The Majority Report with Sam Seder - 3676 - How Protest Became Terrorism; Supreme Court Run Amok w/ Sufia Khalid, Chris Geidner

Episode Date: June 29, 2026

It's Fun Day Monday on The Majority Report On today's program: ABC's Jonathan Karl tells Mayor Zohran Mamdani that the Republicans will make him the face of the Democratic party to which Mamdani responds with, "let them". The mayor then lists all of the accomplishments of his administration - a list that would be impressive for an entire term, let alone in just under 7 months in office. Jen Psaki asks Rep. AOC to respond to Sen. Elissa Slotkin's call for the need for change in Democratic leadership. Cortez says that if elected officials are going to call for change, then they need to elaborate on what kind of change they're talking about. Do you want the party to be abashedly working class or do you want to deepen the ties between he parties and its corporate donors. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds a press conference where he reads the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America. Speaker Johnson fails at fear mongering as the platform sounds reasonable and includes some ideas that even conservatives would agree with. We are joined by Sufia Khalid, deputy director of the National Security Criminal Defense Center at the Muslim Legal Fund of America and an attorney for one of the Prairieland Nine—a group of anti-ICE protesters in Texas who were sentenced to 30 to 100 years in prison after federal prosecutors accused them of being an "antifa terror cell." Chris Geidner, journalist and publisher of the Law Dork newsletter, joins the program to discuss the past week's Supreme Court rulings. In the Fun Half: If one throws a Great American 250 State Fair in the Mall of DC but no one is around to see it, did it really happen? Fox News says that thousands of people are participating but unfortunately the camera shows that there aren't even hundreds of people at the fair. Meanwhile down the street from the fair at the reflecting pool the National Guard is patrolling for loiters as a recorded announcement warns people to keep it moving. Rep. Thomas Massie is stopped on the street by a Fox digital reporter and asked about some of his scandals to which Massie responds by calling the reporter gay. Senator Ted Cruz says that antisemitism is a gateway drug to anticapitalism. Renowned idiot Dave Smith blames the Iran war's historic unpopularity for the rise in socialism. All that and more. To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com The Congress switchboard number is [phone]. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AM Quickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: DELETEME: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to www.joindeleteme.com/MAJORITY and use promo code MAJORITY at checkout. SUNSET LAKE CBD:  Use the coupon code FS26 to save 25% on all full-spectrum CBD Gummies at SunsetLakeCBD.com. The sale ends June 27th at midnight Eastern time Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.  

You are listening to a free version of the Majority Report with Sam Cedar. To support this show and get another 15 minutes of daily program, go to Majority.fm. Please. The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Monday, June 29th, 2026. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning majority report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA.

On the program today, Sophia Khalid, deputy director of the National Security Criminal Defense Center at the Muslim Legal Fund of America, attorney for one of the Prairiland Nine. Also on the program today, Chris Geithner, journalist, publisher of the Ler, Law Dork newsletter on Substack to discuss all the Supreme Court rulings that didn't come today. That came before today. Because today we also got a bunch of new ones. Meanwhile, after a post-stock market close, bombings of and by Iran, Trump announces a pre-market opening sees fire again. Supreme Court rules Trump can't fire members of the Federal Reserve, but can fire members of the Federal Trade Commission. Supreme Court also rules that states

can count ballots that arrive after election day if they are postmarked by that day. Israel kills three, including a baby in Gaza overnight. As the committee to protect journalists, changes its definition of journalists to exclude Palestinians in Gaza. U.S. torture, whitewasher, John U.S. to advise the DOJ on the so-called Russia Gate investigations. Primary day tomorrow in Colorado may be the next Democratic insurgent day. Pole Platner with a tiny edge in Maine. The big problem?

Recalcitrant Democrats. Putin announces a fuel shortage in the wake of Ukrainian attacks and Republican groups teeing up the FCC Commissioner to pull Disney's broadcast license. All this and more on today. Majority Report. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks so much. You're joining us. Emma Vigland out today. I'm still getting a little bit of static from the fan. Are you hearing it or no? It's about 90 degrees generally in this office. And then sometimes warmer outside, but often cooler outside. I wouldn't worry about it. It's going to be a super El Nino. It's going to be a fun summer. I will be out of office for some of that, more on that later in the week. Juicy teaser.

Yep. The big story in the wake of, and it seems to like be metastasizing in some way. Now, I'm of two minds of these reports. of conservative it's really i mean let's be honest it's conservative democrats that are um are crying to the media they're called moderate democrats but if they're the moderate democrats who are the conservative democrats like one guy in texas henry quay are because he doesn't subscribe to abortion rights no let's be clear it is um the conservative democrats are upset because of the rising fortunes of progressives,

whether it's DSA candidates in New York and in Pennsylvania, or progressives in Maine, Pennsylvania, Michigan, other places across the country, perhaps in Colorado tomorrow. and part of it may be ideological. I think some of it is, maybe the majority, but really I think the nature of these type of Democrats is less about ideology

and more about their own personal power and wealth accumulation and their advisors around them. Now, I do think that's tied into ideology. I don't think you get that corporate mentality, if you don't have a neoliberal ideology. But I think if somebody could go to them and say, you will still have your power and your sinecure, though this ideology will be preeminent,

I think they'd be like fine. But they also know that that can't really happen. And so they're freaking out. And it's sort of sad. You hear people, people like Van Jones saying moderates have to mobilize.

And it's funny because what constituency does Josh Gottheimer, for instance, have outside of those in his district, the wealthiest I think in New Jersey,

who want tax cuts? These people don't mobilize. These people hire people to go out in Canvas. They don't canvas. What, you haven't seen the suzimentum? I mean, honestly, that's what's, I mean, that's, that's their dilemma. Here is Zohran Mamdani being interviewed by ABC's Jonathan Carl.

And let's also be clear. Mammani is, I don't want to say once in a lifetime, but, you know, of that nature, quality politician. He codes sort of more liberal, I guess. He's just extremely good at this. And he also really, really, I think, enjoys it. Play this cool. Republicans are going to make you the poster child for the Democratic Party. Let them.

We don't have to ask ourselves what life looks like if a socialist wins. I won last November. And over the course of these last six months, what we've delivered for working people are the very things we were told were impossible. We've delivered free child care for two-year-olds for the first time in New York City history. We've delivered tens of millions of dollars back to tenants who were taken advantage of by bad landlords. We've delivered 165,000 potholes being paved. And we've done all of these things while also delivering the lowest recorded crime in our city's history.

That's what it looks like to have democratic socialism. And what you're seeing is that New Yorkers experienced this for six months and made the decision that they wanted to see more of it on the national stage as well. All right. Now, I enjoy that clip because you see MAMDani list the things that he's been able to accomplish, which is sort of extraordinary in the context of whatever it is, six months into office. I disagree with the premise of the question. Jonathan Carl is wrong.

Maldani will not be the face of the Democratic Party in these midterms for two reasons. One, because they have. Donald Trump on tape saying, I'm not afraid of this guy. He's a good guy. He's handsome. He's, you know, he's doing good for New York. Two, they're going to make it Darlaiza Chevalier. And, um, A, because she didn't answer a question the way that they wanted her to, uh, with the New York Times, I think it was, about, uh, prison abolition. but also because she's a woman of color. And that is the absolute go-to.

She will be the new It Girl. Remember, AOC, up until, like, I think, 22, had more name recognition amongst conservatives than liberals. Because Fox News desperately tried to demonize her. And then you'll recall, Nancy Pelosi decided to demonize Ilhan Omar. When they took back the house in 2020, 2020, or was it 2018, I can't remember now, they had a bill called House Resolution 1, which was a catch-haul, had a bunch of great stuff in it.

And instead, the day they passed that, they also passed a resolution or started a floating one to censure Ilhan Omar. and stepped all over their bill. The conservative Democrats are bad at this. But here is AOC, who is no longer, I think, going to be the demon that Republicans will, and frankly, conservative Democrats will trot out as a way of scaring people. I just don't think it's going to work in the same way that it may have six years ago. But here is AOC. She had this to say.

She said, we need significant new leadership. People can't recognize that the game has fundamentally changed and can't adapt, then they need to make room for others who can. And she was referring to Jeffries, and she's, of course, in the Senate, to Schumer as well. Do you think, what do you think about that? And what do you think Jeffries needs to do to prove that if you think he needs to do anything to prove that? Well, I think that anyone who says and issues a statement like this, I think it's important for them to get prescriptive about the changes that they want to see. I've been pretty clear about where I think the country should go.

I think that we need to move forcefully to guarantee health care to every American. I think we need to move forcefully towards raising wages and take. on corporate corruption and profiteering. But there are a lot of folks who talk about change in leadership that don't necessarily articulate what their direction is. And so I would say that it's important that when we talk about change, we talk pretty specifically about the kind of changes that we want because there are a lot of people in this country

and there are a lot of forces and lobbyists that want the Democratic Party to be Democratic Party to become even more pro-corporate than it is. And so not everyone talking about change is talking about the same thing. And so when I talk about change, I talk about orienting the Democratic Party to be unabashedly working class and to orient itself again, around working class Americans. And I think that that part of the conversation, because it's kind of in vogue to be talking about change, when people aren't prescriptive about what those changes need to be, I think we need to be asking further questions. Now, AOC now has the ability, and she gets a lot of criticism for things that I think are

legit to the extent that from a performative stance, maybe people have some problem with. But she now has the ability to go to an audience that is, would otherwise be DSA hostile and sell DSA or just generally more progressive ideals to an audience that would an audience that would be hostile to it if it was packaged somewhat differently and branded somewhat differently. And so there's, I think, in my opinion, immense value there. Bernie Sanders came out and launched this 2020 campaign by explaining why he was a Democratic socialist. That may have helped DSA in the long run. It may have. And built or, or, or, or, or built that brand. Maybe. I mean, you couldn't necessarily see numbers, but it may have made,

but I don't believe that it helped his campaign. I believe it hurt his campaign. People rarely vote for a brand unless it has bad associations or good associations. People tend to vote more for policies and for politicians for better or for worse. That doesn't mean that there isn't value in having organizations. There's a ton of it, and we're starting to see it now. Like, DSA is genuinely like building on what they have built and extending. And in many ways, also has the ability to discipline and make sure that they're members. You know, Kristen Cinema entered the house as a full-on,

radical. And then she just went off into La La Land. The Green Party, she was against the duopoly. Exactly. And, but once she got there, she really had no, no institutional infrastructure, no support, no constituent. I mean, all of it. So please understand what I'm saying here. There is value to people working in extending the power of DSA. And there's also value for people working at a 20,000 foot level changing people's perspectives on an issue by issue basis and providing

like, you know, air power against this backlash that we're going to get from conservative Democrats because they're afraid of losing their power. Chuck Todd is out there now saying that Jeffries and Schumer can't win a primary

today, which is true. And it's also freaking out the Republicans, but they think that they're going to make hay from it. But I don't think it's going to work. I think it'll work in like the hardcore right-wing circles, but here's

Mike Johnson trying to scare people about the DSA platform. The insurgent left is taken over. Now, listen, I don't know if you've seen this, and if anybody shared it from the podium,

and if they have, forgive me for repeating it. But the DSA, the Democrat Socialists of America, sounds so innocuous, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. I don't say that. This is their platform. Listen, this is actually quotes from their platform that they published, I think about a day or two ago.

You can find this on the Internet. Okay, here's just a sample of what they're about. They put this on paper. They're saying the quiet things out loud. Abolish the electoral college or place the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. expand the house of representatives implement proportional representation and rank choice voting what actions uh they're saying the quiet part out of incidentally there is something called

you can you can look up the n pv i think it is it the n pv pact uh the national popular vote pact and something like 40% of the states or at least 45% of the states in terms of electoral votes have signed on to this. So there's already a foot way before anybody heard the words DSA. There's been a decades long attempt to get rid of the electoral college. The idea that there are conservative voters or people in the middle, let's say, who are like, I didn't realize DSA was in favor of rank choice voting. That's supposed to be the quiet part. They're sitting in their offices trying to figure out

what are the parts of this that we can talk about without it sounding like we're promoting them. Is there any more of this? In all elections, abolish, well, establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Abolish ICE and grant amnesty for all. End sanctions on Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran.

Free Palestine. Pause it for a second. You know who's ending sanctions on Iran and Venezuela? Donald Trump. Also, didn't Trump take a stake in Intel? Exactly. Quote, for a free Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, end all military and economic aid to Israel,

prosecute U.S. and Israeli... Pause for a second. Is he not aware of what's going on in his party? This feels like just take one. Right? Like, let's do a draft, and then we'll add it afterwards, guys. Go ahead. The genocide in Gaza.

abolish the carceral state. Quote, redirect police and prison funding to public services as steps towards abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state. Y'all, it goes on and on and on. Defund the Department of War, replace the president and the Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen and subordinate to Congress. Which they're hoping to take over.

And the last one is abolish the Senate. Now, some of you may agree with that, Just leave that one there. Okay. It's fine. I'm kidding. That's kind of a problem, though. Yeah, the problem is that there's too many that people are like, yes, please.

Even when he has to say, like, the Democratic Socialists of America, that sounds so innocuous. Like, that's the problem for you. Yes. Because in the 80s, that didn't sound innocuous. 100%. 100%. In the moment, we're going to talk to Sophia Khalid, Deputy Director of the National Security Criminal Defense Center at the Muslim Legal Fund of America

about the Prairie Land nine. These stories are nuts. And then we'll be talking to Chris Geithner about some of the Supreme Court rulings that we've had over the past week. In the meantime, word from our sponsor, have you ever thought,

maybe I should be doing something to protect myself from stalkers or creeps who don't like what I post online or, frankly, fishers, or people looking to steal my identity, any of those things. Here's what you do. Go to www.

Join deleteme.com slash majority. Enter the code majority, and you are going to get 20% off. Delete me, which removes your personal information that is being sold online for like literally eight bucks. I've been using Delete Me for probably a decade now, years and years before they became a sponsor, obviously because I didn't want my public information out there, mostly because of doing this. But since then, I've also realized, like, I get no spam calls.

I get, I have far less worry about identity theft, fishing stuff. It's super easy for hackers to find some information on the dark web, and then head over to a data broker, pay eight bucks, match it up, and then they're off to the races. You can get, with AI, you're all like vulnerable to scammers using this personal data. They're, like I say, pairing it with the dark web. Google yourself, you will be shocked at the amount of information that's there about your family members, et cetera, et cetera. Delete me can help. You get an individual plan for little as little as over eight.

eight bucks a month. Discounts are even better with a two-year plan or when you enroll your partner or family. Delete me does all the hard work to wipe your personal information from data broker websites, and they do it on a regular basis because these sites get repopulated. So they send you a digest once a month to let you know what they've gotten rid of and where. I want to thank to delete me for sponsoring the program and also for keeping my private stuff private. take control your data keep your private life private by signing up for delete me now at a special discount for our audience get 20% off your delete me plan when you go to wwww dot join delete me

dot com slash majority use the code majority at checkout the only way to get 20% off is to go to wwww dot join delete me dot com slash majority enter the code majority at checkout that's join Join delete me.com slash majority. Code is majority. We'll put the link in the podcast and YouTube descriptions. Quick break. We'll be right back with Sophia Khalid. We are back, Sam Cedar.

On the majority report, Emma Viglin is out today. It's a pleasure to welcome to the program. Sophia Khalid, Deputy Director of the National Security Criminal Defense Center at the Muslim Legal Fund of America. Khalid, or I should say Sophia, you represent one of the Prairie Land 9, who were part of an anti-ice protest almost a year ago to the date on July 4th, 2025. This is in Texas. And they have received, between the nine of them, sentences from 30 to 100 years.

It is the first, as far as I know, the first instance of the U.S. government using the NPSM, seven directive, which basically lists a whole slate of just buzzwords, being sort of criminalizing them. Tell us who your client is. Thank you for having me on, Sam. Yes, my client is Maricello Arouida. She is a young mother, 33 years old. She has a daughter that she loves 12-year-old daughter.

She's an artist, a poet, a doula, never been in trouble with the law before, had a nonviolent part in this noise demonstration. And her family and her, you know, our team, we're just reeling from this excessive, shockingly excessive sentence. All right. So tell us what happened. We call it a noise demonstration. I mean, it makes sense it's July 4th, people lighting off fireworks out in front. what exactly happened both with your client and with these nine defendants? So they had a group chat where they had been talking about having a noise demonstration on the 4th of July

to show solidarity with immigration detainees at the Prairieland Detention Center. In that group chat, they talked about the noise demonstration as being a very low-risk, safe introductory type of demonstration activity. they went, they show up. She talked about wanting to be heard, and she's, you know, saying these chance to them. Some of the other protesters also had brought fireworks that were fired into the air. Government witnesses admitted no damage or harm caused by the fireworks to property or people. When officers showed up and the protesters started fleeing, my client and many of these defendants fled.

after they fled, one of the officers was aiming at one of the protesters, and another one of the demonstrators, Benjamin Song, had fired a suppressive fire, not at him, but near him. That officer shot back, and he was grazed by a ricoching bullet. He made a full recovery. He got a few sutures, and he was out of the hospital in three hours. Thank God. The shooter shot on the ground.

right? I mean, that's okay. Okay. Yes. So, but all of them were arrested. And then this is where you mentioned the National Security Presidential Presidential Memorandum 7, where not this being treated as for the majority of the protesters that were not involved in the shooting, instead of this being treated as a civil disorder or a trespass, civil disobedience, or a property damage incident. And the government took the novel decision to charge this as material support of terrorism. They charged multiple attempted murder accounts against all of the demonstrators, even the ones who weren't there at the time of shooting under this theory, the Pinkerton liability theory, which basically means if it was foreseeable to anyone that was there, that violence could occur,

they could be held liable for attempted murder. The jury rejected all of those counts. The jury found for all of them, except for a Benjamin's song, found them all not guilty on the multiple attempted murder counts on the discharging of firearm counts. Of course, because they were not involved in that activity. But it comes out of that national security presidential memorandum 7, where it's the administration dictating to the Department of Justice to charge as domestic terrorism activities that now include trespass, property damage, and doxing can all be considered domestic terrorism now. So you're seeing this very rarely used in the domestic context statute being applied on American citizens involved in nonviolent protest activity, which leads to this cascade that we see afterwards and how they achieved what they achieved legally here.

These charges and then using all of these sentencing enhancements, the terrorism enhancement, to get these massive, massively disproportionate and disparate sentences for these defendants. Can you explain to me how a presidential, I can understand, okay, the DOJ is going to charge based on this. But where, well, like, how does this happen under the law? Like, I mean, just because the president has written a memorandum and has said to the DOJ, I want you to charge people this way or that way and pretend that Antifa is a, some type of like criminal conspiracy as opposed to people who agree that we should be against fascists. How does a judge not say like what, like what's the law they broke?

So that's a great question. And that is why, you know, we took on this case because this is a dangerous expansion of how the terrorism laws are being applied. and it's pushing what is First Amendment activity, essentially, into the national security space. This statute, it's 2339A, titles it as providing material support to terrorists. Those acts, which can be property damage, causing property damage on federal property,

can be charged as providing material support to terrorists. That statute does not require that you are a member of a domestic terrorist organization or foreign terrorist. It doesn't require any tie to any organization. This can be used against anybody now at any protest where there is federal property damage. You can be charged as providing material support to terrorists under that statute. And I'm pointing that out because, you know, this, you're mentioning how does this happen under law? This is so disparate, so disproportionate.

And in a lot of these sort of novel cases, you only have a handful of cases to compare it to, but we have 1,500 plus recent cases, federal criminal cases to compare this to where the government didn't do this. They actually got it right in those cases. And those were the January 6 Capitol rioters. Except in that case, 140 officers were injured, broken bones, some with career-ending injuries. And we had a lot of speech leading up to the riot where the people that were charged, they said that they wanted to kill members of Congress, hunt down members of Congress, that

they were taking their their weapons there many of them took arsenals of weapons to the capital and in those 1500 cases they we didn't see any prosecutions under this statute but that conduct absolutely would have qualified for prosecution under that statute i mean i don't i mean like talk about destruction of federal property i mean absolutely and if it's you know about you know the lives of law enforcement 140 officers were much more severely there. But when you bring those charges into the terrorism space, they qualify for this sentencing enhancement. Everyone was asking, how did we end up with these sentences? The terrorism enhancement is a rarely used, the most severe federal sentencing enhancement that

exists. And all it requires is that the offense was calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government through intimidation or retaliation. Also, that intent would have applied very clearly to any of the January 6 protesters. But in those 1,500-plus cases, the government didn't even seek the terrorism enhancement in the vast majority of them. In the handful, the small handful that they sought it in, most of the judges refused to apply it to them. And in the very couple that they did, the leaders of the seditious conspiracy, the oathkeepers,

proud boys. And this is literally less than, I think, five cases that actually received it out of those 1,500. Most of the judges, the truth supply it. The average sentence for the January 6th defendants was two years. And that's including all the probation-only sentences. I think I'm of the mind that the terrorism statute should not apply to either, frankly. It clearly is obvious that, like, you can't apply.

it to nine protesters, one of whom, and we'll get to this in a moment, wasn't even, I don't even know if they were there, they just were arrested for moving magazine articles or magazines. So I, you know, like, I just don't know how, how is it possible under this statute to even protest your federal government without running a foul of unless you do it, I guess, in your apartment. You sit in your apartment and you don't go online and you just start yelling out your window. But I mean, honestly, like, how is it possible? How can this be constitutional? Like, the whole point of protest is supposed to be the primary aspect of protest. The whole First Amendment is ultimately so that you can protest your own government.

Absolutely. And there are cases on that. When it's political activity, First Amendment protected activity, it's not supposed to come into the terrorism crackdown, right? This is actually how we have the Eighth Amendment in the first place was, you know, in England, in Old England, we had special horrible punishments for political dissidents. And America decided we don't actually want to crucify our political dissidents. But this is where we've landed now. We have. have the administration dictating that the nonviolent critics of the government are going to get life sentences. 50 to 100 years, that's a life sentence for these people. We're saying 50 to 100,

life sentences for nonviolent critics of the government when we have an average two-year sentence for their violent insurrectionist supporters. That's not a democratic society in any in any meaningful sense. But the way that they're doing it, how they're achieving it, is through this eroding of the Constitution at every level. So, you know, I mentioned, like, for example, at the trial, they were acquitted on a lot of the, all of the violence charges. Most of these protesters were acquitted on all the attempted murder,

the discharging a firearm. But the judge still applied the attempted murder guideline calculation when he was calculating their sentence. That was a great conduct. He still used that. That's not supposed to happen. That was reformed very recently. So we're seeing this happen in these cases, and that's why it's important to spotlight these cases.

I mean, most of the material supportive terrorism convicts in this country, these are cases coming out of Al-Qaeda and ISIS. More recently, judges that had to deal with this terrorism enhancement have realized this isn't really a helpful tool for sentencing people, because that enhancement always recommends and maximum sentence. So you have dozens of cases, which we had put before the court of ISIS and Al-Qaeda material support convictions getting three to 12-year sentences. And now we have these nonviolent protesters in the U.S. with these life sentences.

So there's a significant disparity here. Is there an opportunity for appeal? There's an absolutely, an opportunity for appeal. It seems like there's like multiple ones, frankly. I mean, both ranging from the judge applying standards of that really make no sense. I mean, if you're acquitted of the violent stuff, applying those standards would be just equivalent to applying those standards when somebody comes in for a parking ticket. I mean, it doesn't make sense. But also, I think just the statute itself sounds, the enhancement itself sounds like there's constitutional issue.

So tell us what is planned for an appeal? So the appeal is going to be really important. I think all of the defendants have well-preserved issues. There were a lot of issues with the trial. For example, they were prevented from using a self-defense. One of the defendants was prevented from using self-defense defense defense, even though at trial it came out that this was a suppressive fire type situation. A lot of problems with the sentencing that we've discussed with

the jury selection, the expert that was used in the case. They brought in somebody to talk about Antifa, who basically talked about flag symbolism, wearing black anonymous clothes at a protest using signal, things that, you know, mainstream civil rights organizations recommend to everybody as just kind of digital security protests, surveillance-type security measures.

So there's a lot of, Antifa, all. I will add that my, children wear primarily black and I use the signal I just want to say but also my understanding is

is that the government in its own sort of internal assessment of Antifa has said this is not a national security this is not a terrorist group is not a national security threat so how can you be charged with terrorist activity

by basis of being of a group that the U.S. government itself says is not a terrorist group? So that's that and that's the interesting point and the really worrying point about this statute. None of them needed to be a member of Antifa for them to be charged with this statute. The government did not need to prove that at trial. They did not prove that at trial. It was in the, if you read through the jury instructions, all that they had to prove was that they provided material support for one of three predicates,

One of them included property destruction. So some cameras, a stop sign were some tires. These were damaged at the protest. Material support can be anything. In the last 20 years, that's been it's basically anything at everything, including your speech alone. One judge has said it could be a bouquet of flowers. Material speech is anything except for religious and medical supplies. So if you provide your speech in support of somebody destroying

federal property, no matter what the dollar amount is or what that property was, we can be charged under this material support of terrorism statute domestically. There is no domestic terrorist group requirement under that statute. It can touch anybody. It's nuts. We haven't heard the end of this. Safia Khalid, Deputy Director of the National Security Criminal Defense Center at the Muslim Legal Fund of America. I suspect we'll have the opportunity to talk to you in the future about this case. If folks want more information on this, where can they go? There is an excellent DFW support committee group. They have uploaded all the trial exhibits, notes from every single day of the trial. They have updates on each of the defendants. You can

also go to MLFA.org where you can read our press release and we'll be giving updates there about the appeal as well. Okay. We will put those links in the podcast and YouTube description as well as Majority.fm. Sophia Khalid, thanks so much for your time today. Really appreciate it. Thank you for having me. All right, folks, quick break when we come back, Chris Geithner, journalist and publisher of the Law Dork newsletter on Substat,

Guyner will give us his take on some of the latest Supreme Court rulings, maybe even touch on the ones today, and maybe I'm curious if he has an opinion on the Prairie Land, cases, all this and more in just a moment. Right back. We are back. Sam Cedar on the majority of part, Emma Viglin out today. Joining us now, Chris Geithner, journalist publisher of the Law Dork newsletter on Substack. Chris, welcome back to the show.

Thanks, Sam. I just want to just tell the audience that I know that you literally ran back from the Supreme Court for this, that this is like today is like the the equivalent of like Christmas and a New Year's and Hanukkah and I don't know maybe eat

all thrown in together with the Super Bowl for some reason on the same day exactly and of course you know you probably spent all weekend at that 250

state fair All right, let's go through. There were some big cases released today. Tomorrow is the final day of the cases being announced that have been decided. But let's talk about some that have been over the past couple of days. Let's start with there's two different cases involving immigration. One was allowing the president to get rid of temporary protected status for 300,000 Haitians. I can't remember how many Syrians and presumably all 1.5 million refugees or asylum

seekers who are here under temporary protected status. And of course, metering, which is sort of the I guess the upon entry version of this on some level. Tell us about those two cases. Yeah. So, I mean, we had these efforts that from the start of of the Trump administration to end temporary protected status as they came up for renewal. And the effort was essentially put on hold by lower courts because of the way that Christy Noem went about it. And but then it got up to the Supreme Court. And as to Venezuela, the court had let it go forward. But they stopped it as to Haiti and Syria and said,

we're going to hear this case. And what they decided, in an opinion by Justice Alito, is two important things. First, that there's no challenge that can be brought to the statutory, no statutory challenge that can be brought to what Christy Noam did or to what any DHS secretary did, does. And what that means is that you cannot say, that she implemented the law improperly.

They had said that the law requires consultation with other departments, including the State Department, and they were saying she didn't do so. The DHS didn't do so. It was literally a one-sentence email the same day, and so they were saying, you violated the law. And what Alito said is you can't challenge that at all. Then the second case, in the Haiti case specifically, they had also raised a constitutional claim, an equal protection claim, based on what we all know very well, the clear racism that was involved in the Trump administration's effort to cancel Haiti's TPS. And honestly, most of these temporary protected status, this is infamously they're eating dogs.

line from Trump about Springfield, Ohio, and their Haitian immigrants who had moved there. And what, really an appalling decision by Alito, he essentially wrote around it. He refused to quote any of it and just said, no, they gave non-racial reasons. There are non-racial reasons for everything that he said. Here, here's what I can't understand. A temporary protected status is for people seeking asylum because there's either like political danger in their homeland or natural disaster or something that makes it impossible for people to go back and sort of like live their lives at that time. Right. It is, I will say it's outside of asylum.

It is, it is essentially, it's because it's. It's so many people facing such bad conditions that there's this ability for the secretary to just say, hey, anybody who's here from that country, you don't need to go back and you get certain protections while you're here, including, including importantly for right now work protections. And the temporary thing is just meaning like you're not a citizen. It doesn't, like, because. And it's reviewed. regularly. The temporary protected status comes up again and you look at the country conditions, decide if it's all right. But the reality is that in countries where there are really bad

conditions, it's been in effect basically some places since TPS had been passed. All right. And let's be clear. TPS is not something discretionary by the DHS. TPS is a law that was passed. So what I don't understand is, doesn't there have to be like almost like an environmental review? Isn't there like the statute clearly says like. So what? Yeah.

I mean, doesn't it have to be standards? Does you have to be standards like, okay, this is like a bath problem. The country. The law actually has standards. The problem is that there, there is also what happens in a lot of immigration and criminal laws, there's what's called a judicial review bar. And basically what it says is that the determination of the secretary

isn't reviewable by courts. Now, the question was, what does that mean? And what the people challenging Nome's decision were saying is that that doesn't mean. that if she just ignores the standards that the law sets up, that consultation that I mentioned, if she just ignores that altogether, it doesn't mean that you can't challenge that. You can't challenge her ultimate decision, her ultimate determination, but if she just ignores what the law says she has to do, you can challenge that. But what Alito said is, no, every step leading to that final. determination is a part of the determination. And therefore, you can't challenge any of that under

the administrative procedure. That's insane. And it's, I mean, first off, so people should understand this. Like, what I also find just sort of bizarre about it is, I mean, so there's two issues, it seems to me. One is, at least, at least. One is if she, saying that she doesn't you uh... alito saying you can't even challenge whether she actually went through the process of making this determination now we can infer that she didn't uh... go through this uh... process because a of all the things the administration has said about uh... basically the asshole countries and uh... black people and the Haitians is driving around

drunk and they're you know eating cats and dogs but also on the other side in terms of like the country There's 1.5 million displaced Haitians there. Just like the other day, the chief of security was kidnapped and his family. Like, they're still reeling from the earthquake. They're still reeling from the multiple coups that we have been engaged in in the country over the past decade or two. It's hard to imagine short of a country that would still be underwater from a tidal wave, a better example of a country that meets the threshold of a blanket sort of like protected status for people.

And there's there was it toward the end of it was an issue in the oral arguments and toward the end of Alito's opinion. He pretends to address it. He's like, yeah, there are all of these like wild possibilities now that people are saying that this opinion unleashes like. they could just cancel all of TPS. They could just never allow TPS. They could also a Democratic president could issue, even though TPS, as we talked about, like is supposed to be renewed regularly. Like what's stopping a Democratic Homeland Security secretary from saying, you know what, I know it says two years, but I'm going to do it for 15 years, and there's nothing you can do about that because it's not reviewable. My determination is not reviewable. And Alita was like, well, there could be other challenges. No, not under your decision. Under your decision, it's not reviewable. And that's what's sort of my or, I'm sorry, in that one, I forget who the dissenter was. I think that was Kagan dissented.

Um, it's, it's really is stunning. Um, we'll get to sort of like Alito's, um, abandon, if you will on that, uh, you know, there is a real quality. That ruling of his reminds me of Anthony Kennedy saying, hey, if you come up with a way of determining, um, how, uh, if, if something is too gerrymandered, I'll take a look at it, knowing like, I'm off the court. soon, but we'll get to that. We'll get to that. So the metering thing, tell us about that. Yeah, the metering. I mean, this was, this ended up being, even though the TPS was a truly like next day.

I mean, I was on a call with people in Springfield that day and they were talking about like this, this could be like people coming in next week to deport these people. But the metering case was a policy. that's not in place currently, that essentially as different ports of entry felt that they were overwhelmed with people coming, trying to seek asylum, what they started doing was this metering policy that they would only allow a certain number of people in each day. And what the challenge was is the people that didn't come. come in, they were saying that they had, they didn't reach, they didn't put a foot in the border, even though they were trying to do this the legal way.

I should just say, I would just say that both international law and U.S. law says if you step foot in a country, you can apply for asylum and you are necessarily deserving of and required to get some form of process to adjudicate whether your asylum claim is legitimate or not. And so what they're claiming is that even though they approach the port of entry, even though if there weren't this metering policy, they would have touched U.S. oil, that because they technically stay on the Mexico side of the border, they are not arriving in the United States and don't get that protection that you just set because they didn't set foot in the United States.

But under the U.S. law, what it is is arriving in the United States. And what Alito said here is they're not arriving in the United States. And that was the end of that if you didn't have Sotomayor, Justice Sotomayor, was the decision. center here and she read from her descent from the bench. And she essentially said like a the most common sense way that she said is if you're on the train, you're, you're on, I'm in D.C. I go to New York a lot. If you're on the train and the conductor says we're arriving in Penn Station, does that mean that the train, if the train is still running and you haven't stopped

Does that mean he's lying to you? Have you not arrived in Penn Station when he says that? She's saying this is using the preposition in to create a humanitarian crisis, to ignore the obvious obligation that the U.S. has to allow these people to apply for asylum and then get the proper process. So from a practical matter, is the U.S. setting up a, like, some form of, like, pre-border where they don't let people get to the border?

Yeah. And the horrifying part of this, I am blinking on the name of the ship. But what Sotomayor talks about in her dissent is the entire basis for modern asylum treatment came out of this ship that it, during Ward Waior, War II was carrying 900 people, Jewish people, trying to get a, trying to find a place where they could land. And they were turned away everywhere, including in the Port of, I believe it was the Port of Miami.

And they ended up having to return to Europe, and I believe it was 500 of those 900 people ended up being killed in concentration. This was the MS. St. Louis, right? Is that what it was? That's it. Yeah. And in the aftermath of that, basically, the world said we really shouldn't allow that to happen again. And that is the basis for modern asylum. We're literally reenacting it. Yeah. And here we are on the border, creating under this ruling,

you could do more than metering. Metering was the policy at issue. But in theory, there is nothing to stop just saying, we're not going to allow anyone who is going to seek asylum to touch the border. And so therefore, we're not going to have to let anybody apply for asylum. We're not going to have to give them that process. Couldn't, well, I don't know how you do this from a ship standpoint, because, I mean, what constitutes our border?

Is it the control, like on the water? Is it, you know, whatever it is? That it would be U.S. territory. So you have you made it in by boat? Well, this is the whole issue with why remember the horrifying, like the razor wire over the real grand. That's the reason for that is that they want to keep people from reaching the U.S. side of the water. And what authority does the United States have to put razor wire in Mexico? I presumably they do it with the mix.

They put it on the border. Like right at the border. But what if I stuck my hand? Well, that's what I'm saying. If I stick my hand through the razor wire, even though I don't cross over it, then theoretically, I am in the United States. That is actually true.

And there are those cases. And that's when you hear stories about like boats picking people up in the water. It's because they've realized. the United States. But related to that, I do want to point out that, like, what Sotomayor said in this dissent

is that, like, this is encouraging illegal crossing. Like, this is literally encouraging illegal crossing. Because people should be clear here. If I'm walking up to the border and I'm not allowed to go to the checkpoint where I would check in,

get into the system, say, I'm here to, I'm claiming asylum, okay, here's your docket, you know, come to court in two months or whatever it is, and we will adjudicate your asylum claim. Some instances, I guess is happening even quicker, some longer. If I don't have the ability to approach that border because 10 feet before that border, somehow the U.S. manages to stop me, I'm just going to go down the river and go with the coyotes,

essentially so that I can get across that border. And then once I'm in there, my claim for asylum, I've just to be processed. I've gone around the metering. And I mean, Sotomayor sort of had two points to that. The first was like the humanitarian point that you're creating a humanitarian crisis with this ruling. But the second was actually a legal point that like, why are you interpreting a law to

encourage lawbreaking. Why are you reading this word in in a way that essentially would mean that Congress wanted to encourage lawbreaking with the passage of this law? That's nonsensical.

And we shouldn't be interpreting laws that way. I mean, the reason why Congress passed this law is because they felt that anybody who comes to the United States should should have their case for asylum adjudicated because like you say,

we have a lot of examples in history where that has been a problem that we didn't. And it's not rather like, let's make this into some type of challenge. Like if you can get it, like this isn't a game of like a root goldberg contraption. Yeah, this isn't like some type of like, you know,

American ninja reality. show where it's like if you can manage to get in, well, you win the contest. It's not supposed to be that. That's the point. Like there's an intent here was not to see how sneaky people can be. But rather just to simply. The opposite of the intent.

It's just a way to sort of like establish this is the most convenient way to establish intent for asylum and also to, you know, if you've got a rush, gymnast that wants to, I mean, that's where a lot of that came from too, right? I mean, the idea that like, we want to give people an opportunity to be an asylum. And so, I mean, it's so funny that you went to that example when, like, the, the showing both where America's at now and the reality. I mean, it was all, it was scientists.

It was, it was, it was the, the buildup after. the like during the cold war uh it's it's so uh alito gets miffed by sota major right because yeah so to my or spoke a little too long for for a woman um it i mean you who who's to say what actually was going on here but so to my or gives a very long spoken bench descent um which is not unusual, one, it's not unusual for a bench dissent because the whole point when you're reading a dissent from the bench is like, I'm mad and I want everybody to know. That's true when conservatives do it. It's true when liberals do it. So like on like just a basic level, it wasn't a surprise that this went on for a while. And just like as a matter of fact, like Sotomayor does

read long when she's some justices just like, give like a very quick summary of their opinion, even when they're reading the majority. But Sotomayor regularly gives a rather long bench statement. So it wasn't surprising. And yet, when she finished, Alito both initially acted like he didn't even know she was going to read her dissent. And then suggested that she went longer than he expected and said, like, if I had known that, I would have spoken more. And then he went on to say something about the fact that, like,

the metering policy had been implemented by two administrations as the best way to deal with this growing problem. And it was just, it was literally something that none of us in, in the press room, had seen that example, an example of that precise thing happening before. He's letting his Vagonia flag fly. And the next day, the court did release a statement that was given to CNN that he had been in his, he had been informed she would be reading a bench dissent. And there had been a misunderstanding. All right.

Well, let's talk about the idea of Alito leaving. Yeah. Yeah, you, there's been a lot of speculation about whether he's going to stay on the court. The, for me, the big tip off was that recording of his wife. That was a year ago ago by Lauren Windsor when the wife was saying this was all a controversy around, or she was talking about how she saw a, um, a, uh, a, uh, uh, a, uh, a, uh, a, uh, a, uh, a, uh, a, uh, a, a, uh, a, a, uh, a, a, a, a, a, shame. We actually have some Virgonia mugs around here.

But she said, and I'm going to sue, and the statute of limitations is only five years. Now, five years at that time would have had to be during the Trump

administration and there is a chance that they may lose the Senate and the Republicans. And if they do, and if they do, Alito's not going to get replaced by a, it may not get replaced, frankly, based upon the precedent set by Mitch McConnell. So what's your sentence here? Yeah, I mean, like, that's what we went into this term with understanding, that like, here's

the reality, like, you'd have to be pretty dense not to remember. sort of the cause and effect of Justice Ginsburg not having retired under Obama. And so there was this thought that if they want to keep a strong majority, one of the two of Thomas or Alito would retire. I, since January, have really felt like there was just a, I've been covering the court in person since 2010. And for the first time ever, Alito actually seemed kind of nice and not mad and grumpy. He's a guy who, when he was losing, he was grumpy.

And even when the court, they took the majority, he still just seemed angry and aggrieved. And like, just since January, it sort of like has felt. like he is settled on the fact that like, I see the light at the end of the tunnel sort of thing. And then we got these three opinions from him on Thursday. That could be unless he has the NRC campaign finance case, which is one of the three remaining now. He could be done with majority opinions for the term.

and it's possible that it's possible that either he or Justice Kavanaugh have the NRC opinion are the two most likely people to have it. And then we had a sort of surprise today, given how late we are in things. Alito wasn't on the bench today. And you normally wouldn't expect that this close to the end. end of the term. Wait, does that mean he's left town? The court doesn't tell it.

We learned the court didn't tell us anything. It's possible. I mean, who knows? Maybe maybe he got his opinion out Thursday because he knew that he had a doctor's appointment Monday at 10 that he couldn't change, which is absurd. But I mean, this is the thing about the Supreme Court. Unless they want to tell us something, they won't tell us. So tomorrow is the absolute last day, right?

Today, at the end of the opinions, Chief Justice Roberts announced that the final opinions for the term will be released tomorrow, Tuesday at 10. And the cases that are left are birthright citizenship, the two transports bands, and the coordinated party expenditure limit. Let's just briefly get your take on. There were two major rulings today, as far as I know. One was the president can't fire members of the Fed, because that would be not their words. That would actually implicate things like our portfolios, which we don't want to touch. But he can fire members of the, the, Federal Trade Commission,

because they inhibit corporate power and that we're not in favor of. They also said that states can rule, they don't have to, but they can determine on their own that if a ballot has been

postmarked by election day, that they can count it up to as many days as they think is normally. California takes seven days. If anything comes in, within seven days and it's been postmarked by election day, they'll count it, which creates some problems, obviously in terms of like the conservative saying there must be something afoot here. How is it there's new ballots coming in? But the court said that's okay.

The court, yeah, what the court, there was a challenge saying that the federal election day statutes preempt states from having those because election day is election day. It needs to be done by That was a very weak argument, and actually the scary thing in reality is that four justices went along with that. Right. Barrett, though, wrote the majority opinion saying that it's not, that it doesn't preempt state laws allowing that those, that late return as long as if it's postmarked by election day, but returned, received. later, you can allow that. And the Chief Justice joined that. But, I mean, yeah, it's, it is.

The second one with the Fed versus the FTC? Yeah, that was the majority opinion in the FTC case was the 63 decision that, that alignment that we're used to with the liberals dissenting in the, the, when it came to the stock portfolio case, I mean, the, the Federal Reserve case, that was a five-four decision. And again, Roberts wrote both majority of decisions. And this time, Kavanaugh joined Roberts on that side. I do, this is a huge decision. Slaughter is the case. And I think it's good that that was the name that we got to remember this FTC case. The court overturned a more than 90-year-old precedent called Humphreys Executor that allowed

for essentially expertise to be protected in the government. When you have agencies, multi-member agencies that have expertise, bipartisan expertise, at the head of the agency that essentially Humphrey's executor said you can have for-cause removal protections. You need to

that the president needs to give an actual reason for firing the person. And what Robert said today is, no, that's not true. And the real question coming out of this is going to be the fallout

for other agencies, that we know, for example, that like the National Labor Relations Board, the American Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, are all going to be affected by this. The question going forward is going to be, does this reach things like the Tax Court, the Court of Federal Claims, which are not Article III courts with independence within the judiciary. Those are sort of quasi-corts that are under the President's authority, under Article 2. The amount of damage he's going to be able to do unilaterally, even if he loses the Senate, is going to be extraordinary, because people should remember,

he doesn't care about putting somebody on the FTC as much as he cares about disabling the agency. Yeah, it goes, there's a little back and forth there because the problem is, I mean, if you get, if there are good rules in place and you want to reverse them, if there are rules that

the Democratic Majority Commission passed, you need a quorum to have the Republican appointees reverse it. And so, I mean, I've been looking into that a little specifically with like the EEOC. But I mean, that's going to be a, I think you are going to see over the next six months efforts to make sure before the Senate switches hands if it does that all of these agencies do have. So we may see a lot of fire.

and then a lot of attempt to nominate. It's going to be interesting because this is going to happen. These nominations are going to happen when a couple of senators are going to have to be back home because they're nervous about winning their re-election. And you've got the summer recess. This is going to have real implications of what we see over the next couple of months. Chris Geiner, thank you so much for taking the time. I know how crazy this time is for you.

Really appreciate it. We'll put a link to the Law Dork newsletter on Substack at Majority.fm and in our podcast and YouTube description, really appreciate your breaking these down for us. Yeah, and I'll be I'll be writing today about those cases, the firing cases. Great. And then you're back to the court tomorrow. And then back to the court in the morning. Yep.

All right. Enjoy. Thanks, Sam. Thanks again. All right, folks. That's it for us today. Millen apathy says a fucking disaster. Yeah, indeed.

And it's going to get worse. It's going to get worse. Folks, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a member of Join the Majority Report.com. When you do, you only get the free show free of commercials. But you also get the fun half. And you can IAM us at the fun half, in the fun half, during the fun half. Help this show survive and thrive.

join the majority report.com, join the majority report.com. Also, don't forget, just coffee, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code majority. You get 10% off. And it's a co-op. It's a great company, great coffee, just coffee.com. Also, check out the AM Quiki. AMQquicky.com.

Three days a week, you get the thing for free. If you want it five days, a couple of bucks a month. or check out our Instagram, majority.fm, our Twitch, majority.fm, Facebook, majority.fm. Check them all out. Spread our stuff on all those sites. It helps. Matt, what's happening in the Matt Lecky and Media universe? Yeah, we had a Sunday show for our Left Reckoning patrons at patreon.com. So, left reckoning, and I talked a little bit about the socialist, uh, um,

proving their medal in the recent elections and focused even more about hating Jack Schlossberg and him losing on the Upper East Side, which I'm almost as happy about as any of the victories. Was it the Upper East Side or West Side? Was it the Upper West Side? He was the Upper West Side. But either way, I'm glad that he is not going to nepotism his way into Congress in embarrassingly embarrassing fashion. And we go through some of his low lights and say,

good ridden so i check that out patrata.com slash left reckoning ladies and gentlemen we are going to the fun half three months from now six months from now nine months from now and i don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now and i don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now but i think around 18 months out we're going to look back and go like wow what what is that going on it's nuts Wait a second. Hold on. Hold on for a second. The majority. Emma, welcome to the program. Hey.

What is up, everyone? Fun pack. No, me, Key. You did it. Fun pack. Let's go Brandon. Let's go Brandon. Bradley, you want to say hello? Sorry to disappoint. Everyone, I'm just a random guy.

It's all the boys today. Fundamentally false. No, I'm sorry. Women's... Stop talking for a second. Let me finish. Where is this coming from, dude? But dude, you want to smoke this? Seven to eight?

Yes. I think it is you. Who is you? Frickin' day. What's on your mind? We can discuss free markets, and we can discuss capitalism. I'm going to just know why. Libertarians.

They're so stupid, though. Common sense says, of course. Gobbled eke. We fucking nailed him. So what's 79 plus 21? Challenge men. I'm positively clevering. I believe 96, I want to say.

857. 21. 35. 501. One half. Three-eighth. 9-11, for instance. $3,400, $1,900.

$6.5, $4, $3 trillion sold. It's a zero-sum game. Actually, you're making think less. But let me say this. Poop. You can call it satire. Sam goes to satire. On top of it all, my favorite part about you is just like every day all day.

We see you. Sundalk out. Guns out. But you shouldn't. People just don't like to entertain ideas on it. I have a question. Who can? hairs.

Wow. I love it. I do love that. I got to be quick. I get a jump. We're already late and the guy's being a dick. So scroom. Sent to a gulaw?

Outrage. Like, what is wrong with you? Love you. Love you. Bye-bye.