Search Posts

A screenshot of a social media post (X/Twitter) from a verified account labeled "Attorney General Pamela Bondi" (@AGPamBondi), showing a profile photo of a blonde woman in a dark blazer with an American flag in the background. Her post quote-tweets a post from a verified account "Jim Rosica" (@JimRosicaFL), which includes a small circular profile photo of a man. The Bondi post is dated 4:44 PM · Mar 6, 2026, with 87.7K Views shown.

Text in image: Attorney General Pamela Bondi @AGPamBondi The Florida Bar "investigation" of Lindsey Halligan is totally fake news. Lindsey not only did nothing wrong — she did a great job! Jim Rosica @JimRosicaFL · 5h Oops: @TheFlaBar now says it is *not* investigating former U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, despite one of the organization's lawyers saying the contrary in a letter last month, though the Bar said it is "monitoring" the case. usatoday.com/story/news/pol... via @USATODAY 4:44 PM · Mar 6, 2026 · 87.7K Views

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

some people like to give you a quick opinion about something like this. This is the Supreme Court decision opinion on tariffs. Here's the problem. There's opinions within opinions. It's a mess. First, there was no need for the court to rule as it did, period. The majority is not even a majority, except in agreeing to hold that the tariffs were not authorized by Congress in a 1977 law. Second, the majority is split into two camps. You've got Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett, and then that camp is split somewhat between Gorsuch and Barrett. Third, the three other justices in the second camp of the majority, the usual leftists, well, they mostly agreed with each other, but went further in attacking the President's tariff authority. I can assure you they wouldn't have done it with a Biden or Obama. Number four, this explains why it took so long for the court to issue a ruling, because the ruling appears to be a variety of arguments intended to reach a result. That is, in my view, it was result-oriented, a result looking for a constitutional and/or legal justification. Now fifth, if the court, as here, is going to issue a ruling that is so destructive of, or contrary to, the executives' international economic, national security, and foreign policy objectives, and the President's strategies, the President and we, the people, deserve a lot better than the massive mess that these nine lawyers created. This ruling is more like some committee of lawyers, or some law review group of legal students in the law library, each vying to impose his or her own policy preferences on the President, while searching for some constitutional legal justifications to do so. In fact, this case was not complicated at all, although the decision, which is actually an accumulation of arguments within the court, is complicated because of its incoherence. Sixth, the court majority wants you to believe that this was a matter of statutory interpretation only, involving one statute passed in 1977, and Congress's power over the purse. Article I, Section 8. That's it. Well, then why did it take 177 pages? But there's more. But Congress's have passed multiple statutes, and even more historically, Presidents have used all kinds of trade tools to influence and affect international commerce, foreign policy, and national security. It simply does not just come down to the powers of the purse. Article II, Section 1, gives the President great power over conducting foreign policy. What are tariffs? Tariffs are effectively taxes imposed on foreign governments. Well, isn't that foreign policy? Yes. And when the President uses tariffs to influence foreign governments, whether it's over war and peace, whether it's over economic policy, whatever it's over, is that not the conduct of foreign policy? Of course it is. Seventh, the court bobbed and weaved, touching on congressional delegation or non-delegation, cherry-picking the historical record where Presidents have imposed tariffs and other international trade tools to influence and affect foreign policy with the majority, we think, essentially ignoring or rejecting all contrary precedent in history. All precedent in history that came before is essentially written off. Number 8, the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, bluntly states that when he reads the text of the 1977 statute at issue, even those words specifically authorizing the President to quote, "regulate importation." It's in the statute. They're in the law, and in fact, are in several other laws, by the way, authorizing the President to impose tariffs. In this case, he says, "There are just too many words between the words 'regulate' and 'importation.'" Got that? Too many words between the words "regulate importation" for him to draw the conclusion that this particular statute authorized the President to regulate importation. Ninth, Justice Thomas went through the history of presidential power and tariffs, meticulously, as he always does, and that makes clear that President Trump has, in fact, been acting within the powers traditionally exercised by past presidents. Now, I know people who are opposed to tariffs, so that's not true, but it is true. So, what we're discussing here is the Constitution of the law, not policy preferences, and who makes those decisions? Six justices on the Supreme Court who can barely write a single majority opinion? In fact, they don't. Tenth, Justice Kavanaugh was brilliant in his dissent, and he went through the statutory history of delegations to presidents, of tariff powers, as well as other points, making clear that the President was, in fact, delegated authority under that 1977 statute to, quote, "regulate importations." Shame on Chief Justice Roberts, shame on Justices Barrett and Gorsuch, your word games and semantical ruminations had no place here. I was left thinking how lawyers can become so typically absurd when trying to prove how brilliant they are, or when, in fact, their egos get in the way of well-reasoned outcomes. And you can see that in some of the back and forth. It's really kind of appalling. Twelve, the Chief Justice appears to have come up with a so-called majority opinion that is as narrow as possible in order to attract enough votes to overturn the tariffs, at least under this one statute. But in doing so, he did not show leadership. He created a big mess. This so-called majority opinion provides no precedential value. It provides no constitutional or legal guidance. It says the court does not have the authority or the ability to get involved in policy, yet I found this ruling to be more about policy than the Constitution or law. The majority had a problem, which I knew they would. On the several occasions I've discussed this case with you right on this show. Where exactly is the separation of powers? Where is that line drawn when it comes to tariffs? Yes, Congress has the power of the purse. The president has broad power over foreign policy and national security and diplomacy. Obviously, trade and its relationship to the president's broad powers cannot be ignored. Yet the ruling essentially does that, but then the court says they're not doing that. It's just ruling on a single statute. In other words, the court's ruling was, as I said, result-oriented, policy-driven, despite the majority's disclaimers. When the Supreme Court cannot come up with a coherent, understandable decision based on the Constitution and the law, you know then it is conducting itself as politicians, it is activists, and it has no business doing what this court did. It interfered in a matter that should be left to the legislative and executive branches because the constitutional question on who gets to lay tariffs is in fact an absurd question. What do you mean, Mark? Because both Congress and the president have a role. And if Congress thought the president went too far, it could use the power of the purse, the appropriations process, under Article I, to stop him. As I've said here repeatedly, Congress didn't even try. And so this is the mix in the battle between the elected branches and to have basically six lawyers, a majority, who can't really come up with a single theory. Get involved and decide one way or another is appalling, it's absurd. So where are we now? It's a foolish overreach by the Supreme Court. There was a piece written by Stan Valger and Clark Packard a few months back, the American Enterprise Institute, and boy did they hate tariffs. That's fine, that's their view. They hate tariffs, they hate all these manipulations or involvement in trade and so forth and so on. And yet in their peace, while they're haranguing against the president's tariffs, they also provide the following, which is actually quite interesting. And they point out the first Trump administration of post-tariffs, usually at 25% on some two-thirds of imports from China under Section 301 of the Trade Act, in 1974, they're telling us actually the president has many alternatives to that one statute that the court, we think, ruled on. The Biden administration kept these measures largely intact, used the existing authority to layer on other tariffs, including 100% duties on Chinese electric vehicles. Most of these tariffs continue to this day. Because of the Section 301 measures, the effective tariff on imports from China remains particularly high, around 50%. Section 232 tariffs would also survive in administration loss in learnings, resources versus Trump. Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the president may restrict imports determined to pose a threat to national security, following an investigation by the Commerce Department. They go on. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the provision empowers the president to address large insurance balance of payments deficits. Through import surcharges of up to 15% import quotas, or some combination of the two. Wow! Section 301, the basis for existing China tariffs, offers another avenue for reconstructing the tariffs that the court struck down, one where the president enjoys wide unilateral authority. It grants the US Trade Representative broad authority to investigate and remedy unfair foreign trade practices. That's not all. The old 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, I know we don't like it. I'm just saying what's available. Now, it lets the president oppose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce as compared to other nations. So what exactly did the Supreme Court accomplish? Nothing. It created a mess in terms of tariffs that had been paid. The president can follow other avenues if he wishes. I would argue that constitutionally he is the authority to do what he's doing, whether people like it or not. And Congress has the constitutional power to try and check that, and those lawyers on the Supreme Court had no business getting involved. They should have done what I said, not because I said it, because it would have been right, which was reverse the lower court that found those tariffs illegal, tell the judiciary below, stay out of this. The court should say, "We're going to stay out of it," because this really isn't justiciable in any rational or logical way. It hasn't really played out. It may never play out. It hasn't played out in 200 years and more of American constitutional history. But the court jumped in and they created a big splash, a big mess, and achieved nothing but chaos.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Yeah, so that famous photograph, what we have now learned and the government has had Jack Smith and his prosecutors have had to admit that that was staged and those top secret classified sheets that all the public saw and said, "Oh my God, look at those top secret documents." Those were placed there by the FBI. What Jack Smith admitted in court this week was that in his word, they mishandled the classified documents and misrepresented those to the court. Maria, that's a kind way of saying, "We tampered with the evidence. Then we lied to the court about it." They got caught when President Trump's lawyers and the other co-defendants raised this issue and said, "Look, the documents here don't match up. The documents that were presented to us don't match the digitally scanned records of when they were taken from Mar-a-Lago." Jack Smith, not only did they tamper with that and lie to the court about it, but he's now admitted to the court that he doesn't know how that happened. He's only offered a number of possible explanations for how that could have happened. So he's absolutely blown the chain of custody. And again, he has a prosecutor, lead prosecutor in this case, Jay Bratt, who met with White House counsel and a representative of the National Archives several times in the weeks before Jack Smith was even appointed. This reeks of crossfire hurricane when the Obama-Biden administration fabricated evidence before the FISA court, lied to the court about it to pursue Donald Trump. And now we're seeing it again in this classified documents case. The judge could dismiss this case at any point in time, Maria. I think the only reason-

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

And now, thanks to Miranda Devine and Senator Grassley, we have some proof. There was a prosecutor who really had a passion for going after J-6ers and all things Trump. There he is, and we have an email from him to his DOJ and FBI colleagues. Take a look at this. This is how they talk to each other. Can we do some work to nail down Trump's role in this? According to this Forbes article, Trump recorded the Pledge of Allegiance at MAL, Mar-a-Lago, and Cash Patel is involved. I'll talk to Maria and Aaron and Julia about doing some follow-up here to nail down Trump's role. In other words, to nail Trump. Can we get something on Trump? This is not the way the justice system is supposed to work. No, it's the next the FBI gets in on the action. I think we have another one from a guy who was really anxious to get J-6ers as well. The FBI agent replies, "Ester and I are working on this today. "We're going to put together our findings at two "and get something to you shortly after that." This isn't justice. This isn't policing. This isn't law enforcement. This is dark political operations. And it's, they just had no problem lying about it. This is Merrick Garland. The guy should have been busted for perjury or I don't know, disbarred for something 'cause this is not true. - This appointment underscores for the public the department's commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters and to making decisions indisputably guided only by the facts and the law. - I have a chance to lead a justice department in pursuit of the rule of law. - We have only one rule. And that one rule, so we follow the facts and the law and we reach the decisions required by the Constitution and we protect civil liberties. - Mr. Smith. - No, they don't. No, they didn't. And they said it so much, it was like muscle memory. It was like automatic, right? It was, it became boilerplate language. We only pursue, we don't look at politics. It's only the facts. I mean, look at Jack Smith. Does anybody believe all of these indictments, all of these arrests, right? They were not looking at politics. Jack Smith, the weirdo's special counsel, go. - Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice. And our nation's commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. We have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone. Applying those laws, collecting facts, that's what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more and nothing less. - Oh yeah, no, what about poll numbers? What about a President Trump who's wildly popular in the Republican Party and just kind of running for the nomination and has a lock on it and you guys arrest him within a four month period, right? As the election year is really kicking into the high gear, is that the facts? Is that just following the law? Where it is, one of the reasons why Joe Biden did so poorly in that debate, he didn't think he'd even have to debate Trump, he was confident that he wasn't gonna be the nominee, that he might be in jail, did not work out that way, did it? Anyway, just remember, this is a doozy. They try to criminalize the singing of the national anthem and the pledge of allegiance, raising all kinds of questions about well, where did the money go and how did this happen and how did that happen? They, this is a classic example, show me the man, we'll find the crime.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.