Loading summary
Transcript19 lines
- [00:01]
Advertiser
This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. Not everyone is careful with your personal information, which might explain why there's a victim of identity theft every five seconds in the U.S. fortunately, there's LifeLock. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity. If your identity is stolen, a US Based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year by visiting lifelock.com podcast terms apply.
- [00:30]
Michael Popak
Judges watch television, judges read the paper. Judges see YouTube. And it influences things that happen inside the courtroom, especially when involves Donald Trump and his administration, such as Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security director and secretary. Both of their comments made in the last week or two ended up in Jeb Boseberg's courtroom recently. And Donald Trump's been on a losing streak the last about a week in a series of federal courts about his depraved immigration policy. And all of them are looking to revelations and confessions made by Trump during his interviews which have completely undermined his lawsuits. And I'm going to cover it all right here. Connect the dots on Midas touch on Michael Popak, co founder of Legal AF Let me dive right into it. Jeb Boasberg is handling a case that is related adjacent to the Abrego Garcia case. His case has to do with other Venezuelan other Venezuelans not named Abrego Garcia who were whisked away in the middle of the night in a surreptitious operation to take them to a gulag in El Salvador summarily without any due process. And now we know in a series of Supreme Court decisions that that was all illegal and unconstitutional. Now, against that backdrop, we've got Jeb Boasberg, who even though the Supreme Court took away the main case about him ordering a series of airplanes to return to the United States that had been sent there the Supreme Court ruling that those issues were better handled individually by judges in the jurisdictions in which these people last resided by writ of habeas corpus petition. But that didn't mean that Chief Judge Boasberg in D.C. who was on he's also the judge, as you may recall, who found probable cause to believe that Donald Trump and his administration were in criminal contempt, that part of the case was sort of taken away from him. What he's trying to figure out now is now that the American Civil Liberties Union and a law firm that used to represent until about two weeks ago, the Trump administration as its ethics council joining together to file things in the courtroom with Judge Boasberg and the argument There is the other 250 people who were rotting in that El Salvador Sikkot Gulag. They have due process rights. They have Fifth Amendment rights. They have habeas corpus petition rights that can't be in, that can't be used or exercised while they're in El Salvador. So he's trying to figure out whether he has jurisdiction to order things related to that El Salvador in prison. The question of control, who controls these prisoners came up in his courtroom. It's come up in the other places to the other federal courts. But control is interesting because the American Civil Liberties Union is now arguing, rightly so, that the US And El Salvador have at least joint control over that El Salvador in prison. And if you have control, then you have the ability to bring somebody back and have them return. And that's what Boseberg is struggling with now in a hearing late this early this week, sorry. In front of Boasberg, a new lawyer for the Department of Justice, they trotted out, got his, got their head handed to them by the judge. The judge pointed to statements made by, by Trump and Kristi Noem particularly, and then question whether they were telling the truth or not. In other words, he called out Trump and Noem and said they weren't telling the truth. He said, let me, let me, let me get this straight as we're trying to figure out who has control over El Salvador. He said, I watched, along with the rest of America, the interviews that were on, you know, Kristen Welker, NBC and Terry Moran on ABC about Donald Trump being able to pick up the phone and get Abrego Garcia back. And why isn't that relevant to control? Was he telling the truth? The lawyer said, well, we're conflating how Donald Trump sees his, his, his outsized influence around the world with actual legal control. And then the lawyer said, sorry, the, the judge said, so he wasn't telling the truth. Donald Trump, oh, well, I don't want to parse that statement. Well, you're there, Mr. Department of Justice Attorney, to do exactly that. When a federal judge asked you to, he then said, okay, what about. Well, in fact, let me show you the two clips the judge was referring to, almost calling it by name. Again, I had said every time Donald Trump says something out loud in these interviews, it's going to be used in the courtrooms. The lawyers are going to bring it to the judge's attention and the judges are going to bring it to the, to the party's attention. Let's play the back to back clips. KRISTEN Welker first, and then Terry Moran saying, the phone's on the desk. Why don't you pick it up and use it? Let's play both back to back, because.
- [05:35]
Kristen Welker
Obviously you've had a back and forth with the supreme court. In a 9 to 0 decision, the Supreme Court directed your administration to facilitate the return. You've talked about this in the past of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a prison in El Salvador whose deportation your administration called an administrative error. You said in a recent interview you could bring him back, but you won't. Are you defying the Supreme Court?
- [05:58]
Donald Trump
No, I'm relying on the Attorney General of the United States. Pam Bondi is very capable, doing a great job. Because I'm not involved in the legality or the illegality. I have lawyers to do that, and that's why I have a great doj. We have a great one. We had a very corrupt one before. Now we have a great one. And they're not viewing the decision the way you said it. They don't view it that way at all. They think it's a totally different decision.
- [06:25]
Kristen Welker
Well, you say you have the power to bring him back, though your attorney general says, quote, that's up to El Salvador. Just to put a fine point on this. Do you have the power to bring Abrego Garcia back as the Supreme Court?
- [06:37]
Donald Trump
Well, I have the power to ask for him to come back if I'm instructed by the attorney general that it's legal to do so. But the decision as to whether or not he should come back will be the head of El Salvador. He's a very capable man.
- [06:51]
Kristen Welker
Well, you know, and your attorney general has said the issue is with that word, facilitate. Will you seek clarification from the Supreme Court? Do you need to go back to the Supreme Court?
- [07:00]
Donald Trump
We may do that. I was asking about that. We may do that. There are some people that say bring them back, put them in trial, and you get them out right away.
- [07:07]
Terry Moran
Let me ask about one man in one court order, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He's the Salvadoran man who crossed into this country illegally, but who is under a protective order that he not be sent back to El Salvador. Your government sent him back to El Salvador and. And acknowledged in court that was a mistake. And now the Supreme Court has upheld an order that you must return him to facilitate his return to the United States. What are you doing to comply?
- [07:32]
Donald Trump
Well, the lawyer that said it was a mistake was here a long time, was not appointed by us. Should not have said that. Should not have said that. And just so you understand the person that you're talking about, you know, you're making this person sound. This is a MS.13 gang member, a tough cookie, been in lots of skirmishes, beat the hell out of his wife and the wife was petrified to even talk about him. Okay, this is not an innocent, wonderful gentleman from Maryland.
- [08:00]
Terry Moran
Not saying he's a good guy. It's about the rule of law. The order from the Supreme Court stands.
- [08:04]
Donald Trump
Into our country illegally.
- [08:06]
Terry Moran
You could get him back. There's a phone on this desk.
- [08:08]
Donald Trump
I could.
- [08:09]
Terry Moran
You could pick it up and all the power of the presidency. You could call up the president of El Salvador and say, send him back right now.
- [08:15]
Donald Trump
And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that.
- [08:18]
Terry Moran
But the court has ordered you to facilitate that.
- [08:21]
Donald Trump
I'm not the one making this decision. We have lawyers who want to do this. The buck stops. No, no, no, no. I follow the law. You want me to follow the law. If I were the president that just wanted to do anything, I'd probably keep him right where he is.
- [08:35]
Michael Popak
Speaker 3 so that came up in the courtroom and the lawyer's lack of response for it. Feeling a little stalled out in the bedroom. Through hims you can get some gas back in the tank. With personalized ED treatment options that are accessible without ever stepping foot into a doctor's office. HIMSS is changing men's healthcare by providing you with access to affordable sexual health treatments from the comfort of your couch. HIMS provides access to a range of doctor trusted ED treatments like chewable tablets, Viagra and Cialis and their generics for up to 95% less. The process is 100% online, so there's no need for uncomfortable doctor's visits. Just fill out an intake form on their site and a medical provider will determine the right treatment option. If prescribed, your medication ships directly to you for free. No insurance is needed and one low price covers everything from treatments to ongoing care. With hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers and HIMS can help you find the ED option that works for you. Start your free online Visit today@hisss.com LegalAF that's H I M S.com Legal AF for your personalized ED treatment options. Hisss.com LegalAF and the Lawyer had for the Department of Justice had no better response when he said let's go back to control again. And didn't Christy Noem, the Homeland Security secretary and standing in front of that actual jail in El Salvador called seacot, didn't she say that it was Part of the toolbox of America. This was a tool in the toolbox. The America's use of this El Salvador in prison, doesn't that imply control and the, and the fact. Let me play the clip. You will be removed and you will be prosecuted. But know that this facility is one of the tools in our toolkit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people. The judge says you heard her tool in a toolbox. Well, the political, the nuances are lost sometimes on politicians about, and it doesn't really mean legal control. So she wasn't telling the truth. Well, I wouldn't say that. I'm not going to parse every statement. You are there, sir, to parse every statement or whatever else the judge tells you to do. So while the judge is trying to figure this out and is having difficulty and he's finally put up his hands, he said, okay, I'm not getting straight answers in this courtroom. You know, the judge is already getting, you know, fed up with the Trump administration having already found them in likelihood of criminal contempt. He said, starting now, you're going to be submitting, submitting to me by next week for the world to see written statements under oath about the relationship between America and El Salvador. The payment structure, the contract, the agreement with whatever it is that allowed America to take people, other human beings without due process and dump them into a jail. I want to see all of that information and those documents. He said, for instance, we've heard that there was a $6 million payment made for this. And the lawyers tried to tap, dance around that. Oh, well, that was really a grant. Follow this convoluted argument. That was really a grant that went to the El Salvador and they could use it for whatever they wanted while they're housing, but it's not directly for the housing of these prisoners. See how convoluted. And they did this on purpose to try to cover their tracks, you know, how they wired the money. But now the judge is like, okay, by next week, I want it under oath. Because what he's trying to do at this moment is not trying to find out whether the Trump administration is in contempt again, he's trying to confirm whether he has jurisdiction. That's in a very important part of what judges do at the outset a party. There's two things a judge has to check the box on right away in a lawsuit, federal or state. One, do the parties before me have a live case or controversy? Because the parties also have standing to sue to present their claims. It's. They're not asking me for an advisory opinion. They have real injury and they're the right party to bring that case into court. Standing is first and at the same time, juror, does the court have jurisdiction? Are we in the right courtroom? Are we in the right courthouse? Are we in the right court between state and federal? Do I have jurisdiction? And are these the right parties with a live case or controversy in front of me? Check, check, check. Right. I guess it's three things there, once that's determined. So that's what the judge is struggling with now. Do I have jurisdiction? Does the, can I order something to happen here? And so the ACLU said, yes, there's badges of all of this. Cut control over that prison in the hands of the U.S. i mean, does anybody really believe Donald Trump just backed other human beings into a prison, paid $6 million and didn't get a receipt? I mean, seriously. So we're going to continue to follow what Boseberg does. The other backdrop here is the losing streak that the Trump administration has been on in the last 72 hours. You have four separate federal judges who have all declared one way or the other that Donald Trump illegally triggered the Alien Enemies Act. Right. He said it was a predatory incursion of armed combatants as a proxy war with Venezuela. None of that is true. And the judges now, including two Trump appointed judges. Right. We have Sweeney, we have Judge Sweeney, we have Judge Rodriguez, we have Judge Hellerstein and a fourth judge. They all ruled in four different courtrooms, four different states, almost identically that what we're watching with the trend, the Aragua narcotics gang is not a war, but it's just migration. They got into the country and they committed crimes. That's not Alien Enemies act war, like predatory incursion that needs to be repelled by a president. So that's four judges now. And then they're all going to get appealed to their various appellate courts above them, the Second Circuit, the fifth Circuit, Colorado is the, I want to say the sixth Circuit. And so those circuits then up on an emergency application altogether, probably to the United States Supreme Court. So you got that losing streak going on at the same time, you got the losing streak of the federal, the federal judges who have ruled against Donald Trump's deportation of graduate students because they say they're Hamas sympathizers. And while they're exercising their First Amendment right and then trying to get them away from more moderate and liberal courts by sending them two and three states in a night to get them as far away from those courts as possible. And the second Circuit Court of Appeals has said, bring these people back to Vermont and away from Louisiana. See, Donald Trump wants to put him in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals because he thinks that's a winning hand for him. And federal judges are seeing it and saying, bring them back to New York and Vermont. So we're going to continue to follow this, but there's no other way. Donald Trump is pressing a losing hand both with the American people who in voting polls say unequivocally that Donald Trump is a disaster on immigration, that they don't appreciate or like what he's doing, especially in defiance of courts. And his attack on the United States Supreme Court is not working. And now you know what he's gonna do. You know he's gonna go after Pope Leo. You know, he already, I'm sure, sees Leo as an enemy. All of Donald Trump's proxies, like Laura Loomer and all the rest are saying, oh, he's a Marxist, he's a leftist, he's just like Francis. I mean, Laura Loomer is not even Catholic. To be, to be commenting, this is who the conclave picked. Donald Trump impacts elections. Donald Trump impacts elections, even of the papal variety. Does anybody think that that wasn't a message sent back to America and to Donald Trump during the Trump era? They picked a guy, Leo, who when he was cardinal and Bishop Prevost was very public about going after Donald Trump appropriately and MAGA about their, their almost said unholy, their depraved stance on immigration, on migrants, their attack on people, their lack of gun control. Prevost constantly retweeted, recommended on his social media in things that were against MAGA primary policy. So of course MAGA is upset with Leo, who is seen as the moral amoral leader of the world and a perfect foil in the time of Trump for Trump. Trump impacts elections. And so you've got his depraved immigration policy. He's now gonna turn and try to attack Pope Leo, pissing off not just Catholics, all those that believe in fair minded people and people of God one way or the other. So Boasberg's got his hands full. I think he's gonna ultimately rule that he's got jurisdiction and he's going to keep the case, which is about getting 250 other people out of El Salvador back to the United States for their proper due process, not to release them on the streets, just to give them notice and a hearing before a judge before they are deported or removed again. And then this issue of whether that El Salvador is an appropriate place for them. That's for other cases that have been brought through the pipeline that we're covering here on the Midas Dutch network and on Legal Afghanistan just formed a new substack, Legal AF Substack. Got all these great cases and postings there and a great commentary and analysis and videos you can't find anywhere else. And of course Legal AF the YouTube channel Legal afmtn. So until my next report, I'm Michael Popak. Can't get your fill of Legal af. Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do. Well. Wait for it. Morning af. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AO are there as well. We got some new reporting, we got interviews, we got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on substack. Come over now to free subscribe.