Trump Administration Predictions (5 Viewers)

[Pat Hartman]

Courts are the final interpreters of how far presidential power goes under IEEPA and that’s why it still needs review.

Then the law is poorly crafted which means that the President gets to use the emergency powers given to him by Congress.

 

[moke123]

Elon Musk allegedly took large amounts of drugs including ketamine while advising Trump – report

Doge head was at times dosing himself daily, along with ecstasy and psychedelic mushroom use, according to NYT

www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk's 'Intense' Drug Use Detailed in Bombshell New Report: Ecstasy, Mushrooms and Ketamine That Led to Bladder Issues

Elon Musk allegedly abused ketamine to the point that it damaged his bladder, according to a new report from The New York Times. The 53-year-old tech billionaire is also reported to have been using mushrooms, ecstasy and Adderall around the time that he began teaming up with Donald Trump in...

people.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

You probably don't remember the rags in the checkout aisle at the supermarket. They were salacious reading while you waited. Not sure if anyone actually paid for them. You might have to go through the checkout a few times to read an entire article Or just look for the longest line rather than the shortest one. The Guardian was one of the worst.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The left complaining about drug use is ironic at best, I thought they wanted to decriminalize drugs?

 

[Pat Hartman]

The left complaining about drug use is ironic at best,

Nobody cared at all about the drugs left in the cubby outside the oval or wherever it was in the White House. They probably didn't care because it was almost certainly Hunter's and they were never going to prosecute him so it was best for the FBI to simply look incompetent, which they seem to be very good at these days. How the mighty have fallen.

 

[Isaac]

Even though marijuana is legalized here (Ca). It's done nothing to the illegal marijuana trade, because people still don't want to pay taxes. When you involve the government in illicit trade it rarely works i.e. prohibition.

I would disagree with that. I think it's done a lot to the marijuana illegal trade. The cartels are now focusing on fentanyl and meth. For the most part.

Marijuana is legal here too, so nobody's buying it illegally because why in the world would they? You can walk into any marijuana store with your driver's license and 20 bucks and get gummies, why in the world would you go to an undercover drug dealer??

 

[Isaac]

Price wins. As long as the cartels are willing to undercut the legal outlets, they retain enough of the market to be dangerous

I think that's an enormously huge stretch. You can walk into any marijuana store here in Arizona with your driver's license and a $20 bill and get plenty of gummies. It's incredibly cheap. The idea that the cartels can still thrive because they sell it for a few pennies less I think is just totally not true

If it were true then you would see the cartels selling everything from toasters to dishwashers

 

[AccessBlaster]

Marijuana is legal here too, so nobody's buying it illegally because why in the world would they?

Because it's more expensive when the governments regulations kick in.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The cartels don't sell gummies so I guess you need to go to the government store to buy them. Drugs never had any appeal to me. I don't feel the need to have out of body experiences apparently. Marijuana just makes me dopy and has no appeal. I have friends who use it and they buy from dealers rather than legal outlets.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I do agree with you on the cartel point, but I think you might be surprised on how much marijuana is grown illegally right here.

The cartels don't sell gummies so I guess you need to go to the government store to buy them.

You read my mind.

 

[Steve R.]

Congress did not delegate tariff powers to the President under IEEPA. Read the law.

As I've previously remarked, simply reading the law does not give one a true understanding of it being applied correctly.

Mark Levin tonight just provided a very compelling argument that the United States Court of International Trade (Court) did not have the authority to make a decision concerning this tariff case. (Starts at about the 7 minute mark in the video below.) The reason, Congress is not contesting the issue of the president's limits on this issue. Since Congress is not complaining (as the injured party) that their legislative power is being usurped, the plaintiffs have no standing before the Court. The Court should have referred the plaintiffs to Congress for resolution. One can say that his is another example of anti-Trump judicial tyranny.

Mark Levin: Judicial tyranny is not what makes a republic | Fox News Video

Fox News host Mark Levin breaks down how the courts can and can't make decisions on President Donald Trump's tariffs on 'Life, Liberty & Levin.'

www.foxnews.com

Response by Grok:

Yes, both Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley have commented on the U.S. Court of International Trade's ruling that some of President Donald Trump's tariff proposals were unconstitutional.
Alan Dershowitz's Comments: a Harvard Law professor, criticized Democratic state attorneys general for suing the Trump administration over its tariff agenda, arguing that their legal challenge was weak. In an appearance on Newsmax’s “The Record with Greta Van Susteren” on April 24, 2025, he stated that the plaintiffs, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, lacked the necessary legal standing under Article III of the Constitution, which requires actual cases and controversies. He argued that tariffs inherently benefit some and harm others, and economic disruption alone does not grant standing. Dershowitz called the lawsuit “so far-fetched” that it bordered on laughable, suggesting that only specific individuals directly harmed by the tariffs (e.g., someone unable to sell products competitively) might have standing, but even then, the case was a stretch. He noted Trump’s campaign promises to impose tariffs, implying electoral support bolstered their legitimacy.

Jonathan Turley’s Comments: Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, discussed the legal battle over Trump’s tariffs on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle.” On May 29, 2025, following the U.S. Court of International Trade’s ruling that Trump overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Turley commented on the broader implications. He highlighted the ruling as a significant setback for Trump’s trade policy, noting that the court found the tariffs unconstitutional due to an improper delegation of legislative power. Turley also referenced Trump’s social media response on Truth Social, where the former president criticized the court’s decision and expressed hope for a Supreme Court reversal. Turley’s analysis focused on the legal and constitutional arguments, particularly the nondelegation and major questions doctrines, which the court used to argue that unlimited tariff authority would be an improper abdication of Congress’s power.
Both scholars engaged with the constitutional dimensions of the ruling, with Dershowitz focusing on the issue of standing and dismissing the plaintiffs’ case, while Turley emphasized the court’s reasoning and its potential impact on Trump’s trade agenda.