October 7, 2025 • 37 mins
Creepy trans TikTok star Lilly Tino is back after a multi-month social media break. Has Lilly learned anything? I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, a prankster influencer gets 6 months in jail for doing something truly diabolical to people in public for clicks and attention. Finally, MAGA YouTube star Matt Walsh is taking his rhetoric is a new, and frankly kinda unhinged, extreme.
Send me a voice note: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
Support My Show: https://linktr.ee/bradpolumbo
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):
Hello, I'm back. That's up long time, no.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
See, not long enough, not long enough. I regret to
inform you that the creepiest trans influencer on TikTok, Lily Tino,
has made to come back. We're going to break this down,
(00:23):
plus so much more on today's episode of The Brad
Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where I take on
internet insanity and social media trends from an independent perspective.
But first, a quick correction from yesterday's episode, where we
talked about the Trey Reid case, a sad story where
(00:45):
a young black man appears to have taken his own
life that people online are claiming was a hate crime,
but there's no evidence of that. I said that Delta
State University was an HBCU, a historically black college and university.
That's not true. I'm not sure where I got that impression.
It might have been from a similar story I covered
(01:06):
not too long ago, but that is incorrect, and I
apologize for the mistake. However, I don't think it really
changes the thrust of the story that this is not
likely to be a cover up, and the director of
Public Safety at Dela State University, Michael Peeler, is a
black man, so the idea that he is engaged in
some cover up of a hate crime is still incredibly
(01:28):
far fetched. Now again, apology is about that. But I'll
always be transparent with you guys when I mess up.
So now we're going to talk about Lily Tino. If you, honestly,
if you want to rage, quit this episode here you
can like that. I won't be mad at you if
you leave. I kind of wish I could leave, But
(01:49):
we have to talk about it because Lily, who is
extremely controversial. If you've never heard of Lily, I envy you,
like I actually just envy you. But Lily is a
very controversial transgender TikTok star with millions of followers, who
crashes out on wait staff who barely speak English for
(02:09):
calling Lily sir, even though Lily appears incredibly masculine and
doesn't even really attempt to appear as a woman. Really
more honestly, that's bad enough. But more importantly, Lily is
creepy around kids and around women and girls, so not
even a way that is oh just because she Lily
(02:30):
is trance, not that at all in terms of like
just being somebody who behaves in unacceptable ways. For example,
I'm going to make you relive this with me. I
know this video is dramatic for me as well. The
infamous cake pops incident. Oh my god, I hate it
here where Lily Tino talked about getting Lily's cake pops
(02:53):
removed in genital surgeries or what have you, and decided
to talk about this at Disney with children all around them. Remember,
here's that video.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
I'm going to get banned from Disney. That's where we're
about to get band from Disney.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Last summer, I got my kick Coops removed, and the
plan up until recently was to get my marshmallow wand
reconfigured into a marshmallow. Unfortunately, a few weeks ago, I
noticed some hairy growth on my marshmallow Wand.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Then, of course there's Lily's other big controversy, where Lily
took a bunch of photos in different women's bathrooms at
Disney and posted them all and captured in the background
of many of those photos a bunch of women and
girls that didn't give the permission and certainly didn't want
to be photographed in the bathroom, And then of course
(03:48):
defended the decision to do that, saying lots of girls
take bathroom sell fees, as if that's remotely the same thing.
So as you're probably getting the impression, I'm not the
biggest Lily Tino fan. In fact, I think Lily is
incredibly toxic and harmful. As we'll get into a little
bit more so, I was actually quite happy when Lily
announced a social media break a couple months ago. They
(04:11):
were just going offline and not going to post for
a while. Now, Lily Tino is a bit of a
loll cow in terms of easy content that gets a
lot of views. So on the content side, I was like, no,
don't go. But on the society side, I was like,
please go offline and never come back to the Internet,
(04:32):
just for the sake of everyone. But Lily is now
back and we're gonna watch Lily's comeback video. Maybe Lily
has learned and grown as a person and is no
longer going to be creepy or rage bait us and
make the whole trends in LGBT community look terrible but
profit off of it. I don't know. Okay, I do know,
(04:56):
because I already watched it, but I'm going to pretend
not to know as y'all get see this with me.
Let's watch Hello, I'm back. What's up?
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Long time?
Speaker 2 (05:05):
No see, not long enough, not long enough.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
See the last time you saw me, I was talking
about taking a break and I did take a.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Break and I back, yeah, and it was kind of nice.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
But while I was gone, I did some reflecting.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Okay, so Lily reflected. Maybe now Lily will apologize to
the women and girls that Lily photographed in the bathroom
and changing rooms at Disney without their consent, right, That's
that's got to be what's coming.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Reflecting on the way that I've been approaching things and
figured something out, and that something is that I've been
leading with anger. I kind of already knew that kind.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
No, you mean when you scream and crash out on
the random weight staff, that's not you leading with love
and understanding. This is my shock phase.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Kin alreadyned of that before. But that I've been leading
with anger, specifically that I don't want to leave with anger.
I think it's a really easy trap to fall into,
to let anger be the fuel, because there's a lot
of anger to go around, especially being a trans person
in this day and age.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Okay, So I agree with this, and I feel bad
for genuine trans people who just want to blend in
and live their lives. Some of whom I'm friends with
are getting caught up in all this madness, and there
is this backlash, and it has gotten cruel and mean
in some ways. But like, you're not a victim of that, Lily,
You're part of the cause. You intentionally rage bait people,
(06:45):
behave wildly inappropriately berate people for not using your pronouns,
while Simon's faneously making no effort whatsoever. I mean like
you are the prototypical example of the exact kind of
trans personally, I think Lily is a fetishist, not an
actual transsexual person with gender dysphoria. That has caused the
(07:09):
hate and the backlash chores of trans communities. So you
don't get other people will get my sympathy card because
they've done nothing wrong and they just want to live
their life and treat their rare medical condition. You don't
get my sympathy card. It's declined, rejected, like your face card.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Okay, let's stay in age, but I just don't want
it anymore because it makes me unhappy. So it's easier
said than done. But the goal is to leave with
kindness so that's.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
What I try to do. Give it five minutes and somebody,
some person who barely speaks English at a restaurant's going
to be like, oh, excuse me, sir. Lily's going to
be like it's mail leading with kindness. Yeh. I'll believe
it when I see it.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Not just in making content, but in everything that I do.
So yeah, I'll be back. I'm gonna try to start
streaming again. Probably the day that I post this video. Yeah,
definitely the day I post this video. Look out for
a stream. I've got this new obsession with these like
Disney card packs. We're gonna open some of those on stream.
I'm gonna go out and eat at restaurants just the same.
(08:15):
I'm to post videos just the same. Might take a
days or weeks to get back up to my normal schedule.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
Okay, so we didn't learn anything and we're just going
back to the status quo. I hate it here. What
was the point of this break exactly? I don't understand.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
But I'm excited to start up again because even though
my time off has been very nice and very nice
opportunity that I have the privilege of taking.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
You know, you have the privilege of taking more. That's
an option. We should start a GoFundMe pay Lily Tino
to not post online, to.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Reflect on things. I'll be happy to see y'all again
in the stream and to start creating again because it
does bring me a lot of happiness to create.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
You don't create anything is the creation in the room.
All you create is anger, like what you just live
stream yourself eating food at restaurants. That is not creating.
This is like concept creep on steroids. I don't even
really consider what I do creating because it's not that
creative and I'm not exactly producing art unless you consider
(09:37):
Lily tino reaction videos art, which I do not. Anyway,
Lily doesn't seem to have learned anything, and it's just
gonna go back to the same kind of content that
we know and love to hate. Now I'm not gonna
watch any more of this person, at least in this sitting,
(09:57):
because I just ate. But the comments something may be
changing the team, may be stirring guys. Because the comments
on TikTok, which is again mostly a woke app, we're
not exactly well welcoming Lily Tino back to the platform.
Top comment I don't like the amount of hate on
(10:19):
this video. Comment there should be more. Next comment. Someone
posted a portrait of Paul Revere who yelled the British
is coming, The British are coming, and wrote, Lily Tino
is back. Hide the children. Next comment, take a longer
break please. Next comment, looking as masculine as ever king, No,
(10:45):
give us another month? Oh why are you back? Go
the f away. Imagine you have built your whole career
around one particular platform, in this case TikTok, because to
my knowledge, Lily is not particularly prominent on any other platform.
You quit it for a couple months, and then you
announce that you're back, and just all the comments are hate.
(11:07):
Like you have to scroll really far down to find
people being like yay, so glad you're back, and their
comment has like two likes. But then the comments meming
and trolling Lily for coming back, It'll be like twenty
k likes. That would be depressing to come back to
a plug.
Speaker 4 (11:26):
Like.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Imagine if I took three months off of uploading on
YouTube and then I uploaded a podcast episode. In all
the comments where people just being like, no, why did
you come back? Like this is terrible? We were so
happy you were gone. That would make me ask some
questions about myself that I don't think Lily Tino is
(11:47):
going to be asking questions about Lily's self. I think
Lily has a touch of the narcissism, a touch of
the main character syndrome. And look, I think most of
us content creators do, if we're being honest, You have
to be a little de Lulu, a little narcissistic to
think that you should yap all day and that people
(12:09):
should listen. But some of us are at least somewhat
self aware of that and like trying to keep ourselves
in check. Then there's Lily, Then there's Lily. But the
thing about Lily Tino, oh gosh, I haven't even started yet.
Let me get on my soapbox. No, I'm not really
gonna dedicate that much more time to miss Lily here
(12:33):
and Lily's lovely, ladylike content. Anyway, though, the thing about
Lily is Lily is a perfect example of the kind
of content creator that I think is ruining social media.
The rage better right, Lily knows that the content that
they post is intentionally inflammatory, intentionally going to upset people,
but like any engagement is good engagement in terms of
(12:57):
the algorithm and in terms of getting yourself pushed up
the algorithm, and then you get paid perviews on the
platform like TikTok. So when Lily has uploaded these videos
which are always I think monetized or almost always that
obviously everyone is going to be mad about, like the
ones about talking about your cake pops at Disney. I'm
(13:22):
literally getting flashbacks anyway, when Lily uploads that, Lily knows
what Lily is doing, okay, and Lily's profiting off of
this while only making everyone angry, ratcheting up the temperature
and just being ratchet, we should say, and like, I
(13:45):
genuinely think the Lily Tinos of the world have significantly
decreased support for the trans community but enriched themselves and
build a profile for themselves. Or they can just go
to restaurants all day and do nothing and call it
being creative. And I just think that's sad that your
legacy as a content creator. I would like to think
(14:06):
my content brings the temperature down right in terms of
I'm not trying to just demonize everyone. I'm always condemning
political violence and escalatory, unhinged stuff. And then entertains people
and informs them in some kind of way. But what
there is none of that in the content of Lily
(14:27):
Tino and Lily's contemporaries shall we call them Okay. So
I just think it's it's a sad example of everything
that's going wrong with social media and how the incentives
are just broken, potentially beyond repair. But Lily Tino is
back and I had to suffer through it, so you
(14:48):
do too. Thanks for watching. Do make sure subscribe to
the like button. YadA YadA. Yeah. Remember, you can send
in your voicemails for our Voicemail Friday episodes where I
react to your wokar stories, give you advice personal lives,
and answer any questions you guys have for me. The
link to send it one of those is in the description.
And up next we are going to talk about this
(15:10):
wild and unhinged case out of France where an influencer
was going around and pranking people by injecting them with
a needle, just walking up to strangers in public, injecting
them and then recording their reactions and posting it for content.
(15:32):
This happened in France and the influencer has now been
sentenced to jail, but not nearly long enough if you
ask me anyway. Here is a video from TMZ summing
up this story. Let's take a look.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
French social media influencer A Mean Mohito was sentenced to
a year in jail and will serve six months for
his syringe prank videos. During these so called pranks, Mohito
was injecting innocent bystanders with empty needles, making them believe
they were being needlespiked or drugged.
Speaker 6 (16:15):
In France, needlespiking has been a huge problem amongst students
and partygoers. During a June music festival, there were one
hundred and forty five police reports of needlespiking, So whether
Mohido recognizes it or not, he was encouraging this behavior.
In addition to serving time behind bars, Mohido was also
hit with a fat fine and is not allowed to
(16:36):
carry or own a weapon for the next three years.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
So look, I am not against a good prank or joke,
but this very clearly draw across as like multiple lines.
You are going up and injecting people with a needle,
filming them without their knowledge or consent, which I think
is already ethically dubious in this kind of a context.
(17:04):
I mean what, I would freak out if someone did
that to me. They'd be catching hands like god for
I mean, I don't care, but I know many people
do that to them. See what happens in America because
we have these stupid prankster influencers as well, who they
(17:27):
don't actually have anything interesting to say. They can't provide
any content or value in in and of themselves, so
they just terrorize other people, like random people in public,
and then that's their content. It's actually despicable and should
definitely be illegal. And I don't know, like, oh, go
to jail for six months seems kind of light to me. Obviously,
(17:50):
I'm not saying this kind of offense. You know, we're
not gonna give you life behind bars, but you should
probably get a more serious sentence than this, because you
are terrorizing people. You are making them think that you
just poisoned them or infected them with some kind of disease,
or that you're some sort of like terrorists, and you
kind of are. You're a social media terrorist, but they
(18:13):
might think you're like an actual terrorist terrorist. And I
would be really scared if someone did this to me.
It's terrible. And again it's so the fact that any
platform allowed anyone to monetize this kind of content, because
I kind of doubt these people are just doing it
for the infamy alone. They have to be monetizing it
(18:36):
in some way. I think that's really problematic, Like whatever
platform they were clipping this up on or streaming this
on that allowed them to make money off of it
in the first place. Because it's not just this one guy.
This is just an egregious example. But there are a
lot of these prank content creators, and there are some
versions of it that I think can be okay or
can be funny, like if you just say funny things
(18:57):
to people, or you just act a little wild in public,
that is one thing, but this is a level. I mean,
there was another one I forget where or when it happened,
but where a dude would just go into random people's
homes and then record them, like walk in like a stranger.
Just surprise, You're gonna get shot and I won't feel
(19:18):
bad at all. And I guess that won't happen to
you in France because they don't have guns, but maybe
some of them should, and then they wouldn't have this problem.
Now A couple more details here from the New York
Posts reporting on this story. French influencer jail for six
months over viral syringe attack prank. Mohdo told The Cork
he had been in his own world and didn't know anything.
(19:41):
I had the very bad idea of doing these pranks
by imitating what I saw on the internet in Spain
in Portugal. I didn't think it could hurt people. That
was my mistake. I didn't think about others. I thought
about myself. You didn't think it could hurt people, then
you must not have thought very hard, or you might
be brain dead, babe. Those are really the only two
(20:01):
possibilities here anyway. More from this, his lawyer told Liberacion,
the sentence brings the debates back into more proportion after
the initial media frenzy and restores a little balance between
the preservation of public order and that of the fundamental
rights of my client. Mohido's lawyers had requested clemency from
(20:23):
the court, noting that he had spent nearly two months
in pretrialed attention, where he was placed in solitary confinement
for his own safety. However, many French social media users
expressed outrage at the perceived lenient sentence. I do think
it's lenient, and I think it's diabolical to only get six. Obviously,
I don't know what their laws are in France, but
(20:43):
maybe they should have new laws about social media branksters
that hit people with a little more than that light
of a sentence for terrorizing others and exploiting them for
gain and for monetization and content, because that's actually not okay.
Sorry to Mohido, but that's actually not cool. I don't know, guys,
(21:04):
how would you react if someone did this to you? Like,
are you as shook by this as me? Let me
know in the comments to make sure subscribe to the
like button. YadA YadA ya. Now, guys, we got to
check in with Maga star and YouTuber and Daily Wire
host Matt Walsh, who is coming kind of unhinged. He's
(21:24):
getting very radical, and he's calling on President Trump to
do something that, if the President took his advice, would
destroy our constitutional order as we know it. Our system
of checks and balances would be ripped up in flames
and all over. A news story where Matt doesn't really
seem to know what he's talking about. The context here
(21:46):
is that President Trump has tried to deploy National Guard,
which is a branch of the US military, although it's
a little different from the other branches, to Portland, Oregon,
to do you with what he says is a city
that's just totally out of control, and there's been these
demonstrations and riots and assaults on federal officers and there's
(22:08):
whole showdown going on. However, federal law is very limited
as to when you are allowed to use the military domestically,
and so this was immediately challenged in court, and a
US district court judge, a federal judge, ruled that it
was illegal to deploy the National Guard in the way
that President Trump has. He's now appealing the decision, which
(22:31):
is what normal people do when they don't like a
court decision. But before we get into Matt Walsh's kind
of crazy take on all this, here's the CNN reporting
about the judge's initial decision that will provide some more context.
Speaker 4 (22:44):
What this decision is doing is basically pressing pause on
the appointment of the National Guard to Oregon. The question
that the judge carrying immigrant a Trump appointee, I should add,
how to answer, was was this an overreach by the
federal government to federalize the National Guard. In the complaint,
both the state of Oregon and the City of Portland
had called this deployment unlawful and unwarranted. But there were
three basic pillars that her decision was based on. One
(23:06):
of them is Section one two four six of the
US Code. It says basically that the president exceeded his
authority here and that he did not prove that he
was quote unable with regular forces to execute the laws there.
A second one is the concept of rebellion. The standard
for a rebellion here was not met. Now, what's notable
here is when the judge got into talking about the
(23:26):
history of the United States and military power. She said, quote,
this country has a long standing and foundational tradition of
resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military
intrusion into civil affairs. She says, the US is a
nation of constitutional law, not martial law.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Now, Matt Waalsh responded to this ruling by posting this
on acts, we have long reached the point where Trump
needs to openly defy these judges. Some random federal judge
has no authority to decide how and if troops are deployed.
She is not the commander in chief, Ignore her and
deploy them. It's time for a showdown with these activist judges.
(24:06):
This is a really remarkable take, calling for a very
drastic escalation, and it leaves out quite a bit of
crucial information about this judge, namely that she is not
a random judge. She is the federal court judge for
the district that includes Portland, Oregon, and that she was
(24:30):
appointed by Trump and before that worked under Bush and
is actually a Republican appointed judge who lean's more conservative
in her jurisprudence, but still ruled against the Trump administration here.
So not some lived out, activist, woke judge. All of
that left out from Mett's tweet, and then he covered
(24:50):
this on his show, doubled down on all of this
and went through what I think was some pretty misleading
and radical coverage of this showdown. Let's take a look, though,
and you can decide for yourself.
Speaker 7 (25:00):
This random judge, this random woman in a robe, has
decided that actually, actually she's the commander in chief. Trump
thought he was the commander in chief. That was his mistake.
Now he thought he was the one elected to be
the one who decides how and if and when and
where troops are deployed. But no turns out it was
this this checke judge of Karen.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
She's in charge.
Speaker 7 (25:21):
Judge Karen waltz into the White House, barred into the
Oval office, propped her feet up on the resolute desk,
and said, Hey, I'm a charger out here.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
That's basically what happened. Narrator, that is not, in fact
what happened. It is hilarious to me how this judge's
name happens to be Karen and he's just running with
that like that's an argument in and of itself. But no, guys,
the reason that Judge Emmergutt was involved in this case
is because she's the US District Court for the District
(25:51):
of Oregon, appointed by President Trump in twenty nineteen, by
the way, and confirmed by this Senate. And that federal
district courts have jurisdiction over cases that arise within their
geographic boundaries. So that is why. Because the challenge was
made to the action that occurred here, and so that
is why it's her case. She's not some random judge
(26:13):
like he makes it sound, who just decided to poke
her neck in and say what about what I think?
And then it is actually it is not, Oh well,
she's trying to be the commander in chief. No, she's
stepping in to issue a ruling on relevant federal laws
that limit when the president is allowed to deploy the
(26:35):
military domestically. And that is literally the job of federal
judges is to interpret and uphold federal laws. Now, and
she's like, oh, the president. He really seems to think
the president can just do whatever he wants to put
the military and there's no judicial recourse whatsoever, that's legit,
that's just not true. So actually, multiple Supreme Court cases
(26:56):
affirm the judicial branch's right to rule that a military
decision or enactment by the president is unlawful. And all
of this comes back again to interpreting federal law, as
we'll get into, but let's listen to more of Matt.
Speaker 7 (27:12):
Basically, what happened, and now Trump hass to decide how
to respond, and he has basically two options, I mean
not basically, he has only two options. He can bow
down before Judge Karen, who is now the President and
the Queen of America, but she was appointed herself as such,
and he can say yes, ma'am, Yes, madam President, whatever
(27:34):
you say, my queen, can.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
I get you? Can I get you a diet coke? Perhaps?
What else do you?
Speaker 7 (27:39):
What else do you do you require, my lady. He
can do that, or he can reassert his authority. He
can say, hey, get the hell out of who the
hell are you? Get out of here? I'm the president,
not you, o'kare what you think? Those are the options.
Subservience or the reassertion of his own power, those are
the only options.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Those aren't the only options. Actually, Matt left out a
glaring one, which would be this thing. It's called an appeal.
It's like when you disagree with a court decision, you
can appeal it to a higher court. I don't know
if he knows that that's the thing. I know that
he does, but he just he's engaging in this demagogic
(28:17):
rhetoric where he's presenting either subservience to one federal judge
or just blowing up the whole system and saying, I
no longer recognize the legitimacy of courts. I'm a president,
I can do whatever I want, and I just no
longer We might as well just shut down the federal
courts at that point, by the way, because then they
no longer have any sort of ability to check the government,
(28:39):
which is what they're supposed to do is be part
of a system of Jackson balances. Well, Matt wants to
just blow that up by having the president go rambo
and say I don't abide by any judges, which is
incredibly authoritarian. You're therefore asking for an authoritarian leader who
doesn't respect the rule of law, the limits on their power. No,
the normal option is to appeal the decision you don't like,
(29:05):
abide by it in the interim, and appeal it. And
in fact, hmm, it's almost like there's a six' to
three conservative majority on The Supreme. Court so if this
is really such an, egregious terrible, decision AND i actually
don't think it. Is but And matt at no point
in his monologue about this does he actually engage with
(29:25):
any of the judges reasoning or explain why it's. Wrong
but say that it is, Wrong, well then you'd think
that a six' three conservative majority Including three, trump appointees
would then overturn it after the appeals. Court level maybe
it gets. Overturned there but even if, it doesn't then
you can appeal it To The, supreme court and so you.
Literally control this is so wild to me because it's
(29:48):
not even as if this is a case where you
have like a liberal activist judge blocking stuff and then
no hope to appeal it Because the democrats Control The
supreme court or something. Like that none of that is the.
Case here, even then it would still be very dangerous
and escalatory to start defying, court RULINGS and i wouldn't,
support it but at least then there'd be like some
(30:09):
understandable reason to. Do, that here it's literally. Just impatience
he's just having a, temper tantrum doesn't want, to wait and, it's, like,
yeah okay then we will just do whatever we. Want instead.
It's crazy it's genuinely crazy. And radical we'll just burn
down the whole system of checks, and balances Because if
trump can just ignore, court orders the next democratic, president
(30:31):
can and then we just pretty soon don't have checks,
and balances don't have a rule. Of law but, Go,
off king have your little do your big one and your.
Little monologue he's, very charismatic but he's, a demagogue he.
Speaker 7 (30:42):
Really is those are the only options we have long
reached THE point i mean long, reached it long reached
It where trumps has no. Good CHOICE like, i said
those are, the two and he has no good choice
but to openly defy these to. This judges there's no, third, way,
now RIGHT there's.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
I think matt might not know that this Is a
trump appointed Judge because i'm showing you guys a couple of.
Minute CLIP but i did watch the. WHOLE video i.
Always do he never mentions that this woman was Appointed.
BY trump i don't think he MEANT maybe i. MISSED
it i don't think he. Mentions it and he keeps
calling her an. Activist judge now this is like a federalist.
Society judge this is not a liberal. Activist judge he's
(31:23):
totally misleading his viewers. And listeners but, go off.
Speaker 7 (31:26):
You, know right there's and, BY that i, don't mean,
you know issuing post sun TRUTH social i, DON'T mean
i don't even mean challenging this in.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
A court oh so now he does admit there's more
than just the two options that you can appeal. A, decision,
wow okay two seconds ago you were saying there's literally only,
TWO options.
Speaker 7 (31:48):
I mean flipping her the bird and ignoring her just doing,
it anyway, saying oh you DON'T think i should deploy,
the troops, and OKAY well i. Just did, well now
oh you DON'T think, I SHOULD well.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
I did.
Speaker 7 (31:59):
It's happening, it's. Happening lady what are you going to do?
Speaker 2 (32:01):
About?
Speaker 7 (32:01):
It huh what are you going to do? About it
ump has every constitutional right to Deploy The national Guard,
to portland not only, the right but. THE responsibility i.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Would, say so here's the. Interesting thing the reason that
this judge ruled it was illegal and Unconstitutional for trump to.
Do this there were a, few reasons, but Essentially and
i'll try to summarize this here, for you there are
federal laws that specify when you can intervene in local
(32:29):
matters with the military Or The. National guard and the
judge examined the different conditions for when that's allowed and
said they're not. Met here so just a couple. Of
points the main relevant law here Is The Posse Comment
tatis act of eighteen. Seventy eight this is law Passed. By,
congress again not just a judge deciding to. Get involved
(32:51):
she's enforcing and interpreting federal laws, about this which limits
the president's ability to use military forces domestically without one of,
two things specific congressional Approval which trump has not received,
for this or a, clear rebellion which she looked at
the legal definition of what a rebellion is and did
(33:13):
not find that the conditions for that. Were, met now
there's Also The insurrection act of eighteen, oh seven which
could allow for troops to be deployed in the kind
of Manner That president trump, is doing but that requires
a formal declaration of, an insurrection which he has, not
issued so that's not relevant in this. Case, Either anyway
then There's The tenth, amendment issue which rules the powers
(33:35):
are left to. The states all of this stuff is
addressed in. Her ruling, and again this is not a liberal.
Activist judge this Is a trump appointed, federal judge and
she says this is not in fact justified, or legal
and so that she rules that it is Illegal for
trump to deploy the military. Like this and, it's again
it's been repeatedly affirmed By The supreme court that you
(33:56):
can in fact have judicial rulings on military actions because
they're bound by. Federal law what he seems to be
suggesting is that the president is just a rambo and
can do whatever he wants when it comes to. THE
military i think that's probably actually bad. And dangerous BUT
and I imagine matt would too if it was not.
(34:18):
His guy and if you have these, double standards you
don't have any. AT all, i mean if you can
just go rogue and ignore federal, court judges then so
many of the conservative wins in court Against the biden
administration would have. Been meaningless when they took down the,
vaccine mandate when they got so many of his student loan.
Programs blocked all, of That the biden administration eventually abided
(34:39):
by all those court decisions because that is the Norm in,
american society and if you want to, change that you
can't only change it for. YOUR side i. DON'T know
i just think it's playing a very dangerous. Game here.
Speaker 7 (34:52):
Portland is a. War zone it's total chaosts in a
state of. OPEN insuraction ice agents are. Being attacked portland's
trying to subvert the authority of the federal government to
fight the laws of. The land obviously an occasion For The.
National Guard judge, karen, disagrees well her random opinion. Doesn't, matter.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
Again it is not a, random opinion and he didn't
engage with any of the actual. Federal laws rationale omitted.
Key facts He's saying portland is an. Open insurrection trump
hasn't declared an, insurrection there so that isn't relevant and obviously,
isn't true or he. Would have and then she also
examined the claims about the crime and how out of
(35:29):
control the violent protests and disruptions federal. Officers are she
found that they did not meet the threshold of some
of the claims that the administration. WAS making i. Don't
know i'm not an expert in The Posse Cooma, tatis,
Act right i'm not an expert in any of. These
things i'm not a lawyer. At all so Maybe the
trump administration, is right and they'll appeal this ruling and they.
(35:50):
Will win they've appealed to other rulings limiting their ability
to Deploy The national guard. And one but that's the correct,
path here not the kind, of, authoritarian crazy, norm breaking, society,
destroying frankly escalation and Overreach that matt is. Advocating HERE
(36:13):
and i find it bizarre to, BE though i guess
it makes sense when you Think of matt as primarily
an entertainer and primarily somebody who thinks and speaks in
terms of emotion and what he can rile people up
as and not as somebody who kind of analyzes facts
and news when that makes. More sense but it's really
(36:36):
dangerous what he's, advocating for and he has millions of
people that listen, To him so to have someone on
the mainstream Right in american politics espousing such nakedly authoritarian
escalations is really disturbing. To me but what do you?
Guys think let me know what you think in. The
comments makes you're subscribed if you, aren't yet hit the,
(36:57):
Like button YadA, YadA yah and that'll be it today's
episode Of The Brad Versus. Everyone podcast make sure you're
subscribed if you, aren't yet and we will talk again.
Real soon
Hello, I'm back. That's up long time, no.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
See, not long enough, not long enough. I regret to
inform you that the creepiest trans influencer on TikTok, Lily Tino,
has made to come back. We're going to break this down,
(00:23):
plus so much more on today's episode of The Brad
Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where I take on
internet insanity and social media trends from an independent perspective.
But first, a quick correction from yesterday's episode, where we
talked about the Trey Reid case, a sad story where
(00:45):
a young black man appears to have taken his own
life that people online are claiming was a hate crime,
but there's no evidence of that. I said that Delta
State University was an HBCU, a historically black college and university.
That's not true. I'm not sure where I got that impression.
It might have been from a similar story I covered
(01:06):
not too long ago, but that is incorrect, and I
apologize for the mistake. However, I don't think it really
changes the thrust of the story that this is not
likely to be a cover up, and the director of
Public Safety at Dela State University, Michael Peeler, is a
black man, so the idea that he is engaged in
some cover up of a hate crime is still incredibly
(01:28):
far fetched. Now again, apology is about that. But I'll
always be transparent with you guys when I mess up.
So now we're going to talk about Lily Tino. If you, honestly,
if you want to rage, quit this episode here you
can like that. I won't be mad at you if
you leave. I kind of wish I could leave, But
(01:49):
we have to talk about it because Lily, who is
extremely controversial. If you've never heard of Lily, I envy you,
like I actually just envy you. But Lily is a
very controversial transgender TikTok star with millions of followers, who
crashes out on wait staff who barely speak English for
(02:09):
calling Lily sir, even though Lily appears incredibly masculine and
doesn't even really attempt to appear as a woman. Really
more honestly, that's bad enough. But more importantly, Lily is
creepy around kids and around women and girls, so not
even a way that is oh just because she Lily
(02:30):
is trance, not that at all in terms of like
just being somebody who behaves in unacceptable ways. For example,
I'm going to make you relive this with me. I
know this video is dramatic for me as well. The
infamous cake pops incident. Oh my god, I hate it
here where Lily Tino talked about getting Lily's cake pops
(02:53):
removed in genital surgeries or what have you, and decided
to talk about this at Disney with children all around them. Remember,
here's that video.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
I'm going to get banned from Disney. That's where we're
about to get band from Disney.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Last summer, I got my kick Coops removed, and the
plan up until recently was to get my marshmallow wand
reconfigured into a marshmallow. Unfortunately, a few weeks ago, I
noticed some hairy growth on my marshmallow Wand.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Then, of course there's Lily's other big controversy, where Lily
took a bunch of photos in different women's bathrooms at
Disney and posted them all and captured in the background
of many of those photos a bunch of women and
girls that didn't give the permission and certainly didn't want
to be photographed in the bathroom, And then of course
(03:48):
defended the decision to do that, saying lots of girls
take bathroom sell fees, as if that's remotely the same thing.
So as you're probably getting the impression, I'm not the
biggest Lily Tino fan. In fact, I think Lily is
incredibly toxic and harmful. As we'll get into a little
bit more so, I was actually quite happy when Lily
announced a social media break a couple months ago. They
(04:11):
were just going offline and not going to post for
a while. Now, Lily Tino is a bit of a
loll cow in terms of easy content that gets a
lot of views. So on the content side, I was like, no,
don't go. But on the society side, I was like,
please go offline and never come back to the Internet,
(04:32):
just for the sake of everyone. But Lily is now
back and we're gonna watch Lily's comeback video. Maybe Lily
has learned and grown as a person and is no
longer going to be creepy or rage bait us and
make the whole trends in LGBT community look terrible but
profit off of it. I don't know. Okay, I do know,
(04:56):
because I already watched it, but I'm going to pretend
not to know as y'all get see this with me.
Let's watch Hello, I'm back. What's up?
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Long time?
Speaker 2 (05:05):
No see, not long enough, not long enough.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
See the last time you saw me, I was talking
about taking a break and I did take a.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Break and I back, yeah, and it was kind of nice.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
But while I was gone, I did some reflecting.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Okay, so Lily reflected. Maybe now Lily will apologize to
the women and girls that Lily photographed in the bathroom
and changing rooms at Disney without their consent, right, That's
that's got to be what's coming.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Reflecting on the way that I've been approaching things and
figured something out, and that something is that I've been
leading with anger. I kind of already knew that kind.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
No, you mean when you scream and crash out on
the random weight staff, that's not you leading with love
and understanding. This is my shock phase.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Kin alreadyned of that before. But that I've been leading
with anger, specifically that I don't want to leave with anger.
I think it's a really easy trap to fall into,
to let anger be the fuel, because there's a lot
of anger to go around, especially being a trans person
in this day and age.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Okay, So I agree with this, and I feel bad
for genuine trans people who just want to blend in
and live their lives. Some of whom I'm friends with
are getting caught up in all this madness, and there
is this backlash, and it has gotten cruel and mean
in some ways. But like, you're not a victim of that, Lily,
You're part of the cause. You intentionally rage bait people,
(06:45):
behave wildly inappropriately berate people for not using your pronouns,
while Simon's faneously making no effort whatsoever. I mean like
you are the prototypical example of the exact kind of
trans personally, I think Lily is a fetishist, not an
actual transsexual person with gender dysphoria. That has caused the
(07:09):
hate and the backlash chores of trans communities. So you
don't get other people will get my sympathy card because
they've done nothing wrong and they just want to live
their life and treat their rare medical condition. You don't
get my sympathy card. It's declined, rejected, like your face card.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Okay, let's stay in age, but I just don't want
it anymore because it makes me unhappy. So it's easier
said than done. But the goal is to leave with
kindness so that's.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
What I try to do. Give it five minutes and somebody,
some person who barely speaks English at a restaurant's going
to be like, oh, excuse me, sir. Lily's going to
be like it's mail leading with kindness. Yeh. I'll believe
it when I see it.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Not just in making content, but in everything that I do.
So yeah, I'll be back. I'm gonna try to start
streaming again. Probably the day that I post this video. Yeah,
definitely the day I post this video. Look out for
a stream. I've got this new obsession with these like
Disney card packs. We're gonna open some of those on stream.
I'm gonna go out and eat at restaurants just the same.
(08:15):
I'm to post videos just the same. Might take a
days or weeks to get back up to my normal schedule.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
Okay, so we didn't learn anything and we're just going
back to the status quo. I hate it here. What
was the point of this break exactly? I don't understand.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
But I'm excited to start up again because even though
my time off has been very nice and very nice
opportunity that I have the privilege of taking.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
You know, you have the privilege of taking more. That's
an option. We should start a GoFundMe pay Lily Tino
to not post online, to.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Reflect on things. I'll be happy to see y'all again
in the stream and to start creating again because it
does bring me a lot of happiness to create.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
You don't create anything is the creation in the room.
All you create is anger, like what you just live
stream yourself eating food at restaurants. That is not creating.
This is like concept creep on steroids. I don't even
really consider what I do creating because it's not that
creative and I'm not exactly producing art unless you consider
(09:37):
Lily tino reaction videos art, which I do not. Anyway,
Lily doesn't seem to have learned anything, and it's just
gonna go back to the same kind of content that
we know and love to hate. Now I'm not gonna
watch any more of this person, at least in this sitting,
(09:57):
because I just ate. But the comments something may be
changing the team, may be stirring guys. Because the comments
on TikTok, which is again mostly a woke app, we're
not exactly well welcoming Lily Tino back to the platform.
Top comment I don't like the amount of hate on
(10:19):
this video. Comment there should be more. Next comment. Someone
posted a portrait of Paul Revere who yelled the British
is coming, The British are coming, and wrote, Lily Tino
is back. Hide the children. Next comment, take a longer
break please. Next comment, looking as masculine as ever king, No,
(10:45):
give us another month? Oh why are you back? Go
the f away. Imagine you have built your whole career
around one particular platform, in this case TikTok, because to
my knowledge, Lily is not particularly prominent on any other platform.
You quit it for a couple months, and then you
announce that you're back, and just all the comments are hate.
(11:07):
Like you have to scroll really far down to find
people being like yay, so glad you're back, and their
comment has like two likes. But then the comments meming
and trolling Lily for coming back, It'll be like twenty
k likes. That would be depressing to come back to
a plug.
Speaker 4 (11:26):
Like.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Imagine if I took three months off of uploading on
YouTube and then I uploaded a podcast episode. In all
the comments where people just being like, no, why did
you come back? Like this is terrible? We were so
happy you were gone. That would make me ask some
questions about myself that I don't think Lily Tino is
(11:47):
going to be asking questions about Lily's self. I think
Lily has a touch of the narcissism, a touch of
the main character syndrome. And look, I think most of
us content creators do, if we're being honest, You have
to be a little de Lulu, a little narcissistic to
think that you should yap all day and that people
(12:09):
should listen. But some of us are at least somewhat
self aware of that and like trying to keep ourselves
in check. Then there's Lily, Then there's Lily. But the
thing about Lily Tino, oh gosh, I haven't even started yet.
Let me get on my soapbox. No, I'm not really
gonna dedicate that much more time to miss Lily here
(12:33):
and Lily's lovely, ladylike content. Anyway, though, the thing about
Lily is Lily is a perfect example of the kind
of content creator that I think is ruining social media.
The rage better right, Lily knows that the content that
they post is intentionally inflammatory, intentionally going to upset people,
but like any engagement is good engagement in terms of
(12:57):
the algorithm and in terms of getting yourself pushed up
the algorithm, and then you get paid perviews on the
platform like TikTok. So when Lily has uploaded these videos
which are always I think monetized or almost always that
obviously everyone is going to be mad about, like the
ones about talking about your cake pops at Disney. I'm
(13:22):
literally getting flashbacks anyway, when Lily uploads that, Lily knows
what Lily is doing, okay, and Lily's profiting off of
this while only making everyone angry, ratcheting up the temperature
and just being ratchet, we should say, and like, I
(13:45):
genuinely think the Lily Tinos of the world have significantly
decreased support for the trans community but enriched themselves and
build a profile for themselves. Or they can just go
to restaurants all day and do nothing and call it
being creative. And I just think that's sad that your
legacy as a content creator. I would like to think
(14:06):
my content brings the temperature down right in terms of
I'm not trying to just demonize everyone. I'm always condemning
political violence and escalatory, unhinged stuff. And then entertains people
and informs them in some kind of way. But what
there is none of that in the content of Lily
(14:27):
Tino and Lily's contemporaries shall we call them Okay. So
I just think it's it's a sad example of everything
that's going wrong with social media and how the incentives
are just broken, potentially beyond repair. But Lily Tino is
back and I had to suffer through it, so you
(14:48):
do too. Thanks for watching. Do make sure subscribe to
the like button. YadA YadA. Yeah. Remember, you can send
in your voicemails for our Voicemail Friday episodes where I
react to your wokar stories, give you advice personal lives,
and answer any questions you guys have for me. The
link to send it one of those is in the description.
And up next we are going to talk about this
(15:10):
wild and unhinged case out of France where an influencer
was going around and pranking people by injecting them with
a needle, just walking up to strangers in public, injecting
them and then recording their reactions and posting it for content.
(15:32):
This happened in France and the influencer has now been
sentenced to jail, but not nearly long enough if you
ask me anyway. Here is a video from TMZ summing
up this story. Let's take a look.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
French social media influencer A Mean Mohito was sentenced to
a year in jail and will serve six months for
his syringe prank videos. During these so called pranks, Mohito
was injecting innocent bystanders with empty needles, making them believe
they were being needlespiked or drugged.
Speaker 6 (16:15):
In France, needlespiking has been a huge problem amongst students
and partygoers. During a June music festival, there were one
hundred and forty five police reports of needlespiking, So whether
Mohido recognizes it or not, he was encouraging this behavior.
In addition to serving time behind bars, Mohido was also
hit with a fat fine and is not allowed to
(16:36):
carry or own a weapon for the next three years.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
So look, I am not against a good prank or joke,
but this very clearly draw across as like multiple lines.
You are going up and injecting people with a needle,
filming them without their knowledge or consent, which I think
is already ethically dubious in this kind of a context.
(17:04):
I mean what, I would freak out if someone did
that to me. They'd be catching hands like god for
I mean, I don't care, but I know many people
do that to them. See what happens in America because
we have these stupid prankster influencers as well, who they
(17:27):
don't actually have anything interesting to say. They can't provide
any content or value in in and of themselves, so
they just terrorize other people, like random people in public,
and then that's their content. It's actually despicable and should
definitely be illegal. And I don't know, like, oh, go
to jail for six months seems kind of light to me. Obviously,
(17:50):
I'm not saying this kind of offense. You know, we're
not gonna give you life behind bars, but you should
probably get a more serious sentence than this, because you
are terrorizing people. You are making them think that you
just poisoned them or infected them with some kind of disease,
or that you're some sort of like terrorists, and you
kind of are. You're a social media terrorist, but they
(18:13):
might think you're like an actual terrorist terrorist. And I
would be really scared if someone did this to me.
It's terrible. And again it's so the fact that any
platform allowed anyone to monetize this kind of content, because
I kind of doubt these people are just doing it
for the infamy alone. They have to be monetizing it
(18:36):
in some way. I think that's really problematic, Like whatever
platform they were clipping this up on or streaming this
on that allowed them to make money off of it
in the first place. Because it's not just this one guy.
This is just an egregious example. But there are a
lot of these prank content creators, and there are some
versions of it that I think can be okay or
can be funny, like if you just say funny things
(18:57):
to people, or you just act a little wild in public,
that is one thing, but this is a level. I mean,
there was another one I forget where or when it happened,
but where a dude would just go into random people's
homes and then record them, like walk in like a stranger.
Just surprise, You're gonna get shot and I won't feel
(19:18):
bad at all. And I guess that won't happen to
you in France because they don't have guns, but maybe
some of them should, and then they wouldn't have this problem.
Now A couple more details here from the New York
Posts reporting on this story. French influencer jail for six
months over viral syringe attack prank. Mohdo told The Cork
he had been in his own world and didn't know anything.
(19:41):
I had the very bad idea of doing these pranks
by imitating what I saw on the internet in Spain
in Portugal. I didn't think it could hurt people. That
was my mistake. I didn't think about others. I thought
about myself. You didn't think it could hurt people, then
you must not have thought very hard, or you might
be brain dead, babe. Those are really the only two
(20:01):
possibilities here anyway. More from this, his lawyer told Liberacion,
the sentence brings the debates back into more proportion after
the initial media frenzy and restores a little balance between
the preservation of public order and that of the fundamental
rights of my client. Mohido's lawyers had requested clemency from
(20:23):
the court, noting that he had spent nearly two months
in pretrialed attention, where he was placed in solitary confinement
for his own safety. However, many French social media users
expressed outrage at the perceived lenient sentence. I do think
it's lenient, and I think it's diabolical to only get six. Obviously,
I don't know what their laws are in France, but
(20:43):
maybe they should have new laws about social media branksters
that hit people with a little more than that light
of a sentence for terrorizing others and exploiting them for
gain and for monetization and content, because that's actually not okay.
Sorry to Mohido, but that's actually not cool. I don't know, guys,
(21:04):
how would you react if someone did this to you? Like,
are you as shook by this as me? Let me
know in the comments to make sure subscribe to the
like button. YadA YadA ya. Now, guys, we got to
check in with Maga star and YouTuber and Daily Wire
host Matt Walsh, who is coming kind of unhinged. He's
(21:24):
getting very radical, and he's calling on President Trump to
do something that, if the President took his advice, would
destroy our constitutional order as we know it. Our system
of checks and balances would be ripped up in flames
and all over. A news story where Matt doesn't really
seem to know what he's talking about. The context here
(21:46):
is that President Trump has tried to deploy National Guard,
which is a branch of the US military, although it's
a little different from the other branches, to Portland, Oregon,
to do you with what he says is a city
that's just totally out of control, and there's been these
demonstrations and riots and assaults on federal officers and there's
(22:08):
whole showdown going on. However, federal law is very limited
as to when you are allowed to use the military domestically,
and so this was immediately challenged in court, and a
US district court judge, a federal judge, ruled that it
was illegal to deploy the National Guard in the way
that President Trump has. He's now appealing the decision, which
(22:31):
is what normal people do when they don't like a
court decision. But before we get into Matt Walsh's kind
of crazy take on all this, here's the CNN reporting
about the judge's initial decision that will provide some more context.
Speaker 4 (22:44):
What this decision is doing is basically pressing pause on
the appointment of the National Guard to Oregon. The question
that the judge carrying immigrant a Trump appointee, I should add,
how to answer, was was this an overreach by the
federal government to federalize the National Guard. In the complaint,
both the state of Oregon and the City of Portland
had called this deployment unlawful and unwarranted. But there were
three basic pillars that her decision was based on. One
(23:06):
of them is Section one two four six of the
US Code. It says basically that the president exceeded his
authority here and that he did not prove that he
was quote unable with regular forces to execute the laws there.
A second one is the concept of rebellion. The standard
for a rebellion here was not met. Now, what's notable
here is when the judge got into talking about the
(23:26):
history of the United States and military power. She said, quote,
this country has a long standing and foundational tradition of
resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military
intrusion into civil affairs. She says, the US is a
nation of constitutional law, not martial law.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Now, Matt Waalsh responded to this ruling by posting this
on acts, we have long reached the point where Trump
needs to openly defy these judges. Some random federal judge
has no authority to decide how and if troops are deployed.
She is not the commander in chief, Ignore her and
deploy them. It's time for a showdown with these activist judges.
(24:06):
This is a really remarkable take, calling for a very
drastic escalation, and it leaves out quite a bit of
crucial information about this judge, namely that she is not
a random judge. She is the federal court judge for
the district that includes Portland, Oregon, and that she was
(24:30):
appointed by Trump and before that worked under Bush and
is actually a Republican appointed judge who lean's more conservative
in her jurisprudence, but still ruled against the Trump administration here.
So not some lived out, activist, woke judge. All of
that left out from Mett's tweet, and then he covered
(24:50):
this on his show, doubled down on all of this
and went through what I think was some pretty misleading
and radical coverage of this showdown. Let's take a look, though,
and you can decide for yourself.
Speaker 7 (25:00):
This random judge, this random woman in a robe, has
decided that actually, actually she's the commander in chief. Trump
thought he was the commander in chief. That was his mistake.
Now he thought he was the one elected to be
the one who decides how and if and when and
where troops are deployed. But no turns out it was
this this checke judge of Karen.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
She's in charge.
Speaker 7 (25:21):
Judge Karen waltz into the White House, barred into the
Oval office, propped her feet up on the resolute desk,
and said, Hey, I'm a charger out here.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
That's basically what happened. Narrator, that is not, in fact
what happened. It is hilarious to me how this judge's
name happens to be Karen and he's just running with
that like that's an argument in and of itself. But no, guys,
the reason that Judge Emmergutt was involved in this case
is because she's the US District Court for the District
(25:51):
of Oregon, appointed by President Trump in twenty nineteen, by
the way, and confirmed by this Senate. And that federal
district courts have jurisdiction over cases that arise within their
geographic boundaries. So that is why. Because the challenge was
made to the action that occurred here, and so that
is why it's her case. She's not some random judge
(26:13):
like he makes it sound, who just decided to poke
her neck in and say what about what I think?
And then it is actually it is not, Oh well,
she's trying to be the commander in chief. No, she's
stepping in to issue a ruling on relevant federal laws
that limit when the president is allowed to deploy the
(26:35):
military domestically. And that is literally the job of federal
judges is to interpret and uphold federal laws. Now, and
she's like, oh, the president. He really seems to think
the president can just do whatever he wants to put
the military and there's no judicial recourse whatsoever, that's legit,
that's just not true. So actually, multiple Supreme Court cases
(26:56):
affirm the judicial branch's right to rule that a military
decision or enactment by the president is unlawful. And all
of this comes back again to interpreting federal law, as
we'll get into, but let's listen to more of Matt.
Speaker 7 (27:12):
Basically, what happened, and now Trump hass to decide how
to respond, and he has basically two options, I mean
not basically, he has only two options. He can bow
down before Judge Karen, who is now the President and
the Queen of America, but she was appointed herself as such,
and he can say yes, ma'am, Yes, madam President, whatever
(27:34):
you say, my queen, can.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
I get you? Can I get you a diet coke? Perhaps?
What else do you?
Speaker 7 (27:39):
What else do you do you require, my lady. He
can do that, or he can reassert his authority. He
can say, hey, get the hell out of who the
hell are you? Get out of here? I'm the president,
not you, o'kare what you think? Those are the options.
Subservience or the reassertion of his own power, those are
the only options.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Those aren't the only options. Actually, Matt left out a
glaring one, which would be this thing. It's called an appeal.
It's like when you disagree with a court decision, you
can appeal it to a higher court. I don't know
if he knows that that's the thing. I know that
he does, but he just he's engaging in this demagogic
(28:17):
rhetoric where he's presenting either subservience to one federal judge
or just blowing up the whole system and saying, I
no longer recognize the legitimacy of courts. I'm a president,
I can do whatever I want, and I just no
longer We might as well just shut down the federal
courts at that point, by the way, because then they
no longer have any sort of ability to check the government,
(28:39):
which is what they're supposed to do is be part
of a system of Jackson balances. Well, Matt wants to
just blow that up by having the president go rambo
and say I don't abide by any judges, which is
incredibly authoritarian. You're therefore asking for an authoritarian leader who
doesn't respect the rule of law, the limits on their power. No,
the normal option is to appeal the decision you don't like,
(29:05):
abide by it in the interim, and appeal it. And
in fact, hmm, it's almost like there's a six' to
three conservative majority on The Supreme. Court so if this
is really such an, egregious terrible, decision AND i actually
don't think it. Is but And matt at no point
in his monologue about this does he actually engage with
(29:25):
any of the judges reasoning or explain why it's. Wrong
but say that it is, Wrong, well then you'd think
that a six' three conservative majority Including three, trump appointees
would then overturn it after the appeals. Court level maybe
it gets. Overturned there but even if, it doesn't then
you can appeal it To The, supreme court and so you.
Literally control this is so wild to me because it's
(29:48):
not even as if this is a case where you
have like a liberal activist judge blocking stuff and then
no hope to appeal it Because the democrats Control The
supreme court or something. Like that none of that is the.
Case here, even then it would still be very dangerous
and escalatory to start defying, court RULINGS and i wouldn't,
support it but at least then there'd be like some
(30:09):
understandable reason to. Do, that here it's literally. Just impatience
he's just having a, temper tantrum doesn't want, to wait and, it's, like,
yeah okay then we will just do whatever we. Want instead.
It's crazy it's genuinely crazy. And radical we'll just burn
down the whole system of checks, and balances Because if
trump can just ignore, court orders the next democratic, president
(30:31):
can and then we just pretty soon don't have checks,
and balances don't have a rule. Of law but, Go,
off king have your little do your big one and your.
Little monologue he's, very charismatic but he's, a demagogue he.
Speaker 7 (30:42):
Really is those are the only options we have long
reached THE point i mean long, reached it long reached
It where trumps has no. Good CHOICE like, i said
those are, the two and he has no good choice
but to openly defy these to. This judges there's no, third, way,
now RIGHT there's.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
I think matt might not know that this Is a
trump appointed Judge because i'm showing you guys a couple of.
Minute CLIP but i did watch the. WHOLE video i.
Always do he never mentions that this woman was Appointed.
BY trump i don't think he MEANT maybe i. MISSED
it i don't think he. Mentions it and he keeps
calling her an. Activist judge now this is like a federalist.
Society judge this is not a liberal. Activist judge he's
(31:23):
totally misleading his viewers. And listeners but, go off.
Speaker 7 (31:26):
You, know right there's and, BY that i, don't mean,
you know issuing post sun TRUTH social i, DON'T mean
i don't even mean challenging this in.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
A court oh so now he does admit there's more
than just the two options that you can appeal. A, decision,
wow okay two seconds ago you were saying there's literally only,
TWO options.
Speaker 7 (31:48):
I mean flipping her the bird and ignoring her just doing,
it anyway, saying oh you DON'T think i should deploy,
the troops, and OKAY well i. Just did, well now
oh you DON'T think, I SHOULD well.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
I did.
Speaker 7 (31:59):
It's happening, it's. Happening lady what are you going to do?
Speaker 2 (32:01):
About?
Speaker 7 (32:01):
It huh what are you going to do? About it
ump has every constitutional right to Deploy The national Guard,
to portland not only, the right but. THE responsibility i.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Would, say so here's the. Interesting thing the reason that
this judge ruled it was illegal and Unconstitutional for trump to.
Do this there were a, few reasons, but Essentially and
i'll try to summarize this here, for you there are
federal laws that specify when you can intervene in local
(32:29):
matters with the military Or The. National guard and the
judge examined the different conditions for when that's allowed and
said they're not. Met here so just a couple. Of
points the main relevant law here Is The Posse Comment
tatis act of eighteen. Seventy eight this is law Passed. By,
congress again not just a judge deciding to. Get involved
(32:51):
she's enforcing and interpreting federal laws, about this which limits
the president's ability to use military forces domestically without one of,
two things specific congressional Approval which trump has not received,
for this or a, clear rebellion which she looked at
the legal definition of what a rebellion is and did
(33:13):
not find that the conditions for that. Were, met now
there's Also The insurrection act of eighteen, oh seven which
could allow for troops to be deployed in the kind
of Manner That president trump, is doing but that requires
a formal declaration of, an insurrection which he has, not
issued so that's not relevant in this. Case, Either anyway
then There's The tenth, amendment issue which rules the powers
(33:35):
are left to. The states all of this stuff is
addressed in. Her ruling, and again this is not a liberal.
Activist judge this Is a trump appointed, federal judge and
she says this is not in fact justified, or legal
and so that she rules that it is Illegal for
trump to deploy the military. Like this and, it's again
it's been repeatedly affirmed By The supreme court that you
(33:56):
can in fact have judicial rulings on military actions because
they're bound by. Federal law what he seems to be
suggesting is that the president is just a rambo and
can do whatever he wants when it comes to. THE
military i think that's probably actually bad. And dangerous BUT
and I imagine matt would too if it was not.
(34:18):
His guy and if you have these, double standards you
don't have any. AT all, i mean if you can
just go rogue and ignore federal, court judges then so
many of the conservative wins in court Against the biden
administration would have. Been meaningless when they took down the,
vaccine mandate when they got so many of his student loan.
Programs blocked all, of That the biden administration eventually abided
(34:39):
by all those court decisions because that is the Norm in,
american society and if you want to, change that you
can't only change it for. YOUR side i. DON'T know
i just think it's playing a very dangerous. Game here.
Speaker 7 (34:52):
Portland is a. War zone it's total chaosts in a
state of. OPEN insuraction ice agents are. Being attacked portland's
trying to subvert the authority of the federal government to
fight the laws of. The land obviously an occasion For The.
National Guard judge, karen, disagrees well her random opinion. Doesn't, matter.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
Again it is not a, random opinion and he didn't
engage with any of the actual. Federal laws rationale omitted.
Key facts He's saying portland is an. Open insurrection trump
hasn't declared an, insurrection there so that isn't relevant and obviously,
isn't true or he. Would have and then she also
examined the claims about the crime and how out of
(35:29):
control the violent protests and disruptions federal. Officers are she
found that they did not meet the threshold of some
of the claims that the administration. WAS making i. Don't
know i'm not an expert in The Posse Cooma, tatis,
Act right i'm not an expert in any of. These
things i'm not a lawyer. At all so Maybe the
trump administration, is right and they'll appeal this ruling and they.
(35:50):
Will win they've appealed to other rulings limiting their ability
to Deploy The national guard. And one but that's the correct,
path here not the kind, of, authoritarian crazy, norm breaking, society,
destroying frankly escalation and Overreach that matt is. Advocating HERE
(36:13):
and i find it bizarre to, BE though i guess
it makes sense when you Think of matt as primarily
an entertainer and primarily somebody who thinks and speaks in
terms of emotion and what he can rile people up
as and not as somebody who kind of analyzes facts
and news when that makes. More sense but it's really
(36:36):
dangerous what he's, advocating for and he has millions of
people that listen, To him so to have someone on
the mainstream Right in american politics espousing such nakedly authoritarian
escalations is really disturbing. To me but what do you?
Guys think let me know what you think in. The
comments makes you're subscribed if you, aren't yet hit the,
(36:57):
Like button YadA, YadA yah and that'll be it today's
episode Of The Brad Versus. Everyone podcast make sure you're
subscribed if you, aren't yet and we will talk again.
Real soon
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.