Untitled Document

[00:00:00] Last week, a federal appeals court ruled [00:00:02] to cancel Trump's tariffs. The battle is [00:00:05] going to the Supreme Court next. I've [00:00:08] been doing some digging into this case, [00:00:10] and what is actually going on is [00:00:12] shocking. I'm going to show you what is [00:00:15] being covered up by the mainstream [00:00:17] media. [00:00:19] [Music] [00:00:35] Let's start with a big picture question. [00:00:37] Are the Trump tariffs unfair? [00:00:40] If you remember on April 2nd, Trump held [00:00:43] a press conference he called Liberation [00:00:45] Day where he announced sweeping tariffs. [00:00:49] If you look at that, China, first row, [00:00:52] China, 67%, that's tariffs charged to [00:00:57] the USA, including currency manipulation [00:01:00] and trade barriers. So 67% I think you [00:01:04] can for the most part see it. Those with [00:01:06] good eyes with bad eyes. We didn't want [00:01:08] to bring It's very windy out here. We [00:01:10] didn't want to bring out the big charts [00:01:11] because it had no chance of standing. [00:01:14] Fortunately, we came armed with a little [00:01:16] smaller chart. So it's 67%. So we're [00:01:20] going to be charging a discounted [00:01:22] reciprocal tariff of 34%. I think in [00:01:25] other words, they charge us, we charge [00:01:27] them, we charge them less. So how can [00:01:28] anybody be upset? They will be because [00:01:31] we never charge anybody anything. But [00:01:33] now we're going to charge. So China was [00:01:36] charging us 67% tariffs. [00:01:40] Let me stop there. [00:01:42] Just let that sink in. If an American [00:01:45] company wanted to sell goods in China, [00:01:47] they would charge us a 67% tariff. What [00:01:52] Trump was proposing was going from the [00:01:54] US charging China no tariffs to charging [00:01:57] only 34%. [00:01:59] So we would be charging them half of [00:02:01] what they are charging us. [00:02:03] How is that unreasonable? [00:02:06] I think it is unreasonable that the US [00:02:08] was charging 0% tariffs while they are [00:02:11] charging us 67%. [00:02:14] And it's not just China, it's all the [00:02:17] countries. What Trump was proposing in [00:02:20] most cases was to charge countries half [00:02:22] the rate they were charging us. Now, the [00:02:25] argument against Trump's tariffs was [00:02:27] that it was going to destabilize the [00:02:29] economy and crash the stock market. But [00:02:32] it has been 5 months since these tariffs [00:02:34] were announced in April. Not only has [00:02:36] the stock market not crashed, it has [00:02:39] skyrocketed. [00:02:40] This is the S&P 500. This is when the [00:02:44] tariffs were announced. This is where we [00:02:46] are today. In fact, Treasury Secretary [00:02:50] Scott Bant has been reporting that the [00:02:52] tariffs have been incredibly successful [00:02:54] in raising money. [00:02:56] >> Well, look, the president's tariff plan [00:02:58] brought in more than $28 billion in [00:03:01] July. a fresh monthly high. Uh tariffs [00:03:03] are becoming the third largest source of [00:03:05] income for government. And the last time [00:03:07] you were with me, you told me that you [00:03:09] would expect $300 billion in tariff [00:03:12] revenue, but I think you are increasing [00:03:14] that expectation right now, aren't you? [00:03:16] >> Uh I I am. So we I I think August, [00:03:19] September going to be a very good test. [00:03:22] I I've been saying that I think we can [00:03:25] take in 300 billion. And as as the [00:03:29] Treasury Secretary, I like to be [00:03:30] conservative, but there's a chance that [00:03:33] I'm going to have to substantially [00:03:35] upgrade that number. And Maria, the way [00:03:37] to think about it for your viewers is [00:03:40] every $300 billion is 1% of GDP. [00:03:44] >> They are forecasting $300 billion a [00:03:48] year. The third largest income source [00:03:51] for the government. [00:03:53] So again, I will ask the big picture [00:03:55] question here. [00:03:56] Are the Trump tariffs unfair? [00:04:00] They are bringing in tons of money. The [00:04:02] economy is doing great. It's only half [00:04:04] the tariffs that other countries are [00:04:06] charging. Who is against these tariffs? [00:04:10] And yet, someone is battling in court to [00:04:14] overturn the tariffs. [00:04:16] What is really going on here? Are these [00:04:19] people who actually care about the [00:04:21] tariffs or are they just trying to get [00:04:23] Trump? Let me explain the court case. [00:04:27] After Trump announced his tariffs, he [00:04:29] was sued by two groups of people. One [00:04:31] was a group of five small businesses [00:04:33] that dealt with imports and exports. A [00:04:36] winery, a plastic pipe manufacturer, a [00:04:39] company that made science kits for [00:04:41] children, a company that made fishing [00:04:43] tackle, and a company that made cycling [00:04:45] clothing. The second group was a group [00:04:47] of states including Oregon, Arizona, [00:04:50] Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, [00:04:52] Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New [00:04:55] Mexico, New York, and Vermont. As you [00:04:58] can tell, these are all states with [00:05:00] Democrats in power. So already you can [00:05:04] see that this is politically motivated. [00:05:07] This is not really about the merits of [00:05:09] the case. This is about getting Donald [00:05:12] Trump. The lower court ruled against [00:05:14] Donald Trump who appealed the decision. [00:05:17] Now the federal appeals court has ruled [00:05:19] against Trump. The appeals court has 11 [00:05:22] judges. Seven ruled in favor of [00:05:24] terminating Trump's tariffs and four [00:05:26] judges opposed the ruling. Of the seven [00:05:30] judges in favor, four of those judges [00:05:32] wrote an even more extreme concurrence [00:05:35] opinion claiming that the appeals court [00:05:37] did not go far enough. The appeals court [00:05:40] just overturned these specific tariffs, [00:05:43] but the concurrence opinion argued that [00:05:45] Donald Trump should not be allowed to [00:05:47] issue any tariffs in the future. This [00:05:50] was a devastating outcome for Donald [00:05:52] Trump. His only option is to challenge [00:05:55] the decision at the Supreme Court. The [00:05:58] tariffs will all remain in place until [00:06:00] October 14th, giving the Supreme Court [00:06:03] time to make a decision. But if the [00:06:05] Supreme Court does not overturn the [00:06:07] appeals court, it would cancel the [00:06:09] majority of Donald Trump's tariffs. [00:06:12] >> Saying regarding that federal appellet [00:06:14] court that ruled against you and your [00:06:15] administration as it relates to your [00:06:16] ability. [00:06:17] >> Well, they ruled against our country, [00:06:18] the the court, and they ruled against us [00:06:20] before. It's a very liberal court. We're [00:06:22] going to be going to the Supreme Court, [00:06:24] we think, tomorrow, because we need an [00:06:26] early decision. I mean, look, the the [00:06:29] financial fabric of our country. We're a [00:06:31] rich, incredible country right now, and [00:06:34] we're able to, you know, other countries [00:06:36] used tariffs on us for years and we [00:06:39] never did. When Donald Trump talks about [00:06:41] liberal judges, let me show you what he [00:06:43] means. One of the judges who was part of [00:06:46] the extreme concurrence opinion was [00:06:48] named Leonard Stark. He is from Joe [00:06:51] Biden's home state of Delaware. He was [00:06:54] originally nominated to be a judge by [00:06:56] Barack Obama. Before that, he worked as [00:06:59] a co-coordinator for Michael Dukakus' [00:07:01] presidential campaign against George HW [00:07:04] Bush. He was also an alternate delegate [00:07:06] for Bill Clinton's campaign. This is [00:07:09] someone who has been deeply involved in [00:07:11] Democrat politics and now he is [00:07:13] attacking Donald Trump. But it gets [00:07:16] crazier. [00:07:18] These five businesses that are suing are [00:07:21] very small businesses. [00:07:23] How is it that these extremely small [00:07:26] businesses are setting the economic [00:07:28] policy for the entire country? [00:07:31] They don't have the resources to sue the [00:07:33] government and take the case to the [00:07:35] Supreme Court. How are they doing this? [00:07:39] It turns out that their case is being [00:07:41] completely paid for by a group called [00:07:43] the Liberty Justice Center. [00:07:46] Guess who funds a large part of the [00:07:48] Liberty Justice Center? [00:07:51] A Republican billionaire named Charles [00:07:53] Ko. Charles Ko has been a big money [00:07:56] donor for the Republican party for [00:07:58] years. And he does not like Donald [00:08:01] Trump. He formed a group called the [00:08:03] Americans for Prosperity that spent $42 [00:08:06] million trying to ruin Donald Trump's [00:08:09] campaign. [00:08:11] Do you remember Nikki Haley? [00:08:14] Their goal was to try to get Nikki Haley [00:08:16] to beat Donald Trump as a Republican [00:08:19] candidate. Do you understand what is [00:08:21] happening? It is the Republicans who are [00:08:25] trying to use this lawsuit to take out [00:08:27] Donald Trump. [00:08:30] Charles Ko is a billionaire who did not [00:08:32] get his way during the election and now [00:08:34] he is funding this lawsuit through the [00:08:36] Liberty Justice Center. In my opinion, [00:08:39] this is a vindictive, petty billionaire [00:08:42] who's willing to destroy the US economy [00:08:44] because of his own Trump derangement [00:08:46] syndrome. Let me explain why I think [00:08:49] Charles Ko is doing this. This is all [00:08:52] allegedly because obviously I cannot [00:08:54] read his mind, but in my opinion, this [00:08:57] is what I think is going on. Charles Ko [00:08:59] owns one of the largest privately held [00:09:01] companies in the world with a large [00:09:03] presence in China. It has been reported [00:09:07] that Charles Ko employs more than 23,000 [00:09:10] people in China. [00:09:12] With such a major portion of his [00:09:14] business operating in China, there is a [00:09:16] real possibility that he is being [00:09:18] blackmailed by the Chinese Communist [00:09:21] Party. At any moment, the Chinese [00:09:24] Communist Party can tell Charles Ko that [00:09:26] he can no longer do business in China. [00:09:29] There are many examples of the Chinese [00:09:31] Communist Party pressuring foreign [00:09:33] business owners just like this. China [00:09:37] obviously wants to go back to their old [00:09:39] arrangement where they paid zero [00:09:41] tariffs. [00:09:42] So what we see happening is an alignment [00:09:45] where you have the Chinese Communist [00:09:47] Party, the Republican uni party and the [00:09:50] Democrat judges in DC all working [00:09:52] together with this court case to try and [00:09:55] get Donald Trump. Let me explain what [00:09:58] the law actually says. Donald Trump [00:10:01] issued these tariffs under the [00:10:02] International Emergency Economic Powers [00:10:04] Act or EA. [00:10:08] This gives the president broad authority [00:10:10] to regulate a variety of economic [00:10:12] transactions following a declaration of [00:10:14] national emergency. So the president [00:10:16] will declare an emergency and then order [00:10:19] the economic transactions, whether it's [00:10:21] through sanctions or tariffs. In the [00:10:23] case with Trump, he declared two [00:10:26] emergencies, one on the drug crisis and [00:10:28] one with our growing budget deficit. [00:10:31] These are both huge problems that can be [00:10:33] solved with tariffs. [00:10:36] This same process under the EA is how [00:10:39] the US has operated for decades. Here's [00:10:42] a chart showing some of the actions [00:10:43] taken under the law. One example is [00:10:46] Iran. The president identified that [00:10:49] there was a problem with Iran. He [00:10:51] declared it an emergency and we've been [00:10:53] using different economic sanctions [00:10:54] against Iran for the last 40 years. Now [00:10:58] let's look at the actual wording of the [00:11:00] law. It is extremely broad. [00:11:04] 1702A1B [00:11:05] says presidential authorities the [00:11:08] president may regulate importation or [00:11:11] exportation. This seems pretty clear to [00:11:14] me. I'm showing it to you in black and [00:11:17] white. [00:11:19] Congress wrote this law giving the [00:11:21] president the power to regulate imports [00:11:23] and exports. [00:11:25] They did this because obviously Congress [00:11:28] cannot pass a bill every time the [00:11:30] president negotiates with a foreign [00:11:31] country. The president needs that power [00:11:34] which is why it is in the bill. If [00:11:37] Congress feels that the president ever [00:11:39] oversteps his authority, they have the [00:11:41] opportunity to pass a resolution telling [00:11:44] him to stop. They have decided not to. [00:11:48] So now we have a handful of liberal [00:11:49] judges in DC deciding how the president [00:11:52] should implement global economic policy. [00:11:55] Their argument is that the law does not [00:11:57] specifically include the word tariffs. [00:12:00] They are claiming that the law gives the [00:12:02] president the power to regulate through [00:12:04] other means except for tariffs. The law [00:12:07] does not say that but they think that is [00:12:10] implied. [00:12:12] I think that is a very weak argument. [00:12:15] If we go back to my original example, [00:12:17] China was charging the US 67% tariffs. [00:12:21] According to these judges, they say the [00:12:24] president should not be able to do [00:12:26] anything about that. [00:12:28] I think that's ridiculous. The American [00:12:31] people want the tariffs. The president [00:12:33] wants the tariffs. The Congress agrees [00:12:35] with him. And these judges are trying to [00:12:38] seize power and overturn the other two [00:12:41] branches of government. [00:12:43] This is not right. The courts cannot [00:12:46] just write new laws on how they think [00:12:48] tariffs should be implemented. And the [00:12:51] law is written very clearly that [00:12:53] President Trump has this power. Now, I [00:12:57] do not want to oversell the public [00:12:58] support. Most polls show roughly 60% of [00:13:02] Americans oppose the Trump tariffs, but [00:13:05] this level of support is not unusual for [00:13:07] a hotly contested issue. In fact, I [00:13:11] would argue this is a much higher level [00:13:12] of support than most political issues. [00:13:16] It is clear that an enormous amount of [00:13:18] Americans want these tariffs. Let me [00:13:21] explain to you what will happen if the [00:13:23] Supreme Court does not overturn this [00:13:25] decision. It will destroy the entire [00:13:28] global economy overnight. [00:13:31] Number one, all the new trade agreements [00:13:34] are going to be contested. [00:13:36] For the last five months, the US has [00:13:38] signed all new deals with countries from [00:13:40] Europe to South Korea. They are all [00:13:43] going to tear up their agreements. [00:13:45] Number two, all the countries that have [00:13:48] paid tariffs so far are going to ask for [00:13:50] refunds. [00:13:52] I really don't know how this is going to [00:13:54] work. We are somehow going to have to [00:13:56] pay back all the billions of dollars we [00:13:58] have received. [00:14:00] How? We've already spent the money. How [00:14:04] are we going to pay this back? Number [00:14:07] three, it will undermine the president's [00:14:09] ability to negotiate around the world. [00:14:13] This is the worst because all of a [00:14:15] sudden the courts are going to take away [00:14:17] the power of the president to negotiate [00:14:19] economic deals around the world. [00:14:23] How is the president going to conduct [00:14:24] any kind of foreign policy? It's going [00:14:27] to be a disaster. [00:14:29] >> It's a very important decision. And [00:14:32] frankly, if uh they make the wrong [00:14:34] decision, it would be devastation for [00:14:36] our country. We've taken in trillions of [00:14:39] dollars. And and by the way, all these [00:14:42] countries signed agreements. As an [00:14:43] example, they signed They're all happy. [00:14:46] Everybody's happy. But some wack job put [00:14:49] in a lawsuit. Uh if you took away [00:14:52] tariffs, [00:14:54] we we could end up being a third world [00:14:56] country. [00:14:57] >> That's how that's how big the rule. So, [00:14:59] we're asking for an expedited ruling. [00:15:02] >> I cannot emphasize this enough. If the [00:15:05] Supreme Court does not overturn this [00:15:07] decision, it will destroy the global [00:15:09] economy. Not just the US, the entire [00:15:13] world because all of a sudden, the [00:15:16] president of the United States will not [00:15:18] be able to make global economic deals. [00:15:22] Everyone is impacted. These recent court [00:15:25] decisions are so absurd. We have the [00:15:28] Chinese Communist Party and a petty [00:15:30] billionaire trying to screw over the [00:15:33] American people. Can these judges for [00:15:36] once stop trying to get Trump and [00:15:39] instead try and do what is right for the [00:15:42] American people? Now, most people have [00:15:44] been thinking that the Supreme Court [00:15:45] will overturn this decision. But I am [00:15:48] not so sure. Charles Ko has been a [00:15:51] driving force in the Republican party [00:15:52] for a really long time. [00:15:55] He knows the Supreme Court justices. [00:15:59] Here's a photo with Supreme Court [00:16:00] Justice Clarence Thomas standing next to [00:16:02] documentary filmmaker Ken Burns and [00:16:04] David Ko, who was Charles Ko's brother. [00:16:07] This was at a Ko Network donor event at [00:16:10] the Bohemian Grove in Northern [00:16:12] California. [00:16:13] Here's a photo of Charles Ko wearing a [00:16:16] hat with the logo of the Grove showing [00:16:18] an owl. Here's a photo of the schedule [00:16:21] showing Justice Clarence Thomas as a [00:16:23] speaker at the Bohemian Grove. Justice [00:16:26] Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett [00:16:28] Kavanaaugh both took teaching contracts [00:16:30] at George Mason University in Virginia, [00:16:33] which sent them on all expense paid [00:16:35] trips which covered their travel and [00:16:36] living expenses to Italy, Iceland, and [00:16:39] England. At this same time, a $10 [00:16:43] million contribution was made to the [00:16:45] program by the Charles Ko Foundation. My [00:16:48] point is that there is no guarantee that [00:16:51] the Supreme Court is going to side with [00:16:53] Donald Trump on this case. Tariffs are [00:16:56] the one thing that Trump has done that [00:16:58] we have financials that are telling us [00:17:01] it is working. [00:17:03] This is a good thing. This is going to [00:17:05] make us all rich. [00:17:08] Why in the world are we stopping this? [00:17:11] Are these people insane? Why would we [00:17:14] stop this? The law says the president [00:17:18] may regulate importation or exportation. [00:17:21] It does not get any more clear than [00:17:23] that. Now, I want to hear from you. What [00:17:27] do you think the Supreme Court should [00:17:28] do? Let me know in the comments down [00:17:30] below. And if you like this video, don't [00:17:32] forget to hit that subscribe button so [00:17:34] you don't miss out on future videos. If [00:17:36] you find my videos helpful, consider [00:17:38] signing up for a membership on my [00:17:39] website, wolvesenfinance.com. [00:17:42] for $6 a month. Your support helps me to [00:17:44] keep making these videos. Thank you to [00:17:47] everyone who has signed up. I'm Zach [00:17:49] from Wolves and Finance. Thank you for [00:17:52] watching. [00:18:09] [Music]