Loading summary
Transcript73 lines
- [00:00]
Dina Dahl
What makes a great pair of glasses? At Warby Parker, it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com have I got NEWS for you is back for another season. Roy Wood Jr. Amber Ruffin and Michael Ian Black are finding the funny in the week's biggest stories. Have I Got news for you? Return Saturday at 9 on CNN and.
- [00:44]
Michael Popak
Stream next day on Max.
- [00:46]
Dina Dahl
This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. During tax season, your personal info travels.
- [00:51]
Michael Popak
To a lot of places between payroll.
- [00:53]
Dina Dahl
Your tax consultant and the IRS. If your W2 gets exposed, that's just the ticket for identity thieves. That's why Lifelock monitors millions of data points every second.
- [01:03]
Michael Popak
If your identity is stolen, they'll fix.
- [01:05]
Dina Dahl
It, guaranteed or your money back. Don't let identity thieves take you for a ride. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply. Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF. I'm joined by Dina Dahl, who is now becoming a regular stand in co host for Michael Popak, who's traveling and on the road today, relocating to Florida. And we wish him well and his family as they are going down to Florida and getting all set up. And Dina, just I can't tell you how grateful we are that you are here and available to step in when one of us can't, can't record, which sometimes happens because we have our crazy busy lives and jobs and all that kind of stuff. And it's always fun to do this with you. Thank you so much for being here with here on Wednesday with me. And there's so much to talk about. There's so much going on at the intersection of law and politics, it's almost hard to know where to begin. But I think we really should talk about this constitutional crisis that seems to be happening right before our very eyes, where Trump and his secretaries that he is appointing and his acting secretaries and department heads are literally either ignoring or talking about ignoring court rulings. What happens then and what will, what power do the courts actually have to enforce their rulings? And that'll be an interesting conversation. I think it's important that we have it. It's important that people understand what's going on again, whether you want to call it a constitutional crisis or not, it doesn't matter. Labels don't matter. Some people will say, not yet, we're on our way or it is. But what matters is what's actually happening. And we in unprecedented territory in some ways, some would argue worse than we were after the Civil War when it comes to the potential here and actuality of Donald Trump and those below him literally just ignoring Congress and statutes and ignoring judges and defying court orders. So that'll be a great discussion I want to have with you, Dina, especially because I know you and Popak do a lot of work. You have your show on the Supreme Court. And so you, you guys follow the Supreme Court quite closely. So I want to get your thoughts on that and, and I want to and dive deep on what's going on there and what people are saying. We're also going to talk about the, the inspectors general, the, the nonpartisan watchdogs that exist in, in our government to make sure that there's no fraud and waste and abuse all the says they're doing. There actually is a job for that. And there are inspectors general and Trump is just firing them, which you're not allowed to do. And there's a law that says you can't do it the way he's done it. And so there's a lawsuit that eight of the almost 17 inspectors general that were summarily fired by Trump have brought. We should talk about that and what's going on there. And then, of course, there's the quid pro quo. You know, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine, Trump way of doing things. And we'll talk about all the people he's doing favors for, like Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City and about to dismiss that case. And also Vince McMahon, who's also, who's also a friend of his. And he's got getting his case dropped. You've got former Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois who was pardoned by Trump. And I had to, I did a head scratch because I thought, oh, didn't that happen already in, during the Trump administration? 1 and that was a commutation of the sentence. Now he's a full pardon. And, you know, just any other updates we can talk about with lawsuits and restraining orders and injunctions and all that kind of stuff, we should, we should also throw in there because this is legal af. So that those are the topics I think we should talk about today. How are you doing, Tina?
- [05:28]
Amber Ruffin
I mean, I'm okay. Like you. There's A lot to talk about the number. I mean, this is my job. And there's still the number of lawsuits filed against Trump. All the court hearings, all the orders is a lot. And so I'm grateful to be able to talk through you and have everybody come up to speed, because Trump is an agent of chaos, and we're here to provide clarity. And so whatever they do, is it kind of lost in the dark, so to speak? So grateful to talk to you about it.
- [05:56]
Dina Dahl
Absolutely, absolutely. So let's start with this constitutional crisis that we might be in. I think a picture or a video speaks a thousand words. So why don't we start with a clip that I think would. Would set the tone for this discussion quite nicely. Salty. If you wouldn't mind playing the clip. And it seems hard to believe that judges want to try and stop us.
- [06:19]
Amber Ruffin
From looking for corruption, especially when we found hundreds of millions of dollars worth much more than that in just a.
- [06:26]
Dina Dahl
Short period of time.
- [06:27]
Amber Ruffin
And we want to weed out the corruption.
- [06:29]
Dina Dahl
And it seems hard to believe that.
- [06:31]
Amber Ruffin
A judge could say, we don't want you to do that. Well, so maybe we have to look at the judges, because that's very serious. I think it's a very serious violation.
- [06:40]
Michael Popak
And if you have rule of the bureaucrat, if the bureaucracy is in charge, and then what meaning does democracy actually have?
- [06:49]
Amber Ruffin
If the people cannot vote and have.
- [06:51]
Michael Popak
Their will be decided by their elected.
- [06:54]
Amber Ruffin
Representatives in the form of the president.
- [06:57]
Michael Popak
And the Senate and the House, then we don't live in a democracy, we live in a bureaucracy. So it's incredibly important that we close that feedback loop, we fix that feedback loop, and that the public, the public's elected representatives, the president, the House, and the Senate, decide what happens, as opposed.
- [07:15]
Amber Ruffin
To a large, unelected bureaucracy. But in fact, the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch, where district court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority. We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law. And they have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past 14 days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits. This is part of a larger concerted effort by Democrat activists and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump. Creation of powers. It's a really novel idea, but our Founding Fathers created a document, the Constitution. There's a separation of powers for a reason. The executive branch is the ultimate authority on federal issues, and we have rogue judges who are trying to stop members like Doge, Team Besant from doing their job. And that's to protect taxpayer dollars, to look at what we're doing with spending, and to run the federal government under President Trump.
- [08:22]
Dina Dahl
So here's. Yeah, it's pretty scary to listen to that. They're turning their sights on the judges. They're going after the courts. Now, when we think about the Constitution, there is. There are three branches, separate but equal branches, Articles one, two and three. Article one is Congress, right? I mean, Article two are, are the, are the judges and the courts, and Article 3 is the President. Why is that? Why didn't they make the president first if they were going to. If he was going to be a supreme leader? And I think they did that on purpose. I think that was by design. Because it is absolutely not supposed to be the ultimate decision maker. The ultimate decision maker. There are three separate branches, right? Yes. The American people vote on Congress and the Senate, and that's why they can pass laws that the president ultimately has to sign into law. Right. They don't have unilateral ability to do that. The president has to. Has to ratify a bill to turn it into a law. But it's not until the courts actually interpret what that means. Right? That's what it means to be a judge is to interpret that law. Because the laws don't have every single thing in there. So it doesn't make any sense for them to essentially say that it's not a democracy, it's a bureaucracy, and he has the authority to make these decisions and do these things. You know, it's just, it's actually pretty terrifying. I think that, I mean, they're calling it a constitutional crisis. I think we are headed towards a constitutional crisis. And I think, look, we've only been here 18 days, right? And just a few examples of the. Of where I think they are flouting the law is freezing birthright citizenship. Right? That could, the law couldn't be clearer there. And so I don't know where they. What, what executive. That's not an agency. Right. There's no sort of like that. That's how they get around this, by the way, is they say, well, we're just doing what we're allowed to do because we're in charge of the agencies that fall under the executive branch. And so freezing birthright citizenship, that has nothing to do with the agencies. Right. That, that's actually written in the Constitution that, you know, the birthright citizenship, number one. Number two, freezing federal spending Another thing that they're, that they're trying to usurp the law. Right. That the power of the purse is with Congress. Only Congress can appropriate money. And so for, for Trump to literally just say, no, I'm not going to do it, he's impounding money that, that Congress has appropriated. Not allowed to do that, and so removing leaders of agencies. Well, some he's allowed to do. Some serve at his pleasure, but some aren't. Like the inspect General that we're going to talk about. Right. That's a statute that specifically says that this is supposed to be nonpartisan, and you have to give reasons and notice to Congress and they have to be substantive. It can't just be, oh, I don't like their politics. You have to have done something wrong because, you know, fire. And then there's also the government employees who, by the way, work for the executive branch, but are subject to civil service protections, again, passed by Congress. That's a law essentially saying things, saying that you are protected, that you work here, because it's not supposed to be political. The people, they're supposed to be experts, people who work for the civil service. And as a public servant for three decades, which I was. When you're a civil servant, you are beholden to the cause, to your expertise, to the Constitution. It has nothing to do with politics, and it should never have anything to do with politics. And that's how it's always been. And just doing these, doing these, frankly, systematic, unconstitutional and illegal acts, in my opinion, is creating a constitutional crisis. And Trump and his and maga, they're sort of this master of. They accuse others of the very thing that they're doing. And so, and it's. And they do it all the time. Right. They don't just deny what they're being accused of. They then turn it on its head and say, no, you're doing it. And, and that's sort of how they engage. And so the fact that they're calling it a constitutional crisis, I think, is very interesting. You know, but let's, let's dive into some of these. You know, there's a Federal judge, John McConnell in Rhode island, who said the White House defied his order to release billions of dollars in federal grant. This was the first time that a judge said that Trump disobeyed a judicial mand that essentially because it said his mandate was that they must comply with the plain text of his ruling that is clear and unambiguous, and there are no impediments to compliance. And so he Ruled against. He said, you have to release this money. And the lawyers are appealing to the First Circuit, asking for a pause. And they cloak everything. And, well, it's the will of the people, you know, that he was voted in. He's allowed to do this. And, you know, and it's not surprising that they have this view because JD Vance has been saying apparently for years, but no one was paying attention before because he wasn't the Vice president, you know, but he tweeted. He tweeted. If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. The word legitimate, okay, that's the word in there that is going to be interpreted. Right. Of course he throws that in there because he's claiming it's legitimate, but it's not, it's not legit. If it's illegitimate, he can't do it. And when you have a court telling you you can't do it within their authority or the Constitution saying it, it's actually not legitimate. So, you know, it, it's, it's, it's very, very, it's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. There's also another Judge, Paul Engelmeier, who temporarily enjoined Doge from accessing Treasury Department payment systems. And 19 Democratic attorneys general have alleged a series of constitutional and statutory violations in having Doge unaccountable and basically ransack the treasury payment system, which he's not allowed to do. So it was after all of these temporary bars, pressing pause on these actions that it's causing, whether it's Vance or Musk or Trump or who, you know, Alina Haba, all of the various people to now be going out on, on a, on this, like this, talking this, this talking spree and calling it a constitutional crisis because the judges are interpreting the law. And, and basically they're saying, oh, they're not letting us do what we were elected to do, and where the heck is Congress?
- [15:34]
Amber Ruffin
No one's saying, well, and let, let me just jump in there. So I, I, and yeah, it's because they're losing, right? It's because they're losing that they say this. And I think there's a few things to look at with this. One is what is the Supreme Court is going to say? And I'll get into that. And also, what kind of what can judges do to implement orders if they're not obeyed, because they do have some tools. But first and foremost, just to get off, you know, that was a clear coordinated messaging between the JD Vance and then that video compilation that we saw. First of all, the audacity of Elon Musk to stand in the Oval Office and say the voters want elected officials to run the country when nobody elected Elon Musk. I mean, talk about not self aware. But beyond that, the fact is, I think the messaging, the counter messaging here is, yes, this is a constitutional crisis. Yes, this is not how our founders meant our country to function. But I think a better counter message to because Trump doesn't care about the Constitution or whatever is to show that this means he realizes he does not have power in Congress. Republicans have said we've had a mandate. We control all three branches of government. Well, if you don't like how a judge interpreted the Privacy act of 1974, the inspectors generals act, the Administrative Procedures act, all the acts that are being interpreted and they are losing around, guess what? You just said you had control of Congress. Redo the acts. You can write the acts exactly how you want to write the act. So their way of blaming the judges is actually showing that they realize how weak they are as a party despite holding both houses. And I wish that were the message to go out because you know, he and his crew will talk and say anything until enough people frankly believe it. Right. That's what he did with the big lie in 2020. And I think we need to get out in front of this, this quickly, which is there is a counterpoint to if you don't like how a judge interprets the law, you can change the law. That is possible in our separation of powers. And you have just said how you've gotten this mandate from the public. Go ahead and change that Privacy Act. Go ahead and change Inspector general. Say that you can just send a two sentence email instead of showing cause. If that's what you want, go ahead and do it. So I kind of wish we would be talking about that more instead of always playing on defense, which is sadly with somebody. The chaos agent of Trump is it's where we often are. And then the Supreme Court just to kind of quickly get into that because this is all going to end up in the Supreme Court or a lot of it. When I saw J.D. vance's tweet, I thought keep talking that talk, J.D. vance, because nobody likes to give up power. The Supreme Court, because of the Federalist Society nominees is heavily into executive power. They believe in the executive unitary theory, a majority of the Supreme Court believes that the president should have, like, ultimate authority over the executive branch. So in a typical situation, the fact that all these district court judges are siding, let's say, with the public or states or whatever, a lot of those Supreme Court justices, they probably have a majority on the court to rule in favor of Trump. But when you keep talking about, you're basically trying to neuter the power of judges, Chief Justice Roberts isn't going to like that. He is an institutionalist. He sees it as his job to carry the institutional legitimacy of the court. So you keep talking about how unpowerful a judge is, and they might just assert their power in a way you don't like. Because the bottom line, every single one of these lawsuits is not about whether or not the Trump administration followed the federal law. Clearly, they didn't. That's why they've gotten loss after loss after loss. The question is going to be, is that federal law unconstitutional? Because the appeals are going all the way up to the Supreme Court. Those federal societies kind of want to rule in favor of Trump and will maybe say those provisions are unconstitutional. But when you have the likes of J.D. vance or Elon Musk or whatever going after the legitimacy of the judicial branch, the Supreme Court, that's your branch. You know, Justice Sotomayor, she just talked to a federal, sorry, a college in Florida yesterday, and she talked about we didn't want a monarchy and how important, important it is for the separation powers and Congress to have the power of purse. And supposedly she wasn't talking about Trump. But I mean, this court is hearing and seeing all of this. So, you know, in a way, the more extreme they get for trying to say they want to, you know, remove judges, overstep the branch, the more I think you are going to convince somebody like Chief Justice Roberts to rule against you in a case they might have otherwise ruled against for you. Because back in 2020, they started chipping away at the protections that were, you know, how a president, that case had to do with the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau and how a president can fire somebody and they start to chip it away. The protections that Congress had, they want to help him. I think they're doing the Trump, Vance Musk are maybe helping us in some weird way, because the more extreme they get, I think Chief Justice Roberts might push back.
- [21:25]
Dina Dahl
You know, Vance has been saying that Andrew Jackson said, and maybe he did, but I haven't been able to find any verification that he actually said this. But he said, he said, and when the courts, because you'll get taken to court and when the courts try to stop you, you should stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, quote, the Chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it. And that was chilling because that just gives you a window into what they're thinking. What they're basically saying is the court has no power. Right. They can just interpret the law, but how can they, how can they follow through? Right? They don't, they don't, they're not in charge of, they can't take away money or give money. Right. They don't have access to that. That's always a powerful thing. They don't, they don't have military or police or agencies or they have no enforcement ability or powers. Right. They rely on other, and they, they rely on the other, the other agencies and the other branches. And, and I read, when I read Chief Justice Roberts year end report in December, which he, he, the Chief justice traditionally does a year end report every year. And Justice Roberts, it's not very long and you can Google it and read it, it's actually worth a read. But there's just one little part of it that I want to, I want to read because it was also chilling. It basically said that every administration suffers defeats in the court system, sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential topics, he wrote. Nevertheless, for the past several decades, the decisions of the courts, popular or not, have been followed and the nation has avoided the standoffs that plagued the 50s and 60s. Within the past few years, however, the Chief justice went on, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected. I mean, Nixon didn't even obey a court order. And this is me talking now. It's no longer in Robert's. I'm not reading from Robert's report. Nixon obeyed a court order and turned over the tapes and that cost him the presidency. But, but it has never really been done the way it's already happening. Right. Trump has disobeyed Congress with the tick tock ruling. Okay. Congress passed a law saying that TikTok is going to be illegal in this country. The courts upheld that law. And what did Trump do? Nope, we're not going to enforce it. I think it was for 75 days while he tries to figure it out. I'm sure he's going to figure out a way to buy it or have someone who knows, like Elon Musk or somebody else buy it. But again, just not, not and no one's doing anything about it. There is a law on the books, is not being enforced. And, and the, and the Supreme Court.
- [24:21]
Amber Ruffin
Allowed though, like a 90 day extension if they were in the middle of negotiations. And that's basically what he's pointing to, right?
- [24:27]
Dina Dahl
Well, exactly. But the point is they defied, they defied the law and no one's doing anything about it. And to your point, why isn't Congress, Congress passing another law? Right. They're just, they're just not. And no one complaining. Congress doesn't care that it has no power. The courts are issuing these restraining orders and these injunctions and we'll see, we'll see what ends up happening. I mean, go ahead.
- [24:51]
Amber Ruffin
I mean, if it were you or I, I mean, you could be in contempt of court.
- [24:56]
Dina Dahl
They would be thrown in jail in two seconds. Yeah.
- [24:58]
Amber Ruffin
I mean, and, and so they could try to do that. They could try to fine these officials, they could try to put them in jail. I mean, I don't know if how far they're willing to do that, but it is tr. They do have tools. How effective is it against a head of a department or the president? We don't know. Again, we are unchartered territories, as I feel like we've said a lot on this podcast. But the truth of the matter is that they can. Judges do have to enforce their order, sometimes with fines or, and contempt and, and who knows, we might, we might get.
- [25:36]
Dina Dahl
There are, as we saw with Donald Trump, who was held in contempt 10 times in his New York State Supreme Court case. It doesn't do much. Right.
- [25:51]
Amber Ruffin
Just enforce that, though. Do you think you're, I mean, he didn't fine him. He didn't even try sentencing him to a day or hours in jail or.
- [26:00]
Dina Dahl
Well, let's see if the Supreme Court will go against Trump or Trump appointees because that's what who, you know, as you pointed out, they have empowered and emboldened to him over the years and they believe in this unitary executive and frankly, they gave him a big, giant, fat kiss on the cheek or kiss on the lips with the US V. Trump decision granting him presidential immunity. And although that's from criminal prosecution, you know, they essentially have basically said, go ahead, do what you want, and there's nothing. And, but even there, like, they really.
- [26:38]
Amber Ruffin
Only gave him absolute immunity with his Article 2 powers. And you know, that maybe even was a step too far, but they didn't give him absolute immunity for all of his official conduct. So, like, as awful as that was, it was probably the timing that made that decision so awful, because if there had been more time, I mean, you know, Jack Smith was able to amend his indictment and move forward. It wasn't like they completely left Trump off the hook. The fact that that case was filed and the charges were filed so late is what made that decision especially hurtful. So I think it's important for us to be upset with that decision, but not really think that they gave him, like, absolute immunity across the board for official. Like, maybe it was surprising that even enough of them were willing to say some official conduct could be criminal even for a president. They did say that. And so I think there's. We have to realize that that was them kind of not completely, you know, making him a monarch. We weren't happy with it, but I think it gives us some path to see how the Supreme Court, they are going to have a hard time navigating Trump, let's just put it that way, because it is going to be against their own personal policy feeling of not wanting, of wanting the president to have broad power, but he is so corrupt. It's going to test, really, their belief system in a way that we'll have to kind of see how that tension works out.
- [28:19]
Dina Dahl
I hope you're right, and I have to correct myself. I think I mistakenly said that Article 2 of the Constitution was the judiciary and three is the presidency. It's three is the judiciary and two is the presidency and one is Congress. But I'm still correct that Article 1, and you got it right, you said it right, that Article 1 is not the president, it's Congress. And again, that was by design, so that it's not the premier, he's not the king, he's not the ruler, to just kind of even make it more. It's separate, but equal. Equal, equal, equal. And so, and that's the one thing that Trump needs to really be reined in, I think. And I think we just need to hold him accountable. And frankly, if their excuse for doing, doing all this is, well, we were elected, this is the will of the people, then the people need to say, we want you to follow the law, even the laws you disagree with, because that's what it means to be a democracy, to live in democracy and live free means we respect all laws, not just the ones we agree with or like. We respect each other, not just the beliefs that we like or dislike of each other. Because we believe in freedom. We believe in freedom to believe what you want to do what you want, but we will respect them so that we can all live freely to believe and think and do what we want within, within the bounds of, of the law. And so, but he needs. And that, and that should be more important than any one issue. That should transcend all of it, because our democracy depends on it. And so hopefully people will start speaking up and say, you need to follow the law. The law is important.
- [29:56]
Amber Ruffin
And if you don't like it, change it. If you really feel like people voted you and your reflection of the public, that's what happens in a democracy, too.
- [30:05]
Dina Dahl
And you're right. And you're right. There's no laws. And you're right, but there's no impediment because they control the House. The Republicans control the House and the Senate.
- [30:14]
Amber Ruffin
Exactly.
- [30:14]
Dina Dahl
And he can sign it into law, so. And they control the Supreme Court, you know, because it's, it's heavily conservative. There's no reason why they can't do this, do whatever they want legally, if it truly is a mandate.
- [30:29]
Amber Ruffin
Absolutely.
- [30:31]
Dina Dahl
All right, so let's take our first ad break because we are so lucky to have pro democracy sponsors who choose us. They know what we talk about. They don't tell us what to say. No one's ever edited anything or asked us to not talk about something. And so they know exactly what our point of view is and they support us. And so we also curate and support them, and we make sure that we like what they're offering and the discounts that they give our our show to our listeners and followers. So let's take our first ad break.
- [31:08]
Michael Popak
Have you or someone you know been a victim of identity theft? Harassed? Stalked, Doxxed? As people who follow our show know, I and the other hosts on this channel have been harassed and stalked, especially following the election. And that made me want to take control to protect myself and my loved ones. And that led me to our sponsor, Delete. Ever wonder how much of your personal data is out there on the Internet for anyone to see? More than you think. Your name, contact info, Social Security number and home address, even information about your family members, all being compiled by data brokers and sold online. Data brokers make a profit off of your data. Your data is just a commodity to them. Anyone on the web can buy your private details. This can lead to identity theft, theft, phishing attempts, harassment, and unwanted spam calls. But now you can protect your privacy with Delete. Me. As a person who exists publicly, especially as someone who shares my strong opinions, analysis and commentary in online media, I'm hyper aware of safety and security and it's easier than ever to find personal information about people online. All this data hanging out on the Internet can have actual consequences in the real world. That's why I use delete deleteme. DeleteMe is a subscription service that removes your personal info from hundreds of data brokers. Sign up and provide Deleteme with exactly what information you want deleted and their experts take it from there. Deleteme sends you regular personalized privacy reports showing what info they found, where they found it and what they removed. Deleteme isn't just a one time service. DeleteMe is always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the Internet. To put it simply, DeleteMe does all the hard work of wiping your and your family's personal information from data broker websites. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Deleteme NOW at a special discount for our listeners today. Get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com LegalIF and use promo code legalif at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com LegalIF and enter code LegalIF at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com legal AF code legal AF.
- [33:39]
Dina Dahl
Lumi is a whole body deodorant that you can use absolutely anywhere. It's a fantastic product that you can use anywhere you need a little extra help. It is really wonderful. It gives you more confidence and I love the deodorant and have incorporated it into my daily routine. As I said, it's a whole body deodorant that's safe to use anywhere on your body, whether it's under your arms or other folds or belly buttons or cracks, et cetera or your feet. So it was created by an ob GYN who saw firsthand how normal body odor was being misdiagnosed and mistreated. It's clinically proven to block odor all day and control odor for up to 72 hours. They have several product options whether you prefer a solid stick deodorant, Sweat Control Deodorant Spray deodorant. All their products are baking soda free and paraben free ph balance for safe use. Safe use below the belt and have a variety of wonderful scents. So the starter pack is perfect for new customers. It comes with a solid stick Deodorant Cream Tube deodorant, two free products of your choice like a mini body wash and deodorant deodorant wipes and free shipping as a special offer for listeners. New customers get 15% off all Lumi products with our exclusive code. And if you combine the 15 off with the already discounted starter pack, that equals over 40% off their starter pack. Use Code Legal a f for 15 off your first purchase@lumideodorant.com that's code legal a f at L U m e d e O-O-R-A-N-T.com Please support our show, tell them we sent you smell fresher dryer and boost your confidence from head to toe with Lumi. Well, we're back and wow, that was a marathon first session of really important stuff. So let's talk about it. Continuing the theme of being lawless and not following the law and not doing what you were required to do under the law, let's talk about the inspectors general who were fired by Trump. And in particular, let's also dive a little deeper into the USAID and the IG firing there. So let's talk a little bit about what is an inspector general. But first I want to just say, okay, let's just frame it. There's, okay, roughly 17 former Inspectors General who were summarily fired by Trump with like a one or two line email, basically. And eight of those 17 have now filed a lawsuit demanding that they be reinstated. And they have a pretty good point because in the lawsuit, what they talk about, well, first of all, they're asking for an injunction to let them back to work and award them back pay. But they're suing the agency heads of each of the eight agencies that they were supposed to look at. But let's talk about what inspectors generals are. Inspectors general are a nonpartisan presidential appointee with the advice and consent of the Senate. Okay. So that means they have to go before the president will nominate someone and the Senate has to hold hearings and then they will get confirmed or not. And they regularly remain in office across multiple administrations. They are nonpartisan. They are independent watchdogs. They audit, they investigate the agencies that they're in charge of. They're experts in whatever field they're in. So they know exactly what they're supposed to be looking for in those particular agencies. And they are there to detect and to prevent fraud, waste, abuse, all that kind of stuff. And looking back over the years, they've saved taxpayers billions of dollars and have helped us safeguard our national security. They've stopped fraud. They've ended the mistreatment of vulnerable people who live in The United. They make sure that farmers and seniors and veterans and people who are entitled to disaster relief support all that. They get what they're entitled to. I mean, they make sure that the things that are supposed to be happening at these agencies happen. So it's not like there's this rogue bureaucracy filled with fraud and abuse. The way Musk has said, without any proof, by the way. Oh, that he goes in and says, oh, we found all this fraud and abuse and waste without any proof whatsoever. And P.S. there is someone whose job that is and who does it and has done it. And those are the inspectors general. And so federal law and, and this comes from two different laws. There's the Inspectors General act of 1978 and then the Securing the Inspectors General act of 2022 that says, passed by Congress, signed into law, that says before any inspector general is removed, the President must provide to Congress with a 30 days advance notice, including a written substantive explanation with the substantive rationale, including detailed case specific reasons for removal. So you can't just say, oh, I don't like him and you know, whatever. It has to be for cause, essentially. And they are, this is required by law. And so Trump didn't do that here. What Trump did is they, he basically, you know, because. So, and then one more thing. The federal law goes on to require that inspectors general be appointed without regard to political affiliation. That's a requirement. Okay. This is not a political appointment. It is solely on the basis of their integrity and relevant expertise. And inspectors general have to inform Congress and the agencies about any issues they identify. So this is really kind of, of a different, above, above all, above agency kind of watchdog. And I just want to read from the section 403 of the law, Appointments sub B, which talks about removal or transfer, an inspector general may be removed from office by the President. If an inspector general is removed from office or is transferred to another position or a location within an establishment, the President, President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both houses of Congress not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. And so it's clearly in the law what he's supposed to do. And he didn't do it. You know, he didn't do it. He basically didn't like them, essentially. They didn't give any explanation, did it all at once. And yesterday Trump fired, fired Paul Martin of usaid, okay, the day after he published a report on the impact of the President's freeze on foreign aid and spending. And the firing, you know, essentially, and putting on Administrative lead leave essentially the entire agency staff and the contractors. And this report that he released, it's not a long report if anyone wants to read it, it basically found that $489 million worth of food assistance from American farmers that were already sitting in ports or in transit or in warehouses that are now at risk of spoiling because of course food spoils and required now unanticipated storage costs to keep it. Okay. So it's actually costing taxpayers money, this really reckless act of just firing everybody. And programs that make sure humanitarian aid, aid gets to people who need it are, you know, the report goes on to say, aren't. It's not happening because one of the things that they did was made sure that especially food and things that go overseas make sure that it gets to the people who need it, not to terrorists and terrorist organizations. So he was fired with a terse White House email. There was no 30 day notice. And you know, and the other thing I just want to point out is people will say, oh, but you know, yeah, they fired, they basically dismantled the agency, said, you can't send out any more. You know, they fired all the staff. They said, you can't send any more money out. You know, they employ about 10,000 people with about 2/3 of them overseas. People will say, oh, but Musk made an exception for emergency food or life saving medicine. And so then they'll accuse my interpretation and our interpretation of this as being misleading. But unfortunately, they can't implement these life saving medicine or emergency food exceptions if you fire 90% of the staff. They can't do it. It's actually legitimate to criticize this and to say that this is just not doable and they're not allowed to do this. And interestingly, what the eight inspectors general are asking the courts to do is they're basically saying we were illegally fired. You read the law. I just read it to you all. You see, this is what the law says. We were illegitimately fired and therefore we are still employed. It was illegitimate. Right? So I'm. So we want you to demand that they not only put us back in office, they have to turn back on our email, they have to turn back on our access to the buildings and put us in place and make them follow the law and we want back pay. So. So it's very interesting what's going on here.
- [43:14]
Amber Ruffin
I mean, it's so great to see people who, you know, their lives are turned upside down, right? They just get fired, you know, in a way that wasn't expected. They couldn't wrap up their projects, anything like that, filing a lawsuit, because they have now become targets of maga from now until infinity doing it in order to say, you know, so there is a way to fire us. Congress has laid out how. You just have to follow it. And that's the thing with Trump, is he wants to, you know, he said he wants to be a dictator on day one. This is how a dictator acts. They do what they want to do and they disregard the law. And the law is really clear. And the question is not going to be, did he violate the law? Because that Inspector General act is really clear. It's going to be hoping that the Supreme Court says that this law is an overreach by Congress and it's unconstitutional, and it's that, you know, so we have to wait. We have to wait and see what's happening. But what the Supreme Court ends up saying about this and all the other ones. But I think it's important to note, like, what it takes to be honest for those people to file this lawsuit. You know, they have their lives, their families, like, who wants to really insert themselves in such a big way to Trump's madness? But they didn't. It, hey, look at their leaders of the watchdog group. This is their work. Their work is to hold our government accountable. You know, Congress decided if these watchdog groups are leaders, they said that, you know, they were overseeing trillions of dollars in government money. I think over 80% of federal employees they were looking at Congress was, you know, trying to safeguard taxpayer money, was trying to say, yeah, we do have, have a big government with lots of employees and a lot of people carrying out smaller tax. And there could be fraud, there could be inefficiency, there could be things that go through the loophole. So let's create groups to make sure that doesn't happen. I mean, the function of this, that's the irony, of course, is like, and why it's so obvious that the DOGE isn't really about doge, because why would you get rid of the groups that are trying to root out fraud and inefficiency? That really is your end goal. I mean, that was Congress trying to be cautious with our money. And of course, Trump doesn't care about the Law Project 2025. They want this to go to the Supreme Court. They want to. They're hoping the Supreme Court, with the Heritage foundation and Federal society rules their way. That is kind of their end game of all this. And in terms of what USAID does or doesn't do, I Mean, that report court says it all. We're talking $500 million of food wasted. Right. So even if Musk says he's trying to, you know, carve out an exception for things, you have right there a clear retaliation firing because he said something Trump doesn't like, that's exactly how a dictator acts.
- [46:23]
Dina Dahl
Yeah, no, I completely agree with you. It's, as you point out, the whole purpose of an inspector general is to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse. Exactly the same thing that Doge and Musk claim they are doing. The difference is, so if that's the case, you would think, oh, they could just work together. Right. Since that's the mandate of these inspectors general. But the difference is what Doge is doing. And this is, I believe, because they haven't pointed, they haven't shown us any proof of any waste, fraud or abuse. And maybe there is some, and I'd love to see it. What they're doing is instead is they're going in and they're basically saying, oh, all these money, the money that Congress appropriated for certain programs that are being spent accurately. I don't agree with that policy. I don't agree with that program. So, so that is waste and abuse and fraud. That's what he's saying. And that, that's impoundment. That's illegal under the law. You're not allowed to do that. Congress is the one who is the power of the purse. They're the ones who say that how money is going to be spent and the agencies have to execute it. That's what, that's how it works. So show us the proof, President Musk, because he's really the one. He's really the one pulling the strings. It's just seeing that video in the beginning that we showed showing Musk in the Oval Office with Trump basically just sitting there, not doing anything, and Musk is doing all the talking while he has his four year old running around. Trump looks so powerless and kind of pathetic, frankly. Fine with me. But it's clear that Musk is in charge and pulling the strings here. He can't do that. He's not allowed to do that. And so that's why he didn't work with the inspectors general. Because really, it's not waste, fraud or abuse. It's just policies that he disagrees with. And as you pointed out, there's a remedy for that. You control Congress, there's no excuses anymore. You control the House and the Senate. It if you don't like it, you go and have them pass a Law and sign it right away. It shouldn't take you very long.
- [48:45]
Amber Ruffin
Exactly. If you don't like where some of the USAID money goes, change it through Congress. You know that, like, you do it.
- [48:51]
Dina Dahl
In a day, you get it done quickly.
- [48:53]
Amber Ruffin
Right. That's not about inefficiency, like you said, it's a disagreement with policy, which that conversation can be had in Congress.
- [49:00]
Dina Dahl
Exactly.
- [49:01]
Amber Ruffin
You know Musk, Elon Musk, you know, he's really. I actually think people should, should follow him on X because he is like, wow. Like you really, you know, because there's still people out there that I talk to who don't follow this as much and think, oh, he, you know, he did, he's successful billionaire. He did Tesla and SpaceX and. And then you see his posts on X and you, you realize he has no idea about government. He has no idea what he's doing. He looks like he's going off the deep end. So as much as I don't want to like promote him on X, I actually think it' like, important information because we did not elect him. And he is revealing who he is, which is really out of touch when he's in that Oval Office and he's like, you know, the idea of government transparency to him means taking down websites with doctors information on the cdc, the FDA and human health and services, which they order. Trump ordered them to do. But him posting on X things he doesn't like about usaid, and that's government transparency, folks like his ex posts are his government transparency. This is a joke. We're dealing with a huge amount of money, really important policies and causes, and he thinks government transparency is him communicating on his social media platform. We have a way to have government transparency. It was things like those websites where the FDA and the CDC had to post reports and data. Data. That's government transparency, not some crazy ex post that frankly, a lot of Americans aren't on. He has a little bit inflated ego about that, but you know that he has, he's like, really has no idea how government functions. Like he. I'm so good at what I do, I'm gonna go in and I'm gonna clean it all up. I'm not gonna tell you what I'm doing, how I'm doing it. Trust me. You know, I mean, these. I'm sorry, but you can't do that in government like we have, because this is our power, it's our money. You're just borrowing it. So we have rules when we give it to you. He doesn't care he's got, like, an inflated ego and just wants to go in there and do whatever he wants. And he's posting on that, so we should be happy.
- [51:28]
Dina Dahl
Karen got what, $13 billion in government contracts of our taxpayer money that goes to him and his companies that owns and control. So he lives off of our taxpayer money. He barely pays taxes compared to his wealth. And he, frankly, he's not from this country, so he doesn't know how we do things, and he doesn't know the history and traditions of this government. He just wants to do things the way he wants to do things, and that's what he's doing. And I wish Congress would do its oversight role and have a hearing and call him to a hearing to find out what. Show us maybe there is abuse.
- [52:08]
Amber Ruffin
Yeah, like.
- [52:09]
Dina Dahl
Like, defend yourself, defend your actions. Celebrate them like we want to see it.
- [52:14]
Amber Ruffin
In that same press conference at the Oval Office, somebody asked him, what about your Department of Defense contracts that you have billions. Like, you just said, you know, what if there is inefficiency there? What if there's fraud there? And he said, oh, if they come to me and tell me it's inefficient, then I will, you know, I will change it. And I was like, like, we shouldn't have to count on your word, which seems worthless to me when you are dealing with my money. This is my money. That you think this is a game and that, like, oh, just trust me. I'm sorry, but that's not how government works. This is why we've had to create so many acts. The Privacy act, because the government has a way we legally require them, how they're going to use our data. Right. Or these Administrative Procedures act, because if we're going to give agencies power to implement how to spend congressionally authorized money, we have rules around it. But Elon Musk thinks, oh, they could just talk to me and I'll just, you know, you know, I'll just have, like, a chat with them. He. He has no idea how government works. He doesn't want to know how government works. And it's his Oval Office and his post, I think, just reveal, like, how uneducated he is, as you say, how uneducated he is on how government functions. There's a reason why there are so many laws, because they have learned over the years that they're necessary to keep people in check.
- [53:46]
Dina Dahl
Crazy. Absolutely crazy. I. I just. It just makes me shake my head. Okay, well, yeah, we're going to take our second ad break really quick, but come back I want to continue talking about all the crazy shenanigans and stuff that is going on. And we're going to talk about Mayor Adams and the case that has been dismissed or is going to be dismissed, I should say against him here in New York and all of the other all of the other friends of Trump who are getting away with getting away with not quite murder, but close to to it.
- [54:22]
Michael Popak
Millions of Americans grind or clench their teeth at night and most don't even know they're doing it. If you have jaw pain or headaches after a night's sleep, there's a high chance you grind or clench your teeth. Teeth grinding, also known as bruxism or tmj, is generally caused by stress and it can cause serious damage such as eroding away your enamel and broken teeth, which leads to expensive dental bills. The Solution the solution to protecting your teeth is a mouth guard. But mouth guards from the dentist, they can cost you around $500 to $800. The good news is that there's Remy. Remy makes dental grade professional quality mouth guards without the painful price tag. They're up to 80% cheaper than what you'd pay at the dentist and don't require you to visit a dental office. Remy's process is simple. They send you an at home impression kit to create molds of your teeth. You send those back to Remy and Remy's dental team will make your custom fit guards and send them right back to you. Remy's guards are so comfortable to wear that most customers forget they're even wearing them. Plus, with a 45 night satisfaction guarantee, you can try it risk free, sleep better and decide if it's the perfect fit. If not, Remy's got you covered. Look, stress can be my middle name sometimes, especially in the fast paced world of podcasting and content creation. I'm on a news cycle timer and at night sometimes I have trouble turning off the old brain engine and I have a lot of dental work that my dentist would love if I did a better job protecting, including my smile. And then I found the Remy mouthguard kit and now my dentist is jealous. The in home process was so convenient, easy and affordable using their custom impression kit. It took me less than 10 minutes and Remy ships it to you for no additional cost and they keep your impression on file for future use. Remy is for anyone dealing with nighttime grinding, clenching or jaw pain who wants an affordable solution to protect their smile and say goodnight to jaw pain and headaches. Head to shopremi.com legalaf and use code legal af to save up to 50%. That's 50% off that. S-H-O-P-R-E-M-I.com legalif with code legalaf. Give your teeth a break without breaking the bank with Remy. Thank you, Remy, for sponsoring this episode. Let me tell you, if there's a surefire way to wake up feeling fresh after a night of drinking, it's with pre alcohol zbiotics. Pre alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD science to tackle rough mornings after drinking. And here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for your rough next day. Pre alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. So I first gave pre Alcohol a try when I was visiting Miami for a conference. And let's just say they put the open in open bar. I drank it before my first scotch and soda, and you wouldn't believe how on top of my game I felt the very next morning. With pre Alcohol, I can stay on track and not let winter travel in celebrations like Valentine's Day, the Super bowl, and Mardi Gras throw me off course. Go to ZBiotics.com LegalAF to learn more and get 15% off your first order. When you use Legal AF at checkout, ZBiotics is back with 100% money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com legalaf and use the code legal AF at checkout for 15% off.
- [58:21]
Dina Dahl
All right, we're back. And let's talk about Mayor Adams and this. This came as a big show shock to New Yorkers, frankly, who are. You know, obviously, I'm in New York, and this is our mayor. And it was really surprising when in the middle of the United Nations General assembly, which happens here on the island of Manhattan every year in the month of September, where prime ministers, heads of state, and other dignitaries come from all over the world, frankly, including royalty. I mean, they come from all over the world, and. And they go to the General assembly, and it's a very big deal. Almost the entire New York City Police Department is, Is. Is needs to protect people. And there's. There's. They they, you know, when you come to New York, you have to protect the dignitaries. And so they call it unga, you know, un General Assembly. So the, the cops will say, oh, I can't come in. I can't come to court. I have unga duty. You know, when I was a, when I was a prosecutor, that's what they'd say. It's a big deal. Because and, and knock on wood, nothing's ever happened, you know, that all of these heads of state from all over the world, and it goes off without a hitch. Nothing bad's ever happened. And so it's a very, very big deal. And that they decided. And the mayor, right, New York City mayor, is in charge of the entire police department. They appoint the police commissioner, et cetera. So when the Department of justice and the U.S. attorney's office here in the Southern District of New York decided to arrest Mayor Adams in the middle of that week of the General assembly, when everyone was here in the world was watching, to me was sending a big message to the world and to Mayor Adams. And frankly, you wouldn't do something like that, especially as loudly as you did, if you didn't have a very strong case against him. The allegations are corruption, it's bribery, it's soliciting illegal donations that then get you millions of dollars in public matching funds for your campaign. It's taking money from the Turkish government and then fast tracking, getting the fire department to speed up approval of their consulate, the Buildings Department and all that, the permits that you have to do, just garden variety corruption allegations. There's multiple investigations going in different offices, and there was this indictment and a superseding indictment, and it was pretty shocking. But a couple of things happened after he was indicted. And of course, you know, these are allegations, you're innocent until proven guilty, and he is afforded that presumption of innocence. But, but the trial is, you have a trial if you're innocent, right? And you prove you're innocent, innocence. But multiple things started happening that gave us a little bit of a hint as to what's going to happen. First of all, he started using language. He started parroting Trump's language, right? He started saying things like, oh, they're. They're prosecuting you, right, not me. This is a, this is a persecution of you and turning it on. You know, this is a persecution of democracy. And, you know, just using the kind of. Of things language that Trump does. He went down to Mar a Lago to meet with Trump and essentially kiss the ring. And that was another, you know, another Kind of signal. He started appearing on the right wing TV shows and like Tucker Carlson, right? He's a Democrat, that we're a Democratic city with it. We always elect Democrats. He won the Democratic primary. And, you know, he's an ex cop and then an ex borough president. But he started sounding MAGA and acting MAGA and doing all the things that you got to do to get MAGA to get the MAGA approval. And, you know, look, we're a sanctuary city in New York and we welcome immigrants. We have the Statue of Liberty here, and that's just who we are. But he is clearly whatever he says. He's clearly made a deal with the devil here because, oh, and then the other thing that happened, which again, could be a coincidence, and so I'm not making any accusation at all because, you know, anything's possible. But the lawyer he hired was very interesting to me, hired Alex Spiro, who's somebody that I used to work with and know to be his lawyer. And Spiro, great lawyer, he's Elon Musk's personal attorney. And again, is that a coincidence or is there a through line to Musk, the decision maker, slash Trump? I don't know, but I thought that was an interesting observation when I saw that. And so it was not shocking or surprising when all of a sudden there is a letter from Emile Beauvais, who represented Trump in the Manhattan DA case and 2 other criminal cases, along with Todd Blanche, both of which are going, are waiting to be officially. Well, actually, Beauvais doesn't need to be confirmed. And so he's officially at the Attorney General's office now working with Pam Bondi. And Todd Blanche is waiting, is waiting for confirmation. Emile Beauvais, his personal lawyer in his criminal case, who now works for the Attorney General's office, wrote a letter that basically said essentially saying there must further. That must be no further targeting of Mayor Adams or additional investigative steps. And it's interfering with his. It's interfering with his ability to cooperate with President Trump's immigration crackdown, and it interferes with the June 2025 mayoral primary. But meanwhile, all I can say is when Adams was first arrested, he issued a statement, statement saying, people said this was going to be a distraction, but I can do my job, I'm moving forward. I continue to deliver for the people of the city of New York. But Beauvais letter argued the opposite. It said that the case had unduly restricted Mayor Adams ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated under the policies of the prior administration. Now, I think what Bovet is referring to is automatically the security clearance. His security clearance got removed. And so he doesn't. Can't have access to classified information. I'm not really sure why you need that to enforce sanctuary city laws, but, you know, whatever they're going to try to do here with immigration. But what I thought was really interesting was that Beauvais said you have to ask for permission to file a motion with the court to dismiss the case because only a judge can dismiss the case. Right. He said dismiss it without prejudice. Okay. That was what I thought was fascinating. Because if it's dismissed with prejudice, okay, it means the case can never be brought again. Jeopardy. Will have attached, both federally and in the state. To dismiss without prejudice means we can bring it back if we want. And that is a way of Trump owning and controlling Adams because he has that hanging over his head, essentially do what I want or I, all I have to do is make a quick phone call and have them reinstate the indictment, have them go back into the grand jury. I, I cannot imagine how the AUSAs at Southern feel about this. I have no idea how they feel. I don't talk to anyone there about, about it. But if I was a prosecutor, and I was for 30 years, I would be batshit over this. And you know, the Southern District jokingly, tongue in cheek, always refer, I don't know if they referred to themselves, but we all referred to them as the sovereign district of New York, not the Southern District of New York. Because the rest of the country has, do. Has to really kind of fall in line with the doj. Southern has always kind of done their own thing and frankly, they've done it because they, they're at the leading cutting edge of many cases and crimes. And they've always, they have a history of bringing some pretty big, important consequential matters. And they're excellent. It's, I think one of the premier, if not the premier U.S. attorney's office in the country. And so they have excellent lawyers and they, and it's, you know, I think they've always basically been left alone because they're that excellent and they're career prosecutors who, some of them. And you know, they're there and they're, they, they know, have a lot. They know what they're doing and they follow the law without fear or favor, all that kind of stuff. So to be told, you know, that they, to not do this, not because he's innocent, not because he didn't do it. Right. They didn't say that this is right. This is this.
- [67:39]
Amber Ruffin
They actually said the opposite. They said, we're not commenting on the strength of the evidence or the Lego. No. And I, and I. And I thought for once, their transactional nature, like you said. I think you're absolutely right. He kind of owns him now. The transactional nature of this is right there in the letter. He says that we are dismissing these charges because it is preventing you from basically fulfilling the immigration help that Trump needs. And there's reporting that shows that the mayor sent a memo soon before then this memo from Emil Beauvais telling staff to not criticize Trump and to not interfere with Trump implementing his deportation plan. So you have the letter saying, we're dismissing this without prejudice because we need you to help with our immigration plan. And then he turns around and he does exactly that, which is a huge problem. Obviously, New York is one of the biggest cities in the country and a sanctuary city, so they could really get in the their way of this masterpiece mass deportation plan that's still getting unveiled. We have Guantanamo Bay, we have Lincoln Riley trying to take away due process rights for undocumented immigrants. And then you have here kind of like the last little nail, which is Trump owning the mayor of the largest sanctuary city. Right. And it's, I think, really not a coincidence that he just partied, pardoned the Illinois governor. Because that's like you said, it's almost like a wink and a nod. He had commuted his sentence. He has not been in the news. Right. There's no reason to bring that up. But it's kind of his way of saying, well, I am dismissing this without prejudice now, but I can pardon you, and I will if you continue to do what I want to do. So I think that is nothing Trump does is by mistake. I think you're right on the without prejudice is, you know, I mean, and it's ironic because his whole charges are corruption. And then you have this really corrupt deal where you have the president stepping in, you know, into this independent process. Right. That the Justice Department is supposed to be independent and deciding who to indict. So corrupt. Ultimately, you know, there's a primary in June. Ultimately, the York voters are going to have to decide at this point forward, is Mayor Eric Adams doing something because he wants to do it for the voters or because Trump asks him to? It is. That's the question from here out, or should be the question from here out, because I don't see how you can trust that he's not now influenced by Trump.
- [70:35]
Dina Dahl
Right? You know, he's also basically dropped the case against Vince McMahon, the CEO of WWE. I mean, you know, the wrestling entity and, you know, it's, it's crazy. It's just absolutely crazy. There's an investigation trying to cover up multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. He paid two former female employees. We paid $10 million to keep quiet, kept fake books and records, hid the settlement from the company, made false and misleading statements to company audience auditors. What does that sound like? It sounds so much like the Stormy Daniels. The fake books and records, the COVID up. I mean, it's like corruption, all that kind of stuff. Doesn't care, doesn't matter. That's it just, it's, it's irrelevant. It's like if you're an fot, if you're a friend of Trump, you know, then you get away with anything and everything's pardoned and doesn't matter what you did. It's, look at January 6th, look at how we pardoned there, you know, Stuart Rhodes and Ricky Terrio and on down the line.
- [71:33]
Amber Ruffin
Interesting thing is his wife, the WWE's wife, is the one who's getting appointed to the Department of Education, which theoretically Trump wants her to be out of a job. So you kind of wonder if that's a little bit of a quid pro quo, scratch your back. You know, I'm appointing you in order for you to basically dismantle the department and no longer have a job. But don't worry, I got you because I'm taking care of, of your husband.
- [72:00]
Dina Dahl
Yeah, no, it's, it's, it's just unbelievable. It's, it's like corruption out loud. And there's, they don't even pretend to make it, pretending.
- [72:12]
Amber Ruffin
They got rid of the Anti Corruption Unit, the Department of justice, like that, that went after all the Russian oligarchs. I mean, there, you know, I felt like the president, I don't know, I don't even want to call him president. But when Trump was president, president the first time, the racism that he had, you know, when he went down the escalator and he was so racist, kind of brought out the legitimacy of other races. They felt like there was cover and there was so much more. Out loud, let's say racism. And I feel like now he's doing the same thing with corruption. He's not hiding it. He's very willing to be corrupt and, and it's going to embolden other corrupt people in a way that we'll have to see how it all unveils. But like, you said they're not hiding this stuff. They proudly are willing to dismantle our government and feed it to their friends. And you know, they're not hiding their, their corruption at all this time around.
- [73:16]
Dina Dahl
They're really not. And the fact of the matter is I don't know why people don't, why there's not more outcry about it. It's like they're flooding the zone with so much that it's hard to keep track of. And I was reading the, I think it was the talking feds substack that I highly recommend people read. And I just cut and paste from there. I'm going to read. It says for those keeping score at home, the six inst of court brushbacks of the administration are Number one, Office of Management and Budget spending freeze in which the district court already took the administration to task for failing to comply with its clear and unambiguous order. The First Circuit this morning denied the government's motion for an emergency stay. Number two, the executive order ending birthright citizenship. Number three, transfer of transgender female prisoners to mail only prisons. Four, the proposed buyout of federal workers. Five, the shuttering of usaid and six, Engelmeier's order concerning the treasury payment system. Each of these decisions required a finding by a federal district court judge that the challengers were likely to prevail on their legal claims and were being harmed as a result of the conduct. 18. We're 18 days into the presidency and we already have six injunctions where courts have found that this was illegal and harmful. Where is, where, where is everybody? Why are, why does it feel like people are just accepting all of this? That's what I don't understand, Dina. And that's why we do our show and why we come on here and try to keep up with all of this so others don't have to. But we need to really at some point I think start to say the rule of law matters. Playing by the rules matters.
- [75:19]
Amber Ruffin
And especially I think, I mean there are some protests. I think there is a beginning of some organizations pushback. But here's what I think is I think that there in some ways government fails a lot of Americans, people. Right? I mean most Americans do not get paid a living wage. They have multiple jobs and still cannot buy a home. Like there is a problem with that. It's so much worse now than it was decades ago. Right. Health insurance. There's a real problem with people not getting adequate health insurance. There's a problem with lobbyists paying politicians to vote against things. The American public care about like common sense gun control. Right. I mean, so I think what it is, is the reason why the MAGA world or whatever, or even beyond that, the reason why there are so many Americans that maybe don't mind the dismantling of the government is because they have lost faith in the government and trust in the government. I think what Democrats have to do is say, we also think you should need to have a living wage, but this is how government helps you and getting that message across. Because the reason why there's not a living wage wage isn't just because Congress has a hard time passing that, because Congress has a hard increasing the minimum wage, because Congress has a hard time ever agreeing on anything. But it's because corporations are so greedy they don't pay people a living wage. And so Trump harnesses the discontent that a lot of Americans feel and then he makes it worse because instead of actually trying to help the people, he gets gives the government contracts to these oligarchs like Elon Musk and the Silicon tech Bros. Right? So I think that how we also push back against Trump is really reminding people how government helps their life, why it matters, because they think that like, oh, it's dysfunctional anyway, who cares if it's dismantled? But when, when Trump ordered the NIH to stop funding medical research, that meant Americans who know people or themselves are suffering from cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, mental illnesses. Those cures will now be delayed or never happen. Because Trump stopping billions of dollars of medical research money that affects literally every American. And that's how government helps you. You, government helps you because they help fund medical research. And that's why him going in and taking away the power that Congress had to do whatever he wants with is bad. And I think we really have to articulate it in every situation that it's not just he's a threat to our democracy and the government, which he is, but also why the dysfunction of the dismantling of the government affects you. And we might have to do that line item by line item.
- [78:29]
Dina Dahl
You know, as we are talking, there's this breaking news. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, has announced that charges have been filed against the state of New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James for failing to enforce immigration law. New York has chosen to prioritize illegal alien over American citizens. It stops today. Wow, that is enormous. That is huge. And the reason she can get away with it is because Mayor Adams is going to cooperate. And Kathy Hochul, the governor, could have taken out and replaced Mayor Adams. She had the power to do that when he got indicted, and I don't know why they didn't. And she decided to leave him in place. And it left him in place to be able to make a deal with the devil and, and invite these people to essentially now bring charges against our attorney general, our governor. And it's just unbelievable, you know, what happened to. To leave it up to the states. Right. We want to be a sanctuary city. We want to welcome immigrants. And I, I just find this shocking.
- [79:44]
Amber Ruffin
And, yeah, I mean, and they did say this was coming. I mean, I feel like we talked about this a few times and this is probably going to come to California. And the part where it's going to make the most impact is when they start doing this to local officials. Because the governor has resources, you know, can fight this, the attorney general has resources, but that mayor of that small town that has undocumented immigrants is now put on notice that they, if they don't cooperate, are going to be criminally prosecuted. And that's small town. Town does not have money for that litigation. And so we're talking about people obeying in advance. We're talking about him making this splashy. So everybody knows. And this is how you round up people and put them in Guantanamo Bay citizens maybe, too, because from what I've heard, like, I don't know how picky they're going to be between the two of it. There's even, I guess, a commission about unwinding somebody's citizenship if they've been a citizen for less than five years. This is. But this is where we're at, you know, this is them using again, our power. That attorney general only has power because we gave that office abusing the power that we gave her for an illegal means, because there is not any actual cause that you can criminally prosecute somebody, a governor or attorney general for. You know, they don't need to help the ICE agents. There's no criminal law about that. But, you know, this is why they do it, because they're scaring all of the local officials into letting them do whatever they want or even helping them to your point.
- [81:30]
Dina Dahl
She also went on to say, if you're a state not complying with federal law, you're next. Get ready. Ready. She's just. That's horrible to talk like that.
- [81:38]
Amber Ruffin
Horrible.
- [81:39]
Dina Dahl
You know, interestingly, somebody asked why prosecutors still haven't moved to dismiss the Mayor Adams case after Emil Bovet's directive the other day, and she said that case should be dropped. I didn't know it hadn't been dropped yet, but I'll look into that. Clearly they're, they're absolutely put there's some pushback. Like this is not going to happen easily. It will happen. Obviously she's the attorney general, but we'll see what ends up happening. We'll see if the courts accept it.
- [82:07]
Amber Ruffin
Yeah, I mean, that's why he wasn't added to that charge. Clearly every other major official in New York was, but not him. Clearly, because they're expecting his help. They've made a deal with him.
- [82:19]
Dina Dahl
I hope what they're doing in this interim before they dismiss the charges is I Hope the Manhattan DA's office is getting a 6E order which allows sharing information with with between agencies. And I hope they turn their entire case and all their evidence over to the Manhattan DA's office. Because guess what? Trump and Pam Bondi and all of those people can't control the Manhattan office. So we'll see. We'll see what ends up happening. Yeah. Well, all right. Cutting edge, a lot of stuff to talk about and I just always happy to be here with you, Dina. We've reached the end of another midweek edition of Legal Ed. Thanks for being here. I love doing these with you. I hope to do more duets with you and continue on our quest to just try to inform people so that they can make their own decisions. And because we live in a democracy, we will follow the laws whether we agree with them or not. But we're also part of that is exercising our First Amendment rights and really making sure people can be informed in, in what's happening because so much is happening. So we've reached the end and I just thank you for being here. Are there any last words you want to leave us with? You know how Popak always gives me the last word, so I'll give it to you.
- [83:39]
Amber Ruffin
Well, thank you so much for being here. I'm so grateful to be here with the Midas Mighty all breaking this down as it comes in. I mean that last breaking news about the attorney general spent speaks to exactly why we are doing this. We are in the most lawless era in modern times. It's making Watergate and Nixon look like a walk in the park. And so yeah, I'm grateful to be here among like minded people and people who want the news and the facts and aren't willing to just listen to the lies that are coming out of President Musk and Trump.
- [84:16]
Dina Dahl
Okay, awesome. Well stay tuned. Join us on Saturdays also with Ben and Popak and Popak will be in beautiful sunny Florida by then. And I'll see you soon, Dina. Shout out to all the legal AF'ers, the Midas mighty. And thanks so much for being here. You're pretty smart when people talk about you. Too smart comes up a lot. So why are you trying to prove them wrong? Why aren't you pushing the limits of science and powering the nuclear engines of the world's most powerful Navy? If you were born for it, isn't it time to make a smart choice?
- [85:07]
Amber Ruffin
You. You can be smart, or you can be nuke smart.
- [85:10]
Dina Dahl
Become a nuclear engineer@navy.com nukesmart America's Navy forged by the sea.