This week, Lisa and David talk about Kimmel back on the air; Supreme Court temporarily allows Trumpās firing of FTC Commissioner while they review case; dangers of Trumpās anti-Antifa EO; Comey indictment; āNational Day of Remembrance for Charlie Kirkā passes in Congress; Eric Adams drops out of New York Mayoral race; Oregon sues Trump administration over plans to deploy troops; former French President Nicolas Sarkozy sentenced to five years in prison for criminal conspiracy; Tesla bros fail to self-drive across country; Trump and RFK, Jr. deranged press conference on autism; children of helicopter parents; polar bears squatting in abandoned Soviet base; and more.
Added Context for Trumpās Anti-Antifa Executive Order
President Trumpās Anti-Antifa Executive Order empowers federal law enforcement and government agencies to āinvestigate, disrupt, and dismantleā all illegal activities conducted by individuals or groups identified as Antifa or anyone acting on their behalf or providing them with support.
Permitted Actions by Law Enforcement
* Law enforcement agencies are authorized to investigate, surveil, and detain individuals believed to be associated with, or supportive of, Antifa.
* The executive order specifically directs agencies to target the financial resources of Antifa, meaning authorities can seek to block or confiscate funds and disrupt any material support given to suspected members.
* Federal agents may recruit informants, conduct interrogations, and access government databases related to suspects without the same level of judicial oversight required in ordinary criminal cases.
* The Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department, among other agencies, have been tasked with arresting and prosecuting those who engage in or support violent actions attributed to Antifa-aligned groups.
Who Can Be Targeted
* The order applies to individuals suspected of acting as part of, or providing support to, Antifa, as well as groups or organizations seen as encouraging or funding its activities.
* Because Antifa is not an organized group with membership lists, the scope can potentially include a broad range of left-leaning activists, protestors, or organizations ideologically opposed to Trump administration policies, especially if they are perceived to endorse or tolerate violence.
* Critics warn that this broad interpretation could allow law enforcement to target individuals for expressing dissent or participating in protest activities, not merely
for engaging in violence.
Legal and Constitutional Considerations
* Legal analysts caution that, as there is no legal mechanism in the U.S. to designate a domestic group as a terrorist organization, applying this order raises significant First Amendment concerns and is likely to face constitutional challenges.
* The orderās vagueness about who qualifies as āAntifaā or what level of association or support constitutes a target has led to concerns about overreach and the chilling effect on political dissent.
The Cato Institute says:
Yes, on the surface, the EO is idiotic on multiple levels. The notion that an idea can be designated an organization is one. The fact that thereās no constitutional provision or statute granting any president the power to designate a domestic civil society organization a ādomestic terrorist organizationā is another.Again, from the Cato Institute:
ā¦
And none of those things matter, contrary to a lot of the legal or political commentary you may have already seen. What matters is that the administration asserts the authority to do this, and it has thousands of armed and armored federal law enforcement agents ready and able to carry out Trumpās ordersājust as ICE and other federal agents (including mobilized National Guard troops) have been carrying out āimmigration enforcementā operations of dubious or no legality for months.
In summary, the order allows law enforcement to take broad investigatory and enforcement actions against individuals or groups associated with or supporting Antifa, but its implementation is controversial due to the lack of clear legal standards and potential First Amendment violations.
Added Context for Comey Indictment
The indictment of James Comey represents a politically motivated prosecution rather than a legitimate pursuit of justice.
Trump has long sought to prosecute Comey over grievances from his first term, including the Clinton email investigation and alleged mishandling of classified information. The timeline of events is gives evidence of political interference: Trump publicly pressured U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert to bring charges, leading to Siebertās resignation; Trump then criticized Attorney General Pam Bondi; and a Trump loyalist with no prosecutorial experience, Lindsey Halligan, was installed and quickly brought charges despite career prosecutorsā objections.
Unusual aspects include: no career prosecutors signed the indictment, the grand jury declined one of three potential charges, and the indictment came just before the statute of limitations expiredāall after months of prosecutors reviewing evidence and determining it didnāt warrant charges.
This case threatens the Department of Justiceās credibility and legitimacy. Any satisfaction from Comeyās indictment will be overshadowed by long-term institutional damage that should concern people across the political spectrum.
Added Context for Trumpās Deployment of the National Guard to Portland
President Trumpās deployment of the National Guard to Portland without the consent of Oregonās governor threatens constitutional principles and extends executive power in ways that risk undermining state sovereignty and federalism.
Threats to Constitutional Structure
* The lawsuit filed by Oregon and Portland argues that deploying National Guard troops without state request violates the 10th Amendment, which reserves police powers to the states and not the federal government.
* Legal analyses highlight that the president does not have blanket authority to use the National Guard within a state for law enforcement purposes unless the governor consents; this principle was affirmed in Supreme Court precedent (Perpich v. Department of Defense, 1990).
* The Insurrection Act allows federal intervention only in cases of rebellion or lawlessness that states cannot or will not suppress, but the Oregon lawsuit asserts that the protests have been minimal and did not justify this action.
Executive Power Concerns
* Bypassing the state government and federalizing state-controlled forces centralizes power in the presidency and diminishes checks and balances essential to the federal system.
* Critics argue that such a move could provide a precedent for future presidents to invoke federal force in states for political reasons, undermining equal state sovereignty and threatening the ability to challenge executive authority.
* When federalization is abused, it risks further escalation and incitement within communities, placing local law enforcement in conflict with federal troops, and curbing legitimate protest through heavy-handed suppression.
Legal and Historical Framework
* The Posse Comitatus Act generally bars federal military involvement in civilian law enforcement, except as expressly authorized by statutes like the Insurrection Act.
* Historical practice shows presidents usually defer to the wishes of governors regarding National Guard deployments; Trumpās unilateral action departs from this norm and raises questions about the separation of powers and state rights.
Trumpās recent deployment of federalized National Guard troops to Oregon closely parallels the legal and constitutional issues raised by the earlier June 2025 deployment to Los Angeles, which was ruled illegal on September 2, 2025, for violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
In essence, the Oregon deployment is a direct continuation of the executive overreach challenged in Los Angeles, and the legal response in Oregon is grounded in the very precedent set by the recent federal court ruling prohibiting domestic law enforcement use of federalized military forces.
In summary, Trumpās deployment of the National Guard to Portland without state consent threatens constitutional order by eroding the stateās authority over domestic law enforcement and expanding presidential powers beyond established legal limits.
Links:
Yergz Radio (yergzradio.com)
Dare Talk Radio (daretalkradio.com)
This Week in Outrage Substack (outrageoverload.net/twio)
George Washingtonās Mount Vernon (mountvernon.org)
On Trumpās Anti-Antifa Executive Order (Cato Institute)
After Comey indictment, Trump says other opponents are next (USA Today)
āNational Day of Remembrance for Charlie Kirkā resolution passes (The Hill)
DOJ says Andrew Cuomo sexually harassed 13 women (Politico January 2024)
Oregon sues Trump administration over plans to deploy troops (BBC)
Paris court sentences Nicolas Sarkozy to 5 years in prison for criminal conspiracy (AP)
DOJ quietly removes study showing right wing attacks āoutpaceā those by left (The Hill)
Trumpās Tylenol claims may be laughable, but his assault on science isnāt funny (The Hill)
Leopard sharks mating in the wild reveals āthreesomeā (CNN)
Watch: Polar bears occupy abandoned Soviet-era research station (BBC)
