reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@FreeBeacon - Washington Free Beacon
FLASHBACK Jean-Pierre said today that the Biden admin “has not weighed in on where people should and should not protest.” On May 10, Psaki said that “the president’s position” is “to encourage [protests] outside of judges’ homes.” https://t.co/cT8vvxP9hG
Video Transcript AI Summary
The president does not have a stance on protesters picketing outside judges' homes. Peaceful protests are encouraged, including those outside of judges' homes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Does the president believe, that there should be any type of protesters picketing outside of judges' homes when there's a a case pending before them?
Speaker 1: So, you know, we have not weighed in on where people should or should not protest. Protests that have been peaceful to date, and we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges' homes, and that's the president's position.
@JDVance - JD Vance
Until Merrick Garland stops using his agency to harass Joe Biden’s political opponents, I will hold all DoJ nominees. https://t.co/UVRwi6Ue01
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm holding all Department of Justice nominees because Merrick Garland is using the DOJ for politics instead of law. It's time to stop complaining and take action. Garland isn't enforcing the law impartially; he's harassing political opponents.
We need to halt this department until Garland promises to do his job and stop targeting political opponents. Donald Trump is just one example. Catholic fathers are being harassed for pro-life activism, and violent criminals walk free after the 2020 riots. If you're letting criminals go and harassing Christian parents, you're playing politics, not dispensing justice. Let's slow this department down until Garland changes course and does his job correctly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, guys. JD Vance here. I'm out on the steps of the US Capitol, and I've heard from a lot of people that they're so frustrated as I am with the fact that Merrick Garland has used the Department of Justice for politics instead of law. And I think it's time we stop just whining about this problem and debating this problem and actually do something about it. So I've announced today that I will be holding all Department of Justice nominees that Merrick Garland will use if confirmed, not to enforce the law impartially, which is his duty, but clearly to harass his political opponents.
I think that we have to grind this department to a halt until Merrick Garland promises to do his job and stop going after his political opponents. Donald Trump is just one and and the and the most recent example of the fact that Merrick Garland uses his department for political purposes. We have Catholic fathers harassed for their pro life activism. We, of course, have violent criminals walking the streets after the twenty twenty, summer of riots. And if you're letting the violent criminals go free and you're harassing Christian parents for their political activism, you're not engaged in justice.
You're engaged in politics. Let's be honest about that fact, and let's make this department work a little bit more slowly until Merrick Garland changes course and actually does his job the right way. Thanks, guys.
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
Remember when Democrats said Trump's DOJ investigating his chief election rival would destroy America and turn it into a Banana Republic? Now, they support Joe Biden's DOJ as he actually destroys America & turns it into a Banana Republic.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses concerns about the Justice Department being used as a tool by former President Trump to target his perceived enemies. It highlights instances where Trump and his attorney general, Bill Barr, are accused of weaponizing the department for political purposes. Critics argue that this behavior resembles that of a Banana Republic, with Trump using government resources to go after his political opponents. The video also mentions the indictment of Trump and the investigation into his family members. Overall, the speakers express worry about the abuse of power and the erosion of democratic values.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now that he's got the right attorney general in position to do it, we now know they really have been trying to gin up criminal prosecutions and criminal investigations into the president's perceived enemy, politically motivated persecution. Right? Courtesy of Bill Barr. I'll I'll roll in the FBI on you. That's how Banana Republics work.
Right? Enm- The home of the 45th president of the United States has been raided by the FBI. Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies. I feel worried about the prospect of the justice department being used as a tool of this president or any.
Our Little Banana Republic. Any capable prosecutor can get a grand jury to hand down an indictment of something as innocent as a ham sandwich.
Speaker 1: Today, end. An indictment was then sealed charging Donald j Trump.
Speaker 0: Ricky News on former president Trump. He's been indicted for the 4th time in life money.
Speaker 1: Bill Barr, on the president's behalf, is weaponizing the Justice Department to go after the president's enemies. When you win an election, you don't seek to just prosecute the losing side. President using the justice department as a weapon to get what he wants.
Speaker 2: Department of Justice is totally politicized. Nicking the Department of Justice on political opponents,
Speaker 0: threatening to imprison his political rival, Banana Republic style.
Speaker 2: Trying to exact revenge against all of his enemies, tin pot, dictator, and a banana republic. Is acting more like a banana republic dictator.
Speaker 0: He's using government resources answers to go after his political opponent.
Speaker 2: Essentially, we are a Banana Republic. That we are we are, seeking to have of a bogus and criminal investigation into a political opponent. And that's using the Department of Justice to also target end. Trump photo opponent for nefarious reasons. This is a massive abuse of power and a betrayal of our values.
Speaker 3: President of the United face. Is targeting a family member
Speaker 2: of a political opponent. This is the type of thing that happens in a Banana Republic. And trying to take out a end. Arrival and Joe Biden criminally investigating an American political rival, someone the president's worried about losing to in the next election.
Speaker 0: To investigate, in. My principal opponent or a principal opponent, in the upcoming election. Houston, we'd have a problem.
Speaker 4: Don't you think that's something that should be investigated when the
Speaker 2: an Incumbent political party opens the counterintelligence investigation on the candidate of the opposing party. Enemy. Know Trump is itching to politicize the justice department, and the attorney general has been super shady.
Speaker 5: The president is weaponizing the Department of Justice to bring end. Cases against his enemies. The Department of Justice is is in an existential crisis.
Speaker 0: Again, it's yet another example of the Justice Department Basically losing all
Speaker 6: of its independence in this administration.
Speaker 2: This is now about corrupting the next election. And for me, this was crossing in the red line. The president who is actively trying to potentially steal the upcoming election. But to try to take out end. A political rival, the end goal being 2020.
Speaker 0: Donald Trump and his attorney general are using the justice department. The only difference between this and a Banana Republic
Speaker 2: is that Trump does not eat fruit. The 2020 election is really the last chance we have to stop our system from fully sliding into a corrupt Banana Republic.
Speaker 0: End. Bill Barr has done everything that Donald Trump has wanted him to do. Yeah. We're living in a Banana Republic right now.
Speaker 2: When you start using the justice department effort. To go after your enemies. That's that's very, very dangerous. Donald Trump is using the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice to go after his enemies in any way that he can.
Speaker 0: Having the head of the chief federal law enforcement agency essentially working on his behalf to investigate a political rival.
Speaker 2: To investigate end. A the family of a political opponent. Basically, Banana Republic behavior.
Speaker 7: There were no better than some Mhmm. You know, Some banana republic. And he's using the abuse of power and every element of the presidency
Speaker 8: end. To try to do something to smear me.
Speaker 9: We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power,
Speaker 10: end. By, if we, if he does run
@ChuckCallesto - Chuck Callesto
DOUBLE STANDARD: “What’s your message to people who defy Congressional subpoenas.” “Should they be prosecuted by the Justice Department?” JOE BIDEN: “Yes” https://t.co/H55LdKBOSd
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses their hope that the January 6th committee will pursue and hold accountable those who defy congressional subpoenas. When asked about supporting 10 minutes for the Supreme Court, the speaker responds with a clear "No."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Talk to you so much today. You're not gonna talk to me anymore. So do you. And what's your message
Speaker 1: to people who defy congressional subpoenas on the January 6th committee?
Speaker 0: I hope that the committee goes after them and, holds them accountable.
Speaker 1: Does it be prosecuted
Speaker 0: I I do. Yes. Sir, do you support 10 minutes for the Supreme Court? No.
@4Mischief - • ᗰISᑕᕼIᗴᖴ ™ •
Remember when Biden said people who defy Congressional subpoenas should be prosecuted?🤣🤣 https://t.co/HKlvMOmKAl
Video Transcript AI Summary
My message to those who defy congressional subpoenas on the January 6th committee is that I hope the committee takes action and holds them accountable, including possible prosecution.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And what's your message to people who defy congressional subpoenas on the January 6th committee? I hope that the committee goes after them and, holds them accountable. Do they be prosecuted by
reSee.it AI Summary
Hunter Biden defied a congressional subpoena, sparking debate. Democrats, Never-Trump Republicans, and the media previously emphasized that defying a subpoena is illegal. A note from Jamie Raskin to Joe Biden advises his children to comply with subpoenas. Consider following this account for similar video content.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Hunter Biden defied a congressional subpoena. Here are three minutes of Democrats, Never-Trump Republicans and the media assuring us that defying a congressional subpoena means that you belong in jail and that no one is above the law. https://t.co/3yIXmOBF9m
Video Transcript AI Summary
People who refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas should be prosecuted and go to jail, according to the speakers. They emphasize that in America, when subpoenaed, you must show up, regardless of wealth or power. They argue that holding individuals accountable is crucial for democracy and the rule of law. The speakers express their frustration with Steve Bannon's defiance of the subpoena and call for his imprisonment. They stress the importance of respecting lawful orders from Congress and warn of the consequences for those who reject them. The lesson they want to impart is that everyone should comply with subpoenas, whether for Congress or the court. They hope the committee will go after those who defy subpoenas and hold them accountable.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you think people who refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas should be prosecuted by the justice department and at the end of the day go to jail?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: If you act deliberately with sneering cavalier contempt for the American people and their representatives, we will hold you in contempt.
Speaker 3: In America, when you are subpoenaed to testify in court or in Congress, you show up, period.
Speaker 4: That if we fail to hold c Bannon accountable, that he will be the exception. He will become the rule. Either we are all equal before the law or none of us is, this is the essence of our democracy. Either we're all in this together, either the rule of law twice to everyone equally, or we lose out on a a fundamental aspect of our democracy that the rule of law applies to everyone and no one is above that
Speaker 5: law Mister Bannon stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena. That's not acceptable. No one in this country, no matter how wealthy or how powerful, is above the law. And if he refuses, the subpoena like we expect him to continue to do, then we're left with no other choice than to ask the justice department, lock him up.
Speaker 1: The plain fact here is that mister Bannon has no legal right to ignore the committee's lawful subpoena.
Speaker 0: If Steve Bannon is just going to flout his nose at a congressional subpoena and say that it doesn't apply to me, then he needs to be charged and he needs to be put in jail
Speaker 6: Mister Bannon's willful disregard for the select committee subpoena demonstrates his utter contempt for the American people's vision that defies the rule of law and rejects the will of the American people.
Speaker 0: We're serious about this. And anybody that is either being subpoenaed now or will be in
Speaker 7: the future, think twice before you reject a lawful order from congress.
Speaker 6: When you get a subpoena, the law requires you to comply.
Speaker 3: No one No one no one is above the law.
Speaker 1: I sent people out to pick people up that ignored my subpoenas. Yeah. I mean, that's that's how it's done Child the sheriff Yes. That's right. Drive up to the house Yes.
And snatch your behind Yes. And put you in the jail while everybody figured stuff out, maybe that's what needs to happen.
Speaker 8: It does matter if the new normal is that if you're a Trump ally, you
Speaker 1: don't have to respond to subpoenas, it matters whether or not he feels safe defying the law here.
Speaker 9: Steve Bannon, who defied the committee with his sort of characteristic 2 shirted, defiance, told you guys to go take a long walk off
Speaker 10: a short pier. What's the lesson here?
Speaker 2: The lesson is, please tell your children out there in America, if you get a subpoena to go before congress or you get a subpoena to go
Speaker 1: to the court, go. What's your judgment to people who should buy congressional subpoenas on the January 6th committee?
Speaker 6: I hope that the committee goes after them and, and, hold
Speaker 1: him accountable. Do they be prosecuted
Speaker 2: by
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
A specific note From Jamie Raskin to Joe Biden: “Please tell your children out there that if you get a subpoena to go before congress….go!" https://t.co/GidoqYORyx
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Please consider giving this account a follow should you like this kind of video content🇺🇸
@WatchChad - Chad Prather
Biden on student loan cancellation: “The Supreme Court blocked it. But that didn't stop me." Dictators gonna dictate. Why even have laws at this point? https://t.co/YWK6c3YU5Z
Video Transcript AI Summary
I announced a plan to provide debt relief for working families with college student debt, which was blocked by the Supreme Court. I improved the SAVE plan, reducing payments for undergraduate borrowers to 5% of discretionary income. Over 7.5 million Americans have enrolled, with 4 million having payments dropped to 0. We are canceling debt for 150,000 borrowers ahead of schedule, forgiving loans up to $12,000 for those in the SAVE plan. This helps community college graduates get debt forgiveness faster. This complements previous actions canceling debt for nearly 4 million Americans.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Early in my term, I announced a major plan to provide millions of working families with debt relief for their college student debt. Tens of millions of people in debt were literally about to be canceled, their debts. But my MAGA Republican friends in the congress, elected officials and special interests, stepped in and sued us, and the supreme court blocked it and blocked it. But that didn't stop me. I announced we're gonna pursue alternative paths for student debt relief, for as many borrowers as possible.
And that's the effort that's been underway the last 2 years. I fixed what's called the save plan. It existed but I fixed it to make it the most affordable repayment plan ever. Before I took office, student borrowers had to pay 10% of the discretionary income on a monthly basis. If they made less and if they didn't have enough to do that, they were able to not have to pay that month but the interest continued.
A lot of people don't have the means to do that though. Under my SAVE plan, we're cutting in half to 5% the undergraduate borrowers what undergraduate borrowers have to pay after their living expenses are accounted for. That means no one with an undergraduate loan, whether it's a community college or a 4 year college, will have to pay more than 5% of the discretionary income to repay those loans starting in July, and that's income after you paid in that for necessities like food and housing. Already 7,500,000 Americans have enrolled in this so called save plan, and there's more than 4,000,000 of those borrowers had their monthly payments dropped to 0 if they're living paycheck to paycheck below a certain level. This plan is the most generous repayment program ever and today we're doing it even faster and quicker than ever before.
I'm proud to announce our save plan. We are immediately canceling the debt loans for over a 150,000 borrowers, nearly 6 months ahead of schedule. Starting today, we're canceling student debt for borrowers who are enrolled in the safe plan and have been paying student loans for as little as 10 years. If they took less than if they borrowed less than $2,000, it's forgiven. The $12,000 excuse me.
The loan is forgiven. This actual being used help to graduates of community college and borrow those smaller loans, putting them back on track faster for debt forgiveness than ever before. This builds on other progress I've made in canceling student debt for close to 4,000,000 Americans through various actions. For
@C_N_F__on__X - Conservative News Feed
JD Vance is spot on, we need to fight fire with fire. If they want lawfare, lawfare is what we should give them. These Democrats opened up a can of worms, it’s time to give them a taste of their own medicine. #Trump2024 https://t.co/WTq1LP9dTu
Video Transcript AI Summary
Many experts doubt the case's appeal, questioning why it was pursued. Concerns raised about a judge with ties to Democratic fundraising overseeing the case. Republicans urged to take action, subpoena judge Marshawn and daughter for connections to Democratic money. Investigate Soros and Bragg's involvement. Punishment needed for wrongdoing to prevent further abuse of justice system. Fight back to protect not just Trump, but all Republicans and conservatives. Full investigation and accountability crucial. JD Vance emphasized the importance of stopping corruption now.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You hear so many experts frankly from across the aisle say that this case won't stand up on appeal. Well, if the case won't stand up on appeal, why was it ever brought in the first place? Why was a judge whose family has gotten rich off of Democratic party fundraising allowed to preside over this thing in the first place? And Republicans, Jesse, we cannot just sit on our hands. We can't just complain about it.
As important as all of that stuff is, we have to be willing to fight back. We need to be subpoenaing, judge Marshawn and his daughter. We need to understand what are the connections be between big Democratic money and this sham prosecution? Did George Soros ever talk to Alvin Bragg about using his power to go after Donald Trump? We need to get to the bottom of it.
And when we find wrongdoing, we need to be willing to actually punish it. That is the only, again, the only language that I think these people are gonna understand is that if they do this, if they turn the American system of justice into Banana Republic garbage, they're gonna suffer consequences for it. And if they don't, Jesse, it's not gonna stop with Donald Trump. Banana Republican Republics never stop with the guy at the top. It's gonna go after a ton of other Republican officials and conservatives unless we fight back.
Nope. Stop it now. Full throated investigation and full accountability. Absolutely necessary. JD Vance, thank you so much.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
Democrats Are Sending Steve Bannon To Prison On July 1st For Ignoring A Congressional Subpoena FLASHBACK: Here is Hunter Biden walking out and NOT COMPLYING WITH A CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA to sit for a closed-door deposition. No arrest. America’s Two-Tier Justice System https://t.co/SU5ESNjlS4
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: Reclaiming time from Chairman, Hunter is avoiding my words. Speaker 1: House committees seek relevant info, but GOP misuses subpoenas for political gain, ignoring offers and leaking witness statements.
Translation: Speaker 0 reclaims time from the Chairman as Hunter avoids their words. Speaker 1 mentions that House committees are seeking relevant information, but Republicans are misusing subpoenas for political purposes by ignoring offers and leaking witness statements.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister chairman. Excuse me, Hunter. Apparently you're afraid of my words. Oh, Oh, I like to reclaim my time, mister chairman. Can't burst their bubble.
Wow. That's too bad.
Speaker 1: The house committees to see what and how relevant information to any legitimate inquiry could be provided. Our first five offers were ignored. And then in November, they issued a subpoena for a behind closed doors deposition, a tactic that the Republicans have repeatedly misused in their political crusade to selectively leak and mischaracterize what witnesses have said.
@Bubblebathgirl - Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸
Biden’s DOJ just said they won’t prosecute Merrick Garland for contempt even though the House held him in contempt and he broke the law by refusing to provide audio of special counsel’s interview with Joe Biden. So much for “no one is above the law.” https://t.co/iiF5ZoSHaP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Justice Department is vital to democracy, ensuring investigations are fair and free from political influence. Protecting sensitive investigations is crucial. Despite attacks, we remain committed to following the law. The pace of justice system trials is out of our control. Thank you, everyone.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Justice department is a fundamental institution about our democracy. People depend on us to ensure that our investigations and our prosecutions are conducted according to the facts and the law and without political influence. We have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the committees get responses to their legitimate requests. But this is not one. To the contrary, this is one that would harm our ability in the future to successfully pursue sensitive investigations.
Now there have been a series of unprecedented and, frankly, unfounded attacks on the justice department. This request, this effort to use contempt as an prosecutors at risk, these are wrong. Look. The our prosecutors at risk. These are wrong.
Look. The only thing I can do is continue to do the right thing. I will protect this building and its people.
Speaker 1: So, Jason, one quick response. Go ahead. You kinda answered this just now, but I was wondering, like, you know, what this this combined with the efforts to defund Jack Smith and the other attacks on Biden administration officials say about, you know, the broader effort to discredit you and to discredit the justice department and also how would you manage that? How are you resisting that and, what can you do about that as attorney general?
Speaker 0: We have to go about our work following our federal principles of prosecution. They said we follow the facts and the law. We screen out outside inappropriate influences. That's what we're doing here. We're protecting our ability to continue to do high profile and sensitive investigations, and and we will continue to do that.
Speaker 2: Mister Mister Kerry, last question. It now seems vanishingly the the odds now seem vanishingly small that, the 2 Jack Smith federal cases are gonna begin trial, let alone finish trial this year. What does that say about the pace of the justice system and confidence in this justice department?
Speaker 0: Look, the special counsel brought both cases last year. He appropriately requested speedy trials. The matter is now in the hands of the judiciary, and I'm I'm not gonna be able to comment any further.
Speaker 1: You know what? Thank you, everyone.
Speaker 2: We have to go to the FDA memorial. Thank you, everyone. Do you
Speaker 1: need the president? I just forget.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Here is Joe Biden saying that defying a congressional subpoena means you should be prosecuted. All congressional subpoenas are equal, but some congressional subpoenas are more equal than others. https://t.co/YE0Xs19g7f
Video Transcript AI Summary
I support the January 6th committee pursuing those who ignore congressional subpoenas. They should be held accountable and possibly prosecuted by the Supreme Court.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For a message to keep under the 5 congressional subpoenas on the January 6th committee. I hope that the committee goes after them and, holds them accountable. Do they be prosecuted by the Supreme Court? I I do. Yes.
@RealJamesWoods - James Woods
Watching these chirping dingleberries slavishly spewing the mantra when it was Trump who “wasn’t above the law,” is now fingers on the chalkboard. What hypocrites these fetid pustules of servitude have become. 🤮 https://t.co/lUxyNQSr01
Video Transcript AI Summary
No person is above the law, regardless of their position or title. This principle is fundamental to American justice. Everyone, including former presidents, must be held accountable under the same laws. There cannot be two justice systems; we must ensure that the law applies equally to all. The rule of law means that no one is exempt, and it is essential for maintaining a fair society. The idea that anyone could be above the law undermines the very foundation of our legal system. We must uphold this principle to ensure justice for everyone.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The idea that no person is above the law is a bedrock principle of American justice. No man is above the law no matter what the crime. And I agree with you. No no man is above the law, and no person is above the law. No one is above the law.
No one is above the law. No one's above the law. No one is above the law. No man is above the law. Nobody is above the law.
No one is above the law. He No man is above the law.
Speaker 1: He has to be held accountable. He's not above the law.
Speaker 0: No one's above the law. Either that nor any other title puts you above the rule of law. And no one is truly above the law. That is what it means to have a rule of law. That is what it means to not have a king.
They're not above the law. Nobody is above the law. Everyone will be treated as Merrick Garland has said as, you know, equally. Told that no one is above the law, which is foundational. No one is above the law, even a former president.
We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone. No one is above the law. The law is the law, and no one should be above it. Yes. Nobody is above the law.
No one is above the law. No one else is above the law, including a president.
Speaker 1: Is above the law. I have 2 justice systems in America. It has to be one justice system, and anybody who breaks the law should be held accountable.
Speaker 0: And that no one is above the law. No one is above the law, and, our president is not above the law. I always thought that this country that no one was above the law, especially the president.
@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
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Which law firms are pushing these anti-democratic cases to impede the will of the people?
@amuse - @amuse
LAWFARE: Democrat judges across the country are working with Democrat AGs and NGOs to either block/delay president Trump's EOs aimed at reducing fraud, abuse, and waste. This time it is Biden-appointed Judge Angel Kelley from MA ordering Trump to restore DEI funding to the NIH.
@mazemoore - MAZE
The courts are either undermining or saving democracy, it all depends if Elizabeth Warren agrees with their rulings. Strangely, Warren isn't currently calling for the creation of a code of ethics to remove judges like she was last year. https://t.co/KHE4lK7Z3c
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Supreme Court is overstepping its authority, granting the president unchecked power and restricting Congress's ability to oversee agencies. This undermines our democracy. However, the courts remain a crucial bulwark of our constitutional framework. They retain the power to hold anyone in contempt for disobeying lawful court orders. Therefore, the courts are our current best hope for maintaining our constitutional structure.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We have a Supreme Court that has basically jumped the guardrails and is out there giving power to the president, saying that the president can commit any act that the president wants, saying that congress cannot authorize agencies to act. So we've got a supreme court that is actively undermining our democracy. My view right now is the courts are where we are hanging on to our constitutional structure. They still have the power to hold everybody else in this country in contempt if they do not follow lawfully issued court orders.
reSee.it AI Summary
I find it fascinating to watch DC judges who spent years opposing efforts to overturn the 2020 election now defy the will of the people who elected Trump. Amy Berman Jackson reinstated Hampton Dellinger, the Biden-appointed head of the Office of Special Counsel, after he was fired. Her ruling allows him to continue in his role, which the DOJ argues intrudes on presidential authority. They’ve requested a hold on her order, claiming it causes irreparable harm to the Executive. The appeal is being handled by two Biden appointees.
@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
Gotta love watching DC judges who for four f*cking years did nothing but rage about efforts to "overturn the 2020 election" in Jan 6 cases now brazenly defy the will of the people who elected Donald Trump. Amy Berman Jackson (Obama) just reinstated Hampton Dellinger, the Biden-appointed head of the Office of Special Counsel, who was fired by the president on Feb 7. He filed a lawsuit yesterday and ABJ, like her colleagues on the DC bench, immediately put his firing on hold. ABJ: "Plaintiff Hampton Dellinger shall continue to serve as the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, the position he occupied at 7:22 p.m. on Friday, February 7, 2025 when he received an email from the President, and the defendants may not deny him access to the resources or materials of that office or recognize the authority of any other person as Special Counsel." In response to this egregious overreach by another well documented hater of the president, the DOJ asked Berman to put a hold on her own order, which they described as "an extraordinary—indeed, unprecedented—intrusion into the President’s authority." DOJ: "As a result of the Court’s order, a person the President has chosen to remove from office is exercising executive power over the President’s objection. That sort of harm to the Executive, and to the constitutional separation of powers, is transparently irreparable." DOJ also filed an appeal today before DC Circuit--the appeal is being handled by NONE OTHER THAN FLO PAN AND MICHELLE CHILDS--two Biden appointees and two of the four lower court judges responsible for the reckless presidential immunity opinion reversed by SCOTUS in July. Responses due tomorrow.
@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
Here is what Amy Berman Jackson considers "irreparable harm" 😂 https://t.co/Rky03SrBwZ
@AutismCapital - Autism Capital 🧩
🚨NEW: AOC gets called out for weaponizing the Justice Department and then tries to say "In what way?" When the host says "By putting Trump on trial for example," she stumbles through a non-answer. https://t.co/YoEwUosRR4
Video Transcript AI Summary
Some Democratic members of Congress are preparing for the possibility of litigation. They're considering if they have the best teams possible to carry out their work.
Some Republicans may say that Democrats are weaponizing the Justice Department, citing Trump's trial as an example. But in the United States, we are judged by a jury of our peers. Trump was found guilty in court on 34 felony charges. It's hard to make a partisan argument against that.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Think other Democrats are watching their words?
Speaker 1: I think it's certainly possible, but I'm not sure. I mean, I I cannot think of or point to any individuals who have said that. I do think that there are Democratic members of Congress who are preparing for that possibility.
Speaker 0: How do they prepare?
Speaker 1: I think they look to the possibility of litigation. I think they're saying, you know, do we have the best teams possible in order to carry out our work?
Speaker 0: Some Republican or many perhaps will be watching this, listening to this and thinking, wait a minute. Actually, you're the ones who are prosecuting us. You were the guys who are weaponizing the justice department. How would you respond to somebody who may be thinking that?
Speaker 1: In what way? In what way? Is the very presence
Speaker 0: Putting Trump on trial would be their example, I suppose.
Speaker 1: Yes. I mean, here's the deal. In The United States, there is a jury where we are judged by our peers, and he was found guilty in court on 34 felony charges. If people want to say it was weaponized, I mean, it is hard pressed to say that there's a partisan argument for that.
reSee.it AI Summary
Elon Musk expressed surprise regarding Judge Beryl A. Howell, an Obama appointee known for opposing Donald Trump. A user highlighted five significant rulings by Howell against Trump: blocking parts of an executive order targeting Perkins Coie, ordering Trump lawyers to testify in the January 6 probe, upholding a subpoena for Trump Hotel records, holding Trump in contempt for non-compliance with a grand jury subpoena, and rejecting Trump's attempt to block access to White House records related to the January 6 Committee.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Wow
@nicksortor - Nick Sortor
🚨 #BREAKING: A federal judge has BLOCKED President Trump from revoking the security clearance of Perkins Coie, the law firm which helped develop the Russia Hoax WTF? These activist judges HAVE TO GO. How can a judge FORCE the President to give someone a security clearance?! https://t.co/PW1SrLqEQT
@floridanow1 - floridanow1
It's DC's Judge Howell again. Judge Howell (Obama appointed) has always fought anything Trump does. Here are five notable rulings by U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell against Donald Trump or his administration: March 12, 2025 - Perkins Coie Executive Order: Howell blocked parts of Trump’s March 6 order targeting Perkins Coie, halting contract terminations and access bans. She ruled it violated free speech and due process, deeming it a loyalty punishment, though security clearance restrictions await further review. November 18, 2022 - Trump Attorney Testimony: Howell ordered Trump lawyers, including Evan Corcoran, to testify in a January 6 probe, rejecting privilege claims. She found evidence of potential crimes (obstruction, fraud) in Mar-a-Lago document handling, advancing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation. August 31, 2021 - Trump Hotel Records: Howell upheld a House subpoena for Trump Organization’s D.C. hotel financials, dismissing executive privilege. She ruled Congress had a legitimate need to probe conflicts of interest during Trump’s presidency, favoring oversight over privacy claims. December 9, 2022 - Trump Contempt Ruling: Howell held Trump’s office in contempt for failing to fully comply with a grand jury subpoena for classified documents. She imposed no immediate penalty but warned of sanctions, escalating pressure in the Mar-a-Lago investigation. October 29, 2021 - Trump White House Records: Howell rejected Trump’s bid to block January 6 Committee access to White House records, denying executive privilege. She ruled Biden’s waiver and Congress’s need to investigate the Capitol riot outweighed Trump’s claims, releasing call logs and memos.
reSee.it AI Summary
A federal judge blocked the President from enforcing an executive order that bans transgender individuals from military service. The judge has a history of Democratic activism, including supporting Joe Biden financially. A commenter expressed support for Trump in response.
@RapidResponse47 - Rapid Response 47
🚨 “A federal judge who blocked @POTUS from implementing an executive order banning transgender troops from serving in the military has a long history of activism in the Democratic Party, including volunteering for Joe Biden and donating tens of thousands to Democrat campaigns." https://t.co/3On0nNqFk8
@VGirl6516231 - 🇺🇸 SpokesTurd 🇺🇲
@RapidResponse47 @POTUS From the horses mouth to your ears! Carry on Trump. https://t.co/G9loQjxESn
reSee.it AI Summary
I see Judge Boasberg, whom I view as a conflicted Obama appointee, attempting to hold the Trump administration in contempt. It feels like he’s aiming for media attention to undermine the administration, portraying the President as lawless. In reality, it seems to me that Judge Boasberg is the one acting outside the law. His actions appear to support the Democrat narrative of Trump as a dictator, while I believe he is the one exhibiting autocratic behavior.
@marklevinshow - Mark R. Levin
Leftwing conflicted Obama judge, Boasberg, is looking to hold the Trump administration in contempt. That's what he's doing, and he wants to make a big splash, get lots of media headlines, and try to sabotage the Trump administration. He wants to create the impression that POTUS is lawless when, in fact, Judge Boasberg is lawless. He wants to play into the Democrat Party narrative that Trump is a dictator, when it is Judge Boasberg who is the autocrat. https://www.aol.com/news/judge-boasberg-trump-justice-department-090053114.html
In another tense hearing, Judge Boasberg says Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act has ‘frightening’ implications
US District Judge James Boasberg vowed on Friday to find out whether officials in the Trump administration violated his orders temporarily blocking the use of an 1798 law for deportations by refusing to turn two flights around last weekend.
aol.com
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.
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.
@Real_RobN - 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸
FLASHBACK: Here is the pardoned criminal Hunter Biden walking out and NOT COMPLYING with a congressional SUBPOENA to sit his ass down for a closed-door deposition. But Democrats sent Steve Bannon to prison for doing exactly the same. Now, where the fuck are the subpoenas? https://t.co/qQfHfR7hVt
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker thanks the chairman and addresses someone named Hunter, suggesting they are afraid of the speaker's words. The speaker reclaims their time. The speaker says that the House committees should provide relevant information to any legitimate inquiry. The speaker claims their first five offers were ignored. Then in November, a subpoena was issued for a behind-closed-doors deposition. The speaker asserts that Republicans have repeatedly misused this tactic in their political crusade to selectively leak and mischaracterize witness statements.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister chairman. Excuse me, Hunter. Apparently, you're afraid of my words. I hear you. Oh.
I like to reclaim my time, mister chairman. Had to burst their bubble. Order Wow. That's too bad. The house committees to see what and how relevant information to any legitimate inquiry could be provided.
Our first five offers were ignored, and then in November, they issued a subpoena for a behind closed doors deposition, a tactic that the Republicans have repeatedly misused in their political crusade to selectively leak and mischaracterize what witnesses have said.
@RealHickory - Mike Engleman🇺🇲
Hakeem Jeffries and AOC are openly threatening federal immigration officials and have zero consequences! Had enough of this two-tiered justice system where Democrats get away with everything? https://t.co/ICWqIAWDjq
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks what would happen if members were arrested or sanctioned during the house of birth, referencing an incident in New York where Speaker 1 said, "they better not touch our members." Speaker 1 responds, "They'll find out." Speaker 0 presses for specifics on the recourse, clarifying that this is a red line. Speaker 1 repeats, "They'll find out," confirming the red line.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There was this incident in New York. You said they better not touch our members.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: What happens if they were to go and arrest these members or if they would try to sanction them during the house of birth?
Speaker 1: They'll find out.
Speaker 0: What would you do, though? I mean, mean, what's the recourse? I mean, but doesn't that rotate
Speaker 1: They'll find out.
Speaker 0: Doesn't that the door That's a red line. What's the what's the red line, though? I mean, I know we have this It's a red line. It's very clear.
Video Transcript AI Summary
DHS is allegedly using public intimidation and considering arresting members of Congress who are fulfilling their legal and constitutional duty to conduct oversight. According to the speaker, members of Congress are legally required to be granted access to ICE and CBP facilities to conduct investigations and oversight. They cannot be legally inhibited from accessing these facilities. The speaker claims that DHS, Tom Homan, and Secretary Kristi Noem are the ones breaking the law, not members of Congress like Representative Robert Menendez. The speaker warns that if anyone lays a finger on representatives like Bonnie Watson Coleman, there will be consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And now what DHS is trying to say, again, they're using public intimidation because they know that they cannot come for us all. They know that they are not that they cannot come for us all. And recently, what they said is that DHS is allegedly looking into arresting members of congress who were showing up for their legal and constitutional obligation to conduct oversight. If anyone's breaking the law in this situation, it's not members of congress, it's the Department of Homeland Security. It's people like Tom Homan and secretary Kristi Noem.
You lay a finger on someone, on representative Bonnie Watson Coleman, on representative or any of the representatives that were there, you lay a finger on them, we are going to have a problem. Because the people who are breaking the law are the people who are not abiding by it. And it is enshrined in the law that members of congress who show up to ICE and CBP facilities are required to be granted access, legally required to be granted access, and they legally cannot be inhibited from accessing these facilities to conduct their constitutional obligation to to investigate and conduct oversight. So if Christy Noem wants to break the law, that's on her. But it sure as hell is not someone like representative Robert Menendez that needs to be arrested.
Okay? It
@VernonForGA - Vernon Jones
Today she forgot all about what she said! Just Kagan flat lied!
@KarluskaP - Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸
Kayleigh McEnany has the perfect response to the Dems Jim Crow 2.0 she just reads justice Thomas’s concurrence https://t.co/IH2JPPWFnO
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 warns this could turn into a maximum nonviolent warfare moment if gerrymandering remains legal, saying, “if this is the law of the land that you can go around gerrymandering like this, we're going to try to get us ourselves the most advantageous position.” Speaker 1 responds, “Well, at least that I mean, I will take that over you guys shooting Republicans. So go ahead.” Speaker 0 adds that he was thrilled they were not on the same day earlier this week, and addresses the violent rhetoric issue, stating, “Do not kill people. Also, we know where the violence comes from. Gerrymandering's bad. Democrats don't want it. Republicans do. Vote for our ban.”
Kaylee is asked for a reply. Speaker 1 asserts he will take the constitutional side, stating Jessica made a political argument about gerrymandering; he then jokingly references the Fox News printer, saying, “I print more primary documents from that printer than anyone that's the 97 page. No. I don't do double sided. I'm sorry. Double sided to losers. Sorry to the trees. Sorry to Fox. Sorry to blow up the budget.”
Speaker 0 then shifts to the climate change agenda, but the conversation continues without a direct continuation of that point. Speaker 1 quotes Justice Roberts on race issues, declaring, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. That should be the guiding philosophy on any single matter.” He argues that in this country, “We don't discriminate against anyone in this country because of their skin color.” He asserts that the best take was not the majority take, but the concurrence by Justice Thomas. Speaker 1 emphasizes that Justice Thomas is exactly right: “The court led legislatures and courts to systematically divide the country into electoral districts based racial lines.” He continues, quoting Thomas: blacks drawn into black districts with black representatives, Hispanics drawn into Hispanic districts with Hispanic representatives, and states that this is “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color blind constitution,” urging opposition to “the balkanization of society, putting black people here and white people here and Hispanic people here.” He adds that the “absolutely nonsensical hyperbolic Democrats” advocating that position are naively supporting the very thing they oppose, citing Justice Thomas as a source, the second ever black justice on the Supreme Court.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To use earlier language, this could turn into a maximum nonviolent warfare moment where everybody says, if this is the law of the land that you can go around gerrymandering like this, we're going to try to get us ourselves the most advantageous position.
Speaker 1: Well, at least that I mean, I will take that over you guys shooting Republicans. So go ahead.
Speaker 0: Honestly, I was thrilled that we were not on the same day earlier this week. You know what I think about the violent rhetoric issue. Do not kill people. Also, we know where the violence comes from. Gerrymandering's bad.
Democrats don't want it. Republicans do. Vote for our ban.
Speaker 1: Kaylee, what do you say to that? Well, I am going to take the constitutional side. Jessica just made a political argument about gerrymandering, but I apologize to everyone at the Fox News printer. I print more primary documents from that printer than anyone that's the 97 page. No.
I don't do double sided. I'm sorry. Double sided to losers. Sorry to the trees. Sorry to Fox.
Sorry to blow up the budget.
Speaker 0: The climate change agenda is
Speaker 1: going too hard. There there you go. I wanna quote Justice Roberts in a previous case who has the best take on any of these race issues and totally underscores the points that you both have made. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. That should be the guiding philosophy on any single matter.
We don't discriminate against anyone in this country because of their skin color. The best take on this was not the majority take on this, which was well done. It was the concurrence by Justice Thomas. Here's what Justice Thomas said. He is exactly right.
The court led legislatures and courts to systematically divide the country into electoral districts based racial lines. He goes on to say, blacks were drawn into black districts, given black representatives, Hispanics drawn into Hispanic districts, given Hispanic representatives. And here's what he said. He said that is repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color blind constitution. We should all be against the balkanization of society, putting black people here and white people here and Hispanic people here and the absolutely nonsensical hyperbolic democrats that we just played that said Jim Crow, Jim Crow, Jim Crow.
They are naively advocating for the very thing they are giving lip service to to be against. And take that not from me, but from the second ever black justice on the Supreme Court, justice Thomas, who said there is no place for this. It is repugnant.