Pete Hegseth Is Finally Going to Make the US Military Less Woke

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: You must never, ever give up or give in. You must keep the faith and keep your eyes on the prize. That is your calling. That is you mission. That is moral obligation. That is mandate. Get out there and do it. Get in the way. Change happens because people care. The people have the power to make this life free and beautiful. To make this live a wonderful adventure.

0:00:38 Clip: I still believe with all my heart, America can be a place where no child is left hungry, no community is left behind, and no one gets told they don't belong. Country is always worth it.

0:00:58 Thomas: And welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1101, in binary, 1101 episode. I'm Thomas. That over there is real life, not lawyer, Lydia. How you doing?

0:01:09 Lydia: Not lawyer. Yes, that is an accurate way to describe me. I am doing pretty well. So that would be on, on, off, on. Okay, cool.

0:01:17 Thomas: Or it could be a lot of things. Binary yeah, pretty pretty much whatever.

0:01:23 Lydia: Get ready for a doozy of.

0:01:27 Thomas: Yeah. But in this case, it means doozy. 1101 is binary for doozies.

0:01:31 Lydia: Doozy doozy not doozy doozy

0:01:33 Thomas: Yeah. Like duck, duck, goose. It's doozy watch.

0:01:39 Lydia: Talked about the intelligence community we totally ran out of time I had intended to talk about Pete Hegseff who was nominated for the Secretary of Defense position but we had no time because he is a real doozy he is a doozie like double doozy So we're going to spend today talking about him and that position.

0:02:00 Thomas: Doozy squared.

0:02:01 Lydia: Yes. Yeah. What stick around for the Hall of Fame patron shout outs.

0:02:03 Thomas: Right, well all that doozy and t3be question after that uh be a fun episode oh yeah lydia's on the shoutouts now it's fun all right we'll support the show at patreon .com slash law and you can avoid the ads and uh you can support the shit support doozy watchers everywhere where it's you know everyone Everyone knows this. It's not cheap to watch Doozies. It takes, yeah, resources and time.

0:02:28 Lydia: Not a mental health toll also. Like, yeah,

0:02:33 Thomas: Oh, boy. Please support the show. We appreciate everyone who does.

0:02:40 Thomas: Okay, where do we want to begin with this Doozie?

0:02:42 Lydia: I took down my notes, I literally started what to even say about this this guy because, you know, he's made his way through the news quite a lot. Was significant backlash pretty quickly after his nomination. He most recently is a Fox News host, of course, like half ofthe other people that have been brought into the Trump cabinet nomination fold. But why don't we start with some just basic information about this guy? He's 44 years old, born in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He was actually valedictorian of his high school class, which surprised me. I don't know if that's rude, but it surprised me he got his B.A. in politics from Princeton in 2003. And then he was part of the Army Reserve for a while, ended up getting his master of public policy from Harvard in 2013. between that time, he actually was involved with several nonprofit groups for veterans, Vets for Freedom in 2007 as executive director. And he was there for a couple of years. He started in 2007 and the next year they were unable to pay their creditors. And the creditors were concerned that all of the money they had been donating to Vets for Freedom was being wasted on parties. Holiday

0:03:52 Thomas: Not going toward freedom, huh?

0:03:54 Lydia: Yeah. The freedom to party.

0:03:55 Thomas: How much freedom have you bought?

0:03:57 Lydia: Yeah.

0:03:57 Thomas: Oh, loads of it.

0:03:59 Lydia: Actually lined up a forensic accountant in 2009 to do a report about how the spending has been going for Vets for Freedom. And they found that it was half a million dollars in debt after, you Hegseth took on the executive director role. So they ended up merging with another group to try and fix their financial issues for that nonprofit. And they demoted Hegseth from, you know, executive director to, you a kind of like a silent role almost. So he moved from like, I think it was like $45 ,000 a year, he was being paid to like $5 ,000 a year pretty immediately when they found out that was happening. Ended up leaving Vets for Freedom in 2012. And he formed a political Action Committee, third, because, you know, all of those funds are reportable, one third of the $15 ,000 it raised, it raised $15 one thirds of it was spent on Christmas parties. And they ended up closing that PAC in 2018. They notified the state that they were done participating.

0:04:58 Thomas: Think another way of putting that is Pete Hegseth threw a Christmas party and then found some sort of like short term scheme to fund the holiday party

0:05:05 Lydia: I know. Like a few thousand dollars made its way way to candidates. Yeah. Simultaneously to, you know, participating that or I guess founding that political action committee, he began working with the concerned veterans for America. He served as the executive director. This is a Koch brother funded nonprofit. He was executive director there from 2013 to 2016. This is one of the positions that's made its way in the news quite a lot because there was a whistleblower report that actually led to his forced resignation in January 2016. He left because of this whistleblow report that said that he was heavily intoxicated at work events to the point of passing out, needing to be restrained. He would. Yeah. Yeah.

0:05:10 Thomas: What wow

0:05:53 Lydia: He would get so drunk that he would start shouting sayings that would call for the death of Muslims. He was sexually pursuing female employees. And under his leadership, ignored allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment. And you he moved from wasting a bunch of money for non -profits, for parties, to trying to be the party himself, I guess, like going way too much.

0:06:17 Thomas: Going to say I mean okay drinking and obviously it sounds awful sounds like a nightmare but just just the wasting coke brother money part I don't necessarily have a problem that part was fine

0:06:29 Lydia: The rest of it is pretty bad. And the other thing that's kind of come up a lot in the news I thought we'd briefly talk about is his marriage situation. So is really important to lay some foundation for some stuff we're going to talk about in a little bit. Lay of the land is in 2004, he married his first wife who was his his high school sweetheart. Divorced in 2009 after he admitted to having five affairs over the course of their marriage. Affairs over five years. Yeah.

0:06:50 Thomas: Oh wow that was when he hit the punch card limit and it was like ah that was a free sandwich was that I actually have to get a divorce damn

0:06:56 Lydia: Now I have to tell her. Yeah. And then in 2010, he married his second wife, Samantha Deering. She was actually a coworker at Vets for Freedom, that first nonprofit that he was at where he spent all the money for parties, and they had three sons together. While they were married, he had a daughter in 2017 with his Fox producer, Jennifer Rochette. Yeah. And that, his second wife, Samantha, filed for divorce. And then he and the producer, um, Jennifer married in 2019. they have a blended family now. Um, think one of the other key things to understanding Pete is that he married Jennifer, he had what people have called, and he has called as well, a religious transformation.

0:07:40 Thomas: Okay it's all good it's everybody it's fine it's All Fine you

0:07:44 Lydia: 2018. And so I was reading this article that Baptist News Global, whose position is that his theology is what should concern us the most a lot of people talk about his politics but if you look into the church that he's affiliated with it's um this this guy named Doug Wilson so um and Jennifer his his third wife that was the Fox producer, they decided where they were going to live based on proximity to a school that's part of the Association of Classical Christian Schools. That organization was founded in 1993 by Doug Wilson.

0:08:21 Thomas: Know I think maybe the reason and democrats are losing is we don't have enough wives I think I think each of these people every republican has like four wives yeah and that think of the voting numbers that that like it's just a lot I don't know I mean I guess some of them are strange maybe they but they still vote republic it's a lot of wives I'm just saying like population wise I think it adds up to like a lot of people that might be part of I don'T know just a thought I don' t just every single one of them has seven wives and 18 children children with with people they weren't married to but it's okay because he he said he had a religious experience once in 2018 so it's all good isn't

0:08:29 Lydia: Because we have too many family values. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, I mean, we could try it. We could try it yeah yeah so basically what they did was they they picked a school affiliated with the association of classical christian schools and then he says, um, Nash Christian Family, Pete Hegseth said, we drew a 20 mile radius around the school convinced that's what we wanted for our kids and we moved we thought we were moving to a school but we're also moving to a church that has incredible intentionality about covenant christianity and living out faith in generational homes. And so the church that they started attending is called Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship. It is part of the Evangelical Church That's, again, all linked to this guy, Doug Wilson. Leads, again. A network of these things. And oh, yeah, it is not this guy.

0:09:40 Thomas: That the sharks the sharks gm the

0:09:44 Lydia: I'm looking at his picture right Right now, it's certainly not the Sharks GM.

0:09:44 Thomas: X shark that'd be funny if that was that was why he left the gm job he's like ah man I I'm too busy doing this cult or whatever the hell lydia's talking about uh

0:09:53 Lydia: So so this guy believes in, you know, they have a rigid patriarchal belief system. Surprise, surprise.

0:09:59 Thomas: He believes defense wins championships and

0:10:01 Lydia: They they don't believe in the separation of church and state. They support taking away the right to vote for most women, barring non -Christians from holding office and criminalizing the lgbtq community he hegseth has multiple ties to this guy and his hexeth is also devoted to um the education system and you wouldn't think that he has access to any like schools in secretary of defense yeah

0:10:01 Thomas: I wouldn't think he should be allowed within a thousand feet of him or whatever like

0:10:35 Lydia: I mean he's not the secretary of education right however there are a number of schools that are under the department of defense jurisdiction because

0:10:42 Thomas: Every single one we blow up we get to keep what

0:10:44 Lydia: It's like all the ones that are on bases right so what I'm concerned about here is, you know, he said one his solutions to rebuild America is to advance that classic Christian school and that if there is no separation of church and state and now he's the decision maker, the lead decision maker with the Department of Defense, what do those schools look like on military bases for these children? Are they going to start looking more like classic Christian schools? And again, tied to that Doug Wilson theology, that that system of belief that his churches espouse, that Pete Hegseth is a member of, about women shouldn't have the right to vote, about criminalizing LGBTQ folks. Like these are very concerning positions to hold that have nothing to do with the military, but everything to do with like indoctrination of future generations. Right. So we'll talk also about the piece of this, too. But I just wanted to focus on Pete Hegseth and he is first. I want to round it out by saying that when 2017, he has been accused of assaulting a woman in Monterey during a Republican conference. And this there were criminal pursuits. Initially, it was dropped and then they ended up settling. I'm sure everybody's heard about that. This was very concerning for a lot of GOP senators at the beginning, especially the women. And Lindsey Graham, unfortunately, has just come out and said that, you one of the things that he and Pete Hegseth have agreed to in their conversations is that Hegsath is going to release the confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement. Agreement and lindsey graham is saying that the accuser needs to come out publicly quote if people have an allegation to make come forward and make it like they did in kavanaugh we'll decide whether or not it's credible because that was not traumatic at all um hegsess lawyer has said that they're considering civil legal action against the woman if he isn't confirmed so now Now, her position is

0:12:52 Lydia: Like, OK, you need to come out publicly in order for us to believe you at all. We probably won't because we didn't in Kavanaugh's case.

0:12:51 Thomas: Wait sorry has she said anything or is it just the existence of these accusations from the time and then they settled them like is she out out

0:13:08 Lydia: Know, that that's a good question. I believe position is that she broke the confidentiality clause. But I don't know if she did it with the media because. I don't know that I'm seeing anywhere where she has come out and talked about this this is you know the news have the police report um monterey and so the threat from the lawyer is if she repeats false claims and like breaks the confidentiality agreement if and he isn't confirmed false claims again quote um it kind of puts her between this rock and a hard place right where it's like the gop senators are like you need to come out publicly so we you can know believe you but then if her comments lead to him not being confirmed then she's going to be sued by pete hegseth for breaking confidentiality I I don't know. It's like a mess to me. I don'T see in any world how any woman post Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford would come out and speak, you experience in front of Congress. I mean, I was surprised Christine Blasé Ford did it after Anita Hill. They don't care. They don't

0:13:14 Thomas: How when right yeah yeah oh

0:14:14 Lydia: It doesn't matter. Nobody believes them. You'd hope that things have changed since then, but they haven't. And, you know, we're not idiots now. So I don't see her coming forward at all to make those allegations more public. Other big piece that folks have been talking about with Pete is, again, tied to religion and his potentially like extreme Christian nationalist white supremacist tattoos.

0:14:41 Lydia: Specifically, yeah, he has the Jerusalem cross tattoo and a deus vult tattoo um so the both of these things are related to the crusades right and deus vult means um wills it and it was a motto basically during the crusades um saying that their actions are aligned with god's and yeah

0:14:41 Thomas: That's right what is this dorky shit a white their motto that's why I always say dance as they're like crusading

0:15:06 Lydia: What's the motto nothing what's a motto with you um he has that as a tattoo god wills it and he also has a jerusalem cross tattoo and these are tattoos that he insists are just reflective of his um belief system yeah um but it are consistently affiliated with white supremacists and So much so that folks that were in the National Guard with him, he was supposed to he serve during Biden's inauguration as part of, you know, like military service members and stuff and as security and whatever during the inauguration. And folks that Were in the guard with him saw his tattoos and reported him and they They ended up excusing him basically service because he potentially a threat and they weren't going to risk that. Really, really, really bothered him because he's like, I'm just a Christian. I'm not a Christian and now I'm being attacked for the tattoos that I have that just speak to my relationship with God. And now all of a sudden

0:15:10 Thomas: White nationalism strong

0:16:14 Lydia: Now I'M the threat.

0:16:14 Thomas: Christian three wife several children of different marriages values that's what's I'm just a christian yeah

0:16:22 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah. I said, you know, Lindsey Graham is coming around. Man, a bunch of the senators are coming around Susan Collins is coming around after he's met with them.

0:16:30 Thomas: Coming around is not the correct way to say that so

0:16:32 Lydia: That's fair. That's fair Hegseth is a figure for all the reasons we talked about and then also somehow the New York Times got an email email that his mom had sent back in 2018 and published it.

0:16:47 Thomas: Weird.

0:16:48 Lydia: Very weird and not sure how they got it. Penelope Hegseth, his mother, potentially, she also says she's not sure how it got there, but she doesn't really care. I don't know if that is, you know, protecting Samantha, if Samantha's the one that sent it, but She also indicated that there may have been more people on the cc lines like she sent it to him and then like copied a bunch of people which is pretty insane yeah um I just wanted to read a bit of it is quite remarkable um I have tried to keep quiet about your character and behavior but after listening to the way you made samantha feel today I cannot stay silent and as a woman and your mother I feel I I must speak out you are an abuser of women that is the ugly truth and

0:16:53 Thomas: Maybe his ex or something. Then several people reply all in the office and we're like, yeah, nuts. Jesus

0:17:33 Lydia: I have no respect for any man that belittles lies cheats sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego you are that man and have been for years and as your mother it pains me and embarrasses me to say that but it isthe sad sad truth I am not a saint far from it so don't throw that in my face but your Your abuse over the years to women, dishonesty, sleeping around, betrayal, debasing, belittling, needs to be called out. Sam is a good mother and a good person under the circumstances that you created. And I know deep down you know that. For you to try to label her as unstable for your own advantage is despicable and abusive. Is there any sense of decency left in you? She did not ask for or deserve any of what has come to her by your hand. Neither did Meredith, his first

0:17:34 Thomas: Christ. Oh,

0:18:19 Lydia: Wife. Wife.

0:18:19 Thomas: Samantha's a second wife.

0:18:21 Lydia: Samantha's the second wife. Yeah. You think this is one big competition and that we have taken her side. Bunk. We are on the side of good and that is not you. Go ahead and call me self -righteous. I don't care. Don't you dare run to her and cry foul that with us. That's what babies do. It's time for someone, I wish it was a strong man, to stand up to your abusive behavior and call it out, especially against women. We still love you, but we are broken by your behavior and lack of character. I don't want to write emails like this and never thought I would. If it damages our relationship further, then so be it, but at least I have said my piece. And yes, we are praying for you and you don't deserve to know how we are preying, so skip the snarky reply. Yeah, I don' t know.

0:18:22 Thomas: Very weird religious -y thing.

0:19:03 Lydia: Yeah. I d' n't want an answer to this. I d 'n't want a debate with you. You twist and abuse everything I say anyway. But on behalf half of all the women and I know it's many you have abused in some way I say get some help and take an honest look at yourself mom yeah that's an intense email and so when all of these things are coming out about the kind of person he is and then you get a email from your mother is public like that I don't know how in the world anyone would be like yeah this is a good person This sounds like somebody we should appoint to a position where, you know, there's hundreds of millions of people in this country and this is the right one for the job. However, she has since walked this back. So if you want to pull up the clip and start at 127, we'll get her statement on Fox News about the she feels the son being nominated. Um

0:19:18 Thomas: Jesus. You're no kidding. Oh

0:19:57 Clip: The backstory? What was going on that made you so angry you wanted to write that? Well, I will tell that story in a moment, but let me make two statements first, and one is to President Trump. And I want to say thank you for your belief in my son. We all believe in him, we really believe that he is not that man he was seven years ago. I'm not that mother and I hope people will heal hear that story today and the truth of that story so the other thing I want to say is I am here to tell the truth uh to tell the truth to the american people and

0:20:03 Thomas: Well, you see, he's a piece is shit that's why I'm on

0:20:36 Clip: Tell the truth to these senators on the hill especially our female senators I really hope that you will not listen to the media and that you You will listen to Pete.

0:20:36 Thomas: Fox news and

0:20:49 Clip: Well, and you're here to tell us, because you are in the news now, so

0:20:48 Thomas: My own words from an email yeah

0:20:49 Lydia: All that's her position and and she reiterates throughout the interview you know when she's speaking to the senator she she'll often say especially the female senators um also has some choice words to share about the media if you go to 324.

0:21:02 Thomas: How dare the media accurately represent what I said and did at the time yeah

0:21:11 Lydia: Pretty much.

0:21:14 Clip: Part of today is to discredit the media and how they operate. When they contact you, I let a few phone calls go, but then they call you and say they threaten you. That's the first thing they do. They say, unless you make a statement, we will publish it as is. And I think that's a despicable way uh to to treat anyone threats are are dangerous and they they're hard on families so

0:21:42 Lydia: Can you imagine like media calling you for comment? You say no comment. And then that means that they don't publish all the work that they've been doing like that. That's insane. That'S a threat.

0:21:52 Thomas: Like that would be some like trick

0:21:55 Lydia: ThatS a dangerous threat.

0:21:55 Thomas: To like oh if you don't say anything they're not allowed to publish anything that they have yeah that's them doing I mean the media is not great but like that's then getting comment they're saying we'll either take your comment or not that's

0:22:04 Lydia: Right. Before they publish something. Yeah, yeah. It's up to you. What do you want to share for this story? Like is enshrined in the Constitution that they are able to publish stories that they've done research for. And if there's a problem, then there are mechanisms for her to, you know, address that if they report something false. Biggest position, this, you campaign that she is now participating in, I don't know, under duress, I have no idea. If you go to 8:44, you know, she just insists that he has changed. He is not not the same man he was in 2018.

0:22:12 Thomas: A threat maybe

0:22:44 Clip: Just hope people will will get to know who pete is today uh especially our dear female senators that you would listen to him listen with your heart to the truth of pete and what I heard you say say just a moment ago penny was he's a changed man so the man you wrote to in 2018 who you were really mad at as a mom he is different than that man absolutely I believe that with all my heart and I I wouldn't be sitting here if I didn't believe he's the man for the job obsessed

0:23:19 Lydia: Thing that she did mention during this, it's like a 17 minute interview. Things she did mentioned that was not made public, but would have been a great opportunity if she, you commented when the media called her was that she wrote an apology email a couple hours later. She was like, no one talked Well, that would have been like a really, you know, smart thing for you to include in your comment.

0:23:41 Thomas: They didn't have it yeah

0:23:42 Lydia: And yeah, and maybe you could have shared that. But yeah, maybe they, maybe she deleted it. I don't know. Has been that big push from his mother coming out to try and dispel the problems that have come from the email that made it to the New York Times and try and like, reset the system around Pete.

0:23:58 Thomas: I love this idea that's like well it's you know I said sorry he's different it's like that's a it's a hell of an email that's that's it's that it's not like wow your own mom okay I don't that's not like a oh well I was just having a bad day yeah

0:24:14 Lydia: I yeah. Unfortunately, it looks like confirmation is likely. Walked back certain statements, things like that women shouldn't serve in combat roles in the private conversations with senators. He has supposedly walked those back. You Collins is how she has expressed her conversation with him behind closed doors. Joni Ernst seems to be supportive of the nomination at this point, too.

0:24:37 Thomas: Well there's a big story there in terms of like the pressure campaign on Joni Ernst it's all fake like that's not like she was convinced by him or something she's was told in no uncertain terms that she was going to get primaried and when you know it now she's like oh it's oh it all good it's great

0:24:50 Lydia: Primaried. Mm hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Fetterman is crossing the aisle for him. I wanted to just highlight one first time the Senate rejected a cabinet nominee of a newly elected president was in 1989. George H .W. Bush had nominated John Tower to be secretary of defense. And John Tower was you know, he served in the Senate. He was a senator and all of his colleagues rejected him because of alcohol abuse and womanizing. And here we are in 2024.

0:25:27 Thomas: But that was back when we were you know we had morals about alcohol abuse and womanizing back in 1989 no no no longer probably

0:25:31 Lydia: Nineteen eighty nine. Yeah, yeah. Crazy. So it's looking like he's going to be in this position, what is he going to Be doing as secretary of defense? Um to yeah

0:25:45 Thomas: Just like typing and stuff right just tell them it's a real it's like your secretary your secretary of defense you just take down the minutes of the meetings and that would work and then you could just drink do your do your thing man

0:25:54 Lydia: There you go mad project 2025 chapter on the defense uh position was written by christopher miller christopher miller served as acting secretary of defense for about six months during the lame duck of Trump's last administration. Biden's team was coming in, he postponed 40 meetings with Biden administration for the defense, quote, because of the holidays. And he said that there was mutual agreement with the Biden team. The Biden team came out and said they never talked about this. This was a surprise to them that they had 40 meetings postponed. Patel was his chief of staff at the time as well, like while he was in that position. We're We're seeing, you know, all the familiar faces from the previous administration coming into this administration and kind of the experience across all of these different areas. What Christopher Miller was calling for in his chapter that he wrote or contributed to, who knows, because all the time they're like, don't blame this on me, was one thing was to eliminate what's called the tiered review process. This is an congressional notification period. They started it in 1976. Mike Security Advisor, we talked about him previously. He's the one whose brother -in -law is Creed. Read. And no,

0:27:15 Lydia: Stapp. Introduced a bill actually just last year, December 5th, 2023, H.R. 6609, that would have impacted the tiered review process from a legislative perspective. And what that was doing was increasing the value threshold for the formal notification process. So, OK, me back up. The of this process is to give Congress the opportunity to look at what is the Department of Defense looking Who are they going to sell guns to? How much?

0:27:13 Thomas: Creed bratton

0:27:43 Lydia: What are they selling?

0:27:42 Thomas: Do we need to be selling weapons I don't understand

0:27:45 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah. Tiered The review process before it you is know, moving through the formal certification process gives lawmakers and the administration an opportunity to negotiate on what those sales are. They can raise issues of concern. They place holds on sales of particular concerns. So able to kind of address humanitarian concerns, human rights concerns, if there are political objections. Defense Department can technically move forward even if there are concerns raised during the informal process. So Project 2025 wanting to eliminate this process is really just to speed up arms sales. It's to reduce the process by 20 days. Has actually happened kind of in the past already. So we know the impact. Between 2017 and 2020, during the previous Trump administration, the Department of State's Office of the Inspector General found that more than 4 ,211 below threshold arms transfers, so below a certain value, monetary value, worth roughly $11 billion were made to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as they engaged in their war with Yemen that precipitated what the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres at he called the world's worst humanitarian humanitarian crisis at that time.

0:29:03 Thomas: I was gonna say okay up until the current one interesting

0:29:06 Lydia: Of those, you know, below threshold arms sales, you kind of piecemeal together to Saudi Arabia and UAE ended ended up being worth $11 billion and leading to what happened in Yemen women with the over there and how awful that was. So that is something that they want to again. They think that that was effective. And they also have, you know, friends in the legislature who are willing to introduce law to try and like codify this for, you know, permanent approach.

0:29:37 Thomas: Effective in what like there's literally only one reason for this is that you're bought off by Saudi Arabia or something there's no effective I mean I guess if they maybe they're a fan of the people that they're there maybe they are a fan and of bombing the people they're bombing I guess but I don't know with it with With the ties, Saudi Arabia to I wouldn't be surprised if that's what this is. I mean, it's just like corruption. I

0:30:02 Lydia: Well, I mean, it very well could be corruption. I mean anything to make them richer, I think, is something that's very motivating for a lot lot of the folks in Trump administrations that we've seen. Know, so we have this potential avenue for U .S. arms. And when people have talked about not voting for Kamala because she seemed hawkish and we were going going to end up in war I see this as like obviously that other stuff is not not real and Trump is not better than that but now also maybe we are not we don't have troops on the ground potentially but we are willingly contributing and facilitating war and like killing at at massive scales.

0:30:43 Thomas: Don't think that was a serious argument by anyone honest, but yeah, I see what you mean.

0:30:47 Lydia: I mean, I think because of like the Cheney's coming forward and stuff and yeah, by

0:30:50 Thomas: It wasn't a serious agreement by anyone, honest. But yeah, but I agree.

0:30:53 Lydia: Anyone honest. Yeah, that's fair. Other things that are talked about in Project 2025 are restoring the standards of lethality and excellence. So they lethally and excellence Yeah.

0:31:03 Thomas: Lethality and excellence. What? What? I

0:31:07 Lydia: So said that the entrance criteria for military service and specific occupational career fields should be based on the needs of those positions and that if there are exceptions for those positions for individuals who are predisposed to require medical treatment and it calls out specifically, it says, for example, HIV positive or suffering from gender dysphoria should be removed. And those with gender dysphoria should be expelled from military service that's in project 2025 so all of our trans service members um potentially looking at losing their their job I

0:31:42 Thomas: Don't remember how that went they did that. But then I don'T know if it got under. I actually DON'T remember how

0:31:47 Lydia: June 30th, 2016 to January 1st, 2018, transgender individuals were allowed to serve in their identified or assigned gender upon completing transition. From 2018 to April 11th, 2019, they could enlist in the military as long as they had been stable for 18 months in their verified or assigned gender. And then from, man, what a mess. This was basically like a huge mess. It looks like from the Trump, Trump administration.

0:32:15 Thomas: Yeah, it was. And I wonder how many Trans people stayed through all that. And like and furthermore, how much we let them down in electing Trump again. Like, I wonder how many of them were like, oh, good, we got Trump out of office, you know, like something that barely was even talked about, I think, at all. So many reasons that we needed to not reelect Trump that a bunch that should be completely disqualifying that we didn't even get to mention. Like barely, you now, barely even factored in.

0:32:21 Lydia: It's fair. Yeah. Yeah yeah. Yeah of the the line we've seen with all of these things eliminate politicization reestablish trust and accountability restore faith to the force basically saying that the military has gone to too woke. They want to, you know, reverse any policies that they're seeing as too woke, you Know, of course, there's that list.

0:32:56 Thomas: That military like

0:33:07 Lydia: Yeah, there eliminate Marxist indoctrination, divisive critical race theory programs, abolish DEI offices and staff, um reinstate service members who were discharged for not receiving the covid vaccine restore their appropriate rank and provide back pay for them yeah it's gonna be expensive I want to just leave it with one more clip of um hagseth talking about where the military has gone wrong.

0:33:06 Thomas: Not committing war crimes oh wow oh my god that would be wow I we stopped killing civilians that's when we got too woke oh

0:33:37 Lydia: Went on Kirk Cameron show. Yeah, because the Christian nationalists have to stick together. So yeah, yeah, pretty much.

0:33:40 Thomas: My God Kirk Cameron show on wordpress.com slash angelfire .com sorry

0:33:51 Lydia: Like one of the most depressing things for me. Loved Growing Pains.

0:33:53 Clip: With the dod visited the pentagon a lot very particular about exactly who they appointed into certain positions inherently distrustful of the generals and so over Over time, slowly filtered out your war fighters, break glass in case of war types, moved in Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of Army, who are political appointees, who then push prerogatives down to generals. So once you're picking your Secretary of Defense and you're putting your secretaries, they're setting the terms of what's acceptable. Now, if you're a uniformed member underneath that, you either comply or you get out. And so the ones willing to comply, the sheep, are willing to go along with, oh yeah, women Human in combat, great idea. Oh yeah, trans, great idea. Oh yeah.

0:34:34 Thomas: I'm Christian I like sheep

0:34:36 Clip: Electric tanks, let's do that. They get promoted. The PC laptops. So it takes a while. But if you look at Obama, he would have done a lot of these things right away if he could in 2009, but he couldn't.

0:34:36 Thomas: Uh you shouldn't I

0:34:47 Clip: So a lot of the most radical things he did in the military happened in 2014, 2015, and 2016. After he'd made the necessary personnel changes in order to create an environment where he knew the military, which its DNA and its bones over 250 years said no. was willing to be complicit in the erosion of that institution yeah trump did what he could I think there were a lot of generals who just kind of went down into their bunker and tried to not to um but the minute biden came in it was just fast forward on everything obama had been doing pete how do you think we

0:34:46 Thomas: Said PC laptops what are you talking about

0:35:22 Clip: Can turn this around we can I wrote a book about education a hundred year takeover amazing um and the problem with that one is yes the department of education controls a lot but it's not centralized so if you want to make a change you got to do it in your community you got your family make a chance go local like what you're doing live and you got to do this is a top -down institution which gives me even a little bit more hope that we can fix it a new commander -in -chief who comes in and says we're not doing this garbage anymore fires the secretary of defense fires the chairman of the joint chiefs brings in new chairman new secretaries of the army and the air force the marine corps now that person will be accused you

0:35:23 Thomas: We got to harass more women get drunk more yeah every

0:36:00 Clip: Say it's trump oh you're doing a mega take your mega takeovers going on here we're just going back to how we used to focus on the right things right see it has to be top down and bottom up because the bottom up is a problem too right now kirk because our military academies are teaching the same rope crt so you've got a clean house there with your superintendents and professors because there's a good core in the middle a good honest god -fearing core inside our military that wants to do the right thing and we can get back pretty quick you can get the ethos that hey this This is ours, pretty cool.

0:36:00 Thomas: President does that oh

0:36:30 Clip: There's things to change in procurement and everything, but that's the baseline.

0:36:38 Thomas: Also procurement contracts that we just a couple policies there but largely it's just the religious takeover of the military I

0:36:46 Lydia: All right. Very much in line with the language with from Project 2025. I mean, they're they're in hand.

0:36:51 Thomas: Love how with a straight face they have to come tell us yeah you know how the military's all woke now what are you talking about give me an example of something give me one thing sorry

0:37:03 Lydia: Then he mentioned just all depends on the personnel. Well, let me just let everybody know, as he's been visiting senators to sell himself, basically, and try and get them all to be supportive of his nomination, he's been escorted by someone named John Jacob Hasenbein. Now, this is someone who back in a 2019 training event, this was someone from the military. A 2019 19 training event, he beat a civilian role player. He was kicking, punching, left the civilian role player hogtied in a pool of his own blood. Guy is serving as escort for Pete Hegseth as he walks around the Capitol visiting senators. This army ended up charging him with aggravated assault, reckless endangerment. The military jury found him guilty of assault. Then a judge declared a mistrial because a friend of this guy, John Jacob Hasenbein, was talking to a juror throughout the trial and the army decided not to retry it unfortunately the who was assaulted has spoken publicly and said this guy has real anger issues he's not a safe man I don't know why they gave him this position don't they do any background checks this is someone that pete hegseth has willingly brought in to the capital with him to escort him to service his security as he's walking around someone who has intense anger issues that did something so horrific to a person who was a civilian role player a who had served in Iraqi special forces that had moved to the United States after, you know, helping the United states basically overseas

0:37:36 Thomas: What you oh

0:38:33 Lydia: And now lives in Texas, I believe. And he worked for this training company that, would you work with the military to help these different exercises. And so you have a person of color, Muslim a that is in this position as a a, civilian and role playing this position of being like a terrorist or something in this this that all the people are doing. And this one guy just hurts him so badly. He ended up with like, a hematoma on the top of his head. He had a broken nose. Was like, beaten up, completely beaten up. And, again, Pete Hegseth knows that, this is that guy like he knows because, you asked Pete Hegsteth's lawyer, and the lawyer says that this guy, John Jacob Hasenbein, was a victim of unjust treatment by By a broken military justice system. They know who he is.

0:38:56 Thomas: Man sorry what the part where he didn't have anything happen to him was it well I mean I guess I agree with that it's not the victim part but he should have had like you actual

0:39:30 Lydia: Guess him being charged at all. Like that was an appropriate way to treat a role player in a training. So Pete Hexeth. Likely our next Secretary of Defense.

0:39:31 Thomas: Sexual justice. Yeah.

0:39:43 Lydia: Why he needed his own episode.

0:39:41 Thomas: A doozy for that's Yeah, crazy. So the, all woke guests who are in the military, sorry, you're going to have to, you have to resign. I don't know. Stupid. It's nothing. I guess, I guess like, you the only, maybe like maybe upside is like, Like, if the thing he's talking about is a fake thing, like, maybe that means nothing happened. Like, If you could just be like, oh, it's overrun with woke whatever, then you just assume office and then just say, hey, we fixed it. It's all good.

0:40:11 Thomas: I guess best case scenario, just that's what happens. But, yeah, I'm sure that won't be all that happens.

0:40:11 Lydia: Because there's nothing there to actually, yeah. Yeah. Well, till next time.

0:40:19 Thomas: Right, doozy watcher. Watching them doozies. And I'll go on to a doozy of a bar exam question.

0:40:26 Lydia: Got this.

0:40:26 Thomas: Oh, thanks. That's very nice. Episode is brought to you by Quince. I absolutely love Quince, I wear them all the time, but in particular right now is a great time. Finding the perfect gift can be pretty overwhelming always want to make sure you're giving gifts that people actually want. Especially in this day and age, there's just too much stuff There's too much cheap plastic crap. Want to give someone a gift that they actually care about I know the perfect spot to find timeless gifts made from premium materials, and that's Quince. Lets you treat your loved ones and yourself to true quality at an affordable price. Example, Quince's iconic Mongolian cashmere sweaters start at $50. Ooh, this is a great time of the year for their super soft fleece sweatpants. Are fantastic. No matter what you're looking for, all Quince items are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. Its great quality, they do that by partnering directly with Top Factories and cutting out the cost of the middleman. Pass the savings to you. I was just thinking as an adult, like my favorite gifts have actually been clothes. Used to be as a kid, you're like, ah, clothes. Now as an adults, like, oh, that's the best. Those are the ones I remember because with Quence clothing, it's built to last. It's good stuff. Got to check it out. Luxury this holiday season without the luxury price tag. To quince.com slash OA for 365-day returns plus free shipping on your order. Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash OA to get free shipping and 365-Day returns. One more time, quince.com slash OA.

0:41:57 Clip: I just know, that you are gonna kick that bar's butt, out of here, you know, No.

0:42:02 Thomas: Heather, how are you doing today, all us what the question was. Oh

0:42:04 Heather: Am doing great, and I'm really excited to go over this video game -related question with you today. This this was, was about the state of Hawaii passing a law, and it prohibited the sale of violent video games to anybody under the age of 18. And for each sale in which that happened, imposition there of a fine. The legislative history showed that part of the reason that the law was passed was because there was a concern that there was a correlation between playing violent video games and then subsequent behavior in minors. So one of the developers or makers of the game, they filed a lawsuit arguing that the law violated its First Amendment right of free speech. So we're trying to determine the whether law actually is unconstitutional. We are looking at today is a constitutional law question and

0:42:46 Thomas: Yeah I forgot to say that I marked it in my little spreadsheet but uh just for the record yes it's kind of easy I got that one just saying I did mark it but I forgot to say it mm

0:42:55 Heather: And okay that happens I like these questions because right in the call the question it says unconstitutionally you go yes okay uh where we're at and then you also identify that this was a free speech question so we're right in the free speech category uh because that's the lawsuit that the um of the video games is bringing First Amendment tells us that Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. A lot of us know this doesn't mean literally no law.

0:43:20 Heather: We just we have some restrictions on what kinds of laws can be brought and what other ones can. You mentioned a as it relates to content based restrictions. Which is, uh, the content -based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny. It's, content um, - based if it applies to a certain, to certain speech because of the subject discussed or the ideas expressed. So anytime that the law, um trying to restrict speech based on what's being said, right? Like little hairs in the back of our neck should prick up. We should be a little concerned about that because the Supreme Court has declared that it's really core First Amendment speech, right? The government can't regulate speech based on content. You said that. You're like, I don't think they can do this. They can't. And so that's really important to know. When we're looking at strict scrutiny, the rule is, is that the regulation, right, it must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.

0:44:09 Heather: And the law has to be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. But like, what does all that mean, right? That's a bunch of buzzwords. Necessary means there must be no less restrictive alternatives. Compelling government interest means that the government's goal must be crucial or vital. And narrowly tailored means that it burdens no more speech than necessary to serve the government'S purpose. So you can kind of hear me saying basically that it has to be really tightly drawn. The law has to draw those lines really tightly. And essentially, the state or the government must identify an actual problem that needs solving. And as they create the solution, it has to be very narrowly drawn to ensure that they're doing exactly the thing they need to do to solve the problem. They're not going too big, they're not going to small, but it's got to have a really nice fit, just the way like a puzzle piece would. Government has a burden of proof when they're bringing a case like this. So it's all on the government. Hawaii, in this case, they've your A game, right, that that's what they're doing. We'll hop actually right to answer choice B, Because you've kind of gone back and forth and we're saying like, I can't quite remember what do we apply, right? We know that we're applying strict scrutiny. So that brings us to answer -choice B, which is yes, because the costs of such a restriction on speech outweigh its benefits. And you nailed in on this right away. You got right away, you said, said, this isn't the test.

0:44:09 Thomas: -hum yeah yeah

0:45:26 Heather: You're right. It's not the test, right? So that's why B is out, Because this is trying to do a balancing test. Kind of like you said, we were doing the balancing test, who gets the utility points? What are they?

0:45:27 Thomas: Sweet yeah

0:45:36 Heather: How do we determine?

0:45:36 Thomas: It'd be pretty hard to do mm

0:45:37 Heather: Exactly. So we can get rid of B. So you did a great job getting rid of that. Answer choice D says, no, because video games do not qualify for First Amendment protection. Election. Were right to eliminate this as well, because they obviously do. The other thing I'll note here is that oftentimes with constitutional law questions, and even for criminal procedure ones, they'll follow a fact pattern that's similar to one that's based on an actual Supreme Court case. May be happy, I don't know. I was to know that there was a Supreme Court case that almost exactly matches this fact pattern. Called Brown versus Entertainment Merchants Association, and it's from 2011.

0:46:07 Thomas: Yeah 2011 oh wow it

0:46:13 Heather: Yeah, yeah. That's feeling really recent, at least to me it was. Actually passed a law that prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors.

0:46:15 Thomas: Is yeah oh yeah okay

0:46:24 Heather: The Supreme Court said at the time was that that was an unconstitutional content -based restriction on speech. Our friend, the late Justice Antonin Scalia authored the majority opinion, and he was unequivocal in saying that video games First Amendment protection. He also took the the state to task for the way in which they approached the case. So if anyone has time, it's not a terribly long opinion, but I think it's worth reading. You can read it online, just if you want to look it up. He really had a lot to say about this, and he really likened video games to books, plays, movies, and other historical media. And he did make a note about the differences, but he talked exactly about why. So I think it's worth looking at. And also it was a seven to two decision. So it wasn't a close one, folks. It was very much get that. So you're right to say D is out. They do qualify for First Amendment protection. So we know that that's incorrect. All right. So like like you, we're down to A and C. And you were talking about, do states have the power to protect children from harm? The 10th Amendment tells us us that that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states, right?

0:47:18 Thomas: All powers so like superpowers like just any power that the federal government doesn't have laser eye powers fly the power of flight look I'm a strict textualist heather I think that's what it's at x-ray vision yeah

0:47:43 Heather: We typically, understand this to mean, and you touched on this health, welfare, safety, and morals, right?

0:47:48 Thomas: But this strikes me as like, okay, the reason I didn't go for this one was, yes, this might be true, but it would not say anything about the test. I mean, it would, to be fair, I guess A doesn't exactly either. Either. That's why I'm a little nervous because A didn't really say is a content -based restriction and it fails strict scrutiny. It just kind of let us fill in the rest, which I've been thinking, I've kind of distracted thinking about that in light of how I logically picked over the last one. States have the power to protect children from harm, but you mentioned the strict scrutiny, I'm looking at the question, it says the legislative history showed a concern that there was a correlation between playing violent video games and violent behavior so like that feels really weak sauce and if we're if we are in the strict scrutiny territory there's no way that could fly right rational

0:48:33 Heather: Exactly. So when we're looking at that, right, to Justice Scalia in his majority opinion in Merchants Entertainment Association, he wasn't really convinced that it would even maybe meet rational basis, based on my reading, at least, right? He was like, I don't know, you guys did a pretty terrible job. But like, he was a lot more strongly worded than I was, because

0:48:49 Thomas: Give the literal devil his due all be onto something there

0:48:54 Heather: I usually say a broken clock's right twice a day, but you know, hey. But yeah, but he's a concern that was a correlation, right. And the court here, to your point, says that with strict scrutiny, it has to be, it must be so much better than that. We've You've got to have, we're talking about trying to limit ideas based on the content of what you're saying, right? And again, like, I'm not going to get into the whole detail, but part of the reason that we have the First Amendment free speech protection in this country is exactly in of what was happening in England at the time that this country was formed, right, to

0:49:23 Thomas: Their video games are not allowed at all it was there like no one could play video video games there. And that was the problem. That's why we had to come over here and make a better video game country.

0:49:32 Heather: Play the, yes, more violent video games. There's one for a week. No.

0:49:38 Thomas: I'm thinking, I'm starting to think we made a mistake.

0:49:42 Heather: That isn't enough. We've got to have something more, especially when we're trying to limit, because think about it. Tryingto limit the content of what people are doing and saying, right? We really, the Supreme Court has said time and time again, doing that automatically triggers. Imagine that it automatically pulls a lever that's like, like that automatically goes is like right to the top and you've got to pass that really high bar and like a little bit of like vibes because that's not enough right to your point that's exactly why for example that it's going to be that the state law is a content -based restriction and it's not going clear that very very high hurdle of strict scrutiny, right? The other point here about C, the other reason it's wrong is because we also have the supremacy clause, right, that tells us that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, right. So although states do have the power over health, welfare, safety, morals, that kind of thing, they can do so, but they can't violate the Constitution at the end of the day, right because this is the Supreme Law of the Land. So that's the other reason why c is out so yeah a is our correct answer you did a great job um

0:50:39 Thomas: Ding, ding. Party.

0:50:41 Heather: You're back on track yes new

0:50:43 Thomas: I am did it. I got one right. Oh, I am two for the last. God, two for the last a lot. You I'm not it's not I'm not doing well. I'm Not doing well I'm two for last eight not amazing not 59 .57 % creeping back toward 60 % and just I'll have to I'll this be the new trend, you wait to see who the big winners are this week we'll have to take to the internets here we go all Heather, you got a winner over on reddit .com slash r slash open arcs.

0:51:13 Heather: Do. Black, I think it's fear, might be fair. Sorry if I mess that up. We've got a great answer here that says, I believe the correct answer is A. While obscenity restrictions on free speech are a thing, I'm pretty sure this is a reference to a case a while back against a California law banning video game sales to minors. And I recall thinking it was more nuanced than the court decided it was. I'm fairly certain the Supreme Court struck down a California law saying that video games are protected speech and therefore content restrictions are not allowed immediately yes nailed it unrelated if you haven't seen the film the gamers make sure to see matt's turn as a movie star you can watch it at www.zombieorpheus.com for free so this is a great answer um that's exactly it this this question like a lot of con law questions do are a mirror of a real life Supreme Court case and this person exactly nailed it this was exactly based on the California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors and it was it was struck down at the United States Supreme Court and so great job job.

0:51:53 Thomas: What? We had some answers on blue sky as well so go to open args on blue sky just just search us up follow us you know it's growing every day I'm loving it we had some good correct answers we you know what this one made me feel better because lately the ones I've been getting right everyone gets right and the ones I've been wrong. Everyone gets right. But this one I got right. And a lot of people got it wrong. So thank, thank you everyone. I feel like you did that for me. I, everyone's like, all right, let's give Thomas, throw Thomas a bone. Oh, I don't know. This is a tough one. Then they just gave me a wrong. No, but a lot people guessed C. It was like the most popular answer probably.

0:52:48 Heather: I was just going to talk a little bit about C being an attractive distractor. Is a great wrong answer choice in the sense that it's partially correct in the sense that states do have the power to protect children from harm. True, they have a general police power for overhealth, welfare, morals and safety. I one one of my favorite con law professors used to say, who will think of the women and the children. This is a really good example of that. It's also a wrong answer choice, because we have the supremacy clause, right? That tells us that the Constitution and the federal laws of the Supreme Law of the land, so states can't overstep, right. So when we have something like the First Amendment, that'll over the of the states here. And that's exactly what happens, right? So although it's true that states have the power to protect children from harm, they can't do so beyond the scope of their powers here, right. So that's a partially right answer and also partially wrong, which is how it ends up being incorrect so

0:53:36 Thomas: Right, and I got a shout out the blue sky answer, which is Cephandr, C-E-P-H-A-N-D-E-R, who says, gonna say, hey, SCOTUS has already ruled video games are 1A protected in a case about preventing minors from accessing games. So that rules out the no answers. And I'm not familiar with any test for 1A issues that talks about cost -benefit analysis. There you go. As that. Well done. So much for playing on Blue sky and joining. And finally, we've got to give a patron shout out. patreon.com/law. Folks, we need some more patrons to participate participate because there were no correct answers on patreon.com/law uh-oh but I will call out Merk who says pretty sure the answer is c because that's the exact logic that legislators are using to trying to use to shove through kosa I don't know what that is which will shred the internet as we know it but think of the children as uh you said earlier interesting uh cosa yeah Yeah. Well, I guess I've heard of that, but well, maybe good news in that that logic didn't work for this. So maybe it won't work for that. I don't know. But nonetheless, C is incorrect. The correct answer was A. for everyone for playing so much. And I think it's time to take on another question. AndI hope we'll get just as many participants on this one. And people on patreon.com/law you know chime in this time all right after this break let's tackle question 52 if you can believe it all

0:53:59 Heather: Answer

0:55:03 Thomas: Right heather let's have it let's am see I'm on a one win streak I'm not a one -win streak baby let's make it a two well

0:55:12 Heather: Paul had probable cause to believe that defendant delilah was involved in the sale of illegal drugs paul obtained a valid arrest warrant and went to to Delilah's home to execute it. Officer decided to go to Deliah's home right when he thought she would return from work, so he could search the house before Delilah had a chance to hide the drugs. Paul arrived at the defendant's home, the door was ajar, but nothing seemed out of the ordinary. Paul slowly opened the door and entered the home. Office was closed, and walked toward the back of the house, and when he heard Delilah in a bedroom, he pushed open the door, loudly told her to freeze, and arrested her. The officer properly execute the arrest warrant? No, because Paul had no consent to enter Delilah's home. No because Paul failed to knock and announce his presence before entering Delilah house. Yes, because paul obtained a valid arrest warrant which gives paul the right to arrest Delilah in her home. D, yes because paul went to Delilah home when he had a reasonable belief that Delilah would be there.

0:56:09 Thomas: Shoot this is tricky yeah I'm thinking like a warrants I I had some question on search warrants not necessarily that I get those right either but uh I can't remember having just like an arrest arrest warrant one. Wow. Okay. This could be, well, I'm going to say this is criminal law. Well, actually I guess it could be law because it's probably about that, but I'm going to stay criminal law and procedure because those are pretty much always going to be constitutional law. I think we've talked about that. Going to involve the constitution, but I think it's its own category. So an arrest warrant. Man, I know we've done, I've done search warrant. I don't think I've done an arrest warrant question. Okay, crap. That's a good, I don' t know, are you allowed to just go into someone's house to arrest him? I feel like you should probably knock and announce, but okay, well, we'll see. Probable cause, so the officer has probable cause to believe that Delilah was involved in, well, I don''t know if that matters because Paul obtained an arrest warrant, I think, is what matters at that point. So Paul has the arrest warrant, to Delilah's home to execute it. Furthermore, police officer goes right when he thought she would return from work so he could search the house before Delilah had a chance to hide the drugs huh know about that oh when you make an arrest do you get to search I like you getto search oh that's something you just search like the person I think there's some involved there'ssome amount of searching you kind of get to do while doing the arrest but I I don't see anything about a search warrant and I think that's a separate thing I I'm not sure how much that part matters because so paul arrives at the defendant's home doors ajar but nothing seemed out of the ordinary so that's giving us the signal that there's no like probable cause to search for or anything if if and you might have needed it I love the slowly open the door like well as long as you it's slowly it's fine like it's can't you can't quickly open the drawer but if it's if it already adjourned you slowly open it maybe you do that little soft knock like on the side oh hey then that's fine the officer walked toward the back of the house and when he heard delilah in a bedroom pushed open the doorway so I do know that a quote no knock warrant is a special kind of warrant. Remembering just the news, not, not from law, law school. So I don't know how reliable that is, but I do. I mean, famously, you uh, no knock warrants were a big topic of conversation, uh. Officers killed Breonna Taylor, no So if there's such a thing, I have to use everything I Quote, unquote. No in quotes. No in scare quotes. No -knot warrants are a special thing, I don't see any of that here, it's just an arrest warrant, that would imply that regular warrants are knock warrants. Yes, knock warrants, which, makes sense. Like, I think that it might be rough to live in a world where any arrest warrant means you can barge into someone's home. Who knows who else is there? You create, you know, a scary situation. I don't think that happens a lot because judges just issue these stupid no -knock warrants. But I think I'm going to go ahead and assume that this is a regular warrant and that no -knot warrants are something different than that, because that's consistent with what I remember from just that whole thing and so that would imply that you can't just barge in and arrest somebody you would need some some something else some sort of either a no -knock warrant or some good reason to I think I think if I think you could do the thing oh that's a question I've had I think You Could Do The Thing where if you go to if you have a search warrant you go arrest someone and you hear them destroying evidence I think think you can go in and stop them I think that's what like if the question said like oh we heard the toilet flushing and a bunch of someone saying get down there drugs or whatever like I think then you could do it um but the way the fact pattern goes door was a jar nothing out of the ordinary no. So this officer just went in the house for, what seemed like no good reasons to me. Like you, an arrest warrant, I don't think means you can just do all this. I think you would need something else. So did the officer properly execute the arrest warrant? I'm leaning toward no, but let's see. A, no, because Paul had no consent to enter Delilah's Oh, I don't love that. That away, I'm probably choosing between my no answers was what I was leaning toward. B, no, because Paul failed to knock and announce his presence before entering Delilah's house. So I guess, difference there, but maybe not so subtle because A would imply that like, let's say Paul goes to arrest Delilah and is like, hey, can I come in? She's like, no. He's like damn it, I didn't think of that I guess you're free to go you know, like that doesn't, I don't think that's how it would go but I do think you have to knock and announce presence before entering the house. So I'm leaning heavily toward B, but let's see if the yes answers grab me here. Yes because Paul obtained a valid arrest warrant which gives Paul the right to arrest Delilah in her home just realized something thing. These no -knock warrants search warrants and not arrest warrants? Maybe that's the issue. Maybe arrest warrents... I mean, it's possible that arrest warENTS could always be like no -knot. You don't have to do all that whole thing for an arrest warrant. Maybe the no -nock part was the search warrant part. It. But I think in the Breonna Taylor case, they were going after her boyfriend, but I think they went to her house because she She was allegedly like loosely connected to this guy. Were they going just to search or were they going to arrest somebody? Hmm. Crap. So C would be the answer that like a valid arrest warrant gives you the right to arrest. He also didn't knock and announce his presence at any point. Like I still think you can't just run in and go freeze like that. Then who, who, like there is some amount of officers need to identify themselves as such much because otherwise in our gun -toting country, you're going to have shootouts every five seconds. So I don't love how this went down. I still think if it's a no answer, I still lean toward B. C, I think is possible. Now let's look at D. Yes, because Paul went to Delilah's home when he had a reasonable belief that Delilah would be there. don'T like any of that because that just skips everything like we've kind of talked about. Yes because Paul Went to Deliah's home When he had So that would imply if he had a reasonable belief that Delilah would be there, then that justifies all the other stuff. So like just wandering in, I mean, I guess that's possible. If have a reasonable relief and he just went to the house, then he can't do any of that. Because he reasonably believes she's there, he can just go in the house and not announce himself and arrest her. I mean, God, in our police state, I suppose that's a possibility. I think I'm going to go between B and C and I think I'm gonna go with B. You've got, you've got to knock it out. It would be a rough world if you don't have to announce yourself as an officer. Like, I feel like that just creates so much havoc. Like you have to at least do that. Now, C could be true. C is my second chance answer because maybe that's, maybe I'm thinking of search warrants and arrest warrants. You're just allowed to do whatever and it doesn't matter. Like maybe that's true. Guess there's an outside chance of D just cause it would bypass that whole thing. Me think. Do Do, I like D better than C for sure? That's actually an interesting question. that'S, I don't know if this will matter, but I almost think D might be better than C. So if C is yes, because Paul obtained a valid arrest warrant, which gives Paul the right to arrest Delilah in her home. And D is yes. Because Paul went to Delilah's house when he had a reasonable belief that Delilah would be there. I actually may be leaning toward D a little bit because let's say there's a world in which Paul gets the arrest warrant. But he doesn't think Delilah is in her house. Like he has no belief that that and he just goes to her house and just goes in like kind of assumes you can arrest someone in their home it skips that part and just says okay but you have to believe that they're there you can't like enter someone's home if you don't believe they're there so in terms this is still not my answer because I think I think but this I actually think now I might be between d and d instead of b and c I'm gonna stick with b because I I just I hope we live in a world where you gotta knock and announce your presence I hope you live in that world I'm going to go with b but my second chance answer is actually going to be d now I will see if that makes any difference but I'm between b and d I'm gone with b final answer and if you'd like to play along go to blue sky first and foremost us follow opening arguments follow open args at blue sky uh like what we do say hi uh our stuff quote tweet it heart our stuff interact with us now you don't have to do all that but those are things you should do or um go to reddit .com slash r slash open arg or most importantly go to patreon .com law and you could be the big patron winner all right heather uh looking forward to next week when I find out uh what level of police state we live in you

1:04:51 Heather: I'm looking forward to it too and if you don't mind I'm just going to give a quick plug if people have questions I'm happy to answer them. So feel free to to ask questions in the subreddit. I'm happy to ask them. Hit me up on blue sky. I'll answer them to the best of my ability as well. I look forward to hearing what folks have to say.

1:05:06 Thomas: Know what But call an audible. Got a request for maybe a Q &A and suggested maybe we do a QAnA with Heather because, you know, you're still newish around here. Maybe we'll try to make that happen. We could do a thread and collect some questions in general and see if see if there's enough interest for a QA there and we could do it. A little special. That might be fun.

1:05:26 Heather: Be really fun. Hey, sounds

1:05:27 Thomas: Well, we'll that in our back pocket. Maybe look out for a Q &A thread coming to all of those places that we already mentioned, pretty much.

1:05:34 Heather: Good. And I'm looking forward to, talking to you about our walkthrough of this question.

1:05:40 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

1:05:50 Thomas: Now it's time for the patron shoutouts at patreon.com/law. These are the folks that make the show happen. They're very important now. Hey, every single day, it seems there's another kind news story demonstrating why mainstream media is failing us. And I'm getting a little frustrated with it. If you are as well, maybe redirect some of that support to independent media. Like, I don't know, maybe OA or anyone else. Um along those lines we've got to thank our new patrons I'll start us out thank you to Not Her Again, Steve Blum, jdub047, Sally Woodbridge, and Kail, thanks so much new patrons yeah I hope you enjoy not hearing auto ads I'm now it's time to thank the hall of famers the all-time greats at patreon.com/law these are the folks that pledge at that five dollar level and above for at least a month and uh I think last time you started us out so I'll start us this time give us a chance to read different names thank you to James H, Vehicular Man's Laughter, oh I just realized it's car from dub t dub he's so good at code names he can play it blindly he

1:06:51 Lydia: Awesome.

1:06:52 Thomas: Can pay it blind yeah fantastic congrats on your new job michelle I'm so proud hey love it a shout out use this for a shoutout everybody how many ghosts in luigi's mansion are ceos childless cat ladies local 47 chapter is she talking about me Apprentice of Adventure, unfrozen caveman lawyer still rooting for the hamburgers to deliver more timely justice than the current system yeah hey steve proper finally fixed changed his name dr proper Nick Fish the world's most reluctant ray of sunshine A Negative Phenomenon quick update ovechkin no wait let's talk about the sharks team rap video that was good stuff stuff.

1:07:33 Lydia: Let's. It's so good. If people haven't seen it, holiday video, 10 years since the last one. And this one's good too.

1:07:40 Thomas: Really? It's been, wow.

1:07:41 Lydia: It's been 10 years. Yeah, it was the 10th anniversary or whatever since it. And so I think that's why they finally released it.

1:07:46 Thomas: Thought they just did it every year.

1:07:47 Lydia: No, they don't. I stock their pages because I want them to do it every year and they don'T.

1:07:48 Thomas: That's crazy. You don't care about the hockey, but you do care about The Sweaters.

1:07:53 Lydia: It's so good. It'S so good! Oh yeah, the music video is so good, all right. Anyway, Anyway, check

1:07:56 Thomas: You got to fight for your right to ex parte. Jay Sank, can I get a chi -hoo? Test ease interpreter. Oh, great. Now I have to go back to changing my name every month. Et, or E -T, I don't know. No, it's lowercase. Freeman, Cajun Killer, Fraud Fishy Hates Everything, Simpson, and Love the Extra Episodes. Your turn.

1:08:17 Lydia: The Queer and Cryptography Conference at cryptography.lgbt. Liberals own guns to support root cause mitigation, not ineffective gun control. Not a lawyer, but I play one in court. I up on funny name. I'm just Leo G for now. This isn't a Patreon name and I'm not reading anything right now. I just personally think Legal Eagle is so handsome. Mark Schultz, the Cincinnati kid. Bob Loblaw's Law.... Podcast. Bob Loblaw's Law.... Podcast, whoo, did it. Philly Basement Bar is back open and isn't taking this shit lying down. Eddy Veggie hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report. Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association. Baltakatei, Philip Kizer, if cis people are so great, then why don't they have a Siberian orchestra?

1:08:41 Thomas: Are

1:09:03 Lydia: That's really good.

1:09:03 Thomas: That's the winner for today. That's awesome.

1:09:06 Lydia: 501st and Rebel Legion want you, cosplayers doing good. A string of unpronounceable characters. Milo Meadsong is on to the post-conviction process now that his cert petition was denied. Chandler, Malaika Chandler, the precious variant, Big Easy Blasphemy, RhondaTheDork.com FRED R GROOTHUIS Chris Waltrip Mitchell Classic libtard And Classic libtard Still on top.

1:09:32 Thomas: Still on top for temporarily until the next billing, I thank you so much, Hall of Famers.

1:09:36 Lydia: Feel like you say that every

1:09:37 Thomas: Oh it's been it's just been creeping up I've got I've seen the numbers it's uh it's inevitable that's uh yeah about about uh two weeks and then it'll be the long reign will be over yeah big it's it's big news here you know it's this I've me and only me cares about it has been tracking it but it's good news for me all right thanks top patrons hall of famers uh Fantastic shoutouts. Keep them coming. It's fun doing this with Lydia. So a little more.

1:09:37 Lydia: Time, though. Right, all right. Yeah. Yeah. Have a good time, too.

1:10:07 Thomas: Yeah. All right. That's our show. Thanks so much for listening, everyone. We'll see you for Rapid Response Friday. I'm sure there'll be plenty to talk about. You then.

1:10:15 Lydia: Ya.

1:10:16 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.