Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hudson Valley This Morning with Ed Kowalski is the new
voice in the Hudson Valley.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Hi, this is Ed.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
I am so grateful for the support you've already given us.
We are creating a platform that gives you our listeners
of voice. Together we can build the best local community
talk program in the Hudson Valley.
Speaker 4 (00:20):
Sanaa Rasconson Money Sisconsin.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
And when our listeners hear that music, it's time to
welcome back to the WKIP microphones. Jesse vasque Islama's calling
from Washington, DC or parts their unknown Jesse, welcome back.
Speaker 5 (00:48):
Oh, thank you so much, Ed, And you know, the
metrics don't lie. I think this segment now has become
the most popular segment all of I think Hudson Valley
Radio and I think the Atlantic Northeast.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
I think you're one hundred percent correct, and that will
be absolutely confirmed by the Nielsen ratings that come out
in March, Jess, so we'll make sure you're included in
those absolutely.
Speaker 5 (01:07):
So again as usual, you're welcome. And again, you know,
just it's a heavy burden eye carry being the most
accurate commentator in all of politics, indeed, but I do
it for you and the beautiful, insanely intelligent people of
the Hudson Valley.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Wow, I don't know if he's running for political office
or if he's just a very skilled attorney. Holy cow, Jess.
I wanted to do a little bit something differently, because
I mean, you have been very very good to us
and our listeners in the Hudson Valley specific to the
predictions that you've made, and you're batting a thousand on all.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Of them so far.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Specific to the election results, specific to the nomination process,
and we'll talk a little bit about that, but I
wanted to just sort of do a little bit something
differently with you today, and that's really being able to
talk about what we have now seen in I guess
the first seventy two hours of the Trumpet administration. I
can't imagine what the one hundred day mark is going
to look like. But one of the things that is
(02:02):
now absolutely that I've been following with real strong interest
is the fact that as of Tuesday, I think twenty
two Democratic state attorneys attorneys general have sued the Trump
administration over its executive order titled Protecting the Meaning and
Value of American Citizenship. And of course that's the birthright
(02:23):
that's denying the that's the executive order that denied birthright citizenship.
And and you know, it's going to come down to
a conversation that I want to be able to have
with you specific to the fourteenth Amendment. And I know
this is sort of dry, and I want to try
to break it down for our listeners as best as
we can specific to what the fourteenth Amendment is. And
(02:46):
really what is really going to come down to is
the the the phrases, the the or the or the
the sentence in the fourteenth Amendment that says but not
subject to the jurisdiction thereof What are your thoughts on this?
One constitutional scholar of Jesse Vasquo islamis absolutely.
Speaker 5 (03:07):
Well who says that the fourteenth Amendment can't be fun.
I mean in a lot of I don't think just
your audience that you know aren't really well versed in
constitutional law. There is no amendment in the Constitution that
has been more litigated, that has been more subject to
just entire books of cases than the fourteenth Amendment. And
(03:28):
the fourteenmen was really drafted kind of enacted after the
Civil War, and it was for a couple of different reasons.
One was to grant citizenship to essentially all of the
slaves and people that had come over that were essentially
denied citizenship under dred Scott basically said they would never
be able to be a citizen. So they codified that
in the fourteenth Amendment, which is going to be a
(03:50):
relevant section that I guess we talked about today, but
I mean there are several more clauses to it. I mean,
they were essentially also trying to incorporate the Bill of
Rights to the states, because in the original Bill of Rights,
the you know, it only applied to the federal government.
It didn't apply to the states, right, So they were
trying to kind of incorporate that to the the you know,
(04:12):
first ten Amendments to the rest of the states. And
through some subsequent interesting rulings, notably the Slaughterhouse cases, that
became much more difficult and it has essentially been a
piecemeal litigation slog to actually get the amendments incorporated the states.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
And it begins again, the fourteenth Amendment begins, all persons
born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
What does that mean to.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
You, jess as you as you, as you, as you
parse that that that sentence, well.
Speaker 5 (04:49):
That's really the magic question. And you know it's it's funny.
I am a card carrying member of the Federal Society,
which is, you know, the largest conservative, libertarian leaning kind
of legal group in the country, and even within that group,
there are wildly desperate interpretations of that. I mean, there
(05:09):
is not one set. And by the way, that's why
I think that this is that Trump's executive order is
going to have a hard time getting through the Supreme
Court and being upheld, is because even the conservatives on
the Court probably differ into how they view that right.
And like you said, I mean, it really comes down
to that specific phrase of uh, you know, right after
that phrase where it says all persons born or naturalised
(05:30):
in the United States and then comma and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, which means that it's it's there are
two elements too. You got to be born or naturalized
in the United States and you have to be someone
who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
And by the way, let me just stop you here,
because because that's that's getting right to the heart of that.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
The follow up question.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Is, in the case of someone who's born in the
US and one where both of their parents are here illegally, Okay,
does that subject them? Does that meet that definition?
Speaker 5 (06:00):
Well, I mean, the way that we have treated it
up until this point, the answer has been yes. That basically,
there's a legal doctrine called the juice so lei, which
basically means by right of soil, which means that as
long as you were born on the soil of the
United States, you were granted citizenship. Trump's executive order, uh,
you know, in the in the actual bodies the executive order,
(06:22):
he lays out specifically that this is an incorrect interpretation
that it was never meant to include. Like you said,
for example, situations where you know, be the mother and
the father are neither legal or not or not in
the country legally, but the child just happens to be
born within the boundaries of the United States, and there
are some kind of you mean, and the hypotheticals to
(06:44):
be played out, especially when they do oral arguments on this.
You know, for example, if you know, somebody has a
layover in California and happens to give birth, you know
it does that child automatically just become a citizen in
the United States? There is you know, there could We
could have an entire, you know, three hour conversation about this.
It's an incredibly dense topic. What I will say is
(07:05):
that I at the at the moment, I'm not gonna
issue any predictions because obviously my predictions are sacrisance. I
don't issue those unless i'm I'm I'm until I'm ready to.
I may end up doing one from this, but not yet.
But I will say that because even conservatives are fairly
split on this question, I'm not I'm not optimistic for
(07:26):
for Trump that he this executive order will be upheld.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Yeah, you know what, Jess, I have to tell you something.
I am as of right now, I am agreeing with you.
I am agreeing with you on this one. And I
could see this going down as a as a five
to four split, or may even go if if because
it is going to the Supreme Court, this might be
a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Anyway in terms of striking it down. You know what
I mean.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Let lets let me, let me, let me, let me
pretend I'm wearing a black robe and I'm sitting on
the on the Supreme Court bench, which will never happen
because if you read my high school year book comments,
that would absolutely be a disqualifier.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
But but but to.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Your mind, if you're arguing in front of the Supreme
Court and the justice asks you, does all persons born
in the United States mean all persons born in the
United States?
Speaker 2 (08:13):
How would you answer that question?
Speaker 5 (08:15):
Well, I would say that at least, you know, one
thing that you can't separate from it is story decisis,
and we have a bevyous case law on this, and
the case law in this case would not be on
Trump side. Now, that's not always a deciding factor. Obviously
Roby Wade got overturned. So this core, at least in
its current makeup, doesn't seem to be you know, it
doesn't view story decises as something that's completely uh, you know,
(08:39):
barring any attempt to reinterpret maybe originally misconstrued understanding of
the Constitution. But I would argue that at least under
our current framework and the cases that have gone before
that it seems that it has always been interpreted to
be this. This the the doctor of Jisuli, basically that
(09:02):
anyone born within the border United as a citizen that
that seems to be the law of land.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Yeah, and again, going one step further, can you redefine
who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
and say, attorney, you've asked quest, can you say that
someone born in the United States to a person here
without legal status is not subject to the jurisdiction?
Speaker 5 (09:25):
Oh, I mean you can definitely make that case. And yeah,
I mean, I again, you know, and I mean, I'm
sure that people are listening to me at this point
and may actually want to bring me onto this case
and have the argue in Springforts, So I don't want to.
I don't want to spoil what I would argue in
case I end up having, you know, being.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Called to that tack exactly.
Speaker 5 (09:43):
Yeah. But but yeah, no, that case can definitely be
made there. And it's you know, it's not an insane
case to make. I mean, we literally, you know, at
Fellal Society, you know, we have debates all the time,
and we cont and this is one question that is
commonly debated across law schools and seminars. And this is
not a complete slam dunk one way or the other.
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Yeah, no question, And you're hundred percent right. Courts have
already reviewed this and have absolutely, through the doctrine of
story decisis, have very clearly said that people born here.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Going back to the eighteen nineties.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
The Supreme Court has reviewed this and say people born here.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Are subject to that amendment.
Speaker 5 (10:23):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Interesting, interesting, Well, I got to tell you something, JVL
and DC, this is actually this very well might rise
to your doing a video on this one because it's
a fascinating conversation and while it's a very dry topic,
I mean, this is certainly going to be I think
the first battle of the new administration that I think
is going to go all the way.
Speaker 5 (10:45):
I definitely agree with you, And it's funny that you
mentioned that because actually I have a new video coming
out later tonight and it's actually all about the executive
order that Trump is issued on is basically first couple
of days in office. And I do mentioned that this
topic was so broad that it was probably going to
deserve its own video, So that will be coming down
the pike at at some point as well.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I think what you need to be able to do, Jess,
when you do film it, I think you really need
to be able to get black judicial robes.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
As you're doing it on just as a just as
a production.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Value, to be able to give the the gravitas of
what your videos are.
Speaker 5 (11:16):
Oh, I'm right there, but I think I'm probably just
gonna go ahead and start, you know, go to the
Supreme Court one day and just film it there and
you know, we'll see if I got thrown out. I
got thrown out. But you know, it's what the people want.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
It's what the people want. Jesse.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
I'm going to ask you to hold through a quick
break because there's a number of other things that I
want to be able to talk to you about. And
I you know I did if you were listening to
the show earlier. I did a segment on some of
the things that Trump is continuing to do, certainly is
crypto coins and so on and so forth. And I
want to talk a little bit about you know, you know,
(11:49):
you know, you know, is Trump still being the Trump
that we know and is that going to be problematic
for him? So if you could stick around, I'd like
to be able to have that kind of conversation with you. Well,
you're listening to Hudson Valley this morning with Ed Kawalsky.
We will be right back with jv L and DC.
Jesse Vasquez Lamas will be right back Saisconsin Money.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Asconsin Money.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
We are rejoined by Jesse Vasquez Lamas to talk.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
About all things.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
We're gonna We're gonna again stick on the topic of
the Constitution for half a second because I wanted to
sort of introduce this next segment by talking about something
that's in the Constitution called the take Care Clause. And ultimately,
at the end of the day, what that means is
that all presidents have a constitutional duty to take care
(12:50):
that the laws be faithfully executed. And I think the
question that I want to pose to young mister Vasquez
here esquire, is that does President Trump is he following
Joe Biden's lead by flouting the law? And I'm talking
a little bit about the fact that you know, the
president now, as everyone knows, you know, he delayed the
(13:13):
a he banned, He's suspended for seventy five days all
enforcement of the new law which banned TikTok in the
United States.
Speaker 5 (13:21):
You know.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Meanwhile, a lot of his nominees have have have gone
on record to suggest he can reduce regulatory burdens and
limit government spending by suspending regulatory enforcement and impounding or
refusing to spend funds that have been appropriated already by Congress. Jess,
what are your thoughts on this?
Speaker 5 (13:43):
Yeah, you know, it's not anything that's really new. This
is something that's been going on the trend that really
started with FDR. I mean, FDR you know, issued something
like thirty seven hundred executive order. Put in perspective, how
many of that is. That's more than President Kennedy through
Trump two point zero combined.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
And WESDR was also in the FR was in the
White House what for thirteen years though too.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
So you're right, I mean so.
Speaker 5 (14:07):
Right, But so I mean we're talking, you know, I
think each each president, I mean I think Obama only
had a couple hundred, I mean like three hundred or
something like that. But so, I mean he but yeah,
unfortunately we have you know. Then I think we talked
about this either last time or one of our previous
times that came on about you know, one of the
real biggest issue we have right now as far as
(14:28):
the way our government functions, is that Congress doesn't really
want to do its job. It wants it wants the
executive branch and the judiciary to do their jobs for them, yes,
and wants want to judiciary to declare certain things rights
so that way converses don't have to legislate it. And
it wants the president to basically take on and you know,
through executive order do its job and either you know,
(14:50):
whether it's the power of the perth, whether it's through
legislating through you know, these agencies, especially through the you
know now recently ended Chevron doctrine. But uh yeah, you
know this, I I do worry about this kind of
extension of the you know, the take care clause and
the vesting clause, which is the other relative provision related
(15:11):
to executive orders, where the president kind of is just
you know, you can just decide which laws he wants
to enforce and not enforce. And this was going on
with Biden and Obama specifically when it came to and
really Trump as well, when it came to regulation of
marijuana in recent years and up until right up until recently,
(15:32):
Biden just moves it down from a Schedule one controlled substance.
But you know, under Trump and and Obama marijuana was
was still a Schedule one drug, yet neither was really
enforcing it. That way, and they were essentially letting the
states kind of do whatever they wanted with it.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
You know, and and you know, the point that you
make really can't be can't be re emphasized enough. I mean,
do we really want our presidents to follow all the
laws faithfully or only the ones that they like? And
and and are we really now? Because the point that
you made that again was brilliant, Jesse, in terms of,
you know, the Congress is not doing their job. You know,
the Senate's not doing their job. And ultimately what you
(16:10):
end up having is you have I have a pen
and a phone type of thing taking taking that shape,
and that's what that and that's what Trump is doing
as long as well as all of those other predecessors.
It's sort of a scary thing to be thinking of
government by executive water.
Speaker 5 (16:25):
Right, Yeah, And it's it's been a very bad trend
and it's one that I unfortunately don't see getting much better.
I mean, maybe under this new Congress hopefully they'll surprise me.
But you know, this, this issue with Congress really has
transcendent parties, and it just seems to be we're electing
a lot of members of Congress who just seem to
not want They don't want the blowback of having to
(16:46):
go back to their home districts and have do to
explain how they voted certain ways. They'd rather the president
do it. And the president is alway going to take
the heat anyway for anything, So it helps lessen the
brand that they have, and it's it's creating massive imbalances
that are you know, our founder and you know, our
Constitution never anticipated because we you know, really I think
what people seem to you know, the Constitution is really
(17:09):
an incredible document. But it's not just because of the
Bill of Rights and because of the guarantees made in it.
It's also because of the separation of power, right and
the way you know, that's what really made it a
different you know, the Civic Union had a great, you
know Bill of Rights that was as expanded, it's not
more expansive than ours, but it just wasn't worth the
paper that it was written on because you just still
had one guy who could decide what everything, you know,
(17:30):
while everything was going to be done. So we really
need to get back to respecting kind of the separation
of powers. These things get really bad if we don't.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Right, there's no question.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
There's no question just when we I'm going to ask
you to hold through the seven point thirty break, but
I do want to come back and I want to
talk about President Trump, crypto billionaire, and some of the
things that I think can be potentially and are problematic
for him, specifically in terms of what he's done in
terms of issuing the the the Trump crypto coins, the
(18:03):
Millennia crypto coins, and I want to speak to you
about what that means in terms of the regulatory nightmare
for the incoming SEC chief Paul Atkins, who is a big,
big fan of cryptocurrency, but now he's put himself in
a box. I think by being able to say any
regulatory changes, anything that he wants to do from crypto
could basically be interpreted as affecting his boss in terms of,
(18:28):
you know, Donald Trump, crypto billionaire. So let's talk about
that when we come back after the seven thirty break,
just to be able to sort of tee that up,
you know. And like I said, if tokens, probably if
prices drop on the Trump crypto coins, you know, buyers
who lose money could argue basically that Trump failed to
make required securities disclosures about risks. So it's a very
(18:50):
interesting thing and it's certainly something I think we need
to be concerned about and talk about. We will be
right back with Jesse Vasquez from Washington, d C. Stick around, folks, ice,
guns and money. We are rejoined by a very patient
Jesse Vasquezlamas who hung through break. Jesse, thanks again for
(19:11):
holding through break. And before we leave the issue with
perthright citizenship and talk about Donald Trump, crypto billionaire for
a minute, do you think that you're going to end
up seeing perhaps a constitutional amendment on this issue? Do
you think do you think you can actually get to
that level where where where where we try to finally
address it through an amendment.
Speaker 5 (19:31):
I would not be optimistic about that. The process of
getting amendment through is so insanely difficult. You basically need
two thirds of Congress and you need the two thirds
of the states to ratify right. So I would not
hold my breath on that happening. I think, you know, well,
it's not impossible that he could. You know that this
(19:51):
could end up going through the Supreme Court and the
executive order gets upeld and we just have a totally
new president. But I think that that that is more
likely to me than and them getting pased.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
I mean, at this point, no, I get it, I
get it, I get it. Jesse.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Let's talk a little bit about you know, President Trump,
who sometimes has been guilty of not always separating his
personal interest from his public obligations. And I wanted to
talk a little bit about the crypto coins that he's issuing.
You know that, you know, in addition to the Trump watches,
(20:25):
the Trump sneakers, Trump you know, Trump is Trump that
and there's a little bit of you know, from my perspective,
there's a little bit of a pt Barnum approach to that.
And I don't want to be accused of being able
to be heavy handed with the president. But but if
you look at the situation now specific to the the
the crypto coins that he's actually announced the sale of,
(20:49):
you know, Trump crypto tokens, it's time to celebrate everything
we stand for winning. You know, Milania Trump to be
debuting her own coin last Sunday.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Step right up.
Speaker 3 (20:59):
You can lose betting on Trump, but what but what
happens when people end up losing money on that? And
as I said, you know, his appointment of Paul Atkins
to run the SEC who has always been from his perspective,
from a career perspective, and crypto friendly long before his nomination.
But I mean, are his hands now tied? And what
(21:20):
are your thoughts in terms of the president doing this well?
Speaker 5 (21:24):
I mean, first of all, it's not you know, not
surprising in the leaf that that Trump would get involved
in the crypto space, Like you said, I mean, he's
a branding, you know, just wiz. I mean, whether it's
the Trump Stakes or Trump nutcrackers or Trump whatever.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
I mean, he's literally Trump wind.
Speaker 3 (21:40):
Don't listen, don't don't forget Trump wine because I mean,
you know the value of the Trump wine was that
it's always good when you're going over to people's house
for Thanksgiving. You know, you don't want to discuss politics,
you just throw a couple bottles of Trump wine.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
On the table.
Speaker 5 (21:54):
Absolutely the best, the best wine. But but no, you know,
there's actually interesting question there when you were talking about
how you know, whether this kind of could impute some
liability on him, and you know, it really actually kind
of called into a question an earlier issue, which was
the presidential immunity and how whether this you know, his
involvement with these these crypto currencies and he coined or
(22:16):
would be considered official acts that the president would be
immune from. It's it's kind of an interesting question. I
don't really I haven't given it much spot and I
don't really have an answer for it, but that is
definitely something to look look at. I think what you're
seeing with him right now is I think he and
his family are are They're in a very sweet spot
where there's still not a ton of regulation of crypto
(22:37):
at the moment, and the new regulations that are going
to come are going to come through him, so he
gets to write them. They basically are going to get
to oversee them. So I think they're just trying to
take advantage of this kind of sweet spot right now
in the market. I what I am, you know, as
much as I am a young guy, I still have
(22:58):
a very healthy amount of skepticism a lot of stuff
in the crypto space. I think there are certain things
that are I can I can be sold on the
value of things like bitcoin and ethereum, but some of
these mean coin things that I still struggle with. So,
you know, does it worry me that we could, you know,
be creating some sort of us crypto strategic reserve that'll
(23:22):
be full of Trump mean coins that will crash and
you know a couple of years. Yeah, it's concerning, but
I don't know, you know, there's still so much unknown
with what is going to end up happening with crypto. Uh,
and then you know, the next six months and months
less the next you know, two to four years.
Speaker 3 (23:39):
But but but you're right, and and I agree with
you because if people were to ask me to bet
a mortgage payment on me being able to put a
PowerPoint presentation on crypto, I couldn't do it. I just
couldn't understand. I think Jenny, my daughter, understands it better
than I do.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
But I don't.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
I don't get it at all. But I'm talking a
little bit about the whole issue of you know, Trump
stamped tumblers at forty two dollars, a set pickleball paddles
at one hundred and eighty dollars. I mean, I mean you,
I mean the Trump nutcrackers that that are out there.
I mean, you've seen all of these things, and there's
a part that makes me chuckle. And I would be
(24:14):
lying to you if I told you I didn't buy
some of it. Because I have only because I think
it's funny. But it comes to the point where I'm
almost like, gosh, are we gonna is this gonna be?
I mean, look, you're right, I mean he I mean, look,
his family right now is and just going back to
the crypto thing, the crypto vehicles right now that are
(24:34):
currently out there, the Trump Organization and Trump Organization affiliates
hold eighty percent of the Trump Crypto War Trump crypto coins,
and as of last Wednesday, just that was that was
valued at thirty one point four billion dollars.
Speaker 5 (24:50):
Right, And it's hard to you know, how do they
even describe that amount of value to that? It's you know,
you're abscribe value attention to the brand. But what what
makes that you know, one meme coin and more inherently valuable,
valuable than the other. I've heard a good answer to
that question.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
But yeah, but I'm not even talking about the whole
value of crypto coins. I'm talking about the president being
able to just sort of market this stuff. That's the
thing that I'm concerned about.
Speaker 5 (25:16):
Yeah, I mean, it's it's concerning, But look, I mean
that's just what he's gonna do. I mean, you're talking
about the guy that you know you release the release
a series of Trump NFTs that you know they sold
and made him millions of dollars in a handful of seconds.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
You know, yeah, I get it, I get it. Jesse.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
Let's hold, I'm going to put you through just another
quick break so we can have a little bit more
of time on on the going up to the eight
o'clock hour, if you can just stick around, because this
conversation a lot of listener feedback coming in saying, boy
that Jesse Vasquez is a smart guy. So I mean,
you're so your your your voice is resonating through the
Hudson Valley this morning.
Speaker 5 (25:50):
Jack again, the brilliant people of Hudson Valley.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
Thank you very much for sticking around. Lawyers, guns and money.
We'll be right back.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
We are rejoined by our favorite attorney, a bat out
of hell from Washington, d C. Jesse Vasquez, Lamas, Jesse,
thanks for sticking around.
Speaker 5 (26:11):
No again, all of the pleasure to stick around for
the brilliant, the insanely intelligent, and beautiful people of Hudson Valley.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
Thank you, Jess, and the fans are loving you here.
I just got another email from somebody who I'm not
going to name, but is Jesse single, So I mean
maybe we're gonna have to do a do win a
date with Jesse Vasquez Lamas contest here on wk IP. Jeff,
We'll see what's what's going on.
Speaker 5 (26:34):
From that perspective, that would be a great kind of
show event that we should put on. Indeed, people do
the people are demanding its need to get it done.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
We will do that for you.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Jess Listen, I wanted to talk a little bit about
you know, I mean, you're you're obviously down in DC,
which is your home base. I mean, it was a
wonderful and a very interesting editorial in Yesterday's Wall Street
Journal that was written by a gentleman by the name
of Fragoso, who served as chief counsel to this that
Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who is basically saying that elite
(27:05):
law firms in Washington, d C. Are giddy about Donald
Trump's re election.
Speaker 5 (27:10):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
And he pointed out the irony that these and I'm
quoting from the editorial jests the same legal elite that
refused to work with the previous Trump administration are now
alerting the press that they have the necessary expertise to
work with the next Trump administration, and he concludes his
editorial by saying, lawyers are nothing if not bold.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
What are you seeing down there? I mean, what what?
Speaker 5 (27:32):
What? What?
Speaker 3 (27:32):
What are the comments that you and you're that you're
seeing from your your your friends who are part of
that elite law firm, the white Chee law firm culture
now in Washington, D C.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
What what are you hearing?
Speaker 5 (27:42):
Yeah? Isn't that funny how that happens? I mean for
for years and years, Uh, kind of the the kind
of elite legal community seems to some there knows that
everything Trump does, and now that he's back elected, they're
they're just so happy that he's that. Yeah. I think
really it depends on who you ask. I mean, they're different.
You know, litigators are different than people that work in
(28:03):
regulatory law. And I think at least when it comes
to some of my friend to do regulatory they're they're
just kind of excited that there seems to be more
common sensence back in the room. And they especially given
now that I think you're gonna see some some more
streamlined regulations, and they have a sense that to be
(28:26):
kind of just less bureaucracy in general, and that just
kind of helps move thing along. If that makes sense.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
No, it totally does it totally? Does you know?
Speaker 3 (28:35):
I mean switching gears for half a second, because why
I've got you. I want to talk a little bit
about I have heard this past week the vek Ramaswami
might be looking at being able to perhaps maybe exit DOGE,
you know, and then run for the governorship of Ohio.
What what are you what are you interpreting from that move?
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Jesse?
Speaker 3 (28:58):
Is he is is perhaps the ponds too small for
him and Elon musk in the in that DOGE capacity
or what do you think.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Is going on?
Speaker 5 (29:07):
Well, I just think I think it's an opportunity for him,
and I think that, you know, I think he's just
looking at the lay at the you know, lay of
the land, and uh, you know, I'm sure he's happy
to be involved with DOGE, but you know, he would
be the immediate front runner for governor of Ohio, and
you know, to be the governor of major state like
that could help propel him in you know, future political endeavor,
(29:29):
whether it's the presidency. I mean, you know, yeah, four
years is not a long time, you know, Trump is gonna,
you know, have this this term, but after it's over,
you know who it appears at the moment, and mind
you think can change, but app here's in the moment
that JD vance is kind of the next in line.
You know, I would have said something different had JD
(29:50):
not done so well in that VP debate. My sense
when I was at the r n C this past year,
just from the reaction, and I mind you both JD
and Vivic spoke at the the R ANDC, was that
Vivid was the much bigger He got the much bigger reaction,
and that seems to be the more the bigger favorite
amongst the people there. But I do think that JD
did himself so many favors with that VP debate that
(30:11):
it's pretty much, at least at the moment, his nomination
to lose in twenty twenty eight for the Republicans. So
you're Vivid, Okay, Well, what what Pats kind of lay
ahead of me? I can go and work in doge
and you know, he can do a lot of good
in that capacity, or he can essentially run a state.
And you know, honestly, I think governors tend to fare
(30:34):
better as presidents than senators or other kind of bureaucrats,
because they essentially are the president of a state. They
have to be the executive of the state, and it
all helps teach you those skills of how to be
an executive of kind of a big group of people
as opposed to just being a one vote out of
one hundred. So I think that he looks at it.
(30:54):
It's a very enticing opportunity for him. I wouldn't blame
him for a second if he took it.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
It's interesting, Jess.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
I don't know if you were listening to the show
earlier in the week, but Uncle Mike and I just
sort of did a little bit of a summary of
what Doge's challenges are.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
Specific to some of the things that are going on.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
And I reminded our listeners that the December Federal Register
that was published by the government ran to a total
of twelve one hundred and seventy four pages, among which
in the month of December there were these kernels of
wisdom jests that the Agricultural Market Service, using the power
(31:30):
vested in the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act of nineteen
eighty five, approved a requests to increase the assessment rate
from six cents per hundredweight to nine cents specific to watermelons.
The extra cash will be deployed to the National Watermelon
Promotion Board to strengthen the position of watermelons in the marketplace.
(31:51):
So the December Federal Register is rife with all of
these kinds of issues, and those are the kinds of
challenges that eight doze in terms of being able to
sort of really understand what's going on.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
So it's just it really is it really is chilly.
Speaker 5 (32:07):
Yeah, I mean, I mean, you know, you know how
important the watermelon mark is to our our national you know,
security and our economy. No, I mean it's no. I mean,
there there are some in you know, putting together the
video that's gonna be coming out at six pm, I
was going through some of the things that Dose will
be some of the waste that that DOSE will be
trying to tackle, including just you know, there are some expenditure.
(32:30):
I think it was like a twelve million dollar expenditure
last year to build a pickleball court in Las Vegas.
Right there was I think a six billion, six billion
dollar expenditure grants to improve to help boost tourism in Egypt,
not in the United States. So there there's gonna be uh,
you know, a lot, a lot to cut through. But
(32:53):
mind you mean they have, you know, with Elon there,
I mean with the thing that Elon has been able
accompetition in his companies has been phenomenal, and so I'm
got abe to see what he can do in the government.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
Jess, once again, a fascinating segment with us, and I
promise you we're going to be able to since our
podcast is up and running, We're diligently working at getting
the all of your JVL in DC segments with us
on air and get them published and get them up
and running and copy to you. I thank you for
your segment to today, and we will be back in
(33:23):
touch with you JVL.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
And DC folks.
Speaker 3 (33:25):
If you haven't taken a look at the YouTube channel,
please check it out. It's one of the most insightful
and screamingly funny sites that you'll ever see.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Jess, thank you very very much.
Speaker 5 (33:35):
Thank you guys so much.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
You bet we'll talk soon.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
We'd love it if you tuned in to Hudson Valley
This Morning with Ed Kowalski from six to nine am
Monday through Friday on fourteen fifty thirteen seventy AM or
ninety eight five FM WKIP
Hudson Valley This Morning with Ed Kowalski is the new
voice in the Hudson Valley.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Hi, this is Ed.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
I am so grateful for the support you've already given us.
We are creating a platform that gives you our listeners
of voice. Together we can build the best local community
talk program in the Hudson Valley.
Speaker 4 (00:20):
Sanaa Rasconson Money Sisconsin.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
And when our listeners hear that music, it's time to
welcome back to the WKIP microphones. Jesse vasque Islama's calling
from Washington, DC or parts their unknown Jesse, welcome back.
Speaker 5 (00:48):
Oh, thank you so much, Ed, And you know, the
metrics don't lie. I think this segment now has become
the most popular segment all of I think Hudson Valley
Radio and I think the Atlantic Northeast.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
I think you're one hundred percent correct, and that will
be absolutely confirmed by the Nielsen ratings that come out
in March, Jess, so we'll make sure you're included in
those absolutely.
Speaker 5 (01:07):
So again as usual, you're welcome. And again, you know,
just it's a heavy burden eye carry being the most
accurate commentator in all of politics, indeed, but I do
it for you and the beautiful, insanely intelligent people of
the Hudson Valley.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Wow, I don't know if he's running for political office
or if he's just a very skilled attorney. Holy cow, Jess.
I wanted to do a little bit something differently, because
I mean, you have been very very good to us
and our listeners in the Hudson Valley specific to the
predictions that you've made, and you're batting a thousand on all.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Of them so far.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Specific to the election results, specific to the nomination process,
and we'll talk a little bit about that, but I
wanted to just sort of do a little bit something
differently with you today, and that's really being able to
talk about what we have now seen in I guess
the first seventy two hours of the Trumpet administration. I
can't imagine what the one hundred day mark is going
to look like. But one of the things that is
(02:02):
now absolutely that I've been following with real strong interest
is the fact that as of Tuesday, I think twenty
two Democratic state attorneys attorneys general have sued the Trump
administration over its executive order titled Protecting the Meaning and
Value of American Citizenship. And of course that's the birthright
(02:23):
that's denying the that's the executive order that denied birthright citizenship.
And and you know, it's going to come down to
a conversation that I want to be able to have
with you specific to the fourteenth Amendment. And I know
this is sort of dry, and I want to try
to break it down for our listeners as best as
we can specific to what the fourteenth Amendment is. And
(02:46):
really what is really going to come down to is
the the the phrases, the the or the or the
the sentence in the fourteenth Amendment that says but not
subject to the jurisdiction thereof What are your thoughts on this?
One constitutional scholar of Jesse Vasquo islamis absolutely.
Speaker 5 (03:07):
Well who says that the fourteenth Amendment can't be fun.
I mean in a lot of I don't think just
your audience that you know aren't really well versed in
constitutional law. There is no amendment in the Constitution that
has been more litigated, that has been more subject to
just entire books of cases than the fourteenth Amendment. And
(03:28):
the fourteenmen was really drafted kind of enacted after the
Civil War, and it was for a couple of different reasons.
One was to grant citizenship to essentially all of the
slaves and people that had come over that were essentially
denied citizenship under dred Scott basically said they would never
be able to be a citizen. So they codified that
in the fourteenth Amendment, which is going to be a
(03:50):
relevant section that I guess we talked about today, but
I mean there are several more clauses to it. I mean,
they were essentially also trying to incorporate the Bill of
Rights to the states, because in the original Bill of Rights,
the you know, it only applied to the federal government.
It didn't apply to the states, right, So they were
trying to kind of incorporate that to the the you know,
(04:12):
first ten Amendments to the rest of the states. And
through some subsequent interesting rulings, notably the Slaughterhouse cases, that
became much more difficult and it has essentially been a
piecemeal litigation slog to actually get the amendments incorporated the states.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
And it begins again, the fourteenth Amendment begins, all persons
born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
What does that mean to.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
You, jess as you as you, as you, as you
parse that that that sentence, well.
Speaker 5 (04:49):
That's really the magic question. And you know it's it's funny.
I am a card carrying member of the Federal Society,
which is, you know, the largest conservative, libertarian leaning kind
of legal group in the country, and even within that group,
there are wildly desperate interpretations of that. I mean, there
(05:09):
is not one set. And by the way, that's why
I think that this is that Trump's executive order is
going to have a hard time getting through the Supreme
Court and being upheld, is because even the conservatives on
the Court probably differ into how they view that right.
And like you said, I mean, it really comes down
to that specific phrase of uh, you know, right after
that phrase where it says all persons born or naturalised
(05:30):
in the United States and then comma and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, which means that it's it's there are
two elements too. You got to be born or naturalized
in the United States and you have to be someone
who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
And by the way, let me just stop you here,
because because that's that's getting right to the heart of that.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
The follow up question.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Is, in the case of someone who's born in the
US and one where both of their parents are here illegally, Okay,
does that subject them? Does that meet that definition?
Speaker 5 (06:00):
Well, I mean, the way that we have treated it
up until this point, the answer has been yes. That basically,
there's a legal doctrine called the juice so lei, which
basically means by right of soil, which means that as
long as you were born on the soil of the
United States, you were granted citizenship. Trump's executive order, uh,
you know, in the in the actual bodies the executive order,
(06:22):
he lays out specifically that this is an incorrect interpretation
that it was never meant to include. Like you said,
for example, situations where you know, be the mother and
the father are neither legal or not or not in
the country legally, but the child just happens to be
born within the boundaries of the United States, and there
are some kind of you mean, and the hypotheticals to
(06:44):
be played out, especially when they do oral arguments on this.
You know, for example, if you know, somebody has a
layover in California and happens to give birth, you know
it does that child automatically just become a citizen in
the United States? There is you know, there could We
could have an entire, you know, three hour conversation about this.
It's an incredibly dense topic. What I will say is
(07:05):
that I at the at the moment, I'm not gonna
issue any predictions because obviously my predictions are sacrisance. I
don't issue those unless i'm I'm I'm until I'm ready to.
I may end up doing one from this, but not yet.
But I will say that because even conservatives are fairly
split on this question, I'm not I'm not optimistic for
(07:26):
for Trump that he this executive order will be upheld.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Yeah, you know what, Jess, I have to tell you something.
I am as of right now, I am agreeing with you.
I am agreeing with you on this one. And I
could see this going down as a as a five
to four split, or may even go if if because
it is going to the Supreme Court, this might be
a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Anyway in terms of striking it down. You know what
I mean.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Let lets let me, let me, let me, let me
pretend I'm wearing a black robe and I'm sitting on
the on the Supreme Court bench, which will never happen
because if you read my high school year book comments,
that would absolutely be a disqualifier.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
But but but to.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Your mind, if you're arguing in front of the Supreme
Court and the justice asks you, does all persons born
in the United States mean all persons born in the
United States?
Speaker 2 (08:13):
How would you answer that question?
Speaker 5 (08:15):
Well, I would say that at least, you know, one
thing that you can't separate from it is story decisis,
and we have a bevyous case law on this, and
the case law in this case would not be on
Trump side. Now, that's not always a deciding factor. Obviously
Roby Wade got overturned. So this core, at least in
its current makeup, doesn't seem to be you know, it
doesn't view story decises as something that's completely uh, you know,
(08:39):
barring any attempt to reinterpret maybe originally misconstrued understanding of
the Constitution. But I would argue that at least under
our current framework and the cases that have gone before
that it seems that it has always been interpreted to
be this. This the the doctor of Jisuli, basically that
(09:02):
anyone born within the border United as a citizen that
that seems to be the law of land.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Yeah, and again, going one step further, can you redefine
who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
and say, attorney, you've asked quest, can you say that
someone born in the United States to a person here
without legal status is not subject to the jurisdiction?
Speaker 5 (09:25):
Oh, I mean you can definitely make that case. And yeah,
I mean, I again, you know, and I mean, I'm
sure that people are listening to me at this point
and may actually want to bring me onto this case
and have the argue in Springforts, So I don't want to.
I don't want to spoil what I would argue in
case I end up having, you know, being.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Called to that tack exactly.
Speaker 5 (09:43):
Yeah. But but yeah, no, that case can definitely be
made there. And it's you know, it's not an insane
case to make. I mean, we literally, you know, at
Fellal Society, you know, we have debates all the time,
and we cont and this is one question that is
commonly debated across law schools and seminars. And this is
not a complete slam dunk one way or the other.
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Yeah, no question, And you're hundred percent right. Courts have
already reviewed this and have absolutely, through the doctrine of
story decisis, have very clearly said that people born here.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Going back to the eighteen nineties.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
The Supreme Court has reviewed this and say people born here.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Are subject to that amendment.
Speaker 5 (10:23):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Interesting, interesting, Well, I got to tell you something, JVL
and DC, this is actually this very well might rise
to your doing a video on this one because it's
a fascinating conversation and while it's a very dry topic,
I mean, this is certainly going to be I think
the first battle of the new administration that I think
is going to go all the way.
Speaker 5 (10:45):
I definitely agree with you, And it's funny that you
mentioned that because actually I have a new video coming
out later tonight and it's actually all about the executive
order that Trump is issued on is basically first couple
of days in office. And I do mentioned that this
topic was so broad that it was probably going to
deserve its own video, So that will be coming down
the pike at at some point as well.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I think what you need to be able to do, Jess,
when you do film it, I think you really need
to be able to get black judicial robes.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
As you're doing it on just as a just as
a production.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Value, to be able to give the the gravitas of
what your videos are.
Speaker 5 (11:16):
Oh, I'm right there, but I think I'm probably just
gonna go ahead and start, you know, go to the
Supreme Court one day and just film it there and
you know, we'll see if I got thrown out. I
got thrown out. But you know, it's what the people want.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
It's what the people want. Jesse.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
I'm going to ask you to hold through a quick
break because there's a number of other things that I
want to be able to talk to you about. And
I you know I did if you were listening to
the show earlier. I did a segment on some of
the things that Trump is continuing to do, certainly is
crypto coins and so on and so forth. And I
want to talk a little bit about you know, you know,
(11:49):
you know, you know, is Trump still being the Trump
that we know and is that going to be problematic
for him? So if you could stick around, I'd like
to be able to have that kind of conversation with you. Well,
you're listening to Hudson Valley this morning with Ed Kawalsky.
We will be right back with jv L and DC.
Jesse Vasquez Lamas will be right back Saisconsin Money.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Asconsin Money.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
We are rejoined by Jesse Vasquez Lamas to talk.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
About all things.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
We're gonna We're gonna again stick on the topic of
the Constitution for half a second because I wanted to
sort of introduce this next segment by talking about something
that's in the Constitution called the take Care Clause. And ultimately,
at the end of the day, what that means is
that all presidents have a constitutional duty to take care
(12:50):
that the laws be faithfully executed. And I think the
question that I want to pose to young mister Vasquez
here esquire, is that does President Trump is he following
Joe Biden's lead by flouting the law? And I'm talking
a little bit about the fact that you know, the
president now, as everyone knows, you know, he delayed the
(13:13):
a he banned, He's suspended for seventy five days all
enforcement of the new law which banned TikTok in the
United States.
Speaker 5 (13:21):
You know.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Meanwhile, a lot of his nominees have have have gone
on record to suggest he can reduce regulatory burdens and
limit government spending by suspending regulatory enforcement and impounding or
refusing to spend funds that have been appropriated already by Congress. Jess,
what are your thoughts on this?
Speaker 5 (13:43):
Yeah, you know, it's not anything that's really new. This
is something that's been going on the trend that really
started with FDR. I mean, FDR you know, issued something
like thirty seven hundred executive order. Put in perspective, how
many of that is. That's more than President Kennedy through
Trump two point zero combined.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
And WESDR was also in the FR was in the
White House what for thirteen years though too.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
So you're right, I mean so.
Speaker 5 (14:07):
Right, But so I mean we're talking, you know, I
think each each president, I mean I think Obama only
had a couple hundred, I mean like three hundred or
something like that. But so, I mean he but yeah,
unfortunately we have you know. Then I think we talked
about this either last time or one of our previous
times that came on about you know, one of the
real biggest issue we have right now as far as
(14:28):
the way our government functions, is that Congress doesn't really
want to do its job. It wants it wants the
executive branch and the judiciary to do their jobs for them, yes,
and wants want to judiciary to declare certain things rights
so that way converses don't have to legislate it. And
it wants the president to basically take on and you know,
through executive order do its job and either you know,
(14:50):
whether it's the power of the perth, whether it's through
legislating through you know, these agencies, especially through the you
know now recently ended Chevron doctrine. But uh yeah, you
know this, I I do worry about this kind of
extension of the you know, the take care clause and
the vesting clause, which is the other relative provision related
(15:11):
to executive orders, where the president kind of is just
you know, you can just decide which laws he wants
to enforce and not enforce. And this was going on
with Biden and Obama specifically when it came to and
really Trump as well, when it came to regulation of
marijuana in recent years and up until right up until recently,
(15:32):
Biden just moves it down from a Schedule one controlled substance.
But you know, under Trump and and Obama marijuana was
was still a Schedule one drug, yet neither was really
enforcing it. That way, and they were essentially letting the
states kind of do whatever they wanted with it.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
You know, and and you know, the point that you
make really can't be can't be re emphasized enough. I mean,
do we really want our presidents to follow all the
laws faithfully or only the ones that they like? And
and and are we really now? Because the point that
you made that again was brilliant, Jesse, in terms of,
you know, the Congress is not doing their job. You know,
the Senate's not doing their job. And ultimately what you
(16:10):
end up having is you have I have a pen
and a phone type of thing taking taking that shape,
and that's what that and that's what Trump is doing
as long as well as all of those other predecessors.
It's sort of a scary thing to be thinking of
government by executive water.
Speaker 5 (16:25):
Right, Yeah, And it's it's been a very bad trend
and it's one that I unfortunately don't see getting much better.
I mean, maybe under this new Congress hopefully they'll surprise me.
But you know, this, this issue with Congress really has
transcendent parties, and it just seems to be we're electing
a lot of members of Congress who just seem to
not want They don't want the blowback of having to
(16:46):
go back to their home districts and have do to
explain how they voted certain ways. They'd rather the president
do it. And the president is alway going to take
the heat anyway for anything, So it helps lessen the
brand that they have, and it's it's creating massive imbalances
that are you know, our founder and you know, our
Constitution never anticipated because we you know, really I think
what people seem to you know, the Constitution is really
(17:09):
an incredible document. But it's not just because of the
Bill of Rights and because of the guarantees made in it.
It's also because of the separation of power, right and
the way you know, that's what really made it a
different you know, the Civic Union had a great, you
know Bill of Rights that was as expanded, it's not
more expansive than ours, but it just wasn't worth the
paper that it was written on because you just still
had one guy who could decide what everything, you know,
(17:30):
while everything was going to be done. So we really
need to get back to respecting kind of the separation
of powers. These things get really bad if we don't.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Right, there's no question.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
There's no question just when we I'm going to ask
you to hold through the seven point thirty break, but
I do want to come back and I want to
talk about President Trump, crypto billionaire, and some of the
things that I think can be potentially and are problematic
for him, specifically in terms of what he's done in
terms of issuing the the the Trump crypto coins, the
(18:03):
Millennia crypto coins, and I want to speak to you
about what that means in terms of the regulatory nightmare
for the incoming SEC chief Paul Atkins, who is a big,
big fan of cryptocurrency, but now he's put himself in
a box. I think by being able to say any
regulatory changes, anything that he wants to do from crypto
could basically be interpreted as affecting his boss in terms of,
(18:28):
you know, Donald Trump, crypto billionaire. So let's talk about
that when we come back after the seven thirty break,
just to be able to sort of tee that up,
you know. And like I said, if tokens, probably if
prices drop on the Trump crypto coins, you know, buyers
who lose money could argue basically that Trump failed to
make required securities disclosures about risks. So it's a very
(18:50):
interesting thing and it's certainly something I think we need
to be concerned about and talk about. We will be
right back with Jesse Vasquez from Washington, d C. Stick around, folks, ice,
guns and money. We are rejoined by a very patient
Jesse Vasquezlamas who hung through break. Jesse, thanks again for
(19:11):
holding through break. And before we leave the issue with
perthright citizenship and talk about Donald Trump, crypto billionaire for
a minute, do you think that you're going to end
up seeing perhaps a constitutional amendment on this issue? Do
you think do you think you can actually get to
that level where where where where we try to finally
address it through an amendment.
Speaker 5 (19:31):
I would not be optimistic about that. The process of
getting amendment through is so insanely difficult. You basically need
two thirds of Congress and you need the two thirds
of the states to ratify right. So I would not
hold my breath on that happening. I think, you know, well,
it's not impossible that he could. You know that this
(19:51):
could end up going through the Supreme Court and the
executive order gets upeld and we just have a totally
new president. But I think that that that is more
likely to me than and them getting pased.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
I mean, at this point, no, I get it, I
get it, I get it. Jesse.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Let's talk a little bit about you know, President Trump,
who sometimes has been guilty of not always separating his
personal interest from his public obligations. And I wanted to
talk a little bit about the crypto coins that he's issuing.
You know that, you know, in addition to the Trump watches,
(20:25):
the Trump sneakers, Trump you know, Trump is Trump that
and there's a little bit of you know, from my perspective,
there's a little bit of a pt Barnum approach to that.
And I don't want to be accused of being able
to be heavy handed with the president. But but if
you look at the situation now specific to the the
the crypto coins that he's actually announced the sale of,
(20:49):
you know, Trump crypto tokens, it's time to celebrate everything
we stand for winning. You know, Milania Trump to be
debuting her own coin last Sunday.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Step right up.
Speaker 3 (20:59):
You can lose betting on Trump, but what but what
happens when people end up losing money on that? And
as I said, you know, his appointment of Paul Atkins
to run the SEC who has always been from his perspective,
from a career perspective, and crypto friendly long before his nomination.
But I mean, are his hands now tied? And what
(21:20):
are your thoughts in terms of the president doing this well?
Speaker 5 (21:24):
I mean, first of all, it's not you know, not
surprising in the leaf that that Trump would get involved
in the crypto space, Like you said, I mean, he's
a branding, you know, just wiz. I mean, whether it's
the Trump Stakes or Trump nutcrackers or Trump whatever.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
I mean, he's literally Trump wind.
Speaker 3 (21:40):
Don't listen, don't don't forget Trump wine because I mean,
you know the value of the Trump wine was that
it's always good when you're going over to people's house
for Thanksgiving. You know, you don't want to discuss politics,
you just throw a couple bottles of Trump wine.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
On the table.
Speaker 5 (21:54):
Absolutely the best, the best wine. But but no, you know,
there's actually interesting question there when you were talking about
how you know, whether this kind of could impute some
liability on him, and you know, it really actually kind
of called into a question an earlier issue, which was
the presidential immunity and how whether this you know, his
involvement with these these crypto currencies and he coined or
(22:16):
would be considered official acts that the president would be
immune from. It's it's kind of an interesting question. I
don't really I haven't given it much spot and I
don't really have an answer for it, but that is
definitely something to look look at. I think what you're
seeing with him right now is I think he and
his family are are They're in a very sweet spot
where there's still not a ton of regulation of crypto
(22:37):
at the moment, and the new regulations that are going
to come are going to come through him, so he
gets to write them. They basically are going to get
to oversee them. So I think they're just trying to
take advantage of this kind of sweet spot right now
in the market. I what I am, you know, as
much as I am a young guy, I still have
(22:58):
a very healthy amount of skepticism a lot of stuff
in the crypto space. I think there are certain things
that are I can I can be sold on the
value of things like bitcoin and ethereum, but some of
these mean coin things that I still struggle with. So,
you know, does it worry me that we could, you know,
be creating some sort of us crypto strategic reserve that'll
(23:22):
be full of Trump mean coins that will crash and
you know a couple of years. Yeah, it's concerning, but
I don't know, you know, there's still so much unknown
with what is going to end up happening with crypto. Uh,
and then you know, the next six months and months
less the next you know, two to four years.
Speaker 3 (23:39):
But but but you're right, and and I agree with
you because if people were to ask me to bet
a mortgage payment on me being able to put a
PowerPoint presentation on crypto, I couldn't do it. I just
couldn't understand. I think Jenny, my daughter, understands it better
than I do.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
But I don't.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
I don't get it at all. But I'm talking a
little bit about the whole issue of you know, Trump
stamped tumblers at forty two dollars, a set pickleball paddles
at one hundred and eighty dollars. I mean, I mean you,
I mean the Trump nutcrackers that that are out there.
I mean, you've seen all of these things, and there's
a part that makes me chuckle. And I would be
(24:14):
lying to you if I told you I didn't buy
some of it. Because I have only because I think
it's funny. But it comes to the point where I'm
almost like, gosh, are we gonna is this gonna be?
I mean, look, you're right, I mean he I mean, look,
his family right now is and just going back to
the crypto thing, the crypto vehicles right now that are
(24:34):
currently out there, the Trump Organization and Trump Organization affiliates
hold eighty percent of the Trump Crypto War Trump crypto coins,
and as of last Wednesday, just that was that was
valued at thirty one point four billion dollars.
Speaker 5 (24:50):
Right, And it's hard to you know, how do they
even describe that amount of value to that? It's you know,
you're abscribe value attention to the brand. But what what
makes that you know, one meme coin and more inherently valuable,
valuable than the other. I've heard a good answer to
that question.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
But yeah, but I'm not even talking about the whole
value of crypto coins. I'm talking about the president being
able to just sort of market this stuff. That's the
thing that I'm concerned about.
Speaker 5 (25:16):
Yeah, I mean, it's it's concerning, But look, I mean
that's just what he's gonna do. I mean, you're talking
about the guy that you know you release the release
a series of Trump NFTs that you know they sold
and made him millions of dollars in a handful of seconds.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
You know, yeah, I get it, I get it. Jesse.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
Let's hold, I'm going to put you through just another
quick break so we can have a little bit more
of time on on the going up to the eight
o'clock hour, if you can just stick around, because this
conversation a lot of listener feedback coming in saying, boy
that Jesse Vasquez is a smart guy. So I mean,
you're so your your your voice is resonating through the
Hudson Valley this morning.
Speaker 5 (25:50):
Jack again, the brilliant people of Hudson Valley.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
Thank you very much for sticking around. Lawyers, guns and money.
We'll be right back.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
We are rejoined by our favorite attorney, a bat out
of hell from Washington, d C. Jesse Vasquez, Lamas, Jesse,
thanks for sticking around.
Speaker 5 (26:11):
No again, all of the pleasure to stick around for
the brilliant, the insanely intelligent, and beautiful people of Hudson Valley.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
Thank you, Jess, and the fans are loving you here.
I just got another email from somebody who I'm not
going to name, but is Jesse single, So I mean
maybe we're gonna have to do a do win a
date with Jesse Vasquez Lamas contest here on wk IP. Jeff,
We'll see what's what's going on.
Speaker 5 (26:34):
From that perspective, that would be a great kind of
show event that we should put on. Indeed, people do
the people are demanding its need to get it done.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
We will do that for you.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Jess Listen, I wanted to talk a little bit about
you know, I mean, you're you're obviously down in DC,
which is your home base. I mean, it was a
wonderful and a very interesting editorial in Yesterday's Wall Street
Journal that was written by a gentleman by the name
of Fragoso, who served as chief counsel to this that
Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who is basically saying that elite
(27:05):
law firms in Washington, d C. Are giddy about Donald
Trump's re election.
Speaker 5 (27:10):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
And he pointed out the irony that these and I'm
quoting from the editorial jests the same legal elite that
refused to work with the previous Trump administration are now
alerting the press that they have the necessary expertise to
work with the next Trump administration, and he concludes his
editorial by saying, lawyers are nothing if not bold.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
What are you seeing down there? I mean, what what?
Speaker 5 (27:32):
What? What?
Speaker 3 (27:32):
What are the comments that you and you're that you're
seeing from your your your friends who are part of
that elite law firm, the white Chee law firm culture
now in Washington, D C.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
What what are you hearing?
Speaker 5 (27:42):
Yeah? Isn't that funny how that happens? I mean for
for years and years, Uh, kind of the the kind
of elite legal community seems to some there knows that
everything Trump does, and now that he's back elected, they're
they're just so happy that he's that. Yeah. I think
really it depends on who you ask. I mean, they're different.
You know, litigators are different than people that work in
(28:03):
regulatory law. And I think at least when it comes
to some of my friend to do regulatory they're they're
just kind of excited that there seems to be more
common sensence back in the room. And they especially given
now that I think you're gonna see some some more
streamlined regulations, and they have a sense that to be
(28:26):
kind of just less bureaucracy in general, and that just
kind of helps move thing along. If that makes sense.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
No, it totally does it totally? Does you know?
Speaker 3 (28:35):
I mean switching gears for half a second, because why
I've got you. I want to talk a little bit
about I have heard this past week the vek Ramaswami
might be looking at being able to perhaps maybe exit DOGE,
you know, and then run for the governorship of Ohio.
What what are you what are you interpreting from that move?
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Jesse?
Speaker 3 (28:58):
Is he is is perhaps the ponds too small for
him and Elon musk in the in that DOGE capacity
or what do you think.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Is going on?
Speaker 5 (29:07):
Well, I just think I think it's an opportunity for him,
and I think that, you know, I think he's just
looking at the lay at the you know, lay of
the land, and uh, you know, I'm sure he's happy
to be involved with DOGE, but you know, he would
be the immediate front runner for governor of Ohio, and
you know, to be the governor of major state like
that could help propel him in you know, future political endeavor,
(29:29):
whether it's the presidency. I mean, you know, yeah, four
years is not a long time, you know, Trump is gonna,
you know, have this this term, but after it's over,
you know who it appears at the moment, and mind
you think can change, but app here's in the moment
that JD vance is kind of the next in line.
You know, I would have said something different had JD
(29:50):
not done so well in that VP debate. My sense
when I was at the r n C this past year,
just from the reaction, and I mind you both JD
and Vivic spoke at the the R ANDC, was that
Vivid was the much bigger He got the much bigger reaction,
and that seems to be the more the bigger favorite
amongst the people there. But I do think that JD
did himself so many favors with that VP debate that
(30:11):
it's pretty much, at least at the moment, his nomination
to lose in twenty twenty eight for the Republicans. So
you're Vivid, Okay, Well, what what Pats kind of lay
ahead of me? I can go and work in doge
and you know, he can do a lot of good
in that capacity, or he can essentially run a state.
And you know, honestly, I think governors tend to fare
(30:34):
better as presidents than senators or other kind of bureaucrats,
because they essentially are the president of a state. They
have to be the executive of the state, and it
all helps teach you those skills of how to be
an executive of kind of a big group of people
as opposed to just being a one vote out of
one hundred. So I think that he looks at it.
(30:54):
It's a very enticing opportunity for him. I wouldn't blame
him for a second if he took it.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
It's interesting, Jess.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
I don't know if you were listening to the show
earlier in the week, but Uncle Mike and I just
sort of did a little bit of a summary of
what Doge's challenges are.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
Specific to some of the things that are going on.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
And I reminded our listeners that the December Federal Register
that was published by the government ran to a total
of twelve one hundred and seventy four pages, among which
in the month of December there were these kernels of
wisdom jests that the Agricultural Market Service, using the power
(31:30):
vested in the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act of nineteen
eighty five, approved a requests to increase the assessment rate
from six cents per hundredweight to nine cents specific to watermelons.
The extra cash will be deployed to the National Watermelon
Promotion Board to strengthen the position of watermelons in the marketplace.
(31:51):
So the December Federal Register is rife with all of
these kinds of issues, and those are the kinds of
challenges that eight doze in terms of being able to
sort of really understand what's going on.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
So it's just it really is it really is chilly.
Speaker 5 (32:07):
Yeah, I mean, I mean, you know, you know how
important the watermelon mark is to our our national you know,
security and our economy. No, I mean it's no. I mean,
there there are some in you know, putting together the
video that's gonna be coming out at six pm, I
was going through some of the things that Dose will
be some of the waste that that DOSE will be
trying to tackle, including just you know, there are some expenditure.
(32:30):
I think it was like a twelve million dollar expenditure
last year to build a pickleball court in Las Vegas.
Right there was I think a six billion, six billion
dollar expenditure grants to improve to help boost tourism in Egypt,
not in the United States. So there there's gonna be uh,
you know, a lot, a lot to cut through. But
(32:53):
mind you mean they have, you know, with Elon there,
I mean with the thing that Elon has been able
accompetition in his companies has been phenomenal, and so I'm
got abe to see what he can do in the government.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
Jess, once again, a fascinating segment with us, and I
promise you we're going to be able to since our
podcast is up and running, We're diligently working at getting
the all of your JVL in DC segments with us
on air and get them published and get them up
and running and copy to you. I thank you for
your segment to today, and we will be back in
(33:23):
touch with you JVL.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
And DC folks.
Speaker 3 (33:25):
If you haven't taken a look at the YouTube channel,
please check it out. It's one of the most insightful
and screamingly funny sites that you'll ever see.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Jess, thank you very very much.
Speaker 5 (33:35):
Thank you guys so much.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
You bet we'll talk soon.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
We'd love it if you tuned in to Hudson Valley
This Morning with Ed Kowalski from six to nine am
Monday through Friday on fourteen fifty thirteen seventy AM or
ninety eight five FM WKIP
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.