Speaker 1: What's going on.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It
is heard live every day from noon to three on
WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content
like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily
show prep with all of the links, become a patron,
go to dpeakclendershow dot com. Make sure you hit the
subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your
smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for
your support. Last hour we talked about I went over
all of the details of this ruling against the one
bunch of the tariffs basically the Liberation Day tariffs that
Trump imposed using a law called the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act AIPA, and a three judge panel determined that
he exceeded the authority granted under the Constitution, but also
the various laws that they cited for why they had
the power to do the wide ranging, you know, ten
percent baseline on everybody and then another set of tariffs
on everybody. On top of that, there is a chunk
of tariffs that are remaining because they did justify it
under law. This is like aluminum automobiles, parts and stuff,
and these are you know, national defense reasons or whatever,
and so under a different law those remain in place.
But the widespread ones, particularly the ones on Canada and Mexico,
that were used to exert pressure to get them to
do something unrelated to trade that broke the bounds of
IEPA as delineated in the law. According to these three judges,
who are lawyers with a wardrobe change, but one of
them was a Trump appointee, one was a Reagan appointee,
and the other was an Obama appointee, they all agreed.
It's being appealed to the US Supreme Court. The Court
stated that Congress is typically respond contible for issuing tariffs,
not the president alone, and that Trump's rationale for the
exception to the rule did not meet the Emergency Act
threshold to act unilaterally.
Speaker 1: Quote.
Speaker 2: The President's assertion of tariff making authority in this case
unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or
in scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the president
under AEPA, because there's no limiting principle. Based on the
arguments put forth by the government in the court case,
and so they said, the worldwide and retaliatory tariffs are
contrary to law. The lawsuit was brought by the nonpartisan
Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small businesses that
get goods from countries dinged by the White House's tariff policy.
All right, so we had a bunch of people call
in at the end of the last hour. We still
have Stan and Jim. Start with Jim first. Hello, Jim,
Welcome to the program.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Pete. I think there have been times in our
history when a strong peasancy, maybe even I'm not a
history maybe even save the country. Most recently, Roosevelt comes
to mind. During World War Two. He gave us all
that social cramp which we'll never pay for in the thirties,
but he made some decisions in World War Two, including
hanging out with Churchill and Churchill's own special bedroom man
in the White House for almost six weeks during World
War Two, and made some decisions that got us through that,
even a really key one, you know, Stylin kind of
embracing someone, embracing Stalin to try to get rid of
this Hitler, you know, world War two. Minutes.
Speaker 2: Wait, hang on, Jim, are you suggesting that people throughout
history may be a bit more complex than simply all
good or all evil, and that they sometimes do some
good things and then do some things that are not
so good.
Speaker 1: Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 3: Absolutely?
Speaker 4: Wow?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Yeah. Lincoln the Civil War, he made some decisions
that I helped I think helped the North prevail and
the country benefit as a result. So a strong presidency
is not necessarily a bad thing in the history of
this country. Right now. The thing that I really got
excited about with Trump coming in just swinging left and right,
saying whatever he needs to say to try to bring
some kind of meaning to the uncontrolled administrative state that
we call sometimes called the swamp in d C. This
judgment that came out by this agency or whatever were No, it's.
Speaker 1: A three judgement. No, it's a three judge panel.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's a classic example of it. And I kind
of disagree. You said the presidency executive branch's kind of
gotten out of control. I still say it's in a neck.
I'd say the main thing out of control is the
swamp and DC itself.
Speaker 1: And but that's why. But that's Jim, We're saying the
same thing.
Speaker 2: The reason why the swamp exists is because of the
executive branch overreach.
Speaker 1: All those agencies.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well I think it's bigger than that.
Speaker 2: Well no, but Jim, all of the agencies that write
the rules, whether it's low flow faucets and shower heads
and tank toilet tank sizes, right to climate change rules
written by the e p A or Obamacare rules written
by the Health and Human Services Secretary.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: The offloading of these decisions to executive branch agencies is
the problem that is the deep state.
Speaker 3: So what you're saying that came from the executive branch.
Speaker 2: They are in the absolute So they are in the
executive branch, Yes, but Congress abdicates their responsibility and their power.
They turn it over to the executive branch and they say, well,
the Health and Human Services Secretary shall right the rule.
And then you had the Chevron doctrine, which for fifty
years whatever forced or allowed these agencies to get the
deference in court, and it created this monstrosity of the
executive branch. And now you're at a point where the
executive branch leader, the president can't even fire people inside
the executive branch, right, Like, this is the where we
agree at identifying the problem. But the head of the
executive branch is still the president. And I still want
that entire branch restrained. President all the way down to
the office workers. I want all of them restrained.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, not in my lifetime. And I go back
to Osenhower. That's how old I am. Do I recall
a president in the White House that had the gut
and shall I say whatever to make the decisions and
do and say what Trump is making. I'm getting a
little bit discrmal now with this bill that's coming through
right now. Don't remember, don't forget Trump's first term. He
spent money like crazy. Yeah, okay, but he also rebuilt
a lot of the military, which I thoroughly agreed with.
I think we needed it at the time. I think
we still need some changes in the military on the
spending side, unfortunately. But he's making the decisions and he's
making some calls. I've never seen any presidency making my lifetime.
Speaker 1: And all of that is Jim. All of that is fine.
Speaker 2: So just like you said at the beginning, that people
have good in bed, right, they do good things. They
do things that you don't like, and you can point
to all the good things as reasons why you like him.
I'm not arguing with you for why you can like
the president, I'm pointing out that this legal ruling seems
to fit. This is not an example of the judicial
overreach that we have seen in all of these other cases.
Speaker 3: I'm fifty to fifty on Trump right now. I can
take him or leaving with some of the things I'm
seeing going on. But let me tell you something about
these tariffs we have as a country. Let the whole
world dump stuff in this country. All of my lifetime,
I've seen it, from the Japanese cars, the German cars.
Everything comes into this country. But when we try to
get those markets, it's impossible. I thoroughly agree with what
Trump's doing with tariffs. It even has an outside chance
with enough revenue generation to flatline our taxes.
Speaker 1: I doubt that bill.
Speaker 3: This new bill still does not get a fifteen percent
corporate tax rate, which we desperately need, or even lower
for all manufacturing in this country, like a whole lot
of the rest of the world has right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So you're not going to get me to defend
the big beautiful bill because I cannot. I don't like
a lot of that stuff either in it. Yeah, So, Jim,
I appreciate the call. It's good to hear from you. Yeah,
good and bad. Everything's a mixed bag, right. There is
no perfect president, because there's no perfect person. I just
want to make sure that when an executive is doing things,
even if I agree with them, that they are within
the bounds of the law, because if you allow it
for your guy, then you are in no position to
argue that the guy you don't like who takes over
next can't do the same thing. This is exactly what
I've been telling the left when Obama was doing it,
when Biden was doing it, right the very same reasons.
Speaker 1: This is not what we should be okay with.
Speaker 2: All Americans should not be okay with an executive branch
that does all of these things that it has been doing.
That's a consistent argument that I've been making, and this
ruling seems to line up pretty well with that principle
for me. Again, that's just for.
Speaker 1: Me, all right.
Speaker 2: If you're listening to this show, you know I try
to keep up with all sorts of current events, and
I know you do too, And you've probably heard me
say get your news from multiple sources. Why, well, because
it's how you detect media bias, which is why I've
been so impressed with ground News. It's an app, and
it's a website, and it combines news from around the
world in one place so you can compare coverage and
verify information. You can check it out at check dot ground,
dot news slash pete. I put the link in the
podcast description too. I started using ground News a few
months ago and more recently chose to work with them
as an affiliate because it lets me see clearly how
stories get covered and by whom. The blind spot feature
shows you which stories get ignored by the left and
the right. See for yourself. Check dot ground, dot news
slash pete. Subscribe through that link and you'll get fifteen
percent off any subscription. I use the Vantage plan to
get unlimited access to every feature. Your subscription then not
only helps my podcast, but it also supports ground News
as they make the media landscape more transparent. Stan, he's
been hanging on a long time. Stan, Welcome to the show.
Speaker 1: How are you hello?
Speaker 4: First, it's Sam. That's okay, Sam understood. But second is
we the people. If stations like yours and media like
yours would take and start publishing a list of names
of the representatives and senators who vote to increase spending,
to increase our dead If you guys would get on
there and start publishing their names, outing them to the public,
calling on the American public to start doing petitions for
recall elections every time they do it, we would really
quickly these people figure out, Hey, this is going to
cost be my job, This is going to cost me
my attention.
Speaker 1: Sam.
Speaker 2: So a couple of Sam hangout a couple of things.
Number one, are you talking about the build that or
the big beautiful bill?
Speaker 4: I don't care what bill it is.
Speaker 1: Okay, So this is our debt. Okay.
Speaker 4: So the bill goes through, increases the debt of this country.
They spend more money than our country's taken in and
put us more in debt. If those names get published
with a clause or suggestion from your people, media like yours?
Speaker 1: What do you mean? Media like ours? What do you
mean media like ours?
Speaker 4: Not left right wing status.
Speaker 1: So right so conservative outwork.
Speaker 4: Do you believe that your media outlet is for the
best of the American public? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: Yes? Absolutely?
Speaker 4: Okay. Then if media outlets like yours in the best
interest of the American people in this country start outing
these centers and congressmen who vote to increase our debt?
Speaker 2: Right, So do you think that we have not done that?
What do you think that I can only speak for myself?
Do you think that I have have like protected Republicans
for passing bills that increase spending.
Speaker 4: I ain't saying about protecting. I'm said outing, because that's
a complete opposite. That's like, I'm not saying you're you're
a man. I'm just I'm not I'm saying you're not
a woman.
Speaker 2: I'm not following your analogy. I'm asking because you said
what I need to do is tell tell everybody who
voted for the bill, And I'm asking, are you aware
of me not doing that? Do you not ever hear
me talk about bills that pass and how all the
Republicans either opposed it or voted for it, and Democrats
voted for it or voted against it.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying just you, I'm saying media outlets.
Speaker 2: Like, well, okay, but Sam, all I can do is
speak for my All I can do is speak for myself.
I can't speak for any other like host on the show.
I can't speak for the news department. So all I
can speak for is myself. So I can tell you
that whenever one of these omnibus spending bills comes down
the pike and the the Republicans sign off on it,
I object, and I say all of the Republicans voted
for it. I've called out Republicans who voted for or
against if they break with their party on stuff. Yes,
I identify them. The second part of your your call
is for is for me and I guess everybody on
the station to launch a recall effort against these lawmakers.
But there is no such thing as a recall of
federal elected officials.
Speaker 1: You cannot do it. It's an election.
Speaker 2: There's no recall for a US senator. There's no recall.
Have you ever heard of a US senator being recalled?
Speaker 4: Then maybe we need to start something new.
Speaker 2: Okay, well I mean that that's then okay, then that's fair.
You'd you'd have to get that approved by the very
people that you want to threaten with recalling. So that's
the challenge there is. You'd have to get a constitutional amendment.
I'm just laying out if this is something that you
are interested in pursuing, I'm just laying out sort of
the blueprint for you, which is you would have to
get a constitutional amendment passed by the states, and you'd
have to go through the both chambers of Congress, right,
and then you would also then have to get it
done in North Carolina because we do not have recall
ability in our state laws or for our state lawmakers either.
So I'm just laying out the blueprint. But that's why
you don't hear anybody in any media trying to launch
recall petitions for US senators or US congress members, because.
Speaker 4: Okay, can we go a different direction then? So she
said that's not possible. Not yeah, yeah, or either way,
but she said that's not possible. We can go another direction.
We can start they go fundme to file criminal charges
against these people, which I'm believe anyone can file criminal
charges no for it being an act of treason and
have these guys charged with treason.
Speaker 1: So what would the desdrawing.
Speaker 4: Our country and destroying our dollar the Secret Service used
to be original purpose of Secret Service was to protect
our currency. So they don't do it anymore. What was
what would politicians?
Speaker 2: So you're asking, you're asking for federal charges of treason
to be filed, and you and you want to go
fund me set.
Speaker 1: Up in order.
Speaker 4: Well, lawyers cost money, right, but the.
Speaker 2: But the charging comes from the US Attorney's Office or
the DOJ.
Speaker 4: The people. People. You're telling me American citizens are not
allowed to pol charges against anybody.
Speaker 1: No, not against not against charges.
Speaker 4: Really, who do you think, I'm I know people have
done it.
Speaker 1: You can petition, No people convicted.
Speaker 2: No, the state tries and convicts.
Speaker 1: No no, no no no no no, yes yes yes.
Speaker 4: For the fact the public can who tries.
Speaker 1: The case larger who tries the case.
Speaker 2: So let's say Sam, you and I we say, let's
say we pull our money, we get to we get
a million dollars together, and we want to go file
charges against somebody somehow criminal charges. Who then goes to
court to prosecute that.
Speaker 4: Case is the lawyer that you hired?
Speaker 2: The lawyer?
Speaker 1: So do you hear?
Speaker 2: So? Are you aware of private prosecutors trying criminal cases?
Speaker 4: Yes? Where Lanchester County Courthouse?
Speaker 1: In what case.
Speaker 4: A person had stolen some stuff from my store, My
brother and his wife used to run and they filed
charges and the guy was convicted and sent to jail.
Speaker 1: And this was tried by a non DA non solicitor.
Speaker 4: Correct, they had to hire their own lawyer to the
prosecuting party would not touch it. They hired their own
lawyer to prosecute it, and.
Speaker 1: The guy went to jail.
Speaker 2: Yes, he went to jail based on that trial, or
not in a subsequent trial or not through some plea
deal or not through like you're saying, this was a
criminal trial.
Speaker 4: Tried and convicted by a private prosecuting attorney.
Speaker 1: Who convicted Was it a judge or a jury trial.
Speaker 3: A judge?
Speaker 2: Yeah, what you're describing to me is unlike any other
process I have ever heard of. And now, granted, I
mean I don't know all of the different processes in
all of the different states, but I am pretty confident
that private citizens cannot prosecute US senators for treason, pretty
confident on that one.
Speaker 4: All the they're immune. Do we have royals and nobles
in this country now there are no from prosecution.
Speaker 2: No, I'm saying the private city. There is a system
of justice that takes it out of.
Speaker 4: Want the fox to go, you want the fox to
stop the fox? Right?
Speaker 2: Did I say that that's that's absurd. You're just now making.
Speaker 4: Up say you said we can't know it?
Speaker 2: No, I said, I'm not aware. I said I'm not
aware of whatever the process you just laid out about
private citizens criminally convicting somebody in a criminal court of
law and then going into state custody for it. And
then I said, I'm pretty sure that the US senators
cannot be tried by private citizens.
Speaker 4: Well maybe we need it.
Speaker 2: Well, maybe maybe you should research that. Yeah, maybe maybe maybe,
maybe it's lots of maybe's there. Uh, I cannot verify
anything that Sam just said. Just for the record, here's
a great idea. How about not making an escape to
a really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina?
Just a quick drive up the mountain and Cabins of
Ashville is your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon,
maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get
family and friends together for a big old reunion, Cabins
of Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you
can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that
truly matter. Nestled within the breath taking fourteen thousand acres
of the Pisga National Forest, their cabins offer a serene
escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally
located between Asheville and the entrance of the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park. It's the perfect balance of seclusion and
proximity to all the local attractions with hot tubs, fireplaces,
air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi Fi grills, outdoor tables, and
your own private covered porch. Choose from thirteen cabins, six cottages,
two villas, and a great lodge with eleven king sized bedrooms.
Cabins of Ashville has the ideal spot for you for
any occasion. They have pet friendly accommodations. Call or text
eight two eight, three six seven seventy sixty eight or
check out all there is to offer at Cabins Offashville
dot com and make memories that'll last a lifetime. During
the break, I went to the el computerire and I
asked Brave, my browser, the superior browser of all browsers,
can private citizens criminally prosecute somebody? Because Sam seemed very confident,
and so I said, I told him. I said, I
am not aware of any law that allows somebody to
just a regular citizen to criminally prosecute somebody else and
try a case and then get a judge to incarcerate
somebody in a state prison. So I asked, and the
answer In the United States, private citizens generally cannot initiate
criminal prosecutions, cannot even initiate them, let alone try them.
The right to initiate criminal prosecutions is typically reserved for
government officials, such as public prosecutors or in South Carolina,
they are called solicitors or district attorneys. Right, But they're
all prosecutors and they represent the state. That's why in
all cases it's always the state versus Joe Schmo. Right,
it's never Pete Calendar versus Joe Schmo. If it is,
that's usually a civil matter. And if you are, you know,
suing somebody in a civil matter, the standard of evidence
in order to convict is lower. That's a preponderance of evidence,
which is basically fifty one. Like if you get fifty
percent plus one, then you then you win. You've convinced
the judge. And you usually don't get jury trials, but
sometimes you do.
Speaker 1: You can.
Speaker 2: But that's the civil proceeding. You don't have the state
involved in that except to adjudicate the matter between two parties.
And so when Sam said that there was this example
in Lancaster, I assumed Lancaster, South Carolina. Well, in South Carolina,
a private citizen can initiate a criminal case by approaching
a magistrate, and that that's the same. In North Carolina,
a private citizen can also initiate a criminal case through
a magistrate. The magistrate then can only issue a summons,
not an arrest warrant in North Carolina, but a summons. Oh,
same goes for South Carolina. You can issue a summons,
the magistrate can, but that's not a warrant for somebody's
arrest because that's the state that does that. The state
issues a criminal warrant for your arrest because the state
is prosecuting you for something. People get into Magistrates deal
with this stuff literally all day. This is all they
deal with is people coming in wanting to get warrants
out on somebody else, usually domestic related, but also property
crime kind of things. Right, you can initiate doesn't mean
you try the case the state. If it goes to
a trial and somebody's liberty is at risk, the defendant's
liberty is at risk, that's not a private citizen that
is trying that case.
Speaker 1: That's a civil matter, it's not a criminal matter.
Speaker 2: So I think maybe that's what Sam was talking about
unless because I also had some time I check this
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvan Maybe, but I thought he said
South Carolina. Rule five h six of the Pennsylvania Rules
of Criminal Procedure permit an individual to file a private
criminal complaint with the Office of the District Attorney. If
you file a private criminal complaint, you become the affiant
or the person making the allegation. Just as if you
were a police officer. The same rules apply to you
in filing charges that apply to a police officer. A
mere allegation is not sufficient to initiate criminal charges. Filing
a private criminal complaint in no way guarantees the criminal
charges will be filed, just as a police officer must do.
You have to demonstrate probable cause exists that the person
you wish to have arrested committed a crime. Probable cause
is the legal standard of proof that the courts require
in order for charges to be filed in other than
summary offenses. The DA must approve every private criminal complaint
before a district judge is permitted to issue process, and
then it talks about the procedure. You have to fill
out all of these forms here return the forms. The
DA's office will then look to approve it or reject it.
They usually would then forward the complaint to a county
detective to conduct an investigation of the crimes. With the
additional information provided by the investigation, the Assistant DA will
then make a determination if probable cause exists to justify
the charges. If the Assistant DA determines that the law
that probable cause exists, the complaint will be approved and
referred to the District Justice to proceed with the process. Then,
if the private criminal complaint is approved, you must appear
at any and all core proceedings that result, and you
will be responsible for providing the District Justice with the
names and addresses of all persons you wish to call
as witnesses on your behalf and summary offenses are defiant, trespassed,
disorderly conduct, and harassment.
Speaker 1: So maybe that's what he's talking about.
Speaker 2: But he said, I thought he said something about it
being theft related or something, So I don't know. Maybe
it was Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, but wasn't aware of that product.
Like I said, I don't know what all fifty states
have for all of their laws.
Speaker 1: And I heard years and years.
Speaker 2: Ago that like you know, you could be a you know,
you could file like a private you know, cause of
action or something against somebody and whatever. But there's a
reason why you never hear this stuff happening is because
states don't allow it. And it's usually the state that's
prosecuting crime and civilians doing civil all.
Speaker 1: Right, Hope that clears it up.
Speaker 2: So I don't want to misinformation getting out there for everybody,
all right. So spring is here a time of renewal
and celebrations. You've got graduations, weddings, anniversaries and the special
days for mom and dad. Your family's making memories that
are going to last a lifetime. But let me ask you,
are all of those treasured moments from days gone by?
Are they hidden away on old VCR tapes, eight millimeter films,
photos slides? Are they preserved? Because over time, these precious
memories can fade and deteriorate, losing the magic of yesterday.
At Creative Video, they help you protect what matters most.
Their expert team digitizes your cherished family moments and transfers
them onto a USB drive, freezing them in time so
they can be enjoyed for generations to come. I urge
you do not wait until it's too late this spring,
lebrate your past. Visit Creative Video today and let them
preserve your legacy with the love and care that it deserves.
Creative Video Preserving Family Memories since nineteen ninety seven, located
in mint Hill, just off four eighty five. Mail orders
are accepted to get all the details that createavideo dot
Com got this message from Dwayne, who says, regarding Sam's call,
in regards to the listener who spoke about private prosecutions
criminal prosecutions, I have been in law enforcement in Lancaster
County for over thirty years. I have never heard of
or observed any private prosecutions. I am aware of instances
where the solicitor's office had conflicts in a case and
they would have a solicitor from another circuit come in
and handle that prosecution. Yes, that is very standard. Also,
citizens in South Carolina do not press charges, only law
enforcement officers can. Tony says, these people watch way too
many movies. And to answer Sam's question, and I look,
I'm not picking on Sam. I understand the frustration. I
think I think he has a bit of a misunderstanding
about the way the court system works and such. But
I understand the frustration absolutely. And when he says, you know, oh,
do we have royals, No, we do not. That's the
whole point of you know, the bald eagle, right, there's
no crown. But the whole point of this experiment of
America is that we do not have royals. People don't
just get you know, deeded titles and property and power
because of their family lineage. No, what we have is
the rule of law. That's that's the difference, and that
we are all equal under the law. And so that's
why you have all of the you know, this this
scaffolding that has been built up over time called the law.
And maybe it's too much at this point. It does
seem a bit overbearing oftentimes, but no, that's the point.
And so when so when trying to seek redress for
these things that frustrate us, we have to work within
the rule of law. And that's what the whole tariff
ruling was about. And if you don't like what the
law says about a particular thing because it's you know, outdated,
or there are loopholes, or it's unjust or whatever, there
are ways to go about dismantling the law, taking out
that law. There are laws about how to do that, right,
so we're all on the same page. This is how
it's supposed to function. This is how it's supposed to operate.
And I have never been somebody that has ever tossed
around the idea, let alone the call for somebody to
be charged with tree, because that is a death penalty
and I don't do that. I don't call for people
to be executed because I really don't like their votes
on things. And honestly, it is not a it's not persuasive.
It doesn't get people to your side in an argument,
generally speaking, unless you've only surrounded yourself with people that
think exactly like you do, you know, and then it
usually becomes this drift towards the more extreme because it's like, well,
oh yeah, I think they should be charged with trees. Oh,
I think them and their families, so I think everybody
should be. So you're constantly pushing more and more outward
against those bounds. So I don't that is not something
I call for.
Speaker 1: Lightly.
Speaker 2: Now somebody steals a bunch of nuclear secrets and gives
them to our enemies. Yeah, okay, I'm thinking that's treason us.
You know that like that warrants the charge of treason.
Here's one, uh, the the people who have been engaged
in the cover up of Joe Biden and signing all
of the legislation.
Speaker 1: That depending on the.
Speaker 2: Circumstances, and that's that's a very big caveat right, I have, Well,
the people that are that were involved in it, to
what extent, I do not know what exactly were they signing.
Was there any compensation for what they were signing?
Speaker 1: Right? Some of this stuff.
Speaker 2: I am open to be persuaded that maybe some trees
in charges could be applied to some of these people. Sure,
but again, the details the facts of those cases would
matter immensely. But I don't call for it now because
I don't I don't have any of those facts. Where
hopefully we get some and then we can decide from there.
But no voting the wrong way on a bill and
putting the nation into further debt, that is not That's
not something that you execute people over. In my mind, now,
maybe you would have no problem executing a whole bunch
of people because they voted the wrong way on a
spending bill, but that's not my take.
Speaker 1: On it at all.
Speaker 2: And I dare say that is a fringe position, but
you're welcome to have it. I mean, you're totally allowed
to have it. Yes, Jay, I agree. I think Sam
is talking about a civil dispute versus a criminal one.
I agree, Seth says Pete. I see the entire book
of rulings Trump is creating at a breakneck pace, closing
doors on loopholes that they have seen past administrations use,
or Trump's team sees as a future problem they need
to quash. Four D chess at its finest. You are
free to believe that as well, Seth. I know every
time I look at what I'm looking at and I
have no idea what the hell is going on with
some of these decisions and strategy. And I am told
you don't understand, Pete. This is multi dimensional chess. You're
playing checkers. Whatever is like, we'll see. And as I said,
with the tariff stuff, you better be right, that's all.
You better be right because if you're not right, we
are screwed in some really bad ways.
Speaker 1: But I don't know. I'm not saying we are. I'm not.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, so the world is any I'm not
saying that all I'm saying is the people who are
advocating that there are all these unknown plans behind the
scenes and we just don't understand it all. And this
could be a grand strategy to close down every single loophole.
Speaker 1: Okay, we'll see, and I hope you're right.
Speaker 2: Equal under the law, Pete. This is from Tim. He says,
some are more equal than others. Many in DC come
to mind. Yeah, two legs good, four legs bed. That's
an animal farm reference for folks who aren't to wear
at A message from Timoteo, who says, dang it, boy,
I was all in on the obstructionist judge's narrative and
then you change my mind. I wasn't trying to change
anybody's mind. I'm just giving you the information and I'm
offering you my opinion on it, and you are free
to have different opinions. Absolutely I encourage them. Void says
he now has a massive migrain. He's going to have
to go lie down now. Well, you can still listen
while you're lying down. D Stewart says, having lived through
the loss of over two hundred and fifty textile customers
in one and a half years, I was willing to
see fair trade work as free trade legal or not.
The Congress can't even stop forty million dollars a week
payments to the Taliban. I'm pretty sure they can't do
better making trade deals.
Speaker 1: I agree. I'm not confident in Congress's ability on any
of the stuff either.
Speaker 2: However, if we are a nation of law, right we
live under the rule of law and not of men,
then Congress needs to give power to one guide to
do it. I would oppose that, by the way, because
I don't want a president that can slap two hundred
percent tariffs on every single country.
Speaker 1: I said this at the time Trump announced it.
Speaker 2: I don't want that kind of power because if Trump, well,
when Trump is out of office, somebody else comes in.
They may have a different set of enemies and friends,
and I don't trust that next person either. All Right,
that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much
for listening. I could not do the show without your
support and the support of the businesses that advertise on
the podcast, so if you'd like, please support them too
and tell them you heard it here. You can also
become a patron at my Patreon page or go to
dpetecallanershow dot com again, thank you so much for listening,
and don't break anything while I'm gone. H