►敵國外僑法引爭議, 小法官能禁制總統權限?◄卡麗萊克讓你大開眼界, 看看2.5億的公務員辦公大樓能豪華到什麼程度 !!!

Katie Trzaski, constitutional law attorney and former federal prosecutor is with me. Look, you heard from that report, the Aliens Enemy Act is not banning sending these bad guys back to their countries. The president and his team just have to notify the court. Why? Well, even that requirement seems like a bit of an overreach by the judge. The Alien Enemies Act is essentially a unilateral power of the president to remove people who fall under the provisions of that act as according to the president from our country. And it's something that the Supreme Court has looked at and said that the courts do not have any sort of power to second guess. There are only, from my reading of the Supreme Court's previous interpretations of this, there's only some limited questions that a court can ask regarding the jurisdiction and whether somebody actually falls within the designated group. But certainly, this is a national security issue at the end of the day, the president has that authority. Katie, we're doing something that the Biden administration didn't bother to do. We're vetting the people before we send them out. They didn't even vet the people when they were coming in. So this, this is something that we know is happening. That's how we know so much about these guys. I mean, face recognition, they're working against people who are trying to help them. So they've got to go into communities, do all that great law enforcement, you know, banding up of agencies and all of that. So if all that work is being done to round these guys up, why can't the judge just look at the file and say, yeah, A through F, yeah, those guys need to get out of here. But my big question is, how does a district court judge trim the powers of a United States president when it comes to getting out people who are dangerous to the citizens of this country? Well, I absolutely agree with you. I think this judge has well overstepped his bounds. But they really, they really can't theoretically do that. But the problem is that because the case starts at the lower level here, this judge is saying this particular law, the Alien Enemies Act, has never been used to target a specified group. It's only been used against citizens of countries against whom we've been at war. And so there's a question about does this actually apply here versus if you have people here illegally, even criminals, there is immigration processes and due process that is required to get a removal order. They cannot just be summarily removed, which under the Alien Enemies Act, the president can order their removal without any due process whatsoever. And that's the gripe, essentially, that they're not getting due process, even if those things are true, that they are criminals. Well, and please, miss, don't misunderstand. I'm not pushing against what you're saying. This is not my opinion. This is fact. This is common sense. This is the president of the United States. And because a district court judge says he's never seen it applied this way, there are a lot of things I haven't seen. But it doesn't mean that they don't stand. Well, that, I think, is the big picture problem here. When you have these, quote unquote, unprecedented situations and you could interpret the law one way or the other to defer to the executive authority and you're choosing to resist the agenda, to resist President Trump's actions, you are undermining that. And for what? To keep these people in our country? I mean, that's absolutely absurd at the end of the day. I wish you were in the courtroom to ask that question. What is the point of all of this? What is your goal to Joe's- To protect the process for these people when the same people are never in favor of that, when there's people accused of, let's say, like a Me Too crime. These are the same people. The hypocrisy is overwhelming. Well, the numbers tell the story of the deluge of liberal lawfare against President Trump. Look, you just heard Katie saying it. I mean, it is what it is, and it is really obvious. In fewer than two months, judges have filed 15 injunctions halting Trump policies. That is more than President Biden's entire four-year term and both Presidents Obama and George W. Bush's terms. Remember, they were both in office for eight years each. President Trump also faced a whopping 64 injunctions in his first term. Three of those came now, again in this one just yesterday. One indefinitely blocked Trump's order banning transgender people from serving openly in the U.S. military. Another stopped the EPA's attempt to end $14 billion worth of grants to climate groups. A third halted the administration's efforts to dismantle USAID in the push to cut waste. President Trump is not going to stop. Look at the fraud that we've caught. We've caught so much fraud, so much waste, so many employees that never showed up to work. I guarantee you, we will be appealing it. We have rogue judges that are destroying our country. So, Katie, it's obvious what they're doing. And look, I know you're in law. You don't want to think of judges not being fair, but they're not. Well, when you have the choice to interpret in a way that furthers the president's agenda or not, and you're making the choice to resist that and to make it so difficult to achieve these very noble goals, it's like these courts are saying, you have to spend money on wasteful things that the American people want nothing to do with. You must give foreign aid to all of these other places instead of taking care of things here. This is essentially what the big picture is. I think a lot of these judges lose sight of the forest for the trees. And yes, there is a question about the extent of a president's authority, whether it's statutorily or constitutionally derived. And you have to look at that in certain cases. And there are processes to go through. But when there's a valid interpretation that furthers the executive's authority, I think that that needs to be respected. Well, look, if the judges, if the attorneys, if you know, I mean, the ACLU is even getting involved at one point with the with the Mahmoud Khalil situation, the protester who was with groups aligned with Hamas, that he was leading those protest groups on the campus of Columbia University. I mean, you've got it coming from every angle and you can't ignore the politics of this. So whose side are the loft bearer pushers on? It's like a drug for them. Well, yeah. And with the Khalil situation, of course, now they love the First Amendment. But when anybody spoke out against covid, of course, they lost their jobs, they lost their livelihoods. I mean, these are the picking and choosing of the law to further that purpose. And that is lawfare, because that's clearly inconsistent across the board here. And so everything is meant to undermine President Trump's agenda. One target, as you say, President Trump. It's not even on behalf of the American people because these decisions don't keep us safe. It's contrary to the wishes of the people. From what we know, Katie, it's always great to have you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hi, America. I'm here in Washington, D.C. as senior advisor at United States Agency for Global Media. I'm working on behalf of you and President Trump and his administration. And I have been on the job for a couple of weeks now, and I'm horrified by some of the things I'm learning about this agency. I'm sitting here on the 13th floor of a shiny, brand new, beautiful skyscraper building that is costing you, the taxpayer, a fortune. The Biden administration folks who were running this agency before, right before they left office, signed a brand new lease for this building, a 15-year lease that's going to cost the taxpayer nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Here's the here's the kicker. They already have a building that they're located in that is paid off, that they could have renovated or updated, but they chose instead to get us into a lease that's costing the taxpayer a fortune. I know that every one of you out there is working hard and parting with your tax dollars. You're expecting it to be used wisely, not misused and mismanaged. And I can tell you that this building is a colossal waste of money. Take a look at what's in this building. Fancy conference rooms with wall-to-wall windows. There's 26 conference rooms, at least. That's what I've counted in this building. There are four bridges to nowhere, massive waterfalls, Italian marble finishes everywhere, leather furnishings, all of this being paid for by the American taxpayer. And it's not the only thing we've seen. We are seeing grants where they've taken the grants and they've changed the contracts just days before we got in here to make it less transparent for us to find out where the money's going and what's happening with these grantees. It was an obvious, obvious sign that they wanted to keep us from finding out anything that we could possibly go in and change and make better for the American taxpayer. I want you to know I'm hard at work here in Washington, D.C. I'm working to make sure that we are not being bilked out of our hard-earned dollars, and we're going to make sure we're doing everything we can to cancel contracts that can be canceled, save money, downsize, and make sure there's no misuse of your dollars.