Episode 259 | Hegseth Threatens Kelly

0:00Hey everybody, welcome to episode 259 of Clean Up on IL-45. It's Wednesday, January 7th, and it's our first show of 2026. I'm Allison Gill. It's been New Year officially, I guess, A.H.E. Harry Dunn here. We got a lot to cover this week, including the January 6th pipe bummer being ordered held and pretrial detention as the DOJ tried to cover up his motives and Nicholas Maduro pleading not guilty in federal courts. Yeah, plus Pete Hegseth. Good old Kegseth is going to strip Mark Kelly of his retirement benefits. And more federal judges are ruling against the Trump administration and immigration enforcement cases. But first, let's thank our new patrons, Chunky Cat in Chicago, Punches

1:03Nazis. I love this. You'll fit in great here. Yeah, there's cats. There's Chunky. There's Nazis, Punching Nazis. That's, yeah, that's the three main things that we cover. B.F. Hunter II and Jenny Penny Cook. Thank you for joining us. And then our hall of fame patrons, Starlenis, Be More Goat, Baltimore Business-Based Activism, Yens Isles Strupp-Rasmussen, Christine G. Passion, Ren Special K. Kaido, Chris McCullough, Clovertree 73, Jiswi Fettigee, we will survive Gina Highsmith and Greg Kramer. Thank you all for being on Hall of Fame patrons. So before we get into the breaking news of the day, I just want to share something that our friend Scott McFarland wrote for CBS. He says five years after the historic and damaging attack on the US Capitol, millions of dollars in damages have been repaired and cleanup has long been completed. Many of the physical injuries have healed and President

2:08Trump's pardons ended the largest criminal prosecution in American history while freeing more than 1,500 defendants from criminal liability. What remains is a poisonous and lingering resentment over the riot and an ongoing battle to preserve the basic facts of what transpired on January 6, 2021. So there's supposed to be a Harry, we recorded this on Monday, January 5th. It airs on the January 7th and on the anniversary, January 6th, Democrats are going to hold a hearing, a shadow hearing to talk about the whitewashing of the history of January 6th. Then I know that this is one of the things that you've dedicated yourself to, to making sure that people don't forget what really happened that day. This is January 6th, one of these days and like I said, we're recording this on the day before the 5th. But I guarantee you if everybody stopped and reflect

3:09for a moment, you can remember exactly what you were doing on January 6th, where you were, probably what type, what shoes you had on, what shirt you had on, you probably could remember that because it's one of those days where the memory of it will never fade. We saw, we as the American people, I obviously was there living it, what you saw with your own eyes would happen. I've said this often, you don't need a political pendant, a podcast or a, anybody to tell you, a politician to tell you what you saw. You can press mute and press play and watch with your own eyes and make up for yourself would happen. It's really unfortunate though that we're living now in this post January 6th era where this administration and his supporters are doing any and everything that they can to paint that day in anything but what it was, a positive light, a peaceful,

4:12protest, a tour or at the very worst, a protest that got out of hand a little bit. So it's really, that's just, I've been asked at nauseam this week and leading up to it, you know, how you're doing, how you're feeling with the five year anniversary. I mean, I've been defeated and felt like crap about it honestly blatantly for the last five years. So I felt the same because we haven't made any leaps and bounds in it and accountability. Yeah, I definitely remember where I was. I was waking up. I was high. I was partying because off and worn out could just given us control of the Senate. We took back control of the Senate and the those hard fought elections down in Georgia. And then I was like, all right. And I remember in the weeks of leading up to January 6th, I'm like, why is there so much media coverage talking about what's going to happen on January? We never, never had before. Have we watched the certification

5:15of an election? Never. Never. And I'm like, what are you guys? And then I remember on January 5th, recording the daily beans with Dana the day before. And Dana actually said on that episode, she's like, I'm worried about tomorrow. She said, how many more impeachable offenses can this guy do between now and January 20th? And then he found some more. We got up. We watched the certification because that's what us political junkies do. And like you said, saw it with our own eyes, exactly what happened. The alarms going off, the smoke, people in gas masks, live coverage. And then we learned through the indictment from Jack Smith, you know, all of the phone calls that went back and forth to Donald Trump from McCarthy saying, you got to stop this. Send to the National Guard, Jim Jordan calling Trump to tell him he was scared of what was happening at the Capitol.

6:15And then going on to, you know, spout Republican and right-wing conspiracy theories about that day. And I think it's of note that Jim Jordan had Jack Smith come and testify behind closed doors in the week leading up to the five-year anniversary of the attack on the Capitol. That they tried to keep quiet, A.G. Remember, they released that the transcript at midnight, one like a Saturday, oh, I don't know the exact time. Holiday, yeah, it was holiday season. New years, it was New Year's Eve. And you know, I went through it and over and over and over again, I spent probably 16 to 20 hours pulling out the, what ended up being what I thought were the 34 most important exchanges. And you can watch that condensed version annotated and curated over on my sub-stack. But Jack Smith, one after another, batted down Republican right-wing conspiracy theories

7:16about January 6th. And he did it in a real stoic and straightforward manner. One of the big conspiracy theories. And you could tell these Republicans were embarrassed to ask this man these questions. Like, wasn't it a fed-surrection, weren't there, you know, undercover FBI agents there that day that were leading the charge or whatever? And, you know, Jack Smith, Jack Smith was like, no, he debunked that. Like, in meetings, like, first of all, Trump was still in charge, the FBI and period. It was Trump's FBI, right? Trump's FBI. And no, the Inspector General put out a report saying that, yeah, I think there were some confidential human sources there, but on their own time, right? That's what a confidential human source is. Is it's a bad guy that you get bad guy information for? Exactly. I'm Riccaterio. Riccaterio was a known informant for the feds. But also AG,

8:18I think one of the biggest things, which makes five years seem even longer. So on January 6th, yesterday, if you're listening on Wednesday, I released an op-ed that will go live on January 6th. And I struggle with the title, I didn't struggle this, but the one that stood out to me the most history bends towards distortion when accountability is denied. So, and I feel like that is so fitting, because there has been no accountability for January 6th, hence making it easier to distort the truth. Because one could arguably say 100 years from now or 50 years from now or whatever, if the President did lead an insurrection against the Capitol, then why is he not in jail? How did he get elected again? And those are all very, very reasonable questions that, unfortunately,

9:22nobody this day, the age can actually answer. Well, I mean, we know, nobody really gave a damn and people are too scared about Donald Trump. But it's easy to distort the truth and lie about it. And, you know, make it say whatever you want when there has been no accountability. And I think that's the biggest problem with January 6th, zero accountability for it. Yeah, and that is something that has been going on in this country for a very long time. You can go back to no punishment for the housing crisis, then no punishment for the WMDs, no punishment for a wrong contra, no punishment for Watergate. You go all the way back to fucking reconstruction with no punishment for the Confederacy. Yeah. And that has just left the door wide open. Because, you know, now Trump, after he's invaded Venezuela, he's like, well, clearly I can go and invade Cuba and Colombia and Greenland and nobody's going to stop me. Nobody's going to stop. And nobody has. Yeah. And even

10:26when he was found guilty, he didn't go to jail. Yeah. So, no, low for big Congress exercise. They're equal powers. Co-equal branch. Co-equal branch. Yeah. Co-equal branch. Yeah. Sorry, I had a break for it. But I do believe that if in when Democrats win the house in these midterms, you will absolutely see a flex of, hey, check out this power that I can do. I hope so. God, I'm hoping for it. We can't even get the fucking Epstein. Excuse me. We can't even get the gosh darn Epstein files. And Trump signed a law. Like it's, it's by the way that invasion and snatching of Maduro happened on the 15 on the 15 day deadline for Pambondi to tell us why she withheld what she's withheld. And, you know, and it works. I'm proof of that. I did a full incredibly long lot of work episode on the Jack Smith testimony. I did a full episode

11:27over on the Mightest Touch Network about my response to the Department of Justice's argument that there's not a widespread public interest in the Epstein matter. So they shouldn't have to expeditedly process my FOIA request for the Epstein Redaction Training videos. And those shows got a 10th of the traffic that they would have normally gotten. And so it works. I could have, if I wanted to get the traffic, I could have covered Venezuela, even though I'm not an expert on any of that. Yeah. And, uh, one either a Donald Trump or Hagset or Rubio for that matter. Right. Miller or anybody else who's orchestrating that. But I would just recommend that one way to reflect on this anniversary of the insurrection is to remember it. Read it. Look at it again. Watch the Jack Smith testimony. Whether you watch the full eight hours or my my 90 minute

12:29condensed version or you can read the transcript of what happened that day. Um, and the overwhelming powerful evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that would have received a guilty verdict had the trials been not stopped by the Supreme Court and John Roberts. Um, that's, that's how I am going to spend my January six is making sure that I know everything that I, that there is to know about what actually happened that day. Yeah. So, uh, like you just said, a lot of news is happening all at once and they do it to distract and hey, look over here. Don't look at this. Look at that. But Americans are smart. Well, a lot of us, some of us, a couple of us, are we're able to walk into gum at the same time. And I know, you know, you, I've seen you talk about this, Alison on your socials when people say, well, why aren't you focusing on Epstein? Like, look, I can walk into gum at the same time.

13:31Yeah. And also when you have more lawsuits filed in federal court than me about Epstein, then you can complain to me about why am I not doing it. Hello. Exactly. So it's so crazy. Like, yes, we are able to walk into gum at the same time. I sure, I sure can. And we're about to do that. Uh, although our first story is, is about, uh, it involves January six, at least the events leading up to it. We're going to talk about the latest in the pipe bomber, the alleged pipe bomber case. And Judge Janine Peril, ah, I can't stand listening to her talk. Her, uh, she's bungling this case. We're going to talk about that after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Delete me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. It is easier than ever to pull up someone's personal information online and address a phone number. Even family members names and email addresses can end up in the wrong hands.

14:31Those details can lead to real world consequences from harassment, doxing, and stalking to identity theft and spam. I have seen how quickly things can escalate and it's really stressful. So as someone with an active online presence, that's the understatement, right? Privacy is really important to me and my business and it should matter to you as well. More and more bad actors look for this kind of data and use it to target political rivals, civil servants, even regular folks who are just simply outspoken online. It does not take much for just posting an opinion to turn into someone trying to dox you, and I know someone who this happened to recently and it really sent their life into a spiral. So that is why I use delete me. I recommend it to everyone I know. With delete me, you can protect your personal privacy and the privacy of your business from doxing attacks before sensitive information can be exploited. And it's proactive protection, not damage control. They go around and make sure that all your stuff is removed and they continuously do it too. It's not just one and done. So take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for delete me. Now at a special discount for listeners, you get 20% off your delete me plan.

15:32When you go to joindelete me.com slash clean up and use promo code clean up at checkout. Again, the only way to get 20% off is to go to joindelete me.com slash clean up and enter code clean up at checkout. That's joindelete me.com slash clean up code clean up. You'll be glad you did. All right, everybody. Welcome back. Okay. Speaking of January 6th, ABC is reporting that a federal magistrate judge ordered Friday that the Virginia man charged with placing the pipe bombs outside the headquarters of the RNC and the DNC respectively the night before January 6th. At the Capitol, he remains detained pending trial. Yep, yep. Magistrate judge Matthew Sharbaugh said in the court filing Friday that the government's evidence amassed thus far against Brian Cole established probable cause that there were no conditions. He could place on Brian Cole that would ensure the safety of the general public. Here's a quote from the judge. Although home incarceration and GPS monitor will provide some check against Mr.

16:37Cole's ability to carry out any ministering or dangerous conduct in the community, the court is simply not satisfied that these conditions rise to the necessary level for the reasons explained. Yep, yep. And he goes on to say this is particularly true based on the severity of the potential danger Mr. Cole is alleged to pose given his alleged persistent acquisition and retention of bomb-making parts and given his reported pensioned and capacity to create explosive devices and deploy them in public settings. Now, Cole's attorneys are expected to again seek his release when the case is ultimately assigned to a federal district judge after prosecutors revealed in court that they actually secured a two-count indictment of Cole in a lower court, DC's superior court with a local grand jury last Monday. So basically here in order to argue pre-trial release, you have to show that he's not a flight risk and not a danger to the community. Nobody was arguing that he was a flight risk, but the government argued he was a danger to the community because he had confessed what he had done

17:40and the pipe bomber, the alleged pipe bomber's defense attorneys didn't rebut that confession at all, at least not at this stage. So that normally an indictment from a federal grand jury is enough to show probable cause because that's the standard that you have to meet in order to get an indictment. But the judge said even though I'm not accepting this lower court indictment and even though he's not been indicted in a federal court, I see that he gets to determine that there's probable cause that these crimes were committed and taking them at face value, he's a danger to the community so he's going to hold him pre-trial. Now, DOJ has promised they'll go to the federal grand jury and get an indictment from a federal grand jury, but they haven't yet. That's what I'm going to ask you, AG. So, you know, is there a big main difference between getting an indictment in federal grand jury or the D.C. Superior Court grand jury? Is there a stark difference between the two? Yes, it's way easier to get an indictment from the Superior

18:47Court in D.C. because they hear so many cases that they don't really have a lot of time to consider each one. It's more of a rubber stamp. And recently, there was a guy named Kavante Stewart who they indicted. Janine Piro tried to indict in federal court, but failed because they had a pretty legit argument that the cops illegally searched his car and found an illegal firearm. Yeah. So, they went to the Superior Court to do an end run around that and got an indictment there. And the federal judge, Magistrate Judge Farouki, said, this is bullshit. I'm not accepting this indictment. You're just trying to get around the rule. You're trying to get an easy indictment here. Judge Bozberg then ruled actually by law, Piro can go to Superior Court, but we've never been in an instance where cases so weak maybe. Yeah, that they're such a shitty US attorney that

19:48they're just going to go to Superior Court every time because it's easier. So, I'm going to leave it up to the circuit to decide the appeals court and they haven't decided yet. So, they're really weak case or really weak prosecutor or both. But the law, it does say that they can. They just never do. So, now Janine Piro, it seems she went straight to the Superior Court because she told the court that she never tried to get a federal indictment against the pipe bomber. She went straight to the Superior Court. And so, now the circuit court has to decide if the law allows Janine Piro to just always go to Superior Court instead of the federal grand jury. So, it'll be interesting because they might come out and say, yes, sorry, the law doesn't say they can't. So, Congress would actually have to change the law because they never had to write that law because they didn't think anybody would suck so bad that they would have to keep going to a Superior Court. To get in dangerous. Interesting. I bet you feel was a Biden DOJ or Democratic DOJ Congress or the

20:57Republican-led Congress would act on that immediately. Yeah, for sure. All right, so we have other court news, yeah? Yeah, this is, this is, you know, what we were talking about earlier, top of everybody's mind right now. And like you said, as everybody's heard, the Trump administration invaded Venezuela and arrested President Nicholas Maduro and his wife. Associated press reports that a defiant Nicholas Maduro declared himself the president of my country as he protested his capture and pleaded not guilty on Monday to a federal drug trafficking charge that the Trump administration used to justify removing him from power in Venezuela. Hmm. Now the courtroom appearance Maduro's first since he and his wife were seized from their home in a middle of the night military operation kicks off the government's most consequential prosecution in decades of a foreign head of state. The criminal case in Manhattan is unfolding against a broader diplomatic backdrop of an audacious US engineered regime change. The Trump has

21:59said will enable his administration to run then as well. So that people saying, dude, you can't even run a casino. How are you going to run another country as a criminal defendant in United States legal system. Maduro will have the same rights as any other person accused of a crime, including the right to a trial by a jury of regular New Yorkers, but he'll also be nearly but not quite unique. The stakes were made clear from the outset as Maduro who took copious notes throughout the proceedings and wished a happy New Year to report as in the court repeatedly pressed his case that he had been unlawfully abducted. I am here kidnapped. Maduro said I was captured at my home in Caracas. Hmm. Now his lawyers are expected to contest the legality of his arrest arguing that he's immune from prosecution as a head of state. Barry Pollock, a prominent Washington lawyer whose clients have included WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said Maduro is

23:01head of a sovereign state and entitled to the privilege that that status ensures. He also said that defense would raise questions about the legality of his military abduction. Panamanian strong man Manuel Noriega unsuccessfully tried the same immunity defense after the US captured him in a similar military invasion in 1990, but the US doesn't recognize Maduro as Venezuela's legitimate head of state because of a much disputed 2024 election. Maduro's wife, Celia Flores, also pled not guilty Monday. She advantages on her forehead and her right temple because her lawyer said she had suffered significant injuries during her capture. Hmm. 25 page indictment. That's it. 25 pages indictment accuses Maduro and others of working with drug cartels to facilitate the shipment of thousands of tons of cocaine into the United States. They could face life in prison if convicted. Among other things, the indictment accuses Maduro and his wife of ordering kidnapping, beatings and murders of those who owed them drug money or undermined their drug trafficking operation

24:05that included a local drug boss is killing in Caracas. But Trump pardoned. And he actually said when asked why he pardoned a notorious drug trafficker, he's like, look, just because there's drugs in Honduras, doesn't mean you go in and arrest the president of the country. You can't just just go in and arrest the president of a country and then he went in and arrested. And arrested the president. Politico did some reporting on the judge in this case. And they said the extraordinary criminal case against Nicholas Maduro is headed before a 92-year-old judge with a stubborn streak and an often unorthodox approach to running his courtroom. This district judge Alvin Hellerstein or Heller Steen, I'm not sure, a Clinton appointee based in Manhattan is overseeing this trial. Quote, he tries very hard to do the right thing. He just has his own sense of what that is. That's what one formal former federal prosecutor said about his judge. He's just old and old school

25:08and does things his own way and doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks about him. That's what another former federal prosecutor who, like most lawyers interviewed for the story, was granted anonymity to speak candidly about a judge that they might appear before in the future. I love that he's just old school. He doesn't give a shit. Get off my lawn. Get off my lawn. Hellerstein has ruled against President Donald Trump or his administration and other high profile cases including the charges involving alleged hush money payments to porn star stormy Daniels. Hellerstein twice rejected Trump's bid to move the case to federal court. Hellerstein also issued a sweeping order last May blocking the Trump administration from deporting immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act with little, if any, due process, the ruling essentially halted such deportations in the Southern District of New York where this judge sits. Yeah. He's a fighter. He's a great party.

26:11Yeah, I'm hoping he, you know, I don't retire under the Trump administration. Wait until we get a Democrat in there, but like then write a book, please. Oh, yeah. That guy's been on the bench since the 90s. Man, since the 1900s. 1900s. The 1900s. Correct. Yeah. All right. We've got more news. We're going to talk about what whiskey peat kegseth is trying to do to mark Kelly, which is just a cowardly ass by the way. We'll talk about that after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody. Welcome back. More news this week. This is from the associated press. Defense Secretary Pete kegseth announced Monday that he censured Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona over the former Navy pilots participation in a video that called on troops to resist on lawful order. So a video where he said what the law is.

27:17That's the long short, but hegseth says this censure by itself is simply a formal letter with little practical consequence is a necessary step to proceedings that could result in a demotion from Kelly's retirement rank of captain and subsequent reduction in retirement pay. Investigating and now punishing a sitting US Senator is an extraordinary move for the Pentagon which until Trump's second term had usually gone out of its way to act and appear a political. A legal expert says the choice to go after a lawmaker is going to complicate an already unique case. I would say that's the least of what it's doing. Calling Hegseth's move outrageous and un-American. Kelly said he would fight the censure with everything I've got, not for myself, but to send a message back that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump don't get to decide what Americans in this country get to say about their government. All right, first amendment. The censure comes after Kelly participated in a video in November with five other Democratic lawmakers, all veterans

28:20of the armed services and intelligence community in which they called troops to uphold the Constitution and defy illegal orders. Yeah, they stated the law. They made a video that said what the law is. The Pentagon announced that it began investigating Kelly in late November, citing a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the defense secretary for possible court martial or other measures. While all six lawmakers served in the military or the intelligence community, Hegseth previously said Kelly was the only one facing the investigation because he's the only one who formally retired from the military and is still under the Pentagon's jurisdiction. In his post Monday Hegseth charged that Kelly's remarks in the video and afterward violated uniform code of military justice provisions against conduct on becoming an officer and violating good order and discipline. Captain Kelly's status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability and further violations

29:22could result in further action Hegseth said. Now Todd Huntley, who's a retired Navy captain and a judge advocate general, a jag called this a novel situation that raises legal questions that's put against mildly. One issue Huntley said is whether Kelly's comments fall into the constitutional protections of the speech or debate clause, which is intended to protect members of Congress from questioning about official legislative acts. Huntley said that while the type of process Hegseth is using known as a retirement grade determination is fairly routine. Quote as far as I know, they've always been based on conduct during the individual's active duty service, even if it only came to light after retirement. So I don't know if conduct totally after retirement is going to fit the requirement for such a determination. And yeah, that Hegseth knows a court martial will go nowhere and will expose his ass. That's why he's using this administrative procedure to punish disfavored speech instead. That makes sense. According to Hegseth, Kelly now has 30 days to submit a

30:26response to the proceedings that will decide if he is demoted, the decision will be made within 45 days. Hegseth's posts added. Huntley noted that Kelly will also have options to appeal the finding both within the military and in federal courts. Yeah, this reminds me of when Dr. Ronnie Jackson, member Pill Mill, Candyman, was demoted. His retirement rank was demoted after the fact because when he was active duty, he was running a pill mill out of the White House. Like God forbid, he make a video saying what the law is after he retired. It'll be interesting to see where this goes. But I mean, where do you appeal it up to Hegseth? Do you take it to federal court? I don't know. I don't know how that procedure goes, but we'll keep an eye on it. I think that's the interesting part. Like I just said, the appeal will have to be able to go to the military and federal court. And like you said, if the appeal goes to Hegseth, why even a bill? But I think the court

31:30subaction here is the federal court. But yeah, I think probably what's going to happen is Hegseth will get the final say and he'll demote him and his retirement pale go down. And then once we get a Democrat back in the White House, they'll restore it. Restore it. That's my guess if I had to make make a put a put a dollar on it. If I had to bet my bourbon on it, that would be like that. All right, we've got another story from Politico about the pilot that the number of judges is piling up that are going against Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda. And I should say Stephen Miller's, because I don't think Donald Trump knows what's going on ever. So Stephen Miller and Kristi Nome and Greg Bovino's mass deportation agenda. And we'll talk about that after this quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody. Welcome back our last block today.

32:32I wanted to share this reporting from Politico because it's about what the courts think about Donald Trump's mass deportation and what ICE is doing. Politico writes that federal judges are increasingly exasperated by the Trump administration's effort to lock up nearly everyone facing deportation proceedings. A draconian expansion of decades-old policies that hundreds of courts have rejected as illegal or unconstitutional, hundreds of courts. More than 300 federal judges, including appointees of every president since Reagan, have now rebuffed the administration's six-month-old effort to expand its so-called mandatory detention policy. That's according to a Politico analysis of court dockets from across the country. Those judges have ordered immigrants release or the opportunity for bond hearings in more than 1,600 cases. Well, that's huge. And dozens more federal judges have ordered the administration to release immigrants yanked off the street without due process or held for prolonged periods, even though no country has agreed to accept them.

33:39Yeah, the legal rejections are so frequent that one judge compared the Trump administration's efforts to sycophess rolling a rock uphill. Others have become so familiar with the case that they've begun issuing tourists, carbon copy rulings to dispense with the deluge. Immigrant advocates say the administration's win-loss record is beside the point. The goal appears to be making the process so oneronious that many choose to give up rather than face weeks or months of detention. Despite the overwhelming legal consensus, there has been no successful nationwide block on the policy. That's partly because most of the cases are filed on an emergency basis by individuals in the hours after they've been arrested with little time to assemble large groups that could mount the broad challenge. Yeah, that and we've gotten rid of the nationwide injunction the Supreme Court and now we have to do class action. Now, in recent weeks, the judges' conclusions

34:40have become increasingly urgent describing shocking mistreatment and inhumanity. As thousands of people, the majority not charged with any crime are abruptly ripped from family members and locked up in squalid detention centers, even if they've lived in the country for decades. Many have been arrested while attending required immigration court proceedings or check-ins with immigration and customs enforcement that they had attended for decades. This district has been flooded with petitions for relief, with similar stories, families ripped apart, and people who pose no danger or risk of fling in prison with no end in sight, flown too far off detention centers for reasons that the government lawyers who appear in these courtrooms themselves can't explain. A U.S. District Judge, a Roon sub-Moranian wrote in a December 23rd opinion, and that doesn't account for the countless people picked up off the streets who don't have lawyers and who can't effectively seek relief. Yeah, that's who I think about, right? Yeah. Yeah,

35:40the people that don't have the voices, yeah. Right, they can't get a lawyer or they're, you know, can't afford like personal lawyers. Quote, no one disputes that the government may consistent with the laws requirements pursue the removal of people who are in this country on lawfully, but the way we treat others matters. That's a New York-based Biden appointee. Oh, that's a sub-Moranian. Sub-Moranian's ruling is one of hundreds issued by judges since July 8th when ICE revised its policies to conclude that virtually anyone in the country on lawfully is subject to detention without the possibility of bond, while awaiting deportation proceedings. That decision reversed 30 years of practice by federal immigration authorities who prioritize detention only for people deemed to be dangerous or likely to flee. In recent weeks, the legal challenges have surged with more than a hundred new lawsuits filed daily. Daily. Wow. A figure that has steadily increased. Wow. A political review of thousands of federal dockets reveals the starkly lopsided results for the Trump administration, while 308 judges have ruled against the

36:44administration's mass detention policy, ordering release or bond hearings in more than 1600 cases, just 14. 14 judges, including 11 appointed by President Donald Trump himself, have cited with the administration's position. 11. Even Trump's appointees have rejected the administration's view. 33 have ruled against his position on mass detention. Yeah. 33 Trump judges have ruled against this policy. And the numbers are likely to continue surging until federal appeals courts or even the Supreme Court settle the matter conclusively, at least in large swaths of the country. The administration has appealed dozens of its defeats, but appellate courts are unlikely to resolve the matter for months, even on expedited timelines. The Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently signaled that it opposed the administration's view of mandatory detention, but the ruling was primarily about the administration's handling of a class action lawsuit dating back to 2018. So these courts are log jammed. Yeah. That's what it sounds like. But I mean,

37:50it sounds like the judges are at least standing up for which right the law. Yeah. One person at a time for those who afford these lawyers or get really good public defenders. It's tough otherwise. Yeah. But that's been Trump's whole limo like his whole life, though bogging down the court system, delay, do this, do that, and just using the courts to his advantage. And I'm wondering, well, it's not a wonder. It's clear that's what they're doing using these courts to just mess people's lives up. Yeah. Well, not responding, right? Yeah. To the these people who are filing in the court system and the court system is so backlogged, we should have doubled the federal bench when we had a chance. But we didn't. Now here we are. Something else that we need to do. I agree, my friend. I agree. Yeah. All right, everybody. There's going to be a ton of news this year. Hopefully some of it will be good. Not all of it will be and we'll be covering it here for you. Again, on this five-year anniversary

38:55of January 6th, just everybody who listens to this program knows what happened. But maybe tell somebody who doesn't know. Maybe find somebody that doesn't know and just remind them. Or if you have it in you, a little bit of fight left in you, go to one of these people that are lying about it and confront them with the truth. I'm not encouraging that, you know, because, but in fact, no, we got a lot of fighters out here. Metaphorically speaking, listening to our favorite listeners out here. Metaphorically speaking, fighting. Metaphorically speaking. Yeah, that's what I why when I posted on Blue Sky the other day that it's the US that needs a regime change. I like put us another post underneath it that said, you know, through lawful means. Through lawful means, of course, you know, because lower for bay, you know, let's Canada want us to sharpen their ice skates and come down and take a picture. That would be cool. That would be cool. That would be cool. No, I mean, if going into a country and, you know, snatching their president

40:01because he broke the law is totally fine, then, you know, shouldn't it go both ways? I think even China and Russia are appalled by what America just Well, I think Russia, did you, I mean, did you see that? You know, somebody brought up the old fear on a hill testimony from 2019. Russia floated an idea to Trump saying, hey, you let us have Ukraine. We'll let you take Venezuela. We won't oppose it. We'll both act mad. We'll stomp our feet. We'll huff and puff. But let's do that swap. She testified about that. Yes, sure did. Anyway, she was with fear on a hill's gray. I remember when we had her on the podcast to discuss her book. She was fantastic to talk to her. She's just so knowledgeable. But knowledgeable people can't have jobs in Trump administrations. It's just not at home. It's not the way of it. Yeah, they want the most qualified, the most qualified people, only the best. They want

41:03the most white guys with big white supremacy tattoos on their chests. The big egos and big worked at beer, beer, beer stands, I guess. You have to be a, you have to have a problem with alcohol and you have to have worked for Fox News in order to get a job in this administration. Seems like everybody will have a bonus episode for you this week. Later on and next week, I'm sure we're going to talk about this Jamie Raskin, this shadow hearing that they're doing on January 6th to try to make sure to set the history straight, keep the history at the top of our minds, because we shouldn't forget about it in the face of all this other stuff that's going on. We will see you then and thank you again for listening. And thanks to our patrons one more time for supporting independent media. We'll see you next time. I'm Allison Gil. Harry Don, thanks, show.

42:26M.S.W. Media.