I joined host Jon Scott (a very nice man, BTW) for a discussion on gun control after the massacre in Parkland, Florida, Jamie Weinstein from National Review joined as the conservative commentator.
What do you think of my proposals?
Here is the transcript and at the bottom is the full segment from Fox News. In the full segment I lay out the argument for mental health checks, too.
The key is to make it more difficult to rapidly kill a large number of people in a very short period of time. I call for banning bump stocks immediately. Lets remove high capacity magazines immediately. At least, make it easy, Look, I’ve fired AR-15s. I have a DD 214 from the Army Reserve. I fired, I’ve gone skeet shooting. I’ve gone hunting. I know what it’s like to use firearms. There is a rational basis to limit what is available. Justice Scalia himself wrote in two 2009’s D.C. v. Heller that the government has every right to limit what the populace can buy in terms of firearms. Let’s go down that route and make it harder to kill 17 people in a very short window of time.
Major media outlets urgently call for gun control as President Trump stresses the need to address America’s mental health issues; reaction from Jamie Weinstein, host of the ‘Jamie Weinstein Show’ on National Review, and Ethan Bearman, radio talk host show and author.
Just before my KGO 810 radio show started Friday morning, President Trump released THE MEMO, aka The Nunes Memo.
I had a few minutes to read the memo (take a look HERE for the full document) and provide my thoughts as I went on air at 10:05am Pacific Time, Friday, February 2, 2018.
Take a listen as I ripped this as a partisan hack, that has logical errors and is silly to publish without rebuttal or underlying facts.
And here is the transcript (done by a piece of software and not error corrected) from my show on my initial read of The Nunes Memo:
“Oh yeah the memo it’s out and I couldn’t possibly disagree more with things I’ve already heard people say let me just let me start by that same if it is out this is the House intelligence committee this is their interpretation of foreign intelligence surveillance act abuses at the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of investigation
First off not one of my law school professors would look at this and say yeah this is a really well thought out argument no I’m not kidding you not one of them so to a I guess to a layperson you can read this and if you are a Republican you’re gonna lose your mind dear God the Deomcrats hate the President and there was a bad person Christopher Steele and somebody a nap. I insisted that war who hated present job this is all partisan attack I’m present up even though I’m sorry excuse me the FBI’s announcement for the election that they were reopening the mill investigation Hillary Clinton that very well change the outcome of the election saw this all day was because I hate Pres.
Ok me to start with if you’re voting that’s I responding if art releases if you’re a partisan Republican that’s I respond if your partisan Democrat you look it is a good this whole thing is bunk and there’s nothing here so that that let me to start by saying that actually that was my second say my starting statement was no law school professor my would say look at this and would’ve said doubt yet is a great argument is not this is not a legal document. Clearly was not written by attorneys and if it was it was written by attorneys who no longer abide by any rules of filing a motion in court this is not a court document this is something written to President Trump and the American people by the Republicans on the US House intelligence committee exclusive this I’m I maintain my argument.
This is a partisan document written by Republicans approved by Republicans to claim that the FBI is out to get Pres. Trump because it’s populated by Democrats this if this was an initial filing of a motion in a court well whatever name you judge it that way but here’s what happens when you file a motion court the other side files an answer did you know that?
So what happened is the House intelligence committee hasn’t released the Democrats answer the Democrats wrote an answer to this that’s what the whole is what I argued on FOX Business the other day with Trish Regan. which was written if you releases then you have to release the other side’s counterargument and if you can present this to the public now or you have evidence that you have to present to support your case.
None of that is there this is literally filing the motion when you file a motion in court it exclusively argues your side and it argues it in kind of the most extreme way you can make all the possible arguments even if there barely legally recognizable and there’s almost no evidence to support it. You throw it all in there in the initial motion that’s what this document is suit I mean I I have to do my job which is to pick this apart and where the logic fails the logic fails deeply in certain key parts of this.
First off I want to point out paragraph and what’s with marked as five so they have bullet points and numbered lists that they go through here our findings indicate that as describe below material relevant information was omitted number five gets the last is the very last paragraph of the memo the Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellows from campaign advisor George Papadopoulos there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Paige Papadopoulos Papadopoulos information trigger the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation late July 2016 so what that openly states and is absolutely ignored by the Republicans on the committee is Papadopoulos was already under investigation before the FISA application against page would that not by the fact of large FBI is already investigating Papadopoulos for a Russia connection.
Let me say that again the FBI was already investigating George Papadopoulos Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos when the FISA applications were first filed against page what if that’s the case the entire argument fails because the argument is this is a partisan move exclusively done all of this intelligence was done based on a false dossier from Christopher Steele in Fusion GPS. Well the whole argument fails on that point alone because they already are investigating George Papadopoulos from campaign advisor therefore the basis for investigating Carter Page is irrelevant because we’re already investigating Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos for a Russia connection it was already going on.
So you know this this Debbie this is absolutely incredible to me this is incredible to me furthermore let’s talk about steel because there’s another factual weird inconsistency in this document only backup in number one. The dossier compiled by Christopher steel steel dossier on behalf of the Democratic national committee and Hillary Clinton campaign against forgetting who started the dossier was actually the Washington Free Beacon a conservative publication they’re the ones who started it the DNC picked it up and ran with it after Trump looked like he was going to win the primaries. That’s when the freebie can stop paying for this and Hillary Clinton camping form an essential part of the Carter page 5’s application still was a longtime FBI source hang on a second let’s stop there because everybody wants to attack Christopher Steele.
Who is Christopher Steele? Christopher Steele was an MI-6 Russia expert Rimmer MI six is the British spy agency Britain is our closest ally MI six is a very tight intelligence agency he was their Russia expert he was their Russia expert and where was he based? Moscow. The FBI had relied on numerous documents that Christopher Steele had produced previously. Ex-Cambridge union president XMI six Moscow field agent X hit head of MI sixes Russia desk X advisor to British special forces on capture or kill ops in Afghanistan.
So we;re not just talking about some pathetic hack who hates Trump and just says I hate Trump there for me to make a ring up this guy deeply connected in Russia. As a spy who was doing this. Now whether I don’t I can’t confirm whether or not this dossier is full of garbage or not because I don’t have the dossier and neither do you.
So, if I continue on so they just immediately taken then they say Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign by the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS. So, was he paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign was he paid by Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS and the DNC and clean Kevin so this is a factual obfuscation. How did the money get distributed?
That is actually very important as did the DNC pay fusion GPS through Perkins Coie for information if so they can pay steel they paid fusion GPS today know that steel was connected to this. Yes or no? These are facts that matter this thing is unbelievable to me this is why that we have to have the Democrats memo and present front by declassify and assess whether the top-secret thing that blacked out the stamp declassified to the present has the authority to do that absolutely present from his right to do this so that any menus as well Trojan from Kant is of course you can do this.
Absolutely this is within the purview of the President of The United States of America to declassify this and releases the public he has that right where is the Democrats memo and where is the evidence to support anything that is alleged here are my goodness unbelievable by the way ever get lambing and parenting know enough about the memo William Moore will get more on memo and a little bit but I want to get it really serious parenting topic because what do you prioritize?
I joined Tucker Carlson again last night on Fox News to discuss California AB 1884 which will make distributing a single use plastic straw to a customer unsolicited a violation of the Health and Safety code.
I argued that plastic pollution is a significant and serious environmental problem. I support efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle.
Tucker then tied homelessness into the topic. He and I battled over that topic as well where he advocates punishment and I advocate rehabilitation and housing.
Here is a highlight clip and below is the full segment.
One adds intentional and repeated use of names/pronouns for a person in a state licensed nursing home to the definition of elder abuse. Elder abuse is the physical or psychological harm of an elder, BTW.
The other reduces the charge for not informing a sex partner that you knowingly have HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor (up to 6 months in jail per charge). This stems from prison overcrowding, medical advances, and if someone dies homicide charges still are available.
Anyone who argues “but Obama” is intellectually dishonest with themselves and others with whom they make that argument. Every president in my memory seems to abuse this Constitutionally valid provision for the president to pardon.
“… he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” (USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 1)
I understand a president pardoning or commuting the sentence of someone who received a morally questionable sentence or conviction. By the way, pardoning and commuting are different.
According to the Justice Department, a commutation of sentence reduces a sentence, either totally or partially, that is then being served, but it does not change the fact of conviction, imply innocence, or remove civil disabilities that apply to the convicted person as a result of the criminal conviction.
Separately, a pardon is an expression of the President’s forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence.
I’d like in the next election for a moderator to ask candidates about their thoughts on the presidential pardon.
Listen carefully to the actual questions I was asked and tell me if I answered them. One of my goals as a guest is to always answer the question asked, since I get frustrated when people avoid my questions when I’m the host.
One of the things I find incredibly hypocritical (as so much is in politics) from the right, is this topic in particular: states rights and sovereignty. I understand concern for the rule of law and sovereignty of our nation. I’ll provide the answers to that in a moment. But here, the federal government cannot force your local sheriff to do their bidding. The locally elected sheriff is responsible to the people who elected him or her.
Why can’t the federal government make your sheriff do what they want, like hold a prisoner past his/her release date due to an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) retainer? This was clearly answered by the late Justice Antonin Scalia writing the majority opinion in Printz v. United States in 1997.
Here, the federal government wanted your local sheriff to do background checks on firearm sales. A sheriff sued saying that he didn’t have to do the work of the feds. And won.
For the second amendment supporters, Scalia wrote that we have a system of dual sovereignty, states rights and federal rights, and they are independent of one another. Therefore, the federal government cannot violate states rights by making them act in a federal role. This would violate the Constitutional separation of powers.
Hence, when ICE issues a detainer to your sheriff to hold someone, that is ICE’s job to not burden the sheriff and they are solely responsible. The sheriff can choose to cooperate, but is not compelled to do so.
And for the guns rights folks: When the Democrats are in power again and pass an even stricter gun law, do you want your sheriff compelled to take your gun by Washington D.C.? No? This is that rule that prevents your sheriff from doing the bidding of the federal government.
In the communities that have chosen to be sanctuary cities, those communities have the power over the sheriff on whether or not to cooperate with ICE. Nobody in another state or in the federal government has the power to control your local sheriff.
Further, I strongly support all sheriffs working with ICE today to deport criminals with a citizenship other than U.S. This means people in the U.S. who are drunk driving, theft, assault, felonies, etc. What I don’t support is ICE grabbing undocumented parents while dropping off their U.S. citizen children at school. And yes, there are 5.5 million Americans with undocumented parents.
Now, we never did directly address Governor Abbott of Texas. I am not familiar with the Texas Constitution, but that would be up to how they structured their state government and whether the governor has the right to jail sheriffs for not cooperating with ICE.
I used to be harder on illegal immigration, although I’ve always been against mass deportation or a deportation force. There really is an easy, three-part solution.
Implement functional work visa programs that are strictly enforced for violations. Many undocumented people are here to work and are not interested in becoming citizens. If we have the available jobs, make sure the employers pay a fee to the enforcement agency that allows full enforcement and implement hefty fines for violations.
Enforce E-Verify on all employers in the United States. Click HERE to learn all about it. And then strictly enforce a very large fine for each infraction found, something like a firm $25,000 fine per infraction.
Once the first two are done, we can re-address the remaining people without documentation and sanctuary cities. There is no need for an expensive and barely functional wall. It is economics, not physics.