
Link –
Subscribe to stay connected to our stories:
Support us by becoming a member on YouTube:
Or Support us on Patreon:
Buy Ring of Fire merch:
Find us on social media!
Facebook:
Twitter:
Instagram:
TikTok:
*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.
At the start of the Trump administration, I said that the one good thing we likely at the time would have going for us is that obviously all of Donald Trump's stuff is gonna be challenged in the courts, which has happened. And then I said, number two, Donald Trump has a history of hiring the worst lawyers we have ever seen. And their incompetence could have, of course, lead to a lot of Trump's actions not being implemented. And yes, that has also happened, but perhaps I was a little too harsh on these lawyers, right? Maybe I was all, you know, trying to lump them all into you're just bad lawyers, when in reality I didn't think about how difficult the job is. And, and I do think that to some degree, like I kind of, you know, glossed over it and just said, well, these people suck. But when you think about it, these lawyers, a lot of 'em just career lawyers at the DOJ, they're not necessarily Trump people, although he is slowly replacing them.
The problem is they're having to go into court and defend the indefensible. They don't know what the hell his executive orders even mean half the time, according to what they've already said in court. So the Wall Street Journal actually did a phenomenal job. They put out this report this week, um, that says, it has become common for lawyers representing the current administration to make the case for the extreme changes the new president is demanding due to either lack of preparation or in some cases entering into courtrooms with no valid argument to make because their position is unsupported or poorly researched. The journal goes on to say that uncomfortable exchanges have become standard in defense of Trump's changes with one administration attorney confessing to a judge last week saying, quote, your Honor, I don't have the answer to that precise question off the top of my head, and the judge replied, okay, but that strikes me as pretty important question.
According to the journal, DOJ lawyers have at times struggled on questions of law and fact about what Trump and his lieutenants are actually doing, drawing frustration and rebukes from judges across the country. In some cases, lawyers later submitted corrections to what they had told the courts. It goes further recent rebukes from judges have upset DOJ lawyers who privately say they have been given incorrect information by agencies and asked to defend executive orders they wouldn't have crafted. According to people familiar with the matter within the civil division, lawyers have grown frustrated with being forced into difficult litigating positions. The people said, and some expressed discomfort about joining the defense of Trump's executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship. So to their credit, I will say some of these lawyers know that they don't have legal arguments. Some
Of them know that, look, we're defending something that literally can't be defended. It goes against our own constitution, but I need a job. So I have to go into court. I have to stand in front of a judge and say the dumbest things that even I can think of. Otherwise, I'm gonna get fired. Like this is my job. I have to defend it. And, uh, it's almost impossible to do because like I said, like the article points out, a lot of times they don't even understand what Trump is trying to say in these executive orders. And then of course, you run into the issues like you had a couple weeks ago where