Trump Puts the "Pervert" in Perversion of Justice

Transcript

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

0:00:00 Clip: Thank you.

0:00:04 Matt: Raskin is correct in saying the Department of Justice is now acting like in-house counsel for for for the Oath Keepers and the Proud Proud Boys. Boys. I it is great that cannabis is legal in most of the country, at least during these times. But now you can also make yourself some bourbon. So one more option.

0:00:30 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1253. I'm Thomas. That over there is real-life immigration attorney Matt Cameron. How you doing, Matt?

0:00:37 Matt: Am fire it up. Uh, it is spring cleaning time. It's that time of year when I'm just going to go through and try to redo my life a little bit.

0:00:43 Thomas: Oh, wow. Thinking of taking up a different line of work. This is how Matt tells us he's going to go work at Starbucks, as we've talked about. But yeah,

0:00:50 Matt: Not there yet. I still love both my jobs, but we've got some odds and ends to sort out in today's show. Just some fun spring cleaning activities. Some of them not so fun, but some great patron questions to go through. So looking forward to that.

0:01:03 Thomas: It's been too long since we, you just let the patrons be deciders on the questions. And so I'm glad we did that. Well, what do the patrons have in store for us today?

0:01:12 Matt: As usual, we've gotten a great set of questions. Just want to say, you know, this show really is brought to you by patrons in the literal sense. I make sure that we can actually do this, but show, today's show is brought up by patrons because with one exception, these are going to be patron questions today. Got did ICE lie to a court about being able to go into courthouses, to does matter that I slide to a court about deporting a bunch of people? A lot of variety on this one. A really fun footnote for all you bootleggers out there. Got a great bootlegging footnote.

0:01:42 Thomas: Attention, bootleggers.

0:01:44 Matt: I'm excited about this one, I love a good patron suggestion for a footnote, but get there when we get there. But the patron suggestion I meant to shout out was actually the Crave series. And we talked about the werewolves and gargoyles. That was actually The Reference on Wednesday's show.

0:01:50 Thomas: Patron suggested footnote. That's the only only thing that could be better than a Matt -suggested footnote, which are already good.

0:02:04 Thomas: I see. So you've been ripping off our brilliant patrons, taking credit for the footnote and not even telling me. Wow.

0:02:11 Matt: That's the one time I forgot to mention.

0:02:12 Thomas: I feel okay.

0:02:15 Matt: And credit to Blue Sky user Helen Havoc. For this one, the werewolves and gargoyles footnote about the dispute between authors with the one claiming that the other had ripped off her romantic book. That was one of my favorite footnotes in a long time.

0:02:26 Thomas: So it was a blue sky suggestion. Oh, well, hopefully they still listen, Matt, after you ripped them off.

0:02:28 Matt: That's a listener suggestion. Stole the intellectual property

0:02:36 Thomas: Exactly. Exactly surprised you haven't heard from their attorneys yeah

0:02:38 Matt: I do want to say that my part of the show, besides just getting to come here and talk to you a couple of times a week is just hanging out with patrons and seeing what they have to say about the things we talk about. They're all super smart people, and

0:02:52 Thomas: Yeah if you ever want to activate your uh uh syndrome just go ahead and look at like the collective knowledge of the patrons and just be like I don't why are you listening sounds like you guys should do the show Joe.

0:03:07 Matt: Got so many different kinds of specialists, people with so many interesting fields of knowledge, and always ready to correct me kindly if I've got something a little wrong. I've never dramatically gotten anything wrong, but of the Sky Marshall Program, for example, that kind of thing. But I just want to say I love hanging out and talking after every episode just to kind of get a sense of where you're at on it and always learn something from the patrons. These were great questions. So we've got plenty to cover here. We just got late breaking news as we're recording this with a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals from Khalil. And I'm sure this would have been a question if it hadn't just happened a few minutes ago. So I want to make sure we address that too.

0:03:38 Thomas: This is so fresh that I went to try to check on it and I can't find it's not up yet. It's only the documents are up, but people haven't even now that's as of recording. Unfortunately, of course, it takes us a little bit to get the episode out, but this is hot off the presses for us. All

0:03:53 Matt: I am on the BIA's mailing list. This is what I get minute to minute. So times.

0:03:57 Thomas: We got a lot to discuss. I guess we'll get to it. All you too can become a genius if you pledge at patreon.com/law that's right I guarantee you will instantly become smarter uh miss the ads and a lot of movies we got another one planned I'm so glad we're back to doing those uh regularly once a month because they are so funny and I always enjoy it and I think we have a real good one picked out for next time

0:04:28 Matt: Yeah, it's another one I'm probably going to end up regretting, but it turns out there's a TV show with Dr. Phil's origin story as a jury consultant. So how could we not watch that?

0:04:36 Thomas: And when they told me that I was like boy that sounds like some obscure thing uh turns out it's a show you probably all will have heard of and just maybe like me didn't have any idea that it was based on dr phil I can't wait

0:04:48 Matt: It was on for years. Never heard of it. Yeah.

0:04:49 Thomas: All right well we'll take a break and then we'll get to it What do our patrons have first oh

0:04:57 Matt: A question from Maytree. Few weeks ago, the Department of Justice admitted that in fact, ICE was not allowed to arrest immigrants in court. It provides a link to an an NPR story. Maitray wants us to explain this a little bit more and also wondering if this has any effect on the case of Judge Hannah Dugan, who was arrested in court for allegedly directing someone to avoid ICE.

0:05:15 Thomas: Yeah we haven't touched on that in a while

0:05:17 Matt: Answer here, and I can kind of provide some context here. We talked a little but before about how ICE over years has had a sensitive locations policy, and that has included hospitals, schools, courthouses. And like any other law enforcement's agency, it's kind of their discretion about where they show up and arrest people. Enforcement can use their discretion. If they need to arrest somebody in the hospital who has just been a mass shooter, they can do that. I mean, that makes sense. Any cop can go into a hospital if they have probable cause that somebody was just committed a horrible and violent offense or something like that. And ICE can do the same thing, but they basically, in a non-binding kind of way, told themselves they couldn't go to certain places. You know how far that's going to go. And of course, the Trump administration in both Trump administrations lifted that when it came in. Thing that has been unusual to the Trump Administration this time around in the past year is that ICE has been going to immigration courts, which is terrifying. They should not be doing this. And they're not doing it that often from what I can tell. And it seemed to be focusing on certain courts. I have not heard that much about Boston and Chelmsford here in Massachusetts had ICE showing up there. But at the same time, our immigration judges are really good about letting people come in on video, so it's not as relevant. There are some courts that aren't allowing that. And if you don't have a lawyer, you typically do have to show up to make sure that you're there. Department of Justice, in a case called African Communities Together v. Lions, a suit against ICE, So last month, DOJ represented to a federal court that this policy about able to arrest people in courthouses applied to courts. Now, immigration courts, just as a reminder, are not courts. They're not judicial courts. And this is one place where that's actually an advantage. They can often be in the same federal building as a courthouse. There are places where that happens, but they're often in a separate federal building, usually where the executive branch agencies like Social Security and VA are. Is a little different from a courTHouse. And a DOJ lawyer confidently stood up and told a judge that they're allowed to go to all courts and that they had this guidance and they're all to do it. Of the lawyers had caught that there was a change between a January and a May memo from ICE that seemed to be a slightly different wording that might suggest that. So turns out there actually was an email on May 27th, 2025. I'm a little surprised by this. It just came out that was advised, all personnel that does immigration arrest was advised, that outlines the responsibilities of ICE officers and agents in conducting civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses other than, and that's in bold, other than immigration courts. So it does not apply to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is the immigration court system. It does apply to all other civil courts. And again, ICE has been arresting people in courts for many years. They stopped doing it under Obama. They were enjoined at some point under administrations. Biden administration, for the most part wasn't doing it. We've talked at length about why we believe as advocates it's a very bad idea to interrupt state court proceedings, but that's what they've been doing.

0:07:52 Thomas: Court proceedings or immigration court

0:07:54 Matt: Wanted to establish the baseline. Court is a different thing and that is a new level. That's something that they had not done before. I was very concerned. I had always been concerned that was a red line that they would cross and they did start crossing it last year. And you don't show up to immigration court, that's an automatic deportation. That's just what happens if you don't appear. So they're scaring people away from showing up. A lot of people don't know that they have a right to appear in video if they have lawyer. Lot of people can't afford lawyers. So there's lots of reasons you might end up being arrested.

0:07:55 Thomas: Yeah for sure so think they're likely doing it in order to scare people to not show up and then be able to deport them or do you think it'S just numbers trying

0:08:26 Matt: I mean, it's like what that famous bank robber in the 20s said about why he robbed banks, right? It's where the money is. You go and find the people. That's where the people are.

0:08:33 Thomas: Can't argue with that logic yeah

0:08:34 Matt: Yeah, they are going to have to come to immigration court. They are immigrants. So does make some sense. And the position is that if they are out on some kind of conditions or bond or parole, immigration parole, that they can always revoke that and pull them back in, which is what they've been doing at a startling rate. It's just really pretty bad. But to get to the patron's question, I just want to be very clear. I think that this may not have been reported very well, as often happens with immigration stories. This really is just about immigration courts, which are not judicial courts. This has never applied to regular courts. ICE has been taking the position, and they are legally correct, that they have the right to go to courts anytime that they want to, unless they are specifically not allowed to. Like New York, I think Rhode Island now finally, I've are not allowed by state law. Excluded. They're But if they're not excluded, then they're allowed to go to courts. So this doesn't change the balance for that. And unfortunately, it doesn't changed anything for Judge Dugan, who remains convicted, unfortunately, for her bravery. So another case. I'm think we're going to talk about Judge Dughan get another time.

0:09:26 Thomas: I I man that was a that was a bummer I don't know what that yeah we covered it initially and then I don't know the fact that they got a conviction I just wonder was there something we didn't know I guess we'll have to look at it later yeah

0:09:39 Matt: Come up again. But obviously, if everybody remembers the judge being let out in handcuffs in her robe, very dramatic for to protect somebody from ICE arrest, and not even as actively as she could have is from what I remember. Next question we have from Folded Meat Manager since 2011. Gavel gavel shout out.

0:09:57 Thomas: Wow what a quick turnaround on that one as fast as the sandwich they make probably there's

0:09:59 Matt: Love it. Love of it that people are... do remember you had some sort of extensive explanation about the folding of the meat on a good sandwich.

0:10:07 Thomas: No explanation needed it's just Just the folded is better. I mean, flat.

0:10:10 Matt: From a couple of vegetarians.

0:10:12 Thomas: Yeah, you know, I'm more easily repulsed by meat. So maybe you need something like that to know.

0:10:19 Matt: Just squeeze it in there. Folded Meat Manager asks, the DC Circuit slash Boesberg contempt stuff. I am so confused and I cannot tell what the hell is going on. And, you know what? I'm with you.

0:10:29 Thomas: That just came out too.

0:10:30 Matt: That just happened. And this is the litigation that we've been following for more than a year now, I think at this point, involving Matter of DBD and other cases in which Judge Boesberg in DC was trying to stop DOJ and DHS from deporting people to El salvador to the Secant prison. We've talked about this at length and about how Comer, Alberto Garcia was one of those people. A little reminder too that Emil Bove, however you want to say that, of course, we've disagreed over the years about how to say his name. Wanted to send a little clip to remind you about his position on court orders. This is the famous one, of course. One court order that we know for sure, I mean, they have violated other court orders in other small ways, but they were told by Judge Bosberg to turn these planes around. These men were not supposed to have been sent to El Salvador. That was the one place they weren't supposed to go to, most of them. The rest were Venezuelans. Emil Bove testifying about something that came out from a whistleblower. He's going to be talking to Adam Schiff about something that I certainly would remember if I had said it.

0:11:26 Thomas: Yeah. I remember this.

0:11:28 Clip: The complaint, it says Beauvais stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts f*** you and ignoring any such court order. Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?

0:11:42 Clip: Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of the kind. To the extent I used the - Wouldn't you recall, Mr. Beauvais, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers that maybe they should consider telling the court f***ing you? It seems to me that would be something you'd remember unless that's the kind of thing you say frequently well I've certainly said things encouraging litigators at the department to fight hard for valid positions that we have to take into and if you frequently suggested that they say you and ignore court orders is that also something you frequently do such you might not remember doing it on this occasion no and as I explained I've never directed did you or did you not make those comments during that meeting which comment senator you really need me to repeat it did you suggest as mr ruveni wrote that doj would need to consider telling the courts you and ignore any such court order I did not suggest that there would be any need to considering ignoring court orders at the point of that meeting there were no court orders to discuss well did you suggest telling the court you in any manner I don't recall you just don't remember that

0:12:09 Thomas: This fucking guy.

0:12:29 Matt: I've already forgotten.

0:12:30 Thomas: Yeah. So forgettable that. Wow.

0:12:56 Matt: You get the idea. Yeah. The kind of thing that I would think would earn you a contempt order. Were expressing contempt for the court. I think the court gets to express contempt back. That makes sense. Was all very convoluted because ultimately the Supreme Court found that Judge Boasberg did not have authority because these people were detained in Texas. He was in DC. It made sense to bring it to DC to try to enjoin the federal agencies that were doing this, but they found that they needed to bring where the men were held in Texas, which is, of course, is the less favorable place. Is JGG, the case involving the Alien Enemies Act. And again, this stuff has not been resurrected. They have not tried to use the Alien Ememies Act since that time. As we've discussed before, there's a fairly limited thing, but it did involve more than 200 people. And none of them except the Salvadorans, a few Salvadorans are still in SICON. The rest are now out, including Camaro, Berger, Garcia. The point is that Judge Boasberg was intent on holding contempt proceedings to find out how it is that these planes went there despite his court order, because pretty clearly they were aware at the time the planes were in the air. They did not turn them around, and it looks like at least one plane, I think maybe two, took off after the order.

0:13:56 Thomas: I feel like even if ultimately someone higher up said well that decision or whatever you didn't have jurisdiction or something to tell them not to do that. I feel like even if that's true, couldn't you have a separate thing that's like, yeah, but if I told you to do something and I'm the judge, you still have to do it.

0:14:18 Thomas: Right. I mean, you can't just disobey like a police officer and be like, well, later, I bet I would have been right, though.

0:14:26 Matt: Exactly. Was his point along was that I still get to hold contempt hearings, even though ultimately, the Supreme Court found the jurisdiction was not with me. You still messed with me, right? You still, right, you still were supposed to respect the court until somebody told you not to. Been a lot of twisted back and forth. And I think part of the reason that our folded meat patron is is confused about this is because it is very confusing.

0:14:34 Thomas: Obviously. Yeah.

0:14:46 Matt: Has been a lot of history on all of this. It is very hard to keep up with. But essentially, if I can break it down, the .C. Circuit has been going back and forth on how much Boasburg can conduct contempt hearings. Found that it was agreed beyond their jurisdiction because essentially this is national security issues, that it's a separation of powers issue. D .K. Circuit denied rehearing on Bonk. They back to Boesberg to decide because at this point, it was moot. The Venezuelans were out. The government's prior conduct had been decided.

0:15:15 Matt: And again, I think the prior conduct matters, especially when we've got Emil Boeve, according to this whistleblower, telling the court to fuck itself and telling the DOJ lawyers. And the shock of the DOG lawyers recorded in that room, hearing the second in command, third -in -command at that point of DOJ saying this.

0:15:32 Thomas: Pretty nuts.

0:15:33 Matt: Yeah, it really is and it deserves hearings. And the circuit actually determined in December that he couldn't bring in DOJ officials to testify. He was trying to get Kristi Noem and everybody else to come in and say what they knew and when they knew it and bring in every low -level person who was supposed to have been carrying out this order. Moved from Mandamus to force him to stop this, basically. And two Trump appointees, including in a very long order that this is essentially a matter of national security. It's separation of powers, that he can't essentially hold them in contempt for doing things that are this important, which is very bad.

0:16:09 Matt: That's No, it doesn't. And I agree with the plaintiff. I agree with you. It does not make a lot of sense. The dissent in this is extremely impassioned from Judge Childs. I wanted to shout that out. Dissent made the very important point that the Trump administration is trying to cut off the opportunity to even have proceedings, like at least let him hold the proceedings, get the order and then appeal it, right? They're saying this is so important to national security that they couldn't even have procedures that they have to cut it off and move on.

0:16:08 Thomas: That doesn't make sense. Yeah. How is it national security? Of the Alien Enemies Act?

0:16:38 Matt: Because the Unanimous Act, this is why it should never be used. That's why it needs to be overturned. Has been good litigation put out there to make sure this can be nullified and that we can't use it again because it could be so dangerous. An extremely unusual situation, but is just not right.

0:16:52 Thomas: Yeah, I still don't think you can just not follow a court order. Doesn't make any sense to me.

0:16:57 Matt: No, not at all.

0:16:58 Thomas: How would this, how would that work? How would the system work in that way?

0:16:58 Matt: And then even, mean that's the whole thing with the Unanimous Act is it doesn't leave a lot of of room. And the Supreme Court did find at least they have to be notified that they have a right to file a habeas claim to challenge their detention. But

0:17:10 Thomas: That, like I even, I don't, does the, unless Unless, does the Alien Enemies Act have something about you don't have to listen to judges?

0:17:17 Matt: Right.

0:17:17 Thomas: Yeah, okay, so that has nothing to do with that. It doesn't matter, like, ultimately what they decide. It's just you can't just decide you're not subject to whatever a court said, right? I'm still blown away by this.

0:17:28 Matt: Yeah, I think that, well, what I'm saying is that they Have been arguing this, and it is true from the text of the statute. This is an extremely broad executive statute that gives the executive an unusual amount of power, unfortunately. So I think what they're saying is essentially that has to include doing it however they do it. And they're also, the majority wasn't convinced that that the order was clear. And this was nonsense that DOJ has been pushing since the beginning because he said it on the record and didn't write it down in the way that they thought he should have written it down. He still said it. They still heard what he said. There's no question he said not to let anybody leave the country. So that's just stupid.

0:17:48 Thomas: So stupid. Yeah. And as a lawyer, that's not anything that would ever work in a million years, right.

0:18:01 Matt: I I would get a bar complaint if I tried to argue that personally, but somehow these people don't.

0:18:08 Thomas: Have no shame. Same.

0:18:09 Matt: No shame. No.

0:18:10 Thomas: Fascism is not about what any, you know, any argument, any, it's about what you can get away with saying essentially.

0:18:16 Matt: And also happened to be, you know, even though the D .C. Circuit does have a two -liberal judge majority, this happened to be two -trip appointees, so bad luck of the draw on this one. It could have come down differently.

0:18:25 Thomas: How does that work? Do you go en banc or whatever?

0:18:27 Matt: I think, yeah, this could still be reconsidered on Bach, but for now, it's been sent down back to Boesberg to terminate contempt proceedings, to confine the district court to its lawful jurisdiction. Wording on this, as these shifting and expanding proceedings demonstrate, the the district court has assumed an improper jurisdiction antagonistic to the executive branch.

0:18:46 Thomas: What?

0:18:47 Matt: Antagonistic, like as if they're always supposed to get along, as if the whole point.

0:18:49 Thomas: Should that be a concern?

0:18:51 Matt: Yeah.

0:18:51 Thomas: I don't, yeah, I don' t even understand.

0:18:52 Matt: I mean, how do you check and balance another branch without being antagonistic once in a while? Supposed to be friends.

0:18:55 Thomas: Yeah, also, for once, I just want, why, okay, once we get power again, if we do, just keep, start doing all this stuff, but take away people's guns. I don''t give a shit. Just take away all the guns, do the stuff. Oh, you can't. What? Oh, well, I didn't hear you, judge. You said don't take away the guns. Oh. I thought you said do take away the guns, so you can hold me in contempt for that. Oh, oh, you're trying to have proceedings about it. Hey, that's antagonistic toward me, so I'm going to say no to that.

0:19:07 Matt: Once again. Right. Just seems like you don't like me.

0:19:25 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, we can't have that. That's unconstitutional.

0:19:29 Matt: What are you doing?

0:19:29 Thomas: You constitutionally have to. The founders intended you to like me.

0:19:34 Matt: We got to be friends. It's very important. Essentially saying that like, this is an, you're embarrassing the executive branch to use that language in here, that it's, encroaching that far that, I mean, it's just

0:19:44 Thomas: I saw the a little bit of of this discourse on this when I came out and it seemed like you this was the most uh rude and sarcastic and you decision that what you would expect from those those Trumpy asshole judges in

0:19:57 Matt: I mean that they refer to the, the contempt proceeding as, as an inquest, which makes it sound like the Spanish inquisition or something. Right.

0:20:02 Thomas: Quest. Yeah. Or it makes it sound like way less important, like a, a like little office thing or something. I don't know. I just, I wonder if that's, that's the goal there.

0:20:11 Matt: Trying to solve a mystery. Yeah. Very concerning. It's not good. Would have wanted some answers. I would have wanted a contempt order at some point. Somebody has to be held responsible for this. This history deserves to know exactly what happened and who was responsible and for the people to pay some kind of consequences. And maybe that can still be done through bar complaints. Maybe that can Still be done in a future administration. Know that all these people are going to be pardoned and they can't be prosecuted. But this is what the courts are supposed to be for. And I will say this is an unusual thing. I mean, for the most part, the courts have been doing very well in defending our rights and interests and being antagonistic to the executive branch, even when they have to be, God forbid, but that's what they've been doing.

0:20:46 Thomas: Could any of the people who are, you out somehow sue and be like, even on a personal level, because it's like, hey, if you were violating court orders, you can't have have been doing your job, right? Right. I mean, yeah.

0:20:57 Matt: Seems like per se, yeah.

0:20:59 Thomas: Isn't that one of those things where it's like, well, if you're not acting in the, you know, we talked about that with Jeanette or I talked about that With Jenessa, it's like, if You're not Acting in the Accordance with Your Duties kind of thing. And I would think violating a court order would not be your job. But with this administration, that's actually not true. Actually is your job?

0:21:13 Matt: I would hope, I really Well, yeah, when your boss tells you to tell the courts to fuck you, then that's where you get.

0:21:20 Thomas: Then you say, oh, how high well

0:21:22 Matt: Yeah, exactly, right, you got it. Yeah. So that's that one. We'll have to do for now. Yeah. We can take a quick break. I think we can come back with a question from listener Lydia S.

0:21:27 Thomas: That sucks all we'll take a quick break and then we'll uh move on oh love that listener she's seeing anyone or all uh is uh I hope I'm realizing now what I hope is my wife otherwise uh sis about to be canceled

0:21:51 Matt: Yeah. No, this is from our very own Lydia Smith. Sent this link around last night and suggested it'd be good to talk about and it would be. This is very important. This is kind of keeping another kind of spring cleaning story about just following up on odds and ends of stories that we've been tracking for a while. It's kind of the theme here. Here. 6th, unfortunately, we're talking about the remaining people, the ones that we really thought, well, I don't know if I thought this, but we were told would not be touched because you might remember, of course, that the Trump administration completely pardoned pretty much everybody who was involved in January 6, thousands of people, I think over 1600 something.

0:22:21 Thomas: But none of the violent ones none of the ones as I was talking about where they were like yeah none of them none of violence oh

0:22:28 Matt: Was the promise, but that wasn't supposed to be. They were supposed to to be a little more selective. But what they were really reserving was to commute the sentences. They let out of prison, but did not pardon the really bad ones, like the Stuart Rhodes, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rowell, the people kind of at the top of things. The arrested and convicted for just showing up to an ICE protest for the most part where something happened that very few of them are responsible for, remaining defendants, these people were charged not with material support for terror, but with seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to effect proceedings and all of the things that you'd expect, destruction of property, civil disorder.

0:23:09 Thomas: Like way worse stuff than that sure

0:23:12 Matt: Think material support für terror, if you're going to have... Now, again, I'm skeptical of terrorism statutes generally, and I think they're a really bad idea, and you can see why with Prairieland. If you are going to have them, I would think maybe trying to overthrow the US government might be material support fuer terror. I'm just just throwing that out there. Were the ones that Trump had suggested in his campaign were not going to be the ones he would touch. And when he commuted the sentences, that really seemed like a mess. He did pardon Enrico Tarrio, the head of the Proud Boys, but Stuart Rhodes is the head the Oath Keepers and violent, dangerous organization, violent, and dangerous man. And he already let him out of prison. And we talked about this on the show a few months ago. He'd been fighting to get his conviction completely vacated. And that's what he's managed to do now thanks to the Department of Justice.

0:23:54 Matt: Yeah, yeah. So the DOJ is taking these last steps to pardon the remaining people. No, and there's no explanation.

0:23:55 Thomas: Why what wait pardon okay

0:24:03 Matt: Fully vacate and pardon these cases, to end them.

0:24:07 Thomas: Sorry. So ending. So he had a conviction and it's being pardoned or did somebody have a case? Because you said DOJ. I didn't know they would be.

0:24:15 Matt: No. So DOJ has gone back and tried to vacate essentially to reopen the cases and dismiss them. Them. Yeah, yeah. So

0:24:20 Thomas: So, OK, so not even like they were pending and they're like dropping them. It's like we're going to reopen it. Somebody is already convicted.

0:24:28 Matt: They can always do that. I a lot of post -conviction work. Generally, it's not the government coming forward to try to do that, it's usually us. Government always has the right to come back and ask the court to reconsider if there's some reason in the interest of justice. And that's all they said, that as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, the dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice. Again, just to remind everybody, this is not just people who showed up looking to go to a rally. These were people who were doing the most time of any of the J6 people. They were doing 15 to 17, 18 years.

0:24:56 Thomas: Boy, and I bet you this won't even show up when people talk about like his pardons or whatever. How are going to remember that this also happened, you know?

0:25:08 Matt: Right. Yeah, that's right. It won't go down on the record as a pardon, but this is effectively a pardon. And it's actually almost worse than a pardon because you're actually removing it, just sort of excusing it or whatever. Raskin is correct in saying the Department of Justice is now acting like in -house counsel for the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys. I mean, this is what their lawyers would try to do if if they could, right?

0:25:15 Thomas: Yeah, it is. Jeez, yeah. Oh, boy.

0:25:27 Matt: Yeah, I'm sorry.

0:25:27 Thomas: It's a bad news show, everyone. All the bad. No, yeah, that's where we're at.

0:25:33 Matt: Is a good news footnote coming. We're getting there.

0:25:35 Thomas: I mean, the patrons want to know. And yeah, this stuff sucks.

0:25:38 Matt: This is what we got to talk about. It does. It's not unexpected. This has been going.

0:25:44 Thomas: That they, hold on. Is there a bright side in that they could open it back I mean there's gonna be statute of limitations maybe but like theoretically in two three years whatever it is they could open it up again oh because they've been oh yeah that's right because they're already gone well that sucks oh

0:25:55 Matt: Once they're dismissed, they're dismissed. Yeah. So that'd be double jeopardy. Yeah, no, I think people should know. And I think it's just one more piece of information that you should have when you're talking to people about the dangers of this administration and the rise of American fascism, because this is how it works. And to go there, but as I often do, I will go there and I will remind everybody that Hitler led the Beer Hall Putsch, which attempted to to overthrow the government, he and everybody involved were eventually quickly commuted and pardoned and let out. And he wrote Mein Kampf while he was in prison and got back out and did what he did, became Adolf Hitler from there. You don't punish people, I mean, we've talked about in Brazil how Bolsonaro has been harshly punished appropriately for doing a January 6th in Brazil, right? This is what you have to do. Brazil has had a military dictatorship before. They don't want one again. They know what that looks like. And we have to learn from these things. And hand -waving and excusing of January 6th, and especially these people, the ones who were the first to breach the Capitol, who clearly had a plan coming in, who were wearing the bulletproof vests and carrying zip ties and everything.

0:26:56 Matt: I mean, that sounds

0:26:56 Thomas: Legal minds uh again maybe this is me being too optimistic but assuming we can regain power is there some creative way we could I don't know know, like write a new statute to get these idiots? Like, is there like the Trump reconciliation act of like, Hey, if you were really like the, if You were incorrectly granted a pardon or anything like this, you're now guilty of this other thing.

0:27:20 Matt: Ex post facto to me a little bit.

0:27:21 Thomas: It sure does. But is it, can we get on it? Can we find, Hey I, you know why I'm not the lawyer. We need the, we need the brilliant minds to work on what would actually work in the, along those lines.

0:27:23 Matt: I know where you're coming from. Kind of accountability somewhere. It's got to happen.

0:27:34 Thomas: Gotta be start getting as As creative as the bad guys are, everybody.

0:27:40 Matt: The only way. Well, we have have one more piece of bad news before the footnote, and we have to talk about the Mahmoud Khalil decision. Now, I will say this is not unexpected bad news. I think I prepared everybody for this. And this is the end of the fight by any means, but I just wanted to emphasize again, and I think if you haven't followed the stories closely, even if you have, it's really good to get a refresher on this because it is so unusual. Provision of law has only been used once before in US history in a published case. And unfortunately, that published case was so clear that the Board of Immigration Appeals in a decision that was just released a few minutes ago as we're recording this had no choice, I think. And now this Board of immigration appeals is happy to do it because they're essentially Trump people at this point, mostly.

0:28:18 Thomas: Some of them did January 6th.

0:28:20 Matt: Yeah, right. I mean, I'm not going to go that far, but yeah, maybe sympathetic. And very unusual. This is a Cold War statute that allows the Secretary of State to refer somebody for deportation proceedings, basically on the Secretary Of State's word, just by Marco Rubio writing a letter saying that this person poses an adverse foreign policy consequence for the United States. That's all it takes is is Marco Rubio's word. This should not exist. We should not have a system in which one person well, that too, right? In which his letter goes anywhere.

0:28:51 Thomas: Which anyone listens to Marco Rubio. I couldn't agree more. Nothing should depend on Marco Rubia's word.

0:28:58 Matt: Yeah, yeah. Talked before about the 1999 precedent of Mario Salvador Ruiz Masiu, and that was a Board of Immigration Appeals case in which it was the only one as far as we know to review this statute and what it means. Found essentially very much kind of like we were just talking about the Boesberg thing, that this is a matter of complete executive discretion. And the immigration judge in Ruiz Masu below had found that the letter was not reasonable. And they said, there's nothing in the statute about reasonability. It's not up to you. You don't get to say it's reasonable. Basically, it just needs to be a bona fide letter from, I mean, a bona Fide determination and facially reasonable and even like behind the face reasonable, but just on its face, what he's saying has to be reasonable.

0:29:35 Thomas: This was the thing where we talked about where it's like they didn't even get it notarized or whatever the hell it was, right?

0:29:40 Matt: Right.

0:29:40 Thomas: And I was very confused.

0:29:40 Matt: That was for Ramesa Ozturk, yes. So they did bring the same grounds against her for writing an editorial. Mahmoud Khalil is not known to have done anything that much more serious than writing an editorials, organizing students at Columbia. That case, the government failed to produce a certified letter from Marco Rubio. The immigration judge appropriately said, you have to have a certified letter. I have to at least know this is the correct document from the right person.

0:29:43 Thomas: That was a different one. Okay. Yeah.

0:30:00 Matt: And and they didn't produce it. Immigration judge has since been fired, unfortunately, last week. Same time, this administration has complete authority to fire immigration judges, and it That

0:30:10 Thomas: Whoever candidates, you better run on every single one of Trump's immigration judges is fired the minute you step into office. Criminal

0:30:19 Matt: Bring back some of the better ones that we've lost, because we had some good ones that were lost now. There's plenty more to hire. Decision, I just wanted to mention a couple of things, because it did mention some aspects we hadn't talked about. Think the letter has ever been public, the Marco Rubio letter, but the letter. Talks about Khalil's role in, quote, anti -Semitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States. And this is somebody who's organizing student encampments and protests against Gaza at Columbia and a fairly behind -the -scenes person. I don't know. He did a lot of public speaking from my understanding, but they don't cite to anything, any language, any actions, anything in particular, right? So this is an extremely broad statement and dangerously broad, I'm going to tell you. I really think this is very bad. It took was that one letter from Rubio. And Massey Ruiz that we just talked about, the Secretary of State's determination is equivalent to a duly certified record of criminal conviction by a state or federal court. About that.

0:31:15 Thomas: Conviction, what?

0:31:16 Matt: That it's essentially that record needs to be treated as seriously. That one letter, which again, they got it certified in this case, is equivalent to a conviction record that they can't look behind. So if an immigration judge a record that says you've been convicted of a serious violent offense, they can't relitigate the case and say, well, what actually happened, right?

0:31:32 Thomas: Gotcha.

0:31:32 Matt: They just have to go with the trial court that you were found guilty by a jury. By the way, I forgot to mention, as were all the people we just talked about who were pardoned. They were all found guilty after long jury trials. So just another reason this is such an insult. Is no indication that Congress contemplated an immigration judge or even the attorney general, a different part of the executive branch, overruling the secretary of state because it's foreign policy. And they're essentially saying that Congress gave the secretary of state this super secret power, this unique power in the statute. And this is exactly what the court found in Ruiz Massu. It's not a surprise. Is what I predicted was going to happened at the Board of Immigration Appeals level, and it has happened. So you're probably going to see some kind of angry, surprised headlines that this has been upheld. But this is, again, the Trump administration upholding itself, because the Board of Immigration Appeals is part of the system that the Immigration Court is part of. So it's all part of the executive branch. There's also another aspect to this, which is that his application for residency, because he was applying through his wife, his U.S. citizen wife that he's married to, failed to disclose that he was a member of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Again,

0:32:33 Thomas: Well, okay. Now I agree.

0:32:35 Matt: Know that's a really standard branch of the UN that does refugee work for Palestinians. June through November 2023 as a political officer, he was some kind of part-time member of this organization.

0:32:47 Thomas: Well, you should have led with that. Everybody would have been on board with deporting this guy without any rights, rights due process that

0:32:53 Matt: And again, you were not working for Hamas, you're working for the United Nations. I think that's... Okay, I gotta I repeat that, right? Providing food and water to Palestinians. Can you believe it? The respondent failed to disclose he was a member, and it was asked in the application. This is a very classic example of how, if they want to, they can get you in these kinds of things. And I've certainly seen the immigration system do this kind of thing to people before. But there is a very famous question on the residency application of, have you ever been a member of, involved in, or in any way associated with any organization, association, fund, foundation, party, club, society or similar group,

0:32:58 Thomas: Terrorist organization yeah oh of sentence like just any club like chess club wow

0:33:30 Matt: Of those things. United Nations is not any of those things. It's not a membership-based organization, which is what the immigration judge found below. He nation of Khalil.

0:33:32 Thomas: Unless he was a member nation in himself yeah yeah

0:33:44 Matt: And just think this is ridiculous. I mean, this is an internship.

0:33:50 Thomas: It's a job right I mean it's not really a

0:33:51 Matt: Not sure that I would have told my client Under these circumstances, I mean, I've filled that form out so many times and gone over this with so many clients. I've always told people, if you were part of a membership -based organization where you had to register or pay dues, we have to disclose that, right? Whether it's like the Nursing Association of America or whatever, right, you just have to put it in there. What they're looking for is you're going to say that you're a card-carrying communist, right. They want you to disclose them so they can get you if you didn't say it later. Involved and associated with the UN Refugee Agency for six months. The immigration judge found that by admitting his internship, the respondent shut off a line of inquiry that would have predictably disclosed other relevant facts, triggered the need for additional discretionary decision -making by USCIS.

0:34:10 Thomas: Wait hold on what does this have to do with anything I thought it was just if Rubio writes a letter, then it's done.

0:34:27 Matt: But these are the other grounds we didn't talk about at the time, but they tacked on these other grounds of deportation. And when I say grounds, I just want to be clear, I don't mean charges because none of this is criminal. This is all an immigration court, so they're all civil grounds for deportation. I want to talk about it because I just want to point out the ridiculousness of this and should have disclosed this. And I have to keep this in mind for the future because it's so broad that the Board of Immigration Appeals, I just think this has to be, even by the Fifth Circuit which is going to have to review this, I have to think this is ridiculous because there has been an understanding of what this question means that I don't believe is included here. What an internship with the United Nations is not being a member of or involved with or associated with. Association, fund, foundation, party, club, society, or similar group, you know what that means. It doesn't mean a job or an internship. That's a separate question about your job history.

0:34:46 Thomas: That is ridiculous. Yeah, yeah. Possible the people Trump would appoint don't know what the UN is. It is possible. Maybe they think it's like model UN, like it's, yeah, it's government club.

0:35:27 Matt: It's a little club you're in. Kind of a weird thing to have an internship with, but okay, sure.

0:35:32 Thomas: So that's going going to possibly affect the way you're doing your job. Like that's how stupid this is.

0:35:38 Matt: That I need to actually consider the range of... I mean, I just wouldn't...

0:35:41 Thomas: How are you going to do that, Matt? Well, in light of this decision, have you ever done anything?

0:35:42 Matt: You ever been to a party?

0:35:48 Thomas: Tell me all things that you could write. I don't, I don'T, how do you, what are you gonna do? This is ridiculous.

0:35:55 Matt: Did you ever put no girls allowed on your door and hang out with your friends? That's basically... Yeah. Khalil appropriately argued that this charge involving this misrepresentation because it's just ridiculous to call this mis -representations. Again, the purpose of this thing is to get you to lie about something that would really matter that if anybody heard it or the adjudicator heard it, they'd be like, well, we need to know more about that, right?

0:36:16 Matt: I mean, if you were a member of something associated with Hamas, obviously you'd want to try to cover that up. That's different. He appropriately, I think, argued that this was a First Amendment retaliation issue, that they brought this stupid thing because they didn't like the way he was talking about Israel and the US. Think that's true, but the Immigration Court did not, and the Board of Immigration Appeals did not. Is where we're at, and this is going to have to be resolved, unfortunately by the Fifth Circuit. And given how unique this piece of law is, I'm going to have to say this is going to be resolved by the Supreme Court because we is such broad power. I

0:36:16 Thomas: Mm-hmm, yeah.

0:36:49 Matt: Cold War authority to just designate individual people a threat to the United States foreign policy.

0:36:57 Thomas: You think the the Supreme court will care. Cause it's like, I mean, are they going to be like, yeah, they followed the law. They did the thing. Why would we intervene?

0:37:00 Matt: Know, I, well, fun part is with Chevron gone, this law is not clear. I would say this is a pretty ambiguous statute. So the Fifth Circuit does not have to defer to the board precedent, which the board president, again, the board is following its own precedent. I don't necessarily blame the board on this one, because as I said at the time, when we analyzed this, Ray's message was very clear and has its own standard about how you just look at the letter. Is it a letter from the Secretary of State? Is it basically sensical? You know, does it make sense on this face? Is it in English? Right. I mean, that's about it.

0:37:31 Thomas: It sensical? It wasn't written by Dr. Seuss. Like it doesn't have a bunch of weird rhymes and stuff.

0:37:36 Matt: Really interested to see how the briefing plays out and how the oral argument plays out. We'll be watching this one closely because the statute is so ripe for abuse and Congress needs to change it. Like they need to fix it.

0:37:45 Thomas: Sorry. Oral argument of, of what are you saying? It's already, was

0:37:47 Matt: No, I was just saying when the Supreme court, when it gets there, I think it's going to have to get there. Um, I mean, I don't trust the fifth circuit to necessarily, you the definitive answer here. And even if they do give a good answer, which is as possible. Still have to have it reviewed higher. It needs to be determined. Rui Massoud died on appeal by the time that his case got up there. It was actually considered by Trump's sister while she was judge. She found at the time, it's just worth noting.

0:38:08 Thomas: Sorry. Did you say, are you seeing the person actually died or you're seeing the case, the actually oh wow yeah

0:38:12 Matt: The man. Yeah. So Marianne Trump Berry, of course, was a federal judge for quite a while. And she actually found at time that the previous version of this statute before the revisions of the INA was actually unconstitutional. Would hope that another federal judge would find that, we'll see. See if what the Supreme Court thinks. I would not at all be surprised to see this be a 6 -3 in favor of the government. But at the same time, it is a very ambiguous statute. And seeing the way that they treated the Alien Enemies Act, where I mean, it wasn't a terrible decision where they came down and said that But even for as broad and as much executive power as we see here, you still have to give people some basic rights to review, and you have to let them know that they have the right to go to a federal judge and make sure they're actually from that country and that they're actually of the age that is required for the United Nations Act and everything else. I do have, I'm not going to say hope, but I have some possibility in my mind here that the right decisions could come down and that you could get Comey, Barrett, and Gorsuch perhaps, as to decide what is actually necessary for the Secretary of State to determine, and

0:39:15 Matt: A deportable way, to find that somebody is an adverse threat to foreign policy. Plus, this is First Amendment protected speech, right? You're not organizing sedition the way that the Oath Keepers were, for example. So we'll see. It's We'll supposed to be much harder to do this.

0:39:21 Thomas: But I mean that should be a long ways off right I mean you're talking a while so we got fifth circuit potentially we got

0:39:33 Matt: Is one of those that the Supreme Supreme Court could certainly snatch up before the circuit looks at it, but I don't think they will because Khalil's not in custody, unfortunately. So there's no real urgency to it. There's nothing really coming up. I think they'll probably just let it play its course. But I just want to preview this because we'll be coming back to it, and I think I'll wait until the Supreme Court does something about it. But I just wanted to kind of just let people know what these headlines are about, and that it doesn't mean that Khalil is going to be deported anytime soon. It just means it's another stage in the process, and this is part of the fight that we expected.

0:39:59 Thomas: Well how does that work so he's just chilling what's going on with that

0:40:03 Matt: Kalil was released on habeas on June, but by that point, the immigration judge in Louisiana had already decided that the Marco or Rubio letter was enough to sustain his deportation. So was on appeal. He was released from detention. He was finally able to be with his wife, and his son was born while he was in custody. Very sad. Back, and he can seek a stay of removal before the Fifth Circuit while they play this out. I'm sure they'll give it to him because they have to figure this out. But they don't have to. I mean, they certainly don't have to. They could deny a stay of removal, and he could actually be fighting removal at this point as well. I should be clear about that. I think that you can't predict what the Fifth Circuit is going to do. But the has to leave the country. So we'll be watching it.

0:40:34 Thomas: The fifth right. Well, that sucked. A lot of bad news.

0:40:42 Matt: Yeah, it's time for a drink.

0:40:43 Thomas: Yeah, let's get to let's get to a footnote. I'm excited. Going to take a break and get to something that I'm told is more fun. I hope it isn't hard. It's a low bar. So take a a break and we'll we'll be back with the footnote all matt you fetishist you foot goat fetishists what do you got for us oh

0:41:05 Matt: Here we are. We have got a great one from super patron gmark. Big thanks to gmark for this one. I did not catch the story. I had seen some gmark, I guess. I thought gmark but I seen something referencing the story and I didn't know what people were talking about. But this is a a Fifth Circuit case that did something good, and that does happen sometimes.

0:41:11 Thomas: Love you more gum work

0:41:23 Matt: Well, it's because it involves taxes, so of course. McNutt v. Department of Justice, and I always give him your plaintiff as McNutt.

0:41:22 Thomas: Don't believe you

0:41:31 Matt: Is about being able to make alcohol at home, which is something that I've never really tried, but it sounds like fun.

0:41:30 Thomas: Yeah oh yeah depending can't

0:41:40 Matt: 1868, there's this federal a law that has never been challenged that is ostensibly a tax law, but actually has penalties in it in a weird kind of way that tax laws aren't supposed to be. U .S .C. 5178. And is, again, one of those old -timey whiskey laws, good times. Person shall use any still, boiler, or any other vessel for the purpose of distilling in any dwelling house, any shed, yard, enclosure connected with any dwellinghouse, nor on the the board of any vessel or boat, nor in any building or on any premises where beer, lager beer, ale, porter, or other fermented liquor is vinegar, either it's ether, et cetera, et cetera. So basically, you can't distill alcohol at home. And this isn't a tax bill.

0:42:17 Thomas: Even make beer I I know the bathtub gin thing but like beer

0:42:21 Matt: Lager beer, al and porter. Yeah, that's interesting.

0:42:23 Thomas: I didn't know that. I mean, I know people made beer forever. I mean, there's plenty of brewers. I don't. Huh?

0:42:28 Matt: Guess that has never really been enforced that way. That's a case or something that decided that was okay later, because lots of people do that. That.

0:42:33 Thomas: Weird.

0:42:34 Matt: Generally speaking, this is brought by the Hobby Distillers Association, and the plaintiffs are hobbyists basically that want to make this at home. Rick Morris is a certified bourbon steward. McNutt is another member who's already got in trouble with the Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the Department of Justice for

0:42:50 Thomas: Classic McNutt. I right? That's McNutt for you.

0:42:55 Matt: Right. No, he's really McNutt's about this one. Has been fighting the TTV for for years on this point. I think appropriately, because when you look at the structure of the statute, I think this is something the Supreme Court's going to be able to get behind as well. And I have to think when you describe this to people, it makes sense. This is supposed to be a taxation statute, but the end of everything that I just read says that shall on conviction be fined $1 ,000 and imprisoned for not less than six months. So this isn't a tax, this is a crime.

0:43:20 Matt: You're talking about just a crime jammed into a tax bill. Seems pretty obviously wrong. I'm kind of surprised that it took this long to get a court to strike it down. The Fifth Circuit took a look at it and they're like, this doesn't raise revenue. It actually keeps revenue from being raised. You And that's not a proper means of taxing people. We have to be very careful about not just crimes that the IRS can do. Do.

0:43:27 Thomas: Kidding. Nothing more expensive. Because like, I mean if you don't pay your taxes, I guess eventually you could go to jail, right? But that's kind of a different thing. They're not allowed to say like, we're also going to say go to jail if you fill out this form wrong or something.

0:43:54 Matt: And this is in the 26th chapter of the US code, which is about taxes. So this is really weird that it's in that location. And they also examined it under the necessary and proper clause. They found that it was potentially necessary, but it's not proper. It's not the right way to do it. Have the right to regulate the but you can't do do it through a tax code. So I thought this was pretty cool. The problem is that government for whatever reason did not make any arguments about the Commerce Clause. And that brings up, as G. Mark pointed out, the matter of Gonzalez v. Raich, which we talked about way back when we were talking about marijuana.

0:44:26 Thomas: That sounds familiar.

0:44:28 Matt: And that's a 2005 decision. It's one of the worst Supreme Court decisions within our lifetimes. And they found that somebody who was growing throwing cannabis at home, just a few plants for personal use, for medical use. Somebody that had a serious debilitating illness could regulated and criminalized under the commerce clause, essentially, even though there's no interstate commerce whatsoever.

0:44:35 Thomas: That's saying something. Oh yeah. Oh Yeah. Terrible.

0:44:52 Matt: I think this is in California. They were buying everything in California, growing in California. They weren't selling it to anybody. Just a real challenge to the whole idea of federalism if you're going to call that interstate commers. Now, G -Mark points out, they did not raise raise that issue. Rage does not actually appear in this decision because that issue was not decided here. So if this goes up to another court, wasn't it's raised below, but it's possible it could be raised somehow. That could still be a problem. It would be great to have rage reconsidered, if at all possible, if that issue were on appeal. But for now, though, I'm not going to give anybody any specific legal advice about bootlegging at home. But I think that it sounds like you might want to check your local rules and all, but But maybe at least the federal prohibition on at -home distilleries for hobby alcohol producers just in time for everything been for, you

0:45:33 Thomas: What? Yeah, just in time for the drinks we all needed 10 years ago, starting 10 years ago and never ending since then.

0:45:37 Matt: Know, yeah, right? It is great that cannabis is legal in most of the country, at least during these times. But now you can also make yourself some bourbon. So one more option.

0:45:43 Thomas: Yeah. All right. Great. I'd probably just buy it, but yeah, I think they have people who know how to do that a lot better. So I'll go with them.

0:45:57 Matt: Much math involved for me, but good

0:45:58 Thomas: And I think if you're making that hard stuff, I feel like there's, you know, you could, you could die. I don't want to do it. I don't want to be able to do to that beer. I feel Like you may maybe get sick or something, but I feel It's, You know, but you know, good luck to you, everybody.

0:46:08 Matt: Famously. But I was looking at the certified bourbon professional program that Morris and McNutt are part of, and this is cool. It's really professional. It basically teaches you how to do

0:46:20 Thomas: Yeah. I'm just saying I wouldn't do it, but it sounds

0:46:21 Matt: Real production if you really go through it, and there's no reason at all people shouldn't be able to do that at home. It makes sense to me. I'm all about it. Yeah well

0:46:26 Thomas: Well, well done, McNutt. A name like that, I feel like you go into court with a few points ahead, you know, like just a little boost. I would be, as a judge, I'd be like, tie goes to the McNutt. Like, if it's exactly 50, I'm just saying if it was exactly 50 -50, I'm going to give it to McNutt

0:46:33 Matt: I mean if you're one of those people who's extremely litigious it could work against you but there's McNutt again

0:46:49 Thomas: Yeah, you're gonna, they're gonna remember you. There's no like, oh, have I seen McNuttt before? Like, no, you know, if you've seen McNutt.

0:46:52 Matt: That's true it does sound like a bad like 70s detective show

0:47:01 Thomas: Well, that was fun. Am appropriately cheered up. I'm sufficiently cheered out. I appreciate it. And thanks patrons for basically making this episode yeah should

0:47:08 Matt: Big help as always but more than usual thanks so much I really appreciate y 'all alright

0:47:11 Thomas: Do that more often it's fun all right well thanks matt for the breakdown thanks everybody for listening and we'll see you on monday

0:47:18 Matt: Next time

0:47:22 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments, produced by Thomas and Lydia Smith, with editing help from Peter Baird. The intro is by Thomas Smith. This outro is by Matt Cameron. Support the show at patreon.com/law. Contact us through Patreon or openarguments@gmail.com. Make sure to follow our blue sky at OpenArgs. But most of all, please share the show. Thanks for listening.

0:47:55 Matt: I am fired up from service. Clearly I'm fired up. There

0:47:59 Thomas: You are recording directly to the outtakes reel. Attention, bootleggers. That's McNutt for you.