Judging Freedom - GOP Chaos - On the inside with Rep. Any Biggs

Episode Date: January 4, 2023

#GOP #leadershipSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside

gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here with Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, January 4th, 2023. It's about 1125 in the morning here on the East Coast of the United States.

Our guest today is the person who may very well be saving the Republican Party and maybe even saving the Republic. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Andy Biggs of Arizona, good friend of the show and a good friend of your host, Congressman Biggs. It's always a pleasure. I know you're running from pillar to post this morning. Thank you for taking the time to join us. You are in the thick of the efforts to produce a speaker of the House of Representatives from amongst the Republican majority who believes in limited government, balanced budgets, and maximum individual liberty. How is it going? It's going better than most people would have ever thought, Judge. We have basically denied a member of what I would call the Washington, D.C. cartel from ascending to the speakership. And we actually have proffered, we've put forward several names. And right now,

I would say the shoe is now on the other foot. I don't know why it took them so long to understand when we said that you don't have the votes, which we told them six weeks ago, you do not have the votes to be a speaker. They did not believe us. And now they do believe us. And now I've suggested to them, you don't like our nominees. It will not be Kevin McCarthy.

We are going to change the direction. So who is there someone you guys could coalesce around? So we're trying to change the direction so what who is that is there someone you guys could coalesce around so we're trying to see if there is some alternative uh mr mccarthy as you know moved his stuff into his to the speaker's office last night and uh now uh is going to have to deal with the fact that he simply does not have the votes. And I think the other side, some of those people are going to dig in and judge. We're going to have many more ballots, I believe, before we get this resolved. You know, I don't know Kevin McCarthy as well as I know you. I have interviewed him a couple of times during my years at Fox and we've chit-chatted in the hallway. But when one of the charges

against you is the arrogant assumption of power, why in God's name would you move into the speaker's suite of offices, thumbing your nose at the Republicans in the House when you have failed three times to achieve the majority required for you legally to move into the Speaker's office. He's basically making one of the arguments against himself for you. Do I read this right? Yeah, I think you do. I mean, it shows a certain, well, at the worst, it shows the arrogance that those in the D.C. cartel have toward you and I and everybody else in America. On the other, on the best case scenario is just that it shows an incredible lack of sensitivity and ability to appreciate the situation in which you are found? Let me run for you what I think is a very sensible statement by your colleague, Congressman Matt Gaetz. Now, this is 24 hours old,

but I believe it's a nice summary of the space between the elite establishment that Kevin McCarthy represents and the 20 or so of the rest of you who want to change the way Washington works. We offered Kevin McCarthy terms last evening that he rejected. We sought a vote in the first quarter of the 118th Congress on term limits. He refused. We wanted a budget from the Republican Study Committee that balances on the floor in the first quarter. He refused. We wanted the border plan that the Texas delegation put together on the floor. He refused. And it is true that we struggle with trust with Mr. McCarthy.

But we will not continue to allow the Uniparty to run this town without a fight. Two observations I would make. He couldn't be more correct by referring to the Democrats and the establishment Republicans as the uniparty. I sometimes call those Republicans Democrats-lite. Secondly, if you note everything he said your group offered to McCarthy, it was a vote. It wasn't the definitive determination. It was the right to debate for, in favor of, and vote on various aspects of limited government. Agreed? Agreed.

I mean, to me, those were such simple requests. Yes. Let us introduce, let us have the committee hearing, let us have the floor debate, and let us have a vote. And if our Republicans say we don't want a balanced budget, then let the whole world know that we don't want a balanced budget. If we don't want to secure the border with the Texas-produced plan, then let the whole world know that we're just as incapable of governing as the Democrats,

and we don't want a secure border. I just thought here was an opportunity. Those guys went. I have deeper trust issues with Mr. McCarthy than that. But they went and they said, we think you can, we, not we think, they said, we know, we have, we have got commitments to get you to 218 votes. And he wouldn't do it. Are you able to share with us the names of the other candidates? And I hope one of them is Andrew Biggs, who have who your group has put forward for consideration by the remainder of the Republicans in the House. Yes. And so and that's what we've done. So we've nominated just a series of individuals that we think are qualified. One was myself. And thank you for that. Another was Jim Jordan, who we think would be qualified. Another was Byron Donalds, who we think is eminently qualified from Florida. And and so and they rejected all of them. votes towards the end yesterday. The question that I asked them is, you know, it's not going

to be Kevin McCarthy. Is there anybody else that you would be happy with that we can negotiate and make sure that we get a candidate that the left side, because you have to realize we've got to get 218. So I know that you've got to be pragmatic enough to get those people on that side and also keep our people on as well. And it's not going to ask you. Let me ask you about the unthinkable. Would any Republican vote for Hakeem Jeffries? Before you answer, would any Democrat vote for Andy Biggs or Jim Jordan? The answer to both of those is no and no. No Republican is going to vote for Hakeem Jeffries, and neither is a Democrat going to vote for

myself, Jim Jordan, or any other Republican. They certainly will not vote for Kevin McCarthy. Can McCarthy's people engage in any kind of tricks? Is there any way they can reduce 218 by somebody, I don't know, leaving the chamber, leaving Washington, D.C., voting present, I don't know, some sort of a parliamentary stunt which would allow him to claim victory at 210 votes? Yes, there is. I thought I was making this up. No, no, no. You're exactly your instincts are exactly right. So the way we do it is the way it is by the rules historically is denominator. You have to get 50 percent plus one of the denominator. Denominator right now is 434. That's what we had every ballot yesterday,

so the number was 218. If the Democrats start leaving, if they were to vote present or if they were to cast an invalid ballot, you cannot vote by first name only. You have to say the last name, it would reduce the denominator, and that would allow McCarthy to win. The problem where McCarthy, I don't know if he understands this fully. I'm sure somebody on his team must understand this. On the Democrat side, once you get past the first one, it takes two Democrats to leave to pick up a vote for McCarthy, to tacitly pick up a vote. So think about it this way. If 21 people leave, that translates into 11 votes fewer that McCarthy needs. So it goes from 218 to 207 in that case. I would think Congressman Biggs, if he becomes the speaker by that means, whether he orchestrated it or whether his pals on the Democratic side did it for him, he would be extremely weak, without credibility, have a very, very difficult time leading Republicans in the House for the next two years in fact nearly impossible you know historically I mean that you're exactly right and historically when analogous situations have arisen such as

a motion to vacate the chair remove the speaker when that has happened typically what this this the speaker has effect is resigned and has said well it's obvious that i'm so hindered so so wounded i'm too weak to actually lead and so they'll resign that's what's happened in the past what what what you're seeing here, in my opinion, is Mr. McCarthy has sought this office for most of his life, I would gather. He was a young Republican. This was something on his radar. And to be denied, he was denied it in 2015, seven years ago. And to be denied it again in 2023 would be beyond it. So he has said that he is going to stay in until he,

even if he only has four people that will join him, because then he knows that he can scuttle it as well. So that's where we are today. I don't know that I believe that. I don't know that I believe that. I don't know that I believe that, but he would be a weakened speaker for sure. Well, I hope you guys stay the course. I loved the speech that Chip Roy gave yesterday in nominating Jim Jordan. I had to think Jim Jordan would be happier and better as the chair of the House Judiciary Committee than as the speaker.

But the limited government, maximum individual liberty, balanced budget speech that Chip gave for Jim, I thought was terrific. Stay the course, Congressman Biggs. If Kevin McCarthy were watching now and forced to listen to you for the next 60 seconds, what would you say? I would say, Kevin, thanks for your service. It's time to move along and let somebody else lead it. We need to we need to get somebody in office who is not so compromised. You are compromised and you are weakened, it's time to recognize that we need a different leader. And our conference is full of people, Judge,

who could adequately do this. There are some who would be exceptional and many who would be adequate. And it's time to recognize that. And if we do not change the course now judge i fear that that this will actually further entrench the dc cartel the uniparty as you call it and i call it the uniparty as well that dc cartel will be further entrenched we cannot allow the k street lobbyists anymore the bureauc anymore, nor can we allow those in the media to control what goes on in government. And it requires a change. It's time to make that

change. I suspect the next time we speak, there'll be a lot more than 20 Republican members of the House in your group. Congressman, thank you for joining us. I know it's a hectic day. Godspeed. Hey, thanks, Judge. Always good to be with you. Likewise. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.