October 7, 2025 • 46 mins
Krystal and Saagar discuss Trump considers Ghislaine pardon, Tim Dillon flames troops in Chicago, Trump DHS shoots US citizen.
CORRECTION: In this segment, Saagar said that Free Press reporter Olivia Reingold had not written a story before. That was incorrect — she has. The earlier comment was made in good faith based on the information available to Saagar at the time. He regrets the error.
Here’s a link to Olivia Reingold’s response, which also includes her public biography at The Free Press: https://x.com/olivia_reingold/status/1976023540110590394?s=46
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot Com. Turning now here to Washington, as we may
have to remind you, the government is still shut down.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Nobody really seems to care. But one of the underrated.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Parts of that government shutdown is that the House is
not swearing in a new member, and apparently that is
part of a scheme to prevent her from voting for
a release of the Epstein files. The Speaker, Mike Johnson,
was pressed on this on Meet the Press, Let's Take
a Listen.
Speaker 4 (00:57):
Representative Grihalva, who won a special election last week in Arizona,
she's yet to be sworn in. I know you're not
in session, but you've sworn in Republicans out of session.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Why not her? Does it have anything to do with
Jeffrey Epstein. Well, the House is.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
Not on the floor doing business this week, but we
will do it immediately early next week, as soon as
everyone returns to town. We have to have everybody here
and we'll swear her in. I congratulate her on her whin.
She's replacing her father who had a long history here,
and she'll be a productive member of Congress.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
We look forward to that.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
We'll look forward to her as a member of Congress,
but just not immediately because of reasons exactly.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
It definitely doesn't have anything to do with Epstein.
Speaker 5 (01:36):
I don't know if that question is gonna fly under
the new Berrier regime.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
A good point. See this is the issue. That's great.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Yeah, we can all look forward to the new CBS
mosad especial over on sixty minutes.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
It's going to be great.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
I's going to put this up here on the screen.
Shall we Some major update from the Supreme Court at
the very least, who rejected Glaine Maxwell's appeal to overturn
her conviction.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
The conviction. She's got to remember.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
The way that Gallaane was fighting this in court is
that because Epstein got his sweetheart deal in two thousand
and seven, part of the non prosecution agreement was that
the government will never prosecute you or any of your
co conspirators. So Glaine argued in court that the government
took back its word. The only reason that any of
us even really know anything about the whole Epstein case
(02:22):
is because that agreement was ruled invalid because they did
not notify the victims of the agreement all. That's all
they had to do, and they never did it. So
a judge struck that down in twenty eighteen. That's part
of the reason that we know anything really about the case,
and a lot of stuff actually came out into the public.
So that has been the heart of Glaine's legal strategy
to get out of this.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Except for except.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
For the new play for a pardon, for a pardon
from Donald Trump, who was asked about this actually in
the Oval office yesterday.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Let's go ahead and play a D four. Let's take
a listen.
Speaker 6 (02:55):
That means our only chance of getting a prison for
huge is that something? Who are we talking about Uh,
you know, I haven't heard the name in so long.
I can say this that i'd have to take a
look at it. I would have to take a look.
Did they reject that?
Speaker 7 (03:13):
What happened?
Speaker 6 (03:15):
I say, well, I'll take a look at it. I'll
speak to I will speak to the DJ. I have
a lot of people have asked me for pardons. I
call him puff Daddy his asp for a pardon. Yeah,
I mean, I'm gonna have to take a look at it,
and I have to ask DJ. I didn't know they
rejected it. I didn't know she was even asking for it.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Frankly, I didn't know any I'm gonna have to ask.
Speaker 5 (03:39):
I haven't I haven't about name, And why don't you
just rule it out?
Speaker 1 (03:41):
I don't rule it out. It's so weird because like
the old day.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
I mean, you know why, because he's afraid of what
she might say if he's not at least playing ball
with her.
Speaker 5 (03:52):
I mean, that's the reason.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Clearly she got moved to this like club fed situation,
and suddenly the least the Wall Street Journal about the
birthday book and whatever else, Suddenly those things stopped. So
he feels that he needs to at least play ball,
And I would not be shocked at all if she
ends up getting her pardon. You know, maybe it's at
the end of this Trump administration, when he's done and
all of a sudden done or whatever. But I would
(04:15):
not be shocked at all.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
If I would be shocked if she got pardoned, I'll
be honest, that would actually be genuinely shocking. I think
probably what would happen is that he'll string it along
for the entire time to kind of keep her at
bay and keep the hope alive, and then maybe till
the end.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
But look, you're not wrong. I mean, who the hell knows.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
The question is still and this is always the issue,
and this is where people who are like this is
to distract from the Epstein files. I don't think there
are one hundred percent right, but they're not conceptually wrong
in that the longer this plays out, and the more
there is a little bit of a drip, drip, drip,
it can satisfy some of the curiosity. They just want
it to go away. That's what they want more than anything.
(04:54):
And what we all have to bank on is that
there is at least some constituency that will main there
to push on it right now. With some of that's Democrats,
a lot of it is also Thomas Massey. There's some
people at least in the Senate and others who have
pushed this forward, but without a sustained amount of pressure,
we just can't have that. That's part of the reason
why it's so important to force this vote, because that
(05:15):
would force the government to not only have to comply
sometime in the future, but you can follow up on
that if the Democrats take Congress after the midterms, they
can subpoena, they can continue up to go after and
this is this is the great folly in not just
releasing the dam files in the first place. And so
let's go ahead, for example, put D three up on
the screen, and this kind of shows the fear is this
(05:38):
new representative who won the special election. She says, I
can't see another reason. It doesn't change the majority. Democrats
are still in the minority. That seems to be the
only outstanding issue I can see. It feels a little personal,
specifically talking here about the Epstein vote. And one of
the things actually that's kind of counterintuitive is that because
there's a government shutdown, if she were sworn in, and
(06:01):
that's the only thing that would happen, then it would
be a huge story. And so they need to make
sure that it's just put at bay as long as possible. Recall,
they took an entire month off and ended House early,
specifically with no votes, just to delay this vote with
the with the hope, oh, nothing will come out. You know,
we got the birthday book, great, I guess, I mean,
(06:22):
you know, nothing particularly revelatory. There's still a lot more
that needs to come out from it. But that's my
fear is that the longer that this goes on, there's
no sustained political pressure, and they just wanted to die out.
That's all the White House wants for this die And
you know, by and large, most people have complied Epstein itself.
You know, it's not trending anymore. It's not like a
(06:43):
number one thing. I think most people are still aware.
But what you know, it's number four.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
On our list. Obviously, Venezuela is very important, right, Hey.
Speaker 5 (06:50):
These aren't just sub junction, Yeah, these are real.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
This is a real shit.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
We actually might overthrow a government in Venezuela and so
in that is what they are hoping for more than
anything on this story, and Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
It's just that time goes by and people move on,
and nothing significant enough to put it right back in
the news cycle comes out. That's what they're banking on
and praying for. And you know the fact that Mike
Johnson is going to such great links to keep from
seating this one member of Congress when you know, the
House already passed their budget. Ye, So you know, it's
not like there's a close margin on these other things.
(07:22):
The House Republicans that she points out, they still have
the majority whether she's there or not. So the only
thing that it really is consequential for is this one
very close vote with regard to the Epstein files. So yeah,
I mean, and this isn't the first time that Mike
Johnson has moved haaving and earth to keep this vote
on the release from going forward.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Yeah, and you know it's also sad.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
It's a sad commentary on the number of Republicans who
just go along. There's to my eye, there's like two
Marjorie Taylor Green and mass mass That's it. Where's everybody
else is basically playing ball on this. I do want
to give a shout out to Marjorie. She had more
recent tweet about insurance.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
I saw that, you know, and you know, did you
Trump made some comments about maybe he was gonna make
would deal with Democrats on health care, So it may
actually end up being Trump that blinks on the healthcare thing.
With regard to the shutdown, I mean, it's not certainly
politicizing it all.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
Does it take a genius to figure out the doubling
of insurance premiums will be politically Republicans?
Speaker 5 (08:20):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Yeah, what it's like, that's it's just so funny because
it's the same thing that happened to Obama.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
What screwed Obama on Obamacare was the.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Whole if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,
and didn't happen everybody. A lot of people's insurance premiums
went sky high right around the time of the midterm
elections and immediately afterwards, which is what screwed him. If
he had a better opponent, I think he would have
lost twenty twelve. He could have lost easily on that alone.
If you increase price directly attributable to legislation, you are
(08:51):
an idiot politically. So yeah, in some ways, the Democrats
are almost trying to do them a favor. But maybe
they have read them too well to know that they
would never buckle on this, and so they'll just let
it roll. But it seems that Trump himself may actually
blink on the health insurance premium thing, which by the way,
would be a good thing for the two Obamacare subscribers here.
Speaker 5 (09:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Well, and we didn't get to this yesterday, but just
worth pointing out. The analysis from Kaiser Family Foundation says
that more than three and four ACA marketplace and rolies
live in states won by Trump. Oh, of course, most
of the people who would who were going to get
screwed when premiums go up are actually you know in
Trump states, Well.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
People who are on Obamacare where the prototypical example it's
either the small business owner without a ton of staff,
or it's people who will working jobs that don't offer healthcare.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Right.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
Yeah, And that's like the that's exactly what the Trump
coalition was was in twenty twenty four. Yeah, that's what
Steve Bannon always talked about with medicaid. If you look
at the Medicaid recipients, like, who do you think these
people are? If people over one hundred thousand dollars year
of voting Democrat, they're going to employer post sponsored health insurance.
They don't give a shit about Obamacare. It's people at
the low or end of the spectrum. Those are the
(10:01):
ones who get screwed. Same on Medicaid. So this is
this look, I mean, we could go on forever. Yeah,
Republican Party and their own idiocy around the issue of healthcare.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
But yes, you are exactly correct.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
About this because you can see how they both recognize
it's a political issue, but they don't want to buckle
and so they may walk themselves into a political disaster
come the midterms.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Or maybe they just don't care.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
I've never been able to figure these people out. I
don't know what possible reason they think they're going to
win reelection.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Like for what for a tax cut? No Epstein? Okay,
oh you know, we'll see. Should we get to the
National Guard.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
Yeah, let's talk about this.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
So Tim Dillon had a bit on Trump using American
cities as training grounds for the troops.
Speaker 5 (10:47):
With's go and take a listen to that.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
We don't need the Marines in Chicago.
Speaker 7 (10:51):
I agree, the Democratic Party has done a terrible job
with public safety. But the idea that we're going to
have the Marines in Chicago and we're going to be
So let me get this straight. I'm just trying to
understand this again. I'm a college dropout. The money to
(11:14):
build the educational institutions and the infrastructure in America, things
like hospitals, things we need that gets shipped to Israel,
the Marines and the National Guard get sent into the
(11:36):
cities where that money could have been used to better
the lives of the people.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
That seems to make no sense.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
I think Democrats should be taking notes from this and
Tim Dillon and have frame what's going on here, because
that was pretty effective messaging about where the administration's priority
seemed to be.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Yeah, I agree with you, but then they would have
to agree with not sending arms to Israel.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
We're not there yet, right, I mean getting there first?
You have to Yeah, first you have to get to
the point.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Well, I'm not so sure because I've always wondered this,
this whole this it's always been more of a Republican
talking point. But considering how Dems freaked out about usaid,
It's like, is it really going to be kind of
a core messaging conception about spend money here and not abroad?
I don't know, it's just more of an interesting intellectual question.
But I don't disagree with him literally whatsoever about the
(12:28):
foreign aid question, and specifically, I mean, the funny thing
is when you talk to the pro Israel defenders and
all them, they're always like, it's not that much money.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
It's only three billion a year.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
But Tucker actually recently had a great segment where he
broke down the totality of the amount of money sent
not just to Israel for in terms of aid, but
also to Egypt so they don't go to war with Israel.
But then also all of the billions that has cost
just since October seventh to defend them. For that price,
you actually could quite on ironically rebuild much of america'stytes
(13:03):
have infrastructure points from.
Speaker 5 (13:05):
ACA subsidies at the very least.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Definitely, you know, there's a lot of uses for that
money here at home, no doubt about it. And just
a couple of updates with regard to the National Guard deployment.
So we covered yesterday that the Judge and Oregon trumpetpoint
and Judge and Oregon said, you can't federalize the national
Guard here, either the Oregon National Guard or the California
National Guard or the Texas National Guard or any other
national guard that you have in mind put in a
(13:30):
temporary restraining order.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
JB.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Pritsker also took the administration of court to try to
block the use of they want to use the Texas
National Guard. I think this is insane using calling in
red state national Guard into a blue state against blue
state citizens. I think this is an incredibly dangerous escalation.
So in any case, JB. Pritzker went to court to
try to also get a temporary restraining order against that.
(13:55):
That judge is now allowing that federalization of troops and
deployment into Shigo to go forward. We also had Trump
yesterday saying he would consider invoking the Insurrection Act quote
if it was necessary, particularly if the courts or state
and local officials delay his plans to deploy the National Guard.
So just escalating the tension, escalating the tension, trying to
(14:17):
provoke some sort of a crisis, some sort of a confrontation,
and we're already seeing many of those play out. You know,
those the apartment raid that happened. Some of the residents
of that building are still missing. You also have a
number of people who've been picked up by Ice I'm
talking thousands of people who have just vanished. Their family members,
have no idea where they are, Lawyers haven't been able
to get in touch, et cetera. But you know, they're
(14:39):
ratcheting up the pressure, ratcheting up the pressure and sending
in red state National Guard to blue cities seems to
me like an an absolutely insane move.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
It says here that the deployment would be some two
hundred Guard troops from Texas, which would be for the
same justification about federal property right. So that's this, This
is where they it's never it's to crush crime, which
is here in DC is the whole is for crime,
not the protection of federal property.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
But then in Chicago the messaging is.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
About crime, but it's actually to protect ice or it's
for deportation. It's like, what are we doing here?
Speaker 1 (15:17):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
I mean, I think the entire thing is totally crazy.
In terms of the Insurrection Act, as you said, was
to was invoking the Insurrection Act, which has not yet
been invoked, and that was part of the original thing
that they were doing. Part of the justification. The invocation
here is around protecting federal property right, which is the
allowing to do some what You're gonna have to correct
(15:39):
me here because I'm still very confused on the convoluted nature.
They're allowed to protect and assist law enforcement, but cannot
carry out law enforcement action period correct, whenever they are
deployed under this author Well.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
You're not wrong to be confused, because the line is
very hard to draw. So like, for example, if they're
involved in crowd control, yeah, is that civilian law enforcement?
If they're backing up ice, I would say that does
constitute civilian law enforcement. So the line is blurry, and
of course the Trump administration pushes it as far as
they can. DC is a bit of a special case
(16:16):
because of the different you know, laws here, et cetera.
But if we see what they were doing in California,
there were certainly instances where you know, it appeared that
they were doing domestic law enforcement actions, which should be
illegal under posse comittatis. But you know, putting all of
that like aside, what we're seeing in these in Chicago
and Portland are the main focus right now? Is this
(16:38):
just mass show of force?
Speaker 5 (16:39):
And you know, I'm.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
About to cover this shooting by a Customs and Border
Patrol agent. You know, it's already clear that they lied
about key details. Some of the details are still murky,
but already clear that they lied about it. But this
this agent shot this woman and you know, and appears
to have done it, said you know, do something, bitch,
and then shoots her. So these are things that are
(17:01):
already happening. And that's before we bring in the National
Guard again. You know, you think that they believe this
is politically like popular for them. I think that they
are intentionally trying to provoke a crisis, like they want
to get to the Insurrection Act. And their mo has
been from the beginning of this administration that they use
either real or imagined or generated crises to try to
(17:23):
consolidate more and more power. And so when I zoom
out from just these individual deployments or what they're you know,
alleged to be intending to do with them, and you
see the You see the law firms, you see the universities,
You see the kidnapping of students, you see the Crushian descent,
you see the consolidation media power, you see all of that.
You see the strikes in the Venezuela boats.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
You see the.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Declaration of war against drug traffickers and you put it
all together. That's where I think this is a piece
of the broader puzzle versus you know, the like we
shouldn't look at it in isolation.
Speaker 5 (17:53):
It's just I don't blind.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Anything thinking that.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
I think the only reason I come from it this
way is because I now know how stupid many of
the people who involved in this are. You would not
try to take a fascist takeover a city with two
hundred troops from Texas. Instead, you would do a larp
of saying, look at these awesome Texas troops, and you
would produce ice pornography for boomers on your OSMO cameras
which are apparently following them around right now.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Listen.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
You can say one is really bad, which I think
a lot that is bad, But that's not the same
thing as martial law in a city. Okay, And so
this is this is kind of what I'm trying to
get out here is at the end of the day,
you can you can say what is happening is extraordinary,
et cetera, but contextualized to say, we're talking about two
hundred troops from the Texas National Guard, all of whom
are going to surround an ice building and do basically nothing.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
I mean, that's not.
Speaker 5 (18:40):
Think it's an important discion.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
I'm not saying it. I'm not saying it's not crazy.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Yeah, it's not a martial law declaration takeover of Chicago
with hum vs in the streets.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Right, Yes, And I think it's important to point that
out and also to say, you know, when we're talking
about like free speech and the crushing of speech, it's
not that, like we're being critical of the Trump administration
on the show right now, it's not that they have
perfect and complete absolute power. It's that they want people
to have to think twice. They want to make an
example of a few people. They want to chill the
(19:12):
ability to speak freely, and there's some evidence that this
has been successful. I mean, with regard to the protests,
there's a whole cottage industry of Democrats in particular love
to point out like, oh, there's so many fewer like
pro Palestine protests now, And there's a variety of reasons
for that, but one of them. There are protests still
going on, but I think it's fair to say not
as widespread as they were at one point during the
(19:32):
Biden administration. There are a variety of reasons for that,
But one of them is because people are afraid, like
people are afraid of being targeted, but were pro Palestinian.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
Passes always found that such a stupid talking point. Yeah,
nobody on the right gives a shit what a Palestinian
protester has to say.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Yeah, well, if anything, it's good for that.
Speaker 5 (19:48):
Definitely true.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
They can point in some pink haired weirdo and be like, look,
this is our opposition.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
That's good for Israel. Right.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
The reason they protested under Biden was because they're part
of the political culture.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
They thought that they might actually be able to put
pressure on Biden. And then there's also just a level
of fatigue where it's October seventh, now we're two years
into you know, this this genocide, So all of that,
but I do think part of it too. You have
to take into account that, you know, they watched Remisa
Ostar get kidnapped off the street, they saw mackmod Khalil
be held in the detention center and not be able
(20:19):
to be present for the birth of his child. And
they've seen, you know, students be expelled from universities after
being pressured from the Trump administration.
Speaker 5 (20:27):
To do all of that.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
So it is important as we see these escalations that
you know, you're right. It's not the caricature of like, oh,
they roll in the humbies and they just take over Chicago.
But there is a show of force here that is
meant to be coercive, and that is what the you know,
the ice part is partly a show of force. It's
partly about obviously, like rounding up random immigrants. The National
(20:51):
Guard deployments are also meant to be a show of force.
It's also meant to be content creation for like you know,
fascist boom er porn.
Speaker 5 (20:59):
It is all of those.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
I think a lot of it is heightening contradictions too,
because what it demonstrates for the purposes of Chicago. Let's
say you have Brandon Johnson who's declaring ice free zones
right and saying, oh, well, Chicago police are not going
to help you.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
That's like catnip for Republicans, right, because.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
They can say, look, this mayor won't even allow the
police to cooperate with ice, which I mean, I do
think is kind of crazy in this whole sanctuary city thing,
but courts of ruled I guess it's legal. It doesn't
make any sense to me same in Portland. They've basically
declared They're like, no, we're not going to help ice
or we're not going to come to their defense or
whatever for federal property. Which this is the justification on
(21:37):
the Feds. They want the narrative out there. The Pritzker
and Brandon Johnson and them are pro crime and pro
illegal and at the very least haven't done anything about it.
And so this is the people who are trying to
restore law and order again. If I were you, if
I were somebody who looked at this from the outside
and wasn't as intimately familiar with some of the genuine
(21:58):
retards who are the people running, I would also be
deeply suspicious. So I do not blame anybody who is
out there. What I have come to understand is much
of this, as I said about the two hundred guardsmen
and then, is genuinely about content to appear. It's tough
so that we can have fun conversations amongst various people
(22:19):
on Twitter, and to basically have Fox News b roll
that can roll everywhere without supposedly going the full way.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Now, can I rule out the full way at this point? No?
Speaker 3 (22:29):
Right, Okay, it's not that I'm not ruling that out whatsoever,
but I don't think that's the actual plan. Quite literally,
quite a lot of this is about social media, which
is sick. I agree, Okay, it's sick to actually have
to be where we are right now because of it,
But that's I guess a bigger part of it.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's both, right, I mean,
I think the content creation is an important part of
the fascist projection of power. But when you've got you know,
you've got this national security memory, and you've got real
things that are genuinely happening. And also once you've normalized
and they've basically already done this, once you've normalized soldiers
(23:09):
on American streets conducting normal law enforcement activities, that's not
something that you can put back in the bag. And
so those things are those things are extraordinary and they
should be treated as such, even if a component of
it is also theatrical. And the theatrical is also it
is meant to scare people, It is meant to project
something that creates a real impact, not just for like,
(23:33):
you know, their boomerati.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Yeah, I know, but at the risk of getting into
a crazy debate, it is a novel circumstance of like,
if you have a city which doesn't want to enforce
the law.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
What do you do. It's like a neo Confederate idea.
But can say, but.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
That's not true, that it is that is literally not true.
I mean, like, let's use the example of Portland, because
it's the one they're saying, Oh, we have to go
and protect this like one ICE building. Okay, there were
protests there that were continuous. They had dwindled down to
like twenty people. Law enforcement was their manager. They had
made a number of arrests in the context of these protests.
(24:08):
Nothing again insane, But it's not like law enforcement was
just letting this, letting violent things happen and wasn't doing
anything about it.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
So well, you're a poorting to Portland.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
But let's say Chicago in this case, like, okay, we
do have a video of the ICE people, which by
the way, doesn't look good for the people of ICE
who are involved here.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
So here you see this is a you know, an
immigrant that I don't know if this is ICE or
CVP with some federal agents are trying to apprehend and
he is struggling and they are struggling with him and
you see him down here on the ground. They're trying
to get his hands into you know, basically zip ties
Flex Scott Sea exactly, and random Chicago residents are stopping
(24:49):
their cars and yelling at them and video recording them
and telling them to leave them alone and telling them
to go, and eventually, after struggling with him for a while,
they do leave.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
So on one level, the American in a lot of
us is like, don't tread on me.
Speaker 5 (25:06):
We don't absolutely.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
On the other, do we really want mass mobs of
citizens to determine who is allowed to have law enforcement
on the street or not. And this kind of gets
to my Chicago police. So if the Chicago police say
we're not going to assist in a federal law enforcement operation,
that is genuinely like a neo Confederate idea where illegals
are legal here. No, we have the supremacy clause of
(25:28):
the US Constitution. The law of the land is supreme
across all states. Like I remember during Los Angeles, they're like,
Ice needs to.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Get out of LA.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
You don't determine that. America determines that, Like it's a weird.
Speaker 5 (25:41):
Determining it right there?
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Okay, there are a few people, So okay, those people
on the street get to have more supremacy than the
United States Constitution, military and ICE.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
But no, start the context here, which is that ICE
is routinely violating people's rights, right assaulting them, apprehunding them
with no warrants, flying Blackhawk military.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Warrant to detain you. Especially both you.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
And I both know a measure of you, and I
both know that it hasn't just been undocumented immigrants who
have been apprehended. People feel their rights are being violated,
and they disagree with the you know, with the what
they see as an invasion.
Speaker 5 (26:20):
And a crash down. I mean there, this is what city.
Speaker 6 (26:23):
No.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
But you like, the expectation is if you win an election,
you're going to follow the law, and they're not doing that.
So that's where the context comes in of people know,
they don't feel like it is just for some random
They don't trust that ICE is like apprehending this guy
in good faith or that they have a real reason
to be apprehending him. They don't support the lawlessness and
the rogue nature. ICE is out of control. Like we've
(26:46):
watched them assault American citizens, We've watched them you know
they'll detain American citizens with no due process, no lawyer,
no ability to make a phone called, no nothing. That
is what this agency is doing. And so yeah, people object.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
To that, Okay, you can object at all you want.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Again, do you not think it's a little bit crazy
that low municipalities get to just declare we will not
be compliant with federal law.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
I mean, I think that's not.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Saying they're not they won't be compliant federal law. What
they're saying is that we're you, Okay, you want to
come in and do your thing, like we can't stop you.
But that doesn't mean we have to devote our law
enforcement resources, which are limited to whatever dumb shit you
want to do, which is by the way, violating our
own cities.
Speaker 6 (27:23):
Right.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
But in the case of let's say, go out Los Angeles,
they quite literally demanded withdrawal and lack of enforcement in
their own city. It's like, you don't get to you
don't get to decide that the federal government does not
have supremacy here, Like we do need to stand up
at the very least for a little bit for this
idea that because I mean, think about it, would you
really would you really accept this locality arguments from the South.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
Let's say during second No, everybody rejected it.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
But hold on, it's not like Gavin Newsom sent in
the California National Guard to like repel Ice from the city.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
That's not what happened. Ice has been allowed to operate.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
It's not allowed.
Speaker 5 (28:01):
Yeah, there's no library, which is kind.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
Of what I'm saying. There's no allowing they are operating. Yeah,
it's federal I.
Speaker 5 (28:07):
Know, that's what's the way, though, I'm not sure what
you're objecting from.
Speaker 3 (28:09):
Adaptedly, was like this rhetoric in this idea that these
localities just get to simply decide that federal law enforcement
does not get to take place happening.
Speaker 7 (28:17):
No, it is.
Speaker 3 (28:18):
I mean, in the case of Chicago, they're actively genuinely
trying to make sure that they don't. They they're like
not allowing their property to be mobilized, they're not determining
any resources. They're saying that they won't answer any calls
on the way there. This is not a defensive Ice,
who I agree with you, has acted genuinely out of control.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
But there is a weird neo Confederate thing taking over.
Speaker 3 (28:38):
I think a part of the modern left that seems
to say that immigration enforcement is not allowed in blue states.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
I just think that misperception of what the argument has
been and what the reality on the ground has been. So,
for example, in Chicago, Chicago Police Department has been present
at a lot of the protests. They've been you know,
they've provided crowd control, including you know, to benefit fit ICE.
In this instance where this lady got shot, ICE originally
(29:05):
lied and or whatever federal agiascy And there's a bunch
not just ICE that are on the ground there said
that Chicago Police Department didn't come and assist. That was
just a total blatant lie of what actually occurred. In fact,
ICE agents have been calling in in the suburb broad
view where the ICE facility is. They've been calling in phony,
bogus nine to one one calls, draining resources, et cetera.
So I don't like what you're describing. I don't think
(29:28):
is the reality of what's actually taking place. And yes,
do people object to the tactics of ICE. Do they
object their rights being violated? You know, little kids being
dragged out in the middle of the night and zip tid'.
Of course they objected that, and it is their right
as American phitisens to. No one's that happening in their city.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
No one's saying you can't object. No one is saying
that you cannot object.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
I think I am saying that you probably should not
be interfering with law enforcement operation on the street in
this way, just because that can go down a very
dangerous road quickly. I mean it's like, okay, let's say,
do we o support mob violence? Like, do we just
support mob rules?
Speaker 1 (30:00):
Well, I don't.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
I think it leads a very bad direction, even though
I know much the left eye us after BLM.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
I agree, Sager.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
But what I find more interesting about that video is
number one, the total incompetence of launch, so non display.
Number two that these aren't activists. These are just random
people who happen to be driving by. And so in
the same way that we could evaluate, you know, the
response to LUIGIMANGIONI murdering and a healthcare CEO and say, well,
(30:30):
when the American people are like, you know, find that
to be potentially a positive or at least they're like
not upset about.
Speaker 5 (30:37):
That happening, you have to ask a question, why sure?
Speaker 2 (30:40):
And so I think that's more of my point with
the video is to say, like, it is an extraordinary
thing that you have just almost seemingly every random person
who happened to come by taking what are in your
your right to say extraordinary actions to say, I'm going
to involve myself, I'm going to record this, I'm going
to back to this. A couple of them got physically
(31:02):
involved in terms of trying to, you know, intervene here.
That is a real break from the norm with the
American public. And so that's what I find to be
extraordinary about that video is what it says about how
people in those communities are feeling about.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
The sure so we can sociologically think it's interesting.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
I think what I'm afraid of is literally the same
thing of what happened with anti fund BLM is it's
not it's not a far cry from leftist and mainstream
media justification of oh, that's good, that's what you're supposed
to do. And I mean, this is where it's like,
people are you're afraid of conflagration. It's like, well, then
there is too much of a permission structure.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Right, But I feel like you are holding random individuals
on the street to a higher standard than the president
of the United States, the head of Department of Homeland Security,
et cetera, because they I think it to me, it
is abundantly clear that what they want is some sort
of a conflagration that they can use again to further
(32:01):
expand power. They're actively courting that, and they haven't really
fully gotten that yet because you have had a level
of I don't know if it's disconnection or you know,
just you have not had that or discipline. Really you
have not had that full conflagration. But you know, that's
clearly when you are rating an apartment building with black
Hawk helicopters, like, that's clearly the sort of.
Speaker 5 (32:22):
Thing that you're up.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
When you're sending Red state troops into Blue states, that
is the sort of thing that you are courting. And
it only takes one horrific thing going sideways to be
you know, in another country.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Look, I mean that's one interpretation of it.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
The other is is that it's a shakunaw approach to
make sure that people self deport, which is actually working.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
I'm not defending the ice thing. I think it's crazy.
I would I do not support that literally whatsoever.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
Yeah, And in a lot of these cases though, and
this kind of im pointing to the mom thing. I'm
just watching the permission structure happen over and over again,
where it's like, oh, let's encourage this stuff, then you're
going to get what you want and you got to
start killing agents or any of that. I mean, it's crazy,
and actually before maybe we'll talk about this after your monologue,
but one of the things that should maybe hearten people
(33:09):
is that, at the very least in America, you do
have to prove a lot of your shit in court
if you're actually.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
Just going to accuse people.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
And if we think about some of the most extraordinary
and stupid things. Let's say that the Trump administration has
tried to charge remember the sandwich guy, but Grand Juriy
just throws that out immediately you're about to do your
home monologue. People are lying bodycam et cetera has actually
come to their savior.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
So I don't know.
Speaker 3 (33:31):
I mean, there's a lot of these warnings about some
you know, takeover, and you know, again, a lot of
the rhetoric is like Humvey's martial law being declared in Chicago.
I do think it's important to contextualize and say, like
some of the system actually is holding in a way
that I don't think is being portrayed, and instead there
is a permission structure to violence that I'm watching like
(33:52):
pretty clearly play out well with a lot of the commentariat.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
Well, we'll take your point. I'll just say in that
particular video, no one is being violent. I mean most
of what people are doing, we're just standing there shouting.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
Involve yourself in a law enforcement operation like that's literally obstruction.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Of Like mostly what you saw was people stop in
their cars, honking, yelling at them, which they're allowed to do.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the people.
Actually we're getting involved here.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
I think that's crazy, Like one guy who was like,
you know, trying to pull him away. What most of
what was happening was first of all, them being thoroughly
incompetent and embarrassing way.
Speaker 5 (34:28):
Which we've seen in other instances as well. I'm sure
you saw that.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
Did you see the video of the guy in Maryland,
some like ice buffoon who's gun like fell out, the
voice is gun at the crowd and just I mean
just clown and stuff. And by the way, that is
only going to get worse because of how rapidly they
are trying to increase the ranks of ICE. But anyway,
so you have that, and then most of what you
have is just people like random people standing there and
(34:51):
yelling and recording.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
And I support recording the police. It drives them crazy.
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Everybody should do it, especially if you see it around.
You want to record ICE all you want? Fine more
talking about the permission structure for a lot of this
stuff in the way that we talk about it, because
I fear, just like with Luigi Mangioni or something like that,
somebody starting to take it seriously and not understanding the
full context of where we are, Like, yes, things can
be very very very very very bad, and they are.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
I'm not denying it.
Speaker 3 (35:19):
After we did a whole segment yesterday, I literally was like,
I think the country's falling apart, like quite literally. And
at the same time, you know, you can have a
body can you can have a federal agent accuse somebody
shooting someone apparently unjustibly as you're about to do your
monologue on yeah, and that can be disproven in a
court in a day, and you can walk free. Now
that person's life was unjustly interfered with by the federal
(35:39):
government and she should sue. In my opinion, and that's
my thing is we still have some faith in our institutions.
I don't want people to be so blackpilled that they
think that violence and all that genuinely is the answer.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Yeah, because that seems to me where things are trending
right now.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
I hope that you're wrong, but I agree, I share
your concern, and I the last, the last thing I
would say is, you know, one of the fears is
that you have some parts of the system that do
still seem to function and work right, and the court
system at the lower level especial being one of them,
(36:13):
and especially when it comes to you know, adjudicating like
business disputes and those sorts of things like that continues
to function.
Speaker 5 (36:21):
And at the same time, you have.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
The executive which, enabled by the Supreme Court, is carving
out broader and broader zones where the laws really don't apply.
So that's taking it back to Venezuela. When you're saying
war with drug cartels, that means in drug traffickers. That
means that if they randomly you know, this this is
taking this has not happened yet. If you randomly shoot
(36:43):
someone on the street, you say they were an enemy combatant.
Speaker 5 (36:46):
They were a drug trafficker, Like is that now allowed?
Speaker 2 (36:48):
That's not that different from just blowing up random venezuela
potentially migrants at sea. So they continue to expand and
carve out more in war zones where the laws really
don't apply. And ICE has been one of the primary
focal points of that because they can justifiably say, we
ran on a mandate of mass deportation and this is
(37:10):
what the American people want.
Speaker 5 (37:12):
But then when you're.
Speaker 2 (37:14):
Sweeping up American citizens and denying them do process rights,
when you're assaulting American citizens. I know you and I
both watched the business owner who had his ribs broken.
We watched a woman you know, whose husband was being deported,
thrown to the ground and had to be hospitalized. Photojournalists
who are just trying to record what's happening, being thrown
to the ground and having head trauma, and this all
(37:34):
happening with your accountability.
Speaker 5 (37:37):
That's where it.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
Gets very concerning, because that zone of lawlessness that the
president has claimed continues to expand and expand and expand.
So does that mean that everything is like totalitarian We
can't say, we can't criticize and we can't walk outside
without being snatched up.
Speaker 5 (37:50):
Blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
No, of course they're parts of society that still function,
but we should be deeply concerned about the way that
that zone of lawlessness continues to exit banned and the
way that manifests itself, the way that it tramples on
all of our rights, and you know, takes away parts
of America that I think you and I both really
trying it.
Speaker 3 (38:08):
No, I think that's very well said, as long as
it's I just you know, I fear the most of
watching because we saw how like George Floyd to George
Floyd murdered to burning shit down happened in two weeks.
Like we saw how quickly that can all transpire, and
then full blown rioting that can just people getting murdered
(38:29):
and everybody's totally okay with that, and then we have
the BLM Ferguson effect on cops for the next two
and a half years. My greatest fear, and I do
think the government is complicit, is to see some sort
of spiral like that happen. And genuinely, who knows, because
you can't trust the government right now with the way
that they've handled the situation. And again, I literally know
some of the people who are actual idiots or know
(38:50):
of the people who aren't. I don't trust their judgment
at all. I still can't believe there are the people
who got these jobs. Then there's also on the other
side of that, I see the permission structure starting to
bubble up, where each are their own like great, they're
both greatest nightmare but also kind of the dream boogeyman
that they want to create. Yeah, and if there is
(39:11):
not responsibility that prevails even in a dangerous moment like this,
things are going things can go south so quickly, right,
with basically a preview, So what do you take Indeed.
Speaker 2 (39:21):
All right, let's take a look at this. Over the weekend,
amid the ice created melee in Chicago, an immigration agent
shot an American woman multiple times following some sort of
a traffic incident. Now that incident escalated protests in the
city that has already been rocked by DHS is heavy
handed tactics, including, as we've discussed here, an apartment raid
(39:44):
that involved black Hawk helicopters. Now, the details of exactly
what transpired with this woman, whose name is Maramar Martinez,
are kind of murky. But what has become quite clear
is that the government initially lied about some really key details,
and now her lawyer is c that bodycam footage undercuts
their story entirely. This is raising serious questions about whether
(40:06):
armed federal agents just shot an anti ice activists and
then brazenly lied about it to cover their tracks. So
let me take you through the timeline of their shifting
stories and exactly what the evidence shows. So this incident
that occurred on Saturday morning and involved not only Martinez
but another motorist, Anthony Ruiz, who was not shot but
was arrested. On Saturday evening, DHS spokesperson Trisia McLaughlin put
(40:30):
out the following statement with the government's first version of
the events that led up to that shooting. Now pay
attention to the details here. These are going to matter,
McLaughlin wrote. Quote, this morning, during routine patrolling in broad View,
in the same area of Chicago, law enforcement were assaulted yesterday.
Our brave law enforcement officers were rammed by vehicles and
boxed in by ten cars. Agents were unable to move
(40:52):
their vehicles and exited the car. One of the drivers
who rammed the law enforcement vehicle was armed with a
semi automatic weapon. Law enforcement was forced to deploy their
weapons and fire defensive shots at an armed US citizen
who drove herself to the hospital to get care for wounds.
The armed woman was named in a CBP intelligence bulletin
last week for doxing agents and posting online, Hey to
(41:15):
all my gang, let's fuck those motherfuckers up. Don't let
them take anyone. Thankfully, no law enforcement officers were seriously injured.
Speaker 5 (41:22):
In this attack.
Speaker 2 (41:23):
Pritzkirt's Chicago Police Department is leaving the shooting scene and
refuses to assist us in securing the area. There is
a growing crowd and we are deploying special operations to
control the scene. This is an evolving situation. We will
give more info as soon as it becomes available. So
that was their first version of events. Now that story
was immediately called into question from a variety of directions.
(41:44):
First of all, the other motorist, Anthony Ruiz's mother denied
the government's version of events. According to The New York Times,
mister Ruiz's mother, Elizabeth Ruiz, that her son told her
on the phone in the morning he had been rammed
by federal agents and that they were shooting.
Speaker 5 (41:59):
Upon hearing that, she.
Speaker 2 (42:00):
Said she raced to the scene. She said an agent
grabbed her son said he was under arrest. When she
asked why, she said, you received no answer. So, according
to Ruiz and his mother, he just happened to be
in the area, was rammed by ice, and then arrested
for no reason. Then Chicago Police Department said the DHS
was also lying about their supposed failure to assist in
crowd control.
Speaker 5 (42:19):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (42:20):
In a statement, Chicago Police clarified officers did respond to
the shooting scene involving federal agents on Saturday near the
intersection of West Thurday ninth Street and South Kensia Avenue
around ten thirty am. Police said their purpose was to
quote maintain public safety and traffic control. Then we got
the actual charging document from the government, and key details
(42:41):
from McLaughlin's original story about Martinez were now missing. So
the government themselves undercut key details of their original narrative.
First of all, McLaughlin got the location wrong. Second, remember
how she claimed that they were boxed in by ten cars.
Suddenly in the criminal complaint only four cars were mentioned Martinez,
Ruiz and to others. Originally, McLaughlin had said that Martinez
(43:03):
drove herself to the hospital. Complaint says that she was
actually taken by ambulance from a nearby repair shop. But
most critically, McLaughlin had originally claimed the government had to
fire shots and self defense in part because Martinez was
armed with a semi automatic weapon. The criminal complaint makes
no mention of Martinez carrying a firearm, So even before
(43:26):
an initial hearing on the charges facing Martinez, government had
already contradicted their own story in multiple significant ways. But
hearing last night raised even more questions about exactly what
happened here, So Chicago Tribune reporter Jason Meisner covered these proceedings.
According to Martinez's attorney, there at those proceedings the presence
of rogue armed agents of the state that was the
(43:47):
real danger to the community, not Martinez. Martinez's team alleged
that bodycam footage tells a totally different story than what
the government has been selling. So her attorney told the court,
based on repeated viewings of the bodycam footage, you can
see the agent who was driving suddenly turned the wheel
to the left, indicating he actually ran Martinez, not the
(44:10):
other way around. Then the agent jumps out and starts shooting.
Martinez's attorney also argued that the pattern the bullets through
Martinez's passenger side door was inconsistent with the government's narrative
about a head on ramming. In addition, the bodycam footage
captures this agent saying, quote, do something, bitch, before he
(44:30):
jumps out of the car and starts firing his weapon.
The bodycam footage was said to directly contradict the government's
claim that Martinez was driving towards officers when they fired
at her in self defense. What's more, after the shooting,
the agent appears to warn another agent about speaking plainly
about what had just occurred, cognizant of the body cam's recording.
Speaker 5 (44:52):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (44:53):
After the shooting, Martinez's lawyer says, the body camera captured
another agent coming up and saying, Hey, what happened. The
agent points to his bodycam and says, hey, don't speak,
You're good. As for the government, their lawyer did claim
that that same bodycam footage captured an agent saying, we're
getting boxed in.
Speaker 5 (45:12):
We got to get out of here.
Speaker 2 (45:13):
She's going to make contact right before the car is
struck on both sides. Now, notably, Martinez's attorney offered to
show the bodycam footage to the court, while the government
lawyers made no such offer. Ultimately, Martinez was shot five times.
Speaker 5 (45:29):
She's now being.
Speaker 2 (45:29):
Charged with forcibly, assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering
with a federal law enforcement officers in the performance.
Speaker 5 (45:36):
Of their official duties.
Speaker 2 (45:38):
So far, though the judge does not seem to impress
with the government's case, both Martinez and Ruiz were ordered
released after the judge found the government did not meet
the bar for requiring the two to be detained until
their trial. Now, given body camera footage exists, we are
eventually going to get the real story of what exactly
transpired here. But already, in significant ways, the government story
(46:00):
of self defense against a rampaging woman with a semi
automatic weapon has completely fallen apart. And while no agents
were injured, an American woman suffered five gunshot wounds from
her own government. And one can only assume there will
be more dangerous and potentially deadly encounters between citizens of
our country and the government their tax dollars fund as
(46:20):
the Trump regien escalates their ice and National Guard deployments.
And so sorry you were talking about and This is
a risk
Speaker 3 (46:27):
And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot Com. Turning now here to Washington, as we may
have to remind you, the government is still shut down.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Nobody really seems to care. But one of the underrated.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Parts of that government shutdown is that the House is
not swearing in a new member, and apparently that is
part of a scheme to prevent her from voting for
a release of the Epstein files. The Speaker, Mike Johnson,
was pressed on this on Meet the Press, Let's Take
a Listen.
Speaker 4 (00:57):
Representative Grihalva, who won a special election last week in Arizona,
she's yet to be sworn in. I know you're not
in session, but you've sworn in Republicans out of session.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Why not her? Does it have anything to do with
Jeffrey Epstein. Well, the House is.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
Not on the floor doing business this week, but we
will do it immediately early next week, as soon as
everyone returns to town. We have to have everybody here
and we'll swear her in. I congratulate her on her whin.
She's replacing her father who had a long history here,
and she'll be a productive member of Congress.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
We look forward to that.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
We'll look forward to her as a member of Congress,
but just not immediately because of reasons exactly.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
It definitely doesn't have anything to do with Epstein.
Speaker 5 (01:36):
I don't know if that question is gonna fly under
the new Berrier regime.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
A good point. See this is the issue. That's great.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Yeah, we can all look forward to the new CBS
mosad especial over on sixty minutes.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
It's going to be great.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
I's going to put this up here on the screen.
Shall we Some major update from the Supreme Court at
the very least, who rejected Glaine Maxwell's appeal to overturn
her conviction.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
The conviction. She's got to remember.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
The way that Gallaane was fighting this in court is
that because Epstein got his sweetheart deal in two thousand
and seven, part of the non prosecution agreement was that
the government will never prosecute you or any of your
co conspirators. So Glaine argued in court that the government
took back its word. The only reason that any of
us even really know anything about the whole Epstein case
(02:22):
is because that agreement was ruled invalid because they did
not notify the victims of the agreement all. That's all
they had to do, and they never did it. So
a judge struck that down in twenty eighteen. That's part
of the reason that we know anything really about the case,
and a lot of stuff actually came out into the public.
So that has been the heart of Glaine's legal strategy
to get out of this.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Except for except.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
For the new play for a pardon, for a pardon
from Donald Trump, who was asked about this actually in
the Oval office yesterday.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Let's go ahead and play a D four. Let's take
a listen.
Speaker 6 (02:55):
That means our only chance of getting a prison for
huge is that something? Who are we talking about Uh,
you know, I haven't heard the name in so long.
I can say this that i'd have to take a
look at it. I would have to take a look.
Did they reject that?
Speaker 7 (03:13):
What happened?
Speaker 6 (03:15):
I say, well, I'll take a look at it. I'll
speak to I will speak to the DJ. I have
a lot of people have asked me for pardons. I
call him puff Daddy his asp for a pardon. Yeah,
I mean, I'm gonna have to take a look at it,
and I have to ask DJ. I didn't know they
rejected it. I didn't know she was even asking for it.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Frankly, I didn't know any I'm gonna have to ask.
Speaker 5 (03:39):
I haven't I haven't about name, And why don't you
just rule it out?
Speaker 1 (03:41):
I don't rule it out. It's so weird because like
the old day.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
I mean, you know why, because he's afraid of what
she might say if he's not at least playing ball
with her.
Speaker 5 (03:52):
I mean, that's the reason.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Clearly she got moved to this like club fed situation,
and suddenly the least the Wall Street Journal about the
birthday book and whatever else, Suddenly those things stopped. So
he feels that he needs to at least play ball,
And I would not be shocked at all if she
ends up getting her pardon. You know, maybe it's at
the end of this Trump administration, when he's done and
all of a sudden done or whatever. But I would
(04:15):
not be shocked at all.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
If I would be shocked if she got pardoned, I'll
be honest, that would actually be genuinely shocking. I think
probably what would happen is that he'll string it along
for the entire time to kind of keep her at
bay and keep the hope alive, and then maybe till
the end.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
But look, you're not wrong. I mean, who the hell knows.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
The question is still and this is always the issue,
and this is where people who are like this is
to distract from the Epstein files. I don't think there
are one hundred percent right, but they're not conceptually wrong
in that the longer this plays out, and the more
there is a little bit of a drip, drip, drip,
it can satisfy some of the curiosity. They just want
it to go away. That's what they want more than anything.
(04:54):
And what we all have to bank on is that
there is at least some constituency that will main there
to push on it right now. With some of that's Democrats,
a lot of it is also Thomas Massey. There's some
people at least in the Senate and others who have
pushed this forward, but without a sustained amount of pressure,
we just can't have that. That's part of the reason
why it's so important to force this vote, because that
(05:15):
would force the government to not only have to comply
sometime in the future, but you can follow up on
that if the Democrats take Congress after the midterms, they
can subpoena, they can continue up to go after and
this is this is the great folly in not just
releasing the dam files in the first place. And so
let's go ahead, for example, put D three up on
the screen, and this kind of shows the fear is this
(05:38):
new representative who won the special election. She says, I
can't see another reason. It doesn't change the majority. Democrats
are still in the minority. That seems to be the
only outstanding issue I can see. It feels a little personal,
specifically talking here about the Epstein vote. And one of
the things actually that's kind of counterintuitive is that because
there's a government shutdown, if she were sworn in, and
(06:01):
that's the only thing that would happen, then it would
be a huge story. And so they need to make
sure that it's just put at bay as long as possible. Recall,
they took an entire month off and ended House early,
specifically with no votes, just to delay this vote with
the with the hope, oh, nothing will come out. You know,
we got the birthday book, great, I guess, I mean,
(06:22):
you know, nothing particularly revelatory. There's still a lot more
that needs to come out from it. But that's my
fear is that the longer that this goes on, there's
no sustained political pressure, and they just wanted to die out.
That's all the White House wants for this die And
you know, by and large, most people have complied Epstein itself.
You know, it's not trending anymore. It's not like a
(06:43):
number one thing. I think most people are still aware.
But what you know, it's number four.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
On our list. Obviously, Venezuela is very important, right, Hey.
Speaker 5 (06:50):
These aren't just sub junction, Yeah, these are real.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
This is a real shit.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
We actually might overthrow a government in Venezuela and so
in that is what they are hoping for more than
anything on this story, and Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
It's just that time goes by and people move on,
and nothing significant enough to put it right back in
the news cycle comes out. That's what they're banking on
and praying for. And you know the fact that Mike
Johnson is going to such great links to keep from
seating this one member of Congress when you know, the
House already passed their budget. Ye, So you know, it's
not like there's a close margin on these other things.
(07:22):
The House Republicans that she points out, they still have
the majority whether she's there or not. So the only
thing that it really is consequential for is this one
very close vote with regard to the Epstein files. So yeah,
I mean, and this isn't the first time that Mike
Johnson has moved haaving and earth to keep this vote
on the release from going forward.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Yeah, and you know it's also sad.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
It's a sad commentary on the number of Republicans who
just go along. There's to my eye, there's like two
Marjorie Taylor Green and mass mass That's it. Where's everybody
else is basically playing ball on this. I do want
to give a shout out to Marjorie. She had more
recent tweet about insurance.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
I saw that, you know, and you know, did you
Trump made some comments about maybe he was gonna make
would deal with Democrats on health care, So it may
actually end up being Trump that blinks on the healthcare thing.
With regard to the shutdown, I mean, it's not certainly
politicizing it all.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
Does it take a genius to figure out the doubling
of insurance premiums will be politically Republicans?
Speaker 5 (08:20):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Yeah, what it's like, that's it's just so funny because
it's the same thing that happened to Obama.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
What screwed Obama on Obamacare was the.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Whole if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,
and didn't happen everybody. A lot of people's insurance premiums
went sky high right around the time of the midterm
elections and immediately afterwards, which is what screwed him. If
he had a better opponent, I think he would have
lost twenty twelve. He could have lost easily on that alone.
If you increase price directly attributable to legislation, you are
(08:51):
an idiot politically. So yeah, in some ways, the Democrats
are almost trying to do them a favor. But maybe
they have read them too well to know that they
would never buckle on this, and so they'll just let
it roll. But it seems that Trump himself may actually
blink on the health insurance premium thing, which by the way,
would be a good thing for the two Obamacare subscribers here.
Speaker 5 (09:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Well, and we didn't get to this yesterday, but just
worth pointing out. The analysis from Kaiser Family Foundation says
that more than three and four ACA marketplace and rolies
live in states won by Trump. Oh, of course, most
of the people who would who were going to get
screwed when premiums go up are actually you know in
Trump states, Well.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
People who are on Obamacare where the prototypical example it's
either the small business owner without a ton of staff,
or it's people who will working jobs that don't offer healthcare.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Right.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
Yeah, And that's like the that's exactly what the Trump
coalition was was in twenty twenty four. Yeah, that's what
Steve Bannon always talked about with medicaid. If you look
at the Medicaid recipients, like, who do you think these
people are? If people over one hundred thousand dollars year
of voting Democrat, they're going to employer post sponsored health insurance.
They don't give a shit about Obamacare. It's people at
the low or end of the spectrum. Those are the
(10:01):
ones who get screwed. Same on Medicaid. So this is
this look, I mean, we could go on forever. Yeah,
Republican Party and their own idiocy around the issue of healthcare.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
But yes, you are exactly correct.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
About this because you can see how they both recognize
it's a political issue, but they don't want to buckle
and so they may walk themselves into a political disaster
come the midterms.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Or maybe they just don't care.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
I've never been able to figure these people out. I
don't know what possible reason they think they're going to
win reelection.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Like for what for a tax cut? No Epstein? Okay,
oh you know, we'll see. Should we get to the
National Guard.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
Yeah, let's talk about this.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
So Tim Dillon had a bit on Trump using American
cities as training grounds for the troops.
Speaker 5 (10:47):
With's go and take a listen to that.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
We don't need the Marines in Chicago.
Speaker 7 (10:51):
I agree, the Democratic Party has done a terrible job
with public safety. But the idea that we're going to
have the Marines in Chicago and we're going to be
So let me get this straight. I'm just trying to
understand this again. I'm a college dropout. The money to
(11:14):
build the educational institutions and the infrastructure in America, things
like hospitals, things we need that gets shipped to Israel,
the Marines and the National Guard get sent into the
(11:36):
cities where that money could have been used to better
the lives of the people.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
That seems to make no sense.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
I think Democrats should be taking notes from this and
Tim Dillon and have frame what's going on here, because
that was pretty effective messaging about where the administration's priority
seemed to be.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Yeah, I agree with you, but then they would have
to agree with not sending arms to Israel.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
We're not there yet, right, I mean getting there first?
You have to Yeah, first you have to get to
the point.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Well, I'm not so sure because I've always wondered this,
this whole this it's always been more of a Republican
talking point. But considering how Dems freaked out about usaid,
It's like, is it really going to be kind of
a core messaging conception about spend money here and not abroad?
I don't know, it's just more of an interesting intellectual question.
But I don't disagree with him literally whatsoever about the
(12:28):
foreign aid question, and specifically, I mean, the funny thing
is when you talk to the pro Israel defenders and
all them, they're always like, it's not that much money.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
It's only three billion a year.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
But Tucker actually recently had a great segment where he
broke down the totality of the amount of money sent
not just to Israel for in terms of aid, but
also to Egypt so they don't go to war with Israel.
But then also all of the billions that has cost
just since October seventh to defend them. For that price,
you actually could quite on ironically rebuild much of america'stytes
(13:03):
have infrastructure points from.
Speaker 5 (13:05):
ACA subsidies at the very least.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Definitely, you know, there's a lot of uses for that
money here at home, no doubt about it. And just
a couple of updates with regard to the National Guard deployment.
So we covered yesterday that the Judge and Oregon trumpetpoint
and Judge and Oregon said, you can't federalize the national
Guard here, either the Oregon National Guard or the California
National Guard or the Texas National Guard or any other
national guard that you have in mind put in a
(13:30):
temporary restraining order.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
JB.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Pritsker also took the administration of court to try to
block the use of they want to use the Texas
National Guard. I think this is insane using calling in
red state national Guard into a blue state against blue
state citizens. I think this is an incredibly dangerous escalation.
So in any case, JB. Pritzker went to court to
try to also get a temporary restraining order against that.
(13:55):
That judge is now allowing that federalization of troops and
deployment into Shigo to go forward. We also had Trump
yesterday saying he would consider invoking the Insurrection Act quote
if it was necessary, particularly if the courts or state
and local officials delay his plans to deploy the National Guard.
So just escalating the tension, escalating the tension, trying to
(14:17):
provoke some sort of a crisis, some sort of a confrontation,
and we're already seeing many of those play out. You know,
those the apartment raid that happened. Some of the residents
of that building are still missing. You also have a
number of people who've been picked up by Ice I'm
talking thousands of people who have just vanished. Their family members,
have no idea where they are, Lawyers haven't been able
to get in touch, et cetera. But you know, they're
(14:39):
ratcheting up the pressure, ratcheting up the pressure and sending
in red state National Guard to blue cities seems to
me like an an absolutely insane move.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
It says here that the deployment would be some two
hundred Guard troops from Texas, which would be for the
same justification about federal property right. So that's this, This
is where they it's never it's to crush crime, which
is here in DC is the whole is for crime,
not the protection of federal property.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
But then in Chicago the messaging is.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
About crime, but it's actually to protect ice or it's
for deportation. It's like, what are we doing here?
Speaker 1 (15:17):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
I mean, I think the entire thing is totally crazy.
In terms of the Insurrection Act, as you said, was
to was invoking the Insurrection Act, which has not yet
been invoked, and that was part of the original thing
that they were doing. Part of the justification. The invocation
here is around protecting federal property right, which is the
allowing to do some what You're gonna have to correct
(15:39):
me here because I'm still very confused on the convoluted nature.
They're allowed to protect and assist law enforcement, but cannot
carry out law enforcement action period correct, whenever they are
deployed under this author Well.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
You're not wrong to be confused, because the line is
very hard to draw. So like, for example, if they're
involved in crowd control, yeah, is that civilian law enforcement?
If they're backing up ice, I would say that does
constitute civilian law enforcement. So the line is blurry, and
of course the Trump administration pushes it as far as
they can. DC is a bit of a special case
(16:16):
because of the different you know, laws here, et cetera.
But if we see what they were doing in California,
there were certainly instances where you know, it appeared that
they were doing domestic law enforcement actions, which should be
illegal under posse comittatis. But you know, putting all of
that like aside, what we're seeing in these in Chicago
and Portland are the main focus right now? Is this
(16:38):
just mass show of force?
Speaker 5 (16:39):
And you know, I'm.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
About to cover this shooting by a Customs and Border
Patrol agent. You know, it's already clear that they lied
about key details. Some of the details are still murky,
but already clear that they lied about it. But this
this agent shot this woman and you know, and appears
to have done it, said you know, do something, bitch,
and then shoots her. So these are things that are
(17:01):
already happening. And that's before we bring in the National
Guard again. You know, you think that they believe this
is politically like popular for them. I think that they
are intentionally trying to provoke a crisis, like they want
to get to the Insurrection Act. And their mo has
been from the beginning of this administration that they use
either real or imagined or generated crises to try to
(17:23):
consolidate more and more power. And so when I zoom
out from just these individual deployments or what they're you know,
alleged to be intending to do with them, and you
see the You see the law firms, you see the universities,
You see the kidnapping of students, you see the Crushian descent,
you see the consolidation media power, you see all of that.
You see the strikes in the Venezuela boats.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
You see the.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Declaration of war against drug traffickers and you put it
all together. That's where I think this is a piece
of the broader puzzle versus you know, the like we
shouldn't look at it in isolation.
Speaker 5 (17:53):
It's just I don't blind.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Anything thinking that.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
I think the only reason I come from it this
way is because I now know how stupid many of
the people who involved in this are. You would not
try to take a fascist takeover a city with two
hundred troops from Texas. Instead, you would do a larp
of saying, look at these awesome Texas troops, and you
would produce ice pornography for boomers on your OSMO cameras
which are apparently following them around right now.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Listen.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
You can say one is really bad, which I think
a lot that is bad, But that's not the same
thing as martial law in a city. Okay, And so
this is this is kind of what I'm trying to
get out here is at the end of the day,
you can you can say what is happening is extraordinary,
et cetera, but contextualized to say, we're talking about two
hundred troops from the Texas National Guard, all of whom
are going to surround an ice building and do basically nothing.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
I mean, that's not.
Speaker 5 (18:40):
Think it's an important discion.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
I'm not saying it. I'm not saying it's not crazy.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Yeah, it's not a martial law declaration takeover of Chicago
with hum vs in the streets.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Right, Yes, And I think it's important to point that
out and also to say, you know, when we're talking
about like free speech and the crushing of speech, it's
not that, like we're being critical of the Trump administration
on the show right now, it's not that they have
perfect and complete absolute power. It's that they want people
to have to think twice. They want to make an
example of a few people. They want to chill the
(19:12):
ability to speak freely, and there's some evidence that this
has been successful. I mean, with regard to the protests,
there's a whole cottage industry of Democrats in particular love
to point out like, oh, there's so many fewer like
pro Palestine protests now, And there's a variety of reasons
for that, but one of them. There are protests still
going on, but I think it's fair to say not
as widespread as they were at one point during the
(19:32):
Biden administration. There are a variety of reasons for that,
But one of them is because people are afraid, like
people are afraid of being targeted, but were pro Palestinian.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
Passes always found that such a stupid talking point. Yeah,
nobody on the right gives a shit what a Palestinian
protester has to say.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Yeah, well, if anything, it's good for that.
Speaker 5 (19:48):
Definitely true.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
They can point in some pink haired weirdo and be like, look,
this is our opposition.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
That's good for Israel. Right.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
The reason they protested under Biden was because they're part
of the political culture.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
They thought that they might actually be able to put
pressure on Biden. And then there's also just a level
of fatigue where it's October seventh, now we're two years
into you know, this this genocide, So all of that,
but I do think part of it too. You have
to take into account that, you know, they watched Remisa
Ostar get kidnapped off the street, they saw mackmod Khalil
be held in the detention center and not be able
(20:19):
to be present for the birth of his child. And
they've seen, you know, students be expelled from universities after
being pressured from the Trump administration.
Speaker 5 (20:27):
To do all of that.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
So it is important as we see these escalations that
you know, you're right. It's not the caricature of like, oh,
they roll in the humbies and they just take over Chicago.
But there is a show of force here that is
meant to be coercive, and that is what the you know,
the ice part is partly a show of force. It's
partly about obviously, like rounding up random immigrants. The National
(20:51):
Guard deployments are also meant to be a show of force.
It's also meant to be content creation for like you know,
fascist boom er porn.
Speaker 5 (20:59):
It is all of those.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
I think a lot of it is heightening contradictions too,
because what it demonstrates for the purposes of Chicago. Let's
say you have Brandon Johnson who's declaring ice free zones
right and saying, oh, well, Chicago police are not going
to help you.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
That's like catnip for Republicans, right, because.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
They can say, look, this mayor won't even allow the
police to cooperate with ice, which I mean, I do
think is kind of crazy in this whole sanctuary city thing,
but courts of ruled I guess it's legal. It doesn't
make any sense to me same in Portland. They've basically
declared They're like, no, we're not going to help ice
or we're not going to come to their defense or
whatever for federal property. Which this is the justification on
(21:37):
the Feds. They want the narrative out there. The Pritzker
and Brandon Johnson and them are pro crime and pro
illegal and at the very least haven't done anything about it.
And so this is the people who are trying to
restore law and order again. If I were you, if
I were somebody who looked at this from the outside
and wasn't as intimately familiar with some of the genuine
(21:58):
retards who are the people running, I would also be
deeply suspicious. So I do not blame anybody who is
out there. What I have come to understand is much
of this, as I said about the two hundred guardsmen
and then, is genuinely about content to appear. It's tough
so that we can have fun conversations amongst various people
(22:19):
on Twitter, and to basically have Fox News b roll
that can roll everywhere without supposedly going the full way.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Now, can I rule out the full way at this point? No?
Speaker 3 (22:29):
Right, Okay, it's not that I'm not ruling that out whatsoever,
but I don't think that's the actual plan. Quite literally,
quite a lot of this is about social media, which
is sick. I agree, Okay, it's sick to actually have
to be where we are right now because of it,
But that's I guess a bigger part of it.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's both, right, I mean,
I think the content creation is an important part of
the fascist projection of power. But when you've got you know,
you've got this national security memory, and you've got real
things that are genuinely happening. And also once you've normalized
and they've basically already done this, once you've normalized soldiers
(23:09):
on American streets conducting normal law enforcement activities, that's not
something that you can put back in the bag. And
so those things are those things are extraordinary and they
should be treated as such, even if a component of
it is also theatrical. And the theatrical is also it
is meant to scare people, It is meant to project
something that creates a real impact, not just for like,
(23:33):
you know, their boomerati.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Yeah, I know, but at the risk of getting into
a crazy debate, it is a novel circumstance of like,
if you have a city which doesn't want to enforce
the law.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
What do you do. It's like a neo Confederate idea.
But can say, but.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
That's not true, that it is that is literally not true.
I mean, like, let's use the example of Portland, because
it's the one they're saying, Oh, we have to go
and protect this like one ICE building. Okay, there were
protests there that were continuous. They had dwindled down to
like twenty people. Law enforcement was their manager. They had
made a number of arrests in the context of these protests.
(24:08):
Nothing again insane, But it's not like law enforcement was
just letting this, letting violent things happen and wasn't doing
anything about it.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
So well, you're a poorting to Portland.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
But let's say Chicago in this case, like, okay, we
do have a video of the ICE people, which by
the way, doesn't look good for the people of ICE
who are involved here.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
So here you see this is a you know, an
immigrant that I don't know if this is ICE or
CVP with some federal agents are trying to apprehend and
he is struggling and they are struggling with him and
you see him down here on the ground. They're trying
to get his hands into you know, basically zip ties
Flex Scott Sea exactly, and random Chicago residents are stopping
(24:49):
their cars and yelling at them and video recording them
and telling them to leave them alone and telling them
to go, and eventually, after struggling with him for a while,
they do leave.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
So on one level, the American in a lot of
us is like, don't tread on me.
Speaker 5 (25:06):
We don't absolutely.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
On the other, do we really want mass mobs of
citizens to determine who is allowed to have law enforcement
on the street or not. And this kind of gets
to my Chicago police. So if the Chicago police say
we're not going to assist in a federal law enforcement operation,
that is genuinely like a neo Confederate idea where illegals
are legal here. No, we have the supremacy clause of
(25:28):
the US Constitution. The law of the land is supreme
across all states. Like I remember during Los Angeles, they're like,
Ice needs to.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Get out of LA.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
You don't determine that. America determines that, Like it's a weird.
Speaker 5 (25:41):
Determining it right there?
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Okay, there are a few people, So okay, those people
on the street get to have more supremacy than the
United States Constitution, military and ICE.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
But no, start the context here, which is that ICE
is routinely violating people's rights, right assaulting them, apprehunding them
with no warrants, flying Blackhawk military.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Warrant to detain you. Especially both you.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
And I both know a measure of you, and I
both know that it hasn't just been undocumented immigrants who
have been apprehended. People feel their rights are being violated,
and they disagree with the you know, with the what
they see as an invasion.
Speaker 5 (26:20):
And a crash down. I mean there, this is what city.
Speaker 6 (26:23):
No.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
But you like, the expectation is if you win an election,
you're going to follow the law, and they're not doing that.
So that's where the context comes in of people know,
they don't feel like it is just for some random
They don't trust that ICE is like apprehending this guy
in good faith or that they have a real reason
to be apprehending him. They don't support the lawlessness and
the rogue nature. ICE is out of control. Like we've
(26:46):
watched them assault American citizens, We've watched them you know
they'll detain American citizens with no due process, no lawyer,
no ability to make a phone called, no nothing. That
is what this agency is doing. And so yeah, people object.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
To that, Okay, you can object at all you want.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Again, do you not think it's a little bit crazy
that low municipalities get to just declare we will not
be compliant with federal law.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
I mean, I think that's not.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Saying they're not they won't be compliant federal law. What
they're saying is that we're you, Okay, you want to
come in and do your thing, like we can't stop you.
But that doesn't mean we have to devote our law
enforcement resources, which are limited to whatever dumb shit you
want to do, which is by the way, violating our
own cities.
Speaker 6 (27:23):
Right.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
But in the case of let's say, go out Los Angeles,
they quite literally demanded withdrawal and lack of enforcement in
their own city. It's like, you don't get to you
don't get to decide that the federal government does not
have supremacy here, Like we do need to stand up
at the very least for a little bit for this
idea that because I mean, think about it, would you
really would you really accept this locality arguments from the South.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
Let's say during second No, everybody rejected it.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
But hold on, it's not like Gavin Newsom sent in
the California National Guard to like repel Ice from the city.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
That's not what happened. Ice has been allowed to operate.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
It's not allowed.
Speaker 5 (28:01):
Yeah, there's no library, which is kind.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
Of what I'm saying. There's no allowing they are operating. Yeah,
it's federal I.
Speaker 5 (28:07):
Know, that's what's the way, though, I'm not sure what
you're objecting from.
Speaker 3 (28:09):
Adaptedly, was like this rhetoric in this idea that these
localities just get to simply decide that federal law enforcement
does not get to take place happening.
Speaker 7 (28:17):
No, it is.
Speaker 3 (28:18):
I mean, in the case of Chicago, they're actively genuinely
trying to make sure that they don't. They they're like
not allowing their property to be mobilized, they're not determining
any resources. They're saying that they won't answer any calls
on the way there. This is not a defensive Ice,
who I agree with you, has acted genuinely out of control.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
But there is a weird neo Confederate thing taking over.
Speaker 3 (28:38):
I think a part of the modern left that seems
to say that immigration enforcement is not allowed in blue states.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
I just think that misperception of what the argument has
been and what the reality on the ground has been. So,
for example, in Chicago, Chicago Police Department has been present
at a lot of the protests. They've been you know,
they've provided crowd control, including you know, to benefit fit ICE.
In this instance where this lady got shot, ICE originally
(29:05):
lied and or whatever federal agiascy And there's a bunch
not just ICE that are on the ground there said
that Chicago Police Department didn't come and assist. That was
just a total blatant lie of what actually occurred. In fact,
ICE agents have been calling in in the suburb broad
view where the ICE facility is. They've been calling in phony,
bogus nine to one one calls, draining resources, et cetera.
So I don't like what you're describing. I don't think
(29:28):
is the reality of what's actually taking place. And yes,
do people object to the tactics of ICE. Do they
object their rights being violated? You know, little kids being
dragged out in the middle of the night and zip tid'.
Of course they objected that, and it is their right
as American phitisens to. No one's that happening in their city.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
No one's saying you can't object. No one is saying
that you cannot object.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
I think I am saying that you probably should not
be interfering with law enforcement operation on the street in
this way, just because that can go down a very
dangerous road quickly. I mean it's like, okay, let's say,
do we o support mob violence? Like, do we just
support mob rules?
Speaker 1 (30:00):
Well, I don't.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
I think it leads a very bad direction, even though
I know much the left eye us after BLM.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
I agree, Sager.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
But what I find more interesting about that video is
number one, the total incompetence of launch, so non display.
Number two that these aren't activists. These are just random
people who happen to be driving by. And so in
the same way that we could evaluate, you know, the
response to LUIGIMANGIONI murdering and a healthcare CEO and say, well,
(30:30):
when the American people are like, you know, find that
to be potentially a positive or at least they're like
not upset about.
Speaker 5 (30:37):
That happening, you have to ask a question, why sure?
Speaker 2 (30:40):
And so I think that's more of my point with
the video is to say, like, it is an extraordinary
thing that you have just almost seemingly every random person
who happened to come by taking what are in your
your right to say extraordinary actions to say, I'm going
to involve myself, I'm going to record this, I'm going
to back to this. A couple of them got physically
(31:02):
involved in terms of trying to, you know, intervene here.
That is a real break from the norm with the
American public. And so that's what I find to be
extraordinary about that video is what it says about how
people in those communities are feeling about.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
The sure so we can sociologically think it's interesting.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
I think what I'm afraid of is literally the same
thing of what happened with anti fund BLM is it's
not it's not a far cry from leftist and mainstream
media justification of oh, that's good, that's what you're supposed
to do. And I mean, this is where it's like,
people are you're afraid of conflagration. It's like, well, then
there is too much of a permission structure.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Right, But I feel like you are holding random individuals
on the street to a higher standard than the president
of the United States, the head of Department of Homeland Security,
et cetera, because they I think it to me, it
is abundantly clear that what they want is some sort
of a conflagration that they can use again to further
(32:01):
expand power. They're actively courting that, and they haven't really
fully gotten that yet because you have had a level
of I don't know if it's disconnection or you know,
just you have not had that or discipline. Really you
have not had that full conflagration. But you know, that's
clearly when you are rating an apartment building with black
Hawk helicopters, like, that's clearly the sort of.
Speaker 5 (32:22):
Thing that you're up.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
When you're sending Red state troops into Blue states, that
is the sort of thing that you are courting. And
it only takes one horrific thing going sideways to be
you know, in another country.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Look, I mean that's one interpretation of it.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
The other is is that it's a shakunaw approach to
make sure that people self deport, which is actually working.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
I'm not defending the ice thing. I think it's crazy.
I would I do not support that literally whatsoever.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
Yeah, And in a lot of these cases though, and
this kind of im pointing to the mom thing. I'm
just watching the permission structure happen over and over again,
where it's like, oh, let's encourage this stuff, then you're
going to get what you want and you got to
start killing agents or any of that. I mean, it's crazy,
and actually before maybe we'll talk about this after your monologue,
but one of the things that should maybe hearten people
(33:09):
is that, at the very least in America, you do
have to prove a lot of your shit in court
if you're actually.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
Just going to accuse people.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
And if we think about some of the most extraordinary
and stupid things. Let's say that the Trump administration has
tried to charge remember the sandwich guy, but Grand Juriy
just throws that out immediately you're about to do your
home monologue. People are lying bodycam et cetera has actually
come to their savior.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
So I don't know.
Speaker 3 (33:31):
I mean, there's a lot of these warnings about some
you know, takeover, and you know, again, a lot of
the rhetoric is like Humvey's martial law being declared in Chicago.
I do think it's important to contextualize and say, like
some of the system actually is holding in a way
that I don't think is being portrayed, and instead there
is a permission structure to violence that I'm watching like
(33:52):
pretty clearly play out well with a lot of the commentariat.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
Well, we'll take your point. I'll just say in that
particular video, no one is being violent. I mean most
of what people are doing, we're just standing there shouting.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
Involve yourself in a law enforcement operation like that's literally obstruction.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Of Like mostly what you saw was people stop in
their cars, honking, yelling at them, which they're allowed to do.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the people.
Actually we're getting involved here.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
I think that's crazy, Like one guy who was like,
you know, trying to pull him away. What most of
what was happening was first of all, them being thoroughly
incompetent and embarrassing way.
Speaker 5 (34:28):
Which we've seen in other instances as well. I'm sure
you saw that.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
Did you see the video of the guy in Maryland,
some like ice buffoon who's gun like fell out, the
voice is gun at the crowd and just I mean
just clown and stuff. And by the way, that is
only going to get worse because of how rapidly they
are trying to increase the ranks of ICE. But anyway,
so you have that, and then most of what you
have is just people like random people standing there and
(34:51):
yelling and recording.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
And I support recording the police. It drives them crazy.
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Everybody should do it, especially if you see it around.
You want to record ICE all you want? Fine more
talking about the permission structure for a lot of this
stuff in the way that we talk about it, because
I fear, just like with Luigi Mangioni or something like that,
somebody starting to take it seriously and not understanding the
full context of where we are, Like, yes, things can
be very very very very very bad, and they are.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
I'm not denying it.
Speaker 3 (35:19):
After we did a whole segment yesterday, I literally was like,
I think the country's falling apart, like quite literally. And
at the same time, you know, you can have a
body can you can have a federal agent accuse somebody
shooting someone apparently unjustibly as you're about to do your
monologue on yeah, and that can be disproven in a
court in a day, and you can walk free. Now
that person's life was unjustly interfered with by the federal
(35:39):
government and she should sue. In my opinion, and that's
my thing is we still have some faith in our institutions.
I don't want people to be so blackpilled that they
think that violence and all that genuinely is the answer.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Yeah, because that seems to me where things are trending
right now.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
I hope that you're wrong, but I agree, I share
your concern, and I the last, the last thing I
would say is, you know, one of the fears is
that you have some parts of the system that do
still seem to function and work right, and the court
system at the lower level especial being one of them,
(36:13):
and especially when it comes to you know, adjudicating like
business disputes and those sorts of things like that continues
to function.
Speaker 5 (36:21):
And at the same time, you have.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
The executive which, enabled by the Supreme Court, is carving
out broader and broader zones where the laws really don't apply.
So that's taking it back to Venezuela. When you're saying
war with drug cartels, that means in drug traffickers. That
means that if they randomly you know, this this is
taking this has not happened yet. If you randomly shoot
(36:43):
someone on the street, you say they were an enemy combatant.
Speaker 5 (36:46):
They were a drug trafficker, Like is that now allowed?
Speaker 2 (36:48):
That's not that different from just blowing up random venezuela
potentially migrants at sea. So they continue to expand and
carve out more in war zones where the laws really
don't apply. And ICE has been one of the primary
focal points of that because they can justifiably say, we
ran on a mandate of mass deportation and this is
(37:10):
what the American people want.
Speaker 5 (37:12):
But then when you're.
Speaker 2 (37:14):
Sweeping up American citizens and denying them do process rights,
when you're assaulting American citizens. I know you and I
both watched the business owner who had his ribs broken.
We watched a woman you know, whose husband was being deported,
thrown to the ground and had to be hospitalized. Photojournalists
who are just trying to record what's happening, being thrown
to the ground and having head trauma, and this all
(37:34):
happening with your accountability.
Speaker 5 (37:37):
That's where it.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
Gets very concerning, because that zone of lawlessness that the
president has claimed continues to expand and expand and expand.
So does that mean that everything is like totalitarian We
can't say, we can't criticize and we can't walk outside
without being snatched up.
Speaker 5 (37:50):
Blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
No, of course they're parts of society that still function,
but we should be deeply concerned about the way that
that zone of lawlessness continues to exit banned and the
way that manifests itself, the way that it tramples on
all of our rights, and you know, takes away parts
of America that I think you and I both really
trying it.
Speaker 3 (38:08):
No, I think that's very well said, as long as
it's I just you know, I fear the most of
watching because we saw how like George Floyd to George
Floyd murdered to burning shit down happened in two weeks.
Like we saw how quickly that can all transpire, and
then full blown rioting that can just people getting murdered
(38:29):
and everybody's totally okay with that, and then we have
the BLM Ferguson effect on cops for the next two
and a half years. My greatest fear, and I do
think the government is complicit, is to see some sort
of spiral like that happen. And genuinely, who knows, because
you can't trust the government right now with the way
that they've handled the situation. And again, I literally know
some of the people who are actual idiots or know
(38:50):
of the people who aren't. I don't trust their judgment
at all. I still can't believe there are the people
who got these jobs. Then there's also on the other
side of that, I see the permission structure starting to
bubble up, where each are their own like great, they're
both greatest nightmare but also kind of the dream boogeyman
that they want to create. Yeah, and if there is
(39:11):
not responsibility that prevails even in a dangerous moment like this,
things are going things can go south so quickly, right,
with basically a preview, So what do you take Indeed.
Speaker 2 (39:21):
All right, let's take a look at this. Over the weekend,
amid the ice created melee in Chicago, an immigration agent
shot an American woman multiple times following some sort of
a traffic incident. Now that incident escalated protests in the
city that has already been rocked by DHS is heavy
handed tactics, including, as we've discussed here, an apartment raid
(39:44):
that involved black Hawk helicopters. Now, the details of exactly
what transpired with this woman, whose name is Maramar Martinez,
are kind of murky. But what has become quite clear
is that the government initially lied about some really key details,
and now her lawyer is c that bodycam footage undercuts
their story entirely. This is raising serious questions about whether
(40:06):
armed federal agents just shot an anti ice activists and
then brazenly lied about it to cover their tracks. So
let me take you through the timeline of their shifting
stories and exactly what the evidence shows. So this incident
that occurred on Saturday morning and involved not only Martinez
but another motorist, Anthony Ruiz, who was not shot but
was arrested. On Saturday evening, DHS spokesperson Trisia McLaughlin put
(40:30):
out the following statement with the government's first version of
the events that led up to that shooting. Now pay
attention to the details here. These are going to matter,
McLaughlin wrote. Quote, this morning, during routine patrolling in broad View,
in the same area of Chicago, law enforcement were assaulted yesterday.
Our brave law enforcement officers were rammed by vehicles and
boxed in by ten cars. Agents were unable to move
(40:52):
their vehicles and exited the car. One of the drivers
who rammed the law enforcement vehicle was armed with a
semi automatic weapon. Law enforcement was forced to deploy their
weapons and fire defensive shots at an armed US citizen
who drove herself to the hospital to get care for wounds.
The armed woman was named in a CBP intelligence bulletin
last week for doxing agents and posting online, Hey to
(41:15):
all my gang, let's fuck those motherfuckers up. Don't let
them take anyone. Thankfully, no law enforcement officers were seriously injured.
Speaker 5 (41:22):
In this attack.
Speaker 2 (41:23):
Pritzkirt's Chicago Police Department is leaving the shooting scene and
refuses to assist us in securing the area. There is
a growing crowd and we are deploying special operations to
control the scene. This is an evolving situation. We will
give more info as soon as it becomes available. So
that was their first version of events. Now that story
was immediately called into question from a variety of directions.
(41:44):
First of all, the other motorist, Anthony Ruiz's mother denied
the government's version of events. According to The New York Times,
mister Ruiz's mother, Elizabeth Ruiz, that her son told her
on the phone in the morning he had been rammed
by federal agents and that they were shooting.
Speaker 5 (41:59):
Upon hearing that, she.
Speaker 2 (42:00):
Said she raced to the scene. She said an agent
grabbed her son said he was under arrest. When she
asked why, she said, you received no answer. So, according
to Ruiz and his mother, he just happened to be
in the area, was rammed by ice, and then arrested
for no reason. Then Chicago Police Department said the DHS
was also lying about their supposed failure to assist in
crowd control.
Speaker 5 (42:19):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (42:20):
In a statement, Chicago Police clarified officers did respond to
the shooting scene involving federal agents on Saturday near the
intersection of West Thurday ninth Street and South Kensia Avenue
around ten thirty am. Police said their purpose was to
quote maintain public safety and traffic control. Then we got
the actual charging document from the government, and key details
(42:41):
from McLaughlin's original story about Martinez were now missing. So
the government themselves undercut key details of their original narrative.
First of all, McLaughlin got the location wrong. Second, remember
how she claimed that they were boxed in by ten cars.
Suddenly in the criminal complaint only four cars were mentioned Martinez,
Ruiz and to others. Originally, McLaughlin had said that Martinez
(43:03):
drove herself to the hospital. Complaint says that she was
actually taken by ambulance from a nearby repair shop. But
most critically, McLaughlin had originally claimed the government had to
fire shots and self defense in part because Martinez was
armed with a semi automatic weapon. The criminal complaint makes
no mention of Martinez carrying a firearm, So even before
(43:26):
an initial hearing on the charges facing Martinez, government had
already contradicted their own story in multiple significant ways. But
hearing last night raised even more questions about exactly what
happened here, So Chicago Tribune reporter Jason Meisner covered these proceedings.
According to Martinez's attorney, there at those proceedings the presence
of rogue armed agents of the state that was the
(43:47):
real danger to the community, not Martinez. Martinez's team alleged
that bodycam footage tells a totally different story than what
the government has been selling. So her attorney told the court,
based on repeated viewings of the bodycam footage, you can
see the agent who was driving suddenly turned the wheel
to the left, indicating he actually ran Martinez, not the
(44:10):
other way around. Then the agent jumps out and starts shooting.
Martinez's attorney also argued that the pattern the bullets through
Martinez's passenger side door was inconsistent with the government's narrative
about a head on ramming. In addition, the bodycam footage
captures this agent saying, quote, do something, bitch, before he
(44:30):
jumps out of the car and starts firing his weapon.
The bodycam footage was said to directly contradict the government's
claim that Martinez was driving towards officers when they fired
at her in self defense. What's more, after the shooting,
the agent appears to warn another agent about speaking plainly
about what had just occurred, cognizant of the body cam's recording.
Speaker 5 (44:52):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (44:53):
After the shooting, Martinez's lawyer says, the body camera captured
another agent coming up and saying, Hey, what happened. The
agent points to his bodycam and says, hey, don't speak,
You're good. As for the government, their lawyer did claim
that that same bodycam footage captured an agent saying, we're
getting boxed in.
Speaker 5 (45:12):
We got to get out of here.
Speaker 2 (45:13):
She's going to make contact right before the car is
struck on both sides. Now, notably, Martinez's attorney offered to
show the bodycam footage to the court, while the government
lawyers made no such offer. Ultimately, Martinez was shot five times.
Speaker 5 (45:29):
She's now being.
Speaker 2 (45:29):
Charged with forcibly, assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering
with a federal law enforcement officers in the performance.
Speaker 5 (45:36):
Of their official duties.
Speaker 2 (45:38):
So far, though the judge does not seem to impress
with the government's case, both Martinez and Ruiz were ordered
released after the judge found the government did not meet
the bar for requiring the two to be detained until
their trial. Now, given body camera footage exists, we are
eventually going to get the real story of what exactly
transpired here. But already, in significant ways, the government story
(46:00):
of self defense against a rampaging woman with a semi
automatic weapon has completely fallen apart. And while no agents
were injured, an American woman suffered five gunshot wounds from
her own government. And one can only assume there will
be more dangerous and potentially deadly encounters between citizens of
our country and the government their tax dollars fund as
(46:20):
the Trump regien escalates their ice and National Guard deployments.
And so sorry you were talking about and This is
a risk
Speaker 3 (46:27):
And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com