00:11:49.780Mark Elias, we should pull the curtain back on what's actually happening, shouldn't we?
00:11:55.500People are exploring options to live in other countries if they think they could be targeted for prosecution by Donald Trump,
00:12:02.860because targeting you or targeting me or targeting Andrew would be an official act based on today's decision.
00:12:07.920Yeah, I mean, they could target for criminal prosecution.
00:12:13.640They could target for administrative investigation, the IRS, the SEC, the EPA.
00:12:19.660I mean, they're not just talking about death.
00:12:22.240They're talking about using the president saying, I'm going to target everybody I want to and use all of the things, by the way, which Democrats have done.
00:14:42.900When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.
00:14:46.180So in this context, with what the court has decided, Norm, does this mean that Nixon
00:14:52.360Nixon basically would have been able to do what he did completely legally without any recourse?
00:14:59.220You could have had substantial portions of Richard Nixon's wrongdoing that drove him from office
00:15:08.680because it was conducted from the Oval Office, using his official advisors to engage in break-ins,
00:15:18.740a wide variety of other illegal activity, would have been impossible to prosecute.
00:15:24.220Essentially, what the Supreme Court majority, again, including terribly conflicted justices who have no business sitting on this case under any standard of
00:15:35.080judicial ethics, what they've done, Sarah, is rewrite American history.
00:15:40.320It goes all the way back to the founding American idea.
00:15:43.760We overthrew King George III because we did not want a ruler to have this kind of absolute immunity.
00:15:51.400And the Supreme Court has now altered that.
00:15:56.460And we have to be honest that we're facing a major party political candidate who has said he wants to be a dictator on day one.
00:16:33.260And again, the Freudian projection is so utterly rich.
00:16:38.120It is Joe Biden whose Department of Justice is targeting its political enemies.
00:16:43.680It is Joe Biden who is engaged in rampant censorship of the free speech of American citizens.
00:16:51.440It is Joe Biden who issued a blatantly illegal vaccine mandate that was thrown out by the courts,
00:16:57.640but fired thousands and thousands of active duty servicemen, men and women fired FBI agents,
00:17:04.200fired border patrol agents because they refused to comply with his illegal vaccine mandate.
00:17:09.540And to be clear, the court struck down his vaccine mandate.
00:17:12.960But he had already gotten rid of the people he wanted to get rid of.
00:17:16.820It is Joe Biden who repeatedly issues lawless orders trying to give away a trillion dollars in student loans that he has no legal authority to do.
00:17:26.540He knows they'll get struck down in court, but he's trying to buy votes.
00:17:31.000It is Joe Biden who on the border is ignoring the entirety of federal immigration law and has released, has allowed 11 million people to come into this country illegally,
00:17:40.980who is ignoring the Americans who are being murdered, who are being raped by the criminals he's releasing.
00:17:47.300And yet you have these numbskulls go on CNN and say, oh, well, this means Trump can be a dictator.
00:18:24.140The reason they're angry and hyperventilating is because this case is an effort to weaponize the justice system,
00:18:32.940to stop the voters from voting to elect Donald Trump.
00:18:35.600And this ruling they view as getting in the way of what they want to do, which is weaponize the justice system to subvert democracy.
00:18:43.680The irony is, he says, this is a blow to democracy.
00:18:46.520What they're doing is an attack on democracy.
00:18:50.140And they're frustrated that their attack on democracy is not working.
00:18:54.740Senator, my final question for you now is the politics of this.
00:18:58.580You got Twitter going crazy in the left saying, all right, we'll just take out Donald Trump, which is I thought against the law, but apparently not.
00:19:04.740But you've got the media saying, well, this means that Donald Trump, if he gets elected, is going to be a dictator and a tyrant,
00:19:10.340and he can just lock everybody up so people are going to have to flee the country.
00:19:14.340And now, in a weird way, this kind of gets the Democrats out of jail-free card with the court cases,
00:19:21.840which I believe have been backfiring on them.
00:20:53.100And the reason it's going to be delayed is as soon as this decision came down,
00:20:56.240Trump's legal team asked to brief the judge there as to why those convictions should be thrown out under the reasoning in this Supreme Court decision.
00:21:08.300And the court said, yes, that the court will consider legal arguments on that question.
00:21:14.180And that meant that the sentencing had to be delayed.
00:21:17.360And Alvin Bragg agreed to delay the sentencing.
00:21:19.720Now, I got to say, he pretty much had to.
00:21:22.360Now, with this decision coming down, it is obvious that the court at least needs to consider
00:21:27.220what is the relevance of this decision to the convictions against Donald Trump.
00:21:35.280Now, the court said when it was scheduling arguments that it thought that the arguments were baseless.
00:21:41.460So I'm going to predict right now, the New York judge is going to say, no, this, that decision doesn't change anything.
00:21:47.220And it is true that the conduct at question occurred before Trump was president.
00:21:55.000And so it is in no way, shape, or form an exercise of presidential authority.
00:21:59.660And so there are lots of reasons why the decision from the New York trial court is an absolute abomination and an abuse of power and why it will be reversed on appeal.
00:22:13.320But it may well be that that it's not going to be because of this decision, because this decision concerns the exercise of presidential powers.
00:22:21.740And Trump was not president when the conduct at question occurred.
00:22:25.000As before, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation on this topic, you can go back and download the podcast from early this week to hear the entire thing.
00:22:34.880Canadian women are looking for more, more out of themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world around them.
00:22:41.280And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast.
00:23:50.820It was a doctrine that said the courts will defer to federal agencies on rules and regulations so long as that rule and regulation is, quote, reasonable.
00:24:04.620What it did is it gave enormous powers to unelected bureaucrats.
00:24:11.600And Chevron, you can trace in a very direct line the rise of the administrative state, the rise of unelected bureaucrats issuing rules that are incredibly costly to the American people, incredibly harmful to the American people.
00:24:26.020You can trace that rise to the Chevron doctrine because when an agency of unelected bureaucrats issued a brand new rule, the courts would enforce that rule and say, well, it's the expert agency.
00:24:38.820And so we're going to give force to what they say, even if Congress never passed this into law.
00:24:45.540And so the court last week overruled Chevron.
00:24:49.980What that means now is that it is Congress, it's the elected members of Congress that have to make policy decisions that impact the American people, not the armies of bureaucrats who have no democratic accountability.
00:25:05.820What type of precedent will this have moving forward and what does this say to corporations as well?
00:25:11.520Well, what it will do is weaken federal regulators.
00:25:14.520And let's take, for example, the facts here.
00:25:16.420So the facts here concerned a family fishing company and the federal government issued a regulation that required the family fishing company, number one, to allow a fishing monitor, a person, on board their ship, but also forced the family fishing company to pay the salary of the federal fishing monitor,
00:25:42.000even though the law passed by Congress had no such requirement.
00:25:45.520So in other words, this regulator said, OK, you, the fisherman, you got to allow a federal bureaucrat on your ship and you got to pay a salary.
00:25:55.260Why? Because we said so, because we want you to pay a salary.
00:25:57.840And the court said, well, wait a second.
00:26:00.680When Congress passed the law, it didn't say that.
00:26:30.600Quote, the court should unequivocally abandon the contemporary Chevron deference doctrine because it contradicts articles one, two and three of the Constitution.
00:26:41.200Decades of application of Chevron deference have facilitated the exercise of functions by the executive branch that more properly belong to the legislative and judicial branches.
00:26:53.960Agencies exploit general or broad terms and statutes to engage in policymaking functions of questionable legality with the assumption that the courts will grant deference and not independently evaluate the lawfulness of those agency interpretations.
00:27:13.920And then I quote from from a dissent of Justice Thomas's, quote, the founders expected that the federal government's powers would remain separated and the people's liberty secure only if the branches could check each other.
00:27:32.440Therefore, the Constitution imposes structural constraints on all three branches and the exercise of power free of those accompanying restraints subverts the design of the Constitution's ratifiers.
00:27:48.880The court agreed with the amicus brief that I filed for 17 senators.
00:28:23.100If an unelected bureaucrat issues a rule that says, I don't know, fisherman, you got to let a bureaucrat on your boat and you got to pay a salary.
00:29:06.220And being able to basically make up and put laws on all of us and certain, you know, lockdowns, et cetera, on all of us and change the entire way we did our life.
00:29:16.340And there was, in essence, no check or balance for him.
00:29:19.380This seems like where the country is moving now, paying attention more to these type of situations.
00:29:25.480Well, and look, we see a whole series of decisions from the Supreme Court.
00:29:29.820That are all about enforcing the Constitution and enhancing democracy.
00:29:35.360You take the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe versus Wade.