Episode 17 - The Senate's Historic War Powers Vote

Episode Description

This week, Richard Schreiber and Tom Martin track a single 48-hour window when two branches of government showed their hand. On Tuesday, the Senate made history, passing a War Powers Resolution directing troop withdrawal from Iran by a vote of 50 to 48. By Wednesday afternoon, two senators had reversed course and the resolution was effectively dead. That same week, the Supreme Court ruled in Mullin v. Doe that the administration can strip Temporary Protected Status from hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians without judicial review at all.

Richard and Tom pull the thread from there: the Islamabad Memorandum's fine print on Iran's nuclear stockpile, a Supreme Court refusal to revisit Monsanto's Roundup liability, a FEMA official's alien-abduction claim, and the SNAP and Medicaid cuts now landing on millions of Americans, including families raising children with autism. Drawing on decades of combined newsroom experience, from CBS's Iran-Contra coverage to today's fractured press corps, the hosts make the case that when constitutional checks become performance, the only real guardrail left is a reporter willing to read the actual document.

Topics Covered

•        The 24-Hour Reversal: The Senate's historic 50–48 War Powers vote to pull troops from Iran collapsed within a single news cycle after two senators flipped.

•        TPS Without Review: The Supreme Court's 6–3 ruling in Mullin v. Doe strips roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians of protected status and bars courts from reviewing the decision.

•        The Islamabad Memorandum's Fine Print: Point nine of the 14-point Iran deal preserves the current nuclear stockpile even as the administration calls it a disarmament win.

•        Echoes of Iran-Contra: A CBS Washington Bureau veteran's firsthand memory of the Boland Amendment being quietly circumvented decades ago.

•        The Monsanto Ruling: A 6–3 decision declines to revisit Roundup liability, with Clarence Thomas's two-decade history as Monsanto's lead counsel drawing scrutiny.

•        Open Season on Female Reporters: New reporting on the treatment of women in White House and Pentagon press rooms, and why solo pushback has replaced collective follow-up questions.

•        SNAP and Medicaid Cuts Hit Home: Roughly 3.5 million Americans lose food stamp access and CBO projects 13.1 million Medicaid losses by 2035, with particular impact on the disability and autism community.

•        Rapid Fire: Spin vs. Fact: Five stories of the week, contrasting administration talking points against independent reporting on immigration, judicial review, and food safety deregulation.

About the Hosts

Richard Schreiber

Richard Schreiber is a strategic AI consultant, journalist, autism advocate, and fiction writer based in New York City. With a background spanning investigative reporting, technology consulting, and over 25 years in legal technology and procurement, Richard brings a rare combination of real-world experience and analytical depth to every conversation. He is the founder of a growing autism advocacy foundation and the author of multiple books, including Autism Care Revolution. His journalism is guided by one principle: facts first, always.

Tom Martin

Tom Martin is a veteran television news producer with more than 20 years at some of the most respected names in broadcasting. He got his start at the CBS News Washington Bureau in 1982 — where he witnessed history firsthand, including being in the room when Nixon delivered his infamous "I am not a crook" statement. The son of a legendary newspaper editor who helped launch USA Today, Tom grew up believing journalism is a sacred public trust. He carries that belief into every story he tells.

Our Mission

True Journalism exists because facts still matter. The press is a watchdog — not a lapdog — and the American public deserves reporting that shines a light rather than throws a shadow. This is not a political show. We do not have a party. We have one principle: if it is not a verified fact, we will say so.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:03

On Tuesday, the United States Senate made history. For the first time, both chambers of Congress had passed a war powers resolution directing the president to remove U.S. forces from a conflict. In this case, Iran. The Senate vote was 50 to 48, coming weeks after the House passed the same measure 215-208 on June 3rd. The resolution does not carry the force of law. The president can disregard it, but the vote was historic. But by the next day, Wednesday afternoon, it was effectively dead, the resolution. Two senators who had voted yes had reversed their course. The resolution collapsed in a single news cycle. That same morning, the Supreme Court ruled the president holds virtually unrestrained power to strip hundreds of thousands of legal U.S. residents of their protected status without a hearing. Two institutions, 48 hours, both guardrails that were supposedly in place were made of paper. But when constitutional checks become performance, you need a different kind of lens. I'm Richard Schreiber.

SPEAKER_01 1:11

Yeah, thanks, Richard. It is an amazing time in government rights. The job of the press, going back long before either of us picked up a camera, was to mind that gap. The gap between what the law is supposed to do and what it actually does under political pressure. That is the watchdog role, and it does not depend on any one regulation that came or went. It depends on someone paying attention and refusing to look away. I'm Tom Martin, and this is True Journalist.

SPEAKER_00 1:44

Welcome everyone. So, Tom, let's kind of dive into the top three moments that kind of defined our week. And I think we mentioned them, or I mentioned them in my intro. First off is the 24-hour Congress. We mentioned that the Senate initially did a vote to, under the War Powers Resolution, to direct the president to remove U.S. forces from Iran. Interestingly enough, there was already a ceasefire and a pathway that was announced, I think, on June 17th by the president, that the war was over and they're moving towards a resolution. But I think this resolution, which was in the pipeline obviously for a while since the Congress voted earlier in the month, I think back on June 3rd, and five Republican congressmen joined the Democrats in voting in favor of that resolution. But and it's not the first time, I believe, that either the Senate or the Congress have decided, perhaps under influence, shall we say, to for several of them to reverse their votes to reverse a bill that or a law or an act that was set to pass, but then was essentially rescinded. So it's interesting. What do you think about that 24-hour reversal?

SPEAKER_01 3:07

It's amazing. It's so transparent. If we turn the clock back a year or gone back to the first Trump administration, we might be surprised at these things, but somehow there is no surprise. But it does seem to be that we're in a very interesting time right now. Whereas at the time we were recording this yesterday, the president welcomed some top Republicans into the White House. They thought earlier in the day they were promoting a great bipartisan housing bill. For those who say the Republicans and Democrats can't work together, we have this wonderful legislation. People are talking about affordability is very important. The president's going to sign it. And basically, from what we hear, he threw a temper and sticking to what he wants. And but with each passing week or month, as we get closer to the midterm elections, it seems like many even top Republican senators are more resistant to going along with all of this. But the whiplash that we saw on what we're talking about here was it was just shocking that it could be so transparent, basically, in my opinion.

SPEAKER_00 4:06

And I think the reason Trump was against the housing bill had nothing to do with the construct of the housing bill. He had wanted another non-related law included. I think it had to do with immigration or one of his other policies that they refused to add on, which is look, in all fairness, is the typical product, typical outcome, right? Politicians in the legislature branch have been known for adding pork bill, pork barrels, and bills to get additional funding for unrelated items in a bill that as a means to get it done. This though felt a little different. And it's unfortunate because you're right, the housing law is bipartisan. It's obviously an incredible critical aspect of what we're all experiencing, especially those of us who live in New York City, for example, or any metropolitan area. There's just a dearth of new housing that's affordable being built.

SPEAKER_02 5:04

Sure. Absolutely. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_01 5:16

The same week that the Sin reversed its war powers vote, as we just described, the Supreme Court, we're talking about, like you said, the executive, the congressional, and the legislative. The Supreme Court handed down Mullen V Do by a vote of six to three. The majority cleared the way for the administration to end temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrians. The holding is narrower than some of the headlines let on, but nevertheless it's quite significant in terms of giving him the power and so on. And on its own terms, more alarming. Justice Alito wrote that these TPS decisions are not subject to judicial review at all. The courts did not bless the policy. They removed themselves from looking at it. Even a termination that broke the law could now be insulated from a judge. So again, they're just in writing, giving up their oversight power, which is amazing. And so in the cases of about two countries, not the whole, not every immigrant affected by temporary temporary protected status. It covers roughly 350,000 Haitians and about 6,000 Syrians, hundreds of thousands of people living here lawfully under a program Congress created in 1990.

SPEAKER_00 6:28

Under a Republican president at the time, George H. W. Bush. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 6:33

Yeah. No, I can't imagine. You know, you and I were more lucky, as they say, where we don't have, you know, there are people living with this hanging over their head. I can't imagine what that must be like for them. And so this is this is population, these hundreds of thousands of people that the precedent could eventually reach. And it's not who this ruling decides been on a show that we call true journalism. That distinction is the whole point. So one quote that I would give again from the dissent is Justice Kagan, writing for the three dissenters, warned that this strips legal status and the right to work from hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians. And she said plainly that people in this case deserved better than what the court gave them. And so that's very direct and outspoken. But back to you.

SPEAKER_00 7:24

Yeah, but when you have two separate branches, in this case, the legislature and the judiciary, both signaling on the same day that executive power is effectively unchecked. At what point is that a pattern rather than a coincidence? And we've we've seen this before. But the question is, what is the press's obligation when this happens simultaneously? What is where is the reporting on this going? Exactly.

SPEAKER_01 7:53

I've enjoyed I've enjoyed hearing from some of the, I don't know, shall we call them, old timers who we've interviewed on this show. And they're offering some optimism, some hope that some young journalists or young folks in journalism school are concerned about the way things are being done these days. And so maybe there'll be a bit of an uprising, but I agree that the light of journalism should shine on situations like this.

SPEAKER_00 8:15

Yeah. And just to double back on the whole war powers resolution that got kind of kicked around. When you were coming up with the CBS News Washington Bureau, do you remember the story that ran through town during the Reagan years was I ran Contra. Congress had passed the Boland Amendment to do one special thing, bar federal money from reaching the Contras in Nicaragua. That was a guardrail. People inside the National Security Council, however, found a way around it and funded the war anyway. And of course, we know famously Oliver North admitted that the operation took place on the stand. He was convicted, but those convictions were overturned on appeal. So once again, another incident, the guardrail was on paper, but it was not enforced. It didn't hold. And again, what we're we try to be fair-minded, and what's happening today in the under the current administration isn't necessarily unique if you go back historically and see some of these other examples. And back in the 1980s, I know that the press held or tried to hold the Reagan administration accountable at that time, and there were hearings, and it did, it was at the end of Reagan's term. So it didn't work.

SPEAKER_01 9:34

I remember very well. I got my start in the early 1980s there at CBS News in Washington, the tail end of the Reagan presidency, and so on. So I remember that Iran Contra affair quite well. So many people that I worked with in the Washington Bureau were covering that story, of course. And I remember that when George Herbert Walker Bush had been elected president, the crew from the Washington Bureau was there in his office to do an interview with him. Dan Rather had become anchorman at that point. And so it was controversial that they were really testing him. I think around that time. I don't know if this is quite an old story, but I don't know if you remember about when the CBS News went black on the air and just like dead air for a number of minutes. Oh my gosh, we can't do that. But again, it was like the journalists were making a statement, and like we feel it is our responsibility as journalists to press the president. And you might breathe, or maybe President Bush, the first president Bush, was thinking this was thinking to himself, this was Ronald Reagan's doing. Let's we need to move past that. Much Gerald Ful friend of mine is an old White House photographer with Gerald Ford's era. We need to move on. We need to, but again, the journals saw their role as we need to press the people in power for the truth.

SPEAKER_00 10:49

Exactly. And there's a couple of other examples. You and you, we both we had Michelle Mitchell on a few weeks back, who's doing a wonderful upcoming documentary movie called Who Gets to Make the Rules and the Heroes That Break Them, which is about something that happened under George Herbert Walker Bush's administration, where they sent troops and helicopters into the state of Washington because there were people that were living off the land there growing marijuana and basically using that to support themselves in violation of federal law. But they kind of flew under the radar, but that presidency decided to take those rather harsh measures. Probably not too dissimilar to what we're currently seeing with some of the ICE reactions today. So, again, all this points to it's easy to look at the current administration and assail them for all of the activities and actions that are going on. But folks reporting this as true journalists, this is nothing new. This is nothing new.

SPEAKER_01 12:00

You need a healthy ego to say that. And so you maybe it's in the nature of such a person to push the limits. But I can't, with our 250th anniversary and declaration of independence coming up, I can't help that the founding fathers, so to speak, realize how important maybe they never envisioned what's going on in modern life currently, but modern politics currently, but certainly they saw the value of the checks and balances, the three three-part government system. And if two of the parts are relinquishing their power, that's the problem.

SPEAKER_00 12:35

Yeah. And I I don't think, though, before this current administration, even though in the in past administrations there there were figures that kind of kind of crossed the line and maybe had to be walked back over that line within their administrations. That hasn't really happened under this administration as much. And that's where things begin to differ. But the the purpose of journalism as you and I knew it coming up as the fourth estate was, yeah, to try to hold political figures and administrations accountable. Of course, today that's but we all know that the news cycle today has kind of diverted into enemy camps, if you will, which makes it very difficult for, and there are plenty of true journalists out there today, but unfortunately, I think their message is large largely being shouted over by the propagandists and the demagogues on both sides that are really just screaming for our eyeballs and to raise our blood pressure and our temperature, and unfortunately pivot or point us against our brethren who happen to be of a different political view.

SPEAKER_01 13:48

As we're shouting at one another over a reflecting pool or a ballroom, they're working out their secret cryptocurrency deals and siphoning off the cash. We have other confrontants.

SPEAKER_00 14:02

Yes. Rather concerning for sure. But again, that's why I want I underscore that some of the conduct of this current administration, while people can evaluate it and judge it one way or the other, isn't so unique. So and in reporting it that way, it doesn't make it right or wrong. It's just it isn't unique. And in the past, journalists were able to effectively report on this information to the public. But yeah, one of the things that struck me from there was a YouTube video on a couple of days ago by a Democratic congressman who was talking about Trump's first 500 years and some of the what he calls criminal activity that went on during that period. And one could argue looking at the facts that some of that may actually hold some water. But at the same time, again, it's what he what was mentioned in the story is we hear about this every day. And one of the things about reporting is or people in the news is if you say something long enough, loud enough, and long and persistent enough, people will begin to believe it, or people will begin to ignore it. And that's exactly what the Democrats, the opposition party, have been warning American citizens about for some time. And you can say that's another consideration that in addition to trying to be fair-minded in reporting, it's hard once again to shout over those voices that are just arguing with one another and not allowing the truth to come through. I think I just how I look at it. So let's look at, I guess, a third big topic of the week was the Islamabad memorandum signed on June 17th. The president called it the greatest deal in history. In fact, contrasted it to Barack Obama's rather extensive, incredibly elaborate 400 plus pages agreement and resolution that he had with Iran back during history. Trump's first, apparently, it was reported that Trump's first reaction to it was, why don't we just go in there and bomb them? That'll take care of it. And apparently that was the strategy some might say this time around as well. So this deal, as the president called it, 14 points, $300 billion committed to Iran in restitution. We'll wait and see how much of that ends up. But they've unfrozen their assets. Full sanction relief. And in the White House briefing, it says Iran has agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program. However, point nine of that actual document tells a totally different story. The status quo, folks, is highly enriched, is a highly enriched uranium stockpile that we know about. Maintaining it is not disarmament, it's proliferation. The binding obligations in this document are the $300 billion commitment and the sanctions and relief. The nuclear verification mechanism was deferred. Now you could argue, yes, the Obama administration painstakingly put into place some kind of a framework around that. Whether it was effective or not or adhered to or not, yeah, is a different story, and one can argue about that.

SPEAKER_01 17:56

So you know I can't help but note that I think back to earlier arms negotiations and that kind of thing. Why did it take John Kerry and his team so many years to work out that previous arrangement that with Horan Trump just scrapped because it's not mine, I can do better, okay?

SPEAKER_00 18:15

But again, it's just we're still waiting for his medica his medical plan as an alternative to Obamacare. It is in two weeks, two weeks or that was ten years ago. Yeah. Right.

SPEAKER_01 18:27

But it is asymmetrical, shall we say, where there are binding obligations on the United States, although Trump is known to change his position. But still, it seems like these binding obligations, whereas certainly on the part of the Iranians, it's not so binding. You think back to, I know you'd mentioned Strobe Talbot, who was involved in the SALT treaty and former journalist turned Deputy Secretary of State during the Clinton years, and said he wrote the definitive inside count of the SALT nuclear talks, a book called Endgame. And he said he kept finding a pattern in arms control that the American concessions get ridden so they are binding, and the other side's core obligations get ridden so they are aspirational. So that seemed to we seem to be in another case of that, I think.

SPEAKER_00 19:16

Yeah. No, you're right, Tom. And again, in in all fairness, the way this was resolved is not dissimilar. We've seen it before in Vietnam, right? We didn't achieve our goals by any stretch in Vietnam. We lost that war, by all accounts, and certain political parties may see it otherwise. And there are other international incursions and enforcement in Afghanistan that we can go on and on, where all of them had, in this case, all of the solution here is contingent on a final deal to be reached within 60 days, with no enforcement mechanism if that never happens. Looking at this resolution and contrasting it and comparing it to, again, some of the similar scenarios in the past, this could drag on for a very long time. And since it will no doubt leave the back the front pages of the news cycle, what that resolution is and how unfavorable it is to the United States will get likely swept under the rug. If as true journalist reporters, if this follows the pattern that has happened before in this country.

SPEAKER_01 20:31

I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly what happens, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 20:34

Yeah. So I know you you were about to talk about how this kind of asymmetry uh kind of a symmetry stroke Talbot spent a career tracking. So I know you're familiar with Talbot, who was at Time magazine, I believe.

SPEAKER_01 20:52

I think so. Yeah, yeah, no, exactly. That's I certainly remember reading about the SALT treaties for again. I guess at the time that the SALT treaties were written, it was not that many years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and so on, where people we were both pretty young at that point, but people were but living in fear of nuclear war. This is what would it mean to life on the planet? And so the fact that a resolution could be reached between the United States and the Soviet Union was very important. And we certainly see what a threat, at least in terms of bold proclamations, Iran is. So a treaty, an enforciable, effective treaty, is certainly very important. I don't know what kind of progress we're making towards achieving that.

SPEAKER_00 21:40

Yeah, I guess on a procedural basis, not a lot of progress. But so much of what we see, and again, this is not unique to the current administration, uh is uh damage control. Is getting things out of the journalism uh front page news cycle. So that they can do what they need to do to manage it at whatever timeline, whatever pace, whatever concessions they have to make, to ultimately resolve it outside of the public view.

SPEAKER_01 22:12

And yeah, that's what it's pressed press too hard on the president. I'll call him piggy or something like that. There's we were just discussing that. Yeah. Excuse me, that said what's going on behind the scenes in terms of personal enrichment and that hidden agenda is quite alarming.

SPEAKER_00 22:33

Yeah, let I'd like to talk a little bit about that New York Times book that came out. I did see an interview with Jon Stewart, who is arguably one of Trump's greatest critic critiques, although Jon Stewart is incredibly smart in the way he hides his criticism through humor. And but Stewart is known as an incredibly smart debater. He used to take apart people on Fox News when he was doing count point counterpoint back with the Bill O'Reilly era in the 90s and early 2000s, and he would more than hold his own. And of course, John Stewart was heavily involved in shaming many congressmen and senators into justly supporting the victims and the families of 9-11 with financial support. And but he did an interview with the two authors of the book, and they talked about obviously the nature of the book, and you had mentioned some of the stark elements and whatnot. I'm not going to go into the details of the book, but they did say that to your point, yeah, it's open season on female journalists inside the Washington press rooms, Pentagon press rooms, and whatnot. And it kind of came up at a discussion I had earlier in the week, actually at Michelle's documentary film fundraiser. And you know, that CNN's correspondent, Caitlin, you I forget her last name, but we know it's just name Caitlin Collins, is really the only one that that stands up, but unfortunately she stands alone. In the past, I know other news people have written that if especially a female reporter had asked a difficult question and got an answer or a reaction that was disrespectful for whatever the public figure was, another another reporter would step in right away and ask a follow-up question as a show of support. But that just doesn't happen anymore. So when Caitlin Collins asks a question like that, she's largely on her own. And I'm certain now that uh I shouldn't say this, but I I hope her job is secure, but I question it because of the obviously acquisition by the Illison Empire of the parent company of CNN. And since we already know that this administration has singled out, heck, not just journalists, but late-night comedians to have them removed from the networks. And it's interesting that we live in a time where late-night comedians are basically addressed on the same level as journalists. Either late-night comedians have leveled up their game to the point where the comparison to being to a journalist is somewhat valid in the way they prepare and the way that they execute their jokes, which show a high level of understanding of the news and of the particulars and of the personalities. What does that say in a society where and I remember during when Jon Stewart was on the Daily Show, how many people said, That's where I get my news from? Yes. And I'm like, really?

SPEAKER_01 26:01

You can because he's sucking it to get tolerizing here, but I'll just go for it anyway. There's a million millions of people who wear red baseball caps who enjoy getting their news from entertainers. I think you know the network I'm talking about. There's a big lawsuit, not exactly that, not that long ago, right? It's helpful. But sometimes people are entertainers and a good place to find your next Secretary of Defense. So it's yeah, absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 26:30

It's a good employment ground for filling the White House. Okay. Why don't we move on to our last segment?

SPEAKER_01 26:38

Speaking of entertainers, and I do appreciate colorful people. I worked for Charles Caralt for many years. Yes. Colorful exemphic people. So here is the top story of the week, as far as I'm concerned, that Greg Phelps was let go. You might say, I don't know who Greg Phelps is, that he was a high-ranking FEMA official who claimed that he was teleported by aliens to a Buffalo House. I don't know if you remember that. Unfortunately. He was ousted just a couple days ago. So you know what?

SPEAKER_00 27:06

If he had said Denny's, he might have gotten away with it. It's decline.

SPEAKER_01 27:11

He was my favorite Trump administration official, but anyway, but good. Go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt, but I just had to throw that in.

SPEAKER_00 27:18

What about the mattress guy?

SPEAKER_01 27:19

I think he's been on Mr. Lindell. Oh Mr.

SPEAKER_00 27:23

Lindell, yeah, he's been on as a guest contributor on a few perks.

SPEAKER_01 27:28

In one of the many interviews that Maggie Haberman with Jonathan Swann were doing to promote this book, they'd said it's interesting. You're in there in the local office, and people keep coming in. Wrestler and somebody with stone samples for paving over the rose garden. We're having a classified high-level discussion here, briefing the president about top-level stuff. And on these somebody said it's like the Marx Brothers or something like that.

SPEAKER_00 27:54

Duck soup. That kind of one of the characteristics of President Trump is they call him what the chaos president.

SPEAKER_01 28:03

So he don't like that even going back 10 years would have like enjoyed pitting people against one another.

SPEAKER_00 28:08

But he and he enjoys not having a script to go by and talking off the cup, which is what Maggie Haberman wrote in her in her book was uh the press conferences are not conducted like any other prior administration. We've weaving like bringing in extremists. Yeah, they weave in and out. The president usually commandeers and talks for long moments, completely irrelevant to the question.

SPEAKER_01 28:34

I don't know, not to I've been going off on all kinds of tangents today. I apologize, but a few months ago, when he was speaking at the West Point commencement exercises, he was talking about another developer and his trophy wife. I'm sitting there thinking, these are young men and women who are ready to lay their lives on the line for our nation. And they have to be respectful of the praise like when Pete Heggseth called all the generals into the briefing room of the Pentagon, and they had to really just listen to what he's like. We're asking a lot of these people to just tolerate. Uh-oh.

SPEAKER_00 29:08

Yeah, it's it must be tough if you are in a position where you're not affiliated with a party, but a longtime government employee or someone in the armed services who are loyal to this country and to this constitution, and find yourself in ticklish situations. I'll leave it at that. It's a bit of a challenge. So, all right. We conclude with our rapid fire news segment of the five biggest stories of the week, where there were some divergence on how it was reported. We've already talked about the Senate war powers reversal. Senate GOP leadership characterized this as the senators corrected their votes after clarification, which is unusual because usually all the time to ask the questions for clarification take place before the vote. So to claim that there were additional questions or additional clarification needed is a little bit circumspect given the procedure of how things worry. But I think the underlying word there is clarification. Who did the clarifying and how, shall we say, enforceable or aggressive was that clarification statement? And again, we all know that, we all know the details, the reversal, not to get into that again. When the Supreme Court, however, ended the TPS, as you reported earlier, for Haitians and Serums, Syrians, barring judicial review, it was characterized by the administration as the administration is simply enforcing the current law. That's what the White House reported just yesterday. And in Mullen versus Doe, you had reported that Justice Alito Rupped that the statute bars courts from reviewing their decision, in this case for the temporary protective status for these two peoples. The sharper point is that the courts remove themselves for even checking whether or not the law was followed, which you alluded to, by sidestepping even being able to look at it. There's no enforcement, if in any way, shape, or form that the law is ignored. That's the bigger story that SCOTIS decided to, as you reported, to sidestep this, which is that'll be something that we can report back on for next time.

SPEAKER_01 31:38

Just throw this in if you don't mind. It reminds me of the wasn't there some sort of arrangement or signed agreement with the IRS that they would not investigate the Trump family for any reason proactive. So the Supreme Court is not only of the majority. I'll give Justice Katanji Brown Jackson credit for saying what's going on here. This is outrageous, but certainly the majority, not only are they kind of rubber stamping many of the president's decisions, but in this particular case, they said the role of judicial review shall not be exercised no matter what happens. And that's rather, like I said, disturbed.

SPEAKER_00 32:15

Yeah. And it was one one thing on the news this week that I don't know if it reached many, but the Supreme Court voted six to three to not prosecute Monsanto or Dow, now owned by the German company Bayer, from any of the explicit deaths and ill effects of the product roundup, which has been unilaterally banned in certain countries around the world. It's been proven to cause cancer. This is not hearsay. And yet the Supreme Court, and to be perfectly transparent, for 20 years, Clarence Thomas was the lead counsel for Monsanto.

SPEAKER_01 32:54

Wow.

SPEAKER_00 32:55

Folks draw your own conclusions. But that's unfortunate because I think we've reported earlier how, and then also at the same time, the administration last this happened last year, eradicated laws that required poultry companies to have minimum standards and tolerances for salmonella. So that's all gone away. So these are things happening that are actually potentially harmful to Americans. And how can that be perceived as a government representing its people? Who are the organizations that benefit benefit? Of course, Tyson and Purdue, the billionaire, billionaire billion-dollar food companies.

SPEAKER_01 33:41

God we have watchdog health regulators like RFK Jr.

SPEAKER_00 33:45

or I guess I heard that he was against vaccines on chickens. So maybe that's part of the new ruling.

SPEAKER_01 33:55

I had missed the Monsanto store. I appreciate hearing that. I had not heard that one actually.

SPEAKER_00 33:59

Yeah, it quietly hit the uh the airwaves this week. And it's unfortunate. It's it's I think it's a part of our history that has not gone well. And certainly public health and food is a if our food is unhealthy, what the heck are we doing eating it?

SPEAKER_01 34:20

And going back to the Maggie Haberman book, I think she said that there are people in the Oval Office. I don't know if it's called wagering or you know, shares or whatever, like speculating when is the war gonna end. I bet some serious money was put down on Monsanto around before that decision. If they have a pot line to Clarence Thomas's office, I'm calculated.

SPEAKER_00 34:39

And I saw, I don't recall the name, circulating around Instagram was, and I actually saw this on a TV T one of those police shows of a website that takes bets on predictive outcomes of certain things, not like the lottery, not like sports, but like predicted outcomes. To your point, you could have gotten in on you could have wagered a debt on whether the Supreme Court would have voted for or against Monsanto in this case, and there were odds against that, and you could have made money off of it. That's where we are right now in space. It's crazy. All right, let's wrap up with we talked about the the expedited deportations, clearing nationwide without hearings. Again, the rule enforces existing immigration law according to the DHS. A two to one appeals court cleared nationwide expedited removal. That means residents unable to prove two continuous years of U.S. residence can be deported without an administrative judge. Terrible. And NPR and CNN both responded to that, saying it is an error-prone system with no due process. Just shocking. And then finally, the big beautiful bill cuts take effect. Three and a half million people lose food stamps. What is the administration says? Reform strengthened snapped by ensuring it reaches those who truly need it. What analysis can justify that? CNBC analysis is at least three and a half million Americans who've already lost SNAP access, the largest food stamp cut in US history. CBO predicts projects 13.1 million losing Medicaid coverage by 2035. And we've talked about a trillion dollar in Medicaid cuts and how that in particular will hurt people with disabilities, people with autism, people with any kind of neurodivergent capabilities. Yeah, it is just it is just difficult to read this in the news day after day. Alrighty. This week a Senate that made history, as we reported on Tuesday, reversing its course on Wednesday, a Supreme Court that placed the words virtually unrestrained beside presidential power without apparent irony, and a deal called the greatest in history that commits $300 billion in restoration to Iran and still preserves its nuclear stockpile. When every guardrail is made of paper, the next strong wind tells you everything. Exactly. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 37:31

Legacy is not built on a 24-hour vote, that kind of flip-flop we're talking about. It is built on whether the institutions designed to hold power accountable are actually capable of doing it. And what the War Powers Resolution reversal showed at this, I believe, is that two phone calls can undo the most historically significant congressional vote in a generation. So if you are not reading the documents yourself, the actual text, not the press release, you're not watching the news. You're watching its absence. And that's increased concern that we talk about all the time.

SPEAKER_00 38:07

Yeah. So, folks, run the binding test, find the Islamabad memorandum, read it, and especially read point nine and compare it to what the administration declared. The gap is the story. Build your foundation on reality. Do the work, and we'll see you on the next wire. See you next time. Thank you. Good night, and good luck. We'll see you next week. Thanks, Tom. Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 38:39

All right. Good. That was good. Appreciate it.