Charlie Cook (5:35)

Yeah. So obviously, this is an initiative entirely consistent with Secretary of Defense's entire priority at the Pentagon is to focus on war fighting and not get distracted by any other nonsense. And you can make an entirely rational case that gender dysphoria is not consistent with the rigors of combat and what you want an organization devoted to combat to focus on. And in fact, this determination is so rational, it was actually the case. It was a status quo as of what, 10 years ago or something? So it's an innovation where we've accommodated these folks. And this is Megan. This for me, falls into the range of these legal decisions, legal contentions. If it has to do with the President of the United States core executive functions, how many people are working for him, who's working for him, what's national security, and not. He's ultimately going to win these cases. Now, I think it's highly irritating. These judges, some of them are totally ridiculous and it's going to delay things, but this seems to me one that he will ultimately prevail on.

Rich Lowry (6:41)

So, Charles, this woman, again, unlike her, one of her bosses on the US Supreme Court, Katanji Brown Jackson, she does appear to be able to say what a woman is and she wants, at least she's got thoughts on gender, on how there's. There's more than two. She'll state that affirmatively. There's more than two. And that's a biological fact, according to this judge. It's absolutely absurd. And that she, in her ruling, took such issue with the Department of Justice, arguing on behalf of the Department of Defense, because Trump's executive order on this, which was clearly a Pentagon thing, said it's important in the military to be able to be able to serve with integrity and honesty and in wellness. And she said that's them accusing all trans people of being liars. Which, I mean, not for nothing, but you could make the case if you're looking at me and you're Charles C.W. cook and saying you're a woman. Yeah, I'm probably going to think that you're not telling me the truth. But in any event, she got in this lawyer's face. Yeah, she got in this lawyer's face and said, oh, that shows animus. It's like hatred by President Trump towards trans people. And what, what should I do to you? Should I ban this guy? This lawyer went to the University of Virginia law school. Should I banned. Ban all University of Virginia lawyers from this point forward from for being liars. This is part of why the DOJ filed a misconduct complaint against this judge after an earlier hearing. She's out of control.

Unnamed Guest (8:16)

Yes. This is one of the worst Trump law cases I've ever seen for a whole host of reasons. First off, there's simply no constitutional or statutory basis for this decision, and therefore it's void. Second, the fake Constitution makes an appearance here where the. As Rich says, core powers, core competencies, core allocations of authority to the president are subject to these supposed standards of kindness, niceness, which simply don't exist in the law in this area. There are some circumstances where rational basis review, for example, might obtain, but you don't get rational basis review in the military. The President and the Secretary of Defense can decide who serves and why with effectively plenary power. The third reason it's grotesque is if you read all the way to the end, as I did last night, you sense a certain underconfidence in the judge because she lapses the conclusion into all this mawkish nonsense where she starts thanking people for their service and talks about the military as if she's making a speech on Veterans Day. And then she says, this, of course, will cause all manner of public debate and disagreement in the country, which is a good outcome. Why? You're a judge. The creation of debate is totally irrelevant to the job description. It's not good or bad either way. Your job is to follow the law. So this really struck me when reading it as the work of a politician rather than of a judge.

Rich Lowry (10:04)

Same. Thank you for saying it so clearly. Could not agree more. She. She goes, to me, this is like she's looking for a pat on the head from GLAD or Human Rights Campaign. She. She's waiting for Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown, Jackson or Kagan to say, good girl. You're a good little girl. You. You wrote all the right things. Kagan, not for nothing, is. She's gay, isn't she? I don't know why that just got away from me. I'm pretty sure Kagan's gay.

Unnamed Guest (10:31)

Could be wrong.

Charlie Cook (10:32)

She played. She played softball.

Unnamed Guest (10:34)

That's.

Charlie Cook (10:34)

That's all we know. She was a softball star at something.

Rich Lowry (10:37)

That's circumstantial, but we could admit it into evidence. Okay, but this is what she writes. In part. At times, leaders have used this concern to ensure military readiness, to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving. Fill in the blank, which is. She writes those words is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness. Fill in the bank the blank will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness. Allowing fill in the blank to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully and disrupt military order. First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our nation is safer for the millions of such blanks and all other persons who serve. Now, first of all, that is not her judgment to make. She is not commander of the armed forces. And there actually are hot debates going on in this country right now about not minorities, but adding women to positions, for example, in combat has made us the strongest we've ever been when it comes to our military readiness. That's something that she. This is not. For her to opine on Rich, and for her to try to treat transgender individuals the same as blacks or Latinos is outrageous. One is skin color and race and one has to do with a mental disorder. That's in the DSM 5.

Charlie Cook (12:17)

Yeah. So one opine is the right word. What you read would be pretty good, at least kind of bog level, one third of the New York Times column. Right. But that's not her role as a judge. And we had a lot of loose talk, right, of a constitutional crisis. I think we talked about that last time we were on. It's a constitutional crisis if judges are overstepping their bounds and impinging on the executive authority. And the people who scream loudest about a constitutional crisis, they never focus on that. Right. Everyone has their appointed role in the constitutional system. And if anyone oversteps it, that that is profoundly wrong. So this decision is profoundly wrong. And the point you make about being your race being different from your so called gender identity is a good one. And this is one reason, and maybe we're going to talk about this later, that the left is so wrong footed on the trans issue. They thought it was a civil rights issue, Right? They thought it was like civil rights for African Americans or civil rights for gay people. And they've gone into something that most people, excuse me, do not consider that way because it is a totally different category. And this opinion is a prime example of that.

Rich Lowry (13:27)

She goes on to say as follows. Standby, okay? It is self evident truth. She posits that all people are created equal. All means all, nothing more and certainly nothing less. So Charlie, she, she's suggesting that trans people are being treated in a way that makes that renders them unequal and that this is not allowed in our military, which is not true.

Unnamed Guest (14:01)

Right? So I believe that all men are created equal. You can't See it. But just over atop my desk is a copy of the Declaration of Independence in a frame. And that maxim, which really is the foundation of everything I write about, has absolutely nothing to do with this question. It is also true that people who grow no taller than 4 foot 5 are equal. They're not inferior. They shouldn't be treated differently under the law. They also can't or shouldn't be able to join the military in the same way as a 6 foot 5 Navy Seal should. What we're talking about here is not the usual questions of how citizens are treated by the government. When the government interferes with the liberty or property or lives of the citizenry, that's when all of the maxims in the Declaration and the premises of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, equal protection, and so forth apply. We're talking about what should be a lethal fighting force. We have always very harshly discriminated within the military for the sole reason that the military exists to fight and kill and die. This is absurd. And I can't think of a better illustration of what Pete Hegseth said during his hearing, that the military has left its historical presumptions and come to see itself as some sort of social club or social experimentation society than this. You will not find, Megan, someone who is more willing to wave the Bill of Rights around or demand equal protection or call for the original understanding of the Constitution than me. But the original understanding of the Constitution simply does not involve judges enforcing what they think is equality within the Commander in Chief's purview. And that is ultimately all that matters or should matter to a judge.

Rich Lowry (16:05)

That's right. She, she goes on to say, okay, she's rejecting the Pentagon's position because one of the justifications they, they gave her when they got sued over this was the costs associated with, with so called gender affirming health care, which is a complete misnomer. Gender affirming health care would say, here, I'm a shrink. If you were born a boy, you remain a boy. That's what it should be. But it's of course one of those terms that's been manipulated by these leftist activists. So in any event, she's saying that the military has said, look, providing this so called health care to trans people for their gender procedures because right now we're paying for their surgeries. Well, maybe not right this second because Trump, you know, hit sign the eo, but actually it's not effective till the end of March. So we are, we're paying for their surgeries, we're paying for their hormones, their cross gender procedures, all of it. And the military went in there and said, look, We're. We're paying $5.2 million a year for this stuff. And she responds by saying, well, that's only 5,700 thousand of a percent of total military spending for 2024. So once again, Judge Reyes thinks we've elected her to be the chief accountant over at the Pentagon to decide what's worth it and what's not. And then she has the nerve to point out the department spent approximately 41 million for Viagra in 2023. 41 million for Viagra, about 5.2 million for gender affirming care. Defendants do not explain why the former and every other medical cost is acceptable, while the latter requires banning trans people from military service. This is unbelievable, Rich, because you. So you've got men, active duty men who rely for their health care on the va, on the Pentagon, if they're active duty, who. Yeah, some of them need Viagra, and this woman wants to shame them in the military for providing it. Well, if they won't also pay for us to, in other cases, chop off penises and try to create fake vaginas and then send them out and tell them to go kill isis, I can't.

Charlie Cook (18:19)

Yeah, no, it's core executive function, core executive decision, what you're going to spend money on and what you're not. It's a little bit like saying, you know, if the military says, we don't want to recruit obese people for combat roles. And the judge saying, well, you could pay for the Ozempic, right? It's not, it's not that much. You know, you're paying much more for your missile programs and your tank, so why won't you pay for this? It's not her decision. And as Charlie rightly points out, this is. It's not. Not everyone gets to serve in the military, right? If I want to go in combat right now, which I don't, my hat's off to everyone who does. They'd say, no, you're too old, you're out of shape, and you've never made a bed, you know, in your life. You're not suitable for, for the military life. And they'd be right. And by the way, another reason to take the initiative here that the. The Pentagon is, is it's very important to Pete Hexseth to send the message, we're no longer doing social services. We're no longer doing progressive social studies. We're focusing on fighting, because that is a way to attract the people you want to the military. These guys and gals who are attracted to the military life, they're different than we are. They want the adventure, they want the risk. If they wanted to sit and get a lecture about how they're racist, sexist, transphobic, and all of that, they go to their local community college. That's not what they want to do. So you want to create the. Send the image and send the message, which he has in various ways. Right. He's done deadlifts in Germany with the guys. This a whole host of other things to send. You know what to say for the people who are attracted to this. We are a military organization. People are in shape. That matters to us. That's another thing he's doing. He's having a review of the physical fitness of members of the military. Come here if you want the adventure to defend your country. So I see this as part of that.

Rich Lowry (20:12)

Yeah, she, she's very angry in this opinion about the alleged animus. Again, it's another word for hatred of President Trump. In the executive order she writes, the military ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext. Its language is unabashedly demeaning. Its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and conclusions bear no relation to fact. Thus, even if the court analyzed the military ban under the rational basis review, which is the easiest one to pass, it would fail. Defendants have not provided a legitimate reason for banning all transgender troops. The military ban is unique in its unadulterated expression of animus. Now, I'm. I looked at the ban and I didn't see any of that. I'm not going to read the whole thing because it's long, but it talks about here's. They say during the Biden administration, the Department of Defense allowed gender insanity to pervade our military organizations. That's not animus. Gender insanity pervading the military organizations means a lot of things, and there's nothing hateful about it. This included not only permitting the military to increase the number of individuals not physically or mentally prepared to serve, but also ordering DoD to pay for service members transition surgeries as as well as those of their dependent children. At a cost of millions to the American taxpayer, the US Imposes rigorous standards on all military service members to ensure they're prepared to take on the challenges Fitness, health, welfare and readiness standards must ensure they're ready to fight on the battlefield. There can be no accommodation for anything less than resilience, strength and the ability to withstand extraordinary physical demands. Individuals who are unable to meet these requirements, are unable to serve. This has been the case for decades. I basically am reading the whole thing, by the way. Unit cohesion requires high levels of integrity and stability among service members. High levels of integrity and stability. Like, honestly, is this where she's getting animus from saying that it can take a minimum of 12 months for an individual to complete treatments after transition surgery, which often involves the use of heavy narcotics? That's true. As I've mentioned before, there's someone in my extended family who went through this. It's a crazy story. One day maybe I'll get permission to tell it. But trust me, yes, that's true. During this period, they are not physically capable of meeting military readiness requirements and require ongoing medical care. This is not conducive for deployment or other readiness requirements. Anyway, this is not full of animus. She is the one who is full of animus, Charlie, as evidenced by what she said during the hearing when she said, I am not going to listen to what the current sitting Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, says are the readiness requirements of of the military. I choose instead to look at Joe Biden's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who she says has a stellar military record. And she said, unlike this current guy who's only been there for 30 days and had only a, quote, limited deployment for a short period prior to his TV career, having obviously no idea that he's had at least three deployments to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Afghanistan and to Iraq during the most dangerous period of the Iraq War. How dare she diminish his military experience and check his opinion as the sitting Secretary of Defense.

Unnamed Guest (23:41)

Yeah, so I agree with everything you just said about Pete Hexif, and I was strongly in favor of his nomination. But let's just a thought experiment. Assume that instead of choosing Pete Hexif, Donald Trump had chosen someone that all three of us thought was an absolute moron. It wouldn't matter because Donald Trump would have won the presidential election he would have taken hold of after his inauguration. The Commander in Chief powers and providing the Senate had agreed his choice for Secretary of Defense would have been installed in the Department of Defense when this case was argued. That person, this hypothetical moron, would have been able to make these decisions. One of the criticisms that we on the right very often make of progressives is that they don't really want a democratic system. What they want is rule by experts. And what this judge is trying to do here is prove us right. Because her argument was, I don't like the expertise or credentials or opinions of person A, the person who is actually in charge. So I will instead try to sustain the opinions of person B, who is no longer Secretary of Defense and who was serving at the pleasure of a president who was out of office and whose would be successor lost. There is no rational basis review in this area. I know that she lays out what would satisfy it, but there is no rational basis review. There is no mechanism by which she gets to decide whether or not she respects the person who won the election or the person who the Senate agreed to put in the Department of Defense. None of that happens. And with animus. I agree with you. It's not really dripping with animus. But again, thought experiment, let's assume that it were dripping with animus in most cases in the law there are a few exceptions. But in most cases in the law, having the court try to decide the emotional state or mental motivations of people who are promulgating rules, especially within the military, is just inappropriate. That's not how law is supposed to work. We write down our laws and we decide whether or not they have been satisfied. So even if she personally detects animus in that or thinks that it was hateful, with a few exceptions that absolutely do not obtain here, it doesn't matter. She doesn't get to make that call.

Rich Lowry (26:12)

Couldn't agree more. All right, let's move on because there are other cases to get to and there's a lot of lawfare being unleashed against Trump. It is obviously the ACLU's slash lefts, but I repeat myself, favored tool in stopping the Trump agenda. You had quickly a decision from a judge. This guy too was an Obama judge last night saying some of the cuts made by Doge and Elon Musk at USAID must be reversed. You have to restore access to emails and computers for these employees. Basically anything that came from Musk or Doge has been undone. Saying he's a non confirmed government appointee, you know, executive branch appointee and therefore his decisions had to be struck down because he wasn't he the judge finding he needed to be Senate confirmed to be doing this. Look, I don't want to spend time on that one because the effect of that is Marco Rubio just needs to make all the same decisions and he'll be fine. All the same things are about to happen. It's just Marco Rubio, who is Senate confirmed 99 to 0 by the way, will now make those same decisions. They're basically saying Elon was ahead of his skis on exercising certain powers. He needs to be more of a reviewer and a recommender as opposed to an executioner of his specific findings and recommendations. Okay, so that's that then. We have to move on to what's happening with the Trend Aragua members accused who Trump deported to El Salvador, which is a pretty effective deterrent. Warning to Trend Aragua members. Now may not be the best time to try to sneak across the border and enter the United States because there's a new sheriff in town and his name is Tom Homan, and he will track you down and he will put you on a plane, and before you know it, you will be in this prison in El Salvador. Good luck to you. I have zero sympathy for any of them. But a big legal dispute has unfolded over whether Trump has the right to do this. Now, first, spend a moment on the judge. His name is Roseberg. He is in the These are all D.C. district court judges, federal district court judges in Washington, D.C. because that's where the government's based. He was an Obama appointee. And there's a very interesting question being raised online about whether he should have recused himself from this case to begin with. And I'll tell you, I've got my own questions about it. Laura Loomer, who, you know, she's said some things that are not true and that are conspiratorial, but she said a lot that is true. She is not wrong just because she's controversial. And we'll find out. We'll update the audience. But she went and we believe what she did is she looked at his confirmation hearing to see what he said about himself. And it looks to us like at his confirmation hearing he did confirm that he has, he had two daughters, twins, one of whom is named Catherine. He, it looks like Catherine's age right now would be 24 or 25. And that dovetails with the picture that, that we have of the alleged Katherine Roseberg, who is being accused in this exclusive thread by Laura Loomer of working for a 501C3 called Partners for Justice, which gives criminal illegal aliens and gang members legal advice. Partners for justice strongly opposes mass deportations and legislation start targeting members of criminal gangs and has been a vocal critic for the Lake and of the Lake and Riley Act. Loomer reports, you can see in a screenshot she, she posts that Katherine Boasberg, and we think it's the same Catherine Boseberg, but that does need to be confirmed. But Boseberg is an unusual name and it's spelled in both cases. B O A S B E R G TWEETED out an article celebrating Judge Boasberg's blocking Trump's deportations of Venezuelan gang bangers. And this would be Katherine Boseberg's boss, she tweeted out. Her name is Emily Galvin Almanza. That was rightly quick. Trump administration live updates. Judge orders halt on deportations of Venezuelans under wartime law. The problem here potentially is that this judge's daughter could potentially be hurt in her employment by a substantial reduction in crime rates in caseloads involving that, you know, that keep Partners for Justice busy relating to gangs and deportations. And so there is a possibility that this judge inappropriately sat on this case or at least violated an ethical canon by not disclosing that his daughter has an active role in protecting gang members and illegals from deportation. Let's just start there, Rich, with all those qualifiers, your take on it.

Charlie Cook (31:05)

Well, let's put a pin on that and see what the facts are. Here's Obama appointee. His view of the law, Constitution, not mine, but he has a pretty good reputation. Now, this case, it involves a couple things we've seen before. One, the Trump folks kind of rummaging through current statutes to find things that give them the authority they want to do on deportations or on the border. This was quite effective in the first term. There was a migrant crisis, small scale compared to what we saw under Biden in Trump's first term. Trump was tearing his hair out. How can we possibly stop this? You had Stephen Miller and others going and looking at current authorities and using them in a creative and lawful way to create the system that Biden then ripped up, but that had succeeded in basically stopping border crossings. Now here they're going back to the 18th century, and there's nothing wrong with that necessarily. Right. 18th century has a lot of good things, including the United States Constitution. But it also involves what we were talking about in the first segment, determination by the president, United States, what national security is, what's an invasion, whether we're at war. And here I do think they're pushing the envelope. You know, maybe they're banking on, maybe they'll be right. The Supreme Court ultimately just say, look, you're the chief executive, you're the president, you say it's an act of war. These gangs coming into the United States. We're not going to contradict you, but I'm not sure that's going to be the case. And what the judge is asking here basically is just to freeze things in place. It wasn't like Judge Ali and one of those early usaid cases, they got to spend all this money, billions of dollars of money in 36 hours or whatever it was. Just let's hold these people so at least I can hear the merits here. So on this one, I wouldn't have gone to war with them, but they have.

Rich Lowry (32:57)

I think, Charlie, that you and I may disagree on the propriety of Judge Boasberg holding the hearings on this and thinking that he can second guess the Trump administration on this. And that's fine, we can get into that. But my own position is, if you look at the wording, first of all, let's understand this. Trump has already changed expedited removal. They've already expanded the scope of expedited removal. So let's forget for table for a moment the Alien Enemies act, expedited removal has been used by all administrations in certain cases to just return people at the border. Get out. You crossed over. Congratulations, you swam the Rio Grande. Goodbye. I don't care. Get out. We can see that you're an illegal and you sneaked in here. Goodbye. Well, he has expanded the use of expedited removal. It used to be within 100 miles of the border and 14 days of their arrival to anywhere in the country against any person who's, quote, undocumented, who can't prove they've been here for continuously two years. All right, so Trump's already done that, saying that's how Tom Homan's going into these community, communities and saying, you're done, you're out, I don't have to give you a hearing. You're just leaving. Now, some have had hearings and just decided to stay because even when under the Biden administration, they had hearings saying, you have to leave, you don't qualify for asylum. We never enforced it. We just turned them back out into America and let them live here. So those people are also being ejected, and those might be some of the people who are on one of those planes Trump sent to El Salvador. At least that's what the administration's claiming, that they're not all ejected under Alien Enemies Act. Some were ejected under good old fashioned immigration laws. They'd already been told to leave and they overstayed. Okay, so in any event, if expedited removal can allow Tom Homan to go grab somebody in Colorado and kick them out, why, why is there any controversy over this at all? Why are we even arguing Alien Enemies Act? I does. That's my number one thought. My second thought is, okay, but we are. The administration has said alien Enemies Act 1798, it's a law that was written by the very founders who drafted the Constitution applies. And that law says if there's been a declared war or if the country is suffering from an invasion or an incursion by a potential enemy's force, the President has the authority to deport the people associated with it without due process. It's really what it says. There's no hearing required. You can just throw them out. And Trump is relying not really on the war. He's relying on invasion or incursion. And if you look at the statute, which I did pull, invasion or incursion, how do we determine? Like, obviously, act of war declared, that's by Congress. You have to look to see if Congress had declared a war. Invasion or incursion says as declared by the President. So the enabling statute here, passed by Congress at the time of the Founding Fathers, says the President gets to decide whether it's an invasion or an incursion. And once he's declared that, which he has here, he may deport people without due process, which is why I believe he did. He was well within his rights to do what he did. And I think the rest of that enabling statute, Alien Enemies act, kicks in, which says there is no power of judicial review under these circumstances.

Unnamed Guest (36:24)

Now you go, well, a few things. We're talking about the Alien Enemies act because Donald Trump has invoked it. In other words, he has conceded by doing that that he needs a power to be conferred upon him by Congress, and that's the one he's chosen. The law in question, as you say, has two sections. One of them refers to a declared war. Now, you said that the invasion had to be declared by the president. Is that the word declared or is it announced?

Rich Lowry (36:53)

Either way, I'll look it up. I'll give it to you.

Unnamed Guest (36:55)

The argument that was made, he must make.

Rich Lowry (37:00)

The President must make public proclamation of the event.

Unnamed Guest (37:04)

Exactly. And that matters, Megan, because there is a difference between declaring a war, which is a congressional function, and proclaiming something which can be an action done by someone else. Now, I don't know the answer to this. I'm not pretending that I am the oracle, but I do know this. The act in question has been invoked only three times, and they were all during wars that were declared by Congress. In 1948, this law went to the Supreme Court because three years after hostilities had ceased with Germany. Harry Truman, who had become President after Franklin Roosevelt, was still using the Alien Enemies act to expel Germans. Now, the Supreme Court looked at it, and they said that the decisions of Harry Truman were non justiciable in other words, that the courts could not get involved. But that case did not address the invasion clause that you mentioned. It only dealt with declared war. At the time in 1948, Congress still had a declaration of war active against Germany. That was not repealed until 1951. And what the Court effectively said is this is a political question. Because there was a war declared, because there was a war fought, and because that war created all of these offshoots and consequences, it would be wrong. I think this is correct, for the Supreme Court to determine when the war was over, especially given that Congress had not done that itself. They have never had a decision that related to the invasion clause. Now, it is possible that if they did, they would find that that was also non justiciable and the determination of an invasion was solely up to the discretion of the President. But to get there, you're going to have to have a court case. And the core argument that is being made here is that it was inappropriate for this judge to get involved in this, given that the issue is or should be non justiciable. But I don't think that that is obvious at all. If we're going to find out that this is non justiciable, we're going to have to have an argument about it that probably goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, which is what I think we are now seeing happen. So I'm not upset about this. I would also note, as Jack Goldsmith pointed out, that Even in that 1948 case, there were some elements of the law that the Court said were within its purview. For example, it said that the court was allowed to decide whether or not the people who were being deported fit the bill, were they old enough, were they enemy combatants and so on. Not whether or not there was a war, not whether or not the law could be invoked, but whether the individuals in question were appropriately set. And I think what you're seeing here is the judiciary saying, hang on a minute, we're dealing with individuals. The Constitution protects due process for persons, not citizens in all manner of ways. There is no obvious precedent here. We need to litigate this. And you can't do that when a plane is in the air and it's on its way out to high security prison. So I'm less upset about this now. Do I think that the vast majority of the people to whom this is being applied are likely terrible, terrible people? Yeah. Do I want them deported? Yeah. Would I like to get rid of every illegal immigrant in the country? Yeah. Would I like to get rid of these ones in particular via a trebuchet. You're damn straight I would. But the argument here, I think, is different than the argument that I've made and you've made about the vast majority of these solitary judges who have tried to impede the Trump agenda. Most of those are doing so with no basis in the law whatsoever, basically out of political animus. And this is not the case here. So I have more time for this one than you.

Rich Lowry (40:51)

I have a problem with this judge. I don't agree that he can debate the propriety of the individual. I really don't. I think once you determine that it's a male From Venezuela over 14, it's not for him to determine whether they're, they're a gang member or not. That's up to Homan.

Unnamed Guest (41:08)

The court is allowed to do that bit. That's what the Supreme Court case.

Rich Lowry (41:11)

Yes, I, even the DoJ has acknowledged that. Even the DoJ in its filings has acknowledged that, that there, there is a very bare minimum of inquiry that this judge is allowed to do. But they're arguing that he far exceeded his remit and the notion that an unelected federal district judge could turn around two planes in the air carrying gang members from Venezuela out of the United States. Again, Stephen Miller raises some very good points. Without knowing what the fuel supply is, without knowing what the wake time hours of the crew and the pilot are, without understanding whether there was a safe place for them to turn around in international airspace. The hubris of this man to think he could do it. And by the way, he's making a big deal out of the fact that he issued an oral ruling early Saturday saying don't let those planes take off. And he didn't write it down until later in the day. And he want, he thinks they should have complied with the oral ruling. But if you actually look at the civil rules of the rules of Civil Procedure, there is a requirement that you write down, especially when it comes to TROs, that you write down what you're mandating. So I think that's why ultimately the judge abandoned what, what had been done after his oral ruling. But the left wing media won't tell you that they ran with, oh, he issued the oral reading or oral ruling early in the day. No, but the one that governs is the written ruling.

Unnamed Guest (42:35)

But how else do we litigate this? I mean, you've got, on behalf of the plaintiffs here, you've got two statutory claims and a constitutional claim, and maybe the Trump administration will prevail and maybe it Should. But the people in question, although again, I'm sure most of them are terrible, are allegedly in this gang. They have been accused of being in this gang. If you are a judge and this comes to you and you don't have a definitive Supreme Court ruling on this because of the distinction between declared war and an invasion, and you have two statutory questions being made, plus a constitutional question, does the act in and of itself violate due process when used in this way? I don't know what you do other than involve yourself.

Rich Lowry (43:15)

But you're saying the distinction between declared war and invasion in a way that would undermine the Trump administration's argument right now. It only helps. It only helps the Trump administration's argument right now. Declared war would be. Would undermine them because they don't have a declared war against Venezuela right now, not by Congress. But incursion or invasion. As I read to you, the statute says the president makes public proclamation of the event. That's all that's required. The president makes public proclamation. He did. He did that.

Unnamed Guest (43:41)

But there's no question say. Right, but it doesn't. The Supreme Court case that the judge is obliged to follow as a lower court judge does not say what to do in case where there is no declared war. Because the 1948 case involved a declared war by Congress. There's never been.

Rich Lowry (43:58)

But that's a higher burden. That's a higher burden of proof that was met in that case. This is lower. There's no question that there's been a public proclamation. And then, and it won't take long for a judge to see that that had happened. And then once you get to that, you look, you look at that 1948 decision and you say, you see that they say it is not justiciable. And they go on to say there are all sorts of reasons how that will end. Charlie, to your point, in very bad results, it will end in the denial of due process and it will end in people who maybe aren't Trenda Aragua getting deported on the plane. But that's too bad. That's that this just isn't an area in which a president can be second guessed.

Unnamed Guest (44:40)

But that's not what that case is. The case applies to declarations of war. I think your argument is a very strong one that could well prevail in a court. But that portion of the law has never been litigated. The law has never in history been used outside of a declared war.

Rich Lowry (44:57)

I hear you. I just don't see how that undermines my argument.

Unnamed Guest (44:59)

Well, because, for example, in the case that went to the Supreme Court, declaration of war was determined by the court to mean by Congress, presidential proclamation has no court adjudicated meaning. Which means when a plaintiff goes to.

Rich Lowry (45:14)

The court, it's got a plain meaning.

Unnamed Guest (45:17)

Does it? Yes, I think.

Rich Lowry (45:19)

Listen to the statute. Listen to the, listen to the statute. Quote. Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government or okay, so. Or they're separating or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government and the President makes public proclamation of the event, that's it. It has to have happened and the President has to have made public proclamation of it. They separated it out from declared war. Declared war is a much higher standard. Proclamation.

Unnamed Guest (45:56)

I agree with you.

Rich Lowry (45:57)

We're going around and around on this, but.

Unnamed Guest (45:58)

Well, we're not. But the point I'm making is that even that standard is subject to a whole bunch of questions. For example, is that a constitutional delegation of power? Is Congress allowed.

Rich Lowry (46:10)

I'm sorry to interrupt you. Let me give you this point because I understand what you're saying. So I just want to advance it and then I'll give it back to you. There is something called, as you know, because you're a constitutional scholar, though not a lawyer, but you are a constitutional scholar, I listen to you and read you enough to know you are called a political question doctrine. And we don't allow courts to decide political questions because they don't have the expertise or authority to, to decide them. That's what this is. That's, that's really why the Alien Enemies act says when it comes to these certain things, it's just the President's call. And we will are not going to have federal district court judges second guessing the commander in chief on these issues. That's why it's not a pro. What, by what criteria is Judge Roseberg going to decide whether this was an incursion or an invasion? It's not for him to do.

Unnamed Guest (46:58)

But the law does not say that it's non justiciable. The Supreme Court said that one portion of the law is non justiciable in part. And my point, the argument you are. You didn't say one portion. That's what it's saying. You're saying one portion. No, the whole thing is very important.

Rich Lowry (47:13)

Only the thing we're talking about is no, they were interpreting the Alien Enemies Act. They did not say, and we make a distinction as between declare wars and.

Unnamed Guest (47:20)

Incursions every time in the 1948 case that the non justiciability of the law is referred to. It is within the context of a declared war. What I'm saying is that if you are a judge and you have been brought this case and you have presented to you quite a lot of novel questions, including constitutional ones, again, I think your interpretation could well prevail. But there are all manner of laws, especially older laws, that include unconstitutional delegations of power that the courts, under current precedent, would strike down. So if you are that judge, if we had at war with Venezuela, your role would have been to say, I'm sorry, this has been settled. This case is not for the judiciary. I can't do anything about it. Go away. But that's not what happened here. And that's why I. And I think Andy McCarthy. I don't want to speak for him. Have some time to work itself up the chain. No, that's fine. I understand that. But it's going to work itself up the chain because there are a whole host of novel questions.

Rich Lowry (48:24)

Okay. Yeah. It's one of the rare times where I really disagree strongly with Andy and maybe I'll be proven wrong. You're always on dangerous ground when you're disagreeing with Andy McCarthy. But I do strongly. The thing is, Rich, the political question doctrine is something that the.

Charlie Cook (48:38)

You guys just keep going. No, you guys should keep going. I was learning so much. And then every time you talk, I was like, megan's right. And then Charlie says, no, Charlie's right.

Rich Lowry (48:47)

Well, we'll get Andy and Mike Davis on here and then we'll really throw them. But I think the American public understands the political question doctrine, even if they don't know that that's what they're understanding. They understand that the commander in chief has certain inherent powers that. That the Congress may not and that the judges may not second guess. Like being commander in chief and deciding how many resources to devote to a certain war. You know, there are certain things you would. You. Everyone would be outraged if a judge tried to second guess. It's not your turn anymore. I'm burning Rich into the discussion. He can't help. And this is one of the problems in the judge trying to turn around flights that had already left U.S. airspace.

Charlie Cook (49:31)

Yeah. Well, in terms of the politics, obviously, this. This is good for the Trump administration. All you need to know, and all most people will know is have limited time to focus on this is the President, United States deported hideous gang members or alleged hideous gang members, most of whom probably are hideous gang members, to El Salvador and a judge try to stop them. So they're with the Trump administration. By the way, the president of El Salvador is incredible.

Unnamed Guest (49:55)

Give me more of these guys.

Charlie Cook (49:57)

No other foreign leader is. I want your gang members. But the president, El Salvador.

Unnamed Guest (50:01)

This is what I do.

Charlie Cook (50:02)

This is my core competency. So, look, I have not followed this as closely as you and Charlie have, but it seems to come down to me. Can the president just.

Unnamed Guest (50:12)

If there's any.

Charlie Cook (50:13)

Just the slightest colorable argument that something's an invasion occurs and can he just say it and no one else can countermand him? Right. And in that case, he's going to win.

Rich Lowry (50:23)

This is beyond that.

Charlie Cook (50:25)

Right, but. But I don't think. Is it an evasion the way we typically define an invasion?

Rich Lowry (50:30)

Invasion. I mean, we've got 10 to 12, got 10 to 20 million illegals. Listen, Rich, you got. I got to take a break. But. And we can resume this on the other side. But I have to say, you got almost 100,000Americans who died just last year from fentanyl, which is being brought across the border by these folks, which is being made in the United States now by a lot of these folks. These labs are so easy to set, and fentanyl the size of a grain of salt can kill many people. So, you know, you have actual American lives being caused to the tune of between 75 and a hundred thousand a year. Number one cause of death for young people in America. Yes, you can absolutely say invasion or incursion.

Charlie Cook (51:10)

Well, look, they're bad things that happen or terrible things or tragic things that aren't the product of an enemy action. Right. Is Venezuela ordering these gang members to come into the United States to.

Rich Lowry (51:22)

They opened their prison against. They were coming here.

Charlie Cook (51:26)

Well, that's. That's different than an invasion. Right. That's not the Trump.

Rich Lowry (51:31)

That's. That's as far as Kelly is willing to go. But the Trump administration is saying that they were sent here and, and they were asking, yes, Venezuela did do it.

Charlie Cook (51:40)

If there's a. There's. If there's a colorable case such that, you know, you find it reasonable, can a judge just say, forget it. The president. I say it says it. So he's declared it, he's proclaimed it, end of story. That. That may be the argument that that prevails. But I'm with Charlie in that it's a political question.

Rich Lowry (51:56)

Judge Brosberg doesn't get to decide whether Trump has accurately deduced that there is an invasion. He's the commander in chief, not Judge Brosberg. All right. I'm sorry, I got to take a. I got it. I got to take a quick break. Great debate, you guys. Stand by. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Ariz. Believes that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American Dream starts with purpose. By honoring your career calling, you can impact your family, friends and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online on campus and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal and professional goals. Plus, you can pick them in your March Madness bracket. Go Antelopes. I feel like they're playing Maryland. I'm trying to remember, but I definitely did choose them. Yeah, Maryland. Because my method is I choose the teams that I have some connection to unless I have no connection to either, in which case I go with the odds. But I have a connection to GCU thanks to that wonderful university being an advertiser on our show and I hope you give them the same benefit of the doubt. Making your choices with over 340 academic programs as of September of last year, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Private, Christian, affordable. Visit gcu. Edu did you know scammers can literally steal your home right out from under you? The FBI calls it house stealing and it's a growing real estate scam. Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee and file it with your local recorder's office. So when was the last time you checked your home title? Probably never. And that's exactly what scammers are counting on. So let me tell you about Home Title Lock. Their million dollar triple lock protection keeps your home and equity safe. They can help you do this. Here's what you get. Immediate 24. 7 monitoring of your property, urgent alerts if there are any changes and if fraud should happen, their US based restoration team will spend up to 1 million bucks to fix the fraud and restore your title at no additional cost. Get a free title history report so you can find out if you're already a victim and access to your personal title expert a $250 value just for signing up. Go to hometitlelock.com, use my promo code Megan250 or click on the link in the description and make sure to check out the million dollar triple lock protection when you get there. Hometitlelock.com promo code MEGAN 250 worried about.

Megyn Kelly (54:45)

What ingredients are hiding in your groceries? Let us take the guesswork out. We're Thrive Market, the online grocery store with the highest quality standards in the industry. We restrict 1000 plus ingredients so you can trust that you'll only find the best high quality, organic and sustainable brands all free of the junk. With savings up to 30% off and fast carbon neutral shipping. You get top trusted groceries at your door and you can stop worrying about what your kids get their hands on. Start shopping@thrivemarket.com podcast for 30% off your first order and a free gift.

Rich Lowry (55:16)

I'm Megyn Kelly, host of the Megyn Kelly show on Sirius xm. It's your home for open, honest and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal and cultural figures. Today you can catch the Megyn Kelly show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream the Megyn Kelly show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad free music, coverage of every major sport, comedy talk, podcast and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free.

Unnamed Guest (56:01)

Go to SiriusXM.com MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com MKShow and get three months free offer details apply.

Rich Lowry (56:18)

First of all guys, can I just tell you, you know I'm at the beach this week because my kids are on spring break. So this isn't. I'm not in my studio and I was asking if I could get a coffee in here and this is what they brought me. This is so sad. Look at this tiny little. I said these people are obviously not in news. No self respecting news person would ever just have a tiny little espresso cup with coffee. In any event, I need it just to keep up. Okay, I got this.

Unnamed Guest (56:46)

Going to leave so you can envy me.

Rich Lowry (56:48)

Yes, that's respectable. I appreciate that. Okay, before we leave the topic of Lawfare, we have to talk about Chief Justice Roberts. So. So like out of nowhere yesterday I couldn't believe it when I saw the statement circulating on X. I'm like, did he just drop this like this wasn't in a case? No, he just decided now would be a good time to drop this now. I will say in his defense, but I'm, I'm not defending this. Trump tweeted out that Judge Boasberg should be impeached and, you know, said all the stuff. He's a hack, whatever. Well, Trump, Trump's done that. You know, he's constantly criticizing judges. This is not the first judge he's done that to. Did anybody watch what happened during the Law Fair? So Roberts came out around noon yesterday with the following statement, quote, for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose. By the way, in a potentially ill timed motion that came late in the day, there was a congressman who moved to impeach Judge Posberg, which is, it's like a little, it's unfortunate when you've done that and then within moments the Chief justice has said this is inappropriate. But it kind of gets to the very nature of what's wrong here, which is, it's really not for Chief Justice Roberts to say, Rich. I mean, I, I respect the Chief Justice. I respect what he does for the country, but Congress is in charge of whether a judge gets impeached and it's really not any of his damn business.

Unnamed Guest (58:30)

Yeah, totally agree. By the way, this puts paid to the conspiracy theory that had a brief life after the address to the joint session of Congress where Trump said, you know, appreciate it, on a hot mic to, to Judge Robert Justice Roberts, you know, always remember. And I was like, oh, it's the immunity decision that he's thanking him for. Where actually look at the full tape. He's thanking everyone as he goes down the line, your generals and other justices.

Rich Lowry (58:55)

So, and Trump later said he was saying he was thanking the Chief justice in those words for swearing him in.

Unnamed Guest (59:01)

But keep going, swearing him in. So this was, this is really, really dumb because one, he's not going to get impeached.

Charlie Cook (59:08)

Right.

Unnamed Guest (59:08)

So there's not. Maybe you can make the case if he's on the verge of getting impeached. The first time a judge is going to get impeached for not corruption, but for one of his rulings or actions, maybe the Chief justice would feel compelled to speak out, but he's just responding to a Trump criticism of this judge, which was lurid and over the top and all caps, and calling for him to be impeached. But if the Chief justice is going to get it, the, the business of rebutting the President, United States every time he criticizes a judge. The Chief justice is never going to shut up. Right. He's going to be very busy. And these are cases that are going to come up to him in his court. So what if, you know, this didn't happen? Trump didn't take the bait. But what happens if Trump hits back at the Chief Justice?

Charlie Cook (59:51)

Right.

Unnamed Guest (59:51)

And you get a war between the President, a war of words between the President and the Chief Justice. You speak, if you're a Justice of the court, you should, you know, they do book tours and whatnot, but you should speak largely through your opinions, your well considered opinions. When you've considered everything carefully, it's come up to you appropriately, and it's something in your ambit. That's your role. So this, this was at the very least imprudent from the Chief Justice.

Rich Lowry (60:19)

Not only that, Charlie, but Judge Boasberg is a big boy. He's the Chief Judge in the District of Columbia. It's right underneath the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals. He can take the President's mean tweets and he can handle a congressman saying he ought to be impeached and starting impeachment proceedings, which Rich is right, will go nowhere. Why is Chief Justice John Roberts protect pretending like he's got to be the daddy of this judge or any other when he's been remarkably silent? When justices came under death threats, when Chuck Schumer was on the steps of the Supreme Court threatening them that they would reap the whirlwind, When Judge Aileen Cannon was being attacked relentlessly for handling the Mar A Lago documents case, including threats of impeachment, I don't remember him releasing statements setting the record straight on how an errant federal district judge ought to be handled back then.

Unnamed Guest (61:13)

So I guess I'm just belligerent today, Megan, because I disagree with you both on this as well. First off, let's get it, Rich. After Schumer made that terrible statement about the whirlwind, Roberts did put out a statement. He condemned it and made a similar statement to the one he made yesterday. So he does have doing this. Yeah. So first off, I think it's consistent with the way that he's acted as Chief Justice. Second, if it's inappropriate for someone who doesn't work for the legislative branch to opine on impeachment, then it's inappropriate for Donald Trump to do it. So if Donald Trump comes out as the head of the executive branch and says we should impeach Justices, well, it's reasonable in response, in my view, for the head of the judicial branch to say, no, you shouldn't. The why Congress is, of course, you.

Rich Lowry (62:05)

Of all people, you love the Constitution. This is a remedy. Congress has the right to impeach federal judges.

Unnamed Guest (62:10)

Right. But John Roberts did not say that it is illegal for Congress to impeach it. He didn't say, well, that if Congress.

Rich Lowry (62:20)

That it's not an appropriate response.

Unnamed Guest (62:22)

No, what he said was actually correct. Constitutionally and historically. It's not that Congress cannot impeach justices or judges if they want to. It's that they should not do so on the grounds of pure disagreement. I mean, we presumably all think this because we, the three of us, spent four years railing righteously against the Democrats for trying to pack the court simply because they didn't like the opinions of the majority. Congress can pack the court. It's allowed to do that. But it's totally reasonable for people to say, don't pack the court just because you don't like Clarence Thomas or you don't like Alito. So I think for the judiciary to say, hey, we don't do that. We don't impeach people based on their opinions only for, you know, being wildly corrupt or what you were, that is.

Rich Lowry (63:17)

For the Democrats in Congress to say that's. That's what the Democrats should say in response to this motion to impeach that's been filed by this Republican congressman. That's. He is not Democrat in chief and he's not the daddy. This is one of the problems with Chief Justice John Roberts. He's not the daddy of the judiciary. He's not. His oath is to uphold the Constitution, and he too often must. We go back to Obamacare, decides to maneuver in a way that would protect the court as opposed to in a way that would uphold the oath.

Unnamed Guest (63:51)

You'll find no argument for me if you want to criticize some of John Roberts's opinions. But I think that if you look at the presumption undergirding our constitutional order is that it's that ambition will counteract ambition and each branch will protect itself. And actually, the big problem that we have at the moment is that that is very often not true. So to me, when I see someone like Trump criticize the judiciary, although I think he's sometimes wrong on the merits and I don't often like the way that he does it, that's fine. When I see. I wish we'd see more of it. Congress criticizing the president, including the president's use of powers, that the president has and indisputably is able to exercise, I think that's fine. And if I see the judiciary defending itself and saying, actually no, even if it's not true, actually, no, this judge is good and we don't talk like that and you should not impeach us for our opinions, I think that's fine. I think that is Madisonian in nature. Now, if those branches usurp the power of others or interfere in ways that are extra constitutional or unconstitutional, then I will have a huge problem with it. But John Roberts chastising Chuck Schumer in 2020, or responding to criticisms of Boasberg and calls for his impeachment, I think it's very different.

Rich Lowry (65:02)

It's very different. Speaking up against a threat, I mean, that's like a direct threat against justices is one thing that I, I didn't remember that he did that, but that just knowing it is completely appropriate because they were being threatened by the majority leader of the Senate. But that's, this is not what's happening. This is a procedure that's available to Congress to impeach a rogue federal district judge, which is what many people think about Boasberg right here, given the discussion that you and I just had. And it's not for John Roberts to weigh in. Maybe he'll get his time on the Boasberg decision, but this is not the time. And I'll tell you, I agree with Mike Davis, who tweeted out the following. Dear Chief Justice John Roberts, for more than two centuries, he's playing off of the words used by Roberts. It has been established that impeachment is a political decision by Congress. An activist judge ordering planes to turn around during a national security operation is not a judicial decision. It is a highly illegal and extremely dangerous sabotage of the presidency, which is an impeachable offense. Your statement is not an appropriate response. The normal impeachment process exists for that purpose. And here's just one more which I would love to ask you about, Rich. Julie Kelly writes, for more than two centuries, again, Congress has abdicated its oversight role related to the federal judiciary creating a crisis of confidence among the American people that is quickly destroying trust in the third branch of government. And she write fixed it for you to Roberts. But I think that raises a very interesting point and captures the angst and anger that so many Americans are feeling right now as these judges try to stop the Trump agenda in its cradle with decisions like the one we kicked the show off with by Judge Reyes. Right, that, that there is a federal judiciary creating a crisis of confidence by overstepping their remit and then absolutely no oversight rule being exercised by Congress or by anybody else. You know, that's her frustration, and it's the frustration of a lot of Americans.

Unnamed Guest (67:10)

Yeah. So, first of all, I love this National Review Day, Charlie versus Megan. It's, I love the throwdown we're having here. Look, I think Roberts is right on the merits. I don't think it'd be a good idea to just go and impeach judges for their opinions, unless, you know, they're mentally ill or something or, or just not competent to carry out their duties or the found gold gold bars in their suit pockets the way Senator Menendez was. But I just don't think he should have said it. I don't think it helps the standing of the Supreme Court that he's so concerned with. Justifiably. But Senate confirms judges. Right. That, that is, that is part of our, our, our system.

Charlie Cook (67:51)

But we're not going to, we're not.

Unnamed Guest (67:53)

Going to impeach these judges. You know, there's never going to be the votes for it. So the end of the day, this is a real sideshow.

Rich Lowry (68:00)

Yeah, there's. They're not going to be the votes for it, but they're trying to make a point that he's way out over a skis. I mean, yesterday, what we saw was the ACLU feeding him the questions that they wanted the DOJ to answer about these planes. And he just did it, hook, line, and sinker. This is what the ACLU wants to know. You bet. You better answer it. And so now we have the commander in chief removing gang members from the country, having to answer to the ACLU exactly when, where, why, who, all of it. And again, it's very controversial given the discussion that happened in the first hour of this show. Okay. On the subject of Lawfare, one of the people that Trump is trying to deport is Mahmoud Khalil, who was a Columbia University student, who was the spokesperson for a very controversial group on campus called the Columbia University Apartheid Divest Group. And that was the group that took Hamilton hall hostage, committed tons of property. I mean, we showed the video on Monday, but, I mean, less people forget, it was extremely riotous. Broke the windows with hammers. They threatened Jewish students. They didn't allow Jewish students to get from A to B on campus. We could go down the list. But very controversial stuff. And he was their spokesperson saying, you divest from Israel, Columbia, or you get more Hamilton Halls. That's how this is going to go. Now he wants to play the victim. And the left is only Too help. Happy to help. He's got some 19 lawyers representing him for free. Well, he decided to write a letter, guys, dated yesterday. It's long, but I'll read. Just a couple highlights. My name is Mahmoud Khalil, and I am a political prisoner. I write to you from a detention facility in Louisiana where I wake to cold mornings and spend long days bearing witness to the quiet injustices underway against a great many people precluded from the protections of the law. Writes about how he was allegedly accosted, along with his wife, by the DHS agents when he got to 26 Federal Plaza. I slept on the cold floor. He's obsessed with the cold. He should go back to Syria. It's very warm there. He's going to be much happier. In the early morning hours, agents transported me to another facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. There, I slept on the ground and was refused a blanket despite my. I'm telling you, the man, he doesn't. He shouldn't be here. The Northeast in March is no place for Khalil. My arrest was a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech. He talks about how he's born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. My unjust detention is indicative of the anti Palestinian racism from both the Biden and Trump administrations. Etc, okay, he says they're determined to support Israel with weapons to kill the Palestinians, blah, blah, blah. He goes back to the racism. President Shafiq Armstrong. He's talking about Columbia authorities and the dean laid the groundwork for the US Government to target me by arbitrarily disciplining pro Palestinian students. Arbitrarily, he says, and allowing viral doxing campaigns based on racism and disinformation. Colombia targeted me for my activism. Activism. Creating a new authoritarian disciplinary office to bypass due process and silence students criticizing Israel. That sounds just like Colombia, doesn't it? It. And then he ends it by saying the Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Visa holders, green card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs. This comes as a US District court has just decided that they will not let this case be heard in the Southern District of New York, which is what Khalil wanted. Nor will they let it be heard in Louisiana, which is what the DOJ wanted. They will have it be tried in the district court in New Jersey, which was the government's fallback, because they brought him to New Jersey after detaining him in New York. So it's sort of a split the baby situation. But I think the Trump Administration's gonna be happy with New Jersey over sdny, which is pretty far left. Your thoughts on whether he has been detained because of racism and Columbia worked to set him up and deprive him of his right to free speech. Guys.

Unnamed Guest (72:23)

Well, it's preposterous, but it's the political views you'd expect of this guy. At least he didn't use the word that some have used to describe his detention, which he's been taken hostage, I believe. If I'm not mistaken, that might have been his wife's statement that was read from the courthouse steps last week, which is just perverse from people.

Rich Lowry (72:42)

But not read by his wife, interestingly.

Unnamed Guest (72:44)

What's that?

Rich Lowry (72:45)

But it wasn't read by his wife. It had a woman. Everybody thought that was the wife. She read the wife's statement. It wasn't the wife.

Unnamed Guest (72:52)

Yeah, yeah, the statement was from the wife, was read by someone else. But these are people that torn down flyers of a picture with. With pictures of Israeli hostages who've never said anything about Israeli hostages who were literally pulled from their houses, their beds, their children held in dungeons. They're not just cold, right? Heinous acts of violence being perpetrated against them. And this guy, who is an immigrant to the United States, as Marco Rubio has eloquently stated, has no right to be here. Charlie can speak to this fulsomely, by the way. If you're an immigrant, illegal immigrant, on a visa, tourist, student visa, or even a green card holder, you are obsessed. If you're a normal person with abiding by every single law and rule. You don't want to park on the wrong side of the street because what might happen to you and this guy, you know, there's a cognizance of guilt, right, Megan? He said, well, I don't go in the media very much because I'm an immigrant here, and I might get in trouble. I don't want to get in trouble, because who knows what could happen, right?

Charlie Cook (73:55)

And it's.

Unnamed Guest (73:55)

It's happened, so it's entirely on him. And it kind of ties back to the first segment on the trans issue. In the military, you don't have a right to be a member of the military, and you don't, as a foreigner, have a right to be in the United States. So I'm sure it's not pleasant to be in a dissension facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. But he brought him on this, on himself. And this is something. I think it's a. It's a bit of a Close call. But I think ultimately, another theme in our discussion today will be based on the determination of Marco Rubio that it's against the national security interest of the United States to have these protests creating. Creating a false image of what we are and what our priorities are. And he was a leader in that effort. So goodbye.

Rich Lowry (74:37)

I think you called that the. The King's card in your discussion with Andy on his podcast. That's. Well said thicket. Yeah, that. That's. Despite all the debates over the laws and the rules and the way you can deport somebody, et cetera. Marco Rubio has this ace in the hole which says there is an explicit statute saying the Secretary of State can deport you if he thinks you pose a reasonable threat to the foreign policy of the United States. That card has been played on Mahmoud Khalil. It's over. And no one cares how cold he is without his blankie. He took this. He took the campus of Columbia University hostage and acted as a spokesperson for the group that was threatening a lot more mayhem. Charles. I mean, it doesn't matter whether it was actually charged as a crime by Alvin Bragg. What he was doing very much looks like extortion and conspiracy under the criminal law to me. And you don't even have to prove that. All you have to prove is Marco Rubio made a reasonable determination.

Unnamed Guest (75:35)

I think Marco Rubio's reasonable determination will prevail here. I do suspect this might take a while, though, because there are a bunch of complicated questions that will gum up the works. One is whether or not what he engaged in was speech. I think a lot of it was not, but half the country thinks it was. And then there's the fact that he has become a green card holder, and a green card holder is a U.S. person. They can still be deported, but the criteria for deportation is much, much narrower. And of course, he has an American wife who is pregnant, and I think she's eight months pregnant. So in one month, he's irrelevant. Of an American citizen. No. Well, it isn't. It isn't in that. It's going to gum up the works, though, I think. But I think Marco Rubio's.

Rich Lowry (76:23)

Here we go again. C squared. Let's do this. It's irrelevant. It's something that they use to pull on the heartstrings of the judge. But it has absolutely no legal relevance that you're married to an American or a about to have an American baby.

Unnamed Guest (76:35)

Well, it doesn't. It doesn't in that. We've been discussing some judges who are Bad. And who are willing to put themselves in the way of the Trump agenda based on flimsy pretexts. And until you meet a judge, or, excuse me, a panel of judges who is not doing that, then this is going to grind on. I mean, I think it could take a year as it winds its way through the system. And I think some options of the questions and we'll find out who's right, I suppose. But I think some of the questions that are going to be litigated here are what constitutes the rights of a US Person, which is a green card holder, whether it matters that he was a US Person after the various actions were taken.

Rich Lowry (77:19)

Well, no, but I mean, of course, US Person is a term of legal art which, you know, but it's, it's, it's not synonymous with American citizen. It's not, you're not allowed to get public benefits, you're not allowed to vote. There are all sorts of rights that, that the three of us have as American citizens that he doesn't have.

Unnamed Guest (77:35)

Correct. But for example, and I'm not actually arguing with you here, even if I sound like it, but for example, a U.S. person is allowed to own a gun. I know this having been a US Person before I became a citizen, you can own a gun. And the Supreme Court has ruled that right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to US Person. So there will be a judge. I promise you this. There is going to be a judge who looks at this, says the First Amendment supersedes Marco Rubio's argument and that as a US Person, he is, oh.

Rich Lowry (78:02)

Yeah, there could be a judge. And I should point out one of the reasons that one of the reasons the Democrats and the left left are getting all these favorable rulings is because they're judge shopping. They're, they're making sure that they file these cases in the most leftist jurisdictions that they possibly can and, and trying to get, you know, a good judge. That's why they wanted this case with Khalil to stay in the sdny. It's why they're thrilled with Judge Boasberg, Judge Chuang who just, Chung, who just did the, the USAID ruling. All these people are left wing appointed judges and so they're thrilled. But unfortunately for them, we have a Supreme Court that right now is 6, 3 with the conservatives notwithstanding, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Amy Coney Barrett, who's been slightly soft. So we'll see how she does. But I think in the end, I feel like Coney Barrett will do the right thing. I Don't know about the chief judge. And that that's a 5, 4 ruling in President Trump's favor on, I think, most of his agenda, which will be ultimately upheld. Okay, let's keep going. That's Khalil. He was not held because of racism. He was certainly not held because of some discrimination by the Columbia University administrators. Good God. They let them hold the university campus and abuse Jews for months. I mean, it just went on and on and on. And now he's got the nerve to claim this is racism against him.

Unnamed Guest (79:24)

He's assimilated. He's assimilated in that respect.

Unnamed Guest (79:26)

Right.

Unnamed Guest (79:26)

It's the most American thing in the world to accuse our own country.

Rich Lowry (79:32)

We've got to spend a minute on. As long as we're talking about double standards. Tesla and Tim Walsh. We got to talk about Tesla and Tim Walls. So Elon Musk's company and Elon Musk are under attack from coast to coast. There's this new campaign to vandalize Tesla vehicles, Tesla dealerships to key. You know, when you take your key and you scrape, you scratch, which is very expensive to fix the side of a Tesla car. Some people are throwing Molotov cocktails at the Tesla vehicles. And again, we've seen even vehicle dealerships targeted. This is. Elon Musk is quickly becoming the left's favorite target, even more so than Hitler. Fascist Orange man, bad Trump. And what we saw, what we're seeing now is some Democrats sound awfully close to defending those attacks on Tesla and the dealerships. You know, they're smart enough not to say that explicitly, but they're sounding awfully close. Before I get to walls, here's left wing operative and Hillary Clinton BFF Neera Tanden vs Scott Jennings on CNN last night.

Unnamed Guest (80:49)

And that's the American left right now. It is one angry mob after another willing to take things into their own hands, up to and including keying, firebombing, and otherwise vandalizing cars and car dealerships and charging stations. It's outrageous.

Unnamed Guest (81:04)

So when they do it to a Tesla dealership, it's really bad, but when they do it to the halls of Congress, we should pardon them. Is that your position?

Unnamed Guest (81:13)

No, I've never.

Rich Lowry (81:14)

Are we okay with.

Unnamed Guest (81:16)

I know you haven't been around for a while, so let me educate you about my position. About January 6th.

Unnamed Guest (81:20)

I'm so sorry.

Unnamed Guest (81:20)

Let me educate.

Rich Lowry (81:21)

Let me educate you. So let me educate you about my position.

Unnamed Guest (81:24)

You want to attack me? Let me. Let me finish it. Let me finish it.

Charlie Cook (81:27)

Let me finish.

Unnamed Guest (81:28)

Let's do this January 6th, and then.

Unnamed Guest (81:30)

I'm sorry, you're getting emotional.

Unnamed Guest (81:31)

Yeah, I'm sorry. You're a condescending person who hasn't been paying attention to what I do. I have repeatedly, just like my friend Ashley here, said that no violence in our political system is acceptable. But this right here, what's going on with a guy who helps our country, who runs successful companies, who doesn't have to be doing this, and now one of his companies is under systematic terroristic threat and violence all over the country. And people seem to be laughing about it or fine with it. It's outrageous.

Unnamed Guest (81:58)

Anyone who commits violence against Tesla or Congress or anyone else should be put in jail 1,000%. But that does not stifle dissent or opposition from Elon Musk.

Rich Lowry (82:11)

Give it a little lip service.

Unnamed Guest (82:12)

Give it a little both sides.

Unnamed Guest (82:13)

I'm so sorry to say that people are legitimately upset. They are legitimately upset at Elon Musk and they're legitimate on their own, but there is no reason to have violence in the country. But I just wish all of us would support criticism of or would support punishing people who are violent wherever they are.

Rich Lowry (82:34)

So they're very upset. They're legitimately upset. They're doing it on their own. And we should really be condemning January 6th in this, in this moment as well. Your, your thoughts on that one, Charles?

Unnamed Guest (82:47)

She just can't do it, can she? All she has to say, all she's obliged to say, as the citizen of a free republic, is it is never acceptable to firebomb cars because you don't like the guy who owns the company. And she can't do it. Joe Biden, by the way, nominated her for a federal position. Thankfully, the Senate shot it down. Joe Manchin, I think, saw sense, but she cannot do it. And that is because at the root of modern American progressivism is the suspicion at best and the conviction at worst that violence is sometimes justified, that riots necessary, and that all these power dynamics and hierarchies of grievances that we've been treated to for years justify what we see on the streets often and here at car dealerships. It's absolutely astonishing to me that she can't do it. And the newspapers, incidentally, have published headlines over and over again that run a little bit like Neera Tandon's answer there, which is, is suggesting that Elon Musk has angered people and therefore that they can't be held responsible if they resort to violence. It's appalling.

Rich Lowry (84:08)

Rich. We did have the almost vice president of the United States, Tim Walsh decide to weigh in on this. And here's what he had to say in response to Elon Musk. I mean, obviously in response to Elon and what he's doing with the federal government and all that, but here's what he decided. While. While Tesla's under attack, while Elon's under attack, this is his message yesterday saying.

Unnamed Guest (84:32)

On my phone, I know some of you know this. On the iPhone, they've got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day, 225 and dropping.

Unnamed Guest (84:43)

So.

Unnamed Guest (84:47)

And, and if you own one, if you own one, we're not blaming you. You can, you can take dental floss and pull the Tesla thing off, you know, and take out. Just telling you.

Rich Lowry (85:00)

So your thoughts on that, as this is one of the largest American manufacturers and employers of Americans that we have. But he's celebrating the drop in stock. This, not to mention as Elon Musk rescues our two astronauts who were stuck on the International Space Station. It's just your thoughts? Yeah.

Unnamed Guest (85:16)

It's meant to punish and coerce Elon Musk. And this whole campaign is loathsome and un American. I was fine, obviously, to protest. If it's peaceful and lawful, it's fine to boycott. You know, there's a boycott against Bud Light a year or two ago, but I don't remember Bud Light delivery trucks getting molotov cocktailed or 7 11s getting shot up. So this is a low level, you know, it's not hijacking planes, but is a low level form of domestic terrorism, the basic definition of which is violent acts that are ideologically motivated and meant to change the course of a government or government policy. They want to make Elon Musk afraid. I don't think he's scared as easily, but they want to make the people who work for him afraid. They want to make the potential customers afraid. They want to make the people who own the cars afraid.

Unnamed Guest (86:04)

Right.

Unnamed Guest (86:04)

The last thing you want to think of is my car might be vandalized. Right. This is an expensive vehicles. So whenever the left talks about direct action, you need to take measures to protect your person and your property. And that they're celebrating this or can't condemn it is utterly contemptible.

Rich Lowry (86:25)

And speaking of the left, celebration of violence, here's another sound bite. This one is still Tim Walls, but it's on Gavin Newsom's podcast Tuesday.

Unnamed Guest (86:36)

You gotta respect people you disagree with, even. And you can't just dismiss people. How do you fight it? Well, I think I could kick most of their ass. I do. I know I can run them, but I don't know if we're gonna fall into that place where we want to. Okay, we challenge you to a WWE fight here type of thing. But it's a natural reaction. I think it's one of the reasons we're losing so many men. And again, it's multi ethnic. It's not just white men. We're losing them. We're losing them to these guys online. That's why I brought them. These are bad guys, though. These are bad guys, but they exist. And we could deny they exist. They exist. Not only they exist, they persist. And they're actually influencing young kids every single day. How do we push some of those guys back under a rock? I think we have to first understand what their motivations are. I think we have to understand what they're actually doing. You don't think that's racism and misogyny?

Rich Lowry (87:31)

Oh, my God, there's so much in there. I'll start with you on it, Rich, since Charlie and I have done a lot together, that there's everything in there, right? Like, I'm gonna kick their ass. Okay, sure, sure, Jan. These are bad guys. The online influencers. He's clearly talking about, you know, sort of the manosphere that helped get Trump elected. They're bad. And then the. How do we kick them back under a rock? The leftist instinct to silence. Always there when it's not their POV and then just a cherry on top. It's all. They're all racists and misogynists. You couldn't, like, if I, If I sent you into like a back room with a bot and you were to program it to say the things that the left believes about the right half of America, that's what you'd come out with? Yeah.

Unnamed Guest (88:16)

And that was the guy they selected that was supposed to appeal to ordinary Americans and to rural meth.

Charlie Cook (88:22)

Tim.

Unnamed Guest (88:22)

Tim Waltz. When he says push under a rock, it's consistent with what we heard from him about the First Amendment, which he totally doesn't understand and says that it bans hate speech.

Unnamed Guest (88:32)

Right.

Unnamed Guest (88:32)

So this is ultimately where they want to go. They want to censor and coerce. So I'm not a big Gavin Newsom fan, obviously. The guy is way too slick. But the project here, I don't know. Sure whether. Not sure whether it's going to work out for him politically, but the project to at least understand that's a huge step forward. And that big debate between Waltz and Newsom Newsom is right. Let's understand what's going on and maybe find out a way to appeal to these people once you know why they, they've gone to what they consider the dark side. But Waltz is with the left. Nope.

Unnamed Guest (89:06)

They're horrible.

Unnamed Guest (89:07)

They're racist, they're misogynist. Nothing to learn, nothing to understand. We're righteous and they need to go away. And that's the attitude. I mean we've seen it for a long time for the left, but it was the attitude that, that sunk Hillary Clinton in 2016 and they're still not over it.

Rich Lowry (89:25)

That it's not solvable for them. Charles, like it's, they can sit there all day long. Tim Walls thinks the answer to losing young men as voters is for him to be like, I'm going to kick some ass. I'm going to kick the ass. I'm going to do it. As opposed to the way they talk about men, the way they talk about white men, their policies when it comes to white men getting jobs and getting ahead and treating them like they're class citizens. Not to mention the irony of these two dudes, these two governors, talking about like how we've lost all these young male voters who are literally running the most insane leftist states in the union when it comes to the trans insanity and trans so called trans children. I mean like the policies. Walls is the only one further to the left than Gavin Newsom when it comes to what can be done with a child who expresses gender confusion. He made Minnesota a so called trans sanctuary state where the, where the state can rest custody from a parent who won't, quote, affirm Gavin Newsom right there. I mean, a sliver behind him in California. And these two are like, well, we just have to figure out how we're losing voters, especially men, by the droves. Gee, maybe we need to have more tough talk about kicking ass.

Unnamed Guest (90:51)

Yeah. It will never cease to be weird that having put together a ticket that consisted of Kamala Harris and Tim Walls, the Democrats went on a two week offensive where they described verbatim JD Vance as being weird. Tim Walsh is one of the most weird people I've ever seen in politics. I've lived in two countries, I've spent some time in a third, France, which is well known for having strange politicians. And Tim Wells may well take the cake. He also can't decide there, which I think is genuinely interesting, whether or not he wishes to condemn what he sees as toxic masculine men or emulate them. It's an odd thing to do to Say we need to put them under the rock. They're bad people. Those sort of men have no place effectively in our politics. But to start the segment saying, I'm going to kick their ass, because the vast majority of the people he's talking about would not say that. Now if you threaten their girlfriend, they'll tell you they'll kick your ass. But they wouldn't start with that. There wouldn't be the opening gambit. So he seems somewhat confused as to whether he wants to eradicate them or to become them.

Rich Lowry (92:05)

This is such a good point. This reminds me of. There was a friend that Doug and I had. It was someone I knew professionally and we wondered whether he was gay because he never had girlfriends and he was a very good looking guy. And just there were a lot of gay men in our lives, our friends who were like, is he gay? Is he gay? Anyway, he used to run around and say to Doug and to our other like male friends when he had an alleged girlfriend, like, she looks amazing naked. You should see her naked. And Doug and his guy friends would say, that's not how straight men talk past the age of 19. Right? Like that too is gay is really what they were saying. And I think you're on to something there about Tim Walls, right? Like actual tough guys. Not like, I'm going to kick his ass. I'm going to kick their ass based on nothing.

Unnamed Guest (93:01)

You know who else did it a lot was. And I'm not suggesting anything. Joe Biden, right? He's this tottering old man. He'd barely stand up anymore and he'd be talking to, you know, I'll take you down, you know, let's have a push up contest. It's a false bravado and masculinity overcompensating.

Rich Lowry (93:19)

So true. Okay, I'm still stuck on my story. I, I saved this one. I really want Charles's viewpoint on this because I, I think you both are going to like it and I think you both heard it. But I really want to hear what Charlie has to say to another Charlie. This one goes by Chuck, his last name Schumer. And he appeared on the View and had some real thoughts on the evils of the right in his view. Here he is in Sat 5 is.

Chuck Schumer (93:51)

A different kettle of fish than it used to be. And that's why we're fighting them so hard. They are controlled by a small group of wealthy, greedy people. And you know what their attitude is? I made my money all by myself. How dare your government take my money from me. I don't want to pay taxes or I built my company with my bare hands. How dare your government tell me how I should treat my customers. The land and water that I own or my employees, they hate government. Government's a barrier to people, a barrier to stop them from doing things. They want to destroy it. We are not letting them do it. And we're united.

Rich Lowry (94:32)

For the listening audience. He ends it with his fists in the air once again, like when he tried to get that chant going, we're gonna win. And no one Jo joined him. He just thinks if he raises his fist in the air, somehow it's going to inspire us. Charlie, your thoughts on that?

Unnamed Guest (94:47)

Well, I think if I were the Republicans, I would already be looking to run that in 2026 in the midterms. And look, that is one of the Democrats big problems. They just believe the people who pay the vast majority of taxes, if you look at our progressive tax system, the people who create economic growth and invention, the people who really do serve as the backbone of the private sector are the problem. And their suspicion of big government is ungrateful. And they've been doing this for a long, long time. This didn't start with Chuck Schumer. Barack Obama used to do this with his whole, you didn't build this nonsense. Elizabeth Warren talks like this. You can go back 100 years and you'll find Democrats talking like this. Now, it's not the case that Americans on average are as free market oriented as I am. And I'm aware of that. I am much more free marketee than the average American. But I think this is in some way related to the previous clip that you just paid, which is that that a lot of Americans, they do have a certain get up and go, especially the young men you're talking about who feel that they want to go out there and express themselves without being told that they are the problem. Now, it's not that I'm saying men are more entrepreneurial than women, but I'm saying that women don't tend to be told they're the problem by the Democrats, but men do. And if you combine the message that we just saw from Tim Walz with the message that you just saw from Chuck Schumer, it's essentially go away, go under a rock, don't create anything, don't innovate, don't take risks. And if you do, we're going to take the money that you generate from them. And I think that together those messages are why a lot of young men. And it seems to be disproportionately non white young men. For all Tim Wells accusations of racism and misogyny, the group that moved the most in the last election was young men of color. Those people are the ones who are put off by this message. So I think they're going to have to shift because I don't think that's how you win back the country.

Rich Lowry (97:04)

Your thoughts on it, Rich, that's just pathetic.

Unnamed Guest (97:07)

Look, I think Schumer made the right call on avoiding a government shutdown, but he's just kind of been exposed, is not very good at this. And there's something about the Senate that creates certain kind of leaders. They take on the aspects of the institution.

Charlie Cook (97:21)

Now this is true of Mitch McConnell.

Unnamed Guest (97:23)

Republican base case didn't like Mitch McConnell, even though he was very good at his job in the Senate. But he wasn't going around pumping his fists and trying to pretend like he was something he wasn't. And that's what Schumer is doing. Just like Tim Waltz is when he's saying he's going to kick people's asses. I will say at least this is a cartoonish version of what a lot of Republicans or Elon Musk wants or thinks. They're not Nazis. So Elon Musk is a techno libertarian, but people are spray painting swastikas on his car because they just think if anyone's on the right and they disagree with them, therefore they must be a fascist or Nazi. At least this is a cartoonish version of the way entrepreneurs or libertarian leaning Republicans think. But it's still cartoonish. And Chuck Schumer just doesn't. You know, I think AOC would be an idiot not to challenge him in that Senate primary coming up several years away now. But I think she should go for boring.

Rich Lowry (98:22)

Yeah, I mean, these guys are so out of touch and just embarrassing themselves. I, I mean, the more the better. I. Tim Wall should stay out there talking. And Chuck Schumer too. It's just, I guess he doesn't realize how uninspirational he is. The thing with Tim Walls, like, we're gonna kick their ass. All I could think of when I listened to him was that viral video that was on YouTube when YouTube was really first taking off with that little girl and she's like, he's gonna come out of the movie. He's gonna kick my ass. Remember that one? The mom's kind of laughing like, you can't say that. You say. But anyway, that's who he sounded like, except far less cute. Okay, we've got to get to this incident on CNN which I've been promising the audience for days and it just haven't been able to get to Bill Weir who is a far left radical climate activist is the chief climate correspondent on CNN and he covers as a result epa. And now Lee Zeldin at EPA and he went on Caitlin Collins show late last week with a quote, fact check of an EPA press release about what they're doing over there as they try to reform or really kind of undo some of the extreme quote reforms that Joe Biden put into place. Case here is what he reported.

Bill Weir (99:43)

They were putting out press releases with such a flurry about 31 different actions and rollbacks that some of them had typos or placeholders at the top. We have one of those there. Trump EPA announces 000. You can see there it's sort of shoot first, fill out the press release later.

Rich Lowry (100:02)

EPA administrator the guys are shaking their heads for the listening audience. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin took to X the very next day writing another media fact check face plant where the fact checker doesn't have the slightest clue what he is talking about. And he, he says these aren't zeros, they are the letter O O O O O is not a typo says Lee Zeldin. 40 CFR Code of Federal Regulations Part 60 Subpart 0000 or Quad O is a federal act and then goes on to explain exactly what they are doing. They are, they're letting people know that they're about to have open debate on whether the EPA can as Zeldin feels, change those increased standards that the Biden administration put on. I think it's methane producers. But in any event Charlie, your thoughts on Bill Weir's so called fact check as the CNN resident expert on these issues?

Unnamed Guest (101:10)

Yeah. Well I'm glad you used the word expert because for years now there's been this back and forth in the courts between the law as it was written by Congress and the EPA's interpretation of it. Thankfully, many of the cases have gone the way of congressional will in recent years. But every time they do we get these dissents from people like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in which they laud the experts in the community and say we should just be giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want. And then we see one on television absolutely beclowning himself and we realize why we have the system that we have. It's very, very embarrassing. It is also what happens when for years you know that the media is on your side and just will reflexively back you and publish your talking points as if they were facts, you become lazy and flabby. I think the average press secretary for a Democrat is, is worse than the press secretary for a Republican because they're just not used to doing the work. They're just not used to the hostility that sharpens people. That was a good example of it. And I'll just use this opportunity to say Lee Zeldin is one of the best of the nominations that Donald Trump made and seems to be doing an incredible job at epa, not only in policy terms, but in making sure that all of the work that he's doing is, is legitimate and the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. I think when this administration is over and we look back on the story of it, we will say that the EPA appointment and conduct was probably one of the best parts of the whole thing.

Rich Lowry (102:51)

This is what happens, Rich, when your left wing activism blinds your obligations as a reporter.

Unnamed Guest (103:00)

Yeah, well, we all have our moments and I wouldn't have known what all those O's are, but I'm not environmental reporter, so this is hugely embarrassing. And Lee Zelda and I agree with Charlie, he's great. Now you got to be careful because the first time around a lot of great stuff happened to EPA as well and it all got reversed because it wasn't careful enough. So hopefully Lee Zeldin is dotting his eyes and crossing his T's there. But I would also, I wouldn't think like O's would be a natural stand in for something that's going to be filled in. You know, usually leave something like you'd have underscores or the journalistic way to do it is a capital T and a capital K. So yeah, Weir should have been more spelled a little more careful here.

Rich Lowry (103:43)

Here's the thing though. So this guy, Bill Weir, I don't know if you guys are probably. Nobody's familiar with him because no one knows who he is. But he being in the business and on cable news, I've been watching this guy for years and he is as rabid a partisan as they come. He was at abc, now he's at cnn. And I want you to know just how rabid. Okay, let me just start with his climate activism and just radicalism. All right, Charlie and Rich, you both have young kids. Imagine doing this to your child on Earth Day. All right, he published a letter on CNN.com to his son river marking the child's fourth Earth Day where he warned of mass extinction. And here's what he wrote. April 22, 2024. This is just this past April. April. There are still dark days, to be sure. And since you love animals so much, I can't bring myself to explain just how many of your favorites are on extinction's brink. And while technology in the hands of the soulless can divide us, it can also connect the helpers in ways that can save entire ecosystems. This is a follow up to his 2020 version of his letter to his then newborn son, where he wrote, quote, the milk in your bottle was warmed by dirty ancient fuels, and as a result, you will learn to walk on a planet that has never been this hot for humans. Charlie, is that what you wrote to your babes when they were first born?

Unnamed Guest (105:18)

It's not. You know, the other thing, aside from being borderline child abuse in its content, it's so overwrought, it's embarrassing. That's what I would write as a parody if you told me, you know, there are people who do this, come up with the letter. I think I'd write. I think I'd be nervous about publishing that for fear that it seemed unbelievable.

Rich Lowry (105:42)

Your dirty milk, my terrible fossil fuels. So that's how he talks to his son. Rich, you have a newborn baby. I'm sure you're writing her letters just like that. You probably have to run right now to do it.

Unnamed Guest (105:53)

Yeah. What is weird? Give his kids, like, a dead polar bear. Sorry. You know, dead stuffed polar bear. Sorry, this polar bear is dead. But, you know, that's just the world you. You live in. This is one of these speaks, like every climate reporter in the country, probably, if they haven't written those sort of things. So because they think it right, it's like covering gender or misinformation or disinformation. There's not one honest, straight, objective journalist who ever ends up on a beat like that.

Rich Lowry (106:22)

Yes. All right, so he ultimately was forced, after being publicly shamed, to issue a correction on cnn, which he did. That's good. That's a bare minimum that's required of people. But if you look at this guy's actual reporting, taking away his mental deficiencies as evidenced in those letters, it's, of course, completely biased. Pro Obama, Biden, anti Trump. And I've got to just show you these. These couple of examples before we go. All right, here he is. Just see if you can tell me if you can spot the difference in the way he reported on Trump, which we'll play first versus Obama, which we went back and Just pulled some of his coverage of the Obama inauguration. We're going to play these two back to back. 24 and 25.

Bill Weir (107:07)

These are such vital years right now that we're dealing with. And then this new administration, not only ambivalent, vigilant about the science, but almost antagonistic. So we'll see, we'll see who is able to hold the line. Now, for anybody who remotely cares about land and water and animals and climate, this is an obvious choice. They live in two different planets on planet Trump.

Rich Lowry (107:31)

Still on Trump.

Bill Weir (107:31)

There are no gigafiers out west. Miami is not flooding. There are no experts telling us that this is just the beginning of a new normal, think things are bad now. Imagine the hell on earth that would be 3 degrees of global warming. Well, Donald Trump is basically saying go to hell. Go to that hell. Because he doesn't want to even acknowledge the existence of the problem. Well, Charlie, we know that wind can make a cold day feel colder, but can national pride make a freezing day feel warmer? It seems to be the case. But regardless of the final crowd number estimates, never have so many people shivered so long with such joy.

Rich Lowry (108:15)

From above.

Unnamed Guest (108:18)

Humanity.

Unnamed Guest (108:20)

What? He's a terrible writer. Also trying to do a Churchill thing. I mean, that was that right at the end, he was trying to paraphrase Churchill about the seagulls or they.

Rich Lowry (108:34)

Never before.

Unnamed Guest (108:35)

No, he said never before, which is a line that Winston Churchill used after the Battle of Britain, an air campaign that quite literally saved Britain from Nazi invasion in 1940. So he's transplanted that into a description of the inauguration of, I presume, Joe Biden.

Rich Lowry (108:51)

No, Barack Obama. 09.

Unnamed Guest (108:53)

Oh, Barack Obama. Okay, even better. That is such a great example though, of how these people's priorities are all out of whack. Literal existential survival of the British Empire gets moved over onto the same plane as Barack Obama becomes president. Just insanity.

Rich Lowry (109:11)

Could you believe that, Rich?

Unnamed Guest (109:13)

Yeah, it's, it's parody, you know, and they can't just say that, you know, oh, the science suggests if the projections are true, that 50 years from now, 100 years from now, keep warming this way natural disasters will marginally be worse.

Unnamed Guest (109:28)

Right?

Unnamed Guest (109:28)

I mean, it's always hell is, is, is upon us. Every single natural disaster is directly caused by climate change. So it's kind of like Covid. And that the people who are most supposedly committed to the so called science get over their skis and ignore the science to make the most hysterical, politicized case for the policy outcomes they, they want.

Rich Lowry (109:51)

Yeah, the seagulls must have been Awed by the blank of humanity he reported at the Barack Obama inauguration, as opposed to Trump. He wants us to go to hell.

Charlie Cook (110:03)

Yeah.

Unnamed Guest (110:03)

Seagulls are looking. Just looking for a straight sandwich they can snatch. You know, that's the seagull play. They're not. They're not awed by anything.

Rich Lowry (110:11)

That's exactly right. Anybody who's been to the beach, including the Jersey shore, knows that it's really incredible. And that's why I would submit for the record that Bill Weir's quote mistake on Kaitlan Collins, which, by the way, she shared in, was no mistake at all. It was an agenda masquerading as journalism, which is why he got humiliated. Charlie Cook, Rich Lowry, love having you guys here. Thank you so much for giving me so much time.

Unnamed Guest (110:36)

It was a pleasure. See you guys argue. I have to do it more often.

Rich Lowry (110:42)

Respectfully, debate. But you know what? I've heard Charlie make this point before. That's what's so great about podcasts, right? Like, you can have a full discussion like this. Imagine trying to do this on an hour at Fox News. Charlie, you never could have.

Unnamed Guest (110:54)

Absolutely no. Definitely not.

Rich Lowry (110:56)

All right, guys, you can hear more wonderful analysis over on the Editors, a podcast I love and listen to. The only downside to it is they only put it out twice a week. Great to see you guys. Okay, tomorrow we have Gabby Petito's parents are here with me, and then we're gonna take a deep dive into things like Snow White and that debacle with our culture panel that went over so big after the Oscars. They're back by popular demand. Don't miss that. Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly Show. No bs, no agenda, and no fear.