Proft: Good morning, Dan and Amy. On every other network, and every other station, you'll hear...Scarlett Johansson's nitwit-ery and all the other peahat prevaricators, their voices will be amplified. And before there was the peahat, there was the penumbra, this is...today was the 45th anniversary of the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott, of course Roe v. Wade, that's my opinion, and that opinion happens to be correct, so that it has the utility of being correct. So here, we're going to make sure you hear from some of the participants in the March for Life, whose voices weren't amplified by the DC Press Corps. Say for example the House Speaker, Paul Ryan.
Jacobson: I didn't...what march? Honestly, I've been glued to cable news all weekend, and local news, and did not see one clip or one mention of it anywhere.
Proft: Right, and it's because of the (?) tactic to make the majority feel like their opinions are those of the minority. In point of fact, what you hear from Paul Ryan is in fact the majority position in America. Majority position. Marist poll, 56% of Americans feel abortion is morally wrong, 76% want substantial restrictions on abortion, based on the science that, by the way, we no longer have to guess about, the formation of a child after 20 weeks...that's all the bans, after 20 weeks, in RADICALLY CONSERVATIVE COUNTRIES LIKE...France. Paul Ryan, on the power of the Pro-Life movement...it's compassion.
Ryan (from tape): And you know, one thing that gets sort of lost in this controversy, is just how compassionate the Pro-Life movement really is. This is what is lost by all those detractors out there. I am so proud of the work this movement has done to help women. Especially women who have gone through the pain of abortion, this movement helps them find healing and acceptance. I am so proud of this movement and how it supports single mothers who are struggling to raise their children, how it gives them the resources through thousands of phenomenal Crisis Pregnancy Centers around the country. This is the face of the Pro-Life Movement.
Proft: Yeah, abortion hurts women, Pro-Life movement helps women...kind of a hospital that helps women who are in need, confused...suffering, if you will, metaphorically of course. As Reagan said "The only people I've ever met who were for abortion...were alive." It's interesting to note, isn't it?
Jacobson: Well even at our church, Pastor Bonnie celebrated a 16-year old girl who decided to have the baby, and she said nobody celebrated...she didn't know how to feel at the time because it wasn't...people encouraged her to get an abortion, and she kept the baby. And I went ohhh, I wish Dan was with me!
Proft: Yeah. Now the flip side is an Illinois Congressional delegation, a Republican delegation, chastised Governor Rauner for signing H bill...HB40, the public financing of abortion all nine months, the first US governor to do that. Fringe candidate, that's Governor Rauner, Rauner is the fringe candidate in Illinois. Something Pat Quinn, with supermajorities of Democrats, didn't do. That's how extreme Governor Rauner is...it's an untenable position. It's a disqualifying position....it's a disqualifying act, I should say. And by the way, you want to understand how policy has consequences? (Jacobson: Yeah.) Planned Parenthood is opening a clinic in Flossmoor, and four other clinics around the state of Illinois.
Jacobson: Because of all the money they've got from fundraisers!
Proft: No. It's a direct result of HB40.
Jacobson: It is?
Proft: Direct result of HB40. Nationally, abortion clinics are being reduced in number, in Illinois they're increasing. Near the Indiana border, bring people in from Indiana, also in heavy minority communities, the racism that underlies, you know, the eugenicists that support abortion-on-demand. Five more clinics, including in Flossmoor, as a result of Rauner's decision. So even if you are unconcerned with the underlying life-and-death issue, which you should not be unconcerned, how about the financial issue of another open-ended entitlement in a state with $10M in unpaid bills? For more on this topic, and others inside the Beltway, we're pleased to be joined by Congressman Peter Roskam. Peter, thanks for joining us again, appreciate it.
Roskam: Dan and Amy! Good to be with you, thanks for having me on!
Proft: Thank you. So, were you at the March for Life?
Roskam: I was at the March for Life, and your discussion of the issue prompted a memory for me of an earlier March for Life, if I could just share with you quickly. A few years ago, I was at the one, downtown Chicago. And I was one of the speakers, and I got there a little bit early, before the marchers got there. And I was looking, and I wasn't sure I was at the right place. And I looked over, and there were some really angry abortion protesters, over on the other side. And they were angry, and they were scattered, and it was quite pathetic actually, to look at them. And then came the Pro-Life marchers, sort of around the corner and down the street. And they were buoyant, and they were joyful, and they were young, the music was great, they were dancing, they had yellow balloons, and the contrast just took my breath away. And I thought "There is no bigger picture in terms of distinction about what it is that this movement is all about than those who are standing for those who have no voice." And it was an image that really had a profound impact on me, and I think that we need to remember the power of that, the power of truth, and the power of speaking out, and the power of clarity. And my success...my predecessor, Henry Hyde, was the great hero of the Pro-Life movement, and it is just an image that is with me to this day.
Proft: Well, that's a REAL life-or-death issue. In an issue that's been portrayed as life-and-death, as the government "shutdown", in quotation marks. And I wonder, Peter, if you are concerned as is per a discussion on CNN...
Jacobson: About the Panda cam?
Proft: No. That's a concern, sure, but this is even more existential...that because of the shutdown, NASA may stop monitoring potentially dangerous asteroids. We may have an undetected asteroid attack destroy the planet if you don't...you know, if the Senate doesn't vote to bring this to an end at noon today. You feel the sense of urgency?
Roskam: *laughing* That makes the...you know, I think the reason you want the government open is, Number One, they're there to do a job, Number Two, they're likely to get paid anyways, and so the notion of giving people furloughs and then giving them back pay doesn't make any sense to me at all. That said, I really think the Democrats have gotten themselves stuck. And they decided from a political point of view "Hey, we want to shut this down, we want to create an impression that we don't have any influence and this is all on the GOP." And I think that Chuck Schumer has really led them into a cul-de-sac. They want to create this linkage on immigration, we're saying look, we're not going to negotiate on immigration while the government is shut down. You want to have a discussion about immigration in the regular course of things? Fine. But the immigration deadline for DACA is, you know...it's not today! It's not this month, it's not next month, it happens in March, there's still plenty of time to deal with it.
Jacobson: How are Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell getting along these days?
Roskam: As far as I know, they're getting along fine. (Jacobson says something about a phone call) The people to watch are...yeah, look...the people to watch are, I think, Senate Democrats in states that Trump won. So people like Joe Donnely from Indiana, or people like Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota, these are people who have voted to keep the government open in the Senate, and I think they're going to be under increasing pressure to influence their leadership. Because their leadership cannot really articulate beyond this immigration issue, they can't articulate why...why they want to shut the government down. So I think Schumer is getting more and more isolated procedurally, and we'll see what the day brings.
Proft: This story out over the weekend about the FBI failing to preserve five months of text messages exchanged between those lovebirds, Peter Strock and Lisa Paige, these...particularly Strock...senior-level FBI official involved in both Clinton and the Trump-Russia Collusion investigations, sort of conflicted, one would argue. Now is Platte River Networks a vendor to the FBI, the way it was to the Hillary Clinton campaign, or...how do we explain...I know it's been explained as a technical glitch, but are we to buy that text messages from those two individuals, especially considering how essential they are to our entire assessment of the fairness of the FBI's look into the Trump campaign, and the Trump administration. How are we to understand this?
Roskam: Look, what you're to understand is echoes from the IRS, echoes from the Benghazi Investigation, and the burden is on the entity that can't hold on to, or is charged with having the evidence, charged with the records, and it's their burden to say why is it that they...that they've left. Look, it's highly suspicious, it's highly suspect, and this continues to undermine the nature and the integrity of some of these investigations.
Jacobson: Yeah, but do you think the FBI will be held accountable? I mean, how can the FBI lose data like this, for a five-month period? It's just mind-boggling.
Roskam: Yeah, so the accountability comes in a couple of forms. The accountability comes in terms of public reputation, which is diminishing. And the accountability comes in individuals who end up moving on and moving out. And then the accountability comes in what is it the FBI actually presents to the American people, as it comes to their findings and their investigations?
Proft: And could the accountability also come in the release of this four-page memo that's being bandied about on the Hill that people are talking about, and also making some pretty aggressive predictions about the potential impact of this memo, were the public to see it?
Roskam: I think that the memo...I've reviewed the memo, I signed all kinds of things before I reviewed the memo in terms of non-disclosure. (Proft: Alright, so tell us what's in it.) So I can't talk about what's in the memo per se, but I am of the strong opinion that the memo should be released.
Jacobson: Well what's in it? Do you know? I mean, cmon Peter!
Proft: Yeah I mean, I know you can't disclose this, but just tell us what's in it.
Roskam: Yeah, yeah...you're killin' me.
Proft: No, but...
Jacobson: So does that mean no?
Roskam: The memo should be released. The memo should be released.
Proft: Can...can...do you...can you characterize it generally, as some other members of Congress have, is it as explosive as some others...some of your other colleagues have described?
Roskam: Look, no I wouldn't...I'd say there is a...there's...I've been around, I've seen these types of things where an expectation gets created that's just through the roof, I wouldn't do that. I would just say look, the memo speaks for itself, the memo needs to be released, and it puts...it puts some of this larger debate into a context that is helpful and insightful. And that's why I think it should be released.
Proft: Do you think that maybe the House Republicans can use the same Columbia professor cut-out that Comey used to release the stuff he wanted to get out there?
Roskam: *laughs* Yeah, there ya go! Look, my view is, you know, triple-check it to make sure no sources are revealed, no methods are revealed, the things that...the conclusions that are easy to come to after reading this memo should be part of the public discussion. No question about it.
Jacobson: Okay, ultimate tease!
Proft: Alright, he is Peter Roskam...yep...well he wants to stay on this side of the bars, that's understandable. Congressman Peter Roskam, Representative from Illinois' 6th District out there in the Western 'burbs, thank you for joining us, appreciate it.
Roskam: Thanks guys.