All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 21, 2025 - Rudy Giuliani
52:04
America's Mayor Live (610): An Update on the Ongoing Lawfare Against President Trump
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, this is Rudy Giuliani and welcome to America's Mayor Live.
Tonight, we're going to change our format somewhat and we're going to return to the format we used, oh, for a couple of years as Rudy's Common Sense.
And those podcasts are all available, there are a couple hundred of them, and they take you through the history, to a great extent, of the 2020...
And the 2021 election law disputes, as well as January 6th.
And they present a contemporary record, which at some point we're going to try to put together in a form that shows you living history.
But we often refer to it now, you know, to remind people.
Of exactly how far off the government was in certain areas.
Now, what we're going to talk about tonight as a podcast is something very important to understand because there are going to be many of these cases.
And there'll be many different variations of the rules.
But what I'm talking about is the lawfare that is continuing by the Democrats.
That they started a long time ago.
They took it to unconstitutional and illegal proportions when President Trump was indicted four times, all scheduled to go to trial in the same year, which would have been 2024, the year he was running for office.
Four separate, multiple, very multiple felony indictments.
And without going into them, which we did, of course, at the time and have reviewed and gone over, all of which shared in common one very simple fact.
None of them came close to charging a crime, nor did most of them even charge it procedurally correctly.
For example, the one in New York, which is the only one that yielded a completely fictitious conviction, Never even charged the underlying crime that was being committed.
It just had the word felony in it.
And ultimately led to the only non-unanimous criminal verdict since before the Magna Carta.
So they were absurd cases and they were all done for the very, very specific purpose of doing everything they could to stop him.
I don't know if ever in history anyone's been indicted.
And asked to go to trial, or tried to be put on trial four times.
I mean, they'd have been a fifth in Arkansas if it hadn't gotten to such a point where if they indicted him one more time, he'd have been elected by acclamation.
But they're continuing it now, and they're going to continue it in many different ways all throughout this administration.
I mean, I suddenly am a separate situation, the victim of it, in many, many cases, which are financed by the left-wing I don't know what you want to call them.
The left-wing anti-American cabal that is attempting to bring down our United States Constitution so they can end up creating a one-world government, a communist government, a government under the direction of Gates or Obama, or maybe even some of them wouldn't mind having Xi Jinping run the world.
But in any event...
Let's take it to one individual case, and then from that you can see how it broadens out into the, I don't even know how many, 40 or 50 cases that have been brought for the sole purpose of trying to stop him from reforming the government.
They are literally trying to do something that I don't think an American, I never thought an American would do, but they've done so many things that I don't think an American can do that I have a hard time believing they're Americans.
For years, all of us have heard candidates saying they are going to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.
And in many cases, it's become a cliche, and in many cases, it's become not even a false promise.
There's no promise to it.
People listen to it and say, gee, come on, tell me what you're really for.
Well, we finally have somebody in Washington who is deliberately, aggressively, Focused in the way that a great executive or business person would be focused on how to make the government efficient, which is how to remove waste, fraud, and abuse.
And believe me, that middle word, fraud, is probably most of it because when you see the opposition to it, you realize...
That this is a fight for them to the death.
Maybe because, you know, what it will reveal is something way beyond what we ever thought in terms of the corruption that not only is within the federal government that surrounds it.
You know, we talk about the military-industrial complex or the pharmaceutical medical industry surrounded by Billions of dollars, really, in money that can be made and multiple millions for the various advocates for it, the lawyers, the Washington law firms, the firms that are doing the lobbying that bring in $100 million, $200 million.
This is a tremendous amount of money.
So the case that we're going to start with and end with, to illustrate this point for you, because it'll illustrate really a point of war that goes back.
To the very writing of the American Constitution.
And that is, I mean, that all began on February 7th, just a very short while ago of 2025, when the newly appointed head of the President's Office of Personnel, which is an extremely important office, critical in the executive branch, and certainly in the White House and in the major agencies.
And particularly at the beginning of an administration, Sergio Gore is the head of that office.
And on February 7th, he sent a two-sentence letter to the person who is the special counsel, Hampton Dillinger.
We'll tell you what kind of special counsel he is in a minute.
Not like Smith.
The special counsel, really, for employment rights.
And he said in the letter, on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as special counsel of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is terminated effective immediately.
Thank you for your service.
Okay.
That sounds pretty straightforward.
And Mr. Dillinger, Mr. Dillinger, I held an office that was established by a statute of Congress where it requires that for the president to remove you, you have a five-year term, and for the president to remove you, he has to remove you for cause.
And it lays out two or three specifics that the president has to lay out.
Now, you say to yourself, well, why did the president not...
Lay out those reasons if he was going to fire him.
Well, first of all, there may not have been cause to remove him.
Or second, if there was, and there may have, right?
The president and his administration here are seeking an initial test of something that looks like it's been decided by the Supreme Court.
But you can find...
You know, arguments on the head of a pin to distinguish it.
And what I'm talking about is, can the Congress limit the ability of the president as the chief executive officer of the country from removing people who work for him?
Now, this has been a question that has gone back to the very beginning of the drafting of the provisions in Article 2 of the United States Constitution.
And what constitutes executive power?
So bear with me for a minute, and I think you'll see why this is such a critical question.
You all know that there are certain offices, certainly the key cabinet offices, and the ones right below that, where the president appoints, but with the advice and consent of the Senate, Secretary of State,
Secretary of War, Secretary of Defense now, Secretary of the Treasury, Attorney General, those were the four original Cabinet positions, and then the Cabinet positions that, as I say, Secretary of the Treasury, and then the Cabinet positions that were added thereafter.
They require the advising consent of the Senate.
The deputies in all those offices require the advising consent of the Senate.
Under secretaries, or in the case of the Justice Department, the associate attorney general, that was me, by the way, require confirmation.
Below that, the appointments are made by the cabinet officer, by and large.
Sometimes there's a special office that Congress created where they wanted that.
That's true of all of the cabinet offices.
The vast majority of federal employees...
Even the vast majority of executive-level federal employees are not appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.
But those three levels are.
Now, in the case of the Justice Department, all of the United States attorneys require confirmation by the Senate, as does the United States Marshal.
Each district in the United States has both a...
A lawyer representing the United States, the United States attorney, and a big office representing the United States on criminal and civil cases.
And they have a United States marshal who protects the court, handles the prisons, and actually has the additional responsibility of finding fugitives that they share with the FBI. The chief marshal for the district, let's say, oh, a state like...
My former state, New York, or my new state, Florida, have four districts.
A small state might have one or two.
And there's a United States attorney in each one of those districts, a United States marshal, and they're appointed with the advising incentive of the Senate.
Now, the position we're talking about here, Congress created, I believe, in the 70s.
And it was created to...
Bring employment cases on behalf of federal employees, really to cut down on the amount of litigation that might take place against the government.
And when it was created, the cases that have cast serious doubt on the constitutionality of putting these restrictions on the president had not been decided yet.
So the Congress, when they created the position, said, advice and consent of the Senate, five years.
Can only be removed for cause.
Okay.
And obviously, President Trump did not remove him because he removes him for what we call at will, which is the way most federal employees can be dismissed.
Way back, when they were drafting the advice and consent clause in the United States Constitution, the argument was that the president...
Should be restricted both on advice and consent and on removal.
In other words, let's take the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State, who was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, should only be removed with the advice and consent of the Senate.
A group of our great founders, Hamilton, Madison in particular, and probably because they wrote about it in the Federalist Papers.
Strongly disagreed.
And they prevailed.
And they prevailed on the theory that there's a difference between appointment and dismissal.
On appointment, we don't really know what we're getting.
The president doesn't really.
This is true in the case of most employment situations.
I've hired numerous people.
And at very first, you're not sure, right?
And therefore, Congress has a right to have some kind of oversight.
They're not telling the president he can't make any appointments, but Congress should be able to look at his appointments and take a second look at these very, very high positions so that the president doesn't make a terrible mistake.
It used to work, but that's the way it was done, and most presidential appointments went through, if not unanimously, very close to it.
I was nominated twice for positions where there had to be advice and consent.
And I don't remember the vote, but it was...
I don't know if there were votes against me.
Yeah, there might have been a few votes against me when I was nominated as Associate Attorney General.
Maybe United States Attorney, too.
I don't remember.
But, you know, it wasn't even an issue.
And for years, basically, the theory was one that Lindsey Graham likes to repeat very, very often, which is you give the president the people that he wants, unless the person's a real crook.
Not the made-up crook that they do now where they bring in the phony people.
And look, most of the votes on people that are supremely well-qualified in the last month were party-line votes.
And still, it's remarkable that the president was able to get all of them through.
The only one who didn't get through withdrew right at the very beginning, and that was...
That was Congressman Gates, for very unfortunate reasons.
But it was apparent that he wasn't going to get confirmed, and he dropped out before, I believe, before his name was sent up.
So you can say the president got everyone that he nominated confirmed or one dropped out.
I'm not sure where you would put Congressman Gates in that analysis.
In this case, Mr. Dillinger immediately went to court, and he went to a court that, I don't know, really is in need of serious investigation, and that is the Federal Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, which proved itself to be a court of unbelievable intimidation and dishonesty in the handling of the January 6th people.
This is not an argument that whatever happened on January 6th is totally justified.
This is not an argument that it was totally made up.
It doesn't argue either of those things.
It's an argument that unless you're a fool, blinded by passion and political prejudice, there was no due process.
For those people, the ones that may have been guilty, the ones that were absolutely innocent, are the ones that fell somewhere in between.
They were treated worse than violent criminals who beat people almost to the point of death.
Certainly in Democrat cities like New York or Philadelphia, where three-quarters of them walked the streets and New York about half.
They were out of control and they changed the law to the point of which the Supreme Court Throughout the major count that was being used by the equally corrupted U.S. attorney.
So, he went to the D.C. circuit, and without any question, he got a temporary restraining order, which you can get without a hearing, and you can get it without even telling the other side, but then it gets set down for a hearing.
And it is set down for a hearing on February.
And at that point, the judge will decide, will there be a preliminary injunction?
It is a judge of the D.C. District, and therefore I will guarantee you that the decision will be against President Trump.
It doesn't matter if the decision is lawful, unlawful, or made up, but it will be against President Trump.
If I am wrong about that, then the world has changed.
Maybe the world has changed.
But you could count on it for the last four years.
It was then taken up to the Court of Appeals by the government, saying that a temporary restraining order should not have been entered.
Now, usually temporary restraining orders are not appealable, but they are appealable if they do irreparable harm that can't be fixed in that period of time.
And among other things, the government quite soundly argued that this has got to get decided right away because This isn't isolated.
There are 40 or 50 of these that are basically holding up the ability of the federal government to operate for the people and with the agenda that they voted for.
They voted for the president to put his people in.
That's why they voted for him instead of Biden.
This guy was appointed by Biden.
Trump wants to put somebody else in.
That's what the people said when they elected President Trump.
Well, that argument didn't get very far with the equally Trump-deranged circuit.
Not as bad as the district, but pretty damn bad.
Now, I'm telling you this not only as a lawyer of 50 years' experience, a U.S. attorney probably with more success than any living U.S. attorney, and also as a person who's been a victim of the unfairness.
And the vitriol and the hatred, which I've never encountered in court in the District of Columbia with one of the worst judges in the District of Columbia.
And well regarded as one of the worst judges.
So bad that I had a very hard time getting a lawyer to represent me.
And not because of President Trump.
And that was the case earlier.
It was very hard to get people to represent you because they frightened away any lawyers who represented President Trump.
But the lawyers who turned me down turned me down because they didn't want to appear before this judge.
I finally got a lawyer.
And of course, the argument in front of her was a joke.
Not a joke.
It was a sad situation where you would sit there and think, am I really in the United States?
But in any event, undeterred by that, the acting solicitor general Took it now to the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court has decided, very strangely, to hear the temporary restraining order.
So it could produce a confusing procedural result, which will tell you nothing.
Like, we're not ready to hear it yet, or you've got a hearing on the 26th, let's see what happens after that hearing.
It's a bit odd that they've taken it with the hearing coming up on the 26th.
But in any event...
When you look at the case, and you look at the case in the bigger picture, because it's going to be litigated to the end, right?
Does the president have the right to remove?
Or put the other way, does the Congress have the ability to place limitations on the president's ability to remove?
Now, in most cases, the answer is absolutely not.
Because, as I said, the founding fathers made the decision, even in positions of advising consent, that you can put a limitation on removal because removal should really be solely up to the executive.
How can you force an executive, how can you force a president to work with an employee that they don't want to work with anymore?
This isn't like we don't know how it's going to work out.
Well, we don't know if the person can do a good job or not.
Or a person really doesn't prove themselves until they do a job.
Therefore, the Congress has been able to insert itself.
Although I really do think, but our founding fathers put it there so you can't really object to it.
There really was an argument even over that, whether the Congress should have that role.
Because by and large, if you say you're the executive, you're in charge, the only way you can do it is the people you hire.
But if there is some limitation on that, and it applied as rationally as it usually was applied until we got to now, there really wasn't much of a limitation and occasionally did spot someone who shouldn't be in the cabinet that somehow a president or his administration missed.
Now it's become a question of political obstruction.
Part of the theory that the Democrats hold very, very strongly, that they should give the president no wins.
Not something the Democrats did to Biden, by the way, but something that the Democrats do to Republicans and to President Trump, which is really like saying, screw the country.
Because right now, the country is in the hands of Donald J. Trump, whether the Democrats like it or not.
And if he's successful, the country will be successful.
And if he's not, the country will not.
So by artificially and needlessly delaying him, blocking him, you're hurting the country.
You're hurting the country from him working out what the country voted for, which whether you're like it or not, that's the way it is for the next four years.
When the case goes to litigation, the question is, who's going to win?
Well, here's what this goes back to.
This goes back to, originally, a case called Myers v.
the United States.
Now, for all the years up to 1926, the Constitution contains absolutely nothing on the power to remove.
Someone from office, except the impeachment power that we know about.
Tells you about advice and consent, certain positions, nothing about removal.
So, Postmaster General of the United States, acting at the instructions of the President, removed a first-class postmaster in the face of an act of Congress that was passed in 1876,
an act of Congress says that postmasters shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Okay?
And shall hold their offices for four years unless soon removed or suspended according to law.
Chief Justice Taft held that the order of...
Of removal, which was, based on that statute, was meant to apply to certain degrees of postmasters.
And that Madison had largely, during the debate on the Constitutional Convention, That the president was entitled to remove his appointees at will and that the Congress should have no role in
it.
And that basically that was based on the president being able to carry out his responsibilities under Article 2 to take care.
That the laws be faithfully executed.
And by the time you finish that decision, which is brilliantly written by Taft, it almost, it looks like the president has an, in the language here it says an illimitable, I'm not absolutely sure that's a word, but illimitable power to remove.
All offices in which he has participated in the employment, with the exception of federal judges who were appointed for life.
And of course, it's a separate branch of government.
He gets to a point, but they're in a separate branch of government.
So, when you finish the Myers case in 1926, it looks like the President of the United States can run his business with a slight...
Or major interference of this body called the Senate that gets to advise and consent on his top, whatever the number at the time, 8, 10, 12, 15 cabinet members and their chief deputies and assistant deputies.
But he can remove all of them at will.
And he can remove everybody at will, because that's what it means to be a chief executive.
So as that case moved along, another case came up, and it was the Humphrey case.
Now, the Humphrey case was a different court.
It was after the attempt, it was after the Roosevelt change in the court, and we're talking now about the...
The court that did a great deal of the expansion of the government decisions, a little after that really, actually earlier than that.
So Roosevelt faced a tremendous problem with the court in that the court struck down many of the provisions of the New Deal.
And that's when Roosevelt came up with his court packing scheme.
It was roundly rejected by the people, so he was afraid to go forward.
And then he finally got to make his appointments to the court.
So this was pre that time.
So let me give you the exact date.
October 7, 1933. So Roosevelt stood office just a very short period of time.
And Humphrey was a member of the Federal Trade Commission.
And he had been put there by President Hoover, who was a Republican.
And Roosevelt wanted to remove him.
So if you take a look at the prior decision that I told you about, it looked like he had the unfettered ability to do that.
Except the Federal Trade Commission had been established as an administrative body by Congress.
To carry into effect legislative policies embodied in the statute.
Such a body cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or eye of the executive, said the court.
Its duties are performed without executive leave and in contemplation of the statute, and it must be free from executive control.
We think it plain that illimitable power of removal is not possessed by the president.
Remember, they thought it was.
So the court, maybe for a legitimate interpretation, or maybe as Republicans trying to limit the New Deal Democrat who was from the opposite side of the spectrum, something like Trump, shaking everything up, right?
They basically took away from him what was decided earlier and almost assumed for most of the history of our republic that because...
When the Congress decided way back that the Senate could advise and consent, but nobody could interfere in the removal.
Nobody could interfere in the removal.
He appointed these people, therefore he can remove them.
No, the court says this was a special administrative body created to carry into effect legislative polities, policies abonded in the statute.
It's not an executive branch agency, even though appointed by the president.
And the president doesn't have unlimited power.
Of removal.
And then they wrote, in respect of offices of the character of those just named.
The Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Court of Claims.
And that the Attorney General had violated the regulations in what he had done.
And now we create this tremendous confusion about what the President's removal powers are and what they're not.
And Congress is now given this additional ability to put restrictions on the president's ability to remove.
The Supreme Court kind of reiterated that quite a few decades later in the United States against Nixon, this time a Republican president being limited.
And when they went back to that Myers case about a postmaster, they kept saying that that only applied only to a little postmaster.
But if it's something more important, then Congress has the right to limit the president's ability to appoint.
And that pretty much remained the law through, for example, you might remember the special counsel.
The situation of Mortigate when Nixon removed the special counsel and the Supreme Court said that he couldn't do that because when Congress created that position, it said it could be removed only for good cause, physical disability, mental incapacity, or any other condition that substantially impairs his performance.
And when the president removed the special counsel, It was declared unconstitutional in a much more publicly well-known opinion.
And now they started to get into real minute lawyers' debates in which they were distinguishing between executive officers who have quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial powers.
And if they're basically pure executives, the president can remove them.
But if there's something different, quasi-legislative, like one of these commissions, or quasi-judicial...
But here when you get to a special prosecutor, he's exercising not quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial, but one of the most basic...
Executive power of all to execute the laws, to enforce the laws, right?
The Congress passes the laws.
The President enforces the laws.
The Supreme Court interprets the laws.
You learn that.
Well, you used to learn that at school.
I don't know if they, I think they now teach other things about questioning what your gender is and stuff like that.
I don't know if they teach that anymore.
So the court really now went another step into the president's prerogatives and decided they could limit the president's ability to exercise the prosecutorial power of the United States, which is a 100% executive function.
And that it was very hard to distinguish.
If you could distinguish it at all, very, very hard to distinguish if you could at all when a president could and when a president could not remove someone.
Then two other cases came along, which I think are going to end up deciding this case for us.
One of them was cellular law versus the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This law firm.
That litigated very often in front of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, challenged the constitutionality of the commissioner.
And they argued that the CFPB's leadership, by a single individual, appointed by the president, But only removable for inefficiency and elect or malfeasance violates separation of powers.
And the Supreme Court held, you're right.
A single individual exercising executive powers by carrying out the consumer protection laws is an executive position.
He's appointed by the president.
And it's an interference in the president's ability to govern if you put restrictions on his ability to remove.
And the Supreme Court held that the CFPB director is removed by the president at will and reversed the Ninth Circuit, which I think it...
I mean, this could have been done because it came from the Ninth Circuit.
The Supreme Court basically automatically reverses anything from the Ninth Circuit.
Not really the three liberal judges vote for it, even though it is by far the most left-wing circuit in the country.
So now that created even more confusion.
And now we get to this.
So with this case, With this case, the Dillinger case, the federal judge has now originally, has ruled,
the D.C. federal judge, has ruled that Hampton Dillinger is reinstated as the head of Office of Special Counsel, even though similar to the Celia Law case, he is a single individual.
Running an agency where he's appointed by the president.
It would seem from the Sellier case that he'd be removable.
Or, put it a different way, that Congress's restriction on the president in saying that he has to have these reasons and he can't remove him at will is unconstitutional.
But it wouldn't matter if even clearer than that, if it's a D.C. district judge, they're going to rule against the president if the name is Trump.
Then it went up to the...
Then it went up to the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court upheld it.
So now the Supreme Court has the case.
So what's the Supreme Court going to do with the case?
Well, the Office of Special Counsel has nothing to do with You know, the famous special counsels that you think about, like the infamous Jack Smith, probably the most unethical member of the Justice Department who was put in that position, or the earlier ones.
It's an independent agency within the executive branch, initially created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and then made a standalone agency.
It's all by itself.
Not under anybody.
In the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. And it protects federal employees from unlawful employment.
And it creates a retaliation for whistleblowers.
So that's what this special counsel does.
And the argument, I guess, will be that therefore they're entitled to special Protection.
However, the special counsel, in this case, Dillinger, is appointed by the president, in this case, Biden, with the Senate's advice and consent, according to the statute, for a five-year term.
And he could only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
He was appointed in March of 2024. It's a five-year term, so he can't be removed now.
If you follow the words of the statute, on February 7th, Sergio Gore, on behalf of the president, removed him without any of these findings, but relying on two cases, cellular law that I mentioned to you in 2020, and then a very similar case, Collins v.
Yellen, which took place in 2021. And in both of those, the Supreme Court had upheld removal of appointees,
even though Congress had said it could only be for cause, removal for what we call at will, without any expression of cause.
And they had done it.
Relying heavily on the fact that, in order not to overrule the Humphrey case, that this was a singular commissioner office, not like the Federal Trade Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, which is an entire commission and agency set up independently.
I don't know why that makes a difference, but they decided that that was the reason.
And the two most conservative members of the court, Justice, I think Justice Scalia was unfortunately gone by now, but Justice Thomas and Alito I think Justice Scalia was unfortunately gone by now, but Justice Thomas and Alito wrote, this is a Congress has no right to restrict the president's removal of power.
I mean, if the Constitutional Convention made anything clear, it made that clear.
And what are you screwing around for?
One of the things, one of the protections we have by honestly interpreting the separation of powers is we don't give extra power to any of the branches.
You have limited the president's power of appointment with advice and consent, but you decided not to limit his power of removal.
Well, now if we...
If we overturn those restrictions on removal, we're giving the president more power.
No, we're not.
Well, I mean, we're giving the president the power that the Constitution gave to the president and the power the president had for the first 160, 170, 180 years of our republic until, in this particular case, a Republican...
The Supreme Court wanted to limit what they considered crazy Franklin Roosevelt.
And we've been trying to work our way out of that since then, without squarely just reversing the Humphrey case, which they have limited now.
They've limited it to multi-member commissions, not one-member bodies.
Seal your law.
Applied to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is one.
And the Collins case applied to the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
But none of them have yet removed that restriction from the big, giant independent agencies that have actually become a cancer.
On our government, because it's an unregulated, unsupervised, not politically answerable branch of government that is completely anti the Constitution.
It's as if we have four branches of government, right?
We have Congress passed a law.
The president enforces an...
Executes the laws, except for the ones that Congress says he shouldn't.
And the court interprets it.
And then the independent agencies enforce the laws that Congress has decided the president shouldn't enforce, even though the only place you can enforce laws is in the executive branch of government, according to the Constitution.
And of course, under Biden, many of those agencies ran wild with Marxist regulations and I remember in 2016, at the conclusion of the Obama administration, every economist that I talked to on behalf of President Trump, where President Trump was very, very insistent and very focused on lowering taxes, said, yeah, yeah, important, but more important is lowering regulations.
It'll have a bigger impact on the economy.
By the end of the campaign, President Trump understood that.
And before, the economy took off based on his tax reductions.
The economy took off on his doing what he just did in the last two weeks, which is to just get rid of those regulations.
Those regulations are not coming from even Congress or the president.
They're coming from these independent agencies.
So this is a very important case.
How it gets decided, I mean, the liberals like to say it doesn't matter that much because It sounds like, if it gets decided based on the Collins and the Celia case, this is a single commissioner agency.
It's a purely executive function.
They will make the argument it's done to protect you against political persecution, but that's in the eye of the beholder, and the Constitution creates no exception for that.
But the big question then will be, if they rule that way, when are they going to get rid of the Humphrey case the way they got rid of Chevron deference, which basically said that the courts had no role, and even the courts had no role, they just had to follow whatever the independent agencies.
So Congress had actually accomplished creating a new branch of government to enforce the laws.
Created a new branch of government other than the judiciary to interpret the laws.
Because according to the most liberal justices, and they had made this the law, the Chevron case, you had to defer to the decision of these independent, totally non-responsive politically or in any other way agencies.
So that's been taken away from them.
Now the court can completely review what they do.
I think we can predict that sometime during the Trump presidency, and probably sooner rather than later, those agencies will finally be taken as the executive branch, and we will not have a fourth branch of government.
I can see, possibly, even one of the Democrats voting for that.
That's where we're going.
And that's why this little case involving Dillinger, like the little case involving Roe against Wade, right?
The woman who changed her mind ultimately about abortion, by the way, can be enormously influential.
Can we reform our government and get it back to what it was intended to be by the geniuses who created it rather than the way it's been bastardized?
By the morons who have interpreted it recently.
So let's hope this gets argued correctly.
And let's hope our conservative six hold together.
I think we can predict four.
I think Roberts is there on this.
I really do.
So that's five.
And we'll see about Ms. Barrett.
And maybe one Democrat.
And next time we talk about this subject, I'll tell you which one I think.
But I don't want to spook it.
But thank you very, very much for listening.
And if you have any questions, you know, we'll be back on Monday and, of course, on a 7 o'clock every night on X and on...
Well, I guess we're on X. That's what you can count on.
And then we're on X at 8 o'clock for America's Mayor Live.
And we are going to institute maybe one podcast a week on a subject like this where we can spend a little bit more time giving you background.
But when we come back on Monday, communicate with us.
Let us know whether you think that's a good idea.
And also what you would like us to help you with.
Help you to understand the background of.
Because really, there's so much going on.
I almost think one of those things we could do is simplify it and put it on a chart or something.
I mean, I have a hard time following it.
But it's very exciting because we are...
Oh, we're not only reestablishing the greatest government that ever existed, I think we're going to make it greater.
The spirit is so terrific, and I just don't see this...
I don't think...
This movement has really taken off, and it really shows, ultimately, not only the strength of Donald Trump and the people who support him and the MAGA people, but the genius of our founding fathers.
Thank you very much and God bless America.
Thank you.
It was a book written in 1776 that guided much of the discipline of thinking that brought to us the discovery of our freedoms, of our God-given freedoms.
It was Thomas Paine's Common Sense, written in 1776, one of the first American bestsellers in which Thomas Paine explained by rational principles.
The reason why these small colonies felt the necessity to separate from the Kingdom of Great Britain and the King of England.
He explained their inherent desire for liberty, for freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the ability to select the people who govern them.
And he explained it in ways that were understandable to all the people, not just the elite.
Because the desire for freedom is universal.
The desire for freedom adheres in the human mind and it is part of the human soul.
This is exactly the time we should consult our history.
Look at what we've done in the past and see if we can't use it to help us now.
We understand that our founders created the greatest country in the history of the world.
The greatest democracy, the freest country.
A country that has taken more people out of poverty than any country ever.
All of us are so fortunate to be Americans.
But a great deal of the reason for America's constant ability to self-improve is because we're able to reason.
We're able to talk.
We're able to analyze.
We are able to apply our God-given common sense.
▲
Export Selection