Transcript

Josh Filler · Newsradio WGAN

0:00
Every time we get to the midpoint of a Thursday, we get a
0:02
chance to talk with security analyst Josh Filler, who joins
0:04
us now. Once again, Josh, how are things
0:07
this morning, Sir? Doing well?
0:09
How are you? Very, very good.
0:11
I've got plenty of topics to ask you about here today.
0:13
I want to start though, by going election focused if we could.
0:17
We had some primary election results on Tuesday.
0:19
The one that everybody was sort of watching really was Texas and
0:24
Ken Paxton versus John Cornyn. This is the latest in the saga
0:28
of Donald Trump endorsing people and ultimately prevailing in
0:32
those races that he endorses in. What was your reaction to what
0:36
happened in Texas specifically, and what you think is going to
0:39
happen now that it is Paxton V Teller Rico?
0:45
Yeah, I don't think it was a big surprise.
0:46
I don't think any of us was surprised that the the Paxton
0:49
won. I think he was leading going
0:51
into the runoff against the incumbent Senator Cornyn.
0:55
Obviously when Trump came out and endorsed him, I think
0:57
everyone realized that was probably the end of it.
1:00
The win was quite decisive. I think he won by well over
1:05
double digits. I think they called the race,
1:07
you know, 5 minutes after the polls closed.
1:10
So no real surprise there. The question is, you know, can
1:13
Paxton, you know, take it all the way into the to the finish
1:16
line here against Talarico? Both of these guys have baggage
1:22
of different types. Paxton having been impeached by
1:25
the Republican House in the state of Texas.
1:28
He was acquitted in the Senate. He was divorced by his wife for
1:33
having cheated on her, so he's got some baggage, but I'm still
1:37
not convinced that a open borders vegan who thinks there
1:42
are six or more genders is going to win a statewide race in
1:46
Texas. It might be the veganism,
1:48
actually, that's the thing that's most.
1:50
Damaging. I know.
1:50
How can you can't be a vegan from Texas.
1:53
That's an oxymoron. I hadn't really thought of that.
1:56
Well, I mean, it does. It does, you know, sort of, you
2:00
know, beg a question here whether or not this risk that
2:02
he's taking in the year that it is, is smart because in past
2:06
years, this is both been to his benefit and harmed him, right?
2:10
When you look back at, you know, prior years when you start
2:14
endorsing candidates in Georgia and you end up with people like
2:16
Herschel Walker, not that that was the only place that that
2:18
kind of thing happened. It ultimately led to a
2:21
Democratic win. But where he does this and his
2:24
candidates prevail, he's replaced what he considers like
2:28
an establishment politician. That's not really in line with
2:32
his movement or him with someone who is.
2:35
So you know, there is a risk reward here, but boy, it is a
2:37
risk in a, in a midterm that is, that is maybe not shaping up to
2:42
be awesome so far. No, no question about it.
2:46
I mean, it's a huge gamble. I mean the, the reporting I've
2:49
seen in the polling I've seen, which is more accurate?
2:52
I I agree with you. The UNH poll in Maine is a psyop
2:56
designed to become a self fulfilling prophecy.
2:59
But other states have real polls and I think the race in Texas
3:03
was probably going to be more competitive than Republicans
3:06
wanted and this may make it more so.
3:09
And it really is just going to come down to do, you know, do
3:13
the do the voters in Texas want to hand the Democrats the
3:16
Senate? Because that race could turn out
3:18
to be the race that does it. So this it's it's going to
3:21
probably be the most expensive race in U.S.
3:24
Senate history is my guess. And it may end up being a toss
3:29
up at this point, but we'll have to wait and see.
3:31
But if you put a gun to my head, I still say it.
3:34
It stays in Republican hands just because Talarico is far
3:38
more extreme than he than the media shapes him up to be.
3:43
Indeed, and we will cover that, I'm sure a great deal over the
3:45
next several months for sure. Turning our attention to other
3:48
things, the Trump Department of Justice is suing the DC bar over
3:52
barfare targeting Conservative government attorneys.
3:55
Tell me a little bit about this. This is the, you know, I sort of
3:59
the latest and another installment in the Lawfare saga,
4:03
I guess you could say. Tell me a little bit more about
4:05
what's going on here. Yeah, I mean, most of us talk
4:08
about lawfare, but there's a subset of it called barfare, and
4:12
it's basically the debt. The left and the Democrats have
4:15
tried to make it very difficult for Republicans to get legal
4:19
representation because they go after the attorneys that
4:23
represent them. They make it impossible for them
4:25
to do business or worse, they try to bring disciplinary
4:29
proceedings against them. This is a variation of that.
4:32
This is actually government attorneys.
4:35
We have a DOJ lawyer during Trump, one who wrote a memo up
4:42
the chain of command arguing that the DOJ should send the
4:46
letter to Georgia outlining election like irregularities
4:50
that needed to be invested. Ultimately, the letter was
4:54
rejected. It never went out to the state
4:56
of Georgia. But the DC Bar, which is
4:59
basically run by the left, decided to try to disbar the
5:04
lawyer that wrote the memo on the grounds that his superiors
5:08
rejected his arguments and that those arguments were so out of
5:13
bounds that they warranted disbarment.
5:16
And this creates all kinds of problems, not the least of which
5:21
the DC Bar is now meddling in internal executive branch
5:26
deliberations on legal matters, which would undermine the
5:30
president's authority to execute the laws and run the executive
5:34
branch. And so DOJ is suing the DC Bar
5:38
on those grounds to say they basically butt out.
5:42
And this is only goes one way, Matt.
5:45
They only seem to be going after conservatives.
5:47
They didn't disbar another lawyer out of Washington,
5:50
Kleinsmith, who who pled guilty to a crime about lying to the
5:55
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about getting
5:57
a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
6:00
You know, they weren't very lenient on him.
6:02
And yet they're trying to throw the book at this particular
6:05
lawyer. So it, it's a, it's a big deal
6:08
that the bars are doing this. And it's I'm glad to see that
6:11
the Trump administration is actually taking it head on.
6:16
Do you think it will be ultimately successful?
6:18
You know, whenever we talk about these types of things, that's
6:20
always the first thought or question that comes up in my
6:22
head is, you know, sort of establishing that this is
6:26
unacceptable and then filing a lawsuit over and all that stuff
6:29
is nice. But is it likely to provide at
6:31
the end of that story some sort of a change?
6:36
Like, I mean, do you think the courts will ultimately side with
6:38
the administration on this? I do.
6:40
I mean, it's a couple things going on.
6:42
There is a federal statute that gives State Bar associations
6:46
authority over all lawyers, federal lawyers and others for
6:50
ethical behavior. The problem is the definition of
6:54
ethical behavior here has been stretched to a point of
6:57
absurdity. And I'm convinced if this goes
7:00
all the way up to the US Supreme Court that they will hold that
7:04
as applied, that this goes out of bounds.
7:07
There's another example where the US attorney attorney wrote a
7:10
letter to Georgetown saying, you know, you, you really need to
7:13
knock off the DEI nonsense and the Bar Association is going
7:18
after him in DC arguing that he operated outside of his
7:22
constitutional authority and he too should be disciplined.
7:26
It's not up to the DC bar to decide when or where a lawyer
7:30
goes outside his constitutional authority when that lawyer works
7:34
for the President of the United States.
7:36
Josh Filler joining us. You know what you just
7:38
referenced? There obviously was another
7:39
topic I wanted wanted to get to hear.
7:40
The continuation of race based admissions in higher education
7:44
after the Supreme Court supposedly put an end to it is a
7:49
great source of contention out there.
7:52
You know, schools are claiming they're not doing it, but they
7:54
totally are. They're renaming DEI
7:56
coordinators to something else that sounds a little bit more
8:00
palatable but is doing the exact same work.
8:02
The admission stuff is not blind.
8:04
They're just finding new ways and creative ways of still doing
8:07
what they were doing before. What do you do to fight like
8:10
this, Josh Filler? What do you do to to combat
8:12
this? After the Supreme Court told you
8:14
to cut it out and you don't, what's your next step?
8:17
Well, it's it's really what the Trump DOJ is doing and they need
8:21
help. They need help from state
8:22
attorneys, generals around the country.
8:24
But obviously, you're not going to get the Democrats to help
8:27
you. But if you go back in history,
8:29
Matt, if you go look at Brown versus Board of Education back
8:32
in 1954, the Supreme Court issues its ruling, but it took
8:36
decades and protracted litigation to actually implement
8:41
that decision. And I think the same is going to
8:44
be true here. And so, you know, the Trump DOJ
8:47
is basically sent a warning shot to Yale Medical School that,
8:51
hey, you are basically in violation of the Supreme Court
8:56
ruling because you're still taking race into account and
9:00
you're doing it blatantly. And, and Yale's argument
9:03
basically is, well, everyone has to pass a, a certain threshold
9:08
of eligibility, right? Whether it's their grades or
9:10
their MCAT scores. And once they do, then we can
9:13
take race into account. No, you can't take race into
9:17
account, whether it's to get someone in who's otherwise not
9:20
qualified or to take someone who may meet the criteria and apply
9:26
race in their favor anyway. You can't do that.
9:28
And, and DOJ is laid out to to Yale.
9:31
Look, it's very clear the MCAT in grade scores for whites and
9:35
Asians is still way higher than it is for blacks and Hispanics.
9:39
It's very clear what you're doing and you need to knock it
9:42
off. Unfortunately, it's case by
9:45
case. That's the only way this is ever
9:47
going to get resolved. And when you do it case by case,
9:51
it seems, you know, you got like, let's just say 500
9:54
universities doing this and you're picking on this one and
9:57
that one and, and whatnot, like the other ones continue to do it
10:00
as that stuff happens. And it's why it's so hard to
10:03
unwind this, right? It's, it's, it's almost like so
10:06
much of it is out there and so much of it is being done that
10:10
the, you know, things that are necessary to actually wholesale
10:13
stop it might not be possible. I hate to be cynical like that,
10:16
but that's a it's a real big challenge for people who are
10:19
trying to actually implement what the Supreme Court has
10:21
ultimately said here, which is that they should stop doing
10:23
this. Yeah, I, I would say it's
10:25
probably going to take a decade, Matt.
10:27
I mean, it, it look, we're trying to unwind something
10:30
that's been around for over 50 years.
10:32
I mean, go back to the Baki decision, which actually was a
10:36
Med school decision that allowed race based admissions.
10:39
That was in the early 1970s. This stuff is dug in like a
10:43
tick. And it's going to take time to
10:45
do it. And my fear is, is that, you
10:48
know, if the Democrats get back into the White House, they're
10:50
going to drop these lawsuits, like, like a bad habit.
10:54
And so it's going to turn down. It's going to be to up to others
10:57
to step in and fill the void if that happens.
11:00
But look, we have the law on our side, but it will take time all.
11:04
Right, that's where we're going to have to end, sadly.
11:06
Speaking of time, we don't have any anymore.
11:08
Josh Filler, nice enough to join us today.
11:09
We appreciate it and we'll talk again next week, Sir.