Legal AF Full Episode - 7/16/2025

27:22Bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience 30 % off your entire order. Go to GetSoul.com and use the code LEGALAF. That's GetSoul.com, promo code LEGALAF for 30 % off.

27:37Dina Doll:We're back and we're diving into Los Angeles, which is the central focus, it seems for sure, with Trump and ICE. He's targeting Los Angeles. I mean, we had DeSantis and Abbott, their whole Biden term, act as if they're having some sort of emergency on the border. They're flying people via planes to Martha's Vineyard. All of a sudden, Trump decides to help Los Angeles. I don't know. Maybe he doesn't care about his friends Abbott into Santa's that much. But regardless, here in Los Angeles, that's where I'm based. You know, this is affecting our community. And of course, there's some legal actions.

28:13Dina Doll:Quick update, we have a Trump appeal as well. So and you and I actually did a duet on this for the Legal AF channel. So perhaps some people already kind of got up to speed on that. But we had the ACLU Public Council, United Farm Workers, Sue Ice saying, among other things, you are basically racially profiling when you are stopping people. And they just cited a ton of evidence, as well as the fact that you're not allowing people to have attorneys, despite the fact that ACLU and public counsel went to these detention centers saying, hey, we're here, we're available, we want to speak to these detainees, and they were denied it.

28:52Dina Doll:And then the overcrowded conditions that they are being held in. And so they argued that this was a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. Mayor Karen Bass, as well as some other cities, including West Hollywood, Pasadena, Clover City, joined in that lawsuit after that whole, you know, theater, let's say, but really awful theater in MacArthur Park, where they kind of showed their force and detained absolutely nobody. So we had a hearing on Friday and the judge issued an order in favor of the city of Los Angeles and as well as the ACLU saying that there was, quote, a mountain of evidence to support the claim that agents are arresting people solely based on their race accents or the work they are engaged in.

29:44Dina Doll:in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable government seizure, which those of us with eyes are seeing this, right? I mean, you don't go to a Home Depot parking lot, you know, unless you are targeting it based on the fact that the people there tend to be Hispanic, right? Or the fact of the type of job they have, right? They're not going in and raiding a law firm, right? Or something like that. So they are doing, we have seen this and the judge saw it with this evidence and issued an order that only applied to the Central District of California, although it's Los Angeles County, as well as I believe six other counties.

30:26Dina Doll:So it's quite a bit of area, but this is not a nationwide injunction. This applied there and said that ICE, you have to stop this indiscriminate detaining of people and you have to allow them an attorney because otherwise what you're doing right now is a violation of the Fourth Amendment issuing this temporary restraining order. We saw Trump go into court and argue a few things. They argued they didn't get enough notice. They argued that this judge, the typical arguments, this judge is trying to dictate our policy and stepping into our executive power. And and also, interestingly, they brought up nationwide injunctions.

31:09Dina Doll:The Supreme Court just stopped nationwide injunctions. We don't want the judge being this powerful. Of course, here, this was not a nationwide injunction. This was an injunction overseeing the district that this judge governed, as well as the people that were. Interestingly, this was also a class action. They argued this on behalf of the class of people who were being detained. There's three different groups in that class action. It was really interesting. It was like one who didn't have a warrant, one group who didn't get identified, the federal agent didn't identify, and one where there was no like suspicious activity.

31:46Dina Doll:And so because you have to have reasonable suspicion in order to detain somebody, it is less than probable cause, but you still need reasonable suspicion. We have been here before. This is what that Arizona sheriff tried to do years ago. This is clearly within the realm of what a judge can do. But of course, Trump going in there, trying to reverse the TRO, trying to get an administrative stay. Los Angeles continuing to be the focus of how they are treating our neighbors, people of our community, just because they happen to have an accent or speak Spanish or work in construction. So, Lisa, tell me your thoughts on the kind of legal developments here.

32:33Well, it is really important that this judge issued that ruling. I think it's the right ruling on the merits. the case that the ACLU pleaded that the city of Los Angeles and their cities joined, I think, was well pleaded. It really articulated very clearly why the actions of the Trump administration were in violation of longstanding law. As you mentioned, Dina, there is an ability for law enforcement officers, for agents to stop someone based on reasonable suspicion. But in this instance, there's no reasonable suspicion. And instead, what we've seen coming from Tom Homan, who is the person that Donald Trump has tapped to really spearhead these efforts, he has admitted publicly that they are detaining people in part based on physical appearance, as well as their occupation.

33:23That doesn't make it into reasonable suspicion. You just can't assume that anyone who is working in landscaping or in a restaurant or, you know, at a farm is somehow reasonably suspicious of not being lawfully present in the United States, that's not reasonable suspicion at all. That's racial profiling. There's a word for it. There's a phrase for it. And it's something that has been barred by many governments, federal and state government agencies, to try to prevent the type of discrimination stereotyping that racial profiling involves. And that's what's happening or what's been happening in Los Angeles, among other things, including this sort of assertive use of force or show of force to really try to intimidate people.

34:05And there's another component to this that I think is really important to underscore, which is this playbook is right out of the Project 2025 playbook. Donald Trump, during the presidential campaign, tried to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 agenda. He claimed he had no idea, even though there were photos of him at a Heritage Foundation event talking about how the Heritage Foundation was going to fill in the details, even though the man he chose as vice president, you know, was involved in writing the foreword to the book by the president of the Heritage Foundation putting forward this agenda.

34:38And this agenda included many of these types of immigration actions that we're seeing this Trump administration implement. And so basically, you have Trump and his people following the playbook that was written out for them in this Project 2025 agenda, which is super extreme. And an undercurrent of that agenda is that they were going to use these policies, particularly to target blue cities, to target cities, to target not just sanctuary cities, but cities led by Democrats and states led by Democrats. This is a political maneuver to try to discredit the political leaders of large democratic states, large democratic cities, and try to like go there.

35:22They're not going, as you pointed out, Dean, at the outset of this, They're not going down to Texas. They're not going down there. I mean, they are in terms of the other parts of the border, but they're not using these tactics in Texas. They're not using this, you know, bringing the Marines into Dallas or something or Austin. And I'm not suggesting that they do to be equal or fair. I'm just saying this is a political agenda trying to target California. They were doing the same in Chicago. And then it's also sort of beyond a political agenda because it's also about targeting new targeting that this administration has unleashed to target kids in schools, going to actual schools to try to seize children or their parents, invading the sanctuary of churches, of religious sanctuaries to seize immigrants.

36:10These are very aggressive actions, and they're happening in the face of really the lie that this administration is told and that the Trump team was telling during the political campaign for the election, which is this notion that there's millions of murderers who are immigrants who've been unleashed in the United States. That's not true. People who have been convicted of murder are in jail and awaiting deportation at the end of their sentence. people who are working on job sites, who are, you know, helping our communities, who are part of our communities, who may be married to U.S. citizens, have U.S.

36:46citizen children. These are people just trying to get by in this world, in this economy. And what we need is immigration reform that actually protects the work processes in the United States and that doesn't try to criminalize people for being here in the United States. But instead, just today, Dina, the Trump administration is talking about basically deploying detention policies to sweep up anyone who doesn't have papers, deny them bond and hold them indefinitely for months in detention. And we've already seen, as the ACLU and others have raised, the problems with these detention facilities, not just, you know, Alligator Alcatraz, but in general.

37:23And I would say to you, one of the things that I'm watching is the following that we've got to follow the money because this scheme to engage in mass detention is really about giving money, sending huge contracts, billion dollars, billion dollar contracts to buddies of Trump, like Eric Prince, perhaps, who's proposed building his own detention facilities and more. This is about also it's about corruption and it's about the denial of human rights. It's about trying to rewrite the rules that have long governed our country in terms of immigration processes, as well as the processes for people to be united with their families, to adjust their status, to continue to contribute to the American community.

38:03Dina Doll:I completely agree about the for profit detention centers. I think that is why the ICE budget is so big in his recent bill is because they are they're budgeting for these sort of detention centers, which we saw with the for profit. It becomes a whole lobbying campaign and it helps benefit, as you said, his billionaire oligarch friends, unfortunately profiting off the fear of people and people who just came here to have a better life. because that is what this lawsuit showed, like their use of quotas. Their use of quotas is what is causing the racial profiling because to actually do the work you need to do to find the criminals, that takes time and you can't use that amount of time if you're a fitting profiling.

38:52Dina Doll:And here in Los Angeles, I've talked to so many people and it is affecting families, mixed status families. People are afraid, as you said, people are getting detained at churches at schools, at their workplace. Construction is slowing down because people are afraid to go to work. And this is during, after the Colisees fire, before the Olympics. Mayor Karen Bass just announced that they plan on giving cash cards to people who are affected by these ICE raids. The fact is California was fourth largest economy in the world. City of Los Angeles, as much as Fox wants to degrade it, also has always been doing great.

39:31Dina Doll:And this attack on California is solely because they don't like we're a blue state and they want to instill that fear. That fear is part of it. And this is kind of coming around also. They just talked about maybe giving as little six hours notice, right, before they send people to third world countries, which is horrifying and scary, and also about fear. But to their point of, you know, the reason why racial profiling, like, is so bad, not only because you're racially profiling somebody in violation of their constitutional rights, but it's because you're not actually getting the criminal, who nobody really wants this criminal to stay here, right?

40:11Dina Doll:And the White House just put out a post recently saying that 70 % of those arrested under Tripe's ICE program had criminal convictions or pending charges, right? This was the post on the official White House account. And NBC News was able to easily fact check that. And instead, only 752 people or 0.4 % were convicted of murder and 1.8 % were convicted of or facing pending sexual charges. Instead, they're talking, you know, so the White House account is saying 70 % and we're talking murderers, rapists and child predators. And that's not even close to the facts. So why don't you spend less time targeting people who are trying to just do their job and contributing to society because they have brown skin and they have an accent and instead actually go after the people that you said you're say actually in current time, you're going after.

41:06Dina Doll:This isn't just even about lying on a campaign trail. This is lying from a White House post. And I do think that his lying is getting, you know, he's, they've always lied, but they're doing it so much more brazenly by doing it on these kind of official posts. And it is so important to fact check it for us to get the word out here on Legal AF to have the facts, to rebut the facts when we talk to people. But, you know, so, so, so, so thank goodness ACLU and Public Council and City of Los Angeles have gone in there and gotten this temporary stay. We'll see what happens with his appeal. As we know, there's more going on with Los Angeles and California.

41:46Dina Doll:Newsom sued Trump because of the federalizing of the National Guards. Trump has just announced that they are or Hegseth has just announced that they are drawing down those troops instead of 4000 federalized National Guards in Los Angeles. It's now going to be 2 ,000 because they don't need anybody. It's very quiet here in Los Angeles in terms of, I mean, they didn't need anybody to even begin with because they were the ones that created the atmosphere. But certainly it has been so quiet. The fact that they even are using 2 ,000 National Guards when they could be doing it. I know Newsom said that before they were at the border actually trying to stop fentanyl from coming into this country.

42:27Dina Doll:there's certainly more important and useful things they could be doing than being at a city where it's quiet and people aren't even, there's no reason to have them here. But at the same time, you know, just recently, just to update on that Newsom case, as we know, Justice Breyer and the district court ruled in favor of Newsom and said that Trump could not nationalize the California National Guard. It was a violation of the 10th Amendment as well as a statutory violation. He was then overturned by the three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit. Well, interestingly, an anonymous judge at the Ninth Circle has requested an en banc review, which means that a majority of the, well, actually it means that 11 judges of the Ninth Circuit could review the case and make a different decision than that three-judge panel.

43:29Dina Doll:We don't know yet how that is going to go because they have asked for briefing from the two parties, from Newsom and Trump, as to whether or not the entire panel should review it. In the Ninth Circuit, it's not the entire panel. Most other circuits in the entire panel, because the Ninth Circuit is so large, it is just the chief judge plus 10 others. So it's 11. So they're going to receive that briefing in the next few days. They're going to then vote. The judges vote. We don't see the vote. That's an anonymous vote. But the judge and it's not anonymous to the other judges who requested this is just anonymous to us who requested it.

44:07Dina Doll:But it's very interesting because the Ninth Circuit, as I know, you know, Lisa, is very liberal for it. For him to have drawn two of his own appointees on the on the panel is highly unusual. Of course, Trump and other Republican judges have appointed more to the Ninth Circuit. So perhaps it's a little bit more conservative than it used to be 20 years ago. But you would think that if they do do this en banc panel, most likely they will side with Governor Newsom. So it's very interesting that court case is still proceeding at the same time as Trump is drawing down the troops. Well, that's right.

44:47And, you know, as you point out, there was a long set of rhetoric by the right attacking the Ninth Circuit in the 90s, early 2000s. But there have been more Republican appointees, not majority, but substantial number of Republican appointees over the years, including appointees who were handpicked by Leonard Leo advising Donald Trump on his judicial nominations. And it was really, I think, a bad draw for the country and for the Constitution to have a three-judge panel that included two Trump appointees. That's just drawn, basically. They have the equivalent of the wheel they used to have in the old days of choosing which judges get to hear a case.

45:26In this instance, as you point out, if this case is heard by a wider set of judges than judges who may be very loyal to Donald Trump, it's highly likely that the lower court would be affirmed. Because what Trump did here in trying to deploy these troops over the objections of the governor, over the objections of the city, was really irregular, really in violation of not just, in my view, the letter, but the spirit of the law governing when U.S. troops can be deployed within the United States, in particular deployed at the American people. And typically the National Guard, you know, they're deployed with the consent of the governor or with the order of the governor kind of in cooperation and collaboration between the federal government and the states.

46:14And that's often in cases of national emergency where there's a disaster like the fires or floods. But this was just, again, a show of force by Trump, an effort to, you know, kind of test in Los Angeles and perhaps for use in other places, whether and how he can try to use federal troops against the American people. There were some rules of engagement that were deployed in theory to try to prevent those troops from having sort of direct violent encounters that we didn't have another Kent State disaster like from the 1970s in Ohio. But the fact is, is that those troops are trained predominantly for fields of war, for zones of war where the conditions are very different than the United States.

47:01They have equipment that is very deadly and dangerous because they're trained for war. They're not trained for responding to ordinary dissent by the American people, by people who are concerned about what's happening to their communities. And so the drawdown is an important step forward. A complete reversal of that policy is what's actually in order. But I am hopeful, even though en banc grants are rare by the Ninth Circuit and other courts of appeals, I'm hopeful that they will grant en banc in this case and have a full argument so people can understand why this matters so much. Why the idea that Donald Trump can just send in the troops over the objections of the people you elected to represent you in your city and in your state.

47:49Why that is such an anathema so contrary to not just our statutes, but to the structure of our federal and state governments. We have had troops deployed, for example, to help effectuate the Brown versus Board of Education decision to integrate schools in the United States after schools have been racially segregated and there were violent mobs trying to prevent school children from going to school. And so in that instance, President Eisenhower did order the Federal Guard to come protect those students so that they could exercise their fundamental rights as Americans to go to public schools that were, you know, under the equal protection of law that were not racially segregated.

48:31This, what's happened in Los Angeles, is nothing like that. Nothing like that in terms of trying to actually have a very limited, constrained use of the National Guard in order to protect people's civil rights. In this instance, it's been designed to basically effectuate Trump's terrorizing policies, his policies to invoke fear in the populace, and to do so over the objections of the elected officials in our democracy is really outrageous.

49:00Dina Doll:Yeah, to your point of him doing so, you know, over the objections of Newsom, the governor, I cannot think of any case more important for them to take en banc. This is certainly, you know, this executive authority of a governor versus the executive authority of a president. And I can't think of a more important issue for them to take a look at. Before we go to Adbrek, I just want to jump right into Jerome Powell, Federal Reserve chair, because as we have seen, Trump and not just Trump, J.D. Vance, a lot of the allies really want Jerome Powell to step down. Never mind the fact that Trump actually appointed him years ago, but he's not doing their bidding.

49:38Dina Doll:He's not lowering interest rates. And so there's a lot of talk, right? A lot of bullying, actually. Let's just be frank. A lot of bullying, a lot of talk trying to get him to step down. But I think the reason why we haven't seen him step down, and just want to get your quick thought on this also, Lisa, is because the Supreme Court basically already told him not to do this. We know there was a case that came before the Supreme Court because Trump fired one of the members of the National Relations Board, Wilcox, and she went to the Supreme Court and said this was an illegal firing, which under the existing Supreme Court precedent, it wasn't a legal firing because Chief Justice Roberts had said you cannot fire a member of a multi-member board without cause, but they decided to, of course, let Trump go ahead and do it.

50:27Dina Doll:But in that order, allowing Trump to do it, they specifically said that this situation was different than the Federal Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell, telegraphing this to Trump well before Trump actually fired it, well before they got the case, telling Trump, we're not going to back that firing. Of course, you know, you can be very cynical and say they don't care as much about labor as they do about the stock market. But regardless of what their personal motivations were for that, I don't know if I've ever seen the Supreme Court take such like an activist position, you could say, because it wasn't even in front of them.

51:13Dina Doll:But they're real people. They saw the news. They heard the chatter. They knew Trump wanted to do it. And they kind of told him in advance, don't do it. And I think that's why Trump hasn't done it yet and probably won't. Well, it's interesting. I really appreciate how you set that forth, Dina. The fact is, as you point out, longstanding precedent was against the Trump administration in these other firings. It's outrageous that this Supreme Court has basically abrogated almost 100 years of legal precedent about the circumstances under which a president can fire a member of these boards. But as you point out, John Roberts, because in my view, he's such a political animal, he basically said, sure, go ahead, fire these board members.

51:57But in essence, you can't do this with the in this one instance with the Fed. And, you know, so I guess we take solace in the fact that Roberts was trying to protect the Fed from, you know, having a total meltdown of just being an absolute instrument of this, you know, in my view, very erratic, irrational president whose policies on trade have already had significant adverse consequences for our economy. the consequences that we're going to see more and more in these coming weeks and months as we get the effect of some of the effects on trade, on shipping containers in Los Angeles and on the West Coast and more.

52:34But today, we've just seen Trump just, you know, blathering on trying to smear Powell for, you know, office renovations for the Fed as a way to kind of construct, in my view, pretext for firing him based on cause. So in essence, Trump is trying to articulate, in my view, a smear campaign in order to justify firing Powell so he can install some lackey who will do whatever he wants on interest rate. Now, you know, people have views about the Fed and, you know, its longstanding independence of the president. I think most people favor the independence of the Fed from the White House. I certainly don't think that Trump should be setting interest rates for anyone anywhere after we saw his, you know, seemingly AI, you know, AI concocted trade tariffs where he was, you know, putting tariffs on Penguin Islands, but not Russia.

53:28So, you know, I think that there are people in the Republican Party, including Republican operatives, who do not want Powell removed. And it seems like the Supreme Court is in that camp. But Trump is taking his efforts to try to get rid of Powell so he can install yet another loyalist to him, not to the American people, not to the Constitution, not to the mission of the Fed, but someone loyal to him, which is his only test really for anything.

53:55Dina Doll:Absolutely. Well, thank goodness, at least in this instance, Supreme Court seems to probably not be willing to go down that road for him because that would be awful for all of us if he starts playing around with the economy. So if you are watching us on YouTube, be sure to also listen to us on the podcast version of Legal AF. And if you have not yet subscribed to the Legal AF YouTube channel, be sure to follow it, hit subscribe. Popak has done an amazing job curating so many new commentators and podcasts. And if you want to stay informed, speak about everything Trump is doing with the facts and all the issues laid out, that is definitely the place to go.

54:37Dina Doll:I love it when it gets bigger because it makes me feel like we are in the majority because otherwise hearing a lot of these things can get overwhelming, quite frankly, and really depressing. But we are the majority. As those numbers grow, it helps show that. And also, if you haven't yet subscribed to the Legal AF sub stack, there are articles. Popak says a morning, wake up in the morning, and you get to hear his thoughts on the legal news of the day. There's all the filings all in one spot. I think he's getting more and more contributors writing things. So if you like to read your news instead of only just listening, be sure to check out the Legal AF Substack.

55:17Dina Doll:And now we'll hear from some sponsors who we're grateful for. It allows us to speak the truth, speak democracy, not be so worried about whether or not we're going to get canceled, not controlled by the oligarchs. It gives us a freedom here, and we are grateful for our sponsors. And then when we come back, we're going to just tackle our last issue, which is the hearing today and the Abrego Garcia case, the new criminal defendant, Abrego Garcia, which ironically, I think, is giving him a lot more rights. So we'll discuss that after the break. Right now, the headlines are chock full of data breaches and regulatory rollbacks, making us all vulnerable.

55:56But you can do something about it. Delete Me is here to make it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online. As someone who spends a lot of time online for Legal AF, I know how important it is to protect your personal information. I've gotten those emails, your data's been compromised, and it's frustrating, even scary. That's why I use Delete Me. Delete Me does all the hard work of removing your personal data from hundreds of data broker websites. You tell them what you want gone and their privacy experts take care of the rest and they don't stop there. Delete.me sends you regular personalized privacy reports so you know what they found, where they found it and what they removed.

56:37They're constantly working to keep your data off the internet. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20 % off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeliteme.com slash Legal AF and use promo code Legal AF at checkout. The only way to get 20 % off is to go to joindeliteme.com slash Legal AF and enter code Legal AF at checkout. That's joindeleteme.com slash legal AF, code legal AF. So I went to my 40th high school reunion recently. While many of my classmates were excited about retiring or have retired, well, I brought my infant daughter to the reunion and I won the youngest child contest hands down.

57:22But that means that when most people's working is winding down to match their body's energy levels, I need to ramp up to keep up with my baby daughter. I believe one of the best aging breakthroughs of the last decade is qualia senolytic. And here's why. Qualia senolytic is at the frontier of what is currently possible in the science of human aging. Senolytics are a science field revolutionizing human aging. A big culprit behind that middle-aged feeling can be senescent cells, aka zombie cells that linger in your body after their useful function, wasting your energy and resources. Let me break it down.

58:00The accumulation of zombie cells can lead to less energy, slower workout recovery, joint discomfort, and basically, well, feeling old. Qualiacetylytic is a groundbreaking, clinically tested supplement with nine vegan plant-derived compounds that help your body naturally eliminate senescent cells, helping you feel years younger in just months. Here's how it works. You take it just two days a month, helping your body naturally eliminate zombie cells to age better at the cellular level. And Qualia's breakthrough formulation is vegan, non-GMO, and tested by leading scientists. Since taking Qualia's senolytic, I felt like I've turned back the clock.

58:40I got higher energy, less soreness after exercise, and a big boost in productivity. It's made me feel more youthful and energized as I have the energy level to nurture my baby daughter the right way. Experience the science of feeling younger. Go to qualiolife.com slash legal AF for up to 50 % off your purchase and use code legal AF for an additional 15%. That's qualiolife.com slash legal AF for an extra 15 % off your purchase. Your older self will thank you. And thanks to Qualia for sponsoring this episode.

59:16Dina Doll:Dina Dahl, I'm here with Lisa Graves, We're going to break down our last topic regarding today's hearing. Abrego Garcia, who has been through quite a bit and has really become, I would say, kind of a flashpoint for both sides. You know, those of us who really believe in the rule of law and the fact that the U.S. admitted that they had mistakenly deported him to this El Salvadoran president. And now he was brought back only to be charged criminally. And then, of course, for Trump, it's really becoming, I think, a symbol of him believing he can do whatever he wants to anybody at any time. So what happened was in June, there was a bail hearing of whether or not he was going to be released pending trial.

1:00:00Dina Doll:And because the government could not state that they would not deport him while he was out on bail, the judge there, the magistrate judge Holmes, said that although he was not a threat to society, which is usually something that would keep somebody in jail pending their criminal trial, she was going to keep him because she did not have an assurance that he was going to be deported. So this hearing today was with the judge, Judge Crenshaw, who's actually going to oversee the trial. Judge Holmes previously is going to be dealing with the pretrial type issue. So, Judge, it's this irony here situation, Lisa, because we have the DOJ, the prosecution, asking that Abrego Garcia be released pending his criminal trial.

1:00:47Dina Doll:This is like a complete flip from what we normally see. All of this happening at the same time, actually, is the civil case in Maryland is proceeding. And they are asking there, the attorneys, asking the judge to issue an order that he has to remain in the U.S. in that case. So there's multiple cases going on with him. And perhaps whether or not that judge issues an order may affect also whether or not he's released. Judge Crenshaw has said that he's not issuing an order today. maybe sometime this week or next. But interestingly, some of the defense attorney, his attorney got a chance to poke some holes, let's say, at the evidence, I'll say evidence, that the prosecution is putting forward to indict him.

1:01:39Dina Doll:And kind of what I said before the break, you know, he now has a whole set of rights. As a defendant in this country, we have or that person has quite a bit of rights that weren't maybe afforded to him right as somebody who was a non-citizen immigration courts although there is due process there he now has this all on top of it his attorneys were already able to get a gag order right against pam bondi and the other doj attorneys hey stop lying about me they're calling him a criminal left and right he's never had a conviction he's just an alleged criminal they're talking about his character, irrelevant information to it.

1:02:20Dina Doll:He wasn't able to get that kind of gag order, right, with his immigration case. But now as a criminal defendant, he has a right to a fair and impartial jury. And if they go out talking about him, they are prejudicing or potentially prejudicing a jury. So he's got these rights that he didn't have before. So it's interesting because yes, you could argue that the DOJ made this move to get the upper hand, but in a lot of ways, they have put themselves into a system where he has quite a bit of rights. As Donald Trump knows, as he afforded himself every single one of those rights when he was convicted during his trial.

1:02:58Dina Doll:Anyway, so we have today some of the interesting, let's say, polls that they poked through. One of them was the fact that they are asking or that prosecutors have alleged that Abrego Garcia solicited nudes from a minor on Snapchat. Right. That's one of their allegations. There's so many kind of allegations that they're alleging here. And the defense attorney pointed out the fact that the birth date on that Snapchat account that the prosecution is using, saying that this is Obrego Garcia's doesn't even match his birth date, right? So they, and then, and it came out in the hearing that the investigator who's working for the prosecution didn't even know Obrego Garcia's birth date.

1:03:51Dina Doll:Now I filed, have filed true crime cases quite a bit. This is messy. you do not get a conviction with this kind of testimony. I mean, I know we're way far from a trial, but it doesn't even seem like they, like that's the bare minimum. Okay. Right. Lisa is like knowing the birth date. So that way you can confirm the Snapchat account can actually be linked to the defendant and not just words to a court. So that came out as well as the fact that one of the other pieces was they, oh yeah, this was another. One of the lead witnesses that the prosecution plans on putting forward if this goes to trial was calling other witnesses from the jail.

1:04:43Dina Doll:And when the defense was asking them whether or not there was, whether or not they could have coordinated the testimony, it was brought out that three of the witnesses are actually related. So this kind of hearing, what came out of this kind of hearing today, shows, you know, I haven't seen all the evidence. I can't say for certain, you know, what evidence there is or isn't. But when you have a hearing like this, and they can so easily point out this kind of holes, I mean, having witnesses speaking to each other, possibly coordinating testimony, you can just get that hole thrown out, right? You may not even be able to introduce that kind of testimony in court.

1:05:26Dina Doll:You have to be able to only introduce testimony to it in a jury trial, if it's reliable, if it's credible. This is like a gold minefield for the defense attorneys, it seems like today. Yeah, that's right. I mean, the rules for witnesses courting their statements are pretty, it's pretty clear. I confess that I actually declined to take a detail to go work as an assistant U.S. attorney on state at Maine Justice, but I did work on criminal justice policy and I've watched a lot of your work, Dina, and other work covering trials. And I don't think I've ever seen anything like what we're seeing here, including, as you point out, the idea that the situation is so reversed where you have the prosecutors trying to get him out of jail.

1:06:12This basically almost never happens. Prosecutors are usually calling for bail or no bail under some of the rules that we operate under in the federal system, not calling for him to be released. And then the defendant usually wants to be released to go be with their family as they prepare for their defense. But in this instance, this is acting almost like the denial of, or at least so far, it may happen next week or in the next hearing. But in this instance, the defendant, doesn't appear to want to be released until there are guarantees that he won't then be deported, because that's what the Trump administration has said, that if the judge grants bail, they will remove him from the country mid-trial.

1:06:57If that's not an indication that your criminal prosecution is weak, I'm not sure what is. But on top of that, as you point out, Dina, in civil court in Maryland. Albrego Garcia's lawyers are also trying to protect his ability to stay in the United States, not be just surreptitiously removed against the United States. And so everything is sort of upside down and topsy-turvy. And this question of witness, I wouldn't say like, I'm not gonna call it witness tampering per se, but witness coordination is something that is usually very tightly restricted in grand jury proceedings and beyond. And in this instance, when you look at this case from the beginning to now, what you see, as you pointed out, was that the head of the Office of Immigration Litigation in the Justice Department, I think he was fired because he was in court and conceded that there was not evidence that basically justified Abreu Garcia's removal from the United States.

1:07:57But in essence, the Department of Justice was taking a position that they could just remove people, in essence, without evidence if they, you know, if they asserted this power, this extraordinary executive power. And that's another part of the Justice Department that has been, you know, has had a spate of firings, of people retiring, of people taking early retirement or buyouts. the Civil Division, which is the defense part of the Justice Department, you know, has been under extraordinary pressure from Pam Bondi, from the attorney general, Trump's loyalist, and from her henchmen, in essence, to basically, you know, do whatever they can to buck up Trump's claims in Trump's case.

1:08:38And that's why, you know, after weeks of saying, you know, basically that innuendo about Abrego Garcia, the photoshopping, claiming that he was an MS-13 gang member, etc. After all that innuendo, finally the Department of Justice issued an indictment. And he's now back, you know, facing this criminal trial, these criminal accusations. But that indictment was immediately upon its filing was criticized by legal observers for inaccuracies, inaccuracies from the get go. And so I think when I look at this case as an outsider, it certainly looks like the government's case may be very, very weak.

1:09:21Dina Doll:Perhaps he might get it dismissed. Right. I mean, that is you know, you do again, you know, as a criminal defendant, you know, the government has to meet burdens and have actual evidence that is reliable in court for a judge to rely upon. So we'll kind of see where this goes. But that is unfortunately, you know, Abrego Garcia targeted by the government. You know, frankly, that's what's happening here. Targeted by the government, despite the fact that they admitted he was mistakenly deported. And now going through this, you know, you just feel because this man never asked to be a symbol. Right.

1:09:58Dina Doll:Right. Even for us, never asked to be a symbol for, you know, the rule of law. Right. And due process. And that is what he has become. His wife certainly stepping up to the plate as well, filing her own lawsuit. You know, and but but really, you know, just they were just trying to live their lives and being caught up. in this is really just a further example of the lack of humanity and really where we're at as a country, how disturbing it is. But I'm so glad, Lisa, that you and I got a chance to talk about all these topics. Thank you so much for helping me co-anchor this in the absence of Popok and Karen, who do it so wonderfully every week.

1:10:43Dina Doll:But I had a great time with this and certainly want to keep watching your core accountability and just how, how can people find you? Well, I'm going to say, Dina, it's a joy to, um, to talk with you, to be on this with you and be part of this network, um, and, and to defend due process because at the end of the day, people can be convicted. Uh, they could be removed if there's evidence, but that lack of evidence, the lack of any independent oversight, that's what risks all of our freedoms. And so I'm really happy to engage in this ongoing dialogue conversation with you about how we protect the rights of all the people in the United States by ensuring that we have due process and there are ways you can find me here on the Court Accountability channel here on Legal AF but also my my research website is truenorthresearch.org we also have legal materials over at courtaccountability.org and my new book is coming out soon about John Roberts and you can find more information at withoutprecedent.info.

1:11:43And sorry, one less thing. I also have a Substack newsletter that I do with Courier News. It's called Grave Injustice. And so there's lots of places to find me. I'm at the Lisa Graves. Where can people find you, Dina? How can people follow you?

1:12:01Dina Doll:They can find me, AskDinaDahl on all the platforms, as well as Midas and of course, Legal AF, and I'm trying to do more on Substack as well. And it's great that your book is coming out basically right before the next term starts. We will definitely have to dive more into all of your knowledge with Chief Justice Roberts and how he's remaking the court. And, you know, the Supreme Court used to be kind of a sleepy institution that very few people talked about. And now, you know, the Republicans after Roe v. Wade have played the long game with the Federal society of remaking the court. And Democrats really didn't because the Supreme Court was upholding our rights.

1:12:40Dina Doll:The Supreme Court, of course, has never always upheld our rights, right? With the Dred Scott decision, but it had for a while. And so I think that we turned our heads, so to speak, to our detriment. It's not happening anymore. We're all becoming Supreme Court experts now. Well, so great to find you. And of course, for everybody who has not yet subscribed to the Legal AF channel. That's where Lisa and I are doing duets. I'm doing some solos. Lisa Graves does some solos as well as duets with her current accountability colleagues. So be sure to free subscribe and listen wherever you are listening to podcasts and subscribe to those sub stacks, get you informed.

1:13:23Dina Doll:It was a pleasure being able to co-host this with you today. I hope everyone is trying to enjoy their summer despite, you know, the news, it's like whiplash. There's always something bad that's happening. But we are in this together. We're growing both the Midas and the Legal AF communities together. So we're ready. We're ready. But we have to keep growing because it's so bad. But hopefully everyone is enjoying their summer day, taking some time out to be among friends or family or just on their own, having a good walk while we can before we get to the next whiplash moment. Thanks, Dina. Thanks, everyone.