10-7-25 - 7am - Overwhelmed with Dumbassery

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, So, if we've got a decent number of Democrats
who want Republicans to go away, and a decent number
of Republicans who want Democrats to go away, wouldn't the
obvious answer be just take out all the politicians. Might
as well make everybody happy.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Just make everybody go away, Just everybody go away. Set
me and Dragon.

Speaker 3 (00:26):
Yeah, I want to stay. I want to stay for
a while. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
You know, I was going to start out this segment
by saying you're going to be shocked, and then I thought,
now that'll lead to some stupid talk back about who
you think we're shocked due. No, nothing shocked says anymore.
Yesterday there was news made or disclosures made on Fox
News and by members of Congress. I did, I honestly

(00:51):
did not go check to see whether it's seeing in
or MSNB succovered it. I didn't care. I did my
own research and other sources. It's really unbelievable when you
think about it. We are so overwhelmed with dumbass rey, stupidity,

(01:13):
just dumbass bull crap that goes on in society, culture, politics, schools,
everything that I think we're kind of numb to this.
But this is kind of unbelievable. Special Counsel Jack Smith,
remember him, He's the one doing the jacy or was doing,

(01:35):
was doing the January sixth prosecution, was doing the prosecution
of Donald Trump for his instruction. Although interesting, he was
never charged with instruction on January sixth, twenty twenty one,
and doing the classified documents case down in Florida. According
to an FBI document from twenty twenty three, that lawyer

(02:00):
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is known to be a
rogue operator, was spying on the cell phone data activity
of eight members of Congress, including Senators Josh Holly, Lindsey Graham,
Marshall Blackburn, and a bunch of others, related to his
investigation into January sixth and the so called fake electric scheme.

(02:22):
So we are supposed to be shocked at this development
and revelation of Jack Smith, the low life degenerate and
his team of thugs colluded to expand their power to
not only take Donald Trump in some of his aides,
of course, but actual member taking that members of Congress too.
That's why I say, don't color any of us shocked,

(02:45):
and none of us should be surprised. Now, Josh Holly
apparently isily surprised at this, and of course he wants
an investigation, and Marsha Blackburn once answers, so what do
you want answers for? I want answers, Actually I do

(03:07):
want answers. We're the ones who are entitled answers. Not
the least of which is it is whine. When Jack
Smith was brazenly abusing his power, and as there were
very few reporters, at least on our side of the
political spectrum, who covered Jack Smith in both cases going

(03:29):
to the courthouse in Florida and in Washington, who was
following all the court filings? Who is following all the briefs? Where?

Speaker 3 (03:42):
Where were? Where was? Where was Fox News?

Speaker 2 (03:44):
For example, in twenty three and twenty twenty four, when
Jack Smith was on his rampage with his team of
thug prosecutors and investigators.

Speaker 3 (03:53):
Working hand in glove with Obama.

Speaker 2 (03:57):
Obama appointees, who were they the chief judges at the
US District Court, at the DC District Court, we were
funding Jack Smith to the tune of fifty million dollars.

Speaker 3 (04:12):
And to the tune of a total of at least.

Speaker 2 (04:14):
One hundred million dollars spent by the Biden Department of
Justice before and after Jack Smith was appointed Special Council
back in November of twenty twenty two. Where's the updated report? Are?
Where the documents? Where is someone at least at the FBI,

(04:36):
at the Department of Justice going through all rifling through
all of the files. We got this at least, But
what else is in the box now? And I say
the box euphemistically because there are probably boxes and boxes
and boxes, but every case file has boxes of memos, evidence, pleadings, drafts, memos,

(05:02):
inter office memos, memos back and forth to the Attorney General,
maybe even to the President who knows, maybe to the
chief of staff or whoever was you know, running the
presidency during Biden's term. Where's the updated report? Because he
was supposed to be frequently, I don't remember how often,

(05:24):
but he was supposed to be telling Congress while he
was spending the money on But apparently nobody was conducting
any real oversight either at the DOJ or at DUS Congress.
They were just signing the checks. Oh, Jack Smith needs
you know, ten million dollars this month. Okay, we'll send
it to him. There you have a former president with

(05:49):
no executive privilege concerns whatsoever. Of course, Jack Smith getting
that rubber stamp by Beryl Holle. That's the Obama appointed
chief judge who not only, for example, for Twitter to
turn over all the president's Twitter data, but also find
Elon must three hundred and fifty thousand dollars for an
alleged fifty one hour delay in producing that material on

(06:11):
the docket, the data that they just arbitrarily set this
immediate deadline to do that. And then you can't just
meet the arbitrary deadline because you've got to you've got
to collect, you've got to find the data, and you've
got to scrub the data to make sure that you're
not disclosing something that isn't included, or you're making sure
that you're covering everything that should be included, and must

(06:33):
gets fined more than a quarter of a million dollars
for a fifty one hour delay. This is the same
Jack Smith that conducted the entire documents case in Washington,
d C. So he could get every favorable outcome that
he wanted, including from Beryl hell all the grand jury witnesses,

(06:57):
all the testimony, all the spreen is that he wanted.
He did in Washington, and then at the last minute
he decided to go to southern Florida to get the
indictment because he knew he was not going to get
the same sort of outcomes in Southern Florida that he
was getting in d C. That to me almost appears

(07:18):
to be an abuse of the grand jury process.

Speaker 3 (07:22):
I don't thing anybody cares about that either.

Speaker 2 (07:25):
The same Jack Smith who made up along with Beryl
Hall once again, the same federal judge. These two were
quite the pair of the same barrel. Hall, who at
Jack Smith's insistence, believed or claimed or led to that
Donald Trump and his lawyer that there was proof of
a crime between Donald Trump and his lawyer in the
document's case. You remember how quickly we forget that Evan

(07:47):
corkran the lawyer to enable or justify in any way
Beryl hel piercing that attorney client privilege with the former
president to turn over communications for an en investigation in
the government papers. So no, I'm not shocked, but I
am pissed off that anyone is shocked, especially these dumb

(08:09):
ass members of Congress. But the best thing is it's
on their doorstep now. Yes, all the abuses of Jack Smith.
As Reverend Wright once said, the kickens have come holding
to roost. And guess where they landed? The steps of
the United States Congress, on the steps of a bunch

(08:31):
of Republicans, at least eight US Senators that I know
of so far, that they were actually collecting cell phone data,
tracking data, doing all of this for those eight. Now,
what are you going to do? Oh, I know you're
gonna hold up. You know, I can't wait. To'll be
a press conference, You'll talk about your outrage, You'll talk
about the abuse of power. Blah blah blah blah blah

(08:51):
blah blah.

Speaker 3 (08:51):
What are you going to do? What are you gonna do?

Speaker 2 (09:00):
They weren't just looking in their review rearview mirror, so
to speak, of poor Donald Trump and his lawyers and
his people who were being ensnared and tormented by Jack Smith.
But that's exactly what was going on. But it's also
a very useful reminder as to what was going on

(09:21):
to you know, to come of a Kamala Harris presidency,
for example, not just the continued pursuit that would continue,
probably successful at least in Washington, pursuits for Donald Trump
to put him behind bars, but also to ensnare his advisers.
You saw this with the Tom Hoeman FBI set up

(09:42):
that they put together in September of twenty twenty four,
and members of Congress, including US senators. Just think for
a minute, if she would have won, if Kamala Harris
would have won, you have had a Department of Justice
led by oh say Lisa Monico, Matthew Graves, anyone Salli
yates what that would have meant for the president's family

(10:04):
or is as associates, for the Republican lawmakers, and of
course for the country in total. So I want to
see what they're going to do now. Fifty million dollars
that they signed off on, they were writing the checks.
Now we find out they've been spied on, and now
they're mad again. Me Oh, I'm I'm sure, mark my words.

(10:27):
There will be a lot of harshly worded letters flying
here and there. They'll be sending letters to Pam Bondi,
They'll be sending letters to you know, Cash Ptel, to
dot Dan Bongino. They'll be sending letters left and right.
They'll be demanding of you know whatever, you know. The
They'll be sending letters to Chairman Grassley of the Judiciary
Committee for an investigation and oversight. Okay, send all the

(10:53):
letters you want. I'm still waiting for some sort of action,
some sort of criminal liability that is well deserved against
Jack Smith and his team. How about if we don't
want to do any sort of lawsuits, how about we
just do something. Oh, I don't know. We we go
after his bar license. Somebody go fire a file a

(11:16):
bar complaint for breaking the law, or at least trying
to find out under what authority that he ensnare eight
United States senators. But you know, I guess we've we've
been to this Broadway play before and we've seen that.
Oh yeah, you know, we find out that Obama spies

(11:37):
on Congress, we find out that they have you know,
hacked into their computers. We find out, we find out that,
you know, it's spy on spy, spy versus spy. It's
Mad magazine all over again. I haven't now, honestly, I
haven't been. Let me pull over.

Speaker 3 (11:57):
I'm just curious what Drudge might say this morning. Well,
let's say we.

Speaker 2 (12:01):
Got a helicopter on a crash on a Sacramental highway.
Flight delays because of the shutdown Don's online. The Don's
online behavior grows increasingly odd. Health concerns, of course, that
we're going to raise that Trump invades Illinois. Oh, He's
invade Illinois. State sues, Insurrection Act, next, teacher's plot, resistance morale,

(12:24):
lowitt agencies still Jane Goodall still on there, Threats against sorrows.
I'm just looking to see if I can find anything
anywhere about Nope, nothing on the Drudge Report. Let's stroll

(12:45):
over to today's Wall Street Journal. Let's do a search
for Jack Smith saving find anything about Jack Smith's special council.
Hit search, Oh, we got it. Story from back in

(13:05):
January when Jack Smith says that Trump would have been
convicted in the election case. One from August. Oh here
September twenty two. Oh, no, that's really about Trump's Trump's
pressure campaign in the dut Department of Justice. Go back

(13:26):
to November. No, I don't see anything in the Wall
Street Journal either. This is big news, at least I
would think it was big news when you have a
special counsel whose very existence is constitutionally questionable, whether or

(13:47):
not he was authorized, and whether or not the president
or the Attorney General Merrick Garland had the authority to
appoint a special counsel in those two cases. So you
have dubious contutionality. And then on top of that, you
have the very fact now that he was oh spying

(14:08):
on and searching through the cell phone data. And I'm
not talking about the NSA. I'm not talking about the
CIA or the FBI. I'm talking about the Department of Justice,
and a special council operating separate and apart from them,
is now spying on us Senators. I don't find any

(14:29):
headlines anywhere Washington Post. Let's see what the Washington Post
has headlines. Trump's use of Guard Anniversary hamas Israel commemorates
a solemn day. Of course, how TikTok, oh TikTok has
the big news food critic, oh, food critic, judge and

(14:52):
coming case is known for spiring, but we'll get to
that later on. Uh. Trump presses the sanctuary cities to
work with isma fewer budget in the opinion pieces six
surgeon generals.

Speaker 3 (15:05):
Let's take a.

Speaker 2 (15:06):
Ride through Selina Zito's got to ride about a story
about going through a coal mine, Afghanistan's internet blackout. The
Washington Post doesn't even have anything. I guess my outrage
is misplaced. I guess my anger is misplaced that we

(15:27):
spend fifty million dollars and then we find out that
they're actually going in and they're looking at what's going
on with US senators in a case about documents, and
in the alternate slate of Elector's case, and nobody's covering it,

(15:48):
at least that I can find on a cursory review
this morning. This is the breakdown of the republic. This
is the breakdown of the rule of law. And once again,
now I'm not advocating political violence from you know, I'm
not talking about what we talked about in the first hour.
But you would think that even Chairman grass who's been

(16:10):
so good at taking the information that cash Ptel has
been able to disclose about FBI corruption and turn it
over to the Judiciary Committee and then have Chairman Grassley
release that information. I don't see anything about this. Am
I incorrectly outraged or upset that we have a rogue

(16:33):
special prosecutor spying on members of Congress? I would think
those eight would be upset. I mean, I'm surprised. I
haven't seen Lindsey Graham splashed all over every cable channel.
He can get on expressing his outraged about being spied
upon by a special counsel. Why the longer I thought

(17:00):
about this story, the more I came to the conclusion
that I'm pissed off. Why aren't they pissed off? Did
they know it? Were they complicit? Or is there something
else going on that they don't want us to know
about with regard to spying on eight members of the

(17:21):
United States Senate, I think the Founding Fathers would be upset.
At the top of the hour News, there is a
story about the Chicago School District coming to Colorado to
listen to the Cherry Creek School District talk about innovation
and education.

Speaker 3 (17:40):
Are you kidding me? It means that Colorado is giving
advice to other Blue states.

Speaker 4 (17:46):
That means we are the bottom of the Blue wild anyway,
It's terrible, especially in education.

Speaker 1 (17:52):
Have a wonderful Tuesday.

Speaker 2 (17:54):
When you're at a race to the bottom, you got
to catch up with that that's leading the pack and
Colorado's leading back.

Speaker 3 (18:01):
It's like golf, low score wins, that's right.

Speaker 2 (18:04):
That's right. So Chicago's just trying to find out our
secrets about how to get to the bottom faster. Saturday night,
Saturday night, not a Monday night, you know, not a
work week Saturday night. Federal District Judge Corine Emmigrant. Then,
before you get pissed off at her, which you will,

(18:27):
she's a twoenty nineteen Trump appointee for the District of Oregon.
You know where Portland is, not Maine, Oregon. She issued
a temporary straining order good for fourteen days that blocks
the federalization of two hundred members of the Oregon National Guard.

(18:49):
It also blocks the plans to use those troops to
support and supplement the efforts of ICE in Portland for
a sixty day defined period sixty days only hours after
she issued her order, the Department of Justice filed a
notice of appeal to the ninth Sergeit. Now, I want

(19:11):
to make a point at the outset, and I think
it's crucial to understand, in my view, when a federal
trial judge is evaluating the discretionary decision making of inferior
executive branch officials with regard to how they carry out

(19:31):
their duties. In other words, how, for example, a ICE
or a National Guardsman might carry out their duties, the
entire spectrum of judicial authority is in play. As provided
by case law and the rules imposed on both by Congress.

(19:53):
But when a federal district judge, now remember we talked yesterday,
These trial judges are teat of statute. Their article, they're
called Article three courts. If you look at the US Constitution,
Article three, which is which is which establishes the U. S.
Supreme Court says, and as many other unfair phrasing. But

(20:18):
such other courts as Congress may from time to time
deem appropriate or necessary. So a federal district trial judge
is a creature of statute, is a creature of Congress,
created by Congress, and it has no more authority. She
has no more authority than the authority given to her

(20:41):
or him by Congress.

Speaker 3 (20:44):
So when that.

Speaker 2 (20:45):
Federal district judge starts to substitute their judgment for that
of the elected executive, which by the way, is a
constitutional office, that's Article two, that has an an independent
authority to interpret the Constitution and statutes passed by.

Speaker 3 (21:04):
Congress, that single functionary.

Speaker 2 (21:07):
Of the judicial branch has touched a live wire, a
live hot wire of the separation of powers. This judge
wrote a thirty one page opinion, and that opinion leans
almost entirely on a previous Ninth Circuit decision in a

(21:28):
case called Newsom versus Trump. That case was only decided
back on June nineteenth, and that decision granted a Department
of Justice motion for an emergency stay of a temporary
restraining order issued by that San Francisco federal judge who

(21:49):
came to the same conclusions as Judge Immigrant Immigrant. That
judge in San Francisco we talked about this last week
held that Trump's call up the California National Guard was
unlawful almost for all the same reasons that Judge Immergut
in her decision writes about. But what Judge Immergut did

(22:12):
was to take the specific shortcomings of Judge Brier, the
San Francisco judge, that were highlighted in Newsom Versus Trump,
and wrote her opinion so that it avoided the problems
that the Ninth Circuit found with Judge Brier's decision. You
don't have to be a legal brilliant legal scholar, and

(22:36):
no brilliant legal insights are necessary to do that. If
the Ninth Circuit says, I must find ABC to be true,
so I hereby determine on the facts presented to me
that ABC is true. You're simply almost cut and pasting
the Ninth Circuit's opinion to apply to your circumstances. And

(23:00):
I think that's what she was doing after granting the
stay on Judge Briar. That's the San Francisco judge, after
granting the stay on Judge Briar's temporary restraining order. Now
what do I mean granting a stay on the temporary
restraining order? So if if Judge Briar enters, if the

(23:20):
San Francisco Judge enters a temporary restraining order and the
Ninth Circuit stays that, it means the Ninth Circuit says,
you cannot enforce that until we hear the case.

Speaker 3 (23:33):
And that's what they did.

Speaker 2 (23:35):
And then the Ninth Circuit set the case for a
full briefing schedule to be followed up probably by oral
arguments before the same three judge panel who handled the stay.
The Department of Justice opening brief was filed in July

(23:55):
twenty second. The opposition brief filed by Newsom appeared on
September third, and then the reply to the Newsom brief
was filed September twenty third. I point that out so
that you understand that the briefing on the actual appeal
in Newsom versus Trump was completed just two weeks ago.

(24:18):
Just the briefing. Now, whether or not another oral argument
is necessary, well, that's up to the Ninth Circuit panel
that's considering that particular appeal.

Speaker 3 (24:28):
Now.

Speaker 2 (24:28):
In addition, back on July eleventh, there was a docket
entry that just means the judge made the judge told
the clerk make a notation on the docket, and that
docket entry noted that a single judge of the Ninth
Circuit had called for a vote of all of the

(24:49):
full time judges as to whether the order granting the
state should be reviewed by the on bunk court, meaning
the entire Ninth Circuit, not just a three judge panel
in the Ninth Circuit. That actually means a panel of
eleven Circuit judges, because there are eleven judges in the
Ninth Circuit, So that means that a panel of eleven

(25:10):
judges would rehear the case and decided anew Now, so
far as I could tell from the docket of that case,
the outcome of that vote has not yet been published.
So for now, the decision relied upon by this judge
in Oregon remains good law, but it could change at
any moment based upon the entire Eleventh Circuit decision, which

(25:36):
could come about any day, but which has not come
about yet. So she's relying on and she's on some
solid legal ground because until the Eleventh Circuit either reverses
or upholds the original decision to stay that temporary restraining order,

(25:57):
that means that that final decision is sort of final,
if I could use those terms, it's sort of final
until the entire eleven panel judge judges of the of
the Ninth Circuit make their decision, which could uphold it
or could reverse it, or it could uphold the part

(26:18):
and reverse in part.

Speaker 3 (26:20):
They could do any number of things.

Speaker 2 (26:23):
Before getting to the key parts of Trump newsom versus
Trump opinion, which is the one that Judge Emmergut in
Oregon relied on. I think it's worth you understanding issues
involved in the dispute over presidential authority to call it
the national guard that's granted to him by Congress by

(26:45):
statute in ten US Code section twelve four oh six.
Here's the text of twelve four to oh six in
its entirety. Just let me read you a statute whenever
the United States or any of the commonwealth or possessions
is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a

(27:08):
foreign nation.

Speaker 3 (27:10):
Number one. Number two.

Speaker 2 (27:12):
Whenever there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion
against the authority of the government of the United States,
that's number two or number three. Whenever the President is
unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of
the United States, then the President may call into federal
service members and units of the National Guard of any state,

(27:36):
in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion,
suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these
purposes shall be issued through the governors of the states, or,
in the case of the District of Columbia, through the
Commanding General of the National Guard of the District of Columbia. Now,

(28:00):
as was true in the California case Newsom versus Trump
only sub paragraph three is the part of the statute
at issue. Again, let me tell you what it says.
Whenever the President is unable with the regular forces to
execute the laws of the United States, he can call

(28:23):
into Federal Service members and units of the National Guard
of any state in such numbers as he considers necessary
to execute those laws. In his decision that President Trump
had not properly invoked that provision, the judge in San

(28:44):
Francisco simply just dismissed the views of the executive on
whether the conditions the exegent the required conditions existed. What
he did was he substituted his own conclusions with respect
to the situation on the ground in southern California on
the issue of whether regular forces were sufficient to execute

(29:07):
the immigration laws, as well as determining that the order
to call off the California National Guard had not probably
been quote issued through the office of the California Governor
Gavin Newsom. The Ninth Circuit's opinion granting the stay of
the San Francisco's temporary restraining order made a certain observation

(29:30):
about that section I just read you and the president's
authority to invoke its provision on it as a basis
to federalized States National Guard. When we get back, let
me tell you what the Ninth Circuit opinion says about
that issue.

Speaker 4 (29:45):
Next, Michael, I heard your comment that we have three
branches of government, and the judge that stopped President Trump
from bringing the National Guard troops to Portland is one
branch of government. But how does one judge have the
same power as the president of the United States.

Speaker 2 (30:08):
Can we reserve the answer to that question to after
the top of the hour because I answered that earlier,
but I obviously used too much legal ees, So let
me describe that when we get back, because I'm not
gonna be able to finish this in this segment. But

(30:29):
rather than I told you, I was going to tell
you exactly what the Ninth Circuit wrote, but I think
based on that, let me paraphrase it and said. What
the Ninth Circuit opinion said was that California concedes that
the National Guard members, if validly federalized, may be deployed

(30:52):
to protect federal personnel and federal property. The District Court
in San Francisco determined that California presented zero evidence at
the hearing on the restraining order that National Guard members
were engaged in any other activities other than being deployed

(31:12):
to protect federal personnel and property, and that California did
not contest that determination.

Speaker 3 (31:20):
In other words, the Ninth Circuit.

Speaker 2 (31:22):
Opinion that the three panel judge that did the original
opinion said, wait a minute, you're not contesting that they're
doing anything other than what they're allowed to do under
the statute. And you're not even contesting that they were
federalized as they are allowed to do under the statute.

(31:43):
And you did not contest any of those determinations, which
is why they stayed or set aside the restraining order
from the judge in San Francisco. Now this is significant
because among the key distinctions in between the California case
and the Oregon case is this, in Oregon, the National

(32:06):
Guard has not even been deployed yet. In other words,
a federal trial judge before anything's even happened. The only
thing that's happened is they were federalized by an order
from the Secretary of War Pete Hegsath on September twenty eight.

(32:29):
But at least as far as I can tell right now,
they're only just now beginning to specialized training for possible
deployment so that they know how to integrate with and
help ICE do their job in Oregon. In other words,
they're still on base, they're still through HQ, they're still

(32:52):
going through the specialized training. They've only been activated. They
haven't technically been deployed into the field yet and yet
this judge is already saying you.

Speaker 3 (33:05):
Can't do that. Well, how do you even know what
they're being trained to do? How do you even know
what the order is about?

Speaker 2 (33:11):
Once they get into let's say Portland, what are they
actually doing? She jumped the gun. But let's go back
to your question about Wait a minute, she's a Article
three judge. How does she have this power? It's a
great question.