reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

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.

Impeachment should be considered to check judicial activism. Congress should educate Americans about impeachment and how it was created to check judicial activism, because the founders were concerned about the judiciary exercising powers outside the Constitution, leading to judicial tyranny. Judicial tyranny is when judges usurp the power of the executive and legislative branches, which guarantees self-government. Judicial activism is an abuse of power, and impeachment is a potential check.

Speaker 0 believes a blue tsunami will force Congress to haul Elon Musk and others in front of lawmakers to ask, “what crimes did you commit?” It will get really serious. The same with Trump, because Speaker 0 thinks they commit crimes every day. To reconcile all of this, they argue for hardcore, not integrity Democrats, delivering: “Fuck you, Democrats. Fuck you for fucking over our country. We are serious about this. We are prosecuting. We're gonna uncover every document, every phone call, everything you did. We will be relentless about it.” The mindset they urge Democrats to adopt is driven by the electorate seeking both removal of figures like Trump and accountability. Speaker 1 concurs on accountability, stating there must be a scenario where there is accountability. They reference Fanon, a former MPD police officer who nearly died on January 6, to support the view that it’s about more than Democrats winning back Congress and the White House. Speaker 1 argues for changing the John Roberts Supreme Court decision that gave the president of the United States a blank check, insisting that no man or woman should be above the law, and that Donald Trump should not be above the law. The Democrats should communicate that, if back in power, clinging to the idea that Donald Trump is unaccountable “it's just not gonna work.” This, Speaker 1 says, includes adding seats to the Supreme Court so that immunity’s decision can be overturned and so Donald Trump can be held accountable for his crime.

I am introducing articles of impeachment on Mr. Graves for weaponizing the Department of Justice and refusing to prosecute real criminals in Washington DC. The abuse of power has made DC residents victims. I yield back my time.

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.

Juries often make mistakes, according to the speaker. They have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to address this. The speaker acknowledges the challenge of separating their emotions from the law. They mention a personal experience working for a newspaper and facing criticism for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. The speaker believes that absolute immunity should be granted to those who defame others in court.

When will our Republican colleagues recognize that the FBI deserves better than this nominee? The values of fidelity, bravery, and integrity should guide us. It's time to stand up for the men and women of the FBI.

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.

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.

You can lose your job as a public official without being convicted of a crime in our constitutional republic. Impeachment is not punishment, but a way to cleanse and restore honor and integrity to the office.

Thomas Jefferson warned that the federal judiciary could become oppressive, yet Americans are deceived into believing federal judges are beyond question. According to Article 3, judges hold office during "good behavior," which implies scrutiny. However, some judges exhibit behavior far outside these terms. Judge Jay Thomas Martin believes the Constitution means only what he says it means. Judge Royal Ferguson has claimed authority over the U.S. military and threatened a defendant with jail and death for non-compliance. Judge Dick Posner sees no value in judges studying the Constitution. Justice Neil Gorsuch finds it demoralizing to criticize a federal judge's integrity or motives. Questioning a judge's intentions, morality, and honesty is not immoral, but a duty of every citizen. The Constitution requires questioning judges, and anyone denying this right should be held suspect. Failure to do so risks America becoming totalitarian.

Justice Gorsuch at the Supreme Court addressed President Biden's proposed court reforms. He emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary for all Americans, regardless of popularity. He urged caution in considering changes that could impact fair hearings and constitutional rights.

The speaker expresses appreciation for the legislature but asserts that the action taken by the Florida House of Representatives is not enough. He urges his colleagues to impeach Judge Tiffany Baker, arguing that the House has the power and sufficient numbers to do so. He contends that, until judges are held accountable, they will continue to find ways to benefit the criminal element. He describes the situation as an outrage and an easy call to place the involved individual behind bars, stating that the judge refused to do so despite the risks, and that the result has been a tragedy. The speaker points to the Florida Constitution, which vests the House of Representatives with the ability to bring an impeachment against a circuit judge with a two-thirds majority. He notes that the House currently has well over two-thirds Republicans, and suggests that some Democrats might vote to impeach given what happened in this case.

"Did you know the judge that released this guy didn't even go to law school? Yeah. Not even a lawyer." "These magistrate judges that are making a decision to release these people without bail? Yeah. They're they're not even lawyers." "They didn't go to law school. They didn't pass the bar." "They just got appointed to be judges." "No training required." "They don't even have to be lawyers, but they can be judges." "They don't have to go to law school. They don't have to pass the bar." "How the fuck is this a thing? How the fuck do we have judges who didn't even study the law?" "But to be the judge, to be the person overseeing these lawyers, to be the ultimate arbiter of the law, you don't have to go to law school. You don't have to pass the bar." "How is this a fucking thing?"

Judge, why did you want the job? I appoint federal judges, but thanks for serving. Can you make a speech? Hush up, boy.

He should never hold public office again. He is unfit and harmful to our democracy. He must be removed. Translation: He should never hold public office again. He is unfit and harmful to our democracy. He must be removed.

The speaker supports modifying the 25th amendment. The modification would state that if a vice president lies or engages in a conspiracy to cover up the incapacity of the president, it is grounds for immediate impeachment and removal from office. The speaker believes a past vice president engaged in such a cover up.

The speaker questions the impartiality of a Canadian judge, suggesting they may be more politically biased than previous chief justices. They express doubt about the judge's ability to remain apolitical in their role.

This court has lost all legitimacy. The gun, voting, and union decisions damaged its standing, but the Roe v. Wade decision completely destroyed any remaining credibility. To restore confidence in the Supreme Court, we need to expand the number of justices.

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.

Nobody is above the law, and elected office does not grant immunity from prosecution. Defending a judge or prosecutor politically is inappropriate because the legal system should be nonpolitical. The speaker expresses dismay that someone had a judge arrested.

"58 house Democrats have recently voted to advance articles of impeachment." "Impeach him first and then indict him." "Yes. The president, a sitting president, can be indicted." "On the day Donald Trump leaves office, the justice department may indict him." "It's clear that Trump is the target, and he'll be indicted eventually." "The only thing worse than indicting him would be not indicting him." "Merrick Garland, if you indict Trump, you'll be my person of the year of the decade." "There should be no case in which they wouldn't indict." "The only reasons Trump hasn't been indicted by now is because he's a former president and because he has handpicked judges on his side."

Governor, it's a pleasure to meet you. Thank you for doing this, Mr. President. The American people have a right to have a say in the Supreme Court nominee. The economic theories have been bad, with excessive deregulation and failure to oversee Wall Street. The evidence of this is clear.

I am introducing articles of impeachment on Mr. Graves for weaponizing the Department of Justice and refusing to prosecute real criminals in Washington DC. The residents of DC are victims of his abuse of power.