Supreme Court Nominee Testifies: What You Need To Know

Secular was a Supreme Court nominee testifies will tell you what you need to know and record now on how turbines giving you informed and now this is 100-6812 to meet the hearing for the record nominee Judge Jackson. It will start to see some questions about judicial philosophy is really interesting though because she's been endorsed by all the far left groups, but when she's asked questions about judicial philosophy. She's not giving the typical left-wing responses. It's kind of leaving it very vague that she had a better judge for a long time. Usually, the appellate court for for really less than a year, so she's been through this process before I get subtlety to get a lot of Republican support thereby be a handful. What will be interesting to see though is will these Republican senators on the committee were Dr. Marcia blackbird. Later the weeks of the blackbirds of the committee shall ever chance to question judge said that Jackson a couple of times twice to for 20 rounds of the statistics I think that is where as Sen. Grassley started a kind of try to figure out is why the American people see this on other cable news I will tell you, there's not a lot yet to take away from what she's saying it's it's it again. They're trying to nail down the basics like what you see is a fundamental right, and it wasn't clear now so Richard began slapping freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association. The fundamental rights as outlined in United States Constitution by thinking also to have another reality here and that is the reality is absent something major coming out. You can be confirmed as a justice of the spring .9 states, the Republicans do not do to their credit, what the Democrats do when they try to do character assassinations of nominees. So this is interesting thing here. To me, at least at the at this stage of it. Jordan is the fact that the issues that are coming up like the Roe versus Wade question so far was literally 90 seconds question from the city center of California and as she gave the typical response that that's the Supreme Court that's the precedent that the other people relied on not that much different than how even a Republican nominee would ask that question whose try to confirm which is our that's what the Supreme Court it has made the opinion on the didn't get a 1992 Dobbs the case, they know they literally only end Roe versus Wade maybe does come up a meeting to say she's in a bound by the decision. I would suspect that she doesn't mean she can about if another case where come up that she's in about the to overtly mental firm that your justices are allowed to do dissenting opinions. I think all of this points to a major issue and that is folks elections and consequences.

The present troubles that we get three nominees in to the Supreme Court of Chait radically change the in a good way I think was a radical. A minute is a major shift on the Supreme Court. This is not to be a radical shift.

This is replacing a justice for Justice Breyer, who by the way on a lot of cases went with us. Lotta cases he did not want to cases where disparate lampreys beaten some of the religion. Cases are certainly not on the life issue with the life issues up there right now. That decision is probably 12 weeks away and that's can be the one that I think that is is good to be really really significant. Having said all of that.

I think we have to be conscious of it. As we prepared internally and this what we do at the ACLJ to be prepared. What we litigate at the Supreme Court in United States we been doing that for decades, so we prepared internal memorandum for us about her decision. She was overturned on a major decision involving executive privilege does that mean she's not qualified to serve on the court. No justices get overturned. Presidents get to nominate and appoint us with advice and consent of the Senate so there you have it. I mean she neared, you know the politics I mean Odyssey not get confirmed by I think again you got some moderate Republican senators who've Artie voted for or so you got the Perkowski and Collins have Artie voted for her.

That is significant for for for this report, but I think with those two votes, even if it's partyline after that. She's confirm but for what happens during these hearings, which is why the news will keep covering it. Even right now about nine I to say the least, I would be joined by Sen. Haggerty in the next segment of broadcast he's on the Fort affairs committee are we talking about this move again. By the by the ministration on the table to remove the Iranian Revolutionary guard Corps from the foreign terrorist organizations list and try to get Iranian oil flowing to the US instead of flowing here becoming energy. The American Center for Law and were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those that way becomes 100 constitutional and only one. A society can agree the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life.

We created three powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally sealed/secured by Sen. Haggerty, just a moment to get it really talk about the move. By the by the ministration attempting to put on the table shows you how desperate the that the US position looks we would put on the table, removing the number one state sponsor of terror's implementing group, the, the Iranian Revolutionary guard Corps removing them from the foreign terrorist organizations list, which didn't note Satan includes all the sanctions makes it more difficult for other countries because they were a lot of businesses and corporate interest inside Iran. They protect the Ayatollah in Iran and so this is again where the US government in the Bible.

Ministration is willing to go instead of investing in American energy independence ultimately to try get back into this nuclear deal which which again is expires in a few years they have a nuclear weapon.

Let me it's a pathway for the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon must be clear so this deal labeling or delisting the Islamic Revolutionary guard is no longer within the terrorism list is absurd because everyone knows, including Pres. Biden and his entire team that everyone knows that Iran is the largest exporter of terrorism in the world. The number one more so than Russia. More so than China. Anybody else Iran is number one, you got it got even the body ministration, condemning what the who the rebels are doing in a given wood by launching attacks in Saudi Arabia.

They remove the Hutu rebels, which is another Iranian bacterial group like Hezbollah from the foreign terrorist organization listed another condemning their actions but what by removing them from these list empowers that they're able to go out there make more money Iranian revolution.

Regards corrodes the shipping business out of Iran. They run the oil industry in Iran. Maybe we start saying we can use Iranian oil given take that off the black market basically believe we been sitting on during the Iranian Revolutionary guard Corps, but can you believe were even having to discuss Iran producing oil for the United States.

When we were energy independent 18 months ago now. I did it in. This is again think that the nuclear deal. All this time together is true and attempt to try and get the attempt to try and get the get its gas prices and of course they obsessed with the nuclear deal itself and obsessed with trying to reenter the nuclear deal itself that that to the point where will this Obama's legacy and then it was we got out of it, which was wise because it was ridiculous they weren't following it. They continue to not follow it and the end result was an end result is that we lift the sanctions and what ends up happening week week we end up having Iran as a partner of United's to admit we really believing this for a moment that this is what's gonna happen, and that this is the right thing that's gonna happen. I don't think so. Did these are the largest sponsors of terrorism. Exporters of terrorism in the world.

Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary guard Corps are there elite forces they have targeted Americans.

Russia is in there in the negotiations with us on this. I mean it's kind of the go-between for me think about all of this for a moment with everything that's going on in Ukraine. The Russia is the main arbiter between the US and Iran on this issue and I would specifically just for you all to understand this.

While the wars going on. Ukraine was sanctioning all these Russian interests were so relying on the Russians, who are by the way, carving out their own protections within the new Iranian deals that they can do business with Iran and that the subject to the section world sanctions of the carve out right for the Russia in Iran to be doing business together right and that's can be deemed okay yeah I mean… I think that for a moment if they agree that we have a cargo from Russia is dictating the terms of an agreement that we have with it.

There is this nuclear agreement with Iran. By the way, they've Artie received the last go-round of this $1.9 billion in another talk about sexually much and more significant than that yes and I think that this is an idealist.

If you remove the Iranian Revolutionary guard Corps from the from the foreign terrorist organizations list so understand your removing them from the Ford territory. This list you are sitting all this funding to the vets more than just a few billion dollars.

It's opening up their business interest.

This is not just a group that by the waste is anti-Israel was to start fights vision because they arty do through their proxies like Hezbollah, they they want three years. This deal expires were reentering Iran, adding 10 years this the right foot expires in three years what's happened then the have a deliverable nuclear weapon is there hope that the only way to stop that is by sabotage or by other activities which receive some of our allies like Israel, engage in, but so here's what the Wall Street Journal's I think this is very interesting.

They said to the effort to revive the 2015 nuclear do remember that was under Obama hinges on this with the Wall Street Journal called the most politically sensitive issue in the negotiations and that issue is whether to remove the US terrorism designation. This is the United States is terrorism designation for Iran's elite Revolutionary guard, which as the Journal points out is the countries solve most powerful security force the issue is, of course, that issue galvanizes a lot of opposition in Washington. As you can understand, however the administration wants a deal so badly is the government willing to do that then take another step. Senior US officials again according to the Wall Street Journal are saying that a failure to find a compromise with Iran on this issue. Gordon quickly could cause a breakdown in the negotiations that abnormal promised over a year now have resolved nearly every other disagreement and energy said it's good for three years for three years and then and then what Iran is had a functioning nuclear program of their enriching uranium at levels that can be utilized for non-non-civilian use, and we are empowering another part of what is a country that not only despises the Israel but despise the United States of America were already seeing look at the impact of that what changes when a country has nuclear weapons. We see that that right now we can just go in and save Ukraine because we have to calculate unfortunately weather rushes on the ground military might not be so impressive what they do have is a nuclear arsenal about equal to ours.

Yeah and it knows all those can be fired at us and so Winnipeg when a country goes nuclear. You start another nuclear arms race you think Saudi Arabia's lack of nuclear weapons were civil or organize I read Hunter and then you Israel is arty not part of the these trees they don't, they they won't permit, but most everybody expect they arty have them, but I imagine the nuclear arms race in the Middle East in a place where you don't want a nuclear arms race if it can be avoided. Those countries would rather not have it even though I think the truth is that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region to the cut cutter UAE would not want to have nuclear capacities in the region, but once I way but once Iran walks over that step which were giving them a green light to do with this agreement. If they going to this. I think this is totally absurd, then you are going to see a nuclear arms race in the region that we have never seen before. Yet it's not Pakistan is not it's not India where you got this kind of stalemate is focused on each other it that this Iran wants to export. That's what they do export terrorism around the world and the usual proxies in these proxies and that that with the Iranian revolution guard Corps rods. They even the Russians are using their proxies inside Ukraine because that their highly trained IQ said they the top of the top of these different countries.

Bad actors forces and so you can almost use a like mercenaries around the world. And so while Russians had trust times with their enlisted troops who are a lot of them are part of you know that that are part of a get a forced service other than involuntarily joint but they recruited Fred and they have to serve a number years, so they're going to the recruiting troops and Syria and places like that would been trained already by the Iranian has more generous at entering an integral and labor movement in Ukraine.

Yeah so look at the talk about this.

We did a book that talked of wood: holy alliance with Russia, Syria and Iran. Now the United States is willing to go back into an agreement with Iran as well as the rest in the yearbook was followed disturbs the once new business with Iran. Europe doesn't do these things on principle. That's why took so long to get them on board on the sanctions against Russia but rushes dictating terms of this agreement to the Russians themselves are dictating terms on the grid. Think about let that sink in for a moment that Russia is dictating what carveout exceptions on sanctions will be in this agreement, and you know what, there's a good chance the bind administration.

This what is so frustrating folks with the Biden administration says yes we will let Russia carveout these exceptions. What message does that send to the rest of the world into our allies. It means we capitulate to just get a deal to change the topic.

Yeah, I think that this is the again if they can claim they get a deal that issue is over with the problems of the world is spiraling out of control. Right now she's got out this at what's happening in Europe were real war in Europe. NATO issues disagreements you got the President over there. Try to deal with that at the same type why would we trust these same actors to put together deal.

We all oppose so so so so much entrusted to come back with us if the same deal except for Iran's, getting a double dip in the Russians are getting your carveout. If this deal will boost war they announce that this week they tried in a wonder that so we can have to go Russians were demanding more so the what the Russians what is yeah probably sanctions on this, but those one apply to us when we deal with Iran. But why, why would anybody in it in their right mind working on behalf of the US interest think this is a good idea think it will remove the Iranian Revolutionary guard Corps from the Ford terrorist organization.

List makes any sense whatsoever when they are actively trying to kill American over US officials in the Biden restriction will acknowledge that and agree to that but the same time to take them off the list and let them go fighting for terrorism that they export around the world it is again this what happens when you become dependent on bad actors to fuel your cars power your house. This is what happens and were depended on Russia and Iran.

Maybe Venezuela again because were unwilling to use the resources we have in our own country will be right back on secular only one. A society can agree the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, freeing our publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called dishes like show you how you are personally sealed. Only Jesus/the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith covering correction in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life reports and in Congress ACLJ for that is an opportunity for you to help in the way income is 100 constitutional and secular incidents of the hearing is underway to start back again you get sitters are starting their first round of questioning to rent the questioning when it comes to this. If you're at Wunderlich window in his voting occur.

I mean listen, I think that there try to get this done before Easter a week before Easter, so April 4. Is there schedule posted. This is a pretty quick move right now. It's what is unclear. I think about this nominee is why the left lined up so say that the lack of them were in lockstep enter defending her incident. Questions also hurt then not pushing her that what you not see the Democrats then try to push her to come to go on the record on the left so what is interesting is that there's not a lot of basis and we we've had a lot of our friends were sinners on that committee asked why do you think the always group support you went. What's your basic judicial class.

This was again Sen. Grassley just in what is a fundamental right in your interpretation as you been a judge and what would be if you were just take a listen by 40. Could you tell me how you might go about deciding what a fundamental right is under the Constitution, while Sen. and I don't know that I can tell you that any abstract and assertive way that you may have posed the question, there is precedent in the Supreme Court related to various rights that the court has recognized as fundamental.

The court has some precedents about the standards for determining whether or not something is fundamental that the court he said that the 14th amendment's substantive due process applies dies support some fundamental rights but only things that are implicit in the ordered concept of liberty or deeply rooted in history and traditions that this country at their kinds of rights that relate to personal individual autonomy. Nate recognized a few things in that category. And that's the tradition of the court for four determining whether something is fundamental in that way to Jennifer on YouTube. Ask base adjuster despite it feels as if she's not fully answering important questions which makes me nervous.

So the question was how do you define a fundamental right, the busy nights but we would start there is not there so the fundamental rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights include the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press freedom Association brings petition the government for redress of agreements the right to a speedy trial right against self-incrimination. These are fundamental right of the Second Amendment. She acknowledged at this, the court is recognized second member is an individual right to bear arms. But those are fundamental rights.

Why because they are the basis upon which the Bill of Rights, the amendments to the Constitution have been placed so it was it was a very roundabout nothing by nature these justice nominees do this kind of go around the block kind of response but the fact of the matter is that's not a hard question. It would have been asked I would say this if that was asked of Brent Cavanaugh or Satish or Amy Barrett. They would've mock them said that that wasn't they would've hammered them that back that is like that started at seven answer that's a word salad. There were three or four different words used there that I don't think a law professor was accepted in answer to a question like that in a law school exam. It sounded Like your this is how I'm interpreting it so far except you can say that sale she is know she's talking about. I think she exactly knows what she's doing. This is how the thief that put her in the what they call murder boards move towards these when the predecessor in interest to the runaround. The Republican senators don't answer any other questions they'll be bound by anything lately to grandma back and forth to what you what exactly is your judicial philosophy by 35. What is your judicial philosophy silent methodology that I used in my case is in order to ensure that I am not ruling impartially and down your judicial philosophy is to rule impartially help my judicial philosophy is to rule impartially and to rule consistent with the limitations on my authority as a judge and so my methodology actually helps me to do that in every case the humans say that you're an activist judge. I would not say that. Of course, and are considered okay you are you an activist judge. No yes I'm an activist judge someone's site. Here's the here's the issue with on the judicial philosophy is what judicial philosophy really is is what is the basis upon which you she said she talks about impartiality. Let's presume you take an oath of office, you have to be impartial equal justice under the law equal protection clause it's required to be impartial, but the gist of loss is what is the base upon which you arrive at a decision. That's what judicial philosophy means Justice Breyer, for instance, he believed, wrote a book about it called a living Constitution that the Constitution is basically a living document the changes with the times aimlessly. Justice Scalia in dialogue that they had took the opposite view. He he was a construct constructionist of what we call today a constitutionalist. He believed that you interpret the Constitution based on the words of the Constitution and what it meant at the time that the Constitution was adopted in the Bill of Rights, were adopted and she gave a little bit about hat tip to that little bit seems a lot more like a trial court judge – not a lot was.

She was not on the pellicle very long. As he came up here with Dick Durbin so he's the chairs of the Democrat. He asked the same question. By the way, that is, I think that there is this question surrounding her, which is they're getting all this pressure from the buying White House to go, especially the liberal groups. Even the Democrats Saying this is a great this is great. Remember, they've all been burned before Democrats not as much usually is Republicans get burned by the nominees. There always worry my bet put some of the court that I don't know anything about it by right reported by Kennedy became the most was her, resulting in horses with Dick Durbin.

She does like to methodology of impartiality that sounds like the trial court judge in a criminal case, you just are supposed to go in biased against the defendant or in favor of the prosecution that that was to be impartial judge. That's different than being in a public what comes up on the appellate level will be impartial, but the idea that some method methodology is sky goes out the window when you type up more philosophical understandings of what's in the Constitution and what is it take lesson 22. Would you like the car lived at the outset of those who are looking for a label what your position is on judicial philosophy. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the course of my almost decade on the bench, I have developed a methodology that I use in order to ensure that I am ruling impartially and that I am hearing to the limits on my GG judicial authority. I am acutely aware that as a judge in our system. I have limited power and I am trying in every case to stay in my lane. This is what they come up with.

By the way methodology right versus judicial philosophy and give to me that just when a reading through it just sounds a lot more like trial court judge going through the motions, which was that she surveyed and as owner like all the stuff you gotta go through to be on it would be right like speedy trial.

He talked about these kind of things but that is very different to get to these more esoteric level decisions. The court level on fundamental rights. Like you, she was asked about it there in the Constitution. What read into the Constitution.

What is this living document to make up rights as you go or is that Congress's role in the states role in I think there's a lot of issues that they haven't, but that are hot, but right now Dobbs case did not come up with a question about zero. We have gotten voting rights the voting right and also the voter integrity cases there going on right now as we speak.

There's lots talk that they recruit else could be joining us. The second broadcast to talk to Countrywide's laptop with you by surprise, it's real. The American civil injustice will engage in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be now. $10 becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. You forgive today online keeping you informed and now, this is Jordan secular secular. There's a lot going on is that was pretty crazy Ray that is a judicial confirmation's report so that you get into in coverage during the day and what what is not as interesting about your life used to sing Republican nominees go forward. It's like a war on them in a personal at attacking all these massive statements that will see you with judge Barrett that they do Kennedy that the first time with her. So the second time they feel a bit heavier but really care financing is that religion is going also. Yes it's oh so it is in that they were just moaning running about the timing of it. They like the timing of now were in a situation where course, very divided stated you have senators basically asking questions like what what is your just guiding principles of judicial philosophy. I think you will. I don't know how long should be of the dance around that by using this methodology was obscene.

The term they came up with impartiality and impartiality because that is just assumed you not qualified to be a local local judge if you like to be impartial.

So every every judge has to start there. That's not what the Supreme Court is about.

I mean ultimately yes you are impartial. We try to decide these big issues of the concert having Constitution or how the federal law, encode and and patented all these different issues and impartiality doesn't go that far. That's just the beginning point of any case is the political question. Charlene's asking, she said, is the confirmation at this point, a foregone conclusion to my senses that it probably is a Luxembourg striking thing happens and the Republicans don't do the score church policy that the Democrats do it so your appointment that is replacing a justice. Let me tell you the significance of that.

So this is in a situation where you have Justice Ginsburg stepping down and then Amy Barrett confirmed and it's an ideological shift rate a liberal to conservative, usually shipped on the Supreme Court.

This is a justice that is replacing here are Stephen Breyer, who is more liberal justice being replaced by another liberal justice so there's not an ideological change on the court. It doesn't affect the major cases it you never know how's we were justices cannot vote on anything to be quite honestly just don't know how they're gonna vote, but I don't see situation, at least not right now. Jordan where she doesn't get caught doesn't get confirmed and I mean confirmed quickly, like Amy Barrett that I miss moving very quick 90 just to be honest every body when when you're talking about specifically, this confirmation in working failure. We would be truth tellers here that as of right now it stands nothing is happening so far that the beginning of this hearing and in the knob and the questioning that is going to derail this operation. Now that doesn't mean things can't come up later. Penalties can be personal issues. I don't.

These could be that line of attack Republicans don't go there and these can be more judicial philosophy in there might be senators who begin to be frustrated by that response and that I couldn't but again I don't see derailing anything as he should probably on the suit Supreme Court as soon as Justice Breyer formally retires, which is at the events in her term that what's interesting is you can have a big case come down in the dumps. Cases coming down in the next and abide by June it's worth work at the end of March. Almost so there's there's real movement on this court. Her answer on Roe versus Wade was was program Casey Rowe to talk about the fact that that's the law. Right now, many get into the other right. I don't expect that that you think that will become a major player in this winter because a doctor probably doesn't. I would imagine that they would follow up at some point, but that didn't happen with severe fines. She did not followed up with what with the court now again that they will never answer hypotheticals about how the corporate didn't even try to push those had a question that it right now you are going to get into the sentencing issue.

We know that's coming from Sen. Holly considered Bruce. I think about the she was on the sentencing commission aware she yelled supported lighter sentences for some of the child for people who possess child with art and so she was all that such a guide to answer those questions and she like mill skirt around those. There's also a question about that her notes and comes to show part of federal commission have a release of no and the question will be what would sit in but again I don't expect that to rise to the level Jordan over nothing, because the Democrats have the votes), and that's with the end of the David advisor initiate manager got 50+1. That's it. You get will be right back recruit notorious American civil injustice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who, through their faith covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy to support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in the way comes 100 constitutional and only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally sealed.

Jesus here means to serve the many ways your membership powering the right question for you/secular Jordan now by our senior advisor, financial security for policy record. Now the present United States yesterday announced that they did to the business leaders our community into the world that America needs to be prepared for massive cyber attacks from Russia, someone will write to Rick on the city. Rick went with the Americans here that we realize now that means every aspect of our life from how we speak to how we communicate to how we access and access our bank accounts everything we do is is is somehow connected to something that could be hacked. But this kind of announcement from our I guess our intelligence community is telling the President. This is coming or there's already trying to do it.

What kind of scale.

Would this be if you're already getting out front saying this is going to happen. Well, obviously we know that hacking is a problem.

The intelligence community watches it closely. But here's the shocking news. Jordan is that the responsibility is on the private companies your bank for instance the year where you get your energy electricity.

All of those private sector companies or local companies.

In some cases they are responsible to the federal government to the federal government can somehow benchmark or give warnings by hacking those into the accounts of largely if not exclusively private companies. So we have to assume that the private companies are spending the money to make sure that they can can block or guard against these hackers and this is a very difficult job because I think a lot of medium-size companies that don't have the money they just assume that you know the services that they purchase from some other entity are good enough, and in many cases they're not good enough. I think we've also got too many people in the public that think it's the government's responsibility to secure all of your systems and it's not right when you unite coming. Obviously this issue of cyber attacks using your domain people are saying and I think there's truth to this, that a cyber attack is a form of warfare in the sense especially was aimed at governmental service. But even private services because it creates up to be an act of terrorism, it could create.

Could you imagine if you go to your ATM in your account show zero or you can pull it out and I can list the thousand played a horribles would you are the you are the director of national intelligence. How big is this threat. Remember when we go back to terrorism back in the early 2000's. What we quickly learned is that there are individuals that are committing acts of terror, not always. Specifically, government or nongovernment actors that rise up and do these types of activities. The same is true when it comes to cyber attacks.

You know there's going to be a point where government like China or Russia or others are going to pretend or say well we didn't do anything officially by what we found the same way with terrorism is that when you allow safe haven within your country when you allow people to formulate and begin to make way to to collect the programs that are needed to launch attacks when you look the other way. You are responsible, and I think that our laws are and have to catch up. The public is good have to catch up to Rick to recognize that it may not be a government entity coming after our cyber systems, but it absolutely could be individual actors within these governments and weird and I have to batten down the hatches so see and make sure that all of our systems are protected and that starts with the private sector is also regular this week at two years later that the New York Times they've now confirmed for the world that Hunter binds laptop and the emails on and all the photos on the oh yeah, it really is his laptop and it was verified as his laptop is under criminal investigation right now about a plate. What are your colleagues Pam body of former Atty. Gen. during the audit. He speaks of years ago. The piece was all about Ukraine Zielinski phone calls were risen by Hunter binds involvement there, take a listen to Pam body by 42 when house managers gave me their presentation when they committed every day were heatedly referenced Hunter vinyl every day you for over 21.

How are they referenced Biden for very over 400 times and we negate these presentations. They said there was nothing, nothing to see. It was a sham. This is fiction.

So, I remember that because I was on the floors and that impeachment hearing.

As most of you know, and the Ukraine issue was big and the Democrats didn't raise this issue Rick and they were telling us that this was all smoke and mirrors was nothing to it. And of course the media went along with them.

Now we find out.

Of course, shockingly, and this is all about Ukraine. This what so fascinating about where we are today and it stayed to duplicity here is is pretty unbelievable. I shout about this. From the moment that it happened and let's remember Natasha Bergeron. We need to remember that name.

She was working for politico.

She now works for CNN. She launched this story with 50 former US intelligence officials saying that you should not look at Hunter binds laptop because expressing disinformation.

Now remember, that was exactly what the Chinese wanted you to say because that laptop is filled with all sorts of evidence of the Biden family intermingled with Chinese businesspeople, 10% for the big guy is the exact quote that Hunter Biden said that when he is doing these deals. He needs to leave 10% to the big guy guessing the big guy we all know the big guy is official Washington is not interested in finding out in the big guy actually get the 10% that Hunter Biden said I think that this is a huge crisis because it shows that Joe Biden is compromised his family's compromise three weeks before the election. You got 1550 former US intelligence officials saying don't look at that three weeks before the election. We don't want you looking at Hunter binds laptop because it's a little russet disinformation. There wasn't a single piece of evidence to suggest it was Russian disinformation. They made it in every single person that signed that letter needs to be hauled in front of a the Senate. Hopefully, when Republicans take over and answer the question why did you manipulate intelligence. Three weeks before an election or partisan game. Rick, I remember that there is, and that it was acknowledged by Pres. Bob Isley and VP. He's walking he's leaving Ukraine. He says you better. This prosecutor was going after Prisma and he said that that I better be fired before you on the plane or else you document your funding I mean this was during that the beginning of the Zielinski government and as they were coming in this new this new government, and he strives it was about corruption but what we find out is that what you said is so much so many foreign business deals and express emails by Hunter Biden say I want to get around the foreign agents registration act is shocking and we cannot have a country when our intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice are partisan think this is a real crisis, not just because the media is not covering that we can accept the fact that the media to cover the stories anymore. The best there there protecting the ruling party, but this is a crisis for the American people because when our intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice are partisan actors who seek to do partisan activities during campaigns and Presidential election. This is a crisis. This is how this is how governments and great institutions collapse your grill, click here. You know course I love that impeachment is one of the lawyers and it is to me it's the irony that it's about Ukraine and Ukraine and Russia in our attic and crew were on the precipice of some you know really difficult.

It's already been horrible for the people of Ukraine by taking a step further here and send in the immediate denial here at the outset of this was so baked in that they need to be held monthly lawsuits under slave point were doing point out the duplicity of what goes on. It's like I'm glad that our people don't creep the Supreme Court nominees like the Democrats treated ours. Frankly, because I think they they they make a mockery of the whole process is the same thing here with the media on this Ukraine was the store I was the basis of an impeachment proceeding. And yet they then ignore the big one of the bigger evidentiary points that were actually available, which they said was Russian disinformation that less than a minute, so I'm frustrated because I hear you say you take the high road and and and we had a nice and everything, but I can do that in my personal life and personal, and I'm really you know a nice person and I'm never going to to do that when you're in politics. I'm not sure that our team should be backing down from a fight or not.

Utilizing every tool imaginable in a way not ask the Yankees to play nice when they're in the World Series recognize that they go for and I am ready to fight and I'm ready to fight on this Supreme Court justice. I think that she's a disaster.

I'm not back down the issue. This is the focus to his recent publicans take back the Senate, you can open up that fight.

Yes, this information is out there is no more that the nihilism is done. Let's get to the bottom there's a criminal investigation of the residence son media doesn't write back and say only one. A society can agree the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We created three powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally sealed/the American Center for Law and were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom.

Protecting those faith covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life and the courts and in Congress ACLJ support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way comes 100 constitutional and so much more to Hunter Biden.

This is a lot of it is just being blocked by the right people be messy because when the Democrats are control of these of these committees that I can open up the investigations that I can haul the people before his business partners in jail just got since last month. The New York Times is finally admitted.

This is not Russian disinformation, such as the photos that are bad of Hunter by the drug use, that's one thing's failure to acknowledge that is the are they on the payroll of the Chinese government owned company owned companies like riprap is not just about Brisbane either Ukrainian what oligarchs control the Biden family and you know if there is an active criminal investigation under so there's a role for Congress to play the house in the Senate. This is again when you talk about elections having consequences you write to Supreme Court nominee also can issue like this were two years and and Rick second.

What is so frustrating to him as he cups of the Intel world yet 50 of those until to say no to this is fake and everyone was saying like these are real pictures of Hunter Biden.so what is for we were saying that there was information inside the emails were fake and it was just Russian disinformation, which in the book were snapping the patient available in Russia on the impeachment is Pam Pam Bundy was right, they raised 400 times in their briefs in their oral arguments and the reason for 20 minutes later.

Okay, let's been out of some important factors. I guess I can't blame you will play whatever happens here in Russia but that I would ask you for this politicized this would save any information about about judgment branded when the judge asked visit Russian disinformation nested anytime you pose Democrats now or any kind of Democrat action your Russian agent and now that's worse because Russia is now engaged in a war of choice that looks run in December watching real-time. It is horrendous. But never before this whole lead up to this, who was pushing who went to war something that historians will look at you when you touch, start with the impeachment you start picking size between Ukraine and Russia very dangerous, pitting them against each other which ultimately has ended up in this department. Treasury with 25% of the population at least despite never to return you so let let's which is what would things Russia wants to getting alright so let's let's go back to the Supreme Court fundamental rights is a question on how do you define fundamental rights and the Supreme Court nominee says Joe Jackson says I define them as impartiality.

Now Harry impartiality is a requirement of the judge. You have to be impartial, but that is not the definition of a fundamental right. I think that's true, and I think Judge Jackson knows that but she did not want to get tripped up by going deep into providing a complete answer, but she could simply start.

I think with the Bill of Rights, I think, as you pointed out earlier, the Bill of Rights at least gives us an outline of what constitutes a fundamental right within the meaning of the Constitution, so it provides at least some parameters and so if you look at Roe V Wade or Planned Parenthood. The Casey court whether they got it right or wrong. I think they got it wrong in those cases, they attempted to define fundamental rights but I think at the end of the day. She did not want to engage deeply in that particular conversation.

I would also say that she's probably not as quick on her feet with respect to recalling cases like Amy Cody Barrett was who seem to have virtually a permit, a perfect memory.

Memory leak with respect to the patient's let's go back to the fundamental right thing is I think it's a biggie I'm what I said earlier, fundamental rights really easy right to freedom of speech and repressed free exercise of religion right petition government free just agreements the right to bear our Second Amendment right to against self-incrimination right to a speedy trial mean you could even go through it. So my question is Harry why not answer it that way. So what is the reason you don't answer the question that what you know I prepped the question whole impartiality is obviously that they may come up with. I think they came up with an exquisite Dodge for her because they did not want her to fully engage in that particular debate. If you think about that debate from a policy perspective, that debate if you're not incredibly conversant.

It is filled with landmines and they could indeed blow up.

And so I think at the end of the day. They simply startled for a kind of bland answer because I think at this point the assessment and I think this assessment is correct. The assessment is this particular nomination is hers for the taking. More likely than not she will indeed be confirmed. So let's not raise any hackles the last point I would make is that if she answered some of those questions on fundamental rights in depth.

Those words might come back to haunt her when she rules on significant constitutional cases.

She's clearly just a suit who is in the mold of justice bar which is this kind of living, breathing Constitution, write me, but you raise a good point which is that's fine, but there were a lot more just judges that on that list that were up to the left of her at least writings, there was, there is obviously sub sub back in for Beatrice because she's got admit that's what this is a little bit stumping to some Republican senators I think you might first see the frustration that Beatrice is restricting frustration from some of the Democrats and is I think this this methodology answer is a bogus answer every judge has to be impartial. That's not a judicial philosophy. That's a basis for being a judge. I mean if you're not impartial, you should be impeached as a judge to be thrown out of thrown out whatever level of judge you are from the lowest level to the Supreme Court. That's not a judicial philosophy that is basics. So that's that.

I don't go to work in round two of questioning because grandmother Baumgartner answer to the given maker drilled and I think that at least you said we don't go to personal attacks but you can't say why you don't support this nominee, why you don't think this verse is the right person to be in the court is all I have to look at is the group supporting and I don't know where they're getting it from exactly, is not from this early time.

The trial court it's not in a lot of public writings but sub for some reason they have lined up and that's when trying to figure out here in my debate they were supposed that nominee that South Carolina that that anybody but her could be which are sent well, my sense is that she could be a bit like the individual who nominated her for that is Joe Biden. So remember when he ran for President he ran for President as a bit of a centrist Democrat and I think it's possible. This is pure speculation on my part that she may have convinced that the nominating committee for lack of a better term that she would. She's prepared to move a little toward the left and if that is the case. This is speculation. She's the perfect candidate because it she's a candidate that is very difficult to attack.

Yet when I look she's been a judge for AER eight years in the DC trial courts. The DC District Court and Jesus went on the Court of Appeal, so does not like she's not qualified Presidents get to nominate its advice and consent of the Senate side.

Like I said I'm you and I understand opposition and disagreements, but the fact is the end of the day that I think unless something usually happens she's confirmed it doesn't move the needle on the court. As far as the ideological makeup.

That's another reason why these are not bad intent, but they certainly work and asked her and she takes her faith seriously.

She said that the dogma live deeply within a remember what they did to Amy Barrett on round one very private about her faith in what were don't know like what denomination that's fine if that would not be acceptable for Republican nominee.

The Catholic nominees called out for the pro-life position of the church. I heard faith, which he said is deeply important to her.

They just accepted thought you more tomorrow. Constitutional and religious freedom is most important to you and your family. You forgive today online