It Could Happen Here - The Rittenhouse Trial and Law Stuff

Episode Date: November 10, 2021

We talk with lawyer Moira Cohen about the Rittenhouse trial Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You should probably keep your lights on for Nocturnal Tales from the Shadowbride. Join me, Danny Trejo, and step into the flames of fright. An anthology podcast of modern-day horror stories inspired by the most terrifying legends and lore of Latin America. Listen to Nocturnal on the iheart radio app apple podcast or wherever you get your podcast welcome back to it could happen here the podcast that is occasionally introduced competently as it sort of was today uh because our guest today is someone who is very near and dear to me and to, like, almost every other person that I know and work with. Moira Meltzer-Cohen. Moira, you are a lawyer focusing on civil rights and movement kind of cases.

lawyer uh uh focusing on civil rights and movement kind of cases uh and you are the lawyer of yeah like every everybody i respect in the world yeah um you're the person that i text whenever i need to know hey was this a crime um or it never is and it never is uh i'm law abiding, very law abiding. And yeah, we wanted to have you on both because you're always a breath of sunshine and because there's some like law stuff happening these days. We just had our mutual friend Molly Conjure on to talk about the Charlottesville case, which is quite a thing. Today was the day. Yeah, today had some moments. Chris Cantwell and Richard Spencer representing themselves separately, each cross-examining each other. I have so many thoughts, but mostly my thoughts involve laughing.

Yeah. It's very, very funny. It's the funniest of an incredibly tragic and infuriating situation something fine funny finally happened um so at least there's that often very funny in spite of himself yeah um i would love one day to just get you on and do a we can do a reading of some of chris cantwell's better legal filings. Oh, these guys quite the legal mind,

Robert. I think I maybe didn't ever tell you about the fact that we did a Purim spiel, which is a performance of the story of Esther. Oh my God. Traditionally done at Purim, which is a Jewish holiday. Oh, my God. Heyman. For those of you who don't know, Chris Cantwell, the crying Nazi from the Unite the Right rally, has been incarcerated for a year or so now and continues to put out his own legal motions, generally handwritten, alleging all kinds of conspiracies from the people who did not

call the FBI and admit to committing several crimes. Yeah, we should we should absolutely absolutely do a crossover with Daniel Harper andper um and moira to discuss kent well's uh legal genius but but today moira we wanted to have you on because there is another case that uh a lot of folks are rightly concerned about because it has some pretty dire implications depending on how it goes in a number of ways. The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. I mean, everyone knows Kyle Rittenhouse took a gun illegally across state lines to a protest so he might have the chance to shoot people and then shot people. This is my opinion about what happened. Obviously, the legal case is unfolding. There's been a lot of talk online on, on Twitter and whatnot about how obviously

unfair the judge is being. This is what the talk on Twitter is about. And it's because of a couple of things. One is that the judge, and again, I'm before I cut, I go to you, Moira, I'm just explaining kind of the way the discourse has been. The discourse has stated like, well, the judge said, uh, you can't call Kyle, you can't call the people that he killed victims. Uh, but you can call the people that he killed victims uh but you can call the

people that he killed looters and arsonists um and so people are saying look at this very clear example of how how bad the justice system is um and i wanted to bring you on for a number of reasons including the fact that like there's a lot of stuff that seems fucked up and in fact is fucked up you could argue but is is also like pretty normal justice system stuff and some stuff that seems fucked up but actually isn't. I'm not necessarily talking about the Rittenhouse case here, just in general when we talk about the law. So I guess I wanted to have you on to explain to us what's happening in your opinion and

how normal, abnormal, good, bad are kind of the things that we're seeing, the decisions we're seeing this judge make in this case so far. Yeah, sure. Absolutely. So the trial, I think when you asked me to comment on this, the trial had not started. The trial has now started. It has been characterized by the defense saying the N-word a juror being hard this morning i think was dismissed uh for making a cruel and nakedly racist joke uh and apparently the judge had a fit of pique about the media's response to his evidentiary rulings which are what you've asked me to come discuss, which is itself actually one of the more unusual things about this, how this trial is going. It's always a little bit hard for me to opine on a case that is not my case. I feel tentative about it. This would never

be my case because I would not represent a white supremacist and I am not a prosecutor and would never be a prosecutor. And I was not able to look at the briefing because although all of the briefing was ostensibly publicly filed, it is not actually publicly available. I had a very interesting conversation with the clerk of court in Kenosha who told me that if I mailed her a request, she would fax me the briefing at $1.25 a page. And I said, thank you very much. Goodbye. So I'll do my best to speak to these rulings and the sort of larger issues as I see them. As you noted, there've been a lot of kind of salacious headlines about the

evidentiary rules in this case. And I think those headlines are really, they're less about what's actually happening in the case. And they're more reflective of the sort of pearl clutching liberal impulse to notice the totally self-evident hypocrisy of the legal system. And then to conclude that because certain groups are shown more leniency, the way to resolve this hypocrisy is to make sure everyone is policed and prosecuted and punished as viciously as the left is, which is not actually the goal that I have. And just to clarify, when I talk about liberals, as I will probably do a little bit, I don't mean like, I mean, liberal as opposed to radical people who are more or less OK with the underlying big systems like capitalism and white supremacy and heteropatriarchy and like maybe are more concerned with the iterations that those systems are reiterated and enforced by,

for example, the American criminal legal system. So, you know, I think the kind of liberal read on these rulings is not only not legally sound, I think it's actually incredibly dangerous. And it's watching this unfold and watching the liberal commentary on it, I think is one of the things, it's one of the ways that I can really see liberals and liberalism losing credibility. Because they're sort of calling out this hypocrisy. And at the same time, there's a little bit of a double standard that they want to, that they want to propose and enforce. So, okay, so I'll talk about the rulings that you discussed. The first one is that the judge said that the prosecution is not allowed to refer to the people that were in-house killed as victims. I will remind you, as I remind all of my clients continuously, that the law is at best adjacent to common sense understandings of justice and even, frankly, common sense understandings of reality. Obviously, the people that Kyle Rittenhouse killed were victims, Obviously, the people that Kyle Rittenhouse killed were victims.

But as my beloved colleague, Sandy, reminded me, the concept of victimhood, the status of victimhood is among the things that needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at this trial. Yeah. Right. And so, in fact, this is a totally straightforward ruling. Yeah. It is a ruling that I would argue for as a defense attorney and that I would expect to win were I trying in your case. So, you know, yeah, it's one of those things like you have to overcome this this you have to overcome when you're thinking about a trial like the fact that you know he's guilty because the point of a trial is that everyone like there's a process right we don't just do street justice because that's what Rittenhouse did um like we're we're you you have to like I one of the it is troubling to me the extent that people are like well he he should be presumed

like we should be referring to the people he shot as victims before he has been adjudicated as guilty because like that's that's important like the presumption of innocence matters and it's i it's it's also something that's very unfair like there's a a person in portland uh alexander dial who got in trouble for taking a hammer out of a Nazi's hand during a rally, um, and has been charged with several felonies and because his trial kept getting delayed, spent two and a half years under pretrial conditions. So the presumption of innocence is hardly equal, but it is important. Yeah, exactly. And I think that, you know, we'll talk about this, I think in a little bit, but that's exactly the issue, right, is that we need to be enforcing the equal application of the presumption of innocence, not being, you know, rabidly going after the right in the same way that we are used to law enforcement and the judiciary going after the left.

The other ruling that the judge made, which you mentioned, was that he said that the defense is authorized to characterize the people that Rittenhouse killed as looters or rioters if there's evidence presented that they were in fact looting and or rioting. I would, if I were, you know, in this case, which of course I'm not, I would object to this on the grounds that it is prejudicial and bullshit. It's fucked up and bullshit. Yeah. Yes. That said, I am not super surprised by that ruling. I would say it's likely within the sound discretion of the judge. And if, you know, and if the prosecution disagrees, it's a matter for appeal. You know, I think one of the things the judge said about this, actually, that I think is really important and correct,

about this, actually, that I think is really important and correct, is that he has a tremendous amount of discretion in making evidentiary rulings. One of the rulings he made was that he's admitting the testimony of an expert witness, which, you know, I think a lot of people are also quite upset about. But that said, again, this is not that unusual. And it's very difficult for him to deny that motion to have his evidence or his testimony admitted because the prosecution routinely uses use of force experts in similar trials. So now we're there just on the other side of the table yeah um so you know first of all i get that these rulings don't make us feel good um but they aren't that strange and as i said the judge has tremendous discretion in these matters um i was thinking about how to illustrate this and it occurred to me that i think the last time I was on one of your podcasts,

you asked me whether cocaine was illegal. Yeah. Where are we landing on that, by the way? So I think the first time you asked me, I was a total killjoy and was like, of course it's illegal, Robert. But if I'd actually taken your question more seriously, I think a better answer probably would have been, nobody knows. For precisely this reason, because the real question is not what the

law says. The real question is how or whether or against whom or to what degree and under what circumstances will that law be enforced? And these are always open questions and arguments and judges have a ton of power. This case is no exception. So, you know, again, not only are these rulings pretty standard, but they're, I think within the judge's discretion, some of them, I really dislike some of them I really dislike. Some of them make total sense to me. And I think that what is happening is is not necessarily sound legal analysis, but liberals sort of trying to argue that Rittenhouse should be more harshly prosecuted by saying that these specific rulings are unfair or unusual. It's a little bit like the liberals crying out now because people are putting like, let's go, Brandon, on printing it on rifle receivers and saying like, well, the Secret Service should investigate. Well, if they do that, then some then like 30. If they do that and like one company gets a fine, 40 people are going to go to prison for having red flags on their body armor. Like, that's the way it works in this country.

That's the right thing. Yeah. Any anarchist with a 3D printer is going to immediately go to jail. Like, that's the way it works in this country. That's exactly it. Yeah. Any anarchist with a 3D printer is going to immediately go to jail. Yeah. That's not, like... That is correct. Yeah. Welcome.

I'm Danny Thrill. Won't you join me at the fire and dare enter? Nocturnal Tales from the Shadows, presented by iHeart and Sonoro. An anthology of modern day horror stories inspired by the legends of Latin America. From ghastly encounters with shapeshifters, to bone-chilling brushes with supernatural creatures. I know you. Take a trip and experience the horrors that have haunted Latin America since the beginning of time.

Listen to Nocturnal Tales from the Shadows as part of my Cultura podcast network, available on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Yeah, so I guess the thing that I want to point out here is that what is actually unusual about this case is not these rulings. It is that Rittenhouse is going to trial at all. And the reason Rittenhouse is going to trial, is able to go to trial, is largely because this prosecution is fundamentally calculated not to be repressive. So I want to kind of zoom out and get away from the weeds of these evidentiary rulings. So in its simplest expression, when we talk about the difference between state and federal jurisdiction, we're saying kind of jurisdiction for dummies, overly simplified, is stuff that happens inside or only impacts a given state is typically prosecuted by the state.

And if your offense conduct or alleged offense conduct impacts more than one state, then it is or can be prosecuted by the federal department of justice. So Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a pretty serious firearm and he shot three people. This puts us immediately into federal jurisdiction land. He did this in the context of an uprising for racial justice that has been characterized by the fact that those rising up on the side of racial justice have been subject to intense repression by the federal government. DOJ has shown themselves to be fire-breathingly enthusiastic about exercising their jurisdiction over heady offenses based on totally tenuous grounds for people on the left or who are perceived to be on the left. DOJ has asserted jurisdiction in order to prosecute people for absolutely trivial but politically motivated offenses that would be left to the state to prosecute absent the politics of the accused.

be left to the state to prosecute absent the politics of the accused. They have asserted federal jurisdiction on really flimsy bases, like that a local police building or vehicle belongs to a department that has received federal funding, so property damage against it becomes a federal offense. One thing they're doing that is unusual is the federal government is asserting concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute offenses. So I know there's someone in Portland who is simultaneously being prosecuted by Multnomah and also the federal government for allegedly throwing some accelerant on a police building. Right. So it is very curious that Rittenhouse, who quite clearly did something that would, you know, fall under federal jurisdiction, is not being federally charged. And it matters a lot for how the case proceeds,

how the case proceeds. Because the way that federal prosecutions operate is that the feds will typically stack these indictments in a way that really puts tremendous pressure on them to plead guilty, which is not typically the case or doesn't happen in the same way in a state prosecution. So you have these stacked indictments with multiple, multiple counts ranging, you know, all kinds of conduct, often involving, you know, a conspiracy, which can be very, very easy to prove. And a guilty finding on any of those counts could be like a mandatory minimum of five to 10 years. And then if you're looking at, you know to negotiate a pretrial disposition to take a guilty plea. So, again, Kyle Rittenhouse crosses state lines with this firearm, which gets used in the in the commission of an act of violence. And I feel extremely confident that any federal prosecutor could come up with a stack of counts against him within about 10 minutes without breaking a sweat. But, you know, so, you know, if you think about him being in that position, you think through, OK, if I go to trial, what is what are likely outcomes?

hey, if I go to trial, what are likely outcomes? If Kyle Rittenhouse went to trial federally, and even if he prevailed on a self-defense, which could happen, if he were found guilty on one or more of the lesser charges, he would still be looking at really, really serious time. charges, he would still be looking at really, really serious time. But that's not where we are. We are in a really weird place where in a federal context, we wouldn't even be talking about evidentiary rulings because he would almost certainly not be going to trial, right? Yeah, it would be a plea sort of deal. Or, you know, if he had a reasonable lawyer, he would probably be negotiating a plea. I'm curious, what do you think about, because one argument I've heard, and I'm certainly in no position to evaluate this personally, is that if federal charges had been placed on him, you know, when the crime, you know, in 2020, Trump would have pardoned him. I don't know. Yeah,

like I've heard people argue that like, well, at least with the state charges, he can't be pardoned by President Trump. Like I'm in no position to really evaluate that. But I'm curious what you think about that. I honestly can't even. Yeah. Speculate about what might have happened. That is very interesting. I do think that if the d if doj wanted to charge him at this point i mean not they still could right but like there i think was an opening for that to happen after trump left i suspect there is a very interesting foyer request to be made to doj uh to see what kind of memo was circulated about whether or not they were going to pick this one up. They clearly declined to prosecute.

The only thing that I could come up with, to be honest, and I looked and did not really see any meaningful discussion of this, of their decision not to prosecute. The only thing that occurred to me is that they might have been reluctant to assert jurisdiction over a minor, but they can prosecute anyone over the age of 15 as an adult if they engage in violent crimes or if they are alleged to have engaged in violent crimes. So that's not, it wouldn't entirely undermine their ability to do so. So, you know, for whatever reason, they didn't, I think it is worth noting. I think it is, as I said, very curious. And it's particularly curious in light of the intense federal repression that has been faced by people perceived to be on the left. Yeah, absolutely. You know, so like, again, I want to be very clear, I don't, I'm not suggesting that I want him to be federally prosecuted.

I don't particularly, I'm not interested in arguing for more prosecutions or for making the state the arbiter of political righteousness or giving the state more enforcement power or more resources. You know, but, you know, and look, no shade to Kenosha, Wisconsin. All right. But one of the things that federal prosecutors are really have a lot of experience doing is digital forensic investigations. And in this case, one of the sort of critical questions is, did he have specific intent to go across state lines and engage in violence? And I suspect that if you were to access all of his texts and metadata and social media posts, that you could probably find evidence of that specific intent. And I think that the federal government is probably better positioned to do that than the prosecutors in Kenosha. And they decided not to,

right. So, you know, and that is exactly the kind of investigation that they mounted against Daniel Baker, who just he's a the yoga teacher in Tallahasse Baker, who just, he's a, the yoga teacher in Tallahassee who just got three and a half years for posting vague, sort of incoherent, mutually contradictory, kind of not at all frightening. Yeah. I, it's not, I wouldn't characterize as threats, but I hesitate to repeat that. You know, he posted some stuff on social media and now he's going to do three years in federal prison. Yeah. My attitude on the nature of what he posts is that like if prior to his prosecution, you had brought that post to me, I said, well, probably not a great idea to post. But also literally every week, a right winger in the Portland area posts something significantly more actionable right now.

Chandler Pappas currently being charged with assaulting six police officers in the state capital in Salem just announced that he's doing armed training as a convicted felon outside of Portland later this November, which if he's if he touches a firearm, he should go away. Like based on the letter of the law, he should go to prison for years. Like that's the way the law is written. Nothing's going to happen to him. He's going to get to train people with guns and continue to carry guns. And it's it's fine for him.

Anyway, I whatever. I'm sorry. It's OK. I guess your your listeners can't see that I have my head. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, look, what Daniel Baker did was certainly ill-advised. Yeah, ill-advised is how I would characterize it. I have clients who have been visited by the Secret Service or have been visited by the FBI for saying stuff that when they call me and they're like, well, I just said this.

And I'm like, yeah, I just said this. And I'm like, yeah, I know that you're not going to actually do that, but maybe don't, you know, it's ill-advised. It's not, it's ill-advised, but it's protected by the very first amendment more or less. And, you know, I, I, I've said this before. I don't think the solution to being surveilled on social media is self-censorship. I think it is courage. But I also think that discretion is the better part of valor. Yes. Pick your battles and maybe understand that it's not fair, you know? Yeah. And also, like, what do you gain by, you know, being bumptious on the internet? No. And it's one of those things where, yeah,

if that guy had had a high-dollar lawyer, if he'd been a rich person, yeah, maybe he would have gotten away with it. Who knows? But, like, he certainly would have gotten away. I can certainly say he would have gotten away with it if he'd been a right winger because a bunch of every single day. Yeah, I can't make any speculation about that particular. But I can say that the people who are being surveilled intensely and targeted for that kind of repression are not the people on the right. kind of repression are not the people on the right. The people on the right are able to make those kinds of statements and not be particularly taken seriously, even when they should be.

And people on the left are presumed to be, you know, Antifa super soldiers. So, you know, I think the decision not to assert federal jurisdiction in the Rittenhouse case is interesting. It is noteworthy. Yeah. I'm really curious about what was going on there. And it has had a sort of cascade of effects, including, I doubt that the forensic digital investigation was as good as it would have been had it been federal uh and i doubt that the i mean he's facing multiple charges but i don't think that he would have been as likely to go to trial had he been federally charged um so again i don't you know this is not an argument for more federal prosecution yeah of course like, I think the breathless outrage that we're seeing in, you know, these headlines, where people are correctly identifying the

hypocrisy of the criminal legal system. I think it's sort of an exercise in point missing. You know, this prosecution, like many of the prosecutions that we see or the prosecutions that don't happen at all, that involve members of the dominant class or people who uphold the values of the dominant classes, is sort of proof of concept that it's possible to effectively allocate the burden of proof to the prosecution. It's possible not to go super hard on people and punish them for exercising their trial right. to treat all people accused of offenses in this way. And I would much rather, I mean, obviously my ultimate goal is to dismantle the entire system, you know, but in the meantime, I don't think what we need is more vicious prosecution of the right. I think we need consistent and commensurate prosecution or lack of prosecution. the possibility of treating all people with more leniency rather than, you know, intent, the intense federal repression that, that we are facing and have been facing, you know, since

the Palmer raids. So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Moira, that is the stuff I wanted to ask about. Is there anything else that I mean? Sure. I go off on liberals some more. Please. Please. I mean, Garrison is a huge fan of liberals. He's got actually a full back tattoo of barack obama and bill clinton but

they're they're in the the volleyball scene from top gun um it's an incredible tattoo he did it all freehand on his own back amazing um this is like the garrison i hope i don't receive any i hope i don't receive any awful fan art now oh no someone someone do it come on come on photoshop garrison's head onto onto roger stone's back and photoshop nixon's head out and the volleyball scene from top gun with bill clinton and barack obama do it do it someone's gonna do it garrison's workplace somebody is definitely gonna do it this is you could sue me for this and you'd be right to do so um but let's get back to Libris. And I might represent you.

Trial of the century. Yeah, that sounds great. Welcome. I'm Danny Thrill. Won't you join me at the fire and dare enter Nocturnum, Tales from the Shadows, presented by iHeart and Sonora. An anthology of modern day horror stories inspired by the legends of Latin America. From ghastly encounters with shapeshifters to bone-chilling brushes with supernatural creatures.

I know you. Take a trip and experience the horrors that have haunted Latin America since the beginning of time. Listen to Nocturnne Tales from the Shadows as part of my Cultura podcast network available on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. I think this is a trend that we see with people who are not necessarily focused on looking at the ways that the law is always going to be used first and worst against the already most vulnerable. Right. So we've seen things like, I think there's just this very well-documented liberal impulse, and I think it's very well-intentioned, but it's very dangerous to do things, to assume that the system somehow works or should work and that it just needs to be followed more closely. And that if we push for things like, um, if we like use the law to

constrain things that I would agree are the most harmful, um, excesses of bigotry, right. Um, that the law would be a good tool for, um, for addressing violence and bigotry. Yeah. The law does not, that is not what kind of tool the law is. Um, when we push for things like laws, regulating political speech, including so called hate speech laws, regulating what are referred to as hate crimes laws um regulating who can carry a firearm and what they might look like um you know pushes for limiting the the places or circumstances under which you could protest um or demonstrate right um which you, which was done, um, there, there was a real big, um, push to, uh, forbid, uh, anti-choice activists from protesting outside of, um, clinics, right. Which I understand, right.

But what actually is the upshot of doing that when we see this kind of push to use the law as a tool to enforce a particular political agenda, it is not, you know, it's just a very ill-conceived way to approach this because the law is never going to protect the most vulnerable while these structures of power that uphold it remain in place. And so, you know, it's just always going to be leveraged against the people who have the least amount of power. And, and so, you know, this, this sort of response to the Rittenhouse stuff, to me, it's just essentially a recuperation of that impulse. I mean, it's a little like that old, I think the joke is attributed to Gandhi. I don't know if Gandhi actually said it, but he was asked, what do you think of Christian civilization? And he said, I think it would be a wonderful idea. What do you think of the fair and equal rule of law? Sounds nice. It was either Gandhi or Groucho Marx. Yeah, maybe both. Maybe both. I don't know that we ever saw them together. All right. So I don't know. I it's it's obviously it's too early. It's one of those things where all of the complaining about the unfairness of the trial of Rittenhouse winds up getting rammed into a legal wall. a legal wall, metaphorically, may seem silly in context or in retrospect, or he may this may be the thing that ignites a new wave of vigilantes showing up at protests with guns. Yeah. To be

untouchable, like really with the big fears that we don't know precedent that will allow other people to use, quote unquote, self-defense claims in effort just to kill black activists, to kill activists on the left, to kill black activists, to kill activists on the left, to kill people wearing, you know, black hoodies and bandanas. Right. Yeah. Because that's the that's the big fear out of this situation. Because my my expectation is that if Rittenhouse gets off or even just gets very minor, like if it's if he's if he's out of jail quickly, within about six months, he's going to be a millionaire um absolutely yeah that's the way the right wing works i would gently ask you to think about what happens if he doesn't

because if he's convicted we are going to see a deepening of the repression that is faced by everyone on the left as well we lose either way yeah no good choices on the table there's no winning i guess i think it i mean part of it i guess depends on on what he's convicted for um because uh some of the stuff has i i would it seems to me some of the things he's charged with if convicted there's more potential negative implications across the political aisle than with others. Like if it's ruled murder, I don't know, that feels less worrisome. I mean, I have some concerns about the crossing state line stuff. I don't know.

I mean, none of it's good. I guess where I am is I I remember vividly how much the the situation on the ground changed after Kenosha, just in Portland, even. I mean, Garrison can can back me up with this. They were there for that, too. Like it was a it was a significant shift in the feeling of deadliness. You know, whenever there was a right wing left wing confrontation um yeah and someone died someone died a few days later someone died a few days later in in a fucking gunfight um and i i don't know i don't know moira uh i don't know i i don't i don't want written house to get off scott free for shooting three people you're absolutely right there's no there's no winning with the legal system the only way to win is not to play the only way to win is not to play

so form your own breakaway civilization yeah escape and also gandhi and gandhi yeah uh and and elrond hubbard take to the sea. Yes. Yeah. Always. Look, I don't think... I'm not looking for him to prevail on the self-defense. Yeah. None of this is going to make me feel good. Right. But I think that whether or not he is punished, whether or not he is convicted, there will be negative repercussions. And all of those negative consequences will redound to the detriment of the people who are already facing

the most intense federal repression. Yeah, that is, I mean, and in fairness, like, this is the case of a child who killed two people, and is now we are determining whether or not this child will spend the rest of their life in a cell. None of this should make anyone feel good no matter what happens. It's a thoroughly bleak story. Yeah. Yeah. It's. Yeah.

Because this kid is never going to have a chance to grow up and be like oh I was being like a horrible person they'll never be able to adjust to anything else rather than being this person that like culturally has been created right they are like a cultural thing they are an item

they're not a person anymore and they'll never be able to escape that yeah I was a piece of shit when i was 17 and if i'd had access to an ar-15 and a chance to feel like a hero i might have done something horrific too and instead you were just doing sloppy steaks and said it's fine yeah and now it's fine um you watched i think you should leave moira i'm sorry have you watched i think you should leave Moira. I'm sorry. Have you watched? I think you should leave Moira. No. Oh,

it's good. It's good. Okay. All right. I'll check it out. Um, um, I'll,

I'll take a look. Yeah. I don't know. Um, well, thank you, Moira. Uh,

this is always appreciated. Um, it's good. I don't know. Like were you, we've talked a bit about anarchism how many of how much how much of like your belief about the way the world ought to be and is came as a result of getting into the guts of the legal system you mean did i become more devoted to anarchism when I went to law school? Yeah.

I didn't become less devoted to it. I remember when I was going to law school, people kept saying, oh, you're going to become really conservative. And I was like, I don't think that's true. That seems fake. And in fact, I remember being in my criminal procedure class and just thinking, how in the world can anyone at any law school read Miranda, which is a case where someone is, you know, just horrifically abused by police in order to extract a statement. How could anybody read

this case and not come out of law school with a deep contempt for law enforcement? I know that it happens. I don't know how. Yeah. Always uplifting. Yeah. I mean, it is, it's important to know, you know, I, when I was, when I was younger and poor and dealing with things like taxes, I would often go like years without paying them and I would like ignore debts and bills until like, like my student loans until it became like a serious problem because i didn't want to look at it i didn't even want to like look at the the scale of the issue and grapple with it i just wanted to run away from it and when i actually like sat down and and

figured out my situation and and like really came to understand like what what i needed to do in order to deal with those problems like it was stressful and it sucked and it was fucking days of work but getting understanding the scope of the problem I'd gotten myself into was a necessary step to like fixing the situation and I think the same is true with like this kind of shit it's not fun nobody who is think, a reasonable person wants to dig into the U.S. justice system and get into the guts of it because it's bleak as hell. But you need to because you can't escape it unless you flee the country and live in a place with no extradition treaties or international waters. I feel like you're talking about a lot of the people you've profiled. Yeah. I mean,

Ecuador does sound nice. I'm sure it's lovely this time of year. Yeah, I think you're right. We need to be able to have a sort of clear eyed assessment so that we can accurately identify and effectively address the problems. Unfortunately, I think the problems are so all encompassing that I don't know that there's. I would venture to say that there is not a real totalizing solution that doesn't involve total abolition. Yeah, I agree with you.

But in the meantime, I mean, I think there are there are things that we can do to to advocate for our clients or my clients, I guess. As an individual, you can do to protect protect yourself and that's why it is important to have some sort of working understanding um because you can keep yourself and the people around you at least somewhat safer if you do understand the beast um even though your goal is to is to destroy it uh and that's a i think the only reasonable goal when you really understand it it still behooves you to to understand it i mean it's the same with a i think the only reasonable goal when you really understand it it still behooves you to to understand it i mean it's the same with like it's the same with what would garrison and i do with the fucking nazis spending all this time in weird telegram channels

like reading what they're trying to understand them because you do need to understand them to effectively combat them well it's not for the faint of heart. No. Neither is what you do. The message is that we're all well-adjusted and we're all doing great. We're saving up for that boat. Nobody has any secondary trauma. There's no secondary trauma

in international waters, Moira. I have that. My old friend LRH told me that. Just you in the open sea. And a bunch of 20-year-olds searching for gold that I buried in a past life. Ah, that does sound fun.

Yeah. He is both fascinating and terrifying. Yeah. Yeah. Just like our legal system. Just like our legal system. And that wraps up this episode yeah that brings us around um moira do you have anything you want to plug any any place uh maybe our listeners could could send donations that would help somebody who's throwing themselves against a wall at the moment would certainly suggest that people

look into whatever um bail funds are local to them. There's one I know in New York called COVID Bailout NYC that's doing incredible work right now to get people off Rikers Island, which is having a humanitarian crisis of just unbelievable scope. It sounds to me like the conditions on Rikers right now are at least as bad as the conditions that led to the Attica uprising. So I would always, always direct people to give money to local bail funds.

I also want to plug the National Lawyers Guild Anti-Federal Repression or Federal Defense Hotline, which is 212-679-2811. 212-679-2811. If you call that number or you can call that number if you are having unwanted contact with federal agents and you can be advised by an attorney, who is me, about your rights and responsibilities with respect to federal agents. And I will try to connect you with appropriate resources in your area. This is not the hotline to call if you've been injured by a police officer. This is the hotline to call if you have been visited by the FBI. Don't talk to cops. If you are contacted by law enforcement, say I am represented by counsel,

please leave your name and number and my lawyer will call you. And remember that you cannot talk your way out of an arrest, but you can talk your way into a conviction. All great points, all great things to be aware of. Speaking of great things to be aware of, be aware that we'll be back tomorrow, unless this is a Friday, in which case we'll be back next week from now until the heat death of the universe. Thank you so much, Laura. You're so welcome. It Could Happen Here is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from Cool Zone Media, visit our website, coolzonemedia.com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

You can find sources for It Could Happen Here updated monthly at coolzonemedia.com slash sources. Thanks for listening. You should probably keep your lights on for Nocturnal Tales from the Shadow. Join me, Danny Trails, and step into the flames of right. An anthology podcast of modern day horror stories inspired by the most terrifying legends and lore of Latin America. Listen to Nocturnal on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.