Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wik f Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Danny L. Moody recording on the road. Actually, folks,
Speaker 1: the last couple of weeks have really opened my eyes
Speaker 1: to wear universities loyalty lies. Right. We send young people
Speaker 1: to hire institutions, right, to hire ed institutions in order
Speaker 1: to have them think critically about the world around them,
Speaker 1: how they're going to choose how to build a profession
Speaker 1: right with the information that they learn that they are
Speaker 1: supposed to be these you know, microcosms of the world
Speaker 1: around us, but really a place where you can really
Speaker 1: delve into critical thought and then exercise what it is
Speaker 1: that you learn. But what we have seen over the
Speaker 1: last couple of weeks as the protests on college campuses
Speaker 1: have grown in their response to wanting universities to one
Speaker 1: be transparent about their investments, two to divest investments from
Speaker 1: Israel that are contributing to death and destruction. Right, how
Speaker 1: I've been framing this is that college tuition has gone
Speaker 1: up two levels once unheard of in like the six
Speaker 1: figures to send your kid to school for a fucking
Speaker 1: year because you're told that if you don't have a
Speaker 1: college degree, right, then you're never gonna get a good job.
Speaker 1: But honestly, I'm really starting to look at these institutions
Speaker 1: as just one big fucking Ponzi scheme, because what it
Speaker 1: has become is an apparatus for young people to go
Speaker 1: into debt, right, and like extraordinary debt, not like a
Speaker 1: little bit of debt that gets paid off in a
Speaker 1: couple of years. But you're talking about high six figures
Speaker 1: worth of fucking debt. Because unless you are the super rich,
Speaker 1: I don't know who can afford these college numbers. So
Speaker 1: when now students are looking around, they're saying, so I
Speaker 1: basically and myself and my family are going into extraordinary debt,
Speaker 1: and I'm not supposed to have a say on where
Speaker 1: that fucking money is going, Like I'm not supposed to
Speaker 1: know or ask questions. And then when I do, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, I'm the problem and not the institution.
Speaker 1: So you have these places that are supposed to be
Speaker 1: the you know, thought cells of the future, right future
Speaker 1: industry leaders now being arrested for exercising their right to
Speaker 1: free speech, their right to assemble, and their right to
Speaker 1: question the very institution who, without their tuitions wouldn't exist.
Speaker 1: But now it turns out that universities really don't give
Speaker 1: a fuck about their students, who they see as disposable.
Speaker 1: What they really do care about are those endowments. And
Speaker 1: as it would turn out, those endowments argually come from
Speaker 1: quote unquote conservatives who are on the side of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and the Republicans and don't believe in free speech,
Speaker 1: don't believe in the right to protest, don't believe in democracy.
Speaker 1: And so now you have these universities being quote unquote
Speaker 1: pressured by major donors to quell critical thought and protests
Speaker 1: and democratic values on college campuses. Folks, this is what
Speaker 1: the right has always wanted. When you look at textbook fascism,
Speaker 1: who do they go for first, Right, They go after
Speaker 1: the academics, they go after the students, because without those thinkers,
Speaker 1: what you're left with, right, are the workers. And so
Speaker 1: those that are more likely or easily to be controlled
Speaker 1: because they're locked into an economic status that does not
Speaker 1: afford them the luxury of thinking abstractly and big about
Speaker 1: our critical issues. So it you know, as I see
Speaker 1: this crackdown happening, and as young people are making the
Speaker 1: decisions this very month, right about what colleges and universities
Speaker 1: they're going to be going to where they want to enroll.
Speaker 1: You know, for those of you who are listening to
Speaker 1: this that have high school's age kids or college age kids,
Speaker 1: they need to really think about what institutions that they
Speaker 1: are going to. You know, one of the things that
Speaker 1: I will say too, that was just recently in the
Speaker 1: news is that Howard University, right, one of the historically
Speaker 1: black colleges and universities in Washington, DC, has seen an
Speaker 1: uptick of about fifty percent in applications. Thirty seven thousand
Speaker 1: young people applied to attend Howard University. Now, Howard has
Speaker 1: been in the news for a whole host of other reasons,
Speaker 1: as it pertains to mishandling of funds and low investment
Speaker 1: into student housing and just horrific things that we have
Speaker 1: seen horrific housing conditions. But what it goes to show
Speaker 1: you is that as you're seeing arise in white supremacy
Speaker 1: and fascism, that young black people are saying they don't
Speaker 1: want to go to predominantly white institutions or pwise, they
Speaker 1: would rather go to HBCUs. And so again, as we're
Speaker 1: thinking about the few of colleges and universities. I think
Speaker 1: that this is a really critical moment, right. The prices
Speaker 1: are skyrocketing, the democratic values are taking are plummeting, right,
Speaker 1: and young people are trapped someplace in between. There has
Speaker 1: never been student protests that were on the wrong side
Speaker 1: of history, right. So, whether it be the civil rights movement,
Speaker 1: the Vietnam War, apartheid in South Africa that brought on
Speaker 1: mass protests at colleges and universities, they were always on
Speaker 1: the right side. So I would think really hard if
Speaker 1: I am the current administration, if I am current members
Speaker 1: of Congress, about who I'm going to be cracking down on.
Speaker 1: Coming up next, dear friends, my conversation with our friend
Speaker 1: Jennifer Tobb, who makes her return to wok F Daily
Speaker 1: to break down the latest legal woes of Donald Trump. Folks,
Speaker 1: it has been far, far too long since we have
Speaker 1: had a friend of the show, gentile law professor, author
Speaker 1: of Big Dirty Money on wok F Daily, and I'm
Speaker 1: so appreciative to have you back to have some of
Speaker 1: your time because the legal news. I honestly I don't
Speaker 1: know how professors are teaching right now, and every time
Speaker 1: that I have either a professor of political science a
Speaker 1: law professor on I'm just like, I don't even know
Speaker 1: how you make sense of what's happening. But what I
Speaker 1: will say is the Supreme Court, this unelected body of
Speaker 1: nine black robes that reigns over the rest of us
Speaker 1: without any repercussions, without any I don't know. I guess
Speaker 1: I didn't realize Jen that there was just like no
Speaker 1: safety valve when it came to the Supreme Court. And
Speaker 1: so right now as we're speaking, you have the immunity case,
Speaker 1: Presidential immunity oral arguments are happening. You have the Idaho
Speaker 1: emergency abortion case that is happening. Not to mention what
Speaker 1: is on their slate as they barrel towards the end
Speaker 1: of their term in July. It's wild as fuck. And
Speaker 1: so as like, I guess I'll just say, the question
Speaker 1: is what are we doing here? Like, how do the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court even decide to take up this immunity case
Speaker 1: and pretend that they're not in the pocket of Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: And I guess it doesn't really matter, right, It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter if they're overt covert. It doesn't matter because on
Speaker 1: either side, will they ever be held accountable for anything?
Speaker 2: There is so much in there. There are many questions
Speaker 2: that I'm going to start with the very first one,
Speaker 2: which I loved. You said, how to professors? How are
Speaker 2: they teaching? And my last day of teaching was Monday.
Speaker 2: So that's how I am dealing with this. But I
Speaker 2: have to tell you, you know that I'm a follow the
Speaker 2: money person and you know, sort of a you know,
Speaker 2: obsessive on Trump finding justice because he is a white
Speaker 2: collar criminal has gotten away with it. But the thing
Speaker 2: that is the most upsetting to me, that I couldn't
Speaker 2: listen to and couldn't even read about till this morning,
Speaker 2: was that Idaho m TALA case. AMTALA is standing for
Speaker 2: that federal law emergency what is it, Emergency Medical Treatment
Speaker 2: and Labor Act, because it's visceral, you know, Danielle, I
Speaker 2: mean I feel it. You know, I have been through
Speaker 2: a very dangerous labor. I know what it's like to
Speaker 2: have to have an emergency intervention. Thank goodness, everybody survived.
Speaker 2: I also feel for these, you know, people who go
Speaker 2: in you know, pregnant and are hoping for you know,
Speaker 2: the continuation of their pregnancy and are in critical condition
Speaker 2: or I shouldn't even say critical, or in a dangerous
Speaker 2: condition where it's clear the pregnancy isn't going to survive,
Speaker 2: but there is a chance for them to give birth
Speaker 2: in the future. But if you wait and don't perform
Speaker 2: the abortion, you could damage their reproductive organs forever. So
Speaker 2: for you know, there are a lot of people who
Speaker 2: will say who are anti abortion. They'll say, you know,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't be alive if my mother had had an abortion. Well,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of people who wouldn't be alive
Speaker 2: if their mother hadn't been given a medically necessary abortion.
Speaker 2: And certainly people even if it wasn't medically necessary, which
Speaker 2: has nothing to do with the Idaho case, there are
Speaker 2: people who aren't ready to be parents, and if they
Speaker 2: had been parents, that future child wouldn't be born. So
Speaker 2: all this stuff, I think the access to abortion is
Speaker 2: the pro life position, and we can see that really
Speaker 2: clearly here pro women's life. If you are a pregnant
Speaker 2: person and you can shape your destiny, you should not
Speaker 2: have to be in sepsis, near death with organ failure
Speaker 2: in order for a doctor to perform an abortion on you.
Speaker 2: And I was shocked to hear that in Idaho they're
Speaker 2: trying to gaslight us. The argument saying, oh, there's no
Speaker 2: you know that if there's no big thing here. And
Speaker 2: the Idaho law is the same as a federal law
Speaker 2: that how come over six women or at least six
Speaker 2: women have been airlifted from Idaho to other states so
Speaker 2: they could get treatment. The reason why this federal law
Speaker 2: exists it's not just for emergency abortions. It's also for
Speaker 2: any emergency condition because in this mostly affected poor women,
Speaker 2: poor women, poor black women especially. You come to the
Speaker 2: a hospital emergency room in distress. You might not be pregnant,
Speaker 2: it could be something else, and hospitals could turn you
Speaker 2: away if you didn't have insurance.
Speaker 1: Now they have been doing. Now they have to stabilize you.
Speaker 2: And by the way, this isn't just you know for
Speaker 2: people who are like, well, I'm not a poor person,
Speaker 2: why should I care. It's about you too, because different
Speaker 2: insurance plans, the hospitals will say, well, will you sign
Speaker 2: right here to agree to pick up any charges your
Speaker 2: insurance does. Well, before you even know what those charges
Speaker 2: could be. They could be outsourcing the anesthetic, They could
Speaker 2: be doing things that could cost you tens of thousands,
Speaker 2: if not hundreds of thousands of dollars that you have
Speaker 2: now ruined your entire family for because they're forcing you
Speaker 2: to sign that, or they're forcing your spouse to sign
Speaker 2: that just to stabilize you so you won't die, and
Speaker 2: that is coercive in this law, you know, is meant
Speaker 2: to deal with all of that. And so for me,
Speaker 2: what I heard about the argument yesterday and this in
Speaker 2: the case, was it only the women justices were actually
Speaker 2: carry at all about the lives of people coming into
Speaker 2: hospitals in danger.
Speaker 1: And you know, I just.
Speaker 2: It's really hard when you think, you know, it's hardwin
Speaker 2: dabs overturned, mov wade. This takes it to this next level.
Speaker 2: And if they cannot uphold this federal statute, then a
Speaker 2: federal law allowing abortion nationwide will not be uphelp. These
Speaker 2: things are all linked as well.
Speaker 1: It's just, you know, what I realized listening to Alito
Speaker 1: in particular, is the depravity, Yes, is the depravity and
Speaker 1: the cruelty of these male justices that have no idea
Speaker 1: what you know. And I feel like it was somebody
Speaker 1: on cable news who said, you know, it's like they
Speaker 1: leave the Hallmark, fairytale, fucking Disney version of pregnancy and
Speaker 1: birth right like in Alito's mind, like what what what
Speaker 1: do you mean emergency? Doesn't the stork come to your door?
Speaker 1: Like that's the kind of bullshit that they offer, and
Speaker 1: it just shows you, Like the male justices were in
Speaker 1: conversation about the particulars around the law, and the women
Speaker 1: justices are talking about the reality on the ground of
Speaker 1: women and their bodies and the fact that pregnancy is
Speaker 1: a high risk situation totally, and it doesn't matter if
Speaker 1: you are old or you're young. You are what do
Speaker 1: they say, you are never a woman is never closer
Speaker 1: to death than when she is giving birth.
Speaker 2: Absolutely yes.
Speaker 1: And so the fact that we are a developed nation
Speaker 1: with all of the tools and the science and the
Speaker 1: medical know how that has made maternal care and birthing
Speaker 1: easier for women. For the Republican Party and these right
Speaker 1: wing fascist judges to turn around and say, well, we
Speaker 1: don't really care. Right for Alito to profess himself to
Speaker 1: be some type of fucking medical expert, I'm like, you
Speaker 1: went to law school, bro, you didn't go to medical school.
Speaker 1: So you don't see me coming to your job and
Speaker 1: telling you how to do it right because you don't
Speaker 1: actually don't know how to do it. So I just wonder,
Speaker 1: like the polling jen polls come out ah Supreme Courts
Speaker 1: in the toilet. We all know about Clarence Thomas and
Speaker 1: the grifting, but there's nothing we can do about it,
Speaker 1: and there's nothing we do do about it. As they
Speaker 1: take us back to literally the dark ages, they might
Speaker 1: as well take us back to the law that was
Speaker 1: just narrowly overturned in Arizona in the House, with the
Speaker 1: eighteen sixty four law that they have on abortion.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Comstock Act that they're trying to use.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. So I'm just like, we have no what's
Speaker 1: the recourse? What is the recourse?
Speaker 2: You know, I'm always looking for these, you know, I
Speaker 2: want to answer your question and not fight the hypothetical
Speaker 2: and find something good to say. And I think the
Speaker 2: only recourse is making sure that you know that Joe
Speaker 2: Biden wins and that he in his next term expands
Speaker 2: the Court to thirteen justices, because we have essentially thirteen circuits,
Speaker 2: and because several of these justices, the ones who facilitated
Speaker 2: the end of Roe v. Wade, I believe, deceived Congress
Speaker 2: when they were at the Senate, when they were at
Speaker 2: their hearings. Number one, so you can't, you know. I
Speaker 2: think that's step one expanding the court. And I think
Speaker 2: step two is we really have to fight countries have
Speaker 2: for a nationwide law that allows for abortion. We cannot
Speaker 2: do this state by state thing. It's not safe for
Speaker 2: any of us. And it's barbaric. And we can see
Speaker 2: where this is going, you know, and this idea that
Speaker 2: women are merely this sort of vehicle and if there's
Speaker 2: any blood or guts involved in giving birth, that's on you,
Speaker 2: Like you should just pop this baby out like it's
Speaker 2: like like you're a plastic doll and the baby's popping
Speaker 2: out of some you know, plastic hole and there's no blood,
Speaker 2: there's no guts, and it's like Barbie Land. You know that, No,
Speaker 2: that is not that is not what this is. And
Speaker 2: you know it's it's our lives depend upon this, you know.
Speaker 2: This is I always thought when people were referring to
Speaker 2: the Handmaid's Tail that it was a little okay, a
Speaker 2: little too too.
Speaker 1: And that's where we are.
Speaker 2: Right now, and it's frightening.
Speaker 1: I want to switch gears, staying on the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: but just switching cases, which is the presidential immunity case
Speaker 1: that as of the time of this recording is being heard,
Speaker 1: and you know, Jack Smith, the Special Council, had asked
Speaker 1: back in December for the Supreme Court to hear this
Speaker 1: case because he knew where it was headed and he
Speaker 1: wanted to get ahead of the curve. The Supreme Court said, nah,
Speaker 1: we'll just kick it back to the lower court. Lower
Speaker 1: court makes a decision and says, yeah, presidents don't have
Speaker 1: full immunity, and now kicked up to the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and they're like, maybe we'll hear it, you know, when
Speaker 1: the cherry blossoms come out. Right. So here we are.
Speaker 1: I'm listening, as you're listening, tell me your thoughts on
Speaker 1: what you're hearing. And to me, I'm like, if I
Speaker 1: was a lawyer, the only question that would be posed
Speaker 1: would be, so, how do the other forty four presidents
Speaker 1: serve without presidential immunity? Like how were they able to
Speaker 1: serve over the last two hundred and fifty years of
Speaker 1: this country before this criminal comes and now all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, we need presidential immunity. Something the Framers never offered.
Speaker 2: Well, not to argue for their lawyer, but his lawyer
Speaker 2: would probably say, oh, they already had it. We just
Speaker 2: never tested it, so that's what their lawyer would say.
Speaker 2: But so you know, when I'm when I'm listening to this,
Speaker 2: you know, I'm listening carefully, but also like you know,
Speaker 2: on my Twitter or in like little you know, in
Speaker 2: little chat groups. And it's interesting the different you know,
Speaker 2: the people who have argued numerous pieces before the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: I you know, I trust them, but I also trust
Speaker 2: my I wouldn't call myself a labors and because I'm
Speaker 2: a law professor, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer. So
Speaker 2: I'm listening. I think more like a member of the public,
Speaker 2: and I think that I guess there's takeaways. I'm going
Speaker 2: to give you the most practical thing first, The most
Speaker 2: practical thing, which I've always been listening for, is are
Speaker 2: they going to decide this it quickly enough and in
Speaker 2: such a way that allows Judge Chuckkin to move forward
Speaker 2: immediately and you know, finish the discovery period and start
Speaker 2: the trial. That's like the practical thing I'm looking for, right,
Speaker 2: And from what I hear, that doesn't appear like it's
Speaker 2: going to happen. It could, but we'll talk about that. So,
Speaker 2: you know, justice delayed, justice denied. Right. The second thing.
Speaker 2: And this is more of the you know sort of
Speaker 2: What is the most striking and shocking thing is that
Speaker 2: when Elena Kagan asks Trump's lawyer whether if a president
Speaker 2: had staged a coup against the United States while he
Speaker 2: was president in order to try to stay in office
Speaker 2: but then it was unsuccessful, could you, after he was
Speaker 2: out of office prosecute him for that crime? And this
Speaker 2: answer that he gave came out in several different parts
Speaker 2: because other justices followed up, including KBJ and Barrett. His
Speaker 2: answer was, the only way that you could prosecute a
Speaker 2: formal president for having broken the law by staging a
Speaker 2: coup would be if first House impeached and the Senate convicted.
Speaker 2: And wait, but there's more, so that that alone, and
Speaker 2: he said that that would probably Keke and said, well,
Speaker 2: do you consider that a private act or an official act?
Speaker 2: And he said, well, it depends on all the context,
Speaker 2: but it might be an official act. Okay, with there's more,
Speaker 2: and then you get later Barrett and then KBJ, you know,
Speaker 2: and as as Trump's lawyer further aside, and on top
Speaker 2: of all of this, if you were able to prosecute him,
Speaker 2: because if it were considered a private act, you would
Speaker 2: need a stack that explicitly said, and this also applies
Speaker 2: to the president, not just anyone else. So you know,
Speaker 2: that was to me the most outrageous argument he made.
Speaker 2: Now the most important the legal thing, which my friend
Speaker 2: Steve Vladdock pointed out, I think both in his tweets
Speaker 2: and privately, the most significant thing was that Barrett got
Speaker 2: Trump's lawyer to admit that some of the allegations in
Speaker 2: the Special Council's case. Remember this is involving the essentially
Speaker 2: coup attempt, that some of the allegations were definitely private,
Speaker 2: not official acts. And doing that is the most significant
Speaker 2: thing because if that is the case, arguably the court
Speaker 2: could truncate this and say, Okay, we're going to you've
Speaker 2: admitted that some of them are, so we're going to
Speaker 2: allow the court to you know, she has jurissm. We
Speaker 2: know that she at least the judge at least has
Speaker 2: jurisdiction over something, so discovery can continue at least, and
Speaker 2: we can get the clock moving because she had thinks
Speaker 2: there's like two months left she thought of discovery and
Speaker 2: then they're gonna this part. I think it's gonna happen
Speaker 2: no matter what. I think the court's gonna kick it
Speaker 2: back down to Chuckkin. I've always thought this would be
Speaker 2: the case and say it's up to her to decide
Speaker 2: which of the things she believes are our official which
Speaker 2: are private, and she'll probably say everything's private, and that
Speaker 2: will be Unfortunately, there might be an interlocuatory appeal. But
Speaker 2: I think they're going to quickly affirm her at the
Speaker 2: DC Circuit and then I think Scotus will quickly affirm
Speaker 2: and you could actually have a trial before September.
Speaker 1: That's what I saw. Yeah, I saw that was bart. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Barrett's line of questioning that led to that place because
Speaker 1: she said, because you're all you know, in referring to
Speaker 1: the Special Council Jack Smith, time is of the essence, correct, right?
Speaker 1: And I'm like, are you dumb? Do you have a
Speaker 1: calendar or two?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: Yes, time and time is of the time is of
Speaker 1: the essence, Jen, We just have a couple of minutes left.
Speaker 1: But the last question that I have for you is,
Speaker 1: I know that you just taught your your last class
Speaker 1: before your students that have been listening to you your
Speaker 1: lectures learning about the law. Has there been any like,
Speaker 1: what's a question that they have asked about, you know,
Speaker 1: how I guess, how has their understanding of the law
Speaker 1: changed from how they entered in into what we are
Speaker 1: seeing now about you know, why they wanted to be
Speaker 1: lawyers or judges or you know what have you.
Speaker 2: So one of my classes is like a business organization course,
Speaker 2: and so that hasn't really touched on this, although those
Speaker 2: students are often interested in the stock price Trump's company
Speaker 2: and and so on. But in my other class, I
Speaker 2: have a semono called money Law and Power, and I
Speaker 2: think that, you know, they're very interested. One of them,
Speaker 2: we haven't really talked that much about Donald Trump, but
Speaker 2: one of them brought up the question and a paper
Speaker 2: that she is writing whether Trump is a dictator similar
Speaker 2: to other powerful authoritarians, because we're looking at money, law
Speaker 2: and power, we look at you know, not just you know, oligarchy, but.
Speaker 1: Also at dictatorships.
Speaker 2: We're looking at all all kinds of amassing of power
Speaker 2: and wealth. And so, you know, I think there are people, really,
Speaker 2: I think there are people. I think the students, you know,
Speaker 2: this semester not as much, but last semester in my
Speaker 2: white collar crime class, I think they're absolutely shocked by
Speaker 2: the double standard that appears to apply to him versus
Speaker 2: any other even white collar criminal. Right, they already are
Speaker 2: already have it easy. But this guy, it's unbelievable, you know.
Speaker 2: And I think I often say, you know, yeah, you
Speaker 2: might make this argument, but this isn't going to happen
Speaker 2: to your ordinary client.
Speaker 1: You know, try that.
Speaker 2: Don't try this at home, you know.
Speaker 1: Like, but I mean that that and the fact that
Speaker 1: but they're setting up all of this precedent. Right, So
Speaker 1: if I if I am a white collar criminal, and
Speaker 1: you know, and I'm looking at the cake walk that's
Speaker 1: being given, then I'm going and I'm going into maybe
Speaker 1: similar jurisdictions or the same jurisdiction.
Speaker 2: I'm saying, if you have the money to distall I mean,
Speaker 2: if you have the money to do this, and you
Speaker 2: also want to like run for some political office at
Speaker 2: the same time, you can say I'm running for city
Speaker 2: council and they're trying to ruin my chances. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, look, I mean I don't defend, I don't
Speaker 2: do criminal defense, but I certainly, you know, would look
Speaker 2: at precedent and you try to be a full service lawyer,
Speaker 2: and I think I would I would advise you to
Speaker 2: run for office.
Speaker 1: Oh shit, well we'll leave it on that today.
Speaker 2: You're not right. I know you are.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm like, God, damn, I'll leave it there today.
Speaker 1: My friend Jen Poud, thank you so much for making
Speaker 1: the time for wokf I really appreciate you. That is
Speaker 1: it for me today. Dear friends on wok f as
Speaker 1: always power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.