093024 - William Trachman

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, my first guest of the morning is on
the horn. I'm sorry, I'm a little twitter painted here,
a little discombobulated in a different studio this morning. I'm
always in different studios. Hey, they they change it up.
They hate me having consistency because if they gave me consistency,
that would make me feel like I was respected. But
in so instead, I'm the redheaded step child of talk radio,

(00:20):
and I deea with the pain and suffering of that.
All right, let me die in here if I may,
and bringing my first guest of the morning, and it's
Will TrackMan. He is the general counsel for Mountain State's
Legal Foundation and he's on the hotline. Now we'll walk
home to the program. Sorry for pushing a few extra
buttons into stalling there, but glad to have you here.

Speaker 2 (00:42):
Yeah, I always hapy to be here. Happy national chewer
income yet day. And you know I'm always happy to
join the red child of the radio movement that I
love this program and I always love being guests.

Speaker 1 (00:52):
Well, I appreciate you hopping on here, bright and early
on a Monday morning. Let's dive into a couple of things.
First of all, there's been this the investigations of the
Trump assassination attempt. They're getting a little bit more information
about July as attempt. Not much yet on September, but
the Fox News has a piece that basically says, bad

(01:13):
policies in their Secret Service help contribute to this. Give
me your thoughts on this, and how do we end
up with the forty something years of no assassination attempts
and now we have two within sixty days.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yeah, so we're talking between you know, assassination attempts three
and four, I think as what we're up to, which
you have to, you know, laugh to keep from crying
about how terrible the situation is with both left wing
violence and the country of Iran trying to influence our
elections in order to change the way that Americans do

(01:47):
self governance. And we have committees like the Senate Committee
indicating if their widespread valures within the Secret Service about
coordination about resource allocation. You might have one situation where
first Lady Jill Biden, who was not an elected official,
has more Secret Service agents in her detail than President Trump,

(02:08):
who at the time was I think scheduled to win
the presidential election in November. Now it's more of a
coin toss. But at the time it was looking like
there was a little certainty that the fact that President
Trump was going to be our next president, and he
was almost murdered. I mean, he was hit by a
bullet with a terrible set of circumstances. So there do

(02:29):
appear to be widespread revalures throughout the Secret Service, and
I fear for the Republic. If any of these assassinate
assassination tempts succeed, it would radically change the way our
nation's politics go forward, especially with in less than two months.

Speaker 1 (02:44):
Yeah, the voice of Will Trackmen, General Counsel of the
Mountain States Legal Foundation. Well, I want to go to
an op ed piece that you've written recently on core
packing and the Supreme Court. I we'll get to that
in just a moment. But I read over the weekend
that they had to change a venue for one of
the Trump rallies because they were short on Secret Service
agents because the Secret Service was assigned to protect the

(03:07):
President of Iran while he was here the United Nations.
And I'm not sure if they had to change the venue.
I'm still trying to research that out, but it is
true that when foreign leaders come in our Secret Service
protects them. And I'm saying, first of all, I'm baffled
by why do we even let the president of Iran,
who's the sworn enemy of America roam the streets of

(03:27):
America and crossing the US airspace And how it is
it he get Secret Service protection? That kind of baffled
me this weekend.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
Well, truth is stranger than fiction. You know, these books
come to the United States because the United Nations in
New York, and they may have other diplomatics as to
the country. Yeah, it is strange, right that the president
of Iran have US agents in a detail. I don't
know the full extent either of how true that is

(03:56):
or if there was some trade off between agents that
had to go to the President of Iran that couldn't
go to President Trump. But whatever, the truth is, hire
more agents. If you absolutely have to protect the president
of Iran because of diplomatic reasons, you need to also
be able to protect your charges, like President Trump, like

(04:16):
Vice President Harris. I mean, the potential silver lining is
that Democrats also don't want to be assassinated, and so
maybe there could be some bipartisan agreement about reforming the
Secret Service. I mean, we're in the middle of an
investigation of Mound States my law firm, about whether DEI
hiring promotion is at play here, whether they're too obsessed
with sex and gender and so they're trying to only

(04:40):
hire women in order to boost their numbers. But there's
just a lot of uncertainty in a place where there
ought to be much more certainty about how safe we
can keep our public officials.

Speaker 1 (04:50):
You mentioned the Democrats working together with Republicans. Sidney Blumenthal
has been a pleasant surprise here and he's outraged as well.
The Secret Service, FBI, nobody's cooperating with Congress there. It's
like they're covering their own butts, circling their own wagons,
and they're subpoenaing anything from like autopsy reports to details
on who put the security plan together for the Butler

(05:12):
Pennsylvania and Secret Services not participating and cooperating with Congress
is going to make Congress actually subpoena that information, which
really kind of makes you wonder what kind of nefarious
behavior is going onto that Secret Service and at least
lends room for suspicion.

Speaker 2 (05:29):
Yeah, so I worked in the Trump administration for Secretary
Betsy DeVos. And when Congress was really upset at the
Trump administration after the Democrats to control the House, they
would threaten to subpoena and they would say, you know,
if you don't respond to our questions willingly, we're going
to issue subpoena and you know, put a date on
it and make you appear. And I suppose that threat

(05:50):
no longer has the purchase that it used to because
the Biden Harris administration doesn't care. They don't they don't
mind ignoring congresional subpia and just letting the chips fall
where they may. I'm a little surprised. I mean, as
much as anything can surprise you these days, I'm a
little surprised. It is good to see Democratic senators like
Richard Blumensalt Connecticut. And I think it was Rocanna California

(06:13):
who was giving Hill, the former the Service director, quite
a bit gruff at the hearing a few months ago,
enough to cheap resigned the next day. But yeah, you
need every part of this operation working a resolutely otherwise
there's going to be a crack where we can't solve
the problem.

Speaker 1 (06:31):
All right, In the campaign cycle, we have a lot
of things on the table, how we're going to do
with foreign policy, how we're going to do with the economy,
how we're going to do the taxes. I mean, there's
just are we going to be able to change out
the Justice Department and get rid of this I put
the blindfold of justice back on, Lady Justice. That would
be a wonderful thing. You have written a piece that

(06:51):
appears in Newsweek and it is headlined the left Supreme
Court's reform is unconstitutional and one of the things that
will be a thin if Kamala Harris wins this election
is quote to reform I use air quotes in the
studio here to reform the Supreme Court. And you write
an entire piece of Newsweek this is the Abbot's unconstitutional.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
That's right, and calling the Supreme Court reforms like you know,
smashing of aace on the ground and calling it based reform.
This really would be a direct assault on the Supreme
Court and the rule of law. Just step back. The
proposal is by Oregon Senator Ron Widen to add six

(07:35):
justices to the Supreme Court currently we have nine. Six
of those are appointed by Republican presidents. Three of them
are appointed by Democrats. They don't all stick together. You know,
I think a plurality or a majority of cases are
not six to three. And yet some of the more
high profile ones have been. Although the six to three
lineup is not always the Republicans versus the Democrats. You

(07:56):
hadn't Justice Barrett signing with the Liberals against the January
sixth protesters and Justice Jackson siding with them of bid
an appointee. But you know, for Hero six sake, let's
say at six to three they add six justices. That
would then turn it into a nine to six democratically
appointed majority. So even one Democrat could switch sides and

(08:18):
make it eight to seven, and they could win any case,
including reinstilling the Roe Vuwade decision. And the idea is
to affect the makeup of the Supreme Court and affect
their rulings. And so I wrote a piece in Newsweek saying, look,
Congress couldn't tell the Court how to rule in a case.
They couldn't say, hey, in the next case, you have

(08:39):
to rule for the petitioner, or in the case after that,
you have to rule for their respondent. And so this
is essentially this is the thing they are telling the
Supreme Court you will now have six hired guns that
are your new colleagues, and they will rule the opposite
of the way that you otherwise would have ruled, like
in Roe v. Wade or the Trump Community decision. And
so there's difference between that and forcing the Supreme Court

(09:03):
to rule a specific way, and so both are unconstitutional.
And I would hope that the current makeup of the
Supreme Court, the nine, would strike down any proposal like
this to add six justices. The Harris proposal to add
term limits or change the way the Spring Court rules
would have the same infirmities that I think.

Speaker 1 (09:22):
Now I'm a rookie here. You know the constitutional law
portion of things better than I do. But I remember
the phrase separate but coequal branches of government. So that
means the executive branch can't be telling the legislative branch
how to operate, and the legislative branch can't be telling
the judicial branch that government wanted to do, what authority,

(09:44):
how do they do anything? It seems like we have
a separate but collegal branch, and yet you have one
branch going to say, hey, we're going to restructure your branch.

Speaker 2 (09:52):
How naive our government teachers must have been right to
tell us about the three branches of government. Is also
the administrative state, which is a full fourth branch of government.
Here Congress is saying, well, we're not really regulating the
Supreme Court's decisions. It just doesn't say in the Constitution
how many judges are on the Supreme Court. There have
been as few of as seven, as many as ten.

(10:14):
So let's boost that number up. Let's make it fifteen.
Why not? And so their argument in defense is we
need to restore ethical decisions to the Supreme Court. We
need a justice for every region of the United States,
and there are fifteen of them, so that matches the
fifteen that we want to have on the court. That's

(10:36):
window dressing quite obviously. For we want to change the
way that Supreme Court is issuing decisions. We want to
reverse Roe v. Wade, the Dobbs case, we want to
reverse the Trump Community case, and all the other conservative
rule of law decisions that have come out in the
last five years. And this is brass knuckle politics. They
want another legislative body that they can control and have good,

(10:58):
mustling results for them, and so this is what they're
willing to do.

Speaker 1 (11:02):
We'll track with my guess. He's Mountain State's Legal Foundation
General Counsel will very quickly. If folks want to read
the piece at Newsweek, they can just find it a
news we google your name. I'll put it up on
my social sites as well for everybody. But educate yourself
as to the unconstitutionality of what Kamala Harris is proposing
and the Democrats are proposing regarding the judicial branch of government.

(11:24):
Just because they say they're gonna do it or should
do it, doesn't make it constitutional. And that's what we'll
track one points out of the Newsweek piece. We'll I
appreciate you hopping on. If folks want to learn more
about Mountain State's Legal Foundation, give the quick speech. What
do you do and how do they find you?

Speaker 2 (11:40):
If so, we're at ms legal dot org. That's ms
l e g al dot org, and you can go
to our website become a supporter, contributor. But even if
you don't want to do those things, you can still
follow us and you can suggest good cases that we
ought to take and bring more impact. Litigation firm or probundant.
We don't charge by the hour against the government, either

(12:01):
the state government or the federal government. We bring because
we fight for liberty every day in the courtroom.

Speaker 1 (12:06):
Will track man, I appreciate you hopping on the program
mslegal dot org. Thanks a lot, Serain, we'll talk