Video transcript
So you called the judge's order just earlier today "patently unlawful" and said that it was an assault on democracy itself. Does that mean that the administration is ignoring this order and might you ignore future court orders that meet the criteria you laid out? The President of the United States and his administration reserve all rights under the Constitution to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States. The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law by the founding generation of this country, men like John Adams, was written explicitly to give the President the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States. That is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain any way. You can read the law yourself. There's not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review. So Steven, when you say that this person has no authority at all, this is how our system works. It starts with these judges and then continues up. At what point does it become, in your view, legal for the justice system to be looking at this and making a judgment, and I fail to see how there's any other way, but to start with where we're starting here before you get to eventually the Supreme Court. Well, so first of all, there's a term in law at Justicible. This is not Justicible. In other words, this is not subject to judicial remedy. When the President is exercising his Article II powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country, he's exercising his core Article II powers as commander in chief. Is Venezuela invading the US? This is a very important point. This is a title 50 authority. It's a commander in chief authority. So just to ask you a simple question, you talk about how the system works. Does a district court judge have the right to direct or enjoin troop movements overseas, yes or no? Well, Steven, my question, if you could answer my question first, is Venezuela invading our country in a way that would... TDA, so I'll answer yours and you'll answer mine. Under the terms of the statute, Train Deroigua is an alien enemy force that has come here as detailed at length in the proclamation at the direction of the Venezuelan government. The statute says that a president has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion that is directed by a foreign government. By a state or a government, right? Are they a state or a government? Yes, it is documented that TDA was sent by the Venezuelan government in the proclamation. And here's an even more important point. Under the Constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one or the commander in chief of the army and navy? The president and the president alone makes the decision of what triggers that determination in the statute. So do you then think we are actually at war with Venezuela, the nation state of Venezuela? You're not hearing me and you're not understanding me. Read the statute, Alien Enemies Act, 1798. It says if a predatory incursion is perpetrated by a foreign government, so it lists the three qualifying actions, it could be an act of war. Yeah, but it does say in the very beginning, there has to be a declared war against a nation or a state. No. That's what it says. Wrong. Look at the statute. It's on my account on social media. That's actually where we found it. Yes, it says or a predatory incursion or an invasion. The statute delineates three criteria for triggering the Alien Enemies Act. One is a act of war, which by the way, an invasion is an act of war, but put that aside. One is an invasion, which this is. One is a predatory incursion, which this is. So it actually meets all three statutory criteria, but with respect to this particular statute, the proclamation is utilizing the incursion and invasion language in the statute. So, but this is a very important question because no, no, no, hold on. It's a very important question. You said the way our system works is the president of the United States commands the armed forces of the country, commands the foreign policy of the country, and that's subject to district court review. That is fundamental. I never said that, Steven. I did not say. That has never been true. This was not a military opera, I mean, district court judge can no more enjoin the expulsion of foreign terrorists to foreign soil, that he can direct the movement of Air Force One, that he can direct the movement of an aircraft carrier. Then he can direct Marco Rubio. Okay. Do you think the Supreme Court has any say over this or not? Like if does the Supreme Court of the United States have any say over the things that you were just outlining right here? I believe what the Supreme Court will say is what I just said, which is that the president's conduct here is not subject to judicial review, because he's in the plenary. They do in fact have a say here, even though you think they may agree with you. What we are expecting is the Supreme Court to say what has always been the case, which is when the president is using his powers as commander in chief, those determinations are not subject to judicial review. In other words, the president's designation of Trendeiro Agua as a foreign terrorist organization and as an alien enemy are part of his inherent plenary authority. There is no way, there is no way, how are you going to expel, how are you going to expel illegal alien invaders from our country who are raping little girls, who are murdering little girls, if each and every deportation has to be adjudicated in a district court judge. That means you have no country, it means you have no sovereignty, it means you have no future. It is fundamentally incompatible to have a country and have individual expulsions adjudicated by a single district court judge. I'm just trying to figure out at what point in the system do you, because, what does the Trump administration believe, because we do have separation of powers in this country. I hear what you're saying. Yes, separation of powers. You're saying the district court does not have authority. This is the judiciary interfering in the executive function, that is the separation of powers. That is the separation of powers. Ignore the judge's order here, because you thought you could. So the judge's order and the actions taken by the Departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security are not in conflict, and the Department of Justice has been clear that they are not in conflict. So you think that you did go along with the order that the judge put out? You do not think that the Trump administration defied this order? As the Justice Department said, there is no conflict between the judge's order and the action is taken by the Departments I just listed. But I'm making a deeper and more fundamental point. The district court has no ability. The district court has no ability to in any way restrain the President's authorities under the Alien Enemies Act or his ability to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States. Let me paint a picture for you. President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had engaged in intensive diplomacy to obtain a bilateral security agreement with the nation of El Salvador. If a district court judge can join that bilateral security agreement, then we do not have a democracy. We do not have a foreign policy. I got it. We heard you say this. Did you ignore, did the administration ignore the order from the district judge? So it's a simple question. And I've answered it. I've answered it because the Department of Justice has made a filing in the court. But let me make another point. The judge in this case put the lies of every single person on those aircraft at risk. Did he know how much fuel was in those planes? Did he know the flight conditions? Did he know the weather conditions? Did he know how many crew hours? Did he know the need for crew rest? Did he know any of that? No. This judge violated the law. He violated the Constitution. He defied the system of government that we have in this country. And by the way, these same district court judges didn't do a damn thing to stop Joe Biden from flooding this nation with millions of illegal aliens. These district court judges didn't issue any injunctions to save the lives of Jocelyn Mungree from Lake O'Reilly or any one of the federal courts. Is that what you're saying? What I'm saying is that what you said, there's a separation of powers. The judiciary exercises judgment and relief. I don't speak for the White House. You are here to speak for the White House. I will do. You're here to speak for the White House. I just want you to answer that one simple question. I am. Ready? I am. Under a proper reading of the Constitution, district court judges provide relief to individual plaintiffs seeking relief. District court judges do not have the authority as a general matter to enjoin the functioning of the executive branch. But their authority is at its lowest point when the president is exercising his powers as commander in chief. And I asked you a question. You never answered it. Can a judge enjoin troop movements overseas? The district court judge enjoin troop movements overseas. Stephen, I am not going to get into the. Just say no. And then you'll know that I'm right. This is a separate question. Just say no. And you'll know that I'm right. Okay, we're not talking about other. Because the president. I need to ask you about something else that's important. The president issued a proclamation delineating in detail how the Venezuelan regime sent this gang, this terrorist organization to our shores. And by the way, and I love being here, but all the outrage that we are seeing from the Democrat Party and from the corporate media, Stephen Miller must be protected at all costs. He is Trump's deputy chief of staff. He is also the most effective communicator on a Trump policy and intellectual level. He intellectualizes Trumpism and nationalism. And that's really kickass man, because there's not many people who can do that. As Stephen Miller has clearly thought through these policies, he knows his constitution. He knows what he is defending and how he is defending it. This is why he's so articulate in moments like that, which is pretty much a civics lesson for the entire country. What it amounts to is Stephen Miller taking everyone to school, whether it's on CNN or at the White House press dias, Stephen Miller makes the intellectual case for Trumpism. And this is what makes him, again, not just such a valuable member of the Trump administration, but irreplaceable. Because I've never seen anybody else able to do this with such efficiency. And here's the little secret that I know, because I work with both Trump's terms, right? Term one and two, you're able to really see the people and the architects be honest. Stephen Miller was the architect of every policy that you liked about Trump term one. And this is him on steroids. This is Stephen Miller in berserker mode. It's a glorious thing to watch Stephen Miller locking it in and clearly, clearly having a good time with it, right? It's enjoyable to see, right? It makes you proud of you, America. It's worth any. See you.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.