Speaker 1: Time for the channel light first one and weather forecast
Speaker 1: juny mostly sunny day to day, turning partly cloudy with
Speaker 1: a chance of storm's best opportunity for that they're saying
Speaker 1: between one and eight pm APM is the end of
Speaker 1: the heat advisory in effect. Ninety three are high today
Speaker 1: with a heat index north of one hundred overnight down
Speaker 1: to seventy four. Just a slight chancer rain pop up
Speaker 1: afternoon storms tomorrow kind of like today. Ninety two for
Speaker 1: the high, overnight muggy and seventy four and a high
Speaker 1: of ninety four on Friday again with a chance of
Speaker 1: afternoon storms up to eighty. Right now, time for a
Speaker 1: traving update. Chuck Ingram from the US see health.
Speaker 2: You find comprehensive care that's so personal, what makes your
Speaker 2: best tomorrow possible. That's boundless care for better outcomes, So
Speaker 2: expect more at uc help dot com. A bit of
Speaker 2: good news eastbound two seventy five traffic is starting to
Speaker 2: move again between Hamilton Avenue and when it's going to
Speaker 2: take a while to get rid of the backup. Eastbound
Speaker 2: Reagan Highway continues heavy, yes, so looks for looking for
Speaker 2: alternatives to the closure between two seventy five and seventy
Speaker 2: five northbound. Seventy five are wrecked near Gabrith southbound an
Speaker 2: accident near Tylersville. Look, it's really hot, so let's give
Speaker 2: you a few tips on how to stay cool like
Speaker 2: the Yankees. No wait, they're cold, Stay hydrated, wear light
Speaker 2: colored clothes, fine shade or air conditioning, and listen to
Speaker 2: the judge. He's next. Chuck ingramon fifty five KARS the
Speaker 2: talk station.
Speaker 1: Eight fifty five airc DE talk station, A very happy Wednesday.
Speaker 1: It's like, I hate to say it out loud for
Speaker 1: fear of things tanking on us, but it looks like
Speaker 1: our systems are actually working today. I can see Judge Ennapolitano.
Speaker 1: Welcome back, sir. One of my favorite times of the
Speaker 1: week having you on my program. It's good to hear
Speaker 1: you back.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Thank you very much, Brian.
Speaker 4: And why why did Ingram have to mention the Yankees
Speaker 4: at a time like this?
Speaker 1: Watching the game yesterday, my wife's.
Speaker 4: Not exactly in a hot streak, and we know who
Speaker 4: they're playing this week. I want to thank your producer
Speaker 4: Joe Strecker and mine Chris Leonard for fixing the issue
Speaker 4: that caused me to kept getting bounced off last week,
Speaker 4: But you're in good company. I was being interviewed by
Speaker 4: the Foreign Ministry of Russia and kept getting bounced off.
Speaker 1: No, no, let's go.
Speaker 3: I'm in New York.
Speaker 4: There in Moscow and we had to go to my iPhone.
Speaker 4: But all is well here.
Speaker 3: All is not well in Washington, d C.
Speaker 4: Where the President thinks he can start any war without
Speaker 4: a congressional declaration and then drive from office one of
Speaker 4: the few people who understands and defends the Constitution, in
Speaker 4: this case, the premiere defender of the Constitution, Congressman Thomas Massey,
Speaker 4: And all is not well when the president dispatches police
Speaker 4: wearing masks to arrest people without search warrants or arrest
Speaker 4: warrants and claims that somehow that is consistent with the Constitution.
Speaker 4: Hence my piece this week, the Coming police State.
Speaker 1: Yes, the coming police State. We'll get to that just
Speaker 1: a moment. On the attacks on Massy, I was similarly thought.
Speaker 1: I found it rather preposterous and ridiculous. You know, when
Speaker 1: you elect someone, they're not going to be one hundred
Speaker 1: percent lockstep in line with what you believe each and
Speaker 1: every time. But he is a staunch defender of the
Speaker 1: supreme law of the land, a document that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and every other member of elected capacity has sworn an
Speaker 1: oath to uphold. And I know there are different thoughts
Speaker 1: and opinions about that, but you know, and I've had
Speaker 1: to sort of defend Massy as well as defend Trump
Speaker 1: and kind of do this balancing act since the bombs dropped,
Speaker 1: and the balancing acts brought about by things that you
Speaker 1: and I have talked about, like, for example, authorizations for
Speaker 1: use of military force, as well as the War Powers
Speaker 1: Act in nineteen seventy three, two things that fly in
Speaker 1: the face of the delegation of powers within the Constitution,
Speaker 1: and things of which not have been tested in court
Speaker 1: to see if they are on constitutionally firm grounds. So
Speaker 1: you have people arguing that he can react, he has
Speaker 1: sixty day window where he can pretty much damme do
Speaker 1: anything he wants as Commander in achieved. That's what the
Speaker 1: War Powers were access But that's a delegation of power
Speaker 1: that Congress holds correct.
Speaker 3: Right, correct.
Speaker 4: This is Massi's argument that the War Powers Resolution, which
Speaker 4: was vetoed by President Nixon, not because it passed along
Speaker 4: to the presidency too much power. But yeah, Nixon was
Speaker 4: on the other extreme of this. Remember Nixon said it
Speaker 4: once in his interview with David Frost after he left office.
Speaker 4: If the president does it, that means it's not illegal. Translation,
Speaker 4: the president do whatever he wants. Nixon thought the War
Speaker 4: Powers Resolution krimped his style rather than gave to the
Speaker 4: president the powers that the Congress has. Congressman Massey's argument
Speaker 4: is twofold one. The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional because
Speaker 4: the power to declare war is a core function of Congress.
Speaker 4: What is a core function one that has articulated in
Speaker 4: the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has ruled many times
Speaker 4: core functions cannot be transferred from one branch to the other.
Speaker 3: That's argument number one. Argument number two.
Speaker 4: Even if the War Powers Resolution it's a law, it's
Speaker 4: an act, but its official title is the word resolution.
Speaker 1: Right, I don't know why.
Speaker 4: Even if the War Powers Resolution is constitutional, there's a
Speaker 4: condition in there. The President can only fight these wars,
Speaker 4: drop these bombs, attack where every once for sixty days
Speaker 4: if there's an imminent threat.
Speaker 3: To American national security.
Speaker 4: What imminent threat did Iran pose to the national security
Speaker 4: of the United States? When American intel says they didn't
Speaker 4: have and weren't developing and haven't been working on a bomb.
Speaker 3: Since two thousand and two.
Speaker 1: Well, we can all ask the same thing. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously eras before the War Powers resolution, what
Speaker 1: eminent threat to North Korea or Kosovo or Libya or
Speaker 1: Vietnam or any other conflicts we've been in over the
Speaker 1: past multiple decades, none of which represented a fifty the
Speaker 1: American people, But we ended up in long term, embroiled
Speaker 1: conflict with those countries and lost lots of lots of life.
Speaker 4: My stomach was turned yesterday and by a piece in
Speaker 4: the Washington Post op ed because it was written by
Speaker 4: three well respected law professors whom I know. Their argument
Speaker 4: is an interesting one, but it's constitutional nonsense. Their argument is, Okay,
Speaker 4: we haven't declared war since December eighth, nineteen forty one.
Speaker 4: Actually there was a subsequent declaration of war a little
Speaker 4: bit later, but it was for World War Two, and
Speaker 4: we fought thirty six wars in the interim. Because Congress
Speaker 4: didn't challenge those wars, it actually enabled the president constitutionally
Speaker 4: to declare them.
Speaker 3: That is absolute hogwashed. But that's their argument.
Speaker 4: Yeah, their argument is that a regular, consistent, systematic pattern
Speaker 4: violating the Constitution somehow magically makes that violation constitutional when
Speaker 4: it's unchecked, unstopped, and accepted. I have read, so where
Speaker 4: the case is that were the case, you could change
Speaker 4: anything in the Constitution.
Speaker 1: It's like remember open, notorious, hostile underclaim of right. He
Speaker 1: just declared it's yours, and you squat on it and
Speaker 1: you keep waving it around. Finally it becomes yours. Well,
Speaker 1: this is like they're acting in reliance on nobody's follow
Speaker 1: through with accountability for prior acts that are unconstitutioned. Now
Speaker 1: here's a great question.
Speaker 3: Though.
Speaker 1: They obviously were going to try to impeach Trump on this,
Speaker 1: even though they let it slide when it came to
Speaker 1: Reagan and Bush and Obama and Biden and everybody else
Speaker 1: who's played fast and loose with the declarations of war
Speaker 1: and dropped bombs and regions that represented a threat to
Speaker 1: our nation. So this time they plan on going through
Speaker 1: an impeachment process. Obviously that got shot down. Yes, they
Speaker 1: were an overwhelming supported Democrats. They don't want to type
Speaker 1: this with a ten foot poll.
Speaker 4: And impeachment in this environment is absurd. Let me point
Speaker 4: out something else. This is how smart Congressman Thomas Massey,
Speaker 4: who's an engineer and MI I t top of his class.
Speaker 3: Engineer, not a lawyer or a.
Speaker 4: Constitutional scholar, although he knows more about the Constitution than
Speaker 4: these three that wrote this nonsense in the in the
Speaker 4: Washington Post and are high paid professors at eminent law schools.
Speaker 4: When Barack Obama bombed Libya at Missus Clinton, then his
Speaker 4: secretary of State, at Missus Clinton's assistance, remember she said, we.
Speaker 3: Came, we bombed, he died. Ha ha as if that's
Speaker 3: something laugh about.
Speaker 4: In order to avoid the constitutional issues, he did not
Speaker 4: use the military. He used the CIA. They were dressed
Speaker 4: in uniforms, they flew planes, they dropped bombs, they shot missiles,
Speaker 4: but they were not the United States military. The War
Speaker 4: Powers Resolution only requires reporting and eventual approval. If he
Speaker 4: used the military, why because in nineteen seventy three it
Speaker 4: was unthinkable that the CIA would have its own army.
Speaker 4: Today it does. Barack Obama used it. He didn't give
Speaker 4: any notification. He made an announcement from Brazil, which is
Speaker 4: where he was while Congress was on spring break. We
Speaker 4: just destroyed Bolbyan government never used the American military, so
Speaker 4: My argument is these people, Obama, Bush, Biden, Trump, they
Speaker 4: all took the same oath I did when I became
Speaker 4: a judge. Excuse me, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution
Speaker 4: as it's written, not as you want it to be.
Speaker 4: They all find ways around it. Is that what we
Speaker 4: voted for?
Speaker 1: Well it's not what I voted for, of course, But see,
Speaker 1: Congress doesn't want to do its job. It does not
Speaker 1: want the responsibility of having the heavy load of an
Speaker 1: actual consideration of war. And it's unlikely that these that
Speaker 1: you could hurt enough cats to get get to engage
Speaker 1: the military, which obviously in these you know, everybody's looking
Speaker 1: for expedients rather than actual you know, a faith in
Speaker 1: the law and the Constitution. It's easier for them to
Speaker 1: just let it go. And since we have a history
Speaker 1: of them letting it go, it's just it's status quo,
Speaker 1: I mean. And I wanted to get to the question
Speaker 1: what would be the how could you hold a president
Speaker 1: in account if everyone was in accord that this exceeded
Speaker 1: the presidential authority? Is impeachment throughoute that you go you've
Speaker 1: done something? Is that represent a high crime and misdemeanor
Speaker 1: to deploy military forces, or inn Obama's case, the CIA,
Speaker 1: to get the dirty work done.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 4: He spent one hundred million dollars. He bombed tunnels that
Speaker 4: were empty. He didn't set back the nuclear program at all.
Speaker 4: The nuclear program was lawful, authorized by the IAEA and
Speaker 4: the Non Proliferation Treaty, which the United States has signed
Speaker 4: and Israel is not. It was inspected and improved by
Speaker 4: the UN. Could you imagine if somebody did that to us,
Speaker 4: if somebody attacked one of our nuclear reactors because they
Speaker 4: didn't want us to have a nuclear weapon, even though
Speaker 4: we've signed the Non Proliferation Treaty. Thomas Massey I think
Speaker 4: the rest of the Congress is afraid of him because
Speaker 4: he points out how they don't do their job. Because
Speaker 4: they like Donald Trump, they will just overlook these things,
Speaker 4: or because they're lazy, they will overlook these things. When
Speaker 4: Obama bombed Libya, at that very moment, I was on
Speaker 4: air interviewing the late Great Harlem Congressman Charles Wrangle, who
Speaker 4: sounded like this, and I said, Congressman Wrangle, why did
Speaker 4: the Congress look the other way? Without imitating his voice,
Speaker 4: I'll say, well, it's very easy if it's a success
Speaker 4: will applaud him.
Speaker 3: If it's a failure, it's his failure.
Speaker 4: Well, that is a rejection of your obligation under the Constitution.
Speaker 1: So what's the follow through? Then, going back to my question, if.
Speaker 3: You know there is no follow through.
Speaker 4: If Congressman Massey were to bring a lawsuit before a
Speaker 4: federal judge to enjoin Trump from violating the Constitution, the
Speaker 4: federal judge will say.
Speaker 3: This is a political question. Yes, this is not something
Speaker 3: we can resolve. You have to enact more time.
Speaker 4: You have to elect more Thomas Massey's to the Congress,
Speaker 4: or elect a Thomas Massey like person to the White House.
Speaker 4: This is not a justitiable issue. So we're stuck with it.
Speaker 1: So one of the mechanisms, though I suppose the only ones,
Speaker 1: sin say the power of the person will be to
Speaker 1: cut off funding. But that would require cutting off all
Speaker 1: funding to the American military. Otherwise you play fast and
Speaker 1: loose with the pile of money that's handed over to
Speaker 1: the American military to keep it running.
Speaker 4: Right, you can, because the president doesn't have a line
Speaker 4: item veto, he'd have to veto the entire budget, so
Speaker 4: you can put in there, none of these funds shall
Speaker 4: be used for and list a bunch of things, but
Speaker 4: be very difficult to enforce that, very very difficult. You're
Speaker 4: talking about a budget of a trillion dollars. The Pentagon
Speaker 4: hasn't passed in audit in the past twenty years, and
Speaker 4: nobody knows where the money goes.
Speaker 1: Well, I suppose that for this long circuitous defense of Congress,
Speaker 1: Fomasse and the Constitution, we find ourselves at a rather
Speaker 1: interesting point here, Judseph Palatano, which is it sounds like
Speaker 1: there's not a damn thing any of us can do
Speaker 1: about it.
Speaker 4: Well, a lot of this will change if the Democrat
Speaker 4: I'm not suggesting this is a good thing, because there's
Speaker 4: a down, a tremendous downside to this. If the Democrats
Speaker 4: take either House of Congress, that will at least keep
Speaker 4: Donald Trump's feet to the fire. He didn't even give
Speaker 4: war powers resolution notice to the Gang of Eight, which
Speaker 4: he's required by law to do.
Speaker 3: The Gang of Eight is which is also in constitution
Speaker 3: in Congress.
Speaker 4: Within a Congress, a constitution doesn't authorize that. But they
Speaker 4: are the ranking the chair and the ranking members of
Speaker 4: the two intelligence committees, and the Republican and Democrat leaders.
Speaker 3: In both houses.
Speaker 4: He didn't even give them notice, But he didn't get
Speaker 4: constitution because when he gives them notice, he does so
Speaker 4: under the veil of secrecy. So they can't tell anybody.
Speaker 4: They can't tell their spouses, they can't tell the press,
Speaker 4: they can't tell other members of Congress, they can't tell
Speaker 4: their constituents.
Speaker 3: What the hell kind of a democracy is that?
Speaker 1: Well, I guess it was widely reported that you give
Speaker 1: the notice to Congress after the bombing, which is within
Speaker 1: forty eight hours under the War Powers Resolution. So I
Speaker 1: was I had read pretty much everywhere that that actually
Speaker 1: that he followed through on that, unlike some prior presidents
Speaker 1: who didn't even bother along those lines, consider Secretary State
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with the CIA. So anyhow, again,
Speaker 1: I think we just found ourselves sort of reaching this
Speaker 1: conclusion that he is free to do what the hell
Speaker 1: he wants, just like all the other presidents before him
Speaker 1: have done.
Speaker 4: And then watch for him to start warning about Iranian
Speaker 4: and Mexican sleeper cells and about the need for the
Speaker 4: FEDS to know everything we're thinking and saying in order
Speaker 4: to root out the sleeper cells.
Speaker 1: Going back to your depression.
Speaker 4: Of civil liberties, keep us safe. Absolutely not. Who will
Speaker 4: keep us safe from the people doing the suppressing?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Well, and one might argue that nobody knows that
Speaker 1: better than Donald Trump considered he was the focus of
Speaker 1: many lettered agencies nefarious activities under his first term. Oh,
Speaker 1: judgment Napolitano. Always a pleasure going through these fun topics
Speaker 1: with you.
Speaker 3: It's nice we get to see each other this week.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that makes it great. Well, who you talking
Speaker 1: to today judging freedom?
Speaker 4: I have the great Max Bloomenthal. I have Professor Glenn Deeson.
Speaker 4: I have Ambassador Craig Murray. I have Phil Giraldi, the
Speaker 4: CIA agent who told George Bush Saddam Hussein does not
Speaker 4: have weapons of mass destruction. Bush threw him out of
Speaker 4: the Oval office, announced to the country that Saddam Hussein
Speaker 4: did have them, and GERALDI resigned. And a Bright a
Speaker 4: bright intellectual PhD and political philosophy and retired Lieutenant Colonel
Speaker 4: Karen Kwadkowski who writes great things for Judge napp dot com.
Speaker 4: So I have a busy day coming up. On Sunday,
Speaker 4: I had Scott Ritter on on a special show because
Speaker 4: of the bombing that occurred on Saturday night. So far
Speaker 4: seven hundred and seventy five thousand views.
Speaker 1: That's great and the numbers keep going up.
Speaker 3: In my world, those are over the top numbers.
Speaker 1: Well way over the top of mine. I have no idea,
Speaker 1: but I did find out you yesterday that I have
Speaker 1: listeners in Nigeria, believe it or not, and that just
Speaker 1: tickled me to death. Judge Jennena Polatana, every Wednesday here
Speaker 1: we have the blessing at eight thirty to talk with him,
Speaker 1: get his insights, thoughts and opinions. I appreciate your time
Speaker 1: and this time. You spoke my listeners each and every
Speaker 1: week and I hope you have a wonderful week and
Speaker 1: until next month when.
Speaker 4: Joe Strecker, thank you for your helping getting us set
Speaker 4: up today. And remember I want to be on with
Speaker 4: Congressman Massey one of these days soon.
Speaker 1: You got it, man. All we need to do is
Speaker 1: work out the logistics, but that can be done. Take
Speaker 1: care of my friends, guys. Thank you to you. Eight
Speaker 1: forty four to fifty five KRC DE Talk Station fifty
Speaker 1: five KRC