reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asserts that judges are acting as partisan activists and attempting to dictate policy to the President, thereby slowing the administration's agenda. There is a concerted effort by the far left to judge shop and pick judges who will derail the President's agenda. The administration will comply with court orders and continue to fight these battles in court. These judges are usurping the will of the President and undermining the will of the millions of Americans who elected him to implement his policies.

The speaker believes there's a constitutional crisis caused by district court judges setting broad federal policy, which is the president's job. These judges should be settling specific matters, not setting policy. The speaker agrees with Vance and Trump on this issue. The speaker does not want individual federal judges who hate Donald Trump to tie him up for four years. Big policy questions should be decided by the Supreme Court, but in the interim, the executive has to be allowed to govern.

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.

The speaker states that President Trump stands by his call to impeach Judge Bozeman, despite Chief Justice Roberts' comments. The administration believes a single district court judge cannot assume the powers of the commander in chief, as it requires agreement from five Supreme Court justices to change federal policy. The speaker claims that a single district court judge out of 700 cannot set policy for the entire nation, especially on national security and public safety issues. The speaker asserts that President Trump respects Justice Roberts but believes the Supreme Court must stop the assault on democracy from radical rogue judges who are usurping presidential powers and destroying the constitutional system.

The speaker states the president stands by his comments, as does the entire administration. They claim a democracy cannot exist if a single district court judge can assume the powers of the commander in chief. They contrast this with the Supreme Court, where it takes five justices to change federal policy. The speaker asserts that a single district court judge out of 700 cannot set policy for the entire nation, especially on national security and public safety issues. The president has tremendous respect for Justice Roberts and believes the Supreme Court should crack down and stop the assault on democracy from radical rogue judges. These judges are allegedly usurping the powers of the presidency and laying waste to the constitutional system.

The exchange centers on accusations of hyperbolic statements and the accuracy of quoted posts. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's credibility, citing a series of posts and asking whether the statements were read correctly. - On 02/11/2026, Speaker 0 cites a Blueski post: “my words or your words, not mine. The democrats video telling service members to ignore illegal orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them to refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are many things deemed legal that are still obviously unethical, and everyone should hold themselves to this higher law,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 confirms reading it and asks if Speaker 0 disagrees with it, questioning whether people should do unethical things in their capacity of [unknown context]. - On 12/31/2025, Speaker 0 references a post reading, “in front of god and country. … They referring to Republicans think they control their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 responds that it related to a DHS security post advocating a 100,000,000 deportations, stating that “A 100,000,000 deportations would be ethnic cleansing,” adding, “You would be True. One third of the country. So, yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland security.” Speaker 0 asks whether this is hyperbolic and requests more time. - On 02/05 (implied), Speaker 1 notes, “advocating a 100,000,000” but the sentence is cut off in the transcript. Speaker 0 comments, “reputations is … cleansing,” while continuing to engage in the discussion with the chair and audience; Speaker 0 asks for thirty more seconds. - On 03/02, Speaker 0 quotes Speaker 1: “if you rule against Trump's population purge agenda, no hyper permanently there, the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the ICE agents who hide behind masks while violating the constitution. They are much braver.” Speaker 1 clarifies, “They put their names on their rulings, and they stand behind their constitutional rulings. When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US born citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of The United States, including US born people.” - Speaker 0 responds, “Thank you.” Speaker 1 adds, “These are not hyperbolic statements. I appreciate you reading my account. Here's the good news.” The conversation escalates in tone as Speaker 0 interjects with disbelief, asking, “What planet … parachute him from?” Speaker 1 replies, “No. No.” Speaker 0 comments, “Hey, guys. You're you you You trigger my gag reflex,” and Speaker 1 closes with, “Mr. Bieber.”

This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nation wide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch. The Supreme Court has stopped the presidency itself. That's what they've done. And, really, it's been it's been an amazing period of time this last hour. There are people elated all over the country. I've seen such such happiness and spirit. Sometimes you don't see that, but this case is very important. I was elected on a historic mandate.

US district judges James Boesburg and Deborah Boardman declined to testify at a Senate hearing titled “Impeachment, Holding Rogue Judges Accountable,” prompting discussion on where things go from here. Boesburg’s rulings, including restricting the White House’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans, and questions about his alleged involvement in Arctic Frost, an FBI investigation tracking private communications of Republican lawmakers, have stirred controversy. Boardman is noted for ruling against the administration’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship. Tom Dupree, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, says that neither judge is unfamiliar with controversy and their reluctance to testify before the Senate is not surprising. He suggests the hearing will proceed, possibly with other witnesses or a discussion of the rulings’ substance, rather than direct testimony from the judges. The discussion includes a clip of Sen. Ron Johnson criticizing Boesburg for nondisclosure orders, with Johnson questioning whether Boesburg knew about certain laws and stating he hopes Boesburg responds by December 4. The Arctic Frost matter is described as damning by some. Dupree notes that the Senate may hear from other witnesses or source materials, such as conversations with Jack Smith or others involved, rather than compelling federal judges to testify about their rulings. He explains that judges typically do not testify about the substance of their decisions, and that the Senate is likely to pursue other evidence to understand what happened. The conversation turns to impeachment standards for federal judges, which Dupree outlines as the same standards used for presidents and other federal officials: bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Historically, a handful have been impeached and removed, often for bribery or unrelated acts, while challenging rulings through appellate courts has been the usual remedy. Boesburg was reversed by higher courts in the same case, illustrating the appellate process in action. Boardman is described as having issued multiple controversial rulings against the Trump administration, including on birthright citizenship, access to private data from agencies, and restoring America Core-funded programs. The discussion touches on the debate between claims of judicial tyranny versus the idea that judges are entitled to their interpretations, suggesting that the administration has had notable success in reversing similar rulings in the Court of Appeals, which Dupree argues demonstrates the system functioning properly. The segment closes with appreciation for Dupree’s analysis. The closing includes a promotional note for Outnumbered, which is not part of the core discussion.

It's preposterous in my view that these judges, the judicial branch, obviously plays an important role in our three, you know, coequal branches of government, but they should understand what their role is. And these activist judges who now somehow believe that they're in the position of making policy by undermining the president's legal authorities and orders, bestowed upon him by the American people. If these judges wanna run for office and be president, go ahead and do that. Go make your policies. But they are politicizing the bench and and, you know, showing how through their activism, they are undermining really, frankly, their own credibility in doing this. And, again, another thing that undermines the American people's faith and trust that these institutions, that the the the judicial branch in some of these cases is actually, doing their job.

Right now, Americans are stressed. It feels like policy isn't the main conversation, but rather an autocratic power grab that's making Congress and the rule of law irrelevant. We understand the scale of the threat. The CBC understands, definitively, the scale of the threat. Our communities have been under siege since before the Civil War. We launched a rapid response task force and litigation working group, led by Joe Nagous and Jamie Raskin, to respond, and work with our allies. Elon Musk and Donald Trump are flooding the zone, creating distress, and a sense of inevitability. However, there have been 75+ lawsuits filed by democracy reform groups, civil rights groups, and attorney generals, and we're winning in court. There has been a forceful pushback, and the congressional battles and community mobilization will continue.

A majority of Americans believe no single district judge should be allowed to issue a nationwide injunction. According to the speaker, this is a judicial coup d'etat, with judges issuing nationwide injunctions from the same political background to stop the changes President Trump represents. While some issues should be addressed in Congress, micromanaging the executive branch on national security by single judges is inappropriate. These judges have no standing, knowledge, or awareness of the consequences, and they endanger Americans and the nation by acting as alternative presidents, of which there could be 677, none of whom were elected.

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.

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."

Unelected judges are attempting to control government spending, violating the separation of powers. This is happening to people like Elon Musk, a great man, and it's outrageous. People work hard and pay taxes, only to see their money spent on things like $2,000,000 for sex changes in Guatemala. This will stop. We're fighting back against agencies like USAID. This is happening daily, but the DOJ is prepared to defend these cases. We are committed to carrying out President Trump's agenda.

The courts are the first line of defense against illegal activity. I'm working with lawyers bringing these cases forward, and we're seeing many temporary restraining orders issued recently. This reflects the Trump administration's illegal use of executive orders to bypass Congress and make sweeping changes. I'd like to see Doge and Project 2025 put up for a vote in Congress; I believe they would fail. Trump avoided these issues on the campaign trail because they're unpopular. Now, he's using executive orders to push them through and has Elon Musk doing his "dirty work".

The speaker discusses a legal victory where a judge found the government acted dishonestly by not providing witnesses for cross-examination and illegally firing employees for performance reasons using form letters, despite outstanding performance. The speaker asserts these employees will get their jobs back. The speaker criticizes Donald Trump for calling these workers the "deep state" and accuses him of removing them to benefit billionaires, which the speaker calls "Make America dangerous again." The speaker also mentions another court order where Trump wrongly fired the head of the Federal Labor Relations Authority to limit adjudication of labor issues. The speaker highlights the importance of unions and having a place for working people to address issues. The speaker states that over a hundred similar cases have been won. The speaker thanks subscribers to the contrarian, stating that profits support the litigation.

Impact today. As I said, it's it's now it's case by case. Let me reiterate. Of the 35 of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against this president against his executive authority as president of The United States, 35 of them came from Maryland, DC, Massachusetts, California, Washington. I mean that's crazy. The these five districts. So, yes, it indirectly impacts us. It will be a separate decision in October.

There's a constitutional crisis happening within our judicial branch. District court judges in liberal districts are overstepping their bounds, blocking my executive authority. These aren't honest arbiters; they're judicial activists. In just two weeks, they've issued at least a dozen injunctions against my administration, often without any real basis. This is a coordinated effort by Democrat activists, a continuation of the weaponization of justice against me. These liberal judges need a reality check. 77 million Americans voted for me, and these injunctions are abuses of the law, attempts to subvert the will of the people. We'll comply with the law and the courts, but we'll fight these radical injunctions through every legal avenue to ensure my policies are enacted.

In the last 24 hours, federal judges have ordered the Trump administration to bring back an illegal alien from El Salvador, restore funds to schools practicing DEI, restore funds to sanctuary cities, and drop the proof of citizenship mandate for voter registration. One speaker suggests Democrats are using the courts because they lost the presidential election, including the popular vote. They claim Democrats' "last attempt before they go to full on violence is let's try and do it in the courts." They also allege that "swampy Republicans" and "rhinos" are complicit because they benefit from the current system. They believe these individuals want to maintain the status quo and control everything, using judges to obstruct changes. They state that the only democracy under attack is their bureaucracy.

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.

Speaker 0: Question about the danger of a Trump presidency if reelected. Speaker 1: I think he poses a a near existential threat to the rule of law. He will do everything he can in a new term to try to tear down the institutions that he sees as threats and dismantle them and the people who occupy them, the apolitical people who occupy them. So there is a lot on the ballot in 2024 if he's a candidate, but the rule of law, in my view, is at the very top of the list. I'm gonna pull the whole thing down. I'm gonna bring the whole fucking diseased, corrupt temple down on your head. It's gonna be biblical.

Donald Trump has a strong support base in this country. He has been fighting against his opponents since 2016 and now faces the possibility of 700 years in prison. The prosecutors and judiciary involved in his case are seen as a ludicrous bunch. The challenges he faces include Wall Street, media oligarchs, tech oligarchs, and the unit party. This is a difficult battle, but it is worth fighting. If Trump doesn't win in 2024, there may not be another election according to the speaker.

Speaker 0: He explains that he wanted to enforce laws with ICE agents and federal law enforcement but couldn't, so he needed to call the National Guard. The question is what "regular forces" means, since the statute says the president has to be unable to enforce the law with regular forces, and the Supreme Court had not decided that before yesterday. The Supreme Court now says "regular forces" means you have to try with the regular armed forces first before you can bring out the National Guard. The unintended consequence could be that the president is going to have to call the eighty second airborne or the marines or the hundred and first airborne division, as, for example, President Eisenhower did after Brown v. Board of Education in the South to enforce desegregation. The president might have to do that first in order to protect those federal buildings and ICE agents, and then if they fail, he can then call out the National Guard. Speaker 1: J. B. Pritzker, the governor in the state of Illinois, is saying this is a big win for Illinois and American democracy, an important step in curbing the Trump administration's consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism. The claim is political. The president has obviously tried to work within the framework of the law as his legal team sees it. What happens from here? In fifteen seconds or so, what happens from here? I’m not surprised by Pritzker’s response, and I guess you aren’t either. Speaker 0: He notes that Trump will now have the right to go to the Supreme Court on the full merits. This is just preliminary, and he may be able to get the court, the full court, to reverse this preliminary decision. More worrisome, the Supreme Court is essentially inviting President Trump to send regular armed troops and deploy those to Chicago and Los Angeles before he can send the National Guard. A governor would rather have National Guard troops than the eighty second Airborne and the Marine Corps patrolling the streets of Chicago. Speaker 1: Yeah. Especially when you think...

The speaker claims nationwide injunctions against the executive branch are a "judicial coup d'etat" violating the constitution. They cite President Jefferson's response to Federalist judges appointed by John Adams, who abolished their courts via the Judiciary Act of 1802, as a constitutional balance of power. The speaker notes a surge in nationwide injunctions, with 64 of 96 issued between 2001 and 2023 occurring during the current president's time in office, and 92% of those against President Trump issued by Democrat-appointed judges. Since January 20, 2025, there have been 15 nationwide injunctions against the current administration, compared to six under George W. Bush, twelve under Barack Obama, and fourteen under Joe Biden. The speaker presents four propositions: 1) Courts have often been challenged by presidents like Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln. 2) The legislative and executive branches can defend their rights, as proven by the Judiciary Act of 1802. 3) The Supreme Court could intervene by immediately taking up any nationwide injunction issued by a district court. 4) Congress and the president can take steps to bring the judiciary back into a constitutional framework through hearings.

Individual judges have abused the system by issuing nationwide injunctions to stop President Trump's agenda. Statistics show that 67% of all national injunctions issued over the last 100 years have been against Donald J. Trump. 92% of those injunctions were issued by Democrat-appointed judges. This must be stopped.