8-12-25 - 8am - Court Blocks Trumps Contempt and 250th Birthday

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Don't worry, Brownie.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
The googers know you're an equal opportunist.

Speaker 3 (00:05):
Sob yeah, and I'm proud of it too. Uh, I
can't be racist.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
I hate everybody being there.

Speaker 4 (00:18):
You go, We just we hate everybody. The only program
that you tune into because we hate you that deserves
a sip of die golgrut.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
There No.

Speaker 4 (00:32):
Last week, I never got to this in my pos.
There was quite a bit of celebration on all the
social media platforms and of course among all of the
talking heads that support Donald Trump that somehow make it
onto the cable news channel and in particular on Fox
News after the decision from a three judge panel of

(00:57):
the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That's the court that
when we get a lot of Supreme Court justices from
that court, and that's the court that hears the trial
appeals from the d C Circuit. So you know, the
Trump cases, for example, go to on an appeal, go

(01:20):
to the d C Circuit Court of Appeals. W were
they celebrating The d C Circuit Court of Appeals had vacated,
meaning they had rescinded, they had deleted, they had gotten
rid of, they had overturned the criminal contempt probable cause

(01:42):
finding made by a judge by an un as yet
unknown Trump official, the judge Judge Boseburg. Now what's interesting
is Judge Boseburg had found probable cause that some unnamed

(02:08):
Trump official had had engaged in contempt of court. There
were three opinions written by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals,
and I want to explain briefly every single one of them,
because they read like three drivers taking different highways to

(02:28):
get to the same point. That It's like they left
the Court of Appeals building in DC and they were
all trying to get Chicago, and they took three different routes,
but they all got to Chicago. So here's what happened.
Several weeks ago. The appellate Court stepped in and stopped
the proceedings at the point where Judge Boseburg had ordered

(02:50):
the Trump administration to file the names of every single
member of his administration who were involved in the decision
as to how to respond to the temporary restraining order
entered by Judge Bosburg back on a late Saturday night
in March, while those planes with that alleged Venezuelan terrace

(03:17):
gang members and others were headed to that prison in
El Salvador. Remember the story. Essentially, the plane had taken
off I think from Texas. It was headed to Guatemala.
They were I'm sorry, El Salvador, and they were going
to drop off these illegal aliens who were also gang members,

(03:39):
trend to Ragua and others. They were in flight and
he late in the night, ordered the plane to turn around.

Speaker 1 (03:52):
He wanted to know who was involved in the decision.

Speaker 4 (03:57):
He went and because they you know, we're trying to
This was on a this was a at night. Now,
it's unusual for a judge at night to issue that
kind of order. It's not unusual for a judge to
issue a search warrant at night, because that, you know,
is there's some immediacy. But here you're dealing with an

(04:22):
issue that is solely within the province of Congress to
establish the immigration laws and solely within the province of
the executive branch to administer those laws. And they were
taking illegal aliens in the country illegally, who were members
of designated terrorist organizations to a prison in Al Salvador.

(04:44):
So the decision on that Friday night came from a case.
Came from that case from a Emotions Panel, an emotions
panel who had previously considered other issues in connection with
that particular case. The three panel members were Judges Pillar, Kotsis,
and Raw. Judge Pillar was appointed by Obama. Judges Kotz

(05:08):
and Raw were both appointed by Trump. Now in a
circuit where seven in the appellate division, where seven of
the eleven full time active judges were appointed by either
Obama or Biden, the Trump administration has been extraordinarily lucky
by drawing motions panels for three months. They changed monthly

(05:33):
with either two or three Trump appointed judges each and
every month there are two different outcomes announced by the
per curium opinion, meaning that they announced without release signing
their names to it. First, here here's what you would
I want you to understand about the order that slapped
down Judge Bozburg. All three judges agreed that the appeal

(05:58):
that was filed by the Trump administry should be dismissed
because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction since there was no
final order issued by just Boseberg. In other words, he
had never issued an order. He had only issued a
order for How do I explain this? In Layman's terms?

(06:19):
There is no final order. He had simply told the
lawyers to that he believed the judge did that he
had probable cause to find the Trump administration in contempt.
So he directed them to file their motions, to file

(06:40):
their briefs outlining why they thought he did not have
probable cause to issue the contempt citation. Now, just by analogy,
that kind of finding is functionally the same as an indictment.
It is just an allegation, but it forms the basis

(07:00):
to conduct a trial on the charge of criminal contempt,
because criminal contempt is where you can be actually thrown
in the slammer because the judges found that you have
acted contemptuously. Now that would have happened before a jury,
a different judge and with a prosecutor that would have
to present the evidence that the Trump administration had engaged

(07:23):
in criminal contempt. So the first thing I want you
to understand is all three judges agreed that there was
no jurisdiction because there had been no final order entered.
There was no finding of criminal contempt, only that he
thought he had probable cause. I think this is purely

(07:43):
my speculation. I think the judge knew Judge Bobert did
because he's the one involved in all these stupid cases,
that he was probably walking on thin ground. He'd already
been overturned by the US Supreme Court on other cases,
so he was walking on thin ground, and he knew
that criminal contempt is a pretty damn serious charge that

(08:04):
he might have to actually decide that, well, I'm going
to throw the Attorney General, the director of the FBI,
and maybe some of their assistants, maybe their deputies or Neil,
maybe somebody from the Office of Legal Counsel that provides
legal opinions to the Attorney German that he might actually
have to find him in criminal contempt. And if he did, now,
what am I going to do? Well, crap, I've painted

(08:26):
myself into a corner. So I think that's why he
didn't issue a final order. He just issued a directive
to Hey, brief me, because I think I have probably cause.
You brief me about why I don't stalling tactic, trying
to threaten them, trying to intimidate them.

Speaker 1 (08:42):
In my opinion, to allow an.

Speaker 4 (08:44):
Appeal at that point would be no different than allowing
defendants in a criminal case to take their case to
the appeals court just upon the return of an indictment
from a grand jury. You've indicted me for fraud. Well,
I'm going to appeal that right now. You haven't even
had a trial yet. That's exactly what this is like.

(09:08):
Before anything else took place in the trial court, all
three judges in the appellate court recognized that there's a
statutory requirement that if you're going to have appellate jurisdiction,
you have to have something to look at, and there
was nothing to look at because there was no final order,
there had been no trial, So they dismissed it. They

(09:30):
dismissed the pending appeal now without more that would have
been a bad outcome for the Trump administration because the
matter would have been sent back to Judge Boseburg, who
would have then been free to continue to contempt proceedings
where the only missing piece is the identities of the
people who made the decision to tell the planes to

(09:51):
take off and fly. But Judge Katsis and Raw went
a step further. They actually granted the Trump administration's request
for thet for a writ of mandamus. That was a
request that would order Judge Boseburg to dismiss depending criminal
contempt proceedings. Now the Obama judge descended from that part

(10:15):
of the decision, but the other two judges said, uh, yeah,
you need to dismiss depending criminal content proceedings because you
don't have any basis. There's there's been no trial, there's
been no hearing, there's been nothing. So Katsas and ral

(10:36):
the two Trump judges wrote separate concurrences, and Judge Pillard
wrote a descending opinion. Now there is no quote majority
opinion on the mandamus issue because Katsas and Judge Rowe
wrote opinions that are pretty much nothing in common other
than the mutual outcome granting the mandamus that Judge Boseburg's
probably cause order should be done away with. Now let's

(11:01):
go to Judge Katsis. From him, now, his main justification
for granted man damus was the vague and the shifting
nature of exactly what it was that Judge Boseburg, the
trial judge, claimed he ordered the Trump administration to do.
In other words, this appellate judge was looking at it
and saying, I can't figure out what you're trying to
do here, and precisely what Judge Boseburg found some unidentified

(11:27):
person that hadn't been named to have either done or
not done. What was in the trial judge's opinion, Boseburg's opinion,
a clear violation what he had ordered. That's not sufficient
to justify of finding a criminal contempt. But that's what
he was trying. That's what the trial judge was trying
to do this trial. Judge Boseburg has it out regardless

(11:51):
of the merits of any case brought by the Trump
Department of Justice, he has it out for them, and
he's going to bend over backwards, in fact, in my opinion,
violate judicial ethics by ordering these things. You need to
tell me why I shouldn't find probable cause. Well, we've
had no trial yet, what's the legs that we've done. So,

(12:16):
Judge katsas again that he's a trumpetpointee on the Appellate
Court that judges recounting of the unfolding events of Saturday,
March fifteen, culminating in a written order prohibiting the government
from removing members of the class those Venezuelans.

Speaker 1 (12:34):
But not more.

Speaker 4 (12:36):
All of that kind of drips with a heavy coat
of disapproval for Judge Boseberg's conduct throughout the day, and
it suggests that it was Judge Boseburg who was responsible
for this perfiffl for this turmoil that resulted by entertaining
these dubious legal claims without any briefing, then demanding the

(12:56):
near impossible, and then pointing figures of blame others when
reality intervened to prevent his insistent upon outcome. In other words,
that nobody end up in that prison in Al Salador
after the planes had already taken off, were in international
waters and already going on. Judge Katsus was like, you

(13:17):
started this, you waited till late in the evening when
it was way beyond your jurisdiction. And so this is
what Judge Katsus wrote. In the context of criminal contempt,
ambiguity in the underlying injunction has to be resolved in
favor of the alleged contemnor. This Court has stressed that

(13:39):
for criminal contempt, the injunction must be clear and reasonably
specific in its application to the conduct that issue. So
his opinion, Judge Kats's opinion is based on a very
simple question, what did removing members of the class? I

(13:59):
think that's in reference to the PEP, the illegal aliens
on the planes, but the judge's opinion was asking what
did removing members of the class mean? When Judge Bosberg
wrote that as his second written temporary restraining order around
seven twenty five pm on Saturday night, that is what

(14:19):
was prohibited by the express terms of the temporary restraining
order that the Trump administration was charged with having intentionally violated.

Speaker 1 (14:29):
Now, if the contempt is.

Speaker 4 (14:30):
Based on violating that restriction, didn you have to ask
yourself what was the conduct that produced a violation. Did
it mean, as the government argued, the actual physical removal
of persons from the territory of the United States, or
did it extend to the transfer of custody of persons

(14:50):
to a third country official? How are we supposed to
interpret it between those two events happening. Because one event
has happened, you've started taking them there outside the territory
of the United States, which takes them outside the jurisdiction
of the courts, but they haven't yet been handed over
to a foreign entity yet. So then Judge Katz has

(15:14):
contrasted the second written temporary restraining order dealing with this
unnamed class members with the first written temporary restraining order
that was issued earlier that day on March fifteen that
involved five specific plaintiffs named in the indictment prior to
the entire class of all the defendants being certified. That

(15:37):
restraining order prohibited the government from removing the named plaintiffs,
not the class, not the general class, but the very
specific name people. That temporary restraining order prohibited the government
from removing the named plaintiffs from the United States. Now,
after that restraining order was issued, all five of those intos.

(16:00):
Listen closely, they were taken off the flights prior to
departure and kept in the ICE detention facilities. Then the
plane took off, I believe rightfully so because the class
had not been certified, there were only five named defendants. Now,

(16:22):
the people, the NGOs, the public interest law firms representing
the people on the planes, were trying to get everybody
classified as one class, as one group of defendants, but
they only had five that they had actually named. So
the government complied with the judge's order with respect to

(16:44):
those five because the class had not been identified yet.
That's perfectly reasonable in my opinion. There's no criminal contempt
in that judge. You haven't certified the class five individuals
that you've named We complied with your order with those five.
We took them off the plane. We didn't let them loose.

(17:07):
We put them in a nice detention facility, and then
the plane took off. Let's say there were one hundred
people on the plane. We took five off, and ninety
five headed two El Salvador.

Speaker 1 (17:17):
So what do we do wrong? We complied with your.

Speaker 4 (17:20):
Order, but for two flights with more than one hundred
person subject to the alien Enemies proclamation on board. Nobody
contested the evidence that the planes had left the territory before.

Speaker 1 (17:33):
For by the time.

Speaker 4 (17:35):
Blosberg issued this second order regarding class members, they were
already removed from the United States. They were out of
the country, and the appellate court said, here.

Speaker 1 (17:46):
Full of crap.

Speaker 2 (17:47):
Michael, It's top of Tuesday, so let's find Mega cap
my triple Trump voting patch. I'm going to go to
my favorite Mexican restaurant and say hi, Janna for welch,
it's mega country.

Speaker 4 (18:06):
Make sure you have the right genes on Goober number
ninety two to forty nine, writes Michael want my way
to work. Weather nice had my windows down, radio blasting
with Michael Lee Brown on stopped at a light and
the guy next to me yells at, hey, Michael Brown,
are you a goober too? Well, yes I am, I
answered back. Now, what are the odds that in this

(18:26):
large metropolitan area two of your twelve goobers were at
the same light at the same time. I suggest you
both go buy.

Speaker 3 (18:34):
A lotto tickets. Yeah, today's your lucky.

Speaker 1 (18:37):
Day, and when you win, you must share with us exactly.
I think seventy five twenty five is a good split.
Seventy five of us, twenty five of them. Yeah, I'll
think it.

Speaker 3 (18:48):
Yeah, yeah, we'll do that.

Speaker 4 (18:51):
This is as we are going to hear incessantly, uh,
the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of America's founding on
this coming July fourth. Now, I think that the majority
of Americans are probably happy to applaud the country. I
think we're actually a force for good in the world.

(19:12):
Do we make mistakes, Oh? Maybe, do we make mistakes.
Have we done some stupid stuff?

Speaker 3 (19:17):
Yes?

Speaker 4 (19:18):
Have we done some maybe even evil stuff, yes? But
I think overall, if we're not even great on a curve,
but just look at the balance sheet, I would say, yeah,
we're in the black.

Speaker 1 (19:33):
The black way out.

Speaker 4 (19:35):
Weighs the reds, the credits outweigh the debits by far.
In fact, sixty three percent of all Americans in general
say that, yeah, we should celebrate, all right, then what's
the problem? Unfortunately for those who would like such an

(19:57):
event like the two hundred and fiftieth birthday to be
you know, unifying or something that maybe we could all
generally agree upon. The majority that sixty three percent is
driven by conservative Republicans. Eighty nine percent of Republicans say

(20:19):
that America's anniversary is actually a moment of triumph, and
it is a republic that has survived two hundred and
fifty years.

Speaker 3 (20:26):
Now.

Speaker 4 (20:27):
I don't want to speculate. Do we have another two
hundred and fifty years in it? Well, that would be
a record. Do we have another two years in it?

Speaker 3 (20:35):
Well?

Speaker 4 (20:37):
There are days when I think I'm not sure about tomorrow.
But I do believe that we ought to be celebrating
the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, and we ought to
recognize that we are a force for good in the world,
not a force for wrong or bad or evil. But
let's look on the other side. As Paul Harvey would say,

(20:58):
the rest of the story only thirty seven percent of Democrats.
Barely over a third say that we have anything to
celebrate at two hundred and fifty years, and in fact,
fifty eight percent of Democrats this is all according to Signal,
a polling group, fifty eight percent of Democrats say no,

(21:18):
there's no need to celebrate, or no, there's nothing to celebrate.
The group most likely to find fault with this country
is what remember in jd Vance talked about the childless
cat ladies. Well, he may be on to something, because

(21:38):
sixty four percent of single female Democrats say there is
absolutely nothing to celebrate after two and a half centuries
of this country's existence. In fact, just twenty eight percent
answering in favor of the country in which they live.
So there must be a lot of old, you know
bit you old angry childless cat ladies out there. Wow,

(22:05):
almost three fourths clearly over half somewhere between you know,
well sixty four percent, but somewhere over half, but slightly
less than three fourths of single female Democrats don't think
there's anything to celebrate. Now, what about the racial makeup?
I think there's a divide there too, well Democrats, of

(22:26):
which thirty seven percent say yes, there's something to celebrate
versus that sixty percent who say no, I think is worse.
When you break it down racially black Democrats, forty two
percent say yes, fifty percent say no.

Speaker 1 (22:49):
I haven't dug that deep into the tabs.

Speaker 4 (22:52):
Yet, but I would guess that when you dig into
Black Democrats, how much do you want to guess that
that forty two percent that say yes are moderates or
the old school liberal Democrats, or they're middle class blacks.

(23:14):
But they're not homeless, they're not drug addle, they're not criminals.
Because of the fifty percent that say no, I wonder
how many of them fit in a demographic spectrum. Perhaps
the driving element is a divide over the effect that
this country has on the world at large, because, again

(23:40):
going to the main tabs on the poll, fifty eight
percent of Americans say that after two hundred and fifty years,
we are a force for good in the world and
thirty six percent that say that we're not. Now in
that breakdown between the fifty eight that say yes, we're good,
thirty six percent say no, republic As are emphatic that

(24:01):
we're a force for good by a margin of eighty
six percent to ten percent, So a majority of Americans,
I'm sorry, a majority of Republicans. Clearly, an overwhelming majority
of Republicans think that the United States of America is
a force for good. We are that last beacon of hope.

(24:21):
We are that refuge, We are that shining light not
to come here, but a shining light of what you
can do if in your own country, you you know,
declare your independence, you adopt a constitution that guarantees individual liberty,
individual freedom, if you adopt a free market, capitalist economic

(24:45):
system as opposed to a centrally controlled communist system, you
too could be good. That's what That's what we've offered
the entire world. So eighty six percent of Republicans think
that we're a force for good. Ells kill of the Democrats.

(25:07):
Just thirty one percent of Democrats say were a force
for good, and sixty one percent, almost two thirds of
Democrats do not think this country is a force for good.
You think those are the people like Mondamine and Fatal
running for mayor in New York and I think Minneapolis, respectively.

(25:29):
And the Democrats, just as Republicans are emphatic eighty six
to ten percent about we're a force for good, Democrats
are particularly emphatic on this point three times. As many
say that America is not a force for good thirty
one percent, they say that it is a force for
good at eleven percent. What drives this white limousine liberals.

(25:58):
I heard a great phrase describing Mndami the other day,
who is a communist? He everybody keeps referring to him
as a socialist. But as Tamer points out, he really
there was something on television last night and she grumbled,
she's there, he's really a communist, quick, colleague, a socialist,
And she's right, he truly is a communist. So once

(26:20):
driving those poll numbers, Well, it's communists like Mundami who
wants to redistribute wealth, who want to eliminate cops, who
offer free stuff for everything. And they described him as
a Champagne socialist. Now, well, I think he's a communist.
I think the phrase Champagne socialist is a baddest majority

(26:45):
of as.

Speaker 3 (26:45):
A limousine liberal.

Speaker 4 (26:48):
Hispanic Democrats interestingly say that America is a force for
good at a thirty three percent clip. Forty one percent
of Blacks Democrats think we are so, regardless all the
propaganda surrounding the problems and the ills of American racism. Huh,
thirty three percent say we're a force for good. Forty

(27:12):
one percent of Black Democrats. I'm sorry, Hispanic Democrats are
a thirty three percent. Black Democrats are at forty one percent.
So despite all the propaganda that we get fed day
in and day out about how racist America is, at
least more than a third of both Hispanics and Black

(27:34):
Democrats Democrats, not Republicans. Democrats think we are a force
for good. I know it's a tiny little light at
the end of the tunnel, but there is a light.
But there's a bright, shining light over here in terms
of conservative Republicans of all races who think that we're a.

Speaker 3 (27:53):
Force for good.

Speaker 1 (27:55):
Michael, I listen to you five days a week, every week.

Speaker 2 (28:01):
I thought I had obsessive compulsive disorder.

Speaker 3 (28:04):
But now you're on Saturday. I realize I'm being stocked dragon.

Speaker 1 (28:13):
I've been cured, cured.

Speaker 4 (28:18):
By you're not listening on Saturday. Shame on you, Shame, shame, shame.

Speaker 1 (28:26):
I don't listen every day.

Speaker 4 (28:28):
You don't listen any day. You're barely awake when I
walk in the only reason you were awake this morning
is because you'd watched the stupid documentary.

Speaker 3 (28:35):
I wanted to bash you. That's right.

Speaker 4 (28:37):
That was the only reason you were awake when you
came flying through the door, and like I don't want
to tell you this or not. I thought, oh my god,
what's he done?

Speaker 3 (28:44):
Now?

Speaker 1 (28:46):
Missus Redbeard felt so bad because she cared, because she's
because she is a decent human being.

Speaker 3 (28:52):
Unlike I couldn't give a right.

Speaker 4 (28:56):
Which if you did would actually kind of worry me.
It be like, are you off your meds or what?
The Department of Justice you actually to be more specific
to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of
Minnesota issued a press release last week. Let me just
tell you the first paragraph, then we'll go some details.

(29:18):
The United States District Judge Nancy Brazil sentenced obvious these
Chaffee Farrah aged thirty six to twenty eight years in prison,
followed by three years of supervised release for his role
in a three hundred million dollars fraud scheme that exploited

(29:38):
a federally funded child nutrition program during the COVID nineteen pandemic.
Announcing acting announced Acting US Attorney Joseph Thompson. Ferrara was
also ordered to pay restitution the amount of forty seven million,
nine hundred twenty.

Speaker 1 (29:55):
Thousand, five hundred and fourteen dollars.

Speaker 4 (29:58):
Can you remember when we talked about Hamas and how
all of the bull crap you're being fed about starvation
and gaza, the famine and the so called genocide.

Speaker 1 (30:10):
Well, the same people that do that kind.

Speaker 4 (30:13):
Of crap and steal food, which Hamas obviously does, they're
operating in this country, just as Hamas is up front
for the Muslim Brotherhood in Israel, and just like the
Council on American Israeli Relations or Chaos CARE Sorry is

(30:36):
in America. On June twenty four, twenty twenty five, a
bill called the Designate Care As a Terrorist Organization Act
was introduced in the House of Reps. And that act
might get codified. So what's going on? There is a

(30:57):
gang of so called poor refugees and Minnesota who stole
tens of millions of dollars worth of funds meant to
feed the hungry American children. These Islamal communist pirates are
indeed controlled by Care the front from the Muslim Brotherhood,
just like Hamas is kadar Adan, the bon Ashir anab

(31:19):
Awad abdy Azi Ferrar, that's the guy named in the
press release Macpheera, Hussein Mohammad Ishmael and a Yanjama. Now
this is the same food stealing scam that Hamas runs
in Gaza for the Muslim Brotherhood. Out of cutter the
Maas steals the food from their own people, podges the

(31:39):
money for food themselves, and then they blame Israel in America,
and they trot out the pictures of the so called
starving children to deflect attention away from the cells, so
that she'll feel sorry for Hamas and you'll start blaming Israel.
This Aubzig Ferrar, is one of the ring leaders in
this food scheme in this country forty seven million dollars

(32:00):
of federal funds intended to feed the poor, part of
a larger scam that took four hundred million dollars. They
use the money to buy luxury vehicles, overseas real estate,
including properties in Kenya outside the reach of US authorities.
And he gets twenty eight years using taxpayer money met
for needy kids, five luxury vehicles for himself in six

(32:23):
months