10-6-25 - 8am - Should Trump Defy the Judge on National Guard

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Normally I wouldn't play the same talk back twice in
the same show. But Michael specifically asked for this one.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Michael, we've had this discussion before. What happens if Trump
just disregards what that judge said about sending that regard
for I mean, he's the president. He's just some kind
of judge. I mean, I wouldn't even listen to that.
He's the commander of chief. Please answer this one, all right,
sit down, shut up, and listen. Now. I understand the frustration,

(00:32):
but again, let's go back to the premise of your
point that or your your question. I guess because it is.
It wasn't. The form of a question has to be
in the form of a question. Yes, he's the commander
in chief. But we have three equal branches of government.

(00:57):
You've got the Congress, or you have the executive Article
two and the judiciary Article three. They are equal branches
of government, and none is more powerful or less powerful

(01:18):
than the other. They're equal branches. Let's take the judiciary though,
for just a second, because I think the Congress is
self explanatory. You have the Congress, it's divided up into
two houses, the House and the Senate. You have the
executive which is the President, and the President is in

(01:39):
charge of faithfully administering the laws and is the commander
in chief over the armed forces, over the US military.
Then in Article three you have the Supreme Court, which
is the only court established by the Constitution. Any other

(02:00):
courts are referred to as Article three courts which are
established by Congress and their jurisdiction is established by Congress.
Those courts can so so all the trial courts can
be expanded or diminished. The appellate courts could be divided

(02:25):
up and make we get We could expand the number
of appellate courts. They Congress could reduce the number of
pellate courts, and of course they can determine their jurisdiction
based on Okay, we're going to create a new UH
fourteenth Circuit, and the fourteenth Circuit will just cover UH
the UH lower portion of New York, the boroughs of

(02:49):
New York City. Those are all even though they're established
by Congress, They're jurisdiction is established by Congress, and of course,
obviously and that is subject to interpretation by their superior court,
which are their appellate courts and their Supreme Court. If

(03:13):
Trump were to ignore a federal trial judge's injunction prohibiting
the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, we would
face both well, everyone the country would face severe legal
and profound political ramifications. Let's go through the legal ramifications.

(03:36):
Ignoring a federal court order, whether the president or you're
Michael Brown, constitutes a direct challenge to the constitutional principle
of judicial review, which has been established in a firm
by the US Supreme Court and the supremacy of federal law,
as established in Marlbury versus Madison, the very first decision

(03:58):
decided by the US Supreme Court. So let me state
it again. That's a direct challenge to the constitutional principle
of judicial review. The second point would be the trial
judge could start contempt proceedings will go to NDCD separately

(04:20):
in just a second. The trial judge could start content proceedings.
The trial judge could issue additional enforcement orders, or even
the judge could seek the intervention of higher courts. The
judiciary has limited power to compel presidential compliance directly, especially

(04:45):
regarding use of the military, so the judge has things
the judge could do. He could try to hold the
president in contempt. I don't think that will fly. He however,
could holding can contempt those who are carrying out the orders.
That would be appealed immediately by the Department of Justice.

(05:09):
And if there were personal contempt citations, then those individuals
would appeal their contempt citation. So now you're involved in litigation.
Now you're fighting in court over the order. Ultimately, Ultimately,

(05:30):
the primary constitutional recourse is for Congress to invoke oversight
or pursue impeachment. And I throw impeachment because a willful
defiance by the president of the Article three court's authority

(05:51):
is widely considered and has been held to be a
high crime and misdemeanor because it endangers the separation of powers.
Those equal branches of government operate under a concept of
separation of powers. Each has its own power. Now, other presidents,
Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon, they faced escalating political legal

(06:15):
consequences when they challenge the authority of the courts. Generally,
either the threat of impeachment or correct congressional action has
caused presidents to back down rather than trigger a full
blown constitutional crisis. If Congress ordered, say the Secretary of
Homeland Security, the Secretary of defense all to appear and

(06:40):
to answer on behalf of the president. They wouldn't. They
wouldn't dare call the president that he could invoke an
executive privilege and he just would not appear. But they
could go down the path of exercising their constitutional right
to do oversight and start questioning the who, what, where, when,

(07:00):
and why the five ws of the order that's defying
a trial judge. And if they found evidence that the
president had in defiance of that order told them to
go do this anyway, that would start an impeachment process. Interestingly,

(07:21):
the impeachment process in this situation, I'm not going to
say would not go anywhere. Many people would jump to
the conclusion and say the impeachment process would never go anywhere. Now,
remember impeachment has to start in the House, so you
would have to have the House approve articles of impeachment.

(07:43):
Because Republicans control the House, they probably would not be
able to get enough votes to issue articles of impeachment. However,
think about what that does. You're now starting. You've got
the shutdown going on, you've got the budget crisis going on,

(08:05):
you've got the spending and debt crisis that they're occurring
You've got all the international things that Trump's going that
he is doing right now. Congress would be out of
their freaking mind to spend one man of second debating
impeachment because that's now going to detract Trump from doing
all the other things that we want Trump to do.

(08:28):
And I think Trump would be smart enough to say,
you know what I'm going to do. Okay, you've enjoined
me from deploying the troops. I'm going to direct the
Department of Justice on behalf of the White House to
appeal that. I think that's the right thing to do.
But there are political ramifications. I haven't discussed at all.

(08:52):
Presidential defiance of a judicial order. Just saying you know
me mean you know a raspberry. I'm not going to
do anything that would create a constitutional crisis, and that
will I talked about the lack of confidence in the
American rule of law because of what's going on in Chicago.
This would set a perilous precedent for future executive action.

(09:16):
This would be the absolute wrong thing for Trump to do.
Because I'm talking pure politics now, because while many you,
for example, would stand up and applaud it, I would
not applaud it. I would not applaud him just flagrantly
ignoring a court order, because that does set a precedent

(09:42):
and that does create a constitutional crisis. So the political
part of me says, don't do that. Take it to court.
I know everybody is in a rush, rush, rush to
get as many people to port as quickly as possible,
to do whatever it takes to make that happen. I'm
the same way. I want the same thing you do,

(10:05):
but I don't want to create a constitutional crisis. And
I don't want Trump doing things that's going to have
a political ramification that may cause us to lose in
the next election. I know I can hear you through
my earbudge. Right now, many people would stand up and
applaud him doing that, and I'm telling you as many

(10:27):
people would also stand up and say, wait a minute,
you can just ignore a federal judge's order. There is
a process by which to do that. Now, you may
not like the process, and I personally think the process
takes too long. But Trump could do this. He could
exploite to the Supreme Court. Trump can take it right
to the Supreme Court if you wanted to. Now it's

(10:47):
up to the Supreme Court whether they want to hear
it or not. But if we've got ICE agents under attack,
we have local law enforcement refusing to help defend them,
if we have right it's in Portland, we have federal
buildings being burned down, and a federal judge won't let things,
won't let him deploy the national Guard. Then I think

(11:08):
that that's the kind of thing that probably I would
hope nine zero, but more likely eight to one, because
you know that Jackson Brown's not going to do anything.
She's against Trump regardless. I think even Kagan and so
to my or to some extent, would be, yeah, this
is the kind of thing that we need to hear
because this involves executive power, executive function versus our judicial power.

(11:31):
Let's hear it right now. So that doesn't mean that
they would vote in favor of him. I'm just saying
I think they would vote to hear the case. Now,
let's go back to again, let's catch back up on
the political ramifications. This would provoke a national outcry. It
likely would unite Congress, including many from his own party.

(11:54):
Republicans in a bipartisan condemnation or calls for accountability would
be a step too far. The situation could also galvanize
public protests and civil unrest, especially if federal troops acted
in defiance of both public and judicial authority in the
contentious city. This is really pushing This is not pushing

(12:18):
the envelope over here on the edge. This is pushing
the envelope off the edge. Politically, ignoring a court injunction,
Trump would risk eroding presidential legitimacy both domestically and internationally,
both of which are incredibly important right now, calling into
question the commitment to a constitutional governance now historically rare

(12:41):
episodes of presidential defiance. Let's Andrew Jackson's non compliant There
was a case Wooster versus Georgia. Andrew Jackson's non compliance
with that case and Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in
another case ex party merriment were viewed as a extraordinary exceptions,

(13:02):
each of which was followed by intense political conflict called
the Civil War and demands for accountability. This system is
designed ultimately to ensure compliance with judicial decisions using legislative
checks as at the last resort. So if Trump were
to defy the injunction, just say screw you, Judge McIntyre,

(13:24):
whatever judge's name, is would thrust this country into uncharted territory.
It would collapse our constitutional guardrails, and probably, you know
very well, could lead to impeachment. Republicans might have enough.
It would certainly lead to debates in Congress about whether
or not to proceed with impeachment. So, now that we

(13:49):
kind of understand what the framework is, let's think of
the practicality. You're pissed off, as I'm pissed off because
the these judges, these trial judges, keep stepping on presidential authority.
We have, albeit a slow we have a system for

(14:11):
working out those conflicts. If we step outside that highway
of how we work out our conflicts and decide that
everybody's just going to start acting on their own, we're
actually adding onto and creating even more anarchy ourselves. Trump

(14:34):
would be playing right into the very hands of those
who advocate rules for radicals or the Cloward pivot strategy.
This would be precisely what they want. He would be
playing into their hands. I say, no, don't do it.
Appeal the order. It'll take time, and I know that

(14:57):
everybody's in a hurry. How long, For how many decades
have we fought and thought and thought about illegal immigration
for most of my life. Well, we're not going to
solve it. In fact, we were in such a hurry
as I am, as I know you are, to try

(15:19):
to get this fixed, to get as many of these
people out of here as possible. Yes, we all agree
on that. But if we're going to start ignoring courts
in order to meet a political objective of deporting illegal aliens,
that's not good for our cause. That creates both a

(15:40):
constitutional and a political crisis, and it hurts our cause.
The best way to do this is within the constitutional
framework that the Founders established to resolve our differences. Now,
the other thing I can hear in my other ear
is I want the civil war. If you really want

(16:03):
a civil war, you've never studied the Civil War. You
don't really understand the Civil War and how it ripped
this country apart and we're lucky to have it back
together again. You don't understand what it did in terms
of the loss of life. You may think, because you

(16:26):
know we're all sitting in Denver right now, it's a cloudy, cool,
overcast day. It's like the first feels like the first
day of fall. Might be a little snow in the
peaks when the sun finally comes out and we're going
about our lives doing everything. Yes, I concealed carry because
I worry about bad guys. I worry about the criminal elements.

(16:52):
I don't really worry about my political opponents. Well, I
think Democrats and Marxists are danger to our constitutional authority.
I don't yet fear them and bushing me on the street,
shooting me simply because I'm a Republican versus a Democrat

(17:17):
or a Marxist. But that's what we would turn into,
literally citizens killing citizens to all us talk about the
civil war, stop it, just stop it. We're working through
this Trump's doing. We'll be asking to do. Mike, didn't

(17:38):
Biden ignore the court's ruling about student debt. I didn't
see a constitutional crisis? Then, no, you didn't. You know why,
because that's not what Republicans do. Republicans went through the process.

(18:00):
US Republicans challenged it legislatively and in the courts, So
you didn't see a constitutional crisis. Based on that talk
back and interestingly text message I have, here's what I
really want to try to get people to. You've got

(18:25):
to change your thinking. You've got to recognize that they
are not like us, and they are not going to
play by the same rules that we play by. And
I know that for many that's a war cry that is, well,
then we should. If they're going to use fire, then

(18:47):
we should use fire. If they're going to shoot a US,
we should shoot at them. Because this text message from
fifteen seventy three says Mike, I don't understand why the
governors of these states don't want to quell the riots.
I'm not picking on you, but seriously, you don't understand
why the governors of the states want this to occur.

(19:14):
You don't understand it because you don't think like them.
You don't understand it because you don't understand what their
objective is. You don't understand it because you haven't studied.
In this case, I mean Clarendon Piven does apply to
some degree, but more appropriately, Saul Olenski's rules for Radicals applies.

(19:36):
This is part of exactly what the Marxist These are
Marxist tactics designed to bring down our system. And the
more they try to bring down our system of checks
and balances, the rule of law, constitutional order, equal branches

(19:57):
of government, separation of powers, the bill of rights, the
more they attack those, the more we have to make
certain that we use those very institutions and we use
those very structures to battle them back. Why because what

(20:25):
they are doing that they're doing. Let's just start with
Saulolenski's Rules for Radicals. It is a guidebook for grassroots
organizing that it outlines the practical tactics for establishing, I mean,
for challenging the established power structures everything that I just described,

(20:49):
the constitutional order, the rule of law, separation of powers,
equal branches of government, judicial process, do process, all of
those things that we cannot function as a society without
those things, at least a society as we've come to
enjoy it. Look around you. A free market, a constitutional

(21:11):
order is what we're trying to preserve. And what I'm
hearing people on our side advocate is to abandon that
in order to allegedly to use the vernacular fight fire
with fire. It won't work, because that is precisely what

(21:31):
Rules for Radicals wants us to do. Unless he's thirteen rules.
You know. Let me just say this right now, if
you've not read read it, I'm certain you can find
it online or whatever. That there's a website that has
all these free books that you can read. Somehow you

(21:53):
need to go find rules for radicals and read it.
Thirteen rules do you know the most familiar? Pick the target,
freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Use ridicules a
potent weapon. Keeping the pressure on opponents. Democrat mayors and
governors that oppose Trump's immigration policies. They personalize and they

(22:15):
polarize the issue, and then they frame the Trump administration
iceen border patrol. They frame them as the aggressors, and
those are aggressors that are hurting vulnerable immigrant populations. They're
hurting American citizens. They've picked the target, they're freezing it,
they're personalizizing it, and then they're polarizing it. They do

(22:39):
that to make us the bad guys. Why do you
think when Dragon said that he looked up the story
about the the FAP in Chicago, Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox,
nothing from anybody else. Because as as hard as it

(23:00):
maybe be to accept, so I use the word cabal,
they are part of that cabal that is helping them
in this case by omission. They don't want you to
know that. The Fraternal Order of Police, both nationally and locally,
have come out and said whoa, wait a minute, This

(23:22):
is not how we do law enforcement. When other cops
need our help, we come rushing in public rally, social
media campaigns, coalition building with activist groups. All of that
echoes Olenski's strategy for mobilizing broad based grass roots composition, ridicule, delbimization.

(23:42):
Are employed Democrat officials. You heard from the mayor Chicago
deriding Trump's policies as racist, inhumane, un American. And what
do you do? Then you start lowering not among you,
although it may be affecting you to some degree, they're
trying to lower public support for enforcement. That is a

(24:02):
direct application of Alenski's advice to use ridicule and demonization.
We are watching it play out in real time. And
what we have to do is make certain that I'm
not trying to I'm not trying to be a Gandhi here,
I'm not trying to be a Glenn Back here. I'm
not trying to be any of that crap. I'm trying

(24:24):
to explain to you the reality, the political reality that
if we start pushing now, there's a way to push back.
And we have and we have a framework. We have
a constitutional statutory framework within which to push back, and
we're not gonna win every battle. Quit focusing on winning

(24:45):
every freaking battle we get engaged in. This is a
long term this is it took a long time to
get here. I know your impatience gonna take a long
time to get out of it too. Trump has started
that process and voomp, they have come down like a
wall of bricks on using Elensky tactics to demonize him,

(25:07):
the policies, You and me, the Charlie Kirks of the world,
anybody who supports this change in American society so efforts
to disrupt ice operations as a perfect example, such as
refusing to cooperate with federal detainer requests, holding all of
those no you're right, you know, rallies for the for
the aliens, publicly shaming businesses, publicly shaming law enforcement, refusing

(25:32):
to assist law enforcement, sanctuary cities, all of that that
support Trump's policies that precisely mirrors, I mean it literally
mirrors Elenski's guidance to isolate and pressure key actors and
the use of mass protests, symbolic acts like declaring sanctuary status,
for example, and then building coalitions around that that's all

(25:56):
consistent with Elensky's bottom up organizing model designed to make
systemic change by mobilizing those marginalized communities and their allies
in persistent opposition. We're watching this play out in real time.
We have to stick to our guns that we're going

(26:17):
to follow the constitutional framework in which we're going to
battle this stuff. And again, it's slow, it's methodical, it's
going to result. You know, the smartest thing we can do.
I think the smartest thing we can do is recognize
we've asked ICE to start deporting criminal, illegal aliens. That's

(26:43):
what they are doing. Now, when you do that, sometimes
you're going to make a mistake. Accept that, don't They're
going to use those mistakes to show how we're demonizing.
And what did that stupid mayor in Chicage saying that
sound by we are we are instilling terror and fear

(27:04):
in those neighborhoods. Well, yeah, that's to be expected if
we're engaged. And I want to use Vietnam, but I
don't want people to take Vietnam as an example and
then say, oh, look at me, lie, But take Vietnam

(27:30):
when you're trying to rout the Viet Cong from a village,
mistakes will happen. And yes, maybe those people in those
in those villages feared both the Vietnam the viet Cong
communists as much as they feared the Americans, because the
viet Cong used and in a very good uh propaganda

(27:55):
campaign about how evil the Americans were. So if you
were in an American uniform, they came in with a
predisposition that you were the evil ones, even though we
know the Communists were the evil ones. So when we
would go through a village and we would try to
route out the via the viet Cong, yeah, sometimes a

(28:16):
mistake was made and it's awful and it's tragic and
it's sad and it makes you angry. But that is war.
We are engaged in a similar war here and they're
using Olenski tactics to make you either do one of
two things, back off, cave in, or overreact and say,

(28:42):
oh now we got to get our guns out. And
by god, we ought to just we ought to just
defy a judge's order. We all to just tell that
judge to go hell, go f himself, and we're gonna
do what we damn well please. Yeah, that brings down
the constitutional order that creates political chaos and that feeds
right into Lensky tactics. Recognize the battle that we are in.

(29:03):
Please democrats and mayors that are engaged in opposition to
Trump's immigration enforcement efforts are going to use these methods
that closely follow the strategic procedures outlined in Rules for
Radical and they do it by personalizing the conflict, using ridicule,
continuous pressure, grassroots mobilization. Now some will argue, well, all

(29:31):
of that is part of the American protest. Yeah, you
can go protest, but it crosses the line when you
start trying to envelop a ice pickup or a van
or a truck or car, whatever it is, or you
start throwing rocks at it, or you try to shoot
at somebody, or you try to set fire to something.

(29:54):
Now you're engaged in violence, and that is not the
American tradition. We're at the beginning of, were the beginning
of the change, and don't let yourself get sucked into
exactly what these radicals are trying to get you to do,
which is to overreact, which is to give up the

(30:18):
constitutional order, the rule of order. Because ooh one, because
you've been you've been sucked up and sucked into the
rules for radicals, or two you're like, oh no, I
just want to now, I just want to go kill
them all.

Speaker 1 (30:33):
Sorry, Michael Brown. I agree with the premise that you're
saying on your argument, but I definitely disagree with the
last thing you said. Do you really think that Charlie
Kirk thought that he was going to get shot that
day by one of his political adversaries for the things
that he said. You got to remember that you're also
a political person and you say your stuff on the air.

(30:55):
Anybody can come up to you in the iHeart parking
lot and take you out.

Speaker 2 (31:02):
I don't know where you got the idea that I'm
not aware of that and that I don't take extraordinary
measures to protect myself every f and day. I know
they're dangerous people out there, and I know they exist,
but that doesn't mean that because there's a protest out there,

(31:23):
that I'm going to go engaging them in a gun battle.
I'm going to avoid that. Now. I don't know whether
that's what you mean or not, but if you're implying
somehow that we need to go engage in gun battles
with these people, you're a fing out of your mind. No,
I'm quite aware of that. You don't think I haven't
had conversations with management in this building about this building itself.

(31:48):
We've had a talk show host on this in this
company murdered for his beliefs. I'm quite aware of that.
Back to the point about Olinsky tactics, I don't know why,
but it reminded me of the Gettysburg address. It is

(32:09):
for us, still living, rather to be dedicated here to
the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus
far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to
be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us,
that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not
have died in vain, and that this nation under God

(32:33):
shall have a new birth of freedom, and the government
of buying for the people shall not perish from the earth.
We can only do that if we recognize that that
enemy within that is opposing, that is absolutely using and
adopting Olensky tactics to marginalize us, cannot succeed by us

(32:55):
adopting the same tactics that they are using, because that
will lead to some president somewhere down the line giving
another speech exactly like that, and I refuse to allow
that to happen.