Latest / Unshaken & Unafraid with Joe Pags / What Will Democrats Do to Trump Now? With Josh Hammer

Transcript

What Will Democrats Do to Trump Now? With Josh Hammer · Unshaken & Unafraid with Joe Pags

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: This has been arguably the single unifying principle of the
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Democratic Party in the entirety of the Trump era. It's
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: just get Trump by any means necessary. Impeachment, we definitely
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: don't know for what yet. They haven't exactly said, and
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: they probably won't bother to say what exactly it is
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: they think they might be able to try to impeach
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump for doing.
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: Democrats made it very clear very quickly this wasn't about affordability.
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: This wasn't about gas prices. This wasn't about the war
• 0:28
  Speaker 2: in Iran. This isn't really even about Israel. This is
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: about power and control and going after Trump and his family.
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: They made it very clear. I've got to get with
• 0:36
  Speaker 2: Josh Hammer. Of course, article3project. org. Go there and help them out.
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: He's also a great podcaster, an amazing mind. Josh, good
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: to see you. How are you doing?
• 0:44
  Speaker 3: I'm doing great, Joe. How are you doing, my friend?
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: I'm living the dream. They lied. They lied. They said
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: they're going to bring gas prices down. They lied about Israel.
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: They lied about Iran. They lied about affordability. They really
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: just wanted to get the power back so they can
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: change the entire structure of how our Constitution works and
• 0:58
  Speaker 2: the three articles work. Do you agree with that?
• 1:01
  Speaker 3: Totally.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: Listen, Joe, this isn't your father's or your grandfather's Democratic Party.
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: At this point, this is a party that bears virtually
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: no resemblance to to the party, even of the 1990s
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: and Bill Clinton. I was thinking a lot about this
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: recent Alyssa Slotkin clip that went viral just a few
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: weeks prior to the election, where she was speaking in Chicago,
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: and she said that she wants to make it painful.
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: She wants to do criminal repercussions for anyone who goes
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: to marry the chutzpah to work for the Trump administration.
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: Compare that to the old Democrats of John F. Kennedy
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: of the 1960s, who famously said, Ask not what your
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: country can do for you.
• 1:37
  Speaker 3: Ask what you can do for your country.
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: Now you have a Democrat, same party, trying to criminalize
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: that what you can do for your country. So this
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: party is off the reservation. And when it comes to
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: Trump in particular. They've been trying to get this guy
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: and his family and people close to him now for
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: over a decade. This has been arguably the single unifying
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: principle of the Democratic Party in the entirety of the
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: Trump era. It's just get Trump by any means necessary.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: This is the entire predicate. of Robert Mueller and Comey
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: and the whole Russiagate collusion delusion back in the first
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: term and the impeachments from the first term, all the
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: lawfare during the Biden era, during the interregnum with Jack
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: Smith and Merrick Garland, Fannie Willis and Alvin Bragg. And
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: now here we are, and they're making a whole lot
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: of noise about impeachment. investigations, subpoenas. We don't even really
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: know exactly for what yet. Impeachment, we definitely don't know
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: for what yet. They haven't exactly said, and they probably
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: won't bother to say what exactly it is they think
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: they might be able to try to impeach Donald Trump
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: for doing. But ultimately, Joe, I think this is the
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: key point. When it comes to the left, and especially
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: this iteration of the Democratic Party, there is one thing
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: that matters arguably even more than getting Trump and those
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: close to Trump. It's just power. This is a movement
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: that is absolutely drunk on power. They thirst and create
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: power for the sake of power. And what they actually
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: do with that power, well, I guess we'll see, but
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: it's going to be a whole lot of dog and
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: pony show and a whole lot of nonsense, which to
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: your point is really not what people voted for.
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: That's for sure.
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: Well, it's not. And Robert Garcia wasted no time to
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: come out and say exactly what he'd do. I want
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: to show you this soundbite.
• 3:14
  Speaker 4: If we move forward and I take over the chairmanship
• 3:17
  Speaker 4: in January, we're going to be focused on like a
• 3:20
  Speaker 4: laser on four major areas. And I want to discuss
• 3:23
  Speaker 4: those with you today. The first is we're going to
• 3:26
  Speaker 4: take on the Trump crime family. The amount of grift
• 3:30
  Speaker 4: and corruption is unprecedented in American politics. You have Don Jr.
• 3:36
  Speaker 4: whose wedding is being paid for by a Russian oligarch.
• 3:40
  Speaker 4: You have Jared Kushner who got $ 2 billion from the
• 3:42
  Speaker 4: Saudis when he left the White House. You have another
• 3:46
  Speaker 4: son that is on, of course, the board. of companies
• 3:48
  Speaker 4: that are getting contracts from the Pentagon. The president himself
• 3:54
  Speaker 4: is a crypto scheme where he's making billions of dollars.
• 3:58
  Speaker 4: This family is billions richer as the American public struggle.
• 4:02
  Speaker 4: Our second investigation is focused on DHS and the abuses
• 4:06
  Speaker 4: of ICE. Our third major investigation revolves around corporate corruption.
• 4:14
  Speaker 4: While you're struggling, CEOs and companies across this country are
• 4:18
  Speaker 4: making record profits. They're putting in place systems of surveillance
• 4:23
  Speaker 4: pricing so that when you go to the supermarket, you
• 4:27
  Speaker 4: might be paying a different price than your neighbor. These
• 4:31
  Speaker 4: companies are trying to put together a system where depending
• 4:34
  Speaker 4: on your profile.
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: Enough is enough. It makes my face hurt. So this guy,
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: clearly just a liar, clearly is just out there not
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: saying anything the voters voted for, but he has this vindictive,
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: for some reason, revenge mentality when it comes to Trump. Now,
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: I'm going to ask you a question off of the
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: heels of that that you might not expect. Why exactly is...
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: The Republican Party is impotent as it is. For two years,
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: I've had Jamie Comer on this show, the Oversight Committee chair.
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: I've had Jim Jordan on this show, the Judiciary Committee chair.
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: John Thune is afraid to come on the show, who's
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: been impotent. Why haven't the Republicans done exactly what this
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: guy is saying when it comes to what you said? Russia, Russia, Russia, Russiagate,
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: the dossier. When it comes to Jack Smith should be
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: in prison. In my opinion, when it comes to what
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: Merrick Garland did, when it came to Mar-a-Lago, when it
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: comes to at least going after Joe Biden, I know
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: that he pardoned everybody else in his family, but not himself.
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: The Republicans had every chance to do that, Josh. But instead,
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: we're going to sit back and watch these idiots do
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: it now as they take power.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: You know, Joe, if I had a nickel for every
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: time that Republicans have proved themselves to be incompetent, impotent,
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: or some dastardly combination thereof, if I had a nickel
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: every time that revealed itself over the course of my lifetime,
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: then I would be a very wealthy man at this juncture. Now, listen,
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: it is true, to your point, that on his way
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: out the door that Joe Biden– He pardoned Hunter, which,
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: by the way, he maintained that he would not do
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: lest we forget up until the 11th hour. And then,
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: of course, he did it as we all knew he
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: would do. He pardoned Hunter. He pardoned his brother. He
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: pardoned everyone. That does not necessarily mean that it does
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: not mean all actually that Hunter Biden and those who
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: are part of the federal level. will have full immunity
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: at the state level, which is another avenue that I
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: have long thought the Republicans should be pursuing a little
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: bit more aggressively than they have. Frankly, I'm actually, this
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: has taken the spotlight off of Comer and Jordan a
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: little bit. I'm actually a little surprised, frankly, that there
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: have been more red state attorneys general who have tried
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: to find some sort of nexus to try to find
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: whether it's Hunter Biden or frankly, even Anthony Fauci. I mean,
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: Anthony Fauci, another guy who was pardoned by Joe Biden
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: as we had the door. Fauci, surely, surely, surely there, Joe,
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: there is some red state district attorney in like the
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: texas panhandle what i guess texas a blue state now
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: but in some very far far right jurisdiction surely there
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: is some enterprising district attorney who can be who can
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: find a way to to bring anthony fauci in on
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: some fraud theory of the vaccine there there's some hook
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: there but the point is none.
• 7:02
  Speaker 3: Of this has happened literally none of it there's why do.
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: You i've got to ask you because you're the smartest
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: guy i i know Why exactly haven't they done it?
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: What are they afraid of that Robert Garcia is not
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: afraid of, that Padilla is not afraid of, that El-Sayed
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: is not afraid of? El-Sayed got $ 67 million of support,
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: or him and others who are running, from the Senate committee,
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: and he came out the next day against Chuck Schumer,
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: which I'm not surprised at. These people have balls. Why
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: don't the Republicans? It wasn't that long ago. Remember back
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: in 2020 when the media narrative was absolute. In fact, anyone,
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: suggesting early alternatives was instantly silenced and deplatformed. The late Dr.
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: Zev Zelenko was at the center of the controversy with
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: his Z-Stack and Zelenko Protocol. You've probably heard about it.
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: He faced immense criticism for sharing his approach, yet President
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: Trump referenced him during a press briefing. I just saw
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: the video on X. Go see it for yourself. It's amazing.
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: Zelenko carefully selected ingredients and doses based on his research,
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: and today his work remains part of the conversation around
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: immune health. You shouldn't feel helpless when scary headlines flash
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: across your TV or your computer screen. ZStack gives your
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: body the foundational immune support it needs to help fight
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: off whatever's circulating out there and you never know what
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: it might be. Don't wait. Take charge of your wellness
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: right now. ZStack is offering its biggest discount ever. Get
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: started today for just $ 4. 95, plus shipping and handling. Get
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: the biggest discount in their history at ZStackLife.com slash PAGS.
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: ZStackLife.com slash PAGS. One more time. ZStackLife.com Now back to
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: the video.
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: So listen, I mean, in their mild defense, Joe, there
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: were investigations of Hunter Biden. That's how we got the
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: IRS whistleblower and things like that. There were some things
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: that were happening about Hunter Biden. It was not on
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: this level that we're now hearing from Robert Garcia. So
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: I still agree with your point.
• 8:56
  Speaker 3: To be clear.
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: Listen, I think that as a dispositional matter, as a
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: matter just of your personality and kind of your pedigree
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: and how you're trained, I think the Republicans are just
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: kind of Traditionally speaking, Trump is a bit of an
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: exception himself on a personal level, but historically speaking, Republicans
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: are the more, shall we say, less rambunctious, the more
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: kind of buttoned up, timid lot. This is the party
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: that is traditionally the party of the more. business wing,
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: the more religious party with manners, etc. So this notion
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: of rough and tumble politics is just kind of alien
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: to a lot of Republicans as they have come up
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: through the ranks of the political process for decades. That's
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: definitely true, by the way, when it comes to lawyers.
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: As a lawyer myself, putting on that hat and thinking
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: of a lot of the conservative lawyers that I've known
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: for years, I think things are changing to an extent.
• 9:46
  Speaker 3: When I speak on law school.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: Campuses today, I do see an appetite from some younger
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: people hungrier conservative lawyers to try to kind of get
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: their you know get their claws in the game a
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: little bit more aggressively so to speak but an older
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: generation was just, this is just totally anathema. So, you know,
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: Democrats came up through the old Saul Linsky playbook. They
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: were just trained in fundamentally different beliefs and fundamentally different mentalities.
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: That's probably the best explanation I can offer, though it's
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: not a very satisfying one, I would imagine.
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: No, it's satisfying to a point because we know that
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: there are young Republicans like Brandon Gill who are going
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: to be firing brimstones. These guys are not afraid to
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: go after the other side and meet, you know, that
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: sort of attitude with attitude. Having said that, the vast
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: majority of Republicans that are elected right now aren't like that.
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: We need to get more like that. They have a
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: young stable that are DSA, including El Sayed and the
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: Chevalier idiot in New York and AOC and Bernie Sanders
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: is the old wing. They're already pushing him aside. These
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: people will not stop until they achieve what they want.
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: And what they want to achieve is changing the entire
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: makeup of government. So let me ask you this. With
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: the DOJ, and by the way, it's Josh Hammer. Go
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: to joshhammer.com. Check out the Josh Hammer show. He's amazing.
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: Can the DOJ, in the hands of the administration, keep
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: Article I in check and not let them go over
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: and above? Because I know in these committees, they can
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: refer people. to the DOJ for prosecution. DOJ can ignore that,
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: but they can also impeach, which is an actual action.
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: And these now will be trials because you're going to
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: have Schumer in charge or whoever the hell is going
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: to be in charge. It might be Van Hollen, according
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: to El-Sayed. Is there a way for the administration to
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: keep Article 1 in check? As you and I have
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: talked about before, Article 1 literally has more power than
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: the other two because they can make law and make
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: legislation and they have oversight. What do you think?
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: So there's going to be some very interesting separation of
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: power standoffs. And this makes people like me who are
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: constitutional law nerds, this makes me very excited, actually, because
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: you definitely will have a very aggressive use of the
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: subpoena power.
• 11:42
  Speaker 3: I have no doubt about that.
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: The Democrats will try to make use of subpoena power
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: to bring in maybe even current cabinet officials, maybe the
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: Attorney General, Secretary of State could find themselves, Secretary of War,
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: Pete Hexner could find themselves subpoenaed by Congress. And, you know,
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: there was a very interesting memo that was written recently
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: by the DOJ's OLC.
• 12:02
  Speaker 3: The OLC is the Office of Legal Counsel.
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: It's actually currently headed up by a law school classmate
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: and a very old dear friend of mine, Elliot Geiser,
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: a brilliant attorney. And And this memo at the OLC
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: was clarifying the scope of executive privilege and taking a
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: slightly broader view than I think a lot of other
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: folks have taken about what exactly executive privilege is.
• 12:21
  Speaker 3: So this is going to be interesting. I mean, keep
• 12:24
  Speaker 3: your eye on this. This is going to.
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: Be a very testy area for the next two years,
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: is where to draw the line between what is and
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: what is not legitimate executive privilege versus the legitimate ability,
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: which no one disputes, of the Congress to use their
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: subpoena power, which, again, is the legitimate power of the Congress.
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: So this could be a real Article I versus Article
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: II standoff. Now, traditionally speaking, when you have a separation
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: of powers dispute like this, that's where you could potentially– potentially–
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: get an active case or controversy before the Supreme Court.
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: The Supreme Court could, in theory, rule on a thing
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: like the parameters of executive privilege and what that entails
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: and does not entail when it comes to purposes of
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: complying or not complying with a congressional subpoena.
• 13:05
  Speaker 3: Alternatively.
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: There's another constitutional law doctrine called the political question doctrine,
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: which basically says that in a purely political matter where
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: there's no legal hook, the court will just.
• 13:15
  Speaker 3: Stay out of it.
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: And that creates something of a deadlock. But ultimately, when
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: push comes to shove, Joe, and this really ultimately is
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: how the rule of law works at the end of
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: the day, unless Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer is willing
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: to kind of– I hate to paint a very stark photo,
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: but to like physically drag someone into Congress, there's not
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: necessarily a true enforcement mechanism.
• 13:37
  Speaker 3: I mean, even the U.S. Marshals.
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: Which are the quote-unquote enforcement wing of the federal courts,
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: they are ultimately part of the DOJ bureaucracy. So Article
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: 2 is really quite powerful, the executive branch in a
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: situation like this. But that exact thing I flagged, this
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: executive privilege scope, and again, there's a very recent OLC memo.
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: I think the legal nerds would enjoy looking it up.
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: It's full of great information, very compellingly written, I might add.
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: That's going to be a real in-the-weeds legal debate for
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: the next two years.
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: Well, we have precedent, right, with Eric Holder. When Fast
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: and Furious was happening, for those watching and listening, it
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: was not the continuation of anything George W. Bush did.
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: This was a brand new policy by the Obama administration
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: through Eric Holder where they were smuggling guns into Mexico
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: and buying straw purchases to do so to prove that
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: we shouldn't have guns or something. The Mexican government didn't know.
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: Nobody knew. This was not a continuation of wide receiver.
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: This was a brand new thing. Called Fast and Furious.
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: When Eric Holder was brought before Congress, he said, I
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: don't know. I threw it away. I don't remember. That's it.
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: And was that him claiming executive privilege or was that
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: him just saying, I don't have to talk to you?
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: He did show up, which is different than Navarro and
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: Steve Bannon, which is why they got thrown in the clink.
• 14:44
  Speaker 2: But he showed up to say nothing. Is that what
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: the administration officials would do now? Saying, hey, Eric Holder
• 14:50
  Speaker 2: did it.
• 14:52
  Speaker 3: That's an option.
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: Listen, there are a lot of options here. You can
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: play executive privilege depending on whether it's a legitimate instance
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: or application of it, and you can just try not
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: to show up and ignore a subpoena, or you could
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: do that and show up and basically... utter a very bland, insipid,
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: one-sentence kind of brush aside. You probably don't want to
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: actually plead the fifth. That's not a good look, even
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: if it's a legally viable option. You don't want to
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: go down the road. That's what Anthony Fauci just did,
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: and we probably make fun of him for it. But sure,
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: I mean, that's a good point, Joe. I hadn't really
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: thought of it. Eric Holder did do exactly that. So yeah,
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: I mean, that is definitely one of many tools that
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: I expect Republicans to at times at least take advantage of,
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: in addition to just simply invoking executive privilege and if
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: it is a legitimate instance of it, and by definition, therefore,
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: not necessarily feeling compelled to oblige with a subpoena.
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: How far up the chain can subpoenas go? Can they
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: subpoena the president? I don't think so, right? Can they
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: subpoena the vice president? Anybody below them, they can subpoena?
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: We know that we've seen Pete Hegseth in front of
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: them already, and it's being run by Republicans. How far
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: up the chain can they go?
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: These are generally untested questions. There's really no precedent that
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: I can think of that would That would be a
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: pinpoint direct answer on this. So it's kind of an
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: uncharted waters. I mean, traditionally speaking, when you're engaging in
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: the investigation of power of the executive branch, you're not
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: looking at people like that. You're looking at secondary, tertiary, B-level, C-level,
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: or even lower levels. functionaries in the administration apparatus, the
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: notion that the president of the United States could get
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: subpoenaed is positively ludicrous. I mean, you don't have to
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: be a constitutional law scholar to know that that is
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: just simply just not how it works. I mean, I
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: guess to back up a little second here, Joe, I
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: think it's important fundamentally to remember some very basics of
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: the separation of powers. All three branches are bound to
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: interpret and act upon their own interpretation of the Constitution
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: within their legitimate spheres of constitutional authority.
• 16:54
  Speaker 3: So Congress has an oath.
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: To interpret the Constitution as it interprets it, and then
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: to act according to that. But that holds true for
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: the executive branch as well. So if the executive branch–
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: let's take these– just a random example. Let's take these
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: narco-terrorist strikes that we were doing off the coast of Venezuela,
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: for instance, last year. A lot of folks said that
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: that was legal. Okay, let's pretend the Democrats won't investigate
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: that and issue some subpoenas on their legitimate authority.
• 17:20
  Speaker 2: And they will, yeah.
• 17:22
  Speaker 3: And they probably will.
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: Let's be honest, a lot of what comes out of
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: Hollywood these days makes a mockery of America. Somehow, we're
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: the bad guys. They make a mockery of our history,
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: our values, our faith. There's still a place telling stories,
• 17:34
  Speaker 2: real stories, that remind us what makes America, the United States,
• 17:39
  Speaker 2: worth celebrating. That place is Angel Studios. They're creating unapologetically
• 17:43
  Speaker 2: patriotic films and shows, original films and shows that uplift, educate,
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: and inspire Americans. like Sound of Freedom. Have you checked
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: that out yet? A powerful true story that exposed the
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: horrors of child trafficking and inspired millions to take action.
• 17:57
  Speaker 2: Something to stand for with Mike Rowe. Have you seen this?
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: An incredible tribute to ordinary Americans who risked everything to
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: defend liberty. And The Last Rodeo, an upcoming heartland drama
• 18:07
  Speaker 2: about a bull riding veteran who comes out of retirement
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: to save his grandson. It's faith. It's grit. It's the
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: kind of storytelling Hollywood forgot how to do. These aren't
• 18:16
  Speaker 2: just good films. They are cultural reset buttons. And when
• 18:18
  Speaker 2: you join the Angel Guild, you don't just stream entertainment.
• 18:21
  Speaker 2: You help to create it. You vote on what gets made.
• 18:24
  Speaker 2: You support filmmakers who still believe in this great land, America.
• 18:28
  Speaker 2: And as a premium member, you get two free tickets
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: to every theatrical release, and that's awesome. So if you're
• 18:34
  Speaker 2: ready to support entertainment that celebrates faith, family, community, and freedom,
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: go to angel.com slash PAGS right now. Angel.com slash PAGS.
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: Become a premium Angel Guild member today. support entertainment that
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: builds something worth passing on.
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: Now, in a situation like that, where the OLC, actually,
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: I mentioned the OLC, if I believe they actually wrote
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: a memo on this, defending the legality of this, which
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: I agree was a legitimate instance of Article II war powers,
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: that would put someone like Pete Hexeth or someone like
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: him in a stronger position to potentially invoke executive privilege
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: or to, you know, essentially in one or more ways,
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: essentially just thumb their middle fingers at Congress because they
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: are engaged in in their solemn oath process of interpreting
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: the Constitution according to the way that they interpret it. Now,
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: you could also just show up and comply if you
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: think the law is on your side. So, again, there's
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: a lot of options here, and I expect that we'll
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: probably see a mix of all of the above in
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: the next couple of years.
• 19:30
  Speaker 2: It is Josh Hammer. Again, go check him out, joshhammer.com.
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: Incredible legal scholar. He's a lawyer. He's an author. What's
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: the name of the book? Israel and Civilization?
• 19:38
  Speaker 3: That's right, yep.
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: Okay, go and get his book as well, and go
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: check out his podcast. The DSA wants to change the Constitution.
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: They want to make the Senate answerable to the House
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: of Representatives. They want to get rid of the Electoral College.
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: They want to stop selecting the president the way we
• 19:51
  Speaker 2: do now. Do they have a chance of doing that
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: in this next two years? Are they on the way
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: to getting that ability?
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: So the biggest thing that I'm worried about, Joe, at
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: this point is Democrats are Very, very close. And I
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: think some people I've seen say they might actually already
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: be there when it comes to the national popular vote,
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: this interstate compact of sorts to essentially try to. got
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: the electoral college via the back end. So I think
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: the Democrats, the left, have this weird infatuation with the
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: electoral college. I frankly don't fully understand exactly why they
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: hate it as much as they at least.
• 20:32
  Speaker 3: Purport to do.
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: But they've been on an extended years-long jihad to eliminate
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: and eviscerate the electoral college. Now, the simplest and most
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: straightforward way to do that which, again, I think is
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: a terrible idea. But if you want to do that,
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: then the way to do that, in theory, would be
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: to amend the Constitution using the Article V process to amend,
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: and just to amend, we hereby end the Electoral College, etc.
• 20:56
  Speaker 3: etc.
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: But, and I'm not sure if we discussed this in
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: the past, there is a long-running effort that's been going
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: on now for some years called the National Popular Vote Initiative.
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: And essentially, it is a compact. They call it a
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: compact initiative between a lot of blue states, and they
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: pledge that they will allocate their electoral college votes not
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: to the winner of their state, but to the winner
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: of the national popular vote. And that technically, at a
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: black letter level.
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: I mean, that would do away with it then. It
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: would be over. I mean, it's the same exact thing
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: as they want. I mean, Josh, it's important for people
• 21:34
  Speaker 2: to know who are watching and listening. A lot of
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: them already know this because they're smart enough to know
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: you and watch or listen to me. But the Electoral
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: College is to make sure everybody's got skin in the game.
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: If you get rid of the Electoral College, and this
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: is the reason, I think you know this, only the
• 21:47
  Speaker 2: blue states are going to select everything. Only the largest
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: populated states are going to decide everything. Only the largest
• 21:52
  Speaker 2: urban areas in those populated states are going to decide everything.
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: New York City, L.A., here in Dallas and Houston and
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: San Antonio. They're going to decide it here in Texas,
• 22:02
  Speaker 2: in Minneapolis, in St.
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: Paul.
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: They'll decide the popular vote is going to go blue
• 22:06
  Speaker 2: forever if they do this, and then that disincentivizes people
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: in places like Iowa or Rhode Island to even go
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: and vote, no?
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: So that's absolutely true, and that is a huge part
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: of why it's there. This is part of the whole
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: tension originally, Joe, between the rural and urban parts of
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: colonial America. This is how you get the compromise whereby
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: the House– is divided based on population, how the Senate
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: is just two seats. All these were various compromises that
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: the founders struck, essentially just using the art of realpolitik,
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: and frankly, their generational genius trying to craft us a republic,
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: and this is one of them. So your point is
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: totally right, that this is there to prevent places like
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: Los Angeles and New York City from selecting this nation's president,
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: making sure that Des Moines, Iowa, and so forth have
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: some sort of.
• 22:53
  Speaker 3: Skin in the game.
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: Another reason is that the Constitution affords the states the
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: ability to allocate the electoral college vote, their allotment, how
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: they so choose. And there are some states that do
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: allocate based on proportion. I believe Nebraska is an example.
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: Nebraska actually allocates their electoral college votes not based necessarily
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: on winner-take-all, but if it's a close election, you could
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: get a mixed slate of electors from Nebraska. So the
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: thing is, that if you get 270 votes worth of
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: Electoral College votes in the blue states to sign on
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: to this national popular vote compact, the question is then,
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: Is that constitutional because the states are all individually choosing
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: to allocate how they want? Or is it unconstitutional because
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: it will have the effect of abolishing a core constitutional
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: provision without the Article 5 constitutional amendment process?
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: Again, it's uncharted waters.
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: But I'm just saying that based on the massacre that
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: Democrats dealt to Republicans on Tuesday, we potentially could face
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: that question over the next few years. Democrats control a
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: lot of governorships. They control now a lot of legislatures.
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: I don't think we're I don't think we're there yet,
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: to be clear. But again, they need 270 electoral college
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: votes to be able to pass this thing in theory.
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: And they last I checked before the election, they were
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: about 215 to 220. So we're getting very close to that.
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: And that would be a fascinating challenge. It'd be a
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: very scary one as well.
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: We have to keep on educating people about what it
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: means and why small states and rural areas would be
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: completely out of elections forever. It's the amazing Josh Hammer, joshhammer.com.
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: What are they going to try to do and what
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: can they do? Can they make Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. states?
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: Can they pack the Supreme Court in the next two years?
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: Does Trump have every ability to veto all of that
• 24:38
  Speaker 2: and stop it from happening?
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: The short answer is yes. None of these things are
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: things you can simply do. with a 54-55 seed-set majority.
• 24:48
  Speaker 3: It's just not.
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: I mean, even if they abolish the filibuster, which I
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: don't think they would do that, frankly, Joe, unless and until,
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: God forbid, they have unified control of the Senate and
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: the White House.
• 25:01
  Speaker 3: Otherwise, what's the point?
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: But in theory, even if they abolish the filibuster, you
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: still don't have a two-thirds majority. in either house to
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: overcome a presidential veto. So I don't really see what
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: the point is. None of these things, whether it's adding
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: Puerto Rico, D.C. estates, the Electoral College, packing the Supreme Court,
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: none of these things are things that they can do
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: with the current majority that they are set to have.
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: I think it'll basically just be a stalemate on those
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: issues for the next few years.
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: I think there's no doubt they're going to impeach Trump again.
• 25:30
  Speaker 2: As you said earlier, I have no idea what the
• 25:31
  Speaker 2: impeachment articles would be about. They're going to make something
• 25:34
  Speaker 2: up that was about nothing the first two times. Then
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: it's going to go to the Senate. Josh, here's my fear,
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: and I think it's a rational fear. Maybe you can
• 25:41
  Speaker 2: talk me off the ledge. You've got 55, let's say,
• 25:44
  Speaker 2: senators that are Democrats. You've got a bunch of rhinos
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: in there that don't like President Trump. You've got a
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: bunch of people who are afraid to even pass the
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: SAVE Act and nuke the filibuster for that very important
• 25:53
  Speaker 2: piece of legislation. How hard would it be for them
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: to pick off 12 people on the Republican side to
• 25:58
  Speaker 2: get them to agree that Trump's got to go now?
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: So I've had the thought, and I— Is it a
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: valid question? No, it's a totally valid question, Joe. I've
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: been thinking about this a lot since Tuesday, actually, because
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: this probably will come up, frankly. So I think that
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: the odds are low. If the number that they needed
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: was lower than 12, if they only needed three, four,
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: five crossover votes, I think that's a different calculation. You
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: quite possibly would get that. But in order to get
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: 12 Republican votes— that's going to be more than 25%
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: of the Senate Republican caucus. That's still a lot. That
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: is a very, very high percentage.
• 26:37
  Speaker 2: It wasn't that long ago. Remember back in 2020 when
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: the media narrative was absolute. In fact, anyone suggesting early
• 26:43
  Speaker 2: alternatives was instantly silenced and deplatformed. The late Dr. Zev
• 26:47
  Speaker 2: Zelenko was at the center of the controversy with his
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: Z-stack and Zelenko protocol. You probably heard about it. He
• 26:53
  Speaker 2: faced immense criticism for sharing his approach, yet President Trump
• 26:57
  Speaker 2: referenced him during a press briefing. I just saw the
• 26:59
  Speaker 2: video on X. Go see it for yourself. It's amazing.
• 27:02
  Speaker 2: Zelenko carefully selected ingredients and doses based on his research,
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: and today his work remains part of the conversation around
• 27:09
  Speaker 2: immune health. You shouldn't feel helpless when scary headlines flash
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: across your TV or your computer screen. Z-Stack gives your
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: body the foundational immune support it needs to help fight
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: off whatever's circulating out there and you never know what
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: it might be. Don't wait. Take charge of your wellness
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: right now. Z-Stack is offering its biggest discount ever. Get
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: started today for just $ 4. 95. plus shipping and handling. Get
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: the biggest discount in their history at ZStackLife.com slash PAGS.
• 27:36
  Speaker 2: ZStackLife.com slash PAGS. One more time. ZStackLife.com slash PAGS. Now
• 27:42
  Speaker 2: back to the video.
• 27:43
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: And assuming that the party maintains some iota of coherence
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: and cohesiveness over the next few years, assuming that the
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: party stands with their president.
• 27:55
  Speaker 3: which they should. I mean, they're not going to throw
• 27:57
  Speaker 3: him under the bus.
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: Assuming that, then anyone who signs up for that would probably,
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: unless it's like a proverbial Susan Collins, she's not going
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: to be there. But unless you're from a blue state,
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: you will basically be signing your political death warrant if
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: you sign up for that. So I don't see it happening.
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: I don't think the votes are there for it. But again,
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: it's a valid question because if the margin were smaller,
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: I think it would be a possibility, yes.
• 28:22
  Speaker 2: For those watching and listening, just I want to explain
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: the math. If the articles of impeachment come from the
• 28:26
  Speaker 2: House and they decide to do a trial in the Senate,
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: you have to have two-thirds of the Senate agree to
• 28:31
  Speaker 2: convict and two-thirds of 66.66666. So at 67, you've got
• 28:35
  Speaker 2: 55 Democrats. They would need 12 Republicans to join on.
• 28:38
  Speaker 2: I hope you're right. I think you're right. I think
• 28:40
  Speaker 2: it would be the death knell for anybody who's a
• 28:42
  Speaker 2: Republican to ever vote to convict for sure.
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: Joe, let me just add one thing.
• 28:48
  Speaker 3: I guess the only... I think the only alternative in.
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: Which they could ever get 12th is if the Republican
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: Party as institution thinks that their only way to be
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: competitive in 2028 is to throw their own president under
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: the bus. I mean, if you are if you are
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: and see if things are going considerably worse. a year
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: from now than they even are today, if there's a
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: huge stock market crash and there's a recession and if
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: things are really, really bad, I mean, that's the only
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: way that this could ever happen. If the party structure
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: essentially gives permission to senators to do this.
• 29:23
  Speaker 3: But again, I just don't see it happening personally.
• 29:25
  Speaker 4: That's all.
• 29:26
  Speaker 2: I don't either. I know you got to run. Let
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: me ask you one last question. I appreciate the time
• 29:29
  Speaker 2: and the access today. What role, how big a role,
• 29:32
  Speaker 2: and I think I know the answer, but I want
• 29:33
  Speaker 2: you to give me the answer. Do you think Tucker Carlson,
• 29:35
  Speaker 2: Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massey, and that entire lot of losers...
• 29:40
  Speaker 2: what role do you think they played in the midterm
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: election going so heavily toward the Democrats?
• 29:45
  Speaker 3: I mean, listen, it's clearly didn't help. I put you
• 29:48
  Speaker 3: that way.
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: I mean, they were essentially they were essentially engaging in
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: an anti-Trump demoralization operation for the past year or two.
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: I mean, Tucker Carlson's final message is email blast to
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: his subscribers on Tuesday, Election Day. was essentially saying that
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: the price of gas is too high and it's Israel's fault.
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: I mean, first of all, that's that's actually just not accurate.
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: But it's dumb. But hold that aside. I mean, what
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: kind of he's literally rooting for the Democrats. I mean,
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: these people are literally rooting for the Democrats. I think
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: Nick Fuentes also said that he voted Democrat on Tuesday.
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: I mean, these people are just not on Trump's side.
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: And the sooner that he and his team around him
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: figure this out, the better. So, no, this was definitely
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: a huge factor. I mean, even even Megyn Kelly, I
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: think it was the day before the election, was criticizing
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: Haley Stevens for having the courage to support Mike Rogers.
• 30:43
  Speaker 3: I mean, what?
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: That doesn't make sense.
• 30:45
  Speaker 3: It makes no sense.
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: So, I mean, all this was oriented towards trying to
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: suppress the Republican votes. And again, data, very hard, hard
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: to say how big the factor was, but. Listen, it
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: didn't help.
• 30:56
  Speaker 3: That's for sure.
• 30:57
  Speaker 2: The big news today, Stephen Miller gets the White House
• 30:59
  Speaker 2: chief of staff job. Just give me a quick something,
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: something on that. We'll let you go.
• 31:03
  Speaker 1: I love Stephen, Joe. I've known Stephen for some time now.
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: I followed him even longer than I've known him. I
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: actually have kind of long looked up to Stephen on
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: a personal level. We have a lot of biographical similarities.
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: We are both Jews from left-wing environments that went to
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: Duke University and became right-wing firebrands. We have a lot
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: in common, and I love the guy. I love his approach.
• 31:25
  Speaker 3: I love his energy. I love his tenacity.
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: I think it also says that President Trump, for these
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: next two years, or at least for the next few
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: months or year, whatever it will be, His mentality is
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: clearly to ban down the hatches and to go to war.
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: I mean, this is not a guy who is now
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: trying to make nice. He wants an enforcer to be
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: able to do that, which you said earlier, to be
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: able to make the case for executive privilege, make the
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: case for defying Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. And he
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: clearly thinks that Stephen Miller is that guy. I don't
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: blame him because Stephen Miller has probably been his most
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: loyalist MAGA figure, really, probably number one for the past decade.
• 31:58
  Speaker 3: So it's an inspired.
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: Choice and it's a fascinating choice that I think reveals
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: the direction that he wants to go for the next
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: year or two.
• 32:04
  Speaker 2: I think you're spot on. I appreciate the time, Josh.
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: Go to joshhammer.com. Get his book, Israel and Civilization. Check
• 32:09
  Speaker 2: out the Josh Hammer Show. He's amazing. Thanks for making time, brother.
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: Let's talk again soon.
• 32:13
  Speaker 3: I look forward to it, Joe. Thank you.