The Rittenhouse Trial and Law Stuff

We talk with lawyer Moira Cohen about the Rittenhouse trial

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome back to it could happen here, the podcast that
is occasionally introduced competently as it sort of was today
because our guest today is someone who is very near
and dear uh to me and to like almost every
other person that I know and work with. Um, Moira

(00:27):
Meltzer Cohen. Moira, you are a lawyer, uh, focusing on
civil rights and movement kind of cases. Uh. And you
are the lawyer of yeah, like every everybody I respect
in the world. Yeah. Um, you're the person that I
text whenever I need to know, hey, was this a crime? Um?

(00:49):
Or it? And it never is. I'm with law abiding,
very law abiding um. And uh. Yeah, we wanted to
have you on both as you're always a breath of
sunshine and because um, there's some like lost stuff happening
these days. We just had our mutual friend Molly Conjure
on to talk about the Charlottesville case, which is quite

(01:11):
a thing. Today was the day. Yeah, Today Today had
some had some moments. Chris can't Well and Richard Spencer
representing themselves separately, each cross examining each other. I'd have
so many thoughts, but mostly my thoughts involved laughing. It's very,

(01:32):
very funny. It's it's it's the funniest of of an
incredibly tragic and infuriating situation. Something finely funny finally happened. Um,
So at least there's that often very funny in spite
of himself. Yeah, UM, I would love one day to
just get you on and duo, we can do a
reading of some of Chris can't Well's better legal filings. Um.

(01:55):
These guys quite the legal mind, Robert. I think I
maybe didn't ever tell you about the fact that we
um did a Poorams Feel, which is a performance of
the story of Esther Um, Oh my God, traditionally done
at Poor Ram, which is a Jewish holiday. Um, and

(02:16):
it was based on the complaint that he filed God.
Those Twitter the third was prominently featured in the role
of Hayman. For those of you who don't know, Chris Cantwell,
the crying Nazi from the Unite the Right rally, has
been incarcerated for a year or so now UM and

(02:39):
continues to put out his own legal motions, generally handwritten UM,
alleging all kinds of conspiracies from the people who did
not call the FBI and admit to committing several crimes.
We should we should absolutely absolutely do a crossover with
Dannel Harper um and to discuss Wells legal genius. But

(03:00):
but today more we wanted to have you on because
there is another case that, uh, a lot of folks
are rightly concerned about, because it has some pretty dire
implications depending on how it goes in a number of ways,
the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. Um. For the I mean,
everyone knows Kyle written House took a gun illegally across
state lines to a protest so he might have the

(03:22):
chance to shoot people. Um, and then shot people. This
is my opinion about what happened. Obviously, the legal case
is unfolding. Um, there's been a lot of talk online
on on Twitter and whatnot about how obviously unfair the
judges being. This is what the talk on Twitter is about.
And it's because of a couple of things. One is
that the judge and and again I'm before I cut,

(03:44):
I go to you, Moira. I'm just explaining kind of
the way the discourse has been. The discourse has stated like, well,
the judge said, you can't call Kyle, you can't call
the people that he killed victims, but you can call
the people that he killed looters and arsonists. UM. And
so people are saying, look at this very clear example
of how how bad the justice system is. UM. And
I wanted to bring you on for a number of reasons,

(04:06):
including the fact that, like there's a lot of stuff
that seems fucked up and in fact is fucked up,
you could argue, but it's also like like pretty normal
justice system stuff and some stuff that seems fucked up
but actually isn't. This is not I'm not necessarily talking
about the Rittenhouse case here, just in general, and we
talk about the law. So I guess I wanted to
have you on to explain to us what's happening in

(04:27):
your opinion and how normal, abnormal, good, bad are kind
of the things that we're seeing the decisions we're seeing
this judge make UM in this case so far. Yeah, sure,
absolutely so the trial, UM. I think when you asked
me to comment on this, UM, the trial had not started.
The trial has now started. It has been characterized by

(04:52):
the defense saying the N word be here this morning.
I think was just missed for making a cruel and
nakedly racist joke. Uh. And apparently the judge had a
fit of peak about the media's response to his evidentiary rulings,
which are what you've asked me to come discuss, UM,

(05:15):
which is itself actually one of the more unusual things
about this how this trial is going. UM. It's always
a little bit hard for me to appine on a
case that is not my case. UM. I feel tentative
about it. UM. This would never be my case because

(05:35):
I would not represent a white supremacist, and I am
not a prosecutor and would never be a prosecutor. And
I was not able to look at the briefing because
although all of the briefing was ostensibly publicly filed, it
is not actually publicly available. UM. I had a very

(05:57):
interesting conversation with the Clerk of court and Nosha, who
told me that if I mailed her a request, she
would fax me the briefing at a dollar twenty five
a page. And I said, thank you very much, goodbye. UM.
So I'll do my best to speak to these rulings, UM,
and the sort of larger issues as I see them. UM.

(06:20):
As you noted, there's been a lot of kind of
salacious headlines about the evidence here in this case. UM,
and I think those headlines are really they're less about
what's actually happening in the case, and they're more reflective
of the sort of pearl clutching um liberal impulse to
to notice the totally self evident hypocrisy of the legal system, uh,

(06:42):
and then to conclude that because certain groups are shown
more leniency, the way to resolve this hypocrisy is to
make sure everyone is pleased and prosecuted and punished as
viciously as the left is, which is not actually the
goal that I have. UM. And just to clarify when

(07:03):
I when I talk about liberals as I as I
will probably do a little bit, UM, I don't mean
like I mean liberal as opposed to radical um. People
who are more or less okay with the underlying big
systems uh, like capitalism and white dipremacy and hetero patriarchy
and like maybe are more concerned with the iterations of

(07:27):
those things that are particularly ghost but they don't actually
mind the systems themselves or the way that those systems
are reiterated and enforced by, for example, the American criminal
legal system. UM. So you know, I think the kind
of liberal read on these rulings is not only not

(07:48):
legally sound, UM, I think it's actually incredibly dangerous. And
it's watching this unfold and watching the liberal commentary on it,
I think is one of the things. It's one of
the ways that I can really see liberal liberals and
liberalism losing credibility. Um, because because they're sort of calling

(08:11):
out this hypocrisy and at the same time, there's a
little bit of a double standard that they want to um,
that they want to propose an enforce UM. So okay,
So I'll talk about the rulings that you discussed. UM.
The first one is that the judge UM said that
the prosecution is not allowed to refer to the people
at Rittenhouse killed as victims. UM. I will remind you,

(08:33):
as I remind all of my clients continuously, UM, that
the law is at best adjacent to common sense understandings
of justice and even frankly common sense understandings of reality. UM. Obviously,
the people that Kyle Rittenkow's killed were victims. UM. But

(08:55):
as my beloved colleague Sandy reminded me, UH, the concept
of victimhood, the status of victimhood is among the things
that needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at
this trial. Yeah, right, UM, And so in in fact,
this is a totally straightforward ruling. It is a ruling

(09:18):
that I would argue for as a defense attorney and
that I expect to win where I trying in murder case.
So you know, it's one of those things like you
have to overcome this, this you have to overcome when
you're thinking about a trial, like the fact that you
know he's guilty, because the point of a trial is

(09:40):
that everyone like there's a process, right, we don't just
do street justice because that's what written House did um
like we're we're you have to like one of the
It is troubling to me the extent that people are like,
well he he should be presumed like we should be
referring to the people he shot as victims before where

(10:00):
he has been adjudicated as guilty, because like that's that's important,
Like the presumption of innocence matters, and it's it's it's
also something that's very unfair, Like there's a person in Portland,
Alexander Dial, who got in trouble for taking a hammer
out of a Nazi's hand during a rally um and
has been charged with several felonies, and because his trial

(10:21):
kept getting delight spent two and a half years under
pre trial conditions, So the presumption of innocence is hardly equal,
but it is important. Yeah, exactly, And I think that
you know, we'll talk about this, I think in a
little bit, but that's exactly the issue, right, is that, Um,
we need to be enforcing the equal application of the

(10:44):
presumption of innocence, not being you know, rapidly going after
the right in the same way that we are used
to uh, law enforcement and the judiciary going after the left. Um.
The other rule thing that the judge made, um, which
you mentioned, was that he said that the defense is

(11:07):
authorized to characterize the people that written house killed as
looters or rioters if there's evidence presented that they were
in fact looting and were rioting. I would, if I were,
you know, in this case, which of course I'm not,
I would object to this on the grounds that it
is prejudicial in bullshit, and it's sucked up in bullshit. Yeah, yes,

(11:30):
that said, I am not super surprised by that ruling. UM.
I would say, it's likely within the sound discretion of
the judge and if you know, and if the prosecution disagrees,
it's a matter for appeal. UM. You know, I think, UM,
one of the things the judge said about this actually

(11:51):
that I think is really important and correct, UM, is
that he has uh a tremendous amount of discretion making
evidentiary rulings rulings. UM. One of the rulings he made
was that he's admitting the testimony of an expert witness, UM,
which you know, I think a lot of people are

(12:12):
also quite upset about. UM. But that said, again, this
is not that unusual, and it's very difficult for him
to deny that motion to have his evidence or his
testimony admitted, because the prosecution routinely uses use of force
experts in similar trials. UM. So now we're they're just

(12:33):
on the other side of the table. Yeah. So you know,
first of all, I get that these rulings don't make
us feel good, UM, but they aren't that strange. And
as I said, the judge has tremendous discretion in these matters. UM.
I was thinking about how to illustrate this, and it

(12:53):
occurred to me that I think the last time I
was on one of your podcasts, you asked me whether
cocaine was illegal. Yeah, what are we landing on that?
By the way. So I think the first time you
asked me, I was a total kill joy and was like,
of course, it's a legal probert um. But if I
had actually taken your question more seriously, I think a

(13:15):
better answer probably would have been nobody knows, um for
precisely this reason, because the real question is not what
the law says. The real question is how, or whether,
or against whom, or to what degree and under what
circumstances will that law be enforced. And these are always

(13:38):
open questions and arguments, and judges have a ton of power.
This case is no exception. So you know, again, not
only are these rulings pretty standard, but there I think
within the judge's discretion. Some of them I really dislike.
Some of them make total sense to me, um, And
I think that what is happening is is not necessarily

(14:01):
sound legal analysis. But liberals sort of trying to argue
that Writtenhouse should be more harshly prosecuted by saying that
these specific rulings are unfair or unusual. It's a little
bit like the liberals crying out now because people are
putting like, let's go Brandon on printing it on rifle
receivers and saying like, well, the Secret Service should investigate it. Well,

(14:22):
if they do that, then some then like thirty. If
they do that and like one company gets a fine,
forty people are going to go to prison for having
red flags on their body armor. Like that's the way
it works in this country. But the right Yeah, any
any anarchists for the three D printer is gonna immediately
go to jail. Yeah that's not like that is correct? Yeah. Yeah.

(14:52):
So I guess the thing that I want to point
out here is that what is actually unusual about this
case is not these rulings. It is that Written House
is going to trial at all. And the reason Rittenhouse
is going to trial is able to go to trial
is largely because this prosecution is fundamentally calculated not to
be repressive. Um So, I want to kind of zoom

(15:14):
out and get away from the weeds of the evidentiary rulings.
Um So, in its simplest expression, when we talk about
the difference between state and federal jurisdiction, we're saying, kind of, um,
jurisdiction for dummies, Uh, overly simplified is stuff that happens

(15:36):
inside or only impact a given state. Is typically prosecuted
by the state and if it impacts if your offense
conduct or alleged offense conduct impacts more than one state, UM,
then it is or can be prosecuted by the Federal
Department of Justice. So Kyle Rittenhouse cross state lines with

(15:59):
a pretty serious firearm and he shot three people. This
puts us immediately into federal jurisdiction land. UM. He did
this in the context of an uprising for racial justice
that has been characterized by the fact that those rising
up on the side of racial justice have been subject
to intense repression by the federal government. D o J

(16:23):
has shown themselves to be fire breathingly enthusiastic of opicizing
their jurisdiction over heady offenses based on totally tenuous grounds
um for people on the left or who are perceived
to be on the left. UM. D o J has
asserted jurisdiction in order to prosecute people for um absolutely

(16:46):
trivial but politically motivated offenses that would be left to
the state to prosecute absent the politics of the accused. UM.
They have assertained federal jurisdiction on really flim the bases,
like that a local police building or vehicle UM. Belongs
to an apartment that has received federal funding, so property

(17:08):
damage against it becomes a federal offense. One thing they're
doing that is unusual is the federal government is as
certain concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute offenses. So I know, there's
someone in Courtland who is simultaneously being prosecuted by multnoma
and also the federal government um for allegedly throwing some

(17:31):
accelerant on a police building. UM. Right, So it is
very curious that written House, who quite clearly did something
that would you know, fall under federal jurisdiction, is not
being federally charged. And it matters a lot for how
the case proceeds, UM, because the way that federal prosecutions

(17:55):
operate is that the Feds will typically stack these indictments
UM in a way that really puts tremendous pressure on
them to plead guilty um, which is not typically the
case or it doesn't happen in the same way in
a state prosecution. So UM, you have these stacked indictments

(18:18):
with multiple, multiple counts ranging you know, all all kinds
of conduct um, often involving you know, a conspiracy, which
can be very very easy to prove um, and a
guilty finding on any of those counts could be like
a mandatory minimum of five to ten years. And then
if you're looking at, um, you know, a guilty on

(18:40):
more than one or all of those counts, you're looking
at a sentence, potentially concurrent sentences that our tantamount to
dying in prison. Right, And so this creates tremendous pressure
on federal defendants to negotiate a pre trial disposition to
take a guilty plea um. So again, Kyle Rittenhouse crosses

(19:03):
state lines with this firearm which gets used in the
in the commission of an act of violence. And I
feel extremely confident that any federal prosecutor could come up
with a stack of counts against him within about ten
minutes without breaking a sweat um. But you know, so

(19:25):
you know, if you think about him being in that position,
you think through, Okay, if I go to trial, what
is what are likely outcomes? If Kyle Rittenhouse went to
trial federally, and even if he prevailed on a self
defense right, which which could happen if you were found

(19:47):
guilty on one or more of the lesser charges, he
would still be looking at really really serious time, right, Um,
but that's not where we are, right. Um. We are
in a really weird place where like in a federal context,
we wouldn't even be like talking about evidentiary rulings because uh,

(20:09):
he would almost certainly not be going to trial, right yeah,
or you know, if he had a reasonable lawyer, he
would probably be negotiating a plea. I'm curious what do
you think about because one argument I've heard, and I'm
certainly in no position to evaluate this personally, is that
if federal charges had been placed on him, you know

(20:31):
when the crime in Trump would have pardoned him. Um,
I don't know, yeah, Like I've heard people argue that
that like, well, at least with the state charges, he
can't be pardoned by President Trump. Like, I'm in no
position to really evaluate that, but I'm curious what you
think about that. Hey, honestly can't even yeah, speculate about
what might have happened. That is very interesting. I do

(20:55):
think that if if d O J wanted to charge
him at this point, I mean not he only, but
like there I think wasn't opening for that to happen
after Trump left. I see, fact, there is a very
interesting foy a request to be made to d o
j uh to see what kind of memo was circulated

(21:18):
about whether or not they were going to pick this
one up. They clearly declined to prosecute Um. I the
only thing that I could come up with, to be honest,
And I looked and did not really see any meaningful
discussion of this, of their decision not to prosecute Um.
The only thing that occurred to me is that they

(21:40):
might have been reluctant to a search jurisdiction over a minor.
But they can prosecute anyone over the age of fifteen
as an adult if they engage in violent crimes or
if they are alleged to have engaged in violent crimes.
So that's not it wouldn't entirely undermine their ability to
do so. UM. So, you know, for whatever, you know,

(22:04):
for whatever reason they didn't, I think it is worth noting.
I think it is, as I said, very curious UM.
And it's particularly curious in light of the intense federal
repression that has been faced by people perceived to be
on the left, you know. So, like again, I want
to be very clear, I don't I'm not suggesting that

(22:26):
I want him to be federally prosecuted. UM, I don't
particularly I'm not interested in arguing for more prosecutions or
for making the state the arbiter of political righteousness, or
um giving the state more enforcement power or more resources. UM.
You know, but you know, and look at no shade

(22:50):
to Kenosha, Wisconsin. All right, But UM. One of the
things that the UH federal prosecutors are really have a
lot of experience doing is digital forensic investigations, and UH
in this case, one of the sort of critical questions

(23:13):
is did he have specific intent to go across state
lines and engage in violence? And I suspect that if
you were to access all of his texts and metadata
and social media posts, that you could probably find evidence
of that specific intent. And I think that the federal

(23:35):
government is probably better positioned to do that than the
prosecutors UH in Kenosha. And they decided not to, right, so,
you know, and that is exactly the kind of investigation
that they mounted against Daniel Baker, who justs a the

(23:55):
yoga teacher in Tallahassee, who just got three and a
half years for posting vague sort of incoherent, mutually contradictory
I'm not at all frightening. Yeah, it's not that I
wouldn't threats, but I hesitate to to that. You know,

(24:15):
he posted some stuff on social media and and now
he's going to do. Yeah, my attitude on the nature
of what he posts that, Like if prior to his prosecution,
you had brought that post. But to me, I said, well,
probably not a great idea to post. But also literally
every week a right winger in the Portland area posts
something significantly more actual. Right now, Chandler pappas currently being

(24:39):
charged with assaulting six police officers in the state capital
and Salem, just announced that he's doing armed training as
a convicted felon outside of Portland's uh later this November. Um,
which if he's if he touches a firearm, he should
go away to like based on the letter of the law,
he should go to prison for years. Like that's the
way the law is written. Nothing's going to happen to him.

(25:01):
He's going to get to train people with guns and
continue to carry guns and it's it's fine for him.
Um anyway, whatever, I'm sorry, it's okay. I guess your
your listeners can't see that. I have my head. Yeah,
I mean, look what Daniel Baker did was certainly ill advised.

(25:22):
If advised, it would characterize I have clients who have
been visited by the Secret Service or have been visited
by the FBI for saying stuff that when they call
me and they're like, well, I just said this, and
I'm like, yeah, I know that you're not gonna actually
do that, but maybe don't you know, it's it's not

(25:42):
it's ill advised, but it's protected by the very First
Amendment more or less. And you know, I've said this before.
I don't think the solution to two um being surveilled
on social media is self censorship. I think it is courage.
But I also think that discretion is the better part

(26:05):
of ballotor. So yes, pick your battles and maybe, yeah,
understand that it's not fair, you know. Yeah, And also
like what do you gain by you know, being bump
stous on the internet. It's one of those things where, yeah,
if that guy had had a high dollar lawyer, Um,

(26:25):
if he if he'd been a rich person, yeah, maybe
he would have gotten away with it. Um, who knows,
but like he it's it's he certainly would have gotten No,
I can certainly say he would have gotten away with
it if he'd been a right winger, because a bunch
of them do every single day. UM. I can't make
any speculation about that particular ship case, but I can
say that the people who are being surveilled intensely and

(26:48):
targeted for that kind of repression are not the people
on the right. Um. The people on the right are
able to make those kinds of statements and not be
particularly taken seriously even when they should be, and people
on the left are presumed to be you know, Antifa
super soldiers. UM. So you know, I think the decision

(27:10):
not to assert federal jurisdiction in the written House case
is interesting. It is noteworthy, really curious about what was
going on there. Um, and it has had a sort
of cascade of effects, including UM, I doubt that the
forensic digital investigation was as good as it would have

(27:33):
been had it been federal Uh. And I doubt that
the I mean, he's facing multiple charges, but I don't
think that he would have been as likely to go
to trial had he been federally charged. UM. So again,
I don't you know, this is not an argument for
more federal prosecution, but like I think the breathless outrage

(27:56):
that we're seeing in you know, these headlines, UM, where
people are correctly identifying the hypocrisy of the criminal legal system. UM.
I think it's sort of an exercise in point missing. Um.
You know, this prosecution, UM, like many of the prosecutions
that we see, or the prosecutions that don't happen at all, UM,

(28:19):
that involve members of the dominant class or people who
uphold the values of the dominant classes. UM, is sort
of proof of concept that it's possible to effectively allocate
the burden of proof to the prosecution. It's possible not
to go super hard on people and punish them for

(28:43):
exercising their trial, right, Um. Right, I mean, it's it's
possible two treat all people accused of offenses in this way. UM.
And I wouldn't much for there. I mean, obviously my
ultimate goal is to uh dismantle the entire system, you know.

(29:06):
But but in the meantime, I don't think what we
need is more vicious prosecution of the right. I think
we need consistent and commensurate prosecution or lack of prosecution.
We need, you know, uh, I think that seeing the
way that the right is treated should be evidence for

(29:28):
an argument for the possibility of um treating all people
with more leniency rather than you know, intense the intense
federal repression that we are facing and have been facing,
you know since the Palmer Rates. Um. So yeah yeah,

(29:51):
ah um, Well that uh is the stuff I wanted
to ask about. Is there anything else? Um that I mean,
I definitely go off on liberals smart please, um please.
I mean, Garrison is a huge fan of liberals. He's

(30:11):
got actually a full back tack two of Barack Obama
and Bill Clinton, but they're they're in the volleyball scene
from Top Gun. Um. It's an incredible tattoo. He did
it all freehand on his own back. Amazing. Um, this
is like the Garrison. I hope I don't receive any stones.
I hope I don't receive any awful fan art. Now, someone,

(30:32):
someone do it. Come on, come on, photoshop Garrison's head
onto onto Roger Stone's back and the photoshop Nixon's head
out and the volleyball scene from Top Gun with Bill
Clinton and Barack Obama. Do it. Do it. Someone's gonna
do it, is definitely going to do it. This is
you consume me for this, and you'd be right to
do so UM, but let's get back to and I

(30:56):
might represent you trial of the trial of the century. Yeah,
that sounds great. I think this is a trend that
we see with people who are not necessarily focused on

(31:21):
looking at the ways that the law is always going
to be used first and worst against the already most vulnerable. Right.
So we've seen things like, UM, I think there's just
this very well documented liberal impulse and I think it's
very well intentioned, but it's very dangerous UM to do

(31:42):
things to like assume that the system somehow works UM
or should work, and that it just needs to be
like followed more closely, and that if we push for
things like um, if we like use the law to
constrain things that would agree are the most harmful UM,

(32:03):
excesses of bigotry. Right, UM, that the law would be
a good tool for UM for addressing violence and bigotry.
The law does not, But that is not what kind
of tool the law is. UM. When we push for

(32:24):
things like laws regulating political speech, including so called hate speech,
laws regulating what are referred to as hate crimes, laws UM,
regulating who can carry a fighter arm and what they
might look like. UM, you know, pushes for limiting the

(32:44):
places or circumstances under which you could protest UM or
demonstrate right, um, which you know, which was done. Um.
There there was a real big UM pushed to forbid
UH anti choice activists from protesting outside of UM clinics, right,

(33:07):
which I understand, right, But what actually is the upshot
of doing that? When we see this kind of push
to use the law as a tool to enforce a
particular political agenda, it is not you know, it's it's
just a very ill conceived way to approach this because
the law is never going to protect the most vulnerable.

(33:29):
Um well, these structures of power that up all remain
in place, and so you know, it's just always going
to be leveraged against the people who have the least
amount of power, and and so you know, this this
sort of response to the written house stuff, to me
is just essentially a recuperation of that impulse. Yeah, I

(33:50):
mean it's it's a little like that old I think
the joke has attributed to Gandhi. I don't know if
Gandhi actually said it, but like he was asked, what
do you think of Christian civilization? And he said, I
think it would be a wonderful idea. What do you
think of the fair and equal rule of law? Sounds nice? Um,
but yeah, one of the two, Um yeah, maybe both,

(34:12):
maybe both. I don't know that we ever saw them together.
Um right, So I don't know, I I it's it's
obviously it's too early to It's one of those things
where all of the complaining about the unfairness of the
trial of Written House winds up getting um rammed into
a legal wall. Metaphorically, Uh may seem silly in content

(34:35):
or in in retrospect, or he may this may be
the thing that ignites a new wave of vigilante showing
up at protests with guns, but it seems to be untouchable.
Like really, the big fears that they don't set a
precedent that will allow other people to use quote unquote
self defense claims an effort just to kill black activists,
to kill activists on the left, to kill people wearing

(34:56):
you know, black hoodies and bandanas, because that's the it's
the big fear out of this situation. Because my my
expectation is that if Written House gets off or even
just gets very minor, like if it's if he's if
he's out of jail quickly within about six months, he's
going to be a millionaire. Um. Absolutely, Yeah, that's the
way the wing works. I would gently ask you to

(35:18):
think about what happens if he doesn't, because if he's convicted,
we are going to see a deepening of the repression
that is faced by everyone on the left as well.
We lose either way. Yeah, which place is on the table?
There's no winning, I guess, I think, I mean part

(35:41):
of it, I guess depends on what he's convicted for. Um,
because some of the stuff has I would it seems
to me, some of the things he's charged with, if convicted,
there's more potential negative implications across the political aisle than
with others. Um, like if if it's ruled murder. I

(36:03):
don't know, that feels less worries. I mean, I have
some concerns about the crossing state line stuff. I don't know.
I mean, none of it's none of it's good. I
guess where I am is. I remember vividly how much
the situation on the ground changed after Kenosha, just in
in Portland, even I mean, Garrison can can back we

(36:23):
up with that. They were there for that too, Like
it was a it was a significant shift in the
feeling of deadliness, you know, whenever there was a right
wing left wing confrontation. Um and someone someone died a
few days later, someone died a few days later, and
in a fucking gunfight. Um And I I don't know.

(36:44):
I don't know, Moira, Uh, I don't know. I I don't.
I don't want Rittenhouse to get off scott free for
shooting three people. You're absolutely right, there's no there's no
winning with the legal system. The only way to win
is not to play. The only way to win is
not to play. So form your own breakaway civilization and

(37:05):
as Gandhi and Gandhi yeah, uh and Hubbard take to
the sea. Yes, yeah, always Look, I don't I don't think. Um,
I'm not looking for him to prevail on the self defense.
Not like none of this is going to make me
feel good. But I think that whether or not he

(37:29):
is punished, whether or not he is convicted, there will
be negative recussions, and all of those negative consequences will
redound to the detriment of the people who are already
facing the most intense federal repression. Yeah, that is I mean,

(37:50):
in fairness, like this is the case of a child
who killed two people and is now we are determining
whether or not this child will spend the rest of
their life in a cell. None of this should make
anyone feel good, no matter what happens. It's a thoroughly
bleak story. Yeah. Yeah, it's because this kid is never

(38:12):
going to have a chance to grow up and be like, oh,
I was being like a horrible No, they'll never be
able to adjust to anything else rather than being this
person that like culturally has been created right there. They
are like a cultural thing. They're an item. They're not
a person anymore, and they'll never be able to escape that. Yeah.

(38:32):
I was a piece of ship when I was seventeen,
and if I had had access to an a R
fifteen and a chance to feel like a hero, I
might have done something horrific too, And instead you were
just doing sloppy steaks And it's fine and now it's fine.
Um have you watched? I think you should leave Moira?
I'm sorry, have you watched? I think you should leave Moira? No?

(38:56):
Oh it's good, it's good. Okay, alright, I'll check it out. Um, um,
I'll take a look. Yeah I don't know. Um, well,
thank you, Moira. Uh, this is always appreciated. UM, I
don't know, like, were you We've talked a bit about anarchism.

(39:18):
How many of how much? How much of like your
belief about the way the world ought to be and
is came as a result of getting into the guts
of the legal system. Do you mean did I become
more devoted to anarchism and I went to law school? Um,

(39:40):
I didn't become less devoted to it. I remember when
I was going to law school, people kept saying, Oh,
You're going to become really conservative, and I was like,
I don't think that's true. That seems seems fake. Uh.
And in fact, I remember, um being in my criminal
procedure class and just thinking, how in the world can

(40:02):
anyone at any law school read Miranda, which is a
case where someone is, you know, just horrifically abused by
police in order to extract a statement. How could anybody
read this case and not come out of law school

(40:26):
with a deep contempt for law enforcement? You know, I
know that it happens. I don't know how always uplifting, Yeah,
I mean it it is. It's important to know, you know.
I when I was, when I was younger, and poor
uh and dealing with things like taxes. I would often

(40:47):
go like years without paying them, and I would like
ignore debts and bills until like like my student loans,
until it became like a serious problem because I didn't
want to look at it. I didn't even want to
like look at the scale of the issue and grab
with it. I just wanted to run away from it.
And when I actually like sat down and figured out
my situation and like really came to understand like what

(41:10):
what I needed to do in order to deal with
those problems, like, it was stressful and it sucked, and
it was fucking days of work, but getting understanding the
scope of the problem I'd gotten myself into was a
necessary step to like fixing the situation. And I think
the same is true with like this kind of ship.
It's not fun, nobody who is. I think a reasonable

(41:32):
person like wants to dig into the US justice system
and get into the guts of it because it's bleak
as hell. But you need to because it's it's you
can't escape it unless you flee the country and live
in a place with no extradition treaties, um or international waters.

(41:53):
I feel like you're talking about a lot of the
people you've profiled. Yeah, I mean, Couador does sound nice.
I'm sure it's loveliest time of here. Um. Yeah, I
think you're right. You need to be able to have
a sort of clear eyed assessment so that we can

(42:15):
accurately identify and effectively address the problems. Unfortunately, I think
the problems are so um all encompassing that I don't
know that there's I would venture to say that there
is not a real totalizing solution that doesn't involve total abolition. Yeah,

(42:40):
I agree with you. But in the meantime, I mean,
I think there are there are things that we can
do to to advocate for our clients, or as an individual,
you can do to protect yourself. And that's why it
is important to have some sort of working understanding, because

(43:01):
you can keep yourself and the people around you at
least somewhat safer if you do understand the beast um
even though your goal is to is to destroy it. Uh,
And that's I think the only reasonable goal when you
really understand it, it's still behooves you to to understand it.
I mean, it's the same with like, it's the same
with what what Garrison and I do with the fucking

(43:21):
Nazi spending all this time in weird telegram channels like
reading what they're trying to understand them, because you do
need to understand them to effectively combat them. Well it's
not for the faint of her, no, no, yeah, neither
is what you do. Um. The messages is that we're
all well adjusted and we're all great. That boats secondary trauma,

(43:48):
there's no secondary trauma and international waters Moira, I have
that that that my my old friend l R. H
told me that just you and the open sea and
a bunch of twenty year old sir arching for gold
that I buried in a past life, live in the dream. Yeah,
he is both fascinating and terrified. Yeah. Um, just just

(44:13):
like just like our legal system system. And that wraps
up this episode that brings us around. Um, anything you
want to plug any any place, Maybe our listeners could
could send donations that would help somebody who's themselves against
a wall at the moment. Would certainly suggest that people

(44:34):
look into whatever bail funds are local to them. There's
one I know in New York called COVID Bailout NYC
that's um doing incredible work right now. To get people
off Rikers Island, which is having a humanitarian crisis of
just unbelievable scope. UM. It sounds to me like the

(44:56):
conditions on Rikers right now are at least as bad
as the conditions that led to the Attica uprising. UM.
So I would always, always, UM direct people to give
money to local bail funds. I also want to plug
the National Lawyers Guild UH Anti Federal Repression or Federal

(45:17):
Defense hotline, which is to one two six seven nine
to eight one one two one to six seven nine
to eight one one if you call that number, or
you can call that number if you are having unwanted
contact with federal agents, and you can be advised by
an attorney who is me about your rights and responsibilities

(45:40):
with respect to federal agents, and I will try to
connect you with appropriate resources in your area. UM. This
is not the hotline to call if you've been injured
by a police officer. UM. This is the hotline to
call if you have been visited by the FBI. UM,
don't talk to cops. If few are contacted by law enforcement,

(46:02):
say I am represented by counsel. Please leave your name
and number and my lawyer will call you uh, and
remember that you cannot talk your way out of and arrest,
but you can talk your way into a conviction. All
great points, all great things to be aware of. Um,
speaking of great things to be aware of. Be aware
that we'll be back tomorrow, unless this is a Friday,

(46:23):
in which case we'll be back next week. From now
until the heat death of the universe. Thank you so much, Laura,
You're so welcome. It Could Happen Here is a production
of cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from cool Zone Media,
visit our website cool zone media dot com, or check
us out on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,

(46:44):
or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can find sources
for It Could Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zone
media dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening.