Speaker 1: So there is a September thirtieth deadline coming up to
Speaker 1: reach an agreement on spending. Republicans always talk about how
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice has been weaponized against Conservatives, how
Speaker 1: the Department of Homeland Security is not doing its job
Speaker 1: and its basic function of defending the country defending or
Speaker 1: southern border defending or border So why fund these agencies
Speaker 1: that are either abusing power or not doing their duty.
Speaker 1: That's the question that Congressman chip Roy is asking as
Speaker 1: he encourages his fellow Republicans to take up this fight
Speaker 1: to not fund these agencies and to stand up for
Speaker 1: what they believe it or at least what they've been
Speaker 1: saying they believe makes sense. So we're going to talk
Speaker 1: to Congressman chip Roy about that. We're also going to
Speaker 1: get his take on Merrick Garland naming David Weiss as
Speaker 1: a special counsel. Why now, what does this mean and
Speaker 1: what should Republicans do about it. We'll also talk to
Speaker 1: him about the latest Trump indictment. You know, what are
Speaker 1: they trying to do with it? Is it to harm
Speaker 1: him or boost him? All of that and more with
Speaker 1: Congressman ship Roy from Texas.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: Congressman It's always an honor to have you on the show.
Speaker 1: We're approaching this September thirtieth timeline to reach an agreement
Speaker 1: on spending. This always happens with Congress, They wait till
Speaker 1: the last minute. What should the priorities be for Republicans.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, good to be on as always.
Speaker 3: And look, if it were my play call, we would
Speaker 3: not be in our districts, but rather we would be
Speaker 3: in Washington. We set out, and you know, all said
Speaker 3: and agreed that we were going to pass appropriations bills,
Speaker 3: and that's what we ought to be doing. And in
Speaker 3: the absence of being able to get agreement on the
Speaker 3: appropriations bills before July, or certainly most of them, then
Speaker 3: we ought.
Speaker 2: To be back in DC.
Speaker 3: But you know, we're not, and we're probably going to
Speaker 3: be in our districts for a few more weeks and
Speaker 3: then back in September, and so almost certainly it's going
Speaker 3: to be difficult to get appropriations bills passed in September.
Speaker 3: So we're going to end up facing the prospect of
Speaker 3: the government funding deadline of September thirtieth, and then the
Speaker 3: normal DC dance of oh, let's do a two month
Speaker 3: two and a half month extension of a continuing resolution
Speaker 3: of funding at current levels. That's meaning maintain the status
Speaker 3: quo until right before Christmas, where they can then put
Speaker 3: in all the pressure to try to get something done
Speaker 3: and get a big omnibus bill done in December. Well,
Speaker 3: I disagree with that. I mean, our priority needs to
Speaker 3: be spending going down to pre COVID levels. We need
Speaker 3: to restrain the Department of Homeland Security and focus on
Speaker 3: it doing its job and withhold funds until we force
Speaker 3: them to pass HR two. Sign HR two, make sure
Speaker 3: that we're not releasing people in the United States, and
Speaker 3: we need to hold the Department of Justice accountable and
Speaker 3: make sure that Department of Justice is being reformed and
Speaker 3: restraining funds from being used.
Speaker 2: To carry out political witch hunts.
Speaker 3: I think we can focus on Department of Defense and wokeness,
Speaker 3: focus on energy. There's a lot of things we should
Speaker 3: be using the power of the purse to change, and
Speaker 3: I don't accept the premise that too many of my
Speaker 3: Republican colleagues do that, Oh, well, you just have the House.
Speaker 3: It's like, no, we have the House, and the House
Speaker 3: is the originator of spending bills, and we have the
Speaker 3: power of the purse, and we should therefore use that
Speaker 3: power to reclaim our country, to take it back for
Speaker 3: the people.
Speaker 1: Well, and it sort of defies logic too. I mean,
Speaker 1: if we see a Department of Justice that is very
Speaker 1: clearly weaponized against conservatives, if we see a Department of
Speaker 1: Homeland Security that is not doing its basic function, which
Speaker 1: is securing the border, you know why you fund them?
Speaker 3: That's my question, And stated even just slightly differently than
Speaker 3: why fund fund them, I would state it is do
Speaker 3: I not have a more obligation to refuse to fund
Speaker 3: them if they're going to be carrying out of policies
Speaker 3: or taking actions that are in direct conflict with my
Speaker 3: way of life the people I represent. So the border,
Speaker 3: for example, is a perfect example, because we're under assault
Speaker 3: in Texas. Hell, they're even suing Governor Abbott to get
Speaker 3: him to stop doing the job of DHS by trying
Speaker 3: to put booyes in the river. But to your point
Speaker 3: about the Department of Justice, why would we fund you
Speaker 3: said the right way? In what world is it a appropriate
Speaker 3: use of my power and the power of the purse
Speaker 3: to give another dollar to Merit Garland to continue to
Speaker 3: carry out political witch hunts, or to target Scott Smith
Speaker 3: in Louden County or Mark Hawk in Philadelphia. We shouldn't
Speaker 3: do that. We should demand that they change. We should
Speaker 3: demand that they stop the witch hunts. We should demand
Speaker 3: that they focus on fentanyl poisonings and sex trafficking and
Speaker 3: stopping crime that's harming our communities rather than trying to
Speaker 3: carry out the political machinations of the Democratic left through
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: What's the stomach on Capitol Hill with Republicans in the
Speaker 1: House for falling through on some of the things that
Speaker 1: you've just laid out. I know you've also called for
Speaker 1: Secretary of my Arcus's firing as well. You know, what's
Speaker 1: the appetite with Republicans right now for falling through on
Speaker 1: some of this stuff.
Speaker 3: The appetite is growing, but in the end, because they
Speaker 3: are who they are, politicians in the swamp, the appetite
Speaker 3: is only going to be as strong as the pressure
Speaker 3: being applied by the people. And that's why I think
Speaker 3: it's really important to hear in August that we'd be
Speaker 3: having this conversation and forcing the hand of our Republican
Speaker 3: members of Congress to do their job. And you know
Speaker 3: that's why I put out a letter last week with
Speaker 3: my colleagues, fourteen of my Republican colleagues from Texas, to
Speaker 3: say that we should not be funding the Department of
Speaker 3: Homeland Security unless they pay Texas back, unless.
Speaker 2: They stop releasing people.
Speaker 3: Get the President to sign HR two into law and
Speaker 3: get alhandra My Orgiest out of his spot as Secretary
Speaker 3: of Homeland Security where he is engaging in what I
Speaker 3: believe is impeachable conduct. But in the absence of impeaching him,
Speaker 3: which I think we should do. Why are we funding him,
Speaker 3: Why are we giving him more money? Why are we
Speaker 3: saying that that guy should stay in charge? I don't
Speaker 3: think we should.
Speaker 1: It is pretty wild to see Texas targeted for trying
Speaker 1: to enforce the state's borders, when that's what we should
Speaker 1: be doing as a country in the first place.
Speaker 3: The basic duty of the government is to secure the
Speaker 3: blessings of liberty, to defend this country, to enforce sovereignty,
Speaker 3: to defend us from our enemies for and in domestic
Speaker 3: and here we are allowing cartels to have blatant operate
Speaker 3: for control of our border.
Speaker 2: The Secretary of Homeland.
Speaker 3: Security eyes to us in front of a judiciary Committee,
Speaker 3: and we've got Republicans who think we should not impeach
Speaker 3: him and we should give him money. I don't understand it.
Speaker 3: And every Republican should have to answer that question. And
Speaker 3: you know, people go, well, Ship, you know, I've got
Speaker 3: at least one prominent conservative Republican who I've heard say, who,
Speaker 3: by the way, is who is affiliated and viewed as
Speaker 3: someone in the.
Speaker 2: Kind of freedom Caucus world.
Speaker 3: Who is saying, hey, we should be fighting Democrats, not Republicans. Well,
Speaker 3: no kidding, I know that, but I need Republicans to
Speaker 3: saddle up, right. I mean, if I'm trying to saddle
Speaker 3: up to go fight those who want to ruin my country,
Speaker 3: and you go around campaigning saying, oh, yeah, Department Homeland
Speaker 3: Security is not doing their job, the border's broken.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, what the hell are you going to do
Speaker 2: about it?
Speaker 3: Because you're not impeaching anybody and you're not withholding funding,
Speaker 3: so you're complicit.
Speaker 2: You're part of the problem.
Speaker 3: So a Republican that funds this Department of Homeland Security,
Speaker 3: you own it. A Republican that funds this Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: You own it. You can't hide from it, and we
Speaker 2: should call them out for it.
Speaker 1: We're going to take a quick commercial break back with
Speaker 1: Congressman Chiproy. Why do you think Biden and this Department
Speaker 1: of homelwn Security wants open borders? Is it just for chaos?
Speaker 1: What do you think is behind that?
Speaker 3: They have no qualms using human beings as their political
Speaker 3: pawns to achieve their larger aims. And then these people
Speaker 3: to them are just a number and they're just trying
Speaker 3: to flood the zone with numbers to transform this country.
Speaker 3: They have no problem ignoring sovereignty. They believe in a
Speaker 3: kind of new liberal world order where there are no boundaries.
Speaker 3: They don't care that, you know, it might undermine our
Speaker 3: sovereignty and our strength as a country because they don't
Speaker 3: care about that sovereignty or strength. They don't believe in
Speaker 3: American exceptionalism. We believe there's something great about this country
Speaker 3: and that we are happy to open our doors and
Speaker 3: be a magnet for them. You undermine the very rule
Speaker 3: of law that causes people to want to come here,
Speaker 3: then you're killing the country. We should be exporting the
Speaker 3: rule of law to Mexico, exporting the rule of law
Speaker 3: to Central America and South America. We should be crushing
Speaker 3: the cartels we should be ending the flow of fentanyl
Speaker 3: and human trafficking.
Speaker 2: We should be.
Speaker 3: Undermining China by creating a strong Western hemisphere to compete
Speaker 3: with China and to decrease the pressure where people are
Speaker 3: coming here from ho Duras and Guatemala. Let's make those
Speaker 3: shining countries by helping and exporting our successful worldview rather
Speaker 3: than importing lawlessness in despair. It's absolutely absurd that we're
Speaker 3: doing it. And Republicans, I'm going to tell you, they're complicit.
Speaker 3: They're as complicit as the Republicans were in the two
Speaker 3: thousands who were under the thumb of the Chamber of Commerce.
Speaker 2: You just wanted their cheap labor.
Speaker 3: And now they're just as complicit because they're too gutless
Speaker 3: to do anything about it. They're perfectly happy to campaign
Speaker 3: about it but then not actually fight the fight in Washington.
Speaker 3: And by the way, I mean some of my freedom
Speaker 3: colleagues need to get off the damn pot too. I'm
Speaker 3: sick of it, right I'm tired of people who go
Speaker 3: out there and talk about this stuff and they won't
Speaker 3: do it when it matters.
Speaker 1: Everything's kind of following apart right now. So if you're
Speaker 1: not willing to fight now then, really, what's the point,
Speaker 1: you know, I want to you know, we've been talking
Speaker 1: about the Department of Justice as well. So Merrick Garland
Speaker 1: back I believe it was in March, said that David
Speaker 1: Weiss had all the authority he needed to pursue charges
Speaker 1: in different jurisdictions. It basically he had all the authority
Speaker 1: he needed. But now he named them a special council.
Speaker 1: So what changed and why a special council now? And
Speaker 1: why David Weiss?
Speaker 3: Well, because all this administration and particularly this Department of
Speaker 3: Justice is doing is figuring out how they can have
Speaker 3: a beard to cover up exactly what everybody knows they're
Speaker 3: up to. So take for example, the first special counsel,
Speaker 3: Jack Smith. What were they doing, Well, they didn't need
Speaker 3: a special council there, because they're already in an adversarial
Speaker 3: position as the Democrat administration, the Attorney General Liberal, and
Speaker 3: you're trying to invest to gate the former president a Republican.
Speaker 2: You're already adversarial.
Speaker 3: So your Department of Justice can go through the motions,
Speaker 3: you don't need to have a special counsel. But they
Speaker 3: wanted a special counsel so they could pretend and say, oh,
Speaker 3: we weren't doing this for political reasons. That was a
Speaker 3: special council, But they did not want a special counsel
Speaker 3: to be out from under their thumb and purview when
Speaker 3: they were going after Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. So
Speaker 3: they only finally decided to go there when it got
Speaker 3: up to the end. And it's a total sham in
Speaker 3: order to be able to say, oh, oh yeah, see,
Speaker 3: we're doing that. But what it really does is it
Speaker 3: allows them to now obvious skate and try to undermine
Speaker 3: the congressional investigations which are now starting to provide fruit
Speaker 3: for Jamie Comer and a little bit in judiciary putting
Speaker 3: forward evidence of what's going on with the irs whistleblowers,
Speaker 3: with the testimony last week of Hunter's business partner Archer,
Speaker 3: and you know, now the evidence is coming out, they're going, Okay, well, yeah,
Speaker 3: let's do a special counsel able to use it as
Speaker 3: a beard to kind of cover up what's going on.
Speaker 1: So do we need to do an impeachment inquiry?
Speaker 3: So I believe we do, but I don't want to
Speaker 3: do an inquiry unless we're going to follow through and
Speaker 3: get the job done. And I don't want to do
Speaker 3: the job. If we're not going to present a case
Speaker 3: to the Senate that will make Mansion and Cinema and
Speaker 3: a bunch.
Speaker 2: Of Democrats squirm.
Speaker 3: I think we need to present a strong case. And
Speaker 3: I will admit, because I'm not on Oversight, I'm not
Speaker 3: looking at all of the evidence that's coming in in
Speaker 3: real time right because I'm in Texas right now, and
Speaker 3: a lot of that stuff's happened in the last couple of weeks.
Speaker 3: But we need to be able to present a really
Speaker 3: strong case. But I believe that the amount of evidence
Speaker 3: demonstrating corruption, the twenty million dollars, the fact that we
Speaker 3: know Biden was at least knowledgeable of the business arrangements
Speaker 3: and partners, probably much deeper than we've yet seen. But
Speaker 3: every time they follow these dots and they connect the
Speaker 3: dots and we get the information, you're seeing not just smoke,
Speaker 3: but you're seeing fire. And you know, Democrats now are
Speaker 3: admitting that Hunter Biden engaged in illegal behavior and wrong behavior.
Speaker 3: Jamie Raskin did that just the other day.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: He's the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, so he
Speaker 3: has to look at that and go all right, yeah,
Speaker 3: that's not good. So they're trying to separate Hunter from Joe.
Speaker 3: But we all know that separation is somewhere between paper
Speaker 3: thin to more likely non existent. So all we've got
Speaker 3: to do is pursue that and then go present the evidence.
Speaker 3: Now it's not always easy. You don't have a you know,
Speaker 3: indictment and a US attorney to do it. But I
Speaker 3: think we ought to go down that road. But we
Speaker 3: damn well ought to finish the job if we're going
Speaker 3: to do.
Speaker 2: It before we go.
Speaker 1: Trump obviously now facing indictment out of Georgia. You look
Speaker 1: at some of the timeline on the cases and the
Speaker 1: trials that he's going to be facing, you know, January
Speaker 1: sixth cases, right before the Iowa Caucus, Georgia case, before
Speaker 1: Super Tuesday, Alvin Bragg, you know, before another big set
Speaker 1: of you know, important primary dates. You go on and
Speaker 1: go all of these are you know, carefully selected? Are
Speaker 1: they trying to harm him or boost him?
Speaker 3: I believe that what the Democrats are doing is purposeful.
Speaker 3: I believe they want to try to pile up indictments,
Speaker 3: believing that that will energize the base to stand behind
Speaker 3: President Trump, working for him to be the nominee while
Speaker 3: they try to bloody him up through the late legal
Speaker 3: process and then through the political narrative in hopes that
Speaker 3: they can try to kill him after he's the nominee
Speaker 3: in the general. I think that's what I think. Democrats
Speaker 3: believe that's their best play. They've effectively told me that's
Speaker 3: their best play, and so I think it's strategic. And look,
Speaker 3: I support the former president. I support the former president's agenda.
Speaker 3: But I've endorsed Brondo Santas because look, I've been watching
Speaker 3: what he's been doing. He's been taking out sores prosecutors.
Speaker 3: He's been you know, taking a baseball bat to Disney.
Speaker 3: They got a law pass despite Disney's pressure. Uh, they've
Speaker 3: been you know, checking them. They've got He won by
Speaker 3: a million and a half votes. He won sixty two
Speaker 3: percent of Hispanics, He won fifty percent of single female voters.
Speaker 2: People are flocking to Florida. He took on the.
Speaker 3: Healthcare establishment, he's taken on the education establishment. He's fearless,
Speaker 3: and people would love Governor DeSantis if we weren't in
Speaker 3: the you know, age of Trump. And I get that,
Speaker 3: and and our respect difference is his opinion there. But
Speaker 3: that's why I want to move forward and have someone
Speaker 3: that can serve for eight years. Do I know will
Speaker 3: take on the establishment and can win and has a
Speaker 3: history of doing so.
Speaker 1: Congressman ship Roy, I know you've got a busy schedule.
Speaker 1: You're on the road in Texas. I appreciate you making
Speaker 1: time for us. I really do.
Speaker 2: God Bleslie say you take care.
Speaker 1: That was Congressman Chip Roy of Texas. I appreciate him
Speaker 1: taken the time to join the show. He's on the
Speaker 1: road today, so you know, meetings, chaotic life they live
Speaker 1: as members of Congress. I appreciate him taking the time.
Speaker 1: Oh to thank you guys at home for listening to
Speaker 1: the show every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen
Speaker 1: to it throughout the week. I want to thank John
Speaker 1: Cassio and my producer for putting the show together. Until
Speaker 1: next time.