Some More News - Even More News: Trump Defies Even More Federal Judges

Episode Date: March 21, 2025

Hi. Rhiannon Hamam of the 5-4 podcast joins Katy, Cody, and Jonathan to talk about the crisis of Trump ignoring federal court orders, Chief Justice John Roberts' brief response, fentanyl potentially being named a weapon of mass destruction, and Elon Musk's thoughts on "magic money computers."Produced by Jonathan HarrisEdited by Nick MundyPATREON: https://patreon.com/somemorenewsMERCH: https://shop.somemorenews.comNow’s your chance to change the way you sleep with Boll & Branch. Get 15% off, plus free shipping on our first set of sheets at https://bollandbranch.com/smn -- Exclusions apply. See site for details.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

If you're looking to streamline your audio advertising buys and maximize your revenue, look no further than Triton Digital's Programmatic Audio Advertising Exchange, A2X. The private exchange consists of only licensed broadcasters and top-tier internet radio publishers, assuring the quality inventory and brand safety you can trust. Visit www.tritondigital.com to learn more. Hello! Welcome back to Even More News, the first and only news podcast. My name is Katie Stoll Still. Still and again and forever.

Hi Katie Stoll, I'm Cody Johnston. Cody Johnston. I got there. He got there. He remembered his name. First and only time I've ever done it, so. You did brilliantly. Thank you.

And I'm about to do a brilliant job introducing our guest, a return guest, former public defender and current co-host of the podcasts, 5 to 4 and Popular Cradle, it's Rhiannon Hammam. Hello everybody. It's been a while. I haven't been on in a long time.

I'm so happy to be here. It's enters, we enter into this vortex where time, time is so confusing to me. Cause yes, it's been a long time and it could have been last month. It could have been last year that we had you on the show. I just, one week after the other. Well, it's felt long.

Anytime I'm away from you, it feels so long. Oh, my heart. Well, here we are. By the way, Jonathan is also here. It's true. Hi. The crowd goes wild. Hello, Jonathan.

They do. I assure you they do. I promise. I promise the crowd is going wild just just off frame Take a peek in the comments after any show we do and the Jonathan heads are loud and all the comments are just going woo They just say woo and we know they just say woo. Oh, yeah drop your woos in the chat Let me see the woo Rhiannon. Let me see it crowd. Yeah Rhiannon We've got other questions for you, but I have one off the top of my head right now.

Do people sing that Fleetwood Mac song to you a lot? They do. You knew what I was asking before I asked. You could tell on your face. You just like, oh, all right. Do people sing? Yes, yeah, they do. To me, for sure, yeah.

Because I was excited that you were on the show this week, and yesterday and today, it was was in my head I was like yeah It's a great song it is have your name be about it's it's so good Yeah, if you're gonna have one that would that would be a good one to have yeah, my brother thought he got someone pregnant It turns out he didn't but she named that baby of Riannon amazing Turns out he didn't, but she named that baby Rhiannon. Amazing. Anyway, leave it in or not, we've got holidays. Fake baby, the imaginary baby.

She was a real baby, she just wasn't my brother's. Oh, okay, okay. Sort of a moral situation, yeah. And it did, it was his girlfriend's baby. Anyway, Friday, March 21st. To be young. I know, I ought to be young. I was very young.

Friday, March 21st. National Common Courtesy Day. Book that. I mean, good. That's good. Notes updating in real time. A Webster. Merriam Webster defines courtesy as behavior marked by polished manners

or respect for others, courteous behavior, a courteous and respectful act or expression. That's how little there is to say about this holiday. Anyway, happy that day. Brianne, and we have some questions for you before we dive into the news. Okay. You were at recent protests against the detention of Mahmoud Khalil.

And we're just curious about your experience there and also given your expertise to what's coming next for his case. Yeah, I think this moment is really, really important. Like it's important for Mahmoud Khalil's who we should all be thinking about Yeah, I think this moment is really, really important. Like it's important for Mahmoud Khalil who we should all be thinking about as like a political prisoner right now.

And as somebody who, yes, is an individual, but on top of whose body and existence, a lot of politics are happening, right? In this one kind of symbol. So an individual, absolutely, but also a symbol for a lot of things happening right now. And so, you know, my experience over the last 18 months in protests has been kind of crazy. One day maybe I'll write a book. But, you know, most recently, what has been great about the protests in defense of to lift up the story of Mahmoud Khalil.

What's been great is how many people are still coming out, right? And how many people are making the connections that like Mahmoud Khalil, yes, is when you come out in support of Mahmoud Khalil and to call and demand for his freedom, like, yes, it's about the person, but this is also about ongoing genocide. This is also about confronting anti-immigrant rhetoric and anti-immigrant like actual activity by the government. This is about confronting fascism.

This is about saying we have rights to free speech and rights aren't something that the government decides who to give to. Rights belong to us and we'll exercise them, right? Yeah. And so that's what I have felt at the recent protests and what I'm really grateful for in terms of people showing up and showing out.

I'm very inspired by the fact that you're there, by your answer, by the people showing immense bravery at an incredibly terrifying time because he's being made an example of. And to continue showing up in spite of that when there are threats all around us is astounding. And I thank you for being there and thank you to everybody that has been showing up at these protests.

I appreciate you naming it, Katie, honestly that it is scary because I think it's like, I think that, I think it's a reminder that like are in a lot of situations and in the position that a fascist administration is trying to put us in, bravery and continuing to show up, it's not just our best defense, it's not just a more powerful response,

it's our only defense. Yeah. Like our bravery in our collective and our belief in our strength, our collective strength and our power together, that is how we confront an administration that's trying to pick off as individuals and make scary symbols out of individuals, right?

So I think be brave. I think be brave. Yeah, in the face of what is ostensibly like a terror campaign that they're- Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah, yeah. The what is like ostensibly like a terror campaign that they're absolutely absolutely Yeah, yeah, the only way you really confront that right is your is our bravery. Yeah speaking of all that and bravery We're gonna start with the legal showdown. We're all witnessing

Unfold one I don't know Jonathan you lay it out for us. You're the keeper of information. Yeah, you guys can't say this stuff. I have to do it. I couldn't possibly. No, you need me to do it. Well, it's not in quotes, so it's from you.

Trust me, you need me here. I sincerely do, Jonathan. On Monday, we talked about how a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration at least temporarily couldn't invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport people. Can't in that they're not supposed to but the administration... Sorry, I'm just gonna interject one second. Just the fact that we're talking about this, fuck it. This was 1798 was so long ago and so not relevant to... Anyway, I'm sorry. Every time I see that, he's invoking this.

I'm like, come on, man. Constitution is old too. It is, but I'm like, yeah, go ahead. The administration, it looked like ignored that ruling and they had these weird justifications. They said the flights carrying Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador and Honduras were already over international waters and the ruling didn't apply. And then they said something about, well, your written ruling came out 45 minutes after your verbal ruling and that matters.

Rhiannon, does that matter? I mean, I- Look, I have- practicing attorney, right? Have been in court in front of many, many judges have represented probably when I was a public defender, you know, probably in total thousands of folks to just be like, Judge, you don't have jurisdiction. Like these are like I could imagine situations where like they're like, you're in contempt of court and you're going to jail.

Like, yeah. Right. You know, like, this is wild. This is contempt of court. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's pretty wild. You could also turn a plane around. Yes, absolutely.

And when the judge orders it, you in fact legally have to, right? Like these, the legal, this legal question being correctly and legally in front of the judge to adjudicate means that the judge has jurisdiction over all of these questions. And so if something illegal has already started, let's say,

those deportations have started, but the legal question is in front of the judge to decide, then it is automatically like in a base, obvious way in the purview and in the jurisdiction of the judge to decide, right? Even to the extent that the judge can say, well, it's already started, you need to reverse it, right? Turn the plane around then. And for him to have said it so explicitly, there's also this controversy, not even controversy, this bullshit argument from the White House

and from the DOJ lawyers that like, well, it was a verbal order, judge. Like you said it out loud, but you didn't write that down. You know, that's also, it's lunacy under the law. Like, that's a judge. I was gonna go with madness, lunacy, yes. A judge issues orders all the time. I was gonna say a bit paper thin,

but I feel like you're both a little more accurate. Yeah, like the paper on fire, actually. Like, you know what I mean? Like, it's real lunacy. Judges issue orders from the bench, orally written in all the formats, not on the bench. Right. Judges issue orders from the bench, orally written, in all the formats, not on the bench. Right, like judges issue orders.

They adjudicate that is what being a judge is. It's literally their job. It's so wild to see. Like, I don't think he's tweeted about in a while, but like the vice president out there, like, they can't do this. What are you talking about? It's the basis of like the way we operate as a government. Like, they can't do this. What are you talking about? It's the basis of the way we operate as a government.

Like, I can't. And they just seem to get away with it and making these claims that they can just do whatever they want. And then I don't even know if they've ever responded to a direct question. Surely you know that that's not how it works. Somebody should ask them that.

Not that it'll do anything, but it's just like, I feel like I'm losing my mind sometimes. And this is like now ramped up even more because the judge, James Jeb Boasberg, says, you need to explain to me if you ignore this order or not. Right. Could the planes have been turned around? Were they already there? What's the status of this? And they're like, it's not even appropriate for you to ask.

So the DOJ is trying to be official and saying, well, it's not appropriate for you to ask because of national security. But meanwhile, the president is on Truth Social calling the judge a radical left lunatic, a troublemaker, an agitator who should be impeached. Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't he appointed by George Bush? A troublemaker, an agitator who should be impeached correct me if I'm wrong wasn't he appointed by George Bush a Troublemaker and agitator who should be impeached. That's so interesting Yeah, he was appointed or initially by George W Bush and then elevated to this district

Well, George Bush is a radical leftist. So You know what's crazy too about the DOJ argument that they don't have to That they don't have to answer these questions because of national security concerns. The judge isn't asking them to release this information publicly or be in filings that could be accessed by the public like a lot of, you know, probably most court proceedings are, right? The judge is asking them to answer these questions under seal. The judge would be the only, they're not open to the public, right? So that they can make their decision more clearly with more information.

The judge can say like, yeah, this does seem to this right. Like the judge could see this information and say, oh, yeah, this does sort of invoke national security concerns. So the executive branch might have the power to do this. Right. Yeah. And they're still saying that they have this kind of like executive secret privilege, national security concerns, they don't have to turn over, it's all bullshit.

So I wanna read this statement, I guess, that Chief Justice John Roberts sent to media outlets to get your take on it. Yeah. He wrote, after Trump's truth socialing about how he's a radical left judge who needs to be impeached, Roberts wrote, for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

Period. End of statement. Strong words. Strong words. From a brave man. Something. I mean, he's not wrong. He's not wrong. That's true. I think actually this is like the second time John Roberts has made a statement to the Trump administration that's like Cool Your Jets. Explaining the government to them. Last time in 2018. Yeah. Also for attacks on the federal judiciary,

you know, like calling federal court rulings, you know, partisan, you know, like Trump does, right? And it was bad enough in 2018 that John Roberts deigned to, you know, make a public statement. And then again here, you know, yeah, saying like, hey, every administration gets court rulings against them. You know, there's a normal legal process for opposing a court ruling, which is the-

This is just a part of our democracy. This is the backbone of how we are situated. We've got the three branches of government. This is how it's designed so that nobody has too much power. The problem is is that in our current administration, he wants more power. He wants to change that. I personally felt a little sense of relief that he said this, but also as you already stated Rhiannon, he has done this before. It doesn't mean that he's got our back. But also, as you already stated, Rhiannon,

he has done this before. It doesn't mean that he's got our back. Like at the end of the day. It's a little rich. It's a little rich. You see, I guess, that John Roberts has some lines, right? That he knows. He knows at least.

He has some lines. But we can squarely put a big, big responsibility for the constitutional crisis that we are in on the Supreme Court. Yeah. On John Roberts leadership of the Supreme Court during his tenure as Chief Justice. And so, you know, but this will score you know, this, this will score him some points for the crowd that loves to say John Roberts is like concerned with legitimacy of the institution, that kind of thing. I think I do think like, I think this is, I think the Trump administration and Trump

and himself criticizing federal judges this way, I think it is internally alarming enough. Like I think federal judges themselves are talking about this internally and saying like we have to do something about this. And so that probably motivates John Roberts to say something in a different way than, for example, if John Roberts is asked to come and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and he's like,

fuck you, no. Does it feel like, I mean, I would think we're in a constitutional crisis already. There are federal rulings going against Trump that they are ignoring or are too incompetent to put back right away and there's so much going against them right away that they're definitely in violation of some of those. But it feels like we're just waiting for that moment where the Supreme Court does rule against him and he just ignores that to be like, okay, this is the moment. This is the get out in the streets time, right? If Roberts and Barrett join the liberals and say, actually, you can't do this thing flagrantly

and he does it. Yeah, you're not a God King, actually. Yeah. Yeah, you know, just like the get out in the streets time was yesterday and it is now. And and I don't think we should take the shifting goalposts, for example, that Chuck Schumer is offering that we're not in a constitutional crisis until Trump disobeys a Supreme Court order. Right. These goalposts constantly changing only like help and assist with the snowball effect of all of this crumbling.

So I would say that, but yeah, I mean, if you want confirmation that we're in the constitutional crisis, it's already taking the spending power from Congress. It's already that this court order from Judge Boasberg was not obeyed, right? These kinds of things, when we're talking about, like you said, Katie, the relationship

with the three branches, the supposed checks and balances we're taught about that are the foundation of how our federal government operates. You said, Katie, the relationship with the three branches, the supposed checks and balances were taught about that are the foundation of how our federal government operates. That is, it is already broken down. It's broken down right now. And your point about the shifting goalposts, I think is really important because it's not always easy to see in the mass of information coming out and the chaotic nature of what's happening.

But it's almost as if, you know, the Chuck Schumers of the world don't want people to be freaking out, but they should be freaking out. We should be appropriately alarmed because, yeah, like you said, the goalpost keeps shifting and in the meantime, it starts to get normalized. Well, is it okay that he's taking his time obeying that order?

There's a lot going on. It's chaotic. No, it is a fucking big deal. And you should be appropriately worried because this isn't how it's supposed to work, folks. Yeah. And like name the thing that's happening. If it's inundation, if they're using shock doctrine against us, like name that thing, right? They are inundating us on purpose. They are creating crises and chaos across a multitude of issues and attacking a multitude of vulnerable members

of our community on purpose so that we're all caught off guard so that this kind of violence in one category or the other gets normalized while we focus on another fire to put out, let's say. And Chuck Schumer and the like, we could have 14 episodes about how they really aren't up to the task. And we kind of do. Right? We do two a week. I think we're really ch. Right? Right. Right. We do two a week.

So yeah. Two a week. I think we're really chipping away at that. It's also tough for the media to keep up because a lot of judges' rulings have ruled against the Trump administration. And then a couple weeks later, I'll go online to try to see if they've been following that, if the people have been hired back, if trans people can be in the military again, if USAID people are getting their jobs back,

money going back, and it's hard to find out. And so they very well may be ignoring those rulings and we don't even see coverage of it maybe until ProPublica gets to it or something. The inundation is real and it's- Constant, yeah. Tough to get your bearings. Jonathan, why don't you tell us a few

of the judicial victories that we have outlined here? Like, you know, there are some good things happening or people are trying, judges are trying. Right, it's like you've alluded to in the past, Jonathan, we just might as well have a segment weekly called, actually that's illegal, sir. Because so much of it is just like, well, that's illegal, sir. And they're of it is just like, well, that's illegal, sir.

And they're like, well, what are you going to do? Right. You can say that it's illegal, but guess who's the president now? Yeah. Well, don't you know, he says, I have an Article II that lets me do whatever I want, which, I mean, not a constitutional scholar. That's not what it says.

Because if that's what it said, Article II would be one sentence long. and it's not. It says, here's what the president can do. Some of these judicial victories, I guess we would call them, assuming they get carried out. Federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's attempt to ban trans people from the military. A judge ruled that dismantling of USAID was unconstitutional and said employees have to have their email and computer access restored. A judge ruled that dismantling of USAID was unconstitutional and said employees have to have their email and computer access restored. A judge ordered the Department of Education to reinstate education grants axed because of DEI. Of course, he's signing an executive order today to dismantle the Department of Education

as much as he can. He just signs things that's like, I'm telling you to do something, someone who works for me. You could just tell her on the phone. You could tell Linda McMahon, but he has a big official signing thing with his Sharpie, whatever, that's like a law now. I don't know.

Like, is an executive order a law? Like, he can't just do that. Like, I don't understand how they work. Neither does he though, by the way. I think what's helpful is to think about all of this stuff as being built on previous things. Like Trump is exceptional in a lot of ways in terms of like he does operate differently

than like past presidents do, that kind of thing. But it all is, but Trump is a result of systemic failures and systemic shifts over time, right? So, you know, issuing executive orders at like this high rate and, you know, and giving them this kind of like legal authority, this legal like demand, you know, that's stuff that has like built up over time that now the Trump administration is weaponizing. And just to turn a little bit to like Article Two, what are the constitutional powers of the president, right?

Like there are competing theories about this and like what we're actually dealing with to like, it's called legally, it's called the unitary executive theory, which is that some folks believe that the Constitution really consolidates a ton of power in the executive branch. Neil Gorsuch, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, these are believers in the unitary executive theory.

I just think it's helpful for listeners, for everybody to just think about this as systems churning and folks developing these legal theories and then, and then, you know, how like what what outcome the system then spits out, which is like Donald Trump, right? I don't know how to guys like Alito and Gorsuch develop this idea because it was my understanding that we fought a revolution to not have that. Like it does seem to me to go against our entire philosophy, everything you're taught in civics class and government class and high school. And yet some people go on a different pathway

and they think actually the president should be able to do almost anything. Well, right, cause it's also, it's twofold, right? Cause it's not, it's saying that this is what the constitution actually says and that that's good, right? They're not saying that like, oh, that's what the constitution says and we should like fix that. We need to like, we need to change the constitution to make that not true.

They're saying that's what it says and we like that, which is a weird tension to have. It's all obviously starting to feel like the Bible and different interpretations of it and different sex and religion that come out of it. Yeah, I think it's like, remember that the law and the practice of law and the adjudication of law, which is what judges do, is politics. Alito and Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas do not believe in unitary executive theory for Joe Biden.

Right? Of course, exactly. And they right? And their rulings were not in line with that theory of Article II and presidential and executive power when the guy that they don't like is in office, right, runs the executive branch. I think, again, with this systemic output where Trump is the symptom of something that's really rotten at its core. Like I think it's you know, this iteration is a problem of executive authority. And I think a lot of folks, how young is your listenership? Were folks alive and like conscious during 9-11? A lot of them.

A lot of them, yes. I feel like most. Yeah, most. Most. I mean, we might have some. When was 9-11? There are some people who weren't, I think. There are definitely some people

who weren't alive and conscious. Which is okay. Which is okay, but also crazy to me. Yeah, so I just think like this problem that we're seeing today, a problem of executive authority and how much authority the executive branch has is a problem that we actually get out of 9-11 and the chipping away at rights,

creating loopholes where someone, for example, is deemed a terrorist or an alien enemy or a threat to the United States under broad discretion that's given to the president during wartime, for example, right? And then as a result of those designations, designating people or groups in this way, it means they have fewer rights, right? And so this is like a good example of the snowball effect shit show of losing any rights to begin with or vulnerable communities or people you don't think are like you losing some rights or those things being chipped away. Is that like fascism, authoritarianism? There isn't an upper limit to the restriction of rights. Right. They will expand and expand that destruction unless there's an external limit that's imposed on them, right? And to bring it back to courts, the courts in our system since

9-11, but for a long time, for decades, but particularly since 9-11, if we're thinking about this executive authority thing, have not adequately done that, have not adequately imposed those limits. And that's part of the constitutional crisis we're in. Trump is weaponizing those things, right? You see it in the immigration context. You see it in Mahmoud Khalil's context. You see it in the possibility that he's thinking of designating fentanyl as a weapon of mass.

That was next to our doc. And I was going to say, speaking of all that. Relabeling things and restricting rights and doing that. Let's let Jonathan set this up for us, because it is truly terrifying. And I don't know that everybody has seen this, heard of this, because it's something that's brewing. Yeah, it's not actually.

It has a lot of implications. Yeah, so last week several federal agencies got a draft of a potential executive order that would classify illicit fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction. That executive order could be signed as early as next week, but the agencies are giving their feedback on it because it could have some far reaching effects.

This is so wild. It could allow the US government to classify drug cartels as terrorist organizations. But haven't we already? Trump has already done that. He's already done that. He's already designated the cartels as a terrorist organization. What if they have weapons of mass destruction? That's even more dire.

That's what I'm saying. This is all- Right. Can maybe justify unilateral, that's even more dire. This is all right. Can maybe justify unilateral attacks. The point that is a massive more presence, more military presence in Mexico and in Canada, because that's where he claims our fentanyl is coming from. And in terms of brown people that live here in the states, legally or otherwise, it is truly terrifying, especially in conjunction with, you know, the massive detention centers being built.

Guantanamo Bay, it is truly a chilling development, in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that this could absolutely disrupt shipment of, you know, medicines of, you know, fentanyl used in a hospital. You know, I'm not like pro-fentanyl, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction. Also, it just feels like an appropriate time to point out that most fentanyl crosses into our states via US citizens. Sometimes heads of police unions do it. Just sometimes. Just sometimes though, just sometimes.

Yeah, but like, yeah, going back to this WMD thing, weapons of mass destruction, like that's straight up invocation of the language that was used to justify the war in Iraq, which we have to say killed a million people and was a lie, right? It was a lie. Right. It was a lie. And it's all about, again, this like consolidation of this kind of authority in the executive because it's referencing and constantly like alluding to this bullshit idea that we're at war, which when we are legally, historically, the president is given a lot of leeway, right? Right. And.

And if he's able to make that decision himself now for all these different reasons that he's making up and pulling from the past and so on, then he can just do whatever he want and frame himself still as like an anti-war president, right? Cause he's not saying that like, oh, we're gonna like start a war. He's saying like, no, we're gonna go after terrorists war. He's saying like no, we're gonna go after terrorists

We're gonna go after like fentanyl like we're gonna do these things or Exactly. Yeah, and so he still gets that like weird claim of like I'm actually anti-war I mean can't can't and Stein's claiming that uh behind the scenes preparing for war with Iran so there's that oh, yeah I mean he's like the idea that he like, the idea that he's not, the idea that he's not pro-war is absurd. Is land.

I mean, the US Congress has not declared war since in any of our lifetimes or probably our parents' lifetimes since what, 42? Do we not declare war with Vietnam? No, we declared war against like Germany, Japan, Hungary, Romania and stuff during World War II and not since then, if I recall correctly from the 40s. Look when you tie-

Declaring war is so antiquated. These days you just do it. You just do it. The president just does it, exactly. But like, look, when you tie everything to national security, when everything is a threat to the United States, then everything you want to deem a nail is a nail, and everything that you wanna be a hammer on is a hammer,

right, in every situation. So, yeah, and then like, you know, to even set aside like kind of like foreign policy, like invading country, those kinds of things. The stuff at home that flows from this is more anti-immigrant agenda, more draconian law enforcement measures. Imagine if fentanyl is labeled WMD.

I've also seen reporting that like, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Division of DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, that like their funding has kind of declined as resources for the anti-immigrant stuff are like really over there. And so, you know, saying, designating that Fentanyl is a WMD, you know, you got DHS like

getting more money, having more projects to work on. Right. It's about like expanding actually the fascist regime. This is in no way about small government. Right. Externally and internally. Exactly. Expanding as much as much pumping as much money as you can into these projects that otherize people, either getting them out or rounding people up here, keep containing them

here. Apparently, people in the State Department think it's also involved. It'll also involve like rounding up homeless people, right? Yeah. And no encampments like, well, you have weapons of mass destruction here under this bridge. So guess where you're going now? Yeah. And it's all just external, internal fascism and and what that equation will be and how how to do it.

It would also take away from working on the actual weapons of mass destruction. Not that I'm for DHS having ton of money to do this stuff, but there are like if there is an anthrax division or a botulism division They're gonna have less time and money to work on it now because they'll be diverted to fentanyl It's the boy who cried wolf to I don't know if there's a lot of things that feel very very wrong about this those same listeners and viewers who don't remember 9-eleven will also not remember the anthrax scare when people were getting white powder in the mail or how Al-Qaeda was gonna set off a dirty bomb with all the WMDs. What a weird time that was

What a messed up time the early aughts and since has been It's still cold out there, folks. And when it's chilly, I want to be as cozy as possible. That means soft lighting, a warm cup of tea, and Captain Beefheart on the stereo. I didn't think it could get any better than that. Until I transformed my winter bed with Bowlin' Branch. Once I started using Bowlin' Branch's best-selling signature sheets, my orange hibiscus tea tasted better and the 1969 avant-garde rock album Trout Mask Replica took on a whole new dimension.

Sometimes I don't even make it to side four before drifting off to sleep for some of the best winter snoozes I've ever had. And I mean that. I sincerely mean that. I am obsessed with these sheets. They are so cozy I sleep like a baby. Woven with the finest 100% organic cotton on earth, Bowlin' Branch sheets have designs and colors for every bedroom style, every mattress size, and every beef heart era. Whether it's the more traditional blues of Safe As Milk or the frenetic art rock of Lick My Decals Off, baby. That's right, now's your chance to change the way you sleep with Bowlin' Branch.

Get 15% off plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at bowlin'branch.com slash smn. You will be shocked at how much better your sleep is once you sleep in these sheets. I mean it. Okay, once again, that's bowl and branch. B-O-L-L-A-N-D branch.com slash S-M-N to save 15%. Exclusions apply, see site for details. The Spotlight Kid. Now that one, underrated.

All right, context for this, I'm about to play. Elon Musk is on Ted Cruz's podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz. Please. The senator's got nothing to do. He's got a. It's so funny. Real quick, before we play it. I love that his his podcast is still called Verdict. It was started with one of the the goblins over the daily wire

during One of forget which one one of Trump's impeachments and so it was called verdict and they like went over like It's really hard to change your branding mid show. I know So the I don't know they broke up for whatever reason and he got somebody else and it's still called Verdict. And oh no, yeah, Verdict, Ted Cruz podcast. Can't believe he still called that. Or that he has a podcast, but whatever. One of the things you told me about is what you call magic money computers at the creditories.

Well, tell us about it, because I never heard of that until you brought that up. Okay, so you may think that these that the government computers Like all talk to each other. They synchronize they they add up what funds are going somewhere and it's You know It's coherent that that the you know, there's and that and that the numbers for example that you're presented as a senator Yeah, are actually the real numbers. One would think. One would think.

They're not. Yeah. Okay. I mean, they're not totally wrong, but they're probably off by 5% or 10% in some cases. So I call it magic money computer, any computer which can just make money out of thin air. That's magic money. So how does that work? It just issues payments.

And you said there's something like 11 of these computers at treasury that are sending out trillions in payments? They're mostly treasury. Some are, with the sum at HHS, some at, there's one at the one or two at state, there's some at DOD. I think we found out 14 magic money computers. 14, okay.

They just send money out of nothing. I don't really understand. Yeah, because it's not real. Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. I'm like, what are you talking about, dude? I mean, he could be talking about a number of different things. Computers authorizing payments? It sounds like he's talking about the way governments pay for things and the way banks

do things. He's talking about how money is fake. And like we just make money, whatever. Sorry, Jonathan, you can explain it. No, I mean, that is really it. I read an article on Fortune where they interviewed a couple of people, a former senior VP at the Federal Reserve Bank at St. Louis, people like that. And they were trying to give Musk the benefit of the doubt where they're like, well, he could say that

the Treasury is not doing double entry accounting where if you debit money from one account, you credit to another account and it should be equal. But then the other people were like, well, but that is how money works Like the United States is good for the money because they can print the money. So they will just The money like create money. It's not like a fake thing. It's something that everyone Knows like this is how country that we make currency do it do it. And then Ted Cruz is like, that's crazy, man. What's crazy is that you're an elected official, sir. Like, he's pretending, right?

He's pretending to be surprised and like this is a bombshell. Like maybe the Elon question is like, he doesn't know what he's doing and he doesn't know what he's talking about and he likes misrepresenting things and he could be lying, he could just be stupid, I don't know, but Ted Cruz is pretending. There's no way he doesn't understand

that this is just how these things work, and it's just sometimes, it's just so obvious how much contempt they have for everybody. Like they hate everybody, they think you're so stupid, and they just wanna put this little clip out and be like, oh my God,. They think you're so stupid. And they just want to put this little clip out and be like, oh my God, the government, they're printing money. It's like, yeah, they print money.

Where do you think the money comes from? I think one of the most disturbing things from this video is how Elon Musk laughs. It's so cartoon villain. He's like, oh, oh, oh. His little stance. Why does he laugh like that oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh,

oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I would reserve my judgment and I won't give him the benefit of the doubt because he doesn't deserve it. But I think it's possible because Ted Cruz said 11, so he didn't just make that number up. He probably heard it from Elon's and he's like, what if I do 14? I don't know. Could be 14.

He has specified 14 a few times in like weird ways and like it's like why did you need to specify that? Why didn't you round up for that? Some weird things. What a weird lie. What a weird thing to pretend to be surprised about. What bombshell are you talking about? They do this all the time every day. They think everyone is so fucking stupid and they hate you. They hate you so much. They think everyone is so fucking stupid and they hate you. They hate you so much. But, you know, at least he's at least he's firing everybody. You know, he's still much richer than any of us, but none of us have lost,

what, 100 billion dollars in the last few months. Right. So tomato, tomato. Because no one wants to buy your Nazi cars anymore. You know, there's magic money computers. And then there's also, did you all see Trump like in the like Tesla show in front of the White House, Trump getting in a Tesla and then looking at the media and going, wow, it's all computer. This is a different panel than everything's computer. Everything's computer. Everything's computer. Everything's computer. Everything's computer. He's not wrong.

Perhaps the best sentence I've ever heard him say. Well, real quick, just on the computer thing. He is right. It's a problem. Too many cars exist where everything's computer. Get some dials back in there. Come on, what are we doing? Everything's computer is absurd.

I agree. I love that Trump really spoke to Cody with this. He did. It's all computer. Everything is computer. Too many things are computer, he says. My car has a lot computer in it and computer bad. We don't need to play the clip, but there's a very funny clip of him talking about computers and Barron Trump,

where he's talking about Barron's aptitude. What is he good at? Business? Philosophy? What's he good at? He's like, well, he's actually good at technology. He can look at a computer. I try turning off his guys, turn it off.

I turn off his laptop. I said, oh, good. And I go back five minutes later, he's got his laptop. I said, how'd you do that? None of your business, dad. No, he's got an unbelievable aptitude in technology. I don't understand. What was that? Grr.

If you watch the clip, he's talking about how he turns off. He turns off Baron's computer and then five minutes later he's got his laptop out and he's like, how did you do that? What do you mean? How did you do that? Turn it on. Before we wrap up, we should talk about the JFK files because what a bombshell, right? It's tough. I tried to go through as much as I could, but they put 64,000 pages in more than 2000 PDFs

as an unsearchable data dump. Wait, it was unsearchable? Yeah, you can't control F for anything. You can search for the number. It's like 100-10031-whatever, but you can't search like Oswald or whatever The stuff that I've seen I Completely undiscernible like you can't

Read it. There's some interesting stuff about CIA tactics in the 60s There's stuff about like here's our proposals for preventing the shipment of Cuban nickel to the USSR. Here's how we could create an organized resistant movement inside Cuba with fake students. Like, we'll put agents in Cuba and they'll pretend to be students. Like, really fascinating stuff that the CIA might not want. I mean, some of this stuff was already public. They stopped doing all that stuff years ago, though

They don't do that kind of stuff anymore John and I know why we're talking about this. I'm still waiting for some Relevant information to be revealed here The CIA was spying on Soviet embassies in Mexico City and they wanted to recruit KGB agents stationed there to use as double agents Probably were not successful in doing that, unknown. I've seen the Americans. It's really a tough situation if you wanna become a double agent. That's some scary shit.

You'd have to get a real compelling pitch to double agent the Soviet Union. My favorite part of this is that since most of it's unredacted, these files contain a lot of social security numbers of people, many of whom are still alive So bad, that's so bad including a former Trump campaign lawyer Joseph degenova Who is now 80 who is very upset that his Social Security number from when he was much younger appears in these files

He says it's absolutely outrageous. It's sloppy unprofessional. He's not correct. Yeah be unprofessional. He's correct. Yeah, accurate. Not wrong. I agree. Accurate. Apply that to everything else he's done to, though. Well, yeah, if this were any other situation, it's like, isn't this the doxing that Elon

like complains about all the time and talks about all the time? Isn't this exactly an example of something like, well, maybe we shouldn't be like posting people's social security numbers on this website, but nothing matters. So I guess that doesn't either. But yeah, they cannot detect irony. They're incapable of it. Social Security numbers on this website, but nothing matters. So I guess that doesn't either but yeah They cannot detect irony. They're incapable of it, but you guys Promises made Promises kept that's right

This is so also very it's just one of those again. It's this kind of thing where it's like They hate everybody they hate like they think you're stupid. There's like this like empty red meat like it's lab grown bullshit. Like they're going to do the same thing with. I mean, they already did it with the Epstein stuff all like once already. And people got mad. They're going to keep trying to do this stuff every few weeks. Like, yeah, this is the week. Oh, you're going to get the list and it'll be some more bullshit.

And some people will be like, wait, why do they keep lying about this? But most people will be like, oh, they're doing it. Oh, we got them now. It's just, it's just a constant hamster wheel of this nonsense. So very frustrating to see. Yeah, it's just, it's like really effective political distraction, right?

Absolutely. And the thing, like what you're pointing out, Cody, which is like, it's a thing that the administration can point to, to be like, oh, we are delivering, right? We are, we are doing, we're delivering on our promises. Like you said, Katie, yeah. We did it. Look at, look at this. He released it. And what a promise it was. And we learned everything. We could about it. The National Archives found out that promise was going to be kept the day before when he said it. They'd been working on it for a couple months since he came into office and all of a sudden

all these national security people had to go flip through there and there was like, is there anything in here that shouldn't be out there? I don't know. Wild. Again. Can't search it so I don't know. To echo that 80-year-old man whose name I forgot at this point, sloppy. Sloppy.

Bad. Unprofessional. Unprofessional. Unprofessional. Perhaps by design, perhaps just that's who they are, maybe a little bit of both. Yeah, yeah. Well, guys, you know what isn't sloppy or unprofessional? This show?

This show! It's Comikrasey Days, so you get to agree with me. Yes. Rhiannon, we're really grateful that you took the time to join us me. Yes. Reanne and we were really grateful that you took the time to join us today. Always a pleasure. We're not gonna enter into this vortex of not seeing you again for a long time.

Please, please. I'll be back soon. I request it. I'm giving you some common courtesy and saying, please add me back. And I'm accepting that. Thank you. Saying, what do you say to, please?

No, there's no common courtesy. In Arabic you say min aryuni, which means like from my very eyes. Like, oh, I love that. I'll meet this request, yeah. What is it, say it one more time. Min aryuni. Min aryuni.

Nice, ah, good job, Katie. It's a letter that English speakers, non-Arabic speakers can't really do. I'm really good at just mimicking you right now in this moment. Tell our listeners where they can find you. Are you still sending out tweets and stuff? Not so much tweets anymore.

I'm on the Nazi website. I'm not really posting on the Nazi website. When I do that, the replies, quite violent, quite Nazi-like. Nazi like, yeah. I am on bluesky at Awa Riannon, Awa is A-Y-W-A. And then definitely, definitely check out the 5.4 podcast, patreon.com slash 5.4 pod. If you would like to check out subscribing to 5.4,

we love that. And then Katie, you mentioned this and thank you so much for mentioning it up top. But I am on a new podcast as well called Popular Cradle, which is about the struggle for Palestinian liberation from here in the far diaspora. Well, I haven't heard that one yet, but I definitely am adding it to my queue.

Thank you. Next. Yeah, thank you for being here. Boys, gentlemen, thank you for being here. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for being here boys gentlemen Thank you for being here Thank you. And as always, thank you Noice. You did it. The wrong context but From my very eyes thank you for being here From my very eyes. You're welcome. Introducing me on the podcast. Yeah, and thank you to all of our listeners, cause you know that we love you very much.

What are you gonna say? I don't know what to say. Love a listener. Much, much, much, much, much, much. I don't know what to say. There we go. Much, much, much, much, much, much, much. Are you looking for your next case?

Pluto TV has all your favorite crime dramas streaming for free. Gonna need some backup. Which means suspense is free. Very cool. Watch CSI New York, Criminal Minds, Blue Bloods, Hey girlies, I'm Cody Rigsby. from all your favorite devices. We got you. Feel the free. Pluto TV. Stream now, pay never. Hey girlies, I'm Cody Rigsby. And I'm Andrew Chappelle. We're here to announce our brand new podcast, Tactful Pettiness.

Now on Podcast One. We have a lot of opinions. Flip flops in New York City? You don't love yourself. If I'm not seated, I'm not tipping. Do I want to see a picture of your baby? No. If I have to scroll more than 10 seconds, he's not cute.

Settling gets you an ugly boyfriend. So we're going to help you out. We sure are, because we have the life expertise. We have mastered the rowing shade with intention. We are in the business of helping you find and keep your man. And we're here to teach you the fine art of tactful pettiness. Join us each week as we traverse the world of pop culture, chat with our celebrity friends,

and show you how to accept yourself without taking life too seriously. Get new episodes of tactful pettiness with me, Cody Rigsby. And me, Andrew Chappelle. Every Thursday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and anywhere you get your podcasts. Stay petty, bestie.