Troops in LA; Abrego Garcia's Trumped Up Charges

Transcript

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

0:00:57 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1166. I'm Thomas Smith. That over there is real -life immigration attorney Matt Cameron. How you doing, Matt?

0:01:05 Matt: Hey, Thomas. Well, it is the exact midpoint of my life that you're speaking to me on. I know, quite a day. I am 45 years old. I don't plan to get any older than 90, so yeah,

0:01:08 Thomas: Wow. Jeez. That's right. And you know this exact... Okay. Interesting. You're going to be like, it's planned obsolescence at 90 here. He's going to shut down. Yeah, that's fair.

0:01:20 Matt: I'm checking out. That's it. Yep, I'm officially middle -aged and I'm feeling great.

0:01:25 Thomas: We sicked the listeners on you yesterday in the T3B, so I hope people wished you a happy birthday.

0:01:30 Matt: I really appreciate it.

0:01:31 Thomas: If not, they're getting an F on their homework.

0:01:33 Matt: Someone actually said that 29 is looking good on me. I'll take it. That is fine. I guess I'm 29. Somebody's math is worse than mine, so I appreciate that. Whoever that was.

0:01:38 Thomas: Yeah. It's a nice thought, Matt, but I don't think anyone's math is worse than yours. It's, you know, I don' t.

0:01:49 Matt: Absolutely not. That is true. So I spent my birthday morning in the tradition of my peoples by getting screamed at by an immigration judge, full on, actually getting yelled at. I felt like I should have dropped the birthday bomb on her, but make her feel bad, but probably wouldn't have worked. And it was a judge I hadn't dealt with before.

0:01:56 Thomas: Nice. Judge, it's my birthday.

0:02:09 Matt: And yeah, in 18 years, I've never been yelled at quite like that. And I still don't know why. Why?

0:02:09 Thomas: And it wasn't even the person. I'm censoring myself. It wasn't even the Gentleman you played for us the other week. It wasn't even that person.

0:02:20 Matt: I'm making friends all over the country right now. This was somebody else in a different state redacted.

0:02:25 Thomas: It just reminds me of that great, like, tweet or whatever from back when it was a tweet, when it was like, I want my lawyer, attorney present. They think it's like a present for the attorney. They're all sad. It's my birthday. Can I have my attorney present? Can't remember the exact wording, but something like that.

0:02:35 Matt: If only. But no, it's a beautiful day. I've just had a big slice of Boston cream pie, and I am sugared up. So let's do this. Yeah.

0:02:47 Thomas: Yeah, big stories today. A number of people have been returned to us that heretofore I was told was impossible. So I'm excited to learn the details of how Bukele smuggled this terrorist back into our country. Because I remember that was what he said he had to do, right? In order for us to get anyone back, he would have to smuggle a terrorist through the border. So it must have been a heist. Yeah.

0:03:09 Matt: I got to tell you, I've never had more complicated feelings about good news, because this is not good news. Unfortunately, the return of Kelmar Obrigo Garcia. It is actually very bad news.

0:03:13 Thomas: Really? Really? I don't know. But hold on. Worse than him being stuck there, though?

0:03:20 Matt: I mean, bad for everybody else. It's not worse than that. Nothing's worse than being stuck in Seacott. We got him back. Great. But yeah, these days, take it where you can get it, I guess. But yeah, we'll talk about that a little later. We've got to start by talking, of course, about the state of rebellion that you are in presently, you rebel scum. What are you over there doing? What's your problem?

0:03:25 Thomas: Okay. Well, then it's good news. We're making positive progress, Matt. Yeah. Well, it's, yeah, about 300 or 400 miles away from me. But yeah, I can see it on the horizon, all the flames and the bombs. No, yeah, it's nowhere near me. But definitely have a lot of friends that are around the, I don't know, one square block that whatever this is.

0:03:48 Matt: I don't know. I'm three time zones away, but I was led to believe it was the entire state of California. That's how I'm hearing I don't know you guys are

0:03:57 Thomas: Mm hmm. That's the Fox News thinks it's a, you know, I did see a thing. I know we'll get into it, but I've always thought that the AI fake content wasn't going to add that much of a problem we didn't already have. You know, that was always what they're like, oh, you can fake video and then it'll but it's like, yeah, but they're already doing that. You know I was kind of like I'm not saying I was like optimistic about this but I feel like if you are someone who's interested in actually knowing if something's real you can find out like it's actually pretty easy and if you're not you're Yeah. But then I saw like, I mean, I didn't really count on how easy it is for bad news sources to just put a picture of like a an L .A. war zone in their headline, like atop their headline. And it's it's gotten real enough now that's like, yeah, OK, that's sort of I was wrong about that. Like, that'S a little bit more convincing than like a full on video, because it's so you're not really expecting that the picture above the headline is going to be fake as much, I think. You know?

0:04:08 Matt: If you want to right yeah right totally fake right right no totally and actually have you guys have you seen mountain head yet

0:04:56 Thomas: No. Oh, is that the new, what's his name from Succession thing? Oh, I love that guy, Jesse Armstrong, I want to say.

0:04:59 Matt: Succession yeah yeah it's great uh but it's right on point because it's about the dangers of this kind of ai generated imagery and it's worth a watch yeah I liked it but I do want to talk about a lot of all the legal questions that are coming out of this use of troops and uh you know they kind of tie into to OA 1123. We talked about the Insurrection Act, because I certainly saw this coming a while back, back in February. So we got to pick up on that.

0:05:06 Thomas: Okay, I gotta watch that. Yeah, I I got a legal question. If I'm a sitting U .S. Senator, can I just be arrested and slammed to the ground for having a problem with a press conference?

0:05:28 Matt: Let's find out.

0:05:29 Thomas: Okay, guess we'll find out. That's kind of hot off the presses breaking news, so we'll take a look at it, but yeah, that just happened. Crazy. So lots to talk about.

0:05:36 Matt: And we'll pick up with a note de bas de poche at the end. Take it from there.

0:05:40 Thomas: Did you all hear that or did Matt start speaking in tongues? I don't know what any of of that one oh okay yeah that's they'll be like your french is as good as your math all right well we're going to take a break you can avoid the ads at patreon .com support the show support this good coverage wish mad a happy birthday you know buy mad a slice of birthday cake or birthday pie apparently is your choice whatever whatever you prefer and support the show thanks so much to our patrons who do and we'll take this break and we're gonna get right right into it.

0:05:45 Matt: I'm led to believe that's how you say footnote in French. We'll find out, and I'm sure somebody will correct me. Probably. Au revoir.

0:06:16 Ad: [Ad break 1 — ad music]

0:06:16 Thomas: All right. Where do you want to start?

0:06:17 Matt: Well, let's talk about California. There's a lot going on here. We discussed this a little bit acknowledge that the President of the United States, well before November, well before he was elected, Project 2025, Russ Vaughn, all those guys were talking about how they could use the Insurrection Act at the earliest opportunity. Now, that hasn't happened yet, to be clear. We have not yet invoked the Insurrection Act, but he is certainly on the path, and there is some concerning stuff going on with the military. But let's talk about how we got here and why this fight is happening, because there's a really good reason that people are in the streets right now, and I want to acknowledge that before we talk about anything else. And I want I want to talk about this moment and what it means, because I am really heartened to see Angeleno standing up for against ICE, because the things that have happened to spur these protests, I think, should not get lost in what we're going to talk About here. And also, what is worth protesting in this moment? Because Congress at this time is considering one of the most consequential budget bills ever in American history. It is not, of course, big and beautiful, but we're in such dumb times that that's

0:07:16 Matt: What it's called. But ICE right now is looking at potentially having another billion added to their budget, just straight up, but $175 billion added to DHS's border security, quote unquote, budget, right? And that includes $45 billion for new detention centers, which would be a 364 % increase in detention centers. Excuse me, funding. Not in the actual beds. The beds would be going from about $50 ,000 to $125 ,000, which I don't believe is 364%, but it is a lot. It's a huge increase. I wouldn't. I'm leaving that to you. Pretty sure Sure, that's a lot of increase, but it's not 364%.

0:07:41 Thomas: But how would you know if it were? Sorry. It's not.

0:07:49 Matt: But the budget would increase quite a lot. Notably, I was looking for it. They didn't really increase the immigration court budget. So they're talking about massive new, potentially up to 10,000 new officers in the next few years, which already they've got about 8 ,000 or 9 ,000 in the streets doing ERO, plus, of course, as we've been discussing, you've got FBI, DEA, ATF, everybody else supplementing them, but potentially 10 ,00 new ICE officers, 125,000 beds, which would be about 75,000 more than we have right now. But the immigration code itself would not be increasing that much, which means that that they're either going to be okay with massively growing the million -case backlog or keeping people out of court, which has been my concern, that they'll just find ways to expedite without doing that.

0:08:24 Thomas: I've been worried about that too. I have a friend who's on asylum. I forget what part of the process she's in but she's here. She's in that process where something's going to take allegedly five years to have the asylum decision.

0:08:36 Matt: Or more.

0:08:36 Thomas: My worry has been, is there going to be some moment, and it sounds like this is maybe what you're alluding to as well, where they're somehow going to try to like clear out a bunch of the docket or whatever, a bunch of the pending cases in some way, or is that, is that pretty unassailable legally? Or I just worry it'll be some stroke of the pen, like, well, no, everyone who's kind of like this, who's claimed asylum, they're all, we're just going to dismiss all of them or not. But I also feel like if they could, they would have done that already. So what do you think? Is there any worry there? There?

0:09:02 Matt: Well, we were talking last time about expedited removal. That's something I've brought up a few times, and that's my real concern. And that doesn't apply to people who came on visas. So that's a lot of people who entered without permission, but they're using a very twisted interpretation of the INA 235 expedited -removal statute. But that's another thing. But yeah, that's one thing I'm concerned about is for people who have been here for less than two years, who even if they applied for asylum, they might find ways to get them going. But right now with current resources, ICE really is pretty limited. And there was this report a couple of weeks ago that Stephen Miller went in and yelled at everybody. We talked about that, how that's his natural tone of voice. But one thing that came out from this was he said, they were pushing back in the meeting and saying, look, we were told to prioritize people with criminal records. And he said no, that's not what you're doing. You're going to go out to Home Depots. You can go out 7 -Elevens. And of course, that is what got us here to LA, was a Home

0:09:46 Matt: Depot raid, among other things. But I think we also shouldn't lose sight of the fact that one of the things that ICE was doing that got people really angry, justifiably, was that they were arresting people in immigration court and then holding them overnight in the basement of the federal building in LA. Yeah, not a place people are supposed to be held overnight, just a regular basement. And this obviously got elected officials up in arms. It got people out protesting. And then they started to get worried about these different raids. There was one in a clothing factory. There's one in this Home Depot. And people start showing up. And one of those people, of course, was David Huerta, the head of SEIU, really poking the bear there to arrest the head of SEII, somebody I knew his name. And certainly over here in Boston, I've seen people getting energized. And SEI, of course is a massive national presence. This is something that is getting people, again, justifiably very upset. And there is this feeling right now that if we don't bring attention to what ICE is and what they do and who they are in this moment, that we're going to be stuck with potentially three or four times the size of what we have right now in

0:10:39 Matt: Every way. And, you know, you might've seen there was a report that they're going to be providing so -called security at a like a world cup celebration event you'll get the world cup coming up next year who knows how that'll go when we have all these people coming from all over the world to visit yeah it's gonna be a mess but you know that they're providing like just routine security and id checks and this is going to be our future this is where we're heading even if you don't care about immigration enforcement even ifyou're born here and never have to think about it you're gonna have tothink about it it's coming like that time is coming And I think that this is the time when we can get out in the streets and show them that we know what they're doing and that we need accountability whenever we don't ever say they need to go frankly, but we can't allow them to grow. And if we don't protest it now, it's never going to be protested. So I appreciate the effort that people are taking. I support whatever people are doing to get out there and nonviolently get in the way. And I don't even mean peacefully. I mean, nonviolantly.

0:10:47 Thomas: Yeah, boy, I hope they move the World Cup. I probably won't, but I really hope they do. Interesting distinction there. Yeah sorry I'm springing this on you but I just heard this interview. My governor, who I'm not a huge fan of, Gavin Newsom, who occasionally says all the right things, and that's nice, was on the Daily. We hate listening to the New York Times of Daily. I do anyway.

0:11:35 Matt: We sure do. I do.

0:11:39 Thomas: And this really stuck out to me. I'm going to play a little of this interaction. And This Is Michael Barbaro and just how this gets framed.

0:11:48 Clip: But do it singly, do it responsibly. Cities like L.A., in not cooperating with ICE, do not let them into their jails where there are undocumented criminals. Is it your position that they should? Because the understanding we have gathered here at The Times through our journalism and reporting is that because ICE can't get to some of the places they want to go to find criminals in jails in places like L!A., they are doing the raids at the Home Depots, doing the raids that you're finding so problematic. Perhaps you disagree with that. Yeah, no, I think there's some truth to that, but come on. I mean, none of us is naive. They also use that as an excuse to randomly go to Home Depos, to randomly go to car washes and people that are running into neighborhoods because scared to death. Look, L.A.'s approach is different than the approach I took as mayor.

0:12:40 Thomas: What do you make of that?

0:12:41 Matt: That's a good response. That is the excuse. And the fact is that you're not seeing these kinds of operations in the states that voted for Trump because they don't want their farms and factories disrupted. And so I think that's part of it too.

0:12:51 Thomas: Well, OK, as a counter, do those states have sanctuary cities that are not doing this stuff? They might. Right. I guess. Yeah.

0:12:59 Matt: Some of of them. Yeah, there are a few, but yeah. But I shouldn't say, I mean, certainly they're happening everywhere, but this obsession with sanctuary cities, sanctuary jurisdictions is in part, I mean a lot of it as we've been talking about is to force state and local law enforcement to work directly with the federal government and help them do their jobs, which they are not required to do. And taxpayers shouldn't be funding state and global governments to do anyway. That's very concerning because especially if you actually care about federalism, if you care about the actual separation of state, local, and federal authorities, this kind of extreme force that they're putting on these jurisdictions is very concerning.

0:13:28 Thomas: Well, here's where I'm coming from. I don't think this is true. And this is Michael Barbaro, who I know I'm not a big fan of, but he's not saying, well, while some are saying, or while the Trump administration says, he's not saying that. This is actually notable. He doesn't say this a lot. The understanding we've gathered here at the Times through our journalism and reporting is that because ICE can't get to some of the places they want to go to find criminals in jails in places like LA, they are doing raids at the Home Depot.

0:13:50 Matt: That That is such a good catch. That is a really good catch, because it's the way he says it. It's so smooth and simple and straightforward. Right, of course, yeah. No, that's the Holman view.

0:13:58 Thomas: That's just wrong, right? I mean, but it's like, I am so mad at the New York Times. It's really frustrating. We need them. The news has been ruined too much to not utilize the New New York Times. They are the biggest and they have so much good information that you can't find elsewhere because reporting has been ruined and the media has been run by the Internet and all that stuff.

0:14:18 Matt: All he had to do to save that question was to say, DHS tells us that they're doing this because, right? What do you say to that? That would be true.

0:14:23 Thomas: Yeah. And also, well, what I want to say is they could also just look into it. But I guess he's saying they have. I don't. That's what's blowing my mind. And it's it's hard because it's one thing to report on things that are happening. But this is reporting on like an excuse. You know, this is recording on someone's reason for something.

0:14:37 Matt: Mm -hmm. As fact. Yeah.

0:14:40 Thomas: It's one thing to record on events that are going on. It is one thing. It isn't one thing as you say. But they're saying, no, the reason they're reporting on their causality and that there's so much loaded into that. Like, well, poor ICE, they wouldn't have to do this, Matt, if it weren't for those evil sanctuary cities and what they're doing. That bothers me a lot that that's where the New York Times is coming from. That's the understanding they have. That's a baseline assumption they're using in their reporting that we might not even know they have that assumption a lot. And what other assumptions are there like that? It's really worrisome to me.

0:15:11 Matt: Yeah and honestly, Honestly, I mean, again, we're saying this is independent media who actually follows this stuff. But another question could have been, you know, Russell Vought, who's now the head of the Office of Management and Budget, back in last summer or whenever, said to a room full of people that the Trump administration is going to be using the Insurrection Act. Are you concerned that this is that kind of thing, right? This is the time. Because there's reasons, and they have nothing to do with that thing that he said. So yeah, no, great stuff.

0:15:33 Thomas: Unreal. At least Gavin Newsom pushed back a little bit there. So I appreciate that. But like, come on. Unreal.

0:15:38 Matt: I actually think, I don't like Gavin Newsom much either, but what he said recently about the federal response, I think, was pretty strong. I don't know if he said it on the show today.

0:15:43 Thomas: So that's not your sense of the chronology or whatever. Like, that's not your sense. So the so they weren't forced to do these Home Depot raids by by that.

0:15:53 Matt: No, they've been itching to get into sanctuary jurisdictions. They've been telling us that pretty much nonstop for a year, even before the election. And then, of course, there's a Stephen Miller meeting where he says you have to find anything you can to get out there and pick up your numbers. And that includes doing things, you know, really shitty things like arresting people in court, which they've never done before and never should be doing. It's really scaring my clients from even going to their hearings, which is really bad.

0:16:07 Thomas: Hey, you know what? I also didn't hear Michael Barbaro say at all. God, the New York Times is pissing me off. I didn't be part of the justice process here for anything.

0:16:28 Matt: There are good law and order reasons that are actually pretty conservative that you should support. Yeah, but I was even talking about immigration court, though, because they've never done that before. This is a new line they've crossed of enlisting people in immigration court. But yeah, we should talk about the response here. So June 7th on Saturday, after a couple of days of what I would consider pretty mild protesting from what I've seen, nothing too unexpected. And a lot of it was instigated by ICE and by especially by the FBI, which again, is doing a lot in immigration enforcement right now and is not trained for immigration enforcement. They're trained for criminal enforcement. So the executive order goes out on June 7th that says, to the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States. We're talking about like maybe a couple of blocks of LA are, I guess, in rebellion. I don't know. Big city, as I understand it. So here's the thing. He's not actually invoking the Insurrection Act, as I said. We talk about the thing that this executive order actually does, which has never actually been done before in American history, this exact thing that he's doing. It's not great. It is not a good direction. He was asked yesterday about what this all means and if he's going to invoke the Insurrection Act. So I've got a clip here for you from YouTube.

0:16:34 Thomas: Unmentioned. Oh, gotcha.

0:17:32 Clip: Action act to deal with the situation in california if there's an insurrection I would certainly invoke it we'll see but uh I can tell you last night was terrible the night before that was terrible we have as you've seen it was on most of your networks los angeles right now would be on fire and we have it in great shape and not playing around will you determine whether or not there is an insurrectio well you'll take a look at what's happening I mean I could tell you there There were certain areas of Los Angeles that you could have called an insurrection. But these are paid insurrectionists. These are paid troublemakers. And when you take a look at what they do, where they show up and everyone's saying, This one guy's pounding The Curb, breaking The Curbs, and handing big pieces of granite. In some cases, it's granite, granite and concrete to other people, and they're running out with it and then we watch the other people and they try and throw it into

0:17:39 Matt: Brilliant.

0:18:33 Clip: The face of the soldiers throw it into the face and they hurt some people very badly they go up on bridges they drop it down on the cars we are not going away

0:18:41 Matt: So that was an old man describing something that he saw on TV, saying that he's not going to invoke the Insruction Act, not yet, unless there's an insurrection. And then he goes on to describe about, I don't know what he's talking about, but I wanted to play the next day, the day that we're recording, when Kristi Noem gives a very different explanation. And dann, of course, the thing you just referenced about your Senator Alex Padilla getting involved. Let's play this whole thing. It' s pretty short.

0:19:02 Clip: We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into this city so I want

0:19:16 Matt: Okay, hold up. Just before this keeps going, run that. I mean, just think about what she just said. That's astonishing. I mean, that is so much different from what Trump said. And that is extremely fascist that she's here to liberate you, Thomas, from your local leaders.

0:19:21 Thomas: Yeah. Holy shit. Yeah, going into a state, the federal government, can you, could you imagine, could you image if Obama put on his tan suit and went into, I don't know, Alabama and said, we're going to liberate you from your leadership in the state? Can you imagine?

0:19:44 Matt: You're, you're burdensome government. Yeah, yeah.

0:19:47 Thomas: Burdensome. Yeah! Yeah. That's worth playing again. I don't know if you asked me to, but I kind of it's

0:19:52 Matt: DJ, run that back.

0:19:54 Clip: We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into this city. So I want to say thank you to every single person that has been able to do this. Also, I want talk specifically to the rioters and to the politicians in Los Angeles. The fact of the matter is, a half a dozen white criminals that you're rotating on your-

0:20:29 Matt: So that is Senator Alex Padilla. Now, yeah, as you said, that is shocking language.

0:20:33 Thomas: Liberating you from the government.

0:20:35 Matt: Can't let that go.

0:20:36 Thomas: Unreal.

0:20:36 Matt: So yeah, they're just giving the game away because that's what this has always been about, is sending in the military to start to take over blue cities, quite frankly. And I can't believe I have to say that out loud. I mean, I said it in the Insurrection Act episode too, but at the time, it seemed a little more theoretical, but now it's in front of us. So let's talk about Senator Alex Padilla, who is in fact the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee.

0:20:39 Thomas: Unreal. Yeah. Hmm.

0:20:55 Matt: So Kristi Noem knows who he is. There's no question that she recognizes this man. He identifies himself, of course, as Senator Alex Padilla and they throw him to the ground outside in the hallway. But what he's asking about is why she keeps bringing up the same, what he calls a six rotating cases when she's talking about why they have to send people to the CICOT in El Salvador. It's a great question.

0:21:12 Thomas: What does that refer to? Sorry, I don't know.

0:21:13 Matt: Basically, they're talking about six of the big bad guys that they sent to El Salvador as if that's the whole, yeah, hundreds, most of whom didn't have records.

0:21:18 Thomas: Oh, out of the, you know, what, hundreds that they sent? Yeah.

0:21:23 Matt: He's asking a pretty targeted question about why she's demonizing this whole population by talking about Six People, and they drag him out and throw him to the ground, and she keeps going. That's just happened a few hours ago as we're recording this. I'm sure that it's going going to continue to pick up. I did see that there's kind of a gathering in the Senate right now outside John Thune's office of senators demanding to know why they're allowing a senator to be treated this way, which is a pretty good question.

0:21:44 Thomas: Yeah。 And then we'll see a bunch of Democrats join probably to vote to censure. But this was I'm referring to when Democrats, 10 Democrats voted with Republicans to censor Representative Al Green during the Trump speech protest. Yeah, that's the level of courage we're looking at from some Democrats.

0:21:48 Matt: National hero, Al Green. We should talk in detail about what Kristi Noem is actually talking about. So again, I just thought that was worth pointing to contrast Trump saying like, well, we don't have to invoke the Insurrection Act yet, but we're seeing some rioters. And she's just coming in and saying, nope, we're liberating you. The blue states are going to be liberated by us.

0:22:13 Thomas: Yeah, she's saying we're going to be greeted as liberators. Jesus.

0:22:16 Matt: That's right. How's that working out? How's does that ever work out? So the actual invocation is not the Insurrection Act. And as we talked about back in February, the Insruction Act isn't even its own law. It's sort of a patchwork of things that were passed over several decades in the 19th century. We sort of refer to it as the Insurrection act. And that is the way to get around the Posse Comitatus Act, which is the bill that keeps you from being able to use the military as law enforcement in the United States, as of course we never should do unless we absolutely have to. It is a really bad idea, but Trump really wants to do. So there is this kind of weird trick here that he is using with with 10 U .S .C. 12406. And I think I did mention it briefly in that episode because it's never been used by itself. It's always been used as kind of an enacting thing for the Insurrection Act to justify sending in troops. And the way that he's using it here in the memo, in the executive order, is he's saying he's going to temporarily protect ICE and other U. S. Government personnel performing federal functions, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property. You might remember that was the justification in Portland and Minneapolis and other places in 2020 during the George Floyd summer when they

0:23:14 Matt: Were sending CBP and ICE and DHS troops to allegedly defend federal property, but they really got into it. Yeah.

0:23:19 Thomas: To go shoot citizens.

0:23:20 Matt: People in the streets. Yeah, right. Now, there is a theory, basically, that the Nixon administration came up with in 1971, that there's an inherent authority to use troops for the protection of federal property and federal functions. And they're claiming this comes from the CARE clause in the Constitution. And Trump has not specified, this executive order does not really specify what they think the basis of this is. But they're using it apart from the Insurrection Act, which has never really been done on its own. And there's no legislative history to tell us. And I just want to tell you this provision very quickly. There's three different ways they can call it up. If the U .S.

0:23:51 Thomas: And yeah, sure.

0:23:51 Matt: Is invaded or in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, he might start using that rhetoric again about invasion since about a third of LA, I think, is immigrants. Second one is if there's a rebellion or danger of rebellion, and that's what he is putting in the executive order, that California is in rebellion. And then the third one is, if the president is unable, what the regular force is to execute the laws of the United States, which is certainly not where we're at. But then there's this weird, ambiguous thing at the end, and I was trying to find out more about the legislative history of this provision. It's is this badly written and doesn't really have any legislative history for guiding us on what it means. It says the president may call into federal service members and units of the National Guard. Now, of course, just to be very clear about this, Gavin Newsom said, we do not want to use the National Guard. We've got this under control. The LAPD said we have this under control. Maybe you should listen to them. Yeah. Yeah, right. We got this. Yeah? Right?

0:24:31 Thomas: That's been one of the funny things. Like the LAPD is like, calm down. Hey, we can abuse our own citizens. OK, we are good at this. And not for nothing like that. The LAPD, you know, not the best.

0:24:42 Matt: Yeah. Yeah. Famously. Yeah.

0:24:44 Thomas: Yeah, this is nowhere near Rodney King riots. You know, this isn't nowhere like that was they actually did need to bring in the National Guard for that. That was that was insane. People. Yeah.

0:24:51 Matt: In 92. Yeah that was sure.

0:24:52 Thomas: People were getting pulled out of their cars, you Know, and not to say I'm dismissing what people were angry about. I'm not. But like that got out of control. Innocent people getting hurt, all that kind of thing.

0:24:57 Matt: Of course. Yeah yeah.

0:25:01 Thomas: We're not anywhere near that. Even the LAPD doesn't think we're near. Do you think the LAPD would say that if they weren't absolutely 100 percent on that? They'd be like, sure, let's we love a fellow fascist.

0:25:09 Matt: Yeah right. Right.

0:25:13 Thomas: Oh, a fellow traveler in the in the ways of the fascist lord. Yeah.

0:25:16 Matt: Someone else to help us beat people up? Sure yeah. No.

0:25:18 Thomas: Can always use a helping hand.

0:25:20 Matt: Yeah so here's the other part though of 12406 that I don't understand. The next part when it's saying the president calling to federal troops and again this is the rare occasion when the federal when the president is saying that he can put the National Guard into a state over the objection of a governor. Now this has happened before. For example when the governor of Arkansas found us he commanded the National Guard to prevent school desegregation, even though, of course, the Supreme Court had ruled in Brown that we have to desegregate schools. So Eisenhower calls the National Guard to enforce school des segregation to make sure the Supreme court's order was upheld. So that's an interesting example of the president stepping in over the states and saying, no, the National guard is going to come in and actually enforce a federal court order. But in this case, this is a little weird because orders for these purposes. Now this is just this one provision that he's using on its own for the first time in US history. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors or the states. So how does that work? Because authority to do it over Newsom's objection, but at the same time, the law requires that Newsom issue the order. So this is somehow, I mean, this has to be illegal on its face, the way it's working. But again, nobody really knows what any of this means. It's all kind of first -time stuff. So we will continue to follow this and try to understand it. But the interesting thing about what I was telling you, though, about the inherent authority to use troops, and this is kind of what they're drawing from, this 1971 memo, it was actually from just before May Day, May 1st of 1971. It was the largest Vietnam protest to that point, you know, against the war. And it was was actually, it ended up being the largest mass arrest in American history. About 12 ,000 people were arrested because Vietnam protesters had come out and said they were going to shut down DC. And Nixon said when they heard that they were gonna be shutting down DC, that he had the authority to keep DC open. And he was saying that inherently, the president, to take care and make sure that laws are faithfully executed, can use troops to come in and keep the federal government running.

0:26:57 Thomas: Well, yeah. And D.C. That makes sense.

0:26:59 Matt: Right. That's the federal governor. Sure.

0:26:59 Thomas: Right. Isn't there some weird D.C. stuff in the Constitution? You know, are they?

0:27:02 Matt: Right.

0:27:03 Thomas: Yeah, that's a special situation.

0:27:04 Matt: And that is the seat of the federal government. We're not, you know, Nixon also used it at another time to shut down a mail strike because the mail wasn't getting delivered, right? The same kind of of thing. It's the federal function that has to keep going. But this is an executive interpretation of the law, and there are guardrails still on this. The Supreme Court has found that you still have to be doing this in good faith when you call this stuff up and then put the troops in. So potentially, the Supreme Court could have a showdown here because, of course, Gavin Newsom took this to court, and he immediately filed an injunction to try to keep Trump going any further because we not only have National Guard in the streets, now they have 600, 700 Marines that are coming in, which is completely unnecessary. And I think we talked about during the Insurrection Act episode what happened when actual military forces started doing law enforcement alongside. And that was during an actual declared insurrection in 1992 after the riots. And it was bad because these are not people that were trained to do domestic law enforcement. They shouldn't be doing it. So Gavin Newsom and Trump now are fighting in court. There's this injunction. It's going to get interesting. It's in front of Charles Breyer, who's Stephen's younger brother. So that's fun.

0:28:01 Matt: He was actually a Watergate prosecutor. So I'm guessing he's not going to be too happy about this kind of overreach. But here's a fun game. Guess which side filed a brief, which begins, in a crass political stunt endangering American lives, the

0:28:14 Thomas: You would think it's the side against Trump, but what what political stunt?

0:28:20 Matt: Governor of California seeks to use this court to stop the president from exercising his lawful statutory and constitutional power.

0:28:28 Thomas: Uh huh. Sure. Yeah, wow.

0:28:30 Matt: Yeah, yeah, right, yeah. So, of course, Newsom is saying this is all overreached, that he doesn't have the authority to use This One provision by itself to do this, that this is completely unnecessary, and that the courts need to check it. And we'll see what happens. We'll be following this pretty closely because it's really important. So I hope that There can be some relief in the courts, but I am very concerned about where this is going. This is not martial law. This is the Insurrection Act. But by using that language about rebellion, he's opening the door to the actual Insurrection Act. And of course, he is saying right there, if he thinks he is an insurrection, he will declare one. The man knows an insurrection when he sees one, obviously. Insurrection expert, Donald Trump.

0:28:58 Thomas: Or he doesn't I guess. Yeah I don't know. So I'm so sorry because this is technical and I'm not really understanding it. So if he's not doing the Insurrection Act, how are the troops there exactly? Exactly.

0:29:09 Matt: Well, it's this weird thing with Title 10, USC 12406. So this is just the provision that allows him to call in troops, even potentially over, And again, this is extremely ambiguous, potentially over the governor's objection when there's a rebellion or danger of rebellion. And it's been interpreted by the OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel, to say that in 1964, the OALC found this was designed to deal with situations where state and local law enforcement have completely broken down, obviously not the case, either because local officials are themselves imposing or obstructing federal law, which is going to say here, or because they're unable or unwilling to control private groups that are in command of the situation. So there's kind of this potential, and we talked about this in the Insurrection Act episode as kind of a hybrid thing where they can federalize it over potentially overstate subjection, but it's never been used by itself. It's usually been used in conjunction with the Insruction Act. So this is a gateway.

0:29:53 Thomas: So why I guess why isn't he doing the Insurrection Act, do you think? Just not justifiable?

0:29:57 Matt: It is a great question. I mean, it's certainly not justifiable. And technically, a court could still stop him and say that this is not enough. And I would hope they would. And also because I think that would make people even angrier than they are right now. Now, I think this is at least like on paper, this is the kind of thing like they did during the George Floyd summer, where they can say we're defending ICE, we're defending federal property, there's, you know, damage going on, you know, one kind or another. But I do think it's kind of easing us in to the idea of federal troops.

0:30:08 Thomas: Fair enough. But I don't know how much the average non-OA listener even understands whether or not the Insurrections Act has happened because it's so confusing. The troops are there, right?

0:30:26 Matt: Yeah. Sure. Sure. Yeah.

0:30:29 Thomas: They've said the words Insurrection Act a bunch.

0:30:29 Matt: Can't blame you for thinking. Yeah. But we're not there yet. And, you know, let's keep watching it.

0:30:35 Thomas: So where exactly are, I know this is like a developing by the minute story, but where do we leave off right now? Now, so far as we know, there's still troops there, right? And they're still, like, what are they, what have they done? What are they doing?

0:30:43 Matt: So right now they're providing support to local law enforcement. And this is another thing I've been watching closely because there was a headline and there was a quote here from the military saying they have the right to potentially detain protesters for local law enforcement to pick up, which they don't because that would be a posse comitatus issue. They're doing law enforcement just by doing that. But right now, allegedly, the Marines are saying they're doing the same function of the National Guard, which is supporting local law reinforcement and defending federal buildings. They just kind of they're creating these kind of perimeters around federal buildings that you might have seen. So that's the foothold they've got.

0:31:14 Thomas: Oof. Well, what do you think the next kind of flame that might light this whole tinderbox on fire?

0:31:18 Matt: It's going to be a long weekend, man. I mean, they get these nationwide protests, as we should, on Donald Trump's birthday, which is two days after mine. And of course, the big military parade in D .C. for the coincidentally only 250th anniversary of the army. And LA, I think they're just trying to find different ways to provoke us and continue to get people in the streets. I would encourage people to get in the streets because they're going to say you're being violent either way. I certainly support nonviolent protests myself, but I think this is a time to show that we see what ICE is doing and we don't like it. And right now, Trump's numbers on immigration are underwater, as is his popularity generally. And I think continuing to make these public demonstrations goes a long way.

0:31:51 Thomas: All right. Well, like you said, it will be a long weekend. All right, Matt. Well, why don't we take a break? And then I think we're talking about, well, I thought it was happier news, but you're, sounds like you were telling me the Saberio Garcia thing might be bad news. I don't know.

0:32:02 Matt: You know, I'd find a way to spin it if I could, but it's not good.

0:32:05 Thomas: Jeez. Okay. Okay, well, I

0:32:06 Matt: Sorry.

0:32:07 Thomas: Guess I'll take a break and then we'll find out about that.

0:32:12 Thomas: This episode is brought to you by Quince. Here's the thing, I'm not big on trends as you might've guessed or you might know, but I love clothes that feel good and last. That's what I care about. And that's why I keep going back to Quince I just did my laundry today, true story, just a few hours ago and all my Quince clothing looks just as good as it did when I bought it and some other stuff doesn't. And that'S why I Keep Telling You About Quince, that's Why I Keep Buying Things From Quince They always want me to tell you what I've gotten and I'm happy to do that. The only thing is it's a little boring because it's so hot in California. I just buy shorts. I really like a good, comfortable pair of shorts. And so I bought a lot of shorts from Quince, but they have everything. They don't just have the shorts that I've bought all of. And then here's the other thing. It actually is summer. So now it's gonna apply to more people, but they also have organic cotton silk polos, European linen beach shorts. I definitely bought a pair of those, by the way. They're great. And comfortable pants that work for everything from backyard hangs to nice dinners. And the best part, everything with Quince comes at half the cost of similar brands. By working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen, Quince gives you luxury pieces without the markups. I have bought a lot of Quince clothing. I wear it. It lasts. It's comfy and it looks good. So stick to the staples that last. With elevated essentials from Quince, go to quince .com slash OA for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q -U -I -N -C -E dot com slash OA to get free shipping and 365 -day returns. Quince .com slash OA.

0:33:45 Ad: [Ad break 2 — ad music]

0:33:45 Thomas: I still maintain that not being in a gulag is a plus. I'm just kidding. Controversial statement.

0:33:51 Matt: Yeah. Yeah, I just, I had to. So really, I didn't want to have to do this, but I did have to correct a couple of people who said this is a victory for due process or that they heard us and brought him back because none of that is true, unfortunately. So I was thinking a lot in the last few days about a thing that I kept hearing during all of those Trump indictments. We'll just play a quick supercut I found here of a line that they love to use during that time because I think it really does apply here.

0:34:13 Clip: It is in fact what Stalin did. It's what Lavrentiy Beria said, you show me the man, I'll find you the crime. But no, this proves, show me HAPPENS IN COMMUNIST U.S.SR. IT WAS OF COURSE JOSEPH STALIN WHO SAID SHOW THE MAN AND I IN STALINOUS FASHION, SHOW AND IT IS LAVERTIA BERIA WHO IS A MASSIVE RUTHLESS KILLER AND HE WAS THE That's the one who said, show me the individual and I will show you the crime.

0:34:23 Thomas: Whoa. She's still alive? So it wasn't Stalin, huh?

0:34:51 Matt: Yeah, well, you get the idea.

0:34:55 Thomas: Yeah, there's like an hour more of this.

0:34:55 Matt: There's like another minute and a half of that, but yeah, they said it a lot.

0:34:58 Thomas: And they can't decide if it's Stalin or Beria or whatever.

0:35:02 Matt: It was probably both. But yeah, Beria was a real, oh yeah, Beria, Beria sucked. But yeah, he was awful.

0:35:04 Thomas: Oh, that guy. I accidentally saw that guy on Reddit. Some weird, like, deep dive. And I was like, that's, that guys sucks.

0:35:11 Matt: He was an actual monster.

0:35:13 Thomas: But anyway, that is exactly that. Show me the Trump and I'll show you the, what, 32? What is it, 32 or 34? One of them is how many counts and the other is how many flavors of ice cream. Baskin Robbins, I can't remember which is which.

0:35:23 Matt: Yeah, but as we all know, you don't have to make up crimes against Donald Trump and nobody did that. There were plenty of them to choose from, but they did have to makeup crimes against Kilmer Abrego Garcia. And I want to talk about the circumstances under which he was being brought back. I want to remind everybody, of course, the Supreme Court of the United States confirmed Judge Boasberg's order and Judge Zinnis in different ways. And the Supreme court ordered the Department of Justice to effectuate and facilitate the return of this man that they acknowledged that they had wrongfully deported. Someone who was not supposed to be deported to El Salvador and was, in fact, in the one place he wasn't supposed to go to, being held in one of the worst places on earth. So in a sense, yes, they brought him back, but it's a very bad joke. They brought him back by making up an indictment, by making out crimes. And I want to talk to you a little bit about what is in this indictment because I'm sure you're going to hear things about what's in this entitlement. It is very bad. But the only thing you really need to know about this indictment is that it was filed on May 21st, and the head of the criminal division in Nashville resigned the day that it dropped.

0:36:20 Matt: We just put that together because the indictment was only released a few days ago, but it was filed, obviously, on May 31st. Ben Schrader was with the DOJ for 15 years, and he wrote on LinkedIn as he left on May 1st, the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing in the right way for the right reasons. He doesn't talk about it, Gregory Garcia, but the coincidence is too much. It can't be a coincidence. This This indictment is bad. It is very bad. They have found the man, and they found a bunch of crimes after seeing the man.

0:36:47 Thomas: And Todd Blanche, truth, tweeted, I don't know, welcome back with the stupid indictment, which I, ah, boy.

0:36:53 Matt: He's full in. He is full in, yeah.

0:36:56 Thomas: There isn't a left equivalent of this kind of bullshit. I, it's just, and I'm glad there isn't. That's a little, that's, that'S gross.

0:37:03 Matt: We can't just make up crimes. And remember, this is a man that they spent, as we talked about, I got multiple emails from DHS, lots of press releases that were trying to slander him as much as possible, trying to dig up everything they could and trying to connect him with whatever they could. But this indictment is absurd. It is baseless. I know that it's baseless because the co -conspirators who are cited here as the sources, basically what it is, is there's a whole bunch of allegations that don't seem to be based on anything. And then the one place where it is based on something is from a 2022 traffic stop that we already knew about, that they already provided information about. And the description in the indictment of the traffic stop doesn't even match up with what's in the report. It's that lazy. I'll get to that in a second. But I want to point out that it appears, from what we know, that DOJ went down and grilled some co -conspirators, allegedly. These are people who are involved in trafficking in different ways. They mentioned co - conspirator one, who it seems like most of this is probably on him, from What We Can Tell. I'm going to guess from everything I understand here that all of these people are probably Salvadoran by birth. And I think, I'm not sure, we don't know for sure, but I'm gonna guess that they're not citizens, because co - conspirator one we know for for sure, re -entered after deportation recently and is now in prison. Re -entering after deportations is a pretty serious federal offense, especially if you're deported for a federal felony. And so they had very strong grounds to lean on him. And he had very stronger incentive to say whatever they wanted, because no doubt they're telling him, you're going to the SECOT if we don't like what we hear.

0:38:21 Matt: I have no doubt that's what they told him, because he is Salvadoran and they can send him right back and they've got a lot on him, he's got everything to lose. And again, we're going find out a little bit more about where this comes from, but you have to see how absurd these allegations are, because if there was anything to this, they've had two and a half years, including the last few months when they've been trying to slander the guy to come up with things like this, right? Yeah, exactly. And as the defense is pointing out, they're coming up with all this while they are facing contempt and sanctions for their behavior in this case, right, and they're come up at this at a time when Naeem Bekele, I think we played the clip, said specifically, and you talked about it before, he wasn't ever going to release him, that he wasn't going to.

0:38:40 Thomas: Why now? Why now, yeah. Yeah. Mm -mm.

0:39:00 Matt: So this whole thing allows Trump to save face by saying he's actually a criminal and we're bringing him back for that reason and no other reason. We're not following the court order. And it allows Bukele to save phase by saying, well, we had to let him go because he's got an arrest warrant. Interesting thing that I have come up with that I haven't seen this reported anywhere else, but I was trying to decide if this is actually an extraditable offense because they should have gone through extradition. What they're saying in the story, they say they just handed BukeLE the arrest warrant and he's like, sure, okay, we'll release some. That's not how extradition works. No, that's not how it works at all. I'm looking at the actual extraditition treaty between the U .S. and El Salvador.

0:39:14 Thomas: Mm -m. Interesting. Yeah, thatS not how that works. Yeah. Huh. It says, the president shall hand the other guy a piece of paper. Yeah, what?

0:39:33 Matt: I went and checked into it because I have to think about this stuff a lot. Yeah. Upon request. Yeah. Anytime. Because, you know, just so people understand, you can't just be extradited for anything. When you are in a foreign country's custody, if they're going to release you, you have the right to an extraditation hearing where you can say, is this something I can actually be sent back to my country for? To this other country for, rather. And every country has treaties in which we determine the sort of parameters of what is worth extraditing them or not. Now, obviously, Obviously, Obrega -Garcia was not going to demand an extradition hearing because he didn't want to stay there. That's fair. I wouldn't either. But I just think it's worth mentioning that the thing he's charged with is 8 U .S .C. 1324, which is a very broad set of charges around harboring, transportation, trafficking of people. It's not kidnapping. It is generally people who often want to be transported. Right.

0:40:18 Thomas: It's like being a coyote kind of thing or whatever.

0:40:21 Matt: And that is not an extra edible offense in this treaty, as I'm not surprised to learn. You know, you're looking at the stuff you'd expect is like extreme fraud and slave trading and kidnapping of minors and, you know, counterfeiting.

0:40:24 Thomas: Interesting. Yeah. Yeah, it's not going to be minor stuff. Like, that's not worth the trouble, right?

0:40:33 Matt: Yeah, it's going to be major felonies, piracy, burglary. But I don't see anything about, and maybe I missed something. I'm looking through it one more time. I don'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS AN EXTRA EDIBLE OFFENSE. But Bichelli's like, sure, okay, take that arrest warrant, I'll release him. Because that's all they wanted was a pretext, because they knew they had to resolve this thing somehow, and this is what they came up with. So that's pretty sick in itself, that it's just so obviously between Ben Schrader resigning, and between the fact this is not even an extraditable offense, and they just went ahead and released him anyway, this all adds up to something pretty gross. So looking through the actual indictment, I mean, they're saying the guy, they are saying, again, they saying in an indictment that they can link him to child pornography, to sexual assault of children, to massive, yes, massive amounts of human trafficking. You know, that he's like a known gang member who's doing all this. Remember, of course, that the guy who said he was a known member was a disgraced former detective who was suspended five days after he made that accusation on other grounds.

0:41:10 Thomas: Obrego Garcia. I didn't even think I caught that.

0:41:24 Matt: Oh, yeah, we probably didn't talk about that at the time, but yeah, that's an important detail.

0:41:25 Thomas: No. So that was part of their smear effort. They got some idiot to say that, and then he got shit canned right after that.

0:41:32 Matt: But I want to point out that page seven of the indictment, when they're talking about the transportation, this is the only part that has details. So the rest of this is not, they're not saying where they got this information, but suddenly at number 0 .30 in the indictement, they have extremely granular detail about what he was getting up to on November 30th, 2022, because that's the report they already released from Tennessee. And in that, this has, okay, this is incredible. I mean, this ist so lazy and good for Ben Schrader for resigning. I was told recently by somebody who has reason to know that pretty much every U .S. attorney at this point is just waiting for the one thing that's going to make them resign.

0:42:03 Matt: They're just waiting for that moment. And this was his, so good for him. But it says here, when asked where they were traveling from, now this is Kilmar Abregarcia being stopped in a traffic stop with nine additional passengers and a suburban. He said he was coming from, he's helping move things around for his boss for a construction job. He falsely told the state trooper that he and the passengers were coming from St. Louis. Now, that is not what it says in the report.

0:42:23 Matt: What it says on the report was that he had just been in Houston, that his parents live in Houston and that he was thinking of moving to Houston. And they're accusing him in this of lying and saying that he hadn't been to Houston, which is absurd. Like, again, I read the report. It's right there. And he had a good reason to be in Houston. So, you know, again, this is so bad. Yeah.

0:42:23 Thomas: Wait, but they're saying he said St. Louis.

0:42:43 Matt: I don't know where they're getting this indictment because that's not what the report says.

0:42:46 Thomas: Is there some reason they picked that like in particular? Is that anything to do with where the other like alleged people are or where they alleged like trafficking took place or is that just pulled out of a hat?

0:42:55 Matt: They just wanted to say that he had lied about going to Houston. I think he had stopped through Missouri at some point as well, but I'm not sure about that.

0:43:00 Thomas: Oh, maybe it's like a technicality like he had driven through there. So they're going to be able to say he lied and came through.

0:43:06 Matt: Yeah, I really don't know. I was looking through these different things and there's even a different thing in their motion to detain him when he gets back, but that's a whole other thing. But my point is that this is så lazy. It'S so badly done. And the only part that has detail is from the report that we already had, where they're trying to smear him about, again, this is so thin. It's incredibly thin.

0:43:22 Thomas: It's just the traffic stop.

0:43:23 Matt: Yeah, those are the details they have.

0:43:24 Thomas: That's all they have. Were there other you talk about this guy they have leverage over? How is he involved? Does he know Abreu Garcia? Was he in in the car? What's the connection?

0:43:32 Matt: So they're calling him co -conspirator one. And they're saying that he, since 2016, that Abrego Garcia was working with him since 2016. But it says CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, and CC5, all known to the grand jury, were co - conspirators. They're all citizens of El Salvador and not US citizens. And that they worked together.

0:43:47 Thomas: But were they in the car? No. So, so what does the car stop have to do with anything?

0:43:51 Matt: That they thought he was doing some trafficking of nine people at the time. That they didn't have luggage on them, they were traveling, you know, that they, yeah,

0:43:58 Thomas: Okay. So and then they're getting whoever these co -conspirators are and one you're saying they have a lot of pressure on them. They're getting them to say like, yeah, that's part of our trafficking operation like that stop. You caught him while he was doing some trafficking in our operation. That's is that what they're saying? Oh, wow.

0:44:11 Matt: Right. And that it's all gang related, that it'S MS -13 trafficking. So just to make it extra worse. So, you know, again, who knows? I mean, I assume this cross -examination is not going to go very well for these co -conspirators because these are all people who have already previously been convicted. One of them at least already re -entered up to deportation. I think one of them might not have been in the country right now.

0:44:28 Matt: And they have every reason to give into pressure. So we'll see. We'll see.

0:44:31 Thomas: What what happens next on this? So it's an indictment. What's the next phase of this? If it's this level of bullshit, I wonder how much they're seriously pursuing this or is it just getting that piece of paper out for the news cycle?

0:44:34 Matt: Yeah,

0:44:44 Thomas: What happens next in the process?

0:44:44 Matt: We'll see, we will see. I mean, it may just go away, but they could be putting him away for a long time if they try to actually convict him. It's two counts of violations of 8 U .S .C. 1324. I personally think this is all just to save face and to give cover to bringing him back in a way that doesn't make it look like they're complying with the court order, which is pretty gross in itself. But we'll have to see how it plays out.

0:45:02 Thomas: Right. Okay. But I guess I'm saying what happens next? This is real. So yeah, this is real court though, right?

0:45:07 Matt: Yeah.

0:45:07 Thomas: They can't, it's not like they can do this in immigration court. So

0:45:13 Matt: This is real federal national court and discovery.

0:45:14 Thomas: There would be allegedly some sort of like trial or something and discovery and okay.

0:45:15 Matt: They're just going to have to prove this stuff that they say is in here. And

0:45:23 Thomas: Boy, talk about a gavel gavel case.

0:45:25 Matt: It looks like the case is going to turn on one guy who has a lot of reason to not tell the truth yeah potentially it's a big one

0:45:25 Thomas: I, that I might be. Yeah. That's why I'm like asking you like, Like, what are we looking for? What's the next step usually in this kind of thing?

0:45:32 Matt: It's going to be a little while and they're moving to hold him for now but of course this whole thing is just so unusual I'm nothing like this has ever happened before it's the whole sequence of events so just have to keep a watch

0:45:36 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Wow. An actual fascist show trial for gavel gavel. I never thought we'd see that in this country anyway. I mean, yeah, there's like some through history that might be interesting, like fascist show trials or actual like witch hunts kind of things. We've talked about maybe covering that, but wow, this is, oof, that's heavy. Yeah.

0:45:46 Matt: That's bleak but true yeah we're living that history here we

0:45:59 Thomas: And Todd Blanche might be back on the show, everyone.

0:46:01 Matt: Are in the worst possible way yeah yeah I should point out too that of course that there's still litigation going on with judge zinnis in maryland and just Judge Brodsberger still has a hand in this as well.

0:46:10 Thomas: What is that? Sorry, I don't know. Mm.

0:46:11 Matt: But Judge Zinnes said that this is the Maryland case where Judge Zinnes had ordered him to come back, where the plaintiffs had gone to federal court and said, this is a wrongful deportation, that there should be some rights here. And the plaintiff's have found some great stuff in this, which I'll link to. There's just this one response to the government's request to stay the deadlines in this case, where they just lean into it. They say he is at long last back in the United States following his illegal removal. To characterize the government as having, quote unquote, complied with the court's order is pure farce. And they go through just like pulling apart. Part. Everything the government did. And even better, there's a 33 -page filing that just dropped in which they're seeking contempt.

0:46:44 Matt: And it goes into everything they know about that the Trump administration did in this case to break the law, to stretch the law. To flaunt the court's orders in all these different ways. And, it's great.

0:46:49 Thomas: Is that the kind of thing that could be used as evidence in Abrego Garcia's proceedings

0:46:59 Matt: Oh, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. No, this all should be part of his defense. Yeah.

0:46:59 Thomas: Of bad faith on the government's part? Nice. God, I hope somebody does. Yeah, because now he's got to almost have like a different kind of lawyer, don't you think?

0:47:09 Matt: He'll have a great criminal team, I assume.

0:47:09 Thomas: Oh, please. Somebody. Yeah. Oh, somebody amazing. Jump on that and give us brilliant briefs that completely outline the Trump administration's corruption in this. I hope that happens.

0:47:21 Matt: Now, No, they can crib from this 33 -page filing because they get into everything. And I mean, the government has every incentive to make something up to bring them back in the face of all of this so they don't have to comply with the orders because they're pretending the whole time that they're doing it. But it's all bad faith, all of it.

0:47:34 Thomas: All right, Matt. Well, I mean, at the very least, OK, this is weird. If I can be the ray of sunshine here. I like that they felt they needed to do this. I like that. They felt pressure of the court system of us, of whatever, to where they didn't just leave them there to die, to rot. They didn't just laugh it off that, you know, they, I like. That they were at least compelled to try to find some way to do this. Now it's a bullshit thing, obviously. And we'll, we'll follow that. But like, I don't know. I mean, that, that seems like good news to me. That means this pressure works. We got someone back there back. I don't know if we'll get more people back, but that all feels like really good news to me.

0:48:09 Matt: In a sense, in the sense. We're flipping roles here a little bit.

0:48:11 Thomas: Who am I talking to here? Yeah. What is the negatron over here?

0:48:15 Matt: You come to me on the day of my birth. I appreciate it. I do appreciate the attempted optimism. And usually this is me providing the optimism. And I want to be optimistic today, but I got to tell you, I don't like this. I don'T like this as a trend that we have to charge people with massive federal crimes to bring them back.

0:48:17 Thomas: I guess I just believe in, maybe this is my naivete, but the Trump administration is really bad in court. They're not good at it. And I get that prosecutors can shove people around. I getthat that happens. But in a situation like this, where I think there'd be a spotlight, I think he's going to get a good lawyer. And is incompetent. I kind of like his chances, you know? So maybe that's why.

0:48:55 Thomas: Do you think I'm wrong to think that?

0:48:56 Matt: I'm with you there. And actually I meant to mention that in the, uh, one of the Gavin Newsom filings and one of the responses, I have to mention this DOJ instead of a table of authorities, just put in brackets, insert table of thirties in the filing.

0:49:06 Thomas: Yeah, they're not sending their best.

0:49:08 Matt: No, no, not these days. Uh, and of course the more, uh. Traders they, they lose, it's going to get worse and worse. So yes.

0:49:14 Thomas: I guarantee they're going to use AI at some point in this criminal proceeding against the Brigadier Garcia. That'll be funny. I mean, come on.

0:49:19 Matt: Yep. That'll happen. Yeah, totally.

0:49:21 Thomas: Yeah. So maybethat's why I'm more optimistic. But weird, weird. This is a weird seat to be in, Matt. I don't, I guess just because it's your birthday. I'll do it this one time.

0:49:28 Matt: Speaking of seats, we've got a French footnote.

0:49:31 Thomas: All right. Well, we'll take a last break here and then we'll get to a French footnote. I was was going to try to do some sort of French, but I'm not. I don't know it. I'm not going to Try. I don't understand why in their language, none of the letters matter. I don't get it.

0:49:44 Matt: They probably don't.

0:49:44 Thomas: It seems weird. Why do you have those letters? Don't get it. Anyway, after this break, this show is brought to you by Soul CBD. As you might know from an episode of High Court, certain hosts of OA enjoy some CBD. I partake myself. And the main reason I do is if I'm making a choice between perhaps going out and having a bunch of drinks versus versus reaching for the Soul's out -of -office gummies, it just seems to me that that's much better. I feel much better both in the moment and the next day for sure, because nobody likes a hangover. Nobody likes how many calories drinks are. You do not realize that. Drinks are a lot of calories. Soul CBD is not. That's the main reason I like Soul. Soul is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp -derived THC and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. Their best -selling out -of -office gummies were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation. I love the out -off -offICE gummies. It's my favorite name of anything. I also love that you can pick your strength because I start small. I definitely don't want to overdo it. You can choose from gentle microdose. That's what I opt for. Perfect buzz, noticeable high, or as what I imagine other members of the show might choose, a fully lit experience. But it's great Great, because you can choose your own strength. You can get what's right for you. So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to soul today. Right now, soul is offering our audience 30 % off your entire order. Go to getsoul .com and use the code opening. That's getsoul dot com promo code opening for 30 % off getsoul .com promo code opening.

0:51:28 Ad: [Ad break 3 — ad music]

0:51:28 Thomas: All right, Matt, footnote me.

0:51:30 Matt: Right. Well, the takeaway from this note de bas de page, all you need to know is the quote, I licked the chair and voila, I could taste the fraud. Yeah, this is a chair licking story. This is a story in which a massive counterfeiting crime was revealed by licking a chair.

0:51:47 Thomas: Counterfeit chairs?

0:51:48 Matt: Counterfeit chairs. This is incredible because these people are top of the game. These are master furniture people. This guy's a professor at the Sorbonne with unique access to all these antiques in Versailles.

0:51:57 Thomas: That's French for Ikea. Sorry.

0:52:00 Matt: Yes. Yeah. Professor of the flat pack. Yes. But he faked these incredible, and like he basically told his students how if you wanted to, you could use melted licorice to give new wood an old feel. And so one of his students took him up on it and licked the chair, which is kind of funny. So yeah, Bill Paulot and a master cabinetmaker named Bruno Danu were just found guilty on charges of fraud and money laundering. And they get four months in pretrial detention and 200 ,000 and 100 ,000 euro fines. But they'd actually been joking around about how they could actually replicate some chairs that were missing from Versailles and sell them.

0:52:34 Matt: And they actually did it. A Qatari prince bought two of their chairs for 2 million euros. And They actually sold some chairs back to the Palace of Versaille itself, which is incredible.

0:52:43 Thomas: Oh my gosh So that was gonna be my question was are we talking historical antiques?

0:52:44 Matt: That is antiques. This is audacious. I mean, you're saying these are actually from Versailles. And again, these people were top of the game. If anybody could have done done it. They could have done it, but it was the licorice. It was the licking of the chair that gave them away and tasted like licorICE.

0:52:59 Thomas: At what point you've skipped so much of the story Matt. I don't know where we are I don' know in the process. I know we don't have time but like at what point was this a Perry Mason moment? Like are somebody Somebody licked the chair in court or where are we in this process?

0:53:03 Matt: It's a long story. Well, one of Bill Pellett's former students had noted that there's all this suddenly lost Versailles furniture that just happened to be turning up. And he remembered this thing about the licORICE and he just like spontaneously decided to, yeah, yeah.

0:53:21 Thomas: Oh, so he narked on his old like teacher. I have mixed feelings about that

0:53:26 Matt: I don't know. But you know, when you can taste the fraud, you can test the fraud. So it goes, this is a very, very unusual fraud of money lender in case just caught my eye. So I just wanted to bring that one up. Yeah. Just next time, I guess use use something less tasty to fake your furniture. That's the lesson.

0:53:40 Thomas: I mean, black licorice is indistinguishable from wood to me. So yeah.

0:53:44 Matt: And wood polish, right? Pretty much.

0:53:46 Thomas: And wood, more importantly, wood polish. Yeah, that's a good point.

0:53:49 Matt: It's a refined French tongue that guy's got. Very famous for their tongues, the French.

0:53:54 Thomas: If I had a nickel. So nothing legal really is. Yeah we don't have time for a long one.

0:53:57 Matt: Just a fun crime.

0:54:00 Thomas: But so this wasn't like a trial. This was how a guy got busted essentially. Like how he got discovered.

0:54:04 Matt: Oh, he was just found guilty on this. Yeah, no, it was all after trial. Yeah. But that's how it came out. Yeah?

0:54:06 Thomas: Oh, he was found guilty. Oh, okay. I means that is kind of interesting.

0:54:10 Matt: No, it's cool.

0:54:10 Thomas: Someone licking a chair led to a guilty verdict. Huh.

0:54:12 Matt: Yeah! I thought that was something.

0:54:14 Thomas: Why do you lick the butt part though? That's the weird. No, you could lick anywhere else on the

0:54:18 Matt: That was a whole other thing. Actually, yeah, he just

0:54:22 Thomas: Chair yeah and coming came up with a really elaborate excuse and got extremely lucky professor's like I can't believe this I can'T believe I got busted by

0:54:23 Matt: Happened to be licking some chairs. Perfect yeah yeah but uh yeah there you go and I just want to say in a personal footnote that I am just feeling really grateful today even for all the horrible stuff we have to talk about my life is awesome I think your life is awesome and I think if you're listening your life is awesome too and if you could just do one thing for my birthday just think about one way that your life is awesome because you know there's a lot of stuff going down right now I know we've got a lot to talk about and it's not always fun but we are some of the most privileged people in the history of the universe. And I think that we need to enjoy our lives and enjoy what we have because it's quite a lot. I'm feeling good today.

0:55:00 Thomas: This yeah that's true well we don't know what kind of waspy people exist on other planets you know there could be untold alien waspiness like just complete privilege like almost an alien race space of privilege, you know, like just pure. Actually, you know, we're made out of carbon. They're actually made out of privilege. You know, the molecules

0:55:10 Matt: That's true. Luxury space communism could be happening all around us. The United Federation of Planets could be just doing its business and an unknown element.

0:55:27 Thomas: That, yeah, privilegium.

0:55:30 Matt: Well, as Earth goes, I think we're doing pretty good. So I just want to keep that in mind because I'm seeing so much doomerism and so many people spiraling out on blue sky. And again, I have the perspective of working with people every day who are at the worst end of everything that this fascism has to deliver. And the overall net anxiety that we're experiencing here and that we'RE absorbing and the PTSD from our clients, it just reminds me again every day of the privilege that I have and whatever we can do here in the office to help them. If you have the privilege to sit around a blue sky and complain about how this is killing you and you're exhausted, you're doing pretty well.

0:56:02 Thomas: Yeah I feel like your clients aren't doing that. I feel like the people who are actually the victims of these things are not the ones sitting around on blue sky being doomers, right? I mean, I feel like that's a different kind of person.

0:56:10 Matt: No, they're working a double and they're taking care of the kids.

0:56:13 Thomas: Something to think about. Well, happy birthday Matt. Happy Matt's Day, everyone. And if I could wish one thing for Matt's birthday is that you would share this show to wish Matt a happy birthday, because we have seen a lot of burnout and it is really rough. And I think we've made a conscious effort to cover things in a way that's uplifting, but still real. And I hope that is translating. So happy birthday Matt. And thanks everyone for listening.

0:56:35 Matt: And I'm more grateful than anything for people that go to patreon .com slash law and subscribe and help pay my retirement that I'm actually getting going now.

0:56:41 Thomas: At the Boston cream pie level of Patreon, you get these benefits.

0:56:44 Matt: That's right. You got it. Thanks.

0:56:47 Thomas: All right see you next time oh sorry cool oh cool I try to load it and it just decides to play a thing that's unpauseable king stop it's uh there's no button to stop this cool it's because I haven't logged in so like the login like showed I just turned off my house that's how I did it we love fellow fascist oh a fellow traveler in the ways of the fascist lord not being in a gulag is a plus.