Latest / Unshaken & Unafraid with Joe Pags / DOJ Targets E. Jean Carroll — Josh Hammer on the Alleged $83 Million Lie, Reid Hoffman, and Perjury

Transcript

DOJ Targets E. Jean Carroll — Josh Hammer on the Alleged $83 Million Lie, Reid Hoffman, and Perjury · Unshaken & Unafraid with Joe Pags

0:00
Speaker 1: The DOJ just opened a criminal probe in to e
0:02
Speaker 1: Gen Carrol, the woman who won eighty three million dollars
0:05
Speaker 1: from President Donald Trump. It turns out she may have
0:08
Speaker 1: lied under oath about who was bankrolling here. Josh Hammer
0:11
Speaker 1: joins me. He's got three seats, and he names the
0:13
Speaker 1: guy allegedly who bankrolled her. But what is this story here?
0:17
Speaker 1: Did she lie about what allegedly happened in the nineteen
0:19
Speaker 1: nineties or is she lying about getting money in sponsorship
0:22
Speaker 1: and support from somebody that she didn't disclose.
0:25
Speaker 2: What is this So it seems to me, Joe, that
0:27
Speaker 2: the answer is both.
0:29
Speaker 3: She all but surely lied about what happened back in
0:32
Speaker 3: nineteen nineties, back allegedly at the Bergerdorf Goodman on Fifth Avenue.
0:35
Speaker 3: Because she's right, she could remember, she could remember precisely
0:39
Speaker 3: no details. She was unable to actually give a precise date,
0:43
Speaker 3: a precise month. She really was able to provide essentially
0:46
Speaker 3: nothing about this allegation, which she first raised back in
0:49
Speaker 3: an interview back in twenty nineteen during Trump's first term.
0:51
Speaker 3: And the way we got to where we are now
0:54
Speaker 3: when it comes to this whole unfurling saga, is that
0:58
Speaker 3: in response to that twenty nineteen hit piece in the magazine,
1:00
Speaker 3: Donald Trump basically said, I.
1:02
Speaker 2: Didn't do anything. I don't know who this woman is.
1:04
Speaker 2: I didn't do anything.
1:05
Speaker 3: And then she filed a second lawsuit against him, claiming
1:10
Speaker 3: that Trump defained her by denying her frivolous allegations. So
1:15
Speaker 3: I wanted to take a second shoe to pause and
1:17
Speaker 3: just ponder how completely observed that is that a defamation
1:21
Speaker 3: lawsuit could go through when you accuse someone of being
1:24
Speaker 3: a rapist and then the person that you have illegitimately
1:26
Speaker 3: erroneously accused.
1:27
Speaker 2: Says I'm innocent. I didn't do it.
1:29
Speaker 3: Oh what do you mean, You're defaming my credibility. Let's
1:32
Speaker 3: file a second lawsuit. But that's exactly how this case
1:35
Speaker 3: has gone. And now this most recent interesting plot twist
1:40
Speaker 3: is to your other point is that she deposed. She
1:43
Speaker 3: was deposed as part of this second lawsuit, which is,
1:45
Speaker 3: as you correctly know, was filed right around the time.
1:47
Speaker 3: How convenience that Donald Trump filed or announced his run
1:50
Speaker 3: seat the White House for a second time back in
1:52
Speaker 3: late twenty twenty two.
1:54
Speaker 2: How convenience indeed?
1:55
Speaker 3: And now the DJ under the acting ag Todd Blanche
1:58
Speaker 3: is looking into the possibility that that she perjured himself,
2:01
Speaker 3: because again, as you noted, she said the time that
2:03
Speaker 3: she took no outside funding to help advance this litigation.
2:06
Speaker 3: But it turns out that it looks a lot, a lot,
2:10
Speaker 3: a lot like she actually did receive some funding to
2:13
Speaker 3: assist her litigation, and it came in the form of
2:15
Speaker 3: Reid Hoffman, the founder of Lincoln who was it was
2:17
Speaker 3: a longtime mega Democratic Party donor. So yes, this is
2:21
Speaker 3: a very legitim investigation from the DOJ. Did she perhaps
2:24
Speaker 3: perjure her herself? It was she would not be the
2:26
Speaker 3: first anti anti Trump stewe she persure herself, I might add,
2:29
Speaker 3: in the course of engaging in their anti Trump shenanigans,
2:32
Speaker 3: Jim Comey, by what I can tell, purge himself as
2:35
Speaker 3: well around twenty twenty one, twenty twenty two, back when
2:38
Speaker 3: he was talking about the origins of Russia Gate, back
2:40
Speaker 3: in twenty sixty, twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen. So we've been
2:43
Speaker 3: down this road before. But this this particular suit, or
2:47
Speaker 3: really these two suits, because they're two from E. G.
2:49
Speaker 3: And Carroll, I would say, along with the Tiss James
2:52
Speaker 3: witch hunt in New York State, which we finally have
2:54
Speaker 3: seen dismissed. This This was the alleged corporate fraud case
2:57
Speaker 3: against Don Trump and the Trump administrator, the Trump organization,
3:00
Speaker 3: and excuse me, I would say these two cases are
3:02
Speaker 3: probably two of the most extreme cases of all the
3:06
Speaker 3: cases that have been leveled against Donald Trump in recent years.
3:08
Speaker 3: And that's a pretty strong saying, because he's been He's
3:11
Speaker 3: had a lot of ridiculous mud flunk his way, I
3:14
Speaker 3: would argue, even more so than the federal cases, even
3:17
Speaker 3: more so than Fannie Willis's insane fishing expedition down in Georgia.
3:21
Speaker 3: The only one that comes close, frankly, is the somewhat
3:24
Speaker 3: related case of the Alvin Bragwa New York City with
3:26
Speaker 3: Stormy Daniels. These are all so patently ridiculous. There but
3:29
Speaker 3: Eagene Carroll, you correctly said that she said that rape
3:32
Speaker 3: was sexy on television. Are talk about impeaching your own credibility.
3:35
Speaker 3: This woman is accusing Donald Trump up to fading her
3:37
Speaker 3: for saying that she's a liar, but she wants to be.
3:40
Speaker 3: She must to be viewed as his vanguard of truth
3:43
Speaker 3: and decency while saying that rape is sexy. I don't
3:46
Speaker 3: think that's going to go very far.
3:47
Speaker 1: Frankly, I think I could make a pretty good argument
3:48
Speaker 1: that the Alvin Bragg cases even more egregious because he
3:50
Speaker 1: won't even tell us where the charges were. We have
3:52
Speaker 1: no idea. He resurrected something that was well past the
3:56
Speaker 1: statute limitations and then said he tied it to federal
3:59
Speaker 1: charges about elect even though the FEC said that there
4:01
Speaker 1: were no issues with the election, And then when you
4:04
Speaker 1: asked him what are the charges, he said, I don't
4:05
Speaker 1: have to tell you. So, I mean, it's pretty close
4:08
Speaker 1: between those two. But let's focus on Egen Carroll a
4:10
Speaker 1: little bit more because the case and the details are
4:13
Speaker 1: lack thereof remind me of Christine blasi Ford, and for
4:16
Speaker 1: some reason blasi Ford because she had no recollection of
4:18
Speaker 1: anything where it was what city, what date, but what plays,
4:21
Speaker 1: what person, what room? She didn't know anything. Thankfully, the
4:25
Speaker 1: people that were listening didn't buy it, and we still
4:27
Speaker 1: got Kavanaugh. Why did people buy Egen Carroll or were
4:30
Speaker 1: they just completely so different that it really didn't matter
4:33
Speaker 1: whether we believed her or not.
4:35
Speaker 3: Listen, Joe, it's very simple. It's just pure anti Trump
4:40
Speaker 3: arrangement syndrome that is really all that is going on here,
4:43
Speaker 3: so recalled the Egen Carrol The first time it was
4:46
Speaker 3: twenty nineteen. It was towards the tail end what's called
4:48
Speaker 3: of the me Too movement me Too, which is ultimately
4:52
Speaker 3: subsumed into the whole Black Lives Matter moral panic of
4:55
Speaker 3: the George Floyd summer with twenty twenty. But twenty nineteen
4:58
Speaker 3: was the tail end of meets Too, which really got
5:00
Speaker 3: starred in twenty seventeen with Harvey Weinstein and all that there.
5:03
Speaker 3: It reached its its zenis with Breck Kavanaugh in twenty eighteen,
5:07
Speaker 3: and then Egen Carroll was the tail end of that.
5:09
Speaker 3: So this was still a time when Americans were believing
5:13
Speaker 3: the hashtag Believe All Women and things like that. And
5:16
Speaker 3: you add that fire to the gasoline, that is this
5:20
Speaker 3: just unhinged anti Trump asteria, and that is how you
5:23
Speaker 3: get these lawsuits and these absolutely absurd judgments with Ejing Carroll.
5:27
Speaker 3: But the woman is fundamentally a deeply, deeply, deeply non
5:32
Speaker 3: credible individual. He comes across, she comes across as a
5:35
Speaker 3: complete nut job, total, a total crazy person. Frankly, when
5:40
Speaker 3: she does media, if I were her lawyer, I would
5:41
Speaker 3: never let her get in front of a camera for
5:43
Speaker 3: the rest of for the rest for the rest of
5:44
Speaker 3: her life, frankly, But Trump has a way of attracting
5:48
Speaker 3: these individuals, I mean Stormy Daniels, not exactly. Also, you know,
5:55
Speaker 3: a paragon of someone who is who's imbued with truth,
5:58
Speaker 3: justice and the American So look, the eaging Carroll situation,
6:03
Speaker 3: I think is going to have a happy ending. I
6:06
Speaker 3: know that the judgment and this is why I say,
6:08
Speaker 3: it's just so absurd that the judgment that was ultimately
6:10
Speaker 3: rendered in the second case and in the Carroll two case,
6:13
Speaker 3: and it ends up being north of eighty three million dollars,
6:16
Speaker 3: which is just one of the most absurd judgments that
6:19
Speaker 3: I've seen a civil suit frankly, in my entire lifetime
6:22
Speaker 3: adult lifetime of lawyering. And it's still an appeal ultimately
6:27
Speaker 3: might get thrown out, his working his way through the system.
6:30
Speaker 3: But if if the DOJ does find that in the
6:33
Speaker 3: course of launching a second lawsuit that she actually purred
6:35
Speaker 3: herself there, that really could be a potential silver bullet.
6:39
Speaker 3: And a lot of folks will say, oh, this is
6:41
Speaker 3: just Donald Trump using his DOJ to go after his
6:43
Speaker 3: political enemies, and there are two responses. That one is
6:47
Speaker 3: that I'm sorry, but eg and Carroll start this when
6:50
Speaker 3: she started making up this story that Donald Trump raped
6:53
Speaker 3: her when she could remember no details? Whatsever what did
6:56
Speaker 3: you think was gonna happen? When you probably just wanted
6:58
Speaker 3: the free publicity, probably probably describe, I mean to know,
7:00
Speaker 3: such thing as bad pr school of thought. And the
7:03
Speaker 3: second thing is that the DOJ is Donald Trump's DOJ.
7:08
Speaker 3: As a constitutional matter, this is extraordinarily clear. The president,
7:11
Speaker 3: and the president alone wields the executive power of Article
7:14
Speaker 3: two of the Constitution, not the vice president, not even
7:17
Speaker 3: the Attorney General, not the Secretary of the coffee boy,
7:19
Speaker 3: the dogcatcher, whatever. It is one person, the President of
7:22
Speaker 3: the United States. There and the DOJ works for him.
7:25
Speaker 3: And therefore this looks an awful lot to me like
7:27
Speaker 3: the pursuit of justice, not quote unquote retribution on one's
7:30
Speaker 3: political enemies.
7:31
Speaker 1: How DoD z org. By the way, Josh Hammer going
7:33
Speaker 1: to checkout article three project dot org support them, Go
7:35
Speaker 1: check out his program The Josh Hammer Show wherever you
7:38
Speaker 1: go and get your favorite podcast and give you the
7:40
Speaker 1: name of the book. Again. I always forget it, but
7:41
Speaker 1: it's right behind you. What is the name of the book.
7:44
Speaker 3: The book is Israel and Civilization, the Fate of the
7:46
Speaker 3: Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.
7:47
Speaker 1: Go and get it right now. He's an incredible author
7:49
Speaker 1: as well. On EJ. Carol, I want to finish this way.
7:53
Speaker 1: People like Dean Withers and Parker and these idiots on
7:56
Speaker 1: the left that have big followings on TikTok and Instagram,
7:59
Speaker 1: they find them like getting some enjoyment out of saying
8:02
Speaker 1: Donald Trump raped her. I know that legally you can't
8:05
Speaker 1: say that. I know that Stephanopoulis and others have been
8:07
Speaker 1: in trouble for saying that. They alleged that the case,
8:10
Speaker 1: the civil case that Egene Carroll was awarded, they did
8:14
Speaker 1: say he was responsible for sexual assault, therefore responsible for rape.
8:18
Speaker 1: I wouldn't want that over my head at all in
8:21
Speaker 1: the course of litigation. I'm not a lawyer. My mom
8:23
Speaker 1: thinks i'd be a good one. But in the course
8:25
Speaker 1: of litigation, can you go back and have a civil
8:30
Speaker 1: judgment overturned and then be completely exonerated so nobody can
8:33
Speaker 1: say anything of the sort about you, Because again the
8:36
Speaker 1: eighty three million might be on hold, but he still
8:38
Speaker 1: was found liable for sexual assault that you and I
8:40
Speaker 1: agree probably didn't happen.
8:44
Speaker 2: That could happen.
8:45
Speaker 3: It really just depends on the details. Every statute will
8:48
Speaker 3: every statute will be different. These are cases that have
8:50
Speaker 3: been brought for various reasons in federal court in New
8:53
Speaker 3: York State there So it really just depends on the
8:55
Speaker 3: specific details of the statute, something along the lines of
8:58
Speaker 3: what you laid out that you could have a future.
9:01
Speaker 3: His hooneration is definitely not outside the realm of possibility,
9:04
Speaker 3: and that that and that probably is partially what Trump's
9:06
Speaker 3: been for. I think he's partially just going for a
9:09
Speaker 3: clearing of his name. This guy's name has been dragged
9:11
Speaker 3: through the mud by by so many of these of
9:13
Speaker 3: these of these creatures from hell, frankly for years and
9:16
Speaker 3: years and years, these outer cartoon characters.
9:20
Speaker 1: Joe.
9:20
Speaker 3: I've been saying for years. One of Donald Trump's greatest
9:22
Speaker 3: political attributes, He's got a lot. One of them is
9:25
Speaker 3: his sense of humor. Who is the fact that he
9:27
Speaker 3: has this amazing instinctual knack for the art of the
9:29
Speaker 3: eighty twenty issue, as I call it. And another thing
9:32
Speaker 3: that Donald Trump is just blessed with is having the
9:33
Speaker 3: greatest enemies in the world, and each and Carroll is
9:37
Speaker 3: is one particularly great enemy. So I think he just
9:39
Speaker 3: wants his name cleared, frankly from a lot of these folks.
9:42
Speaker 3: I think that probably, if I have to guess, matters
9:44
Speaker 3: a little bit more to him than some.
9:45
Speaker 2: Sort of more more more formal djure and not de
9:48
Speaker 2: facto to use some kind of fancy legal terms. I
9:50
Speaker 2: think I think more.
9:50
Speaker 3: I think he really wants more of a public facing
9:53
Speaker 3: to de facto clearing of his name. But this is
9:55
Speaker 3: a legitimate legal investigation. Let's not miss the forest for
9:58
Speaker 3: the tree, SERI. If she actsually purge herself, perjury is
10:01
Speaker 3: a very very serious crime, and this is a totally
10:04
Speaker 3: crazy person, So it is totally within the real possibility
10:07
Speaker 3: that she absolutely did per herself. In fact, based on
10:09
Speaker 3: what I can glean, I think she probably did, which
10:11
Speaker 3: is why the DOJ's vest gang. So I think the
10:14
Speaker 3: exoneration and or the more ethereal amorphous public clearing of
10:18
Speaker 3: Trump's name is definitely a secondary factor here, but I
10:20
Speaker 3: think the legitimacy of the legal investigation is probably the
10:23
Speaker 3: primary thing going on.
10:25
Speaker 1: What's interesting about Egene Carroll not that interesting is a
10:28
Speaker 1: good word. Here. It's a pejorative is that after she
10:30
Speaker 1: got the eighty three million dollars judgment, she went on
10:32
Speaker 1: television and said, let's go buy a penthouse. I mean,
10:34
Speaker 1: she doesn't seem to be somebody who's even serious about
10:37
Speaker 1: how serious the charge of her ape is. I hope
10:39
Speaker 1: that at the end of the day, the president is
10:40
Speaker 1: exonerated completely, and I hope that she doesn't get a dime.
10:43
Speaker 1: I don't think she deserves. It's Josh Hammer. Let's talk
10:45
Speaker 1: about nationwide injunctions. I thought the Supreme Court took care
10:48
Speaker 1: of this, and you cannot just by the swath of
10:51
Speaker 1: a pen in Seattle or in Boston say nationwide, this
10:56
Speaker 1: is the way it's going to be. The Supreme Court,
10:58
Speaker 1: I thought, said there's nothing in in case law that
11:00
Speaker 1: suggests you can do that. Why are there judges in
11:03
Speaker 1: the district level still trying to do that.
11:06
Speaker 3: It's a great question, and there are two ways to
11:08
Speaker 3: answer that question. The first most obvious answer is that
11:12
Speaker 3: the Court's opinion in the nation wine junction case last summer,
11:17
Speaker 3: the Kasa case, was a very very strong ruling, but
11:22
Speaker 3: it did leave a glaring loophole. Is it essentially said
11:25
Speaker 3: that there is no little to no evidence in the
11:28
Speaker 3: history and traditions of Article three when it comes to
11:30
Speaker 3: the remedies that courts can devise, when it comes to
11:33
Speaker 3: the courts of law and the courts of equity at
11:35
Speaker 3: common law, there is really no history whatsoever to support
11:38
Speaker 3: the notion that one lower court judge can grant a
11:41
Speaker 3: so called nation wine judges so good, so far the problem.
11:44
Speaker 3: And this is just classic, classic, classic lawyering Joe. The
11:47
Speaker 3: classic is that they said, ah, but there's a butt,
11:50
Speaker 3: and the butt was well, you know, there's always some
11:53
Speaker 3: circumstances that are so dire and so emergency and so pressing,
11:57
Speaker 3: and YadA, YadA, YadA, that maybe maybe there may just
12:00
Speaker 3: be a time when this actually is a proper remedy.
12:03
Speaker 3: And there are a lot of us at the time
12:05
Speaker 3: who saw that language and said, this is going to
12:07
Speaker 3: be a problem. Is this is going to be a
12:09
Speaker 3: big problem. Now, the court, in my estimation, could and
12:13
Speaker 3: should have gone further. It definitely was a strong ruling,
12:16
Speaker 3: but it did it did make this inevitable. Now there's
12:19
Speaker 3: a twin thing going on here as well, which is
12:22
Speaker 3: that even if you get rid of fully the so
12:25
Speaker 3: called nation wine junction, as an Article three remedy, which
12:28
Speaker 3: the Court largely but not entirely did in the cost
12:30
Speaker 3: of case last term. Even if you do that, there
12:33
Speaker 3: is another problem that is going on here as well,
12:36
Speaker 3: which is there is a backdoor option to essentially achieve
12:39
Speaker 3: the same results through an entirely different process. And I'm
12:41
Speaker 3: speaking here of the Rule twenty three class action procedure.
12:44
Speaker 3: So a class action and lawsuits, I think most viewers
12:47
Speaker 3: probably are familiar with it. It's where you team up
12:50
Speaker 3: with people who have been similarly wrong, think about products, liability,
12:53
Speaker 3: all sorts of torque lawsuits, things like that. That that,
12:56
Speaker 3: And the problem is that unless you take a properly
13:01
Speaker 3: restricted view as to what constitutes a class, then you
13:05
Speaker 3: can just talk on on on. Let's say you want
13:08
Speaker 3: to find the so called class as all illegal aliens
13:11
Speaker 3: here in the country, and then you want to rule
13:13
Speaker 3: that this so called class is entitled to some extra
13:17
Speaker 3: judicial layer of due process that Congress did not satritorially authorized. There,
13:21
Speaker 3: So you see where I'm going here, There's a centi
13:23
Speaker 3: another there's centially another way to achieve this same effective
13:27
Speaker 3: result of a nation of a nationwide injunction, not through
13:30
Speaker 3: action and an actual formal Article three injunctive relief. So
13:34
Speaker 3: that's happening sometimes here as well. And I think I
13:37
Speaker 3: think about my frankly in my law school days, Joe.
13:39
Speaker 3: This has been issued for a very long time. But
13:41
Speaker 3: back in the day, Anthony Scalia was a total hawk
13:44
Speaker 3: when it came to Article three standing when it came
13:46
Speaker 3: to Class twenty three class action legitimacy. There's a debate
13:50
Speaker 3: for years and years and years between Anthony Scalia and
13:53
Speaker 3: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Conservatives properly have traditionally taken a narrower
13:57
Speaker 3: view of the of the class action process, and unfortunately,
14:00
Speaker 3: I think the Conservatives thus far lack of success in
14:04
Speaker 3: properly defining what constitutes aka class action lawsuit is also
14:07
Speaker 3: clinging back to nip Us in the butt.
14:08
Speaker 1: At the moment, it is Josh Hammer. That's very interesting.
14:11
Speaker 1: Class action makes sense more than some stupid judge in
14:14
Speaker 1: the middle of nowhere deciding the whole nation has to
14:17
Speaker 1: do this. And when it comes to nationwide injunctions, when
14:19
Speaker 1: it comes to a nation wide ruling like that, shouldn't
14:22
Speaker 1: that be saved for the Supreme Court, the only court
14:24
Speaker 1: mentioned in the Constitution. I don't. I'll have any idea
14:27
Speaker 1: how these local yokels decided, Like, there's this one guy
14:30
Speaker 1: in Boston. I can't think of his name. I think
14:31
Speaker 1: it's an Irish name, and he decided he's just not
14:33
Speaker 1: gonna listen to what the Supreme Court said and continue
14:35
Speaker 1: to do nationwide injunctions or stop some some sort of
14:38
Speaker 1: an action that was going on. And when asked about it,
14:40
Speaker 1: I think his name is Murphy. When asked about it,
14:42
Speaker 1: the guy decided to say, well, I don't think that
14:45
Speaker 1: they were right. It doesn't matter if you think they
14:46
Speaker 1: were right. That's the Supreme Court, the supreme law of
14:50
Speaker 1: the land. So will there be more people like him?
14:52
Speaker 1: Or does the Supreme Court have to have to have
14:54
Speaker 1: to reel them in and say no, we're the be
14:56
Speaker 1: all end all, whether you like it or not. Got
14:58
Speaker 1: to tell you about Chapter ask Chapter dot org slash PAGs.
15:02
Speaker 1: I want you to remember that website because the fact
15:04
Speaker 1: is a lot of people are signed up for Medicare
15:07
Speaker 1: they might not be on the right plan. I was
15:09
Speaker 1: told by the great folks at Chapter there are twenty
15:11
Speaker 1: seven thousand different plans that you can go and sign
15:15
Speaker 1: up for, So that means there's a good change you're
15:17
Speaker 1: not signed up for the right one. That means there's
15:19
Speaker 1: a good change that you're paying more than you should.
15:22
Speaker 1: When you go to ask chapter dot org slash PAGs,
15:25
Speaker 1: doesn't cost you anything. They do it for free. They
15:27
Speaker 1: compare every single Medicare plan nationwide and they match it
15:31
Speaker 1: to your doctors, your prescriptions, and what actually matters to you.
15:34
Speaker 1: If you're already in the right plan, they're gonna tell
15:36
Speaker 1: you you're on the right plan. But if you're not,
15:38
Speaker 1: they're gonna help you out. Last year, people who switch
15:41
Speaker 1: saved an average of eleven hundred dollars. Think about that.
15:44
Speaker 1: Everyone's situation is different, but a free call that takes
15:48
Speaker 1: you less than twenty minutes is gonna tell you all
15:50
Speaker 1: the answers you need. It's a no brainer for everybody.
15:52
Speaker 1: Go right now to that website. Ask chapter dot org
15:56
Speaker 1: slash PAGs. Ask chapter dot org slash pag. Yes, it's
16:00
Speaker 1: free for you, and you might end up saving a
16:02
Speaker 1: lot of money.
16:04
Speaker 3: So the benefits of the way that federal appeals currently
16:08
Speaker 3: work is that it is fairly easy, especially in a
16:10
Speaker 3: higher profile case, to get your appeal on an emergency
16:14
Speaker 3: level before the Supreme Court's shadow docket otherwise known as
16:17
Speaker 3: the rocket docket. This comes up there on an emergency appeal.
16:20
Speaker 3: And the way this works is that you have various
16:23
Speaker 3: justices of the nine who are assigned to specific federal circuits,
16:26
Speaker 3: the first, second, third, fourth, fifth circuit, et cetera. And
16:29
Speaker 3: then they are tasked with initially reviewing, initially granting or
16:32
Speaker 3: denying an emergency order of appeal. The Court has done
16:36
Speaker 3: a good number of this over the past year and
16:38
Speaker 3: a half over the course of this left wing judicial insurrection.
16:41
Speaker 2: It probably should be doing a heck of a.
16:42
Speaker 3: Lot more of it, frankly, in my estimation, because these
16:45
Speaker 3: lower court judges just continue to be absolutely bonkers. You
16:48
Speaker 3: mentioned Judge Murphy in Massachusetts, a guy named Jude McConnell
16:52
Speaker 3: in Rhode Island as well, and just on and on
16:56
Speaker 3: and we go. I think Judge Boseberg people have forgotten about.
17:00
Speaker 3: He's still round. He's he's still wreaking all sorts of
17:02
Speaker 3: havoc when it comes to Article three as well.
17:05
Speaker 1: But and Paula's inn this, I mean, these people are
17:08
Speaker 1: all over the place. Why isn't the Congress firing them?
17:11
Speaker 1: They can can't they or just just remove their court
17:14
Speaker 1: or just clear their docket. They don't have to remain
17:16
Speaker 1: in power because again, the Supreme Court another one mentioned,
17:19
Speaker 1: Congress made every other court.
17:22
Speaker 3: Congress has essentially plenary authority when it comes to regulating
17:27
Speaker 3: our Article three. They can eliminate any court in the
17:31
Speaker 3: country other than the U. S. Supreme Court. Literally, the
17:34
Speaker 3: language and Article three of the Constitution says that there
17:37
Speaker 3: is a Supreme Court and any other inferior court as
17:40
Speaker 3: Congress made from time to time established, which is lawyers
17:42
Speaker 3: speak for, meaning that literally everything other than the highest
17:45
Speaker 3: court is discretionary and subject to Congress's complete discretion, and
17:50
Speaker 3: they can do whatever the heck they want. And it's asiomatic.
17:54
Speaker 3: It's self evident that that which is created by congressional
17:56
Speaker 3: statue can be destroyed by congressional statue. So if Congress
17:59
Speaker 3: wants to destroy a higher lower court, they can't. If
18:01
Speaker 3: they want to strip away an entire lower federal judge ship,
18:04
Speaker 3: they can. Here's what Congress can also do, and I've
18:06
Speaker 3: been calling for this for a decade or longer show,
18:08
Speaker 3: Congress can also define the scope of Article three remedies.
18:12
Speaker 3: If Congress wants to statutorily abolish so called nationwine junctions
18:16
Speaker 3: tomorrow if Congress wants to statutorily prescribe and define the
18:20
Speaker 3: confines of class twenty three class actions as I've discussed,
18:23
Speaker 3: it could do all of this tomorrow. There's absolutely nothing
18:26
Speaker 3: stopping scholars from doing.
18:28
Speaker 2: All of that. Oh absolutely.
18:29
Speaker 3: This is a straightforward exercise of their Article one, Section
18:32
Speaker 3: eight invocation of the necessary improper clause as applied to
18:36
Speaker 3: the digital power of Article three. This is well, well, well,
18:38
Speaker 3: then Congress's power there. There was a great Laarvy article
18:41
Speaker 3: on this from a guy who once upon time made
18:43
Speaker 3: a lot of times Michael Stokes pulse and unfortunately he's
18:45
Speaker 3: gone down the Trump derangements interim Rabbit Hall. What's one time?
18:48
Speaker 3: He was an excellence legal academic and a conservative. He
18:51
Speaker 3: had a great law of the article on this ten
18:52
Speaker 3: years ago about how Congress can take all these steps
18:54
Speaker 3: to ran the course there. They can define these remedies.
18:56
Speaker 3: Congress has a ton of tools, a ton of tools
19:00
Speaker 3: at their disposal, if they would simply get off their
19:02
Speaker 3: butts and actually start doing it. Of course, the problem,
19:05
Speaker 3: as you and I both know, is that in the
19:07
Speaker 3: Senate you're going to have Chuck Schumer and all of
19:10
Speaker 3: his colleagues who are just going to fill a buster
19:11
Speaker 3: with the crap out of basically anything that smacks of
19:13
Speaker 3: antel like this there, and then we kind of get
19:15
Speaker 3: back to the whole fillbuster debate all over again, unless
19:17
Speaker 3: you can find some sort of back doorway to get
19:19
Speaker 3: this into the reconciliation build, therefore getting it past the
19:24
Speaker 3: Senate parliamentarian. But anyway, that's a little procedural in the week.
19:28
Speaker 3: The fundamental points from a constitutional matter is that if
19:31
Speaker 3: Congress wants to do all this stuff, all of it,
19:33
Speaker 3: they could do it tomorrow.
19:34
Speaker 1: It is Josh Hammer. Go and get his book, Israel
19:36
Speaker 1: and Civilization. Also Article three, project dot org and check
19:39
Speaker 1: out the Josh Hammer Show anywhere that you can find it.
19:41
Speaker 1: Let's do a couple of minutes on a birthright citizenship.
19:45
Speaker 1: The whole idea of and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
19:48
Speaker 1: being added, was to make sure that you didn't have
19:51
Speaker 1: your allegiance to some foreign nation. Everybody who's coming here
19:53
Speaker 1: illegally has an allegiance to foreign nations. In fact, under Biden,
19:56
Speaker 1: they're carrying the Mexican flag and the Peruvian flag and
19:59
Speaker 1: the Iranian flag as they came across our border illegally,
20:02
Speaker 1: so subject to the jurisdiction thereof, seems to be very
20:04
Speaker 1: very clear to me. And we also know that the
20:06
Speaker 1: Fourteenth Amendment was all about making sure slaves had the
20:09
Speaker 1: right to vote, that they got full citizenship rights. How
20:12
Speaker 1: is this going to go? Because I don't know that
20:13
Speaker 1: John Roberts is strong enough with his backbone to stand
20:16
Speaker 1: up and say, yeah, we've been doing this wrong this
20:19
Speaker 1: entire time.
20:21
Speaker 3: So, first of all, on the relevant crux of the
20:24
Speaker 3: legal matter subject to the jurisdician thereof, which is the
20:26
Speaker 3: actual disputed language in the Fourteenth Amendment. Joe, Once upon
20:30
Speaker 3: a time I first thought that this was a close
20:32
Speaker 3: legal question. The more that I have dived in, the
20:35
Speaker 3: less close I think it is. Because what happened was
20:38
Speaker 3: in eighteen sixty eight when Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendments.
20:42
Speaker 3: It was very clear, and the drafters of the amendments
20:44
Speaker 3: said this, men like Lyman Trumble the center from Illinois,
20:48
Speaker 3: men like Jacob Howard the center of Michigan. The literal
20:50
Speaker 3: people who drave this language said that they were establishing
20:54
Speaker 3: no new law and no new principle. And what they
20:56
Speaker 3: meant by that was they were trying just to constitutional
20:59
Speaker 3: I a statue that Congress had passed two years prior,
21:02
Speaker 3: called these Civil Rights Acts of Indian sixty six, which
21:05
Speaker 3: was a bold reconstruction era in that first year after
21:08
Speaker 3: the end of the civil war.
21:09
Speaker 1: It was the what the Democrats voted against unanimously.
21:12
Speaker 2: Right y, that's exactly that's exactly right, exactly right right.
21:15
Speaker 3: And the Congress at the time was trying just to
21:19
Speaker 3: secure the civil rights of the recently freed blacks with
21:22
Speaker 3: a time were known as freedman. And there was a
21:24
Speaker 3: very similar clause decisionship clause in that statue, and the
21:28
Speaker 3: language of memory serves was either verbatim or very close erbatim.
21:32
Speaker 3: It said, and not subject to any foreign power excluding Indians,
21:38
Speaker 3: not taxed. So you take that language and you fast
21:41
Speaker 3: forward two years later, and these guys who drafted this
21:43
Speaker 3: other language not subject to the jurisdiction thereof said, oh wait,
21:47
Speaker 3: we're not changing anything. We're just trying to constitutionalize what
21:49
Speaker 3: we said about about not being subject to a foreign power. Right, Well,
21:52
Speaker 3: what is not being subject to a foreign power means? Well,
21:55
Speaker 3: the Court actually, for a good amount of time, for
21:57
Speaker 3: roughly thirty years, told us exactly what it meant, and
22:00
Speaker 3: it meant that you cannot have allegiance to a foreign power.
22:03
Speaker 3: You had to have complete and total political allegiance to
22:07
Speaker 3: the United States of America, because this is fundamentally a
22:09
Speaker 3: republic that has oriented and based around consent of the
22:13
Speaker 3: government's that's the philosophical reason for that. So now we
22:18
Speaker 3: have this this fallacy, which is which is this this
22:22
Speaker 3: understanding that people think they have that the Court decided
22:25
Speaker 3: this case long ago because of this case in eighteen
22:27
Speaker 3: ninety eight called Wan Kim Mark, where the Court first
22:29
Speaker 3: finally held that that there was a Chinese national who
22:34
Speaker 3: was a long term legal resident out in California who
22:37
Speaker 3: was entitled to birthright relationship. Two things are relevant here.
22:41
Speaker 3: One is that the author of that opinion, Justice Horace Gray,
22:44
Speaker 3: in eight ninety eight in Wang Kim Mark, actually did
22:47
Speaker 3: a complete flip flow from his opinion about ten years
22:49
Speaker 3: prior to that in a case called Elk versus Wilkins,
22:52
Speaker 3: where he had previously said that doesn't matter if you're
22:54
Speaker 3: long ternational, if you're unless you're a citizen, you're not
22:57
Speaker 3: guaranteed Congress can give you birth right or you're not
22:59
Speaker 3: guaranteed to get it because your full allegiance is not here,
23:02
Speaker 3: so the author opinion inexplicably flip flops.
23:04
Speaker 2: By the way, the sole.
23:05
Speaker 3: Dissenter and Wan Kimar the only justice who dissented, Justice
23:09
Speaker 3: John Marshall Harlan, who was the lead dissenter in Plus
23:13
Speaker 3: versus Ferguson. So a man who knows how to descent
23:16
Speaker 3: in a high profile case. That's the one thing. The
23:18
Speaker 3: other thing is that in the Wan Kim Mar case,
23:21
Speaker 3: you can literally control effort on the public case law.
23:24
Speaker 3: They go over and over and over again to explain
23:26
Speaker 3: that the only holding of the case was that if
23:28
Speaker 3: you are domiciled here. The keyword in that case is
23:32
Speaker 3: domicile because they were here in the long term for
23:35
Speaker 3: years and years and year as green card or green
23:36
Speaker 3: card equivalent late late nineteenth century. So that has nothing
23:40
Speaker 3: to do like, none of this has anything to do
23:43
Speaker 3: with being here illegally. The entire purpose of this exercise
23:46
Speaker 3: the Civil Rights Act of Avgast six and these in
23:49
Speaker 3: the amendment two years later. The entire purpose of this
23:52
Speaker 3: exercise has to do with securing the rights of the
23:54
Speaker 3: recently recently freed black men. So this whole civic misunderstanding
23:59
Speaker 3: that the court decided this case is just nuts. And
24:02
Speaker 3: really it's right up there with so called separation church
24:04
Speaker 3: and state is one of the great constitutional misunderstandings in
24:08
Speaker 3: American constitutional, civic and popular culture. So having said that,
24:12
Speaker 3: terms of making an actual prediction here as to how
24:14
Speaker 3: the Court's going to decide, I hate to be the
24:16
Speaker 3: bearer of bad news, but I do not see the
24:18
Speaker 3: trumpministration winning, partially because this myth that this is that
24:23
Speaker 3: the Wan kim Mark ruling is correct and that they
24:25
Speaker 3: ruled on illegal aliens, which they didn't. This myth has
24:28
Speaker 3: taken such route in legal culture that even folks like
24:32
Speaker 3: myself Joe, who came up through the ranks, went to
24:34
Speaker 3: good law schools, went to all the Federal society events.
24:37
Speaker 3: A lot of folks even in my broader circle, in
24:42
Speaker 3: my circles, have imbued this lie that the court decided
24:46
Speaker 3: of this and decided that illegal aliens.
24:48
Speaker 2: Are entitled to birthway relazenship.
24:49
Speaker 3: So it's going to take a really, really, really bold
24:52
Speaker 3: justice to basically flip two middle fingers at that. I
24:55
Speaker 3: think you're looking at potentially an outcome along the lines
24:57
Speaker 3: of seven to two with Clarence Thomas and Sam Malido
25:00
Speaker 3: taking the correct position and potentially than others. I really,
25:03
Speaker 3: really really hope I'm wrong, but I am not encouraging
25:07
Speaker 3: guys or my audience or anyone really to get.
25:09
Speaker 2: Their hopes up for a correct link or unfortunately.
25:11
Speaker 1: Very very interesting. There's a great bit of history there
25:13
Speaker 1: by the way. The art case is very different than
25:15
Speaker 1: somebody coming across the border in Laredo having a baby
25:18
Speaker 1: and then suddenly the baby is a citizen. Then you
25:20
Speaker 1: get to have a chain migration bringing the aunts and
25:22
Speaker 1: the uncles and the grandparents and everybody else, and you
25:24
Speaker 1: can't send them back. And domicild is a very very
25:27
Speaker 1: big part of that, and that's not even talked about
25:29
Speaker 1: it anymore. I just wish that when they put the
25:31
Speaker 1: fourteenth Amendment in they didn't change the wording subject to
25:33
Speaker 1: the jurisdiction thereof is too confusing. What they said originally
25:36
Speaker 1: would have made much better. Since you've heard the conversation,
25:39
Speaker 1: you know the details, you know what the intention was
25:42
Speaker 1: of those who wrote the fourteenth Amendment. Where are you
25:45
Speaker 1: on this birthright citizenship? Do you really think the fourteenth
25:48
Speaker 1: Amendment says if you're born here, you're a citizen, and
25:52
Speaker 1: it doesn't say that, it says subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
25:56
Speaker 1: What does that mean? Now? I for a long time,
25:58
Speaker 1: and I have admitted this a million times on my show.
26:01
Speaker 1: I admitted this a million times. I think I might
26:02
Speaker 1: have admitted it to Josh just now, But if I didn't,
26:05
Speaker 1: I literally thought that subject to the jurisdiction thereof was
26:09
Speaker 1: talking about the baby, because the baby would be subject
26:11
Speaker 1: to the jurisdiction thereof. It's not. It's the person who
26:15
Speaker 1: is coming across the border illegally. They have their allegiances
26:19
Speaker 1: to a different country. Then they have a baby. The
26:22
Speaker 1: parents are citizens of a different country, so the baby
26:26
Speaker 1: is subject to the jurisdiction of the parents, who are
26:29
Speaker 1: subject to the jurisdiction of filling the blank. So if
26:32
Speaker 1: you come here illegally, this was never the intention. And
26:34
Speaker 1: what I said to Josh, I really mean, why don't
26:37
Speaker 1: they word it better than that? Why don't they say
26:39
Speaker 1: if you've got an allegiance to or if both parents
26:41
Speaker 1: are citizens of a different country. I mean, whatever, you
26:44
Speaker 1: how are you how to word it subject to the
26:46
Speaker 1: jurisdiction thereof is confusing, and people have been confused about
26:51
Speaker 1: it for one hundred and fifty years. Now, it's got
26:53
Speaker 1: to be settled. Sadly, I think he's probably right. I
26:57
Speaker 1: don't think the Supreme Court has the backbone strong enough
27:00
Speaker 1: to say we're going to stop this, because letting somebody
27:03
Speaker 1: be a citizen just because your parents broke the law
27:05
Speaker 1: to come here, and then allowing the grandmother and the
27:08
Speaker 1: aunts and the uncles and the cousins and everybody else
27:10
Speaker 1: to come to now you've got because one baby was
27:12
Speaker 1: born here, you've got eleven more people that are coming
27:16
Speaker 1: and you just have to let them in. So hopefully
27:19
Speaker 1: we can at least tighten up the law. But I
27:21
Speaker 1: agree with Josh. I don't think it's gonna be seven
27:22
Speaker 1: to two. I think it might be six' three where they, say,
27:25
Speaker 1: no we're not going to change. That we've been doing
27:27
Speaker 1: it for a long. Time it's going to be a
27:29
Speaker 1: huge win for The. Democrats and, no, Listen i'm willing
27:31
Speaker 1: to be, wrong AND i hope THAT i am wrong about.
27:33
Speaker 1: That but where are you on. That you come across the,
27:36
Speaker 1: border you drop the kid across the border In laredo
27:39
Speaker 1: or whatever it happens to, be and then that child
27:42
Speaker 1: is A us, citizen can get benefits, immediately plus the
27:46
Speaker 1: hospital visit to have the baby that's going to be
27:48
Speaker 1: paid for by you and me the. Taxpayer then you've
27:51
Speaker 1: Got plier versus do which is The Supreme court ruling
27:54
Speaker 1: that says if the child lives in the, district citizen or,
27:57
Speaker 1: not regardless of the, citizenship they get a free. Education
28:02
Speaker 1: guess who they're getting that? From you and. Me why
28:05
Speaker 1: don't we just take a really strong look at turning
28:08
Speaker 1: off those. Magnets you come across the border and have the,
28:11
Speaker 1: baby and you're here. Illegally it's not a. Citizen now
28:14
Speaker 1: they don't get The. Medicaid, now they don't get the food. Stamps,
28:17
Speaker 1: now they don't get the. Wick, now they don't get
28:18
Speaker 1: the free luncheon. School now they don't get a free.
28:20
Speaker 1: Education and you might be thinking of, yourself, well that
28:22
Speaker 1: just sounds. Mean do you not love? People aren't You christian?
28:27
Speaker 1: Pegs don't you love the? PEOPLE i do love, people
28:30
Speaker 1: AND i love what you don't break the. Law remember
28:33
Speaker 1: When jesus showed up at the temple and he saw
28:35
Speaker 1: them gambling? There what do he? Do did he, Say,
28:37
Speaker 1: oh it's, okay you guys are doing something. Illegal but
28:40
Speaker 1: Because I'm jesus And I'm god in human, flesh, Form
28:45
Speaker 1: i'll just accept. It, no he overturned the, Tables he
28:49
Speaker 1: kicked them all. Out he screamed and yelled get. Out
28:52
Speaker 1: so the idea that if you're A christian you've got
28:54
Speaker 1: to just roll over and just love thy, neighbor it's
28:58
Speaker 1: not the way it. Works because how loving is that
29:01
Speaker 1: neighbor who's coming across the border, illegally knowingly breaking the.
29:04
Speaker 1: Law how loving are they to take our medical services
29:07
Speaker 1: and never pay a dime? Back how loving are they
29:09
Speaker 1: to get free, education free, food free, everything free. SHELTER i,
29:12
Speaker 1: mean When biden was in, office you had illegal aliens
29:15
Speaker 1: coming across the border and mass and they were not
29:18
Speaker 1: only coming across the, border they were coming across the
29:20
Speaker 1: border and getting a free hotel, room many times a
29:24
Speaker 1: high luxury five hundred dollars a night hotel room In
29:27
Speaker 1: New York. CITY i, mean have you ever even stayed
29:29
Speaker 1: at one of? Those so What i'm saying is we've
29:32
Speaker 1: got to start realizing that either you have borders and
29:36
Speaker 1: you have laws that can be enforced about the, border
29:39
Speaker 1: or you don't have a. Country And i'm not just
29:41
Speaker 1: here Quoting Donald, Trump it's. True how can you call
29:44
Speaker 1: yourself a? Country if you allow anybody and everybody to come,
29:48
Speaker 1: in and once you decide to clamp down and focus
29:52
Speaker 1: on enforcing the, laws why aren't you kicking them all?
29:55
Speaker 1: OUT i want to see ten million deportations and then
29:58
Speaker 1: every single one of the good people who want to
30:01
Speaker 1: come here do it. Legally what's wrong with? That and
30:06
Speaker 1: why is it that, we for some reason are the
30:08
Speaker 1: only country on earth that has some, necessity has some,
30:13
Speaker 1: requirement has some duty to accept anybody and everybody who
30:17
Speaker 1: comes across the border. ILLEGALLY i really want your. Comments
30:20
Speaker 1: i'm going to go through and read a lot of.
30:21
Speaker 1: Them give me your. Comments make sure you, Like make
30:23
Speaker 1: sure you. SUBSCRIBE i drop probably five to seven videos
30:27
Speaker 1: every week here on, YouTube AND i do it because
30:29
Speaker 1: a lot of you like What i'm laying Down, again
30:32
Speaker 1: do me a, favor like, subscribe comment and hit that
30:35
Speaker 1: bell and turn it. On this is it for this One,
30:38
Speaker 1: unshaken Another afraid With Joe, pegs another one who drop very.
30:41
Speaker 1: Soon make sure that you're, subscribed make sure you're, following
30:44
Speaker 1: and we'll see you. Soon