Speaker 1: You're listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. It stay two for nearly
Speaker 1: ten thousand migrants marching through southern Mexico, many from Venezuela,
Speaker 1: heading straight for the US border. They timed their journey
Speaker 1: to coincide with the Summit of the America's in Los
Speaker 1: Angeles this week. Migration activists say this group could be
Speaker 1: one of the region's largest caravans in recent years. So
Speaker 1: what's the Biden administration doing about this? Well, the borders
Speaker 1: are says that they're sending billions of dollars in Central
Speaker 1: America to create economic opportunity. That'll fix it fast. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about this in hold the line, Welcome, Hold on.
Speaker 1: I'm Buck Sexton. So the border is still a mess.
Speaker 1: You may not know what's going on with it these
Speaker 1: days because the media is not really talking much about
Speaker 1: it because they do have, of course, an election coming up,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats know this issue does not pull well
Speaker 1: for them, that the Biden regime refuses to enforce the
Speaker 1: law and meaningful fashion when it comes to our southern border,
Speaker 1: when it comes to immigration, in general, and with Title
Speaker 1: forty two just kind of hanging on for now. They
Speaker 1: have some tool in place that they're willing to use
Speaker 1: to turn back people who have entered into this country
Speaker 1: illegally and in violation of immigration laws. But Paddle forty
Speaker 1: two is not going to last forever. And even with
Speaker 1: Paddle forty two, you have a lot of people who
Speaker 1: are coming into the country illegally. In fact, in April
Speaker 1: was over two hundred thousand. It was the most that
Speaker 1: had been in two decades, the most it had been
Speaker 1: in fact, for the entire Biden regime thus far. So
Speaker 1: there's a big problem, there's no question about that. At
Speaker 1: our southern border, it is a mess. So what does
Speaker 1: the border Czar Kamala Harris say is going to be
Speaker 1: done about this? One turns out Vice President Harris, who
Speaker 1: has been to the border we believe one time, maybe
Speaker 1: announced more than one point nine billion dollars a new
Speaker 1: private sector commitments to create economic opportunity in northern Central
Speaker 1: America as part of her role addressing the root causes
Speaker 1: of migration from Central America. In May of twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: the Vice President launched the Call to Action for businesses
Speaker 1: and social enterprises to make significant commitments to promote economic
Speaker 1: opportunity for people in the region. Aggregate commitments under this
Speaker 1: initiative now total more than three point two billion dollars. Now, look,
Speaker 1: it's fine to be trying to help with economic prosperity
Speaker 1: and a near neighbor, in this case Central America, But
Speaker 1: does anybody think this is actually gonna deal with the
Speaker 1: fact that we have hundreds of thousands of people coming
Speaker 1: into the country illegally right now? And also how likely
Speaker 1: is it that the economic calculus for somebody from say
Speaker 1: Al Salvador or Honduras or Guatemala of the Northern Triangle countries,
Speaker 1: We'll think, you know what, my country is so prosperous
Speaker 1: right now, who needs America? That's pretty unlikely. To look
Speaker 1: at the GDP per capita, if you look at wages,
Speaker 1: you look at the likely financial future of somebody in
Speaker 1: those countries versus somebody who comes into America, including of
Speaker 1: course millions of people come into America illegally. And the
Speaker 1: numbers really speak for themselves on this one. I mean,
Speaker 1: we could see people are voting with their feet, so
Speaker 1: to speak. Southwest border encounters in fiscal year twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: it was nine hundred and seventy seven thousand. Right fiscal
Speaker 1: twenty twenty pandemic hits four hundred and fifty eight thousand
Speaker 1: bisically year twenty twenty one one point seven three four million,
Speaker 1: and now just in April of twenty two, two hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty four thousand, thousand, one month. Understand, we're going
Speaker 1: to be close to what we were at for fiscal
Speaker 1: year twenty twenty two, which was a record setting year
Speaker 1: for illegal migration. So the situation is not improving at all.
Speaker 1: And in fact, everybody who's paying attention to the border,
Speaker 1: everybody who's watching this play out, will say the moment
Speaker 1: Total forty two is gone, which is really only used
Speaker 1: for Central American and Mexican migrants to tell them they
Speaker 1: can't come into the country, then there'll be a huge surge.
Speaker 1: Already under way. You have people making their way to
Speaker 1: the to the United States in a caravan. But beyond that,
Speaker 1: there are many loopholes that exist even for those who
Speaker 1: show up from Mexico or Northern Triangle countries in Central
Speaker 1: America illegally. Um and then beyond that there are those
Speaker 1: who come from all over the world, people from the
Speaker 1: Middle East, from from Asia, from Africa, South America. Here is,
Speaker 1: for example, a central I'm sorry, a Venezuelan rather South
Speaker 1: American migrant who was interviewed and said that he wants
Speaker 1: the US to go fix the economy in Venezuela. A
Speaker 1: need a job in Iszuela, Beatira, fix the economy in
Speaker 1: my country, and maybe I would stay there. They're saying, well,
Speaker 1: that's not going to happen. That's the problem because we
Speaker 1: don't run Venezuela. Venezuela went pretty deep into the socialism
Speaker 1: realm and destroyed its economy despite having the largest proven
Speaker 1: oil reserves in the world. So, yeah, this is not
Speaker 1: going to change anytime soon. But understand this, the Democrats
Speaker 1: fundamentally do not want this to change. They're in charge
Speaker 1: right now. You got the White House, you got a
Speaker 1: majority in the House and a defacto majority in the Senate,
Speaker 1: so they're calling the shots. At the federal level. Immigration
Speaker 1: is a federal issue, so they talk about how, oh,
Speaker 1: we're going to do something at the border, but they
Speaker 1: don't actually want to do anything because this situation they
Speaker 1: believe benefits their long term electoral prospects and their power.
Speaker 1: Most importantly, of all, that this will mean when there's
Speaker 1: an eventual amnesty for the fifteen twenty, perhaps more than
Speaker 1: twenty million illegal immigrants in the country at that point,
Speaker 1: that they will be able to count on a lot
Speaker 1: of votes from the illegal immigrants who came to the
Speaker 1: country who are eventually given some form of amnesty. I
Speaker 1: know they'd say, oh, well, they won't be able to vote. Well,
Speaker 1: actually they will. They'll just take their time with passing
Speaker 1: that legislation after they get the initial amnesty. This is
Speaker 1: why Democrats, even very dull Democrats, even very dumb Democrats
Speaker 1: like Beto O'Rourke, are saying, yeah, the border situation is
Speaker 1: fantastic because it's effectively in a wide open entryway for
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants who will eventually vote Democrat and who will
Speaker 1: have children in America who will likely support the Democrat party.
Speaker 1: So he loves the situation. Watch and we all agree
Speaker 1: that we want the border to be better. In fact,
Speaker 1: I think the border is pretty great right now. Borders
Speaker 1: pretty great right now. I mean, they sometimes just say
Speaker 1: it out loud that they don't want this to stop.
Speaker 1: They just don't want the American people overall to know
Speaker 1: that they actually prefer this situation in the border. They
Speaker 1: just don't want the American people to be aware of
Speaker 1: how duplicitus and how dishonest the Democrat Party from the
Speaker 1: top down, from buying the White House all the way
Speaker 1: down the rest of the Democrat Party apparatus are on
Speaker 1: this issue of immigration. They say they recognize it as
Speaker 1: an issue, but really they recognize it as an issue
Speaker 1: insofar as they have to process these illegal migrants faster.
Speaker 1: They don't actually want to stop the inflow of illegal migrants.
Speaker 1: Certainly Beto O'Rourke, who is a moron but is a Democrat,
Speaker 1: that is very much the way that they see this.
Speaker 1: I will have more on this with Arizona Attorney General
Speaker 1: and candidate for US Senate Mark Bernovitch when we come back.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about protecting your online data. A lot of
Speaker 1: companies say your privacy is guaranteed. We know that's not true.
Speaker 1: That's why you need a new privacy and cybersecurity application
Speaker 1: tool called Secure spelled SEK. You are Secure is using
Speaker 1: proprietary encryption and offering secure instant messaging and email with
Speaker 1: secure all of your communications based on servers and data
Speaker 1: centers hosted in Switzerland without using any of the big
Speaker 1: tech platforms here. Privacy is a big issue now. Without
Speaker 1: real security, people can read your emails, messages, even your
Speaker 1: bank information. Secure will never mind your data and never
Speaker 1: ask to your phone number. You can send emails to
Speaker 1: your doctor, banker, lawyer, or anyone else with total confidence
Speaker 1: you're not being spied on by your internet provider or
Speaker 1: big peck. Secure is your solution to stop the constant
Speaker 1: theft of your digital identity. Costs only five dollars to
Speaker 1: the messenger, only ten dollars to the messenger at email
Speaker 1: combination package. Go to secure dot com and take back
Speaker 1: your privacy today. That's Sekuar dot com. Use promo code
Speaker 1: buck for twenty five percent off. We'll be right back
Speaker 1: with more. Hold the line. Support from my podcast is
Speaker 1: brought to you by Manscape, the Best and Men's below
Speaker 1: the waste grooming. Their products are precision engineered tools. Manscapes
Speaker 1: Performance Package is the ultimate men's hygiene bundle. Join over
Speaker 1: four million men worldwide who trusts Manscape with its exclusive
Speaker 1: offer for you twenty percent off and free worldwide shipping
Speaker 1: with the code buck at manscape dot com. The Performance
Speaker 1: Package four point zero includes a ton of men's grooming
Speaker 1: products like the law and moowe or four point zero trimmer,
Speaker 1: the weed Whacker, Era nose hair trimmer, Performance boxer briefs,
Speaker 1: and a bunch of other great men's hygiene products you
Speaker 1: never knew you needed, plus a travel bag to hold
Speaker 1: it all. The lawnmower trimmer is the best. It's got
Speaker 1: a cutting edge ceramic blade to reduce grooming accidents, and
Speaker 1: it's waterproof so no more messes on the bathroom floor.
Speaker 1: You'll also get the waterproof weed Whacker Nose and Ear
Speaker 1: hair trimmer with proprietary skin Safe technology which helps reduce nicks, snags,
Speaker 1: and tugs in all those delicate areas. Get twenty percent
Speaker 1: off and free shipping with the code buck at manscape
Speaker 1: dot com. That's twenty percent off with free shipping at
Speaker 1: manscape dot com and use code buck to unlock your
Speaker 1: confidence and always use the right tools with Manscape. Pandemic
Speaker 1: Arab Policy Title forty two remains in limbo, but migrant
Speaker 1: shelters in Bordertown say now is the time to prepare
Speaker 1: for its end. With a massive migrant caravan already heading
Speaker 1: toward at our border, many are concerned that the termination
Speaker 1: of tittle forty two will open the floodgates even more
Speaker 1: to illegal immigration. More than a year, Arizona's Attorney General
Speaker 1: Mark Bernovich has been fighting to get the Biden administration
Speaker 1: to do its job, from suing DHS Secretary Mayorchis to
Speaker 1: the CDC to present Biden himself. A. G. Bernovich is
Speaker 1: doing everything in his power to protect this community, stop
Speaker 1: the White House from rescinding Tittle forty two. Burney, General
Speaker 1: of the State of Arizona joins me. Now, A G. Bernovitch,
Speaker 1: good have you, sir? Thank you bolling me. I really
Speaker 1: appreciate it. So just tell me this. The end of
Speaker 1: Tittle forty two would be a problem. But as I
Speaker 1: understand it, mister Attorney General, the reality of Title forty two,
Speaker 1: as it is at the border right now, whether it's Arizona, Texas,
Speaker 1: you name it, is that they're not really using it
Speaker 1: except against illegal Mexican and Central American migrant. What's going on? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know you mentioned this that we haven't
Speaker 1: been involved often so many lawsuits against the Biden administration
Speaker 1: trying to force to do them to do their job.
Speaker 1: Now we went into court, we let the coalition, our
Speaker 1: lawyers argued that the Biden administration could not resend the
Speaker 1: Title forty two. And what we had found out they
Speaker 1: were doing was they would trying to play these games
Speaker 1: where they were trying to create exclusions and exceptions for
Speaker 1: people from certain countries, and the court told them they
Speaker 1: could not do that. But we have seen the Biden
Speaker 1: administration in the past when we sued him over the
Speaker 1: permanent Guidance or that time, most temporary guidance, where they
Speaker 1: were not supporting people deportation orders. You know, they would
Speaker 1: tell the court they're doing it, and they would slightly
Speaker 1: tweak the policy, and then they would say, well, we're
Speaker 1: following that decision, but then they would change and create
Speaker 1: a new policy. So the one thing that has been
Speaker 1: very consistent is the Biden administration is trying to systematically
Speaker 1: undermine the rule of law and basically eradicate our entire
Speaker 1: southern border. I know, folks like we've talked about this
Speaker 1: where we thought at one point they maybe wanted to
Speaker 1: abolish ice, but it's clear they just wanted to radicate
Speaker 1: the southern border. So that's why I keep adding to
Speaker 1: go into court and keep getting these injunctions, keep getting
Speaker 1: these restraining orders. Just to try to get the Bide
Speaker 1: administration to do your actual job. Entitled forty two is
Speaker 1: one of the last things we have left in our toolbox,
Speaker 1: I mean, everything I can to save it. Here's a
Speaker 1: list of some of the cases you've brought. Arizona v.
Speaker 1: Garland challenging DHS fast Track Asylum system, Arizona VCDC challenging
Speaker 1: the replication of Title forty two we were just discussing.
Speaker 1: You've also challenged DHS's final guidance, challenging Biden administrations illegal
Speaker 1: violation led into cancelation of border wall construction, and once
Speaker 1: again challenging INTERM guidance. So you are not afraid to
Speaker 1: take the Feds into court over this stuff. How have
Speaker 1: these challenges played out? You're winning, some, losing some something
Speaker 1: in between. What's going on? Yeah, I mean we unfortunately,
Speaker 1: for example, in the border wall, you know that's still
Speaker 1: a litigation. We didn't know we were successful at the
Speaker 1: bending of Apple. We're continuing to litigate it. One thing
Speaker 1: you did not mention is that I literally argued to
Speaker 1: you a Supreme Court in February of the public charge rule.
Speaker 1: And this is where the Biden administration tries is trying
Speaker 1: to give government welware benefits to non citizens, and so
Speaker 1: I'm very confident we're gonna win that case. We had
Speaker 1: to take that all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: You know, we got the restraining order to stop Title
Speaker 1: forty two from being revoked, and you know, on the
Speaker 1: permanent guidance, some of these other cases are still winding
Speaker 1: the way through the courts, and unfortunately, what the Biden
Speaker 1: administration is shown is a complete disregard not only for
Speaker 1: administrative procedures, but they're shredding the constitution of the process.
Speaker 1: And so I'm doing everything i can about to try
Speaker 1: to hold them accountable and to try to force them
Speaker 1: to just follow the existing law. And so you know,
Speaker 1: we've been very successful in some cases. In some cases
Speaker 1: we literally are having to take to the US Supreme
Speaker 1: Court to make sure the court orders the Biden administration
Speaker 1: just follow the law and do the right thing. So
Speaker 1: with that in mind, what would need to happen for
Speaker 1: I mean, right now, obviously a federal judges said Title
Speaker 1: forty two cannot be rescinded as it currently stands. At
Speaker 1: some point it will be rescinded. One would assume, right
Speaker 1: it's a pandemic related CDC authority. So what would have
Speaker 1: to happen for it to be legal and what would
Speaker 1: be the change is necessary from your perspective that the
Speaker 1: Bide administration could make so that they wouldn't get the
Speaker 1: massive seert. I mean, we already have a huge caravan.
Speaker 1: They asked him a ten to fifteen thousand on the way,
Speaker 1: So what could they do differently? And then how could
Speaker 1: we get and then what happens when title forty two
Speaker 1: goes Yeah, Title forty two, I think we all recognize
Speaker 1: it's like the little kid the story about holding the
Speaker 1: finger in the diet. I mean, that's all we're doing.
Speaker 1: These are stock out measures, and it's because of the
Speaker 1: bid administration is feeling to build the wall, which when
Speaker 1: it was working, they tried to resume the remain in
Speaker 1: Mexico policy. They aren't importing people's deportation orders. They're trying
Speaker 1: to incentimize to monetize people coming here by giving government benefits.
Speaker 1: We're trying to stop that. So Tip forty two, what
Speaker 1: we basically argued is that, look, if the Biden administration
Speaker 1: wants to rescind it, what has been good for the
Speaker 1: goose is good for the Gander and in accents, these
Speaker 1: left wing groups, they always sue Republican administrations trying to
Speaker 1: tell them they cannot change rules or policies without going
Speaker 1: through the proper rulemaking process. So what we've said and
Speaker 1: what the judge agreed with, is that if the Biden
Speaker 1: administration wants to rescind to revolt Title forty two, they
Speaker 1: have to go through the process, the legal process, and
Speaker 1: that would include rulemaking and public notice in comment. And
Speaker 1: so yeah, ultimately, if the administration wants to change that policy,
Speaker 1: they can, but we've argued that they have to do
Speaker 1: it in the legally correct way, and that basically means
Speaker 1: the states get to have input saying this has happens
Speaker 1: will affect us and this is how illegal immigration is
Speaker 1: impacting us all over the country. So they have to
Speaker 1: provide that notice and they have to provide public input
Speaker 1: and notice and from the states as well. So you
Speaker 1: are currently the attorney general in Arizona, you are running
Speaker 1: for a Senate seat on the Republican side from your state.
Speaker 1: You have a primary to get through here with your
Speaker 1: primary opponent being Blake Masters. Trump. Donald Trump, former presidented States,
Speaker 1: endorsed Masters and today he put out a statement I
Speaker 1: wanted to let you react to at mister attorney general,
Speaker 1: he said that Mark Ernovitch is such a disappointment to me.
Speaker 1: He is the current Arizona Attorney general. And while he
Speaker 1: understands what took place in the twenty twenty presidential election
Speaker 1: and that it was rigden stolen, he only views it
Speaker 1: as something he would not like to see happen again.
Speaker 1: That was a statement that former President Trump put out.
Speaker 1: How do you respond to that? I mean, I think
Speaker 1: I've heard your policies, and I've seen a lot of
Speaker 1: what you've you've done as attorney general. It would seem
Speaker 1: to be in line with President Trump's ideology. So what
Speaker 1: happened here? Yeah, you know, I can never control other
Speaker 1: people are going to say or do. And what I've said,
Speaker 1: I literally told President Trump this is that if you
Speaker 1: care about securing the border, if you care about confirming
Speaker 1: good federal judges that are divorced laws, it is and
Speaker 1: not create policy. You care about low energy prices and
Speaker 1: energy independence, if you care about low taxes, low regulation,
Speaker 1: you go through that entire agenda. I've actually been there.
Speaker 1: I mean I was the prosecutor and I began my
Speaker 1: career game prosecutor protecting our communities. I worked in a
Speaker 1: think tank called the gold Waters to where I wrote
Speaker 1: extensively about federalism and low energy prices. And now as
Speaker 1: an age, look at all I've done, whether we're suing
Speaker 1: the Biden administration of run constitutional vaccine mandates were literally
Speaker 1: last year and I brought this up to the president.
Speaker 1: The most important election case in the generation is literally
Speaker 1: called Bernavichi DNC. And when the left wing groups tried
Speaker 1: to come into places like Arizona, I fought them all
Speaker 1: the way to the Supreme Court, and the court appelability
Speaker 1: of states like Arizona and other states now to enact
Speaker 1: election integrity measures that limit and restrict palliate harvest out
Speaker 1: of precinct voting. So I've actually been in the forefront
Speaker 1: of these fights. So you get a lot of folks
Speaker 1: now that come up and they talk the talk. They've
Speaker 1: never walked the walk, they've never actually been in the fight.
Speaker 1: And then they can say a lot of things now,
Speaker 1: but where's the evidence, where's the receipts? As kids saying
Speaker 1: nowadays with what they've actually dined. And I have been
Speaker 1: in the forefront of this and Alden at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, I think it's important to be principled
Speaker 1: Arizona taking on Mark Kelly because the stakes are so high,
Speaker 1: and if you want someone that understands limited government, federalism
Speaker 1: and conservative principles, then I'm the guy learning. General Bernovitch,
Speaker 1: State of Arizona. Good to see you, Sara, Thanks for
Speaker 1: being with us today. Thanks mart, Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: January sixth, Committee's primetime dog and Pony show is set
Speaker 1: for this coming Thursday. Public specto comes a week after
Speaker 1: a former trade advisor to President Trump, Peter Navarro, was
Speaker 1: placed in leg irons and arrested for resisting a subpoena
Speaker 1: from the Committee. We'll have more on this situation with
Speaker 1: Claremont Institute fellow Ben Weingarten in a moment, I'm sorry
Speaker 1: about checking your home for a minute. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you saw this, but there was a recent story
Speaker 1: about an Arizona real estate agent that found the home
Speaker 1: she lived and was listed for sale. The problem was
Speaker 1: that she actually wasn't selling her home. She was the
Speaker 1: victim of home title fraud, a devastating crime happening all
Speaker 1: of the country. According to the experts at home title
Speaker 1: lock The crime is incredibly profitable and hard to detect.
Speaker 1: An identity thief simply creates a fake title transfer for
Speaker 1: your home and refiles as the new owner that he
Speaker 1: can take out loans on your home or sell it.
Speaker 1: Typical identity theft services don't cover you, and neither Dove's
Speaker 1: Homeowner's insurance. Home title lock does. Home title Lock puts
Speaker 1: a barrier around your home's title the instant. They detect
Speaker 1: anyone tampering with your homes title, They help shut it down.
Speaker 1: They help get your home back in your name. So
Speaker 1: here's what you should do. Go to home titlelock dot com,
Speaker 1: read the testimonials from FBI agents and government officials. Then
Speaker 1: regish to your address to see if you're already a
Speaker 1: victim and don't even know it. When you protect your home,
Speaker 1: tell him buck Sexton sent you to get thirty free
Speaker 1: days of protection hometitlelock dot com. Home titlelock dot com
Speaker 1: will be right back with more. Hold the line. They
Speaker 1: chose a different route. They didn't call my attorney. Instead,
Speaker 1: they went with this shock and awe terrorist stretchy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let me go to the airport and then take me
Speaker 1: with five agents like I'm an Al Qaeda terrorist rocked
Speaker 1: me into a car and the next thing I know,
Speaker 1: man in leg irons and handcuffs, strip search. I mean
Speaker 1: it was not without comedy. I mean, at one point
Speaker 1: the FBI agents couldn't find the door to go into
Speaker 1: where I was supposed to go. The fingerprint machine didn't work.
Speaker 1: But by the you know, people do not want to
Speaker 1: sit in solitary confinement and leg irons, denied food, denied water,
Speaker 1: denied an attorney and this is what we live in.
Speaker 1: From wet House Trade advisor Peter Navarro speaking out on
Speaker 1: becoming the first Trump aid to be indicted in the
Speaker 1: criminal investigation and the events on January sixth and arrested. Obviously,
Speaker 1: circumstances of that raised questions about the abuse of power
Speaker 1: by the left, as in their abusing power and the
Speaker 1: vindictive nature of their efforts to keep Trump out of
Speaker 1: the White House and of course to punish members of
Speaker 1: his administration after the fact. Join me now to dive
Speaker 1: into this with us. Fellow at the Claremont Institute, Ben Weingarten, Ben,
Speaker 1: how are you, buddy? Well? Buck? How about you? I
Speaker 1: mean not great when I see that the Stasi are
Speaker 1: alive and well courtesy of the Democrat run FBI. Here,
Speaker 1: what the heck is going on? Yeah, this Peter Navarro case,
Speaker 1: I think is a remarkable illustration of what is a
Speaker 1: two tier, which is to say, injustice system that we
Speaker 1: are currently suffering under as a country. And the split screen,
Speaker 1: as I argue in a recent piece of The Federalist,
Speaker 1: is remarkable. Between Hillary Clinton's campaign lawyer, Michael Sussman, who
Speaker 1: gets off for clearly lying to the FBI with multiple
Speaker 1: smoking guns, but he's a protected member of the regime,
Speaker 1: and he's protected by a jerry truly of his peers
Speaker 1: and a dain and a like minded judge in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. For lying to the FBI. And here you
Speaker 1: have Peter Navarro who refuses to essentially submit to a
Speaker 1: holy illegitimate sham Soviet Soviet show trial style committee, and
Speaker 1: he gets shackled at the airport. He isn't even given
Speaker 1: the courtesy of being given a call asked you if
Speaker 1: he wants to see his lawyer turn himself in, Not
Speaker 1: that he should be in this situation in the first place,
Speaker 1: but he is clearly viewed as an enemy of the regime,
Speaker 1: and consequently the regime comes down on him with its
Speaker 1: full force really an unprecedented fashion here in terms of
Speaker 1: this criminal contempt referral. But Michael Sussman walks free with
Speaker 1: his head held high. It's a perfect illustration of a
Speaker 1: two tier justice system, and it's been on stark display
Speaker 1: for odyssey over the last five plus years, but this
Speaker 1: is maybe the most obagious example of it. On that
Speaker 1: to your justice system. You wrote in The Federalist that
Speaker 1: Michael Sessman walking free from DC Federal court, and I
Speaker 1: harried and bewildered former Donald Trump advisor Peter Navarro being
Speaker 1: hauled before it following his account of a harrowing arrest
Speaker 1: and entertainment ought to be ingrained indelibly in the American mind,
Speaker 1: and in some ways, in some respects, I think that's
Speaker 1: kind of the point of the exercise. They want to
Speaker 1: have something like a perp walk of a Peter Navarro,
Speaker 1: treat him as if he's some hardened criminal that ought
Speaker 1: to be shackled and dragged in front of a DC
Speaker 1: federal court, precisely to send a message to the American
Speaker 1: people that those who have views like Peter Navarro and
Speaker 1: who served the band Orange Man faithfully, their threats to society,
Speaker 1: to our democracy and thus they're going to be treated
Speaker 1: as such as enemies of the regime. But if you
Speaker 1: were at Michael Sussman, a senior Democrat lawyer and good
Speaker 1: standing who served in the Justice Department for years under
Speaker 1: Democrat administration, well you're going to be protected. You are,
Speaker 1: you are a made man in the regime, and anyone
Speaker 1: else who was on the other side who errs to
Speaker 1: threaten their power and privilege, because let's not forget what
Speaker 1: was Peter Navarro's seminal contribution in the Trump administration. It
Speaker 1: was to take on communist China, something of course you
Speaker 1: can't do if you're in their regime. You're going to
Speaker 1: pay a massive price for it, including facing the long
Speaker 1: arm of the law. So we also have the January
Speaker 1: six hearings, primetime hearings coming up in just what two
Speaker 1: days now, Ben Here's PBS News can hardly contain their excitement.
Speaker 1: I'm sure about this one. On the January sixth hearing
Speaker 1: that's coming up on Thursday, they want to show all
Speaker 1: of the investment materials that they have got from people
Speaker 1: like mak Meadows, Trump's from a chief of staff, testimony
Speaker 1: from people connected to the militia groups and testimony from
Speaker 1: people who actually shot the documentary footage and a companied
Speaker 1: the various actors through from election day all the way
Speaker 1: through to January sixth, and so none of this has
Speaker 1: been seen by anyone before other than the investigators on
Speaker 1: the January sixth Committee, and so for the first time,
Speaker 1: they're going to present this and at the first hearing
Speaker 1: on June ninth, the idea is to present a roadmap
Speaker 1: all criminality. I don't think that's going to happen, and
Speaker 1: I don't know if anyone's gonna watch. What do you think.
Speaker 1: I think for the small percentage of Americans who are
Speaker 1: going to watch, it'll be people who have already made
Speaker 1: up their minds on this topic. I'm not sure what
Speaker 1: we're litigating eighteen months on, but do think it is notable.
Speaker 1: First of all, the Justice Department has been pretty busy.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just hauling Peter Navarro before a federal judge.
Speaker 1: They also issued new charges of seditious conspiracy on the
Speaker 1: eve of these hearings, all in my view, with the
Speaker 1: express purpose of trying to create the narrative essentially that
Speaker 1: MAGA equals terrorist, that those who believed in the big
Speaker 1: lie about questions of the integrity of the twenty twenty election,
Speaker 1: hold dangerous views that led to a dangerous, violent insurrection,
Speaker 1: and that consequently there has to be a counter terrorism
Speaker 1: strategy to pursue all of them, up to and including
Speaker 1: the Ayatolla Trump who issued the thoughts that unleashed this insurrection.
Speaker 1: That is the narrative that they're going to put forth.
Speaker 1: I don't think the American people buy it. The polling
Speaker 1: bears that out. The fact that Democrats are focused on
Speaker 1: this several months out from the midterm elections, I think
Speaker 1: says it all about the fact that they have nothing
Speaker 1: to run on except trying to smear their opponents as
Speaker 1: dangerous to society. And it's not going to work because
Speaker 1: I think people understand that the Democrat Party's policies have
Speaker 1: been dangerous to our health, our well being, our peace,
Speaker 1: our prosperity, and that this is a deeply cynical effort
Speaker 1: which is running rough shot over our most basic liberties
Speaker 1: and justice. They are posing the very threat they claim
Speaker 1: their political opponent supposed, because this is what they do.
Speaker 1: They project, it's all they have. January six, Committee's newest
Speaker 1: TV production advisor is this guy, James Goldston. I'm sure
Speaker 1: you've seen this been former president of ABC News, master
Speaker 1: documentary storyteller who ran Good Morning America Nightline. He wants
Speaker 1: to draw eyeballs of Americans who haven't followed the ins
Speaker 1: announced of the Capitol Hill riot, and has getting access
Speaker 1: to official White House photographs from January six that have
Speaker 1: never been seen publicly. They say, so this is I mean,
Speaker 1: they're actually bringing in people to make this the biggest
Speaker 1: spectacle possible, right, That's what this is. Yeah, it's so transparent,
Speaker 1: it would almost be laughable if it wasn't so serious
Speaker 1: the ways in which they're abusing their powers and chilling people.
Speaker 1: Because let's not forget the dozens and dozens of people
Speaker 1: who have been hauled in front of this committee. They
Speaker 1: have to pay lawyers for all that work. They're being bankrupted.
Speaker 1: In many cases. They're probing into your communications, into anyone
Speaker 1: who is even remotely related to Trump World, essentially, so
Speaker 1: that dragnet in and of itself, it's a punishment by
Speaker 1: process here. And obviously, look it has led to the
Speaker 1: DOJ pursuing a Peter Navarro. So even though in some
Speaker 1: ways it's a joke, it's a sham it's completely one sided,
Speaker 1: it has no particular purpose, it's arguably unlawful and clearly
Speaker 1: doesn't follow congressional rules. At the same time, it is
Speaker 1: doing real substantive damage here, and the spectacle aspect of it,
Speaker 1: the fact that of course they literally bring in a
Speaker 1: corporate media executive to stage manage the whole kabuki production,
Speaker 1: shouldn't distract us from the deathly seriousness of this. On
Speaker 1: top of the fact that you can make an argument
Speaker 1: that the Congressional Committee, it would appear, is colluding with
Speaker 1: the DOJ when the DOJ is acting like it is,
Speaker 1: and you have members of the Committee who've been badgering
Speaker 1: the DOJ to take a more aggressive approach for weeks now,
Speaker 1: that in and of itself is a huge violation of norms,
Speaker 1: if not far worse than that. But of course they'll
Speaker 1: say that it's the other side that's violating norms, because again,
Speaker 1: the projection is they have But I think we shouldn't
Speaker 1: been distracted totally by the spectacle here, because the substance
Speaker 1: of this is really dangerous, disturbing, and chewing. Ben, thank
Speaker 1: you for the insights as always, thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1: Democrats are renewing their efforts to make it more difficult
Speaker 1: for Americans to purchase so called assault weapons. Their latest
Speaker 1: prosal a one thousand percent tax on AAR fifteens. We
Speaker 1: have more on that with senior writer a National Review,
Speaker 1: Charles Cook in a moment. Each morning, the President of
Speaker 1: the United States receives a highly classified briefing on the
Speaker 1: most important issues facing the country. It's called the President's
Speaker 1: Daily Brief or PDB. It's delivered by America's spies and analysts. Well,
Speaker 1: now you can hear your very own PDB in the
Speaker 1: form of a podcast hosted by me Brian Dean Wright,
Speaker 1: a former CIA operations officer. Each morning at six am Eastern,
Speaker 1: I'll bring you fifteen to twenty minutes of the most
Speaker 1: important issues facing the country, giving you the critical intelligence
Speaker 1: and analysis you need to start your morning. Imminent danger
Speaker 1: to themselves and others such that they might commit mass murder,
Speaker 1: have a constitutional right to access a firearm, and to
Speaker 1: deny them that right would quote trample on an individual's
Speaker 1: due process and second memo rights you know didn't have
Speaker 1: due process, you know who didn't have their constitutional right
Speaker 1: to life? Respected the kids at Parkland and Sandy Hook
Speaker 1: and Yuvalde and Buffalo, and the list goes on and on.
Speaker 1: So spare me the book about constitutional rights. Congressman David
Speaker 1: Clin of Rhode Island has had just about enough of
Speaker 1: you know, that whole constitution thing. In the wake of
Speaker 1: several high profile mass shootings, Democrats are once again pushing
Speaker 1: for stricter gun control measures, including opposing a one hundred
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, one thousands and excise tax on AAR fifteens
Speaker 1: Congressman Don Buyer a Virginia instead of the proposal quote
Speaker 1: what's intended to do is what it's intended to do
Speaker 1: is provide another creative pathway who actually makes some sensible
Speaker 1: gun control happen. We think that a one thousand percent
Speaker 1: fee on assault weapons it's just a kind of restrictive
Speaker 1: measure that creates enough fiscal impact qualify for reconciliation. For
Speaker 1: some perspective, a one thousand percent tax on an AR
Speaker 1: fifteen would add between five thousand to twenty five to
Speaker 1: twenty thousand dollars to their final sale price, depending on
Speaker 1: what state you buy it. In jo talking about that,
Speaker 1: senior writer for a National Review, Charles Cook, Charles, what
Speaker 1: do you make of this? Well, I'll take them one
Speaker 1: by one. The first quote you played, it's not really
Speaker 1: a gun control issue so much as it's an entire
Speaker 1: US Constitution issue. It's a representative's job to respect civil
Speaker 1: liberties and constitutional right to take an oath to do so.
Speaker 1: On the second one, I mean, look, that will be
Speaker 1: struck down within ten seconds by the courts. They never
Speaker 1: ruled explicitly on such measures for the Second Amendment, but
Speaker 1: in other areas of the Bill of Rights, the courts
Speaker 1: have made it clear you cannot, for example, shut down
Speaker 1: the free press by putting a thousand percent tax on
Speaker 1: inc or on bandwidth. That is a non starter. It
Speaker 1: is almost as though they try to remind everybody of
Speaker 1: the protections of the Constitution by coming up with new
Speaker 1: ways to violate them, or maybe all the ways that
Speaker 1: they trot out. Once again, there's a renewed focus, by
Speaker 1: the way, on the banning of assault weapons. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: actually said that she'll be bringing forward legislation to have
Speaker 1: them banned this week. I mean, first off, I'm always
Speaker 1: so curious about this. So is it just going to
Speaker 1: be a ban on new purchases of them, and so
Speaker 1: it won't touch the I don't know, forty fifty million
Speaker 1: AAR fifteen style rifles already in circulation in America. I mean, Charles,
Speaker 1: how is this even supposed to theoretically work as a
Speaker 1: legislative act? I don't know. Yeah, fifteen is the most
Speaker 1: commonly owned rifle in the United States by a long way.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court, in the Hella decision said that any
Speaker 1: weapon that is in common use is protected, so this
Speaker 1: is presumptively unconstitutional. Clearly, mass shooters in recent years have
Speaker 1: come to favor the AR fifteen, although most mass shootings
Speaker 1: are still committed with people wielding handguns. But the AR
Speaker 1: fifteen is not really statistically the problem in the United States.
Speaker 1: I mean, rifles have all sorts use less frequently in
Speaker 1: murders than hands and feet, and the subset that are
Speaker 1: pitrarily described as assault weapons are used so infrequently that
Speaker 1: the FBI doesn't keep statistics. It just rolls them into
Speaker 1: the rifle number, you know. So to try and get
Speaker 1: rid of tens of millions of the most commonly owned
Speaker 1: rifle in the United States in this way is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: But also it's not going to happen. And I wonder
Speaker 1: at what point people such as Nancy Pelosi, who don't
Speaker 1: want more ar fifteens, as she puts it, on the street.
Speaker 1: Of course, most of them aren't on the street or
Speaker 1: anywhere near it, but she doesn't want them on the street,
Speaker 1: as she says. I wonder at what point they will
Speaker 1: realize that every time they bring forward a plan to
Speaker 1: ban them, people go right out and buy them. I mean,
Speaker 1: she knows this isn't going to pass, She knows there
Speaker 1: aren't the votes in the Senate, she knows it's not
Speaker 1: going to happen. She probably knows it's unconstitutional. Why say it?
Speaker 1: She's actually working against her own names. Charles David French,
Speaker 1: formerly of Natural View, years back wrote a piece in
Speaker 1: which he was criticizing American gun culture and so that
Speaker 1: many gun owners are idolaters. In the Dispatch, he wrote,
Speaker 1: the idolatrous fringe is no longer fringe. They bear arms
Speaker 1: with religious intensity, and there's zeal for their weapons. They
Speaker 1: send a message that their identity and their power are
Speaker 1: defined by the guns they love. Is this just or
Speaker 1: for somebody who I believe used to defend the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment for at least somewhat for a living. What's this
Speaker 1: all about? Well? I responded to David, and I texted
Speaker 1: him and said, I profoundly disagree with you on this,
Speaker 1: and I wrote it up at National Review. David four
Speaker 1: years ago wrote a piece in The Atlantic in which
Speaker 1: he strenuously defended what he described as gun culture, and
Speaker 1: now he says he couldn't write that piece again. Well,
Speaker 1: nothing's changed in that four year period. As I suggest
Speaker 1: gently in the piece, I think David's changed gun culture
Speaker 1: hasn't changed. All of the things that David points to
Speaker 1: as evidence for what he calls idolatry were true beforehand.
Speaker 1: Politicians raffling off guns, politicians running on the basis of
Speaker 1: their support for the Second Amendment at the slogan pro
Speaker 1: gun pro god, you know, the preference for black guns,
Speaker 1: you know, R fifteens. Is this sort of tactical culture that,
Speaker 1: by the way, gun owners have been making fun of
Speaker 1: themselves for a decade now, and even people walking outside
Speaker 1: in protests or political allies with their guns. That's not
Speaker 1: new either. That there's nothing really that's changed since twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: People change their mind in politics all the time. It's
Speaker 1: absolutely fine. But I think we shouldn't pretend here that
Speaker 1: anything much has been altered. In gun culture since twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: and this stuff's been in the American mainstream now for
Speaker 1: thirty years. You may have seen Charles that the actor
Speaker 1: Matthew McConaughey was speaking today from the West Wing podium
Speaker 1: during the White House Press conference about gun control. Here's
Speaker 1: just a clip of what he said. We want secure
Speaker 1: and safe schools, and we want gun laws that won't
Speaker 1: make it so for the bad guys to get these
Speaker 1: damn guns, so we know it's on the table. We
Speaker 1: need to invest in mental health care. We need to
Speaker 1: say for schools, we need to restrain sensationalize media coverage.
Speaker 1: We need to restore our family values. We need to
Speaker 1: restore our American values. And we need responsible gun ownership.
Speaker 1: Responsible gun ownership. We need background checks. We need to
Speaker 1: raise the minimum age to purchase in a our fifteen
Speaker 1: rifle to twenty one. We need a waiting period for
Speaker 1: those rifles. We need red flag laws and consequences for
Speaker 1: those who abuse them. And Charles far bid for me
Speaker 1: to argue with the platitudes about you know, America and
Speaker 1: making people safer, but the moment he veered into actual policy,
Speaker 1: I just think of none of that would have stopped
Speaker 1: the Yuvalde shooting or from what we can see, any
Speaker 1: of the recent mass shooting. No, I wouldn't nothing he mentioned,
Speaker 1: with the exception potentially of a red flag law, would
Speaker 1: have even intersected with this. And I like Matthew McConaughey,
Speaker 1: and he was, funnily enough, a lot more reasonable in
Speaker 1: that little Clifton Joe Biden is. But we have background checks,
Speaker 1: and I find it irritating when people say we need
Speaker 1: background checks. I think a lot of Americans are under
Speaker 1: the impression that there is no background check system at all.
Speaker 1: I think that's one reason why support for background checks
Speaker 1: goes from ninety percent to fifty percent or lower every
Speaker 1: time it's actually raised in earnest, because people recognize we
Speaker 1: already have a system. What they're talking about is expanding
Speaker 1: it to private transfers. Often private interstate transfers at aren't
Speaker 1: commercial at tour. So he shouldn't have put it like that.
Speaker 1: I think the first half of his comments were appropriate.
Speaker 1: I actually do think we have a mental health problem.
Speaker 1: I think we've become far too lax about letting people
Speaker 1: who are mentally ill wander around the stress in the
Speaker 1: name of kindness. For some reason we think this is
Speaker 1: kind to them when it's not. But I also think
Speaker 1: this is an extremely difficult problem to solve. I don't
Speaker 1: have many answers either. It's so rare, and you know,
Speaker 1: people think that's a callous thing to say, to point
Speaker 1: out that mass shootings are rarest if you're somehow down
Speaker 1: playing them. I'm not. I'm a parent of two. You know,
Speaker 1: I felt the same way everyone else did when I
Speaker 1: heard this news. But it is also about as likely
Speaker 1: as say, being thrown by lightning or being killed in
Speaker 1: an earthquake, and those things are really difficult to stop too,
Speaker 1: because we don't know when they're going to happen. So,
Speaker 1: you know, the part of what Matthew McConaughey said that
Speaker 1: I oppose the most, you know my views on policy
Speaker 1: and with you on that. The part I object to
Speaker 1: the most is when he said we know how to
Speaker 1: deal with this. This is a line Joe Biden keeps using.
Speaker 1: We know how to do this. I'm afraid we don't.
Speaker 1: We don't actually what he says, we know how to
Speaker 1: stop COVID, Actually we don't. It's another point where we
Speaker 1: do not actually, So very good point, Charles, Thanks as
Speaker 1: always for being with us. Appreciate it, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: You'll never guess why Stacy Abram has asked a young
Speaker 1: kid to take his mask off for a photo. The hypocrisy,
Speaker 1: my friends, get ready for it? Well how that story
Speaker 1: and more coming up in quickt Burger King introduced a
Speaker 1: new Pride Whopper which is gaining a lot of attention,
Speaker 1: and one Senator Bragg's about not having to worry about
Speaker 1: gas prices because you know, she's fancy. She has an
Speaker 1: electric car, unlike the peasants out there. These stories and
Speaker 1: more in quickets. Let's get right to it. So it
Speaker 1: is Pride Month, as you have seen if you've bought
Speaker 1: anything or seeing any statements public statements from companies anywhere
Speaker 1: in America right now. Burger King has introduced a new
Speaker 1: Pride whopper where you can order it with two tops
Speaker 1: or two bottoms of buns. The campaign is running only
Speaker 1: in Austria until June twentieth, but so far it has
Speaker 1: gained negative traction among some fast food eaters. Weight So
Speaker 1: it has two tops or two top buns, two bottom bun? What?
Speaker 1: Okay whatever? I have not eaten a Burger King burger
Speaker 1: in a long time because gluten the buns. But anyway,
Speaker 1: pride whopper the thing now can't buy a burger without
Speaker 1: some politics involved. Senator Debbie seven Owl, she has found
Speaker 1: herself getting some media attention here because look, gas price
Speaker 1: is really highs you know, in the country right now,
Speaker 1: and it's reaching records. Got to get the Bide administration credit.
Speaker 1: They keep breaking records, just not the kind of records
Speaker 1: you want to break if you want to stay in power.
Speaker 1: Yeas is really expensive. We could be heading toward five
Speaker 1: dollars a gallon nationally as the average, and everyone's seeing
Speaker 1: this is a promise not going to get better anytime soon.
Speaker 1: Senator Debbie Stavin now has had a moment here where
Speaker 1: she bragged it. You know, she went on a road
Speaker 1: trip but shed just gotten her cool new electric vehicle.
Speaker 1: So all those gas stations she passed, she could just
Speaker 1: laugh at the peasants who can't afford their gas or
Speaker 1: the electric vehicle that she was in. So yeah, no problem.
Speaker 1: Watch as I'd just have to say, just on the
Speaker 1: issue of gas prices. After waiting for a long time
Speaker 1: to have enough chips in this country to finally get
Speaker 1: my electric vehicle, I got it and drove it from
Speaker 1: Michigan to hear this last weekend and went by every
Speaker 1: single gas station and didn't matter how high it was.
Speaker 1: And so I'm looking forward to the opportunity for us
Speaker 1: to move to vehicles that aren't going to be dependent
Speaker 1: on the whims of the oil companies in the international markets.
Speaker 1: I mean so much, so much stupidity in that short clip,
Speaker 1: but also the whims of the oil companies. Yes, because
Speaker 1: the oil companies just decide, you know what, It's not
Speaker 1: like this is a global market and we have competitors,
Speaker 1: so why don't we just charge one hundred dollars a gallon?
Speaker 1: Everyone will pay that, right. The amount of stupid among
Speaker 1: Democrats who are elected office is, no matter how much
Speaker 1: you see it, always astonishing. Always. Stacy Abrahams, the fake
Speaker 1: governor of Georgia, who is now running to be the
Speaker 1: actual governor of Georgia and will likely lose again and
Speaker 1: then still be the fake governor of Georgia because she's
Speaker 1: almost certain to claim that she was cheated in some way.
Speaker 1: She asked a young kid to take his mask off
Speaker 1: for a photo because she said that she has gotten
Speaker 1: a little bit of trouble taking photos with kids with
Speaker 1: masks on why for a seconds? Okay, I trouble taking
Speaker 1: mask kids. Okay, ah, yes, she got a little bit
Speaker 1: of trouble because people realize the hypocrisy of an adult
Speaker 1: who is obese is at substantially greater risk from COVID
Speaker 1: by a factor of at least ten, if not maybe
Speaker 1: a hundred times more than a child is the wire
Speaker 1: children mass near an obese adult. That's an interesting quite
Speaker 1: who is not mass? Right? Someone want to explain that? Oh, no,
Speaker 1: of course not. But she realizes that the optics of
Speaker 1: this not very good, right, so she of course had
Speaker 1: him changed to take a mask for the photo. Daily
Speaker 1: Mail headline Eco preachers Harry and Meghan are accused of
Speaker 1: enormous hypocrisy for taking one hundred and sixty thousand pound
Speaker 1: flight back from the Jubilee in the UK to la
Speaker 1: in what they call a Russian oligarch style private jet
Speaker 1: for people who don't care about the planet. Yes, here
Speaker 1: is a news flash for anybody who didn't already know this.
Speaker 1: Megan and Harry do not care about the planet. These
Speaker 1: are people. They are very rich for no reason other
Speaker 1: than being rich. People being born and in the case
Speaker 1: of Harry being born into the royal family. Megan marrying
Speaker 1: into that royal family. They are preposterous, They're un serious,
Speaker 1: they aren't very bright, and I guess we can leave
Speaker 1: it there. That's ever. Tonight's hold the line, the No
Speaker 1: Spin news that Bill O'Reilly is next fieldside. Each morning,
Speaker 1: the President of the United States receives a highly classified
Speaker 1: briefing on the most important issues facing the country. It's
Speaker 1: called the President's Daily Brief or PDB. It's delivered by
Speaker 1: America's spies and analysts. Well, now you can hear your
Speaker 1: very own PDB in the form of a podcast hosted
Speaker 1: by me Brian Dean Wright, a former CIA operations officer.
Speaker 1: Each morning at six am Eastern, I'll bring you fifteen
Speaker 1: to twenty minutes of the most important issues facing the country,
Speaker 1: giving you the critical intelligence and analysis you need to
Speaker 1: start your morning.