Sagar Enjeti (1:30)

We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you@breaking points.com. Good morning everybody. Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have? Crystal?

Krystal Ball (1:43)

Indeed we do. We continue to be on Iran War Watch the latest indications and comments from the President. We will detail everything that we know at this point. We also have yesterday evening a new ICE shooting in Minneapolis. Very different details coming out and we're going to have a civil rights lawyer join us to talk about that. And also take us through the shooting of Renee Goode, what the government is doing, and her concerns about the violations of civil liberties not just of immigrants, but of the entire American population. The FBI executed a search warrant on the home of a Washington Post reporter, raising a lot of First Amendment concerns. There we have a Ford worker who got flipped off by the President of the United States for calling him a quote, pedophile protector. So that's an interesting one. We're gonna pick up that segment we had to drop the other day about gambling, the way it's taken over everything, including now the Golden Glob. And Pablo Torre is going to join us to talk about a new sports reporting debate that Sager has been paying particularly close attention to.

Sagar Enjeti (2:42)

I had to shoehorn this one in there. For NFL fans. You'll know about this NFL reporter scandal where a reporter praised a coach at a press conference, kicking off a whole lot of discourse. I thought Pablo, as a real investigative journalist could weigh in and enlighten us, perhaps, you know, get to some of the. This is the journalism scandal, which it should be the Washington Post, one that hits every American household, but probably the most likely one that everybody actually has.

Krystal Ball (3:06)

We also just love to have an excuse to have Pablo on the show.

Sagar Enjeti (3:08)

Exactly right. Guy's the goat. That guy is the goat. Thank you to everybody who has been subscribing to our YouTube channel. As we said, we have noticed a significant number of you who watch our videos are not subscribed to the channel. Just so it costs you nothing, just hit subscribe there on the button. You can also join us as a Premium Member, BreakingPoints.com and if you're listening to this on a podcast, please share this episode with a friend or any episode. Your personal favorite, the Giannis episode is its own thing on our podcast platform. You can just send it to a friend if you found that interesting. Relatively evergreen, and I think it really will help broaden their horizons and perhaps your horizons. But let's go ahead and start with Iran. Some significant developments currently happening. The President at various times saying that we're locked and loaded. We're gonna go in red line if they hang anybody. Now he's saying they may not be hanging anyone. There was some breaking news yesterday late in the Oval Office, where the president appeared to say that Iran had backed away from any of its pledges to execute prisoners. Here's what he had to say.

Donald Trump (4:04)

We have been notified and pretty strongly, but we'll find out what that all means. But we were told that the killing in Iran is stopping and it's stopped and stopping. And there's no plan for executions or an execution or executions. So I've been told that on good authority we'll find out about it. I'm sure if happens, we'll all be very upset, including you will be very upset. But that's just gotten to me some information that the killing has stopped that the executions have stopped. They're not going to have an execution which a lot of people were talking about for the last couple of days. Today was going to be the day of execution over the last few days. And they said people were shooting at them with guns and they were shooting back. And you know, it's one of those things. But they told me that there'll be no executions. And so I hope that's true.

Janine Yunus (5:04)

Does this mean military action is now.

Sagar Enjeti (5:06)

Off the table against Iran?

Donald Trump (5:08)

Well, we're going to watch it and see what the process is. But we were given a very good, very good statement by people that are aware of what's going on when they say no executions. Everyone is talking about a lot of executions were taking place today. We were just told no executions. I hope that's true.

Sagar Enjeti (5:27)

Trump at this moment appearing to try and back himself out of the so called red line or corner that he painted himself into. In fact, this morning truthing out Fox News, Iranian protester would no longer be sentenced to death after President Trump's warning. Likewise, others, this is good news. Hopefully it will continue. But I do of course want to flag that up until literally the day of Midnight Hammer attacks in June, they did note that diplomacy was continuing. And in fact, we were scheduled to meet with with the Iranians the very day after the Midnight Hammer attack that took place. And all of this could be faint. Let's put the next one, please, up on the screen just to show everybody the pieces are all still in place. So our headline, Trump says Iran is stopping its killing as the US Moves troops. Multiple personnel were evacuated from the base in Doha, Qatar, which previously had been attacked by Iran after the Midnight Hammer attack. Crystal. There's also a new carrier that is on its way from the South China Sea to the Middle East CENTCOM region. In fact, though, that's one of the things which in my opinion probably had more to do with this than anything is that the entire US Navy armada is in the Caribbean or Venezuela. There were only three guided missile destroyers actually in the region. The amount of firepower that was in the region for June is all now in Venezuela. In fact, it drew away from that. In fact, I think that this is a prime example of why being the world's policeman is such a bad idea. Beyond just that, resources are finite. Now you have to take US Carrier group out of the South China Sea where, oh, I don't know, 40%, 50% of the world's GDP is, and move it over to Iran, just potentially to make sure that again, we're gonna get to this in a bit. There's all this propaganda about protests, et cetera. Who knows?

Krystal Ball (7:08)

We all know President Trump cares deeply about the safety and well being of protesters.

Sagar Enjeti (7:12)

That's why it's all just so preposterous. As if we care so much about the fate of these protesters. Like, you and I individually on a moral level can be like, oh, it's horrible, right? But like what we're, you know, going around and literally trying to enforce and bring down the regime because it was killing protesters. I'm sure that we'll, you know, of course, uphold the same standards. Wasn't there's literally beheadings in Saudi Arabia. Well, I mean, all across the world.

Krystal Ball (7:38)

Our sanctions are immiserating the population. Like, if we care about the population so much, guess what? Lift the sanctions. That would make a profound difference in their lives. Ryan tweeted this based on his reporting that I wanted to put out there too. He said, inside the White House, there is effectively nobody arguing against strikes on Iran, with Rubio arguing Trump has to do it or he loses credibility. I'm told that means the only opposition is coming from outsiders like Bannon and Tucker and allies who are opposed like Saudi, Qatar and other regional partners. That's a heavy imbalance suggesting strikes remain likely. So that is kind of the, you know, the internal state of play. There was that report that we covered earlier in the week that supposedly JD Vance was arguing internally against Iran strikes. Ryan's reporting would seem to rebut that. And we were a bit skeptical at the time. And J.D. vance came out himself and said, this is not true. Marco Rubio and I are aligned and we're presenting a range of options and, you know, to the president who ultimately gets, who knows.

Sagar Enjeti (8:35)

I tried to follow up on Ryan's report. It's difficult to get a view inside of the White House. I mean, this is what I was originally saying at the time. Even if you were originally arguing against, well, if you do and then they leak about it, then what is that gonna make you look like? It'll make you look like you're breaking with the President. I have no idea. Fully haven't able to get a full picture, but the broad message of you can't back away from your so called red line, which is ridiculous because the red line, it was completely, it wasn't nearly like the so called Syrian red line. And that's by the way, as we all know now, you know, there's still a lot of questions around that entire incident. But at the current moment with Iran. In my opinion, this is kind of where it all looks like the reason why they wanted to do it is. The theory was, is that these protests actually were a genuine, legitimate threat to bringing down the entire regime over the last couple of days that has now effectively been quelled. At least that's some of the open source reports that have come out from Iran. They've militarized the streets of Tehran. There's the US military or the Iranian military force everywhere. And they've made it known like, we're.

Janine Yunus (9:38)

Going to kill you.

Sagar Enjeti (9:39)

And a lot of people were killed. We don't know the exact number. That's important to note. But the prospect of them simply just being knocked over by some easy strike no longer has the calculus. So at that point then the Iranians apparently have made it known again, this is all very fuzzy, that if we do strike them, and it's an intent for a genuine decapitation, regime change strike, they will go all out. They will actually do what they can do now. You know, they don't have unlimited capacity, but as we all Learned during the 12 Day War, which never really ended as it is currently right now, we lost 25% of our THAAD interceptors just protecting Israel, just Israel in 12 days. So a prolonged conflict with no carrier, with a very finite number of resources. We got all these weapons in Ukraine, we got popping off down in Venezuela. Who knows what's going on there? Given that picture, and this is largely what's come out now, given the fact that a single strike alone, which is always a fantasy in my opinion, a single strike, we're just gonna topple the regime. That's not how it works. Like, yeah, you could kill the Ayatollah. There's still the irgc, there's all these independent power centers. They have a monopoly largely on the use force. I mean, and even if the regime did fall, they're like, oh, democracy will remarkably flourish. Look at what happened in Libya. What's the modal outcome? It will become an Israeli rump state where the Israelis come in by their own admission. And Trump even admitted this on the camera, he's like, well, the Iranians told me they were shooting back at them and that's why they had to kill them. And what did Ryan and Emily reveal yesterday? The Mossad is openly bragging about how they armed many of the protesters. Not to say all the protesters are Mossad, but just to say that they are openly bragging about that as well.

Krystal Ball (11:20)

They're deeply invested in the outcome here.

Sagar Enjeti (11:22)

Of course, right and it would be stupid to deny it, but I will. At the current moment, it seems to me like Trump is trying to either buy himself sometime, all of it could change at any time. That's why nobody should take this as. Nobody should take this as gospel that it's over. I really believe, though, that once the assets are back in place, it's gonna be a live question. And these neocons, I mean, just yesterday, Lindsey Graham met with, you know, the Pahlavi Failson here in Washington, and they both have Mickey Ron, great again, hats on. Like, the chatter is endless. And I also think, and this is really what I wanted to highlight, there's no organized resistance to this. Go open your Twitter feed, open the podcast feed. Yeah, there is no organized. Last time around, we had the Ted Cruz interview, there was a real debate, right? At least I think so. Charlie Kirk was alive. He was going after. He went to the White House, reportedly begged Trump not to do the midnight hammer strike, got yelled at, reportedly. You know, largely from what I've been told, that's all true. But this time there's nothing. And this one makes way less sense than that one did. There was a strategic rationale. Oh, we're gonna go in, we're gonna take out the Iran, the nuclear facilities, and that'll be it. One and done.

Krystal Ball (12:34)

Every time the propaganda gets more and more lazy.

Sagar Enjeti (12:37)

Yes.

Krystal Ball (12:37)

I mean, it really does. Like, I mean, the propaganda for the Iran strikes was pretty piss poor. I mean, we saw right through it. But at least there was, like a thing there. You know, the nukes, we gotta deal with that. Okay. You know, and there were people that were convinced by it, and there was at least some debate to be had. Now it's like, over the protesters, like, what are we doing? I mean, initially the idea was, what Trump had said is if they go back to trying to rebuild their nuclear program, yes. Then we give Israel the green light and, you know, we may lead the charge. Right. Okay. Still, again, I object to all of it on first principles, but at least that's like, theoretically, a justification we care about the protesters is just so ridiculous, especially given what we see happening in Minneapolis. I mean, I just can't believe literally anyone buys this. And so to Ryan's tweet, basically, the argument that's being made internally to Trump is like, hey, your ego can't withstand you not doing this now that you said that you were going to, so you're gonna look weak. And I think that that is very compelling to Trump. He doesn't wanna look weak. I Mean, that's basically like his entire worldview is projecting strength and never looking weak and never backing down. So on the one hand, you could read the comments yesterday as his attempt to get out of that box and say, look, I flexed my muscles and Iran backed down, and they're not gonna hang these protesters. So I won once again. So, yeah, great, take that victory and walk away. But I think it's also entirely possible that, as Sager was indicating, he's just distracting, deflecting and buying some time to move assets into the region and prepare for a strike, you know, on his terms. We can put a 4 up on the screen, which has some CNN reporting that is in that direction. Trump feels obligated to take action on Iran as the administration weighs risks of retaliation. Mr. President, you are not obligated to take action on Iran. Please do not take. Please. Taco. We all support a taco here. Okay, Let me put a five up on the screen from Dr. Parsi. And I thought this was important, too, just to get to, again, the. Like, what are we even doing here? He says that, and he has his own sources, by the way, inside the administration. Much indicates now that a US Israeli war with Iran is imminent. I see three scenarios. One, a limited strike. Excuse me, mainly symbolic, so that Trump can claim victory and then move to talks. Two, regime decapitation by attacking most, but not all political and IRGC leaders, but with the aim of having someone else from within the system take over afterwards in order to avoid instability. Three, a combination of two, but with massive bombardment of Iran's military capabilities afterward to ensure that Iran is set back decades and cannot pose any challenge to Israel for the foreseeable future. Think Syria after Assad fell. Of these three, I find option one, that would be the limited strike, very unlikely. The argument against option two is that the Israelis would not accept it. So two would be the decapitation strike, but leave the rest of the regime in place effectively. Netanyahu has been very, very silent publicly, which he probably would not have been if option two was the one favored by Trump. The argument against option three is that it would likely require far more US Assets in the region. We do not see that. At least not quite yet. Of course, plans rarely survive contact with reality. Plenty of reasons why things won't play out as the US And Israel may have intended, including, of course, how Iran responds and retaliates. So that is how he is seeing the landscape and the possibilities at this point. But, you know, he seems pretty convinced that there's likely to be Some sort of. Some sort of attack of one of those three flavors.

Sagar Enjeti (16:26)

Yeah, it's all very possible. My current hope is that they are realizing resources are finite. And two, the regime is still in power, and not only in power, but seems much better poised than it was previously. Let's shift now to the whole propaganda battle and how easy it is here in the United States to just wishcast and believe so much of what comes into our feeds and then just organically be like, yep, there's a, you know, a true revolution that's happening right now.

DJ Hester Prynne (16:56)

Let's go to when you feel uncomfortable. What do you put on Biggie? You put on Biggie when you feel uncomfortable.

Janine Yunus (17:02)

Cause I want to get confident.

DJ Hester Prynne (17:03)

This is DJ Hester Prynne's Music Is Therapy, a new podcast from me, a DJ and licensed therapist that asks one simple question. Who do you want to be? And what's the song that can take you there? Music changes what you feel, and what you feel changes what you do. Right that moment where a song shifts something inside you, that's where transformation starts. This year, I'm talking to experts across every area of life, like personal finance icon Gene Chatky, New York Times journalist David Gellis, relationship legend Dan Savage, human connection teacher Mark Groves, and the man who shaped my ear more than anyone, Questlove. They'll bring the strategies. I'll pair them with the right records and will teach you how to use the music to make change stick. This isn't just a podcast. It's unconventional therapy for your entire year. Listen to DJ Hester Prinz. Music is Therapy on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Sagar Enjeti (17:58)

A6. Let's put it up here on the screen. So this is a good example. This is from CBS News, currently run by Barry Weiss and Larry or, yeah, Larry Ellison's son, David. They say over 12,000 feared dead after Iran protests, as a video shows bodies lined up at the morgue. But here's the question. Where is that number coming from? Quote, with phone lines opening back up two sources, including one inside Iran. So one not in Iran, told CBS News that at least 12,000 and possibly as many as 20,000 had been killed. That is an extraordinary number. That would be one of the, you know, horrific massacres of protesters in the modern era. But again, they do not have any confirmation. They do not give you any description other than activist groups working to compile a full death toll. Based on reports from medical, officials believe the toll was 12 and possibly as high as 20. That is not A responsible number say feared dead. Which activist group? What's their agenda? I mean these are all legitimate questions, ones that you have to often work through in a war zone. In the early days of October 7th, we would say here, Gaza Health Ministry and as the Israelis would always say, run by Hamas. However, we could look in the past and say, well, they appear to have had a track record. And so you should couch and you should understand that. Right? Yeah, there's no couching. There's not even this time around. They don't even put a name to the activist group. And if you read they even admit that one of the sources is not inside of Iran, you have no idea. And then also, what did we learn during the whole Ted Cruz thing? What is the population of Iran? Right. Does anyone remember? So tens of millions. And then they're saying, oh maybe 1 million people took to the streets. I mean 1 million people took to the streets here for the Pussy hat protest in 2017. Would that give China or Mexico a right to intervene and say that crushing that would be, you know, or that that alone would be a total view of the entire population of this gigantic. Of course it would be preposterous. Right. And so just think in terms of fractions. Yes, it could be the largest threat to the regime or protest movement that's happened. We've had many protests here with millions of people who have taken to our straits throughout our just modern history of the last 60 to 70 years. And even then you could say that sometimes those were minority movements and there weren't even necessarily popular of the entire base. Yes, it turns out we have a large heterogeneous country just like Iran, with multi ethnic groups all often with their competing in different power centers, that a single protest is not necessarily reflective of the entire population. And this is the issue is that now with Twitter and with their complete like lack of, their lack of scruples for a lot of these propaganda accounts, like let's put this one up here for example. This was posted yesterday, it was amplified all across. It got tens, hundreds of thousands of views. And this person says huge protest tonight. Some estimates 1 million people are out. Trump and Reza Pahlavi's actions push the people to protest. They posted that yesterday and said it came out on January 13th. It was actually took place on January 8th. Now those five days in the interim are pretty important cuz that's when the arm crackdown happened. And now all of the reports seeming to come out of the country say actually there are not large scale people that are out in the streets. Actually, many of the protests have been quelled. Actually, you know, shops and other things are opening. No one's denying that there's been an authoritarian crackdown by all accounts. But the point is, you don't know aa. That's another one. To put this up here, as Michael Tracy flagged, the death tolls that are being splashed all over are sourced to an outfit in Fairfax, Virginia, Northern Virginia, where I live, called Human Rights Activists in Iran, that is overwhelmingly funded by the US Government. What's their methodology? Is it credible? Who cares? Just pump the big numbers out. This is a huge problem here in Washington and for all you know, there's so many right wingers who were obviously upset during Doge usaid. All correct, in my opinion. Right. Telling us about how you've got all these groups and National Endowment for Democracy, they're not trustworthy, CIA cutouts and all that. Here you go. Perfect example. And yet no scruples. And this is where the media in particular is so to blame, because take Gaza, for example. They'll couch everything. Israel says this, they take it as fact. Gaza says this, oh, we gotta quadruple verify. We can't run with that one. Here again, activist groups, who, what? Who's funding it? What was your methodology? Nothing. And it just gets pumped out into the mainstream.

Krystal Ball (22:37)

It also accepts this preposterous framing that this is about protests, that Trump cares about protests, safety of protesters, et cetera. I mean, the sad reality is, and it's deeply, deeply unfair to the Iranian people, that as long as we and Israel have our claws in that country, no, they're not going to be able to have true democracy. I mean, you're either going to have a, you know, repress oppressive Islamist regime of what they have now, or you're gonna have a failed state a la Syria or Lebanon or Libya. We've seen how that plays out. Horrible. Immiserating for the population, or you're gonna have some puppet dictator who's doing the bidding of the West. It's nothing but horrific options on the table. And that is a sad reality. As long as we continue to try to control Iran, we continue to want to do whatever Israel wants to improve their power standing in. And so even just to. I mean, I feel for the legitimate aspirations of the protesters, I genuinely do. But, yeah, when you're putting out pieces that are unverified, trying to manipulate the genuine, like, goodwill and sentiment of Americans who want to see people be free and want to see us as trying to help people have their genuine wishes for Self determination be fulfilled. You're manipulating those emotions and you're not telling people the truth about what this is actually all about.

Sagar Enjeti (23:58)

Yeah. Cause what if the legitimate aspirations of their people is to not be an Israeli or American rump state? What then? Oh, that's. No, can't have that. Yeah, that's the issue.

Krystal Ball (24:08)

And you got a lot of. Similar to Israel. So you got a lot of people in the diaspora who aren't there.

Sagar Enjeti (24:13)

I'm glad you said that.

Krystal Ball (24:13)

Who don't have skin in the game. I mean, I saw this lady on Piers Morgan who was threatening to, like, dismember and his Iranian professor. She threatened to have Jake killed too. Like, just wild. So she said that there had been. She told Glenn Greenwald there'd been more people killed in Iran in these past couple of weeks than in all of the genocide in Gaza. Like, just utterly insane stuff. But so you've got, you know, you've got those types out there too, that aren't doing themselves any favors.

Sagar Enjeti (24:37)

We need to have a much bigger conversation. There's too much focus on dual loyalty just when it comes to Israel and to Palestine, and not nearly enough whenever it comes to Cuba, Venezuela and Iran. I mean, I'm sure you've seen these, you know, tweets and all these as well. They're like, Iranians are telling you what they want. Listen to them instead of, of like, first of all, no, even if that's what you want, this is our country. I don't have to listen to shit that you have to say. And second, if you come over here and your only sole focus is using our country as a tool of your domestic politics, then fuck you, you should get outta here. And then, of course, though none of that is ever couched in any. Like, none of that is ever couched as illegitimate or, you know, or betraying the national interest. And it's like, like, I don't know why we can't have more of a more nuanced conversation, like you just said. Yeah, we can feel horrible. I mean, do I sometimes see people gunned down in the streets? Of course not. There are bad things that happen all over the world. That doesn't mean necessarily we should do anything about it. Now put Glenn Greenwald's tweet, please, up here on the screen just to show you all where the polling is. And this is at least, you know, at least the public is with us. If the elites aren't independence, 80 to 11. 80% Democrats, 79% Republicans, 53 think that the US should not get involved if protesters in Iran are killed while demonstrating against the Iranian government. Because I think everybody has seen this story before. It's just like Libya. This is Libya logic. Oh, it's just airstrikes. No fly zone. Don't worry about it. It'll be fine. Everything will work out completely fine. We have seen enough of how that this all works out. And in this case, remember, the explicit justification is not about nuclear sites or anything. It genuinely is about regime change or regime punishment to weaken it and to overthrow the government and to say, you know, I even saw, I think it's John Mearsheimer made this point to declare that the protesters are acting on behalf of the United States. Probably the worst possible thing you could say for the protest movement that is there in Iran. Absolutely. They don't want to be controlled by Mossad and by the United States and the CIA. Look at their own history of their democratic aspirations and what worked out for them. Final thing, just because I, I personally had to get this in here. Put a 10 up here. I love my friend Jason, Jason Willock over at the Washington Post. Shout out. You guys should read his columns. He's an excellent legal journalist. He'll go through and he'll just read all of these indictments. And he flagged this for me. This isn't the new Trump doj. So the doj, in their argument about why they had to capture Maduro said that a part of it was humanitarian intervention. And so they cite crystal Human Rights Watch reports in there. And they say that we had to remove Maduro because illegal mining was displacing indigenous communities.

Krystal Ball (27:15)

So another deep passion for Donald Trump.

Sagar Enjeti (27:18)

Woke is back. All right, this is dark Woke, folks. We have to remove Maduro and institute his dictatorship as long as they sell us oil. Because illegal mining in Venezuela was displacing indigenous communities and even child labor, the hoarding, the horror of it all. And of course that's what it's all about. So this is giving the game away. It also shows you the extent to which this so called international humanitarian concern and all that is a pure state's play by the great powers, the European Union, all of these other people. I mean, last word, because our guest is standing by. You know, you see the European Union, Germany and Ukraine supporting regime change in Iran. And they don't think for a second, hey, wait, hold on a second. You can just declare from Germany that the Iranian government is illegitimate. And then at the same time you're gonna say that Putin, if he says that about Ukraine, that that's also illegitimate. You can't have it both ways, man. You don't believe in sovereignty. That's why it's like these. All of the rhetoric that these people have, it's hollow and it's meaningless. So that's the last thing. And now we have our guest standing by Janine. Let's get to it.

Krystal Ball (28:31)

So we are very fortunate to be joined this morning by a civil liberties attorney, Janine Yunus. She is the national legal director of the adc. She's also co host of the Previously Prohibited podcast and she joins us now. Great to see you.

Sagar Enjeti (28:43)

Good to see you.

Janine Yunus (28:43)

Thanks so much for having me.

Krystal Ball (28:44)

Yeah, of course. So Sagar and I had a very lengthy debate slash discussion about the killing of Renee Good. But the one thing that both of us lack is any sort of law background. So that's where you come into play. But I actually wanted to start with the this latest shooting that unfolded last night in Minneapolis, of which the details are still incredibly hazy. So let's start with putting up B9 on the screen. This is the government's narrative of what happened after we got initial local reports that there had been another shooting involving federal law enforcement officers. Everyone's saying ICE. We don't actually know if it was specifically ICE, but in any case, what the DHS put out is the this at 6:50pm Central Time, federal law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted traffic stop in Minneapolis of an illegal alien from Venezuela who was released into the country by Joe Biden in 2022. In an attempt to evade arrest. The subject fled the scene in his vehicle and crashed into a parked car. The subject then fled on foot. The law enforcement officer caught up to the subject on foot and attempted to apprehend him when the subject began to resist and violently assault the officer. While the subject and law enforcement were in a struggle on the two subjects came out of a nearby apartment and also attacked the law enforcement officer with a snow shovel and broom handle. As the officer was being ambushed and attacked by the two individuals, the original subject got loose and began striking the officer with a shovel or broomstick. Fearing for his life and safety as he was being ambushed by three individuals, the officer fired a defensive shot to defend his life. The initial subject was hit in the leg. All three subjects ran back into the apartment and barricaded themselves inside. The attacked officer and subject are both in the hospital. Both attackers are in custody. Custody. This attack on another brave member of law enforcement took place while Minnesota's top leaders, Governor Walls and Mayor Fryer, actively encouraging and organized resistance To ICE and federal law enforcement officers, hateful rhetoric must end, Blah, blah, blah. Okay, so that is the initial story that was put out. There was some sort of an ambush. Law enforcement officer of some stripe is attacked, fearing for his life, fires the shot, hits this guy in the leg. Now there is a video that has come out on Instagram that it's all in Spanish, so I'll just go ahead and put it up on the screen and I'll give you guys the summary of what is said here. That appears to be taken inside of the home where the man who was shot in the leg is now inside this home. And they're calling 91 1. They're saying, please, we have small children in the house. What if they shoot into the house? They go on to say that, you know, he was trying to flee them and he was shot in the leg inside the house. So that is the story that they are telling the 911 dispatchers. They're begging for someone to come and help, police to come and help. Very fearful about the safety of their children or their child there in the house. So that's what we've got so far. Eyewitnesses also described some sort of a foot chase as well. And so, as you know, as someone who's looked at this video now, and I know you've been taking a look at the situation this morning, what do you see here and what do you make of the government's narrative and how it's holding up so far?

Janine Yunus (31:54)

Well, it doesn't seem to be consistent with the video, that's for sure. I mean, first of all, there's a difference between shooting someone who's trying to flee and shooting someone who's attacking you in self defense. Those are two very different things. And then whether or not he was shot when he was inside the apartment or before that are obviously conflicting. So, I mean, it is clearly unfolding and I imagine we'll learn more and some evidence will come out, forensic evidence especially, that could corroborate one or the other story. But the government's definitely not consistent with the video.

Sagar Enjeti (32:25)

So let's talk about that because that's part of the reason I wanted to have you on. Again, I'm not a lawyer. I don't really understand the exact ins and outs, in particular, like, let's say self defense. But zooming out, I thought it'd be important. Can you set out some of your background working on civil liberties, let's say, over the last five years, just for the audience before we get into it?

Janine Yunus (32:43)

Sure. So I've actually worked in civil liberties law for about five years, exactly that timeframe, mostly constitutional law. I worked on a lot of COVID related cases. So challenging government vaccine mandate, COVID vaccine mandates, censorship around Covid topics, especially on social media and government involvement in that. Right now I'm doing a lot of work on on censorship related to the Palestine Israel issue, which is a major topic at this time. Prior to that, I was actually a defense attorney. So my background is relevant.

Sagar Enjeti (33:16)

Good. So I think very useful, I think for all of us important to lay out right now. Let's get to some of these. There's been a lot of discussion here and political concern over papers being asked for papers. And so one of the things, let's put that video, let's say up here on the screen, you can watch some of this is gonna roll. So in particular number of these instances you see these mass ICE officers asking for people's identification. This is, you know, obviously caused a lot of political concern over entering the US Papers please era. What do you make of this from a civil liberties perspective? What does it fit with existing case law? Is this a violation? And where the US Supreme Court is this overreach, et cetera. What do you mean? A number of these videos have been coming out for the last year or so.

Janine Yunus (34:01)

So painting with a broad brush. I mean, generally speaking, officers aren't really supposed to go up to you and ask you for identification or whether you're in the country illegally unless they have some reason to believe you specifically are. Like just looking at someone and saying I think they're illegal is not a good basis. But it's hard to delineate. Exactly. So it's not a huge issue for them to walk up to somebody on the street and say, hey, can you show me some identification? But you have every right to say no. And they can't use that against you. So whether or not you're a citizen or whether or not you're here illegally, you can walk away. And they're not supposed to do anything. And if they do do something that's.

Krystal Ball (34:37)

Against the law, does ICE have jurisdiction to like make traffic stops? And just because that's another thing. We see a lot of interactions with moving vehicles. What are they allowed to do in their capacity as immigration enforcer?

Janine Yunus (34:54)

Yeah, so they are not supposed to be making traffic stops generally, although there are some people who are claiming otherwise. Their jurisdiction is really to enforce immigration law, you know, patrol the borders and make sure people are not here illegally and that kind of thing. State it's really state and local laws and state and local cops who are supposed to be enforcing traffic law. Now, what happened with Renee Goode was that they said that she was obstructing their enforcement attempts, their attempts to enforce immigration law. And there is some law saying that that would be a basis for, you know, law enforcement doing something. Yeah, I don't think it rises to the level of an obstruction of their operation. Like, her car was just a little bit, you know, in the street. That's not like she's. I think what we're.

Sagar Enjeti (35:41)

What does obstruction look like? Generally?

Janine Yunus (35:43)

Something really like if you had a lot of people who were, like, creating a barrier or something so the officers couldn't do their. Whatever they were doing. I don't really think they should be going up to people's houses and knocking an. Asking if they're here legally. I think it's probably legal.

Sagar Enjeti (35:57)

Well, what's the legality on that?

Janine Yunus (35:58)

I think it's legal and you have every right to shut the door, not open it, or they can go up to your house. I don't think it's very good practice in terms of, like, creating trust with the public. And it's just kind of, you know, just not great.

Krystal Ball (36:12)

Yeah. We've also seen reports that they're going up to people and asking them about the ethnicity of their neighbors to try to give them targets to go after as well, with which I don't know if. I mean, you can tell me if you think that that is legal or not, but it certainly, I think, would be something that a lot of people would find pretty objectionable. Racial profiling.

Janine Yunus (36:31)

Yeah. I think that would violate some civil rights law.

Krystal Ball (36:34)

But I do wanna get your view on Renee Goode's killing from start to finish, because I think in the very viral post you put out on Twitter, you raised a variety of questions from beginning to end, including, why are there officers trying to pull her out of her car to begin with? You know, what is the justification for that? Why is this officer putting himself in front of the vehicle? So go ahead and just give us your view after I know you watched all the videos and all the angles and all the things of what unfolded and what the law says about what was done.

Janine Yunus (37:08)

So there are two major elements, I would say. The first is whether they had the right to arrest her in the first place.

Krystal Ball (37:13)

Place.

Janine Yunus (37:14)

And I would say no, although I admit that's debatable. And that would probably be an issue that'sif this ever goes to trial, which is probably pretty unlikely. That's probably something that will be litigated whether he had the authority to arrest and stop her. Because again, the question is whether she was not whether she was committing a traffic violation. Because again, he didn't have the authority, those officers didn't have the authority to police that. But whether what she was doing rose to the level of obstruction of a lawful enforcement operation. And again, I maintain probably not because it wasn't like she was stopping them from really doing the overall vehicles were.

Krystal Ball (37:47)

Able to get by her where she was parked in the car.

Sagar Enjeti (37:50)

Is this like, well litigated case law, like in terms of obstruction for what that looks like?

Janine Yunus (37:54)

I think so. I mean, I'm not. I wouldn't call myself an expert on exactly that, but I think there's. Yeah, so for that reason I don't think they were entitled to try to arrest her and get her out of the car. Other people might differ. And anyway, even if they were entitled to, I think that they behave pretty badly. Like that is not how you de. Escalate a situation.

Sagar Enjeti (38:18)

Sort of does behavior factor in legally in a situation like this?

Janine Yunus (38:23)

So in terms of the second part, I think it. Yes, it can. So whether or not they were entitled to. He was entitled to shoot her in self defense. The standard for that is in order to succeed on a justification. Justification self defense is the same thing. Theory at trial, you have to show the jury that you were in reasonable fear of death or sorry, let me phrase it differently, you reasonably believed that you were at risk of death or serious physical injury from the person that you stopped and that you needed to use that force in order to stop them. So it has both a subjective and objective component. Like you have to have the belief that you're about to be killed or very seriously harmed. And you also that belief has to be reasonable. So if you know you're just completely exaggerating the nature of the threat, you might not be able to succeed. Okay, so one thing that's taken into consideration is whether you sort of played a role in getting to the point where someone was using the deadly physical force. So his conduct prior to what happened could factor in. Now, I think from watching the video many, many times that he was not in harm's way when he fired the shots. It looks to me as though his feet were clearly planted on the left. And so when he fired the shots, the vehicle was driving away and it was clear, I mean, it was very clear to me that her intent was to drive away, not to run him over, even if he did get hit.

Sagar Enjeti (39:52)

So that Was my next question. We could put the CBS report. Let's put that one up here on the screen. Let's couch that it is cbs, these are official, who are saying this anonymously. They're saying the ICE agent who shot Renee Goode suffered internal bleeding. Now, again, not confirmed. No medical records released. It's CBS News. Let's put all of that out there. However, if that were to be true. And again, you know, watching the video, it is difficult to say. There's the New York Times video where they say that the feet are on the other side of the exact moment. I know that the first bullet went through the front of the vehicle. The video.

Janine Yunus (40:25)

The front was on the side.

Sagar Enjeti (40:27)

The front on the side. Right. So the first. The video where. Where he is filming, which was leaked to some news outlet. He drops his phone. It's not clear whether he was hit or not. Does it matter, actually, in this case.

Janine Yunus (40:39)

Whether he was hit?

Sagar Enjeti (40:40)

Yes.

Janine Yunus (40:41)

Not really, no. Because really the only question is whether he was afraid for his life when he fired the shots or serious physical injury. And in fact, the fact that he was hit. If I were the prosecutor, I would actually use that to say it shows he was angry. And the fact he said fucking bitch. I don't know if I can say it's way fucking bitch afterwards, again, is sort of corroborative evidence that he was.

Krystal Ball (41:03)

Angry, not scared, not afraid.

Janine Yunus (41:06)

But. So even if he could get away with a justification defense for the. Even if he could convince a jury for the first shot, you have to show that you were justified for each use of deadly physical force. So you can't just, you know, once you've done it the first time, if that threat no longer exists, you have to stop. And I don't see how he could possibly convince anybody with a second and third shot.

Sagar Enjeti (41:27)

One of the things. And again, I want to be clear, like, I think this is a horrible situation. What I had, I hadn't watched, unfortunately, many of these, like, cop videos and where somebody tries to run somebody over, even if allegedly. That is in almost every case, chaotic, crazy, multiple shots fired. Even if somebody's vehicle's away, usually the cop gets away with it, largely because they're like. Well, we fire in a short burst. That's like, consistent with our training. How does that work in the case law?

Janine Yunus (41:51)

I don't. It doesn't really. People have been saying that. But if anything, the fact he's an officer means he should be more. You know, maybe a civilian would be able to get away with a justification defense in that situation when an officer wouldn't say, you know what? I was so scared, I just started firing and I couldn't stop. But an officer is supposed to be trained not to do exactly that, to use, you know, very precise force necessary to stop threats. But so. And then I also wanted to address the CBS thing, which is, frankly, first of all, when I saw that, I was like, well, I don't trust CBS.

Krystal Ball (42:24)

Anymore, nor shit or anybody else. Yes.

Sagar Enjeti (42:28)

If they. Look, if they want to make that claim, they got to release it to the public.

Janine Yunus (42:30)

Yeah, exactly.

Sagar Enjeti (42:30)

Or it's going to be relevant at trial, if there is a trial or an indictment, grand jury, et cetera.

Janine Yunus (42:34)

Yeah, but again, the fact that he was injured does not, you know, does not justify the use of deadly physical force if he was injured.

Krystal Ball (42:43)

The Vice President of the United States says this officer has, quote, absolute immunity in the conduct of his job. Is that accurate from a legal perspective?

Janine Yunus (42:53)

And I thought Vance went to law school.

Sagar Enjeti (42:56)

He was barred, too.

Janine Yunus (42:58)

No, there's no doctrine that says police officers or any law enforcement officers have immunity. They can just do whatever they want. The standard is they have to show that what they did was necessary and proper to effectuate their duties. So it's kind of a circular standard. Like you would have to show the court that it was necessary and proper. And then that's going to get into the justification offense. So it's all going to be sort of intertwined if this ever goes to trial. I would say it's probably unlikely to go to trial because. Because of the dynamic between the state and the federal data.

Krystal Ball (43:32)

Can you talk a little bit more about that? And just for the audience. So you guys know, originally this was a joint federal and state investigation. Then the feds iced out the state and said, we're taking it over entirely. And now the reporting that has come out indicates that they have decided they are not going. There were resignations actually in the Civil Liberties Department that would have been investigated, investigating this officer's conduct because they decided not to investigate him at all and instead are investigating Renee Goode and her wife. And so you've had a series of resignations over that. So they're not interested, obviously, in prosecuting this guy. Governor Walz and Mayor Jacob Fry have said that they're going to attempt an investigation. So talk about the difficulties that they face and why you don't think that there will ever be a presentation to a grand jury, let alone a full trial.

Janine Yunus (44:27)

Yeah, I mean, as for your first point, too, this is the problem with the fact it Got so political is, you know, and no one will believe any investigation that the federal government does. But that aside, so because he's a federal officer, he can have the case removed to federal court that it still would be on state charges. So it'd basically be like a state trial in federal court. It's kind of weird, but it would be a more favorable venue for him. So another issue, as I understand it, is that the feds are not really cooperating with the state, and they have. The feds have the evidence that you would need in order to conduct a proper investigation. I don't know if the state will be able to.

Sagar Enjeti (45:09)

That was my question. Like, is the video not enough? You know, the video that clearly was leaked by either the officer or ice, who. I don't know exactly who leaked it. But considering everything that you have, like, what else would they need necessarily?

Janine Yunus (45:19)

Well, the fact that people are debating so much, what the video shows, I think shows it's not enough. Okay. I mean, there were eyewitnesses, so you would. If at a trial, you would want all the evidence. So all the videos and eyewitnesses and, you know, videos are 2D. We don't have necessarily the kind of. You don't have the ability to make the same level of observation as an eyewitness. So I would want to hear from eyewitnesses. We haven't really yet. Well, from what I understand, they have said that it was very clear that she was driving away and that the officer wasn't in danger. It would be nice to hear from some of those people, you know, more. More extensively about what they saw. But. So I don't think the video is enough, and the state would need to be able to get access to the witnesses and various. Like the forensic evidence. One question, for instance, that I would imagine would come up is which shot killed her if. Or was it more than one? Because, for example, if the first shot didn't kill her, but he was justified, a jury finds he was justified in firing that, but the second and third did and he wasn't justified there. You know, that would actually create a different outcome. So it's complicated.

Sagar Enjeti (46:27)

Got it.

Krystal Ball (46:30)

Since he could have it removed to federal court, but it would still be state charges. Would Trump be able to pardon him since he can do federal pardons, but. But not state pardons?

Janine Yunus (46:43)

I think so. I'm pretty sure. I don't want to say 100%. That's a very unusual case. I think he probably. I don't know if he would pardon him if he was convicted in a federal court.

Krystal Ball (46:54)

Of course he would. Absolutely he would. And then the other question I had, this was something that our colleague Ryan actually floated was there's no statute of limitations on murder.

Janine Yunus (47:03)

Yeah.

Krystal Ball (47:04)

So if you end up with a Democratic administration in the future, is it possible that they pick up this investigation and prosecute him down the line, assuming that he doesn't get a preemptive pardon from the President of the United States, which I also think is a possibility.

Janine Yunus (47:18)

Yeah. But it's harder to get convictions as time goes on because people's memories fade. You know, it's easier to create doubt about what people. That's why prosecutors like to get cases to trial more quickly. An eyewitness five years later is not as compelling as an eyewitness five months later. Yeah.

Sagar Enjeti (47:33)

Yeah.

Krystal Ball (47:33)

Well, let me ask you, as you know, I mean, this is. Obviously has a legal aspect to it, but is bigger picture. Your son says an American who's thinking about these things, the fact that we all watched this unfold, some, I think I saw 84% of people who were polled said that they saw this video. And a majority think he was unjustified. And there's obviously a lot of public upset over what has happened here. If we all watch, then there's what you have to call a federal government cover up.

Janine Yunus (48:05)

Yeah.

Krystal Ball (48:05)

No attempt to even investigate. You immediately had Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller, J.D. vance, the President of the United States, calling her a domestic terror, calling Renee Goode a domestic terrorist. And there is zero accountability for this guy. Like, not even an attempt, not even an investigation, Nothing. Like, what does that do to our justice system? What does that do to people's sense of faith and trust that there's any sort of possible accountability with these, you know, masked agents of the state being deployed into various American cities?

Janine Yunus (48:41)

Well, it eviscerates any sense of trust and any trust that the populace has in the federal government. And, you know, I think what happened here was that people formed their opinions very quickly based on how they felt about ICE and how they felt about what ICE's enforcement program. So the people who liked what ICE was doing assumed that the officer was justified, and the people who didn't assume that he wasn't. And I think, I mean, it's a huge problem that as you mentioned, high up federal officials like Kristi Noem and J.D. vance were saying immediately, within minutes, I think at least less than an hour, that she was a domestic terrorist. I mean, this is completely crazy. And I don't think any reasonable person can look at that video and think she was a domestic terrorist she made. At most, she may have, you know, clipped him as she tried to get away. But it's just a crazy framing and I think completely depleted public trust in the federal government's ability to handle this and handle its enforcement operations going forward.

Krystal Ball (49:38)

Yeah.

Sagar Enjeti (49:39)

You worked a lot on civil liberties law. I was very. You know, the domestic terrorist thing was ridiculous. Totally agree. Whenever it comes to these types of stops more. And like what you are watching, what is your general outlook as somebody who works somebody here so much on Covid?

Janine Yunus (49:56)

I mean, it's really creating kind of a police state. So even if some of it is legal, some of the questioning and stuff, I just don't think it's a very good, very good policy. This is not how you want the government to relate to the people.

Krystal Ball (50:07)

Yeah, we can put B5 up on the screen because I think it's important to emphasize that even if you are supportive of a restricted immigration policy and, you know, you want a large deportation program, you know, there are expansions of the police state here that are obviously impacting everyone in America, citizen and non. Secretary Kristi Noem announced this. She says drones represent the new frontier of American air superiority. Under President Trump, we're entering a new era to defend our air superiority, to protect our borders and the interior of the United States States. With the creation of the DHS program, Executive Office for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, and Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems, President Trump continues his historic legacy in developing American dominance. This will help us continue to secure the border, cripple the cartels, protect our infrastructure, and keep Americans safe as they attend festivities. So announcing, you know, now an expansion of the use of drones here domestically on US Soil. We see all the agents, including the guy who shot Renee Goode, are filming all the time. Time. There appears to be some pretty sophisticated facial recognition and tracking software that they're using to surveil anyone they encounter, not just people they suspect of being undocumented immigrants, it seems like. And by the way, ICE's budget, this is the largest law enforcement agency in history. So to your point about the expansion of the police state, I mean, it seems like anyone, regardless, regardless of citizen, non immigration status, et cetera, this is truly a threat on everybody's civil liberties.

Janine Yunus (51:44)

Absolutely. I mean, yeah, and I think this stuff will probably have to be worked out through the courts since it's kind of new, but I think there are probably Fourth Amendment, you know, search issues that could be raised. I mean, the government can't just surveil people without Warrants and stuff like that. But because it's new technology, relatively new technology, it hasn't been sorted out in.

Sagar Enjeti (52:03)

The courts, like with the drones and general facial recognition software.

Janine Yunus (52:08)

Yeah.

Sagar Enjeti (52:08)

But we've seen an erosion of that now over the last 20 years. And it all seems to stand. I mean, you know, every time tsa, they don't even check your boarding pass anymore.

Janine Yunus (52:15)

Yeah, I know, I know.

Krystal Ball (52:18)

How much have you looked into this NSPM7 memo that, you know, seeks to really expand the definition of domestic terrorists? And I think it's quite relevant here with, you know, the. All the top government officials saying Renee Goode is a domestic terrorist. And obviously, on its face, we all look at that and go, that's ridiculous. But I think by their own definitions, because obviously the definition of terrorism is actually very subjective and very political, they are really seeking to define anyone who is oppositional to this government as effectively being a domestic terrorist. So I think when they say that, I don't think they're lying. I think in their mind, based on their definition, they genuinely seek Renee Goode, her wife, any other protesters who are out there who are against what ICE is doing in their communities. I think they genuinely see them as domestic terrorists. And that does open up, thanks to the war on terror, it does open up a lot of state government capabilities for surveillance and aggressive action against them.

Janine Yunus (53:20)

Yeah. So I'm not familiar with the memo, but I can speak more generally to the issue. I mean, that's. I think that's a strategy that's being used and is very, very dangerous. And we also saw it last year with the arrests of people like Mahmoud Khalil and Ramaz who had just, you know, participated in pro Palestine protests. Well, Khalil and then Ramay Zaazturk had just written an op ed or signed onto an op ed, and they were basically called terrorists. So this is like a real significant expansion of the use of the term. And what it does is it just is used to label people and then the public, a lot of the public will get on board with those people having no rights at all and being imprisoned or taken out of the country or whatever.

Sagar Enjeti (53:58)

Yes. So that's the last thing I would like to end on. You were saying you did a lot of work on the Palestinian censorship issue. I know there's more recent case surrounding Bayt are an organization in New York. I think you worked on that.

Janine Yunus (54:08)

No, I didn't work on it. I commented on it a lot.

Sagar Enjeti (54:11)

Why don't you tell us? The audience is definitely.

Krystal Ball (54:12)

You were passionate about it as we are, too. So. Yeah.

Janine Yunus (54:16)

About the Bayt. Our situation.

Sagar Enjeti (54:17)

Yeah.

Janine Yunus (54:17)

So Baytar is a. I call that. I don't. Jewish supremacist people get offended by that term. But they are.

Krystal Ball (54:23)

I mean, I think that's just an accurate. Of what their ideology is.

Janine Yunus (54:26)

Yeah. And they openly embrace violence against Palestinians, Muslims and Jews who are anti Zionist or don't agree with their tactics. They actually threaten me. That's one reason I have a personal stake. And other people I know. So they have been getting away. They apparently according. Well, I'll back up. Law enforcement has been pretty unresponsive. I've made complaints. Other people I know have made complaints. And with, you know, nothing. Like, I was directly threatened with violence and harassed. Relentless. Not free speech. Something really different. So they apparently reached a settlement the other day with the New York Attorney General. And the findings there describe some of the things they've done, including participating in a stabbing at a protest in Brooklyn. Yeah. Encouraging their members to bring weapons to protests. Encouraging their members to beat people up. Taking credit for beatings at the protests. I mean, if this was a Muslim group doing this, if their identities were reversed, can you imagine what would happen? And like, DOJ doesn't care @.

Krystal Ball (55:31)

All.

Janine Yunus (55:31)

Wow. This. And the settlement is completely toothless. It just instructs them not to do those things. So not to violate the law, which they're already obliged not to violate the law. And that it imposes a $50,000 fine that's suspended, so they'll probably never pay.

Krystal Ball (55:45)

It. So this. And this came from the Attorney General of New York. Letitia James is the one who push this forward. My understanding, they've effectively had to disband in New York, which I think is the place where they were most.

Janine Yunus (55:55)

Active. I don't think they actually have to disband. I read the settlement. I don't see that. I know that drop site reported on it that way. I don't see. They're just not supposed to do their illegal activities, which there are. You're not supposed to do illegal activities. So I don't know that they've had to really change anything. And they're already mocking her. They say they've just moved their headquarters to Delaware, so they're making a mockery of the whole.

Sagar Enjeti (56:17)

Thing. Wow.

Janine Yunus (56:18)

Okay. All.

Sagar Enjeti (56:19)

Right. Well, less optimistic than I had originally.

Janine Yunus (56:21)

Thought. Well, it is a public shaming, so there's.

Krystal Ball (56:24)

That. We'll take what we.

Janine Yunus (56:25)

Can. Yeah, I like public.

Sagar Enjeti (56:27)

Shaming. I'm very pro public shaming. Thank you, Janine. I appreciate your analysis very.

Krystal Ball (56:30)

Much. Yeah. Thank you. Great to have.

Janine Yunus (56:32)

You. Oh, thank.

Krystal Ball (56:32)

You. This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed.