The Trish Regan Show - 🚨LaMonica MELTS DOWN After Plea—Now Faces 17 Years in Prison as AOC REFUSES to Help!

Episode Date: June 28, 2025

LaMonica McGiver is melting down on live TV—begging for money as she faces a possible 17-year prison sentence. With Trump’s legal team—led by Alina Habba—closing in, panic is setting in fast.Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett just delivered a stunning legal rebuke to Ketanji Brown Jackson in a landmark opinion restricting activist judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. Barrett’s sharp takedown is raising serious questions about Jackson’s credibility on the bench.PLUS—Democrat elites with full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome are now praising Trump’s policies?! Even Adam Schiff and Rahm Emanuel are coming around. Why now?And finally… Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez's Venice wedding may be the most tone-deaf display of billionaire excess yet—and locals in Italy (and around the world) have had enough.🔥 Don’t miss this must-watch episode. We are on the front lines of history.👉 Subscribe now & join the conversation LIVE.📬 Get my newsletter at https://76research.com — use code: DOLLAR for special access. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

And here we are. I'm live. We got a lot going on. Did you see the story in the New York Post about Amy Coney Barrett and Catangley Brown Jackson? You got like a Supreme Court smackdown going on, all as La Monica, you guys, La Monica McIver is all over the airwaves pleading with everybody because Alina Hama is going to send her to prison. I don't know. Aren't these the kind of things that maybe kind of you should have thought about just ages ago? I'm just saying, right? I'm just saying. So we've got to get into that. La Monica McGaiver, completely fearful that she's heading straight to prison, just as Amy Coney Barrett really takes on, I got to say, Catanjali, Katanji, I should say, Brown Jackson in this birthright descent case in a way that's just so epic and truly unusual, truly unusual

for a Supreme Court justice. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is coming off like the biggest win of perhaps the century. I don't know, but this is a big deal. I mean, I got to say it's a really big deal. Congratulations to him. Congratulations to America. Didn't he say we would get so sick and tired of winning? I'll tell you, I'm not going to get tired of winning. And I don't think you either, but this is just a tremendous example of major, major, major wins all week long. So that's awesome. And Venice, I don't know if you guys are following this. are even interested in this. I'm so not. Like, I so don't care about Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez. But I think it's kind of funny that the locals in Venice are so annoyed by them. And,

you know, frankly, the whole world doesn't care, but they keep pushing this story on us. Like, is this paid media or something? Anyway, we'll talk about the wedding that's going on in Venice. Finally, the woman put some clothes on, right? I'm just saying, like, she's finally buttoned up. It's not even a real wedding. They were married a couple weeks ago. Okay, we begin with La Monica, my favorite, favorite, favorite name in the world, right? Because it's just so much fun to say. It's a strange little name because it's like the Monica, right?

In Italian, it would be La, La Regina, the queen, right? La Monica McGuiver was caught as you well know, but, you know, I can't resist. We've got to look at the video again because it's just that darn good. I'm sorry, it's good, all right? This is La Monica out there in New Jersey a few weeks ago in Newark, New Jersey, pushing her way through the crowd and what this turned into because she wouldn't sit down with Alina and act like an adult about it and admit that maybe she shouldn't have done that. It is now turned into the potential for 17 years in prison. Yeah. Behind bars.

La Monica. I'll never get over this. Now, you look at this video and if you're listening to the show on Spotify, thank you for that. if you haven't gone over and gotten the, it's the album cover, blue in the background with me and the red dress. Go and look at that and subscribe if you would. But if you're listening on audio, we're looking at La Monica McGeiber in the red and she's just pushing her way through. Now, you can see she is actually physically using her hands. She's using her elbows to push her way through the crowd like that. And so Alina has come forward and say, you know what? This is

a salt. This is assault on an ice. agent and when you assault a federal officer you know what that's kind of a big deal when you impede a federal officer that's kind of a big deal yeah it's a really big deal so it's such a big deal that you're actually violating what's known as title 18 u.s. code section 11 a1 we're all going to know that one right we're learning we're learning there is something called title 18 u.s. code section 11 a1 for assaulting impeding interfering with law enforcement and that is clearly you know you don't need to be a rocket scientist. You look at the tape and apparently DHS has way better tape. You don't have to be that smart just to know that that is wrong. And I'll tell you, Donald Trump

said it best when, guess what? We're going to cut the you know what out. That woman was out of control. She was shoving federal agents. She was out of control. The days of that crap are over in this country. We're going to have law and order. Imagine that. So, yeah, you know, you can't just go run around, violate Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 11A.A.1. for the assaulting and beating and interfering with law enforcement. There's another thing that I want to show you. Before I get to her begging for cash, which is what she's doing right now all over the airwaves,

and of course MSNBC is all too happy to oblige. It makes you wonder, do they get a percentage? Do they get a cut of any of this? But when you look at La Monica Magiiver on the airwaves, and of course you kind of want to, well, I have a visceral reaction. I think you guys do when I see it. I would just point out, however, that God did try and interfere in his own way here. When she was speaking in New Jersey, she just couldn't take a hint from the train that kept going by.

Every time she'd try and get a word out, boom, she would get sort of flatlined by the train whistle. Watch. Administration is trying to restrict Congress from doing their bare duties and the responsibilities that the people have elected us to do. What we just witnessed was just disgusting. I am very upset. I am very angry and I am very hurt that they could be able to do something like that to us. These are people who

are supposed to be officers who are supposed to protect us and they have done none of that. If they can treat three members of Congress like that, just imagine how they can treat people on the street each and every day, both undocumented and people who are citizens here in this country. It makes absolutely

no sense. To arrest. I mean, I just thought that was somewhat poetic, if you would, right? Like, every time she said, and hey, here's the deal. Like, just because you're a member of Congress doesn't actually mean that you're going to get a special treatment. La Monica. Like, I know you're La Monica, La Monica, the great Monica, right?

I know. You think you're a big deal. But actually, you're not, okay? And everyone, whether they're a member of Congress or not, actually has to follow the rules. And in your case, while you say you're a member of Congress or not, actually has to follow the rules. And in your case, while you say you're a big deal. were doing your job, in order to do your job, you could have actually just made an appointment and said, hey, I want to come by and I want to inspect and make sure everything's okay, et cetera.

Instead of like launching a protest movement right outside the prison, I mean, that wasn't too smart now, was it? Well, she doesn't get it, okay? Guys, she doesn't get it. And she's insisting on her innocence and she's pleading not guilty and this, that and the other. And then she makes the rounds literally begging for cash. And notice how she works her family in and like, oh, poor, woe is me. It's like, didn't you think about this stuff? before you decided to get out there in the big red dress or the big, you know, the red jacket. And I saw your comment. Don, Don is saying they don't have a person big enough for some of these folks.

Anyway, she's out there trying to say, I got to raise money for my legal fund because, you know, I got to take on Donald Trump. And Alina Haba. An AOC, right? Where's AOC in all this? Because AOC was like, don't touch my people. And now suddenly nowhere to be seen. here's here's la monica as i said if you can if you can manage to watch she's really begging for cash way to

the end because jensaki reinforces it uh yes what was it like to be in the courtroom i mean there was a mix of emotions to be there i mean obviously you know this is a crazy situation i never thought i would be facing charges as a sitting congresswoman um it's a scary situation too because i'm thinking of my mom. I'm thinking of my, I'm thinking of my mom who was there with me who's, like, stressed out about this, right? That's a stressed out for mom. When they're saying that you're going to face 17 years in prison, I'm thinking about my daughter, who's nine years old. I'm thinking about my husband, my family. And it's like, oh, my God, this is awful. But at the same time, it's like, I'm not going to stop doing my job because I know why I was there and I know why I'm being

attacked. And so definitely just a mix of emotions during that period of time. And at the same time, I was happy to see it moving, you know, going through the process that it's going through today. Obviously, I pleaded not guilty because I'm not guilty, and I'm looking forward to the next time being there and having the facts all laid out and really getting through this process because it's also stressful, right? I mean, at the same time, I'm leading. I'm doing the work of the people that have elected me from the 10th congressional district in New Jersey. But at the same time, this is stress. It's expensive, right, because you have to fight this case and it's a legal case where you have to have a lawyer. an entire legal team to defend you. And so it's just, it's a lot. And it's unfortunate and it's

unnecessary. But at the same time, we cannot allow this administration to stop us as, you know, elected leaders, Democrats, especially, from doing their jobs. I mean, the expenses is something I think people aren't really aware of. Are there? Oh, so she starts getting that. You're just not aware of like how expensive all of this is to take on, you know, Donald Trump. And then if you didn't hear it enough the first time she goes back for round two here again on MSNBC that makes you wonder is there are they getting a cut like is she really that good for ratings we know she's not actually because ratings are tanking at MSNBC I mean when this is what you're putting on TV every night no wonder the practical reality of what this means for you how much time and how much money is this costing you

well first of all it's taken up a lot of my time but I am still 150 percent dedicated to the people that I represent in a 10th congressional district in New Jersey, and I don't want this to get ahead of that. And so that is why yesterday, when I had to run back to New Jersey, go to court, plead not guilty, I literally ran out of the courtroom, said a couple of words, and had to hop on a flight back to D.C. to vote, because once again, my job comes first, and I don't want this to, at any way possible, to get in the way of that, of the work that I need to do for the people of the 10th. So that's one thing, but it is time-consuming. And then It's also very expensive, right?

No one's, you know, taking up this case for free. I have to pay for attorneys. And so you have to, you know, raise funding and get support to be able to fight them, you know, because at the end of the day, these charges are serious. They're saying that I can face 16 to 17 years in prison. And it's worrisome at the same time, right? I'm very courageous and I'm very, you know, not going to back down. And I'm going to continue.

I love that. I'm very courageous. I'm not going to back down. I'm so courageous. You know, how dare they do this to love? La Monica, the congresswoman from New Jersey, because somehow she's supposed to be held to a different standard than anybody else? No, lady, actually, you know what, if we're going to hold you a different standard,

I'm actually going to hold you to a higher standard because you remember Congress, which means all the more reason why you shouldn't be out there pushing your weight around, literally, with these ICE agents. I'm sorry, okay, not appropriate behavior. Time and place, time and place. This was neither the time nor place. To do my job and hold this administration accountable, but at the same time, I'm thinking about my nine-year-old.

I'm thinking about my husband. I'm thinking about my mom who's work. to death about what is happening and what you see she's a mom she's a daughter she's a wife she wants to say i'm just i'm just like you except i'm la monica from new jersey and i am a junior congressman member which means that you know you're not supposed to come after me how dare you come after this administration is doing to me you know this is my first time in a situation like this and so we're taking it really serious and so we want to make sure we have a great legal team we have all of the resources and tools that we need to fight this.

Because at the end of the day, these are real charges. This is a real situation. Yeah. You know, Congresswoman, there are a lot of people out there. That you single-handedly created, okay? Just saying, like, maybe think about that next time before you jump in. What do you guys think, right? Like, is that not a created situation of her own doing?

And, you know, she could have fixed it. Remember, Alina Haba said, look, I gave her the opportunity. And the Newark, New Jersey mayor took that opportunity. but no, no, no, no, no. La Monica decided to make a big thing of it and said she did nothing wrong. Well, you better believe she did. We know that. And we've got video of it. And like I said, DHS has even more. Okay, another big story going on today. It's the reason why I wanted to make sure we came on. I had a special show for you because this is amazing to see the Supreme Court Smackdown between Amy Coney Barrett and Katanji Jackson Brown. Now, the reason this is kind of a big deal is typically you don't actually see one justice go after another. like this, but whatever Katanji Brown Jackson said, likely in her back and forth, if you would, with her colleagues, it really ruffled some feathers. It ruffled some feathers so much that basically Amy Coney-Barritt just decided to smack her down, like royally smack her down. This is a big, big deal what she said about her, and I'm going to read it to you from the

opinion. Okay, so she's writing for the majority, all right? That's Amy Coney-Barrant, and she just ripped Katanji Brown Jackson, who's got the dissent, and she said, we will not dwell, listen to this, guys. We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worse of precedent. Not to mention the Constitution itself. This is what she's writing. She is, of course, the court's second newest justice, and it's just this basically jaw-dropping rebuke of her colleague, according to the New York Post. I thought that was a really good way of putting it because you just, you know, you don't typically see this, but they were clearly, these justices clearly disgusted. And I mean disgusted with what we saw out of this woman,

Katanji Brown Jackson, again, with the dissent over this birthright citizenship case. Don't forget, we talked about this yesterday. This is a big deal, right? Because basically these judges that would try and get in the way by putting these injunctions in so that Donald Trump couldn't do his executive orders. This has all just been called into question. She said, we absorb this only. Justin Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. Do you hear that?

Okay, so don't forget. She said, okay, she doesn't want like a president who's like a king who can say this, not in the other. And one of the points that Amy's trying to make is, well, you also can't just have one judge that becomes imperial. This, by the way, not even elected. Right. How is one judge going to put in a nationwide injunction? Those are activist judges getting in the way of a presidential executive order. I mean, at least in the case of, say, the president, you could actually have the president impeached by Congress if it was so decided that they really hated his executive orders. and then you might see an impeachment in some kind of checks and balances, right? But you can't have one

lone judge out there, a single judge saying, okay, the president can't do anything. And we're just going to get in the way of everything with these nationwide injunctions. It's not going to work. It's not going to fly. And so this is really rather miraculous, right? Like, just absolutely amazing, amazing, amazing stuff, okay? Like, I mean, we've got a total smackdown. Ah, smack. This is. like WWE style, right? Going on. And it's, it's just incredible, guys.

It's just incredible. So, you know, I'm amazed by it and really just blown off my sock, like my socks blown off, right? Because in New York Post, again, writing this. Just to quote something else that she's saying here, I want to say that Barrett had authored, as you know, the majority opinion. in the case, and it was the most consequential on the docket term, most consequential, and it's a big deal. Sonia Sotomayor also penned some dissent, and that was a big deal as well. That was a big deal.

We're going to come back to this story, but first, also another one I want to bring you up to date on. Adam Schiff and Rom Emmanuel, all in Donald Trump's court? I mean, Are you serious? Yeah, I'm serious, guys. Rahm Emanuel, sounding like he kind of loves the guy. I couldn't believe this. What happened to the TDS? Yeah.

So, Jake, let me just walk back. There's some significant wins here, significant losers here, and some unanswered questions. On the losers, the one big loser, in my view, is not just Iran, and I'll get through that, but is Russia. Russia, if you take a step back, all their weapons, S-300, did not protect Iran. They've been proven to be a feckless ally. They didn't come to their defense. They've been kicked out of Syria. They're now been shown to be weak, not only in Iran.

They have a war going on three and a half years on a country, a tenth of the size. They can't win. Their intelligence was wrong about Syria. Their intelligence was wrong about Wobdner. Their intelligence was wrong about Ukraine. they've become dependent on China, and they've lost Europe. They have had the worst record here, strategically, militarily, and if the president would press the point,

you could actually not only end the war, you could actually set back Putin's desire. Second, this is not the Persian Empire recreate. Everything that's been done over 40 years by the Ayatollah has been blown up. The nuclear program costing $100 billion, lost, Lost in Hezbollah, lost in Hamas, hundreds of billions of dollars obliterated. They have a brain drain in Iran. They have a weakening economy, major loss.

I don't agree with the President of the United States. Do not on many, many issues. But you have to admire that when the United States says all options are on the table, he just proved all options on the table. And China and Russia and even North Korea have to step back because that has a level. of deterrence. So the blast radius of this goes much farther. Now, the question to the president is, are you going to use the military window diplomatically politically to strategically make this win significant and lasting? Saying you're not going to have an Iran nuclear agreement

is crazy and it's wrong. Are you going to press the point in Gaza and the war? Are you going to press the point in Ukraine now that you have leverage or are you going to fit it away because of your relationship with Putin. And lastly, I don't ever remember Jake's situation with the President of the United States of military action on a foreign country's intelligence, not American intelligence. Okay, okay. It couldn't be too good, right? Like, he just couldn't he had to stop himself. But that was really remarkable. That was a remarkable thing to see you guys. I mean, I'm really sort of, I don't know what to think. But you basically have a guy. who despises the president, Rahm Emanuel, who worked for Obama,

coming out and saying, that was a heck of a maneuver. You know why we're winning, winning, winning, winning, winning. And you know what? He wasn't the only one. I'm like, am I hearing things? Adam, Schiff, Shifty Shift? You know, the star of the shift show? Is that you?

Oh, yeah. Listen to him. If this ceasefire takes effect or it remains in effect, that will be a very strong point. positive for the whole region, indeed for the whole world. It will mean that no U.S. service members were injured in Iran's retaliation against our base in Qatar. It will mean hopefully an end to the fighting between Israel and Iran and the loss of life as a result of that war.

It will also mean that at least for now, Iran has chosen not to escalate because of the vulnerability of the regime, because of the weakening of its defenses by Israel. and for a host of other reasons. So if this holds, that will be an unmitigated positive. It's a positive. Like, he must have killed him. Absolutely killed him to say that. But you know what?

It is a positive. And even though I realize CNN has its own little intel, and they've got that reporter that used to love to report on Russia, Russia, Russia, which was all fake, because she apparently has some source in deep state that is peddling God knows what to her, right? So she was the same reporter that was listed on this news story saying they really didn't get anything. And I'm like, hey, hey, guys, which is it? Because the other day you told us, Ron didn't have anything.

And now you're like, oh, they didn't get anything. And I mean, like, you get to pick aside, right? Like, either they had something that we needed to get or they don't have anything. But I'm going to go with this. They had something. They were enriching uranium. And guess what? We got it.

Okay? We got it. And you know, you don't have to trust me on that. Just look at the markets. We had five days of just gains. You look at the market since that down draft in April. We're up like 23% since then. Another reason to get my newsletter, 76 Research.

I'm going to make sure that I leave the, if I haven't already, 76 Research.com, use code word dollar. I think I have the links in the description and the show description. But this is really amazing. Donald Trump was asked about whether or not he got everything by my former colleague, wonderful, wonderful Maria Bart Romar on her morning show. And I want you to see what he said. This is the president on whether or not they got it all. Do you think that the Iran regime hid some of the enriched uranium before the strikes?

No. You mean, did they take it out of the deep one? Because you were pretty clear. You can't have a weapon. you're going to have to come to the talk, something's going to happen. I don't think they don't know. I think, first of all, it's very hard to do. It's very dangerous to do.

It's very heavy, very, very heavy. It's a very hard thing to do. Plus, we didn't give much notice because they didn't know we were coming until just then. And nobody thought we'd go after that site because everybody said that site is impenetrable. Because I saw reports that there were 400 kilograms, 800 pounds, that they moved. But I wonder if it's traceable. I mean, if they were to have moved something, they didn't move anything. You know what they moved themselves?

They were all trying to live. They didn't move anything. So that is quite a statement, right, from the president. And I think at this point, you know, the smart money is saying this was an accomplishment. This is something to be proud of. This is something that hopefully has changed the trajectory and opportunity for peace going forward, right, for the world. And again, don't take my word for it. Just look what the stock market's doing. Just look what oil prices are doing. It's all there for you, guys. We just put out another note at 76

research today. And I encourage you. I really, really do encourage you to go check this out. Because look, there's an opportunity to get in on this. I do believe that good things are coming ahead for our economy. And by way of AI, by way of, yes, the opportunity for a more peaceful existence in the world, all of these things. I'm a big believer in this future. Go check it out. 76 research.com. Use my code word dollar. This is my company. I started with a dear friend who ran billions of dollars for many years on Wall Street and now is kind enough to come over and join me in this venture. But this is really, it's for you to partake in this. I think our Father's Day pick was up some 23% and up even more since then. And there's a lot of good names in there.

And I encourage you to check that out. I know it's hard to invest, but hopefully we're able to provide you with a little bit of support there in terms of understanding and navigating these rather choppy and sometimes volatile waters. I think, you know, bottom line, my feeling is you don't want to bet against America. Back to what we were talking about earlier, this go to Smackdown. Incredible, right? Amy taking on Catanjali or Katanji, Brown Jackson, I've, I've got to say, like, I've never thought this woman was all that bright. And it came in part because I have listened to some of the Supreme Court hearings. And I want to share with you one example.

In this particular case, she's talking about gender issues and she's comparing them to interracial marriage. And it's just this bizarre, bizarre, bizarre comparison and analysis. And I think it's relevant to hear because when I read a little bit more of what Amy Coney-Barrant was saying about Katanji, Braun-Jackson, I think you're going to start to get the picture. In other words, she's sort of all emotion and no substance. And this is what you're hearing in this example from her right here. Being drawn by the statute. That was sort of like the starting point. The question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn't necessarily invidious or whatever. But as I read the statute here, excuse me, the case here, you know, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is now

one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of, you know, you can't do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It's sort of the same thing. So it's interesting to me that we now have this different argument, and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten away with what they did here by just making a classification argument, the way that Tennessee is in this case. Yes, I think that's exactly right. that there is absolutely a parallel between any law that says you can't act inconsistent with a

protected characteristic and in all other contexts. It's a little bizarre, right? I mean, I won't bore you with more of it, but I remember listening to that case in real time. Tracy USA, thank you for the generosity. And I think we have somebody else with the super chat. Anita, thank you so much as well. You know, you guys are supporting independent journalism and it's wonderful. I'm so excited by all that we've been able to create here on the Trish Regan channel.

and we're getting at, what, 881,000 subs now. So it's very possible that we're going to get to a million, which at that point I guess I'm going to have to sing, right? Yeah, I was just playing the piano actually earlier behind us. And I'm in my parents' house for the weekend, heading back very shortly soon to my home. And I'll be back at home base for the studio in the studio tomorrow. But it's a lot of fun to play.

I got to say, it's a new piano, and it's a beautiful one. I grew up with one very similar, but it was much older. Anyway, I digress. Katange. I mean, the woman was in a Broadway show. So, like, what's the deal with her? Did they, like, just pluck her out and say, okay, it's you, and we're going to groom you to be a Supreme Court justice. You'd think they'd do a better job educating her because when you're Supreme Court justice, it means that you actually have to, believe it or not, read the law, understand the law, and then be able to regurgitate in some way, shape, or form back the law and base all of your arguments in legal theory,

but that is not what happened here, okay? And what's happened is that she's gotten very emotional, and she's talking about, oh, this won't work. It won't function. It won't be able to succeed because it's in practicality not going to work out. You need to be able to have this nationwide injunction. And, you know, that's her feeling and she's sticking to it. at which point you had her writing or she had herself writing, quote,

it is not difficult to predict how all of this ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable. And our beloved constitutional republic will be no more. So she thinks you're giving too much power into the hands of the president, which again, you know, Amy Coney Barrett is pointing out, you know, we observe only this. Justin Jackson decries an imperial executive while. embracing an imperial judiciary. So she wants to have this kind of kinglike status for any judge who comes along and who's not elected by the entire nation. Thank you so much to James Marino again

for supporting independent journalism. We love it. Thank you to all of you. But that's kind of a big, big deal. The other thing I would point out is that typically in these sorts of situations, you have a lot of notes going back and forth between the justices as they formulate their arguments and they'll go back and forth. And for Amy to have written this, it's clear that she really didn't like what Jackson was saying. I'm going to go on, quoting Amy, quite unlike a rule of king's governing system in a rule of law,

forgive me, this is Jackson. This is Jackson writing, quite unlike a rule of king's governing system in a rule of law regimen nearly every act of government must be challenged by an appeal to law. At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in the minutia of the government's self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot. Okay, now what's wrong with that? She has nothing legally to back her up.

So again, it's a lot of emotion and it's a lot of fire, almost like she's like a cable news personality, but there's not a whole lot more there. I mean, that's pretty, pretty lousy, right, for her to say the self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that misses the plot. And then she went so far as to dismiss the question of whether or not universal injunctions were provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789 as legalese that, quote, this is great, guys, quote, obscures a far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance. This woman, writes, may a federal court in the United States of America order the executive to follow the law. So Barrett just completely tore her part, mocked her and said, because analyzing the government and governing statute involves boring legalese, Jackson seeks to answer a far more basic question of enormous practical significance. May a federal court in the United States of America order the executive to follow the law. In other words, she writes, it is unnecessary to consider. consider whether Congress has constrained the judiciary. What matters is how the judiciary may

constrain the executive. This is Amy Coney Barrett smacking her down. Justice Jackson, she writes, would do well to heed her own admonition. Everyone from the president on down is bound by the law. And that goes for judges too. Oh. Did Lomaniac hear that? It goes for congressmen and congresswomen as well. That was something. I mean, kudos to Barrett, right? That took a lot. She was clearly ticked off, clearly, clearly ticked off, which means probably all those exchanges when they were exchanging legal arguments going back and forth really must have annoyed her. That was brutal. Like that is a brutal take down of this woman and you know what she deserved every bit of it but it kind of you know makes you

wonder somebody wrote on twitter and this is great new york post actually published this holy you know what this is about as brutal as i've ever seen scotis be on their own this is somebody i guess um who who has a legal background uh an attorney an attorney named costas morris and he's writing in response to this and then he wrote translated you are so stupid that you aren't even worth responding to, right? Remember again, because of what she initially said, Amy was like, it's just that bad. We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries were the president, not to mention the Constitution itself. Woo! Yeah. It kind of makes you wonder how this woman got the job. I don't know. How'd that happen?

But, you know, I would just say that, you know, she's, she's being smacked down rather brutally. Do you know that in her opinion, in her dissent, she didn't even bother to say anything that you would typically see in these things? Like, you know, there's a certain kind of respect that you afford your other justices. And so you'll say, you know, I respectfully disagree, et cetera. They use all these phrases to kind of sort of tone down and then just make it more academic. and instead she's just thrashing in around out there. Katanji is. And so this is pretty significant.

You know, and they do, as I said, circulate memos in these cases. And so given what she wrote in her dissent, I can just imagine some of the memos. I mean, she must have been freaking out, right? Just totally, totally, totally freaking out. If somebody else, you know, was making the point that the other justices signed on this. Like, they had to be okay with this what Amy Coney-Barrant was writing. And it's probably because

she showed such a lack of respect Katanji did for the other justices. And so what this shows you is that they're really kind of squeezing her out. They actually praised Sotomayor. And they compared and contrast, Amy Coney-Barratt was like, well, Sotomayor, Sonia Sotomayor actually did a good job rooting all of her dissent and disagreement in action. actual law and legal theory. Well, this one is just putting it all up. They're totally emotional, like, freaking out. And it just makes you wonder, like, really, is she appropriate for this job?

How did she get this job? Well, I guess Biden gave it to her, and I guess they wanted, you know, plug a certain... I'm sorry, but, like, this is what's going to be said. Like, she, you know, she checked a couple boxes because if you're not actually grounding any of your arguments in real legal theory, then you're not really doing the job. You're not doing what you were expected to be. James Marino, thank you, pointing out that, you know, this is part of the Biden debate, I guess. Look, she was Biden's pick.

Like, for whatever reason, for whatever reason he went forward with this woman and, you know, she'd really rather be on Broadway, right? Remember she was on Broadway show? Stick to Broadway, honey, all right? This whole justice thing is not really for you. I can, you know, maybe you should just do a podcast. You know, you're emotional. I think Joy Reid would welcome you on her show, right? I, I digress. I think the good news here is we're winning. We're winning, we're winning, we're winning, we're winning, okay? It was a great week for America. Think about all that

happened. I mean, going back to last Saturday night, and so we were able to take out, by most all accounts, the sort of ability of Iran to create a weapon. So that's like a big deal. And again, you don't even have to take my word for it. I'm just looking at the markets. Clearly, the markets, love this. So you have that win. You have a deal getting done with China. Wow. You have birthright citizenship getting struck down because they're saying, hey, wait a second. The 14th Amendment, it was put in place so that the children of slaves and people who had been brought, here against their will and slavery could be guaranteed citizenship. This wasn't for people who decided to come here as tourists. This wasn't for people who decided to, you know, break the law and come here

illegally and have a kid. No, that wasn't what this was intended to be. So all of this now will still have to be decided. Just to be clear, what was decided by the Supreme Court, they didn't actually touch a birthright, but they said it's not right. A single judge cannot come forward and issue a nationwide injunction. So you can have one judge over there. That's why Latifian. is going to be out of business. Kathy Holkle and Gavin Newsom and the rest of them that are fighting, fighting, fighting. You can't have one judge say, okay, we're going to strike this down. And so now you might be in a situation where you have 22 states.

And already, you know, you get the ACLU preparing their case against the president. And you're going to see this happen all over the country. But you've got 22 states that are going to say, okay, well, we're going to recognize you as a citizen. And then you have the rest of the states that are saying, well, we agree with Donald Trump. we're not going to recognize you as a citizen. If you weren't, you know, we don't believe in birthright citizenship anymore. So then what happens? I'm going to go back to the Constitution, which tells you that, yeah, the federal government

actually has say over this naturalization clause. And they do this through the supremacy clause, through the commerce clause, you name it. There's one thing that they control. It's the borders and who's in this country and citizenship. So this will likely bubble up and come to a head under this Supreme Court probably sooner than you think. So lots happening. Oh, here.

You know what's happening over in Venice? Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez are getting criticized by the locals. You could see this one coming a million miles away. Could you not? I mean, I've seen all the reports all weekend and I'm just like, really? Like, who cares? Like, honestly, who cares? Well, the people of Venice certainly care, and they're kind of mad because the parties just haven't stopped. You know, there's like something called a phone party the other day and I'm like a phone party. What the heck is that? Apparently you're said yourself up, and I think it was an excuse for Lauren Sanchez to have herself in a bikini with suds all over her. That's why they had a phone party, okay, on the boat. But anyway,

it's weird stuff. CNN reporting on this earlier and saying that the people of Venice have organized a protest because they're sick of Lauren Sanchez and Jeff Bezos being in their town. All right, happening today, newlyweds, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez are gearing up for their final day of partying in Venice to wrap up their wedding extravaganza there in Italy. The nearly $50 million lavish event is culminating with a party in a former medieval shipyard with a list guests, of course.

Meanwhile, not far from the party, a protest is scheduled to take place as residents and activists in Venice see the wedding as a symbol of inequality and arrogance. For days now, members of the new. No space for Bezos movements have been protesting throughout the city. With me now from Venice is CNN's Melissa Bell. She's been in the water.

They're protesting. They should. I mean, for goodness sakes. Imagine having your city taken over by Lauren Sanchez and Jeff Bezos. I'm just impressed that, you know, she was buttoned up in the wedding picture. But, you know, clearly that must have killed her because she had to do the Suds party on the yacht, you know, just to make up for things. Anyway, so good to have you guys all here. Wow, look at this. We are still in the top 100. We are climbing thanks to you all every single week. We're now up to number 62, I think, after being in the 80s.

We'll see if we make it again. You know what? Numbers aren't everything. You know what's important that we're here, that we're together. And then we have a chance to talk about the truth and the things that matter. So let me know in the comments below what you think of, well, I guess, get two questions for you. One, LaMonica, should she do the 17 years? I don't think she'll actually do the 17 years. I think they'll find some sort of work around and she'll get out for good behavior or something. But, you know, it's just completely inappropriate. I'm with the president on this one, that, you know, we're going to knock this stuff off and you need to restore law and order. So curious to know what you think on that. I'm also curious to know what you think about this

Katanji Brown Jackson and that they had to slap her down so. strongly. Right? I mean, that was a complete, brutal takedown of her. And it's like, come on, girl, you got to actually read the law, understand the law, and argue your position with the law in mind. And if you can't do that, then what are you doing on the Supreme Court? I mean, is this just a DEI pick? Unfortunately, that is what people are going to come to the conclusion of when you don't actually cite the law. Okay? So that's kind of how it works. at Chicago DB wants you to know this is my friend Don Baca who's here I'm amazed that you knew that we were coming on today Don he wants you to know we're only at what are we at 20 we're actually at

2,800 likes so he's asking that you make sure that you like it because it helps the algorithm I don't understand how these algorithms work but apparently that all helps right so the more you guys like it the more it gets promoted and the more you do your part to to help push this show because it's really important that we get out there. Thank you for all that you do. I'm going to be back with you live from the studio on Monday. I'm kind of going to be happy to have my regular lights back, although you won't have me go in as close to the camera anymore as I try and read the graphics, right? I keep moving in. I'm like, sorry, sorry, sorry. Anyway, I'm going to go enjoy my weekend, maybe play a little bit of piano, hang out with kids and my parents, and I will see you live here,

not here here, but back in the studio on Monday. Have a good one.