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 at Howard Enton doing the polls? Over seventy percent 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?
How many of us get to board an airplane without doing an ID? How many of us, when we go to pick something up at the UPS store, don't have to show ID? I mean, 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 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 strong turnout in Texas.
But what I worry about is a Democratic 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 universal mail-in ballots. And the universal mail-in ballots must be accepted up to three days after, if 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, a state and local responsibility under our Constitution.
Interesting, Carl, because how are you ever going to have something as cot which I think is commonsensical as voter ID if you don't mandate it from the federal government? Because 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 in a Democratic Congress and 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'm a little, 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, everybody is implicated. I mean, for example, RFK says, you know, I flew with my daughter into, I think, Utah to do an environmental thing on Epstein's plane.
I mean, he flew and did some things. It's a charitable organization, anti-AIDS action, people did it. But if their names on that list, they're tarred forever. 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, 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 and first lady 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 a 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. All of these people hung around this guy. What a sleazy guy. And I mean, you have people on the left. And you have people on the right.
I mean, Steve Bannon is hanging around this guy. He's going to do a he's advising him. He's giving him counsel. You're going to do a documentary on him to, you know, sort of freshen his reputation. Really bizarre.
So we'll see what happens. There are no winners, absolutely no winners in the whole thing, and they want another 2 million-plus pages out. I've never seen more pages on anyone. But we'll see where that goes and if it's going to play a role in the midterm elections. I'm just curious, as we get set for the midterms, the majority of Republicans are still for the president enforcing immigration laws.
Only 22% think he hasn't gone far enough. 45% says he just got just about right. What would you like to see emerge out of Minneapolis after Tom Holman's press conference today? He seems to have settled things down. For now, and taking out 700 agents.
If I was to put you in charge of going forward from here, what would you do?
Well, there are two different questions involved there. Let's, first of all, get the politics out of the way right away. It's not just how Republicans view this, it's about how swing voters view this. This election cannot be won alone by either the Democrats getting out a majority, you know, getting out the vast majority of Democrats to vote, or Republicans doing the same. It's by generating maximum turnout among your base and winning the swing voters, winning the majority of people who identify with neither party.
Now, that's a small group of people: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 percent, depending on the state.
So, but the politics of this is we can't just look at this if you're interested in the political implications by looking at the Republicans and Democrats alone. You have to look at the independents. But as to the substance, I think Holman has got it right that the purpose of this was to identify violent illegals who were in our society, who had committed acts that brought them into contact with our justice system and had either served their time or Or are they serving their time or had somehow escaped justice and getting them out of the country? And there is an enormous wave of support for that. Beyond that is more problematic because we all know somebody who either is or knows somebody who has come to this country illegally, but since then has kept their nose clean and is, you know.
Working on a construction crew, or cleaning houses, or working in a hospital, or waiting tables, or working in a meat packing plant, or serving in agriculture. And we need to find a way to deal with those people that doesn't involve sort of sending squads out on the streets of America to try and route them out. This is Ainslie Earhart. Thank you for joining me for the 52-episode podcast series, The Life of Jesus. A listening experience that will provide hope, comfort, and understanding of the greatest story ever told.
Listen and follow now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.
So, yeah, so they say that a couple of things the Republicans, the Democrats are asking for in terms of reform: get the masks off, put your names on the jerseys. Number two is uh number two is Uh get a judicial warrant. If you're going to be hunting down any target, which is going to be impossible, there's no way anyone 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 funded? 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 doxxed 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, a unique identifying number that says that's key to who they are. And yes, they ought to have a, you know, 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 virtually in all instances helped the police show that they were doing things by the book in the appropriate way. The question of a warrant for everybody is problematic. I think it's just an attempt to game up the system, clog it up. 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.
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 it, Democrats. And if they were smart, they'd take what they could get. Holman'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. Holman said, 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 Jaya Powell is calling for, 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% of the time. No, 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 stood up and kept us safe. And to now whimsically say, oh, we don't need them. What world does she think we're living in? And what 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 the United States? Uh is this a head fake that we're talking to him, Carl?
Well, we shouldn't be talking to them 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. This is the principal underwriter of Hezbollah, Hamas, you know, 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 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 mettle with sending B-2 bombers over to blow the hell out of their nuclear facilities. I'm reasonably confident he's smart enough to 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 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're a valueless infrastructure. 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. 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.
