The Executive Branch Requires The President’s Acquiescence

todayApril 6, 2017

share close

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “What we have here now, folks, and we saw this on charade, on theatrical display yesterday in the Comey and Admiral Mike Rogers alleged investigation, hearing, testimony, whatever you wish to call it, is you have all three branches now – the sad part about this is at some level, the executive branch requires the president’s acquiescence.  It requires him to acknowledge some of this deceit and then to proceed with it.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript


One of the themes that has been consistently focused on in this space has been the lawlessness of all parts of the national government. [Mike: Note that he calls it the national government, not the federal government. He’s got it right. It is a national monstrosity.] Now it seems that this rank lawlessness is accompanied by ignorance and/or contempt for the law and the Constitution. It is an amazing fact that this lawlessness, ignorance, and contempt are entrenched not only in elected politicians and senior Federal civil servants, but also in those who are entrusted with enforcing the law, the FBI, the Supreme Court, and Federal Judges. [Mike: By the by, Scheuer is former CIA. He got out because he couldn’t take it anymore, the corruption.]

Take the FBI. Under Director Comey — Tacitus might call him the “flouter-in-chief “– the FBI has proven itself to be the protective police for the American political elite. Now, each time he speaks, Comey’s words conjure those directed at a political opponent by perhaps the greatest non-interventionist of the early republic, Virginia’s John Randolph. “He is a man of splendid abilities,” Randolph said of his foe, “but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight.”

It is, of course, old news, but Director Comey has established his legacy as the man who told all non-elite Americans that he will enforce the law against them, but not against their betters. A first-year prosecutor could have gotten an arrest warrant for Hillary Clinton with nothing more than three facts: (a) she set up an unclassified e-mail system to avoid the law requiring the retention of federal records; (b) she deliberately trafficked in classified information on that unclassified system and sent classified information to people who had no clearances; and (c) she lied to the Congress under oath on multiple occasions. Director Comey, however, must be too long out of law school to recall the fundamentals of his profession. Or, perhaps, he is happy to enforce the law against non-elite citizens, but is either fearful for his life if he takes on the elite, or he is being paid off by that entity. There does not seem to be a third possibility.

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

The Supreme Court has written its own well-deserved death warrant. During the ratification debate in 1787-1788, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, and other Federalists assured the citizenry that the anti-Federalists’ warnings that the Court would become a judicial tyranny, beyond the control of the people, were unfounded and indefensible. They even ridiculed their foes for fear-mongering.

But Hamilton and his centralizing colleagues were dead wrong, and the anti-Federalists were prescient republicans. The Federalists and especially the Anti-Federalists probably never imagined a citizenry so supine that it would allow — without undertaking armed rebellion — the republic to be ruled by nine unaccountable judges, many of whom, in the contemporary era, are often no more than berobed legal charlatans who twist the Constitution and the laws into shapes and meanings that are absurd and unsupportable by commonsense and human experience, let alone credible legal scholarship.

But that scenario is at hand. Witness Chief Justice Roberts’ argument and vote in support of Obama Care . . . [Mike: Then he gives some more examples here.]

Not satisfied with finding something in the 1st Amendment that does not exist, and, with it, willingly endangering Americans, the two Federal judges [Mike: He’s talking about the two quacks that undid or said that President Trump does not have the authority to enforce the statute that says he and he alone can determine whether or not immigrants or aliens from a foreign country may be admitted into the United States. That’s what the law says.] also violated the legitimate and obvious protections for free speech contained in the 1st Amendment by basing their decision on what then-candidate Trump said during the presidential campaign. They, in essence, defend their unconstitutional action by (a) deciding that Mr. Trump is the only American who has no free-speech rights under the 1st Amendment and that he, and the republic, can be punished by the courts for his words; (b) believing that they can publicly abuse him for something he said, even though it has no legal bearing on what he does to legally execute constitutional immigration laws; and (c) claiming that they can read his mind — sort of law by tarot cards — and know without doubt that his supposed anti-Muslim beliefs, and not the obvious requirements of national defense, motivated his actions.

This is a judicial performance Mr. Orwell could have used in his book: judges using an unconstitutional attack on Trump’s free-speech rights to prevent the protection of Americans and their families. It would have been applauded by Stalin and Mao, and is being applauded by their ideological successors, Obama, Clinton, Soros, Sanders, Warren, and most of the media. That performance, however, cannot find legitimate justification anywhere in either the Constitution or the legal system founded thereon. It is simply another egregious example of the Federal judiciary’s lunacy-tinged and self-aggrandizing lawlessness.

[end reading]

Mike:  I’m going to get into more of this after this hour is concluded here.  Basically what Scheuer is saying here, and I think I talked about this and said it in a very similar context, and that is this: How is it possible that both the judges that said that the – what do they call this thing?  The refugee executive order, or the executive order to prevent refugee immigrants, or whatever it’s termed.  How could either one of them have possibly even pretended to know what the president’s motivations were?  If you read both of their rulings, they both say, both of these two quacks who appointed themselves emperors of the entire United States, they both say that the president’s intentions are religious and are aimed at one particular religion and we know this.  You couldn’t know it by reading either of the executive orders.  How in the hell do you know?

Greg:  Obama’s school buddies know all, Mike.

Mike:  Here’s what Scheuer’s point is.  His point is, they know because they watched the campaign, and because Trump said this during the campaign, and now he’s acting upon what he said during the campaign.  That means that that’s his rationale for doing it, and, therefore, they don’t approve of his rationale.  Since they don’t approve, they’re going to use power that they don’t have, pretend that they have it, and they’re going to wield it.  Now, what I say is even worse than this but Michael Scheuer doesn’t discuss – I’ve asked Mr. Scheuer to be on the program.  Why did the Trump administration fall on their knees and grovel and say: Okay, you win.  We’re going to go to a higher court.  This is what is totally baffling to me.  It remains baffling to me.  Somebody is going to say, [mocking] “Mitter Church, that’s so they can live to fight another day.”  Live to fight what on another day?  If you’re not going to stand up for your own right to govern because you have been granted constitutional authority, what will you stand up for?

Greg:  Congress should have jumped on this and removed that federal judge.  That’s their right.

Mike:  Scheuer quotes Jefferson:


“The judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a free hold and irresponsibility in office, that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”

[end reading]

Mike:  What we have here now, folks, and we saw this on charade, on theatrical display yesterday in the Comey and Admiral Mike Rogers alleged investigation, hearing, testimony, whatever you wish to call it, is you have all three branches now – the sad part about this is at some level, the executive branch requires the president’s acquiescence.  It requires him to acknowledge some of this deceit and then to proceed with it.  He may do so with the intention – I don’t know.  He may do so with the intention of: Believe me, we’re gonna get these guys.  Believe me, we’re going to do this.  It does require him to sign off on some of this.  What is baffling to me, and I’m sure baffling to many of you, is why has the president accepted as rule those status quos that drove much of his campaign and would drive the deep state, the federal bureaucracy, whatever you want to call it, into a fit of mortified rage?  Isn’t that really what your average Trump voter really wants to see?  Don’t they really want to see Rachel Maddow embarrass herself, as she’s done, on international television?  That was a freebie there, Greg.  That was just: Hey, let me ladle this one out here.  Go ahead and publish that.  See what you get out of making this your lead story and your life’s work.  Ooh, you got your hands on a tax return.  Ooh, it doesn’t really say anything.

Greg:  That’s are direct.

Mike:  It is a redirect.  This is what people wanted to see.  They wanted to see Trump tell the federal judiciary: Go pound sand.  No, you’re wrong.  I have the authority.  Let’s see your order.  How would the federal judge in Washington State have enforced his striking down, as they say, of the executive order on refugees?  How?  Who could he have – what entity could he have compelled to enforce his edict, Gregory?

Greg:  I’m struggling for an answer at this point.  Do I sound like Director Comey?

Mike:  I don’t know.  Could he have told the National Guard that they had to do it?

Greg:  No.

Mike:  Could he have told the FBI, like at the end of Trading Places: Don’t let me get back in there and turn those machines on!  What are they going to do?  Are they going to issue – is he going to pretend to run the Federal Bureau of Investigation and tell them: I am ordering you to arrest anyone that tries to enforce this executive order.  This was a showdown.  I talked about this last week.  Nobody called.  Nobody writes.  Who?  How could it have been enforced?

Greg:  There’s no one to go to.  He’s got no authority to enforce anything.

Mike:  Not only is there no authority, there was a piece of power that has now been grabbed by a federal circuit judge.  He’s taken the power.  Without the executive correcting it, without the Congress providing remedy, what Congress –

Greg:  Congress should have stepped right up.


Mike:  Somebody says in the chatroom, and it’s not a bad point, that Congress would probably have impeached him.  Why?  Under what pretense would they have impeached him?  The law is clear.  The 1952 law says that the president makes that decision.  That’s not my law.  That’s not Trump’s law.  That’s a law that was passed by Congress and put on the desk of Harry Truman.  Every president since has used it.  It doesn’t matter what the reasoning is.  Just like Director Comey kept telling members of Congress: I can’t comment on that.  I can’t reveal; that’s classified.  The same thing.  You would say: I can’t reveal to you how I know that.  I can’t tell you – Trump would say: I can’t tell you what facts went into my decision-making process.

Greg:  I thought you meant that they were going to impeach the judge.

Mike:  Oh.

Greg:  Now, that would make sense.

Mike:  Here’s a trivia question for you.  Who was the last member of the federal judiciary that was impeached?

Greg:  Isn’t that the congressman?

Mike:  Yep, you’re on the right track.

Greg:  Oh, shoot.  Cowling?

Mike:  No.  The last member of the federal judiciary who was impeached was in the 1980s, Alcee Hastings.

Greg:  He’s known as a congressman.

Mike:  Yes.  He is a member of Congress.  Go figure, right?

Greg:  If you’re not good enough to be a judge, you can be a congressman.

Mike:  Alcee Hastings is the last member of the federal judiciary to be impeached.  Folks, while I agree with the sentiment of secession, and I do; while I agree with the sentiment of rethinking the American Union, and I do; while I agree that I wish to exist under a state that flies at the top of its flagpole the Carillon de Sacre Coeur, the flag of the sacred heart of Jesus, and the flag of the state under that, and then if we happen to be a member of the union, like the sick, twisted one we call the American Union, we can fly that one up there for extra credit; while I agree with all those things, if the Russians feel threatened by the United States, if the Mexicans and the Argentinians and the Krauts and all the rest of them feel threatened by the cabal that is America, what would the lowly Florida Parishes Republic feel?  What would Mark Kreslins’ Oklahoma Republic feel?  They’re going to come get us.  “They’re going to come in here just like they did before.  They’re going to come in here and make them get us,” said the late Bill Paxton.

Folks, the upshot of all this is – look, the only reason I continue to cover these subjects is not because I hold out some stupid, some irrational hope that there is a reform that’s going to be implemented, and that there is a, as David Simpson calls it, a Saul right around the corner here.  I don’t think that at all.  Human nature and history says no, that that’s not going to happen.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
author avatar

Written by: AbbyMcGinnis

Rate it

Post comments (0)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x