The Megyn Kelly Show - Roe Protests Grow, and Crime in Chicago, with Judge Andrew Napolitano, John Kass, and Mark Rasch

00:00:00.440 Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.

00:00:11.300 Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show.

00:00:14.500 Fresh protests breaking out as pro-abortion demonstrators target the home of yet another Supreme Court justice.

00:00:21.520 The protesters loud, but peaceful, as they marched on the home of Justice Samuel Alito.

00:00:27.220 What does that mean, peaceful, right? Like they weren't setting anything on fire.

00:00:30.620 But is it really peaceful to even be at the home of a Supreme Court justice trying to threaten him into changing his vote?

00:00:36.300 I think you could make a strong case that it's not.

00:00:39.260 Meantime, in a rare show of bipartisanship, the U.S. Senate has unanimously approved a plan to protect the justices and their families.

00:00:46.460 The House still has to weigh in. Oh, joy. Oh, joy.

00:00:49.260 Amy Coney Barrett's little 10-year-old is going to get round-the-clock protection now, potentially, if the House approves it and Joe Biden approves it.

00:00:57.720 Something made necessary by the lunatics who think it's okay to threaten them.

00:01:01.560 It's okay to place the life of a Supreme Court justice's child in jeopardy with the kind of talk that they're issuing, with the kind of behavior that they're pursuing.

00:01:10.360 Fine. Sure, that's normal. That's totally normal.

00:01:13.760 So glad we're back to norms now under President Biden.

00:01:17.740 The DOJ, meantime, eerily silent. Weirdly silent, right? Merrick Garland, cat got your tongue?

00:01:25.260 This is months after he mobilized the FBI against parents, parents who objected to racist teachings being injected in their schools and far-left trans ideology being shoved on their five-year-olds.

00:01:39.100 They were terrorists who the FBI needed to mobilize against, and Merrick Garland felt free to speak out against them.

00:01:46.820 The people protesting the Supreme Court justices at their homes.

00:01:50.980 The Molotov cocktail set off at a Catholic institution that was trying to help provide support for mothers who chose to have their babies in unexpected pregnancies.

00:02:01.200 I haven't heard them say anything. Nothing. Doesn't seem to be particularly moved by any of them.

00:02:10.060 And in related news, and indeed it is related on every front I just listed, the mayor of one of the most violent cities in America has just issued what can only be described as a truly tone-deaf, stupid tweet.

00:02:22.480 But Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, writing, quote, to my friends in the LGBTQ plus community, the Supreme Court is coming for us next.

00:02:33.100 This moment has to be a call to arms, a call to arms.

00:02:38.280 Why don't you worry about the more than dozen dead children in your city just as of this year?

00:02:44.260 They've been the victims of a true call to arms.

00:02:48.480 That's what you need to worry about, Lori Lightfoot.

00:02:50.560 Don't you dare call to arms when it comes to our sitting Supreme Court justices who now have to have round-the-clock protection because of lunatics like you.

00:03:00.260 We're going to have more on her and the situation in Chicago a little bit later in the show when our friend John Cass joins us, one of our very favorites.

00:03:06.740 But first, we're going to bring in Judge Andrew Napolitano, my old friend from Fox News, host of the Judging Freedom podcast, and you can also find him on YouTube.

00:03:20.600 Judge Knapps, it's great to have you back.

00:03:22.480 I'm so irritated, as you can probably tell.

00:03:25.280 I can't stand this Lori Lightfoot and her irresponsible messaging.

00:03:28.900 She's not alone.

00:03:30.100 I can't stand these protests outside of the justices' homes, many of whom have young children.

00:03:34.720 I'm irritated at Merrick Garland for saying nothing about the protests, which, at least on paper, absolutely violate a law that's in place against doing that outside of a justices' home, if it's with the intent of obstructing justice, which this appears to be.

00:03:52.280 And we have a White House that now has found the temerity to say, well, violence is bad.

00:03:59.160 It shouldn't be violence.

00:04:00.340 You know, that's bad.

00:04:01.400 But refuses to condemn the actual protests themselves.

00:04:04.060 Well, Megan, it's always a pleasure to be with you, no matter what we're talking about.

00:04:08.080 Remember, we worked together every Monday night for about five or six years.

00:04:12.120 Yeah.

00:04:12.560 No matter where I was on the planet, you always had me on that great show, and it's a joy to be with you again.

00:04:19.800 When Merrick Garland became the Attorney General, I thought there was an adult in the room.

00:04:25.060 I made that judgment from reading the opinions that he wrote as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

00:04:32.880 But as Attorney General, he's just as hard left as the people that have been tugging Joe Biden to the left and compelling him into a range of incompetence.

00:04:44.520 How he can remain silent at a time like this is beyond me.

00:04:48.700 So we have a number of issues here.

00:04:50.360 However, the government can impose what's called time, place, and manner.

00:04:54.800 Yes.

00:04:55.260 The time, the place, and the manner of these protests.

00:04:59.020 If the protests are to express outrage, to express disagreement, they're perfectly lawful.

00:05:04.300 They're absolutely protected under the First Amendment.

00:05:06.420 And the protesters must be given the benefit of the doubt.

00:05:09.280 But if they're terrifying children, if they're keeping people from having breakfast, if they're preventing them from sleeping at night, if they're intended to dislodge whoever is the weakest link in the five-member tentative majority from the April draft that Justice Alito wrote, then they step over the line into the area where that statute that you cited was written to protect the judges.

00:05:35.080 There's one at the federal level and one at the Virginia state level, and that's where Alito lives.

00:05:39.900 How do you decide which is which?

00:05:41.860 You give the benefit of the doubt to the speakers because the First Amendment trumps everything, but you tell them you can't be here before eight in the morning, you can't be here after eight at night, and you can't yell so loud that you're preventing people from doing what families normally do inside that house.

00:05:59.780 See, that's what we would normally say.

00:06:01.260 If you want to yell to your heart's content 24-7.

00:06:03.320 That's what we would normally say.

00:06:04.860 But here's the state.

00:06:05.980 That's what we would normally say.

00:06:07.220 That would be the normal law.

00:06:08.220 They can't come to my neighborhood and do that.

00:06:10.840 But these people are not normal.

00:06:12.500 They're maniacs.

00:06:13.600 But I mean, the statutes seem to say, and to the extent this 18 U.S. Code 1507 says you can't pick at somebody's, you can't pick at a court with the intent of instructing or interfering with justice.

00:06:27.880 I don't know.

00:06:28.740 That's not going to be constitutional.

00:06:30.340 You're allowed to go in front of, that's an unconstitutional prescription.

00:06:33.640 Of course you can pick at a court to protest.

00:06:35.660 So you say to these protesters.

00:06:37.400 But wait, but let me just finish it.

00:06:38.600 Let me set it up.

00:06:39.200 Let me set it up and then I'll give it to you.

00:06:40.960 Okay.

00:06:41.200 So the statute says you can't, so it's got two parts, one of which we both agree is it's not going to be upheld as constitutional.

00:06:47.420 You cannot tell somebody they can't protest outside of a court.

00:06:49.880 They can, but the second piece of this statute says, whoever with the intent of interfering with obstructing or impeding the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing any judge, et cetera, in the discharge of his duty, pickets near a residence occupied or used by such judge or resorts to any other demonstration, et cetera, shall be fined under this title or in prison, not more than one year or both.

00:07:17.600 So that's the federal, the Virginia title, 18.2 crimes and offenses generally picketing or disrupting tranquility of home says any person who shall engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling place of any individual in a manner which disrupts or threatens to disrupt any individual's right to tranquility in his home shall be guilty of a class three misdemeanor.

00:07:39.300 That's a misdemeanor.

00:07:40.620 Boom.

00:07:41.080 They've violated Justice Alito's right to tranquility in his home.

00:07:46.320 Okay, go ahead.

00:07:47.600 They're probably both unconstitutional.

00:07:49.900 They're probably void for vagueness.

00:07:51.560 The government has to give the benefit of the doubt to the exercise of the First Amendment.

00:07:56.580 However, there is a right to tranquility in the home.

00:08:00.680 That's why I say time, place, and manner or, hey, you guys, you want to scream your hearts out?

00:08:06.880 You want to scream 24-7?

00:08:08.680 Go over to Second Street.

00:08:09.820 Go over to where the Supreme Court is.

00:08:11.260 You can yell all you want.

00:08:12.280 It's not a residential neighborhood.

00:08:13.660 That's where they work, but they're not working there because you made it impossible for them to get there.

00:08:17.880 The government has to bend over backwards to protect the peace and security of its employees, in this case, its highest level employees, and it has to bend over backwards to protect the First Amendment.

00:08:31.180 That's not a balance.

00:08:32.480 That's a bias in favor of free speech.

00:08:35.660 Why?

00:08:35.980 Because that's what the First Amendment – that's how the First Amendment has been interpreted.

00:08:40.060 Those two statutes are probably void for vagueness.

00:08:42.720 I don't know how you can prove what the intent of the demonstrators is.

00:08:46.940 Well, you can.

00:08:47.340 If they really think they're going to change Sam Alito's mind by screaming outside his house, they're idiots and they're crazy.

00:08:54.800 Well, yes, but that doesn't change their intent.

00:08:58.760 I think the piece of it that says you're not allowed to protest outside of a court if your intention is to mess with the judgment, that's not going to be upheld by any court.

00:09:07.820 We see that every day at the Supreme Court.

00:09:09.880 Even when there's not an abortion ruling coming down, you always have the pro-Roe and the anti-Roe protesters out there.

00:09:17.380 Every day of my Supreme Court reporter term, they'd be out there.

00:09:22.260 So that's – I don't know.

00:09:23.660 But I do think – saying you can't go before a justice's home to try to influence him and the Virginia statute saying you can't disrupt tranquility in the home.

00:09:34.160 Those are time, place, and manner restrictions that will be upheld.

00:09:37.560 These are crimes they're committing, the protesters.

00:09:40.300 They are.

00:09:40.860 This isn't a normal protest.

00:09:42.660 There's so many places you can protest.

00:09:44.680 You don't have to be in front of his home.

00:09:46.140 How about the Washington Post giving the velvet glove treatment to that one lunatic down the street from Alito who won't stop going to his house every day, who's got her blood red hangers hanging out of her home.

00:09:56.580 She's not breaking the law and doing it at her home.

00:09:58.700 But you go to his home and there ought to be consequences because they are trying to influence the decision of these justices because it hasn't yet come down.

00:10:06.500 That's exactly what they hope to do.

00:10:09.400 There's a bias in favor of free speech.

00:10:11.740 Look, I've been through this myself.

00:10:13.520 I invalidated thousands of drunk driving convictions because the roadblocks were illegal in New Jersey.

00:10:19.020 They picketed my home and they picketed the courthouse and I had to be escorted in and out.

00:10:23.540 And as I went by them, I waved.

00:10:25.840 They roared because I was smiling at them.

00:10:28.440 I was killing them with kindness.

00:10:30.600 Didn't change my mind.

00:10:32.360 I wouldn't allow anybody to be arrested.

00:10:34.380 And eventually it went away.

00:10:35.740 The published opinion was published and it was upheld by the appellate court.

00:10:40.460 Part of this is just the occupational hazard that comes with the job.

00:10:46.060 You are one of the nine human beings on the planet who decides what the Constitution means and what federal law means and what the government can do.

00:10:56.380 There's some hazard that comes with that.

00:10:58.620 And that is that you're going to antagonize half the country and they have the right to express that antagonism, not to prevent you from sleeping, not to terrify your children, not to prevent you from going to the store, not to prevent you from going to work.

00:11:13.380 But they can make all the noise they want during the daylight hours.

00:11:16.160 I don't think it matters.

00:11:18.600 Sam's going to kill me.

00:11:19.720 You know, he's my buddy.

00:11:20.920 You know, we've known each other since we were 18 years old.

00:11:23.540 I didn't know that.

00:11:24.440 Sam Alito.

00:11:25.800 Yes.

00:11:26.400 I've introduced Sam at speeches by telling funny stories about him.

00:11:31.280 So he's going to kill me that I'm saying this.

00:11:33.380 Listen, there's that laugh I love.

00:11:36.860 Wait a minute.

00:11:37.260 So Sam, I love you.

00:11:38.580 Here's the thing.

00:11:40.000 There's a distinction between what's in the mind of the protesters and what's in the mind of the judge.

00:11:43.940 So I agree.

00:11:45.080 I'm sure you weren't intimidated by the protesters who bothered you when you were on the bench.

00:11:48.960 And I'm sure Justice Alito is not going to change his mind one bit based on any of this nonsense.

00:11:54.300 However, the statute speak to the federal one.

00:11:57.440 What's in the mind of the protester with the intent of interfering with, obstructing or impeding the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness or court officer?

00:12:11.660 That's all it speaks to.

00:12:12.600 It doesn't say you have to succeed.

00:12:14.560 This is where we get back to Merrick Garland.

00:12:17.960 If they were picketing the House of Justice Sonia Sotomayor because of something she wrote that Merrick Garland agreed with,

00:12:24.320 you'd probably see FBI agents out there, just like he despicably, in my view, sent FBI agents to school board meetings to intimidate protesters

00:12:34.520 and prevent them from defending the rights of children, not to hear nonsense about gender identity in kindergarten.

00:12:43.620 So where is the federal government is the issue now.

00:12:47.680 The executive branch, the DOJ, should be resolving this.

00:12:52.420 Sam Alito should not be chased out of town with his wife to stay somewhere else.

00:12:57.820 He should be able to live in the comfort and convenience of his home and get to the comfort and convenience of his chambers every day.

00:13:04.100 There are unconfirmed reports that he's had to go into hiding.

00:13:07.280 With the protesters expressing their opinion.

00:13:08.400 Yeah.

00:13:08.680 How do you prove intent?

00:13:10.040 You infer intent from the words they use, the actions they take, the persistence of their presence.

00:13:18.140 And God forbid, I hope there's none, but if there's any violence.

00:13:20.700 Mm hmm.

00:13:22.100 The very fact that it's necessary now for the U.S. Congress, first the Senate, then we presume the House, to have to pass this emergency law, that they can have protection, that their family members can have protection, speaks to the insanity of what's happened here.

00:13:35.800 You know, I had Glenn Greenwald on the show last week, who I love, and he was saying, well, why is it any different, you know, that that the leak has come now versus, you know, the like, would the justices be in more danger now because of this leak than they would have when the opinion came out?

00:13:51.420 You know, because they still would have been mad if this is the opinion.

00:13:54.540 And the thing is, Judge, they are in more danger because the decision hasn't yet been issued.

00:14:00.640 So some lunatic out there most likely believes they can still change an opinion or, God forbid, take out a judge.

00:14:09.640 That's the evil of the person who leaked this.

00:14:15.920 And the leaker is either on the left, hoping that the weakest link in the tentative majority will be scared away, or is on the right, hoping that the weakest link in the tentative majority will stay there.

00:14:28.620 Now, look, this opinion was written in January and February.

00:14:32.940 Whatever difference there is between the final opinion and this one is going to spawn speculation for generations.

00:14:41.980 Why did Alito change this?

00:14:43.980 How did Alito change that?

00:14:45.880 Did he change it because he was afraid?

00:14:47.500 I'll tell you, he's not afraid of anything.

00:14:49.100 He's the personification of courage.

00:14:51.480 I can't imagine that any of the nine of them would change what they plan to do and have planned to do with this case because of the public reaction.

00:15:02.720 The court does not answer to the public.

00:15:05.060 The court is anti-democratic.

00:15:07.800 It's there to interpret the Constitution and the federal laws and any state laws that may interfere with the Constitution or federal laws, though the heavens fall.

00:15:17.720 Yes, that's exactly right.

00:15:18.900 And I don't think that Justice Alito will change for one one second.

00:15:23.360 I I think Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, has shown a willingness to switch at the last minute if he thinks it's in the best interest of the court as an institution.

00:15:33.760 But according to what we read in the papers and who knows whether it's true, he's not even part of the five four.

00:15:39.100 He's not part of the five majority.

00:15:40.700 He's someplace else.

00:15:42.960 We don't know exactly where, but it sounds like from well, if you go from what we saw at the oral argument, he is going to uphold the Mississippi law, which says abortions illegal after 15 weeks.

00:15:52.480 But he's not going to overturn Roe and Casey.

00:15:55.880 I think this is this is clear politics.

00:15:58.640 This is Merrick Garland and Joe Biden placing their own political fortunes and public positioning over the safety and well-being of the Supreme Court justices.

00:16:10.740 They care more about their own tales.

00:16:13.100 I'm sorry to say that I fully agree with you.

00:16:15.420 I say sorry because this is reprehensible.

00:16:17.420 But, Megan, the Democrats are in for a shellacking this November.

00:16:22.160 This is their last best hope.

00:16:24.940 I think this is going to explode in their face.

00:16:27.200 These people that are keeping Sam Alito up at night are insane.

00:16:30.420 They're not going to win votes for anybody.

00:16:32.460 I can see the Democratic base being animated by the invalidation of Roe versus Wade, but they're in danger of going too far.

00:16:40.200 And when the Justice Department doesn't do its job in order to encourage the Democratic base, that's horrific.

00:16:48.880 And the Democrats will suffer at the polls because of it.

00:16:52.920 The reference by Lori Lightfoot in Chicago, whose city is on fire.

00:16:58.600 OK, it's on fire.

00:16:59.520 We're going to talk to John Cass about that in a bit to take up arms.

00:17:04.540 Right.

00:17:05.020 You're going to have to take up arms now against what?

00:17:07.840 Who?

00:17:08.120 These justices?

00:17:08.800 She, of course, leaves that question hanging in the air.

00:17:12.440 It's a call to arms, she says.

00:17:14.040 And the Supreme Court is coming for us next, the LGBTQ community.

00:17:18.400 Same basically thing that Joe Biden said last week, saying, what's next?

00:17:22.580 LGBTQ kids won't be allowed in the classroom.

00:17:26.060 What is he saying?

00:17:27.120 You and I both know that would be totally unconstitutional.

00:17:29.560 And he knows, even he knows that.

00:17:31.520 And then here's another example.

00:17:32.780 You've got Chelsea Manning, that lunatic, out there tweeting as follows,

00:17:36.680 in the wake of this draft decision being released for those.

00:17:40.020 And this is a trans person.

00:17:41.520 For those of you who are just catching up, if you're able to afford it and if it is safe

00:17:45.860 for you to do so, you should consider arming yourselves, then finding others to train with

00:17:50.340 in teams and learn how to defend your community.

00:17:53.520 We may need these skills in the very near future.

00:17:56.820 They're trying to ratchet up the temperatures.

00:18:00.820 This is, I don't want to say it's outright fomenting violence, but it's very flirtatious

00:18:05.340 with doing that.

00:18:07.020 Lori Lightfoot, the mayor of Chicago, has come very close.

00:18:10.820 I think under Brandenburg versus Ohio, the leading incitement case where there's time for

00:18:17.720 more speech to rebut the inciting speech, the inciting speech can't be prosecuted.

00:18:22.740 She's safe, but she is the chief executive officer.

00:18:26.600 She's a former federal prosecutor and she's the chief executive officer.

00:18:30.200 She's in charge of the police department of that city.

00:18:32.520 And she's coming oh so close to inciting violence herself.

00:18:40.020 I don't know if that's an impeachable event.

00:18:41.560 I don't know how popular the woman is in Chicago, but she's making a bad situation far worse.

00:18:47.000 It's extremely dangerous what she's said.

00:18:49.220 And it's not that her speech is illegal.

00:18:51.460 It's that it's irresponsible.

00:18:52.680 It's that Chelsea Manning's these are members of the LGBTQ community suggesting they're going

00:18:59.280 to have a target on their backs, that the Supreme Court is coming for them.

00:19:04.420 The Supreme Court doesn't come for anyone.

00:19:06.040 The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution says, what the law is.

00:19:10.020 And this court said that the court 50 years ago and then 30 years ago in Casey made mistakes

00:19:16.000 in interpreting the Constitution.

00:19:17.520 Now it's going, if that's the decision and we still don't know, to go back to the states

00:19:22.420 and then Lori Lightfoot and her constituents will have their say in no world is Illinois

00:19:27.260 going to make abortion illegal.

00:19:29.700 She literally said we're going to make it an oasis for every other woman in the country.

00:19:34.780 Precisely.

00:19:35.340 I wonder if they don't.

00:19:36.580 I mean, they're idiots.

00:19:37.780 They obviously haven't read the opinion.

00:19:39.680 They're going by Hillary Clinton's talking points.

00:19:42.140 But don't they realize what this tentative opinion has spawned?

00:19:47.040 New Jersey abortions are legal up to the moment before birth.

00:19:50.880 New York and Illinois abortions are legal up to the moment before birth.

00:19:55.440 In California, Megan, there is legislation being debated that will permit infanticide for

00:20:02.200 the first 28 days after birth.

00:20:06.100 What?

00:20:07.700 Yes.

00:20:09.320 Even California is not going to pass that.

00:20:11.540 I mean, that's that's I hope I hope not.

00:20:13.480 But California is the place where a lot of crazy things happen.

00:20:17.320 California will pay for your abortion.

00:20:19.100 California California will pay for your travel for your abortion and will pay for your lodging

00:20:23.520 for your abortion.

00:20:24.740 I don't think these crazies that are trying to keep Sam Alita from sleeping at night even

00:20:29.800 understand that.

00:20:31.060 I mean, it's a bizarre term to use.

00:20:32.460 We're going to make Illinois an oasis for those women who want to terminate their pregnancies.

00:20:37.180 And look, even if you're pro-choice, no one to use the word oasis, which is just sort

00:20:41.920 of like this.

00:20:42.420 It's got the feeling of an elixir.

00:20:44.080 It's got the feeling of something heavenly.

00:20:45.460 It's got the feeling of something wonderful.

00:20:47.520 Like, no one would deny you're killing at least, you know, if not an actual life, something

00:20:53.920 that absolutely has the potential for life in the beginnings of life.

00:20:56.540 There's no disputing that scientifically.

00:20:59.360 I'm trying to be as charitable as possible to the pro-choice side and not misrepresent

00:21:04.160 them.

00:21:05.400 Anyway, it's totally irresponsible.

00:21:07.320 And she and these others, if something, God forbid, were to happen, one of these justices,

00:21:11.120 they're going to have some explaining to do about why they ratcheted up the temperatures

00:21:15.820 on an already heated issue when it was totally unnecessary to go to these places about LGBTQ

00:21:21.600 having the Supreme Court come for them and it's time to arm up bullshit.

00:21:26.240 Well, I don't know that anybody would take Chelsea Manning seriously, but Lori Lightfoot

00:21:30.360 is the mayor of the second largest city in the country, and she has to be taken seriously.

00:21:34.640 But if something happens, as you say, her words are not criminal.

00:21:38.200 The repercussion would be political.

00:21:40.780 She'd be voting it, voted out of office unless people in Chicago are so crazy that they want

00:21:45.380 a maniac running the city government.

00:21:47.560 Oh, well, we'll talk to it.

00:21:49.200 We'll ask John that when he when he comes on later.

00:21:51.440 In the meanwhile, and we're going to talk about the Supreme Court leaker.

00:21:55.080 We're going to we have a guy here today who's going to walk us through specifically what

00:21:58.580 will and must be done to find the leaker.

00:22:01.240 But there's an opinion in USA Today by somebody named Rex Hupke today that says, I'm so glad to

00:22:08.300 hear the leak is being investigated.

00:22:09.540 Maybe they'll do Ginny Thomas next, who thinks 2020 is, quote, the greatest heist in our history.

00:22:16.000 Any good investigation aimed at preserving the reputation of the court, as they say they

00:22:20.540 would like to do, might want to make sure that none of that zaniness made it into Justice

00:22:27.300 Thomas's head.

00:22:28.860 So we need to investigate Ginny Thomas's musings in her private texts that the 2020 election

00:22:34.340 was stolen because it may have somehow made it.

00:22:37.320 And we've heard this over the past few weeks now, this guy in USA Today reiterates that

00:22:42.020 opinion.

00:22:42.540 Great.

00:22:42.800 Let's do the leak and let's do Ginny Thomas, because she has opinions that may have somehow

00:22:46.620 gotten into Clarence Thomas's heads ahead.

00:22:49.540 This judge will get this.

00:22:51.540 You know, we have a new press secretary at the White House, right?

00:22:54.740 Jen Psaki's out and Korean Jean-Pierre is in.

00:22:58.360 And it just came out today.

00:22:59.920 It was just linked on a website media that she tweeted out.

00:23:03.080 The 2016 election was stolen, that it was a stolen election, 2016, stolen from Hillary

00:23:08.460 Clinton.

00:23:09.220 2016.

00:23:10.440 2016.

00:23:11.560 It's only stolen when a Republican winds up in office, you see.

00:23:14.640 And she also thinks that that Stacey Abrams had the election stolen from her in Georgia.

00:23:19.860 So maybe let's investigate her or let's investigate Joe Biden to see whether any of Jean-Pierre's

00:23:26.120 zaniness has somehow made it into the head of her boss.

00:23:30.960 Look, people, people are entitled to their own opinions, whether you're the press secretary

00:23:35.480 to the president or the wife of the Supreme Court justice.

00:23:38.580 But the day we have investigations into the protected, privileged communications between

00:23:46.440 spouses, one of whom is in the highest court of the land, is the day nobody's going to want

00:23:51.020 that job and the day anything they do is going to be undermined.

00:23:54.540 It is reprehensible.

00:23:55.580 The guy that wrote that article is entitled to his opinion.

00:23:58.760 He's crazy and nobody can take him seriously and nothing's going to come of this.

00:24:03.760 The thing is, on the Ginny Clarence Thomas thing, I mean, there's no question Ginny is

00:24:07.540 established right.

00:24:08.540 I mean, she is definitely conservative.

00:24:11.200 And so is Clarence Thomas.

00:24:12.460 He's 100 percent a conservative guy.

00:24:14.040 There's no question about that either.

00:24:15.600 But let's say he does share her view, right?

00:24:18.500 Let's say he actually does believe, as Ginny wrote, that 2020 was, quote, the greatest heist

00:24:23.280 in our history or of our history.

00:24:25.780 What really matters is what he decides, right?

00:24:30.240 What he writes in his opinions, how he adjudicates cases.

00:24:34.000 He can have whatever private beliefs he has.

00:24:38.960 He's not he's not required to look at the 2020 election and say, I think it wasn't stolen.

00:24:44.940 He can be like, it was 100 percent stolen.

00:24:48.000 What matters is what his legal opinion says when it finally comes down.

00:24:53.440 Let me take your argument, with which I agree one step further.

00:24:57.740 Not only is he entitled to his private views, but no one is entitled to compel him to reveal

00:25:05.640 those private views.

00:25:07.480 That's not me.

00:25:08.600 That's the Supreme Court itself.

00:25:10.020 Supreme Court justices do not have to recuse themselves because they have an opinion about

00:25:16.980 a matter that's before them.

00:25:18.680 That's been the law for 230 years.

00:25:21.200 So what he writes, you're correct, is is subject to criticism.

00:25:26.040 What he thinks are his own thoughts.

00:25:28.480 And it's nobody else's business.

00:25:30.300 That's right.

00:25:30.660 And what his wife thinks is really none of anybody's business.

00:25:34.100 It's shockingly, maybe these people who write these articles don't know this, but we don't

00:25:39.080 actually just automatically take on all of the opinions of our spouses.

00:25:43.140 It's weird.

00:25:44.000 It's not it's not in the vows.

00:25:45.600 It's not it was never pledged and it doesn't actually happen, which is why couples argue

00:25:49.000 and eventually divorce.

00:25:52.000 OK, while we're on the subject of the leaker, because I'm going to get a break in in a minute

00:25:55.300 here.

00:25:55.860 Can I ask you, because I haven't had the chance to ask you yet whether you think the leaker

00:25:59.000 will be caught and put the leak in perspective as far as Judge Napolitano sees it for us?

00:26:04.320 I think the leaker will be caught.

00:26:07.380 There's only 50 people that had lawful possession of this opinion.

00:26:12.200 I don't think this was a computer hacking case.

00:26:14.740 If it's computer hacking, the person committed a federal crime.

00:26:18.840 If it's somebody on the inside, they violated legal ethics.

00:26:22.200 If they're a lawyer, they'll surely be disbarred.

00:26:24.580 If they're a federal employee, they'll surely be fired.

00:26:27.900 Both of those punishments are relative wrist slaps.

00:26:31.580 However, the disbarment for a lawyer is catastrophic to the lawyer's career, and rightly so, because

00:26:37.700 of what this person did.

00:26:39.940 U.S. Marshal's office does have an investigative unit.

00:26:43.680 It's staffed by ex-FBI agents who know how to ask questions and know how to conduct investigations.

00:26:50.220 They can arrest people.

00:26:51.960 They can charge people.

00:26:53.360 Obviously, they have to bring the person to the DOJ for an indictment and for prosecution.

00:26:58.080 I am glad that Chief Justice Roberts did not ask the FBI to get involved.

00:27:04.860 I'm glad that he's keeping this in-house with the apparatus available to him to conduct

00:27:11.300 this investigation, and I think the person will be caught.

00:27:14.400 You do.

00:27:14.720 Why is it taking so long?

00:27:15.720 It feels like a long time.

00:27:16.720 It's been eight days now since it hit.

00:27:19.440 You know how, Helen.

00:27:20.620 We both know how investigations are.

00:27:22.480 We've both been involved in criminal cases.

00:27:25.180 They're going to leave no stone unturned.

00:27:27.420 They may already know who the person is, and they may be negotiating with that person

00:27:31.340 for all we know.

00:27:34.440 Judge Napolitano is staying with us.

00:27:36.700 Up next, we're going to discuss a couple of the other big cases, including on gun rights

00:27:41.500 and religious freedom being considered by the court, on which we'll have decisions as

00:27:45.280 well within the next month, one presumes, could come down within the next 30 days at any

00:27:49.820 point.

00:27:50.400 So the controversy involving these nine justices is far from over.

00:27:54.060 Contrary to what people may believe, there are a couple of other very big cases on the

00:28:04.260 Supreme Court's docket that are about to come out.

00:28:06.660 It's always exciting when you get to May because June is when they start firing off all the big

00:28:10.460 opinions.

00:28:11.200 They never get them out early, unfortunately.

00:28:13.340 So you always have to wait for June for the big ones, though the leaker, you know, decided

00:28:18.100 he or she would not wait.

00:28:19.360 Um, let's let's hope that they have more patience on these other cases.

00:28:23.340 Here's one on guns.

00:28:25.160 Now, the big, big gun case was back in 2008.

00:28:27.900 It was Heller.

00:28:28.680 And in Heller, the Supreme Court said you do have an individual right to bear arms inside

00:28:34.380 of your own house.

00:28:35.360 You do have a constitutional right to have a gun inside of your house for self-protection.

00:28:39.760 And now this is one of, if not the biggest case to go up to the Supreme Court on guns

00:28:45.040 since Heller.

00:28:46.420 It's New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc.

00:28:50.260 versus Bruin.

00:28:51.840 And the question is whether in New York State, where I live for most of my life, most of my

00:28:56.660 51 years, and I know you've been there often, although I think you're a New Jersey guy,

00:29:01.440 um, whether New York State's denial of applications for concealed carry, the mainstream media says

00:29:09.560 this is an open carry case.

00:29:10.760 It's not.

00:29:11.320 It's about concealed carry.

00:29:12.360 Can I carry a concealed weapon while walking around New York State, New York City?

00:29:17.040 Um, is that a right that I have or can New York continue to pursue its very restrictive

00:29:23.880 license policy for people seeking firearms?

00:29:28.900 You know, if they want, because in New York right now, you might be able to have in your

00:29:32.040 home, but if you want to go out and walk around New York City with a gun concealed, like

00:29:37.460 in your pocket, you're not walking around with a, you know, an AR-15 around you, uh, you

00:29:41.480 cannot unless you can show a special threat.

00:29:44.120 You have to show like you're being stalked, you've got a specific security threat, you

00:29:49.040 got an ex-husband who is whatever, that kind of thing.

00:29:51.640 And if you're, if you just say like, I live in a bad neighborhood, good luck, you're not

00:29:54.940 getting it.

00:29:55.960 If you just say that I'm a jeweler and I have to carry millions and diamonds to my

00:30:00.600 shop, you're not getting it.

00:30:02.840 If you just say I was on the subway when the shooter was there and he threw a canister

00:30:08.120 of tear gas to immobilize everybody, and I'm an ex-military person.

00:30:13.100 And if I had been allowed to carry a gun, he wouldn't have harmed anybody.

00:30:16.160 You're not going to get it.

00:30:17.420 It has to be a purposeful, direct threat to you.

00:30:21.580 The law is the same in New Jersey and in New York.

00:30:24.780 So during the oral, I'm not always a fan of the chief justice because he compromises

00:30:30.540 too much.

00:30:31.400 But during the oral argument, he basically said, let's see, Heller defined the right to keep

00:30:37.440 and bear arms in the home as a fundamental liberty.

00:30:40.220 You, Solicitor General of New York, are saying that's subject to the wishes and needs of the

00:30:46.940 government in New York.

00:30:48.480 How can a liberty, a natural right, possibly be subject to the capricious wishes of a bureaucrat?

00:30:58.500 Right.

00:30:59.120 Answer, it's not a right if the government thinks it can turn it into a privilege.

00:31:04.440 The government has been wrong since 1934.

00:31:07.820 You have every right to carry that weapon.

00:31:10.700 Again, we're not talking about a rifle.

00:31:12.780 Again, we're not talking about a weapon that advertises that you have it.

00:31:16.220 But if you're trained and know how to use it, you have every right to carry it.

00:31:20.440 You know who agrees with that?

00:31:21.900 Police agree with that because they know that they can't be everywhere.

00:31:25.920 And they would love the assistance of an ex-military trained person carrying a handgun at the

00:31:33.740 scene of the crime before the cops even get there.

00:31:36.540 We've talked to Dana Lash on this program about, she's a Second Amendment expert, and

00:31:42.300 she's talked many times about how all the cases where a good guy with a gun stops violence,

00:31:47.220 they don't get published.

00:31:48.260 The mainstream media doesn't talk about those.

00:31:50.540 But they happen in droves.

00:31:52.760 And if you had more good guys with guns, the predictions are that crime would go down.

00:31:56.480 And we've seen that in city after city, actually, that have more relaxed gun laws.

00:32:00.240 People who are afraid of guns think crime will go up.

00:32:02.200 It actually has the opposite effect.

00:32:04.300 But that doesn't necessarily bear on whether it's your right or not.

00:32:06.940 So the Supreme Court got into this.

00:32:08.340 Is it your right?

00:32:08.980 Is it your right to carry around a gun?

00:32:11.520 At least in New York state, you know, gun advocates want them to make this a nationwide ruling.

00:32:15.480 They're not going to I don't I think they're going to limit it to New York state at first,

00:32:20.360 at least for now.

00:32:21.080 But to your point, here's Chief Justice John Roberts, who's, again, very wobbly on a lot

00:32:26.060 of these swing cases, but doesn't really sound wobbly on this one versus Barbara Underwood,

00:32:31.100 who's the solicitor general to the top like appellate arguing lawyer in New York state on

00:32:37.120 on gun rights.

00:32:38.660 Number seven.

00:32:39.120 I can understand, for example, a regulation that says you can't carry a gun into, you

00:32:45.440 know, giant stadium just because a lot of things are going on there and it may not be

00:32:50.740 safe to have for people to have guns.

00:32:52.900 On the other hand, if the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves,

00:32:59.020 that's implicated when you're in a high crime area.

00:33:01.800 It's not implicated when you're out in the woods.

00:33:04.480 Well, I think it is implicated when you're out in the woods.

00:33:08.120 And it's just a different set of problems.

00:33:09.960 I mean, you're deserted there and you can't, and law enforcement is not available to come

00:33:13.640 to your aid if something does happen.

00:33:15.280 Well, how many muggings take place in the forest?

00:33:21.000 If we, if we.

00:33:22.400 How many do you think?

00:33:24.740 I don't know, but I will tell you that our licensing officer told us that rapes and robberies happen

00:33:31.660 on the deserted bike paths and that he has some concern about that.

00:33:35.520 So, I mean, I take your point that there is a different risk in the city, but there is

00:33:42.020 also a different public safety consideration.

00:33:45.520 And that is why the licensing officer is meant to take into account not just the risk, but

00:33:52.100 also the, the population and the availability of law enforcement and all these considerations.

00:33:58.300 So, so judge, the reason she was pushing back on him there is because you can get a license a lot

00:34:04.840 more easily, supposedly, if you're in a rural, yeah, if you're in a rural area, like where I'm

00:34:11.380 from in upstate New York, and he's kind of saying, well, what, what sense does that make?

00:34:16.640 We all know where you need the gun and it isn't in my little neighborhood that my mom lives in.

00:34:21.480 Look, you, you put your, your finger on it and these statistics are inassailable.

00:34:25.700 More guns equals less crime because the criminals are either afraid that their victim or a witness

00:34:32.840 is armed or they are stopped before they even have time to be afraid.

00:34:38.260 Those poor people in that subway car where the canister was thrown for people watching us.

00:34:44.300 We're not from New York.

00:34:45.740 This is a real story.

00:34:46.840 This happened two weeks ago, this crazy guy threw a canister and blinded everybody in

00:34:51.620 the, in the car.

00:34:52.620 And then he started shooting.

00:34:54.160 Thanks be to God, nobody died, but he seriously injured 16 people because it was like shooting

00:35:00.140 fish in a barrel because he knows it's nearly impossible to carry a gun in New York city.

00:35:06.740 If he had had the fear that somebody in there had a gun, he might not have done that.

00:35:11.980 Or if somebody in there had a gun, he could have, and would have been stopped before he

00:35:17.040 completed his dastardly mission.

00:35:20.400 That's why Madison wrote, not knowing about subway cars in 1791 to keep and bear because

00:35:28.540 keeping the gun in the house, ah, it protects you at three in the morning.

00:35:32.400 If somebody breaks in, it doesn't protect you at three in the afternoon when somebody is

00:35:37.040 shooting your neighbor.

00:35:37.740 Yeah.

00:35:38.580 And, and the thing is, I'm glad she conceded that people are subjected to crimes in the

00:35:43.360 woods.

00:35:43.880 Sure they are.

00:35:44.460 And she's probably not wrong about bike path and women.

00:35:46.600 I mean, every woman I know is afraid at some level to jog by herself on a bike path because

00:35:51.240 you just, you know, you hear too many crime stories about women getting abducted or molested

00:35:54.500 or raped.

00:35:55.700 Nevermind children.

00:35:56.780 Sorry to go to the dark place.

00:35:58.240 But the cities are where you really do have to worry.

00:36:01.600 Yes.

00:36:01.840 Okay.

00:36:02.080 So maybe like getting abducted, but like it is more likely to happen in a, on a dark trail in the

00:36:07.520 woods, but like getting held up at gunpoint, good Lord, half my staff has had that happen

00:36:12.460 to them while we were working at Fox news in the city.

00:36:15.140 Like it's very common.

00:36:17.920 I remember, uh, Mrs.

00:36:19.700 Clinton, when she was the, uh, secretary of state and had slow of secret service, protecting

00:36:25.820 her complaining about AR 15s, a very strong and very powerful, uh, weapon, guess what

00:36:31.760 the secret service were carrying collapsible AR 15s under their, uh, jackets.

00:36:38.000 Of course it's good enough, good enough for the elites to have government people carrying

00:36:43.320 this to protect them.

00:36:44.320 But weapons are not good enough for people who know how to use them to protect themselves

00:36:49.020 and their families.

00:36:49.880 And I love the farce of, I love the farce of, well, okay, in the woods, you know, the

00:36:57.040 response time by the police may be such that you you're going to need to have your own gun.

00:37:00.640 Oh, sure.

00:37:01.260 Cause in New York city, they get there like that, you know, you know, after they defunded

00:37:06.260 the police by a billion dollars, especially, um, and all the shit that the police have had

00:37:10.320 to take over the past two years and people retiring and so on, not to mention getting

00:37:14.320 killed.

00:37:15.020 Sure.

00:37:15.560 The police are super quick to arrive when you call, when you're being held up.

00:37:19.720 I mean, what a joke.

00:37:21.700 It is a joke.

00:37:23.120 It takes the police far longer to get you into the city than it does, uh, in the country

00:37:27.640 because of the obstacles in the city, because of the traffic, because of the traffic patterns,

00:37:31.740 because of the way, uh, the city is constructed.

00:37:34.560 These people that write gun laws have never had a gun in their hands.

00:37:38.100 Don't know how to use them.

00:37:39.640 Don't know how safe they can be and don't know how protective they can be.

00:37:44.800 To human life.

00:37:46.380 I always say a gun is like a criminal defense attorney.

00:37:48.720 You can't stand them until you need them.

00:37:51.280 Right.

00:37:52.480 Then you feel very differently.

00:37:54.740 Um, let's take a listen to justice Kavanaugh.

00:37:56.400 Cause he questioned the same, uh, woman, Barbara Underwood, uh, on, on sort of the issue that

00:38:01.300 you were getting at.

00:38:01.920 Is it, is it my right or isn't it?

00:38:04.400 Listen.

00:38:05.400 Why is it good enough to say I live in a violent area and, um, I want to be able to defend myself.

00:38:12.680 Well, what happens in these license hearings is that a question is asked, what, what exactly

00:38:20.180 do you mean?

00:38:20.940 Because, um, it's, well, the statistics, it depends on how large an area you describe.

00:38:26.800 You could say, I live in a violent area and that could be all of New York city and, or

00:38:31.620 it could be your particular neighborhood.

00:38:33.180 And the closer it gets to your particular neighborhood, the better your, the better your

00:38:38.800 claim is.

00:38:39.900 What I know happens is that those claims are examined by a licensing officer.

00:38:45.660 Now this gets to your, to, to questions about discretion and whether that's effectively

00:38:50.880 handled.

00:38:51.940 But, um, well, that's the real concern, isn't it?

00:38:55.740 With any constitutional right, if it's the discretion of an individual officer, that seems

00:39:00.100 inconsistent with an objective constitutional right.

00:39:03.840 That's what you were saying, judge.

00:39:05.660 There you go.

00:39:06.920 There you go.

00:39:08.020 That, that is telling us the government doesn't treat it as a right.

00:39:10.960 It treats it as a privilege with conditions imposed on it.

00:39:14.180 And one of those conditions is satisfying the government itself that you need this.

00:39:18.220 You don't need to satisfy the government itself for your first amendment liberties, going

00:39:22.900 to church, expressing your opinion, assembling with people, publishing your views.

00:39:27.220 You don't need the government's permission to enjoy the right to privacy.

00:39:31.100 Why do you need the government's permission to defend yourself?

00:39:34.120 He said it more articulately and less passionately than I just did.

00:39:38.320 No, he didn't.

00:39:39.800 The thing is that her, her response about like, well, okay, if you can show a spike in violence

00:39:46.220 in your neighborhood, you're more likely to get a permit.

00:39:49.020 Maybe, you know, as you started saying, it depends on, you know, if you get more localized,

00:39:53.060 your case improves, but we've seen in big cities, New York among them, and we'll talk

00:39:58.540 to John Cass about this, about Chicago in a minute.

00:40:01.740 There's no predicting in today's day and age.

00:40:04.420 I lived for 10 years on the Upper West Side with my family, judge, and a very safe building

00:40:11.480 in a very safe neighborhood.

00:40:12.880 Of course, I was, you know, at Fox, I wasn't going to choose some lunatic neighborhood where

00:40:16.980 I'm strolling my babies down the street.

00:40:18.980 I chose the safest neighborhood I could, and a guy 10 blocks from where I lived was just

00:40:25.180 shot sitting in his car, shot to death and killed, young man.

00:40:28.580 Not like a gang member, just a tourist, somebody there visiting his family, shot to death.

00:40:33.200 You don't know Times Square, that's been cleaned up.

00:40:36.040 It was under Giuliani and Bloomberg.

00:40:38.160 Somebody got shot just walking through the theater district within the past year.

00:40:41.820 You can't say just because your neighborhood is historically safe that tomorrow or today it

00:40:48.420 will be.

00:40:49.720 That's why, just like the bias in favor of speech or tranquility in the home has to be

00:40:57.340 in favor of speech because it's articulated in the First Amendment, the bias has to be in

00:41:02.960 favor of the right.

00:41:04.320 It shouldn't be your burden to prove that you need a gun.

00:41:08.300 It should be the government's burden to prove that you can't use a gun or shouldn't have a

00:41:14.660 gun, at least.

00:41:16.100 At best, there should be no burden.

00:41:18.280 You should be able to carry the gun because that's what the Second Amendment says.

00:41:21.660 But at worst, the government should have to prove the case rather than you having to prove

00:41:26.100 yours.

00:41:26.680 It's so true.

00:41:27.600 The right should be presumed because, as Scalia wrote, Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, the right

00:41:34.320 to keep and bear arms is a natural extension of the ancient right to self-defense.

00:41:39.400 It's a natural right.

00:41:40.400 So it should be presumed to be yours.

00:41:43.200 And then, you know, they make you go down on your knee to these government bureaucrats

00:41:47.200 that don't know anything.

00:41:48.180 And you have to reveal all these personal details about what's happened to you, that

00:41:53.520 you need a gun.

00:41:54.780 And then you need, you know, some somebody who's respected, you know, somebody whose

00:42:00.420 decision or whatever, what their intelligence you don't respect is what I'm trying to say.

00:42:03.880 They get to decide how safe you can be, whether you it's like, what am I doing here?

00:42:08.620 Why am I on bended knee to this bureaucrat?

00:42:10.620 I'd like trying to reveal all these personal info, these details about my life that they

00:42:14.340 have no right to know.

00:42:16.660 OK, moving on.

00:42:17.980 So that's one of the ones we're waiting on.

00:42:19.680 Next one, religious freedom and school choice has to do with it's called Carson versus Macon.

00:42:24.980 And the question is whether a state violates the religion clauses or the or the or the

00:42:29.700 equal protection clause of the U.S.

00:42:30.860 Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student

00:42:36.240 aid program from choosing to use that aid to go to a school that provides religious education,

00:42:42.280 at least in part.

00:42:43.340 So if I live in Maine, this case comes out of Maine and there's no public school in my

00:42:48.560 district.

00:42:50.120 I can get a grant to go to another to go to a private school.

00:42:54.980 But basically what Maine said, oh, you can't go to a Catholic school, though, that that you

00:42:59.860 can't use it.

00:43:00.280 And I'm saying, well, why?

00:43:01.240 Why?

00:43:01.720 I can go to some secular private school, but I can't use it for a Catholic school.

00:43:04.780 That's basically what this is.

00:43:05.740 I think the Supreme Court is going to invalidate that.

00:43:09.160 First of all, this thing was written with an animus toward Catholicism at the time that

00:43:14.540 it was written, because it only applies to Catholic schools.

00:43:18.120 And secondly, what business is it of the government, what you're learning in the school when the

00:43:25.360 government is giving you the money to pay for the school?

00:43:28.360 So you can go to a secular school where they'll talk to you about gender identification at age

00:43:35.340 five, but you can't go to a Catholic school where they'll keep this type of an education

00:43:40.860 between the child and the parents.

00:43:42.700 I don't think the state can make that decision.

00:43:45.720 I think this case goes to the challengers and the state of Maine loses.

00:43:49.720 This has been the law for a long time in Maine.

00:43:51.780 I'm surprised the challenge is just coming now.

00:43:54.700 You know, Justice Alito actually got right to this and he asked the lawyer for Maine defending

00:44:00.820 this policy.

00:44:02.080 He said, what if what if the person wanted to go to a Unitarian Universalist church and that

00:44:08.440 what they teach is something like all people are created equal?

00:44:11.340 And the lawyer seemed to indicate that, well, that school would be eligible to receive the

00:44:15.380 funds, not the Catholic school, but the Unitarian school.

00:44:18.720 That'd be OK.

00:44:19.680 And he said, well, this is that you can't unless you can treat all the schools the same.

00:44:24.460 He said, I think you've got a problem.

00:44:26.900 And that seemed to be the decision of at least all the conservatives on the court that day.

00:44:31.160 So, look, the First Amendment was written for many reasons, but one of which is to keep the

00:44:36.300 government out of the business of evaluating fidelity to a particular religion and favoring

00:44:43.840 one religion over another.

00:44:45.840 So the answer that this lawyer just gave to Justice Alito is fatal to the case that the

00:44:52.400 money can go to a university, a school owned by the Universalist church, but not to a school

00:44:57.160 owned by the Catholic church.

00:44:58.300 That means the state is actively, aggressively and openly discriminating against Catholicism.

00:45:04.000 It can't do that.

00:45:05.080 It has to allow this money to be spent wherever the parents want it, or it has to terminate

00:45:10.600 the program.

00:45:11.800 Another case that was just decided on May 2nd was Shurtleff versus City of Boston.

00:45:17.180 Just so the audience knows, this is one of those extremely rare nine to zero decisions.

00:45:23.560 You get that as the as the lawyer, you know, on the nine side, you're like, I'm done.

00:45:29.320 I can retire now.

00:45:30.760 But this was an opinion against Boston, which the city had said anybody who wants to fly

00:45:35.600 their little flag in front of like our town hall, they can do it.

00:45:38.600 Just we'll pop it up there in front of City Hall.

00:45:40.880 There's three flagpoles, you know, and we don't care, except when it was a Christian flag,

00:45:45.400 some sort of a Christian organization.

00:45:47.500 Camp Constitution wanted to fly a Christian flag, and they said no.

00:45:52.480 Yeah.

00:45:52.820 OK, it was a cross.

00:45:54.200 I'm just now getting that.

00:45:55.440 They said a red cross on a blue field, and I was picturing like the Swiss flag.

00:45:58.540 I'm like, what is that?

00:45:59.060 OK, it's just the cross itself that was the problem.

00:46:01.220 They said no.

00:46:02.820 And in a nine to zero opinion, the Supreme Court said you can't do that.

00:46:07.020 You got to fly them all if you're not going to make you.

00:46:10.040 Basically, if you're going to fly in, you got to fly them all.

00:46:11.640 So then now they have some satanic cult that wants to fly its flag, but they've changed

00:46:17.120 the policy in the meantime, saying we're not flying anybody's flag anymore, judge.

00:46:21.720 Well, I mean, that's the problem.

00:46:23.640 The problem is they opened up the flagpoles for anybody that wanted to fly them, except

00:46:28.180 people they didn't like, like conservative Christians and now Satanists.

00:46:32.160 I'm glad they don't like the Satanists.

00:46:34.260 But quite frankly, who cares what the government's opinion is?

00:46:37.400 They need to open up those flagpoles to everybody or shut them down to everybody, which is now

00:46:42.100 what they're doing.

00:46:43.180 That's right.

00:46:44.180 Such a pleasure, Judge Andrew Napolitano.

00:46:46.680 Loved having you on.

00:46:47.800 Let's do it again soon.

00:46:49.520 Oh, thank you very much.

00:46:50.480 I'd love to have you on Judging Freedom as well, Megan.

00:46:53.940 Anytime.

00:46:54.460 Thank you.

00:46:54.740 Anytime, my friend.

00:46:55.380 So much for having me.

00:46:56.300 All the best to you.

00:46:57.380 To be continued.

00:46:58.900 Up next, if the Supreme Court leaker is an employee of the court, how exactly will the investigators

00:47:03.500 go about figuring out who did it?

00:47:05.220 Our next guest worked as a prosecutor for the DOJ for decades, has expertise in hacking

00:47:09.880 and all of it, and has some thoughts.

00:47:16.320 It has now been over a week since the Supreme Court leak rocked the nation.

00:47:21.280 The Justice Department does not plan to get involved.

00:47:23.320 Merrick Garland has zero interest in going after the leaker, apparently, although he hasn't

00:47:28.000 been asked by the Supreme Court or the protesters who decide to spend their days and nights in

00:47:32.100 front of the justices' homes, including those homes with young children.

00:47:35.220 Meaning it's left up to the marshal of the high court to find out who did it and how.

00:47:41.820 Last week, Senator Ted Cruz, who was once a law clerk for then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist,

00:47:46.400 laid out some of the intense security procedures that law clerks who work for the justices must

00:47:52.800 follow.

00:47:53.560 Right when you start, you have very serious training and orientation about confidentiality.

00:48:00.120 You don't take opinion drafts out of the court.

00:48:02.920 Every law clerk has under his or her desk a burn bag.

00:48:06.920 And it's a brown bag with red stripes on it.

00:48:10.940 And any draft that you have, anything you have, you put in the burn bag.

00:48:15.360 The burn bag is then sealed.

00:48:18.160 It's shredded.

00:48:19.220 It's actually shredded twice.

00:48:20.520 It's shredded horizontally and vertically.

00:48:23.520 And then it is burned.

00:48:24.980 I mean, the levels that the court goes to make sure that nothing leaks.

00:48:31.240 And you really are limited to the justices and the law clerks.

00:48:34.280 Maybe a clerical person or two or a secretary.

00:48:38.320 But a clerical person would be unlikely to know the details about the conference like that.

00:48:43.180 I think it is almost certainly a law clerk.

00:48:46.540 I cannot bring myself to believe that a justice would have anything to do with that.

00:48:51.580 This would be the gravest violation of trust and integrity for a justice that I just I refuse

00:48:58.800 to contemplate that scenario.

00:49:01.100 So how exactly would one go about investigating this particular case?

00:49:05.940 And how might it be going on right now?

00:49:08.540 Joining us now to discuss it is Mark Rash, former Justice Department computer crimes prosecutor.

00:49:14.760 Mark, great to have you here.

00:49:15.840 And forgive me, because I just want to give the audience some of your background, because

00:49:19.220 it's truly impressive.

00:49:20.760 More than 30 years of experience in cybersecurity and data privacy, including with the DOJ, created

00:49:25.660 the DOJ computer crime unit and cyber forensics practice and prosecuted many early hacking

00:49:31.420 cases, advises Fortune 100 companies on international cybersecurity and privacy compliance issues.

00:49:38.540 in data breach management.

00:49:40.140 You've taught courses in law of cybersecurity, cyber forensics, digital investigation and so

00:49:45.280 on at Harvard Law School, MIT and so on.

00:49:48.620 So, you know of what you speak.

00:49:51.520 All right.

00:49:51.720 So let's say instead of bringing in the chief marshal of the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice

00:49:58.200 brought in you and said, Mark, walk me through how you're going to figure out who leaked

00:50:05.040 this document, given, you know, how tight the controls were around it to begin with and

00:50:10.760 the fact that you're dealing with, while not, you know, seasoned criminals, very, very smart

00:50:15.740 people.

00:50:16.900 Well, first of all, you know, just because they're very smart in the law, it doesn't mean

00:50:20.460 that they're very smart in breaking the law.

00:50:22.960 So that's one of the interesting things.

00:50:25.560 And typically you catch people because they make mistakes.

00:50:29.340 But there's really two investigations you're going to do.

00:50:32.500 One is a forensic investigation, a computer investigation.

00:50:35.920 And the second one is an interview or a series of interviews, just like old time, you know,

00:50:42.300 gumshoe investigation.

00:50:44.320 Now, the forensic investigation is going to look not just at computers and emails, but

00:50:49.620 also it'll look at other electronic records.

00:50:52.320 Like every time you send a document to the printer, there's a record that's created of that.

00:50:56.820 Every time you Xerox something on a printer, there's a record that's created of that.

00:51:01.740 So you're going to look at all those documents and records, and it's entirely possible that

00:51:06.560 whoever leaked this document did so from an electronic record.

00:51:11.600 In other words, they emailed a document to the political reporter or they emailed the political

00:51:16.640 reporter to set up a meeting or something like that.

00:51:19.180 So you're going to be looking for that kind of a digital trail.

00:51:22.300 Somebody who's making a copy.

00:51:23.480 They shouldn't be making a copy or printing a copy that's in an unusual way or emailing

00:51:29.420 a copy to themselves or something like that.

00:51:32.280 The other thing you can look at is whether or not a third party hacked the court, some

00:51:37.080 unauthorized access by somebody else who might have been able to access the Supreme Court.

00:51:42.280 Not likely, but that's the other thing you're going to be looking at.

00:51:45.460 I think we can safely rule that out because Politico's reporting cites a person familiar

00:51:49.540 with the court and its proceeding.

00:51:51.640 So it's clearly an insider.

00:51:53.340 You know, it's not some hacker who managed to get in there.

00:51:56.560 We just don't know how high up it went.

00:51:59.000 You know, again, I reiterate, I cannot believe a justice would have done this, but who knows?

00:52:03.700 It seems to me to have been a law clerk.

00:52:05.540 But again, who knows?

00:52:06.240 Could have been an administrative staff, though they've never done this in any other case,

00:52:09.700 including very, very high profile fraught cases like gay marriage.

00:52:13.860 We've never seen an administrative staffer leak or anybody like this, but you get a new

00:52:18.060 pool of law clerks every year.

00:52:22.500 And given the way these young 20 year olds are in today's day and age, you know, they

00:52:26.320 think they know better.

00:52:27.380 I refer back to the Yale Law School graffiti.

00:52:30.000 We are the law.

00:52:31.160 F your court.

00:52:32.440 You know, that's the mindset of today's young 20 something year old law clerks coming into

00:52:37.900 these courts.

00:52:38.880 It's circumstantial.

00:52:40.340 It's anecdotal, but it's there.

00:52:41.740 Well, you point something out that's very important.

00:52:43.940 You were talking about how these are these are these law clerks are the creme de la creme.

00:52:47.660 They're the bright best and brightest, whether they're conservative or liberal on either side.

00:52:51.700 They are from the Ivy League law schools and the and the best and the brightest.

00:52:55.520 But they're still kids in their 20s.

00:52:58.360 And so they have both a degree of maturity and knowledge and sophistication, but also a

00:53:04.100 degree of naivete.

00:53:06.980 They have not been exposed to the world.

00:53:09.060 So they have both of those things going on at the same time.

00:53:11.380 So showing up when you get your imaginary phone call from Chief Justice Roberts, you're

00:53:15.420 feeling good?

00:53:16.100 Like you're like, you know, good about your chances?

00:53:20.360 No, because I've conducted forensic investigations and leak cases involving the CIA, the NSA,

00:53:26.480 other government intelligence agencies.

00:53:29.020 And the leak investigations are incredibly hard to do.

00:53:32.660 And you typically only find the leaker if they've made some serious mistakes.

00:53:36.940 So, for example, using their government phone, using their government email account, those

00:53:42.820 are pretty obvious mistakes.

00:53:45.520 What you're going to do also is you're going to go out and interview everybody who had access

00:53:49.760 to these opinions.

00:53:51.260 And you point out, obviously, the nine justices did.

00:53:55.160 Whether or not the marshal of the Supreme Court is going to interview the justices is very

00:54:01.140 difficult to tell, OK?

00:54:02.900 But second of all, you're going to now interview the law clerks.

00:54:08.560 And each justice has four or some of them have five clerks.

00:54:13.620 So that's a very limited number of people.

00:54:16.300 And then the administrative staff and maybe even some of the technical staff.

00:54:20.320 And you're just going to interview them and find out if they had any motive to or if they

00:54:24.220 had any reason to or if they had any knowledge of the leak.

00:54:30.060 Do you say in that interview, may I have your phone?

00:54:34.140 You can ask.

00:54:35.600 OK.

00:54:37.000 And that's that's one of the things is that the the the marshal of the Supreme Court does

00:54:41.180 not have subpoena authority, doesn't have compulsory process authority, doesn't have the

00:54:46.020 ability to get a search warrant.

00:54:48.400 So all they have is the power to coerce, intimidate or cajole.

00:54:54.740 That's it.

00:54:55.220 So no power.

00:54:55.940 So no power at all.

00:54:56.920 I mean, so so then the law clerk says, I'm not comfortable with that.

00:54:59.720 I've got, you know, my husband and I like to get a little freaky and I don't want you

00:55:03.020 going through my photos.

00:55:04.420 So, no, absolutely.

00:55:06.180 I mean, they have that right.

00:55:07.560 So the problem is you have this.

00:55:09.640 It really comes down to culture.

00:55:11.420 And so if all the let's say there's a total of 70 people who had access to that document,

00:55:17.100 you interview 69 of them and all they all say, I've got no problem.

00:55:21.300 I'm more than happy to cooperate.

00:55:23.260 Here's my cell phone and everything like that.

00:55:25.220 And one person says, I'm not talking.

00:55:27.480 I'm not cooperating.

00:55:28.940 Well, immediately, even though they have a constitutional right to not to not cooperate

00:55:34.000 and they have a constitutional right not to give up their personal devices, suspicion

00:55:38.160 is going to be on them.

00:55:39.860 Same is true with respect to the old.

00:55:41.720 Would you be willing to sign this document under penalty of perjury that you are not the

00:55:45.600 leaker?

00:55:45.820 Well, that's right.

00:55:47.960 I mean, the problem is you don't even need the signature of an document under penalty

00:55:51.200 of perjury.

00:55:52.040 If the marshal of the Supreme Court asks you, do you know anything about this?

00:55:56.300 And you do and you lie to them.

00:55:57.920 That's already a crime itself.

00:55:59.500 It's already a violation of the thousand one.

00:56:02.500 It's called.

00:56:03.200 OK, so back to step one, since we're kind of saying we don't think this is a hacker from

00:56:08.240 the outside who managed to hack in.

00:56:11.000 And that's, I think, smart because there was another law clerk.

00:56:13.480 I played Ted Cruz.

00:56:14.520 We had Ted Cruz, senator from the great state of Texas, come on and talk to us about it.

00:56:19.560 But there's we treated him as a former law clerk, even though he's doing more important

00:56:24.000 things now.

00:56:24.880 But a lot of the law clerks have spoken out, including this guy, Mike Davis, who was a

00:56:28.500 former Gorsuch clerk.

00:56:29.680 So he was there more recently.

00:56:31.320 And he said, I think it was to PJ Media, that each clerk signs an agreement not to leak.

00:56:39.080 So on top of one's ethical duties that you take when you when you take the bar exam, which

00:56:42.860 you would have had to have done to get this position, because lawyers have a higher ethical

00:56:47.340 obligation than most people do in their regular jobs.

00:56:49.480 Anyway, so you on top of that, you sign an agreement not to leak.

00:56:52.400 He said that, hold on, that the chain of custody system for documents inside the Supreme Court

00:57:00.720 is, quote, intricate and inviolate, that they use an intranet system not connected to the

00:57:07.240 Internet because they're not dumb.

00:57:09.300 Right.

00:57:09.440 They don't want it to make any of these draft decisions subject to hacking.

00:57:12.920 So it's only connected within the Supreme Court.

00:57:15.900 And then Mike Lee, senator from the great state of Utah, he clerked for Alito.

00:57:20.120 And he said what Ted Cruz said, that there's a burn bag that you have to leave, you know,

00:57:27.320 any draft opinions in the burn bag, that they get shredded vertically and horizontally.

00:57:31.300 He added this detail that the confetti of the burn bag, when it's taken by the staff,

00:57:36.640 you know, the administrative staff, it's incinerated and then it's mixed up with water so that it's

00:57:42.100 never readable.

00:57:42.960 Even the little confetti squares are never readable.

00:57:45.240 This is how seriously they take security.

00:57:47.080 But he said this.

00:57:48.660 It is very rare to print a draft opinion that normally the reviewing, the comments, the exchanges

00:57:56.820 are all done on this intranet server with just the clerks reading online and commenting

00:58:02.600 to one another.

00:58:03.300 So presumably when one hits print, as you say, there'll be a record of that and there

00:58:10.620 probably won't be that many of them.

00:58:13.360 Right.

00:58:13.900 And I think that's absolutely true.

00:58:15.320 I think the first thing you're looking for is what's called anomalous behavior.

00:58:18.360 So if you have a clerk or a justice who never prints out a document and all of a sudden

00:58:23.400 they're printing out the document or they never Xerox the document or copy it and then suddenly

00:58:28.280 they're copying it, that can be something that you're going to interview them about.

00:58:31.840 And the way you're going to interview them is, is you're going to know something about

00:58:36.020 them that they don't know that, you know, and you're going to withhold that.

00:58:40.160 And you're going to say, so tell me, did you have access to the document?

00:58:43.740 When did you first get access to the document?

00:58:45.840 How did you get access to the document?

00:58:47.700 Did you print the document?

00:58:49.020 Did you talk to anybody else about the document?

00:58:51.440 So there's lots of things that you're going to do.

00:58:53.240 And the techniques you talked about with the crosscut shredding, as well as the burn bag

00:58:57.520 is a very common thing to do in the intelligence community.

00:59:00.880 Almost all classified documents are handled that way with strict chain of custody.

00:59:05.760 The problem with this intranet is if you're using an intranet not connected to the internet,

00:59:11.760 but on devices that have thumb drives or USB ports and the like, then you have the possibility

00:59:16.960 of somebody offloading it onto that.

00:59:19.240 The good news is that will also leave a digital trace.

00:59:23.720 What about going at it from another way?

00:59:27.080 Okay.

00:59:27.340 Because Ted Cruz also told us they don't check your bag before you leave the Supreme Court

00:59:31.100 when you're a clerk, you know, there's a trust.

00:59:33.580 That's right.

00:59:34.220 It's worked for 235 years until now, until somebody decided they know better.

00:59:39.440 And by the way, it'll probably work for another 235 years.

00:59:43.020 This is what we call law sui generis.

00:59:45.620 It is a condition of one.

00:59:47.840 Yeah, that's right.

00:59:48.560 So this one person decided they would, they knew better and their desires were more important

00:59:52.960 and broke the system of trust.

00:59:55.560 So they don't check your bag.

00:59:57.260 So what if they say, let's do it another way?

00:59:59.580 Let's, let's start with the reporters.

01:00:01.980 Because as a journalist slash lawyer, my slashy, that's what I would do, Mark.

01:00:06.580 I would go to the two lawyers, not ask them.

01:00:08.780 They're not going to reveal their source, Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward.

01:00:12.100 Now, Josh Gerstein is the Supreme Court reporter for Politico.

01:00:16.440 So you might think, okay, let's start there.

01:00:18.860 Who's he connected to?

01:00:19.900 And indeed, we do know from some reporting online, he's got a couple of connections.

01:00:23.520 He's got at least one connection to this one woman who's suspected, not by anybody real,

01:00:27.780 just by the internet, because her husband shared a byline with him when he worked as a reporter

01:00:33.740 for Politico.

01:00:34.640 Okay, so that would definitely get a red flag from an investigator, like want to talk to

01:00:38.000 her.

01:00:38.640 But the other guy on the story is Alexander Ward.

01:00:42.340 Alexander Ward is a national security reporter.

01:00:45.280 And there is a legitimate question to be asked about what the hell he's doing on this story.

01:00:51.200 Why?

01:00:51.560 Why would he be on a story leaking a Supreme Court opinion?

01:00:56.160 There's no way Politico would not byline the person who got the document.

01:01:01.360 Like as a reporter, as a press organization, that would be the ultimate middle finger to

01:01:05.980 a reporter.

01:01:06.600 If it's his leak, he's getting a byline on the story, right?

01:01:10.380 You're not going to exclude him.

01:01:12.120 That would make sense.

01:01:12.900 Yes and no, there are journalist organizations that will cut the byline specifically to keep

01:01:17.800 it secret, okay?

01:01:18.740 And that's happened in a number of leak cases where they have deliberately not put a byline

01:01:23.560 at all for that reason.

01:01:25.860 But you're absolutely right.

01:01:27.160 You work from the other way around.

01:01:28.940 The problem is you don't have subpoena authority.

01:01:31.300 So without subpoena authority-

01:01:32.960 Right.

01:01:33.220 You can't get their communications and they're not going to give them anyway.

01:01:35.800 But my point is, first thing I'd be doing is I'd go back and this Josh Gerstein has

01:01:40.380 quoted, there's yet another clerk.

01:01:41.720 He's over in Sotomayor's office, who's apparently quoted in a bunch of Josh Gerstein earlier

01:01:45.820 pieces.

01:01:47.000 And I was saying as a reporter matter, that's always a tell.

01:01:50.080 I can't say that it's the tell in this case, but you can often find a connection.

01:01:53.920 Like who does the reporter have connections to by their sources cited in earlier articles?

01:01:59.640 Right.

01:01:59.960 And so what you're doing is you're looking for relationships.

01:02:02.320 So imagine that I am a clerk with the court and I want to get this out there.

01:02:07.760 Who am I going to give it to?

01:02:09.180 I'm going to give it to somebody I know and somebody I trust and somebody that I believe

01:02:14.300 I can trust to keep my name confidential.

01:02:16.900 And so where would I find that person?

01:02:19.280 Well, you can do it randomly.

01:02:21.120 I mean, if I needed to find a New York Times reporter, I could just go out and search.

01:02:25.400 And by the way, that's another thing you're going to look for.

01:02:27.280 You're going to look for clerks who may have searched out political articles or whatever,

01:02:32.580 or the names of people or contact information.

01:02:35.680 That's another thing that you can look for.

01:02:37.600 So there are lots of ways you can try to do this.

01:02:41.280 I will tell you that having done a bunch of leak cases, they are very difficult to do,

01:02:46.260 particularly if you're not willing or able to go back, look back from the journalist to

01:02:51.100 the source as opposed to the other way around.

01:02:53.160 If you get the FBI involved, they'll have subpoena power.

01:02:57.200 They can overcome all these obstacles that we're talking about, except for the press privilege.

01:03:01.640 Right.

01:03:01.840 And the problem with getting the FBI involved is there's no clear statute that prohibits

01:03:06.600 this particular activity.

01:03:07.940 The two statutes you've got mainly are the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which furnishes

01:03:13.080 exceeding the authorized access to a computer.

01:03:15.900 And a case last term in the Supreme Court said, if you have authorized access, but use it for

01:03:22.280 a prohibited purpose, that is not a violation of that statute.

01:03:26.360 So the idea is if a clerk had authorized access to the file on the computer, but used it for

01:03:32.140 a prohibited purpose, that would not be an unauthorized access.

01:03:35.780 What about stealing a document?

01:03:37.060 That document belongs to us.

01:03:39.260 That's right.

01:03:39.800 So the second one is the embezzlement statute, which is 18 U.S.C. 641.

01:03:44.280 However, there's a longstanding guidance by the Justice Department in their policy in

01:03:49.860 the U.S. Attorney's Manual that where the thing's stolen is intangible property, meaning

01:03:55.160 information, and it is leaked to the press, they will not prosecute those kind of cases.

01:04:01.800 They don't prosecute those kind of cases.

01:04:03.360 I read that to Glenn Greenwald last week.

01:04:05.040 But what about obstruction of justice?

01:04:06.420 Because Bill Barr was on the program last Tuesday saying, I take a long, hard look at

01:04:10.100 that statute, because this could literally be obstructing justice, trying to impede the

01:04:15.960 administration of justice.

01:04:18.260 Well, the problem with the obstruction of justice statute is it requires a corrupt intent.

01:04:22.700 And the corrupt intent level of proof is extraordinarily high.

01:04:26.220 It's more than knowingly.

01:04:27.400 It's more than willingly.

01:04:28.440 It's more than intentional.

01:04:29.720 It requires corruptly, which is a very high standard to prove.

01:04:33.080 Uh, and it's not a matter of just influencing, uh, an opinion or decision of the court.

01:04:39.420 It has to have, it has to actually be calculated at obstructing the ability of the court to make

01:04:45.880 a decision.

01:04:46.920 So that, that is also not a great fit.

01:04:51.180 Okay, wait, let me go back to the, uh, lying to the marshal because the leaker, if they sit

01:04:57.780 in front of the marshal is probably lying right now.

01:05:00.800 So is that enough to get some sort of a subpoena if the FBI then comes in and say that one of

01:05:07.720 these people's lying?

01:05:09.460 Uh, well, you can't necessarily, let's say everybody denies.

01:05:13.440 You've interviewed everybody involved and everybody denies.

01:05:17.220 Uh, I don't know that you can open a false statement claim under the theory that everybody

01:05:23.900 denied it.

01:05:24.740 One of them must be lying.

01:05:26.240 Therefore, we're going to open a criminal investigation.

01:05:28.340 I'll give you an example.

01:05:29.240 You're right that it is very rare for people to say, take these opinions home with them.

01:05:33.680 But let's say, uh, a justice or a clerk took it home with them and some boyfriend, girlfriend,

01:05:40.520 whatever, then took the opinion with them.

01:05:43.580 Everybody involved at the, at the, at the court may be telling the absolute truth.

01:05:49.160 Uh, and therefore you don't have a violation.

01:05:51.060 It doesn't work because of the political reporting about the conversations with, and that this

01:05:55.980 was provided by somebody familiar with what went on at the court.

01:05:59.480 Like that, I think that's, that falls apart.

01:06:02.240 Well, but there are people who are associated with, with the court who are familiar with

01:06:06.720 the court who don't work for the court.

01:06:08.500 Yes, but I don't, they say a person familiar with the court's proceedings, which is pretty

01:06:13.720 general.

01:06:14.820 I mean, I guess you're right.

01:06:15.940 It doesn't, it doesn't really nail it down to it was, if it's a law clerk, it's, it couldn't

01:06:22.820 be that law clerk's husband or wife.

01:06:25.100 Um, but you also know that journalists are going to, to use this kind of loosey goosey

01:06:30.120 language to try to conceal the identity of their source.

01:06:33.260 They want to give them sufficient bona fides that people will, will trust the source, but

01:06:37.900 certainly not give enough specifics that they can reveal the source.

01:06:42.640 Okay.

01:06:42.700 Now there's another wrinkle to this, Mark.

01:06:44.800 There's another wrinkle because there have been other leaks since this one previous to

01:06:50.140 this, you know, I mean, we've never seen an opinion leak.

01:06:53.220 Um, it was like maybe drips and drabs like a hundred years ago or like 30, 50 years ago.

01:07:00.200 There was one, you know, it's just very, very uncommon for them to say anything about how

01:07:04.660 the deliberations are going.

01:07:05.840 But in the wake of this, we've had a couple, um, CNN had a report that, uh, justice chief

01:07:13.860 justice Roberts does not want to completely overturn Roe that he is willing to uphold the

01:07:18.020 Mississippi law.

01:07:18.760 So not just her supposition, you know, like that's a, I can deduce that.

01:07:22.840 A report sources told her that that's the case.

01:07:26.440 Now that's, that's a leak.

01:07:27.960 Then the Washington post on May 7th, um, had quite a leak.

01:07:32.400 As of the last week, they report the majority of five justices to strike Roe remains intact,

01:07:37.740 according to three conservatives close to the court who like others spoke on the condition

01:07:43.500 of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

01:07:45.300 A person close to the most conservative members of the court said Roberts told his fellow justices,

01:07:52.120 your jurists in a private conference in early December, he planned to uphold the state law

01:07:55.940 and write an opinion that left Roe and Casey in place for now.

01:07:58.860 So that's, that's the same CNN report.

01:08:00.980 So somebody certainly on the conservative side is talking to WAPO and one would assume CNN

01:08:06.480 with those leaks could be totally unrelated, could have been, could have been given permission

01:08:13.100 even by a, by the court because people are in a full panic now about this decision.

01:08:18.040 But how would that play in for you?

01:08:20.740 Well, so there's always been, particularly in high profile cases, this idea of reading tea

01:08:25.600 leaves and trying to figure out what the justices are saying.

01:08:28.200 And in this case, I think that once the, but that's a huge difference from leaking an entire

01:08:33.520 opinion.

01:08:34.480 I mean, the leaking an entire opinion is something that has never happened before.

01:08:38.680 We had one instance where a law clerk was trading on the basis of the contents of an opinion,

01:08:44.640 but they didn't leak it.

01:08:45.700 And we, we've had like leaks a couple of hours before the official release, but we don't have

01:08:50.600 this, this kind of thing where the leak was probably tactical to try to influence the decision.

01:08:56.000 I think what's happened in the, in the post leak environment is that the court is trying

01:09:01.960 to send out the, the, the, the view that leaking opinions is not going to achieve what you think

01:09:08.840 it's going to achieve.

01:09:09.900 It's not going to necessarily cause the court to change its opinions and change the alignment

01:09:16.440 of those opinions.

01:09:17.360 So they're trying to send out the message that this leak not only was, was a violation

01:09:24.520 of the oath, but as a tactical matter, it was dumb.

01:09:28.360 Yeah.

01:09:28.740 So these second leaks sourced to conservative courses, uh, sources close to the court that,

01:09:35.040 that does not tell us anything about who the original leak was.

01:09:38.480 And it could just be the court just trying to settle, could be sanctioned, you know, trying

01:09:42.380 to settle the temperature, uh, in the wake of the, the huge, huge news of the leak.

01:09:47.060 Can I say one thing and then ask you one final question, Tom Goldstein, who writes scotusblog.com

01:09:53.080 who I respect, um, he posits that the wall street journal had the original leak in his

01:09:59.240 view, because in April, I think it was April 26th, they had an editorial in the wall street

01:10:05.000 journal suggesting this is how they saw the case coming down.

01:10:08.360 They thought it was going to go five, four, uh, to overturn row.

01:10:11.460 They thought Roberts was going to be in this place where he would uphold the Mississippi law,

01:10:14.980 but he would not overturn row.

01:10:17.300 And they wrote, um, that if justice Tom, if just, if chief justice Roberts isn't in the

01:10:23.380 majority, then he's not the one who gets to assign the writing of the opinion.

01:10:26.400 They said, if it wouldn't be him, then justice Thomas would assign the opinion.

01:10:29.960 And we all know that because if Roberts isn't there, justice Thomas is the most senior guy.

01:10:33.940 That's how it works.

01:10:34.840 And they write in the vote could be five, four.

01:10:36.840 Our guess is that justice Alito would then get the assignment, not just Tom Goldstein,

01:10:40.440 but others have used this to say somebody leaked first to the wall street journal.

01:10:44.260 And they've that that's their evidence.

01:10:45.920 You think it's a conservative because they chose the journal.

01:10:48.060 I would say this, Mark, that's not a, that's not a leak.

01:10:51.260 If anybody, if you went, if you listened to the arguments of when this case went up, which

01:10:55.280 I did, it was very clear.

01:10:57.040 Like that's what everyone predicted was going to happen.

01:11:00.120 And then you never know, but if you had to put money down, you'd say it's going to be

01:11:03.760 five to overturn row.

01:11:05.340 All those five justices were suggesting they were very anti row chief justice.

01:11:09.320 Ms. John Roberts was very focused at that argument about on ways to uphold the Mississippi law

01:11:13.940 and not go that far.

01:11:15.260 And the liberals were on the other side.

01:11:16.640 So I don't, this is not the original leak.

01:11:18.660 And I feel like that's misleading.

01:11:20.220 Okay.

01:11:20.440 This is my last question to you.

01:11:21.900 I would agree with you.

01:11:23.360 I say, you know, to figure out that this is going to be at least a five, four decision

01:11:27.800 is, as we say, not rocket surgery.

01:11:32.240 Yeah.

01:11:32.520 And the last question is, let's say the person does get charged.

01:11:35.720 Somebody finds a way of saying that is obstruction of justice.

01:11:39.840 And I think you did do it corruptly and they get a conviction and this person appeals and

01:11:46.900 then appeals again, then appeals again.

01:11:49.640 What happens then, Mark?

01:11:51.460 Well, if it, if it makes its way to the Supreme court, the Supreme court, I think may have to

01:11:55.500 recuse itself either partially or entirely from deciding this case.

01:12:00.220 You know, it's very difficult.

01:12:01.200 There, there are no hard and fast rules on recusal at the Supreme court level, because

01:12:06.220 frankly, there's nowhere else to go.

01:12:10.080 Yes.

01:12:10.320 So, so it would be a, a, a very interesting decision if the Supreme court ended up having

01:12:17.160 to rule on whether or not it was the victim of a crime, uh, in a particular case that's

01:12:23.360 never happened before.

01:12:24.560 It could be Jessica Tanji Brown Jackson sitting there by herself.

01:12:27.200 She would be, she would be the only one who would not be conflicted.

01:12:31.800 That'd be very interesting.

01:12:33.280 I don't think it'll get to that point, uh, because you'd have to have a novel issue of

01:12:38.060 law that the way you had a circuit split for it to get to the Supreme court.

01:12:43.160 But who knows stranger things have happened.

01:12:46.440 Fascinating discussion, Mark.

01:12:47.980 Thank you so much.

01:12:48.840 Mark rash, everybody.

01:12:49.600 Uh, up next, John Cass is here, a closer look at Chicago's crime wave as mayor Lori Lightfoot

01:12:56.560 wastes time, virtue signaling to her leftist base.

01:13:04.680 As we mentioned earlier, Chicago's mayor, Lori Lightfoot is getting blasted and rightly so

01:13:09.200 for warning the Supreme court is coming for the LGBTQ community and requesting that the

01:13:16.000 community, uh, see this as a quote, call to arms, a call to arms in a city seeing a 35%

01:13:25.400 increase in crime year over year where a young man was just shot in the head for not immediately

01:13:31.380 handing over his cell phone and 16 children have been murdered by guns, by people holding

01:13:37.520 guns and committing gun violence.

01:13:39.720 So far this year, my next guest is a Chicago legend.

01:13:44.040 John Cass was a syndicated columnist for the Chicago tribune for 38 years.

01:13:47.920 He's independent now, and that's better.

01:13:50.280 He's been covering politics and lawlessness in Chicago for a long time.

01:13:53.420 And now he posts his columns on his website, John Cass, K A S S John Cass news.com.

01:14:00.680 Welcome back, John.

01:14:02.140 Thank you, Megan.

01:14:03.480 That's a great introduction.

01:14:05.180 Uh, this, I, she's out of control.

01:14:09.900 She's truly out of control.

01:14:11.480 Let's just start with her comments on the Supreme court, that this is the Supreme court

01:14:14.720 is coming quote, coming for the LGBTQ community next.

01:14:19.040 And that this must be seen as a quote, call to arms.

01:14:22.380 Yeah, it's kind of desperate, isn't it?

01:14:24.700 Um, those of us who've covered politics for more than five minutes know that when a politician

01:14:30.660 is in trouble, they need to have enemies and they desire enemies that they can think they

01:14:36.420 can beat up and organize their troops, uh, excuse the war metaphor, but Lori was first

01:14:43.160 on that.

01:14:43.640 And to call it, to say, call to arms is just, she's a mad woman.

01:14:50.020 I think she's lost it.

01:14:51.640 Yeah.

01:14:52.060 Be careful.

01:14:52.860 Be more careful when you're dealing with the lives of Supreme court justices who right now

01:14:57.260 still don't have round the clock protection for themselves and their family.

01:15:02.020 Like she does.

01:15:03.440 I think that, uh, I think that the left, it's not, it's not John F. Kennedy's democratic party.

01:15:12.820 Okay.

01:15:13.600 It's not Scoop Jackson's democratic party.

01:15:16.320 I don't think either one of them could be elected in a primary.

01:15:20.080 And, uh, what you're seeing is force and anger and threats of force all the time with

01:15:28.320 them and picking on the Supreme court justices is beyond the pale, especially since, uh, Joe

01:15:36.200 Biden, who's also coming to Chicago to cash in on a fundraiser tonight, um, said nothing

01:15:43.700 about the, uh, protesters outside the justices homes and said nothing about, did he say anything

01:15:53.160 about that, uh, bombing in Wisconsin?

01:15:56.360 No, Jen Psaki condemned it.

01:15:58.720 He hasn't said anything yet, but he hasn't.

01:16:01.800 Okay.

01:16:03.040 And by the way, to this point though, John, so she's, she ratchets up the temperature.

01:16:08.000 She pours kerosene on the fire.

01:16:09.640 Literally there was a fire in Madison, Wisconsin, where they bombed this pro-life organization.

01:16:14.560 Um, so she ratchets up the temperature, pour gasoline on the fire while she, uh, she's got

01:16:20.640 round the clock protection, unlike anybody else, as far as I can see the report in the

01:16:24.280 sun times in March was there's something called unit five, five, five, four, four.

01:16:28.800 It's a unit of 65 officers that provide round the clock protection for her, uh, including

01:16:35.620 her bodyguard detail on top of this of about 20 men.

01:16:40.820 So she's all good.

01:16:42.380 She can pour a gasoline on this fire.

01:16:44.900 All she wants.

01:16:45.540 She, she doesn't have to worry about a thing.

01:16:46.680 Amy Coney Barrett with all of her children, including her little 10 year old child.

01:16:50.640 Who happens to have down syndrome.

01:16:52.200 They're in a different boat.

01:16:54.400 On mother's day.

01:16:55.900 Right.

01:16:56.540 I mean, it started on mother's day at the churches, uh, and at the Supreme court justices

01:17:02.060 homes to me, it's a, I'm not a lawyer, but it looks to me like a violation of federal

01:17:07.560 law.

01:17:07.900 If you're going to threaten justices to get your way, I don't think you're right.

01:17:12.480 I think at the end, if this, if this kind of thing continues and Democrats don't stand

01:17:18.920 up and shout down their own members, uh, when you start threatening justices to get your

01:17:24.960 way, you don't have a Republic.

01:17:26.420 You don't have a rule of law.

01:17:27.760 All you have is mob rule.

01:17:29.380 And I thought they didn't like that.

01:17:31.380 I thought.

01:17:31.700 You can't show up outside of a Supreme court justice's house and protest in front of their

01:17:35.860 family home with their children inside with a goal toward changing their opinion.

01:17:39.700 You cannot do that.

01:17:40.640 That's prescribed by the law, but Lori Liefeld doesn't care.

01:17:43.960 She doesn't seem to care about the law.

01:17:45.440 John, you tell me because the crime stats in Chicago are disturbing.

01:17:49.880 Um, here's a couple for the audience.

01:17:51.720 This is this year right now versus this time last year, total crimes up 35%.

01:17:56.520 Robbery is up 17%.

01:17:58.220 Aggravated burglary up 8% burglary up 35 theft up 67 motor vehicle theft up 41%.

01:18:05.880 Murder is down 8%, but it's up 25%.

01:18:09.700 Versus three years ago, uh, this week, this past week or two weeks ago, I guess, April

01:18:14.460 25 to May 1st year over year, total crime up 37% and murder is up 9% and all the other

01:18:20.880 stats are all the same.

01:18:22.840 Um, the, the case that's getting covered right now in the press that I mentioned in the intro

01:18:28.320 is awful.

01:18:29.700 A, uh, 23 year old man.

01:18:31.840 We just checked.

01:18:32.440 He is in critical condition at this moment after being shot three times, including in

01:18:36.720 the head after a duo that's apparently wanted an eight armed robberies shot this poor guy,

01:18:44.340 Dakota early in Lincoln park, which used to be a nice neighborhood Friday night, uh, and

01:18:50.120 you know, you know, Chicago, you know, uh, the rents in Lincoln park are extremely high.

01:18:57.160 The property taxes.

01:18:58.780 If you own property in Lincoln park for a small house, you'd have to pay $40,000, at least

01:19:04.580 a year in property taxes for what?

01:19:07.180 So you could get shot for your phone.

01:19:09.640 I mean, this is why the mayor Lightfoot is a complete failure in terms of her administration

01:19:17.660 of police.

01:19:19.360 She caved into the black lives matter rioters two years ago, and she's running for reelection

01:19:26.160 now flailing.

01:19:28.220 You know, I guess she wants, I don't know what parent plan, parenthood money to run on.

01:19:34.920 I don't get it.

01:19:35.740 Why is she attacking the Supreme court, but she needs enemies because the city, remember

01:19:41.500 Megan, she had, this was supposed to be her summer of joy.

01:19:46.180 And she, she said, summer of joy, we're going to have it.

01:19:50.380 And if you don't like it, I guess, you know, you better like it because she's the mayor.

01:19:55.400 So here's, here's the thing we love about John Cass among other things.

01:19:58.400 You're writing just moves me.

01:20:00.900 I just, you can't read John Cass and not feel moved.

01:20:03.200 Lori Lightfoot says, just wait until Memorial day in our summer.

01:20:08.520 It will be the summer of joy in Chicago.

01:20:11.060 And John writes, um, summer of joy.

01:20:14.860 She thinks so.

01:20:16.560 Chicago doesn't think it will be all that joyful.

01:20:19.240 You want to really know the heart of Chicago with the mayor unhinged and violent crime rising

01:20:24.100 downtown and in every neighborhood, try looking into the eyes of a Chicago fire department

01:20:29.240 paramedic after an eight hour shift.

01:20:31.900 What do they think about the bodies taken away in Chicago's river of violence?

01:20:37.740 The mother screaming at the crime scenes, a little girl or little boy in the ambulance.

01:20:42.400 That river is never ending.

01:20:44.900 It sweeps the victims away.

01:20:47.040 New victims are always falling into that river and they too are swept away.

01:20:51.420 The names of the dead forgotten.

01:20:54.300 Most of the victims are teenagers, minorities, black and brown.

01:20:58.360 Many have police records.

01:20:59.720 They're imperfect, but somebody loved them.

01:21:03.240 It goes on from there.

01:21:04.540 Her summer of joy has just begun.

01:21:07.220 The stats are dark, John.

01:21:10.000 They're dark and her ignoring them won't make them go away.

01:21:13.640 They're dark.

01:21:14.660 She ignores them.

01:21:16.500 The Cook County state's attorney, um, just recently praised Kathy Bodine.

01:21:23.820 Okay.

01:21:24.580 Mom.

01:21:26.860 Yes.

01:21:27.460 That's it.

01:21:27.880 That a criminal chase of Boudines.

01:21:30.840 He's the San Francisco DA and his wife was with a weather underground and she served her

01:21:35.320 life in prison because she shot and killed two cops and a security guard.

01:21:39.920 Yeah.

01:21:40.460 And she, Kim Fox didn't mention their names.

01:21:43.300 She was part of the group.

01:21:44.440 Yeah, exactly right.

01:21:45.660 She forgot.

01:21:46.300 You said so.

01:21:46.960 Didn't you tweet something out about this saying something like she, she forgot something

01:21:50.360 about, about Kathy Boudine.

01:21:52.480 I'd written about it and, uh, I read, uh, something from Chicago contrarian who I believe

01:21:58.080 is a police officer and he was upset and, you know, had tip to him for reminding us.

01:22:05.320 And this is where we are.

01:22:07.580 The woke, you have chase of Boudine, you have Kim Fox, you have Krasner, you have all these

01:22:13.680 left-wing prosecutors elected in the United States, many, uh, from through help from George

01:22:23.720 Soros.

01:22:25.220 And, uh, all you see is disaster.

01:22:28.640 Now, Lori Lightfoot, she deserves what she's getting because she's the mayor, but she's

01:22:35.720 terrified of questioning Kim Fox.

01:22:39.780 So she's got, uh, Kim Fox is, uh, protected by a woman named Tony Preckwinkle.

01:22:47.560 And Lori is afraid of Tony Preckwinkle.

01:22:52.160 And so that's where we are.

01:22:53.840 Why?

01:22:54.680 What's, what's so scary about Tony Preckwinkle?

01:22:57.400 Uh, Lori defeated her roundly in every ward in the city.

01:23:01.840 Uh, the last time they ran against each other, but this time Lori is, I don't know.

01:23:08.060 She's, you know, she lost me.

01:23:09.880 She lost the city.

01:23:12.400 She's lost everybody here.

01:23:14.320 And the people are, are hurting when you have a 23 year old kid who's studying to be a cook

01:23:21.920 gunned down in Lincoln park.

01:23:26.520 I mean, what, what's the, what is the parallel neighborhood in New York?

01:23:32.060 No.

01:23:33.060 Soho.

01:23:34.520 I don't know.

01:23:35.720 No, it's like a hip, a hip neighborhood where a lot of young people go.

01:23:39.380 There's fun bars and some restaurants and people are playing softball on the weekends.

01:23:44.000 It's just, it's where you want to go.

01:23:45.820 When I, when I went, when I was 25 years old, that's where you wanted to live.

01:23:49.500 You know, they just, they're another phenomenon in Chicago, the gold coast, uh, and other neighborhoods

01:23:58.000 where the wealthiest people in Chicago live and the ambassadors consulates and so forth.

01:24:04.640 And they're hiring private security in their neighborhood.

01:24:10.400 Wow.

01:24:11.040 And, uh, they do polls.

01:24:14.040 The people, well, the people are, are afraid to leave their home.

01:24:19.800 They're afraid to leave their home at night.

01:24:22.860 The Chicago is falling apart as we speak and she can't handle it.

01:24:29.000 And the result is a great city seems to be dying.

01:24:35.760 Hmm.

01:24:36.920 A word on Kim Fox before we leave that story.

01:24:39.560 Uh, yeah.

01:24:40.160 Her tweet upon learning that Chesa Boudin's mother, I mean, here's the deal.

01:24:45.620 His parents were part of the weather underground.

01:24:47.800 They were part of this murder, this Brinks security truck robbery that turned into a murder of

01:24:53.220 cops and a security guard.

01:24:55.080 And they went to jail and weren't available to raise Chesa.

01:24:58.520 So Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dorn, who was once on the FBI's 10 most wanted list,

01:25:03.020 raised him.

01:25:03.980 And now he's the DA.

01:25:06.600 In today's column, I say.

01:25:07.960 San Francisco decided to make him their chief law and first officer.

01:25:11.740 In today's column, I say that, uh, Chesa Boudin was raised by wolves in Chicago.

01:25:17.800 Yeah.

01:25:18.260 Oh, a hundred percent.

01:25:19.860 And, and, uh, so she tweets out Kim Fox, the DA in Chicago tweets out.

01:25:25.320 My heart goes out to Chesa Boudin and his family as they mourn the loss of Kathy Boudin

01:25:29.820 during her lifetime.

01:25:32.520 She worked to offer services and support to those managing the criminal justice system,

01:25:38.800 all while championing restorative justice practices.

01:25:42.580 She's like, um, you forgot a couple of key facts.

01:25:48.100 Well, maybe she could restore the lives of the people that, uh, died.

01:25:54.060 The three, the three law enforcement officers, two cops, and a Brinks truck, uh, Brinks armored

01:25:59.640 guard.

01:26:01.280 It's amazing.

01:26:02.180 Because they were, they were, they were, uh, robbing the truck on behalf of the black

01:26:09.060 liberation army and the, uh, weather underground.

01:26:12.900 Yep.

01:26:13.680 Now, now it's almost like we're going back again, back to the days of rage, back to the

01:26:20.580 summer of 2020, you know, Fauci's on the, on TV saying we have to shut everything down

01:26:27.120 because the new virus and people are afraid that they, they want to be able to vote in

01:26:32.560 November and they see a plot, you know, around the corner.

01:26:36.300 It's not a good time for the Republic.

01:26:38.800 Well, it's crazy.

01:26:39.400 I mean, you think about this person is in charge of law enforcement in Chicago.

01:26:42.580 These are all related.

01:26:43.520 These stories are all related that she, this is the person who's supposed to be putting

01:26:47.280 the bad guys in jail.

01:26:48.220 And when Kathy Boudin, who spent the rest of her life in prison, um, dies, her remembrance

01:26:55.100 of her is about how she worked to offer services and support to those managing the criminal

01:26:58.840 justice system.

01:26:59.700 She meets her fellow inmates.

01:27:01.200 And then she says, all while championing restorative justice practices, she means she

01:27:05.140 tried to get out of jail for the rest of her decades she spent behind bars.

01:27:08.840 And oh, wait, why was she there?

01:27:10.340 Because of all the murders that she took part in while she committed felonies.

01:27:13.440 This is insane that this, that the Kim Foxx doesn't understand why we look at her and

01:27:17.420 we say, Hey, you don't seem so tough on crime.

01:27:21.320 They, she just did, uh, and you may, maybe you have producers look for it.

01:27:26.760 She just did a podcast with chase of Boudin.

01:27:30.740 Oh God.

01:27:31.340 It was under, he's being recalled, you know, June 7th, right?

01:27:36.100 I think it's June 7th, the vote on his recall.

01:27:38.620 Now we don't have a recall in Chicago because in the Chicago way, you know,

01:27:43.440 whenever we see a politician, we just take our hat off and bow and curtsy.

01:27:48.900 But, um, yeah, I, I think, uh, you might want to listen to that.

01:27:53.400 I know I do as soon as I heard about it.

01:27:55.620 I can't believe we missed it.

01:27:56.720 Yeah.

01:27:57.240 I have to talk to my producer.

01:28:01.320 And by the way, the Chicago way is the name of John's, uh, podcast.

01:28:05.020 And that's well worth your time.

01:28:06.440 I I've listened to it a few.

01:28:07.460 I love when you had your brother on about the war in Ukraine.

01:28:10.140 He was great.

01:28:10.980 He's just written a piece on, uh, I think he's written up, writing a piece for the American

01:28:16.820 conservative on, uh, international relations, some aspects of it.

01:28:21.900 And, uh, yeah, I'm looking forward to it.

01:28:23.980 I'm very proud of him.

01:28:25.480 My little brother, Nick.

01:28:27.180 Well, I love your conversations and they're in your, the one and only John Cass style.

01:28:30.760 So they're always worth one's time.

01:28:32.440 Um, let's just go back for a second to what's happening there because this Lori Lightfoot,

01:28:37.080 as she's tweeting about, uh, the Supreme court and the LGBTQ community, she's very concerned

01:28:41.960 about the LGBTQ community.

01:28:43.540 Isn't so concerned about, um, let's say the little girl who's been shot in Chicago.

01:28:49.040 I'm trying to get her name.

01:28:49.900 Melissa Ortega, eight year old shot.

01:28:52.640 A shootout began when she was walking with her mom on a sidewalk and she was killed.

01:28:56.040 16 children killed just this year alone, ages zero to 16, 12 year olds, 14 year olds, this

01:29:02.960 eight year old, I just mentioned, um, just this past weekend over mother's day, a 12 year

01:29:08.180 old boy was shot while standing on the sidewalk around 8 45 PM.

01:29:12.560 Two suspects approached him, a 12 year old and opened fire.

01:29:15.940 Uh, he is expected to survive.

01:29:18.080 Thank God.

01:29:19.060 Uh, and then you've got, you know, just innocent people like Larry Purnell, 64 standing in the

01:29:23.600 front yard of the home shot in the chest this past mother's day weekend.

01:29:26.780 And that woman is out there talking about the summer of joy, John.

01:29:30.480 And you have it downtown.

01:29:31.900 You have it used to, when it was only crime in certain neighborhoods, the city kind of

01:29:38.820 shrugged and it used to bother me.

01:29:41.040 You know, the, the kids were imperfect and people shrugged and you know, they've, it was,

01:29:47.240 it's not like our neighborhood.

01:29:50.040 And then all of a sudden it comes downtown.

01:29:52.040 And then all of a sudden you have thugs beating people up by North Michigan Avenue.

01:29:56.460 And you have old ladies who don't want to go shopping on North Michigan Avenue.

01:30:01.880 What is going on?

01:30:03.420 That that's, what's happening now.

01:30:05.220 And she's completely lost the city.

01:30:09.100 What about the fact that now these major businesses are pulling up stakes, right?

01:30:13.980 Right.

01:30:14.300 But Boeing just announced that it's moving to Arlington, Virginia.

01:30:18.420 That according to my team, that means 729 employees in 729 jobs, potentially now leaving

01:30:28.500 and going to Virginia.

01:30:29.880 And not to mention the company estimated that it spent a billion dollars on suppliers and

01:30:35.920 vendors in 2018 alone donated almost $24 million to local charities.

01:30:41.120 Uh, the Chicago's wealthiest resident, Ken Griffin says he's probably going to move to Florida

01:30:46.160 with his Citadel hedge fund.

01:30:49.040 The, uh, United Airlines moving a quarter of its workforce, 1300 workers out of downtown

01:30:54.540 Chicago and on it goes.

01:30:56.160 And mayor Lightfoot says, John, we have a robust pipeline of major corporate relocations and

01:31:02.660 expansions.

01:31:03.480 And we expect more announcements as far as we can tell.

01:31:07.080 The only one that's publicly known is a casino.

01:31:10.220 That's sounds like the same crack that, that we're restorative justice comes out of the same

01:31:15.760 crack.

01:31:16.680 You know, people are starting to realize in Illinois and Chicago, they're leaving people.

01:31:21.880 I think we've lost more than a million people in the past 10 years.

01:31:25.740 Net.

01:31:26.840 And you know what?

01:31:28.000 Uh, people understand those who leave are the ones who have money.

01:31:33.140 And they can go.

01:31:35.160 And it looks like there's a Ponzi scheme about to collapse in Illinois and in Chicago.

01:31:41.880 And people don't want to be a part of it.

01:31:44.020 And that's unfortunate because there's so such, there's so many great things about the city.

01:31:50.040 Exactly.

01:31:50.780 It's the people, you know, that makes it great.

01:31:53.160 Not the hot dogs.

01:31:54.720 Not the families.

01:31:55.600 We're seeing it in New York too.

01:31:57.460 You know, it's a, I was just talking to a doctor friend of mine the other day.

01:32:01.300 This guy's 64 years old.

01:32:03.160 He's been around forever in New York, practicing medicine.

01:32:05.720 He was saying he, he will not ride the subway anymore.

01:32:08.360 He used to ride it every morning to work.

01:32:09.940 Uh, will not get on the subway.

01:32:11.360 And when you do go down there, it's all fair jumpers jumping over the turnstile because

01:32:16.680 our, we refuse to enforce that.

01:32:18.460 Our DA said, we're no longer going to hold people to account for stealing.

01:32:23.360 Um, you got, as I mentioned, people like on the Upper West Side getting shot, just sitting

01:32:27.540 there, walking around.

01:32:28.840 You walk up and down the streets here, John, that every trash can is overflowing.

01:32:32.900 They, they, they don't pick up the garbage anymore.

01:32:34.720 It's like the new broken windows, you know, it's like garbage everywhere.

01:32:38.860 Even in the nice neighborhoods, you know, you're, you're pushing your child and stroller

01:32:42.140 over disgusting wrappers and trash.

01:32:45.220 And there are rats.

01:32:46.180 It's just disgusting.

01:32:47.900 We put up with a lot when we were kids.

01:32:51.180 Cause we didn't care.

01:32:52.700 You and I, we wanted to be out there.

01:32:54.840 You know, I'm much older than you, but we want it to be out in the city and the street

01:32:59.120 and party and have fun, look at adventure.

01:33:02.200 But when you're a parent and your child says, you know, like an 18 year old, 19 year old,

01:33:08.960 uh, dad, I want to take the L and pick up my girlfriend.

01:33:12.800 We're going to go to a movie.

01:33:14.500 And the feeling you get, because what happens on the L is you get somebody attacks or says

01:33:22.900 something to your girlfriend or touches her.

01:33:25.120 And then you try to defend her and then you're knocked to the ground and 15 people are stomping

01:33:32.760 you.

01:33:33.420 Oh God.

01:33:34.540 That's what it, that's what's happened.

01:33:36.240 And you see it.

01:33:37.040 The only news outlet that really covers it is Chicago, uh, CWB Chicago.

01:33:43.220 The papers don't cover crime as much.

01:33:46.120 The television, you know, like the Dakota early story, TV news didn't, didn't run that story

01:33:54.520 immediately when they had it.

01:33:55.940 They had the video.

01:33:56.960 Remember in the old days, we have the video running the story immediately.

01:34:00.220 That's right.

01:34:01.060 Uh, no, there's a lot of PC woke in the media of Chicago, which is why I left.

01:34:08.360 And I think that the people are hurting.

01:34:11.960 They are because they need to know.

01:34:14.840 Yeah.

01:34:15.960 That's, I mean, the, the neighbor of Dakota early who saw him get shot by those two guys

01:34:19.940 said, you know, you, you shoot a guy, normally you run.

01:34:23.520 These guys shot him.

01:34:24.840 They hung around two more shots.

01:34:27.140 They were trying to get his passcode out of him.

01:34:29.480 I mean, just sick, the depravity.

01:34:31.180 And we got a mayor sending out fake tweets about the LGBTQ community with her hundred guards

01:34:37.440 surrounding her.

01:34:39.000 John, thanks for shining a light as always.

01:34:41.700 Appreciate seeing you.

01:34:42.980 You're the best.

01:34:43.960 And thank you, Megan.

01:34:44.960 Thank you.

01:34:45.520 Don't forget.

01:34:46.220 Check them out.

01:34:47.640 Johncastnews.com.

01:34:49.280 Tomorrow on the show, Victor Davis Hanson.

01:34:52.600 We love VDH.

01:34:54.480 Uh, he's amazing and you'll love him.

01:34:56.000 And in the meantime, download the show.

01:34:57.200 So you don't miss him.

01:34:58.060 Uh, download Megan Kelly show, Apple, Pandora, Spotify, Stitcher, also at youtube.com slash Megan

01:35:02.700 Kelly.

01:35:04.040 Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly show.

01:35:05.960 No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

The Megyn Kelly Show - May 10, 2022

Roe Protests Grow, and Crime in Chicago, with Judge Andrew Napolitano, John Kass, and Mark Rasch ｜ Ep. 318

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript