The Bulwark Podcast - Andrew Weissmann: Outlandish and Outrageous

Episode Date: June 12, 2025

Trump is outright fabricating a justification for sending Guard troops into Los Angeles, and his directive is not limited only to LA. So, if someone acts violent during a 'No Kings' protest on Saturday somewhere in America, would he deploy the National Guard there too? The potential chilling effect on our First Amendment rights to protest is enormous. Plus, masks are liberating ICE agents to act with impunity, Kash is a thin-skinned beta cuck, and the new self-appointed chair of the Kennedy Center was greeted with a mix of boos and cheers on the opening night performance of "Les Miz." Andrew Weissmann joins Tim Miller. show notes Boos and cheers for Trump at the opening night performance of Les Misérables If you suddenly need to listen to "Do You Hear the People Sing?" Andrew's pod, "Main Justice"

Hi, I'm Richard Karn, and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose. Well, the brand new Pocket Hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot is here, and it's a total game changer. Old-fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's Pocket Pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust-proof anti-burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage. Plus, your super

light and ultra-durable pocket hose copperhead is backed with a 10-year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what, an exciting radio exclusive offer just for you. For a limited time, you can get a free pocket pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size copperhead hose just text water to 64,000 that's water to 64,000 for your 2 free gifts with purchase w a t e r to 64,000. But texting 64,000 you agree to receive a career automated marketing messages from pocket hose message to the right to

me apply no purchase required terms apply available pocket host dot com slash terms bettering your business takes working with the best with the James Alliance, you gain access to leads, training, networking, and support from the number one brand of siding in North America. Achieve new levels of success by joining the James Hardy Alliance today. Hello and welcome to the Bullard Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. I'm delighted to welcome back Professor of Practice at NYU Law School. He was a lead prosecutor of Bob Miller's investigation of the Russia interference in the 2016 election,

which actually did happen, and Chief of the Fraud Section at the Department of Justice. He co-hosts the podcast, Main Justice, with Mary McCord. He's got a sub stack called Behind the Headlines. He's on a little bit of a sabbatical, but not too much of one to take a break from hanging out with me. It's Andrew Weissman. Andrew Weissman Hello. How are you? Pete Slauson This is kind of like vacation, being with me. You know? Is that sort of true? Right? Andrew Weissman Really? You Yeah, that's like a straight line for me to say, you know, many people say it's work.

No, you're absolutely right. It is always a pleasure. Back at you, my friend. We have a lot happening in the news. Yeah, there is. And plenty in the legal front. And I was like going through the outline. I don't want to make the entire podcast about immigration law, but we got to do a lot of immigration law. Unfortunately, I think it's the nature of our moment. But we have today governor of California, Gavin Newsom, the attorney general, Rob Bonta have a lawsuit against the administration.

There's a hearing today. They are suing to end the what they call illegal and unnecessary takeover of the California National Guard unit. They argue the takeover violates the constitution and exceeds the president's title 10 authority. What do you make of that? Is there anything there? The Trump justice department says that's a political stunt.

There's nothing to it. So, you know, I've been thinking about this and sort of the best way for people to understand what is going on. And I think I tried and get my blood pressure down and discussing this. Ujjayi breath really quick. Yeah, exactly. I think you, you have to look at this and you have

to look at the way that this administration invoked the alien enemies act to deport people to El Salvador in the same context. people to El Salvador in the same context. And what I mean by that is in both situations the administration takes a tiny kernel of a fact and blows it way out of proportion and says to the courts you have to agree with our assessment of those facts. And we are essentially torturing the English language to be able to do things that are absolutely authoritarian

and contrary to law. So in the Alien Enemies Act, the idea that we're invaded by the TDA gang is not true. There are four federal courts that have said no way that is torturing the English language. What is going on in LA is the same thing. People who participate in a demonstration where a small fraction of them do something

illegal and participate in violence is not an invasion, it is not a rebellion, it is not an attempted or risk of rebellion, it is not a situation where law enforcement cannot do its job anymore. Just to be clear, the law to send those people in requires there to be an invasion or rebellion, or the law enforcement can't be sent in. So there takes some kernel of a problem, blow it completely out of proportion

in order to have an authoritarian regime where people are denied their rights. It is so outlandish and the courts, unfortunately, have developed law in the context of thinking about normal administrations where you don't have somebody acting, in my view, in complete bad faith in the way that they're assessing the facts. I guess my question then in this case is, all right. So let's say, you know, I'm actually not sure which court, which circus is hearing the Newsome case today. I see one of the California ones, but assuming they agree with that assessment from you, then what?

Is this something that you can really get emergency remediation from, from the Supreme Court? That's kind of hard to imagine for me, but maybe not. I don't know. Well, assuming the court agrees that this is not lawful, they can say that you can't have 4,000 National Guard troops there. It's a slightly different issue when you're sending in federal military. So the Marines is a different legal structure, but it would be relevant to the 4,000 people

there. By the way, one thing, since I'm discussing this as a lawyer, it is important to remember, just as a human being, talk about a complete overreaction to the situation. I mean, the reason that I think the law point I make, which is this is escalating something and torturing the English language to be authoritarian, is because of the obvious point, which

is you do not need to send in 4,700 military people to deal with this situation. I mean, this is supposed to be deescalating, not escalating. So it just tells you exactly what's going on. Well, they want it. In the politics of it, I was reading a real clear politics article this morning where they're on the

record. It's not like TDS or MS I was reading a real clear politics article this morning where like they're on the record. It's not like TDS or MSNBC talk to be like, they want disorder. They say it. Trump says it. Like the MAGA advisors are like, this will be good for us in the midterms. They're not trying to quell the disorder. They are reveling in it. You know, I do think about that.

The other side of this political coin though, right, is like, okay, regardless of whether it's true on the law, you get to a pretty concerning place if it's like, okay, some judge in San Francisco says that the president of the United States can't call in National Guard troops. I do think that that is a very dicey political situation, right? I mean, it's something that you'd really have to take up to the Supreme Court, right? Yeah. No, look, it is the kind of thing that would go up and it would go up very quickly. But, you know, let me just give you an example of something where the courts, it's from a long time ago, but when President Truman tried to take over the steel mills and said, I need to do this because we

need the steel for our military to fight in Korea, the Supreme Court said, no way. This is a civilian legal system and legal structure. And you are the commander in chief, but it is Congress's call as to whether they want to do that, not yours. And so it's so easy to understand that, but we're dealing in a situation where we don't have a Congress that's doing anything.

So the president has just filled that vacuum because nature pours a vacuum, or in this case, I would say Donald Trump pours a vacuum. A couple other things that we've been seeing in LA. And we talked about this a little bit yesterday with Mark Hurtling, that we had a general talking to somebody that had a B average in undergrad and didn't go to law school. So I don't know if we gave the most coherent description of posse comitatus for our listeners.

And so that is the kind of other element here, right? There's this question of, can, you know, the, either the federalized national guard troops or the Marines that are being sent in do law enforcement? Like what are they allowed to do? What are the limitations? Of course, when you're at DOJ, it's something you're very familiar with. So like, let's talk a little bit about that.

Yeah, sure. I mean, you know, this doesn't come up a lot. I mean, this is kind of thing where, you know, I was in DOJ for a long time, never came up because we don't have administrations like this. And I served under normal Republican and Democratic administrations. It's not a political issue. I don't recall coming up in Republican politics that there was a big anti-pacicomitatus kind of wing of the party. People were very excited to, you know, take the military and police-ify them, but here we are. Yeah.

So the Posse Comitatus Act is a statute by Congress that, unless an exception applies, says that the military cannot operate domestically in our country to do law enforcement activities. When President Nixon called in the National Guard to help deliver mail because there was a postal strike, that was allowed because it had nothing to do with law enforcement. Here, the argument is that they're not doing anything related to law enforcement. They're just protecting federal property.

But the problem is it also has to be an invasion or rebellion or there has to be a complete failure of law enforcement to be able to carry out its functions. I don't see any of that as a prerequisite. Here's the big sort of elephant in the room is that at the end of the day, the way that the president would get around this is he would invoke something called the Insurrection Act.

And you've been seeing them throw around the word insurrection a couple of times. I think Stephen Miller said it. Absolutely. This is all a precursor to that. And to your point, I mean, politically, you raise it in the immigration context. So it makes people who feel like if you oppose this, suddenly it means you're for illegal immigration. And this is one where you can keep two ideas in your head at the same time, which is you can agree that the law should not be violated and should adhere to the law.

And at the same time, you can think if you're in the country illegally, you can be deported lawfully. But it is simply not the case that just because there's some people in the country here illegally that you just then get to say, you know what, we get to violate the law and extracting them. This is why you had Judge Wilkinson in the Fourth Circuit, a really conservative, but highly respected jurist saying, it doesn't work that way. You have to comply with the law. If you want these people to be removed, there is a lawful way to do that that gives them due process

where you can respect the process. And I think this is, to your point, this is so deliberate And I think this is, to your point, this is so deliberate to do this in a way that you, when you have people, you know, saying, oh, these pesky liberals who are worrying about the niceties of the law, and they're doing it for people who are potentially in this country illegally. That's what it means to be a rule of law country. Yeah, right. There's one element of this LA thing that's really, and everywhere now, it's happening everywhere, that is it's getting under my skin.

And I saw a legal angle on it on social media. It's maybe a little fanciful, but I just wanted to toss it by you. And that is like whether just, I forget the military side of this, like whether just the way that they're doing the immigration enforcement is also illegal. This is David Beer from Cato. He says that the Wall Street Journal is reporting on the conspiracy by the White House and ICE to violate the Constitution and conduct warrantless, suspicionless sweeps of Hispanic areas of the country.

This is referring to that Wall Street Journal story that Stephen Miller is like, just go to Home Depot, just go to 7-Eleven, like stop. We got to get more people deported. Beer says this is criminal behavior and that the state police need to start investigating these crimes. That feels a little bit like a fantasy, but it does feel illegal. I don't know. I know that's not a technical law term, but right?

I mean, like it's one thing if they're saying, hey, we're going to this Home Depot because we have a deportation order for this one person that works there. And like, while we're there, you know, we're gonna do sweeps, you know, okay, I don't know. I'm not for that, but that's one thing versus just like willy-nilly going to areas where you think that there are a lot of Hispanic workers. So the Equal Protection Clause is a potential claim

that people have if you are choosing to target people based on what suspect classification, so race and nationality, the fourth amendment is a protection because everyone in this country has protection about being seized or searched without there being probable cause. So that's another protection. And that's true on immigration, right? Like it's probable cause. So that's another protection. And that's true on immigration, right?

Like is probable cause like somebody doesn't have their ID? Is that probable cause? You would have to have a basis for just knowing that they don't have their ID. I mean, just to be clear though, you can go to up to anybody, assuming you're not targeting them for an improper unconstitutional purpose. You can go up to anyone and voluntarily ask them, you know, can I see your papers, et cetera. But you know, the person doesn't have to respond.

The law is very liberal though, in terms of what law enforcement can do. But here's the real problem, is that in general what we're seeing is the administration is not giving those people their day in court. So all of these things where you're saying, oh, well, they might have a constitutional claim about, or I'm saying they might have a constitutional claim on the equal protection clause or they may have violated various immigration rules in doing this or the Fourth Amendment

in doing this, all of that presupposes that they're going to have an opportunity to be heard. The reason that you had the Supreme Court rule 9-0, not once, but twice, in this area is because this administration has denied due process to the people who have been summarily extracted from this country without due process of law. So they don't have the opportunity to raise any of these claims.

All right, y'all. I've been trying to get in shape for Pride Month, going to the gym from time to time and was in the market for some new gym clothes with the mesh liners. I'm sure those of you that go to the gym know what I'm talking about. I don't know. I'm doing my best over here. And luckily, we got a new sponsor that provided in my moment of need, it's Fair Harbor. This episode is brought to you by Fair Harbor, the makers of the world's most comfortable swimwear. If you're heading to the beach or have a vacation vacation coming up you can pack their breeze knit lined trunks and Say goodbye to mesh lining forever. I should mention related to the intro

I wear Speedos so the need for the fair Harbor trunks look great great if you're a long trunk person But hence the reference to why I'm using them at the gym, you know the mesh lining and swim trunks that every guy hates With fair harbors built-in boxer brief liner, their trunks are softer than anything you have ever felt before. Fair Harbor trunks are perfect for swimming, lounging, or soaking up some sun. A variety of designs and styles make finding your favorite pair easy. And Fair Harbor's super soft built-in liner keeps you comfortable all day. You'll never go back to the mesh line trunks again. all day. You'll never go back to the mesh line trunks again. I already put mine on. They're in kind of a coral red color. Looking good. I gotta tell you, I'm into it. Maybe a Father's Day gift. Along with swim trunks, Fair Harbor carries a full

line of casual clothing. I picked up a linen shirt. Their shorts, shirts, and hoodies let you relax beyond the beach. And if the rest of the family gets jealous, they've got kids styles too. Ready to ditch your old swimwear? Fair Harbor makes the most comfortable trunks you'll ever wear. Chafe free, quick drying and built for all day comfort. Upgrade your collection and get 15% off your first purchase.

Head to fairharborclothing.com slash bulwark and use code bulwark for 20% off your first purchase. Once again, that's fairharbor, H-A-R-B-O-R, clothing.com, backslash, bulwark. That leads me to a couple other things I wanted to get you on. Just generally speaking, I'll get back to some of the immigration stuff, but overall, the Trump Justice Department's failures. I wonder what you think and when this might come to a head.

I was asking before I had you on, our very capable lesbian in-house attorney for advice on what we should talk about. She pointed me to a breakdown of the federal district court rulings from May. 96% of them went against the administration. In April, it was 76%, 51 of 67. This is not precedented really, just how much they're being rebuked. But, okay, like, what are the implications of that, like, level of failure?

So, first, you know, the administration says about that, see, look how unfair the courts are. And, you know, the other response to that is no, when you have an administration that has never done so many things that are illegal. And the reason you know, it is the latter and not the administration is you can look at the identity of the judges who are doing this. And the identity of judges is across the board. It's not just

democratically appointed judges and nominated by Democrats. It's Republican, including judges appointed by Donald Trump. And so that's a huge issue. I think there's the other thing that I think gets not enough attention is that there's a lot of things that the Department of Justice

is doing that is lawful but outrageous. So we're talking about the things that are outrageous and unlawful. But as a friend of mine said, who's a Republican and a former white collar prosecutor, he said, this is the golden age for being a white collar criminal.

It is just a shutdown of the public integrity section, the fraud section that I used to run at the Department of Justice. They just announced essentially that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prosecutions are being destroyed. For those of us who aren't familiar, what is in the fraud section? What are some of the things that you are prosecuting that now we're not gonna be looking into?

So one of the really big cases that we did as I was leaving was the Volkswagen case. So Volkswagen had gamed the system and was selling cars as environmentally friendly when in fact they were anything but. They'd sort of figured out a way to turn on the environmentally friendly engine when it was being tested And then immediately it went off. I kind of remember this

Yeah, and and just seeing people in Germany are now being prosecuted for it people were prosecuted here The company paid a fortune here and pled guilty to a felony And it was an unusual corporate crime because it was actually orchestrated from above. And the way it was discovered was that people below were like, you know what, we're not down with this. So that's one example. There are corporations that were like Enron, huge financial institutions engaged in various

frauds that affect millions and millions of people across the country. Theranos maybe? Was Theranos in the fraud section? Theranos was not in the fraud section. But let me give you just another example of crimes that the fraud section prosecuted in the healthcare unit. This is just one example, a doctor who falsely told his patients that they had cancer

so that he could charge them for chemotherapy and then also wasn't actually even treating them for what was there. So not only did they go through, you know, chemotherapy is not a denying thing to go through. So they went through all of that. They went through this psychic issue of that. Their family went through it all for greed. Oh my God. And so that's sort of an outrageous crime on a small scale.

And then there were crimes that huge corporate crimes that affect people monetarily can affect the environment like Volkswagen. All of these are really, really important things. And this administration is saying, essentially, if you're a rich white person, we're not really in the business of looking out for the crimes that you're committing. I basically spent 20 years of my life. I used to say I was basically prosecuting sort of like corporate executives. And it's just hard to see that that's going to go on anymore. Well, it's because when they talk about law and order, they're not talking about that, right? Exactly.

It's just like they, Donald Trump doesn't see like corporate crime, theft, scams as crimes because he committed them many times and has been, whether it be Trump University, he had a judgment against him on all of those, right? He did a multi-level marketing scheme, an MLM scheme he was involved in, National Review did a long report on that back in the day. So I think that's a big part of this. Yeah. I mean, let's not forget. He is a convicted felon. I mean, I mean, if you have a white collar

criminal in the White House, I'm not surprised by the fact that he doesn't want to go after white color crime. It's just, you remember on day one that Pam Bondi started as the attorney general, she issued, it's a lawful thing to do, but she issued a memorandum basically gutting all of these areas that are so important for holding people to account and also equal justice. It should not be because you're rich that the, or white, can correlate that you suddenly are immune from criminal investigation. Yeah. How did I immediately get my political hat on, you know?

And I want to think like, there has to be a populist angle for the Democrats here. Just like listening to you talk about this. It's like these, you know, these guys claim that they're for the forgotten man and they're going after the elites and going after the deep state, but it's like the opposite. Matthew 18 You could go through the pardons and talk about the sort of the nature, the number of people who are pardoned, who engaged in, you know, grift. And it's like, why are those people getting pardoned when you have a lot of small fry,

if you were going to try and do this in an even handed way, who don't have the, you know, the wherewithal to have influence with the people deciding who's going to get presented for a pardon to the president. Yeah. And I just think that like, I don't know, I'm trying to cast this person in a movie, but like the Democrats need like a character who, you know, sounds like a working man with a Southern accent to start being like, they're, you know, they're letting all the fucking fat cats get away with everything. They need a Huey Long, honestly.

Like, that's not really my kind of politics, but like somebody that can like get this through to people that it is the people that are screwing over regular folks that are being let off scot-free right now, left and right. To this point, my buddy texted me yesterday about one of the US Attorney's offices. I want to just get your take on this without getting into the details. It's my understanding that this is happening everywhere, but that essentially at one of the US Attorney's offices, it's not in a border state.

They're still redirecting resources essentially entirely to immigration issues and that they have people coming in from DC that are focused on that and the folks that are working on stuff out in these various regional offices, maybe not all of them, but a good proportion of them are being pushed to, you know, focus their energies and resources on immigration. And is that your kind of understanding? And how does that, and just talk to us about how that works, like from being inside DOJ. Sure, and this is an example of elections have consequences.

I mean, there's nothing just to be put in context of our broader conversation. There's nothing unlawful about it. It's just a question of is it something that it's you're listening to this and your viewers are watching? Are they sitting there going, hey, this is a good idea? So a US Attorney's Office is usually, it's that sort of federal level. They're not that big.

Even the largest are not that big. I worked in the US Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of New York that's sort of Brooklyn and Queens. It's part of the New York offices. And that was about 100 or so criminal prosecutors. That's really big for a US Attorney's Office. If you suddenly take people and say, okay, 30 of you are now being moved. So the other things that are being looked at are organized crime, gang prosecutions, gangs that are sort of emerging gangs

that prey on lawful immigrant groups that come to New York that are now, I mean that's sort of traditionally how gangs start. You have white collar crime that we've talked about, and suddenly you're pulling resources from that, all sorts of economic crime. And so, and then you have terrorism, you know, and that, I think this administration is acting

as if there is no domestic or foreign terrorism threat. And that is just so foolhardy to think that. And so you are pulling those resources, and that's why the sort of a rational discussion is about what is the cost of doing this. And so that is where it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me that you would be doing that when you have limited federal resources and there's so much that really has to be done at the federal level to prosecute these kinds of cases we're talking about. Now, you got to hit your quota with Stephen Miller.

You don't want Aaron Miller getting mad at you. Right. It's just like a process. I'm trying to understand how this works, like how much independence everybody has. So, when you were at the Eastern District of New York, do you talk to the Deputy Attorney General and are like, here's the kind of cases we're prioritizing? Are they, how would Todd Blanch or whoever

would be the point person that DOJ influence this? You know, that is one where as a matter of sort of what can DOJ in fact do, DOJ in fact can instruct and tell the local offices exactly what they have to do and how they're gonna allocate within congressional bounds. But they actually have that power. It's just that in most administrations,

it is exercised only around the edges. There's an enormous amount of deference to the US attorney for a whole variety of reasons, but usually because the US attorney was selected by a sitting senator who gets proposed to the president and then the US attorney is actually nominated by the president. So they have some independent clout. And so usually the attorney general and the deputy attorney general sort of are careful before they step on those toes. But you know, Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch

can just reach in and say, do this and don't do that. We saw that in the Eric Adams case, where they basically pulled the case eventually from the Southern District of New York and moved it to DC. And they directed them as to exactly what they were going to do, including saying that you're going to move to dismiss the case without prejudice.

And you saw what happened, which was people both in the field, in the Southern District of New York, and people in public integrity resigned over it, which is completely abnormal. It's just, you know, that is something, the only time we've seen that in any recent time is in Trump one point up. Yeah. Meanwhile, Andrew, Eric Adams might end up being your best option for mayor. And your city up there.

We'll see how it shakes out. You got the beret guy as a Republican, who knows? The Democratic field is Cuomo leading? Is Mom done? Yeah. I can't really, I don't do political things, but I just, I know, I just, there are in fact better options. There are better options than the beret man and Eric Adams and Andrew Cuomo. Yes. We'll see TBD on that. And that's a bold statement.

We'll see how your wise fellow citizens vote here. Yeah. What I'm saying is there are better options. I'm not sure they're polling all that well, but I'm just saying there are better options. I might as well tease it now. I have a little interview with Zoran who is on the far left for me coming up. Maybe we might have a bonus pod for people this weekend. So keep an eye out for that. It's quite the field that you've got there. It feels welcoming

for me now that I've, you know, whatever, left the Republican party and more aligned on the other side. My favorite Republican was always the one finishing in last in the primaries and all of these things because I always liked the moderate squish. And now I just am living the same experience. My favorite Democratic person in the mayor's primary has 2%. So it's just the people and I are not aligned, unfortunately. Listen, I'm no Tim the Toolman Taylor, okay, around the house fixing stuff. I don't know if that's a surprise to anybody.

I leave that to the pros and especially true when it comes to what's happening with our windows. And there's a better way to buy blind shades, shutters, and drapery. It's called 3-Day Blinds. They're the leading manufacturer of high quality custom window treatments in the US. And right now if you use my URL, 3dayblinds.com slash the bulwark, they're running a buy one, get one 50% off the, we can shop for almost everything at home.

Why not shop for blinds at home too? Three Day Blinds has local professionally trained consultants who have an average of 10 years experience that provide expert guidance on the right blinds for you in the comfort of your home. Just set up an appointment and you'll get a free no obligation quote the same day. If you like me aren't very handy, the expert team at 3Day Blinds handles all the heavy lifting. They design, measure,

and install so you can sit back, relax, and leave it to the pros. With 3Day Blinds, you choose from thousands of options that fit any budget or style and with actual samples you won't be guessing about what your blinds look like. 3Day Blinds has been a business over 45 years and they've helped over 2 million people get the window treatments of their dreams. So they are a brand you can trust. Right now, get quality window treatments that fit your budget with 3Day Blinds. Head to 3dayblinds.com slash the bulwark for their buy one, get one 50% off deal on custom

blind shades, shutters, and drapery. For a free, no charge, no obligation consultation, just head to 3dayblinds.com slash the bulwark. One last time, that's buy one, get one 50% off and you head to the number 3, D-A-Y, blinds.com slash the bulwark. What else do I have for you? All right, Comey. When I come here and I asked about this, I also want your take. I'm obsessed with this because again, it's something that having not been in any of these

agencies, I don't really understand how it works, like the process works, but the DHS is just spending way more than they have been allocated and Christine Elm. Chris Murphy really put it to Christine Elm on this the other day and I want to play that for you and just kind of get your thoughts on it. I say this with seriousness and respect, but your department is out of control. You are spending like you don't have a budget. You're on the verge of running out of money for the fiscal year. You are illegally refusing to spend funds that have been authorized by this Congress

and appropriated by this committee. You are ignoring the immigration laws of this nation implementing a brand new immigration system that you have invented that has little relation to the statutes that you are required, that you are commanded to follow as spelled out in your oath of office. You are routinely violating the rights of immigrants who may not be citizens, but whether you like it or not they have constitutional and statutory rights when they reside in the United States. We've covered the second half of that quite a bit, but on the first half, it really strong there from Chris Murphy, but on the first half, I guess if Congress doesn't care, they

can just spend what they want, but where are they getting the money from? I don't understand how it's working. Yeah. So, I mean, this is the Supreme Court case that I was alluding to involving Truman, the famous concurrence by Justice Jackson, where they uphold congressional authority. He ends it by saying, we can do this for Congress, but it's yours to implement.

If you, Congress, sort of have the backbone to do what you need to do, this is all for naught. And I think that's what we're seeing. And so as much as the Senator did a great job, he's not in the majority. And so in terms of actually having enough money, I mean, presumably they will run out of money, but they could get it in a re-off. If they were to take it from something that was not allocated to

them, again, that can be against the law. But I think a lot of people sort of watching this are going to be like, yeah, and who's going to do anything about it? You know, remember we started with a TikTok ban. Yeah, who would who's going to do anything about it? You remember we started with the TikTok ban. Yeah. Who would have standing to even do any Congress, right? Congress. That's right. I mean, the TikTok ban was how this started where the TikTok ban

was imposed by Congress. It went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says it is lawful. And then Donald Trump says, yeah, we're not implementing it. And Pam Bondi issues a letter to tech companies saying, don't worry about putting them on your platforms, because essentially, we're not going to prosecute it. And so when you start that way, this

is sending a message of, what are you going to do about it? Has this created any doubts for you in the American Constitutional Republic? Because I just look at this and it's like, we never had considered really before, and I guess besides treatment of black folks, but like outside of that, never really considered before like the notion that maybe Congress would just decide not to do anything and that the administration could just do whatever they want and that there isn't really a remedy for it. Like that option hadn't really crossed my mind.

The one thing that Donald Trump has clearly shown is that our checks and balances are clearly not sufficient. I mean, that if you have somebody who is pure id work, you know, to an homage to my psychologist mother, you know, somebody who doesn't have this sort of external controls, that you're counting on Congress, you're counting on the courts. And, you know, ultimately, though, you have to we've sort of learned you have to count on the American people caring enough, they're going to do something about it because these sort of institutional checks and balances have a lot of flaws. And obviously,

we talked a little bit about the pardon power, but that is a way to completely gut the legal system, at least at the federal level. Psychologist mother, that's just trying to explain things. I'm starting, the picture is starting to come in, the full picture is starting to come into focus for me. That's pure nerd. Yeah. Some of my colleagues at the Bullock met my mother at the Denver live show. They're like, oh, okay, now I get it. That makes sense now. Hi, I'm Richard Karn and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one

expandable garden hose. Well, the brand new Pocket Hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot is here, and it's a total game changer. Old-fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's Pocket Pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust-proof anti-burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage. Plus, your super light and ultra durable pocket hose copperhead is backed with a 10-year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what, an exciting radio exclusive offer just for you. For a limited time, you can get a free pocket pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size copperhead hose.

Just text WATER to 64,000. That's WATER to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase. W-A-T-E-R to 64,000. By texting 64,000, you'll agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from Pocket Hose. Message and data rates may apply. No purchase required. Terms apply. Available at pockethose.com slash terms. Hi, I'm Richard Karn, and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose. Well, the brand new Pocket Hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot is here, and it's a total game changer. Old fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's Pocket Pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home.

When you're all done, this rust-proof anti-burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage. Plus, your super light and ultra durable pocket hose copperhead is backed with a 10-year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what, an exciting radio exclusive offer just for you. For a limited time, you can get a free pocket pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size copperhead hose. Just text WATER to 64,000. hose just text water to 64,000 that's water to 64,000 for your 2 free gifts with purchase w a t e r to 64,000.

But texting 64,000 you're going to receive a current automated marketing messages from pocket hose message iterates me apply no purchase required terms of line available to pocket hose dot com slash terms. Rapid father, a couple of other immigration things we spent too much time in a pet lab the just the ice covering faces, not identifying themselves. Okay. So I really try not to curse.

Okay. The closest I'm going to get, but it's not really what I'm thinking is what the hell. Okay. I mean, just to clear, that is so outrageous. This is not COVID. The only reason to do that is to both scare people and to not be able to be held to account so that you have sort of this anonymity.

And I think it also has this effect, again, to channel sort of psychology. Once you do that, I think it sort of in some ways liberates you to act worse, to act with impunity because you're sort of covered. Right. And so it is unbelievable that there aren't people like bosses, this is where you know, this is where you want adults in the room to be like, that's not happening. And what we've seen in this administration, there are no adults in the room. Yeah.

And from a prosecutor's perspective, you also have to be like, wait a minute, this is going to create issues, right? Like as far as- It depends. ... you know, people having rights. I know we've seen some of these arrests, like these people are not getting their Miranda rights read to them. They're not even admitting that they're cops half the time.

Yeah. I mean, that's obviously if they're not read your Miranda rights, that's one thing but wearing the mask is something that is you know, there's no constitutional right to be arrested by somebody who's not wearing a mask. So maybe we should have thought about that. Yeah, but Maybe we should have thought about that. Yeah, but the thing with this- Where were we on that, Madison? But again, this just goes to the idea that is this what you want? Is this what you voted for that you want? These people work for us, not vice versa.

And that's what's just so outrageous about this. I think sadly it is what people voted for. Obviously, I can't not mention the case regarding Andre Jenez Romero. Federal Judge Boesberg ruled last Wednesday this group of Venezuelans must be provided a legal avenue to contest the administration's accusations they're gang members. I appreciate that Boesberg described the process of these removals as being akin to a scene from the Kafka novel, The Trial, which is a good read. People haven't checked that out since college. Again, I don't know what the remediation is

for these folks, but it's maybe kind of good. No? It is good. We just had our podcast on this, Justice, and I have to say I'm a little exasperated. I mean, it's a 60 plus page decision that, yes, it does say they can be a class action, but the heart of it is something that I think American citizens are like, wait a second, you said these people have due process rights, and they're entitled to, you have to do something government to facilitate their release and they have a right to be heard and to be heard in court. That was already set by the Supreme Court, not once, but twice. I was just like, Judge Bosworth, can we move on?

I mean, it just read to me like you need to just get to the point where the government either is going to agree to the court order or not and just have a fine point on it. And how do you get to the point where the government either is going to agree to the court order or not and just have a fine point on it. And how do you get to that point? You have to actually just say, we're doing it. And I think what he ended up saying is, OK, I'm going to turn to the government and say, what are you proposing?

That could have been done as soon as the Supreme Court said for the first time that their due process rights were violated or maybe it could have been done right after the second time and the reason I'm being you're hearing this exasperation and I have enormous respect for Judge Boesberg is these people are still in a godforsaken foreign prison where they were put in violation of due process. That is not me saying that. That's the Supreme Court 920. So these people's rights are currently being violated.

There should be some sense of urgency about remedying it. It's not crazy to say that life is in danger. I mean, talk about urgency. I've seen this in prison. Like we don't have proof of life for Andre and some of these people. I mean, can you just think in this prison, like we don't have proof of life for André and some of these people. I mean, can you just think about this? Let's assume that there is one person there who they put there by mistake. And we know that's already true with respect to Abrego Garcia, that he was not supposed to have been taken in violation of a court order. So that means that that person is denied their day in court.

The reason for the exasperation on my part is it's hard to imagine if these were people with clout politically in a different economic and racial composition that there would be the tolerance for the amount of delay that has gone on while they're stuck in a prison. Amen to that. Okay, last, last, I lied. One more last immigration one because we just have to hit it with Grocery Market, Calil,

District Judge Michael- Farbyars. Farbyars. There we go. Said he could not be removed or detained based on Rubio's determination. The government has till tomorrow morning at this time, at the time of our taping right now to appeal. I saw some folks saying they expect Khalil out in the next week.

Where are you at on the Khalil saga? You know, we'll see. I mean, I could see them just appealing it on that. I mean, we'll see. I mean, I could see them just appealing it on that. I mean, we'll see. The district judge did sort of give the government time to potentially appeal to the Third Circuit. I'm not really sure why they wouldn't do that. The only cases I know where they really haven't appealed is in the law firm cases where I think they've gotten everything they want, so there's no reason for them to appeal.

My one piece of good news that I keep trying to bring up when discussing all these immigration cases is with regards to Khalil and I, so in both the kind of whatever you want to call the bucket of State Department deciding you're a bad student and we can detain you bucket, and the DHS deciding you're a gang member based on your tattoos and we can send you to a foreign Gulag bucket. And there's no reason to believe that they had planned on stopping where they stopped, right? Like the Khalil and Oz Turk and this group, including Andre and others that were sent to Venezuela, like that was the plan. Like they were planning on sending more people to El Salvador and they're planning on taking more student leaders and they haven't yet. Doesn't mean that they can't start again between

now and when this taping comes out, but it does feel like a win for both the legal and political pushback on this that kind of we're still talking about that same initial tranche of cases. Small green, small silver lining there? No. I'd say small silver lining because it hasn't on those things. It hasn't gotten appreciably worse, but you know, there's an endless array of outrage to go forward. I mean, the LA piece is just the beginning. I, you know, this is a point that I'm not the first to make, which is I want to make sure everyone understands that president's

directive was not targeted to LA. It applies to any place in the country. Yeah. And so, you know, the number one sort of issue that I've been hearing from people about is, if we participate in a peaceful protest on Saturday or at some other time, and one person is violent or somebody, even somebody foments it to create a ruse, are we all gonna get locked up? Is the military gonna suddenly be brought in

around the country? And the idea that that's what we're talking about is that kind of, that kind of chilling effect on the First Amendment is, I mean, it's hard for me to do the optimistic ending. Okay, well, wait, it is take my silver lining and just like, throw it in the trash compactor and turn on the like we're shredding it. I'm basically like Tim, like what planet are you on? Okay, great. It's fine. It's the it is in the spirit of the Borg podcast. A listener and fan

gave me a button at the Nashville event that said it gets worse before it gets worse, which I liked. Hi, I'm Richard Karn and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one which I liked. degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust-proof anti-burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage. Plus, your super light and ultra durable pocket hose Copperhead is backed with a 10-year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what, an exciting radio exclusive offer just for you. For a limited time, you can get a free pocket pivot and their 10-pattern spray prayer with the purchase of any size copperhead hose just text water to 64,000 that's water to 64,000 for your 2 free gifts with purchase w a t e r to 64,000.

But texting 64,000 agree to receive a career automated marketing messages from pocket hose message to the rates may apply no purchase required terms apply available to pocket host dot com slash terms hi I'm Richard car and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose. Well, the brand new Pocket Hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot is here, and it's a total game changer. Old fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's Pocket Pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust-proof anti-burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for

effortless handling and tidy storage. Plus, your super light and ultra durable pocket hose copperhead is backed with a 10-year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what, an exciting radio exclusive offer just for you. For a limited time, you can get a free pocket pivot and their 10 and their 10 pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size copperhead hose just text water to 64,000 that's water to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase W A T E R to 64,000 by texting 64,000 you agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from pocket hose message and data rates may apply no purchase required terms apply available at pockethost.com slash

terms you might not have anything on this but every time I have a lawyer on them, I'm like, because I can't follow this. Is there anything on the Doge cases, like all the firings of federal officials? Has there been any progress on any of that? Or is that all just jimmying its way to the courts? It is going its way through the courts, but that is is again, just to give you bad news. I mean, it's pretty clear the Supreme Court is going to overrule this case called Humphrey's executor. It sounds really nerdy, but it's not because what it means is that the executive, the White House will have more power

to get rid of people and to have more political operatives in government and have fewer independent bodies. And that's like the last thing we need. Two other random items just for you that are just kind of in what I would call the Andrew Weissman remit. The FBI Director, Cash Patel filed a lawsuit in Texas, if you saw this, against an MSNBC colleague of ours, Frank Flegluzzi. Patel is suing him for, quote, fabricating a specific lie about him in response to Flegluzzi

saying that he's been more visible at nightclubs than on the seventh floor of the Hoover building. I guess Patel is saying he's not been to a nightclub. So that's the basis of the lawsuit. I don't know the free speech absolutists pretty pretty alarming that the FBI director a lot on his plate would be suing a pundit. So I don't know on the other hand, sorry to Frank, but I guess I'd probably rather be spending his time on stupid shit like this and going to hockey games than the most nefarious things he could be doing.

But I don't know what do you have any thoughts on that, this lawsuit? So yeah, I had not seen that. But this is what I would say, having been in government. You know, you go into government, you develop a thick skin, you're going to be criticized by- Were you criticized at all at the Mueller, during the Mueller investigation? Yeah. Were you? Yeah. Were you? Yeah. I mean- Any non-factual critiques of you from anyone across the entire, entire, you know, punditocracy?

I guess it might. Let's see, who can I think of who might have done that? Well, yeah, wait, the president. So, you know, like I've been called scum, a really bad guy. Steve Miller called me a degenerate and a moron. And here's the thing, when you're in government, you develop a thick skin and you know you're going to get batted around on all so different sides. And that's why the mantra is just sort of like you keep your head down and you have to just be trying to do the right thing all the time. And if you get called on it, that's your defense is like, that's what you're trying to do. So it's just such poor form.

And I think the biggest concern I have is the chilling effect of bringing things like that. Again, there's no adult in the room. I wanna ask you about that, but it seems like what you're saying is that Cash Patel is a thin skinned beta cuck. I think that would be the technical term for it, but I'm not going to put that into your mouth. You're going to be like a, what is it, a co-defendant of frags.

Now? I don't think that there's any factual statement that can be objected to there. It's true. I guess he could, maybe he's taking a test. I wouldn't put it past somebody like Cash, a little guy like that, to have taken a test that proves that he's an alpha. Maybe he's taken like a testosterone test and that he can bring to the court and say, this is not true. I was defamed by a podcaster who said I was low T, but I had a doctor show that I'm high T. That's possible.

Yeah. Are you thinking about that at all when you're popping off these days? Are you thinking about that at all when you're popping off these days? Are you feeling chilled? I'm not because my view is, I mean, I think it is more important than ever to be speaking out and, you know, this is going to sound a little, you know, soapboxy and Pollyannish, but you and I are privileged to be able to do this. And I think the reason that like a lot of people come up to me and to thank me, but I think what they're really thanking is like somebody,

we're allowed to voice something that they're thinking and thinking they're alone. And so, you know, I just think that is incumbent. And obviously we have to be, you should be careful about what you say, but that's always true. So. I agree with this.

No, they're trying to, and everybody's just more sensitive now. Like there's just stuff I hear about stuff that I hadn't heard about, you know, like, well, is this thing exactly right? You know, like when you're using figures of speech or, I'm not gonna be bullied by these little guys. If he wants to go to the Texas, I'm in Louisiana.

I don't know if the Louisiana district will be as favorable to him. You'd think there's some free speech judges out there that are like, you know, I think that we can have a little bit still in this country as of right now, as of June 12th, you can call the FBI director low T without worried that you're going to be jailed. So that's something that I can do and will do. Let's just remember when you're a public, you know, a public figure, and obviously the FBI director is, I mean, really he thinks that Frank or anybody, you have to be willing to show actual malice and

there are all sorts of things. He knew for a fact he'd never been to a nightclub. He'd seen his whole calendar. He knew that he'd never been there and then he met like that. I know it'd have to be like that level of knowledge. But we've seen these other guys fold. I mean, that was true in some of these other cases with the media folks, which I don't want to get into. Okay. Fun final topic, which is in the Andrew Wiesen remit.

I assume you're a musical person. I know you're opera. Do you do musicals as well? You know, I'm more concerts than opera. But I do, since I'm a New Yorker, I go to the theater a lot and that's like, that's great plays, musicals, everything. Oh, okay. Longtime listeners of the pod would know that I'm not a musical gay. It's the one it's the one part of gay culture. I just am a total zero. Yesterday, the president and vice president went to see a musical at the Kennedy Center. And went to see a musical at the Kennedy Center. Wait, Tim, they went to see, as I understood it, Les Miserables. Yeah, right.

I don't know what that is. Do you know what that's about? I don't. Do you know what that's about? I don't, which is the point of where I'm going. So stick with it. Hold on for one second. I don't know what it's about.

And here's why. And I want to demonstrate to you. JD Vance sent a tweet about his attendance. And he wrote this, about to see Les Miserables, is how you pronounce it, according to Andrew, about to see Les Miserables with POTUS at the Kennedy Center, me to Usha. So what's this about? A barber who kills people, question mark, Usha hysterical laughter. There are a couple of issues with this tweet for me, because I don't understand what's funny about it because I don't know what happens in Les Miserables and I assume maybe there

was a barber. I don't know. I don't know what's in the mood. And my colleague Sonny Bunch points out that this is the kind of thing that you put out if you do know what happened in Les Miserables actually, but you are too embarrassed to admit that you're into fancy boy plays. And it seems like JD Vance is doing that. He's pretending that he doesn't know, because I literally don't understand the joke.

So I'm hoping you can explain it to me. I can't. And it is true that I agree with your colleague who says that he's doing this because he does know, but it's not for the reason that you're suggesting. So one, is it about a barber who kills people that's based on the Steven Sondheim musical Sweeney Todd, which was about Sweeney Todd was a barber who killed people and then they got chopped up and put into JD Vance went to prove that he didn't know about musicals by referencing

an even lesser known niche musical that I'd never heard of. Okay. Right. Can I just say, never repeat that again, because like it is like an incredibly referencing an even lesser known niche musical that I've never heard of. Okay. Can I just say, never repeat that again, because it is like an incredibly good Stephen Sondheim. Do you know who Stephen Sondheim is? I've heard the name Stephen Sondheim. I know that he's a person that exists.

If you said the category in Jeopardy was Stephen Sondheim plays, and then the first question was name one, I would have been unable to do that. So right now I could do Steve Sweeney Todd, I guess. So okay, for all of the people who are watching this who are shocked beyond belief. The OGs know already. Okay, we're gonna have to do a little remedial help. Okay, so that's, he was referencing Stephen Sondheim's Sweeney Todd, which by the way, they got chopped up

and they got put into meat pies and then people ate them. So it was a cannibalism musical. Okay. That's kind of hot. But the reason he was doing this is Les Misérables is about the French revolution. And it's about the people rising up against a king who is an authoritarian. So the idea that you have him, you have tanks going through Washington,

D.C. in a military parade on Saturday. He has 4,700 military people being called in, you know, it's like a bazooka to go after a fly in LA, and he's issuing all these orders and he's going off to see Les Miserables is, I mean, you know, what do you say irony is now or satire is now dead? I mean, Trump is a theater queen, so he knows, like, does he not understand, does he think that the, again, I don't know the plot, so maybe I'm missing, does he think maybe the people that get overthrown are the heroes? Does he think the king is a hero?

The king doesn't come off well in Les Miserables, because you know what happens? Could he be confused? Could Trump be confused? You know what happens in the French Revolution to the king? Let's just say his head and the rest of him are separated. So maybe Trump doesn't, maybe doesn't identify with the king and thinks he's a nicer person. I don't, I don't know. What do you think is going through his little head?

Whether like what are the little flies, you know, buzzing around up there? Does this make America have the guillotine again? I'm not going to say what I would have thought about that because I don't want Cash Patel coming after me. The guillotine, that's something to look into. I would say, I don't know. I'm open. As it was kind of similar to my thoughts about Sikot and El Salvador.

It's something that I'm against until I start thinking about sending Marco there. And then all of a sudden I'm like, huh. You have a future in this administration. Andrew Weisman, that's the meanest thing you could say. I kept you too long. You're on holiday, but it was enjoyable.

It was kind of like a vacay. I will circle around to the beginning. This, you had fun. You're on holiday. But it was enjoyable. What's kind of like a vacay? I'll circle around to the beginning. You had fun. I did. I always do. Alright, well thanks, brother. Enjoy the vacation. There'll be a lot of legal issues upcoming. So I'm sure we'll be having you back soon. Okay. Take care. Everybody else, we'll be back here for another edition of the Bullwork Podcast tomorrow with one of your faves.

We'll see you all then. Peace. On the wet streets, silver over everything The river's all wet, you're all cold Drippin' with alchemy, ship is stopped at Schimring The blizzard's all wet You're all the crime The men cry out, the girls cry out, the men cry out, the girls cry out, the men cry out, oh no The men cry out, the girls cry out, the men cry out, the girls cry out, the men cry out, oh no Oh Oh Oh no Oh, I'm with head

With dance, dance, dance, dance But then I see, then I see you dead, dead I had to run, I had to run, I had to run on the floor The The Bulldog Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.