Historic Supreme Court Case Revisited: CSPOA Founder Richard Mack in Interview with G. Gordon Liddy Just After Presenting Arguments To SCOTUS

Donate $100 Today and Receive Your CSPOA Challenge Coin

Register For the CSPOA’s Next Intel Webinar Now – Every Wednesday at 2:30pm CT Live

 

 

Listen on MP3

 

Also View:

Sheriff Mack Joins Liberty RoundTable: America’s Sheriffs & Citizens Must Unite to Defend Freedom, One County at a Time

 

TRANSCRIPT

Okay, we have now with us Sheriff Mack. And Sheriff, I know you’re from down there south of Tucson, but I forget your county. Wait a minute. I’ll look at your badge. Graham County. Graham County. Sheriff of Graham County. Yes, sir. Arizona. I just came back Sunday night from Arizona. Just glorious weather there. Well, you should have stopped by. We could have gone for good Mexican food. Oh, boy, I love Mexican food. Just love Mexican food. Now, tell me you. You attended the argument of your case at the Supreme Court of the United States today? Just got out two hours ago.

Could you get us any kind of a sense of what the justices were interested in from the questions they were asking the lawyers? Yes. The whole experience, Gordon, I have to tell you, was just awesome. I mean, I was just enthralled with the entire process. First of all, how many times does a small town sheriff take the federal government all the way to the Supreme Court? That’s right. The mere fact that the Supreme Court accepted the case means that they viewed as an important question of law. Right. And I really, to be quite honest, I felt a spirit of tremendous concern from all the justices.

The questions were very appropriate. They were to the point they struck at the core of constitutional freedom. And I really felt a strong concern, and, you know, you hear it all the time, especially on these conservative talk shows nationwide, that the Supreme Court doesn’t care about the Constitution or they don’t care about American fundamentalism. I didn’t feel that at all. I felt that these justices are very concerned about the Constitution. Their questions to our attorney were very appropriate to the point. Can you remember any particular questions that they asked on both sides? Most of their questions centered on and focused on the very heart of our case, which, as you know, based on federalism.

Does the federal government have the authority to be this big intervening monster and just do whatever they feel like they can do anytime they want to do it? And so their question centered on that particular principle. How about the question of whether they mandated that you expend your time and your energy and the resources of your department to help enforce this federal statute. Right. But there was no appropriation of any funds for you to do that. In other words, the taxpayers of Graham county are supposed to foot the bill for the federal government here. And that was made clear in the case that this was indeed an unfunded mandate.

Now, the justices were solid on that point, and then they asked both attorneys on both sides, and I believe it was the Assistant Solicitor General Dullinger who represented the federal government on this issue, and it said, does the federal government have the authority to do this. And Scalia spoke up. What a great man. Oh, yeah. And he says if the Congress can do this, then they can balance the budget tomorrow. All they have to do is tell the states to do it. Just like they’re telling Sheriff Mack to do this. Yeah. By the way, it’s Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona.

Correct. I’ve just gotten a sign that tells you who you are. See, you didn’t know who you were before John gave you this sign. We appreciate John’s efforts. Wearing a thing on one side says Richard Mack and the other says Sheriff Crane County. John writes it down so we’ll know. And quite miraculously, I have Lucy and Rich here with me. They got to go to the court case with me, my son and daughter. Oh, that’s great. Good to see you. Well, let me tell you, John, will you move out of the way? We lose with us.

Lucy’s hiding. Lucy’s hiding. Well, you’ve got a dad to be proud of you. In fact, Lucy has to ask you some questions for her high school class. Okay. All right. Does she want to ask me now? That’s all right. Sure. Come on over, Lucy. Come on over. All right. But she’s been studying some key questions from her class and she wanted to ask you personally two particular. Watergate. Is that okay? That’s fine. Sure. Absolutely. Okay. I just wanted to ask you who, like, whose idea was Watergate and who brought it on? And. John Dean. John Dean recruited me for Watergate and he recruited me in the office of Bud Crow in the White House for Watergate.

And actually it was what he specifically recruited me for was for an all out offensive as well as defensive intelligence operation, covert, the whole thing. And then when John Dean testified, he lied under oath repeatedly. He’s a serial perjurer. There’s a big lawsuit going on about it right now. And when he wrote a book that your teacher may recall called Blind Ambition, that’s John Dean’s book. And in it he says how carefully he prepared and how did all of this and everything he said he prepared for that book just as carefully as he did for his testimony.

Well, when he was deposed under oath recently, he admitted he didn’t even write the book. He didn’t even read it all because we caught him in all these lies. Okay. And why did you do it even though you knew it was wrong? For the same reason I didn’t know it was wrong. It was illegal. You can have a distinction between something that is morally wrong and something that is illegal. For example, it is illegal to go through a stop sign. And that is because the laws of the state of Arizona, let us say, say that you must not go through a stop sign.

Other than that, if there weren’t any law that said that, it would be morally and legally indifferent. Now, even if there were no law and there were no sign, if you came rushing at an intersection and you didn’t look both ways, then you would be acting recklessly and you’d be recklessly endangering somebody’s lives. And that would be wrong even without a law. Yeah. Okay. And how much was Nixon really involved? He wasn’t involved at all. At all. No. Matter of fact, on the 19th, the morning of the 19th, I told John Dean exactly what had happened and everything, because, you know, John Dean had recruited me for this and he had asked to see me about it.

And I had every expectation he was the counsel of the President, that he would go tell his client, the President, you know, here’s exactly what happened. And now you know the worst. And you can take whatever action is appropriate. Dean withheld a whole lot of critical information from the President, most especially anything that would indicate to the President that John Dean had anything to do with it. So when Nixon said that he didn’t know anything about it, he really didn’t know anything about it. Not beforehand, not beforehand, not before. Okay. Thank you. You’re welcome. You’re welcome.

Well, those were good questions. They were very good questions. I wish everybody was going to a high school that prepared someone well enough in history as that. That’s very good. Well, by the way, John, we on tape, so if you could get us that. Gordon, if I could make a suggestion, too. Yes. She should listen on Friday because we’re doing a show all about that. While you’re being deposed. That’s right. I’m going to be deposed in that case. And so we’re going to do a Watergate show and all kinds of stuff is going to be on Friday.

We get your show now. Great. In Safford, Arizona. You’re on. That’s wonderful. Yeah. Kato in Safford, Arizona. Thank you very, very much. What does this see? Oh, this. This has to do with what you’re just talking about. This is from the Associated Press, the White House. President Clinton says that he has no doubts the Brady Law is constitutional. Oh, well, that settles it. You might as well sit there. This issue settles. That’s right. He has no doubts that all his contributions were legal and everything else. Clinton spoke as the Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments about the gun control law, which mandates a waiting period before handgun purchases.

Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, the president said he hopes the justices uphold the measurement. He says it does not infringe on constitutional right to bear arms. That’s not the point, is it? Clinton adds the Brady law has made America a safer place. He contends it’s prevented tens of thousands of convicted criminals and mentally ill people from getting guns. Well, so far as we know, it has prevented four criminals from getting guns. The rest of these things were all mistakes. They made a check, and there was. Let us say, there was no record of the resolution of a case, and they denied a firearm to somebody.

And the guy went and said, you know, you’re denying me the wrong way. And. And these. These tens of thousands of things are just mistakes that they’ve had to rectify. Yes. As a police officer and as a sheriff, I tend to deal with reality. Don’t tell me how many numbers you can make up and say how many people were denied guns. That’s ridiculous. No one can be denied a gun in this country. The government cannot guarantee that. So tell me how many people went to jail, how many people were prosecuted. You’re not going to have an impact on law enforcement until you tell me how many people you put to jail on this, on this bill.

And it’s only been four or five people. That’s ridiculous. What a waste of time. Absolutely. Absolutely. Waste of time and a huge amount of the money of the people of your county which has not been appropriated by President Clinton. Well, it’s going to be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does. Have you gotten any kind of an inkling from your council as to approximately when they expect a decision from the Supreme Court? Anywhere from two to three months from now. Two to three months from now. Okay, so sometime next spring. Probably March. Probably March. Okay.

Which would be a. I think, a turning point for this country. It would be wonderful. It would be wonderful. Ladies and gentlemen, that little music cue means that unfortunately, we have run out of time. I want to particularly thank Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona, who came all the way from downtown Washington at the Supreme Court. And I know where that is. That’s about as far away from this station as you can get in Washington, D.C. and still be in Washington, D.C. came all the way out here, and he brought his two fine children, his son and his daughter here.

And I can tell you that his daughter, when she goes to school, pays attention.

 

Also share:

– Join America’s Growing Posse Today! Get Involved! Help Sheriffs Restore America County by County and State by State!

– Supreme Court Case for State Sovereignty – MACK / PRINTZ V. USA: The monumental Supreme Court case that restored the Tenth Amendment

Join CSPOA Posse Now and get the Intel! 

Sign Up For Next Week’s Webinar Now

JOIN OUR NEW ‘X’ ACCOUNT – realCSPOA