The Daily Show: Ears Edition - Jon on ICE's Killing of Renee Good and Trump's Model of Compliance for Protesters | Jenin Younes

Episode Date: January 13, 2026

Jon Stewart digs into Trump announcing himself as Venezuela's acting president via Wikipedia, dividing Venezuela amongst cooperating oil companies, making a game-time decision to involve himself in Iran, and setting his sights on conquering Greenland so Russia can’t have it. Plus, Trump’s rules for January 6th rioters don't square with the MAGA rhetoric around the January 7th ICE killing of Renee Good. Civil liberties attorney and co-host of the podcast, "Previously Prohibited," Jenin Younes, joins Jon Stewart to discuss how MAGA’s rewriting of the Minneapolis ICE shooting signals a perpetual escalation in violating civil liberties. They talk about how Trump has transitioned from protecting free speech to supporting censorship, JD Vance’s justification over the legality of the Minneapolis shooting, how the Right’s anti-immigrant rhetoric appeals to working-class Americans’ frustrations, and why ICE is targeting blue states and sanctuary cities while exaggerating their “non-compliance.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

At Medcan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health, from the big milestones to the quiet winds. That's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led, full-body checkup that provides a clear picture of your health today, and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer. The healthier you means more moments to cherish. Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today. Medcan. Live well for life.

Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started. You're listening to Comedy Central. Those trusted journalists at Comedy Central. It's America's only show. My name is John Stewart. Man, do we got a show for you tonight. Civil Liberties attorney, Janine Yunus, will be here later. Civil liberties we're going to be talking about.

They don't care. They don't care. Or we'll talk about whatever the government deems appropriate. I really, you know, I'm trying to keep myself spirited here. How was you, how was your weekend? Was it good? How was your weekend? What the fuck?

What? That f*** is happening in this country. From Minnesota to Venezuela, to Iran, to Greenland, Cuba, Cuba, Mexico, Colombia. Cuba, Mexico, Colombia. Not all the news was bad. The United States declaring on Wikipedia that he is now the president of Venezuela. That's real. Why is our Fed chairman making...

what appears to be a hostage video. F*** steak become the healthiest food in the country. It's happening. We are on the Donald Trump Gravitron. We don't know what up or down is. We just know it feels like we're all going to vomit. Each moment brings another event with cataclysmic implications and consequences. And the guy at the center of it, the instigator, the catalyst of all this chaos and confusion,

he's just out there, TGIF in it. Oh, hey, what's up, everybody? Hey, see you soon. Not if I see you first. Boom, boom, boom. Just look at Venezuela. We took it over what? Three days ago, four days ago, five days ago.

I don't fucking remember. Meanwhile, our State Department says, if you're an American, there are armed gangs in Venezuela trying to kill you. So you would think that maybe this calls for a little gathering in the situation tent or wherever is operationally right for talking about Venezuela right now. But the president had a different idea. President Trump convening top oil executives at the White House to talk about divvying up Venezuela's oil. Yes, a meeting of all of the most important stakeholders.

Exxon, Chevron, Halliburton, and of course, the guy from Dune who lives in the oil back. By the way, I think you can tell, I don't use that treatment. By the way, lest you worry that Donald Trump is in any way feeling the burden of this moment, the terrifying responsibility of so many lives held in his hands. Let me reassure you, he's fine. Here we are. And in fact, if you look, come to think of it, well, I got to look at this myself. An urgent meeting on possibly the collapse of a petro state.

You're going to just get everyone, walk over the window, and look at, look at, you fucking Rubio and Vance. Look at the faces on heckle and jekyll over there. Just looking and smiling like, oh, paw, Paul. He's so cute, you should see him when the ice cream truck goes back. What of you? This is the door to the ballroom. Well, what a job? Really, this meeting is the moment for your funny ballroom, act him out?

Armed gangs are roaming freely through both of the countries you say you run right now. But go ahead. Take a moment to look at. what might be through the window. You're like the Walt Disney of chaos. All it takes is imagination. And by the way, if you're getting up and walking to the window, and you don't think that's enough of a dottering old man move,

old cancels McGee had one more chewable thumbs up his sleeve. You're all going to do very well. I think really very well. Marco just gave me a note. Go back to Chevron. They want to discuss something. Go ahead. I'm going back to Chevron. Mark. Thank you, Marco.

Does anyone else have a private note they'd like me to read aloud? Anybody? Now, by the way, there was an oil company, Exxon, that expressed some reservations about investing money in rebuilding the infrastructure of a country that is, and I quote, not ours, and is somewhat volatile at the moment. How did the president handle this somewhat rational cost-benefit analysis? I'd probably be inclined to keep Exxon out. I didn't like their response.

They're playing too cute. They're playing too cute. You just made yourself the president of Venezuela on Wikipedia. But they're the ones that are being glibbed. Do you see how f***ed up everything is right now? First of all, I have to offend the good faith of an oil company because they don't think they can safely extract in other country's resources in as cost-effective a manner as might benefit their shareholders.

Who am I anymore? And by the way, Donald, why are you the president of Venezuela? Doesn't your oath of office to America have a non-compete? What are we doing? What are you just trying to pick up a few extra hours? What, the holidays? Hit you hard? I just need a little couple extra bucks until like February, March.

That ballroom's not going to pay for itself. Meanwhile, in Iran, protesters have taken to the streets, tired of the totalitarian rule of the mullahs and have been gunned down in the streets. Protests and violence have broken out. throughout that country. It is chaotic and fragile. So guess who's thinking about stepping right in? That's right. The president

of Venezuela. I have options that are so strong. So, I mean, if they did that, it'll be met with a very very... I have options. Did you hear what he... I have options. Not Congress, not the American people. I.

Apparently Trump is the sole factor in all decisions everywhere throughout the world now. He just wants to take a little more time staring out the window before he lets us know what fresh hell he will unleash next. And the most confusing thing about his reason for intervening in Iran is his reason. President Trump has warned of striking Iran if the regime kills protesters. There seem to be some people killed that aren't supposed to be killed. We may have to bomb Iran to prevent Iran's government from shooting protesters look,

directly into camera with an expression of half bewilderment and despair. P.S. John, don't read this part. And if that's not enough, in the middle of all this, we are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not. I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don't do it the easy way, we're going to do it the hard way. Based on my knowledge, everything there is done the hard way. When you order food in Greenland, Uber Eats takes eight days.

And they don't deliver over fjords. So the point is, people, don't fill up on Iran and Venezuela and Minneapolis. You got to save room for this other invasion. It's like a whole muckbang of catastrophic possibilities. It's exhausting. This is all just one weekend. And why do we even need Greenland? We need Greenland very badly.

Why? And why do we suddenly need all of Venezuela's oil and whatever is buried under Greenland? What is... Can I ask a question? Are we broke? Jews, chag. Did you somehow Trump casino the United States?

Because if the country needs money, we can all get second jobs. We'll all be president somewhere if Wikipedia will have us. I don't understand. Why do we have to take over Greenland? If we don't do it, Russia or

China will take over Greenland and we're not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor. This is where Greenland is. Russia's closer. Unless in your mind, do you think Alaska lives in a box next to Hawaii? We don't want Russia or China to take over Greenland. Oh, you know what we could do to deter it?

Not through arrogance or conquest, but what if we formed like kind of an alliance with Denmark and Greenland? We could include all the North Atlantic nations. What would we call this? Like almost like a North Atlantic treaty organization that we put. I don't know what we could. I guess we'll never know. But again, since we all now dance to the tune of one Piper, what possible justifications could you have for just taking someone else's land?

And please, if you would, irony-proof your answer. I'm a fan of Denmark, but you know, the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago, doesn't mean that they own the land. Can someone pass him a note? We got our land. We landed here on a fucking boat 500 years ago, and it was ours. And you're out there, hey, Denmark doesn't own it

because they landed on it 500 years ago. That's like the argument you make when you want to give land back to the people who were already there. Not for you to then take it because you've got a bigger boat. You're doing some weird reverse woke land acknowledgement.

I would like to acknowledge that Greenland sits on colonized and conquered indigenous people's land. And I would also like to say dibs. Why am I even trying, by the way? Why do I even care to figure this out?

It's not like anyone on your side ever takes the effort to convince all of us on the United States long-term policy goals. It all just appears to be like a lazy Susan, a vengeful whim. from our all-powerful mad king. Did you know Trump doesn't like

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell? Because Trump wants to be able to dictate our country's interest rates himself. Now this poor Jerome Powell, now you got him looking like he's broadcasting from Taliban territory. The Department of Justice served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas,

threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June. That testimony concerned in part a multi-year project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings. Can someone get this motherfucker

a glass of water? And by the way, I don't feel good about this next joke, but I'm about to do it. It's not politically incorrect, it's just inside finance. So anyone who doesn't listen to Bloomberg surveillance in the morning, you can just leave the room. I'll wait.

Okay. Wow. That dude, he's struggling. It appears the chairman, of the Federal Reserve is having a liquidity crisis. That's going to kill at the terminals. I'm going to remind you, all of this is happening in one weekend. All of it, one weekend.

This president has made monumental changes to the manner in which this country operates. And the American people are rightfully feeling a vertigo about how a country born on self-determination and constitutional republic principles can turn into, Whatever you say, boss, sounds like a good idea, boss. So I think the American people reasonably have questions. But when the American people raise those questions... What a stupid question.

Are you stupid? Are you a stupid person? It's a stupid question. It's a stupid question. You are a terrible reporter. You're a terrible person and a terrible reporter. People have nothing about nothing. You're fake news. Quiet, quiet.

How dare we? We? How dare we? How dare we question his excellency? I don't know what we were thinking. You know what? I'm so, we owe you an apology, sir. Mr. President, sir. We are so deeply sorry to have questioned your singular and delicate genius. It's just that this is a kind of an adjustment for us because we've all been raised in the American system of. of government. I'm not going to get into the weeds with it. Three co-equal branches of government, checks and balances, something about quartering soldiers. I think it's quartering. It's in cursive. The Q could be a P or an S. The point is this. That's what we've been operating under for the last 250 years. If you want to learn about it, President Trump, you can ask all your acolytes. They say they keep it in their pockets. I guess it's kind of a relic. So just have to give us some time to adjust to this new world of total compliance.

So we can understand the rules, because, you know, it's confusing. Like, for instance, we all watched the footage of January 6th, but I think we may have gotten a very different interpretation of it, rather than the correct interpretation of it, which, of course, is yours. So help me out here. We'll play a game. On January 6th, a bunch of... They were peaceful people.

These were great people. went to the Capitol peacefully protesting a stolen election. I have never seen such spirit and such passion and such love. But while they were there... Capitol Hill police officers instigated the violence that day. So the people we saw earlier beating the shit out of police officers were hardworking, loving people provoked by law enforcement. And ultimately they deserve a...

Full pardon. Got it. Don't agree that's what actually happened or what should have happened afterwards, but at least it sets a precedent. But now let's jump ahead, I don't know, a day. To January 7th. We've all seen that footage. I think I know what I saw that day too,

but let's go through it again with the correct interpretation. On January 7th, A, highly disrespectful, deranged lunatic woman, professional ice agitator, domestic terrorist. Did what? This woman used her car as a weapon. And tried to run over an ice agent. An attempted murder.

And so she was shot and killed. So while very little of the descriptions that you were saying matched what we all saw on the tape, the important lesson here is what? She brought it upon herself. Mother f***. We are in a confusing dark place. And this is where, quite frankly, rule of law. institutions are kind of an important framework. But now that those are gone, what's our North

Star? Do you see any checks on your power on the world stage? Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to? Yeah, there's one thing. My own morality, my own mind. So nothing. But thank you. I'm no longer confused. Couldn't be more clear. In America today, Donald Trump is the sun, and if you revolve around him and worship him, his warmth shines upon you. You could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose his support, as long as it's done on his behalf. But if you do not support him, if you live in the darkness of what I guess we will refer to from now on as blue states, fearing the day he turns his terrible wrath towards you, whether you're a single human woman on a side street somewhere in Minneapolis or a sovereign nation that happens to have land and resources, that we, a larger sovereign

nation, think we also might want. And so his people are making a bet that adhering to a principle of forced compliance and coercion will give us a more stable and prosperous America than a principle of shared alliance and common interest. It's kind of a tough bet because I read somewhere, I don't know where, that people have inalienable rights. granted by a creator, not a king. So holding that coerced world together

it's going to be kind of a tall task. But if anybody's up for it, it's Donald Trump. A man with unrivaled focus and discipline. Actually, you know what? Could you give me a second? I'm just, you know, I'm so curious. I just want to...

When we come back, Janine Lonez will be here. I'm sure. Hey Ontario, come on down to BetMGM Casino and check out our newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show. Only at BetMGM. Access to the Price is right fortune pick is only available at BetMGM Casino. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone

close to you, please contact Connix Ontario at 1866-531-2-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BenMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. She is a civil liberties attorney and co-host of the podcast previously prohibited. Please welcome to the program, Janine Yoness. I feel so bad, you know, we've taken a long time taping tonight and you were nice enough to come up here with your family and your small child, and you are now apparently living in our green room.

But thank you for being here. Oh, thank you for having me. Gene, I wanted to talk to you because we are in a moment where consistent courage seems in short supply. You are a civil rights attorney who has been canceled by both the right and the left, which means you must be doing something right. What in your mind is the civil rights moment we're in right now and how it compares to some of the work that you're previously doing, And is this of a continuum or an acceleration in your mind? It might be an acceleration. So I've done a lot of free speech work specifically,

and I actually sued the Biden administration. That was where I got my start on free speech. Right. But I will say... Is that how they talk about that in law terms? Like, I got my break on a Biden censorship. Sort of. Yeah, yeah.

I will say I think Trump is worse on censorship and civil liberties generally. Right. But that is not... That's an interesting to hear because on the right, censorship and civil liberties was such a rallying point. And he so clearly isn't. But they've flipped that. Well, I don't think a lot of them were that principle to begin with.

But I worked with a lot of people who are quite MAGA, I guess, on lawsuits, including the current Solicitor General of the United States and various other people who are relatively high up in the administration. and they've taken a totally different tack this time around. So they're on the censorship side. How were they dealing with you? So you were representing them in censorship cases during the Biden administration. What specifically were those surrounding? The main case I worked on that went to the Supreme Court had to do with the government involvement in social media censorship, the Biden administration mainly, especially COVID stuff.

So I worked with a lot of these people. I represented a couple of them. Who had been, had their accounts removed and other things that had happened and that they felt that the government had been responsible for pressuring. That's right, yeah. Right. And were those, what was the outcome? Well, we lost at the Supreme Court, actually.

And our, as I warned a lot of liberals who are celebrating that decision, it would be cited against us and it is being cited now, in fact, in many cases where we're suing the, people are suing the Trump administration. When did you get the sense that this was going to flip when they came into power? Or is it always that way that whoever's in power is more, is going to be more coercive? I wanted to believe a little bit that the Trump administration would hold true to its word because he specifically talked about our case and this kind of censorship. And one of his first executive orders was actually called ending federal censorship and restoring free speech in America. So I thought maybe they would do something, but it became rapidly clear within a few weeks.

You believe that they might do that. That's adorable. It is. I thought for a second that he might not be principled when one of his first moves was threatening to jail Mark Zuckerberg. That's what I thought, well, that doesn't sound like a free speech thing. Now, specifically now, you just recently sort of got a lot of viral attention from, in this case in Minneapolis, you were writing on Twitter about sort of what you thought were the overreaches of the government in this ICE raid and what happened to this Renee, the terrible incident. J.D. Vance saw what you wrote and started going at you. Feel good?

Actually, it kind of did. Did it really? Yeah. It's not nerve-or-looking? I would be very nervous. I looked at it and I was like, oh, J.D. Vance quote tweeted me, and he seems to be insulting me. He seems to be insulting everyone. What was the gist of the argument?

Where did it split? So I would say two things. He thought that the officers had a right to arrest her and to sort of start the whole confrontation and also then to shoot her. And I disagree on both those things. I don't think the officers had a right to arrest her and to stop her or to shoot her, obviously. And this is, it's so fascinating because now this feels like it's the moment that we're in feels very fraught because there doesn't appear to be any, as he said in that clip, the only thing

that will stop me is my own morality. That's something Thanos would say in an Avengers movie. Like, this is why we have due process and those things. So what was it in your training that made you think they don't? Because my understanding is the cops have a right to arrest you if they think you're obstructing. Is that not the, what are people's rights in that situation? Well, they're not cops. I mean, ICE officers are not.

ICE officers are federal immigration and customs enforcement officers. So they don't actually have the right to do traffic stops and that kind of thing. So they could not pull you over and say, do you know how illegal you are? Like they can't, like they're not allowed to without probable cause. No, and if they had probable cause to believe you had someone illegal in your car or you were an illegal alien, I suppose. Maybe they could pull you over, but not absent circumstances like that. So in this circumstance, but if she's obstructing them, does that then give them the right? Because my understanding is they do have a right to arrest people if they are obstructing them.

I expect if this case goes to trial, that will be a litigated issue because the obstruction has to be pretty serious and it has to be of their enforcing the immigration law. So just blocking traffic, I would think probably wouldn't rise to that level. But I'm sure, again, if it goes to trial, that will be an issue that comes up. And then there was the second part of it, which I think is the one that I think, I think what threw me off the most was the dogmatic. certainty of the administration. Without any fact-finding, they just went, this is a domestic terrorist, this person's life

was in jeopardy. He had to, was well within his rights to kill her. I am, look, I come at this, this is probably like, I'm very close to a lot of, like, cops and bributors and those guys.

And so I do, I am very sympathetic to what they go through and to what what we as a society ask them to do and the danger that they put themselves into. But even they looked at this situation and went, that might be the worst police work I've ever seen. First of all, you never put yourself in front of a vehicle or behind a vehicle. Those two shots, shots two and three, were from the side of the vehicle.

There's no way to justify that once you're already passed there. Like, I'm trying to wrap my head around. Are we litigating civil rights or are we litigating competence? I think what was being litigated was whether or not people liked ICE being there in the first place. And the administration, you know, felt as though what they feel as though what they're trying to do is being impeded by these crazy left-wing activists, as they would put it. And so their perspective or their take on the whole thing started with that. And I think they dug themselves into a bit of a hole because they, within minutes, minutes or hours, they were saying she was a domestic terrorist, she had purposely tried to

ram the office over. There's no way you can look at that video and think she purposely did it. I think one can maybe argue about whether there was some, you know, a justification defense, a self-defense theory could work at trial. But to say she purposely did, and then they didn't know what to do because they had already, you know, started going around saying this. And so in their minds, so you believe this is purely like a double down of a, you know, a theory of the case that they developed. Let me. Let me ask you, you know, it brings to mind, Tom Holman said something interesting. He said, we've got to tone down the rhetoric against ICE officers.

But in my mind, there is also something, a responsibility on their end. They've been provocative and confrontational as well. In America, have you ever seen an immigration enforcement regime like this? No. And I think... It is unusual, yes? It is. Okay.

Yeah. And I think we saw someone today. there was a 17-year-old kid who actually turned out to be a U.S. citizen taken out of a target and beaten up and then... And left like 10 minutes away from the target to get home. So my understanding of immigration enforcement had always been like... And I think most Americans would agree with this. If there are rapists and murderers and people who've committed crimes and they're in this country legal, get them out. But it's generally a fishing expedition.

I have a name. I have a person. I'm going to do that. I don't think we're comfortable with... I'm going to throw a net on this area that I generally think... has people that look like they might be in this country illegally. And I'm just going to do a group. And if I end up with citizens and non-citizens and I don't care. Yeah. Is that what has provoked some of this?

Yes. Yes. I mean, they're trying to have a mass deportation policy. And so they're just taking a lot of people in who shouldn't be. and what's happening is people's civil liberties are being violated because you're not supposed to just, you know, arrest people or put them in ICE detention or whatever without some kind of basis.

So how, and it does seem very punitive because I read a statistic that 70% of these operations are in blue states where they're doing, like in red states, they're not doing these sweeps, where they go in and just grab a bunch of people in a parking lot or shut down a business. They're doing it in blue cities and blue states. Yeah, that's definitely what's happening.

And I think they're probably targeting sanctuary cities, too, so-called sanctuary cities, because they think they're not complying. Now let's, so I hear that a lot. What is a sanctuary city? Does that mean you don't have to comply with ICE for even civil deportation or just criminal deport? What does it mean to be a sanctuary city? I don't think there's just one definition, but generally speaking, they're not helping immigration authorities, and to greater or lesser extent,

they are not looking at people's immigration status and dispensing, like, social services and that kind of thing. But what is, so my understanding in the law is that if you are a criminal and you have a warrant or a detainment, they have to, you have to cooperate still, even if you're a sanctuary city. Yeah, of course, yeah. Right. Yeah. So the story we're being told about sanctuary cities seems not necessarily the case. Probably it's exaggerated, yeah.

Right. But they are not necessarily complying and they are not turning people. So normally, you know, someone will be flagged in the course of things if they're getting benefits or something and, you know, you're asking for some kind of identification. So they're not turning those people in or... Right. Whether those people have a criminal record or not.

Well, they would have to, I mean, if they knew they had a criminal record that made them deportable, presumably they would have to. Yes. Okay. So what is, what can people do? If they view, is this purely a question of, you know, it seems they're primed for a fight. And an escalation of protest is going to be met with an escalation of violent tactics. And the fear is that it's a purposeful provocation into what they would consider the Insurrection Act.

That's sort of like the online version of it. In your mind, what's the proper way to go about any of this for citizens that are concerned? Well, that's a very complicated question. That's why I brought an attorney. I mean, I don't know that anyone can resolve this. I think one of the problems is both sides have become so extreme in their rhetoric and their beliefs. I mean, as you pointed out earlier, most of us would agree that people who've committed heinous acts and are not in the country legally should be removed.

But I think there's been a dogmatism on both sides, and I think we need to meet in the middle as, you know, should be the case with actually many issues. I mean, the only thing about that is only one side, really, though, has the guns. Right now. Because it's, you know, when I look at, when I look at that video,

I don't see both sides in a dogmatic stance. I see a woman, maybe naive, sitting in a car thinking she has to do something and she's going to block something and a wildly extreme overreaction to that small act of defiance. And then, and then, like, I just, when they say like she was radicalized,

I just think, well, there are a masked gunman in her neighborhood who she's read about taking 17-year-old kids and pulling him off the street. That wasn't, it didn't feel like, I'm used to, I know what a terrorist attack looks like. Yeah, that was not a terrorist attack. Right. Definitely. But I think one thing that's, that many people on the left are missing is that people on the right, the rhetoric that the administration is using when it comes to immigrants is appealing to them because they think, they truly believe that their lives are worse and part of the reason as illegal immigrants. I'm not going to weigh on on whether or not that's true. That's not

my right. But I do believe that there's an ignoring of the problems that working class Americans face is part of the issue and that the democratic establishment has been part of that and that's why there's right right hate. So that's why it locks in and then even though those are the same people who a few years back would say I got my guns to keep you know I. I don't. You know, I I remember, you know, during COVID, like, they made people in Michigan mask for two weeks, and, like, the militia stormed the Capitol is like, we can't take it anymore. Yeah. These are the same people saying, hey, man, it's just guys with guns and masks.

Yeah. Why don't you comply? They meant it applied to them, you know. They have the right to fight for their civil liberties, but other people don't. But isn't that the situation? I mean, have you seen any of these Homeland Security, like, website things where they're like, your heritage? your homeland. Yeah.

Take it. And I'm like, what the fuck? Yeah. There was a new one from the Department of Labor today that was like a Nazi slogan. Was it really? Yeah. So it was like one people, one, I forgot the exact thing. Right. Is some of this based on because Donald Trump's methodology is so coercive and confrontational

that he might be able to get the result. What it looks like to me is, you know, sometimes at the end of the month, they say, like, cops are on a quota, so watch out, there's going to be some speed traps. Yeah. It feels like this government said, we got a quota, and it's 3,000 or 4,000 people, and you're not hitting it, so hit it. Yeah. It's like they've incentivized them to be as non-do process and untargeted as possible, just get as many people as you can. Absolutely, yeah, and that's part of what led to this. I mean, these officers are acting like thugs.

trained, you know, they're not acting like normal police officers should. As a civil rights attorney, is there, so who files the lawsuit? I mean, I'm assuming there'll be due process for that, although they've already, and he'll pardon it, but yeah. But like, how do you stop it? Well, the courts have been somewhat good when it came to, you know, last year when it came to some of the immigration stuff where they were sending people to other countries. But the problem with the courts is that they move slowly. And so the administration can do quite a bit before anybody gets their day in court. And what they do actually is they violate people's rights. And then by the time you get the

case to court, they've moved on to something else. Right. And so that, so do you see this in your mind escalating or getting slightly, you know, do you see this now as a perpetual escalation? I think it's a perpetual escalation. Yeah. And then the way the administration doubled down on what happened here, I think is a really bad sign. If they had said, you know what, this was a horrible situation, we're going to investigate, as they should have done. We don't know what happened. That would be different. But the fact that they immediately decided she was a domestic terrorist and they're continuing with that is, I would say, not a good sign at all. Yeah, I was going to try and end on a hopeful note.

I'm the wrong guest for you then. You got nothing? Do you think an election could help? Do you think there'll be an election? Well, I'm not actually super hopeful because. because whoever wins, we continue to see a denigration of our civil liberties. This administration is very blatant, but the one that came before was kind of bad to you. That's why I was suing them all the time.

What I would give for subtly invading people's rights. Thank you for being here and thank you for keeping your principles up and doing the best that you can to try and keep those and protect the people that you think are most vulnerable in need protecting it. It really is something to be commended. Thank you. Thank you for being here. check out a podcast, Trudeau-Hood. Genevian, you're quick break and we'll be right back after today. We'll be talking

about New York Mayor Zorat Mommdani's plan to build $4 million worth of new public bathrooms. And, I hate this idea. The thing I love most about New York is the fact you can piss wherever you want, whenever you want

legally. Legally, no, that's you're not allowed to do that. That's against the law. That's not a lot. Really? Then how come everyone's pissing wherever they want, whenever they want? Like a supply and demand issue because there's not enough bathrooms, but it's still not allowed. Right, right. Well, then I should go apologize to that Philharmonic orchestra, although you could say the pit is entrapment.

I think if you look at it, yes. Jordan Cooper, everybody, that's not sure. Here it is your moment of death. On CNN, it's Nicolania, Madreanionia. where in reality, here it's just Nicholas Maduro, Nick for short, Nick Maduro, Nicholas Maduro. Not Nickelania, Madellania, and Guatemaliania. This is CNN. Guatemala.

Explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe by searching The Daily Show, wherever you get your podcasts. Watch the Daily Show weeknights at 11, 10 Central on Comedy Central, and stream full episodes anytime on Paramount Plus. This has been a Comedy Central podcast.