LindellTV is now publicly traded! OTC market … Stock symbol: $MLMCShow more Join Rudy Giuliani, famously known as "America's Mayor," for a hard-hitting daily show that rips the veil off Washington, D.C. corruption. With his unparalleled experience and insider knowledge, Giuliani delivers razor-sharp insights into the political dynamics driving the nation’s capital, exposing hidden agendas and breaking down the day’s top news. Fearless commentary, explosive revelations, and a no-holds-barred look at the forces shaping America’s future, straight from one of the country’s most trusted voices. Show less
Hello, this is Rudy Giuliani, and this is the Rudy Giuliani Show on Lindell TV.
And we are coming to you from Palm Beach in Florida.
And of course, I guess like everyone, we're perplexed and worried and quite upset about the kidnapping, abduction, murder of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of the very nice and very famous and very accomplished Savannah Guthrie,
who looks so young and has been on for so long, and which is quite remarkable in a business that, where you don't last very long, I think it was her sort of not just her intelligence, which was quite there, but also her niceness.
So our heart goes out to her and to her family.
And to be exposed to this situation like this is horrible.
As an assistant U.S. attorney, I was involved in a very, very famous, infamous kidnapping.
I was not the lead attorney.
I was a young guy working as the number two lawyer on it.
We had a big chase over the Brooklyn Bridge, and it was quite interesting.
I mean, I had several others, but that was the biggest one.
And it was the one where we worked the closest with the FBI.
And I got to see how very, very good they are at this.
Of course, this is, as you know, I think probably this is what invented the FBI.
The FBI was really not Anything other than like a small bureau within the Department of Justice in the 1920s.
It did little paper investigations and stuff like that.
It was a wasn't even a division.
It was a little bureau, it was a bureau within the criminal division.
And then the Lindbergh kidnapping led to a great deal of changes.
And the idea was that we had to have a federal full-scale law enforcement agency.
And so, yes, they began really with the two things that began their rep. One was the kidnapping, and the other was the shootouts with the mobsters of the day, the famous Dutch Schulzen, all you know, the famous mobsters of the 1920s and of Prohibition, and then into the 30s.
And J. Edgar Hoover would show up at all the, he'd have them wait, and then he'd show up.
I don't know.
I don't remember.
I mean, I don't remember seeing them.
I just remember seeing pictures of him showing up at all of the famous killings or famous, well, some of them were killings, yeah, because they killed the people, but famous arrests that were made.
And the FBI became quite famous during that.
But I would say its claim to fame was always its ability to handle kidnappings, which they, you know, many, many, many, many people, many people like the Lindberghs, if I recall correctly.
Well, I don't think it was an FBI then.
I think they did an FBI because of the Lindbergh shooting.
And the Lindberghs tried to handle it on their own for a bit.
But in any event, there's a question mark here, isn't there?
We think this is a kidnapping.
And there's now been a second or third, hard to keep count, note.
The first deadline was yesterday, and that deadline was passed.
But apparently, in that note, there was some reference to Monday being the final, basically after Monday, something drastic will happen.
I assume it means that the kidnapper is saying that he will kill the woman after that.
So let's go back over this for a moment and see if we can shed any light on it that hasn't been shed, or at least put it in proper context to figure out.
This all started on Saturday afternoon.
I guess you could say it all started on Saturday afternoon when Nancy took an Uber.
Nancy Guthrie, the matriarch of the family, the mother of the three young adults that you saw on TV with a couple of days ago, pleading with the possible kidnapper.
Nancy took an Uber to her family's home for dinner.
And she remained there until, this is quite precise, until 9:48 at night, when she was dropped off at her Tucson, Arizona home by a family member.
Now, I don't know if it's absolutely certain if the family member was her daughter Ann or her son-in-law.
I think the assumption is it was a son-in-law, Mr. Sioni.
And then at 9:50, the garage door closes.
Presumably, he leaves and the FBI has made it quite apparent that none of the family members are persons of interest.
So let's move on from that.
And then using that as our basis, at 1 of 47, what was left behind notes that the doorbell camera was disconnected.
And at 2.12, despite that, the camera software detects movement.
But there's no video available since Guthrie did not have an active subscription with the company, meaning that the footage was not saved.
A shame, huh?
At 2.28, Guthrie's pacemaker app disconnects.
So the camera is as best as the kidnapper can do it, or whomever this is.
The camera is disabled at 2.12.
And by 24 or so minutes later, her pacemaker goes off.
Presumably, she did not put it off.
There was blood also found, so there might have been some degree of physical contact at that point.
And then I think you can see that you can see there that at 6:46, the sheriff's office posts on social media to announce her disappearance.
And at 9 o'clock, the first briefing is given to the press.
Monday goes by, and they believe that Guthrie was kidnapped, say the authorities, although not certain, but that she was definitely, from their perspective and from what they've seen, taken against her will.
A little later on in the day, KOLD TV received an email that appears to be a ransom note.
Highly unusual that the ransom note would be sent to the TV station rather than to her address, her family, one of her family members.
The note includes a demand for money with a deadline of 5 p.m. on Thursday.
Now, this is Monday the 5th.
And a second one for Monday.
And then thereafter, Savannah posts a message on Instagram asking for prayers.
On Tuesday, they were conducting further investigation and examination of the crime scene.
And they found now definite evidence of even more evidence of force and a forced entry into the Guthrie home.
And President Trump made a statement at that point saying how terrible this was.
On the fourth, on Wednesday, the property that the authorities had taken to examine forensically was returned to the Guthries.
And Savannah, on Wednesday night, posted a video on social media with Her brother and sister, that they want to talk, but that they need proof that she's alive.
And no proof being given of any kind, they do not comply with the five o'clock request.
And the FBI offers a $50,000 reward.
Now, another note has come in today.
And the number that I recall is a million dollars.
And again, however, they want it without offering any proof that Mrs. Guthrie is alive, which is which the FBI, of course, people in a situation like this, you should know, make their own decisions or can make their own decisions.
They don't have to, they're not forced to follow what the FBI or the police recommend because, of course, it's their relative's life, not the FBI and not the police.
And there's no definitive right answer to this.
The basic wisdom is do not give the money without proof that the person is alive because they may very well then kill the person so there's no witness left behind.
I mean, assume the person is alive, but that they're not giving you proof.
And make it easier for them to do that, to dispose of the body.
It may mean that the body is already disposed of and you're not going to be able to track it because person will leave.
But for all sorts of reasons, the best thinking is require them to put the person on the phone so you can hear the person speak and you can communicate with them and you can be sure they're alive.
That has not happened yet.
And I think, although the note has not been made public and enough of it has been discussed, that the kidnapper, if there is a kidnapper, has refused to do that, which of course creates further doubt as to whether or not these people who are acting as kidnappers aren't scamming the Guthrie family.
Very complicated, very difficult, and all this being done under bone-crushing tension.
And now I think it's been set as a deadline for Monday.
And that's the final deadline.
Presumably, if they don't comply by Monday, they will kill her if they haven't already, or if they are in possession of her at all, since this could be a scam.
And I believe they want the money in cryptocurrency, isn't that correct?
They want it in crypto.
Presumably, they can launder that better.
Now to confuse all of this, they didn't give the number, but to confuse all of this, there have been what are described as a flurry, so we don't have an exact number, of distinctly phony kidnap letters and notes and requests.
But this one is being treated as legitimate, although legitimate with a little, how would you describe it?
Legitimate with a little doubt, or the most legitimate of a large number of illegitimate scams.
So let's hope that this gets resolved.
I do remember at the very, very beginning of this, one of the issues was that the woman has to take medicine and has to take it at least every 24 hours, and the consequences were described as life-threatening.
Now, that might mean under the worst set of circumstances.
And of course, the pacemaker has been disconnected for quite some time, but the pacemakers are only usually only necessary if you're having a heart attack.
I guess I can't imagine what you'd have to do beyond a kidnapping to produce a heart attack.
Difficult Diplomacy00:10:40
Let's all pray and hope that it works out.
These are very difficult situations.
There's no right answer to them.
Looks to me like it's been handled the right way.
There's no terrible mistake that's been made here of any kind that I can see by the police, by the FBI, or by this poor family.
So we'll have to see.
I mean, we'll have to see what comes about from it.
But I would say that no point in giving an opinion.
How do we know?
How do we know if she's alive, dead, or what's going on?
They have the case, and let's just keep hoping that something breaks.
There are a series of meetings that are going on that are a little difficult to follow because they're all over the world.
Yesterday, there was a meeting in Abu Dhabi with the Russians.
It led to nothing with regard to peace, some silly statements that were inaccurate and useless.
There was an agreement that the U.S. and Russia will continue with the nuclear arms treaty that we've had that we were going to suspend or was running out of time, but we're apparently going to extend it so that we can negotiate it further.
Okay, but this is getting enormously frustrating on the part of what Putin is doing because he's just needlessly killing people with tremendous emphasis on the civilian population.
And it does seem to me that he's not ending this until Ring time because he's hoping he can freeze all the Ukrainians to death, if not bomb them to death.
Right.
This is one horrible man, one very horrible human being.
And I don't know what's going on on the inside.
So all I can do is tell you my observation from the vantage point that I have, and that is stand up to bullies and hit them so hard they don't know what hit them and convince them that you are you are, if you have to be, you can be worse than them.
I don't think he's convinced of that.
And I don't think that this ends until he is.
What exactly you would have to do to constitute that?
Well, I mean, that's in the nature of even further sanctions.
We could go further.
I mean, he is getting around some of those sanctions.
We could get around his getting around those sanctions.
We also could allow Ukraine to make full use of the arms that they have so that Russia pays a price.
I think the lack of progress in this war, the fact that it has dragged on for so long, that if the Russian people were to feel real sacrifices as a result of it, Putin would have to end it.
I don't get the sense that there's any kind of real patriotic fervor about this war.
And if it started to become a real burden, greater than it is, it might put Putin in a position where he has to end it.
And it's about the only way to do it without going to war with him.
And you don't want to go to war with him.
But I think it can be done without going to war with him if you put maximum pressure on him and you let Ukraine respond in kind for the killing of for the destruction of Ukrainian cities.
And the idea that there's equal responsibility for this war is, in my humble opinion, incorrect.
This is a one-way responsibility, and that's Putin.
And I'm someone who has no real regard for Zelensky because I think Zelensky is holding back just incredible amounts of evidence showing dastardly crimes at the highest levels of both of our governments.
That unless people are held accountable for in both places, it's just going to continue.
It's just going to continue.
But none of that justifies Putin's invasion and just trying to steal territory that he promised by treaty he wouldn't do.
Nor does it really answer the question of if Putin's allowed to get away with this, as he was allowed to get away with the original taking of Crimea and then came back and took some more, isn't he just going to wait, look for the right opportunity, try to get as much as he can get out of this particular attack and just attack again.
So the new START treaty Has expired, but they are operating as if it was extended.
That is the Americans and the Russians.
Exactly what kind of impact that has on the Ukraine, I don't, on Ukraine.
I don't really know.
It would seem to me it doesn't help necessarily in terms of the negotiations, because it shows that America can deal with them on other things and we will deal with them despite the fact that they are committing very, very serious war crimes.
China and the United States are involved in an effort that is really racing to be independent of each other.
Now, we had become tremendously dependent on China for many things.
We found out during the pandemic that we were dependent on them for a lot of medicine and probably even more because knowing that they were going to do that, they hoarded a lot of not just medicine, but the PPP that would be needed to deal with the virus they caused.
But then it turned out that they also are in one way or another responsible for way over about 90% of the medicines that we need.
Now, we have quickly, quickly rearranged, we've quickly moved to make that considerably less considerably less harsh in terms of dependency on them.
I'm not sure how far we've gotten, but we've gotten pretty darn far.
And the same thing is true with the military items that we need from them, whether they're rare earth or their parts that are necessary for computers.
And also in that area, we have control over certain things that they can't do, they can't operate without.
So we do have leverage there back and forth.
But you can see that from the beginning of his term, the president is trying to build for us a completely independent basis for developing the rare earth that is necessary for the supercomputer, for the quantum computer, for the tremendous needs of electricity that we're going to have.
And there's everyone's guess as to how long it would take to be completely independent.
That would be quite some time.
But how long would it take to be realistically safe so that you can supply your needs from within and with countries with whom you have very, very strong mutual interests?
And I think we've made tremendous progress in doing that.
And in some areas, we've developed greater expertise that they have to rely on, which of course gives you leverage in requiring them to be able to have to deliver to you what you need.
So I think that this is an area in which President Trump jumped into it right away and put it on Trump time and off degenerate time, which was basically with the mind of a degenerating president.
Who knows how much attention he paid to this?
But he's paid massive attention to it.
Right from the very beginning, I think his first deal was with Taiwan, who came to the United States and very abruptly said, we're going to move a great deal of our chip manufacturing to the United States.
And they make trips that are not able to be made and are not made anywhere else.
And they are now, if they're not already being made in America, they will be very shortly in very, very large numbers so that there is a hedge against the possibility of China taking over Taiwan and stuff and taking full control of all of it, or at least stopping it.
Something Very Special00:04:09
We're not there yet.
I don't know that we're going to put out a timeline so that China gets the benefit of the timeline.
But I think we've made more progress in this area than we thought we would.
The situation in Iran, we will focus on in the next hour because tomorrow there is going to be a rally, I guess,
a rally in Berlin, Germany, at the Brandenburg Gate, which is where the Berlin Wall was, to rally people in support of freedom for Iran and an overthrow of the monarch,
of the Ayatollah and also of any form of monarchy.
It's basically going to be a rally in favor of a democratic republic in Iran with equal rights for men and women, freedom of religion, election of the leaders of the fair, observed elections for the leaders of the country.
It's being done under the aegis of the National Council for the reform of Iran and the major organization being the MEK, but also 200 others.
And there are over 3,000 sponsors of this event.
And I don't know the number of people they're expecting, but the events like this of theirs that I've been to and not at as fevered a time as this, we're in the 100,000 or so.
So I expect it'll be quite a large gathering.
With the major caveat, however, that it is nearly impossible to find your way into Berlin right now because of the snow, apparently.
But people have been, but that's one thing that our contacts over there were telling us that people were traveling.
What were they saying, Ted?
Like ridiculous ways to get there.
Oh no.
What a shame.
But they expect it to still be massive, though.
You can't have a postponement.
You know, like in a baseball game, you get a ticket for the next one.
Well, I'll tell you, who knows how many more there are going to be?
We're going to, we're going to do something very special because, as I think you know, we have very, very strong feelings about this.
And this is the organization that could guide very smoothly a transition in Ukraine that has moved you away from probably the most dictatorial form of government in the world to a true Democracy based on republican principles, meaning a representative democracy.
And as we've gone over with you, the 10 points of the MEK and Madame Rajavi would be the guiding light of the constitution that had to be written.
But it's, and we'll go over them with you again.
There are a few things that are peculiar, or you know, are absolutely necessary more for them than for us.
But as far as I can remember, it covers the full gamut of rights that we would expect in the United States.
Shah's Rise and Fall00:06:18
The idea of the MEK and the NCRI, which is now 35, 40 years old, well, the MEK is older than that.
The MEK was founded in 1965 before the overthrow of the dictatorial and homicidal shark.
I mean, Shah.
The reality is that these people have had uninterrupted dictators since the present claimant to the throne's grandfather took over, Reza Pallavi, sometime around, well, he was crowned in 1923, but he took over about 1919.
Very strange set of circumstances.
Russians put him there.
He was a he was a he was a soldier in the Cossack Army.
He was a sergeant in the Cossack army.
And he was extraordinarily gifted at killing people.
That's what the biography says.
And he came to the attention of the authorities who started using him quite effectively.
And within about six years of war, he went right to the very top.
He became the commander of the army.
And when the family family was overthrown, the British and the Russians who were in control at that point put him in as the first of the head of the country.
And then four years later, they crowned him as Shah, which meant emperor, king, king selected by God, God's representative on earth, and all these other very heady pronouncements for a man that couldn't read or write.
And a man, they felt they could completely dominate so that England got the lion's share of the revenues from the massive amount of oil that had been discovered there.
He remained until about 53 when he got pushed aside because he was, he had been during the war, and then continued to become more and more aligned with the Nazis.
And even after the war, he became very fascist.
And they came a point at which there came a point at which he was, how would you say, hobnobbing.
That seemed like an awfully funny word for having associations with Adolf Hitler.
Conspiring with Hitler would probably be better.
He admired Hitler.
He thought Hitler was tougher than England or France.
He sure was right because that was the England of Chamberlain who was caving in at every minute.
And the British and the Russians didn't want him there when they were at war with the Nazis because he was helping the Nazis.
So they removed him and they placed his young son, who seemed to be a more placid and less determined personality, one they could work with, I guess they thought.
And they put him on the throne.
And he became somewhat more dictatorial, even because he had to.
He was more of a mild-minded person, a weaker person, not as tough as his father.
So he had to develop a secret police known as the SAVAC, which was notorious for arresting people and torturing them and making sure you did what the king of kings, which is how he referred to himself, required it.
But he was never a very secure man and always very nervous that he'd be overthrown.
And in 53, a guy named Mossadegh got elected as prime minister.
And Mossadegh had been a good prime minister for quite some time and very friendly, friendly enough with the Shah.
And then all of a sudden, he just people wanted just him.
And the Shah turned tail and ran.
That's the second Shah, Shah II.
And the third one is the kid hanging out trying to become Shah.
The British, however, didn't allow him to do that because this would affect they had now taken the Iranian oil and put it under British petroleum.
And it was stealing Iran blind.
So they didn't want that to stop.
So they got the little baby, a little baby shot in power.
The second shot, his father was exiled along with his constituents, his confederates who helped him take over the country.
And then the Shah moved on for many, many years, and it became a very disastrous situation.
He didn't seem to know whether to have the confidence to embrace modernity.
That's really what it was.
He tried to play both sides against the middle.
And with the Quran, with its teachings, you cannot play both sides against the middle.
You got to be on one side or the other and take it as it goes.
But we'll take a short break, and we'll be right back.
Liver Health Formula00:03:07
If you want to drop extra pounds, boost energy levels, and reduce swelling in your legs and feet, then this message is for you.
Pure Health Research is on a mission to make America healthy again.
And two of their best-selling health supplements are leading the way.
First is liver health formula.
Over 100 million Americans have a sluggish liver that's riddled with fatty deposits.
This can kill your metabolism, pile on the pounds, and make you feel tired.
Liver Health Formula takes care of that.
It supports thriving liver health with special nutrients like artichoke extract and milk thistle.
This is one of the easiest ways to slim down and revitalize your energy levels.
Next is lymph system support.
If you struggle with fluid buildup or swelling in your legs, ankles, and feet, this is for you.
The natural ingredients and lymph system support help gently flush away extra fluid and toxins out of your body.
And right now, for a limited time, you can get 35% off liver health formula and lymph system support, along with 50 plus other health supplements that Peer Health Research has to offer.
So head over to PeerHealthResearch.com and use promo code Lindel at checkout.
That's PureHealthResearch.com.
Promo code Lindel to save 35% on your order today.
Too many pharmacies and insurance companies are blocking the medications that actually work.
That's why I recommend All Family Pharmacy.
They give you access to treatments like ivermectin now starting at just $2 a capsule.
They also have methylene blue, hydroxychloroquine, and so much more.
They're helping you stay prepared and they've dropped their prices by 25%.
Also, use promo code Lindel10 to save even more.
Go to allfamilypharmacy.com forward slash Lindel.
Use promo code Lindel10 and get the medicine you need.
It's finally here, our second annual mega sale.
This sale only comes around once a year, so take advantage of the best offers ever while you can.
For example, save 50% on our Giza Dream bed sheets as low as $29.98.
And for the first time ever on TV, MyPillow Mattresses and MyPillow Mattress Toppers as low as $99.98.
And you save 50% on our Lux Pure Six-Piece Tel Sets.
Regular $69.98, now only $39.98.
And our best-selling standard MyPillows, regular $49.98, on sale for $17.98.
Wait a mega sale, only $14.98.
So go to mypillow.com or call the number on your screen.
Use this promo code to take advantage of our second annual mega sale.
But wait, there's more.
To make the mega sale even more special, when you order right now, your order's going to ship absolutely free.
Welcome to Vocal, the free speech social app that gives you a platform to amplify your voice, speak freely, connect boldly, and be part of a growing movement for truth, faith, and freedom.
Free Speech Social App00:15:59
Want to know what's happening right now?
The Now Playing feature shows you exactly who's live and what's streaming in real time.
Check out the show's feed, a non-stop lineup including Lindell TV News 24-7, shows and on-demand programming all in one place.
Connect with your favorite host and never miss a show.
Explore the featured page for quick access to Lindel TV's top shows.
Follow your favorites and watch their newest content flow right into your feed.
And when they go live on Vocal, you can join the live chat and be part of the action.
Ask questions, share your thoughts, even help shape future shows.
Stay informed on issues around securing our elections by following your state's Cause of America account.
Join a group and connect on a deeper level from faith and freedom to the future of our nation.
Go to Vocal.com or download the app today and be a part of the mission to save our country.
We've been talking about a subject that, you know, we like to debate moral issues, you know, theological and moral issues.
And Polymarket does allow you to bet on whether there's going to be a war.
I don't know.
There's something wrong with that, I think.
I don't know.
Please, Chad, we have to set up, and we're going to work on this over the weekend because I have some ideas about this.
We got to set up some kind of more interreactive response.
Like, I would like to now ask our audience, do you know our audience was over 2 million last night?
Yeah.
And thank you, by the way.
I should have said that at the beginning.
Thank you.
We have to find a way that they can respond.
I should be able to, this would be very valuable, right?
Because do you feel it is appropriate for people to bet on war?
And should the government should just be against it, you know, or should it be prohibited legally?
Or would that be a restriction of free speech?
Now, is gambling free?
Is gambling free speech?
Fascinating legal issues.
And maybe that's really better for a law school class.
I don't know.
But it actually did surprise me.
I didn't, until now, I didn't think about it.
Well, I think, I think I saw an article somewhere about someplace they, some country banned polymarket for some stuff they were maybe like, God forbid.
Wouldn't you think it would be, God forbid, if they're taking book on Mrs. Guthrie?
Ooh, I don't even want to look, but I will.
Yeah, look, because if they, if they are, I don't know.
I know I'm an old-fashioned jackedass, I guess, but I would just ban the shit out of them if they were doing that.
Yeah, so one way we can interact with the audience.
I've met with them.
They're nice guys.
I know they're nice guys.
And I don't want to be like an old prude, but I am.
Mayor, one way that we can interact with the audience on this, isn't that wrong?
It takes what I have, I'm very worried about the degradation of the importance of human life.
And it's like another, it's like another strike on it after, I guess, after you abort so many babies, human life doesn't mean anything anymore, anyway.
Oh, it's sickening.
But I think that if the audience does want to get engaged on this, especially as we go into the next hour, you can throw it in like a comment under the and on any of the platforms, but especially on X.
And then like, I'll be scrolling those and slagging the good ones for you.
Steve, Ted, Ted is a genius too on this, but Ted is so tired.
Ted does the work of four people.
At least.
At least.
And he only has two hands.
He is not like a superhuman with four hands.
Remarkable.
He's remarkable.
Stephen is remarkable too.
And Stephen technologically takes us like even sort of a level above.
Oh, thank you.
You do.
You do.
So here's the question, Steve.
We would love to set up an interactive situation where we could do the following right now.
Please communicate with us over the next 15 minutes until the show is over, right?
And let us know: are you, do, and please don't, don't, don't be affected by me.
I'm asking for help on this.
Should there be restrictions on what you can bet on on polymarket?
For example, should you be allowed to bet on peace or war or in the situation of a person who's been abducted, life or death?
Don't worry about the legal issues as to whether it can be done.
That's fascinating.
We can go teach a whole law school class on that.
But this is more the moral issue and where our society wants to be on the value of life and ethical questions.
It would be really fascinating to see what your quick response would be to it.
And then I don't know if there's a right answer.
I think it's, I think it's a tough one.
I think it's a it's well, I don't think it's a tough one, but I think other people do.
I'm a little bit more on the fence with it.
You think people should bet on anything they want?
No, but I think that people should be free to do so.
Yeah, I don't like the government coming in saying you can't do that.
And I like these other things that we can bet on, right?
I think that it gives you like good information discovery.
We call it price discovery.
Is it really true that they've been more accurate on elections?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Well, all that tells you is how dishonest the polls are.
Oh, yeah.
I've been.
You can't trust the polls.
The polls are just.
But the pollsters can change it.
All they have to do.
They don't even have to change the result afterwards is change the sample.
Just oversample.
And it's become much easier for them than the old days because we're so damn divided that if I, in the old days, if I oversample by 3%, one side or the other, Democrats, Republicans, almost would make a difference.
I oversample right now every Democratic vote.
I oversample Democrats by 3%.
I just got 3% more Democrats.
Oversample, 3% more Republicans.
So you can throw it off.
You can throw it off very, very quickly.
Do you think, these are some questions now for the geniuses here, because we have to put them to work.
Do you think that President Trump is correct?
Although I will warn you that there are constitutional limitations to this, to nationalize the federal elections so that the standards are the same in all states.
For example, that you can't vote unless you prove that you are a citizen of the United States, given the special invasion that we had.
Yeah, I support.
I'm like you, I'm a little bit more bound by like, you know, the Constitution, the principles of federalism, the Constitution.
Here's the problem.
One would be okay and the other wouldn't.
And there's a I learned this from Professor Eastman, for which I almost went to jail.
So when you learn something for which you almost went to jail, you really remember it.
And I have to say, I consider myself a constitutional lawyer, like in the category of one of my best friends who's passed away, Ted Olson.
But I consider myself, and he considered me a very great lawyer.
So I'm just going to tell you that.
But I consider myself a really good constitutional, or I would defer, I would defer unless I was on the other side of the case to Alan Der Schwartz.
But when I was on the other side of the case, I never deferred to him.
I thought him like crazy.
How about Scalia?
Oh, that's who I was kind of.
I love Nino.
But do you know who I think is better?
Who's that?
Who do you think?
Well, first of all, Alito is just as good.
I think Reference.
You're a Ringquist guy, I'm pretty sure.
No, no, no.
You are, though.
He's on the court right now.
He is my favorite justice of the 20th and the 21st century.
I put him in the Justice Hall of Fame.
Nino, right next to him.
Sonia sought to my heart.
No, John.
Justice Thomas has turned out to be a quiet genius.
Oh, yeah.
Read his effing opinions.
I know the first 20 years, he didn't ask questions because he thought they were a whole bunch of jackasses.
And they thought he was a jackass like hell.
No, but that's a great.
If you want to pick Scalia, you can.
I love Nino.
And I know Nino.
I don't know Justice Thomas.
Nino was a good friend when I was young.
He played piano many times at parties I was at.
He has a great voice.
He can sing great Italian.
He had a great voice.
He sings great Italian songs.
And he and Robert Bork used to debate the Constitution in front of me when I was a little baby.
And I was the chief of staff to the deputy attorney general Harold Tyler, who used to provoke them to fight with each other on purpose so that justice, so that Attorney General Levy could be entertained.
It was hilarious.
You have to understand, I believe this is correct.
So Ford wants to rejuvenate the Justice Department.
So he appoints the former dean of Chicago Law School, the present president of the University of Chicago, as Attorney General.
Edward Levy understands that he doesn't have a practical bone on his body, and that there is a great judge in New York named Harold Tyler who was head of the Civil Rights Division, the first Republican ever to do that.
Never got officially confirmed, but he was the first head.
That he was a hero in the Second World War, and that he had a 13-year career as a great judge.
And also understood the Justice Department backwards and forward.
So he selects him as Deputy Attorney General.
Harold Tyler selects two associate deputy attorneys, like chiefs of staff, myself and Togo D. West.
Well, Togo D. West first, because Togo was his law clerk.
I clerked for Judge McMahon.
How did that help me?
Judge McMahon trained Judge Tyler.
So Tyler had a great deal of respect for Judge McMahon's judgment.
And second, I had the good fortune of trying a case in front of Judge Tyler as a young, as a young man.
So he had a chance to interview me, but in a different way under the stress of trying my third or fourth case.
So I became his chief of staff.
And that's how he ended up in Washington.
And that Justice Department was unreal.
The head of the Office of Legal Counsel, which makes all the opinions on everything that goes on in government, was someone known as Antonine Scalia.
The Solicitor General of the United States who argues before the Supreme Court was Robert Bork.
The two of them were on the faculty of the University of Chicago.
And both of them would love, used to love to debate in front of their old boss, the former dean and then president and now attorney general.
It was like being back in college again.
They would love to debate in front of and prove to Levy, I'm smarter.
Tyler was a genius at and that's that's probably what Tyler would do.
Tyler would set up, and they both love Tyler.
They both love Harold.
They loved him.
And he had a great personality.
And Nino had a superior personality.
And Bork had a good person.
They were all like really good guys.
So he would work with us.
To really get him engaged, you had to come up with something.
You had to be really smart to get him engaged.
He would find something that he knew they would fight over.
And then they would go up there for a meeting, and we had to give President Ford advice on some bill.
And the next five hours was, you know, a debate like between two rabbis at a shoal on the head of, and the two of them would go at it and they you would think Levy would get bored, but Levy would love it.
He was another academic like them.
Not bored, but like worn out, right?
And Tyler would look at Togo at me and go both convinced of their own arguments.
And then Tyler would go run the Justice Department.
I'll tell you those stories sometime.
But in any event, Trump nationalizing elections.
Here's how it can work.
Let me get it down to the real, let's just cut it all out.
Here's the Constitution.
This is very similar to what Democrats wanted to do a few years ago.
They wanted to nationalize elections at the beginning of the Biden administration.
And we held them off because they were going to nationalize elections and let people from the moon vote.
And they were going to allow dead people to vote.
And their surrogates could be the Democrat committeeman could go to the cemetery, decide how they wanted to vote, and come and vote for them.
I'm kidding, but that's pretty much what they wanted to do.
And we were going to fight that on the grounds that the election of a president of the United States is committed to the state legislatures.
The election of members of Congress is committed to the state legislatures, but with a little exception, Congress can pass laws regulating it.
Now, there's a very, very powerful argument in that that never was really emphasized except by a genius like Eastman.
Notice that in one place, they share the power of the rules that can be set for the election of members of Congress and the Senate between the state, and Congress can come in and alter them.
Predictions Not Weather00:01:25
That's in Article 1.
Now we go to Article 2.
We get a very similar section, but you know what's missing?
Nothing about how Congress can change it.
So Congress cannot change without constitutional amendment any of the ways in which the states elect presidents.
So it's not going to work unless you get a constitutional amendment.
And Mr. President, we were on the other side of the issue before.
But in any event, being a lawyer gets you used to that.
Now, come over to X.
It's the last day of the week.
We're heading into the Super Bowl.
We're heading into who knows what kind of weekend we're going to have.
I have some predictions for you, not weather.
And things look like, well, if I were the Ayatollah, I would not take out a long-term lease right now.