← The Majority Report with Sam Seder
The Majority Report with Sam Seder
2477 - Trump vs Kilmar Abrego Garcia; Alamo Workers Win Big w/ Anna Bower, NYC Alamo United
01:20:21
Halfway through Emma-jority week and we're still just getting started. We check in on a Chuck Grassley town hall where he's confronted by angry constituents in a small town in Iowa. Then Emma is joined by Lawfare senior editor Anna Bower to break down...
Loading summary
Transcript201 lines
- [00:00]
Emma Vigland
Hey folks, did you know that an estimated 5 billion plastic hand soap and cleaning bottles are thrown away every year? And if that's not bad enough, most cleaning formulas are 90% water, which is heavy to ship leading to excessive carbon emissions. Plus those products are often filled with nasty ingredients like chlorine, ammonia. That's a lose lose situation for you and for the planet. Blueland is on a mission to eliminate single use plastic by reinventing cleaning essentials to be better for you and the planet with the same powerful clean that you are used to. The idea is simple. They offer refillable cleaning products with a beautiful cohesive design that looks great on your counter. Fill your reusable bottles with water, drop in the tablets and wait for them to dissolve. You'll never have to grab bulky cleaning supplies on your grocery run and refills start at just $2.25. You can even set up a subscription to buy in bulk for additional savings. Blueland products are independently tested to perform alongside major brands and are free from dyes, bleach and harsh chemicals. From cleaning sprays to hand soap, toilet bowl, cleaner and laundry tablets, all Blueland products are made with clean ingredients you can feel good about. Blueland is trusted in over 1 million homes, including mine and including this office, we have hand soap all over the place from Blue Land. I use Blue Land and with my dishwasher it makes you feel better about what you're putting out into the planet. And also it just saves space in your apartment or in your home. Blueland has a special offer for listeners right now. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com majority you won't want to miss this blueland.com majority for 15% off. That's blueland.com majority to get 15% off. And now time for the show.
- [02:00]
Sam Cedar
The.
- [02:01]
Emma Vigland
Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Wednesday, April 16, 2025. My name is Emma Vigland in for Sam Cedar and this is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Anna Bauer, senior editor at Lawfare will be with us to talk about the ins and outs of the Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation fight or retrieval fight. And later in the show, workers from NYC Alamo United will be with us to talk about their big win after two months of strikes. Also on the program, Democrats organized trips to El Salvador to put pressure on the administration to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, where Abrego Garcia is. His family is flies out today. A federal judge says the Trump administration can slash funding for legal education programs for folks facing deportation. California, the world's fifth largest economy, is the first state to sue the Trump administration over tariffs. Trump refers New York AG Tish James for criminal prosecution of what they're claiming is mortgage fraud, but is really over the fact that she won a huge civil case over Donald Trump.
- [03:41]
Matt Binder
The hate lawfare of these people. Who did you know? Benghazi and Newt Gingrich.
- [03:45]
Emma Vigland
And Republicans notoriously hate frivolous lawsuits. Residents of Gaza City refuse Israel's evacuation orders, with some saying that they would rather die than leave. Zuckerberg called the FTC in March to try and he failed to settle. Settle Meta's antitrust case. His offer was $450 million. Lina Khan was seeking a $30 billion fine.
- [04:21]
Matt Binder
Most badass guys I've ever seen.
- [04:23]
Emma Vigland
I mean, have you seen him fight and train, bro? He even Trump's FTC laughed him out of the room. A whistleblower reveals that Doge staffers have stolen massive chunks of data from the NLRB and appears to have tried to cover their tracks afterwards. The CDC says the Texas measles outbreak is likely worse than being reported. Three unvaccinated people, two of them children, have already died. One of Pete Hegseth's advisors has been put on leave for signal Gate. But the big dogs remain untouched. A Trump appointed Texas judge throws out a rule that would have capped credit card late fees. Pam Bondi targets Maine after the state refuses to comply with the administration's trans athletes ban. And lastly, a leading Harvard scientist has been told to halt research on major tuberculosis study, a major tuberculosis study after the Trump administration froze $2 billion in funding. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Hello, everybody. It is hump day. Can we zoom out on me a little bit? I'm a little bit close in. I don't need to see myself that close up. It's hump day. We're halfway through the week. I guess maybe once we get to the fun half, we'll be officially at the hump. So we're at the top.
- [06:00]
Matt Binder
We're getting no Scalia or Limbaugh like passings away in, you know, Sam's absence.
- [06:07]
Emma Vigland
Not yet, we haven't. We haven't gotten some big news on that front. So waiting and seeing, I mean, that's usually the trend. Knocking on wood. What's the opposite of praying?
- [06:21]
Matt Binder
Rubbing some plastic.
- [06:23]
Emma Vigland
Yes. Let's start with this. There was a report on NBC yesterday that said that some Republicans were considering tax increases on the rich because in private meetings with Senate Republicans, they are trying to find ways to justify deep, deep cuts to Medicaid, which is the health insurer for tens of millions of people. And half of the folks on Medicaid are well below the poverty line. But they also need to find a way to justify their increases in the military budget. Trump has proposed a $1 trillion Pentagon budget. The current budget is $892 billion. So that would be an enormous increase. And just to give people a sense, like 10 years ago in 2015, the Pentagon budget was $634 billion. It just increases rapidly every year. But I mean, I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that this would even happen. It's interesting that they're talking about it, though. Senator Mike Crapo, even though, gosh, you want to say Crapo every time he's the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, he is telling the press that he's keeping the door open on essentially allowing the pre Trump 2017 tax levels to come back because they're negotiating over extending the Trump tax cuts from 2017, which are set to sunset.
- [08:00]
Matt Binder
And so the idea is raising taxes here would mean letting them go up, but not as much as they would have anyway.
- [08:08]
Emma Vigland
The. Right, well, the, it's the, the top rate level lapses. Right. It's 37% now and it would go back to 39.6% after this year. So they're open in theory to the idea of extending the Trump tax cuts for the rest of the rates, but allowing that top marginal rate to lapse.
- [08:33]
Matt Binder
But, but, and that's what's called raising taxes on the rich.
- [08:36]
Emma Vigland
Right, Right. But, but like that's not, it's just not going to happen. Like Ted Cruz, Cornyn, Steve Scalise, who's very powerful in the House, are already like, no, no, no. I mean, the Republicans represent the rich, but they're in a, in a bit of a bind because they have made gains with lower income people. And that is a failure of the Democrats. They have made gains with working Americans.
- [08:59]
Matt Binder
They lost under 100,000 earners for the first time in a while, which is.
- [09:04]
Sam Cedar
You know, since the 50s.
- [09:05]
Emma Vigland
Since the 50s. Yeah. And so they're caught in between a bit of a rock and a hard place because they want to appeal to this news constituency, new constituency that they didn't even really want. Right. Like Trump just has this appeal to that cohort and we have to do work to make sure. That that's not the case. But Chuck Grassley, who's, I don't know, 218 years old, he's on the Senate Finance Committee also and he held a town hall in southeastern Iowa yesterday. Here's what one of his constituents said to him. And that's why they're at least giving lip service here. Even though they're not going to raise taxes on the rich. The Republicans don't do that kind of thing. But like, how else can they justify and pay for those other cuts to programs like Medicaid and potentially Social Security that help everyday people. They need to find some way to also like justify to whatever the powers that be the parliamentarian, although I'm sure they'll dismiss them. How are you going to pay for this massive increase in the military budget when you are decreasing revenue in the form of tax cuts? But here's Chuck Grassley at this town hall being asked about taxing the rich by one of his constituents.
- [10:33]
Caller
Is to stand up for the people in this country. Yes, we all paid into our Social Security. Our employers paid into it. We paid into Medicare. Stop the use of the word entitled. That would be one step that if you just use the right language. This is not an entitlement. We're not getting this because we exist. We're getting it because of the faith we put in the country, the treasury. Every legislator that we would pay into our Social Security, we would have it when we retired. We paid into Medicare. All of our employers and self employed people paid double. They paid the employer part. So farmers, anybody who did this. So stop the use of the word entitlement because it's insulting to all of us.
- [11:26]
Emma Vigland
Earned benefit.
- [11:27]
Producer
Yeah, there you go.
- [11:29]
Caller
Person elected to Congress should stop the use of that word and insist idea that it not be used.
- [11:36]
Matt Binder
It's an earned. And we apologize for the quality of this audio, folks. Just. Yeah, you know, we got, we got.
- [11:48]
Caller
59 has to prove that they're working, that they're worth the benefits they get. But we can't talk about taxing the ultra rich because we might be losing money on somebody that's getting food stamps in a town like this. Where are they going to work? How are they going to prove you.
- [12:06]
Anthony Scrutieri
Got to have jobs, that they have.
- [12:07]
Caller
A job and the transportation reputation to go. I think the general population is sick and tired of hearing about the tax cuts for the wealthy. Yes, the ultra wealthy, the uber rich, whatever you want to call it when you, when you start nitpicking about whether some single mom or single dad or somebody with somebody in prison is getting $70 too much food stamps. That doesn't even buy you anything. The grocery store.
- [12:43]
Emma Vigland
If you're asking me if we're going to cut Social Security, no. And, and I wouldn't hope that you'd even worry about that when you have both Biden and Trump running the campaign that we're not going to cut Social Security.
- [13:04]
Caller
I asked if you could stop using the word entitlement, admit that we paid into it and just fund it fully and do whatever taxing you have to do at the top. Exactly.
- [13:14]
Matt Binder
And again, Grassley is old enough and I think still sunny enough. Cut back to Emma that we can that this lady, that he knows what this lady is referring to, which we all know. Raise the cap and make rich people pay their fair share into this program. And like, the people know this.
- [13:31]
Emma Vigland
They know. And it's funny. Just play a little bit more of it because he, he does concede one point, but you're going to guess which point. The one you'll, people can probably already guess which of the ones he says, oh, I'll agree to that.
- [13:46]
Caller
You could stop using the word entitlement, admit that we paid into it and just fund it fully and do whatever taxing you have to do at the top.
- [13:55]
Producer
Yes.
- [13:59]
Caller
Why should somebody reach 200,000, 250,000 a year and say I don't have to pay Social Security taxes on that anymore when I have to pay it for every dime I ever earned because I never earned over that amount. So five Social Security.
- [14:17]
Emma Vigland
Related, Senator, simple.
- [14:18]
Sam Cedar
Stop using it as slash me to.
- [14:21]
Emma Vigland
Not use the word entitlement. That's a pretty good request from any constituent.
- [14:25]
Anthony Scrutieri
Thank you.
- [14:29]
Emma Vigland
Oh, oh. So he, she said raise the taxes on the rich, raise the cap of income that is taxed for Social Security. And Chuck Grassley said, I don't think so. Loving this new soundboard, by the way. But yeah, as Matt says, he'll get, he'll, he won't use the word entitlements anymore.
- [14:51]
Matt Binder
He, I changed my manners, but not the actual substance. Material policy.
- [14:56]
Emma Vigland
Yeah. And later in the show, we'll probably play that these same constituents were saying that this targeting of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is un American, reaming him out on that very point as well. So it's, it's, there's broadly right now mass discontent with what the Trump administration is doing, even in places like Iowa. But it's all like back to the Social Security piece. If you're new to this topic and you haven't Heard Sam's explanation on this front. Every dollar over, I think it's $176,100. But maybe just round up just for the sake of argument and say every dollar over $177,000 in your income, in.
- [15:42]
Matt Binder
Other words, more than you make, or else. Congratulations.
- [15:45]
Emma Vigland
Yeah.
- [15:45]
Matt Binder
And you know, join themjorityreport.com right.
- [15:47]
Emma Vigland
Thank you. If you make over that amount, every dollar over that amount is not taxed for Social Security. So as the rich get richer and income and wealth inequality continues to worsen, that means that more of the wealth is concentrated over that Social Security cap over the $177,000 income threshold. And that's not even taking into account all the money that's sloshing around in the stock market. And there's capital gains tax, but not enough on that front. That's putting that aside, when you hear about how Social Security is running out of money and that the trust fund is going to expire in a few years, which is the backup fund. That is true. Although if it expires and the backup fund goes away, you still get anywhere from 78 to 84% of what you paid into your entire life into Social Security. And that will never change because Social Security is self funding via the payroll tax. And that's what she describes there. But we could expand Social Security benefits. We could make people's lives better. Seniors lives. It keeps two thirds of our seniors out of poverty. We could, we could make the benefits stronger if we were to tax the rich and eliminate the cap on Social Security income. And if we were to do that too, we could use that mechanism of the payroll tax and having that on imposing that on wealthier people to possibly expand and use that as the template for say, Medicare for all or other social benefits for society. It's crazy how much we just have basically decided that if you're in the top 10%, you're you benefit because you're not. Our tax system is unfortunately extremely regressive, as opposed to progressive.
- [17:45]
Matt Binder
Social Security is literally a regressive tax where every dollar under the wage cap is taxed at a flat rate and then every dollar above it isn't taxed.
- [17:54]
Emma Vigland
At all and taxed at all. Yeah. And it should be like I just.
- [18:00]
Matt Binder
Put it a flat tax like Ted Cruz wants everything else to be. And that would be an improvement over program. And that's what, that's how much it's been hamstrung by Republicans mainly to say, like, and despite that hamstringing, which we all see now, which is like, it's not even a flat tax. It's literally like let the rich off tax. Even with that, it's been this sustainable. And if you got rid of that, I mean, this is what they're afraid of.
- [18:26]
Emma Vigland
That's what they're afraid of. And so I don't think the Republicans are going to do Jack Dilley squad about raising taxes on the rich. But there. Why is this even being reported in NBC and why are you even hearing some rumblings in the negotiations on the Senate Finance Committee? Or at least they feel the need to get that out to the public that that's what they're considering. It's because of town halls like this. It's because of actual democracy. And democracy isn't just. And this is where the Democrats to bring it back to like how can we be a real opposition party, this is where they fail, is that democracy isn't just about showing up on voting day and the integrity of our elections. That's a big part of it. But democracy is also about democratic representation, which means that the interests of constituents are supposed to be represented by their members of Congress and their senators. And that includes economic democracy. That includes people's voices being heard just as much as the billionaire or the rich guy in their district that we want our benefits, we want Social Security to be protected and strengthened, we want our interests represented. So it can't just be democracy when Democrats want to get reelected. We need to show people that democracy has value by creating equitable outcomes and using our government to create democratic outcomes for people's daily lives. It's not just talking about the economy. It's about talking about how democracy can make the economy work for you. With that said, we'll be talking to Anna Bauer in just a second about this massive Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. But a word from some of our sponsors here now. Nothing surprises me anymore, especially during this era. And it seems like every day there is something new to worry about and keep you up at night with so much out of control. There is one thing that you can regain control of. It's your family's financial future with life insurance. Through select quote selectquote is one of America's leading insurance brokers with nearly 40 years of experience helping over 2 million customers find over $700 billion in coverage since 1985. Other life insurance brokers are impersonal, one size fits all policies that may cost you more and cover you less. But selectquotes licensed insurance agents work for you to tailor a life insurance policy for your individual needs in as little as 15 minutes. Have you ever worried about getting coverage for pre existing health conditions? Selectquote partners with carriers that provide policies for a variety of health conditions. High blood pressure, no problem. Diabetes. That's okay too even if you have heart disease. Select Quote partners with carriers that cover those conditions and others or if you don't have any major health issues. They work with carriers that can get you same day coverage with no medical exam required. Head to selectquote.com and a licensed insurance agent will call you right away with the right policy for your life and your budget. Select Quote they shop, you save get the right life insurance for you for less@SelectQuote.com Majority go to SelectQuote.com Majority today to get started. That's Select Quote and lastly, Manicora Honey. We got it around the office. I got it at my apartment. It is rich, creamy and the most delicious honey that you've ever had. Russ, you're a tea guy. Honey is great in tea and Manicura honey is even better in your tea. It is ethically produced by Manicura's master beekeepers in the remote forests of New Zealand. Manicura honey contains powerful nutrients to support immunity and gut health. And yeah, this is like off label use but sometimes you can put it on like if you get a little cut or sore or something like that. Manicura honey it helps contains powerful nutrients to support immunity and gut health. The bees collect the nectar from the Manuka tea tree in New Zealand. The nectar is packed with bioactives and the honey that is produced has three times more antioxidants and prebiotics than your average honey. A special antibacterial compound called MGO also comes from the nectar of the tea trees. Manicura Third Party tests every single harvest for MGO and makes these results available through their QR system. It is a game changer and all you need is one heaped teaspoon each morning to get the most out of the amazing bioactives in Manuka. Additional usage throughout the day is completely fine, especially helping to cut out other sweeteners. Thanks to Manicura for supporting the Majority report. Now it's easier than ever to try Manicura honey. Head to manicora.com majority to get $25 off the starter kit which comes with an MGO 850 plus Manuka honey jar, five honey travel sticks, a wooden spoon and a guidebook that's M A n U K O R-A.com majority to get $25 off your starter kit. All right, quick break. And when we come back, we'll be joined by Anna Bauer. Foreign we are back. And we are joined now by Anna Bauer, senior editor at Lawfare, where she has been attending court hearings in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation case. She's also covering a bunch of other legal battles involving the Trump administration. Anna, thanks so much for coming on the show today.
- [25:20]
Producer
Thanks so much for having me.
- [25:22]
Emma Vigland
So let's start with the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. Obviously, this has, this has captured the country, I think, because it's putting a face and a family to the Trump deportation cruelty and the idea that this man is being sent to this El Salvador gulag and you can see his, his wife. It's humanized this story where the administration has been relying on this notion that these people are criminals. And you can see, obviously, that that's not the case here. But you've been in court. You've seen the administration's arguments to the judge. I guess. Just as a legal writer and as someone with a legal background, what has been your perspective on how the, the Trump lawyers are arguing here?
- [26:13]
Producer
Yeah, well, so first, I'll just say on, on your previous comment about how this has really captured people's attention, I was at the courthouse yesterday for a hearing. And, you know, I've been a legal reporter for several years now. I've covered some of the most high profile cases in the country. I covered all of the Trump criminal cases, was there every single day of the trial, the Trump trial in Manhattan. I have never seen a turnout to a court hearing, as I did yesterday, of the people who showed up in support of Abrego Garcia. It was really amazing. I was sitting in the jury room, which is where they kind of put us reporters to report on what's happening. There's a video and audio feed that comes through, and I could hear the entire time the just masses of people who were outside who showed up to this courthouse, they were chanting, you know, in support of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. So really, it has become, you're right. I think this moment that has really captured people's attention and really has broken through in a news cycle that usually only will last a few minutes. This seems like the thing that has really captured people's attention in terms of what I've been seeing. So I know that you guys have talked about this case a little bit on the show, but just for a recap, this is a case that's about whether this Guy komar Abrego Garcia, M.D. man, a father of three who was mistakenly sent to the gulag in El Salvador, whether he should be and can be returned to the United States. We had a ruling from the Supreme Court after a judge initially found, you know, yeah, the executive branch does need to take steps to effectuate his return to the US that then went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, you know, we might quibble a little bit with the verb effectuate, but we at least think that, you know, there should be some effort to facilitate the return of this man, who the administration, in court filings, multiple times in sworn declarations, has said that he was sent in error to this prison in El Salvador. The reason being that he had a. What's called a withholding of removal to El Salvador. So he could have been removed to other third countries, but he was prohibited from being removed to El Salvador specifically. And we can get into the background if you want on that, but that's kind of the gist of it. And then it goes back down to the district court. After the Supreme Court says, at the very least it was right of the judge to say that you should be required to facilitate his return. The judge changes her order, to use that term, facilitate. And then she calls in, you know, this was about. This was last Friday, I believe it was, that she has the first hearing since the Supreme Court ruled. She brings the Justice Department in to ask them about, you know, what is it that you've done to comply with this order to facilitate his return? They basically can't give her any answers. And keep in mind, the Supreme Court's own ruling said that the executive branch should be, you know, prepared to provide what information it can. And she's asking very simple questions. You know, what is his current custodial status and his location? What steps have you taken so far to facilitate his return? And then what steps will you take? And, you know, again, over and over and over again, the Justice Department attorney said, I don't know, I don't know. So the judge ordered over the weekend that they had to respond with daily status updates to answer these questions, and that these status updates had to be from someone with personal knowledge. So someone who is, you know, aware of what talks are going on, what actions are being done to try to bring him back. The Justice Department instead files these daily status reports late every day. Doesn't answer the vast majority of the judge's questions. Basically, all they do is say, he's alive, he's in the custody of a foreign sovereign and we can't be compelled to forcibly remove someone from the custody of El Salvador. There was also, of course, while all of this is ongoing, high profile meeting between the president of El Salvador and Trump in which they played hot potato Pam Bondi saying we don't have the power to get his return, the president of El Salvador saying I don't have the power to return him. All of this is going on and it leads up to this hearing yesterday in which the judge brought the Justice Department in and the parties to try to figure out what to do about all of this, I think, because the Abrego Garcia's legal team has now requested what's known as discovery. So some kind of mechanism to get more information about what it is that the government is doing. And meanwhile, you've got a Justice Department that has filed some seemingly non compliant filings, seems to be very defiant of the judge's order and doesn't seem to be doing anything to comply with her order, even after the Supreme Court's very clear ruling. And it's really been remarkable as someone who has covered so many legal happenings, to see the Justice Department acting in this way. And it's not just in this case. It's across many of these cases that I've been covering in which they are really, if not outright being contemptuous, they are very much flirting with it and acting in ways that I think really you just, you often assume good faith on behalf of officers of the court. But here it really seems like you just can't assume that anymore with this Justice Department. And so it has been quite a remarkable thing to cover, not only because it's captured people's attention in the way that it has, but also because, you know, I think that we could very well be on our way to something that looks like a constitutional crisis and a standoff between the courts and the executive branch over this case.
- [33:31]
Emma Vigland
I want to this, that was a phenomenal recap of how we've gotten here. I want to back up to the the beginning, or maybe not the beginning, but what the Supreme Court did by kind of parsing was it, was it Paula Zenas who also was across the first case that said facilitate and effectuate? That was her ruling, right?
- [33:55]
Producer
Yes. So Judge, Judge Zena said effect punctuate his return. And then the Supreme Court said just facilitate, facilitate.
- [34:05]
Emma Vigland
So, so why. So the Department of Justice and the Trump administration is now they're relying on what they assert is vagueness in the the term facilitate. And they're trying to say that it doesn't mean what it says it means or we don't. It just means we have to provide a plane. We don't have to compel the government of El Salvador to do anything. Is it your feeling that the Supreme Court watered down its ability to enforce its ruling by using that terminology? Or if basically the Supreme Court nine zero had backed up what Zenas had said in the lower court, like, would they basically have come back with the same argument regardless?
- [34:52]
Producer
Look, I think that to some extent, you know, sometimes when the Supreme Court is trying to find a consistent consensus, you might end up with a more vague terminology or a more vague ruling, and then they're going to leave it to the lower court, at least in the first instance, to work out. But and I will add to here that I think the difference between the effectuate the concern that maybe at least some of the more conservative justices who place a lot of emphasis on the president's foreign policy powers, the concern they might have had about this term effectuate is that it potentially goes beyond the district court's powers. And they mentioned this when they say, you know, this potentially exceeds authority because it could be read as requiring the executive branch to make some sort of demand of El Salvador regarding Abrego Garcia's return. Now, keep in mind, we actually have reason to think that there is some sort of agreement here and that El Salvador may very well be acting as a contractor.
- [36:05]
Emma Vigland
Exactly.
- [36:06]
Producer
So it seems that it is in the executive branch's power to make such a demand. But, you know, has that evidence been.
- [36:14]
Emma Vigland
Presented by Abrego Garcia's lawyers?
- [36:16]
Producer
So that is that has not been presented, but that is one of the hearing that was held yesterday where the judge brought all the parties in to figure out next steps. Basically, now that we now that there's been no evidence basically presented at all by the government that they've been doing anything to comply with this order to facilitate his return, the plaintiffs requested, like I mentioned, discovery on a variety of matters, including this potential contract and or agreement that exists between El Salvador and the United States. Because, because of course, that goes to this question of who has the power to decide to bring him back. And is the government actually making a good faith argument when it's saying this is a matter of foreign policy, this is a matter of the sovereign authority of El Salvador? Well, if they have a contract that says that these are individuals who are being held on behalf of the United States, then that's a whole other thing entirely because then it's not a question of, you know, what does El Salvador want to do. It's a question of what the US Wants to do.
- [37:31]
Emma Vigland
But what if the government says this is foreign policy and we are not going to reveal based on, because of national security, our relationship with another foreign government and that, like Can Zenith has Zenas asked them to produce that evidence?
- [37:49]
Producer
Yeah, so that's what I was getting to. So we got a discovery order. No, no, no, you're. It's a good question. So we got a discovery order yesterday. At the end of that hearing. Judge Zenas then followed up with a written discovery order as well. Over the next two weeks, the plaintiffs have the ability to send out, I believe it's a maximum of 15 requests for production of documents. So they may very well request the production of any sort of written agreement or, you know, any. Any to this agreement between El Salvador and the United States. They also have an opportunity to depose four individuals, including an ICE official, a State Department official, DHS official, who have all submitted some of these declarations that the government has been submitting in which they basically say, you know, we. We can't facilitate. All that we have to do to facilitate his return is remove domestic barriers to his return. That's kind of their argument that facilitate point. But. And then also they get some interrogatories which are written requests for information. And so the government will have to then, you know, raise objections to anything that they don't want to answer. They have alluded in some of these filings that they do potentially intend to claim that some of this information is classified as it relates to any arrangements that they have with El Salvador. Keep in mind, too, that in another case that is related to this, it's called jgg, that is the case that was before Judge Boasberg in the District of Columbia, and it related to the planes that were taking off with people under the Alien Enemies Act. In that case, the government has tried to say that they can't reveal certain information because it's state secrets. That's another privilege or immunity that they might raise to object to some of these requests for information. But that's all going to be happening over the next two weeks, which I know that a lot of people have been frustrated about the fact that this is two more weeks in which Abrego Garcia is going to be sitting in a gulag in El Salvador. And meanwhile, you know, it seems like this court process is playing out very slowly. But to that, I will add that two weeks in court time is really, really speedy. And so, you know, it may very well be that we'll get some answers or that the plaintiffs will get some answers on what exactly these arrangements are between El Salvador and the United States.
- [40:41]
Emma Vigland
And is the Supreme Court, in your estimation, very wary about having its lack of enforcement power on display for the country? Because I agree with you that we are in full blown, we're close to this constitutional crisis mode. I would say we're probably already there. But if the Supreme Court rules on this and builds off of its 9.0 ruling and the Trump administration still does not comply, or they're stronger in their language the second time around, which we hope for, then this opens the door for broader, more even more consequential ignoring of the Supreme Court by the administration. Is that your feeling about how the Supreme Court is operating here?
- [41:35]
Producer
Well, look, I can't speak to what exactly is going on because I just don't know in terms of what's happening in the minds of the justices. But I will say that maybe something that the Supreme Court might learn from this episode in which you have people who are top White House officials going out and completely misrepresenting the order that was issued by the Supreme Court, you have, as I mentioned, the Justice Department kind of twisting the words of the Supreme Court when it was very clear about certain things. But maybe something that the Supreme Court will learn from this is that if you're going to issue an order requiring the government to do something, you kind of have to really hold their hand like a toddler or something and give them just like kindergarten level instructions. And you have to be very, very specific about what is required. And maybe there's an element here of, like I said, there's sometimes the Supreme Court might be vague because they needed to reach consensus. And that was the only way that they could was by having using words that were a little bit more vague, not exactly specifying. Sometimes there's issues that they just think is more rightly left to let the district court work out. There's all kinds of reasons why they might have left things a little bit more vague, although I think it's pretty clear, to be honest.
- [43:16]
Emma Vigland
Yeah.
- [43:17]
Producer
But I but I do think, too, that one of the spillover effects here is that if the government is not is very clearly not complying with this Supreme Court order, then I think it makes it more likely that there's a kind of a spillover effect where in other cases, the Supreme Court especially, and I'm thinking particularly the people who are at the center of the court, I mean, they're not center, but they are at the center of the Court John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett might be less willing to accept a cert petition and actually rule on the matter. They might just decline to hear the appeals in other cases. Right. Because they want to avoid this question of having a standoff. So I don't know. We'll see. But it's a good question and certainly something that as people who cover this every day we're watching for and I think something that a lot of people are quite anxious about because it's really unclear what will happen if we get to a point where there's outright intentional defiance of a Supreme Court order and there's, as you mentioned, really no enforcement mechanism that the courts have.
- [44:39]
Emma Vigland
Can you speak to? We have somebody, a viewer writing in blind anti imperialism. Can you ask her why they keep repeating claims that he shot a cop? That's different than what we're hearing in court. Right. I mean there's a huge, I went through this yesterday, just a chasm between like what you're hearing from Stephen Miller and what you heard in that extremely disturbing press conference with Bukele in the Oval Office yesterday and what they're claiming in court, Stephen Miller saying it's not a mistake, but the Trump lawyers have admitted that it was a mistake in court. Like they're also, as you, as you said earlier, they're not presenting evidence on time. They're playing around with the judge and she seems to be very forceful in her frustration with the government's lawyers here. Like what can you speak to that discrepancy and what you've observed in watching this case?
- [45:35]
Producer
Yeah, look, so I'm not aware of where people that people are saying that he shot a cop. That has no basis in truth as far as I am aware. But I can speak to Stephen Miller's claims that, that Abrego Garcia was not mistakenly removed from the United States. He also said that that claim arose from a, what he called a Democrat saboteur Justice Department lawyer who slipped that into a filing. That is an outright lie. The Justice Department lawyer I believe that he was speaking about is Arez Ruvini, who was one of the justice department. A career 15 year Justice Department official, has worked through many different administrations. Argued at one of the hearings in the Abrego Garcia case. And you know, keep in mind, lawyers have a duty to be candid with a, with a judge and to tell the truth. If you don't, then you can be, you know, you can be disciplined by the bar, you can lose your bar card and your livelihood. And so during this hearing Before Judge Zenas, she was asking questions about what the circumstances were surrounding Abrego Garcia's removal. And Roubini very honestly said, you know, your honor, we admit that he was mistakenly removed. That was then included in filings when they went up to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal. That was included in the Solicitor General's own brief before the Supreme Court. And all of that is based on a declaration from an ICE official, Robert Cerna, who himself said when Abrego Garcia was removed from the United States, it was an administrative error. We I knew that he had a withholding of removal, that he could not have been removed to El Salvador, but it wasn't on the flight manifest or that kind of thing. And it was a mistake. So for Stephen Miller to go out and say it wasn't a mistake is just. I mean, he knows that it is false. I don't see how he could not. I think that Pam Bondi has since moderated her language to say something to the effect of, you know, he was removed. There was a paperwork. There was still some additional paperwork that needed to be done. But I think that in itself, that's due process.
- [48:21]
Emma Vigland
That's. You're admitting that you didn't give him the process that he was due. Right.
- [48:26]
Producer
And one of the things that's really concerning, too, I will add that they've been recently raising in some of these court filings is right before this hearing when they filed one of the required daily status reports, they said that if Abrego Garcia shows up at a port of entry in the United States or at the embassy in El Salvador, that he would be taken into the custody of dhs and then that they would redeport him to a third country or back to El Salvador after removing his order to prohibit his removal to El Salvador. And it's really unclear. The argument they seem to be making is that because they have designated the gang that the government has alleged that he's a part of, which there's really. It's a very dubious claim. There seems to be very little evidence, if any at all, that Abrego Garcia was a member of Ms. 13. My colleague Roger Parloff has a great piece on this, if folks are interested in that background regarding those allegations. But they made this argument that because they've designated MS.13 as a terrorist organization, that somehow exempts a person from. From being able to have a withholding of removal. And it seems that they're not even suggesting, as the Supreme Court said, having him go through the regular process where they would file a petition to challenge that withholding of removal or something to that effect. It seems like they're just suggesting that there would be some kind of pronouncement that he's no longer eligible for it and then have him be removed again, which is really concerning because that is not how things work. There are processes that you go through in immigration court and it just seems like they're really flirting with this idea that they can do whatever they want even if he is brought back.
- [50:51]
Emma Vigland
Lastly, Anna, and then we'll let you go. What is the process for holding someone in the administration in contempt? Is it likely that the person that's held in contempt is not Donald Trump himself because of the Supreme Court's ruling on the president's authority and the not calling his actions illegal basically while he's in power? I mean, what is your sense of how that could happen?
- [51:22]
Producer
Yeah, so look, it's, I think that we have a long way to go before, before we get to contempt. Although Judge Zenas and her order yesterday did say that she was one reason why she's ordering discovery or a kind of investigation and production of documents and all that. One reason that she's ordering that is because she wants to understand if contempt proceedings are needed. The plaintiffs in the case have asked her for an order, what's called an order to show cause that why the defendant should not be held in contempt. One of the problems here though, and we've seen this in some other cases, I mentioned the Judge Boasberg case, which at one point it seemed like we were headed towards contempt proceedings in that case. But one of the issues here is exactly what you have asked about, which is who the question of who do you hold in contempt? Because you kind of got to find out, you know, is it who is the decider, who is the person who all of this non compliance is kind of emanating from. And the first stage of that is going to be this discovery process that I mentioned. One of the issues though is that the people that they are going to depose that the judge is ordered be deposed are these people who file declarations and these daily status updates. And if you look really closely at the language in those daily status updates, these are people who even though they're claiming to have personal knowledge, they're saying things like as I understand it or as relayed to me. So they're really kind of, it seems to not really be people that have personal knowledge about what is going on. And so even when they are brought in for questioning and when the Plaintiffs are opposing them under oath. I think one of the things that they're going to be trying to ascertain is who are the real people with knowledge, who are the real decision makers here. And then as you go up and try to find that chain of who potentially would be the person to be held in contempt, it may very well get harder because of invocations of privilege and those kinds of things. So I think that we're at the very beginning stages of this. I mean, I would highly doubt that we're going to see the Supreme Court holding the president in contempt. But at some point, too, keep in mind that it gets to a point where it's not just the people who are in the executive branch who are making decisions about how to facilitate removal themselves who are in contempt, but may very well become the case that some of these Justice Department attorneys may be the people who are acting in a contemptuous way because of refusals to provide information because of this consistent pattern of conduct. So, and the judge has seemed to be quite frustrated with the fact that some of these attorneys are not getting information from the client. But regardless, all that said, I think that it's a long way to go before we get to contempt. And I think that, you know, you've already mentioned before, and I'll mention it again, it may very well be that even if you get to finding contempt against anyone in the executive branch, in the Justice Department, there may not really be an enforcement mechanism because it's kind of like if it's civil contempt, it's fines until you're trying to get to compel some kind of action that they're not doing anyway. You can't exactly throw someone in jail when the jails are run by the federal government, right? Yeah. So it's complicated.
- [55:40]
Emma Vigland
It's complicated. And I appreciate you laying it all out for us. This is part of why we're supposed to have three branches of government. And the legislature is not doing its job, which is what? Like, the courts are not equipped for this even in the best of circumstances when we didn't have a right wing Supreme Court. Like, this is the problem of what the legislature has become. But that's a conversation for another day. I won't keep you too much longer. Everyone should check out if you're interested in this case. Lawfare is doing live streams and covering, recounting your coverage of this case and others on the Lawfare site. So people should go check that out. Anna, thanks so much for your time today. I really appreciate it.
- [56:22]
Producer
Thanks so much for Having me.
- [56:24]
Emma Vigland
All right guys, quick break and when we come back, we are going to be talking to some of the Alamo drafthouse workers on the strike that just ended and their wins there. Be right back. It's it.
- [57:40]
Matt Binder
Sa.
- [58:17]
Emma Vigland
We are back and we are joined now by Anthony Scrutieri, member of the Alamo NYC United bargaining committee. Anthony, thanks so much for coming on the show today.
- [58:28]
Anthony Scrutieri
Yeah, no worries.
- [58:30]
Emma Vigland
So the strike ended. It was a 58 day strike with Alamo drafthouse workers in New York City. Alamo didn't go during that time period in solidarity. But I gotta say, Alamo, for people that aren't familiar, it's one of those dine in movie theaters. And there are a few great locations here in New York City. Just tell us a little bit about what happened and why you all made the decision to strike.
- [58:59]
Anthony Scrutieri
Yeah, so we're unionized. We had our election about like October 2023. I'm not going to try to do math. And we have been bargaining. Our first contract, our first meeting was in January of last year. So it's been a year and like three months now and this past January. Well, going back even further, Alamo got bought out by Sony, I want to say like six months ago. Before that they were owned by hedge funds, Altamont and Fortress. Before that they had gone bankrupt because of COVID They. Yeah, they went, they went bankrupt. They got bought out by hedge funds. They got sold to a big corporation. And so they attempted to do. Well, they did do layoffs nationwide in January. Part of like what we saw of like a big huge layoff wave kind of across the entire country. But the difference between the rest of the country and our locations in New York at Brooklyn and Manhattan and the one in Colorado is that we are unionized and federally recognized by the National Labor Board and therefore in what's called status quo because we don't have a contract yet. Legally, status quo means they are not allowed to make any fundamental changes to the business without bargaining with the union about it. You see it like status quo is either pre first contract or between contracts if one expires. And so they like feigned bargaining. They pretended to. They met with us four times in two weeks. We asked for information proving the economic necessity. They infamously said their lawyer said, you know, this isn't a labor cost issue. And yeah, and so we, we first did a strike authorization vote during that for meetings hoping that just the threat of a strike would be enough to get them to back off. Clearly it wasn't. And so we went on strike. And. Yeah, it took 58 days for them to finally realize that they need us and that they need those workers back and that.
- [61:15]
Caller
Yeah.
- [61:15]
Anthony Scrutieri
That they weren't going to be able to. They. They needed us back to help them not only operate the business again, but try to, to get people to come back to the Alamo.
- [61:25]
Emma Vigland
Right.
- [61:26]
Anthony Scrutieri
They needed to call off the boycott.
- [61:28]
Emma Vigland
Because weren't they also having to cut down on their dining services? That's what's important to emphasize about Alamo is it's a more expensive theater, but you can get drinks and order wings. Yeah, yeah.
- [61:41]
Anthony Scrutieri
So they managed to. Oh, sorry.
- [61:43]
Matt Binder
I just wanted to say, like, it's important to underline, like, what Alamo is. And I've not liked being able to go there as they've, you know, not. Haven't been respecting their workers. Because you are taken care of by the employees at Alamo in a way that you aren't at other movie theaters.
- [61:57]
Emma Vigland
Yes. There's like a little light. You press and people bring your drinks or your food. It's. It's that. That's the service that's being provided. It's why it was important for you. Well, it's important for everyone to unionize, but also, also important for, for you guys to unionize.
- [62:12]
Anthony Scrutieri
Yeah, it's a lot of people don't like because obviously you get the trolls on the comments that are like, oh, just put the ball, the popcorn in the bowl. When we talk about being on strike, it's like Alamo is one of the most like, specialized service industry jobs, I think, period. Like, you, not only are you a waiter, you are getting seated to every single customer in the same, like 45 minute block. Everyone's first orders are coming out in that same like 45 minute to an hour block. And then once the movie starts proper, you're now having to do all of this service in the dark hunched over at their table. For the, for the record, by the way, if anyone ever gets annoyed that people aren't bending over in their theater anymore, it's because, like, servers are walking by upright. It's because it hurts our back. And so people just say, like, screw it. I'll just, I'll just be in and out as quickly as possible.
- [63:05]
Emma Vigland
Yeah. 10pm movie. No more hunching over. By that time.
- [63:10]
Anthony Scrutieri
Yeah. Or four years on the job, my back can't take this anymore. Yeah. Yeah. So they did limit their service a lot at first. Like the first weekend they explicitly were telling people you could bring in outside food. But they, I mean, they managed to get some semblance of, like, a skeleton crew of scabs and so. And temp scabs and internals. So they managed to. They managed to bring back, like, the full menu, at least, but it wasn't. It was nowhere near full service. I mean, what. From what I'm hearing from people like, that were inside is that, like, people were in so many different theaters at once trying to wait, like, so many different places at once. It was essentially like you got greeted the first time, and you never got a refill, and the server never came back to you. And then they gave you your check after, like, 20 minutes, and we're like, okay, that's it. Like, it was not. It was not what you're supposed to be paying for at the Alamo draft. They could not effectively run it without us. They also shut down, like, half of the theaters. Yes, absolutely.
- [64:18]
Emma Vigland
Right, right. And. And that. That was important, of course, for you guys to show to Alamo and to Sony, which had acquired it. And the. The. You also did this in this, like, very organized way. This is why unionization is so important. You filed with the NLRB to strike on behalf of the dozens of. Of your fellow workers who were laid off by Alamo. Can you talk about that process for anybody who's in the audience who may want to do something similar? How. Yeah, the. How you guys all filed with the nlrb, what that looked like.
- [64:54]
Anthony Scrutieri
I mean, the filing with the NLRB was largely up to our counsel. Like, our lawyer just kind of did it. But yeah, I mean, so a protected. There. There's difference between a protected and unprotected strike. One of the main ways that a strike is protected under the National Labor Relations act is if it is over an unfair labor practice. And so once our unfair labor practice was charged, we could have walked out on strike at any moment. We. We filed the unfair labor practice the moment they implemented the layoffs unilaterally, because that was the fundamental basis of the violation of status quo, like I just described. Like, they have never. Every year when they. When the. Because we all know that movies don't do. There aren't as many movies coming out during this period of the year. What they've done for the last 30 years at Alamo Drafthouse is just, like, reduce hours accordingly. And we were all prepared for that. Like, we all pick up overtime during the holidays, and we all save up knowing that this is coming. But then January 13th, they were like, for. For the rest of the Alamos, across the nation, they were basically just like, hey, you're fired. Feel free to reapply later then luckily, because we're union. Sorry, go ahead.
- [66:12]
Emma Vigland
Yeah, no, and I just want to interject to say like this is obvious, this is. I'm just a fan of movies and you know that January is. Where is the graveyard for films? Even February like that. All the movies try to get in at the, in the calendar year because for the Oscars, so for the award season, that's why you get all the, you know, the, the prestige films from September to December. So it's fresh in the Oscar voters minds and the blockbusters come in the summer, the early months of the year. It's the dog days for films. So like that's baked into the business model, knowing they're going to get less business there. And they still laid off dozens of people.
- [66:51]
Anthony Scrutieri
Yeah, they laid off. We don't know the numbers exactly nationwide. I've talked to a lot of people at other Alamos and it seemed to generally be, I think that they kept it just under 25% because of the Warren act, which is like a law that's like if you lay off more than 25 of your staff, you have to give them like some kind of notice and some kind of. So like they, they stay just barely under what would have required them to like do right by people legally, as corporations love to do. They love to skate by, by the letter of the law. I mean in most cases. And then sometimes they just flagrantly break the law in your face like these layoffs and then they just hope that no one will do anything about it because we all know that's how laws work for the powerful. They only apply if anyone actually does something about it. Right.
- [67:43]
Emma Vigland
So I guess just to wrap here, what, what would you love our audience or like our audience to know just about what this period of labor solidarity was like for the workers? I mean two months off and striking can really take a toll especially in this economy, especially in New York City rental market. What was it like and what's your advice to anybody who may want to strike on behalf of their fellow workers?
- [68:15]
Anthony Scrutieri
My advice would be union. Shop around for a union that works for you is part of the reason we specifically unionize with the UAW is knowing that they have an $800 million strike hardship fund. Hardships, the wrong word, whatever, I'm not a lawyer. A strike fund. And they like. So we knew that if and when we were to go on strike we would have assistance and benefits of 100, 100 up to $500 a week. New York is also awesome. Just like I would say, do as. Do as much as you can to educate people in advance. Do as much as you can to educate yourself in advance. Do as much as you can to remind people that you will not that you will stick together. One thing that we did that was really helpful, not only on top of the, like the mutual aid fund that some of our co workers organized for all of us was like the, I think life or death for a lot of people. So stuff like that, reach out to your community, build community support, food drives, supply drives. We had people donating like diapers, paper towels, cleaning, just anything anyone could need so that that money that we were getting could go towards, you know, bills and stuff and whatnot. Just do what you can to educate yourselves to assure yourselves that you are stronger together and you will be there to help each other out no matter what. And then just do. Just think sustainability. Because that is the thing that's going to scare the company the most. They are banking on the fact that they can hold you out and you will get scared and you will go crawling back to work. Because the idea of indefinite is scary. And it is scary, but the stronger you are and the stronger you hold the line, the less the company will be able to scare you. And just remembering that you are more powerful. I mean, it's like the classic thing from the bugs from A Bug's Life. The ants are. There are more ants than grasshoppers.
- [70:20]
Emma Vigland
Yep.
- [70:21]
Anthony Scrutieri
And the moment you guys realize that and they realize that you realize that they will come crawling back.
- [70:28]
Emma Vigland
I love a good Bug's Life reference and it's fitting to end our conversation on a movie reference. Congrats on the win, you guys and keep it up. Thank you.
- [70:40]
Matt Binder
Thanks for all your work.
- [70:41]
Emma Vigland
Yeah. Inspiring to see this. Anthony. Scotia or Scotiary. Sorry. Apologies. Thanks so much for coming on the show. I really appreciate it.
- [70:51]
Anthony Scrutieri
No worries. Thank you very much for having me.
- [70:53]
Emma Vigland
All right. With that. Oh yeah, exactly. Unionize it. With that said, folks, we're going to wrap up the free part of this program, head into the fun slash fascist half. That's what we're amending it for right now. Although no.
- [71:09]
Matt Binder
Anti fascist.
- [71:10]
Emma Vigland
Yeah, yeah. Turn into Nazis after the. I. I was trying to.
- [71:19]
Matt Binder
It took some investment.
- [71:20]
Emma Vigland
Yeah.
- [71:20]
Matt Binder
There's gonna be some changes around.
- [71:22]
Emma Vigland
I mean, right. We're now the fascist half aft the soundboard. I'm not.
- [71:29]
Matt Binder
You gotta figure out how to not come off Mike when you go to your soundboard.
- [71:33]
Emma Vigland
We are suddenly we are the fascist half. And that's because of this. It's not working. All right, damn it. You have the drop. You know what I'm getting at. But we're. We have the Fran half. That's what we have the Francesca half today. The Francesca half. Let's bring her in if you don't mind. But Matt, as we bring her in, what's happening on Left reckoning?
- [71:57]
Matt Binder
Yeah, Left reckoning. Last night, Grace Thorvaldson on talking about Jared Polis Big David called the David called him the abundance. That was pretty good, which I thought was really good. And so we talked about that. Colorado. I mean it's like you have these deep blue states, blue trifectas. And the damn governor is a libertarian. Doge. Curious Libertarian.
- [72:22]
Emma Vigland
It's insane.
- [72:23]
Matt Binder
Who's also like a sort of anti vaxxer person. So yeah, it's really awful. And we also, we did a bunch of stuff last night. I'm forgetting what else we did. But patreon.com reckoning to get access to that. Oh, we talked about the Senate race in Texas and Yeah, check out patreon.com left reckoning.
- [72:42]
Emma Vigland
Check it out, folks. And let's bring in my friend Francesca Fiorentini who is rocking a new haircut. I mean. Yeah, what do you call that? The power bob.
- [72:54]
G
Hell yeah. Whatever you want to call. I'm a power bobber.
- [72:58]
Emma Vigland
You are a power bobber. You're a girl boss. Girl boss. Bobbing over.
- [73:03]
G
I was upset with the blue origin flight not because they were sick rich women, yes, two scientists. But that no one was representing women with short hair. And that I feel like is a real injustice that was overlooked by Jeff Bezos.
- [73:17]
Emma Vigland
It was, it is completely unjust. There was, there was not adequate representation also for, for, you know, even people like myself. And I don't know how I could. How I feel about feminism going forward without seeing, I mean, people who hate Swift like that.
- [73:32]
G
Well, that was just a bar to entry. Like you could not get on that vessel if you had any shade for Tay.
- [73:38]
Emma Vigland
So well, for billionaires.
- [73:40]
Producer
Right.
- [73:40]
Emma Vigland
And she's included in that. And I would like to just put that out there. Francesca, my buddy, you have a stand up coming up.
- [73:50]
G
I have a stand up.
- [73:51]
Emma Vigland
A stand up.
- [73:52]
G
I do have a stand up.
- [73:54]
Emma Vigland
Yeah.
- [73:54]
G
Come see me in San Francisco, everybody. Hear ye, hear ye. All of majority reporters. What do y'all call yourselves? I've always forget jordy reporters.
- [74:03]
Emma Vigland
Yeah, there we go. Leftist best crew. We're pulling it up right now. Sorry, one sec.
- [74:09]
Producer
But no worries.
- [74:10]
Emma Vigland
Why don't you explain your. Your stand up so here's what a.
- [74:13]
G
Standup is when I stand up. And that's really hard, actually. That's. That's half of the job. And you try to tell jokes, some of which I wrote five years ago and others I wrote five minutes ago, and it's fun. And in between that, me and my husband Matt leave. We will leave our child with my mother and we will perform. And you guys laugh and you just flap your little, you know, seal flippers there and it'll be great. So, San Francisco Cops Comedy, May 7, 7:30pm get your tickets. There we are.
- [74:48]
Emma Vigland
Was I not invited to this one?
- [74:50]
G
No, you were not.
- [74:51]
Emma Vigland
Ah. Ah. All right. Not like the last time in San Francisco.
- [74:54]
G
Not like the last time in San Francisco.
- [74:56]
Emma Vigland
It was so good. Yeah, I must have not been funny enough to get cry, huh?
- [75:01]
G
Yeah, no, no, I mean, you were mid. You know, I'm saying you were.
- [75:06]
Emma Vigland
You were mid.
- [75:06]
G
And it's fine. It's fine. We have off nights. We always have off night. No, Emma was awesome on the Bituation Room, which is my podcast. Yeah, thanks for having me on. God, this. This Trump guy, am I right? Who saw this coming?
- [75:21]
Emma Vigland
I thought he was just wacky.
- [75:23]
Caller
He.
- [75:23]
Emma Vigland
I.
- [75:24]
G
You know, I think his Gaza policy is a little wacky. A little wacky. But I do agree that we should move the Capitol to Jerusalem, and that was brilliant.
- [75:33]
Emma Vigland
Yeah, it. I mean, it didn't create any issues at all. That's a good point.
- [75:38]
G
No, no, God, Bill Maher, I swear to God, the fact that he still has his show is like, there is no justice in the world.
- [75:45]
Matt Binder
No, I mean, he does it in his basement, basically.
- [75:49]
Emma Vigland
Well, that's club random. But he's got an air.
- [75:51]
Matt Binder
But his studio is, like, on his premises. Like, I feel like it's a good deal for hbo. That's what Sam says, anyway. I think it's on, like a Bill Maher type compound.
- [76:01]
Emma Vigland
I mean, that is like. I would not be shocked because you can. All of these guys are just in bunkers now. And, you know, I'm not shocked, I guess, that Bill Maher doesn't have much of a connection to the outside world.
- [76:13]
G
Well, I do know that they have to, like, basically bark tourists off the Santa Monica Pier to come see him. So it's like people dressed up as, you know, Spider man and the Minions who are like, come see Bill Maher for free. You know, and so they have to fill the studio audience like that. No one's making a trip to LA to go see Bill Maher.
- [76:30]
Emma Vigland
Yeah, nobody is. But I digress let's head into the fun half where we'll play some clips. I want to make fun of Elon Musk with you in particular. See you there, folks.
- [76:43]
Sam Cedar
Okay, Emma, please.
- [76:44]
Emma Vigland
Well, I just. I feel that my voice is sorely lacking on the majority report. Wait, what? Look, Sam is unpopular.
- [76:51]
Sam Cedar
I do deserve a vacation at Disney World, so, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome Emma to the show.
- [76:57]
Emma Vigland
It is Thursday.
- [76:59]
Matt Binder
Thank you for Sam.
- [77:00]
Emma Vigland
Yes, please. No, no, no. I'm.
- [77:02]
Sam Cedar
I'm. I'm going to pause you right there.
- [77:03]
Anthony Scrutieri
Wait, what?
- [77:04]
Sam Cedar
You can't encourage Emma to live like this, and I'll tell you why. So, was offered a tour. Sushi and poker. Boys. Sushi and poker with the boys. Who was offered a tour? Yeah, sushi and poker with the boys.
- [77:19]
Emma Vigland
What tour?
- [77:20]
Sam Cedar
Sushi and poker.
- [77:22]
Emma Vigland
Tims of sad twerk.
- [77:24]
Sam Cedar
Sushi and poker with the boys was offered with twerk sushi and. That's what we call biz. Twerk, sushi and poker with three boys.
- [77:33]
Emma Vigland
Right.
- [77:33]
Sam Cedar
Twerk, sushi and poker.
- [77:35]
Emma Vigland
We're going to get demonetized.
- [77:37]
Sam Cedar
I just think that what you did to Tim Pool was me.
- [77:40]
Emma Vigland
Free speech.
- [77:42]
Sam Cedar
That's not what we're about here. Look at how sad he's become now. You shouldn't even talk about it. I think you're responsible.
- [77:48]
Emma Vigland
I probably am in a certain way. But let's get to the meltdown here.
- [77:53]
Sam Cedar
Sushi and poker with the boys. Oh, my God.
- [77:56]
G
Wow.
- [77:56]
Sam Cedar
Sushi. I'm sorry. I'm losing my mind. Someone's offered sushi and poker with the boys. Logic. Sushi and poker with boys.
- [78:05]
Emma Vigland
Boys.
- [78:06]
Sam Cedar
Boy. I think I'm like a little kid. Think I'm like a little kid. Think I'm like a kid.
- [78:09]
Emma Vigland
Twerk.
- [78:10]
Sam Cedar
I think I'm like a little kid. Think I'm like a little kid. Had this debate 7,000 times. A little kid. Think I'm like a little kid. Think I'm like a d. I'm losing my mind. So I'm not trying to be a dick right now, but, like, I absolutely think the US should be providing me with a wife and kids.
- [78:28]
Emma Vigland
That's not what we're talking about here.
- [78:32]
Sam Cedar
It's not a fun job. That's a real thing. That's that real thing.
- [78:35]
Matt Binder
Real thing.
- [78:36]
Sam Cedar
Willy Walker. That's a real thing. That's that real thing. That's a real thing. That's real thing. Real thing. That's a real thing. Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Rogan has done it again. That's a real thing. Oh, I think he Might be blowing it out of proportion.
- [78:55]
Producer
Real thing.
- [78:55]
Sam Cedar
That's. Boy, is that offer. That's a real thing.
- [78:59]
Matt Binder
That's. That's poker.
- [79:00]
Sam Cedar
Let's go, Joey. Sushi and poker. Take it easy. Sushi and poker. Things have really gotten out of hand. Sushi and poker with the boys. You don't have a clue as to what's going on live YouTube.
- [79:16]
Emma Vigland
Sam has the weight of the world on his shoulders. Sam doesn't want to do this show anymore. Anymore. It was so much easier when the majority were. Before it was just you.
- [79:26]
Sam Cedar
Let's change the subject.
- [79:28]
Emma Vigland
Rangers and Nicks are doing great now. Shut up. Don't want people saying reckless things on your program.
- [79:33]
Sam Cedar
That's one of the most difficult parts about this show.
- [79:36]
Emma Vigland
This is the Pro Killing podcast.
- [79:38]
Sam Cedar
I'm thinking maybe it's time to bury the hatchet.
- [79:40]
Emma Vigland
Left his best. Violet.
- [79:42]
Sam Cedar
Don't be foolish. And don't tweet at me. And don't. The way Emma has all of these people.
- [79:49]
Emma Vigland
That's where my heart is. So I wrote my honors thesis about it. Sorry. She wrote an honors thesis. I guess I should hand the main.
- [79:58]
Sam Cedar
Mic to you now. You are to the right of me on foreign policy.
- [80:01]
Emma Vigland
We already fund Israel. Dude. Are you against that?
- [80:04]
Sam Cedar
That's a tougher question I have an answer to. Incredible theme song.
- [80:12]
Emma Vigland
Hi, bumbler.
- [80:13]
Sam Cedar
Emma Vilan. Absolutely one of my favorite people, actually. Not just in the game, like period.