Judging Freedom - Blinken Lying__ Defending Free Speech

Episode Date: May 2, 2023

See omny.fm/listener for privacy information.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, May 2nd, 2023. It's about 2.20 in the afternoon here on the east coast of the United States. Here are your hot topics today as I see them, and they're really very interesting.

They range from a senator, a United States senator, accusing the Secretary of State of lying under oath. That, of course, is called perjury, if ever it were to be prosecuted for it. To an 11-year-old boy making one of the best defenses of the freedom of speech I have ever seen, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives at a press conference in Israel purporting to defend American policy in Ukraine, and of course he doesn't know what he's talking about, to some light on the horizon coming from the Supreme Court and whether or not an administrative agency can tell you that one of their agents has to be on your boat and you have to pay his salary. So here we go. Senator Ron Johnson, a bit of a maverick from Wisconsin, was on Fox Business Network with my friend and former colleague Maria Bartiromo the other day, and she was asking him

about Secretary of State Blinken. Now, normally, this is not something you'd ask about. And whether or not Secretary of State Blinken had ever emailed with Hunter Biden, again, normally not something you'd ask about. Except that late last week, the former head of the CIA, Mike Morrell, acting director under President Obama, a guy who worked his way up through the ranks of CIA agents, I guess, by stealing and lying, which is what most of them do to advance themselves, revealed that in October of 2020, he, Morrell, at the request of Antony Blinken, then a senior official in the Biden campaign, put together a letter signed by 51 former intelligence community professionals in various aspects of the government, but most of them CIA, saying that Hunter Biden's laptop had all the data about it and the comments about it bore all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign, and so you should disbelieve it.

Morell now says that there was no evidence to back up that claim, and that he and these intelligence community operatives did this at the request of Tony Blinken. Tony Blinken, of course, is the former chief of staff for Joe Biden, the former when he was in the Senate, the former chief of staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Senator Biden was the chair of that committee, a former number two or three person in former Vice President Biden's campaign. These two are wedded at the hip, apparently. And now, of course, is the secretary of state. In the course of this information that Morrell related to the House Judiciary Committee about Blinken asking for the letter in October of 2020, Morrell revealed a close relationship between Blinken and Hunter Biden. Normally nothing

wrong with that, unless of course you lie about it under oath. When Tony Blinken had been nominated to become Secretary of State without a subpoena, he appeared before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee for his initial confirmation hearing and told the committee, according to Senator Johnson, under oath, he never emailed with Hunter Biden. that Senate committee now has those emails. So did the Secretary of State lie, or is there some other plausible non-criminal explanation for this? Here's Senator Ron Johnson late last week with my friend and former colleague on Fox Business, Maria Bartiromo. Take a listen. Anthony Blinken finally did come in to sit down for a voluntary transcribed interview in December of 2020 because he wanted to be Secretary of State. And now because of more information that's come out, we know that he lied bold face to Congress about never emailing Hunter Biden. My guess is he told

a bunch of other lies that hopefully we'll be able to bring him and his wife back in, tell them to preserve their records. You trust joe biden you cannot trust hunter biden you can't trust the biden family what do you do when you have in effect co-conspirators of the biden family inside our intelligence agencies the department of justice the fbi and you have the political party the democrats who couldn't care less have no interest whatsoever in the corruption that is being uncovered bit by bit as we pull back the layers of the onion here? A bit of hyperbole in there, and I know sometimes Senator Johnson can get carried away with things. The question is, is this a material lie? You know,

if you lie about the time of day by five minutes, unless it's critical to your testimony, it's probably not a material lie. Was this a material lie? Well, it sounds as though the senators might not have confirmed him if they had known that he had a relationship with Hunter Biden, even though in December of 2020 now, that's when the testimony took place. It's a month after Joe Biden has been elected. There's very little out there about Hunter and the laptop, so it might not have been considered serious at the time. What is very serious, however, and which is why I bring it to your attention, is for a member of Congress to accuse a sitting cabinet member of having lied under oath. You've probably heard me say this before.

The last person prosecuted for lying to Congress was, do you know, Roger Clemens, the great Yankee pitcher who was indicted for lying to Congress about, tell me if this is material or not, the contents of his urine. He was tried twice. The first trial was a hung jury. The second trial, he was acquitted. I'm a big Yankee fan. I'm a fan of Roger Clemens. I was glad he was acquitted, but it's absurd that he should have been prosecuted for that. If I had been his lawyer, I would have said to the congressman, ask him about his urine. My client plays a child's game. You guys write the laws of the land. What's in your urine? It's none of my business. Just like it's not your business what's in his urine. Will they prosecute Secretary of

State Blinken for lying under oath during his Senate confirmation hearing about whether or not he emailed with Hunter Biden, don't hold your breath. Oh, and the reason for the mention of his wife is his wife works in the White House. So the allegation is that somehow she's involved in covering up the Hunter Biden stuff as well. Recently, a young student was kicked out of class, 11-year-old boy, for wearing a t-shirt that said, there are only two genders. And the Board of Education allowed the boy to address the board at an evening meeting. We're going to play exactly what he said and everything that he said. It's only about two minutes long. It's heartwarming to watch this. But first, a little bit about the law. The law says that students, even at age 11, have First Amendment rights. However, they are subject to the mission of the school, meaning if the student

expresses an opinion protected by the First Amendment, which interferes with the mission of the school, the delivery of educational services to students, then the school can punish the student. But if the student is silently expressing an opinion and there is no evidence of disruption, then the student's opinion stands. There are two famous cases on this. One involves a belt buckle which opposed the war in Vietnam. It's called Tinker versus Des Moines. era case, which is a full-throated defense of the right of students to express their political opinion. The other is the infamous decision called Bong Hits for Jesus. That's not the name of the case. This kid held a sign saying Bong Hits for Jesus. I mean, what does that mean? That's really nonsensical. And the sign was off school property and out of school hours, but it was at a school event. It was at a school parade and the school disciplined him because they said it was encouraging illegal activity,

bonk hits, meaning smoke marijuana and do it for Jesus. It's kind of ridiculous, but it was an expression of a unique position of the relationship between Jesus and marijuana, if there is one in this kid's mind. He was suspended. The suspension was upheld by the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court reiterated the same principle. If it is protected, a political speech, and it is not disruptive, then the student can't be prosecuted. Here is this young man. Watch and listen to one of the most articulate defenses, certainly the most I have heard from a child of the freedom of speech. Good evening. My name is Liam Morrison. I'm in the 7th, 10th grade at Nichols Middle School.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. I never thought that the shirt I wore to school on March 21st would lead me to speak with you today on that Tuesday morning I was taken out of gym class to sit down with two adults for what turned out to be a very uncomfortable talk I was told that people were complaining about the words on my shirt that my shirt was making some students feel unsafe yes whereas on a shirt made people feel unsafe they told me that I wasn't in trouble but it sure felt like I was I told I was told that I would need to remove my shirt before I could return to class when I

nicely told them that I didn't want to do that they called my father thankfully my dad supported my decisions came to pick me up what did my shirt say five simple words There are only two genders. Nothing harmful, nothing threatening, just a statement I believe to be a fact. I have been told that my shirt was targeting a protected class. Who is this protected class? Are their feelings more important than my rights? I don't complain when I see pride flags and diversity posters hung throughout the school. Do you know why? Because others have a right to their beliefs just as I do. Not one person, staff, or student told me that they were bothered by what I was wearing.

Actually, just the opposite. Several kids told me that they supported my actions and that they wanted one too. I experienced... wait no... I was told that the shirt was a disruption to learning. No one got up and stormed out of class. No one burst into tears. I'm sure I would have noticed if they had. I experience disruptions to my learning every day. Kids acting out in class are a disruption, yet nothing is done. Why do the rules apply to one, yet not another? I feel like these adults were telling me that it wasn't okay for me to have an opposing view. Their arguments were weak, in my opinion. I didn't go to school that day to hurt feelings or cause trouble. I have learned a lot from this experience. I learned that a lot of other students share my view. I learned

that adults don't always do the right thing or make the right decisions. I know that I have a right to wear a shirt with those five words. Even at 12 years old, I have my own political opinions and I have a right to express those opinions. Even at school, this right is called the First Amendment to the Constitution. Well, God bless him. Beautifully, wonderfully articulated argument in favor of the freedom of speech. He did point out something I think that's fascinating, feelings versus rights. A right is a natural gift, the right to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say. It comes from our humanities. Feelings are your sensitivity to other people's exercise of their rights. There is no right not to be offended. There is a right to express whatever you believe about whatever you want.

The answer to your offense is to wear a t-shirt expressing your rights. I happen to agree with the young boy. There are only two genders. Some people would say two sexes. The words have been used interchangeably today, but you get the point. I also happen to believe that a mature adult owns his or her own body, and if you want to have your body butchered by a butcher calling himself a doctor, you can go ahead and do it. I think it's morally repellent, but you have the right to do

what you want with your body because you own it. The government does not. In terms of him expressing that opinion, even if he expressed an opinion with which I disagreed, I would defend his right to do it. I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. In this case, I happen to agree with him, and I loved the way he expressed a defense for his right to wear whatever T-shirt he wants. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy, with whom I disagree on many things, and certainly on this that I'm about to discuss with you, spoke before the Knesset. That's the Israeli parliament earlier today. And at the end of his comments, he went to another room and held a press conference. And one of the questioners was an English-speaking Russian journalist who covers the Israeli Knesset for a Russian publication,

but made sure that he was there to question Kevin McCarthy. And McCarthy, who once said about Ukraine, Mr. Zelensky, don't think this is a blank check, gave some indication that maybe there are Republicans in Congress who oppose the blank check. Well, it turns out this was just a statement by a two-bit political hack, Mr. McCarthy, in an effort to win over libertarian and conservative Republican votes in the House from members of Congress who truly do oppose the war in Ukraine. The idea that somehow this affects American national security has never effectively been articulated. The war in Ukraine, the American support for the war in Ukraine is just an effort to create another vassal state subject to the United States of America.

Oh, there are the Victoria Nulands of the world who fancifully believe that Ukraine's going to win this war. It's going to drive Vladimir Putin from office. She, who fomented the coup in 2014 that threw out the popularly elected president of Ukraine, who was beginning an alliance with the Russians. She, who instigated the impeachment of Donald Trump, the first impeachment, the one over the communications with Vladimir Zelensky. Kevin McCarthy is in camp with all of these people. Here's what he said. Did he say, I don't support aid to Ukraine? No, I vote for aid for Ukraine. I support aid for Ukraine. I do not support what your country has done to Ukraine. I do not support your killing of the children either. And I think for one standpoint,

you should pull out. And I don't think it's right. And we will continue to support because the rest of the world sees it just as it is. Most of the world sees it as Americans fighting Russians without a congressional authorization, Mr. Speaker. Interesting, over his shoulder, I don't know who the lady was. The two guys are both members of Congress from New Jersey and both., whose father, one of the great governors of New Jersey, gave me my first appointment to the bench back when I was 36 years old. The other is Josh Gottheimer, who is my congressman. Both are moderates. Tom Kane is a moderate Republican, and Josh Gottheimer is a moderate Democrat. That means that the two of them vote

the same way. They're both in favor of big government. They'll both vote on almost any way that the big government crowd, the pro-war crowd in the House of Representatives wants them to. And apparently, the United States government is just going to continue to pour money down this black hole of money to Ukraine. That was a full-throated, though ill-advised, misadvised, ignorant and incompetent defense of sending $113 billion to Ukraine made by the leading Republican in the Congress and the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, and under the law, the leader of the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy.

He was actually lauded on MSNBC. The comments were yesterday. I misspoke when I said they were today, because he was lauded this morning on MSNBC, which ran a longer version of that clip. And my friends Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski praised him to the skies. Joe and Mika are still my friends. I doubt that Kevin McCarthy is my friend. He is unworthy of the support of anybody who believes in limited government and maximum individual liberty.

Finally, the Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will hear a case on the Chevron doctrine. What's that? Okay, it's a technical phrase. It comes from a Supreme Court opinion involving Chevron, the large oil company, which since has been bought out by ExxonMobil. But this Chevron case, in the Chevron case, from which the name and the jurisprudential theory of the Chevron Doctrine comes, says that when an administrative agency like the EPA or the FDA or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms promulgates a rule, and the rule is challenged. The courts should presume that the rule is valid, that there's a scientific purpose for it, and the challenger has to disprove the validity of the rule. The administrative agency does not have to prove the validity of the rule. So under the Chevron Doctrine, if you challenge the EPA and you go into court, you don't go in as equals.

Criminal case, you go in as equals. Civil litigation, you go in as equals. Challenging an administrative agency, the agency's up here. You're down here because the court will presume that what the agency did was correct. So you have some water in your front yard. It's 10 feet wide and 15 feet long and maybe about 10 inches deep. And from time to time, some water bubbles up from the earth and keeps filling this thing up. You and I and the whole world would call it by its true name, a mud puddle.

The EPA would come along if they got the legal right to come on your property and say, well, that's not a mud puddle. That's a navigable water. Navigable water. Yes, because in the EPA's opinion, it's connected by a very, very tiny two inch wide bubbling up of water. And that's connected to the water table and that's connected to a stream and that's connected to a larger stream. And that's connected to a river on which people sail with sailboats and canoes. And therefore, everything connected to that river, including your mud puddle, is a navigable water.

So when that argument was brought into court, the court said, sorry, under the Chevron doctrine, the EPA is presumed accurate. You, farmer who challenged the regulation, will have to demonstrate that the EPA used improper science. Now requiring the farmer to do that is going to put him through an expense where he'll probably say, the hell with it, I'll let them regulate the mud puddle. Now that the Chevron doctrine is probably going to be overturned by the Supreme Court, the EPA and the challengers are in the same boat. Why do I say boat? Well, the case challenging it has to do with a boat. So the Bureau of Maritime Fisheries, ever heard of it? Yeah, it's one of those administrative agencies that tells fishermen how many fish they can take out of the sea, and they base that on scientific expertise. The Bureau

of Maritime Fisheries says to a fisherman off the coast of Maine, we're worried you're taking too many fish. So we're going to put an agent from our bureau on your boat and you're going to have to pay his salary. So a bunch of fishermen challenged it. So we have very small boats. We don't have room for another person. We certainly don't have room for a federal agent on our boat. And we're certainly not going to pay the salary of a federal agent just because you said we have to. Then they promulgated a rule saying that they could do it. So that rule is now going to be challenged before the Supreme Court of the United States. The fishermen lost at the trial court and lost at the appellate court because they followed the Chevron Doctrine.

But once this case gets to the Supreme Court, I followed the Chevron Doctrine. But once this case gets to the Supreme Court, I think the Chevron Doctrine will be thrown overboard, so to speak. Why do we have a Chevron Doctrine? Same reason that we have presidents starting wars without congressional declarations of war, because Congress doesn't do its job, because Congress looks the other way when the president starts a war like Joe Biden has against Russia in Ukraine, because Congress looks the other way when the president starts a war like Joe Biden has against Russia in Ukraine. And Congress looks the other way when an administrative agency writes a regulation that has the force and power of the law that regulates human behavior. And the people on whom the regulation is being enforced have not had the opportunity to vote for the

people that write the law. At least when Congress writes a bad law, you can vote Congress out of office, but you can't vote the bureaucrats of the EPA out of office because they're the same people, whether Barack Obama or Donald Trump or Joe Biden is president of the United States and they have that same big government, we will tell you how to live mindset. As long as they have the Chevron Doctrine, they do. But once this great cocktail party conversation for you this weekend, what do you think about the Chevron Doctrine? Once the Chevron Doctrine is gone, the EPA and the FDA and the BATF and all those nameless, faceless bureaucrats that love to tell us how to live will have to fend for themselves. More as we get it.

That's a mouthful or an earful. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. 24-7 and monthly start dates, you can earn your degree on your schedule. You may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu.