>> Cathy: THIS WEEK IN D.C.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SPARRED WITH ALLIES AND ENEMIES ALIKE.

HE INTENSIFIED CALLS FOR THE U.S.

TO ACQUIRE GREENLAND, AND THREATENED TO STRIKE IRAN OVER THE RISING DEATH TOLL OF PROTESTERS IN THAT COUNTRY.

STATESIDE, U.S.

SENATE REPUBLICANS BLOCKED A CHECK ON TRUMP'S WAR POWERS IN VENEZUELA, AND OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT THREATENED TO INVOKE THE INSURRECTION ACT AGAINST OUR OWN NORTH STAR STATE.

AS YOU'VE HEARD.

DAVID SCHULTZ TEACHES POLITICAL SCIENCE AT HAMLINE UNIVERSITY AND IS AN ADJUNCT LAW PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ST.

THOMAS.

OKAY.

WE STARTED THE SHOW WITH TOM HEFFELFINGER TALKING ABOUT THE BREAKING NEWS WHICH OF COURSE MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS ARE REPORTING THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS OPENED A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AGAINST GOVERNOR WALZ AND MINNEAPOLIS MAYOR FREY FOR STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MPEDING FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' ABILITIES TO DO THEIR JOBS HERE IN THE TWIN CITIES.

AND I'M WONDERING AS A LAW PROFESSOR, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

>> MM-HMM.

OKAY, FIRST IT'S 18 U.S.

CODE 372.

THE REASON WHY I MENTION THIS, IT BASICALLY SAYS TWO OR MORE PEOPLE TO HAVE TO CONSPIRE TO USE FORCE OR THREATS OR INTIMIDATION TO PREVENT FEDERAL OFFICIALS FROM DOING THEIR JOB.

ARGUABLY WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING HERE IS THAT WHEN JACK SMITH CHARGED DONALD TRUMP FOR ACTIONS ARISING OUT OF JANUARY 6TH, IT WAS THE SAME ORDINANCE OR SAME CONSPIRACY STATUTE BEING USED.

THE REASON I MENTION THIS IS THAT DO WE HAVE A RIGHT AS U.S.

CITIZENS INCLUDING THE -- GOVERNMENT, YES, WE MOST CERTAINLY HAVE THAT RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO SO.

IF YOU LOOK AT IT HERE.

IF DONALD TRUMP'S COMMENTS ON JANUARY 6TH WERE PROTECTED SPEECH, AND MANY OF US ARGUE INCLUDING ME THAT THAT WAS PROTECTED SPEECH THEN SURELY WHAT WALZ AND WHAT FREY HAVE SAID IS ALSO PROTECTED SPEECH.

THIS ORDINANCE HAS NEVER, EVER BEEN USED IN ITS ENTIRE HISTORY TO GO AFTER LANGUAGE, MERE LANGUAGE ALONE.

>> Eric: INSURRECTION ACT, PRESIDENT SAYS I'M NOT GOING TO USE IT NOW BUT I'VE GOT IT HANDY.

WHAT DOES IT GO BACK, 1700S, 1800S?

>> IT GOES BACK TO 1807 AND THE INSURRECTION ACT HAS BEEN INVOKED BY 17 PRESIDENTS 30 TIMES.

THE MOST RECENT WAS THE RODNEY KING RIOTS IN 1991.

GENERALLY THE BRINGING OUT OF FEDERAL TROOPS IS AN ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT.

ONE THING I WANT TO EXPLAIN TO EVERYBODY HERE.

I'VE HAD A BUNCH OF PEOPLE CALL ME AND SAY IS THIS MARTIAL LAW?

I SAID, NO, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE U.S.

CONSTITUTION THAT ALLOWS FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

IF THE FEDERAL TROOPS WERE TO COME IN -- IF, IF, IF THEY WERE TO COME IN, THEY CANNOT DIRECTLY ENFORCE THE LAW.

THEY CAN PROVIDE PEACE-KEEPING BUT THEY CAN'T DIRECTLY ENFORCE THE LAW AND ALL THE RIGHTS THAT WE ENJOY STILL KICKING.

WHICH MEANS STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, TO PHOTOGRAPH I.C.E.

AGENTS, STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY, YOU CAN EVEN PHOTOGRAPH FEDERAL TROOPS.

ALL THE RIGHTS REMAIN IN PLACE.

>> Cathy: CAN THE PRESIDENT IF HE INVOKES THE INSURRECTION ACT CAN HE TAKE CONTROL OF THE MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

OKAY, THE REASON WHY I DON'T SEE THAT, THERE WAS A CASE A FEW WEEKS AGO INVOLVING ILLINOIS WHERE TRUMP WANTED TO BASICALLY BRING IN THE NATIONAL GUARD.

ILLINOIS WON IN THE SUPREME COURT AND BUT THE SUPREME COURT SAID IS THAT YOU CAN ONLY BRING IN THE NATIONAL GUARD IF YOU CAN HOW THAT THE REGULAR ARMY CANNOT ACTUALLY KEEP THE PEACE.

THAT CASE DIDN'T INVOLVE THE INSURRECTION ACT INVOCATION THERE BUT THE SAME LOGIC MAY APPLY HERE.

THAT HE COULD ONLY NATIONALIZE THE NATIONAL GUARD IN A SITUATION WHERE, A, IF HE WANTS TO DEPLOY HEM FOR FOREIGN MILITARY PURPOSES OR, B, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNOR.

IF THE ILLINOIS DECISION IS CORRECT, HE CAN NOT NATIONALIZE UNLESS HE CAN SHOW THAT REGULAR MILITARY PERSONNEL CAN'T KEEP THE PEACE.

>> Eric: FROM 30,000 FEET THIS BLIZZARD OF LEGAL ACTIVITY AT MULTIPLE LEVELS, HOW DO YOU THINK IT'S ALL GOING TO SHAKE OUT?

>> WELL WELL, THIS IS BASICALLY -- I MEAN, WHAT'S THAT PHRASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CALLED LAW-FARE AT THIS POINT?

EVERYBODY'S USING THE LEGAL PROCESS AS A WAY TO BE ABLE TO FURTHER THEIR AGENDA AT THIS POINT.

IT'S EXACTLY HARD TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE FINAL RESULT IS GOING TO BE HERE.

WE'VE GOT LOTS OF LAWSUITS THAT HAVE SOME MERIT, SOME OF THEM THAT DON'T HAVE MERIT.

I KNOW YOU HAD MORIARTY AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON BEFORE AND I THINK THEY WERE CORRECT IN TERMS OF SAYING THAT STATE LAW STILL APPLIES.

THERE ARE SOME IMPEDIMENTS YOU HAVE TO GET ACROSS IF YOU WANT TO BRING PROSECUTION, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WHAT I DON'T SEE HAPPENING, WHAT I DON'T SEE HAPPENING ANYWHERE IN ALL THE SITUATION HERE IS A LOT OF EFFORT TO TRY TO DE-ESCALATE THE SITUATION.

SEEMS TO ME RIGHT NOW A LOT OF SIDES ARE INFLAMING THE RHETORIC.

YEAH, I THINK IT'S CORRECT HERE AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, I THINK GOVERNOR WALZ HAS TRIED TO REACH OUT TO DONALD TRUMP TO SAY LET'S RATCHET IT DOWN BUT I DON'T KNOW.

>> Cathy: AND APPARENTLY THAT'S THEN TODAY IT APPEARS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS KIND OF SOFTENING A LITTLE BIT ON THE INSURRECTION ACT.

THAT, YOU KNOW, I -- WE DON'T NEED TO DO IT RIGHT THIS SECOND, BUT THAT'S IN MY -- I CAN IF I WANT SORT OF A THING.

>> YEAH.

I THINK HE'S ALSO COGNIZANT NOW IS OPTICS, OPTICS OF BRINGING MILITARY TROOPS AT THIS POINT IT, MAY NOT BE PLAYING WELL FOR HI