8-25-25 - 8am - National Guard to Other Cities

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael. The immigration order did not say he could not
be sent to El Salvador. It actually said he could
not be sent to Guatemala. Check it out.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
They're lying about El Salvador.

Speaker 3 (00:22):
Okay, I'll go, I'll go check it out. I'll go
read the removal order again. You know, this is a
great example of how somebody asked I forget in the
past week or so. It came up during a casual

(00:43):
conversation about how I do show prep or how I
read the news. I think it was even more general
than show prep, how do I read the news? And
I said that anytime I'm reading a story, I'm reading
the story with what's the angle, what's the POV? The

(01:05):
point of view they're trying to get across. Is this likely?
Is it not likely? Why should I believe it? Not
believe it? Do they cite any original sources? What are
the original sources? Is this a just as a general example?
Is this an associated press story? Because that just means
that the Denver Post will reprint that sometimes or sometimes

(01:29):
not without a byline, but generally speaking, he at least
put ap in there. So it's just a reprint of
a story they originated elsewhere. And they're just using it
as filler or maybe it's in the story they think,
you know, the editors of the Denver Compost for that matter,
the Denver is that or anybody else. I don't really

(01:50):
recall because that uses AP stories or not, but most places.

Speaker 1 (01:54):
Do, and the same thing goes fruit goes for TV.

Speaker 3 (01:59):
Reports, television reports, I look at those with an even
more Jonice view because it's am I watching an opinion
program or'm actually watching a news program. If I'm watching
a news program, I mean even a local news program
where it's pretty obviously it's a you know, it's the
it's the five o'clock news. Again, I listen to the language.

(02:21):
Is that language of opinion? Is that language of an agenda?

Speaker 1 (02:25):
What? You know? What is that propaganda? What?

Speaker 3 (02:27):
Whatever it is? I'm always I spend, and I know
that most people can't. And frankly, I'm not encouraging to
to use lexus Nexus because lexus Nexus is a platform
used primarily by lawyers or also used by like Wall
Street analysts, but they it's it's a it's a way

(02:50):
to get to original source material. It's a way to
cross check, you know, different ways stories are reported. Obviously,
you can use it for legal research. It's it's but
it costs an arm and a leg to use. But
it's one of the main ways that I use that well,
of the main things that I use to check on
what it is that I'm reading, is it true or

(03:12):
is it not true? And that's why when I'm pretty
confident about what something says that's from a legal point
of view, is because I've gone to the source, I've
read the case, I've read the footnotes, because I'm still
at heart, I'm still a lawyer, and i still think
like a lawyer and still go through all of those things.

(03:32):
It's I'll give you. I'll give you an example occurred.
I think it occurred this past weekend. Somebody in my
ex timeline had posted a short video of.

Speaker 1 (03:45):
A car.

Speaker 3 (03:47):
It was kind of a grainy video. So my first
thought was, how old is this video? Because it wasn't
grainy in the sense that it was dusty and dirty
and you know, bad weather or whatever. No, it was
grainy like it was an old film actually made with
I don't know, maybe you know, an eight millimeter camera

(04:08):
or something.

Speaker 1 (04:09):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (04:10):
It just struck me as odd. Then as I watched
the video. Now, the claim was that it was an
example of children being human trafficked. So I watched the
video again and as I closely would start and stop

(04:30):
the video because occasionally the videos that moved around this
vehicle would show kids in the back of the car
and you could see their faces, and it was like,
these kids don't look distraught at all to me. So
then I go, I plug it into three or four
different AI chatbots to try to identify it. Then when

(04:55):
they identify it, when when consistently across probably five different
AI chat bots, five AI chat bots consistently identify it
as not child human or not child sex trafficking or
human trafficking. But it was a story from and I'd

(05:15):
have to go back and look, so don't hold me
to the details, but I think it was Uzbekistan or
something where a teacher got stopped by a traffic cop
because she was taking these kids in her kindergarten class
to some other place to do something like them kind
of a field trip, and the cop saw the car

(05:38):
and saw that it was overcrowded and stopped the car
for being overcrowded.

Speaker 1 (05:42):
So then when I.

Speaker 3 (05:43):
Got that story, then I plug that into lexis Nexus
to see if I can find the original story from Uzbekistan,
or can find that it's reported by say the BBC,
or it is reported by CNN International or somebody, and
sure enough, there it is. So I go back on
and I quote tweet that story because I don't want

(06:04):
those people. I don't want people in my timeline passing
on false information. So I say, this is not a
this is not an example of human trafficking. This is
a And I don't forget whether it was three years old,
five years old, or ten years old, but it was
an older story about this teacher that got stopped at

(06:27):
the traffic stop, and of course he had caught attention
because she had so many he was like a clown car.
She crammed her entire class into a car like it
wasn't a VW bug because like you know, you cram,
you know, college kids cram as many people as you can't.
Well that dates me as means you can into a
VW bug. That's kind of what it looked like. And

(06:48):
when I cited one AI chat bot, people then jumped
on my ass a bell. Well, you can't rely on
you can't rely on rock or you can't rely on Oscar.
You can't rely on perplexity, you can't rely on raplet,
you can't rely on you know, all the different areas.
I'm like, holy, you know, holy crap. I'm you know.

(07:09):
I didn't say I was relying on one. I just
cited one. Go look for yourself, Go prove to yourself,
instead of just continuing to retweet it because somebody had
retweeted and said and this is the problem going on
in the US. Well, first of all, the story doesn't
emanate from the US, has nothing to do with human trafficking,
and so it just feeds on itself.

Speaker 1 (07:29):
Dries.

Speaker 3 (07:30):
That kind of crap dries me crazy, as does this
which I which is where I was going to go
with Dragon Dragon? Did you see text line from Guber
seventy one to fourteen.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
I haven't looked at the text line in a while.
What's going on over there?

Speaker 3 (07:46):
Random squirrel thought on KDVR, it says on the news
this morning, parentheses thirty one. So I've been there, referring
to KDVR. Now, according to my watch, it's fifty nine
degrees outside. They said we were going to be twelve
to fifteen degrees below average today, Yet no action alert day.

(08:10):
I didn't hear if we were close to breaking a record,
you know, breaking a record low high temperature. I guess
we only worried about warming. I thought that was a
brilliant point. We're fifteen to twenty degrees below normal. Why
isn't it a weather alert action day? Why are we
not panic stricken about Oh my gosh, it's cold outside.

(08:31):
It's fifty nine degrees outside right now, and it's eight
fifteen when it normally she'd be like seventy.

Speaker 1 (08:36):
Five degrees already.

Speaker 3 (08:37):
Oh my gosh, Why isn't there an action alert day?
Because it doesn't fit the narrative. Yes, it doesn't fit
the narrative. Aren't you panicked about this?

Speaker 2 (08:52):
Terrified?

Speaker 3 (08:53):
Okay, as you want to make sure, let's go to
Trump because I casually mentioned that Trump's thing about sending
troops to Chicago and New York. Well, he has once again,
in my humble opinion, identified a critical national problem, and
this time it's that local cops have been Local police forces,

(09:19):
not everywhere, but particularly in major cities, have been decimated.
And not only have local police departments been decimated, but
we've elected and I see the collective we because even
though I didn't vote for any of them as a whole,
we all go vote, and a majority of people have
elected Soros inclined prosecutors that don't really believe in law

(09:45):
and order, and so they're you know, giving letting people judges,
to letting people out on you know, no bail or
a really low cash bail, or they're you know, dropping
the charges down to you know, from murder to well,
you know, just a simple assault and battery. These are
extreme examples. But nonetheless, you know as well as I do,

(10:07):
that we've gone really soft on crime and that between
budget cuts defund the cops, this idea that oh, you know,
those those poor kids, well you know, they just they
grew up in a bad home and they can't help it.
If they're out just shooting each other, we shouldn't hold
them accountable for that. So Trump decided that he's had

(10:31):
enough of what was going on in DC. Now, under
the Home Rule Act, there is no question that Trump
possesses clear statutory authority to exercise, for a thirty day period,
temporary law enforcement authority over Washington, d C. By federalizing

(10:52):
the DC Police force, in addition to deploying National Guard troops.
That's in the statue's federal statute. Somebody want to question
me about that now today, that's in the federal statute.
It's a thirty day period. I don't know when that
thirty day period's up. But he has to get congressional
approval to go beyond that. Well, let me rephrase that

(11:15):
he is supposed to get congressional authority to go beyond that.
I think he could obviously get it, and quite frankly,
I think politically, I think he should ask for an
additional thirty days for pure political reasons. I don't care
how much crime is dropped off in d C post

(11:36):
deployment of the National Guard troops. I want him to
put members of Congress on record as to whether or
not they support the federalizing of the d C of
the Metropolitan Police Department in d C, because that will
give you some insight into whether or not they are
really you know, are you pro crime? Are you anti crime?

Speaker 4 (11:59):
Quick question about this whole National Guard in d C.
There is I am going exactly where you think I'm going.
There's a new headline on CNN as of a few
hours ago, National Guard troops in Washington, d C.

Speaker 2 (12:14):
Begin carrying weapons. So to me, this is a little startling.

Speaker 4 (12:20):
It's like, are you saying that we don't trust the
National Guard with weapons because they don't know how to
use them or the other thing is sounds a little
scary as we sent all these people out to protect
the DC without weapons. I mean, this is and why
is this making news now? I mean, I'm I'm confused
by the whole thing.

Speaker 3 (12:38):
Okay, well let me see if I yes, they were
sent out without weapons.

Speaker 2 (12:45):
That sounds like it's a very terrifying job.

Speaker 1 (12:47):
That sounds like stupidity on my part or on their
pay right, Yeah? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (12:52):
And I thought it was stupid when it happened because
I didn't necessarily read anywhere that they have been deployed
without weapons. I simply noticed as I watched news stories
about them that they did not have a sidearm, let alone,
you know, a long gun over their shoulder. They were

(13:16):
without weapons. So I started digging around about why. You
can't find a lot about why. But here's my speculation
as to why they did not want to put the
Guard in the position initially of having to shoot somebody
if they get shot up. Now, do I think that's stupid?

(13:40):
I think that's incredibly stupid.

Speaker 2 (13:41):
You're taking their way to defend themselves.

Speaker 3 (13:43):
You're taking you're taking away their ability to defend themselves
in a place where you have said that crime is
so bad that we need to send in the National Guard. So,
as I tried to rationalize it my head, the only
thing I could come up with They wanted to and
they knew all along that they were eventually give them
their side arms back. But let's ease into that, so

(14:04):
maybe it won't be quite as big a story as
what it is. I think it's a huge story. I
don't think they should have ever been sent out, even
if they were cooperative, because here's what they were really doing.
They were simply there as a show of force to
scatter the cockroaches out of the district. They were working

(14:27):
side by side with the Metropolitan Police Department, so that
anytime you generally saw a group of National Guard troops
standing together milling around their APC, they happened to have.
You know, there was probably one at least one or
two armed MPD officers with them. Okay, but that still
puts them in harm's way. I think they should have

(14:50):
been sent out initially, even if they weren't doing even
if they were just there as a show of force,
and they were allowing MPB, the Metropolitan Police Department, the
MPD to actually do the actual law enforcement. I get that,
But how many story how many taxpayer relief shops have
we ever done where one cop is trying to stop somebody,

(15:17):
they get into a chase or it's a domestic, they
call for backup, and pretty soon they've got they've got
one perp, and they've got ten cops, and all ten
cops are getting shot at the same thing could have
easily happened in DC, and I think it was a mistake.

Speaker 1 (15:34):
Oh.

Speaker 3 (15:34):
I understand the politics of it, and I understand the perspective,
the the perception of it and why they might want
to ease into it, but I just think it was wrong.
So back to so does that does that help clarify it?

Speaker 2 (15:49):
Yeah, a little bit, But you're still.

Speaker 1 (15:51):
Not happy with it, just like I'm not happy with it. Right.

Speaker 4 (15:53):
I don't know if I would want to be put
in that role as to trying to protect people without
a side arm on me.

Speaker 1 (15:59):
Right.

Speaker 3 (15:59):
Imagine you're saying next to it's like the time I
told you in the ride along with the state trooper
and we end up in a high speed chase and
we finally get the car to pull over, and the
trooper says to me he opens He says, first of all,
the shotgun next year's loaded, ready to go, and open
open my glove box. And in the glove box there's

(16:20):
a forty four magnum So that now I'm armed too,
because he was not going to leave me unarmed as
he's engaged in his law enforcement duties.

Speaker 4 (16:29):
I mean, I suppose I can see the optics of
it that we don't want to see these guys as
militarytic takeovers.

Speaker 3 (16:35):
But but imagine if that stop that I was involved
in had gone sideways and there was not a shotgun
on the passenger side, and there was not a handgun
in the glove box, I'd be I'd be on the
floor of the car, just hoping that you know, that
the trooper was able to get control of the situation

(16:58):
and somebody didn't walk over to the passenger side window
and just blow my brains up. Although I'm sure in hindsight,
don't they get yourself. Yeah, I wouldn't be dealing with them.

Speaker 1 (17:13):
Back to the troops, back to the National Guard, and
what I.

Speaker 2 (17:17):
For these illegal aliens?

Speaker 5 (17:19):
Can't we just rent that French resort in Guyana.

Speaker 2 (17:24):
There's some nice islands they could live on.

Speaker 3 (17:31):
Yeah, well, let's just buy an island somewhere, say Manhattan,
and then we could eventually make a movie out of it.

Speaker 1 (17:41):
Too, walllet off, wallet off, make a movie.

Speaker 2 (17:45):
Who who was in?

Speaker 1 (17:47):
Who was in that movie?

Speaker 2 (17:48):
Kurt Russell? Yeah, Kurt Russell, Snake Plisken.

Speaker 3 (17:51):
Yeah, my gosh, that's old, isn't it. Chimney Christmas. That's
gotta be old.

Speaker 1 (17:55):
All right.

Speaker 3 (17:56):
You guys are totally dewriting the program today. So during
the break, I'm reading the text messag just Guba number
fifty eight eleven, Michael. The last talk back appears to
be at least partly correct. The removal order you cite
is preced is proceeded by a removal order that cites
danger to Garcia if he is deported to Guatemala. Here

(18:16):
is a link to an article on the and I
can't believe you're citing this organization, the Center for Immigration Studies,
alluding to the bizarre mix up. And you cite the
Center for Immigration Studies, which is it's not that bad

(18:36):
of an organization. But when I click on the link
that you provided, it's a story, it's not the order.
So let me just go to where is my here
it is I want to cite to you. This is

(18:58):
case number twenty five thirteen. The United States could have
appeals for the Fourth Circuit kilmar amando of Brego Garcia
at all versus plaintiff Apelles versus at all plaints appelles
versus Christinome at all defendive depellans on appeal from the
US District Court for the District of Maryland, Case number
eight twenty five CV zero zero ninety five to one PX.

(19:19):
Plaintiffs appells opposition to emergency motion for statepending appeal and
immediate administra at his stay. This is the court order
I plug in al Salvador. The United States conceded that
he quote should not have been removed and that it

(19:42):
did not have a satisfactory answer as to why it
could not bring him back. I'm just I'm ignoring the
citations for purposes of reading. Yet now it contends that
it is powerless to do so, and that in order
requiring it to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, as this court
has previously ordered government to do so in other cases

(20:03):
is intolerable. Worse, the government argues that by defying the
prior order not remove Arbregio Garcia to L Salvador, it
has divested the courts of jurisdiction of wrongdoing.

Speaker 1 (20:18):
Go on.

Speaker 3 (20:19):
The court did not order the government to force L.
Salvador to do anything, rather directs the government to facilitate
and effectuate Abregio Garcia's return. This court and other circuits
have repeatedly ordered the same relief. Let me go on
to the next citation. But the government has already conceded
that the preforded removal order, which it failed to produce

(20:42):
and appears nowhere in the record, could not be used
to send mister Garcia to El Salvador. The government's argument
suggests that the executive branch may violate blah.

Speaker 1 (20:53):
Blah blah blah.

Speaker 3 (20:55):
Let me say that again, But the government has already
conceded that the purported re moval order, which it failed
to produce and appears nowhere in the record, could not
be used to send him to El Salvador. Every case
citation I've read through this entire history of this case.

Speaker 1 (21:16):
Is about L.

Speaker 3 (21:16):
Salvador he is from Guatemala. The withholding order is L. Salvador.
I don't know what else to do except to say,
once again, go to the source documents, which is where

(21:37):
I'm at right now.

Speaker 1 (21:41):
You just.

Speaker 3 (21:46):
OL Salvador is explicitly named in the twenty nineteen withholding
order and in every I don't have all my notes
in front of me, let me just give you a generic.
The Immigration Judge's decision on October ten, twenty nineteen, states

(22:07):
that there was a clear probability of future persecution if
he was returned to L. Salvador. You can find that
in we are Causa. That's the group that's representing. That's
the NNGO, also same group. The order affirms that Garcia

(22:28):
had the right not to be deported to L. Salvador
under Title eight, Section one twenty three twelve thirty one
courting government filings acknowledge that is removal to L. Salvador
directly violated that withholding order. All those references are summarized
in the section describing what went on during the evidentiary

(22:52):
hearing and the judges rationale, making L. Salvador the country
specifically identified as the prohibited desk the nation for removal
in the twenty nineteen immigration order. No, I don't know
what else to do. Back to the d C Guard.

Speaker 1 (23:14):
So now Trump's.

Speaker 3 (23:14):
Thinking about sending the national or calling out the National
Guard in both Chicago and in New York. Obviously, the
Marxist mayor of Chicago is outraged despite all the wailing
and the gnashing of teeth. And you know, President Trump

(23:38):
possesses both the immediate authority and the responsibility to ensure
that d C does not descend into chaos if they
don't do their job, because the municipal government of d
C is a construct of Congress. It only exists by
the permission of Congress. So when he went, when he

(24:00):
the President says that Chicago is being considered also because quote,
we're going to make our cities very very safe.

Speaker 1 (24:06):
Chicago is a mess. We'll straight will.

Speaker 3 (24:08):
Straighten that when that probably next that will be our
next one after this, and it won't even be tough.
I don't think he can do it now. Crime rates
have risen dramatic, there's no question about that. In twenty twenty,
murder rates hit their highest single year jump thirty percent.

(24:29):
That's the highest recorded domestic history, and carjackings and major
cities increased ninety three percent between twenty nineteen and twenty
twenty three, and over half of those involved a gun,
and nearly thirty percent of those carjackings resulted in an
injury or death. Last year, we had a rape occur
in this country every four minutes. But the metropolitan the

(24:50):
metropolitan mayors, the five federal law enforcement by declaring themselves
sanctuary cities and sheltering criminal, illegal aliens. And then you've
got on top of that all the radical district attorneys
that disregard legislation, and then they just decriminalize all of
this heinous conduct. And in the wake of the George
Floyd death, law enforcement leaders are across the country describing

(25:18):
not they probably they probably would deny this, but in
in their meetings, police morale is low, recruitment retention except
for ice is down.

Speaker 1 (25:32):
Nationally, all of that grim news is top of mind.

Speaker 3 (25:38):
For voters, sixty percent of whom said last year that
stemming the rising crime should be a top priority for
president for the president of Congress. But congressional power to
create a national antidote to criminal problems, even with a
presidential blessing, I think is severely limited. Let's go of

(26:01):
all places to the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. In areas such as criminal law enforcement,
states historically have been sovereign. And in addition to that,
the federal government is a government of specific enumertive powers,

(26:21):
and the Supreme Court reported reportedly repeatedly has held that
there is no general federal police power. So if the
president thinks he can act alone to protect a city,
not the district, but a city other than the district,
would be on a heroic but probably ill fated quest

(26:45):
if the situation or something other than a temporary crisis,
And I think the best example of that are the
Rodney King riots in nineteen ninety two in south central LA. Well, actually,
just let's just say LA. That would probably trigger the

(27:06):
president's authority under the Insurrection Act. And that's why HW
Bush did indeed decide to deploy the National Guard. So,
for example, the lead proposal to create this so called
domestic civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force a QRF for domestic

(27:31):
made up of National Guard troops so they can quickly
quell local disturbances. I think it's probably feasible under those
specific federal authorities posse commatatis in the Insurrection Act, but
it has to be temporary. It has to be deployed
to one state at a time. There's nothing inherently unlawful

(27:55):
about a RIVET response team, but the president's existing authority.
I don't think there appears to be a mechanism to
authorize a multi jurisdictional National Guard strike team absent coordination
with the governors themselves. I said, the governors, not the mayors.
And it has to be specific, isolated incidents. That's why

(28:20):
I said earlier the whole idea about when you have
in Portland trying to or Seattle or any other place,
it doesn't mean difference where it is. Where you have
night after night after night, where local law enforcement is overwhelmed,
and you want to protect federal assets, a military base,

(28:40):
maybe a federal office building, a federal courthouse. I think
you could do that, and I think you could do
that probably on your own. If I were president, I
would still do it with the governor, because I would
bypass the mayor, because these mayors are going to bitch
and moan about it, and I think you're gonna have
to buy pass. But a permanent, long standing kind of

(29:04):
roving federal police or military force that's not part of
our domestic life.

Speaker 5 (29:08):
Good morning, Michael. According to you, it was a National
Guard that was deployed for the Rodney King Riot, and
that was not actually correct. It was a United States
Marine from Camp Pendleton, California, because my husband was one
of them that went up there. Have a blessed day.

Speaker 1 (29:24):
Oops, the icy Turn my microphone on? Do what?

Speaker 2 (29:29):
Just turn your mic on only if you want people
to hear you.

Speaker 1 (29:32):
I don't think they want to hear me today. I
don't think that's right.

Speaker 3 (29:36):
They don't. They don't want hear from me today. And
you're absolutely right. It was Camp Pendleton. My mistake. So
let's go back to this whole idea of of deploying
the military, whether it's National Guard of the Marines or
the Air Force, anybody else on domestic soil. The only
reason I claim any expertise in this is that's what

(30:01):
I wanted to do in New Orleans twenty years ago.
I had a problem, even though Rumsfeld and I I
know he's deceased now, but even though Rumsfeld and I
remade friends long after I left DC, his refusal because
he just didn't he did not want us to invoke
the Insurrection Act because he did not want to deploy troops, personnel, equipment,

(30:28):
anything else to New Orleans, and he and I had
a lot of fights over that. You can go read
his own admission that he was delaying me in GQ.
He did a full blown interview in which he admits that,
So I sit on Air Force One with the National

(30:51):
Security Deputy, national Security Advisor, with the Attorney General, and
myself all on the skiff on Air Force one, talking
to the White House Situation Room, which included representatives from
the Department of Justice, from DoD and from unfortunately DHS

(31:11):
at the time, all working through the paperwork to invoke
the Insurrection Act so that we could deploy troops into
New Orleans, so that I could override Donald Rumsfeld because
the Secretary was just his reasoning was, I just don't
want to invoke the Insurrection Act because we don't we

(31:32):
tend not to do that. Well, again, that belies history
when you think about Rodney King, nobody well I shouldn't
say nobody, but that was generally accepted as necessary. So
we get all the way to the point where we've
got everybody both on Air Force One and back in
the White House situation room, agree, these are the documents.

(31:55):
All we got to do now is get the president executed,
and we're all good to go. We go back into
the office into the conference room where Bush has Blanco
and Nagan and Bush says, I'm ready to do this,
but Governor, I don't want to do it if you
object to it. I want you to be all in

(32:17):
on this. We need to do this. Let's get it done.
And she says I need twenty four hours to think
about it, and he says okay, and then everything goes
to feces after that. People don't like for general crime fighting,

(32:38):
I've seen now. It doesn't bother me in the least.
To see National Guard troops on the streets doesn't bother
me because I'm not a criminal. But you can find
thousands of photographs from thousands of news outlets that are
bitching and moaning about these National Guard troops hoops on

(33:01):
federal property, because the District of Columbia is essentially federal,
it's a federal enclave. But yet they complain about it.
Can you imagine the backlash if they go into Chicago
or they go into New York. I just don't think
we have the.

Speaker 1 (33:20):
Kind of.

Speaker 3 (33:22):
Crime that you would have in the Rodney King riots
that you see currently. It's too diffused.