Debating the tariffs ruling and private prosecutions (05-29-2025--Hour2)

What's going on. Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all of the links, become a patron, go to dpeakclendershow dot com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support. Last hour we talked about I went over all of the details of this ruling against the one bunch of the tariffs basically the Liberation Day tariffs that Trump imposed using a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act AIPA, and a three judge panel determined that he exceeded the authority granted under the Constitution, but also the various laws that they cited for why they had the power to do the wide ranging, you know, ten percent baseline on everybody and then another set of tariffs on everybody. On top of that, there is a chunk of tariffs that are remaining because they did justify it under law. This is like aluminum automobiles, parts and stuff, and these are you know, national defense reasons or whatever, and so under a different law those remain in place. But the widespread ones, particularly the ones on Canada and Mexico, that were used to exert pressure to get them to do something unrelated to trade that broke the bounds of IEPA as delineated in the law. According to these three judges, who are lawyers with a wardrobe change, but one of them was a Trump appointee, one was a Reagan appointee, and the other was an Obama appointee, they all agreed. It's being appealed to the US Supreme Court. The Court stated that Congress is typically respond contible for issuing tariffs, not the president alone, and that Trump's rationale for the exception to the rule did not meet the Emergency Act threshold to act unilaterally. Quote. The President's assertion of tariff making authority in this case unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or in scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the president under AEPA, because there's no limiting principle. Based on the arguments put forth by the government in the court case, and so they said, the worldwide and retaliatory tariffs are contrary to law. The lawsuit was brought by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small businesses that get goods from countries dinged by the White House's tariff policy. All right, so we had a bunch of people call in at the end of the last hour. We still have Stan and Jim. Start with Jim first. Hello, Jim, Welcome to the program. Yeah, Pete. I think there have been times in our history when a strong peasancy, maybe even I'm not a history maybe even save the country. Most recently, Roosevelt comes to mind. During World War Two. He gave us all that social cramp which we'll never pay for in the thirties, but he made some decisions in World War Two, including hanging out with Churchill and Churchill's own special bedroom man in the White House for almost six weeks during World War Two, and made some decisions that got us through that, even a really key one, you know, Stylin kind of embracing someone, embracing Stalin to try to get rid of this Hitler, you know, world War two. Minutes. Wait, hang on, Jim, are you suggesting that people throughout history may be a bit more complex than simply all good or all evil, and that they sometimes do some good things and then do some things that are not so good. Is that what you're saying? Absolutely? Wow? Yeah, Yeah. Lincoln the Civil War, he made some decisions that I helped I think helped the North prevail and the country benefit as a result. So a strong presidency is not necessarily a bad thing in the history of this country. Right now. The thing that I really got excited about with Trump coming in just swinging left and right, saying whatever he needs to say to try to bring some kind of meaning to the uncontrolled administrative state that we call sometimes called the swamp in d C. This judgment that came out by this agency or whatever were No, it's. A three judgement. No, it's a three judge panel. Yeah, there's a classic example of it. And I kind of disagree. You said the presidency executive branch's kind of gotten out of control. I still say it's in a neck. I'd say the main thing out of control is the swamp and DC itself. And but that's why. But that's Jim, We're saying the same thing. The reason why the swamp exists is because of the executive branch overreach. All those agencies. Yeah, well I think it's bigger than that. Well no, but Jim, all of the agencies that write the rules, whether it's low flow faucets and shower heads and tank toilet tank sizes, right to climate change rules written by the e p A or Obamacare rules written by the Health and Human Services Secretary. Right. The offloading of these decisions to executive branch agencies is the problem that is the deep state. So what you're saying that came from the executive branch. They are in the absolute So they are in the executive branch, Yes, but Congress abdicates their responsibility and their power. They turn it over to the executive branch and they say, well, the Health and Human Services Secretary shall right the rule. And then you had the Chevron doctrine, which for fifty years whatever forced or allowed these agencies to get the deference in court, and it created this monstrosity of the executive branch. And now you're at a point where the executive branch leader, the president can't even fire people inside the executive branch, right, Like, this is the where we agree at identifying the problem. But the head of the executive branch is still the president. And I still want that entire branch restrained. President all the way down to the office workers. I want all of them restrained. Yeah, well, not in my lifetime. And I go back to Osenhower. That's how old I am. Do I recall a president in the White House that had the gut and shall I say whatever to make the decisions and do and say what Trump is making. I'm getting a little bit discrmal now with this bill that's coming through right now. Don't remember, don't forget Trump's first term. He spent money like crazy. Yeah, okay, but he also rebuilt a lot of the military, which I thoroughly agreed with. I think we needed it at the time. I think we still need some changes in the military on the spending side, unfortunately. But he's making the decisions and he's making some calls. I've never seen any presidency making my lifetime. And all of that is Jim. All of that is fine. So just like you said at the beginning, that people have good in bed, right, they do good things. They do things that you don't like, and you can point to all the good things as reasons why you like him. I'm not arguing with you for why you can like the president, I'm pointing out that this legal ruling seems to fit. This is not an example of the judicial overreach that we have seen in all of these other cases. I'm fifty to fifty on Trump right now. I can take him or leaving with some of the things I'm seeing going on. But let me tell you something about these tariffs we have as a country. Let the whole world dump stuff in this country. All of my lifetime, I've seen it, from the Japanese cars, the German cars. Everything comes into this country. But when we try to get those markets, it's impossible. I thoroughly agree with what Trump's doing with tariffs. It even has an outside chance with enough revenue generation to flatline our taxes. I doubt that bill. This new bill still does not get a fifteen percent corporate tax rate, which we desperately need, or even lower for all manufacturing in this country, like a whole lot of the rest of the world has right now. Yeah, So you're not going to get me to defend the big beautiful bill because I cannot. I don't like a lot of that stuff either in it. Yeah, So, Jim, I appreciate the call. It's good to hear from you. Yeah, good and bad. Everything's a mixed bag, right. There is no perfect president, because there's no perfect person. I just want to make sure that when an executive is doing things, even if I agree with them, that they are within the bounds of the law, because if you allow it for your guy, then you are in no position to argue that the guy you don't like who takes over next can't do the same thing. This is exactly what I've been telling the left when Obama was doing it, when Biden was doing it, right the very same reasons. This is not what we should be okay with. All Americans should not be okay with an executive branch that does all of these things that it has been doing. That's a consistent argument that I've been making, and this ruling seems to line up pretty well with that principle for me. Again, that's just for. Me, all right. If you're listening to this show, you know I try to keep up with all sorts of current events, and I know you do too, And you've probably heard me say get your news from multiple sources. Why, well, because it's how you detect media bias, which is why I've been so impressed with ground News. It's an app, and it's a website, and it combines news from around the world in one place so you can compare coverage and verify information. You can check it out at check dot ground, dot news slash pete. I put the link in the podcast description too. I started using ground News a few months ago and more recently chose to work with them as an affiliate because it lets me see clearly how stories get covered and by whom. The blind spot feature shows you which stories get ignored by the left and the right. See for yourself. Check dot ground, dot news slash pete. Subscribe through that link and you'll get fifteen percent off any subscription. I use the Vantage plan to get unlimited access to every feature. Your subscription then not only helps my podcast, but it also supports ground News as they make the media landscape more transparent. Stan, he's been hanging on a long time. Stan, Welcome to the show. How are you hello? First, it's Sam. That's okay, Sam understood. But second is we the people. If stations like yours and media like yours would take and start publishing a list of names of the representatives and senators who vote to increase spending, to increase our dead If you guys would get on there and start publishing their names, outing them to the public, calling on the American public to start doing petitions for recall elections every time they do it, we would really quickly these people figure out, Hey, this is going to cost be my job, This is going to cost me my attention. Sam. So a couple of Sam hangout a couple of things. Number one, are you talking about the build that or the big beautiful bill? I don't care what bill it is. Okay, So this is our debt. Okay. So the bill goes through, increases the debt of this country. They spend more money than our country's taken in and put us more in debt. If those names get published with a clause or suggestion from your people, media like yours? What do you mean? Media like ours? What do you mean media like ours? Not left right wing status. So right so conservative outwork. Do you believe that your media outlet is for the best of the American public? Yes or no? Yes? Absolutely? Okay. Then if media outlets like yours in the best interest of the American people in this country start outing these centers and congressmen who vote to increase our debt? Right, So do you think that we have not done that? What do you think that I can only speak for myself? Do you think that I have have like protected Republicans for passing bills that increase spending. I ain't saying about protecting. I'm said outing, because that's a complete opposite. That's like, I'm not saying you're you're a man. I'm just I'm not I'm saying you're not a woman. I'm not following your analogy. I'm asking because you said what I need to do is tell tell everybody who voted for the bill, And I'm asking, are you aware of me not doing that? Do you not ever hear me talk about bills that pass and how all the Republicans either opposed it or voted for it, and Democrats voted for it or voted against it. I'm not saying just you, I'm saying media outlets. Like, well, okay, but Sam, all I can do is speak for my All I can do is speak for myself. I can't speak for any other like host on the show. I can't speak for the news department. So all I can speak for is myself. So I can tell you that whenever one of these omnibus spending bills comes down the pike and the the Republicans sign off on it, I object, and I say all of the Republicans voted for it. I've called out Republicans who voted for or against if they break with their party on stuff. Yes, I identify them. The second part of your your call is for is for me and I guess everybody on the station to launch a recall effort against these lawmakers. But there is no such thing as a recall of federal elected officials. You cannot do it. It's an election. There's no recall for a US senator. There's no recall. Have you ever heard of a US senator being recalled? Then maybe we need to start something new. Okay, well I mean that that's then okay, then that's fair. You'd you'd have to get that approved by the very people that you want to threaten with recalling. So that's the challenge there is. You'd have to get a constitutional amendment. I'm just laying out if this is something that you are interested in pursuing, I'm just laying out sort of the blueprint for you, which is you would have to get a constitutional amendment passed by the states, and you'd have to go through the both chambers of Congress, right, and then you would also then have to get it done in North Carolina because we do not have recall ability in our state laws or for our state lawmakers either. So I'm just laying out the blueprint. But that's why you don't hear anybody in any media trying to launch recall petitions for US senators or US congress members, because. Okay, can we go a different direction then? So she said that's not possible. Not yeah, yeah, or either way, but she said that's not possible. We can go another direction. We can start they go fundme to file criminal charges against these people, which I'm believe anyone can file criminal charges no for it being an act of treason and have these guys charged with treason. So what would the desdrawing. Our country and destroying our dollar the Secret Service used to be original purpose of Secret Service was to protect our currency. So they don't do it anymore. What was what would politicians? So you're asking, you're asking for federal charges of treason to be filed, and you and you want to go fund me set. Up in order. Well, lawyers cost money, right, but the. But the charging comes from the US Attorney's Office or the DOJ. The people. People. You're telling me American citizens are not allowed to pol charges against anybody. No, not against not against charges. Really, who do you think, I'm I know people have done it. You can petition, No people convicted. No, the state tries and convicts. No no, no no no no no, yes yes yes. For the fact the public can who tries. The case larger who tries the case. So let's say Sam, you and I we say, let's say we pull our money, we get to we get a million dollars together, and we want to go file charges against somebody somehow criminal charges. Who then goes to court to prosecute that. Case is the lawyer that you hired? The lawyer? So do you hear? So? Are you aware of private prosecutors trying criminal cases? Yes? Where Lanchester County Courthouse? In what case. A person had stolen some stuff from my store, My brother and his wife used to run and they filed charges and the guy was convicted and sent to jail. And this was tried by a non DA non solicitor. Correct, they had to hire their own lawyer to the prosecuting party would not touch it. They hired their own lawyer to prosecute it, and. The guy went to jail. Yes, he went to jail based on that trial, or not in a subsequent trial or not through some plea deal or not through like you're saying, this was a criminal trial. Tried and convicted by a private prosecuting attorney. Who convicted Was it a judge or a jury trial. A judge? Yeah, what you're describing to me is unlike any other process I have ever heard of. And now, granted, I mean I don't know all of the different processes in all of the different states, but I am pretty confident that private citizens cannot prosecute US senators for treason, pretty confident on that one. All the they're immune. Do we have royals and nobles in this country now there are no from prosecution. No, I'm saying the private city. There is a system of justice that takes it out of. Want the fox to go, you want the fox to stop the fox? Right? Did I say that that's that's absurd. You're just now making. Up say you said we can't know it? No, I said, I'm not aware. I said I'm not aware of whatever the process you just laid out about private citizens criminally convicting somebody in a criminal court of law and then going into state custody for it. And then I said, I'm pretty sure that the US senators cannot be tried by private citizens. Well maybe we need it. Well, maybe maybe you should research that. Yeah, maybe maybe maybe, maybe it's lots of maybe's there. Uh, I cannot verify anything that Sam just said. Just for the record, here's a great idea. How about not making an escape to a really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina? Just a quick drive up the mountain and Cabins of Ashville is your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon, maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get family and friends together for a big old reunion, Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that truly matter. Nestled within the breath taking fourteen thousand acres of the Pisga National Forest, their cabins offer a serene escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally located between Asheville and the entrance of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. It's the perfect balance of seclusion and proximity to all the local attractions with hot tubs, fireplaces, air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi Fi grills, outdoor tables, and your own private covered porch. Choose from thirteen cabins, six cottages, two villas, and a great lodge with eleven king sized bedrooms. Cabins of Ashville has the ideal spot for you for any occasion. They have pet friendly accommodations. Call or text eight two eight, three six seven seventy sixty eight or check out all there is to offer at Cabins Offashville dot com and make memories that'll last a lifetime. During the break, I went to the el computerire and I asked Brave, my browser, the superior browser of all browsers, can private citizens criminally prosecute somebody? Because Sam seemed very confident, and so I said, I told him. I said, I am not aware of any law that allows somebody to just a regular citizen to criminally prosecute somebody else and try a case and then get a judge to incarcerate somebody in a state prison. So I asked, and the answer In the United States, private citizens generally cannot initiate criminal prosecutions, cannot even initiate them, let alone try them. The right to initiate criminal prosecutions is typically reserved for government officials, such as public prosecutors or in South Carolina, they are called solicitors or district attorneys. Right, But they're all prosecutors and they represent the state. That's why in all cases it's always the state versus Joe Schmo. Right, it's never Pete Calendar versus Joe Schmo. If it is, that's usually a civil matter. And if you are, you know, suing somebody in a civil matter, the standard of evidence in order to convict is lower. That's a preponderance of evidence, which is basically fifty one. Like if you get fifty percent plus one, then you then you win. You've convinced the judge. And you usually don't get jury trials, but sometimes you do. You can. But that's the civil proceeding. You don't have the state involved in that except to adjudicate the matter between two parties. And so when Sam said that there was this example in Lancaster, I assumed Lancaster, South Carolina. Well, in South Carolina, a private citizen can initiate a criminal case by approaching a magistrate, and that that's the same. In North Carolina, a private citizen can also initiate a criminal case through a magistrate. The magistrate then can only issue a summons, not an arrest warrant in North Carolina, but a summons. Oh, same goes for South Carolina. You can issue a summons, the magistrate can, but that's not a warrant for somebody's arrest because that's the state that does that. The state issues a criminal warrant for your arrest because the state is prosecuting you for something. People get into Magistrates deal with this stuff literally all day. This is all they deal with is people coming in wanting to get warrants out on somebody else, usually domestic related, but also property crime kind of things. Right, you can initiate doesn't mean you try the case the state. If it goes to a trial and somebody's liberty is at risk, the defendant's liberty is at risk, that's not a private citizen that is trying that case. That's a civil matter, it's not a criminal matter. So I think maybe that's what Sam was talking about unless because I also had some time I check this Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvan Maybe, but I thought he said South Carolina. Rule five h six of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure permit an individual to file a private criminal complaint with the Office of the District Attorney. If you file a private criminal complaint, you become the affiant or the person making the allegation. Just as if you were a police officer. The same rules apply to you in filing charges that apply to a police officer. A mere allegation is not sufficient to initiate criminal charges. Filing a private criminal complaint in no way guarantees the criminal charges will be filed, just as a police officer must do. You have to demonstrate probable cause exists that the person you wish to have arrested committed a crime. Probable cause is the legal standard of proof that the courts require in order for charges to be filed in other than summary offenses. The DA must approve every private criminal complaint before a district judge is permitted to issue process, and then it talks about the procedure. You have to fill out all of these forms here return the forms. The DA's office will then look to approve it or reject it. They usually would then forward the complaint to a county detective to conduct an investigation of the crimes. With the additional information provided by the investigation, the Assistant DA will then make a determination if probable cause exists to justify the charges. If the Assistant DA determines that the law that probable cause exists, the complaint will be approved and referred to the District Justice to proceed with the process. Then, if the private criminal complaint is approved, you must appear at any and all core proceedings that result, and you will be responsible for providing the District Justice with the names and addresses of all persons you wish to call as witnesses on your behalf and summary offenses are defiant, trespassed, disorderly conduct, and harassment. So maybe that's what he's talking about. But he said, I thought he said something about it being theft related or something, So I don't know. Maybe it was Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, but wasn't aware of that product. Like I said, I don't know what all fifty states have for all of their laws. And I heard years and years. Ago that like you know, you could be a you know, you could file like a private you know, cause of action or something against somebody and whatever. But there's a reason why you never hear this stuff happening is because states don't allow it. And it's usually the state that's prosecuting crime and civilians doing civil all. Right, Hope that clears it up. So I don't want to misinformation getting out there for everybody, all right. So spring is here a time of renewal and celebrations. You've got graduations, weddings, anniversaries and the special days for mom and dad. Your family's making memories that are going to last a lifetime. But let me ask you, are all of those treasured moments from days gone by? Are they hidden away on old VCR tapes, eight millimeter films, photos slides? Are they preserved? Because over time, these precious memories can fade and deteriorate, losing the magic of yesterday. At Creative Video, they help you protect what matters most. Their expert team digitizes your cherished family moments and transfers them onto a USB drive, freezing them in time so they can be enjoyed for generations to come. I urge you do not wait until it's too late this spring, lebrate your past. Visit Creative Video today and let them preserve your legacy with the love and care that it deserves. Creative Video Preserving Family Memories since nineteen ninety seven, located in mint Hill, just off four eighty five. Mail orders are accepted to get all the details that createavideo dot Com got this message from Dwayne, who says, regarding Sam's call, in regards to the listener who spoke about private prosecutions criminal prosecutions, I have been in law enforcement in Lancaster County for over thirty years. I have never heard of or observed any private prosecutions. I am aware of instances where the solicitor's office had conflicts in a case and they would have a solicitor from another circuit come in and handle that prosecution. Yes, that is very standard. Also, citizens in South Carolina do not press charges, only law enforcement officers can. Tony says, these people watch way too many movies. And to answer Sam's question, and I look, I'm not picking on Sam. I understand the frustration. I think I think he has a bit of a misunderstanding about the way the court system works and such. But I understand the frustration absolutely. And when he says, you know, oh, do we have royals, No, we do not. That's the whole point of you know, the bald eagle, right, there's no crown. But the whole point of this experiment of America is that we do not have royals. People don't just get you know, deeded titles and property and power because of their family lineage. No, what we have is the rule of law. That's that's the difference, and that we are all equal under the law. And so that's why you have all of the you know, this this scaffolding that has been built up over time called the law. And maybe it's too much at this point. It does seem a bit overbearing oftentimes, but no, that's the point. And so when so when trying to seek redress for these things that frustrate us, we have to work within the rule of law. And that's what the whole tariff ruling was about. And if you don't like what the law says about a particular thing because it's you know, outdated, or there are loopholes, or it's unjust or whatever, there are ways to go about dismantling the law, taking out that law. There are laws about how to do that, right, so we're all on the same page. This is how it's supposed to function. This is how it's supposed to operate. And I have never been somebody that has ever tossed around the idea, let alone the call for somebody to be charged with tree, because that is a death penalty and I don't do that. I don't call for people to be executed because I really don't like their votes on things. And honestly, it is not a it's not persuasive. It doesn't get people to your side in an argument, generally speaking, unless you've only surrounded yourself with people that think exactly like you do, you know, and then it usually becomes this drift towards the more extreme because it's like, well, oh yeah, I think they should be charged with trees. Oh, I think them and their families, so I think everybody should be. So you're constantly pushing more and more outward against those bounds. So I don't that is not something I call for. Lightly. Now somebody steals a bunch of nuclear secrets and gives them to our enemies. Yeah, okay, I'm thinking that's treason us. You know that like that warrants the charge of treason. Here's one, uh, the the people who have been engaged in the cover up of Joe Biden and signing all of the legislation. That depending on the. Circumstances, and that's that's a very big caveat right, I have, Well, the people that are that were involved in it, to what extent, I do not know what exactly were they signing. Was there any compensation for what they were signing? Right? Some of this stuff. I am open to be persuaded that maybe some trees in charges could be applied to some of these people. Sure, but again, the details the facts of those cases would matter immensely. But I don't call for it now because I don't I don't have any of those facts. Where hopefully we get some and then we can decide from there. But no voting the wrong way on a bill and putting the nation into further debt, that is not That's not something that you execute people over. In my mind, now, maybe you would have no problem executing a whole bunch of people because they voted the wrong way on a spending bill, but that's not my take. On it at all. And I dare say that is a fringe position, but you're welcome to have it. I mean, you're totally allowed to have it. Yes, Jay, I agree. I think Sam is talking about a civil dispute versus a criminal one. I agree, Seth says Pete. I see the entire book of rulings Trump is creating at a breakneck pace, closing doors on loopholes that they have seen past administrations use, or Trump's team sees as a future problem they need to quash. Four D chess at its finest. You are free to believe that as well, Seth. I know every time I look at what I'm looking at and I have no idea what the hell is going on with some of these decisions and strategy. And I am told you don't understand, Pete. This is multi dimensional chess. You're playing checkers. Whatever is like, we'll see. And as I said, with the tariff stuff, you better be right, that's all. You better be right because if you're not right, we are screwed in some really bad ways. But I don't know. I'm not saying we are. I'm not. Oh my gosh, so the world is any I'm not saying that all I'm saying is the people who are advocating that there are all these unknown plans behind the scenes and we just don't understand it all. And this could be a grand strategy to close down every single loophole. Okay, we'll see, and I hope you're right. Equal under the law, Pete. This is from Tim. He says, some are more equal than others. Many in DC come to mind. Yeah, two legs good, four legs bed. That's an animal farm reference for folks who aren't to wear at A message from Timoteo, who says, dang it, boy, I was all in on the obstructionist judge's narrative and then you change my mind. I wasn't trying to change anybody's mind. I'm just giving you the information and I'm offering you my opinion on it, and you are free to have different opinions. Absolutely I encourage them. Void says he now has a massive migrain. He's going to have to go lie down now. Well, you can still listen while you're lying down. D Stewart says, having lived through the loss of over two hundred and fifty textile customers in one and a half years, I was willing to see fair trade work as free trade legal or not. The Congress can't even stop forty million dollars a week payments to the Taliban. I'm pretty sure they can't do better making trade deals. I agree. I'm not confident in Congress's ability on any of the stuff either. However, if we are a nation of law, right we live under the rule of law and not of men, then Congress needs to give power to one guide to do it. I would oppose that, by the way, because I don't want a president that can slap two hundred percent tariffs on every single country. I said this at the time Trump announced it. I don't want that kind of power because if Trump, well, when Trump is out of office, somebody else comes in. They may have a different set of enemies and friends, and I don't trust that next person either. All Right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast, so if you'd like, please support them too and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to dpetecallanershow dot com again, thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone. H