Crom's Crommentary: 'The World of Precedence'

Live from Music Row, Wednesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio for another edition of Crom’s Crommentary.

CROM CARMICHAEL:

Michael, what I’m going to call this commentary “The World of Precedence.” It’s really quite interesting, and it begs a question. But Kamala Harris was on [Meet the Press] with Chuck Todd, and by the way, I understand that it was a recorded interview, so it wasn’t live. And I’m supposing that the purpose of that was so that if she said something particularly stupid that they could edit it out. It turns out they couldn’t edit the entire interview.

And she said a number of things that were particularly stupid. One thing she said, our border is secure, which is, of course, this is the most ridiculous statement you could make. But here’s something that she said that I thought was really interesting.

They got to talking about the filibuster. And this is what Kamala Harris says, that this election is so important because the Democrats need to have 52 senators who will support a nationwide, well, a series of nationwide issues.

And they actually have three issues, that they want to, they want to eliminate the filibuster. Because Todd said, is it just that one issue, meaning the right to an abortion all the way to the moment of birth. Which, by the way, 90 percent of the American people think that there ought to be some restrictions. Like, for example, the third trimester.

But this is up to the moment of birth. That’s what the Democrats want to do. But Todd said, so just that one issue. And Harris said, on this issue and on a very important issue, in addition to that important issue, which is voting rights. That’s a whole sentence to get to one point.

But she said then she wanted to make it very clear that she wanted to add another one. And so here’s what she said. This is the plan. Democrats want to eliminate the filibuster for the purpose of passing three pieces of legislation: The Women’s Health Protection Act, the Freedom to Vote Act, and the John Lewis Voting Right Act.

And those are the three things that the Democrats want to eliminate the filibuster for. Now, so here’s my question, Michael. Since the Democrats are openly saying that there are three things that they want to eliminate the filibuster for, it seems to me that if Republicans get power in the House, the Senate, and the presidency, that Mitch McConnell ought to announce that the Republicans are going to pick three items that are very important to them, that they believe strongly in the filibuster except for these three things.

And that they’re going to go ahead and pass those three things and then they’re going to put the filibuster back in. Of course, that blows up the filibuster. But my question is, if somebody says, I’m going to punch you in the nose as hard as I can. I’m going to do that.

I’m going to do it right now, and you have the opportunity to punch first, to save yourself, would you do it? Is that appropriate? We call that, I believe, self-defense. That’s what we call that. And so, because the Democrats are now being so open about it, I think that Republicans ought to run on the issue and say – obviously the filibuster – and this would be in 2024 because you have to have all three to be able to do it anyway.

Now, the other thing that’s interesting in the world of precedence is what’s going on with the January 6th, all these cases. And what they’re doing. Well, what they’ve just done is, there was a person from New Mexico who was found guilty of trespassing.

They tried to convict him of other more serious charges, but he was exonerated on all the other charges. He was found not guilty. So he was found guilty of trespassing. And what has happened is the Left has found a prosecutor in New Mexico that is prosecuting him for insurrection, because under the Constitution, if you have taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and whatnot, if you are then found guilty of insurrection, that you cannot hold public office.

Which is what they’re trying to do to Trump. They’re having a very difficult time figuring out how to make that happen. But in this case, they’ve done it. But here’s what the judge said. The judge said, based on the trial evidence, the court concludes, one, that Mr. [Couy] Griffin took an oath to support the Constitution. Two, the January 6th and surrounding planning, mobilization, and incitement were an insurrection, and that Mr. Griffin engaged in that insurrection, because he was part of the crowd. Now, I want you to think about this for a second.

He also had some things that he said. So my question is, if Maxine Waters stands up in front of a group of people and says “get in their face,” which she has done, is she involved in an insurrection? Because it doesn’t have to be at the Capitol. An insurrection can be anywhere that you choose to say that it is if you have elected officials who are urging people to do things that are terrible things to other elected officials or judges, because that’s what this is.

This was an act of, according to this judge, just being part of the mob and saying things made that part of the mob, and therefore an insurrection. The precedence on that particular issue on how this judge in New Mexico – who is a state judge, by the way – how that ends up is going to be fascinating.

Listen to today’s show highlights, including this interview: