Debate Dilemmas, Giuliani's Downfall, and the Legal Battleground of Homelessness

Is Joe Biden's performance in the recent debate a sign of diminishing capacity, and could this be a pivotal moment for the Democratic Party? On today's episode of the Darrell McLean Show, we critically analyze the recent showdown between former President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden. We question whether Biden’s supporters are gaslighting the public into believing he is sharper than he appears. Moreover, we discuss the New York Times editorial board's urgent call for Biden to step down in favor of a more capable candidate to confront Trump and safeguard democracy.

Our discussion takes a dramatic turn as we examine the fall of Rudolph W. Giuliani. Once hailed as "America's Mayor," Giuliani now faces disbarment and a slew of legal troubles for his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. We delve into the implications of his legal woes, his bankruptcy, and the massive debt resulting from a defamation lawsuit. Additionally, we explore the recent Supreme Court decisions that have shifted power from federal agencies to the judiciary, contemplating how these changes could impact various protections and regulations.

We then shift our focus to the pressing issue of homelessness, highlighted by the Supreme Court's ruling on the anti-camping law in Grants Pass. Joined by special guest Josh Scott, known for his fact-based opinions and blue-collar perspective, we discuss the ethical and legal ramifications of criminalizing homelessness. We also touch upon the Supreme Court's rejection of Steve Bannon's request to delay his prison sentence and the heated debate over presidential immunity for Donald Trump. Tune in for an insightful and thorough discussion on these crucial topics that shape our society and democracy.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 2:11

Welcome to the Darrell McLean Show. I'm your host, darrell McLean. Today is 7-3 of 2024. It is a Wednesday, you are listening to episode 412. And let's get into the show.

Speaker 1: 2:29

Independent Media there will not reinforce tribalism. We have one planet and nobody is leaving. Let us do our reasoning together. So since the last time we spoke, we have had a debate between the former president, donald John Trump, and the current president, joseph Robinette Biden, biden and just off the top of what my analysis would be on the debate, it was very difficult to watch. As far as the substance of the debate, there was much lacking from both men, but as far as the optics of the debate, it was difficult to see the current president in such a poor state. I several times kept thinking of the words elder abuse and I apparently was not the only one who thought that. But it was difficult to watch, as I stated, and it was difficult to even at times understand. And if you think that I am being hyperbolic, I would just ask you to go back, because the transcripts are very easy to get, and read the transcripts of the debate and see how much things that you could see that are intelligible in some of the statements. This was a big deal, because it seems that for a very long time people were saying things like well, joe Biden is really sharp behind the scenes and all those things. And now that leads me to say we can't trust those people. Those same people. You cannot pre-assume that they were saying those things for purely altruistic reasons. A lot of those people were saying those things because either they are die in the wool, democrats who are thinking of, let's say, the greater good of the country and they see Donald Trump as such an existential threat that they would rather have a weekend-at-Birdie's type of figure that they can control versus having a Donald Trump in the executive that they cannot. A lot of it is also self-seeking People in politics just trying to keep the power behind the scenes. And because I don't know them and can't really assess each and every person's motives, all I can say is that it is obvious that we have been gaslit for a while and the the fruits were there for everybody to witness. The.

Speaker 1: 5:18

Even people in trump land were somewhat shocked by this, because they had started to talk about how biden was a vigorous debater and everything like that, and when he came out in this disheveled state, it was very difficult for even Trump to attack him as vigorously as he did in the first debate. Trump actually held a lot of fire and didn't come off as being a bully. Now, of course, the pundits came out and said well, donald trump told all these lies and etc. That is kind of baked in the cake, to be honest. You don't get a politician and that doesn't, uh, tell lies. And if donald trump is the father of lies and they've been saying that for years that you don't get a donald trump without his lies either now it was. Joe Biden's performance was so bad that the New York Times editorial board actually wrote a piece called to serve his country. President Biden should leave the race now. This came out on the 28th of june and the editorial board just for some context, is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by the expertise, research, debate and certain long-standing values, and it is separate from the new york times newsroom at any. This is what they go on to say.

Speaker 1: 7:02

President Biden has repeatedly and rightfully described the stakes in November's presidential election as nothing less than the future of American democracy. Donald Trump has proved himself to be a significant jeopardy to that democracy, a erratic, self-interested figure, unworthy of the public trust. He systematically attempted to undermine the integrity of the elections. His supporters have described publicly a 2025 agenda that would give him the power to carry out the most extremes of his promises and threats. If he is returned to office. He has vowed to be a different kind of president, unrestrained by the checks and power built into the American political system. Biden has said that he is the candidate with the best chance taking on the threat of this tyranny and defeating it. His argument rests largely on the fact that he beat Trump in 2020. That is a no longer sufficient rational for Biden should to be the Democratic nominee this year.

Speaker 1: 8:08

At Thursday's debate, the president needed to convince the American public that he was equal to the formidable demands the office he is seeking to hold for another term. Voters, however, cannot be expected to ignore what was intended and what we all instead planned to see. Mr Biden is not the man he was four years ago. The president appeared on Thursday night as a shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in his second term. He struggled to respond to Trump's provocations. He struggled to hold Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence. Biden has been an admirable president. Under his leadership, the nation has prospered and begun to address a range of long-term challenges, and the wounds ripped open by Trump have begun to heal. But the greatest public service Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election.

Speaker 1: 9:22

As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second trump president uh, to a second trump presidency. There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between mr trump's deficiencies and those of mr biden. It's too big a bet to simply hope americans will overlook or discount biden's age and infirmity. That they will see with their own eyes In the race. If the race comes down to the choice between Trump and Biden, the sitting president would be this board's unequivocal pick. This is how much of a danger Trump poses. This is how much of a danger Trump poses. No-transcript. The United States needs a stronger opponent for the presumptive Republican nominee. To make clear for a new Democratic nominee that this is late in the campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Trump's challenges to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacies of Biden to confront them.

Speaker 1: 10:50

Ending his candidacy would be against all of Biden's personal and political instincts. He has picked himself up from tragedies and setbacks in the past and he clearly believes he can do so again. And he clearly believes he can do so again. Supporters of the president are already explaining away Thursday's debate as one data point compared with three years of accomplishments, but the president's performance cannot be written off as a bad night or blamed on a supposed cold because of his affirmed concerns that have been mounting for months or even years. Even when Biden tried to lay out his policy proposals, he stumbled. It cannot be outweighed by other public appearances because he has lamented and carefully controlled his public appearances.

Speaker 1: 11:36

It should be remembered that Biden challenged Trump to this verbal duel. He set the rules. He insisted on the date months earlier than any previous general election debate. He understood that he needed to address a long-standing public concern about his mental acuity and that he needed to do so as soon as possible. The truth is that Mr Biden needs to confront now is that he failed at his own test. In polls and interviews, voters say they are seeking fresh voices to take on Trump, and the consolation for Biden and his supporters is that there are still times to rally behind a different candidate, while Americans are conditioned to the long slog of a multi-year presidential election and many Democratic campaigns are staged in the space of a few months. It's a tragedy that Republicans themselves are not engaged in deeper soul searching. After thursday's debate.

Speaker 1: 12:33

Trump's own performance ought to be regarded as disqualifying. He lied brazenly and repeatedly about his own actions, his record, his president and his and his opponent. He described plans that would harm the american economy, undermine civil liberties and fray americans relationship with other nations. He refused to promise that he would accept the American economy, undermine civil liberties and fray Americans' relationship with other nations. He refused to promise that he would accept a defeat, returning instead to the kind of rhetoric that incited the January 6th attack on Congress. The Republican Party, however, has been co-opted by Trump's ambitions the burden of wrestle in the Democratic Party to put the interests of the nation above the ambitions of a single man.

Speaker 1: 13:03

Democrats, who have deferred to Mr Biden, now find the courage to speak to plain truth to the party's leader, the confidence and aides who have encouraged him. The president's candidacy has sheltered him from unscripted appearances in public. To recognize the damage to Mr Biden's standing and the likelihood that he can repair it, biden's answered an urgent question on Thursday night. It was not the answer that he and his supporters were hoping for, but if the risk of the second Trump term is great, as he says it is we agree with him that the danger is enormous then it is his dedication to his country. It leaves his party only one choice.

Speaker 1: 13:45

The clearest path for Democrats to defeat a candidate defined by his lies is to deal truthfully with the American public, acknowledge that Biden cannot continue his race and create a process to select someone more capable to stand his place to defeat Trump in November. It is the best chance to protect the soul of the nation, that cost that drew Mriden to run for presidency in 2019, from the my lane wrapping of trump. It is the best service that mr biden can provide to the country that he is nobly served for so long. So that is from the new york times editorial board calling on President Biden to drop out for the greater good of the country, and I guess it goes without saying that the New York editorial board is not going to be voting for Donald Trump. At least you have whoever's on the board. Now it has come out as of today that Biden did talk to an ally that he was weighing in on whether to continue in the race. President Weiss's conversation is the first indication that he is considering whether he can recover after the devastating debate that happened last week.

Speaker 1: 15:13

So let me get into some of the small things and big things that happen when it comes to the court. First thing, small thing the Rudy Giuliani, who is the former mayor and ally of Donald Trump, has now officially been barred from practicing law in New York, a courtroom. Giuliani was at the center of Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The court found that he flagrantly misused his prominent position as a personal attorney for the former president and because of that, he is no longer allowed to practice law. I said what I thought about Giuliani before. Formerly known as America's mayor. He's one of the only ones in this whole thing that I actually at find myself feeling increasingly bad for.

Speaker 2: 16:09

Giuliani disbarred from the practice of law in New York.

Speaker 2: 16:13

This article is by Benjamin Weiser and read by an automated voice.

Speaker 2: 16:18

Rudolph W Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, top federal prosecutor and a longtime ally of former President Donald J Trump, has been disbarred from the practice of law a New York State Appellate Court ruled on Tuesday. The ruling punctuated the downfall of a disgraced lawyer who once portrayed himself as a crusader for law and order, challenged mob bosses and Wall Street operators and, after the September 11 terror attacks, became for a national hero. Mr Giuliani, 80, has filed for bankruptcy, faces indictment in Arizona and Georgia in election cases and owes $148 million to two Georgia election workers stemming from a judgment in a defamation lawsuit. The 31-page order banning Mr Giuliani from practicing law in New York focused on his work as the personal lawyer for Mr Trump and his failed effort at re-election in 2020. It said Mr Giuliani was being disciplined for lies he told in numerous forums that were designed to create distrust of the elective system of our country in the minds of the citizens and to destroy their confidence in the legitimacy of our government. The seriousness of Respondent's misconduct cannot be overstated. The court said, finding Mr Giuliani had flagrantly misused his prominent position as the personal attorney for former President Trump and his campaign, he baselessly attacked and undermined the integrity of this country's electoral process. The court said, adding that in doing so, mr Giuliani had not only deliberately violated some of the most fundamental tenets of the legal profession, but he also actively contributed to the national strife that has followed the 2020 presidential election, for which he is entirely unrepentant. One of Mr Giuliani's lawyers, barry Kamens, said Mr Giuliani is obviously disappointed in the decision. We are weighing our appellate options. Ted Goodman, a spokesman for Mr Giuliani, called the decision politically and ideologically corrupted.

Speaker 2: 18:24

The ruling was praised by Brad Hoylman Seigel, a Manhattan state senator and chairman of the Senate's Judiciary Committee. Three years ago, mr Hoylman Seigel formally asked the state court system to start the process of stripping Mr Giuliani of his law license. Mr Hoylman Seigel, a Democrat, said the decision sent a powerful message to attorneys across New York State that they are admitted to the bar not just to practice law, but also to uphold it. Daniel C Richman, a Columbia Law School professor, who worked as a federal prosecutor when Mr Giuliani was the US attorney for the Southern District of New York in the 1980s, said Having proudly served long ago under a man whose integrity seemed unquestionable. I find this sad and completely deserve.

Speaker 2: 19:11

Mr Giuliani's license was originally suspended by the appellate court in 2021 based on the recommendation of a disciplinary committee that found Mr Giuliani in steering Mr Trump's election challenges had sought to mislead judges, lawmakers and the public. The court appointed a referee in August 2023 to conduct a hearing and the referee sustained 16 allegations against Mr Giuliani. The appellate ruling said the referee found that at a November 19, 2020 news conference at the Republican Party's national headquarters a November 19, 2020 news conference at the Republican Party's national headquarters Mr Giuliani falsely claimed that people were brought from Camden, new Jersey, to vote illegally in nearby Philadelphia in 2020. The referee also found that Mr Giuliani had falsely claimed that thousands of votes were cast that year using the names of either dead or underage people in Georgia and that thousands of felons also voted there illegally. The ruling issued by a five-judge panel of the court said Mr Giuliani's false statements were made to bolster his story that, due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client.

Speaker 2: 21:08

Mr Giuliani's legal troubles continue to reverberate across the country. He has pleaded not guilty to the state criminal charges in Georgia and Arizona. In Washington DC, a board that oversees lawyer discipline recommended in May that he be disbarred there. He filed for bankruptcy in New York in December after a federal jury said he owed the $148 million to the Georgia election workers he defamed while trying to help Mr Trump overturn the 2020 results. Mr Giuliani has said he owes $153 million to about 20 people and businesses, including lawyers who have previously worked for him. Lawyers for his creditors have said that his bankruptcy filings have been absent, late, incomplete and inaccurate. On Monday, mr Giuliani asked the bankruptcy court to allow an independent trustee to take over his finances, liquidate his assets and pay his creditors. He has said he has about 11 million dollars in assets. Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting and assets.

Speaker 1: 22:11

Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting. So, as you heard from that story, rudy Giuliani no longer allowed to practice law in New York. It's just one of those things that you can't really say that I mean, at the end of the day, the choices that we make will plant our trajectory, and the former mayor of New York, the former attorney general, our prosecutor, whatever who had a stellar career in politics, ran for president and it's a sad way to end a legacy at the age that he's in. It's going to be very hard to rebuild and repair the damage that has been done. And this is kind of more a story about the circle that has been done, and this is kind of more a story about the circle that you keep and the circle that you keep and the obfuscations or lies that they'll pull you on and you trying to be loyal to the team and at the end of the day, you're the one that gets punished. So let's keep with the court news for a second.

Speaker 1: 23:33

So the Supreme Court made some very, very big decisions, very big decisions, and we're going to go. So the Supreme Court has broadly expanded the power of judges at the expense of federal agencies, with a pair of decisions this week, same thing again next week. Although these actions to transfer authority from agencies to the judiciary to could uh curtail a wide range of financial, environmental and workplace uh, consumer protections, you know it's. It's a part of a continuing trend, with the federal judiciary, and the supreme court in particular, is exercising more and more power at the expense, potentially, of other branches. Now this was said by don goodson, the deputy director of the institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. So on Friday the court struck down a legal doctrine known as the Chevron Deference, that instructed judges to defer to agency when the law is ambiguous, in a case known as Lauper-Bright v Raimondo. That decision came one day after it ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commissions of the SEC's use of internal administrative courts to try civil fraud cases was unconstitutional, a move that could reverberate to other agencies that also use administrative courts. In a scathing dissent on the Chevron case, justice Eleanor Kagan wrote decision is a one-off in how it treats agencies, noting that the SEC case similarly kneecapped them. This is very term presents yet another example of the court's resolve to roll back agency's authority. She added.

Speaker 1: 26:04

Next week the court is expected to issue a decision in a third case that could weaken regulatory statutes and limitations and gives opponents of federal action more time to sue. You do see a court that's growing increasingly skeptical of executive power and administrative power. Over the last decade, said jesse panuco, who was the justice department's acting associate attorney general during the Trump administration, the executive branch has grown vastly in its powers and in the scopes of regulation. He added I think the court is saying if that's where we're going to be, we need to rein in some of these presumptions in favor of agencies, of agencies. But critics of the courts moved to say that they could weaken the agencies to determine at the detriment of the rest of the country.

Speaker 1: 27:00

So James Goodwin, the policy director at the Center for Progress Reform, said that the opinions issued this week have all pointed in the same anti-regulatory direction. He said the sec case will have a chilling effect on agencies enforcement actions, while the looper bright case will have a similar chilling effect on agencies, but with respect to policy making. The latter case is expected to allow judges to more easily strike down federal agency rules. That increases in judicial power is technically uh, politically neutral. Though the liberal critics say that the federal judiciary's conservatives make makeup could in practice enable right-wing principles to prevail in many cases. Godson said that even prior to the decision, some agencies may have already been avoiding actions that would rely on Chevron out of fear that the precedent would be overturned. Many people have been treating Chevron as overruled for several years now because of the extreme skepticism that has been coming from members of the court. The sec case will apply anytime federal agencies seek to pursue civil penalties for certain kinds of violations, like fraud, requiring such cases to go to the federal judiciary, said uh carrie colin niece, a law professor at the university of pennsylvania, but he noted that agencies like the consumer financial protection bureau could also see their cases shifted to federal courts as well, and that the ruling could reach non-financial agencies too, in cases like fraudulent filing of environmental reports with the government.

Speaker 1: 28:43

The case echoes a prior decision that also curbed federal agencies' power in 2022, ruling that the Supreme Court not only limited how the environment not environmental protections agency can regulate climate change, it also codified a legal theory known as the major question doctrine, which holds that regulations of substantial national significance need to have a clear authorization from congress. And carlson, an environmental law professor at the university of cal, los Angeles, said the decision will have an even greater impact than more recent ones. When the major question doctrine is applied, the agency doesn't have the power to regulate, let alone to regulate in a particular way, said Carlson, who also recently served in a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Biden. Served in a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Biden. Carlson said that Friday's decision is one more weapon in an arsenal being used to attack the administration state, but that she expects the major questions doctrine to be much more impactful. Godwin, with the Center for Progressive Reform, similarly said that she expects major questions to come into play for the biggest cases, while the Lauper-Bright ruling may have an impact in cases involving more intermediate rules like endangering species protections.

Speaker 1: 30:04

Panenko, the former Justice Department official who is now a partner at the law firm's Voices Solar Flitter, who is now a partner at the law firms uh voices solar Flinner, said that in the coming years the court has the opportunity to go even further and reining in the other branches by looking to restrict what authorities Congress is allowed to delegate the agencies. That's always a challenge that pops up here and there, which is is the courts willing to revisit what's the call the non-delegation doctrine and put a some limits on what Congress allows agencies to do, he said. So long as there are regulated parties and parties on the losing end of government decisions, there's always something. Litigants are going to try to get that question before the court again. He added so with not being remarkably hyperbolic, but just a bit. What all this says is the supreme court has taken a sledgehammer to federal agencies power in the chevron case.

Speaker 1: 30:57

Some people will think that is a good decision. Some people may come to find out that that's a bad decision when it comes to things like I don't know your water and your air, and you know you may turns out that the companies or whoever may have your best interest in mind and if they don't, there's no real way to sue without going to the courts, and not you can't. So you can't go to the agencies to say things, and you know you don't know. When I think about this thing, it's hard for me not to think about places like flint michigan, where the water has been proven for years to be toxic and those people have no recourse under the laws that were supposed to protect them, and now those laws, it seems, may gotten weaker. We will just have to wait and see. In the meantime, I will continue to buy my water bottled and not be a guinea pig for the companies, who I do not believe are always looking out for the best interests of the consumer and I think a lot of times are looking out for what a company is primarily supposed to look out for the interests of the shareholders, the people who invested in them, the board of directors, the board of directors.

Speaker 1: 32:31

Now, the next ruling that I have to talk about, I must admit it is one that I find somewhat the most ridiculous, and I'm going to just talk about it on the basis of what it is and then I'll, at the end, what? While I find this to be troubling, ridiculous, um, unkind, just a lot of words that I want to use. But the Supreme Court actually is now let a law stand, so the law is already in place. But it allowed ticketing for homeless people camping. So the supreme court ruled on friday that cities can ticket homeless people, so remember that homeless people for camping in public even when there is no alternative shelter available, a decision that could drastically alter the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, again without a permanent place to live because they are homeless, without a permanent place to live because they are homeless.

Speaker 1: 34:02

The justices in a 6-3 decision sided with Oregon City of Grants Pass, which had asked the high court to review a lower course decision blocking the enforcement of a public camping ordinance after determining that banning a campaign while shelter's bans were limited amounts to a cruel and unusual punishment. So, basically, the court had said that if you have homeless people in your city and the shelters are already full and there's no place for them to go, you can't then give the homeless people tickets, because they are homeless and they have to eventually fall asleep somewhere. And when they do fall asleep somewhere, they're going to have a sleeping bag that sometimes people provide. They may have a tent, they may be sleeping under a bus station, they may be sleeping behind a library. You know things like that that now, as if the police didn't have a public persona problem already or a public relations problem already, now you're going to get the police to go and ticket people for the crime of being homeless. I don't know, uh, I don't know, uh, I don't know what we are turning into when it comes to our disdain and hatred for the poor, but I but I have to somewhat table that uh, very passionate about this issue, but anyway I'll table that for the end.

Speaker 1: 35:29

But Grant's past officials argued that the restrictions imposed by this decision from the knife circuit of appeals prevented them from implementing common sense laws against camping in certain public places. The justices agree. Yes, people will disagree over which policy responses are best. They may experiment with one set of approaches, only to find the latter and find out later another set works better. They may find certain responses more appropriate for some communities and other justices. Neil gorsuch wrote for the majority, but in our democracy that is their right. The constitution's eighth amendment serves many important, but this does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people in their place and dictate nations' homeless policy. He continued Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the liberal justice Elena Kagan and Katonji Brown.

Speaker 1: 36:34

Jackson sharply rebuked the majority's decision, suggesting it focused almost exclusively on local government's needs, while leaving the most vulnerable in society with the choice between staying awake or being arrested. She read her dissent from the bench For people with no access to shelter that punishes them for being homeless. Seltimore said of the city's law. This is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Pushing people for punishing people for their status is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment, justice Clarence Thomas, in a brief concurring opinion, wrote that the modern public opinion is wrong and it is the wrong metric in which to interpret the Eighth Amendment clause, claiming that many of the High Court's other precedents under the amendments make the same mistake.

Speaker 1: 37:31

The grant passed anti-camping law would fine homeless people $295 per night for sleeping in the city's public park. Attorneys representing the city's homeless population have argued that allowing the rule to stand would essentially criminalize the existence of homeless people. So I'm just going to repeat that one more time, just so we can hear it the anti-camping law fines homeless people $295 per night for sleeping in the city's public parks. Now Sonia Meyer raised that sleeping is a biological necessity and some people may be forced to do it outside if other shelter isn't available and concerns she reiterated in her dissent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned it where ticketing people for sleeping outside helps solve the issue if there isn't an alternative, and Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed to some sanitary risks posed by allowing encampments to stand. Dean Evangel, who represented Grants Pass, said in a statement that the Supreme Court's decision delivered urgent relief to communities that struggle to address the growing problems of dangerous encampments.

Speaker 1: 38:58

He goes on to say that the court has now restored the ability of cities on the front lines to this crisis to develop lasting solutions that meets the needs of the most vulnerable members of their communities, while also keeping our public spaces safe and clean, she said. Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today's watershed ruling as a turning point in America's homeless crisis. Rates of homelessness remain at a record high. Levels of housing prices continue to soar. There are about 650,000 homeless people in the country, according to the Department of the Housing and Urban Development, about a third of them living on the West Coast.

Speaker 1: 39:43

The justices previously had declined to consider a similar appeal to the lower course ruling in 2019, ruling, it found that sleeping outdoors in public property when there is no option to sleep indoors can't be criminalized on the false premise that they had a choice in the matter. That they had a choice in the matter. So let me just come out flat and I say, of course, this is ridiculous. Even on the merits of To say something is illegal and provide no actual means For people to do things that are legal Is to constantly just be a way to hand the city more money. And and again, this is coming from a group that we have already determined don't have any money. They don't have enough money to go get a house and most hotel stays for one night A cheap, shabby hotel $79. You know. And you're going to charge someone $289 who already doesn't have a place to stay for the crime of falling asleep outside when there's no. That is there. That is where they stay, outside, uh, outside on the beach and behind this, behind stores, behind dumpsters, behind libraries, at bus stations.

Speaker 1: 41:21

And what this actually is punishing is people, because you have to be uncomfortable seeing them homeless.

Speaker 1: 41:30

There is no solution that they are going to come up with to solve this problem, because they don't want to solve the problem.

Speaker 1: 41:37

What they want to do, what they want to do, is to hide the problem.

Speaker 1: 41:42

What they want to do is to which it will happen, to jail the problem, because this is just the beginning. You will be fined $295 for the crime of being homeless and not being able to stay up seven days a week, 365 days of the year, 52 weeks out of the year. You won't be able to do that, so eventually you're going to have to be ushered into the jail and then you'll be looking at court case after court case and the crime will be sleeping in public over and over and over again. And it is a matter of time, a short matter of time, before a normal non-homeless constituent falls asleep on a pork bench after I don't know, while reading a book, book or even smoking a doobie, and the police come on and try to give them a ticket and there's a fight that ensues and then somebody will be dead Because we were trying to punish people for the crime of being poor and having no place to go and making us have to look at them.

Speaker 3: 43:24

America often, as a poet, I heard what it says fails people and then jails people to hide their bad results. 135 to 140 million Americans live in poverty or low-income conditions In America. They are our neighbors, they are our friends, they are our family. Every day they fight an uphill battle against systemic racism, poverty, ecological devastation, denial of health care, the war economy and the false war narrative of religious nationalism. And 295,000 a year die 800 people a day. Everybody should be appalled by this. We should be moved to organize and come together. The minimum wage hasn't been raised for 15 years, since 2009. This is a moral crisis 15 years since 2009. This is a moral crisis. It is a form of economic policy violence that strikes at the very heart of our nation's values and principles. That is why we must have a mass poor people's, low wage workers moral mark on Washington DC. See when we raise our voices together to demand that politicians center the issue of poor and low-wage voters. We win when we vote our strength and our power. We win. When poor and low-wage people of every race come together, along with religious leaders and advocates, we win.

Speaker 3: 44:37

This is not just a march, it is a movement. It is a movement to demand that we end poverty as the forfeiting cause of death, that we demand living wages, health care for all, affordable housing and a moral economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy. We've already seen the power of our voices in 2020. The poor and low-income voters made up 35% of the electorate and in battleground states, their votes were pivotal, making up up to 45% of the total voting population. We have to vote. We have to use this power. We need you to stand with yourself, all of us coming together, standing with one another. We need you to march together. We need you to vote together. Together, we can make sure that our elected officials never forget us, that they hear our demands, hear your demands and they act on them.

Speaker 3: 45:29

Our power is now in the percentage of the voting population that we hold. The stones that the builders rejected are now possibly the chief cornerstone in not only saving the democracy, but having a democracy worth saving. Our power is in our unity. Our power is in our voice. Our power is in our vote. Our power is in our protest. So let's wake up this sleeping giant of the poor and low-income voters. Together, we can abolish and end the political violence, the moral violence, immoral violence, poverty and low wages Together. So let's join together. Go to wwwpoorpeoplescampaignorg. Register your bus, register your van, find out all the details, bring somebody, call somebody, make your way to this historic gathering the Mass Poor People's Low-Wage Workers Assembly at Mar-a-Mart on Washington and to the Pole, june 10th.

Speaker 1: 46:34

I must admit, a part of my life that I don't talk about a lot, to not personalize any and all things, to make the show as nonpartisan as possible and independent, you know, etc. Is I am still the ordained pastor, even though I do not pastor a church. I grew up in the AME Church, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, even though doctrinally I am more of a Presbyterian. And now, that being said, one of the things that has always pulled at my heartstrings, and has always pulled at my reason as well, is the way that we treat people who are without. When I look at the gospel and not just the core issue of the gospel, which is the salvation and Jesus being the propitiation for your sins, it is the preferential treatment of the poor, the preferential treatment of the downtrodden, the preferential treatment of those who are lost, the preferential treatment of people who need saving. I always find it fascinating and distressing that in a country that people report themselves to be some type of Christian 33,000 different forms of Christian denominations, 70% of Americans, 70% are some form of religion, whether that be Christian, buddhist, hindu or spiritualist, 70% To see the suffering of the homeless. When I go from major city after major city, republican and Democrat alike. They seem to be either unable or unwilling to grapple with what happens when somebody falls and not just falls, falls down to the very bottom. Just the notion that they're not already being punished by having to face the elements? They're not already being punished by not having a place to go to the bathroom? They're not already being punished by having no contact in their family, if they have any family still living at all? And then we look at these people, sometimes with our rose-colored glasses, sitting on top of our ivory towers and talk about well, I saw him or her and they got a beer. If they can afford a beer, what? If they can afford a beer, they can afford rent. There are people with two jobs still struggling to afford their rents. There are people with two jobs still doing everything they can to make ends meet.

Speaker 1: 50:19

And the notion that there is nothing that we can do for people when they fail with all the wealth that I see all around us is something that I have always, an argument that I've always found to be intellectually dishonest, very dishonest. So I often say that there is no solution to most of public policy woes. There is no real solution, there's only trade-offs. People are homeless because they don't have homes. People don't have homes because they don't have the money or the discipline. Are they addicted to something or whatever story that you hear? And but they also have Run into something that now I I struggle to put into words. They now also Are running to a place when they no longer have the sympathy or the empathy of the general public To look at somebody who is down and out and say in their heart and mean it there, for the grace of God, go I.

Speaker 1: 52:07

Some people who have all the resources on the planet are absolutely mediocre people, but because they have the right father and the right mother, they succeed or they can at least have a mediocre existence where they can be happy. Some people were set up in life because they were not only raised already standing on home plate. Some people were raised where they were already on home plate. Their family owned the dugout and all the plates, the bats, paid for their team, the other team and owned the announcers. And some people are not only on the team, they're not even in the game. They're not on the field, didn't even in the game. They're not on the field. They don't even know the field exists. And this is why I cling so heavy in my practice to the verse in Matthew. It says what you have done to the least of these, you do also To me, and in this decision, I think that the Supreme Court has allowed this city to say If they encountered a suffering Pregnant Mary with her husband, joseph, with a little baby, that they would say to him and her there is no room for you in the end. But not just that If we catch you sleeping anywhere, you will be paying us $285.

Speaker 1: 54:11

I'll be back with more on the Darrell McLean show. We got more court cases to talk about. Has anybody ever told you you were over opinionated? How about this one? You can talk about everything you like, but opinionated. How about this one? You can talk about everything you like, but don't talk about religion, don't talk about faith, don't talk about politics. My name is Darrell McClain, host of Darrell McClain show, and I want to introduce you to a show called over opinionated with my friends from Southwest Virginia, josh, josh, scott.

Speaker 1: 54:42

Josh has always been told he has been over opinionated. He always tried to hold back these opinions, but he tried to back them up when he had to say something with facts and logic. Since he's grown up in many ways, he had to change a lot of his views and his opinions, as a lot of people should. He's not a millionaire from Fox News or CNN, he's just a work, hardworking, blue-collar type of guy. Give Josh Scott a shot at. Overopinionated with Josh Scott. You can find him on patreoncom slash overopinionated at 679. You can also check him out on Twitter at NRV, underscore guy 79.

Speaker 1: 55:32

Overopinionated with Josh Scott. Where he is? This soft-spoken guy telling you the truth and I don't know how much Josh has told his audience. I didn't hear it on any of the recent episodes. But I'm very glad to announce on this show that Josh is taking a step into actually going to college, which I think is great, and he's already has a good podcast podcast. He already has a sign ministry, but josh is going to seminary to learn more about his religion and um, and I think that's beautiful and we will be. We'll keep josh in our thoughts and we'll keep him in our prayers as he embarks on this deep dive more into the Christian faith and traditions and the precepts and I believe personally I can somewhat be biased in this respect that any type of education you're getting, even if it's just for general knowledge and deeper understanding of the subject is a good thing. So back to the courts.

Speaker 1: 56:50

Less serious, but also in the Giuliani area of the thing, the Supreme Court has actually denied Steve Bannon's request to delay his prison sentence. The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Steve Bannon must begin his four-month prison sentence on contempt of Congress charges as his appeal proceeds. The one sentence ordered, which had no public dissents, keep in place Monday's deadline for the one-time Trump strategist to report to prison, rejecting Bannon's emergency effort to delay it. It makes Bannon the second Trump White House aide to serve prison time in connection with defying a subpoena from the White House's January 6th committee. Peter Navarro, a former trade advisor to Trump, began his sentence in March after his emergency appeal at the Supreme Court similarly failed.

Speaker 1: 57:43

Two years ago, a federal jury in Washington DC convicted Bannon on two counts of contempt of Congress for failing to appear for a deposition before the January 6th panel and refusing to turn over subpoena documents. As Bannon appealed his trial, his trial judge had enabled him to delay his sentence because of federal law that keeps defendants free if their appeal presents a substantial legal question, like the results in a reversal or a new trial. But after the first stage of Bannon's appeal failed and made the judge grant the prosecutors a request to end the pause, ordering Bannon to begin the sentence by July 1st, he has filed an emergency delay motion until he exhausts his appeal, noting that it has not yet reached a court with the authority to overturn a key precedent leveraged in Bannon's prosecution. Given that Bannon's sentence is only for four months, his appeal would likely to be ongoing when he is actually released from jail. There is also no denying the fact that the government seeks to imprison Bannon for four months period immediately preceding the November presidential election. There is no reason for that outcome in a case that presents substantial legal issues. That presents substantial legal issues are trent mccorter, bannon's lawyer, wrote to the justice prosecutors opposed that bannon's emergency motion, telling the supreme court he cannot make the demanding showing necessary to override normal requirement that a convicted defendant his sentence. So look, this one is fairly tricky but simple. So I don't know if for that argument that they put up, I am not familiar and somebody what?

Speaker 1: 59:40

Somebody in the audience asked me correct me on this. If Bannon officially had any position in this Trump administration, is he on the campaign trail with Trump or anything like that. Being a former aide to the president who was fired does not mean that you are a current aide to the president or you are serving in any official capacity with the campaign. So that that last argument the lawyer kind of held out. It doesn't really it doesn't seem to hold water, and at least not with me. Let me know if, if you, if it gives anything to you, so a signing study in my order actually scolds the supreme court for making. It's a decision. That was the most substantial that a president, as she interprets it, is king and above the law. So justice sonia.

Speaker 1: 1:00:35

Senator moyer said the supreme court's decision granting the former president trump's immunity for official acts completely insulates presidents from criminal liability in a forceful dissent issue. Uh, santa mayor went on to say that today's decision to grant former president's criminal immunity reshapes the intuition the institution of presidency. Saundra mayor wrote in a 30-page dissent joined by fellow liberal justices Eleanor Kagan and Kataji Brown Jackson. It makes a mockery of the principal foundation to our Constitution and our system of government, to our Constitution and our system of government. In a 6-3 vote Monday, the Supreme Court ruled former presidents enjoy absolute criminal immunity from certain core functions. Other official acts are entitled to the presumption of immunity. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. The court effectively creates a law-free zone around presidents, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding of Sotomayor Road. The new official act's immunity now lies about a like-and-loaded weapon for any president that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival or his own financial gain above the interests of the nation. The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.

Speaker 1: 1:02:17

Her dissent reads the case was sparked by defense mounted by the former President Trump in his federal election subversion case, where he maintains he is immune from criminal prosecution for official actions he took while president, particularly in attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and leading up to the January 6th Capitol. At the riot following year. At the riot following year, sotomayor extensively read her dissent from the bench a rarity reserved for when the justices want to underscore their shock disagreements on the case. Our Constitution does not shield a former president from answering for criminal acts and treasonous acts, sotomayor wrote as she read her dissent. Sotomayor repeatedly looked over at Roberts, who was two seats to her left, but Roberts did not look back.

Speaker 1: 1:03:05

Sotomayor said the majority created an unjustifiable immunity, argument by argument. The majority invests immunity through brute force and invents immunity through brute force, she wrote. The long-anticipated Supreme Court opinion means some allegations in Trump's federal election's evasion indictment are doomed from moving forward, while others could possibly still proceed. Meanwhile, it provides Trump easy pathways to delay his trial until after November's election. As he battles with special counsel Jack Smith over how to apply the Supreme Court's new tests, over how to apply the Supreme Court to new tests, sotomayor appeared to be eyeing language from the majority indictment. Trump's outreach to the Department of Justice during his effort to unwind the election would be a precedent act or a protected act, questioning just how far such tests would stretch when he uses his official powers. In a way, under the majority reasoning, he will now be insulated from criminal prosecutionanta.

Speaker 1: 1:04:10

Mayor wrote in the scent orders the navy seal team six to assassinate a political rival. Immune, she continued. Organs the military cube to hold on hold on to power. Immune, takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon. Immune, immune. Immune. Immune.

Speaker 1: 1:04:23

Jackson and her dissent opinion. She agreed with every word of santa mayor's powerful dissent. The majority of my colleagues seem to have put their trust in the court's ability to prevent presidents from becoming kings through case by case applications of indeterminate standards of their new presidential accountability paradigm. I fear that they are wrong. Jackson wrote, but for all our sakes, I hope that they are right. So, look, I'm going to say this and we're going to end this here, even though I may come back to this for more, more analysis and for the sake and purposes of letting everyone read the dissent, um, I'm going to link in the show notes the pdf, which is 100, and that is 119 pages that I'm going to put in the show notes.

Speaker 1: 1:05:26

If you want to read the Supreme Court syllabus and everything Trump v the United States, if you find this type of stuff interesting, you'll get the 30 pages worth of Santa Mayor's dissent, as well as everything else that happened in the court case. This is history. Of course, I put out a meme. If you're not following me on the Darrell McLean shows, facebook, instagram, twitter page, etc. I immediately put out a meme of Joe Biden in sunglasses and everything saying the courts now say I'm immune, get them CL, team 6. And that was just me being kind of tongue-in-cheek, because, as somebody who's a student of presidential history. You know who really looks into this stuff.

Speaker 1: 1:06:15

I'm actually going through a series on presidents right now with the former Speaker of the House, newt Ging gingrich, doing a great series over at gendrick 360 um about former presidents I always think about, you know, the president who, the supreme court when the supreme court under calhoun said the native americans had entitlements to the land and and could stay. And the president at the time, andrew Jackson, said the Supreme Court has made their ruling, now they can use their military to enforce it. And the military, under the direction of the president, marched those people out of the land that the court had ruled was theirs. And then we go on to things like the Trail of Tears and everything else that the court deemed as unconstitutional, but presidents did anyway. And so I've been telling you guys that I believe on this show a long time that the courts are nothing more than a bunch of partisan hacks and robes. They are appointed by politicians and they rule for the ideological positions that the politicians that appointed them normally take.

Speaker 1: 1:07:25

There is no way to have a blind justice, because there is no such thing as a blind human. We all have our opinions, we all have our biases and we wear them on our sleeve, a lot of us like a badge of honor. A lot of us wear them on our sleeves, but we will put a robe on to protect us. I would be remissed if, at this very moment, when I felt like I felt about the decision that so got me in a mood about the way we treat the poor, for our blast for the intellectual past today, I did not end with something that I know that I've already let you hear before. So I want to know what you think about everything that was said today. Darrell McClain show has a voicemail number for comments or anything you would like to say, and the number is 757-310-7303. Leave your comments on there. Now we'll go to our Blast from the Intellectual Pass on a poem called the Children of Children. Thank you for tuning in. See you on the next episode called the Children of Children.

Speaker 4: 1:08:44

Thank you for tuning in. See you on the next episode. Welcome back twice. Please welcome a gentleman who's been doing this thing for over 50 years, a singer, a playwright and also a deaf poet. Ladies and gentlemen, please give it up for the Windy City's very own Oscar Brown Jr. Thank you, thank you.

Speaker 4: 1:09:19

The children of children, by the time they're half grown, have habits like rabbits and young of their own. The children of children, from their mama's laps, hop down to the ground to be taken in traps. The children of children trapped by dark skins to stay in and play in a game. No one wins. The children of children, while still young and sweet, are all damned and programmed for future defeat. The children of children are trapped by adults who fail them, then jail them to hide the results. The children of children unable to cope with systems that twist them and rob them of hope. The children of children of sin and the shame keep pairing and bearing. And who do you blame? The children of children cry out every day. They beg you for rescue. And what do you say?