Well, tell us about Monday night's ruling.

Well, the court, by a vote of apparently seven to two, rejected the effort by the Trump administration to essentially interpose the Postal Service in the way in which mail-in ballots were are transferred and assessed by the states.

The court did not give elaborate reasons for its decision.

It said that the Trump administration was unlikely to succeed on the merits.

That was its principal contention.

And I think for good reason.

This is a situation in which elections are to be governed by the states.

Do you think this will pass muster if a state wants to get federal government's help in purging its voting list? Is that acceptable? Is that constitutional?

Well, tell us about Monday night's ruling.

Well, the court, by a vote of apparently seven to two, rejected the effort by the Trump administration to essentially interpose the Postal Service in the way in which mail-in ballots were are transferred and assessed by the states.

The court did not give elaborate reasons for its decision.

It said that the Trump administration was unlikely to succeed on the merits.

That was its principal contention.

And I think for good reason.

This is a situation in which elections are to be governed by the states.

Do you think this will pass muster if a state wants to get federal government's help in purging its voting list? Is that acceptable? Is that constitutional?

And it's only legal challenge and actually international pressures you described that rolls this stuff back.

Well, I mean, I think, first of all, you have to also look at the courts.

The courts played a big role at Guantanamo in rejecting the Bush administration's assertions that it could hold people there indefinitely without any access to courts.

The Supreme Court said, no, they do have access to courts.

You have to give them hearings, et cetera, et cetera.

But, you know, the reality is that is the case with... civil liberties.

If people aren't organized and in the streets and working with associations to defend those liberties, they're not going to defend themselves, particularly in times like this, right? All the political pressure is on one side.

Is that something that has lasted that we're kind of stuck with now? Because you do see the way the law is applied to even people actively seeking American citizenship within legal channels are now treated as having no rights and can be disappeared.

Uh, please explain.

Well, I think just on the evidence of this past term, uh, I don't think one can say this is clearly a Trump court.

I mean, you know, you have to keep reassessing [chuckles] as you go along, but this term, it delivered several blows to key Trump initiatives.

Birthright citizenship rejected probably his signal... you know, single most, uh, central kind of attack on the very notion of who we are, who among us are, uh, are true citizens.

They rejected his position.

Uh, six to three, uh, they rejected his position.

On the tariffs, his most important foreign policy, uh, initiative, um, brought in, uh, over $100 billion in revenue.

They have issued a rule which has been blocked.

How do they fit into the scheme of things? What are their training? What are their qualifications?

Well, you know, I mean, we've, you know, we are, we are, uh, first and foremost a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation that has always had an, a kind of ambivalent attitude towards, uh, immigrants.

And at times, we have been very welcoming, uh, at least of some immigrants, of some nationalities, and of some colors.

Uh, and at other times, we've been very unwelcoming.

And, uh, you know, I think w- we are living now through a, a time when we are, uh, extraordinarily unwelcoming, when there's a tremendous amount of, uh, animosity that, uh, has been exploited and fostered and fueled, uh, by, uh, by President Trump.

And ICE is at the forefront of that.

Um, Immigrations and Custom Enforcement, they are the folks who are dealing with the enforcement of immigration law in this country.

But before we get really into that, what kind of historic parallels do you see? Is this anything like Manzanar, like the Japanese internment camps in World War II? Are we seeing repeats of that type of nationalism?

Uh, please explain.

Well, I think just on the evidence of this past term, uh, I don't think one can say this is clearly a Trump court.

I mean, you know, you have to keep reassessing as you go along, but this term, it delivered several blows to key Trump initiatives.

Birthright citizenship, rejected probably his signal... you know, single most, uh, central kind of attack on the very notion of who we are, who among us are, uh, are true citizens.

They rejected his position.

Uh, six to three, uh, they rejected his position.

On the tariffs, his most important foreign policy, uh, initiative, um, brought in, uh, over $100 billion in revenue.

They have issued a rule which has been blocked.

Okay

... uh, with Paolo and Franz.

And to me, like, Orlando is-- There's a, a handful of teams in this stretch, I think Atlanta's one of them, where it's like, yeah, this is defensively really exciting.

It's just so inconsistent offensively, um, as a team or as a duo or whatever.

And for Paolo and Franz, I just...

Man, Paolo is just like, I don't understand him as a player.

I think he's incredible, and if I was the, the Magic when they drafted him, I would've been so excited.

Mm.

David, when you look at new investment opportunities for your firm, what are, what are signs that you s- look for that says this country is becoming more investable or less investable? Maybe it's, uh, what is the l- forward-looking indicator of risk for you?

Yeah.

So we have a saying, um, and, and we've, we try to act upon this, and that is, "Rocks don't change, but politicians do." And so we're always focused on being exposed to prospective mineral rights, and I'll give a plug for the whole royalty business model here if you don't mind.

So I fundamentally believe that the value of mineral rights over time augments That's very clear.

And in my lifetime, the price of gold's gone from $35 an ounce to 4,000.

Um, uh, the price of oil from single dollars per barrel to close to 100.

I could go on and on.

That's right.

Please explain what this is, how this works.

Basic idea is that the president exercises executive power under the Constitution.

And the conservatives have argued for some time now, that means that he has to be able to remove any principal officer, any head of an agency that is not acting as he wants them to act.

And that's required by the Constitution.

That view, which has been sort of building in the court for, I would say, two decades now, basically won the day in the case called Slaughter, in which the court overturned a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court from 1935 that said some agencies where there's a reason to have independence and where they engage in quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative activities can be protected by for cause protection, meaning the president can remove their leaders only for malfeasance or neglect of duty and not simply because he disagrees with something that they do.

And so, you know, now the president has unfettered power to remove at will, any officer of any executive branch agency, even where it would really undermine the effectiveness of that agency, the independence of that agency, the integrity of that agency, with this one exception, the Federal Reserve.

And the reality is, that everybody on all sides, from the most conservative to the most liberal, well, maybe not the most conservative, maybe not Thomas, but almost everybody agrees that it is absolutely critical that the Fed make decisions about our national economy and our currency based on economic matters and not on the partisan political desires of the president.

Tell us about that one.

Please explain what this is, how this works.

Basic idea is that the president exercises executive power under the Constitution.

And the conservatives have argued for some time now, that means that he has to be able to remove any principal officer, any head of an agency that is not acting as he wants them to act.

And that's required by the Constitution.

That view, which has been sort of building in the court for, I would say, two decades now, basically won the day in the case called Slaughter, in which the court overturned A unanimous decision from the Supreme Court from 1935 that said some agencies where there's a reason to have independence and where they engage in quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative activities can be protected by for cause protection, meaning the president can remove their leaders only for malfeasance or neglect of duty and not simply because he disagrees with something that they do.

And so, you know, now the president has unfettered power to remove at will, any officer of any executive branch agency, even where it would really undermine the effectiveness of that agency, the independence of that agency, the integrity of that agency, with this one exception, the Federal Reserve.

And the reality is, that everybody on all sides from the most conservative to the most liberal, well, maybe not the most conservative, maybe not Thomas, but almost everybody agrees that it is absolutely critical that the Fed make decisions about our national economy and our currency based on economic matters and not on the partisan political desires of the president.

Tell us about that one.

Where, where's, where's the kind of current revenue coming from? Can you g- g- give us that and, and, you know-

Yeah.

It's about 60% gold plus silver, about 30% copper, and about 10% lead, zinc, and molybdenum.

And, uh, um, the beautiful thing about a royalty portfolio is you have these producing royalties at the top of the pyramid, this immense development pipeline of things moving up that pyramid, as well as the discovery potential throughout.

And with hundreds of millions of dollars in mine development expenditures going into our properties at no cost to us, and 100-plus million dollars going into exploratory drilling across that portfolio, creating more and more resources.

And, and you s- talked specifically about earnings and cash flow, which are very important, and we're at the sweet spot of the development curve of a royalty company in that we're making money hand over fist and, and at a very nice place where our PNAV should be able to increase as we move forward.

But the most important thing is NAV per share growth, and our NAV per share growth has done exceedingly well as compared to our competitors, and that's driven by discovery of new reserves and resources across the portfolio of which we have exposure.

As in, like, current assets in the portfolio which are spending money on your behalf to get out of production.

What was your strategy?

So our strategy was really twofold.

One was to appeal, to seek to appeal to the conservatives by making this kind of logical argument.

When you fire someone because they're transgender, you are necessarily treating them differently than you would've treated somebody who was in the same situation but identified a- as a different sex at birth.

Imagine an employer who had six Aimees, and he invited all six Aimees in, and he said, "You know, uh, I just wanna know what your sex assigned at birth was." And five of them say, "Well, I was assigned female at birth," and one says, "I was assigned male at birth." And then he fires the one who says, "I was assigned male at birth." Obviously, that person was fired because of her sex assigned at birth, and as we saw from the prior- The second argument I think we tried to advance, which ultimately did not prevail, but I, I still think is a very powerful argument, is, uh, that when you fire somebody who is born male, identified as male at birth, because she is transgender, you are firing that person for failing to live consistently with the stereotype that we associate with sex.

And at the end of the day, the objection that's, to someone for being transgender is the ultimate sex stereotype.

It is saying, "I object to you because you fail to conform to this stereotype," the stereotype that if you are assigned a male sex at birth, you must live and identify for your entire life as a man.

Why not?

What was your strategy?

So our strategy was really twofold.

One was to appeal, to seek to appeal to the conservatives by making this kind of logical argument.

When you fire someone because they're transgender, you are necessarily treating them differently than you would've treated somebody who was in the same situation but identified a- as a different sex at birth.

Imagine an employer who had six Aimees, and he invited all six Aimees in, and he said, "You know, uh, I just wanna know what your sex assigned at birth was." And five of them say, "Well, I was assigned female at birth." And one says, "I was assigned male at birth." And then he fires the one who says, "I was assigned male at birth." Obviously, that person was fired because of her sex assigned at birth.

And as we saw from the prior...

The second argument I think we tried to advance, which ultimately did not prevail, but I, I still think is a very powerful argument, is, uh, that when you fire somebody who is born male, identified as male at birth, because she is transgender, you are firing that person for failing to live consistently with the stereotype that we associate with sex.

Why not?

What was your strategy?

So our strategy was really twofold.

One was to appeal, to seek to appeal to the conservatives by making this kind of logical argument.

When you fire someone because they're transgender, you are necessarily treating them differently than you would've treated somebody who was in the same situation but identified a- as a different sex at birth.

Imagine an employer who had six Aimees, and he invited all six Aimees in, and he said, "You know, uh, I just wanna know what your sex assigned at birth was." And five of them say, "Well, I was assigned female at birth," and one says, "I was assigned male at birth." And then he fires the one who says, "I was assigned male at birth." Obviously, that person was fired because of her sex assigned at birth, and as we saw from the private- The second argument I think we tried to advance, which ultimately did not prevail, but I, I still think is a very powerful argument, is, uh, that when you fire somebody who is born male, identified as male at birth, because she is transgender, you are firing that person for failing to live consistently with the stereotype that we associate with sex.

And at the end of the day, the objection that's, to someone for being transgender is the ultimate sex stereotype.

It is saying, "I object to you because you fail to conform to this stereotype," the stereotype that if you are assigned a male sex at birth, you must live and identify for your entire life as a man.

Why not?

Did you think that any of the justices were buying into the government's argument?

Justice Alito, without question.

Probably Justice Thomas as well.

I think Justice Barrett, very uncomfortable with this argument.

I mean, she said, "What about, what about the children of slaves?" The whole point [chuckles] of, of this Fourteenth Amendment was to make the children of slaves citizens and to make it clear that they are citizens if they are born here.

Well, slaves came here involuntarily.

They were brought here against their will.

Justice Kavanaugh asked, "Why would we address the constitutional issue when our usual practice is to resolve things on statutory grounds rather than constitutional grounds?" Will you explain what he was getting at there?

Can you talk about her legacy at the Justice Department, what Pam Bondi represented, what she failed to do for President Trump and for the nation?

So I think she'll go down in history as one of the worst attorneys general, uh, we've ever hadUh, and, and that's, um, because she basically turned the Justice Department, uh, on its head.

The, the Justice Department is supposed to be independent of the president, and the reason for that is that they're the folks who can take a US citizen or any other person living in this country and lock them up.

They're the people who can prosecute you.

They're the people who can seek the death penalty.

Uh, and so when you have a government agency that has that kind of power, it's critical that it be acting in the name of the law and in the name of justice, and not in the name of partisan politics and doing the master's bidding.

She came in and did the master's bidding, uh, and she did it poorly [laughs].

Uh, talk about his, uh, record with previous attorney generals, uh, Jeff Session, Bill Barr during his first term, and, uh, why he keeps, uh, getting rid of people who, whose advice he doesn't like.

Can you talk about her legacy at the Justice Department, what Pam Bondi represented, what she failed to do for President Trump and for the nation?

So I think she'll go down in history as one of the worst attorneys general, uh, we've ever hadUh, and, and that's, um, because she basically turned the Justice Department, uh, on its head.

The, the Justice Department is supposed to be independent of the president, and the reason for that is that they're the folks who can take a US citizen or any other person living in this country and lock them up.

They're the people who can prosecute you.

They're the people who can seek the death penalty.

Uh, and so when you have a government agency that has that kind of power, it's critical that it be acting in the name of the law and in the name of justice, and not in the name of partisan politics and doing the master's bidding.

She came in and did the master's bidding, uh, and she did it poorly [laughs].

Uh, talk about his, uh, record with previous attorney generals, uh, Jeff Session, Bill Barr during his first term, and, uh, why he keeps, uh, getting rid of people who, whose advice he doesn't like.

Can you talk about her legacy at the Justice Department, what Pam Bondi represented, what she failed to do for President Trump and for the nation?

So I think she'll go down in history as one of the worst attorneys general, uh, we've ever hadUh, and, and that's, um, because she basically turned the Justice Department, uh, on its head.

The, the Justice Department is supposed to be independent of the president, and the reason for that is that they're the folks who can take a US citizen or any other person living in this country and lock them up.

They're the people who can prosecute you.

They're the people who can seek the death penalty.

Uh, and so when you have a government agency that has that kind of power, it's critical that it be acting in the name of the law and in the name of justice, and not in the name of partisan politics and doing the master's bidding.

She came in and did the master's bidding, uh, and she did it poorly [laughs].

Uh, talk about his, uh, record with previous attorney generals, uh, Jeff Session, Bill Barr during his first term, and, uh, why he keeps, uh, getting rid of people who, whose advice he doesn't like.

Assuming that no criminal charges are eventually filed relating to this case of Renee Macklin Good, what recourse would be available under civil law? Talk about who could file a civil complaint against any of the federal agents involved in this case.

case....

Well, her, uh, survivors could sue the officer under a, a doctrine called Bivens that allows individuals to sue federal agents for violations of their constitutional rights in limited circumstances.

But violations of the Fourth Amendment, which is what a unjustified use of force, uh, is, have been recognized as a permissible ground for bringing a civil lawsuit against the officer.

And you can also bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the federal government itself for the action.

Well, as we're looking ahead, as both the federal government and state officials are looking into the killing of Renee Macklin-Good, what are you gonna be watching for?

You know, I think whenever you've got a police killing that is caught on video, widely shared, what's most important is that it be dealt with fairly and justly.

Because if people see that government officials are able to kill citizens without accountability, you lose trust in the law enforcement system, and when we lose trust in law enforcement, very, very bad things, uh, happen.

Your, your thoughts?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, look, the whole world order is based on the principle, probably the first principle of international law, that countries have to respect their neighbors and they can't simply invade a neighbor, uh, or any other sovereign nation because they don't like the way they're running things there.

Uh, you know, if, if Canada, um, were to bomb, uh, US, um, uh, drug manufacturers because drugs are being brought ac- across the Canadian border, uh, we wouldn't say that's okay.

If Mexico were to bomb gun manufacturers in the United States because our guns are killing, uh, thousands of Mexicans every year in Mexico, we wouldn't say that's okay.

Can you talk about what he is referring to and what it means to seize the oil, the largest oil reserves in the world?

Talk about the merging of these two issues, and specifically what's happening to Kelly right now.

So, you know, this, this ou- uh, entire operation from the outset, uh, is illegal.

Um, it is not legal to, uh, premed- engage in premeditated targeting of people because you believe they're engaged in criminal activity.

Uh, you, what we have a system in this country for trying people, convicting them, sentencing them.

Even if you are found to have been guilty of smuggling massive amounts of drugs, you cannot be executed.

The death penalty is limited for people who have actually committed a homicide.

The president says this is a war, uh, but he's m- he's mixing metaphor with reality.

What do you, what do you make of this?

What are some of the other things they've purchased? Is this their first foray into the world of the video gaming industry?

Well, it is definitely not their first foray into the video game industry.

They are very, very active in, in terms of investing in video games.

So they have set up their own company, Savvy, Savvy Game Group, which has bought Scopely, is the largest deal they've bought, which, uh, created the highly successful Monopoly Go mobile game, which has made them, uh, billions.

They also recently purchased, um, I think it was through Scopely, Niantic, which is known for Pokémon Go, which was, uh, eight or nine years ago, kind of all the rage, uh, in, in the mobile game space.

It's where you went around live environments and caught Pokémon.

They've also made, uh, many investments in, uh, minority investments in companies they owned.

Do you have those same concerns?

If you could just start out by responding to these attacks and, and lay out your argument, uh, in the New York Review of Books piece, Getting Away with Murder.

Murder.Sure. Um, (clicks tongue) you know, y- y- y- w- you d- we have the power and the authority to make drug smuggling a crime.

We have the power and the authority to interdict boats that are bringing drugs into this country.

We have the power and the authority to try people.

Uh, if they're convicted by a jury, uh, they can then be sentenced to a time of, uh, a period of time in, in prison.

What we do not have authority to do, what we do not have, uh, any legal authority to do is to just execute people, uh, from the skies, uh, without any evidence, without any trial, without any showing that they pose some sort of imminent danger to anybody.

Uh, and, and yet that's what President Trump is doing.

I don't know if this has diverted attention from the possibility of the release of the Epstein files, but he has so upped the ante here.

Can you, uh, remind us what happened?

Sure.

Well, you know, like many controversial decisions, um, the Court issued its decision at the very end of its term, which happens to be just before the 4th of July break for Congress.

Congress responded to the decision by holding off on starting their 4th of July break and staying in session for an extra day or two so that virtually every member of Congress could get up and, um, lambaste the Supreme Court for the decision, uh, that it had just issued.

The, the Bush administration responded by, the George H.W. Bush administration at the time, responded by saying, "If this is what the Supreme Court says, we have to amend the Constitution." Uh, but Democrats did not say, "This is the right decision." Democrats said, "Um, we think flag burning is terrible.

We can make it, uh, a crime.

The Texas statute was a particularly poorly drafted statute.

Sure.

Um, can you talk about what's going on here?

You know, what's going on here, uh, is, is absolutely clear.

The pr- the Trump administration is trying to suppress protests that it doesn't like, uh, and, and we don't have to guess about it.

Just as with the law firm orders, Trump has put it out there in the public, in- this time in a tweet on Truth Social saying, um, you know, "We're gonna go after you for your illeg-" quote what he calls, "Illegal protests." Well, protests are not illegal simply because they express a view that the president disfavors.

Protests are protected precisely (laughs) because they express views that the president or the government, uh, disfavors.

That's the point of protest.

And what the, what the administration is doing is abusing immigration authority that was never designed for this purpose to target people who are doing nothing more than speaking out in favor of Palestinian rights, uh, uh, uh, opposing and objecting to the, um, massive, uh, killing of Palestinians in, in Gaza, uh, by Israel.

Uh, the, uh, regardless of the il- whether this is legal or not, the impact that this is having on the functioning of- of these universities and the fear that it's- it's instilling across the country to university administrations.