Stephen Miller's America First Legal Has a YouTube Show (and it sucks real bad)

Transcript

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

0:00:10 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Opening Arguments, the show that breaks down the law and the news. I'm Thomas. That over there is Matt Cameron. How are you doing? Real we don't have Lydia. Oh, wait. Yes, we do. Sorry.

0:00:22 Lydia: I'm sorry. It was like the biggest

0:00:23 Matt: It's the frozen screenshot

0:00:24 Thomas: I wanted to do that again just for fun.

0:00:25 Lydia: Freak

0:00:26 Matt: Let's start it's really starting to wonder

0:00:26 Lydia: Out for me. Okay,

0:00:28 Thomas: There you go. Lydia's actually here.

0:00:29 Lydia: I'm here. I'm here.

0:00:31 Thomas: That's like kind of creepy like you turned into a horror movie like doll that's like all of a sudden Lydia's like that yeah yeah sorry just kidding anyway real life immigration attorney Matt Cameron how are you doing today all

0:00:35 Lydia: Nikki from Obsession. Yeah, creepy.

0:00:45 Matt: Well we got lucky number 42 for today's show and we've got the answer to life the universe and everything and it's going to be brought to you by steven miller in today's I can't wait to share the things we we have to share today this is one of my favorites in a long time all

0:00:52 Lydia: Hello.

0:00:57 Thomas: Yeah exciting I barely know what you guys have cooked up and of course so glad to be joined once again by Lydia we couldn't do it without you last week it was uh fell apart there's a lot of crying I had to edit out.

0:01:01 Matt: The better well

0:01:06 Lydia: That's so sweet. Wow. Well, this week,

0:01:10 Thomas: Mainly Matt.

0:01:10 Lydia: You're getting a version of me

0:01:11 Thomas: I'm just kidding.

0:01:12 Lydia: And this voice. So we

0:01:13 Thomas: Even better.

0:01:14 Lydia: Have a lot of video today that we're gonna be doing, which is nice. Give me a chance to continue recuperating.

0:01:19 Thomas: Well, why don't you give us a little in -depth teaser? What's today?

0:01:23 Matt: We're taking a look at the mirror universe vapid response over at america first legal which is so they have a feature called bad legal takes and I'm going to spoil it right now by letting you know that these are bad bad legal take so that's the first uh my take

0:01:35 Thomas: The enemy of my bad legal take is my friend.

0:01:39 Matt: Right uh so and none of these are legal takes you know and again we're not perfect we we do this once a week with an evapid response of of course. Well, that's true. We don't get things wrong. But once a week, we do come to you with the worst takes that we can find, legal and otherwise, but mostly legal. And I put a lot of work into making sure that these are bad takes that are worth talking about and that we actually have receipts. We try very hard to make sure that we Actually bring receipts but if you guys ever seen Tim Heidecker's on cinema at the cinema.

0:01:45 Thomas: We're perfect.

0:02:05 Matt: Know that basically this is basically

0:02:04 Thomas: Little bit. Yeah, I love Tim Heidecker, but that's the thing I've watched like the least.

0:02:08 Matt: Pretty great. And like the running joke is that like they're doing movie reviews without any film criticism. It's basically like, this is a great movie. Buy popcorn bags or whatever, right? And that's it. That's the review, right? This is the on cinema at the cinema of legal podcasting. And this is, again, Stephen Miller's America First Legal. This is Gene Hamilton. Big name, as we're going to talk about in the conservative legal movement.

0:02:28 Thomas: The Gene Hamilton.

0:02:29 Matt: The Gene Hamilton, I know. They got him.

0:02:30 Thomas: I love the combination of my first thought when you said Gene Hamilton was instantly, I don't know who the fuck that is. At the same time, you said big name. And I was like, oh, okay.

0:02:40 Matt: Big name for me. One of these guys I've been following for a while. And I'd never actually watched him talk before, so we're gonna have the pleasure. But this is... I mean, they have all the resources. They've got plenty of dark money behind them. They have lots of time and producers and researchers. And I got to tell you, on the shoestring budget that we've got with just me and Olivia and me running a full -time law office, somehow we're completely outpacing these people. And we're going to knock down every one of these bad legal takes. I'll show you how bad they actually are. You don't need me for some of these. You're going see how bad we are.

0:03:04 Thomas: I Love It.

0:03:04 Matt: But we'll cover them all.

0:03:06 Thomas: That's so much fun. Sorry. I was just off thinking about my favorite Futurama line. Wow. The Zap Brannigan? Who's the Zap Brinnigan? Such a good joke. Anyway, I wait to take on some legal takes. I can'T wait to see what they think is a bad legal take. It's a weird way to just learn the law. You could almost have that be like, hey, here's the legal course. It'S just what they THINK is bad law. And then it's just the law, I guess.

0:03:13 Matt: That's right. That's just a lot. Right. Yeah.

0:03:32 Lydia: Your syllabus. You just follow follow it along. Yeah.

0:03:33 Thomas: It' s like, okay, Constitutional Law Law 101.

0:03:35 Matt: You're not wrong. That's a lot of this.

0:03:38 Thomas: Can't wait. Well, we're going to take our first break. But of course, we have to thank the Hall of Famers, the all -time greats. They get a shout out each and every time we do Vapid Response. They pledge at that $5 level and above at patreon .com slash law. They've got a lot of movies. One of those came out pretty recently.

0:03:53 Thomas: Very fun. We have another one scheduled. We're doing that. We're hitting that every month now. It's been great.

0:03:59 Lydia: Also have book club coming out this weekend, Melissa Murray's book. So it's going to be a good, good conversation happening on Sunday, August 30th at 1 .30 Pacific, 4 .30 Eastern. That's available to all patrons.

0:04:01 Matt: That's it. Keep

0:04:11 Thomas: Thank you for the reminder. Good stuff. Good reasons to be on patreon .com slash lot. All right. Thank You Too. Help. I'm trapped in a Patreon shout out. Bewitched, be clowned, bewildered. My house is a mess, but I read a lot of books. Griff, the tired 2L. How long has Griff been a tired 2l? It's been at least like 3L that he's been a tire.

0:04:30 Lydia: I thought he was a 1L. Now he's a 2L. I'm pretty sure it was Griff the Tired 1L and now it's Griff the Tired 2L. I'm pretty sure, Griff, the

0:04:36 Thomas: Yeah. Well, congrats Griff.

0:04:38 Matt: It going.

0:04:38 Thomas: Was it, but when was that though? Cause it's been, and should he be a, should Griff be a 3L though? Like my point is like, I feel like it's been longer than a year. That would mean it's Been like one year, right?

0:04:42 Lydia: School year just started.

0:04:50 Thomas: Ish.

0:04:50 Lydia: What is time?

0:04:51 Thomas: Yeah. Anyway, Griff, let us know. We know you're tired. We all agree you're tired. And I just don't know about the L.

0:04:57 Lydia: And no, some L, but

0:04:59 Thomas: Yeah, Matthew

0:05:00 Lydia: Which L? We don't know.

0:05:01 Thomas: Cutler, autistic streamer, twitch .tv slash MTC underscore streams, a propensity for jokers. Hun what was that from that's from something what did I what was that damn it okay I thought it was from something from last week and you weren't here and Matt had no idea obviously okay you still don't know Gary the seagull I know what that's from and then the Latin thing that I don't still don't get in In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni I don't know UnreMerkable, Aminah, Donna Treadaway, Mother of Harridans Mike Lapinsky if we don't build the torment meant next to someone else. Well, love that one. Cyanitis. I would buy a dude hat. Well you

0:05:19 Lydia: I don't know. Yes.

0:05:42 Thomas: May be too at gray poop.

0:05:44 Lydia: All right. You're not the only one. Let me tell you, I've heard from more than three people.

0:05:48 Thomas: We're backordered on the dude hats. Gray poop. Hundreds of the evidence. Last train to Skanksville. Right off. 'Am Dame. Oh, okay. So these are all the ones that are close to law stuff. Right? Off ma 'ame Dame us.

0:05:56 Lydia: Intentionally. Yeah. Oh.

0:06:01 Thomas: Okay. Apprentice of adventure. They just like messing with me. Apprentice of adventure and Charlie Kelly, attorney at bird law. All right. Thank you. Hall of famers. We'll take that break and then we're going to learn about the real law. Right it's a fancy slideshow VR which are my favorite kind uh where are we going to start today sure

0:06:12 Lydia: Mess

0:06:19 Matt: Thanks to Olivia for the help on this one, as always. She discovered this feature. We're going to start, though, with a quick amuse-bouche, as we always do. The briefest of amuse douches with one of our favorite legal douchers, Mr. Michael Cohen. He's back in the news. I don't know if you saw that Michael Cohen is back inthe news, but every time I hear Michael Cohen speak, you know, of course, we loved Eli Bosnick's Michael Cohen on Gabble Gabble. But if anything, he was underdoing it, man.

0:06:34 Thomas: Didn't oh man missed that oh yeah what

0:06:42 Matt: Michael is a character. He is a cartoon character. But he. Yes. So Donald Trump came on Michael Cohen's podcast, and they had a conversation. Yes, this is the news. It's not worth listening to.

0:06:40 Lydia: It says reunited. Holy crap.

0:06:55 Matt: But the first 20 seconds, 30 seconds are worth listening too. So he goes on just just to spare you here. I would not recommend listening to this is very hard of the ears. I don't know anybody has ever listened to Michael Cohen say anything in his life, honestly. But he does his radio voice. And he does like this over the top talk show his voice. He introduces the whole thing by talking about how hard it is to have people bully you and to have People posting about you on social media. And then he's like, Okay, well, here's Donald Trump.

0:06:53 Thomas: I missed that yeah

0:07:15 Matt: It just think think it's very funny yeah Donald Trump

0:07:15 Lydia: Here's my guest today. Yeah king of the bullies.

0:07:17 Thomas: I I am blown away by the fact that I didn't even know this happened imagine any other universe this would be like if someone who like got nixon in trouble for watergate like came on nixon's radio show like it like it's crazy to think like the drama that this would be in any other universe like the guy who flipped on him and then testified you know but like this this didn't even make headlines yeah

0:07:37 Matt: And then spent years Cohen has been spending years talking shit about Trump you know but he also has never changed like Cohen you can hear in this interview has never change his opinion on Trump really and also he wants a pardon very very very badly from Donald Trump so here we are but I thought you'd give a little taste of this interview oh yeah no this is uh it's it's not worth listening to in full but just give it a 30 30 seconds, you'll get the idea right off the bat.

0:07:57 Lydia: Spineless

0:08:05 Clip: 2016, if we can, because you and I have obviously traveled a pretty rocky road together. Do you remember, sir, when I went on CNN with Breanna Keillor and she told me that you were underwater in the polls and I responded with those famous two words, says who, which became some worldwide meme? And then they weaponized you like nobody's ever been weaponized, like few have been. Well, maybe just you and I, sir. And you. Yeah, me too, but I don't consider mine, you know, mine was at a level that nobody's ever seen before. But

0:08:08 Thomas: Don't or I do if we can can avoid. Sir. Jesus Christ. Shut up. Fucking

0:08:40 Clip: They weaponized you.

0:08:40 Thomas: Meaningless words.

0:08:41 Clip: They weaponized a lot of people. And I respect the fact that you recanted everything you said. And that's a big thing that you did. That's a very big thing. Sir, you may remember that following morning you called me into the office after and then you gave me one of those traditional Trump slaps on the shoulder and you said to me, F them. You're stronger than them. We've got this. Now, the funny thing is that CNN never apologized. They never retracted anything. And now, years later, CNN, MSNOW, and the other left -leaning outlets, they're doing the exact same thing, constantly talking about you being underwater with favorability numbers. Mr. President, what do you say to these people who keep bringing up polls when you're not even running for office again? What's the point? Well, I'm not, and I think that

0:08:51 Matt: Did he? That's

0:09:34 Clip: We're doing really well in the polls, the real polls.

0:09:35 Thomas: Who cares?

0:09:35 Matt: Enough. That's enough. Who cares

0:09:37 Clip: If I were running today, I think I'd win by 25 points, I don't think we'd win.

0:09:37 Matt: What anybody thinks? So, yeah.

0:09:41 Thomas: Why do you care about my job approval when I'm not even up for promotion? I can just do nothing in this office. It doesn't fucking matter unless I'm up for a promotion, right?

0:09:42 Matt: I

0:09:45 Lydia: Wow

0:09:51 Matt: Have to say congratulations to Michael Cohen for grifting the grifters at the Midas Touch Network and getting paid by the MidAS Touch Network for multiple years to be on there. Yes. And then they finally, they fired him in January when they realized, I think, that still at trump toady uh but I mean yeah yeah

0:09:55 Thomas: Jesus. No way. Well, he's just, they're all amoral. It's just like, I think he was anti -Trump when it sued him and then back to being pro -trump and jesus

0:10:11 Lydia: Exactly it yeah

0:10:10 Matt: Yeah of course yeah and but you hear this that they hit the sir like this is how they used to talk to each other he's just slipping right back into toady mode it's incredible the

0:10:18 Thomas: I can't then what a sad existence like both of them talking about their weird grievances with cnn it's just like jesus christ from 2016 because he said a poll and then I was like fucking holy shit that's the there that's the reactionary old white mind right there yeah

0:10:21 Lydia: It is pathetic from 10 years ago yeah wow

0:10:26 Matt: Polls I know I know no there yeah there is only one correct way to weaponize michael cohen that is to shoot him out of a cannon uh but nobody's tried that yet so uh that's uh that serum is douche for today uh not worth listening to the whole thing but uh it is.

0:10:45 Thomas: That's an all -timer man that's an all -timer.

0:10:48 Matt: I was pretty happy to find that one days

0:10:45 Lydia: I can't believe it

0:10:51 Thomas: I can't believe that happened. I still am blown away that that happened and no one cares. Like Trump went on his podcast and no one gives a shit because it really is meaningless. Like, but like when you think about it in a vacuum, like how crazy that is. Any other president, any other time.

0:10:55 Matt: Ago. Yeah. Yep. Yep, totally. Yes. Right.

0:11:08 Lydia: Also wait what is this nonsense about michael cohen recanting lamenting everything. Like, well, that'd be problematic if he did. I mean, he gave sworn testimony. Like – well, I know, but, like, in a normal world, you

0:11:12 Matt: And I don't think he ever did that. I don t yeah.

0:11:18 Thomas: Wow, I don't know that anything matters anymore, does it? The trial's over. Over well after your the trial you can I mean does that matter

0:11:26 Lydia: Can say whatever you want. You can say I lied the entire time I was on the stand.

0:11:28 Matt: I mean, he could

0:11:27 Thomas: I don't know if you're a witness yeah actually legal question matt if you'RE a witness I mean I guess if it was the other way and you got someone convicted then I'm sure they would have evidence for an appeal being like oh actually someone lying on the stand or something right or or

0:11:42 Matt: Still prosecute him if he was like openly talking about how he lied in the stand to help Trump, you know, get acquitted. But I really I mean he didn't recant as far as I know. Maybe I completely missed something. But this interview is a recant recantation I mean he's basically just by having him on and calling him sir through the whole thing after spending years talking about how much he sucked uh and pretending he was resistance yeah no no it's really it's something yeah

0:11:58 Lydia: Freaking brown noser.

0:12:00 Thomas: I can't imagine being that pathetic I just I really can't like what's the point what is what is the other thing that you're seeking in life that you're willing to do this to get it because it's it's not worth it

0:12:06 Matt: You'd have to actually I mean he doesn't need a pardon does he really like I don't know I mean she's got his talk show and probably does to practice law and you know other things but he's a convicted federal felon uh but

0:12:15 Thomas: Does he need a pardon I don't know oh he could still be a goon do you need a license to be a goon I'm

0:12:25 Matt: He's been an unlicensed goon for years I

0:12:26 Thomas: Gonna report you to the goon bar yeah

0:12:29 Matt: Mean you would have to have a member of my close family tied up with a gun to their head to make me do that like to call to to like I mean that's the only circumstances

0:12:33 Thomas: Easily yeah

0:12:30 Lydia: I don't know. He's, he's also 60. Like he could just decide early retirement and just be done like, and focus on his family. Like, why don't you just do that?

0:12:38 Thomas: He's only 60 was miserable

0:12:43 Matt: Do his talk show uh

0:12:48 Lydia: Loser.

0:12:48 Thomas: All right Right. Well, that's a that's an all -timer douche right there. The moose douche.

0:12:53 Matt: We got plenty more to come though we have got the real the main show now we're going to talk about america first legal now we've mentioned several times on on this show in a way generally uh stephen miller started at america's first legal to make sure that conservative causes were you know put out there so they do all the usual stuff you'd expect trans bathroom bills you know religious freedom um all the nonsense um that immigration stuff you know supporting basically and this podcast is called the arena uh and it comes

0:12:55 Thomas: Wait, have we tried just saying it's my religion to use the bathroom that goes with my gender?

0:13:22 Matt: I don't think everybody's tried

0:13:23 Thomas: I've never. Yeah. Just a thought while you said those two causes.

0:13:23 Matt: That hmm just put that out there sure

0:13:28 Thomas: It's my religion that I use such and such bathroom. Can't discriminate against religion. Anyway, if it's

0:13:33 Matt: And since this is america first legal as founded by stephen miller and this show is hosted by gene hamilton we'll talk about in a minute they basically the entire show they haven't had that many episodes like 16 episodes every episode they just have another member of the administration on like somebody high up in doj their first episode was with todd blanch before he was ag um thing I mean you would think with the money they're putting into it that it would be a lot better than what we're looking at here and it's pretty bad um you'll see we don't have to set this up that much it's america first legal the show is called the arena uh it's infrequent it's named after teddy roosevelt quote about you know praising the man who fights in the arena um I am by the way the manwho fights inthe arena I'm the one who's actually going to court but But yeah, yeah, that's what they, on their website.

0:14:10 Thomas: Just the arena, in what sense is it after a quote? You know, it's like, well, we call it like the bus stop. Cause one time FDR was like, I'm going to go down to the bus stop. It's like, okay, it's just the bus stopped. I don't know.

0:14:21 Lydia: The supermarket.

0:14:24 Matt: Well, it's also, it is actually confusing because they refer to their guests as entering the arena, but the conversation they are having is not contentious. It is not an arena. They are just all agreeing with each other. So, I don't know. But,

0:14:33 Lydia: Do they see themselves as like, yeah, they see themselves as gladiators kind of thing? Like, weird.

0:14:34 Thomas: This is a Reno where we all hug and make nice.

0:14:37 Matt: Well, let's play the, yeah I guess. Let's play The Intro.

0:14:41 Thomas: But the huggy kind of do all agree with each other. Uh, is it?

0:14:43 Lydia: Very

0:14:43 Matt: The first slide here is just The Intro, yeah that will just go right to it.

0:14:46 Thomas: Let's see. Oh,

0:14:46 Clip: America First Legal Foundation combating the left's radical agenda. Fight for the American people, defend the Constitution, and save this nation for the next generation.

0:14:57 Matt: There is the setup. So, that is Gene Hamilton. We have we've talked about gene hamilton is I think a little younger than me he's like in mid 40s I think and he's been doing immigration policy for a long time he's a friend of stephen miller's I think we've talking about him before in terms of project 2025 and yeah he's

0:14:59 Lydia: Dramatic. My goodness. Yeah. Yeah it's been a while. Yeah yeah because when we were talking about Project 2025 he was the person who wrote the DOJ chapter, you know, what Project 2025 wanted to see happening at the Department of Justice. And yeah, like you said, he's been involved with Stephen Miller for a very long time. He worked for Jeff Sessions for a period of time in the first Trump administration. But yeah, Gene Hamilton, he said, what a guy, whata guy.

0:15:35 Matt: Got his own podcast so this is what we're looking at now the other thing that's really funny about what we were going to do here so every segment every episode they have a segment called bad legal takes and it has a theme song I don't know why we don't have a jingle thomas can we get on that can we get a jingle this is a pretty catchy jungle no

0:15:47 Thomas: I mean, we, we have a, we haven't intro song yet specific

0:15:52 Matt: No for for vr we need like for our bad legal takes yeah yeah after you hear this you're gonna want one the

0:15:53 Lydia: Specific to this.

0:15:55 Thomas: For VR. Jeez. Jeez. I got a lot of work. Too much to do. All right. Is that next?

0:16:02 Matt: Next slide will be the uh the jungle yeah let's just because it yeah it's

0:16:03 Thomas: All right, this?

0:16:05 Clip: Jimmy, we do every week a segment about bad legal takes, and the one that I'm going to cover today, I don't know that you have to comment on the merits of it, but I'm going to go ahead and touch our bad legal take before we go for the day, and I think it'll be one that you're interested in.

0:16:10 Thomas: Can we do bad legal comeovers? Dude, that's the worst comeover I've ever seen.

0:16:22 Clip: So, now it's time for this week's Bad Legal Take.

0:16:24 Thomas: Here we go.

0:16:25 Clip: From viral bad arguments to headline mistakes, we're calling them out on bad legal takes.

0:16:31 Thomas: That is not the tone of your show. That is so bad.

0:16:33 Lydia: That's hilarious

0:16:34 Matt: So good can we just actually my thought is can we we can take that and just just put bad in front of it and then just bad bad legal ticks takes

0:16:36 Thomas: That's like a... No,

0:16:35 Lydia: My god wait can you play it again please

0:16:43 Matt: No please we have to hear it again dj

0:16:43 Thomas: I want to forget that I ever heard that.

0:16:45 Lydia: Please please play it again it's so funny yeah

0:16:47 Matt: Run it back skip ahead

0:16:48 Clip: Jimmy, we do every

0:16:49 Thomas: My Okay. Skip. I'm trying to skip. It's not letting me, it's not letting me skip guys.

0:16:49 Clip: Week a segment about bad legal takes, and the one that I'm going to cover today, I don't know that you have to comment on the merits of it, but I'm going to go ahead and

0:16:54 Thomas: I think it's cause it's in the slide. It doesn't do the normal. Ah.

0:16:56 Lydia: It's it's alright it's right just it'll happen in a second

0:16:59 Matt: And they they do the bad legal takes in front of government officials who can't comment on them which I think is extra funny harmeet dylan's smart enough to leave for hers here

0:17:03 Lydia: Here we go here we go

0:17:06 Clip: Now it's time for this week's bad legal take from viral bad arguments to headline mistakes we're calling them out on bad legal takes the

0:17:07 Matt: It comes bad bad legal takes see we just have to say bad on top of it and then we can steal it it's

0:17:14 Thomas: That is, if

0:17:17 Lydia: If it if it was in a different show I love it I honestly kind kind of love it it's so stupid yeah

0:17:21 Thomas: It was ironic, it would be funny.

0:17:23 Matt: Been in my head it's it's got a 1 -800 cars for kids kind of vibe

0:17:24 Thomas: It is too. First

0:17:26 Lydia: Earworm probably

0:17:26 Thomas: Off, is that AI? If it's AI, can we just steal it?

0:17:29 Matt: It's AYA yeah it's no intellectual property here yeah

0:17:31 Lydia: Interesting

0:17:33 Thomas: No honor among thieves or whatever.

0:17:34 Lydia: And and if they get mad about it then we have america first legal suing opening arguments and that's like that talk about an arena that's gonna be the arena

0:17:43 Thomas: That is a that is the dumbest thing that just does not. First off, you're the fascist regime. Like do something you're open. Let's contrast that with the intro music here. Let me go back a slide, folks. Oh,

0:17:55 Lydia: Yeah probably

0:17:56 Clip: America first legal foundation combating the left's radical agenda fight for the american people defend the constitution and save this nation for the next generation the viral bad arguments to headline mistakes we're calling them out on bad legal takes today's bad Bad legal take.

0:18:01 Thomas: So here's one version. There was one song.

0:18:12 Matt: Legal takes

0:18:14 Thomas: You didn't include the the terrible gavel.

0:18:15 Lydia: Was that a gavel yeah that was so bad

0:18:18 Thomas: What a bad gavel?

0:18:18 Matt: They still still our thing

0:18:18 Lydia: Hire thomas for your gavel sounds you guys come on yeah

0:18:21 Thomas: On Unappreciated is how I worked on the gavel for our, for gavel, gavel theme song. There's, there's actual production that went into the gaVEL sound. It was very important to me. It's not just a gaVEL. It's several things layered and EQ'd on top of each other.

0:18:26 Matt: You made a whole song around a gavel nice

0:18:37 Thomas: Sound engineering. And theirs is, it sounds

0:18:37 Matt: Reverb yeah no pretty solid well

0:18:35 Lydia: It's like a whip almost it barely sounds like a gavel

0:18:44 Thomas: Like it's a Windows 98 sound. Like it's like one of those, like you can hear the fuzz behind it when you play it. Like, you know, like, cause it's so low quality. You're the fascist. You're the fascist, you can't have that be your song. Anyway, that's incredible.

0:18:50 Lydia: Whatever our gavel could take their gavel gavel measuring contest

0:18:54 Matt: I I will tell you that the takes that you're going to hear after every every time they play that jingle are about as serious as that jingle and very few of them are legal takes also they're just like we don't like this which you know to be fair we do plenty of that too but when we do a bad legal take we do aid bad legal take uh sue our credit so let's pull up the first one uh

0:19:10 Lydia: Amazing yeah

0:19:19 Clip: Bad legal take is brought to you by our very own Julie Strauss. So, Julie, what you got? OK, so this whole conversation was like a perfect segue to this bad legal Take, which I've been watching for four weeks on end. So in January or so, a Democrat delegate from Northern Virginia, by the name of Dan Helmer, introduced in the Virginia General Assembly a bill regarding January 6, 2021. And this bill basically says that public schools in Virginia, K -12, if they're going to have any instruction with respect to January 6th, there's certain terminology that can be used, must be used and that shall not be used. Literally, the bill said shall and shall not. So January 6th shall be referred to as an insurrection, shall not be referred to as a peaceful gathering or protest, and that there shall not be any conversation about whether the gathering was due to a claim of election fraud.

0:19:25 Thomas: Like a bad take correspondent.

0:20:25 Clip: So this bill. So you have the Ten Commandments now in schools. Yeah, exactly. Thou shalt, thou shalt not. So you shall call it an insurrection so the bill gets passed all by Democrats and a Republican vote goes to Spanberger and I mean, I have my opinion about whether she was ready to sign or not, but she ends up getting pressure from a group that Really doesn't want her to sign not because they're with us and believe in this sort of you know critical thinking that should happen in schools, but because they are they're more of the ilk of all these these LBGT, whatever, whatever books in kindergarten

0:20:31 Thomas: But you do, but you do have that.

0:20:50 Matt: To this conversation after this. We'll address the bill in a moment, but you

0:21:05 Thomas: Jesus

0:21:05 Clip: Should, like nothing should be out, right? So they kind of, in their letter to her, they basically said, look, we agree, like it is an insurrection, I'm paraphrasing, but this isn't the way to do it. Again, paraphrassing, but that was the message. So instead she's turned this over to the Board of Education to review it. So we all know what's gonna happen. They're gonna do this. This is what's going to happen in schools, but it's just not gonna be codified into law.

0:21:06 Thomas: Christ. Try harder.

0:21:32 Clip: What do you guys think about the fact that this kind of conversation, a bill is introduced saying what can and cannot be taught and there cannot be conversation like there can't even be, I think the bill said there can be a suggestion. How do you think about what do you I mean, is that insanity? You know, telling people that what you can and cannot talk about in an educational environment seems to implicate a few big principles that the left usually claims to care very deeply about. Freedom of speech, of course, being amongst them, freedom of thought, freedom to just be left alone. I mean, quite, quite frankly, and so

0:21:32 Thomas: What is happening right now? I want to

0:22:12 Clip: Many other issues compelled, I mean this, the compulsion that's at issue here and look there's a difference between compelling somebody to learn algebra right compelling teaching a trigonometry or whatever versus on an issue like this saying that you there is to be no debate there is to be discussion there is no disagreement with the stated view of the state about this particular subject seems to

0:22:12 Thomas: Just be left alone in class. Don't talk to me, teacher. Really?

0:22:44 Matt: Get

0:22:44 Clip: Me to be something was very, very wrong.

0:22:44 Matt: The idea. So we're going to look at the actual law in a momento, but these people that supported everything that Florida was doing with their educational system in which you couldn't talk about sexual orientation at all, right and in which there was this weird mandated curriculum now the the intent behind this law I completely support I think I support the law itself you'll see the text here we can pull it up on the next slide it's a very simple bill and this is important because as we've talked about many times in oa we are writing history right now in these times and the history of january 6 is being written uh there's a slide on the nex with the text um

0:22:47 Thomas: This is so fucking low effort. Yeah, I here's the bill uh oh lydia you're back you want to read it okay

0:23:17 Matt: Read yeah

0:23:16 Lydia: Yeah, I'm back. Do you want me to read any of this?

0:23:19 Matt: So just remembering what she said about this that but it's just like the extreme term she was using. I think this is pretty reasonable, the actual text of it, because, of course, the text isn't what she said it was. Yeah, let's read it real quick, starting at A.

0:23:53 Lydia: To the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol pursuant to subsection A shall, one, not describe, portray, or present as credible a description or portrayal of the actions precipitating or involved in the events of the January 5, 2021 insurrection as peaceful protest. Two, not state, suggest, or present as creditable a statement or suggestion that there was extensive election fraud that could have changed or actually changed the results of the 2020 presidential election. And three, describe the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol as an unprecedented, violent attack on United States democratic institutions, infrastructure, and representatives for the purpose of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.

0:24:38 Matt: This is pretty straightforward. We're teaching history. We want to make sure we're teaching the correct history, because you can imagine some teacher in Virginia giving the Fox News or the America First legal version of January 6, 2021. What she said in her summary has nothing to do with what's in this bill. I don't recognize as relating. She was saying that you couldn't teach that people were, you know, had any kind of actual contestant, were contesting the election or anything like that. It just says, you have to say, it wasn't a peaceful protest. You have to teach that there was no valid challenge to the election. By that point, it had been settled. You know, just the basic history. History. So, yeah.

0:25:09 Thomas: Is this does this happen with anything else this seems kind of weird to me like do they like how how is curriculum normally it's not normally like by law is it unless you're florida and you're banning gay people like isn't

0:25:23 Matt: Or you're, I mean, you remember that the whole, that core curriculum in Florida they passed that had all of that weird stuff in it? That took a while. But now this makes sense though at the state level for something like this, because this is really dangerous to teach kids that January 6th was a peaceful protest and that it was completely normal thing that happened. So I can understand an exceptional circumstance like this making sure that we're teaching history properly going forward. Because people really do want to rewrite this history. And I think that's why it was passed this way. But, you know, to

0:25:24 Thomas: Normally like yeah yeah yeah

0:25:47 Lydia: Think it also, like, help protects any change in, like a superintendent, right, over instruction for the state. If you leave it to the superintendent and the committees that they appoint or whatever to write curriculum for something that is like pretty important, then you have potentially the back and forth, back and fourth, depending on who's in political power. But having it codified here as law makes it more like long lasting and ensure that regardless of who's at the helm of the superintendent of education at that state, this is going to be protected at least.

0:25:57 Matt: The local, exactly. And it's not that controversial. There's nothing here that's wrong and so it is unusual but it at the same time I mean these people have no ground to stand on when they if they want to talk about not you know doing shells and shell knots and curriculum

0:26:29 Thomas: I love how the only thing they can do is point to our principles like because they know they have none so be like yeah isn't this against what you know what they care about it's like we know we don't care about anything but like let's you know they have rules so can we use their rules to be mad because we don'T like rules yeah the

0:26:45 Matt: It's a pretty frequent theme frequent theme on this show it turns out on the arena let's go on to our next one oh

0:26:51 Lydia: I just I very quickly before you move on I also just really liked how she was like insurrection their words not mine their words like every single time

0:26:51 Thomas: Arena oh

0:26:57 Matt: I wouldn't say that yeah they really yeah these people all we got a quick quick and easy one next.

0:27:04 Thomas: Hit it with the signs every time just play it every single time we do it all

0:27:11 Clip: ICE

0:27:11 Matt: So now this is what he's responding to. I just thought it was worth playing. This is around Mamdani, of course, talking about ICE. And he's going to read, we skipped the part where he's going to reading Mamdani's words. I thought it better here just for Mondami so it doesn't take him out of context.

0:27:23 Clip: Is a rogue agency, one that has no interest in laws, no interest and order. What Comptroller Lander was asking for when he was arrested was for them to provide a judicial warrant signed by a judge. He was asking for them to follow the law and that was apparently a question too far and him being arrested is just one indication of the slide into authoritarianism we're seeing across this country it is the actions of masked men in unmarked cars picking up americans and new yorkers whether they're going in for a regular immigration check -in or they're just in their apartment building lobby like mahmoud khalil and I do believe that when we think about what this country needs and a humane immigration policy that has some thought and care for law and order that clearly is not ice it hasn't been seen to be such in recent times is

0:28:09 Matt: Easy enough. That's it. That is all we need. So that is when he was running. And of course he is referencing Brad Lander, the city comptroller being arrested in immigration court trying to protect someone when they're escorting to immigration court. Don't find any of that to be a particularly controversial statement. But this is going to be apparently the worst legal take that Gene Hamilton has ever heard in his life. So let's see. Let's hear the AFL reaction.

0:28:31 Thomas: National sovereignty. Or as everybody says for some reason, sovereignty. I don't know why everyone says that. Anyway, I it

0:28:37 Clip: The worst factual take and a horrible legal take because what he is doing in that moment when he is making this and this is in an interview that he did on the news media is he is basically saying there should be no immigration enforcement in the united states there no one should be deported we're going to stand with our immigrant neighbors and nobody who violates our laws nobody who does anything should ever be depunted this is this is the situation congress passed immigration laws right for decades every civilization throughout history that's

0:28:44 Matt: The thing we just watched.

0:28:47 Thomas: Wasn't a legal take.

0:28:59 Matt: That's not what he's saying. That's Not What He Said. Didn't say that either.

0:29:01 Thomas: What he said. I can't remember him saying that. Wow. Every

0:29:16 Clip: Had the means and capability to do so has enforced their immigration laws if you're a student of the bible you can go back and read examples of this concept of the king or the sovereign having control over his or her territory the need to seek permission to enter it the notion of being expelled the notion of territory belonging to different groups of people and so you fast forward to the year 2026 and before and you have a lot of Democrats across the country who have decided that ice is a rogue agency that it is irreparable it needs it is

0:29:16 Thomas: Single one? Wow. That is a big claim. Didn't we literally not do that? For yeah

0:29:17 Matt: The means and capability. The Babylonians. The Hittites. Just wait. Wait. Hold on. Hold on, hold on. The ultimate example?

0:29:42 Matt: Oh, he's talking about the Bible, just so you know.

0:29:56 Thomas: Yeah

0:29:56 Clip: Incapable of being redeemed in their view and that there is nothing that can be done and that they need to start afresh but I am telling you Congress passed laws and they say if you do these things you will be deported you will be detained you will be deported so if ice isn't going to do it who is going to do it and if you the same situation that the mr mayor mamdani is saying here when he's saying ice is a rogue agency it's out of control all these other things okay so then what who enforces our immigration laws because you're gonna give it to hhs you're

0:30:06 Thomas: Darn this is the worst fucking content I've ever and

0:30:37 Clip: Going to ask them to to do it we're going to ask for new york to send out civil and

0:30:40 Thomas: This is such a good point because ice dates back to the founding of our country and there's literally never been a time when we didn't have ice and just as he said if a country's had the means uh to enforce immigration they've always done it and that's why the united states has always had ice ever since Since George Washington declared National Ice Day 1776, that was the first. That's how we did it.

0:30:44 Lydia: Benjamin

0:30:55 Matt: They always did.

0:31:05 Lydia: Franklin was the first leader of ice yeah bar

0:31:08 Matt: And then, of course, as you said, Thomas, and as we've talked about many times, this country did not have immigration enforcement until the late 1800s. And that was just against the Chinese, and it took a while to get any kind of internal immigration enforcement going. The look on the older guy, the guy in the tie here, the lawyer, the look on his face when Gene Hamilton said that you can find immigration enforcement in the Bible was very funny. It was not too different than the look he has on his face right now. But that's what he's talking about, that you Can find it in the bible. He's so I mean, again, this is not a legal take. This is just him disagreeing with Sir Mondami.

0:31:40 Matt: Mamdani wasn't giving a legal Take either. As you said, it was just like I shouldn't exist. But you know, the answer, of course, is that there is a lot of different ways to enforce immigration law that do not require ice and that you can have immigration laws and you can enforce them without having people shot in the streets and torture gloves it's possible yes no

0:31:55 Lydia: Really low I think he did say Mamdani correctly I I that's like one of the only only people on the right, including some people in the center like Bill Maher.

0:31:58 Thomas: I was going to say that, too. It's because he's younger. Maybe they can't say it.

0:32:05 Lydia: That he like actually bothered to get

0:32:06 Thomas: They only say Mamdani every time. Mamdani.

0:32:06 Lydia: It correctly. Yeah well you

0:32:11 Thomas: So, yeah, this strikes me as somebody who I don't know. Know, maybe he has authority in his legal firm or something. And so therefore gets to feel like he's interesting to like, as, as a speaker, I

0:32:21 Lydia: Mean the legal firm that he started with Stephen Miller so of course he's authority because he gave it to himself.

0:32:23 Thomas: Guess, I don't know. Like he just, yeah, whatever his job, it strikes me that whatever his Job is involves people being forced to listen to him and think, and therefore he thinks he's compelling, but then he tries to do a show. It's like, well, and this is, and you got the Congress, they passed a law and you can't, and you gotta um enforce it and that was the word there was nothing for like five minutes he just spouts nothing I like to if you want to do bad legal takes matt we've just unlocked the key to all our content we can just play someone saying something and then just say terrible legal take here's what they were saying and then make up a take they were saying it doesn't have to be based on what they're saying at all you just like we almost we could play them their mouth moving and we'll just be like I think they're you can quarter troops or something yeah

0:33:01 Lydia: And then yeah exactly yeah

0:33:05 Matt: It's a I've

0:33:12 Lydia: We've been doing the show on hard mode.

0:33:14 Thomas: Doing

0:33:13 Matt: Been exactly I've been wasting my time and Olivia's time doing research folks yeah well speaking of that the fine people who pay for our research we should probably shout out right now

0:33:18 Lydia: Episode. Yeah.

0:33:17 Thomas: Actual research you idiots oh yeah let's take let's take our second break then and uh shout out our top patrons our hall of famers all our -time greats uh I will begin with probably a real person nick fish no sir away a papaya war is on nice a negative phenomenon don't poke my space you gotta fight for your right to ex parte jay sank vehicular man's laughter that's it that's the joke furries against ice the theodore by perineum what uh is that yeah two taints is it teddy two tints uh david suther today's episode is brought to you by the letter nothing thomas freeman cavalry cajun killer fraud fish he hates everything chris simpson worst timeline ever anonymous akila and check out galena comic .com for a cool web comic thank you so much middle group of hall of famers and we'll take our second break and be back with more legal we'll talk about that we'll be back we'll see you next time take a second make me back more legal dicks dana okay Matt I see uh fighting for parental rights in America's schools

0:33:37 Lydia: What?

0:33:56 Matt: Two taints Ted two tints all right that's pretty it's pretty good yeah

0:33:58 Lydia: Oh, okay.

0:34:29 Matt: Indeed

0:34:30 Thomas: Yeah I guess that's the overall episode what's the the

0:34:30 Matt: So we all right so so far we've had somebody get mad about a law that is just making sure that january 6th gets taught correctly uh completely misstating that law we've somebody get made about something that zara mamdani did not say I

0:34:44 Thomas: Legal opinion of I don't like ice

0:34:47 Matt: Shouldn't exist and now we're gonna get somebody get and I have to say I appreciate this on a certain level we're about a footnote. He's not going to tell you it's a footnote. And it's a footnote that does not say what he says it says, and it doesn't make any sense what he's saying. But let's just let's let's play it. This will.

0:34:57 Lydia: Interesting.

0:34:55 Thomas: And if you come for the footnotes you're gonna have to go through Matt Matt.

0:35:04 Matt: That's right. Long

0:35:05 Clip: I understand uh you have our bad legal take for today so what you got I do and this is out of the northern district of illinois it was actually a similar case to to what we're talking about where a a female student sued the school district for discrimination for telling her she needs to scram from the bathroom to make way for the boy well a very leftist judge ruled for the school we'll see how that goes on appeal But the bad legal take was that this was on a motion to dismiss where you have to assume the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. She found that the alleged fact that the student was male was conclusory and she did not find it sufficient for a motion to dismiss okay it's I know so you can't call the boy a boy in a confederal complaint that's not sufficient to indicate his sex

0:35:54 Matt: Pause.

0:36:05 Clip: I don't know I'm very confused by this what would be sufficient in their eyes so

0:36:06 Matt: The boy's not a boy. Yeah, you sure are.

0:36:05 Thomas: Yeah, not if she's a girl. Sorry. So can I file something where I refer to you as a female? And then then the judge has to be like, oh, I can't question that because it's some rule of the law that I can accept. I can challenge that.

0:36:16 Matt: You can. Apparently, they should accept it. Yep. So this is such a weird thing to get mad about. It's a motion dismiss as he points out. But it's like, yeah, yeah. I mean, again, so that just check out the footnote that is this is this as far as I could tell I looked at the decision this is all he's talking about is this one footnote and again I can appreciate a man who reads the footnotes uh not this time not

0:36:40 Lydia: Very, very quickly before we get into what he's complaining about, I just want to set the record straight. I was like, I wantto know who this dude is. And I looked him up, and it says, Ian Pryor is one of the most recognizable voices in the parents' revolution that has swept the country. So he's, like, you know, not unbiased at all about what's going to be happening here. And Matt he graduated from Boston University School of Law and is based out of New England still I guess apparently if you want to go track him down at some point but yeah he he

0:37:08 Matt: But I I think maybe they should should scratch them out.

0:37:10 Lydia: Wrote a book called Parents of the World Unite How to Save Our Schools from the Left's Radical Agenda so he's consistent I guess all

0:37:16 Matt: That tracks. That absolutely tracks. And again, remember, of all the wide world of things, I mean, we have no trouble every week finding a wealth of things that we have way more than we can possibly use for rapid response. And of all the things that he's trying to locate as bad legal takes, he finds this footnote and takes issue with this thing. And I don't understand why. I just don't. Let's take a look at the footnote.

0:37:36 Lydia: To plaintiff's assertion that the court improperly adopted defendant's representation that the student who entered the bathroom is transgender as opposed to a, quote, biological male, as plaintiff describes, the court is not required to adopt this unsupported gender characterization from plaintiff. While the court must accept all well -pleaded allegations as true, the Court need not accept unsupportive, conclusory factual allegations. Plaintiff's conclusion that the students in question is, quote obviously male, is at best based on broad broad sweeping inferences, and gender stereotyping as evidenced by the pleading and oral arguments before this court. Plaintiffs' factual conclusions as to the students assigned sex at birth and their present gender expression are on their face, speculative and unsupported. Such, out of abundance of caution, the court will refer to the student in question as, quote, transgender.

0:38:24 Matt: This is not revolutionary stuff, guys. There's an argument here about how the person is presenting. The person is saying very clearly to the court that you know that they are trans and so that's all they're doing and this footnote is just saying yeah the plaintiff can call this person a male but we think that's offensive and it's conclusory and like we don't have to accept it um just weird to make this your bad legal take of all the that's it no

0:38:47 Thomas: Did the, he made it out like the case turned on that. Oh okay. I, I actually was thinking that's what he was saying. Maybe I'm wrong, but I, I thought he was making out like that was why they lost or something.

0:38:50 Matt: Not at all no I would personally love it if a case turned on a footnote but that rarely happens uh

0:39:04 Thomas: Well we, again, he didn't present that it was a footnote, so I wonder if he's just, is he just lying? Yeah.

0:39:07 Lydia: I think, Yep, yep, yep. That's what it feels like to me, that he's saying the motion to dismiss was granted despite, yeah, because you are supposed to assume everything that the plaintiff is saying is accurate, except for this one thing that they decided not to assume the plaintif was saying was accurate, which is transgender issues or whatever. Ever so for the defendant ridiculous or

0:39:09 Matt: He's making it exactly yep

0:39:14 Thomas: Because you had to assume or something. Yeah,

0:39:32 Matt: Yeah

0:39:31 Thomas: It's certainly an interesting like it's

0:39:33 Lydia: Not defendant but the other child like

0:39:34 Thomas: An interesting thing legally. But I do think when it comes to anything else, you know, when it came to like a personal characteristic, if one side who is the person is saying one thing and the other side was saying something different, you'd be like, well, I guess I'll go with the person because it's them.

0:39:53 Lydia: A resident of whatever county right like I'm gonna you know probably agree that the person who lives in that county is being honest when they're presenting their material to me rather than you saying they're a resident of a different county like something very very simple like that

0:40:06 Matt: There's a lot of things like that like they don't and again this is just the motion to dismiss stage so like it doesn't really matter anyway they're gonna do full fact -finding another time right but

0:40:13 Thomas: And if it didn't even matter to the case like that, you're just saying how they're addressing the person that's like, so it sounds like someone, transphobe tried to complain that they judge shouldn't even be, you proper gender pronouns. Otherwise, that's, like, like prejudice against their case, which is ridiculous. Ridiculous. Oh, good times. That's a bad legal take.

0:40:30 Matt: Like -hmm far leftist judge a bad bad legal take uh on to the next bad bad illegal take

0:40:39 Thomas: Bad, bad legal takes. I I get it now. I like your idea. I see your vision.

0:40:43 Matt: So this somehow this show that involves harmeet dylan on the next slide uh the civil rights person for doj does not involve harmeat dylan she actually excuses herself and does not stick around for the bad legal take section so we don't get to hear from her in this one uh but this is a particularly bad legal Take that we're about to hear this is uh it's pretty funny to to whom he is directing this and how it all works out I

0:40:53 Lydia: Interesting.

0:41:03 Clip: Like to propose today's bad legal take as actually in sorry to say this bad legal take on the part of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Florida versus California in Washington and if you are a person who is so inclined I would highly recommend that you look at Justice Thomas his dissent from the Supreme Court not taking this case joined by Justice Alito so why do I say say this is a bad legal take? Well, as a little bit of history, you guys correct me if I say anything incorrect, especially our law professor sitting over

0:41:17 Thomas: Looks really broken up about it it's with great regret that I whose mic

0:41:49 Matt: Gonna say something incorrect they

0:41:49 Clip: There. Under

0:41:49 Thomas: Is four feet to the left of him okay

0:41:50 Clip: The Constitution, the Supreme Court is a court that has original jurisdiction over certain matters. One of those certain matters that has Original Jurisdiction over are disputes and cases brought between between two states. So when a state like Florida, in this particular case, sued the state of California for the state California's lax policies related to the issuance of CDLs to people who are not citizens. So state of Florida suing state of of California saying, look, our citizens are being harmed in Florida by your policies in California where else is the state of Florida supposed to go? Well, again, under the Constitution, they would go to the Supreme Court. You have a majority of the Supreme court say, we decline to take this case as if they have discretion in the matter, as

0:42:18 Thomas: Can you blink please he hasn't blinked this entire video.

0:42:49 Matt: Do actually this

0:42:50 Clip: If original and exclusive jurisdiction means anything other than original and exclusive. And so I guess the question is, where else are states supposed to Go? If the Supreme Courts going to decline to take a dispute between two states I mean do they have that luxury do they have that right under the constitution I would say not um if you have original and exclusive that

0:42:54 Matt: Is so funny yes yes you would say that yes so let me explain a couple of things before we move on about this so there is such a thing his original jurisdiction, obviously, as you know, but when one state sees another, as he's talking about. So this usually comes up in the context of like a land dispute, that there's like a tiny little strip of land that they're not really sure that goes back to the 1600s, you know the land disputes, whatever, that can happen, or you know their course of a river or something. But he's saying is the Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito view. It is not the majority view and hasn't been since 1972, well before either of us were born, him or me. The Supreme Court in Mississippi v. Louisiana in 1972 found pretty definitively the current rule that it has, which is that it doesn't just automatically take up every suit between states. Because you can imagine, since they have to be the original place where this thing is heard, they don't want to take all these cases. That would jam up their dockets. If you had Texas suing Massachusetts because they don' t like our NPR programming or something, right? You can imagine all

0:43:59 Matt: Kinds of nonsense, right. Right. And in this case, it was about commercial driver's licenses. And Florida was trying to say that California was endangering their highways by issuing commercial driver'S licenses to truckers who were not citizens. And, you know, whatever. Maybe there's an issue there. Maybe There's not. But there is a standard under Mississippi v. Louisiana that's very clear about the test that you exercise about whether you can take that up or not. And he just doesn't like it.

0:43:58 Lydia: The constant.

0:44:20 Thomas: Whether you can take that up or whether you have to take that out.

0:44:22 Matt: Or whether you should. Whether you should, yes, thank you. So discretion, right? And there is this argument that Thomas has been advancing for a while, that there is no discretion, that it's exclusive, and that only the Supreme Court has to hear them at all times. And so whatever, that's an argument. That's a minority opinion. That is not the law. There isn't a controlling law on this. So he's saying that the Supreme court, by declining this, and they declined it, by the way, without an opinion, this is just declining to take cert on something. And they are determined to accept original jurisdiction more to the point, but they declined without a decision as they often do. So you can't even say that's a bad legal take because there's nothing to respond to. Like there's no, they're not actually giving you why why. They're just saying we don't want to take it.

0:44:59 Thomas: I guess it's fair to say they disagree with not not accepting it or whatever.

0:45:00 Lydia: The absence of it. Yeah, yeah, yeah?

0:45:03 Matt: That's fine. But that's just a weird choice of bad legal takes when the Supreme Court, even by their view, the Supreme court had a few bad legal stakes this year. If you just, yeah,

0:45:09 Thomas: It's also, yeah, it's also weird to take, like, look, not to, not to podsplain to this podcast, this exceptional show, but why don't you do something that's actually a take, a legal take, not here's the Supreme Court doing the thing that is their current jurisprudence, you know, like that's, yeah.

0:45:25 Matt: That's what I'm saying. That we don't like. Yeah. No,

0:45:32 Thomas: It is weird.

0:45:32 Matt: They, they do the same thing with the birthright citizenship argument. They have like a number of them on birthright citizen, but they just don't like the way that the court came down on it, but that is how they read the constitution. That is the constitution on the next slide. You can see justice Thomas has to acknowledge what the law is. That is what it is and know again this is why this just isn't a bad legal take it's just the law um I would say that thomas's take is a bad illegal take but it's my opinion I essentially you know he goes on to say that he thinks that there's always jurisdiction they should always have to take these things then he says well nonetheless we have to see we've got this discretionary review and then he said even under the discretionary approach so now he has to go to the step of saying well even if we had to use the actual law, which actually controls here as to whether or not there's original jurisdiction, you know, he's saying that it has to basically reach the level where the states would go to war with each other. There has to be, like, that level of, like—it would be a causus belli, which is Latin for cause of war. And he thinks that California issuing driver's licenses to some people is a cause of war that Florida would have with California, apparently. So good luck with that, Florida. Good luck invading California from the other side of the country. See how that goes for you. Anyway, but it's—right.

0:46:34 Lydia: Yeah, a dispute Bute over one nation sending dangerous people into another, quote, would be the source of considerable international tension.

0:46:41 Matt: That's what he's claiming. Yeah.

0:46:43 Lydia: Equating, yeah,

0:46:43 Thomas: If that was at all, what was happening somehow hey also didn't they do that with the busing migrants thing like they're they're big fans of doing it yeah Florida

0:46:44 Matt: Drivers. Right. If the California military. That's right. By their view, yeah. That's great. That's fine. By their opinion.

0:46:55 Thomas: And Texas I think right yeah definitely Texas

0:46:57 Matt: Yeah. So I'm up here, among other places. But we welcomed them and they had a great time. So on to the next thing. You know, again, just weird. There are so many things you could find out there. And this really, it's fascinating to me. Like, if I were to sit down and try to figure out what, as this person, I would think a bad legal take is, I feel like I could come up with way better ones than this from like nutty lefty law professors. They're out there like they exist.

0:47:17 Thomas: I will give them a weird amount of credit that they're actually finding like stuff that's in briefs and filings which is like a step higher than you know just the shit entertainment stuff that's just like we found someone on tiktok who said blah and they're not anybody you know like oh yeah

0:47:32 Matt: But you notice that they're not naming the cases, though. They're not showing you anything like we do. They're showing you the receipts. They're naming the case. They're actually telling you they're just saying what some exactly.

0:47:44 Lydia: Well, they don't want you to look into it. Yeah, Yeah.

0:47:46 Matt: They're going to find out that it's a footnote. And I don't know if a full time guy who doesn't sleep very much with a full term job can find it. And I feel Like maybe they could have their research staff get on this stuff. But let's try the next one.

0:47:42 Thomas: Of course so

0:47:57 Matt: It is. It's also weird.

0:47:56 Thomas: Weird what a weird there's no universe in which this is us I reject the alternate universe do

0:48:04 Matt: The mirror universe.

0:48:05 Clip: Bad legal take comes from one district court judge casey pitts out of the northern district of california uh some of you may have seen this in the news uh this is there's lots of bad legal decisions all the time that we encounter in the immigration system. But this one was particularly egregious because this is the one where Judge Pitts said, in fact, that ICE cannot arrest illegal aliens at immigration courthouses. That, in fact. A supposed policy shift, a different policy that was issued that was compliant with the immigration laws passed by Congress, immigration laws that are broad in scope, immigration laws that don't say anything about not being able to arrest illegal aliens at immigration courthouses, that somehow shifting a policy and correcting erroneous policies that were issued by the Biden administration is arbitrary and capricious, subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act, and as such needs to be vacated and so this single district court judge in the Northern District California has asserted the insane legal proposition that the federal government federal law enforcement officers cannot arrest illegal aliens on federal property that is the most asinine thing that you could ever imagine that is one of the most egregious bad legal takes that you could ever imagine. Look, one of the things for those who are students of history, those who are students, whether it's public policy or the law

0:48:11 Thomas: In a different spot every time hold on just answering some texts real quick he's staring at his phone which okay or the bible

0:49:56 Clip: Or anything in between, will remember when Republicans or conservative states or other things tried to challenge policies of the Obama administration or of the Biden administration, the federal courts would come in and they would say, well they have enforcement discretion so

0:50:08 Thomas: How'd that go oh really or did they invent a whole shadow docket over it you asshole they literally invented a shadow doocket to not have have to let obama do anything fucking moron

0:50:23 Matt: I none, none of the things he just said are anywhere grounded in reality, I promise you. So I'm going to show you why.

0:50:28 Thomas: You know biden just got to do whatever he wanted famously it's

0:50:34 Matt: As it relates to this particular case, I again, you would think they would do I don't know why I would think this maybe just because I do actually put a lot of work into putting this show on. This man does not read anything, apparently, because let's just go to the actual decision. It's on the next slide. And I can explain what he's talking about because it has nothing to do with what he is saying. The decision here is reviewing ICE's change in policies, and he decides that under the Administrative Procedures Act, which covers agency decisions, that these memos have to be vacated, the things that allowed them to go and arrest anybody in any immigration courthouse. Now, again, in 2021, under Joe Biden, as I'll show you in the next slide, it was perfectly fine for ICE to go to immigration courthouses under certain circumstances. And check out what Casey Pitts, the judge, is actually finding it. So he's saying it merely reinstates ISIS 2121 guidance and EOIR, that's the immigration court's 2023 guidance. So we're just taking it back to Biden era policies, which are pretty much the way it's been done the whole time, which authorize courthouse arrests in defined circumstances. So he just told you that the judge said that they can't ever arrest people in immigration courthouses. That's just not true. He told you this is like a radical, wacky, leftist thing. That, you know, it's just restoring the existing policy and finding the way they changed it was arbitrary and capricious, which is completely fine. And so it vacates those memos, these new memos. Hasn't shown any evidence of disruption. They're also trying to hold people for more than 12 hours in the field offices, which is pretty bad because they're not set up for that. That's how you get the stories about people being held in federal office buildings, right? Just like with

0:52:05 Matt: No actual facilities. Next page, we'll actually show you, the next slide, the actual policy that it's reverting to. Is the radical Joe Biden policy. The purpose of the memorandum, of course, it includes immigration courts. There was actually, at one point, they lied to the court about this, I think inadvertently, but they said that it didn't apply to immigration courts, and it always did, this memo.

0:52:22 Lydia: Interesting.

0:52:24 Matt: Check out under paragraph three, this again, courthouse, meaning also immigration courts, okay?

0:52:27 Lydia: Civil immigration enforcement action may be taken in or near a courthouse if, one, it involves a national security threat, or two, there is an imminent risk of death, violence, or physical harm to any person, or three, it involved hot pursuit of an individual who poses a threat to public safety, or four, there's an imminent risk of destruction of evidence material to a criminal case hot pursuit thank

0:52:49 Matt: Pretty straightforward. Yeah. Yeah.

0:52:49 Thomas: Kind of flattering if they say they're in hot pursuit you know like we're in Hot Pursuit of Thomas oh wow guys

0:52:56 Matt: Must be looking good today. In the absence of hot pursuit, if you're just pursuing a five, a civil immigration enforcement action may also be taken. And there's like a whole other list of things of, you know, like Boston

0:53:09 Thomas: You yeah pursuing a five your

0:53:10 Lydia: You yeah yeah if it is necessary to take the action and enter near the courthouse because a safe alternative location for such action does not exist or would be too difficult to achieve the enforcement action at such a location and

0:53:20 Thomas: Honor he's a sacramento seven it is hot pursuit yeah

0:53:24 Matt: 10, though.

0:53:26 Lydia: Two the action has been approved in advance So basically, like, there can still be exceptions to these situations as long as it's approved by somebody higher up.

0:53:32 Matt: So again, yes.

0:53:38 Thomas: Well that's weird matt because I was told by this guy who doesn't blink and who can't takes an hour to say one sentence that they a judge declared that you can't arrest someone on federal property ever.

0:53:48 Matt: Ever. Yeah. No.

0:53:49 Thomas: That's what, that's what I was told.

0:53:49 Matt: And no, in fact, the judge found that this didn't make a lot of sense, the way that they were setting this up, that it basically created no standards, that it just removed any, you know, they could just do whatever they wanted at federal courthouses, which is clearly not the intent. And it was arbitrary and capricious.

0:54:01 Thomas: Sounds kind of arbitrary and maybe a little capricious if you're asking me, our

0:54:04 Matt: In terms of just the way they were doing policy and the sort of series of things they were dealing. So again, it's a long decision. We'll link to it. It makes a lot OF sense. But again, unlike our competitor, well, they're not our competitor. What am I talking about?

0:54:16 Thomas: Competitor.

0:54:17 Matt: We do not have an overlapping audience. I really hope not. Not anybody we're

0:54:19 Thomas: You went into the like a classic, like Pepsi, Coca -Cola, like we

0:54:24 Lydia: Very marketing mode right now. We don't

0:54:26 Thomas: Had people blind taste test between us and that stupid show. You'll never guess which one it was. I'm still just blown away that they decided to do a thing thing called bad legal takes and every single thing, just have it be decisions we disagree with. You know, it's like a, it's like a different genre of thing. You're criticized.

0:54:46 Thomas: It's fine if you want to criticize like judges decisions, but it's not a take. It's not a bad legal take. I don't, it's so weird.

0:54:45 Matt: Gonna yeah I guess vapid response was taken but uh yeah no I just I

0:54:56 Lydia: Like this. I wonder if that was part of it. Yeah.

0:54:58 Thomas: They had the whole song and everything. I think someone maybe was like, oh, I thought you guys were going to take apart like takes. I have this whole song. And they're like, no, we're just going to dig into court documents. And like, can we still use the song though? Okay, fine. We'll call it. We recognize that you put a lot of work in that song. Yeah.

0:55:14 Lydia: It's a bop.

0:55:16 Matt: You did that whole prompt to generate this so yeah

0:55:18 Thomas: Man. Just get, why wouldn't you, why couldn't you have it be a pundit saying something?

0:55:22 Lydia: Right.

0:55:23 Thomas: You know, why would you have an MSNBC? Someone said this, even if they were like saying what this decision was or something, you know what I mean? What a weird thing.

0:55:25 Matt: I mean for the right price I'll supply you with some bad legal takes I will not give you the analysis I'll just do it you know anonymously but well

0:55:34 Thomas: This show's not not going anywhere I'm I'm arguing I I contend they're gonna be canceled by whoever puts I don't know I guess everything can just go on indefinitely now all

0:55:46 Matt: I think we got one more fun one for the end but let's take a break

0:55:50 Thomas: Right let's take that last break and thank our top patrons the number uh the the uh top third here thank you to bob blah blah's law podcast et philly basement bar says we should take off and nuke the site from orbit it's the only way to be sure elect thomas smith president american honky tonk bar association balticate philip kaiser I'm going to teach everyone what pre -antipenultimate means, if it's the fourth to last thing I do. Pre -antipenultimate, maybe? Yeah, that's

0:56:18 Matt: Very good all right I like it it's

0:56:20 Lydia: That's good.

0:56:21 Thomas: Funny. Corin Land, a string of unpronounceable characters. I made a new one. A string of Unpronounceable Characters. Malaika Chandler, David in Brooklyn, roundofthedork.com. Milo Meadsong argues the plural form of footnote, kind of like attorneys general, should be notes feetsies. Chris chris waltrip uh big easy blasphemy hors d'oeuvres in the court before a report sam danao fred r gruthius classic lip dart and mitchell thank you so much boy fred is is catching up it's gonna be second place soon wow what a great race uh race to the top all right that's patreon .com slash law uh be back after this back mat what's on our bad legal judges orders or something they

0:56:49 Lydia: Man. Crazy. Oh,

0:57:02 Matt: Got one more bad bad legal take from the america first legal foundation so uh is you'll never believe it another bathroom bill and uh another very bad take on a bathroom bill where they really care about where you pee they care quite a lot uh so let's uh let's hear the take on the take can

0:57:12 Thomas: Have nothing else to talk about all right he's

0:57:20 Clip: This week our bad legal take the first bad legal taker of the week comes from our good friend and our dear colleague Ian Pryor what you got well this this month we had a federal district court in Idaho a Biden judge it's of course it's always the Biden judges declared and enjoined a law passed by the Idaho legislature that said bathrooms are limited to sex biological sex so you could be arrested if you go and you use a women's room unless

0:57:23 Thomas: In a different place again he can't decide where to shoot the video oh

0:57:31 Lydia: Oh, oh. That's why.

0:57:51 Thomas: You can only have sex and oh and you

0:57:56 Clip: There's an emergency or there's simply nothing else available and then you have to use the bathroom right so there's very limited exception which is still kind of crazy the court found that the law was void for vagueness. So a law that prohibits men from using women's bathrooms is void for vagueness. And it granted class certification to every transgender or gender expansive individual in Idaho who can, I guess, now go and use any bathroom they want until this gets taken up on appeal. That's insane. Is it because the court couldn't define what a woman is well actually it wasn't it was because the court couldn't define what an emergency was I guess

0:57:56 Thomas: Don't fuck it was it was an emergency like

0:58:12 Matt: You believe it literally

0:58:44 Thomas: How badly

0:58:44 Clip: Emergency is

0:58:45 Thomas: Do you have to take a shit

0:58:46 Clip: A a vague term when when you have to use the bathroom I think we all know what what it means um but I guess they they found that emergency or or not having another alternative was was simply too vague for this common sense law that codifies 40 ,000 years of human history to be sufficient to stand. I have so many questions. How do we have a Biden judge in Idaho?

0:58:46 Matt: Literally that's it and

0:59:06 Thomas: We've had gendered bathrooms for 40 000 years pre -civilization like pre for like the earliest possible human civilization they had almost nothing yeah they're the wheel and then like and boys only in this one yeah

0:59:11 Lydia: Amazing. It's the second thing they made after the wheel. They made the wheel, then they're like bathrooms. Yeah, yeah,

0:59:21 Matt: They've always had the little drawings of the guy and the woman of the dress like it's always been that way since the beginning of time that's

0:59:24 Thomas: So that's the first cave art that they ever found

0:59:28 Matt: Right that's great uh so you may not be surprised to learn uh that none of that is really correct uh but they're so they go on for another five minutes to really amaze themselves that there is a biden judge in idaho that's a whole like a whole other thing but also this whole thing about the void for vagueness. You'll never believe. Okay. So yes, it was void for vaguenness. And there's another comment. I don't want to play the whole thing. I think it's after the conversation about the Biden judges.

0:59:28 Lydia: My God. That's nuts.

0:59:30 Thomas: 40 ,000. I can play it if you want, but what

0:59:52 Matt: It just goes on and they talk about how, well, if she didn't like it, she should have struck it down, which is also ridiculous because this is, again, at the injunction stage. So we're not talking about the final judgment stage. I can't believe an attorney said that. But check out the red.

1:00:02 Thomas: A bad legal take. Matt, that's an actual bad legal take that you just found. It's a guy talking about a thing badly, which is what a take is.

1:00:03 Matt: It is. Yeah. Well, this person, again. Did not read the decision because check out the radical leftists who also thought this was void for vagueness as quoted in the decision that he is criticizing. On the next slide.

1:00:21 Lydia: Yeah. Significant here is evidence from various Idaho law enforcement entities which opposed HB 752. Members of the Idaho Chiefs Police Association and the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police both opposed HB 752 and expressed concerns with law enforcement's ability to enforce it, obviously.

1:00:34 Thomas: This? IFOP. Instead of the Idaho Fraternal Order, it should have been like the Idaho Humanitarian Order of Police, and then they could be IHOP. It'd be great.

1:00:45 Lydia: That's good. And in a letter opposing HB752, ICOPA stated, quote, this proposal presents significant practical enforcement challenges for law law enforcement officers in the field. The bill includes exceptions that would be extremely difficult for officers to evaluate in real time. For example, it is unclear how an officer responding to a call would reasonably determine whether someone was truly in, quote, dire need, creating an unenforceable standard that places officers in a difficult position. Similarly, almost

1:01:15 Thomas: You would have to catch them in the act of having to really go bad because even

1:01:19 Lydia: Peeing

1:01:19 Matt: And then they have to explain it to you.

1:01:20 Lydia: Their pants. Yeah.

1:01:20 Thomas: Like even like a second after you get in there, how could you know it was an emergency? How do you know?

1:01:25 Matt: Right.

1:01:25 Thomas: I don't know.

1:01:26 Lydia: It would be impossible. Similarly IFOP opposed the passage of HB 752 too, stating that, quote, the way this language is worded, the way this bill is, it makes it difficult for us to enforce.

1:01:36 Matt: IE void for vagueless.

1:01:39 Lydia: Defendants retort that whether, quote. Officers will be unable to assess a person's dire need to urinate or defecate has, quote nothing to do with vagueness because, quote a regulation is not vague because it may at times be difficult to prove an incriminating fact, but rather because it is unclear as to what fact must be proved.

1:01:56 Matt: That's not how that works. Yeah. So literally, you've got law enforcement lining up against this bill and saying, we don't know how to enforce it. That is the definition of something that is void for vagueness right if the law is telling you yes

1:02:07 Lydia: Law enforcement in a conservative state, too. Like, that probably if they were just people, they'd be like, yeah, okay, I could see that. But, like, from their job perspective, the union, like police unions are like, we can't do this.

1:02:15 Matt: I know the worst people yeah and like the radical leftist judge agreed with these radical revolutionary cops if you can believe it that they couldn't enforce this law so

1:02:30 Thomas: Idaho. There's there's got to be merely like four Idaho help police officers that aren't extremely right -wing yeah

1:02:38 Lydia: If you're lucky. If you'RE lucky.

1:02:40 Thomas: There's very you could count them on one hand for sure yeah

1:02:43 Matt: Again my thesis stands that these are bad bad legal takes because they are not even accurate summaries of the thing like again we try to show you the actual text of the things that we are criticizing we read it in full so you can't to our great detriment by read these things out loud all the time well I guess speaking for lydia so well no I enjoy it I have a great time but I'm just saying like it's painful I actually have to read some of these people's words and for me to have to find them because think about all the stuff I have to read that we don't use by the way the torment that I go and what I have to put Olivia through and these people don't even read it I'm sorry I'm getting upset but it just really

1:02:43 Lydia: Man. Mm -hmm. Yeah.

1:02:59 Thomas: Sometimes it is that's

1:03:08 Lydia: Yep. Yep. Yeah. You should be upset. Said. It's bad, bad legal takes.

1:03:17 Thomas: Like some of it isn't even written at the bottom of the page

1:03:19 Matt: It's that's right the body of the text if you can believe it uh and yeah no I I just it it just bothers me because people are getting paid so much money and they have so much dark money behind them and they just can't even, and they could. I know these bad legal takes are out there. There are bad judges on our side of things that are making bad decisions, saying bad things. And, oh

1:03:39 Thomas: I'm not even judges just have it be a take have it b a pundit saying saying something that's a take what

1:03:44 Lydia: Well, like equivalent to like when we have Jonathan Turley stuff here, right? Like he is someone who should know better.

1:03:45 Matt: I mean, right, exactly.

1:03:48 Thomas: Ben shapiro or something yeah

1:03:52 Lydia: Yeah. Any sort of law background.

1:03:52 Matt: A lawyer, right.

1:03:54 Lydia: Tons of people that are just posting. I mean, they can just go to Blue Sky and find a law professor or a lawyer saying something that they're like, yeah, I disagree with that. Let's talk about it. You know, like that's not hard.

1:04:05 Matt: Right and you can, like I said, you can find some radical leftist law professor who thinks that chimpanzees should have exactly the same rights as humans, right? And should be able to go to law school or whatever. I don't know I'm sure they're out there um yeah

1:04:15 Lydia: And I'm sure there's also plenty of like law review articles too that like they could disagree with. Like that's like, that's exactly that. That's like a perfect area to dig into and sort of get into discussions and say why they disagree with something. I'd like to hear something like that, but no, they're going to be lazy.

1:04:19 Matt: They could rip apart yeah hold on hold on we we should stop because we should actually be getting paid for this we should be consulted

1:04:34 Thomas: There's no left wing equivalent unfortunately are you saying maybe the grifters can pay us to help them yeah that's

1:04:41 Matt: This show should pay us to consult again anonymously I will provide you right I will not analyze them for you but I'll provide the stuff if you want to badly make fun of it yeah

1:04:42 Lydia: We'll make your show better.

1:04:44 Thomas: Why I wish the side that was good had the unlimited money for corrupt purposes or for non -corrupt I had the thought the other day uh when I was hearing yet another another bullshit, you know, peddler of medical, whatever on Joe Rogan or something where I'm like, man, what a great business idea would be to like peddle some health bullshit, but that's real. And then I was like, wait, there's no market for that. I realized, oh no, you can only do it if it's some fake, stupid crap. Like there's just no market für like, here's what actually works, like take an ibuprofen or something,

1:04:49 Lydia: I know yeah all the george

1:05:20 Thomas: You kno.

1:05:20 Lydia: Soros money is going towards bricks so there's nothing left over for us so

1:05:23 Thomas: That's true. It's all, it's all blown on bricks, but there's just no market for like, just whatever the truth is.

1:05:25 Lydia: Dang it man

1:05:25 Matt: That is true. No, and these people, like I have listened, I can promise you, I now listen to all of the Bad Legal Takes. There aren't that many episodes of the arena and the Bad legal takes section is about five minutes. You can skip to it. And none of them are legal takes and they're all bad. They're all very bad.

1:05:32 Lydia: Bad

1:05:43 Thomas: I would listen to this on 3 .7 speed and it would sound like normal talking.

1:05:45 Matt: Bam.

1:05:44 Lydia: Bet maybe you'd get like one blink out of gene

1:05:51 Thomas: Yeah.

1:05:52 Matt: Eventually.

1:05:53 Thomas: Boy, that was awful. I hated that man. I hate it.

1:05:54 Matt: Yeah, come on, just like do some

1:05:56 Thomas: Every moment of that.

1:05:56 Lydia: Man I

1:05:56 Matt: Work. Yeah, but now we know that that's what's up. And you know what? I'm sorry, this is gonna have to be a recurring segment occasionally. On bad legal takes I

1:06:04 Lydia: I think that's worthwhile honestly I think we should be calling them out more and I hope they they notice us and yeah, and we should, you know, yeah, sue us.

1:06:10 Thomas: I hope they notice us. Couldn't give a shit one way or or the other.

1:06:13 Lydia: I want them to sue us because I want to battle.

1:06:14 Thomas: I could not care less about

1:06:16 Lydia: I want, well, I just want, I wanna be in the arena.

1:06:16 Thomas: That guy's opinion on anything. Okay.

1:06:21 Lydia: Not on their show. I wanna be in an actual arena.

1:06:20 Matt: Don't know if you heard the teddy roosevelt quote but only men can be in the arena so that's that's actually the quote

1:06:27 Lydia: Well, that's why they have the token one woman in most of it and she says nothing the entire time.

1:06:30 Matt: That's true yeah that's right yeah

1:06:31 Lydia: So, you know.

1:06:33 Matt: Well and maybe if we're lucky we'll get bad bad bad legal tapes where they can critique our legal takes of their legal takes just

1:06:38 Lydia: I like it.

1:06:39 Thomas: Bad, bad legal. Thanks. I love it. Can we just borrow that last part? If I just took the last part of the jingle and doubled the bad, that's fair. That's right. Bad bad legal takes. Takes all right I'll do it probably hear it in post that's not hard all right well that's been vapid response uh I can't believe that flew by uh thanks so much for listening everybody thanks matt for going through those bad legal bad bad legal takes and uh lydia well I'm glad you were back uh we needed you couldn't do it without you never leave again all right we'll see yeah anyway lydia's off next week uh we'll We'll see everyone for Rapid Response Friday.

1:06:50 Matt: Fair use yeah yeah let's do it all

1:07:06 Lydia: Do it. Thank you. Cannot promise that.

1:07:21 Matt: Right later that'll

1:07:26 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 slash law. Contact us through Patreon or openarguments at gmail .com. Make sure to follow our blue sky at OpenArgs. But most of all, please share the show. Thanks for listening.