Speaker 1: What's going on.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It
is heard live every day from noon to three on
WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content
like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily
show prep with all the links, become a patron, go
to thepeteclendershow dot com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button.
Get every episode for free right to your smartphone or tablet.
And again, thank you so much for your support.
Speaker 1: All right, so we.
Speaker 2: Had the nationwide injunctions SmackDown ruling that came down from
the US Supreme Court. We also had actually let me read,
there's one other piece on that ruling, and if you
want you want more on that, go back and listen
to the first hour podcast. There's a lawyer. He's actually
represented a lot of j sixers. He goes I forget
his real name, but on Twitter he goes by the
name Shipwrecked Crew. I think his name his last name,
maybe ship or something. But anyway, he says the fact
that six justices were okay signing on to an opinion
where Justice amy Cony Barrett took a personal shot at
Justice Kotanji Brown. Jackson is a very strong indication that
Jackson has alienated her colleagues and there is a growing
lack of respect for her work. Justices circulate memos among
among each other with their legal views on certain cases
in order to try to bring others around to their
way of thinking. Right, they write this stuff up, they
send it over. Here's my legal rationale, here's my arguing,
and they go around and they talk about this stuff. Right,
given what she has written in her dissent, imagine the
memos that Jackson must have sent around in.
Speaker 1: This case.
Speaker 2: To to elicit this kind of a SmackDown from Amy
Cony Barrett. Barrett boils it down to a single point
that Jackson would elevate the primacy of a single district
judge above the executive because they are the court.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 2: That's her rationale, and that is appalling to all six
of the Republican appointed judges. And the fact that you
would write this in the opinion indicates that the memos
that were going around must have been fire. Oh my goodness,
what else.
Speaker 1: We have another ruling that came down. Let me see here.
Speaker 2: This is from Daily Caller News Foundation. Their little blurb
about the case that they wrote up for this morning
before the ruling was handed down. This is a case
called Mahmoud versus Taylor. Okay, this is a school district
in Maryland. I think it's Montgomery County where Muslim and
Christian parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Educations refusal
to grant a religious exemption to mandated elementary school storybook
readings that involved Pride parades, gender transitions, and drag queens.
So happy end of Pride month everyone, that's good job.
See this is what I mean. The left can never
go too far in their minds. There is no end zone.
This is why when I have debates about all sorts
of topics, I try to ask, like, what is the
optimal dollar figure, for example, on per pupil expenditures? Right,
give me the number. Where's the end zone? Where's the destination?
Because if you don't know the destination, how do we
know if we got there, let alone if we're going
in the right direction. Because you can't just say fullward
all the time like all good commies do, because forward
could mean right off of a cliff. I don't want
to go forward if I'm going to be plunging down
a ravine. So please tell me where we are going,
what is the destination, so I will know the direction
we are headed. That there's no limiting principle here. And
so the left went too far, as they do on everything,
they went too far. You started with gay marriage. They
just want to be married. They want to, you know,
have the same sort of contractual rights. They want to
be able to go into the hospitals to be with
their dying spouse, like all of that stuff. And those
arguments worked to convince a lot of people who are
not personally impacted by gay marriage. They didn't care, and
they were like, Okay, yeah, I agree with that. And
you had this sea change and then you you went
too far. Then you went to yeah, actually I do
want to dress up like a woman and read to
your four year old. And if you say no to that,
then you're a bigot. And then you start looking at
the books that you're putting on the shelves in the library,
and you've got cartoons of people having gay sex. You
would not show cartoons of people having heterosexual sex, no,
but you have gay sex because you're trying to make
it okay. You're trying to indoctrinate, you're trying to normalize, right,
you went too far. And when parents stood up and said, well, whoa, whoa,
this is not appropriate material. No matter if it's you know,
homosexual or heterosexual, doesn't matter, it's this is not age appropriate.
And you said, shut up, bigot, and then you had
the doj sicked on you for going down to a
school board meeting and talking about it. You went too far.
And so parents up in Montgomery County they were like,
we would like to be able to not have our.
Speaker 1: Kids exposed to this stuff at their age.
Speaker 2: And originally the Montgomery school board said okay, fine, and
then they dismantled that, but they never told the parents,
if I recall correctly the details of the case, they
never told the parents that they had changed it. So
parents who had thought that they were defaulted to an
opt out and if you want your kids to be
exposed to the porn, you can opt them in. But
what the school district discovered was that there weren't a
lot of kids opting in, which in a market system,
that's a market signal telling you they don't want it,
they don't want to go into these drag queens story hours.
They don't want it, and so of course we have to,
you know, re educate the bigots. So therefore they scrap
the opt in and they turn it into an opt
out and they don't tell people, and so then all
of a sudden, junior comes home and they're like, I
want to be a girl, and like, where'd you hear that?
Oh well, we had a drag queen come in and
tell me that I should be or something. And now
it's like wha wait a minute. So they go down
and they're like, this is objectionable. We want to return
to the old way, and they were in the Board
of Education was like no. The Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals back in twenty twenty four ruled against the parents,
finding that their free exercise of religion rights were not
burdened because nobody compelled them to change their religious beliefs
or conduct. That was what the Fourth Circus Court of
Appeals determined.
Speaker 1: Well, nobody's making you convert.
Speaker 2: Yeah no, but you are putting all these ideas into
my impressionable, young five year old child's young skull of mush. Right,
you are putting it in their heads. They're not equipped
to learn this stuff, so they're just going to take
what you say as true. Well, then you're just gonna
have to parent harder. I guess right. And during oral
arguments a majority of the justices seemed inclined to side
with the parents. So here's how Axios reports it. Parents
can opt their children out of school lessons with LGBTQ
plus characters or themes. The big picture, the ruling is
a win for conservatives, as schools have become a major
partisan battleground. Yeah, why Axios? Why have schools become a
major partisan battleground? How did that happen? It wasn't conservatives
taking over school boards over the last twenty years and
injecting this crap into the curriculum. It was the left,
exactly cause the left always goes too far. It can
never go far enough for themselves for the lefties. The
school had initially offered parents a way to opt their
kids out of those lessons, but then they dropped it
after it became too unwieldy to administer. They said, they
said that that was what the school district said. Oh,
it's just too much of an administrative burden to keep
track of all of this stuff. But parents must be
able to have their kids skip lessons to which the
parents have a religious objection. The court ruled again six
to three. That opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito.
You know stories are powerful. They help us make sense
of things, to understand experiences. Stories connect us to the
people of our past while transcending generations. They help us
process the meaning of life, and our stories are told
through images and videos. Preserve your stories with Creative Video
started in nineteen ninety seven and mint Hill, North Carolina.
It was the first company to provide this valuable service,
converting images, photos and videos into high quality produced slide shows,
videos and albums. The trusted, talented and dedicated team at
Creative Video will go over all of the details with
you to create a perfect project. Satisfaction guaranteed. Drop them
off in person or mail them. They'll be ready in
a week or two. Memorial videos for your loved ones,
videos for rehearsal, dinners, weddings, graduations, Christmas, family vacations, birthdays,
or just your family stories all told through images. That's
what your photos and videos are. They are your life
told through the eyes of everyone around you and all
who came before you, and they will tell others to
come who you are. Visit Creative Video dot Com. All right,
let's jump over to the phones and chat with Bain. Hey, Bain,
how's it going, man.
Speaker 3: Hey, keete, it's going good. About thirty years ago I
read a book by Frankie Schaefer called it The Time
for Anger, and within the book to do a social
commentary book, and it was written that freedom without form
results in chaos, and out of chaos always emerges a
tyrant or five out an ninety four ruling in favor.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, no, that's a great, that's a great.
Speaker 3: And so there's no form with what Katanji Brown was saying.
That's what Amy Coney was saying, what's the basis? What's
your stipulations mean? Well, what are you connecting this to nothing?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Well, and that's the I've been saying this on a
whole host of different issues for a long time, which
is that chaos.
Speaker 1: Is the point, that's the purpose.
Speaker 2: It's to create the chaos, and from that chaos, as
you just mentioned, there arises a tyrant because somebody comes
and oftentimes the people who create the chaos are the
ones that then assert themselves as the solution to the
very chaos they have created. You see it in our
language as well. We covered this yesterday when Democrats in
the Raleigh General Assembly they were arguing over this, you know,
sexual exploitation of children and women. Yet they objected to
the definitions of what a woman is in the legislation, right,
which is just chaos. Like you, how do you even
legislate if you cannot agree upon mutually acceptable definitions.
Speaker 3: And sometimes leaders in positions, certain positions, even I've seen
it in business too, they create problems so that they
can solve problems.
Speaker 2: Yep, I've heard. So have you ever heard of the
seagull manager? No, no, no, no, so like like the
like the bird, the seagull, whereas they they they swoop in,
they make a lot of noise. Uh, they crap on everything,
and then they leave. So like yes, and so like
I've had managers that are like that. I've had bosses
that are like that. And now sometimes I think Trump
is actually a pretty good example of one of these
types of characters, these chaos agents. They come up, they
come in, they disrupt. I think Elon Musk also would
do something along these lines. Right, You you shake things up,
you create the chaos, and then you're able to then
get people to move and do things that you may
not otherwise have been able to make them do.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the only difference with them was is there was
a principle behind what they were doing. We've got to
shake this up because we want to save money, for example, right,
or we want to keep a rand from obliterating Israel.
There was a principle behind it. But I'm still amazed.
And just one last thing is I heard this also
from Neil Postman that a lot of people, if there's
a problem on a way that you're going down the road,
you should put up a road closed, you know, because
we can all make mistakes in the direction that we're heading.
But some folks say, no, no, no, keep the road open,
because at the bottom of the cliff, we've got a
nice hospital, we've got helicopters, we have some of the
best care people that there are, and so we want
to use our gizmos and management to take care of
the problem that we created when we simply could have
just put up a road clothes sign.
Speaker 2: Yeah, find another way to get there if getting there
requires going off a cliff, right, Yeah, No, I got
your ban.
Speaker 1: I appreciate the call. That's good stuff. Thanks, thank you all.
Speaker 2: Right, buddy, you have a great weekend. This is from
Fox News. This is Shannon Breem. She used to work
down the hall here at WBTV back in the day
when I was a reporter with her, and she has
been in Fox News for a long time.
Speaker 1: She is also a lawyer. People don't realize that.
Speaker 2: I think she's a Fox News host, but she's also
super smart, one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, too.
But she is covering their Supreme Court decisions. And here
is her report on the Supreme Court backing the parents
in this Montgomery County, Maryland parental rights case.
Speaker 1: We were Dana.
Speaker 4: So this brought together a coalition of parents of different
religious faiths and backgrounds who said there used to be
a rule in this particular school district that would let
them know when there were books that dealt with issues
that may be in conflict with their religious faith. Well,
so many parents were of out that the school board
and the school district quit doing it. Well six to
three today, in a Justice A decision by Justice Alito,
they said these parents have been earned at least a
preliminary injunction. So while this case plays out, they said
the board has to notify them about a book that's
in question or anything similar, so that their kids can
be excused if it's in conflict with their faith. He says,
as we've explained, Without that, parents are left this choice
either risk their child's exposure to burden some instruction, or
pay substantial sums for alternative educational services. Because at one
point Justice Jackson, during the arguments is said, had said,
why don't they just go to a different schoo Why
don't you put them in private school or homeschool them,
Justice Alitos and others saying that's not practical for a
lot of.
Speaker 1: People unless you have vouchers.
Speaker 2: This was the most hilarious part in this oral argument
was that you had the liberals saying, well, just go
to a different school. So like making a school choice
argument inadvertently, because the issue is never the issue, right,
The issue is always the revelation. So that's why they
get these inconsistent arguments that they have to reach into
the bag, pull out this silly argument, make it right
now because it helps advance the revolution.
Speaker 1: Right now.
Speaker 2: But you've been talking for all these years before about
no school choice and shutting all of that down and
taxpayer funds for private institutions and blah blah blah. But
now you need the argument the other direction, So I
will use it in any other direction, because right now
is all that matters. This particular argument is all that
matters for me right now.
Speaker 4: The descent by Justice Sotomayer, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson,
says today's ruling threatens the essence of public education. She says,
it's not about bringing kids together to learn about a
particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that
reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always
been a vital part of that project. Until now. She
didn't think the dissenters didn't think that the parents should
get the opt out, Justice Alito, when the majority say
they should.
Speaker 2: So they should be exposed to genitals, don't you know
lots of different ideas? You know, your six year old
needs to see this stuff. Otherwise they may not know.
And that's not what a good education is all about.
Here's a great idea. How about making an escape to
a really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina.
Just a quick drive up the mountain and cabins of
Asheville is your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon,
maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get
family and friends together for a big old reunion. Cabins
of Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you
can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that
truly matter. Nestled within the breath taking fourteen thousand acres
of the Pisga National Forest, their cabins offer a serene
escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally
located between Ashville and the entrance of the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park. It's the perfect balance of seclusion and
proximity to all the local attractions with hot tubs, fireplaces,
air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi Fi, grills, outdoor tables and
your own private covered porch. Choose from thirteen cabins, six cottages,
two villas, and a great lodge with eleven king sized bedrooms.
Cabins of Ashville has the ideal spot for you for
any occasion, and they have pet friendly accommodations. Call or
text eight two eight, three six seven seventy sixty eight
or check out all there is to offer at Cabins
of Aashville dot com and make memories that'll last a lifetime.
Speaker 1: All right? What else?
Speaker 2: We had another US Supreme Court ruling that came down
in a case over a Texas law that was challenged
by an adult entertainment industry trade group that calls itself
the Free Speech Coalition. Imagine, uh yeah, imagine some uh,
you know, First Amendment activists just.
Speaker 1: Oh, look at that.
Speaker 2: There's a local meeting of the Free Speech Coalition. I'm
going to show up to that meeting, and oh, my gosh,
who are these people. It's a bunch of porn industry people,
the Free Speech coal Listen anyway, In January, the Supreme
Court heard a challenge to this Texas law that required
porn sites to verify users' ages. And you may think
to yourself, well, what's the problem with that?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: You want to make sure that whoever's logging onto your
porn site is of age? Right, because you wouldn't be
able to go to the store and buy one of
the NUDI mags unless you were Is it eighteen years
old or twenty one years old? I get maybe it
dependent on the state.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Do they even sell those things in convenience stores anymore?
I will you could never tell because they had the
black thing on the front of it, right, they had
like the front cover was always blacked out. It was
because it was in like a comic book wrapper, you know,
like a plastic wrapper, and the whole front of it
was black, so you could never tell.
Speaker 1: You couldn't see what was on the cover.
Speaker 2: So I don't even know if those things do they
do they even make magazines anymore?
Speaker 1: I don't even know.
Speaker 2: But I know that you had to be a certain
age to buy that stuff, right, So it kind of
makes sense that you would have to have some age
verification on the websites, right. Of course, problem nobody wants
to give their driver's.
Speaker 5: License to the website in order to prove it's them, right,
They don't want to create a user profile. They don't
want to, let alone give over personal information, because far
be it from me to suggest that a porn website
might not be the most secure website with your data.
Speaker 2: But yeah, so, by the way, North Carolina has this
law too. So Text has passed this law, and the
Free Speech Coalition they sued.
Speaker 1: Now, I'll hang on a second.
Speaker 2: My live my live update here, just scrolled down to
do so. I was reading from two different pieces. Anyway,
that's fine, I'll go back to the here it is
eleven twenty five.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but they keep they keep shifting it away.
Speaker 2: Here it is okay, because it's a live update feed
from the Associated Press, so it keeps bumping stuff out
of my screen.
Speaker 1: So I'll read.
Speaker 2: Let me finish this first, then, So they say, the
group said that the law puts an unfair free speech
burden on adults by requiring them to submit personal information
that could be vulnerable to hacking or tracking.
Speaker 1: Well, that's on you guys.
Speaker 2: Wait a minute, you're suing because you're like, you cannot
trust our websites to protect your information. Okay, that is
an undue burden on the free speechers that are just
coming to look at porn, right, Like, we have terrible security,
don't you know where porn sites we got terrible security.
So like, that's a burden on the users.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 2: Surprisingly, the Supreme Court did not buy this argument. Nearly
half of all states have now passed similar age verification laws,
as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access
online porn, including hardcore obscene material. This was the case
called Free Speech Coalition versus Paxton as I said, it
came out of Texas and the Free Speech Coalition represented
online porn distributors who argue the law burdens adults First
Amendment rights. By the way, did you know that if
you try to go down to speak at the city
council meetings, if you sign up to speak, did you
know that you have to give your name and address?
Is that a burden on free speech that you have
to give your name an address because they want to
make sure that you are actually a Charlotte City resident, right,
because they don't need people from other cities, other counties,
other countries. You know, they are okay with people from
other countries coming in as long as you are like resident,
as long as you have like a local address. But otherwise,
if you live outside of the city limits, they don't
want to hear what you have to say because you're
not local.
Speaker 1: You're not one of their constituents, you know. So there
was that.
Speaker 2: Let's see here, what else? There was another case because
they had six rulings. Oh, I have not seen how
they've determined this one yet, but there was a there's
another case. This was a congressional redistricting case out of Louisiana, Louisiana. Sorry,
I kid, I kid, Louisiana. I've never even been there.
Following a winding journey through the lower courts, the Supreme
Court is slated to resolve a conflict over Louisiana's congressional map.
I don't know the details of this case either, but
I'm going to assume, based on what I'm about to
read to you, that this was a bunch of Mark
Elias type lawyers of the left suing over congressional drawn
districts in order to try to get more Democrats into
the US House. So here's the rite of from the
Daily Caller News Foundation. After a federal district judge rejected
Louisiana's congressional map including only one black majority district, Okay.
So I don't know how many districts they've got down
there in Louisiana, but the legislature drew the maps and
they made one majority black district, Okay, So fifty I
don't know, five percent of the voters in the district
are black, Okay, And so that would theoretically ensure that
a Democrat wins the seat, a black Democrat wins the seat, right, Okay.
Speaker 1: So They said.
Speaker 2: Though in the in their lawsuit that that's a violation
of the Voting Rights Act. They sued in twenty twenty two,
the state legislature redrew the map and they created another
black majority district in twenty four Okay, so you think
then problem.
Speaker 1: Solved, right, Haha.
Speaker 3: Wrong.
Speaker 2: A three judge panel then ruled that the new map
unlawfully made race the predominant factor in its creation. So
you got sued because you only had one black majority district.
So you draw another set of maps, and this one
has two black majority districts, and you get sued again
by the same people who say, now you used race
as a factor. But if you didn't use race as
a factor, as North Carolina did not, they used party identification,
They too got sued by the left, saying that the
impact was the same and that you didn't use race enough.
This is what years ago sam Alito pointed out in
one of these rulings in the North Carolina Redistrict in case.
He was like, you guys keep changing the rules, Supreme Court,
these lower courts, you guys keep changing the rules when
it comes to drawing maps, and no legislature in North
Carolina can conceivably comply with you, because when you tell
them to use race and then they do, you say
you shouldn't have used race, and then they don't. You're like, oh,
you should have used it a little bit more than
you didn't, and then oh, maybe you should have used
it not so much or whatever. You're all over the place.
This is why I mock the left for their their
you know, we want fair maps argument. You don't want
fair maps to a democrat. Fair maps are maps where
they win. That's what a fair map is for the left.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 2: If you're listening to this show, you know I try
to keep up with all sorts of current events, and
I know you do too, And you've probably heard me
say get your news from multiple sources. Why well, because
it's how you detect media bias. Which is why I've
been so impressed with ground News. It's an app and
it's a website, and it combines news from around the
world in one place so you can compare coverage and
verify information. You could check it out at check dot ground,
dot newsos slash pete. I put the link in the
podcast description too. I started using ground News a few
months ago, and more recently chose to work with them
as an affiliate because it lets me see clearly how
stories get covered and by whom.
Speaker 1: The blind spot.
Speaker 2: Feature shows you which stories get ignored by the left
and the right.
Speaker 1: See for yourself.
Speaker 2: Check dot Ground, dot News slash Pete. Subscribe through that
link and you'll get fifteen percent off any subscription. I
use the Vantage plan to get unlimited access to every feature.
Your subscription then not only helps my podcast, but it
also supports Ground News as they make the media landscape
more transparent.
Speaker 1: Here's a question.
Speaker 2: When Joe Biden nominated KBJ to the Supreme Court, Katanji
Brown Jackson, who doesn't know what a woman is because
she's not a biologist, was that actually his nominee?
Speaker 1: Was that his decision?
Speaker 2: Now I think the case can actually be made pretty
effectively that he did know that, because remember he said
that he promised that he would appoint a black woman
to the US Supreme Court, And the left went swoony
swoony nuts. Right, they just love that so much, and
this is why she will forever be sort of tagged
as a dei higher, which I having known nothing about
her before she was nominated, I thought, that's so unfair
for her because she could be very highly qualified, brilliant jurist,
you know, And now she's got this label because Joe
Biden went out and said, I'm only looking for a
black woman judge. And now you read her rulings and
her opinions and it's like, oh my gosh, she is
really bad. Like now that tag that's going to calcify.
There's no way around it. So I think Joe did
know that she was. Now I don't believe he knew
anything about her, probably, but I don't know. And the
reason I don't know this is because I don't know
what Joe knew for most of his presidency, if not
the entire presidency, maybe even into his vice presidency. But
there are members of the House who are trying to
figure out who knew what and when, and so they
have been inviting all love it devy at first. Of course,
they've been inviting members of Joe Biden's staff to come
and sit for some questioning with their Congressional committee, and
if they don't, they will subpoena your butt. A top
aide to former First Lady Doctor Joe Biden suddenly refused
to testify this week for a congressional investigation into the
cover up of former President Joe Biden's mental decline during
his tenure in the White House. Anthony Bernal, who I
believe worked for dunder Mifflin Paper Company before arriving at
the White House, but he he was long known for
being doctor Jill Biden's quote unquote work husband. There are
so many, so many things I can say, but I
will not say them. I'm better than that most times.
So Bernal is now declining to appear for the closed
door interview before the House Overside Committee after previously agreeing
to go and talk to the committee. So now the
committee has issued him a subpoena, like you don't want
to come voluntarily, we will now drag your butt here.
Comer attributed Bernal's flip to the Trump White House decision
to waive executive privilege for the Oversight Committee's investigation into
the actions that Joe Biden's inner circle took to hide
the extent to which his mental faculties declined throughout his presidency. So, okay,
I was not aware that a current administration can waive
executive privilege for previous administrations?
Speaker 1: Did you know that? I thought it was like you're.
Speaker 2: In my administration and then we're done and somebody subpoena
as you and you're like, I'm not going to talk
about what Pete and I talked about, because that would
be privilege. That's executive privilege, like you know, like attorney
client privilege kind of thing. I did not think that
a new white ass could come in and say, yeah,
we're gonna wave all that privilege. You got to talk now,
because honestly, like, why haven't we been doing this for
much longer? The White House has been going back and
forth Republican to Democrat and all that, Like why not
waive all of the privilege? I guess maybe because like
you don't want the next guy to wave it on you.
So if a Democrat gets into office next, they could
wave privilege and now you're going to drag every Trump
advisor before congressional committees to testify and they won't have privilege.
And honestly, like, part of me is okay with this,
part of me is like, yeah, I don't. I mean, well,
I'm thinking it through right now. I can see where
some conversations would definitely need to be privileged, you know,
But when it comes to things like is the president
feeble minded and out to lunch, you know, like twenty
hours out of the day. I think, I don't know.
I think that might be a different kind of scenario.
So Comer is investigating the Biden White House's use of
the presidential auto pen. The autopen is typically used in
ceremonial letters and non official documents, but the Biden administration
appears to have used it for executive orders and other
official actions. According to National Review piece by James Lynch,
Biden and himself dismissed concerns about suspected autopen usage in
a statement earlier this month when he said, ah, which
translates to I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders,
legislation and proclamations, and a suggestion that I didn't is
ridiculous and false. But of course we don't know who
wrote that statement on behalf of Joe Biden. Bernal was
said to be the second former senior Biden administration aid
to testify for Comer's investigation. The first one was Nira Tanden.
She's a long time Democrat operative and currently the president
and CEO of the Center for American Progress, a Democrat
think tank which I know sounds oxymoronic. Ms Tanden testified
that she had minimal interaction with President Biden, despite wielding
tremendous authority. She explained that to obtain approval for autopen signatures,
she would send decision memos to members of the presidents
in her circle and had no visibility of what occurred
between sending the memo and receiving it back with approval. Now,
her people, her lawyer, and then there's some Democrat on
the committee that has spoken anonymously to Fox News. They
say that characterization that she was in the dark when
it came to who was giving the final approval. She's like,
that's a lie, that's a lie. Former White House staffer
received written sign off from Biden on every executive action
she presented him with, right, but to whom did she
present it? Any characterization is a distortion of the testimony.
The unnamed official said to intimate that near A Tanden
said President Biden did not approve every single presidential decision
and sign off on every executive action coming out of
the White House as a lie. Well, that's not what actually,
that's not what they said. They said that she never
had direct interaction that's what they were saying. So your
argument is that Biden did sign off on this stuff,
but we don't know that because we can't talk to
Biden about all of these things that he signed off on. Right,
they haven't called him yet, although they.
Speaker 1: Have subpoened doctor Jill.
Speaker 2: Who else, doctor who's actually a doctor, Kevin O'Connor, the
personal physician, along with Ashley Williams, Annie Thomasini. These are
the people that comprised what you'll recall Jake Tapper and
Alex Thompson in their book Original Sin.
Speaker 1: They called this the pollt Buro.
Speaker 2: These were the people around Joe Biden that protected him,
kept everybody else away And yeah, okay, yeah, probably we're
running the country. And what Comer has said is that
y'all need to come and testify to this stuff because
we are. We're exploring, we're investigating whether or not the
Congress needs to do something thing regarding the twenty fifth Amendment. Right,
do we need to do something to build some some scaffolding,
you know, policy wise around exercising the twenty fifth Amendment,
Because if you have a cabinet that is staffed with
people that refuse to do their constitutional duty under the
twenty fifth Amendment and remove the president because he has
become mentally infirmed or physically infirmed. But if they refuse
to do it, there isn't any other apparatus by which
to remove him. So Congress is now exploring this. You
guys need to come in and talk about this. So
there's your update on President auto pen. All right, that'll
do it for this episode.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 2: I could not do the show without your support and
the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast,
so if you'd like, please support them too and tell
them you heard it here. You can also become a
patron at my Patreon page or go to thepetekallanershow dot com. Again,
thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything
while I'm gone.