John Gerardi Guest Hosts - Gov. Newsom Launching Head First Into a Very Sticky Legal Fight

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Why is he sending out dramatic videos of himself have
an important address for the state about it trying to
fight against tarranny. Here, Donald Trump's acting like a king
and we need to stop. Why is Gavin Newsom launching
headfirst into a very sticky legal fight with President Trump

(00:24):
on something that's kind of a core presidential prerogative telling
the military what to do, which includes the National Guard
Article two powers president can tell the military what to do?
Why is he jumping into it? I think he's jumping
into it because his back's against the wall and he
has no options left for continuing to be relevant politically.

(00:51):
I am John Girardi. I am not Trevor carry I'm
filling in for Trevor today. So let me explain. This
is my Gavin Newsom thesis for right now. I've got
an article I'm working on. One of the things I
do is I write for National Review. Occasionally. I keep
writing things and they keep publishing it. You can check
out check out all my stuff, go to my Twitter
account at Fresnojohnny Twitter dot com slash Fresno Johnny. So

(01:12):
I've got an article about this that I'm writing, and
I'm hoping I can submit to National Review. It's basically
this is my thesis. Why is Newsom so involved in this?
Why is he fighting against Trump, trying to file a
lawsuit to stop Trump from activating the National Guard when
really Trump's activation of the National Guard. I don't think
it's a particularly provocative thing. He's activating the National Guard

(01:33):
just to provide protection for federal buildings and federal assets.
The National Guard is not gonna go in to arrest
people to deport them. The National Guard is not going
in to put down protesters. The National Guard is there
to protect federal assets. That's what they're being deployed for.

(01:56):
So why is Newsom pitching a fit over this? I
think it has a lot more to do with Gavin
Newsom's ongoing political prospects, which are bleak. I don't know
how closely you guys have been monitoring stuff, especially with
this budget fight over the last month, but Gavin Newsom

(02:18):
is in bad shape politically bad, bad, bad shape. And
I've been talking about this a lot on John Girardi Show.
Newsom has just stacked up, and especially this year, stacked
up political and other failure upon failure, upon failure, upon
failure to the point where he's starting to look like

(02:41):
a failed governor. He's six and a half years in
and there's not one problem that he inherited in twenty
eighteen said he was going to fix that is better.
Every single problem is worse or the same. We had
zero inches of high speed rail operative in twenty eighteen.
There are zero, which is a highest speed rail operative today.

(03:02):
Homelessness was bad in twenty eighteen, it's worse today. He's
spent twenty four billion dollars on it that apparently frittered
into nothingness. New housing construction was anemic in twenty eighteen,
it's anemic today. Cost of living was bad in twenty eighteen,
it's bad today. Gas prices were high in twenty eighteen,
they're higher today. Energy costs bad in twenty eighteen, worse today.

(03:24):
Wildfires were bad in twenty eighteen, they're worse today. We
just had the worst wildfire in California history in twenty
twenty five. Just issue after issue after issue after issue,
and all those things I mentioned, wildfires, homelessness, gas prices,

(03:45):
housing construction, affordability, they're not partisan coded problems. It's not
stuff where like Okay, Newsome's done a bunch of super
liberal things that Democrats are really happy about and Republicans
are really angry about. No, that's not that's not the
record Newsome. Just bad things have happened that everyone acknowledges

(04:05):
to be bad. That's all of Newsom's failures. It's not
like he has some great liberal accomplished. I mean, yes,
he has done a bunch of superliberal things that liberals
like and conservatives don't like. Massively expanded protections and funding
and ease of use for abortion. Bravo allowed biological men

(04:27):
to reside in women's prisons where they can rape women.
Seems like the pro LGBT left was very happy with
that move. Congratulations, and conservatives don't like it. But most
of his problems are problems that are bi partisan, non
partisan problems, problems that everyone can recognize. Homelessness is bad,
doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican, And unavoidably,

(04:48):
we have worse homelessness now than we did in twenty eighteen.
No one likes wildfires. We had bad wildfires in twenty nineteen.
Twenty twenty. He initial sheiated some reforms, and they clearly
weren't enough to prevent the worst wildfire in California history
in twenty twenty five. So issue after issue after issue,

(05:16):
he's terrible. And right now, the big crisis DuJour for
Old Gave is the state budget. The state budget and
him cutting stuff. He has taken it left, right and center. First,
he has to embarrassingly announce in May that we're facing

(05:39):
a twelve billion dollar budget deficit. He has to announce
all these cuts to the state budget to still have
us be deficit spending worse, he has to announce his
own budget. People have to announce that it's not just
that we're facing a twelve billion dollar deficit this year
and that we had a deficit last year and a
deficit the year before. We are facing what's called a

(06:01):
structural deficit, meaning year over year going forward the foreseeable future,
our spending commitments have way outpaced our annual year over
year revenue we can expect to collect via taxes. So
we're it's not just we have a deficit this year.

(06:22):
Maybe things will be better next year and we won't
have a deficit. No, we're going to expect budget deficits
of fifteen to twenty billion dollars every year going forward.
Newsom has increased spending by an average of nine percent
per year over his time as governor. He has increased

(06:44):
revenues by an average of six percent per year. That
math ain't gonna work. And state governments can't spend in
the red the way the federal into the red the
way the federal government can. The federal government can print
more money. Are willing to buy US bonds because they
think the United States will continue to exist. I don't

(07:05):
love debt deficit spending on the part of the federal government,
but they can get away with it. California, you can't
get away with it state governments. Local governments have to
balance their budgets eventually because of the budget problem. Newsom's
revision to the budget that he introduced last month involves

(07:26):
having to cut things, and it is making liberals all
over the state completely furious at him. Let me give
you the list of whom he's alienated. Left wing immigration advocates,
environmental wackos, labor unions including public sector union labor who

(07:50):
are furious that he decided to freeze wages of government workers,
the abortion industry. They are so mad at Gavin Newsom
right now for all the things he's cut and I
don't even know that he's really cutting things. I think
it might be baseline budgeting that he's just like lessening
the rate of increase. And the centerpiece of this embarrassment

(08:14):
for Newsom is specifically with immigration with illegal immigrants. He
has frozen. He's not gonna give medical coverage to any
additional illegal aliens. It was Gavin Newsom himself who decided
to keep expanding medical coverage. And this was like the

(08:35):
signature achievement is a thing he ran on was I'm
gonna get universal health care for all. Then he abandoned
single payer healthcare, and basically he says, I'm gonna get
universal coverage, universal healthcare coverage for all Californians by expanding
medical eligibility. And then the final capstone on it to
achieve universal healthcare coverage was medical coverage regardless of your

(09:01):
immigration status, open to illegal aliens. Well, guess what it
was about twelve billion, ten billion dollars more expensive than
he thought to provide health insurance coverage for illegal aliens.
So he has to limit it now. And I was
up in Sacramento two days ago. I was there for

(09:23):
the Senate Budget Committee hearing and I heard left wing
lunatic after left wing lunatic ranting that how could Newsome
cut funding to this community right when it is so
vulnerable being under under attack from militarized operations from the
Trump administration. You've got Democrats in the Assembly and State

(09:47):
Senate not just voting against Newsom's budget proposal, but voting
against even the more financially generous Assembly and State Senate
budget proposal. That leadership, the Democrat leadership in the assemblians
State senatip proof, including Joaquin Arambula, Jaquin Arambula, who's on
the floor of the Assembly talking about how he's there
to represent everyone in his district, including the illegal aliens.

(10:13):
So Newsome is persona non grata, even his attempts to
try to increase his brand nationally. Oh he's got a podcast.
Oh he's got Charlie Kirk on it. Well, that impressed nobody.
Conservatives left that podcast still disliking him, and conservatives left it.

(10:34):
Excuse me, Conservatives left that podcast still disliking him, and
liberals left it disliking him more because he flip flopped
on whether it's fair for biological for boys to compete
in girls sports. Transgender identifying boys to playing girl sports
because he's so obviously insincere, and his podcast has gone

(10:56):
the way of a lot of celebrity podcasts. The first
two or three episodes tunnel listeners. After that dwindling listenership.
So I think Newsome if he tried to run for
president right now with this record. He goes up on
Ale's the hypothetical Democrat primary debate stage. It's late in

(11:19):
twenty twenty seven, CNN or MSNBC hosts the first Democrat
primary debate, and here's Gavin Newsom, and over there is
Josh Shapiro. And Newsom opens up his veneers, slicks back
his hair and talks about, oh, my experience of leading
the fourth largest economy in the world, and I am
ready for being president. And Josh Shapiro or some other

(11:40):
ambitious Democrat and everyone on that stage is going to
be ambitious. Maybe it'll be him, maybe it'll be Meg
or not Meg Whitman, she was California, Gretchen Whitmer, Gretchen Whitmer,
maybe Gretchen Whitmer, maybe maybe Tim Walls, who knows who
it's going to be, says, are you kidding me? You
think you should be president. You're governorship has been a disaster.

(12:01):
California leads the nation in poverty, it leads the nation practically,
you've set the standard for homelessness. You can't build anything.
You've got this problem, this problem, that problem. And like
I said, Newsom's problems, they're non partisan. Huge budget deficits,

(12:23):
that's a non partisan problem. Nobody likes budget deficits. Having
to cut back your own program that you introduce. That
looks bad no matter which way. It looks bad to liberals,
looks bad to conservatives. Newsom is so vulnerable to attack
that I don't see how he could credibly run for president.

(12:43):
I think someone will skewer him on that debate stage.
They might all skewer him. Someone's gonna do the Tulsi
Gabbard versus Kamala Harris twenty nineteen thing when Tulsi Gabbard
ended Harris's presidential campaign in twenty nineteen before it even
got to twenty twenty by pointing out what a total
two phase hypocrite she was. That moment will happen, and

(13:09):
there's one way that Newsom could maybe avoid it. Charity
covereth a multitude of sins. The Bible says, if he
can position himself as the country's leading martyr warrior against

(13:35):
Donald Trump, get into a dramatic political and legal showdown
with him, and maybe even beat him or be unjustly persecuted.
That's what all these people talking to me. Here's Newsom saying, Oh,
you want to arrest me, Donald Trump, come and truy it.
Newsom is desperate for Donald Trump to arrest him. Newsom

(13:56):
would like nothing more because the only way to get
other Democrats to forget about the wildfires and the bullet
train that still isn't operable, and this and that, and
then the homelessness and all of these problems, the budget
deficits and cutting his own programs and blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah. The only way to get people

(14:17):
to forget all of that is if he is the
undisputed anti Trump resistance hero for the country, and Trump
himself has shown the way Trump showed you know what
really revs up your base when you get unfairly arrested, indicted, convicted.

(14:38):
Gavin Newsom would like nothing more than for Trump to
overstep things and arrest him. Are you kidding? Gavin Newsom
would would do that purp walk head held high, wanting
every camera in California to see him get arrested for
obstructing ice or something. Gavin Newsom would like nothing more

(15:00):
because it's his only path to relevance after he's done
in twenty twenty eight, or excuse me, no, twenty twenty six.
Once he's done at the end of twenty twenty six,
what else can he do politically? He can't run for Senate.
Adam Schiff just got elected. Alex Padilla is the guy
he appointed to replace Kamala Harris. The US Senate is

(15:26):
closed to him. He's not going to go down to
being a member of the House of Representatives. The only
path he has to continuing political relevance is running for president,
and the only way he can even be competitive enough
to win the nomination.

Speaker 2 (15:44):
To assist that Tremor Kerry Show, London Valley's power Dog.

Speaker 1 (15:49):
So a dramatic legal day yesterday for Gavin Newsom in
his efforts to stop President Trump from activating California National
Guard troops. So let me give you a kind of
the rundown of what happened. Well, the simple rundown is
that Newsom filed this lawsuit again to stop the Trump
administration from activating California National Guard. And what was what

(16:12):
the California National Guard being activated to do? To protect
federal assets and federal agents. California National Guard was not
there to arrest rioters or to you know, execute ice raids.
They were there to protect federal buildings and federal personnel.

(16:35):
That's what they were called up to do. So Newsome
and Attorney General Rob Bonta egregiously forum shop the riots
were happening in Los Angeles. Where did they file the
lawsuit in the Northern District of California where all of
the judges are Democrat appointees. And whom do they get

(17:00):
for their judge. Who's the random judge that gets as
signed to the case. Why it's Charles Bryer, none other
than former Supreme Court Justice, lion of the left on
the Supreme Court, Charles Bryer, the brother of former Supreme
Court Justice Stephen Bryer. So they literally go Stephen Bryer,

(17:22):
one of the most liberal justices you know of the
you know, the lion of the left, like the counterpoint
to Scalia basically for decades on the Supreme Court. His brother,
they literally get his brother, and what does he do.
He echoes a bunch of left wing talking points about
Donald Trump acting like a king, which is like literally
the like there are these no more kings rallies that

(17:44):
are happening. He's anti Trump rallies that are happening all
over the place, talking about how Trump is not our
king and he can't act like a king. And here's
Charles Bryer during the hearing sit well, that's not that
he can't just do whatever he wants. He's not a king.
Echoes all these talking points and says, yep, I'm issuing
a temporary restraining order to stop President Trump from activating

(18:07):
the National Guard. He gets reversed so quickly, like it may.
It was within hours the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals convenes and stays that temporary
restraining order.

Speaker 2 (18:26):
This is the Trevor carry Show on the Valley's Power.

Speaker 1 (18:30):
Talk, a little bit of a legal breakdown of what
the President did as far as activating California National Guard.
The argument that Newsom is trying to put forward for
why that was unlawful. Now, I think what really happened
was Newsom forum shopped. He brought the lawsuit in the

(18:54):
most liberal judicial district he possibly could, the Northern District
of California, got lucky with a super left wing judge,
literally Justice Brier's brother who's also federal judge, and this
judge in a literally parroting ongoing Democrat political talking points

(19:15):
about Trump being a king, like we have these no
more Kings rallies that are happening, even though there's a
couple rallies like that happening in Fresno, these anti Trump
rallies that are going on. Parenting those exact talking points,
Charles Bryer issues a temporary restraining order saying that the
president can't activate the National Guard. Judge Briar immediately gets

(19:35):
reversed by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now,
let's talk about the legal issue here and why I
think it's so troubling because there's some people who might say, well, Okay, yeah,
you have a looney left wing judge. He issues a
looney ruling, and even like, I don't know, there's a
part of me that's like I kind of felt like

(19:56):
something like that was coming. Other conservative lawyers were like, oh,
I didn't even think that was coming. And maybe I'm
too jaded or ignorant, but I feel like this is
just happening more and more and more. The left wing
federal judges just feel no compunction whatsoever about getting overruled
by encroaching onto core Article two powers. And this is

(20:18):
what I'm really afraid of. So the president has the
right to activate National Guard units. Generally, the president activates
the National Guard through the governor of the state. Bryer said, well,

(20:42):
Trump didn't issue this ruling through Newsom. The Newsom didn't
want to do it, so the order didn't go through Newsome,
and therefore the president didn't do it right, and therefore
I'm he can't activate the National Guard. Now, this is silly.

(21:03):
First of all, presidents have activated the National Guard against
the explicit wish of governors in the past. John Kennedy
activated the Alabama National Guard when the governor of Alabama
was refusing to integrate schools. The governor is not part

(21:26):
of the chain of command. So this is not the
idea that I mean. This is kind of a almost
like a secretarial thing or performance, not a performance. Then
what's the word I'm searching for. It's sort of a
procedural thing that it can that it should go through

(21:49):
the governor, but it doesn't always have to go through
the governor, and the governor does not have veto authority
on the decision of whether or not to activate the
National Guard. So that was the grounds under which Charles
Bryer tried to stop the president. But this is where
we get really, you know, really dicey. The basics here

(22:10):
are Donald Trump has the authority to enforce federal law.
Immigration enforcement at this point is a federal thing. If
you've got riots that are hindering ice from enforcing federal
immigration law, then the president is authorized to use what

(22:31):
means he has to ensure that the law is enforced.
He also has total power over the military. So this
is a lot of core article to stuff like, the
president has these powers enforcing the law of presidential power.
Protecting federal property another presidential power, protecting federal personnel, another

(22:55):
presidential power, telling the military what to do, another core
presidential power. And there are some people who will say, well,
you know this is the system working. You know, this
rogue federal judge issued this dumb ruling and he immediately
got overturned. Well, the fact that we're even having the
discussion means that maybe something's wrong, because you've got judges

(23:17):
all over the place just aggressively trying to limit presidential
authority in ways that are insane, that they know are insane,
but because they just don't like Trump and they want
to limit his agenda, they want to limit his goals

(23:38):
and priorities in ways that in situations where it doesn't
seem even seem appropriate for there to be judicial review.
Let me explain what I mean. Okay. General Eisenhower is
talking with President Roosevelt, and Roosevelt tells I an hour

(24:00):
all right, I want you to send I want you
to send patent from you know, this part of Normandy
into this part of France. And Patten's secretary gets wind
of it and says, I don't think that they legally
are allowed to do that. Let me file a lawsuit

(24:22):
about this, and so a lawsuit gets brought. Hey, you
know the president, you know, he's making an encouragent into
Belgium or something. Oh, that's illegal for the United States
to enter into Belgium without a declared war. I don't
know I'm making up this hypothetical scenario, Bear with me,
and federal judge is now going to sit and adjudicate
the question of whether or not President Roosevelt's allowed to

(24:46):
send this, you know, division of troops under General Patten
through Belgium to go into Germany or something. No, we
wouldn't stand for that. Judges shouldn't have anything to do
with the MILLI. Judges shouldn't have anything to do with this.
This is a core presidential responsibility is running the military.
And if a judge told a president in wartime what

(25:10):
he is or is not allowed to do with moving
the military round and did so wrongly, the president's not
gonna wait. Shouldn't wait well for the decision to get
appealed to a circuit court? Are you kidding? The president's
job is protecting the country. At a certain point, a

(25:33):
president is going to be pushed if courts keep doing
this in this blatantly partisan way, infringing on core Article
two powers. Is a president at a certain point going
to be obligated to say, no, I am not going
to follow this court order. And that's where we're being
pushed to. We've heard throughout the last few weeks. Trump's

(25:56):
initiating a constitutional crisis. Why because he had the one court,
the DC District Court, that told Trump he was flying
illegal aliens out of the country on planes, taking them
to El Salvador. And you had a court who said, no,
you're not allowed to send him to El Salvador. And

(26:18):
a couple of the planes did not turn around, and
some of the planes took off like ten minutes after
that court order. So the argument was Trump has initiated
a constitutional crisis by ignoring a court order. Now I
don't think that was a constitutional crisis. Maybe it was contempt,
but Trump throughout was acknowledging, allowing himself to be guided

(26:42):
by the court's decisions, acknowledging that the court had authority.
And he's eventually come around. You know, he brought the
Brego Garcia guy back from El Salvador. He is not
at a posture of saying, the court has no authority
to tell me what to do. But if federal district

(27:02):
court judges like Judge Bryer. Now we have another case
where a Maryland federal district court judge told Trump he's
not allowed to fire certain federal employees for a case
that was exactly on all fours, the same as a
case that ultimately had been decided by the Supreme Court
that Trump has the right to fire these people. If

(27:23):
you have more and more of these federal district court
judges telling the president he can't do his job at
a certain point, you know, maybe we get to them,
and we're getting to the military example. The president's trying
to activate the National Guard to put down a riot
where federal assets, federal personnel are threatened. A judge is
telling him he can't at a certain point. Trump may

(27:49):
have to or maybe push to tell the court that
it has no authority to tell him to do that.

Speaker 2 (27:55):
This is the tremor carry shown on The Valley's Power Talk.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
John Dourardi in for Trevor Carrey. As you may know,
I'm the executive director at Right to Life of Central
California RTLCC dot org. If you want to learn more
about us and what we do. I think the key
problem with all these federal judges who are trying to
limit what Trump can do in ways that I think

(28:21):
are extremely harmful to the country. I think they're extremely
bad for our politics. I think it is pushing Trump
closer to some kind of constitutional crisis. If you've got
individual federal judges who think they can tell the president
of the United States what to do and not to

(28:42):
do in a case where he's one using the military
something he's allowed to do to protect federal law enforcement,
another thing he's allowed to do, I think you're pushing
yourself closer to a point where the president might have
to publicly say I am not going to follow a
federal court. I'm not going to follow federal court's order,
and that would disrupt the constitutional order that we have

(29:03):
right now. Where federal judges issue rulings. Sometimes those rulings
say that the president is exceeding his legal authority, and
presidents follow what the judges say even if they don't
like it, and there's let's think about it, presidents only

(29:27):
do that out of goodwill. This whole system. You know,
It's not like if if a federal court tells the president,
you're not allowed to do X, the court doesn't have
any officers to force the president to do X. Courts
don't enforce their own decisions. They rely on the executive
branch to enforce their own decisions, and sometimes their decisions

(29:51):
involved telling the executive branch Hey, you can't do X,
Y or Z. And the system we have of judicial
review in the United States that we have right now,
it relies on the goodwill of the executive, the executive
saying Okay, yes, I will follow this decision even though
I don't like it. And here's the problem. I feel

(30:13):
like federal judges are getting more and more comfortable liberal
federal judges are more and more comfortable doing their little
bit of hashtag resistance, pretending like Donald Trump's actually a
fascist when he's not. He's just a politician. They don't
like pretending like Donald Trump's a fascist and they are
brave superheroes fighting against fascism. And you could see that

(30:33):
in the way Charles Bryer was behaving. He brought up
all these like Democrat talking points like Trump's acting like
a king. He's not allowed to act like a king,
Like come on, they're literally Democrats are having rallies this
weekend about no more kings, no kings rally blah blah blah.
And why are they doing all this? Why are they

(30:54):
issuing decisions that they know are going to get overturned
quickly to stimy Trump because they can't get fired. That's
why federal judges have lifetime appointments, and this leads to
judges sometimes kind of having a God complex. They know

(31:15):
they can't get fired. They know that they've got a
really nice cushy job with a really nice cushy salary,
with everyone kissing their butts professionally needing to kiss their
butts for as long as they want so, and literally
the only time federal judges lose their jobs. The only
way they can lose their job is if they are

(31:37):
impeached and removed by Congress. You need a majority of
the House of Representatives to vote to even like, okay,
a federal District Court judge in the Eastern District of
California is sitting in Fresno, California. That judge was nominated
by a president confirmed by the Senate. To remove that judge,
you need a majority of the House of Representatives to
vote to remove him and two thirds of the Senate

(31:57):
to vote to remove him. And the only judges that
that's ever happened to have been guys who've been caught
taking bribes or something committing obvious, clear cut crimes. There
are judges who are lunatics, incompetent who keep their jobs.
There's this one judge in Nevada who's done all kinds
of I need to look him up. He's done all
kinds of insane things where he refuses to grant other lawyers,

(32:19):
like if you're a lawyer from California and you're asked
to come in on a case that's in Nevada and
he refuses to let them, or I don't know, all
kinds of craziness. Maybe he's done other crazy stuff that
wouldn't make sense for a federal judge anyway. All kinds
of lunatic federal judges have been on the bench and
they don't lose their jobs, because again, you'd have to
impeach them and remove them. And I think on a

(32:40):
practical level that just emboldens these left wing judges to
just act in totally lawless ways. They view themselves almost
as like, well, we're in extraordinary times. We have a
man in the White House, an insurrectionist who is threatening
the very foundations of themocracy itself, a man who's bringing fascism,

(33:02):
wants to make himself a king, so I'm gonna stop him.
I think that's how they think. They might not say
it explicitly, but I kind of think that's how they think.
I think a lot of MSNBC watching comfortable liberals who
don't make the disconnect of like, you've now lived under

(33:25):
more than four years of President Trump being president and
you're still driving around in a Lexus and doing just fine.
I think some of these people genuinely think that they
are brave French resistance fighters fighting against Nazi tyranny or
something and so, and because they know they're not going
to get fired and their Lexus isn't gonna get taken away,

(33:47):
they just keep on keeping on with these decisions. And
something has to be done about it. Either Congress has
to get to a point where both sides say, you
know what, these nationwide injunctions. It's harming to Democrat presidents
and it's arming to Republican presidents. Maybe we limit this,

(34:08):
or maybe the Supreme Court narrows this and is able
to create doctrine that these decisions have to be binding.
They can't be binding on the whole country. They have
to be limited, more limited than their scope. I don't
know what the answer is. It doesn't seem like Justice
Roberts is very interested in sort of limiting this.

Speaker 2 (34:32):
The Assist that Trevor carry show, Monda Valley's Power Talk