Ep 171 — Can Trump Put Troops In Every City Simply By Shouting EMERGENCY?

Interactive Transcript

spk_0 But everyone around him is happy for any pretext to unleash violence on American cities where a lot of

spk_0 Democrats live. So the next day, Hague Seth puts out this memo that says 200 members of the

spk_0 Oregon National Guard will be called to federal service effective immediately for a period of 60 days.

spk_0 Yeah, and the asserted legal justification here was that same generic June 7th memo. But even more so

spk_0 than in Los Angeles, it is clear that none of the preconditions for Section 12406 were met in Portland.

spk_0 Welcome to Law and Chaos, where the government is shut down,

spk_0 ISIS laying siege to cities and Scotis is borked. But on the plus side, Alex Jones is about to get

spk_0 what's coming to him and Law and Chaos is breaking news about our foyer suit against the DOJ.

spk_0 We've got a lot to cover, so let's get after it.

spk_0 Hey guys, I'm Liz Dye and with me as always is Andrew Taurus. Andrew, how are you?

spk_0 I'm great Liz. How are you? I mean, it's wild. It's wild. Did you at least have a good weekend?

spk_0 I did have a really lovely, lovely weekend. So thank you for asking. And you?

spk_0 I also had a very nice weekend, but I know I'm with you. I am super excited to break some news here.

spk_0 Why don't you start us off? All right, so let's start with our exciting update on our foyer lawsuit.

spk_0 As we've said before, we have sued the Department of Justice and asked them to produce one single

spk_0 document. Yeah, cough it up, Pam. Indeed. And also as we said in our post yesterday, we know you're

spk_0 lying, Pam. True, but I think you're going to have to narrow that one down just a little bit, Liz.

spk_0 Okay, so for background, the DOJ filed judicial ethics complaint in July against Chief Judge James

spk_0 Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia. That complaint which was

spk_0 hand delivered to Chief Judge Sri Sri Navasan of the DC Circuit alleged that Judge Boasberg

spk_0 attempted to intimidate Chief Justice John Roberts at the March meeting of the judicial

spk_0 conference. That there was that's where judges from each district convene twice a year to

spk_0 hash out rules for administering the federal judiciary. There was not Fistikovs. I know what you're

spk_0 thinking, like old man fight, but no, the story the DOJ tells is that Boasberg, quote, attempted to

spk_0 improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges by

spk_0 straining from the traditional topics to express his belief that the Trump administration would quote

spk_0 disregard the rulings of federal courts and trigger a constitutional crisis.

spk_0 And if Judge Boasberg said that, that is exactly what the Trump administration absolutely 100%

spk_0 did. And in fact, did in front of Judge Boasberg, just a couple of days after the conference on March

spk_0 15 in the JGG immigration case. That was when Drew Ensign got up and said, I don't know if any

spk_0 planes are taking off your honor when he absolutely did know. And then two more planes took off

spk_0 after Judge Boasberg said, turn those planes around. Yeah. And look, I don't think it's possible

spk_0 to talk about this story without situating it in the right wing news cycle. Because this

spk_0 this story was first reported by Margot Cleveland, this weirdo at the Federalist who hyperventilated

spk_0 about it on July 16th. Yeah. No. Okay. She's she's a very specific kind of weirdo. But I'm not going

spk_0 to get into that. She hyperventilated about this story on July 16th. She said that she had a memo

spk_0 with minutes from that judicial conference meeting that proved that Judge Boasberg and his

spk_0 colleagues on the trial court in DC are biased against a litigant before them. IE Donald Trump,

spk_0 the perpetual defendant in all of these, you know, immigration cases and such. She claimed to be

spk_0 shocked and outraged at the suggestion that judges would worry about defiance by the Trump

spk_0 administration because as everyone knows, the Trump DOJ would never, not ever defy a court order.

spk_0 Indeed. How dare you even suggest such a thing. Right. So notably, Cleveland did not publish that

spk_0 memo or even an excerpt. So the story after she publishes makes the rounds in conservative media.

spk_0 John, you try to like waterboard it into existence on Fox. And then a week later, the DOJ filed

spk_0 this supposed judicial ethics complaint against Judge Boasberg with the exact same quotes and

spk_0 allegations as Cleveland had had written in her post and is proof that the DOJ dropped to a

spk_0 footnote that said, see attachment A at 16. And then Pam Bondi and the rest of the Hauer monkeys

spk_0 tweeted about it and said, they're not going to stand for this assault on the integrity of the

spk_0 judiciary. Yeah. Assault on the integrity of the judiciary is the job of the president who,

spk_0 you know, shit posts about the judiciary every single day. Or maybe it's the job of Stephen Miller,

spk_0 who just called for violence against what he termed insurrectionist judges or

spk_0 yeah, so many, right. But notably, the DOJ did not attach this memo to the copy of the complaint

spk_0 that they distributed to reporters. There was no attachment A on the copies of this letter to

spk_0 Judge Srinivasan, which circulated in DC. Right. And I think we should acknowledge that we do not

spk_0 know for certain who distributed this complaint to reporters. I guess as possible, it was not

spk_0 the Department of Justice. Well, fair, although the complaint published by Politico and Quarthouse

spk_0 News was unsigned. So this letter said had shot myself signature line but no signature.

spk_0 Presumably, if it came out the other end, it would have had Chad Miselle's John Hancock on it.

spk_0 But whatever, Bondi was the one putting all this shit on main and trying to make political hay

spk_0 out of it. She's the one who made this complaint a public issue. If she'd kept her mouth shut,

spk_0 as she absolutely should have, no one would have known about it. Not us. Now,

spk_0 now we're here to break some news on our show because we have learned from a source for

spk_0 Billio with the matter that the Justice Department did not give a copy of this memo to Judge

spk_0 Srinivasan either. Attachment A does not exist. And in fact, Judge Srinivasan tried to get a copy

spk_0 of Attachment A from DOJ and he got nothing. So in support of their claims that Judge Boisberg

spk_0 violated the cannons of judicial ethics by talking smack about Trump, the Department of Justice

spk_0 has supplied exactly zero evidence to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to

spk_0 Judge Srinivasan. They've got that evidence. It's Attachment A. May the court see it? No.

spk_0 Okay. So as we said, we filed this FOIA request back in July to get the Attachment.

spk_0 Right. It is clearly an agency record subject to the Freedom of Information Act. It was generated

spk_0 outside of the Department of Justice. It was then sent or apparently not sent to the judiciary.

spk_0 But irrespective of whether that copy ever arrived at the Circuit Court for DC, it has to be

spk_0 closed. So we filed our request and we asked for it to be expedited. And the Justice Department's

spk_0 Office of Information Policy said no to expediting. And not only no, they said they had to put us

spk_0 on the complex track. Right. So they'll get to that never. Yeah. This is so ridiculous on a bunch

spk_0 of levels. First, they said it didn't require expediting because this isn't a matter of pressing

spk_0 public concern. Pam Bondi herself tweeted it out. I mean, come on. Yeah. And

spk_0 the justification for putting something that complex track is that the search apparently involves

spk_0 quote, a search for and collection of records from field offices or other separate offices. And

spk_0 thus your client's request, that's us, Lawncast Pod, your client's request falls within unusual

spk_0 circumstances, which no, it does not. This document was on Pam Bondi's desk 10 minutes ago. It is

spk_0 one record. We did not ask for every time the Department of Justice used the word Portland in an

spk_0 email. We said, give us this one document that you received from an outside source and forwarded,

spk_0 or at least referenced in communications with another branch of government. This is the definition

spk_0 of the least complex request. You can ask the government to do only one one thing. Right. So we

spk_0 filed our motion for summary judgment, which the government will respond to once the shutdown is

spk_0 over. I assume that's why the government closed. They're just that scared to give this thing to us.

spk_0 Oh, oh, is that is that why? I mean, maybe not, but I do think the government's reluctance to

spk_0 give this to us and also to judge Shrinivasan indicates that either they don't have it and they just

spk_0 copied Margot Cleveland's work or they it doesn't back up their case at all. Whatever it says,

spk_0 if we could see it in context would make it look like they were full of shit. At a minimum,

spk_0 they're refusal to disclose its suggests that they are filing judicial complaints purely as a

spk_0 publicity mechanism. Yeah, this judicial complaint could have been a press release. And

spk_0 functionally, it was since they failed to disclose the evidence. Yeah, undermining public

spk_0 confidence in the integrity of the judiciary by accusing Judge Boisberg of undermining the

spk_0 integrity of the judiciary is that's some bullshit right there. I am very anxious to see this document

spk_0 because one of the things that Margot Cleveland said in her piece, I'm going to quote this was

spk_0 that Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that meaning disregarding judicial orders would not happen.

spk_0 And in turn, no constitutional crisis would materialize according to the memorandum. The summary

spk_0 of the working breakfast added that Chief Justice Roberts noted that quote, his interactions with

spk_0 the president had been civil and respectful such as the president thanking him at the state of

spk_0 the union address for administering the oath. And oh, please, yeah, my confidence in Chief Justice

spk_0 Roberts's integrity is pretty low. But that moment at the state of the union where Trump said,

spk_0 thanks for what you've done for us. We won't forget. And Justice Barrett visibly rolled her eyes so

spk_0 hard she almost passed out. That was not a good look for the Supreme Court. Literally, no one believes

spk_0 that interaction was an expression of gratitude for administering the oath of office. Come on,

spk_0 be for real. So either there's some missing context here or Roberts is even more out of touch than

spk_0 we thought. I mean, probably both to be honest, but I mean, that that struck me as ridiculous. That

spk_0 was a moment of igniminy for the court. And it seems almost impossible to me that Roberts could have

spk_0 been like, well, obviously Trump won't defy court orders because he was so nice to me at the

spk_0 state of the union. Like, I mean, oh, yeah, but okay, we will keep you posted on that. We are

spk_0 super excited to get a response. Should the courts ever open back up? And we're going to actually

spk_0 talk about that. We'll talk a little bit about the shutdown and the effect on all of the cases

spk_0 that we follow when we come back from this brief ad break. Unless, of course, you are a subscriber

spk_0 at patreon.com slash law and chaos pod or law and chaos pod.com in which case no ad breaks for

spk_0 you, not today and not ever.

spk_0 And we're back. Okay, Liz, the government has shut down except that ICE is still conducting

spk_0 raids and provoking street brawls and Donald Trump is trying to invade Portland, Oregon and

spk_0 Chicago, Illinois, the way he did Los Angeles. So let's talk about the government shutdown.

spk_0 The proximate cause of the shutdown is because Congress failed to pass a budget bill for the 2025,

spk_0 2026 fiscal year. And in a deeper sense, this battle really reflects the breakdown when

spk_0 Democrats know that Donald Trump is trying to steal Congress's power of the purse and Republicans

spk_0 are trying to let him. We have talked about all these impoundment cases where Trump just says,

spk_0 eh, I'm not going to spend money in the budget bill. And then the Supreme Court lets him do it

spk_0 again on the shadowdocket. So in a very real sense, why should Democrats negotiate a deal if

spk_0 Republicans are just going to let Trump take a sharpie to whatever they agree to? And Republicans

spk_0 are just going to blame Democrats anyway. Like we might as well stand up and stand for something

spk_0 because we're still going to get the rough end of this news cycle. So on our way to talking

spk_0 about how this impacts the 11 million federal cases we follow on this show, here's the TL to

spk_0 Garb because obviously we are not a policy shop. We are a law shop. But we do want to talk a little

spk_0 bit about this. The fiscal year ends on September 30th. As of that date, Congress was unable to pass

spk_0 an appropriations act, which is the budget for fiscal year 2025, 2026, which we are now in. And

spk_0 that means that as of October 1, there were no funds allocated for annual federal government

spk_0 programs. That does not mean that the entire federal government disappears, right? Programs that

spk_0 are not funded by annual appropriations can still operate. And there are emergency funds previously

spk_0 allocated by Congress to keep the lights on at least for a little while. But for the vast majority

spk_0 of federal government programs, the operative law is the anti-deficiency act of 1884 codified at

spk_0 31 USC 1341 and 42. Right. Section 1341 says that no officer or employee of the US government or

spk_0 the District of Columbia may make or authorize an expenditure or obligation or involve the

spk_0 government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made

spk_0 unless otherwise authorized by law. So in English, that means the government cannot spend money,

spk_0 pay employees or even issue IOUs while the government is shut down. And Section 1342 says

spk_0 it can't let employees work for free either. So an officer or employee of the US government or

spk_0 of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government

spk_0 or employee personnel services exceeding that authorized by law, except for emergencies involving

spk_0 the safety of human life or the protection of property. And then there's this clarifying provision

spk_0 that says emergencies do not include ongoing regular functions of government, the suspension of

spk_0 which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property.

spk_0 Right. So to put those two provisions of the anti-deficiency act together, without a budget or

spk_0 other congressional allocation, the federal government can't pay anyone to work for it,

spk_0 can't promise to pay anyone in the future when a budget does get passed and can't let anyone

spk_0 work for it for free unless it falls into one of those exemptions, which is why the vast majority

spk_0 of federal government employees were furloughed starting October 1. And I should add parenthetically

spk_0 that the Anti-Defiency Act also protects those employees. Section 1342 also says that when the

spk_0 government is funded, each employee furloughed as a result of a covered lapse in appropriations

spk_0 shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations at the earliest date possible

spk_0 after the lapse in appropriations ends, relevant to our beat. One of the government agencies

spk_0 that is paid out of the annual budget is the Department of Justice. So there's a question about

spk_0 whether the DOJ falls into those authorized by law or necessary to protect human life and property

spk_0 exceptions. And the answer is sort of. Yeah. So prior to the shutdown, the Justice Department formulated

spk_0 a contingency plan. We can link to it in the show notes. It says, with respect to litigation,

spk_0 the Department's plan assumes that the judicial branch will continue to operate, though possibly

spk_0 at a reduced level through the lapse. Therefore, criminal litigation will continue without interruption

spk_0 as an activity essential to the safety of human life and the protection of property. And just to

spk_0 just to kind of flesh that out, the judiciary has said that it can operate basically through the

spk_0 middle of October, maybe October 13th, or a little bit after that. So this is a short shutdown.

spk_0 Right. This says, we'll be fine if the shutdown is basically less than two weeks. If it's more than

spk_0 two weeks, we're screwed. And in addition to the judiciary itself, there's also an un-stated reason

spk_0 underlying this memorandum is to why the government's ability to prosecute criminal cases

spk_0 has to continue uninterrupted through any budget showdown. And that is the sixth amendment.

spk_0 The sixth amendment says in relevant part that if you are charged with a federal crime,

spk_0 you have the right to a speedy trial. And what's a speedy trial that is implemented by the speedy

spk_0 trial act of 1974, which is codified at 18 USC Section 3161, that says that the government

spk_0 must bring you to trial within 70 days after the issuance of an indictment or criminal complaint,

spk_0 unless there are agreed upon pauses in that 70 day clock. And there are no sixth amendment

spk_0 exceptions for, oh, our government is broken and prosecutors aren't getting paid.

spk_0 Right. But a lot of what we follow here are lawsuits against the government. And that is civil

spk_0 litigation. So here's what the plan says about that. Civil litigation will be curtailed or post-pone

spk_0 extent that this can be done without compromising to a significant degree the safety of human life

spk_0 over the protection of property. Litigators will approach the courts and request that active cases

spk_0 be post-poned until funding is available. If a court denies such a request and orders a case to

spk_0 continue, the government will comply with the court's order, which would constitute express legal

spk_0 authorization for the activity to continue. And so on October 1, when the government shut down,

spk_0 the justice department moved to stay more or less every civil case at once. And most courts

spk_0 granted those motions. A lot of them said, okay, as soon as the government comes back,

spk_0 you know, your response will be due in 10 days, whatever pending motions you have. But some judges

spk_0 did not agree, including Judge Geokab, who's presiding over a challenge to the deployment of state

spk_0 national guard units in DC. She cited the second part of that contingency plan and said, okay,

spk_0 here's that court order that operates as an authorization. So no stay for you.

spk_0 Right. The DOJ's own contingency plan says, if a court tells us we have to keep going,

spk_0 that is express legal authorization. Second, that plan also explicitly exempts litigation over

spk_0 temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. And third, we're talking about cases

spk_0 where the plaintiffs alleged that the government is doing patently illegal, unconstitutional stuff.

spk_0 It would be ridiculous to say that the absence of a budget provides carte blanche for the Trump

spk_0 administration to break the law and were powerless to even challenge it. So for example, in Doe versus

spk_0 Noam, which is one of the immigration cases, the plaintiffs oppose the stay. They cited both that

spk_0 contingency plan relied upon by Judge Geokab. And also the fundamental unfairness of letting

spk_0 immigration enforcement proceed unaffected by the lapse in appropriations, which is happening,

spk_0 right, on October 1st, the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Ice, right, made clear on

spk_0 social media that its operations would quote, remain unchanged. So if ISIS continuing to round people

spk_0 up, then plaintiffs still have the right to go into court and challenge what ISIS is doing.

spk_0 Okay. So TLDR, we're not shutting down because our cases are not shutting down.

spk_0 There will still be litigation ongoing. But we do appreciate that a lot of people who

spk_0 listen to us work for the federal government are in and are in a rotten situation right now because

spk_0 they're not getting paid. And so all love, we hope that this ends. We obviously support Democrats

spk_0 standing up and not getting rolled. But we appreciate that there is a human cost. So yeah. Okay,

spk_0 a couple of other important news stories we're following today. The first is that the Supreme

spk_0 Court has found the one person in federal government, they will not let Donald Trump's

spk_0 in merely fire. And it just so happens to be the person whose termination could affect their

spk_0 retirement accounts. That's probably a coincidence. No, for sure. So a week before SCOTUS functionally

spk_0 overruled Humphreys executor on the shadow talk. That was the 1935 case where the court said

spk_0 that Roosevelt could not fire the chair of the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission,

spk_0 in defiance of the law that said the FTC chair could only be fired for cause. Donald Trump

spk_0 came into office immediately fired his FTC chair Rebecca Slaughter and the conservative justices

spk_0 said, go for it. Right. But they've been making weird noises about the Federal Reserve being a

spk_0 different class of animals somehow. They're still workshopping that fed exception. Anyway,

spk_0 the Trump administration filed for emergency relief asking the Supreme Court to stay the district

spk_0 court's order keeping Lisa Cook on the job, which would have run contrary to both the trial judge

spk_0 and the DC circuit and would have effectively allowed the administration to fire Lisa Cook,

spk_0 a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. And like 10 minutes after the slaughter order

spk_0 came down saying, oh yeah, fire federal trade commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, that's just fine.

spk_0 The Supreme Court rejected the request to stay the lower courts order keeping Lisa Cook on the job

spk_0 and instead set the case for oral argument in January. So Lisa Cook gets to stay on the job on

spk_0 the Federal Reserve Board of Governors at least for another couple of months.

spk_0 Well, I suspect if they are going to hear it in January, they intend to leave her there.

spk_0 Probably in, you know, look, the Supreme Court doesn't issue orders the next day. Generally,

spk_0 it would be if January then, you know, until they disposed of the case maybe within three months.

spk_0 But I appreciate that they don't want to break any every single goddamn thing all at once.

spk_0 And speaking of not breaking shit, the first circuit joins the ninth in blocking Trump's

spk_0 effort to do away with birthright citizenship. Remember the Supreme Court used the issue of

spk_0 birthright citizenship to discover the here two four unobserved illegality of nation-wide

spk_0 junctions because they were all of these courts that issued nation-wide injunctions and said,

spk_0 that's completely unconstitutional. So it's unconstitutional nationwide. To be clear, the Supreme

spk_0 Court said nation-wide injunctions were highly disfavored and only allowed if nothing else could

spk_0 provide the plaintiffs with full relief. They didn't know this during all of those nation-wide

spk_0 injunctions against Biden trying to, you know, deliver on his campaign promises. But here we are.

spk_0 So previously, if something was unconstitutional in Maine, it was presumed to be unconstitutional

spk_0 in Montana and a judge in either state could issue that nation-wide injunction. No more.

spk_0 So that meant that all of those rulings were courts had said, no, you can't, you know,

spk_0 undo birthright citizenship by presidential fiat, you racist, goon, and issued nation-wide

spk_0 injunctions had to be reconsidered. And every one of those reconsiderations has come to the same

spk_0 conclusion that nation-wide injunctions are really the only remedy that will give adequate

spk_0 relief to the plaintiffs. And you really don't have to think about that one very hard, right?

spk_0 You are born in Maine. Two parents who are undocumented and you get a birth certificate. How do you

spk_0 know you're going to be able to travel to Texas and be treated like a citizen? You just, you just

spk_0 don't. And look, is Maine supposed to treat a child who was born in Texas but doesn't have a

spk_0 social security number like a citizen when she moves to East and like enrolls in public. So it's

spk_0 unworkable to have this patchwork. Yeah. And Liz, I'd like to read just the conclusion of this

spk_0 opinion to you because the judge is squarely situate this latest attempt to ban birthright

spk_0 citizenship in the context of so many of the most shameful, most racist chapters in our nation's

spk_0 history. The first circuit says, our nation's history of efforts to restrict birthright citizenship

spk_0 from Dred Scott in the decade before the Civil War to the attempted justification for the

spk_0 enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion Act in Wong Kim Ark has not been a proud one indeed.

spk_0 Those efforts each have been rejected once by the people through constitutional amendment

spk_0 and once by the court relying on that same amendment three decades later and at a time when

spk_0 tensions over immigration were also high. Even the denial of citizenship to Native American tribal

spk_0 members no longer persists thanks to a statute passed more than a century ago and then as a reference

spk_0 to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The court concludes, the lessons of history thus give us every

spk_0 reason to be wary of now blessing this most recent effort to break with our established tradition

spk_0 of recognizing birthright citizenship and to make citizenship depend on the actions of one's

spk_0 parents rather than in all but the rarest of circumstances the simple fact of being born in the

spk_0 United States. Nor does the text of the 14th Amendment which countermanded our most infamous

spk_0 effort to break with that tradition permit us to plus this effort any more than does the Supreme

spk_0 Court's interpretation of that amendment in Wong Kim Ark the many related precedents that have

spk_0 followed it or Congress's 1952 statute writing that amendments words into the US code.

spk_0 Yeah, I don't think that there's any way to say it more plainly. There is no basis for getting

spk_0 rid of birthright citizenship other than racism. Racism is the main product of the Trump

spk_0 administration. We've seen that in every single thing that they've done the the impoundment issues

spk_0 where they refuse to spend money. Most of that is because they want to deprive minorities and

spk_0 disfavored populations of federal funds. We've seen that with these immigration actions which are

spk_0 so clearly racist. We're going to talk about those in a minute when we come back and birthright

spk_0 citizenship. There's no reason to do this other than gross racism. Agreed. Okay, we will be

spk_0 right back to talk about those immigration decisions in just a moment.

spk_0 And we're back. Okay, we are recording this show a day early and so we don't know exactly how

spk_0 things will have been folded in Oregon and Illinois as you are listening to this. This is a

spk_0 really kinetic situation. But we can make some general comparisons about the military deployments

spk_0 in these four US cities, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Chicago and Portland, Oregon.

spk_0 Each of these military deployments or attempted military deployments is proceeding in a sort of

spk_0 unique posture based on the different facts and law. But they are all playing into each other both

spk_0 in the ways that the government tries to position itself and in the court's responses. Although

spk_0 we're going to say DC has a big asterisk next to it because it's not a state obviously.

spk_0 It does, but DC should be a state and that should be a primary plank of the democratic party going

spk_0 forward. No exceptions. But as you said, Liz, the federal government has control over the

spk_0 district of Columbia in a way that it does not over the other three cities which are situated in

spk_0 states. So I agree with you, we should cabin what happened there in the main other than

spk_0 to point out that because the district of Columbia is not actually the Mad Max Hellscape that Donald

spk_0 Trump claims. Listen, all that much for the troops that he deployed there to do, right? We were

spk_0 left with those vivid images of troops wearing bright orange vests over their camo uniforms while

spk_0 wandering around picking up trash, which is a public service to be sure, but also a gross waste

spk_0 of resources. Totally. But then of course, Trump took credit for cleaning up DC. He was like,

spk_0 there's no more murders. We solved it all. Obviously. There's so ornamental kale. Uh-huh. But turning

spk_0 to Los Angeles on June 6 and 7 after ice swept in and started grabbing every brown person they could

spk_0 get their hands on, there were isolated protests and a couple of hours of low-level violence. That

spk_0 violence was immediately put down by the LAPD, which has some experience with riots. It did not rise

spk_0 to the level of an emergency, but it generated a ton of footage, which President Trump was able to

spk_0 cite in a memorandum calling up at least 2000 National Guard personnel into federal service for 60

spk_0 days or longer, supposedly to protect ice from protesters. Uh-huh. The asserted legal basis was 10 USC

spk_0 Section 1, 2, 4, 0, 6, which allows the President to federalize a state's National Guard if one of

spk_0 three preconditions are met. Those are one, an invasion or danger of invasion by a foreign nation,

spk_0 two, rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States,

spk_0 or three, the President is unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.

spk_0 And clearly none of those three preconditions were met in Los Angeles, so the state of California

spk_0 sued, seeking an emergency injunction. Judge Charles Breyer agreed that there was no emergency and

spk_0 immediately enjoined that federalization order, but he was blocked by a very conservative panel

spk_0 of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. So the National Guard stayed under federal control under the

spk_0 control of Secretary of Defense Pete Heggseth. The judges on the Ninth Circuit said that the President's

spk_0 determination that there is an emergency sufficient to satisfy one of those preconditions of Section

spk_0 1, 2, 4, 0, 6 is due a high level of deference, but critically not complete deference, right? It

spk_0 wasn't absolutely non-justiciable. The Court can review it, and importantly, a court does not have

spk_0 to defer to a determination that is made in obvious bad faith. Right, so the Trump administration

spk_0 argues here as it always does that the President has absolute, unreviewable power to declare

spk_0 emergencies. No court can counter him. Even if those declarations of emergency are based on false

spk_0 statements of fact, nothing a court can do about it, that's his position. He says we've seen this

spk_0 over and over. He says we're being invaded by the Venezuelan government, you know, using trend

spk_0 air, rock whiz, shock, shock troops. That's objectively not true, but he insists that courts have

spk_0 zero authority to review it. He wants the ability to declare alternative facts true simply by

spk_0 presidential fiat. As long as we're designing the Democratic Party platform after making DC a state,

spk_0 we need to get rid of these emergency power. That's clank too. But okay, we're stuck with this

spk_0 legal framework. The Ninth Circuit said that courts have to be highly deferential, but not entirely

spk_0 deferential. And so the Ninth Circuit pointed to the sporadic pockets of violence in Los Angeles

spk_0 that were cited by the government as justification, and they concluded, well, you know, it's not crazy

spk_0 to call this pitifully shit an emergency that prevented the president from executing laws. And

spk_0 because we owe his claims so much deference, we guess this is enough to satisfy 12406. In the meantime,

spk_0 that original order federalizing the California National Guard expired on August 6th. So the day

spk_0 before August 5th, Secretary Hegseth issued a new order federalizing 300 California National Guard

spk_0 troops for an additional 90 days. So they're going to stay on through November. The claimed

spk_0 justification for those extra 90 days was that original June 7th generic memo that you referenced

spk_0 list. This federalization was not tied to any specific emergency under 12406. The administration's

spk_0 view was, oh, we declared an emergency once it passed muster. We don't have to declare it ever

spk_0 again. That can justify sending any troops anywhere for any amount of time. And they did, in fact,

spk_0 talk about well, though, maybe protest in other states. So maybe we'll use these these national

spk_0 guard troops will keep up reserve of national guard troops deployed so that we can kind of dispatch

spk_0 them to go around the country. And I'm not sure that that's legal. But okay, put a pin in that

spk_0 because we're coming back to those troops. But that is California. Trump and his goons have had a

spk_0 hard on not to put to find a point on it to sick the military on blue cities forever. Wow, I'm

spk_0 betting a thousand here. Anyway, they seized on a couple of hours of kids throwing rocks as

spk_0 justification to do it in LA. But that is not what happened in Portland. They're President

spk_0 Couch Potato, saw some b-roll footage of the uprising in Portland five years ago. He thought

spk_0 it was real and current. And he announced on September 27th, he was directing Secretary of War,

spk_0 Pete Higgseth to provide all necessary troops to protect war ravaged Portland and any of our

spk_0 ice facilities under siege from attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists. Thank you for

spk_0 your attention to this matter. This this pronouncement was made on true social. Obviously. And obviously

spk_0 Portland is not war ravaged and maybe Trump is too stupid to know that one never knows. But everyone

spk_0 around him is happy for any pretext to unleash violence on American cities where a lot of

spk_0 Democrats live. So the next day, Higgseth puts out this memo that says 200 members of the

spk_0 Oregon National Guard will be called to federal service effective immediately for a period of 60

spk_0 days. Yeah. And the asserted legal justification here was that same generic June 7th memo. But

spk_0 even more so than in Los Angeles, it is clear that none of the preconditions for section 12406 were

spk_0 met in Portland. So Oregon went to federal court seeking an injunction to block the federalization

spk_0 of its National Guard troops. That case was first assigned to Judge Michael Simon, who is a

spk_0 Biden appointee. He recused himself at the government's request because his wife is a member

spk_0 of Congress. She publicly opposed the troop deployment. So then the case was assigned to Judge

spk_0 Karen Immergut, who is a very conservative Trump appointee. She worked for independent council

spk_0 Ken Starr back during the Clinton impeachment. She was the lawyer who personally deposed Monica

spk_0 Lewinsky. But as conservative as she is, she is not mega red-pilled. She served as US attorney for

spk_0 Oregon. She was a state court judge. She actually, as far as we can tell, believes in the rule of

spk_0 law. And she bench slapped the shit out of Donald Trump's plan to federalize his Oregon's National Guard.

spk_0 Yeah. So remember, we just talked about this. The ninth circuit said, judges have to be

spk_0 deferential to the president's claim that the 12406 preconditions were met. But they can still

spk_0 evaluate the evidence. And so Judge Immergut went through everything happening outside the federal

spk_0 immigration facility in Portland in the past six months, particularly the month leading up to

spk_0 Trump's proclamation. And she said that the government's version of events was simply untethered

spk_0 to the facts. That's a quote. I actually think this passage sums it up. She said, defendants

spk_0 describe only four incidents of protesters clashing with federal officers in the month of September

spk_0 preceding the federalization order. The first involved protesters setting up a makeshift gillotine

spk_0 to intimidate federal officials. The second involved four people shining overpowered

spk_0 flashlights in the eyes of drivers. The third involved someone posting a photograph of an

spk_0 unmarked ice vehicle online. And the last involved additional drivers having flashlights shown

spk_0 in their eyes. These incidents are inexcusable. Well, maybe, but they are nowhere near the type of

spk_0 incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces. They also occurred at least

spk_0 two weeks before President Trump issued his directive. More broadly, these incidents are

spk_0 categorically different from the violent incidents as described in Newsom 2. That's the

spk_0 the case at the Ninth Circuit that took place in Los Angeles when the president federalized the

spk_0 California National Guard on June 7, 2025. So that then record brought Judge Immergut to the

spk_0 conclusion that Trump's decision was not conceived in good faith, which the Ninth Circuit was said

spk_0 pre-wreck was it for reporting at any difference at all. She quoted Trump's own words about

spk_0 war-ravaged Portland and professional agitators who were paid a lot of money by rich people and

spk_0 anarchists and crazy people burning down buildings, including federal buildings. And she concluded

spk_0 that whatever the factual basis the president may have had for these allegations, nothing. Nothing

spk_0 in the record suggests that anything like that was occurring every night or even any night

spk_0 outside the Portland ice building where in the city of Portland in the days or weeks leading up to

spk_0 his September 27th directive. She said, in some, the president is certainly entitled to a great

spk_0 level of deference in his determination that he is unable with regular forces to execute the

spk_0 laws of the United States, but a great level of deference is not equivalent to ignoring the facts

spk_0 on the ground. Here, here. Okay, we're going to take another ad-break, we will be right back.

spk_0 Now, as you can imagine, the Trump administration has already appealed Judge Immergut's order

spk_0 to the ninth circuit. It is not clear to us if this case will be assigned to that same bad panel

spk_0 as related case, right? It's a different deployment. It's a different plaintiff. I could see it going

spk_0 either way. But whether it goes to that same panel or not, I think Judge Immergut has done as

spk_0 good a job as any trial court can do of persuading that panel. Hey, look, you said we owe this determination

spk_0 deference, but it is not unreviewable if there's any daylight, right? If deference means

spk_0 actually evaluating the facts, this is entirely made up. And I'm cautiously optimistic. What do you

spk_0 think, Liz? Well, I think, look, I think I'm optimistic, although I think it depends on the panel,

spk_0 but I just, I want to highlight the ways that these two situations were different, right? Because

spk_0 in Los Angeles, Trump sent in ICE to be really confrontational and effectively provoked a response,

spk_0 right? And then the response, which was entirely predictable, was cited as justification to deploy

spk_0 the National Guard. Here, he didn't do that, right? Like, I mean, I think ICE was in Portland,

spk_0 but it wasn't, it wasn't the same level of conflict, but Trump convinced himself that there was

spk_0 this conflict and then cited his own delusion as justification under 12406 to invoke the National

spk_0 Guard. And that's why you got a different response. I mean, I sort of different. Yes, Judge

spk_0 Breyer in California initially, you know, enjoined the deployment of the National Guard. That was

spk_0 overruled, but taking into account the ninth circuit's decision, overturning Judge Breyer,

spk_0 Judge Immorgate was able to reach the opposite conclusion. And I think there's a strong case that

spk_0 the government's appeal of Judge Immorgate's decision in Oregon should not go to the same panel

spk_0 because the facts are so very different on the ground. And this whole situation is evolving.

spk_0 Remember, we said that hegezeth had retained some of California's National Guard troops as this

spk_0 kind of deploy at will around the country force. After Judge Immorgate said that

spk_0 Oregon's National Guard troops could not be deployed. Hegezeth has now said he's going to send

spk_0 California's troops into neighboring Oregon. Governor Tina Koteck in Oregon says she's going to

spk_0 challenge this. And indeed, I think I see right now, although I haven't looked at it, there's an

spk_0 amended complaint on the docket and another request for an emergency temporary restraining order.

spk_0 And Governor Gavin Newsom in California says that he also will challenge the deployment of

spk_0 California's National Guard troops to Oregon. Yeah, a couple of things here. Number one,

spk_0 Governor Newsom also filed an amicus brief in that first challenge and basically said, hey,

spk_0 California went through this already and it is clear that this is pretextual. So Governor Newsom

spk_0 is active in the Oregon case and has been involved as an amicus. Point number two, the legal basis

spk_0 here. I expect Oregon to prevail almost immediately. It is just crystal clear. National Guard

spk_0 troops can be deployed broadly speaking in one of two ways. They can be federalized under 10 USC

spk_0 Section 1, 2, 4, 0, 6 put under the control of the federal government in those emergency

spk_0 situations. And then they are deployed within the state in which they have been federalized.

spk_0 That is title 10 status ordinarily National Guard units remain in what is called title 32 status.

spk_0 That is 32 USC Section 502F. That means they can be paid and supported by the federal government.

spk_0 But the chain of command they remain under the command of the state National Guard commanders.

spk_0 And ultimately subject to the governor of the respective state as commander in chief. And the

spk_0 critical thing is there is both text of the statute and controlling case law that says

spk_0 National Guard units must be in title 32 status to be deployed to a different state. And they

spk_0 must be deployed. They can only be deployed with the consent of the governor of that foreign state.

spk_0 And you can imagine why that would happen. Like during Hurricane Katrina for example, you would

spk_0 say National Guard units from neighboring states into Louisiana to aid in the cleanup efforts.

spk_0 If the governor of Louisiana says yes, we welcome the help. There is no precedent for

spk_0 and no legal allowance to deploy National Guard units from one state into another state without

spk_0 the second state's consent. The reason is because of their experience with the district of

spk_0 Columbia because Washington DC is not a state. The law was unclear and the Trump administration

spk_0 sent National Guard units from other states from red states into DC. The law is very, very

spk_0 clear with respect to sending those units into a different state. And so I expect that Oregon will

spk_0 prevail. We'll get a TRO before this show goes to air. Okay. So now let's talk about Chicago.

spk_0 Which is also very much influx. We're recording a day earlier than we usually do and that day is

spk_0 Monday. So God knows what's going to happen. As of now, there are these horrible ice raids going

spk_0 on in Chicago. I'm sure you've seen all of this coverage, including that astonishingly illegal

spk_0 raid on an apartment building where ice pulled out all of these people, including some of them

spk_0 were clearly citizens in the middle of the night. Babies pulled out in their pajamas and zip tied

spk_0 together and put in trucks for hours and hours. The reporting there is that ice agents divided the

spk_0 residents that the black residents. It's a mainly black and Hispanic building. The black residents

spk_0 were put in vans and locked up for hours and the Hispanic residents were separated out and

spk_0 screened for their citizenship and for potential deportation. There was massive destruction.

spk_0 The building was basically trashed. Every unit had its doors broken down. There does not appear to have

spk_0 been a warrant for this kind of search. There may have been some kind of some kind of warrant to

spk_0 pick up non-citizens. But I think it's important to realize, I mean, we've talked about

spk_0 Kavanaugh stops, which a law professor named Amiyalka Khan coined the term because of

spk_0 Justice Kavanaugh on the shadow duck. It explaining why they allowed certain,

spk_0 well, this is within California. This is other litigation coming out of ISIS,

spk_0 raising California. A judge there named Mommy Frimpong issued an order that said,

spk_0 ice could not use race along with occupation, language people are speaking, speaking English

spk_0 with an accent, or where they were standing. Could not use those four factors alone or in combination

spk_0 to justify a search or a detention stop that couldn't be probable cause. And the Supreme Court's

spk_0 conservatives said, yes, you could, although they said it quietly. They said it on the shadow

spk_0 duck, but Justice Kavanaugh, Leroy Jenkins to his friends, said, oh no, it's fine, race is fine,

spk_0 race is a perfectly good. Let's do some racial profiling. And he talked about this as such a

spk_0 hell fellow well met. He characterized it basically as like the ICE agents say, hey, are you a citizen

spk_0 and you say yes, sir, I am. And then everybody goes on their way. And greenlighting that, there is a

spk_0 straight line between Kavanaugh, greenlighting those detentive stops that he imagined in his mind,

spk_0 even though we've all seen ICE agents tackling people with no probable cause other than you are

spk_0 brown and in public. There is a straight line between that. And this thing that happened, the whole

spk_0 sale arrest and zip tying babies in the night, that's on Kavanaugh, that's on the court's six

spk_0 conservatives. Indeed, I want to talk about three things with respect to Chicago. The first is

spk_0 the administration clearly trying to replay the Los Angeles playbook in terms of sending in ICE

spk_0 and having them be as disruptive as possible to provoke protests, hoping that those protests will

spk_0 turn violent and then hoping that they can use that violent protest as the basis for asserting that

spk_0 they can't enforce the law under 12406. And I would add that that puts the mayor of Chicago and

spk_0 governor JB Pritzker of Illinois in a difficult spot, right? Like I see folks on our side asking

spk_0 why is the Chicago police department, right? Why are you helping ICE do these horrible things?

spk_0 And the answer is because you're in this impossible spot, right? Like if the local police

spk_0 obstruct ICE and prevent them from doing their job, that too can become evidence that says,

spk_0 see, ICE can't get the job done. That's why there must be federal troops sent in to protect them.

spk_0 So it's this really difficult tightrope to walk to say, no, you don't need to invoke 12406.

spk_0 We are perfectly capable of enforcing our own laws. And I have to say with respect to that,

spk_0 the way that governor Pritzker has handled this publicly is I think a model for other governors that

spk_0 make it may have cities targeted by the Trump administration. He took to social media and said,

spk_0 this morning, the Trump administration's Department of War gave me an ultimatum. Call up your

spk_0 troops or we will. It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand that a governor send

spk_0 military troops within our own borders and against our will. Yesterday, Christine Noems masked

spk_0 agents through chemical agents near an elementary school arrested elected officials exercising

spk_0 their first amendment rights and rated a Walmart state, county and local law enforcement have

spk_0 been working together and coordinating to ensure public safety around the broad view ICE facility

spk_0 and to protect people's ability to peacefully exercise their constitutional rights. And then he went on

spk_0 to have a call for no violence. And I just can't echo that strongly enough. If people protesting

spk_0 are violent, that will be cited by the administration as a justification to escalate the violence.

spk_0 So I know it's provocative. I know it's not fair. I know it's hard to have to play by the Marquis of

spk_0 Winsbury rules when the administration is being illegal. But that is the strategy for prevailing

spk_0 in court and keeping the troops out. What do you think, Liz? Yeah, I'm not totally sure that I agree

spk_0 with all of that. I think it's really hard to ask people who are under attack, who are literally

spk_0 under attack. I do not think that if someone came for my child or my mother, I would be able to

spk_0 obey the law. And so it's a difficult situation. I agree with you that that's what's happening here.

spk_0 That the Trump administration is trying very hard to provoke something that they can point to

spk_0 as violence and as justification to deploy the National Guard. I'm not really sure

spk_0 what they think they're going to get out of it. Some people have suggested that deploying the guard

spk_0 is itself a step, an intermediate step, to get people used to soldiers in the streets so that we can

spk_0 be close, one step closer to military rule. I mean, I can't read the mind of these horrible thugs.

spk_0 Like, why do they do the cruel, horrible things that they do? I mean, yes, racism, but I'm not really

spk_0 sure. Yeah, you were reminding me of the order from Judge Young in Massachusetts that we talked

spk_0 about on our last episode, right? And one of the things he said that struck me was he said the Trump

spk_0 administration has successfully convinced a large segment of the population that ICE is responsible

spk_0 for law enforcement when it is not responsible for law enforcement. So I think I think you're on

spk_0 to something with respect to changing public perception and making it seem normal that, yeah, no,

spk_0 this is just what presidents do. They send masked armed troops into cities on a whim. And I wouldn't

spk_0 think it could happen here, but I wouldn't have thought, yeah, most of, most of 2025 could happen here.

spk_0 All right, that is gloomy as hell, but we do have a little fun and frivolity for you to, as a

spk_0 reward for sticking around, if you wait for us after the ad break, we got Alex Jones getting what's

spk_0 coming. We'll talk to you in a sec.

spk_0 Okay, on last Tuesday's episode, we told you there was drama in the Alex Jones bankruptcy

spk_0 and an emergency hearing scheduled for Wednesday. We listened in on that hearing and it did not

spk_0 disappoint. I know we've said this before, but it looks like Alex Jones is finally, finally,

spk_0 running out of road in his effort to use bankruptcy to fend off the Sandy Hook parents. He and his

spk_0 company free speech systems owe them over a billion dollars. And that debt is non-distartable in

spk_0 bankruptcy because it is the result of a willful tort that that that torts defamation. So far,

spk_0 the Sandy Hook families have not seen dollar one from Jones, but I think, I think that is finally

spk_0 about change. So, okay, remember Alex Jones runs the show Info Wars through FS free speech systems

spk_0 of which he is the sole owner. There have been several bankruptcy filings. The only one that's still

spk_0 alive concern is Jones's personal bankruptcy under chapter seven, which is liquidation. That's where

spk_0 the court sells off all your assets and splits up the proceeds among your creditors. FS says,

spk_0 was in bankruptcy, but that case got dismissed last fall. When the case got dismissed, the Texas plaintiffs,

spk_0 because remember, there's two sets, Texas and Connecticut in the Sandy Hook plaintiffs. The Texas

spk_0 plaintiffs went to a state court and tried to seize FS S's assets. That's the IP customer lists,

spk_0 courting studio, the buildings, whatever. At that point, bankruptcy judge Christopher Lopez

spk_0 said, no, we're going to deem that stuff and asset of Alex Jones's bankruptcy estate and auction

spk_0 it off. So he issued a supplemental order blocking the seizure of those assets in state court to the

spk_0 Texas plaintiffs who had gone to court and said, give us FS S, we're not allowed to seize it.

spk_0 Right. That auction, as we covered at some length, did not go well. And when it fell through,

spk_0 Judge Lopez essentially threw up his hands and said, fine, we're done here. I tried to get

spk_0 these assets handled in bankruptcy where similarly situated creditors would be treated similarly.

spk_0 But no, I was trying to head off a race into state court where whoever gets their first gets it

spk_0 but you guys wouldn't cooperate. So fine. Have at it. Have a race to the court house, which the Sandy Hook

spk_0 families then went out and did as far as we can tell, they got on the same page, cooperated,

spk_0 went into the Texas courts and said, okay, these assets are no longer being auctioned off. Give it to

spk_0 us. We're going to attach them to satisfy our judgments. But Alex Jones's lawyers have been

spk_0 opposing those attachment orders by waving around that supplemental order from Judge Lopez

spk_0 from before the auction and telling state courts, no, see, free speech systems is a part of the

spk_0 bankruptcy. And therefore, if it if it were, it would be subject to what we've talked about before

spk_0 the automatic stay. So the argument was you cannot execute that seizure of those assets.

spk_0 That would seem to me to be a lie. Judge Lopez did not call it a lie, although he did say to

spk_0 Jones's lawyers, you just don't understand bankruptcy law. There's a fine line between making a

spk_0 clever argument and being stupid, right? But here's the thing. That old supplemental order was a

spk_0 written document issued in a bankruptcy court signed by the judge stamped and everything. So you

spk_0 can hand it to a bank and it looks official. Now that order got rescinded, but Judge Lopez

spk_0 rescinded it early in several different hearings. But the Sandy Hook families had to rebut that

spk_0 introduction by offering up transcripts of those oral readings and look from a practitioner

spk_0 standpoint, I get why local courts and why banks and other places of like they don't want to touch

spk_0 this. They're not going to second guess the easiest thing to do is to say, look, I don't know who's

spk_0 right here. I'm just going to err on the side of caution and not turn over something where a bankruptcy

spk_0 court could could later command could give me a drop. Right. So the Sandy Hook families filed an

spk_0 emergency motion to confirm that the assets of FSS are not property of the Alex Jones bankruptcy

spk_0 and can be seized in state court. And if they got such an order that would give them their own

spk_0 written signed document that was stamped today, which they could hand to the state judge and say,

spk_0 give us FSS. And that's what they got. Judge Lopez gave them an order which they can now take

spk_0 back to court and get the FSS assets. And to avoid future confusion if there was confusion. And

spk_0 frankly, I do not think that it was. I don't think Judge Lopez thinks that it was. But he also

spk_0 ordered the trustee Christopher Murray to dispose of the equity of free speech systems. Right.

spk_0 That is Alex Jones is 100% ownership of that LLC. The equivalent of having a stock certificate. It's

spk_0 called a membership interest because the slippage here seems to be the difference between FSS,

spk_0 the LLC and the assets that the business owns. Because remember, free speech systems itself was

spk_0 also a defendant in those Sandy Hook defamation lawsuits. It is therefore jointly and severally liable

spk_0 for that billion plus dollars of judgments. Right. And jointly and severally means that the plaintiffs

spk_0 can choose who to go after. They can go after the FSS assets to satisfy that judgment. And because,

spk_0 as you said, Liz, that that debt was non-destartable, it survived the FSS bankruptcy that got dismissed.

spk_0 So what that means is that no one in their right mind would buy FSS the company. Right. They'd

spk_0 be buying assets, encumbered by a billion dollars worth of liabilities. And so look, I don't know what

spk_0 the info was IP is worth, but it is a whole lot less than a billion dollars. Right. So what the trustee

spk_0 Chris Murray did was file a notice of proposed abandonment, that is, pursuant to 11 USC section 554.

spk_0 Now, that provision of the bankruptcy code is typically used for things like when an estate contains

spk_0 swamp land property that's been condemned. And what the debtor does in declaring bankruptcy is

spk_0 give all of the assets over to the estate and let the trustee manage it. But the trustee looks at it

spk_0 and says, oh, this is worthless. I don't want to administer it. Get it out of here. Right. So the

spk_0 language of the statute says that after notice and a hearing, the trustee may abandon any property

spk_0 that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate.

spk_0 So by abandoning it, now nobody owns free speech systems. FSS owns a bunch of assets, though. And all

spk_0 of those can be seized by its creditors, including using the ordinary attachment process in state court.

spk_0 So long story short, I think this week, the Sandy Hook parents will be able to go into Texas

spk_0 State Court and take FSS, take Infowars, take all of the all of those assets and deprive Alex Jones

spk_0 of the benefit of his hate megaphone, which is used to harm them to harm society, to harm all of us

spk_0 for so many years. Yeah. And one more wrinkle. I have no knowledge if this will happen. But if

spk_0 the Infowars intellectual property winds up in the hands of the Sandy Hook plaintiffs,

spk_0 that might revive that deal that got rejected during the auction, right? Where the

spk_0 satirical website, the onion, would run the Infowars website, which look is we need some good news

spk_0 in 2025. Oh, we absolutely do. But look, irrespective of whether the onion comes back in,

spk_0 because that was absolutely perfect. And I also would love for that to happen. But shutting this

spk_0 thing down, that's important, right? Look, obviously Alex Jones is going to go somewhere else. He's

spk_0 going to go do some other thing that will be destructive to society. But ending Infowars, that

spk_0 matters here here. Okay, that is going to do it for us today, unless you are a subscriber at patreon.com

spk_0 slash long casepod or law and ks pod dot com. In which case, we have a fun little segment on the

spk_0 national review and US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan, although

spk_0 maybe not question mark and Sam Alito, but in a good way. Also question mark. All right, if not,

spk_0 we will talk to you guys on Friday. We have a fun interview and we will be back as usual on Thursday

spk_0 with written content. Thanks guys. Law and chaos podcast is production of Razips Media LLC is

spk_0 intended solely as entertainment does not constantly go by. It does not form an attorney client

spk_0 relationship. This shows research in written by Liz Dye and produced by Bryce Blankenegel.

Ep 171 — Can Trump Put Troops In Every City Simply By Shouting EMERGENCY?

Interactive Transcript

Topics Covered

Related Episodes

Out on a Limb | Nov 2nd | Hillhurst United Church

How Do You Respond to Jesus? John 5:16–47 :Daily Devotional, Daily Bible Study

Episode 240: Otto Aerospace CEO Paul Touw talks teardrop, laminar flow, and Phantom 3500

Burnout, Breakthroughs, and the Power of Getting Back Outdoors | Gun Talk Hunt

Share Episode