The Dana Show with Dana Loesch - Thursday December 21 - Full Show

Episode Date: December 21, 2023

Rich Zeoli sits in for Dana. More than 150 names that are tied to Jeffrey Epstein will be released. At least 15 people were killed in a mass shooting in Prague. How will the Supreme Court handle Colorado’s ruling on Trump on the ballot? Eagle Pass experiences its largest one-day border crossing ever. Should the US end birthright citizenship? People are now voting with their feet by moving out of blue states. Climate fanatics are targeting breathing. Is Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment unconstitutional?Please visit our great sponsors:All Family Pharmacyhttps://allfamilypharma.com/danaSave 10% with code DANA10 when you order today at https://allfamilypharma.com/danaHillsdalehttps://danaforhillsdale.comMake your tax-deductible year end gift at DanaForHillsdale.com today.Nimi Skincarehttps://nimiskincare.comDon’t compromise. Use promo code DANA for 10% your order.Patriot Mobilehttps://patriotmobile.com/danaGet a free activation with code DANA when you make the switch today! Wise Food Storagehttp://wisefoodstorage.comBuy One Get One Free on select items when you type DANA into the search bar.

Jeffrey Epstein's list. Is it really going to come out? Is it really going to be public? Whoa. How about that for some news, huh? Welcome to the Dana show. Dana's off today. It's me, Rich.

Zoli, back with you from Talk Radio 1210, W Ph.D. In Philadelphia, a lot of news today, as you can imagine, around Trump and Colorado, a lot of reaction. Jonathan Turley shredding the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. Same with that judge who dissented, an excellent, excellent dissent. And even Jonathan Shate from New York Magazine, writing a piece saying that disqualifying Trump from the Supreme. ballot is a step too far the political case against Colorado's legal ruling. And he's no fan of

Trump, obviously, but he knows that this is too far, goes way too far and is just going to help Trump politically, at least in the short term. So we'll talk about all that, of course, with you. And like I mentioned you yesterday on the Dana show, you need to stop breathing. If you want to save the environment, if you want to save the planet, stop breathing. That's right. Just showing how the climate change cooks really hate humanity, you need to just stop breathing. All right. right and don't eat meat obviously but how could you eat meat if you're breathing so just if you just stop breathing everything will be fine everyone will be fine and you'll be fine everything be good so a geoffrey epstein victim begs a judge not to release her name as the pedophiles 170 associates are

set to be revealed new york post writing this one of geoffrey epstein's alleged victims has asked a judge to keep our identity secrets saying that she lives in fear for her safety after it was revealed that the names of more than 170 people with ties to the accused sex trafficker will soon be disclosed court documents show. The anonymous woman only identified as Doe 107 made the request in a letter filed by her attorney to Manhattan federal judge Loretta Preska late Wednesday. She lives outside the United States in a culturally conservative country and lives in fear of her name being released, the attorney wrote, and at the woman faces risks of physical harm. The request came just days after the judge ordered a trove of court documents to be unsealed in the coming weeks that

named dozens of individuals with ties to Epstein, including ex-employees and victims, who have previously only been referred to as Jane Does or John Doeos. This is going to be huge. I mean, this is a big deal. This is happening. The long seal court papers are linked to a since-settled defamation lawsuit that Epstein accuser, Virginia Roberts, Goofrey, bought against the convicted pedophiles, Madam, which is Lane Maxwell back in 2015. While Doe 107 was not one of the individuals referenced on the soon-to-be-released list,

her attorney saw clarification from the judge on whether the exclusion meant the court had already decided not to unseal the woman's identity. The attorney pointed to a prior court filing from October that showed Gufrey and the Miami Herald, who initially requested the trove of documents be unsealed, had agreed to keep Doe 107's name and any personally identifying information secret due to her safety concerns. She and the Miami Herald's consent to such redactions is based on circumstances specific to her, and does not extend to other purported victims living in countries without the same risks of physical harm. I mean, what a mess this is, right? And what a mess. But there are a lot of people, very nervous today. Some very powerful, influential, rich people. I once heard a theory that Jeffrey Epstein was actually working for the CIA. He would lure these people down to his island. He would get them into these compromising positions with underage girls.

And then he was essentially a blackmail over them. and was able to then do the CIA's bidding. I don't know if that's true or not, but it certainly does seem like a lot of very powerful people were more than willing to go down there with him, even after they knew he was a pedophile. Even after they knew all that, they were still willing to power around with Jeffrey Epstein.

That's the part of the story that always disturbs me. Very powerful, international people were still willing to hang out with the guy, even after they knew who the guy was. At some point, you've got to say, all right, your true colors have come out here. I don't want anything to do with you. If nothing else, just because I don't want to be associated with that,

I don't want anyone believing that I'm part of this, but maybe these people were. Maybe they wanted to be part of it. That's certainly possible. And I wonder if the Clintons are going to be on there. I wonder how, well, we know that Bill Clinton flew on the plane. It's just a matter of how much, how many people in the orbit of the Democrat Party will have been on that plane and been down to that island. That's the question. That's the question everybody's waiting on with bated breath.

We shall see. It's going to happen January 2nd. I'm actually filling in for Dana that day. So perhaps we'll be able to share some of those names on the air together as the list becomes public. If it actually happens, I mean, I'm still nervous that they're going to do something to block it. You're dealing with very, very rich, powerful people. They have a lot of very smart attorneys who are also very rich and powerful. And until I guess I'm in that point of saying I will believe Jeffrey Epstein's list is public when I see the list being public.

Until that time, I want to get my hopes up. I really don't. Harvard University, they find more. more duplicative language by the embattled president clodine gay well i guess she's really not embattled is she she sort of survived they had the kill shot against her after that disastrous testimony in front of congress when she basically defended all this anti-semitic rhetoric on her campus uh even after years and years of harvard shutting down free speech but they kept her probably because of her uh... de i profile and now they have over forty

instances where she plagiarized and borrowed people's work. And I'll tell you, it's, it's just amazing how this double standard, she's allowed to keep her job, despite the fact that she has ripped off so many other academics, because Harvard is never going to fire her because of her DEI profile. Let's face it. Let's be, let's just call what it is, just say what it is, and you know that part and you don't have to hide behind that fact. The question, though, is, will these universities change anything? And the answer is no what they're going to do is they're going to double down on DEI they're just going to add Jewish students into their DEI profiles and the stepping on eggshells nature of America on

college campuses and in corporations today because let's face it I work at a corporation maybe you do too and a lot of people don't even say hello to each other in the hallways anymore I think all these years and years of having to go through these training videos where you're afraid to say anything because it might be deemed racist or sexist or misconduct. or homophobic or inappropriate or blah blah as has just created a culture where people are just afraid to even talk you know what i mean like forget going out as a team for happy hour and team building and all that just they didn't want to say alone the hallway at risk they'll do something wrong and it'll wind up costing them their job i think all this dey stuff in the workplace

has had major ramifications i really do and of course it started on colleges as well diversity equity and inclusion. And if you are somebody who is not part of that unholy triad of DEI, you find out very quickly you're the bad guy. I remember I to take a unconscious bias training video. And the first question on that video was, do you have unconscious bias? And I said, no. I thought I was done. Forty-five minutes later, I learned all about how I actually do have unconscious bias and I'm a terrible person and I'm horrible and I'm no good and I'm the problem and I'm, I'm the problem. I'm the oppressor and I'm the oppressor class and the fact that I don't know that is also part of the problem.

And I should really understand that because I'm the bad guy and, you know, on and on and on, it goes. And so you wind up realizing very quickly, it's just better just to keep your mouth shut and play the game if you want to keep your job. Now, I don't have to worry about that because I'm a radio host, obviously. I have to say controversial things. It's my job. Here is, this is interesting now.

You know, when I look at everything is happening, in the world of academia. And I think about the situation with Israel right now. And I hear more and more stories calling for Israel to have a ceasefire with Hamas and for Israel to lay down their arms and to basically now allow Hamas a chance to regroup. I keep thinking that we got here because for years, the model, the mindset has always been there's an oppressor and there's the oppressed. And this is really how the left and the woke approach everything in life. You're either. one of the other. You're either the oppressor or you're the oppressed. And in the case of Israel, they've decided a long time ago, Israel was the oppressor and that anybody who is not Israeli

was the oppressed. So anybody in Palestine was oppressed and Israel was the oppressor. And so the, you have 24, 25 percent of college kids thinking that Hamas, they are freedom fighters, the Houthis, all the Iranian-backed terror groups, they're all freedom fighters who are all fighting for the liberation of the Palestinian people. it is the mindset of victimhood and the mindset of this notion of oppression and oppressor that has led to this point. And Joe Biden's in a very, very pretentious political spot. He wants to say he's for Israel, and maybe he is, but the problem is that he's surrounded by people that aren't.

And when you've got John Federman, the senator from Pennsylvania coming out and clarifying his position to say, look, I'm a progressive, I'm a Democrat, but I stand with Israel. I think what happened on October 7th was horrendous, and I stand with Israel, but he's an outlier in the Democrat Party. You've got a problem. There was this restaurant in Philadelphia, Goldies, and everybody was out there chanting, we charge you with genocide, and the governor of Pennsylvania is a Democrat, rushed down there to declare that it was anti-Semitic. Biden has said nothing about this. He's been to Philadelphia a bunch of times, won't say anything about this. Because at the core of the Democrat Party today is a lot of anti-Semitic rhetoric.

That's why they want Israel to lay down their arms. It's why they had a PBS special there tonight going after Benjamin Netanyahu. And it's why you hear more and more stories of the victims of Israel that are happening. And I keep wondering and thinking to myself, you know, how much of this is because the left has indoctrinated everybody to believe that if you're an ally of the United States of America, you can't be a very good person. You can't be a very good country. And Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East. So then obviously they must be bad. Now, you may have heard about what happened in Prague.

At least 10 people were killed and 30 others injured in a shooting at the University in Prague on Thursday, where young people seeking cover were huddled on the scaffolding of the building and under lockdown in classrooms. The shooting broke out at Charles University's Faculty of the Arts near the Czech Capitals Old Town, which is a popular tourist destination. A few minutes later, the authorities confirmed that the shooter, I guess now here that says here, the shooter had been eliminated, but that there were several dead and injured victims on the scene. There were no immediate details about the victims or the shooter,

at least of the most recent story that came out. The philosophy department of the university, which is located in Jean Palak Square, was evacuated, said the mayor of Prague. Sirens and police vehicles surrounded the campus building where onlookers lookers look panicked and tried to flee. We urge citizens not to stay in the immediate vicinity and not to leave the house, the police said, currently stuck inside my classroom in Prague.

Shooter is dead, but we were waiting to be evacuated. praying to make it out alive, said journalist Jacob Wiseman, who wrote that on Twitter, alongside a photo of the darkened classroom where he was sheltering. Lock the doors before the shooter tried to open it. Effing hell, he lamented. The director of a gallery located in the square told Czech television that he saw a person shooting a gun toward the nearby Mainz Bridge. Another social media user shared a startling photo of what appear to be students huddling

desperately on the scaffolding of the university building. Suddenly I heard shooting what witness told the Czech news outlet. I looked out my balcony. I saw the police arrive. A few officers were having a hard time stopping people walking towards the scene. An email to Charles University staff warned the faculty to stay put while the investigation was ongoing. I'm okay. I was in the library at the time of the shooting. They sent us to the back of the computer lab where there were no windows, said one witness. Word is now spread that the government is dead.

We all call and reply to family and friends that we are okay. within an hour of the shooting, the Czech prime minister canceled his scheduled events and was on route to Prague. We will keep you updated on this, of course, as the show progresses today later throughout the afternoon, obviously here on the Dana Show. But let's talk about Trump and Colorado, shall we? As more and more reactions come out about the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, I think one thing is very obvious. The United States Supreme Court needs to weigh in quickly and definitively.

they need to once and for all settle this question of whether the president is covered by section three of the 14th amendment and you may not know this but when they did the original draft of section three of the 14th amendment the so-called disqualification clause they actually had the word president in there in the original draft and they took it out so if you want to look at the intent of the framers of that amendment the post-civil war amendment originally they thought to include the president and then they took it out. Now, taking it out as a very deliberate act. We have been acting at this point.

We've been told up until this point from people that defend the notion of Trump being barred that it was left out as an accident or it was left out intentionally to prove that the president was included in some wacky way of mumbo-jumbo. You've got to do a Jedi mind trick to figure that out. But if you find out that the word president

was in there originally and then removed, then I think that settles the question once and for all about whether or not they wanted the president to be included in that list of offices that would be excluded if they had taken part in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid and comfort to those who have. So more details on that for you this afternoon. I'm on Twitter if you want to weigh in at Rich Zoli.

This is the Dana Show. We're coming right back. Looking for a proactive solution in a battle against COVID-19. Well, Ivermectin is now available at all family pharmacy based in Boca Raton, Florida. With a growing interest in its potential benefits, Ivermectin has emerged at the forefront for its antiviral properties. Supported by robust research and real-world experiences, it has gained new attention as a possible ally in managing the impact of the virus.

For reliable information and access to quality products like Ivermectin, visit allfamilyfarmat.com slash Dana and say 10% with promo code Dana 10. Your health matters, so stay informed. Visit allfamilyfarmat.com slash Dana. Navigate these challenging times with informed choices and proactive staff. All Family Pharmacy is U.S.-based and safe. Embrace the possibilities with Ivermectin. Save 10% with Code Dana 10 when you place your order now at allfamilyfarma.com slash Dana.

That's allfamilyfarma.com slash Dana, co-Dana 10. That's Dana and the number 10. Before sending your child off to collect six figures in debt at the age of 18, remember to make sure that school isn't another woke hedge fund corporation. Elite universities have gone from places of excellence to places of political and social engineering. Check out the watchdog on Wall Street podcast on Apple, Spotify, wherever you get your podcast. Don't let FOMO get the best of you. Stay in the loop and ahead of the curve by following

Dana on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, we got a lot to break down about the Colorado Supreme Court ruling and what the United States Supreme Court will probably do. And I'm going to break it down for you here on the Dana Show. It's me, Rich Zioly, in with you. But I got five things for you. And they're important things, so let's do this. And now, all of the news you would probably miss. It's time for Dana's Quick 5. I guess the first question is, do you want to know? Do you want to know? That's the first question I have. Scientists have created artificial intelligence. They claim predicts when you'll die with 78% accuracy. Do you want to know when you're going to die? Do you want to know is the question.

With 78% accuracy, that's the problem, though, is that if you're in the 22% that's wrong, and now you think you're going to die and you don't die, and you make all these changes, you spend all your money, and now it was wrong, what do you do then? Or you, the 22% that thinks they're going to die, and then you don't die, or you do die sooner. I don't know. Golden Globe, still no host for the CBS show three weeks away.

You know the reason why, because nobody wants to be canceled. There is a pandemic of inactivity. It's the next crisis facing the United States. People are still lazy because of lockdowns and COVID. A woman bought a glass vase at Goodwill for three days. 99 and it sold at auction for $107,000. I guess you can say that that's some pretty good luck right there, right? And Americans over 70 hold more than 30% of the country's wealth.

Imagine that. Americans over 70 hold more than 30% of the country's wealth. Those are people that don't want to die anytime soon. I would not want to know when my number was called, if you know what I mean, if I've got that kind of money. This is the day to show. More to come. Straight ahead.

Don't go away. As we get moving, our partners over at Wai. wise foods, wise food storage. Here's the thing. If fit were to hit the proverbial shan, the last thing that you want to worry about, ladies and gentlemen, is where your food comes from. You don't want to worry about where your meal comes from. You want to know that you've done everything you can to prepare your family. Because honestly, with this administration in charge, I can't even tell you what's going to be happening next year. Who knows? So this is where wise food storage comes in. They have right now, I buy one, get one free discount on their 72-hour food kit,

120 servings. They have a breakfast bucket. You can visit wisefoodstorage.com. All you got to do is go to that search bar and then you type Dana, D-A-N-A. And when you type my name in the search bar, you're going to get access. This is why you want to do this, by the way. You're going to get access to all of these exclusive deals on their best selling products like the 72-hour food kit. The buy one, get one, $100 value for half the price. That includes two boxes with 12 pouches of delicious, premium, high protein survival food entreece breakfast and drinks you get all kinds of delicious meals i think that each kit has like 11,120 calories and that's all the calories in each kit 120 serving breakfast bucket that's a buy one get one two and 40 meals for less than a dollar and 15 cents each all kinds

of stuff everything made with high quality u.s ingredients here in the u.s of a freeze dried dehydrated easy to prepare just add water and you got a 25 year shelf life so order yours today at wisefoodstorage type Dana in that search bar, get exclusive deals like the buy one, get one free on select food kits. Visit wisefoodstorage.com code Dana. That's wise food storage.com code Dana. Elevate your commute, workouts or downtime with the Dana Show podcast. Unleash the power of knowledge at your fingertips by following Dana on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. We don't need have judges making these decisions. We need voters to have to make these decisions. So I want to see this in the hands of the voters. We're going to win this the right way.

We're going to do what we need to do. But the last thing we want is judges telling us who can and can't be on the way. That, of course, was Nikki Haley. She responds to the Colorado ruling. Welcome back to the Dana Show. It's great to be with you again today. I'll be back with you again tomorrow. It's Rich Zioly from Talk Radio 1210, W Ph.D. in Philadelphia, one of Dana's any proud affiliates. The Colorado issue, before the Supreme Court, of course, which could happen at any moment now, probably after Christmas, clearly. We have a deadline here January 4, but the court's not really going to worry about that, the Supreme Court's going to do what it wants to do, when it wants to do so.

But as Jonathan Turley put it, and I think Jonathan Turley put it very, very well, this is the call of history. It is time for the court to speak as one in overturning the Colorado opinion. And he said that essentially now the test for the United States Supreme Court is not just what they should do, but how they should do it. as an institution the court is often called upon to seize such moments to bring unity and clarity to our core values that is why this insidious opinion must not only be equivocal but unanimous unequivocal but unanimous the color our decision to bar Donald trump from the bout will be overturned

because it is wrong on the history and language of the 14th amendment dead wrong the question is whether the u.s supreme court will speak with one voice including the three liberal justices As with the three Democratic state justices who refuse to sign off on the Colorado opinion, these federal justices can now bring a moment of unity not just for the court, but the country, in rejecting the shockingly anti-democratic theory. For years, the disqualification theory has been treated like some abstract parlor game for law professors. While Democrats call for the disqualification of 120 House members, it was treated as a fringe theory. It has now lost its charm as a legal brain teaser.

The disqualification of Trump is based on the use of a long dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. After the Civil War, House members were outraged to see Alexander Stevens, the Confederate Vice President, seeking to take the oath within an array of other former Confederate senators and military officials. They had all previously taken the same oath and then violated it to join a secession movement they claimed that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. That was a true rebellion, January 6th. 2021 was a riot. That does not excuse those who committed crimes that day, but it was not an insurrection. The majority on the Colorado Supreme Court adopted sweeping interpretations of very elements to decide that Trump not only incited an insurrection, but can be disqualified under this provision. Does not matter to them that Trump has never been charged with, even

incitement, or that he called his supporters to go to the Capitol to protest peacefully. in finding that Trump led an actual insurrection, the four justices used speeches going back to 2016 to show an effort to rebel before Trump was ever even president. There are ample grounds, Turley writes, to summarily toss this opinion to the side. However, that would not answer the call of this historic moment. What these four justices did was a direct assault in her democratic process

in seeking to bar the most popular candidate in the upcoming election. whatever the view of Trump, that is a decision that should rest with the voters. Not only are these four justices seeking to bar the votes of millions of voters, even barring the counting of right-in votes, but they are doing so in the name of democracy. It is the ballot cleansing that is usually associated with authoritarian countries like Iran, where voters are protected from unworthy candidates. Justice Robert Jackson once observed that he and his colleagues are not final, because, we are infallible. We are infallible because we are final. A decision on Colorado could put this theory to rest by the sheer finality of the appeal. However, it is not the finality that is needed at this moment. We need clarity, clarity of purpose and principle. The Supreme Court plays a unique

role in our system at times like these. It must at times defy us in rejecting racism as cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, and other times it has protected us in rejecting government overreach as in cases such as Katz v. United States, demanding warrants to overcome the reasonable expectation of privacy. This is a time where it can unify us. The court holds the ultimate bully pulpit that can educate citizens on what defines us as people. Most people understand intuitively that what these four justices did in Colorado was wrong. However, the court can speak as one. Conservatives and liberals, in reaffirming the core values discarded by these state justices.

In that sense, it may be the greatest test of Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts once observed that the most successful Chief Justices help their colleagues speak with one voice. Past Chief Justices from John Marshall to Earl Warren struggle to secure unanimous votes on fundamental cases to reaffirm such defining values. If this court could help unify the country in a way that may be unparalleled in its history, It can show that justices who hold vastly different ideological views can be united and unified on core principles. It can remind us that as citizens, the Constitution is ultimately not a convenient, not a covenant, excuse me, with the government, but with each other. Now, he's hoping for unanimous opinion here, and the clarity that he wants is for the court to say that this decision is wrong.

here's my concern my concern is that john roberts loves these narrow rulings and that john roberts wants to just simply stay out of it as best he possibly can the easy way for the court to punt on the larger question of the 14th amendment's disqualification clause whether or not includes the president which would be more controversial because no matter which way the court comes down on that and they should come down on the right side of history and do what the amendment actually says and say the president is not included here. But either way, it's going to be controversial. But it's an easy one for the court to come back and say,

Donald Trump has not been charged with these crimes. He has not been found guilty of these crimes. The state does not have the authority to find him guilty. These are federal matters, and there's no case here. That's it. It's over. That would be the most narrow interpretation of it. Donald Trump has not been found guilty. an insurrection. He's not been found guilty of giving aid in comfort to those who have.

He's not been found guilty of a rebellion. That's the end of it. And then it goes back. The problem with that, of course, is that you're dealing with a special counsel named Jack Smith, who is hell-bent on getting Trump. And he's got his little minion there, who was the guy that argued the case of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell before the Supreme Court. That's a case where the court was unanimous, ate nothing in deciding that the government had vastly overreached, and it's an application of the bribery statute to go after the governor, and overturned the lower court decision and said that Bob McDonald was not guilty of bribery. There's a big slap in the face of Jack Smith and his little minion who's now running this case for him to get Trump.

But if the court comes back and says there was no due process for Donald Trump, there were no charges, there were no convictions. This case is moot. Watch for Jack Smith to add those charges. for a D.C. Kangaroo court to find Donald Trump guilty of those charges, in which case then the court then still has to settle the question of whether or not the disqualification clause counts for presidents or not. Now, an understanding of the language is very clear that it does not. An understanding of a history is very clear that it does not. Even Bill Barr,

the former attorney general who is no fan of Trump these days, finds that this case is legally wrong and untenable. Here is the former attorney general, cut 11. Well, As you know, I strongly oppose Donald Trump for the Republican nomination, but I think that this case is legally wrong and untenable. And I think this kind of action of stretching the law, taking these hyper-aggressive positions to try to knock Trump out of the race, are counterproductive. They backfire.

As you know, he feeds on grievance, just like a fire feeds on oxygen. And this is going to end up as a grievance. that helps them. It's going to help him for sure. And that was a comment that was made by Frank Luntz, the pollster, who's also no fan of Trump. But yeah, this plays right in the Trump's hands. They're trying to stop me because I'm trying to fight for you. And I'm such a danger to them that they're going to do everything they possibly can to stop me. It plays right into his hands. It absolutely does. Even former Senator Claire McCaskill couldn't help but admit the obvious point on

that. Cut number eight. As a lawyer, I get this. And I think there is, is a real strong case for the Supreme Court to agree with Colorado. As somebody who is a politician, I think it's a real bad decision because I think it really helps Donald Trump. The Supreme Court is not going to agree with Colorado. They have no reason to agree with Colorado. There was no due process here. The only time this case was ever tried in the federal level was in the impeachment of Donald Trump. That's it. So if you're going to look at precedent, you have to look at the actions by Congress in the impeachment of Donald Trump after January 6th. And that's no small matter for the Supreme Court.

That's no small matter there whatsoever. The court likes to defer to Congress as best it possibly can. The originalist and textualists on the court believe that that is their role. So if they have the ability to defer to Congress where Congress has the ultimate authority on impeachment and removal of a president, and Congress declined to do so, thereby acquitting Donald Trump of those charges, that's all the precedent the court needs. And all they have to do is come back and say, listen, Congress has the ultimate authority to try and remove a president of the United States of America. It did so, and it acquitted him.

Congress is the ultimate authority when it comes to dealing with presidents who may have broken the law, who may have committed egregious, high crimes and misdemeanors, and Congress acquitted him. So there's already precedent. There's already case law on the matter. All they have to do is turn to Congress and say it would be unwise for this court, to think it can overrule the actions of Congress. And this matter, when the Constitution is very clear, Article 1 gives Congress the impeachment power. That's how presidents are held accountable.

Donald Trump was president when January 6th happened. The Congress impeached him, which is a charge, and in the Senate, they had a trial and he was acquitted. So that's all you need. I mean, that's all the court has to do is just go back to that. They could argue that Trump is not any due process. He hasn't been charged of these crimes, but they don't even have to do that.

They can just go back and say, Look, we're the Supreme Court, but we have to defer to Congress on this. The Constitution doesn't give us the ability to decide if presidents have broken the law. It gives Congress the ability to do that. Congress has the ultimate authority. The framers of the Constitution fell very strongly that you have to keep presidents out of the legal system for a variety of different reasons. So the Congress has the ultimate authority on dealing with the president. Now, once the president's removed from office and becomes just a average citizen again, well, then it's different.

the legal system can go after him at that point. But up until that point, the framers wanted the Congress to be the judge and jury when it came to presidents who abuse their power, period. And so if Congress took this issue up already and then acquitted Donald Trump, what other case law do you need? What other precedent do you need? What other due process do you need than that? I think the Roberts Corps can come back and just say that and say this is over.

and that may negate the need for Jack Smith to do any other further charges. If the court's smart, they could write it in such a way to say that anything related to January 6 has already been adjudicated by the Congress of the United States and the Congress has the ultimate and final power when it comes to presidents who are in office at the time these events occur, period. And if Congress did not find him guilty and remove him from office thereby making him ineligible to run again, there's no issue here. for the court to take up. There's no issue here for the court to take up at all, period.

I mean, at that point, it's over. At that point, once and for all, we can have the finality and the clarity. We don't have to have the court even tackle the question of the disqualification clause. I mean, they could if they want to, but they can pump that for another day. Because I don't think it's necessary to even have to go there. Donald Trump was acquitted by the Congress. The Congress says the ultimate authority when it comes to holding presidents accountable. There is no higher power. There is no appeal process for presidents. Presidents can't appeal and a decision to remove them from office. The Supreme Court does not act as an appeal body. So whatever Congress decides is final, period. And the court should rightly cite that and end this once and for all, in my esteemed legal opinion. This is the Dana show. It's me, Rich Zioly. In for Dana. We are coming right back. our friends over at Nimi's skincare. This is a great, great, great Christmas gift. They have different kinds of bundles that you can get. And like the winter bundle, you can get gift cards. They have all

kinds of gifting options. I have to be very particular with my skin because I go on camera every day, as you know. I go on whether it's, you know, cable news, whether it's streaming, whether it's, you know, my direct TV simulcast. I'm always on TV so I cannot have a bad skin day. And I also have to be very, very careful with what I use on my skin. And I don't, I'm, I'm, Nimi's skincare, I first started hearing about them when all of these other skin care companies were using men to sell skin care products to women. And ladies, this goes beyond the cosplay. As a woman, your skin is different. Your skin is different in every decade of your life.

You need different things at different times of your life. And apparently none of those companies understood that. They wanted to sell you ideology. So Nimi skincare was developed and created to offer women the kind of skincare that they need that actually fills their. needs and deals with taking care of their skin. So for instance, they have their hydrate and protect ultimate routine. It includes Nimi Skin Care's most popular anti-aging products. It cleanses, it moisturizes, it protects your skin. It's really moisturizing, especially if you deal with dry winter skin. And they only use the best ingredients. They don't use any of the paribans, none of the

bad stuff that actually super bad for your skin. And they don't test on animals, which is very important to me, made right here in the US of A. And all of their skincare products are 100% guaranteed. Now, they want to save you even more money. Use Code Dana and you'll get 10% off of your purchase. That's at Nemea Skincare. You don't have to compromise your values to have great skin. Go to NEMISKINCARE.com. Inimis, skincare.com. Use promo code Dana. Get 10% off. Your skin will thank you. Follow Dana on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, because knowledge is your ultimate superpower. I mean, if this Supreme Court upholds this decision, decision, I don't even know. I mean, I'll eat this tie the next time we're on together. I mean, I'll be

shocked. I'll be shocked if that happens. I mean, I think they're going to punt this thing into the sun and incinerate it. Yeah, I think he's right. That's Scott Jennings. He's CNN legal analyst on SCOTUS upholding the Colorado decision. I don't think he's going to have to worry about eating that tie anytime soon. Welcome back to the Danish show. Glad you're here. Scott Jennings also talked about Trump's rhetoric as he was on CNN discussing the Colorado decision. Let's take a Listen to that one. Cut number 12. I think on this rhetoric, you know, you ask what have we learned? Well, we've learned a couple of things.

Number one, Republicans do not like illegal immigration, and they see this as a real crisis, and they want someone to be publicly tough. But remember, guys, number two, who's going crazy about this right now? The press, the media is going crazy about this language. And so when Republicans see the media going nuts about something that Trump said, they reflexively rally to Trump. Have we learned anything in the last eight years? No.

We have not learned anything because that's what the Republicans are looking for. Who's mad about this? And if the right people are mad about it, I'm going to back Trump on it. Oh, that's true. If the media is upset, then you know that Trump must have said something that we all agree on, right? Obviously, I agree with them on that point, 100%. Well, California is going to try to do the exact same thing that Colorado did. The genius lieutenant governor sent a letter yesterday to the Secretary of State asking to find ways to disqualify Trump from the ballot.

But it actually made a point of saying that you have to be 40 years old to be president, which, of course, you have to only be 35. So she's not exactly the brightest bulb that's out there shining bright. But nevertheless, here's the California lieutenant governor cuts seven. You know, we are in uncharted territory in our country. And the decision out of Colorado is a very significant fact. When the Supreme Court of Colorado determines in an examination of the facts that Donald Trump is an insurrection, and therefore is disqualified from being on the ballot, certainly here in California,

we have to look at that information and make the same determination here. We have to make the same determination in California. And Maine's looking to do it too. This is why the Supreme Court needs to come back and rule very, very quickly, and end this once and for all before all these other blue states in the union, try doing the same kind of crap. Here's Maurer Gay from the New York Times discussing Republicans

standing with Confederate. Steve, let's do cut number 14. Why are you standing with Confederates who betrayed this country? And this is what they're standing with is the spirit of those Confederates rather than the Americans who came together after a long and brutal civil war that was fought to keep the Union together. Is she drunk? Is she drinking? I mean, she sounds like somebody who's drinking. What the hell are you talking about? Who's standing with Confederates? What are you talking about? The only people that stand on Confederates are Democrats, because the Democrat Party was the Confederacy.

So who else is standing with Democrats today, other than your fellow Democrats? You guys have always been the Confederacy. You still are today. You still want to destroy this country and take away the will of the people. Give me a break. All right. It's a data show hour number two straight ahead. It's me, Rich Zioly from Talk Radio 1210, W Ph.D.

In Philadelphia, don't go away. Our partners, our friends that are over at Patriot Mobile. It's the only Christian conservative cell phone service in the country. and if you want to save money and you also want to make sure that your dollars don't support the things you vote against whenever you go to the ballot box, you need to be making that switch like today. Like right now, make the switch to Patriot Mobile. They have a 100% U.S.-based customer service team that's going to make it super easy for you to switch. They also have a great promotion right now wherein you can get a free smartphone using code Friday 76, make the switch today. Limited time only though. And you can talk to one of their awesome customer service team members. They can help you if you want to keep your phone or you're not. number or upgrade. If you want to get entirely new everything, the choice is yours. Dependable nationwide coverage and all three major networks, you're getting the best service without funding the left. So visit Patriot.com slash Dana or call 972 Patriot. Use promo code Friday 76 to get that free smartphone make the switch today. That's Patriot mobile.com slash Dana 972 Patriot Code Friday

76. Another thing is these crowds here in Eagle Pass have never been this large during my reporting. This is the most people I've ever seen in Eagle Pass and other reporters, colleagues working other parts of the border in Arizona, in Hacumba near San Diego. Tell me the same thing. We have these conversations and the conversation is always well. I've never seen this number of migrants arriving. Yeah, it's true. It is a invasion at the southern border and the border has been surrendered by Joe Biden. He's given up, surrendered, and any efforts to try to secure it will be blocked by this administration.

Welcome back to the Danish show. Glad you're here today. It's me, Rich Zioly from Talk Radio 1210, WPHD, with you this afternoon. Texas got a little bit of a break yesterday when a federal appeals court, the Fifth Circuit, ruled that Texas can keep the razor wire they put up in place. See, now this shows you how bat-esque crazy this administration is and how open borders and absolutely pro-amnesty, pro-invasion that Joe Biden and this administration are. Texas decided it's going to put up razor wire to help stop the problem to help stop the invasion. And the federal government sued Texas and said, you must take it down. Take down this razor wire. Tear down this razor wire that is protecting the American southern border.

It's amazing, right? I think it tells you everything you need to know. By the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily block the federal government from removing razor wire barriers placed at the border by Texas authorities, The court ruled that the government cannot damage destroy or otherwise interfere with the razor wire fence erected in the Eagle Pass area. The exception is a medical emergency. Texas through the Biden administration in October when border patrol agents began cutting or damaging the 29 miles of razor wire along the border to allow illegal immigrants to enter deeper into the state and then into the United States. In other words, the state is trying to prevent the federal government from destroying state property. quote by cutting texasers razor wire the federal government has not only illegally destroyed property owned by the state of

texas it is also disruptive the state's border security efforts leaving gaps in texas's border barriers and damaging texas ability to effectively deter illegal entry into its territory texas installed the razor wire as part of operation loan star it's a border security initiative to stop the flow of illegal immigrants the federal government argues that one Once illegal immigrants are on U.S. soil, border patrol agents are required to apprehend them. Well, here's my point that I think is very important here, which is why would you not want somebody to do something to secure the border? Why would you not want this? Why would you not want somebody to do something to secure the southern border?

Unless you just want open borders. I mean, if that's, if all you want is open borders, then that's what you're going to get. That's what you're going to get. And that's clearly what they want. There's no question about that. That they want open borders. I mean, Texas is trying to do everything you possibly can, and the government of the United States is fighting them on this.

Here is New York City Mayor Eric Adams. And this is another problem here. You've got Eric Adams battling the Obama, I say Obama, the Biden administration. It really is the Obama administration, though, isn't it? He's fighting them, and because of that fact, now he's under federal investigation. The weaponization of government by this administration

runs many different directions. and this is one of those directions it runs, where if you wind up fighting them, you will absolutely come under the crosshairs of them. Cut 16. We are New Yorkers. We're made up, made up of the best stuff on earth. And we get angry.

We get pissed off, and we let you know how you fail. You know, some people see me. You know, I can walk down the block. Some give me the thumbs up and give me another finger, you know. But that's New Yorkers. You know, I wake up in the morning at some time and look at myself and I get myself to feed you. They, you know, Mayor, here's the problem, right? It's very, very cute and funny and everything about what's happening to your city and going to hell.

But you guys and your fellow Democrats have allowed this to occur because you wanted the United States of America to be invaded. I mean, let's face it, the Democrat Party wants this invasion. Otherwise, why would you tear down Texas's razor wire? This is your party, man. This is the Democrat Party. Why would you tear down razor wire? The state of Texas owns it. They paid for it.

It's their property. And the federal government is coming along and taking it down. Why? Because they don't want people to be deterred from crossing into the country illegally. It's the only answer. I mean, states put up barriers all the time, right? For example, if you try to go over a bridge without paying a toll, that's a barrier. Imagine if the federal government came in and tore that down.

Just went in there and tore it down. I said, we don't want to deter anybody from going to another state or coming into your state without paying a toll. Well, you know what? We don't think they should have to. So we're going to tear down your bridge barriers. There are lots of barriers to entry into a state, especially if you have to go over water. You have to pay a toll. Typically, I mean, I drive from New Jersey to Pennsylvania every single day.

And every day, I got to shell out five bucks whenever I do that. And I cannot get home unless I go over that same bridge. The two states are separated by the Delaware River. I have no choice unless I want to swim. Now, what if the government came along, the federal government, and just tore down all of the barriers put up by the state of Pennsylvania that would require you to pay a toll before you can enter the state? Stair them down.

Why not? How is it any different? Texas put a brazier wire and said, don't cross this ear because if you cross here, you're going to hurt yourself. And the federal government said, well, we think that's going to be mean to people. People might hurt themselves. It might scratch themselves. So you know what?

We're going to come tear down your property and take it away. What right does the federal government have to do that? I mean, there are barriers put up all the time. If you try to evade a toll, for example, you may run into a bunch of those big cylinder cans. You know, they usually fill with water, those big things. You might crash into that. It could hurt yourself. Why not come remove those?

Because in case anybody wants to evade the toll, you can just go right around it. It's so stupid. It's so obvious what's. happening here the government of the United States of America wants the border to be wide open period Texas has every right to try to defend its own border has every right to have these the razor wire put there they're not shooting immigrants who try to cross into their country they are trying to deter them from making the cross in by using razor wire and you know what if people scratch themselves on the razor wire well

that's on them but you cannot get more obvious about what the Biden administration's goal here is here's governor Ron DeSantis talking about the invasion of the southern border and he's responding to what Trump said about poisoning the blood of of America. This whole thing about the rhetoric is stupid. I mean, again, why don't we get more upset about what's actually happening at the southern border and not worry so much about the language it's used? I'm really getting annoyed with all this. Cut number six. When you start talking about using those types of terms, I don't think that that helps us move the ball forward. I would not put it in those terms. I want to stop the invasion at the border 100%. But then legal,

immigration should really only be for people that buy into our core values as a country and that actually want to assimilate into American society. Well, yeah, I mean, I do agree with the governor on that, no question about it. But remember something in all of this, what you see happening with regards to the left is an outrage over the fact that Texas is trying to do something, something to deal with the problem. That's it. They're trying to do something to deal with the problem. Now, look at what Texas is doing by saying that we're going to give the power to arrest people if they cross-in-ro country illegally. And look at the administration's response. What did the administration come out and say? Carine Jean-Pierre gave a big lecture about how it's

not going to help. It's all going to make things worse. And now the government is trying to block Texas from being able to do that. They're saying, you, Texas, do not have the right to enforce federal immigration law. I could ask the obvious question here. How come the state of Colorado has the right to enforce federal insurrection law. If the state of Texas can't enforce federal immigration law, how come the state of Texas can enforce federal insurrection law? I mean, insurrections, rebellions are all covered under U.S. Code. But yet the state of Colorado has decided that it will be the enforcement authority and it will be the body that will hand out the sentence. It will be the judge, jury, and executioner, so to speak. So when it comes to insurrection

law, even though it's a federal issue, a state can rule them at, have a trial on that. It's a mock trial, but whatever. And then the state can hand out a punishment. But if a state wants to deal with its own border, no, no, no, no, that's a federal issue. You have no say over that border, even if your border of your state connects to another country. You have no sovereignty whatsoever as a state. The federal government will tell you what to do. You do nothing. You cannot do anything to protect the citizens of your state. Why not? I mean, Texas, like any other state, probably has. responded, the state police have responded to people who've tried to commit murder and robbery

and arson and all kinds of things, right? So the state goes and protects people from bad people all the time. Why can't the state protect the state of Texas from people who are coming into the country illegally? You're also coming into Texas illegally at the same time. Two things are happening at once. You're entering the United States of America illegally, yes, but you're also entering the state illegally. So why can't the state of Texas do something about that? The answer is it certainly can. It has every right to. A state has a right to protect its own borders to the best of its ability. It can't stop U.S. citizens from being able to come in, but it certainly has the ability to, you know, charge them a VIG if they want to come in, if they use one of their crossings or driving one of their precious roadways.

But why can't Texas stop potentially bad people from crossing the border as a safety measure? The answer is because the administration doesn't want anyone to be stopped, and Texas would actually do it. That's the answer. That's the only obvious answer you need. Texas would actually get the job done and the administration doesn't want the job done. They don't want the border to be closed. That's why they're trying to force Texas to remove the razor wire. And look, you know, when Texas governor, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick yesterday said,

why don't we just make Biden ineligible to run? Because this is the real insurrection here. This is the real rebellion. And Joe Biden's giving aid in comfort to all those people who are invading our country. He's exactly right. You want to talk about an invasion. You want to talk about an insurrection. You want to talk about a rebellion.

Just look at the southern border. It is literally being taken over as we speak. And this administration has surrendered. And this administration is giving aid and comfort to those who are invading the United States of America. You cannot argue with that point. This is the Dana show. It's me, Rich Zioly, in for Dana.

It's a busy Thursday afternoon. Christmas is in only four days. Hard to believe it, right? We're coming right back. Craving a daily dose of intellectual adrenaline look no further than the Dana Show podcast where curiosity meets courage by following on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. You know, the elf on the shelf is a big thing this time of year.

I have three kids, ages nine, seven, and three. So I'm very familiar with the elf. And I have an elf story for you as we do five very important things for you right now. And now, all of the news you would probably miss. It's time for Dana's Quick Five. A woman horrified social media with an elf on the shelf scene. featuring a freshly castrated Cajone.

Yes, she put a castrated horse testicle, and it was met with a mixed response from social media users, and not very, very nice to do this time of year, obviously. I will just say this about the elf. Sometimes the elf gets drunk and forgets to

move. He comes back from the North Pole and stays exactly where he was the night before. And so the elf and I've had a lot of talking to. I've had to give him some real stern warnings about, listen, when you come back, the next day after you rat up the kids to Santa and do your thing that you do, you know, which is act like the NSA. Please go back to a different shelf.

Will you please? Make sure you take the time to, so the kids don't wake up in the morning and go, why are you back in my room? This is creepy. Parents are angry at a disheveled Santa who didn't even bother with shoes or a hat. Deceveled Santa Santa at a shopping center as infuriated parents after he was photographed missing shoes in a hat and complained in front of children. The replacement Santa stopped in an,

after another Mr. Claus couldn't appear, but family said they were still waiting more than an hour for their disappointing experience. Kind of reminds me of you ever seen the movie Bad Santa with Billy Bob Thornton? It's hysterical. Very, very funny. Rather than the traditional big black boots, this Santa opted for red socks and forgot his hat.

One parent said that the experience was incredibly disappointing, as even the camera to capture the moment the children met Santa was ruined because the camera was broken. Sounds like, Mom, you got off kind of easy there. There are some bad standards out there, kids, and just remember something.

They all work for the big guy. But the big guy is busy at the North Pole right now. I don't mean Joe Biden. I mean Santa Claus. You've got to be careful with that. Dallas Fort Worth Airport says we can expect self-service TSA checkpoints within a year. The general public has proven time and time again that we just cannot be trusted with self-service checkouts at stores like Target and Walmart. But now we'll be able to check in ourselves and go through security all.

all by ourselves. I like this. The program will begin an initial run at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas before heading to other major airports, including Phoenix Sky Harbor, Boston Logan, and Miami International. And basically now low-risk travelers who have either TSA pre-check or clear will be able to do the self-tSA screening. I like this. I'm all for this. Anything against the government literally away from touching my body, I'm very, very happy with. In Washington State, Helena Police Department discovered the great chicken heist and they uncovered a crime most foul. How about that for a headline? Helena Police have a posting on their Facebook page congratulating officers for solving the

great chicken heist of 2023. According to the post, Officer Justin Gibson was dispatched to the 1500 block of East Lindale Avenue December 10th regarding a siting of a vehicle involved in a theft from a day before. He found the truck in the same area with two occupants loading items in 10th. the bed. The two occupants fled on foot. The driver was detained. The passenger was detained. Inside the truck's cab was evidence of a theft. Vary breeds of five very scared chickens were found and returned to their homes, according to police. I guess they were probably looking for free food, eggs. I mean, this is a tough economy. You know what I mean? I get it. I totally do. The big Laplowski

and Scoop Dog are among the winners in the South Lake Tahoe, snowplow naming contest. I like this. It's very, very cool. It's the time of year when the Sierra Nevada Club of South Lake Tahoe transforms into a winter wonderland. Throughout to winter season, snow plows work to clear roads and keep the city open. But to foster a greater sense of community, the city decided to hold its first name a snowplow contest this year. Residents got to vote in a list of 36 names. The names were all fun plays on snow-related activities and pop culture references, like Clark, Blizzworld, Luke Snow Walker, Ebenezer Scoop, and Snow Force One. A total of over 1,100 votes were cast, the city says, with the big Laplowski getting the most votes of all.

Clearly, the dude abides and the dude approves. Look at that. Very, very nice. Yeah, and finally, I will just tell you this when it comes to the elf on the shelf. Remember, the elf on the shelf is getting your kids primed for the deep state. It is a sci-op operation by the CIA. I'm just kidding. It's just a harmless little elf on the shelf, right?

Right? Right? All right. All right, it's the end of show. We got more to come, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, coming under fire by Senator Rand Paul. He's got a lot to say about Fauci's cover-ups. And as more information comes out about the Wuhan lab,

wait to you hear what Senator Rand Paul has to say about what Fauci knew and when Fauci knew it. don't go away whether you're a policy wonk a news junkie or simply someone hungry for insightful discourse that dana show podcast has your back follow dana on apple spotify or wherever you get your podcasts you know the amazing thing about the situation of the border is that the 14 amendment is once again going to come up very very soon birthright citizenship that's going to be the issue and watch this be the next battle in the the social justice crusade, nobody has a right to come into the country illegally and have a child and that child to become the United States citizen. And the reason I know that is because when

the 14th Amendment was passed, when it was ratified, one of the authors of the 14th Amendment made the point of saying that this wouldn't account for diplomats and ambassadors and other people. You know, back then, you used to come over here and it wasn't like just jumped on a plane. and you can't come by boat, you know, you'd be here for a long time. Many times ambassadors and diplomats and secretaries of state would stay months or even years. And they would have families and they would have children. And those children would be born in the United States of America. However, they were not considered American citizens because their parents were not American citizens.

So the term that you've heard is a term that is considered a derogatory term called an anchor baby, which is that an illegal immigrant will cross the United States of America, pregnant, have a child here and then the child will be a will be a U.S. citizen because they're born in U.S. soil, and then the illegal immigrant will then get to stay because she's anchored to the baby and, you know, that's been the way it has been. It's going to get challenged, though, because if a Republican wins, whether it's the Sanis or Trump, I don't know Nikki Haley's position on the issue, they're going to try to do away with birthright citizenship. Now, ultimately, this is going to go before the Supreme Court. And the argument by those who support it is that, look, if you make it here

and you're born on U.S. soil, you are a citizen, period. But actually, the law is pretty clear in terms of how you become a U.S. citizen, how you have to be born from people that are here legally. It's very obvious. And Texas, I mean, excuse me, Florida governor, Ron DeSantis makes this point when he talked about this very recently. Let's say to listen to what the Florida governor had to say about this as he's campaigning for president of the United States.

This will be a hot button issue. No question about it. Yeah, I don't think people that come illegally are entitled to birthright citizenship. I think that that's the original understanding of the 14th Amendment was not that someone can come illegally, have a kid, and all of a sudden the kid is a citizen. I think it's created really perverse incentives, and then you have a situation where it's hard to enforce the immigration law. It does, no question about it. Now, if you just do a quick Google, you're going to find that you get citizenship at birth under the 14th Amendment.

But that's not actually the case. it was not the case when they passed it at the time. And it's certainly not the case now, except that that's how it's looked into the citizenship clause. That's the question. And whether or not the court will take this issue up. But the way that they assumed it at the time was that you were here in this country as a citizen of the United States of America and that that that citizenship is passed

down to you if you are in fact born. are they citizen. And if you're not, then you're not a U.S. citizen. So if you're the, you know, if you're the child of the French ambassador and you were born here, you don't get dual citizenship. You're still a citizen of France. You have to actually be legal at the time of your birth here legally for those purposes. I know that that's difficult for people to understand. All persons born are naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state where in they reside. See, it's that part where it says subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

If you're not subject to that jurisdiction, then birthright citizenship is not an automatic guarantee because it wasn't intended to be that way when the 14th Amendment was passed. Now, I don't know how the court's going to rule on this. This is a very, very contentious issue. And the court may not want to disrupt this because the real truth of the matter is that if you were to change this, you could be affecting millions of people. So the court may just decide,

you know what, we're going to leave it as it is, and we're just going to walk away from it, because it would just cause too much disruption. But if they want to be accurate, you have to go back to the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. Dred Scott, who had been held as a slave, sued the executor of his former master's estate under the state citizenship diversity jurisdiction

of the federal court, seeking a determination that he had become free because his master had voluntarily taken him into free territory. This is a horrible ruling, but Chief Justice Taney concluded that Scott was not a citizen of any state for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction because the Constitution implicitly limited both state and national citizenship on racial grounds, generally excluding individuals like Scott who were of African descent. This and other aspects of Taney's analysis were strongly disputed by dissenters on the

court and others, who noted that free blacks had in fact been viewed as a citizen. citizens by many states since the founding. The Republican Party strongly opposed the Dred Scott decision in which the Chief Justice also stated that Congress could not bar slavery from the federal territories. Excluding slavery from the territories was the Republicans' principal goal, so the Chief Justice had implied that the party was organized for an unconstitutional purpose. Then obviously Abraham Lincoln becomes president. We have the Civil War, and they look at the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is drafted by the Joint Committee on Reconstruction in the spring of 1866, did not explicitly deal with citizenship. The Senate added what is now the first sentence which grants both national and state citizenship in language quite similar to that of the civil rights statute, and the House agreed to the amendment.

A basic principle of a federal rule of race-blind citizenship based on birth and naturalization was not in much dispute, although there were some debate about the restriction of the grant of citizenship to persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Citizenship Clause gives rise to several controversies. Does the grant of citizenship bring with it any particular legal benefits? And if so, what are they? Are these benefits, whatever they might be, to be defined and enforced exclusively by the courts? Alternatively, does Congress have power to broadly supplement judicially recognized benefits? thanks to the final sentence of the 14th Amendment, which empowers Congress to enforce by appropriate

legislation the provisions of this amendment. In other words, does Congress have the right to pass a law saying that, look, the 14th Amendment citizenship clause only counts if you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. We want to clarify this point and make this very, very clear. If you're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America and you have a baby here, that baby then is not automatically a citizen. If there is such a congressional power, does it encompass authority to define rights of citizenship applicable against other private persons? And how should the first sentences restriction to persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States be understood? When adopted, the clause, which was drafted against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Act, was clearly understood to withhold birthright citizenship from the American-born children of foreign diplomats present in this country. Because under international law, diplomats, and their families were largely legally immune from control and the courts of their host country. You know, diplomatic immunity has just been revoked. The limiting clause was also understood not to grant birthright citizenship to various members of Indian tribes,

whose political relations with the United States limited its authority over the tribe's members. The scope of the limiting clause is a matter of political controversy today. So now think about this now. if you were to look at the time in which it was written, and nobody believed that this was going to deal with foreigners. It was only to deal to make sure that former slaves were going to be treated as equal citizens. That was the purpose of the 14th Amendment's point about this, and that their children would be too.

And there'd be no question that people who were once slaves are now full American citizens, no question, no nonsense, don't let future courts try to interpret it a different way, that was the intent. And they specifically said at the time, you know, listen, if the ambassador's kid is born here, that kid's not a citizen because the ambassador is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Here's what the left will argue. The left will argue, though, that if you cross into the country illegally, you then are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and you can be penalized for that. You can be punished for that. And so therefore, the child would be a birthright citizen. See, diplomats and ambassadors, they have diplomatic

immunity so they can't be they're they're not subject to our laws and our courts that's why they get all those parking tickets around the united nations so the argument will be yeah but if somebody comes in the country illegally they are subject to our laws they don't have immunity there's no diplomatic community so since they are subject to our laws then their kids would be citizens if they're born on u.s. soil that's going to be the debate that is what will be the debate before the supreme court if in fact a republican becomes president either trump or de santis i know they've spoken out about this and tries to codify the fact that the 14th Amendment does not automatically include anybody born in U.S. soil unless they are at the time of birth subject to the jurisdiction thereof, meaning in the country legally, meaning a citizen of the United States, meaning you have the right to be here, subject to the jurisdiction in the affirmative, not the negative, not the negative from an enforcement point of view, but positive from the fact of you're here and you're entitled to. all of the benefits of being in America because we recognize you legally.

And that'll be the question. Does the jurisdiction thereof imply a positive or negative? Negative being that you're subject to the jurisdiction because we can arrest you and we can throw you out and you can do all those things. Or are you subject to the jurisdiction thereof because you get to enjoy all the benefits of being an American citizen or a guest of this country legally? I think it's that. I think it's that. I think it's that. It's that you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof

because you're here legally, you're a citizen or you're a permanent resident alien or something. And because you are then subject to the jurisdiction thereof, you get to enjoy the immunities and privileges of the United States Constitution and our laws and everything else. It doesn't mean that if you seek into the country illegally, that you automatically get those things. And so if you don't automatically get those things, even though you're subject to prosecution for coming to the United States legally, illegally, or subject to deportation, you don't get all the benefits. You don't get the privileges and immunities. Because if you did, you would have, you'd have all kinds of rights that people who are caught at the border don't have. So I think

there's precedent for that to turn around and say, yeah, but you know what, if you're seeking in this country illegally, you don't, you don't automatically get a trial, you don't automatically get two-processed, you don't get a jury of your peers. You're treated through immigration court, or you're just automatically returned. So you don't automatically, get the benefits of the American legal system. You don't automatically get the rights and privileges and immunities of being a U.S. citizen. So to then make a leap and argue that your kid would be able to get those things if they were just born on U.S. soil when you don't have a legal authority to be in this country. You're not a citizen. You're not a guest of the country. You're not, you're, you snuck in.

I think it's a stretch. And I think that if you would ask the people when they ratify the 14th amendment do you think this would include people who come to the country illegally they would have said of course not how could it how how could we include that now if you're here legally and you have a kid that's a different story you know that's a that's a much different story and i would argue that if you're here legally and whether it's through amnesty or whether it's your a legal permanent alien yeah you your kid would be a u.s. citizen i would make that argument but not if you're here illegally not because at that point you're not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states of America. You are for the purposes of getting your ass thrown out, but you're not, you're not

subject to it from the rights and privileges of immunity's part. You can't vote. You're not supposed to legally have a firearm. There's lots of things you don't get to do. So then it's obvious to me from that interpretation, you then are not actually subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for those purposes, part and parcel of just returning you from where you came from, which again is an acknowledgement that you're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Therefore, the 14th Amendment would not qualify your child as being a U.S. citizen just simply because they're born in U.S. soil. But we'll see how the court rules.

No question about it. It's going to be a controversial issue. No doubt. This is the Dana show. It's me, Rich Zioly, in for Dana. Don't go away. It's his life mission to make bad decisions. It's time for Florida, man.

Now, look. I can kind of understand what this guy was thinking here. So this Florida man chucked spicy Nashville hot chicken at a Wawa employee because the chicken was uncooked. I don't blame him. I mean, I probably done the same thing. A late night food craving for one Florida man landed him behind bars after he allegedly hurled a piece of chicken coated in Nashville hot seasoning at an employee after he was unsatisfied with how it was cooked. Daniel Palomino III was arrested Sunday in St. Pete and charged with simple battery after the the incident that unfolded at a Wawa, around 120 a.m.

Nothing good happens at a.m. by the way. According to an arrest affidavit from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, the 32-year-old man ordered food. When he got it, he was reportedly upset because he believed that it was not cooked completely. That's when he confronted an employee about the uncooked food and allegedly threw the piece of chicken at them. The chicken was coated with a Nashville hot seasoning that got in the victim's eye. Oh, man.

That's no fun. you don't want Nashville hot chicken in your eye no no no you don't no that's going to hurt that's going to leave a mark according to the uh wawa menu there's a spicy chicken sandwich that matches the description the arrest affidavit mentions that he was under the influence really shocking i i had no idea although it does not specify how hard to believe that he was under the influence craving a national hot chicken at one 20 in the morning at wawa right he was booking to the panellis county jail and it's since been released after posting a five hundred dollar bond so this has a very, very happy ending for everybody.

A coked up Florida man arrested for tossing a smoke bomb into a CVS. First of all, if you're over the age of 12, why are you playing with smoke bombs? The poor choice got this guy into a Key West jail. According to a report from the Monroe County Sheriff's Office, 35-year-old, Denny Neowa Betancourt, tossed a smoke-style firework into the CVS pharmacy on Stock Island, just east of Key West. The caper went down in broad daylight. at 2.13 when Denny threw the smoke device through the front entrance doors, he then made a

hasty getaway on his bicycle. Despite the rush of the crime and likely the cocaine, it didn't take long for the police to catch up to him and his bicycle. They stopped in and when questioned, he admitted to tossing the smoke bomb into the CVS. He called it a prank. It's a simple misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace, but unfortunately, he also had about a gram of cocaine on him, which turned the arrest into a felony. Now, if he had brought it to the White House, it would have been no problem. If he had brought it to the White House, his identity would have been anonymous, and he could have left it there and even gave it to the dogs, because I'm still convinced that's what happened to Major and Commander. They had a little bit of the cocaine, and then they became Cocaine White House dogs like the movie Cocaine Bear. That's why they were biting everybody.

Those poor dogs didn't do this on their own. They were coked up. Hunter came in, dropped his cocaine. You know how the story goes, and then the dog sniff, sniff the cocaine, and went crazy. And poor Major and Commander, you know, everybody thinks that they're bad. dogs. They're good dogs. They're good dogs. They're just cocaine dogs. Cocaine White House dogs. It's actually a movie I'm working on right now. I expected to be released this summer. It's going to be huge. It's going to be huge, all right? So please make sure you look for the previews.

I don't know who's going to play me yet, but I will obviously have a celebrity do that. This is the day of show. We got a big third and final hour coming up. Let's talk about the economy. Don't go away. You know, Joe Biden wants you to think the economy is great. want you to believe that, but the bottom line is this. How do you feel about the economy? All the spin in the world doesn't change how you actually feel when it comes to your money, right? Welcome back to the day on the show. It's me, Rich Zioly, in with you today and tomorrow as well. I'm excited for that as we get ready for Christmas. This is going to be a much more expensive Christmas season. The question will be, what does the Fed do next year to help Biden? And you know

they're going to do something. And they're probably going to cut interest rates, maybe two cuts, maybe more. Consumer confidence will go up. People will feel better about the economy. Will that be enough to push the old geezer back into the White House for another term? I don't think so. Obviously, I can't make a prediction on that. It's too far out. But there's no doubt in my mind that the Fed is going to try something to try to help Biden. They don't want Trump back. That's for sure. Biden wants to take credit for everything. You and I both know that Bidenomics has been a disaster. But here's Joe Biden talking about bringing Bidenomics back. I didn't know Bidenomics left.

I thought Bidenomics was always there as long as Biden was there. Cut number five. We're doing by building the economy from the middle out and the bottom up, not the top down. Not a whole lot trickle down on my dad's kitchen table in the top down economy. But when you're milled from the bill, when you increase the middle class, the poor have a shot and the wealthy still do very well. The middle class does well, and we all do well. That's what we call Bidenomics. That's Bidenomics.

Got it. You know who does well? Biden does well. The Biden family does well under Bidenomics. Because they do trickle down. It trickles down from China or Ukraine into their pockets. And then into his pocket via the form of loan repayments. Those are the only people that are actually being helped by this economy.

When you give and you take a look at the polling data when it comes to people on the economy. Right. So look like this, right? Look at the way that James Carville's polling group looked into polling data. What they found was that for the first time since Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president, workers give Republicans better marks on caring for them in the economy. That's right. They give the Republicans better marks.

That's not good for Democrats. Democrats were always pretending to be the party of the union guys, the working guys, the blue-collar guys. that all went down when Donald Trump went down the escalator. That went away because they realized, oh, this guy's got my back. This guy's not trying to destroy my job. This guy's not trying to destroy coal. He's not trying to get rid of natural gas. He's not trying to go after oil.

He actually wants to protect my job, and a lot of jobs are in American energy. What was one of the first things Biden did when he got into office? Do you remember? It was to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline. That's right. So let's take Pennsylvania, for example. example, Pennsylvania where Donald Trump right now has a lead. You look at Trump v. Biden. Right now he's leading against Joe Biden. Think of all the jobs in Pennsylvania that we could be

producing if we tapped into the Marcellus Shale Moore and had, for example, a liquid natural gas export facility right outside of Philadelphia. The green environmental whack jobs, the same people that want to ban your stove and want to ban gas cars. They won't allow it to happen. So what happens? Well, guys like Vladimir Putin sell their natural gas, and people around the world start buying it from crazy dictators, like the people in Venezuela, and then the United States of America loses out. Workers lose out, too.

Let's look at a couple different things from manufacturing. My buddy E.J. Anthony, Dr. E. J. Antonio, he's a terrific guy as an economist, comes on my show a lot in Philadelphia. From July of 2022 to July of 2023, the latest data available, 217,000 more people left New York than move there. In fact, so many more people are leaving the state of New York than are dying there that the effect of the population is worse

than a doubling of the death rate. Oof. Why do you think people are leaving blue states? Like New York, for example, California, for example. Because they're sick of it. They can't take it anymore. They're voting with their feet. It's an old saying you vote with your feet.

You vote with your wallet. You vote with your pocketbook. manufacturing sector virtually flat for December, but still down year over year. The year-year index has not had a positive monthly reading for 15 months now. Orders continue falling, but employment didn't decline. But get ready for this, kids. Ready? All that crappy IKEA furniture that you have no idea to put together?

Well, the good news is you'll have more time to figure out how to put it together. You're just not going to get it anytime soon. Swedish flat-pack furniture giant IKEA says, that the rerouting cargo, they are rerouting cargo ships around Africa to avoid possible attacks in the Red Sea. And that's going to lead to delivery delays and even empty shelves. A recent wave of missile and drone strikes on passing container ships by the Iran-backed Yemeni Houthi rebels has prompted many vessels to avoid using the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, a choke point for about 10% of global trade. Traveling instead around Africa can add a week

to travel between Asia and Europe as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in fuel costs. Guess who's going to pay for that? That's right. You are. I am. The situation in the Suez Canal will result in delays and may cause availability constraints for certain IKEA products. Around 20,000 ships passed through the Suez Canal every year.

IKEA says it was in close contact with transporters and that the safety of their teams was the top priority. In the meantime, we are evaluating other supply options who, secure the availability of our products, and we continue to monitor the situation closely going forward. This is going to happen to a lot of different companies. BP is doing the same thing. I think Chevron is doing the same thing.

And you're going to see now as a result higher prices, because they cannot avoid the fact that going around Africa versus cutting through the Suez Canal is going to add delays, time, and ultimately you're going to have to pay people more money. And, yeah, also higher shipping costs too. And so, going to get passed on the consumer. So that's going to happen too. And this is all because, again, Joe Biden won't show strength in the Red Sea. And Iran keeps messing with us because they know there's going to be zero consequences to it.

I mean, what are we going to do? Nothing. The United States of America is going to do nothing. Let's think about that for a moment and realize that. Now, if you were to think about the effect of Biden's war and energy for a moment, and by the way, if you want to help the earth, if you don't want to hurt the environment, if you want to help the earth, you need to stop breathing. That's right.

climate fanatics are now targeting breathing as a major problem you have to understand how much they hate you and they hate humanity they've decided that every time you exhale it causes the temperatures of the earth to rise so the answer would be according to new research exhaled human breath can contain small elevated concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide both of which contributes to global warming the research from the uk-center or for ecology and hydrology reveals that we're all climate criminals just like how it turned out a few years ago that we're all all racist. You can be both at the same time, by the way. The solution is clearly a blanket ban on respiration. Just don't breathe. I think it's easy that way. If you can just do your part to help everybody, all right? Do your part to help everybody. Now, in the midst of this, you have to look at the cost of Joe Biden's war and energy. There is a direct line between Joe Biden's war and energy and what you're paying right now, because the United States is producing less oil. the United States is exporting less natural gas, and the United States of America as a result of that right now,

is hiring less people within those various sectors, and so less people are being employed in those sectors, so then less people are making money in those sectors, which means less people have money to then buy things, because that's actually how the economy works, Joe Biden. When people are employed, they wind up spending money, and then other people reap the benefits of that. That's what we mean by trickle-down economics.

We don't actually mean that it rains money, like in a strip club or in the back halls of Burisma. Nobody actually really thinks that except for you. The other thing, too, is that when you look at Joe Biden's economy, you realize very, very quickly that not only is there a massive, massive payout bribe scandal happening in the form of student debt loan repayment, but there are a lot of people right now who are not even bothering to pay their student loans because they think to themselves, don't worry about it. The big guy is going to help me out.

they may not be wrong. Here's Joe Biden claiming he got 136 million people's student debt. Cut two. I went to the Supreme Court to eliminate student debt out there. And guess what? Supreme Court ruled against, but I still got 136 million people's debt relieved. Really? That's a great bribe right there. 80,000 in Pennsylvania.

And the must-win swing state of Pennsylvania, 80,000 people are going to get student loan repayment from Joe Biden. How the hell is that not a bribe? Of course it's a bribe. If I hand you a bag of cash and I ask you to vote for me, you're going to call that a bribe, because it is. If I give you a government check and I pay off one of your loans and ask you to vote for me, how is it any different? Of course it's a shakedown and a bribe, no question about it. But remember something, though, it's perfectly legal for Joe Biden to take my money and give it to somebody else, or take your money and give it to somebody else. That's okay. Now, when you look these blue states that are happening all across the country right now, people are fleeing blue states,

like, for example, New York. Why is that? The answer is because the taxes are so high that people decide, I don't need to be here anymore. The Census Bureau released new date on Tuesday, showing that New York is hemorrhaging its most valuable resource people at an alarming rate. 217,000 more people left New York than move there. And only 166,000 people died in New York. So more people are leaving than dying. So many more people are leaving the statement that are dying that the effect on the population is worse than a doubling of the death rate. If the politicians overseeing the mass exodus wonder why it's happening, they need to only look in the nearest mirror. Their high taxes, wasteful government spending, and soft on crime policies are among the self-inflicted wounds slowly bleeding New York dry.

In March of 2021, my buddy E.J. and Tony authored a study that predicted more than one million New Yorkers. would leave the state over 10 years because of the latest tax increase. So far, the official Census Bureau data have been in line with that estimate. Even before the tax increases, New York already had the highest state and local tax burden as a percentage of residence income, almost twice that of other big states like Florida and Texas. But that wasn't enough for the greedy bureaucrats to in 2021 increase both the number of tax brackets and the top marginal tax rate. And where are people going? They're fleeing to tax havens.

That's where they're going. They're going to places like Florida. Of course they are. The weather's beautiful. They're going to Texas. They're going to places where they have nice weather and good food. Like, yes, the Cowboy State. Although that's actually Wyoming.

When they have winters that are worse than, you know, New York. They have some bad winters there. But people love it. They love the freedom. They love the cheap money. I can't ever go to Texas because of the Cowboys and the Eagles. It's the thing. But you know what I mean?

But I know a lot of Dana's listeners are in. Texas, obviously. So it's a wonderful state. And the good news for you is that a lot of people are leaving New York to come to your state. Maybe it's not good news. I don't know. But I do know one thing, though, is that people have decided enough is enough. Now, when you think about that at a national scale, it's very hard for people to leave the country. They can leave and go to another state. But if they're still getting whacked economically by the federal government, they can't leave the United States of America. So what do they do? They vote for somebody different in November. That's what they wind up doing. This is the Dana show. It's me, Rich Zioly, in for

Dana today. We're coming right back. Ready to grow your intellectual Roll-A-X, download the Dana Show podcast and join the ranks of those who refuse to settle for the same old boring content on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Guess what?

Turns out special counsel Jack Smith's appointment is unconstitutional. I'm going to break that down for you in our next segment on the Dana show. You're going to definitely want to hear this. Everything. Everything. everything Jack Smith has done since November of 2022 is null and void. I will explain. But first, I got five things for you here on the Dana show. And now, all of the news you would probably miss. It's time for Dana's Quick Five. So Tim Carnes got the best birthday gift ever on December 4th. The Clarkson

Native got the news that he would be receiving a life-saving liver and kidney. Yes, that's right. He needed both. and he was on the transplant list. He's got a condition called hemochromatosis, which means his body stores too much iron. And the transplants were necessary, or he would die. So he got a new liver and a new kidney. His color's back. He's able to speak.

He's recovered so fast. It's like having my old husband back, she said. The day before Tim went in for surgery, he was hit with the devastating news and lost his job. He's had a very, very tough go of it. But despite their financial hardships, they are grateful for the gift of life and that he will be able to celebrate Christmas with his family.

It's a very, very sweet story, no doubt about it. Speaking of sweet, attractive trailer carrying nearly 20 tons of ice cream overturned on Route 80. It's right, Interstate 80. In Pennsylvania, Clarian County, Pennsylvania, 39,000 pounds of ice cream overturned in a crash. Happened about 12.45 a.m. Wednesday near Milamarker 44 by the Elminton Bridge. No injuries were recorded, and I don't know if the first responders got to have any delicious ice cream.

I certainly would power them. It's going to stay cold, too. It's winter, so, you know, you don't have to worry if the ice cream melted. You'd never want that to happen in the summertime. No doubt about it. But you also would rather get ice cream than this. Hospital staff got a baked potato as a Christmas bonus from work. Not only that, but they have to pay taxes on it.

It was reported in part of their income. They got a baked potato, really? Yes, the senior management team at one hospital apparently decided that rather than boost their staff's pay or treat them to a slap-up meal, it would provide them with a delicious potato. One woman explained, my work is doing a potato bar as our Christmas bonus. I'm literally going to a hospital potato. I'm literally getting a hospital potato as a bonus.

They also said it has a $15 value, so it'll be taxed on our next check. They got a potato bar. That was their Christmas gift, and they got to pay taxes on it. Nurses are miserable right now, but at least my husband's hospital didn't give him a baked potato for his bonus,

and charge him taxes on it, like a friggin' dickensville. It's almost like something out of a movie, isn't it? And by the way, I'm not a big fan of baked potatoes. But fry them up for me, it's what I say. Fry them up. Switzerland is considering legalizing cocaine. Politicians there have declared the war on drugs has failed.

So the Swiss capital of Byrne is examining a pilot scheme to allow the sale of cocaine. I know how this ends. And if you want to know how it ends, too, just enjoy the pictures and videos on the Hunter Biden laptop. That will tell you everything you need to know about cocaine use. and how it ends, and also poor major and commander, my White House cocaine dogs, didn't work out for them either. But listen, when I tell you that this is the Swiss doing what the Swiss do best,

I mean it. They are always ahead of the curve. They really are. In the United States, we are dealing with right now a silent depression. Economists are weighing in on the viral TikTok theory. One of TikTok's latest trends coined the silent depression aims to explain why Americans feel so bad about their own financial standing, even when the country is in good shape. Key expenses such as housing, transportation, and food account for an increasing share of average Americans take home pay, but economists don't understand why.

Well, I know the reason. It's not because of a TikTok trend. It's because the economists are mostly a bunch of lefties, and they want to try to make Joe Biden look good by lying about the economic news. But like I told you, you can't spend this. Either you feel good about your money or you don't. Either you're anxious at night or you're not. It's not very complicated. Coming up on the Dana show, the appointment of Jack Smith, the special counsel is unconstitutional, which means that everything Jack Smith is done. Everything is null and void. We'll take a deep dive into all things Jack Smith. The good news for Donald Trump is that if Jack Smith is actually an unconstitutional special prosecutor, that means that nothing.

Looking for the drive-through version of the Dana show? Check out the best highlights from every show and Dana's absurd truth podcast posted daily. from the Dana Show. Jack Smith, the special counsel, his appointment was unconstitutional over at reason.com, the volic conspiracy. Stephen Calabrese writing this. Special counsel, Jack Smith's appointment is unconstitutional. Everything he has done since November of 2022 is no and void.

On November 18th, 2020, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack Smith to be a special counsel, with the power of one of the ninety three united states attorneys but with nationwide jurisdiction this makes jack smith more powerful than any of the ninety three u s attorneys even though they have been senate confirmed to their particular offices and jack smith has not been sent a confirmed for the particular office which he now claims to hold a close examination of the justice department's organic statute makes it clear that

unlike at least four other heads of cabinet departments the head of the justice department has not a in the words of the appointment clause, quote, been by law vested, close quote, with the power to appoint inferior officers like Jack Smith, who have more power than any of the 93 Senate-confirmed United States attorneys. This is made clear by an examination of the DOJ's organic statute, 28 U.S.C. sections, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

The latter statute explicitly allows the appointment by the Attorney General of a special counsel to assist a U.S. Attorney. Attorney. but not to replace him. Comparison of the DOJ's organic statute with the organic statutes of at least four other cabinet departments illustrates the kind of clear laws by which Congress exercises its power to, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the heads of departments. Since 1999, when the Independent Council provisions of the Ethics and Government Act expired, the Department of Justice has been, has had in place regulations providing for the appointment of private citizens as special counsels who possess the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States attorney.

Unlike a U.S. attorney, however, private citizen Jack Smith has not been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate for the particular office of special counsel, which he now holds. This is blatantly unconstitutional and renders Jack Smith. powerless to seek a writ before judgment from the Supreme Court as he is trying to do at the moment. Appointments under these regulations, such as May 17, 2017 appointment of Robert Mueller to investigate the Trump campaign, were patently unlawful for reasons set forth in great detail in a book called Why Robert Mueller's appointment is unlawful as part of Notre Dame Law Review. The same argument renders the appointment of private citizen Jack Smith to prosecute Donald Trump as also unconstitutional.

Private citizen Jack Smith, under the regulation, has all the power of a U.S. attorney and also has nationwide jurisdiction, something U.S. attorneys do not have. But it was never nominated by the president, never confirmed by the Senate, and now he holds power in the way that U.S. attorneys

are nominated and confirmed for their particular offices. It is imperative that the Supreme Court rule on this question right now. Stephen Calabrese has co-written and co-signed an amicus brief with former attorney general Ed Meese and professor Gary Lawson, which was filed in the United States Supreme Court today in United States v. Trump, which is a petition for cert before judgment filed by private citizen Jack Smith purporting to speak for the government of the United States, and which is currently before the Supreme Court and which makes the argument that Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional. He writes, my concern about the legality of Jack Smith's appointment, is both a concern that Trump's convictions might eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court on appeal because Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed and a concern that even someone who has conducted himself in the way that Donald Trump has done must be tried in a constitutional way.

The current Supreme Court has at least six justices who really care about the separation of powers and the appointments clause. They think about the appointments clause and the separation of powers, which it protects in exactly the same way as I do, he writes, and not as the Burger Court did, when it decided the erroneous precedent of the United States v. Nixon. I think the Supreme Court, he says, when it ultimately addresses the appointment clause issues, will reach the same conclusion that former Attorney General Ed Meese,

Professor Gary Lawson, and I have all reached in the amicus brief, which we filed today in the Supreme Court, that since the appointment was unconstitutional, every action he has taken since the appointment is now known void. So what do you do? well the proper way in which an attorney general should appoint a special counsel like jack smith is to ask one of the very best senate confirmed u.s attorneys now in office to prosecute the cases arising out of the events of january 6th 2021 or the misuse of classified documents case

to be special counsel allowing that u.s attorney to prosecute cases nationwide and not only in one of the 93 districts each of which has its own Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney. Now, that's what he did with David Weiss. I'll break from this article for a moment. David Weiss, who is the special counsel investigating Joe Biden, that appointment's actually legal. Because David Weiss was the United States attorney for Delaware. Everybody kept saying, make him a special counsel, make him a special counsel, give him the authority to go into all the jurisdictions around the country. But at the time, Merrick Arlen said, no. He said, David Weiss is all the the authority he needs all the authority needs well then ultimately he did make him a special

counsel and since then david wise has been able to charge hunter biden and to help with the investigation that's key though he was already a united states attorney what what stephen calabraza here is outlining is exactly the proper way you have all these united states attorneys who have been confirmed by the senate you have one of them investigate trump you don't just take a private citizen pluck him out of thin air and give him all this power. There are 93 districts that cover the United States attorneys in this country, each of which has their own U.S. attorney. And typically you have to ask permission to go into one of their districts,

which we know was a problem for David Weiss when he was investigating Hunter Biden because ultimately he couldn't go into California and he couldn't go into D.C. As special counsel, though, you can. See, the guy who's writing this says Trump should be investigated, but you've got to do it the right way. At the same time, Attorney General Merrick Garland, should then, and could then, under 28 U.S.C., Section 543, appoint Jack Smith to be the special counsel's special assistant. The appointments clause, it's like the, it reminds me of the office, you know, you're the assistant regional manager? No, no, no, no, you're the assistant to the regional manager.

You know, that word, too, there has a whole lot of implications, does it not? assistant regional manager is very different from assistant to the regional manager obviously so jack smith could become then the special counsel's special assistant now i don't know if that means you get him coffee or we're not i don't really know that but the appointment's clause of the constitution is perfectly satisfied when someone exercises power as an officer whose character the senate and the president have previously approved of and that is germane to that particular office but we do not want future United States Attorney General, such as the ones Donald Trump might appoint, if he is re-elected in 2024, to be able to pick any tough thug lawyer off the street

and empower him in the way that Attorney General Merrick Garland has empowered private citizen Jack Smith. Think of what that would have led to during the McCarthy era or in the Grant Harding, Truman, or Nixon administration, all of which had an Attorney General who was corrupt, he writes. He goes on to say it is irrelevant that Jack Smith was confirmed by the Senate to be the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee during the Trump administration. At the time of his appointment to be special counsel on November 18, 2022, he was a war crimes prosecutor in the Hague employed by the government of Kosovo. The organic statutes governing the Justice Department allow the Attorney General great discretion in moving around the DOJ chess board currently confirmed appointees. but they do not allow the attorney general the power to create an inferior officer just because someone was at some point a past employee. There are four reasons why Jackson misappointment of special counsel is unconstitutional.

First of all, all federal offices must be established by law, and there is no statute authorizing such an office in the Department of Justice now that the Ethics and Government Act has, since it was sunseted, out of existence in 19. 1999. There's also no statute that clearly vests in the Attorney General the power to appoint inferior officers at all. The amicus brief that was filed on my behalf today conducts what I think is the first thorough examination of the statutes structuring the Department of Justice to show that the statutory provisions relied upon by DOJ and the lower courts for the appointment of special councils over the past two decades do not, and even obviously do not, authorize the creation and appointment of special counsels with the power of a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney now what is all this mean in terms of whether Supreme Court's going to go

and again Stephen Calbra is a very smart guy he's a professor of law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and he was a special assistant for attorney general Ed Meese the third where does this go well the Supreme Court of the United States is probably going to punt on this like they always do because they're going to turn around and say that they don't want to get into the weeds on this but if they were to actually look at the appointments clause they would recognize that jack smith is not able to serve in this capacity if we're going to follow the constitution of the united states of america but then at that point everything he's

done with trump gets thrown out and then the question becomes is the government then refile charges look i don't know if that's going to happen or not i do know though that jack smith is a madman he's hell bent on getting trump and the guy who's his little minion who helps him out all the time that guy was the guy who lost the case eight nothing before the United States Supreme Court when they tried to bring down former Virginia governor Bob McDonald. And they lost that case when the Supreme Court said, you guys have completely bastardized the bribery clause. You guys have completely done an overzealous prosecution here. Get out of our courtroom. A unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. That rarely happens,

right? But it did in this case. That was the slap down with Jack Smith and his little buddy got. that same buddy of his is now helping him investigate Trump see when you think about the weaponization of government you have to remember that if you're going to weaponize the government you got to do it at least by following proper procedure come on man what are you doing speaking of the weaponization of government

uh... dr anthony fouchi who is of course uh a saint he was sainted by the left he's in some real hot water according to senator rand paul senator rand paul has said that Fauci has lied to everybody, and he's gone nuclear over the COVID cover-up. And Kentucky Senator Rand Paul warns the next pandemic is likely to come from China because Biden is two-week on Beijing as he doubles down on calls for Anthony Fauci to be jailed over lab leak lies. He sat down with the Daily Mail, and he had a lot to say.

But remember, when you think about the power of government, they worked diligently to cover up the origins of COVID-19. Oh, they worked overtime to cover up the origins of COVID and to make sure that you never knew where it happened. The CIA was involved, the NIH, and National Institutes for Allergy, Infectious Diseases, all of these different places. Dailymail.com reveal this week that Chinese virus hunters have been tinkering with novel pathogens, which have a high probability of infecting humans, despite concerns that similar experiments led to the COVID outbreak. In an exclusive interview with the website, Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, said it is worrisome that China keeps doing it. It's incredibly dangerous. And when he was asked about the risk of triggering of this research triggering another pandemic, the senator said that's

very likely adding that it wouldn't be the first time a reference to the COVID origin lab leak theory. No, COVID did not come from an undercooked bat burger with the side of pangolin aoli and raccoon dog fries. Nope, it did not. It came from the lab. It was gained a function research, paid for by Fauci, paid for by Fauci's little minions. You know it. I know it. And Senator Rand Paul knows it too. And Fauci knows it. Oh, you know Fauci knows it. It's Rich Zioly in for Dana. We're coming right back.

Don't let FOMO get the best of you. Stay in the loop and ahead of the curve by following Dana on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. I come from a state that has the eighth largest black population in the country. and as they say, the saying goes where I come. You bring me to the dance early on. You brought me to the dance early on. That was a long, long dance. Biden also got confused when he was asked about a hostage deal.

But Biden gets confused a lot, obviously, which is why there was that story recently that said, Biden is not aware of the fact that his age is such a problem for him. It's such a freaking liability for him. Biden doesn't see it. It's not the number. It's how cognitive he is. Cut number three.

Are we expecting a hostage deal anytime soon? Yes. Oh, really? Okay. Well, where? Oh, no, I was talking about it. We're pushing it. There's no expectation at this point.

But we are pushing. Oh, where? Ah, who? What? He's also only been around for a few years. Did you know that just a few years? I mean, you know, since a few years. years, a few years. It's all relative, obviously. Cut number one. And from the time I got involved in

public life, I've only been around a few years. Oh, bless me, father. Anyway, anyway, here is Senator Padilla talking about immigrants, or Padilla, excuse me. Immigrants are, you know, just doing all the stuff you and I and all these millions of Americans just don't want to do. Cut 19. You know, you go into the agricultural fields, many here in California, and you see so many farm workers doing work that nobody else would even dream of doing, helping keep food on our tables. But they happen to be undocumented, especially given their service during the course of the pandemic, they deserve better than to live in constant fear of deportation. So as far as you know, they clean the toilets, they mow the lawns. I don't know how it's okay to talk about people like this. There's lots of people that do jobs on farms.

There's lots of people that do jobs. They're legal and they're not illegal. But it's okay for the left to say those things about them. You know, they're just doing the stuff. You don't want to do that job. Come on. Look at you. You're a white person.

You're an American. You don't want to do that crappy job. They're allowed to get away with that stuff. I mean, it's so incredibly racist, but Democrats are going to pass. So what are you going to do? Now, as we look at the immigration situation, I can tell you that the latest headlines over at Fox News are today's turning out to be an even busier day. at the border than yesterday was. And these are record-breaking days. Record-breaking days. The question's

going to be, of course, what is the effect of this going to have on 20-24? Now, if you ask me, I think that the American people are watching what's happening and they're disgusted by what's happening. And not just people on the border, I think people everywhere in this country. They are disgusted by what's happening and they're nervous about what's happening. And they think that this administration is letting it happen on purpose because it is. Oh, look at that. Carl Rove just came out and predicted that the Colorado ballot ruling is going to backfire on Democrats.

Well, he's not wrong about that. That's for sure. He's not wrong about that. It's absolutely backfiring on Democrats and it's absolutely helping Donald Trump. Let me turn over to Steve Jones. So he's got some audio for us, the dumb audio of the day. We always look forward to this on the day and the show. Go ahead, Steve.

Oh, yeah. This one featured on this segment a lot, but Joy Reid, she makes her appearance on this segment almost once a week. And this one, she had a pretty stark comparison to Gaza. So let's see what she had to say about this one. I think of Darfur, I think of Rwanda, I think of previous cases in which the United States would have watched seemingly helplessly as people died by the hundreds of thousands and, you know, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo. But in this case, unlike those cases, this feels like this is us doing it. this feels like us doing it oh very nice sorry well thank you for that audio steve that is i mean she's the worst she's by the most racist person on television and she says the most vile things

it is amazing that she has a job truly all right well listen thank you for listening to the danish show we appreciate it very very much and i'll be back with you tomorrow afternoon keep the conversation going on twitter at rich zioli if you like to tune into my afternoon drive show in philadelphia it normally would start just a few minutes but we got some basketball so i'll be on at some point just stay tuned thank you for listening to the day and a show have a great rest of your day