Michelle Evans Live Reaction to United States Supreme Court

[00:00:00] like why is this happening? [00:00:04] >> I know it's like a very meta [00:00:06] >> foundational question but [00:00:08] >> what's going on in society? I mean, we [00:00:11] could go down the rabbit trail of, you [00:00:13] know, [00:00:14] >> what's the 60-second version in from [00:00:16] your perspective? There is this [00:00:20] I mean we live in a society that's me me [00:00:22] and and everybody wants their special [00:00:24] rights and it's you know kind of this um [00:00:27] Olympics of who's the most [00:00:30] um marginalized the intersectionality of [00:00:34] all of these different identities and [00:00:35] whatnot but ultimately it's men who want [00:00:39] to invade women's everything. you know, [00:00:43] uh, one of the female athletes that was [00:00:46] in DC this week for the Scotas case was [00:00:50] saying, you know, this if men are [00:00:52] allowed to come into our spaces, into [00:00:54] our sports, there is no longer a female [00:00:57] category. There's going to be men male [00:00:59] category on both sides, right? [00:01:01] >> There won't there won't be a male [00:01:03] category. and nobody for some reason it [00:01:06] just is not being absorbed by people on [00:01:09] the left these ideologues who will live [00:01:11] and die by feelings instead of you know [00:01:16] facts and and I just [00:01:20] it's this circular logic what defines [00:01:23] how do you define a man woman or what is [00:01:24] a woman [00:01:25] >> that seems to be a losing issue for them [00:01:26] like if this is the the the hill that [00:01:28] they die on if this is the hill that [00:01:31] district attorney Jose Garza dies on [00:01:35] I it seems like he's going to lose that [00:01:37] power struggle. I mean, as so goes the [00:01:41] country, [00:01:41] >> God willing, but they are so dug in in [00:01:44] places like Austin. And it's really it I [00:01:48] mean, there's a bit of Austin in my [00:01:50] county, so we we see a little bit of it. [00:01:52] It's a not a very conservative area, but [00:01:56] it's a little more conservative than the [00:01:58] center of Austin. Um but they're they [00:02:03] cannot seem to dig themselves out of [00:02:05] this hole and it's they they perpetuate [00:02:08] it. He gets reelected easily. Um even [00:02:12] though there's an increase in crime, [00:02:16] there is increase in homelessness on the [00:02:18] streets. He's not um he's not [00:02:21] prosecuting violent criminals. He's [00:02:23] going after law enforcement for the [00:02:25] summer of love and their response. Um, [00:02:28] so he's he's still considered fair well [00:02:32] fairly popular popular enough to retain [00:02:33] a seat. [00:02:35] >> We have that clip from Justice Alo. [00:02:36] Let's pull that up. This is from the [00:02:38] United States. [00:02:38] >> Yes, your honor. [00:02:39] >> If it does that, then is it not [00:02:42] necessary for there to be for equal [00:02:45] protection purposes? If that is [00:02:46] challenged under the equal protection [00:02:48] clause, uh, an understanding of what it [00:02:51] means to be a boy or a girl or a man or [00:02:54] a woman? [00:02:54] >> Yes, your honor. And what is that [00:02:56] definition for equal protection [00:02:58] purposes? What does what does it mean to [00:03:00] be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman? [00:03:03] >> Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I [00:03:04] think that the underlying enactment, [00:03:06] whatever it was, the policy, the law, [00:03:08] the would have to we'd have to have an [00:03:09] understanding of how the state or the [00:03:11] government was understanding that term [00:03:14] to figure out whether or not someone was [00:03:15] excluded. We do not have a definition [00:03:17] for the court and we don't take issue [00:03:19] with the [laughter] we're not disputing [00:03:20] the definition here. What we're saying [00:03:22] is that the way it applies in practice [00:03:24] is to exclude birth sex males [00:03:26] categorically from women's teams and [00:03:28] that there's a subset of those birthex [00:03:29] males where it doesn't make sense to do [00:03:31] so according to the state's own [00:03:33] interest. [00:03:34] >> Well, how can you how can a court [00:03:36] determine whether there's discrimination [00:03:39] on the basis of sex without knowing what [00:03:42] sex means for equal protection purposes? [00:03:45] I think here we just notice we we we [00:03:47] basically know that the that they've [00:03:50] identified pursuant to their own [00:03:51] statute, Lindsay qualifies as a birth [00:03:53] sex male and she's being excluded [00:03:55] categorically from the women's teams as [00:03:57] the statute. So, we're taking the [00:03:59] statute's definitions as we find them [00:04:00] and we don't dispute them. We're [00:04:03] >> Yeah, that's that's um your reaction to [00:04:05] that listening to that again. [00:04:07] >> That gives me a headache. I I just I I'm [00:04:10] trying to follow along with her logic. [00:04:13] And you know, first of all, to to use [00:04:16] the term she to refer to a man in a or a [00:04:20] boy in a court of law, I think is just a [00:04:23] travesty. I mean, in any place like we [00:04:27] should expect a court of law to be based [00:04:29] in truth and reality. That's you're [00:04:32] always looking you're seeking objective [00:04:34] truth in a court of law. [00:04:35] >> Court of law. [00:04:36] >> Yeah. [00:04:37] >> Yeah. all all you know it's supposed to [00:04:38] be logical and rational but [00:04:40] >> yeah but Judge Amy Coney Barrett even [00:04:43] adopted their language referring to this [00:04:46] boy as a trans girl. [00:04:47] >> How did she do that? [00:04:48] >> She said um what she was asking some [00:04:51] question about you know what do we do [00:04:53] about these trans girls like we don't do [00:04:56] anything because they're boys. [00:04:57] >> Why do you think she did that? [00:05:01] >> I don't I mean there's there's terms [00:05:03] going around toxic empathy, suicidal [00:05:04] empathy. [00:05:05] >> Suicidal empathy. I've heard that one. [00:05:06] >> Yeah. dad, sad, and toxic. [00:05:08] >> I've heard that. I've heard that recent. [00:05:08] I've never heard suicidal empathy until [00:05:10] recently. I don't know if it's a new [00:05:11] term. [00:05:12] >> It's a book that's coming out. [00:05:13] >> Is it? [00:05:14] >> Yeah. [00:05:15] >> It's um it's uh uh it it it kind of [00:05:20] reminds me of the old adage about like [00:05:22] white guilt, that kind of concept. [00:05:24] >> This is the passage from George Orwell's [00:05:26] 1984. I I quote it religiously. I [00:05:29] recommend that everyone re reread this [00:05:31] book every single year. If you don't [00:05:33] like reading, listen to it. Father, I [00:05:35] was born in the year 1984. [00:05:36] >> Oh, [00:05:37] >> that's ironic. Put up on the screen. [00:05:39] Double think. [00:05:40] >> Double think means the power of holding [00:05:42] two contradictory beliefs in one's mind [00:05:45] simultaneously and accepting both of [00:05:47] them. [00:05:47] >> That seems like he it seems like the [00:05:50] ACLU lawyer was involved in that deal. [00:05:53] >> And I've got mixed views on the ACLU [00:05:54] because they defended me in the amicus [00:05:56] brief with the FBI raid. So, [00:05:59] >> I have a feeling they're not going to [00:06:00] defend me. [00:06:01] >> Probably. Well, it your your case [00:06:04] involves kind of two competing [00:06:06] interests, which is the right to privacy [00:06:08] and the first amendment, [00:06:09] >> which is something that's fundamental to [00:06:11] what I do. That's why it's fascinating [00:06:13] to me. But [00:06:14] >> yeah, [00:06:14] >> that's an interesting, you know, looking [00:06:16] at it looking at it not through the lens [00:06:18] of like the trans issue, just just right [00:06:20] to privacy. [00:06:22] >> Like, let me let me pose a hypothetical [00:06:24] to you. If it wasn't a picture of like a [00:06:26] trans a it was just a picture of [00:06:29] a guy, you know, in his baseball cap [00:06:32] washing his hands, [00:06:34] >> what does the law do in that situation? [00:06:37] >> Travis County Da Garza, what does he do? [00:06:39] >> What does the the law do? Cuz cuz we are [00:06:42] so and it's so unfortunate that we have [00:06:45] to look at the world through who's in [00:06:46] charge, who appointed the judge. [00:06:48] >> Yeah. [00:06:49] >> And and we've kind of resigned oursel. [00:06:51] That's just the way it is. But let's [00:06:53] assume for a moment that it was an it [00:06:56] was an absolute neutral judge, [00:06:59] >> right? [00:06:59] >> And an absolute fair, honest, [00:07:03] nonpartisan district attorney. And let's [00:07:06] just call them Jones. [00:07:08] >> Jones took a photograph of a guy washing [00:07:10] his hands with his trucker hat in the in [00:07:14] in the Was it a men's restroom or a [00:07:16] women's restaurant? [00:07:16] >> It was an old women's restaurant. [00:07:17] >> Women's restroom. Okay. And it was a [00:07:19] dude. [00:07:19] >> Yeah. [00:07:20] >> Okay. [00:07:20] >> Well, it was a dude. that kind of that [00:07:22] well that's kind of like a weird dynamic [00:07:23] because the hypothetical will have to be [00:07:25] um [00:07:26] >> well your [00:07:27] >> it was a women's restroom. [00:07:28] >> Yeah. Your hypothetical is that it's a [00:07:30] man that's not pretending to be a woman. [00:07:32] >> Let's let me change my my my mistake. [00:07:34] Let me change the hypothetical. Let's [00:07:36] say a man [laughter] I'm feel like I'm [00:07:38] in law school. Let's say a man by [00:07:41] accident, not through no, he didn't [00:07:43] intend to, but a guy in a trucker hat [00:07:45] didn't look at the sign and was washing [00:07:47] his hands in a women's restroom [00:07:49] >> and a photo was taken of them [00:07:52] under the Texas statute. Is that a [00:07:54] crime? [00:07:56] >> Well, we go back to the intent part of [00:07:57] that, the the statute, right? My my [00:08:00] intent was never to invade anyone's [00:08:02] privacy. And my the the hill I'm willing [00:08:05] to die on here is that does his consent [00:08:08] matter more than ours? In a women's [00:08:10] space, does a man's consent matter more [00:08:13] than our consent? Because at the moment [00:08:15] that he entered our space, he was [00:08:18] violating the consent of every woman in [00:08:20] that in that room. [00:08:22] >> Even if one woman amongst us consented, [00:08:24] she does not get to consent for all of [00:08:26] us. So, [00:08:29] and and to kind of defend the woman that [00:08:32] took that photo, she thought that she [00:08:35] was documenting a crime. [00:08:37] >> Is she been indicted or or warrant? [00:08:40] >> I have not named her. [00:08:40] >> Not just you, not her. [00:08:42] >> I I haven't named her. So, no. [00:08:43] >> You have not named her. So, she's a [00:08:45] she's an anonymous source at this point. [00:08:47] >> Yes. [00:08:47] >> And [snorts] and if they compel you to [00:08:49] testify at trial to name her, what will [00:08:52] you do? [00:08:52] >> No. [00:08:53] >> You won't answer? [00:08:54] >> No. If the judge orders you under [00:08:57] contempt of court to name her, what will [00:08:58] you do? [00:08:59] >> I won't name her. [00:09:00] >> You will not name her? [00:09:01] >> No. [00:09:03] >> Well, at the federal level, the US [00:09:04] Marshalss will come and take you away, [00:09:06] but I [laughter] guess you'd be held in [00:09:07] contempt of court. You might go to jail. [00:09:09] >> It'll be one hell of a mug shot. [00:09:12] >> You might have to outdo Trump. [00:09:14] >> I I [laughter] would do my best. I don't [00:09:16] think I have the I don't think that's a [00:09:18] good angle for me, but the lighting is a [00:09:21] little weird. I'm sure I I just don't I [00:09:24] don't think that she deserves to go [00:09:25] through what I'm being put through. [00:09:28] >> You would be very brave indeed if you [00:09:31] went through with that if it comes to [00:09:32] that. But I I I guess also what I see in [00:09:36] you is this willingness. [00:09:38] >> You you you resigned yourself to do [00:09:41] eventually what you're going to have to [00:09:43] do. [00:09:43] >> Yeah. Whereas most humans will will do [00:09:47] anything to avoid being punished by the [00:09:50] state and and and you're you're not [00:09:51] built that way. That's why you're on the [00:09:53] show. That's why we've brought you here. [00:09:54] This is James O'Keefe. You know me for [00:09:56] exposing the truth and holding the [00:09:58] corrupt elite responsible and [00:10:00] accountable. However, today I want to [00:10:02] tell you about protecting your own [00:10:04] freedom, your finances. Right [music] [00:10:06] now, the warning signs are everywhere. [00:10:08] Gold just shattered another [music] [00:10:10] record, soaring above $3,750 [00:10:14] an ounce and climbing [music] towards [00:10:15] $4,000. That's over 44% this year alone. [00:10:18] Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, major banks [00:10:21] are forecasting [music] [00:10:22] targets ranging from 4,000 to 5,000, [00:10:24] even as high as 6,000 by the end of 26. [00:10:28] The economic storm clouds are gathering [00:10:31] fast. The Fed just cut rates again, but [00:10:34] inflation [music] is proving stickier [00:10:36] than expected, creating a dangerous mix [00:10:38] of rising prices and economic [00:10:40] uncertainty. JP Morgan still sees a 50% [00:10:43] chance of recession, while trade [00:10:45] tensions and geopolitical risks continue [00:10:47] to escalate. And let's not forget what's [00:10:49] happening overseas. From the ongoing [00:10:51] Russia Ukraine [music] conflict to [00:10:53] China's economic challenges and [00:10:54] persistent deflationary pressures, the [00:10:57] axes [music] of power continue [00:10:59] conspiring to avoid sanctions and [00:11:02] Western influence, undermining the [00:11:03] dollar's [music] dominance, while [00:11:05] central banks worldwide are loading up [00:11:07] on gold reserves at record levels. [00:11:09] That's why we and I have partnered with [00:11:13] American Independence Gold. They're [00:11:15] veteranowned and proceeds from every [00:11:18] sale go to Tunnel to Towers Foundation [00:11:20] supporting our first responders and [00:11:22] nation's heroes. And listen, right now [00:11:25] I'm offering my [music] followers in the [00:11:27] trenches this incredible one-time [00:11:29] opportunity to credit your account up to [00:11:31] $10,000 in free gold and silver on a [00:11:34] qualifying purchase. That's right. This [00:11:36] will help you get started protecting [00:11:38] your wealth with real physical gold and [00:11:41] silver while these historic price levels [00:11:44] are still within reach. Every day you [00:11:46] wait brings gold closer to $4,000. The [00:11:49] price is only going to go up. The smart [00:11:51] move is to act now. Go to mediaold.com. [00:11:55] That's mediagold.com or call [00:11:59] 83324-465383324 [00:12:05] gold. Again, that's O'Keefeagold.com [00:12:07] [music] [00:12:08] or 833324 [00:12:11] gold. Take action, get the facts, and [00:12:13] protect your future because freedom [00:12:15] isn't given, it's secured. This is James [00:12:19] O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a [00:12:22] piece of it. [00:12:26] What is your price? [00:12:29] Because if your [music] price is not [00:12:31] your life, [00:12:35] then you are [music] for sale.