1/26/26: Trump Admin Lies On MN, Second Amendment Destroyed, Glenn Greenwald Sounds Off On ICE

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Hey, everybody. I'm Tariqa Foster Brasby. What's up, y'all? I'm your girl, Cheryl Eric Swalwell. When you tune in to a new episode of our podcast levels to this, you're definitely going to get some spy CWNBA analysis. But we're more than just hoops. And the real conversation is what we actually breathe. It's been really, really cool seeing kind of these women just really step into their power off the court and understand that they aren't basketball, right? And they're not asking for permission. Listen to Levels to this with Stroze Spooops and Tarika Foster Brasby on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. I'm Munga Shatigula and I'm back with a new season of my podcast, Skyline Drive. This time I talked to scientists, biopunks, curmudgins, blues owners, super seniors, and Goa's top cryotherapy lab to try to understand this obsession with living forever and what it means for all of us. And I get into a bit of trouble along the way. I'd say probably start bone smashing. That doesn't work. To make it look more defined. They say it works. I don't know. Listen to Skyline Drive, How to Live Forever, on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Hey, it's Alec Baldwin. This season on my podcast, here's the thing. I talk to composer Mark Shaman. It's about the hang. It's the pleasure of hanging out with the people that you're with. You know, Rob and I was always a great hang. and director Morgan Neville. Film school teaches you all the wrong things about making documentary. What do you want to say? Documentary is all about your ear. What do you hear? I feel like my job is listening really, really hard. Listen to Here's the Thing on the iHeart Radio app Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breaking. breaking points.com.

Good morning, everybody. Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. It's going to be Ryan and I. We are unfortunately detained at home, Ryan, because both of us are buried under several inches of snow. But virtual pound, people do live for the pound. It's even these horrific times, we do need to find some levity. And so Ryan and I, unfortunately, the vast majority of this show is going to have to be dedicated to this horrific shooting out of Minnesota. I'm sure many of you saw it. By the way, shout out to you, Ryan. Dropside News for reporting that new angle of the video that you brought to all of our viewers, which makes it unambiguous, the killing of this man, Alex Peretti, completely unjustly. And that's what we're going to be spending the vast majority of our time on. So Ryan and I are first going to go over. Everything that we know not only about the shooting, the administration, the lies that they've told about brandishing a weapon, many of the things that have fallen apart in the subsequent comments from the CBP director from multiple administration officials. They are then going to be joined by Janine Eunish. She's the Civil Liberties lawyer who we had on. previously to break down the Renee Good shooting. This time, Janine is going to join us and talk about how the Trump administration is now unironically arguing that if you bring a gun to a protest, which is the right of all of us as Americans, specifically also state law, you know, in Minnesota that you are liable apparently to be killed, right? And this is from our FBI director and from multiple other senior administration officials. It's unbelievable. And Janine will help break some of that. down for us. We're also going to ask her about that administrative warrant story. Crystal briefly was able to touch on it on Thursday, but we're going to break it down fully with Janine again. She's very well-versed on the case law. We are then going to be joined by Glenn Greenwald, great friend of the show. Glenn is going to talk about this new tactic ICE videos coming out of them saying that there is a database being kept on protesters and on American. So Glenn's going to break down the diminishing state, not only just civil liberties, but the creation of an effective surveillance state. And then, Ryan, you're going to help us break down a government shutdown that appears to be looming. This killing appears to have precipitated almost a certain government shutdown. down. It is a landmark moment, I think, for the Democratic Party, for Chuck Schumer, the more interesting things that are happening are really not, you know, with the progressive left, we've been calling for stuff like this, but to see Senator Cortez-Maso, Senator Chuck Schumer and others is talk of impeaching Keir Starmer, and things are really starting to heat up here in Washington. This is a major, major political scandal. Finally, we're going to talk about backlash whenever it comes to this story, just various, you know, different Trump-era supporters and others who are speaking out again. after the shooting, not just the shooting itself, which I think we're going, again, we want to spend a decent amount of time on, but the administration's response. That's the most important part of this entire thing. And then the very last story.

which is not relevant to the shooting is going to be about China. We have to cover this. It is by far one of the most consequential pieces of news outside of this, you know, from here in the United States. The top general, basically the equivalent, I guess, of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff has now effectively. Combined with the vice president. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Combined with the vice president. I mean, an enormously consequential figure in China has been accused of selling nuclear secrets to the United States. There are potential rumors of a coup. There are all kinds of questions. that are being thrown around here. I mean, this is unbelievably important. Xi Jinping, the biggest purge of the Chinese military, basically from the history of the CCP. It's absolutely crazy some of the accusations that are going around. Before we get started, thank you to everybody who has been supporting us. And Ryan, I want to give you a special shout out for that video. that you were able to break to our audience. And I just want to say thank you to everyone who supports our show and Ryan's show. Just so people know that video was completely demonetized. And it just gives you a demonstration of... You know, and I'm really not trying to make this about us, but this is where independent journalism itself is so important and why we rely so heavily on our subscribers and DropSight does as well. So breakingpoints.com, please, because I can guarantee you that this entire show is probably going to be demonetized as a result because we have to talk about the news and horrific stuff. And it literally is a business question and our ability to survive. So thank you everybody who has been supporting the show. Just to be extra clear of what that means, the people. Even though you can get this show for free and even though you can get DropSight News reporting for free because we don't keep it behind a paywall, the people who voluntarily pay for it mean that we make our decisions based on what is relevant, like what people need to hear, not based on the ad revenue that we're going to get because we know that if we cover things like that. We're not going to make ad revenue. That's right. But we don't care because we're allowed to do the news because you guys pay us like every month or every year depending on how you put it together. So that's what makes it possible. And getting that video out changed the entire understanding of what happened because up until then you only had. The footage once the melee started, and you had Stephen Miller out there saying that he had approached them trying to do a massacre. And you had DHS saying he was trying to do a massacre. Then you get this footage from the other perspective that Dropside posted. And it's like, oh, no, he was helping a woman off the ice. That's what happened. Now let's talk about it. Now that we all have the facts, now let's talk about it. That is one of the most important videos ever published in a situation like this. And again, the timeliness, your ability to bring it to our audience to dropside. It changed absolutely everything. So again, I do want to thank you specifically, right? And the entire team that you have over there. All right. Guys, let's go and get started. Okay, so we've teed some of this up. I do, at this point, I'm assuming the vast majority of Americans have seen this video according to some more recent polling. I do think that the single.

most relevant part. Mac, if we can go in cue this up, if we're going to slow down the video. What you're all watching here is a slow-mo effectively of the disarming of Alex Peretti as he is on the ground. All right. So let's go and blow that up so people can watch. What you're all seeing here is that while there are about seven ICE agents or Border Patrol agents that are on top of Alex is that you can watch one of these agents actually reach into his waistband. It's unclear if there's a holster. or not remove the weapon and then immediately afterwards there are shots fired and in fact one of the more shocking elements is not just a video ryan that you reported guys let's go and play the next one as well is you can hear these agents frantically shouting where's the gun uh and this is very relevant so i'm going to be quiet so that you can all hear the audio here specifically mac let's roll it All right, let's come out of that. So you can also hear clearly, these agents are shouting, where's the gun? They had no idea where the gun is. There are multiple theories, Ryan, as to how something like this could happen. The predominant theory from some gun enthusiasts is that it's a potential accidental or negligent discharge from the weapon after the disarm. But what it does prove conclusively is that the weapon was not on his person at the time that he was killed. most importantly as well is that it was removed from him. His hands were clear. There was an iPhone in one hand and the other hand was free. There is absolutely unambiguously no question that this in law enforcement parlance is bad shoot. And I think for us, I think the most important element of this is that It is literally not disputable that he was armed at the time that he was killed. There is a term for that. I think that we all know. And, you know, in a normal system at the very much. Sorry, an unarmed man is killed. In a normal system, you know, you would see something very different. And I do think that's why, you know, at this point, even just analyzing the shooting, that's been the last 48 hours that many people have spent some time on Ryan, you know, with the disarming, etc. That is, again, it's not even disputed at this point. by the government. What is most relevant, what is most relevant to our discussion today is not the fact that he was disarmed and that he was killed, but is the immediate response from this, which have massive implications for our rights as American citizens. And so we do want to put this tear sheet up here, guys, can we, just if we can, of Alex Preti. Alex, he was his... parents put out a statement the quote this life was just starting one of his mentors said he was a nurse at him nurse at a VA facility, and he was participating in these protests, which is his right as an American citizen. More importantly, he was exercising his Second Amendment right. He was licensed to not only to be able to own a gun, not you don't need a license or a gun, but to conceal carry his weapon on his person, again, which is his right under Minnesota state law and a right that many of us have, depending on the state that we live in. And immediately afterwards, Ryan, the board.

Border Patrol chief took to the airwaves to say that he wanted to, quote, inflict maximum damage and brand him as a domestic terror. So guys, let's go ahead and queue up this video just so you can all see the immediate response. There are multiple claims here, which are very important, which end up falling apart later. This was, again, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Let's take a listen. Also, had two loaded magazines and no accessible ID. This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement. Massacre law enforcement. The Border Patrol Chief is claiming that if us as Americans... carry a weapon, again, as is our right, that we have two magazines. I mean, these people are gun control liberals at this point, Ryan. They're like, you know, every semi-automatic, dangerous weapon with a high-capacity magazine. This is how, you know, The most liberal gun control activists will speak in the wake of Yuvaldi or something else. Except in this case, it is, again, from somebody who did not fire his weapon, did not brandish his weapon. That's another important thing because we're going to come back to Brandish. And I apologize for monopolizing this so far. But I am so absolutely furious about this situation. Brandish is a specific term. It's actually a crime to brandish a weapon at law enforcement. That in no way is what was. happening here and the way that the administration immediately came out afterwards to accuse of brandishment of massacre of domestic terrorism uh it is it is not just about the facts it is about the fact that this is by far by far the the most i have ever seen our second amendment rights you know our first amendment rights at this point because the two are debilings trampled on by the united states government go ahead ryan yeah and we also have the right or we for a long time have believed that we have the right to feel like we have a responsive self-government. And I want to go back to the point you made about the potential negligent or accidental discharge. I've seen arguments for that. I've seen arguments against it. Either way, it does not justify the shooting. It doesn't matter. Yeah, it doesn't matter. Right. But it's an important detail to find out. Previously, we would trust the FBI. to obtain that gun and to do a forensic analysis of it, do a forensic analysis of the agent in gray's glove to see if there's any residue on it, and then actually just tell the public, yes, there was an accidental discharge. No, there was not an accidental discharge. And from left to center to right, people would be like, okay, the FBI's forensic lab is serious. Like, this is what they tell us. This is now what we understand to be the case about whether or not there was that accidental discharge. Still completely unjustified. Even if that happens, it's still unjustified homicide is still a bad shoot. But we're in a place where I don't think anybody even remotely expects that the FBI or DHS are going to even do that, are going to ask that agent for his glove, are going to.

Check, I hope I'm wrong. Gun residue tests. Yeah. But when you have the FBI director going on air basically clearing him for what he did, you have Bovino going on saying that the victim was actually trying to massacre officers. You have Noam then going on and word for word saying what Bovino said. And you have officials from the administration going on cable news saying the exact same thing. And you have Stephen Miller. going after every Democrat or reporter who reports on it saying a man approached, you know, officers with a nine millimeter trying to massacre them and this is your response to it. Shame on you. Like that's not an administration that anybody trusts to do an investigation, even just to find, you know, minor details about it. But yes, like, and so. that is a that is a breaking of the social contract last night you started as you had half a dozen or a dozen people outside the hotel where they thought that ice was staying and smashing up cars and smashing the window which if there's no if there's no sense that they're ever going to hold anybody accountable for this a lot of the public is going to step back and be like well i don't i don't support this i'm not going to participate in it but i get it I'm Munga shit together and I'm back with a new season of the podcast Skyline Drive. This time I'm diving into a rabbit hole of peptides, organoids, blood boys, blue zones and brain replacement to try to understand what this longevity obsession is all about and what it really means to live forever for all of us. I learned about some rad science. I can make a brain for you, and then we can test what draw is the best for your brain, as opposed to his brain. Here's some hard truths. I would expect Indians to age faster, but I did not expect it to be almost a four to five year acceleration. And get myself into a world of trouble. I'd say probably start bone smashing. That doesn't work. Make it look more defined. They say it works. I don't know. Listen to Skyline Drive, How to Live Forever on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Bill, why is my eye twitching? Does this mean I'm in perimenopause? Maybe I have adult ADHD. I need to look this up. Where's my phone? Juliana, your phone is hot to the touch. I think it's asking you for a break. You know what? Maybe I should just ask chat GPT. Or maybe we can ask an actual human. Yes, like a couple sex therapist. Whoa, that escalated quickly, but... Okay. Because I have questions. We have questions. And I bet everyone has questions. Like, is it normal to sleep in separate bedrooms? We do that. How about this one? Is bribing your kids bad parenting or just negotiating? Oh, and I still do need to know why was my poop green that one time? Hypothetically, right? Okay, well, instead of letting the internet guess, we've got actual people answering these exact questions. And laughing with us has got to be better than spending three hours down a rabbit hole online.

Listen to Bill and Juliana. The podcast. On the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Hey guys, Paul Verzi here, and I want to talk to you about Paul's best podcast. Will Ferrell's Big Money Players Network and I Heart Radio. I sit down each week with a special guest and we discuss the absolute best of things. Pete Davidson. It's that and then there's everything else. He would just shout one line and it wouldn't murder. Marie Lunch. Bill Burr. Let's talk about the best moments that we had on the road. I would love a goddamn. Dude, Joe could get last row, middle scene on a Southwest Airlines flight. Joe, I was your flight. It was great. The guy on Penn State, we were on the field, and the player thought Joe is his former coach. And he hugged him. And he hugged him, and Joe just went with it. And they know, the guy goes, what are you doing here, coach? And Joe just goes, man. And you walk in, and it is bananas. I mean, it's a feast for the eyes. And I was like, it's not my thing either. But we're here. When in Rome? Top athletes, chefs, musicians, everybody. Listen to Paul's best podcast on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Right. I mean, that's the thing, Ron. I have spoken at length about liberal protest norms and liberal activism and I, you know, incensed about that church, you know, the storming and all of that. And I think all, I mean, I maintain all of that. And one of the criticisms of that is, no, we don't violate the social contract is that we deserve or, but an important part of that is that the authority. And in this case, the ultimate authority, the supreme authority, the United States government, the federal government of the United States, in the way that they have conducted themselves after this, that also leads to. an insane amount of chaos. And that is why, I mean, I barely even have words for how angry I am about this situation. Can we put, you know, Mr. Bovino, by the way, you know, backtracking completely from his original claims. Mack, let's go ahead and load some of that up here, please. Let's just take a listen. All those facts, things like how many shots were fired, where were the weapons located? All those facts are going to come out. in the investigation. I wasn't there wrestling that assault of subject that was assaulting border patrol agents. I wasn't there wrestling him myself. So I'm not going to speculate. I'm going to wait for that investigation to come. Don't interrupt me. I'm going to wait until that investigation comes out until I make a decision there. During this operation, an individual approached U.S. Border Patrol agents with a 9-millimeter semi-automatic handgun.

The agents attempted to disarm the individual, but he violently resisted. That's bullshit. It didn't approach them with the gun. He had it holstered. And as the video that you showed very clearly showed, he was. Look, I mean, let's not sugarcoat it either. Yeah, he was there to protest, okay? That's what apparently. Yes, he was there to protest. Okay, that's his right. That he's an American citizen. And at some point, somebody gets sprayed, pepper sprayed. He was trying to step in. He did resist. Okay, fine. You can resist arrest. You shouldn't, in my opinion. But okay, fine. It's not a death sentence. It's only a death sentence. If you pull out a gun, you shoot, you point it at an office. That is not what happened. Period. End of story. And the DHS secretary, Kristi Noem, again. specifically in the moments after the shooting accused him of brandishing a weapon guys let's go ahead and play that please that is our next one these are all very important for the public record to show the immediate way that there were claimants also yeah doing this in the middle of a disastrous snowstorm where you know Ryan you and I are all again you know when you're talking about the government we're all looking for like decent information you know what do we do exactly we have like life threatening conditions on our roads and this is the idiot that we have in charge let's go go ahead and take a listen. Tend to do bodily harm and other convictions as well. This individual went and impeded their law enforcement operations, attacked those officers, had a weapon on him, and multiple dozens of rounds of ammunition, wishing to inflict harm on these officers coming, brandishing like that, and impeding their work that they were doing. Again, brandish is a term that means something very specific whenever it comes to law enforcement. In no way. In no way does that rise to this at all. You know, to your point here about evidence, let's put the tear sheet, please, the Axios tear sheet number 14 here on our rundown about evidence. There is now something that's been moving through the court system. A judge has, quote, blocked feds from destroying evidence in the Minnesota shooting. There was a lot of confusion immediately after the shooting. So according to the Minneapolis PD, they immediately tried to secure the scene. They said that they were blocked by the feds. The feds actually retreated. very quickly after this because of the growing number of protests. Minnesota PD also actually apparently was not able to secure the scenes because there's an insane amount of protesters. So again, look, I will, I'm not even going to talk about liberal protesters today. It's not even appropriate because at this point, you go ahead. And on the point on resisting arrest, a law enforcement source sent me a piece of a training guide that has this pyramid that shows like. the level of compliance that a suspect is engaging in or noncompliance versus then the corresponding level of force that your training requires. And what the officer said, that clearly what he would be categorized as is what they call passive resistance. Now, first of all, there's no evidence that they're actually even arresting him. If you notice.

It escalated very quickly. And again, you know, even for what purpose? Like, what did he do? Right. What's he under arrest for? They spray him. He puts his hands up. Yeah. And then he grabs him like by the back of the jacket. He's trying to help the woman up. They throw him down on the ground. Certainly there's a fight. There's no like, hey, you're under arrest, like freeze. At least I couldn't hear it. Yeah, I could not hear it. And maybe we'll end up hearing it. But then they start hitting on the flashlight and, you know, punching. Like it then it becomes a fight. And they, and it's termed passive resistance. Because he's not attacking them at all. Like he's not hitting them. And I think it's just a human reaction. Like if you imagine you've just been sprayed in the face multiple times, you can't see. You know, it's icy. And that's key too. It's icy. You're slipping around on the ground. You're being hit with like a mag light in your head and your face. So you're trying to get your like hands and elbows from your head to protect yourself. It's just a natural impulse. It's going to look like you're wiggling and resisting. So that's why they have the term passive resistance. The response to that is supposed to be a de-escalation and just an attempt to get the situation under control. There is no world in which passive resistance, which is the just above compliant on the pyramid, goes all the way up to deadly force. And I see a diminishing number of people defending. the actions of this agent or agents who killed him, but there's still some out there. And so I guess that's for those people who are talking to them. Their only defense is they heard a gunshot freaked out and fired. Sorry, that actually isn't really how it works. Or maybe it is. Especially because the agent, if you look at that video, appears to see his colleague pull the gun. which means he the person who fired right there's been a lot of talk about again i mean you could maybe you could argue that in court considering how cop laws i mean i talked about this after rene good people should not forget like there's an extraordinary right difference but at least take it to court why the shooting itself is um i don't know you tell me what you think the circumstances of the shooting while they are a disaster, while they show incompetence at the very least, while they show an obvious, like, immediate escalation on the part of ICE. I don't even think that that is the biggest story that's coming from. What has come is the government's response is the lying, is the brandishing, is accusing him of being a threat for the mere purpose of having a gun. of having a gun alone is apparently the crime in which merited his death. And then from that point forward, jumping and setting some sort of standard here around how we are not allowed to exercise, again, a fundamental right as Americans to be able to bear arms. And I do think, yeah, go ahead. When Chicago, I think it was CBP in Chicago when they killed Miramar, not killed, they shot Miramar Martinez five times. She survived those shots. They initially said it was a ramming attack and. 10 vehicles surrounded a CBP officer putting him in fear of his life. We reported last week that now they obtained surveillance footage of a nearby business, complete and total lie. It's gotten so bad that the free press, Bari Weiss's news organization, ran a column called The Lies of Christy No.

Like, that's, like, that's how bad it's gotten it. It's people keep using that 1984 quote, you know, the last thing the party asked you to do was to, you know, disbelieve what you were seeing with your own eyes. And the, the gap between the videos of what we're seeing in these incidents combined with the over-the-top rhetoric, like even with Renee Good, the initial DHS statements were. this was a domestic terrorist who tried to do a ramming of our agents. You can, now people can debate whether or not his body was in the front or on the side of the vehicle as she started to accelerate. Nobody who watched that with fresh eyes would be like, oh yeah, that's a domestic terrorist doing a ramming attack. Like nobody would say that. Nobody. But that was the description. And so that gap is opening up this extraordinary credibility gap, which then, like you said, they're trying to fill with justifications like, oh, well, if you show up armed to a protest, if you touch a federal official, you're going to be killed. And you should understand that. F-A-F-O, be like, whoa, hold on a second here. F-A-F-O is very different, okay? F-A-F-O is a pull a gun out in the middle of an arrest, and then you get, that is not the same thing. F-A-F-A-F-O. You're within your Second Amendment and First Amendment rights, that's not F-A. Well, you know, everyone's, I was apparently now, Kyle Rittenhouse is a criminal, by the way, under this standard, which, by the way, that was a textbook definition of F-A-O-F-O, he has a gun. Sure, you know, I'm... in the liberal line at the time was he shouldn't have even been there. It's like, well, people tried to chase him, literally tried to kill him. He fired and he shot in self-defense and he was acquitted at trial, I think correctly, as a result of it. That's F-AFO. This is in no way rises to that standard. If Fafo is, if fucking around is bringing a gun to a protest, we're fucked actually, you know, as a country. And, you know, I can't believe it, especially after watching so many of these protests over the years where, again, I have. no problem with people bring a gun to a protest as long as they are doing so illegally, peacefully, and are exercising their right, which they... always should be able to. You know, I have argued here for too long against red flag laws and against Second Amendment gun protections and all this, just to watch apparently a fucking Republican administration come in here and say that this guy deserved to die for doing absolutely nothing wrong whenever it came to his gun rights. Now, whenever, you know, we continue to talk about this, I think it's very important. And I don't want to diminish his death in any way. I'm not saying that his death is an enormously consequential story because it obviously is. It's not just about the bad shoot. It is the lies. It's the saying he brandished his weapon. They called him a domestic terrorist Stephen Miller specifically said that they said he brandished and they didn't. And now the line is literally that because he brought a gun there that he intended to massacre people because he had two magazines. Any gun owner out there, you know exactly how ridiculous the idea of having a gun.

with two magazines, which is very common for people who conceal carry, is in any way some sort of intent. There is no intent ascribed to that behavior whatsoever under any reasonable standard for anybody of the tens of millions of us who are gun owners here in the United States. And then finally, really what it comes down to is that because they have no defense, is that they are also not handling this in an appropriate, in any standard way, like you're saying, about some sort of investigation. I mean, I think it's insane that a judge even have to be like, oh, don't destroy. evidence, but the fact of the matter is, I mean, we have to be honest here. The DHS immediately came out and said, we're going to investigate ourselves, okay? Their FBI said that they weren't going to investigate the case. You need to look at Kristi Noem and Gregory Bovino and be like, are these credible people who in any way could, you know, could conduct an investigation? And you're talking there about the social contract. While it's obvious that many police departments investigate officer involved shootings, you know what they usually do? They take those agents or the police officer. He's put on leave. Just for psychological reasons alone. For psychological reasons and for an invest, even in the clearest cut, like body cam, gun, gun out, shoot, you still do. Because it's treated, again, it's always treated as if it might be murder, you investigate, you clear the officer. The CBP commissioner, sorry, the Border Patrol chief, Bovino. He says these agents have been, have left Minneapolis for, quote, for their own safety, but they are still on the job and they're actively working as of today. Every single one of them actively in working today. Again, like you just said, gunshot residue for the guy who took the R. Is that going to happen? What's going to happen for the people who pulled the trigger? I mean, you know, at the very least, like, dude, you need to lawyer up from your union. You need to sit down and potentially a hostile interview and be like, what were you thinking? In the moment, video shows this. Could you see it? Line of sight says that you could. I mean, none of that, to our knowledge, has happened at all. They're claiming that they're going to have an investigation. Bullshit. I haven't seen any of that. The only reason there might be, which we'll get to in a little bit, is that even congressional Republicans now are like, whoa, we're going to need a transparent investigation. And then finally, I think we need to zoom out here. Again, as I've said, I have spoken at length about liberal protest norms and, you know, would I be out there, you know, blowing whistles and all that? No, absolutely not. But, but. But, and that's why at this point, this is where the Trump people have lost, is that when you are going to get to a point where you as an American are being labeled as domestic terrorists by your government for bringing a gun, and then you're going to try and say that if you bring a gun to any protest whatsoever, that you are liable to be killed, no, no, no, no, no. This is very different. And this is also fundamentally different, I would say, from the Renee Good case because, and Ryan, I think you can even admit this. There was a question. especially in the immediate, not about ramming, about whether, like, you could see a reasonable doubt situation. There was a live debate, and I think it's, yeah.

There was a lot of debate. And the point that I would always make, what I made in the immediate aftermath is I was like, guys, you need to look at the case law on this. There's a, like, reasonable doubt is a very, like, is a standard there that usually sides on the piece of officers. I don't even think he handled it well, like, to be very, very clear. I'm saying, though, if you could see, you know, you could maybe, and there's like potential video of being, that's not even remotely, you know, in the realm of this. Because at that point, we're arguing about behavior, but there's a potential legal, you know, tree here about, like, awful but lawful type situation potentially could have been. One of those. Here, it's not a question. Yeah. We'll speak to Janine Eunice later, the Civil Liberties attorney, and she has said that she even sees a difference, a distinction between these two. She felt like the Renee Goodkilling was unjustified that she could get a conviction, but she said this one. is even clearer, as she put it. Yeah. And again, I mean, it's not even just about it being clear for the actions of the video. It is the response now from the United States government. I mean, immediately putting out, and maybe this is worth, you know, the TikTok for those of you who are not just like following the news all the time, in the immediate aftermath of this shooting, they just decided to tweet out a picture of a gun on a car seat as if it proves anything. Right. As if it proves anything. So what if he had a gun? So what? Did he pull it out? That's not crime. Yeah, in Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hare kind of responded to this federal argument that, well, we had to kill him because he had a weapon with his own response. Matt, can we put up, I think it's the 15th L&B15 here? Yeah, we have it. You know of that Preddy was assaulting the federal officers as the Border Patrol chief claims. Well, I've seen the videos just as thousands of people around the country have, and the videos speak for themselves. I think it's deeply concerning the things that are being said. This is an individual that was a city resident. It appears that he was present, exercising his First Amendment rights to record law enforcement activity, and also exercising his Second Amendment rights to lawfully be armed in a public space in the city. So I think very obviously there are serious questions that are being raised. And I think the greater issue is even if there is an investigation that ultimately proves that at the time of the shooting, it was legally justified. I don't think that even matters at this point because there is so much outrage and concern around what is happening in the city. What do you mean it doesn't matter at this point? You mean the situation on the ground is? already the impression is left. People have had enough. This is the third shooting now in less than three weeks. The Minneapolis Police Department went the entire year last year, recovering about 900 guns from the street, arresting hundreds and hundreds of violent offenders, and we didn't shoot anyone. And now this is the second American citizen that's been killed. It's the third shooting within three weeks. People have been speaking out saying that this was going to happen again. And I think everyone is kind of waiting for folks on both sides to come together and just figure this thing out. This is not sustainable. This police department has only 600 police officers. We are stretched incredibly thin. This is taking an enormous toll trying to manage all of this chaos.

on top of having to be the police department for a major city. All right. Let's pull out of this. I think this is also an important point and something that I have, you know, I've argued with Crystal endlessly about ice and, you know, all of this. At this point, it is actually inarguable that you're creating more chaos. And no, I've talked, I've said even, oh, look, it ignores the chaos of what it means to have people who are present in your country illegally. Yes, we can have debates all day long about sanctuary city, which, look, I'm happy to hold that for another time period. Even the president, by the way, his only real response after this shooting was just to say, hey, we should pass a law to end sanctuary. Fine. That needs to be resolved through the democratic process. And that cannot involve a simultaneous, not just this situation, but the fallout now, which you own 100%. And, you know, if we're going to resolve this through democratic means, what we have watched is that while yes, Trump obviously has a mandate or had a mandate. whenever he was elected to seal the border, to mass support people who are here illegally, it has moved beyond that in these multiple cases where, and this is where, again, you know, if you had to be watching this, you can see this wasn't even a guy who was here illegally. And in fact, um, He was a U.S. citizen. And in fact, look, again, I'll defend deportation if it's actually happening. Well, you know, the actual result, which has come out is that the details. of the raid, which they said that it was going to be happening, was not even correct. They said that they were doing a targeted operation against a specifically, and they named this illegal citizen, or sorry, illegal alien. They said, we're going to go after the, then the Minnesota Department of Corrections is like, I don't even know what you're talking about. This guy does, it's literally not in our custody. This is completely incorrect. You actually released him back in 2018. It's like, well, if that's a shoddy process, you know, behind all of this, yeah, no, sorry, especially if it's going to resolve. in the death of an American, not just the debt, but the, you know, the killing of this guy after he's being disarmed. And then the subsequent response is basically his fault, you know, for bringing a gun. No, like, you, you aren't, you are so far beyond immigration enforcement at this point. And it's obvious now, you know, we're going to do an entire thing about backlash from the public good, by the way, good. They should be backlash. Again, something like this. But I think. I think this is actually a watershed moment. I think this is the day. I think that was the day that Trump actually did lose on the question of immigration. And we are so far beyond in this moment now because it's not even the subsequent debate topic because now it's all questions of civil liberties of 2A. And, you know, I guess to be fair to you and Chris, you guys have been talking about this from the beginning. That's what O'Hare is saying when he says. Even if an investigation comes out and, you know, determines that this was justified, people have had it. Like, people have seen what they have seen. Three shootings in two and a half weeks. People are, people don't want this chaos because nothing that an investigation.

can determine is going to unwind what happened. We all saw what happened, period. We don't want this to happen in our streets. And your point about the alleged target of this alleged targeted operation is a key one. Yeah, they said that this was a violent criminal. We probably called him a pedophile that they were, you know, trying to go after. And they put a name out. anybody, you don't have to be the Department of Corrections in Minneapolis to search the Department of Corrections database. Like federal officials complain, they're not working with us. You can search state prison records and find out if the guy has any record. Like law enforcement at the federal level has access to that data. The fact that they put that name out without. either checking whether it was true that he had a criminal record, and it wouldn't be embarrassing that actually it was the Trump administration that released him in 2018, or B, they don't care, that they just put the information out, and it might be wrong, it might be correct, but they don't actually care. I don't know which one is more disturbing, the incompetence or actual malicious lying. But either way, to your point, they have blown their mandate. They had the, they still have the mandate, I think, for the border because people are like, okay, fine, border. Because they're not, we're not, if we were seeing people gun down at the border, yeah, be different. Then that would be a different question. But we're not seeing those kinds of images. But the mandate for rounding up people outside of grocery stores and home depots and restaurants and just plucking them off the streets to the extent that. They had that at all, which I would quibble with whether or not they actually did. But let's say they did. They don't have it anymore because of the way they carried it out. Because it's not just the way that they carried it out. It is the subsequent blowback effect in the way that they're treating people who are protesting. You can even do that, you know, in a way where you're not literally shooting people. And I mean, and then immediately accusing anybody who speaks out against it of domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism is a very serious term, a very serious accusation, which we're now being watched, actually be created into a surveillance state, which we're going to be talking about with Glenn. Okay, we've got Janine Yunis standing by. She's going to talk to us about 2A. to give her some of her analysis on the shooting. So let's get to it. I'm Munges shit together and I'm back with a new season of the podcast Skyline Drive. This time I'm diving into a rabbit hole of peptides, organoids, blood boys, blue zones and brain replacement to try to understand what this longevity obsession is all about and what it really means to live forever for all of us. I learned about some rad science. I can make a brain for you, and then we can test what draw is the best for your brain, as opposed to his brain. Here are some hard truths. I would expect Indians to age faster, but I did not expect it to be almost a four to five year acceleration. And get myself into a world of trouble.

I'd say probably start bone smashing. That doesn't work. To make it look more defined. They say it works. I don't know. Listen to Skyline Drive, How to Live Forever on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Emily Oster. I'm an economist and data expert. And I'm Perry Wilson. I'm a medical doctor. And this is our new podcast, Wellness Actually. Because you're getting a staggering amount of health and wellness information nowadays, and some of it is awesome. And some of it is, well, actually, bullshit. Fortunately, we're both people who know how to read studies, parse data, and can tell you what's worth trying out and what you can safely ignore. Each episode, we tackle the health news of the week and then take a deeper dive into a misunderstood health and wellness topic like... What's the deal with peptides? What's the deal with GLP-1s? What's the deal with creatine? What's the deal with cupping? What's the deal with sleep? So join us for a weekly dose of sanity. It might actually be just what the doctor... Or the economist. Ordered. Listen to Wellness Actually on the iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey, guys, Paul Verzi here, and I want to talk to you about Paul's best podcast. Will Ferrell's Big Money Players Network and I Heart Radio. I sit down each week with a special guest and we discuss the absolute best of things. Pete Davidson. It's that and then there's everything else. He would just shout one line and it would murder. Marie Lunch! Bill Burr. Let's talk about the best moments that we had on the road. I would love a guy. Dude, Joe could get last row, middle scene on a Southwest Airlines flight. Joe, I was your flight. It was great. The guy on Penn State moved on the field, and the player thought Joe is his former coach. And he hugged him. He hugged him, and Joe just went with it. And the guy goes, what are you doing here, coach? And Joe just goes, man. And you walk in, and it is bananas. I mean, it's a feast for the eyes. And I was like, it's not my thing either, but we're here. When in Rome? Top athletes, chefs, musicians, everybody. Listen to Paul's best podcast on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. We're very excited now to be joined by Janine Eunice. She's a repeat guest here, and she is the national legal director at the ADC, very principled civil liberties lawyer. And she's here to talk to us for her reaction, not only to this horrific aftermath of this shooting, but of the implications for our civil liberties. So, Janine, thank you very much for making the time. And it's good to see you again. Oh, thank you so much for having me back. Absolutely. So, Ginny, Ryan and I just had, you know, very spirited, I think, criticism of the administration that's putting it lightly of the way that this has all gone down. But of course, we are always reliant on legal experts. You yourself, a former defense attorney, you gave us your impressions immediately in the aftermath of the Renee Good case. Could you just break down what you see here in this particular case in the death of Alex Pretty? So in the Renee Good case, I acknowledged I think there's some arguable ambiguity, at least with respect to the first shot that, you know, maybe a defense attorney could convince a jury. I still think that that was a bad shooting and shouldn't have happened. But this, I would say, is a clear-cut case of murder. I mean, he was pretty obviously executed. I watched the video a number of times because the fact that everybody was wearing brown made it confusing for a little bit. But it became quite clear that he basically didn't, I don't think he did anything wrong at all. Still, you don't necessarily deserve to be shot for doing something a little bit wrong. But he, you know, he was not aggressive with officers. I don't think he even broke any laws. He was trying to protect two women from their aggression. They pepper spray all three and then tackle him. And he's like writhing on the ground. And then it looks as though that one of the officers takes a gun off him, and then another officer shoots him nine times. I mean, that's just an execution. I don't know. The fact anyone would try to defend this is astonishing to me. In the first segment, we were talking about the notion of passive resistance, which is a term that police use in their training. It's the kind of most minimal level of resistance. And it means that...

He's not remotely offensively going after any officers. In this case, there's video from the front. He's being hit in his face and head by what looks to be like a maglite, which if anybody's ever been, either that or a billy club, but it looks more like a maglite. If anybody's ever been hit one of those, those are extremely heavy, solid things and then filled with like D batteries that are going to, that could cause like. irreparable damage to you. And so, as you said, writhing around on the ground, you're trying to protect your body. It's just a natural impulse to protect your body. And that can be categorized somehow as passive resistance because you're not just, you're not, you're not, not moving. But nothing in the police training justifies going, elevating that to capital punishment, like execution on the spot. Have you seen? You know, I think we got accustomed to seeing a lot of videos of police shootings throughout the kind of 2010s as the, as that era rose. Where does this rank on the most blatant executions that you've seen? I would say it's the most blatant one I've seen. I haven't seen anything like that from the United States. It's, I mean, and the standard for self-defense for cops is basically the same. Or law enforcement is basically the same as for civilians, except they might be held to a slightly higher standard, which is basically you're not entitled to use force unless you reasonably believe. that you're at imminent risk of death or serious physical injury. You're not allowed to use deadly physical force. And the force has to be proportionate and it has to be necessary to stop the threat. So I don't see even any argument here. I guess, you know, if this case ever goes to trial, which is probably unlikely, very sadly, because that's a miscarriage of justice. But I don't, I guess the cop could probably argue that he was confused. or something because someone yelled gun and that's probably the best defense that he's going to have. But I don't see a jury acquitting. That seems unlikely to me. Yeah, but Janine, what's crazy is that that's not even what they're going with because you could see that. Again, I don't think you would go. The justification is, well, he had a gun and that's liable to get you killed, apparently. Let's go ahead and cue up, Mac, our... Great FBI director, Kash Patel, who has laid out a case, again, the top law enforcement officer of the United States saying you cannot bring a firearm to any sort of protest that you want. Let's take a listen. Thousands of people are marching through Minneapolis. They are targeting the Border Patrol. I mean, it feels like the rhetoric and the protesting is all ramping up. What is your advice to the people right now who are outraged that this is a second killing at the hands of Border Patrol in two weeks?

As Christy said, you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple. You don't have that right to break the law and incite violence. We will, of course, always protect your First Amendment speech. And if you peacefully protest, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But you have seen a trend here, not just in Minnesota, but across the country in these protests turning into violent scenarios and people attack. hacking law enforcement. That's when you go over the line, and that's when law enforcement steps in. Janine, I mean, again, you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protests you want. It's that simple. You don't have a right to break the law. He in no way broke the law. And in fact, we have an absolute right to do that. Your reaction as a lawyer. Well, you do have a right to bring a gun to a protest under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court actually recently affirmed that in a case called Bruin. So I don't know what they're talking about. I mean, a lot of right-wing people brought guns to anti-COVID protests. That's right. And nobody claimed then that you couldn't bring a gun to a protest. I think what they're trying to do is they, and I saw this during the last year when they were arresting people like Mahmoud Khalil, is they try to kind of blur the lines. So they make statements like, the protesters are violent. And so, therefore, it's okay that we shot. I'm like, Each situation has judged individually from a legal perspective. Mahmoud Khalil didn't do anything violent at all. The fact that other people have protested, it doesn't make him responsible for that. And likewise, this guy clearly didn't pull a gun on anybody. He was clearly not being violent. So you can't. sort of used the conduct of other protesters to say that it was okay to shoot him. Yeah, I mean, one of the things we've seen, sorry, Ryan, go ahead, go ahead. No, go ahead, because I'll have a follow up. Well, one of the things I wanted to flag here is also the immediate aftermath of this statement from Kirste Kristi Noem, guys, can we go ahead and roll B3, where the DHS secretary talks specifically about brandishing a weapon, which is a legal term that's waving a gun, threatening an individual. That's actually something, it's a crime against federal law. but also trying to pair it like you're saying with a violent action of the intent of simply having a gun on your person, which is our absolute right. Let's take a listen. Did he brandish a gun? And at what point did law enforcement retrieve the gun and also the magazines from him? Can you offer clarity on this individual showed up to impede a law enforcement operation and assaulted our officers? They responded according to their training and took action to defend the officer's life and those of the public around him. And I don't know of any peaceful protester that shows up. with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign. This is a violent riot when you have someone showing up with weapons and are using them to assault law enforcement officers. I mean, Janine, this is something out of China or out of Iran or out of Israel or any of these places where we've seen mass crackdown is that the present is that mere having a weapon on your person is an act of violence itself. This is literally out of third world dictatorships, the same standard.

Yeah, and they're asking us to ignore our own eyes, I mean, or, I mean, and what we can see clearly from the video. There's no, he did not assault anyone. Anybody can see that. Yes. Frankly, a lot of people who defended the Renee Good shooting, especially on the conservative side of the political spectrum, are not defending this one. I've seen a lot of people say, that might, that one might have been okay, but this one, no. Yeah, and it's not even about okay. It's like, look, like you said, you could see a case for the first shot. You could. You don't have to agree with it, and you could look at past case law. But on this, it's just completely worlds apart different. Go ahead, Ryan. Yeah. So setting aside all the, like, obvious, like, blatant lies that she told there, what you often hear from the administration is that these protesters are, quote, unquote, impeding. that impeding law enforcement as they're carrying out their kind of lawful enforcement duties. What is the law around what protesters are allowed to do legally and when does it cross into? actual impeding. I think anybody who's seen the video sees that he's waving cars through. He's filming. Like there's no doesn't apply here, but so like outside of this scenario, what could make it actually apply? Like if you were talking to a client who asked you like, I want to go to a protest, how do I make sure I'm within the law? So there are two sort of separate analyses. One is impeding their enforcement operation. And that came into play in the Renee Good shooting, where the argument was that she was blocking them so they had the right to arrest her. Still doesn't give them the right to shoot her. That's sort of a separate issue. But. So if your activity is substantially interfering with an enforcement operation, that might give ICE officers a grounds to arrest you. Because normally they don't have the ability to enforce state law or, you know, they're really just there to enforce immigration and customs law. So there is an exception if you are a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the country. are impeding their operation in a significant way. So I didn't think that Renee Goods rose to that level. But then there are other laws about protesting. So you can't, you know, you can't block traffic. You can't, even if that wasn't impeding the law enforcement operation, just sort of standard things. You can't, you can't harass people, you know, you can't kind of break the normal laws that we observe in society. If you were. Yeah, I mean, you can't, some of the vandalization, for instance, that happened during the pro-Palestine protests is probably not defensible from a legal perspective. But none of that gives them the right to shoot you. That's still, you know, but obviously that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances where it's necessary to save someone's life.

Right. Yeah, final thing that I just have to play here. You know, I have our Treasury Secretary, again, literally adopting the language of some of the most extreme gun control activists I've ever seen. Guys, can we go ahead and roll B2 and have Genean's reaction? Okay, about what's happened in Minneapolis. As a member of the Trump cabinet, are you concerned to see another American citizen? ends up dead shot by federal law enforcement. Jonathan, it's a tragedy when anyone dies. But I can tell you, the situation on the ground there is being stirred up by Governor Waltz. I was out there two weeks ago. Governor Waltz declined to provide a security detail for me to go into the Minnesota Capitol with the state police. So he is foaming. He is fomitting chaos because there is substantial waste, fraud, and abuse. My job as Treasury Secretary is to investigate that. And I think that this chaos is going out there. And again, I am sorry that this gentleman is dead, but he did bring a nine millimeter semi-automatic weapon with two cartridges to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest. I think that there are a lot of paid educators. who are jenning things up and the governor has not done a good job at tamping this down yeah i mean as you know he was an ICU nurse for the veterans administration and there's no evidence that he brandished the gun but he brought a disarmed before he brought a gun have you ever gone to a protest i mean we do have a second amendment in this country that jonathan have you ever gone to a protest i mean uh have you gone to a protest i mean i've i've no actually i have as a report recovering it okay i've been to a protest guess what I didn't bring a gun. I brought a billboard. Wow. I mean, again, I mean, Janine, as you said, one of the reasons I like talking to Janine is you defended and fought back against a lot of the, in my opinion, probably your opinion, too, a lot of the tyrannical stuff that surrounded COVID. You've talked specifically about civil liberties. So you will remember, as I do. We have brains. We also saw many COVID protests, one in Michigan that I absolutely recall, in which people brought guns, even to the state capital, Of course, yes, the gun control people were furious about it. But as you and I both know, that is our right. And none of them were arrested for doing so because it was not a violation of the law. Yeah. I mean, the hypocrisy is just off the charts. And they're just, in my opinion, signaling to their base that they don't really have any principles. They don't really care about civil liberties. This is just about scoring political points. I mean, I will say I do agree with him on one point, which is that there could be more done by Minnesota to sort of diffuse the situation. And one thing I think they should be doing is having state law enforcement out there. to keep the ICE officers in check. But because they don't want to get involved at all, they're refusing to do that. And so I think both sides are really inflaming the situation. Of course, I'm not comparing. Right. I'm not comparing that, too, because shooting people is just absolutely unacceptable. And running cover for that on the administration's part is just beyond the pale. Right. Yeah. And as, and, you know, I had a similar thought. I did.

Here from the Minneapolis PD chief, though, he made a point, which is kind of relevant, is you've got 3,000. I say he said. He's like, we only have 600 sworn officers on our force. He's like, we literally can't do that. Which is, you know, I mean, it's a fair point, right? I mean, I hadn't fully considered it, but I was like, yeah, I mean, he's not wrong. Like, if you have five to one ratio in the city, like, what can you do exactly? Yeah. Yeah, maybe Zohran Mamdani should send some. NYPD's got, what, five, six thousand? People on force and there's only about a thousand that work at a time. Like, yeah, that's funny. Last thing, like New York City can be like the Cuba, like helping other cities. Helping the Angolins. Last thing I did want to ask you about, which was a hot topic before all of this shooting, is let's go ahead and put B5 up here on the screen. Again, we would like your interpretation. There is an ICE memo which instructs officers to enter homes without a... judges warrant. The administration is arguing that they can enter a home based upon something called an administrative warrant. This is a bit confusing. Could you break it down for us and how extraordinary this situation is or isn't? Right. So an administrative warrant is not signed by a judge, which is a very important thing. You know, typical search warrants or arrest warrants are signed by a judge. The judge has signed off that the officers, police officers have shown that there's probable cause to conduct the search or do the arrest. An administrative warrant is signed in the immigration context by an ICE officer. So there's no checks and balances on that. It's just... It's just the executive branch saying I have the right to do what I want. Can you explain that? So like an ICE officer can sign a warrant? Like what does that mean? He can say I have probable cause under my own belief that I can go and arrest this person. For violations of immigration law. Yeah, it's actually little known that immigration, the whole immigration system is within the executive branch. So immigration judges are not actually independent members of the judiciary. They are part of the executive, part of DOJ. And that's one reason they're, in my opinion, quite bad. They tend to just rubber stamp whatever the executive is, which makes it very important to have recourse to the federal court system, which unfortunately the Third Circuit just restricted in the Khalil case. But that's another story. won't go there. So they're arguing that they can enter people's homes without a warrant in order to execute the administrative warrants saying that you can remove this person because they're not lawfully in the country. That's just false. The Supreme Court has never said that. No court in the United States has ever said that. They've been citing this case from the Eighth Circuit called Lucas, where a prison inmate had escaped and was hiding in a home. The officers had information. He was in a home. And they used an administrative warrant to enter the home. But that was kind of the warrant. warrant was almost besides the point because there's something called the exigent circumstances doctrine where you can enter a home if you have, if the police have information that there's an ongoing emergency. So like an example I've used is they have information. There's a missing child is in this house and being tortured. Okay, we can't like wait for a judge to get a warrant. Very, very extraordinary circumstances and a dangerous prison inmate escaping would fall within that, in my opinion. But just.

Someone who's not lawfully in the country being in a home doesn't come close to qualifying. That would just completely eviscerate doesn't, you know, the exception would become the rule then. So this is a complete misapplication of the law and it's just simply wrong. And the conservatives, mostly conservatives saying this on social media and other places are just, they're not being honest. Yeah. Any last questions, Ryan? No. All right. Janine, thank you so, so much for joining us for breaking all of this down. We've got Glenn Greenwald standing by, so let's get to him. I'm Mungeshit Together, and I'm back with a new season of the podcast, Skyline Drive. This time I'm diving into a rabbit hole of peptides, organoids, blood boys, blue zones, and brain replacement to try to understand what this longevity obsession is all about and what it really means to live forever for all of us. I learned about some rad science. I can make a brain for you, and then we can test what draw is the best for your brain, as opposed to his brain. Here's some hard truths. I would expect Indians to age faster, but I did not expect it to be almost a four to five year acceleration. And get myself into a world of trouble. I'd say probably start bone smashing. That doesn't work. To make it look more defined. They say it works. I don't know. Listen to Skyline Drive, How to Live Forever on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, guys, Paul Verzi here, and I want to talk to you about Paul's best podcast. Will Ferrell's Big Money Players Network and I Heart Radio. I sit down each week with a special guest and we discuss the absolute best of things. Pete Davidson. It's that and then there's everything else. He would just shout one line and it would murder. Marie Lunch! Bill Burr. Let's talk about the best moments that we had on the road. I would love a guy. Dude, Joe could get last row, middle seat on a Southwest Airlines flight. Joe, how was your flight? It was great. The guy on Penn State moving on the field, and the player thought Joe is his former coach. And he hugged him. And he hugged him, and Joe just went with it. And they know, the guy goes, what are you doing here, coach? And Joe just goes, man. And you walk in, and it is bananas. I mean, it's a feast for the eyes. And I was like, it's not my thing either, but we're here. When in Rome? Top athletes, chefs, musicians, everybody. Listen to Paul's best podcast on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Bill, why is my eye twitching? Does this mean I'm in perimenopause? Maybe I have adult ADHD. I need to look this up. Where's my phone? Juliana, your phone is hot to the touch. I think it's asking you for a break. You know what? Maybe I should just ask chat GPT. Or maybe we can ask an actual human. Yes, like a couple sex therapist. Whoa, that escalated quickly, but...

Okay. Because I have questions. We have questions. And I bet everyone has questions. Like, is it normal to sleep in separate bedrooms? We do that. How about this one? Is bribing your kids bad parenting or just negotiating? Oh, and I still do need to know why was my poop green that one time? Hypothetically, right? Okay, well, instead of letting the internet guess, we've got actual people answering these exact questions. And laughing with us has got to be better than spending three hours down a rabbit hole online. Listen to Bill and Juliana. The podcast. On the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Joining us now as a great friend of the show, Glenn Greenwald, to further break down all of his insanity that's going on with ICE here in the United States. Glenn, it's good to see you. Thanks for joining us. Great to be with you guys. Absolutely. I mean, the audience has wanted you to come on and just give me a good slap in education. And so here we go again, audience. You're getting exactly what you want. Glenn coming on my own show. Another kick of the mule. Humiliate me. It's the only reason I come on. If you aren't here, I wouldn't bother. I know that. Just to come on and be abusive to you is really the main motivation. But it's edifying. It's edifying for me. Perhaps it's something about me. But, okay, let's go ahead and start very seriously. With the new video, Glenn, that's making the rounds of an ice protester in Portland, Maine, she tells someone that she's being told by an agent. She's a domestic terrorist. And he said he's going to, quote, add her to a nice little database. Let's take a listen to this video. It's not illegal to record. Exactly. Yeah. That's what we're doing. Yeah. Why are you taking my information down? Because we have a nice little database. Oh, good. And now you're considered domestic terrorists. We're videotaping you? Are you crazy? Glenn, this seems to fit with a larger pattern now of a, quote, database being kept on American citizens, the labeling of domestic terrorism. This is a far encroachment here. Not only are civil liberties of the U.S. surveillance state. How do you see this in that broader context surrounding ICE and the entire situation happening right now? Yeah, I mean, if it were just that, you could dismiss it as kind of like a poorly trained, unprofessional ICE agent, kind of making a sardonic comment. But we're hearing exactly the same things from the highest levels of not just ICE and Homeland Security, but the Trump administration as well. We're hearing every time, for example, the last two times that ICE or birth security have killed an American citizen under extremely dubious. And I would say. murderous circumstances. The immediate response from people like Stephen Miller and Christianome is to label them domestic terrorists. They have clearly been instructed. These ICE agents have to be far more aggressive, to be less constrained. I don't think they're even...

trained in terms of constitutional legal constraints, but even if they had been, they're clearly being instructed to disregard those, kind of be the kind of guys who get their hands dirty. They're all like new recruits. But then on top of this, you do have a concerted effort by the Trump administration. It's hardly new, of course, but it's really concerted to augment and to expand and to centralize in the hands of Palantir. this domestic security state where surveillance state where everybody has kind of a dossier, everybody's put into a database. If you even make a peep of dissent or protest, they feel justified in doing that. So it's clearly part of a larger, not just ethos at the highest levels of our government, but also policy choices that are reflected in that agent's comments. And so, Glenn, our civil liberties are obviously rooted, you know, in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that's attached to it. But they really get their animating force by our culture, our cultural acceptance of them to the extent that culturally we no longer expect certain civil liberties to be respected by the government, then the government just surges right in and encroaches on those civil liberties. So can you talk about where we've come in the last, say, half century around the question of building databases and this type of surveillance? Because I think some people would say, Well, you know, it's a government. They want to make a list? They can go ahead and make a list. But what is, what are the rules about the government making lists related to American citizens? Yeah, I mean, a couple things. You know, obviously the Snowden reporting was primarily motivated by the anger that not just Edward Snowden, but a lot of people inside the U.S. security state. ended up harboring as a result of violating what had long been considered the great taboo of allowing this part of our government after World War II, the U.S. security state to kind of take hold to grow without any democratic accountability, without transparency, the understanding that it was dangerous. And the one rule that was supposed to constrain it in all circumstances was that whatever it is you're doing can't be turned inward, can't be turned domestically on the American citizenry. It's for adversary states, even for allies. states, but it can't be a security force that surveils our own people, that is intended to keep our own people in line in a way that the Constitution was designed to prohibit. And of course, that's exactly what was happening after 9-11 that led to people like Edward Snowden, but other people as well, like William Binney and a lot of other these whistleblowers from the U.S. security state to come forward and say this is the one thing that we were supposed to never have. And there aren't really any rules around it for a lot of different reasons. The courts have kind of deferred to the executive branch. both parties succeeded in preventing any real legislative reform in the wake of the Snowden revelations, which allowed the security state domestically to continue to grow. But, you know, one thing I was thinking about, actually this morning was the fact that.

I was kind of pointing out the oddity of the right, the American right, suddenly cheering for and even demanding armed federal agents on the street because if we look at the politics of 1990 and, of course, Bill Clinton was president then. This kind of anti-federal government strain was very dominant on the right in the wake of things like Randy Weaver and Waco and other things. And if people aren't familiar with, they should go back and read. And then it really occurred to me. A lot of them are saying, well, now it's different because we have these illegal aliens, we have to deport. But it's always different. Authoritarians always find some pretext. In the wake of 9-11, it was terrorism. Prior to that, it was communism. So you have generations of Americans now trained with this authoritarian formula that unless you empower the federal government with these authoritarian powers that used to be unimaginable, at least as we were taught to understand the United States, you're going to be endangered by an endless carousel of dangers that have really frightened the American people into accepting this kind of unconstitutional, constant erosion of civil liberties. Yeah, I mean, Glenn, you're making such an important point here. But the evolution of domestic terrorists seems to be probably the single biggest new invention of this second Trump administration. Let's put C2 of Kristi Noem, the DHS secretary, immediately talking about domestic terrorism in the context here of just bringing a gun to a protest, which, again, is completely legal. Let's take a listen. The White House has labeled the man who was killed in Minnesota as a domestic terrorist. Is that something you agree with? And have you seen any evidence to back up that point? When you perpetuate violence against a government because of ideological reasons and for reasons to resist and perpetuate violence, that is the definition of domestic terrorism. This individual who came with weapons and ammunition to stop a law enforcement operation of federal law enforcement officers committed an act of domestic terrorism. That's the facts. I mean, Glenn, you just mentioned Waco. This is a Waco event for me. This is a Waco event. Like to go in and to murder somebody to disarm him and then immediately to come out just as the Clinton administration did after they murdered those people at Waco and murdered Randy Weaver's wife is they immediately came out afterwards and said actually the real problem is we have right wing domestic extremism. This seems to be the exact same playbook. But this time around, you're talking about Palantir, you're talking about databases. And perhaps most importantly, you know, apparently you don't have. any sort of pushback even within the so-called coalition, you know, that rose up in many ways against, allegedly, against some of these same practices by the Biden administration. Yeah, exactly. I was going to say, you know, this isn't unfortunately new. It's not new to the Trump second term. I mean, one of the. largest critiques I had in the wake of January 6 was that a lot of Democrats and sort of the authoritarian Liz Cheney types begin talking about the January 6 event as this insurrectionary movement that required labeling the Trump movement, a domestic terrorist organization. There were attempts by people like many Thompson, the chairman of the committee to say that everyone at January 6th of the Capitol should be put on no fly list, kind of this old school post 9-11 war on terror mentality, but brought to our shores, as well as Adam Schiff, who wanted to just amend the war on terror laws about international terrorist organization to just amend it and say international or domestic terrorist organization. So in one fell swoop, kind of apply the entire war on terror standard to,

It's just been so ironic to watch the American right that have been champions of the Second Amendment for so long, not just in terms of your right to have a gun in order to ward off criminals, but also more so. And there's a Charlie Kirk tweet from last year saying this, the real reason to have a gun, to have a Second Amendment. is to be able to guard against tyrannical excesses by a police state, to guard the citizenry against that. And now they're all talking about having a gun legally as some sort of indicia that you're probably a bad person who has some sort of ill intent. And that's something Kash Patel said, and Kristi Noem said, basically, you should be going to a protest armed. And it's like, what? All those right-wing protests are in COVID and Black Lives Matter? All were ostentatiously armed to make the point that we are allowed to have guns in the United States, including when we go to political protests. And, you know, a lot of this, I do think, Ryan, is this kind of, you know, need to show everybody how tough and strong they are by saying, yeah, we're going to go in and we're going to shoot you down. We're going to murder you without. any kind of Christian compassion or empathy or concerned because we're in the middle of a war. And these are all people who never go to war, who never sacrifice, never take any risk, people like Matt Walsh. And, you know, I was writing up this 20 years ago. These were like the neocon chicken hawks like Jonah Goldberg was writing in 2005. Every 10 years, we need to pick up some crappy country and throw it against the wall just to show that we mean business. It's like, what crappy country or crappy anything are you, Jonah Goldberg, ever going to pick up? And because he knew he was such a weak and secure a loser, he had to use this like tough guy rhetoric and endorse these authoritarian policies. And I think Matt Walsh is just the kind of updated modern version of trying to show that you're a man by indicating how little regard you have for human life. Yeah, I mean, it's beyond that also, Glenn, and even with Jonah, unfortunately, seems to have learned nothing. What's also galling, like you just said, are the hypocritical statements that these people are making who not even a couple of years ago, who in Marjorie Taylor Greene's hypothetical scenario would have been screaming, but would have encouraged people to be armed and to take to the streets to stand up, which, by the way, I think, you know, Charlie's tweet is empirically correct. It's not just about self-defense. That was the general intention of the... Second Amendment, which I have always been strong support. That's why when I watch a guy like Alex Pready get gunned down in the street who did absolutely nothing wrong, and then the government labels him a domestic terrorist, this is Waco. Like, this is Randy Weaver. This is literally the exact same thing. You've talked also, Glenn, about masks on federal agents. And I do want to give you the opportunity to talk about that as well. That's something that I had been feeling uncomfortable with. I heard their response. is like, oh, well, we're worried about being docs. And I was like, well, you know, you are in a public position of power. And ultimately, accountability of the state is like the bedrock of our system. So I do want to give you the opportunity to speak about that too.

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

The federal warrant that the FBI, or actually I guess it was the marshals, were trying to enforce on his, you know, little compound out of Ruby Ridge was for, he apparently he's like sought off a shotgun for somebody. Which they asked him to. It was a total entrapment. A total 100% entrapment. So even like the basis for which they were coming on to his property was related to entrapment and a second amendment issue as well. And then they shoot and kill his dog. And then the 14 year old kid gets upset about that and they shoot and kill him. And you get the standoff that leads to his wife being killed as well. And to have that as the legacy of the of the 90s lead into this, well, maybe you know, maybe shouldn't have sold a shot off shotgun to a federal agent. Right. Then this wouldn't happen. That was the defense, by the way, of the time. That was literally the defense for the people who. Exactly. And not only that, but like that also then is what led to the first war over privacy on the internet. The internet was only emerging in its incident stages then. And that was when Bill Clinton and the Clinton administration were demanding backdoor to internet encryption on the grounds that they have to surveil domestically, like the anti-government militias that arose in the wake of things like Waco and Randy Ridge to, Ruby Ridge to protest. against government accesses and you have these authoritarian like Bill Clinton and the Clinton administration is saying, now we need backdoors into the internet to monitor everybody. And the view of the American right was we're not giving up privacy and allowing the federal government to become these sprawling police standing armies because they're going to crush our liberties. And now 20 years later, it's the American right, not only cheering it, but demanding it based on exactly the same mentality. They just don't realize it. Alex Jay Jones, for some reason, is the most disappointing to me. I agree. To see him out there. Everything he warned about is now like coming to fruition. And he's out there alongside it, cheering it on. Chearing it, demanding it. I know. It's amazing. It's disgusting. Glenn, as always, thank you so much for joining us for breaking it down. Good to be like you, guys. Value now more than ever.

Hey, everybody. I'm Sariqa Foster Brasby. What's up, y'all? I'm your girl, Cheryl Eric Swalwell. When you tune in to a new episode of our podcast levels to this, you're definitely going to get some spy CWNBA analysis. But we're more than just hoops. And the real conversation is what we actually breathe. It's been really, really cool seeing kind of these women just really step into their power off the court and understand that they aren't basketball, right? And they're not asking for permission. Listen to levels to this with Stroh's Spooops and Tarika Foster Brasby on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. I'm Munga Shatigula and I'm back with a new season of my podcast, Skyline Drive. This time I talked to scientists, biopunks, curmudgins, blues owners, super seniors, and Goa's top cryotherapy lab to try to understand this obsession with living forever and what it means for all of us. And I get into a bit of trouble along the way. I'd say probably start bone smashing. That doesn't work. To make it look more defined. They say it works. I don't know. Listen to Skyline Drive, How to Live Forever on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Hello, my love. I'm Ryan Bari Weiss, and for the past 15 years, I've been an emotional intelligence coach and a spiritual guide, and I'm sharing with you my new podcast, Waking Up with Ryan. Waking Up with Ryan is a daily audio video podcast, here to help you connect with yourself before the noise of the day takes over. So let's start our days together with a moment of calm that's just for you. Listen to Waking Up with Ryan on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.