So there is a September thirtieth deadline coming up to reach an agreement on spending. Republicans always talk about how the Department of Justice has been weaponized against Conservatives, how the Department of Homeland Security is not doing its job and its basic function of defending the country defending or southern border defending or border So why fund these agencies that are either abusing power or not doing their duty.
That's the question that Congressman chip Roy is asking as he encourages his fellow Republicans to take up this fight to not fund these agencies and to stand up for what they believe it or at least what they've been saying they believe makes sense. So we're going to talk to Congressman chip Roy about that. We're also going to get his take on Merrick Garland naming David Weiss as a special counsel. Why now, what does this mean and what should Republicans do about it. We'll also talk to
him about the latest Trump indictment. You know, what are they trying to do with it? Is it to harm him or boost him? All of that and more with Congressman ship Roy from Texas.
Well.
Congressman It's always an honor to have you on the show. We're approaching this September thirtieth timeline to reach an agreement on spending. This always happens with Congress, They wait till the last minute. What should the priorities be for Republicans.
Well, first of all, good to be on as always.
And look, if it were my play call, we would not be in our districts, but rather we would be in Washington. We set out, and you know, all said and agreed that we were going to pass appropriations bills, and that's what we ought to be doing. And in the absence of being able to get agreement on the appropriations bills before July, or certainly most of them, then we ought.
To be back in DC.
But you know, we're not, and we're probably going to be in our districts for a few more weeks and then back in September, and so almost certainly it's going to be difficult to get appropriations bills passed in September. So we're going to end up facing the prospect of the government funding deadline of September thirtieth, and then the normal DC dance of oh, let's do a two month two and a half month extension of a continuing resolution
of funding at current levels. That's meaning maintain the status quo until right before Christmas, where they can then put in all the pressure to try to get something done and get a big omnibus bill done in December. Well, I disagree with that. I mean, our priority needs to be spending going down to pre COVID levels. We need to restrain the Department of Homeland Security and focus on it doing its job and withhold funds until we force
them to pass HR two. Sign HR two, make sure that we're not releasing people in the United States, and we need to hold the Department of Justice accountable and make sure that Department of Justice is being reformed and restraining funds from being used.
To carry out political witch hunts.
I think we can focus on Department of Defense and wokeness, focus on energy. There's a lot of things we should be using the power of the purse to change, and I don't accept the premise that too many of my Republican colleagues do that, Oh, well, you just have the House. It's like, no, we have the House, and the House is the originator of spending bills, and we have the power of the purse, and we should therefore use that power to reclaim our country, to take it back for the people.
Well, and it sort of defies logic too. I mean, if we see a Department of Justice that is very clearly weaponized against conservatives, if we see a Department of Homeland Security that is not doing its basic function, which is securing the border, you know why you fund them?
That's my question, And stated even just slightly differently than why fund fund them, I would state it is do I not have a more obligation to refuse to fund them if they're going to be carrying out of policies or taking actions that are in direct conflict with my way of life the people I represent. So the border, for example, is a perfect example, because we're under assault in Texas. Hell, they're even suing Governor Abbott to get him to stop doing the job of DHS by trying
to put booyes in the river. But to your point about the Department of Justice, why would we fund you said the right way? In what world is it a appropriate use of my power and the power of the purse to give another dollar to Merit Garland to continue to carry out political witch hunts, or to target Scott Smith in Louden County or Mark Hawk in Philadelphia. We shouldn't do that. We should demand that they change. We should
demand that they stop the witch hunts. We should demand that they focus on fentanyl poisonings and sex trafficking and stopping crime that's harming our communities rather than trying to carry out the political machinations of the Democratic left through the Department of Justice.
What's the stomach on Capitol Hill with Republicans in the House for falling through on some of the things that you've just laid out. I know you've also called for Secretary of my Arcus's firing as well. You know, what's the appetite with Republicans right now for falling through on some of this stuff.
The appetite is growing, but in the end, because they are who they are, politicians in the swamp, the appetite is only going to be as strong as the pressure being applied by the people. And that's why I think it's really important to hear in August that we'd be having this conversation and forcing the hand of our Republican
members of Congress to do their job. And you know that's why I put out a letter last week with my colleagues, fourteen of my Republican colleagues from Texas, to say that we should not be funding the Department of Homeland Security unless they pay Texas back, unless.
They stop releasing people.
Get the President to sign HR two into law and get alhandra My Orgiest out of his spot as Secretary of Homeland Security where he is engaging in what I believe is impeachable conduct. But in the absence of impeaching him, which I think we should do. Why are we funding him, Why are we giving him more money? Why are we saying that that guy should stay in charge? I don't think we should.
It is pretty wild to see Texas targeted for trying to enforce the state's borders, when that's what we should be doing as a country in the first place.
The basic duty of the government is to secure the blessings of liberty, to defend this country, to enforce sovereignty, to defend us from our enemies for and in domestic and here we are allowing cartels to have blatant operate for control of our border.
The Secretary of Homeland.
Security eyes to us in front of a judiciary Committee, and we've got Republicans who think we should not impeach him and we should give him money. I don't understand it. And every Republican should have to answer that question. And you know, people go, well, Ship, you know, I've got at least one prominent conservative Republican who I've heard say, who, by the way, is who is affiliated and viewed as someone in the.
Kind of freedom Caucus world.
Who is saying, hey, we should be fighting Democrats, not Republicans. Well, no kidding, I know that, but I need Republicans to saddle up, right. I mean, if I'm trying to saddle up to go fight those who want to ruin my country, and you go around campaigning saying, oh, yeah, Department Homeland Security is not doing their job, the border's broken.
Yeah, Well, what the hell are you going to do about it?
Because you're not impeaching anybody and you're not withholding funding, so you're complicit.
You're part of the problem.
So a Republican that funds this Department of Homeland Security, you own it. A Republican that funds this Department of Justice.
You own it. You can't hide from it, and we should call them out for it.
We're going to take a quick commercial break back with Congressman Chiproy. Why do you think Biden and this Department of homelwn Security wants open borders? Is it just for chaos? What do you think is behind that?
They have no qualms using human beings as their political pawns to achieve their larger aims. And then these people to them are just a number and they're just trying to flood the zone with numbers to transform this country. They have no problem ignoring sovereignty. They believe in a kind of new liberal world order where there are no boundaries. They don't care that, you know, it might undermine our sovereignty and our strength as a country because they don't
care about that sovereignty or strength. They don't believe in American exceptionalism. We believe there's something great about this country and that we are happy to open our doors and be a magnet for them. You undermine the very rule of law that causes people to want to come here, then you're killing the country. We should be exporting the rule of law to Mexico, exporting the rule of law
to Central America and South America. We should be crushing the cartels we should be ending the flow of fentanyl and human trafficking.
We should be.
Undermining China by creating a strong Western hemisphere to compete with China and to decrease the pressure where people are coming here from ho Duras and Guatemala. Let's make those shining countries by helping and exporting our successful worldview rather than importing lawlessness in despair. It's absolutely absurd that we're doing it. And Republicans, I'm going to tell you, they're complicit.
They're as complicit as the Republicans were in the two thousands who were under the thumb of the Chamber of Commerce.
You just wanted their cheap labor.
And now they're just as complicit because they're too gutless to do anything about it. They're perfectly happy to campaign about it but then not actually fight the fight in Washington. And by the way, I mean some of my freedom colleagues need to get off the damn pot too. I'm sick of it, right I'm tired of people who go out there and talk about this stuff and they won't do it when it matters.
Everything's kind of following apart right now. So if you're not willing to fight now then, really, what's the point, you know, I want to you know, we've been talking about the Department of Justice as well. So Merrick Garland back I believe it was in March, said that David Weiss had all the authority he needed to pursue charges in different jurisdictions. It basically he had all the authority he needed. But now he named them a special council.
So what changed and why a special council now? And why David Weiss?
Well, because all this administration and particularly this Department of Justice is doing is figuring out how they can have a beard to cover up exactly what everybody knows they're up to. So take for example, the first special counsel,
Jack Smith. What were they doing, Well, they didn't need a special council there, because they're already in an adversarial position as the Democrat administration, the Attorney General Liberal, and you're trying to invest to gate the former president a Republican.
You're already adversarial.
So your Department of Justice can go through the motions, you don't need to have a special counsel. But they wanted a special counsel so they could pretend and say, oh, we weren't doing this for political reasons. That was a special council, But they did not want a special counsel to be out from under their thumb and purview when they were going after Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. So they only finally decided to go there when it got
up to the end. And it's a total sham in order to be able to say, oh, oh yeah, see,
we're doing that. But what it really does is it allows them to now obvious skate and try to undermine the congressional investigations which are now starting to provide fruit for Jamie Comer and a little bit in judiciary putting forward evidence of what's going on with the irs whistleblowers, with the testimony last week of Hunter's business partner Archer, and you know, now the evidence is coming out, they're going, Okay, well, yeah, let's do a special counsel able to use it as
a beard to kind of cover up what's going on.
So do we need to do an impeachment inquiry?
So I believe we do, but I don't want to do an inquiry unless we're going to follow through and get the job done. And I don't want to do the job. If we're not going to present a case to the Senate that will make Mansion and Cinema and a bunch.
Of Democrats squirm.
I think we need to present a strong case. And I will admit, because I'm not on Oversight, I'm not looking at all of the evidence that's coming in in real time right because I'm in Texas right now, and a lot of that stuff's happened in the last couple of weeks. But we need to be able to present a really strong case. But I believe that the amount of evidence demonstrating corruption, the twenty million dollars, the fact that we know Biden was at least knowledgeable of the business arrangements
and partners, probably much deeper than we've yet seen. But every time they follow these dots and they connect the dots and we get the information, you're seeing not just smoke, but you're seeing fire. And you know, Democrats now are admitting that Hunter Biden engaged in illegal behavior and wrong behavior. Jamie Raskin did that just the other day.
Right.
He's the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, so he has to look at that and go all right, yeah, that's not good. So they're trying to separate Hunter from Joe. But we all know that separation is somewhere between paper thin to more likely non existent. So all we've got to do is pursue that and then go present the evidence. Now it's not always easy. You don't have a you know, indictment and a US attorney to do it. But I
think we ought to go down that road. But we damn well ought to finish the job if we're going to do.
It before we go.
Trump obviously now facing indictment out of Georgia. You look at some of the timeline on the cases and the trials that he's going to be facing, you know, January sixth cases, right before the Iowa Caucus, Georgia case, before Super Tuesday, Alvin Bragg, you know, before another big set of you know, important primary dates. You go on and go all of these are you know, carefully selected? Are they trying to harm him or boost him?
I believe that what the Democrats are doing is purposeful. I believe they want to try to pile up indictments, believing that that will energize the base to stand behind President Trump, working for him to be the nominee while they try to bloody him up through the late legal process and then through the political narrative in hopes that they can try to kill him after he's the nominee in the general. I think that's what I think. Democrats
believe that's their best play. They've effectively told me that's their best play, and so I think it's strategic. And look, I support the former president. I support the former president's agenda. But I've endorsed Brondo Santas because look, I've been watching what he's been doing. He's been taking out sores prosecutors. He's been you know, taking a baseball bat to Disney. They got a law pass despite Disney's pressure. Uh, they've been you know, checking them. They've got He won by
a million and a half votes. He won sixty two percent of Hispanics, He won fifty percent of single female voters.
People are flocking to Florida. He took on the.
Healthcare establishment, he's taken on the education establishment. He's fearless, and people would love Governor DeSantis if we weren't in the you know, age of Trump. And I get that, and and our respect difference is his opinion there. But that's why I want to move forward and have someone that can serve for eight years. Do I know will take on the establishment and can win and has a history of doing so.
Congressman ship Roy, I know you've got a busy schedule. You're on the road in Texas. I appreciate you making time for us. I really do.
God Bleslie say you take care.
That was Congressman Chip Roy of Texas. I appreciate him taken the time to join the show. He's on the road today, so you know, meetings, chaotic life they live as members of Congress. I appreciate him taking the time. Oh to thank you guys at home for listening to the show every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen to it throughout the week. I want to thank John Cassio and my producer for putting the show together. Until next time.