Senator Eric Schmitt
speaker
478 appearances
21 recordings
1 series
first heard Dec 2024
last heard Jun 2025
Senator Eric Schmitt’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you for having me.
This is what domestic terrorism does. This is what domestic terrorism looks like. They very much want people to be in fear. That's why they do it. They understand that people understand that there is a risk of bodily harm or even death in these kinds of circumstances. and that's designed to induce fear. One of the many problems with this is that these folks apparently feel at liberty to do this.
They've been trained by the radical left to think that there will be no consequence to them for doing this, that they'll be applauded, that they'll be rewarded. This isn't going to end well for them, and it's not going to end well for the country. It's got to come to a stop. One of the things that is missing in all of this, we haven't seen
Politicians on the left, elected officeholders in the Democratic Party, in any significant numbers coming out and saying, stop this madness, end this, stop the death threats, stop the painting of the swastikas, the vandalism, all forms of violence, knock it off. You've seen that almost not at all.
Representative Ro Khanna is one of the few who has come out to do it, and I invite all other Democrats to join him. There's no good reason for them not to, and they must.
This isn't funny. It's not cute. It shouldn't be allowed on public airwaves. And I'm frankly stunned that his network hasn't called him out on it, hasn't apologized, hasn't taken some action against him for doing this. This is disgraceful.
Regardless of what your political views are as an American, you should be able to look at this objectively and say, you know, violence and acts of vandalism aren't a good thing. And if you're going to comment on that, either say something that's actually funny, which this wasn't, or ideally pair it with something suggesting that people not do it. Instead, he did the opposite. That is shameful.
They haven't been inclined to talk about it. And then when Democratic politicians do talk about it, they at least don't denounce it. Take this comment from Tim Walz, for example. There's nothing wrong if that's his thing to monitor the stocks of this or that company. and figuring out what kind of stock prices make him happy and make him sad.
And if he wants to celebrate when some company stock value goes down, it's up to him. It's weird here, given that his own state retirement fund is pretty heavily invested in Tesla, as I understand it. So, he's celebrating the diminution in value of his own state workers, his own state retirees' retirement benefits. That's kind of weird.
But what's doubly weird and concerning is that if he's going to bring up Tesla at all, why wouldn't he take that opportunity to say, by the way, regardless of whether you want to celebrate when Tesla's stock price goes down, knock it off with the violence. He didn't do that. There's a reason he didn't do that. And I fear what it means for the future of our country.
And Democrats should fear what that means for the future of the Democratic Party.
Look, there are things that can be done. I'll be introducing legislation next week that would require a separate procedure to be followed for this type of injunction. When I mean this type of injunction, I mean a type of injunction that has nationwide applicability
within the US government and is focused on a presidential policy decision, those should have to go, rather than being considered by a single federal district judge, they should have to go before a three-judge district court panel.
This is a procedure that's utilized in some limited cases, most of them dealing with the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives or the drawing of federal legislative boundaries.
But we could add this to the list, and that's what my legislation would do, make it infinitely more difficult to game the system, to judge shop, to file the case in a place that suggests from the outset you'll get a very favorable audience from a leftist judge. And then just as importantly, anytime you've got a three-judge district court panel, you've got an immediate automatic appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court, not the opportunity to seek certiorari, or discretionary review from the Supreme Court, which is how it usually works there, but rather a direct appeal, meaning the Supreme Court has to review it, or if it chooses not to, it's still setting precedent.
This would expedite the process, diminish the amount of time that these leftist activist judges could tie up the Trump administration in these legal proceedings, And it would also dramatically impair the ability of the plaintiffs to judge Shupp so as to rig the system in their favor.
Yeah, this is maybe roughly analogous to the fact that there are circumstances in which a direct order from someone in your chain of command at the military isn't something that you follow. I don't know that the parallel works exactly, but yeah, there are theoretical limits beyond which a chief executive might deem it appropriate not to follow something.
Showing 241–260 of 478 · page 13 of 24
← Previous
Next →