How is it that the AI bros have created the first product in the world where the companies and the people who created it have somehow divorced themselves for the responsibility of the products they've created?

Well, you know, um...

They're not the first.

I can tell you what happened with Big Pharma.

Big Pharma got the exact same deal that they're looking for right now.

Big Pharma got completely immunized by a federal statute from any liability for the vaccines.

And, you know, the vaccines did tremendous good for tons of people, but they also caused some harm.

Has that argument ever been made?

Go ahead.

so even in massachusetts courts recognize what is this crime voluntary manslaughter it's an intentional killing an intentional killing but one that quote arises from the frailty of human nature you know kind of an amazing sentence coming out of courts coming out of the law because it kind of captures this kind of case in a way that is really hard to capture because you know in my opinion i'm sorry if i'm differing with some of your viewers here but you This woman knew that she was killing her children.

And I just don't think it could be appropriate to just let her walk away and have no criminal punishment whatsoever.

On the other hand, it's not a murder like a cartel murder.

It's not a rapist murder.

This is a deeply troubled woman in distress, mental health issues.

So you don't want to treat it like, you know... like other first-degree murder cases, and that's where voluntary managed law comes in.

food.

I think his only last hope is to appeal to the basic fairness of an average layperson on the jury saying, well, whatever these lawyers are saying, it doesn't seem fair for another prosecutor to go after him for the same act of pulling that trigger.

You're making a perfectly good point.

I'll tell you from the point of view of the law and judges, here's what folks are going to say.

Don't forget that in a state prosecution, there can be, in some cases, home cooking.

So you get some state police officer.

He's charged with some crime, some civil rights offense.

He gets acquitted in state court, or he pleads guilty to some little offense, and they let him go on a little plea bargain, some small offense.

So taking all this into consideration, Professor, how strong do you think the prosecution's argument is that federal stalking, which is a security issue, versus state murder, which is a life issue, are different enough to fall within the exception that the New York law provides? I feel like we're talking about double negatives here, but I think you know what I'm referring to, the New York law exceptions.

Tell us about it.

Oh, yeah, that is at the heart.

Well, it's really it's kind of interesting issue, but there's some stuff people are just totally missing.

They're just not seeing it.

So, you know, here's how it works.

The pardon covers Fauci for everything he did from 2014 to 2025, when January 2025, when the pardon was issued.

It does not cover him for anything he might do after January 2025.

Does it have to or can it be directly transmitted to the Department of Justice?

Tell us about it.

Oh, yeah, that is at the heart.

Well, it's really it's kind of interesting issue, but there's some stuff people are just totally missing.

They're just not seeing it.

So, you know, here's how it works.

The pardon covers Fauci for everything he did from 2014 to 2025, when January 2025, when the pardon was issued.

It does not cover him for anything he might do after January 2025.

Does it have to or can it be directly transmitted to the Department of Justice?

Can you explain what the Constitution ruled ab- about the Alien Enemies Act and how it may be a win for the Trump administration, but also a win for due process and con- the Constitution?

That is exactly right.

You just put it perfectly.

It's a big win for the Trump administration because what the Supreme Court did was it overturned these orders that were being issued by Judge Boasberg down in DC, very controversial orders in which he, uh, he said, "Stop deporting folks under the Alien Enemies Act.

You're gonna lose this case.

You gotta stop deporting them right now." The Supreme Court basically took this case away from Boasberg and said, "Nope, you don't have any jurisdiction.

If the case goes forward, it's gotta go forward probably in Texas." So that's a big win, but it's a huge win for the Constitution and the rule of law.

So what, what are th- what is the Trump administration arguing about not having jurisdiction to get these people back? Is this another sort of GITMO, it's out of our hands, now it's not within this tidy box of the Constitution, so sorry?

Is it defined as sending a Venmo payment to a leader of Hamas in Gaza or is it handing out flyers that, frankly, a lot of nepo babies who go to Colombia are similarly handing out and we don't actually believe that those kids, as foolish and idiotic and, you know, morally depraved as they might be, we don't think of them as materially supporting a terrorist group?

Right.

Okay.

Great question.

And, uh, folks have to get their heads around all these, uh, legal issues before even hitting the constitutional issues.

So that statute, the INA that you guys are talking about, it, uh, sets forth two provisions that the government could rely on.

One of them, you talked about before.

Jed, is that how you see it? I just sort of want to clarify it for people tuning in.