WEBVTT - Unpacking Court Packing 0:00:00.440 --> 0:00:03.760 We have got the latest from the Supreme Court confirmation 0:00:03.840 --> 0:00:07.240 hearings on Capitol Hill with someone who has sat through 0:00:07.280 --> 0:00:10.400 all of it. But before we get to that, let 0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:14.560 us turn to the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in 0:00:14.680 --> 0:00:18.360 nineteen eighty three, on a topic very very important to 0:00:18.400 --> 0:00:21.880 the Supreme Court. President Roosevelt clearly had the right to 0:00:21.920 --> 0:00:24.320 send to the United States Senate the United States Congress 0:00:24.320 --> 0:00:27.320 a proposal to pack the Court. It was totally within 0:00:27.400 --> 0:00:31.000 his right to do that. He violated no law. He 0:00:31.080 --> 0:00:36.239 was legalistically absolutely correct, but it was a bone head idea. 0:00:36.600 --> 0:00:40.199 It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make, and it 0:00:40.320 --> 0:00:45.839 put in question for an entire decade the independence of 0:00:46.120 --> 0:00:49.920 the most significant body, including the Congress, in my view, 0:00:49.960 --> 0:00:53.040 the most significant body in this country, the Supreme Court 0:00:53.040 --> 0:00:57.040 of the United States of America. Bone headed. Indeed, this 0:00:57.120 --> 0:01:05.280 is verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdict with 0:01:05.319 --> 0:01:08.200 Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowls, Senator. I do want to 0:01:08.240 --> 0:01:11.240 get to the Supreme Court hearings. You've just come from 0:01:11.280 --> 0:01:13.560 Capitol Hill. But I have to ask you, because you 0:01:13.840 --> 0:01:16.800 actually know the guy, You've you've served with the guy, 0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:20.399 what happened to that Joe Biden. I think I find 0:01:20.440 --> 0:01:23.759 myself agreeing with that. Joe Biden in nineteen eighty three, 0:01:23.840 --> 0:01:26.520 then the one today I don't know about. Well, look 0:01:26.560 --> 0:01:31.000 in nineteen eighty three, I mean I was thirteen, and 0:01:31.319 --> 0:01:34.760 were you even a sparkle in your daddy's eyes? Not 0:01:34.959 --> 0:01:40.440 for a number of years after that. Actually that Joe 0:01:40.480 --> 0:01:47.240 Biden is wandering in Iowa cornfield somewhere, you know. I 0:01:47.319 --> 0:01:51.280 like that he gave a clear answer on this, and 0:01:51.360 --> 0:01:53.560 today we're getting a clear answer from the other side 0:01:53.560 --> 0:01:56.520 of the left. I mean, there are people explicitly advocating 0:01:56.800 --> 0:02:00.240 for court packing, and Joe Biden he has said that 0:02:00.440 --> 0:02:04.160 voters don't deserve to have an answer on where he 0:02:04.280 --> 0:02:07.440 stands on the issue. But this is a significant issue. 0:02:07.440 --> 0:02:09.760 I mean, this could radically shift the balance of power 0:02:09.800 --> 0:02:12.720 in the country. Well, look that that's exactly right. It's 0:02:12.800 --> 0:02:16.200 not accidental that Biden won't answer this question. It's not 0:02:16.240 --> 0:02:20.720 accidental that Kamala Harris won't answer this question. I think 0:02:20.720 --> 0:02:22.679 the reason they wan't answer it is their answer is yes, 0:02:23.400 --> 0:02:28.480 their hardcore base wants them to pack the court, and 0:02:28.720 --> 0:02:33.120 I think they recognize that's a really unpopular idea, So 0:02:33.240 --> 0:02:35.480 they're refusing to answer it, and they pretty much assumed 0:02:35.480 --> 0:02:38.639 the press will give them a pass. I mean you mentioned, 0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:40.799 you know, so Biden was asked a couple of days ago, 0:02:41.120 --> 0:02:43.440 do the voters deserve to know the answer on your question? 0:02:43.440 --> 0:02:46.160 And his response was no, the voters don't deserve to 0:02:46.200 --> 0:02:50.080 know that, Like what, what in the have you ever heard? 0:02:51.080 --> 0:02:55.360 I mean, that's a bizarre thing for a candidate for 0:02:55.400 --> 0:03:00.120 president to say, and it's I believe if Biden wins, 0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:03.960 if there's a Democratic majority in both houses, they will 0:03:04.000 --> 0:03:06.960 pack the court. I think that's the path we're on. 0:03:07.480 --> 0:03:10.200 And I actually think so. We finished the hearing today, 0:03:10.280 --> 0:03:13.600 the second round of questioning. It was kind of a 0:03:13.600 --> 0:03:19.320 snooze fest. It went, you know, nine ten hours. It 0:03:19.440 --> 0:03:22.320 was shorter than yesterday. Yesterday it was about twelve hours. 0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:26.680 And the interesting news about today as the Democrats surrendered, 0:03:27.200 --> 0:03:32.440 they just gave up that they have decided. Amy Cony 0:03:32.480 --> 0:03:34.960 Barrett is going to be confirmed. And you know what, 0:03:35.040 --> 0:03:37.640 the American people watching her are really impressed. I mean, 0:03:37.640 --> 0:03:41.840 this is a remarkable woman. She's an impressive woman. I 0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:45.280 think the people turning on the TV see her calm, cool, collected. 0:03:45.320 --> 0:03:47.560 See here sitting there at a table with not a 0:03:47.680 --> 0:03:51.120 single note in front of her answering the questions, and 0:03:51.160 --> 0:03:53.760 I think the Democrats realized, Okay, we're getting the crap 0:03:53.800 --> 0:03:57.360 beat out of us right now, and the word came 0:03:57.400 --> 0:04:02.160 out essentially runaway. It was striking by this afternoon, and 0:04:02.520 --> 0:04:07.280 I guess I had my round of questioning right about lunchtime. 0:04:08.120 --> 0:04:10.920 Hearing room was almost empty, but there were two Democrats 0:04:11.000 --> 0:04:13.440 left in the room that they had fled. And I 0:04:13.480 --> 0:04:17.640 actually started started my questioning by pointing out that they 0:04:17.640 --> 0:04:19.760 had given up. That the good news is we now 0:04:19.880 --> 0:04:22.080 know for a fact Judge Barrett is going to be 0:04:22.120 --> 0:04:24.880 confirmed as Justice Barrett, and I pointed out there were 0:04:24.880 --> 0:04:28.600 only two Democrats in the room and Dick Durban from Illinois, 0:04:29.200 --> 0:04:31.839 he just about lost it. He exploded. He jumped in 0:04:31.960 --> 0:04:34.360 and interrupted me, which rarely happens at hearings. I mean, 0:04:34.360 --> 0:04:37.000 you don't see that very often. And he jumped in 0:04:37.080 --> 0:04:41.240 and he said, well, well there's a pandemic. And I 0:04:41.279 --> 0:04:43.920 couldn't help but responding, well, yeah, that's true, there is 0:04:43.920 --> 0:04:46.960 a pandemic. But yesterday you were all here and you 0:04:47.040 --> 0:04:49.479 had all the Democrats lined up. Pat Lay he didn't 0:04:49.480 --> 0:04:51.760 show up, and Kamala Harris. Those are the only two 0:04:51.760 --> 0:04:53.640 Democrats who didn't show up to the hearing. Everyone else 0:04:53.680 --> 0:04:57.160 was physically present today. They literally they would show up 0:04:57.160 --> 0:05:00.960 for their little round of questioning, but nobody. There were 0:05:00.960 --> 0:05:06.880 really no fireworks, and I think they realize they can't 0:05:06.920 --> 0:05:09.479 stop it. They've got to put on enough of a 0:05:09.600 --> 0:05:14.960 show that their hardcore activists aren't mad at them, but 0:05:16.520 --> 0:05:21.040 it is clear they're dialing it in. Every time they 0:05:21.320 --> 0:05:25.120 try to throw a fastball at her, she just smiles, 0:05:25.200 --> 0:05:28.680 and she she knows the substance a lot better than 0:05:28.680 --> 0:05:31.920 they do, and she's not going down like the traps 0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:35.679 they tried to lay. She's not falling into. But part 0:05:35.720 --> 0:05:38.200 of I think they're objective. At the beginning of the 0:05:38.240 --> 0:05:42.599 hearing was to lay the predicate that the nomination and 0:05:42.600 --> 0:05:47.120 the confirmation itself is fundamentally illegitimate, because that's the predicate. 0:05:47.839 --> 0:05:50.279 Their endgame is court packing in a few months. So 0:05:50.320 --> 0:05:53.120 I think they're willing to say, Okay, we lose now. 0:05:53.839 --> 0:05:55.520 They think they're going to win a couple of weeks. 0:05:55.520 --> 0:05:57.280 Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. I don't know who 0:05:57.279 --> 0:06:00.240 wins on election day, but they think they're to be 0:06:00.279 --> 0:06:04.599 in power. And I think their answer next year is 0:06:04.680 --> 0:06:06.560 packed the court. I don't know if they plan to 0:06:06.560 --> 0:06:11.840 go to eleven or thirteen. But one of the interesting things, so, 0:06:12.320 --> 0:06:15.000 what does packing the court mean? What does that term mean. 0:06:16.120 --> 0:06:19.760 It's a term that everyone is understood for a hundred years. 0:06:20.800 --> 0:06:26.280 It is expanding the number of justices in order to 0:06:26.320 --> 0:06:28.800 put your political supporters on there. So it's changing the 0:06:28.880 --> 0:06:32.000 number of justices in the court. Yea. So a couple 0:06:32.040 --> 0:06:34.520 interesting things on this number. One, the number of justices 0:06:34.520 --> 0:06:36.920 in the court is not specified the constitution. Well, this 0:06:37.000 --> 0:06:39.760 is something that the left wingers have been bringing up. 0:06:39.800 --> 0:06:43.320 They say, look, there's no constitutional requirement that it be 0:06:43.400 --> 0:06:45.680 nine judges. So come on, we've changed the number of 0:06:45.760 --> 0:06:48.839 judges before. What's the big deal. You're making a mountain 0:06:48.839 --> 0:06:52.400 out of a molehill. And it has varied anywhere from 0:06:52.440 --> 0:06:56.479 five justices to as many as ten. And for the 0:06:56.600 --> 0:06:59.000 first one hundred years or so of our country's history, 0:07:00.800 --> 0:07:05.000 the number of justices largely followed the number of Court 0:07:05.040 --> 0:07:08.159 of appeals circuits there were. The idea was each Supreme 0:07:08.200 --> 0:07:12.160 Court justice was the circuit justice for that particular court 0:07:12.160 --> 0:07:15.680 of appeal. So as Congress added another court of appeals, 0:07:16.280 --> 0:07:20.400 they added another justice. It's been at nine though for 0:07:20.400 --> 0:07:24.720 one hundred and fifty years, so really kind of Civil 0:07:24.760 --> 0:07:28.960 War era forward. It hasn't moved, and nine has been steady. 0:07:29.000 --> 0:07:31.440 Now they're thirteen courts of appeals, but there's still only 0:07:31.520 --> 0:07:35.360 nine justices. It's been steady. And the most famous instance 0:07:35.520 --> 0:07:38.160 of court packing as the one Joe Biden was talking 0:07:38.160 --> 0:07:39.880 about in the clip we played a few minutes ago, 0:07:40.480 --> 0:07:47.040 which is FDR so FDR four termed dominant Democratic President, 0:07:48.280 --> 0:07:51.640 Great Depression, pushing, trying to push through his new deal, 0:07:51.680 --> 0:07:53.960 and he was finding different components of the new deal 0:07:54.000 --> 0:07:57.760 struck down by the Supreme Court, and he was really frustrated. 0:07:57.760 --> 0:08:03.160 He was really angry, and he proposed to pack the court. 0:08:03.280 --> 0:08:08.280 His plan was for each justice over a certain age, 0:08:08.320 --> 0:08:10.720 I forget if it was seventy or seventy five, I 0:08:10.760 --> 0:08:13.960 think it's seventy or thereabout, but that there would be 0:08:13.960 --> 0:08:16.000 a new justice appointed, so you wouldn't kick the old 0:08:16.000 --> 0:08:18.520 ones off. You'd just appoint a new one for all 0:08:18.560 --> 0:08:22.720 the old guys. And that would have immediately taken the 0:08:22.760 --> 0:08:27.760 court up to I think fifteen. And it was interesting. 0:08:27.840 --> 0:08:31.760 Number one, the Democratic Congress, there were big Democratic majorities 0:08:31.760 --> 0:08:34.760 of both houses. They said, this is too much. We're 0:08:34.800 --> 0:08:36.520 not going that far. We're not going to do it 0:08:37.679 --> 0:08:41.280 now history and so they resisted. They said it would 0:08:41.280 --> 0:08:43.640 destroy the independence. They actually agreed with what Joe Biden 0:08:43.679 --> 0:08:45.440 just said, that it would destroy the independence of the court, 0:08:45.440 --> 0:08:51.760 it would politicize the court. One interesting thing about that fight, though, 0:08:51.880 --> 0:08:55.200 is actually history in many ways FDR may have won 0:08:55.320 --> 0:08:58.920 that fight anyway. So at least the good news here 0:08:59.000 --> 0:09:02.880 is though FDR try to stack the courts and pack 0:09:02.960 --> 0:09:05.920 the churts rather, and he loses, So then the issue 0:09:05.960 --> 0:09:09.480 goes away for a while. Right, Well, yes, and no, um, 0:09:09.679 --> 0:09:12.400 he lost the fight to pack the court. But but 0:09:12.520 --> 0:09:15.160 actually history shows in many ways he won the political fight. 0:09:16.240 --> 0:09:19.679 So there had been five justices who were striking down 0:09:20.000 --> 0:09:25.240 multiple New Deal programs, and when he introduced the court 0:09:25.320 --> 0:09:32.719 packing legislation, one of those justices, a justice named Owen Roberts, 0:09:32.720 --> 0:09:39.920 switched his vote and it's it's referred to as the 0:09:40.000 --> 0:09:45.920 switch in time that saved nine because he had Justice 0:09:46.000 --> 0:09:50.240 Roberts had been voting with four other justices. The four 0:09:50.240 --> 0:09:53.960 others were known as the four Horsemen, which was not 0:09:54.080 --> 0:09:59.440 meant to be a compliment, and and Roberts switched his 0:09:59.559 --> 0:10:03.920 vote in nineteen thirty seven in a case that upheld 0:10:03.960 --> 0:10:06.959 the minimum wage laws from the state of Washington State. 0:10:07.880 --> 0:10:15.480 And there's some dispute among historians about whether Robert switched 0:10:15.520 --> 0:10:17.880 his vote because of the court packing plan or not, 0:10:19.280 --> 0:10:22.400 but whether he did or not, before the plan, there 0:10:22.400 --> 0:10:27.400 were five justices ruling regularly against FDR. Once FDR launched 0:10:27.440 --> 0:10:30.640 a full on assault on the court, it switched and 0:10:31.360 --> 0:10:34.080 they began rolling over for a whole lot more so, 0:10:34.200 --> 0:10:39.000 either way, the independence of the Court was I think 0:10:39.040 --> 0:10:44.679 substantially jeopardized even by the proposal of court packing, and 0:10:44.720 --> 0:10:49.319 I think that lesson has a lot of powerful significance 0:10:49.840 --> 0:10:52.040 for where we are today. I think part of the 0:10:52.080 --> 0:10:56.400 reason Democrats are threatening court packing is a. I think 0:10:56.440 --> 0:11:00.720 they mean it and they'll do it, But B I 0:11:00.760 --> 0:11:03.520 think they're also perfectly happy to try to intimidate the 0:11:03.520 --> 0:11:08.880 current justices. You know, we've seen John Roberts flipping his 0:11:08.960 --> 0:11:11.640 votes in a bunch of cases lately in voting with 0:11:11.679 --> 0:11:16.120 the liberals, and and in fact, Sheldon Whitehouse, a colleague 0:11:16.120 --> 0:11:20.640 of mine on the Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to 0:11:20.679 --> 0:11:24.160 the Supreme Court in in a gun control case, basically 0:11:24.200 --> 0:11:26.400 threatening the Court that if they didn't do what he wanted, 0:11:26.840 --> 0:11:28.800 they would have to. I think the phrase he used 0:11:28.840 --> 0:11:33.080 was restructure the court, but it was a threat of 0:11:33.240 --> 0:11:36.760 court packing. And what's interesting, and part of the reason 0:11:36.800 --> 0:11:38.959 I believe that this threat is real, this is not 0:11:39.080 --> 0:11:42.680 you know, there's some folks in the media, some folks 0:11:43.800 --> 0:11:46.240 who think, gosh, they really wouldn't do that. That seems 0:11:46.240 --> 0:11:50.040 really radical. The biggest indication to me that they really 0:11:50.120 --> 0:11:53.560 mean it is there is a concerted effort among Democrats 0:11:53.559 --> 0:11:56.960 and the media to redefine what it means to pack 0:11:57.040 --> 0:12:01.040 the court, right right. So you know, we've talked about 0:12:01.080 --> 0:12:06.080 before the incredible message discipline that Democrats have. About a 0:12:06.080 --> 0:12:08.760 week ago, the talking point went out that every Democrat 0:12:08.800 --> 0:12:11.720 began repeating, which is, well, the Republicans have been packing 0:12:11.720 --> 0:12:15.520 the court for four years. Well, that's not actually what 0:12:15.760 --> 0:12:19.760 packing the court means. Filling vacancies when there's a vacancy, 0:12:19.760 --> 0:12:23.800 appointing a justice, confirming the justice. That's not packing the court. 0:12:24.640 --> 0:12:28.680 Packing the court is expanding the number of justices to 0:12:28.800 --> 0:12:31.040 put your cronies on there. It's a very different thing, 0:12:31.080 --> 0:12:35.320 and they're trying to You're seeing the media exercise this theme, 0:12:35.360 --> 0:12:37.880 and I think it's all set up to have it 0:12:38.000 --> 0:12:41.280 be the predicate for next year to say, well, judge 0:12:41.280 --> 0:12:45.120 Barrett was illegitimate. Trump packed the court already, so we 0:12:45.240 --> 0:12:50.440 just need to actually ap that. They recently wrote an 0:12:50.520 --> 0:12:55.120 article where they said to depoliticize the court. So so 0:12:55.160 --> 0:12:57.880 you want to talk about an Orwellian term packing the court, 0:12:59.000 --> 0:13:02.880 adding new left injustices and growing it beyond nine to 0:13:03.000 --> 0:13:06.680 I don't know, eleven thirteen. Wherever they go is, according 0:13:06.720 --> 0:13:11.440 to the Associated Press, is depoliticizing the court, the AP 0:13:11.600 --> 0:13:15.520 wrote this week, and it went on to say, which 0:13:15.600 --> 0:13:20.520 some critics have referred to as packing, Well, no, actually 0:13:21.040 --> 0:13:25.560 everybody referred to it as packing. Of course, the term 0:13:25.600 --> 0:13:29.360 court packing is much older than the term depoliticizing. So 0:13:29.520 --> 0:13:31.280 what you're telling me, because I was just about to 0:13:31.320 --> 0:13:34.719 celebrate when you told me there was a Democrat surrender 0:13:34.720 --> 0:13:37.319 on Amy Coney Barrett today, I thought, oh gosh, this 0:13:37.360 --> 0:13:39.720 is good news. We finally got to win here. But 0:13:39.760 --> 0:13:43.239 what you're suggesting is this may have been a tactical surrender. 0:13:43.360 --> 0:13:45.480 They've got no dirt on Barrett. They're not going to 0:13:45.559 --> 0:13:48.040 stop this nomination. It would maybe hurt them if they did, 0:13:48.280 --> 0:13:51.360 but they are going to use the confirmation of Judge 0:13:51.360 --> 0:13:55.920 Barrett as another excuse for court packing, which you know 0:13:56.120 --> 0:13:58.680 we played it earlier. Joe Biden in the nineteen eighties 0:13:58.720 --> 0:14:01.120 may have said that he thought it a bone headed scheme. 0:14:01.320 --> 0:14:04.520 But don't forget Joe Biden has changed his views one 0:14:04.559 --> 0:14:07.880 hundred eighty degrees multiple times over the course of his career. 0:14:08.559 --> 0:14:12.359 You saw this actually during the George HW. Bush administration, 0:14:12.640 --> 0:14:15.079 where he said it would be a terrible idea to 0:14:15.120 --> 0:14:17.760 nominate and confirm a judge, a Supreme Court justice in 0:14:17.800 --> 0:14:20.480 an election year. Then fast forward to twenty sixteen, he said, 0:14:20.520 --> 0:14:23.160 it is absolutely essential that we nominate and confirm a 0:14:23.200 --> 0:14:25.320 Supreme Court justice in an election year. Fast forward to 0:14:25.320 --> 0:14:28.240 twenty twenty. He's flipped on this again. So I see 0:14:28.240 --> 0:14:31.080 there's no reason not to suspect something similar would hold 0:14:31.520 --> 0:14:33.880 for the question of court packing. Well, it's not just 0:14:33.960 --> 0:14:38.000 Joe Biden that's changes views. Practically every Democrat has. I 0:14:38.240 --> 0:14:40.400 read a number of these statements today at the questioning 0:14:40.880 --> 0:14:45.320 Pat Lahey in twenty seventeen. Quote, the Judiciary Committee once 0:14:45.360 --> 0:14:48.320 stood against a court packing scheme that would have eroded 0:14:48.680 --> 0:14:53.840 judicial independence. That was a proud moment. Dick Blumenthal twenty eighteen, 0:14:54.520 --> 0:14:57.560 commenting on the nineteen thirty seven Judiciary Committee statement that 0:14:58.040 --> 0:15:00.720 it is a measure which we should be which should 0:15:00.720 --> 0:15:05.760 be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again 0:15:05.840 --> 0:15:09.600 be presented to the free representatives of the free people 0:15:09.640 --> 0:15:14.440 of America. That was two years ago. Dick Durban twenty eighteen. 0:15:14.560 --> 0:15:17.440 Seventy five years ago, we went through this, and I 0:15:17.480 --> 0:15:21.640 think the Congress was correct in stopping this popular president 0:15:22.000 --> 0:15:26.280 named Franklin Roosevelt from that idea. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg 0:15:26.720 --> 0:15:29.920 in twenty nineteen, just last year, here's what Justice Ginsburg said. 0:15:30.480 --> 0:15:33.000 She said, if anything would make the Court look partisan, 0:15:33.480 --> 0:15:36.800 it would be that one side saying we're in power, 0:15:37.480 --> 0:15:40.400 we're going to enlarge the number of judges. Notice she 0:15:40.440 --> 0:15:43.280 knows what packing is, so that we would have more 0:15:43.320 --> 0:15:45.240 people who would vote the way we want them to. 0:15:45.400 --> 0:15:48.680 And she went on to say nine seems to be 0:15:48.720 --> 0:15:51.760 a good number. It's been that way for a long time. 0:15:51.800 --> 0:15:54.760 I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin 0:15:54.840 --> 0:15:59.440 Roosevelt tried to pack the court. They all agreed with 0:15:59.480 --> 0:16:06.560 this until they got very unhappy with the president's judicial 0:16:06.600 --> 0:16:10.840 nominations for the vacancies. That he had, and at this point, 0:16:10.880 --> 0:16:13.960 I think it is all about power, and it's all 0:16:14.000 --> 0:16:16.640 about you know, we talked yesterday in the podcast about 0:16:16.720 --> 0:16:20.520 I went through the litany of constitutional rights that are 0:16:20.560 --> 0:16:22.640 hanging in the balance, that are one vote away, a lot, 0:16:23.240 --> 0:16:25.200 all the different rights that I talk about in my 0:16:25.200 --> 0:16:28.440 book one vote away, religious liberty, free speech, the Second Amendment, 0:16:28.720 --> 0:16:31.640 and I explained in the hearing how every one of 0:16:31.680 --> 0:16:35.240 those rights was hanging in the balance. You know what's amazing, Michael, 0:16:35.800 --> 0:16:38.800 both yesterday and today, not a single Democrat disagreed with me, 0:16:39.280 --> 0:16:41.360 Not a single one of them argued on the merits, 0:16:41.640 --> 0:16:43.880 not a single one of them made the case for 0:16:44.000 --> 0:16:48.120 what their radical justices actually want to do taking away 0:16:48.120 --> 0:16:52.680 those constitutional liberties. Instead, this is about brute power. I 0:16:52.720 --> 0:16:56.720 think they recognize they can't stop it now. So their 0:16:56.800 --> 0:16:58.920 plan and their hope is they win in November and 0:16:58.960 --> 0:17:01.040 then they use brute power to just grow the court 0:17:01.280 --> 0:17:06.159 and force in radicals who will mandate their view of 0:17:06.200 --> 0:17:08.919 policy from the court. Well, I want to ask you 0:17:09.000 --> 0:17:12.800 about one particular example of the exercise of brute power, 0:17:13.000 --> 0:17:18.000 which today frankly completely overshadowed the confirmation hearings. That was 0:17:18.320 --> 0:17:21.439 the matter of big tech censoring. A new report just 0:17:21.480 --> 0:17:24.760 came out from the New York Post. It showed emails 0:17:25.520 --> 0:17:29.680 between Hunter Biden and one of his oligarch pals over 0:17:29.720 --> 0:17:33.080 in Ukraine. We've talked at length on this podcast about 0:17:33.200 --> 0:17:36.680 the shady business connections between Hunter Biden and these Ukraine 0:17:36.840 --> 0:17:41.840 energy companies and oligarchs. An email suggesting that Hunter Biden 0:17:41.920 --> 0:17:44.960 not only discussed this issue with Joe Biden, but actually 0:17:45.000 --> 0:17:49.040 introduced the Ukrainian oligarch to Joe Biden. This is very 0:17:49.040 --> 0:17:54.119 explosive stuff during a presidential campaign. Big tech platforms Facebook 0:17:54.160 --> 0:17:59.080 and Twitter censored the New York Post report. They offered 0:17:59.200 --> 0:18:02.679 no evidence to the contrary, They had no reason to 0:18:02.720 --> 0:18:06.200 suggest that this was not real. They simply said this 0:18:06.240 --> 0:18:09.600 could be damaging information, damaging to whom, damaging of course, 0:18:09.760 --> 0:18:12.679 to the Biden campaign. And the craziest part of it 0:18:12.720 --> 0:18:16.639 all is it worked. It didn't work to stop the conversation, 0:18:16.840 --> 0:18:20.879 but it worked to stop the spread of this particular 0:18:20.960 --> 0:18:24.920 link throughout big tech. I you know, we've criticized big 0:18:24.920 --> 0:18:28.200 tech on this show before. I did not know that 0:18:28.240 --> 0:18:32.600 those companies would take election interference to this kind of 0:18:32.600 --> 0:18:35.720 a dangerous extent. I don't know if this New York 0:18:35.760 --> 0:18:37.440 Post story is true or not, but it was really 0:18:37.480 --> 0:18:41.080 quite stunning. This afternoon. Both Twitter and Facebook just decided 0:18:41.880 --> 0:18:44.280 we're going to block this story. And by the way, 0:18:44.560 --> 0:18:46.639 so they would block it a if you tweeted it, 0:18:47.359 --> 0:18:49.119 if you tweeted it, if I tweeted it, and you 0:18:49.160 --> 0:18:51.600 linked to the story, if you tried to click on 0:18:51.640 --> 0:18:54.399 the link, you'd get a warning on Twitter that that 0:18:54.800 --> 0:18:59.480 this link has content that may be harmful. Well maybe 0:18:59.520 --> 0:19:03.560 harmful to Joe Biden's political prospects, but it's not. And 0:19:03.760 --> 0:19:06.480 not only that they did something which which I don't 0:19:06.520 --> 0:19:11.800 recall seeing them have the cajoness to do before that 0:19:11.960 --> 0:19:17.080 being a Cuban term, I'll look it up, which is 0:19:17.119 --> 0:19:19.800 they banned the New York Post itself, so the New 0:19:19.840 --> 0:19:22.920 York Post published or the Post was, and the Post 0:19:22.960 --> 0:19:25.480 has one of the largest circulations of any newspaper in 0:19:25.520 --> 0:19:30.719 the country. I mean, this is not you know, Bob's newsletter. 0:19:30.800 --> 0:19:35.960 This is the New York frigging Post. And they blocked 0:19:36.800 --> 0:19:39.800 the Post from tweeting out their own story. And mind you, 0:19:39.960 --> 0:19:42.600 neither Twitter or Facebook say it's false. Neither of them have. 0:19:42.920 --> 0:19:45.600 They don't have any evidence that it's inaccurate. They simply 0:19:46.600 --> 0:19:52.920 made the unaccountable decision, the arrogant decision. We will not 0:19:53.080 --> 0:19:56.960 allow this to be shared discussed, and you, the press, 0:19:57.560 --> 0:20:00.480 can't even put out your own stories. And it was 0:20:00.560 --> 0:20:06.960 so brazen Senator staffer in communications at Facebook who made 0:20:06.960 --> 0:20:09.320 this decision to suppress the information. He ended up tweeting 0:20:09.320 --> 0:20:11.359 about it. I looked up his bio. Do you know 0:20:11.400 --> 0:20:14.400 what his jobs were before he started working at Facebook. 0:20:14.640 --> 0:20:18.480 He worked for Democratic political action committees, He worked for 0:20:18.680 --> 0:20:22.520 Democratic elected politicians. He is a Democrat operative at a 0:20:22.640 --> 0:20:27.919 supposedly neutral tech platform, using that neutral tech platform to 0:20:28.119 --> 0:20:31.880 suppress damaging information about Democrats mere weeks to an election. 0:20:32.200 --> 0:20:35.640 How can we permit that to continue? So he has 0:20:35.680 --> 0:20:38.919 on his Twitter bio that he is an alum of 0:20:39.200 --> 0:20:44.359 California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer's office, So not just any Democrat, 0:20:44.400 --> 0:20:46.879 but one of the most partisan left wing Democrats to 0:20:46.920 --> 0:20:49.600 ever serve. And he's also an alama of the d 0:20:49.720 --> 0:20:52.679 Triple See, which is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It 0:20:52.760 --> 0:20:56.000 is literally their political arm who exists for one purpose 0:20:56.000 --> 0:21:00.280 to elect Democratic members of Congress. That's the Facebook spokesperson 0:21:01.160 --> 0:21:04.320 explaining their decision. We're going to silence that nothing to 0:21:04.320 --> 0:21:07.720 see here. So I sent today letters to the CEOs 0:21:07.720 --> 0:21:11.520 of both Facebook and Twitter as chairman of the Constitution 0:21:11.560 --> 0:21:15.000 Subcommittee the Senate Judiciary Committee, setting out a series of 0:21:15.080 --> 0:21:18.639 questions asking them who made the decision, what was the 0:21:18.680 --> 0:21:21.880 basis for it? What other news sites you have you 0:21:22.600 --> 0:21:24.760 blocked and silenced? Have you ever blocked the New York 0:21:24.760 --> 0:21:27.000 Times or even blocked the Washington Post? Have you ever 0:21:27.040 --> 0:21:29.719 blocked anything damaging and Donald Trump? Or is it only 0:21:30.359 --> 0:21:32.560 stories that you think are damaging of Joe Biden that 0:21:32.600 --> 0:21:35.800 you're going to block? And what's interesting about this? You 0:21:36.119 --> 0:21:39.280 said a minute ago, Well, you know they were able 0:21:39.280 --> 0:21:41.560 to succeed in this. I actually think they screwed up. 0:21:41.600 --> 0:21:46.280 I think their arrogance is their pitfall, because this is 0:21:46.320 --> 0:21:50.000 now a ten times bigger story because they blocked it. 0:21:50.640 --> 0:21:52.600 Then if they just ignored it, if they'd let people 0:21:52.640 --> 0:21:55.919 tweet about it. Look, one of the challenges and we 0:21:56.000 --> 0:22:00.879 find this, you know, when we did the podcasts talking 0:22:00.920 --> 0:22:06.480 about James Komi and you know, all the Russia Gate 0:22:06.480 --> 0:22:09.080 and everything, people are tired of it. They're just there, 0:22:09.800 --> 0:22:12.640 all the names and Brennan and Coomy, and it's complicated 0:22:12.800 --> 0:22:14.680 and people want to tune it out and it's noise, 0:22:14.680 --> 0:22:17.320 and I get it. I look, I do this for 0:22:17.359 --> 0:22:19.600 a living, and it's hard to follow all this stuff. 0:22:20.960 --> 0:22:24.040 I think this story could very easily have faded into 0:22:24.080 --> 0:22:27.320 that kind of mist of noise. I'm not sure what 0:22:27.400 --> 0:22:30.439 Bisma is anymore, a Ukraine or Biden whatever, hunter Biden, 0:22:32.040 --> 0:22:33.720 and I'm not sure it would have gotten a whole 0:22:33.760 --> 0:22:36.080 lot of attention beyond right wingers who are already are 0:22:36.080 --> 0:22:37.960 going to vote for Trump. But I'm not sure it 0:22:38.000 --> 0:22:41.240 would have gotten a lot of attention beyond that except 0:22:41.240 --> 0:22:44.320 for Twitter and Facebook. Sensory it where you're sitting there 0:22:44.320 --> 0:22:48.960 going okay. If they can block a major newspaper a 0:22:49.000 --> 0:22:53.679 couple of weeks before presidential election publishing what purports to 0:22:53.720 --> 0:22:57.720 be evidence of corruption at the very highest level of politics, 0:22:58.200 --> 0:23:00.399 that's a big, frigate deal, and I think it actually 0:23:00.440 --> 0:23:04.239 backfired on them. And it's frankly that itself is a 0:23:04.240 --> 0:23:09.280 bigger story, perhaps even than Joe Biden's potentially corrupt dealings 0:23:09.280 --> 0:23:12.840 with Ukraine. The idea that a few oligarchs in Silicon 0:23:12.960 --> 0:23:16.280 Valley are now going to control effectively the public sphere, 0:23:16.480 --> 0:23:19.200 the control of information around the Internet, interfering in an 0:23:19.200 --> 0:23:21.280 election in a way that the Russians could only have 0:23:21.400 --> 0:23:23.440 dreamed of. They would never have been able to interfere 0:23:23.560 --> 0:23:27.120 to that regard. Is there something that we can do? 0:23:27.280 --> 0:23:30.760 I mean, obviously the Democrats control the House, the Republicans 0:23:30.760 --> 0:23:32.960 have the Senate and the White House for now, hopefully 0:23:33.000 --> 0:23:35.640 that continues. Is there anything that we can do or 0:23:35.880 --> 0:23:39.000 are we basically at the whims of these Silicon Valley 0:23:39.080 --> 0:23:41.680 masters of the universe. So there's a lot we can do. 0:23:41.720 --> 0:23:43.880 As you know, I've been leading the charge on this 0:23:43.960 --> 0:23:47.239 for several years. The most of the action that can 0:23:47.280 --> 0:23:49.720 be done on this is in the executive branch. So 0:23:49.800 --> 0:23:53.719 I have met and talked with on this topic, President Trump, 0:23:53.840 --> 0:23:56.080 Vice President Pence, the White House Chief of Staff, the 0:23:56.080 --> 0:23:59.440 White House Council, Attorney General Bill Barr, the Deputy Attorney General, 0:24:00.000 --> 0:24:02.439 Sistant Attorney General for the Anti Trust Division, the chairman 0:24:02.440 --> 0:24:04.720 of the Federal Trade Commission. I've urged all of them 0:24:05.240 --> 0:24:09.160 to use the enforcement power of the executive branch. Look, 0:24:09.160 --> 0:24:13.240 in Congress, we don't have the ability to impanel grand jury. 0:24:13.359 --> 0:24:19.720