Trump and Republicans run headfirst into a brick wall in court trying to defend their troop deployments.

And I've got four interviews. Brian Schatz, Raphael Warnock, and Melanie Stansbury talk about the shutdown

and Trump's efforts to gut the ACA. And California Attorney General Rob Bonta comes to discuss

the ongoing lawsuit against Trump's troop deployments in the Ninth Circuit. I'm Brian Tyler

Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie.

So we've got some rare good news here, and while there's obviously plenty to be upset about,

I think it's worth talking about this glimmer of hope here. And that is that for an issue I've been

tracking more closely than anything else, Trump's troop deployments, judges and the courts are

serving as a pretty

damn effective bulwark against his moves. So I'm going to first explain what happened in the courts,

and second, why this matters beyond the obvious, which is that we should not become normalized

to troops being deployed in our own cities against our own people. So in California,

Judge Breyer blocked Trump's troop deployment to LA. That case is now sitting at

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Oregon, Judge Imbergut blocked Trump's troop deployment to

Portland and in Illinois, Judge Perry blocked Trump's troop deployment to Chicago. The better news is that

Judge Perry cited Judge Imrigut's ruling, which means that each baseless deployment and each

previous court loss is actually impacting subsequent cases, which means that each troop

deployment loss begets more troop deployment losses. And normally this wouldn't be the case

because trial courts don't create precedent, but in these instances, it does seem like the

judges are at least taking this atmospheric precedent into account in their instances, it does seem like the judges are at least taking

this atmospheric precedent into account in their own rulings. So what this means is that each

time Trump cooks up some, you know, some bogus excuse to deploy troops against Americans,

...