B (6:10)

All ICE wants to do is get them out of our country, bring them to prisons and jails and mental institutions from where they came.

A (6:17)

That's all they want to do.

B (6:19)

They're patriots, and they have to be abused by guys like Don Lemon, who's a, you know, loser, lightweight. I saw him.

A (6:25)

The way he walked in that church. It was terrible.

B (6:27)

I have such respect for that pastor. He was so calm. He was so nice. He was just accosted. What they did in that church was horrible yesterday. For national and international security and to keep our very energetic and dangerous potential enemies at bay, is this land on.

A (6:46)

Which we're going to build the greatest.

B (6:48)

Golden dome ever built. We're building a golden dome that's going to, just by its very nature, going.

A (6:56)

To be defending Canada.

B (6:59)

Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way. They should be grateful also.

A (7:03)

But they're not.

B (7:04)

I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn't so grateful.

A (7:08)

But they should be grateful to us, Canada.

B (7:12)

Canada lives because of the United States.

A (7:14)

Remember that mark the next time you make your statements. Oh, my God. I. It's hard listening to him sometimes. He just. He just doesn't appear that coherent. Let's just call it what it is. Let's just call it what it is, you know, But, I mean, it's approaching 80 years of age. Not to say that we're going to engage in any ageism, because we see a lot of people in their 80s that are sharp as attack. And I'm not even questioning him being sharp mentally or whatever. I'm just talking about how he sounds. It's not great. It's not great at all. Make no mistake about it. But he alluded to Don Lemon on the first sound, and in the second sound, he's in Switzerland and he's talking to European leaders, and he's rambling off about the ungrateful tendencies of Canada. I just don't understand it. I just don't understand it. But in the end, here's the bottom line. Yesterday marked one year since. Of his. Since his inauguration. And as we look at this country right now, you got to ask yourself, what state is the country in right now? How do you feel about it? Are you feeling good about the United States of America? Are you feeling confident about the state of America right now? And the way things are, some people will look at it and say, look at ice in the streets of America, in sanctuary cities like Portland, like la, like Chicago, like Minneapolis. You know, stuff like that. They'll look at that and they'll say, how could you possibly think they'll. That things are great. You look at it from the right, they'll say, the economy is not in tethers, the streets are safer, the border's been patrolled better. Okay? We haven't collapsed as a nation. And then you look at some other things that have transpired. Transpired like what happened with Venezuela. I told y' all before, I'm not gonna knock the president for that. There was a 15 million bounty, million dollar bounty on the head of Nicholas Maduro in 2015, courtesy of Donald Trump. In 2025, Joe Biden reduced that, increased that bounty to 25 million. Trump upped it once he got into office and put it up to 20 to 50 million. So if everybody wanted them on both sides of the aisle, why are we complaining about getting them? And the fact that they got 3 billion barrels of oil in Venezuela, some of which will have control over. As bad as that seems, as invasive as that may seem, what I like more is the netter. Is the. Is the Presumed negative effect it'll have on Russia and China because they need that all from Venezuela. I kind of like being in that position if I'm the United States of America compared to what I was before he went into Venezuela. Caracas and captured Maduro. So nobody's here to sit up there and paint everything as negative. The point is, everything ain't positive either. The problem is you can say that about both sides of the aisle. Which brings me to California Governor Gavin Newsom. Respectfully, what are you doing? You're the Governor of the state of California in the United States of America. Why are you over in Davos, Switzerland, talking to folks and speaking negatively about the President of the United States? What am I talking about? Listen to Gavin Newsom talk about Donald Trump today.

C (10:41)

Did it stand out to you that.

A (10:42)

He said Iceland multiple times when he.

B (10:44)

Was talking about Greenland, you know, and.

A (10:48)

That every time a windmill turns, it costs a thousand dollars?

B (10:52)

A lot of stuff stands out. None of this is normalized. There's a normalization of deviancy and consciousness and, you know, comments and commentary. No other president.

A (11:02)

He's held to the curve. He's graded on a curve. I mean, it's a really some jaw.

B (11:07)

Dropping and remarkable statements that just, you.

A (11:10)

Know, fly in the face of facts and evidence of common sense. So. But they're so. You've heard them over and over and over again. For the European audience that may have a new speech. My God, there wasn't anything new about that speech. Let me be very, very clear. I have no problem with Gavin Newsom being candid and open about his feelings about our president on United States soil. To go over to another country, Switzerland, to go over there and to be in the presence of other European leaders speaking against the President of the United States. I'm not down with that. Y' all might be. I'm not down with that at all. Say whatever you want here. As a governor from the opposite side of the aisle of a state in the United States on American soil, fine. But I'm one of those people when we go somewhere else, it's America first. You know, our problems. Yeah, our problems. But we ain't taking dirty laundry outside. Now, I know that sounds juvenile. I get that. Very simplistic in the eyes of a lot of people. But some things are worthy of being simple. I understand you trolling Trump. I understand that you're aiming to run for the presidency in 2028. But we got problems here in the United States, and don't tell me they don't exist in California. But Specifically, when it pertains to state, sanctuary city, sanctuary state, border issues, safety in the streets. And I'll be damned if affordability ain't at the top of the list in the state of California. It's expensive as hell, and a lot of it has happened on Gavin Newsom's watch. Now, I like Gavin Newsom. I want to be very, very clear about it. I like him. I like him as a person. I think he looks sharp in those blue suits, and I think the number one impediment to his governing ability is his heart, because he truly cares and he wants to do right by everybody. I truly believe that about Gavin Newsom. People call him slick, you know, slick oil salesman and all. I'll never call him that. It's not about that. I think he has a hard time saying no because he's trying to do something for everyone, not understanding that. You got to allocate. And you listen, everybody can't have. Everybody don't get to get whatever they want. Some people are going to be deprived. In the capitalistic society, you got to make tough decisions, and a lot of times, people ain't gonna be pleased. But you got to do it for the betterment of America and our society. You going overseas to do that, that. That don't cut the mustard. You can't do that. I mean, you can, but it's not good. I got a lot of problems with Donald Trump and a lot of problems with the decisions that he made. I'm not going on foreign soil to do it. I'm not going on a world stage to do it about him. Listen, you've got a hundred senators. Over 50 of them are Republican. You got 435 members of the House in the House. Over 215 of them are Republicans. You have bodies of. Of government capable of reeling this man in if and when he gets out of line. And if they're not doing it, then they're not doing their job and they're not living up to their constitutional duties. And that's something we can discuss. But you don't go on a world stage to disrespect your own house, which is the United States of America. I don't like that at all, not even a little bit. And I think those are the kind of things combined with Gavin Newsom pulling a doctor rumor of the other day from that had that back and forth with Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri when he kept asking her, can a man get pregnant? Can a man get pregnant? Can a man get pregnant? Well, Gavin Newsom has been asked similar questions. All right. I remember one video somebody posted where they looked at Gavin Newsom and they talk about the question that you're not wanting to answer is whether or not boys can become girls. That's what they were saying about the governor. See, that kind of stuff can't be associated with the Democratic Party. I'm telling you right now, you associate that stuff with the Democratic Party. I'm telling you, you're going to lose the midterms. You're going to lose the midterms. That ain't the only thing that folks on the left have gotten themselves in some trouble over. Gavin Newsom's gonna have to answer for things that have been going on in the state of California. He's gonna answer the after answer about the wildfires. At some point, he's gonna have to answer about where's the money at? People making donations and all of this stuff. Trying to help those who lost their homes and all of this other stuff. Money's missing, gonna bring up the rail, you understand, the rails that were supposed to be being built years ago and how money's missing and the deficit that the state of California is in. But nevertheless, there's still money missing. He's gonna have to answer all of those questions and not to be to somebody else. He's been invited on the show numerous occasions. Matter of fact, I've instructed my team, don't call him no more. Don't call him no more. He's been.

B (16:47)

He.

A (16:47)

He.

B (16:47)

He's.

A (16:48)

He's done the circuit. He's been on other shows. What the hell you running from me for? I just want to ask questions. I want to give you an opportunity to answer to the people of California and to the American people if you're going to be a presidential candidate in 2028. Gavin Newsom not appearing on this show doesn't stop me from talking about him and his record. I don't know all about his record. He does. And he has the platform here, anytime he wants to, to make sure that the record is set straight. He passes up on that, that's on him. But he ain't the only person on left putting themselves in peril. Don Lemon is, too. I'm afraid to say that I'm hoping that's not the case, but it seems shaky right now. I'll explain in a little while, but not before I talk to the senator from Kentucky that I have long waited to talk to. His name is Rand Paul. He'll be on with us in just a minute. You're watching Straight Shooter listening to Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Right here on SiriusXM Polis Radio, channel 124. Back with Senator Paul in a minute.

C (18:24)

And a limited welcome. At Capella University, we believe accessible education can make a difference in people's lives. That's why we offer scholarship opportunities to all eligible students. Whether you're considering a bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree, our teams will walk you through the process and help you get the savings you are eligible for. Furthering your education is an investment in yourself. Entonces que estasperando un futuro diferente esta macerca de lo que cres con Capella University. Learn more at capella. Edu.

A (19:21)

23 minutes past hour number one back here on Straight Shooter with yours truly, Stephen A. Smith. Coming at you as I love to do every Wednesday night from 6 to 8pm Eastern Standard Time over the airwaves of SiriusXM Polish Radio, channel 124. It is my honor to have my next guest on the line. He has served as a US senator from the great state of Kentucky since 2011. He is chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Health, Education, labor and Pensions and Foreign Relations. Please welcome for the first time the Straight Shooter, Senator Rand Paul. How are you, sir? How's everything?

B (19:52)

Very good. Stephen A. Thanks for having me.

A (19:55)

And thank you. Thank you. I really appreciate it. So let's get right to it. You know, we've seen the ongoing clashes between Minneapolis residents and ice Ages following the killing of Renee Good. I wanted to ask you, Trump acknowledged in his press briefing about his first year in office there. You know, there have been some mistakes. Is ICE presence in the cities, in some of these cities making things worse than your estimates?

B (20:17)

You know, I think the people best trained and it's a difficult job, but the people best trained to do law enforcement are local people. And the reason is it's very difficult. You have to balance people's First Amendment rights to protest with law and order and keeping people safe. It's the same with the Fourth Amendment. You know, I think the local police know this better than federal police. If you're going to go into someone's house, the local police know you have to have a judge's warrant, you have to obey the Fourth Amendment. Often I think federal officials don't have the same training. On the other side of the coin, though, the reason the federal officials are there is the local people have said we're not going to enforce immigration law. So if we arrest somebody for robbing a liquor store for robbing a convenience store. They've served their time, and they're obviously not here in the country legally. We're not going to call ICE and tell them we have your man. And so I think there is error and problem on both sides. But the local officials, if they want to have less ICE there, need to agree to obey the federal immigration law.

A (21:18)

I'm trying to figure out, Senator, how do they get away with not obeying federal immigration laws? Last time I checked. I understand state laws are state laws, but you know what? Federal. Federal jurisdiction usually usurps that. I mean, at least that's the way it's supposed to be in our country. Could you explain to me how these sanctuary cities and what have you actually get away? And I'm gonna say the word get away because I don't believe that you should have laws in place that could allow you to usurp and circumvent and just totally ignore federal laws. I'm just talking about that principled position. Could you explain to me how that even exists?

B (21:51)

I think a sanctuary city law basically says we're not gonna ask. So they claim they're not committing any crime. Cause they just don't ask. So they. If you're in. In jail, you've committed a crime, nobody ever asks you whether you're a citizen. But they have to know it because they have to get some background information about you. But they basically just don ask. And so they don't say they've broken the law. There have been federal indications that the federal government will try to prosecute people for not obeying the law. But the bottom line is I'm not even talking about prosecuting the people in Minneapolis. I'm talking about how do we get to a country that has less tension and less war in the streets. The way we do is by both sides coming together. The local people saying, we're going to obey the immigration law, and the federal people saying, you know what? Local law enforcement might be able to do a better job at this. And I think nobody wants the tragedy that's going on. You know, you have the tragic shooting, but then you have people invading churches, yelling and screaming, we're going to take your wealth. You don't understand us. And that kind of bizarre stuff doesn't look good on. On either side as well.

A (22:55)

What about the notion that when you look at Trump, one of the things that I've been critical of, because there's a lot of people you speak to on the right that I've spoken to as well, you know, the Sean Hannity's of the world and others who I've known for like over 23 years or what have you, you listen a lot of folks. And I say, policy aside, when you think about the rhetoric emanating from the White House, not just the President himself, but those who mimic his behavior, it could be Vice President Vance, it could be his press secretary, it could be anybody. When you see the level of vitriol that he throws right back at people who throw it at him, or he might instigate it in a lot of instances. Some people say that's contributing to the chaos that exists in the streets more so than anything else. Because when you look at somebody like President Obama, he deported over 3 million folks. But you didn't see all of this back then, yet you see it now because he handled things significantly differently than this president does. What do you think about that?

B (23:55)

You know, I've said from the very beginning that I don't care whether you're Republican or a Democrat. If someone comes to your community, if you live in Boston, a very Democrat city, and they come and they say they arrested child predators, rapists and people wanted for murder, probably people secretly applaud and say, good. It's a difference, though, when you come in and you say, well, I'm sending 5,000 people in and we're going to pluck some guy off of a lawnmower out of landscaping. So that's the real problem, is whether or not it can be done in an orderly fashion or whether it's done in a haphazard fashion. And I think right now it is stoking distrust. But I would say all the faults, not on one side, really. The people there have to agree to go ahead and obey the laws. And if they don't, I think it gets worse.

A (24:40)

We're talking to Senator Rand Paul out of Kentucky. He's right here on Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Coming at you every Wednesday from 6 to 8pm Eastern Standard Time. When we hear the word agent, it suggests that iced recruits have undergone extensive training. Yet according to news reports, the training was reduced from about five months to 47 days just to get more agents in the field. And that number was chosen because Trump is the 47th president of the United States. At least that's what people are saying. Can we both agree that that's probably a problem?

B (25:11)

I just think in general, local law enforcement's better than federal, even with training. And so I would always argue, I would always argue, let's try to get local law enforcement involved and not leave it up to federal. The other problem you talk about with setting the stage, you know, Stephen Miller has told people and said publicly that they should consider getting rid of habeas corpus. Well, they call habeas corpus the ancient right. It's sort of show me the body. If you're arrested and you're put in a prison somewhere, one of the things you can do is seek a lawyer, a habeas petition to show, to ask the government, why have they arrested me? The fact that Stephen Miller, who's at the very top of this pyramid in the White House, would say that they're considering suspending habeas corpus is what alarms and agitates the situation as well. But there needs to be better cooperation. And ideally it would be the local, the ICE agents coming in to the sheriff and saying, these are the names of the people who are wanted for crimes and the local officials would help them. But we're not having that. And I don't know if we can get to that. But that certainly would be preferable to what we have right now.

A (26:24)

Senator PAUL let's transition to Greenland. Why does this president want Greenland? Could you explain that to the average American citizen listening to the show today right now? Why does he want Greenland?

B (26:34)

You know, it's been news to all of us because no one's been talking about this for decades. But I would say that the clarification today that he's finally backed down from saying he was keeping military, you know, he was keeping the military option today, he said three times he's not going to use force. That's at least some progress. I've all. I've been baffled because if you want to buy something, like if you're selling your car and you're not sure if you want to sell it, if I come and insult you, are you more likely to sell me your car or show me the door? So all of the insults to Denmark and all the insults to Greenland are not making them more favorable. They are pissed off right now and they're not very likely to take a sale. Nobody in Congress is for a military takeover of Greenland. The Democrats are vocal on this and the Republicans are quiet. But I've met no one who is saying, oh, yes, we need to invade Greenland. So it doesn't make any sense really at all. I don't know if it's all misdirection to just have other things for us to talk about. There is probably great wealth there that may someday be harvested in rare earth minerals and others, but it's a very, very small population. And I think he would have been better off if you wanted to buy it by, you know, making state trips there, complimenting them and start dangling money. But the threats of force, I think, have had the opposite effect.

A (27:57)

I want to play this sound from the president today in Switzerland. He was talking about the Greenland situation and what have you. And I want you to hear what he has to say, and then I want you to react to it, if you can. Sir, please go ahead and play that. Jeff. We never asked for anything and we never got anything.

B (28:15)

We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won't do that.

A (28:27)

Okay.

B (28:28)

Now everyone's saying, oh, good. That's probably the biggest statement I made because people thought I would use force. I, I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force.

A (28:38)

Your reaction you just heard him do?

B (28:40)

Well, I think it's good news that there's admission we're not invading Greenland. The other really good news for the stock market today was that this also means he says he's backing away from punitive tariffs with Europe yesterday when he came out. And this is a problem with letting one person decide whether we have tariffs or not, which are attacks the Constitution says the Congress should decide. And he's taken this power unto himself. But when one person takes it and uses it in a unrestrained or chaotic way to threaten other countries. Once he threatened Europe with tariffs, the market went down 800 points yesterday, back up today, mainly because he's backed away from his threat. But this up and down and up and down, this chaos isn't good for the country, isn't good for the stock market, isn't good for the accumulation of wealth for everybody who has retirement plans, et cetera. So I hope we could maybe get to a place where we could have more stability of comments.

A (29:38)

Senator Rand Paul, that doesn't sound like what most members of the GOP are accustomed to saying. You sound very, very different than what most of that. And I've interviewed quite a few of them. Jim Jordan, Mike Johnson, Tom Cotton, a whole bunch of them. All right, Senator, Senator Lindsey Graham, They've all been on this show, so thank you for coming on the show. But, but I must ask you, your verbiage is quite different than the kind of things that your contemporaries have said in the House and in the Senate. How's life for you these days compared to what it was like When Biden was in office. Cuz you were a senator then too. What is life like for you these days, dealing with your contemporaries, your colleagues?

B (30:15)

You know, I think most people treat me with respect cuz I treat both parties the same way. So when Biden was president or when President Obama was president, I was against too much executive power. And I introduced legislation to say that emergencies should only last 30 days and then they should expire unless approved by Congress. I was for this. I introduced this under President Biden, but I introduced the same bill under President Trump. So people on my side say, why are you so against the President? And I'm not against the President. I'm against the concept of too much power in the executive, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat. And the reason I sound unusual is there used to be Republicans who stood for this also when Biden was president, but they flipped their positions. And this is what happens on everything. It happens on war powers. You know, people Republicans were much more opposed to President Biden using more powers. They're much more forgiving to letting President Trump. But I try to call it as it is. Both parties have problems. The debt we have is the fault of both parties. So I think that, I don't know, maybe there's room for someone like me or maybe there's not. But I think being honest, that both parties deserve criticism at times is all. I know what to do.

A (31:29)

I definitely appreciate that. We're talking to Senator Rand Paul out of Kentucky right here with Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Has Trump gone against his promise to America when he talked about America first, in your estimation, considering, you know, Iran, with the whole Israel conflict in the Gaza Strip, considering some of the things that you hear him talking about with Greenland and what have you, along with other issues. Even Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's now departed from Congress, alluded to the fact that the promises made have not been promises kept. As it pertains to his focus on what benefits America most more than anything else. Do you believe that he's kept his promise or he's gone back on it?

B (32:08)

I think time is going to tell. But one of the things I really liked about President Trump when he ran is he was different than most other Republicans at the time. He was more like my father, less like George W. Bush. George W. Bush believed that we should go everywhere, make the world safe for democracy. But that meant fighting war with thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars of treasure. And it wasn't very successful. We had regime change in Afghanistan. We were there 20 years we're gone a week, and it's back to the Taliban. We had regime change in Iraq and another decade of war. We had regime change in Libya and another decade of war. And Trump came on the scene and says he wasn't for regime change. And that's largely why I supported him, because I didn't. Wasn't positive how he'd be on debt and spending, but I knew on regime change, he was with us. But then, you know, toppling the regime in Venezuela, continuing a continuous blockade of the country, stopping all of their oil, selling it, holding it into an account, and doling a little bit out at a time that really sounds like regime change to many of us. And I just didn't like also this. This whole ruse of calling it over, arresting some guy for drugs, you know, and then everybody's saying, oh, it's fentanyl, it's fentanyl. You know, no, fentanyl comes from Venezuela. 0. There is no fentanyl that comes out of. There is some cocaine, but most of the cocaine is going to Europe. And those boats that we've been blowing up with the four outboard engines, they can't go more than about 100 miles without refueling. It's 2,000 miles to our coast. So the likelihood of any of those boats were coming towards our coast, and nobody seems to care. This is what really appalls me. No Republican says, do you care that they were unarmed or whether they were armed? Do we care that we blew up People clinging to a shipwreck when. When our military code of justice says you don't blow up people who are shipwrecked? So there's so many things, and I think in many ways they're different than the Donald Trump who said dozens and dozens of times he was against regime change. I think he's being.

A (34:13)

I remember when.

B (34:13)

Go ahead.

A (34:14)

You said, no. So you said, you think he's being influenced by what?

B (34:16)

I think. I think he's largely influenced by Marco Rubio, who has honestly been for regime change for a long time, and. And Lindsey Graham, who is very much the opposite of me. He is for intervening everywhere, all of the time, around the world. And I think they both have an undue influence on him, and it would be good for him to maybe listen to some of his old speeches about being against regime change.

A (34:42)

You know, you want to meet the press this past Sunday, and. And I think you alluded to the United States being in an ongoing war with Venezuela. You've backed efforts to limit military action without Congress. Of course, I'd like to know from you what specific triggers should require an authorization for use of military force, particularly in cases like Venezuela. Can you answer that for me, please?

B (35:03)

I think that's a great question. And essentially, what is war? The Constitution says we Congress votes to initiate or declare war, but they tell us all the time, well, it's not really a war. They say that it's a drug interdiction. We're just arresting somebody. I think raining bombs on a Capitol such that we reduce their defense to ashes and taking. The President leaving and blockading the coast, by anybody's definition, should be war. But the President sent his people in recently, and I will tell you, his people are no different than the Biden people or the Obama people. They all argue, and they're selected to argue for expansive executive power. And they came in and told us it wasn't a real war. And they said, we know when it's a real war by the scope and the extent and the duration. And they talked about when not many people died. And I said, well, this means that you have to wait till the war occurs, count up how many people died, and then you can determine if it's a war sufficient that we should have declared it. And I said, that doesn't work because you're waiting till the war continues or finishes, adding up the damage and saying, well, I guess Vietnam was a war because 60,000Americans died. So I guess it was a war. But it's too late to declare war when you finally decide that it is war. So I think most. Most episodes of dropping bombs are obviously war. Most episodes of shooting people are obviously war. The one thing I think the President can do without approval of Congress is defend the country. So if people are shooting at our ships, I think we can always shoot back. I think we can, you know, always defend people. You know, our embassies around the world, our troops around the world. Defensive action is not war. But once it goes beyond a couple of days or once you go beyond into another excursion, we should vote on it. It makes us a stronger country.

A (36:50)

When.

B (36:50)

When we were attacked at Pearl harbor, The vote was 434 to 1, unanimous in the Senate when we were attacked after 9 11, once again, a unanimous vote. But that makes us. It brings us together and. And really, after 911 is in my lifetime, the one time I've seen both Republican and Democrats come together more than any other time. But it was so much better than the President just invading Afghanistan without a vote. The vote was nearly unanimous. And that's the way war should be. And when it's messy and we're not sure about it, like the Iraq war, the vote was like 5248 or something, or 5234. That's when we should get a signal that maybe it's not the best war to be involved in.

A (37:30)

Two more questions before I let you get on out of here. And once again, thank you so much for your time. I want to transition to Iran because restraint versus deterrence is the question that I'm about to ask. You warned bombing Iran may backfire by rallying the public around the regime. If not strikes, what's the actual pressure campaign you'd support that still deters attacks on U.S. interest?

B (37:52)

I think we've done a lot of the stick. The stick is basically sanctions and threat of war. Blowing up their nuclear supplier, impeding their access to their nuclear supply. That's a stick. I think the carrot is also trying to paint a picture and saying, if you were to do this, this is what we might do. It's the same with China, it's the same with Russia. We have all these sanctions. What I would say to them is, behave like a normal country, have elections, leave your people alone, and guess what? We'll open trade and we'll do it quickly and we'll begin trading again with Iran, trading again with China. But it has to be some kind of activity that we see in response. The problem with sanctions is we put sanctions on, we never take them off. So we have thousands of sanctions against China. And I don't know of any behavior by China that's changed. What we need to do is have a carrot. And the carrot is we'll remove these penalties, we'll remove these sanctions if you'll do acts. And I don't think we do that. We. We typically treat most other countries like they're misbehaving teenagers. And in having our rhetoric be so domineering, the other countries feel offended and don't do anything. And so I think there is a route for diplomacy, but I don't think we've tried very hard.

A (39:10)

I got one last question for you, and this is right up your alley, which I'm sure you'll appreciate because it's involving your op ed that was carried in the New York Post this Monday, and it's titled Rand Paul. I've changed my mind. Google and YouTube can't be trusted to do the right thing and must be reigned. And I read the article. Very, very poignant article on your part, by the way. I want you to tell the People out there, I'd be remiss and neglecting to bring this up. Tell the people out there what's your problem with YouTube and Google and why you wrote the op ed?

B (39:44)

So I've always felt like the Internet needs protection from liability. For like if I call, oh, Stephen a Smith, I don't like what he says and you say something about me, that's gotta be acceptable. But if I say you've committed a specific crime, some kind of heinous crime that would cause you to be one, you'd be fired, you'd lose, people would lose respect for you and you might never get your name back. You can imagine what crimes are out there that's happening right now. And you shouldn't be allowed. Google and YouTube shouldn't just host that. Robby Starbuck does a show and I saw that they have, he says that even their AI generator is generating thoughts and evidence of him committing crimes that he didn't commit. There should be liability. The newspaper never did this. You didn't have to worry about being a minister in town and someone accused you of some kind of sex crime in the newspaper if it was false because the newspaper was worried about being sued. What we did is we gave the Internet complete abandon. We gave them all liability protection. But liability is the normal part of common law. Normally you can't say bad things about a person, particularly things accusing them of being illegal where you can be sued. The Internet now though host re hosts and reproduces it. And I thought they had a conscience. I mean, for goodness sakes, Google was taking down. When I said cloth masks don't work, which they don't, they were taking that down because they were assessing it to be untrue or not verified. So that means they are jumping in and looking at my speech and taking things down. But then when someone accuses me of some kind of, they're accusing me of treason, of taking money from a foreign leader, which is not true and ridiculous. But the thing is they're not willing to even police any of that. They leave up this scandalous stuff and I can fight back a little bit, you know, I'm able to come on and give my side of things. What if you're a small town mayor and you have no access to the Internet and to the medium and getting out your word and someone accuses you of a terrible crime. That's defamation. That's against the law. I don't see why Google shouldn't have some kind of responsibility to try to take down things when you're alleging something that is untrue. But it's also you're alleging that someone committed a crime they didn't commit.

A (41:56)

Last question. What's the chances of you pulling off getting legislation in play that will limit, you know, their ability to do such things, whether it's Google, YouTube or anybody else for that matter?

B (42:05)

Maybe. I was one of the biggest Defenders of Section 230 of their liability shield. And the fact that I'm modifying it may make it easier for some bills to come forward. I still don't want there to be liability. If I call you a name and you call me a name, we just have to live with that. And actually in the newspaper we live with that too. So a candidate calls another candidate a name, we live with that. But I shouldn't be allowed to. And in the newspaper, I can't accuse you of a specific heinous crime untrue because the newspaper is held liable. And the person, if I say it in the paper, I would be held liable, but the newspaper is also held liable. So I think there is a chance that we could narrow the protection, maybe not take away their liability shield, but narrow it to such that people cannot be on the online accusing people of a crime unfairly or in a defamatory way.

A (42:57)

Senator Rand Paul, really enjoyed the conversation. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to join the show and know that you're welcome back anytime. Thank you so much. I really, really appreciate it. You take care of yourself and happy New Year.

B (43:07)

Thank you.

A (43:07)

Senator Rand Paul right here on Straight Shooter with yours truly. You heard him, he touched on a lot of different issues. Lots to discuss and I certainly will stick around. Your calls and more coming up. Plus me touching on the Don Lemon situation at the church in Minneapolis. Lots to talk about. Don't go away. It's Straight Shooter with yours truly. Back with more in a minute.

C (43:32)

At Capella University, we believe accessible education can make a difference. That's why we offer scholarship opportunities to all eligible students. Un futuro diferente esta mas cerca de lo que cres con Capella University. Learn more at capella. Edu.

A (43:53)

Going back here on Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Thanks again to Senator Rand Paul out of Kentucky. Let's just say he don't sound like the typical member of the gop. He a bit different. He a bit different, say the least. And that is not an insult. Not that I'm insulting anybody, but he definitely does sound different. And he doesn't kowtow to everything that the president wants that much is very, very obvious. I really appreciate him taking time to come on the show. He's welcomed back anytime. Let me transition before the first hour ends to the situation involving Don Lemon, former host at cnn, now an independent reporter who showed up in Minneapolis and, you know, was reporting, according to him, on a situation involving protesters inside of a church. And so before we go any further, because that's been permeating all over the news, the airwaves and what have you all over, you know, the digital airspace, let's play the first sound we have of Don Lemon talking about this situation in Minneapolis. Take it away, guys. You are treating people in an inhumane way and you don't even understand why, because you, you're too dumb to figure it out. You are the poorly educated that Donald Trump loves. That's who you are. And you're out there doing his bidding, doing things that are illegal, doing things that are unconstitutional, doing things that are inhumane, like killing someone because you're pissed off, because this person may be notifying people that you're in the area trying to round people up. That is that person's First Amendment right to do. You can do that as an American, but maybe not in Donald Trump's America. You are fat fuck losers who just crawled out of a trailer park from some proud boy meeting, or if not worse, some other group that could be worse than him. You are thugs, Jack. Booted thugs. Respectfully, Don Lemon is in a little bit of high water, if not a lot, in my humbling, in my humble opinion, let me say, no matter what his recent criticisms of me were or whatever, I don't care about that. I don't want this man getting in trouble with the law. I don't want him getting arrested. I don't want him getting thrown in jail. But it's important to point out that there's some slippage in his argument about what transpired with his presence in that church. Because in the aftermath, if you remember, he got a warning from the Assistant Attorney General who spoke out against him. I think it was on the Benny show, if I remember correctly. Can we, can we play that? Please play that.

B (46:52)

Journalism is not a badge or a shield that protects you from criminal consequences.

C (46:57)

When you are part of a crime.

B (46:58)

And I think the videos show how close he was to these folks. I think further evidence will show more information about that. But he clearly knew, and he stated before going into the facility, it's on his own video. What was going to happen there. What was going to happen was a violation of federal law. Federal Criminal law. And I don't know what to say. I mean it's the FACE act has been out there for more than 30 years. And there were lawyers involved in this so called protest. And their purpose was to terrorize people of faith in a house of worship. They were targeting a different pastor, not the one seen on camera, who they got information was a ICE supervisor. None of that matters. It's off limits to go into a house of worship to do your little protest. Protests can occur on public property. Protests can occur outside, on a sidewalk, certain sidewalks, not all sidewalks. And this is basic what you learn in the first year of law school. It is a time, place and manner restrictions on the first Amendment right of protest. And they were violated here in this case. No question about it. The only question is who was involved, how many were involved, and how many charges are going to be brought here. Those are the questions.

A (48:06)

That's the Assistant ag, they're talking the Assistant Attorney General. And here's what you need to know. The FACE act that she was alluding to. 1994 US federal law that makes it a crime to use force, threats or physical obstruction to interfere with anyone obtaining or providing reproductive health services or exercising religious freedoms at a place of worship. It prohibits violent, threatening or obstructive conduct, including damaging clinics or churches, and allows for federal prosecution and civil lawsuits to ensure safe access to care and religious practice. If you remember after 9 11, there were a lot of people that obviously were feeling, you know, very negatively towards Muslims because of what transpired during 911 or, you know, and because of that, there were people willing to obstruct folks entry into mosque and things of that nature. And they were threatened with the face act if that happened. Well, fast forward to 2025. Don Lemon certainly wasn't obstructing anybody's entry into a church or anything like that. But there were folks inside the church that were disrupting a prayer service. And Don Lemon said, and this is where I think the hot water comes into play. Respectfully, Don Lemon gets into hot water when he says he was there as a journalist, as an independent journalist. But the video where he's going off about Trump, he's talking about, he's a cult leader, he brought up Nazi, he brought up Proud Boys and then he called them names. Well, what happens is now you're not viewed as a journalist, you're viewed as an activist. And because you're viewed as an activist, not only did they have a problem with you when they were saying they don't care if you're there as an independent journalist, you can't obstruct people's ability or engage in assisting those who are obstructing people's ability to engage in prayer inside a church, mosque, or anyplace else. Well, that's one element. The other part to it is that because of the video he put out, where he's going off on those folks, anybody who's supportive of what's transpiring with ICE at Trump's discretion, et cetera, et cetera, the fact that he was going off like that puts him in a very precarious position because he comes across more as an activist as opposed to a journalist, which means they said right there, they put him on notice. In other words, we got you on video. We saw what you said. We believe, we know what your intent is, and at any given moment, we can reach out and touch you. We could prosecute, execute you. That's basically what they said to him. Me personally, I appreciated the work he did on cnn, and I'm not wishing anything for negative on him. I don't want the man to go to jail. I don't think he should have ever been in that church. You don't do that. Don't go in a church, don't go in a mosque. Don't do any of that. Don't do it. Don't do it. But I still don't want him to go to jail for it. I really, really don't. But just because I don't want it, and a lot of people don't want that to happen to him, don't mean it won't. That's why one of the reasons I asked Laura Coates to come on, she would know how things are looking for him. She's up next. Don't go away. Hour number two coming at you.

C (51:24)

At Capella University, we believe accessible education can make a difference in people's lives. That's why we offer scholarship opportunities to all eligible students. Whether you're considering a bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree, our teams will walk you through the process and help you get the savings you are eligible for. Furthering your education is an investment in yourself. Entonces que estasperando un futuro diferente esta macerca de lo que cres con Capella University. Learn more at capella. Edu.

A (51:55)

Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Welcome to hour number two, A Straight Shooter with George Truly, Stephen A. In approximately seven minutes or so, we'll have host for CNN legal analyst extraordinaire, former prosecutor the one and only Laura Coates on the show with us. Looking forward to talking to her. But for now, I'll get to your calls. Okay. At 866-967-6887. That's 86696, POTUS. Let's go to Sam in New York. You're live with Stephen A. What's up, Sam? How are you? I'm doing fine. How are you, sir? Good. Turn down your radio. So we just want to hear you, not the background. Go ahead, buddy. Okay. I just want to know why these Democrats are so afraid to go against Trump by anything like policies or whatever may have you. Okay. I mean, what are they scared of? I mean, what could he do to them? What are they scared of? I mean, fire them. Why would you think the Democrats are scared to go at Donald Trump when every time I turn around, they're insulting me.

C (53:00)

Him.

A (53:01)

Right. But they're not telling him about the policies, especially like Chuck Schumer. I'm surprised you don't get his Democratic Party to say, let's get, let's do what we got to do and put him. Well, you got to have something, you have to have something to fall on. And you also have to make sure you guard against being hypocritical. Like, for example, when you complain about the borders, you complain about ICE in the streets. You can do that. But what you really can't complain is about the actual act of deporting people because you said nothing when Obama deported over 3 million plus people. So when you, when he did it and you said nothing and you had no issue with it, when you've got footage of him of Hillary Clinton and others on the Democratic side, you know, abhorring, you know, folks crossing our borders illegally, then you know what? You can't then turn around when Trump is trying to address it and complain about that. You can complain about the how, you can complain about how he's doing things. You can complain about the tactics being exercised. You can protect, you can, you can think about how bad it looks. You could think about what some would argue are the unconstitutional acts exercised by law enforcement officials associated with ice, even though Trump and his team would refute that. You can do that, but you have to be careful about coming across as hypocritical or flat out lying because you'll get caught. And that's probably something they're guarding against. Right. But I think right now, Donald Trump is hurting the Republican Party and now's the time for the Democrats to do something when they got the edge and I don't think. Well, I said that, I said that a couple of weeks ago. But again, if the border is more secure than it has been in recent memory, if the economy hasn't completely flatlined and we're still thriving economically, even though some would challenge that, you know, when you see these kind of things they talk about, you know, price of gas is down, you know, price of food is down. I don't know the accuracy of that because I keep hearing conflicting reports. One day I hear that it's down, another day I hear not so much another day I hear that it is down, but not as down as was promised and was anticipated. So you see and hear all of these things, and it's hard to deduce and decipher what's correct and what's incorrect until the numbers come in. But in the end, the point is, is that clearly we're not in a catastrophic state in terms of his presidency having such a profound detrimental effect on us economically. And if you don't have that to address and you don't have safety in the streets to address because it was worse with you than it was with him, and you don't have the border issue to address, well, then, guess what? Where are you going to go? Particularly when you leaned on cancel culture and woke politics in order to get you, try to get you to presidency in the last election, you don't necessarily have a leg to stand on, which is why I don't understand why Gavin Newsom keeps getting caught on video saying some of the stuff he's saying. Correct? I don't know. Gotcha. Appreciate the call. Thank you so much. Let's go to. Who is this in Colorado wanting to discuss Mark Kelly? Go ahead, put him on the line. What's your name, sir? Talk to me. My name is Alec. Hi, Alec, how are you doing? I'm doing well, thank you. I listened to the entire Rand Paul interview and I was curious if you, after interviewing him and hearing his comments on Venezuela, if you think it kind of vindicates Mark Kelly and those Democrats comments about not following unconstitutional legal orders. Because if I know it doesn't. Are you talking about my position? Are you talking about my position, Alec? Yeah, from my understanding to. No, no, no, it doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't move me one bit. Let me tell you why, Alec, and then I'll let you go. Then I'll let you speak. I'm gonna tell you why. Because I wasn't getting on Mark Kelly for saying what he said as a senator. I wasn't getting on him as if he were me or you. I was saying, as a former military officer, to say what he said implies that the commander in chief or someone from an administration would actually give the illegal order which opened himself to being scrutinized. I was saying that as a former military man who knows the code of ethics, the code of conduct, et cetera, et cetera, I even use the example of A Few Good Men. Remember you, I'm sure you watched the movie A Few Good Men, right, Alec? I'm sure you saw that movie, right? With Tom Cruise. Absolutely right. And you remember when he's grilling, you.

B (57:12)

Can'T settle the truth, right?

A (57:13)

Yeah. No, no, not that part. Not that part. You remember when he was grilling Kiefer Sutherland and the judge said, watch yourself, you're talking to a decorated officer. In other words, the mere implication gets you in trouble. He's not. You're not a civilian. You're a military man who's collecting a military pension. You can't do that. That's what I was saying about Mark Kelly. I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be done. I wasn't saying that people didn't have the right to feel that way. I was saying, as a United States senator who is a former military man in the Navy, you know better. You can't do that. As a former military man, I still stand by that. Doesn't that make the message more concerning.

B (57:53)

Given the decoration of a man like.

A (57:54)

Mark Kelly and the comments of Rand Paul who essentially just said Donald Trump violated the Constitution with that attack King of US Capital? But you're saying essentially. And what I'm saying is that's a senator speaking against this president. I know you can look at Mark Kelly that way, but as I predicted, the administration was going to look at him as a former military man doing that, which is why they've gone after his pension and why he's suing them to make sure they can't get away with it. Because you have to anticipate that when it comes to the military. I never served in the military. I've been told this on numerous occasions by military people because I have family members that were in the military. It's different. And there's certain things you can't say. And Mark Kelly knows that better than me. That's why I was saying it. Now, if you coming at me, Alec, from a person who served in the military, you have a point. If you didn't serve in the military like I did not, then you Got to stand down and understand that's their lane. And they're saying, you can't do that. You can't do that. As a U.S. senator and as someone with that decorated background, it concerns me more that he felt necessary to say that. Don't talk about your concerns. We're all concerned. You ain't the only one concerned. Tens of millions of Americans are concerned. That's not the point of this conversation. The point of this conversation is a military man can't say that, alluding to the Commander in Chief and not hear noise about it. It cannot happen. It can because you're telling officers, you're telling military personnel to anticipate an illegal order. That's how. That's the implication. And because that's the implication as a military person, he's going to find himself in hot water. Had I said it, it's nothing because I didn't serve in the military. You serve in the military, it's a different animal. It is his duty to say something. If the president is violating his oath, constitution or anything. No, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. He said, he said, quote, you know, don't. You don't have to obey illegal orders. He's implying that the president would ask them to violate, you know, the law. That's what he was implying. So if you imply that about the Commander in Chief, if you imply that about the Secretary of Defense and essentially the Secretary of War, because that's what the department is called now and all, if you do that, regardless of how right you may be, Alec, about the concerns, how legitimate your concerns may be, you're not them. And you don't have the power to make Mark Kelly's life a living hell by compromising his pension and what he worked diligently and honorable service to our country all of these years, he should have let somebody else say that. She didn't have justifiable reason to think that this president would give. Alec. Alec, I got to go to my guest. You have to go. And I can't explain it any better than I explained. I can't explain it any better than I explained. If you can't get that, fine. That's emotion talking. The fact is they coming after him because of what I said, and that's the reality. It's time to transition back to what I was talking about earlier. And it's wonderful to have this. I'm doing the interviewing this time around because she's usually interviewing me. She's a chief legal analyst for CNN. She obviously is a St. Paul native. A 2005 graduate from the University of Minnesota Law School, a 2001 graduate of Princeton University, she worked as a trial lawyer for the U.S. department of justice, served during both the Bush and the Obama administrations, specializing in enforcement of voting rights. She also served as an Assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and as an adjunct professor at George Washington University School of Law. She is the wonderful host, you know, of her own show, Laura Coates, and she for cnn. And she is right here with yours truly right now. I'm doing the interview tonight. Laura, how are you doing? How's everything?

C (61:58)

Oh, I am so excited for this moment. You doing the hard lift, hopefully the heavy lifting right now. But you what I'm excited to join you. I love the show. I love the conversation. So I am thrilled to talk to you.

A (62:09)

Thank you so much, Lauren. I really appreciate taking time out of your busy schedule. Thank you so much. So let's get right to it. We saw what happened at the church in St. Paul, the disruption, as some people will call it. Don Lemon has found himself in a little bit of hot water, or a lot, depending on who you listen to. He insists he was there as a journalist, but the DOJ officials have publicly suggested potential, potential legal exposure. What do you make of all of that?

C (62:32)

You know, I have to tell you, when I went home after George Floyd, when I've been home after the Annunciation School shooting, when I've been home after what happened with Renee Good, it is disorienting, I think I have to say, when you see the presence of ICE and law enforcement to the degree it is on these streets, and the anger and visceral reaction not only to the shooting and killing of Renee Goode, but also to what many people on the ground believe to be this complete disingenuous narrative that suggests that the entire purpose of ICE being on the ground is in line with the righteous tactics that are being described. And so I have to tell you, I saw the palpable anger and I was not surprised that that anger has transformed and also translated into protests around the city that I personally witnessed as largely peaceable and also witnessed as many incidents when people were taunting the officers, conflating local law enforcement with ICE agents, conflating National Guard, being on the ready with stormtroopers, discussing the pure anger about an overwhelming presence that had led to lawsuits by the attorney general in Minnesota because of a concern that it overwhelmed the population. But I have to say, everything I witnessed, including the taunting and the throwing things at ICE agents, even in front of federal buildings, Those all happened on public streets, in the public square, so to speak. I was out there as a journalist covering it. I was among protesters who were there. I was covering it for cnn, of course. And you were confined in different areas, even pushed back by law enforcement at the federal level to those public streets. So I was surprised when I saw it enter through the same lens you all did, into a church and a house of worship, not because of the premise, but because of the location. And I think that location makes a world of difference to how prosecutors look at the ability to protest. And I'll just say quickly, Stephen, okay. You know, it's one thing to be in the public street where the government can put on time, place and manner restrictions and they can do all sorts of things. As long as it's not, you know, content specific, that I'm applying my rules to you, it's neutral. But then private entities, like a business, for example, or private places, they do have some control, in fact, the utmost control over how people can enter and remain. And so it does change the equation when you're inside of a private space.

A (65:25)

And that being said, because, listen, somewhere along the way, Don Lemon. And listen, I don't have any kind of relationship with the man, but I don't want the man thrown in jail, Laura. I don't want to see him thrown behind, but I don't want him to getting in that kind of trouble, you know, and he. He is an independent journalist, and it makes sense because Obviously he spent 17 years at CNN being a journalist, so we got to give him that. The flip side to it, however, is that he was inside a church. And you see the video where he's talking about them and he's going off about ice and he's saying a lot of things about folks, and he comes across more of an activist then a journalist, and people are wondering whether or not he's going to catch major heat, because that's the argument that the DOJ is going to try to make. Is that a legitimate argument the DOJ can pull off against him in your estimation, based on what you've seen?

C (66:19)

Well, you know, first of all, I inadvertently wore black and white stripes as if I'm a jailbird right now for this interview. So I want to just say that was totally inadvertent.

A (66:28)

They don't look like a jailbird. You don't look like a jailbird. All our coach. Trust me on that, you're done.

C (66:32)

I just want to be clear. As I'm looking at myself, I'm saying, did I Just did I incite the questioning based on my appearance and wardrobe?

A (66:40)

It could be not at all.

C (66:42)

Having said that, you know what? The stripes look good. But I will say here's an interesting tension, and I'm going to unpack it in two ways. Number one, we know that arguments that suggest that you being a journalist is fatally undermined by your readiness and willingness to offer opinion would have a detrimental precedent across the board. Because we know that the evolution in many instances of journalism where you're providing information can be construed as, or is actually directed as at some entities, as opinion journalism, opinionated topic. I think to suggest that one is no longer a journalist or has the protection of being a part of the free press because they offer an opinion would be detrimental, I think, to many entities, number one. But number two, there is this tension about the presence of the press documenting events in real time, where the obligation of journalists to cover a story doesn't necessarily stop at the closed door. And I give you examples of this. When you have a camera, for example, say inside of the Capitol on January 6th, or you have a camera that's documenting protests along the streets, and while you are within that space, you are documenting around you as a responsible journalist. I myself was wherever the pepper bomb or tear gas, whatever was deployed while on the scene was impacted and experienced it, because I was covering the protest, not a part of the protest. There's a tension there between the allowance of it. But I will say the reason why this presents a particular issue is because of the space. And this is where the FACE act comes in as even a. Without going into the details of individual people who may or may not be identified or targeted by law enforcement, according to statements by Secretary Noem and the like, the FACE act is where everyone's going with this. And that's a, you know, fancy acronym. But here's what it means. It means that you're not allowed to threaten or intimidate or use force or other means to try to impact or obstruct somebody's ability to. To either enter a reproductive health clinic, which is where it really started, or a house of worship. And the reason for that is because you want to have, especially with house of worship, you've got the discussion of the First Amendment, an exercise of one's First Amendment rights. And any tactic that's used to try to suppress or intimidate that, to have a chilling effect on it can be problematic for the First Amendment. But you got that tension of the free press within that same amendment space. So why I look at this as a very unique dilemma for not only one who'd be looking to investigate, but also as a guidance for press going forward. And, you know, a lot of people think they're pressed because they have a camera in their hand, because I'm documenting. Aren't I a journalist, too? There are prescribed guidelines and regulations. But I wonder, for the people out there, do you want the press to follow into a space where news is happening or stop at the door and in order to not risk being identified?

A (70:04)

That's a legitimate question. Sure, that's a legitimate question. Because that's what you know. I mean, I think that if Don Lemon's smart, he listened to you on what you just said and say, hey, that's the news was happening inside, not at the door. That's why I was inside. I mean, that's a good argument. That's something that definitely should be executed exercise. No doubt about that. I want to know what you can tell us about what legal theories actually apply here. Trespass, disorderly conduct, the FACE act, the KKK act, all right, Et cetera. And how do courts balance protest rights with religious freedom and the right to worship without disruption?

C (70:36)

Think about it in this way. Your rights end where mine begin, and that's in the public space, let alone the private space. You've ever gone to the movie theater, you've gone to a restaurant, and they'll tell you, no shirts, no shoes, no admission, right? Or you can revoke your license of a ticket if you're throwing popcorn at the screen or recording inside the movie theater. I'm telling you not from personal experience, but what I have heard about, you know, these words of things. Number one, so you can think about that. A private entity tells you, you ain't got to go home, but you cannot be here. And you, if you're in my home, you're in my space. It's my rules. So with that in mind, you got to think about these two competing interests. One is everyone's right to be in the quintessential public spaces. I can be on this sidewalk. I can be screaming up to the high heavens my policy differences, the things I think you're doing wrong. I have a right to petition the government to redress my grievances, even if that means that my petition, so to speak, is me holding up a sign in front of the street, in front of the quintessential public forum, the White House. Right, that sidewalk. But then there's the private spaces where I am allowed to have some sanctuary. I'm Allowed to have some distance between everyone's welcome to no one can come unless I say so. The Face act is about that secondary part. It's about saying that we hold quite in a precious way, we hold it very important to be able to exercise our freedom of worship and beyond our freedom to access reproductive health clinics, although that's interesting given the course of events in terms of abortion rights in this country. But we still hold the ability to access people with whom we are going to exercise our. Our rights to be private. And you can't come in and trample on those. I had an interesting interview with one of the organizers, Nakima Levy Warren, who was inside of that church. I interviewed her a couple days ago and I asked her the question of why she wanted to go inside as opposed to being outside. She relayed to me, and I will paraphrase her commentary, she relayed to me on air, that it was a duty she felt as being a Christian to identify a kind of hypocrisy with being a member of ICE and also being somebody who had a ministerial role inside of the church. And when I questioned her about that.

A (72:52)

That'S what this pastor was being accused of.

C (72:53)

Yeah, I questioned her that we accused of. And of course the DHS does not want to confirm or deny the presence of that person as a member of that church because they don't want to dox somebody and they have some privacy interest there. But the idea here of saying I had a right to go in and tell people how I felt and warn people about the fact that one among you is a hypocrite or one among you I don't believe is acting in line with the professed religious beliefs that he says it is. That's what she articulated. Now, I'll tell you why that's exactly something that the investigators in the Civil Rights division or in the investigators of a prosecutor's office are going to hone in on. Precisely why is this reason? STEPHEN A. And that is it sounds as if you are trying to impact my ability or influence my ability to be in a space of worship. And the face act, along with the clinics aspect of it, was designed in part to, if not prevent that, to minimize and stop it altogether. So I think you have this investigation that's pending on all these people that will go beyond just what is said on social media, but also interviewing the members of the actual house of worship, going broadly from what we saw as clips to what actually was the full landscape of it. And I understand from her statements to me that they actually attended the service and then spoke up at what they thought was an appropriate time to condemn. And I do wonder what the impact of having been in attendance will impact.

A (74:27)

Quick answer to this question. Is the man in trouble?

C (74:32)

You know what I think? When there has been a threat made by the DHS and the Attorney General of the United States that you're on notice, I think that you are right to be concerned. Now whether that will pan out in terms of their burden of proof and a grand jury agreeing with them, I have no prediction. But you don't want to be. As the former president of the United States, I can't believe I'm quoting Ronald Reagan here, but said if you're extremely explaining, you're losing. That's the same in the law. You don't want to be in the position to try to explain what you have done because then you find yourself.

A (75:09)

In a courtroom to remind us why we even having this discussion, why even this stuff happened in St. Paul. It's because of the shooting, the death of Renee Good. And obviously federal officials say the ICE officer who shot her suffered internal bleeding. I didn't see that. I mean I'm like, I saw it. I'm like, what the hell are they talking about? But either way you slice it, videos dispute, video disputes have fueled public distrust, of course, from a use of forced legal standpoint. Laura Coates, what facts matter most, Imminent threat positioning, timing of shots, et cetera. And what's the cleanest standard for judging reasonableness when the video is unclear or incomplete?

C (75:52)

The phrase kill or be killed if you feel as though you have to act or you yourself will be killed or have serious bodily harm officers, because the Supreme Court's deference have said that we're going to judge that belief whether it's reasonable according to what another officer who is reasonably in a similar situation might view it. That's important here because you're not judging from what you and I watching this as quote unquote laymen, which be but what other officers might believe because they are the ones who we expect to make split second decisions and have experience in these very difficult circumstances. But here's why it's difficult to understand the absence of an investigation of the officer who shot and killed Renee Good, because it's not a hypothetical officer that was on the scene as well. There were other officers on the scene and they did not from any vantage point that I've seen, draw, let alone fire their weapons, even though they too would have had a duty to protect another person who was in imminent Harm or lethal harm. So that reasonableness standard, I think, in many ways strengthens a need to investigate whether or not that officer was reasonable to believe kill or be killed. And by the way, Stephen A. That's for every single shot that was fired, not just the first one. It's every single shot. And finally, when you cannot know the intent in someone's mind because he's not going to say what he was believing and thinking, you have to look at what they do after as well as part of consciousness of guilt. Did the officer who fired the weapon believing he was in lethal harm's way or that the community would be harmed with this person going, what did the officer do after to ensure that the threat that he believed was neutralized? Did he follow the car? Did he attempt to render aid? Did he attempt to understand whether the person had a weapon on them? Was that vehicle going to be used to harm somebody else, according to him? Did other officers do that? Or was it a matter of shooting out of reasonableness or anger? That's all part of what should be an investigation.

A (78:03)

Insurrection Act. I wanted to get to this because I've seen you covered, you know you've covered talk of invoking the Insurrection act in response to unrest. What are the legal thresholds a president has to meet according to your knowledge? And what would be the bright line slash red flags per se that signal it's being used as a political tool rather than a lawful last resort public safety measure?

C (78:25)

When you think of the Insurrection act, you want to think about an overwhelming emergency where the local law enforcement cannot control has become so problematic as to overwhelm the presence of law enforcement or be so overwhelming in number, force or threat or scope such that the local law enforcement cannot reasonably be expected to control it. I mean, you can think back for in the civil rights era, it was invoked at that point in time, not at the request of a governor, when you had people trying to ensure that segregation would continue and that they were not going to abide by the federal law to actually integrate? Well, at that point, the President of the United States would say, had said in more than one instance, I'm going to go in, I'm going to invoke the Insurrection act because I have an emergency where there are people in this country whose rights can no longer be protected or insured and secured by local law enforcement because they weren't helping to do so. That's one instance. The other instance, which is far more helpful and far more palatable, excuse me, to the governor, is when the governor requests it and that happened following the Rodney King verdict. When you had the riots in Los Angeles that completely overwhelmed the city, damages to the millions of dollars, businesses burned down, an overwhelming presence of people who were overwhelming local law enforcement. In that instance, they said, please, I need the help. And it was invoked again. The common thread for both those instances is local law enforcement either couldn't or wouldn't help preserve the rights of people in the area and secure the public good and calm. What's happening in Minnesota, the lawsuit by Keith Ellison, the attorney General and the governor and the mayors there have talked about that their law enforcement is not overrun by the people of the community, but they are outnumbered by the ICE agents to the tune of thousands, about 600 Minneapolis police officers on the roster, not just in actual work, compared to about 3,000 ICE agents who are on the scene, which means, of course, that you have protesters who are responding to ICE agents. Local law enforcement need to secure the areas and secure at that point the protection of even the presence of federal law enforcement and then still do their jobs. So this is by the standard that we've seen across our country alone. It has not risen to the level that local law enforcement is overwhelmed by the actual conduct of the people, but they argue, overwhelmed by the conduct of law enforcement who they want to stay in their federal immigration lane. This is really the argument that people are raising with respect to Trump dangling the Insurrection act because there always runs a risk where states rights and the ability of local law enforcement to control their community will be trampled even by, if you want to be gracious, the most well intentioned federal officers, and if you wanted to be what some believe realistically cynical, those who do not serve the public good.

A (81:40)

Concerned at all. Last question. You're concerned at all about the subpoenas that have been handed down to the mayor, to the governor. Can you speak to the level of concern, if any should exist at all, as it pertains to that subject matter?

C (81:55)

Well, if the intent of issuing the subpoenas is to chill the political speech that an elected official is entitled to have on behalf of their constituents, then we should all be concerned. If the goal is to which it has been so far as the stated subpoena, to request documents, information not from the person, but from the offices, about any coordination of information that they say was conspiratorial in nature to stop federal law enforcement, then state officials ought to be concerned if they have engaged in that sort of conspiracy. However, what we have seen to date so far, and I'm not privy to all of the information that obviously the Department of Justice would have. But what is reported and what my own reporting has uncovered is that the statements that have been made are protected political First Amendment activity speech where you can disagree with the president's directives, you can disagree with what even your own fellow mayors or fellow members of Congress are saying. What you can't do is engage in an activity to obstruct or intimidate and prevent law enforcement activity. But simply speaking about what you believe to be right is part of why we elect our officials to advocate on behalf of what we're saying. Because if you were to follow that to lots of conclusion, can you imagine the day that someone says, well, a fellow member of your own party is spoken out against your policies. They don't like it. Does that mean that you've conspired to obstruct their agenda or are you speaking out about it? That's the tension.

A (83:30)

Laura Coates, I know you got a show to do. You got to get on out of here. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for being here for me. You know I'm always here for you.

C (83:37)

I love it.

A (83:38)

Thank you so much. And I look forward to watching you tonight on cnn. Go ahead and do your thing.

C (83:42)

Love you. Thank you.

A (83:43)

Thank you so much. Alrighty. The one and only Laura Coates. She's doing a fantastic job and she knows her stuff, make no mistake about that. She is the one and only Laura Coates. Got her own show here on SiriusXM POTUS radio, by the way, not to mention the fact she's on CNN every night, every weeknight, 11 o', clock, Laura coach show. She's doing her thing, no doubt about it. Very, very proud of her. Triple a, I'm sorry, 866-967-6887 is the number of the code. It's 86696 POTUS. You're listening live, Straight Shooting with Stephen A. Back with your calls and more in a minute. 39 minutes past hour. Number two back here on the Stephen on Straight Shooter with yours truly, Stephen A. Smith coming at you as I love to do every Wednesday night. Subscribe 6 to 8pm Eastern Standard Time over the airways with SiriusXM POTUS radio. Number to call up as always is 866-967-6887. That's 8669-676887-86696, POTUS. That is the number to call. Thanks again to the wonderful Laura Coates doing her thing not only with our own show on Sirius xm, but CNN as well, and of course, the Senator Rand Paul out of Kentucky. Both were fabulous interviews, really appreciate their time, taking time out of their busy schedule, as I do with everyone that comes on this show. And. And as I've often reminded all of y', all, I get it from both sides, Republicans and Democrats. I ain't here to take sides. The only side I want to is getting as close to the truth as possible. I don't give a damn about parties. I think parties have messed up this country. I've always said that. You know, that's why I'm a registered independent. I'm a moderate that leans left on social issues, and I lean right on fiscal issues because I hate high taxes, you understand? California, New Jersey, New York can't stand high taxes, can't stand walking home with less than 50 of my money, and in those cases, less than 40% of my money. It makes me sick, makes me want to puke. Okay? That's where I'm at. That's what I stand on. But nevertheless, still want to hear from both sides, because you just never know when you're learning. You never know when you're going to be enlightened. You never know when somebody will give you a reason to think differently than what you were thinking. That's what makes this country so great. So let's make sure we continue the conversation as we move forward. 18, 866, 96, POTUS. Back to the phones we go. Sam in New York, you're live with Stephen A. Talk to me. What's going on? Sam is not there. Okay, let's go to Chris in Virginia. You're live with Stephen A. What's up, Chris? How are you? Good evening, sir. Good evening. I'm just trying to figure out what exactly Newsom did wrong. Basically, he was, you know, practicing free speech for one second. Thing is, you kind of didn't give him the same. You should give the president the same smoke you gave him, man. I want to hear. Don't give me that crap. I don't want to hear that. And I'm gonna tell you why I don't want to hear that. I give this president. I give the president noise every week. I don't talk about Newsom every week. I complain about something Donald Trump does at least two to three times a week. I'm tired of all of that. I'm tired of those false, erroneous, bogus accusations coming my way. That's not true. That's number one. Number two, tonight, I started off my show talking about Trump number three. I stand on that principle. What I said was, you're the governor of a state in the United States. Why are you going on a world stage with other countries to talk about the president of the United States? All I said was talk about that stuff here. That's all I'm saying. You're the governor. You're not the commander in chief of the president of the United States. You represent your state. You don't represent the United States. The world stage is for countries, not states. You don't see other countries with people that represent a particular state within their country talking nonsense about their nation. At least that's not what I see. If I'm wrong, I'll stand on it. I'll say, okay, fine, I'm wrong. All I'm saying is that complain about Trump all day, every day, go to hell.

B (87:42)

Off.

A (87:42)

I like it when Newsom trolls them. I like it when Newsom goes after him. Doesn't bother me one bit. I want him to make sure he cleans up the state of California as best as he can. I want to make sure that crime, homelessness, affordability issues, all of these things are addressed. That's true. But you know what? I love the thought of seeing Newsom on a debate stage as a Democratic nominee going up against, whether it's Rubio, whether it's J.D. vance or somebody else, I wouldn't mind it at all. I'd like to see Newsom try to see put. Try to see him put on a show. I don't think he wants DeSantis, though, because DeSantis got him good when they debated against one another on Sean Hannity show on Fox News. But nevertheless, I know Newsom is smooth. He's incredibly articulate and bright. He knows the issues. He's smart as a whip. You know, he. He could be loquacious when necessary. He can fight back. He ain't scared. All of those things are attributes. All I'm saying is, is that going across the pond, complaining on a world stage about your president when you are the governor of a state, I personally don't think that's a cool thing to do. All right. Can I explain? Go ahead. Can I give you. All right, well, this, this is what I'm saying. What you said is true. You keep your trash in your own house to a degree. But now he is a prospective candidate for 2028. So, yeah, the things that he does will affect him and will, I guess, more or less give him a little clout down the road. But you said it right. 100% right. He is not the president of the United States. Trump is. Trump goes on to work world stays. And he belittled and disparaged a formal president. No, but no other president has done that in a Joe Biden. That's true. That's true. I'm gonna finish up. He, he, he goes on there. First of all, coming in the door, you're bullying allies and all of them in the audience have a problem with you for that situation. You don't know that. Didn't go. You don't know that. You don't know that. I'll withdraw that. I'll withdraw that. Thank you very much. And hold on, hold on. I heard you, but here's the other part. Yes, I don't like him. It's very classless how he goes at Biden. Very classless. And he shouldn't be doing that on the world state, Egypt. But Biden was both his successor and his predecessor who was on the world stage the previous four years. And there were people lamenting about how embarrassing he was in those settings. So, again, it's classless. He shouldn't do it. But he was talking about a former president, which means somebody that was on the world stage, as opposed to him talking about a governor in a state, in his union. There's a difference. I'm saying keep in house stuff in house. When you're an elected official, us, we can complain about Trump across the world, but you're the governor of California with your own problems, by the way. I just don't think traveling over to Switzerland, putting yourself on that stage, that's not your place. You ain't the president. You're the governor of a state. You shouldn't be there. And you certainly shouldn't be talking about the president like that on that stage. Talk about him here. That's all I'm saying. What about our elections, then? How do you disparage and come off and lie and say the election is stolen when it wasn't? You can't talk about time. We all know he lying. We believe he's lying. Maybe he doesn't. I think he's lying. You think he's lying. Democrats think he's lying. Republicans won't say it. You got elected officials on a Republican side, they don't bring that up. So the point is like, again, that's emotion, because again, he feels the way that he feels. He's back in the White House and is still telling you it got rigged. He got robbed. The man is the 47th president and he's still whining and moaning about that. Maybe he believes it. Even though he has no evidence to support it. Maybe he believes it. Gotta go, gotta go. Chris. Gave you enough time. Gotta go. Got other callers to get to my man. Let's go to Khalifa in New Jersey. Is that who that is?

C (92:10)

Hi, Khalifa.

A (92:11)

Is that your name? Did I pronounce it correctly? You pronounce my name correctly. Thank you. Go ahead. Floor is yours. Thank you so much for calling the show. Go ahead. How you doing? So I wanted to say that I.

C (92:24)

Think we need to unify more than what's happening now. I think that the Renee Good situation is being used to get Democrats back in power.

A (92:37)

It's not so much as to unify the party. And there is a lot of static amongst the black community that is attacking you the most.

C (92:48)

They think that you are not being.

A (92:52)

Real or they ain't saying that. They ain't saying that. They might have a problem with what I say and what I feel or what they. How they misconstrue and. And lacks context when they come to judging what I say. But ain't nobody gonna accuse me of not being real, because that's all I am. I'm not. I'm not sitting up there and backtracking for anybody. I stand on what I stand on. That's me. That's the problem. I believe that. I believe that.

C (93:19)

But someone like Jasmine Crockett and others.

A (93:22)

Don'T feel that way. No, no, no. Can I say this to you? Khalifa on the phone, right here. Right here on the Live Airways. It's bogus. I asked a question. If you disagree with the question, say so. But to sit up there and jump on, oh, I was disrespectful and all of this other stuff. Listen, what happens, particularly with politics, okay? I'm here in this lane doing a show, okay? When I was doing sports and I was significantly broker, I didn't hear any of this, but all of a sudden, some success has come my way. God has blessed me to have some success come my way. And also, I'm doing this show, and I've made it very, very clear that I'm going to entrench myself in a political atmosphere because I don't like the things that I'm seeing specifically with the left and the right, but mainly with the left because of what they tried to do in terms of us adopting cancer culture and woke politics, which I thought was to the detriment of the black community. And I spoke up on behalf of us, not against us. You've got people who are operatives that feel the way that they feel and they influence whoever they want to influence and they want to come at me. What they don't know, Khalifa, is that I'm here for it. I'm built for it. It don't phase me a little bit. It's what comes with all of this. Most of these people that are doing shows and podcasts and all this stuff, they weren't trained as journalists for 30 plus years. They don't take as much heat and criticism as I've taken. You know how many times people ask me, including my bosses, how the hell do you take it with ease? It doesn't bother me at all because I know that if I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong. I know that if I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong. But I'm not taking stuff from these people. You understand? Because you want to misconstrue and misrepresent and lie about everything you can about what I said. Let them do it. They came to the right place. They came to the right place. I can take it. I can take it. 86696 POTUS. Khalifa. I'm sorry. They told me I have to go to break. I apologize. I didn't realize that. Otherwise I. I wouldn't have even spoken. I would have waited until I let you finish. I apologize for that. Please feel free to call back next week and I'll give you more time than I was able to give you today. I apologize for that, sincerely. I didn't mean to do that. Back with your calls to close out the show in a minute. It's Stephen A. In the house. Don't go away. Khalifa. If you're out there, call right back. Call right back. I. I want to put you right back on. If you're out there, call right back. Happy to put you right back on because I interrupted your point and I apologize for that. In the meantime, let's go. I don't see the name out of California. Who is that? Ed in California. You're live with Stephen A. Talk to me, Ed, what's up? Hey, this is you. How.

B (96:17)

How you doing?

A (96:18)

I'm doing all right back. Pretty heavy day today. Great stuff that you just had that long interview. But this is on prior subject which was did Kelly have the right to be part of that commercial that said.

B (96:31)

You don't have to violate illegal.

A (96:33)

Yeah, the video. I don't know if it was a commercial. Was a video.

B (96:36)

No, no video.

A (96:37)

Well, yeah, Whatever public service thing anyway.

B (96:41)

Yeah, I don't know.

A (96:42)

You may write. And you said basically, tell me if I'm wrong. Your answer was, well, he's an officer of the armed forces. And by saying that, he's implying that the president has or will be putting.

B (96:54)

Out an illegal order and take.

A (96:56)

Guys, don't.

B (96:57)

Don't follow it.

A (96:58)

That was the interpretation of that. Kind of. That was the interpretation of it. Yes. Here's the thing. But here's the thing.

B (97:05)

There's no role for.

A (97:06)

There's no rule or role for regulations like that in a Constitution, in an everlasting Constitution, because by writing it or in the military justice thing, by writing it and putting it in there, there is that implication that someday it may happen. You're not offending anybody. You're not. Well, hold on, hold on, Ed. Fine. I didn't serve in the military. I don't know. I'll take you at your word, sir. Did you serve in the military? I did not serve in the military. Okay. Well, let me tell you, let me tell you this. I called people who served in the military and they said, of course, anybody could say that about the president and his administration except someone in the military. That's what I was told. So again, what I'm saying to you is, you may be right, but there are military people that said instantly when they saw it, he's in trouble. That's what they said. Because you can't do that. Military code of conduct or whatever it is that they used. You're in the military and you're seeing this entire body of all the regulations, not just that one. You can't repeat that to somebody.

B (98:12)

It's got to be on a piece.

A (98:14)

Edge, you're killing me. You didn't serve in the military. I didn't serve in the military. I don't know. What I said to you was military officials told me, Senator Kelly, they're going to come after him for doing that because he was a military officer. That's what they said. And sure enough, that's what they've done. That's all I know. I didn't serve in the military. You didn't serve in the military. So we don't know. We don't know. The Khalifa call back? Has she called back? Okay, I'm sorry that we're running out of time showing in Missouri. You're live with Stephen A. Go ahead. Hey, Stephen A. First of all, I'm a huge fan, and if I had to choose, I would have given you the Nobel Peace. But I won't go that far, but thank you. Go ahead, man. Why do you think Trump is pursuing Greenland? And do you think he will accomplish this? And are the rumors true that if he successfully acquires Greenland that you will be the next governor? Well, it ain't gonna be me. I promise you that. The only political office I would ever be interested in is the presidency of the United States of America. There's nothing else that would be remotely interesting to me. I wouldn't be interested in being a governor. I wouldn't be interested in being one of a hundred senators or definitely not one of 435 representatives. Hell, hell to the no. Absolutely not. I don't know why he wants Greenland. The reason I say I don't know is because you just heard Rand Paul acknowledge that most, most officials don't know. So that's what it is. My producer was in my ear. What did you say? Oh, I, I said, yeah, okay, yeah, go ahead. But that's it. I don't know. I imagine that there's some minerals or whatever they've got there and, you know, obviously that's something that'd be beneficial and I imagine that it's something that could be used by other nations, Russia, China or whomever. And he's trying to compromise them at every turn so he can gain some, some, some prowess with them as it pertains to negotiations. Remember, he's still trying to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and still trying to do things with, with China as it pertains to tariffs and what have you. Because he believes, believes they've been getting over on the United States hand and foot. So all of those things play a role. I don't know specifically what it is, but I do know that most Republicans have acknowledged they don't understand why the hell he's been pursuing this issue. It makes no sense whatsoever. But there's a lot of things that you don't understand about him. Either way you slice it, it's never boring. That much I'll say. That's it for this edition of Straight Shooting with yours truly. I'll be back next Wednesday night, 6pm Eastern Standard Time. Another until then, peace and love, everybody. Take care.

C (101:12)

And unlimited welcome. At Capella University. We believe accessible education can make a difference. That's why we offer scholarship opportunities to all eligible students. Un futuro diferente esta ma serca de lo que cres con Capella University. Learn more at capella.edu.