Ep. 4: The War In The Courts: How Our Constitutional Rights Are Under Attack

In today's show, David Rutherford goes deep on the war being waged in the legal system. He discusses recent cases that threaten our justice system, examines our Constitutional rights, and explains how the rule of law is foundational to our nation. 

Follow Us:

X: https://x.com/drutherfordshow

Instagram:  @DavidRutherfordShow 

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/TheDavidRutherfordShow

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DavidRutherfordShow

Firecracker Farm: https://firecracker.farm/

Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
There's a war going on out there, and you know
where it is. It's happening in the legal systems. That's right,
regular everyday Americans, political parties and everybody in between are
actively being threatened and war is being waged against them
for free speech, political ideas, you name it. So join
me today as we discuss what this battlefield looks like.

(00:22):
Welcome to the David Rutherford Show. Here's the deal. When
I was a kid, I didn't grow up at like
your typical kid. Right. Yeah, I played sports and I
went to the beach and I hung out with my friends.
But the difference that I grew up in is my
dad was an attorney. Now, I know, don't hate them

(00:44):
all right, So many people have a bad taste in
their mouth for attorneys. But I loved them. I loved
them dearly and I still love them today. And the
reason I loved them was because of how unorthodox my
childhood was. Now hear me out. So for most people
when they grow up, right and you get around your dad,

(01:05):
you're you're learning ideas about right, how to start a
fire or how to be you know, how to shoot
a gun or how to go fishing, and not that
I'm hammered, my pop. But what I learned about is
how to contextualize the world through the eyes of a
lawyer or through the legal system. I remember on you know,

(01:26):
my old man ran a nice small law firm down
where I live in South Florida, and you know, it's
his passion, it's what he believes in. He believes in
the power of the law, and so he'd work seven
days a week trying to run this law firm, trying
to provide the very very best legal advice to his clients.
And his firm did all different types of legal work.

(01:49):
His specialty was in a state planning, which if you
ever think about it, man, you know, it's one of
the hardest aspects to engage with your clients because you're
talking about the end of their life and what howpens
to their hard work and what happens to their estate,
and what happens to their family and their kids and
the following generations. And so I would ask my dad,
you know, why why do you practice law, Like why

(02:11):
don't you go out and be a real estate guy,
or why don't you go out and you know, run
a business or something like that. And he was like, well, David,
here's the deal, right, the law is the most important
thing that we have in America. And I was like,
come on, pop, most important thing we have in America
are our destroyers and bombers. Right. He's like, yeah, there's

(02:34):
some truth to that. But you know what happens after
you you establish your power and prominence of of of
an organization, of a country or a state or whatever
it might be. You've got to create a system that
people believes there's fair play, a system where you know,
everybody has a right to be able to make an

(02:57):
argument that's judged by their peers and order to get
an outcome that's based upon some framework or the rule
of law. It's you know, he was the one that
taught me about English common law. He was the one
who taught me about ancient historical law. And even though
he's not a very religious guy, you know, he's the
one who introduced me to the Ten Commandments, right, the

(03:19):
original laws that we have to do it hereby in
our society. And so, as I said before, my dad
would work seven days a week, and so on saturdays,
you know, after he'd take me to my flag football
game or soccer game or whatever it was. He'd be like,
all right, son, before we go home, before we go
get lunch, I got to run into the office and

(03:39):
do a little work. And so there I would be
in his corner office and I'd be sitting there watching
him doing what he's doing. And I'd be like, Pop,
you know, what are you doing? And you know, when
he was busy, he'd be like, hey, shut up, kid,
here's a dictaphone. Go play with that. Now, slow your role.
It's a recording device from the old old times. Right,
you press play, you record your thoughts. Then you give

(04:02):
that to you know, your your paralegal, and they transcribe
your ideas and de briefs or into documents that come
out and become legal documents that you use for your caseload.
And and he would after he'd finished, he'd say, well,
what do you want to learn about? And I said, well,
you know, how does it work? How do you bring
forth a case? And he says, well, do you know

(04:23):
anything about your grandfather, mister Winston Hathaway from Muskegan, Michigan.
You know, he was a very prominent attorney in Michigan,
actually argue a case in front of the Michigan Supreme court.
You know, he was a trial attorney. So there's trial attorneys,
and then there's there's criminal attorneys, there's civic attorneys. There's

(04:47):
all these different types of attorneys for family law, for divorce,
there's for business, for commercial real estate. In fact, when
you really break down our society, there isn't much that
the legal system doesn't touch. In fact, in my mind,
it touches everything. Therefore, you begin to realize the prominence

(05:10):
of the role it plays in our society. And that's
something that I think has really been lost and tell
and tell in the unfortunate circumstance that you're confronted by,
you need to depend on the legal system, and that
legal system is ultimately what you believe in your heart
because you live in America, the greatest country in the world,

(05:32):
that the legal system is going to treat you fairly. Now,
as I've gotten older and had to engage with the
legal system on multiple occasions, some of them not my
most proud moments and some of the most difficult moments
in my life, you know, what I've come to realize is,

(05:55):
you know that the legal system isn't exactly what I
thought it was based on these you know, these you know,
highly principled ideas that my father imbued upon me when
I was starting from the time I was a very
small kid. I mean, it's one of the most profound moments. Like,
you know, I didn't watch a lot of sports with
my dad, although we did watch sports. What we you know,

(06:17):
my dad would love to do with me is we'd
watch sixty minutes and we'd talk about things from that
or he'd he'd read the Wall Street Journal or the
New York Times and he would say, hey, son, take
a look at this is what's going on in the world,
and this is what's taking place in our legal systems.
And so I had a I think, a very different
perspective growing up. Now, you know, from my time that

(06:41):
I ended up going into the service, you know, I
really kind of became ultra fixated on mostly the foreign
affairs policy of the United States. But there were multiple
times where I began to realize that, even at a
globebal level, the United States has to bring forth its

(07:03):
case for ultimately you know, the various things that I
was involved in, and you know, I think the most
prominent one was was the case for the Iraq War,
where we convinced an overwhelming majority of people and countries
that were allied with to join US because Saddam Mussein

(07:25):
had weapons of mass destruction. And you know, I've got
some of the friends, some friends that were on those
original teams to search that out, and we conclusively know
that a grand portion of that was a misrepresentation of
what the intelligence actually said. And so, you know, I
started paying more attention to this, and I think the

(07:46):
one that really really kind of caught my eye, which
really really impacted me at a deeper level, was the
Blackwater story when four Blackwater contractors were you know, indicted
for a bad shooting in a market in Iraq. Now,
if you want to really do a deep dive on this,

(08:07):
I think it's one of the greatest shows that Sean
Ryan has ever done. He has all four men, those
men on a show. They described in detail how they
were railroaded, how they were wrongly accused, and then how
Biden and his people at the DJ during the time
we're trying to get you know, a big win against
kind of the system or Eric Prince if you will,

(08:30):
in Blackwater. Now, don't get me wrong, I certainly recognize
that nobody's perfect and most likely there were some things
that took place that shouldn't have. But I also know
that those men were unjustly persecuted for doing their job
for the American people, the American public. There we were
not mercenaries. And I had just left Blackwater the year

(08:52):
before this went down, and so that really advanced. But
the biggest thing really pivoted for me began in twenty
sixteen when I started to realize, Hey, whoa, there's a
massive problem with the due presidential candidate, Donald James Trump

(09:13):
being a Russian agent. And now if you're familiar with that,
it's called the infamous Russiagate. It really began to reshape
how politics and listen, I have no illusion from day
one of any political engagement. As far back as we
can remember, there's been nefarious act activities. Right, mackiea Velli

(09:38):
became famous for a reason. Right, Hell, just go read
that incredible book, The forty eight Laws of Power, right
to where you can learn how to manipulate other human beings.
And one of the primary ways that has been manipulating
people throughout history is the use of courts and the
legal system wherever it may be. Now, you know, when

(09:59):
we saw what began to transpire with Donald Trump in
this rush a gate thing. I was shocked. I was
I was in absolute dismay that this businessman, this guy
who's notorious for his dealings in New York City, which
doesn't exactly have the greatest track record of of on

(10:21):
the up and up dealings over the past history, in
particular you know, in the twentieth century, in early twenty
first centuries. But what you do say is that, you know,
why is this guy being persecuted? Why is this guy
who was once the darling of not just the Democratic
Party but the Republican Party. I mean, look at how

(10:41):
many different people he supported over the years, politicians, how
many people supported him. I mean, some of my favorite
interviews are when he was on the View, or he was,
you know, scene with Bill and Hillary Clinton, or when
he was, you know, on Oprah and you know, she's
begging him, why don't you run for resident? But somehow

(11:01):
this guy comes up and he's on a different side
than what everybody thought he was, and next thing, you know,
he's a Russian agent. Now fast forward, obviously, what we've
learned in greater detail, most importantly from John Durham's investigation,
who worked for the DOJ. We've come to realize that
pretty much the entire thing was fabricated by his political

(11:26):
opponent and then enhanced by the acting administration, and really
in order to tear this guy around in order to
alter a political outcome. Now, like I said, this is
nothing new. It goes on all over the world all
different times. But I think what really bothers me the
most is that, you know, as a person that put

(11:48):
the uniform on, raised my right hand and swore an
oath of allegiance to a system that is supposed to
be built on the rule of truth, right, you know,
And I think maybe I was just naive, and this
really really really enlightened me as to that fact. Now,
it wasn't just Russia Gate. We also saw the impeachments trials.

(12:11):
We saw the book keeping case by New York. We
saw other cases, in particular the election fraud case out
of Georgia, all of which I think in the next
months or years we're going to discover there was a
significant conspiracy and collusion to bring forth these cases in

(12:32):
any way, shape or form to tear down the potentiality
of Donald Trump having any long term impact on the
system that had entrenched themselves within our government and other
stakeholders around the world. And now what we're seeing just
within the first you know, it's not even one hundred days,

(12:54):
yet we see a wave of Article three judges that
are hearing cases and and and issuing, issuing judgments that
are directly impacting, uh, the Trump Administration's policies, right, and
and and and for many people out there, this is
a major problem. This is UH, this is a problem

(13:17):
that that that seems to be just more of that
war taking place in the legal systems that's political in
nature or or combined uh with people that are seeking power,
trying to wrestle power away from others, and people that
are afraid of having their power taken from them. You know,
I think probably the most notorious ones so far, as

(13:40):
Judge James Boseburg, you know, he had heard this trial
about the Trump administration deporting these Venezuelan gang members down
to Al Salvador, you know, and and he in his
in his brief, he said the Trump administration acted in
bad faith by surreptitiously rushed to deport two planes of

(14:01):
the alleged trend day are god, Jordy, how do you
say that? Man? Yeah, Man, thank you, Jordy. I appreciate it.
Thanks j money, uh members of to a Salvadorian president. Right. So,
you know, when when when it's illegal, or a judge,

(14:21):
a district judge, or you know, a judge says that
it's illegal to deport illegal aliens, that's probably that's I mean,
that starts to make my mind melt a little bit,
and especially illegal aliens that are part of a criminal
organization that in many cases have been wreaking havoc on
the American public. I don't get that. What's the point?

(14:44):
All right? The other one is from uh r Aselli
Martinez ogawyn Am I saying that right again to Jordy.
I need you, buddy, I need you. I'm struggling. This
is a federal judge who ordered the Trump administration onto
a couple tuesdays ago to restore taxpayer funding for legal
services for illegal immigrants to support their cases. Right their immigration.

(15:11):
So they come into the country illegally, they're given in
many cases social security numbers. In fact, we just saw
a statistic of those numbers and how dramatic they were
in terms of just last year loan. I think it
was two point four million people receive Social Security cards

(15:33):
and maybe maybe Jordi, you can throw that up here
for a little bit. And you also have these people
that were given, you know, money to stay at hotels
and to to you know, and and here's your court
date in the future sometime to show up in twenty
twenty seven to hear your case. Well, this judge basically said,

(15:54):
all right, the federal government's going to pay for these
people to adjudicate their courses in case they can be
here legally if you will, which, as we then found out,
this judge had worked for one of the advocacy groups
involved in the litigation. Let me repeat that this judge
has had done work for one of the advocacy groups

(16:17):
that had filed this litigation. Now, I don't know what
conflict of interest means to you, but to me, it's like, hey,
if you're anywhere remotely affiliated with this, you can't do it.
It's much like that Judge Marshawn case, you know, the
bookkeeping case in New York where this guy's daughter was
raising money for the Democratic Party. I mean that that

(16:39):
seems like a conflict of interest, and what it what
again tears down people's faith in the legal system, you know.
And then the other one that really is problematic for me,
that that hit Now, most people kind of this is
an afterthought case, but for me, it's it's it's it's
it's critical to understand the magnitude of how all of

(17:02):
this potentially is fused together. And that was a recent
six US Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the Gretchen
Whitmer kidnapping case. Now, if you're not familiar with this case,
several years ago, Gretchen Whitmer, a bunch of guys in Michigan,

(17:22):
and a Michigan pseudo militia were found to be conspiring
in order to go to Gretchen Witchmer's vacation house, kidnap her,
and then you know, do whatever with her. And a
lot of the documents are online you can see the
details of the case. Well, the Court of Appeals, in
a unanimous three to zero decision, rejected the defendant's arguments

(17:44):
that they were entrapped by the FBI. Fox and Croft
had claimed that the government informants and undercover agents induced
them into actions they would have otherwise taken. However, the
court found that While the FBI's tactics weren't aggressive, including
the use of informants who suggested targeting Whitmer and provided

(18:05):
resources like a shootouse for training, the defendants showed clear
willingness to commit the crime. All right, Now, when you
look at this case with the crazy thing, the original
indictments of something like twelve to fifteen people and what
it ends up turning out in the court the original
case that like eight of these people were either FBI

(18:26):
agents or paid informants. One of them would actually a female,
would get these defendants high record them and lead them
into yeah, let's go do this. Now. Obviously there's a
tremendous amount of nuances to this, But the real challenge
that I have is that there's an obvious breach of

(18:49):
these individuals' rights. And so the Court of Appeals wouldn't
even allow the appeals processed to take place so these
people could have their case heard because they were just
done with it. They were over with it. And so
what is the grander context of all these things? Before
we read this, We're going to take a quick break.

(19:11):
You know, when I worked at the agency, when I
was an instructor, the boss of me was this incredible guy,
really amazing operator and background just incredible. But the funniest
thing he used to say to us all the time
is like, you gotta put the hot sauce on it. Ruight,
gotta put the hot sauce on it. And I'm like,
what are you talking about, man, He goes, Man, I've

(19:32):
traveled all over the world. I love the spiciest, hottest
food there is. I love the spicy food from the caucases.
I loved spicy foods from the Middle East and Iraq
and i Ran. I love spicy food from Thailand and
from Vietnam and Cambodia. I love spicy food from Central
and South America. Man, it's just I love that heat.
And I was like, dude, okay, all right, So what

(19:55):
you're saying is I got to expand my palate a
little bit and induce a little hot, a little spice
in there, is what you're saying. He says, Yeah, Man,
spice is what makes your food taste great. Well, I'm
here to tell you I believe them. It is true,
because after I met that man, I started making my
food taste spicy. And I'll tell you where I found

(20:16):
the absolute top formula for that spice is with Firecracker Farms.
That's right, My good friend Alex's company, Firecracker Farms, is
hot salt in these cool salt shakers. Now, this organization
uses three main peppers to make their spicy salt. A

(20:36):
ghost pepper, a reaper pepper, and the scorpion pepper. And
they call these the three Kings and they make them
right there on their own family plot and their own
family farm that all the kids get involved. They help
take care of those plants, they nurture those pep those peppers,
and then and then they have got this great process
where they make this salt. And I'll tell you what, man.

(20:58):
The first time my buddy Alex gave me one of
his pepper shakers, I put that on my eggs in
the morning and it was spectacular. So what did I do?
I started putting it on just about everything I eat.
I got to the point where my daughters would see
me pull out the salt shaker, the hot shaker, and
they'd be like, don't get that near our food. You
know why, because it was hot and it was spicy,

(21:20):
just the way I like it. And I think you
will too if you haven't ever tried Hot Salt. This
is the company you want to try, so push away
those old hot sauces and I actually go in and
use this as you're making your food. It really they
have a bunch of different varieties of heat and the

(21:40):
heat index that they have. They've got something called normalized violence.
They've got the snake Eater, which I love, right, They've
got Apocalypto, They've got hotter stuff. They've got the three
kings Hot Salt. They've got Firecracker Form, Pineapple Express, the
Lambeau Lemon Drop, and the Mermaid Mustache. And I always
love the look of the at Mermaid mustache. But they

(22:02):
have a different scale rating for you. Beautiful packaging, these
great salt shakers. You know, don't be afraid like get
a little adventurous, you know, get a little naughty sometimes,
get out there, go to Firecracker Firecracker dot Farm, that's
Firecracker dot Farm. Punch in a promo code rut r
Ut Romeo uniform Tango RUT fifteen to get your discount today.

(22:26):
But again the real point is don't be afraid live
life a little spicy and start with Firecracker Farms. Well,
not only is it just you know, try and do
impede Donald Trump for implementing the will of the majority

(22:49):
of the American people and what they want to what
they voted for, and how you know what you're also
seeing as attacks on civilians, attacks on people that uh
either are are are unknowing or unwitting of what's you
know of the malfeasans behind their entrapment or on a

(23:09):
granted context, uh, attacks on people and their ability to
have free speech and and and that's something that you
really need to pay attention to out there. Uh, whether
you look at the January sixth case, and and don't
get me wrong, I think the atrocities that took place
against police officers and Capitol police officers was was horrific,

(23:30):
But I also know there were agitators in that in
that in that that group. Just the other day, Joe
Kent was on Capitol Hill who said, uh, there is
an investigation and what they found along with uh one
of the congressmen from Louisiana UH and and other people

(23:51):
that there was potentially two hundred plus informants or or
government officials that were in the crowd that day. Now
know what does that mean? I'm not saying they actuated it,
or they instigated or whatever. But Joe Ken actually did
say they have documentation that some of these informants were

(24:12):
specific to the removing of the barricades, which allowed people
to get in close proximity to the capital itself. The
other one I also want to have people look at
is the pipe bomber. It's critical and there's a guy
out there at Revolver News who's done incredible background investigation

(24:34):
on that whole case, which is something we need to
know a lot more about. All right, So what's the
real question am I getting at? All Right? The real
question is whether judges have been used throughout history to
wage war against different individuals and or groups in order
to suppress beliefs, agendas, desires, economically, or whatever it might be.

(24:58):
And right, the undoubtable answer is yes. So what does
that look like for us? What does that look like
for you and me? What does that look like for
our family members? Now, obviously some of the residual outcomes
of this, I think the number one that we see

(25:21):
all the time as we see bankruptcy. Look at General Flynn.
General Flynn who was you know, secretly targeted by the
Bureau and the FBI and the CIA for an illegal
conversation with one of his political political counterparts in Russia.
They attacked this guy. And this guy was one of

(25:42):
the top US officials under the Obama administration. He was
the head of the d n I or it was
scheduled to be the department the Director of National Intelligence.
But he was certainly the head of the d i
A and worked with in d D at the highest
levels at Jaysock all throughout the g Watts. So but

(26:02):
again Donald Trump tagged him, So what are they going
to do. They're going to destroy that man. They destroyed
his pension, they destroyed his future, they destroyed Now, thankfully
he's been able to climb back. But again, if you
want to watch a fascinating documentary, go watch Flynn the
documentary about him. Who else have they gone after? Now
another caustic or volatile lightning rod that exists out there

(26:24):
is I think that's a notable case is the Alex
Jones case. Now, he just recently did an interview on
Tucker Carlson. Then I found fascinating. Now, Harry, I'm going
to establish this real quick. I thought it was appalling
of the commentary and the insinuation that he potentially made
that the Sandy Hook massacre was some type of false flag.

(26:47):
Now you can go back and you can watch the
details of those shows if you want. Whatever way he
did it, I thought there was a pretty unethical approach
to how he did that. And I have the most
deepest regards and sincere condolences for those people who lost
their their loved ones. But again, if we live in

(27:09):
America and we look at the Constitution, and you know,
the first Amendment is the freedom of speech, and that's
protected all speech and and and even if it's the
speech you don't want to listen to, or you don't like,
or you get offended or you feel hurtful, right, that
speech is protected. Now, granted, you can't go on the

(27:30):
internet and start telling everybody you're gonna kill him, You're
gonna go out them, you're gonna do this, which is
like a lot of crazies out there on both sides
are doing, which is a pretty horrific, Uh what do
you call it? Trigger for some of the crazies to
go out there, And you know, perhaps that was what
what what inspired that young man to take a shot

(27:51):
at President Trump and almost kill him. By less than
a quarter inch. Perhaps that was why that young man
went to UH one of the Supreme Court Justices house
with guns and was going to assassinate him, who, by
the way, just got i think either in dieted or convicted.
I'm not sure if something just recently happened. But remember

(28:13):
the rhetoric, right, the rhetoric of violence. There's a million
different ways entice, but I do believe that we should
curtail that, or at least investigate anybody who's calling for
the very specific target in or violence against any people,
regardless of what their views are. Trust me, there are
tons of people that I see on the Internet day

(28:33):
in and day out, just spewing hatred towards each other,
and I think, you know, it makes me ill. I
wish we could I generally don't believe that most Americans
have that much difference in common. Yes we come from
different cultures, and yes we believe in different things, But
is it worthwhile to invoke violence or politically persecute through

(28:56):
the legal systems? Now, this this ridiculous, right, and if
we continue down that road, things they're going to get ugly.
My point of all of that is what I'm trying
to say is that there has been set forth in
the US Constitution a framework that, if implemented in the
appropriate way, and then the appropriate steps should should should

(29:18):
pretty much guarantee the ability for all Americans to have
justice at their backs instead of in their fronts. Right,
the thing that that they have to wage war against
is the system. I mean, that just seems crazy to me.
So what I want to do now is I just

(29:38):
want to introduce you to some core constitutional ideas that
maybe you've never taken the time to go in and
understand this and where this comes from. But but there's
a point and I'll get to it. So so just
just humor me or have patience with me while I
do this. All right, this is under the president's authority, right.

(30:00):
The US Constitution outlines the president's authority to execute the
power of the executive Branch a branch, primarily in Article two,
which establishes the executive branch. Below are the key provisions
related to the president's authority to execute those powers, along
with brief explanations. So Article two, Section one, Clause one,

(30:22):
The executive power shall be vested in a President of
the United States of America. This is the vesting clause
which grants the President the broad authority to exercise the
executive power of the United States. It implies that the
president is the chief executor of federal laws and has
the responsibility to lead the executive branch through specific powers

(30:44):
at any time after they've been appointed. Right now, this
goes back to what are the laws in terms of
illegal entry? What are the laws in terms of bookkeeping
or borrowing money? Or the value the real estate eight
valuation of a particular property. I mean, some of this
stuff was insane and a lot of these were just

(31:06):
novel ideas that were, you know, pulled out of the
thin air of legal theory, which we all know what
that can lead to. All Right, So Clause eight, before
he entered on the execution of his office, he shall
take the following oath of affirmation. I do solemnly swear
or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of

(31:29):
the President of the United States, and will do the
best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States. Right. You know, I've taken
that oath on multiple occasions, and I hold that oath
dear to my heart. And so what I always ask
people is like, have you ever taken an oath yourself?

(31:51):
And I think what I'm asking right now, whether lawyers
out there or more importantly, judges. You know, when you
take that oath and you become that judge, do you
take it to heart? Have you read the Constitution? Do
you understand what you represent to not only yourself and

(32:12):
your family, but to the people who are gonna come
in in front of you with the expectation of a
fair system. All right? All right? The president Oath underscores
the duty to faithfully execute the office, emphasizes responsibility to
uphold the Constitution and carry out executive fund functions diligently.

(32:33):
All right. Article two, Section two, Clause one. The President
shall be the Commander in chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States, of the United States, and
of the militia of the of the several States which
called into the actual service of the United States. He
may require the opinion in writing of the Principal Officer

(32:53):
of each of the Executive Departments upon any subject relating
to the duties of their respective office. And he shall
have power to grant reprieves and pardons for off offenses
against the United States except in cases of impeachment. All right, now,
you know, just that line alone, we look at what's

(33:13):
taking place and the incredible attacks and the people that
have been approved to go and run the agencies that
he's trying to implement his policies. We see every single
day these attacks on people trying to provoke some type
of public outcry that these people are incompetent enough to
lead these these these offices. The one in particular for me,

(33:37):
it was Tulca Gabbert. I mean, it's just crazy to
me that anybody would say that that person, that that
woman does not have the capacity to be the DNI.
And it's true. And if you're paying attention to what
she's doing, which I obviously you know, suggest everybody follows
some of these people in your X feet or wherever
you're following people, and not just look at what people

(34:00):
ate for dinner or what vacation they're on, right, but
to actually pay attention what's going on in your government.
Just yesterday, she came out and said they found some
evidence about some questionable things that are going on within
the voting systems. Right, that's critical to understand, but that's
been given her that authority by the president who put

(34:21):
her into office, right, all right, Article two, Section two,
Clause one. Now the commander in chief, the president has
authority over the military, giving them significantrol over national defense
and military operations. So, you know, one of the things
that I in particular am a little bit upset about
with both parties over the last twenty five years or

(34:42):
so is the really kind of the unchecked ability to
wage a conflict around the world without the appropriate authorization
by Congress because we don't label them as wars or
war powers or whatever, and unfortuate. A lot of that
I think has been manipulated or has been mismanaged by

(35:05):
people on both sides, you know, from the Bush administration,
Obama particular Biden, and you know, I do have some
ideas about what's taking place for Trump, but overall, what
Trump believes is what I believe when it comes to
our geopolitical prowess, is that we've got to stop these
forever wars. I'm sick of young men dying in places.

(35:28):
In particular, I'm sick of young Russians or young Ukrainians
or young Houthi's or you know, now the words you know,
Iran's on the table. You know how many hundreds of thousands,
if not millions of young men are going to be
thrust into their deaths over over these wars, and so
you know, the weight of that responsibility should be much

(35:49):
more significant and should be dispersed across across multiple of
the branches of the government. All right, all right, Clause too,
he shall have power, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate to make treaties provide, provided two
thirds of the Senators present concur and he shall nominate

(36:10):
and buy, and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and councils, judges, judges
of the Supreme Court, and all other officers in the
United States whose appointments were not herein otherwise provided for,
and which shall be established by law. Now, this means
that the president has the authority to make treaties and

(36:31):
appoint major officials, including judges, as previously discussed, but these
require Senate approval. This reflects the president's role in executing
foreign policy and staffing the executive branch. And I think
that's one of the major things that we're seeing is
that the president is wrestling away a lot of the
power that has been integrated into kind of the unelected government,

(36:57):
which over the last I'm going to say for already
forty five fifty years. Right, we saw this with his
defunding the fifty billion of USAID. Now I'm here to
tell you, yes, USAID does contribute in some positive ways.
I've seen it myself overseas. There are good programs. But
what we now knew from Doge with Elon's work, And

(37:19):
by the way, Elon is an advisor that the president
has a right to bring in the government, just like
all the other different advisors, whether the government uses you know,
these think tanks, whether it's Booze Allen or it's what
all these different you know, Washington, d c. Based firms
or Silicon Valley firms as as to support and help

(37:41):
and guide these initiatives of US presidential policy. But what's
happening is he's he's taking away their money. So what
do we see? We see some lawfare being waged, all right?
Article three, Section three. He shall from time to time
give the Congress information of the state and of the Union,

(38:02):
and to recommend their con to their consideration. Such measures
he shall judge necessary and expedient. He may, as on
extraordinary cage occasions, conven both houses or either of them,
And in case of disagreement between them with respect to
the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such
time as he shall think proper. He shall receive ambassadors

(38:24):
and other public missers. He shall take care of the laws. Right,
this is the critical one. He shall take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the
officers of the United States. Now that right there is
an important part of this. Right. It's his duty right

(38:45):
to make sure that the established laws of the United
States are being fulfilled right through his policy. Here's the problem,
and this is something that is critical to understand for you,
that constitutional and executive authority is is critical in order

(39:08):
for a presidential candidate who is duly elected right through
the process that we've established, in order to fulfill the
mandate of the majority of people. And it's not just
the majority, where it's the electoral college. And that's for
a reason all those people who want to, you know,
take away Montana's rights because they don't have the size

(39:29):
of New York or California, that's bogus. We have equal
representation and that's for a reason. Okay, now here's the kicker.
This is where it comes into the executive brand. Now Here.
Before we read this, we're going to take a quick break, right.
I just will be right back after this. Hi. Thanks
for watching the David Rutherford Show or listening or stoked

(39:52):
to have you. But what we want to do now
is we want to just offer a really unique opportunity
and that's to join us on our patriot On account.
You can find us at at David Rutherford's Show. Now,
it's a two dollars subscription fee. We'd love to have you.
When you come on, you're going to get access to
all of our our shows, the clips, the shorts. But

(40:14):
within each guest, we're also going to have occasionally we're
gonna have the extra additional parts of the interview. And
these these interviews will we'll have a little bit deeper
dive on all different types of topics and hopefully we
can get our our our guests to to go a
little bit deeper than they traditionally would on on on
regular formats. I'll also go a much deeper. You'll have

(40:36):
the rut rant on there. You'll have me get a
little nutty when it comes to all things tactical and security.
But it's really going to be a special place for
us to deliver the additional stuff that's going to make
your subscription worthwhile. And that means we're gonna have live
events where you can get on and ask Q and
a of me. I'm gonna do motivational events on there.

(40:59):
You're gonna get acts a certain motivational content from my
motivational and performance company called frog Logic Concepts, where we'll
talk about embracing fear, forging self confidence, living a team life,
living with purpose, just to name a few. We're also
going to have other interviews, other different types of content.
Just don't miss out because Patreon is really a place

(41:20):
where we can connect on more of a personal level,
where you can get to know me and Jordy and
really understand and consume our content in a more meaningful way.
So go over to our Patreon account at David Rutherford's
Show Press subscription. We're happy to take your two dollars
a month. We really appreciate that so we can continue

(41:42):
funding all of our endeavors to bring you the best
possible content imaginable. Thank you so much, Okay, welcome back,
all right. So now to talk about judicial brand and
what Article three judges are, what they are, where they

(42:04):
come from, and this is critical to understand because this
is where the war is being waged. Article three. Section one,
The judicial power of the United States shall be vested
in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as
the Congress may, from time to time ordain and establish.
The judges both of the Supreme and inferior Courts, shall

(42:27):
hold their office during good behavior, and shall at stated
times receive for their services a compensation which shall not
be diminished during their continuance of office. Section two. The
judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and
equity arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United

(42:50):
States and treaties made or which shall be made under
their authority. To all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers,
and councils. To all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
To controversies to which the United States shall be a party,
to controversies between two or more states, between a state

(43:10):
and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states,
between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants
of different states, and in between a state or the
citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In all
cases affecting ambassadors or other public ministers and councils, and
those in which a state shall be a party, the

(43:31):
Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. And all other cases
before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both
as to federal both as to law. In fact, with
such exceptions and such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment,

(43:51):
shall be by jury, and shall such trials shall be
held in the state where the said crimes shall have
been committed. When not committed within any state, the trials
will be at such a place or places as the
Congress may be by law have directed. Now you can
continue to go on, and what I highly recommend you
go read the rest of these sections, and essentially what

(44:14):
it's saying is that the executive branch is also tied
to a structure, right to the agreed laws from our
House of Representatives and our Senate and even within the
states and their ability to make laws. And then on
the magistrates of certain local magistrates right you know, whatever

(44:35):
county you're a part of or those different types of
legal standings. Right, this is the system that's supposed to
work for everybody, all right Now, I want to break
this down. Where the problem I think is getting is
that all the powers that be out there are starting

(44:55):
to really understand, you know, through what what means is
taking place. And I have some theories I'll talk about
a second, But there is a war that has been
essentially implemented, right, implemented by both parties, I think more
so on the Democratic side, in particularly over the last

(45:18):
sixteen years. Now. During Trump's first teen twenty seventeen to
twenty twenty one, over four thousand legal cases were filed
against him and his businesses in federal and state courts
through although not all were directly related to administration policies
or filed in Article three courts. A more relevant benchmark

(45:39):
comes from the analysis of policy specific litigation. The Institute
for Policy Integrity track litigation over Trump administration agency actions, examples, regulations,
and executive orders and found two hundred and three cases
with clear outcomes by twenty twenty two, with the administration

(45:59):
losing ninety three percent of the time. The cases were
primarily in Article three courts as they involve federal agency
actions challenged under laws like the Administrative Procedure Act. For
Trump's second term start in January twenty twenty twenty five,
legal challenges have escalated rapidly due to his aggressive executive actions.

(46:22):
Reports indicate that as of early as March twenty twenty five,
over one hundred federal lawsuits have been filed against the administration,
with many targeting policies like immigration crackdowns, federal workforce reductions,
and the Department of Government Efficient Initiates initiatives led by
Elon Musk. All Right, that's a hell of a lot

(46:44):
of cases. Man as a hell of a lot of
legal actions against one man, his policies and the way
it's going. Now, why is that? Why is this taking place? Well,
let's look at the numbers, shall we? Jordan? All right?
Under President Barack Obama, a total of three hundred and
twenty nine Article three judges were confirmed by the US Senate.

(47:09):
This number breaks down like this, two Supreme Court Justices right,
US Court of Appeals judges fifty five, US District judges
two hundred and sixty eight, and US Court of International
Trade judges four right. Under the Biden administration two hundred

(47:29):
and thirty five, Article three judges, one Associate judge of
the Supreme Court, forty five judges of US Court of Appeals,
one hundred and eighty seven judges of the U S
District judges, and two judges of the US Court of
International Trade. All right, now, let's talk about Donald James
Trump in his first appointment. Right. Two hundred and thirty four,

(47:53):
Article three judges right, three Supreme Court judges, right, fifty
four US Court of Appeals judges, one hundred and seventy
four US District Court judges, and three US Court of
International Trade judges. So if your struggle like math for me,
I'll do it for you because I used a calculator

(48:14):
before I got on here to describe this. That's five
hundred and sixty four to two hundred and thirty four.
That's a two to one difference. Now, as you hear
me describe all of these things, and I know you
probably at one point were like, all right, that's enough reading.
And by the way, I got all this information through GROC.

(48:36):
I highly recommend you check that out, check chat tbt out,
check all my facts read. The biggest thing I'm trying
to get you to do is educate yourself. Go read
the Constitution. Go read what these powers of the executive
branch are right, the legislative branch, and the judicial brands.
It's worth your wild in particular if you're young, if
you're in college, or you're a young person, new in

(48:58):
the world, new in business, a new in your life. Man,
do yourself in favor, go out and know what your
rights are. I mean, there was a tie back in
the day where civics classes were imperative for people to
understand how this whole process works. Right, And then that
way when you when you begin to understand, you've done
the work. You've read the Just start there. Read the Constitution.

(49:19):
I remember I every few years, I'll buy my children
a pocket Constitution. I'll put it in their backpacks. And
the hope is that someday, you know, they'll be in
a situation they'll be like anhol let me go into
my backpack. Actually, you know, this portion of the Constitution
says this, this is my rights right. I love it right,
and I hope they lead with the First Amendment, and

(49:42):
I'm certainly instructing them on the second Amendment. You have
my word on that, right. So the reality is, though,
what's the deal is the judicial system certainly doesn't seem
fair now again, and I'm not just focused on the
fairness against Donald Trump or some of these other people
that are conservatives or or whatever they are, right, I

(50:05):
think it's not fair for for Democrats, for for minorities,
for low income people. I mean, how you look at
the street three strike rule back in the in the nineties,
and how many people did they incarcerate for selling uh
uh THHC or selling marijuana? Right, people had long term

(50:25):
jail cells. And you know, think about the way these
people were growing up and what they were exposed to
and and you know, I mean that's a that's a
significant thing. I mean, that was an abomination to to
to to get troubled youth off the streets because of
these charges. Now, don't get me wrong, all right, everybody's
gonna be like, yeah, but this or but that, right.

(50:47):
You know, certainly drugs are absolutely devastating, uh the American population, uh,
the American youth in particular. I mean, fentanyl is the
number one killer of young people ages what eighteen or
sixteen to twenty eight or something like that. Forgive me
if I don't get the higher number, correct, you know.

(51:09):
So yeah, I want to see what Casptel just came
out and did, and they seized a half a billion
dollars worth of drugs down in Florida. I want to
see that stuff shut down. I want to see our
school system start advocating for education about the impact of
drug use and what it does. Right. I mean, we've
lost more people to drug addiction and predictive fentanyl use

(51:32):
overdoses in the last four years than we have in
all of World War two. I think about that number. Right,
So education, I think is the first part. So, you know,
one of some of the places, one of the biggest
places that I've seen is completely seems you know, jilted
or or angled negatively, is are the family court systems,

(51:57):
in particular, the family court systems against against men and
their ability to either pay too much or have to
pay too much, or an alimony or or child support
or or or it's their their their rights to to
be able to see their children right the time share agreements.
In fact, I've got one of my best friends from
the teams who's in the most unconscionable, horrific legal case.

(52:21):
I have ever seen, because the powers that be that
are working against him believe he's some kind of crazy
person because he served as country at the highest level
that he shouldn't be able to to see his child.
And this thing's been going on for seven years. It's
it's drained his entire life savings, it's debilitating him emotionally,

(52:43):
and more importantly, it's it's destroying his beautiful son because
because of this, the manipulation of the legal system up
in the Northeast civil courts, you know, people being wrongfully
sued because somebody makes something up whatever, you know, whatever
it might be, whether it's deformation. I mean, look at

(53:05):
all the crazy deformation case, you know, and people getting
on the news and saying god awful things. Remember Jeordy,
Remember that kid who was out in front of what
was it. He was at some protests on a capitol
and there was some Native American guy who got in
his face with the drum though, and then CNM eviscerated

(53:27):
this guy all over the whole thing. And oh, I
believed it too. The way they cut the video, it
made him look like a terrible person one hundred percent.
When we find out that this kid didn't do anything
wrong was actually exactly opposite of what it made it
seem like. And thank god the justice system eventually worked
for him, But how much of that pressure did it
cause his family and and him that kid as a

(53:49):
kid right now? He did get reimbursed. I think it
was like two hundred and fifty million bucks, So you know,
I think justice was served, but the length of the process,
what it took place, right criminal courses, I already talked
about that. And then obviously, you know, the one that's
the most important to me are the free speech stuff,
and and that's really unconscionable. For the thing that's scarying

(54:11):
me the more than anywhere is the stuff we saw
in Brazil recently, where we saw the Supreme Court go
after Elon Musk and X and Starlink because he was
allowing the Bolsonaro supporters to to actively uh resist Lula's winning,

(54:34):
and then the Supreme Court went after him. The things
that we're seeing in England right now are unbelievable. I
think it's what's the number, it's uh, maybe we can
you know, post some of those statistics here, but I
think it's something like over four thousand people have either
been talked to or arrested for what they're posting on

(54:54):
social media. And we saw that here too. We've seen
that in America, right, We've seeing people indicted for what
they've said online. We've seen and man, that's the slippery
of this most slippery soaks. If you really want to
understand the magnitude and the order of that magnitude of
how devastating the assault on free speech by using the

(55:16):
court systems in conjunction with government influence around the world,
I highly recommend you go Chuck check out Mike Benz.
Mike Benz, you can look them up on x. This
guy is the most sophisticated, well researched individual on the
planet or you know, American on the planet that has
exposed the censorship industrial complex and how people are are governments,

(55:41):
including ours and then governments around the world, what they're
using the court systems to silence their opposing views. This
is the stuff that is really the scariest to me.
This is the stuff that leads to violent, treacherous, horrific outcomes.
Just look at history, look at the greatest tire in
human history. What do they do once they ascend into power?

(56:03):
They shut down free speech. They go after their opponents,
They lock them up, they throw away the keys, and
the next thing they do, what's next, They come after
your ability to defend yourself in firearms. And we've seen that.
We've seen incredible just what Remington was put out of business.
We've seen massive cases against Smith and Wesson. Right, they
had to move their headquarters out of I think it

(56:25):
was Connecticut or so I forget where they were and
move their headquarters. So this is taking place all over
the time. I mean, you think you go out and
you defend yourself with a gun, that you're not going
to court and you're not going to be sued maybe criminally,
definitely civilly, then you need to check your head. And
so what is the way that this is going to

(56:47):
be fixed now? I think the ideal thing, the thing
that makes the most sense, right is that we have
the existing structures that are in place, rise up and
really begin to coal esque around the ethics of law,
law and ethics and what that means the constitution. Uh uh,

(57:08):
you know, and move away from teaching this legal theory
that has infused itself into you know, our law schools
all over the place. I mean, there is case after
case that you can find online about different law schools
out there that are are are essentially training UH future
lawyers and eventually judges to be activists and to use

(57:31):
the courts as as activist platforms. There's been several things
and different and different things. Go look at what's taking
place at at some of the major law schools out there.
Look at Georgetown, look at Columbia, look at some of
the other Iley leagues, look at Stanford, and then more
so looking into you know, what the criteria are by

(57:51):
the American Bar associations. Look at how they're attacking people
in their legal licenses for representing certain political UH people,
and how they've gone after that. The one that just
is the most mind blowing to me is you look
at the the age of Texas Ken Paxton and and
and what his own political party went after him and

(58:15):
tried to impeach him on a completely bogus charge, I
mean utterly And if if you if you want to
watch really something interesting, go watch that case because it
was broadcast live on TV. When they were questioning kind
of these five experts who brought forward these allegations of
malfeasan's against the acting Attorney General of Texas and when

(58:38):
they were across examined, essentially all five made up everything
they said they had. No, it didn't it just didn't came.
They just made it up. And we see a lot
of that right now. And if you get a particular
judge who doesn't you know, UH is instringent about the
the evidence being put forth? You know what happens to people,

(59:00):
and you know, here's the deal. It's not just going
to happen to the president. And high political point is
this is going to trickle down into every facet of life.
And I believe it already has in many, many, uh
many circumstances. So is it going to be fixed? H.
I don't think it's going to be fixed in any

(59:20):
any short time. But what I think it can be
fixed by, uh several different things. Let's get let's get
the ethics back in law school, right. Let's get a
better UH UH state and federal government analysis of people
looking at cases UH and how they judge on cases.
Let's evaluate if they'd adhere strictly to UH the law

(59:44):
and if that's a reality, what type of response will
take place to them. Let's look at at at at
their backgrounds and let's really hold true these these things
that will disqualify you. If there's conflicts of interests, there
has to be some time type of governments for that.
That's a good start, But I think the only real way,

(01:00:06):
the only way, real way that the people out there
that are going to gain power is by banding together
and creating organizations that defend the liberties of people. Now,
I'll never forget, you know, when I was on the
Team Never Quit podcast with Marcus Latrelle and The Wizard

(01:00:27):
back in the day, we got to interview this remarkable man.
His name is Kwame Angenou, and Kwame was a young
man at seventeen years old in the city of Philadelphia.
Back in the day. He and his brother and his
brother's best friend were out in the streets and they
were near an area where an individual was murdered. And
the police came in at the time, and they wanted

(01:00:49):
to convict these guys. They had some backgrounds and they'd
been you know, petty THEFF and some other things, and
they wanted to pin this on them. So what they do.
They got this twelve year old kid who was in
the vicinity, wore glasses and they told this little kid, Hey,
if you don't convict, if you don't tell us that
it was these three who murdered that person, we're going

(01:01:10):
to put your mom in jail for the rest of
her life. So based on the coorus testimony of a
twelve year old children, these three young boys, they were
sent to prison, not for life, but they all three
were put on death row. Now thankfully for an organization,
I think the Freedom Project. I want to make sure
make sure Jeordi who was that, well, you look that

(01:01:32):
case up for me and kwalme Angenou because that young
man lost his case. Obviously, court system on one testimony
a twelve year old boy, right, and they didn't let
that evidence. Then that man spent I think it was
like twelve years on death row, got off death row,

(01:01:52):
and then finally after twenty seven years, was released from prison.
But his brother's brother's best friend spent thirty five and
thirty seven years in prison. But that's the way we're
going to do it. It's these organizations, right, It's these
organizations that we come together, or it might be a
Second Amendment advocacy group that you join and you contribute

(01:02:14):
in the case that somebody out there gets wrongfully accused
of misusing their their Second Amendment right to defend themselves right,
and that they because most of us, you know, don't
have And I had a friend, a good friend that
we're hoping to get on here one time that was
one of Trump's close friends in personal attorneys for eighteen years.

(01:02:35):
It was suggesting to me that Trump and Trump's family
monthly legal bill was somewhere around twenty to twenty five
million dollars a month. Now, think about that, Think about
you being wrongfully accused. Think about if you're a part
of a political group, and that's that's even if you're
part of a political group that goes against the main

(01:02:59):
structure of socidey. If maybe you're on the fringe, maybe
you're part of a right wing group or a left
wing group or whatever. You know, we have to get
back to what what I believe the original idea behind
the acl you was was to support the Constitution and
people's God given liberties and their rights for for for

(01:03:19):
fair justice in a trial, right to represent themselves the
best as possible. But what we've we've devolved into that
if you don't have a lot of money, you can't
defend yourself or you can't rise up and have a
voice in court for your own position. And then the
other thing is that if you get in a certain
political position of power, you can bring in people that

(01:03:43):
are that are going to advocate your will or they're
going to be activists on the bench. We're certainly seeing
that across uh every aspect that we see in our
legal systems. Do you find that that name the Ohio
Innocence Project. I believe the Ohio Innocence Project. So props
to you in the Ohio Innocence Project. Man, God bless

(01:04:05):
you guys and what you do and all the other
groups out there that are believe in in what liberty is.
Because if we don't have the right liberties in the
United States, the United States isn't going to last very long.
So do yourself a favor, first and foremost, educate yourself,
understand what this all is. Don't just take your little

(01:04:27):
clip on X and start spewing it out as gospel. Right.
And granted I've done that too on many occasions, but
I try and adhere to what my father taught me
as a kid, that America is the greatest legal system
that's ever been created, that the law is built on
the truth, and finally that the truth will set you free.

(01:04:54):
Thank you, the boy to say