1/15/26: Trump Iran Strikes, Iran Propaganda, New ICE Shooting

24:28100%. That is there in Iran. Absolutely. They don't want to be controlled by Mossad and by the United States and the CIA. Look at their own history of their democratic aspirations and what worked out for them. Final thing, just because I personally had to get this in here. Put A10 up here. I love my friend Jason, Jason Willick over at The Washington Post. Shout out. You guys should read his columns. He is an excellent legal journalist. He'll go through and he'll just read all of these indictments. And he flagged this for me. This is the new Trump DOJ. So the DOJ, in their argument about why they had to capture Maduro, said that a part of it was humanitarian intervention.

25:02And so they cite, Crystal, Human Rights Watch reports in there. And they say that we had to remove Maduro because illegal mining was displacing indigenous communities. Another deep passion for Donald Trump. Woke is back, all right? This is dark woke, folks. We have to remove Maduro and institute his dictatorship as long as they sell us oil because illegal mining in Venezuela was displacing indigenous communities and even child labor. The horror. The horror of it all. And, of course, that's what it's all about. So this is giving the game away. It also shows you the extent to which this so-called international humanitarian concern and all that is a pure state's play by the great powers, the European Union, all of these other people.

25:50I mean, last word because our guest is standing by. You know, you see the European Union, Germany, and Ukraine supporting regime change in Iran. And they don't think for a second, hey, wait, hold on a second. You can just declare from Germany that the Iranian government is illegitimate. And then at the same time, you're going to say that Putin, if he says that about Ukraine, that that's also illegitimate. You can't have it both ways, man. You don't believe in sovereignty. That's why it's like these, all of the rhetoric that these people have, it's hollow and it's meaningless. So that's the last thing.

26:24And now we have our guest standing by, Janine. Let's get to it. So we are very fortunate to be joined this morning by a civil liberties attorney, Janine Younis. She is the national legal director of the ADC. She's also co-host of the Previously Prohibited podcast. And she joins us now. Great to see you. Good to see you. Thanks so much for having me. Yeah, of course. So Sagar and I had a very lengthy debate slash discussion about the killing of Renee Goode. But the one thing that both of us lack is any sort of law background. So that's where you come into play. But I actually wanted to start with this latest shooting that unfolded last night in Minneapolis, of which the details are still incredibly hazy.

27:03So let's start with putting up B9 on the screen. This is the government's narrative of what happened after we got initial local reports that there had been another shooting involving federal law enforcement officers. Everyone's saying ICE. We don't actually know if it was specifically ICE. But in any case, what the DHS put out is this. At 6.50 p.m. Central Time, federal law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted traffic stop in Minneapolis of an illegal alien from Venezuela who was released into the country by Joe Biden in 2022. In an attempt to evade arrest, the subject fled the scene in his vehicle and crashed into a parked car.

27:40The subject then fled on foot. The law enforcement officer caught up to the subject on foot and attempted to apprehend him when the subject began to resist and violently assault the officer. While the subject and law enforcement were in a struggle on the ground, two subjects came out of a nearby apartment and also attacked the law enforcement officer with a snow shovel and broom handle. As the officer was being ambushed and attacked by the two individuals, the original subject got loose and began striking the officer with a shovel or broomstick, Fearing for his life and safety as he was being ambushed by three individuals, the officer fired a defensive shot to defend his life.

28:16The initial subject was hit in the leg. All three subjects ran back into the apartment and barricaded themselves inside. The attacked officer and subject are both in the hospital. Both attackers are in custody. This attack on another brave member of law enforcement took place while Minnesota's top leaders, Governor Walz and Mayor Fryer, actively encouraging and organized resistance to ICE and federal law enforcement officers. Hateful rhetoric must end, blah, blah, blah. Okay, so that is the initial story that was put out. There was some sort of an ambush. Law enforcement officer of some stripe is attacked, fearing for his life, fires the shot, hits this guy in the leg.

28:48Now there is a video that has come out on Instagram that it's all in Spanish, so I'll just go ahead and put it up on the screen and I'll give you guys the summary of what is said here. That appears to be taken inside of the home where the man who was shot in the leg is now inside this home and they're calling 911. They're saying, please, we have small children in the house. What if they shoot into the house? They go on to say that, you know, he was trying to flee them and he was shot in the leg inside the house. So that is the story that they are telling the 911 dispatchers. They're begging for someone to come and help, police to come and help, very fearful about the safety of their children or their child there in the house.

29:33So that's what we've got so far. eyewitnesses also described some sort of a foot chase as well. And so as you know, as someone who's looked at this video now, and I know you've been taking a look at the situation this morning, you know, what do you see here? And what do you make of the government's narrative and how it's holding up so far? Well, it doesn't seem to be consistent with the video, that's for sure. I mean, first of all, there's a difference between trying to shooting someone who's trying to flee and shooting someone who's attacking you in self-defense. Those are two very different things.

30:04And then whether or not he was shot when he was inside the apartment or before that are obviously conflicting. So, I mean, it is clearly unfolding and I imagine we'll learn more and some evidence will come out, forensic evidence especially, that could corroborate one or the other story. But the government's definitely not consistent with the video. So let's talk about that because it's part of the reason I wanted to have you on. Again, I'm not a lawyer. I don't really understand the exact ins and outs in particular, like let's say self-defense law. But zooming out, I thought it would be important.

30:35Can you set out some of your background working on civil liberties, let's say, over the last five years just for the audience before we get into it? Sure. So I've actually worked in civil liberties law for about five years. Exactly that time frame. Mostly constitutional law. I worked on a lot of COVID-related cases, so challenging government. Vaccine mandate, COVID vaccine mandates, censorship around COVID topics, especially on social media and government involvement in that. Right now I'm doing a lot of work on censorship related to the Palestine-Israel issue, which is a major topic at this time.

31:10Prior to that, I was actually a defense attorney. So my background is relevant. Good. So I think very useful, I think, for all of us. It's important to lay out, right? Now let's get to some of these. There's been a lot of discussion here and political concern over like papers, right, being asked for papers. And so one of the things – let's put that video, let's say, up here on the screen. You can watch some of this. It's going to roll. So in a particular number of these instances, you see these mass ICE officers asking for people's identification. This is, you know, obviously caused a lot of political concern over entering the U.S.

31:44Papers, Please era. What do you make of this from a civil liberties perspective? What does it fit with existing case law? Is this a violation? And where the U.S. Supreme Court is this overreach, et cetera? What do you make? A number of these videos have been coming out for the last year or so. So painting with a broad brush, I mean, generally speaking, officers aren't really supposed to go up to you and ask you for identification or whether you're in the country illegally unless they have some reason to believe you specifically are. Like just looking at someone and saying I think they're illegal is not a good basis.

32:16But it's hard to delineate exactly. So it's not a huge issue for them to walk up to somebody on the street and say, hey, can you show me some identification? But you have every right to say no, and they can't use that against you. So whether or not you're a citizen or whether or not you're here illegally, you can walk away and they're not supposed to do anything. And if they do do something, that's against the law. Does ICE have jurisdiction to like make traffic stops and just because that's another thing we see, you know, a lot of interactions with moving vehicles. What are they allowed to do in their capacity as immigration enforcement?

32:52Yeah. So they are not supposed to be making traffic stops generally, although there are some people who are claiming otherwise. Their jurisdiction is really to enforce immigration law, patrol the borders and make sure people are not here illegally and that kind of thing. It's really state and local laws and state and local cops who are supposed to be enforcing traffic law. Now, what happened with Renee Good was that they said that she was obstructing their enforcement attempts, their attempts to enforce immigration law. And there is some law saying that that that would be a basis for, you know, law enforcement doing something.

33:28Yeah, I don't think it rises to the level of an obstruction of their operation. Like her car was just a little bit, you know, in the street. That's not like she's I think what what we're what what does obstruction look like? Something really like if you had a lot of people who are like creating a barrier or something. So the officers couldn't do their whatever they were doing. I don't really think they should be going up to people's houses and knocking and asking if they're here legally. I think it's probably legal. What's the legality on that? I think it's legal and you have every right to shut the door or not open it or they can go up to your house.

34:02I don't think it's very good practice in terms of like creating trust with the public. And it's just kind of, you know, just not great. Yeah. We've also seen reports that they're going up to people and asking them about the ethnicity of their neighbors to try to give them targets to go after as well, which, you know, I don't know. I mean, you can tell me if you think that that is legal or not. But it certainly, I think, would be something that a lot of people would find pretty objectionable racial profiling. Yeah, I think that would violate some civil rights law. But I do want to get your view on Renee Good's killing from start to finish.

34:39Because I think in the very viral post you put on Twitter, you raised a variety of questions from beginning to end, including why are there officers trying to pull her out of her car to begin with? What is the justification for that? Why is this officer putting himself in front of the vehicle? So go ahead and just give us your view, after I know you watched all the videos and all the angles and all the things, of what unfolded and what the law says about what was done. So there are two major elements, I would say. The first is whether they had the right to arrest her in the first place. And I would say no, although I admit that's debatable and that would probably be an issue if this ever goes to trial, which is probably pretty unlikely.

35:21That's probably something that will be litigated, whether he had the authority to arrest and stop her. because, again, the question is whether she was, not whether she was committing a traffic violation because, again, he didn't have the authority. Those officers didn't have the authority to police that. But whether what she was doing rose to the level of obstruction of a lawful enforcement operation. And, again, I maintain probably not because it wasn't like she was stopping them from really doing the overall. Vehicles were able to get by her where she was parked. Is this like well-litigated case law, like in terms of obstruction for what that looks like?

35:53I think so. I mean, I'm not – I wouldn't call myself an expert on exactly that. But I think there's – yeah. So for that reason, I don't think they were entitled to try to arrest her and get her out of the car. Other people might differ. And anyway, even if they were entitled to, I think that they behaved pretty badly. Like that is not how you de-escalate a situation sort of – Does behavior factor in legally in a situation like this? So in terms of the second part, I think, yes, it can. So whether or not he was entitled to shoot her in self-defense, the standard for that is in order to succeed on a justification, justification, self-defense is the same thing, theory at trial, you have to show the jury that you were in reasonable fear of death or—sorry, let me phrase it differently.

36:50You reasonably believed that you were at risk of death or serious physical injury from the person that you stopped and that you needed to use that force in order to stop them. So it has both a subjective and objective component. Like you have to have the belief that you're about to be killed or very seriously harmed. And you also that belief has to be reasonable. So, you know, you're just completely exaggerating the nature of the threat. That's you might not be able to succeed. Okay. So one thing that's taken into consideration is whether you sort of played a role in getting to the point where someone was using the deadly physical force.

37:26So his conduct prior to what happened could factor in. Now, I think from watching the video many, many times that he was not in harm's way when he fired the shots. It looks to me as though his feet were clearly planted on the left. And so when he fired the shots, the vehicle was driving away. And it was clear. I mean, it was very clear to me that her intent was to drive away, not to run him over, even if he did get hit. So that was my next question. We can put the CBS report. Let's put that one up here on the screen. and let's couch that it is CBS. These are officials who are saying this anonymously.

38:00They're saying the ICE agent who shot Renee Good suffered internal bleeding. Now again, not confirmed, no medical records released. It's CBS News. Let's put all of that out there. However, if that were to be true, and again, watching the video, it is difficult to say. There's the New York Times video where they say that the feet are on the other side at the exact moment. I do know that the first bullet went through the front of the vehicle. The video, which was - The front on the side. Front and the side, right. So the first, the video where he is filming, which was leaked to some news outlet, he drops his phone.

38:32It's not clear whether he was hit or not. Does it matter, actually, in this case? Whether he was hit? Yes. Not really, no. Because really the only question is whether he was afraid for his life when he fired the shots or a serious physical injury. And in fact, the fact that he was hit, if I were the prosecutor, I would actually use that to say it shows he was angry. and the fact he said, fucking bitch, I don't know if I can swear. You can swear. A fucking bitch afterwards again is sort of corroborative evidence that he was angry, not scared. Not afraid. So even if he could get away with a justification defense, even if he could convince a jury for the first shot, you have to show that you were justified for each use of deadly physical force.

39:15So you can't just, you know, once you've done it the first time, if that threat no longer exists, you have to stop. And I don't see how he could possibly convince anybody with a second and third shot. And one of the things, and again, I want to be clear. I think this is a horrible situation. I hadn't watched, unfortunately, many of these cop videos where somebody tries to run somebody over, even if allegedly that is. In almost every case, chaotic, crazy, multiple shots fired, even if somebody's vehicle is away. Usually the cop gets away with it, largely because they're like, well, we fired a short burst that's consistent with our training.

39:48How does that work in the case law? I don't. It doesn't really. People have been saying that. But if anything, the fact he's an officer means he should be more. You know, maybe a civilian would be able to get away with a just a justification defense in that situation when an officer wouldn't say, you know, I was so scared. I just started firing and I couldn't stop. But an officer is supposed to be trained not to do exactly that, to use, you know, very precise force necessary to stop threats. But so and then as I also wanted to address the CBS thing, which is frankly, first of all, when I saw that, I was like, well, I don't trust CBS.

40:23No, nor should I. Yes. If they want to make that claim, they got to release it to the. Yeah, exactly. It's going to be relevant in trial. Yeah. There is a trial or an indictment. Grand jury. Yeah. But again, the fact that he was injured does not, you know, does not justify the use of deadly physical force if he was injured. The vice president of the United States says this officer has, quote, absolute immunity in the conduct of his job. Is that accurate from a legal perspective? I thought fans went to law school. They did. It was barred, too. No, there's no doctrine that says police officers or any law enforcement officers have immunity.

41:02They can just do whatever they want. The standard is they have to show that what they did was necessary and proper to effectuate their duties. So it's kind of a circular standard. Like you would have to show the court that it was necessary and proper and then that's going to get into the justification. So it's all going to be sort of intertwined if this ever goes to trial. It's I would say it's probably unlikely to go to trial because of the dynamic between the state and the federal. Can you talk a little bit more about that? And just for the audience, so you guys know, originally this was a joint federal and state investigation.

41:39Then the feds iced out the state and said, we're taking it over entirely. And now the reporting that has come out indicates that they have decided they are not going. There were resignations, actually, in the Civil Liberties Department that would have been investigating this officer's conduct because they decided not to investigate him at all and instead are investigating Renee Good and her wife. And so you've had a series of resignations over that. So they're not interested, obviously, in prosecuting this guy. Governor Walz and Mayor Jacob Fry have said that they're going to attempt an investigation.

42:15So talk about the difficulties that they face and why you don't think that there will ever be a presentation to a grand jury, let alone a full trial. Yeah, I mean, as for your first point, too, this is the problem with the fact it got so political. And no one will believe any investigation that the federal government does. But that aside, so because he's a federal officer, he can have the case removed to federal court. It still would be on state charges, so it would basically be like a state trial in federal court. It's kind of weird, but it would be a more favorable venue for him. So another issue, as I understand it, is that the feds are not really cooperating with the state and they have – the feds have the evidence that you would need in order to conduct a proper investigation.

43:05I don't know if the state will be able to – That was my question. Like is the video not enough? You know, the video that clearly was leaked by either the officer or ICE who – I don't know exactly. But considering everything that you have, like what else would they need necessarily? Well, the fact that people are debating so much what the video shows I think shows it's not enough. OK. I mean, there were eyewitnesses. So you would, at a trial, you would want all the evidence. So all the videos and eyewitnesses and, you know, videos are 2D. We don't have necessarily the kind of, you don't have the ability to make the same level of observation as an eyewitness.

43:39So I would want to hear from eyewitnesses. We haven't really yet. Well, from what I understand, they have said that it was very clear that she was driving away and that the officer wasn't in danger. It would be nice to hear from some of those people more extensively about what they saw. So I don't think the video is enough. And the state would need to be able to get access to the witnesses and the forensic evidence. One question, for instance, that I would imagine would come up is which shot killed her or was it more than one? Because, for example, if the first shot didn't kill her, but he was justified, a jury finds he was justified in firing that.

44:18But the second and third did, and he wasn't justified there. You know, that would actually create a different outcome. So it's complicated. Got it. Since he could have it removed to federal court, but it would still be state charges, would Trump be able to pardon him since he can do federal pardons but not state pardons? I think so. I'm pretty sure. I don't want to say 100 percent. That's a very unusual case. I think he probably would be able to. I don't know if he would pardon him if he was convicted in a federal court. Of course he would. Absolutely he would. I mean, and then the other question I had, this was something that our colleague Ryan actually floated, was there's no statute of limitations on murder.

45:02Yeah. So if you end up with a Democratic administration in the future, is it possible that they pick up this investigation and prosecute him down the line, assuming that he doesn't get a preemptive pardon from the president of the United States, which I also think is a possibility? Yeah, but it's harder to get convictions as time goes on because people's memories fade. You know, it's easier to create doubt about what people. That's why prosecutors like to get cases to trial more quickly. An eyewitness five years later is not as compelling as an eyewitness five months later. Yeah. Well, let me ask you, as you know, I mean, this is obviously has a legal aspect to it, but is bigger picture.

45:40Your son says an American who's thinking about these things. The fact that we all watched this unfold, some, I think I saw 84 % of people who were polled said that they saw this video. And a majority think he was unjustified. And, you know, there's obviously a lot of public upset over what has happened here. If we all watch, then there's what you have to call a federal government cover up. Yeah. No attempt to even investigate. You immediately had Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller, J.D. Vance, the president of the United States, calling Renee Goode a domestic terrorist. And there is zero accountability for this guy.

46:20Like not even an attempt, not even an investigation, nothing. Like what does that do to our justice system? What does that do to people's sense of faith and trust that there's any sort of possible accountability with these, you know, masked agents of the state being deployed into various American cities? Well, it eviscerates any sense of trust and any trust that the populace has in the federal government. And, you know, I think what happened here was that people formed their opinions very quickly based on how they felt about ICE and how they felt about what ICE's enforcement program. So the people who liked what ICE was doing assumed that the officer was justified and the people who didn't assume that he wasn't.

47:02And I think, I mean, it's a huge problem that, as you mentioned, high up federal officials like Kristi Noem and J.D. Vance were saying immediately within minutes, I think, at least less than an hour, that she was a domestic terrorist. I mean, this is completely crazy. And I don't think any reasonable person can look at that video and think she was a domestic terrorist. At most, she may have clipped him as she tried to get away. But it's just a crazy framing and I think completely depleted public trust in the federal government's ability to handle this and handle its enforcement operations going forward.

47:37Yeah, you worked a lot on civil liberties law. I was very – the domestic terrorist thing was ridiculous. Yeah. Totally agree. whenever it comes to these types of stops, more like what you are watching? What is your general outlook as somebody who works somebody here so much on COVID? I mean, it's really creating kind of a police state. So even if some of it is legal, some of the questioning and stuff, I just don't think it's a very good policy. This is not how you want the government to relate to the people. Yeah. We can put B5 up on the screen because I think it's important to emphasize that, you know, even if you are supportive of a restrictive immigration policy and, you know, you want a large deportation program, you know, there are expansions of the police state here that are obviously impacting everyone in America, citizen and non.

48:29Secretary Kristi Noem announced this. She says drones represent the new frontier of American air superiority under President Trump. We're entering a new era to defend our air superiority, to protect our borders and the interior of the United States. With the creation of the DHS Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems, President Trump continues his historic legacy in developing American dominance. This will help us continue to secure the border and cripple the cartels, protect our infrastructure, and keep Americans safe as they attend festivities.

48:58So announcing, you know, now an expansion of the use of drones here domestically on U.S. soil. We see all the agents, including the guy who shot Renee Good, are filming all the time. There appears to be, you know, some pretty sophisticated facial recognition and tracking software that they're using to surveil anyone they encounter, not just, you know, people they suspect of being undocumented immigrants. It seems like, you know, and by the way, ICE's budget, this is the largest law enforcement agency in history. So to your point about the expansion of the police state, I mean, it seems like anyone, regardless of citizen, non-immigration status, et cetera, this is truly a threat on everybody's civil liberties.

49:43Absolutely. I mean, yeah, and I think this stuff will probably have to be worked out through the courts since it's kind of new, but I think there are probably Fourth Amendment search issues that could be raised. I mean, the government can't just surveil people without warrants and stuff like that, but because it's new technology, relatively new technology, it hasn't been sorted out in the courts. Like with the drones and general facial recognition. Yeah. Yeah. But we've seen an erosion of that now over the last 20 years and it all seems to stand. I mean, you know, every time you go to TSA, they don't even check your boarding pass anymore.

50:14Yeah, I know. I know. How much have you looked into this NSPM 7 memo that, you know, seeks to really expand the definition of domestic terrorist? And I think it's quite relevant here with, you know, all the top government officials saying Rene Good is a domestic terrorist. And obviously on its face, we all look at that and go, that's ridiculous. But I think by their own definitions, because obviously the definition of terrorism is actually very subjective and very political, they are really seeking to define anyone who is oppositional to this government as effectively being a domestic terrorist.

50:53So I think when they say that, I don't think they're lying. I think in their mind, based on their definition, they genuinely see Renee Good, her wife, any other protesters who are out there who are against what ICE is doing in their communities. I think they genuinely see them as domestic terrorists. And that does open up, thanks to the war on terror, it does open up a lot of state government capabilities for surveillance and aggressive action against them. Yeah, so I'm not familiar with the memo, but I can speak more generally to the issue. I mean, I think that's a strategy that's being used and is very, very dangerous.

51:27And we also saw it last year with the arrests of people like Mahmoud Khalil and Rameez Azdrak, who had just participated in pro-Palestine protests. Well, Khalil and then Rameez Azdrak had just written an op-ed or signed on to an op-ed. And they were basically called terrorists. So this is like a real significant expansion of the use of the term. And what it does is it just is used to label people. And then the public, a lot of the public will get on board with those people having no rights at all and being imprisoned or taken out of the country or whatever. Yeah. That's the last thing I would like to end on.

51:59You were saying you did a lot of work on the Palestinian censorship issue. I know there's a more recent case surrounding Baytar, an organization in New York. I think you worked on that. No, I didn't work on it. I commented on it a lot. Why don't you tell us? The audience is definitely being. You were passionate about it, as we are, too. So, yeah. About the Baytar situation? Yeah. So Beitar is a, I call them Jewish supremacists. People get offended by that term, but they are. I mean, I think that's just an accurate description of what their ideology is. Yeah. And they openly embrace violence against Palestinians, Muslims, and Jews who are anti-Zionist or don't agree with their tactics.

52:33They actually threaten me. That's one reason I have a personal, yeah, and other people I know. So they have been getting away. They apparently, according—well, I'll back up. Law enforcement has been pretty unresponsive. I've made complaints. Other people I know have made complaints and with nothing. Like, I was directly threatened with violence and harassed relentlessly, not free speech, like something really different. So they apparently reached a settlement the other day with the New York attorney general, and the findings there describe some of the things they've done, including participating in a stabbing at a protest in Brooklyn, encouraging their members to bring weapons to protests, encouraging their members to beat people up, taking credit for beatings at the protests.

53:21I mean, if this was a Muslim group doing this, if their identities were reversed, can you imagine what would happen? And like DOJ doesn't care at all. And the settlement is completely toothless. It just instructs them not to do those things. So not to violate the law, which they're already obliged not to violate the law. And then it imposes a$50 ,000 fine that's suspended, so they'll probably never pay it. And this came from the attorney general of New York. Letitia James is the one who pushed this forward. My understanding, they've effectively had to disband in New York, which I think is the place where they were most active.

53:54I don't think they actually have to disband. I read the settlement. I don't see that. I know that DropSite reported on it that way. I don't see. They're just not supposed to do their illegal activities, which you're not supposed to do. So I don't know that they've had to really change anything. And they're already mocking her. They say they've just moved their headquarters to Delaware. So they're making a mockery of the whole thing. Wow. OK. All right. Well, less optimistic than I had originally. Well, it is a public shaming. So there's that. We'll take what we can. Yeah. I like public shaming.

54:26I'm very pro-public shaming. Thank you, Janine. I appreciate your analysis very much. Yeah, thank you. Great to have you. Oh, thank you. This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.