So this is a story that we've... touched on uh and i'm really excited that we get to do a much deeper dive here today um but you know for the folks that may have missed the episode where we talked about these crazy sentences and whatnot uh do us a favor give a little bit of background uh for folks just coming to the conversation um or you know a much deeper dive than i might have been able to give uh For people that don't know who Danielle Dez Sanchez Estrada's story, let's paint a little bit of a picture, some backstory, bring folks to the conversation.

Sure.

So about a year ago, last July 4th, there was a protest outside of an ICE detention facility in Alvarado, Texas.

Daniel Sanchez Estrada's wife attended.

Daniel Sanchez Estrada did not.

A several other people attended.

It was a noise demonstration.

this will have an effect on journalists? I'm sure it would have an effect on activists, but do you think that will have an effect on journalism and how journalism, how we view journalism in this country?

What is it that those folks can expect if they continue to protest the injustices they find within this government?

Yeah, I don't want to discourage anyone from continuing their activism.

It is much needed, more so than perhaps ever, at least in recent times.

But I also don't want to give people false hope.

The administration is on this course of cracking down on dissent, of attempting to prosecute its critics.

And There's no telling what it might attempt next.

Obviously, you go to a protest, you have no way of anticipating whether somebody else might pull out a gun, whether somebody else might commit a crime.

But, you know, in your own words to our listeners.

Can you just set us up a little with why you are so concerned about this? Because injustice is old, but this feels new.

It really does.

What we're seeing here is an attempt to criticize not only an ideology, but a very loosely defined ideology.

The administration's theory is that because they attended the same protest as the shooter, and because they read some of the same literature as the shooter might've shared political views with the shooter.

you can, from those facts alone, infer a conspiracy, infer an organized, as the administration would call it, terrorist attack.

In reality, none of these people, including the shooter in all likelihood, came to the protest with any intention of a police officer being shot.

certainly the other six defendants who were at the protest besides the shooter had no idea that was going to occur.

I'm

Can you just set us up a little with why you are so concerned about this? Because injustice is old, but this feels new.

It really does.

What we're seeing here is an attempt to criticize not only an ideology, but a very loosely defined ideology.

The administration's theory is that because they attended the same protest as the shooter, and because they read some of the same literature as the shooter might've shared political views with the shooter.

you can, from those facts alone, infer a conspiracy, infer an organized, as the administration would call it, terrorist attack.

In reality, none of these people, including the shooter in all likelihood, came to the protest with any intention of a police officer being shot.

certainly the other six defendants who were at the protest besides the shooter had no idea that was going to occur.

And so I guess I'd ask you, what can we do? What can we be doing in the face of this?

Mm-hmm.

And, um, word that a judge had ruled in his favor on one of his many frivolous lawsuits is likely to be helpful in securing a nomination from the President.

If I were in front of this judge litigating a case involving Donald Trump, I would certainly wanna know that that judge was seeking a judicial appointment from Donald Trump.

Seems pretty obvious that he should recuse himself or disclose the conflict, but he did neither.

It looks pretty fishy.

Maybe even fishier.

He wasn't the only judge on that panel who was also seeking a judgeship from President Trump.

There was also a judge named, uh, Ed Artau, and, uh, he not only ruled in favor of Trump, but he issued a concurring opinion in the case that read like a MAGA manifesto.

Seth, I wonder how could reporting that's been going on about the war be categorized as treason? What could that possibly be?

I don't want to spend too much time trying to reason backwards and figure out what, if anything, Trump was talking about.

Treason is a word that he learned at some point that he likes to type in all caps and put on Truth Social for reasons that are hard to discern.

No, reporting is not... treasonous, even incorrect reporting.

I suppose he's implying that reporters were duped by AI.

Being duped is not treason.

But the fact of the matter is nobody was duped by AI.

the whole media, isn't it?