Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael and Dragon.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You have no idea this satisfaction I got a month
ago when I bought a new red Tesla and drove
by and screamed maga at all the losers protesting outside.
It probably was one sixteenth of how Trump feels every night.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Now, did you buy the Tesla because of Musk? Were
you going to buy one before? And are you weren't
going to buy one? And then you decided to buy one?
We need we need details, We need details the ongoing battle,
and it is a battle over Trump's wartime invocation of
(00:47):
migrant laws. It takes on new significance when viewed when
you view it through the perspective of the political norms
that we've been living in, which is non enforcement versus
voter expectations, which is enforcement. I completely missed this press
(01:11):
conference from a couple of months ago, and it's resurfaced
because last night I was digging in trying to find
out more about the Alien Enemies Act and all of that,
and I ran across elon Omar holding this press conference,
which is pretty astounding when you hear it.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Good afternoon, everyone, Thank you all for joining us. First,
I want to thank my partner in this Senator, I.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Should point out they're studying in front of a sign
that says neighbors, not enemies.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Herono for her leadership in this work to repeal the
outdated and dangerous Alien Enemies Act of.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
Seventeen ninety eight.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, it
was used to detain and deport German Japanese Italian immigrants
doing World War eleven.
Speaker 5 (02:22):
I must not. I must you going to sleep for
a while?
Speaker 1 (02:25):
You did? You slept last night, didn't you?
Speaker 5 (02:27):
And I missed World War three through World War ten?
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Yes, you did. They were short lived, but nonetheless they
were they were they were pretty vicious. I think it
probably woke me up a couple of times last night.
Speaker 5 (02:44):
I mean, I know she's reading is WWII, so she's but.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
She has no freaking idea about American history. Speaking of
alien enemy, I'm pretty close to saying that omar happens.
Probably that's that category.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Ben Japanese Italian immigrants doing World War eleven two, one
of the most shameful chapters of American history. Now Stephen
Miller and Donald Trump are preparing to dust off the
law for their.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
Plan for mass deportation.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
This will be another moral stain on our country. The
context in which Trump and Miller are raising the Alien
Enemy Act is in what they say are their plans
to target cartels and transnational criminal gangs. But it is
not what the Alien Enemies Act does.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
I wonder if she's read the Supreme Court case that
involved the German that I told you about yesterday. I
wonder if she's read that one right. Maybe maybe it's
Saturday went through that case over the one of the
past two days.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
I gone over that case the Alien Enemy.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
The point is, I don't think she has it.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Act targets people based on their nationality, not based on
their behavior. When Trump and Miller tell you this is
about stopping the cartels, do not believe them.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Okay, this could take another four hours to go through.
She clearly has not read the Act. I'm not quite
sure that nationality is the nexus by which a decision
is made. It has more to do with your activities
(04:47):
now nationally can obviously, because you can't be an American.
You can't be a US born citizen or a naturalized
citizen and be subject to the Alien Enemies Act. You
could be a Green card holder. If he's a cardholder
and be in this country and be subject to it.
(05:07):
I don't think she comprehends that either do not.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
It doesn't allow them to target the Trende Agua. It
allows them to target all Venezuelans.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
It does not.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
So is she saying that she doesn't want Trendo Arragua targeted.
I'm truly I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'm
fascinated and confused at the same time, which is not
unusual for me to be perplexed by their seeming support.
We don't trend to Arragua is I never thought that
(05:44):
there would be a gang worse than MS thirteen. I
never thought there would be a group of people that
were more cruel vicious than the Mexican drug cartels until
I started reading about Trendo Arragua. This is who they're defending.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Allow them to target the all cartel, It allows them
to target all Mexicans, This includes green card holders, it includes.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Yeah, that's about the court said, yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
People who are themselves a victim of the cartels and games.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Now, I I had no clue she gets that point,
none at all.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
Invoking the Alien Enemy Act the way Trump and Miller
are planning to is illegal, it's unconstitutional.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
It's a huge stretch under the law itself.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
But if there is one thing that we should have.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Learned doing Trump's first term.
Speaker 3 (06:46):
In office is that things being illegal doesn't mean they
are not going to happen. So we need to be
clear about what this will mean for human beings.
Speaker 5 (06:59):
I'm I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I have to,
he whispers in.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
My year, I'm going to do you want to cut in?
Speaker 5 (07:06):
Okay, can you please replay the beginning of that video.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Let me see where romance. Okay, all right, it's where.
Speaker 5 (07:16):
She was talking about the the Alien Enemies Act and.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Get afternoon everyone, Thank you all for joining us. First,
I want to thank my partner in this, Senator Herono,
for her leadership in this work to repeal the outdated
and dangerous Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Of seventeen ninety eight.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, it
was used to detain and deport German Japanese Italian immigrants
doing World War eleven O two.
Speaker 4 (07:56):
One of them.
Speaker 6 (07:57):
You can stop it there.
Speaker 5 (07:59):
So I was trying to find this video so that
I could post it to Michael says, go here from.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Forbes State of January twenty two.
Speaker 6 (08:08):
You know I would.
Speaker 5 (08:09):
I went directly to the source. I went to rep
ill hand at Instagram Instagram page right, So it's like, okay,
this would be great. It's easy for me to post
Instagram on on Michael says go here dot com because
it posts and needs the videos right there. You don't
have to go through any links or anything, so it's
(08:29):
very simple. So I was just trying to follow along
and make sure that I have.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
The right video.
Speaker 5 (08:34):
And here is what was posted to rep ill hand page.
Oh play, damn you.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
In this work to repeal the outdated and dangerous Alien
Enemies Act of seventeen ninety eight. The last time the
Alien Enemies Act was in it was used to detain
and more German, Japanese Italian immigrants doing.
Speaker 6 (09:07):
World War Two, one of the most.
Speaker 4 (09:10):
Shameful chapters of American history.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Really huh strange, huh mistake.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
And it's a video so you can clearly see the cut.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Oh really, yeah.
Speaker 5 (09:26):
I'll post that to Michael saysco here.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
That's a good that's I'm sorry.
Speaker 5 (09:31):
I had to interrupt and be like, hey, this is just.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
That's too good. That's too good. That's too good.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
It's illegal, it's unconstitutional. It's a huge stretch under the
law itself.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
But if there is one thing that we should have
learned doing Trump's first term in office is that things
being illegal doesn't mean they are not going to happen.
So we need to be clear about what this will
mean for human beings in this country. Thousands of families
(10:06):
will have their lives upended because of Donald Trump's actions.
Thousands of families will be separated from the ones they
love and the country they love, and thousands of families
will have their futures and.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Dreams torn apart.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
It's crucial to understand this basic moral point. This will
not happen because of anything they have.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
This one mistake is stopping from losing. I just accently
touched and it took me straight to you too. Dragon
was trying to get it. Let me go back to
the original.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
It will happen because of where they are from. It
is hard to imagine anything more an American than that
the Tarrm Administration's immigration policy is a threat to immigrants
like criminals. America is too great to fall prey to
(11:06):
Donald Trump's anti immigrant agenda. We need to restore basic
humanity to our immigration system, and that starts with repealing
the Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Of seventeen ninety eight.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
With our Neighbors Not Enemies Act, together, we will end
this synophobic law once and for all.
Speaker 4 (11:28):
Thank you, and that's enough.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
So here's from Politico. Trump's challenge to the authority of
Congress and the courts has increased in velocity and in
intensity in recent days. It reached a crescendo, they write
this weekend, when Trump invoked wartime powers to summarily deport
Venezuelan nationals if he deems to be terrorists, and his
White House amplified a foreign strong man's mockery of the
(11:52):
judge who tried to pause the deportations. That skirmish political
rights was only the latest inmim increasingly ominous confrontation between
Trump's White House and the other two constitutional branches. In short,
the most significant test of America's system of checks and
balances in Trump's second term has now arrived, and the
(12:13):
outcome is less certain than ever. This latest collision between
Trump and the judicial branch, in which the White House
and its allies are openly assailing the judge weighing the
validity of Trump's orders is is a more intense version
of the clashes that have steaming his administration since inauguration day.
Judges aught have sought to slow or stop some of
(12:37):
Trump and Musk's effort. Gotta throw in Musk their efforts
to overhaul the federal bureaucracy and the workforce, saying they
have run a foul of Congress's suspending authority and laws
governing hiring and firing and federal workers. And he goes
on to talk about judges in recent weeks of blocked.
You know, things about birthright, citizenship, care for transgender youth,
(12:57):
fired members of the federal board, blah blah blah. The
White House they ride has brushed off its critics as
partisan doomsayers who, if they had their way, would see
dangerous criminals return to the country. Officials argue the administration
has scrupulously adhered to court orders, even as they have
publicly attack the judges who rule against them. So, now
(13:21):
wait a minute, so you can't attack a judge. Now.
It may not be good, it may not be a
good legal maneuver to piss off a trial judge, but
you're an equal branch of government. They constantly attack Congress.
Congress constantly attacks the administration, So why can't you criticize
(13:46):
a judge which leads me to what is probably musty
TV Stephen Miller CNN mentioned by her taking on the
Alien Enemies Act, Well.
Speaker 7 (14:02):
The judges order just earlier today quote patently unlawful end quote,
and said that it was an assault on democracy itself.
Speaker 6 (14:11):
Does that mean that the administration.
Speaker 7 (14:16):
Ignoring this order and might you ignore future court orders
that meet the criteria you laid out?
Speaker 8 (14:24):
The President of the United States and his administration reserve
all rights under the Constitution to conduct national security operations
and defense the United States. The Alien Enemies Act, which
was passed into law by the founding generation of these countries,
men like John Adams, was written explicitly to give the
(14:46):
President the authority to repel an alien invasion of the
United States. That is not something that a district court
judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin,
to restrict, or to restrain anyway. You can read the
law yourself. There's no one clause in that law that
makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review.
Speaker 7 (15:10):
So Stephen, when you say that this person has no
authority at all.
Speaker 6 (15:15):
This is how our system works. It starts with these.
Speaker 7 (15:18):
Judges and then continues up. At what point does it become,
in your view, legal for the justice system to be
looking at this and making a judgment. And I feel
to see how there's any other way but to start
with where we're starting here before you get to eventually
the Supreme Court.
Speaker 8 (15:37):
Well, so first of all, there's a there's a term
in law judicible. This is not juicible. In other words,
this is not subject to judicial remedy. When the president
is exercising his Article two powers to defend the country
against an invasion or to repel foreign terrorist that is
unlawfully in the country, he's exercising his core Article two
powers as commander in chielat the This is this is
(16:01):
a very important point. This is a title fifty authority.
It's a commander in chief authority. So, just to ask
you a simple question, you talk about how the system works.
Does a district court judge have the right to direct
or enjoy troop movements overseas?
Speaker 6 (16:16):
Yes or no? Well, Stephen, my question, I don't know
answer question.
Speaker 5 (16:21):
Venezuela.
Speaker 7 (16:22):
It's Venezuela invading our country in.
Speaker 8 (16:24):
A way that would so under the all answer is
and you'll answer mind.
Speaker 6 (16:28):
Under the terms of the.
Speaker 8 (16:29):
Statute, trained der Wagua is an alien enemy force that
has come here, as detailed at length in the proclamation,
at the direction of the Venezuelan government. The statute says
that a president has the ability to repel an invasion
or predatory incursion.
Speaker 6 (16:49):
That is directed by a state or a government. Right,
this would be yes. It is.
Speaker 8 (16:54):
It is documented the that TDA was sent by the
Venezuelan government in the proclamation.
Speaker 6 (16:59):
And here's even more important point under.
Speaker 8 (17:01):
The constitution, who makes that determination? Hey, dis your court
judge lucky by no one or the commander in chief
of the Army and Navy.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
And this will continue next he makes a very silly point.
She misses it.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
Hey, South Dakota, it's Alaska. Funny story.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
It sounds like Michael thinks that we leave.
Speaker 4 (17:31):
These talkbacks for him.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
It's adorable. You and my daughter and son in law
were just up in Alaska. Should have had them. Look
up girl dad, make girl Dad buy them dinners.
Speaker 5 (17:47):
Yeah, girl Dad only leaves the talkback so that he
can hear himself on a radio station that he wished
he worked.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
On exactly exactly.
Speaker 5 (17:54):
I can't speak for everybody else but for a girl
much fact.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
Right, and if he were working here he would be
less danger to the country. Then what he's doing he's
actually doing right. Back to Stephen Miller, uh, he and
CNN are having a difficult time.
Speaker 8 (18:15):
The president and the president is the decision of what
triggers that.
Speaker 7 (18:19):
I think they are actually at war with Venezuela, that
nations Zuela.
Speaker 6 (18:23):
You're not hearing me and you're not understanding me. Freed.
Speaker 8 (18:26):
The Statute Alien Enemies Act seventy ninety eight. It says
if a predatory incursion is perpetrated by a foreign government,
so it lists a three three qualifying actions would be
an act.
Speaker 6 (18:40):
Doesn't say in.
Speaker 7 (18:41):
The very again, there has to be declared war against
the nation or estate.
Speaker 6 (18:45):
That's what it's say wrong.
Speaker 8 (18:47):
Look up the statutes on my account on social media
where we found it. The yes, it says, or a
predatory incursion or an invasion. The statute delineates three criteria
for triggering in the Only Enemies Act. One is a
act of war, which, by the way, innovasion is an
active war.
Speaker 6 (19:07):
But put that aside.
Speaker 8 (19:08):
One is an invasion, which this is. One is a
predatory incursion, which this is. So it actually meets all
three statutory criteria. But with respect to this particular statute,
it's the proclamation is utilizing the incursion and invasion language
in the statute. But that's a very important question, because no, no, no,
hold on this is a very important question.
Speaker 6 (19:29):
You said.
Speaker 8 (19:29):
The way our system works is the president of the
United States commands the armed forces of the country, commands
the foreign policy of the country, and that's subject to
just your court review.
Speaker 6 (19:39):
That is I said, never been true.
Speaker 7 (19:44):
This was not a military operation.
Speaker 8 (19:45):
I mean, the district court judge can no more enjoin
the expulsion of foreign terrorists to foreign soil that he
can direct the movement of air force one, that he
can direct the movement of an aircraft carrier, then he
can direct Marco Rubio.
Speaker 6 (20:00):
Okay, do you.
Speaker 7 (20:02):
Say over this or not, Like if does the Supreme
Court the United States have any say over the things
that you are just outlining right here.
Speaker 8 (20:08):
I believe what the Supreme Court will say is what
I just said, which is that the president's conduct here
is not subject to do.
Speaker 6 (20:13):
You are acknowledging the plan.
Speaker 7 (20:15):
In fact, you have to say here, well, even though
you think they may agree with you, what.
Speaker 8 (20:19):
We are expecting is the Supreme Court to say what
has always been the case, which is, when the president
is using his powers as commander in chief, those determinations
are not subject to judicial review. In other words, the
president's designation of trend Deri Wagua as a foreign terrorist
organization and as an alien enemy are part of his
(20:40):
inherent plenary authority.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Now here's I want to emphasize something here that he's
explaining quite well, but it's easy to fly over your head.
She's in her mind. She's saying, but wait a minute,
we have what she I think is thinking of judicial review.
He's saying, there are things that are justiciable, which means
(21:03):
they are subject to judicial review, and those things which
are not justiciable subject to judicial review. And foreign policy
and dealing with foreign terrorists is something that is not
subject to judicial review. Now they're acting on that well founded,
(21:23):
long held principle. That's what they're doing. They're not gonna
they're not going to say, okay, well, we're gonna stop
everything we're doing right now and wait for this Appeals
from the from the temporary restraining order of the trial
court to eventually over. I don't know. Maybe the Supreme
Court would take it up on an emergency appeal and
hear it next week. But we're not going to conduct
(21:45):
a military operation waiting on the court to tell us
what we can do or cannot do, because it is
not justiciable. That is a long held principle about the
separation of powers in this country. Now, you can argue
all day long all you want to about the meaning
of the words in the Alien Enemies Act, and that's fine,
(22:07):
that's a great that's a great academic thing to go through,
but it doesn't make it reviewable by the court. And
so if you want to do what she wants to do,
then you would stop everything. I mean, and he's making
a great point. He can't direct a trial judge, cannot
direct the movement of a ship. He cannot direct the
(22:30):
movement of Air Force one. He cannot direct those things
which are inherently executive power reserved to the president. Go
look at Title fifty. Those are things that are inherently
executive power actions. But she wants to She doesn't grasp
(22:53):
the concept of the separation of powers. She doesn't grasp
the concept that here you had you had the Madial
region actively engaged in sending Trenda Aragua to this country.
We had on behalf of the State Department, actual negotiations
going on with both El Salvador and I think this
(23:15):
is where I got Guatemala going on with El Salvador,
where they eventually went Guatemala and Venezuela. It wasn't directly
with Maduro, it was with representatives of Maduro. So we're
negotiating with a foreign government representatives of a foreign government.
Does this judge think he has the authority to stop
(23:37):
those negotiations?
Speaker 6 (23:38):
No?
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Do you think, let's put it in a really simple
vernacular of current events, do you think that this judge
has the authority to tell Marco Rubio, or or with
Law for anybody else that's negotiations with Hamas or Russia
or anybody else, that hey, you can't you can or
cannot do this. You'd look at me and sounds crazy. Well,
(24:02):
he's trying to explain to her that she's crazy. This
anchor is simply not prepared for this because they can't
get it out of their thick head that this is
not a judicisiable issue.
Speaker 6 (24:15):
There is no way. There is no way.
Speaker 8 (24:18):
Are you how are you going to expel a legal
alien invaders from our country who are raping little girls,
who are murdering little girls If each and every deportation
has to be adjudicated and a distort court judge, and
that means you have no country, It means you have
no sovereignty.
Speaker 6 (24:36):
It means you have no future.
Speaker 8 (24:37):
It is fundamentally incompatible to have a country and have
individual expulsions adjudicated by a single disian court judge.
Speaker 7 (24:44):
I'm just trying to figure out out the system, do you,
because what does the Trump administration believe, because we do
have separation of powers in this country.
Speaker 6 (24:53):
I hear what you're saying.
Speaker 8 (24:54):
Yes, power does not be judiciary are interfearing even let
me finish the executive func.
Speaker 6 (25:00):
This is the separation of powers.
Speaker 7 (25:02):
That is the state to ignore the judge's order here because.
Speaker 6 (25:06):
You thought you could.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
So.
Speaker 8 (25:09):
The judge's order and the action is taken by the
Departments of the Defense, Justice and Homeland Security are not
in conflict. And the Department just has been clear that
they are not in conflict.
Speaker 6 (25:19):
But do you think that you.
Speaker 7 (25:20):
Did go along with the order that the judge put out.
You do not think that the Trump administration.
Speaker 8 (25:24):
This order, as the Justice Department said, there's no conflict
between the judge's order and the action is taken by
the departments I just listed. But I'm making a deeper
and more fundamental point the district if you know, the
district court has no ability to in any way restrain
the President's authorities under the Alien Enemies Act, or is
(25:45):
it a believed to conduct the foreign afairs of the
United States.
Speaker 6 (25:47):
Let me pay a picture for you.
Speaker 8 (25:49):
President Trump and Secretary of State Mark or Rupil had
engaged in intensive diplomacy to obtain a bilateral security agreement
with the nation of El Salvador. If a district court judge, so,
can you join that bilateral security agreement again, then we
do not have foreign policy.
Speaker 6 (26:08):
We heard you say this. Did did you ignore that?
Speaker 7 (26:13):
Did the administration ignore the order from the district judge?
Speaker 8 (26:17):
Question?
Speaker 6 (26:18):
I've answered, and I've answered it.
Speaker 8 (26:20):
I've answered it because this the department has made a
filing in the court.
Speaker 6 (26:23):
But let him make another point.
Speaker 8 (26:26):
The judge in this case put the lives of every
single person on those aircraft at risk. Did he know
how much fuels in those planes? Did he know the
flight conditions? Did he know the weather conditions? Did he
know how many crew hours? Did he know the need
for crew rest? Did he know any of that?
Speaker 6 (26:41):
No, this judge violated the law. He violated the constitution.
So unified the government that we have in.
Speaker 7 (26:48):
This country, because that does seem to arguing the same.
Speaker 8 (26:51):
The same district court judges didn't do a damn thing
to stop Joe Biden from.
Speaker 6 (26:56):
Flooding this nation with millions of the aliens?
Speaker 8 (26:59):
Did these district court judges didn't issue any injunctions to
save the lives of Josh.
Speaker 6 (27:05):
Or any fal courts? Is that what you're saying.
Speaker 8 (27:08):
What I'm saying is that what you said, there's a
separation of powers the judiciary exercises.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
See here's where she Here's where she gets wound around
the around the axle. She doesn't truly understand separation of powers,
and she truly doesn't understand that there are some things
which is very difficult, I think for many Americans to
understand that the president is simply not subject to judicial review. Now,
(27:39):
as I've said many times, that doesn't preclude somebody from
running to a courthouse and following a petition for a
temporary restraining order or an injunction. But just because they
do that does not mean that the president cannot continue
with his executive power doing what he's doing. Now, she
wants to put it in the vernacular of does that
mean he's ignoring that the president is ignoring the court. No,
(28:02):
we'll go we'll go over there and we'll file a response,
and we'll do all of that, but we're not going
to stop doing what we're doing over here because that's
solely within our authority to do. So. Oh, we'll still
go litigate it because we want to prove our point.
She just cannot comprehend that Article two reserves certain authority
(28:26):
to the president. You know, I don't. I don't want
to confuse it anymore. But it kind of goes to
the whole idea about even the War Powers Act. What
can the president do and what's Congress required to do?
So I'm gonna argue, and they do argue that you
(28:46):
can't even do what we're doing to defend ourselves in
the Middle East against the Hoho Thies without Congress declaring war.
But wait a minute, the president has the authority to
defend the country and to defend its assets without a
declaration of war. Our ships are attacked, we can fire
(29:08):
back and defend ourselves. Now, imagine if somebody said, oh,
that violates the War Powers Act, and so you cannot
do that. And let's say the same judge issued an
injunction or a tro that said no, you cannot defend
yourself against the Houthies. Now I find that incredible and unbelievable.
(29:28):
But it's the same thing he's doing here with Trenda Ragua.
You can't defend the country against these these foreign terrorist organizations,
which he has the right to determine that they are
a foreign terrorist organization. Nobody would think, well, I shouldn't
say that. CNN might think that if a judge ordered
(29:50):
a restraining order that says, oh, you can't attack the
Houthies because Congress hasn't declared war against the Houthies. I mean,
I think ninety nine point nine ninety nine I ain't
presented that. People would say, well, that's absurd. She can't
get beyond that.
Speaker 9 (30:04):
Come on, dude, she comprehends just fine. She's just trying
to sew the vision. The American media is the problem.
It is what it is okay the end.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
I agree. However, I do think she's kind of stupid.
I think she is. She's and this confirms your point.
She's trying to sell an unsellable point except for people
who are ignorant of how the law works, and that
is that this judge has no jurisdiction, so they can
(30:41):
go ahead and go argue that in court. But that
does not preclude Trump from doing what he believes is
necessary to secure the safety of the country. Again, it's
the Houthis are a great example. Would this judge issue
a tro that says, oh wait a minute, I'm not
sure that symath in your powers. I'm not sure you know.
(31:01):
Let let's talk about this. Do you think Trump would
stop attacking or defending the naval ships in the Red Sea? No,
not at all. So yesterday we had all these storms,
makes the national news. Everybody's all dither about the tornadoes
and storms and the wind, blah blah blah blah blah.
They're they're all concerned about nature. That's suddenly now a
(31:23):
big headline. And I knew this would happen. What are
they going to do? They're going to blame Trump for
cuts to FEMA and Noah, I give you CNN.
Speaker 7 (31:37):
The cuts to Noah and how they potentially already impacted
predicting the storms that we just talked about.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
Do you know how many private and public organizations there
are that do modeling and weather prediction? Hmmm? Have you
ever heard of the Weather Channel?
Speaker 5 (31:58):
Are you telling me that they were tornadoes in Oklahoma
and the tornado Alley?
Speaker 1 (32:03):
I am shock in the springtime too, imagine that?
Speaker 10 (32:07):
Yeah, Dan, Noah really truly is the invisible backbone of
everything that we consume. Not only are they responsible for
that's just.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Blatantly false, that's just a are they part of what
we consume? Absolutely? Are they the backbone? No, they're not
the backbone or.
Speaker 10 (32:27):
The availability of the weather and climate data that we
pass on to viewers, but also the infrastructure that helps
make that data available. Think about radar infrastructure, Think about
balloon launches that feed weather and climate models, Think about
the satellites that monitor our weather from space. We have
(32:48):
every kind of economic impact that Noah, the National Weather
Service actually touches, from agriculture to error transportation to commerce
to tourism. It is all dependent on the weather. And
if we start cutting back and rolling back this personnel,
there will be chaos, and the butterfly effects down the
road are yet to be determined.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
Really, just oh, the butterfly effect. A butterfly landed on
somebody's finger, Oh my gosh, it changes everything. Or the
butterfly got killed because a climate change and now everything's
going to change. Oh my god. See why I'm just
exhausted sometimes
Michael and Dragon.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
You have no idea this satisfaction I got a month
ago when I bought a new red Tesla and drove
by and screamed maga at all the losers protesting outside.
It probably was one sixteenth of how Trump feels every night.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Now, did you buy the Tesla because of Musk? Were
you going to buy one before? And are you weren't
going to buy one? And then you decided to buy one?
We need we need details, We need details the ongoing battle,
and it is a battle over Trump's wartime invocation of
(00:47):
migrant laws. It takes on new significance when viewed when
you view it through the perspective of the political norms
that we've been living in, which is non enforcement versus
voter expectations, which is enforcement. I completely missed this press
(01:11):
conference from a couple of months ago, and it's resurfaced
because last night I was digging in trying to find
out more about the Alien Enemies Act and all of that,
and I ran across elon Omar holding this press conference,
which is pretty astounding when you hear it.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Good afternoon, everyone, Thank you all for joining us. First,
I want to thank my partner in this Senator, I.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Should point out they're studying in front of a sign
that says neighbors, not enemies.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Herono for her leadership in this work to repeal the
outdated and dangerous Alien Enemies Act of.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
Seventeen ninety eight.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, it
was used to detain and deport German Japanese Italian immigrants
doing World War eleven.
Speaker 5 (02:22):
I must not. I must you going to sleep for
a while?
Speaker 1 (02:25):
You did? You slept last night, didn't you?
Speaker 5 (02:27):
And I missed World War three through World War ten?
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Yes, you did. They were short lived, but nonetheless they
were they were they were pretty vicious. I think it
probably woke me up a couple of times last night.
Speaker 5 (02:44):
I mean, I know she's reading is WWII, so she's but.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
She has no freaking idea about American history. Speaking of
alien enemy, I'm pretty close to saying that omar happens.
Probably that's that category.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Ben Japanese Italian immigrants doing World War eleven two, one
of the most shameful chapters of American history. Now Stephen
Miller and Donald Trump are preparing to dust off the
law for their.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
Plan for mass deportation.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
This will be another moral stain on our country. The
context in which Trump and Miller are raising the Alien
Enemy Act is in what they say are their plans
to target cartels and transnational criminal gangs. But it is
not what the Alien Enemies Act does.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
I wonder if she's read the Supreme Court case that
involved the German that I told you about yesterday. I
wonder if she's read that one right. Maybe maybe it's
Saturday went through that case over the one of the
past two days.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
I gone over that case the Alien Enemy.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
The point is, I don't think she has it.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Act targets people based on their nationality, not based on
their behavior. When Trump and Miller tell you this is
about stopping the cartels, do not believe them.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Okay, this could take another four hours to go through.
She clearly has not read the Act. I'm not quite
sure that nationality is the nexus by which a decision
is made. It has more to do with your activities
(04:47):
now nationally can obviously, because you can't be an American.
You can't be a US born citizen or a naturalized
citizen and be subject to the Alien Enemies Act. You
could be a Green card holder. If he's a cardholder
and be in this country and be subject to it.
(05:07):
I don't think she comprehends that either do not.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
It doesn't allow them to target the Trende Agua. It
allows them to target all Venezuelans.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
It does not.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
So is she saying that she doesn't want Trendo Arragua targeted.
I'm truly I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'm
fascinated and confused at the same time, which is not
unusual for me to be perplexed by their seeming support.
We don't trend to Arragua is I never thought that
(05:44):
there would be a gang worse than MS thirteen. I
never thought there would be a group of people that
were more cruel vicious than the Mexican drug cartels until
I started reading about Trendo Arragua. This is who they're defending.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Allow them to target the all cartel, It allows them
to target all Mexicans, This includes green card holders, it includes.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Yeah, that's about the court said, yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
People who are themselves a victim of the cartels and games.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Now, I I had no clue she gets that point,
none at all.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
Invoking the Alien Enemy Act the way Trump and Miller
are planning to is illegal, it's unconstitutional.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
It's a huge stretch under the law itself.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
But if there is one thing that we should have.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Learned doing Trump's first term.
Speaker 3 (06:46):
In office is that things being illegal doesn't mean they
are not going to happen. So we need to be
clear about what this will mean for human beings.
Speaker 5 (06:59):
I'm I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I have to,
he whispers in.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
My year, I'm going to do you want to cut in?
Speaker 5 (07:06):
Okay, can you please replay the beginning of that video.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Let me see where romance. Okay, all right, it's where.
Speaker 5 (07:16):
She was talking about the the Alien Enemies Act and.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Get afternoon everyone, Thank you all for joining us. First,
I want to thank my partner in this, Senator Herono,
for her leadership in this work to repeal the outdated
and dangerous Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Of seventeen ninety eight.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, it
was used to detain and deport German Japanese Italian immigrants
doing World War eleven O two.
Speaker 4 (07:56):
One of them.
Speaker 6 (07:57):
You can stop it there.
Speaker 5 (07:59):
So I was trying to find this video so that
I could post it to Michael says, go here from.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Forbes State of January twenty two.
Speaker 6 (08:08):
You know I would.
Speaker 5 (08:09):
I went directly to the source. I went to rep
ill hand at Instagram Instagram page right, So it's like, okay,
this would be great. It's easy for me to post
Instagram on on Michael says go here dot com because
it posts and needs the videos right there. You don't
have to go through any links or anything, so it's
(08:29):
very simple. So I was just trying to follow along
and make sure that I have.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
The right video.
Speaker 5 (08:34):
And here is what was posted to rep ill hand page.
Oh play, damn you.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
In this work to repeal the outdated and dangerous Alien
Enemies Act of seventeen ninety eight. The last time the
Alien Enemies Act was in it was used to detain
and more German, Japanese Italian immigrants doing.
Speaker 6 (09:07):
World War Two, one of the most.
Speaker 4 (09:10):
Shameful chapters of American history.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Really huh strange, huh mistake.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
And it's a video so you can clearly see the cut.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Oh really, yeah.
Speaker 5 (09:26):
I'll post that to Michael saysco here.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
That's a good that's I'm sorry.
Speaker 5 (09:31):
I had to interrupt and be like, hey, this is just.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
That's too good. That's too good. That's too good.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
It's illegal, it's unconstitutional. It's a huge stretch under the
law itself.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
But if there is one thing that we should have
learned doing Trump's first term in office is that things
being illegal doesn't mean they are not going to happen.
So we need to be clear about what this will
mean for human beings in this country. Thousands of families
(10:06):
will have their lives upended because of Donald Trump's actions.
Thousands of families will be separated from the ones they
love and the country they love, and thousands of families
will have their futures and.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Dreams torn apart.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
It's crucial to understand this basic moral point. This will
not happen because of anything they have.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
This one mistake is stopping from losing. I just accently
touched and it took me straight to you too. Dragon
was trying to get it. Let me go back to
the original.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
It will happen because of where they are from. It
is hard to imagine anything more an American than that
the Tarrm Administration's immigration policy is a threat to immigrants
like criminals. America is too great to fall prey to
(11:06):
Donald Trump's anti immigrant agenda. We need to restore basic
humanity to our immigration system, and that starts with repealing
the Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Of seventeen ninety eight.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
With our Neighbors Not Enemies Act, together, we will end
this synophobic law once and for all.
Speaker 4 (11:28):
Thank you, and that's enough.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
So here's from Politico. Trump's challenge to the authority of
Congress and the courts has increased in velocity and in
intensity in recent days. It reached a crescendo, they write
this weekend, when Trump invoked wartime powers to summarily deport
Venezuelan nationals if he deems to be terrorists, and his
White House amplified a foreign strong man's mockery of the
(11:52):
judge who tried to pause the deportations. That skirmish political
rights was only the latest inmim increasingly ominous confrontation between
Trump's White House and the other two constitutional branches. In short,
the most significant test of America's system of checks and
balances in Trump's second term has now arrived, and the
(12:13):
outcome is less certain than ever. This latest collision between
Trump and the judicial branch, in which the White House
and its allies are openly assailing the judge weighing the
validity of Trump's orders is is a more intense version
of the clashes that have steaming his administration since inauguration day.
Judges aught have sought to slow or stop some of
(12:37):
Trump and Musk's effort. Gotta throw in Musk their efforts
to overhaul the federal bureaucracy and the workforce, saying they
have run a foul of Congress's suspending authority and laws
governing hiring and firing and federal workers. And he goes
on to talk about judges in recent weeks of blocked.
You know, things about birthright, citizenship, care for transgender youth,
(12:57):
fired members of the federal board, blah blah blah. The
White House they ride has brushed off its critics as
partisan doomsayers who, if they had their way, would see
dangerous criminals return to the country. Officials argue the administration
has scrupulously adhered to court orders, even as they have
publicly attack the judges who rule against them. So, now
(13:21):
wait a minute, so you can't attack a judge. Now.
It may not be good, it may not be a
good legal maneuver to piss off a trial judge, but
you're an equal branch of government. They constantly attack Congress.
Congress constantly attacks the administration, So why can't you criticize
(13:46):
a judge which leads me to what is probably musty
TV Stephen Miller CNN mentioned by her taking on the
Alien Enemies Act, Well.
Speaker 7 (14:02):
The judges order just earlier today quote patently unlawful end quote,
and said that it was an assault on democracy itself.
Speaker 6 (14:11):
Does that mean that the administration.
Speaker 7 (14:16):
Ignoring this order and might you ignore future court orders
that meet the criteria you laid out?
Speaker 8 (14:24):
The President of the United States and his administration reserve
all rights under the Constitution to conduct national security operations
and defense the United States. The Alien Enemies Act, which
was passed into law by the founding generation of these countries,
men like John Adams, was written explicitly to give the
(14:46):
President the authority to repel an alien invasion of the
United States. That is not something that a district court
judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin,
to restrict, or to restrain anyway. You can read the
law yourself. There's no one clause in that law that
makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review.
Speaker 7 (15:10):
So Stephen, when you say that this person has no
authority at all.
Speaker 6 (15:15):
This is how our system works. It starts with these.
Speaker 7 (15:18):
Judges and then continues up. At what point does it become,
in your view, legal for the justice system to be
looking at this and making a judgment. And I feel
to see how there's any other way but to start
with where we're starting here before you get to eventually
the Supreme Court.
Speaker 8 (15:37):
Well, so first of all, there's a there's a term
in law judicible. This is not juicible. In other words,
this is not subject to judicial remedy. When the president
is exercising his Article two powers to defend the country
against an invasion or to repel foreign terrorist that is
unlawfully in the country, he's exercising his core Article two
powers as commander in chielat the This is this is
(16:01):
a very important point. This is a title fifty authority.
It's a commander in chief authority. So, just to ask
you a simple question, you talk about how the system works.
Does a district court judge have the right to direct
or enjoy troop movements overseas?
Speaker 6 (16:16):
Yes or no? Well, Stephen, my question, I don't know
answer question.
Speaker 5 (16:21):
Venezuela.
Speaker 7 (16:22):
It's Venezuela invading our country in.
Speaker 8 (16:24):
A way that would so under the all answer is
and you'll answer mind.
Speaker 6 (16:28):
Under the terms of the.
Speaker 8 (16:29):
Statute, trained der Wagua is an alien enemy force that
has come here, as detailed at length in the proclamation,
at the direction of the Venezuelan government. The statute says
that a president has the ability to repel an invasion
or predatory incursion.
Speaker 6 (16:49):
That is directed by a state or a government. Right,
this would be yes. It is.
Speaker 8 (16:54):
It is documented the that TDA was sent by the
Venezuelan government in the proclamation.
Speaker 6 (16:59):
And here's even more important point under.
Speaker 8 (17:01):
The constitution, who makes that determination? Hey, dis your court
judge lucky by no one or the commander in chief
of the Army and Navy.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
And this will continue next he makes a very silly point.
She misses it.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
Hey, South Dakota, it's Alaska. Funny story.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
It sounds like Michael thinks that we leave.
Speaker 4 (17:31):
These talkbacks for him.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
It's adorable. You and my daughter and son in law
were just up in Alaska. Should have had them. Look
up girl dad, make girl Dad buy them dinners.
Speaker 5 (17:47):
Yeah, girl Dad only leaves the talkback so that he
can hear himself on a radio station that he wished
he worked.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
On exactly exactly.
Speaker 5 (17:54):
I can't speak for everybody else but for a girl
much fact.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
Right, and if he were working here he would be
less danger to the country. Then what he's doing he's
actually doing right. Back to Stephen Miller, uh, he and
CNN are having a difficult time.
Speaker 8 (18:15):
The president and the president is the decision of what
triggers that.
Speaker 7 (18:19):
I think they are actually at war with Venezuela, that
nations Zuela.
Speaker 6 (18:23):
You're not hearing me and you're not understanding me. Freed.
Speaker 8 (18:26):
The Statute Alien Enemies Act seventy ninety eight. It says
if a predatory incursion is perpetrated by a foreign government,
so it lists a three three qualifying actions would be
an act.
Speaker 6 (18:40):
Doesn't say in.
Speaker 7 (18:41):
The very again, there has to be declared war against
the nation or estate.
Speaker 6 (18:45):
That's what it's say wrong.
Speaker 8 (18:47):
Look up the statutes on my account on social media
where we found it. The yes, it says, or a
predatory incursion or an invasion. The statute delineates three criteria
for triggering in the Only Enemies Act. One is a
act of war, which, by the way, innovasion is an
active war.
Speaker 6 (19:07):
But put that aside.
Speaker 8 (19:08):
One is an invasion, which this is. One is a
predatory incursion, which this is. So it actually meets all
three statutory criteria. But with respect to this particular statute,
it's the proclamation is utilizing the incursion and invasion language
in the statute. But that's a very important question, because no, no, no,
hold on this is a very important question.
Speaker 6 (19:29):
You said.
Speaker 8 (19:29):
The way our system works is the president of the
United States commands the armed forces of the country, commands
the foreign policy of the country, and that's subject to
just your court review.
Speaker 6 (19:39):
That is I said, never been true.
Speaker 7 (19:44):
This was not a military operation.
Speaker 8 (19:45):
I mean, the district court judge can no more enjoin
the expulsion of foreign terrorists to foreign soil that he
can direct the movement of air force one, that he
can direct the movement of an aircraft carrier, then he
can direct Marco Rubio.
Speaker 6 (20:00):
Okay, do you.
Speaker 7 (20:02):
Say over this or not, Like if does the Supreme
Court the United States have any say over the things
that you are just outlining right here.
Speaker 8 (20:08):
I believe what the Supreme Court will say is what
I just said, which is that the president's conduct here
is not subject to do.
Speaker 6 (20:13):
You are acknowledging the plan.
Speaker 7 (20:15):
In fact, you have to say here, well, even though
you think they may agree with you, what.
Speaker 8 (20:19):
We are expecting is the Supreme Court to say what
has always been the case, which is, when the president
is using his powers as commander in chief, those determinations
are not subject to judicial review. In other words, the
president's designation of trend Deri Wagua as a foreign terrorist
organization and as an alien enemy are part of his
(20:40):
inherent plenary authority.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Now here's I want to emphasize something here that he's
explaining quite well, but it's easy to fly over your head.
She's in her mind. She's saying, but wait a minute,
we have what she I think is thinking of judicial review.
He's saying, there are things that are justiciable, which means
(21:03):
they are subject to judicial review, and those things which
are not justiciable subject to judicial review. And foreign policy
and dealing with foreign terrorists is something that is not
subject to judicial review. Now they're acting on that well founded,
(21:23):
long held principle. That's what they're doing. They're not gonna
they're not going to say, okay, well, we're gonna stop
everything we're doing right now and wait for this Appeals
from the from the temporary restraining order of the trial
court to eventually over. I don't know. Maybe the Supreme
Court would take it up on an emergency appeal and
hear it next week. But we're not going to conduct
(21:45):
a military operation waiting on the court to tell us
what we can do or cannot do, because it is
not justiciable. That is a long held principle about the
separation of powers in this country. Now, you can argue
all day long all you want to about the meaning
of the words in the Alien Enemies Act, and that's fine,
(22:07):
that's a great that's a great academic thing to go through,
but it doesn't make it reviewable by the court. And
so if you want to do what she wants to do,
then you would stop everything. I mean, and he's making
a great point. He can't direct a trial judge, cannot
direct the movement of a ship. He cannot direct the
(22:30):
movement of Air Force one. He cannot direct those things
which are inherently executive power reserved to the president. Go
look at Title fifty. Those are things that are inherently
executive power actions. But she wants to She doesn't grasp
(22:53):
the concept of the separation of powers. She doesn't grasp
the concept that here you had you had the Madial
region actively engaged in sending Trenda Aragua to this country.
We had on behalf of the State Department, actual negotiations
going on with both El Salvador and I think this
(23:15):
is where I got Guatemala going on with El Salvador,
where they eventually went Guatemala and Venezuela. It wasn't directly
with Maduro, it was with representatives of Maduro. So we're
negotiating with a foreign government representatives of a foreign government.
Does this judge think he has the authority to stop
(23:37):
those negotiations?
Speaker 6 (23:38):
No?
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Do you think, let's put it in a really simple
vernacular of current events, do you think that this judge
has the authority to tell Marco Rubio, or or with
Law for anybody else that's negotiations with Hamas or Russia
or anybody else, that hey, you can't you can or
cannot do this. You'd look at me and sounds crazy. Well,
(24:02):
he's trying to explain to her that she's crazy. This
anchor is simply not prepared for this because they can't
get it out of their thick head that this is
not a judicisiable issue.
Speaker 6 (24:15):
There is no way. There is no way.
Speaker 8 (24:18):
Are you how are you going to expel a legal
alien invaders from our country who are raping little girls,
who are murdering little girls If each and every deportation
has to be adjudicated and a distort court judge, and
that means you have no country, It means you have
no sovereignty.
Speaker 6 (24:36):
It means you have no future.
Speaker 8 (24:37):
It is fundamentally incompatible to have a country and have
individual expulsions adjudicated by a single disian court judge.
Speaker 7 (24:44):
I'm just trying to figure out out the system, do you,
because what does the Trump administration believe, because we do
have separation of powers in this country.
Speaker 6 (24:53):
I hear what you're saying.
Speaker 8 (24:54):
Yes, power does not be judiciary are interfearing even let
me finish the executive func.
Speaker 6 (25:00):
This is the separation of powers.
Speaker 7 (25:02):
That is the state to ignore the judge's order here because.
Speaker 6 (25:06):
You thought you could.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
So.
Speaker 8 (25:09):
The judge's order and the action is taken by the
Departments of the Defense, Justice and Homeland Security are not
in conflict. And the Department just has been clear that
they are not in conflict.
Speaker 6 (25:19):
But do you think that you.
Speaker 7 (25:20):
Did go along with the order that the judge put out.
You do not think that the Trump administration.
Speaker 8 (25:24):
This order, as the Justice Department said, there's no conflict
between the judge's order and the action is taken by
the departments I just listed. But I'm making a deeper
and more fundamental point the district if you know, the
district court has no ability to in any way restrain
the President's authorities under the Alien Enemies Act, or is
(25:45):
it a believed to conduct the foreign afairs of the
United States.
Speaker 6 (25:47):
Let me pay a picture for you.
Speaker 8 (25:49):
President Trump and Secretary of State Mark or Rupil had
engaged in intensive diplomacy to obtain a bilateral security agreement
with the nation of El Salvador. If a district court judge, so,
can you join that bilateral security agreement again, then we
do not have foreign policy.
Speaker 6 (26:08):
We heard you say this. Did did you ignore that?
Speaker 7 (26:13):
Did the administration ignore the order from the district judge?
Speaker 8 (26:17):
Question?
Speaker 6 (26:18):
I've answered, and I've answered it.
Speaker 8 (26:20):
I've answered it because this the department has made a
filing in the court.
Speaker 6 (26:23):
But let him make another point.
Speaker 8 (26:26):
The judge in this case put the lives of every
single person on those aircraft at risk. Did he know
how much fuels in those planes? Did he know the
flight conditions? Did he know the weather conditions? Did he
know how many crew hours? Did he know the need
for crew rest? Did he know any of that?
Speaker 6 (26:41):
No, this judge violated the law. He violated the constitution.
So unified the government that we have in.
Speaker 7 (26:48):
This country, because that does seem to arguing the same.
Speaker 8 (26:51):
The same district court judges didn't do a damn thing
to stop Joe Biden from.
Speaker 6 (26:56):
Flooding this nation with millions of the aliens?
Speaker 8 (26:59):
Did these district court judges didn't issue any injunctions to
save the lives of Josh.
Speaker 6 (27:05):
Or any fal courts? Is that what you're saying.
Speaker 8 (27:08):
What I'm saying is that what you said, there's a
separation of powers the judiciary exercises.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
See here's where she Here's where she gets wound around
the around the axle. She doesn't truly understand separation of powers,
and she truly doesn't understand that there are some things
which is very difficult, I think for many Americans to
understand that the president is simply not subject to judicial review. Now,
(27:39):
as I've said many times, that doesn't preclude somebody from
running to a courthouse and following a petition for a
temporary restraining order or an injunction. But just because they
do that does not mean that the president cannot continue
with his executive power doing what he's doing. Now, she
wants to put it in the vernacular of does that
mean he's ignoring that the president is ignoring the court. No,
(28:02):
we'll go we'll go over there and we'll file a response,
and we'll do all of that, but we're not going
to stop doing what we're doing over here because that's
solely within our authority to do. So. Oh, we'll still
go litigate it because we want to prove our point.
She just cannot comprehend that Article two reserves certain authority
(28:26):
to the president. You know, I don't. I don't want
to confuse it anymore. But it kind of goes to
the whole idea about even the War Powers Act. What
can the president do and what's Congress required to do?
So I'm gonna argue, and they do argue that you
(28:46):
can't even do what we're doing to defend ourselves in
the Middle East against the Hoho Thies without Congress declaring war.
But wait a minute, the president has the authority to
defend the country and to defend its assets without a
declaration of war. Our ships are attacked, we can fire
(29:08):
back and defend ourselves. Now, imagine if somebody said, oh,
that violates the War Powers Act, and so you cannot
do that. And let's say the same judge issued an
injunction or a tro that said no, you cannot defend
yourself against the Houthies. Now I find that incredible and unbelievable.
(29:28):
But it's the same thing he's doing here with Trenda Ragua.
You can't defend the country against these these foreign terrorist organizations,
which he has the right to determine that they are
a foreign terrorist organization. Nobody would think, well, I shouldn't
say that. CNN might think that if a judge ordered
(29:50):
a restraining order that says, oh, you can't attack the
Houthies because Congress hasn't declared war against the Houthies. I mean,
I think ninety nine point nine ninety nine I ain't
presented that. People would say, well, that's absurd. She can't
get beyond that.
Speaker 9 (30:04):
Come on, dude, she comprehends just fine. She's just trying
to sew the vision. The American media is the problem.
It is what it is okay the end.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
I agree. However, I do think she's kind of stupid.
I think she is. She's and this confirms your point.
She's trying to sell an unsellable point except for people
who are ignorant of how the law works, and that
is that this judge has no jurisdiction, so they can
(30:41):
go ahead and go argue that in court. But that
does not preclude Trump from doing what he believes is
necessary to secure the safety of the country. Again, it's
the Houthis are a great example. Would this judge issue
a tro that says, oh wait a minute, I'm not
sure that symath in your powers. I'm not sure you know.
(31:01):
Let let's talk about this. Do you think Trump would
stop attacking or defending the naval ships in the Red Sea? No,
not at all. So yesterday we had all these storms,
makes the national news. Everybody's all dither about the tornadoes
and storms and the wind, blah blah blah blah blah.
They're they're all concerned about nature. That's suddenly now a
(31:23):
big headline. And I knew this would happen. What are
they going to do? They're going to blame Trump for
cuts to FEMA and Noah, I give you CNN.
Speaker 7 (31:37):
The cuts to Noah and how they potentially already impacted
predicting the storms that we just talked about.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
Do you know how many private and public organizations there
are that do modeling and weather prediction? Hmmm? Have you
ever heard of the Weather Channel?
Speaker 5 (31:58):
Are you telling me that they were tornadoes in Oklahoma
and the tornado Alley?
Speaker 1 (32:03):
I am shock in the springtime too, imagine that?
Speaker 10 (32:07):
Yeah, Dan, Noah really truly is the invisible backbone of
everything that we consume. Not only are they responsible for
that's just.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Blatantly false, that's just a are they part of what
we consume? Absolutely? Are they the backbone? No, they're not
the backbone or.
Speaker 10 (32:27):
The availability of the weather and climate data that we
pass on to viewers, but also the infrastructure that helps
make that data available. Think about radar infrastructure, Think about
balloon launches that feed weather and climate models, Think about
the satellites that monitor our weather from space. We have
(32:48):
every kind of economic impact that Noah, the National Weather
Service actually touches, from agriculture to error transportation to commerce
to tourism. It is all dependent on the weather. And
if we start cutting back and rolling back this personnel,
there will be chaos, and the butterfly effects down the
road are yet to be determined.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
Really, just oh, the butterfly effect. A butterfly landed on
somebody's finger, Oh my gosh, it changes everything. Or the
butterfly got killed because a climate change and now everything's
going to change. Oh my god. See why I'm just
exhausted sometimes
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.