[00:00:04] Broadcasting live from atop the Rocky Mountains, the crossroads of the West, you are listening to the Liberty Roundtable Radio Talk Show. Donald Trump gets spanked by the media. Ted Bianco gets spanked by the courts. The good sheriff shut down. And did Trump take over Greenland as he claims?
[00:00:32] Happy to have you along, my fellow Americans. I'm Sam Bushman. It is hard-hitting news, and it all starts now. It is a freedom-loving, fantastic, faith-filled. We're taking America back one heart, one mind, one issue at a time Friday. And that means the good doctors in the house. Dr. Scott Bradley. His website's freedomsrisingsun.com. He has the prescription for America. It's his collegiate series to preserve the nation, by the way, available at that same website,
[00:00:58] as is his incredible weekly webinar Q&As on the Constitution and more every Thursday evenings, 7 p.m. Get your ticket to ride at freedomsrisingsun.com. Dr. Bradley, welcome back, sir. Well, thank you, Sam. And I know we've got more to talk about than we've got time. But I'll just mention, as we start, this was a hinge point, a watershed moment, as this nation was founded 237 years ago.
[00:01:26] The United States House and Senate forwarded to the states 12 proposed amendments to the United States Constitution in commitment that they had made in getting the Constitution ratified. They said that they would present the states with an opportunity to ratify a Bill of Rights, and they sent 12 of those amendments. Most people only think 10, but 10 of them were ratified by December of 1791.
[00:01:55] Two of them were not. One was ratified about 200 years later. One is still out there. But the point of the matter is that on the day that they forwarded this two-thirds margin, passed a set of amendments for the approval of the states, they also sent a letter, no, it was more than a request. It was directing George Washington to establish a day of Thanksgiving and prayer.
[00:02:24] And that was presented to Washington, and he presented the nation with a magnificent letter about Thanksgiving. And I have an advice for everybody to read that around the Thanksgiving time and remind your family that this nation has always been dependent upon God. And the nation recognized that. George Washington in his magnificent Thanksgiving proclamation set a very good example for us.
[00:02:53] Anyway, 237 years ago today, the Bill of Rights was forwarded for ratification. And boy, am I glad we got that. Amen. People need to understand, though, just to be very clear, I know they call it the Bill of Rights, but it's not really a Bill of Rights at all. Rights come from God Almighty. And it was really a document that was designed to say, hey, you know what? We've delegated authority to the general government.
[00:03:19] The guidelines are very clear, very thin, very limited. And then the states and the people respectively look at your 9th and 10th amendments directly for clarity on this, were directly meant that the people, anything we didn't delegate to the state and or to the general government is retained by the people. Anything not delegated to the general government is to the states and to the people respectively. So the point that I'm getting at is it's really a restriction on the general government is what it really is.
[00:03:48] The Constitution gives them authority, limited, and delegation or delegates that authority and lays it out. And then the Bill of Rights says, by the way, if we've left anything out, don't touch the following things. So I understand that it's called the Bill of Rights, but let's be clear, rights come from God. This is really to restrict government further and put it on notice that you can't get out of the delegated box. Doctor, do you want to respond to that real quick? Well, absolutely. And again, I don't want to bog us down with all my distractions and everything like that,
[00:04:16] but I'll just remind people that there is a preamble to the Bill of Rights also, like a preamble to the Constitution. You know, we the people of the United States. The preamble to the Bill of Rights specifically states what Sam is so pointing out. It says that in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
[00:04:43] So these, again, your rights did not begin with the Constitution or with a Bill of Rights or a declaration or anything. These are inherent as inalienable rights from God. But there was concerns that there was a possibility that just inferring that there was no more, you know, usurpation of rights, there needed to be a clarifying set of Bill of Rights.
[00:05:08] And in fact, Thomas Jefferson, when he first received his copy of the new Constitution from James Madison after the convention closed in 1787 and Madison forwarded him a copy in France, he says, boy, I like this, but here's some things I don't write like. And the one thing that came out immediately was it needed a Bill of Rights. And there just couldn't be the inference that there was nothing infringing on that.
[00:05:36] And specifically, he pointed out juries. There's a lot of responsibility that we, the people, must carry in a free, liberty-loving society. And that means there's checks and balances everywhere, number one. It also means that the people have tremendous responsibility, the ultimate responsibility. Delegation to certain groups, divided power, checks and balances were essential. And the Bill of Rights were just one of those things. And I just want to be very clear so everybody understands.
[00:06:06] It didn't give anybody any rights at all. So that I don't really like the name of it. I get the point. We've got to put more, you know, guardrails around government because it'll get out of the box. And even with the Bill of Rights, even with those 10 things that they adopted, the government's still totally out of control and violating a lot of our rights. And it needs to stop. And we, the people, need to understand it. So celebrations are in order for the founders keeping their promise and doing that.
[00:06:32] And then we need to really realize that it's up to us to mandate that the government do those things. All right. California High Court orders Sheriff Chad Bianco to return about 650,000 seized ballots. And you say, what's this all about? Well, I'm not really a fan of Sheriff Chad Bianco. He violated the rights of Vem Miller big time. And I tried to get to the bottom of it.
[00:06:59] He literally acted like I was part of a cabal and literally lied to my face. So I'm not a fan of Chad. But Chad Bianco did do something right. He seized those ballots and started an investigation saying, I believe many of these ballots are fraudulent. Good for the sheriff on that score. However, now we get this weird backed into reality. Listen carefully.
[00:07:20] In a unanimous ruling on Thursday, so yesterday, the California Supreme Court ordered Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco to return about 650,000 ballots seized from the 2025, what they call Proposition 50 redistricting election. So they did a bunch of redistricting, et cetera.
[00:07:49] And so he seized the ballots from that and felt like, hey, I got to investigate this thing. The court ruled the seizure was, quote, unlawful. Why? Because California law requires voted ballots to stay in the custody of election officials, even during a criminal investigation. So this is really problematic. Listen carefully now.
[00:08:17] The court also upheld the attorney general's authority to pause the sheriff's investigation. It did not rule on the fraud claims themselves. So now what you got is give the ballots back. We're going to let the election officials have them. The attorney general stopped the investigation. This is a real slam to sheriffs and a real takeover of power. Now listen to the reason why they can claim all this and do all this.
[00:08:47] The sheriff says he will comply and return the ballots. Okay. I believe the sheriff should fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on this one. Hey, I've got an investigation going on. I'm not giving the ballots back until we adjudicate this thing all the way. But sadly, Sheriff Bianco caved. But listen carefully to how they frame this whole thing. Five days before the ruling.
[00:09:11] So five days before this thing, Governor Newsom signed the new law, making it a crime to take election materials from the custody of the election officials. So they literally saw Chad doing this. They didn't want it to be investigated. So they shut him down. They had the attorney general stop the investigation. They created a law and had the governor sign it five days before this.
[00:09:41] Then they said, hey, sheriff, you're violating the law. Now, if you don't see strangeness in all this. Wow. So the attorney general of the state shuts down the sheriff and stops the investigation. They say, hey, we just passed a law that says you you can't take these ballots from the officials. Now, he literally had documents allowing him to seize the ballots in the first place. That's why he did it.
[00:10:08] So this is where we're never going to get the answers on election fraud, folks. They claim to you, oh, there's no election fraud. Everybody's crazy. That isn't true. You guys are wacko. But this proves they'll never let anything really get adjudicated. They will stop it at every turn. So they didn't rule on whether it really is the problem. It did not rule on the fraud claims themselves. All it did. OK, go ahead and skip this break.
[00:10:38] Liz, go ahead and skip this break. OK, thank you. So all I'm telling you is this is a serious problem. So we're not going to discuss this election fraud anymore. We're just going to shut down the sheriff and the attorney general, who's the, you know, man in charge, so to speak. And then we're going to go ahead and change the law five days before this all goes down. And we're going to say it doesn't matter. You got to keep these ballots in the hands of election officials.
[00:11:02] So if we believe election officials committed fraud, you still can't take the ballots from them five days before. And then we say, sheriff, you're violating the law. You got some home cooking like you ain't never seen before on this one, Dr. Bradley. Well, let's just give a constitutional footing to this thing. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 tells the federal government, the general government, no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.
[00:11:32] OK, so what a bill of attainder is, it's basically where the parliament or the Congress or whatever passes a law like they did with Robin Hood, declaring him to be a criminal. No trial, no nothing. He just is a criminal. And so therefore, we're attaining him. We're marking him. OK, so there's that. And then there's no ex post facto law, which is a law passed after the fact.
[00:11:55] OK, so if it was OK to cross the street here yesterday and you did it and they pass the law the next day saying you can't cross the street here, that's an ex post facto law. Well, but what they're saying is before he, you know, it's hard to know because when did he grab the ballots versus when did the law get passed? Well, my assumption is if the Supreme Court ruled on it yesterday, he'd already done that. That's right. They were trying to preclude it. But let me go on.
[00:12:24] But they're claiming that the law was five days. I'm trying to figure this out. Five days before the ruling. Governor Newsom signed a new law. So, see, I assume it's that ruling yesterday. So that's the thing is that. But whether the ruling was. Hold on. Whether the ruling was before yesterday, if they're talking about a different ruling that then got passed to the Supreme Court. So I don't know exactly when what is my point.
[00:12:54] OK, well, barring the existence of this previous law, this law that they just. But even if it did pass five days before, your point still stands because they did it intentionally to make sure that clause wouldn't count as well. So, again, you start to dig in. You go, hey, did they know about this in advance and and do all this so that they could, you know, it's very, very. This whole thing now reeks of a 10 times bigger investigation than it needed to in the first place. Now, share or doctor.
[00:13:20] Well, Article 1, Section 10 specifically applies to states. It says no state shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law. So, anyway, there's some constraints that are placed upon states in Article 1, Section 10. And you can read the whole thing to get all of those issues. But the fact of the matter is, if a law was passed, you just don't wave a magic wand and have that happen.
[00:13:49] There is a process it goes through. The governor signs it. This stuff was likely in the mill. Well, we don't know the timing perhaps and that's probably not elucidated right well in the news reports. But it sounds like there's a high probability that they violated the general instruction of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.
[00:14:11] And, yes, I agree with you that we need further information and basically to write a whole case about this thing. But if, in fact, it turns out to be as it appears it is, this thing is something that absolutely should be taken to the Supreme Court and the opportunity be given for a full hearing on this thing.
[00:14:39] And I think California, as usual, has started another dumpster fire. There's no question about it. And that's why I think Chad Bianco should have stood his ground and took this all the way to the Supreme Court saying, hold on now, this needs even a bigger investigation and I will not let go of the ballots. However, he decided to let the ballots go and so now they've literally shut down another sheriff trying to get to the bottom of election issues and we're not going to judge the mayor for the case if there's fraud or anything else.
[00:15:06] We're just going to shut him down, get the ballots back, and then, hey, what do you do? Right? So it's a sad, big loss for us. I'll tell you that right now. Well, here's just another little constitutional standing. You know, just like me, bring these silly little facts up. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 delegates to the Supreme Court authority in specific cases.
[00:15:30] Now, there's other ones that, you know, they can have jurisdiction in, but the courts, I mean, the Congress can preclude them from being involved in it. The Supreme Court could be locked out of some of these things. But in specific cases, they are told you have jurisdiction. Okay? Okay, so, in those cases which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2.
[00:15:57] So the state is party to this issue. So there's some ideas that might be booted around the block about how the Constitution needs to be given consideration. And, again, California starts dumpster fires at a whim, and, therefore, it's likely that, you know, it's so muddled over there that the California Supreme Court is probably thoroughly tainted on this thing anyway. Yeah. And they're out on this as, well, we're not punishing the sheriff. We're just telling them where the ballots belong.
[00:16:27] And the attorney general can stop the investigation and say there's nothing to see here. You know, the problem is even if the sheriff does an investigation and delivers, hey, we have evidence here. Now he's got to pass it to the DA or somebody else to carry it forward. And so the DA is just acting kind of, you know, quicker at the state level and shutting down the sheriff. This is a big deal because, again, they're going to use this to shut down sheriffs at every turn.
[00:16:54] Now, any time a sheriff wants to, you know, dig into election fraud in his county, they're going to say, no, no, no, no. Hey, it's a crime to take election materials from the custody of the election, you know, professionals, right, of the, what do you want to call it, election officials. So, you know, the idea that the election officials can keep these even if an investigation ensues, at some point they've created this.
[00:17:22] Because we don't have checks and balances anymore over this. And the sheriff has been shut down by the attorney general. And every time they're going to use these, quote, changes in the law, these subtle but powerful changes in the law to literally defang sheriffs. That's what's going to happen over this, doctor. Well, this is happening all across the country. I mean, there's a real effort to defang, as you call it, sheriffs. Sheriffs go back into medieval England, the common law approach to things.
[00:17:52] You know, back when the sheriffs, the sharif, the shire, they had a responsibility to not only keep the peace, but make sure that justice was done. All this goes back into, like I say, medieval England and was brought forth through the, you know, our British heritage, if you will. And nowadays they're trying to make the sheriff simply an administrative office that's created by the legislature and defanged, if you will, by the legislature.
[00:18:18] And then eventually appointed by other professional do-gooders in government, too, not even elected. They want to make that change as well. So, you know, the real determination is who do you answer to, see?
[00:18:58] Right. They're citizens in their, you know, the rights of free men. They consider themselves free men. Amen. We're getting spanked on this, and it's a bad deal, folks. I'm telling you right now, you don't realize how pivotal this case is. Most people don't, and most people aren't even tracking this. But, man, this is a bad deal. And I'm disappointed in Chad Bianco for caving.
[00:19:17] He should have stood tall and carried that all the way to the Supreme Court and forced them to deal with these issues about post facto, about, you know, this idea that we're violating clauses in the Constitution. And, you know, when did they pass this bill, and do they know? And were they basically singling him out or attacking the office of sheriff? You know what? He should have forced a lot of this on the table, and he didn't. And that's a sad tale to tell.
[00:19:42] And every sheriff is going to have a greater uphill battle as a result of him caving on this and what they've done here. As you mentioned, it's a dumpster fire. And, man, this one burns hot. I'll tell you that right now. The next quick tidbit we want to discuss, judge restores CNN White House access. So Donald Trump tried to shut down the press corps and say, hey, you guys are clowns. We're kicking out some of you people who are bad actors and peddling fake news. They sued.
[00:20:10] The judge restores their access. So Donald had to bring them back. However, here's the problem. Why is the TV pool still off the air? The federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore White House access to CNN, MSNBC, and Politico. However, the reporters were brought back yesterday.
[00:20:35] But the five-quote network TV pool, which supplies shared footage of presidential events, remained silent. The networks said they were protesting, if you will, seeking assurance that, hey, they would have press pool duties brought back to CNN, etc. That brings up a pointed question for we, the people and viewers.
[00:21:05] If reporters can return, when will they provide the coverage the pool exists to deliver? The court ordered the White House to restore access. It did not force the networks to cover the events, though. So now they're back, but they're not covering events. So I'm saying that my opinion is Donald Trump should sue them, okay? Because here's the problem.
[00:21:35] If they're forced to be brought back, but then they don't do their job to cover, now they're assaulting the American people and the president. If they're there for a special job and Trump can't stop them from doing that job, then they can't go in there and not do the job, can they? And so maybe we, the people, need to sue over this. What do you think, Doctor? This is a very strange position that the networks have got themselves in, and somebody needs to take action.
[00:22:01] Well, this question came up, not exactly this question, but last night in the webinar, and it was answered on a more expansive deal. I took 15 minutes on this, which obviously we don't have. We've got a news break coming up here. But the fact of the matter is there's many moving parts in this thing, and there are many constitutional issues.
[00:22:23] But I believe, in a sense, the pool is restraining something that Trump desperately, I mean, he is rabidly seeking his face on the news. He has probably got 100 times more coverage than any other president of the United States and probably 1,000 more times than Biden did. And the fact of the matter is that I think in a little way there's kind of a power struggle going on.
[00:22:52] And the media is there. The media is essential. We could talk extensively about how Jefferson and everybody felt about the media. But I think, sadly, Donald Trump wants the highlight, the spotlight, whatever you want to call it, on him. And I think that in a way there's a little bit of a temper tantrum going on with the rest of the – with all of the White House press group.
[00:23:19] They were in solidarity because Trump had cut out MSNOW and Politico and CNN. And because of that, he was trying to filter the news that came to the United States citizenry. And that's what the whole – not the whole First Amendment, but a great deal of it is. And so I agree with these groups saying Trump shouldn't be able to shut them down. You don't like who they are. But other presidents have decided who's access – who can have access to the press pool and not and this and that and the other.
[00:23:48] And I've never had access in the press pool. And even if you get in the press pool, a lot of times they don't give you access. They just make you sit in the back and you don't – when you raise your hand, they don't go to you. And then you've got to yell out just to even be heard. And then it's kind of a nuisance game going on here. We've got real problems with the press, but we also have problems with the president trying to shut down the press. The problem here is that you can't, in my mind, restrict Trump. But then the networks can literally force that they get access to this information and then refuse to report it.
[00:24:19] There's problems. When we get back, we'll talk about this more. We'll bring this topic up a little bit more because I think it's really vital. It is one of the First Amendments, speaking of the Bill of Rights, by the way. And so there you have that. All right, I'm Sam Bushman, Dr. Scott Bradley with me. freedomsrisingsun.com is his website. Mine is libertyroundtable.com. Spread the news, share their love, and God save our constitutional republic. And so on.