Erick Erickson 1-21-26 HR 2

America, welcome. It's Eric Garrison here. Glad to have you with me. The full member, if you want to be on the program, 877-973-7-4-25. If you text Eric, E-R-I-C-K, to 33777, you can get the live stream, the show notes, the podcast, the four things know in the afternoon, all the social media links, everything you need. It was not a good day at the United States Supreme Court for Donald Trump. I have occasional correspondence who are very progressive. All of them, every single one of them, have whipped themselves into existential frenzy about the death of our democracy, the amount of progressives in the press. And among the pundit class who are convinced our democracy is dead and there's no coming back, it boggles my mind. You would be amazed at the number of them who, because Donald Trump won a democratically, a democratic election. and one fair and square. They're so horrified by what happened on January 6th. They can't imagine people would vote for Donald Trump. The fact that people did shows our democracy is broken. And they never actually want to examine why people did that. And when you explain, well, yeah, people put their economic interests ahead of all this highfalute and democracy stuff. They're like, well, that's why democracy's broken. People care more about their pocketbook. Democracy is centered around economic issues, you idiots. And then they're like, and the courts won't stop him. The courts will stop. The courts have repeatedly stopped Donald Trump. And I find, by the way, a lot of these people They believe, for example, that ICE agents have stormed into churches and disrupted church services. In fact, I had a guy on social media this morning insist to me, how could you not condemn ice agents storming into churches and arresting people during church services when you're condemning these protesters? Because Border Patrol and immigration have not done that. There is no evidence anywhere that immigration officers went into churches and interrupted church services to arrest immigrants. There's none. Someone who is Canadian sent me screenshots of headlines of ICE agents going into churches. When you actually look at the articles, parking lots, they were in parking lots. They didn't actually go into churches, but the amount of people on the left who believe things that just are not so, and they insist people on the right believe things that are not so, and I admit it, I fully agree with them. It's just they can't recognize the same on their own side. There was an academic study years ago. Cannot remember the name of it, but essentially what it discovered is that progressives are unable, unable to recognize authoritarianism.

on their own side and their own tribe, that conservatives can recognize authoritarianism on conservatives, but progressives can't recognize it on their own side. They refuse to admit it. They refuse to recognize it. They build up an entire mythology of things that are not so. One of the things that progressives have embraced now is the idea that no judges will hold Donald Trump accountable. In fact, the New York Times ran a study the other day about how all of these progressive judges are being overruled on appeal. The progressives are losing on appeal. Well, it's not because Trump appointed judges are given Donald Trump what he wanted. It's that the progressive judges are trying to stop the president from the lawful exercise of presidential power. And for all of the people who are convinced the Supreme Court refuses to serve as a bulwark against the president. You should have listened to the oral arguments in the United States Supreme Court today. There is a progressive commentator who will go nameless. I don't want to pick on him really well. I do want to pick on him, but not give him attention. He is out with tweets. See, see, see, the conservatives got Lisa Cook's lawyer to concede the president has the power to fire people. Oh, yeah, Paul Clement, he conceded that and then won the rest of the argument. The fact is that you've got social media commentary from conservatives today trying to twist this argument of the Supreme Court to make it sound like the lawyers were siding with Trump as nonsensical to anyone who actually listened to the argument. It was a brutal day in the United States Supreme Court. for Donald Trump. Let me just read you a synopsis from Ann Merrimal, who is with the New York Times. The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed poised to reject Donald Trump's bid to immediately remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board with key justices expressing concern about undermining the longstanding independence of the central bank. Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether the allegations President Trump lodged against Ms. Cook, an unproven assertion she engaged in mortgage fraud, were serious enough to allow the president to fire her. They suggested it was premature for the court to resolve the case. While there are still factual disputes about those allegations, they sounded skeptical. Ms. Cook received sufficient notice of Mr. Trump's accusations and an opportunity to respond. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, often in the majority, noted former Fed chairs and Treasury secretaries warned against allowing presidents to immediately remove Ms. Cook. accepting the president's view, Brett Kavanaugh said, would weaken if not shatter the independence of the Federal Reserve. Even Clarence Thomas expressed skepticism over some of the arguments made by President Donald Trump's attorney, the Solicitor General. Samuel Alito wondered why they were even hearing the case.

and why the president did as he did. That's the New York Times. Here's the Washington Post headline. Supreme Court appears likely to allow Lisa Cook to remain on Federal Reserve from Justin Jovenile. The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared likely to block President Trump from firing Democratic-appointed Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board while a lawsuit challenging her removal plays out a move that would prevent Trump from exerting greater influence over the power of the central bank. The Supreme Court's ruling, which is expected to come in weeks or months, is one of the most significant tests of the president's push to expand presidential power. Paul Clement, Lisa Cook's attorney, said judges did have the power to review Cook's ouster, as the Solicitor General told the justices that judges had no power to do that. I'm skimming through here. Brett Kavanaugh, by the way, has written law review articles on preserving the independence of the Federal Reserve, and he was a hot commodity today asking lots of questions. Now, you've heard from the New York Times. You've heard for the Washington Post. Here's the Wall Street Journal. The Supreme Court has concluded a nearly two-hour hearing in the case of Lisa Cook, a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. The justices signaled overwhelming concern. about how Trump's attempt to remove Cook played out. They seemed far less certain about how the court might resolve the case. They were deeply skeptical that the president could win the immediate argument. Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas seemed deeply frustrated that they were even there over what amounted to a tweet. Samuel Alito seemed downright and credulous that the president had attempted to fire Lisa Cook through a social media tweet on truth social. By the way, you know, the mortgage fraud allegations, Paul Clement, Lisa Cook's attorney, said, how can the president fire, there was not even a factual finding by the president to dispute the evidence and the evidence is easily disputable. John Roberts says, I mean, how would you dispute the claim, Mr. Clement? And he said, well, it was clearly an error because the very application claiming that her residence, that her one residence was a primary residence, also listed it as a vacation home, which definitionally is not a primary residence. It was clearly an error in filling out the paperwork, which the president didn't know because the president didn't order of review. By the way, I bet many of you who are convinced that Lisa Cook committed mortgage fraud did not know that on the very same paperwork that showed that her second home was listed as a primary residence, it also showed it listed as a vacation home. Did you know that? That was the key attachment to the primary paperwork. The primary paperwork showed it was a primary residence. And when you actually looked at the description of the home that was attached, it listed it as a vacation home. And before you say, well, Erickson, obviously, they put primary residence on the cover sheet to obfuscate, that's not the way this works, people, as a lawyer who did residential closings, the whole document binds itself. So if the front page says it's primary residence and then the actual description of the home that binds the document listed as a vacation home, well, that's the one that tends to govern. Regardless of your argument, however,

The United States Supreme Court today, from the left to the right, first expressed deep skepticism. The president could actually fire Lisa Cook through a truth social post. Samuel Alito in particular was just flabbergasted that they were there over a social media tweet. They expressed deep skepticism the president could, and then also that the president could do so over this particular situation. There was not a lot of dispute that the president can't fire these people, just over this. Brett Kavanaugh himself just, I mean, savaged John Sauer, the Solicitor General, over the claims of independence of the Federal Reserve. And by the way, no one's arguing. You can argue about whether the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. You can do that. And you can argue about the independence of the Federal Reserve compared to other entities. You can do that. But none of those issues were at stake today before the United States Supreme Court. They weren't arguing over the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve today at the United States Supreme Court. So you're not going to get that issue from the United States Supreme Court. You've got to focus on what was argued, not what you would prefer to be argued. It was a bad day for the president at the United States Supreme Court. And I would just remind progressives. I keep saying to you people, if you don't want the president to be able to do these things, take the power away from the president. None of you people who are upset with the president over this stuff want to take the power away from the president. You are upset that this president. is the one using the power, not your president. If it was a Democrat, you would be fine with this stuff, and you can't say that your president wouldn't do this sort of abusive stuff because we saw Joe Biden abuse the Face Act to target conservatives. We saw Joe Biden abuse the pardon clause to pardon his family. We saw Barack Obama prosecute nuns over abortion. We saw Joe Biden prosecute churches or side with progressives who were harassing churches over their participation in charitable causes. We have time and time again seen the Democrats do these abuses, but you're like the guy on Twitter who really believes ISIS storming into church services and disrupting church services, something that didn't happen. But you say it enough, you believe it as so. You signal enough the virtuousness of your own side. You're convinced your side's virtuous when it's not.

You can be live on Eric's show by calling 87797 Eric. That's 877 973-7-425. Have you all heard a Cameron Kasky? He's running for Congress. He's his only accomplishment, really. And I don't want to sound cruel, but his only real claim to fame is he was involved in the shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. He became an outspoken gun control advocate after being at that school during that awful shooting in Florida and got himself named to one of the most 100 influential people in 2018 despite accomplishing nothing. Never advanced the gun control agenda or anything like that has declared himself a Democratic socialist. He is actually a self-described theater kid. He's declared himself not gay but queer. I mean, the guy, he's got some issues. And we're in this realm now where people like to say the most outlandish stuff in order to get fame. And mostly on the left to do it about Donald Trump. Well, on CNN. Cameron Caskey blasted Donald Trump as purportedly involved in the Epstein stuff and a giant sex trafficking ring. And now he is having to retract it. His tweet today, I would like to retract. He originally said redact my comments from CNN last night and truly apologize. Donald Trump was obviously not involved with a giant international child sex trafficking ring where women and children were systematically raped by elites. I said that by accident and didn't mean it. No, he said it intentionally and Donald Trump can now sue him because when you accuse someone who was not involved in human trafficking, it doesn't matter if that person is famous. You have libeled per se. That person, and Caskey can absolutely be sued by Donald Trump. The fact that the theater kid thought he could get away with it and then realized, oops, I can't, I need to retract this, says everything about Cameron Caskey. He's a theater kid. He pretends to be brave and bold and then says these outlandish things he has to tuck tail and run away from. And again, it's just, it's, you know, the tragedies, the school's shooting. The second tragedy is the way we elevate spectacularly unaccomplished people who have been through tragedies like that and make it seem like they are actually somebody of some clout when, I mean, the guys, a college drop out who wants attention and is now getting that attention by running for Congress. Just we got to keep. We've got to stop elevating these mentally unstable people. All right. Now, I need to tell you about Swiss America because they would love to help you understand what's happening with your money, with finances, with precious metals that keep going up. Swiss America has been sounding the alarm about a secret war on cash.

They got an, it's assault on our freedoms they want to tell you about. You can get their report completely free by calling or texting my name, Eric, to 800-289-26-46. All right, we're on cash, includes digital forms of currency. It's spreading. Get the secret we're on cash report completely free, yet does include digital forms of currencies. The government tries to control your spending. Call them at 800-289-2646. That's 800-289-2646 or Swissamerica.com slash Eric. Swissamerica.com slash E-R-I-C-K. Swiss-American can get you this report completely for free, get you educated on what's going on, and then you can talk to them if you're interested in precious metals. I bought gold coins from them. They'd be able to help you. Just text Eric to 800-289-2646. Message and data rates may apply. I'll thank your phone calls when we come back. 877-973-7-4-25. Welcome back. It is Eric Eurton here across the United States. 8779373-425. The full number, do not forget. You can text Eric E-R-I-C-K to 33777 should you wish to get all the social media links, show notes, and the like. Let's go to the phones here. I want to begin with Mike. Welcome to the show, sir. How are you? Not bad. Thank you. How are you? Great. What's going on? Well, I was listening to your discussion about the Fed a while back and its independence. And I just want to suggest that it's not as independent as so many of us are used to thinking. And the reason why is that it never refuses to fund the debt. If it were independent, it would say, listen, Congress and President, you need to either cut spending or raise taxes because if we keep spending money, that's extraordinarily inflationary, which is not in our mandate, right? Okay. So it seems to me, go ahead. Well, that's not really what the Fed does, though. I mean, he doesn't actually loan money to the government. Well, it sells, yeah, I know, but. It creates money by, you know, it creates bonds, it sells them and prints money to buy them. Right. It's not a game that's built on firm soil. Yeah, oh, you're right, but I mean, that's how Congress structured it. So, I mean, what you're saying is that the Fed as an independent agency, it can't tell Congress we're not going to do this mandate because we don't like what you've done. I mean, if Congress passes a budget of $9 trillion and it's only got $5 trillion in the bank, The Fed doesn't actually print the money. We've got a different entity that prints the money to cover this. The Fed doesn't even actually loan money out to the government. It's actually prohibited by law from lending money to the government. It buys securities in the secondary market. It adjusts interest rates to stimulate the economy is its primary purpose, and then it does lend money to banks. It's essentially... It takes money and tells banks we'll put this into the market. You can get money from us. But it doesn't, it's only independent to a point. I mean, I'm using the word independent because it's set up to have individuals who are not appointed directly by the government to steer its chartered purpose.

But no, the Fed is an entity of the government of the United States. In terms of being independent, it just means it's not directly controlled by the president or the Congress. That's all independent means in this regard. The Fed has no ability to tell the government we're not going to carry out our mandate. It has a legal obligation to carry out a particular mandate. It can't get away from it. It's bound by the terms of its charter. John, you're going to be up next. Welcome to the show, sir. How are you? Hi, Eric. I'm good. How are you? Thank you very much for taking my call. I love the show. I wanted to say a few things about Iran's situation. If you give me a few minutes. Please do. I was about to get there. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Well, I heard on your show, I think it was last week that you were talking about, the start of the problem, the protesting and stuff that they're having now, was the bank, one of the big bank that went under. That, yes, that is true when a big organization like that bank goes under, it affects the economy. But you cannot compare it with the situation that we had over here in 2008 and 9. that the overall economy went bad because some of the banks had, you know, bad loans to regular citizens that wanted to buy homes and the stuff and home prices went down for whatever reason it was. Banks over there, they're corrupt, that only loan money to the people that are close to the government. And we're not talking about little money to buy a house. There are billions in high dollar amounts that they loan it and that called bad loan. And what they do is with that bad loan, they just walk away and never return the money. And obviously that's the government money that when that bank goes under, it affects everybody in that society. And all they have to do is just print more money and inflation affects everybody. average citizens life that they cannot afford their you know their grocery next day and that's the start of the protesting and now we're not paying enough attention to the situation that humans are getting killed on the streets every day two days 20,000 people if we were cutting trees 20,000 trees in one day or two days There were lots of people raising hell that what are we doing with these live things on the, you know, on forest and the stuff. Yeah, John, you know, so I got to say that the president had announced today, or actually it was the Pentagon while he was in Davos, that they are replenishing and moving around Patriot missile batteries anticipating the arrival of an aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf. I'm very frustrated that the president. told the protesters to get into the streets, take over their institutions, help us on the way, and they proceeded to do it. And I have to tell you guys, a number of human rights activists are saying the death toll could be as high as 50,000 people in Iran.

The government is willing to admit to 20,000 people. When an authoritarian government is willing to admit to 20,000 people being killed, it probably is much higher. The 50,000 actually makes sense, and it's a lot of young people, many of whom are so badly disfigured because they were shot in the face. You can't identify them. It's a horrible human rights tragedy. Protest are still continuing, but they've been subdued because they thought help was on the way from the president because he said so and nothing came. I'm hoping something comes from the president. I hope we see more. It's a horrible situation. And we should keep our eye on the situation, and hopefully we can undermine that regime. But one of the big problems is Israel and the Saudis and the Emirates and the Egyptians are not convinced that we can scuttle this regime. given just how infested it is into society. And I still think we ought to try. I think we ought to. Now, I got to move on because I got to talk about something hyperlocal but is also national. Now. I want to pull back the curtain very slightly here to preference what I'm about to say, that when I talk about things in my area or in Georgia, sometimes we'll get a program director somewhere else where in the country. Yeah, it's too specific to your part of the country. We're not interested. So I try to be careful, but this is actually a national story. I've mentioned to you guys over the last few days that there was a special election in my backyard, the 18th State Senate District in Georgia. By the way, I know the Georgia legislature is meeting right now, and you guys need to listen to this if you're a Republican. So my friend John Robert F. Kennedy Jr., he's running for lieutenant governor in Georgia, and there's a quirk in the law in the state of Georgia that if you're running for an office and you want to run, you don't have to resign if the terms overlap, if the terms don't overlap, you've got to resign. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did not technically have to resign, except they're like eight people running for the seat. And the rule is you can't fundraise if you're in the state legislature while the legislature's meeting. So he stepped aside so he can raise his money. I've got several friends. I'm staying out of it. I'm just saying John Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of them. There are a number of great people running. I'm not endorsing. Staying out of it. I've got too many friends in the race. But John and I practiced law together for a while. We're in separate firms at the same building. We know each other socially. He's a good guy. He resigned from the seat. So there's a special election for it. And it is a 20 plus or 10 plus 15 plus Republican district. Essentially, the Republican should get about 15 points above 50 and the Democrats should get about 15 points below 50. In the worst case scenario, it should be about 6040. In the best case scenario, it should be about a 70-30 Republican district. Special election was yesterday, special elections in Georgia. Everybody, Democrat and Republican run on the same ballot. And yesterday, the Democrat, got 40% of the vote. It's going into a runoff. There were, I think, five or six Republicans running against one Democrat.

The Democrat who ran is a very far left progressive, so much so that I know a number of Democrats who said if they lived in the district, they would have to oppose the guy because he's such a nutter. He actually is a Democratic socialist. The Democratic Party was backing him, but you know the group that was backing him the hardest and most ardently. It's the Working Families Party, the far-left party that was formed in New York City. It's spread around the country. The Working Families Party is a quasi-communist party, and I don't say that lightly. If you're a long-time listener, you know, I don't use the word communist lightly. This guy, communist, I went and voted yesterday. My guy, Stephen McNeil, he's going to be in the runoff. He's a lawyer here in town, good Republican, long-time conservative, and he will be in the runoff. The problem is this. And Republicans in Atlanta listen to me and all of you nationwide, you need to hear me out here. Don't tune me out and say, oh, he's just talking about Georgia. This is about you too. Yesterday I got a text message yesterday morning from a Democratic back group. Said the racist today. We have a very good shot at winning this seat outright or getting into a runoff. If you need a ride to the polls, click this link. The Democrats in Georgia had an operation going in this state Senate district. That's a 60-40 Republican district on the worst day. and they were driving people to the polls. If you needed a ride to the polls, you click the link, and they would send someone to pick you up to drive you to the polls. Not a single one of the Republicans did that, nor did the Georgia Republican Party do that. I see the Georgia Republican Party, and no offense to Josh McCoon, who I like, and I know he's got a difficult problem right now internally with the party. But Georgia Republicans are pounding their chest about what a great big deal this was and how great it was. They didn't do Jack. They didn't do a damn thing to help.

The local candidates did all the heavy lifting. Oh, sure, there was a little outside adjudication, but very little by the statewide Republican Party. No major outside groups came in to help. Now, they're in the runoff. The Republican made the runoff against the Democrat. The Democrat got 40% of the vote. The Republicans split 60% of the vote. And you know what the Republicans are saying now? Well, there's no way the Democrat can win the runoff. We're safe. Y'all, they literally were busing people to the polls and not a single Republican was. They were so well organized. This seat, there's no way they should have won, and they came within 10 points of winning outright in a divided Republican field. And guess what? If all of their voters show up, if all of their voters show up and only the Republican candidates' voters show up, not all the other Republican candidates' voters show up, the Democrats are going to win. This is a state Senate seat in the middle of Georgia. But this is happening across the country. This is happening in swing districts around the country. The Democrats are showing up to win and the Republicans are not. In fact, the Republicans have very little motivation to go vote. This is showing up in polling. And you can say, well, the polling's wrong, except the polling is reflecting the reality in all of these seats where the Republicans are sitting on their butts, stay at home. Well, all the other Republicans are going to go vote, I don't have to. Or, well, I'm aggravated with the Republicans. I'm not going to go vote. The Democrats are highly motivated to go vote in Montana. They're highly motivated to go vote in Iowa. They're highly motivated to go vote in Louisiana. They're highly motivated to go vote around the country. In Florida as well, the Democrats are showing up to vote and the Republicans aren't. There is no way in a normal election year the Democrats should come close to doing what they did yesterday in the middle of Georgia. They came close to winning it outright. The organization of the Democrats, these are hungry people. In politics, hungry people are dangerous people. Hungry people start revolutions. Hungry people vote for not fantastic candidates, but those candidates have promised them they'll stop being hungry, so they vote for them. Hungry candidates do what must be done to win. The Republicans in Georgia and elsewhere, they're not hungry. In Texas... You Republicans are comfortable looking at all of the problems that have plagued your attorney general and thinking, hey, this guy, he can get all the way to the U.S. Senate. Because he tickles your ears and scratches your itch over being pro-Trump, you're like, let's make him the nominee. So you could spend lots of money trying to get a deeply flawed candidate to Washington, D.C., and pay no attention to the other Senate candidates around the country who also need the money that your guy is going to consume to save Texas from the Democrats. Or you can keep your incumbent, who none of us particularly care for but as a reliable vote for the president's agenda.

In Georgia, you've got Mike Collins, he's got a House Ethics Committee investigation, and he's been doing his best to say it's no big deal, but his chief of staff who he continues to stand by, who also does stuff with his campaign, has had all sorts of legal issues, and now you've got the congressman involved in an ethics scandal, and guess what? Jon Ossoff is an expert at running campaigns attacking the other guy's ethics, and you've got a district in a state that is increasingly swingy. But he says the right things, and he's loyal to Trump. And, oh, he's got a great social media game. So let's give him the nomination, just like we did Herschel Walker, because he's the most loyal Trump guy. How did that work out for you with Herschel Walker? In North Carolina, Roy Cooper, the former governor of the state, is ahead of the Republican running, and the Republicans are divided there. How's that going to work out for you? The Democrats are hungry for a win, and the Republicans are not. And when candidates in swing states are hungry for wins, they tend to win. When candidates make the case, they make the case to win. By the way, by the way, for you Republicans in Georgia who want to know how this guy, Stephen McNeil, won, you know the two big issues that he ran on outside of being a standard conservative? opposition to the speed cameras in front of schools, and opposition to thoughtless supply of data centers without considering the zoning ordinances. Opposition to just putting data centers, wherever you want to put data centers, and opposition to the speed cameras, got the guy into the runoff. You Republicans in Atlanta should take notice that these issues are percolating among your base. Those who love him? Listen to find out what he's going to say next. Those who disagree with him also listen to see what he's going to say next. It's the Eric Erickson Show. Hello there. Welcome. It's Eric Erikson here. 877973-7-425. Those of you on the lines, be patient. Short segment here. I ran a little long there. It's okay. We've got much more to cover, including more on the Trump administration at Davos. Can I just say I always find Davos worthless? The global elite are some of the most out-of-touch people on planet Earth. Godless secular people who really do think that they can flip the switches and pull the levers and turn the knobs and have their outcomes for ordained. And many of them live very isolated existences and bubbles. But my goodness, progressives, I shouldn't say progressive's democratic strategists are savaging Gavin Newsom in Davos. Why? because he got his picture taken with Alex Soros, and they're deeply upset that Soros could run behind Gavin Newsom, and they don't think Gavin Newsom is a strong candidate for the general election. Now, my daughter is gone for five months. Were she home?

She would be taking very long showers with our tankless water heater. Someone asked me this morning if during a power outage, what does the tankless water heater do? Well, you can actually put it on like a UPC backup, power backup. You don't have to have a generator. You're like the one that keeps your computer going. And it is so hyper-efficient that it'll keep going. Even when the power's out, you keep getting hot water. That's how genius these things are. We got our setup like that. The plumber who installed the things said, yeah, just get yourself one of those computer UPCs and plug it in there. And if the power goes out, you're still going to have hot water, unlike your regular water heater. Holy cow, it works. Go to talkingtankless.com and you can have hot water forever with Rani. Made in the USA waterhead. Made in the USA hyper-efficient. Our power bill went down. We never run out of hot water. You won't either. Talkingtankless.com. Go to that website. Find out how to ditch your tank for a tankless water heater. Talkingtankless.com. You can thank me later. You'll love this thing.