Liz addresses Britney Spears’ recent revelation from her upcoming memoir, “The Woman in Me,” where she discloses a significant and personal episode from her past. According to a New York Post article, Britney Spears opens up about having an abortion while dating Justin Timberlake in the early 2000s. This revelation highlights a pervasive issue in the United States – coerced abortions.
According to the memoir, Spears candidly describes her deep love for Justin and her dream of building a family together. However, when she found herself unexpectedly pregnant, Justin expressed reluctance, asserting they were too young and unprepared for parenthood. Under the weight of his insistence, Britney reluctantly agreed to have an abortion, driven by her fear of losing him.
This poignant story challenges the common stereotype surrounding abortions, underscoring that they aren’t always entirely a woman’s choice. Many women, like Britney Spears, experience pressure or coercion from their partners or other influential figures in their lives. Liz empathizes with these women and calls for greater understanding and compassion.
Moreover, Liz underscores the crucial role men can play in discussions about abortion. While the pro-choice movement often argues against men having a say, cases like Britney’s demonstrate that their influence can significantly impact a woman’s decision. Liz argues that fostering an environment where men embrace fatherhood and offer support could potentially reduce the number of abortions.
Shifting to politics, Liz discusses the ongoing internal struggle within the Republican Party over the selection of the Speaker of the House. Notably, Jim Jordan, a prominent conservative, failed to secure sufficient votes due to opposition from 20 fellow Republicans. Some of these dissenting Republicans, including Congressman Ken Buck, cited concerns regarding Jordan’s stance on the 2020 election, while others, like Congressman Mike Lawler, expressed views potentially misaligned with conservative values.
This internal division within the Republican Party brings to light a pressing issue – the absence of a unified platform and shared principles. Liz cautions that failing to rally behind a candidate may inadvertently lead to a Democrat being elected as Speaker, underscoring the chaos that ensues when a political party lacks a clear and cohesive identity.
This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.
Liz Wheeler Show Episode 449, take one. We have a lot to talk about on the show today. We are going to talk about Britney Spears. This is from her upcoming memoir. People magazine has received excerpts of her memoir in which Britney writes that Justin Timberlake, when they were involved, romantically impregnated her and pressured her to have an abortion when she was 19 years old.
We’re going to talk about exactly what Britney says because she expresses regret for having that abortion. We’re also going to talk about the absolute fake news that the media was seemed happy to propagate that terrible tragedy. A rocket hit a hospital in the Palestinian territories, killing perhaps hundreds of children. And Hamas blamed Israel, blamed the Israeli Defense Forces.
The media immediately parroted Hamas, a terrorist groups pointing their finger at Israel. Israel later proved that it was actually a rocket that was launched by Hamas or by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. So another terror group in in the Palestinian territories. We’re going to walk through exactly how that happened, how the mainstream media and the United States of America would parrot the propaganda of a terror group before they would listen and believe our closest ally in the Middle East if it.
It’s almost hard to believe we’re going to talk about the speaker of the House. So the fight over whether Jim Jordan is going to be speaker or whether Jim Jordan’s not going to be speaker has some interesting underpinnings. How did we get into this situation where the Republican Party, these these Republican representatives are so divided? There’s a couple of elements that led to this.
Even from many years ago that I think a lot of people aren’t familiar with. So we’re going to talk about that. And then, of course, we’re going to talk about the gag order that a judge imposed on President Trump. This has not gotten the news coverage that it ought to get. This is not. This is one of the most outrageous things that has been done to President Trump.
And that’s a pretty high bar since President Trump has spent the last eight years being under constant attack by outrageous and false allegations. And this might be the very worst of all. So we’re going to get to all of that, but we’re going to start with Britney Spears. So according to her new memoir and I’m going to bring up the New York Post article, this is what The New York Post writes, Britney Spears has revealed that she got an abortion while she was dating Justin Timberlake in the early 2000.
According to an excerpt from Spears’s upcoming bombshell laced memoir titled The Woman in Me. Spears claimed that while the pregnancy was a surprise, she was not totally upset. This is what she said. The excerpt is, I loved Justin so much, she writes. I always expected us to have a family together one day. This would just be much earlier than I had anticipated.
But Justin definitely wasn’t happy about the pregnancy. He said we weren’t ready to have a baby in our lives, that we were way too young. Spears continued, I’m sure people will hate me for this, but I agreed not to have the baby. I don’t know if that was the right decision, if it had been left up to me alone.
I never would have done it. And yet Justin was so sure that he didn’t want to be a father. That’s pretty overwhelming, isn’t it? Breaks my heart for her. People so often just criticize her for the crazy videos and the dancing and the mental health issues that she suffered, the conservatorship. Maybe this is why maybe this played into it.
Here’s the thing. This is stereotypical of abortions in our country. Women and this is according to this is according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. I want to read this. 70% of women who had abortions describe them as coerced, pressured or inconsistent with their own values and preferences. A majority experienced pressure from other people in their lives. Be lying.
The dangerous assumption that abortion is strictly a matter of, quote, a woman’s choice. 70% of women who had abortions felt coerced into having abortions, which means that what Brittany experienced here, where she was madly in love with this man, madly in love with Justin Timberlake, she wanted to marry him. She wanted to have a family with him. She wanted to have his babies.
She envisioned them being together forever. She got pregnant and she wanted that to be a reality. And yet Justin Timberlake said to her, no, I don’t want the baby. The baby is going to be an inconvenience. I don’t want you to have the baby. And he pressured her to abort the baby to the point that she was worried that she would lose him, that he would break up with her, that he would leave her if he if she didn’t abort the child in her will.
And so she didn’t even know she wanted that child, that child that was growing inside her. This is the majority of abortions in our country. The majority of abortions in our country are not women who are cavalierly getting rid of a pregnancy that they don’t want. They’re afraid of losing the man that they love. This is why, by the way, the pro-abortion lobby is so adamant when they claim that men can’t be pro-life, no uterus, no opinion, they always tell any man who dares to stand up for the sanctity of life.
And the reason why they do this is because they understand that men are one of the driving forces behind their abortion business. And if we had men in this country who said every time a woman got pregnant, I love you, you’re carrying my child, I will support you. Let’s raise this baby together. Let’s be a family. The majority of abortions wouldn’t happen.
My heart breaks for Britney Spears, but not only for Britney Spears, not only for her baby, for all the women who have experienced exactly the same thing. Mark my words in the days to come as this story travels around the country and people even outside of politics hear about this. You are going to hear story after story after story of women saying, yeah, that happened to me, too.
I regret it. I think about that baby every day. I wish I wish that my romantic partner had been supportive because I really wanted to have that baby and I regret aborting it. Poor Britney. My word, poor Britney. A rocket hit a Palestinian hospital, killing hundreds of children. Another very intense, very heartbreaking story. When children die, it is.
It is. It rips up, it rips our hearts out. It lets me to the core. And what’s worse here is the American media is taking the side of Hamas without even fact checking these reports. We’re going to talk about that in just a second because we have proof that shows that the mainstream media are total liars. So the original report was that the Israeli Defense Forces, the IDF, had bombed or had dropped a bomb over the Palestinians and hit a hospital, killing perhaps hundreds of children.
And if this were true, it would be awful. It would still be the moral responsibility of Hamas for not allowing Gazans to leave Gaza, even after the IDF warned them that, hey, we’re going to be bombing these these places, even these seemingly civilian apparatuses because Hamas builds rockets and stored their military equipment and plots terror attacks from within civilian structures so that when the IDF takes out the military installments that are underneath the civilian structures, the Hamas terrorists can just point and say, oh, they’re destroying civilians, they’re destroying civilian operations and schools and hospitals and churches and all kinds of stuff.
Well, the mainstream media, without even bothering to fact check this, started parroting Hamas or serving as the propaganda arm of terrorists, saying that this was an IDF attack that killed hundreds of children. But that’s not true. So I’m going to show you a video of exactly what happened. This was Al-Jazeera seemingly accidentally broadcasted live what happened. And what happened is a rocket.
We can show this video, Rebecca, as I’m talking, I’ll explain what’s happening while people are watching it on the screen. So the commentator, of course, is speaking in a different language. But what you’re seeing is the dark sky. You’re seeing a rocket that is launched from the Palestinian territories. And then you see the fact that it misfired, that it it it sort of there is the it sort of explodes and snuffs out and falls.
And at that exact moment, that’s enough. That’s enough of an event. At that exact moment, you’ll see in the background an explosion on the ground. That explosion was the hospital, the Palestinian hospital. Now, the IDF, of course, in addition to your own eyes, and you are able to believe what you see with your own eyes. The IDF confirms that, yes, that is exactly what happened, that there was a rocket that was launched from the Palestinian territory, whether it was Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
I mean, potato, potato, the jihadist groups. The IDF confirms and we can bring this up. This is a statement from the Israeli Defense Forces. We’ll bring this up on the screen. They said an analysis of IDF operational systems indicates that a barrage of rockets was fired by terrorist in Gaza, passing in close proximity to the Al Ahli Hospital in Gaza at the time it was hit.
Intelligence from multiple sources we have in our hands indicates that Islamic Jihad is responsible for the failed rocket launch which hit the hospital in Gaza. There’s been additional analysis by outside sources that some people were like, Oh, well, are you going to take the word of Israel? You know, they want to defend themselves. There was an additional geo geo locating that was done.
I don’t know that I sent this to Rebecca. I’m going to text this to you if you want to bring this bring this up on the screen as well. This is pretty interesting because there were geo locators. Greg Price tweeted this and said, here’s a third of geo locators that prove the rocket that blew up at the hospital in Gaza today was fired from the Palestinian side at Israel, but ended up killing its own people.
The same people who demand to see pictures of beheaded babies from every angle took the word of Hamas first. So the geo targeting of of try or the Geo. I don’t know exactly how the science of this works, but the geo locators can actually identify where this rocket came from and then follow it. You can see that you can see the lines, the trajectories on the screen here.
And this proves that Israel did not launch this rocket at the Palestinian hospital, that the terrorists launched it at their own hospital. Now, maybe they did it unintentionally, but the fact of the matter is, it was friendly fire that killed these Palestinians. But that didn’t stop the mainstream media from blaming Israel. It didn’t stop members of Congress like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from condemning Israel for war crimes based on Hamas blaming Israel.
This was what Ilhan Omar tweeted in the immediate aftermath of this report. Bombing hospitals, she said, is among the gravest of war crimes. The IDF reportedly blowing up one of the few places the injured and wounded can seek medical treatment and shelter during a war is horrific. The president of the United States and the push for an immediate ceasefire to end the slaughter.
Would it be interesting to hear Ilhan Omar take on this now that it’s been established that this attack was actually from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad? How does this change what the president of the United States should do? Congresswoman Omar, what repercussion, what punishment should the Palestinian Islamic Jihad suffer for having destroyed a hospital? The one of the few places that the wounded can seek treatment?
Something tells me that your response is not going to be quite as strong as when you thought that this attack was levied by Israel. The rocket was fired by Hamas. But this is a perfect example of what we discussed yesterday on the show. Their strategy of using civilians as human shields. This is why they do it. This is why they hide their military apparatuses in civilian structures so that any time Israel does take out a military installation or apparatus that is associated with a civilian structure, the Palestinian Authority or Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad can point to Israel and say, oh, bad Israel taking out civilians, war crimes, oppression.
Stop this genocide. But it is all a lie, so to speak. The speaker of the House is it’s a huge mess in Congress right now. And I say that without any without any emotion. I like when Congress is gridlocked because I feel like they inflict less harm on the United States if they just don’t do anything, then if they are to if they are too active.
I don’t mind the gridlock. However, there’s a couple of very interesting things at play in this fight for who is going to be the Republican speaker of the House. First of all, Jim Jordan failed to secure enough votes to secure the speakership because 20 Republicans refused to vote for him. We can bring up a list of these 20 Republicans.
This list that I’m providing you is all also includes the phone number of the offices of these 20 Republicans who refuse to vote for Jim Jordan for speaker of the House. Please, if you live in the district of these individuals, call your representative and demand that they vote for Jim Jordan for speaker. The idea that someone would not vote for Jim Jordan when they are a member of the Republican Party, leaving open the possibility that a Democrat would be able to form a coalition of votes and becomes speaker is grotesque.
If if a Democrat becomes speaker, it will be the fault of the Republicans. The Republicans will have shot ourselves in the foot. And it’s almost it’s almost hard to believe. And until until you look a little bit more closely at some of these members of Congress, these Republican members of Congress, who refused to vote for Jim Jordan. Let’s look at Congressman Mike Lawler, for example.
Is he really a conservative? Does he represent your values and my values? Well, Congressman Mike Lawler back in June posted this on his Instagram account, Happy Pride Month. Live Authentically without Fear. OC There’s a real conservative committed to family values, committed to fighting against queer theory. It doesn’t sound like a real Republican to me. Then we have Congressman Ken Buck, who claims that he will never vote for Jim Jordan.
I’m going to show you the video of that in just a second. So Congressman Ken Buck is another Republican who refused to vote for Jim Jordan for speaker, thus causing Jim Jordan not to steer the number of votes that he needs to be speaker. And yet, is Ken Buck truly a Republican? This is this is Ken Buck, and I’ll let you decide for yourself.
Take a listen. I am concerned that Congressman Jordan has not agreed to. To say that Donald Trump lost the election and Joe Biden won the election. I’m concerned that the events leading up to January 6th included Congressman Jim Jordan participating not not in, you know, the riots or anything like that, but participating in the challenge to the election in ways that I think are really inappropriate.
And I think that Republicans that run in the future are going to have to run on Jim Jordan’s actions, and that’s going to be very difficult for them. I am concerned. So let me get this straight. Ken Buck calls himself a Republican, ran as a Republican, got elected to Congress as a Republican. And yet he thinks that if you contested the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, if you notice, like every rational person in this country noticed that the Democrats rigged the election, the election neared, they did round the block around the clock drop boxes that were unattended, universal mail in ballots, early voting, they degree dated signature verification standards, all of these all of
these different things. Have you noticed that? And you said, wait a second, that’s a little bit of a red flag. That leaves kind of a big vulnerability to a lack of integrity in the 2020 election outcome. Then Ken Buck thinks you are not fit to lead the Republican Party. This man is a Republican. Are you kidding me? Greg Pryce had a very interesting observation about all 20 of these Republicans who refused to vote for Jim Jordan.
And I want to read to you what he posted. This is a very astute observation. Bring this up on the screen so that you can read along. Greg Price said if you look at the 20 Republicans that just voted against Jim Jordan for speaker, they fall into one of three categories. Category number one is appropriators. There’s an old saying in Congress that there are three parties Democrats, Republicans and appropriators.
These people make up the bureaucratic industrial complexes and want to be able to continue deficit spending like there’s no tomorrow. Of the 20 Jordan, those seven were members of the House Appropriations Committee. Kay Granger, Mike Simpson, Mario Diaz-Balart, Steve Womack, John Rutherford, Tony Gonzalez, and Jake Ellzey. Category number two defense hawks. Pretty simple category here. These are the people that are scared.
Speaker Jordan would stop them from being able to give an endless amount of money to Ukraine and other pointless wars in random parts of the globe. Jim Jordan hinted as much that the gravy train to Ukraine would be slowed. So now they’re denying him the speakership. Of the 20 Jordan noes. For our members of the Armed Services Committee, Don Bacon, Carlos Jimenez, Jen Higgins and Nick La Lotta.
And then category number three members and Biden won districts. This category probably makes the most sense. They represent blue districts. Therefore, they don’t want to vote for a conservative like Jim Jordan. But here’s the thing, Greg Price, right? There are several members like Brian Fitzpatrick and David Valadao, who and others who also represent blue districts but just voted for him.
Do you really think the average voter in their district even cares who the speaker is? What the holdouts have in common is that they’re all freshmen members of Congress who desperately need K Street money in order to be reelected next year. That would be Anthony Esposito, Andrew Garde, beginning of Garbarino, Nicola Latta and Mike Lawlor. On top of that, all but two of the 20 Jordan No submitted earmark requests for the latest budget.
Basically, Jim Jordan is being posed by members who are part of the military and bureaucratic industrial complexes, as well as members who need lobbyist dollars to be reelected. If that isn’t the most fascinating analysis, then I don’t know what is the only analysis that holds a candle to Greg Price’s breakdown of these 20 Republicans is Sean Davis is analysis of the role Steve Scalise is playing in this drama.
Now, Steve Scalise, of course, was on the road to being speaker. Late last week, he failed to be able to garner the votes necessary to be speaker of the House. He immediately dropped out. But that’s not where Steve Scalise is sorry began, and that’s not where Steve Scalise, his story ended. There are reports that many of these 20 Republicans who voted no on Jordan, Steve Scalise, by the way, for the record, voted yes on Jordan, just like McCarthy.
But there are reports that Steve Scalise holds a great amount of influence over many of these 20 and that he could, on behalf of Jim Jordan, convince many of these 20 Republican holdouts to vote yes for Jordan. But reports are that he will not do that. Now, you might be thinking, well, why wouldn’t he do that? This is what Sean Davis writes.
Interesting history lesson on how we got here. Steve Scalise destroyed the conservative Republican study Committee on John Boehner’s behalf ten years ago. Republican Study Committee members and staff weren’t sufficiently supportive of Boehner’s garbage budget deal with Senate Democrats sowing the seeds of Boehner’s eventual ouster. The creation of the House Freedom Caucus and the widespread conservative distrust of leadership that led to McCarthy’s ouster over a budget deal.
If you’re bothered by the ongoing House drama, direct your ire to Scarlet. Because he paved the road directly to where we are today. It rarely gets, noted, Sean Davis said. But Scalise is personally responsible for much of the last so-called chaos surrounding GOP speaker battles over the last decade. Were it not for him firing staff and gutting conservative house institutions under the orders of milquetoast GOP leaders like John Boehner, it’s unlikely that any of the current speaker drama would be occurring.
Those facts paint his intransigence in this speaker fight in a much different light. Members who remember what Scalise did to the Republican Study Committee and Paul Taylor will never vote for him under any circumstances. And as a result, he will not ever become speaker of this GOP majority. It’s mathematically impossible. So what’s his end game? Sean Davis asks.
At this point, no one seems to know. But for those who wanted a shutdown of garbage spending bills and fake continuing resolutions, they’re more than happy to ride this fight out for weeks, if not months. If there’s no speaker, there’s no more spending, which is what the conservatives all wanted in the first place. Many of us think of Scalise and think of Scalise being shot at the congressional baseball game.
We associate him with that which made us all so sympathetic for him. He was the he was the victim of a terror attack inflicted by a Bernie Sanders supporter was political violence and our sympathies and our loyalty rightly were extended to him. But most people, when they think of Steve Scalise, can’t think of his legislative history or the role that he has played in Republican policies.
Most people, including many active conservatives in politics, don’t know that Steve policed his Liberty score from the conservative review is only 58%. That’s an F score. That’s only four points better than Kevin McCarthy. The guy’s a squish. And not only is he a squish, he was a deputy of McCarthy, and he is just as deeply embedded in K Street with the lobbyists as McCarthy himself is.
And as Sean Davis pointed out. Much of this is due to Scalise also being a powerful and damaging deputy of John Boehner. This puts the whole speaker battle in a whole different light, but it also highlights something that I think is very, very important, and that is the Republican Party at this moment. And I say this as a member of the Republican Party, perhaps I am a member only because I agree more with Republicans than Democrats.
I wouldn’t say that I’m an ardent member of the Republican Party. I’m an ardent conservative. But the Republican Party has no values. They have no principles. They have no platform. Therefore, they have no political purpose, which is why we see so much corruption in the Republican Party, almost equal to the amount of corruption that we see in the Democrat Party, because this this political apparatus is supposed to have a unifying central political goal that is dictated by their principles.
And yet the Republican Party has no principles. And therefore, we have this loose coalition of people like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney and Matt Gaetz and Donald Trump all in the same party. These people could not be more different in their political philosophy, and yet they’re lumped under this one umbrella of the Republican Party just because they’re not Democrats.
Now, I’m not sitting here advocating for or for abolishing the two party system. I don’t think that’s how our government was set up. But what I am saying is this is exactly what we’ve been talking about the last few weeks that I highlighted in my book, that the Republican Party, until we can not just point out what’s wrong, but accurately define what’s right and be willing to use the just authority of the government to help order our society towards what we have defined as right or what we acknowledge to be the definition of right.
The Republican Party is going to be as amoral and as aimless and as reckless and as damaging as the Democrat Party. And we’re seeing a perfect, perfect example of this. The Republican Party is fractured in two. We have on one hand, fighters like Jim Jordan not perfect. And my criticism of Jim Jordan, but he’s on the good side generally who understand the threat that Joe Biden’s administration is posing to our nation through their prosecutions of Donald Trump, that he understand the corruption of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and how damaging that is to the national security of our nation.
They understand they understand this this college censorship that we experienced, the imposition of the lockdowns and the mask mandates and the vaccine mandates and how our businesses were closed. And we were forced to stop going to church. And what a fundamental threat this is to our country, let alone our families and our way of life. These people are the base fighters.
And then you have the people like McCarthy, who’s just there because he wants to be a popular politician. He likes the game of politics. It isn’t a principle. He doesn’t have morals. Maybe Scalise doesn’t either. Liz Cheney. Mitt Romney. Well, define their morals, define what they are, therefore define what they think the government should be used for. They can’t define it because the Republican Party has lost sight of what is good, what is true, and what is beautiful and lost sight of the reality that liberty, the idea that we are a free country.
Liberty is the means to something greater. Liberty does not mean the maximum amount of individual freedom for every citizen possible. Liberty means the freedom to make virtuous choices. And at some point, if freedom means the liberty to make virtuous, virtuous choices, we have to acknowledge that virtue exists and a virtue exists. And that’s what we should be striving for in politics.
And as long as we don’t and you can call me a Bible thumper, all you want, this is this is just the historical reality of not only the United States of America and our government, but of mankind. Until we acknowledge the reality of virtue and start striving for it. We are going to keep having to sit through this chaos in the House of Representatives.
It is just one yet another example of that. Speaking of the government being weaponized against private citizens and the threat it poses to us, the judge, a judge imposed a gag order on President Trump that is beyond almost anything that we have seen happen to President Trump. And that saying a lot because a lot has happened to President Trump.
We’re going to talk about that in just a second. So it kind of surprised me, to be honest, that this gag order that was imposed on Trump didn’t get more news coverage. You would think that the Democrats would be applauding this because they are against Trump and against due process of law and against fair treatment and equal standards.
And you would have and I would have thought that conservatives also would have been more outraged. Perhaps the world is in such chaos right now that this slipped by. But let me tell you about this gag order that Judge Tonya Chuck can impose on President Trump. I want to bring up this photo of the gag order itself. There we go.
Technophobe, by the way, he runs a fantastic substack If you guys don’t already subscribe to that substack He has really, really good analysis of the legal stuff that’s happening, especially the lawfare stuff that’s happening in the federal government. But this is what he tweeted. He said, Judge Shulkin has released the official gag order on Donald Trump. He’s prohibited from criticizing the special counsel.
The special counsel could engage in the most egregious behavior, threatening witnesses, etc., And Trump couldn’t say a thing. So then he posts a picture of the order itself, and it says, All interested parties in this matter, including the parties and their counsel, are prohibited from making any public statements or directing others to make any public statements that target the special counsel counsel prosecuting the case or his staff.
So imagine that President Trump is being falsely accused of an insurrection by the special counsel of inciting violence and trying to overthrow the US government on January six, even though he did none of the crime and he’s not allowed to say anything critical of the special counsel or direct anybody, even his surrogates, his campaign spokespeople. So the mainstream media and the left just in the campaign alone could use any false talking point they want against President Trump.
And he has no ability to defend himself in the eyes of the American voters. This is election interference. This is not only a fundamental violation of President Trump’s right to defend himself and right to free speech. It is election interference. And if you think for one second the Democrats won’t take advantage of this, the mainstream media won’t exploit this, then you’ve been living under a rock.
And then, of course, we have Julie Kelly’s analysis. She’s been in court all week transcribing what’s been going on and reporting to us the actual truth. And she says Judge Sutton’s three page gag order underscores how her interpretation of Trump’s posts and comments will dictate whether he violated her new order or not. Scary stuff. And she highlights this part of the order where she says this is the judge writing undisputed testimony cited by the government demonstrates that when defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed.
Undisputed testimony undisputed. So if Judge Tanya Chacon doesn’t like something that Trump says she is the sole arbiter of whether it violates the gag order. So I have to imagine her standards are going to be a little bit different than what your standards or my standards would be to judge whether Trump is engaging in witness intimidation if he criticizes the government, if he criticizes the special counsel, the person prosecuting him, if he defends himself against any of these allegations, he will be what influencing the outcome of this proceeding as if the left is not already doing that.
As if that’s bad enough. Julie Kelly points out that Trump won’t be allowed to talk about the 2020 election at all. Otherwise he very likely could be found in violation of this order. She said in rereading Jack Smith’s January six indictment against Trump and identifying all of the quote unquote potential witnesses covered by the gag order, it struck me that the gag order could prevent Trump from talking in any way about the 2020 election.
She goes on to say the order would cover his administration officials who were against investigating election fraud and refuted his claims of stolen election. Her example is Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen. It covers Mark Milley and Bill Barr. As noted yesterday, even though Barr resigned as of December 1st of 2020. It applies to Vice President Mike Pence, who has made his self-proclaimed heroic efforts on January six, the cornerstone of his failing campaign, and his former aides, including Marc Short, a frequent cable news critic of Trump.
It would cover elected officials, including Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, as well as GOP officials in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The open question, Julie Kelly says, since the indictment mentions the Democratic governors of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, is Trump prevented from commenting on those individuals are only related to the 2020 election. It’s unclear.
The bottom line is, given the breadth of Smith’s indictment, potential witnesses are whomever he says. Julie Kelly goes on to say, Despite every attempt by the Biden regime, Democrats, the media and Never Trumpers, the overwhelming majority of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was fraudulent. Election integrity remains a top issue, and now this gag order will ban Trump from discussing what happened.
As it relates to the 2024 election. This is serious stuff, and President Trump did respond. I have some advice for President Trump on how she should handle this. But this is what President Trump’s initial reaction to this gag order was. This is before his team formally filed an appeal, which they did. They’re appealing this gag order. But this was Trump’s verbal reaction.
Take a look at Judge gave a gag order today. Did you hear that on speech, which I believe is totally unconstitutional, What she did, the judge gave a gag order. The judge doesn’t like me too much. Her whole life is not like me. But she gave a gag order, you know, to gag orders. You can’t speak badly about your opponent.
But this is weaponry all being done because Joe Biden is losing the election and losing very, very badly to all of us. And then, of course, his team filed the appeal. The appeal is going to be in the DC District court, which, of course, is going to rule against Trump. Perhaps he could appeal this to Supreme Court. I’m not sure the process there.
If I were him, I would certainly try to. But Julie Kelly points out something interesting. She says Judge Tonya Aitken is about as radical as they come. In 2017, she ruled against Trump’s HHS policy that prevented unaccompanied minor illegal aliens from getting abortions. Her decision was reversed by a three panel, a three judge panel on the D.C. court then upheld by the full court.
And Julie Kelly goes Judge Tonya Chacon believes a 17 year old illegal immigrant has a constitutional right to abortion but does not believe Donald Trump has a constitutional right to criticize the parts of the government. It’s pretty chilling when you think of it, when you think of it that way. And by the way, it’s not 100% clear whether this applies to spokespeople and surrogates of the Trump campaign, whether they are also not allowed to talk about the 2020 election.
But this is not something that Republicans should tolerate. This is not something that Trump should tolerate. I understand that Trump has from the very beginning, and this is a point that the left pretends doesn’t exist. But Trump has from the very beginning, from the day of the election in November of 2020, he has respected our system of law and order.
He has respected the Constitution, he’s respected the law, and he served for recourse for grievances through the proper channels. That’s even why the argument or the accusations against him when it comes to the certification of the Electoral College on January 6th. Why these arguments always struck me as kind of funny, because if someone was actually attempting to overturn the US government by subverting the Constitution, why would they ask legal advice from lawyers about is there a constitutional remedy to put a pause on the certification while we continue to investigate, since we all know that something bad happened?
If you were actually trying to trample on the Constitution, you wouldn’t ask for legal guidance on what the proper recourse is. And let’s not kid ourselves and pretend that presidents of the United States know every single aspect of every single legal nuance throughout the entire US judicial system. Of course they don’t. Nobody does. That’s why they have a panel of advisors, experts in each different area so that they can rely on the expertise of those advisors to help inform their decisions.
It’s always struck me, struck me as kind of hilarious that the left tries to paint Trump as someone trampling the Constitution when he has always tried to use constitutional recourse to address his grievances. But now, of course, he can’t. He’s not allowed to talk about the 2020 election. And this would be my advice for President Trump. Certainly continue this appeal, pursue the appeal, use respect the legal system, as you have from the beginning, pursue this appeal.
It’s going to be denied. And when it’s denied, pursue it to the Supreme Court and try to pursue it and as expedited as possible. If the Supreme Court rules that this gag order is legal, which I doubt they will, but if they do, it is at that point that perhaps you should talk about the 2020 election, as any American citizen has a right to.
Perhaps you should point out the wrongdoing on behalf of Democrats or the wrongdoing committed by Democrats in the 2020 election that led to an outcome that half of Americans don’t trust. Maybe you should talk about what happened on January 6th and the reality of what happened on January six. How many government agencies were infiltrated into that crowd, How many informants were encouraged by different people to do different things in order to entrap them?
And if defending yourself with the facts and the reality causes Judge Chacon to pursue charges against you, contempt of court charges, and put you in jail, then perhaps what you said earlier in the week is, in fact, the right thing that you would be willing to go to jail in order to fight for what’s right in our country.
Because let me tell you, if a liberal judge in Washington, D.C., puts you in jail because you commented on the reality of the lack of integrity in the 2020 election, your base will be galvanized. And that’s not reason alone to violate the law. It’s a serious consideration. But at some point, civil disobedience is something to consider, especially when what’s being done to you grows more and more egregious.
Again, I’m not someone who sits here and typically wants to discard our system of our criminal justice system or our system of laws. I generally think it’s a good system. I think it’s being abused by the left. And I think it’s been a very smart, a very wise, very prudent strategy for Trump to comply with all of these different attacks against him, because at least he has in defense, he can claim that he has complied and he has respected the rule of law, though the Democrats ignore that and don’t care that he does.
But at some point, to show the lengths that the left is willing to go to silence, your free speech might require a demonstration of actually showing the American people, if I say this one thing, if I post a video saying something fishy happened in the 2020 election, this liberal judge who hates me, who thinks that illegal aliens 17 years old have a constitutional right, kill the babies in their womb doesn’t think I have a constitutional right to criticize the government and will put me in jail for it Might be the statement that the American people need to hear a lot of heavy topics on the show this these couple of weeks.
Let me tell you, this has been quite something for developments in our country tomorrow. I want to let you know who we’re going to be talking to on the show tomorrow. Ambassador John Bolton joins us tomorrow. Yes, John Bolton, a controversial figure from the Trump administration, if there ever was one, controversial both during the administration and afterward. John Bolton predicted correctly the role that Iran would play in equipping Hamas to attack Israel.
And therefore, perhaps we should listen to what he says about Iran’s threat against the United States. It’s a very interesting conversation that I had with Ambassador Bolton, and I’m excited for you to hear it tomorrow. So you do not want to miss that. Make sure that you subscribe to the show. Rumble dot com slash Liz we are so you can be the first to hear that conversation.
Thank you for watching today. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz wheeler. This is the Liz Wheeler show.