← Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis
Loading summary
Transcript77 lines
- [00:02]
A
Welcome to the no Spin News Weekend Edition.
- [00:07]
B
Joining us now from Florida is a constitutional attorney. Now, this guy has been around. Bruce Fine was general counsel of the FCC under President Reagan, participated in the drafting of articles, impeachment against Nixon and Bill Clinton. Wow, Quite the resume, counselor.
- [00:32]
C
Flattery will get you everywhere.
- [00:33]
B
Well, it's okay. I mean, I'm telling the truth. We only get the best guests on this program. All right, so am I reading this wrong, that the Trump administration probably will win this in the Supreme Court?
- [00:48]
C
I think right now the jury is out. But let me add a couple of footnotes to your opening observations. The power to utilize the military to enforce the law is not in the Constitution. It's in congressional statutes. Shays Rebellion actually occurred before the Constitution in 1786. But those are small things. At present. We do know that there's a statute, at least now President Trump has refrained from invoking. It's called the Insurrection act of 1807. It was urged by some to be utilized with regard to many of the protests that surfaced after George Floyd killing. But President Trump, I think he was concerned that military wasn't completely supportive of invoking the Insurrection Act. That says in times when there's sufficient chaos and disruption that the enforcement of federal laws is severely compromised, he can utilize the military. It is what's called an exception to the, to the Comitatus Posse Comitatus act of 1877, which says ordinarily you can't use the military to enforce civilian law unless Congress by statute creates an exception.
- [02:05]
B
Let me stop you there. Let me push back. So the Shays Rebellion came under the Articles of Confederation, which were then incorporated into the U.S. constitution. In 1871, U.S. grant ordered federal troops to South Carolina without congressional approval to put down a Ku Klux Klan. It was like a war and the federal troops went in and it was violent, shooting, all kinds of stuff. Okay. Then the city of New Orleans and others were taken over by the federal government because they would not ensure public safety. You'll remember that there were actually law enforcement agents from New York City that were appointed to run the New Orleans Police Department with federal oversight. So you're correct in your interpretation. But there is that clause that there are exceptions to the Posse Comitatus law when the public or federal facilities or people are deemed to be in danger, correct?
- [03:05]
C
Well, I mean, I think I never like to be disputatious, but again, I add a little bit of context here. Remember, those invocations by President Grant were during Reconstruction. Were there military governments running all of the South. Reconstructions did not end until at least 1870.
- [03:25]
B
Yeah, but it didn't matter because the South Carolinian authorities had their own elected officials and they would not deal with the Ku Klux Klan. That's why Grant wrote the order.
- [03:38]
C
Yeah, right, but that was before the Posse Comitatus act, and it was six years before it was based upon Reconstruction law. But I'm just saying, Bill, there's nothing in the express language of the Constitution that addresses this issue. It does say in Article 1, Section 9, that Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus and you could impose martial law, so to speak. But that's Congress, not the executive branch. And here, at least at present, Mr. Trump is not Congress to do anything, including.
- [04:14]
B
So then you would. You would say that the Trump lawyers are going to raise the Insurrection Act. That would be the way to go. Correct.
- [04:22]
C
If they want to. If they want to.
- [04:25]
B
Well, you're going to have to defend it. They're going to have to.
- [04:28]
C
I think that is correct. And say that was contemplated during the George Floyd demonstrations, many of which erupted into violence. But Trump decided, for his own reasons, not to invoke the Insurrection Act. But I underscore the importance in my mind is always process over personalities. That's what the process is. And Congress can expand the instances in which a president can use the military by statute, but has to amend the law and make it as possible. It can be justified. And the law is pretty clear, Bill, that the dividing line between when we have ordinary law enforcement and these extraordinary occasions when the president can intercede is basically when the court system has broken down. We know that courts are there because people do violate the law from time to time. There are massive violations during probation.
- [05:18]
B
Okay, but let me stop you there. Sanctuary cities defy the law. Chicago and Portland are punctuated cities. So that.
- [05:28]
C
Go ahead. It's more complicated, Bill, for this reason, and I don't want to sound like a lawyer.
- [05:32]
B
No, no, no. Just. Just shoot it. Go ahead.
- [05:35]
C
This is the U.S. supreme Court, and it arose with regard to gun control. And the Supreme Court held you cannot coerce state authorities to enforce federal law. Right. Immigration law is federal law. It's exclusively entrusted to Congress and the executive in Article 1, Section 8. And the courts have held that you cannot compel a state to assist in immigration enforcement. A state may choose to cooperate. Fair enough. Right. And the federal government can utilize as many ICE agents they want to enforce federal law. So it's a little bit misleading to say you may disagree with the decision of a State to say, we don't want to help enforce.
- [06:19]
B
Okay, but, but, but help is different. What was the difference then? What would be the difference then? You can flood the zone with ICE agents, but why not National Guard? It's the same protective apparatus. Look, when the feds go. You were around. You were around. Wait a minute. You were around when the federal government took over the city of New Orleans Police Department. Okay, they did it, citing public safety, that the police department in New Orleans, the state of Louisiana, was not able to. To protect the citizenry. The same law that was used to send the Guard into LA when there were the riots, that the, when the police chief of Los Angeles said, we can't handle this, and we clearly said it and our people are in danger. Bang. The Guard went in and the courts allowed them to go in. Correct?
- [07:20]
C
Yes. And then. Correct. And that. And the reason was because the state authorities were saying, we cannot.
- [07:26]
B
No, no, just the police chief. The governor wouldn't. The governor repudiated it and so did the legislature.
- [07:32]
C
He wasn't contradicted. The states weren't. I mean, the governor wasn't contradicting that. Here we have a situation which is a little more complex where the governors are saying, we can handle this issue. We don't need assistance. And at least at present, it doesn't appear as though the federal officials being sent in are confined to simply enforcing the immigration laws which they're entitled to do. Let me, let me challenge again, agents as he wishes.
- [08:00]
B
If you have a chief of patrol sending out a message to cops, do not protect ICE agents as you have in Chicago, that seems to me to be all you need to. To send in National Guard to protect the ICE agents.
- [08:19]
C
Well, I agree with that. And that. And the National Guard could go in and protect the ICE agents for sure. Just like he can send in the Guard to protect federal buildings, including ICE building, if they're attacked. I have no doubt about that. I think some of the litigation bill is because some of the federal interveners are going beyond simply enforcing the immigration laws and protecting ICE agents, although they're doing that as well as. But I do not. And if it comes to the U.S. supreme Court, I have no doubt that with regard to federal officials enforcing federal law, that the Supreme Court will say Trump, under existing statutes can dispose of the National Guard, the military, to accomplish that function. To the extent there's a dispute, it's. Well, whether they can go beyond the federal functions and enforce the law more generally.
- [09:09]
B
Okay, that seems to be, that seems to be logical. But you know the National Guard isn't making any arrests in D.C. where it's posted and wouldn't make any arrests in Portland or Chicago. They're there to contain the violence and the arrests are being made by federal agents. Primarily. You know that the Guard hadn't made any arrests. So that would take that issue away from the judges that are trying to stay it. Let's face it, the US Economy is under stress, national debt rising, trade war shaking the markets and meanwhile China is dumping the dollar and stockpiling gold. That's why I protected my savings with physical gold and silver. Thoreau, the only dealer I trust, American Hartford Gold. And you can do this, get precious metals delivered to your door or place in a tax Advantage Gold IRA. They'll even help you roll over your existing IRA or 401k tax and penalty free. With billions in precious metals delivered, thousands of five star reviews and an A from the Better Business Bureau. You can trust American Hartford Gold as I do. Please call 866-326-5576 or text BILL to 998899. Again, that's 866-326-5576, or text BILL to 998-899. No newspaper is more iconic than the New York Post. So why not start your day with me telling you our best stories? Hi, I'm Caitlin Becker, host of the New York Postcast. Every weekday morning I'll break down the headlines that matter to you and the stories you're going to want to talk to your friends about. It's a mix of politics, business, pop culture, basically everything you expect from the New York Post. Ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast podcast, listen and subscribe on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [11:18]
C
Well, it's oftentimes the law is very complicated and lawyers draw lines that maybe are mysterious to lay people. But even if they're not making arrests, the statute says that you can be summoned to protect federal buildings, federal officers in the discharge of federal responsibilities. But it doesn't say as long as you don't make arrests, you can go ahead and police for other purposes, at least if the state officials don't want. Now my view is that the immigration is the chief issue. Why are you going to and if you're asking for an electoral mandate, Trump did get a mandate with regard to immigration, but I don't think he got a mandate for every other law.
- [12:01]
B
Right. Well, immigration certainly in Chicago, I think that's the property in Portland, Oregon. That'll absurd But I'm going to predict here, Counselor, that the Supreme Court will allow the guard to go in and basically about what you said, but I don't know whether they're going to be that specific in spelling out exactly what the guard and can't. Can and can't do. I don't. That would be unusual for the court to do that. Last word.
- [12:29]
C
No. I study the court, read a lot of their opinions. No. Sometimes they can be very precise. You can go this far, but no further. They don't have to do that. After all, they're the final word. Right, but it wouldn't be unique in the annals of Supreme Court.
- [12:45]
B
No, no. But this is a political. This is a political court. And I don't know whether it's going to be 6, 3 or 5, 4. It might be 5, 4. But I think they're going to give Trump the authority to do this because they understand that the locals and states are undermining the federal government here. That's how I see it.
- [13:05]
C
And I want to make one thing clear, Bill. I do think it becomes constitutionally suspect for, for a state to say, we're not going to help or protect these agents, but others we will protect. Because the U.S. supreme Court has also said you can't single out federal operations for discrimination. Once you have state authorities out there, you can't, insofar as they're discharging their duties, say, we'll protect everything except the feds. That doesn't work. The Supreme Court has said it's got to be even handed if you have the authority at all.
- [13:40]
B
All right. You think I should take the bar exam, Councilor? That was a good discussion. I appreciate your expertise. And we'll have you back after they rule because they're gonna have to rule fast on this. So thank you very much, Council. We appreciate it.
- [13:56]
A
You're listening to the no Spa News Weekend Edition.
- [14:01]
B
Okay, Media Madness. First big change in the network news hierarchy has been implemented. It's a woman named Barry Weiss. B A R I Weiss, big on the Internet, runs the Free Press. Okay. Used to work for the New York Times. Quit because she said it was far too liberal. She is pro Israel, anti woke. She has been appointed by CBS News's new ownership, Paramount Skydance, as the editor in chief. CBS rank and file are freaking out because it's 90% liberal over there, as everyone knows. Now Ms. Weiss comes in and is going to change the culture. That's why Skydance hired her. Joining us now from Herndon, Virginia, is Tim Graham, is executive editor of News Busters, which is a conservative watchdog group that follows the media very close. So as you know, Tim, I used to work for CBS News. I was there when rather was the anchor in liberal culture then pretty intense liberal culture when I was there. Now it's off the chart. What do you think is going to happen with new management at CBS News?
- [15:22]
D
Well, it has to change somehow. You know, she fired the first shot, so to speak, in this memo she sent out when she took office. Just the title editor in chief makes all the liberals nervous. And especially when I think it was item six and seven, she said, we are going to try to provide equal scrutiny of the political parties and we are going to try to ensure a diversity of viewpoints. Both of those are extremely opposed to what we generally see on CBS. Specifically on some programs like 60 Minutes, we are already seeing there's complaints saying please don't touch the Crown Jewels of 60 Minutes and CBS News Sunday Morning. Those are two of the most aggressively tilted shows where you have fierce scrutiny of Trump and the Republicans and you have fierce publicity for Biden, Harris, you know, and the like.
- [16:23]
B
Right, right.
- [16:23]
D
So, I mean it's, it's, we know.
- [16:26]
B
The CBS Morning Sunday Morning program because they flat out refused to put me on to talk about my books and I'm a best selling nonfiction author in the world. That's Jane Pauley, by the way. Jane looks so nice out there in her little demure outfits and all of that hardcore leftist, hardcore leftist. 60 Minutes been taken over. When Hewitt and Wallace were there running, it wasn't that left. It was a little bit, but not crazy. Now it's crazy. They want to get President Trump to do an interview. I talked to the president about this on Friday. He's still up in the air about it, but he's got, Mr. Trump has the advantage now because if they do anything untoward, they, they got to answer for it, whereas they didn't have to answer to the old CBS News hierarchy. So that in itself is a big change, correct?
- [17:20]
D
Yeah, it certainly is. And what I enjoyed the last time when President Trump sat down with Leslie's doll, they recorded it themselves. And we got these, these great nuggets like Leslie Stahl trying to tell Donald Trump, you can't verify Hunter Biden's laptop. They can't do that. And then they did. But yeah, it's plainly anti journalism to say we cannot or more likely we refuse to do work that embarrasses Democrats. That's what, that's at least what the memo says. Barry Weiss is trying to change.
- [17:58]
B
Well, look, Scott Pelley hates Trump. Hates him. And in just when he gives his speeches outside of cbs, I mean, he says it. Pelly. Pelly's not a phony. He just said I hate him. So who's going to interview him on 60 Minutes? Can't have Leslie. Can't have Pelly. Who are you going to have? I don't know. The rest of them are. I mean, they just kind of parade them in and out. Now.
- [18:23]
A
I'm Piers Morgan, the host of the Piers Morgan Uncensored podcast. We do big interviews and, and we do big debates about whatever's getting people talking. We make news, we make noise, and we make a little bit of trouble too. Come and see what all the fuss is about. You can listen to Piers Morgan uncensored on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [18:48]
B
Power politics and the people behind the headlines. Our country's back. We're really back. Candid conversations with the people making the rules and changing the game. Can you see yourself as president one day? I don't think about that. We just had an invasion over our southern border. My husband is in the corner, for the record, pumping his fist right now that you're asking this question. This is real talk with lawmakers, newsmakers and political disruptors.
- [19:18]
A
You know, I think Elon's port probably bent felt more of a Viking.
- [19:23]
B
I think I'm more of a ninja. Join me, Miranda Devine, host of podforce.
- [19:28]
A
One, for insightful talk, news making moments.
- [19:31]
B
And behind the scenes peeks at what makes America's greatest minds tick. Find Pod Force One on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever you get your podcasts. Your ratings are very good and I.
- [19:46]
C
Want to congratulate you.
- [19:48]
B
Say that CBS moderates a little bit and I believe it will. I was on with Major Garrett for Confronting Evil and Major is a colleague of mine from Fox and he's now a big CBS guy and he put me on right away. We had a very good discussion. So that was a shocker to me. Came out of nowhere. And so I said, wow, maybe this change in the air. I don't see change in the air for Disney BC and Comcast, NBC. Do you see any change over there in those two places?
- [20:18]
D
I would say no. I mean, NBC is sort of shedding msnbc.
- [20:23]
B
They're done, right? It's over.
- [20:26]
D
So MSNBC might actually get worse. But yeah, I don't think there's, there's anybody inside those buildings that are going to say, why don't we try applying equal scrutiny to both parties? I mean, look, this is exactly what we've tried to suggest would be the way to do it. The old fashioned way to do it is you would, first of all, you grant access to both parties and then you would try to ask each of them fair and somewhat challenging questions. And that's just not what we've got instead. Yeah, well, he's doing interviews with Biden where they edit him out.
- [21:02]
B
Disney's taking it on the chin, though. I mean, their theme park attendance is down. They're getting cancellations for Hulu and their cable outs because traditional Americans know to fix this in and they know they can take it out on Disney, Comcast a little bit different. They, they let Ms. It's Ms. Now. They're on their own and that's going to fail because they, they just don't have any resources. So I give them a year and they're not going to pay anybody anything. And that's another thing. Salaries are going to drop all over the place. Let's get the cable because we are talking about Ms. Now. So the cable operations, they're not under the same scrutiny as the network news because the FCC has no power over cable at all. None. Whereas the FCC does have power over the three networks. Does that make a difference?
- [21:58]
D
Well, you'd think it does now because one of the complaints about whether it was Jimmy Kimmel, whether it was the lawsuits against CBS for example, they all thought, well, if you want to, if you have any business where you want to acquire a media property and the FCC or the FTC has to approve it, then Donald Trump's going to tell you you need to do X, Y and Z. So they've been concerned about that. So yes, the cable operations don't have that fear. But the problem is, as you suggested, Nielsen now tries to measure these things where they said half of Americans watching television are watching it on streaming and the other half it's cable and broadcast combined. And we certainly know, I know from my own children, they're not watching broadcast tv. They're, they're not listening to broadcast radio.
- [22:46]
B
Absolutely. Over. My urchins haven't watched a network show in years. Now they're young adults and they still don't watch it. So the clock is ticking on all of them. Hey Tim, thanks very much. If you get any inside stuff, let us know. And we appreciate you helping us out.
- [23:05]
A
This is the no Spin News Weekend Edition.
- [23:10]
B
Okay, so the National Guard is on the way to Chicago. The fascinating story. First, the Facts. Governor Pritzker is the villain here. And I can back that up. So he's been in office for six years. During that time, 4,000, mostly African Americans, 80% have been murdered. And Pritzker has done nothing. What could he do? He could call out the National Guard. Now, President Trump has federalized the Illinois National Guard, so they're going to be called out. But Pritzker could have done that three, four years ago, but he didn't do it. Why not? No one knows, okay? No one knows. 4,000 murdered. Pritzker sits there for six years, does nothing. Now Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, is taking credit for the decline in crime in the Windy City. And that that's a legitimate point that Johnson has. Okay? Johnson is racist, in my opinion. He's blaming everything. Black people is all right, but violent crime has come down a bit since Johnson's been in office. I don't know why. Don't know, okay? But it has. So acknowledge that fact. But you still, the national average of violent crime, Chicago's way above it. Way above it. You can't just say, well, we're not doing anything because crime's coming down a bit. No, you got dead bodies in the street. Last week, 29 people were shot. 29. One weekend, wasn't even a holiday weekend. Now we got Columbus Day or Indigenous Day, whatever day coming up, three day weekend. I mean, you probably have 40 or 50 shot. Pritzker, no, Johnson. Oh, it's coming down. All right, fine. So the National Guard, it looks to me like about 500 of them, some from Texas, some from Illinois. And they're going to be protecting ICE agents on immigration raids. That is the reason they're there. And you know, as we reported yesterday, that the Chicago Police Department isn't protecting the ICE agents. But we'll play you the tape in a moment. You know that. And that somebody's got to protect them. If the Chicago cops are. The state troopers aren't going to do it. Who's going to do it? National Guard has to do it. And the Guard is there, to be honest, to tamp down a crime in a poor south side areas where these people, drug gangs are shooting down people at will. Now, they're not going to say that because you're not supposed to use the US Military to enforce local and state law. They'll say, we're protecting ICE agents. So we played this yesterday, but it's worth repeating. Ten cars full of protesters approached three ICE agents on Saturday. A shootout occurred. One of the protesters was shot. Of course, the Chicago police knew about it almost immediately and units were on their way to the scene. And then the dispatcher said this. Roll it. And again, for the chief of patrol.
- [26:37]
C
We have all the units that for 999. Chief of Patrol sud all units clear out from there. We're not sending anybody over to that location.
- [26:49]
D
62.
- [26:49]
B
We're going to clear out as soon as we can. Spot we're like locked in over here. So we're going to do the best.
- [26:54]
C
We can to get out of here as soon as we can.
- [26:58]
B
Chief of patrol is a guy named John Hein. H E I N I charge him with obstruction of a federal investigation. Hindering a federal investigation. You can't do that now. He may get off. Okay, due process. He'll have a defense, but I charge him. Let's see another point of view. Joining us from Washington, Dwayne Keys, former U.S. attorney, Western District of Arkansas. He is now practicing with the National Security law firm in D.C. he's a lieutenant colonel in the Arkansas National Guard. So would you charge him this chief of patrol?
- [27:41]
A
Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief Podcast. If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy and the biggest global.
- [27:49]
B
Stories going on of the day, this is the show for you.
- [27:52]
A
We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon. And on the weekend, we go longer with the PDB Situation Report with excellent guests including national security insiders and foreign policy experts. Check us out on Spotify, Apple, or.
- [28:07]
B
Wherever you get your podcasts.
- [28:08]
A
Also on our YouTube channel at PresidentsDaily Brief.
- [28:12]
B
Hey there, it's your buddy, Craig Carton. And if you're like me, you could use a timeout from the chaotic news cycle, a pause from the politics, a break from the bedlam. I'm inviting you to join me every day on the Craig Carton Show Podcast, where we tackle the biggest sporting events of the day and give honest, hot takes on and off the field. Sports talk should be fresh, informative and fun. And that's what we deliver every single day. So give your ears a much needed vacation. It's time to tune out the noise and take a break from the nonstop news cycle. Subscribe now to the Craig Carton Show Podcast, available on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [28:57]
A
I would probably need a few more facts before I charge you. I definitely see where I see your thoughts, and I agree that there's something needs to be looked into. My number one concern, Bill, is that police were en route. This was not Something where, you know, maybe they didn't have the resources or they were responding to a message across that they were going, they were going en route. I would also like to know. I would also like to know, you know, the ICE agents on the ground, did they know police were coming? I mean, were they told, you know, hey, help is on the way? Because if they would have told that, they would have probably acted differently. You know, knowing that. That reinforcements are coming and then to pull them out in route. It's extremely disturbing for many reasons. I would like to know exactly this, Mr. Hines, Officer Hines. I'd like to know comments that he made beforehand and afterwards, because obstruction really goes, that there's a mental state there that you've got to intentionally be trying to obstruct. His actions seem to indicate that. There's a few more details that I would like. But I will say this, Bill, even regardless of a criminal, you know, a criminal referral, I think there might be some civil issues here. I mean, you know, there is 4318 USC 1983, which means that, you know, if someone acting under color of state law, you know, violates your rights, you know, they can be sued. I think there might be a lawsuit here. You know, these people had the right to be protected by the police. They had the right to not to be fired upon. And here it is. The police had the ability to intervene and chose not to. There might be.
- [30:35]
B
They would have to do that as private citizens. But remember, there was a woman shot. One of the protesters was shot. She's in FBI custody right now. So it's the Chicago Police Department's jurisdiction. And they wouldn't answer a shootout, well, we got a bullet. Come on.
- [30:58]
A
And I tell you, I want to add to that bill because this is not a question of a state or a municipality saying that we're not going to enforce federal law or we're not going to aid federal law enforcement officers. What you heard in that clip right there is these are. These are state officers, police officers who are refusing to intervene in state.
- [31:21]
B
But they were ordered, though. They were ordered by their superior. Don't go there. And you know, that guy didn't do it on his own, okay? That chief of patrol, he's got people above on the mayor, the police chief and the police chief tried to say before we got the tape yesterday, counselor, this is just for your information, before we got the tape and we got it almost first. The police chief was. Went out and said, oh, no, no, we were answering the call. No, you weren't no, we weren't. Right. So I think that you're right. There has to be an investigation. FBI should be in there and putting it all together. But for me, if all the facts stay the way we know them now, and then you add other evidence, you got to indict, you got to.
- [32:12]
A
I'll tell you one other thing, Bill, that bothers me. And as you know, police officers are one of the few individuals, they actually have a duty to intervene when they see a crime happening. You know, you and I, as regular citizens, we can walk down the street, if somebody is in need of help or whatnot, medical attention, we can walk right by and we haven't committed a crime. But a police officer, you know, cloaked in that authority has a duty to act, has a duty to respond. And so to have sent them, had the manpower, had the resources, they were en route and then to call them off, I mean, you're now violating state law. So it's just a. Yeah, but.
- [32:50]
B
The state will never absolutely has to be a federal situation. One final question for you. The Trump administration obviously is moving the Guard into Chicago, Louisiana, Portland, Oregon. But there's a political component to this as well. And the political component is that the President of the United States doesn't want to tolerate anarchy and lawlessness. Will that work for or against the federal government if any cases do go into court?
- [33:31]
A
I think it's going to work for the federal government. I think the President has the absolute right under the Constitution to federalize National Guard, to send them in to, to protect federal property. And that's just one aspect of it. Just to protect federal property. Absolutely. But then if the, if the crime gets to the point, if the, the anarchy gets to the point that the President sees the need that he's got to go in there and restore, Restore law, he's got that authority to do. There's some, there's some checks he has to go through, but ultimately this has been tested, it's gone through the courts. And the President does have the power, so long as he follows the law and goes through the correct procedure. Yes. He can send the National Guard in to restore, to restore justice, to restore peace and law.
- [34:18]
B
Right. And Pritzker, the governor and I could have done that years ago, but didn't do it. Nobody knows why.
- [34:24]
C
Correct?
- [34:25]
A
Absolutely. And in fact, even, even when the President federalize the National Guard and sends them in, they can do it in a cooperation agreement. There is a way for it, for a cooperation agreement so that Pritzker will still have command and control of the, of the National Guard from his state, but will act in, act in relationship in cooperation with the federal government.
- [34:49]
B
President Trump actually asked Pritzker to do that. He requested in writing that Pritzker cooperate with the feds and to get this murder rate under control and to guard ICE agents and federal property. And then Pritzker said no, again, no reason. You know, he militarization, all that. All right, Council, thanks very much. Appreciate your time. All right.
- [35:14]
A
Thank you for listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the no Spin news, visit billow riley.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's Billow Riley.com sign up and start watching today.