Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 11-06-25_THURSDAY_6AM

Episode Date: November 7, 2025

11-06-25_THURSDAY_6AM

The Bill Meyer Show podcast is sponsored by Klausur drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at Klausordrilling.com. Here's Bill Meyer. Good morning. And welcome to conspiracy theory Thursday, November 6th, 2025. Yeah, another rainy day. It's going to start drying up going into the weekend.

I'm okay with it drying up a little bit. That's fine. Allow me to break up the sopping wet leaves that are blown around everywhere and also the car you know what happens every time you get those windstorms all the garbage from your neighbors ends up blowing into your yard at least it blows into my yard you know the recycling bin flies open in the high wind and then all of a sudden p and then you get the uh the beer cans and then you know the paper all that day the office paper lands in your front yard you know that kind of thing but anyway i hope you are doing well this morning we've got a big show a lot going on here

john o'connor the attorney from the bay area and he's the author of post how the Washington Post betrayed deep throat and covered up, you know, the Nixon deal back in that Watergate's great book, by the way. We're going to talk with him about the tariff conversation yesterday in the Supreme Court. And there were a lot of questions being raised. I don't know how the terrifying power of President Trump or the power that he's been claiming in this emergency law that have been passed a number of years ago. I don't know how it survives. But, you know, the Supreme Court also reads the. the news they they keep up on the news too i'm kind of wondering if they'll split this baby somehow but

like i said i know very little about law other than what i talked to lawyers about john o'connor studies this kind of stuff so we'll talk with him about that in around 20 minutes i'm looking forward to it we will see gregg roberts mr outdoors has a outdoor report today because he needs to get out in the forest because he still hasn't got his buck he has the story we'll talk about that so we're doing the outdoor report today so he can get out there because as tomorrow the weather starts getting better and weather starts getting better, the deer hunting gets even worse. And I'm talking to a physicist, Peter Solomon.

Peter Solomon is a physicist award-winning, has written tons of papers and also several books too. But he tends to take science and put it into novels. And he has a new one out called 100 Years to Extinction, the tyranny of technology in the fight for a better future, right? in. Now, I'm always up for a great apocalyptic kind of story and reading, so I'm going to ask him about that. But I'm just wondering if, because, you know, in this novel, he also includes climate change, and yet Bill Gates has declared the danger over. So I'm going to have to

ask Peter about this, all right? We'll have to do that. That should be an interesting talk also with a state representative, D.C. Younger, who is swimming around in the D.C. swamp, and we just want to make sure that he doesn't come back a swamp monster. I don't think he will, but we'll find out what is going on. He's been there all week and talking to lots of people and having a lot of meat. You know, he's probably considered the unicorn out of, okay, well, over what? There's an actual, true, real, full-blooded, out of bashed, conservative, left in Oregon in the State House. Really?

Okay. So we'll talk with him about what's been going on after 8 o'clock. Also a diner 62 quiz. I love today's diner 62 quiz. A great history about when a Spanish explorer landed here on the end. Well, it wasn't the United States of America at that time and everything they went through. But it's a great, great bit of history, okay? All right.

So we got a lot coming up this morning. A lot of interesting stories that have been going on here. Rogue Valley Times ended up busting that story open yesterday. about Danny Schofield, you know, the diversion nurse, the alleged diversion nurse over at Asante, swapping out the tap water for fentanyl, that's what she's accused of, that whole thing. At this point, they're still not talking about a trial until September of 26, September of next year. That tells you how complex this case is. But she ended up checking in, and there was discussion of jury selection earlier this week.

And now, Road Valley Times reporting the new development, that Schofield also the subject of an investigation by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services. That was disclosed in circuit court on Monday. So keeping an eye on that one. Also, Jackson County Commissioners have declared a state of emergency because of the SNAP benefit issue, even though SNAP benefits are going to be going out at about half the level right now. They're using emergency money. And Jackson County Emergency Manager Delaney Richmond telling the Board of Commissioners during a work session,

week that the declaration goes into effect gives county officials increased options for responding to food scarcity if needed, including emergency procurement of goods and services if they had to do this. Now, this order remains in effect only until SNAP benefits get topped back up and getting back to normal or through the end of the year from what I understand. Okay. Grats Pass Courier has a great story this week, too, about a divided Ashland City Council on Monday. This one kind of, you know, it didn't make a lot of noise. I didn't hear much about this until Courier ended up doing this. But they deadlocked on a referendum that would give voters the chance to decide if they want to say on the city fees, on the utility bills.

How many years were you and I have been talking about this ever since the cities have figured out that nobody wants to vote for? for property tax increases, so the cities have put a fee on everything that moves, whether it is, well, it's your street fee, or it's your public safety fee, or it's, you know, your parks fee like the city of Medford does. And everybody else has, you know, these kind of parks fees too. And there has been no saying on this. And I've been saying for years that unless we find a way to get control of our fees, of our utility fees, or sewer fees, all these other fees,

we're never going to be able to get a hold or get any kind of control on our cost of living in our cities because the cities know that most people aren't going to want to vote for any more property taxes and so they ended up transferring and pivoting over to fees

instead. Now fees of course are doing the same business as taxes but they're not deductible like the taxes are too. That's another interesting little side light. You can't take that off of your taxable income. So cities have been going this way for a long time. Now, we're looking at that here in the city of Medford

because we have been promised, pinky, promised that there will be no fee increases for the half billion dollar development. You know, Creekside, Creekside Quarter, that voting envelopes, apparently, I'm joking about that, you know, voting envelopes. Well, they're the voting envelopes that were trusting that actually came from voters with ballots pieces of paper inside that said that, yes, 15-238 passes, okay, and they can raise the hotel motel taxes and then get the seed funding going for the half-billion-dollar convention center or conference center, hotel, retail spaces, and a ball field, you know, the ball stadium, and a partridge and a pear tree, too, you know, all that. And we won't have to pay.

We will not have to pay any kind of increased fees. Unless for some reason the transient lodging attack, that's actually a better name for it, the transient lodging tax, rather, if the transient lodging tax does not generate enough income to pay off the bonds. But pinky, pinky promise everything is going to go okay because we know that, you know, Southern Oregon is very big with half billion dollar projects. We shouldn't have any problems with this whatsoever. Nothing to worry about. And besides, if we do have to worry about it, it will probably be a few years down the road when everybody who remembers what was being done right now

is either dead or retired or has left for Idaho. I don't know. I'll just have to see. All right. But, yeah, they deadlocked on this. They were actually going to give the Great Unwashed of Southern Oregon, at least in Ashland, a say on the city feed. mayor tanya graham broke a three three tie opting against putting a measure proposed by a private

citizen on the ballot you got to love that the mayor says uh well well the mayor lets the cat out of the bag uh we don't want to go to the voters because we know the voters will say no and we as city councilors and mayors everybody we must be able to uh force this upon you to pay for what didn't ask for good and hard. And all the cities have figured this out, too. That's why I think in Jacksonville, if I understand correctly, what is my sister-in-law has a property over there? I think that on some of her commercial property, it's $600 a month, I believe, before

a drop of water even flows out of the faucet. It's just for the privilege of having this. Well, you know, everyone's looking for trying to find a way to scrape the people, get into the people's couches, look under the cushions and find every little bit of spare change that they can. Okay. And speaking of which, that kind of connects to the next thing I wouldn't mind talking about. I might just introduce a little bit of it here, you know, after the break, but are we getting the wrong message out of the Mondani and the Democratic sweep election results? I think we might be. I'll have a little talk on that, and then we'll be.

Going off into the Supreme Court stuff with John O'Connor. Hi, it's Bill Meyer. Listeners keep letting me know. Over the last couple of days, there's been a lot of conversation about what does Mom Donnie and the Democratic sweep in the blue areas mean? Well, a lot of folks have, and rightly so, saying that, okay, you have very blue areas in the first place, and they're kind of reverting to the mean. We're saying, okay, blue places are going to blue, all right?

you know, the more communist or socialist-leaning areas are going to lean that way in the first place. And that's certainly, that's certainly part of it. And we know what's been going on, what controls the voting in Virginia, like when I was talking with Eric Peters yesterday. Who controls the voting in the state of Oregon? Well, it's mostly the northern part. You know, the Portland hive mine, Eugene Samlum. You know, that particular area has more of the votes than we do here in the southern area. So yes, certainly. Was it a repudiation of Trump to a certain extent? I think, yeah, I think it does.

It gave them energy. You know, they got to have somebody they hate. And let me tell you, Don makes it easy from their side of the aisle, you know, to go there, all right? God bless them. It's like, what we love, they hate, you know, et cetera. That's certainly part of it. Another part of it, though, which I think has been given less attention, though, is it is true that people end up ultimately voting for what they think is their best interest.

And when we elected President Trump a year ago at this time, we were wanting our interest was to get prices down and to get a better deal going for the everyday American. Those were the people that put him in office. Well, we have less inflation than we did under a team Biden, less of it. But it's still there. And it's even ticking up now. and more importantly, prices haven't been going down.

It's not exactly like, you know, that the price of food before the Biden inflation kicked in somehow all of a sudden reversed and that all of these inflationary excesses in the economy have been washed out. It's just not happening. And so it is kind of a cost of living election. And it's something that I think Republicans better be paying more attention to. You can't be tone deaf about it. And yeah, certainly, you know, it's almost like we ran on a lot of cultural issues this time around, you know, the, not the tampons in the boys' room in Oregon, you know, that was a few years ago, but there's a lot of talk of the, you know, the boys in the girls' locker rooms, and that's important. That's important, but it's also important that people be able to afford to live, too. And I don't want to be tone deaf about these kind of things. And I was looking at my own experience and comparing it to the experience of my son. And I was doing a little figuring here. on the differences between my life and his life.

You know, he's now working in Northern Oregon with his half-sister. And they have opened up a pet store together, and they're running that together. And apparently doing really well on it. I'm hoping that ends up being a good wealth-building opportunity for him. And Will did not want to go to college. I didn't go to college either. And I looked back at my experience when I was his age. Will is 27 years old.

27. I already had a house. I already had my first house. And I was living in Seattle at that time, actually east of Seattle. And my wife at that time and I had purchased using an FHA loan, a three-bedroom one-bath house in, well, it's now known as Sammamish, but at that time it was Redmond, Redmond, Washington. It was a very small house. tiny. It was a two one. I think they turned it later into a three one. But it was a $75,000 house at that time, 1985, 10 and a half percent mortgage, and the payment was like $7.90 a month. And we really had to stretch for that. I mean, really working hard. I was making about $18,000 a year at KPLZ. My wife at that time making about $12,000. So we were a $30,000 household. But we had a $75,000

house at a high interest rate then interest rates were higher and we felt very fortunate to be able to do that now according to the official inflation calculator my 18,000 a year from 1985 would amount to $54,000 a year today that's just if the wages had kept pace with what I was doing back in, uh, in 1985. And I could the 30,000 dollar household would have been about $90,000 today. Now, had that $75,000 house just kept up with inflation, just the inflation reported, it'd be $226,000. Okay. Well, that house is now $846,000 a year. I know this is a specific market. It is Seattle. And there's been a lot of real estate inflation up there. Uh, and 846.

Wow. My $90,000 kept up with inflation wage from today as a young DJ at a radio station wouldn't even be able to work on a down payment for an $846,000 home today. You know, this is the reality of what we're looking. Now, Brother Brad, you know, Brad Bennington calls it. He'll talk about how this is a wealth builder for young people. and he's right about it, but I'm almost starting to wonder if it ends up being ultimately the asset inflation illusion of wealth building over time. And maybe we're coming to the end of that because you still have to have the income to be able to wash out the mortgage. So let's take it a little closer.

I did a little quick fix, a little fixation over a house that I purchased when I first moved to Medford. Like a year after I moved to Medford. It was 1992 have bought it. 706 South Holly Street in Medford Over by what used to be the Sobroso place You know Bought that for 56,000 And they'd just been renovated

Had a new Had a brand new furnace put in it No air conditioning Nothing like that So it's $56,000 And once again Two Income We were able to scrape and make it

Had a new daughter Everything was doing fine there The marriage unfortunately didn't last All right But, so that was $56,000. And it also just kept pace with inflation, just keeping up with inflation, that would have been 137% up. It would have been $133,000. That house at 706 South Holly, which I would generously describe as a crapshack today, now retails for about $289,000.

twice. More than twice what it had been had it just kept up with inflation. Yeah. Now, we have that $289,000 crapshack on South Holly Street, which has gone up 416%. Does anybody really think that wages have gone up 416% in Southern Oregon during that time? No. Those are the realities here. government policy yes including the federal reserve have a lot to do about this it's like we're always thinking a little bit of inflation is good inflation is good for the asset holders especially good for the stockholders too and the the people on the upper end of things that have been doing pretty good but the stock market is not the general economy real estate market housing yeah that's more of our regular economy and republicans would be why

to remember that and not go too tone-deaf over the next few months as we get into the midterms. Just saying, yeah, it is a lot harder for the kids. And yes, some of the kids are making up with the fact that they're not getting their house right now by going out in buying services and other stupid stuff too. But that's another conversation for another time. There's a little bit of all of this going on here. But, yeah, people, maybe they're not going as much comie as going to a direction that they're not hearing anybody talking about their issues. I'm thinking that could be it.

It's something worth discussion over time over time here on the Bill Meyers show. Okay. 7705-633. Hi, good morning. This is Bill. Who's this? Bill, this is your friend, Brad. Yeah, Brad.

Yeah, so equity, equity is important, and what we're doing by allowing circumstances to keep our young people out of buying houses, we're manufacturing future poverty, and we've got to stop it. Yeah, I would agree. However, we are seeing the assets going way past the rate of inflation. That's not sustainable, is it? Well, you know, if you had said, you know, we'll just be funny here for a minute, if you had said 15 years ago that people were going to be buying 95,000 Chevy pickups, nobody would have believed you. And yet here we are doing it, right? Yeah, but they're not buying them, though. You know, we're getting to the point, we're now reaching that tipping point where you're not going to be able to buy them a whole much longer, you know, as it's going. Right. So the thing that everybody deals with is we have whatever our income is and then we have whatever our expenses are and then whatever the difference is between those two. We've got a little bit of savings. And what you're saying is everybody is saving the amount of discretionary income that everyone has nowadays is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. And you're right. The numbers show that. But just on the subject of housing affordability, what we've got going on is it's really, It's startling. I mean, it's...

Well, no, it's very complex. It's more than I have time for it, a one-minute call, okay? But I'm talking about the political side of it is that Republicans would be, would do well to note this, though. Because it didn't change just because we're a year into the Trump administration. It's still the economy, stupid, like Bill Clinton said, back of the day. Oh, yeah. Okay? That's what I'm getting at, okay? Thank you for the call, Brad.

Okay? We'll dig into that more, maybe a little bit later. Hi, good morning. This is Bill. Who's this? Morning, Bill, Tom, here. Hey, you know, I'm glad to see you addressing this. Like I say, the economy, the way the Fed is, it's basically gutting the middle class.

We talked about that yesterday. And it has been a wealth transfer to asset holders, okay? That's the other thing that we have to be intellectually honest with ourselves, because it's going to cause, it's going to cause, you know, some real instability in the United States if it is not addressed, okay? Going to, going to. Well, it already is, okay? Yes. See, Mom Donnie is a symptom, okay?

He's a symptom of the disease, I think, more than anything else. And I think people are just wanting to say, well, it's just blue places are going to blue places. And there's a certain amount of that, too. But, you know what I'm getting at? I'm just saying. Yeah, so the main thing that's going on with the funny money fed. You know, if you look at the income tax, for instance, most of our tax money is going to Washington. It's not being spent locally here and so forth.

You know, you have all the communists up there in Salem. Well, it is a certain percentage of it's being recycled, but they recycle more than is actually being paid in. With control. With control, and that's a very good point. And so you look at, you know, the whole thing with the income tax and so forth, it takes away our choice of where the money's gone. So where's the money going? It's going out to blow up half the planet and so forth.

And it's not being – it's been taken away from the middle class. But this is also why people elected – this is also why people elected President Trump to end the useless war. And we're not really seeing that yet. That's right. Yeah, we're seeing it shift to something different. And Republicans would be smart to notice this, all right? Tom, I'm out of time right now, but we'll pick this up a little later, okay?

Thanks for that. 636. And like I said, just scratching the surface of it right now. I'd probably should have started it sooner. But we will bring it back for sure. This is the Bill Myers Show. The Bill Myers Show is on. News Talk 1063, KMED.

And John O'Connor is on. He's author of Postgate, how the Washington Post betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate, began today's partisan advocacy journalism. I bought a copy of it, enjoyed it. John, welcome back. Good to have you on, Legal Brain. Well, good to be with you. John, I read a little bit.

I didn't have time to listen to all the oral arguments there yesterday with the Trump tariffs being up before the Supreme Court. But some of the questions coming from all of the. Supreme Court justices got me thinking just and I'm not a legal brain. I'm just a regular guy and just a reading of the Constitution. I don't know how the tariffing authority that President Trump has claimed survives whether or not is a good thing to do or not. I'm just talking about the constitutionality of it. And I don't know, do you, do you have a take on it from the legal end of things? Well, absolutely. I mean, there's really, it's hard to say that Trump has this power. It really is. what it is is Trump was giving, and all presidents were given the power under certain statutes to have statute to put on emergency tariffs when needed.

And especially, for instance, for a time of war, if hostilities broke out. Right. And you wanted to say, we don't want to sell stuff to Russia or whoever we're fighting or China. And that makes sense. Yeah, that makes sense. That's perfectly sensible. Sure. Sure. And there's also a good constitutional reason for that since the president is the commander in chief, and if this is a wartime power, okay, you ought to have it. But Trump, probably on the advice of Peter Navarro, who Elon Musk said was dumber than a boxer rocks. He decided that he would have Liberation Day. By the way, I don't believe that about Peter Navarro. I think he's a smart guy, but much pro-tariff more so than most economists would be.

Well, John, we all know that you can be a very smart person and be educated and also still be wrong about a particular policy or right or either way. Right. You can still be wrong. That's right. And in this case, like so many things, President Trump is good as he is on so many issues, doesn't like to listen to lawyers to say, no, you can't do that. I mean, a lot of businessmen, I know a lot of businessmen are like that. If a lawyer's got to come in and really work with that guy to tell him, no, you can't do this. I know you want to do it.

You're a strong man. You can't do it. And in this case, it's so clear. I mean, he has friends on that court who are basically saying, look, we can't do this, Mr. President. And here's the real rub. First of all, a lot of the tariffs are going to get knocked out, all of them, I think. And then they'll invite him. They'll say, well, if you've got an emergency in here, if there's something in here that has, you know, you can defend on some other grounds.

Great. but, and you may, you know, put it on after this, but right now you haven't declared any emergency and so forth. Now, here's a big question. He's got several hundred billion dollars in the coffers that he's taken from people. And, you know, from these tariffs, not the ones that were there before. So he may have to give all that money back. And so one of the things Gorsuch brought up How do we possibly manage this? How do you give this money back? And here's an odd thing. Now, this is just my own thinking. Let's say you have a tariff of 10% with Japan and you say, okay, you've got to pay 25% for this time period and you collect 25%. Since it's a new tariff you put on, do you have to give back all 25% or can you keep 10% still? I mean, that sounds like a stupid thing, but it's a separate tariff. tariff. Let's say the second tariff is just totally illegal. Can you say, well, hey, some of it we would have done anyway for the tariff we threw out the window. So I don't know. That's just

something that will come out in the wash, but it's going to be a mess. It's going to be a holy mess. Yeah. And what has concerned me about this is that having to write several hundred billion dollars in checks back to all of these people who had paid. And by the way, I think we also have to be honest with ourselves is that countries don't pay tariffs. The merchants that are, you know, and the importers pay them. So you would have to pay them back. I don't know. Is there a possibility? I'm just spitballing with you here, John. What would you think about the Supreme Court if they were going to come back and say, no, you really don't have this tariffing power. You'd have to go to Congress, which according to the Constitution, he has to do,

right? Tariff is considered taxation and it has to be raised by Congress. So is there a possibility the Supreme Court could legally come up with a way to say, okay, you don't have to write the $700 billion in check right now or maybe what you do is that you give a discount on existing tariffs for a while to make up the difference? How do you structure something like that if it goes against the president and given the questioning from all the justices, it very well might or may. Yeah, well, first of all, I'm almost positive.

I think if you can put some money down, if somebody will take your money on a bet, bet that the tariffs will get, the Supreme Court will go against them on the terrorists, but you bring up a real good solution, which is maybe there's some other way. Maybe the courts say, look, Mr. President, we're going to leave it to you to figure out how to make this right. We're going to tell you that you have no authority. That's all as far as we're going to go for this. decreeing the illegality of those tariffs. Okay.

Do something, and we'll leave it to you and your executive discretion to do it. That would actually make some sense under the Constitution, because now you're getting into an executive function, which is paying back the money. Yeah, really? And I'll tell you, Bill, like, for instance, I sat in an office one summer in the Justice Department when I was the lowly clerk, summer clerk, and the guy, poor guy I was rooming with. We had two deaths in the office. And he was still dictating things about the Japanese money that we had, of Japanese citizens, we'd seized during the Second World War. This is some poor

Japanese farmer in California, and we'd seize his money. And then 1970 comes along. We're still paying these people back. So this is the kind of thing that, you know, we just went out and seized a bunch of stuff, property from these poor Japanese, you know, first. and second generation people. So I think this is the kind of thing that, you know, it will have hopefully it'll unwind slowly. There won't just be a big mess. And maybe Trump can hold his head high after this. What I fear is that when, that just overall it's a terrible look for Trump. He goes. He sometimes goes too far. I know he's, he's, he's, he's, he's, he's, He's willful, but, you know, you've got to follow the law.

And remember, Charles Monof, England got his head knocked off. The only time England's not had a king was back at 1649 because he was trying to get money out of parliament, and parliament wouldn't give it to him. And then Louis the 16th, I think, in France, the French Revolution was the same thing. Both of those kings, they were kings, but they both recognized that if they needed money, they needed to go to the legislature. Things didn't go so well for him, but nonetheless, Trump just sort of ignores that. And unfortunately, he's created an awful lot of ruckus to no avail.

And so I think politically it's a terrible, terrible thing to do. Is there a possibility? I'm going to bring up a third possibility. There's the possibility that maybe the Supreme. Supreme Court finds some way to, for all nine of them, to limbo stick, dance the limbo stick under the law somehow. And I know this may, this may just sound like total nonsense to you and tell me if it is. But they come up with a way, they craft a way to say that there is, that Congress somehow did delegate that. And only because they're concerned that it would just be too disruptive.

I know we talk about the court being independent, but they still read the news, don't they? I mean, that has to play some part in the way they're going to think about this because it would be insanely destructive and disruptive. And I can't help but think that maybe Trump is, President Trump, is banking on that sentiment. Well, that may happen. I mean, look, you have six people there that probably don't want to do something that is really going to hurt the country. I think there are three justices that are going to have their arms folded and say, pay it back, you illegal scoundrel. But there will be six that will say, let's work this out. Now, there are a couple ways to do it. One way would be to say, okay, you have, I think there's

some of this is, you might even say this is a, for 90 days, we'll go along and say there's an emergency, you know, so I don't know how much tariff collection was done after 90 days. something others they might find a way to say, okay, you can keep some of it. That's what I was wondering. That's what I was wondering. Yeah, it may have been ill-gotten gains, but we're kind of kind of okay, the semi-ill-gotten gains for now, but no more after this, right? Yeah, and it could be, there could also be other ways of doing it. Of course, the problem is, as you point out, it's the individual importer who gets

whacked. So there's a guy over there that, in England, that's, you know, sending us fine, I don't know, cutlery of some kind. Yeah, yeah. Okay. I mean, the government didn't take that from them. I mean, it's not the English government we took. It's this guy. And how does he get his money back? You know, it's going to be a mess. It's going to be a mess. One way or the other, but I hope, I hope what they do is they say, look, you're the executive, figure out a way. You don't have to pay it all back now. figure out some way to make this right. And now what's going to have to happen is there's going to have to be a little department of people that do nothing but a justice. You can have to get a few hundred people. And like I say, it's just, look, I don't think this is the end of the world and all that. But in terms of Trump's dealing with foreign leaders, it certainly makes him bad. And I'm not so worried about whether or not he looks bad in terms of Democrats versus Republicans, which will happen. But I think in terms of his moral stature around the world, he's going to seem like a weak man when he's got a court here that just really sort of embarrasses him.

It's going to be embarrassing and humiliating for him. He's not going to spin it that way. But it's a tough one, Bill. And this is a tough thing to talk about. Yeah, it is. It is, too. And the other aspect of this is I'm concerned that it just, it just, it has to have an effect. In fact, I'm going to switch this to a political argument here in just a moment then.

In your opinion, does it add more fuel to the Mondani, the Mamdani kind of election results? Because I know that people were saying, well, this is just, you know, blue states are going to be going more blue. and this is just kind of a version of the meme, that I still can't help but think that this is a symptom of overall economic pressures. And, boy, having to pay that back is not going to help the economic pressures, wouldn't you say? Well, that's right. That's right. It's going to be, it's politically, it's very bad there.

And so, I mean, there are going to be people that will use this. And that's another thing. People will use this in all sorts of ways, some legitimate, some not. I think it's what your point is, and that, yeah, yeah, I just, like I said, there's nothing good about this. Politically, it's just going to, it's going to be people are going to be talking about this, and there's so many people out there with their knives out against Trump. Yep. Because he has a combative personality, which many of us like in the sense that he's telling the bad guy, he's finally...

Exactly. Exactly. What I'm liking about him in some ways when he's doing things I like is exactly why it's just like, oh, they could just as soon spit on him as have to deal with him. I get that, yeah, I understand. Yeah. Polarizing figure, and intentionally so, frankly. You know, he's good at that. Exactly. He is good at that, and a lot of people like that.

But he went a little too far, I think, for instance, I'd love to see a little more measured, at least at the, the beginning, a little more measured immigration type of thing, and not try to make it so, such a public thing. You know, what I'm saying. I'm not speaking well. I know I'm supposed to be your guess, and I'm supposed to be articulate. No, no, it's okay.

These are tough, big issues here. I think what I'm not to put words in your mouth, and I'm thinking it's kind of like, all right, be a little quieter about it, not being quite so flashy, just do the job. Right, that kind of thing? Right. Right. And I think politically that would have been the way to do it and not create this idea of instability. I mean, people like things being corrected, but they don't want chaos.

And we have chaos from tariffs. You pick up the paper and everybody's, oh, everybody's losing their minds. And the Democrats are taking advantage of it and some right thinking and services are taking advantage. Wait a second. And not taking advantage. I said, what are you doing? This is not right. Now, what could be interesting, John, let me bring up another legal question here.

If President Trump is declared by the Supreme Court that, okay, no, you don't have this tariffing power, and then you're going to have to figure this out, getting the money back or whatever, could he, and does he have the power just to say, we're going to have an embargo on certain countries? We'll say like China, okay, we get this rare earth problem and everything else. I'm sorry, we're just going to embargo your trade. Can he do something like that? in lieu of tariffs. Well, I think he probably can do that.

I mean, that's more, let's put it this way, especially if it's a national security type of thought. Yeah. You know, and action, he's commander-in-chief, and the actions you can take as a commander-in-chief for national security are far wide and deep. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, even though, as he was coming into office, he told people quite clearly he was a good lawyer. I have no power to free the slaves without paying just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. You're taking people's property. Whatever you say about him, even if that's the fact, you can't free the slaves. Well, what did he do?

He freed the slaves. Why? Because there were slaves that were helping the Southern cause. And there was a military advantage to doing so, right? Right, Bill. And what he didn't do, he didn't free the poor slaves in four states that were not belligerent. Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, he didn't free those slaves. And so most people, when they're celebrating, you know, the day that you discovered, you know, whatever it is, today you discovered

the freedom. That, that, that, emancipation proclamation day. Yeah, the Juneteen. Right, right. Exactly. Yeah, the one where it finally got to Texas, and I'm blanking on the name, when people now have the last state heard that the slaves... Yeah, Juneteenth. Juneteenth. Juneteenth. That's what Juneteenth. Okay.

Well, Juneteenth, they're celebrating Juneteenth. There are four states of slaves that didn't get freed on Juneteenth. But that's a good example of using national security to the full power. And Lincoln drew the line and said, I can't do it for these four states because these slaves are not helping the Confederate cause. And then you translate this to what's going on today. You could very easily say, okay, no tariff. We're going to start some trade embargoes to belligerent nations. In other words, nations that aren't cooperative to our satisfaction.

Yeah, and so forth. So I think he still has some powers up his sleeve, but I fear that he's gone to the well too often with the Supreme Court asking for them to be his big brother and take care of him. And he's going to get trounced on this one, and that's the problem. Now you've got China out there, she is laughing and, you know, and so forth, and Putin is laughing. And so, you know, one of his big weapons in foreign relations says, okay, you're going to do this. We're putting a tariff on you. Right.

Now, he could have kept his powder dry and just screwed around with places like Iran, China, Russia. and, you know, you've got national security issues there and so forth, and that's what he should have done. And he just does not, he's a bit too emboldened this term. His enemies have all been slain, and now he's doing this, and he can't stop himself. And like I say, I like the guy, like his attitude and so many things, and he gets things done. And it's just a shame that he, he's Too far, that's all. And I think everybody sees that now. Yeah.

Well, we'll see what happens. Trying to guess what the Supreme Court is going to do has always been a tough game. But when you have all nine of them asking really tough questions, it didn't look good yesterday from what I was hearing. It wasn't like anyone was trying to find out. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. You might find one guy.

You might find one guy. Maybe Alito, but I don't know. Maybe Thomas. But he's going to get trounced. John O'Connor once again. and if you're looking for a great book about the amazing story, the real story behind Watergate that you're not being told. Pick up a copy of Postgate, how the Washington Post betrayed Deep Throat, covered up Watergate

and began today's partisan advocacy journalism. And there's still a lot of that going on. John, do you have a main website, too? Yeah, postgatebook.com. Postgatebook.com. I've got about 150 articles up there. It might be good reading for your audience on different topics. So, yeah, well, postgatebook.com.

And thank you so much for the legal analysis. Be well, John. Take care. Love it. Okay, Bill. Take care. Shade before 7. This is KMED. KMED, HD1, Eagle Point, Metford, KBXG grants pass. One of each K4 VIN, 202, 982, MSRP, 24, 185. Tell you ride, Venn, 6772-558.