Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - Chevron Deference Ruling With Ex Clinton Attorney Rob Housman | Deep State Review

Episode Date: July 1, 2024

Check out this episode featuring former Clinton staff attorney Rob Housman! We dive deep into the concept of Chevron Deference, exploring its true meaning and the significant impact bureaucracy has on the everyday lives of Americans. We also uncover the ways in which deep state agencies manipulate power within the government. If you are looking for an episode in regards to government overreach, this is the one! All of this and more on this episode of Chevron Deference Ruling With Ex Clinton Attorney Rob Housman | Deep State Review

welcome to investigate Earth podcast. I'm here as chat alongside my beautiful wife, Sherry. On tonight's episode, we got a really, really good episode. Obviously, in the news has been the Chevron deference. Some people will refer to it also as the doctrine. But this essentially, a lot of people are saying this could have put a knife in the heart of the deep state, our government deep state, the bureaucracy that is really kind of like the fourth part of the government. We're going to get to a lot of interesting questions because we've actually had guests.

on in the past, Nathan Jones, for example, and Clear, and even some other ones that have been highly affected by these, I guess you can call bureaucrats, but more specifically, the Chevron deference. We're going to get to our guest right now. Rob Hausman, he is an attorney in D.C. He practices litigation, regulation, and more so the corporate side of things. Rob, how are you doing? Welcome to the show. Hey, I'm doing great. Thanks for having me. Yeah, none of a problem. So, Rob, you're an attorney. You are in D.C. where did you kind of get into being an attorney? Where did that come from?

And how did you make it to D.C.? Or did you move there? Or have you always kind of been there? So how I became attorney is a very, very long story. And it was basically, this is embarrassing to say. But when I was in college and they had on campus recruiting, I missed it. And so when my parents challenged me, like, what are you going to do with yourself? They were very big on education.

So my answer was, I'm going to go law school. Yeah. And that's because I was bad at math. So all the other ones like pre-med and MBA stuff, well, they were off the table. So it seemed like a good idea. I ended up in D.C. because I went to law school in D.C., but then later I was fortunate enough to work in the Clinton White House. And I just stayed.

Yeah, okay. I got you. So how was it working in the Clinton White House? What did you do for the Clinton administration? Well, I actually had a bunch of jobs along the way. But I ended up, I finished my career in the government as an assistant director under the White House Drugsar, then the director of ONDCP, General Barry McCaffrey. So I was an advisor to him.

And that was, you know, once in a lifetime experience. Okay. Now, as far as let's go ahead and get into it, what is the Chevron deference, right? This is all over social media on X, more specifically on X because X is like one of the only places you can really talk about stuff anymore. What is it? There's a lot of people just confused. What is it all about? Well, first of all, it's quite literally yesterday's news.

Yeah. But it's helpful to understand it to think about where we're headed. So it comes about from the mid-1980s. There was a lawsuit, Chevron versus Natural Resources Defense Council. And what it is is it's how courts determine whether an agency's action is conforms with the law. So an agency does something. They pass a rule. They start an enforcement action.

And when the agency does that, somebody challenges it. They say, well, you can't do that. And it goes to a court. And when the court looks at that regulation, normally it's a regulation. When the court looks at that regulation, it's sort of like a baseball rule, right? Tie goes to the runner. We all know that, right? So here, the deference is to, has been traditionally since the 1980s on the agency.

So when a court looks at an agency's rule or regulation, the court begins from deference. It says, well, was the agency's rule or regulation reasonable? Like basically, and it's a very low bar, reasonable is actually, it sounds. like a higher bar than it has been. Reasonable means like, was the agency full of, you know what, or could I kind of buy it? And even if the court doesn't think it was a good idea, even if the court doesn't think it was the best idea, even if the court really has serious doubts about what the agency did, so long as what the agency did was in Kuku, the court would say, well, I defer to the agency. Yeah.

Chevron. That's what the proposition of Chevron is. So you have a host of decisions that have been made in the last, oh, 40 years. I'm bad at math, so I think that adds up. You have a host of decisions that have been taken across the board of the regulatory state, FDA, FTC, EPA, pick your agency. You have a host of decisions where courts have said, well, the agency says, it's so and they're the experts so we're going to go along with them yeah that's that's been the state of

play until last week so yeah we've always heard obviously of the experts right and and a lot of these experts especially we saw that during a COVID-19 pandemic you know they made a lot of rules almost as if it was law right i mean is that part of it and and is the CDC one of those agencies you're referring to yeah so they're all at all of them are right any part of the federal government, technically speaking, is in some way, shape, or form an agency. Some of them are what's called independent agencies like the SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission. Others like HHS and EPA, they're considered regulatory agencies, executive branch agencies, but they're all agencies. Okay. And yeah, so we've heard a lot about deferring to the

experts within agencies, but I think what we've seen and certainly during COVID. I mean, I don't know if you watch the congressional testimony of Dr. Fauci, what, two weeks ago, and they asked them about social distancing. And as you guys know, and you guys have talked about it on your podcast, social distancing is what shut our schools down. It's what shut our economy down. It's, you know, they asked Dr. Fauci, what was the scientific basis for social distancing? And he had a great answer. And it just seemed to appear. There was no science. At least he was honest, right? I give him credit for his honesty. It was made up. And so where was the expertise in that? Well, there was none. Yeah, and it could have been the billions of dollars that the Falci and other

scientists potentially made during COVID. Maybe. I don't know, who knows? But what is your thoughts, too? I mean, you know, so is the Chevron deference? Is it really what gives all these agencies all the power? obviously these are unelected people that are making big decisions on behalf of the government and on behalf of the American people. Yeah, so let's start here. I was a government bureaucrat. I don't think all government bureaucrats are evil. I don't think that most of them go in, you know, wanting to overturn the governments

of the world or anything like that. You know, full stop. And I think what happens, though, is think about it as coloring in the lines or coloring outside the lines, right? So under Chevron deference, agencies colored outside the lines all the time. The Congress gave him an authorization, go to ABC. And they're like, well, we can do ABC, sure, but maybe DEF also looks kind of good. And so agencies colored outside the lines all the time.

And I think that agencies got so used to coloring outside the lines that many of them have run amok. And, you know, I think that this is a course correction, if you will. It's a little bit of a pendulum swing to say, no, no, no, let's get back to the law, right? Let's actually read these statutes and see what the Congress authorized you to do. Yeah. Yeah. And to that point, too, I mean, what do you think about is, you know, how does the, I guess, the recent Supreme Court decision, you know, overturning the Chevron effect, how does that restore

balance of power to the government? And how much power did these agencies actually have? I mean, how much did they really affect people's lives on a daily basis? Well, let's start with COVID. They shut your kids' school down. They compelled you to have vaccines if you wanted to do just about anything. They made you wear masks. What effect do they have on your lives?

Enormous, right? Federal agencies play a major role, whether it's the EPA and environmental protection or the FDA in terms of what drugs and other things we rely on. upon the federal agencies touch just about every part of our lives. And sometimes for the good, right? Like there are a lot of great workplace rules that protect working men and women in America so that, you know, it's not like the studs turkle era when people are losing their hands. Yeah. It's not all bad. However, they have an enormous amount of control over your life, indirectly.

So when you were obviously, you know, part of the Clinton campaign, obviously, I guess you know how, you know, government officials, elected officials, how much do they really play into? I mean, how much do they affect, I guess, bureaucracy, these agencies, do they obviously like the Chevron situation before the overturning of the Chevron? I mean, obviously, it probably heavily benefited politicians to a point where, they didn't have to go through Congress or, you know, I mean, how do you see that? Well, that's a great question. And the thing is, where you sit is where you stand, right? So in some ways, Chevron was a, I'm going to offend so many people right now. Chevron was like a workman's holiday for members of Congress, right? You pass this broad legislation.

You don't want to deal with the nitty gritty of what it's going to look like. You hand it to an agency and the agency does something with it, as opposed to actually having to say, what is it that we as political leaders, elected representatives, intend to do. And so some of it has been just like wash our hands of it. We'll pass this really broad piece of legislation and you guys go figure it out because we can't. And I think that is, I hope, an era that's over. And I think some of our politicians are going to have to grow up a bit and do their job a bit more. And because right now, so now, basically, the agency can only do what's in the statute. Pick your agency. It doesn't matter. The agency can only do what's in this statute.

And if the agency can only do what's in the statute, then if you want them to solve a problem, Congress has to pass a law. We all know in our divided country right now, in our divided Congress, our Congress hasn't passed a major piece of legislation and I don't know how we right. So take climate change. I don't care what side of the issue you're on. If you want to deal with climate change, the odds are now you're going to have to pass a piece of climate change legislation, whether a Republican or a Democrat, no matter what your approach is. Because what the agencies have been doing is they've been using the Clean Air Act, which if I recall correctly is from the 1916. to deal with the threat that's now in 2024.

It doesn't fit well. It's a bad fitting shoe. So now if you want to deal with climate change, well, Republicans and Democrats are going to have to get together. The elected representatives are going to have to do what the taxpayers pay them to do and come up with an approach to climate change. Until they do that, not much is going to happen. Yeah.

And I kind of feel, you know, when you talk about climate change, it almost seems like, you know, these agencies, though, they're the ones that use these talking points. And listen, regardless of climate change, I 100% think climate change is real. Now, we've talked obviously on the podcast about why that's real, how much, you know, people actually influence climate change versus cyclic, you know, I guess timelines of our history. But regardless of that, it seems like, though, that these agencies, they use things like climate change or like COVID or like whatever the case may be. to overrun their hand, overplay their hand.

They want to gain more power by way of, say, for example, climate change. Now, obviously, if you want to make a better environment for our world or our country or whatever the case may be, it's just very similar to this. When Joe Biden gets an office, you know, he stops a lot of the, you know, the drilling, the pipelines, all the stuff. But then we actually shift more overseas to where we're producing more oil overseas. So how does that, yeah, how does it affect? affect, you know, how does that really help climate change when we're actually producing more oil in other parts of the world? Because now the United States needs it that we're going to pay for.

I just feel like these agencies use things like this to gain more power. I think they manipulate things like that. How do you feel like this doctrine or sorry, doctrine deference, Chevron deference, how do you feel like it is going to affect litigation now going forward, especially in terms of litigation in regards to federal agencies, especially a lawsuit that was before Chevron and now after. Well, let me, you're right. I mean, a simple, simple thing. You're right. And it will affect it. So let me roll back tape. I do believe that there is an enormous predisposition among agencies to want power. And I also think, um, someone. of this is driven by the old revolving door, right? So if you look at what happened, go back to

COVID. If you look at what happened in COVID, Dr. Fauci and others in the public health bureaucracy, the public health agencies fell over themselves to advance the interests of big pharma. Remdesivir, the only approved antiviral. Well, studies show remdesivir doesn't work. Full stop. Dr. Fauci told us that the vaccines were going to end COVID like they ended polio. Right. Well, that was a lie, right?

And we know from Dr. Bricks that that was a lie all along. They knew that the vaccines weren't going to stop. infection and transmission, but that's what they told us. So they lied. They lied through their teeth. Along the way, other agencies jumped on board that bandwagon. So one of my clients, Clear, Nasal Hygiene Company, got caught in that crossfire, right? Clear was saying to people, there are other things you can do based upon data, based upon studies, that can help you reduce your risk of infection and if you do get sick, reduce the duration and severity of the illness. Clear was trying to tell people about science. The FTC comes in and they sue clear to shut,

clear up. Why did they do that? I mean, they did that because they wanted to play a bigger role in advancing the narrative, right? They wanted to. control the narrative. And now we've had a number of cases that have talked about government control over the marketplace of ideas. And that to me is epically wrongheaded. Yeah. And let me ask you, so the FTC suits clear. And we've talked about this story many times on this podcast. And Well, they sued for making false claims is what they were saying. Yeah, right. I mean, is that technically what they sued for?

Because, look, they obviously had studies, you know, and some of these studies. Yeah, they presented the studies. Millions of dollars in studies. Yeah, they spent money on the studies. How does the FTC just come in sue you? And by the way, regardless of what their point was, they, does, did the FTC ever think they were going to win the case with Clear? I mean, or did they just sue based on power because they knew there to government.

and to shut people up. Yeah. Well, so that's the, there's so many great questions in that. First of all, no, they didn't shoot clear. I think I can safely say. I don't really think the FTC has ever alleged that what Clear said was false. I mean, in one instance, but overwhelmingly, what they alleged is that we lacked the data to support our claims, ours, meaning my clients. But the thing is, like you said, we had a whole ton, I'm trying to be polite here,

we had a whole ton of data to support what we were saying. Millions of dollars. It wasn't the sort of data that the FTC in its interpretation of the statute said as necessary. And this is a great illustration of Loper, right? Three Loper, you have a statute that says, thou shalt not say something that's false or misleading. And preloper, the agency, FTC, interpreted that to mean, if you don't have studies are randomized controlled clinical trials.

If you don't have this specific kind of study, then we believe, we, no, we determine that your statements are false and misleading. But go back, the law that they sued. under is the FTC Act. The FTC Act never, there's not a single mention of study in the FTC Act. There's no mention of RCT clinical trial substantiation. All the things that the FTC wants to hold clear and millions of other companies to, all of those things don't appear in the statute. In the past, the courts have deferred to the agency, right? Chevron. Well, false of misleading.

The FTC says, without these certain kinds of studies, it's false and misleading. We'll defer to the agency. Now, all that's ripped to shreds, right? Now, with the Loper decision, it's more like you go to the statute and you show me where it says that in the statute. And if you point to that line in the statute that says, thou shalt have studies. Well, my view is, and we'll see what the court say, the agency loses. Yeah. What exactly is the Loper study?

Well, so the Loper is the decision that overturned Chevron. This is really kind of cool and interesting small ball, right? So in Loper, there are a bunch of fishermen, right? This is like the most dangerous catch of law. I'm not kidding. You cannot make this stuff up. This is the most dangerous catch. There are these fishermen, and there is a national marine fishery service rule and statute.

The statute is called the Magnuson Act. Wow, I'm going back in time right now. But the Magnuson Act says you can have observers on boats. All right. So the fishermen have to have a fishery service. observer on their boats to make sure, I guess, that they're not catching whales and things like that. I like whales. I'm all for that. Good. Great rule. But the National Marine NMFS said, well, if we're going to put observers on your boat, you have to pay for those observers. And the fishermen

said, well, that's not in the law, right? And in the past, it's not a crazy extension. right? I mean, I wouldn't call it hairbrain. We're going to put people on your boat. You're going to pay for that. I can see why the agency might interpret it that way. I'm not saying I would interpret that way, but I can't say that they're butt ass wrong. But now for years, that would have gone flying through defer, defer, defer, sure, you guys got to pay them. Now the Supreme Court comes in and goes, hmm, not so much. The law says you can have there, you're required to have an observer on your boat, but there isn't a line in that law that says anything about paying for it. And that's the key thing. Agencies now are going to have to anchor their actions to a very specific statutory provision. And that's going to cause a ton of heartache. And it's going to be all over the map and all of that.

I get it. But making the agencies actually do what the Congress authorized them to do in my view is over the long term, set aside this transition period, over the long term, going to be helpful to our political process. I agree. And going back just for a second, you know, when you talk about some of these regulations and how the FTC decides, you know, what is our statute? What are we going to follow? Who are we going to go after? Who are we not going to go after? Who makes those decisions, by the way, in, say, for example, the FTC?

Who are the ones that are actually saying, hey, but we see clear here. We're during COVID-19. They get a nasal spray. Where does their policies or their kind of structure of, hey, this is who we go after? This is who we're going to leave alone. Where does that come from? Does it come from actual people in the FTC that make these rules up? Well, no, it actually starts lower than that, right?

Okay. So once a policy gets implemented, right? Once there's a rule or the FTC case guidance, once the senior most people have set a policy or a rule, it then turns to things like line attorneys. And these are relatively mid-tier bureaucrats. And I don't mean bureaucrats in a pejorative sense. These are civil servants, relatively mid-tier, who make decisions about are we going to go after them or are we going to go after them? And part of the problem is those bureaucrats, civil servants, they want to rise most of them, want to rise through the ranks, right? So the way you rise through the ranks is to hunt elephants, right?

not chip monks or hunt scalps that are high profile. So during COVID, if you're a mid-level civil servant going after somebody who is allegedly making false COVID claims, you know, that gets you a lot more out of boys, as we call them, and going after somebody who is like marketing paper clips. Or high profile, you're in line with the administration's views about COVID. I mean, I've heard government bureaucrats say that we couldn't allow you, you, the American people, to have this information. Because if you, the American people, had it, you would have behaved irresponsibly. Yeah.

When I heard that, my head almost exploded. Right. That's the ultimate in nanny state. People ought to be able to make their own decisions about, I don't care, your car V8, V6, your health care, do I want to get vaccinated or not. Every aspect of your life, you ought to be able to make within, I'm a big social contract theory guy. We ought not to hurt each other. We all have big compact together. We all hurt each other.

But within that, like we all ought to make our own decisions and we ought to respect each other's decisions. And they're kind of being like daddy saying, we're not going to even let you make those decisions because they may not be safe if you make the wrong decision. If you knew, I'm not even going to put a fine point out, if you knew that there was something else you could do, I can't say what. But if you knew there was something else you could do that might lower your risk of. getting COVID more than a vaccine, you, the American people might make the decision not to get vaccinated. And that's the danger. That's the problem. Yeah.

Yeah, because, I mean, listen, I mean, you know, bureaucracy, you often think all, you know, how many bureaucrats do you think, right? I mean, you've kind of been a brewery. You said you're a bureaucrat. I want to know more about that, too. So how many bureaucrats are, I mean, listen, we've heard the stories, right? We've heard the stories about politicians, you know, being funded or getting backheaded money from pharmaceutical companies or especially during COVID or whatever the cases. We can't necessarily prove all those things.

Some of them are different. But how many bureaucrats can get away with that a lot more than politicians, elected politicians, as far as backhanded money, payments from, you know, whoever, Pfizer, Moderno, name any of the companies? I mean, could they get away with that a lot easier than, say, a politician, elected officials? this is a complicated area and I'm just going to pee all over the district. So the fact of the matter is it's actually for the average civil servant, the average civil servant, the average civil servant working at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the average civil servant, it is almost impossible for them to have a pecuniary interest that drives their decision.

They're not getting bribes. They don't have a way to get paid. They're not going to get it. For the average civil servant, the influence is, if there is an influence, the influence is the revolving door. I'm going to do my time at FDA. And then when I leave FDA, Pfizer, Moderna, they're going to hire me because I'm a good man or woman. I'm a decent person. I'm smart.

I know how the system works. I like their products. That's the average bureaucrat, right? Now, compare that to a politician. Politicians can't take bribes, but our system is set up such that moneyed interest can provide campaign financing to politicians on an almost unlimited basis. And if you're a member of Congress or a member of the Senate or running for the presidency, the thing that drives you the most is election. And the thing that drives election the most is money. And so, no, they can't put money in your pocket. but they can fund your campaign.

And so it is an enormous disincentive to members of Congress to or presidential candidates to go out after, say, the pharmaceutical energy industry, the energy industry. Now, there is an exception to this rule, and it's kind of a very interesting exception. certain officials who hold intellectual property in drugs and medical devices are able to take payments from the royalties off of those intellectual property holdings, even while they're federal officials. So, for example, one might recall when Dr. Fauci testified before the Congress amidst the pandemic, And I can't remember it may have been Senator Paul.

It may have been someone. Yeah, Ron Paul. Yeah. Someone asked him about the money that he got from his patents and trademarks. And he wouldn't answer the question. Yeah. That's different. But the average, look, I don't believe anyone's paying off anybody at the FDC.

I just don't buy it. I don't think that they, I don't believe that they are correct. I don't think they're right. I think they're misguided. I think some of them may be looking at their long-term future, but none of them are feathering their nest. And quite frankly, I mean, if they were, well, I wouldn't say it. But the way to gather your nest in this field is to go become a private attorney and have clients that pay you lots of money. Well, let me ask you this, though.

So, you know, you think about, you know, for example, the Biden administration that has been in office now for three and a half years or whatever it is, almost close to three and a half years. And we've had a ton of videos, right, about the FBI showing up at people's houses for really dumb reasons in a lot of cases. I mean, we're talking about some stupid reasons that these agents are showing up at people's houses. And a lot of people believe that the FBI is being directed, obviously by the Biden administration, the DOJ. We see now Merrick Garland, which is, you know, refusing to release tapes that, you know, the, I believe as Congress is trying to demand. And it just seems like, you know, a complete shit show in Washington right now to where, you know, we talk about the Chevron doctrine and the bureaucracy there, but also like how far gone is Washington and these agencies? And as you just said, you know, you have these, you have these people that are working, you know, whether it be FTC or SEC or whatever the case may be. They're there.

They're working. But what about the power structure, right? What about the people that are put in charge of these agencies? And it goes, I guess what I'm trying to say is like the FBI, for example, I don't at all. We're 100% pro law enforcement always have been. But at the same time, you have to understand that who is over these agencies. And, you know, the typical FBI agent that is an American patriot, they love their country, they love their people. You know, they sign up and go through intensive training to be able to serve their country.

but when they finally get through all this shit and then they get into say the FBI or whatever the case may be and now you have a leadership hierarchy that is has obviously a political agenda well then they're directed wherever they need to be directed and I don't want to compare I don't want to say this all but we've all you know we've obviously heard the term I was just following orders right we can go back to Nazi Germany

with that or whatever I would just following orders, you know. But how important isn't that, you know, we put these people in power as presidents or whoever, we put these non-elected officials over the FBI or over the FTC or over the SEC, how much of their influence, though, really dictates what their goal is? I mean, you know, say, for example, if you're FTC and you hate all concerns, or you hate or you're desperately trying to make sure that you go with a narrative. So it's like, hey, pharmaceutical companies over here, we got to sell those vaccine because they're going to make billions.

It's the biggest wealth transfer in history. So we got to make sure that whoever would go after, if anything actually works against COVID, that might take away the money from the pharmaceutical companies, we got to make sure we go after those. Now, although these people underneath these leaders of these agencies may be great people. but at the same time, you have a job and you either do it or you get fired. Is the leaders, like, what about the structure? I guess what I'm asking is, what is the bad between the structure of who puts in the leaders of these agencies and the power, right?

And how does a Chevron deference affect that? Does it take away their power? If you're a president and you have, you have someone that is going to be the leader, leader of the FTC, and then he brings his people down. Does the Chevron deference affect that as far as taking away some of their power? Yeah, so there's so many things in that. Wow. Let me start here. Full disclosure. Formerly, I was, I represented the, what's essentially the trade association for the FBI, the FBI agents association. And so the FBI agents, and those ranks are very near and dear to my heart.

And I will tell you this, I don't think that the FBI, maybe there's a bad apple every once in a while, but by and large, the FBI does what the FBI does. They pursue cases, they follow their protocols. And I don't think the FBI, among all agencies, is probably one of the least likely to be influenced by political suasion. That's one thing. But step outside the FBI.

I remember, I remember an exchange that I had when I was, I was like, I guess I was in my, wow, this is going to be painful to say. I think I was in my late 30s when I went into government. And I'm this, you know, young kind of want to be like John Kennedy political appointee. And, you know, I want to go change the world. I want to go change the world for the better. And I remember walking in and I had this discussion. with a career civil servant.

Mind you, I'm way up in the food chain, technically speaking, over this civil servant. But I have this conversation, and in it, the civil servant basically says, guess what? Like, you're here for four years and you're gone, and I'll be here for 20, right? Yeah. And that, I think, is the bigger problem, right? The bigger problem is that the bureaucracy at the, ranks, the number of political appointees is very, very small, right? They're only at the

tippy, tip top. But the rest of the bureaucracy doesn't necessarily listen to you, doesn't necessarily respect you. Many of them are just there to wait you out. And there's not a heck of a lot you can do because of civil service rules. You can't fire them. You can't demote them. You maybe can move them, But you're stuck with them for the most part. So, and if they come in with a bent, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, or whatever, they have a lot of latitude in pushing their own agenda. And I know that there has lately been a large segment of the Trump world that says that the bureaucratic state is, you know, against him. and all that. I think that may be true to some degree. I will tell you when I was in a Democratic

Clinton administration, I felt for sure they were against me, right? So everybody feels that to a certain extent. You thought they were against you? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. There were people in there that I know were not advancing the things that we wanted to advance for whatever reason. And I was running my head up against a brick wall, sometimes it felt like on a daily basis. And there was servants and there's nothing I could do. Rob, let me ask you, are you comfortable saying what political party you're part of or now? I'm an independent right now.

Okay, independent. What were you before? I was a Democrat. Okay. And I still leave. So if I'm a Democrat, I'm a Blue Dog Democrat. Yeah. You all know what a Blue Dog.

You're in South Carolina. You should know what a Blue Dog Democrat. Well, yeah, but maybe. I think I kind of know what you're talking about. Yeah, go ahead and explain it because I don't. I am, I'm a very Clintonian conservative Democrat. I'm a very, what Democrats used to be, I guess, is what you're saying.

Yeah, back in my day. Yeah. Back in my day. So I think that, but here's where Loper is interesting, right? And you asked this, and when you were asking, I'm like, wow, he's connecting some dots that are, that are really cool dots to connect. by forcing the bureaucrats, the civil servants to implement the laws, you're taking away discretion, right? So they can't pursue their agenda. They have to pursue the agenda that are elected representatives in Congress and perhaps with the president agreeing

because they're not vetoing. They're taking what came out of the, the democratic process and implementing that, not something fundamentally different. And to me, that is, that's why I actually, I'm balancing this is a good decision. And I don't always see eye to eye with the Chief Justice, but I think the Chief Justice reasoned this in this case very, very well. I think his opinion is rock solid. Why did this go to the Supreme Court in the first place? Like what made this happen because of that case we're talking about with the fishermen? Well, no, the times are changing.

I mean, yes, it's because of this case, right? So under Article 3, our courts only take up cases or controversy. So they can't just decide, hey, you know what? Nobody brought up this issue, but we're going to decide it today. Litigants actually have to bring something to a court for the court to decide it. Yeah. But the court, the Supreme Court, gets to pick and choose, right? Other courts, they got to hear every case. But when you get to the Supreme Court, you get to pick and choose, right? It's choose my own adventure. And what I think has happened is there is a necessary course correction. So go back to the 1970s, 80s. The Erie River was on fire, literally on fire. There was Love Canal. and children being born with like, I remember it was bad, three hands, all sorts of really, like the state of our country in that moment in time, environmentally labor-wise and others,

it was not pretty. And so there was a belief that somebody had to rein in big moneyed interest, particularly corporate interests. And so we gave a lot of deference to these regulatory agents. to deal with some really bad problems, right? And in that first glance, when they started implementing things like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, I mean, think of it this way. Our national symbol of the Bald Eagle almost was gone.

Yeah. Almost gone because of pesticides. Like what a tragedy that would have been. And so in that moment, the pendulum swang and it swung, sorry, and it gave much more deference to these agencies to fix some problems. And that worked well for a while. And then the agencies kind of got a little full of themselves in my view. And they started kind of freelancing, coloring outside the lines. Gotcha. And now we're at a point where they kind of need to be brought back to Roost. And as Chief Justice Roberts rightly wrote, interpreting the law is what

the courts do, not what agencies do. And so the courts have a legitimate function in reviewing agency actions. And that doesn't mean that the courts aren't going to listen to what the experts, and there are experts in agencies have to say. It just means they're just not going to rubber stamp it, right? And the weird thing to me with what you're saying, too, is like even the bald Eagle and kind of the stuff they go after, you know, and yet we have GMOs in our foods. We have cancer calls in ages in our foods. We have all the stuff. And it's like you wished there was an agency that went after companies that were doing

things that were detrimental to our health on a daily basis. But instead, they go after people, they go after companies that actually help people. And I think that's why people are so effing confused. Right. So with like clear, you have a product that's been sold for 20 plus years. No one has ever filed an adverse effect. It hasn't hurt anyone. There's data to say it helps with COVID.

The FTC is suing us for that data, full disclosure. But like, where's the harm, right? Where's the harm? But I do think this is one of the positives of this decision, Chad, and I think you pointed out. There's a lot of stuff that should get taken care of, right? Like I'm worried about climate change. I've got two kids. I want this to be a great world for them.

I'm worried about GMOs. I'm worried about AI. For sure. So the Congress needs to do its job and deal with these difficult issues rather than just throwing up their hands and arguing over what we're going to name the next airport. Rob, and sorry, Sherry, I got to ask this before I forget. And you're probably about like, holy shit, why did he ask this? Oh, my God.

what do you think as an attorney, right? So, okay, when we came on here, I said, hey, what is kind of your primary focus is, right? You are a litigator, probably more so than you want to be, I guess, right now. And regulatory. Yeah. And I think that's where the key is, I'm sorry, I'm taking it. No, no, no, no, you're good. It's more regulatory is what we have to have the fine print with.

Well, yeah, but I'm asking them something different because we, we, yeah, regulatory aside, you're a litigator, you're in court. I guess pretty often now, right? And so I got to ask this question. Your independent was Democrat under the Clinton administration. And what do you think, off topic, just a little bit, what do you think about when we're talking about legal warfare with political opponents, say, for example, the New York case against Trump, 34 felonies, various things like this?

And we were kind of a part of something similar in our past before, completely different. We're not politicians. But we got sued. Yeah, we got sued. They had a lot more money than we did. We 100% felt like we were, we were just,

we just didn't have enough money and they had a lot of connections in the court systems in this area. They knew these people. They went to dinner with these people. They did this all, you know, all the time. But also thinking about New York,

you know, you had Latisha James and Alvin Bragg and there was so much of their campaign that was based upon, you know, going after Trump and trying to defeat him at all costs. This was, you know, seven, eight years ago when they were talking about this. Is our legal system in peril right now? I mean, like, how do you see that? Is there, how much corruption do you see in the legal system? And, you know, I know we're talking about bureaucrats,

but you got to think about the people that are now in power, in place. federal judges, for example, or, you know, these judges that are heavily funded by, I don't know, George Soros, not even just judges, but more, more particularly the district attorneys and so on and so forth. How do you feel about our legal system right now? You know, obviously a lot of people say, the United States justice system is the best in the world. And you can be the best at something, but not necessarily great at it. Do you feel like we have made a huge step back in our justice system or our court systems? Well, step back, realize if you go back earlier in our heritage, things were much worse. Remember, Senator Sondner got beaten on the floor, the Senate with a cane.

So just be careful in saying it's the worst it's ever been because I don't know that that's true. But your point is, well, take him, but I don't think it's just the legal system. I think that there are a couple of dynamics at work here. And I think they're really horrible dynamics from a democracy standpoint. The first is money. There's just too much money in this system, right? The donations, the ability to buy in. And the thing is, we watch pretty closely presidential campaigns,

even Senate campaigns about the money. down ballot in a lot of places, judges are elected, right? They're not appointed. They're elected. And they get campaign donations. And, you know, we're all human. You tell me somebody writes a million dollar check to your campaign. And I don't know what the campaign donation limit is, so whatever.

Tell me somebody's a big donor to your campaign and that doesn't make you think twice. That's, that's, you know, well, then you're an angel. Thank you very much. You should be a judge. But other than that, the money is too much. It's just too much. I think we need to deal with that. The other thing is, and I think this is for me and my contemporaries,

because I'm getting a little older now, as you can see, politics is a blood sport now. Yeah. And it wasn't always. And it shouldn't be. We're not out to destroy each other. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the greatest senators we've ever had, worked in the Nixon administration. right? Senator Kennedy was very, very good friends with his counterparts across the aisle.

They went drinking on St. Patrick's Day together. It used to be in Washington that my kids played. It used to be in Washington that all the members of the House and all the members of the Senate lived in Washington. And then there became this whole movement that you shouldn't move to Washington. You shouldn't be part of Washington because then you're captured. And so I'm going to sleep in my office in D.C. and be back home. And I get that. I understand the political appeal of it. But what that means is your kids don't play on the soccer team with the kids from the other side.

And that makes it easy for you to hate, alienate, attack the other. side. It's why we can't get anything bipartisan done anymore. Right. And this notion of politics is blood sport is horrible. It's just horrible. And that's what spills over why you have these legal cases and other things. It's not a blood sport. Yeah. You know, I hate these, I hate these war analogies. This isn't war. And anybody who fought in war will tell you this isn't a war. Yeah. But we have started to use things like the legal system, and both sides will accuse each other of it. We've started to use the legal system for things that was never intended to do.

Even though, though, I mean, you're making money for you right now. I'll tell you what, you know what, if I could find a way to roll back in time to the era in which I could. and I still have friends I do it. I have very good friends who are Democrats. I have very good friends who are Republicans. I love these guys. And if I could roll back to an era when we actually were able to do things in a bipartisan manner, I'd happily forego a bunch of the money I make on the system.

Now, Rob, there's one thing I've heard from me tonight that I think, number one, you said you're independent and and i think you made that decision based on you're kind of old school democrat versus kind of whatever it is now um and we have we have a lot of great friends uh that are democrats or at least claim to be democrats used to be denizens very similar to you but how far has this country gone right now i mean do you do you feel like is washington as bad as the people believe it is because the reality is of it is the people believe that Washington and politicians

are Congress, everything is just a complete shit show basically. I mean, just to say it the best way I possibly can, that's what they believe. And most people do not feel like that they are that they're heard.

Most people do not feel like that they are even being fought for. You know, it seems like we're always fighting for other people, other countries, other whoever, it doesn't matter it's just you know we have so many issues in the united states and yet here we are uh people are you know so many conspiracy theorists you know that used to be conspiracy theorists now all of a sudden are not necessarily conspiracy theorist right and so there's i'm not paranoid people

really are out to get me yeah i mean so it's just weird it's just you know the thing is how bad is washington and and in how do you see 2024 playing out i mean would the election, obviously, don't even get to go into Joe Biden, but do you feel like this gets better? Because a lot of people don't think it does get better. And so what does that even mean if it doesn't get better? Well, I mean, the short answer is this is a dumpster fire, right? It's an outright dumpster fire. But I'll turn the blame around. Everybody wants to point finger at Washington. Everybody wants to go, well, they're corrupt. They're this. They're that, Washington, Washington. Guess what?

to the American voter, you get the government you deserve. You get the government, you elect. If you want things to be different, elect different people, right? I personally, I'm tired of both ends of the spectrum, right? I have no patience for AOC and the squad. None. None. I also have no patience for Marjorie Taylor Green. I just don't. I have no patience for the extremes at both ends. What I wish is that the American people would start voting their interests, right? What do you care about? Do you care about better wages for the working person? Do you care about a stronger national security? Vote, not your ideology, but vote the people that are capable of delivering what you want. And if people did that, I think you'd have a lot more middle of the road people that actually were the kind of patriots, teachers that we all want and they could work together and we could make progress.

But until then, it's a dumpster fire. Yeah, I agree. In each party, there's so much, like you said, extremist. Yeah, there's hatred. and hatred and, you know, all we're doing is dividing and conquering ourselves and we're not getting anywhere. We're not even conquering. We're like two heavyweights in the 12th round of a fight that's never going to end, just throwing, you know, wheelhouse punches at each other's chins one after another. It's like a bad rocky movie.

Yeah. I've always said we've talked about aliens on this podcast and just the interdimensional stuff. We talked about pretty much everything, but one of the things always said was, I said if, say, for example, these UFOs, aliens were actually coming from another planet and another either galaxy or our own, there's no way they came from a similar system than our own, because there is no way we would have ever made it to get the advanced technology that they may have in the system we have. There's no way.

They're actually, if assuming there are UFOs, I think they're filming this as reality TV. Yeah, I mean. I think they have a show life on earth and the ratings are crushing it. Yeah. You make a look at these idiots. Right. Rob, let me ask you, getting back to Chevron real quick and then and we'll wrap it up in just a second. How many cases that that you have is Chevron potentially going to affect?

And is the Chevron ruling the Supreme Court, is that going to help cases, especially pre-chevron ruling, post-chevron ruling? So the way that the Supreme Court decided it is it says it doesn't affect already decided cases. So anything that's already been decided is where it is. That doesn't mean that those same issues can't be raised again in new ways. but anything already decided is stere decisis it's decided. In terms of my caseload, I only have one case right now that's a federal agency regulatory matter. It's my clear case.

But it's probably my biggest and most important case. And I do, well, I hope, like the guy who says, you know, I never want to predict the outcome of a game. I hope it will play a role in this case. I think it should. I think it should be determinative in our case. But having said that, the number of future cases that this could play a significant, if not, determinative role in is beyond comprehension.

Because it cuts across, think about every agency of the federal government. everything from the Department of Energy all the way through to the Department of Labor, it plays a role in all of it, every bit of it. So are they basically what they're saying is you can't just make up your own rules. You have to have laws that you go by. And those, we've got to get back to the law and what's in the law. You can't just say, oh, for example, if you go into it, a restaurant and you're going to get a rating B rating C or D it's got to be based on what's

regular for everyone I guess is that kind of what this new law Congress has to pass it right we have to put it in legislation right and and put it in the law before and that's how they and then that's how you keep them regular to and making sure they're staying you know in the black and white area not the gray area no coloring outside the lines yeah right show remember Remember that line from what was, I can't remember me. Show me the money, right? Yeah. This is show me the law, right? And in fact, not in this case, but in a case called West Virginia versus EPA, Justice Thomas writing for the court said, agencies are only allowed to do the

things that the statute authorizes. And agencies are not allowed to add pages to the rulebook. I paraphrase it slightly because I don't remember it exactly. Right. But that's the thing. Like it's going to be, you want to do this? In my view, we'll see how the courts interpret it. The way if I were a judge, Lord knows I'm not. But if I were a judge, the way I would interpret it would be, okay, you want to do this?

Show me the line in the statute that tells you to do this. It's that simple. No line, no do. You can't do it. Right. It's very. interesting. Yeah, even in a clear case, though, for example, does this, do you guys approach this completely different now with the lawsuit? I mean, 100%. 100%. I mean, this is about restoring

common sense, right? It's about restoring common sense. The FTC is coming after us under a statute that says false and misleading. Can't do false misleading? Okay, fine. And saying, well, you guys have to prove you're innocent, right? This is, I joke with people. This is a murder case where they say, well, you don't have an alibi, therefore you get the murder without even showing a murder. Right? Murder, you don't have an alibi?

You're guilty. What murder? What do we need an alibi for? So in our case, I think this fundamentally changes the landscape because the agency is going to have, I hope, the quality of the agency to go back to the statute and say, where does it say this? Yeah. Where does it?

Yeah. I actually think that this is a return to reason. Wow. And I think too with this new thing in place, not only are they going to have to, it was almost like you are having to prove your innocence instead of you proving you're guilty. But now that it's here, they not only have to prove that you're guilty, but you don't prove it. What happens to the client? Like, I'm just thinking about all these people that are being sued for stupid shit right now. And they spent millions and millions of dollars on attorney fees.

I would think these three-letter agencies should have to pay these people back. So we actually have a proposal for legislation where, which we're trying to advance the company does to require when an agency brings a lawsuit like this. that if they don't prevail, they have to repay. And there's another statute called the Equal Access to Justice Act, which is similar and requires that in some circumstances. We think that should be even more broadly applied. But the good thing about this is it's really just telling bureaucrats to do their job, right? You were told to enforce statutes.

Go enforce statutes. You know, go do your job. In this case, if they can prove that what, clear or anybody else said was false, objectively false, well, good on you. Do your job. Go prove that. Don't prove something else, right? Don't prove that the light was red by proving that there was an ice cream stand on the corner, which is what they're doing. How long? You read a red light because there's an ice cream stand on the corner. Yeah. How does that work?

How long do you think this lawsuit will play out? Do you think it'll be, I mean, because obviously federal lawsuits, it seems like it takes forever. Forever. And do they intentionally prolong stuff forever and ever and ever, hoping you're going to give up? So you'll run out of money or whatever? I will tell you that I think that there have been a number of instances in this lawsuit where the Department of Justice has taken steps that I believe were primarily intended

to drag this out. and make it as painful for us as possible. I'm sure opposing counsel would couch them differently. That's just my opinion. But that is my opinion. And the fact is these lawsuits can take years. And defendants, you know, the government is playing with house money all the time. Not house money.

Exactly. They're playing with our money. Yes. Right? The government lawyers are spending your and my taxpayer dollars. Yes. And it's like an unlimited trough, right? And so these things take forever, and they do.

They grind you down and they grind you down. And on that point, I have to give Nate, Nate Jones, so I know you've had on an enormous amount of credit because it would have been really easy for Nate to just kind of hold. And that's not Nate. And I give Nate an enormous amount of credit for fighting the good fight. And for standing up for what's right. Because quite frankly, if you believe some of these studies,

and I do because they're what the government wants, randomized controlled trials. There is one randomized controlled trial with a nasal spray that found, if you use the nasal spray three times a day, it reduced the risk of transmission by, I believe it's 65%. Which is way better than the vaccines,

way better than anything else we have. And the government has precluded the, do you guys know the trial I'm talking about? Have you ever heard of this other than for me? Absolutely. Yeah, go ahead. No one has ever heard of this. The average American has no idea about this.

Why? Because the government censored that information. Right. And imagine if we had from the jump, go back three years, imagine if we had done something that would have reduced the risk of transmission by, oh, I don't know, half, what this nation would have looked like differently. Yeah. And they chose not to do it.

Yeah. And it's pretty much saying, we killed some people because you didn't let us use this stuff. And it's kind of on the government's fault. Well, I mean, well, the thing is, though, yeah. Well, it's, you know, like Ivermectum, any of that stuff. And no one's going to get fired. That's the amazing thing. Dr. Fauci is still going to have a bobblehead.

Yeah. Thank God. Well, they're kind of like weatherman, you know, a little bit. You know, weatherman. They can get wrong. That's the best comparison I've heard all about. 90% of the time. Can I steal that?

Yeah. But the problem is like, they're kind of like weatherman, but holy crap, this is our lives we're talking about. And Weatherman, by the way, also at sometimes is our lives. And what is it's just your golf tea time, but sometimes it's your house. Yeah, exactly. Yes. And I've told Nathan, you know, I've known Nathan for a year and a half, two years now.

And he's a good friend of ours now. But I've told Nathan, though, you know, he fights and he does. and he goes to congressional hearings. He does whatever he has to do to make sure that he is fighting this and he's coming on our podcast many times. And, you know, I know to him and the company, it felt like, you know, the government's coming after me because we had a product and then we just happened to find out

that it was useful in COVID. And then all hell brought on it. So we went this long without having any issues. But as soon as it might have helped COVID, and this is the issue. We've had Dr. Peter McCull on her. our podcast before talking about all the, you know, all the various ways that we could have saved lives.

We didn't. And so we're talking about bureaucracy and you're talking about the Chevron doctrine with these agencies, you know, these, listen, this is my opinion, allegedly is, by the way, does that work? Allegedly, my opinion. Because we don't get sued. Well, no, if you declare it your opinion, you don't even need to say allegedly. Because it's obviously you're, you can't allegedly have an opinion.

It's either your opinion. Okay, good. But we will get you as an attorney if we get sued. I'll send him my business card. But I always say, you know, if, you know, and Dr. Peter Ricolla, great expert. They tried to cancel him during the pandemic because he was talking about things that could have saved lives, early treatment, all these things.

And it's like at some point, like when were they intentionally trying to ramp numbers up? When were they intentionally trying to do things that seem like, it was causing death. And I know that is an opinion that is speculation. There's a lot of stuff out there. And maybe one day we might know. But, you know, there's still a lot of speculation about how JFK was assassinated or, you know, all these different things. And will you ever know?

I mean, the same way that Pfizer went to a federal judge, a federal court and said, hey, we don't want to release documents or any of our actual findings. And they came like 100 years or something. No, 75 years, 76 years it was. And then another judge said, well, you got to release documents, 500. pages over whatever amount of time. But this is like, how does Pfizer go to these courts? And is there a way that agencies or pharmaceutical companies, is there a way they can get into, and this is a good question I've always said,

is there a way that big-time companies like this can make their way into courts that is more apt to rule in their favor? That's the question of. Yeah. Yeah, so I mean, there's a lot of ways they do, right? So first of all, there's jurisdiction shopping, venue shopping. So, and not just big companies do it, interest groups do it. You can go to certain courts that you know are going to be more likely to,

are more likely going to see things your way. And you can commence actions in places where the odds are better for you. Part one. Part two, you can just throw a lot of money at it, right? So you can hire really good law firms and with deep benches and you can drag things out and you can. And then if you're Pfizer or Moderna or those guys during the pandemic, you have the government sitting at your side. And so the courts are in a bind, right? They're in a pickle because the government is saying this is vital.

this is really important. This is, you know, you need to have protect the need to do this. And so the government is kind of making the case for Pfizer and Moderna. And when people go to go after Pfizer-Moderna, they go, but the government said to do this, right? We're off the hook.

It's the government. It's the government. And in fact, the Congress patches statutory provisions that now if you're a victim of a vaccine a vaccine-related illness, you can't sue them because the Congress insulated them. So, I mean, the whole system is in that way the big companies do have an unmistakable advantage. But talking about that, you know, with Kansas being the first ones that are suing, and now there's like seven other states.

And I'm just wondering, why are they just going after Pfizer? Why are they not going after Moderna? did they have better protected things in place? I don't know. I couldn't tell you what their litigation strategy. Yeah. I was just curious. Rob, by the way,

I would love to know that too. Do you take cases based on interest or is it or I mean, I don't know how kind of attorneys do. I know there are some attorneys out there will do anything, but I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying do you typically take things that? From more corporate? Well, no, you either know you're going to be,

better able to succeed at or your interest in your own belief? Like you saw maybe the clear case and you said, here's a clear case. Let me look at the evidence. Obviously, you wouldn't take necessarily something that you don't think you could win. Or do you take things that you're like, hey, probably ain't going to win this, but let's try it anyway. It's kind of a mix, right?

So I'm really lucky in that respect. I'm super lucky in that respect. I'm a small shop. I don't have a huge overhead. I don't have 14 law clerks. I'm a giant law library and a Fifth Avenue address that I have to pay for. So I do cases that I believe in, right? I do cases that there's something to it that appeals to me.

And I don't know. Have you guys ever, have you ever watched like Goliath or Lincoln Lawyer? Oh, yeah. I kind of like going up against big interests. I really kind of, it kind of gets my competitiveness flowing. So like with clear, I kind of like going against the federal government. That's kind of fun for me, right? I like playing.

I like playing in away stadiums. If you were an NFL player, I'd be the guy who like, yeah, I don't want to have any home games. It's boring. And that's weird, by the way. considering that you used to be a Democrat because, you know, Democrats used to actually be less government. It seems like Democrats nowadays are more government. Yeah, regulate me, baby. Yeah, I mean, but you got to understand our politics, our politics sway is like an ocean, right? The tide goes in, the tide goes out. And so mark my words, if President Trump is reelected,

there will be a host of new regulation just in his vision, right? Everybody uses the regulatory state to their advantage. Yeah. And I don't begrudge that. I mean, I would do it too. What we all do, right? So if Trump wins, it'll be a different sort of regulatory approach, but it'll be a regulatory approach.

No different. Yeah, and let me ask you this before we wrap up. I got to ask you this. Have you looked at all to Project 2025? I know we had actually, we had, it seems like at the very least, the Democrats or someone on that side is, is really doing a big push on social media to make people, especially Gen Z and the younger people fear Project 2025. But doesn't Project 2025 have something to do kind of with the Chevron deference, right? I mean, when it comes to bureaucracy and the unelected people in power, and it isn't Project 25 basically just saying we want to take out Democrats in position of the loyalty to Democrats and put in conservatives?

Is that what it is? Well, that's a big part of it. I mean, I've actually looked at Project 225 a bit. So the interesting thing is it's no different than what every administration in the waiting does. right? Every administration in the waiting, and I've been part of this for other administrations, develops plans and ideas, you have a hundred-day approach, what are the first hundred things you're going to do in office? Every administration does this. I think 2025 is a little more sweeping. It's a little more aggressive than most of similar transition plans. I do think a big

part of that is that there is a, from what I understand, and I know this from talking to friends, but it's, it's, here's say, it's third hand, there is a belief, a feeling among, uh, former Trump administration officials that some of the things that the president wanted to do, President Trump, were stymied by the bureaucracy. Yeah. And I think part of that is reigning in the bureaucracy. And I do think Loper may take care of some of that for them, actually, see what they think is necessary now.

But again, I came in in a Democratic administration. I felt the same exact wet, right? I felt like we were stymied all the time. So I don't think it's unique to the Trumpers, the Trump folks. I, you know, the, there is a positive to that, though, right? Like, I don't, I think it's, we all, I'd be careful about painting things is all good or all bad, right?

Yes, the bureaucracy slows down new administrations. And in a way, that could be really frustrating for the new administration. on the other hand, sometimes it prevents you from shooting yourself in the foot, right? Like sometimes you look at something, do you remember the movie The Candidate? When Robert Redford sits there, now what are we going to do? Right. Like sometimes what you promise in a campaign is just when you really look at it and how it would have impact the nation, you go, wow, that was a stupid-ass idea. So I think maybe a little pause, maybe a little resistance isn't always a bad thing.

Not being completely stymied and not being able to implement policies and all that. Yeah, I get that. That's not good. And that's not the role of bureaucracy. But kind of forcing you to be a little bit more thoughtful isn't necessarily a bad thing. Yeah, absolutely. It's got to be some kind of balance there. It could be like this or like this.

It's got to kind of, you know, be balanced. Yeah, because it was all like this. That's technically kind of a dictatorship in some way. It's getting closer to that, right? I mean, but I think what we have to do is we, I mean, in my opinion, I think we got to take out, like, where the hell did bureaucracy come from? Like, I mean, honestly, in history, where did bureaucracy start coming into play? These agencies that are unelected officials that are making rules and powers for people in the country.

So I have an answer for you for that. Ethiopia. Ethiopia, okay. It's as old as time in Mumbai. It's as old as human society. Ethiopia, which is one of the, arguably the birth of human society, Turkey claims that Turkey had it too. Even early societies had civil servants and bureaucracies. It's a, it's just a, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's,

reality, right? You got to, you need people to run things. Yeah. And you got to have people to keep you in check as well. Yeah. Right. Like, you know, here's the thing, a fire in your house. Who are you going to call? Well, there was a time when you called your life in the insurance, right? Remember back then? And the insurance company, if you had a good insurance company, you had a fire group that came out. Well, the fire department, they weren't very good, but maybe they stopped your house from burning now. And that evolved until now you call the fire department. What's the fire department?

It's an agency. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Right. Yeah. I mean, I like to drink clean water, right? I don't necessarily agree with everything the EPA does, but I like the fact that I

can turn on my tap and get a glass of water. Yeah. Well, we don't use the water. Yeah. We don't. We don't use it anymore. Fluoron. Flora.

If you have to, you can. Right? Yeah, you can. Yeah, you're right. You're absolutely right. So, I mean, it's not all bad, right? No, yeah. It's your question.

You said it. It's about the balance, right? You got to hit the balance just right. For sure. Yeah, it's going to be interesting. I mean, I think this year is going to be very interesting. I've been saying this for seven, eight months, nine months. I'm like, 2024 is going to be one for the record books, I believe.

I don't know what's going to happen. But holy crap. And especially with this new Chevron thing. And I just try to wrap my mind around it because it's so open-ended, I guess. And that's why it's hard to really understand what actually it is because it's so open to everything. So basically it's just taken away, right, to close, is taking away the powers from the bureaucrats, the unelected officials, the agencies that kind of make their own rules. And it's making Congress pass laws, right, or whatever, legislation for them to then be able or for them to, to, I guess, be demanded to go by.

Yeah. Their guide of what they have to go by, what's in the law. Yeah. Go do what you were told. Yeah. Absolutely. And I think that's really important. And, you know, that's what democracy is supposed to be about.

I'm going to get on my high horse. In a democracy, we're all supposed to have a voice. I'll be at a representative democracy. We have a voice through our elected officials to, determine the terms and conditions by which we live by. And those elected officials get to vote on it. And, you know, in that way, we buy in. That way, we had our say and we have to play by the rules. And the thing about that, though, is when the elected officials aren't doing their job, and I put a lot of this on Congress, quite frankly, because our Congress is so dysfunctional now,

then you know, whatever. But the elected officials have to do their jobs and then the agencies get to make that a reality. They get to make those words come to life to the extent that they follow those words. Yeah, absolutely. Well, Rob, it's been a pleasure for sure. Yes. Thank you so much for taking your time. I hope you win every case, especially.

Especially our friend. Have you ever had any cases to get to Supreme Court, by the way? I have not had that pleasure yet. And I hope never, too, right? I like cases that settle out and get decided early. Yeah. Yeah. And do you think that this will, you know,

I guess in terms of where you're going? And especially with clear. and I want to bring up clear one more time. But you do think this will potentially help that lawsuit, maybe you think? I can't see how it doesn't. I think it has to. I mean, obviously, we're beholden to the court and we'll see what our judge says. And, you know, I have most respect for our judge.

But I believe that our judge will pay close heed to what the Supreme Court has said and we'll take that into account in how this case gets decided. Absolutely. Rob, thank you so very much. If anybody needs an attorney, how can they get in touch with you in D.C.? Our houseman at bookill Partners.com. There you go. Rob, thank you so very much for coming on.

We really appreciate it. Very insightful. A lot of people have had a lot of questions about the Chevron deference. And you did make it easier to understand. Yeah. And I know we kind of went a lot of different directions tonight, but I think all of what we talked about in a lot of ways kind of has, it kind of goes back to that, right?

I mean, there's so open-ended. Yeah, there's so many things we just don't get. Rob, thank you so very much. If you want to hang out after, we'll close, we'll talk to you on the backside. Awesome. Thanks, you guys. Yeah, not a problem.

Yeah, not a problem. That guys, that was Rob, how's been. And what such a great guy. He's, you know, one of our good friend Nathan's attorneys for the Clear case. Obviously, many of you that have listened this podcast, I guess over the past two or three years, know all about Nathan Jones and Clear and the case involving the FTC and, you know, kind of how they went after him. I mean, they went after him during COVID, hardcore. And, you know, hopefully the Chevron case prevents some of those things in the future.

We'll see how that plays out. But, you know, I mean, listen, like I said, there's so many people that just have so much distrust in our government, in our, in our media, in all of these things. And so when you hear things like the Chevron deference, the ruling in the Supreme Court, it gives a little more hope to people. It's like, okay, maybe everything isn't one way, right? Maybe everything isn't against good people or us as Americans, right? And so I think that this ruling is huge. There have been some rulings recently by the Supreme Court. I don't necessarily 100% agree with.

But regardless of that, at least the Chevron deference was a good ruling. But guys, that's going to do it for us. Thank you for listening to Investigator Earth Podcast. Make sure you go to follow us on X. We are going to also have this video on our YouTube channel, Investigate Earth, Inc. And obviously, it'll be everywhere that you listen to audio. Until next time, we love you. Peace out. Peace out.