Karl Rove: Federal government mandating Voter ID sets bad precedents

This episode is brought to you by San Pellegrino Chau. A gift from Italy to your home. San Pellegrino Chau is a flavored sparkling water made with real fruit juice, finished with a pinch of Sicilian salt for a perfectly balanced taste. So which flavor will you choose? Peach, lime, blood orange, cherry, or maybe the all-new limoncello. Crafted in Italy with zero grams of added sugar, San Pellegrino Chow. Buy it now. Let's bring in Carl Rove as he joins us. He is Fox News contributor, Washington Wall Street Journal columnist. Carl, welcome back. Were you surprised Howard Enton doing the polls? Over 70% of the country want to see voter ID? How do we get it across the finish line? Yeah, well, first of all, this is not new. Go back over, you know, the polling for this for years has been, you know, it's common sense. I mean, how many of us get to write a check without showing an ID? Nobody of us get to board an airplane without doing an ID. How many of us, when we go to pick something up at the, you know, UPS store don't have to show ID? I mean, it's, look, it's common sense. But the Democrats, for some reason or another, are just stuck on this because they think that it is either the damaging to people of color, which is not shown in the polls. They don't think so. Or they want to keep it alive to keep the left of their party energized by saying that it is an attempt to depress a voter turnout among people of color. This is what they say about the Save Act. Listen to Senator Chuck Schumer, cut 13. The Senate did its job to fund 96% of the government, while splitting the DHS bill from the rest of the funding package so we can rain in ice and end the violence. Now it's the House's turn to do its job. but a band of MAGA radicals want to hijack government funding to push an outlandishly toxic bill called the SAVE Act that would disenfranchise millions of American citizens. I don't know what he's referring to. Are you a supporter of the SAVE Act? I have a concern, which is the Constitution leaves the manner of the elections to the states. And I'm reluctant to say that the federal government ought to step in and tell the states what to do in running their elections because just as, I mean, look, I'm all in favor of voter ID. We have it here in Texas. You know, we have a strong turnout in Texas. But. What I worry about is a Democrat Congress and a Democratic president using that principle, we can dictate to the states to do what we want to do what we want them to do, to say things like every state must have, you know, universal mail-in ballots. And the universal mail-in ballots must be accepted up to, you know, three days after, postmarked by the election day, accepted up to three days, and so on and so forth. Automatic registration of everybody at the age of 18. I'm not in favor of the federal government dictating.

what ought to be a local estate and local responsibility under our Constitution. Interesting, Carl, because how are you ever going to have something is cut wet, which I think is commonsensical as voter ID if you don't mandate it from the federal government? Because, you know, you have things like, what is it, is it Montana or is it Washington State where everybody mails in a ballot? Washington State. But that's the point. Look, if we establish the principle that the constitutional requirement of the states being in charge of setting the manner and nature of the elections is violated, then liberals, when they get control, can do it to us. And it's like I have misgivings about, for example, Hillary and Bill Clinton being forced to testify by Congress saying if you don't show up and testify, we're going to hold the former president in contempt. Well, what happens when Donald Trump is no longer in office? If there's a Democratic president and Democratic Congress, then they say, we want Donald Trump and Melania to show up and testify, and we're going to hold them in contempt. And if they don't show up, we're going to refer them to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. I mean, we've got to be a little bit careful in the standards that we set in this. And I would rather have the battle, for example, on voter ID by getting an amendment campaign in California that says we want to have voter ID in California. And then to say the federal government, the federal Congress is now in charge of determining the manner and nature of the elections. Yeah, I know what you're saying. You think down the line, think about the ripple effect of what will happen. But I'll tell you, with the Bill and Hillary Clinton thing is fascinating because the whole Epstein files thing. I mean, you got, though, everybody is implicated. I mean, for example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says, you know, I flew my daughter into, I think Utah to do an environmental thing on Epstein's plane. He did some normal stuff. I mean, he flew and did some things. It's charitable organization, anti-AIDS action. People did it. But if they're names on that list, they're tarred forever. Oh, yeah. And Bill Gates is one situation, which we knew that was coming. Prince Andrew, we knew that was coming. But there are other people caught up in that. And now we have Bill Clinton, who was all over this plane, you know, all over this story. And you heard Trump yesterday, he's like, I was telling you that innocent people are going to get caught up in this. A lot of names and lives are going to be ruined. And that's how it's playing out. Yeah. And I, you know, and I think that was in direct response to the fact that the former president first later are going to be called because, I mean, it establishes the president. A congressional committee can call a former president. And if the former president asserts for privilege, they can override that and threaten him with criminal prosecution if he doesn't show up. Look, I'm with you, though. I mean, God.

So, yeah, so they say a couple of things Republicans, the Democrats are asking for in terms of reform. Get the masks off. Put your names on the jerseys. Number two is, number two is get a judicial warrant if you're going to be hunting down any target, which is going to be impossible. There's no way and it will agree to that. And with the body cameras, I think they've all virtually agreed to. So these are some of the changes that they want. To get the government funded, they're going to have to give somewhere. How does the government get, how does DHS get funded? Yeah, I don't know. It depends on how many Democrats want to dig in their heels. Look, I understand the thing about masks, but on the other hand, I worry about officers being doxed and their families being identified. I'm all in favor of, you know, you don't need to have their name. You can have an identifier and a unique identifying number that says that's key to who they are. And yes, they ought to have, they ought to have a, you know, they, they. They definitely ought to have body cameras. In fact, they welcome them. What we learned from the experience with body cameras with police was that it... that virtually in all instances helped the police show that they were doing things by the book in the appropriate way. The question of a, you know, of a warrant for everybody is problematic. I think it's just an attempt to game up the system, clog it up. So, but yeah, the Democrats are going to have a problem for themselves if they dig in their heels too much on this because at some point people are going to say, this is sort of like defund the police, you're really trying to get rid of them, and you're really trying to put these officers in jeopardy and their families. So no, you know, stop at Democrats. And if they were smart, they'd take what they could get. Tom Homan's a reasonable guy. He can come to an agreement with them on certain things. I mean, think about it. They already gave up on the question of the cameras. Tom Homan said, well, we're not arguing about that. We want them. We're going to get cameras immediately for everybody in Minneapolis, and we're going to put a big order in for cameras for everybody. Yeah, I want you to hear what Congresswoman Jay Apal is calling for a cut six. I mean, the whole DHS is a creation post-9-11 that should not exist. It is way too unwieldy. It's all these agencies put together. They should not be there. Right now, they're detaining 76,000 people every night in detention centers. And 95% of them have zero criminal record. So this is something I honestly never thought I would see in the United States of America.

So number one, that stat is not right. 90%. Not right. Not right at all. And look, a lot of the people that are being detained are people who are coming across the border illegally whom we caught at the border and are waiting to process out of the country. And look, I would say to this Congresswoman, we have not been hit again since 9-11. And part of the reason is why is we took the fight to the enemy abroad. And the Department of Homeland Security was stood up and kept us safe. And, you know, to now whimsically say, oh, we don't need them. What world does she think we're living in? And what, you know, I guess her fundamental problem is she wants open borders. She wants people to be able to come and go as they see fit. She doesn't, she's not apparently concerned about the security of the homeland. I want to talk about what's happening in Iran right now. I think the president to go through the motions and have nuclear talks only with Iran after they sent a drone heading for our aircraft carrier and tried to take our merchant ship while threatening the lives still of Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and the President of United States. Is this a head fake that we're talking to him, Carl? Well, we shouldn't be talking to him if all we're going to do is talk about the things they want to talk about rather than the things the world wants us to talk with them about. Look, it's not just what you said. Think about it. These is the principal underwriter of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis. These people are attempting to bring down the West by violence and by disruption and chaos. And if we're going to sit there and say, we're going to ignore 90% of the problem that you represent, and we'll. We'll talk about nuclear weapons, but oh, we can't talk about the fact you're trying to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles that can attack us is nuts. So look, the president showed his true medal with sending B-2 bombers over to blow the hell out of their nuclear facilities. I'm reasonably competent. He's smart enough to... that not fall for this, which is we only want to talk about the things that we're incapable of providing right now, namely nuclear weapons, but we want to work it out with you so we can continue to develop them. We'll give up the highly enriched uranium that we've got because, well, frankly, you know, we want you to get off your back, get off our back, but not deal with the other issues. And let them continue. They're a rich country that's taking its wealth and spending it on terrorism and violence and chaos around the world, not on the best interest and the best desires of their people. Yeah, no water. They have no water. They have no economy. They got a valueless currency. Yeah. Yeah. Talk about, yeah. I mean, literally, you cannot buy an Iranian real on the international market because it has a value of zero. Yes. Zero. It only has value inside the country because. If you don't accept the real, well, you know, the government may do something to you. Right. Carl, you know what? The president should finish the job here. This has been brewing since 1979. Carl Rove, thanks so much. Appreciate it. Always great. Yeah, thanks for having me on.