Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:05] Speaker B: Of we the People, tackling current issues, both political and legal, with common sense.
As we the People, we must bring common sense back to make our lives better. Only on NOW Media tv.
[00:00:22] Speaker A: Welcome back to another episode of we the People. I am your hostess, Alina Gonzalez Dockery. And I love March Madness. And there's so much to celebrate. I mean, we got the brackets going, baseball starting. And without fail, Washington, D.C. has its own level of madness, and I want to just jump right into it.
The Republicans are eyeing actions against the courts, our third equal branch of government, and judges. As Trump rails against the rulings against him, Republicans Congress are escalating their attacks on the federal judiciary, proposing measures to limit court rulings, cut funding, and even impeach judges in response to decisions that have blocked key policies of the Trump administration, more particularly the executive orders, which some of them are way beyond the executive branch's authority. Let's just be real. House GOP leaders are considering all options to counter the judiciary's rulings against Trump's executive actions, particularly regarding federal worker firings, funding freezes, and the closure of government offices. But the straw that broke the camel's back is when they stopped, they put an injunction that that flights to El Salvador with illegal entry individuals can continue.
This effort has even bolstered, been bolstered by billionaire Elon Musk, who has aligned himself with the administration's push for a leaner federal government and is financially supporting Republican lawmakers advocating for judicial crackdowns. Not the first time, folks, I assure you. Seems like we always had this influx of the judiciary. They're advocating from the banks. They're legislation from the banks. It happened back in, I think, Obama time, and probably actually it was Obama's term where we had this big of an attack, not even during the first Trump era. A significant flashpoint in this battle is surrounding Judge James E. Boasberg's ruling that reversed the deportations ordered by the administration, prompting Trump to call for his impeachment. House Republicans are rallying behind Trump's demand, arguing that Congress has the authority to restructure or defund the court. This is mad. I'm telling you, as an attorney, as an individual, this is ludicrous. We need a little civics education to happen in Congress and the media, but we'll get to that. The Republican House Speaker, Michael Johnson, emphasized their ability to dismantle entire judicial districts and restrict funding as part of their broader strategy to curb judicial interference with executive decisions. These threats mark an unprecedented power struggle between the executive and judicial branches with the Republican controlled Congress, backing Trump's aggressive stance. This judicial confrontation follows a Supreme Court ruling last summer that granted broad immunity to the executive branch, emboldening the administration's challenges to legal constraints.
However, Chief Justice John Roberts has cautioned against using impeachment as a tool for retribution against judicial decisions. Despite this warning, Republicans are pressing forward with efforts to limit the judicial power, introducing legislative proposals that would restrict the geographic scope of federal rulings and prevent nationwide injunctions.
Democrats view these moves as a direct attack on the judiciary's independence, which is such hypocrisy because do you remember AOC and all of the Democrats demanded an impeachment of the Supreme Court justices because of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, warning that so the Democrats warning that undermining courts would erode Democratic checks and balances.
Hello, The Democrats told Biden ignored the Supreme Court rulings that enjoined him from doing the student loan stuff. But again, hypocrisy. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer condemned Republican efforts to defend the courts, calling them a dangerous assault on a legal system. In response, the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Jim Jordan, is preparing for hearings on the matter, with Jordan maintaining that all options are on the table to address judicial overreach.
The broader legal battle stems from the administration's aggressive push to dismantle federal agencies and programs, leading to a surge in lawsuits from advocacy groups, labor unions and watchdog organizations, as well as a coalition of attorney generals from blue states. Courts have issued numerous injunctions against Trump's policies, prompting Republicans to complain about the judicial bias or claiming there is now some of these lower courts have already been overturned on appeal because they have overstepped their ability to do so.
According to the Harvard Law Review study, Trump's first administration accounted for 66% of all injunctions issued on presidential actions between 2001 and 2023, reinforcing the GOP frustrations. House and Senate Republicans are now advancing legislation with figures like Representative Darrell Issa and Senator Josh Hawley spearheading efforts to limit judicial authority.
While some House Republicans are eager to pursue these impeachments, top GOP leaders in the Senate have been more cautious, signaling reluctance to take such drastic steps. Now, usually a judicial impeachment follows either a conviction, a federal federal bribery conviction, for instance, like there's been some element of a conviction, or by a huge violation, not just merely we don't like your we don't like the ruling you put against us. I mean, my God, you know how many times I mean, I never thought I could potentially have a judge impeach because I didn't like his ruling against one of my clients.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune has advised patients, emphasizing the legal disputes should follow the established appeals process. Ah, John Thune, a voice of reason. Follow the appellate procedures. That's why they're there. With tensions mounting, the battle over judicial independence is set to intensify, shaping the balance of power between the branches of government in coming months. Telling you folks, this is our new bracket. We got to do it. If you do the bracket for March Madness and the NCAA basketball championships, this might be the next one.
Roberts rejects Trump's call for impeaching judge who ruled against his deportation plans Chief Justice John Roberts issued a very rare public statement rejecting Donald Trump, Trump's President Trump's call for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against his deportation policies. Roberts emphasized that impeachment should not be used as a response to judicial decisions, reaffirming the role of appellate review in handling legal disputes. This came after Trump lashed out at U.S. district Judge James E. Boasberg, who blocked deportation flights involving alleged Venezuelan gang members, arguing that the president overstepped his authority but by invoking wartime powers that were initiated in 1868.
Trump's criticism of the judiciary is not new, but his latest remarks have escalated tensions between the executive and judicial branches. In a post on Truth Social, he called Boasberg an unelected troublemaker and agitator and claimed judges were obstructing his efforts to fulfill the will of the voters. Despite Robert's statement, Trump later insisted in a Fox News interview that the chief justice did not explicitly mention him, suggesting that the broader push to impeach judges was justified given what he sees as judicial overreach.
The case at the center of all of this dispute, that straw, that proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, involves Trump's use of the Alien Enemies act of excuse me, 1798, not 1868 to deport suspected gang members, a law historically applied only during declared wars. Boasberg blocked the deportations and ordered some flights to be turned around, prompting the Trump administration to question his authority. Some deportation flights to El Salvador reportedly continued despite this ruling, raising concerns about whether the administration defied a court order. The Justice Department is now seeking to have Roseberg removed from the case.
Trump's push for the judicial impeachments aligns with the views of his ally, billionaire Elon Musk, who has similarly criticized federal judges, House Republicans, some of whom have already introduced impeachment articles against other judges involved in Trump related rulings are expected to take up the issue. I'm telling you, Pandora's box written all over this. However, judicial impeachments are historically rare. Only 15 judges in US history have been impeached and just eight removed from office.
And I believe the last one was in like the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Any successful impeachment would require a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate, which they never have. So that's why I squashed this. It's a waste of time and resources. I mean, we're supposed to be about economics and being fiscally responsible. An impeachment of this type would be a waste of resources.
Just a taxpayer's opinion.
And it is unlikely the outcome, given the chamber's current composition.
Legal experts warn that Trump's actions amount to an effort to intimidate the judiciary and could undermine judicial independence. My, personally, I think it's just going to piss a lot of the judges off and they're going to be even stronger in their resolve and fine the basis to block everything out. Whether I, I agree, I do not agree with all of these injunctions. Some of them are clearly overreaching. And yes, of course there is jug shopping that basically is when the AGs are filing in specifically very liberal leaning judicial districts such as Washington D.C.
but even one, some of these judges, they were George W. Bush appointments. I mean, it's not like everybody is so skewed. I mean, we gotta get out of this mindset. Yes, there are some, there's some that are extremely right wing and others are left wing and they, they base their judgments on that. That is their perception, that is their perspective. But this is a very, very big Pandora's box that has been open. It's been kind of like being slipped open by the Democrats before. Now we're even bigger.
We are going to take a quick break and we're going to continue on this March Madness blitz on the judiciary. You tune right back in.
[00:12:20] Speaker B: Getting back to our origin of we the people tackling current issues, both political and legal, with getting back to our origin of we the people tackling current issues, both political and legal, with common sense as we the people, we must bring common sense back to make our lives better. Only on NOW Media tv.
[00:12:50] Speaker A: So let's talk about hypocrisy.
Why do the Democrats get a free pass on impeaching judges, Supreme Court justices, but yet the Republicans are getting throttled by the media.
Anyone? Anyone? Raise of hands?
Oh, I would say that would be the media bias, but let's talk about that.
So the argument presented suggests that there is a double standard in how calls for judicial impeachment are treated with Republicans facing more pushback. A heck of a lot more news about it than the Democrats. Let's recall AOC 20212022 when the ROE v. Wade was overturned.
It highlights that while Chief Justice John Roberts swiftly condemned the Republican calls for Judge James Boasberg impe he is too late. He remained silent when Democrats previously called for the impeachment of conservative justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
This perceived inconsistency has fueled the Republican frustrations, reinforcing the belief that the judicial system is biased against them.
Critiques of the media and political establishment for focusing overwhelmingly on Trump's supposed norm breaking while ignoring or downplaying similar behavior from Democrats is inexcusable.
The claim is that this one sided narrative exasperates polarization and encourages Republicans to escalate their tactics in response. And let's just say the Republicans how about those people that tend to be a little uber enthusiastic over MAGA and an anti judiciary?
Yes, we know people like that. I have friends that are that way.
This in turn feeds that Trump's broader strategy of pushing against institutional norms in Washington, destroying democracy, which his supporters view as necessary to counteract a system that they see rigged against them. Remember that is the one thing that that Trump has been genius, instrumental, brilliant at is that his ability to connect with the average person.
Here is a man that born into a wealthy family silver spoon does not have lifestyle wise similarities to his face, but he has been able to target in and speak their language, feel their pain.
So rather than placing sole blame on Trump and his allies, both sides have contributed to this erosion of judicial norms.
The judiciary's response to Trump's challenges has at times been equally reactionary. Further inflaming these tensions, the lack of an even handed approach, particularly from judges that may have may be seen as more or extremely blue districts, convinces the conservatives that their only option is to fight back even harder, leading to a cycle of escalating political conflict and hence get your brackets out.
The historical context of judicial battles is also invoked, noting that these power struggles are not new.
Fights over judicial influence have been ongoing since at least the Lyndon Johnson era and both parties have engaged in efforts to reshape the court to their advantage. Remember, it was just the last administration they were calling for.
Stack the courts, just add a bunch of seats and put in a bunch of liberal judges that will go their way, which is not the purpose of the Supreme Court Justices. Remember, they are supposed to look at the laws, look at what is being presented to them, and see if it's constitutional or not.
The main difference now is the heightened partisanship and the perception that one side is consistently allowed to break the rules without consequence.
Unless both sides recognize and address this imbalance, the legitimacy of the judiciary will continue to erode in many people's eyes.
The claim that Trump's actions, while unconventional, are not occurring in a vacuum.
The responses to a system that conservatives believe is already stacked against them. I mean, this is just heightening that level. And this is a time we need to de escalate.
And this clash is continuing down onto Judge Beryl Howell, who is stating that the Justice Department is attacking her character to impugn the integrity of US Judicial system.
So US District Judge Howell and the Trump administration are yet another example of the deepening tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary branch.
Both branches of the government, separate but equal powers. These are the checks and balances, civics, basic civics people. Howell's strong response suggests she sees the Justice Department's attempt to remove her as part of a broader effort to delegitimize the courts when they rule against the president's agenda. The Justice Department's claim that Howell has demonstrated a pattern of hostility toward Trump is notable as it aligns with the administration's frequent accusations that certain judges are politically motivated.
However, just Judge Howell pushes back by asserting that it is the role of the judiciary, not the executive, to determine the legality of presidential actions. Her language is striking, especially when she accuses the DOJ of employing ad hominem attacks to undermine judicial independence.
The broader context is important here. Trump has long expressed frustration with the courts, particularly when they block his executive orders. In this case, the dispute revolves around Howell's ruling against an executive order punishing a law firm, Perkins Coy, which played a role in funding opposition research against Trump during the 20002016 election. I mean, that is. Isn't that exactly what he would ran for, saying that he was being persecuted, that we were turning into a banana republic because the judiciary was being turned out onto political opponents? This would be similar.
It would, unless there is significant proof beyond probable cause that this firm actually elicited and did something illegal. Okay. But it is in the court's purview to see whether or not the executive orders that are coming out like they are on a copy machine are within the powers of the executive administrative powers. The executive branch is absolutely right, and there is an appellate process.
Judicial recusals typically require clear evidence of bias or conflict of interest. That's basically greater than a preponderance in the evidence, which is, you know, just slightly tipping the scales, if you will. On the old fashioned scale, it is actually clear and convincing that it has to be almost just under reasonable doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt. And Howell argues that the DOJ's request is based on speculation rather than legal grounds.
So again, this fighting, this criticism, this infinity, we got to figure out how to rate it in.
But this rhetoric that's being used not just by Trump, we're used to the Trump rhetoric. I mean, Trump loves his, you know, truth, his posts, I mean. But Pam Bundy, that, yeah, I'm a little shocked because I was expecting better from her.
And as Trump and his allies are pushing to impeach the judges, Speaker Mike Johnson is eyeing an escape hatch. Now, remember, Mike Johnson is a constitutional law law lawyer. He is a lawyer that specializes in constitutional law and fight and fighting on those issues.
So House Speaker Mike Johnson faces increasing pressure from Donald Trump and his allies to pursue the impeachment.
However, rather than pursuing politically risky impeachment votes, which, by the way, most likely won't happen because of the Senate, Johnson and other House Republicans are rallying around a legislative alternative, Representative Daryl Johnson.
Representative Daryl Issas. No Rogue Rulings act seeks to prevent district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, a tactic that has repeatedly stalled Trump's executive actions. Johnson has backed the bill as a way to address conservative frustrations while avoiding direct impeachment effort and from, you know, having time spent or wasted on failed impeachment processes when, you know, what could honestly help all of these executive orders? If the, if the congressional members actually took up some bills and passed legislation that would coincide with what Trump's and many Republicans stances were when they were going for reelection or election anew.
Johnson, and as I stated, a former constitutional attorney, has signaled reluctance to pursue impeachment, instead advocating for the, for using the appeals process to challenge rulings. While acknowledging that judicial overreach is a problem, he has emphasized that impeachment is an extraordinary measure and the Republicans must consider alternatives.
Of course, then you still have the rabble risers, the sabre rattlers of like Jim Jordan, who are basically wanting impeachment. But at least he's saying Jim Jordan does support this bill as a way to counteract judicial obstruction without engaging in a fight that they are unlikely to win.
Though. Many Republicans are remaining cautious about impeachment, but they are dealing with the Trump factor, and they don't want to piss off Trump or his followers.
Moderate Republicans like Representative Don Bacon argued that impeachment should be reserved for judges who engage in misconduct, such as bribery, rather than issuing unfavorable rulings. Similarly, Representative Frank Lucas has warned that impeaching judges now could backfire when Democrats regain control. And they will regain control. It happens all the time.
Issa's bill will be going up for vote very soon in the House, and it is expected to go to the Senate. Now. If it passes the Senate, we'll see the House. Basically, to pass the House, the Republicans all have to get in step.
Ultimately, this battle over the Judiciary underscores the broader tensions. The executive branch versus the judiciary, along with the legislatorship branch. And it's like, it's like two against one. And it's not a fair gang fight.
We're going to take a quick break and let's talk a little Schoolhouse Rock. In our next segment.
[00:25:10] Speaker B: Getting back to our origin of we the people tackling current issues, both political, political and legal, with getting back to our origin of we the people tackling current issues, both political and legal, with common sense.
As we the people, we must bring common sense back to make our lives better. Only on NOW Media TV.
[00:25:39] Speaker A: For Gen Xers. Baby boomers raise a hand. Who remembers Schoolhouse of Rock? Great Saturday morning little clip cartoons to teach us about numbers, civics, how a bill is passed. Oh, and the three ring circus, which is basically a little boy's imaginations and figuring out how the three branches of government work.
And I, I, I encourage all of you, look up in YouTube, Schoolhouse Rock, Three Rings of Circus and May. And with these three rings, send it to some of the media people, send it to your congressional members because obviously they need a lesson that there are three equal branches of government. There's the executive, the president, that is the, you know, he's the ringmaster.
You had the legislatures, okay, so imagine them, they're the trapeze artists and stuff like that, you know, and, well, or clowns. They could be the clowns because they act like clowns, too. I'm talking to both of you Republican, Democrats, and in between. And then you have the judiciary, they're the lion tamers. The judicial branch is there to provide the checks and balances to determine whether bills that have been passed, the legislation that's been passed is constitutional and doesn't infringe on our due process. Rights are basic rights as citizens, but it is also there to ensure that whatever, that there is not an overreaching of power by either the executive or congressional. And again, yes, Congress is a checks and balances on the judiciary as well, but threatening to take away their funds. We really need civics to be introduced again. And I implore all of you, go check out Schoolhouse Rocks. It was awesome as a kid, I promise you.
And in response to all of these attacks on the judges and the administration and the Congress saying we're going to impeach, impeach judges and impeach more judges, the federal judiciary is creating new task force. With threats on the rise, concerns are mounting among US Law firms and legal professionals over what they perceive as a revenge program by President Trump, targeting firms and judges that have opposed him.
More than 20 Democratic state attorneys general signed an open letter condemning Trump's executive orders against law firms. Now, yeah, that's a problem. It shouldn't be just because it's blue states arguing they create a chilling effect on the legal profession and threaten the justice system. But the same can also be told about the, the, the lynching. And I hate to say that because how, you know, it's not politically correct and it'd be taken the wrong way. But of the attorneys that were disbarred or, or were held on contempt and, and things because they were representing Trump during the 2020 election contest, these orders. So these orders have restricted access for certain law firms, revoking security clearances for their lawyers and jeopardizing federal contracts held by their clients, leading to fears of retribution for political or ideological differences. Like the, the case against the one law firm that, that they were trying to say that they could not be. They were going to be investigated and not allowed to conduct any business on behalf of federal contractors, which was enjoined.
So this law firm involves the law firm of Paul Weiss, one of the most controversial examples of this pressure, which agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono work for administration approved projects in exchange for the reversal of an expense executive order against it.
The firm's chairman, Brad Karp, defended the deal, stating that failing to negotiate could have severely damaged the firm's reputation and client relationships. Despite this, legal experts warn that such actions set a dangerous precedent where law firms are pressured into aligning with political figures to avoid financial and professional consequences. It happened during the Biden administration. This is even more compounding.
Similarly, the law firm's Perkins Coy is fighting back against an executive order that heavily referenced its past work for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. A lawsuit challenging the order led to a legal battle over whether U.S. district Judge Burl Howell should recuse herself. The Trump administration argued that Howell was biased due to past rulings against Trump allies and investigations into his actions.
However, Judge Howell rejected these claims, stating that the arguments against her were rife with innuendo and demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.
Can't talk today. Constitutional role of the judiciary. I'm getting very heated over this. Legal scholars, including Constitutional law Professor Richard Primus, described Trump's actions as an attempt to punish those who oppose him, which he clearly was, stating on the stage during the election that he wasn't going to do that.
Anybody want to call bs?
Other major firms, such as Jenner and Block, Covington and Burling have also been targeted with orders criticizing their involvement in cases relating to transgender rights, immigration, and investigation into Trump's conduct. Many of these firms are now exploring legal options to challenge the order, signaling a growing resistance to what critics call politically motivated retribution.
Adding to this tension, Trump and his allies, Elon Musk, anyone. Have called for the impeachment of these judges.
So it's just like tit for tat, tit for tat, but we're going for tit for tat. On the retribution to 2016, Trump specifically campaigned saying that he was not going to weaponize the judiciary against his political enemies or his political opponents.
Well, then what the hell is this?
If there is due cause for a law firm to be investigated for something that they did that was inappropriate, opposed to the bars. And I'm not talking about like, oh, let's gerrymander the bar regulations so that we can disbar attorneys such as Rudy Giuliani and bankrupting him or other attorneys.
This, this is a gross, gross, abject abuse of power if this is what the intention is, and it sure as hell seems like it. So, yes, I will jump on that. And I know I will be criticized. Go ahead. I know I have friends that, who, when they see this, they will be not so happy with me because, you know, they are very maga. And it does not matter what political affiliation you are. The Department of Justice, the attorneys, judiciary, we all must maintain that balance. We are supposed to be blind. That is what justice is. And this is not the way to do it. We have been abused. Our judicial system has been abused now since really blatantly since Biden's administration. And it seems like they're just going with the punches. Well, if they did it, let's do it. Two wrongs don't make a right, people.
So in the. In response to these rising threats against judges, we, you know, as we discussed with Supreme Court Justice Roberts coming out and you know, basically making a statement that impeachments aren't the way to go. The US Federal judiciary has launched a bipartisan task force to ensure judicial security, independence.
The threats are not limited to liberal judges as even conservative judges appointed by Trump such as Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barnett have been targeted. Do you recall that after, when it was leaked, the official opinion wasn't even posted or published and it was leaked at Roe v. Wade was going to be overturned. The people standing outside of just Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh's house or the Democrats on the steps of the Supreme Court crying out that you will hear from us, go to the streets. We will bring the fight to them, we will bring the violence to them. I mean this is how it all started.
It's a tit for tat.
And there should not, should not be an, be a situation where we have a Supreme Court justice who is subject to an attempted assassination. And that was Brett Kavanaugh.
And then Baris sister's home recently received a bomb threat. And then people are finding these, these judges, these federal district court judges, appellate court judges, homes and sending pizza or Uber over to them to let them know that, that the people know where they live.
This is why it is imperative that we dial back this rhetoric. The out of control judiciary. I mean I remember, I want to say it was around 2012 ish, probably right after W went out, former President George W. Bush. I just love saying W and that there was, I mean a significant push by super PAC to oust who they thought were activist judges and those activist judges that they were going after were actually conservative justices or appointed by Republicans both in state and federal.
It's not the first time that we've had this and it won't be the last most likely. And that's the sad part. But the one thing I can assure you is so long as we have a Constitution, so long as we have that Declaration of Independence in our Bill of Rights and we have people that are willing to continue to serve this country, to actually serve the country through the judiciary branch that are willing to be able to stand up and argue why it is wrong, what it's doing, and also to stop the attorney. I mean I was, look at my past shows people I was brutal against those AGs that were politicizing the judicial system against Trump just because he was had the audacity to run again, trumping up, no pun intended, these BS charges, trying to get a misdemeanor up to a felony. And then for a judge to say, you don't have to have a unanimous vote on a particular charge, you just have to unanimously agree that he was guilty or what was the debacle of Georgia?
I mean, yes, there are fingers to be pointed among everybody and the bottom line is we need to get our act together, pull it back, tone it down, do what you have to do legislatively, do what is right, but stop the attacks, stop this rattle raising the saber rattling against judges where their lives and their families may be endangered. We're going to take a quick break and I'm going to cool down off of my soapbox and I will see you here. Next when we talk about tax and leaks. Oh my.
[00:38:13] Speaker B: Getting back to our origin of we the people tackling current issues, both political and legal, with Getting back to our origin of we the people tackling current issues, both political and legal, with common sense as we the people, we must bring common sense back to make our lives better. Only on NOW Media tv.
[00:38:42] Speaker A: A Texting debacle.
We once had Wiki leaks and now we have Hex leaks. Hex leaking, warned, could have warned the enemy, and the White House is using semantics to obscure it. The White House is attempting to downplay Defense Secretary Pete Heg says controversial signal chat leak by arguing that what he shared was not full war plans. First of all, why the hell are you guys texting? Shouldn't there be like a special computerized system that specifically force certain cabinet level people of the government to be able to discuss and not necessarily a text? But I digress.
While this may be technically correct, the information he disclosed still provided a highly detailed timeline of an impending military strike. The Atlantic's report revealed that Hexa's messages contained specific times for US Fighter jet launches and drone movements, raising concerns about operational security.
A traditional war plan would include more detailed target coordinates and weapon routings, but the leaked information was still sensitive enough to pose a serious risk. The real issue lies in Hexa's decision to share this data on an unclassified Again, the government doesn't have its own system to text among its people. I mean, I get it, they're millennials. Okay, I get it, you guys are used to texting. But still, it is an unclassified commercial messaging app, which, though encrypted like WhatsApp, lacks the robust security protections of Pentagon systems. This breach of protocol has intensified scrutiny over his actions and his judgment. More troubling, Hex says messages included exact timestamps for military operation hours before they were set to occur. If this information had been leaked or intercepted, it could have allowed enemy forces, specifically the Houthi fighters in Yemen where the strikes were going against, to evade the attack. His own reference to OPSEC operational security in the messages suggests that he was aware of the risk but still proceeded to share these sensitive details. Seriously, there has to be an app, right? You have one of the most brilliant minds basically working, but not working for the government, Elon Musk. Have him develop something.
The content of his messages was explicit. At 12:15pm Eastern Time, F A18 fighter jets were to launch. At 1:45pm the first strike window would open and MQ9 Reaper drones would deploy. Such details are typically kept under strict security to ensure the success of a mission and prevent adversaries from adjusting their strategies in advance. Texas actions have sparked concerns about the handling of classified military intelligence and the broader implications for national security, to the point that the Democrats are screaming for his resignation.
So while the White House defense hinges on a narrow definition of what constitutes a war plan, the reality remains that the leaked timeline could have compromised a critical operation.
This controversy is likely to fuel debates over security protocols within the administration and whether officials should face consequences for lapses in operational security.
Given the gravity of the information exposed. Hexa's future as defense secretary may now be in question, though I don't know about now that might be a little bit of an exaggeration because Trump loves him, but it is going to cause a stroke. When you have the minority house, the minority leader of the House sending a letter demanding the resignation, when you have senators, when you have even former Pentagon people saying what the age, this should not be happening, there's an issue, and Attorney General Pam Bundy suggests the signal chat episode is unlikely to be criminally investigated. Attorney General Pam Bundy has indicated that this signal chat episode involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegsep is unlikely at a level to justify a criminal investigation. While FBI Director Kash Patel avoided making any commitments during congressional hearings, the Justice Department has historically handled cases involving the mishandling of national defense information.
Despite the sensitive nature of the leaked attack timeline, Bondi echoed Trump's administration's arguments that the information was not classified, though experts have suggested otherwise.
Bondi's reluctance to pursue an investigation is in stark contrast to past cases where government officials face scrutiny for mishandling classified materials. She deflected attention to past Democratic figures such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, both of whom were investigated but never charged. The Justice Department's history of discretion in opening such investigations makes it Difficult to predict whether any legal consequences will follow. In Hegseth's case, historical precedence shows a mixed approach to such breaches. Clinton was investigated for using a private email server that contained classified emails, but was ultimately not charged. Former FBI Director James Comey criticized her handling sensitive information but determined there was insufficient evidence to prove she intended to break the law.
And Republicans widely condemned that decision as a double standard.
So does that double standard and this double standard make it into a quadruple standard?
David Petraeus, a former CIA director, faced criminal charges for providing classified material to his biographer and mistress.
He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.
Excuse me, receiving probation. I'm not saying that this is a level of a criminal investigation, but there needs to be some type of repercussions. I mean, what the hell? That was stupid. I mean, this is it. It's stupid. Can we call it that? It is so unbelievable. I as an attorney have a specific system that I can, that my clients can text me with and I can return text to that is secure, encrypted and completely locked down. And our government doesn't have this.
I'm calling BS on that.
And then this.
The text is now being heard around the world because now Europe is confronting a reality that Our Vice President J.D. vance's hostility is more than just a show.
European leaders are beginning to realize that JD's hostilities toward them is not just political posturing but deeply ingrained stance. His recent remarks in oh yes, he was part of the private texts now we're leaked.
His recent remarks in those texts where he expressed frustration over U.S. involvement in defending European interest in the Red Sea Sea have only reinforced this perception. In a conversation about US strikes against the Houthi rebels, Vance criticized American action, arguing that the burden should fall on Europe, which is far more reliant on Red Sea shipping than the U.S.
vance's disdain was echoed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegsett who shared his frustration over what he called European freeloading. These are our freaking allies.
Whatever your opinion is, yes, maybe they do need to step up on, but the use of this mechanism is absolutely ridiculous.
This rhetoric highlights administration increasingly skeptical of traditional transatlantic alliances, a shift that has alarmed European officials who had hoped Vance's rhetoric was aimed primarily at domestic audiences. Instead, his opposition to European interests appears both ideological and strategic, suggesting long term tensions in U. S. Europe relations.
The Vice President has been a driving force in escalating tensions between Washington and its European allies, taking a harder line than even President Trump. His speech in Munich last month sharply criticized the eu, referring to its officials as commissars. His dismissive attitude toward Ukraine, once saying he doesn't care about the country, has raised serious concerns among NATO allies about the U.S. s commitment to European security.
Vance's behavior in high profile diplomatic settings has further fueled European unease. In a recent Oval Office meeting, he publicly berated Ukrainian President Zelensky in front of Trump and the international press, a move that was widely seen as a deliberate humiliation. His hostility toward Ukraine aligns with broader administration efforts to scale back U.S. support for the country despite ongoing Russian aggression. And yes, they are having ceasefire talks right now, but they're still getting undermined by plays that Russia is making and is still not being done. And it looks like it may not be done because of how Russia is dealing with things. This marks a sharp departure from past US Politics sought to maintain strong European alliances. While Trump himself has been critical of NATO and European commitments, Vance's approach appears more radical, suggesting a potential realignment in how the US Engages with Europe. His rhetoric indicates a broader push to pressure European nations to take greater responsibility for their own security and economic interests.
For European leaders, the reality of Vance's views presents a significant challenge. Many had hoped he would moderate his stance once in office, but his actions suggest otherwise. And honestly, they'd probably be more emboldened if you were to ask for my opinion. As the US Pivots toward a more isolationist stance under his influence, European nations may be forced to rethink their reliance on Washington and explore new strategies for securing their economic and military interest in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape.
Now tie this in with the trade wars that we're getting into with all of this tariffs and the fact that you now have Trump increasing tariffs on foreign made cars that are being imported in which the vast majority are from Europe, and the fact that Trump is threatening Europe not to align together in tariff.
We are the United States of America. We are supposed to have common sense. And we the people should really be sitting back and looking at our governing leadership and saying, where's the common sense? I'm not saying everything that Trump is doing is wrong. I actually am supportive of much of what he's doing. But there are some things that we need to dial back. The rhetoric, the impeachment, this anti European stance that is being very much broadly there. And how about just a little bit of common sense going, I don't know, maybe not use a text that's not government secure.
Anyway, thank you. Thank you for joining me on another episode of we the People. I am Alina Gonzalez Dachry, wishing you a very good night.
This has been a NOW Media Networks feature presentation. All rights reserved.
