| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
unidentified
|
Peaks of mankind are no peaks. | |
| Then in the end, you'll probably force people to say, okay, these peaks do not belong to the world. | ||
|
unidentified
|
They're mine. | |
| They're mine. | ||
| And that way, we'll lie how. | ||
| But the people pushing this don't know that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
They don't know anything. | |
| It's a shame. | ||
| That is a shame. | ||
| This was not a shame, though. | ||
| This is a terrific session. | ||
| Thank you so much, Douglas Meyer. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Thanks, guys. | ||
| That was marvelous. | ||
| Two things. | ||
| The bookstore is about to close at 11.30. | ||
| Don't go to try to book, buy a book at 11:35. | ||
| Get shut out because you've been warned. | ||
| It's closing at 11:30. | ||
| We got 15 minutes once again. | ||
| Then we hear from Ron and Casey DeSantis. | ||
| Thanks, everyone. | ||
| You're watching our live coverage of the National Review's Idea Summit on conservative policies and the Trump agenda, currently taking a break. | ||
| Also expected shortly, we'll take you to the White House, where President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseff will be speaking from the Oval Office. | ||
| We'll have live coverage when their remarks begin here on C-SPAN. | ||
| You can also watch on our free mobile app, C-SPAN Now, and online at c-span.org. | ||
| Joining us this morning is Stephen Vladeck. | ||
| He's a professor of law at Georgetown University's Law Center here to talk about the court challenges facing this Trump administration and the administration's view of the courts. | ||
| Mr. Vladek, let's just begin with the number of challenges in the courts to the president's executive orders actions. | ||
| Talk about how many there are and why has this gone to the courts. | ||
| Yeah, good morning, Greta. | ||
| I think that it's a striking number. | ||
| I mean, here we are just over two months into the second Trump administration. | ||
| And by my count, we're now over about 130 different lawsuits challenging actions that the federal government has taken specifically since January 20th. | ||
| You know, MAP is, I know, a challenge, but that's more than two a day. | ||
| And, you know, it's not just the lawsuits, Greta, it is how broadly these lawsuits are pitching, that they're about, you know, almost every agency and almost every type of policy, that they're being filed in, you know, a geographically diverse set of federal courts. | ||
| And, Greta, perhaps most importantly, that a bunch of them, at least so far, have produced relief, even temporary relief, in the form of temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions. | ||
| So it really is, I think, a sharper conflict between a new president and the federal courts than one we've seen really in American history because of the volume of cases, because of the significance of some of these cases, and because of the degree of judicial pushback, at least to this point. | ||
| What types of judges are issuing these injunctions? | ||
| I mean, so every type of judge. | ||
| I mean, so, you know, We're seeing injunctions from Democratic-appointed district court judges. | ||
| We're seeing injunctions from Republican-appointed district court judges. | ||
| You know, a lot of these lawsuits have been brought in, I think, slightly more favorable-seeming parts of the country. | ||
| So, we're seeing a lot of lawsuits, for example, in Boston and in Baltimore and on the West Coast in Seattle. | ||
| But actually, Greta, the court that has had the most number of cases has been the federal district court here in Washington, D.C. | ||
| And so, you know, when you hear folks like President Trump or Stephen Miller or the White House Press Secretary Carolyn Levitt complaining about efforts by Democrats to judge shop, I mean, the reality is that most of the lawsuits are being brought where the federal government is and where you're getting random assignment across the entire federal court bench here in Washington or across the state lines in Maryland or even up in Boston. | ||
| So it really has been not just one judge or two judges or three judges, but 25 or 30 judges. | ||
| And as much as the president has taken to calling these rogue judges, I do think there comes a point where if there are this many judges from this many different backgrounds appointed by this many different presidents ruling against your policies, maybe the rogue actor is not the courts. | ||
| Why is that then? | ||
| What does it come down to, in your opinion? | ||
| Is the executive power limited? | ||
| I mean, so first, yes, there's just no argument that the president has unlimited power under the Constitution. | ||
| That's not how the Constitution works. | ||
| I think part of why we are seeing such a diverse array of court rulings blocking the Trump administration is because, you know, to be perfectly candid, the Trump administration is pushing a whole lot of legal envelopes and is, in a number of cases, crossing what even the administration would concede are well-settled legal lines. | ||
| Take birthright citizenship, for example. | ||
| You know, the arguments in favor of the Trump administration's executive order mostly turn on disregarding or overruling an 1898 Supreme Court precedent. | ||
| The president's power to fire, you know, members of the Merit Systems Protection Board or the National Labor Relations Board turn on overruling a 1935 Supreme Court precedent. | ||
| So, you know, Greta, when we look at what the job of a lower federal court judge is, not the Supreme Court, you know, their job is to faithfully apply precedent to whatever case is brought to them. | ||
| And so when you have a president who's acting in a way that is unprecedented, when you have actions that are defying settled precedents, when you have a number of other actions that aren't even authorized by the relevant statutes, I think that's why we're seeing such a confluence, such an sort of a high number of these kinds of rulings adverse to the Trump administration. | ||
| Let's listen to the president. | ||
| In an interview with Fox News, he talked about his views on the judiciary. | ||
| Going forward, I had judges. | ||
| I did defy a court order. | ||
| We all know that. | ||
| I never did defy a court order. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And you wouldn't in the future? | |
| No, you can't do that. | ||
| However, we have bad judges. | ||
| We have very bad judges. | ||
| And these are judges that shouldn't be allowed. | ||
| I think at a certain point, you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge. | ||
| The judge that we're talking about, you look at his other rulings, I mean, rulings unrelated, but having to do with me, he's a lunatic. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Stephen Vladik? | |
| I mean, you know, I'm not sure how much we're supposed to take what the president says seriously, but I'll take a stab. | ||
| So the specific judge he's talking about in that clip, Chief Judge Jeb Boesberg here in the D.C. Federal District Court, is about as highly regarded a federal district judge as there is in the country. | ||
| I mean, Chief Justice Roberts has tapped him on multiple occasions to serve in roles that you wouldn't pick a rogue judge for. | ||
| You'll note the president didn't offer examples of cases that prove that Chief Judge Bozberg is a, quote, rogue judge, unquote. | ||
| In fact, Greta, the one other case Bozberg has had involving President Trump, he actually ruled for then President Trump back in 2018 or 2019 when it was an effort to get his tax returns disclosed. | ||
| So, you know, I really think that we have to be very specific about the facts here and not just the rhetoric. | ||
| And the facts are that the administration is losing in cases before literally dozens of different federal district judges, not all of whom are Obama appointees, not all of whom are Biden appointees. | ||
| And, you know, if you really think that a district court is getting something wrong, and Greta, it's entirely possible they are, our legal system has remedies for that. | ||
| The remedies are to appeal. | ||
| The remedies are to seek relief from a higher court. | ||
| So in the case of Chief Judge Boesberg, that would be the federal appeals court here in D.C., the D.C. Circuit, and if necessary, from the U.S. Supreme Court. | ||
| And, you know, don't just take my word for it. | ||
| That's exactly what Chief Justice John Roberts said in his, I think, fairly remarkable statement to the you know to the press on Tuesday. | ||
| Yeah, let's read that. | ||
| Chief Justice John Roberts issuing this statement. | ||
| For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. | ||
| The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose. | ||
| You called this remarkable. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Well, I mean, first, you know, this is in the Chief Justice, we have someone who, you know, doesn't get out of bed in the morning without a plan. | ||
| And so this was not exactly spur of the moment. | ||
| I think this is only the second time in his almost 20 years now as Chief Justice in which he's made this kind of public statement. | ||
| The first was during the first Trump administration, also in response to President Trump. | ||
| And, you know, Greta, I think it's important because it's a message from the Chief Justice that, in his view, the rhetoric has gotten out of hand. | ||
| And the rhetoric is coming in this case almost exclusively from the White House and its supporters. | ||
| And so, you know, John Roberts, I think, is not suggesting he agrees with all of these district court rulings. | ||
| He may well not. | ||
| But I think what he's saying is we have a process through which, you know, if you have a district judge who's behaving badly, the remedies exist within the legal system. | ||
| And once again, I mean, I just can't stress this point enough. | ||
| We're talking about a whole lot of district judges who would have to be behaving badly if these charges from the White House are to be believed. | ||
| On Judge Bozberg, he stopped the department from deporting some immigrants, illegal immigrants that the administration said were terrorists. | ||
| They categorized them as that. | ||
| Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, putting out a statement saying that order from the judge disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump's power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk. | ||
| Respond to Pam Bondi. | ||
| I mean, so just to be very clear about what we're talking about, the folks who were put on an airplane or three airplanes on Saturday were already in immigration detention. | ||
| They were not posing any threat to the public at the time they were placed on these airplanes. | ||
| And we now know, I mean, thanks to reporting in the New York Times yesterday, that for a number of these folks, they were being held without any criminal conviction. | ||
| They were being held without any proof that they're members of Terenda Ragua, the gang that is at the heart of all of this. | ||
| And so, Greta, I think part of the problem here is that we have due process in this country entirely so that we can be confident that when the government whisks individuals off to other countries, they are who the government says they are. | ||
| We have due process for undocumented immigrants. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| If we didn't, you could summarily execute people, and we don't do that. | ||
| Because, Greta, how can you be sure that they're undocumented immigrants? | ||
| Just by looking at them, right? | ||
| So, you know, even in prior declared wars, when the government used the Alien Enemy Act during the War of 1812, during World War I, during World War II, the folks who we picked up and said, you are alien enemies. | ||
| We can hold you and remove you, Greta, they got hearings because they were entitled to challenge whether they were, in fact, who the government said they were. | ||
| There are reported judicial decisions from the War of 1812, from World War I, from World War II, where federal courts looked carefully in the middle of a war at the question of whether a particular detainee was a German citizen or an Italian citizen or perhaps a Swiss citizen who could not be detained. | ||
| If that was available during World War II, our most complete total war in American history, it's hard to see the case that the Attorney General is trying to make that it shouldn't be available today. | ||
| Let's go to Bruce in New York, Independent. | ||
| Our first call here. | ||
| Welcome to the conversation, Bruce. | ||
| Go ahead. | ||
| Well, thank you. | ||
| Good morning, Stephen. | ||
| I'm a political anthropologist, and I have a two-part question. | ||
| One, I've been watching the concentration of executive powers for decades now, really. | ||
| And I'm sure you're aware that it's been issues and escalating as an issue for some time politically. | ||
| But I've never seen it become a domestic problem where it's an attack upon institutions within the system itself. | ||
| That's number one. | ||
| Number two, I appreciate your objectivity, by the way. | ||
| What I see is, you know, people keep taking Trump's rhetoric, as you had difficulty doing, as a kind of equivocation, and you can't really be sure whether it's rhetoric or what he means. | ||
| And then it goes through, and people are saying, well, you better take him serious after the fact, et cetera. | ||
| When are we going to start seeing this as a pattern? | ||
| It's not just the judges. | ||
| It's not just the Justice Department under Biden. | ||
| It's not just the education system. | ||
| He uses the same rhetoric all the time. | ||
| And we don't basically represent it as a pattern of his attack. | ||
| And the question of his attack, of course, is an open question as to why he's doing his political power, whether he's attempting to change the institutions, whether he's trying to basically, there's accusations of trying to destroy democracy itself. | ||
| That aside, the fact that he has taken a battering ram to institutions systematically, including the free press, including news on TV, every single institution in the country seems to be subject to his wrath. | ||
| And he's using the power, the executive powers, to do this, whether or not it's justified, whether or not it's legitimated. | ||
| They use rhetoric to move ahead. | ||
| And then damage being done, they make no apologies. | ||
| They move on to the next group. | ||
| All right, Bruce, let's get a reaction from Mr. Vladik. | ||
| So, I mean, Bruce, thanks for the questions. | ||
| I mean, I think there are two different things going on here, and it's worth breaking them apart. | ||
| The first is that some of the moment we're in did not come out of nowhere. | ||
| I mean, I think, right, we have been building for several generations toward sort of a state of government where presidents of both parties come to office, have very little policy support from Congress, even if their party controls both chambers of Congress, and is left to do most of their major domestic policy work through executive orders. | ||
| And, you know, Bruce and Greta, what that does is it heightens the conflict points. | ||
| It means you're going to have more and more conflict between the president and the courts because the presidents of both parties are claiming power that is less and less directly traceable to statutes that Congress has enacted. | ||
| It's a lot of what's happening with Trump. | ||
| But we saw this to some degree with the Biden administration. | ||
| We saw it with the first Trump administration, et cetera. | ||
| So, in some respect, we have been heading for this for some time. | ||
| And really, there, I think it's a conversation about how Congress has abdicated so much of its regulatory responsibility and so much of its role in setting nationwide policy. | ||
| But, you know, even within that space, where this is in some respects a difference of degree and not kind, there's still something unique about what the current administration is doing. | ||
| And I think Bruce is right, Greta, that there's a sort of a hostility to institutions that we didn't see even during the first Trump administration. | ||
| I mean, just yesterday, the executive order purporting to try to start dismantling the Department of Education, which you were talking about earlier this morning. | ||
| You know, these are sort of larger challenges to settled understandings than we've seen even in prior administrations. | ||
| And those challenges are coming in different forms: refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated, mass firings of federal employees without whom these agencies cannot effectively function, and now trying to even shutter entire agencies. | ||
| And so, Greta, I think part of what is provoking all of these lawsuits and all of these judicial rulings against the Trump administration is the novelty of what we're seeing. | ||
| Not just that like it's new, but it's new in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with how the separation of powers had worked in this country for the better part of 240 years. | ||
| And I think that's part of why federal judges from across the ideological spectrum have been reacting the way they have. | ||
| Julius Kreine, who's the editor of American Affairs, writes in the opinion section of the New York Times: Trump does need to actually legislate. | ||
| There are limits to governing by executive order. | ||
| And he notes that executive orders can easily be reversed by a future president, and they can only go so far. | ||
| Right. | ||
| I mean, I think, you know, there's a larger story here about not just Congress's fecklessness when it comes to President Trump, but Congress's broader abandonment over the last 30 or 40 years of the lead role in setting domestic policy. | ||
| I mean, it used to be that a president would come to office and would have 100 days to try to get major policies through Congress, to try to get legislation enacted through Congress. | ||
| When President Trump signed the sort of the continuing resolution last Friday, I believe, Greta, that was the second bill he has signed since January 20th, the second. | ||
| And it wasn't a policy bill. | ||
| It was just keeping the money on. | ||
| So, you know, I think part of what has created the space for someone like President Trump to come in and try to do all of this stuff through novel assertions of executive power is that Congress has stopped asserting legislative power. | ||
| And so if we're thinking about sort of longer-term solutions that are not just about the current administration and our current political moment, you know, I think we really have to start thinking again about why it's important for Democrats and Republicans alike to be voting for folks to represent us in Congress who actually are interested in the institutional politics of Washington and not just in partisan politics. | ||
| And that's, I think, a tricky, a tricky road to hoe. | ||
| Let's go to Christian, Phoenix, Arizona, Republican. | ||
| Hi, Christian. | ||
| Hi. | ||
| Good morning. | ||
| Thank you so much for taking my call. | ||
| So what we have seen is a continuation of the interference from federal district and circuit appeals judges. | ||
| And this continuance that we saw from 2017, really even prior to even Trump really getting into office. | ||
| So some of these judges were going after Trump from the federal judiciary. | ||
| Then, when he became president, they were interfering with Trump, starting with the travel ban, which was overturned, by the way. | ||
| These 200-plus lawsuits in all of these different courts, none of these judges were elected president of the United States. | ||
| I didn't see their name on a ballot. | ||
| They didn't run in a contested primary. | ||
| They weren't nearly assassinated on national television. | ||
| So, the idea that these judges or any one of these judges are the president or they get to make executive decisions from the federal judiciary is that is a threat to our Republican form of government. | ||
| Christian, what, Christian, how do you respond to the judiciary being the third branch of government, co-equal government? | ||
| Say that again, I'm sorry. | ||
| That the judiciary is the third branch of government, it's there for checks and balances, just like Congress. | ||
| The judiciary, their job is not to challenge or try to rule from the bench with temporary restraining orders and running down these TROs in a conveyor belt. | ||
| That is not their job. | ||
| And it's a shame that Congress allowed something like this. | ||
| Let's get a response. | ||
| Mr. Vladik. | ||
| So, first, let's be clear. | ||
| That's exactly their job. | ||
| I mean, the reason why we have independent judges who are not elected is not an accident. | ||
| It's because the founders were very wary about the British system where the courts were not independent of the executive. | ||
| And the whole point was to have judges who could be sufficiently insulated to stand up to what the founders called tyranny of the majority. | ||
| I dare say this is about as powerful a moment of that as we've seen in American history. | ||
| And granted, just on the facts, you know, Christian mentioned the travel ban. | ||
| Let's be clear about what happened with the travel ban during the first Trump administration. | ||
| The first iteration of the travel ban, the chaotic Friday night weekend, you know, airport version, that was blocked by the federal courts, and the Trump administration, you know, took it down. | ||
| The second iteration of the travel ban that was blocked by the federal courts. | ||
| That block was mostly affirmed by the Supreme Court in the summer of 2017. | ||
| And the Trump administration went back to the drawing board. | ||
| It was only the third iteration of the travel ban after the administration had responded to two rounds of judicial rulings that the Supreme Court upheld five to four. | ||
| That's how the system is supposed to work. | ||
| And so, when Christian refers to federal judges interfering with the executive branch, I guess I would put it slightly differently. | ||
| It's federal judges insisting that the executive branch follow the law. | ||
| And if it's not going to be federal judges, I think the question everyone should be asking themselves is: who will it be? | ||
| Or is the law just whatever President Trump says it is? | ||
| Because if it's that, then we're not living in a democracy. | ||
| And I think we have to come to terms with that. | ||
| David's in Baltimore, Independent. | ||
| Morning, David. | ||
| Good morning. | ||
| Your guest said that if we can't trust what Trump says, well, I ask, who are we to take seriously? | ||
| Dostoevsky wrote this gem of a quote from one of his books. | ||
| He says, If there is no God, all things are permitted. | ||
| And I would suggest that while politicians and academics and commentators, journalists have been speaking from their ivory towers, the streets have become lawless. | ||
| The institutions have become lawless. | ||
| Even the church is becoming lawless. | ||
| Now, When Moses got the Ten Commandments from God himself, the kings of the earth, apart from Israel, they were writing their own laws. | ||
| And if they didn't like them, they changed them. | ||
| Just look at what happened to Daniel and his people in Babylon. | ||
| They didn't like him, so they wrote laws to condemn him. | ||
| Show me the person, I'll find the crime. | ||
| Now, we have to get serious about whether we want to live or whether we want to die, whether we want this nation to thrive just in a normal, peaceful way, or whether we want to see it crumble as Russia did in 1917. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Stephen Vladic, do you have any thoughts? | ||
| I mean, just I think the first question is the right one. | ||
| So who should we trust? | ||
| You know, the old Russian proverb is trust but verify. | ||
| I think part of why federal judicial proceedings are able to bring clarity and shine light on what the government is doing to a degree that White House press briefings are not is because you have lawyers who are speaking before judges with a duty of candor. | ||
| You have, you know, statements that are filed under penalty of perjury, where lying is not just what everybody does, but actually can come with real serious consequences. | ||
| You have the possibility of professional misconduct charges for lawyers who misrepresent things to the courts. | ||
| So, Greta, you know, I'm not here to say the courts are perfect. | ||
| They're not. | ||
| I mean, there's lots of stuff we need to do to fix the courts. | ||
| But I think it's much more likely that we're going to get an accurate sense of what the federal government is doing when federal officers are testifying under oath, when federal government lawyers are answering questions under penalty of professional misconduct than in any other space in our current discourse. | ||
| So it's not that I trust courts implicitly. | ||
| It's that I think if folks are looking for facts, you know, I would look at what the government is telling courts as opposed to what the government is telling friendly media outlets. | ||
| All right, Broadway, Virginia, Jerry is there, Republican. | ||
| Yeah, good morning. | ||
| Good morning. | ||
| First, let me say that one radical lunatic judge does not have a right to erase 77 million American votes. | ||
| And then you talk about process. | ||
| You're right. | ||
| Those people should have been processed when they entered our country. | ||
| ICE knew that these people were criminals, but they ordered illegally against federal law to release them into the country, fly them anywhere they wanted to go with no they knew who they were. | ||
| They knew they were criminals. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Stephen Vladic? | ||
| I mean, I guess, you know, two things to say. | ||
| First, again, we are not talking about a single, quote, radical lunatic judge. | ||
| We're talking about dozens of judges. | ||
| Second, with regard to undocumented immigrants, I mean, I guess the question I would ask anyone who takes that position is if ICE were to pick you up off the street tomorrow and haul you off to an immigration detention center in Louisiana because someone in the government says you committed a crime, you entered the country unlawfully, you're not an American, you don't have a visa. | ||
| I would think we would all want you or I or anybody else in that position to have a meaningful opportunity to contest what the government's basis is for arresting you, for detaining you, and for potentially removing you from the country. | ||
| And, you know, we can debate, Greta, how severe our immigration laws should be. | ||
| We can debate whether the Alien Enemy Act even applies to Trende Aragua. | ||
| I think it really ought not to be an issue that divides Democrats and Republicans that every single person is entitled to at least some due process before any of that can happen. | ||
| Because even if the government's not acting maliciously, the possibility that the government might make a mistake should be something that's always on our minds. | ||
| We're showing a video of these gang members that were deported from the United States. | ||
| They were not brought back to their home country of Venezuela. | ||
| They were brought back to El Salvador and they were met by soldiers and the El Salvadorian president. | ||
| What do you make of that? | ||
| Is that illegal? | ||
| I mean, so it raises a whole separate host of issues. | ||
| Greta, there are circumstances in which the federal government has the authority to remove non-citizens to a country other than their country of origin. | ||
| And the Supreme Court in a case in 2005 largely upheld that. | ||
| The problem is that there are two different federal laws. | ||
| There's the UN Convention Against Torture, and there's a federal statute called the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 that bar the federal government from removing anyone to circumstances in which those folks credibly fear torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. | ||
| And at least based on what we know from the pictures we're seeing out of El Salvador, there's a non-frivolous claim that that's part of what's happening on the far end of this. | ||
| So again, I mean, I go back to where we started, which is, even if you think the law should allow the federal government to do this to folks who are members of Trende Aragua, we should all hopefully have common cause that it only allows the federal government to do it to folks who are members of Trende Aragua, and that whether or not you or I or they are members of Trende Aragua should not just be up to the federal government. | ||
| The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is the law that the president in this administration has cited. | ||
| And it says, whenever there shall be a declared war or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the United States, all subjects of the hostile nation or government could be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. | ||
| When has this law been used? | ||
| So, you know, we talked briefly about the three most visible prior indications of the act, the War of 1812, when it was used against British nationals living in the United States, World War I, when it was used against predominantly German nationals living in the United States, and World War II, when it was invoked against German, Italian, and a handful of Japanese nationals living in the United States. | ||
| And, Greta, what's striking is, I mean, you read the sort of the operative provision. | ||
| There's also a provision in the statute that provides specifically for judicial review, even during wartime. | ||
| I mean, in contexts in which historically there really was not a lot of judicial review. | ||
| And so that's why I think it's really important when folks are learning about this 1798 statute to point out that even during World War II, there were literally hundreds of court cases where people we were holding under the auspices of this statute objected on the ground that they weren't who the government said they were or that they weren't nationals of countries with which we were at war. | ||
| And Greta, federal courts reviewed those claims. | ||
| They often rejected them because oftentimes they were meritless, but not because the federal courts lacked the power to hear those cases, not because these folks didn't have a right to judicial review. | ||
| And so I think, you know, part of what is so, I think, disheartening about our current discourse is that there's this sense that like as long as the right labels are used to describe the wrong people, due process doesn't matter. | ||
| And it seems to me that we all ought to keep in mind the idea that, like, whether fee people are the right people or the wrong people is a due process question. | ||
| And, you know, we can believe that the government has remarkably broad authorities to remove people who are in this country unlawfully. | ||
| But how do we know that they really are? | ||
| And that's why I think so much of the issue surrounding the Alien Enemy Act case, surrounding what's happening with these mass removals to El Salvador, is the absence of due process. | ||
| I'm going to leave this to take you to the White House where President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are speaking to reporters. | ||
| Mr. President? |