'Unpatriotic': The Four Republicans Who Read the Constitution, Jun 16

Rachel: BGHOST2hmm. Jordyn: Welcome back to Red Flag. I'm Rachel. Speaker 3: And I'm Jordyn. And oh, do we have receipts today. Jordyn: So many receipts. Okay, so get this. The House just passed a war powers resolution telling Trump to end hostilities with Iran. 215 to 208. Four Republicans crossed the aisle to make it happen. Four. Out of the whole caucus. Four. And Trump went straight to Truth Social to call them, and I'm I'm quoting directly here GRANDSTANDERS who should be ashamed. Speaker 3: Nothing says meaningless resolution like losing sleep over it at two a.m. on Truth Social. Jordyn: Right? If it's so meaningless, why the all caps? Speaker 3: Okay, real talk: we're Ninety-plus days into a War with zero congressional authorization. That's not a technicality. That's the Constitutional clock. Jordyn: And we've got the receipts going back to twenty eleven. Same argument. completely flipped party labels. Speaker 3: That's the part I cannot wait to get into. Jordyn: We're also profiling the Four Republicans who actually voted Yes, Massie, Fitzpatrick, Barrett, and Davidson, what they risked and why it matters. Speaker 3: And we've got a Friendly Fire segment today where we have to give Democrats their due. Constitutionally, they've been right on this from day one. Jordyn: Which is uncomfortable to say out loud, but here we are. Speaker 3: are? Jordyn: Here we are." And Speaker Johnson sent everyone home early to kill the May 21st vote. Spoiler, it didn't work. Plot twist, they just came back and passed it anyway. The cold open sets it all up: Trump's own words, the receipt, and the clock that's been running since February. Start the tape. Speaker 3: Mm-hmm. Jordyn: Truth Social, June fourth [Direct quote]: "Yesterday, in a meaningless vote, the House voted four bad Republicans and all of the Democrats to limit my war powers; and then, who would do such an unpatriotic thing? The four Republicans—that's a whole other story—they're grandstanders—they should be ashamed of themselves. Sit with that for a second. Four members of his own party voted to, checks notes, enforce the Constitution. And they should be ashamed. OK, real talk. The war started February twenty-eighth; by June third, the day of that vote (two fifteen to oh eight) it had run more than ninety days. No congressional declaration, no AUMF. NPR confirmed it. Ninety plus days! Speaker 3: Hmm! Jordyn: The War Powers Act's clock ran out weeks ago. And Massie Fitzpatrick Barrett Davidson, four Republicans, said, hey, maybe Congress should wade in. That's the scandal, apparently. Incredibly, Al Jazeera reported Trump called the resolution meaningless, which fine, maybe procedurally it's symbolic, still has to act, but meaningless and unpatriotic can't be. Can't both be true at the same time? Speaker 4: Pick a lane. Jordyn: If it's meaningless, why the all caps, why ashamed of themselves? Speaker 4: So here's what I keep landing on: reading the Constitution out loud gets you called unpatriotic. What word do we use for the people who just skipped it? Jordyn: And further record, this isn't the first time Republicans had very strong feelings about a president and the War Powers Act. Act "very strong feelings." Oh, you mean when the shoe is on the other foot. There's a paper trail. A long one. So, the receipt. Pull up 2011. Libya. Speaker 3: Mm-hmm. Jordyn: Six Republican senators, including Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, and Ron Johnson, sent Obama a letter. Ron Johnson's own Senate website still has the AFP write-up. Speaker 3: What did it say? Jordyn: Friday is the final day of the statutory 60-day period for you to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces in Libya. They accused Obama of committing troops, quote, without regard to or compliance with the War Powers Act. Speaker 3: They had the receipts printed and laminated. Jordyn: In 2011, and the principle they were invoking is crystal clear, Congress authorizes war, the president doesn't get to freelance. Speaker 4: Okay, so fast forward to 2026. Speaker Johnson told NBC, and I'm quoting, And I'm quoting him directly here, we are not at war. Jordyn: With Iran, after bombing Iran. Speaker 4: Defensive in nature and in design, he said. Sound familiar? Jordyn: That is word for word the Obama Libya defense. Not at war, just kinetic activities. Speaker 4: And then, wait for it, Trump steps in front of a camera and calls it a war. Same day. Jordyn: The president just torched his own Speaker's talking. talking point in real time. Speaker 4: So the Four Republicans who voted yes on the War Powers Resolution, they were applying the exact standard their party demanded of Obama 15 years ago. Jordyn: The ROI on that 2011 letter is wild. They just didn't expect to be the ones cashing it. And that question, whether the war powers clock even applies here, that's the fight we're getting into next. Sure. Speaker 3: So, let's actually read the label on this law, the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing forces, then a 60-day clock starts. Get authorization or withdraw. Speaker 4: That's it. That's the whole statute, basically. Speaker 3: And every president since Nixon has said, yeah, totally unconstitutional, but here's our 48-hour report anyway. They comply with the paperwork and reject the authority simultaneously. Jordyn: So the White House says the clock doesn't apply here because Trump declared a ceasefire April 7th. No present hostilities. Sound familiar? Speaker 3: That is word for word the Obama-Libya argument from 2011. ProPublica covered it at the time. The White House argued U.S. operations in Libya do not amount to hostilities. Same phrase, different president. Jordyn: And conservatives lost their minds over that. Speaker 4: Right, so the party that wrote angry letters demanding Obama follow the sixty day clock is now running the same play. Jordyn: Which raises the actual ROI question for me: what is the return on a law that every president just argues their Speaker 5: way out of? Rachel: Their way around. Jordyn: Enforcement-Congress has to enforce it. The House just voted two hundred fifteen to two hundred eight," NPR reported, "to do exactly that." (Barely, barely; but, four Republicans crossed, and who they are matters a lot.) That's the next question. Rachel: Oh, that roster is worth a close look. So let's meet the four. Time confirmed it. Massie, Fitzpatrick, Barrett, Davidson. Jordyn: And that's not a fringe caucus, Rachel. That's the party's entire wingspan libertarian, moderate, traditional conservative, all four in the same vote. Rachel: Massie's been calling the strikes unconstitutional from day one. He co-authored the resolution with Democrat Ro Khanna, and Trump already launched a primary PAC targeting his seat. seat before this vote even happened. So the cost of that yes vote wasn't hypothetical. Not even a little. And Al Jazeera reported Massie actually lost that primary to a Trump-backed challenger. Jordyn: Wow! Rachel: He voted knowing the seat was probably gone. Jordyn: That's that's not nothing. Fitzpatrick kept it simple: CNN caught him saying "there's a law on the books," and pointing straight at the War Powers Act. I don't see what's complicated about it. Speaker 3: Apparently two hundred and eight colleagues did. Jordyn: Apparently." And Barrett, Competitive Michigan Seat, Not a Safe Vote, told reporters "People are frustrated," certainly; "that's constituent pressure in three words. Speaker 3: So you've got constitutional principle from Massie, legal compliance from Fitzpatrick, and economic pain from Barrett. Davidson, West Point grad, basically said Congress still has a role and someone had to say it out loud. Four different reasons, same vote. That range matters. And Speaker Johnson knew it mattered, which is why he sent everyone home early in May to kill the vote before it could happen. Didn't work. Didn't work. So now the question is whether the Senate does anything with it or whether it just dies there like the three attempts before this one. Rachel: All right, let's look at the actual timeline here. The vote was originally scheduled on May 21st, the day before Memorial Day recess. Jordyn: And then Johnson just sent everyone home. Rachel: Right. NPR reported that Republican leaders dismissed members specifically because it appeared the measure had enough Republican votes to pass. Jordyn: So the play was adjourned early. Hope everyone cools off. off over the long weekend? Rachel: That's the operations read. If you have to cancel the meeting to prevent a bad outcome, you don't have consensus, you have a suppression attempt. Jordyn: Cute, and also completely unnecessary. The extended recess didn't move a single vote. Rachel: Not one. Two weeks later, 215 to 208. Same result, just delayed. Worth it. According to Time this was also the fourth attempt; three previous times failed, including a House vote that ended in a 212 to 212 tie. Speaker 3: Wait—a tie? That's the one right before the recess gambit. Rachel: Yeah; and a Senate version, sponsored by Kaine and Paul, failed forty-seven fifty-three, so three losses; then Johnson pulls the plug on the fourth when the math finally flips. Clips. Jordyn: Bold strategy. Delay the vote you're losing until you lose it anyway. Rachel: The supply chain metaphor writes itself: you can't pause a shipment that's already left the dock. Jordyn: So now it clears the House, but Trump called it meaningless, which, after everything it took to get here, raises a pretty uncomfortable question about what Congress is actually for. Rachel: And that's exactly where this goes next. So here's what meaningless actually means in legal terms: a concurrent resolution doesn't carry the force of law, no presidential signature required, no veto available. Jordyn: CNN confirmed it. Senate's own website says concurrent resolutions have no force of law. Trump's calling it meaningless, and technically, procedurally, he's not wrong about that part. Speaker 3: Which is a sentence I did not expect to say today. Jordyn: Same. But then, it still has to pass the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 seats and have already blocked this before. Speaker 3: Right; and Al Jazeera reported Trump plans to contest the authority of any such measure regardless; so even if it clears the Senate, fight incoming. Jordyn: So what's the ROI on a vote that doesn't bind, can't be signed and the White House is already calling an unconstitutional legislative veto? Speaker 3: That question is the whole audit. If a symbolic rebuke of a war with no authorization is meaningless, Rachel: What is Congress actually for? Jordyn: Receipts. Rachel: Excuse me? Jordyn: Sometimes the receipt is the point, Rachel. Congress is on record: two hundred fifteen votes say this war needs authorization. That's a paper trail, legally, politically, historically. Rachel: Lawfare actually flagged this: courts that usually dodge war powers cases may be more willing to weigh in when Congress has formally gone on record opposing a conflict. Speaker 3: conflict, so meaningless is doing a lot of work as a dismissal. And funny enough, the people who've been forcing these votes since February? Democrats, four times, consistently, which brings us somewhere uncomfortable. Rachel: Okay, switching gears. Friendly fire time, and I hate saying this. You hate it so much. Democrats got this one right. From February 28th, strike one. They kept pushing, vote after vote, failed every time, and they kept going anyway. That's the correct behavior from a legislative branch. Full stop. NPR noted Democrats pushed this multiple times. Jordyn: Times before four Republicans finally made it stick. It stings a little, just a little, but here's what makes this impossible to dismiss: the argument Democrats made, Republicans used the exact same words against Obama in Libya in twenty eleven. What we're asking is simple: respect our role. That's a Republican congressman in twenty eleven. It's word for word what the left is saying now. Word for word. And back then, Lugar got Lugar got the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to formally declare that Libya did constitute hostilities under the War Powers Act. Same issue, different party in the White House. Speaker 3: Which means this was never a partisan argument. It's a constitutional argument. Rachel: one. Jordyn: Agreeing with Democrats on this doesn't mean agreeing with Democrats on anything else. The Constitution doesn't have a party registration. Rachel: Exactly; and I'll say this directly-if the math checks out, the math checks out no matter who ran the numbers. So if two hundred eight Republicans voted no anyway, what was their actual argument? So those two hundred and eight Republicans who voted no, what was Johnson's actual argument? Speaker 3: Dry, but that the resolution would "weaken the President's hand in ceasefire negotiations. Classic. Rachel: Right, and the White House backed that up with a formal statement of administrative policy-I am quoting the Hill here-"The hostilities that began on February twenty eighth twenty twenty six have terminated with the cease fire ordered by the President Speaker 3: on April 7th. Jordyn: Terminated while the naval blockade is still running? Sure, Speaker 3: the blockade is ongoing, forces are still deployed, but officially terminated. Jordyn: Okay, I've seen this product before. Different labels, same expired formula. Obama's lawyer said the exact same thing about Libya in 2011. No present hostilities. Speaker 3: And Republicans spent years calling that a constitutional crisis. Rachel: Yeah, funny how that works. So what do all two hundred and eight of those no votes actually believe about limited government? That's the receipt I want to see. The argument was always "we trust the President," which is only a principle when your guy isn't the one holding the pen. NPR noted the resolution was mostly symbolic: four votes crossed, two hundred and eight did not. And the ones that didn't, they had a reason to stay quiet. And that reason has a PAC attached to it. Speaker 3: Which is exactly where we're going. Rachel: So the pack story, that's where unpatriotic stops being a constitutional argument and becomes a threat. Speaker 3: And not a subtle one. Fox News confirmed Trump's own political team, LaCivita, Fabrizio, the 2024 campaign architects, launched Kentucky MAGA, a super PAC aimed specifically at Massie's seat. First time the Trump apparatus has ever directly targeted a sitting Republican incumbent. Rachel: Let's be clear about the ROI on that move: the message to every other Republican watching: Vote your conscience, face a primary. That's the institutional pressure we've been tracking all season. Jordyn: And it worked: Massie lost his primary in May. The race became the most expensive House primary in history: thirty two million dollars total, AIPAC and pro Israel groups piling in on top of the Trump PAC. Rachel: Thirty two million dollars for one House primary. Jordyn: And yet he still cast the vote, knowing that pack existed, knowing what it meant. Speaker 3: Mm-hmm. Jordyn: That's the actual data point worth sitting with. Rachel: It is; because the threat worked broadly-we got four 'Yes' votes out of two hundred thirteen Republicans-but it didn't flip Massie; he voted, he lost, he didn't reverse. Jordyn: Which raises the real question heading into the Senate: if that's what four votes costs, how many senators are willing to pay it? Republicans hold fifty three seats over there. Rachel: Fifty three. Even a handful breaking changes the math entirely, and the Senate was already in session through Juneteenth. The window is open. Speaker 4: So the Senate is where symbolic stops being a ceiling and starts being a floor. Rachel: So the Senate is next, and that number matters: the Hill reported four Senate Republicans already broke with leadership: Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, and Rand Paul. They voted fifty to forty-seven to discharge the resolution out of committee. Speaker 4: Fifty to forty-seven—that's already more than four. Rachel: Right—and the Senate stays in session through Juneteenth, so the window is open. Watch those names. Speaker 4: Okay, and for anyone who calls themselves a limited government conservative, Speaker 3: Mm-hmm. Speaker 4: this isn't really about whether the Iran policy was right. It's whether one person gets to decide war without Congress. Full stop. Rachel: That's the actual question. And NPR noted even if it passes the Senate, Trump would almost certainly veto it. So the resolution probably doesn't end the war. Speaker 4: But the record exists. Speaker 3: Right. Speaker 4: Congress went on record. That's not nothing. Rachel: Four House members did the minimum the Constitution asks—they're not heroes for that—but they're also the only four who did it—and now four Senate Republicans are looking like they might follow. Jordyn: So watch the Senate vote; that's the next data point. Not rhetoric; an actual roll call. Rachel: If you care about the institution, the vote is the receipt. Doesn't matter which party called the strike. Jordyn: And we will absolutely be checking that receipt. Rachel: Count on it. Speaker 3: All right, that's our receipt for the week; and what a receipt it was! Speaker 4: Ninety plus days, no authorization, and it took four Republicans to force the House to even put it on the record. Speaker 3: Four out of two hundred and twenty some, and Trump called them unpatriotic for it-the same week he called the vote meaningless? Speaker 4: Meaningless and unpatriotic. Pick one, sir. Rachel: That's the receipt right there-if it's meaningless, why does it sting? Jordyn: The Senate's the next domino. Speaker 4: Four GOP senators already moved to discharge it from committee-watch that space Rachel: -and whoever you voted for, the constitutional clock doesn't belong to one party. It never did. That's what this show is for. No sacred cows, just the receipts. If today's episode made you think, share it with one person who's been Speaker 4: been biting their tongue. Subscribe wherever you listen and drop us a rating. We read them. Thanks for being here. We'll see you next week on Red Flag.