polis to do the obvious right thing and show Coloradans that there's some semblance of sanity.
And his own words, you know, describe exactly that.
So I hope he has the courage to just do what he should have done a while ago.
By the Coalition podcast, Matt Meck and the team, and I'll get the link.
They're going to have Peter Ticton up at 7 p.m. Eastern Time for the at the conclusion of our second hour.
They'll have it up for a full hour with Tickton, and I'm sure they'll get into the details of this.
Birch Guard, I want to make sure you go to Birch Gold, get all the information.
We don't sell gold here.
We give you access to information of the largest and best provider of physical gold around so that you can make your own decisions and particularly learn you up on why gold has been a hedge for 5,000 years.
Now, back in the financial asset class, like it was in the 19th century, why is that central banks are buying it at record rates?
So make sure you go check it out today, birchgold.com.
Don't think the BRICS have had it quite yet.
And we ought to understand that.
Although I think Steve Mosher is a genius, and I think his article in the post is incredible.
Apollo, I just want to make sure, go through, particularly with being down here in Texas, we're picking up new viewers all the time.
Some people are maybe not familiar with all the details of the imprisonment of the gold star mother, patriot and hero Tina Peters, of which your team has been leading an amazing effort for years to get her out.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, Tina Peters for making sure that we had free and fair elections has, I think, nine years in a state prison.
And this state prison, folks, is as tough as they come.
As Apollo said, she's already been assaulted a number of times and thrown in the shoe.
The shoe, the special housing unit is solitary.
And that's not to protect you.
That's really to break you psychologically.
The other woman, is it Sonia Lewis?
Because even Polis mentioned this.
Just want me to real quickly, what Sonia Lewis did and what was her punishment versus Tina Peters with nine years in a state prison.
And I think plus three or four years of parole and home confinement and all that stuff they do to prisoners.
Well, Sonia Lewis was part of an ethics investigation because she was mistreating her Capitol staff and her aides.
So she forged several letters to influence this ethics committee and was given one count of attempting to influence a public servant and three counts of forgery for that.
She was given, I believe it was two years of probation, 150 hours of community service and a fine.
Meanwhile, Tina Peters has the exact same felony, except they tripled it for the same misrepresentation that Sonia was given one count for to an entire ethics committee.
Tina was given nine and a half years for bringing in an expert within her authority to make a backup of the Mesa County EMS as she was clerk and recorder.
She was given nine and a half years and a mandatory three-year parole at the end of that as well, which is very different than probation.
And now she has been locked up for 15, 16 months now in a state prison with violent offenders who have repeated records of felony assault.
Some of them are in there for murder.
And this Gold Star Mother, first-time nonviolent offender, was given a decade plus parole while this Democratic senator was given a slap on the wrist, community service and a fine.
If you pull up his tweet again, can you just read the section where I think he meant what shocked me, and you had some really bad actors on the Democrat side really jump on Polis last night, I think for putting this up.
Some folks in the January 6th committee and others really going after him.
He put it up and he admitted that for what basically less than what Tina Peters did, this woman got just basically a slap on the wrist, whereas Tina Peters is in a, what essentially, because there's only, I guess, one woman's prison in Colorado, a maximum security prison, which is a hellhole, as you can see, for almost 10 years as a gold star mother who is over 70 years old.
Even Polis realizes there's a huge disparity here.
Yeah, in his own tweet, he made a point about this and said, you know, he knows Sonia.
And prison, in his own words, is a hard place for anyone, no less a 68-year-old pharmacist.
Tina is, of course, 70 now, but it is not lost on me.
He says that she was convicted of the same felony charge as Tina Peters.
And yet Tina Peters is a nonviolent first-time offender, got a nine-year sentence.
And he says very clearly, justice in America and in Colorado needs to be applied evenly.
And I mean, this is the exact issue that we're talking about here.
And I think he can't avoid it.
I know Tina appreciates the fact that he had the courage to actually call this out because everyone on the left and on his side of the aisle, all these people who are involved in Tina Peters' persecution, they don't want this to happen.
And Jared Polis actually has to use some cojones to do the right thing here.
And I have faith that he will.
I just ask that people make sure that he knows that it's not about left or right.
He needs to do the right thing and he needs to do it now.
So if you contact his office, call, that's absolutely fine.
Just be respectful and make him understand this is not about politics.
This is not about partisan ideas.
This is about a grave injustice that cannot be corrected.
Tina Peters will not get this time back.
It cannot be fixed for her.
The only justice is that she needs to be let out immediately.
Apollo, I think I say from the entire audience, and this is we've played on Real America's Voice in War Room a number of times that Tina Peters is special, that a particular shout out to you and the entire team that you've got that have been steadfast in making sure her podcast is going and you're in contact with her frequently because inside of prison, it is a tough place to make contact with the outside world.
And I know you guys have done an extraordinary job.
So from the entire War Room posse, good on you.
Now, where do people go to support you guys, to donate, to do what we need to do to make sure we drive the, and the lawyers are paid, all of that?
If we can get the Polis number up and if Grayson Moe can push out that, but I think you saw from last night from the representation of how the War Room posse and other grassroots members delivered on Proposition 10, just extraordinary.
Also, a big turnout across the state.
And as we had Luke Macias on today, many, many candidates one, on War Room, Texas, I had the precinct chairs, I think it was Montgomery County, Texas, that were under siege by the establishment.
I think the establishment got beat up last night.
They contacted me with really good news.
And we're going to have them on tomorrow as our special guest on another War Room, Texas, to tell their story.
Let's go to Illinois Annie Pritchard.
Annie, you've been a precinct chair, but once again, and you see this all over the country, you've been under siege.
Tell us your story, but I take it that we're going to have potentially a good resolution here, ma'am.
It's very important to reach your audience because what's happened in Rock Island County is happening all over the nation with grassroots leaders that come into a party that's been in place for years and they basically have a Lincoln Day dinner, a you know, Christmas party and a picnic in the summer and maybe walk in a few parades.
And when grassroots leaders come in that want to like run candidates and work hard like our team did, it causes conflict and where it's it's very confusing to us that just want to work.
So what happened to us was that in August, a few people decided that they didn't like me anymore.
And so they called a meeting, they called a meeting of the members without following proper notification processes.
And so we ran their meeting notification past our parliamentarian and we ran it past the state chairman for the Illinois GOP and the attorney representing the Illinois GOP.
They both gave statements that the meeting was improperly noticed and that anything that came from that meeting could not be part of the official record.
But these people had the meeting anyway and they decided to vote me out.
No executive board quorum, a minimum number of precinct committeemen, certainly not anywhere near the 42 we have.
Before we get into details, and we see this all over, that's why I think you're like the women in Montgomery County, Texas were a great example.
You're a great example.
We hear this all over where the people come into the precinct strategy, they become a precinct member, then they become a precinct chair, and the establishment automatically hates it.
Steve Stern's got thousands of stories like this, where you guys come in, you want action, you want better candidates, you want a grassroots movement, you want to start winning, particularly in states like Illinois, where you guys think that, hey, we can start to represent Represent here in the established order.
The people who have been there for years hate it.
In fact, they hate you more than the Democrats, and they spend all their time trying to thwart it.
The question I have, because we get this all over the country, why are the establishment Republicans that have a Lincoln Reagan Day dinner, they have a picnic in the summer, and they have a Christmas party, if that's it?
Why, not just you, but across the country, why are they so upset when the precinct strategy people, the Dan Schultz-inspired people, the Steve Stern-inspired people, the war room posse, when you guys show up and really want to have a grassroots effort to actually win elections and then govern like your MAGA, why do they hate that so much?
We've asked ourselves that question for eight months.
And what they did after they had this meeting was they filed a D1, which is a statement of organization with the State Board of Elections.
And with that, they took that to the bank.
They got our bank account.
They took that.
They got our mail.
They got our social media.
They got our phone number.
And the only option that the state board of elections gave us was to get a judgment from the court because these are crimes.
You can't just do this.
And so it took us eight months to find an attorney and raise the money for the retainer.
And we finally got that done.
And we get to court in February.
And the judge, hands down, gave us a temporary order of protection saying, give them all their things back.
And we've been trying to do that, but they immediately filed, put out a notice saying that the order of protection means nothing, that they're still in charge of the party.
And they accuse us of doing things that we didn't do.
They're making false claims against us that are actually, it's been really hard not to take it personal.
But now we have a wonderful attorney, Richard Cannon, out of Elk Grove.
And he was in court with us today.
We filed contempt of court charges.
The judge ruled in our favor.
They must return our bank account to the same level it was when they took it.
And they must give us back our social media, our Facebook, our website.
We are getting our mail again, and we still don't have our phone number.
Take your phone out, text Birch Gold, Bannon, 989898, The Ultimate Guide for Investing in Gold and Precious Metals in the Age of Trump.
This is a shorter document than End of the Dollar Empire, but it cuts right to the chase and gets you in touch with Philip Patrick and the team, which in times of turbulence, you need.
There's a donate button at the bottom of the page, and that is what we need support for the legal cost.
And I want everyone to know: do not fold, do not bend, do not give up, hire an attorney, don't let people walk all over you or chase you out of the party.
That is what they want.
As much as I've wanted to quit, I'm going to stay in the fight, and I want you to stay in there with me.
And you can call me at 309-377-1776, and I will help you in any way possible.
Annie, you're a patriot and so much for having me on.
No, Annie, you're amazing.
You're tough as bootleather.
You're never going to listen.
These people are tortured.
They're tortured.
They're threatened with bankruptcy, legal.
Look what they did.
It took the bank account and everything.
Annie will have you back on.
You keep fighting.
Annie Porschet for the in Illinois, but we could have a thousand of these stories.
We're going to start doing more.
This is why we had the women from Montgomery County, Texas.
And guess what?
They won last night.
They wanted me to know that they won with 65%, two-thirds of the vote voted for them.
All they need is a little access to their stories, and it's going to happen.
Grassroots here in Texas.
Glenn Story joins me.
Grassroots in Texas, unbelievable coming together.
All of the thanks and appreciation go to the grassroots organizations that did this last night and the voters in Texas who finally had a permission structure to say, hey, we want to prohibit Surreal law in the state of Texas.
We want this to happen.
And it goes in the grassroots groups.
But this was done with Jenny, a handful of volunteers, all the groups working together in no money.
Well, this is why I think the conference and Glenn Beck and Gert Fielders, that dinner that kicked it off on 9 January, it gave people permission to talk about it.
It was right below the surface.
Once that happened, everybody's talking about it.
It's the first question in the AGs race.
It was the first question for people running for Ag, remember, Ag Commission.
Bo French comes from nowhere and Bo is one of the biggest, you know, on the Railroad Commission.
Bo is a statewide figure now because he made this issue a big deal up in Terran County.
These counties north of Dallas are under siege with this Islamic invasion.
And this was the first, this was the mechanism to allow people to talk about it and bond together.
I tell people about this brutal, you know, looks like runoff we might have or going to have that this can bring people together, not tear people apart with these negative ads.
Well, I think it really does because we know that John Cornyn, now I'm not bringing Cornyn up, but I will spent $80 million, some ridiculous amount of money, which was 20X that of Ken Paxton.
And look, Ken Paxton still garnered 40-something percent of the vote.
And then you look at Cornyn on the other hand, how much did he pay for each vote?
Look, he's one of the few that stood in the gap and says, come on, I will take you on and I'll live with my decisions.
And the fact of the matter is, there is no other politician, no other attorneys general that stepped in the line of fire to say, okay, we're taking Biden on and Obama.