Stopping the Rogue Judiciary

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Here it is from a foreigner, Okay, from a foreigner,
and I think really now crystallizes the issue that is
in front of Trump and frankly, our country and our republic. Jeff,
forgive me. Oh by the way, uh seven oh three, Jeff,
you can text a seven zero four seven zero seven
zero four seven zero. This is from seven oh three, Jeff,

(00:23):
forgive me. I am Spanish, so I don't always understand
the United States and how it works. But here's the
question that I have. If Trump was elected as president,
then why do judges who were never elected have more
power than he does? How is it a democracy if

(00:47):
the man who was voted in by the people can't
govern according to what he'd promised he'd do. The judges
weren't elected, but they have more power than the man
who was. Can you please make sense of it for me?
I can't. I can't. I mean, in all honesty, seven

(01:12):
oh three, I can't. The only answer I can give
you is, this is not how our framers intended it.
This is not how our founding fathers intended it. And
this has to stop. We cannot allow these out of
control little dictators. And that's what these rogue judges are.
They're little want to be dictators, overrule the will of

(01:35):
the people, overrule the election of November twenty twenty four,
and overrule the president of the United States, because if
they do end up succeeding, we don't have a democracy,
we don't have a republic, We don't frankly have a
functioning government anymore. Agree, disagree? Then in New Hampshire, thanks

(01:59):
for Dan and welcome.

Speaker 2 (02:03):
Yes, Jeff, democracy, our constitutional republic is under attack right here.
And Joseph McCarthy talked about this several times, how the
communists had infiltrated every branch of government. Okay, Now that
being said, you got three liberal judges that slapped an
injunction on birthright citizenship, okay.

Speaker 3 (02:27):
In mass.

Speaker 2 (02:30):
Washington, Maryland and the fourth and New Hampshire is a
guy I talked about before, a Bush judge, Joseph Laplant
that was put in by the Bushes in two thousand
and seven.

Speaker 3 (02:42):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
Now you've got corrupt politicians, national media, and corrupt judges
all linked with George Soros network trying to start the
President Trump for deporting illegal criminals and these people. Okay,
you're calling yesterday and Jeff, I better disagree what time
with you? I got to tell you John from Walpole

(03:06):
is the caller of the week. He blew this thing
open yesterday when he started talking about John Roberts, who
appointed James Bloomberg, Uh Boseburg to the fight the court. Okay,
and the James Boseburg has ties to the Flower Group
with his daughter, Okay.

Speaker 3 (03:27):
And who in that connects? Uh? You know who's.

Speaker 2 (03:30):
Involved in that is a Legraate Chapman Okay. And kristinph
Kristin Ford and uh who are tied to a heavily
tied to AOC.

Speaker 3 (03:40):
Okay. And Jeff, you're always.

Speaker 2 (03:43):
Talking about David Axelrod, who's heavily he's heavily involved in
the Flower Group.

Speaker 3 (03:49):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
So and Jeff, and we're you're talking about the unifarty, Jeff. Uh,
when we're talking about David Acerod, he's all so hi
to the McCain Global Leaders and McCain Institute.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
He didn't buy that, Okay. And guess who did speaking
engagements with.

Speaker 2 (04:10):
David Axelrod at universities in twenty twenty one? Every Flei Shah, yeah,
every Fleisher.

Speaker 3 (04:18):
Let's say it again. Okay, this guy's.

Speaker 1 (04:20):
Another Yeah, No, a Bushy. Yeah, I know, another Bushy.
And then just to reinforce what you're trying to say
about the uniparty, take this guy Boseberg. And I was
a caller yesterday that opened my eyes to this, and
then I looked it up and it's of course completely true. Bosberg. Yes,
he's an Obama appointee to the District Court. It was
a promotion, but he was originally appointed by George W.

Speaker 2 (04:44):
Bush.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
Bosberg was appointed by George W. Bush to the Superior Court.
So yes, he's an Obama, but he's also a Bushye.
And what he really is, and you're dead on, he's
nothing more than a shill and a mouthpiece for the globalists.
And they want Trump stopped dead in his tracks. And

(05:07):
what they've realized is they've lost in the court of
public opinion. They lost in the election. They don't have
power in Congress anymore. They're slipping power away from the
Supreme Court because I know, Amy Cony Barrett has been
a real disappointment, but still it is some kind of
a five to four majority for Conservatives, weak as Barrett is,

(05:31):
and so they've now activated Roberts. Roberts now is stepping
up in order to try to sabotage and to jeopardize
and essentially now bring crashing down Trump's presidency. And I'm
telling you, I think Roberts eventually is going to have
to resign. I think what he's done now is he

(05:51):
has done immense damage to the dignity, to the respect,
to the independence of the entire federal judiciary by standing
up for an obvious comebag. And that's what Bosberg is.
An obvious radical, fanatical scumbag and corrupts comebag like Bosburg.

(06:14):
So while his daughter is raking in cash at a
group by the way, she's a key fundraiser where they're
raking in cash, saying, don't you worry, We're not gonna
have any deportations under Trump, even convicted felons. We don't care.
MS thirteen trend de Aragua, you name it. You butcher people,

(06:35):
your rape people, your traffic children, you kidnap children, you
weapons trafficking, fentanyl trafficking, We don't care. You're not going
to be deported from the United States. Why my daddy
is on the district court, my daddy is a judge.
My daddy is gonna block Trump. So this guy is

(06:58):
as Bosberg is as dirty as they come. And you know,
Sandy made a brilliant point, but we were off air,
she said. You know, impeachment takes time. Impeachment is time consuming.
She goes, when it comes to Bosberg, one of the
easiest ways to get him off is push for him

(07:19):
to be recused, because the conflict of interest is so obvious,
his bias is so obvious, his unprofessional, corrupt partisanship is
so obvious. She goes, You can easily get a hearing,
which can go quite quick, and get this guy recused
from the case. Six one seven two six six sixty

(07:41):
eight sixty eight is the number you can also text
the cooner man seven zero four seven zero seven zero
four seven zero. This is from six tozho three. Jeff,
what a quote unquote coincidence that almost every judge ruling
against Trump will appointed by a Democrat. It's almost as

(08:04):
if they're not judges at all, just democrat activists in
black robes, bingo. And that's exactly what they are, my friend,
exactly what they are. This is another one from six
one seven Jeff. If trend or Aragua is forced to

(08:25):
stay in the country because of activist judges, I propose
we send them to Martha's Vineyard. Do I have anyone
who seconds this motion? I second it. I definitely second it.
And this is from This is from a former law

(08:50):
enforcement official, a really really good police officer. He's now
out of the business, but he he sent me this
text maybe a couple of minutes ago. Go Jeff. On
a side note, it's funny how when a large number
of illegals landed in Martha's Vineyard last year, the liberals

(09:11):
went nuts and had them immediately removed. Now they're up
in arms about President Trump removing murderous criminals and gang
bangers from our communities. Funny how liberal hypocrisy works, isn't it.

(09:33):
That's you see, you send them to the vineyard and
they're out within twenty four hours. But when they're rampaging
in Aurora, or remember what they did up in New
Jersey was a massacre of a mass rape of what
was it, four teenage girls, and then they murdered them,

(09:54):
chopped up their bodies and threw them into a mass grave.
So when they commit them most heinous, barbaric, savage crimes,
whether it be in New Jersey, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas.
Then you can't deport him. Then they have to stay,

(10:15):
but just not where the moonbats live. Six one seven
two six six sixty eight sixty eight is the number
Scott in Revere. Thanks for holding Scott, and welcome.

Speaker 3 (10:30):
Jeff.

Speaker 1 (10:31):
I love you, my friend, Thank you, Scott, buddy. What
do you make of all this? My friend?

Speaker 3 (10:41):
All right, all right, Jeff, all right, this is listen.
I went to Catholic school for twelve years. We have
three branches of government, Executive, legislative, and judicial. Notice. Judicial
is on the bottom. Executive runs the country. Legislative make
and it makes the laws. Judicial enforces the laws. They

(11:05):
do not make law. So if Trump is listening, get
you got to know your history. But judicial branch has
no power at all over the executive branch. And then
I'm gonna point toward this. This is the cherry on
the Sunday. The Supreme Court. It's an absolute silk. Nobody's

(11:29):
listening to them, the dividing administration, the senile buffoon in
the automatic ten today listen to the Supreme Court at all? No,
So what are you listening to? And we are in
star cabinet? What why are you one? Laws? Answer? Questions.

(11:50):
We're all with it. Where's the people you hired. Let
them answer the questions, you know.

Speaker 1 (11:58):
Scott, I'm with you. I'm with you all the way, brother, Scott.
I've got to ask you this question. Okay, really it's
a double barreled question. Number one. Why would someone like
Roberts but just not just Roberts this Judge Boseberg. You've
got Democrats from AOC to Elizabeth Warren to Bernie Sanders.

(12:22):
I could go on and on that are siding with
trender Ragua MS thirteen literally foreign terrorists, transnational criminal gangs
of the worst kind over protecting law abiding American citizens.

(12:45):
It would be the equivalent, Scott, I've got to ask you,
it would literally be the equivalent if Judge Bosberg said,
Trump does not have the authority to deport say, two
hundred and fifty members of ISIS or two hundred and
fifty members of our CATA known butchers, people, you know,
non murderers, known terrorists, and saying no, even though they're

(13:10):
in the country illegally, even though they've been convicted of
the most heinous crimes imaginable, even though they're designated as terrorists, No,
we're ordering you you don't have the right to deport
them or get them out of our country. They have
to stay. Why are they so determined seriously to protect

(13:31):
the worst of the worst, literally the most evil comebacks,
violent criminals, sick, evil, sadistic people on the face of
the earth. What Why is it just that because it's
Trump arrangement syndrome, they just hate Trump so they'll oppose

(13:54):
them on no matter what. Or is there something even
more sick and sinister? In your view? Scott, this is
this is what it all that.

Speaker 3 (14:04):
I think what's down to it's this pretty simple. Trump
has a mandate. We gave them the mandate, the liberals.
That's all they have left. And not only that, they
literally have fifteen percent of the country. That's it. So
what do they have left besides illegals? They no one

(14:26):
agrees with them on anything. Now, my biggest question is
where are all the Republican appointees. Where's the Trump appointees?

Speaker 1 (14:35):
Where's Ballely?

Speaker 3 (14:37):
Where's all these people Trump and the Republicans appointed? Where
are those judges? Why are they not stepping up and saying, well,
there's no way you can you know why I think
against these other judges, I don't understand. Why are they
not saying anything? Why are they so quiet?

Speaker 1 (14:59):
I've been asked that question my whole life, not just
regarding Trump around outrage after outrage, scandal after scandal, betrayal
after betrayal. How these yellow livered, gutless, vhy Republicans I
call him, all they know how to do is surrender.

(15:21):
That's all they know how to do is wave the
white flag of surrender. They're useless. They're just absolutely useless.
They don't do a thing. It's just it's shameful. And look, Scott,
I said it earlier. I read a really good text message,
but I want to repeat it. Why is Trump doing
all the heavy lifting? Why is he always alone out
there fighting on our behalf again and again and again.

(15:46):
Why is he the only one calling for this judge
to be impeached? Why is he the one now being
attacked by Roberts? Seriously, why you know, why isn't Mike
Johnson standing with him side by side John Thune. Why
don't all the Republicans in Congress stand up and say
we side with the President, and either you, Roberts, do

(16:07):
something about this judge or we're going to send articles
of impeachment like it may take a year, but we're
going to impeach this guy and we're going to make
an example out of them, and so other judges will
not do this. Instead, it's always Trump alone, always Scott,
Thank you very much for that call. Six one, seven two,

(16:29):
six sixty eight sixty eight is the number. Okay, best
audience in the business. I know, I say it all
the time, Jeff, you sound like a tape. But it's true.
I'm telling you it's true. So what else I mean?
You know, if it's true, it's true, you got to
say it. I want to read a text and I

(16:49):
think it really captures the essence now of the debate
and of the constitutional legal crisis that I believe these
activist rogue judges have now plunged the country into. And
whether Trump likes it or not, he's the victim of
law fair again, as I've been saying all show, it's

(17:10):
a different kind of law fair. It's not them trying
to bankrupt him or take them off the ballot, or
put them behind bars or jail them, but it's to
literally sabotage and cripple, kneecap his presidency. And this is
from seven eight to one. Jeff. Now, another District Court

(17:37):
judge has just ordered the US military to continue enlisting
mentally delusional transgender troops and justifying her ruling, Jeff, I
kid you not by quoting the musical Hamilton. And this

(17:57):
is the key, Jeff. We either have a presidency or
we have a rule by six hundred and seventy seven
gavel wielding dictators. The Supreme Court must put these judges
in place. In other words, do we have judicial tyranny

(18:21):
or do we have a constitutional republic. That's now the issue.
And I want to stress this to you as an historian.
The natural state of the world is not republican. Self
government were the exception. We're not the rule. For thousands

(18:44):
and thousands of years of history, it's either a king
or a dictator, or a ruler, or a group of
people an oligarchy. In Europe it was aristocrats, basically a
self anointed elite people who gave themselves privilege and power
over everyone else, especially the people. And that's how they

(19:09):
ran Europe literally for thousands of years. And if you
look at how judges, I just find this incredible. Look
at the way judges in our society are revered because
they have a black robe, and suddenly their rulings are
like carved in stone and their words have this kind

(19:30):
of mystical power and authority. And notice, you have to comply,
You have to comply, You must comply, you must comply.
How dare you You're not gonna comply with this no
name judge on some dinky little court. How dare you?
It's like you're not gonna bend the knee to Sir

(19:54):
John Arthur of Engelot, Like, how dare you not recognize
this aristocrat for the superior human being that he is.
That's exactly what they're trying to do now. They're trying
now to anoint a group of democratic activists using the

(20:16):
name of a judge who wear a black robe, and
say they can overrule a president, they can overrule the people,
they can overrule elections. They can literally run rough shot
over the entire constitution and the entire separation of powers.
It's no different than what aristocrats have done for thousands

(20:39):
of years, except then they claim divine right. You know,
God gave them special powers. Now they're claiming some special
right in the Constitution which doesn't exist. And look how
people instinctively defer to judges as if they're all powerful,

(21:01):
all nipotent, all knowing most of these judges are lawyers
or political activists who are literally making it up as
they go along. They're violating their oath, they're abusing their power.

(21:22):
And you know, here, I just want to read to
you something that I got from a very good friend
of mine, and I think it really sums up exactly
what's going on. And I really respect this person, longtime friend,
huge supporter of the show, and he sent this in
fact to me last night, and he was really pained

(21:45):
about it. He says, I'm seeing what they're doing to Trump,
what they're doing to his presidency. They're starting to slowly
reduce it to rubble. They're blocking every aspect now of
his agenda. They're practically they're overruling him, and they're making
it impossible for him to act as commander in chief
and as the president of the United States.

Speaker 2 (22:07):
And so.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
From the heart, this is what he sent to me,
and I think he's he's I think he's dead on.
He said, Jeff. I'm lying here in bed and I
can't sleep, and I have to ask you, as a

(22:29):
former professor, as someone who knows American history and American
constitutional history. If these rogue judges can overrule the president
of the United States and block his every move, why
bother to have elections? If these judges were all appointed,

(22:54):
why can't they be unappointed? And the basis would be
a constitutional iss and not a personal issue that Trump
has with people getting in his way. He is now
unable to do the job that people elected him to do.
And we are now in a full blown constitutional crisis.

(23:17):
And so I have to ask you, how would Professor
Kooner fix this? Well, two options, and I think this
is it. This is you want, Jeff, We need a solution.
What is the solution. There are two solutions. Two One
has already been proposed by Nude Gingrich and it's and

(23:41):
this is what he wrote. And I want everybody to listen,
because if you want to solve it, this is how
you do it. Chief Justice Roberts, this is now newt
on X. Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues, meaning the
Supreme Court should accept immediate review on any number of

(24:02):
emergency petitions filed by the Justice Department on behalf of
the President, i e. President Trump and the American people
and reverse the outrageous district courts immediately, but do so
in very broad language that directs the district court judges
to stop meddling in the operation of the executive branch,

(24:26):
where under the separation of powers doctrine they have no
jurisdiction and their orders will not be enforced. In other words,
it's time now for Roberts to stop defending Bosberg and
to start overruling these decisions by these horrible judges. And

(24:48):
the Supreme Court now needs to police the judiciary. And
how would you do that? As Gingrich outlines, say, Look,
here's what we're going to do. Every time now a
lower level judge issues an injunction or a temporary restraining
order or tries to block Trump on transgenders in the military,
or on USAID or on DOGE, or on firing people,

(25:12):
or on deporting criminal illegal aliens like trender Aragua, immediately
we're gonna take an emergency petition to the Supreme Court.
In other words, it's not gonna go through the appellate
process and go on for months and months and years. No,
within two days, bang, it's right in front of us

(25:34):
at the Supreme Court. So we're gonna be ruling on
this immediately, so you're not gonna block the president and
paralyze him indefinitely. But along with that, tell these lower
level judges. I want you to know, knock it off.

(25:55):
You're not the commander in chief. You can't decide on
foreign aid. You can't decide on deportations. You can't decide
on who he hires and who he fires. In other words,
the judicial branch cannot usurp the executive branch. And we're
going to smack you down. And the more we smack

(26:15):
you down, the more humiliated you're going to get. In
other words, put them back within their boundaries. They're constitutionally
delineated boundaries. So a the Supreme Court could settle this
like this, I'm telling you like this. There's also another

(26:37):
and this is the one I've been favoring now for
at least twenty years, and Sandy actually touched on it
during the break, the one that can break the power
of judicial tyranny. And remember, of all the three branches,
it's the strongest branch because it's closest to the people
and it has what the power of the purse. It

(27:01):
controls money. You control money, you control everything. Congress is
the one. I've been saying this for a long time.
If people don't like Supreme Court rulings, for example, they go, well,
why is the Supreme Court? They're legislating from the bench.
The legislative branch is Congress take that power back. It

(27:23):
would take a few weeks. Congress could pass a law
that would literally order the judiciary to go back to
its proper, constitutionally delineated authority and boundaries. That's what they
could easily do. In other words, say no, Congress, you

(27:47):
cannot you can't legislate from the bench. No you can't
tell the president who he can deport and not deport.
No you can't tell them who we can fire and
not fire. In other words, Congress can put the judiciary
back in its proper place and in its proper authority,

(28:10):
and then say, and if you do, if you keep violating,
we're good. And this is what Jefferson Thomas Jefferson famously proposed,
just defund them power of the purse. Look it up.
Please don't take my word for it. Nowhere in the
Constitution it says you have to have a Supreme Court.

(28:30):
It doesn't say you have to have appellate courts. It
doesn't say you have to have district courts. It doesn't
say you have to have superior courts. That's something that
we have built up over many, many years. But that's
not technically constitution in the Constitution. In other words, Jefferson
said this, if they get too strong in the judicial branch,

(28:52):
Congress must step in and defund them. You can defund judges,
you can defund entired the entire repellate division. In other words,
just wipe it out. Just say, you know what, if
none of you get paid, you don't have a job.
You don't have a job, you're out. So you could

(29:16):
literally defund and a null eliminate the entire district appellate.
So you can wipe out these different levels of the
judicial branch. Now, would there be a massive firestorm, yes,
would the media go apoplectic, yes, would the Democrat screen

(29:38):
bloody murder, yes, would they take a big hit you
know from the Democrat media complex. Yes, But is it
one thousand constitutionally kosher? You better believe it. Does Congress
have the right to do it, You better believe it.

(29:59):
So Congress can slay this beast anytime it once. But
you gotta have balls. You gotta have courage, you gotta
have heart, you gotta have patriotism and bravery, you have
to have leadership. That's I don't see that from Mike

(30:23):
Johnson or I don't see that from John Thune. But
these are two proposals, both from Gingrich. And by the way,
this one is not unique to me. Many constitutionalists have
argued my position as well. So and Jefferson did James Madison,
the founder of our constitution? Did? Hamilton? Did John Adams did?

(30:45):
I mean this goes back right to our framers. In
other words, Congress can settle this anytime it wants. But
it's up to Congress. Okay, joining me now as she
always does at this time, and I'm so looking forward
to what she has to say, Doctor Grace putting liberals
in their place, Grace Vuoto, full disclosure, my wonderful wife, Grace.

(31:12):
I've got to ask you. Roberts has rebuked Trump for
daring to deport illegal aliens, trender Auagua to Venezuela, and
for calling for the impeachment of that out of control
rogue Judge, Are you with Trump or are you with
Roberts on this one?

Speaker 4 (31:31):
Jeff I am with Trump, and I'm so proud of him.
You know, there is a moment, some moments like this
that show why his base is so strongly in favor
of him. This is an example. You now have courts
that are visibly and recurringly siding with criminals. The courts

(31:53):
let the criminals out. And it's really foolish of the
Democrats to simply be associated with this theme. You know,
when you think about what has happened recently, the Lake
and Riley Act, what was that act really all about?
It was telling home the Department of Homeland Security when
you catch a criminal, keep the criminal. And the rest

(32:16):
of us are like, well, we thought that's what law
enforcement was supposed to do in the first place. But no,
now Congress has to pass an act to tell law
enforcement what we all think, that's what you're supposed to
be doing. Anyways, and look at what happened when Trump
gave his joint address. We were all heartbroken when we
saw the mom of Lake and Riley and the Sister

(32:38):
but the Dems couldn't even stand up to clap. So
what the public sees again and again is the Democratic
Party and the courts they are on the wrong side
of the law. They are on the side of criminal behavior.
I mean, that's what common sense shows us when we
analyze this.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
Right obviously, but let me just push it a little
bit further, if you don't mind, Why would Roberts go
out of his way to defend Bosberg? Why would he
side with Boseberg and fundamentally with trender Aragua. Why would
Roberts do that? When AOC called for Clarence Thomas to

(33:20):
be impeached, he said nothing. When the Democrats called for
the Supreme Court to be packed, he said nothing. So
I can cite you example after example. But now this
is what he's This is the hill he's willing to
die on to rebuke Trump in order to defend, of
all people, Boseberg and one of the most outrageous unconstitutional

(33:42):
rulings maybe in American history. What's your theory?

Speaker 4 (33:47):
Well, Jeff, we've talked about this many times that the
behavior of the Chief Justice doesn't quite add up, and
so I believe that he's compromised. I agree with you
very often when you say that, when other commentators say
that he's got to be compromised because he's not doing
his basic job. The basic job is to uphold the law.

(34:08):
The only thing we see is that Donald Trump is
willing to uphold the law, and the system all around
him is failing to do that.

Speaker 1 (34:17):
Grace, Why do so many people? And I have to say,
and you know, I love the guy. But even Trump
in that interview with Laura Ingram when she said, well,
will you comply even with Boseberg, and he said, oh yeah,
oh yeah. Now he attacked him. He called him for
to be impeached. He he says these judges have to
be stopped, and he's obviously very angry. And I support him,

(34:37):
But even Trump is like, oh, you know, I don't
want to I don't want to ignore a judge. I
don't want to double cross a judge. Why have we
taken on this reverential almost you know, deification of judges
where apparently their writ is carved in stone. It's almost

(35:00):
like a new aristocracy. What's your theory on that?

Speaker 3 (35:07):
Well?

Speaker 4 (35:08):
I think that Trump knew that if he said anything
other than that, it would be that that would make
the news. But what the public is really seeing is
that Trump has no respect for these judges and is
going to defy them in his deeds. But he didn't
actually want to say that. So he's the one that
is the quintessential breaker of things that are not working.

(35:31):
And this is one of those things. This reference for judges,
he doesn't have it. He was a victim of how
poorly the judges behaved, so he knows that a flawed
judge can trample on an individual's rights. Now, this is
what happened to him as an individual. His rights were
being trampled by an administration that was out of control.

Speaker 2 (35:50):
You know, when the.

Speaker 4 (35:51):
Democrats are on all these programs on TV saying the
system of checks and balances is in jeopardy, Listen, the
system of checks and bounces is there to make sure
the majority doesn't trample on the rights of an individual
or of the minority. And what we're seeing is the opposite. Now,
when you have these criminals trampling on the rights of individuals,

(36:14):
or on the rights of minorities, on the rights of kids,
then the system of checks and balances is not working
the way that it should. So Trump is doing everything
he can, indeed, to defy this nonsense. I think he's
going to ignore them. But he knew if he's said
anything otherwise, that would make all the headlines, and it
would cause unnecessary blowback. I think he's been formidable on

(36:35):
this issue. There is no tougher person on the border,
on law in order, and on crime and punishment than
this current president. On this metric, he is outstanding. And
I think he's doing an absolutely outstanding job in every
sense in terms of defying the nonsense that he hears.
And actually this time he was quite shrewd about it.

(36:57):
You know, sometimes I say, oh, I wish he wered,
just say less. This is one of those examples where
he didn't step in a trap. It would have been
a trap to say anything other than what he.

Speaker 1 (37:06):
Said thirty seconds. Are we in a democratic crisis? That's
what Stephen Miller is saying. That's what many Trump in
his inner circle are saying. If these district judges get
their way, democracy's gone. Article two of the Constitution is gone.
The executive branch is now neutered. It will be the
end of functioning government itself. You will have six hundred

(37:30):
and seventy seven little dictators in presidents. What say you
exactly you.

Speaker 4 (37:35):
Will and what you have is what we currently have now,
which is this constant stagnation. Nothing moves forward, nothing gets done.
And one of the reason the people elected somebody like
Trump is we're sick of it. We want action, we
want people that cut through all this nonsense. They're just
trying to slow Trump down, to just drag him into

(37:56):
quicksands so that he doesn't get the results for the
people that we know he can and get. Think about
the opposite. If he gets the results, it proves that
his agenda works.