May 8, 2024 • 52 mins
I want to Hear From You! Send Us A Text!
Hello Fam,
This episode addresses several critical issues in the United States, starting with the legal controversies surrounding former President Donald Trump's claim of immunity in his Supreme Court case and its potential consequences for presidential powers. It also delves into the proposed nationwide ban on TikTok due to security concerns and ownership by the Chinese company ByteDance. The potential nationwide TikTok ban is examined, considering its implications for users, freedom of speech, and the legal challenge TikTok plans to mount against such legislation.
Furthermore, it discusses the repeal of Arizona's Civil War-era abortion ban, reflecting on the broader implications for abortion rights and accessibility in the state and potentially across the nation. Lastly, the episode touches on Speaker Mike Johnson's political turmoil over aid for Ukraine and the pushback he faces from within his party, highlighting the complex dynamics of support for foreign aid in the current political climate.
0:00 Unpacking the Presidency’s Power, TikTok’s Future, and Abortion Bans
01:19 Trump
17:43 Speaker Mike Johnson
28:03 Tik Tok
36:28 Arizona
50:30 Goodbye For Now
To all my Melanated People (Black & Brown), it's never a sign of weakness to ask for help when you really need it. Life is not cupcakes and rainbows—struggles are what make us stronger!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Stephan (00:01):
Hello to all of my conversationalist out there.
As you can hear in my voice, Ihave a cold.
I've had a code for this pastweek now.
Which has.
Dramatically affected me.
Doing a show.
(00:21):
Essentially.
But I will try and do this thebest that I can.
In this episode, here's a, weare going to talk about first.
We're going to talk aboutTrump's.
Supreme court case about hisimmunity.
We'll talk about that.
Next, we're going to talk aboutthe ban on Tik TOK.
(00:41):
Now I want to make sure youunderstand exactly what's
happening with the ban on TikTOK.
The third thing we're going totalk about is Arizona's civil
war error, abortion ban.
Recently as of today.
(01:02):
May 3rd.
It has finally been repealed.
So.
And tastic news.
Those are what we're going totalk about.
Endless episode.
The best I can do.
Welcome to.
The last conversation.
So, if you don't know, by now,Former president Donald Trump is
(01:25):
going through too.
Court cases currently he has thecriminal trial.
That's currently in New Yorkright now about the hush money.
And.
Many he has the Supreme courtcase.
Because he believes that aspresident, he has immunity now.
(01:45):
Most of you would be like, well,Stephan why don't she talk about
the hush money?
To be honest, I don'tnecessarily care about the hush
money.
I w look, we've all paid off aprostitute or two.
He just did it the wrong way.
He should have just went theWalgreens.
And bought a go in that car andput the money on there and gave
it to her.
Like I don't.
(02:06):
This isn't rocket science.
Okay, sir.
We we've all done it.
And that's the end of that.
I want to focus on.
The immunity.
Because essentially this isgoing to go down in the history
of what presidents actually cando, right.
Can Presidents actually givenofficial order to kill someone?
(02:29):
Let's say that.
Political opponent.
Could the present legally.
Give a order to kill thatpolitical Ponant.
All right.
And the president of Cuba.
Well, I'm immune.
Like I have immunity because I'mthe president and it's the
official orders of the presidentUnited States.
So that's what we're going tofocus on.
(02:50):
I do have some audio that I dowant to share with you, so you
can listen to some of the.
Critiques that the Supreme courtjustices or making at the
argument.
If.
The present actually hasimmunity.
cause Jack Smith was like, well,if you give him immunity, What.
(03:14):
Falls under that immunity.
And if you don't give himimmunity, then he's responsible
for all of it.
And right now the Supreme courtis kind of like tiptoeing around
what they want to do.
Because as I said, it will set aprecedent.
Of what a president of theUnited States could actually do.
It could actually turn the ovaloffice into eight criminal
(03:36):
organization.
And the person holding thatoffice could be like, well, I
can do all this because I haveimmunity.
Right.
Let's go into the story.
About the case (03:45):
Throughout Thursday's marathon oral
arguments in Trump versus theUnited States, which lasted more
than two and a half hours,mostly United States Supreme
court, nine justices.
Provide at least some clue as tohow they're likely to win a rule
on whether January six criminal.
Prosecution.
(04:06):
Against former president DonaldTrump frugal forward.
Trump has denied any wrongdoingrelated to the case.
Obviously that's with everycase.
At its core, the question in theTrump case is relatively
straightforward.
Can Trump be criminallyprosecuted for his alleged role
in the events leading up to.
And on January 6th, 2021.
(04:28):
Lower courts resoundingly saidyes, without given to harder
questions of whether.
There's ever a circumstance inwhich criminal law.
Can not be applied to actions bya president.
The Supreme court could havedone that question to either by
not taking your up Trump'sappeal.
(04:51):
In the first place or by holdingthat whether or not there is
ever a case, a little chainpresident is a mean for criminal
prosecution.
The January six prosecutionagainst Trump camp proceed.
Essentially, they had twooptions.
They could be like, we're notgoing to answer this.
Or they could have been like,well, just let the lower courts
(05:12):
proceed with, as it is.
If they, you know, if the lowercourts are like, Hey yeah, he
can be held responsible.
Let the lower courts.
But obviously came to this.
Let's go on..
Four of the justices, Clarence.
Thomas Samuel Alto, Neil Gorsuchand Brett.
Tabernash butchering all theirnames.
(05:35):
Express support for differentarguments that would each post
serious.
If not fatal obstacles.
To the closely watch criminalcase.
For the justices, Sonia, Elena,Amy.
And Katon.
Angie.
Seemed to support a ruling thatwill allow most, if not all of
(05:56):
the charges in January six to goforward.
If that holds the fate Januarysix, prosecution lightly rest my
hands, the justice.
Who spoke first.
And last on Thursday.
But who did the least to revealhis views was Chief Justice John
Roberts and he has quite a messin front of him.
(06:18):
It became clear early inThursday's arguments that there
was little support across thebench for a male ruling.
That would be good for only inthis case.
Gorsuch, put it at one point,the court needs to articulate a
rule for the ages.
Never not mine, that we've neverhad a criminal indictment of a
(06:39):
former president before.
The concern seems to be aboutthe need to articulate a forward
looking rule.
So that future presidents willknow when they should be worried
about future from an oldprosecutions.
And when they shouldn't.
Once the court articulates thatrule presumptively, it would
send Trump's case back to thedistrict court or judge Tanya
(07:02):
check-ins would be expected toapply it before proceeding to
the trial.
Essentially.
Whatever they rule.
Would go back down to the lowercourts.
So Tanya check-ins can rule, butas I said, it's going to be a
rule.
(07:23):
For the ages.
It's going to set standards upwhen a president should be
worried.
Hey look.
You do.
ABC.
And D there is a very goodchance that you could be
criminally prosecuted, if youdo.
X Y and Z you're immume.
Now let's move on.
(07:45):
All of this may sound plausibleenough in the abstract.
But there are two complications,both of which paint the chief
justice into a pudding tightcorner.
First.
Where exactly is aligned betweenacts that are immune from
prosecution and those thataren't.
(08:06):
One of the few.
Dialogues during Thursday'sargument, which featured.
The chief justice included his.
Effort to underscore thisproblem.
And how the same acts might fallon one side of the lime or the
other, depending on thepresence, motive or other.
(08:28):
On a specific issue.
Second.
If even five or more justicesultimately agree on where the
line ought to be, how long wouldit take them to get there?
If the courts doesn't hand downa ruling until late June or even
early July.
That may have the effect onplastically impugning Trump,
(08:49):
even if the majority holds thathe can stand trial.
That's because there may not beenough time for the child to be
held before the election.
And there's no way the trialwould happen.
In a world in which strongwinds.
Whatever else might be saidabout Roberts.
(09:10):
He is not oblivious to this.
Mel storm of legal and politicalconsideration.
I mean, he knows as well asanyone.
At many of the Supreme courts,most celebrated decision
historically have come torulings.
Bye.
Chief justice.
(09:30):
It was chief justice, EarlWarren, who wrote for an
anonymous court in the biggestcivil rights case.
Not just brown V board ofeducation.
But copper V.
Aaron.
Loving versus Virginia and ahost of others.
It was chief justice, WarrenBerger.
(09:50):
Who wrote for Ava anonymouscourt in the Watergate tapes
case, in which the courts heldthat president Richard Nixon.
Who had appointed Berger.
Had to turn over the Watergate'stape.
Not what standing executiveprivileges a Ruly MetLife
directly to Nixon's.
Brexit nation.
(10:10):
It was chief justice, William.
Ryan quest who wrote for thecourt and a technical, but
essential 2000 rulingreaffirming that only the court
and not Congress.
I could overrule Miranda versusArizona, even though.
Chief justice, William.
(10:31):
Himself.
Didn't like that ruling, whichmandated that a suspect must be
advised of their rights toremain silent.
M a have maternity present.
In order.
For that suspects profession tobe used the court.
Of course.
That could also work out poorly.
As and Dred Scott versusSanford.
(10:53):
The famous 1857 ruling in whichchief justice.
Roger B.
Tanny effectively held.
That enslaved people.
We're not and never could becomecitizens.
Further helping us set the stagefor civil war.
But for better or worse in allthese cases, the chief justice,
(11:14):
wasn't just speaking for thecourt.
He was speaking for the country.
The Roberts.
The question.
Is whether there's any way toactually do that in this case.
Whether there is some way tomake it possible for Trump's
trial to proceed before theelection so that the court isn't
(11:36):
accused of effectively takingthe former present side.
And an opinion that sets out aclear or looking standard to
govern this in a future cases.
We may not know the answer tothat question for another two
months.
But the one thing that seemsmost clear, I mean, from
Thursdays arguments.
(11:58):
Is that the answer only thebroader legacy of Robert's court
will ultimately be up to him.
Now I want to play.
Some audio for you.
So you can kind of.
Here, what the justices weretalking about.
The first one you're runninghere is Kentaji Brown Jackson
(12:18):
and the, her thoughts on thecase.
Kentaji Brown Jackson (12:22):
If someone with those kinds of
powers, the most powerful personin the world with the greatest
amount of authority.
Could go into office knowingthat there would be no potential
penalty for committing crimes.
I'm trying to understand whatthe disincentive is from turning
the oval office into you know,The S the seat of criminal
(12:46):
activity in this country, if thepotential for criminal liability
is taken off the table.
Wouldn't there be a significantrisk that future presidents
would be emboldened to commitcrimes with abandoned while
they're in office.
It's right now, the fact thatwe're having this debate
because.
OLC has said that presidentsmight be prosecuted.
(13:07):
Presidents from the beginning oftime have understood that that's
a possibility that might be whathas kept this office from
turning into the kind of crimecenter that I'm envisioning.
But once we say.
No criminal liability, Mr.
President, you can do whateveryou want.
I'm worried that we would have aworse problem than the problem
(13:27):
of the president feelingconstrained to follow the law
while he's in office.
If someone.
Stephan (13:33):
So the second recording that you're going to hear is
from justice.
Kagan.
And she asks if the presentwould be immune after ordering a
coup.
One of those words, I'm sick.
Let's hear what she has to say.
Justice Kagan (13:48):
So it was a nuclear secrets to a foreign
adversary.
Is that.
I immune.
That sounds like similar to thebribery example, likely not
immune.
Now, if it's structured as anofficial act, you would have to
be impeached and convicted firstbefore.
What does that mean?
If it's structured as anofficial app?
Well, I don't know, in thehypothetical, whether or not
that would be an official act,you'd probably have to have more
details to apply the blazinggame.
(14:09):
Analysis or even the Fitzgeraldanalysis that we've been talking
about.
How about if a president.
Orders the military to stage acoup.
I think that as the chiefjustice pointed out earlier,
where there is a whole seriesof.
Sort of.
Guidelines against that.
So to speak like a UCM Jade.
For prohibits the military fromfollowing a playfully unlawful
(14:30):
act.
If one adopted justice, Alito istasks that would fall outside.
Now, if one adopts, for example,the Fitzgerald test that we
advanced that may well be anofficial act and he would have
to be, as I'll say, in responseto all these kinds of
hypotheticals.
Has to be impeached andconvicted before it can be
criminally prosecuted.
But I emphasize to the court.
He's gone that say thispresident who ordered the
military to stage a coup.
(14:51):
He's no longer president.
He wasn't a PhD.
Couldn't be impeached.
But.
But he ordered the military tostage a coup and you're saying
that's an official act.
I think it went to bed at noon.
I think it would depend on thecircumstances, whether it was an
official act.
If it were an official actagain, he would have to be
employed as on me and depend onthe circumstances he was the
president.
He is the commander in chief.
(15:13):
He talks to his generals all thetime and he told the generals, I
don't feel like leaving office.
I want to stage a coup is, isthat immune?
If it's an official ads, thereneeds to be impeachment and
conviction beforehand becausethe framers viewed the re that
that kind of.
It's an official act.
Isn't an official act.
If it's an official act, it'simpatient and official.
(15:34):
On the way you've described thathypothetical, it could well be.
I just don't know.
You'd have to, again, it's afact specific context is very
determined.
That answer sounds to me asthough it's like, yeah, under my
attest, it's an official act,but that sure sounds bad.
Doesn't it.
Stephan (15:48):
So essentially that's what.
The courts have been hearing.
Throughout their time.
Discussing my case is back andforth hypothetical.
What's an official app.
What's non official.
At what process do we have to goto make an official app?
Right.
If the president of UnitedStates says, Hey, I want to, I
want the military.
(16:09):
To blow up this guy's house.
Is that an official at, oh,well, yes.
Now it's a back and forth,right?
And then the guy was like, oh,well he would have to be
impeached.
And so he has to go through allof this before we can.
Officially.
Criminally prosecute.
And even the impeachment doesn'tkick them out of office.
(16:30):
So I don't.
So this case is going to besomething that we all have to
watch.
No matter what your politicalbackground may be, if you are
Republican Democrat,independent, whatever.
You need to pay attention tothis case because it's
ultimately going to decide howmuch, how are a present truly
does have.
(16:51):
Depending on how this goes andGod forbid, if he wins again,
it's over.
It's completely over.
He's going to do shit that weare like, what the hell?
So pay attention to it.
As I said, the hush money.
Yeah.
You can watch it.
It's important.
But at the same time, watch theSupreme court.
We need to know if he's going toget immunity.
(17:12):
If he doesn't get immunity orhow much immunity does he get?
And what's the standard.
Four.
Future presidents movingforward.
So the next topic we're going totalk about.
Is actually going to be aboutmerged really Taylor green.
And how that she still is dryingup papers for.
(17:36):
I'll steam speaker Johnson.
There was some audio in the listas well.
I'll see you guys in a fewminutes.
Microphone (MAONO AU-AM200) (17:45):
So speaker Mike Johnson.
May not have his job.
Much longer.
Because our best friend,Marjorie Taylor green, AKA the
green goblin.
Doesn't like the fact that he'strying to get aid for Ukraine,
which it baffles me because it'slike, You know, we know plenty
(18:06):
of people have said.
You know, if we don't fund youclaim, Russia's going to
eventually take over Ukraine andwe don't know where else they
they're going to go.
You know, they could go forPoland.
They could go, who knows?
Right.
It's a, it's a guessing gamblegame.
In that type of region.
So you want to fund Ukraine,give them the weapons so they
(18:28):
can fight back Russia andRussian.
Oh, Hey look, we're not goingto, you know, we're not going to
tolerate this.
Your aggression is not going to.
Invade.
Another country just becauseyou're like wallet.
It are it always belong toRussia?
Well, it doesn't now.
It's a whole country.
They got their own people,whatever the case, but Marjorie
Taylor green that has said, Hey,if you pass this, that's it.
(18:51):
We're going to call for althoughto.
Kick you out.
So here's what happens.
Republican represent Marjorietailored green on Sunday, said
how speaker Mike Johnson, Btrade.
The Republican voters after thehouse approved a new 80.
T crane.
Threatening to call a vote forhis ouster.
(19:11):
If he doesn't resign.
She goes on to say that MikeJohnson speakership is over, he
needs to do the right thing toresign and allow us to move
forward in a controlled process.
If he doesn't do so he will bevacated.
She doesn't care.
She said, and I'll play it.
She's like the speakership couldbe a revolving door.
I don't care.
After months of resistingputting a foreign aid bill in
(19:35):
the house floor Johnson joinedwith Democrats on Saturday to
advance a 95.
Billion.
Form a package which contains 61billion for Ukraine and regional
partners, the legislation whichpassed.
With the support of two, 10Democrats in 101 were publicans
now heads to the Senate, whichis expected to get final
(19:57):
approval this week.
As of today, they approved it.
In that package, there's alsothe tick, top band that we were
talking about earlier, too.
Should clean and her supportersmake good on their threats to
full, to force a vote onousting.
The speaker Johnson will almostcertainly need to rely on
Democrats to bail him out.
The Georgia hardliner is one ofthe least.
(20:18):
Three Republicans who have saidthey will support a move to
Alice Johnson.
Who's majority is so slim.
He can't afford to lose anyRepublicans on a party line
vote.
Johnson maintains that he hasnot asked any Democrats for
their help, but seniorRepublicans believe that they
will be able to count on supportacross the aisle to swiftly kill
(20:39):
any motion.
To vacate the speaker chair, afeeling that may have both.
Johnson's confidence in pressingahead with his plans.
It's still unclear whether theDemocrats will throw him a
lifeline, but they haveexpressed a willingness to save
him.
Especially after he defied hisright flank to move ahead with
foreign aid package that closelyresembles a Senate passed the
(21:01):
version.
Republican.
Koa.
Said Sunday that you'd voteagainst the motion to remove
Johnson from speakership.
He says I'm a progressiveDemocrat.
And I think you would have a fewprogressive Democrats doing
that.
I disagree with the speakerJohnson on many issues.
And I've been very critical ofhim, but he did the right thing
(21:22):
here and he deserves to keep hisjob till the end of his term.
Not everything on politics needto be transactional.
Asked why she held off on themotion to vacate on Sunday green
claim Sunday.
That she's been.
Responsible with this the entiretime and suggests that the move
(21:43):
will happen.
She goes on to say that all ofthis was possible because of the
betrayals of Mike Johnson.
Johnson for his part, dismissedthe prospect of ouster efforts
on Saturday night.
He says, I don't want to walkaround the building being
worried about emotion thatvacate.
After the foreign aid packagepast.
He says I have the job to do.
(22:04):
I have done a year.
What I believe is the rightthing to allow the house to
work.
Its will.
And as I've said, you do theright thing and you let the
chips fall where they may.
As I've said that bill passed.
Today, like literally a fewhours ago that bill had passed.
So I don't think Johnson shouldbe worried.
(22:26):
About being ousted, MarjorieTaylor green is a threat, But
there was previous reports thathave acid Johnson.
If you would change the rules.
To ousting a speaker.
Because.
This whole motion of vacay forone person.
Remember one person.
All they have to do is say, Hey,you're not doing your job.
(22:49):
It's time out, Sprite, oneperson.
And then the entire floor SOPs.
It all halts, like everythingstops.
So, mm.
You know, the house has to vote.
So Johnson a few days ago wasasked, well, would he change
that?
And he said that he would changethat.
Because.
(23:09):
It's just too.
It's it's too easy for someoneto.
To be thrown out.
Now, Kevin McCarthy.
He agreed to that because hewanted the speakership.
So he wanted it so badly andthey were like, Hey.
Here's the apple, you take thisapple, which was one person.
And he was like, oh yes, yes.
I use that apple against them.
(23:30):
Johnson.
Is talking with some of hishigher ups to see if maybe they
can change that to where youneed.
More than just one or whateverthe circumstances may be.
But definitely that one personto say, Hey, it's time for you
to go.
And everything stops.
He says exactly that.
Is where it needs to stop.
I'm going to have you listen toan audio clip.
(23:52):
We're Marjorie Taylor greentalks about how she feels about
Mike Johnson.
The Speaker Chair That's arevolving door.
If that's exactly what needs tohappen, then let it be.
But the days are over at the oldRepublican party.
That wants to find foreign warsand murder people in foreign
lands while they stabbed theAmerican people in their face.
Now on.
(24:13):
We're only going to allowRepublican leaders that
understand the Republican agendafor this country is America
first, not America last.
And that's why speaker Johnsonneeds to resign.
He needs to do the right thingand we need time to elect a new
speaker of the house.
This is.
Basically a warning and it'stime for us to go through.
(24:34):
Through the process, take ourtime and find a new speaker of
the house that will stand withRepublicans in our Republican
majority.
Instead of standing with the sothat's what Marjorie Taylor
green had to say.
About Mike Johnson keeping hisjob now.
Here's what Johnson had to sayin response.
(24:55):
Why are you.
Willing to risk losing your job.
Over this Ukraine funding.
Listen.
My philosophy is you, you do theright thing and you let the
chips fall where they may.
I don't.
If I operated out of fear over amotion to vacate, I would never
be able to do my job.
Yeah, look history, judges usfor what we do.
This is a critical time rightnow, a critical time in the
(25:16):
world stage.
I could make a.
You know, I can make a selfishdecision and do something that
Th th that's different, but II'm doing here.
What I believe to be the rightthing.
I think providing lethal aid toUkraine right now is critically
important.
I really do.
I really do believe the Inteland.
And the briefings that we'vegotten that.
I believe G and veterinary.
(25:37):
Veterinary Putin and.
And Iran really are an axis ofevil.
I think they're in coordinationon this.
I think that Vladimir Putinwould continue to March through
Europe if he were allowed.
I think he might go to theBalkans next.
I think he might.
Have a showdown with Polanderone of our NATO allies.
To put it bluntly, I wouldrather send bullets.
To Ukraine then American boys.
My son is.
Going to begin in the Navalacademy.
(25:58):
This fall, this.
This is a live fire exercise forme as it is so many American
families.
This is not a game.
It's not a joke.
We can't play politics of this.
We have to do the right thingand I'm going to allow an
opportunity for every singlemember of the house.
To vote their conscience andtheir will on this.
And I think that's the way thisinstitution is supposed to work.
And I'm willing to take personalrisk for that because we have to
do the right thing and historyof judges.
So that's what Johnson said.
(26:19):
And as I said, it's a.
Pretty fair.
Argument right.
You know and time and timeagain, more higher Republicans
and Democrats have said the samething.
If you don't find Ukraine, wedon't know where else Russia's
going to go now.
(26:40):
Russia.
That Vladimir Putin has said,oh, after you clean, I'm done.
I'm not doing anything else.
Do we really believe a criminal?
I mean, all.
I say, then you have a criminalright now.
But we're not going to believe adictator, right?
Like come on.
Like, it doesn't make sense.
(27:00):
You go after Ukraine.
We don't know if you're going togo off to Poland.
You might try and go after oneof our NATO allies, which means
it would be world war three.
Right.
If he touches.
Any of our NATO allies.
Why do you think so many ofthese smaller countries have
been joining up with NATO?
Because they want thatprotection because they feel the
Russia of blush.
(27:21):
I don't know.
I'm I'm like in limbo with, Idon't think he's gonna lose his
job.
I think that the other sidewould save him.
Be.
In life, you know, Like it'sbeen said.
Not everyone agrees withJohnson.
But he is doing his job, right.
He's passing.
He's he's very adamant ofpassing the, you know, the
(27:41):
funding.
That Ukraine needed.
And now that it's past.
We don't know.
We'll see.
Next.
The house and the Senate havejust passed the tick tock ban.
Oh man, Tik TOK is it's coming.
It's coming to an end.
(28:01):
Let's talk about it next.
Stephan (2) (28:03):
So, if you thought you were probably never go back
to Instagram reels again, itlooks like we're all going to
probably have to go back to itbecause Tik TOK.
It's on its way out of thecountry.
It's not funny.
It's so sad.
So a few hours ago, the houseand the Senate had just passed
(28:23):
the bill to ban take top.
Now, president Joe Biden hasalready said.
And he would sign it if it madeit to his desk.
So it's making it up there.
Let's go over some of the keydetails.
So Congress finalized thelegislation on Tuesday that
could lead to a nationwide TikTOK.
Then escalating a massive threatto the company's us operations.
(28:45):
The bill passed the Senate aspart of a wide range of foreign
aid package.
And to support Israel andUkraine.
It was approved by the house onSaturday, and now it has to
President Joe Biden's debts.
If he signs the bill.
As he is expected to do so ticktock would be forced to find a
new owner within months or bebanned from the United States.
(29:05):
Entirely.
What does it take totlegislation do?
The bill approved this week isan updated version of a bill.
That house lawmakers approved inMarch.
It gives Tik TOK, Chineseparented, bite dance, 270 days
to sell tick tock.
Failure to do so with lead asignificant consequences.
Tick tock would be prohibitedfrom us app stores and from
(29:28):
internet hosting services thatsupports it.
It would effectively restrictnew downloads of the app and
interactions with its content.
If signed this week, thedeadlines per sale with.
Fall in January of 2025.
Under the new legislation,however Biden could extend the
deadline.
And now they're 90 days.
(29:49):
If he determines there has beenprocessed.
Toward a sale given Tik TOKpotentially up to a year before.
Facing a bay.
So let's just clarify that.
In theory, someone.
Mainly a us company would haveto buy.
Tick tock, right.
(30:10):
Take taught would have to sell.
It's shares that have been ownedby the Chinese government.
You get 270 days.
Which means.
In January of 2025 now Bidencould extend it as it said.
If he sees that there's process,but if he sees no process,
that's it.
As of next year, Tik TOK isgone.
(30:31):
Can't download it.
Won't be able to download it.
We won't be able to postanything.
It's gone.
So now you're probablywondering, well, how did this
slip into the foreign aid bill?
Like I thought they were goingto do a separate one for it.
In theory.
Yes.
But I don't feel like it wouldhave passed if they did it
separately.
But they slipped it in.
(30:52):
Remember, this is how Congressworks.
If they want something, they'lljust slip it into an existing
bill that they know they'regoing to get all the support
for.
And that's an easier way forthings to pass.
So the earlier take top bill hadbeen passed by the house, but it
stalled in the Senate.
And a.
Normal move house Republicans.
This munch attacks, the revisetick tock bill to the foreign
(31:15):
aid package in hopes of force inthe Senate to vote on a tick out
legislation.
Bundling the bill with a foreignaid eight top us priority, fast
track the tick tock bill andmade it more.
Use me.
More likely to pass.
As I said, it was on its own.
Chances of passing.
It would have been very slim,but you slip it in to the
foreign aid bill.
(31:37):
Everybody wants the foreign aidfor you, claim everything else.
That's it there.
It's going to pass.
So when we'll buy an assign thebill, since the bill is part of
the foreign aid package thatBiden has vocally supported,
he's expected to sign it andquickly.
By the has been on recordsupport in the earlier Tik TOK
(31:57):
legislation.
So there's a little reason tothink that he would oppose the
latest version of of it givesTik TOK a slightly longer
runway.
And the white house additionalinput on before sale.
So, what does it mean for youruse of the app?
If and when Biden signs the billinto law, it would start the 270
day clock for take top to findthe buyer.
(32:19):
If it cannot separate from bitedance, then Tik TOK users could
hypothetically be cut off byJanuary.
But this is still a big, if.
So for now I'll take top fanscan continue to use the app as
before though.
They might begin to see morecreators.
Or the company itself speakingout in the apps.
Opposing the legislation.
(32:41):
As I said, it needs to separate.
From.
Might dance.
What's.
There is eight Chinese owned.
Company.
And.
Congress believes that it's sohuge.
They're collecting data on us.
And they can use it at any timeand all that other.
Technology stuff.
(33:03):
So Tik TOK has options.
Okay.
Tik TOK has promised to take aus government to court.
If Biden signs the bill.
And a memo on Saturday, a toptick tock executive wrote to
employees.
That this would be thebeginning, not the end.
Of a long process, thechallenge, what the company
calls an unconstitutional.
Legislation that sensorsAmericans free.
(33:26):
Freedom of speech and that itwould harm small businesses that
depend on the app in March.
Take tot C E O.
Shall shew.
Don't even.
About to continue fighting,including.
Exercising our legal rights.
And now.
If tiptop does take it to court.
Do they have a case?
(33:47):
So the first amendment expectexperts save the bill has the
ultimate efforts of censoringTik, TOK users.
Could be shot down by thecourts.
Longstanding Supreme courtprotects Americans' first
amendment, right to accessinformation.
Ideas and the media's fromabroad.
(34:08):
By banning Tik TOK, the billwould infringe on this, right.
And with no real payoff.
China and other foreignadversaries could still purchase
American census data from data.
Brokers on the open market.
A court challenge could lead tomeasures being temporary block
while the law, while thelitigation plays out.
Lately over multiple years, butif a court declines to grant a
(34:30):
temporary injunction, To talkcould have to scramble to comply
to the law.
If Titov gets sold to someoneelse, the trouble is ticktock.
Parent is subject to Chineselaw.
And the Chinese government is onrecord opposing a sale.
In recent years, China hasimplemented.
Expert control governingalgorithms policy that could
(34:52):
seem to cover the increasinglysuccessful algorithm.
It powers, tick, top recommendedengine.
The Chinese government doesn'twant to let bite dance.
Relinquish take talk algorithm.
The thinking goes, it couldblock the sale outright.
Ultimately it may allow to talkto be sold.
Oh, without the lucrativealgorithm that forms the basis
(35:14):
of its proper.
Larry.
Can tick tock still succeedwithout it's out of the rhythm?
That would be a difficultquestion based in the company,
in the event of forcing the salewithout the secret sauce.
That has the.
App.
To 170 million us users, the appcould be good as dead.
That's Tik TOK.
So we got a good year left.
(35:36):
To see if someone wants to bite.
And what we've been hearing, thechatter and everything.
China's not going to sell.
So more than likely.
There might be like a take top2.00.
Like Tik TOK.
That's the us.
Version that doesn't have allthese amazing features and you
(35:59):
know, the special sauce ofalgorithm and all that fun
stuff.
So I could definitely see thatit gets banned.
So, I mean, they'll probablyjust read another tick, top
bill.
A us version, won't be asamazing or fantastic as the Tik
TOK that we know of today.
We'll still have tick tock.
So enjoy it while it lasts.
(36:19):
Otherwise we might have to goback to Instagram real.
Anyways.
Let's go over.
As I told you there there's alot.
Stephan (36:28):
So Arizona, A Republican state, even though it
has a democratic governor.
Has decided that, Hey, we'regoing to issue.
A civil war, era abortion.
After abortion is alreadylimited in the state.
This just takes it another step.
Further.
So the court ruled on Tuesdaythat the state must adhere to a
(36:51):
law.
May before statehood.
When Arizona was just aterritory that bands all
abortion, except those necessaryto save a pregnant person's
life.
The law.
Which is enforceable because RoyV.
Wade was overturned.
Is broader than the states 2022ban on abortions after a 15 week
(37:12):
pregnancy and carries a prisonsentence, the two to five years
for abortion providers.
Vice-president Kamala Harris.
Came out.
Friday.
To Arizona as mountingpressures.
This election year has broughtabortion to the, for most.
As a lightly ballot issue.
(37:33):
Arizona Republicans, two daysearlier.
Brought it a volt to repeal the1864 ban as a scene.
On the state's house floorerupted into chaos and Democrats
channel shame.
The state Supreme court delayedenforcement of the law for 14
days to give the plaintiffs anopportunity to pursue other
challenges.
In lower courts, if they wish toincluding challenges to the band
(37:56):
constitutionally.
It's unlikely.
There will be much movement onenforcing the law.
As legal challenges are likelyto get tied up in the lower
courts.
For some time.
While Arizona attorney general,Chris Meyer, and several county
attorneys say they will notprosecute.
Abortion cases under this newban.
(38:17):
Analysts say.
It's unlikely providers willtake on a liability.
A performing illegal medicalservices, leading to a possible
chilling effect on abortionstatewide.
In the meantime, abortion rightsadvocates and encourage Arizona
patients.
You seek services.
While they're still able to, andthey get to the poll is
November.
When they will have theopportunity to vote on a ballot
(38:39):
measure.
That would restore abortionthrough the axis of point of
viability.
Approximately 24 weeks intopregnancy.
So Arizona Democrat, governorKeith Hobbs slammed the state
Supreme court decision.
Bowing the fight forreproductive freedoms for the
people of Arizona.
Hob signed the executive orderin June greenie of the state
(39:00):
attorney general.
Over prosecuting abortionrelated cases in the state
though, that order has yet to betested.
It's just prevents an extremecounty attorney from using the
band from the wise women anddoctors were seeking care to
provide the care that theirpatient needs.
It hasn't been tested yet andI'm hopeful that it doesn't have
(39:22):
to be.
So let me just side now.
So what she just said, she gavethe attorney general of Arizona.
The power.
Two.
Any like county attorneygeneral.
If they decide to like prosecutea case for a woman or a doctor
from doing the abortion after.
Whatever circumstances do theyhave set for the attorney
(39:44):
general for Arizona has thepower to be like, no, we're not
doing that.
So it hasn't been tested yet.
Hopefully it does.
The attorney General's officehas not prosecuted providers or
patients under the existing 15week abortion ban and does not
intend to prosecute any casesunder the near total ban.
We're looking at everything thatwe.
(40:05):
Possibly.
Can make sure that the bandnever actually goes into place
in Arizona.
Then there will be opportunitiesin the next couple of months to
fight the banning for.
Maya's acknowledge that it'spossible supporters I'll be
abortion ban will try and takeher or over enforcement of the
law.
He says, I'll see you.
Or she says, I'll see them for.
(40:25):
So Maricopa county attorneygeneral, Rachel, till CNN, her
office has yet to receive.
A request to prosecuting theabortion case in nearly two
years, since Roe V.
Wade was overturned.
And does not anticipate thiswill change.
She goes on to say that it'simportant to remember that under
Arizona state, under Arizona'slaw.
(40:46):
Women who get an abortion cannot be prosecuted.
It's the state Supreme courtruling.
Does not change that.
Women can not and will not beprosecuted, receiving an
abortion.
Arizona's 1864.
Law does not outline punishmentfor pregnant people.
Only providers and the 2022 lawstates women may not be
(41:07):
prosecuted for attempting orundergoing abortion.
Though the state Supreme courtdecision would have a chilling
effect on abortion services.
It will not end the need forthose services and will
ultimately lead to an increaseof unsafe abortions.
And threatening the liberties ofthose involved.
They pina.
Pima.
(41:27):
County attorney General's officewarrant in their statements.
I will not be using.
Precious resources to prosecutecredited health providers.
He told CNN.
The penal county.
Attorney's office said it willevaluate each case.
We will review the court'sruling and as always assess
every case on its individualmerits.
(41:49):
It's important to note that evenpertaining to the 15 week law,
You have not received a singlesubmittal.
From an agency to.
There's enormous amounts of.
Cautious tape and discretionunder the Arizona law.
So the Dean from Arizona stateuniversity law school.
And he, that's what he told CNN.
Vendor said it's unlikely forofficials to attempt to
(42:12):
prosecute abortion cases whilethe future of the law remains
uncertain.
Although others note that.
Prominence of the band could usepolitical pressure to push that
as it forced.
So right now providers are inlimbo.
Even if the ban is implemented,it's unclear how a small window
is left open by the exceptionalallowing abortions to save a
(42:32):
pregnant person's life.
That's a medical distinction,not a legal one.
Simon says she supervised agroup of students who file.
A brief to the state Supremecourt.
It put that there's anuntangible position of having
forts potentially second gueststhey're considered educated and
(42:53):
medical decisions about whatnecessarily to save a patient's
life.
Who is also the director oflegal line for the university.
It also puts the doctors andthen.
In an UN.
Tangible position of having towithhold treatment where the
treatment is necessary.
For example, The reserve awoman's.
(43:13):
Fertility to reserve a woman'shealth to prevent a woman from
being potentially permanentlydisabled.
In 2022, 11,550 abortions wereperformed in the state almost
99%, which were provided toArizona residents, according to
the data.
It's really unconscionable thatfolks in Arizona now are going
(43:34):
to have to go to Nevada,California, New Mexico, or
Colorado to get the care thatthey need.
The governor said.
Dr.
Jill Gibson, chief medicaldirector of planned parenthood.
Arizona said that sheimmediately started receiving
questions from PA patients.
Asking.
If they would be able to get thecare they need it.
When the decision came out.
Jill said, this is going to haveabsolutely unbelievable
(43:58):
consequences for the patients inour community.
And we just cannot state enoughhow dire the situation is going.
To be for the patients who needto access abortion care in
Arizona.
Doctor.
Deshaun Taylor presidency.
Oh of desert star Institute offamily planning.
Warn the law will be aparticular impact on
(44:19):
marginalized groups.
We cannot amplify enough.
Who's those apportion bands.
Mostly impact.
Taylor said.
Historically marginalized in thepolls glutes.
Who already faced barriers tocare those in low income
families, rural areas,immigrants, disabled.
Black, indigenous and otherpeople of color east communities
(44:39):
experienced physical.
Medical and emotional andfinancial harm.
Because of these policies.
Since the law mentions the useof drugs to induce miscarriage.
Simon said the use of abortionpills is also at risk.
And the governor warned onTuesday access to other
reproductive health services isalso on the line.
We know that IVF is underattack.
(45:01):
We know that contraception isunder attack.
She said.
So abortion is going to be onthe ballot in November, which is
going to be on the ballot forevery single state year in the
United States of America.
I've been saying it on thisshow.
Since we started right.
That abortion is going to be onthe ballot.
(45:22):
You know, president Joe Bidenhas said, it's going to be on
the ballot.
Vice-president Harris says it'sgoing to be on the ballot.
It's going to be on the ballot.
And we've seen in these previousballots that people want the
rights to the abortion, right?
They want at least 15 to 24weeks.
That's what the consensus isright now.
Six weeks is completelyridiculous.
(45:43):
Right?
Medical.
Professionals and experts havealready.
Came out.
Blunt, the ones that arerespectable and are
knowledgeable.
I've said that most women don'tfind it though.
Pregnant until about 15 weeks.
So it's kind of.
On tangible to be like, well,you get six weeks while six
weeks kind of just pushes a lotof things.
(46:04):
Right.
And I know, you know, there'salways the religious aspects of
all, you know, you're killing achild.
And all this other stuff.
And my philosophy for abortionis that it's not pro-abortion
it's about pro-choice right.
Change the conversation frompro-abortion.
Which sounds very.
Terrible.
Right.
Because it's almost like, well,pro killing babies.
(46:26):
And it's not pro abortion.
It's more, it needs to bechanged to pro-choice.
Having pro-choice means thatit's the woman's decision to be
able to do what she wants withher body.
I hate when I hear.
People say, oh, well, you knowwell, you know, God is this and
God is that.
Or God doesn't like this aboutabortions.
(46:46):
And it's like, You don't speakfor God.
Like we all can speak to God.
I can speak to God right now.
Right.
And or when it comes to prochoice, that's that woman's
decision it's, it's going to bebetween her, her doctors, her
family, and God, you can't tellsomeone.
That.
Hey, well, God's going to judgeyou badly.
You don't know what God's goingto do because you don't speak
(47:08):
for God.
Right?
Yeah, you may be a pastor or youmay know the Bible or whatever
the hell you may do, but youdon't speak for God.
That person has an individualrelationship with God.
And let them live that life.
They don't need you to judgethem.
They're already feeling probablyjudged, already feeling hurt.
They're probably feelingconfused.
They have all these mixedemotions.
Because there's risks that dothat do go on with having an
(47:30):
abortion.
You know, right.
What if she becomes disabled?
You know, in the process or whatif they tell her if she gets
this abortion, she can neverhave any more kids.
There's a lot of other.
Aspects to it then?
Oh, well, you're killing achild.
We have a lot of kids in thefoster system.
I don't see Republicans doing adamn thing of trying to make the
foster system.
(47:52):
Less.
Pat than what it is, right.
And that's not me saying, oh,well then, you know, Pro pro
choice.
Or pro-abortion.
It's still pro-choice, it's awoman's decision.
It's not the government'sdecision.
It's her decision or her to makefor herself.
Anyways, let me get off that.
Anyways, that's the article.
(48:14):
Well, the courts in the states.
Officials grapple with the newlaw.
Arizona residents will have theopportunity to vote in the
matters of themselves inNovember.
Arizona for abortion access, agroup of abortion rights
organizations announced thatlast week.
It has gathered enoughsignatures for November's 20, 24
ballot measure that would askvoters to in shrine abortion
(48:35):
rights for the stateconstitution.
The measure would restoreabortion access up to the point
of viability, which advocatessay is more reasonable than the
state's client.
15 week ban.
The push to start the massiveefforts to get abortion on the
2020 ballot in several states.
I move abortion rights.
Advocates are hopeful.
We restore some power to votersrather than the state courts.
(48:57):
Everything is going to be caughtup in fighting back and forth
over the next several months,said vendor.
It's just waiting for the peopleto resolve the situation.
And I think it was all innobody.
I can tell you from my stanceand what I've been the hearing
and.
What's going on.
It's definitely going to be anoverwhelming vote in November.
(49:18):
We've, we're already seen, as Isay, in these smaller elections
with, you know, with theRepublican states are trying to
like, you know, when it comes tolike trying to pass a new law or
something like that, we'reseeing, we're seeing the
overwhelming.
The overwhelming support.
We're being pro-choice andhaving access.
To the abortion care.
(49:40):
As I said, it's not about proabortion.
It's more about pro-choice.
Because if we start changing theconversation approach choice,
then it's like, okay, it's thatperson's choice.
Because as I said, when you saypro board abortion, you know, I
understand what you're saying,but to some people it kind of
sends like a negativeconnotation to it.
If you say pro choice, it'slike, oh, pro choice.
(50:01):
Hell.
Yeah.
It's your choice you causeyou're the voter.
It's you're the human being.
You know, whether it's yourwife, your sister, the daughter,
your stepmother, whatever thecase may be.
And as I said, most of thesestates don't have rape or incest
in them.
Like this, this one that passedfor Arizona Supreme court just
says, save a pipe, a woman'slife.
That's it.
(50:22):
Right.
It doesn't have for rape orincest.
Abortion.
We'll be back on the ballot inNovember.
It's going to be everywhere inNovember.
So we'll see how it all turnsout.
Microphone (MAONO AU-AM200) & (50:30):
I love to give shout outs to my
countries.
They're not in the UnitedStates.
So this week.
Still in number one.
India.
Wait, what.
Wow, India, India is number oneon our list with 17 people
listening.
Australia.
You're number two.
There's 16 people listening.
(50:51):
Canada has actually made numberfour, which 14 people.
We have the United Kingdomcoming in at 12, and then we
have Nigeria coming in at number10.
We still have South Africa,Ireland.
And Bulgaria.
So I just want to give a hugeshout out to all of you guys.
We posted an Instagram post on,please make sure you go onto our
(51:12):
Instagram atthelast_conversation and join
the conversation.
Also, I want to hear from you.
I want you to go onto ourInstagram.
The one, any one of our socialmedia posts there, and comment
on a topic that you would likeme to talk about.
Next month or even the monthafter that.
All right.
We got some.
Amazing topics to talk about,but I want to hear from you.
(51:34):
I want to know if maybe there's.
You know, maybe you want to hearmore about IVF.
Maybe we want to hear about moreabortion.
Maybe you want to.
Hear more about minority issuesabout housing and job and all
that other stuff.
So I want to hear from you.
Because ultimately I do theshell for you.
I do apologize for going Mia fora little bit.
But because school is almostover.
(51:56):
I can now do these shows alittle more readily.
So until then I love you all besafe.
Be kind, be different todifferent when the winter you
want to be treated.
And I will see you guys herenext week on the last
conversation.
Goodnight.
Hello to all of my conversationalist out there.
As you can hear in my voice, Ihave a cold.
I've had a code for this pastweek now.
Which has.
Dramatically affected me.
Doing a show.
(00:21):
Essentially.
But I will try and do this thebest that I can.
In this episode, here's a, weare going to talk about first.
We're going to talk aboutTrump's.
Supreme court case about hisimmunity.
We'll talk about that.
Next, we're going to talk aboutthe ban on Tik TOK.
(00:41):
Now I want to make sure youunderstand exactly what's
happening with the ban on TikTOK.
The third thing we're going totalk about is Arizona's civil
war error, abortion ban.
Recently as of today.
(01:02):
May 3rd.
It has finally been repealed.
So.
And tastic news.
Those are what we're going totalk about.
Endless episode.
The best I can do.
Welcome to.
The last conversation.
So, if you don't know, by now,Former president Donald Trump is
(01:25):
going through too.
Court cases currently he has thecriminal trial.
That's currently in New Yorkright now about the hush money.
And.
Many he has the Supreme courtcase.
Because he believes that aspresident, he has immunity now.
(01:45):
Most of you would be like, well,Stephan why don't she talk about
the hush money?
To be honest, I don'tnecessarily care about the hush
money.
I w look, we've all paid off aprostitute or two.
He just did it the wrong way.
He should have just went theWalgreens.
And bought a go in that car andput the money on there and gave
it to her.
Like I don't.
(02:06):
This isn't rocket science.
Okay, sir.
We we've all done it.
And that's the end of that.
I want to focus on.
The immunity.
Because essentially this isgoing to go down in the history
of what presidents actually cando, right.
Can Presidents actually givenofficial order to kill someone?
(02:29):
Let's say that.
Political opponent.
Could the present legally.
Give a order to kill thatpolitical Ponant.
All right.
And the president of Cuba.
Well, I'm immune.
Like I have immunity because I'mthe president and it's the
official orders of the presidentUnited States.
So that's what we're going tofocus on.
(02:50):
I do have some audio that I dowant to share with you, so you
can listen to some of the.
Critiques that the Supreme courtjustices or making at the
argument.
If.
The present actually hasimmunity.
cause Jack Smith was like, well,if you give him immunity, What.
(03:14):
Falls under that immunity.
And if you don't give himimmunity, then he's responsible
for all of it.
And right now the Supreme courtis kind of like tiptoeing around
what they want to do.
Because as I said, it will set aprecedent.
Of what a president of theUnited States could actually do.
It could actually turn the ovaloffice into eight criminal
(03:36):
organization.
And the person holding thatoffice could be like, well, I
can do all this because I haveimmunity.
Right.
Let's go into the story.
About the case (03:45):
Throughout Thursday's marathon oral
arguments in Trump versus theUnited States, which lasted more
than two and a half hours,mostly United States Supreme
court, nine justices.
Provide at least some clue as tohow they're likely to win a rule
on whether January six criminal.
Prosecution.
(04:06):
Against former president DonaldTrump frugal forward.
Trump has denied any wrongdoingrelated to the case.
Obviously that's with everycase.
At its core, the question in theTrump case is relatively
straightforward.
Can Trump be criminallyprosecuted for his alleged role
in the events leading up to.
And on January 6th, 2021.
(04:28):
Lower courts resoundingly saidyes, without given to harder
questions of whether.
There's ever a circumstance inwhich criminal law.
Can not be applied to actions bya president.
The Supreme court could havedone that question to either by
not taking your up Trump'sappeal.
(04:51):
In the first place or by holdingthat whether or not there is
ever a case, a little chainpresident is a mean for criminal
prosecution.
The January six prosecutionagainst Trump camp proceed.
Essentially, they had twooptions.
They could be like, we're notgoing to answer this.
Or they could have been like,well, just let the lower courts
(05:12):
proceed with, as it is.
If they, you know, if the lowercourts are like, Hey yeah, he
can be held responsible.
Let the lower courts.
But obviously came to this.
Let's go on..
Four of the justices, Clarence.
Thomas Samuel Alto, Neil Gorsuchand Brett.
Tabernash butchering all theirnames.
(05:35):
Express support for differentarguments that would each post
serious.
If not fatal obstacles.
To the closely watch criminalcase.
For the justices, Sonia, Elena,Amy.
And Katon.
Angie.
Seemed to support a ruling thatwill allow most, if not all of
(05:56):
the charges in January six to goforward.
If that holds the fate Januarysix, prosecution lightly rest my
hands, the justice.
Who spoke first.
And last on Thursday.
But who did the least to revealhis views was Chief Justice John
Roberts and he has quite a messin front of him.
(06:18):
It became clear early inThursday's arguments that there
was little support across thebench for a male ruling.
That would be good for only inthis case.
Gorsuch, put it at one point,the court needs to articulate a
rule for the ages.
Never not mine, that we've neverhad a criminal indictment of a
(06:39):
former president before.
The concern seems to be aboutthe need to articulate a forward
looking rule.
So that future presidents willknow when they should be worried
about future from an oldprosecutions.
And when they shouldn't.
Once the court articulates thatrule presumptively, it would
send Trump's case back to thedistrict court or judge Tanya
(07:02):
check-ins would be expected toapply it before proceeding to
the trial.
Essentially.
Whatever they rule.
Would go back down to the lowercourts.
So Tanya check-ins can rule, butas I said, it's going to be a
rule.
(07:23):
For the ages.
It's going to set standards upwhen a president should be
worried.
Hey look.
You do.
ABC.
And D there is a very goodchance that you could be
criminally prosecuted, if youdo.
X Y and Z you're immume.
Now let's move on.
(07:45):
All of this may sound plausibleenough in the abstract.
But there are two complications,both of which paint the chief
justice into a pudding tightcorner.
First.
Where exactly is aligned betweenacts that are immune from
prosecution and those thataren't.
(08:06):
One of the few.
Dialogues during Thursday'sargument, which featured.
The chief justice included his.
Effort to underscore thisproblem.
And how the same acts might fallon one side of the lime or the
other, depending on thepresence, motive or other.
(08:28):
On a specific issue.
Second.
If even five or more justicesultimately agree on where the
line ought to be, how long wouldit take them to get there?
If the courts doesn't hand downa ruling until late June or even
early July.
That may have the effect onplastically impugning Trump,
(08:49):
even if the majority holds thathe can stand trial.
That's because there may not beenough time for the child to be
held before the election.
And there's no way the trialwould happen.
In a world in which strongwinds.
Whatever else might be saidabout Roberts.
(09:10):
He is not oblivious to this.
Mel storm of legal and politicalconsideration.
I mean, he knows as well asanyone.
At many of the Supreme courts,most celebrated decision
historically have come torulings.
Bye.
Chief justice.
(09:30):
It was chief justice, EarlWarren, who wrote for an
anonymous court in the biggestcivil rights case.
Not just brown V board ofeducation.
But copper V.
Aaron.
Loving versus Virginia and ahost of others.
It was chief justice, WarrenBerger.
(09:50):
Who wrote for Ava anonymouscourt in the Watergate tapes
case, in which the courts heldthat president Richard Nixon.
Who had appointed Berger.
Had to turn over the Watergate'stape.
Not what standing executiveprivileges a Ruly MetLife
directly to Nixon's.
Brexit nation.
(10:10):
It was chief justice, William.
Ryan quest who wrote for thecourt and a technical, but
essential 2000 rulingreaffirming that only the court
and not Congress.
I could overrule Miranda versusArizona, even though.
Chief justice, William.
(10:31):
Himself.
Didn't like that ruling, whichmandated that a suspect must be
advised of their rights toremain silent.
M a have maternity present.
In order.
For that suspects profession tobe used the court.
Of course.
That could also work out poorly.
As and Dred Scott versusSanford.
(10:53):
The famous 1857 ruling in whichchief justice.
Roger B.
Tanny effectively held.
That enslaved people.
We're not and never could becomecitizens.
Further helping us set the stagefor civil war.
But for better or worse in allthese cases, the chief justice,
(11:14):
wasn't just speaking for thecourt.
He was speaking for the country.
The Roberts.
The question.
Is whether there's any way toactually do that in this case.
Whether there is some way tomake it possible for Trump's
trial to proceed before theelection so that the court isn't
(11:36):
accused of effectively takingthe former present side.
And an opinion that sets out aclear or looking standard to
govern this in a future cases.
We may not know the answer tothat question for another two
months.
But the one thing that seemsmost clear, I mean, from
Thursdays arguments.
(11:58):
Is that the answer only thebroader legacy of Robert's court
will ultimately be up to him.
Now I want to play.
Some audio for you.
So you can kind of.
Here, what the justices weretalking about.
The first one you're runninghere is Kentaji Brown Jackson
(12:18):
and the, her thoughts on thecase.
Kentaji Brown Jackson (12:22):
If someone with those kinds of
powers, the most powerful personin the world with the greatest
amount of authority.
Could go into office knowingthat there would be no potential
penalty for committing crimes.
I'm trying to understand whatthe disincentive is from turning
the oval office into you know,The S the seat of criminal
(12:46):
activity in this country, if thepotential for criminal liability
is taken off the table.
Wouldn't there be a significantrisk that future presidents
would be emboldened to commitcrimes with abandoned while
they're in office.
It's right now, the fact thatwe're having this debate
because.
OLC has said that presidentsmight be prosecuted.
(13:07):
Presidents from the beginning oftime have understood that that's
a possibility that might be whathas kept this office from
turning into the kind of crimecenter that I'm envisioning.
But once we say.
No criminal liability, Mr.
President, you can do whateveryou want.
I'm worried that we would have aworse problem than the problem
(13:27):
of the president feelingconstrained to follow the law
while he's in office.
If someone.
Stephan (13:33):
So the second recording that you're going to hear is
from justice.
Kagan.
And she asks if the presentwould be immune after ordering a
coup.
One of those words, I'm sick.
Let's hear what she has to say.
Justice Kagan (13:48):
So it was a nuclear secrets to a foreign
adversary.
Is that.
I immune.
That sounds like similar to thebribery example, likely not
immune.
Now, if it's structured as anofficial act, you would have to
be impeached and convicted firstbefore.
What does that mean?
If it's structured as anofficial app?
Well, I don't know, in thehypothetical, whether or not
that would be an official act,you'd probably have to have more
details to apply the blazinggame.
(14:09):
Analysis or even the Fitzgeraldanalysis that we've been talking
about.
How about if a president.
Orders the military to stage acoup.
I think that as the chiefjustice pointed out earlier,
where there is a whole seriesof.
Sort of.
Guidelines against that.
So to speak like a UCM Jade.
For prohibits the military fromfollowing a playfully unlawful
(14:30):
act.
If one adopted justice, Alito istasks that would fall outside.
Now, if one adopts, for example,the Fitzgerald test that we
advanced that may well be anofficial act and he would have
to be, as I'll say, in responseto all these kinds of
hypotheticals.
Has to be impeached andconvicted before it can be
criminally prosecuted.
But I emphasize to the court.
He's gone that say thispresident who ordered the
military to stage a coup.
(14:51):
He's no longer president.
He wasn't a PhD.
Couldn't be impeached.
But.
But he ordered the military tostage a coup and you're saying
that's an official act.
I think it went to bed at noon.
I think it would depend on thecircumstances, whether it was an
official act.
If it were an official actagain, he would have to be
employed as on me and depend onthe circumstances he was the
president.
He is the commander in chief.
(15:13):
He talks to his generals all thetime and he told the generals, I
don't feel like leaving office.
I want to stage a coup is, isthat immune?
If it's an official ads, thereneeds to be impeachment and
conviction beforehand becausethe framers viewed the re that
that kind of.
It's an official act.
Isn't an official act.
If it's an official act, it'simpatient and official.
(15:34):
On the way you've described thathypothetical, it could well be.
I just don't know.
You'd have to, again, it's afact specific context is very
determined.
That answer sounds to me asthough it's like, yeah, under my
attest, it's an official act,but that sure sounds bad.
Doesn't it.
Stephan (15:48):
So essentially that's what.
The courts have been hearing.
Throughout their time.
Discussing my case is back andforth hypothetical.
What's an official app.
What's non official.
At what process do we have to goto make an official app?
Right.
If the president of UnitedStates says, Hey, I want to, I
want the military.
(16:09):
To blow up this guy's house.
Is that an official at, oh,well, yes.
Now it's a back and forth,right?
And then the guy was like, oh,well he would have to be
impeached.
And so he has to go through allof this before we can.
Officially.
Criminally prosecute.
And even the impeachment doesn'tkick them out of office.
(16:30):
So I don't.
So this case is going to besomething that we all have to
watch.
No matter what your politicalbackground may be, if you are
Republican Democrat,independent, whatever.
You need to pay attention tothis case because it's
ultimately going to decide howmuch, how are a present truly
does have.
(16:51):
Depending on how this goes andGod forbid, if he wins again,
it's over.
It's completely over.
He's going to do shit that weare like, what the hell?
So pay attention to it.
As I said, the hush money.
Yeah.
You can watch it.
It's important.
But at the same time, watch theSupreme court.
We need to know if he's going toget immunity.
(17:12):
If he doesn't get immunity orhow much immunity does he get?
And what's the standard.
Four.
Future presidents movingforward.
So the next topic we're going totalk about.
Is actually going to be aboutmerged really Taylor green.
And how that she still is dryingup papers for.
(17:36):
I'll steam speaker Johnson.
There was some audio in the listas well.
I'll see you guys in a fewminutes.
Microphone (MAONO AU-AM200) (17:45):
So speaker Mike Johnson.
May not have his job.
Much longer.
Because our best friend,Marjorie Taylor green, AKA the
green goblin.
Doesn't like the fact that he'strying to get aid for Ukraine,
which it baffles me because it'slike, You know, we know plenty
(18:06):
of people have said.
You know, if we don't fund youclaim, Russia's going to
eventually take over Ukraine andwe don't know where else they
they're going to go.
You know, they could go forPoland.
They could go, who knows?
Right.
It's a, it's a guessing gamblegame.
In that type of region.
So you want to fund Ukraine,give them the weapons so they
(18:28):
can fight back Russia andRussian.
Oh, Hey look, we're not goingto, you know, we're not going to
tolerate this.
Your aggression is not going to.
Invade.
Another country just becauseyou're like wallet.
It are it always belong toRussia?
Well, it doesn't now.
It's a whole country.
They got their own people,whatever the case, but Marjorie
Taylor green that has said, Hey,if you pass this, that's it.
(18:51):
We're going to call for althoughto.
Kick you out.
So here's what happens.
Republican represent Marjorietailored green on Sunday, said
how speaker Mike Johnson, Btrade.
The Republican voters after thehouse approved a new 80.
T crane.
Threatening to call a vote forhis ouster.
(19:11):
If he doesn't resign.
She goes on to say that MikeJohnson speakership is over, he
needs to do the right thing toresign and allow us to move
forward in a controlled process.
If he doesn't do so he will bevacated.
She doesn't care.
She said, and I'll play it.
She's like the speakership couldbe a revolving door.
I don't care.
After months of resistingputting a foreign aid bill in
(19:35):
the house floor Johnson joinedwith Democrats on Saturday to
advance a 95.
Billion.
Form a package which contains 61billion for Ukraine and regional
partners, the legislation whichpassed.
With the support of two, 10Democrats in 101 were publicans
now heads to the Senate, whichis expected to get final
(19:57):
approval this week.
As of today, they approved it.
In that package, there's alsothe tick, top band that we were
talking about earlier, too.
Should clean and her supportersmake good on their threats to
full, to force a vote onousting.
The speaker Johnson will almostcertainly need to rely on
Democrats to bail him out.
The Georgia hardliner is one ofthe least.
(20:18):
Three Republicans who have saidthey will support a move to
Alice Johnson.
Who's majority is so slim.
He can't afford to lose anyRepublicans on a party line
vote.
Johnson maintains that he hasnot asked any Democrats for
their help, but seniorRepublicans believe that they
will be able to count on supportacross the aisle to swiftly kill
(20:39):
any motion.
To vacate the speaker chair, afeeling that may have both.
Johnson's confidence in pressingahead with his plans.
It's still unclear whether theDemocrats will throw him a
lifeline, but they haveexpressed a willingness to save
him.
Especially after he defied hisright flank to move ahead with
foreign aid package that closelyresembles a Senate passed the
(21:01):
version.
Republican.
Koa.
Said Sunday that you'd voteagainst the motion to remove
Johnson from speakership.
He says I'm a progressiveDemocrat.
And I think you would have a fewprogressive Democrats doing
that.
I disagree with the speakerJohnson on many issues.
And I've been very critical ofhim, but he did the right thing
(21:22):
here and he deserves to keep hisjob till the end of his term.
Not everything on politics needto be transactional.
Asked why she held off on themotion to vacate on Sunday green
claim Sunday.
That she's been.
Responsible with this the entiretime and suggests that the move
(21:43):
will happen.
She goes on to say that all ofthis was possible because of the
betrayals of Mike Johnson.
Johnson for his part, dismissedthe prospect of ouster efforts
on Saturday night.
He says, I don't want to walkaround the building being
worried about emotion thatvacate.
After the foreign aid packagepast.
He says I have the job to do.
(22:04):
I have done a year.
What I believe is the rightthing to allow the house to
work.
Its will.
And as I've said, you do theright thing and you let the
chips fall where they may.
As I've said that bill passed.
Today, like literally a fewhours ago that bill had passed.
So I don't think Johnson shouldbe worried.
(22:26):
About being ousted, MarjorieTaylor green is a threat, But
there was previous reports thathave acid Johnson.
If you would change the rules.
To ousting a speaker.
Because.
This whole motion of vacay forone person.
Remember one person.
All they have to do is say, Hey,you're not doing your job.
(22:49):
It's time out, Sprite, oneperson.
And then the entire floor SOPs.
It all halts, like everythingstops.
So, mm.
You know, the house has to vote.
So Johnson a few days ago wasasked, well, would he change
that?
And he said that he would changethat.
Because.
(23:09):
It's just too.
It's it's too easy for someoneto.
To be thrown out.
Now, Kevin McCarthy.
He agreed to that because hewanted the speakership.
So he wanted it so badly andthey were like, Hey.
Here's the apple, you take thisapple, which was one person.
And he was like, oh yes, yes.
I use that apple against them.
(23:30):
Johnson.
Is talking with some of hishigher ups to see if maybe they
can change that to where youneed.
More than just one or whateverthe circumstances may be.
But definitely that one personto say, Hey, it's time for you
to go.
And everything stops.
He says exactly that.
Is where it needs to stop.
I'm going to have you listen toan audio clip.
(23:52):
We're Marjorie Taylor greentalks about how she feels about
Mike Johnson.
The Speaker Chair That's arevolving door.
If that's exactly what needs tohappen, then let it be.
But the days are over at the oldRepublican party.
That wants to find foreign warsand murder people in foreign
lands while they stabbed theAmerican people in their face.
Now on.
(24:13):
We're only going to allowRepublican leaders that
understand the Republican agendafor this country is America
first, not America last.
And that's why speaker Johnsonneeds to resign.
He needs to do the right thingand we need time to elect a new
speaker of the house.
This is.
Basically a warning and it'stime for us to go through.
(24:34):
Through the process, take ourtime and find a new speaker of
the house that will stand withRepublicans in our Republican
majority.
Instead of standing with the sothat's what Marjorie Taylor
green had to say.
About Mike Johnson keeping hisjob now.
Here's what Johnson had to sayin response.
(24:55):
Why are you.
Willing to risk losing your job.
Over this Ukraine funding.
Listen.
My philosophy is you, you do theright thing and you let the
chips fall where they may.
I don't.
If I operated out of fear over amotion to vacate, I would never
be able to do my job.
Yeah, look history, judges usfor what we do.
This is a critical time rightnow, a critical time in the
(25:16):
world stage.
I could make a.
You know, I can make a selfishdecision and do something that
Th th that's different, but II'm doing here.
What I believe to be the rightthing.
I think providing lethal aid toUkraine right now is critically
important.
I really do.
I really do believe the Inteland.
And the briefings that we'vegotten that.
I believe G and veterinary.
(25:37):
Veterinary Putin and.
And Iran really are an axis ofevil.
I think they're in coordinationon this.
I think that Vladimir Putinwould continue to March through
Europe if he were allowed.
I think he might go to theBalkans next.
I think he might.
Have a showdown with Polanderone of our NATO allies.
To put it bluntly, I wouldrather send bullets.
To Ukraine then American boys.
My son is.
Going to begin in the Navalacademy.
(25:58):
This fall, this.
This is a live fire exercise forme as it is so many American
families.
This is not a game.
It's not a joke.
We can't play politics of this.
We have to do the right thingand I'm going to allow an
opportunity for every singlemember of the house.
To vote their conscience andtheir will on this.
And I think that's the way thisinstitution is supposed to work.
And I'm willing to take personalrisk for that because we have to
do the right thing and historyof judges.
So that's what Johnson said.
(26:19):
And as I said, it's a.
Pretty fair.
Argument right.
You know and time and timeagain, more higher Republicans
and Democrats have said the samething.
If you don't find Ukraine, wedon't know where else Russia's
going to go now.
(26:40):
Russia.
That Vladimir Putin has said,oh, after you clean, I'm done.
I'm not doing anything else.
Do we really believe a criminal?
I mean, all.
I say, then you have a criminalright now.
But we're not going to believe adictator, right?
Like come on.
Like, it doesn't make sense.
(27:00):
You go after Ukraine.
We don't know if you're going togo off to Poland.
You might try and go after oneof our NATO allies, which means
it would be world war three.
Right.
If he touches.
Any of our NATO allies.
Why do you think so many ofthese smaller countries have
been joining up with NATO?
Because they want thatprotection because they feel the
Russia of blush.
(27:21):
I don't know.
I'm I'm like in limbo with, Idon't think he's gonna lose his
job.
I think that the other sidewould save him.
Be.
In life, you know, Like it'sbeen said.
Not everyone agrees withJohnson.
But he is doing his job, right.
He's passing.
He's he's very adamant ofpassing the, you know, the
(27:41):
funding.
That Ukraine needed.
And now that it's past.
We don't know.
We'll see.
Next.
The house and the Senate havejust passed the tick tock ban.
Oh man, Tik TOK is it's coming.
It's coming to an end.
(28:01):
Let's talk about it next.
Stephan (2) (28:03):
So, if you thought you were probably never go back
to Instagram reels again, itlooks like we're all going to
probably have to go back to itbecause Tik TOK.
It's on its way out of thecountry.
It's not funny.
It's so sad.
So a few hours ago, the houseand the Senate had just passed
(28:23):
the bill to ban take top.
Now, president Joe Biden hasalready said.
And he would sign it if it madeit to his desk.
So it's making it up there.
Let's go over some of the keydetails.
So Congress finalized thelegislation on Tuesday that
could lead to a nationwide TikTOK.
Then escalating a massive threatto the company's us operations.
(28:45):
The bill passed the Senate aspart of a wide range of foreign
aid package.
And to support Israel andUkraine.
It was approved by the house onSaturday, and now it has to
President Joe Biden's debts.
If he signs the bill.
As he is expected to do so ticktock would be forced to find a
new owner within months or bebanned from the United States.
(29:05):
Entirely.
What does it take totlegislation do?
The bill approved this week isan updated version of a bill.
That house lawmakers approved inMarch.
It gives Tik TOK, Chineseparented, bite dance, 270 days
to sell tick tock.
Failure to do so with lead asignificant consequences.
Tick tock would be prohibitedfrom us app stores and from
(29:28):
internet hosting services thatsupports it.
It would effectively restrictnew downloads of the app and
interactions with its content.
If signed this week, thedeadlines per sale with.
Fall in January of 2025.
Under the new legislation,however Biden could extend the
deadline.
And now they're 90 days.
(29:49):
If he determines there has beenprocessed.
Toward a sale given Tik TOKpotentially up to a year before.
Facing a bay.
So let's just clarify that.
In theory, someone.
Mainly a us company would haveto buy.
Tick tock, right.
(30:10):
Take taught would have to sell.
It's shares that have been ownedby the Chinese government.
You get 270 days.
Which means.
In January of 2025 now Bidencould extend it as it said.
If he sees that there's process,but if he sees no process,
that's it.
As of next year, Tik TOK isgone.
(30:31):
Can't download it.
Won't be able to download it.
We won't be able to postanything.
It's gone.
So now you're probablywondering, well, how did this
slip into the foreign aid bill?
Like I thought they were goingto do a separate one for it.
In theory.
Yes.
But I don't feel like it wouldhave passed if they did it
separately.
But they slipped it in.
(30:52):
Remember, this is how Congressworks.
If they want something, they'lljust slip it into an existing
bill that they know they'regoing to get all the support
for.
And that's an easier way forthings to pass.
So the earlier take top bill hadbeen passed by the house, but it
stalled in the Senate.
And a.
Normal move house Republicans.
This munch attacks, the revisetick tock bill to the foreign
(31:15):
aid package in hopes of force inthe Senate to vote on a tick out
legislation.
Bundling the bill with a foreignaid eight top us priority, fast
track the tick tock bill andmade it more.
Use me.
More likely to pass.
As I said, it was on its own.
Chances of passing.
It would have been very slim,but you slip it in to the
foreign aid bill.
(31:37):
Everybody wants the foreign aidfor you, claim everything else.
That's it there.
It's going to pass.
So when we'll buy an assign thebill, since the bill is part of
the foreign aid package thatBiden has vocally supported,
he's expected to sign it andquickly.
By the has been on recordsupport in the earlier Tik TOK
(31:57):
legislation.
So there's a little reason tothink that he would oppose the
latest version of of it givesTik TOK a slightly longer
runway.
And the white house additionalinput on before sale.
So, what does it mean for youruse of the app?
If and when Biden signs the billinto law, it would start the 270
day clock for take top to findthe buyer.
(32:19):
If it cannot separate from bitedance, then Tik TOK users could
hypothetically be cut off byJanuary.
But this is still a big, if.
So for now I'll take top fanscan continue to use the app as
before though.
They might begin to see morecreators.
Or the company itself speakingout in the apps.
Opposing the legislation.
(32:41):
As I said, it needs to separate.
From.
Might dance.
What's.
There is eight Chinese owned.
Company.
And.
Congress believes that it's sohuge.
They're collecting data on us.
And they can use it at any timeand all that other.
Technology stuff.
(33:03):
So Tik TOK has options.
Okay.
Tik TOK has promised to take aus government to court.
If Biden signs the bill.
And a memo on Saturday, a toptick tock executive wrote to
employees.
That this would be thebeginning, not the end.
Of a long process, thechallenge, what the company
calls an unconstitutional.
Legislation that sensorsAmericans free.
(33:26):
Freedom of speech and that itwould harm small businesses that
depend on the app in March.
Take tot C E O.
Shall shew.
Don't even.
About to continue fighting,including.
Exercising our legal rights.
And now.
If tiptop does take it to court.
Do they have a case?
(33:47):
So the first amendment expectexperts save the bill has the
ultimate efforts of censoringTik, TOK users.
Could be shot down by thecourts.
Longstanding Supreme courtprotects Americans' first
amendment, right to accessinformation.
Ideas and the media's fromabroad.
(34:08):
By banning Tik TOK, the billwould infringe on this, right.
And with no real payoff.
China and other foreignadversaries could still purchase
American census data from data.
Brokers on the open market.
A court challenge could lead tomeasures being temporary block
while the law, while thelitigation plays out.
Lately over multiple years, butif a court declines to grant a
(34:30):
temporary injunction, To talkcould have to scramble to comply
to the law.
If Titov gets sold to someoneelse, the trouble is ticktock.
Parent is subject to Chineselaw.
And the Chinese government is onrecord opposing a sale.
In recent years, China hasimplemented.
Expert control governingalgorithms policy that could
(34:52):
seem to cover the increasinglysuccessful algorithm.
It powers, tick, top recommendedengine.
The Chinese government doesn'twant to let bite dance.
Relinquish take talk algorithm.
The thinking goes, it couldblock the sale outright.
Ultimately it may allow to talkto be sold.
Oh, without the lucrativealgorithm that forms the basis
(35:14):
of its proper.
Larry.
Can tick tock still succeedwithout it's out of the rhythm?
That would be a difficultquestion based in the company,
in the event of forcing the salewithout the secret sauce.
That has the.
App.
To 170 million us users, the appcould be good as dead.
That's Tik TOK.
So we got a good year left.
(35:36):
To see if someone wants to bite.
And what we've been hearing, thechatter and everything.
China's not going to sell.
So more than likely.
There might be like a take top2.00.
Like Tik TOK.
That's the us.
Version that doesn't have allthese amazing features and you
(35:59):
know, the special sauce ofalgorithm and all that fun
stuff.
So I could definitely see thatit gets banned.
So, I mean, they'll probablyjust read another tick, top
bill.
A us version, won't be asamazing or fantastic as the Tik
TOK that we know of today.
We'll still have tick tock.
So enjoy it while it lasts.
(36:19):
Otherwise we might have to goback to Instagram real.
Anyways.
Let's go over.
As I told you there there's alot.
Stephan (36:28):
So Arizona, A Republican state, even though it
has a democratic governor.
Has decided that, Hey, we'regoing to issue.
A civil war, era abortion.
After abortion is alreadylimited in the state.
This just takes it another step.
Further.
So the court ruled on Tuesdaythat the state must adhere to a
(36:51):
law.
May before statehood.
When Arizona was just aterritory that bands all
abortion, except those necessaryto save a pregnant person's
life.
The law.
Which is enforceable because RoyV.
Wade was overturned.
Is broader than the states 2022ban on abortions after a 15 week
(37:12):
pregnancy and carries a prisonsentence, the two to five years
for abortion providers.
Vice-president Kamala Harris.
Came out.
Friday.
To Arizona as mountingpressures.
This election year has broughtabortion to the, for most.
As a lightly ballot issue.
(37:33):
Arizona Republicans, two daysearlier.
Brought it a volt to repeal the1864 ban as a scene.
On the state's house floorerupted into chaos and Democrats
channel shame.
The state Supreme court delayedenforcement of the law for 14
days to give the plaintiffs anopportunity to pursue other
challenges.
In lower courts, if they wish toincluding challenges to the band
(37:56):
constitutionally.
It's unlikely.
There will be much movement onenforcing the law.
As legal challenges are likelyto get tied up in the lower
courts.
For some time.
While Arizona attorney general,Chris Meyer, and several county
attorneys say they will notprosecute.
Abortion cases under this newban.
(38:17):
Analysts say.
It's unlikely providers willtake on a liability.
A performing illegal medicalservices, leading to a possible
chilling effect on abortionstatewide.
In the meantime, abortion rightsadvocates and encourage Arizona
patients.
You seek services.
While they're still able to, andthey get to the poll is
November.
When they will have theopportunity to vote on a ballot
(38:39):
measure.
That would restore abortionthrough the axis of point of
viability.
Approximately 24 weeks intopregnancy.
So Arizona Democrat, governorKeith Hobbs slammed the state
Supreme court decision.
Bowing the fight forreproductive freedoms for the
people of Arizona.
Hob signed the executive orderin June greenie of the state
(39:00):
attorney general.
Over prosecuting abortionrelated cases in the state
though, that order has yet to betested.
It's just prevents an extremecounty attorney from using the
band from the wise women anddoctors were seeking care to
provide the care that theirpatient needs.
It hasn't been tested yet andI'm hopeful that it doesn't have
(39:22):
to be.
So let me just side now.
So what she just said, she gavethe attorney general of Arizona.
The power.
Two.
Any like county attorneygeneral.
If they decide to like prosecutea case for a woman or a doctor
from doing the abortion after.
Whatever circumstances do theyhave set for the attorney
(39:44):
general for Arizona has thepower to be like, no, we're not
doing that.
So it hasn't been tested yet.
Hopefully it does.
The attorney General's officehas not prosecuted providers or
patients under the existing 15week abortion ban and does not
intend to prosecute any casesunder the near total ban.
We're looking at everything thatwe.
(40:05):
Possibly.
Can make sure that the bandnever actually goes into place
in Arizona.
Then there will be opportunitiesin the next couple of months to
fight the banning for.
Maya's acknowledge that it'spossible supporters I'll be
abortion ban will try and takeher or over enforcement of the
law.
He says, I'll see you.
Or she says, I'll see them for.
(40:25):
So Maricopa county attorneygeneral, Rachel, till CNN, her
office has yet to receive.
A request to prosecuting theabortion case in nearly two
years, since Roe V.
Wade was overturned.
And does not anticipate thiswill change.
She goes on to say that it'simportant to remember that under
Arizona state, under Arizona'slaw.
(40:46):
Women who get an abortion cannot be prosecuted.
It's the state Supreme courtruling.
Does not change that.
Women can not and will not beprosecuted, receiving an
abortion.
Arizona's 1864.
Law does not outline punishmentfor pregnant people.
Only providers and the 2022 lawstates women may not be
(41:07):
prosecuted for attempting orundergoing abortion.
Though the state Supreme courtdecision would have a chilling
effect on abortion services.
It will not end the need forthose services and will
ultimately lead to an increaseof unsafe abortions.
And threatening the liberties ofthose involved.
They pina.
Pima.
(41:27):
County attorney General's officewarrant in their statements.
I will not be using.
Precious resources to prosecutecredited health providers.
He told CNN.
The penal county.
Attorney's office said it willevaluate each case.
We will review the court'sruling and as always assess
every case on its individualmerits.
(41:49):
It's important to note that evenpertaining to the 15 week law,
You have not received a singlesubmittal.
From an agency to.
There's enormous amounts of.
Cautious tape and discretionunder the Arizona law.
So the Dean from Arizona stateuniversity law school.
And he, that's what he told CNN.
Vendor said it's unlikely forofficials to attempt to
(42:12):
prosecute abortion cases whilethe future of the law remains
uncertain.
Although others note that.
Prominence of the band could usepolitical pressure to push that
as it forced.
So right now providers are inlimbo.
Even if the ban is implemented,it's unclear how a small window
is left open by the exceptionalallowing abortions to save a
(42:32):
pregnant person's life.
That's a medical distinction,not a legal one.
Simon says she supervised agroup of students who file.
A brief to the state Supremecourt.
It put that there's anuntangible position of having
forts potentially second gueststhey're considered educated and
(42:53):
medical decisions about whatnecessarily to save a patient's
life.
Who is also the director oflegal line for the university.
It also puts the doctors andthen.
In an UN.
Tangible position of having towithhold treatment where the
treatment is necessary.
For example, The reserve awoman's.
(43:13):
Fertility to reserve a woman'shealth to prevent a woman from
being potentially permanentlydisabled.
In 2022, 11,550 abortions wereperformed in the state almost
99%, which were provided toArizona residents, according to
the data.
It's really unconscionable thatfolks in Arizona now are going
(43:34):
to have to go to Nevada,California, New Mexico, or
Colorado to get the care thatthey need.
The governor said.
Dr.
Jill Gibson, chief medicaldirector of planned parenthood.
Arizona said that sheimmediately started receiving
questions from PA patients.
Asking.
If they would be able to get thecare they need it.
When the decision came out.
Jill said, this is going to haveabsolutely unbelievable
(43:58):
consequences for the patients inour community.
And we just cannot state enoughhow dire the situation is going.
To be for the patients who needto access abortion care in
Arizona.
Doctor.
Deshaun Taylor presidency.
Oh of desert star Institute offamily planning.
Warn the law will be aparticular impact on
(44:19):
marginalized groups.
We cannot amplify enough.
Who's those apportion bands.
Mostly impact.
Taylor said.
Historically marginalized in thepolls glutes.
Who already faced barriers tocare those in low income
families, rural areas,immigrants, disabled.
Black, indigenous and otherpeople of color east communities
(44:39):
experienced physical.
Medical and emotional andfinancial harm.
Because of these policies.
Since the law mentions the useof drugs to induce miscarriage.
Simon said the use of abortionpills is also at risk.
And the governor warned onTuesday access to other
reproductive health services isalso on the line.
We know that IVF is underattack.
(45:01):
We know that contraception isunder attack.
She said.
So abortion is going to be onthe ballot in November, which is
going to be on the ballot forevery single state year in the
United States of America.
I've been saying it on thisshow.
Since we started right.
That abortion is going to be onthe ballot.
(45:22):
You know, president Joe Bidenhas said, it's going to be on
the ballot.
Vice-president Harris says it'sgoing to be on the ballot.
It's going to be on the ballot.
And we've seen in these previousballots that people want the
rights to the abortion, right?
They want at least 15 to 24weeks.
That's what the consensus isright now.
Six weeks is completelyridiculous.
(45:43):
Right?
Medical.
Professionals and experts havealready.
Came out.
Blunt, the ones that arerespectable and are
knowledgeable.
I've said that most women don'tfind it though.
Pregnant until about 15 weeks.
So it's kind of.
On tangible to be like, well,you get six weeks while six
weeks kind of just pushes a lotof things.
(46:04):
Right.
And I know, you know, there'salways the religious aspects of
all, you know, you're killing achild.
And all this other stuff.
And my philosophy for abortionis that it's not pro-abortion
it's about pro-choice right.
Change the conversation frompro-abortion.
Which sounds very.
Terrible.
Right.
Because it's almost like, well,pro killing babies.
(46:26):
And it's not pro abortion.
It's more, it needs to bechanged to pro-choice.
Having pro-choice means thatit's the woman's decision to be
able to do what she wants withher body.
I hate when I hear.
People say, oh, well, you knowwell, you know, God is this and
God is that.
Or God doesn't like this aboutabortions.
(46:46):
And it's like, You don't speakfor God.
Like we all can speak to God.
I can speak to God right now.
Right.
And or when it comes to prochoice, that's that woman's
decision it's, it's going to bebetween her, her doctors, her
family, and God, you can't tellsomeone.
That.
Hey, well, God's going to judgeyou badly.
You don't know what God's goingto do because you don't speak
(47:08):
for God.
Right?
Yeah, you may be a pastor or youmay know the Bible or whatever
the hell you may do, but youdon't speak for God.
That person has an individualrelationship with God.
And let them live that life.
They don't need you to judgethem.
They're already feeling probablyjudged, already feeling hurt.
They're probably feelingconfused.
They have all these mixedemotions.
Because there's risks that dothat do go on with having an
(47:30):
abortion.
You know, right.
What if she becomes disabled?
You know, in the process or whatif they tell her if she gets
this abortion, she can neverhave any more kids.
There's a lot of other.
Aspects to it then?
Oh, well, you're killing achild.
We have a lot of kids in thefoster system.
I don't see Republicans doing adamn thing of trying to make the
foster system.
(47:52):
Less.
Pat than what it is, right.
And that's not me saying, oh,well then, you know, Pro pro
choice.
Or pro-abortion.
It's still pro-choice, it's awoman's decision.
It's not the government'sdecision.
It's her decision or her to makefor herself.
Anyways, let me get off that.
Anyways, that's the article.
(48:14):
Well, the courts in the states.
Officials grapple with the newlaw.
Arizona residents will have theopportunity to vote in the
matters of themselves inNovember.
Arizona for abortion access, agroup of abortion rights
organizations announced thatlast week.
It has gathered enoughsignatures for November's 20, 24
ballot measure that would askvoters to in shrine abortion
(48:35):
rights for the stateconstitution.
The measure would restoreabortion access up to the point
of viability, which advocatessay is more reasonable than the
state's client.
15 week ban.
The push to start the massiveefforts to get abortion on the
2020 ballot in several states.
I move abortion rights.
Advocates are hopeful.
We restore some power to votersrather than the state courts.
(48:57):
Everything is going to be caughtup in fighting back and forth
over the next several months,said vendor.
It's just waiting for the peopleto resolve the situation.
And I think it was all innobody.
I can tell you from my stanceand what I've been the hearing
and.
What's going on.
It's definitely going to be anoverwhelming vote in November.
(49:18):
We've, we're already seen, as Isay, in these smaller elections
with, you know, with theRepublican states are trying to
like, you know, when it comes tolike trying to pass a new law or
something like that, we'reseeing, we're seeing the
overwhelming.
The overwhelming support.
We're being pro-choice andhaving access.
To the abortion care.
(49:40):
As I said, it's not about proabortion.
It's more about pro-choice.
Because if we start changing theconversation approach choice,
then it's like, okay, it's thatperson's choice.
Because as I said, when you saypro board abortion, you know, I
understand what you're saying,but to some people it kind of
sends like a negativeconnotation to it.
If you say pro choice, it'slike, oh, pro choice.
(50:01):
Hell.
Yeah.
It's your choice you causeyou're the voter.
It's you're the human being.
You know, whether it's yourwife, your sister, the daughter,
your stepmother, whatever thecase may be.
And as I said, most of thesestates don't have rape or incest
in them.
Like this, this one that passedfor Arizona Supreme court just
says, save a pipe, a woman'slife.
That's it.
(50:22):
Right.
It doesn't have for rape orincest.
Abortion.
We'll be back on the ballot inNovember.
It's going to be everywhere inNovember.
So we'll see how it all turnsout.
Microphone (MAONO AU-AM200) & (50:30):
I love to give shout outs to my
countries.
They're not in the UnitedStates.
So this week.
Still in number one.
India.
Wait, what.
Wow, India, India is number oneon our list with 17 people
listening.
Australia.
You're number two.
There's 16 people listening.
(50:51):
Canada has actually made numberfour, which 14 people.
We have the United Kingdomcoming in at 12, and then we
have Nigeria coming in at number10.
We still have South Africa,Ireland.
And Bulgaria.
So I just want to give a hugeshout out to all of you guys.
We posted an Instagram post on,please make sure you go onto our
(51:12):
Instagram atthelast_conversation and join
the conversation.
Also, I want to hear from you.
I want you to go onto ourInstagram.
The one, any one of our socialmedia posts there, and comment
on a topic that you would likeme to talk about.
Next month or even the monthafter that.
All right.
We got some.
Amazing topics to talk about,but I want to hear from you.
(51:34):
I want to know if maybe there's.
You know, maybe you want to hearmore about IVF.
Maybe we want to hear about moreabortion.
Maybe you want to.
Hear more about minority issuesabout housing and job and all
that other stuff.
So I want to hear from you.
Because ultimately I do theshell for you.
I do apologize for going Mia fora little bit.
But because school is almostover.
(51:56):
I can now do these shows alittle more readily.
So until then I love you all besafe.
Be kind, be different todifferent when the winter you
want to be treated.
And I will see you guys herenext week on the last
conversation.
Goodnight.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.