← The Josh Hammer Show
Loading summary
Transcript25 lines
- [00:01]
A
I drive my bus in a busy city. That's why road safety is so important to me. I know that I must slow down and be extra careful when I make a wide turn. Buses need more room than cars. Everyone can help keep our roads safe. Next time you're driving, remember to give buses plenty of time and space to finish turning before driving ahead. Let's all plan to share the road safely. Learn how at www.sharetheroadsafely.gov. I'm Josh Hatmer and this is the Josh Hammer Show. A lot going on out there in the world. The United States has sent a third aircraft carrier strike group to the Middle East. Could this weekend prove to be the end of this ceasefire, A ceasefire in name only, frankly, as the case may be. Well, we will have to find out. Also, Rachel Bovard will join us later in the show to unpack all that is happening in the Senate when it comes to the Save America act reconciliation 2.0. Republicans attempt to pass a major bill this summer and more. But for now, we begin with this. Our eyes are often on the US Supreme Court. As you know, earlier this week we had Molly Hemingway on the show to talk about her book Alito, and also to continue this broader conversation that we are closely tracking here on the show as to whether or not there is going to be a Supreme Court vacancy this summer. As of right now, I believe that the answer to that question is yes. Admittedly, I am not sure. It's probably close to a 50, 50 jump ball proposition, but we are currently operating under the presumption that there is slightly likelier, if only slightly, to be a vacancy on the nation's high court this summer, likely in the form of Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas. Although Molly Hemingway this week suggested that perhaps it could be the Chief Justice, John Roberts, which frankly, would be amazing. Regardless, there is a real enough chance that we have to have the conversation. We have to start talking about what kind of merits and what kind of criteria we ought to look for. And the corollary of that is what we should not be looking for when it comes to it to a new jurist to the nation's highest court. Now, the entire notion that the national conversation in politics and culture and society at large, the entire notion that we could be sidetracked into this parlor game as to who comprises Hamilton's famous least dangerous branch per federal 78, the entire notion that we should be having this conversation is itself somewhat ludicrous. After all, the court was never meant to have this much power. Unfortunately, for various reasons, it does, and therefore, we must care. And that brings me to my column today, which is about whether conservatives actually really mean what they say when they talk about no more suitors. David Souter is a name that you probably have not thought about in a long time. What happened was that in 1990, early in his what proved to be his only term in office, President George H.W. bush had a vacancy on the nation's highest court. And at that time, his White House chief of staff was a man by the name of John Sununu. If you know anything about New Hampshire or New England politics, you know that Sununu is synonymous with Republican politics in the state of New Hampshire. John Sununu was George H.W. bush's White House chief of staff and formerly the governor of New Hampshire going back to the 1980s. As governor of New Hampshire in 1983, John Sununu nominated David Souter to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Seven years later, in 1990, as George H.W. bush's White House chief of staff, Sununu assured President George H.W. bush and all of the D.C. conservative establishment that David Souter would be a, quote, unquote, home run. That was the verbiage to use a home run for conservatives. Taking John Sununu, his chief of staff, at his word, George H.W. bush nominated David Souter. The results of that were positively disastrous. Only two years after he was nominated to the court, Souter joined the court's majority In Planned Parenthood vs Casey, the infamous case out of Pennsylvania in 1992 in which Roe vs Wade, the essential abortion holding of that case, was upheld. Slightly modified, but it was broadly upheld. And over the next 17 years, on his nearly two decades on the court in total, Souter proved to be a reliable member of the Court's liberal voting bloc, so much so that he waited until Barack Obama's presidency in 2009 to retire. Ultimately, Souter, who again was a Republican nominee, was replaced by Barack Obama, and he nominated Sonia Surmayor. And that is the seat today. Around this time in the 1990s and the 2000s, as conservatives observed this astonishing betrayal from the man that John Sununu said was a home run for the conservative cause, around this time, conservatives said, wow, this can never happen again. No more suitors. And they said they meant it. The question is, today, as we approach a possible vacancy in the High court this summer, do conservatives actually mean it? Well, the track record for being honest is actually quite spotty. So George W. Bush, the son, of course, of George H.W. bush, had two bites at the apple one bite was phenomenal. He gave us Sam Alito, who we are hearing might resign this summer. His other bite at the apple was much more unfortunate. It was John Roberts, the ever fickle Chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Donald Trump had three bites of the apple during his first term. Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch are the three that turned out to be clear. None of the three of them are true. David Souter, like betrayals, Barrett is the weakest of the bunch. Gorsuch, with some glaring exceptions, is the strongest of the bunch. But none of them are Alito or Clarence Thomas esque heavyweights either. So the question now is, do conservatives actually really mean what they said when it comes to no more suitors? To be clear, when they said no more suitors, they didn't just mean no more stealth liberals on the nation's high court. What they really meant was no more listening to the John Sununu of Washington who would just whisper in your ear and say, trust me, he's solid. He's rock solid. No, that's not going to cut it anymore. We need to see Demonstrable track records show us that you have bled for the cause, really? And all the causes, not just the fetish issues of the libertarian intellectual clericy, not just the Ministry of State, as important as that issue is, also all of the cultural issues, the civilizational issues. Have you, as a prospective would be SCOTUS nominee, have you bled for the cause? Not just when it comes to Chevron deference and hour deference and these other parochial, fairly nerdy administrative law doctrines, have you also bled for the cause when it comes to the sanctity of human life, when it comes to gender ideology, when it comes to human anthropology and the nature of the human being, when it comes to borders, immigration, sovereignty, the crux of our culture and civilizational war issues, is there excellence? Is there across the board conservatism? Is there intellectual integrity? Is there consistent principle? Is there courage, fearlessness? These are the only things that we should care about. And as I mentioned on the show last week, I keep on hearing this rumor that there are folks adjacent to the administration, perhaps some even in the White House Counsel's office itself, who are now saying that they are worried about picking someone who might be too conservative or too strident. Rather, they are saying that they actually want someone who can try to better manage coalitions, which is a fancy way of saying better mollify the moderates. John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett and so forth. That's not part of the job description. For decades we have said we want justice in the mold of Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Last I checked, I said that because I meant that. The good news is that there are no shortage of individuals who actually do fit this criteria. The single best pick is my former boss, Judge Jim ho of the U.S. corps appeals for the 5th Circuit, who has an astonishing excellent track record all across the board. John Sauer, the current Solicitor General of the United States, is frequently mentioned in these conversations. He would be a great pick, too. There's lots of other strong contenders. Lawrence Van dyke on the 9th Circuit would be a great Supreme Court Justice. Paul Matey on the Third Circuit, Matt Kaczmarek on the Northern District of Texas, Lisa branch on the 11th Circuit. There are many excellent contenders. There are some who seem to covet the seat whose track record is wanting, such as Andy Oldsmar, the Fifth Circuit. But the point is, no more suitors. I am sick. Sick of this long and sordid history of Republican judicial nominations. A horrific track record going back as far as Dwight Eisenhower's nomination of William Brennan in 1956, Richard Nixon's nomination of Harry Blackmun, 1970. No more suitors. For a long time, conservatives said it, they will have another chance this summer. Perhaps, we don't know. Perhaps they might have another opportunity to prove that they mean it. And for the love of God, don't get this one wrong. Folks, I want to tell you about what's going on with the Save America act in the Senate as well. But for now, just a quick word from our sponsor for today's show, which is ifcg, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. Right now, our Jewish friends feel forgotten. There's a Jewish woman named Esther I'd like to tell you about. In her home in Israel, Esther is living through days and nights of fear. Sirens sounding, rockets screaming through the sky, long stretches spent in a bomb shelter. 84 years old, Esther is elderly, fragile and alone. Imagine that. No help, no food deliveries, no medical care, no one knocking at the door in a war zone. Because of friends like you, Esther is not alone. Through the fellowship, you are there, bringing food, meeting urgent needs and reminding Jewish people like Esther you are not for forgotten. In times of fear and uncertainty, your compassion brings hope and help. Esther asks that you hear these to those who give. You are doing a very great Mitzvah, a good deed. You give from your hearts. May God protect you. Friends, your gift to God's people is truly hope giving and life saving. Please don't wait. Call 888-799 IFCJ right now. That's 888-799 IFCJ or go to ifcj.org that's ifcj.org they are the sponsor for today's show, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. So soon we will be bringing on Rachel Bovard to talk about what I just talked about, which is the shadow race to possibly be a Supreme Court justice, as well as some of the things happening in the U.S. senate. And one thing that I've been paying attention to, that I know that Rachel has been paying attention attention to as well, is the debate over the Save America act, which Donald Trump has referred to as a must pass piece of legislation. The Save America act is essentially a voting integrity measure. It is a measure that would try to have universal voter ID and universal proof of citizenship to be able to register to vote in the first place there. And for various reasons, the Republican powers that be simply do not seem particularly inclined to do. Every tool, to utilize every tool at their disposal and to leave no stone unturned will actually get this bill passed. So the latest update for you, which is just a genuinely galling one, actually just happened over the over the past couple of days. It was early Thursday morning as part of what the Senate refers to as voterama. We'll get into this with Rachel, I'm sure as part of this votarama where you can just vote on a bunch of different amendments to a bill. You had four different Republicans. So the retiring Thom Tillis, North Carolina, Lisa Murkowski, the eternal squish from Alaska, Susan Collins, her squishy compatriot from Maine, as Well as Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, they all voted against the Save America Act. Why? I don't know. It's only like an 82 to 18 issue based on the polling that I saw. Voter ID, unbelievable stuff. You know, one thing that the Tea Party era of Republican politics largely got right was this fervor, the zeal about primarying rhinos and squishes. We still have that to an extent. You see that with the Ken Paxton, John Cornyn runoff in Texas. But broadly speaking, in the era of Trump, I think a lot of conservatives have lost this sense of urgency to primary terrible incumbents. And that is something that the Tea Party era got right. And I think that the MAGA era of Republican politics and conservative activists would do a very, very good thing by trying to recover that sense of urgency. This is the story of the one as a maintenance tech at a university, he knows ordering from multiple suppliers takes time away from keeping their arena up and running. That's why he counts on Grainger to get everything he needs, from lighting and H vac parts to plumbing supplies, all in one place. And with fast, dependable delivery, he's stocked and ready for the next tip off. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done. So our go to Sage of the Senate is none other than our next guest. That is Rachel Bovar making her return appearance here on the Josh Hammer show Uniracle. She is the vice president programs at CPI, the Conservative Partnership Institute all around, not a D.C. insider, but someone who knows her way around D.C. i guess, let's put it that way. So, Rachel, we really appreciate you stopping by the show yet again, a lot to get to in short order. So let's go ahead and get started. I first want to pick your brain about the events just over the past 24 to 36 hours when it comes to the Save America Act. So last we had you on, we were talking about the possibility of this talking filibuster to get this must pass piece of legislation Donald Trump calls it when it comes to voter integrity and voter IDs and proof of citizenship. It seems like it's gone down in flames during a round of voterama due to some squishes and rhinos. So can you tell us a bit about that?
- [13:50]
B
Yeah.
- [13:51]
C
So last we talked, the Save America act was the pending business on the Senate floor, meaning the Senate was actively considering it. They didn't do a talking filibuster. They sort of engaged in this like long talkathon but no actual deliberation. They moved to the budget reconciliation process and that is an endless amendment process called voterama. And in that process, Senator Kennedy from Louisiana offered a version of the Save America act which included voter ID and some other provisions. It was voted down by the Republicans themselves. That only got 48 votes. Republicans voting against it were Senators McConnell, Murkowski, Tillis and Collins. And that is sort of viewed now as the proxy for if the bill was put on the floor on its own merits, where it would end. Now, I would argue that many of us have argued for the talking filibuster in a deliberative process precisely because if you actually deliberate in the Senate, meaning you amend and you negotiate and you move forward, that probably the final product looks a lot different than what you put on the floor. And so we're still arguing for, again, a robust negotiation process which has never emerged to this Point in the Senate.
- [14:56]
A
Okay, so, long story short, the people who are painting this as the death of the Save America act are essentially just not getting it right. And there still is a path forward, albeit a somewhat narrow one. Is that right?
- [15:07]
C
That's right. You know, we've never actually tried, you know, have you gone talk to the Democrats? Have you set up a series of amendment votes? Have you tried to engage Louisa Murkowski on these questions? These are all big unknowns, which again, for 200 years, this is how the Senate passed legislation. It's only now that we just say, oh, we put a bill on the floor, it doesn't pass and we move on. That's. That's traditionally not how it's been done. We're arguing for a return to letting the Senate be the Senate.
- [15:28]
A
And just to make sure that we're not missing the forest for the treason again, folks, our guest today is Rachel Bovard. You can follow her on X. Rachel Bovard, she's the Vice President of programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute. Just make sure we're not missing the forest for the trees here. The actual meat and potatoes of this bill are like 80, 20 issues. I mean, voter ID, proof of citizenship there. We're not necessarily asking for the moon. We're not asking for an Artemis 2 style moon mission, where we're asking for 80, 20 common sense unite not just the right, but frankly, unite America style issues. Now, Rachel, there's another simultaneous related, but not quite the same thing issue happening in the Senate right now, which is this whole Debate over reconciliation 2.0, as the Beltway publications are referring to it. And there's this whole debate right now as to what is going to get included in this prospective bill. Will it just be the so called skinny version of essentially trying to end this partial DHS shutdown, try to fund ice, Border patrol, or can conservatives, who in theory nominally control both chambers of Congress, can they actually get a little bit more, possibly including some Save America act style measures there? So what is going on there? And first of all, why is this reconciliation 2.0? I'm a little confused. Was 1.0 the one big beautiful bill last year? So first of all, why is this 2.0? And second of all, how is this bill shaping up? Can conservatives actually expect to get some meaningful parts included here?
- [16:51]
C
It's 2.0 because it's the second event. Reconciliation is actually such a big, cumbersome process. Even though everyone says it's a fast track, it gets around the filibuster. It actually requires quite A lot, especially in the Senate, because you get not one, but two endless amendment processes in Votorama. So that's why they're calling it 2.0. But what you pointed out, this, this question of whether it's going to be the skinny bill, meaning just including funding for ICE and cbp, or if it's going to open up to encompass potentially broader provisions. That right now is the debate between House and Senate Republicans. The Senate has acted first in this process. So the first step toward a reconciliation bill is you have to pass a budget resolution. That's what the Senate just engaged in earlier this week. However, they did so without an actual guarantee that it can pass the House. You've seen House Republicans, many of them come out and say, I am not voting for a bill that doesn't engage on, you know, all these other issues that we think are very important. Because again, even though there's this talk of, oh, maybe we'll take a third bite at the apple and do a third reconciliation bill, no one actually believes that's possible because, because again, of the voterama process in the Senate. Now, I don't think personally voterama is that cumbersome. But if you think about the senate, that works two and a half days a week, never past 4pm the endless amendment process usually takes place late in the evening to slow, to try to, you know, the war of attrition. And that's exactly what happened with its budget resolution. It kicked off around, you know, 6pm it was done by 3:30 in the morning. So the endless amendments was about 19amendments and it lasted for six hours. But the Senate's going to take a little break now, so. But yeah, this question has still not been resolved on what the reconciliation bill is going to look like.
- [18:27]
A
And again, just so we're on the same page here for the listeners and viewers, reconciliation is this bill that, assuming the Senate parliamentarian gives it his or her imprimatur of legitimacy with all of his or her powers, has the ability to essentially pass with a 50 plus one majority. That is why both parties, when they control the Senate, tend to put a lot of eggs in the reconciliation bill basket. Seems to me, Rachel, that conservatives, especially in this election year, should be trying to galvanize with these 80, 20 issues. And it seems to me like, frankly, Save America act style voter ID type stuff would make a lot of sense for a possible reconciliation bill. But I'm sure there are plenty folks there in your favorite chamber of the Senate who do not exactly see it that way. So I want to hear your thoughts, Rachel. Also, on a different topic that was a subject of today's monologue, which is this shadow campaign, you might say, in the event of a possible Supreme Court vacancy this summer. We've covered on the show numerous times. The Supreme Court is definitely one of my favorite topics. I believe it's one of your favorite topics as well. To be clear, we have no idea whether there'll be a Supreme Court vacancy. We actually just had on Molly Hemingway. Let's talk about her new book, Alito. And she is somewhat skeptical that there will be a vacancy. Let's conservatively ballpark it as potentially a 50, 50 jump, all live issue. The point is this definitely could happen. And Rachel, you and I have been talking about this topic privately and publicly for many, many years now, and I want to ask you about the following is that without naming names, I have heard from numerous people that there are folks in the in the administration, some folks in the White House counsel's office, maybe some in doj, perhaps elsewhere on the Hill. I'm hearing a lot of rumors that what they're looking for in a justice this time is not necessarily someone who is going to hold down the Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito right flank of the court, but they're looking for someone who can best manage coalitions when it comes to people like John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, maybe Brett Kavanaugh there, to put it mildly. This is not exactly how the process is supposed to work, though, is it?
- [20:21]
C
No. And I think especially when you look at how important Clarence Thomas and Just and Sam Alito have been on the Supreme Court, replacing them with someone who's gonna do politics on the court and not just hold down the principled right flank on a lot of these issues, I think would be devastating to the court and to the court's reputation, frankly, it is so important, and you and I have talked about this for years at this point, that we're in a situation now where judges are effectively our rulers to the extent because we have such a weak article, one branch that loves to defer all these questions of democracy, how we should live together, small R republicanism, things that really should be decided by the legislature are now given to the Supreme Court in many cases. We have to have people that are prepared to engage in that. And we also have to have people, I think, that have a record on these questions. So much of the Supreme Court's history, as you ably pointed out recently, have been, well, the Justice Suiter question, I know him, trust me, he's great. That's not enough anymore.
- [21:18]
B
Right.
- [21:18]
C
We need a record of courage. We need a record of Alito and Clarence Thomas style fortitude on questions of legal doctrine. And, and without that, I think, you know, we're almost being forced into the wilderness, and I don't think that that's a gamble that we can take.
- [21:33]
A
No, it's not. The stakes simply are too high, especially if you're trying to replace Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito. I mean, these are our two most formidable conservative justices on the court there. You're probably, frankly, not going to do a whole lot better. It's next to impossible. So the best you can do is try to match that, and that just makes it a very, very, very tall challenge, one that simply can cannot be messed up. Rachel, just about 30 seconds left here, but real quick before I let you go, I'm kind of curious. Just for your assessment. Again, you're not of D.C. but you very much kind of have your ear attuned to a lot of concerted conversation there. Do you think there actually is going to be a vacancy? What are you. What are you hearing?
- [22:03]
C
You know, it swings back and forth. But I've heard enough chatter from the Senate that there are people convinced it's going to happen such that these conversations are happening, meetings are happening, people are preparing for it, which I think is the prudent solution, regardless of what happens.
- [22:16]
A
Yes. You clearly always have to be prepared in case a monumental vacancy of this sort happens. There's. It's a very difficult thing to kind of put a thumb on the scale. Again, these are our two best justices, Thomas Leto. But there's also Molly Hemingway saying that maybe it could be John Roberts, which I think would be the best possible solution, frankly, to all of our problems. Again, folks, Rachel Bovard is the VP of Programs at CPI. You can follow her on X. RachelBovard, Rachel, we really appreciate you stopping by the show again. Thank you so much for all of your expertise.
- [22:40]
C
Anytime, Josh. Thanks for having me. When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery, so you can keep your facility stocked, safe, and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [23:17]
A
You know, there's so much happening in the news right now, frankly, I could just talk for an hour or two about this, just deep frustration that I have you heard it there in my conversation with Rachel about how the conservative establishment DC Is just not interested. They're apparently not interested in another Clarence Thomas or Samolito. They apparently what I'm hearing is many are interested in a go along to get along style coalition manager, AKA another John Roberts or another Amy Coney Barrett. And that would be positively disastrous. And I cannot emphasize enough how much all of you, in your own capacity as concerned Americans, concerned patriots, must vehemently oppose that. But nonetheless, the show must go on. And there's so much else happening in the world. So over in the Middle East, a third US Aircraft carrier strike group has just arrived. This is the USS George H.W. bush. That group joins the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford. So America only has so many aircraft carrier strike groups, roughly a dozen, give or take. And there's now three just there in the waters near Iran. This continues to be the boldest show of American force in one region of the world since the Iraq invasion back in 2002. 2003. And I'm not trying to make a facile, specious comparison to Iraq. It's not gonna be a boots on the ground situation or anything like that there. I'm just trying to explain that Donald Trump is really not messing around. And actually on that note, Donald Trump has now for the past few days been emphasizing that he's in no rush. He will see this mission through on his own terms, on America's own terms. Here was Donald Trump saying, don't rush me, I'm not in a rush with Iran. How long are you willing to wait until you get a spot?
- [25:06]
D
Don't rush me. Jeff, you know, guys like you, you want to say, oh, so we were in Vietnam like for 18 years. We were in Iraq for many, many years. We were in for all the, I don't like to say World War II because that was a biggie, but we were four and a half, almost five years in World War II. We were in the Korean War for seven years. I've been doing this for six weeks. And their military is totally defeated. They're outside of the little wise guy ships. I call them the wise guy ships. The little boats that they have running around with guns in them. We'll take them out too when we see them. But their Navy is gone, their Air force is gone, their anti aircraft is gone, all of their anti aircraft machinery is gone. Maybe they loaded up a little bit during the two week hiatus, but we'll knock that out in about one day if they did.
- [26:01]
A
So the message is pretty unmistakable. He's in no rush. You know, it reminds me, there was a very funny headline maybe a week and a half, two weeks into this whole operation, so sometime around mid March, give or take there. And Trump said, I'm paraphrasing, it was very close paraphrase. He basically said, I'm having the time of my life. Trust me, no one is having more fun than me, he said. As he continued to preside over this operation that is taking out the entirety of the Iranian navy and the Iranian Air force, among other terrorists and among other military assets, Pete Hegseth was worth also was talking about this topic. He had a presser at the Pentagon just this morning. Here was Pete Hegseth talking about this continuing U.S. navy blockade on the entirety of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As part of that effort, the United States has imposed an ironclad blockade that grows more powerful by the day. From the Gulf of Oman to the open oceans, our navy is enforcing this blockade without hesitation or apology. Now, as usual, there's a lot of false information out there. I'll say this. Every ship, every ship that the US Believes meets our criteria, either Iranian ships or to and from Iranian ports, has been turned around. As of this morning, 34 total. So as I said in yesterday's show, there was a lot of fake news about these allegations of Iran breaching the US Navy blockade. That is what led the idiotic senator from Connecticut. Oh, sorry, actually from Tehran, I joke, of course. The senator from Connecticut was talking about how it was awesome, how it was absolutely, positively awesome that Iran was breaching the American naval blockade. And that's, that's obviously not awesome. It's actually traitorous, frankly, for a United States senator to say these sorts of things. But the blockade continues in full force. And as Hegseth has now confirmed, we now have 34 Iranian ships that, that have been, have been interdicted. Now, at the same time, Iran's foreign minister, a member of the name of Aragachi, who we believe is not actually calling the shots when it comes to Iran. So the man who is actually currently calling the shots is an IRGC top brass chief by the name of Vahidi. He is the more extreme radical. He apparently is the one who's, who's really more calling the shots there. But in any event, Aragachi, who is the, quote, unquote, more moderate foreign minister, he's really not that moderate. He apparently is on his way to Pakistan, which has been something of an intermediary throughout the past few weeks there. Pakistan is essentially just a Chinese play. Pakistan is part of the Chinese Communist Party's sphere of influence there in Asia. And this is kind of just a flexing of the muscles from China to have all these talks in Pakistan. Regardless, Aragachi, the former Iran is on his way to Pakistan, trying to encourage them to try to host more talks there. But it's all deeply schizophrenic, isn't it? You have Aragachi, you have the parliamentary speaker by the name of Golubov who are trying to make nice. In fact, they were actually on Iranian state TV trying to say, no, no, no, no, no, no, trust me, we want to negotiate with the United States. Meanwhile, Vahidi of the IRGC is saying no negotiations. You know, the big Satans must be destroyed with all of this garbage propaganda that they have been spewing out for the past 47 years. At some point, Donald Trump's patience is going to run out. And I predict, as I did in yesterday's show, that patience is going to expire sometime by roughly early to mid next week. Impossible to say just my own 2 cents there if this song and dance continues because he's not going to let this go on too long. Meanwhile, Donald Trump though, presided over a three week extension of the current ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, which is kind of fascinating in and of itself. So the ambassadors from both countries, Israel and Lebanon, they have been in and out of the State Department for the past few weeks. These are the first direct talks between these two border nations in roughly three decades. They are now part of what appears to be a roughly month long ceasefire. Notably Hezbollah, which is the Lebanese Lebanon based Shiite Islamist terrorist organization, Hezbollah is actually not abiding by the ceasefire. Surprise, surprise. Jihadist terrorists don't actually follow these, these ceasefires. Who would have thought? Anyway, Hezbollah is not actually following the rules here. But the good news is that Joseph Ayoun, who is the Maronite Christian current president of Lebanon, he seems serious, or at least serious ish about trying to crack down on Hezbollah there in Lebanon. Trump has reportedly expressed a strong personal desire to try to assist Lebanon in rooting out Hezbollah. Again, the analogy, folks. It's a very similar situation in Lebanon as it is in Mexico. The same way that the cartels are non state actors that have massive capability to exert pressure and force in Mexico, therefore depriving the government of a monopoly on the use of force, so too is the situation in Lebanon where Hezbollah has the exact same thing and deprives the Lebanese government and the laf, the Lebanese armed forces, of having a monopoly on the use of force, which otherwise is the definition of what it takes to be a sovereign entity. So Trump apparently is interested in trying to help Lebanon gut Hezbollah and in Israeli Lebanese peace. More generally speaking, Lebanon has been a massive, massive thorn in Israel's side since the reincarnation of the modern Jewish state in 1948. God willing, there will be more continued good news on that front. So I want to also talk about this somewhat shocking story. We'll probably have to have to continue this into the final segments of today's show. A soldier who was involved in Operation Absolute Resolve. And this was the operation that happened in in Caracas, Venezuela, this past January, just a few months ago, where they actually went in and they got Nicolas Maduro in this staggering overnight operation, had to take out a lot of Cuban commandos, Hezbollah. Speaking of Hezbollah, they were actually very close with Maduro regime there. And right now Maduro is currently facing charges because he was previously indicted by a grand jury. Again, as we explained at the time, MA was best thought of not as the international leader of Venezuela because he was an illegitimate leader. He actually defrauded the Venezuelan people by stealing multiple elections. He was better thought it was actually a fugitive from American justice. So they went in and got him there. The story, though, that's broken over the past couple of days, which is really just pretty astonishing, is a soldier, a US Special Forces soldier who was involved here, remember the name of Gannon, Ken Van Dyke. He's been indicted because he apparently won over $400,000 in placing wagers in the online prediction markets because he had inside information about how this operation would happen. And then he directly profited off it. He knew because he was briefed and because he was literally involved because he was actually there as part of the operations. So he is now being charged with unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain, theft of non public government information, commodities fraud, wire fraud and an unlawful monetary transaction. This is a doozy, doozy of a story. We will unpack it and much more for you after a quick commercial break. So one final break, folks. Stay with us for much more on this and other closing thoughts. Welcome back. So before the break, we're talking about how there is this shocking new indictment out for a US Special Forces soldiers who profited apparently 400 plus thousand dollars for wagering in the online prediction markets that there would be a raid of Nicholas Maduro and a capture of Nicolas Maduro prior to his personally joining on the operation to go ahead and get Nicholas Maduro. And this raises all sorts of questions when it comes to insider trading, insider information, when it comes, frankly to the efficacy or the benevolence, I should probably say, of the online prediction markets in general. Fordsworth, Donald Trump seems not particularly concerned about this. He said that he's not happy with reports of the insider training, but it is what it is here. Was Donald Trump talking about this exact topic?
- [33:52]
D
Well, I don't know about it, but was he betting that they would get him or they wouldn't get him?
- [33:57]
A
It sounds like he was betting on his removal from office, that Maduro would be removed.
- [34:03]
C
He was involved in the operation.
- [34:04]
D
That's like Pete Rose betting on his own team. It's a little like Pete Rose. Pete Rose, they kept him out of the hall of Fame because he bet on his own team. Now if he bet against his team, that would be no good, but he bet on his own team. I'll look into it. Yeah. The whole world unfortunately has become somewhat of a casino. And you look at what's going on all over the world, in Europe and every place, they're doing these betting things. I was never much in favor of it. I don't like it conceptually, but it is what it is. No, I think that I'm not happy with any of that stuff. But they have all these different sites, they have predictive markets. It's a crazy world. It's a much different world than it was.
- [34:44]
A
So interestingly, Trump making the analogy to Pete Rose who recently passed away over the past year or so. And Pete Rose was famously banned from the Baseball hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York for gambling on baseball. Now Pete Rose is an interesting analogy to make there because as unethical and as wrong as Pete Rose's gambling activities were, I actually was one of those who long argued that Pete Rose, the all time Major League baseball hit king, should indeed be in Cooperstown. And again, so it's kind of a strange analogy, but for whatever it's worth, Anna Paulina Luna, the congresswoman here from my state in Florida says that this particular soldier Van Dyke should actually be pardoned. Here was Anna Paulina Luna talking about this.
- [35:28]
B
Yeah. So again, the reason I wanted to talk about that is because here you have an example of the DOJ saying, you know, this is not fair. We're going to go and we're going to throw the book at this guy. Right. I'm not necessarily saying what he did is right. However, every single day in Congress you have multiple Members of Congress that are engaging in insider trading. We had an actual ban on this that we pressured leadership to bring to the floor, and we're going to get a vote on it. But Hakeem Jeffries, okay, went and told the Democrats not to support this ban. And we were receiving own pressure from our own leadership on pushing this forward. And yet you have a member who went on this raid, which, by the way, our military members don't get paid a lot. But the member that goes on this raid places a bet, and yet he's facing, I think, up to 50 or 60 years in prison. So there is no double standard of justice or there is no fair justice in this country if you have members of Congress getting away with it and this guy doing it every day. So an unpopular take, I'm going to be asking for him to be pardoned.
- [36:26]
A
Yeah, look, I mean, I'm not sure if I agree with a pardon, to be honest with you, but I understand where the instinct is coming from. More generally speaking, what are the ethical concerns of these online prediction markets? I mean, this is kind of just the tip of the iceberg, isn't it? I don't really know a good way, though, to regulate either. The mind kind of, kind of reels. The only way to potentially regulate it, I think, would be to actually get involved in, well, these sorts of prosecutions. I can't think of a prophylactic rule that would be easily legislated or easily regulated. And you could kind of put into place there kind of a one size fits all solution and try to say that you are hereby banned from trading on information that you have inside information to. How do you actually define inside information? It's a very difficult thing to define, frankly, there. So, listen, I'm open to the idea of Congress. This probably would be Congress because this is interstate commerce talking about here. So it probably would be Congress using its article and section in constitutional power. I'm very open to the idea of what congressional action and some sort of bill would look like in this arena. But for present purposes, with all due respect to the congresswoman from Florida here, I think that a pardon is probably a bad message to send. We should not want this kind of activity, to put it mildly. And I think the prosecution in this case is wholly appropriate. Now, I saw an astonishing poll that I just have to talk about, really. It makes the mind just want to explode. There was a survey done of British Muslims. Okay, question. Who was responsible for 9 11? They're asking British Muslims. Make sure if you're holding A cup of coffee that you're not, you know, drinking it because you're probably gonna spit it out. Okay? 52% of British Muslims say they did not know who committed 9 11. 31% said the American government, 7% said the Jews, because why not? 6% said other. 4% actually got this one right. 4% of British Muslims correctly responded that Al Qaeda, they were the perpetrators of 9 11. Where to even begin? I mean, this is just astonishing stuff. And it shows you how these values that are coming in from these third world Islamic countries are just nothing like the values of the host countries to which they are attempting to immigrate and, well, not really attempting very well or very much at all to assimilate, but they're certainly coming here. I mean, this is a demonstrable factual lie. Think about the level of propaganda, the level of indoctrination, the level of delusion and gaslighting and just general insanity that has to go on in the private conversations in the homes, in the streets, in the barbershops, in the mosques of this community, in this case the British Muslim community, in order to have a result where only 4% correctly think that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden himself perpetrated, orchestrated and executed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. All this is coming in the context of a series of anti Semitic attacks happening throughout the United Kingdom. So there were. There have been recent numerous acts of arson and attempted arson at synagogues there in the broader London area. Multiple, actually, throughout the uk There was a lethal. Two people were killed actually as part of a lethal terrorist attack at a synagogue in Manchester in Northern England that happened last fall during Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year on the Jewish calendar. Actually, a friend of mine who is a British Jewish guy, one of my go to sources here on the Josh Hammer show for all things UK related, sent me actually a screenshot of an email it appears that he received. It's an email that he received from the United States Embassy in London. He got it earlier Today on Friday, April 24th. And what the email says that the US embassy in London notes recent attacks and threats targeting Jewish and American institutions in the United Kingdom and Europe. US citizens, particularly those visiting institutions serving Jewish or American interests, should remain alert and exercise increased caution. So basically he's saying, be really careful because there are a lot of bad actors, a lot of jihadis and a lot of terrorists here out on the prowl in London and across England and for that matter, the broader uk that seems to me to be directly related to this shocking new poll that only 4% of British Muslims actually think that Al Qaeda perpetrated September 11, 2001. You know, they say that when you're trying to construct your diet, you often times hear doctors, dietitians, nutritionists. They'll say you are what you eat. It's more or less true. Not literally true, but there's certainly some truth to that. So, too, it is true on a societal scale. You are what you bring in. You are the people that you bring in to the country. Your society is comprised of those people. And it's why we have said on the show since day one that there is no more important issue facing the American republic, bringing it home here to the United States, than immigration, because it cuts to the very, very, very core of who we are. Who are we, the people upon whom consent of the governed depends, on upon whom popular sovereignty depends? These are the most foundational questions in all politics, going literally back to the Bible, going back to the Greeks and Aristotle. Who are we? Well, you are how you reproduce, what kind of progeny and children you have and who you bring in. Muslim immigration not going well in Europe, not going well thus far in America. It's not too late to turn this ship around, but it's going to take swift, decisive action. Certainly, this is something that should be on the minds of lawmakers in our nation's capital. Folks, have a great weekend. Josh Hammer signing off for now. We'll be right back. As always, on Monday,