August 5, 2024 • 23 mins
Why Mexico was in the dark about the arrest of top Sinaloa Cartel leaders. California’s plastic ban accidentally created another trash problem. ‘Do They Have a Case’ with Wayne Resnick.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Bill Handle Here.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
It is a Monday morning, August fifth quick reminder Tomorrow Tuesday.
Not only is it Hiroshima Day and Fresh Breathday, but
also the podcast. My podcast drops Tuesdays and Thursdays, brand
new podcasts that I just started, and it drops nine
o'clock right after I finished the show on Tuesday and Thursday.
(00:30):
And if you happen to want to take a listen,
the first to the first two podcasts that I did
is sort of how I got from there to here.
And there are people that have known me for thirty
years here and said, wow, I didn't know that. Really, Bill,
I had no idea that that was part of your story.
(00:50):
So if you're at all interested you matter of fact,
I'm not only maye please?
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Am I bagging here? Am I actually saying? Please? Go
to the podcast?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Yes, you are humiliating, isn't it? I mean? I am
so embarrassed.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
I humbly apologize for being No, I don't anyway, If
you're all interested, it's the Bill Handleshow podcast, Spotify, iHeartRadio,
app Apple, so you can go to any of those platforms. Okay, Now,
last week we did the story. It was pretty exciting.
It was about the arrest of Ismael El Mayo Zambada
(01:34):
and Joaking Guzman Lopez, the son of El Chapo.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Guzman, and these were these two.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
El Chapo is already in jail and he will be
in prison for the rest of his life in the
US at the most max federal prison that we have.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
And now having.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
Been arrested, is Zambada Garcia and Joaquin Guzman. And why
is this such a big deal? Because these are major,
major players in the cartel and there's all kinds And
this is fascinating too because a little bit of history
I'm going to throw at you which you may not know,
and this is kind of it all connects. I went, oh, yeah,
(02:14):
this makes sense. First of all, let's start with the
fact that Mexico knew nothing about this. There's still doubt
as to whether these two cartel leaders were kidnapped or
at least El Myo.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Was kidnapped throwing on an airplane and flowing.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
The US, or as we have heard, Guzband sort of
tricked him into going on this airplane and instead of
going to a small airfield in Mexico to sort of
suss out where a good point of entry would be.
Actually flew across the border into a field right near
El Paso, El Paso, Texas, and the authorities were there
(02:53):
to arrest them anyway, arrested, charged, and now they're awaiting
and they're going to prison for the rest.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Of their lives.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
Well, the government had no federal government of Mexico had
no idea. And let me tell you, it is getting
a lot of grief. And that's the President of Mexico,
Andres Manuel Lopez Abrador. He is getting so much grief
because while he was blindsided by the arrest, the Mexican
(03:23):
authorities say, and they weren't informed about the operation until
these two had been arrested on US soil. Then the
US government tells the Mexican government, so how are things.
We're having a little party next week. We'd love to
see some of your people show up. Oh, by the way,
(03:45):
we just arrested two of your biggest cartel leaders. Hey,
how are things doing. That is a problem in Mexico,
and the Mexican officials still know so little about out
what happened, is that they're wondering how this went down.
Was it a kidnap or was it a sort of
(04:11):
a sting operation. Actually, I was created by Guzman to
get his I guess uncle, his dad's partner. A lot
of people don't know that El Chapo really was a
partnership in terms of running the Sineloa cartel. It wasn't
just El Choppo. It was El Chappo and El Mayo
(04:31):
who was flew under the radar. But in the world
of narco trafficantes, everybody knew that El Mayo was right
up there.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
He just led a very fairly simple life where he
didn't do what Guzman did.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
So we don't know, certainly Mexico, well we do we
as in the US government knows. Of course we're not
getting told what's happening. The Mexican government is just insane.
They are so upset because Lopez Obrador has furiously defended
Mexican sovereignty, has regularly accused US officials of overstepping authority
(05:12):
on Mexican soil.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Because the US government goes in and grabs these people,
and why do they grab these people?
Speaker 3 (05:19):
And why did the United States government not inform Mexico?
Because Mexico is so corrupt that the second that federal
authorities inform any Mexican authority that immediately goes into the
ear of the person who is to be apprehended so
(05:39):
he can skip.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
I mean instantly. It's a direct lie. And the United
States is saying, you know, I.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Know, we're tired of that, and this is years and
years and years.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Of this stuff. We have the proof. The Mexican authorities say, no, no, no,
that's not true. It's sovereignty. Well, it's crap. The Mexican
if you could you.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Know that the former head of security for Mexico, what
was his name? He was basically their level of US
drug enforcement administration, the Mexican version. You know, he's in
prison in the United States. He took millions of dollars
from the cartel to not only look the other way,
(06:21):
but using federal federal army sources, federal police to guard
the cartel as they were.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Bringing drugs in the United States.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
This was the head of their drug enforcement, federal head honcho.
He's in prison now twenty five years in the United States.
This is the kind of corruption.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
All right.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
So I'm gonna go back and I want to finish
this up and talk about some reality and then a
fascinating bit of history I want to share with you,
and that here's the question, the fact that he may
have been kidnapped and brought to the United States. Doesn't
that alone bring up a legal argument. You can't try
(07:03):
me if you have been part of kidnapping me.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
That's against the law.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
I'm going to finish up with the arrest last week
of the two Sineloa traffickers, head of the Cineloa cartel,
and that is the son of El Chapo Guzman and
El Mayo, who were arrested. And then we don't know
whether the arrest took place as a result of a kidnapping,
that is Guzman putting El Mayo on the airplane, or
(07:32):
a sting operation.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
No one knows, and we're not going to know.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
And I'll tell you who's never going to know, the
Mexican authorities, because the United States does not share that
kind of information with Mexico. And Lopez Obadador, the president
is getting a lot of grief.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
How could you let the Americans do this?
Speaker 3 (07:50):
They went on they were part of a kidnapping plot
taking a Mexican national into the United States.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Okay, tell you why they don't do that.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
They don't talk because Mexico is rife with corruption, I
mean beyond anything you can imagine. For example, in twenty twenty,
former Mexican Defense Secretary Salvador Cianfuegos was arrested at La
International on suspicion of drug trafficking. Lopez Obador, who had
(08:23):
not been informed, persuaded. He was so upset he persuaded
the Trump administration to return san Fuegos to Mexico, where
he was immediately freed and received the military decoration.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
The corruption is beyond anything you can imagine.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
Also, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the US Drug Enforcement Agency.
When we talk about how there is now much more cooperation,
that's crap.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Our relationship with Mexico is really at a nager.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
It is not good at all, and a lot of
it has to do with the fact that Mexico is
so corrupt. The Sineloa and other cartels basically own huge
parts of the country where not only are prosecutors and
police officers, but judges. You're talking about cabinet members all
on the take. So here's the question. I want to
(09:12):
share this with you because the argument is, if it
turns out he was kidnapped and his lawyers are immediately
going to say, you can't try us because he was
kidnapped and brought to the United States.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
And you know what the law says about that, too bad.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Due process is about what happens in the courtroom, not
about how you get here. And that became, by the way,
a huge international story when Adolph Eichman was arrested in
Argentina and brought to Israel in nineteen sixty two to
be tried for crimes against humanity.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
And Iichman had two arguments.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Number one, Israel didn't exist when he did those crimes
that he's accused of. Therefore, how can a country try
you for a crime when the country wasn't even there
when you did the crime. Well, that was explained away
by saying a crime against humanity has no statute of
limitations and it doesn't matter who tries it. Any country
(10:18):
anywhere in the world that any time can try a
defendant for a crime against humanity. So that was dismissal
number one. Dismissal number two.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
You kidnap me, You kidnap me and brought me into Israel.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Therefore, your honors talking to the Supreme Court, by the
very nature of a kidnap means you can't try me argument,
and the Supreme Court said, no, we don't care how
you got here. The important thing is you got here,
and we have to give you a fair trial. And
you know where they got that precedence during the US
(10:53):
Civil War. That's where the whole concept of it doesn't
matter how you here, all we have to do is
give you a free trial. We're talking in democratic countries
because of cases that were handed down, and we're talking
about during Abraham Lincoln days.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
When the courts did rule and these were.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Confederates that were kidnapped and brought to the North for
trial and argued, you can't do that, and the court
said at that time, we're going back what one hundred
and eighty years.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
As long as you're.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Here, we don't care how you got here, which is
why bounty hunters kidnap people.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
All the time and they go to trial.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
You skip bail, a bounty hunter picks you up, hauls
you back into court. The judge throws you in jail,
and you can't argue, but I was kidnapped, that's right.
You were too bad your sol That's where it came
from and the argument that they may have. We're talking
about Chapman or El Mayo may Have I was kidnapped.
(11:59):
Even if the United States involved in the kidnapping was
part of it.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
The sting operation, it's still gonna fly.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
By the way, if you ever look at the Eichman trials,
one of the most fascinating, fascinating trials you'll ever ever
experience in your lifetime. Okay, it is time as usual
on a Wednesday for do they have a case with
Wayne and me.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Morning Wayne, and let's get to it. Good morning.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
We have a couple of identity based cases for you.
First up, a group called Parents Defending Education against the
All in Tangi Local School District. This would be in
and around Columbus, Ohio. The school district has a policy
about harassment and other things. They have an anti harassment
(12:46):
section that prohibits discriminatory harassment based on gender identity and
all the other stuff race, religion that you would expect.
This case concerns gender identity, so I'll only mention it.
They also have a separate section on bullying, and that's
basically the same thing. It's harassing somebody multiple times based
on a protected in this case, gender identity. They have
(13:09):
a personal communications device policy which basically says you can't
use your cell phone or similar to harass or disparage
somebody based on the protected status, including gender identity. And finally,
a code of conduct that prohibits discriminatory language and the
use thereof Okay, this group parents defending education is mostly
(13:35):
parents of middle school kids, and they are concerned that
the schools are becoming too woke. That is their basic concern,
and so they go around and challenge policies that they
say are too woke or violate First Amendment. So they
sued this school district and they said, your policy violates
(13:57):
the First Amendment and the school how and they said
it's viewpoint discrimination and the school said, no, it's not.
You can talk about in our school your thoughts on
issues of gender identity, possibly you don't believe there's such
(14:20):
a thing as as being trends or being gender fluid.
You are allowed to kids are allowed to express their ideas.
What this policy forbids is deliberately misgendering another student and
you don't have to call them anything. So your viewpoint's
(14:42):
not being discriminated. Again, So it goes to a federal
judge and he says, yeah, there's no case here, get
out of here. And the parents say, oh, we want
to go to the appeals courts, so they go up
with the sixth Circuit. And this is really the issue.
Is this some kind of viewpoint discrimination or.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Is it not? Wow, and standing was not an issue.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
Yeah, the parents couldn't come up with a kid who
was actually bullied that.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Well, these are the parents who don't care about those kids.
They want their kids to be able to bully, to
say whatever they want, fair enough.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
But no kid was stopped from doing that. I'm assuming,
well it was.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
It's only anyway, so we'll put the standing in a
issue behind us. I find it fascinating that either someone
is bullied or not bullied, and that is it. And
the trick is to define what is bullying and for
a group to argue that if you're accusing me of bullying,
(15:47):
I have a First Amendment right.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Because all I'm saying is giving.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
You my opinion that it's not okay to be gender fluid.
I think the courts basically upheld the school district on
this one. It's a little wonky and I'm trying to
put it into words.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
So let me do this.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
I think the court said no to the parents because
I think the court wanted to tell them no. And
the reason they wanted to tell them no is because
they wanted to tell them no.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Okay, well that's interesting because this was a split decision,
so not all three judges agreed. I mean, you say
it's very wonky. I think it can be boiled down
kind of like this. You can't have a policy that
says you're not allowed to talk about issues of race
relations in the United States, whether or not, for example,
(16:42):
black people are entitled to reparations or not. But you
can't have a policy that says you can't call people
a slur. And that's kind of what the school was
saying with misgendering somebody is different.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
So anyway, so you're right.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Two judges said this is a this is a good policy,
and if you repeatedly misgender somebody, you have to know
you're misgendering them for it to for you to want
to do it, and that means you're trying to upset them. Now,
there was a dissenting judge who said misgendering somebody is
part and parcel of having a belief that there are
(17:20):
only two genders and that they are immutable.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
So it's part of the viewpoint.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
So it is well, that's why this judge was in
the minority. Can I just say one little sidebar too,
that one of the things that the parents argued is
that it's viewpoint discrimination also because wanting to offend somebody
is a viewpoint. Wow, I want to upset you by
saying something terrible to you, And that's that's an that's
(17:51):
a viewpoint that I have.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
That you're now by telling me I can't.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Say things to upset you, you're discriminating against my.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
View first yeah, first Amendment, right, you have a Yeah,
it's kind of crazy. And we'll see how far that
goes because and we're going to see more and more
of that. By the way, just a quick political point
I want to make here is because we have a court,
Supreme Court that on that side of it, I think
would have argued in favor of the parents. I believe
that if it ever hits the Supreme Court. That's my
(18:20):
take on it, all right.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
Number two of the identity politics cases. Cordell, Georgia is
a little city about eleven thousand people, one hundred and
fifty miles south of Atlanta and they were having a
city commission election and a guy named Josh Deriso is
running for the city council and he says publicly part
of his platform is he wants to replace the people
(18:44):
on the city council with people who are the same
race as him. Now is the time I must tell
you that the city is about two thirds black, twenty
five percent white. Josh Deriso is black, So he's saying,
we will get the Caucasians out of the city council,
(19:05):
put in black people. We will fire the white city
manager hire a black city manager. He wins. The day
that they are sworn in, the city council votes to
fire the city manager, Roland McCarthy. Before that vote and
(19:27):
before the election was over, two of the other people
on the city council came up to McCarthy and they said, listen,
just so you know, after the election, you're out of here.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
You're gonna be fired.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
We're gonna put in a black city manager. And that's
exactly what they did, despite the fact that McCarthy was
very well respected. So he sues for racial discrimination. You
fired me because I'm white. And here's what the city
says in their defense. They said, Okay, we can't deny
(20:03):
that Josh Dereso campaigned partly on kicking the white people
off the city council and firing the white city manager
and putting in black people, because everybody knows that's true.
And we can't argue that the three black city council people,
which is the majority, now there's five, we can't deny
they all voted to fire the white city manager and
(20:25):
replace him with a black city manager. However, you can't
infer from that that he was fired, of.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Course, not what I go. Hey, did they even it's
not enough?
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Did they even pretend there was another reason for firing him?
Did he even come up with some semblance of a reason.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
This is the best. This is the bag.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
I mean, it's I feel like the cat's out of
a bag here a little bit. But this is the
best they did. Number One, the guy Joe Deriso didn't
vote in the vote to fire him.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
He didn't vote.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
And the other one of the other black city council
people who had gone up to McCarthy before and said
you're gonna be fired him, We're gonna put in a
black eye. They're saying that doesn't mean he voted to
fire him because he's white, or even that he agreed
with firing him because he's white. He was just relaying information.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
No understand.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
So what you have is maybe one of three maybe
voted to fire him because he's white.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
And now I go back to the original question.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
Did they come up were they able to come up
with any reason other than racial that they fired him
in competence?
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Nothing? No, that's the thing.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Instead of inventing they couldn't because he was doing a
great job. Everybody liked him. Everybody, I mean, the city
is two thirds black. Everybody liked him, and the city
had just renewed his contract one month prior. Instead of
trying to make up a legitimate reason, what they said is, yes,
(22:12):
all this happened, but it's not enough legally to infer
racial discrimination.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Well that's their argument. Yeah, that went far, didn't it.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
All Right, So that one is, well, thank you for
the puffball on that one. The first one was a
little wonky and there were very many nuances to it.
This one not so much. Thank you for that.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
All right, Wayne, we'll catch you next monday.
Speaker 3 (22:32):
All right, we do they have a case again and
so again all right, so we are done guys again,
I'm taking phone calls for a Handle on the law off.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
The air starting in just a moment.
Speaker 3 (22:43):
The number is eight seven seven five two zero eleven
fifty eight seven seven five two zero eleven fifty. Reminder,
the Bill Handle Show podcast is now available on Apple
and Spotify and the iHeartRadio app. So if you want
to take listen, I'm gonna suggest dropping or listening to
the first two episodes because even people have known me
(23:06):
for decades said gee, I didn't know that about you, Bill, really,
and so that's I think that sort of starts things.
So I'm going to suggest that you do. That's the
Bill Handle Show podcast, and we start again all over
tomorrow with Amy and wake up call at five am,
Neil and I. We come aboard at six and of course,
(23:26):
as I said, kno and and never go home and
phone calls eight seven seven five two zero eleven fifty
eight seven seven five.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
To two zero eleven fifty.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
This is KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the
iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
You've been listening to The Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 3 (23:44):
Catch My show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app,
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Bill Handle Here.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
It is a Monday morning, August fifth quick reminder Tomorrow Tuesday.
Not only is it Hiroshima Day and Fresh Breathday, but
also the podcast. My podcast drops Tuesdays and Thursdays, brand
new podcasts that I just started, and it drops nine
o'clock right after I finished the show on Tuesday and Thursday.
(00:30):
And if you happen to want to take a listen,
the first to the first two podcasts that I did
is sort of how I got from there to here.
And there are people that have known me for thirty
years here and said, wow, I didn't know that. Really, Bill,
I had no idea that that was part of your story.
(00:50):
So if you're at all interested you matter of fact,
I'm not only maye please?
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Am I bagging here? Am I actually saying? Please? Go
to the podcast?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Yes, you are humiliating, isn't it? I mean? I am
so embarrassed.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
I humbly apologize for being No, I don't anyway, If
you're all interested, it's the Bill Handleshow podcast, Spotify, iHeartRadio,
app Apple, so you can go to any of those platforms. Okay, Now,
last week we did the story. It was pretty exciting.
It was about the arrest of Ismael El Mayo Zambada
(01:34):
and Joaking Guzman Lopez, the son of El Chapo.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Guzman, and these were these two.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
El Chapo is already in jail and he will be
in prison for the rest of his life in the
US at the most max federal prison that we have.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
And now having.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
Been arrested, is Zambada Garcia and Joaquin Guzman. And why
is this such a big deal? Because these are major,
major players in the cartel and there's all kinds And
this is fascinating too because a little bit of history
I'm going to throw at you which you may not know,
and this is kind of it all connects. I went, oh, yeah,
(02:14):
this makes sense. First of all, let's start with the
fact that Mexico knew nothing about this. There's still doubt
as to whether these two cartel leaders were kidnapped or
at least El Myo.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Was kidnapped throwing on an airplane and flowing.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
The US, or as we have heard, Guzband sort of
tricked him into going on this airplane and instead of
going to a small airfield in Mexico to sort of
suss out where a good point of entry would be.
Actually flew across the border into a field right near
El Paso, El Paso, Texas, and the authorities were there
(02:53):
to arrest them anyway, arrested, charged, and now they're awaiting
and they're going to prison for the rest.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Of their lives.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
Well, the government had no federal government of Mexico had
no idea. And let me tell you, it is getting
a lot of grief. And that's the President of Mexico,
Andres Manuel Lopez Abrador. He is getting so much grief
because while he was blindsided by the arrest, the Mexican
(03:23):
authorities say, and they weren't informed about the operation until
these two had been arrested on US soil. Then the
US government tells the Mexican government, so how are things.
We're having a little party next week. We'd love to
see some of your people show up. Oh, by the way,
(03:45):
we just arrested two of your biggest cartel leaders. Hey,
how are things doing. That is a problem in Mexico,
and the Mexican officials still know so little about out
what happened, is that they're wondering how this went down.
Was it a kidnap or was it a sort of
(04:11):
a sting operation. Actually, I was created by Guzman to
get his I guess uncle, his dad's partner. A lot
of people don't know that El Chapo really was a
partnership in terms of running the Sineloa cartel. It wasn't
just El Choppo. It was El Chappo and El Mayo
(04:31):
who was flew under the radar. But in the world
of narco trafficantes, everybody knew that El Mayo was right
up there.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
He just led a very fairly simple life where he
didn't do what Guzman did.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
So we don't know, certainly Mexico, well we do we
as in the US government knows. Of course we're not
getting told what's happening. The Mexican government is just insane.
They are so upset because Lopez Obrador has furiously defended
Mexican sovereignty, has regularly accused US officials of overstepping authority
(05:12):
on Mexican soil.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Because the US government goes in and grabs these people,
and why do they grab these people?
Speaker 3 (05:19):
And why did the United States government not inform Mexico?
Because Mexico is so corrupt that the second that federal
authorities inform any Mexican authority that immediately goes into the
ear of the person who is to be apprehended so
(05:39):
he can skip.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
I mean instantly. It's a direct lie. And the United
States is saying, you know, I.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Know, we're tired of that, and this is years and
years and years.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Of this stuff. We have the proof. The Mexican authorities say, no, no, no,
that's not true. It's sovereignty. Well, it's crap. The Mexican
if you could you.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Know that the former head of security for Mexico, what
was his name? He was basically their level of US
drug enforcement administration, the Mexican version. You know, he's in
prison in the United States. He took millions of dollars
from the cartel to not only look the other way,
(06:21):
but using federal federal army sources, federal police to guard
the cartel as they were.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Bringing drugs in the United States.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
This was the head of their drug enforcement, federal head honcho.
He's in prison now twenty five years in the United States.
This is the kind of corruption.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
All right.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
So I'm gonna go back and I want to finish
this up and talk about some reality and then a
fascinating bit of history I want to share with you,
and that here's the question, the fact that he may
have been kidnapped and brought to the United States. Doesn't
that alone bring up a legal argument. You can't try
(07:03):
me if you have been part of kidnapping me.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
That's against the law.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
I'm going to finish up with the arrest last week
of the two Sineloa traffickers, head of the Cineloa cartel,
and that is the son of El Chapo Guzman and
El Mayo, who were arrested. And then we don't know
whether the arrest took place as a result of a kidnapping,
that is Guzman putting El Mayo on the airplane, or
(07:32):
a sting operation.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
No one knows, and we're not going to know.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
And I'll tell you who's never going to know, the
Mexican authorities, because the United States does not share that
kind of information with Mexico. And Lopez Obadador, the president
is getting a lot of grief.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
How could you let the Americans do this?
Speaker 3 (07:50):
They went on they were part of a kidnapping plot
taking a Mexican national into the United States.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Okay, tell you why they don't do that.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
They don't talk because Mexico is rife with corruption, I
mean beyond anything you can imagine. For example, in twenty twenty,
former Mexican Defense Secretary Salvador Cianfuegos was arrested at La
International on suspicion of drug trafficking. Lopez Obador, who had
(08:23):
not been informed, persuaded. He was so upset he persuaded
the Trump administration to return san Fuegos to Mexico, where
he was immediately freed and received the military decoration.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
The corruption is beyond anything you can imagine.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
Also, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the US Drug Enforcement Agency.
When we talk about how there is now much more cooperation,
that's crap.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Our relationship with Mexico is really at a nager.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
It is not good at all, and a lot of
it has to do with the fact that Mexico is
so corrupt. The Sineloa and other cartels basically own huge
parts of the country where not only are prosecutors and
police officers, but judges. You're talking about cabinet members all
on the take. So here's the question. I want to
(09:12):
share this with you because the argument is, if it
turns out he was kidnapped and his lawyers are immediately
going to say, you can't try us because he was
kidnapped and brought to the United States.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
And you know what the law says about that, too bad.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Due process is about what happens in the courtroom, not
about how you get here. And that became, by the way,
a huge international story when Adolph Eichman was arrested in
Argentina and brought to Israel in nineteen sixty two to
be tried for crimes against humanity.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
And Iichman had two arguments.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Number one, Israel didn't exist when he did those crimes
that he's accused of. Therefore, how can a country try
you for a crime when the country wasn't even there
when you did the crime. Well, that was explained away
by saying a crime against humanity has no statute of
limitations and it doesn't matter who tries it. Any country
(10:18):
anywhere in the world that any time can try a
defendant for a crime against humanity. So that was dismissal
number one. Dismissal number two.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
You kidnap me, You kidnap me and brought me into Israel.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Therefore, your honors talking to the Supreme Court, by the
very nature of a kidnap means you can't try me argument,
and the Supreme Court said, no, we don't care how
you got here. The important thing is you got here,
and we have to give you a fair trial. And
you know where they got that precedence during the US
(10:53):
Civil War. That's where the whole concept of it doesn't
matter how you here, all we have to do is
give you a free trial. We're talking in democratic countries
because of cases that were handed down, and we're talking
about during Abraham Lincoln days.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
When the courts did rule and these were.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Confederates that were kidnapped and brought to the North for
trial and argued, you can't do that, and the court
said at that time, we're going back what one hundred
and eighty years.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
As long as you're.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Here, we don't care how you got here, which is
why bounty hunters kidnap people.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
All the time and they go to trial.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
You skip bail, a bounty hunter picks you up, hauls
you back into court. The judge throws you in jail,
and you can't argue, but I was kidnapped, that's right.
You were too bad your sol That's where it came
from and the argument that they may have. We're talking
about Chapman or El Mayo may Have I was kidnapped.
(11:59):
Even if the United States involved in the kidnapping was
part of it.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
The sting operation, it's still gonna fly.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
By the way, if you ever look at the Eichman trials,
one of the most fascinating, fascinating trials you'll ever ever
experience in your lifetime. Okay, it is time as usual
on a Wednesday for do they have a case with
Wayne and me.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Morning Wayne, and let's get to it. Good morning.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
We have a couple of identity based cases for you.
First up, a group called Parents Defending Education against the
All in Tangi Local School District. This would be in
and around Columbus, Ohio. The school district has a policy
about harassment and other things. They have an anti harassment
(12:46):
section that prohibits discriminatory harassment based on gender identity and
all the other stuff race, religion that you would expect.
This case concerns gender identity, so I'll only mention it.
They also have a separate section on bullying, and that's
basically the same thing. It's harassing somebody multiple times based
on a protected in this case, gender identity. They have
(13:09):
a personal communications device policy which basically says you can't
use your cell phone or similar to harass or disparage
somebody based on the protected status, including gender identity. And finally,
a code of conduct that prohibits discriminatory language and the
use thereof Okay, this group parents defending education is mostly
(13:35):
parents of middle school kids, and they are concerned that
the schools are becoming too woke. That is their basic concern,
and so they go around and challenge policies that they
say are too woke or violate First Amendment. So they
sued this school district and they said, your policy violates
(13:57):
the First Amendment and the school how and they said
it's viewpoint discrimination and the school said, no, it's not.
You can talk about in our school your thoughts on
issues of gender identity, possibly you don't believe there's such
(14:20):
a thing as as being trends or being gender fluid.
You are allowed to kids are allowed to express their ideas.
What this policy forbids is deliberately misgendering another student and
you don't have to call them anything. So your viewpoint's
(14:42):
not being discriminated. Again, So it goes to a federal
judge and he says, yeah, there's no case here, get
out of here. And the parents say, oh, we want
to go to the appeals courts, so they go up
with the sixth Circuit. And this is really the issue.
Is this some kind of viewpoint discrimination or.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Is it not? Wow, and standing was not an issue.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
Yeah, the parents couldn't come up with a kid who
was actually bullied that.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Well, these are the parents who don't care about those kids.
They want their kids to be able to bully, to
say whatever they want, fair enough.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
But no kid was stopped from doing that. I'm assuming,
well it was.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
It's only anyway, so we'll put the standing in a
issue behind us. I find it fascinating that either someone
is bullied or not bullied, and that is it. And
the trick is to define what is bullying and for
a group to argue that if you're accusing me of bullying,
(15:47):
I have a First Amendment right.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Because all I'm saying is giving.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
You my opinion that it's not okay to be gender fluid.
I think the courts basically upheld the school district on
this one. It's a little wonky and I'm trying to
put it into words.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
So let me do this.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
I think the court said no to the parents because
I think the court wanted to tell them no. And
the reason they wanted to tell them no is because
they wanted to tell them no.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Okay, well that's interesting because this was a split decision,
so not all three judges agreed. I mean, you say
it's very wonky. I think it can be boiled down
kind of like this. You can't have a policy that
says you're not allowed to talk about issues of race
relations in the United States, whether or not, for example,
(16:42):
black people are entitled to reparations or not. But you
can't have a policy that says you can't call people
a slur. And that's kind of what the school was
saying with misgendering somebody is different.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
So anyway, so you're right.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Two judges said this is a this is a good policy,
and if you repeatedly misgender somebody, you have to know
you're misgendering them for it to for you to want
to do it, and that means you're trying to upset them. Now,
there was a dissenting judge who said misgendering somebody is
part and parcel of having a belief that there are
(17:20):
only two genders and that they are immutable.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
So it's part of the viewpoint.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
So it is well, that's why this judge was in
the minority. Can I just say one little sidebar too,
that one of the things that the parents argued is
that it's viewpoint discrimination also because wanting to offend somebody
is a viewpoint. Wow, I want to upset you by
saying something terrible to you, And that's that's an that's
(17:51):
a viewpoint that I have.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
That you're now by telling me I can't.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Say things to upset you, you're discriminating against my.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
View first yeah, first Amendment, right, you have a Yeah,
it's kind of crazy. And we'll see how far that
goes because and we're going to see more and more
of that. By the way, just a quick political point
I want to make here is because we have a court,
Supreme Court that on that side of it, I think
would have argued in favor of the parents. I believe
that if it ever hits the Supreme Court. That's my
(18:20):
take on it, all right.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
Number two of the identity politics cases. Cordell, Georgia is
a little city about eleven thousand people, one hundred and
fifty miles south of Atlanta and they were having a
city commission election and a guy named Josh Deriso is
running for the city council and he says publicly part
of his platform is he wants to replace the people
(18:44):
on the city council with people who are the same
race as him. Now is the time I must tell
you that the city is about two thirds black, twenty
five percent white. Josh Deriso is black, So he's saying,
we will get the Caucasians out of the city council,
(19:05):
put in black people. We will fire the white city
manager hire a black city manager. He wins. The day
that they are sworn in, the city council votes to
fire the city manager, Roland McCarthy. Before that vote and
(19:27):
before the election was over, two of the other people
on the city council came up to McCarthy and they said, listen,
just so you know, after the election, you're out of here.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
You're gonna be fired.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
We're gonna put in a black city manager. And that's
exactly what they did, despite the fact that McCarthy was
very well respected. So he sues for racial discrimination. You
fired me because I'm white. And here's what the city
says in their defense. They said, Okay, we can't deny
(20:03):
that Josh Dereso campaigned partly on kicking the white people
off the city council and firing the white city manager
and putting in black people, because everybody knows that's true.
And we can't argue that the three black city council people,
which is the majority, now there's five, we can't deny
they all voted to fire the white city manager and
(20:25):
replace him with a black city manager. However, you can't
infer from that that he was fired, of.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Course, not what I go. Hey, did they even it's
not enough?
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Did they even pretend there was another reason for firing him?
Did he even come up with some semblance of a reason.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
This is the best. This is the bag.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
I mean, it's I feel like the cat's out of
a bag here a little bit. But this is the
best they did. Number One, the guy Joe Deriso didn't
vote in the vote to fire him.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
He didn't vote.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
And the other one of the other black city council
people who had gone up to McCarthy before and said
you're gonna be fired him, We're gonna put in a
black eye. They're saying that doesn't mean he voted to
fire him because he's white, or even that he agreed
with firing him because he's white. He was just relaying information.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
No understand.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
So what you have is maybe one of three maybe
voted to fire him because he's white.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
And now I go back to the original question.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
Did they come up were they able to come up
with any reason other than racial that they fired him
in competence?
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Nothing? No, that's the thing.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Instead of inventing they couldn't because he was doing a
great job. Everybody liked him. Everybody, I mean, the city
is two thirds black. Everybody liked him, and the city
had just renewed his contract one month prior. Instead of
trying to make up a legitimate reason, what they said is, yes,
(22:12):
all this happened, but it's not enough legally to infer
racial discrimination.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Well that's their argument. Yeah, that went far, didn't it.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
All Right, So that one is, well, thank you for
the puffball on that one. The first one was a
little wonky and there were very many nuances to it.
This one not so much. Thank you for that.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
All right, Wayne, we'll catch you next monday.
Speaker 3 (22:32):
All right, we do they have a case again and
so again all right, so we are done guys again,
I'm taking phone calls for a Handle on the law off.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
The air starting in just a moment.
Speaker 3 (22:43):
The number is eight seven seven five two zero eleven
fifty eight seven seven five two zero eleven fifty. Reminder,
the Bill Handle Show podcast is now available on Apple
and Spotify and the iHeartRadio app. So if you want
to take listen, I'm gonna suggest dropping or listening to
the first two episodes because even people have known me
(23:06):
for decades said gee, I didn't know that about you, Bill, really,
and so that's I think that sort of starts things.
So I'm going to suggest that you do. That's the
Bill Handle Show podcast, and we start again all over
tomorrow with Amy and wake up call at five am,
Neil and I. We come aboard at six and of course,
(23:26):
as I said, kno and and never go home and
phone calls eight seven seven five two zero eleven fifty
eight seven seven five.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
To two zero eleven fifty.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
This is KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the
iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
You've been listening to The Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 3 (23:44):
Catch My show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app,
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.