Ep. 626’s Federal Bureau of Entrapment skewers Democrats’ hypocrisy—Hillary Clinton mocking Trump’s accusers while her campaign silenced women, and media ignoring Flynn’s entrapped plea while demonizing Cohen’s payments. It dissects the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear abortion cases, Ohio’s Heartbeat Bill (banning abortions at 5–6 weeks), and Chevron deference’s erosion of congressional power, framing it as a federalism pushback. The episode ties these threads to broader attacks on judicial overreach, media bias, and the racialization of border debates, ending with a preview of Trump’s impeachment battles. [Automatically generated summary]
Democrats are absolutely shocked that Donald Trump would pay off women to keep them from revealing his adulterous affairs.
Reeling with moral disillusionment and a deep, deep sense of betrayal, many Democrats and journalists, but I repeat myself, have declared themselves to be in an absolute tizzy of righteous tizziness over the revelations.
Hillary Clinton, a former Democrat, something or other, said that she personally could not believe that Trump would sink so low.
Pulling her face from the bottom of a salad bowl where she'd been searching for the Chardonnay bottle she accidentally dropped earlier, Hillary told reporters, quote, I can't understand why you would give money to one of these bimbos when you could simply intimidate her into silence with threats and then get the media to bury her story and call her names on every news outlet in the United States.
And another thing, Mrs. Clinton continued, and then slipped under the table where she sang the first three bars of Never Getting Back Together to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner.
Democrat spokesman and chief political correspondent for ABC News George Stephanopoulos agreed with Hillary, saying, quote, I agree with Hillary.
Why?
What did she say?
Unquote.
When chief silencer of women for the Clinton campaign and chief anchorman for ABC News Stephanopoulos was told that Hillary had been shocked that Trump paid off women, he let out a long, high-pitched laugh and shook his head saying, wow, we are so corrupt, it's not even funny.
Although we'll never be punished for it, so it actually is kind of funny.
Other Democrats expressed their outrage with the Trump payoff, saying the president should have taken the honorable path of simply getting the media to undercut the reputations of the women in question while casting everything Trump did in a rosy light.
New York Times editor Blithering Prevarication III told reporters, quote, I can't understand why Trump didn't do that, unquote.
Then he gave the reporters an elaborate wink.
23andMe: DNA Pairs Explained00:02:56
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky-dunky.
Life is tickety-boo.
Also singing, hunky-dunky, dipsy-topsy The world is a bitty-zing It's a wonderful day, hooray, hooray It makes me want to sing Oh, hoorah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
All right, I am back just about.
I'm sorry I missed you yesterday.
I got so deathly ill that I couldn't even drag myself in.
But today I'm less deathly still ill, but I did drag myself in.
So it's going to be an exciting show.
We're going to do the show always with the kind of suspenseful feeling of any minute I might pitch forward face first into my laptop, which, I don't know, would be kind of interesting.
Today is the day when the final installment of Another Kingdom, written by me, performed by Michael Knowles, will become available to everybody.
This is episode 10, The Last Dragon.
And we're going to live stream the first 15 minutes.
Is that right?
Oh, cool.
So you get to see the first 15 minutes, but then you can watch the whole thing on any of the places where you get these things like iTunes and SoundCloud.
We hope you've enjoyed this season of Another Kingdom.
Head over to dailywire.com and subscribe to rewatch the full first and second seasons and receive premium access to all upcoming content.
And you get to be in the mailbag.
You get to listen to everybody's shows.
It's just great.
It's 10 bucks a month, 100 bucks for the year.
For 100 bucks, you get the leftist tears tumbler.
And the most important thing is we get your 100 bucks, which I think is more important than any of the rest of this.
We have Jenna Ellis coming on to talk about stuff, really interesting stuff that's happening in the Supreme Court.
But meanwhile, we have to talk about 23andMe.
That is a service, you know, where you spit into a vial and they tell you everything you need to know about your DNA.
I loved it.
I used it.
First of all, it's amazing fun.
It really is.
I found out I was related to some of the Nordic gods.
You probably knew that already.
I can tell you about you and your family's story.
It's called 23andMe because of the 23 pairs of chromosomes that make up your DNA.
You can learn how your genes play a role in your well-being and your lifestyle choices.
You can find the genetics behind your appearances, your appearance, and your senses.
That's how I found out about the Nordic gods because I was just that good-looking.
And now, through December 25th, you can get 30% off any 23andMe kit.
You can order your DNA kit at 23andMe.com slash clavin.
That's the number, 23ANDME.com slash clavin.
Again, that's 23andMe.com slash Clavin.
You will get answers to all your important questions like, how do you spell Clavin?
You should check our sponsors.
Let's Send a Couple Guys Over00:15:05
You'll love what you'll be saving.
But you must remember, there are no easy clavens.
There's shops and flowers, crates, and wine, and all the folks are raving.
But you help me spell it right.
There are no easy clavens.
There's stamps and sheets and mattresses.
There's magazines and shaving.
But if you want the discount, there are no easy claven.
Well, you can even have them bring the meals that you are craving.
There is an E in Andrew, but there are no E's enclavins.
There are no Easy enclavins.
K-L-A-B-A-N, there are no easy clavens.
One of the great, great American songs from the Great American Songbook.
I have to congratulate Democrats for having put the rest of us, Republicans, conservatives, in a kind of a moral bind.
They really do this well.
Democrats have been so corrupt and have used the media to cover up their corruption so well that we are put in the position of either having to defend bad actions by the Trump administration or by Donald Trump.
We either have to defend them or we have to allow this anti-constitutional party, this anti-American party, a party that booze God at their convention, we have to essentially give over everything to them.
Because if we're going to allow our guys to get destroyed by the same kinds of charges that they withstood and have been withstanding for the last 20, 30 years, we will just always lose.
We'll always lose our guys.
So I don't want to be put in a position of saying, oh, what a wonderful thing it is that Donald Trump pays off Playboy bunnies to keep them quiet.
That's not a great thing.
But the idea that we should care about this stuff now, after years and years and years of them telling us that Bill Clinton was our savior and Hillary Clinton was going to be the first woman president, what a wonderful thing that was going to be, is just ridiculous.
The story, though, before I get to Michael Cohen and his story, he's been sentenced to three years in prison for all this for paying off ladies to keep them from talking about Donald Trump.
But before we talk about this, we have to talk about what they did to Michael Flynn.
I'm going to guess that a lot of you do not know this story because this should be the front page headline news, but it's really not.
It hasn't really been that covered.
You know that Michael Flynn, and I want to give credit to Kim Strassel over at the Wall Street Journal.
She's been hammering this stuff, but she doesn't get the front page.
And some of the stories just get kind of, they get swept away in all the other news.
Michael Flynn, you know, he pled guilty to lying to the FBI over a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador.
The conversation was completely legal.
In fact, it was his responsibility to have the conversation as part of Trump's staff.
They say he lied.
So they're just charging him with telling a falsehood to the FBI during the questioning about that conversation, right?
The investigation was supposed to be about Russian collusion, Trump's colluding with the Russians to fix the campaign.
That investigation at the time was secret, right?
They didn't know that investigation was going on.
So here's what we now know.
We know that Flynn pled guilty to this because he's been in the military his whole life, right?
He's a soldier.
He hasn't got a lot of money.
It would have bankrupted him to have defended himself against it, and his son was also in danger of becoming a legal target.
So they threatened him, basically.
But before this, now just remember, this is a combat veteran three-star general, right?
So they bring this before the judge, federal Judge Emmett Sullivan, and he's pleading and the government is saying he shouldn't get any jail time and he's pleading for that.
And Sullivan, who everybody is thinking is just going to make a decision right away, he says, hold on just a minute.
What is going on here?
He issued something called a Brady Order.
Sullivan is a guy who's famous for being suspicious of federal investigators because he knows they play a lot of games.
So he put forward a Brady order, which reminds the prosecution that they have to give the defense all the exculpatory evidence, all the evidence that might prove the defendant not guilty, right?
And he saw some of this stuff and he said, wait just a minute.
I want to see these documents for myself, okay?
Because this is what they found out.
And this is stuff, this, by the way, is stuff that the House investigators have been trying to get out of the FBI and the Justice Department all this time.
And they've been stonewalling him.
And now we know why they've been stonewalling him.
Here's what they did to three-star general Michael Flynn, right?
Then deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who's now been fired for poor behavior, right?
McCabe personally called up Michael Flynn and was talking about something else, right?
He was talking about some other thing.
And he said, oh, by the way, by the way, we'd like you to have a sit-down with two agents to clear up a little bit about this conversation you had with the Russian ambassador, right?
And he told Flynn not to have a lawyer present.
He didn't want him to have a lawyer president.
He said, once you do that, it all gets kind of complicated.
And they didn't warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie to the FBI.
So he didn't know, for instance, that if he got something wrong just accidentally and could be accused of lying, that he'd be charged with something that he would have to bankrupt himself to defend himself against, right?
So none of this did he know.
He wasn't given any kind of Miranda.
He wasn't given any of that stuff.
He was just provided with the entrapment opportunity to commit a crime.
Now later, the first thing Flynn said was, oh, I misremembered this.
And of course, you're talking to a three-star general.
Why wouldn't you believe him?
But they didn't have to believe him because they knew they could pressure him and get him to crack and get him to plead guilty, right?
This is James Comey is bragging about this.
Former FBI director James Comey, one of the agents, by the way, I should also mention who went over to talk to him was Peter Strzok, the guy we all remember, was sending texts to his lovers about how he had to have a plan to get rid of Donald Trump if he got elected.
So all of this stuff, I mean, this is real, real dirty cop stuff.
And they're saying, well, we wanted Flynn relaxed and unguarded, so we didn't want to give him the standard warnings about how you might commit a crime.
Comey is bragging about this on MSNBC.
Listen to this.
You look at this White House now, and it's hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the sit room.
How did that happen?
I sent them.
Something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration.
The FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official.
You would work through the White House counsel and there'd be discussions and approvals and who would be there.
And I thought it's early enough.
Let's just send a couple guys over.
So everybody's laughing.
The audience is laughing about this.
He's bragging about it.
He took advantage of the chaos in the new administration to send a couple of guys over to talk.
They treated this three-star general like a skell.
They treated him like they treat suspects in NYPD blue.
You know, I mean that, remember the old cop show where they would bring guys in and they'd lie to them about, oh, yeah, you don't need a lawyer.
Once you get a lawyer, it gets complicated.
This is just me and you talking.
That is one thing if you're talking to somebody who may have just killed somebody or something like this, but you're talking to a combat veteran three-star general who may have made a mistake in talking.
Remember, it was a legal conversation he had with the Russian ambassador.
It was part of his job.
He had no reason to think he was in legal jeopardy.
And they just pulled this trick on him and they nailed him.
It's dirty cop stuff.
It would be ugly if they did it to a killer.
It's despicable that they did it to Michael Flynn.
We got to pause for a minute and talk about Bowl and Branch sheets.
You know I love Bowl and Branch sheets.
I would say I never sleep, but I spent the last 24 hours asleep and I was so comfortable in my Bowl and Branch sheets.
They are beautiful, beautiful sheets.
They not only look good, they feel great.
What makes them unique is that each sheet is crafted from 100% organic cotton.
That means bowl and branch sheets not only feel incredible, but also look amazing.
And since Bowl and Branch sells exclusively online, you don't pay that expensive retail markup.
That's half the price for twice the quality.
You'll love these sheets, try them for 30 nights and see for yourself.
If you're not impressed, return them for a full refund.
Go to BolandBranch.com today and you'll get 50 bucks off your first set of sheets plus free shipping in the U.S. when you use the promo code Clavin.
And we heard the song.
We heard the song, so we know how it's spelled.
There are no E's in Clavin.
I just make it look easy sometimes.
That's 50 bucks off plus free U.S. shipping right now at Bolandbranch.com, spelled B-O-L-L and Branch.com.
So that's despicable anyway, what they did to Flynn.
And this is, I mean, you sit there and like, I'm not going to say, oh, it's a great thing to lie to the FBI, but I don't think he did.
I don't think he did.
And then, of course, there's Michael Cohn, right?
Michael Cohn, he paid off some girls who slept with Trump.
Why at this point Trump would have to hide the fact that he was sleeping with Playboy Bunnies?
That's what we kind of expected of him.
But they did it.
And the thing is, now, of course, because they had a raid on Michael.
Michael Cohn was Trump's attorney, and because they raided his office, they've now got all this other stuff.
And federal prosecutors are now probing whether the incoming Trump administration misused funds corporations donated to its inaugural committee, including whether some of the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions, or to influence official administration positions.
But Obama did the exact same thing.
The New York Times reported this.
I'm getting this from Grabie.
And the New York Times reported, President Obama's finance team was offering corporations and other institutions that contribute $1 million exclusive access to an array of inaugural festivities, including tickets.
I mean, this is what they do.
So we're sitting here, we're now put in this position of do we defend that?
No, of course not.
But are we going to impeach this guy or run him to ground, run Donald Trump to ground?
We all know Donald Trump is an imperfect spokesman for our principles.
Nobody's not going to say that, I don't think.
Of course, he's imperfect.
We all are.
And he is an outsized character with outsized flaws and outsized abilities, it seems.
But it's insane.
The only difference between Obama and Clinton, the dishonesty and corruption of Obama and Clinton, and the dishonesty of Donald Trump, the only difference is the press.
The only difference is this massive, massive corporate machine to cover up for the Democrats and expose the Republicans.
That's the difference between them.
I'm not praising the fact that the last few presidents we've had, with the exception of George W. Bush, have been kind of bad guys.
I'm not saying that's a wonderful thing.
What I'm saying is the difference between the Republican bad guys and the Democrat bad guys is the Democrats have the press to cover up.
have to take a look at this interview between George Stephanopoulos and Michael Cohn.
Let's play, well, let's play the first cut of Michael Cohn and Stephanopoulos.
This is where everything went wrong between dear old Michael Cohn, who remember said he would take a bullet for Donald Trump.
He didn't mean a real bullet.
He didn't mean anything.
He just meant the minute he was in trouble, he would turn on him.
But here is Michael Cohn talking to George Stephanopoulos at ABC.
You were a friend for a long time.
I was around you many, many years ago where you seem to be having fun.
There was a lot of fun going on at the Trump organization.
Working with Donald Trump.
I enjoyed working with my colleagues there as well.
When did it change?
You know, I can't give you a specific time that it went from point A to point B.
It was just a change.
I will tell you that the gentleman that is sitting now in the Oval Office, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is not the Donald Trump that I remember from Trump Tower.
He's a very different individual.
What's happened to him?
I think the pressure of the job is much more than what he thought it was going to be.
It's not like the Trump organization where he would bark out orders and people would blindly follow what he wanted done.
There's a system here.
He doesn't understand the system.
So I just want to remind you of what you're looking at here.
You're looking at George Stephanopoulos, who worked in what they called the war room, silencing women, what Hillary Clinton referred to as bimbo eruptions.
That's George Stephanopoulos who intimidated and silenced women for the Clinton campaign, interviewing Michael Cohn, who only paid them off.
At least they made a profit, right?
Let's just go back.
This is from that famous documentary.
I think it's called The War Room.
This is George Stephanopoulos talking to a reporter, bullying a reporter.
This is 1992.
He's bullying a reporter into killing a story about, as Hillary Clinton would put it, a bimbo eruption, a woman who said she had either been raped by or harassed by or had slept with Bill Clinton.
I guarantee you that if you do this, you'll never work in Democratic politics again.
Maybe you don't want to, but I'm not saying it matters.
You will be embarrassed before the National Press School.
People will think, nobody will believe you.
And people will think you're scumbaging.
The alternative is you don't do it.
It causes you some temporary pain with people who tomorrow aren't going to matter.
And you have a campaign that understands it in a difficult time.
You did something right.
And that's important.
I mean, it doesn't mean anything, and we can't do anything for you specifically or anything like that, but you know that you did the right thing and that you didn't dishonor yourself.
You'll never work in Democratic politics again.
Now, the thing that Democrats are saying, of course, is that it's not the women.
It's not about the sex.
I mean, this was what the Republicans said when they were going after Bill Clinton.
They said it's a campaign finance violation.
Who's paying George Stephanopoulos in that tape?
Who's paying him?
Where's the money coming from?
It's coming from the Clinton campaign.
Where's the Clinton campaign money coming from?
It's coming from donors.
You know, it's like we're in this position now where in order to protect the Constitution, in order to protect American freedom, in order to protect the things that Donald Trump has in fact protected by installing justices who believe in the Constitution and don't just believe in leftist fiats issuing leftist fiats from the bench by cutting back the regulations that prescribe people's freedoms, by all the things that Trump has done that really have made the country better than it was under Obama.
We're supposed to let that go because he has done things that we disapprove of, but which are nowhere near as bad as what the Democrats have been doing for all these years.
They ran a candidate against Trump who is part of this.
Hillary Clinton was part of this.
She was part of the intimidation game that they used to silence these women.
The Beginning of the End00:06:28
And so now what you're watching is you watch Stephanopoulos, this guy who did this, basically, the guy, Stephanopoulos was Michael Cohen.
Stephanopoulos was Michael Cohen for Bill Clinton.
So you're watching Michael Cohen of the past interviewing Michael Cohen of the present, trying to reestablish his reputation.
Play cut number three.
Why do you think President Trump is lashing out against you in such a personal way, daily almost now, calling you weak, calling you a liar?
Is he afraid?
Seems like it.
That's what he does.
That's what he does.
Are you afraid of him?
It's never good to be on the wrong side of the president of the United States of America.
But somehow or another, this task has now fallen onto my shoulders.
And as I also stated, that I will spend the rest of my life in order to fix the mistake that I made.
How are you going to do that?
I don't know.
That's wonderful.
That is wonderful.
He's just, the task has fallen on my shoulders.
The task has fallen on my shoulders to save our nation.
And this is George Stephanopoulos basically trying to establish sympathy.
you know, why is he attacking you so personally?
He's trying to establish sympathy for this guy and trying to make some kind of transition from cheap, thuggish lawyer for Donald Trump into sympathetic character who's not.
And why is he doing it?
Well, of course, we all know why he's doing it, because he is Michael Cohen.
George Stephanopoulos is the Michael Cohen of the past trying to reinstate the Michael Cohen of the present.
And of course, we're hearing this.
Here is Representative Denny Hay.
He's got the best.
He's got the most original take on this.
You know, before we play that, let's pause for just a minute.
Let's hear from Donald Trump himself.
Because Donald Trump put forward an argument.
Of course, you expect Trump to make an argument in favor of himself, but his argument is actually pretty good.
Let's listen to that first.
Cut through.
Let me tell you, I never directed him to do anything wrong.
Whatever he did, he did on his own.
He's a lawyer.
A lawyer who represents a client is supposed to do the right thing.
That's why you pay them a lot of money, et cetera, et cetera.
He is a lawyer.
He represents a client.
I never directed him to do anything incorrect or wrong.
And he understands that.
Look, he did some bad things unrelated to me, maybe related to his other clients.
I wasn't his only client.
He had other clients.
He did some bad things.
And income tax evasion.
I heard about taxi cab.
I heard about a lot of things.
Now, I'm not reading about any of that stuff because what he did is he made a deal to embarrass me.
In order to embarrass me, they cut his term down.
Pretty terrible stuff.
And then when it comes to the paying off of women, Trump says this, and it's, I hate to say it, but it's a perfectly good argument.
It's such a sad argument, but it really is good.
This is cut two.
Nobody, except for me, would be looked at like this.
Nobody.
What about Congress where they have a slush fund, and millions and millions of dollars is paid out each year?
They have a slush fund.
Millions.
They don't talk about campaign finance or anything.
Have you ever heard of campaign finance Have they listed that on their campaign finance sheets?
No.
Because it's our tax money.
He's right.
Congress is paying off women.
It's paying off women with our tax money.
And that is just an amazing, amazing thing.
And that Trump could say this.
Oh, my God.
It's like what Trump's argument is basically, they are so sleazy that my sleaziness shouldn't count, which is right.
I mean, that's the state.
That's the state of our union at this moment.
I mean, obviously, the answer is we should elect better presidents on both sides.
But while things are the way they are, as long as things are the way they are, no George Stephanopoulos is going to move from intimidating women to interviewing Michael Cohn for buying off women and tell us that we should listen to that as if it were anything other than a guy trying to make excuses essentially for himself and for his party.
That's why I loved this Congressman Denny Heck with the most original take on the entire thing.
I'm prepared to say something I've never said.
The writing's on the wall, the walls are closing in, and this is the beginning of the end for the Trump administration.
I think we should just tack that on to number 12.
Play that.
Today is a turning point.
Today was historically bad for President Trump.
Today was a turning point.
Turning point.
We're at a turning point here.
The beginning of the end for the Trump presidency.
The beginning of the end.
Breaking news.
We have another bombshell.
Mike Pence might have to assume the office of the presidency.
The call for impeachment.
Rumblings of the word impeachment.
Breaking news.
Another bombshell out of the White House.
I believe this is the beginning of the end.
I do too.
It's really the beginning of the end.
The beginning of the end.
He may be feeling the walls closing in on him.
All the walls closing in on him.
The walls closing in on him.
Breaking news, a new bombshell.
One astrologer says this means the beginning of the end for President Donald Trump.
The beginning of the end of the Trump presidency.
Trump will resign.
Trump is going to resign.
Is this the tipping point?
I know we've said it over and over.
You think this is a tipping point?
And over and over.
This is a tipping point.
And over and over.
Breaking news, President Trump off the rails.
It was the beginning of the end day.
It's the beginning of the end.
It reminds me a lot of the last days of Nixon.
Breaking news tonight, new bomb show.
This is the beginning, not the end.
So it's yet another beginning of the end.
We're going to stay on with Facebook and YouTube today, let you hear the whole show because Jenna Ellis is coming up.
Do not forget to see, to listen to or watch Another Kingdom, the final episode, The Last Dragon.
Everybody can get it now, but that is no reason not to subscribe to DailyWire.com where you can go back and watch both the first and the second season.
The amazing visuals that are there for the second season are really just great to watch.
But in any case, go on and please leave a five-star review wherever you're looking and maybe a nice comment.
I think you're going to love it.
If you haven't listened to it yet, I really think you will love it.
You can now get the whole story right away from 1 to 10 if you want to binge it.
But it even stars the fabulous and lovely and occasionally lovely Michael Knowles.
But let us go to Jenna Ellis.
She is, I shouldn't have to introduce her anymore, but I do it just for my own personal pleasure.
She's the director of the Dobson Policy Center, a contributor to the Washington Examiner, the Federalist, and our own Daily Wire.
Abortion Rights and Regulatory Overreach00:15:52
Her book is The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution, a guide for Christians to understand America's current constitutional crisis.
Jenna, it's been, I don't know, days.
It's great to see you.
Great to see you too.
And I'm loving the Ted Cruz beard.
You're rocking it.
Do you like it?
You know, I'm getting a little.
Yeah, all right.
All right.
Well, that's it.
You're in this season, and, you know, with everyone and all the liberals who love Ted Cruz's beards now, maybe they'll start tuning in and they'll love you too.
I think it would take more than a beard, but I'll hope in the middle.
I'll live in hope.
So I wanted to talk to you.
I mean, there's been a bunch of things happening at the Supreme Court level that I just think are really interesting.
And the first one, I believe it was just one Planned Parenthood case.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Three.
Three.
It was three.
All right.
So I thought, so it was more than one.
So it's three cases that the court refused to hear.
And Gorsuch and Kavanaugh actually agreed with that sentiment.
So could you give us like an outline of what the cases were and what they were looking for?
Yeah, so the issue here, although Planned Parenthood was involved in a sense, the issue was whether or not a Medicaid recipient had a private right of action to challenge a state decision to defund Planned Parenthood.
So we're dealing with a civil case.
We're not dealing directly with a question of abortion.
And the main thing that we need to take away from this is that the very same docket, I actually went and looked at it, there was one case that was granted for cert on that same day for review.
There were 12 pages of denials of cases.
This is nothing out of the ordinary for the Supreme Court.
And so for conservatives and the extreme right that of course want the court to hear abortion cases, we want to see a conservative majority overturn Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
These particular cases, because of the issue in question, does not give an indication any way whatsoever what Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Roberts, and the now conservative majority may end up holding on an abortion actual issue.
So the case was that the state wanted to defund, the state wanted to defund the Planned Parenthood in its state.
And they weren't allowed to do that.
Is that fair?
The challenge, so there's a diversity of opinion, and that's really why Justice Thomas wrote a very scathing dissent, because there's a split in the circuits of saying whether or not a private individual, let's say you or I, are Medicaid recipients, and we get services based on Medicaid from Planned Parenthood.
If a state decides we are not going to allow Planned Parenthood based on selling fetal tissue, based on abortion, based on whatever reason, they are not qualified Medicaid providers, then I as a Medicaid recipient am going to challenge my state decision to defund Planned Parenthood because I now as a Medicaid recipient can't go to them for other Medicaid services.
So that's the question.
And there's a split among the circuits.
And so I think that we're going to see this particular issue go back before the Supreme Court.
It may just be that the justices want to see this issue kind of flushed out a little more before they take up the issue.
And I don't think that this signals anything about their unwillingness to address it overall, just that they didn't choose to address it now on these particular cases.
So there was a lot of tea leaf reading over this about this means that basically Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are going to stand up for Roe v. Wade.
They're going to not overturn Roe v. Wade, but you don't see that at all.
Well, it would be Roberts and Kavanaugh.
So Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas all voted to take up the cases as three.
And everyone was hoping that Kavanaugh would be the fourth vote.
And he wasn't.
And so now there is a lot of tea leaf reading saying, oh, this is somehow some kind of prediction on a substantive abortion issue.
But we have to differentiate and say this is the judicial process.
This in no way indicates anything one way or another.
I don't think that Planned Parenthood can claim victory in the sense that they were once these cases were declined.
And I don't think that conservatives need to panic at this juncture either.
Fair enough.
Okay, good.
I was interested in that.
You know, you see these headlines flash by, and I don't always have a chance to follow it down to the ground, but that's really, really interesting.
Now, just to stick on the question of abortion for a minute, there's a law in Ohio that you were writing about where basically, basically they've outlawed abortion, it seemed like to me.
Is that fair?
Yes, that.
And so there will be a piece up hopefully later today in Daily Wire that is talking about the Ohio Heartbeat Bill.
And what this will do, and this is now passed out of both chambers, will go to Governor Kasich's desk.
And what it is, is essentially saying that an abortion, when a woman comes in for an abortion, then they have to do an abdominal ultrasound.
And if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, then abortion services are not eligible at that stage.
So this would protect life as early as five to six weeks.
And also the other component of the bill is that the Ohio State Medical Board could actually punish and have sanctions against medical practitioners, even if there's not a criminal conviction that goes against the law.
So this is really the most comprehensive and really sound pro-life legislation that we've seen coming out of a state in a while.
Similar legislation was passed in 2016.
Kasich vetoed it.
He's saying that he's going to veto this one, but he's going to wait until the last minute so that the Ohio legislature will have a really hard time with a veto override.
So we'll see what happens.
There's a lot of conservative policy groups.
Dr. Dobson here at the JDFI, the James Dobson Family Institute in particular, we are urging Governor Kasich to make this his legacy and sign the bill to protect life, not only because it's constitutional, and that's clearly what the legislature is intending, but also because we know from ultrasounds, we know from all of the medical evidence, these are human babies that deserve protection.
You know, just to engage in a little bit of fantasy, let's say Kasich did sign it and it would obviously be challenged right away.
It would never survive Roe v. Wade, would it?
Well, this is the exact type of legislation that could go up to the Supreme Court on a challenge that would give the new conservative majority the opportunity to overturn Planned Parenthood versus Casey and Roe versus Wade, because what they can do, just as a procedural question, and I've written for Daily Wire on this subject as well, they could say this is not at all within the federal government's authority and certainly not the Supreme Court to tell the state how they can regulate abortion.
So for the, I mean, just regardless of whether or not we personally agree or disagree with abortion as a policy issue, it is not for the federal government to mandate to the state how they determine health care policy.
So that's really the easiest way that the Supreme Court can overturn the current abortion opinions.
That's really interesting because I mean, I think that's, to me, that's always been one of the worst, well, aside from the abortions, that's always been one of the worst parts of Roe v. Wade is it's overreach of federal power.
Is there any argument?
Every time there's a judge, justice up for confirmation, they're constantly talking to him about precedent and super precedent and whether or not Roe v. Wade is protected by the fact that it has been confirmed several times in decisions.
Is there any argument where precedent somehow becomes more important than what it actually says in the Constitution?
In other words, is there some sense in which Roe v. Wade is protected simply by the fact that it's been confirmed several times in other decisions?
Not at all.
And that's a great question because there's no such thing as super precedent.
All due respect to Dianne Feinstein.
That's just not a thing that's in the Constitution.
But if you look at Article III and the role of the judiciary, they are under the Constitution.
And so they have to determine law and policy and whether or not that actually is either conflicting or it abides by the Constitution.
So the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
And so even if courts have gotten it wrong for 50 and 60 years or even longer, it's the obligation of the Supreme Court to go back and say we previously have gotten it wrong.
We are going to change that.
And I think it's very interesting, Drew, that even before Anthony Kennedy retired, we saw the Supreme Court shift back toward this federalist model of saying we've gotten it wrong in cases like Murphy versus NCAA, Janice, the union worker decision, where they actually contemplated these types of federalist questions and said, you know, even though there have been laws on the books and opinions since the early 70s, we are now going to say those were unconstitutional.
It was an overreach.
And we're going to give these issues back to the states because that's properly constitutional.
If you had to guess, would you think Kavanaugh would be a vote against Roe?
If I had to guess, I would think that from a strictly originalist perspective, regardless of his own personal policy, I think that he will be a vote to overturn Planned Parenthood versus Casey and Roe because of the constitutional questions involved.
And I think that his 12 years of opinions on the DC Circuit show that he is an originalist and he will be faithful to the Constitution, even over his own personal policy if he's personal, and we don't know if he's personally a supporter of abortion.
Fair enough.
All right.
Now, to move on to something else, this is just a personal hobby horse of mine.
This case, Kaiser versus Willeke, is kind of an obscure little case, but it actually brings up something that really bothers me, which is this kind of almighty power that has been given to regulatory agencies to basically decide what the law means for themselves.
And they can virtually not be questioned.
Can you explain what this case is and what it means?
Yeah, you and Justice Gorsuch are really big fans.
One of the reasons I like the guy, yeah.
I know, right?
And he's from Colorado, so yay, Justice Gorsuch.
But yeah, so basically, this deals with a complex legal doctrine that's called Chevron deference, which is Chevron was a party to the case where this doctrine arose from.
And so that's where a lot of the legal doctrines are named simply because of the parties.
So Chevron deference is this idea that if Congress does not explicitly address a question in a statute, then whatever administrative authority they give to an executive agency, then the executive can basically interpret it and implement it any way that it wants as long as it's reasonable.
And so then the courts aren't going to second guess the agency if Congress hasn't spoken.
So you have a twofold problem where the court is saying we're not going to override the agency's decision, but they're not putting the onus back on Congress.
And Congress really needs to step up and say, wait a second, there is way too much administrative prerogative going on to basically be their own interpretation of the law.
And as long as they view themselves as reasonable, then they can go ahead and act according to the statutes any way that they want.
So this particular case, and this was the one case that this past Monday was actually granted for review, this gives an opportunity for the court to really roll back the administrative state and say we are going to roll back Chevron and some of the other outflowing cases, say the administrative state has gotten way too large.
This goes completely against the separation of powers and the legislative authority of Congress.
But really, even if they do that, Drew, Congress needs to step up.
And how much do we say that on so many different issues?
But Congress really needs to step up and they need to legislate much more explicitly so that we don't have this crazy grant of just humongous authority to the administrative state and executive agency.
Well, it is kind of a it's kind of a double bind because by giving this much power to regulatory agencies, Congress gets off the hook for its own decisions.
They can blame the regulatory agencies for the things that they do without saying that and say it's not in the law.
This is just what they did.
But at the same time, it encourages them not to pass laws, not to do anything because they can depend on the regulatory state to do it.
It's actually a collapse.
It threatens a collapse of democratic legislation, I think.
Yeah, and it threatens the collapse of separation of powers.
We have separation powers for a reason, so that we have a legislative branch and then we have an executive that cannot legislate.
And so, as a practical example for people who may be thinking this is getting in the weeds a little bit, look at the immigration decisions.
And so, because Congress, through legislation, abdicated so much of their immigration authority to the executive, and President Trump rightly cited his ability to close the borders or to deny entry, that really needs to fall under Congress.
And they specifically have immigration authority under Article 1, Section 8.
But they're unwilling to do that because they can't get it together to pass common sense legislation on that.
So they're saying, you know what, executive, why don't you do this?
You have border control.
You have INS.
You have all of these regulatory agencies.
You do it.
And sorry, my eye is watering for some reason.
I promise it's not because I'm not crying over your beard.
Yeah, I know.
And so with the immigration issue, I mean, it's that with the trade, the TPA authority, with all of these things that Congress has legislated basically saying we're just giving this to the executive branch.
They can determine what they want to do.
Then Congress sits back and says, hey, not our fault.
It is an amazing system.
It's like a catch-22 where they never have to do anything.
And really, it seems like only the courts can get us out of it at this point, at least for now.
Jenna, it's always great to see you.
And I probably won't see you before Christmas, so have a Merry Christmas.
Merry Christmas, dear.
Always great to be with you.
Bye.
Talk to you soon.
Bye.
You know, it's interesting bringing up this immigration thing, which is one of the places where the administrative state has essentially paralyzed Congress.
There's a story now about a girl who died in federal custody that is being used once again to demonize ISIN demonized the laws, a seven-year-old Guatemalan girl who died in border control custody.
And what the left is kind of burying is that she was dehydrated when she arrived from her trip.
And the federal authorities choppered her to get her medical care, and she died anyway.
And so now they're saying that, oh my gosh, this is just one more, you know, Donald Trump sits up at night in Mount Doom, wherever Donald Trump's White House is situated in the cleft of the rock of Mount Doom, trying to decide how to destroy little children.
This was a case where it was actually her parents' attempts to illegally bring her into the country, which destroyed her, and it was the feds who were actually trying to save her, which is just despicable.
And the other thing, of course, about this federal, about the immigration story is the way it has been racialized by the left.
There was a lot of reason to believe that certain people, certain voters who believe in border security turned away from Donald Trump in the last and the midterms because they felt that there was this underlying racism to what he was saying.
This is something that Selena Zito has written about.
And I'm sure there's a truth to this.
Trump is a harsh-spoken man, and he doesn't emphasize, obviously, the pain some of these people are in.
Ghost Stories and Racism00:04:10
He's emphasizing the thing that I think is the main thing.
It's a rule of law issue.
But listen to the way they play this on the air because it's so important.
This is April Ryan, who is in the presidential press corps.
She's always asking questions from the White House.
She believes that she's an objective reporter.
Listen to her talk about this immigration issue.
And this is what people are hearing.
I mean, not people, not from CNN, because nobody's watching CNN, but this is what people are hearing in general from the press.
This president needs a win.
And if he gets this wall, this would be a win.
But you've got to remember, you know, border security is not just about a wall.
Really, I mean, there are many people, many critics of this wall issue who say that this is about controlling the Browning of America, plain and simple.
Yes, there's issues of terrorism.
Yes, there's issues of, you have issues of drug trafficking and some criminals, maybe.
But at the same time, it's not just about a wall.
If you really want to talk about fixing the border, deal with other issues like trafficking through those trucks.
You have smuggling people over the border.
There are other issues other than people just crossing the border, this 2,000-mile stretch.
Now, and there's another issue.
You have, when you talk about securing borders, there's an issue of visas that are overstayed.
There's so many components that go into the issue of securing the border and immigration.
This border wall thing is about controlling the Browning of America.
What's her evidence?
Who says so?
And is the Browning of America a good thing?
I would say it's neither a good nor a bad thing.
I don't care what color Americans are as long as they're Americans.
But why is the wall about that?
Why isn't it about all the other things she mentioned, the terrorism and the drugs and all those things?
It's utter nonsense.
But as long as the left is able to use their media to cast it in that way, Congress is paralyzed because everybody's so afraid of the racial tag.
And that's why they do it.
That's why they do it.
Nothing she said there made sense.
I could talk for another 40 minutes about how nothing she said made sense, but I won't.
Let's just go into stuff I like.
Stop stabbing your cry.
Now, that's music after my own heart.
That's like the make-believe ballroom from 1960s radio.
All right, that's from Brian Sharp.
Around Christmas, I always like to read a ghost story.
And I love ghost stories, and they're very hard to do.
And what is especially hard to do is novel-length ghost stories, because ghost stories are very subtle.
They depend on a sense of unease.
They don't depend on horror.
They don't depend on bloodshed.
They just depend on a kind of creepy sense.
There is this guy that nobody knows about, and he is such a good horror writer.
His name is Ronald Malfie.
And he's in a rock band or something like this, but he's written a couple of books that I've read.
But I just read one of them with, it had a terrible title and an even worse jacket.
It's called Little Girls, which made me feel like I was reading some kind of weird porn, you know.
But it's not about anything like that.
It is a really, really creepy ghost novel that is slow-moving, slow burn, but just kind of sends a chill up your spine, has a really satisfying ending.
He's a good writer, Ronald Malfie, M-A-L-F-I.
And it's, I can't remember the second or third of his books that I've read.
And I really, really like him.
If you want something a little bit less gory for Christmas, try Daphne DuMaurier's short story, Happy Christmas.
I always recommend that because I think it's a very neglected short story.
She's the lady who wrote Rebecca, also a terrific writer.
Good stuff for Christmas from Stuff I Like.
I will be back on Monday if I live.
I hope I feel a little better.
I hope I made a little bit of sense today.
I'm sort of pushing the rock uphill, but I hope it wasn't too bad.
Please, please go listen to Another Kingdom starring Michael Knowles.
Good stuff.
And the story is finally over.
The Last Dragon is there.
So you can binge the whole thing from 1 to 10.
Or if you're just catching up, catch up and don't forget to leave a good review wherever you hear it.
You can find it just about anywhere where podcasts are.
And you can also find it on the Daily Wire where you should subscribe.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
The Last Dragon Finale00:00:52
This is the Andrew Clavin Show.
see you after the Clavenless weekend.
Survivors gather here.
The Andrew Claven Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Technical producer, Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Hair and makeup is by Jessua Alvera.
And our animations are by Cynthia Angulo and Jacob Jackson.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing Production.
Copyright Forward Publishing 2018.
Coming up on the Ben Shapiro Show, Democrats prepare for impeachment.
New investigations are launched against President Trump.