News Reporter/Host (2:28)

So if that is something that's important to you, Please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows unedited ad, free and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Sagar (2:39)

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 Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. It's going to be Ryan and I. We are unfortunately detained at home, Ryan, because both of us are buried under several inches of snow. But virtual pound, people do live for the pound. It's even these horrific times, we do need to find some levity. And so Ryan and I, unfortunately, the vast majority of this show is going to have to be dedicated to this horrific shooting out of Minnesota. I'm sure many of you saw it. By the way, shout out to you, Ryan Dropsite News for reporting that new angle of the video that you brought to all of our viewers, which makes it unambiguous, the killing of this man, Alex Peretti, completely unjustly. And that's what we're going to be spending the vast majority of our time on. So Ryan and I are first going to go over everything that we know, not only about the shooting, the administration, the lies that they've told about brandishing a weapon, many of the things that have fallen apart in the subsequent comments from the CBP director, from multiple administration officials. They are. We're then going to be joined by Janine Eunice. She's the civil liberties lawyer who we had on previously to break down the Renee Good shooting. This time, Janine is going to join us and talk about how the Trump administration is now unironically arguing that if you bring a gun. Gun to a protest, which is the right of all of us as Americans, specifically also state law, you know, in Minnesota, that you are liable apparently to be killed.

Ryan (4:13)

Right.

Sagar (4:14)

And this is from our FBI director and from multiple other senior administration officials. It's unbelievable. And Janine will help break some of that down for us. We're also going to ask her about that administrative warrant story. Crystal briefly was able to touch on it on Thursday, but we're going to break it down fully with Janine again. She's very well versed on the case law. We are then going to be joined by Glenn Greenwald, great friend of the show. Glenn is going to talk about this new tactic, ICE videos coming out of them saying that there is a database being kept on protesters and on Americans. So Glenn's going to break down the diminishing state, not only just civil liberties, but the creation of an effective surveillance state. And then, Ryan, you're going to help us break down a government shutdown that appears to be looming. This killing appears to have precipitated Almost a certain government shutdown. It is a landmark moment, I think, for the Democratic Party, for Chuck Schumer, the more interesting things that are happening are really not, you know, with the progressive left who've been calling for stuff like this, but to see Senator Cortez Masso, Senator Chuck Schumer and others, this talk of impeaching Kirsty Noem and things are really starting to heat up here in Washington. This is a major, major political scandal. Finally, we're going to talk about backlash whenever it comes to this story. Just various, you know, different Trump era supporters and others who are speaking out again after the shooting. Not just the shooting itself, which I think we're, again, we want to spend a decent amount of amount, but the administration's response, that's the most important part of this entire thing. And then the very last story which is not relevant to the shooting is going to be about China. We have to cover this. It is by far one of the most consequential pieces of news outside of this, you know, from here in the United States. The top general, basically the equivalent, I guess, of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has now effectively, like the Vice President.

Ryan (5:58)

Yeah, right, yeah.

Sagar (5:59)

Combined with the Vice President, I mean, an enormously consequential figure in China has been accused of selling nuclear secrets to the United States. There are potential, potential rumors of a coup. There are all kinds of questions that are being thrown around here. I mean, this is unbelievably important. Xi Jinping, the biggest purge of the Chinese military, you know, basically from the history of the ccp. It's, it's absolutely crazy some of the accusations that are going around. Before we get started. Thank you to everybody who has been supporting us and Ryan, I, I want to give you a special shout out and you know, for the, that video that you were able to break to our audience. And I just want to say thank you to everyone who supports our show and Ryan's show. Just so people know, that video was completely demonetized and it just gives you a demonstration of, you know, and, and I'm really not trying to make this about us, but this is where independent journalism itself is so important and why we rely so heavily on our subscribers and drop site does as well. So breakingpoints.com please, because I can guarantee you that this entire show is probably going to be demonetized as a result because we have to talk about the news and horrific stuff and it literally business question and our ability to survive. So thank you everybody who has been.

Ryan (7:10)

Supporting just, just to be extra clear of what that means. The people, even though you can get this show for free, and even though you can get dropsite news reporting for free, because we don't keep it behind a paywall, the people who voluntarily pay for it mean that we make our decisions based on what is relevant, like what people need to hear, not based on the ad revenue that we're gonna get. Because we know that if we cover things like that, we're not gonna make ad revenue.

Sagar (7:38)

That's right.

Ryan (7:38)

But we don't care because we're allowed to do the news because you guys pay us, like, every month or every year, depending on how you put it together. So that's what makes it possible. And put. Getting that video out changed the entire understanding of what happened. Because up until then, you only had the footage once the melee started. And you had Stephen Miller out there saying that he had. He approached them, right, trying to do a massacre, and you had DHS saying he was trying to do a massacre. Then you get this footage from the other perspective that drops. I posted. And it's like, oh, no, he was helping a woman off the ice. That's why. Now let's talk about it. Now that we all have the facts. Now let's talk about it.

Sagar (8:16)

That is one of the most important videos ever, ever published in a situation like this. And again, the timeliness, your ability to bring it to our audience to drop side, it changed absolutely everything. So, again, I do want to thank you specifically. Appreciate that the entire team that you have over there. All right, guys, let's go ahead and get started. Okay, We've. We've teed some of this up. I do. At this point, I'm assuming the vast majority of Americans have seen this video, according to some more recent polling. I do think that the single most relevant part. Mac, if we can go and queue this up, if we're going to slow down the video. What you're all watching here is a slow mo effectively, of the disarming of Alex Peretti as he is on the ground. All right, so let's go ahead and blow that up so people can watch. What you're all seeing here is that while there are about seven ICE agent or Border Patrol agents that are on top of Alex is that you can watch one of these agents actually reach into his waistband. It's unclear if there's a holster there or not. Remove the weapon, and then immediately afterwards, there are shots fired. And in fact, one of the more shocking elements is not just a video, Ryan, that you reported. Guys, let's go and play. The next one as well is you can hear these agents frantically shouting, where's the gun? And this is very relevant. So I'm going to be quiet so that you can all hear the audio here. Specifically. Mac, let's roll it. All right, let's come out of that. So you guys can also hear clearly these agents are shouting, where's the gun? They had no idea where the gun is. There are multiple theories, Ryan, as to how something like this could happen. The predominant theory from some gun enthusiasts is that it's a potential accidental or negligent discharge from the weapon after the disarming. But what it does prove conclusively is that the weapon was not on his person at the time that he was killed. And I think most importantly as well, is that it was removed from him. His hands were clear. There was an iPhone in one hand and the other hand was free. There is absolutely unambiguously, no question that this in law enforcement parlance is bad. Shoot. And I think for us, I think the most important element of this is that it is literally not disputable that he was armed at the time that he was killed. There is a term for that, I think that we. We all know. And, you know, in a normal system.

Ryan (10:50)

At the very unarmed.

Sagar (10:51)

Yeah, sorry, an unarmed man is killed, uh, in a normal system, uh, you know, you would see something very different. And I do think that's why, you know, at this point, even just analyzing the shooting that's been the last 48 hours, that many people have spent some time on, Ryan, you know, with the disarming, etc. That is, again, it's not even disputed at this point by the government. What is most relevant. What is most relevant to discussion today is not the fact that he was disarmed and that he was killed, but is the immediate response from this, which have massive implications for our rights as American citizens. And so we do want to put this tear sheet up here. Guys, can we just. If we can, of Alex Preddy? Alex, he was. His parents put out a statement. They quote, his life was just starting. One of his mentors said he was a nurse at. Nurse at a VA facility, and he was participating in these protests, which is his right as an American citizen. More importantly, he was exercising his Second Amendment right. He was licensed to not only to be able to own a gun, not you don't need a license or gun, but to conceal, carry his weapon on his person, again, which is his right under Minnesota state law and a right that many of us have depending on the state that we live in. And immediately afterwards, Ryan, the border patrol chief took to the airwaves to say that he wanted to, quote, inflict maximum damage and brand him as a domestic terrorist. So guys, let's go ahead and queue up this video just so you can all see the immediate response. There are multiple claims here which are very important, which end up falling apart later. This was again in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Let's take a listen. Also had 2 loaded magazines and no accessible ID. This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement. Massacre law enforcement. The border Patrol chief is claiming that if us as Americans carry a weapon, again, as is our right, that we have, have two magazines. I mean, these people are gun control liberals at this point, Ryan. They're like, you know, every semi automatic, dangerous weapon with a high capacity magazine. This is how, you know, the most liberal gun control activists will speak in the wake of Uvalde or something else. Except in this case it is again from somebody who did not fire his weapon, did not brandish his weapon. That's, that's another important thing because we're going to come back to brandish, and I apologize for monopolizing this so far, but I am so absolutely furious about this situation. Brandish is a specific term. It's actually a crime to brandish a weapon at law enforcement. That in no way is what was happening here. And the way that the administration immediately came out afterwards to accuse of brandishment, of massacre, of domestic terrorism. It is, it is not just about the facts. It is about the fact that this is by far, by far the, the most I have ever seen our second Amendment rights, even our First Amendment rights at this point, because the two are deeply trampled on by the United States government. Go ahead, Ryan.

Ryan (14:16)

Yeah, and we also have the right, or we for a long time have believed that we have the right to feel like we have a responsive self government. And I want to go back to the point you made about the potential negligent or accidental accidental discharge. I've seen arguments for that. I've seen arguments against it. Either way, it does not justify the shooting.

Sagar (14:36)

It doesn't matter. Yeah, it doesn't matter.

Ryan (14:38)

Right. But it's an important detail to find out previously. We would trust the FBI to obtain that gun and to do a forensic analysis of it, do a forensic analysis of the agent in Gray's glove to see if there's any residue on it, and then actually just tell the public, yes, there was an accidental discharge. No, there was not an accidental discharge. And from left to center to right, people would be like, okay, the FBI's forensic lab is serious. Like this is what they tell us. This is now what we understand to be the case about whether or not there was that accidental discharge. Still completely unjustified. Even if that happens, it's still unjustified homicide. Still, still a bad shoot. But we're in a place where I don't think anybody even remotely expects that the FBI or DHS are going to even do that, are going to ask that agent for his glove, are going to check, I hope, I hope I'm wrong.

Sagar (15:41)

Gotten residue tests.

Ryan (15:43)

Yeah. But when you have the FBI director going on air, basically clearing him for what he did, you have Bovino going on saying that the victim was actually trying to massacre officers. You have Nome then going on and word for word saying what Bovino said. And you have officials from the administration going on cable news saying the exact same thing. You have Stephen Miller going after every Democrat or reporter who reports on it saying a man approached officers with a 9 millimeter trying to massacre them. And this is your response to it. Shame on you. Like that's not an administration that anybody trusts to do an investigation even, even just to find, you know, minor details about it. But yes, you're like, and so that is a, that is a breaking of the social contract. Last night you started, you had half a dozen or a dozen people outside the hotel where they thought that ICE was staying, kind of smashing up cars and smashing the window. Which if there's no, if there's no sense that they're ever going to hold anybody accountable for this, a lot of the public is going to step back and be like, well I don't support this, I'm not going to participate in it, but I get it.

Sponsor Announcer (17:03)

Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On public, you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any ideas into an investable index. With AI, it all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year. You can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like EFTs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors llc SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not investment recommendation or advice. Complete Disclosures available at public.comdisclosures Pro Drivers.

Lenovo Announcer (18:13)

Live for race day, but for small business owners every day race day. That's why going pro with Lenovo Pro matters one on one advice IT solutions and customized hardware powered by Intel Core Ultra processors. Keep your business on the right track. Business goes pro with Lenovo Pro. Sign up for free@lenovo.com Pro Lenovo Lenovo.

Commercial Announcer (18:42)

Now I'd like to introduce you to Meaningful Beauty, the famed skincare brand created by iconic supermodel Cindy Crawford. It's her secret to absolutely gorgeous skin. Meaningful Beauty makes powerful and effective skin care simple and it's loved by millions of women. It's formulated for all ages and all skin tones and types and it's designed to work as a complete skin care system, leaving your skin feeling soft, smooth and nourished. I recommend starting with Cindy's full regimen which contains all five of her best selling products including the Amazing Youth Activating Melon Serum. This next generation serum has the power of melon leaf stem cell technology. It's melon leaf stem cells encapsulated for freshness and released onto the skin to support a visible reduction in the appearance of wrinkles. With thousands of glowing five star reviews, why not give it a try? Subscribe today and you can get the Amazing Meaningful Beauty system for just $49.95. That includes our introductory five piece system, free gifts, free shipping and a 60 day money back guarantee. All that available available@meaningful beauty.com.

Sagar (19:44)

Right? I mean that's the thing Ron. I, I have spoken at length about liberal protest norms and liberal activism and I, you know, incensed about that church, you know, the storming and all of that. And, and I think that all, I mean I, I maintain all of that. And, and one of the criticisms of that is no, we don't violate the social contract is that we deserve or but an important part of that, that is that the, the authority, and in this case the ultimate authority, the supreme authority, the United States government, the federal government of the United States in the way that they have conducted themselves after this it it that also leads to an insane amount of chaos and, and, and that Is why, right? I, I mean I, I barely even have words for how angry I am about this situation. Can we put, you know, Mr. Bevino, by the way, you know, backtracking completely from his original claims. Mac, let' some of that up here, please. Let's just take a listen. All those facts, things like how many shots were fired, where were the weapons located. All those facts are going to come out in the investigation. I wasn't there wrestling that assaulted subject that was assaulting border patrol agents. I wasn't there wrestling him myself. So I'm not going to speculate. I'm going to wait for that investigation to come. Don't interrupt me. I'm going to wait till that investigation comes out out until I make a decision there. During this operation, an individual approached U. S. Border Patrol agents with a 9 millimeter semi automatic handgun. The agents attempted to disarm the individual, but he violently resisted. That's he didn't approach them with a gun. He had it holstered. And as the video that you showed very clearly showed, he was. Look, I mean, let's not sugarcoat it either. Yeah, he was there to protest. Okay, that's what apparently. Yes, he was there to protest, okay, that's his right, that he's an American citizen and at some point somebody gets spray sprayed, pepper sprayed. He was trying to step in. He did resist. Okay, fine, you can resist arrest. You shouldn't in my opinion. But okay, fine. It's not a death sentence. It's only a death sentence if you pull out a gun, you shoot, you point it at an office. That is not what happened happened.

Glenn Greenwald (22:00)

Period.

Sagar (22:00)

End of story. And the DHS secretary, Kirsten OEM again specifically in the moments after the shooting, accused him of brandishing a weapon. Guys, let's go ahead and play that, please. That is our next one. These are all very important for the public record to show the immediate way that there were claimants also. Yeah, doing this in the middle of a disastrous snowstorm where, you know, Ryan, you and I are all again, you know, when you're talking about the government, we're all looking for like, like decent information, you know, what do we do exactly? We have like life threatening conditions on our roads and this is the idiot that we have in charge. Let's go and take a listen.

News Reporter/Host (22:35)

Attempt to do bodily harm and other convictions as well. This individual went and impeded their law enforcement operations, attacked those officers, had a weapon on him and multiple dozens of rounds of ammunition. Wishing to inflict harm on these officers, coming brandishing like that and impeding their work that they were doing.

Sagar (22:55)

Again, brandish is a term that means something very specific whenever it comes to law enforcement. In no way, in no way does that rise to this at all. You know, two year point here about evidence. Let's put the terror sheet, please, the Axios tear sheet number 14 here on our rundown about evidence. There is now something that's been moving through the court system. A judge has, quote, blocked feds from destroying evidence in the Minnesota shooting. There was a lot of confusion immediately after the shooting. So according to the Minneapolis pd, they immediately tried to secure the scene. They said that they were blocked by the feds. The feds actually retreated very quickly after this because of the growing number of protests. Minnesota PD also actually apparently was not able to secure the scenes because there's an insane amount of protesters. So again, look, I will. I'm not even going to talk about liberal protester today. It's not even appropriate because at this point. Sorry. Yeah, go ahead.

Ryan (23:49)

No, on and on. The point on resisting arrest, a law enforcement source sent me a, A piece of a training guide that has this pyramid that shows like the, the level of compliance that a suspect is engaging in or non compliance versus then the corresponding level of force that your training requires. And what the officer said that clearly what he would be categorized as is what they call passive resistance. Now, first of all, there's no evidence that they're actually even arresting him. Him, if you notice, it escalated very quickly.

Sagar (24:25)

And again, you know, even for what purpose? Like what?

Glenn Greenwald (24:27)

Right.

Ryan (24:28)

What's he under arrest for? They spray him. He puts his hands up. Yeah. And then he grabs him, like by the back of the jacket. He's trying to help the woman up. They throw him down on the ground. Certainly there's a fight. There's no, like, hey, you're under arrest. Like, freeze. Like, it's just.

Sagar (24:41)

At least I couldn't hear it.

Glenn Greenwald (24:42)

Yeah.

Ryan (24:43)

And maybe we'll end up hearing it. But. And then they start hitting with the flashlight and you know, punching, like, then it becomes a fight and they. And it's termed passive resistance because he's not attacking them at all. Like, he's not hitting them. What he's. And I think it's just a human reaction. Like if you imagine you've just been sprayed in the face multiple times, you can't see it's icy. And that's key too. It's icy. You're slipping around on the ground. You're being hit with like a mag light in your head and your face. So you're trying to get your hands and elbows from your head to protect yourself. It's just a natural impulse. It's going to look like you're wiggling and resisting. So that's why they have the term passive resistance. The response to that is supposed to be a de escalation and just an attempt to get the situation under control. There is no world in which passive resistance which is the just above compliant on the pyramid goes all the way up to deadly force. And I see a diminishing number of people defending the actions of. Of this agent or agents who killed him. But there's still some out there. And so I guess that's. That's for. That's for those people or people who.

Sagar (25:56)

Are only defense is they heard a gunshot, freaked out and fired. Sorry, that actually isn't really how it works. Or maybe it is especially because I.

Ryan (26:04)

Don'T know if you look at that video appears to see his colleague pull the gun which means he the person who fired.

Sagar (26:12)

Right. There's been a lot of talk about again I mean you could maybe you could argue that in court considering how cop laws. I mean I talked about this after Renee Good people should not forget like there's an extraordinary difference but at least. And that's actually why the shooting itself is I don't know. You tell me what you think. The circumstances of the shooting, while they are a disaster, while they show incompetence at the very least while they show an obvious like immediate escalation on the part of. I say I don't even think that that is the biggest story that's come from that. What has come is the government's response is the lying, is the brandishing is accusing him of being a threat for. For the mere purpose of having a gun, of having a gun alone is apparently the crime in which merited his death. And then from that point forward jumping and setting some sort of standard here around how we are not allowed to exercise again a fundamental right as Americans to be able to bear arms and think yeah go ahead.

Ryan (27:15)

When, when, when? Chicago. I think it was CBP in Chicago when they killed Miramar. Not killed. They shot Miramar Martinez five times. She survived those shots. They initially said it was a ramming attack and 10 vehicles surrounded a a CBP officer putting him in fear of his life. We. We reported last week that now they obtained surveillance footage of a nearby business. Complete and total lie. It's gotten so bad that the Free Press, Barry Weiss's news organization ran a column called the lies of Kristi Noem. Like that's, like that's how bad it's gotten. It's. People keep using that 1984 quote. You know, the last thing the party asked you to do was to, you know, disbelieve what you were seeing with your own eyes. And the, the gap between the videos of what we're seeing in these incidents combined with the over the top rhetoric, like even with Renee Good, the initial DHS statements were this was a domestic terrorist who tried to do a ramming of our agents. You can. Now people can debate whether or not his body was in the front or on the side of the vehicle as she started to accelerate. Nobody who watched that without with fresh eyes would be like, oh yeah, that's a domestic terrorist doing a ramming attack. Like, nobody would say that. Nobody. But that was the description. And so that. That gap is opening up this extraordinary credibility gap which then, like you said, they're trying to fill with justifications like, oh, well, if you show up armed to a protest, if you touch a federal official, you're going to be killed. And you should understand that FAFO be like, whoa, hold on a second here.

Sagar (29:00)

FAFO is very different. Okay? FAFO is I pull a gun out in the middle of an arrest and then you get.

Glenn Greenwald (29:05)

Right.

Ryan (29:05)

They did not. They didn't think.

Janine Eunice (29:07)

Right.

Ryan (29:08)

You're within your second amendment and First Amendment rights. That's not fa.

Sagar (29:12)

Well, you know, everyone's. I've always. Apparently now a Kyle Rittenhouse is a criminal, by the way, under this standard, which, by the way, that was a textbook definition of faofo. He has a gun. Sure. You know, I'm in the liberal line at the time was he shouldn't have even been there. It's like, well, people tried to chase him, literally tried to kill him. He fired and he shot in self defense. And he was acquitted at trial, I think correctly, as a result of it. That's fafo. This is in no way rises to that standard. If AFO is, if fucking around is bringing a gun to a protest, we're fucked. Actually, you know, as a country and you know, I can't believe it, especially after watching so many of these protests over the years where again, I have no problem with people bringing a gun to a protest as long as they are doing so illegally, peacefully, and are exercising their right, which they always should be able to. You know, one I have argued here for too long against red flag laws and against second amendment gun protections and all this just to watch apparently a fucking Republican administration come in here and say that this guy deserved to die for doing absolutely nothing wrong whenever it came to his gun rights. Now, whenever, you know, we continue to talk about this, I think it's very important, like I said, and I don't want to diminish his death in any way. I'm not saying that his death is an enormously consequential story because it obviously is. It's not just about the bad, bad shoot. It is the lies. It's the same thing. He brandished his weapon. They called him a domestic terrorist. Stephen Miller specifically said that. They said he brandished and they didn't. And now the line is literally that because he brought a gun there, that he intended to massacre people because he had two magazines. Any gun owner out there, you know exactly how ridiculous the idea of having a gun with two magazines, which is very common for people who conceal carry is in any way some sort of intent. There is no intent ascribed to that behavior whatsoever under any reasonable standard for anybody of the tens of millions of us who are gun owners here in the United States. And then finally, really what it comes down to is that because they have no defense is that they are also not handling this in not just appropriate in any standard way like you're saying about some sort of investigation. I mean, I think it's insane that a judge even have to be like, oh, don't destroy evidence. But the fact of the matter is we have to be honest here. The DHS immediately came out and said, we're going to investigate ourselves. Okay, okay. Their FBI said that they weren't going to investigate the case. You need to look at Kirsty Nome and Bean and be like, are these credible people who in any way could, you know, could conduct an investigation? And you're talking there about the social contract. While it's obvious that many police departments investigate officer involved shootings, you know what they usually do? They take those agents or the police officer, he's put on leave.

Ryan (31:51)

He's put on leave for psychological reasons alone.

Sagar (31:53)

For psychological reasons and for. And invest even in the clearest cut, like body cam, gun, gun out, shoot, you still do innovate because it's treated again. It's always treated as if it might be murder. You investigate, you clear the officer. The CBP commissioner, sorry, the Border Patrol Chief Bavino, he says these agents have been, have left Minneapolis for, quote, for their own safety, but they are still on the job and they're actively working as of today. Every single one of them actively and working today. Again, like you just said, gunshot residue for the Guy who took the R. Is that going to happen? What's going to happen for the people who pulled the trigger? I mean, you know, at the very least, like, dude, you need to lawyer up from your union. You need to sit down and potentially a hostile interview and be like, what were you thinking in the moment? Video shows this. Could you see it? Line of sight says that you could. I mean, none of that to our knowledge, has happened at all. They're claiming that they're going to have an investigation. Bullshit. Haven't seen any of that. The only reason there might be, which we'll get to in a little bit, is that even congressional Republicans now are like, whoa, whoa, we're going to need a transparent investigation. And then finally, I think we need to zoom out here again. As I've said, I have spoken at length about liberal protest norms and, you know, would I be out there, you know, blowing whistles and all that? No, absolutely not. But, but, but, and that's why at this point, this is where the Trump people have lost, is that when you are going to get to a point where you as an American are being labeled as domestic terrorists by your government for bringing a gun, and then you're going to try and say that if you bring a gun to any protests, what, that you were liable to be killed? No, no, no, no, no. This is very different. And this is also fundamentally different, I would say, from the Renee Good case, because, and Ryan, I think you can even admit this, there was a question, especially in the immediate, not about ramming, about whether like there, you could see a reasonable doubt situation.

Ryan (33:44)

There was a, There was a live debate. And I think it's. Yeah, there was, there was a live debate.

Sagar (33:51)

And the point that I would always make, what I made in the immediate aftermath is I was like, guys, you need to look at the case law on this. There's a, like, reasonable doubt is a very, like, is a standard there that usually sides on the piece of officer. I don't even think he handled it well. Like, to be very, very clear, I'm saying, though, if you could see, you know, you could maybe. And then it's like potential video of me that's not even remotely, you know, in the, in the realm of this because at that point we're arguing about behavior. But there's a potential legal, you know, tree here about like, awful but lawful type situation. Potentially could have been one of those. Here we'll speak the question.

Ryan (34:21)

Yeah, we'll speak to Janine Yunus later, the civil liberties attorney, and she has said that she even sees a difference, a distinction between these two. She felt like the Renee Good killing.

Sagar (34:31)

Yeah, we interviewed you.

Ryan (34:32)

That she could get a conviction. But she said this one is even clearer as, as she put it.

Glenn Greenwald (34:38)

Yeah.

Sagar (34:38)

And, and, and again, I mean, it's not even just about it being clear through the actions of the video. It is the response now from the United States government. I mean, immediately putting out. And maybe this is worth, you know, the tick tock for those of you who are not just like following the news all the time in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, they just decided to tweet out a picture of a gun on a car seat. As if it proves anything. Right, as if it proves anything. So what if he had a gun? So what?

Ryan (35:07)

Did he pull it out?

Sagar (35:08)

That's not Minneapolis.

Ryan (35:09)

Yeah. In Minneapolis, Police Chief Brian o' Hare kind of responded to this, this federal argument that, well, we had to kill him because he had a weapon with his. With his own response. Matt, can we put up. I think it's the 15th LMB 15 here.

Sagar (35:22)

Yeah, we have it on here now.

News Reporter/Host (35:23)

Do you know of that Preddy was assaulting the federal officers, as the Border Patrol chief claims?

Minneapolis Police Chief (35:32)

Well, I've seen the videos, just as thousands of people around the country have. And the videos speak for themselves. I think it's deeply concerning the things that are being said. This is an individual that was a city resident. It appears that he was present exercising his First Amendment rights to record law enforcement activity and also exercising his second Amendment rights to lawfully be armed in a public space in the city. So I think very obviously there are serious questions that are being raised. And I think the greater issue is even if there is an investigation that ultimately proves that at the time of the shooting it was legally justified, I don't think that even matters at this point because there is so much outrage and concern around what is happening in the city.

News Reporter/Host (36:24)

What do you mean it doesn't matter at this point? You mean the situation on the ground is already. The impression is left.

Minneapolis Police Chief (36:33)

People have had enough. This is the third shooting now in less than three weeks. The Minneapolis Police Department went the entire year last year, recovering about 900 guns from the street, arresting hundreds and hundreds of violent offenders, and we didn't shoot anyone. And now this is the second American citizen that's been killed. It's the third shooting within three weeks. People have been speaking out, saying that this was going to happen again. And I think everyone is kind of waiting for folks on both sides to come together and just figure this thing out. This is not sustainable. This police department has only 600 police officers. We are stretched incredibly thin. This is taking an enormous toll. Trying to manage all of this chaos on top of having to be the police department for a major city.

Sagar (37:25)

Let's pull out of this. I think this is also an important point and something that I have, you know, I've argued with Crystal endlessly about ice and, you know, all of this. At this point, it is actually inarguable that you're creating more chaos. And no, I've talked, I've said even. Oh, look, it ignores the chaos of what it means to have people who are present in your country. Illeg. Yes, we can have debates all day long about sanctuary city, which. Look, I'm happy to hold that for another time period. Even the President, by the way, his only real response after this shooting was just to say, hey, we should pass a law to end sanctuary. Fine. That needs to be resolved through the democratic process. And that cannot involve a simultaneous. Not just this situation, but the fallout now, which you own 100%. And you know, if we're going to resolve of this through democratic means, what we have watched is that while yes, Trump obviously has a mandate, or had a mandate whenever he was elected to seal the border to. To mass support people who are here illegally, it has moved beyond that in these multiple cases where. And this is where, again, you know, if you had to be watching this, you can see this wasn't even a guy who was here illegally. And in fact, um, he was a US citizen. And in fact, look, again, I'll defend deportation if it, if it's actually happening. Well, you know, the actual result which has come out is that the details of the raid, which they said that was going to be happening, was not even correct. They said that they were doing a targeted operation against a specific ill. And they named this illegal sentiment citizen, or, sorry, illegal alien. They said, we're going to go after the. Then the Minnesota Department of Corrections is like, I don't even know what you're talking about. This guy does literally not in our custody.

Ryan (39:15)

No criminal record.

Sagar (39:16)

Incorrect. You actually released him back in 2018. It's like. Well, that's. If that's a shoddy process, you know, behind all of this. Yeah, no, sorry. Especially if it's going to result in the death of a, of an American. Not just the death, but the, you know, the killing of this guy after he's being disarmed and then the subsequent response is basically, it was his fault, you know, for bringing a gun. No, like you, you are, you are so beyond immigration enforcement at this point. And it's obvious now, you know, we're, we're going to do an entire thing about backlash from the public good, by the way. Good. They should, should be backlash against something like this. But I think this is actually a watershed moment. I think this is the day. I think that was the day that Trump actually did lose on the question of immigration. And we are so far beyond in, in that, in this moment now, because it's not easy. Even the, the subsequent debate topic, because now it's all questions of civil liberties of 2A. And, you know, I guess to be fair to you and Chris, you guys have been talking.

Ryan (40:16)

Yeah.

Sagar (40:16)

And I think that's from the beginning.

Ryan (40:18)

That's what o' Hare is. I think that's what o' Hare is saying when he says, even if an investigation comes out and, you know, determines that this was justified, people have had it. Like, people have seen what they have seen. Three shootings in, in two and a half weeks. People are. People don't want this chaos us, because nothing that an investigation can determine is going to unwind what happened. We all saw what happened, period. We don't want this to happen in our streets. Your point about the alleged target of this alleged targeted operation is a key one. Yeah. They said that this was a violent criminal. They probably called him a pedophile that they were trying to go after. And they put a name out. Anybody. You don't have to be the Department of Corrections in Minneapolis to search the Department of Corrections database. Like, federal officials complain they're not working with us. You can search state prison records and find out if the guy has any record, like law enforcement at the federal level has access to that data. The fact that they put that name out without even either checking whether it was true that he had a criminal record and it wouldn't be embarrassing that actually it was the Trump administration that released him in 2018 or B, they don't care that they just put the information out and it might be wrong, it might be correct, but they don't actually care. I don't know which one is more disturbing, the incompetence or actual malicious lying. But either way, to your point, they have blown their mandate. They had them. They still have the mandate, I think, for the border. Because people are like, okay, fine, border, like, because they're not. We're not. If we were seeing people gunned down at the border, yeah, it'd be different, then that would be a different question. But we're not seeing those kinds of images, but the mandate for rounding up people outside of grocery stores and Home Depots and restaurants and just plucking them off the streets to the extent that they had that at all, which I would quibble with whether or not they actually did. But let's say they did. They don't have it anymore because of the way they carried it out.

Sagar (42:30)

Because it's not just the way that they carried it out, it is the subsequent blowback effect and the way that they're treating people who are protesting. You can even do that in a way where you're not literally shooting people, I mean, and then immediately accusing anybody who speaks out against of domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism is a very serious term, a very serious accusation, which we're now being watched actually be created into a surveillance state which we're going to be talking about with Glenn. Okay, we've got Janine Eunice standing by. She's going to talk to us about 2A. She's going to give her some of her analysis on the shooting. So let's get to it.

Sponsor Announcer (43:06)

Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like EFTs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures there's.

Lenovo Announcer (44:16)

No championship league for small business owners, but if there are was, you'd be at the top of the standings. Because going pro with Lenovo Pro means you've got the winning formation. One on one advice IT solutions and customized hardware powered by Intel Core Ultra processors help you stay ahead of the competition. Business Goes pro with Lenovo Pro. Sign up for free@lenovo.com Pro.

Commercial Announcer (44:46)

Now I'd like to introduce you to Meaningful Beauty, the famed skincare brand created by iconic supermodel Cindy Crawford. It's her secret to absolutely gorgeous skin. Meaningful Beauty makes powerful and effective skin care simple and it's loved by millions of women. It's formulated for all ages and all skin tones and types. And it's designed to work as a complete skin care system, leaving your skin feeling soft, smooth and nourished. I recommend starting with Cindy's full regimen which contains all five of her best selling products including the amazing youth Activating Melon Serum. This next generation serum has the power of melon leaf stem cell technology. It's melon leaf stem cells encapsulated for freshness and released onto the skin to support a visible reduction in the appearance of wrinkles. With thousands of glowing five star reviews, why not give it a try? Subscribe today and you can get the amazing Meaningful beauty system for just 49. That includes our introductory five piece system, free gifts, free shipping and a 60 day money back guarantee. All of that available@meaningfulbeauty.com.

Sagar (45:48)

We'Re very excited now to be joined by Janine Eunice. She's a repeat guest here and she is the national legal director at the adc, very principled civil liberties lawyer and she's here to talk to us for her reaction not only to this horrific aftermath of this shooting, but of the implications for our civil liberties. So, Janine, thank you very much for making the I'm. And it's good to see you again.

Janine Eunice (46:09)

Oh, thank you so much for having me back.

Sagar (46:11)

Absolutely. So Jenny Ryan and I just had, you know, very spirited, I think, criticism of the administration, that's putting it lightly of the way that this has all gone down. But of course, we are always reliant on legal experts. You yourself a former defense attorney, you gave us your impressions immediately in the aftermath of the Renee Good case. Could you just break down what you see here in this particular case in the death of Alex Fox Preddy?

Janine Eunice (46:36)

So in the Renee Good case, I acknowledged, I think there's some arguable ambiguity, at least with respect to the first shot that, you know, maybe a defense attorney could convince a jury. I still think that that was a bad shooting and shouldn't have happened. But this, I would say is a clear cut case of murder. I mean, he was pretty obviously executed. I watched the video a number of times because the fact that everybody was wearing brown made it confusing for me.

Ryan (47:00)

For A little bit.

Janine Eunice (47:01)

But, but it became quite clear that he basically didn't. I don't think he did anything wrong at all still. You don't necessarily deserve to be shot for doing something a little bit wrong. But he, you know, he didn't, was not aggressive with officers. He, I don't think he even broke any laws. He was trying to protect two women from their aggression. They pepper spray all three and then tackle him and he's like writhing on the ground. And then it looks as though that one of the officers, officer takes a gun off him and then another officer shoots him nine times. I mean that's just an execution. I don't know. The fact anyone would try to defend this is astonishing to me.

Ryan (47:40)

In the, in the first segment we were talking about the, the notion of passive resistance, which is a term that police use in their training. It's the, it's the kind of most minimal level of resistance and it, it means that he's not, not remotely offensively going after any officers. In this case, he, you. There's video from the front. He's being hit in his, you know, face and head by what looks to be like a Maglite, which if anybody's ever been either that or a billy club. It looks more like a mag light. If anybody's ever been hit with one of those. Those are hurts. Extremely heavy, solid things, you know, and then filled with like D batteries that are going to, that could cause like irreparable damage to you. And so as you said, writhing around on the ground, you're trying to protect your body. It's just a natural impulse to protect your body. And that can be categorized somehow as passive resistance because you're not just, you're not moving. But nothing in the police training justifies elevating that to capital punishment like execution on the spot. Have, have you. You know, I think we got accustomed to seeing a lot of videos of police shootings throughout the kind of 2000 and tens as the, as that era rose. Where does this rank on the most blatant executions that you've, that you've seen?

Janine Eunice (49:03)

I would say it's the most blatant one I've seen. I, I haven't seen, I haven't seen anything like that from the United States. It's, I mean, and the standard for self defense for cops is basically the same, or law enforcement is basically the same as for civ, except they might be held to a slightly higher standard, which is basically you're not entitled to use force unless you reasonably believe that you're at imminent risk of death or serious physical injury. You're not allowed to use deadly physical force, and the force has to be proportionate and it has to be necessary to stop the threat. So this, I don't see even any argument here. I guess, you know, if this case ever goes to trial, which is probably unlikely, very sad, because that's a miscarriage of justice. But I, I don't. I guess the cop could probably argue that he was confused or something because someone yelled gun. And that's probably the best defense that he's going to have. But I don't see a jury acquitting. That seems unlikely to me.

Sagar (50:02)

Yeah, but, Janine, what's crazy is that that's not even what they're going with, because you could see that. Again, I don't think you know everything. The justification is, well, he had a gun, and that's liable to get you killed, apparently. Let's go ahead and queue up, Mac, on our great FBI Director Cash Patel, who has laid out a case, again, the top law enforcement officer of the United States saying you cannot bring a firearm to any sort of protest that you want. Let's take a listen.

News Reporter/Host (50:32)

I mean, thousands of people are marching through Minneapolis. They are targeting the Border Patrol. I mean, it feels like the rhetoric and the. The protesting is all ramping up. What is your advice to the people right now who are outraged that this is a second killing at the hands of Border Patrol in two weeks?

Sagar (50:53)

As Christie said, you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want.

Kash Patel (51:01)

It's that simple.

Sagar (51:01)

You don't have that right to break the law and incite violence. We will, of course, always protect your First Amendment speech. And if you peacefully protest, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But you have seen a trend here, not just in Minnesota, but across the country in these protests, turning into violence and incidents scenarios and people attacking law enforcement. That's when you go over the line.

Kash Patel (51:21)

And that's when law enforcement steps in.

Sagar (51:23)

Janine. I mean, again, you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protests you want. It's that simple. You don't have a right to break the law. He in no way broke the law. And in fact, we have an absolute right to do that. Your reaction as a lawyer?

Janine Eunice (51:38)

Well, you do have a right to bring a gun to a protest under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court actually recently affirmed that in a case called Bruin. So I don't know what they're talking about. I mean, a lot of right Wing people brought guns to anti Covid protests and that, you know, that nobody claimed then that you couldn't bring a gun to a protest. I think what they're trying to do is they, and I saw this during the last year when they were arresting people like Mahmoud Khalil is they try to kind of blur the lines so they make things. Statements like the protesters are violent and so therefore it's okay that we shot a. I'm like, each situation is judged individually. From a legal perspective. Mahmoud Khalil didn't do anything violent at all. The fact that other people have protested, it doesn't. May have. Doesn't make him responsible for that. And likewise, this guy clearly didn't pull a gun on anybody. He was clearly not being violent. So you can't sort of use the conduct of other protesters to say that it was okay to shoot him.

Sagar (52:35)

Yeah, I mean, one of the things we've seen. Sorry. Right, Ryan, go ahead, go ahead.

Ryan (52:38)

No, no, go ahead. Because I, I'll, I'll have a follow up.

Sagar (52:41)

Well, one of the things I wanted to flag here is also the immediate aftermath of this statement from Kirsty Nome. Guys, can we go Ahead and Roll B3, where the DHS Secretary talks specifically about brandishing a weapon, which is a legal term that's waving a gun, threatening an individual. That's actually something. It's a crime against federal law. But also trying to parrot, like you're saying, with a violent action of the intent of simply having a gun on your person, which is our absolute right. Let's take a listen.

News Reporter/Host (53:09)

Did he brandish a gun? And at what point did law enforcement retrieve the gun and also the magazines from him? Can you offer clarity on this individual showed up to impede a law enforcement operation and assaulted our officers. They responded according to their training and took action to defend the officer's life and those of the public around him. And I don't know of any peaceful protesters that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign. This is a violent riot. When you have someone showing up with weapons and are using them to assault law enforcement officers.

Sagar (53:46)

I mean, Janine, this is something out of China or out of Iran or out of Israel or any of these places where we've seen mass crackdown. Is that the present. Is that mere having a weapon on your person is an act of violence itself? This is literally out of third world dictatorships the same.

Janine Eunice (54:04)

Yeah. And they're asking us to ignore our own eyes. I mean, or. I mean, and what we can see clearly from the video, there's no. He did not assault anyone. Anybody can see that.

Sagar (54:14)

Yes.

Janine Eunice (54:14)

And frankly, a lot of people who defended the Renee Good shooting, especially on the conservative side of the political spectrum, are not defending this one. I've seen a lot of people say that might. That one might have been okay, but this one, no.

Sagar (54:27)

What about. And it's not even about okay. It's like, look, like you said, you could see a case for the first shot. You could, you have to agree with it, and you could look at case law. But on this, it's just completely worlds apart, different. Go ahead, Ryan.

Ryan (54:39)

Yeah, so setting aside all the, like, obvious, like, blatant lies that she told there, what you often hear from the administration is that these protesters are, quote, unquote, impeding that impeding law enforcement as they're carrying out their kind of lawful enforcement duties. What is the law around, what protesters are allowed to do legally and when does it cross in to actual impeding? I think anybody who's seen the video sees that he's. He's waving cars through, he's filming. Like, there's no. Doesn't apply here. But so, like, outside of this scenario, what. What could make it actually apply? Like, if you were talking to a. A client who asked you, like, I want to go to a protest, how do I make sure I'm within the law?

Janine Eunice (55:23)

So there are two sort of separate analyses. One is impeding their enforcement operation. And that came into play in the Renee Good shooting, where the argument was that she was blocking them so they had the right to arrest her. Still doesn't give them the shoot her. That's sort of a separate issue. But. So if you are. Your activity is substantially interfering with them enforcement operation that might give ICE officers a grounds to arrest you, because normally they don't have the ability to enforce state law or, you know, they're really just there to enforce immigration and customs law. So there is an exception if you are a US Citizen or otherwise lawfully in the country, but are impeding their operation in a significant way. So I didn't think that Renee Goods rose to that level. But then there are other laws about protesting. So you can't, you know, you can't block traffic. You can't. Even if that wasn't impeding the law enforcement operation, just sort of standard things, you can't, you can't harass people. You know, you can't kind of break the normal laws that we observe in society. If you were. Yeah, I mean, you can't. Some of the vandalization for instance, that happened during the pro Palestine, pro protests is probably not defensible from a legal perspective, but none of that gives them the right to shoot you. That's still, you know, obviously that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances where it's necessary to save someone's life.

Sagar (56:46)

Right, yeah. Final thing that I just have to play here, you know, have our Treasury Secretary, again, literally adopting the language of some of the most extreme gun control activists I've ever seen. Guys, can we go ahead and roll B2 and Cav?

Kash Patel (56:58)

Janine's reaction about what's happened in Minneapolis. As a member of the. Of the Trump cabinet, are you concerned to see another American citizen ends up dead, shot by federal law enforcement? Jonathan, it's a tragedy when anyone dies, but I can tell you the situation on the ground there is being stirred up by Governor Waltz. I was out there two weeks ago. Governor. Governor Waltz declined to provide a security detail for me to go into the Minnesota Capitol with the state police. So he. He is fomenting chaos because there is substantial waste, fraud, and abuse. My job as Treasury Secretary is to investigate that. And I think that this chaos that's going out there. And again, I am sorry that this gentleman is dead, but he did bring a 9 millimeter semiautomatic weapon with two cartridges to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest. I think that there are a lot of paid educators who are jenning things up, and the governor has not done a good job at tamping this down. Yeah, I mean, as you know, he was an ICU nurse, worked for the Veterans Administration, and there's no evidence that he brandished the gun whatsoever. But he brought a disarm before a gun. Have you ever gone to a protest? I mean, we do have a second amendment in this country that. John. Johnathan, have you ever gone to a protest? I mean, have you gone to a protest? I mean, I've. I know, actually as a reporter covering it. Okay, I've been to a protest. Guess what? I didn't bring a gun. I brought a billboard.

Sagar (58:32)

Wow. I mean, again, I mean, Janine, as you said, one of the reasons I like talking to you, Janine, is you can. You defended and fought back against a lot of the. In my opinion, probably your opinion, too, a lot of the tyrannical stuff that surrounded Covid. You've talked specifically about civil liberties. So you will remember, Gene, as I do, we have brains. We also saw many Covid protests, one in Michigan that I absolutely recall, in which people brought guns even to the state capitol. Of course, yes. The gun control people were furious about it, but as you and I both know, that is our right. And none of them were arrested for doing so because it was not a violation of the law.

Janine Eunice (59:10)

Yeah, I mean, the hypocrisy is just off the charts. And they're just, in my opinion, signaling to their base that they don't, you know, they don't really have any principles. They don't really care about civil liberties. This is just about scoring political. I mean, I will say I do agree with him on one point, which is that there could be more done by Minnesota to sort of defuse the situation. And one thing I think they should be doing is having state law enforcement out there to keep the ICE officers in check, but because they don't want to get involved at all, they're refusing to do that. And so I think both sides are really inflaming the situation. Of course, I'm not comparing.

Sagar (59:46)

Right.

Janine Eunice (59:46)

I'm not comparing the two, because shooting people is just absolutely unacceptable. And running cover for that on the administration's part is just beyond that. The pale.

Ryan (59:54)

Right.

Sagar (59:54)

Yeah.

Ryan (59:55)

And.

Sagar (59:55)

And, you know, I. I had a similar thought. I did hear from the Minneapolis PD chief, though, he made a point which is kind of relevant, is you got 3,000. I said, he's like, we only have 600 sworn officers on our force. He's like, we literally can't do that. Which is, you know, I mean, it's a fair point, right? I mean, had. I hadn't fully considered it, but I was like, yeah, I mean, he's not wrong. Like, if you have 5 to 1 ratio in the city, like, what can you do? Exactly.

Janine Eunice (60:18)

Yeah.

Ryan (60:19)

Yeah. Maybe Mom Donnie should send some. NYPD's got what, five, six thousand people on force? And there's only about that work at a time. Like, that's funny.

Glenn Greenwald (60:28)

Last thing.

Ryan (60:29)

Like, New York City can be like the Cuba, like helping. Helping other cities, helping the Angolans.

Sagar (60:35)

Last thing I did want to ask you about, which was a hot topic before all of this shooting, is let's go ahead and put B5 up here on the screen again, we would like your interpretation. There is an ICE memo which instructs officers to enter homes without a judge's warrant. The administration is arguing that they can enter a home based upon something called an administrative warrant. This is a bit confusing. Could you break it down for us and how extraordinary the situation is or isn't?

Janine Eunice (61:09)

Right. So an administrative warrant is not signed by a judge, which is a very important thing. You know, typical search warrants or Arrest warrants are signed by a judge. The judge has signed off that the officers, police officers, have shown that there's probable cause to conduct the search or do the arrest. An administrative warrant is signed in the immigration context by an ICE officer. So there's no checks and balances on that. It's just. It's just the executive branch saying, I have the right to do what I want.

Sagar (61:35)

Can you explain that? So, like, an ICE officer can sign a warrant? Like, what does that mean? He can say, I have probable cause under my own belief that I can.

Janine Eunice (61:43)

Go and arrest this person for violations of immigration law. Yeah. It's actually little known that immigration, the whole immigration system is within the executive branch. So immigration judges are not actually independent members of the judicial. They are. They're part of the executive, part of doj. And that's one reason they're, in my opinion, quite bad. They tend to just rubber stamp whatever the executive is, which makes it very important to have recourse to the federal court system, which unfortunately the Third Circuit just restricted in the Kahlil case. But that's another story. I won't go there. So they're arguing that they can enter people's homes without a warrant in order to execute the administrative warrants, saying that you can remove this person because they're not lawfully in the. The country. That's just false. The Supreme Court has never said that. No court in the United States has ever said that. They've been citing this case from the 8th Circuit called Lucas, where a prison inmate had escaped and was hiding in a home. They had. The officers had information he was in a home, and they used an administrative warrant to enter the home. But that was kind of. The warrant was almost besides the point because there's something called the exigent circumstances doctrine where you can enter a home if you have. If the police have information that there's an ongoing emergency. So, like, an example I've used is they have information there's a child being a missing child in this house and being tortured. Okay. We can't, like, wait for that judge to get a warrant. Very, very extraordinary circumstances. And a dangerous prison inmate escaping would fall within that, in my opinion. But just someone who's not lawfully in the country, being in a home doesn't come close to qualifying. That would just completely eviscerate this. You know, the exception would become the rule then. So this is a complete misapplication of the law. And. And it's just simply wrong. And the conservatives, mostly conservatives saying this on social media and other places are just they're not being honest.

Ryan (63:33)

Yeah.

Sagar (63:34)

Any last questions Ryan?

Ryan (63:35)

Nope.

Sagar (63:36)

All right, Janine, thank you so so much for joining us for breaking all of this down. We've got Glenn Greenwald standing by, so let's get to him.

Sponsor Announcer (63:45)

Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated ass which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like EFTs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member finra SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, llc SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosure is available at public.com disclosure.

Lenovo Announcer (64:53)

Disclosures Pro drivers live for race day, but for small business owners, every day is race day. That's why going pro with Lenovo Pro matters one on one advice. IT solutions and customized hardware powered by Intel Core Ultra processors keep your business on the right track. Business Goes Pro with Lenovo Pro Sign up for free@lenovo.com Pro Lenovo Lenovo.

Commercial Announcer (65:24)

Now I'd like to introduce you to Meaningful Beauty, the famed skin care brand created by iconic supermodel Cindy Crawford. It's her secret to absolutely gorgeous skin. Meaningful Beauty makes powerful and effective skin care simple and it's loved by millions of women. It's formulated for all ages and all skin tones and types and it's designed to work as a complete skin care system, leaving your skin feeling soft, smooth and nourished. I recommend starting with Cindy's full regimen which contains all five of her best selling products including the amazing Youth Activating Melon Serum. This next generation serum has the power of melon leaf stem cell technology. Its melon leaf stem cells encapsulated for freshness and released onto the skin to support a visible reduction in the appearance of wrinkles. With Thousands of glowing five star reviews. Why not give it a try? Subscribe today and you can get the amazing Meaningful Beauty system for just 49.95. That includes our introductory five piece system, free gifts, free shipping and a 60 day money back guarantee. All that available@meaningful beauty.com.

Sagar (66:26)

Joining us now is great friend of the show, Glenn Greenwald to further break down all of his insanity that's going on with ICE here in the United States. Glenn, it's good to see you. Thanks for joining us.

Glenn Greenwald (66:35)

Great to be with you, you guys.

Sagar (66:37)

Absolutely. I mean, the audience has wanted you to come on and just give me a good slap and education and so here. Here we go again. Audience. You're getting exactly what you want. Glenn. Coming on my own show, Kick of the mule, humiliate me.

Glenn Greenwald (66:49)

It's the only reason I come on. If you weren't here, I know that, come on, be abusive to you is.

Sagar (66:55)

Really the main motivation, but it's edifying. It's edifying for me. Perhaps that's just something about me.

Ryan (66:59)

But.

Sagar (67:00)

Okay, let's go ahead and start very seriously with the new video, Glenn, that's making the rounds of an ICE protest. Esther in Portland, Maine, she tells someone that she, she's being told by an agent she's a domestic terrorist. And he said he's going to quote, add her to a nice little database. Let's take a listen to this video.

News Reporter/Host (67:19)

It's not illegal to record.

Sagar (67:22)

Exactly.

Glenn Greenwald (67:22)

Yeah, that's what we're doing.

Sagar (67:24)

Yeah. Why are you taking my information down?

Glenn Greenwald (67:26)

Because we have a nice little database.

News Reporter/Host (67:27)

Oh, good.

Kash Patel (67:28)

And now you're considered domestic terrorists.

Sagar (67:32)

We're videotaping you.

Glenn Greenwald (67:34)

Are you crazy?

Sagar (67:37)

Glenn? This seems to fit with the larger pattern now of a, quote, database being kept on American citizens, the labeling of domestic terrorism. This is a far encroachment here. Not only are civil liberties of the US surveillance state, how do you see this in that broader context surrounding ICE and the entire situation happening right now?

Glenn Greenwald (67:56)

Yeah, I mean, if it were just that, you could dismiss it as kind of like a poorly trapped, trained, unprofessional ICE agent kind of making a sardonic comment. But we're hearing exactly the same things from the highest levels of not just ICE and Homeland Security, but the Trump administration as well. We're hearing every time, for example, the last two times that ICE or border security have killed an American citizen under extremely dubious and I would say murderous circumstances. The immediate response from people like Stephen Miller and Chris to know is to label them domestic terrorists. They have clearly been instructed These ICE agents have to be far more aggressive to be less constrained. I don't think they're even trained in terms of constitutional legal constraints. But even if they had been, they're clearly being instructed to disregard those kind of be the kind of guys who get their hands dirty. They're all like new recruits. But then on top of this, you do have a concerted effort by the Trump administration. It's hardly new, of course, but it's really concert asserted to augment and to expand and to centralize in the hands of Palantir, this domestic security state where surveillance state, where everybody has kind of a dossier, everybody's put into a database. If you even make a peep of dissent or protest, they feel justified in doing that. So it's clearly part of a larger, not just ethos at the highest levels of our government, but also policy choices that are reflected in that agent's comment comments.

Ryan (69:26)

And so, Glenn, our civil liberties are obviously rooted, you know, in the Constitution and the, and the Bill of Rights that's attached to it, but they really get their animating force by, by our culture, our cultural acceptance of them. To the extent that culturally we no longer, you know, expect certain liver, certain civil liberties to be respected by the government, then the government just surges right in and encroaches on those civil liberties. So can you talk about out where we've come in the last, say, half century around the question of building databases and this type of surveillance? Because I think some people would say, well, you know, it's a government, they want to make. They want to make a list. They can go ahead and make a list. But what is, what are the rules about the government making lists related to American citizens?

Glenn Greenwald (70:15)

Yeah, I mean, a couple things. You know, obviously the Snowden reporting was primarily motivated by, by the anger that not just Edward Snowden, but a lot of people inside the US Security state ended up harboring as a result of violating what had long been considered the great taboo of allowing this part of our government after World War II, the US security state, to kind of take hold, to grow without any democratic accountability, without transparency, the understanding that it was dangerous. And the one rule that was supposed to constrain it at, in all circumstances was that whatever it is you're doing can't be turned inward, can't be turned domestically on the American citizenry. It's for adversary states, even for allied states, but it can't be a security force that surveils our own people, that is intended to keep our own people in line in A way that the Constitution was designed to prohibit. And of course, that's exactly what was happening after 9 11. That led to people like Edward Snowden, but other people as well, like William Binney and a lot of of other these whistleblowers from the US Security state to come forward and say, this is the one thing that we were supposed to never have. And there aren't really any rules around it. For a lot of different reasons, the courts have kind of deferred to the executive branch. Both parties succeeded in preventing any real legislative reform in the wake of the Snowden revelations, which allowed the security state domestically to continue to grow. But one thing I was thinking about actually this morning was the fact that, that I was kind of pointing out the oddity of the right, the American right suddenly cheering for and even demanding armed federal agents on the street. Because if we look at the politics of the 1990s and of course Bill Clinton was president then, this kind of anti federal government strain was very dominant on the right in the wake of things like Randy Weaver and Waco and other things that if people aren't familiar with, they should go back and read. And then it, you know, really occurred to me. A lot of them are saying, well, now it's different because we have these illegal aliens we have to deport. But it's always different. They all authoritarians always find some pre tax in the wake of 9 11, it was terrorism. Prior to that it was communism. So you have generations of Americans now trained with this authoritarian formula that unless you empower the federal government with these authoritarian powers that used to be unimaginable, at least as we were taught to understand the United States, you're going to be endangered by a whole, an endless carousel of dangers that have really frightened the American people into accepting this kind of unconstitutional, constant erosion of civilization, liberties.

Sagar (72:37)

Yeah, I mean, Glenn, you're, you're making such an important point here, but the evolution of domestic terrorists seems to be probably the single biggest new invention of this second Trump administration. Let's put C2 of Kirsty Noem, the DHS secretary, immediately talking about domestic terrorism in the context here of just bringing a gun to a protest, which again is completely legal. Let's take a listen.

News Reporter/Host (73:02)

The White House has labeled the man who was killed in Minnesota as a domestic terrorist. Is that something you agree with? And have you seen any evidence when you perpetuate violence against a government because of ideological reasons and for reasons to resist and perpetuate violence, that is the definition of domestic terrorism. This individual who came with weapons and ammunition to stop a law enforcement operation of federal law enforcement officers committed an act of domestic terrorism. That's the facts.

Sagar (73:30)

I mean, Glenn, you just mentioned Waco. This is a Waco event. For me, this is a Waco event. Like to go in and to murder somebody, to disarm him and then immediately to come out, just as the Clinton administration did after they murdered those people at Waco and murdered Randy Weaver's wife, is they immediately came out afterwards and said, actually the real problem is we have right wing domestic extremism. This seems to be the exact same playbook, but this time around you're talking about Palantir, you're talking about databases, and perhaps most importantly, you know, apparently you, you don't have any sort of pushback even within the so called coalition, you know, that rose up in many ways against, allegedly against some of these same practices by the Biden administration.

Glenn Greenwald (74:10)

Yeah, exactly. I was going to say, you know, this isn't unfortunately new. It's not new to the Trump second, second term. I mean, one of the largest critiques I had in the wake of January six was that a lot of Democrats and sort of the authoritarian Liz Cheney types began talking about the January six event as this insurrectionary movement that required labeling the Trump movement a domestic terrorist organization. There were attempts by people like Benny Thompson, chairman of the committee, to say that everyone at January 6th at the Capitol should be put on no fly list. Kind of this old School Post 911 War on Terror mentality, but brought to our shores as well as Adam Schiff who wanted to just amend the war on terror laws about international, domestic, international terrorism organization to just amend it and say international or domestic terrorist organization. So in one fell swoop, kind of applied the entire Warren terror standard to our soil. And this is why I'm so amazed, Sagar, to watch the American right that has never thrived. Well, when this sort of mentality emerges because under the Biden administration, the view of homeland security was the single largest threat to the United States is not Al Qaeda or ISIS or Russia, China or Iran. It's domestic white supremacy or domestic far right extremism. And this was the template for dealing with it. A centralized surveillance database importing war and terror mentality and legislative powers to our soil. And now you're seeing people like Kristi Noem and Kash Patel and Stephen Miller and J.D. vance basically saying the same thing. And, and I just. Unfortunately, we're probably never going to get to the end of this cycle where people don't have the capacity to Critique things as long as they perceive it's their side doing it. And I think that's really what we're seeing.

Ryan (75:58)

Yeah, right. I think the only way we're going to get back to it. And I think later in the program we'll talk about Marjorie Taylor Greene's response where she tried to get people to imagine, okay, imagine that these are, this is Biden's FBI and they're going to execute an arrest warrant against a J6 protester. And there's somebody filled with filming outside of that person's house and they throw the person down to the ground and execute them. I think she's kind of screaming into a void. And one of the, the starkest examples of inconsistency and hypocrisy on this question came from our friend of the show, Matt Walsh. And you know, he wrote on, on I guess X yesterday, quote, an armed leftist went out with a gun to deliberately interfere with legitimate law enforcement operations. And I'm seeing some quote, conservatives on this site claim that it might be ISIS his fault that the guy is now dead insane. Some of you people will never effing learn. I responded to him saying that Walsh apparently is cannot conceive of the idea of a principle that would apply ethically both to people he agrees with and also to people he disagrees with. You kind of had some thoughts on that too. Wanted to see if you wanted to elaborate there.

Glenn Greenwald (77:15)

Well, it's funny with Marjorie Taylor Greene, even your point, you know, back in my like rosy eyed, naive younger days as a journalist, I remember in the Bush years trying to tell conservatives, imagine what's going to happen if someone like Hillary Clinton or John Kerry has the power to order American citizens to be arrested with no charges and put on an island, or to be tortured or just ignore laws based on their say so that it's necessary for national security security. And nobody was interested in that hypothetical. They were like, no, we're fine, we don't think that's going to happen. And then when it does happen, they start screaming bloody murder, murder. And Democrats turn around and endorse it. And you go through the same exercise. And I think that it's just an inability to. Not even just an inability, but like an unwillingness to look at things in a principled way, only looking at things through acquiring power. And I think, you know, going to the Matt Wall Paul's point, it's just been so ironic to watch the American right that has been champions of the second amendment for so long, not just in terms of your Right to have a gun in order to ward off criminals, but also more so. And there's a Charlie Kirk tweet from last year saying this. The real reason to have a gun, to have a second amendment, is to be able to guard against tyrannical excesses by a police state, to guarded the citizenry against that. And now they're all talking about having a gun leaked legally as some sort of indicia that you're probably a bad person who has some sort of ill intent. And that's something Cash Patel said and Kristi Noem said, basically you should be going to a protest armed. And it's like, what? All those right wing protests during COVID and Black Lives Matter all were ostentatiously armed to make the point that we are allowed to have guns in the United States, including when we go to political protests. And you know, a lot of this, I do think Ryan, is this kind of, of, you know, need to show everybody how tough and strong they are by saying, yeah, we're going to go.

Sagar (79:10)

In and we're going to shoot you.

Glenn Greenwald (79:11)

Down, we're going to murder you without any kind of Christian compassion or empathy or concern. Because we're in the middle of a war. And these are all people who never go to war, who never sacrifice, never take any risk. People like Matt Walsh. And you know, I was writing about this 20 years ago. These were like the neocon chicken hawks like Jonah Goldberg was writing in 2005. Every 10 years we need to pick up some crappy country and throw it against the wall just to show that we mean business. It's like, what crappy country or crappy anything are you, Jonah Goldberg ever going to pick up? And because he knew he was such a weak and secure loser, he had to use this like tough guy rhetoric and endorse these authoritarian policies. And I think Matt Walsh is just the kind of updated modern version of trying to show that you're a man by indicating how little regard you have for human life.

Sagar (79:54)

Yeah, I mean, it's, it's beyond that also, Glenn. And even with Jonah, unfortunately, Par seems to have learned nothing. What's also galling, like you just said, are the hypocritical or hypocritical statements that these people are making who not even a couple of years ago, who in Marjorie Taylor Green's hypothetical scenario would have been screaming bloody, would have encouraged people to take armed and to take to the streets to stand up. Which by the way, I think, you know, Charlie's tweet is empirically correct. It's not just about self defense. That was the general intention of the second amendment, which I have have always been strong support. That's why when I watch a guy like Alex Preddy get gunned down in the street who did absolutely nothing wrong, and then the government labels him a domestic terrorist. This is Waco. Like this is Randy Weaver. This is literally the exact same thing. You've talked also, Glenn, about masks on federal agents. And I do want to give you the opportunity to talk about that as well. That's something that I had been feeling uncomfortable with. I heard their response. It's like, like, oh, well, we're worried about being docs. And I was like, well, you know, you are in a public position of power and ultimately accountability of the state is like the bedrock of our system. So I do want to give you the opportunity to speak about that too.

Glenn Greenwald (81:06)

Yeah. You know, I think it's interesting. In the 90s there was some convergence of left and right around these concerns for the excesses of federal police power both in Randy Weaver and Waco. The idea that if the state considers you a little weird, it has an ideology that they consider threatening. Even though you have a democratic anything, you're liable to just like be incinerated in your house or have FBI come and shoot your wife and your kid and your dog. And there was a very famous Gore Vidal essay who was always on the left. Gore Vidal was where he got to know Timothy McVeigh and kind of wrote an essay not sympathetic to McVeigh personally, but to the idea that, yeah, we really, this is a kind of tyranny is having the federal government be able to come and, and, and do whatever you do, whatever it wants. And I think the idea that, you know, there's always this kind of contradiction in right wing, like either left wing men or, you know, little soy boy weaklings who are more like girls who don't really understand the virtues of masculine courage the way Matt Walsh does because of how he dresses in the studio. Or they're, you know, people like Alex Preddy who actually do courageously go into the street knowing that there's risk watching. Two weeks after ICE just murdered a woman in his city in Minneapolis. And these people are confronting ICE because they believe that they're engaging in abuse of power. These are the kind of citizens we want. He's legally armed. He's going to a protest to defend and believe in his cause. And I do think he shames a lot of the people who want to believe that they represent those values. But. But really are are too cowardly to do so. And as for mask, I mean this is the kind of thing that is the stuff of dystopian terror. Like one of the ways that we keep armed agents of the state accountable is, is that they're subject to certain rules and constraints. And if they transgress those rules and constraints, they're liable to be prosecuted or to have other discipline. But when they're masked, it takes away a major part of that accountability. Especially when the federal government is refusing to allow states and cities to investigate crimes by them in their jurisdictions. That is something we should not want in the United States. Doesn't matter what your ideology is, you're abused on deportation or anything else. We should not not want mass agents of the state roaming our street, snatching people off the street in. In plan mark vehicles or plan mark clothes or using force without being able to identify them.

Ryan (83:24)

Yeah, and the weapons came into the Randy Weaver situation too. People should go back and kind of read that because it's such a kind of seminal moment in the 90s. The, the federal warrant that the FBI or actually I guess it was the marshalls were trying to enforce on his, you know, little compound out of Ruby Ridge was for he apparently he's like sought off a shotgun for somebody Pierce.

Sagar (83:49)

Which they asked him to.

Ryan (83:50)

It was a total entrapment, total 100% entrapment. So they, so even the like the basis for which they were coming onto his property was related to entrapment and a second amendment issue as well. And then they, they shoot and kill his 14, his dog and. And then the 14 year old kid gets upset about that and they shoot and kill him and you get the standoff that leads to his wife being killed as well. And to have that as the legacy of the 90s lead into this. Well maybe you shouldn't have sold a shot sawed off shotgun to a federal agent right then this wouldn't happen.

Sagar (84:24)

That was the defense by the way of the time. That was literally the defense for.

Glenn Greenwald (84:27)

Exactly, exactly. Not only that, but that also then is what led to the first war over privacy on the Internet. The Internet was only emerging in its incipiency stages in. And that was when Bill Clinton and the Clinton administration were demanding backdoor to Internet encryption on the grounds that they have to surveil domestically like the anti government militias that arose in the wake of things like Waco and Randy Ridge to Ruby Ridge to protest against government excesses. And you had these authoritarians like Bill Clinton and the Clinton administration saying now we need backdoors into the Internet to monitor everybody. And the view of the American right was we're not giving up private privacy and allowing the federal government to become these, you know, sprawling police standing armies because they're going to crush our liberties. And now 20 years later, it's the American right not only cheering it, but demanding it based on exactly the same mentality. They just don't realize it.

Ryan (85:17)

Alex Alex Jones, for some reason is the most disappointing to me.

Sagar (85:22)

I agree.

Ryan (85:22)

To see him out there, everything he warned about is now like coming to fruition and he's out there alongside it cheering it on, cheering it, demanding it.

Glenn Greenwald (85:35)

I know, it's amazing.

Sagar (85:36)

Disgusting. It's so disgusting. Glenn, as always, thank you so much for joining us for breaking it down.

Glenn Greenwald (85:41)

Good to be with you guys.

Sagar (85:42)

Now more than ever, The new era of UFC on Paramount plus comes out swinging. Highlight machine Justin Gaethje collides with Patty the Baddie Pimblet in a must see.

Ryan (86:08)

High octane main event.

Sagar (86:10)

Plus Sean Suga o' Malley faces off against Song Yedong in a stand up war filled with high level striking. Pay per view just got knocked. Stream UFC 324 live on January 24th only on Paramount Plus. Visit paramountplus.com UFC to get started the new year brings new health goals and wealth goals.

Sponsor Announcer (86:33)

Protecting your identity is an important step.

Sagar (86:35)

Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, Lifelock's restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New year's goals. With LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com iheart Terms apply There's a.

Commercial Announcer (87:01)

Lot of noise in the business world today. Leaders like you need clear insights from professionals you can trust. Navigating beyond the Expected is a new podcast from Truist securities featuring conversations with investment banking experts at the center of financing deals in manufacturing, healthcare, entertainment and more. It's practical advice for leaders who need to know what's coming next. Subscribe@truist.com Beyond Podcast Copyright Truth Securities Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC, this is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.