DRUNK AND STUPID PEOPLE ARE
CLIENT, -- COMPLIENT. BASED
INSTEAD OF THEIR COMPETENCE. AND
THE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR
THESE JUDGES ARE AS PAINFUL AS
YOU WOULD EXPECT THEY WOULD BE.
BROWN JACKSON SAID SHE CAN’T
DEFINE A WOMAN, SHE IS SITTING
ON THE SUPREME COURT. ANOTHER
JUDICIAL NOMINEE IN WASHINGTON
STATE COULDN’T EXPLAIN WHAT
ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION
IS. ONCE WE HAVE FEDERAL --
WANTS TO BE A FEDERAL JUDGE.
KATO CRUZ, NOMINEE TO A FEDERAL
JUDGESHIP, HOW DID HE DO IN THE
HEARINGS? HERE IS A CLIP.
>> TELL ME HOW YOU ANALYZE A
BRADYMOTION.
>> HOW IANALIZE A BRADY MOTION?
>> YES.
>> SENATOR, IN MY 4.5 YEARS ON
THE BENCH I DON’T BELIEVE I HAVE
HAD THE OCCASION TO ADDRESS A
BRADY MOTION IN MY CAREER.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT A BRADY
MOTION IS?
>> SENATOR, IN MY TIME ON THE
BENCH I HAVE NOT HAD OCCASION TO
ADDRESS THAT, SO IT’S NOT COMING
TO MIND AT THE MOMENT WHAT A
BRADY MOTION IS.
>> Tucker: RIGHT. HE LATER GETS
INTO GUN CONTROL BECAUSE BRADY
GOT SHOT, HIS WIFE GOT INTO GUN
CONTROL. THE BRADY THAT SENATOR
KENNY REFERS TO, REQUIRES
GOVERNMENT TO TURN OVER
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TO THE
DEFENSE THAT THE CORE OF JUSTICE
SYSTEM, THE RULE THAT DOJ
VIOLATED IN HUNDREDS OF CASES OF
JANUARY 6th DEFENDANT THE.
THIS GUY HAD NO CLUE WHAT IT
WAS. THAT’S A DEAL ENDER RIGHT
THERE. NO, YOU CAN’T BE A
FEDERAL JUDGE, SORRY. GO DO
SOMETHING USEFUL WITH YOUR LIFE,
YOU CAN’T BE A JUDGE. HE
PROBABLY WILL BE. NORTH DAKOTA
RYAN, HE JOINS US TONIGHT, I
DON’T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON, BUT
WHEN HE THEY START, IT’S FINE IF
YOU HAVE FLAKY SOCIOLOGY
PROFESSORS, WHO CARES, AIRLINE
PILOTS, HEART SURGEONS, WHY ARE
WE ALLOWING THIS.
>> THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT FOR
PROGRESSIVES, YOU HAVE A JUDGE
THAT DOESN’T KNOW ARTICLE 2 OR
ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THIS GENTLEMAN DOESN’T KNOW THE
BRADY MOTION, THE BRADY RULE.
AGAIN AS YOU POINTED OUT,
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
AMERICANS ARE BEING DENIED THIS
BASIC RIGHT BECAUSE OF THEIR
POLITICAL VIEWS. WELL, THERE ARE
A COUPLE THINGS GOING ON HERE,
TUCKER, THERE ARE DIVERSITY
HIRES, SCAN OR GENDER, OR SEXUAL
PREFERENCES, WHOEVER IS ACTUALLY
RUNNING IT IS PUTTING UP
ACTIVISTS MASQUERADING AS
JUDGES, RUBBER STAMPING THE
LEFT’S SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
AGENDA. BUT EVEN MORE SO,
TUCKER, AS YOU THINK ABOUT
PROGRESSIVES, THEY’VE VIEWED THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW AS
OBSTACLES TO BE AVOIDED BUT EVEN
MORE SO DISMANTLED SO WHY WOULD
YOU BOTHER KNOWING ABOUT IT
BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PAY
ATTENTION TO THEM ANYWAY. THE
WHOLE POINT OF PROGRESSIVISM OF
DAY ONE IS TO DISMANTLE THE
ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION, SEPARATION OF
POWERS AND OTHER THINGS PUT IN
PLACE BY OUR FOUNDERS, THEY
DON’T CARE ABOUT THEM, THEY
DON’T WANT THEM, YOU ARE NEVER
GOING TO IMPLEMENT THEM,
SUGGESTIONS YOU ARE TRYING TO
AVOID.
>> HERE IS WHY, BECAUSE WE DON’T
HAVE THE RULE OF LAW, AN EQUAL
APPLICATION OF THE LAW, YOU
DON’T HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS. AND I
THOUGHT THEY WERE FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS. I DON’T KNOW WHY PEOPLE
LIKE LINDSEY GRAHAM VOTE TO
CONFIRM JUDGES WHO DON’T KNOW
ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION,
LIKE WHAT IS THIS?
>> BECAUSE FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING PROGRESSIVE STATISTS
HAVE BEEN THE THEYEE OF BASIC
CIVIL RIGHTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS,
OVER THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS,
THEIR COLORS ARE COMING OUT MORE
AND MORE, IT’S GETTING HARDER
AND HARDER TO HIDE THAT. THEY
HAVE NO INTENTION OF ANY OF
THESE BASIC RIGHTS, THEIR GOAL
IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND
QUITE FRANKLY ULTIMATELY IT’S
POWER. AUTHORITARIANISM, SO THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW ARE TO
BE DISREGARDED, THEY WILL MAKE
OF THEM WHATEVER THEY WANT THEM
TO BE TO ACHIEVE WHATEVER THEY
WANT. THE POINT IS NOT THE
ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THE GOAL IS NOT
THE RULE OF LAW, IT’S WHATEVER
THEY CAN MAKE THEM TO BE TO
ACHIEVE WHAT THEY WANT AND HERE
THEY ARE.
>> WE ARE MESMERIZED WATCHING
THEM TEAR DOWN THEIR
INSTITUTIONS WE DON’T THINK
ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE REPLACING