Speaker 1: And here we go balk to another week.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Big Podcast.
Speaker 1: How are you?
Speaker 2: I'm Tom Sullivan and it is one day today is yeah,
Speaker 2: today is the sixth day of October, year of Our Lord,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan. So we
Speaker 2: have we have a lot to get to today. I mean,
Speaker 2: we got I want to talk to you about. Start
Speaker 2: off with something very simple, very straightforward. Soybean sales to
Speaker 2: China zero because of the tariffs. Got a soybean farmer
Speaker 2: who's getting killed by these tariffs. So we'll get into
Speaker 2: all of that. We've got the national guard issue really
Speaker 2: flaring up over the weekend. President wanted to send National
Speaker 2: Guard to Portland, and the judge in Oregon said you
Speaker 2: can't do that. By the way, it was a Trump
Speaker 2: appointed judge, and so Trump said, okay, let's round up
Speaker 2: four hundred California National Guard and send them to Portland. No, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: it doesn't work that way. You can't send any National
Speaker 2: Guard to Portland till we have hearing on all this.
Speaker 2: So he's been stopped there. Chicago, same pushback there, although
Speaker 2: it's really bad because the Chicago Police Department, in my
Speaker 2: humble opinion has been caught lying through their teeth, and
Speaker 2: I'm not the only one saying it. They literally got
Speaker 2: called to go help the ice officers who were surrounded
Speaker 2: by a crowd that was coming after them, I mean
Speaker 2: slamming their cars into the ice officers, and the Chicago
Speaker 2: Pedes said, don't go help them. They're denying it. Now,
Speaker 2: I'll get through the whole thing. The guy who got
Speaker 2: sentenced for trying to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh got eight years.
Speaker 2: He'll serve six. He's a young guy. He'll be out
Speaker 2: in a few more years. They said that the reason
Speaker 2: why he went nuts was because he's transitioning. Yeah, what
Speaker 2: else have we got here? Anyway, there's a lot to
Speaker 2: go over today. Let's start. Let's start with something very simple,
Speaker 2: very straightforward. You know, I don't like tariffs. This is
Speaker 2: a perfect example of it. The tariffs are killing the
Speaker 2: soybean industry in our country. Taylor club Ragland is the
Speaker 2: president of the American Soybean Association, and I know this
Speaker 2: is audio. You can't see him. He's a good old
Speaker 2: boy farmer. I mean he's in a farm hat of
Speaker 2: farm clothes. He's a working soybean farmer and he is
Speaker 2: laying out very politely the fact that the soybean industry
Speaker 2: in this country, farmers are getting killed.
Speaker 3: It's a perfect storm of high cost and low commodity prices,
Speaker 3: and we already in a difficult farm economy, and then
Speaker 3: the trade war started and that's taken things from bad
Speaker 3: to worse. And now our biggest export customer, China, has
Speaker 3: not purchased any soybeans from this year's crop, and that
Speaker 3: equates to about twenty five percent of the whole American
Speaker 3: soybean crop this year, and we desperately need that market,
Speaker 3: and unfortunately we're in a standoff right now. Do you
Speaker 3: see a soybean field. Every fourth row of soybeans would
Speaker 3: go to China in recent years, and a few years ago,
Speaker 3: before the first trade war, one out of three rows
Speaker 3: went to China. So they are a huge customer. They
Speaker 3: purchased more soybeans than all other export customers combined in
Speaker 3: recent years. So they're vital tar survival and success as
Speaker 3: soybean farmers, and we desperately need that market. China consume
Speaker 3: sixty one percent of all soybeans consumed worldwide.
Speaker 2: So China is buying their soybeans, but they're getting them
Speaker 2: from Argentina, they're getting them from Brazil. They went to
Speaker 2: South America and they're buying all the soybeans that they
Speaker 2: need there, leaving our farmers high and dry.
Speaker 3: Well, right now, we're looking at situation with sales being
Speaker 3: low and sale price being low, and we are price
Speaker 3: takers as soybean farmers growing a commodity and for fortunately,
Speaker 3: we have costs that we cannot control. And on the
Speaker 3: flip side, we are price takers and receive what the
Speaker 3: market offers, and prices are far below cost of production currently.
Speaker 3: And it's a very bad situation and the result is
Speaker 3: going to be we're going to have many farms that
Speaker 3: go out of business and are no longer able to
Speaker 3: continue raising soybeans and other crops.
Speaker 2: So the Trump administration is talking about they haven't done it.
Speaker 2: They're talking about maybe ten billion dollar bailout for the
Speaker 2: swaybean farmers here in America, but they're also talking about
Speaker 2: a twenty billion dollar bayout bailout for Argentina.
Speaker 3: Well, farmers are not in business trying to stay waiting
Speaker 3: around for the next government bailout or disaster relief or
Speaker 3: whatever you want to call it. Unfortunately, the situation that
Speaker 3: things are in, it's probably needed in order for many
Speaker 3: farms to survive. But government bailouts never make farms profitable.
Speaker 3: They don't make us whole, they don't make us thrive.
Speaker 3: What we need is strong markets, and we need the
Speaker 3: government to remove barriers that take markets away and reduce
Speaker 3: competition and give us opportunities where we can thrive and
Speaker 3: have strong markets and actually make a profit from the
Speaker 3: market having a level playing field. When the American farmer
Speaker 3: has a level playing field, is able to compete and
Speaker 3: be fair with its competitors, we're going to win. We
Speaker 3: do a great job at producing. We produce the world's
Speaker 3: safest and most abundant and most consistent food supply that's
Speaker 3: out there, and we just need the opportunity to do
Speaker 3: what we do best, and that's produce the food, fiber,
Speaker 3: and fuel for the world.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So many times we talked about the terriffs to basically
Speaker 2: keep China's products from coming into the US so the
Speaker 2: US companies can compete. In this case, it's the opposite.
Speaker 2: We're trying to have a product that China has historically
Speaker 2: bought huge amounts of every single year, and now they
Speaker 2: are purposely penalizing the American farmer. And on top of that,
Speaker 2: again going back to the Trump administration, they're also talking about,
Speaker 2: like I said, this twenty billion dollar bailout for Argentina.
Speaker 3: Well, the ironic thing in the Argentina situation is that
Speaker 3: the twenty billion dollars that's been proposed would be used
Speaker 3: to halt export taxes on products leaving their country. Ironically,
Speaker 3: the products that would leave would be soybean's and soybean
Speaker 3: all and basically they would use our tax payer dollars
Speaker 3: in order to create a level playing field to export
Speaker 3: their soybean and provide further competition with US soybean to
Speaker 3: the Chinese market. And this gives an example of what
Speaker 3: happens when the playing field is level. It gives an
Speaker 3: example of what would happen if we didn't have our
Speaker 3: retaliatory tariffs in place to the tune of twenty percent
Speaker 3: with China. So I think it shows an example of
Speaker 3: what happens when the market can work freely. And I
Speaker 3: personally don't want to see US giving taxpayer dollars to
Speaker 3: aid a competitor and further compete with American Swibean farmers.
Speaker 3: But this shows what happens when the market is free
Speaker 3: to work and when the playing field is leveled, And
Speaker 3: that's what would happen if we reduce the tariffs here
Speaker 3: at home. So it gives us a sneak peek of
Speaker 3: what the result would be if we use the same
Speaker 3: policy here at home.
Speaker 2: I couldn't send it any better. Free trade, that is
Speaker 2: truly the answer. And we are so far away from
Speaker 2: free trade right now. I can't stand National Guard. Send
Speaker 2: them to Portland, send them to Chicago, send them to
Speaker 2: where huge battle. And the question is an interesting one
Speaker 2: because I am a great believer in states rights, federalism.
Speaker 2: Our founding fathers argued at this and said, do you
Speaker 2: want the power to remain in our nation's capital or
Speaker 2: do you want to give the power to our United
Speaker 2: States by giving all of them sovereignty? And that in
Speaker 2: the Constitution that we're writing, if it doesn't enumerate a
Speaker 2: power for the federal government, then all other powers belong
Speaker 2: to the states. So I'm a big believer in not
Speaker 2: having centralized planning in Washington, d Z. But one of
Speaker 2: the things they did enumerate in the Institution was immigration
Speaker 2: belongs to the Feds. You can't have a patchwork of
Speaker 2: immigration laws where one state has a separate rule than
Speaker 2: the other states. So when it comes to immigration, totally
Speaker 2: belongs to the federal government. So the dilemma that we
Speaker 2: have found ourselves in is that you've got a bunch
Speaker 2: of states that say keep out, don't send your national guard,
Speaker 2: federalize our national guards, no, none of that sort of stuff.
Speaker 2: We can handle all the problems that we have in
Speaker 2: this state all by ourselves. Okay, I'm good with that argument.
Speaker 2: But the problem is is that ICE is going into
Speaker 2: Chicago and Portland and Seattle and Memphis and other cities Washington,
Speaker 2: d c. And saying, we're here to round up all
Speaker 2: the people that are in our country illegally. We're here
Speaker 2: to enforce immigration laws, and that is a federal authority,
Speaker 2: not the states, and the states are pushing back saying
Speaker 2: don't come in here. The reason they're pushing back is
Speaker 2: seems pretty obvious to me that it's simply because Donald
Speaker 2: Trump is the head of the federal government. So let's
Speaker 2: start where were we going to start with this? You're
Speaker 2: Donald Trump talking about what's going on in Portland.
Speaker 1: Portland's is burning to the ground.
Speaker 4: You have agitators insurrectionists, the governor, the mayor, the politicians
Speaker 4: are petrified for their lives.
Speaker 1: And he had a shut like that. He ought to
Speaker 1: be a that jud ought to be a king of him.
Speaker 2: Actually, I know Portland pretty well, and no, it's it's
Speaker 2: not burning to the ground, but in a very narrow
Speaker 2: set of blocks in downtown Portland, Antifa has gone crazy.
Speaker 2: They're over one hundred nights of rioting in a row,
Speaker 2: and the Portland police just don't seem to want to
Speaker 2: do anything about it. But that, as I've said many
Speaker 2: many times, police are at the beck and call of
Speaker 2: the mayor. The elected officials. The elector of the mayors
Speaker 2: usually are the ones who appoint the chief of police.
Speaker 2: So the chief of police is basically an extension of
Speaker 2: the arm of the mayor. So they are not doing
Speaker 2: their job in Portland. And the President would like to
Speaker 2: go in there and provide troops to protect ICE and
Speaker 2: protect the federal facility where ICE has a detention facility.
Speaker 2: So that's well, let's talk to Jim Trustee. Jim Trusty
Speaker 2: is a former federal prosecutor and we'll get his taken
Speaker 2: on what's going on in Portland.
Speaker 1: It may go that way.
Speaker 4: You know, the Ninth Circuit that is not as predictably
Speaker 4: liberal as it used to be, So it really comes
Speaker 4: down to whatever panel you get. And in the Portland case,
Speaker 4: you still have a more full blown hearing coming up
Speaker 4: in two weeks. But I think what you're seeing is
Speaker 4: kind of a strategic or tactical acknowledgment from the left
Speaker 4: that if they're going to attack the idea of the
Speaker 4: National Guard coming out here as a states rights type
Speaker 4: of idea, that they're better to go on offense, to
Speaker 4: file suit, to announce these kind of ridiculous anti law
Speaker 4: enforcement edicts and land in front of a judge with
Speaker 4: very little time to build a factual record. They'll have
Speaker 4: all sorts of spit polished affidavits that say there's no problem,
Speaker 4: we don't need the National Guard, and then you have
Speaker 4: doj on their heels trying to scramble and respond to
Speaker 4: that in a matter of days. So that's really the
Speaker 4: commonality between Chicago and Portland is they've realized that if
Speaker 4: they can rush to court in an emergency hearing, they
Speaker 4: have a decent chance of getting a temporary restraining order
Speaker 4: on the idea that the locals are saying, we don't
Speaker 4: need federal assistance by way of the National Guard or
Speaker 4: in Chicago's case.
Speaker 1: ICE, which is just basically crazy talk.
Speaker 2: So now we get to the question about federalism, and
Speaker 2: my point about the fact that federalism gives states rights
Speaker 2: except for one immigration is clearly enumerated for the FEZ
Speaker 2: to do the work on that. Here's Jim Trustee.
Speaker 4: You know when these folks run the court in Portland
Speaker 4: and saying basically, the president has no authority to invoke
Speaker 4: our National Guard, that's a federalism issues. You actually have
Speaker 4: a trumpet pointee on that case saying, look, I just
Speaker 4: think the record, the facts that I'm hearing don't establish
Speaker 4: the kind of war torn city that President Trump is
Speaker 4: talking about. Now, there's some glossing over the facts, like
Speaker 4: the judge glosses over a guillotine being put out front
Speaker 4: of the ICE facility, glosses over what we would call
Speaker 4: lasers going into people's eyes by saying high power and flashlights.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, these factual records
Speaker 1: are critical, and.
Speaker 4: If the governor is not wanting the National Guard to
Speaker 4: be there, it's on the DC, it's on the DOJ
Speaker 4: to establish that there's a need and that's tough on
Speaker 4: an emergency basis. If everyone in the city is basically
Speaker 4: lined up against you saying we don't need any help,
Speaker 4: everything's fine.
Speaker 2: So Jim's basically saying that it's a legal strategy and
Speaker 2: that the judges will listen to the people that are
Speaker 2: the local judges because of the fact that they're there
Speaker 2: and they know whether the city's burning to the ground
Speaker 2: or not. But one of the things about local police
Speaker 2: is they, like I said, subject to the mayor. And
Speaker 2: in d C where the President went in with troops
Speaker 2: and there are apparently still troops there. But the idea
Speaker 2: is that crime has now been solved. But the Washington
Speaker 2: Post as a piece today saying that no, the police department,
Speaker 2: the higher uption the police department are putting pressure on
Speaker 2: the line officers not to report the crime or say
Speaker 2: felonies or misdemeanors, do anything to make it look like
Speaker 2: crime is down. Here's Jim Trustee again on what's going
Speaker 2: on in DC with the police line about their own
Speaker 2: crime activity.
Speaker 4: Well, it's easy for them to do it until somebody
Speaker 4: stands up, and that's what happened this summer. DC Metropolitan
Speaker 4: Police Department sergeant was a whistleblower saying, look, I'm tired
Speaker 4: of the brass weighing in and saying that this robbery
Speaker 4: is only a theft or this shooting is only a
Speaker 4: misdemeanor assault. They're doing it because they're getting the pressure
Speaker 4: from on high for the political leaders to find some
Speaker 4: way to reduce the numbers. And it creates liars out
Speaker 4: of these folks, the old Mark Twain, there's lies, damn
Speaker 4: lies and statistics. Well, if you watch the Wire fifteen
Speaker 4: years ago, you'd see this from Baltimore, pretty good reenactment,
Speaker 4: and DC seems to be pretty ripe with it. And
Speaker 4: I don't think they're going to be the only major
Speaker 4: metropolitan department that's been cooking the books.
Speaker 2: So if you think the higher ups in Portland and
Speaker 2: also in DC are trying to make things look better
Speaker 2: than they really are, wait till you hear about this
Speaker 2: in Chicago. You know the pressure coming from the governor
Speaker 2: of Illinois Pritzker, and the mayor Mayor Johnson of Chicago.
Speaker 2: They want nothing to do with Donald Trump, they want
Speaker 2: nothing to do with Ice, they want nothing to do
Speaker 2: with National Guard, none of that. So on Saturday, Ice
Speaker 2: was out rounding up people that are in the country illegally,
Speaker 2: and a bunch of ICE protesters. A huge crowd started
Speaker 2: to form and surrounded the ICE officers the ICE and
Speaker 2: they're not just surrounded them, they were also using cars
Speaker 2: to bash into, to collide with and ruin the vehicles
Speaker 2: that the ICE officers were in. And they're in the
Speaker 2: vehicles and these people are using battering rams basically against them,
Speaker 2: and so they called for help. And when they called
Speaker 2: for help, the Chicago Police Department said, sorry, we're not
Speaker 2: going to come and assist you. So this gets complicated.
Speaker 2: Let's start with the police radio recordings of what happened
Speaker 2: in Chicago Saturday.
Speaker 5: All the units for nine nine, Chief of Patrol said,
Speaker 5: all units clear out from there. We're not sending anybody
Speaker 5: over to that location. And nine ninety nine just took
Speaker 5: him from a thirty ninth place in KASII were saying
Speaker 5: that they were being surrounded by that large crowd and
Speaker 5: they were requesting the police were not sending waving off
Speaker 5: all the cars heading the thirty ninth place in CATSI.
Speaker 2: I'm guessing nine ninety nine is code for the chief
Speaker 2: of patrol, but she said it too. She said Chief
Speaker 2: of below. A patrol nine ninety nine said, all Chicago
Speaker 2: police cars leave, don't go into that area, don't go
Speaker 2: a system, don't do anything to help them. She even
Speaker 2: said they're calling saying they're surrounded by large crowds and
Speaker 2: nothing happened. The police basically did not stick up for
Speaker 2: their fellow law enforcement brethren, and they took off. So
Speaker 2: the Chicago Police superintendent came out today and well, here
Speaker 2: I'll play for you a little bit of what he said.
Speaker 6: What we have to deal with as a department, because
Speaker 6: I want to be clear to those who have never
Speaker 6: done the job, who haven't done the job in years,
Speaker 6: who weren't unseen, who don't know the facts or have
Speaker 6: the facts, but they've got a lot of solutions or
Speaker 6: a lot of ideas of what happened or what should
Speaker 6: have happened.
Speaker 7: Let me first talk about the Trust Act.
Speaker 6: The Trust Act prohibits law enforcement in the state of
Speaker 6: Illinois from engaging in assisting federal agents when it comes
Speaker 6: to immigration enforcement. We'd abide by that law. The City Ordinance,
Speaker 6: the Welcoming City Ordinance goes a little further. It even
Speaker 6: prohibits us from asking someone their status. We abide by
Speaker 6: that ordinance because in law enforcement, if you don't make
Speaker 6: the laws, we uphold them, and we're sworn to do so,
Speaker 6: and we take our old seriously. Engaging with federal agents.
Speaker 6: We do it on a regular basis. We have Task
Speaker 6: force officers who are out there every single day working
Speaker 6: to stop human trafficking, drug enforcement, gun violence, gun recoveries,
Speaker 6: search warrants, and everything in between. When it comes to
Speaker 6: violent crime in our city, we have a great partnership
Speaker 6: with our federal agents and we still do and we
Speaker 6: will continue to work with.
Speaker 7: Them around violent crime.
Speaker 6: But let me explain how important it is to understand
Speaker 6: how difficult it is for our officers at times, because
Speaker 6: when we look at the Trust Act and the Welcoming
Speaker 6: City Ordinance, sometimes there's a struggle when you're walking that
Speaker 6: line to make sure that you're not violating either one
Speaker 6: of those things.
Speaker 7: And at the same time enforcing the law the way
Speaker 7: that we're supposed to.
Speaker 2: Let me get this straight. So in other words, we're
Speaker 2: there to support people that are being attacked violently violent crime,
Speaker 2: and we're also we do a lot of work with
Speaker 2: federal agents, except the Trust Act says that you cannot
Speaker 2: assist federal agents regarding immigration. So all I heard on
Speaker 2: that police radio was the chief of Patrol said, even
Speaker 2: though the ICE agents are surrounded by a huge crowd
Speaker 2: and they're using violent means to attack the ICE agents,
Speaker 2: we're not going to go and get out of there.
Speaker 2: All the Chicago police cars. You got to leave the area,
Speaker 2: according to the chief of patrol. Now, the chief of
Speaker 2: Patrol answers to this guy, the superintendent of the police
Speaker 2: in Chicago, and he answers to the mayor. And that's
Speaker 2: why this makes no sense whatsoever. They turned their back
Speaker 2: on helping fellow law enforcement when they were under attack violently,
Speaker 2: and so this Commissioners is out basically trying to bs
Speaker 2: his way through this. Here's a little bit more from him.
Speaker 6: About certain things. Have to excuse me, I'm we'll dehydrated.
Speaker 6: Let me make this clear. Federal agents ICE HSI are officers.
Speaker 6: They are agents of law enforcement. If you box them
Speaker 6: in with vehicles, it is reasonable for them to believe
Speaker 6: that they are being ambushed and that this could end
Speaker 6: in a deadly situation, and it's reasonable for them to
Speaker 6: use force based on those conditions.
Speaker 7: Do not box in any law enforcement officer.
Speaker 6: You are breaking the law when you do that, and
Speaker 6: you are putting yourself in danger following law enforcement agents around.
Speaker 7: The question is why what do you plan on doing.
Speaker 6: It's also reasonable for them to believe that you're eventually
Speaker 6: going to do harm to them. If you ram any vehicle,
Speaker 6: especially that one that contains law enforcement agents, and that's
Speaker 6: any law enforcement local, state, federal, county, and you do
Speaker 6: this intentionally, this is considered deadly forced US is anything
Speaker 6: that can cause great bodily harm or death. When you
Speaker 6: plow into a vehicle that contains law enforcement agents, you're
Speaker 6: using deadly force, and they can use deadly force in
Speaker 6: response to stop you. We need to be clear about
Speaker 6: these laws. We cannot become a society where we just
Speaker 6: decide to take everything in our own hands and start
Speaker 6: to commit crimes against law enforcement.
Speaker 7: It is a crime. You may not like what they're doing.
Speaker 6: I can understand that there's a lot of emotions out there,
Speaker 6: but that does not mean that you get to commit
Speaker 6: a crime, especially one that can lead to deadly force.
Speaker 2: So we said, let's make it clear. That was as
Speaker 2: clear as mud, because he basically said yeah, and we again,
Speaker 2: it's right there. In fact, they have a computer aided
Speaker 2: dispatch them in Chicago, and I'm looking at it and
Speaker 2: it said no units will respond to this. Per Chief
Speaker 2: of Patrol. Caller number one is of approximately thirty armed
Speaker 2: Border Patrol agents who are being surrounded by one large
Speaker 2: crowd of people and they're asking for help, and the
Speaker 2: Chief of Patrol said, don't do it, don't go help them.
Speaker 2: So he says, well, wait a minute, if you surround
Speaker 2: a law enforcement of any kind, they're going to assume
Speaker 2: that you are going to try and harm them, and
Speaker 2: they can use force back. But at the same time
Speaker 2: they're saying, but we're not going to go help them.
Speaker 1: It was bizarre.
Speaker 2: I had to play this for you because the whole
Speaker 2: thing out of Chicago makes the police department there, at
Speaker 2: least at the higher ranks, look like they're really trying
Speaker 2: to cover for the leadership of their city, the Brandon Johnson,
Speaker 2: and the governor of their state.
Speaker 1: But one guy who is not.
Speaker 2: In leadership of the police department, he's the leader of
Speaker 2: the Paternal Order of Police, John Catanza, and he has
Speaker 2: a whole different story.
Speaker 1: Could it be that's actually what happened?
Speaker 8: And the reality is somebody's lying here, whether it's the
Speaker 8: chief of patrol, or nine ninety nine. And I can
Speaker 8: tell you I personally know that lieutenant, and he has
Speaker 8: an impeccable record. On the other hand, the Chief of
Speaker 8: patrol not so much. He's been notorious for lying and
Speaker 8: stomping on anybody to get to where he's gotten to
Speaker 8: this point. Do I think he gave that order, Absolutely,
Speaker 8: And I think the lieutenant was just relaying what that
Speaker 8: phone call reiterated to him to not send anybody over there,
Speaker 8: because sadly, this department is in literally a shell of
Speaker 8: itself and so fearful of what politicians in this mayor
Speaker 8: are going to do to them if they respond. Every
Speaker 8: single citizen the sanctity of life is what this city
Speaker 8: supposedly cares about. That doesn't discriminate between SI enforcement. If
Speaker 8: someone's calling for help, we are obligated to go. And
Speaker 8: this person should be taken out of his basically assignment
Speaker 8: right now, stripped of his police powers, and removed from command.
Speaker 8: He has no business wearing a badge damage control. I mean,
Speaker 8: you look at he just said. We will have more
Speaker 8: clarity on that conversation between the Chief of Patrol and
Speaker 8: the lieutenant tomorrow seventy two hours later.
Speaker 1: It's not that complicated.
Speaker 8: The Chief of Patrol could have already answered, and you
Speaker 8: certainly could have got the lieutenant's version of the story
Speaker 8: and made a statement. But it is all about damage
Speaker 8: control at this point because they know they went to
Speaker 8: bed and this guy has been a cancer to this
Speaker 8: department and the superintending is doing whatever he can to
Speaker 8: protect him, and shame on him for that. But this
Speaker 8: needs to stop. John High needs to be removed. He
Speaker 8: has an embarrassment to this department and this profession.
Speaker 2: So people are yelling about the federal troops coming in
Speaker 2: and instead the Chicago Police Department obviously is having internal
Speaker 2: problems of their very own. Jonathan Turley, the Georgetown law professor,
Speaker 2: he weighs in on this, Well, the White House.
Speaker 9: Is not going to back down, and I think ultimately
Speaker 9: they will prevail in getting personnel there. The question is
Speaker 9: what personnel will be deployed. But we just saw in
Speaker 9: Chicago the Chicago Police Department refusing to come to the
Speaker 9: aid of officers who were under attack and then they
Speaker 9: lied about it. I mean, the eclips stand a direct
Speaker 9: contradiction to what the Chicago Police Department and the mayor
Speaker 9: have said, and that shows the level of escalation here,
Speaker 9: and it also is going to play more to this
Speaker 9: narrative that we need federal personnel there because we cannot
Speaker 9: rely upon democratic leaders to maintain law and order.
Speaker 2: I think totally made. The most obvious point is that
Speaker 2: the local officials saying, don't worry, our police can take
Speaker 2: care of our problems in our city, so we don't
Speaker 2: need the federal troops. And yet you can hear the
Speaker 2: Chicago police department not doing their basic job in protecting
Speaker 2: people that were in harm's way because they were Ice agents.
Speaker 2: So I mean that would to me give a judge
Speaker 2: a reason to say, fine, send the Feds in there.
Speaker 2: Obviously the local police department in Chicago is not or
Speaker 2: cannot or won't do their job. So since we're speaking
Speaker 2: about the justice system, let's go to a courtroom today
Speaker 2: in where was this case. It was in Washington, DC,
Speaker 2: and this was the case of the guy who traveled
Speaker 2: across the country with a gun to go kill Brett Kavanaugh,
Speaker 2: Justice Kavanaugh at his home and they had us marshall
Speaker 2: security at his home and they were the ones I
Speaker 2: think there was two or three marshals that were there
Speaker 2: and they spot him in the middle of the night
Speaker 2: and found and found out. He basically took off and
Speaker 2: he called in and said I'm guilty, Come get me.
Speaker 2: So his name is Nicholas Rosky. He's now twenty nine
Speaker 2: years of age. He was arrested near Kavanaugh's home back
Speaker 2: in the summer of twenty twenty two and told officials
Speaker 2: at that time that he intended to kill Kavanaugh. He
Speaker 2: also wanted to kill a total of three I believe
Speaker 2: it was so that he could get the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: to rule differently. Well, I love the way NBC reports
Speaker 2: this today. The NBC report says woman sentenced to eight
Speaker 2: years for attempting to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh and going, wait
Speaker 2: what woman? Well, apparently Nicholas Roski, two weeks before his sentencing,
Speaker 2: decided that he was going to trans to be a woman,
Speaker 2: and so the court referred to her as her. The
Speaker 2: case is still Nicholas the people versus Nicholas Rosky.
Speaker 1: It's just bizarre.
Speaker 2: But the whole thing about it is is that the judge,
Speaker 2: her name is Deborah Boardman, and this is where the
Speaker 2: sentences us. They rescued to more than thirty years. He
Speaker 2: was trying to kill Supreme Court justices and he gets
Speaker 2: eight years and one month, and the judge says she
Speaker 2: felt sorry for Roski because Roski had shown remorse, and
Speaker 2: she also referred to the fact that he was transitioning.
Speaker 2: So therefore she took that into account and gave him
Speaker 2: mercy by going eight years in one month. Although you'll
Speaker 2: hear from some of the experts that he won't serve
Speaker 2: eight years and he's twenty nine, So in eight years
Speaker 2: he'll be thirty eight in less than thirty seven, and
Speaker 2: he'll get out before then, he'll still be a young
Speaker 2: man that will be a danger to society and a
Speaker 2: danger to Supreme Court justice. God knows who else he
Speaker 2: might pick on. Let's start with Terry Severarino, who runs
Speaker 2: the Judicial Crisis Network.
Speaker 10: Yeah, you know, the judge pointed to the fact that
Speaker 10: he did turn himself in, and yes he gets credit
Speaker 10: for that. That was already kept part of the calculation
Speaker 10: in the sentence guidelines. But what's so disturbing is she
Speaker 10: departed way below those guidelines. This is an act of
Speaker 10: domestic terror. This is something that's so serious. And what
Speaker 10: we saw here is she seems to sympathize so much
Speaker 10: more with the defendant here than with Justice Kavnaugh's family.
Speaker 10: Remember he was shooting for three he said, so two
Speaker 10: other justices whose lives are put in risk, saying God
Speaker 10: those marshals were there, because if they had not been there,
Speaker 10: he may not have turned aroun. It's really disturbing that
Speaker 10: his mental health concerns and his concern of gender dysphor
Speaker 10: you was given as a literal get out of.
Speaker 1: Jail free card here.
Speaker 10: That's not how our system should work, and it's going
Speaker 10: to create a lot of bad incentives for people claiming
Speaker 10: genderness for you in the future if they think that's
Speaker 10: going to get them off a prison. And even worse,
Speaker 10: this sets a bad example in a time of rising
Speaker 10: political violence. There's not the deterrence that there needs to
Speaker 10: be from all sides in our society. Democratic lawmakers who
Speaker 10: haven't said enough on all of these issues we've been
Speaker 10: talking about right all the way down. Judges absolutely need
Speaker 10: to be holding out understand political violences out well. You know,
Speaker 10: it's hard to know all the facts because we have
Speaker 10: only Rosky's own testimony on these things, but it certainly
Speaker 10: that's the first we heard about. It was right before
Speaker 10: the sentence, in fact, so this feels like a surprise
Speaker 10: last minute thing, although I guess there's text messages and
Speaker 10: things going back showing that he really did have, by
Speaker 10: his own account, had a lot of difficult mental issues
Speaker 10: going back for a while, and had a lot of
Speaker 10: unorthodox sexual practices. I guess, let's say, going way back
Speaker 10: farther than that. You know he needs to get mental
Speaker 10: health assistants to deal with those things, for sure, but
Speaker 10: absolutely they are not to get out of jail free card,
Speaker 10: and that's what this judge was trying to.
Speaker 1: Use them for.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so if you are committing a crime and you
Speaker 2: go before a judge, just say that you're transitioning. Therefore,
Speaker 2: get some sympathy. I guess Eric Schmidt, who is a
Speaker 2: US Senator from Missouri former attorney general in Missouri, is
Speaker 2: shaking his head.
Speaker 7: This is outrageous.
Speaker 11: I think at a time where we talk about the
Speaker 11: political violence that has taken hold of the left, when
Speaker 11: twenty five percent of self described very liberal individuals are
Speaker 11: willing to tell a polster they think political violence is
Speaker 11: justified if it reaches a political means, where over fifty
Speaker 11: five percent of those on the left believe that the
Speaker 11: assassination of President Trump would be at least somewhat justified.
Speaker 11: The idea that you had someone deranged like this trying
Speaker 11: to take out and murder a Supreme Court justice and
Speaker 11: this is all that individual gets is ridiculous.
Speaker 2: So Senator Kennedy, who before being a Senator was a
Speaker 2: law school professor, he always has interesting observations.
Speaker 12: Well, first on the shutdown, it won't end until everybody
Speaker 12: in the Senate takes their ego out back and shoots it.
Speaker 12: And then of a land. In terms of descenencing, I've
Speaker 12: said this repeatedly. We don't need more gun control, we
Speaker 12: need more idiot control. And this guy who tried to
Speaker 12: assassinate Justice Kavanaugh is nuts. That doesn't absolve him of
Speaker 12: a responsibility. I believe in free will and responsibility. But
Speaker 12: you have to isolate these people from society. And eight years,
Speaker 12: he'll be out in six and he's a danger to society.
Speaker 12: And I don't know why people are like that. If
Speaker 12: I make it to Heaven, I'm gonna ask. But there's
Speaker 12: some people. They hurt other people and they take other
Speaker 12: people's stuff, and to protect everybody else, you've got to
Speaker 12: isolate them. And eight years I was shocked, way too
Speaker 12: louch on them. Yeah, I mean, you have to separate
Speaker 12: these people from society. We can't hire enough cops to
Speaker 12: stop everyone. So when you catch one who's just whatever
Speaker 12: you want to call it, mentally ill, total whack job.
Speaker 12: I hate to say mentally ill because that absolves them
Speaker 12: a responsibility. But you have to separate them through society.
Speaker 12: That doesn't mean you don't try to rehabilitate them. But
Speaker 12: that's the only answer. And that's why when you find
Speaker 12: folks that have been repeated offenders again and again and again,
Speaker 12: what's going to change except if you let them out.
Speaker 12: They're going to hurt more people, take more people's stuff.
Speaker 12: It's not well. As I say in my book, they
Speaker 12: don't get it washed.
Speaker 2: So one person that they are going to keep behind bars,
Speaker 2: Julaane Maxwell, found out from the Supreme Court today that
Speaker 2: they will not hear her appeal of her sex trafficking conviction.
Speaker 2: So Julane Maxwell is going to serve the rest of
Speaker 2: her sentence in Club fed I believe is called. But yeah,
Speaker 2: this guy that wanted to shoot Kavanaugh and two other justices,
Speaker 2: he's twenty nine. You heard Kennedy talking about he'll be
Speaker 2: out in six, So that's thirty five. You think he's
Speaker 2: going to be safe to be let out then, but
Speaker 2: the judge said, oh, we feel bad for you because
Speaker 2: you're transitioning. And he didn't start transitioning until two weeks
Speaker 2: before the sentencing. Oh man, you know that's going to
Speaker 2: be tried again. Somebody somewhere is going to stand for
Speaker 2: a judge to say, I, judge, before you sentenced me,
Speaker 2: I just want you to know. You want to know
Speaker 2: what happened on Wall Street today? Well, it was a
Speaker 2: bit of a mixed market today that the Dow coming
Speaker 2: off a record that we set on Friday, down a
Speaker 2: little down sixty three. The down now at forty six
Speaker 2: thousand and six ninety four. The S and P up
Speaker 2: twenty four, new record, NASDAC up one hundred and sixty one.
Speaker 2: Gold big day for you gold bugs up seventy two
Speaker 2: dollars to thirty nine eighty one, this close to four thousand,
Speaker 2: and the price of oil up just under a dollar,
Speaker 2: is almost sixty two dollars now for one barrel of oil.
Speaker 2: Thank you for coming by today. We'll be back again tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We hope to see you then,