9-10-25 - 8am - Judge Blocks Firing and ICE Raids

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi. I didn't hear it myself, but my husband told me,
you criticized Israel for targeting homos terrorists in a sovereign nation.
I hope you have the same criticism for the US
and its assassination of Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Sulimani
in Iraq.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Thanks.

Speaker 3 (00:18):
I didn't criticize it, I said, I found it amazing
that they did that. Yeah, that parallel has been drawn
for at least forty eight hours now since that attack
in Cutter, The Trump administration has actually some good news

(00:40):
on the judicial front, which is kind of unusual. Two
more victories were handed down money we talked about one.
I want to go over a little bit more. Two
more victories are handed down by the Supreme Court. And
these latest developments are starting to signal that perhaps there
remind me some bigger wins ahead on two of the

(01:01):
White House priorities, that being the deportation of illegal immigrants
and the removal of political appointees from these so called
independent agencies. The Wall Street Journals out with the story
today about Lisa Cook, who's on the federal reserve. While
I get to her in just a minute, First we
talked some about this yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts stayed

(01:23):
or put on hold, a decision by the DC Court
that overturned the president's firing of Rebecca Slaughter. She's a
member of the Federal Trade Commission. Trump fired Slaughter, who
had been appointed by Trump back in twenty eighteen, and
they're reappointed by Joe Biden in twenty twenty three. Earlier

(01:44):
this year, the White House since Slaughter a letter simply
stating this, your continued service on the Federal Trade Commission
is inconsistent with my administration's priorities. Now, Slaughter, like others,
have been removed by the President, sued. She, like others,

(02:05):
argued that federal law and Supreme Court president requires the
president to demonstrate quote inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance
in office as a basis for removing a political appointee.
Back in July, the District Court judge for d C

(02:27):
or a I should say, a District Court judge for
the District of Columbia, District Judge Lauren Alcin ruled in
Slaughter's favor and ordered her reinstated to her lawful position
as an FTC commissioner. Then that trial court decision was
upheld by a d C. Appellate court last week on

(02:50):
a two to one decision. But naomi Row, who's a
d C. Appellate Court judge appointed by Trump, disagree with
her two Obama appointed colleagues on the panel and criticized
the judiciary's unprecedented breach into executive branch territory, writing, an

(03:11):
injunction ordering reinstatement of an officer removed by the president
likely exceeds the Article three that's the judicial branch, likely
exceeds the Article three judicial power, and encroaches on the
president's exercise of his Article two, that's the presidency executive power.

(03:34):
She wrote that last week, she continued that the Constitution
establishes three departments of the federal government, and the so
called independent agencies are necessarily part of the executive branch,
not some headless fourth branch of the government. Now, with

(03:54):
that simple paragraph, Judge rat Oh naomi Row got straight
to the heart of the issue in these cases. Despite
the headache caused by dealing with this flood of lawsuits,
they're fueled by a bunch of disgruntled Democrat appointees, the

(04:15):
Trump administration is performing a vital extra constitutional cauterization that
is really needed. After decades long Mission Cree that slowly
but consistent, consistently and inexorably established a fourth branch of government.

(04:36):
The independent agencies that branch of government has become opaque, unaccountable,
and in their way of thinking, impervious, absolutely unaccountable to
either presidential or congressional oversight. Trump likes to call that
the deep state.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
I get that.

Speaker 3 (04:58):
I think it's more appropriately the administrative state. Now worse
for the self anointed headless heads of the fourth branch
is that Supreme Court continues to rule against them. For example,
the highest Court recently upheld the president's firing of several
political appointees at the Office of Special Council, the Merit

(05:21):
Systems Protection Board, the National Labor Relations Board, and others.
The firings that had been reversed by the trial judges
in Washington in that district that in those district courts,
row who I've heard as a contender for a potential

(05:42):
Supreme Court appointment if one comes open wrote this. The text, structure,
and original meaning of the Constitution all point in the
same direction. The president's control and supervision of the executive
branch requires that he be able to remove his officers

(06:04):
at will. It follows that Congress cannot limit his removal power.
That leads us to Lisa Cook. Well, no, before we
get to Lisa Cook. As someone who has held two
presidential commissions, two presidential appointments upon the advice and consent

(06:27):
of the US Senate, not only was it told to
me by White House counsel, but it was always my understanding,
even before White House Counsel said anything to me, that
I serve at the pleasure of the President, that the
President can terminate my commissions for any reason or for

(06:50):
no reason. So why should anybody else. I don't care
whether they're a member of the Federal Trade Commission, of
the Federal Communications Commissions, the under Secretary of Homeland Security,
None of that should make any difference. It's all part
of the executive branch, and you have been nominated with
the advice and consent of the Senate. Do some of

(07:13):
these appointments have terms, Yeah, to which I say, so
what my contract at iHeart has a term. There's a
term with the options of I think I'm I think
I'm in still in year one of a four or
five year contract. But that doesn't mean that for cause,

(07:36):
and basically every other the way our stupid contracts are written,
sometimes even for no cause, that that term may be set.
But that wouldn't prevent for cause. iHeart saying you know
what you're You're violating our code of ethics or whatever,
so you we're going to terminate your contract. That whole

(07:57):
concept of serving at the will of president ought to
make Lisa Cook, she's that member of the Federal Reserve
Board that was fired by Trump last month.

Speaker 2 (08:08):
Ought to make her attorneys a little nervous.

Speaker 3 (08:12):
Now she was seeking to block her termination on the
same basis as Slaughter and all those before her, by
insisting that federal law, in this case it would be
the Federal Reserve Act, demands a four cause reason for
the removal. Now, both sides were arguing whether a criminal

(08:33):
investigation into her finances for what appears to be an
airtight case of mortgage fraud, which was committed before she
was confirmed, is cause enough to give her the boot
under the statue. Now, I already know, based on Wall
Street Journal reporting from late last night, what the trial
court has ruled, but I still want to make the

(08:57):
argument before I tell you what that ruling was the argument.
I think this is a legitimate argument. Now, Abby Lowell
is the name sound familiar. That's when it cooks attorneys
Hunter Biden's attorney. He's arguing, or he claims that any
such preoffice offense does not meet status choice standard. I

(09:22):
find that interesting because I know, to this day I'll
never forget because I actually had to stop and think
about this in the context of which the question was asked.
Go to the Oval office, all right, I mean I
go to the West wing, go upstairs to al Gonzalez's office,

(09:44):
white house counsel, and we're going through all my paperwork,
and you know, he's checking everything off, and you know,
asking about you know, different things I've been involved in,
and you know, some lawsuits that I've been involved in,
blah blah blah. And we finished, you know, and he's like, Okay, yeah,
this is all pretty standard. You know, your tax returns
have cleared the irs blah blah blah blah.

Speaker 2 (10:04):
But I got one more question for you.

Speaker 3 (10:07):
Is there anything in your background that's not covered by
any of these questions or that I haven't asked you about,
or that you haven't told us about that if it
came to public light might be embarrassing to the president,
and did that contact.

Speaker 2 (10:23):
I'd stop and think, well, wait a minute.

Speaker 3 (10:24):
See, we've covered taxes, and we've covered lawsuits, and we've
covered all the employment where I've lived, disputes I've had
with you know, renters, disputes I've had with other employees
or employers. We've talked about. You know, I haven't gotten divorced.
And see, my kids haven't been involved in any criminal activity.

(10:48):
I haven't been involved in any No, I can't think
of anything. Okay, good, But what if I had, let's see,
American Financing one of my lands that in a application
for home equity loan or a line of credit or
whatever it might.

Speaker 2 (11:07):
Have been, that I had claimed that, and.

Speaker 3 (11:10):
Let's say they were bringing it in New Mexico, a
house in New Mexico that I claimed that that was
my primary residence and that I intended to use as
my primary residence. But instead, what I was really going
to do was I was going to continue to live
in Island Ranch, but I was going to use the
money that I was going to get it from American

(11:31):
Financing and then use that to remodel the house in
New Mexico and did put it on Airbnb, or I
had found a renter, or I had found somebody, you know,
i'd found a long term rental. Well, that's a violation
of the financial disclosure laws. That's what Lisa Cook did
not once, but at least twice. I actually think she

(11:56):
did it three times on three properties. I think one
was in Michigan, one may have been on the East Coast,
and I think one was down in Georgia. So she
did something that is now under criminal investigation. Now, in
the private sector if and I've seen it happen in

(12:17):
companies before, whether you are ultimately found innocent or guilty,
I've seen companies terminate employees' contracts for cause because they
are alleged to have committed a crime. Now, in some
cases I didn't think they that companies did the right thing,

(12:38):
because some of those people were ultimately exonerated. But depending
upon the nature of the criminal allegation, that alone might
be enough embarrassment or difficulty for the company regards of
the outcome of the criminal case, that it would rise
to the level of cause you've brought disrepute upon the company.

(13:03):
That's a cause. I think they're on fairly thin grounds here.
But guess what. According to the Wall Street Journal, a
judge has blocked Trump fun removing Lisa Cook. Judge Cheer Cobb,

(13:25):
is that name ring a bell? We were talking about
her yesterday? She granted Cook's requests for a temporary court
order to keep her seat on the Federal Reserve Board
for now. Now, this comes just days before the Fed's
next meeting, which I think is set for sometime next week.

Speaker 2 (13:45):
I think maybe Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

Speaker 3 (13:48):
Now, the judge says that dismember of the Federal Reserve
Lisa Cook is substantially likely to succeed on her claim
that Trump violated the Federal Reserve Act because her termination
didn't comply with the statutes requirement that officials can only

(14:09):
be removed for cause. Cobb wrote, this removal was not
meant to be based on the President's assumptions about the
official's future performance, as extrapolated from unproven conduct dating before
they assumed the office. I actually think what Judge Cobb

(14:30):
wrote is actually a definition of cause, because removal is
based on assumptions. Because she is under a criminal investigation
by the Department of Justice, She's now going to go
sit on a Federal Reserve Board meeting to determine interest

(14:51):
rates for which Trump has been pushing, pushing, pushing, calling, uh,
he has a nickname for Jerome Powell too late Pale. Well,
that's political. And Trump's putting political pressure on the Federal Reserve,

(15:11):
which he has a right to do so if he
has a right to put political pressure on and that
political pressure includes that, Oh, you're being investigated. I don't
think you ought to be making these decisions on behalf
of the executive of the executive branch. So I'm going
to remove you. I think Cobb's absolutely wrong. Now, obviously

(15:35):
they're going to appeal, and I don't know how the
appeal will turn out. But will the Supreme Court be
forced to answer either these plaintiffs or defendants legitimate concerns
about a fourth branch of government? Now, while the Supreme
Court concluded earlier this year that quote the Federal Reserve

(15:56):
is a uniquely structured quasi private entity, I think a
more thoughtful examination ought to occur into exactly what that
means in this day and age. Is the fadom masses
even more power beyond what the original Federal Reserve Act
contemplated in other words, they've gone way beyond the statute.
And once you go beyond the statute, does that well

(16:20):
that nullifies that part of the statute. And regardless of
whether it does or does not, I think that it does.
She has lost the confidence of the president because of
a criminal investigation that involves finances, which is what is
the purview part of the purview monetary policy of the

(16:42):
Federal Reserve. So she ought to be removed. So the
question becomes, if a president is prohibited from firing a
highly influential appointee fourteen year term of his predecessor under
the guy of independence, then where does that fall under

(17:03):
our constitutional system whose independence is protected? This is the
problem with Congress creating so called independent agencies. They're not
independent agencies. They are, by necessity a part of the
executive branch.

Speaker 2 (17:21):
And Trump is the head of the executive branch.

Speaker 3 (17:24):
And if he wants to fire you for any reason
or no reason, he ought to be able to do that.
The only exception would be civil servants who are protected
by a union contract or by a statute that outlines
how you dismiss it. Hey, let's go talk to jeriffs
over the retirement planning. Certain of the Rockies.

Speaker 2 (17:44):
How you doing, Jerifs doing ro well?

Speaker 4 (17:47):
Michael? Thanks for asking me, you bet so.

Speaker 3 (17:49):
My question today is I think a lot of retire
you fear running out of money.

Speaker 2 (17:55):
So how do you.

Speaker 3 (17:55):
Guys help people plan so they don't have to live
with that sort of anxiety.

Speaker 4 (18:01):
That's such a real fear, Michael, and you hit the
nail on the head. That's the number one question that
people have when they come to see us for the
first time, like, am I going to run out? It
goes back, Yeah, it goes back to this time when
you know, forty or fifty years ago, a retire would
work their life, work for forty or fifty years for
the same company. They'd retire with a pension, they'd turn

(18:22):
on their Social Security and they could live very comfortably
with very little savings because they'd have the income that
they need and they're all set. But the problem is
that doesn't exist for most people today. Right Very few
companies offer pensions, and even when they do, most workers
don't stay long enough to get one that's worth much.
And so the responsibility for planning for retirement rests primarily

(18:44):
on the individual today, or it didn't in the past,
and so it's up to you to make sure you've
saved enough. It's up to you to invest it properly.
It's up to you to figure out when to turn
on your four to one k or how to invest
it so that it doesn't crash and burn it. It's
a pretty serious burden, and so people are always asking
us this question, did I do it right? Do I
have enough? Is it going to last? And that's why

(19:05):
income planning is so crucial. You know, a person can
have a million dollars or two or three million dollars
in assets, but if they haven't figured out how to
convert it to income, or if their investments are ill
liquid or too volatile, then you know you've got a problem.
And so you know, that's that's what we do. We
sit people down, we have the conversation about what they've
got and how we can convert it to income in

(19:27):
a way that will last as long as they want
it to and to be as guaranteed as they want
it to be. I had a client come in just
last week actually, who has multiple millions of dollars in
the market, and one of their questions to me was,
you know you've told us we're going to be okay.
We believe that we're going to be okay, But what
really is going to happen if the market crashes and
we lose half of our money? Right, And we have

(19:48):
these types of conversations all the time, and the good
news is we can get them an answer. You know,
it's a smart question and we know the answers, and
so we just want to help help make make people
some clarity confidence and have the answers of these types
of questions so things don't have to worry about it exactly.
You know, you've got one chance to retire, and you

(20:09):
don't get to do it over, so let's make sure
that we do it right the first time exactly.

Speaker 3 (20:14):
And that's and I think that's why people knew. You know,
I had a a listener that went to you guys
and actually use the word about what a joy it
was working with you guys. And I thought these guys,
these guys that I know, it was a joy to
work with.

Speaker 2 (20:30):
The I thought it was a great compliment.

Speaker 3 (20:33):
Because I think that that's a reflection of the guys
that I know at RPC, is that you guys are
you're just you're just really good people to work with Now.
I was really gad that somebody, you know, somebody took
my advice and went to you and they and they
made that compliment.

Speaker 2 (20:47):
So that's so good for you.

Speaker 4 (20:48):
And that individual is a great person. We enjoy working
with her too, and we're good. We just want to
help people do the right thing, that's all.

Speaker 3 (20:54):
And that's why I'll encourage anybody, you know, as I
always tell you, whether you know, we go as of Age,
Goddess of Income. If you're even just thinking about retirement,
pick up the phone call Jarriis and his partners of
the retirement planning some of the Rockies. Make sure you
tell them that Michael Brown sent you. Nine seven zero
sixty six three thirty two eleven. Nine seven zero sixty

(21:14):
six three thirty two eleven, Or go check out their website.
It's ourpcenter dot com. Back to the President's agenda and
the courts. So probably even more important to the agenda
is the decision we mentioned yesterday about the Supreme Court putting.

Speaker 2 (21:31):
On hold this California judge.

Speaker 3 (21:34):
Halting the immigrations and customs enforcement raids never going on
in and around Los Angeles. All those began back in June,
well in July. Judge, Mommy, we see mansong from pong.

Speaker 2 (21:52):
Let that sink in.

Speaker 3 (21:54):
A Biden appointee, granted a temporary restraining order soopted by
immigration activists because they were claiming that the raids were
unconstitutional and that they were racist. Remember we talked about
this yesterday. Well, the judge agreed, writing that roving patrols
without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

(22:18):
She then prohibited law enforcement from relying on remember trying
and laughing about this race, ethnicity, language, present areas frequented
by illegals, and the type of labor that one does,
all of those things as a basis for a raid
or a stop.

Speaker 2 (22:38):
I told you.

Speaker 3 (22:38):
It was a sixty three decision, with the so called
liberal wing of the court really unhappy, citing against Trump
who said that along with Slomayor, who said that she
cannot stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are law.

(23:02):
Except the Supreme Court paused the lower court judge's directive
and allowed immigrations and Customs enforcement to proceed for now,
and writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh offered a after
yesterday's show, I went back and I reread what he wrote,

(23:25):
it's much more forceful than what I described yesterday.

Speaker 2 (23:31):
He noted that.

Speaker 3 (23:32):
Quote at least fifteen million people are in the United
States illegally, and that at least two million illegal aliens
live in the Los Angeles area alone, conturning the quote,
immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence has

(23:55):
been an important component of US immigration enforcement for decades,
heads across several presidential administrations. And then he addressed the
separation of powers dispute looming over every immigration related case,
and that is the ability of these judges to intervene.

(24:16):
He wrote, especially in immigration cases like this one. It
is also important to stress the proper role of the judiciary.
The judiciary does not set immigration policy or does not
decide enforcement priorities Article three judges, in other words, addressing

(24:40):
these trial judges. Article three judges may have views on
which policy approaches better or fairer, but judges are not
appointed to make those policy calls. We merely ensure injusticiable
cases that the executive branch acts within the confine of
the constitutions of the Constitution and federal statues. A little background,

(25:12):
Kavanaugh seems to be channeling a fellow Trump appointed by
the name of Andrew Oldham. He's now a judge on
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a really scathing
descent related to court ordered stoppages on the President's Alien
Enemies Act, Oldman accused his colleagues of a collective double

(25:36):
standard when it comes to the Trump immigration policies. Quote,
for two hundred and twenty seven years, every president of
every political party has enjoyed the same broad powers to
repel threats to our nation under the Alien Enemies Act.

(25:56):
For President Trump, however, the rules seem to be different.
So he goes on to point out that these lower
court judges, I think accurately assessing them, are not in
a position to second guess the expertise or the purview
of the executive branch when it comes.

Speaker 2 (26:12):
To immigration matters.

Speaker 3 (26:15):
In fact, he says this that contravenes over two hundred
years of legal precedent, and it transmorgraphies the least dangerous
branch in de robed crusaders who get to play act
as multitudinous commanders in chief. Now those words in that
opinion will eventually make it back to the Supreme Court

(26:37):
in due time. The Fifth Circuit took up that case
in May at the direction of the Highest Court, at
the direction of the Supreme Court. So Oldham and Kavanaugh
are two of the latest to acknowledge that the judiciaries
nearly non existent authority in reviewing immigration policy, including the

(27:01):
Alien Enemies Act. But now six months after the issue
of the Alien Enemies Act declaration, the President is still
being prevented from acting from enacting the policy because of
the activism of these lower courts. The Supreme Court can't
act fast enough the administration. I think I got to

(27:24):
feel kind of cheered on by this week's success at
the Supreme Court. And if the president ultimately prevails in
drastically reducing the threat of unchecked illegal immigration and the
threat of an unchecked forth branch of government, that's a
win win, and that is probably since Reagan. That's probably

(27:47):
the first time in my lifetime that a president has
actually campaigned on and said I'm going to do this,
starts actually doing this and is winning in the courts. Finally,
So for all the other stuff about letting criminals out
on cashless bail, about the murders, about everything else. While

(28:11):
all of that's going on, there is simultaneously going on
a subtle change in the courts that is beginning to
uphold Trump and the power of the executive. Now you'll
hear in the cabal about how he's expanding the authority
of the executive. We'll know, as Kavanaugh points out and

(28:32):
his olden points out in the Fifth Circuit, we have
two hundred years of precedent of presidents enacting and following
their own policies when it comes to enforcement of immigration rules.

Speaker 2 (28:46):
That's a win win.

Speaker 5 (28:48):
Welcuy Sheriff's office had to release a vagerous man because
they found him a comin to stand trial for the
crime that he did. And that's not the only time
that he got out of other situations around the stage.

Speaker 2 (29:09):
He's a very violent man. He's in prison.

Speaker 3 (29:14):
Yeah, I've heard about that case. I haven't studied enough
yet to comment on it, but my kind of general
reaction to it is if he was truly a judge. Again,
I don't know the details. I know that I'm a
dragon on this story. The headlines are he was founding

(29:34):
competent stand trial, so he was released. That's where the
problem lies. That we're not dealing with mental health issues.
If he's incompetent to stand trial and he was accused
of committing a crime, then he should have been committed
to a mental institution. But oh no, we can't do
that because that might be racist, or that might be

(29:55):
you know, that's not showing much compassion. Well wait till
he it's another crime. And I also somebody told me
that even Elon Musk has commented on that particular case.
So yeah, you don't know. I can't believe you have
seen that headline. What are you doing back there? I'll
try to find out more about it. Cracker Barrels back

(30:16):
in the news, Uh, you know they were. They were
in a streamline the logo last month and everybody went bonkers.
Trump even tweeted about it. So of course Cracker Barrel,
like everybody else seems to do, caved almost instantly. So
the people that go to Cracker Barrel barrel heads, I guess,

(30:38):
smelled blood in the water and they wanted even more concessions.
They didn't like what the fancy new cidified CEO it
was doing with the place, and they wanted everything put
back like it was. It wasn't broke, so it didn't
need no fixing. Well, the enemy, Cracker Barrel has retreated
yet another step, they tweeted out yesterday morning after the program.

(31:04):
You've shared your voices in recent weeks, not just on
our logo, but also on our restaurants. We're continuing to listen.
Today we're suspending our remodels. If your restaurant hasn't been remodeled,
you don't need to worry.

Speaker 2 (31:20):
It won't be.

Speaker 3 (31:21):
With our recent announcement that our old timer logo will
remain along with our bigger focus in the kitchen and
on your plate. We hope that today's step reinforces that
we hear you, and you can learn more at Cracker
Barrel dot com.

Speaker 2 (31:36):
All the more, it's.

Speaker 3 (31:37):
Kind of like what NBC's The More You Know slogan
or whatever it is. Well, I wouldn't stop now, No,
you got them on their heels. So if if your
local Cracker Barrel wherever that is, I couldn't tell you
the last time was in their Cracker Barrel, if it
has been remodeled, then you need to go in and
ask why it hasn't been changed back yet, Because if

(31:59):
the entire chain admits that the whole thing was a mistake,
then why should you be punished and have to go
to a cracker barrel that's been remodeled.

Speaker 2 (32:08):
Tell you want the.

Speaker 3 (32:09):
Old crap back, you went, the dirt back, you want
the grease on the wall's bake, you want everything back.

Speaker 2 (32:13):
Like it was. I can't believe that this is still
an issue, but apparently it is. Don't don't go go,
won't go broke, the thing says, and I think they've
realized that what they do.

Speaker 3 (32:28):
I think they painted some walls white, they rearranged everything,
they decluttered stuff. Apparently people like cluttering nick knacks everywhere.

Speaker 2 (32:38):
Drives me batty