reSee.it - Related Post Feed

GlockfordFiles
Posted - August 15, 2023 at 8:16 PM
Saved - August 15, 2023 at 9:47 PM

@GlockfordFiles - Glockford Files

We are all witnessing a judicial assassination attempt on the most popular president in the history of our country. The fact that the communist democrats and RINOs don’t want you to be able to vote for him should tell you to vote for Trump.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker dismisses the grand jury indictment as meaningless, claiming that the cases against Donald Trump are designed for quick convictions in jurisdictions biased against him. They argue that weak cases like these open the door to prosecution of Democrats by Republicans and vice versa, which threatens democracy. Another speaker argues that challenging the integrity of voting systems is not a crime and that the racketeering charge against Trump is unfounded. They believe the prosecutor is motivated by political gain and wants to sideline Trump. A former US Attorney adds that RICO cases are difficult to prove and believes this case is an aggressive application of the law. They suggest that these cases lack legal structure and precedent and will likely collapse.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, first of all, nobody should take it all seriously, the fact that there was a grand jury indictment. It means nothing. It's the prosecutor who indicted. The best evidence to that is that it was on his website before the grand jury even voted. Now the whole strategy of all these 4 cases is to get a conviction before the election even if they're gonna lose on appeal. I used to teach my students, many of them future prosecutors. If you bring a RICO case, that increases your chances of winning a trial and losing on appeal. The same thing is true with conspiracy and other cases involving mental states. And so all 4 of these cases are designed to get quick quick convictions in jurisdictions that are heavily loaded against Donald Trump. And these prosecutors don't care as much as prosecutors generally do about having the convictions reversed on appeal because that will happen after the election, which only goes to prove what I've been arguing now for for months. If you're going after the man who's running against your incumbent president, you would darn well better have the strongest case Possible. And these are among the 4, at least 3 of them, 3 weakest cases I've ever seen against any candidate. We don't know about 4th, but it Seems like it's very much like the DC case. And if you're going after the man running for president against your person, You have to have the strongest case. Otherwise, it becomes a banana republic. Anybody can prosecute anybody. And we're opening the door to prosecution of Democrats by Republicans, Republicans by Democrats. It's what Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist is the most dangerous threat to democracy, and we're seeing it unfold in front of our eyes very, very tragically. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Trump supporter, But I care deeply about the constitution. I care deeply about preserving the rule of law, and we're seeing it being frittered away for partisan political purposes. Speaker 1: Let me get your reaction, Greg Jarrett. Speaker 2: You know, exercising your legal rights, Sean, to challenge the Integrity of voting systems is not criminal. It's not a crime to complain, which is what the Trump telephone call with the secretary of State in Georgia was all about it. He was complaining about ballot irregularities, violations of election laws, a failure of the court to address his petition. It's not defrauding the government if you believe you're acting lawfully. And this idea of bringing racketeering charge, Seems par fetch. I mean, racketeering, as the professor Turley pointed out, requires proof of an organized criminal enterprise Coupled with a repeated pattern of systematic illegal behavior. It normally involves things like Extortion for monetary profit, control of property on a recurring basis. That doesn't fit here, does it? I mean, this was a singular alleged episode of a brief duration where Trump and his counsel were asking for a reconsideration of votes cast. At worse, this kind of a RICO case is simply guilt by association. But I agree with Professor Jurishewitz, The prosecutor in this case doesn't care. She wants a guilty verdict to sideline, Donald Trump And interfere in the upcoming presidential election, which is in my judgment, the definition of a corrupt act. Speaker 1: Alright. Let me, get Matt Whitaker's take same topic, Matt, because I think this is very, very crucial here. In other words, The fact that we're talking about things that I don't think most Americans know a whole lot of and that's you know why is this a Rico case, why is this a racketeering case, why did they post this earlier on the website? What what is in your mind and having been an an AG, what do you think, What is the thinking behind this? Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. Two primary thoughts. First of all, what Greg just said is important, but this is also being done To catapult the prosecutor's political career. Don't forget that. And then second, you know for five and a half years I was a US Attorney. I signed indictments personally. Whatever the grand jury returned, true bills, you know, I made sure I signed those presentments, to the grand jury and those indictments. And that being said, I can tell you RICO cases are by far the hardest cases. You want to bring them, and we we tried to especially go after Mexican drug cartels. It's a real problem here in Des Moines, Iowa, as you can imagine, especially with the meth and the fentanyl. And so, You know, I would look at those cases and and work with the AUSAs on those, on trying to make RICO cases. But to the, you know, earlier panelist point and to Jonathan Turley's point, Those cases are tough because there's there's predicate offenses. You have to show a pattern and you have to show the organization. These, I mean, these are criminal groups. And I just don't think this case rises to that level. I think this is a very aggressive application of that. And really, It's a pattern that I mentioned earlier when we were talking. It's just, it's these prosecutors that are solely trying to get out And get Trump and try to hang in it, not only indictment, but, you know, they hope a conviction. And it's just not most of these cases just don't have the legal structure and the legal, precedent to support them and they're going to collapse, you know, after they get past these juries that are planted against president Trump. Speaker 1: Alright. Guys, stand by. We are again we're still waiting for as we were immediately have said, we We have reports now, 10 indictments handed down by the Fulton County grand jury working late into the night tonight's time by the judge Now being filed by the clerk, the clerk has said over an hour ago that the maximum time would take would be a few hours. So we are expecting all of that information tonight. We turn now to somebody that would that knows firsthand what it's like to be on the wrong side of what we often talk about on this program And what the House Judiciary Committee is investigating, whether or not Joe Biden's
elonmusk
Posted - September 1, 2024 at 7:07 AM
Saved - September 1, 2024 at 11:06 AM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

They want to overthrow The Constitution https://t.co/d1g35Vavwy

amuse
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 7:34 PM
Saved - February 11, 2025 at 7:01 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a ruling preventing Trump's political appointees, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, from accessing Treasury Department data, which critics argue undermines executive authority and lacks legal precedent. The decision, made without input from Trump’s legal team, is described as judicial overreach that transfers power to unelected bureaucrats, challenging the Constitution's separation of powers. Supporters of Trump believe this ruling will backfire, asserting that the administration anticipated such judicial actions.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.

@drawandstrike - Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit

This ruling will not age well. Remember, Trump wants this. Trump in his team expected this, that the deep state would attempt to use judges to block executive actions from executive branch official. This is all going to be hashed out now not a year or two from now . They are taking their best shot with the judges to stop him. Legally and constitutionally, they have no leg to stand on .

amuse
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 7:34 PM
Saved - February 11, 2025 at 7:01 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Judge Paul Engelmayer's ruling prohibits Trump's political appointees from accessing Treasury Department data, which critics argue undermines executive authority and violates constitutional principles. The decision, made without notifying Trump's legal team, raises concerns about judicial overreach and the separation of powers. Observers note its potential to set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, allowing judicial activism to influence policy. Calls for intervention from the Supreme Court and public discourse on the implications of this ruling emphasize the need to uphold constitutional governance.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.

@patriot_savvy - The REAL Politically Savvy 🇺🇸

🔥This ruling by Judge Engelmayer echoes historical precedents where judicial overreach has threatened executive authority, reminiscent of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case where the Supreme Court checked presidential power. 🔥 • It's crucial to remember that the separation of powers, as intended by the framers, is under attack here. This isn't just about Trump; it's about preserving the constitutional framework. • The absence of due process in this decision, where Trump's legal team was excluded, mirrors tactics used in political witch hunts, undermining the fairness of our legal system. • With elections on the horizon, this could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, potentially allowing judicial activism to dictate policy over elected officials' decisions. • The judiciary's role should be to interpret law, not to legislate from the bench. This decision blurs those lines dangerously. • Legal scholars and constitutional experts should weigh in publicly to highlight the overreach and its implications for democratic governance. • Citizens and lawmakers alike need to rally for checks against such judicial oversteps to maintain the balance of power envisioned by our Constitution.

elonmusk
Posted - February 10, 2025 at 3:47 PM
Saved - February 10, 2025 at 7:26 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

There is a massive effort by the UNELECTED bureaucracy to oppose the ELECTED President, House & Senate!! This is why I say the true & noble battle is to restore DEMOcracy, rule of the people, from the BUREAUcracy, rule of the bureaucrats.

@alx - ALX 🇺🇸

Will be interesting to find out the people who greenlit this and hear their explanation on why they think they have the authority to subvert the President’s agenda and the will of the voters. Are Democrats outraged by this decision made by some unelected bureaucrat?

EndWokeness
Posted - February 10, 2025 at 7:37 PM
Saved - February 10, 2025 at 10:08 PM

@EndWokeness - End Wokeness

Never forget that unelected judges tried to take our right to vote by unilaterally taking Trump's name off our ballots https://t.co/Xgjp06Ocp8

julie_kelly2
Posted - February 11, 2025 at 1:47 AM
Saved - February 11, 2025 at 2:08 AM

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

For four years, these same DC judges routinely lamented attempts to “overthrow democracy” on Jan 6. Now these same unelected judges are defying the will of a president who won at least 77 million votes to protect unelected nameless bureaucrats.

@kyledcheney - Kyle Cheney

JUST IN: Judge Amy Berman Jackson becomes the 5th judge *today* to block an aspect of Trump's early-term orders, this time the firing of ethics watchdog Hampton Dellinger. And night isn't over. yet ... https://t.co/dUaxwZeOmq

MarshaBlackburn
Posted - February 11, 2025 at 8:45 PM
Saved - February 12, 2025 at 7:17 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Over 77 million Americans voted for me, but activist judges are trying to impose their will and undermine the America First agenda. They're issuing unprecedented orders to bypass my constitutional authority and hinder my ability to serve the country.

@MarshaBlackburn - Sen. Marsha Blackburn

Over 77 million Americans voted for President Trump. Yet activist judges are attempting to impose their will on the country and stop the America first agenda. They are issuing unprecedented orders aimed at circumventing the President’s constitutional authority and are attempting to prevent President Trump from doing his job.

nicksortor
Posted - February 12, 2025 at 6:33 PM
Saved - February 13, 2025 at 11:55 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I just slammed the activist judges trying to undermine Trump, calling it an abuse of power. The real crisis is in our judicial branch. With 77 million Americans voting for this President, every injunction is a violation of the rule of law and the people's will. We need to impeach these judges!

@nicksortor - Nick Sortor

🚨 #BREAKING: Karoline Leavitt just SLAMMED the activist judges attempting to thwart Trump, saying they’re “abusing their power” “The REAL Constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch…” “77 MILLION Americans voted for elect this President, and each injunction is an abuse of the rule of law and an attempt to thwart the will of the people.” IMPEACH THESE JUDGES!

Video Transcript AI Summary
I want to address the dishonest narrative that's been emerging. Many outlets are fear-mongering the American people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here at the White House, but the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch. District court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority. These judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law. They have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past fourteen days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits. This is a concerted effort by Democrat activists and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump. We will comply with the law in the courts, but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure President Trump's policies can be enacted.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now before I take questions, I would like to address an extremely dishonest narrative that we've seen emerging over the past few days. Many outlets in this room have been fear mongering the American people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here at the White House. I've been hearing those words a lot lately. But in fact, the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch, where district court judges and liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block president Trump's basic executive authority. We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law. And they have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past fourteen days, Often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits. This is part of a larger concerted effort by Democrat activists and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against president Trump. Quick news flash to these liberal judges who are supporting their obstructionist efforts. 77,000,000 Americans voted to elect this president. And each injunction is an abuse of the rule of law and an attempt to thwart the will of the people. As the president clearly stated in the Oval Office yesterday, we will comply with the law in the courts, but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure president Trump's policies can be enacted.
elonmusk
Posted - March 14, 2025 at 4:13 AM
Saved - March 14, 2025 at 4:23 AM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

Without judicial reform, which means at least the absolute worst judges get impeached, we don’t have real democracy in America

@charliekirk11 - Charlie Kirk

Clinton appointee Judge William Alsup says the Trump Admin has to rehire 30,000 laid off probationary hires. He says that trying to cut headcount is a "sham" and actually it's legally mandatory for taxpayers to keep paying them. What will blue judges come up with next? Will they order Trump to declare war on Russia? Micromanage troop movements? Dictate what Trump eats for breakfast? This isn't judicial review. It's dictatorship by a big ego with a gavel. SCOTUS must intervene.

PressSec
Posted - March 14, 2025 at 8:47 PM
Saved - March 15, 2025 at 2:06 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Executive Branch can't function if activist judges block presidential actions nationwide. If a judge wants executive power, they should run for President. The Trump Administration will fight back against these unconstitutional orders, as the American people support Trump's agenda.

@PressSec - Karoline Leavitt

The Executive Branch cannot properly function if activist liberal judges can unilaterally block presidential actions over the entire country. If a federal district court judge wants executive powers, they can try and run for President themselves. The Trump Administration will immediately fight back against these absurd and unconstitutional orders. The American people overwhelmingly voted for President Trump's agenda, and it will be fully implemented.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker addresses board rulings concerning fire and provisionary workers, stating the administration will "fight back" against an injunction they believe is unconstitutional. They claim a low-level district court judge cannot usurp the executive authority of the President. The speaker asserts the President has the authority to fire employees, and lower-level judges are attempting to block the President's agenda. They cite a statistic claiming 15 injunctions against the administration occurred in February alone, compared to 14 in three years under the Biden administration, alleging judicial activists are trying to block the President's executive authority. The speaker references President Trump's legal team's fighting back, emphasizing that indictments and injunctions have been unconstitutional and unfair, led by partisan activists attempting to usurp the President's will.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Board rulings about all the fire and provisionary workers. You used the same language here just now that was in the statement about fighting back against that ruling. Do you mean appealing or something else? And does the administration plan to comply with those orders in the meantime? Speaker 1: Fighting back by appealing, fighting back by using the full weight of of the White House counsel's office and our lawyers at the federal government who believe that this injunction is entirely unconstitutional, and it is for anybody who has a basic understanding of the law. You cannot have a low level district court judge filing an injunction to usurp the executive authority of the president of The United States. That is completely absurd. And as the executive of the executive branch, the president has the ability to fire or And you have these lower level judges who are trying to, block this president's agenda. It's very clear. And as I just cited, I was appalled by the statistic when I saw it this morning. In three or, in one month in February, there have been 15 injunctions of this administration in our agenda. In three years under the Biden administration, there were 14 injunctions. So, it's very clear that there are judicial activists throughout our judicial branch who are trying to block this president's executive authority. We are going to fight back. And as anyone who saw president Trump, and his legal team fighting back, they know how to do it. He was indicted nearly 200 times, and he's in the office now because all of the indictments, all of these injunctions have always been unconstitutional and unfair. They are led by partisan activists, who are trying to usurp the will of this president, and we're not going to stand for it. Thanks, guys.
WallStreetApes
Posted - March 19, 2025 at 11:15 AM
Saved - March 19, 2025 at 3:29 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
In my conversation with Joe Rogan, I discuss how Barack Obama's repeal of the Smith–Mundt Act has had far-reaching implications. This repeal allowed for the infiltration of universities, unions, media, and political systems by foreign entities. It enabled the foreign policy establishment to fund domestic groups and manipulate media narratives, effectively using propaganda against Americans. The Smith–Mundt Act was meant to restrict such actions to overseas operations, but its repeal has unleashed these tools domestically, impacting our political landscape and judicial system.

@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes

It ALL comes back to Barack Obama Mike Benz talks with Joe Rogan about what Barack Obama really did by repealing the Smith–Mundt Act 🚨 It’s SO MUCH BIGGER than just allowing use of propaganda on Americans, it allowed for: - Infiltrate and co-opt the universities - The unions - The media - The politicians - The judges It allowed - Foreign policy establishment can fund groups that effectively work with prosecutors domestically or that work at media, dual sort of dual use - To give them foreign grants to do media propaganda abroad but they operate here, or social media censorship to coerce foreign countries to pass foreign censorship laws that explicitly and are intended to attack US social media companies and in US peer-to-peer speech “1948, Congress recognized the Frankensteinian monster they were creating by authorizing a covert permanent department of dirty Tricks. And this is their phrase, not mine, to do this cloak and dagger to infiltrate and co-opt the universities, the unions, the media, the politicians, the judges, the whole swarm army. You know what I have been calling for a long time, the USAID Truman Show” “That are effectively a movie set being constructed by the US State Department and its sister influence orgs — The CIA” “So the Smith–Mundt Act was always designed to say, listen, you can do this dirty stuff abroad, but it can't come home. We have that protection, which lasted for 70 years and only, we only lost it a decade ago.” By BARACK OBAMA ALL THESE THINGS and more were to be allowed to be used OVERSEAS ONLY, the Smith–Mundt Act was created to ensure that But then Barack Obama got installed, he repealed the Smith–Mundt Act and now ALL THESE TOOLS were used against the American people and we paid for it all Every person in America needs to watch every second of this video. There would not be a single Democrat voter left. Obama was installed to start the takedown of America and use our own agencies against us You could also argue THIS is why we have so many activist judges

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the Smith-Mundt Act, initially designed to prevent the US government's foreign propaganda from being used on American citizens. The act was created in response to concerns about the "Frankensteinian monster" of a permanent department conducting "dirty tricks" to influence foreign governments through media, universities, and other institutions. Frank Wisner, a CIA figure, created "Wisner's Wurlitzer," a media network to spread narratives globally. The Smith-Mundt Act originally allowed such activities abroad to secure resources and economic benefits for the US, but prohibited its use domestically. The speaker claims that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act under Obama effectively repealed this firewall. They express concern that the foreign policy establishment can now fund groups that influence domestic prosecutors and media, and promote social media censorship abroad that impacts US companies and speech. The speaker advocates for a strict firewall and severe penalties for violations.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm not are you familiar with the Smithmont Act? Is that the 02/2011, '2 thousand '12 thing where Obama allowed people to use propaganda against United States citizens? Yeah. That was what was done then under Obama was the was the effective repeal of it. It was called the Smith Modernization Act. But the modernization got rid of the whole purpose of it, the the fire the firewall. Because at the time, the media and media control was seen as as the linchpin crux of winning the Cold War. Piping in pro US media influence to so that the because everything moved after World War two from kinetic warfare and military occupation. You know, we used to militarily occupy The Philippines, for example, after we won the Spanish American war. But that was that was banned under international law, territorial acquisition by military force in 1948. So we had to win elections, and and we had to influence the the passage of laws in foreign countries by having an apparatus inside those countries that influenced the hearts and minds of people, which influenced who they voted for, which then determined the government. So you had to move towards political vassalage rather than military occupation. And what the Smithmont Act did is simultaneous with the creation of this in 1948, Congress recognized the Frankensteinian monster they were creating by authorizing a covert permanent department of dirty tricks, and this is their phrase, not mine, to do this cloak and dagger to in to to infiltrate and and co op the universities, the unions, the media, the politicians, the judges, the whole swarm army. You know, what I have been calling for a long time The USA Truman Show because it's, you know, these people in these foreign countries have no idea, you know, how many how many of the things they interact with that are effectively a movie set being constructed by the US State Department and its sister influence orgs. But the point that I'm getting at here is the the Smith Munton Act in 1948 said, okay. You guys can do this. State Department can do this. CIA can do this. USAID, when it came along thirteen years later, could do this. But weak so there was a guy named Frank Wissner who was known as one of the godfather figures of the CIA. He's known for creating what was called the Wissner's Warlitzer, which was a it's like a church organ, and that he would brag that he could play the international media like a symphony to make any media narrative go viral in any country on earth because of the the suite of CIA proprietary media functions and its net and its distribution network, especially when The US had first mover advantage in radio and print. It's basically The US and UK were the only games in town really in having robust radio, film, TV, and print media. So the Smithmont was said, okay. You can do that abroad. You can plant fake news stories in France. You can, you know, you can have propaganda blare into Africa or Western Europe or Central Asia, but that can't come home. You can't sigh up our own people with your propaganda organ abroad because the point of authorizing this is that we get cheaper gas, we get import export markets, you know, we get a high standard of living because if a foreign government doesn't wanna give up its resources or allow US military base or allow joint partnerships or or exports of of goods or US multinational corporations to operate there, then the American people suffer economically. So it was always designed to say, listen, you can do this dirty stuff abroad, but it can't come home. We have and even that protection, which which lasted for seventy years and only we only lost it a decade ago. We're up against a much actually deeper darker problem with this USAID scandal and as people will see increasingly the the scandals that will break open at the Pentagon and the State Department, which is that we have a Smithmont problem for funding and operations. It's not just propaganda. The blob, our foreign policy establishment, can fund groups that effectively work with prosecutors domestically or that or that work at media, you know, dual sort of dual use. We we give them foreign grants to do media propaganda abroad, but they operate here. Or social media censorship to coerce foreign countries to pass foreign censorship laws that explicitly and are intended to attack US social media companies and in US peer to peer speech. So we need that protection if we're going to keep this function at all. We need a hard firewall and absolute grotesque penalties for any violation.
StephenM
Posted - March 19, 2025 at 12:35 PM
Saved - March 19, 2025 at 2:36 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I feel that district court judges have taken on roles far beyond their intended scope, effectively acting as Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and more. Each day, their decisions alter foreign policy, economic strategies, and national security, leading to a chaotic situation where unelected judges dictate government policies. This seems like madness and lawlessness, representing a serious threat to democracy. I believe this situation must come to an end.

@StephenM - Stephen Miller

Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief. Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration. Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness. It is the gravest assault on democracy. It must and will end.

elonmusk
Posted - March 19, 2025 at 2:18 PM
Saved - March 19, 2025 at 8:46 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

Restore the Smith-Mundt act!

@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes

It ALL comes back to Barack Obama Mike Benz talks with Joe Rogan about what Barack Obama really did by repealing the Smith–Mundt Act 🚨 It’s SO MUCH BIGGER than just allowing use of propaganda on Americans, it allowed for: - Infiltrate and co-opt the universities - The unions - The media - The politicians - The judges It allowed - Foreign policy establishment can fund groups that effectively work with prosecutors domestically or that work at media, dual sort of dual use - To give them foreign grants to do media propaganda abroad but they operate here, or social media censorship to coerce foreign countries to pass foreign censorship laws that explicitly and are intended to attack US social media companies and in US peer-to-peer speech “1948, Congress recognized the Frankensteinian monster they were creating by authorizing a covert permanent department of dirty Tricks. And this is their phrase, not mine, to do this cloak and dagger to infiltrate and co-opt the universities, the unions, the media, the politicians, the judges, the whole swarm army. You know what I have been calling for a long time, the USAID Truman Show” “That are effectively a movie set being constructed by the US State Department and its sister influence orgs — The CIA” “So the Smith–Mundt Act was always designed to say, listen, you can do this dirty stuff abroad, but it can't come home. We have that protection, which lasted for 70 years and only, we only lost it a decade ago.” By BARACK OBAMA ALL THESE THINGS and more were to be allowed to be used OVERSEAS ONLY, the Smith–Mundt Act was created to ensure that But then Barack Obama got installed, he repealed the Smith–Mundt Act and now ALL THESE TOOLS were used against the American people and we paid for it all Every person in America needs to watch every second of this video. There would not be a single Democrat voter left. Obama was installed to start the takedown of America and use our own agencies against us You could also argue THIS is why we have so many activist judges

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the Smith-Mundt Act, initially designed to prevent the US government's foreign propaganda from being used on American citizens. The act was created in response to concerns about the "Frankensteinian monster" of a permanent covert operation influencing foreign governments through media and other institutions. Frank Wisner, a CIA figure, created "Wisner's Wurlitzer," a media network to spread narratives globally. The Smith-Mundt Act originally allowed such activities abroad to secure economic advantages for the US, but prohibited them domestically. The speaker claims this protection was lost a decade ago and that the US faces a deeper problem with USAID, the Pentagon, and the State Department funding groups that operate both domestically and abroad. These groups allegedly engage in media propaganda and social media censorship, influencing foreign countries to pass laws that target US social media companies and speech. The speaker advocates for a strict firewall and severe penalties for violations.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm not are you familiar with the Smithmont Act? Is that the 02/2011, '2 thousand '12 thing where Obama allowed people to use propaganda against United States citizens? Yeah. That was what was done then under Obama was the was the effective repeal of it. It was called the Smith Modernization Act. But the modernization got rid of the whole purpose of it, the the fire the firewall. Because at the time, the media and media control was seen as as the linchpin crux of winning the Cold War. Piping in pro US media influence to so that the because everything moved after World War two from kinetic warfare and military occupation. You know, we used to militarily occupy The Philippines, for example, after we won the Spanish American war. But that was that was banned under international law, territorial acquisition by military force in 1948. So we had to win elections, and and we had to influence the the passage of laws in foreign countries by having an apparatus inside those countries that influenced the hearts and minds of people, which influenced who they voted for, which then determined the government. So you had to move towards political vassalage rather than military occupation. And what the Smithmont Act did is simultaneous with the creation of this in 1948, Congress recognized the Frankensteinian monster they were creating by authorizing a covert permanent department of dirty tricks, and this is their phrase, not mine, to do this cloak and dagger to in to to infiltrate and and co op the universities, the unions, the media, the politicians, the judges, the whole swarm army. You know, what I have been calling for a long time The USA Truman Show because it's, you know, these people in these foreign countries have no idea, you know, how many how many of the things they interact with that are effectively a movie set being constructed by the US State Department and its sister influence orgs. But the point that I'm getting at here is the the Smith Munton Act in 1948 said, okay. You guys can do this. State Department can do this. CIA can do this. USAID, when it came along thirteen years later, could do this. But weak so there was a guy named Frank Wissner who was known as one of the godfather figures of the CIA. He's known for creating what was called the Wissner's Warlitzer, which was a it's like a church organ, and that he would brag that he could play the international media like a symphony to make any media narrative go viral in any country on earth because of the the suite of CIA proprietary media functions and its net and its distribution network, especially when The US had first mover advantage in radio and print. It's basically The US and UK were the only games in town really in having robust radio, film, TV, and print media. So the Smithmont was said, okay. You can do that abroad. You can plant fake news stories in France. You can, you know, you can have propaganda blare into Africa or Western Europe or Central Asia, but that can't come home. You can't sigh up our own people with your propaganda organ abroad because the point of authorizing this is that we get cheaper gas, we get import export markets, you know, we get a high standard of living because if a foreign government doesn't wanna give up its resources or allow US military base or allow joint partnerships or or exports of of goods or US multinational corporations to operate there, then the American people suffer economically. So it was always designed to say, listen, you can do this dirty stuff abroad, but it can't come home. We have and even that protection, which which lasted for seventy years and only we only lost it a decade ago. We're up against a much actually deeper darker problem with this USAID scandal and as people will see increasingly the the scandals that will break open at the Pentagon and the State Department, which is that we have a Smithmont problem for funding and operations. It's not just propaganda. The blob, our foreign policy establishment, can fund groups that effectively work with prosecutors domestically or that or that work at media, you know, dual sort of dual use. We we give them foreign grants to do media propaganda abroad, but they operate here. Or social media censorship to coerce foreign countries to pass foreign censorship laws that explicitly and are intended to attack US social media companies and in US peer to peer speech. So we need that protection if we're going to keep this function at all. We need a hard firewall and absolute grotesque penalties for any violation.
RepLuna
Posted - March 19, 2025 at 4:41 PM
Saved - March 20, 2025 at 4:12 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
America is a Republic, not a judiciary dictatorship. We need to eliminate political activists posing as judges and restore the separation of powers. I'm proud to join my colleagues in impeaching all the activist judges who are unconstitutionally hindering President Trump's agenda.

@RepLuna - Rep. Anna Paulina Luna

America is a Republic, not a dictatorship of the judiciary. It's time to get rid of the political activists masquerading as judges and re-establish proper separation of powers. That's why I'm proud to announce that I will be joining my colleagues in impeaching ALL the activist judges who are unconstitutionally blocking President Trump's agenda.

elonmusk
Posted - March 20, 2025 at 5:37 PM
Saved - March 21, 2025 at 10:24 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

Something needs to be done to stop the repeated and egregious violation of democracy by the judiciary. That is obvious to all.

@HawleyMO - Josh Hawley

District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration - a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good

realDonaldTrump
Posted - March 21, 2025 at 10:39 PM
Saved - March 22, 2025 at 7:25 PM

@realDonaldTrump - Donald J. Trump

https://t.co/6TBzTaF8iM

MarioNawfal
Posted - March 22, 2025 at 9:05 PM
Saved - March 22, 2025 at 9:10 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I'm highlighting the Wisconsin Supreme Court race because it has significant implications not just for the state, but for the entire country. I'm urging everyone to reach out to friends and family in Wisconsin to encourage them to vote early for justice Schimel.

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🚨🇺🇸ELON: THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT RACE COULD EFFECT THE COUNTRY "Effectively the reason I'm bringing this to people's attention is because this really has implications for Wisconsin, but for the whole country. So that's why I really urging p please. if you have any friends, family in Wisconsin, send them a note and ask them to vote early for justice Schimel." Source: @elonmusk, https://t.co/Wf6D5AKhTd

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker attended the Airhunters Association conference, where he received their endorsement, as well as an endorsement from Brett Favre. He claims he's campaigning hard, traveling to all 72 Wisconsin counties to connect with voters, because a strong ground game is needed to combat his opponent's lies and media allies. He believes conservatives in Wisconsin are awake and demonstrated this on November 5th. The speaker urges people to inform their friends and family in Wisconsin to vote early for Justice Schimmel, because this Supreme Court race has implications for Wisconsin and the entire country. He says this election could decide the fate of the country. He claims Democrats are pouring money into attacking Justice Schimmel, who he says is a good person who will ensure serious criminals go to jail, while his opponent wants to let them out of prison.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Airhunters Association conference today. They had they had thousands of of sportsmen and women there, and, they endorsed me this afternoon, and they were over the moon over the president's endorsement. I also got hall of famer Brett Favre's endorsement today. I've known Brett for years. Speaker 1: That's awesome. Speaker 0: Yeah. But we're, but I've, I've never worked hard at anything in my life. This is, I got in this campaign a pretty crazy sixteen months before election day because I knew I knew that we have to have a strong ground game if we're gonna beat my opponent and the lies she tells and her media allies that back her up and will not call her out on the lies. So, I got in this race. I've campaigned in all 72 counties in Wisconsin and we I'm just running laps every day going and shaking every hand, talking to every person I can about the importance of this race. And I think conservatives in Wisconsin are finally awake. I think they proved it on November 5. We got, you know, a sign of life call, like in the hostage, in the movie with the hostage taking where you want to hear the costages voice before you pay the ransom. Well, we've heard the hostages voice and we're alive and well as conservatives in Wisconsin. Speaker 1: That's great. Yeah, I think it's just worth make sure that people in Wisconsin understand, like this Supreme Court race has a big effect on House of Representatives, and House of Representatives raised within margin. The reason I'm bringing this to people's attention is because this really has implications for Wisconsin, but for the whole country. So that's why I really urging you know, please, if anyone if you have any friends, family in Wisconsin, send them a note and ask them to vote early for Justice Schimmel. And because this actually this this election is gonna affect everyone in the in The United States. So reach out to your friends and family in Wisconsin. You know, educate them as to the importance of this of this race, which might not seem important, but it's actually really important, and it could decide the fate of the country. It's a big deal, and that's why I'm taking everyone's time to endorse Justice Schimmel, because it's a big deal. That's also why you're seeing so much Democrat money just going crazy here with the usual suspects, SARS and whatnot, just pouring crazy money into trying to attack Justice Schimmel, who a very good human being, who will do many good things, ensure that criminals go to jail, like serious criminals, whereas the opponent opponent, yeah, seems to wanna let them out of out of prison where they can prey on on innocent civilians. You know? But I think it'd be helpful for people to

@america - America

𝕏 Spaces Discussion with @ElonMusk and Candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court Brad Schimel https://t.co/pV0SVMwS31

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

🚨🇺🇸 ELON: JUDGES SHOULD FACE IMPEACHMENT FOR REPEATED BIAS “If a judge is unbalanced and does so repeatedly, then in my view, a judge should be up for impeachment. I think that's just common sense.” Source: @elonmusk, https://t.co/Wf6D5AKPIL

Video Transcript AI Summary
A judge who is unbalanced should be up for impeachment, though that doesn't mean they would be impeached. There should be some chance of impeachment for the very worst federal judges; there shouldn't be no chance. The speaker then introduces Justice Schimmel.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Unbalanced than and does so repeatedly, then in my view, a judge should be up for impeachment. I think it that just that's just common sense. That doesn't mean they do get impeached, but there should be some chance of impeachment for the very worst judge out all federal judges. There shouldn't be no chance. That's absurd. So with that, let me turn it over to Justice Schimmel and maybe he can tell you about himself his views and people can get to

@america - America

𝕏 Spaces Discussion with @ElonMusk and Candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court Brad Schimel https://t.co/pV0SVMwS31

@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal

FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: CONGRESS SHOULD IMPEACH JUDGES OR ABOLISH THEIR COURT Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich: “These judges, I think, are [a] grave danger.  The American people elect the people they want.  They've just given the Republicans the House, the Senate and https://t.co/mGCCqBPqNg

Video Transcript AI Summary
The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should hold intellectual hearings to argue that the founding fathers never wanted radical judges interposing themselves between elected officials and their own views. The committees should also bring in the "weirdest" judges to explain under oath the constitutional basis for their decisions. Congress should consider impeaching judges or abolishing their courts, and also consider dramatically cutting the judicial system's budget. According to Hamilton, courts cannot win a fight with the legislative and executive branches because those branches control the money and power. A recent poll from America's New Majority Project found that 81% of Americans believe the federal government is corrupt. The House and Senate have an obligation to interrogate judges, understand constitutional boundaries, look at historic precedent, and abolish courts or cease paying for them if necessary. The current situation is a direct threat to American self-government.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The house and senate judiciary committees should have two kinds of hearings. One, they should have sort of intellectual hearings, bring in smart people, legal scholars, lay out the case that the founding fathers never wanted to have these kind of radical judges seeking to interpose themselves between the elected officials of the American people and their own whacked out left wing views. And then second, I think it'll be very educational to bring in the weirdest of the judges and have them under oath explain why they made the decision they did, what the source of that decision in the constitution is, why it's a legitimate decision. And I think these judges would look really bad and you begin to understand that they really represent a radical worldview with no constitutional basis. And then I think the congress ought to look at two possible steps immediately. One, to either impeach certain judges or abolish their court, and two, to look seriously at the budget of the judicial system in United States and simply cut it dramatically. The point that Hamilton makes in the Federalist Papers is that the courts in the end cannot win a fight with the elected officials of the legislative and executive branches because the money and the power comes from those two branches. These judges, I think, are in grave danger. This is a test, as Lincoln said at Gettysburg, of whether this system or any system so conceived can long endure. I mean, if the American people are electing the people they want, and they've given the Republicans the House, the Senate, and the White House, If they can't then enforce their views and they can't represent the American people, then our whole system's in trouble. At the, America's New Majority Project, we just did a poll last week, 81% of the American people believe the federal government's corrupt. 81%. This is an enormous danger to the survival of freedom when you have eight out of every 10 Americans believing that the core system is corrupt. The house and the senate have an obligation to bring these judges in, to interrogate them, to understand the normal constitutional boundaries, to look at the historic precedent, and then if necessary, just abolish their courts and cut them out of the out of the game or cease paying for them so that they just sit there and they can't do anything. But the current situation is intolerable, and it is a direct threat to the system of self government that is at the core of the American model.
DoctorCanDo
Posted - March 22, 2025 at 9:30 PM
Saved - March 23, 2025 at 3:13 AM

@DoctorCanDo - Dr Trumpenstein

The Deep State Radical Judges Are Now Totally Exposed. Civil War 2 Is The Unelected Deep State Courts Vs. The American Voting Public. Trump is Our Leader @ChanelRion https://t.co/fpJ6FfeA52

Video Transcript AI Summary
According to the speaker, certain judges are a tool used by Democrats, the ACLU, Marxists, leftists, and the deep state to control America regardless of elections. These judges will allegedly obstruct the president through frivolous lawsuits and unjustified findings. Each judge supposedly claims nationwide power, usurping the power of the presidency. The speaker claims these judges are defending America's "bad guys," helping them steal, pillage, rape, and kill, and freeing those who loot the country, money, liberty, and elections. The speaker believes these judges see themselves as the new presidents, but they have zero power.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: These judges are the new way that Democrats, the ACLU, the Marxists, the leftists, the deep state intend to keep running America forever, no matter who is president and no matter what you vote. With these judges, Libs will block the president's every move with frivolous lawsuits and unjustified findings and a long tedious process. Each judge can claim he has nationwide power, not just the one out of six hundred and seventy seventh power of his own little district, by usurping the power of the presidency unto themselves. These judges are defending America's bad guys. Look at them. They're helping them steal, pillage, rape, and kill, freeing the thieves and bureaucrats looting your country, your money, your liberty, and your elections. They are the new presidents or so they think. But these judges have zero power to
amuse
Posted - April 1, 2025 at 12:50 PM
Saved - April 1, 2025 at 8:07 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe that judges appointed by Democrats who issue nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration are overstepping their constitutional and statutory powers. If Congress and the Supreme Court don't intervene, the rule of law could deteriorate into judicial overreach.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: Democrat-appointed judges who issue nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration are acting beyond both their constitutional and statutory authority. If Congress and the Supreme Court fail to rein them in, the very idea of the rule of law risks collapsing into judicial fiat. h/t @WallStreetApes

Video Transcript AI Summary
A senator questions a witness about universal injunctions, which are court orders affecting parties beyond the specific case. The witness admits there's no statutory or Supreme Court basis for them. The senator suggests these injunctions circumvent the need for class action lawsuits. The witness agrees that universal injunctions encourage forum shopping, where plaintiffs seek favorable judges to enjoin policies nationwide. The senator states universal injunctions were unknown in English common law and cites that only about 27 were issued in the 20th century, but 86 were issued against President Trump in his first term, and 30 so far in his second. The senator suggests universal injunctions have become a weapon against the Trump administration. The witness confirms Article Three doesn't mention universal injunctions, and the senator proposes Congress could limit judges' power to impact those outside their courtroom, suggesting class actions as the appropriate mechanism.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Senator, a universal injunction is what we call, an order from a court enjoining the government in a way that goes beyond the parties to the case, but applies nationwide or in some cases universally to enjoin the gov Speaker 1: Is it sometimes referred to as a nationwide injunction? Speaker 0: Yes. It is, senator. Speaker 1: What's the statutory basis for a federal judge issuing an order that affects people other than the parties before the court? Speaker 0: I'm not aware of a statutory basis, senator. Speaker 1: There is no statutory basis, is there? Speaker 0: No, senator. Speaker 1: What's the sir United States Supreme Court opinion which interprets the constitution in a way that allows a federal district court judge to do this? Can you name me that case? Speaker 0: I'm not aware of one senator. Speaker 1: There isn't one, is there? Speaker 0: I'm not aware of one senator. Speaker 1: Explain to me how this works. How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everybody else other than those in front of him or her. How is that possible? Speaker 0: It shouldn't be possible, senator, but district courts do it all the time. I think on the theory that the the courts need to enjoin a federal policy from going into effect, and they often will enjoin it as nationwide so all nonparties are protected by that injunction. Speaker 1: I thought that if you wanted to affect parties who aren't in court, you had to file a class action. Speaker 0: That's correct here, senator. Speaker 1: So why don't the federal judges, instead of issuing a a universal injunction with no legal basis, tell the part the plaintiff, look. You gotta go file a class action if you wanna impact parties who aren't subject to my court. Speaker 0: Senator, the Department of Justice makes that argument all the time in our briefs. I think in many cases, class actions would be inappropriate. They wouldn't the the the the plaintiffs couldn't satisfy rule 23 to establish a class. Speaker 1: So they couldn't? Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 1: So they prefer to ask for a universal injunction? Yes. Does this encourage forum shopping? Speaker 0: Yes, senator. Not only does it encourage forum shopping, but also district shopping and filing multiple strategic lawsuits to pick find one judge that will enjoin a single policy nationwide. If you have five lawsuits, a plaintiff one of only one of those five cases needs to be successful. Speaker 1: Okay. We've established that there's no basis in statute and no basis in supreme court precedent for universal injunction. How about a common law? I mean, this is universal injunction is basically an equitable remedy. Did this exist in common law courts in England on which our law is based? Speaker 0: I don't believe so, senator. I think we've the government has cited, cases, from the Supreme Court that says, you know, courts are really bound by the scope of relief that a court in equity would have granted, back in England before the founding, and the courts at that time would grant relief to the parties in the in the case, not far beyond the Speaker 1: A universal injunction is a remedy is is unknown in English common law, is it not? Speaker 0: I haven't done the research that far back, but I'm not aware of it. Speaker 1: I have. It's unknown. Wasn't part of of equity. Only about 27 universal injunctions were issued in the twentieth century. Does that sound about right? Speaker 0: That's that sounds about right, senator. Speaker 1: But 86 of them were issued against president Trump in his first term. Is that correct? Speaker 0: I don't know the specific number, but they were a high number. Speaker 1: And so far in president Trump's second term, 30 universal injunctions have been issued against him. Have they not? Speaker 0: Senator, I don't have a specific number, but that sounds about right. Speaker 1: The universal injunction has become a weapon against the Trump administration, has it not? Yes. And tell me again in my last ten seconds. Tell me the basis for universal injunction in article three. I I read article three, which defines judicial power. Where does it mention universal injunction? Speaker 0: It does not, senator. It says courts are to decide the case or controversy before them, which is based on the parties to the case. Speaker 1: So the congress could act and say, look, federal judges, you render a decision to a plaintiff or a defendant, but you can't impact people outside of your courtroom other than through a class action. That's why God created class actions, isn't it? Speaker 0: Yes, senator.
WallStreetApes
Posted - April 2, 2025 at 2:37 PM
Saved - April 2, 2025 at 8:42 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed the troubling issue of federal judges issuing universal injunctions against Donald Trump's orders, which I believe undermines the Constitution and creates a potential constitutional crisis. I noted that 15 district judges have effectively taken control of executive duties in just six weeks, resembling a judicial coup. Reflecting on President Jefferson's approach, I highlighted how he chose to abolish certain courts rather than impeach judges, emphasizing the legislative and executive branches' power to reshape the judiciary. This serves as a reminder of the ongoing power struggle.

@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes

Official Hearing: Federal Judges are violating the US Constitution with universal injunctions against Donald Trump’s orders “There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the judicial branch's effort to fully override the legislative and executive branches. 15 district judges effectively seize control of various executive branch duties in the first 6 weeks of the current presidency through nationwide injunctions. This is potentially a judicial coup d'etat. It clearly violates the constitution and more than 200 years of American history.” “President Thomas Jefferson's agenda: President Jefferson concluded that impeaching the judges would take too much time. He and the Congress simply abolished the courts in which they served via the Judiciary Act of 1802. This is a constitutional balance of power. The legislative and executive branches can reshape the judiciary branch. It is a useful reminder in considering the current situation unelected lower court judges have been steadily grabbing power for years.”

Video Transcript AI Summary
There is a potential constitutional crisis involving the judicial branch overriding the legislative and executive branches. 15 district judges seized control of executive branch duties via nationwide injunctions in the current presidency's first six weeks, potentially a judicial coup d'etat. In the past, President Jefferson and Congress abolished courts via the Judiciary Act of 1802. From 2001 to 2023, district courts ordered 96 nationwide injunctions, with 64 during President Trump's time in office. 92% of injunctions against President Trump were issued by judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Since 01/20/2025, lower courts have imposed 15 nationwide injunctions against the current Trump administration, compared to six during George W. Bush's eight years, twelve during Barack Obama's eight years, and 14 during Joe Biden's four year term. The courts have often been challenged, as seen with Presidents Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln. The legislative and executive branches can defend their rights, as the Judiciary Act of 1802 proves. The Supreme Court could intervene by suspending nationwide injunctions and immediately taking them up. Congress and the President can take steps to bring the judiciary back into a constitutional framework through hearings and legislation like the "No Road Rulings Act."
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That a preliminary stage of the case without the guidance of the lower courts, they're gonna have to overrule some of their decisions. Let me end where I began. This practice is mistaken as a matter of law and unwise as a matter of policy. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker Gingrich. Speaker 1: Thank you, chairman Isa and Roy, ranking members Johnson and Scanlon, and all the members of the subcommittees for allowing me to testify. There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the judicial branch's effort to fully override the legislative and executive branches. 15 district judges effectively seized control of various executive branch duties in the first six weeks of the current presidency through nationwide injunctions. This is potentially a judicial coup d'etat. It clearly violates the constitution and more than two hundred years of American history. To set the stage for this hearing, let me mention 12 former federal judges appointed by president John Adams. Richard Bassett, Edward Benson, Benjamin Bourne, William Griffith, Samuel Hodge Hitchcock, Philip Barton k, Jeremiah Smith, George Keith Taylor, Oliver Wilcott junior, Williams McClung, Charles McGill, and Williams Tillman. President Johnson president Adams appointed these federal judges on his way out of office to hamstring the incoming president Tom Thomas Jefferson's agenda. President Jefferson concluded that impeaching the judges would take too much time. He and the congress simply abolished the courts in which they served via the Judiciary Act of eighteen o two. This is a constitutional balance of power. The legislative and executive branches can reshape the judiciary branch. It is a useful reminder in considering the current situation. Unelected lower court judges have been steadily grabbing power for years. It was such an obvious threat that in 02/2012, Vince Haley and I wrote, bringing the court back under the constitution. It is an historic study which I am submitting for the record. According to Harvard Law Review, there were 96 nationwide injunctions ordered by district courts from 02/2001 to 02/2023. Two thirds of them, 64, were issued during president's time in office. Furthermore, 92% of the injunctions against president Trump were issued by judges appointed by democratic presidents. Since 01/20/2025, lower courts have imposed 15 nationwide injunctions against the current Trump administration. This is compared to six during George w Bush's eight years, twelve during Barack Obama's eight years, and 14 during Joe Biden's four year term. The notion that unelected lawyers can micromanage the executive branch and override a commander in chief who received 77,300,000 votes should trouble every American. This is particularly troubling for issues of national defense and public safety. Around May, Sun Tzu asserted in the art of war that, quote, speed is the essence of war. How can The United States have speed and national security issues if opponents can judge Shupt to find someone ambitious or arrogant enough to block, repudiate, or delay the president's decisions? There are 677 authorized district judgeships. How many think they can override duly elected presidents? This summary statement is four propositions. First, the courts have often been challenged. President Jefferson wrote, quote, judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy, close quote. President Andrew Jackson was in constant fights with the Supreme Court. President Abraham Lincoln made the Dred Scott decision expanding slavery a centerpiece of his eighteen fifty eight senatorial campaign. In his first inaugural, president Lincoln warned that if the Supreme Court held supreme rule, quote, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal, close quote. Second, as the judiciary act of '18 o prove 18 o two proves, the legislative and executive branches can constitutionally defend their rights, and they have in the past. It is historically and constitutionally wrong to think the legislative and executive branches are helpless against judiciary actions. Third, the Supreme Court could intervene to eliminate this attack on the executive branch by district judges. Chief justice Roberts could end the growing confrontation by establishing a rule that any nationwide injunction issued by a district court against the executive branch would be suspended in implementation and immediately taken up by the supreme court. This would remedy the lengthy appeals process. Fourth, the congress and the president can take decisive steps toward bringing the judiciary back into a constitutional framework. This hearing is a good first step. There could be a series of hearings on the constitutional and historic framework, which ensures no single branch of government can acquire dictatorial powers, specifically the judiciary in this committee. These hearings would educate the members and the American people. They would create a national understanding of the need to defend the constitution against overreaching branches of government. I would also recommend that the congressman that the congress passed chairman ICE's no road rulings act, which is a good signal to the courts that they have gone too far. Thank you, and I
SenTedCruz
Posted - April 2, 2025 at 4:31 PM
Saved - April 2, 2025 at 9:00 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I criticize activist judges for trying to undermine the Trump administration with nationwide injunctions. These injunctions are an abuse of power, as they turn the judiciary into policy makers. It's essential for the Judiciary Committee to address this overreach by unelected judges who oppose the election results.

@SenTedCruz - Senator Ted Cruz

🚨WATCH: I blast the activist judges who are attempting to derail the Trump administration by issuing nationwide injunctions.🚨 Nationwide injunctions are an abuse of power. They represent the judiciary acting as policy decision-makers, and it is incumbent upon the Judiciary Committee and this body to rein in this abuse of power from unelected, radical judges who are trying to overturn the election because they disagree with the voters' decision.

Video Transcript AI Summary
A senator accuses Democrat colleagues of hypocrisy regarding the rule of law, citing their past support for a "lawless" and "politically weaponized" Department of Justice. They claim Democrats didn't care about violent protests outside Supreme Court justices' homes, alleging the Attorney General agreed with the protesters to intimidate judges. The senator questions a professor about the roles of voters, elected representatives, and judges in elections and policy decisions. The senator asserts that federal courts do not have the power to issue remedies for people who are not parties to a case and that "nationwide injunction" is not in the constitution. The senator states that there were zero nationwide injunctions in the first 150 years of the republic, 27 in the 20th century, and 32 between 2001 and 2024. They claim 37 nationwide injunctions have been issued in the last two months alone against President Trump. The senator accuses Democrats of "lawfare" by indicting Trump and now seeking out radical judges to shut down policies through forum shopping. They allege a judge ignored US immigration law to keep "murderers and rapists and gang members" in communities, and that nationwide injunctions are an abuse of power.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's long been said that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. I have to admit, I'm enjoying listening to my democrat colleagues suddenly discover the virtues of the rule of law. After four years where they brazenly supported the most lawless department of justice and the most politically weaponized department of justice our nation has ever seen. We just heard the senator from Rhode Island talk about the imperative of protecting judges And yet, not not a single democrat senator cared about the violent protesters that showed up outside supreme court justices' homes, including, I might note, female justices like justice Amy Coney Barrett threatening their family, and Joe Biden's attorney general didn't do a damn thing and refused to enforce the law to protect those judges. Why? Because he agreed with the violent protesters and he wanted to intimidate and threaten those judges. Professor Bray, under our constitution, who should decide elections, the voters or unelected judges? Speaker 1: The voters are the ones who should vote in the election according to the the laws, and the laws sometimes have to be applied by the judges if there are Speaker 0: cases And under our constitution, who is charged with making policy decisions? Elected representatives, elected by the people, or unelected federal judges? Speaker 1: I think the question of policy, senator, is a little broader than a the particular case. So, the basic poll the laws should be enacted by congress. Speaker 0: That's where the fountain of law decisions of the elected branches. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: Law is the is the province of the court. Policy is the province of the elected branches. These are not complicated. Professor Bright, let me ask you this. Do the federal courts have power to issue remedies for people who are not parties to a case? Speaker 1: That's a question I agree is not complicated. They do not have that power. Speaker 0: Is the phrase nationwide injunction or universal injunction found anywhere in the constitution? Constitution? Speaker 1: It is not. First chart. Speaker 0: In the first hundred and fifty years of our republic, how many nationwide injunctions were issued? Speaker 1: My view is that there were not any until 1963. Speaker 0: Zero. Now fast forward. How many how many nationwide injunctions were issued in the entire twentieth century? Speaker 1: It it's a small number. I would I would think it would be a dozen, give or take. It's not large. Speaker 0: 27, actually. Excluding Trump's first term, how many nationwide injunctions were issued in the last twenty years? Far more than that. 32. From '20 02/2001 to 2024 against Biden, Obama, and Bush, thirty two. And how many nationwide injunctions have been issued in the last two months alone? Speaker 1: There have been quite a few. Speaker 0: 37. Let that sink in. There have been no more nationwide injunctions in the past two months against president Trump than in the entire twentieth century. There have been more nationwide injunction against president Trump in the last two months than both terms of George w Bush, both terms of Barack Obama, and Joe Biden's term. We saw during the Biden presidency lawfare, indicting president Trump four times, using the machinery of justice to attack him, and that was an attack on democracy because Democrats today hate democracy. Democrats today are angry at the voters for reelecting Donald Trump and electing a Republican senate and Republican house, and they engage in lawfare to stop democracy from operating. Understand, this is the second phase of lawfare, second chart. This is the second phase of lawfare. Now that their efforts to indict president Trump and stop the voters from reelecting him have failed, They're going and seeking out individual radical judges to try to shut down policies, and they are forum shopping like crazy. Give give me any loon judge put on the bench by Obama or Biden who disagrees with the policy. We just saw a judge flagrantly ignore US immigration law concerning TPS being revoked. US law explicitly said there's no judicial review for that, but, hey, they found a judge who says, you know what? We, the Democrat party, we are the party of illegal aliens. We are the party of murderers and rapists and gang members, and the Democrat party exists here to fight to keep murderers and rapists and gang members in your communities. There's a reason the Democrat Party is at 26% approval nationwide, because they put radical policies ahead of rule of law. Nationwide injunctions are an abuse of power. It is the judiciary acting as policy deciders, and it is incumbent on this committee and this body to rein in the abuse of power from these unelected radical judges who are trying to overturn the election because they disagree with what the voters decided. Speaker 1: Thank you, senator
StephenM
Posted - May 3, 2025 at 3:48 PM
Saved - May 4, 2025 at 3:55 PM

@StephenM - Stephen Miller

The Democrats appointed communist judges in a handful of America’s most liberal cities. Those unelected communist judges are now trying to rule over us all and invalidate the 2024 electoral landslide.

NextNewsNetwork
Posted - May 16, 2025 at 12:21 AM
Saved - May 16, 2025 at 2:15 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m alarmed by the ongoing judicial battles against Trump, which I believe are undermining our democracy. It seems that unelected judges are sabotaging his presidency and blocking his executive orders, particularly regarding birth tourism and border security. I see a pattern of increased nationwide injunctions since Trump took office, which I view as a coordinated attack on America First policies. The situation feels like a constitutional crisis, and I’m frustrated that Congress isn’t taking action to address this judicial overreach. The stakes are high for our republic.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

🚨 BREAKING: The DEEP STATE JUDGES trying to BLOCK TRUMP from SAVING AMERICA!! Supreme Court FINALLY fighting back against ROGUE JUDGES who've been running a SHADOW GOVERNMENT! This is the battle for our REPUBLIC! 🔥🔥🔥 1/12 https://t.co/ATj8q3v2BW

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

The GLOBALIST JUDGE CABAL has been SABOTAGING Trump since DAY ONE! 675 UNELECTED TYRANTS with BLACK ROBES stopping our ELECTED PRESIDENT! These DISTRICT DICTATORS think they can rule from their little COURTROOM KINGDOMS! The SYSTEM is RIGGED! 2/12 https://t.co/KJhLZ2ki7H

Video Transcript AI Summary
Nationwide injunctions allow a single federal judge or a small group to halt Trump administration policies, even with weak legal justification. An injunction issued in one jurisdiction, like Maryland, can halt implementation of a law across the entire country, not just locally. A new parallel court system could be created to specifically handle requests for nationwide injunctions.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Nationwide injunctions mean that one lone federal judge or a small group of them can entirely block everything the Trump administration wants to do even if their legal pretext is somewhat flimsy. And that means if something happens in Maryland, they're not just issuing an injunction of the Maryland jurisdiction. All of America must stop the implementation of said law because what happens in Maryland? It's a nationwide injunction for something where the violation or the thing in question is happening locally. You see, they could create a new parallel court system whose only purpose is handling requests for nationwide injunctions.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

There were SIX nationwide injunctions under Bush, TWELVE under Obama, but a STAGGERING 64 under Trump's first term! Now on pace for EVEN MORE! This isn't coincidence - it's COORDINATED JUDICIAL WARFARE against America First! 3/12 [Kirk(4).txt] https://t.co/mc5WEanE1T

Video Transcript AI Summary
Nationwide injunctions occur when a district court judge blocks a law or order from being implemented nationwide, despite their jurisdiction typically covering only one state or part of one state. These injunctions were once uncommon, with six issued during George W. Bush's presidency and twelve during Obama's. However, their frequency increased significantly during Donald Trump's first term, with 64 being issued. At the current rate, this number could be surpassed in the first year of a second Trump term.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The matter of nationwide injunctions. Pretty much instantly after the Trump executive order, a district court judge issued a nationwide injunction. That's where a single district court judge whose jurisdiction is just one state or even part of one state blocks a law or order from being implemented nationwide. You see nationwide injunctions used to be rare. There were just six of them under George W. Bush's term. There were 12 of them during Obama's presidency, but there were 64 of them in Trump's first term. And at this current pace, he might top that figure in the first year of his second term.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

BIRTH TOURISM is REAL! Foreign nations SENDING pregnant women to EXPLOIT our laws! They give birth, go back to CHINA, then return YEARS LATER claiming CITIZENSHIP! The 14th Amendment was for SLAVES, not FOREIGN INVADERS! 4/12 https://t.co/GkUYBWFaWU

Video Transcript AI Summary
A birth tourism industry exists where pregnant individuals travel to the US to give birth. Evidence suggests some countries, possibly China, send people to the US for this purpose. The children born in the US are then raised in their home countries for many years. Later, these individuals can return to the US and claim citizenship due to their birthright. Abuses like these led to President Trump's executive order.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is a birth tourism industry, where people will pay to come to our shores, in their seventh or eighth month of pregnancy when it's still relatively safe to travel, and they will then stay in hospitals until they give birth, and they will go back into their countries. And and there are certainly evidence out there that there are some countries, surprise me if it was China, that are in fact sending people here to give birth, so that at some point, they can take those children who have been living back in China, for, you know, many, many years and bring them back to The United States and then claim that they are that the people that are coming back to The United States are in fact US citizens by dint of the fact that they were born on our shores. I believe it is exactly abuses like that among many, that led president Trump to enter the executive order that he did. Alright. That's John

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

Trump's EXECUTIVE ORDER would END this ABUSE! But ACTIVIST JUDGES have BLOCKED it nationwide! One judge in MARYLAND can stop what VOTERS in ALL 50 STATES demanded! This isn't DEMOCRACY - it's JUDICIAL TYRANNY! 5/12 [ABC Subclip(2).txt] https://t.co/LKxCxjvPHl

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding nationwide injunctions blocking President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Federal appeals courts have maintained the order on hold, suggesting it is likely unconstitutional. President Trump contends that the lower courts overstepped their authority. He is requesting the Supreme Court to lift the injunctions or, at minimum, permit the administration to begin planning for the change.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The supreme court is hearing arguments over nationwide injunctions blocking president Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. Three federal courts, have kept the federal appeals courts, that is, have kept the order on hold, finding it very likely unconstitutional. But president Trump argues the lower courts exceeded their authority. Now he's asking the supreme court to lift the injunctions or at least allow the administration to start planning for the change.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

TRAITORS outside Supreme Court speaking SPANISH while protesting BORDER SECURITY! They're chanting "DOWN WITH DEPORTATION" right in front of our highest court! They're not even HIDING their INVASION AGENDA anymore! 6/12 https://t.co/RFTWcVLtBv

Video Transcript AI Summary
Anti-Trump protesters are demonstrating outside the Supreme Court against Trump's secure border policies. The crowd is chanting "down, down with deportation, up, up with liberation." According to the speaker, the protesters have been chanting in Spanish, which the speaker finds annoying considering the location is outside the United States Supreme Court. More footage is available on Laura Loomis' X account.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're outside the Supreme Court this morning as the left's anti Trump protesters are now protesting Trump for his secure border policies. As you can hear behind me, the crowd is chanting down, down with deportation, up, up with liberation. The same crowd has been literally chanting things in Spanish all morning, which is kind of annoying considering we're outside the United States Supreme Court. Stay tuned to Laura Loomis' ex account for more exclusive footage of this crazy open borders anti Trump protest at Scott's.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

The 14th Amendment was TWISTED and PERVERTED by the GLOBALISTS! It was meant for FREED SLAVES after the Civil War, NOT for illegal aliens sneaking across our border to DROP ANCHOR BABIES! The ORIGINAL INTENT is CLEAR! 7/12 https://t.co/XBmHwaWzAo

Video Transcript AI Summary
The case concerns birthright citizenship and the Trump administration's attempt to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. The Trump administration announced it would no longer automatically grant citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, tourists, and temporary guest workers. However, this order did not take effect.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The case concerns birthright citizenship. One of the first orders of the Trump administration was an announcement that this administration is henceforth reinterpreting the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth amendment dates back to the end of the civil war. Its first clause reads, quote, all persons born or naturalized in The United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of The United States and of the state wherein they reside. Now the Trump administration announced that from now on, the children of illegal immigrants, tourists, and temporary guest workers are not automatic US citizens. That order didn't take effect, though, and that's the other issue being debated today.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

Trump Administration CORRECTLY argues these nationwide injunctions are a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS! They "prevent percolation of novel legal questions" and "encourage RAMPANT FORUM SHOPPING"! The LEFT shops for sympathetic judges! 8/12 [ABC Subclip.txt] https://t.co/5kn63ZNS8E

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Trump administration's attorney argues injunctions are a bipartisan problem spanning five presidential administrations. Universal injunctions exceed judicial power granted in Article III, which should only address injury to the complaining party. They transgress the traditional balance of equitable authority and create practical problems. Universal injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions and encourage rampant forum shopping. Judges are required to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions. They create confrontations between the life-tenured and representative branches of government and disrupt the Constitution's separation of powers.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So far, the Trump administration's attorney has argued the injunctions are a bipartisan problem that has spanned the last five presidential administrations. Speaker 1: Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party. They transgress the traditional balance of equitable authority, and they create a host of practical problems. Such injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions. They encourage rampant forum shopping. They require judges to make rushed, high stakes, low information decisions. They create what justice Powell described as repeated and essentially head on confrontations between the life tenured and representative branches of government, and they disrupt the constitution's careful balancing of the separation of powers.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

Sotomayor exposed her RADICAL AGENDA with GUN CONFISCATION hypothetical! She's TELEGRAPHING the LEFT'S PLAN to TAKE YOUR GUNS while pretending to defend "judicial power"! These people are SICK and TRANSPARENT! 9/12 https://t.co/hVTz4yuTis

Video Transcript AI Summary
One key question is whether a federal judge can block a presidential policy nationwide. The administration argues this creates an unfair playing field, forcing the government to "win everywhere" while plaintiffs "can win anywhere." Justice Sotomayor responded skeptically, saying the administration's argument "makes no sense whatsoever," and that it would limit the ability of federal courts, and even the Supreme Court, to issue nationwide relief. She asked what would happen if a president issued an executive order to take away everyone's guns, and whether courts would have to "sit back and wait for individuals to sue one by one." The administration also argues that the Fourteenth Amendment's birthright citizenship provision was meant for freed slaves, not immigrants.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Selena, what stands out to you from questioning so far? We never know what justices are are thinking, but sometimes it's interesting to hear the questions they choose to Speaker 1: ask. Yeah, Diane. Well, as you were just outlining, I mean, one of the key questions here is can an individual federal judge then block a presidential policy nationwide? And the administration here is arguing that the ability to do so creates an unfair playing field saying, quote, this forces the government to win everywhere while the plaintiffs can win anywhere. Now justice Sodio So Sodio Mayor had very skeptical response. She had a tough line of questioning. She said that the administration's argument, quote, makes no sense whatsoever, saying that this would not only limit the ability of federal courts, but also the supreme court to issue nationwide relief. She also made an interesting analogy saying, what would happen if a new president issued an executive order to take away everyone's guns? She asked if in that case, the courts would have to, quote, sit back and wait for individuals to sue one by one to challenge the constitutionality of such an order. Now the administration is also arguing that the fourteenth amendment's provision of birthright citizenship at the time of its passage was meant for freed slaves. It was not meant to apply to immigrants to The United States.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

We survived until the 1960s WITHOUT nationwide injunctions! They EXPLODED in 2007 when the 9th Circuit started using them for ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS! It's the CLIMATE CULT's gift to the DEEP STATE! 10/12 https://t.co/bh57yJ1GRA

Video Transcript AI Summary
Injunctions were not universally applied until the 1960s, with *Wertz* in 1963 identified as the first instance, according to the speaker's interpretation of *Trump v. Hawaii*. A dispute exists regarding *Perkins v. Lukens Oil* from 1940. The speaker cites cases like *National Treasury Employees Union*, *Perkins v. Lukens Oil*, *Frothingham*, *Massachusetts v. Mellon*, and *Scott v. Donald* to show courts have historically limited injunctive relief to the plaintiffs in the case. Universal injunctions were rare even in the 1960s, with a surge occurring around 2007, particularly in the Ninth Circuit concerning environmental claims, as highlighted in a cert petition for *Summers v. Island Institute*. Justice Alito is then addressed.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Injunctions used. We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wertz in 1963 was really the first universal injunction. There's a dispute about Perkins against Lukens Oil going back to 1940. And, of course, we point to the court's opinion that reversed that that that universal injunction issued by the DC circuit and said it's it's profoundly wrong. Now if you look at the the the cases that the either party site, you see a common theme. The cases that we cite, like National Treasury, Treasury's Employment Union, Perkins against Lukens Oil, Frothingham, and and Massachusetts against Mellon, going back to Scott against Donald. And all of those, those are cases where the court considered and addressed the sort of universal, in that case, statewide, issue of provision of injunctive relief. So when the court has considered and addressed this, it has consistently said, you have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs who are appearing in court in complaining of that remedy. So we survived until the nineteen sixties without universal injunction. That's exactly correct. And in fact, those are very limited very rare even in the nineteen sixties. It really exploded in 02/2007 in our cert petition in Summers against Island Institute. We pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims. Justice Alito? You began by outlining what you

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

Congress could FIX THIS IMMEDIATELY but they're SITTING ON THEIR TAILS! We control Congress - what are they DOING all day?! The UNIPARTY wants judges to have this power to BLOCK TRUMP when needed! DRAIN THE SWAMP NOW! 11/12 https://t.co/1cidv0N97O

Video Transcript AI Summary
A fundamental question is whether a district court judge's jurisdiction, limited to their district, allows them to issue nationwide orders. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this issue. It is argued that they shouldn't have this power. Congress could resolve this, and Republicans, who control Congress, should act. Congress should fix this problem.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's a lot they could do. There's a lot of good ideas out there, but they not might not be necessary. Because an obvious question is this, and this is the fundamental question. And I'm glad we're actually getting this out of the way in the first six months of the Trump administration. And I'm glad we're getting it done quick. It's very important. The question is this. If a district court judge's jurisdiction is only over his his or her own district, how can they have the power to issue a nationwide order? Arguably, they shouldn't, and that's what the supreme court just heard in oral arguments today. And, of course, we should be clear. Congress could fix this. We control congress, and we should not let republicans off the hook. What are they doing all day long? Hello? Congress, get off your tail. Fix this.

@NextNewsNetwork - Next News Network 🇺🇲

Wrap-up Tweet: The battle is ON! One lone judge should NOT have power to BLOCK the PRESIDENT! This case will determine if we're a REPUBLIC or a JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP! Stay tuned for MASSIVE revelations! FOLLOW @NextNewsNetwork for the TRUTH they don't want you to hear! 12/12 https://t.co/uJbN07e9cT

WallStreetApes
Posted - October 17, 2025 at 7:45 PM
Saved - October 18, 2025 at 12:44 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that Rep. Thomas Massie introduced HR 5704 to repeal the 2013 Smith–Mundt Modernization Act, arguing it would end propaganda allowed in our media. The piece claims Obama repealed it, enabling the “Frankenstein” apparatus to infiltrate universities, unions, media, politicians, and judges, and to use foreign grants and censorship to pressure US speech. It hosts a Rogan discussion framing the Truman Show and USAID as master links.

@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes

BREAKING ‼️ Rep Thomas Massie introduces HR 5704 to repeal the 2013 Smith-Mundt Modernization Act This will FINALLY end propaganda being allowed in our media, legalized by Barack Obama Mike Benz talks with Joe Rogan about what Barack Obama really did by repealing the Smith–Mundt Act It’s SO MUCH BIGGER than just allowing use of propaganda on Americans, it allowed for: - Infiltrate and co-opt the universities - The unions - The media - The politicians - The judges It allowed - Foreign policy establishment can fund groups that effectively work with prosecutors domestically or that work at media, dual sort of dual use - To give them foreign grants to do media propaganda abroad but they operate here, or social media censorship to coerce foreign countries to pass foreign censorship laws that explicitly and are intended to attack US social media companies and in US peer-to-peer speech “1948, Congress recognized the Frankensteinian monster they were creating by authorizing a covert permanent department of dirty Tricks. And this is their phrase, not mine, to do this cloak and dagger to infiltrate and co-opt the universities, the unions, the media, the politicians, the judges, the whole swarm army. You know what I have been calling for a long time, the USAID Truman Show” “That are effectively a movie set being constructed by the US State Department and its sister influence orgs — The CIA” “So the Smith–Mundt Act was always designed to say, listen, you can do this dirty stuff abroad, but it can't come home. We have that protection, which lasted for 70 years and only, we only lost it a decade ago.” By BARACK OBAMA ALL THESE THINGS and more were to be allowed to be used OVERSEAS ONLY, the Smith–Mundt Act was created to ensure that But then Barack Obama got installed, he repealed the Smith–Mundt Act and now ALL THESE TOOLS were used against the American people and we paid for it all Every person in America needs to watch every second of this video. There would not be a single Democrat voter left. Obama was installed to start the takedown of America and use our own agencies against us You could also argue THIS is why we have so many activist judges

Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the Smith-Mont Act (referred to as the Smithmont Act) and its modernization, arguing it enabled U.S. influence operations abroad while constraining them at home. The claim is that, after World War II, winning elections and shaping law in foreign countries required an apparatus to influence hearts and minds, which shifted warfare from military occupation to political subversion. In this view, the 1948 act authorized a covert, permanent department of “dirty tricks” to infiltrate and co-opt universities, unions, media, politicians, judges, and the broader “swarm army” of influence, effectively creating a global propaganda machinery controlled by the State Department, CIA, and later USAID. A key figure cited is Frank Wisner, associated with the so-called Wissner’s Wurlitzer, described as a “church organ” that could play the international media like a symphony to cause any media narrative to go viral worldwide. The assertion is that the United States and United Kingdom dominated early robust radio, film, TV, and print, enabling foreign propaganda operations. The Smith-Mont framework supposedly allowed the U.S. to plant fake news abroad—“propaganda abroad”—but prohibited such activities from affecting domestic audiences, shielding Americans from comparable interference. The speaker argues the rationale for this separation was economic: if foreign governments resisted resource access, military basing, or U.S. multinational operations, Americans would bear economic costs (lower living standards, fewer imports, higher prices). Thus, foreign influence operations were designed to be accessible abroad and barred from coming home. This protection lasted about seventy years but is claimed to have eroded in the last decade, with reference to a broader “Smithmont problem” now affecting funding and operations. The claimed evolution is that the foreign policy establishment can fund groups that operate domestically in a dual-use fashion—providing foreign grants for media propaganda abroad while also operating within the U.S.—and can influence social media censorship to coerce foreign governments into enacting censorship laws that affect U.S. peer-to-peer speech. The speaker warns that, to preserve the foreign influence function, there must be a hard firewall and severe penalties for any violations, implying the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between foreign propaganda activities and domestic communications. Overall, the transcript asserts that the Smith-Mont framework created a permanent, cloaked apparatus for influencing foreign audiences, with a historical showcase of Wisner’s organization and its reach, while stressing the need to reinstate stringent firewalls and penalties to prevent domestic misuse of such operations.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are you familiar with the Smithmont Act? Is that the 02/2012 thing where Obama allowed people to use propaganda against United States citizens? Yeah. That was what was done then under Obama was the was the effective repeal of it. It was called the Smith Modernization Act. But the modernization got rid of the whole purpose of it, the the fire the firewall. Because at the time, the media and media control was seen as as the linchpin crux of winning the Cold War. Piping in pro US media influence to so that the because everything moved after World War two from kinetic warfare and military occupation. You know, we used to militarily occupy The Philippines, for example, after we won the Spanish American war. But that was that was banned under international law, territorial acquisition by military force in 1948. So we had to win elections, and and we had to influence the the passage of laws in foreign countries by having an apparatus inside those countries that influenced the hearts and minds of people, which influenced who they voted for, which then determined the government. So you had to move towards political vassalage rather than military occupation. And what the Smithmont Act did is simultaneous with the creation of this in 1948, congress recognized the Frankensteinian monster they were creating by authorizing a covert permanent department of dirty tricks, and this is their phrase, not mine, to do this cloak and dagger to in to to infiltrate and and co op the universities, the unions, the media, the politicians, the judges, the whole swarm army. You know, what I have been calling for a long time, The USA Truman Show because it's, you know, these people in these foreign countries have no idea, you know, how many how many of the things they interact with that are effectively a movie set being constructed by the US State Department and its sister influence orgs. But the point that I'm getting at here is the the Smith Muntin Act in 1948 said, okay. You guys can do this. State Department can do this. CIA can do this. USAID, when it came along thirteen years later, could do this. But we so there was a guy named Frank Wissner who was known as one of the godfather figures of the CIA. He's known for creating what was called the Wissner's Wurlitzer, which was a it's like a church organ, and that he would brag that he could play the international media like a symphony to make any media narrative go viral in any country on earth because of the the suite of CIA proprietary media functions and its net and its distribution network, especially when The US had first mover advantage in radio and print. It's basically The US and UK were the the only games in town really in having robust radio, film, TV, and print media. So the Smithmont was said, okay. You can do that abroad. You can plant fake news stories in France. You can, you know, you can have propaganda blare into Africa or Western Europe or Central Asia, but that can't come home. You can't sigh up our own people with your propaganda organ abroad because the point of authorizing this is that we get cheaper gas, we get import export markets, you know, we get a high standard of living because if a foreign government doesn't wanna give up its resources or allow US military base or allow joint partnerships or or exports of of goods or US multinational corporations to operate there, then the American people suffer economically. So it was always designed to say, listen, you can do this dirty stuff abroad, but it can't come home. We have and even that protection, which which lasted for seventy years and only we only lost it a decade ago. We're up against a much actually deeper darker problem with this USAID scandal and as people will see increasingly the the scandals that will break open at the Pentagon and the State Department, which is that we have a Smithmont problem for funding and operations. It's not just propaganda. The blob, our foreign policy establishment, can fund groups that effectively work with prosecutors domestically or that or that work at media, you know, dual sort of dual use. We we give them foreign grants to do media propaganda abroad, but they operate here. Or social media censorship to coerce foreign countries to pass foreign censorship laws that explicitly and are intended to attack US social media companies and in US peer to peer speech. So we need that protection if we're going to keep this function at all. We need a hard firewall and absolute grotesque penalties for any violation.
View Full Interactive Feed