Latest / Serious Trouble / Kennedy, Centered

Transcript

Kennedy, Centered · Serious Trouble

• 0:00
  [music]
• 0:08
  SPEAKER_03: Hi, it's Ken White.
• 0:10
  SPEAKER_03: And it's Josh Barrow.
• 0:11
  SPEAKER_03: And this is Serious Trouble.
• 0:13
  SPEAKER_03: Ken, I want to start this week with a name that's a blast from the past,
• 0:16
  SPEAKER_03: Joe DiGenova,
• 0:17
  SPEAKER_03: which people may remember Joe DiGenova and his wife,
• 0:20
  SPEAKER_03: Victoria Tenzing, who were figures from the Trump one.
• 0:25
  SPEAKER_03: Lawyers were trying to, I guess, you know, investigate the investigators or what have you.
• 0:29
  SPEAKER_03: And until recently, he was doing that in Trump, too.
• 0:31
  SPEAKER_03: He'd been hired as part of this South Florida-based grand jury investigation
• 0:36
  SPEAKER_03: that was supposed to be looking at John Brennan,
• 0:38
  SPEAKER_03: among others, the former CIA director.
• 0:40
  SPEAKER_03: Now he has abruptly resigned,
• 0:42
  SPEAKER_03: having had creative differences with other attorneys in the Trump administration.
• 0:46
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 0:47
  SPEAKER_02: So this was kind of a spinoff of the, you know, the Department of Justice weaponization group.
• 0:53
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 0:54
  SPEAKER_02: And it was particularly aimed apparently at investigating or litigating grievances,
• 1:03
  SPEAKER_02: if you prefer,
• 1:04
  SPEAKER_02: related to the 2016 election and Obama and Russia,
• 1:09
  SPEAKER_02: Russia, Russia, and all that type of thing.
• 1:12
  SPEAKER_02: And it seemed like he was,
• 1:13
  SPEAKER_02: based on his background,
• 1:14
  SPEAKER_02: a good pick if The Department of Justice's aim was to sort of relitigate and dig
• 1:20
  SPEAKER_02: into all these things from a decade ago into who investigated what.
• 1:25
  SPEAKER_02: But apparently there are things that even Joe DiGenova won't do.
• 1:30
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah.
• 1:30
  SPEAKER_03: According to the New York Post,
• 1:31
  SPEAKER_03: there were people in the administration who were upset with him feeling
• 1:35
  SPEAKER_03: that he had been slow rolling the investigation while at the same time giving
• 1:39
  SPEAKER_03: the president unrealistic expectations about how fast it could go.
• 1:42
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah,
• 1:42
  SPEAKER_02: and DeGeneva gave a statement to the press after his resignation where he said,
• 1:49
  SPEAKER_02: if you want indictments and there's no evidence,
• 1:51
  SPEAKER_02: you have an ethical problem,
• 1:53
  SPEAKER_02: which – I mean,
• 1:56
  SPEAKER_02: I would actually say that's a little over the line for what a lawyer should reveal
• 2:00
  SPEAKER_02: about a client.
• 2:02
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah, I was going to say, I mean,
• 2:03
  SPEAKER_03: sometimes,
• 2:03
  SPEAKER_03: you know,
• 2:03
  SPEAKER_03: like obviously Donald Trump is a very unsympathetic client,
• 2:07
  SPEAKER_03: but lawyers still have obligations to their clients.
• 2:09
  SPEAKER_03: And you're like,
• 2:10
  SPEAKER_03: you're not supposed to talk about what a shitty case he was trying
• 2:13
  SPEAKER_03: to have you pursue if you've just resigned, right?
• 2:16
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 2:16
  SPEAKER_02: And even as a Justice Department lawyer,
• 2:19
  SPEAKER_02: I mean, you're generally as a lawyer, when you withdraw, quit.
• 2:24
  SPEAKER_02: There are limits to what you're allowed to say.
• 2:27
  SPEAKER_02: And so even if you're asking a judge for authority to withdraw from a case,
• 2:33
  SPEAKER_02: and generally you can't explicitly say,
• 2:36
  SPEAKER_02: you know,
• 2:37
  SPEAKER_02: my client wants me to do something illegal,
• 2:40
  SPEAKER_02: specifically indict somebody, and I won't.
• 2:43
  SPEAKER_02: You're allowed to say things that hint at it.
• 2:45
  SPEAKER_02: You're allowed to say things like,
• 2:47
  SPEAKER_02: I have a fundamental difference of opinion with my client
• 2:50
  SPEAKER_02: that makes me ethically required to withdraw.
• 2:53
  SPEAKER_02: And you can infer things from that.
• 2:54
  SPEAKER_02: But generally,
• 2:55
  SPEAKER_02: the guidance in the bar is that you are not supposed to just let it all out there.
• 2:59
  SPEAKER_02: But I mean,
• 3:01
  SPEAKER_02: ethical violations,
• 3:02
  SPEAKER_02: Trump administration, it's not exactly top of the headline stuff.
• 3:06
  SPEAKER_02: At the same time, we know this is not just him talking.
• 3:09
  SPEAKER_02: And we know that because There have been a lot of subpoenas
• 3:12
  SPEAKER_02: and other grand jury activity apparently around this investigation and one
• 3:17
  SPEAKER_02: of former CI Director John Brennan's attorneys filed a declaration in one
• 3:23
  SPEAKER_02: of these cases talking about all the talks he'd had with
• 3:27
  SPEAKER_02: the various DOJ people doing this who said
• 3:29
  SPEAKER_02: that there were multiple – Grand jury investigations,
• 3:33
  SPEAKER_02: including a so-called far-reaching investigation in Florida that goes to Mar-a-Lago
• 3:39
  SPEAKER_02: and beyond.
• 3:39
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 3:40
  SPEAKER_02: Into whether or not Donald Trump had his civil rights violated and
• 3:44
  SPEAKER_02: that there were all sorts of investigations into Brennan.
• 3:47
  SPEAKER_02: So it really looks like, you know, they're really trying to cook something up here.
• 3:52
  SPEAKER_02: And given their standard for what they're willing to do that we've seen
• 3:57
  SPEAKER_02: With things like,
• 3:58
  SPEAKER_02: you know, the Comey indictments with seashells and stuff like that.
• 4:02
  SPEAKER_02: It's not a stretch of imagination to think they'd come up with not only some sort of
• 4:09
  SPEAKER_02: So what
• 4:13
  SPEAKER_03: did you make of that filing from Brennan's attorney?
• 4:16
  SPEAKER_03: It said,
• 4:17
  SPEAKER_03: among other things,
• 4:17
  SPEAKER_03: that the government has told Brennan's lawyer that Brennan is a target
• 4:21
  SPEAKER_03: of some narrow investigations about statements that John Brennan made and is
• 4:25
  SPEAKER_03: a subject of this broader investigation into the Mar-a-Lago.
• 4:32
  SPEAKER_03: Those terms, like, they sort of have meanings, is my understanding.
• 4:37
  SPEAKER_02: Well, they have meanings when professional or responsible DOJ employees use them.
• 4:42
  SPEAKER_02: What they mean is that the target is the guy you're trying to indict.
• 4:46
  SPEAKER_02: A subject is someone who is kind of in that person's entourage
• 4:50
  SPEAKER_02: and you think maybe you'll develop evidence for an indictment, maybe not.
• 4:54
  SPEAKER_02: It's certainly within their own possibility.
• 4:56
  SPEAKER_02: And a witness is everybody else.
• 4:58
  SPEAKER_02: So you want to be a witness.
• 5:01
  SPEAKER_02: Between target and the subject,
• 5:02
  SPEAKER_02: you'd rather be a subject, so maybe they'll decide not to go after you.
• 5:05
  SPEAKER_02: But the language,
• 5:06
  SPEAKER_02: if it's used responsibly, certainly means they think that they're developing a case.
• 5:11
  SPEAKER_02: However,
• 5:12
  SPEAKER_02: this administration in particular has not really been using those terms
• 5:16
  SPEAKER_02: with any particular linguistic or legal precision.
• 5:20
  SPEAKER_02: So who knows what it really means?
• 5:22
  SPEAKER_02: What's the reason to file a declaration about this with the court?
• 5:25
  SPEAKER_02: The nominal reason is he's talking to the court about ongoing litigation
• 5:29
  SPEAKER_02: over subpoenas in attempts to limit or block them and letting the court sort
• 5:34
  SPEAKER_02: of know why it's relevant or what the timing is or things like that.
• 5:39
  SPEAKER_02: Realistically,
• 5:40
  SPEAKER_02: I think he dumped it into the public record so that everyone can see the nutty stuff
• 5:44
  SPEAKER_02: that they're up to.
• 5:45
  SPEAKER_03: I see.
• 5:46
  SPEAKER_03: And so, you know, Joe DeGeneva is 81.
• 5:49
  SPEAKER_03: He didn't have a career in dance photography, unlike one of, or I don't know, maybe he did.
• 5:54
  SPEAKER_03: I don't have a full history of Joe DeGeneva.
• 5:56
  SPEAKER_03: Maybe he is a dance photographer.
• 5:57
  SPEAKER_03: But like,
• 5:59
  SPEAKER_03: we've seen this pattern where they need to bring in,
• 6:01
  SPEAKER_03: you know, these weirdo outsiders because the Right.
• 6:05
  SPEAKER_03: And their sense is and probably realistic that Cannon will do absolutely anything for Trump.
• 6:28
  SPEAKER_02: I mean, yeah, they have a nearly endless supply of stooges in Department of Justice.
• 6:34
  SPEAKER_02: They don't necessarily need these outside lunatics.
• 6:37
  SPEAKER_02: That said,
• 6:38
  SPEAKER_02: a lot of their in-house stooges are not necessarily competent or experienced
• 6:43
  SPEAKER_02: at what they do.
• 6:44
  SPEAKER_02: And the benefit of someone like the Genovas,
• 6:45
  SPEAKER_02: he has his long history and he knows things and stuff like that.
• 6:49
  SPEAKER_02: You get someone who got their job out of the Young Republican Club
• 6:55
  SPEAKER_02: from Liberty University,
• 6:57
  SPEAKER_02: not necessarily the best person to run a complicated grand jury investigation.
• 7:01
  SPEAKER_03: Right.
• 7:02
  SPEAKER_03: Well, we'll watch and see what indictments eventually issue out of these investigations, if any.
• 7:08
  SPEAKER_03: Let's talk about the Kennedy Center just because this is fun.
• 7:12
  SPEAKER_03: So the board of the Kennedy Center voted to shut down the building with all
• 7:16
  SPEAKER_03: of these warnings about how the building is dangerous and it's going to fall down.
• 7:18
  SPEAKER_03: And apparently there is a piece of the ceiling that fell off in some theater earlier this year.
• 7:23
  SPEAKER_03: There's been a court that's ordered them not to close,
• 7:25
  SPEAKER_03: although I remain a little bit confused about what it means to instruct
• 7:28
  SPEAKER_03: an arts center to stay open.
• 7:30
  SPEAKER_03: I assume you can't tell them to put on Les Miserables or whatever.
• 7:33
  SPEAKER_03: And then they've also been trying to come up with various ways
• 7:36
  SPEAKER_03: to put Donald Trump's name on the building in spite of a court order blocking them
• 7:40
  SPEAKER_03: from renaming the building for him.
• 7:42
  SPEAKER_03: There's a law that says you can't have other memorials on the Kennedy Center property.
• 7:46
  SPEAKER_03: It has to be just for John F. Kennedy.
• 7:48
  SPEAKER_03: And so they wanted to put up a sign saying that the center had been restored by Donald Trump.
• 7:53
  SPEAKER_03: And Judge Christopher Cooper said that's also impermissible.
• 7:56
  SPEAKER_03: Can you have a memorial to someone who's not dead?
• 7:58
  SPEAKER_03: Is it legally advantageous to Donald Trump that he's living and therefore
• 8:01
  SPEAKER_03: the tacky act of putting his name on a building is not a memorial?
• 8:05
  SPEAKER_02: Well, I don't think the judge appreciates that distinction, Josh.
• 8:08
  SPEAKER_02: So the judge said basically the law says what it says.
• 8:12
  SPEAKER_02: It's not allowed to commemorate or memorialize or endorse or recognize anyone.
• 8:18
  SPEAKER_02: Other than Kennedy,
• 8:19
  SPEAKER_02: you know,
• 8:20
  SPEAKER_02: if you didn't bang Marilyn Monroe and try to stage an innovation at Cuba,
• 8:24
  SPEAKER_02: we don't want your name on this thing.
• 8:25
  SPEAKER_02: Don't give Trump any ideas, Ken.
• 8:27
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 8:29
  SPEAKER_02: And so what the judge says is you're not putting on the restored by Donald Trump
• 8:34
  SPEAKER_02: that you want to do.
• 8:36
  SPEAKER_02: You're not getting around my order by like saying this is
• 8:38
  SPEAKER_02: the Donald Trump memorial sidewalk leading to the Kennedy Center.
• 8:42
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 8:43
  SPEAKER_02: And as for the thing saying,
• 8:45
  SPEAKER_02: you know,
• 8:46
  SPEAKER_02: restored from a generous $100 million donation from the Trump-Kennedy Center fund,
• 8:51
  SPEAKER_02: it's not ripe.
• 8:52
  SPEAKER_02: Once you've donated $100 million,
• 8:53
  SPEAKER_02: come back to me,
• 8:54
  SPEAKER_02: and then I'll say you can't do it,
• 8:56
  SPEAKER_03: basically, is what the judge says.
• 8:57
  SPEAKER_03: But wait,
• 8:57
  SPEAKER_03: hold on about that,
• 8:58
  SPEAKER_03: because, I mean,
• 8:59
  SPEAKER_03: that's a good common sense point that,
• 9:01
  SPEAKER_03: like, he hasn't completed the renovation and quite possibly will never complete it.
• 9:04
  SPEAKER_03: But ordinarily,
• 9:06
  SPEAKER_03: it's not the purview of the Article III courts to make sure
• 9:08
  SPEAKER_03: that every sign that's put up on a government building is factually accurate.
• 9:12
  SPEAKER_03: Now, I went to dictionary.com to look up memorial,
• 9:16
  SPEAKER_03: and it noted that a memorial can commemorate an event in addition to commemorating
• 9:20
  SPEAKER_03: a person.
• 9:20
  SPEAKER_03: So I suppose you could say that a sign that says it was renovated
• 9:24
  SPEAKER_03: by Donald Trump commemorates the event of the renovation,
• 9:26
  SPEAKER_03: and that's prohibited by the law.
• 9:28
  SPEAKER_03: But I assume – I wouldn't think the court can step in and just say you can't put up
• 9:32
  SPEAKER_03: the sign up because what it says is incorrect.
• 9:34
  SPEAKER_03: Like why is that the court's purview?
• 9:35
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah.
• 9:36
  SPEAKER_02: That's not what the judge said.
• 9:37
  SPEAKER_02: What the judge said is that I'm not going to rule on your request yet to forbid that.
• 9:42
  SPEAKER_03: Oh, okay.
• 9:43
  SPEAKER_03: I see.
• 9:43
  SPEAKER_02: Because they haven't tried it yet because he hasn't made the $100 million donation yet.
• 9:48
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah.
• 9:48
  SPEAKER_02: If he makes $100 million donation and they propose to put it up, then come back to me.
• 9:53
  SPEAKER_03: Because then it'll be ripe.
• 9:54
  SPEAKER_03: But it's pretty clear which way.
• 9:55
  SPEAKER_02: And the judge basically says words mean things.
• 9:58
  SPEAKER_02: The words in an enabling statute mean things.
• 10:01
  SPEAKER_02: The words in my injunction mean things.
• 10:03
  SPEAKER_02: So no.
• 10:04
  SPEAKER_02: So all of this is amusing,
• 10:06
  SPEAKER_02: but not as amusing as Donald Trump calling into a board meeting of
• 10:11
  SPEAKER_02: the Kennedy Center board and yelling at them and yelling particularly
• 10:15
  SPEAKER_02: at Joyce Beattie.
• 10:17
  SPEAKER_03: She's the congresswoman from Ohio who is a Democrat on the Kennedy Center board.
• 10:21
  SPEAKER_02: She's the one who brought this case.
• 10:23
  SPEAKER_02: She's the plaintiff in this case preventing these changes.
• 10:27
  SPEAKER_02: And she gave as good as she got.
• 10:29
  SPEAKER_02: She was telling him,
• 10:30
  SPEAKER_02: you know,
• 10:31
  SPEAKER_02: you got more bankruptcies than anyone in this room combined and getting off a lot
• 10:35
  SPEAKER_02: of good shots on him in a way that apparently – Drove him absolutely bonkers
• 10:40
  SPEAKER_02: because, you know, he's a little sensitive
• 10:42
  SPEAKER_03: to criticism.
• 10:43
  SPEAKER_03: Can't he just fire her from the board?
• 10:44
  SPEAKER_03: I mean, I know that, like, we have the large adult son exception for the Federal Reserve.
• 10:48
  SPEAKER_03: But I thought generally the Supreme Court basically said,
• 10:50
  SPEAKER_03: you know, unless you're a Fed governor, the president can fire you.
• 10:53
  SPEAKER_02: But only if it's the president who's the one who appoints you.
• 10:56
  SPEAKER_02: Only if it's an executive appointment.
• 10:58
  SPEAKER_02: So if it's a congressional appointment or another mechanism.
• 11:01
  SPEAKER_02: Then no.
• 11:02
  SPEAKER_02: I mean he may try.
• 11:03
  SPEAKER_02: He may come up with something that says like to the extent anyone other than
• 11:07
  SPEAKER_02: the president is appointing people to the Kennedy senator board.
• 11:10
  SPEAKER_02: It's unconstitutional.
• 11:11
  SPEAKER_02: Therefore, I can fire you.
• 11:12
  SPEAKER_02: Therefore, you're fired.
• 11:14
  SPEAKER_02: And we'll talk about another story where they're doing something like that.
• 11:17
  SPEAKER_02: But basically, no, that's why not.
• 11:21
  SPEAKER_03: And speaking of that,
• 11:23
  SPEAKER_03: we have an immigration judge in San Francisco who's suing the attorney general
• 11:26
  SPEAKER_03: over her firing.
• 11:27
  SPEAKER_03: And so listeners will remember immigration judges are kind of fake judges.
• 11:31
  SPEAKER_03: They're not Article III judges.
• 11:32
  SPEAKER_03: They ultimately work for the Department of Justice.
• 11:35
  SPEAKER_03: And so they don't have the same independence that a judge in a real court would have.
• 11:39
  SPEAKER_03: But I guess there's an argument about exactly how not independent they can be.
• 11:43
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 11:43
  SPEAKER_02: So Chloe Dillon is an immigration judge in San Francisco.
• 11:47
  SPEAKER_02: And like you said,
• 11:49
  SPEAKER_02: immigration judges are actually Department of Justice employees who are made judges.
• 11:55
  SPEAKER_02: They're kind of like administrative judges in that sense.
• 11:57
  SPEAKER_02: They're very like administrative judges.
• 11:59
  SPEAKER_02: And frequently they used to be the week before advocating on behalf of
• 12:03
  SPEAKER_02: the government to deport people.
• 12:06
  SPEAKER_02: But they traditionally have held some measure of independence
• 12:12
  SPEAKER_02: that is somewhat norm-based as opposed to strictly legal.
• 12:16
  SPEAKER_02: But Chloe Dillon was told to do some things she didn't agree with.
• 12:19
  SPEAKER_02: She was told by a supervisor they were to automatically grant all requests from
• 12:24
  SPEAKER_02: the government to change venue of cases to move cases.
• 12:28
  SPEAKER_02: She challenged the legality of that.
• 12:30
  SPEAKER_02: She challenged whether or not ICE was acting lawfully.
• 12:35
  SPEAKER_02: And so the Department of Justice fired her summarily pursuant to,
• 12:41
  SPEAKER_02: and this is quoting Article 2 of the Constitution,
• 12:44
  SPEAKER_02: which you might recall is sort of a dodge that they've used before in firing AUSAs
• 12:48
  SPEAKER_02: and things like that.
• 12:49
  SPEAKER_02: It's basically a statement that— Whatever the law purports to say,
• 12:53
  SPEAKER_02: the Constitution means we can fire whoever we want.
• 12:55
  SPEAKER_03: Well, is that a dodge so much as it is an aggressive constitutional theory of
• 12:59
  SPEAKER_03: the unitary executive?
• 13:00
  SPEAKER_02: Well, it's a dodge of sort of what the law and procedure say.
• 13:03
  SPEAKER_02: But you're right.
• 13:04
  SPEAKER_02: It's basically saying that, well,
• 13:06
  SPEAKER_02: the Constitution— That necessarily means we can do it and we don't care what
• 13:09
  SPEAKER_02: the law says if the law is contrary to the Constitution.
• 13:13
  SPEAKER_02: So she has sued Todd Blanch and her theories are basically that she was fired
• 13:18
  SPEAKER_02: for theories that she was retaliated against
• 13:21
  SPEAKER_02: for exercising her First Amendment rights because she's a whistleblower,
• 13:25
  SPEAKER_02: that this was a violation of the law requiring – Particular procedures to go through
• 13:31
  SPEAKER_02: to fire her,
• 13:32
  SPEAKER_02: including that basically Todd Blanch himself decided under relevant law.
• 13:38
  SPEAKER_02: And so that's what she's going with.
• 13:41
  SPEAKER_02: I think she's got some problems here.
• 13:44
  SPEAKER_02: One is that for First Amendment retaliation, you have to be speaking as a private citizen.
• 13:49
  SPEAKER_02: So in general,
• 13:50
  SPEAKER_02: if you're speaking in your official capacity— You don't have protection
• 13:54
  SPEAKER_02: from being fired from your government job.
• 13:57
  SPEAKER_02: So, you know,
• 13:58
  SPEAKER_02: if the press secretary goes out during a press conference and says,
• 14:01
  SPEAKER_02: you know, can you believe this asshole?
• 14:03
  SPEAKER_02: You know, you can fire them for that.
• 14:05
  SPEAKER_02: Similarly,
• 14:06
  SPEAKER_02: I think probably immigration judges who are doing functions that are part
• 14:10
  SPEAKER_02: of their immigration judge function,
• 14:12
  SPEAKER_02: which probably includes communicating with their supervisors
• 14:15
  SPEAKER_02: about their direct orders and reporting things that are happening in their cases.
• 14:21
  SPEAKER_02: There's a pretty good argument that that's all on-the-job speech,
• 14:25
  SPEAKER_02: part of their function,
• 14:26
  SPEAKER_02: and therefore not protected by the First Amendment for these purposes.
• 14:30
  SPEAKER_02: But some of the other stuff,
• 14:31
  SPEAKER_02: the whistleblowing and the claim that they're basically ignoring
• 14:36
  SPEAKER_02: the statutory procedure for firing her, she probably has a case on.
• 14:40
  SPEAKER_02: But I think it's ultimately an uphill battle just because – For all the nominal idea
• 14:47
  SPEAKER_02: that immigration judges are independent,
• 14:49
  SPEAKER_02: they're really Department of Justice employees,
• 14:51
  SPEAKER_02: and there probably is a fairly broad Meanwhile,
• 14:55
  SPEAKER_02: Ahmoud Khalil,
• 14:56
  SPEAKER_02: one of the pro-Palestinian activists who has faced Department of Justice efforts
• 15:00
  SPEAKER_02: against him due to his activities at Columbia University, he's suing Columbia.
• 15:16
  SPEAKER_03: Saying that Colombia failed to prevent harassment
• 15:19
  SPEAKER_03: of pro-Palestinian activists like himself under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
• 15:25
  SPEAKER_03: This is interesting for a few reasons,
• 15:26
  SPEAKER_03: one of which is that universities have also been sued by Jewish students.
• 15:31
  SPEAKER_03: And so now he's saying similarly that the choices that they made led to discrimination.
• 15:34
  SPEAKER_03: On what grounds is he alleging here?
• 15:36
  SPEAKER_03: Is it national origin?
• 15:38
  SPEAKER_03: Right, national origin and religion, I believe.
• 15:39
  SPEAKER_03: So yeah, he's bringing Title VI claims here.
• 15:56
  SPEAKER_02: And we've seen that Title VI,
• 15:57
  SPEAKER_02: which deals with education programs that receive federal funding,
• 16:01
  SPEAKER_02: remember that was used by the administration against Harvard.
• 16:04
  SPEAKER_02: It's been used in some of the cases against universities by Jewish and Israeli students.
• 16:10
  SPEAKER_02: And you're right, he's basically using the same playbook.
• 16:14
  SPEAKER_02: And his argument is that Columbia basically engaged in a campaign against
• 16:19
  SPEAKER_02: the Palestinian students,
• 16:22
  SPEAKER_02: pro-Palestinian students and protesters,
• 16:25
  SPEAKER_02: you know, they wouldn't allow his organization to operate.
• 16:31
  SPEAKER_02: They were allowing harassment, restricting campus activities.
• 16:36
  SPEAKER_02: A lot about how Colombia responded to the protests that were very controversial
• 16:41
  SPEAKER_02: a few years ago after October 7th.
• 16:44
  SPEAKER_02: And really even some suggestions that they collaborated or collaborated.
• 16:48
  SPEAKER_02: Promoted the administration's illegal detention of him and activity against him.
• 16:53
  SPEAKER_02: So it's a big swing.
• 16:55
  SPEAKER_02: Now, a lot of these cases have not succeeded for the students bringing them when they have been.
• 17:02
  SPEAKER_02: I suspect this is one of those cases where we say, well, it's really about the discovery.
• 17:32
  SPEAKER_02: And the interactions with the administration and all its demands about what they do
• 17:35
  SPEAKER_02: about protesters and so forth.
• 17:38
  SPEAKER_02: The question will be whether it can survive initial pleading stage to get into that discovery.
• 17:43
  SPEAKER_02: So this array of lawsuits against universities claiming
• 17:49
  SPEAKER_02: that they're favoring some people over others in connection with protests,
• 17:53
  SPEAKER_02: I think is ultimately going to generate some law on the circuit,
• 17:56
  SPEAKER_02: maybe the Supreme Court level.
• 17:57
  SPEAKER_02: Let's sort of clarify this a little bit.
• 17:59
  SPEAKER_02: But Title VI – He does not have the same sort of vigorous,
• 18:04
  SPEAKER_02: broad array of tools that things like Title VII that deals with employment
• 18:09
  SPEAKER_02: and public has.
• 18:11
  SPEAKER_02: So I think it's going to be a bit of an uphill fight for him.
• 18:15
  SPEAKER_02: But Khalil has filed a bunch of lawsuits.
• 18:18
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 18:18
  SPEAKER_02: And so he's no newcomer to the litigation.
• 18:21
  SPEAKER_02: So he knows what he's doing here.
• 18:23
  SPEAKER_03: I mean,
• 18:23
  SPEAKER_03: this situation reminds me somewhat of the situation that universities have faced in
• 18:27
  SPEAKER_03: the last decade and a half with Title IX having to do with investigations
• 18:30
  SPEAKER_03: of sexual misconduct,
• 18:31
  SPEAKER_03: where they've been sued both by accusers and by defendants in proceedings
• 18:37
  SPEAKER_03: at universities saying that they're wrong.
• 18:38
  SPEAKER_03: Right.
• 19:07
  SPEAKER_02: I think you're right.
• 19:08
  SPEAKER_02: I think that as hard as it is these days to feel sympathy for the universities
• 19:12
  SPEAKER_02: when they do not seem to be standing up particularly well
• 19:15
  SPEAKER_02: against administration pressure,
• 19:17
  SPEAKER_02: it does seem that they're kind of in a damned as they do,
• 19:19
  SPEAKER_02: damned if they don't situation where whatever they do,
• 19:22
  SPEAKER_02: they're going to be accused and sued by one side or the other.
• 19:25
  SPEAKER_02: And your parallel to Title IX is exactly right.
• 19:27
  SPEAKER_02: You have seen cases where universities have been sued either for not investigating
• 19:34
  SPEAKER_02: or I
• 19:40
  SPEAKER_02: actually handled a case where someone sued the victim in
• 19:43
  SPEAKER_02: a Title IX investigation.
• 19:44
  SPEAKER_02: The perpetrator sued the victim and ultimately lost.
• 19:50
  SPEAKER_02: Ironically,
• 19:52
  SPEAKER_02: the victim who was sued was represented by the current head of
• 19:55
  SPEAKER_02: the Civil Rights Division who seems to have taken –
• 20:02
  SPEAKER_03: Meanwhile,
• 20:02
  SPEAKER_03: there's some ICE pushback that we're seeing in various courts having to do
• 20:07
  SPEAKER_03: with protesters or critics who ICE was trying to use its official powers
• 20:12
  SPEAKER_03: to push back on and the courts saying, no, you can't do that.
• 20:16
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 20:16
  SPEAKER_02: There's been two decisions just in the last couple of weeks that are interesting.
• 20:21
  SPEAKER_02: One of them in a case litigated by FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
• 20:27
  SPEAKER_02: And these both have basically the situation.
• 20:31
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 20:51
  SPEAKER_02: He posted something basically saying the acting director,
• 20:54
  SPEAKER_02: Todd Lyons,
• 20:55
  SPEAKER_02: was an infamous Nazi and a sad, despised man and basically a long rant against him.
• 21:00
  SPEAKER_02: This is after the ICE shootings in Minnesota.
• 21:06
  SPEAKER_02: And ICE delivers something called a warning notice to him that threatens him
• 21:10
  SPEAKER_02: with prosecution if he doesn't shut up.
• 21:11
  SPEAKER_02: Now, the warning notice is not actually a thing.
• 21:14
  SPEAKER_02: I mean, it's made up.
• 21:15
  SPEAKER_02: It's not a real thing.
• 21:19
  SPEAKER_02: So he took him to court and the court said, well,
• 21:22
  SPEAKER_02: I can't order them not to investigate you because they now say they're not and it's
• 21:26
  SPEAKER_02: over and they didn't mean it.
• 21:27
  SPEAKER_02: But I can absolutely do an injunction saying that this warning notice is bullshit.
• 21:32
  SPEAKER_02: It's not a thing.
• 21:33
  SPEAKER_02: And I enjoin them from enforcing it against you.
• 21:36
  SPEAKER_02: Meanwhile,
• 21:37
  SPEAKER_02: in Ohio,
• 21:37
  SPEAKER_02: there's a different guy,
• 21:38
  SPEAKER_02: Sean Moorman,
• 21:40
  SPEAKER_02: who's what's called an ice watcher,
• 21:42
  SPEAKER_02: which means he sort of follows ice around town and puts stuff out on social media
• 21:47
  SPEAKER_02: about where they are and what they're doing.
• 21:49
  SPEAKER_02: And ice people didn't like that and started going to his house and videotaping him
• 21:53
  SPEAKER_02: and threatening him and trying to intimidate him.
• 21:56
  SPEAKER_02: And once again,
• 21:58
  SPEAKER_02: a court issued a Injunction saying this was First Amendment retaliation
• 22:04
  SPEAKER_02: and threats based on protected speech.
• 22:06
  SPEAKER_02: The courts have long said that citizens can videotape and watch what
• 22:09
  SPEAKER_02: the government is doing in public.
• 22:12
  SPEAKER_02: Rather comically,
• 22:14
  SPEAKER_02: ICE tried to evade this by saying,
• 22:16
  SPEAKER_02: well, we move the guys out of this jurisdiction so they can't bother him anymore.
• 22:19
  SPEAKER_02: So it's moot.
• 22:20
  SPEAKER_02: So you shouldn't issue an injunction, which is not exactly the most muscular thing.
• 22:25
  SPEAKER_02: We were right to begin with response ICE could give.
• 22:28
  SPEAKER_03: Is that not good enough, though, to avoid an injunction?
• 22:30
  SPEAKER_03: I mean, we've talked a few times about how, like,
• 22:32
  SPEAKER_03: you know, to get an injunction about future behavior, it has to be likely to happen.
• 22:36
  SPEAKER_03: It's not just that the government violated your rights in the past, I thought.
• 22:40
  SPEAKER_02: It's true,
• 22:41
  SPEAKER_02: but I mean,
• 22:41
  SPEAKER_02: the judge has discretion in interpreting the facts to determine whether
• 22:47
  SPEAKER_02: or not they suggest there is an ongoing harm.
• 22:50
  SPEAKER_02: So if ICE is basically...
• 22:52
  SPEAKER_02: Allowing its agents to do this stuff
• 22:55
  SPEAKER_02: and only very hastily moving them once they get caught,
• 22:58
  SPEAKER_02: then a reasonable inference from that is that it could continue to happen with
• 23:02
  SPEAKER_02: the ICE agents that are still there.
• 23:04
  SPEAKER_02: That the rest of the people who are still in town aren't all sweetness and light
• 23:07
  SPEAKER_02: who are going to tolerate First Amendment activity.
• 23:10
  SPEAKER_02: So I think that it's – it is not a good argument for a defendant to make.
• 23:17
  SPEAKER_02: That's basically,
• 23:18
  SPEAKER_02: yeah, we did it, but we moved those guys and you can totally trust our other guys.
• 23:22
  SPEAKER_03: It's not a great argument.
• 23:23
  SPEAKER_03: I mean, is this sort of in the presumption of regularity box of things
• 23:26
  SPEAKER_03: that specific government employees are accused of having done something and
• 23:30
  SPEAKER_03: the court is generally predisposed to believe that the government is trying
• 23:33
  SPEAKER_03: to comply with the court's orders,
• 23:35
  SPEAKER_03: that it would be more amenable toward a resolution that says,
• 23:39
  SPEAKER_03: well, those specific guys are gone?
• 23:40
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 23:41
  SPEAKER_02: Yes, exactly.
• 23:41
  SPEAKER_02: So I think in 2020 or so,
• 23:44
  SPEAKER_02: an argument that these were rogue actors and we've dealt with it
• 23:48
  SPEAKER_02: and it won't happen anymore is something a court might listen to.
• 23:51
  SPEAKER_02: In 2026,
• 23:53
  SPEAKER_02: a court is really looking at that with extreme skepticism and not accepting
• 23:59
  SPEAKER_02: that these are rogue actors.
• 24:01
  SPEAKER_02: There's so much stuff in the news about how ICE agents act that
• 24:05
  SPEAKER_02: the court is more thinking it's a pervasive problem and I have to issue
• 24:08
  SPEAKER_02: an injunction or else it's going to keep happening.
• 24:11
  SPEAKER_03: We talked about how if you're an immigration judge and you talk to your boss
• 24:14
  SPEAKER_03: about how you wish to handle immigration cases before you,
• 24:16
  SPEAKER_03: that sounds like workplace speech where you may not have a First Amendment right
• 24:20
  SPEAKER_03: to say what's on your mind.
• 24:22
  SPEAKER_03: Some other government employees,
• 24:23
  SPEAKER_03: a substantial number of them have had these cases where they said things
• 24:27
  SPEAKER_03: about Charlie Kirk that were critical in the immediate aftermath of his death.
• 24:31
  SPEAKER_03: And they were retaliated against, often fired for having done that.
• 24:34
  SPEAKER_03: And they keep winning.
• 24:36
  SPEAKER_03: Right.
• 24:37
  SPEAKER_03: Because that is not speech about their jobs.
• 24:41
  SPEAKER_02: It is not.
• 24:41
  SPEAKER_02: And a lot of them have been teachers or professors.
• 24:47
  SPEAKER_02: Many of them have just been random government employees.
• 24:51
  SPEAKER_02: Many of them have been fired or disciplined.
• 24:53
  SPEAKER_02: Some people have been arrested.
• 24:55
  SPEAKER_02: And they have a really good success record in terms of suing the government agencies
• 25:00
  SPEAKER_02: that fire them So, a recent example is a guy named Peter Suters.
• 25:17
  SPEAKER_02: So he's not actually a government employee, but he is –
• 25:36
  SPEAKER_02: Basically,
• 25:36
  SPEAKER_02: the idea is the government caused him to be fired and
• 25:40
  SPEAKER_02: the government's initial defense that they just lost was this claim.
• 25:44
  SPEAKER_02: Well, it actually goes to federal contracting and federal employment.
• 25:48
  SPEAKER_02: So they should be in the court of federal claims,
• 25:50
  SPEAKER_02: you know, which we've only talked about when absolutely forced to.
• 25:55
  SPEAKER_02: And the judge says no,
• 25:56
  SPEAKER_02: because really what he's suing to vindicate is not a contractual right,
• 26:02
  SPEAKER_02: but a pre-existing First Amendment right.
• 26:05
  SPEAKER_02: So it's going to keep chugging along in the federal district court where he's going
• 26:12
  SPEAKER_02: to have to show the elements.
• 26:14
  SPEAKER_02: And so for these 1983 cases about retaliation firing,
• 26:20
  SPEAKER_02: the employee has to show that they were speaking on an issue of public interest.
• 26:25
  SPEAKER_02: So it can't be something purely private,
• 26:27
  SPEAKER_02: you know, like,
• 26:28
  SPEAKER_02: you know,
• 26:28
  SPEAKER_02: Bernice in accounting is an asshole who keeps microwaving fish
• 26:33
  SPEAKER_02: during lunch break is not an issue of public interest.
• 26:35
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 26:36
  SPEAKER_02: But, you know,
• 26:36
  SPEAKER_02: something like Charlie Kirk is absolutely an issue of public interest and they have
• 26:40
  SPEAKER_02: to be speaking as a private citizen.
• 26:42
  SPEAKER_02: So it can't be on the job speech.
• 26:46
  SPEAKER_02: And the fuzzy area there is,
• 26:48
  SPEAKER_02: you know,
• 26:48
  SPEAKER_02: for college professors,
• 26:50
  SPEAKER_02: that may not be a thing because college professors have generally broader
• 26:54
  SPEAKER_02: The thing is,
• 26:55
  SPEAKER_02: all these firings and disciplines and arrests and things like that for speech
• 26:57
  SPEAKER_02: about Charlie Kirk just show really bad judgment.
• 27:00
  SPEAKER_02: They show sort of
• 27:15
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 27:40
  SPEAKER_03: We have a really strange case this week with some legal issues
• 27:44
  SPEAKER_03: that I don't think we've ever discussed before on this show.
• 27:48
  SPEAKER_03: It's a case about Lufthansa,
• 27:50
  SPEAKER_03: the German airline,
• 27:52
  SPEAKER_03: which is being sued by a married couple in the state of California.
• 27:55
  SPEAKER_03: This is a same sex married couple,
• 27:57
  SPEAKER_03: an American and a Saudi who had been resident in Saudi Arabia
• 28:01
  SPEAKER_03: and they had not disclosed their marital status in Saudi Arabia
• 28:04
  SPEAKER_03: because homosexual relations are illegal there.
• 28:07
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah.
• 28:22
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah.
• 28:42
  SPEAKER_03: Obviously, a very distressing situation for them.
• 28:44
  SPEAKER_03: What's interesting to me is that they're in a California court suing Lufthansa,
• 28:48
  SPEAKER_03: a German airline, under California law for something that they did in Saudi Arabia.
• 28:54
  SPEAKER_03: There's a number of torts they allege here,
• 28:55
  SPEAKER_03: including disclosure of private facts, breach of contract.
• 28:58
  SPEAKER_03: Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• 29:01
  SPEAKER_03: And so I guess,
• 29:01
  SPEAKER_03: you know,
• 29:01
  SPEAKER_03: before we get into the specific issues there,
• 29:04
  SPEAKER_03: does it look odd to you that this is a matter that a panel
• 29:07
  SPEAKER_03: the Ninth Circuit says this is an appropriate matter to be considered
• 29:10
  SPEAKER_03: in federal court in California?
• 29:13
  SPEAKER_02: Not particularly.
• 29:14
  SPEAKER_02: And that was the issue on appeal.
• 29:16
  SPEAKER_02: So this got dismissed by the district court for lack of personal jurisdiction on
• 29:19
  SPEAKER_02: the case over Lufthansa.
• 29:21
  SPEAKER_02: But the Ninth Circuit's position is, look,
• 29:23
  SPEAKER_02: Lufthansa contracted with this couple to take them From Saudi Arabia to California,
• 29:30
  SPEAKER_02: to deposit them in California.
• 29:32
  SPEAKER_02: That is a contract that is,
• 29:34
  SPEAKER_02: you know, to be carried out in part in California, terminated in California.
• 29:40
  SPEAKER_02: It's a contract that touches California and,
• 29:43
  SPEAKER_02: you know, basically takes advantage of California as a business forum.
• 29:48
  SPEAKER_02: And so based on that...
• 29:50
  SPEAKER_02: It's both the specifics.
• 29:52
  SPEAKER_02: Remember, we talked about how jurisdiction can be general or specific.
• 29:56
  SPEAKER_02: That is specific contact with California for purposes of this claim,
• 30:00
  SPEAKER_02: because the claim is in the course of providing these contracted services
• 30:03
  SPEAKER_02: that terminate in California,
• 30:05
  SPEAKER_02: they did these things that could very plausibly get these people killed
• 30:08
  SPEAKER_02: in Saudi Arabia.
• 30:10
  SPEAKER_02: So Lufthansa is going to have to defend the case in California.
• 30:17
  SPEAKER_02: I don't think it's I mean, I'm a little surprised that the Ninth Circuit had to do this.
• 30:20
  SPEAKER_02: I don't think it seems to me to be a particularly close call because if you're doing
• 30:25
  SPEAKER_02: a contract that's going to be carried out in part in California,
• 30:28
  SPEAKER_02: then that's very typical for jurisdiction here.
• 30:30
  SPEAKER_02: Now, there may be arguments that they could make about how it's not
• 30:34
  SPEAKER_02: the most convenient forum or something like that, but that's separate.
• 30:37
  SPEAKER_02: Jurisdiction is pretty clearly here,
• 30:41
  SPEAKER_02: which is why I guess in theory in 1983 – After there was some unpleasantness about
• 30:46
  SPEAKER_02: whether or not I could bring a flail and a broadsword onto a Lufthansa flight
• 30:49
  SPEAKER_02: from
• 30:50
  SPEAKER_03: Germany to California, I could have sued
• 30:53
  SPEAKER_02: them here, more like my dad could.
• 30:54
  SPEAKER_03: But we resolved that.
• 30:57
  SPEAKER_03: Then there's some other claims that Lufthansa makes that I'm wondering what you think about.
• 31:00
  SPEAKER_03: One is that a marriage is a matter of public record,
• 31:04
  SPEAKER_03: and therefore it can't be a disclosure of private facts since anyone,
• 31:07
  SPEAKER_03: I guess,
• 31:07
  SPEAKER_03: could have gone to the state of California and inquired whether they were married.
• 31:11
  SPEAKER_03: Which like, you know, they would have been unlikely to learn about that in Saudi Arabia.
• 31:14
  SPEAKER_03: The airline's not a medical provider under HIPAA.
• 31:18
  SPEAKER_03: Do they have a duty to like not tell people you're married if they know you're married?
• 31:22
  SPEAKER_03: Probably not.
• 31:22
  SPEAKER_03: I think that's probably one of the weaker claims that the couple has.
• 31:26
  SPEAKER_02: And the breach of contract is going to depend on the terms of the contract and
• 31:29
  SPEAKER_02: whether the contract basically says we're going to designate you
• 31:34
  SPEAKER_02: the way you've chosen to be designated in these papers and that type of thing.
• 31:38
  SPEAKER_02: So Yeah,
• 31:38
  SPEAKER_02: I don't think that's the couple's strongest argument because it is a matter
• 31:42
  SPEAKER_02: of public record.
• 31:43
  SPEAKER_02: It does seem as if Lufthansa did something gratuitous that put them at risk.
• 31:49
  SPEAKER_02: And to be fair,
• 31:50
  SPEAKER_02: it seems as if this is the Saudi Lufthansa employee
• 31:54
  SPEAKER_02: in Saudi Arabia who's doing this.
• 31:56
  SPEAKER_02: And as soon as they got on the plane and got the hell out of Saudi Arabia,
• 31:59
  SPEAKER_02: every other Lufthansa employee in Europe and America was absolutely appalled
• 32:03
  SPEAKER_02: and horrified and supporting them in this.
• 32:06
  SPEAKER_03: But I mean that part doesn't surprise me at all
• 32:09
  SPEAKER_03: that there would be liability attaching to Lufthansa.
• 32:11
  SPEAKER_03: I mean like, oh, that was our idiot employee.
• 32:13
  SPEAKER_03: Like you're generally still liable for the things that they do under your auspices.
• 32:17
  SPEAKER_02: Absolutely.
• 32:18
  SPEAKER_02: I'm just saying it wouldn't be fair to paint all of Lufthansa as being this homophobic assholes.
• 32:23
  SPEAKER_02: It was at least just some of them in Saudi Arabia who were.
• 32:25
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah.
• 32:26
  SPEAKER_03: And then the final argument that like feels a little bit gross but I understand as
• 32:31
  SPEAKER_03: a legal matter why Lufthansa would make it is that – Saudi Arabia has an interest
• 32:35
  SPEAKER_03: in promoting its own public policy and enforcing its own laws.
• 32:38
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 32:38
  SPEAKER_03: And therefore that like you can't have a California restriction that I guess goes
• 32:43
  SPEAKER_03: against the public policy of Saudi Arabia when applied to an act in Saudi Arabia.
• 32:47
  SPEAKER_02: Well, but Lufthansa can contract to do things.
• 32:51
  SPEAKER_02: And if it breaks that contract,
• 32:52
  SPEAKER_02: it can't say, oh, well,
• 32:53
  SPEAKER_02: the contract we offered you was void in Saudi Arabia, so we can't be held to it.
• 32:58
  SPEAKER_02: And California also has an interest that its citizens,
• 33:01
  SPEAKER_02: if So I think it's a mixed bag, that argument for Lufthansa.
• 33:19
  SPEAKER_03: We have a couple of Kash Patel-related stories.
• 33:21
  SPEAKER_03: I think listeners can guess what one of these is going to be if they saw some clips
• 33:26
  SPEAKER_03: of Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana,
• 33:28
  SPEAKER_03: the aw shuck Southerner who in fact was a Rhodes Scholar.
• 33:31
  SPEAKER_03: Hey, Sara, can you play that clip for us, please?
• 33:36
  SPEAKER_01: What about the bestiality?
• 33:39
  SPEAKER_00: Same thing because the regs wrote it up in a fashion before I arrived
• 33:43
  SPEAKER_00: that addressed prostitution, bestiality, and trafficking.
• 33:46
  SPEAKER_00: They were there before I got there.
• 33:48
  SPEAKER_01: Tell me what
• 33:49
  SPEAKER_01: it said before.
• 33:50
  SPEAKER_00: It automatically disqualified any individual who participated on either side of it.
• 33:56
  SPEAKER_00: Obviously, we are never going to hire the criminals.
• 33:58
  SPEAKER_00: This side of what?
• 33:59
  SPEAKER_01: The bestiality?
• 34:00
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 34:01
  SPEAKER_01: So you disqualified the animal?
• 34:05
  SPEAKER_00: Well, I don't think we have great canines, but we're not going to disqualify them.
• 34:08
  SPEAKER_01: I understand.
• 34:10
  SPEAKER_03: And so this was in the news because there was a relaxation of certain recruiting requirements.
• 34:14
  SPEAKER_03: You know, the FBI has fired a lot of people.
• 34:16
  SPEAKER_03: It needs to find ways to hire more agents.
• 34:18
  SPEAKER_03: Maybe you need fewer rules about what past conduct people could have engaged in
• 34:21
  SPEAKER_03: and still be an FBI agent.
• 34:23
  SPEAKER_03: And for some reason,
• 34:24
  SPEAKER_03: one of those things is they decided that they would not have
• 34:26
  SPEAKER_03: a categorical prohibition on having engaged in bestiality.
• 34:30
  SPEAKER_03: And so if I understand Kash Patel correctly,
• 34:34
  SPEAKER_03: he seems to be describing a situation where someone is like I don't know what
• 34:39
  SPEAKER_03: at gunpoint or whatever into having sex with a dog and that like,
• 34:43
  SPEAKER_03: you know,
• 34:43
  SPEAKER_03: that that makes you a victim rather than a perpetrator and
• 34:46
  SPEAKER_03: that you therefore can still be an FBI.
• 34:48
  SPEAKER_03: Like, is that is this a thing that's showing up in resumes that they're getting at the FBI?
• 34:52
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah.
• 34:52
  SPEAKER_02: Well, Josh,
• 34:53
  SPEAKER_02: before I answer that,
• 34:53
  SPEAKER_02: I just want to point out,
• 34:54
  SPEAKER_02: I think,
• 34:55
  SPEAKER_02: I mean, Kennedy is sort of, has this courtly Southern gentleman thing going.
• 34:59
  SPEAKER_02: From that clip, I think it went a much more polite not to say, why did you get into bestiality?
• 35:05
  SPEAKER_02: That sounds kind of confrontational.
• 35:07
  SPEAKER_02: I think a better way, a more polite way, how did you get into bestiality?
• 35:10
  SPEAKER_02: You know, because that's conversation.
• 35:13
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 35:13
  SPEAKER_02: That's not an interrogation.
• 35:15
  SPEAKER_02: But that aside,
• 35:17
  SPEAKER_02: I think the answer here is that they just don't,
• 35:21
  SPEAKER_02: This is a very Trump administration thing.
• 35:24
  SPEAKER_02: I think they just put a whole bunch of bullshit into this new policy and someone saw it.
• 35:31
  SPEAKER_02: And the thing about the Trump administration,
• 35:33
  SPEAKER_02: it is incapable of admitting it did something weird or stupid or wrong.
• 35:37
  SPEAKER_02: And so it has to stand up and defend.
• 35:39
  SPEAKER_02: And actually, this is for truth, justice in an American way.
• 35:42
  SPEAKER_02: So Patel is just on the spot coming up with this.
• 35:45
  SPEAKER_02: Well, actually, Maybe people were trafficked into bestiality.
• 35:50
  SPEAKER_02: And, you know, I don't think he specified dogs.
• 35:52
  SPEAKER_02: Josh, it could have been a goat, it could have been a horse.
• 35:54
  SPEAKER_02: I don't know.
• 35:55
  SPEAKER_03: I don't want to prejudge.
• 35:57
  SPEAKER_02: I mean, some people have been speculating,
• 35:58
  SPEAKER_02: oh, I bet this is a reference to like fraternity initiations or something like that.
• 36:03
  SPEAKER_02: And my speculation was,
• 36:04
  SPEAKER_02: you know,
• 36:04
  SPEAKER_02: I bet some senator came to Patel and said,
• 36:07
  SPEAKER_02: hey, I've got this nephew who wants to be in the FBI.
• 36:09
  SPEAKER_02: And Patel says, sure, we could do that.
• 36:11
  SPEAKER_02: No problem.
• 36:11
  SPEAKER_02: Send me his resume.
• 36:12
  SPEAKER_02: And the senator says, well, there's just this one little thing.
• 36:15
  SPEAKER_02: But I don't think it's any of that.
• 36:16
  SPEAKER_03: I think they just – Yeah, because the frat initiation thing makes no sense, right?
• 36:19
  SPEAKER_03: Because like if your pledge master tells you to have sex with an animal, that's still illegal.
• 36:25
  SPEAKER_03: I mean presuming that – I mean bestiality is a state law matter.
• 36:28
  SPEAKER_03: I think it's illegal in every state.
• 36:29
  SPEAKER_03: But like that's not being at gunpoint.
• 36:31
  SPEAKER_03: You still have an obligation not to commit crimes even if some 20-year-old who is
• 36:36
  SPEAKER_03: over you in the frat hierarchy tells you to commit the crimes.
• 36:40
  SPEAKER_02: That's true.
• 36:41
  SPEAKER_02: And I would just say I never joined a frat specifically not to have to engage in
• 36:44
  SPEAKER_02: that type of moral dilemma.
• 36:45
  SPEAKER_02: But I think we're reading too much into it on reflection.
• 36:49
  SPEAKER_02: I think what happened is they wanted to remove stuff to make it – to basically lower
• 36:54
  SPEAKER_02: the bar to become an FBI agent.
• 36:56
  SPEAKER_02: This is sort of the FBI equivalent of when they were advertising for TSA agents on pizza boxes.
• 37:02
  SPEAKER_02: They want to lower the bar.
• 37:03
  SPEAKER_02: They want more people.
• 37:04
  SPEAKER_02: They're removing a bunch of restrictions.
• 37:06
  SPEAKER_02: This was on the list of restrictions.
• 37:09
  SPEAKER_02: And then when asked about it,
• 37:10
  SPEAKER_02: instead of acting like a human and just saying we removed a bunch of restrictions at
• 37:15
  SPEAKER_02: the same time to try to broaden the pool and,
• 37:17
  SPEAKER_02: of course,
• 37:18
  SPEAKER_02: we're going to continue to look at each case and see whether
• 37:21
  SPEAKER_02: the person is morally suitable.
• 37:23
  SPEAKER_02: We just wanted to get rid of a lot of red tape.
• 37:26
  SPEAKER_02: Kash Patel has to be a dick and say, oh, well,
• 37:28
  SPEAKER_02: actually,
• 37:29
  SPEAKER_02: we're preventing people or we're helping the victims,
• 37:33
  SPEAKER_02: the victims of involuntary bestiality because he can't admit he's wrong or that he's
• 37:37
  SPEAKER_02: a buffoon.
• 37:39
  SPEAKER_03: But he does have a little bit of better news this week,
• 37:42
  SPEAKER_03: which has to do with his girlfriend, this country music singer, Alexis Wilkins.
• 37:47
  SPEAKER_02: Who is a human, I want to point out for purposes of the story.
• 37:49
  SPEAKER_03: Yes, yes.
• 37:50
  SPEAKER_02: Human Alexis Wilkins.
• 37:53
  SPEAKER_03: And there's been a lot of news about,
• 37:54
  SPEAKER_03: you know,
• 37:54
  SPEAKER_03: like allegations that he's using FBI resources to like act like a security detail
• 37:59
  SPEAKER_03: for her and various things.
• 38:00
  SPEAKER_03: And that's been a matter of controversy in the media.
• 38:03
  SPEAKER_03: There are also some right wing idiots who have somehow decided that she is a Mossad honeypot.
• 38:09
  SPEAKER_03: And we're making accusations of this sort.
• 38:12
  SPEAKER_03: And she sued and one of them has issued an abject apology.
• 38:15
  SPEAKER_03: This right wing, I guess he's a streamer, Elijah Schaefer, who says that she is not a honeypot.
• 38:24
  SPEAKER_03: And when he said that,
• 38:24
  SPEAKER_03: he was accusing her of something false and he retracts and fully apologizes.
• 38:30
  SPEAKER_03: I'm sorry, Alexis Wilkins.
• 38:31
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, she sued him and she was probably going to win.
• 38:34
  SPEAKER_02: And this is one of the most...
• 38:37
  SPEAKER_02: I'm so sorry.
• 38:51
  SPEAKER_02: I was expecting him to start saying,
• 38:53
  SPEAKER_02: and Donald Trump is the greatest president ever,
• 38:55
  SPEAKER_02: and Kash Patel doesn't get drunk and lock himself in hotel rooms, and like...
• 39:10
  SPEAKER_02: Basically to refute everything that had ever been said bad about Patel or the administration.
• 39:14
  SPEAKER_02: But it just goes to show that, I mean, you know, talk shit, get hit.
• 39:20
  SPEAKER_02: You can actually commit defamation.
• 39:23
  SPEAKER_02: You can get sued.
• 39:24
  SPEAKER_02: You can be in real legal jeopardy over just running your mouth about stuff like that.
• 39:28
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah.
• 39:29
  SPEAKER_03: By the way, we should look.
• 39:30
  SPEAKER_03: We haven't done an update on the Brigitte Macron, Candace Owens litigation in a while.
• 39:34
  SPEAKER_03: Let's see if there's news on that.
• 39:35
  SPEAKER_03: Maybe we can do that next week.
• 39:37
  SPEAKER_02: We should.
• 39:38
  SPEAKER_02: And maybe we could delve,
• 39:39
  SPEAKER_02: if the listeners want to, into whether I should still sue Lufthansa over 1983.
• 39:45
  SPEAKER_03: Ken, I think we can leave that there.
• 39:46
  SPEAKER_02: Thanks for speaking with me, as always.
• 39:48
  SPEAKER_02: Thank you, Josh.
• 39:49
  SPEAKER_03: Serious Trouble is created and produced by Very Serious Media.
• 39:51
  SPEAKER_03: That's me and Sarafay.
• 39:52
  SPEAKER_03: Jennifer Spodek mixed this episode.
• 39:54
  SPEAKER_03: Our theme music is by Joshua Mosher.
• 39:55
  SPEAKER_03: Thanks for listening, and we'll be back with more soon.
• 39:57
  SPEAKER_03: See you next time.