Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, your newsbreak commentary rhetoric from ABC or CBS.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
It's just ridiculously nauseating.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
They're talking.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Oh, the senator went to visit the illegally deported Garcia
in El Salvador. Oh, my gosh, woe is me for
the poor MS thirteen gang member.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
This is not totally related to your talk back, but
yesterday I received either on X or maybe on the
text line, somebody I obviously you apparently made a comment
yesterday about how difficult it is to discern Oh.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
I know.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
It was in the context of I think my encounter
with that professor at the University of Chicago this week
about change and I and I used her as an
example of how you you don't buy into the premise
of the question that's being asked or the statement that's
(01:12):
being made, and that requires that you really listen and
understand what they're really asking you and where they're coming from,
so that you can counter their argument appropriately. And that
led to somebody on the and I think it was
the text line, well, how do you, how do you?
How do you do you what you do so well
(01:33):
you do? How do you? How do you become a
discerning consumer of news? And asking me how I go
through and that the news stories that I do or
that come across the transom that we're talking about, and
(01:53):
and I may make offhanded comments about it or stemporaneous
comments about something. How how am I sure about what
I'm saying? Well, one, you have to you have to
really be steeped in this stuff. You've got to you've
got to make it a part of your daily routine,
number one, because otherwise, Let's take the example of what
(02:17):
you just said about the top of the hour news.
If if you weren't paying any attention to the larger,
broader picture of everything going on about that story, and
that's all you heard was that ABC News clip about
you know, hey, you know they're they're down there trying
(02:38):
to get somebody who's been illegally deported. Well, then yeah,
you're going to assume, because that's what the news is
telling you, that he was illegally deported. The only way
that you could find out let me, I'm trying to
see if I can find is this what was I'm
(02:59):
not sure that this is in our ABC news file.
It may be in one of these.
Speaker 5 (03:07):
Stories a federal appeals court saying the government is asserting
a right to stash away residents of this country in
foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is
the foundation of our constitutional order.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Will you steps to return kill mar Abra Obergy into
United States?
Speaker 3 (03:24):
Have to speak to the lawyers, the DOJ.
Speaker 6 (03:27):
I've heard many things about him, and you'll have to
find out what the truth is.
Speaker 5 (03:34):
A judge has given the Trump administration two weeks to
hand over more evidence in the case.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Now that's in. So there's a thirty one second sound
bite that may or may not played at the top
of the hour or probably will at some point because
it's in there. It's it's in our ABC News radio
feed right now. So what do they do. They start
out by simply citing what the judge claims, which if
that's all you here, then it's easy to assume that, well,
(04:03):
a judge sentence, so it must be true, because a
judgement never lie, a judgement never make anything up until
you unless you realize that Joe's judge Boseburg in this
case is just making crap up out of thin air,
and he's making all sorts of wild claims, which is
astonishing to me. But for a for a layman out there,
it's like, oh, well the judge said it, so it
(04:26):
must be true. Then ABC follows with this thirty two
second SoundBite.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
The Trump administration admits Abrego Garcia was deported to Al
Salvador because of an administrative error, but claims it lent
noew that is true.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
They originally admitted that, yes, uh, he was. He was
deported because of an administrative error. Then they go back
and they start digging through and realize, oh, no, no,
we actually did have all of this stuff. But because
that was le out of the bag, you're now that's
like telling the jury to disregard what the witness just said.
(05:08):
The jury can't. You can't unring the bell is a
famous lawyer phrase. So that you can. You can ask
the judge to instruct the jury to disregard what the
witness just said. But that even further emphasizes what the
witness just said. So when the jury gets into the
jury room and starts deliberating, Hey, you remember we were
(05:28):
told to ignore what that guy said. Yeah, well we
can't talk about that. Yeah, but did you hear what
he said? Yeah? I did hear what he said. But
we can't they we can't, and it just keeps feeding
to itself. It just keeps so it becomes embedded in
the juror's brains. In defense to the top of the
hour ABC News that we played.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
That's a two minute feed that we play, and only
five seconds of it was dedicated to.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
The sod of these sound bites. We're using the top
craft all the here. I'll see if I can find
it quickly. Put it there.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Maryland Governor Chris van Holland meeting Killmore, Abrego Garcia, the
man wrongfully deported to El Salvador.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Wrong see just yeah, throws it in there right by
the way, does she call him governor? You sound like
she said governor.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
Maryland Governor Chris van Holland meeting Kilmore Abrego Garcia, the
man you where'd.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
That gun from? The US Senator Chris van all I
don't know. Uh, let's see.
Speaker 5 (06:29):
Then there's one more, this same reporter, Maryland Senator Chris
van Holland meeting with kill Mar.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
At least she got his title right, Fregie.
Speaker 5 (06:38):
Garcia and El Salvador. The senator is demanding his release.
The Trump administration mistakenly deported the undocumented father from Maryland
last month. I do intend to keep at this until
we ensure that mister o'bregar garcia has his rights.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
To do process.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
Abrego Garcia's wife saying, my children and my prayers had
been answered. I now know that my husband is alive.
God is listening.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Oh tug at the heartstrings. So so how would if
that's all you heard, or you heard what dragon played
from the actual top of the hour news, you would
think that, oh, my gosh, we disappeared this guy as
the Left like use the language. You would think that
we just plucked this guy out of thin air and
(07:27):
did it. You would also believe that there was a
mistake made because somebody mistakenly said there was a mistake
made earlier, and that just gets repeated over and over
and over and over.
Speaker 6 (07:38):
So how do I.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
Determine which is I'm not asking you to do this,
but you someone asked me, well, how do I've had
the stories? The very first thing that I always try
to do is find the original source. In this case,
the original sources would be who are they quoting Chris
(08:03):
van Holland. Okay, well let's go to his website. Let's
see what statements he's made or it's quoting Pam Bundy. Okay,
let's go to DOJ. Let's see what the DOJ says. Oh,
let's go to Tom Holman. See what Tom Holman says.
But then I take it one step further. I take
it one step further, which is I think where the
cutoff would be for you. You can do this. I
(08:26):
just wouldn't expect anybody to do this. I read the pleatings,
and fortunately, trained as a lawyer, I know how to
read the pleatings. I can actually look up some of
the case law that they cite to see if it
really if that case law really claims what they say
it claims, and see what it says. So I can
(08:49):
and I will look at the attachments to see, oh,
they've got affidavits from this sheriff for that sheriff. They've
got affidavits from these investigators that are cops from New
Jersey or Maryland or wherever they might be, that originally
encountered him, that tagged him with the MS thirteen membership.
(09:12):
So that's how I vet it. It's not easy to do.
So what can you do in terms of your own vetting? Well,
first and foremost, take whatever they say at face value,
and then say to yourself, Okay, they say illegally deported,
(09:32):
or they say wrongfully deported, But is that the right agity?
Was he illegally or wrongfully deported? And on what basis?
I mean, just start asking questions. The other thing that's
probably the simplest thing to do is you know the
old saying that if it sounds too good to be true,
then you know it's probably not true. Well, do you
(09:56):
really think that we would just randomly plucked somebody off
the streets and without any evidentiary basis or any rational basis,
or any legal basis, or any documentary basis or anything else.
Just literally, do you think we would disappear somebody only
if they're black or brown? Oh, that's right, of course,
(10:17):
you have to take that in consideration, you know, But
for the fact that the Florida State shooter happened to
be the son of a deputy sheriff. Turns out that
he is a just a white kid, So you know,
may not hear much more about it. I don't. Maybe
(10:37):
will maybe not. Maybe it's a white nationalist, then we
will hear more about it, or maybe do we know
even who was it that was killed? Yet? I don't
think we even know that yet. I think we just
know numbers two dead, six injured. Yeah, we don't even
know who was it he killed, So we don't even
think about it yet. But people are already jumping, jumping
to conclusions about it. It's it's not easy to do.
(11:01):
In fact, I find it incredibly frustrating because there's so
much misinformation disinformation. For example, when I was in Chicago
this week, so after I after I make my presentation,
there's a little panel discussion and there is a person
on this panel that is from FEMA, and he is
(11:26):
talking about and I took it at face value, okay,
but I'd like to be able to prove it myself.
He claims that in both the Hawaii fought, the Malee
fires remember those, the California fire remember those, and in
(11:48):
Hurricane Helene, that they have evidence that both Russia and
China were feeding disinformation through social media platforms TikTok x
and on Facebook, and then feeding it to local media
sources false information about what was going on. And he
(12:13):
used the word intelligence. Now, quite honestly, I didn't care.
I was you know, it was over, everything was done.
I just wanted to go back to the hotel, relax,
find something to eat, get ready to come home the
next day. But part of me also wanted to corner
him and really grill him about Now. Remember I used
(12:39):
to get the presidential daily brief every single day. I
also got any time that we were dealing with a
natural or a man made disaster, any sort of disaster,
we would have briefings by both the FBI and the
CIA if Ford actors were involved about anything going on
(13:01):
that we needed to be cognizant of in case there
was something that might happen overseas based on any disruption
going on in this country. So for example, if we're
distracted because of a huge fire caliphion in Los Angeles,
the CIA would brief us about anything else going on
around the world that where that might be. There's chatter
(13:23):
indicating they might do something that would attack or involve
our foreign interest because of our distraction domestically. So I
know they get briefed, and I'm going to assume that
the current or the FEMA director under Biden would get
the same briefings. I don't know that for a fact,
(13:45):
but I'm going to assume that she did. But I
really wanted seriously like what did you just read what
the briefers provided you? Did you ask any questions? Did
you ask what their sources were? Did you Because if
I had gotten that kind of information, I'd want to
know all the details about it, because in order to
(14:08):
counter that disinformation, I need unclassified info that I can
go out to the public and say, hey, listen, you're
hearing these stories about the fires about I don't know,
maybe that terrorists have started the fires, which is believable.
I actually believe that in some cases that is occurring.
(14:29):
But to counter that, I need some definitive information to
counter it, and I would ask the briefer to give
me that information, or the briefer might say, no, I'm
telling you this is this has been vetted, and we
do we've got a high level of confidence that this
is accurate. Okay, well then I've got to take you
I've got to take your word at it. It's very,
(14:52):
very difficult to be a discerning consumer of the news.
I would just say, start out with a heavy dose
of and these are two words that get interchanged way
too often, but mean two entirely different things, both psychologically, legally, politically, everything,
(15:14):
don't I mean, look, some people say I'm a that
I am full of cynicism. I'm not saying be cynical
about the news. I am saying, be skeptical. I'm a skeptic,
(15:35):
and by a skeptic mean I question everything. Your mom
loves you. Mom, come here, I need to ask you
a question. Do you really love me? Show me, make
me a lemon meringue pie, prove it to me. A
skepticism as opposed to cynicism, which is a deep psychological,
(16:00):
I think a problem that people have. So be skeptical.
Be skeptical about what the media tells you, particularly when
we have and I'm talking about Fox News just as
much as I'm talking about C and N or MSNBC
or the networks, or for that matter, that Denver is
(16:21):
that versus the Denver Post, or you know, kdiev R
versus Channel nine. Be skeptical about what they tell you. Now,
some stories, there's no reason to be skeptical or cynical
about them because they're kind of just fluff pieces. They're
not earth shattering news. But never ever take it at
(16:44):
face value unless they tell you, yeah, it's predicted that
we might have snow tomorrow, and you wake up and
you see snow and it's April and you live in Colorado,
or we're gonna have a heat wave. You can be
skeptical about whether it's called by anthropogenic global climate change,
or you can just say, well, you know that's the
(17:05):
weather because it's spring time. Now let me get back.
The Supreme Court is going to hear a case about
birthright citizenship. So let's go to Todd law class I
hope briefly about birthright citizenship.
Speaker 6 (17:27):
Hey, Michael, quick question, at what point is this senator
and this judge liable for criminal activity for supporting a
foreign terrorist. I'm sure that's never going to happen, but
I just wanted to pick your lawyer brain about that.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
He's probably also guilty of the Logan Act, so think
about that one too. So Trump has been pushing to
overturn a eighteen ninety eight case and a few others
since then. But really going back to eighteen ninety eight,
the case of wokim arc a guy that was born
(18:09):
in San Francisco to parents of Chinese descent, in which
the court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees US citizenship
to virtually anybody that's born in the country. It was
a sixty three decision, and Justice Horace Gray, who wrote
for the majority, said this that the fourteenth Amendment affirms
(18:31):
the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within
the territory, in the allegiance, and under the protection of
the country, including all children born here of resident aliens.
So they'll hear arguments on May fifteenth, less than a
month from now, on the federal government's request to be
(18:51):
allowed to implement Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The
first clause of the fourteenth provides that quote all persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof. That is the That's the bingo clause
(19:12):
of all clauses, right there. All persons born are naturalized
in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside. Now, everyone has always take I shouldn't
say everyone. There are lots of conservative jurists and conservative
(19:36):
legal scholars who disagree with this interpretation. But many people
have always interpreted that to mean subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That that covers anyone born on US soil, except There's
always been this exception that bugs me, and that is
(19:57):
the children of diplomats or obviously invade armies. So if
you're the British ambassador to the United States and you're
living in the British Embassy, you're you're living in whatever
the residents they provide you, either in DC or maybe
(20:19):
over in Virginia somewhere. The embassy's in DC, but maybe
they provide you a home over across the river in Virginia.
Doesn't make any difference. Where So your spouse is pregnant,
your wife is pregnant, and you go to a DC hospital,
or you go to a Virginia hospital and you give birth. Well,
(20:41):
people say, well, because you're a diplomat, then that child's
not a citizen of the United States. I would ask
all of those who claim that if you are brought
here illegally, or for that matter, you're brought here legally,
you're here on a tourist visa. If we make if
(21:05):
we carve out an exception for a diplomat, why wouldn't
we carve out an exception for someone here on a
tourist visa, or why wouldn't we carve out an exception
for someone who is here illegally, despite that old case
of Wonkim Art from eighteen ninety eight, subject to the
(21:28):
jurisdiction thereof jurisdiction defines the territory where the force of
law applies and to whom the law applies. And this principle,
while well settled to include almost everybody within the US
borders regards of their home country or the circumstance of
(21:51):
their birth. But in a Wall Street Journal article from
some ten years ago, John Yu, you may recognize that name.
John Yu was an assistant Attorney General in the Bush administration.
Then he became a pretty well known commentator. I think
he now teaches at Stanford or somewhere. I'm not quite sure,
(22:15):
but he's kind of the antithesis of Professor Turling. So
he'll be on Fox News, and he writes editorials oftentimes
with Wall Street Journal. And he wrote an editorial back
in twenty fifteen, I think so. I think it's about
ten years old, where he says, by the circular restrictionist logic,
(22:35):
illegal immigrants could not be prosecuted for committing crimes because
they are not US citizens. Well, he goes on to
say almost all aliens in the United States. Even citizens
of other nations still fall within our jurisdiction while they
(22:55):
are in our territory. Otherwise they could commit crimes of
all sorts without fear of punishment. Well, that circular argument
plays on a widespread ignorance. I think of the meaning
of the word jurisdiction. Now, remember, what does the fourteenth
(23:19):
Amendment say? All persons born are naturalized in the United
States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of
the United States. Well, what does jurisdiction mean. Everybody thinks
that jurisdiction means, well, you're subject to the laws of
the country. Actually, there are two distinct different definitions of jurisdiction.
(23:46):
One there is the complete political jurisdiction, and there is
the second, and that's the partial territorial jurisdiction. So let's
go back to the British except let's not make it
a diplomat. Let's just make it a British tourist. So
a British tourist comes to the United States. When that
(24:08):
tourist comes to the United States, they subject themselves to
our laws as long as they remain within our territory.
Territorial jurisdiction. So that tourist is subject to our partial
territorial jurisdiction. So that means, if you commit a crime,
(24:30):
we're going to prosecute you for that crime, for violating
the laws because you're within our territories. But that same
British tourist does not subject himself to our complete political jurisdiction.
He can't vote, he can't register to vote, he can't
(24:53):
serve on a jury, he can't be drafted into the
armed forces. And to make you think about the most
extreme example, he cannot be subject to the laws of
treason if he takes arms up against the United States
(25:15):
because he owes no allegiance to the United States. Oh,
he could be prosecuted for an insurrection. He could be
prosecuted for, you know, killing a US Capitol police officer
if that's what he decided to do. He could be
cited for murder if he tried to kill, you know,
(25:35):
attacking envoy of military equipment driving down I twenty five.
But he can't be charged with treason because he's not
a citizen. So you have territorial jurisdiction in which he
could be charged for you know, murder or speeding, reckless driving,
(25:59):
drunk driving, but he can't be charged with treason because
he's not subject to the complete political jurisdiction. He can't vote,
he can't serve on a jury, can't do any of
those things. So get out of your mind that the
Fourteenth Amendment term jurisdiction means the complete political jurisdiction. But
(26:21):
let's go one step further. Let's remember the context in
which the fourteenth Amendment was adopted. Senator Lyman Trumbull, who
was a key figure in the drafting and the adoption
of the fourteenth Amendment, was asked about whether or not
Indians living on reservations would be covered by this clause
(26:45):
since they were quote most clearly subject to our jurisdiction,
both civil and military. In that debate, Trumbull responded that
quote subject to the jurisition close quote of the United
States meant subject to its complete jurisdiction, quote not owing
(27:09):
allegiance to anybody else. And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced
the language of the jurisdiction clause onto the floor of
the Senate, contended that she should be construed to mean
a quote full and complete jurisdiction, the same jurisdiction in
(27:31):
extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the
United States. Now, that is under the eighteen sixty six
Civil Rights Act, which the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to codify.
That Act made the point even more clearly, all persons
born in the United States and not subject to any
(27:54):
foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed or hereby declared to
be citizens of the United States. Now, when we get back,
let's go to the leading legal treatise an author about
the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's see what he said.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Michael, I was thinking about what you just said about
complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance somewhere else where do you
dual citizenship folks fall under. That sounds to me like
an argument can be made that they owe allegiance somewhere else.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Yeah, And I've got to I have a real problem
with I don't have a problem with true dual citizenship.
I have a problem with dual citizenship individuals holding high
positions in government. And I know and I'm going to
(28:51):
give you an example. And I might be a little
biased in this example, but you know, Michael Chertoff, Well,
it's the same Secretary of Homeland Security for a while,
he's a dual Israeli and US citizen. Doesn't that kind
of call into question a little bit about loyalties? So yeah,
(29:14):
I've got a problem with dual citizenship. Let's go back
to birthright citizenship, the idea that just because you're born here,
you automatically become a US citizen, regardless of the circumstances. Now,
remember we already carve out a uh AN exclusion for
children born to diplomats. Well, if we're going to carve
(29:36):
that exclusion out because you're a you're here diplomatically, why
do we allow someone who breaks the law to get here,
to drop a baby and that baby becomes a citizen.
The leading treatise writer of the day, Thomas Cooley, confirmed
that this was the understanding of the fourteenth Amendment. What
(29:58):
do I mean that that was the understanding of the
fourteenth Amendment that all persons born in the United States
and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed,
are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States,
not subject to any foreign power. Let's take the yahoo
down there in the Al Salvador in prison right now,
(30:20):
he's subject to the jurisdiction of Al Salvador because he's
now Salvadoran. He should not be able to come to
this country illegally. Forget the fact he's a member of
the MS thirteen. Forget the fact that he's here illegally.
Why should his offspring be granted automatic birthright citizenship. Go
(30:44):
back to Thomas Cooley, as he wrote in a treatise
called the General Principles of Constitutional Law in America. He
wrote that subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject,
(31:07):
and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction such as may
consist with allegiance to some other government. You come here illegally,
you're still subject to For example, let's take now, not
that they would practically do this, but they could do this.
(31:30):
You come here from L Salvador. You've committed a crime,
You've committed murder in El Salvador. But before you can
be captured, tried, and convicted, you run across the border
of the United States if L. Salvador wanted to. But
they don't because they don't care that they might. Now
and we have a lawful, valid extradition treaty, they can
(31:53):
haul your ass back to El Salvador because you're subject
to their jurisdiction. You could be tried for murder in
l Salvador. The point being, I think we might have
a court on at least the five to four, hopefully
a sixty three decision would look back at the original
meaning and the debates that took place when the Fourteenth
(32:15):
Amendment was adopted to guarantee that slaves were given all
the rights, privileges, and obligations of citizenship. That was the
purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. We might just have a
chance here
Michael, your newsbreak commentary rhetoric from ABC or CBS.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
It's just ridiculously nauseating.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
They're talking.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Oh, the senator went to visit the illegally deported Garcia
in El Salvador. Oh, my gosh, woe is me for
the poor MS thirteen gang member.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
This is not totally related to your talk back, but
yesterday I received either on X or maybe on the
text line, somebody I obviously you apparently made a comment
yesterday about how difficult it is to discern Oh.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
I know.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
It was in the context of I think my encounter
with that professor at the University of Chicago this week
about change and I and I used her as an
example of how you you don't buy into the premise
of the question that's being asked or the statement that's
(01:12):
being made, and that requires that you really listen and
understand what they're really asking you and where they're coming from,
so that you can counter their argument appropriately. And that
led to somebody on the and I think it was
the text line, well, how do you, how do you?
How do you do you what you do so well
(01:33):
you do? How do you? How do you become a
discerning consumer of news? And asking me how I go
through and that the news stories that I do or
that come across the transom that we're talking about, and
(01:53):
and I may make offhanded comments about it or stemporaneous
comments about something. How how am I sure about what
I'm saying? Well, one, you have to you have to
really be steeped in this stuff. You've got to you've
got to make it a part of your daily routine,
number one, because otherwise, Let's take the example of what
(02:17):
you just said about the top of the hour news.
If if you weren't paying any attention to the larger,
broader picture of everything going on about that story, and
that's all you heard was that ABC News clip about
you know, hey, you know they're they're down there trying
(02:38):
to get somebody who's been illegally deported. Well, then yeah,
you're going to assume, because that's what the news is
telling you, that he was illegally deported. The only way
that you could find out let me, I'm trying to
see if I can find is this what was I'm
(02:59):
not sure that this is in our ABC news file.
It may be in one of these.
Speaker 5 (03:07):
Stories a federal appeals court saying the government is asserting
a right to stash away residents of this country in
foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is
the foundation of our constitutional order.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Will you steps to return kill mar Abra Obergy into
United States?
Speaker 3 (03:24):
Have to speak to the lawyers, the DOJ.
Speaker 6 (03:27):
I've heard many things about him, and you'll have to
find out what the truth is.
Speaker 5 (03:34):
A judge has given the Trump administration two weeks to
hand over more evidence in the case.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Now that's in. So there's a thirty one second sound
bite that may or may not played at the top
of the hour or probably will at some point because
it's in there. It's it's in our ABC News radio
feed right now. So what do they do. They start
out by simply citing what the judge claims, which if
that's all you here, then it's easy to assume that, well,
(04:03):
a judge sentence, so it must be true, because a
judgement never lie, a judgement never make anything up until
you unless you realize that Joe's judge Boseburg in this
case is just making crap up out of thin air,
and he's making all sorts of wild claims, which is
astonishing to me. But for a for a layman out there,
it's like, oh, well the judge said it, so it
(04:26):
must be true. Then ABC follows with this thirty two
second SoundBite.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
The Trump administration admits Abrego Garcia was deported to Al
Salvador because of an administrative error, but claims it lent
noew that is true.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
They originally admitted that, yes, uh, he was. He was
deported because of an administrative error. Then they go back
and they start digging through and realize, oh, no, no,
we actually did have all of this stuff. But because
that was le out of the bag, you're now that's
like telling the jury to disregard what the witness just said.
(05:08):
The jury can't. You can't unring the bell is a
famous lawyer phrase. So that you can. You can ask
the judge to instruct the jury to disregard what the
witness just said. But that even further emphasizes what the
witness just said. So when the jury gets into the
jury room and starts deliberating, Hey, you remember we were
(05:28):
told to ignore what that guy said. Yeah, well we
can't talk about that. Yeah, but did you hear what
he said? Yeah? I did hear what he said. But
we can't they we can't, and it just keeps feeding
to itself. It just keeps so it becomes embedded in
the juror's brains. In defense to the top of the
hour ABC News that we played.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
That's a two minute feed that we play, and only
five seconds of it was dedicated to.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
The sod of these sound bites. We're using the top
craft all the here. I'll see if I can find
it quickly. Put it there.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Maryland Governor Chris van Holland meeting Killmore, Abrego Garcia, the
man wrongfully deported to El Salvador.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Wrong see just yeah, throws it in there right by
the way, does she call him governor? You sound like
she said governor.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
Maryland Governor Chris van Holland meeting Kilmore Abrego Garcia, the
man you where'd.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
That gun from? The US Senator Chris van all I
don't know. Uh, let's see.
Speaker 5 (06:29):
Then there's one more, this same reporter, Maryland Senator Chris
van Holland meeting with kill Mar.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
At least she got his title right, Fregie.
Speaker 5 (06:38):
Garcia and El Salvador. The senator is demanding his release.
The Trump administration mistakenly deported the undocumented father from Maryland
last month. I do intend to keep at this until
we ensure that mister o'bregar garcia has his rights.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
To do process.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
Abrego Garcia's wife saying, my children and my prayers had
been answered. I now know that my husband is alive.
God is listening.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Oh tug at the heartstrings. So so how would if
that's all you heard, or you heard what dragon played
from the actual top of the hour news, you would
think that, oh, my gosh, we disappeared this guy as
the Left like use the language. You would think that
we just plucked this guy out of thin air and
(07:27):
did it. You would also believe that there was a
mistake made because somebody mistakenly said there was a mistake
made earlier, and that just gets repeated over and over
and over and over.
Speaker 6 (07:38):
So how do I.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
Determine which is I'm not asking you to do this,
but you someone asked me, well, how do I've had
the stories? The very first thing that I always try
to do is find the original source. In this case,
the original sources would be who are they quoting Chris
(08:03):
van Holland. Okay, well let's go to his website. Let's
see what statements he's made or it's quoting Pam Bundy. Okay,
let's go to DOJ. Let's see what the DOJ says. Oh,
let's go to Tom Holman. See what Tom Holman says.
But then I take it one step further. I take
it one step further, which is I think where the
cutoff would be for you. You can do this. I
(08:26):
just wouldn't expect anybody to do this. I read the pleatings,
and fortunately, trained as a lawyer, I know how to
read the pleatings. I can actually look up some of
the case law that they cite to see if it
really if that case law really claims what they say
it claims, and see what it says. So I can
(08:49):
and I will look at the attachments to see, oh,
they've got affidavits from this sheriff for that sheriff. They've
got affidavits from these investigators that are cops from New
Jersey or Maryland or wherever they might be, that originally
encountered him, that tagged him with the MS thirteen membership.
(09:12):
So that's how I vet it. It's not easy to do.
So what can you do in terms of your own vetting? Well,
first and foremost, take whatever they say at face value,
and then say to yourself, Okay, they say illegally deported,
(09:32):
or they say wrongfully deported, But is that the right agity?
Was he illegally or wrongfully deported? And on what basis?
I mean, just start asking questions. The other thing that's
probably the simplest thing to do is you know the
old saying that if it sounds too good to be true,
then you know it's probably not true. Well, do you
(09:56):
really think that we would just randomly plucked somebody off
the streets and without any evidentiary basis or any rational basis,
or any legal basis, or any documentary basis or anything else.
Just literally, do you think we would disappear somebody only
if they're black or brown? Oh, that's right, of course,
(10:17):
you have to take that in consideration, you know, But
for the fact that the Florida State shooter happened to
be the son of a deputy sheriff. Turns out that
he is a just a white kid, So you know,
may not hear much more about it. I don't. Maybe
(10:37):
will maybe not. Maybe it's a white nationalist, then we
will hear more about it, or maybe do we know
even who was it that was killed? Yet? I don't
think we even know that yet. I think we just
know numbers two dead, six injured. Yeah, we don't even
know who was it he killed, So we don't even
think about it yet. But people are already jumping, jumping
to conclusions about it. It's it's not easy to do.
(11:01):
In fact, I find it incredibly frustrating because there's so
much misinformation disinformation. For example, when I was in Chicago
this week, so after I after I make my presentation,
there's a little panel discussion and there is a person
on this panel that is from FEMA, and he is
(11:26):
talking about and I took it at face value, okay,
but I'd like to be able to prove it myself.
He claims that in both the Hawaii fought, the Malee
fires remember those, the California fire remember those, and in
(11:48):
Hurricane Helene, that they have evidence that both Russia and
China were feeding disinformation through social media platforms TikTok x
and on Facebook, and then feeding it to local media
sources false information about what was going on. And he
(12:13):
used the word intelligence. Now, quite honestly, I didn't care.
I was you know, it was over, everything was done.
I just wanted to go back to the hotel, relax,
find something to eat, get ready to come home the
next day. But part of me also wanted to corner
him and really grill him about Now. Remember I used
(12:39):
to get the presidential daily brief every single day. I
also got any time that we were dealing with a
natural or a man made disaster, any sort of disaster,
we would have briefings by both the FBI and the
CIA if Ford actors were involved about anything going on
(13:01):
that we needed to be cognizant of in case there
was something that might happen overseas based on any disruption
going on in this country. So for example, if we're
distracted because of a huge fire caliphion in Los Angeles,
the CIA would brief us about anything else going on
around the world that where that might be. There's chatter
(13:23):
indicating they might do something that would attack or involve
our foreign interest because of our distraction domestically. So I
know they get briefed, and I'm going to assume that
the current or the FEMA director under Biden would get
the same briefings. I don't know that for a fact,
(13:45):
but I'm going to assume that she did. But I
really wanted seriously like what did you just read what
the briefers provided you? Did you ask any questions? Did
you ask what their sources were? Did you Because if
I had gotten that kind of information, I'd want to
know all the details about it, because in order to
(14:08):
counter that disinformation, I need unclassified info that I can
go out to the public and say, hey, listen, you're
hearing these stories about the fires about I don't know,
maybe that terrorists have started the fires, which is believable.
I actually believe that in some cases that is occurring.
(14:29):
But to counter that, I need some definitive information to
counter it, and I would ask the briefer to give
me that information, or the briefer might say, no, I'm
telling you this is this has been vetted, and we
do we've got a high level of confidence that this
is accurate. Okay, well then I've got to take you
I've got to take your word at it. It's very,
(14:52):
very difficult to be a discerning consumer of the news.
I would just say, start out with a heavy dose
of and these are two words that get interchanged way
too often, but mean two entirely different things, both psychologically, legally, politically, everything,
(15:14):
don't I mean, look, some people say I'm a that
I am full of cynicism. I'm not saying be cynical
about the news. I am saying, be skeptical. I'm a skeptic,
(15:35):
and by a skeptic mean I question everything. Your mom
loves you. Mom, come here, I need to ask you
a question. Do you really love me? Show me, make
me a lemon meringue pie, prove it to me. A
skepticism as opposed to cynicism, which is a deep psychological,
(16:00):
I think a problem that people have. So be skeptical.
Be skeptical about what the media tells you, particularly when
we have and I'm talking about Fox News just as
much as I'm talking about C and N or MSNBC
or the networks, or for that matter, that Denver is
(16:21):
that versus the Denver Post, or you know, kdiev R
versus Channel nine. Be skeptical about what they tell you. Now,
some stories, there's no reason to be skeptical or cynical
about them because they're kind of just fluff pieces. They're
not earth shattering news. But never ever take it at
(16:44):
face value unless they tell you, yeah, it's predicted that
we might have snow tomorrow, and you wake up and
you see snow and it's April and you live in Colorado,
or we're gonna have a heat wave. You can be
skeptical about whether it's called by anthropogenic global climate change,
or you can just say, well, you know that's the
(17:05):
weather because it's spring time. Now let me get back.
The Supreme Court is going to hear a case about
birthright citizenship. So let's go to Todd law class I
hope briefly about birthright citizenship.
Speaker 6 (17:27):
Hey, Michael, quick question, at what point is this senator
and this judge liable for criminal activity for supporting a
foreign terrorist. I'm sure that's never going to happen, but
I just wanted to pick your lawyer brain about that.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
He's probably also guilty of the Logan Act, so think
about that one too. So Trump has been pushing to
overturn a eighteen ninety eight case and a few others
since then. But really going back to eighteen ninety eight,
the case of wokim arc a guy that was born
(18:09):
in San Francisco to parents of Chinese descent, in which
the court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees US citizenship
to virtually anybody that's born in the country. It was
a sixty three decision, and Justice Horace Gray, who wrote
for the majority, said this that the fourteenth Amendment affirms
(18:31):
the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within
the territory, in the allegiance, and under the protection of
the country, including all children born here of resident aliens.
So they'll hear arguments on May fifteenth, less than a
month from now, on the federal government's request to be
(18:51):
allowed to implement Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The
first clause of the fourteenth provides that quote all persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof. That is the That's the bingo clause
(19:12):
of all clauses, right there. All persons born are naturalized
in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside. Now, everyone has always take I shouldn't
say everyone. There are lots of conservative jurists and conservative
(19:36):
legal scholars who disagree with this interpretation. But many people
have always interpreted that to mean subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That that covers anyone born on US soil, except There's
always been this exception that bugs me, and that is
(19:57):
the children of diplomats or obviously invade armies. So if
you're the British ambassador to the United States and you're
living in the British Embassy, you're you're living in whatever
the residents they provide you, either in DC or maybe
(20:19):
over in Virginia somewhere. The embassy's in DC, but maybe
they provide you a home over across the river in Virginia.
Doesn't make any difference. Where So your spouse is pregnant,
your wife is pregnant, and you go to a DC hospital,
or you go to a Virginia hospital and you give birth. Well,
(20:41):
people say, well, because you're a diplomat, then that child's
not a citizen of the United States. I would ask
all of those who claim that if you are brought
here illegally, or for that matter, you're brought here legally,
you're here on a tourist visa. If we make if
(21:05):
we carve out an exception for a diplomat, why wouldn't
we carve out an exception for someone here on a
tourist visa, or why wouldn't we carve out an exception
for someone who is here illegally, despite that old case
of Wonkim Art from eighteen ninety eight, subject to the
(21:28):
jurisdiction thereof jurisdiction defines the territory where the force of
law applies and to whom the law applies. And this principle,
while well settled to include almost everybody within the US
borders regards of their home country or the circumstance of
(21:51):
their birth. But in a Wall Street Journal article from
some ten years ago, John Yu, you may recognize that name.
John Yu was an assistant Attorney General in the Bush administration.
Then he became a pretty well known commentator. I think
he now teaches at Stanford or somewhere. I'm not quite sure,
(22:15):
but he's kind of the antithesis of Professor Turling. So
he'll be on Fox News, and he writes editorials oftentimes
with Wall Street Journal. And he wrote an editorial back
in twenty fifteen, I think so. I think it's about
ten years old, where he says, by the circular restrictionist logic,
(22:35):
illegal immigrants could not be prosecuted for committing crimes because
they are not US citizens. Well, he goes on to
say almost all aliens in the United States. Even citizens
of other nations still fall within our jurisdiction while they
(22:55):
are in our territory. Otherwise they could commit crimes of
all sorts without fear of punishment. Well, that circular argument
plays on a widespread ignorance. I think of the meaning
of the word jurisdiction. Now, remember, what does the fourteenth
(23:19):
Amendment say? All persons born are naturalized in the United
States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of
the United States. Well, what does jurisdiction mean. Everybody thinks
that jurisdiction means, well, you're subject to the laws of
the country. Actually, there are two distinct different definitions of jurisdiction.
(23:46):
One there is the complete political jurisdiction, and there is
the second, and that's the partial territorial jurisdiction. So let's
go back to the British except let's not make it
a diplomat. Let's just make it a British tourist. So
a British tourist comes to the United States. When that
(24:08):
tourist comes to the United States, they subject themselves to
our laws as long as they remain within our territory.
Territorial jurisdiction. So that tourist is subject to our partial
territorial jurisdiction. So that means, if you commit a crime,
(24:30):
we're going to prosecute you for that crime, for violating
the laws because you're within our territories. But that same
British tourist does not subject himself to our complete political jurisdiction.
He can't vote, he can't register to vote, he can't
(24:53):
serve on a jury, he can't be drafted into the
armed forces. And to make you think about the most
extreme example, he cannot be subject to the laws of
treason if he takes arms up against the United States
(25:15):
because he owes no allegiance to the United States. Oh,
he could be prosecuted for an insurrection. He could be
prosecuted for, you know, killing a US Capitol police officer
if that's what he decided to do. He could be
cited for murder if he tried to kill, you know,
(25:35):
attacking envoy of military equipment driving down I twenty five.
But he can't be charged with treason because he's not
a citizen. So you have territorial jurisdiction in which he
could be charged for you know, murder or speeding, reckless driving,
(25:59):
drunk driving, but he can't be charged with treason because
he's not subject to the complete political jurisdiction. He can't vote,
he can't serve on a jury, can't do any of
those things. So get out of your mind that the
Fourteenth Amendment term jurisdiction means the complete political jurisdiction. But
(26:21):
let's go one step further. Let's remember the context in
which the fourteenth Amendment was adopted. Senator Lyman Trumbull, who
was a key figure in the drafting and the adoption
of the fourteenth Amendment, was asked about whether or not
Indians living on reservations would be covered by this clause
(26:45):
since they were quote most clearly subject to our jurisdiction,
both civil and military. In that debate, Trumbull responded that
quote subject to the jurisition close quote of the United
States meant subject to its complete jurisdiction, quote not owing
(27:09):
allegiance to anybody else. And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced
the language of the jurisdiction clause onto the floor of
the Senate, contended that she should be construed to mean
a quote full and complete jurisdiction, the same jurisdiction in
(27:31):
extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the
United States. Now, that is under the eighteen sixty six
Civil Rights Act, which the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to codify.
That Act made the point even more clearly, all persons
born in the United States and not subject to any
(27:54):
foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed or hereby declared to
be citizens of the United States. Now, when we get back,
let's go to the leading legal treatise an author about
the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's see what he said.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Michael, I was thinking about what you just said about
complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance somewhere else where do you
dual citizenship folks fall under. That sounds to me like
an argument can be made that they owe allegiance somewhere else.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Yeah, And I've got to I have a real problem
with I don't have a problem with true dual citizenship.
I have a problem with dual citizenship individuals holding high
positions in government. And I know and I'm going to
(28:51):
give you an example. And I might be a little
biased in this example, but you know, Michael Chertoff, Well,
it's the same Secretary of Homeland Security for a while,
he's a dual Israeli and US citizen. Doesn't that kind
of call into question a little bit about loyalties? So yeah,
(29:14):
I've got a problem with dual citizenship. Let's go back
to birthright citizenship, the idea that just because you're born here,
you automatically become a US citizen, regardless of the circumstances. Now,
remember we already carve out a uh AN exclusion for
children born to diplomats. Well, if we're going to carve
(29:36):
that exclusion out because you're a you're here diplomatically, why
do we allow someone who breaks the law to get here,
to drop a baby and that baby becomes a citizen.
The leading treatise writer of the day, Thomas Cooley, confirmed
that this was the understanding of the fourteenth Amendment. What
(29:58):
do I mean that that was the understanding of the
fourteenth Amendment that all persons born in the United States
and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed,
are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States,
not subject to any foreign power. Let's take the yahoo
down there in the Al Salvador in prison right now,
(30:20):
he's subject to the jurisdiction of Al Salvador because he's
now Salvadoran. He should not be able to come to
this country illegally. Forget the fact he's a member of
the MS thirteen. Forget the fact that he's here illegally.
Why should his offspring be granted automatic birthright citizenship. Go
(30:44):
back to Thomas Cooley, as he wrote in a treatise
called the General Principles of Constitutional Law in America. He
wrote that subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject,
(31:07):
and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction such as may
consist with allegiance to some other government. You come here illegally,
you're still subject to For example, let's take now, not
that they would practically do this, but they could do this.
(31:30):
You come here from L Salvador. You've committed a crime,
You've committed murder in El Salvador. But before you can
be captured, tried, and convicted, you run across the border
of the United States if L. Salvador wanted to. But
they don't because they don't care that they might. Now
and we have a lawful, valid extradition treaty, they can
(31:53):
haul your ass back to El Salvador because you're subject
to their jurisdiction. You could be tried for murder in
l Salvador. The point being, I think we might have
a court on at least the five to four, hopefully
a sixty three decision would look back at the original
meaning and the debates that took place when the Fourteenth
(32:15):
Amendment was adopted to guarantee that slaves were given all
the rights, privileges, and obligations of citizenship. That was the
purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. We might just have a
chance here
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!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.