#RolandMartinUnfiltered - Former federal judge says Trump’s actions provoking a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

Episode Date: February 22, 2025

The twice impeached criminally convicted felon-in-chief Donald "The Con" Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk have openly criticized the judiciary's authority over the executive branch.  Judges have issued temporary freezes on Trump's federal "spending freeze" orders, Musk's attempt to access government payment systems, and the administration's *controversial* push to encourage federal employees to resign.  But they are ignoring the orders.  Retired United States District Judge Vanessa Gilmore spoke with Roland Martin about the looming constitutional crisis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. All right, folks, we are truly dealing with some absolutely crazy times. The twice impeached, criminally convicted felony chief, Donald Trump, has literally said, I don't need to follow these federal judges who are issuing rulings. His own vice president, J.D. Vance, has said the exact same thing. Elon Musk is openly criticizing the judiciary's authority over the executive branch, and he's even doxing the daughter of one federal judge. Judges have issued temporary freezes on Trump's federal spending freeze orders. Musk's attempt to access government payment systems,

and the administration's controversial push to encourage federal employees to resign. But they literally say we can ignore these orders. This is Scott Jennings. We put a video on CNN, first talking about Biden and federal judges, and then defending the craziness of Donald Trump. Crats. In all the polling we've seen, hey, Joe Biden, they're done with Joe Biden, and he's sending them all a $10,000 check in an effort to buy their support.

Even Nancy Pelosi, who I'm not often aligned with as you know stated on the record unequivocally that this is illegal the president United States does not have the authority to do this and so he so you're saying that a judge should decide how and when money is spent I just say years and not the president of the United States wow it's amazing how the tune changes. Here's Laura Ingraham on Fox News giving us her half a cent when it comes to this issue as well. Unelected Obama judge in Rhode Island must be feeling very full of himself tonight because in a ruling issued earlier today, he railed against President Trump and the

Doge crew for failing to comply with his order, one judge's order, to unfreeze federal spending. Judge John J. McConnell handed it down after 22 blue states just were up in arms that funding hadn't been restored. Of course, they went for the sympathy play, citing HIV services in the Congo and a public health grant to Namibia. Now McConnell had ruled previously that the Trump team had overstepped its executive authority by halting the monies. But if one judge, one, is going to have the power to stop the Trump cleanup crew in its tracks.

Hmm. Now, here, this gets even crazier. This is a news conference today of House Speaker Republican Mike Johnson. I've said that some of the Trump actions, early actions, they put a halt to them. J.D. Vance said that judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. You're a constitutional law expert. Ultimately, at the end of the courts saying that the administration is violating the law, should they comply with the court's demands? Well, of course, the branches have to respect our constitutional order, but there's a lot of game yet to be played. Those will be

appealed. We've got to go through the whole process, and we'll get to the final analysis. In the interim, I will say I agree wholeheartedly with Vice President J.D. Vance, my friend, because he's right. What they're doing in the executive branch, I've been asked so many times, aren't you uncomfortable with this? No, I'm not. Because when Congress, for example, appropriates dollars for the executive branch to use, we build in, not only in the spirit of the law, but in the letter of law, a broad amount of discretion for how that is used. There is a presupposition in America that the commander-in-chief is going to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars, that the commander-in-chief, the president of the United States chief is going to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars, that the commander in chief, the president of the United States, is going to command those within his branch of government to do the right thing by the people, to be accountable happening right now in the new administration, because they've taken that seriously and they're doing it.

The forensic audits effectively that Doge and Elon Musk are leading. I met with Elon yesterday about this to get an update. And it's to me, it's very exciting what they're able to do, because what what Elon and the Doge effort is doing right now is what Congress has been unable to do in recent years because the agencies have hidden some of this from us. You know, there's a lot of oversight activity that goes on around here all the time, you all know. But when duly elected representatives of the people request information to find all of these abuses and it's not turned over to us, what it takes is an actual audit of the systems and the files themselves that are often hidden from Congress. That's what you're seeing right now. And that's why this is so exciting. They're uncovering things that we have known intuitively have been there, but we couldn't prove it. Now the proof is being provided.

And no one can argue the counter to that. So stay tuned. There's a lot more to come. And I think the courts should take a step back and allow these processes to play out what we're doing is good and right for the American people what doge is doing is making sure that your taxpayer dollars all of us are spent in the way that they're intended to be spent and that they're for the in America's interest in their financially responsible with the precious taxpayers money we have a 36 trillion dollar federal, and we have got to get a hold of these things.

You're going to see it reflected in the reconciliation package as it comes forward. You're going to see it reflected in appropriations as we go forward, and you're going to see it in these efforts to cut the waste, fraud, and abuse. We think the final number on that is going to be substantial and a game changer in Washington for the country. So we'll have a lot more questions and answers, I know, as the week goes through or forward, but I'll just tell you. Folks, that man stood there and lied. He just lied, lied, lied. I'm going to get into a lot of that a little bit later. Let me right now bring up retired U.S. United States

District Judge Vanessa Gilmore, who joins us now. Judge, always glad to have you here. Thank you. How long were you a federal judge? Almost 28 years, Roland. Okay. As somebody who was sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, you need to take an oath. You were a part of one of the three branches of government as executive, legislative, and judicial. What do you say when you hear a vice president of the United States, an individual who occupies the Oval Office, because I don't call him president,

when you hear Elon Musk and Republicans in the House and Senate literally support them ignoring a judicial ruling. Is this insane? Roland, I thank you so much for having this really important conversation. You know, our democracy is like a three legged stool. The three branches of government, the legislative, the executive, and judicial are like a three-legged stool. And if one or two of those legs are non-functioning, the entire thing collapses. And right now, we have the executive and the legislative, as you can tell by that clip that you just played a moment ago, basically gone from supporting the two of the legs of our democracy. And so that leaves only the judiciary as the only leg standing, and it's standing on a wobbly leg at that, because although there are lower court judges, district court judges like myself, and even appellate court judges

that are pushing back against actions that are clearly unconstitutional. At the end of the day, that third leg could also fall because as we know from some of the rulings of our Supreme Court over the course of the last year, the former and now current occupant of the Oval Office has secured things from that Supreme Court that basically support the type of unconstitutional behavior that we've been seeing. They have essentially held that he cannot be held liable for any criminal activity and that it is executive power to do so. I mean, what happens when a judge issues an order and that order is ignored? There are only a couple of remedies. They are the contempt powers of the court. They're both civil contempt and criminal contempt. And in a civil contempt situation, if a judge's order is ignored, then we enforce that order

by demanding that it be complied with. And our only remedy in that scenario is a fine. If there is a criminal contempt, then there is a possibility of a fine or jail time. But the Supreme Court has already said that there cannot be any jail time. And even if somebody wanted to go down that path, who enforces the judge's criminal contempt proceedings? Well, it's a two-part step. First, the local U.S. attorney has to represent the court as the prosecutor, and the U.S. attorneys are selected by the President of the United States. And then the Marshal Service has to actually go out and enforce the orders of the court. The Marshal Service is under the executive branch, which means that the Attorney General of the United States would have

to be the one to give the order for the Marshal Service to enforce our orders. So basically, there's nobody that would be in place to enforce the potential criminal contempt that might be handed down or meted out if a federal judge's order is ignored. So we're in a catch-22 where all three of the legs of the stools of our democracy are basically gone. And the thing that's insane with that is, as you laid out, because again, the criminal referrals go to the Department of Justice. The Attorney General has to decide. Pam Bondi's already made it clear that I'm going to do whatever the hell Trump wants. And so she doesn't have that. And so in that clip, you heard Speaker Johnson talk about, well, there's a presupposition that the president

is going to be a good steward of the resources. Yeah, there's also a presupposition that the person who occupies the Oval Office is not going to act in an unlawful manner. It's going to have a respect for the Constitution. It's going to have a respect for judicial rulings. What these people, what these people are saying is that we don't want to listen or hear anything from any federal judge unless it's the Supreme Court. And that simply is not the system. Because last I checked, there were a number of federal judges who ruled against President Joe Biden and Republicans glorified that. They had no problem when federal district judges issued such rulings in the last four years. Think about it. There's precedent in history, Roland, for exactly what you're saying. Think about going back to Brown versus the Board of Education when the Supreme Court decided that the schools of the South

had to be desegregated. And the states of the South and even some of the judges of the South weren't willing to stand up and enforce the Supreme Court said. Robert Kennedy was attorney general then, and he sent US troops, the National Guard, to support James Meredith to help him get into the University of Mississippi. That shows Meredith to help him get into the University

of Mississippi. That shows that leadership has to come from the top. And the leadership at the top is the one that enforces the orders of the president and the orders of the courts. And we have an unprecedented situation here where we have leadership at the top that is not following orders of the federal judges, that is not following orders of the Supreme Court. And that we have a Supreme Court, unfortunately, that is giving cover to essentially unconstitutional and illegal actions. And to your point there, Jack Bass has a fantastic book, I have it on the shelf, called Unlikely Heroes. It is an account of those federal judges on the Fifth Circuit, the role they played in Brown versus Board of Education. It's called A Vivid Account of the Implementation of the Brown Decision in the South by South by Southern federal judges committed to the rule of law.

There were federal judges who made erroneous rulings who were then overruled by other federal judges who were saying, I don't care, frankly, if you're a racist and you're a Southern Dixie crap, you are there to speak on the law, not your opinion, the law. And that's what happened. And they said, we do not care. And that's why black folks, NAACP, Legal Defense Fund, and others kept going back to the federal courts. In fact, in Louisiana, the Louisiana legislature would pass a bill. They would go right to the courts, get an injunction. They will pass another bill the next day to keep black kids out of school. They will go right back and get another one. If you did not have those federal judges honoring the U.S. Constitution, you would not have had Jim Crow brought to its knees.

You're exactly right on that. You are exactly right. The judges are really the last line of defense in enforcing the Constitution of the United States. And so we have to have the judges in place to enforce the law as it is written. And we have to have persons who feel obligated, who understand their obligation to follow the law as it's set forth by federal judges. You know, there's another good book that speaks exactly to the issue that you just raised, Roland. It's called Let Them Be Judged, the Judicial Integration of the Deep South. And it talks about how the judges stood at the forefront of making sure that the law of the land, which was the integration of the schools of the

South, would actually take place. And there were four judges on the Fifth Circuit at that time who really decided that they were going to make sure that the mandate of the Supreme Court to integrate the schools of the South was going to actually be carried out. If it was not for the bravery and the courage of those four federal judges, we would not have been able to achieve the mandate that was dictated by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. We're at a very different time now, though, where the Supreme Court has actually basically said that the person that should be upholding the Constitution is going to be exempt and exonerated from any attempt to make him follow

the Constitution of the United States. So we're at a point now where we don't have any of the legs of government to support what needs to happen to support our constitutional democracy. And that is a very, very dangerous place for us to be in. Some people have said, some people have said some people have said that we are facing a constitutional crisis. Others are like, oh, no, that's too early. We're not there yet. I disagree. I believe when you have the executive branch backed by their party in the legislative branch, as you already said, when they control the law enforcement apparatus, that is the U.S. Marshals, they control the FBI, they control the DOJ. When they are operating in concert, I dare say this is a constitutional crisis. There are no checks and balances right now. The legislature should check the executive branch. The judicial branch should check the executive

branch. Right now we have the legislature, the legislative branch, Congress basically acquiescing because it's controlled by the Republican Party, acquiescing to anything that the executive branch says. And the executive branch, that includes the Attorney General of the United States, is not willing to do anything to stand up to constitutionally improper conduct. And then the judicial branch is kind of standing there hobbling on that one leg, trying to be the force that keeps the stool standing up. But right now, I don't think that it would be, it's an overstatement to say that we are in a constitutional crisis. Obviously, I don't want you to reveal private conversations, but I'm quite sure you judges are like the rest of us. Y'all have group chats and

things along those lines and constitutional law professors. What are you hearing from your fellow judges, whether they are current or retired law professors? I mean, are people saying, are they expressing real concern with what they witness in barely the first month of this this administration? Well, you're right, Roland. Judges are just like everybody else. We gossip, we get together, we chit and we chat. But we have had many conversations about what is going on offline. And I would not say anybody that I've spoken to about this issue, but there have been several of my former colleagues, and they fluctuate between being terrified and being completely, completely perturbed and mad and angry at what is going on

with respect to a failure to recognize the sanctity of the orders of federal judges. Many of them are just completely furious about the blatant disregard for the rule of law as it is being handed down by various federal judges in orders in cases that are pending across the United States. I don't know that there has been any consensus on what can be done other than everybody is just saying that they're just going to keep doing their job, keep fulfilling their oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, because that is the oath that we took, that judges take, and that that is all that they can do, try to fulfill their oath to follow the Constitution and laws of the United States. But trust and believe it is a big source of discussion

among federal judges right now. And I am sure that discussion is not just democratically appointed federal judges, it's also federal judges appointed by Republicans. Absolutely, absolutely. It's across the board. People are either terrified or furious and just frankly appalled that judges that are following the law can have their orders, their constitutionally correct a slap in the face to both the entire,

that entire branch of government and frankly, to the American people. All right. Retired federal judge Vanessa Gilmore, I certainly appreciate you joining us on the show. Thank you. All right, folks. I want to bring in my panel right now. Dr. Larry J. Walker, assistant professor at University of Central Florida, journalist from Orlando. Randy Bryant, entrepreneur, author of Never Says. Twenty five phrases you should never, ever say to keep your job and friends. See Jonas out of D.C. Dr. Mustafa Santiago Ali, former senior advisor for environmental justice with the EPA out of Washington, D.C. Let me start with you, Mustafa. I played that clip of Speaker Johnson. The reason I found that to be, oh, my God, sheer stupidity is, I mean, like, you know, I'm going to get to the Elon Musk stuff and what they're doing first. But to listen to these so-called law and order people, to listen to them talk about, yeah, this is just not right. It's just unfair what, you know, what these judges are doing. I mean, how dare they tell, how dare they tell

the executive branch what to do as if federal judges don't speak to the issue of the law. And it's just simply insane. I mean, judges, what they do is they interpret the law. And after they interpret the law, then they share with folks the actions that should move forward. Now, if Congress was doing their job, the judges may not have to, you know, interpret it the things that the way that they did. But since they are out there doing their job, and the only one right now who is doing that, then they're doing exactly what they're supposed to do. So, you know, Speaker Johnson knows better. It's just amazing some of the things that folks will say through a political lens instead of doing what's right for the country. And, you know, it's not disappointing

because, you know, they've been very clear that the law, you know, bends toward them. At least that's their interpretation of it, that they are allowed to do whatever, you know, they choose to do. And unfortunately, you know, there are very little repercussions in this particular moment for the actions that they're doing. I mean, but folks have to continue to put a spotlight and to speak out as one of the things that This is in the system. This is what is difficult for the comprehend. This system of ours. Really operated on the I'm going to use I'm going to use a golf metaphor. When you play golf, it's called the honor system. It's called the gentleman's agreement. That if you're a golfer and you stand over your ball and as you are approaching your shot and you see your ball move that was not caused by anything in nature,

you are to call a penalty on yourself. Even if no one's looking, even if no cameras or anything, the honor system in God says that you are to say, fellas, the ball move, I'm assessing myself a one-stroke penalty. But let's remember, one of the greatest golf cheats ever is Donald Trump. One of the people

who cheats, Sam Jackson talked about playing golf with him before. He was like that bastard cheats. He cheats. He he's literally said, oh, I've been I've been, you know, I've won 30 of my club championships. Lying, lying. So that's the problem. This honor system that we have is that by electing someone to the Oval Office who has integrity, honor and decency, the system simply fails when a crook, when a thug, when a insurrectionist gets control of power and it's made even worse when his own party, unlike those Republicans who marched up the hill to tell Richard Nixon, it's time for you to go. You don't have that. These people are compliant in the crime. Yeah, you know, I think, you know, Roland, we have to really go back decades in terms of the fight with the courts to pack the courts

and also push back on, you know, civil rights legislations in the 1960s. You heard the judge talk about the important role that, you know, that, you know, federal judges played over the last several decades. The challenge is, Roland, that, oh that the guardrails are gone. They're gone.

You had very specific thresholds in terms of upholding democracy. And I think people have to differentiate between what a democracy is and power. And right now, the Republicans are saying to you, we're focused on power. We have the executive branch. They certainly control the Supreme Court. They've got plenty of federal judges throughout the United States. And the legislative body is not willing to do its job. The other thing Roland's missed in this conversation is when Congress appropriates,

constitutionally, Congress appropriates money. We do not have a king. You cannot determine when one branch is appropriated money, constitutionally mandated for very specific projects and initiatives, and then turn around and say, no, I'm not going to fund that. That's why you keep seeing these federal judges, you know, you see the administration lose in court. I've never seen anything like it in my time working on the Hill. And once again, we have to continue to stay steadfast because when you mentioned earlier, whether we're in a constitutional crisis, we're way beyond that now. Okay. And so

people are going to really need not only in terms of protests, but also short and long-term range planning in terms of the next, leading up to two years from now, we have to, you know, voting members of Congress and then maybe whoever's up in the U.S. Senate, et cetera, but also state and local government, that folks have to really get active to make sure that, you know, we don't have an authoritarian government because we're headed in that direction in a very quick period of time. Everything's accelerating. And so we have to do something about it. Hello, I'm Isaac Hayes, the third founder and CEO of Fanbase. And right now we're accepting investors in our 17 million dollar round to revolutionize the future of social media. Today, for just $399, you can own

60 shares of stock in Fanbase at $6.65 a share. Go to startengine.com slash Fanbase and invest today. While the big platforms have grown too massive and disconnected from their users, Fanbase is building a platform where creators and users truly come first. We've already raised $8.6 million for everyday investors who believe in this vision, and now you can join them. This is your chance to invest in a social media tech company with over 1 million users that is disrupting media by allowing anyone to reach all of their following

and monetize their content from day one. The market is changing, big platforms are failing to serve their users, and Fanbase is stepping up to fill the gap. Don't wait until it's too late. Invest now. Invest for yourself

and your future. Go to startengine.com slash fanbase and own the future of social media. This is an iHeart Podcast.