The Culture War - Tim Pool - Deportation Of Mahmoud Khalil, Is Trump VIOLATING The Constitution w⧸ PiscoLitty & GoodLawgic

00:00:00.240 Looking for the ultimate online casino experience?

00:00:03.620 Step into the BetMGM Casino app, where every deal, spin, and goal

00:00:07.820 brings Las Vegas excitement into the palm of your hand.

00:00:11.280 Take your seat at Premium Blackjack Pro, where strategy meets top-tier gameplay.

00:00:16.440 Drop in on the exciting Sugar Rush and Crazy Time slot games,

00:00:20.260 or play the dazzling MGM Grand Emerald Knights,

00:00:23.860 a slot experience that captures the magic of MGM.

00:00:26.680 With so many games, it's time to make your move.

00:00:30.200 Download the app and visit BetMGM Ontario today to experience the next level of gaming.

00:00:36.240 Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

00:00:39.100 19 plus to wager, Ontario only.

00:00:41.380 Please gamble responsibly.

00:00:42.960 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

00:00:46.480 please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

00:00:53.980 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

00:00:58.600 Don't miss Trevor Wallace.

00:01:00.000 Performing live at Meridian Hall on May 8th, the viral stand-up comedian, actor, and host of the Stiff Socks podcast

00:01:06.600 brings his brand new Alpha Beta Male Tour to Meridian Hall for one night only.

00:01:12.280 Tickets are moving fast.

00:01:13.740 Get yours today at MRGLive.com.

00:01:16.580 It's been about two months.

00:01:30.220 Donald Trump has been in office and he is flooding the zone.

00:01:34.060 Basically, everybody agrees.

00:01:35.180 On the left and the right, the strategy appears to be do as much as you can as fast as you can

00:01:38.540 to overwhelm activists, opposition, and the courts.

00:01:40.780 So there are a lot of things that the Trump administration has done so far for which he

00:01:44.720 has drawn the ire of liberals, Democrats, and the left.

00:01:47.180 And we are going to debate these issues largely from a legal context.

00:01:51.820 And to kick it off, I think one of the biggest stories we've seen in the past couple of weeks

00:01:55.060 has been the deportation or the revocation of visas from students, from activists, protesters,

00:02:01.000 and people with actual legal status in this country.

00:02:05.240 Notably, Trump revoked the legal status of 530,000 immigrants who actually came here legally

00:02:10.620 under a program started by Joe Biden.

00:02:12.660 So we'll talk about that and a whole lot more.

00:02:14.560 We've got a couple of gentlemen joining us to engage in this debate.

00:02:17.540 Sir, would you like to introduce yourself?

00:02:19.780 My name is Pisco.

00:02:20.380 I'm an attorney.

00:02:21.200 I do streams on YouTube, Pisco's Hour.

00:02:25.140 Well, right on.

00:02:25.820 Yeah.

00:02:26.240 And what's your view?

00:02:27.340 You love Trump.

00:02:28.600 No, I hate Trump.

00:02:29.860 I think that Trump is doing an awful thing to the Constitution.

00:02:32.260 But in this case specifically, I think that there are a lot of conservatives that care

00:02:35.840 about the First Amendment or at least purport to care about the First Amendment.

00:02:38.720 And there is on point precedent from the Supreme Court that resident aliens,

00:02:42.660 get First Amendment rights.

00:02:44.340 So why is Donald Trump doing the bidding of Israel and attacking the First Amendment rights

00:02:50.120 of, for example, a green card holder who did nothing more than just indicate their view

00:02:55.140 as to the situation in Palestine?

00:02:57.760 It's completely unjustifiable.

00:02:59.940 Right on.

00:03:00.440 Sir, do you want to grab that mic and pull it up?

00:03:02.840 Yeah, sure.

00:03:03.860 All right.

00:03:04.420 Is that better?

00:03:05.280 Joe Nierman, aka Good Logic.

00:03:07.120 I host a YouTube channel and Rumble channel called Good Logic.

00:03:12.260 I'm a New York litigator who turned podcaster after COVID.

00:03:15.680 I'm a massive free speech advocate, so much so that I actually sued Judge Mershan for his

00:03:20.640 unconstitutional gag order of President Trump in pro se, in my own name, because I felt that

00:03:26.900 the violation of his First Amendment right to speak was harming my First Amendment right

00:03:31.240 to cover it as a member of the press.

00:03:33.100 And I took that all the way up in applying to the Supreme Court.

00:03:37.800 But on this particular issue, we're talking about Mamou Khalil, this is not a First Amendment

00:03:43.080 issue.

00:03:43.740 Sometimes a free speech issue is a First Amendment issue.

00:03:47.180 Often it is, but this is not a situation like that.

00:03:49.360 I look forward to getting into it with you.

00:03:50.560 Right on.

00:03:50.980 Well, everybody, make sure to smash the like button.

00:03:52.860 Share the show if you do want to hear this debate, or if you think people should hear this

00:03:55.840 debate, because it'll get particularly interesting.

00:03:57.320 Not just the immigration issue, but of course, there's a whole bunch of other issues, as

00:04:01.080 you already brought up, with the courts and how it affects Trump in this country.

00:04:04.480 But let's just kick it off, man.

00:04:07.320 Tell us what you think.

00:04:09.040 Let me give a little bit of context.

00:04:10.620 So Mahmoud Khalil, he was one of the organizers of the protests we saw at Columbia.

00:04:14.860 He had a, I believe it was a two-year conditional green card, which got revoked by the State

00:04:19.580 Department.

00:04:20.020 He is currently pending deportation.

00:04:22.400 But he's not the only one.

00:04:23.620 I think there may be four others.

00:04:25.140 These are individuals who are here on legal status, with legal visas, who are now having

00:04:30.340 their visas revoked and facing deportation.

00:04:32.500 The Trump administration says that Mahmoud was engaged in activities aligned with Hamas,

00:04:38.200 and that was a national security threat.

00:04:40.120 So there's a lot more to the story, but why don't you tell us what you think first?

00:04:42.400 Yeah, let's first start with what this is not about.

00:04:44.020 It's not about criminal activity.

00:04:45.940 It's not about alleged crimes.

00:04:47.100 I think both of you can agree that we have to take the allegations of the government.

00:04:50.960 We can't invent new rationales for why Mahmoud Khalil is deportable.

00:04:54.440 Do you agree with that?

00:04:55.540 Yes.

00:04:55.940 Okay.

00:04:56.300 So I don't want to hear anything from people in the comments saying he occupied, he helped

00:05:00.020 occupied, or that he's giving material support to Hamas.

00:05:02.760 If the government does not allege that he's giving material support to Hamas, why should

00:05:06.720 we at all assume that he is and invent new rationales for deporting him?

00:05:10.080 And obviously there's no evidence that he's in connection with Hamas or giving any material

00:05:13.220 support to them.

00:05:13.840 So I think that the first point is some agreement that we only discuss the allegations and the

00:05:19.520 actual basis of removability for Mahmoud Khalil.

00:05:22.060 I want to be clear before we begin this, so we frame our discussion in a healthy way.

00:05:27.480 Whether we're talking about this from a legal perspective or from a moral perspective or

00:05:31.260 philosophical American culture type of perspective, we can attack this as attorneys and talk about

00:05:37.140 whether or not what's happening here and who's in the right and who's in the wrong.

00:05:41.500 Or we can attack this as far as from a moral and philosophical perspective, and I want to

00:05:45.620 make sure that we're both on the same page, that we don't jump back and forth, that I'll

00:05:48.920 make a point about the law and you'll say philosophically that's wrong, or I'll make

00:05:52.540 a point about philosophically and you'll come back to the law.

00:05:54.640 So can we pick one?

00:05:56.460 Because I'm sure that Khalil loses on any of those, any way you look at it, philosophically,

00:06:00.680 legally, or as far as American constitutional perspective.

00:06:06.540 Like what's a healthy philosophy of our constitution, he loses every way.

00:06:11.280 So you pick the direction you want to go and let's go there.

00:06:15.100 So to be clear, you're not willing to concede the legal argument here.

00:06:17.240 Which legal argument are you referring to?

00:06:18.160 That is the First Amendment argument.

00:06:19.440 You're not going to concede it.

00:06:20.620 That this is a First Amendment argument?

00:06:22.440 You're not going to concede that Trump is violating the First Amendment by...

00:06:26.020 Not even close.

00:06:26.700 Okay, so let's deal with that first because I think you would agree that if you thought

00:06:30.380 that the First Amendment was being violated by Trump, you would have to condemn him, wouldn't

00:06:33.880 you?

00:06:34.600 I would.

00:06:35.280 Yeah, because the First Amendment's important to you.

00:06:37.180 You just said that you went through all this litigation.

00:06:38.880 I went all the way to the Supreme Court personally.

00:06:39.760 So let's start there.

00:06:40.480 And I think that that would get into some, you know, perhaps in philosophical territory.

00:06:43.860 I'm not willing to shy away from that.

00:06:45.140 I think it's also, you know, a good idea morally, practically to have the First Amendment.

00:06:49.340 But let's stick with the First Amendment.

00:06:50.960 And so I guess my first question for you is, do you think Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent

00:06:55.160 resident, let's take the strongest case, do they have First Amendment rights?

00:06:58.360 Yes or no?

00:06:59.340 Quick caveat.

00:07:00.200 He wasn't a permanent resident.

00:07:01.460 He had a conditional two-year green card.

00:07:02.760 Sure, but do you want to assume for the purpose of the hypothetical that he is a permanent

00:07:05.960 resident?

00:07:06.800 No, I would.

00:07:07.640 I'm not assuming anything.

00:07:08.940 Because you're saying he's acting unconstitutionally to change the nature of as far as what the

00:07:13.680 actual set of facts are.

00:07:15.140 He has a conditional green card, which basically means you have to, you know, reapply after

00:07:18.280 two years to get like the 10-year green card visa.

00:07:21.140 But for all intents and purposes, he is an LPR.

00:07:23.640 And he has a, you know, the government has cleared him to stay in this country.

00:07:26.560 He just needs to go through, you know, a couple extra procedures to make sure that it's not

00:07:30.080 a sham marriage, that kind of thing.

00:07:31.320 Are you willing to concede the fact that he obtained that green card through deceitful and

00:07:35.260 illegal means?

00:07:36.020 No, I'm not.

00:07:36.960 Not at all.

00:07:37.620 That's a pretext.

00:07:38.600 But why don't we stick to the initial issue, which is, does he even have First Amendment

00:07:43.020 rights?

00:07:43.420 So I would say is the First Amendment rights that he enjoys, like any illegal alien, do

00:07:48.600 exist and are not nearly the same level as the rights an American citizen has.

00:07:53.280 So to be clear, and I want to see what you think, you agree that LPRs, lawful permanent

00:07:59.400 residents, even though it's conditional status, I understand that, have First Amendment rights.

00:08:03.060 That is correct, right?

00:08:03.880 I don't know.

00:08:04.420 I agree that the Supreme Court has said that there is some level of First Amendment rights.

00:08:09.160 But ask yourself this, why?

00:08:11.200 Why do they have any First Amendment rights?

00:08:12.780 Why do we give them civil liberties?

00:08:13.760 Why has the Supreme Court granted them those liberties, which were created for the protection

00:08:18.560 of American citizens?

00:08:20.300 So why is it, and for the benefit of American, right?

00:08:22.560 Because you recognize our government was created by, for, and by, for, and of the people.

00:08:26.340 It says, we the people.

00:08:27.180 And the people are citizens, correct?

00:08:28.900 No, that's not true.

00:08:29.720 The Constitution is clear where it wants to refer to persons and people and where it

00:08:33.860 refers to citizens.

00:08:34.480 For example, in the 14th Amendment, there's a privileges or immunities clause.

00:08:38.300 It speaks about the privileges or immunities of citizens.

00:08:40.420 When it's talking about the requirements for who's the president or for who is the senator,

00:08:44.000 it says citizen.

00:08:44.880 When it says, you know, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

00:08:48.680 Or, for example, you know, the right of the people to be free from, in their papers, persons

00:08:52.780 in effect, from unreasonable searches and seizures.

00:08:55.160 That's referring to persons.

00:08:56.480 And there was a concept of personhood that was broader than citizenship from the attorneys

00:09:00.780 who founded this country and made the Constitution.

00:09:03.000 They were smart people.

00:09:03.560 So I just want to add, I actually agree.

00:09:06.060 We've had this come up many times on our show.

00:09:09.240 The 40th Amendment says, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject

00:09:12.780 to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein

00:09:16.400 they reside.

00:09:17.380 No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

00:09:20.760 of citizens of the United States, semicolon, nor shall any state deprive any person of

00:09:25.820 life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction

00:09:30.140 the equal protection of the laws.

00:09:31.340 So what we've highlighted often is that it draws a distinction between persons and citizens,

00:09:36.720 specifically identifying initially all persons born later on, the clarification of what makes

00:09:43.540 someone a citizen.

00:09:44.280 So there's two distinct definitions here.

00:09:45.860 The reason this has come up is actually the pro-life, pro-choice abortion debate in the

00:09:50.540 question of whether or not an unborn child is a person.

00:09:53.840 Interestingly, and I don't mean to be hyper-partisan on this one, but when it comes to the liberal

00:09:58.780 faction, they actually disagree with my assessment on this, arguing that, no, no, it's referring

00:10:05.380 to citizens, and if you're not born, you're not a citizen, because when you get to the

00:10:09.200 question of, is the unborn a person, this clearly would protect the life of that person

00:10:13.400 who is not yet a citizen, not yet born.

00:10:14.980 Yeah, I think that's a cop-out.

00:10:15.880 I think that the courts ultimately will have to determine as a legal matter, what is a

00:10:20.060 person, what does that mean, purposes of constitutionality.

00:10:23.220 Now, it could be that the originalist interpretation of person, as understood at the time that the

00:10:28.260 constitution was framed, only involved born-alive persons.

00:10:31.640 That's not an inconsistent position.

00:10:33.300 Or it could be the case that the people who founded this country would have considered

00:10:37.400 a person to be someone who is in utero.

00:10:39.420 So I don't pretend to know the actual legal analysis here, but I'm glad, Tim, that you

00:10:43.080 agree that, you know, even the First Amendment, let's take a look at the First Amendment, doesn't

00:10:45.740 refer to persons or citizens.

00:10:46.900 It says, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

00:10:50.520 Respecting an establishment, I think, of religion.

00:10:52.700 If we could just look for a moment, if we could just look in a moment at what Tim just read

00:10:55.760 with respect to the 14th Amendment, and the language there is important, and you read it

00:11:01.160 quickly, and I understand why, but there's a distinction there as far as between citizens

00:11:05.480 and persons in that 14th Amendment.

00:11:08.960 And what is promised to persons, those who are not citizens?

00:11:13.220 What's promised them is life, liberty, and due process, not the civil rights in general.

00:11:17.680 So to say that, that applies, it actually is implicitly against your position.

00:11:22.940 It's actually going to the point that citizens specifically are the ones who have crafted

00:11:27.820 for you.

00:11:28.220 Looking for the ultimate online casino experience?

00:11:31.180 Step into the BetMGM Casino app, where every deal, spin, and goal brings Las Vegas excitement

00:11:37.420 into the palm of your hand.

00:11:39.260 Take your seat at Premium Blackjack Pro, where strategy meets top-tier gameplay.

00:11:44.420 Drop in on the exciting Sugar Rush and Crazy Time slot games, or play the dazzling MGM Grand

00:11:50.540 Emerald Knights, a slot experience that captures the magic of MGM.

00:11:55.120 With so many games, it's time to make your move.

00:11:57.720 Download the app and visit BetMGM Ontario today to experience the next level of gaming.

00:12:04.240 Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

00:12:07.100 19 plus to wager, Ontario only.

00:12:09.360 Please gamble responsibly.

00:12:10.960 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact

00:12:15.140 Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

00:12:22.400 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

00:12:26.000 Canada, it's time for more us, because we're more than just a place on a map.

00:12:32.120 We're an attitude, one with more empathy than ego, more unity than division, more grit,

00:12:37.720 go, and we got this.

00:12:39.080 The more we choose to stand up as our most flag-flying, maple-y-fying, local-adventuring

00:12:45.240 selves, the more we are the true north, unbreakable, strong, and free.

00:12:50.640 It's time.

00:12:51.760 Choose Canada.

00:12:53.000 A message from the government of Canada.

00:12:56.860 Our civil liberties, and the only protections that America is willing to afford to those

00:13:01.460 people who are not citizens of this country is life, liberty, and due process.

00:13:05.140 Well, clearly the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

00:13:07.320 You acknowledge that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

00:13:09.160 What I'm saying is to these-

00:13:10.020 Do you acknowledge that, yes or no?

00:13:10.960 I agree that with-

00:13:11.860 Yes or no.

00:13:12.600 The Wixing case that you're thinking of recognizes that there are some civil liberties that are

00:13:18.800 afforded to people who are not citizens.

00:13:20.340 Including in that case, specifically the First Amendment.

00:13:22.420 Is that right?

00:13:23.360 Yes.

00:13:23.960 Okay.

00:13:24.260 And it's not just the First Amendment.

00:13:25.840 There's procedural due process cases that aliens have access to.

00:13:29.000 I'm using the term alien here because that's the term used in the-

00:13:31.900 Because it's the proper term.

00:13:32.940 It's the legal term.

00:13:33.240 It's the proper term.

00:13:34.100 That's why.

00:13:35.200 I don't think it's a nice thing to call someone an alien.

00:13:36.980 Your audience is not offended.

00:13:38.100 Don't worry.

00:13:38.220 But listen, I want to be accurate here.

00:13:40.120 It says that aliens have access to, for example, you can't just throw them out of the country

00:13:44.160 summarily.

00:13:45.160 There are procedural due process issues even for people here-

00:13:47.500 Yeah, the APA.

00:13:48.480 Illegally.

00:13:49.100 Well, even in the absence of the Administrative Procedures Act, there's a constitutional notion

00:13:53.380 of procedural due process that has purchase on persons.

00:13:56.580 As said in the 14th Amendment.

00:13:57.900 They're entitled to due process.

00:13:59.380 And in the Fifth Amendment against the federal government, which is what is at issue here,

00:14:03.400 what you just said and what you acknowledge is, despite what you might think about why the

00:14:07.680 country was formed, the consistent case law has been that persons in this country have

00:14:12.700 access to a lot of civil liberties.

00:14:14.420 I don't know why we wouldn't extend it to the First Amendment if you acknowledge there's

00:14:17.520 case law on point about it.

00:14:19.000 And specifically, when the First Amendment says, Congress shall make no law abridging the

00:14:23.440 freedom of speech.

00:14:24.300 Right.

00:14:24.460 And the Supreme Court has recognized, while they recognize the First Amendment right,

00:14:27.400 they also have equally recognized that the First Amendment right of someone who's

00:14:31.120 visiting this country are not as robust as the protections that American citizens

00:14:36.440 have.

00:14:36.640 Do you admit that?

00:14:37.840 I'm not so sure.

00:14:38.680 For people already admitted into the country.

00:14:41.460 So there's a difference that I acknowledge that the country makes between exclusion matters

00:14:45.040 and for people who are in the country.

00:14:47.080 The key example of this, by the way, are the Chinese exclusion cases.

00:14:50.880 I'm sure that you guys, maybe your audience is not familiar, but there was a point, the

00:14:53.540 first restrictive immigration laws in this country, up until 1870 thereabout, we had open

00:14:59.520 borders policy in this country.

00:15:00.940 Complete open borders, except for the Alien Enemies Act and the Alien Friends Act, which maybe we'll

00:15:05.500 get you.

00:15:05.800 This is actually pretty interesting because it actually functioned this way well after

00:15:10.320 the 1800s.

00:15:11.280 I went to San Diego and was talking with people on both sides of the border.

00:15:15.560 And it's actually, I think, in the past, I don't know, what, 50, 60 years where the border

00:15:20.640 became heavier.

00:15:21.880 And it used to be, even up to like the early 1900s, you could just walk into San Diego back

00:15:26.960 and forth, only recently, I guess, with national security concerns, communications, and population

00:15:31.980 density, has it become much more rigid.

00:15:34.420 Yeah, that's totally correct.

00:15:36.240 And the first restrictive immigration laws were against Chinese people.

00:15:39.160 It said, well, the first there was about, it was vagrants and stuff, but ultimately it

00:15:43.340 said Chinese people, if you're of Chinese or Asian descent, you can't enter the country.

00:15:47.100 And that case has not been overturned.

00:15:49.960 And you acknowledge that.

00:15:51.180 So I recognize, I hope that you're not-

00:15:53.740 I'm not sure where your point is as far as that case not being overturned, as if that's

00:15:56.960 still binding law today.

00:15:58.640 So the point is, I recognize, even though I may disagree, that, and it's interesting,

00:16:02.900 I think, that Trump did not argue that it actually was a Muslim ban and seemed to assume

00:16:05.900 that a Muslim ban, when he interested in a travel ban, would be unconstitutional.

00:16:08.840 So I don't know how viable that precedent is.

00:16:11.060 But in the Chinese exclusion cases, that there is a difference in the law between an exclusion

00:16:16.200 matter and someone who's in the country.

00:16:17.620 So no, I actually don't recognize, and I don't know that to be the case, that individuals

00:16:21.500 in this country, even if they're not permanent residents, don't have First Amendment rights.

00:16:25.540 Well, you should review Trump v. Hawaii.

00:16:27.700 You should review Reno v. AADC.

00:16:30.720 There have been a myriad of Supreme Court cases which have recognized the fact that those

00:16:36.120 who are visiting this country, not simply when they're abroad, that we're going to give-

00:16:40.020 I don't know what type of free speech limitations you think that they would be, that, oh, we're

00:16:44.780 not going to promise free speech to some foreigner who's out in Greenland or, well, Greenland

00:16:50.780 soon to be America, but who's out in the U.K. and say that, oh, we recognize that they

00:16:55.400 have a right to speak.

00:16:56.140 That doesn't even mean anything.

00:16:57.300 So then here's the question.

00:16:58.120 If Trump issued an order tomorrow and said, if you're a Jew, your student visa is being

00:17:02.820 revoked, would that be constitutional or not, yes or no?

00:17:05.360 Absolutely not.

00:17:06.160 Why not?

00:17:06.580 Because the threshold minimum, the threshold minimum, and here's the thing.

00:17:10.440 I've allowed you to engage this conversation in good faith as if this is about First Amendment

00:17:14.720 rights when this is not at all a First Amendment issue.

00:17:16.860 This is purely an immigration issue.

00:17:18.840 And this is what I was saying with respect to the fact that while I'm a free speech advocate,

00:17:23.300 I don't think that this in any way touches on free speech and the concept of First Amendment

00:17:28.800 rights.

00:17:29.280 And the reason it doesn't is because when you're talking about immigration law, that is where

00:17:33.820 government powers are at their zenith.

00:17:36.280 As opposed to when you're talking about the First Amendment rights of individuals, the

00:17:40.420 First Amendment rights of someone who's merely visiting this country are at their nadir.

00:17:45.000 So what you are trying to postulate here is that this individual whose rights are lower

00:17:50.280 than yours or mine, whose rights are not as robust with respect to his First Amendment

00:17:55.120 rights, is now challenging the decision-making powers of the President of the United States with

00:18:00.620 respect to international affairs and national security, which is where the Constitution carves

00:18:08.380 out the strongest powers and protections and says this is the exclusive domain of the executive

00:18:13.040 branch.

00:18:13.820 That is what you're in conflict here and saying this is unconstitutional.

00:18:17.220 If it's true for free speech, it's true of the religion clauses.

00:18:19.860 The immigration plenary power framework that you've just laid out would apply just as strongly

00:18:24.700 to an argument from free speech, which is in the First Amendment, as to the religion clauses

00:18:28.280 that are in the First Amendment.

00:18:29.320 Here's why he's wrong, if I could just correct that.

00:18:31.660 Now, the reason you're mistaken about that is because the Supreme Court in its insight

00:18:37.020 has pointed out that the threshold that you have to meet on an immigration issue is that

00:18:41.680 it has to be facially legitimate and bona fide.

00:18:44.140 Facially legitimate and bona fide.

00:18:45.400 So if you talk about some law that the President would throw out there saying, I don't want any

00:18:49.520 more black people coming into this country or Muslims or Jews or red-headed Irish people,

00:18:53.780 that is not facially legitimate and bona fide and it wouldn't pass that threshold.

00:18:58.200 What if he says Muslims are more likely to do terrorist acts?

00:19:01.020 If he says Muslims, if he says terrorists, that's a problem.

00:19:06.380 No, he says Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts and it's facially legitimate.

00:19:10.480 To me, that's not facially.

00:19:11.380 I don't see how that would be.

00:19:12.400 Why is it not?

00:19:12.660 Because to say that everyone who's a member of this religion, which is being practiced

00:19:15.600 by over a billion people, is a terror threat, is not facially legitimate and bona fide.

00:19:19.580 Why is it facially legitimate to say anyone who advocates in support of, even just assume,

00:19:24.160 I do not take it for granted, I just want to be clear, I don't take it as a fact that

00:19:28.280 Mahmoud Khalil supports Hamas.

00:19:29.860 I don't take that as a fact.

00:19:30.920 Let's assume he does.

00:19:32.140 Why is it facially legitimate to say that what would be, I think you would agree, free speech

00:19:36.280 for citizens, I think you've agreed that LPRs have First Amendment rights, what's the

00:19:42.760 legitimacy in targeting what otherwise would be clearly protected speech?

00:19:45.940 Just one more, what was LPR?

00:19:47.520 Lawful permanent resident.

00:19:48.600 Right, so the difference, I would definitely agree that all the actions that we know of

00:19:55.740 that Mahmoud Khalil has taken, if it was taken by an American citizen, that the government

00:20:00.160 would be completely out of bounds and wrong for in any way infringing on that.

00:20:04.140 At the same time...

00:20:05.240 Well, I got to ask you, does the First Amendment pertain to illegal activities?

00:20:12.360 No.

00:20:12.880 Well, it defines the scope of what is and what's not legal sometimes, for example.

00:20:16.080 So the First Amendment, if there were a law that said it's illegal to talk to your neighbor,

00:20:22.340 it's illegal to hand out pamphlets in support of Donald Trump, even though there's a law

00:20:26.780 that says it's illegal to do criminality, the Constitution supersedes.

00:20:30.240 And so to the extent that there's an application of law, for example, in the INA that purports

00:20:34.520 to make something illegal or, you know, it would have of no purchase if it conflicted

00:20:38.920 with First Amendment precedent.

00:20:40.020 Did Mahmoud Khalil occupy any buildings illegally?

00:20:44.020 I don't...

00:20:44.380 There's no allegation to that effect.

00:20:45.720 And so why should we consider it?

00:20:47.360 There's no allegation of that.

00:20:48.280 In fact, there's reporting that says that he purposely did not attend any of these sit-ins

00:20:52.440 for the reason of that he's worried about the status of his green card.

00:20:55.540 I could be wrong, but there were conversations and videos, I believe, that showed Mahmoud

00:21:01.180 Khalil inside buildings that had been under, quote-unquote, student occupation.

00:21:04.660 At the time they were occupied or any time that...

00:21:06.880 At the time they were occupied.

00:21:07.680 Okay, well, listen...

00:21:08.680 I could be wrong, though.

00:21:09.940 I read reporting that said that effectively that he was keeping away from those areas.

00:21:14.500 But even if it were true, don't you agree that Trump, if he wants to do that, he should

00:21:19.980 charge him with...

00:21:21.060 Or he should get someone to charge him with a crime, because in this country, there's

00:21:23.720 a line between admissibility, basis of removal, and deportable basis of removal.

00:21:29.820 And in order to be deportable on the basis of something like, for example, occupying a

00:21:34.920 building, I assume he would need a conviction under that...

00:21:37.080 No, no.

00:21:37.920 I'll tell you right now.

00:21:39.200 It would be much worse if Trump had charged him with a crime.

00:21:41.900 If his DOJ went out and charged him with a crime, I would be much more bothered by the

00:21:45.260 action, because that would now be...

00:21:47.240 Because that would be punishing him for his free speech.

00:21:49.680 The Supreme Court has said definitively that deportation and removal is not considered

00:21:54.480 a punishment.

00:21:55.840 I urge you to check...

00:21:57.440 I'll give you the citations.

00:21:58.880 525-US-471.

00:22:01.940 The case is Reno v. Anti-American Discrimination Committee or Commission.

00:22:06.680 The...

00:22:07.280 You can...

00:22:07.880 That case spells out very clearly.

00:22:10.400 You cannot pretend, first and foremost, that it is considered criminal punishment.

00:22:15.980 And also, that he's held to the same...

00:22:17.980 I agree.

00:22:18.600 Wait.

00:22:18.780 I agree that immigration is not a criminal punishment.

00:22:20.960 So that's...

00:22:21.620 I totally agree that that's the precedent of the court.

00:22:24.380 So how...

00:22:24.820 So then ask yourself this.

00:22:25.920 How is it a First Amendment violation at all if it's not criminal punishment?

00:22:27.560 First Amendment is not just a rise under criminal actions.

00:22:29.820 For example, if the government said that you can't get a liquor license if you're a Jew,

00:22:33.280 or you can't get a liquor license if you support Trump, I think that you would agree

00:22:36.720 that's not a criminal action, but the First Amendment still has purchase.

00:22:38.980 And that...

00:22:39.260 Yes or no?

00:22:39.740 So...

00:22:40.380 And that, again, is not bona fide.

00:22:42.220 Wait.

00:22:42.340 Is that a yes?

00:22:42.920 What I'm...

00:22:43.260 You're trying to, like, catch me on a gotcha moment, and what I'm saying...

00:22:45.440 You just said it was only for criminal matters, and I just want to be clear to the audience.

00:22:48.260 Is it only for criminal matters?

00:22:49.240 What I'm saying is that with respect to someone who's an illegal alien, we are talking about

00:22:53.860 whether or not it's bona fide...

00:22:55.660 It's facially bona fide and legitimate.

00:22:58.220 He's not an illegal alien.

00:22:58.740 What I'm saying is someone who's a non-American citizen.

00:23:01.220 Let me ask you guys for clarification, because the Immigration and Nationality Act, section

00:23:05.000 221, subsection I, says,

00:23:07.200 After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary

00:23:12.040 of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation.

00:23:17.600 There's more to that.

00:23:18.800 There's exceptions.

00:23:20.480 I don't know that I need to read the whole thing.

00:23:22.460 I think you're both familiar with this.

00:23:24.180 So how does this pertain to Mahmoud Khalil?

00:23:26.700 Yeah.

00:23:26.960 So there could be...

00:23:27.860 There's wide deference in this country for the Secretary of State, for the Attorney General,

00:23:32.120 for the Department of Homeland Security, for the President himself, to make all kinds

00:23:35.420 of decisions that would prejudice his right to be in this country.

00:23:40.260 I don't deny that there's...

00:23:41.260 The case law is that there's no substantive right for non-citizens to be in this country,

00:23:46.520 that Congress tomorrow could pass a law that says everyone who's not a citizen needs to

00:23:49.920 leave.

00:23:50.100 You don't have a substantive right to be here.

00:23:51.400 But here's the question.

00:23:52.420 Can you do it for an illegitimate purpose that's reprehensible under the Constitution?

00:23:58.360 Using the statute, not saying that the statute itself is unconstitutional facially, but as

00:24:02.520 applied, could you say, for example, in my discretion, because you are a Jew, I am taking

00:24:08.560 away your visa?

00:24:09.840 So...

00:24:10.280 The answer is no, right?

00:24:11.400 Well...

00:24:11.820 Would you agree?

00:24:12.260 So far, what I've gotten from what you're saying is that it sounds like the reason the

00:24:17.360 Trump administration has not accused him of a crime pertaining to those protests, and

00:24:21.420 has simply cited national security concerns, is to avoid a hearing based on the arguments

00:24:26.040 you're making.

00:24:26.460 Yeah.

00:24:26.620 That's reprehensible, isn't it?

00:24:27.760 Well...

00:24:28.200 No.

00:24:28.640 I mean...

00:24:29.000 If so, it happens.

00:24:29.580 But the issue is...

00:24:30.820 If it's true, would it be reprehensible to, you know, we're really doing this for the

00:24:33.960 crime, but we're kind of sneaking it in?

00:24:36.300 Wouldn't that be horrible?

00:24:36.700 I don't know that they're actually doing it for the crime.

00:24:39.180 I'm saying, if Donald Trump said, we don't want people who are not citizens to try and

00:24:45.280 influence our government...

00:24:47.360 No, no.

00:24:47.980 If it was a pretext, right?

00:24:49.260 So if it were true that he wants to punish Mahmoud Khalil for actual criminal acts, but

00:24:54.620 he's just trying to do it faster through this other method...

00:24:56.360 Well, there's a lot in there.

00:24:58.120 The word punish, for instance.

00:24:59.280 If...

00:24:59.800 I don't want to ascribe anything, and what I'm trying to get at is, if Donald Trump were

00:25:06.700 to say, we need pretexts to remove this man, he's going to find himself in 1A hearings.

00:25:11.140 Would he find himself an enemy of you?

00:25:13.140 Or would you condemn him for coming up with pretexts to remove people or to punish people?

00:25:17.480 But again, just to clarify, because I want to make sure we get the full point before

00:25:20.180 we get into that.

00:25:21.500 The issue appears to be that the Secretary of State has the legal right, for any reason

00:25:26.120 in his own discretion at any time, to revoke an alien's visa.

00:25:31.260 Under the law, but as applied, could they violate the Constitution?

00:25:34.200 So I'll ask you, Tim.

00:25:35.280 If he said, in my discretion, I'm going to revoke the visa because he's a Jew, you think

00:25:38.620 that that would be illegal?

00:25:39.960 To revoke someone's visa for being a Jew?

00:25:42.840 Correct.

00:25:43.260 In the actions of discretion, would you say, for example, well, it says he can revoke it

00:25:46.720 for any reason.

00:25:47.180 Would you say it's legal?

00:25:49.220 It's a good question.

00:25:50.340 What I would say is...

00:25:51.500 You can say I don't know.

00:25:53.440 I do want to address it real quick, because my answer is I don't know, because you have two

00:25:56.400 areas.

00:25:56.700 One, where the law literally says for any reason, but then you run into the constitutional

00:26:00.220 argument where that law can't be applied as it goes to the First Amendment.

00:26:02.900 So, Tim, doesn't...

00:26:03.680 I don't know.

00:26:04.640 Doesn't the threshold the Supreme Court laid out, that for some reason you just want to

00:26:10.040 toss it, you want to just disregard completely when you give these...

00:26:13.020 Looking for the ultimate online casino experience?

00:26:16.540 Step into the BetMGM Casino app, where every deal, spin, and goal brings Las Vegas excitement

00:26:22.420 into the palm of your hand.

00:26:24.020 Take your seat at Premium Blackjack Pro, where strategy meets top-tier gameplay.

00:26:29.440 Drop in on the exciting Sugar Rush and Crazy Time slot games, or play the dazzling MGM Grand

00:26:35.540 Emerald Knights, a slot experience that captures the magic of MGM.

00:26:40.140 With so many games, it's time to make your move.

00:26:43.180 Download the app and visit BetMGM Ontario today to experience the next level of gaming.

00:26:48.660 Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

00:26:52.100 19 plus to wager, Ontario only.

00:26:54.380 Please gamble responsibly.

00:26:55.960 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact

00:27:00.140 Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

00:27:07.460 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

00:27:11.000 Don't miss Trevor Wallace, performing live at Meridian Hall on May 8th.

00:27:15.620 The viral stand-up comedian, actor, and host of the Stiff Socks podcast brings his brand

00:27:20.900 new Alpha Beta Male tour to Meridian Hall for one night only.

00:27:25.280 Tickets are moving fast.

00:27:26.720 Get yours today at MRGLive.com.

00:27:29.560 A crazy example of let's ban all Jews, let's ban all Muslims, let's ban all redheads, is

00:27:34.240 that facially legitimate and bona fide.

00:27:36.620 You seem to keep just walking, like dancing right past that.

00:27:39.120 No, I'm not.

00:27:39.900 Wait, wait, I acknowledge that the Chinese...

00:27:42.320 Your hypotheticals are a joke because of that.

00:27:44.780 They don't meet that very tiny threshold.

00:27:47.740 So I want to be very clear.

00:27:49.480 I started that entire conversation by saying the Chinese exclusion laws are still good law.

00:27:55.500 And even though I don't necessarily agree with them.

00:27:56.840 Wait, you think that Chinese exclusion laws are not good law?

00:27:59.500 What I'm saying is that as of today, you think...

00:28:02.860 Oh, so you think it's legal today to exclude Chinese...

00:28:04.720 Immigration lawyers cite that case repeatedly, all the time with respect to these kind of

00:28:09.820 issues with constitutionality.

00:28:12.020 Xi Jinping, Fang Weiting, these are cases that the Supreme Court is...

00:28:15.300 They constantly are cited there.

00:28:17.160 They have not developed anti-precedent status yet.

00:28:19.540 And I started...

00:28:20.000 And I wanted...

00:28:20.360 Because you accused me of dancing around that issue.

00:28:22.160 I started that conversation by saying...

00:28:23.740 And recognizing the law, which says that by the law, those cases...

00:28:26.840 Those cases have not been overturned.

00:28:28.120 What I said was, that's an exclusion decision.

00:28:31.200 That's an exclusion decision that's different than when you're in the interior of the country.

00:28:33.940 So I have a question for you guys.

00:28:35.440 And I think...

00:28:36.300 I have two questions.

00:28:36.800 The first one's extremely obvious.

00:28:38.640 If a black man walked into a bakery and they said, we don't serve black people, that is illegal.

00:28:44.740 That's illegal under the anti-civil rights framework.

00:28:49.980 It's private discrimination.

00:28:51.420 Different situation.

00:28:52.640 So in the instance where the individual walks into the store and the owner says, sir, we

00:28:59.440 reserve the right to refuse service to anybody.

00:29:01.120 Please leave.

00:29:02.380 Yeah.

00:29:02.680 Well, that's not an issue of racism or a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

00:29:06.100 That's a great example, Tim.

00:29:07.300 And I really appreciate it because that goes to show you the extent to which the government

00:29:12.380 actually has latitude in all kinds of...

00:29:14.280 They could have done it through another means.

00:29:15.420 They could have said, we're doing it because there's bullshit about the lie, which we can

00:29:18.760 get into on your green card application.

00:29:20.800 They could have found some other means.

00:29:22.040 They could have charged them with a crime with a neutral ground, but they didn't.

00:29:24.460 The reason they didn't, the reason they said it's because you support Hamas is because

00:29:29.980 they're trying to signal, they're trying to bully private actors, just like they're

00:29:33.620 doing with the universities, just like they're doing with the firms, just like we're doing

00:29:36.660 with all these actors.

00:29:37.640 They're trying to put a signal and say, hey, if you disagree with us on policy on Israel,

00:29:41.500 we're going to make you hurt.

00:29:43.040 And so you're right.

00:29:43.960 If they actually thought it was a security threat, why not go through the other methods

00:29:48.720 of doing so?

00:29:49.200 But they said it specifically.

00:29:50.520 And Rubio is coming out.

00:29:51.380 So this is about the Jews?

00:29:53.720 That's what it's about?

00:29:54.380 Listen, you agree.

00:29:56.020 This is about authoritarianism and coercion.

00:29:59.460 Donald Trump doesn't give a fuck about the First Amendment.

00:30:02.140 Oh, how do I?

00:30:02.860 Oh, oh my God.

00:30:04.080 You see, this is, this is.

00:30:05.020 He's suing a pollster.

00:30:06.560 I'm so tired of leftists just coming to these conclusions as far as I can look inside his

00:30:11.100 head and I know better than anyone exactly what Trump is really thinking.

00:30:14.500 Even though I've seen policy after policy that is issued, that has had nothing to do whatsoever

00:30:18.460 with, with reaching the conclusions I've reached, I'm still going to come out here and tell

00:30:22.400 you, I know what he's thinking.

00:30:23.820 He doesn't care about the First Amendment.

00:30:25.560 He doesn't care about due process.

00:30:26.840 He only cares about himself.

00:30:28.160 You can see one piece of evidence after another about this and you're going to come out there

00:30:31.760 and you're going to say to yourself, oh no, I know better than you.

00:30:34.400 Everyone else, why?

00:30:35.320 Because I'm sitting here on the outside.

00:30:36.840 Even though I've been tilted and I've come across him every single way, I'm going to look

00:30:40.060 at any way I possibly can to frame it against him.

00:30:41.860 There is no other explanation.

00:30:42.900 Wait, there is no other explanation.

00:30:45.180 If they thought it was because of his criminal conduct, they would say so.

00:30:48.040 If they thought it was, and now they have this bullshit pretext about after the fact that

00:30:51.580 he lied.

00:30:51.980 The thing was, let's look at what they did say.

00:30:53.800 What they said was that we consider him a national security issue.

00:30:57.820 What is this proper procedure to do under that issue, under that setting?

00:31:02.120 The proper procedure is laid out in the APA that I started with that you wanted to just

00:31:06.140 jump away from.

00:31:06.800 The APA and the steps that they were actually taking was saying, we're going to process him

00:31:10.980 through an administrative immigration judge, and he's going to examine this to make sure

00:31:16.020 that we are not just capturing him, throwing a bag over his head.

00:31:19.380 Like they're doing with the Venezuelans.

00:31:21.420 Like they're doing with the Venezuelans, yes?

00:31:23.220 I don't know.

00:31:24.260 Like they're doing with the Venezuelans, not even giving them the opportunity to file

00:31:26.940 habeas petitions.

00:31:27.880 It's disgusting.

00:31:28.920 You're defending this regime.

00:31:30.300 Habeas petitions, you're not entitled to a habeas petition the moment you get arrested.

00:31:35.900 A habeas petition, you're mistaken.

00:31:39.480 Supreme Court does not allow you to just automatically get a habeas petition.

00:31:43.820 You cannot get it under 1252G, I believe.

00:31:47.700 You cannot go to the federal district court until such time as you've exhausted all your

00:31:52.020 administrative process.

00:31:53.120 They said we didn't even need to send these people that were throwing bags over their

00:31:55.700 heads, going to the tarmac and trying to get them off the plane before the court opens.

00:31:59.900 They said we don't even need to, in court, by the way, in court, they said we don't even

00:32:03.160 need to tell their lawyers where they are at.

00:32:05.280 You don't even need to give them notice of the basis of their removal.

00:32:08.060 The fact that you would defend this criminal regime and say Trump cares about rights, it's

00:32:12.200 the most preposterous thing I've ever heard.

00:32:13.440 Okay, so let's come to a conclusion here.

00:32:15.400 So you agree that Mahmoud, Kalula, everything's fine.

00:32:17.600 Now you want to move on to the case.

00:32:18.380 No, no, no, no, no, no.

00:32:19.520 I just want to be clear because what I'm telling Tim, I saw some nodding there from Tim.

00:32:23.540 I wanted to see if you agree.

00:32:27.020 The nodding was the Israel stuff.

00:32:28.540 Well, it seems like that is what he's trying to do.

00:32:30.480 He's trying to signal 100%.

00:32:32.260 But I'll clarify too, because one thing that frustrates me is there are, I call them the

00:32:39.200 Jews people, where they think everything's the Jews all the time.

00:32:41.980 I think this is purely related to American foreign policy.

00:32:44.880 I think this country wants to fund its foreign military operations.

00:32:50.040 Israel's a strong ally.

00:32:51.040 The US wants to give them money, wants to be involved, wants military there.

00:32:53.740 I don't think it's the Jews.

00:32:55.280 I think it's a strategic location for US Middle Eastern operations.

00:32:59.060 And you've got these protests that are emerging and influence spreading across universities,

00:33:02.660 which are counter to American foreign policy interests, largely that I disagree with.

00:33:08.120 So I do think Trump is trying to send a message.

00:33:10.660 That's why Romesa, I believe her name was, Ozturk, she had her visa revoked.

00:33:16.340 I believe it was presumably based on a pro-Palestinian paper that was written.

00:33:19.940 Now, that doesn't go to the question of whether or not they have the legal right to do it.

00:33:23.040 But I think the motivation strongly has to do with support of American foreign policy.

00:33:25.220 I mean, they're posting the Studio Ghibli of them deporting people.

00:33:28.300 They're posting ASMR.

00:33:30.080 I'll just real quick.

00:33:30.960 I know that's a little different because it's not the Israeli issue.

00:33:32.800 I just want to say, because we talked about this last night, that's a fentanyl dealer.

00:33:37.420 I understand, but the whole purpose is to send signals.

00:33:40.080 I think Trump is trying to trick the left by doing that into defending one of the most...

00:33:45.400 Well, I'll defend reprehensible people if it means defending our rights.

00:33:49.040 Right now, yeah, I'll absolutely...

00:33:50.560 But the mean, that's the point.

00:33:51.740 You're not defending our rights.

00:33:53.320 I am defending our rights.

00:33:54.500 No, it's not our rights.

00:33:55.580 Yes, it is.

00:33:56.040 Unless you're here via a green card or visa, you're not defending our rights.

00:34:00.460 You are defending the rights that America decides to confer on people who are not citizens of her nation.

00:34:04.660 But you just agreed that Mahmoud Khalil has First Amendment rights.

00:34:08.820 You just said...

00:34:09.480 I said there are limited First Amendment rights.

00:34:11.460 What is the First Amendment...

00:34:12.180 What kind of rights would it be that, okay, you have rights, but you can't say what we want you to say, otherwise we'll throw you out of the country.

00:34:16.800 Well, let me ask you.

00:34:17.660 What sense is that a right?

00:34:18.300 I have an honest question.

00:34:19.540 I'll tell you.

00:34:19.960 I'll answer it.

00:34:20.420 Can I answer his question?

00:34:21.080 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

00:34:21.580 Yeah.

00:34:22.440 How is that a right?

00:34:23.360 It's a right in that he's not sitting in a prison.

00:34:25.440 And I don't want him...

00:34:26.380 What if he's sitting in a jail right now?

00:34:27.580 No, what I'm saying is that's a detention awaiting for processing...

00:34:31.160 Cold comfort.

00:34:32.060 Cold comfort.

00:34:32.900 What's cold comfort?

00:34:33.400 Cold comfort for his wife, who is now eight months pregnant and didn't even know where he was.

00:34:39.840 And obviously has a kid on the way and is trying to get information from the administration on where he is.

00:34:45.160 I have a question for you guys.

00:34:47.100 The Constitution applies to non-citizens.

00:34:49.140 Yes.

00:34:49.480 The Bill of Rights do.

00:34:50.800 Can they buy guns?

00:34:52.240 That's an honest question.

00:34:53.360 I don't know if they can.

00:34:53.840 I think the Second Amendment, as interpreted by this court, I don't necessarily agree that the second...

00:34:57.300 Do it.

00:34:57.540 Wait, wait.

00:34:58.080 Do it.

00:34:58.860 Do it!

00:34:59.600 Wait, wait.

00:35:00.040 Whoa, whoa, whoa.

00:35:00.800 Listen.

00:35:01.240 Tell me they can buy guns.

00:35:03.280 That's right.

00:35:03.840 Load them up.

00:35:04.420 The Second Amendment is based.

00:35:06.100 Listen, and I don't necessarily agree with the court's interpretation as applied in Heller and in the follow-on case McDonald.

00:35:14.240 But that is the precedent of the Supreme Court.

00:35:16.780 And it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

00:35:21.940 That's people.

00:35:22.540 And the same logic that would protect non-citizens with respect to searches and seizures, which would protect them for torture, right?

00:35:30.360 You agree that the government can't inflict cruel and unusual punishment to illegal immigrants.

00:35:35.180 Do you agree with that?

00:35:35.760 Absolutely.

00:35:36.320 You agree with that?

00:35:36.960 Do you agree with that yes or no?

00:35:38.140 That they can't torture illegal immigrants?

00:35:39.020 They can't torture illegal immigrants, right?

00:35:40.060 I agree with that.

00:35:40.820 Okay.

00:35:41.160 And so you also agree that they can't be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, right?

00:35:44.600 Fair?

00:35:45.060 That's due process.

00:35:45.900 Okay.

00:35:46.380 So why would they not be protected by the Second Amendment?

00:35:49.000 Yeah.

00:35:49.700 I mean, we've bumped into this one quite a bit because, you know, I've known for some time that the Constitution applies to all people here.

00:35:57.120 And the reason that it does, and you guys correct me if I'm wrong, is that if the Fourth Amendment didn't, there'd be no Fourth Amendment.

00:36:02.900 They'd be able to say, we just think you're not a citizen, so now we're going to raid your house.

00:36:06.220 Yeah.

00:36:06.500 So no, no, no, no, no.

00:36:07.200 You can't raid someone's house just because you're not a citizen.

00:36:10.400 Yeah, because the protection is for an individual, not the interpretation of whether they're here legally or not.

00:36:16.000 And so the question then comes to guns, because the Second Amendment says the people.

00:36:20.060 So I'm like, can illegal immigrants buy guns in this country?

00:36:24.140 So you're saying when it says the people, that's a limitation that carves out.

00:36:29.200 So you're saying because the Second Amendment says, I never really considered Tim's question before.

00:36:34.360 I think it's an interesting question.

00:36:36.300 And think about the recent precedent.

00:36:37.660 I need to explain to you where I'm coming from with respect to illegal aliens, because I do believe very firmly that our Constitution, when we're first forming our government, our founders have in mind, why do we have a government in the first place?

00:36:50.480 It's in order to help facilitate and secure the safety of our people.

00:36:53.380 But we have this grave concern, and that concern is very obvious based on history, that once you put a government in power, however that government is run, whether it's democracy or something else, that invariably they're going to crush the people.

00:37:04.360 So we're going to set up not a democracy, which we're not at all a democracy, we're a constitutional republic, and that Constitution will safeguard the individual from the powers that this group of individuals has given the government.

00:37:14.700 And the reason we have this government here is to basically keep those citizens safe from outsiders, so we don't have room only bands.

00:37:21.320 Sounds like a liberal justice, because what you're saying is there's a general purpose for general welfare, so I'm going to interpret these words however I want.

00:37:27.900 I'm switching into the constitutional theory, not based on this case here or that statute there.

00:37:34.720 I'm looking, I'm just analyzing now, I asked in the beginning, let's talk about the law, we explored that for 30 minutes.

00:37:41.140 Now at this point, I'm talking to you as far as constitutional theory.

00:37:43.380 We haven't run to ground, we haven't run to ground.

00:37:46.220 I want to know if Tim Pool agrees that this deportation is legitimate, or whether you're going to say you're agnostic about it.

00:37:51.820 I want to know whether you think that this attempt at deportation is okay to do or not.

00:37:56.760 I think it's okay to do.

00:37:58.000 Why do you think it's okay to do?

00:37:59.140 I think that, this is the next question I was getting into as it pertains to the Constitution.

00:38:03.800 The idea that we're going to try and interpret the Constitution, to me, has become largely meaningless outside of the initial seven articles.

00:38:11.420 The construction of government makes a lot of sense.

00:38:14.000 People often say, they'll say what Trump is doing or what Biden is doing is unconstitutional.

00:38:18.760 They're usually referring to the Bill of Rights, which have never been universally understood ever.

00:38:23.640 For instance, blasphemy and obscenity were illegal, where literally after they ratified the Constitution, you walked outside and screamed obscenities, you'd be arrested.

00:38:32.320 Literally arrested.

00:38:32.860 George Carlin was arrested in the 70s for swearing.

00:38:36.180 There was no—

00:38:37.760 There have been bad times in our history where we have not been true to the Constitution.

00:38:41.180 No, but—

00:38:41.700 John Adams passed the Sedition Act, where it literally was a crime to insult the president.

00:38:46.780 Right.

00:38:47.180 And then it got pulled back.

00:38:48.240 Correct.

00:38:48.640 So my point is, as it pertains to the Second Amendment, our current understanding is a complete inversion from every different period throughout various generations of different moral worldviews.

00:39:00.240 Notably with D.C. versus Heller and then McDonald v. Chicago is when we started to get the actual—you can actually have guns.

00:39:06.220 So it was surprising to me to actually learn this in the past few years because I didn't really pay attention to the gun stuff.

00:39:11.780 But I looked at the map of the right to keep and bear arms pre-Heller didn't exist in this country despite a Second Amendment.

00:39:20.020 You could have a dismantled, broken-up piece of guns throughout your house, but it was actually legal for a state to deny you a permit to carry, deny you a permit to own, and require you to dismantle it in your own house.

00:39:29.640 Because initially the Bill of Rights did not apply as to the states.

00:39:32.140 The Bill of Rights were a framework to apply to the federal government.

00:39:35.540 And so that's why there's that proviso.

00:39:36.780 It only affected D.C.

00:39:37.720 It only affected D.C.

00:39:38.940 And so for the longest time, there was no incorporation, is the term called, of the Second Amendment.

00:39:43.640 That's why McDonald's is a case that incorporates it through the new process.

00:39:46.280 But I want to push you a little bit there because it sounds like what you're suggesting is there's nothing Trump could do.

00:39:51.220 Because this is all mushy.

00:39:52.140 It's all a woozy.

00:39:52.640 It's all a wazzy.

00:39:53.380 There have been times where we disrespected that there's nothing Trump could do where you would say, I don't like that because of the First Amendment.

00:39:57.960 Is that true?

00:39:58.440 Let me ask you.

00:39:58.840 Is it constitutional to—

00:39:59.960 Could you answer that question first?

00:40:01.260 What?

00:40:02.140 Looking for the ultimate online casino experience?

00:40:05.500 Step into the BetMGM Casino app.

00:40:07.720 Where every deal, spin, and goal brings Las Vegas excitement into the palm of your hand.

00:40:13.140 Take your seat at Premium Blackjack Pro, where strategy meets top-tier gameplay.

00:40:18.320 Drop in on the exciting Sugar Rush and Crazy Time slot games.

00:40:22.140 Or play the dazzling MGM Grand Emerald Knights, a slot experience that captures the magic of MGM.

00:40:28.560 With so many games, it's time to make your move.

00:40:32.080 Download the app and visit BetMGM Ontario today to experience the next level of gaming.

00:40:37.720 Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

00:40:41.000 19 plus to wager.

00:40:42.180 Ontario only.

00:40:43.260 Please gamble responsibly.

00:40:44.860 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

00:40:55.860 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

00:41:00.340 Canada.

00:41:01.000 It's time for more us.

00:41:03.240 Because we're more than just a place on a map.

00:41:06.020 We're an attitude.

00:41:06.960 One with more empathy than ego.

00:41:09.200 More unity than division.

00:41:10.860 More grit, go, and we got this.

00:41:12.840 The more we choose to stand up as our most flag-flying, maple-y-flying, local-adventuring selves, the more we are the true north, unbreakable, strong, and free.

00:41:24.540 It's time.

00:41:25.660 Choose Canada.

00:41:27.120 A message from the government of Canada.

00:41:28.720 I asked you, you were kind of like saying, yeah, the First Amendment, it's all, you know, we never respected it anyway.

00:41:36.000 Who cares about it?

00:41:36.940 I'll tell you who cares.

00:41:37.760 Okay, but I'll tell you something.

00:41:38.620 What would it take for Trump to do where you would say, okay, because of the First Amendment, this shit is fucked up and I'm going to call him out for it on the First Amendment grounds.

00:41:46.920 Is there anything he could do where you would call him out for First Amendment grounds?

00:41:49.760 So the presupposition there that I have an issue with is First Amendment grounds.

00:41:52.940 I think the real question is moral grounds.

00:41:54.620 I don't care about the Constitution.

00:41:55.700 I care if he's doing something wrong.

00:41:56.760 So even if the Constitution allows him to be evil, I'm going to call him out for being evil, if it's Trump, Biden, or otherwise.

00:42:02.120 And if the Constitution says something, for example, that says, for example, because you don't care about the Constitution.

00:42:05.960 I do care about the Constitution.

00:42:07.680 But you only care about the non-rights portions of the Constitution?

00:42:10.320 Okay, my point was the Bill of Rights have been applied by those in whatever way they interpret.

00:42:16.400 And then when it gets challenged to the courts, the courts reinterpret or interpret in whatever way they say.

00:42:20.200 Do you care about the constitutional rights or not?

00:42:21.980 Absolutely.

00:42:22.340 So if you care about the constitutional rights, don't you care?

00:42:24.480 As I interpret them.

00:42:25.560 As you interpret them.

00:42:26.560 And you interpret them differently.

00:42:28.380 I interpret them differently.

00:42:29.160 For example, is it cruel and unusual punishment to put a male person in a female prison?

00:42:35.140 For who?

00:42:36.320 For either.

00:42:38.220 I think that it could be.

00:42:40.300 If you can show, for example.

00:42:41.760 Could be.

00:42:42.080 We have a problem right now.

00:42:42.820 We don't have a definitive understanding.

00:42:44.100 So it depends because you're going to need to do research on these constitutional principles to see, you know, to what extent is it the danger to the person that you're putting in the female prison?

00:42:51.620 As I understand it, there's not an epidemic of abuse from trans people in male, sorry, in female prisons to the female individuals.

00:42:58.800 That the more likely situation.

00:43:00.140 Wait, wait, wait, wait.

00:43:00.760 As I understand.

00:43:01.720 I'm not trying to open that issue for debate.

00:43:03.200 The point of contention was.

00:43:04.940 It's a difficult issue.

00:43:05.380 I don't have.

00:43:05.660 But like.

00:43:05.980 Exactly.

00:43:06.600 There's an eighth amendment.

00:43:07.700 And we actually don't know how to apply it to certain issues affecting us today.

00:43:11.720 Here we have something clear.

00:43:13.060 Right?

00:43:13.220 Here we have something clear.

00:43:13.940 Do you think if an American citizen did what Mahmoud Khalil did, do you think that he should be able to go to jail under the First Amendment?

00:43:19.500 If he was occupying a building, yes.

00:43:22.080 Put that aside because we have to put that aside because the government's not alleging that.

00:43:25.220 Right?

00:43:25.360 So if all that's being alleged is an American.

00:43:27.900 He leafleted for Al-Aqsa flood.

00:43:30.660 Okay.

00:43:31.980 An American citizen can do that.

00:43:33.380 Right?

00:43:33.800 Indeed.

00:43:34.020 And if Trump threw an American citizen in jail or said that you can't get, you know, a liquor license because you did that, something that's perfectly constitutional, would you call him out for First Amendment violations?

00:43:42.600 Yes.

00:43:42.980 So the only difference here is whether or not he's a resident alien or whether he's an American.

00:43:47.020 That's really the only difference.

00:43:48.100 Absolutely.

00:43:48.500 But you just agreed, didn't you, that resident aliens have First Amendment rights?

00:43:52.620 No.

00:43:52.980 And as he pointed out, they are limited.

00:43:54.460 And that's why I asked the question about guns and cruel, unusual punishment.

00:43:56.740 You agreed in the guns context.

00:43:58.240 You said, of course, it's natural that you have gun rights.

00:44:00.100 And so it seems like you're granted in the guns, right?

00:44:02.060 And in fact, that's a hot take.

00:44:03.260 And it's one that I respect you for.

00:44:04.500 But why weren't you granted in the First Amendment context?

00:44:06.780 Like I already mentioned, we could not sit here and define what cruel and unusual punishment is as per the Eighth Amendment.

00:44:11.720 So you're going to assert there are certain—so the argument really just boils down to my moral worldview.

00:44:18.220 That's the issue I take with the Bill of Rights and how we interpret them.

00:44:22.020 As you guys are all citing legal precedent, saying the court said this and the court said that,

00:44:25.860 I'm sitting here being like, the only thing that really matters is whether the majority body politic determines it to be moral or not.

00:44:30.940 So, for instance, when it was a predominantly Christian nation, if you blasphemed, you'd find yourself in jail.

00:44:37.800 If you went in public and started cussing and swearing, you'd find yourself in jail.

00:44:42.120 But as we've shifted away from that moral worldview, you can now go on television and cuss up a storm like South Park did, counting how many times they swore on TV.

00:44:50.080 These things change dramatically.

00:44:51.320 Right now, as a society, we don't know.

00:44:54.200 You've got the conservatives saying—and I use this because it's obviously a hot-button issue.

00:44:58.620 A judge just ruled that Trump must return two biological male individuals to a woman's prison.

00:45:04.460 Women there are upset.

00:45:06.580 And liberal activists say putting transgender individuals who are undergoing—who are affirmed—HRT—in a male prison is cruel and unusual to them.

00:45:16.460 Conservatives argue the inverse.

00:45:17.600 There's not going to be an accepted moral worldview between the two political factions in this country on that issue.

00:45:25.800 But I just want to take an issue with the premise there because you said what ultimately is going to be protected by these rights is going to be determined by the body politic.

00:45:31.460 I think that's crucially misunderstanding the purpose of the rights.

00:45:34.800 These rights are meant to be applied as to the majority.

00:45:36.960 I know.

00:45:37.200 The reason that they're so difficult to get rid of is because it's supposed to be protection against the excesses of a majority.

00:45:42.000 And there's some ANCAPs or anarcho-style people here that I met who are really nice people.

00:45:47.400 And they understand this, right?

00:45:49.160 If you're an anarcho-capitalist, you understand this, that there are abuses that the majority of the public can do.

00:45:53.520 And the rights are to stand in contradiction to what general sentiment is and to say, no, even if Congress wants to, right?

00:45:59.480 Congress shall make no law.

00:46:00.960 So even if Congress would like to violate the First Amendment rights of Mahmoud Khalil, they can't.

00:46:06.100 That's what the First Amendment has to protect.

00:46:07.820 And they have—I'm sorry.

00:46:08.720 Over and over again, they violated every—

00:46:10.660 Don't we have a requirement, just like in the Second Amendment context, and you think the Second Amendment is important.

00:46:16.060 Wasn't it important for the Supreme Court to say, in your view, that there is an individual right here associated with gun?

00:46:21.460 What does infringe mean?

00:46:24.040 Infringe?

00:46:24.860 Yeah.

00:46:25.060 Yeah, yeah.

00:46:25.360 It's going to be—yeah.

00:46:26.580 It's going to be different depending on who's—

00:46:28.240 The right to keep and bear arms has been infringed every possible way, and we're supposed to sit here and say, we have a Second Amendment.

00:46:34.140 We don't.

00:46:34.960 The First Amendment, they've made—how many laws are on the books pertaining to speech, religion, or otherwise?

00:46:39.200 There's a ridiculous amount of them.

00:46:40.480 But is that just an excuse not to ever think about the First Amendment?

00:46:43.360 No, no, no.

00:46:43.740 It's a moral philosophical point that this country tolerates what violates the Constitution if it applies to the majority, and that's not correct.

00:46:51.420 There are clear cases, and there are unclear cases, right?

00:46:53.540 There's a clear case of Second Amendment violation that says, no, every gun ownership, that's a crime.

00:46:57.340 You would say, that's a clear case that reasonable minds can't disagree about.

00:47:01.020 Or you—

00:47:01.380 Well, you're arguing extremes instead of what we're actually—

00:47:03.360 No, no, but what I'm—but your framework where you're saying, well, who knows, because the Congress has always violated, that's an excuse to never apply the principle, even in clear cases.

00:47:11.020 And here we have a clear case where you acknowledge that the First Amendment, as to citizens, would protect this conduct.

00:47:15.540 And in fact, you would criticize Trump if he went after citizens for doing this conduct.

00:47:18.900 You've also accepted, I think, as a maxim or as a general principle, that resident aliens do have First Amendment rights.

00:47:25.220 And so why does that not follow?

00:47:27.020 Why doesn't it?

00:47:28.020 I mean, I'd like to have—

00:47:29.340 Yeah, okay, sorry, my bad.

00:47:30.640 Well, let me make one more point on this.

00:47:32.180 The reason I ask the question about a black man going into a bakery, the baker can say to him, I'm sorry, look, we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody, goodbye.

00:47:40.540 And what can you really do?

00:47:41.820 Often in these circumstances, individuals who feel aggrieved will sue anyway, and they'll often win, even if it actually isn't the case that the person was discriminated against based on race.

00:47:51.100 The issue then becomes, to be racist, simply just don't admit you are.

00:47:57.740 So what we have here is the INA allows them to deport Mahmoud Khalil.

00:48:03.360 And so I shrug and say, change the law if you have an issue with it.

00:48:06.760 But for the time being, there's nothing else to be done.

00:48:09.460 So if they said national security threat because he's a Muslim or deporting him, would you say the same thing?

00:48:13.260 That's the point I made about the bakery.

00:48:14.960 So would you say that?

00:48:16.440 Why wouldn't you?

00:48:18.000 So this is the problem with the law as it is written.

00:48:20.560 I completely think it is screwed up and makes no sense.

00:48:23.260 It results in people who are not racist being accused of racist and racist actually getting away with things they're not supposed to be able to get away with.

00:48:31.080 So this is the – okay, New York City has human rights law that protects 31 identifiable genders.

00:48:37.860 It defines in their human rights code gender identity is self-expression.

00:48:42.640 So I called a human rights lawyer, three of them actually, in New York.

00:48:47.280 And I said, I'm trying to get an understanding of how this law would actually be applied.

00:48:51.540 It says that the clothing you wear, the name you call yourself, you cannot be discriminated against in public accommodation based on these characteristics.

00:48:59.440 They all agreed, yes.

00:49:00.600 I had the law in front of me.

00:49:01.460 I said, so if there is a clearly identifiable biological male wearing a dress with lipstick on who calls himself Susan and says he's a her, they cannot discriminate.

00:49:11.220 This person gets hired for a job.

00:49:12.640 They're allowed to wear female clothing.

00:49:14.000 Absolutely.

00:49:14.520 I said, okay, what if someone dresses up in a fursuit, a furry, and they refer to themselves as Volsiferon, Herald of the Winter Mists.

00:49:21.940 I'm intentionally making it –

00:49:23.120 Absurd.

00:49:23.880 They all said the courts would laugh that out of the courtroom.

00:49:28.060 You'd never get through.

00:49:29.200 They would fire you in two seconds.

00:49:30.620 I said, why is a judge allowed to laugh at an individual's identity that the law supposedly protects?

00:49:35.600 And they said because the judges can interpret as they see fit.

00:49:38.260 And I said, then there may as well be no law at all.

00:49:40.160 I know, but that's the conclusion there.

00:49:42.340 That can't be right, right?

00:49:43.560 Because what you're saying is then judges can't interpret the provision of the eye.

00:49:47.260 Judges are going to laugh at a trans person.

00:49:48.100 Okay, but then you're not stating your position.

00:49:50.660 You're just stating basically it's a real fact that judges are going to do what judges are going to do.

00:49:54.860 Indeed, my position is this will go to a hearing, and the INA gives Secretary of State the right to deport, and I don't see any reason why they can't do that.

00:50:02.640 Okay, but my question for you, which you dodge, and I'm going to ask it again, is if Trump said we're deporting him because of the Muslim, you would say –

00:50:09.320 I said yes.

00:50:09.840 Wait, so you would not condemn Trump for that?

00:50:12.140 No, no, no.

00:50:12.460 You asked me if –

00:50:13.060 Would you condemn him for it?

00:50:14.180 Let me slow down.

00:50:14.840 Yeah.

00:50:15.400 You asked me if Donald Trump said we're deporting him for being a Muslim, would you object to it?

00:50:20.140 Would you condemn it?

00:50:20.440 I said yes.

00:50:21.420 Okay, why would you –

00:50:22.160 I didn't dodge it.

00:50:22.620 I literally said yes.

00:50:23.160 Okay, so why would you not condemn him?

00:50:25.360 So the First Amendment says –

00:50:26.500 Because he's not saying it's because he's a Muslim.

00:50:27.800 No, no, I understand that, but this is why.

00:50:30.140 The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

00:50:34.200 Presumably, you would condemn him for violating the First Amendment, for violating the religion clauses of the Constitution.

00:50:39.120 Wouldn't you?

00:50:39.980 Yes.

00:50:40.760 The First Amendment also says do not abridge the freedom of speech, Congress.

00:50:43.560 So by the same provision, the INA, that you cited that says he gives them the right to do it, you would condemn Trump if he cited that provision.

00:50:50.040 And in part of his rationale, he said, well, because he's Muslim.

00:50:52.660 But if another part of the First Amendment is invoked as a rationale, now it's different.

00:50:56.440 Now you're not applying that.

00:50:57.400 And my position is and has been on the Mahmoud Khalil case is that claiming he's aligned with Hamas is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

00:51:04.020 It's ridiculous.

00:51:05.280 However, the INA says they can deport non-citizens.

00:51:08.300 But it also says that if they were to put up the rationale of Muslim.

00:51:12.920 But you will condemn one and not the other.

00:51:14.900 Explain that.

00:51:15.480 No, no, no.

00:51:15.880 I literally condemned both.

00:51:17.100 I said claiming that he's aligned with Hamas is stupid and wrong.

00:51:20.480 But he still has—

00:51:21.180 Should he be deported because he—

00:51:22.100 Sorry, sorry.

00:51:22.520 So if Trump actually initiated deporting proceedings—

00:51:25.360 So what I understand is you have not condemned this deportation proceeding.

00:51:28.880 You haven't.

00:51:29.480 But you would condemn a hypothetical deportation proceeding because he's a Muslim.

00:51:32.380 No, no, no.

00:51:32.680 Slow down.

00:51:34.040 They can deport anybody they want.

00:51:36.160 On any basis.

00:51:37.260 It literally says that in the INA.

00:51:38.620 And you wouldn't condemn it.

00:51:39.700 On any basis and you wouldn't condemn it.

00:51:41.780 On any basis is a little bit too absolute.

00:51:43.600 I'm sure there's some rationale where I'm going to be like, a guy discovered that Trump punched a baby so they deported him quickly.

00:51:49.360 I'd be like, whoa, whoa, whoa.

00:51:50.180 So would you condemn a deportation proceeding that was based on religion, even notwithstanding the fact that you wouldn't condemn that?

00:51:56.960 I would—

00:51:57.400 I'm trying to explain.

00:51:59.260 Just hold on.

00:52:00.280 If he said, I don't want a Muslim, get him out of here.

00:52:02.840 I don't want a black.

00:52:03.780 Get him out of here.

00:52:04.100 Whoa, whoa, whoa.

00:52:04.700 What do you think?

00:52:05.040 That's crazy.

00:52:05.740 That's crazy.

00:52:06.160 That's a stupid—

00:52:06.600 You can't do that.

00:52:07.080 That's not a real reason.

00:52:08.420 That's the rationale.

00:52:09.640 And then we go to the INA and I say, oh, Congress passed a law saying they can deport anybody they want for any reason at any time.

00:52:15.200 They haven't done that.

00:52:15.880 I don't agree with your reading of the INA, but I just want to be—

00:52:18.180 I'm assuming—

00:52:19.180 Well, if I'm wrong, it says at his own discretion.

00:52:21.080 It says every alien—oh, so this is—you're looking at section 222?

00:52:24.800 221.

00:52:25.520 It's on section I.

00:52:27.000 After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the secretary of state may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation.

00:52:37.220 Notice of such rectification shall be communicated to the attorney general, and such rectification shall invalidate the visa or other document from the date of issuance, provided that carriers or transportation companies—

00:52:45.540 Okay, so all that other stuff.

00:52:46.900 The other stuff is related to, like—

00:52:48.420 Go upwards.

00:52:50.000 Does this apply to LPRs?

00:52:52.640 Yes.

00:52:53.120 Yes.

00:52:53.300 Go upwards.

00:52:54.080 Yes.

00:52:55.140 This is—

00:52:55.720 But even—so go up.

00:52:57.340 Go up.

00:52:57.560 Go up.

00:52:58.220 Go up to the top of the section.

00:53:01.560 Where do we have?

00:53:02.140 Here's where you have a problem, Pisco.

00:53:05.600 Yeah, what's the problem?

00:53:06.500 It's that he's held—the same way that he can be denied a visa, they're held in the Supreme Court.

00:53:12.440 Looking for the ultimate online casino experience?

00:53:15.120 Step into the BetMGM Casino app, where every deal, spin, and goal brings Las Vegas excitement into the palm of your hand.

00:53:23.080 Take your seat at Premium Blackjack Pro, where strategy meets top-tier gameplay.

00:53:28.500 Drop in on the exciting, sugar-rushing, crazy-time slot games, or play the dazzling MGM Grand Emerald Knights, a slot experience that captures the magic of MGM.

00:53:38.740 With so many games, it's time to make your move.

00:53:42.240 Download the app and visit BetMGM Ontario today to experience the next level of gaming.

00:53:48.300 Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

00:53:51.160 19 plus to wager.

00:53:52.360 Ontario only.

00:53:53.440 Please gamble responsibly.

00:53:55.020 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

00:54:06.040 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

00:54:10.660 Don't miss Trevor Wallace.

00:54:12.160 Performing live at Meridian Hall on May 8th, the viral stand-up comedian, actor, and host of the Stiff Sox podcast, brings his brand new Alpha Beta Male Tour to Meridian Hall for one night only.

00:54:24.340 Tickets are moving fast.

00:54:25.800 Get yours today at MRGLive.com.

00:54:28.700 It says you can hold them to the same standard with respect to maintaining that visa or green card.

00:54:33.400 You cannot lie on – you cannot say on a forum, I'm not going to do this, and then if it turns out that they change the status or in the case of Mahmoud Khalil where they actually lie on their application for one reason or another.

00:54:46.560 I don't know if that lie was because they were afraid of further investigations, which would clearly throw them out.

00:54:50.380 We don't know what the issue is.

00:54:51.460 But at the end of the day, you held to the same standard while you're residing here until such time as you are fully naturalized.

00:54:58.960 Once someone is naturalized, and I believe this in my heart of hearts to be both constitutionally correct, morally correct, and legally correct.

00:55:05.480 Once someone is fully naturalized and becomes an American citizen, that blessing of that work to attain that is conferred upon them the very special status that America affords her own citizens.

00:55:18.720 And that status does not get afforded simply because they filled out a form and managed to get a visa or even a green card.

00:55:24.360 Joe, I like you.

00:55:25.480 Oh, I'm so glad.

00:55:26.480 I like you.

00:55:26.900 What Tim just said was fucking crazy.

00:55:29.340 I need you to acknowledge that.

00:55:30.520 What's crazy?

00:55:30.860 I don't know what he said.

00:55:31.600 What Tim just said is that legally, the Secretary of State or any member of the administration, I'll even assume the law says what it says and it applies to green cards.

00:55:42.740 For any reason, they can deport any alien.

00:55:46.300 I think the threshold is literally what a threshold I've said now four times, which is facially legitimate and bona fide.

00:55:55.920 He said he would not condemn a deportation.

00:55:58.560 That's his moral.

00:56:00.140 That's his morality law.

00:56:01.700 What's crazy about me saying America is for American citizens?

00:56:05.040 What about for – I'm not saying that that is crazy for you to say America is for American citizens.

00:56:09.980 But I think that what America is is defined largely by the Constitution, right?

00:56:15.240 America is not just a geographical space, right?

00:56:18.360 It's also – this pronouncement says we, the people of the United States, are enacting, right?

00:56:22.340 We are actually doing something here with the Constitution.

00:56:24.680 America is defined by its Constitution.

00:56:26.600 So for you to say something like, yeah, America is for American citizens, well, part of what America is is the First Amendment.

00:56:32.200 And so I respect what America is in its highest ideals.

00:56:34.880 And that would be – even if I think that America in principle should cater to citizens more, if America does something that violates its principles like discriminating on the base of religion, I would call it out.

00:56:45.900 I actually think when you map the political conflict we've had over the last 15 years, you come to realize that none of this is actually true.

00:56:58.740 Neither faction really cares about any of the constitutions, the Bill of Rights, the laws.

00:57:02.240 It is simply a moral worldview in battle with another moral worldview.

00:57:06.040 A few examples being the liberal faction consistently trying to take away our right to keep and bear arms in various degrees, arguing that only militias can have them, that supporting assault weapons bans and calling for them more and more.

00:57:18.080 That's certainly a violent Second Amendment.

00:57:20.400 Then you've got the First Amendment as it applies to – you know, we have a right to free speech.

00:57:24.980 It's interpreted a bit beyond government passing a law with respect to an establishment of speech because it actually restricts the government from using existing law to enforce against speech.

00:57:34.340 But then you have, again, for the past 10 years, the liberal faction trying to use private equity and private resources to shut down the politics of their political opponents.

00:57:43.200 Did you call that out?

00:57:43.800 I absolutely did.

00:57:45.280 But see, that's my moral worldview.

00:57:46.940 So when I say people have a right to express their political worldviews without fear of violence and harm, what are we dealing with right now?

00:57:53.580 There is no fucking reality where I am going to stand in defense of the moral worldview of the left that are firebombing Tesla dealerships in wanton destruction of vehicles.

00:58:03.440 And then they come to me and say, how could you not support Mahmoud Khalil?

00:58:06.620 I'll be like, listen, the moral worldview you guys live in is might makes right like the fucking Nazis.

00:58:11.200 OK, so you can make any argument you want to try to appeal to my view of the Constitution.

00:58:15.460 And I'm going to say demons get no quarter.

00:58:17.200 You're not going to stand on business because you hate the left.

00:58:19.440 You hate the.

00:58:19.900 Yeah.

00:58:20.140 So I want to be clear.

00:58:21.500 I condemn the Tesla bombers.

00:58:23.300 That is fucking reprehensible.

00:58:24.620 I don't agree with terrorism in this country.

00:58:26.440 I'll call it terrorism.

00:58:27.160 And I'll say, yes, that is terrorism.

00:58:28.800 I condemn it.

00:58:29.400 I think it's horrible.

00:58:30.400 That's me calling out the left.

00:58:31.940 Why would you say I think that MAGA and what Trump has done to this country is a fucking disaster?

00:58:37.760 Is it unconstitutional to arrest a person's lawyers when they're facing criminal charges?

00:58:41.780 No.

00:58:42.380 Why would it be unconstitutional?

00:58:43.520 So if a person is a person is criminally charged, right?

00:58:46.780 Let's say he's indicted a mobster in New York.

00:58:48.780 Yeah.

00:58:49.240 He hires a lawyer.

00:58:50.320 The lawyer starts drafting his legal defense.

00:58:52.380 And then the Fed, then the AG of New York goes and arrests his lawyers.

00:58:55.100 Depends on what if he go.

00:58:56.660 If the lawyer fucking shot someone, you know, no, no, no.

00:58:59.100 Rico.

00:58:59.520 OK, so let me let me go to the lawyer and say, you're with the fucking mobster.

00:59:04.080 We're giving you two counts of Rico on top.

00:59:05.440 Oh, no, no.

00:59:05.820 So sorry.

00:59:06.340 So there you have a question of interpretation of Rico.

00:59:08.600 Can Rico apply to legal advice?

00:59:11.340 OK, in that case, I'm going to have an issue with criminalizing conduct that amounts to

00:59:15.220 legal advice, genuine legal advice.

00:59:17.020 Like when they arrested Trump's lawyers in Wisconsin and Georgia.

00:59:19.180 I thought you were so I just I just want to be I just want to be clear.

00:59:23.860 There can be in the course of pretending to give legal advice.

00:59:27.240 If you are in a conspiracy to do some other crime, you would agree with this, right?

00:59:31.040 If a lawyer says I'm giving you legal advice because I actually want you to do this crime.

00:59:34.880 That's not protected.

00:59:36.200 Correct.

00:59:37.180 I don't know.

00:59:37.620 So you answer that question.

00:59:39.200 Well, so hold on.

00:59:39.860 I asked you a question.

00:59:40.560 Yeah.

00:59:40.820 So I said no.

00:59:41.940 OK, so when Jenna Ellis got arrested on two Rico counts, she's part of a conspiracy to steal

00:59:45.900 the election in 2020.

00:59:47.000 You see, that's the point.

00:59:47.860 You decided to interpret legal advice as a crime.

00:59:51.080 No, because because they're sure did.

00:59:52.860 Hang on a second.

00:59:53.760 These.

00:59:54.040 So you're you're taking the view that nothing with a lawyer drafts a letter for a client

01:00:00.620 should be criminally charged for it.

01:00:01.780 What if that letter says it with respect to hiring a mobster to hit someone?

01:00:06.900 Would you say that?

01:00:08.160 A lawyer.

01:00:09.340 Participates.

01:00:10.000 Sorry, I'm going to ask the question again.

01:00:12.380 If the lawyer drafts a letter to a mobster to get someone assassinated, would that be protected

01:00:17.440 because it's a lawyer who drafted it?

01:00:18.460 Just for clarification.

01:00:19.000 Yes or no?

01:00:19.780 I need to clarify what you mean.

01:00:21.160 You're saying the letter would instruct or attempt to bring a person into?

01:00:26.500 Either.

01:00:27.020 Both.

01:00:27.920 Let's do the two examples.

01:00:29.040 You can answer both.

01:00:29.740 One is it gives advice for how to get away with hiring a mobster.

01:00:32.560 Or it says these are instructions for hiring this particular mobster.

01:00:36.180 Wait, I'm going to get an answer to this question.

01:00:37.840 No, no.

01:00:38.480 Here's why you don't deserve it.

01:00:39.660 I'll tell you why you don't deserve it.

01:00:41.140 I'll get an answer.

01:00:42.200 No, wait.

01:00:42.880 I don't want to speak for you.

01:00:44.620 I'm just telling you this is why this is the disingenuousness with which you're addressing

01:00:48.260 this.

01:00:48.640 Because when we're talking about Mamou Khalil, you talk about things that he likely has

01:00:52.540 done.

01:00:53.000 And you say we can't bring those facts up because he's not charged by the government.

01:00:57.420 So we have to pretend that those facts have not happened and say that even if he's engaged

01:01:01.440 in those, well, that doesn't count because after all, he's not charged with it.

01:01:04.620 He's not charged with it.

01:01:05.260 We have to pretend that these things never happen.

01:01:07.320 And that's when we're talking about addressing wrongs committed by someone who's associated

01:01:10.760 with the left.

01:01:11.440 When you're talking about Jenna Ellis, you're saying and you're trying to theorize how her

01:01:15.480 legal advice could somehow morph into being something that's illegal and would deserve

01:01:19.780 for her to be charged as a conspirator and a RICO charge.

01:01:22.260 You actually have to invent some crazy thing.

01:01:25.740 Not that any – you're not following the conversation, Joe.

01:01:28.240 I am following the conversation perfectly.

01:01:30.180 What I'm saying is it's disingenuous – the disingenuousness comes from the fact

01:01:35.620 that when it comes to analyzing the left, you refuse to deal with facts that exist as

01:01:40.680 they are and says because that's not charged, we can't talk about it.

01:01:43.700 When it comes to analyzing the right, however, you think it's totally fair to try and impugn

01:01:48.740 their behavior, their conduct and saying, well, it could be if they would have done this

01:01:53.620 and start inventing brand new hypotheticals as a way of trying to now attach some possible

01:01:58.360 culpability to the actions that they took.

01:01:59.980 Tim is attacking my consistency.

01:02:01.580 In essence, he's saying these rights are ephemeral.

01:02:03.620 These rights are kind of –

01:02:04.680 Your view of them are.

01:02:05.580 I think you've concluded that.

01:02:06.960 Well, if I were to cite Supreme Court precedent, would you say they're ephemeral?

01:02:10.480 Which Supreme Court precedent?

01:02:11.760 Here we have the case of Bridges v. Wexson.

01:02:14.620 That says that resident aliens have First Amendment rights.

01:02:16.700 Sure do.

01:02:17.440 How does that apply to the INA?

01:02:19.960 Well, even as against the INA.

01:02:21.780 That was a case – now it's a pre-INA case, but it would be no different.

01:02:26.460 So it's superseded.

01:02:27.520 We need the Supreme Court to rule on this as it applies because it came after the fact.

01:02:32.860 These particular facts and circumstances, there's no on-point case that specifically

01:02:38.180 defines this case.

01:02:39.160 And any lawyer worth their salt can find some way to distinguish a case and say this

01:02:43.000 is on Wednesday, not Tuesday.

01:02:44.260 But I want to defend – because he's attacked me and saying I'm dodging things or I'm okay

01:02:48.060 with one hypothetical and not the other.

01:02:49.280 That is completely not true.

01:02:50.460 So Tim is –

01:02:51.100 Did Jenna Ellis commit a crime?

01:02:52.360 Absolutely she did, yeah.

01:02:53.000 What did she do?

01:02:53.540 Yeah, so she conspired to get these false slates of electors by being part of a conspiracy,

01:03:00.060 a criminal conspiracy.

01:03:00.520 Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

01:03:01.460 Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

01:03:02.080 What did she do?

01:03:03.020 So do you know what a conspiracy is?

01:03:04.500 What did she do?

01:03:05.580 A conspiracy.

01:03:06.260 You know what a conspiracy is?

01:03:06.480 What did she do?

01:03:07.200 Do you know what a conspiracy is?

01:03:08.140 What did she do?

01:03:08.920 There was a criminal meeting of the minds, an agreement.

01:03:11.720 Okay, so do you agree that conspiracy is a thing?

01:03:14.740 You can answer the question.

01:03:15.720 Yeah, so I said criminal conspiracy.

01:03:17.000 Was that an answer?

01:03:17.880 What did Jenna Ellis do?

01:03:19.080 You are deflecting.

01:03:20.900 No, no, no.

01:03:21.240 So I said criminal conspiracy.

01:03:22.200 Is that an answer?

01:03:22.620 What did she do?

01:03:23.100 So she had an agreement with Donald Trump and other co-conspirators to steal the 2020

01:03:27.540 election in Georgia, in the case of Georgia.

01:03:30.000 What did she do?

01:03:31.060 She had a criminal conspiracy.

01:03:33.320 That's circular.

01:03:34.240 It's not.

01:03:34.980 Hold on.

01:03:35.380 You're saying she was charged with conspiracy because she had a conspiracy?

01:03:38.480 No, no, no.

01:03:39.120 I'm asking what actions she took that violated the law.

01:03:41.600 Yeah, so the action of the overt acts of communicating with other members of the conspiracy,

01:03:47.140 helping them, giving them resources.

01:03:48.920 It's not what she was charged with.

01:03:49.980 No, no.

01:03:50.180 She was charged with conduct related to the attempted theft of the election.

01:03:55.700 And I don't, as I sit here, I don't know the statement of facts.

01:03:58.700 It was for drafting a letter.

01:04:00.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

01:04:00.400 So requesting like legal documents from the state requesting documents to get fake slates

01:04:07.120 of electors and to try to steal the election.

01:04:09.180 You see, again, yes or no, there's this is this is where the the debate usually stops.

01:04:15.180 Why?

01:04:15.300 In the 1960 election, we already I've had this debate 800 million times.

01:04:20.340 JFK, Nixon, the the uncertified slate was sent for JFK, even though the election had already

01:04:27.340 been called.

01:04:27.940 They did not resolve the case until after the counted art, the safe harbor provisions.

01:04:32.500 But they decided we're going to send an uncertified slate anyway.

01:04:36.320 And it was never considered fake.

01:04:37.940 Now, if there was Supreme Court precedent set after the fact that uncertified slates of electors,

01:04:42.540 meaning electors that were not duly elected, but were submitted anyway, if they set precedent

01:04:46.660 saying you cannot do this and Congress passed a law saying this is expressly illegal, I'd

01:04:51.500 agree with you.

01:04:52.140 But they didn't.

01:04:53.160 So the legal theory that emerges in the 2020 case, though I disagree.

01:04:56.260 I think Trump lost.

01:04:57.300 I disagree with the people who think Trump won was they've done this in the past.

01:05:02.160 Why don't we have our electors submit before the safe harbor provisions, just like they

01:05:06.460 did in Hawaii?

01:05:07.540 Then Pence can choose to count or otherwise depend based upon what the judges rule.

01:05:12.540 Now, if Donald Trump takes issue with an election or anybody, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris,

01:05:16.820 whoever, and they say, one, we are required legally to submit any formal paperwork before

01:05:23.460 the safe harbor deadline.

01:05:24.980 Afterwards, we cannot.

01:05:26.540 I don't see how that's a criminal action.

01:05:29.040 More importantly, if Trump goes-

01:05:30.660 Because no one has been charged with it before?

01:05:32.060 You think it's not criminal?

01:05:32.620 Because there's no codified law saying it's illegal.

01:05:34.800 The government doesn't-

01:05:35.260 Hang on, there's laws against criminal rackets.

01:05:37.240 RICO does not apply.

01:05:38.400 Wait, wait.

01:05:38.700 So, RICO can't apply in any novel situation.

01:05:44.020 Is that what you're suggesting?

01:05:45.120 No, but you're making my point for me.

01:05:46.720 That you've decided to interpret legal advice as a crime to use power against a political

01:05:51.360 So I ask, can legal advice be a crime?

01:05:54.800 And you objected and you said, he doesn't need to answer it.

01:05:57.640 So I asked you a question.

01:05:59.700 Can legal advice itself be a crime?

01:06:02.080 I'm not a lawyer.

01:06:02.960 In some circumstances, I imagine it could be.

01:06:04.120 Is the answer, you don't know?

01:06:06.220 Can legal advice be a crime?

01:06:07.980 Let's broaden that.

01:06:09.200 Why don't you answer it?

01:06:10.120 You can say you don't know.

01:06:11.000 Are you not understanding the terms?

01:06:12.660 No, it can't be.

01:06:13.440 It can't be.

01:06:14.040 So if I give you legal advice on how to-

01:06:15.660 Do you agree with that, by the way?

01:06:16.840 What?

01:06:17.340 Do you agree that legal advice can't be a crime?

01:06:19.400 Cannot.

01:06:19.940 Cannot be a crime.

01:06:20.800 Do you agree with him?

01:06:22.760 If someone-

01:06:23.620 I don't know when you're saying advice.

01:06:26.020 No, this is-

01:06:26.500 This is the problem.

01:06:27.220 What the fuck, guys?

01:06:27.920 No, because it doesn't make sense what you're-

01:06:29.740 Your question doesn't make sense.

01:06:30.800 You don't understand the terms?

01:06:31.560 If someone comes to me and says, hey, this is a crime I want to commit, right?

01:06:36.280 If someone calls me up and says, hey, this is a crime I want to commit, I cannot further

01:06:41.180 assist him.

01:06:42.080 That would be-

01:06:42.720 It would be wrong for me to, at that point, say, this is how you can-

01:06:46.860 So can legal advice-

01:06:48.360 Wait, so can-

01:06:48.980 But I can tell him, this is how you can get the same thing done legally.

01:06:52.560 We're going to get clear answers.

01:06:54.120 But I'm answering the question.

01:06:55.540 Can legal advice be a crime?

01:06:56.760 Yes or no?

01:06:57.540 No.

01:06:57.880 No.

01:06:58.500 So-

01:06:58.940 What's your answer, Joe?

01:06:59.840 What I'm saying is, if you're giving it ethically, it cannot be.

01:07:03.340 Okay.

01:07:04.000 Assume you're giving it unethically.

01:07:06.020 Can it be a crime?

01:07:06.600 Yes or no?

01:07:06.840 We're going to get a conflict here.

01:07:08.020 No, we're not.

01:07:08.580 Yes, we are.

01:07:09.180 You're playing a semantic game.

01:07:10.620 No, it's not semantic at all.

01:07:11.520 It certainly is.

01:07:11.920 What about it is semantic?

01:07:12.840 It's 100% semantic.

01:07:14.360 Colloquially, any person who has asked, do you have a legal right to legal advice?

01:07:21.020 100% yes.

01:07:21.800 Yes.

01:07:22.640 When you use the phrase legal advice, you are playing a semantic game as to the definition

01:07:27.140 you are choosing.

01:07:27.720 What do you mean by legal advice then?

01:07:28.860 I'll ask you.

01:07:29.300 So if I go to a lawyer and say-

01:07:31.320 What do you mean by legal advice?

01:07:32.520 I'm telling you.

01:07:33.200 Okay.

01:07:33.760 So here's an example.

01:07:34.840 We want to do a sweepstakes.

01:07:36.080 We want to actually give our members at TimCast.com, once a month, we choose someone $10,000.

01:07:41.140 If the lawyer then says, that's illegal, you can't do that.

01:07:44.200 I say, oh, okay, thank you.

01:07:46.200 Now, what if they say, ooh, there's legalities which could make that illegal.

01:07:50.400 Here's how you avoid breaking the law and actually make this work.

01:07:53.080 That's not illegal.

01:07:53.940 So I'm asking you, as a definitional term, are you willing to provide a definition in

01:07:58.280 your mind for what legal advice is yes or no?

01:08:00.580 Legal advice is instruction and knowledge applied to an individual to better help them

01:08:05.160 understand the law and how it applies to their circumstances.

01:08:07.800 In using that definition, can legal advice be a crime?

01:08:10.280 If it's just helping them understand?

01:08:12.080 No, it cannot.

01:08:12.500 Helping them with the purpose of – so I'll just be clear.

01:08:16.520 Using that definition, providing legal advice for the purpose of helping someone carry out

01:08:20.680 a crime.

01:08:21.260 No.

01:08:21.860 I didn't say that.

01:08:22.460 No, no, no.

01:08:23.420 He used a broader definition of legal advice.

01:08:25.420 Okay.

01:08:25.820 Let's try again.

01:08:26.320 Let me try again.

01:08:26.940 Let me try again.

01:08:27.780 Here we go.

01:08:28.400 Here's why you're wrong.

01:08:29.200 Yeah.

01:08:29.720 So a guy calls his lawyer and says, hey, man, there's – I need money, and I'm trying

01:08:37.300 to figure out how to get it.

01:08:38.040 But if I were to go to a guy and point a weapon at him and say, can I borrow 50 bucks?

01:08:44.840 Is that illegal?

01:08:46.100 And the lawyer's going to go, yeah, that's illegal.

01:08:48.460 You can't – you're robbing them.

01:08:50.040 You go to jail.

01:08:50.800 Really?

01:08:51.740 What if I just like put my hand in my pocket so it looked like I had a gun?

01:08:56.240 You're still robbing them.

01:08:57.220 That's illegal.

01:08:58.340 Interesting.

01:08:58.900 So I can't do that.

01:08:59.840 No, you can't.

01:09:00.480 And if you do something like that, you'll go to jail.

01:09:02.340 All right.

01:09:02.940 Thank you for the advice.

01:09:04.060 I'm going to construct my actions now in a way that applies to the legal advice you gave

01:09:06.980 me to help me carry out that crime.

01:09:08.120 No, no, hang on.

01:09:08.800 Is the lawyer going to jail for that?

01:09:09.600 So what if the intention of a lawyer was to further that crime and make it more likely?

01:09:14.560 You're a mind reader now?

01:09:15.240 No.

01:09:16.240 In the criminal law, we do this all the time.

01:09:18.400 It's called mens rea.

01:09:19.680 Indeed.

01:09:20.740 One of the biggest things that you have to do as a criminal lawyer is, if you're a prosecutor,

01:09:24.540 is to prove mens rea.

01:09:25.440 Looking for the ultimate online casino experience?

01:09:29.980 Step into the BetMGM Casino app, where every deal, spin, and goal brings Las Vegas excitement

01:09:35.780 into the palm of your hand.

01:09:37.620 Take your seat at Premium Blackjack Pro, where strategy meets top-tier gameplay.

01:09:42.800 Drop in on the exciting Sugar Rush and Crazy Time slot games, or play the dazzling MGM Grand

01:09:48.900 Emerald Knights, a slot experience that captures the magic of MGM.

01:09:53.020 With so many games, it's time to make your move.

01:09:56.560 Download the app and visit BetMGM Ontario today to experience the next level of gaming.

01:10:02.600 Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

01:10:05.460 19 plus to wager, Ontario only.

01:10:07.740 Please gamble responsibly.

01:10:09.320 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact

01:10:13.500 Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

01:10:20.320 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

01:10:24.860 Canada, it's time for more us, because we're more than just a place on a map.

01:10:30.480 We're an attitude, one with more empathy than ego, more unity than division, more grit,

01:10:36.060 go, and we got this.

01:10:37.440 The more we choose to stand up as our most flag-flying, maple-y-flying, local-adventuring

01:10:43.580 selves, the more we are the true north, unbreakable, strong, and free.

01:10:48.660 It's time.

01:10:50.160 Choose Canada.

01:10:51.580 A message from the government of Canada.

01:10:54.820 I'll ask you, what if the purpose of the lawyer was to actually get him to commit the

01:10:59.020 Like Saul Goodman.

01:11:00.000 Yeah.

01:11:00.520 So, wait, but I'm going to get some answers from you guys one of these days.

01:11:04.720 So, if the purpose...

01:11:05.660 We give answers every time.

01:11:06.520 If somebody dodged a question, I answered yes directly.

01:11:08.060 If the purpose of the advice is to further the crime, to make it happen, to have the

01:11:13.760 outcome happen, is that legal advice?

01:11:16.640 Can that be a crime?

01:11:17.380 It is no longer legal advice.

01:11:18.380 It is criminal advice.

01:11:19.760 It is your accomplice.

01:11:20.660 So, what you've done is you've put in your definition of legal advice.

01:11:24.560 You're saying legal advice, by definition, can't be illegal.

01:11:27.460 And if your definition of legal advice says it can't be illegal, then I guess you're by

01:11:31.500 definition correct.

01:11:32.600 Let me ask you.

01:11:33.500 The definition of legal advice doesn't include, you know, it has to be legal, legal advice.

01:11:37.460 Do people have a constitutional right to counsel?

01:11:40.260 Yes.

01:11:41.420 But that means they could be providing illegal activities to a defendant.

01:11:45.460 They could be.

01:11:46.180 Do people have a constitutional right to some illegal activities?

01:11:48.800 So, they have a constitutional right to legal advice, but it doesn't mean that it's...

01:11:51.760 This is a semantic issue.

01:11:52.240 No, no, no.

01:11:52.940 It's not semantic.

01:11:53.760 I'm happy to answer that question.

01:11:54.880 They have a legal right to legal advice, 100%, to access and retrieve that legal advice.

01:11:58.980 That doesn't mean that the advice they receive can also be a crime.

01:12:02.140 There is no contradiction there.

01:12:03.220 Do you agree there's no contradiction there?

01:12:05.380 No.

01:12:06.000 What's the contradiction?

01:12:07.420 When we refer to legal advice, we are not referring to engagement in criminal activity.

01:12:12.040 And if you have two guys, and they're not lawyers, and one guy is advising the other

01:12:15.200 guy on how to rob a bank, that's not legal advice.

01:12:17.480 Just because you have a law degree doesn't make it legal advice.

01:12:19.980 Okay.

01:12:20.480 So, your definition of legal advice, that would be legal advice.

01:12:22.700 I mean, you gave a definition that didn't say, oh, and by the way, the legal advice can't

01:12:27.060 be part of a criminal conspiracy.

01:12:28.220 You're carving out the thing that would be a criminality legal advice.

01:12:30.860 To definitely understand what is our constitutional right to counsel versus what is an illegal

01:12:34.580 action.

01:12:35.240 So, the right to counsel doesn't mean that the counsel you're receiving is legal itself.

01:12:39.820 So, there are different things, and there's no contradiction in what I'm saying.

01:12:42.140 To be honest, none of it really matters.

01:12:43.460 Why?

01:12:43.940 Because the interpretation of the actions of Jenna Ellis and Trump's other lawyers, I

01:12:47.300 forgot their names, based in Wisconsin, was that Donald Trump approached them and said,

01:12:51.020 how do I legally challenge an election?

01:12:53.060 And they said, here's how you do it, and we'll draft it for you.

01:12:55.900 And the government went, aha!

01:12:57.840 We think that's a crime, so you're under arrest.

01:12:59.100 All right.

01:12:59.220 So, let me change that.

01:12:59.900 It's only hypothetical, just to make sure that this principle is being applied consistently.

01:13:03.080 Let's say that Jenna Ellis said, okay, this won't work, this won't work.

01:13:06.680 What you have to do is you have to order the military to seize the halls of Congress and

01:13:13.760 hold at gunpoint all the Congress people, and that will be, you know, that way, it'll

01:13:17.700 just be the best way to do it.

01:13:18.660 That's an absurdity.

01:13:20.060 You can say it's an absurdity.

01:13:21.320 It's called a hypothetical, and you provide, wait, you provide hypotheticals to people,

01:13:24.600 are you going to say you're not going to answer it?

01:13:25.580 It's an unprecedented absurdity without codified law.

01:13:28.080 Wait, are you going to answer it, or are you going to say it's an illegitimate, I don't

01:13:31.020 have to answer it?

01:13:31.900 I'll answer any question you ask.

01:13:33.440 So, if the question is...

01:13:34.560 If the marshmallow man showed up, should Trump call in the Ghostbusters next?

01:13:38.600 So, if Jenna Ellis had something to the effect of, the best way to do this, Donald Trump,

01:13:43.320 is for, and she wanted this to happen, right, is for you to actually go with tanks into Congress,

01:13:48.200 hold up some Congress people, kill them if you don't want, if they're challenging you,

01:13:51.660 that way you'd head off any kind of impeachment.

01:13:53.780 So, you're saying she instructed them to murder people?

01:13:55.660 To arrest people, to seize it, and murder if necessary.

01:13:58.920 In what prospect of law can you go to a court and murder someone in the middle of a hearing

01:14:02.840 No, you're saying the best, so this is why it's legal advice, she says, one thing that

01:14:06.660 could stop you from stealing the election would be if they held impeachment proceedings

01:14:09.800 and immediately impeached and removed you.

01:14:11.200 So, one way to head that off, from a legal perspective, would be if those people could

01:14:14.580 not attend their sit-ins, and I'm just letting you know, it would be really convenient if

01:14:18.160 you killed them.

01:14:18.760 And I want you to do that.

01:14:19.680 So, instructing someone to commit murder is legal advice.

01:14:22.040 I'm asking...

01:14:22.720 Wait...

01:14:23.020 That is not legal advice.

01:14:24.140 If you said, for example, in order to prevent this bad outcome, this bad judgment, you should

01:14:30.600 kill...

01:14:31.860 Wait, wait, you should kill a witness.

01:14:33.360 Wait, wait.

01:14:33.920 But there's no function of law where you're allowed to do that.

01:14:36.760 There's no legal advice.

01:14:37.960 That's a crime.

01:14:38.560 It's murder.

01:14:39.260 It's tailored to a legal matter.

01:14:41.960 You're asking...

01:14:42.800 It's tailored to a specific proceeding.

01:14:44.400 Here, we're talking about...

01:14:45.320 It is not legal advice to instruct your client to murder someone, no.

01:14:47.560 Okay, so if your definition of legal advice excludes any illegal conspiracy, then by definition

01:14:54.700 you've said legal advice...

01:14:55.660 No, you're trying to justify that Trump, under a circumstance with no codified law making

01:15:00.040 it illegal, what's...

01:15:01.760 We're backing up.

01:15:03.220 We're in very specific territory right here, Tim.

01:15:05.060 And the specific territory is...

01:15:06.380 Where in the law does it say you cannot send in your slate of electors before the Safe Harbor

01:15:11.200 deadline?

01:15:11.540 Why should it have to say that?

01:15:13.340 To make it a crime.

01:15:14.600 Why?

01:15:14.780 Because in this country, you can't be arrested for things the state makes up.

01:15:17.780 Okay, so does it have to...

01:15:18.860 So there's the laws against, for example, lying to Congress, fair?

01:15:22.080 So do they have to list out all the possible lies you could tell to Congress in order for

01:15:25.460 it to be legal?

01:15:26.120 So lying to Congress about how much money you have in the bank, lying to Congress about

01:15:29.680 the effects of a law, they have to list out every single specific potential iteration

01:15:34.860 of lying to Congress?

01:15:35.540 That's ridiculous, Tim.

01:15:36.600 So you're saying, based on the interpretation of the state of Georgia, that they felt Jenna

01:15:40.220 Ellis drafting a letter for Donald Trump was part of a criminal conspiracy,

01:15:43.540 she can be charged for that?

01:15:44.400 100%.

01:15:44.840 She pled guilty.

01:15:45.620 Because she is guilty.

01:15:46.780 So I guess my view is then, if Donald Trump wants to interpret the actions of Mahmoud Khalil

01:15:50.860 as threats to state secrets or state foreign policy, he should be deported to.

01:15:54.520 Wait, wait, but you would condemn things that you feel went beyond the pale, right?

01:15:59.000 So now you're...

01:15:59.400 Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

01:16:00.700 Yes.

01:16:01.140 So, and people can argue about whether it's legal or illegal, and that's what you're doing

01:16:04.820 right now.

01:16:05.420 And you're willing to condemn the prosecution of Jenna Ellis, fair?

01:16:09.440 Yes.

01:16:09.620 Why aren't you willing to condemn the potential deportation of Mahmoud Khalil?

01:16:13.340 For the exact reason you have said Jenna Ellis, as a lawyer, should be charged, is why I'm

01:16:18.220 saying Mahmoud Khalil should be deported.

01:16:19.200 To test the legality of it, because there's no specific law?

01:16:20.920 No, no, no, no, because your arguments aren't based in law, it's your interpretation of

01:16:24.800 what is and your moral worldview.

01:16:27.180 Well, I mean, it's based on the Supreme Court precedent that you seem to accept that these

01:16:31.460 people have First Amendment rights.

01:16:32.580 If they have First Amendment rights, what kind of First Amendment wouldn't protect someone

01:16:35.780 who has that right from deportation based on protected activities?

01:16:39.000 You seem to grant that they had that right, but now you're saying, oh, I don't really

01:16:41.760 know.

01:16:42.200 They might as well test it.

01:16:43.300 So my point is, the INA says they can have their visas revoked for whatever reason,

01:16:47.100 whenever, right?

01:16:47.880 Would that include religion-based reasons?

01:16:50.840 And you said no.

01:16:51.440 It doesn't matter.

01:16:51.780 Oh my gosh.

01:16:52.320 We've been circling around this.

01:16:54.280 There's an inherent, like, because you guys know.

01:16:55.900 Just like circling around and around the same dead carcass.

01:16:59.140 And then you guess, like, that we haven't answered your questions.

01:17:02.140 Yeah.

01:17:02.500 Which is very, very frustrating, because we answer your question over and over and over

01:17:05.600 again, and then you're like, you'll never answer this question.

01:17:07.640 You keep dodging my questions.

01:17:09.100 Two seconds after we answer your question, we've said, how many times?

01:17:13.140 Both of us have taken the position.

01:17:14.320 They have First Amendment rights.

01:17:15.840 They're not the same level as what American citizen rights are, which is one reason, by

01:17:20.520 the way, this couldn't have any impact.

01:17:22.100 So if they're not the same level, wait, wait, wait, Joe.

01:17:23.800 If they're not the same level, what are they?

01:17:25.820 I mean, Tim is saying that based on anything, they could throw them out.

01:17:29.360 So if Mamou Khalil said something like this, I'd like a French toast and some eggs, please.

01:17:35.980 Right.

01:17:36.260 And they said, on the basis of that, you're going to be deported from the country.

01:17:39.480 Would the First Amendment protect them in that instance?

01:17:41.180 Yes or no?

01:17:41.500 I think that that would not meet that low threshold that I've said over and over.

01:17:46.660 Facially, legitimately, and bona fide.

01:17:47.760 But the INA, Tim said.

01:17:48.820 Tim said the INA.

01:17:49.760 Wait.

01:17:50.080 Tim said.

01:17:50.740 Tim gave you his moral perspective.

01:17:53.700 Do you disagree with it?

01:17:54.600 Wait.

01:17:54.980 Do you disagree with him?

01:17:56.280 Do I agree with him morally or legally?

01:17:57.940 Legally.

01:17:59.080 Is the law wrong?

01:17:59.800 Legally, do you disagree with him?

01:18:00.840 I think legally, you could not just throw someone out for ordering French bread.

01:18:04.360 Okay.

01:18:05.040 But you cannot say, because he ordered French bread, I'm throwing him out.

01:18:09.100 So why can you say it?

01:18:10.400 You can go, hey, this guy just fucking ordered French bread.

01:18:14.180 You're being deported under Section 221I of the Immigration and National Association.

01:18:17.780 But they didn't do that.

01:18:19.280 No, they literally did.

01:18:20.320 They didn't do that.

01:18:21.120 I'm saying they didn't give a reason.

01:18:23.480 Their reason is Marco Rubio's determination.

01:18:26.480 Marco Rubio's determination is based on-

01:18:27.880 Right, that's my point.

01:18:28.480 Marco Rubio's-

01:18:28.880 They didn't give a reason.

01:18:29.500 They cited 221I.

01:18:31.020 No, they did not cite this law.

01:18:32.980 They did not.

01:18:33.500 They cited the basis of deportability.

01:18:35.440 That's INA 237, little a, little i.

01:18:40.100 I think it's sub 4 or something like that.

01:18:41.780 So you can go to 237.

01:18:44.020 If you actually read the notice to appear, 222 is not the basis.

01:18:47.120 234?

01:18:47.700 It's 237, INA 237.

01:18:50.140 And it starts, you know, basis of deportable aliens should be the name of the statute.

01:18:56.360 It's a long subjection, but it's in sub A.

01:18:58.680 237.

01:19:00.260 Okay, hold on.

01:19:00.960 I think it's up here.

01:19:01.740 It's A4.

01:19:03.420 A4?

01:19:04.740 237, A4?

01:19:05.780 I'm not sure if it's 237.

01:19:07.420 Where does 237 start?

01:19:09.220 I see 236, and then all of a sudden it says 237.

01:19:12.020 A4.

01:19:12.600 Oh, I see.

01:19:13.240 I see.

01:19:13.460 It's at the bottom.

01:19:14.400 You see how they do that with like one sentence at the bottom, and it makes the whole page 237?

01:19:17.320 Okay, so now go A4.

01:19:20.520 So we're looking.

01:19:23.880 Look at all these.

01:19:25.200 Wait.

01:19:25.580 Is it A1?

01:19:26.160 There isn't one.

01:19:26.960 Is it A1?

01:19:28.020 I think it's A1.

01:19:29.320 Well, I'll just look for deportation.

01:19:30.720 I'll just look for that one because it's...

01:19:31.660 Yes.

01:19:32.820 Inadmissible aliens, present in violation of law, violated non-immigrant status, or condition

01:19:37.580 of entry.

01:19:37.800 I think it's sub...

01:19:38.540 I think it's Big Four.

01:19:41.240 So...

01:19:41.760 Also, they accuse them of fraud, too.

01:19:43.960 Correct.

01:19:44.380 But there's no material...

01:19:45.760 Big Four?

01:19:46.420 Yeah.

01:19:46.660 I see.

01:19:46.960 I see.

01:19:47.700 Isn't it stupid how they do this?

01:19:49.460 Yeah, I know.

01:19:50.020 It's below the criminal offenses.

01:19:51.680 It's down in four under terrorism and national security.

01:19:56.640 Yo.

01:19:57.120 Okay.

01:19:57.440 So under...

01:19:58.220 Security and general concerns, I...

01:20:00.520 So it's C.

01:20:01.160 It's C1.

01:20:02.180 C1.

01:20:02.840 Any alien whose presence or activity in the United States, the Secretary of State, has reasonable

01:20:06.220 ground to believe, would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences

01:20:09.500 for the United States, is deportable.

01:20:11.140 So Secretary of State Marco Rubio didn't cite the provision that you cited.

01:20:14.000 He cited 237, you know, for...

01:20:15.720 He's like a stronger case.

01:20:16.460 ...C.I.

01:20:16.840 And he said in his determination why he's adverse to the interests is because he supports

01:20:22.320 Hamas.

01:20:23.540 Right.

01:20:23.680 And Joe seemed to accept that if you ordered French bread, it wouldn't be a basis of

01:20:28.140 removability, presumably because the First Amendment protects resident aliens.

01:20:30.520 The point is...

01:20:31.040 Why would it be if you support French bread, it's not a base of removability.

01:20:33.940 Why would it be if you support Hamas?

01:20:35.140 No, I think the bare minimum threshold is he has to establish that he's legitimately

01:20:39.980 considered a national security threat, that those national security threats are not supposed

01:20:45.560 to be flushed out before the public.

01:20:47.020 In fact, I think that that would be stupid to believe that a policy is supposed to be

01:20:51.200 flushed.

01:20:51.320 So I have a simple question.

01:20:54.640 Do you believe that support of Israel is in alignment with American foreign policy?

01:20:59.040 It depends who gets to decide, right?

01:21:00.800 I think that support for Israel probably is, yeah.

01:21:02.640 70 plus years, $250 billion?

01:21:05.300 Yeah, probably.

01:21:06.140 Do you believe that the protests are a threat to that American foreign policy?

01:21:09.560 Yeah, I might.

01:21:10.620 So, it sounds like...

01:21:11.980 Well, I don't really think that, but I think it's a good...

01:21:14.560 Wait, no.

01:21:15.280 It doesn't matter.

01:21:16.800 It doesn't matter.

01:21:17.980 So I just want to be clear.

01:21:19.240 It doesn't matter.

01:21:20.600 It cannot violate the First Amendment.

01:21:22.760 That's what's clear here.

01:21:23.460 I actually don't think that the protests would probably get under that rationale, except

01:21:28.600 to the extent that they're worried about people being critical of Israel.

01:21:31.660 But it doesn't matter what it says, because the First Amendment...

01:21:33.720 I agree.

01:21:34.380 I think then the way the procedure would go is that we're going to get a Supreme Court

01:21:37.900 hearing on whether it goes one way or the other.

01:21:41.200 I think there's no choice.

01:21:41.960 Maybe.

01:21:42.880 I would doubt that.

01:21:44.300 So I think it's fair to say this.

01:21:45.900 He has procedural problems, first and foremost.

01:21:47.680 He has procedural problems, first and foremost, because you have to exhaust the administrative

01:21:55.540 procedure before he's able to go into the federal court.

01:21:58.240 But even beyond that, as I said a while ago, probably an hour ago at this point, we're at

01:22:03.640 a juncture here when it comes to national security that this is the one area that the

01:22:08.460 Supreme Court has refused to intercede on executive exclusive authority.

01:22:13.460 And that's why for you to think that when we're talking about someone whose First Amendment

01:22:18.120 rights are already lessened compared to American citizens, this has no potential ramification

01:22:23.420 on First Amendment rights of any citizens.

01:22:25.660 When we're talking about the fact that he's failed to abide by the same terms that enabled

01:22:33.380 him to obtain a visa and that he committed fraud in obtaining a green card, which throws

01:22:40.200 into question his entire legitimacy of the green card whatsoever, and would be a basis

01:22:45.060 to exclude him also.

01:22:46.460 So when we're looking at it from that perspective, I think that there is such that I've debated

01:22:53.860 you in the past about what the Supreme Court would do.

01:22:56.780 And I'll tell you right now, I was correct last time on the 14th Amendment issue when I

01:23:01.280 told you it would be 7-2, if not 8-1, that Trump would win on the 14th Amendment issue.

01:23:05.060 Wait, I predicted he would lose, too.

01:23:06.460 You thought he would lose.

01:23:07.320 Sorry, sorry.

01:23:07.780 I predicted...

01:23:09.200 We're talking about his eligibility to run for the president.

01:23:11.240 I predicted Trump...

01:23:11.980 Wait, I predicted Trump would win, too.

01:23:13.900 No.

01:23:14.620 I did predict it.

01:23:15.580 No, I have a clip of it of me saying he's going to lose or he's going to win.

01:23:18.800 And I told you it would be 6-3.

01:23:20.400 I said it would not be merely 6-3.

01:23:22.220 I said even the liberal justices will recognize that this is so far out of bounds.

01:23:26.060 Yeah, I thought there would be 1-2.

01:23:26.780 And it's going to be at least 7-2, if not 8-1.

01:23:29.640 And it ended up being 9-0.

01:23:31.120 And I'm telling you now, Mahmoud Khalil is not going to win at the Supreme Court level.

01:23:36.800 I'll tell you, there's no chance that he does because this is the one area where the executive

01:23:41.620 authority is at its highest.

01:23:44.020 And unless you can show that they specifically hated this guy for one reason that had nothing

01:23:49.980 to do with his speech...

01:23:50.680 They obviously did.

01:23:51.440 No one believes this shit, by the way.

01:23:59.600 You realize how out of touch you sound to normal Americans?

01:24:02.620 Everyone understands that the reason they're going after these people is because they don't

01:24:05.480 like his speech.

01:24:06.500 And that's the rationale they gave.

01:24:08.180 You look at Mark Ruby, he says his support for Hamas...

01:24:10.220 Not liking his speech affects foreign policy and national security, which is the whole point

01:24:14.040 if it's granted to the executive branch.

01:24:16.200 I want to add, the speech is particularly that it's anti-Israel.

01:24:21.440 That it's critical of Israel.

01:24:23.240 And I think the reason why I would agree with you on the court siding with the Trump administration

01:24:27.760 over Mahmoud Khalil is for two reasons.

01:24:29.980 The Supreme Court tends to be deferential on issues of national security.

01:24:33.740 So even if there's rights, they allow for Barack Obama to pass the indefinite detention

01:24:38.360 provision, things in the Patriot Act, torture of foreign nationals.

01:24:43.080 Barack Obama murdered American citizens, multiple, I think, four or five individuals.

01:24:48.080 So when it comes to the Trump administration saying,

01:24:50.300 we want to support Israel, this guy came to our country and he's rallying people against

01:24:54.420 Israel, that's bad for foreign policy.

01:24:56.020 I imagine the Supreme Court's going to go, well, we don't care about rights when it comes

01:24:59.020 to foreign policy.

01:25:00.260 Then you have the issue of American support for Israel is very high.

01:25:04.160 And so even if there was a principled issue of this person has a right to speech, everyone's

01:25:10.060 going to be like, don't care.

01:25:10.940 We like Israel.

01:25:11.660 But I'm not trying to pull the nation here, Tim.

01:25:15.560 I'm not trying to read Teeley's about the Supreme Court tomorrow.

01:25:18.220 I get it.

01:25:18.840 I'm saying that the American people-

01:25:19.820 I'm trying to push you guys.

01:25:20.940 And the reason I'm trying to push you guys is because you both have platforms.

01:25:23.000 Because if he was Tommy Robinson expressing racist views, you would not be coming here

01:25:27.580 screaming about his rights.

01:25:29.120 A hundred percent.

01:25:30.040 You wouldn't be.

01:25:30.580 A hundred percent I would.

01:25:32.360 By the way, I condemned a lot of these protests.

01:25:34.700 I call them insurrections, some of them.

01:25:36.660 Just to be clear about my consistency there, I generally have not seen as a crazy person

01:25:43.220 on this issue.

01:25:44.280 I'm calling balls and shots and I'm pushing you guys.

01:25:46.580 I'm pushing you guys because I know if someone came up with a rationale, Johnny Come Lately

01:25:51.140 rationale that said something like, we believe having Muslims in this country at all, having

01:25:56.440 Muslims in this country at all, is bad for our foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel.

01:26:00.200 Israel wants us to have Muslims be out of this country.

01:26:02.680 They want us to push them out.

01:26:03.480 And so we're going to deport all these aliens because we can and it's our foreign policy

01:26:07.340 determination.

01:26:08.340 I think that you- wouldn't you stand up and say that's wrong?

01:26:12.540 Wouldn't you?

01:26:13.680 Would you say- would you stand here and be like, well, the Supreme Court often defers to

01:26:17.740 the Secretary of State's determinations about who is and who's not a threat?

01:26:21.160 And so because the Secretary of State said the Muslims are all threats-

01:26:23.340 Hold on.

01:26:24.000 You're combining-

01:26:24.580 I want to-

01:26:25.000 I want to-

01:26:25.500 You're combining a moral question with a legal question.

01:26:28.720 So let's just-

01:26:29.380 On the law.

01:26:30.000 Make them distinct.

01:26:30.720 On the law.

01:26:31.160 So on the law, wouldn't you come and say, this is clearly illegal?

01:26:34.120 Of course the Supreme Court should not, should not.

01:26:37.180 In a scenario that what?

01:26:38.100 Give me one more time.

01:26:38.760 In the scenario where the Secretary of State says it's in the foreign policy interest of

01:26:42.380 the United States not to have Muslim aliens in this country.

01:26:45.640 And that determination is made based on our long friendship with Israel and our long relationship

01:26:50.260 with Israel and they don't want it there and we don't want to undermine that relationship.

01:26:52.580 Do you need to write these four words down?

01:26:54.700 Facially legitimate and bona fide?

01:26:56.060 It's actually five words technically.

01:26:57.500 Do you need to write them down?

01:26:58.660 So I just want to be-

01:27:00.120 Because every time you keep putting this crazy, this extreme hypothetical of banning all Muslims

01:27:05.400 and I keep coming back to you and saying, I've never taken that position.

01:27:08.300 I don't know anyone who's ever taken that position.

01:27:09.040 I gave you that citation.

01:27:10.160 Trump has never taken that position.

01:27:11.640 That citation-

01:27:12.440 You're giving that crazy, ridiculous hypothetical and then I come back to you and I say, why

01:27:16.320 are you giving me this hypothetical?

01:27:17.040 That citation is from Kleindens versus Mendel.

01:27:20.240 That language comes from Kleindens versus Mendel as cited in Trump versus the United States.

01:27:23.300 1972.

01:27:24.360 Trump versus Hawaii in the section on the establishment clause.

01:27:29.180 But that had to do with an admission decision.

01:27:31.780 We're not talking about admission decisions.

01:27:33.440 And then after that, the Supreme Court has said that you have to abide by the same terms

01:27:37.560 while you're here that you do for admission.

01:27:39.660 Think of it like this.

01:27:40.940 Let me ask you a question.

01:27:41.960 Let me ask you a question.

01:27:42.320 No, no.

01:27:42.960 No, no.

01:27:44.280 I need to ask you this question because you keep talking and trying to frame this as a

01:27:48.220 First Amendment, right?

01:27:48.860 It is.

01:27:49.040 It's not at all a First Amendment issue because from the perspective of the Supreme Court

01:27:52.840 that you're stuck to the same standard.

01:27:55.080 And when you know that to get in here, you can't be expressing terrorist supportive perspectives.

01:28:00.500 You cannot do that when you're trying to get in here.

01:28:03.340 Do you agree with that part?

01:28:04.520 Let's start with this premise.

01:28:05.520 I'm going to go step by step.

01:28:06.820 Do you think that the United States of America has a right to keep people out for saying,

01:28:11.960 you know what?

01:28:12.280 You express terrorist activity, support for terrorism.

01:28:15.360 We're not going to buy a visa.

01:28:16.660 Do they have a right to keep them out?

01:28:17.640 Under binding precedent of the Supreme Court, because there is a distinction between admission

01:28:21.600 decisions and non-admission decisions, I'm telling you what the law says.

01:28:26.100 And what the law says is you can ban people from in this country if they're Chinese,

01:28:30.900 if they're Asian.

01:28:31.660 That is not the law any longer.

01:28:34.520 When has it been overturned?

01:28:35.740 When has Xi Jinping been overturned?

01:28:36.980 I don't know.

01:28:37.840 It has not been overturned.

01:28:38.840 You're quoting a case.

01:28:41.000 It's a famous case, the Chinese exclusion cases.

01:28:43.540 The first immigration laws on the books.

01:28:45.340 They said you could ban Chinese people from entering the country.

01:28:48.040 Look it up.

01:28:48.820 So I'm acknowledging the reality that the courts treat admission decisions very differently.

01:28:53.600 And so I acknowledge that, whether I agree or not.

01:28:55.680 Well, so you're recognizing that they can keep someone out on that basis.

01:29:00.700 Now the Supreme Court has also said that you're kept to the same standard while you're here.

01:29:04.700 If you're kept to the same standard while you're here, that means you could be deported.

01:29:08.440 So that is not the case.

01:29:09.660 And there are different rights at admission versus when you're in the country.

01:29:11.800 For example, you have no procedural due process rights when you're outside of the country seeking admission.

01:29:16.140 Agreed?

01:29:16.700 Correct.

01:29:16.880 You do have procedural due process rights when you're in the country, and they're trying to force you out.

01:29:20.660 Specifically set forth in the 14th Amendment that you'll have those due process rights, as Tim read 45 minutes ago.

01:29:26.920 Wait a second.

01:29:27.360 The 14th Amendment says that states shall not deprive individuals of due process.

01:29:30.040 The point is that Congress has, and through constitutional amendment even, has recognized that when it comes to due process specifically,

01:29:40.840 we're going to confer upon non-citizens that express protection that's much more akin to...

01:29:48.260 They've also said that about the First Amendment, but your version of...

01:29:50.800 That's not Congress.

01:29:51.640 That's not Congress saying that.

01:29:53.040 But the courts...

01:29:53.820 That's the court interpreting it.

01:29:54.580 The courts have said the same thing about the First Amendment.

01:29:56.700 Right.

01:29:57.260 What kind of...

01:29:58.160 Wait, wait, wait.

01:29:58.800 No, stop.

01:29:59.520 What kind of First Amendment would protect the speech of someone saying, I want French bread?

01:30:04.180 And you said they can't deport a mix on that.

01:30:05.560 You said that.

01:30:06.200 You said those words.

01:30:07.380 What kind of First Amendment...

01:30:08.500 I'm not embarrassed to say it.

01:30:09.580 So what kind of First Amendment, where at its maximum it's protecting political speech, would protect that kind of speech, but not core political speech?

01:30:16.960 What are you talking about?

01:30:17.700 I'll tell you one.

01:30:17.920 What First Amendment is that?

01:30:20.100 Yeah, I do.

01:30:20.700 From a moral perspective?

01:30:21.620 No, from a legal perspective.

01:30:23.060 From a legal perspective, I'm walking through it.

01:30:25.120 How can you ever...

01:30:26.580 How can you ever...

01:30:27.440 Can a person contract away their rights to free speech?

01:30:31.400 Yes.

01:30:31.600 Can they?

01:30:32.160 Wait, wait.

01:30:32.640 Are there fundamental rights to free speech?

01:30:33.740 Let's say a person is charged...

01:30:35.120 Let's say a person is charged with some sort of crime.

01:30:38.320 And they end up pleading out.

01:30:40.540 And they say, you know what?

01:30:42.400 The DA says, I want you to promise that for the next five years, you're not going to drink any alcohol.

01:30:47.260 You're not going to meet with this person.

01:30:48.920 You're not going to go to any of these meetings where they have lots of drinking.

01:30:52.040 You can waive rights.

01:30:54.960 You can waive certain rights.

01:30:56.220 Oh, okay.

01:30:56.700 And you can waive his right to free speech also.

01:30:58.280 That's not what...

01:30:59.020 Inherent.

01:31:00.780 Inherent in coming in here and signing the visa thing and filling out and saying, I'm not a terrorist and I don't support...

01:31:06.220 Where do you waive your First Amendment rights on your visa application?

01:31:09.040 Inherent in that is a right for them to pull you out of this country if, in fact, you change that position.

01:31:15.560 Because either you lied when you got in here or you changed the position and now...

01:31:19.120 So could you waive away your right to protection against torture?

01:31:27.020 Do you know that...

01:31:27.560 Could you...

01:31:27.960 Sorry, answer that.

01:31:28.960 Could you waive that right away?

01:31:31.520 Yeah.

01:31:31.960 Would the government say, as a condition of your green card, you accept that if we want to torture you, you get tortured?

01:31:37.420 I don't know.

01:31:37.840 Could they say that?

01:31:38.520 Why are you going to a different civil liberty?

01:31:39.780 Because I'm asking if you're consistent.

01:31:41.600 Because I don't know.

01:31:43.020 I'm sitting here and trying to figure out, as Tim pointed out earlier, it comes specifically to cruel and unusual punishment.

01:31:48.480 And it's difficult to say that's a very subjective perspective.

01:31:53.200 So you're asking me, you know, can he agree...

01:31:55.940 Could the government say something like...

01:31:56.720 I don't know.

01:31:57.720 I'll ask you right now.

01:31:58.620 Is it legal for you to make a contract that you'll let Tim cut your finger off?

01:32:02.520 Is it okay for you to actually make a contract that you'll let Tim cut your finger off if he gives you a million dollars?

01:32:07.260 I think the law would have something.

01:32:07.920 Is that legal?

01:32:08.220 I think it would be legal for the government to regulate that, for sure.

01:32:10.340 Okay.

01:32:11.260 Illegal to regulate.

01:32:12.120 I think it would be legal for the government to regulate that conduct as between private parties.

01:32:15.420 Oh.

01:32:15.800 But I want...

01:32:16.500 This is different, right?

01:32:17.560 This is...

01:32:17.920 We're talking about the government as a condition of your green card saying, you sign away all due process.

01:32:22.760 That's a condition.

01:32:23.580 You sign away your right against torture.

01:32:25.240 You sign away your right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

01:32:27.360 You think the government could do that and go, you know, every one of your rights and you can just sign...

01:32:32.220 They can.

01:32:32.800 They can, you think?

01:32:33.660 Yeah.

01:32:34.160 Okay.

01:32:34.740 I think that...

01:32:35.380 It's a fact.

01:32:36.460 I don't know.

01:32:36.960 Why is that a fact?

01:32:37.840 According to who?

01:32:38.380 People enlist in the military all the time and they waive their rights.

01:32:42.240 They don't waive their fundamental rights as Americans.

01:32:45.340 You think you could do that?

01:32:46.020 So, my understanding is that...

01:32:48.420 Every time you sign an arbitration clause, you're signing away your right to due process.

01:32:53.040 But my understanding is that for a lot of people who join the military, for instance, they're subject to laws that, yes, that your freedom of movement is gone.

01:33:00.660 You are legally not required to be in certain places.

01:33:02.520 As a condition of employment.

01:33:04.120 No, no.

01:33:04.620 You can get in trouble.

01:33:06.440 Like, you can get...

01:33:07.740 Like, maybe, but...

01:33:10.700 I could be totally wrong about this, but I've heard stories from my veteran friends that they engaged in a sporting activity, got injured, and got in trouble for it.

01:33:19.160 Not like they went to jail, but it was considered damage to government property or something to that regard.

01:33:22.400 I think in instances of military and in certain cases of employment, that makes sense.

01:33:26.760 So, there could be some areas.

01:33:28.160 Is that why there's exceptions?

01:33:28.860 You're not allowed to...

01:33:29.420 There's exceptions to everything.

01:33:30.340 But here's what we're talking about.

01:33:31.200 There are.

01:33:32.120 You can't sometimes sign away your rights.

01:33:33.880 Sign away your rights as a condition of employment, perhaps, but not as a condition for just, you know, as a member of the community that the country has deemed you fit to enter the country as a permanent resident.

01:33:43.700 And think about this even more specifically.

01:33:45.840 Which, that never really happened.

01:33:46.900 Think about it more specifically.

01:33:47.600 Because he had to deceive the government in order to take that mean part.

01:33:48.700 Under your waiver theory...

01:33:50.300 Wait, wait, wait.

01:33:51.360 Under your...

01:33:51.840 I want to analyze your waiver theory about how shocking it is.

01:33:54.860 Under your waiver theory, could the government condition Social Security checks?

01:33:57.960 And you're waving away all your rights?

01:33:59.220 Could they condition...

01:33:59.920 Oh, my God.

01:34:00.180 Could they condition welfare on that?

01:34:01.540 How many different hypotheticals are you going to ask me about?

01:34:05.200 Because I don't know...

01:34:06.160 Where is the relevance to talking about Social Security when we're having a discussion about the right of the government to deport illegal aliens?

01:34:12.000 That right is so ephemeral.

01:34:13.500 You said that people have First Amendment rights, that resident aliens have First Amendment rights.

01:34:18.840 But that right is so ephemeral that it could be waved away as a condition of entering the country at all.

01:34:24.380 I think your First Amendment rights could, in theory, be waved away even if you're an American citizen.

01:34:29.420 All the more so...

01:34:30.180 Even for getting Social Security checks?

01:34:31.180 Even for getting any government benefit at all?

01:34:32.460 I don't...

01:34:33.520 It's such a random and ridiculous perspective.

01:34:36.780 Why don't you answer it, then?

01:34:38.360 I don't...

01:34:38.740 Because I don't know.

01:34:39.420 I don't know the answer to a question as far as...

01:34:41.740 Wait, what do I know?

01:34:42.400 Don't tell me what I know.

01:34:43.520 I'm telling you, I don't know.

01:34:44.720 Are you calling me...

01:34:45.260 No, no.

01:34:45.600 Are you saying I'm trying...

01:34:46.860 This is garbage.

01:34:47.940 I don't know why we're even...

01:34:48.600 I can't wave away Social Security.

01:34:50.520 I don't...

01:34:51.160 No, no, no, no.

01:34:51.640 So real quick, if someone were enlisted and they organized a protest, I'm trying to use

01:34:59.700 this specifically as Mahmoud Khalil, it is a criminal offense.

01:35:02.840 So you can actually sign away your right to engage in protest.

01:35:05.340 As a condition of employment in the military.

01:35:07.340 It's not employment.

01:35:08.280 Yeah, you're subject to military code.

01:35:09.740 Listen, there can be specific cases for military service that...

01:35:12.920 But real quick, you're arguing the government can...

01:35:15.080 So if I were to go to Best Buy and they said, so long as you're an employee here, we expect

01:35:19.920 you not to protest.

01:35:21.180 That's a contract condition of employment.

01:35:22.940 And it makes sense.

01:35:23.620 Like the Snow White controversy, the producer's son went and reprimanded Rachel Zegler.

01:35:27.980 But to go to the government and they'll say, no, no, we won't just fire you.

01:35:31.940 We will put you in prison if you speak out against us.

01:35:34.240 The difference is based on private versus public, just to be clear.

01:35:37.080 So New York City human rights law that you cited before actually does protect certain

01:35:39.980 kinds of expressions and off-job political activity.

01:35:44.480 So some states do impose those statutory frameworks that protect that kind of activity.

01:35:48.440 And I think that you'd probably agree with a lot of those laws that say that, for example,

01:35:51.820 you can't be fired if you're a Republican.

01:35:53.780 Some people have...

01:35:54.920 Only in D.C.

01:35:55.540 Only in D.C.

01:35:56.180 No, I think it's only in D.C. actually, yeah.

01:35:58.440 Okay.

01:35:58.560 But regardless, like what we're talking about, usually the Bill of Rights does not apply

01:36:05.000 as to private actors.

01:36:06.400 And so we're engaging in First Amendment analysis for people who you acknowledge have these rights.

01:36:12.160 And what you're suggesting is beyond military, which can be a category of its own, and fine,

01:36:15.760 I'll even accept that it's a category of its own because military is so particular or something.

01:36:19.540 What you're suggesting is that even American citizens can be deprived of their rights by

01:36:25.360 the government just choosing to condition certain benefits on that.

01:36:27.760 And that is what I mean when I say these are our rights.

01:36:31.280 When you accept certain frameworks, such as his, of this wide...

01:36:34.600 You're asking...

01:36:35.000 Wait, no, I want to finish my statement.

01:36:36.460 You're asking as far as...

01:36:37.500 When you accept this framework of wide-reaching waiver, or you say, you know, rights don't

01:36:41.360 really matter that much because they're just going to be interpreted, you are signing

01:36:44.200 away your own rights, not just those immigrants.

01:36:45.780 My point...

01:36:46.220 I'm not at all...

01:36:47.200 See, that's...

01:36:48.460 This is...

01:36:49.100 Oh, that's a real...

01:36:49.920 Looking for the ultimate online casino experience?

01:36:53.440 Step into the BetMGM Casino app, where every deal, spin, and goal.

01:36:57.760 Brings Las Vegas excitement into the palm of your hand.

01:37:01.180 Take your seat at Premium Blackjack Pro, where strategy meets top-tier gameplay.

01:37:06.340 Drop in on the exciting Sugar Rush and Crazy Time slot games, or play the dazzling MGM Grand

01:37:12.440 Emerald Knights, a slot experience that captures the magic of MGM.

01:37:17.040 With so many games, it's time to make your move.

01:37:20.080 Download the app and visit BetMGM Ontario today to experience the next level of gaming.

01:37:25.540 Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

01:37:29.000 19 plus to wager.

01:37:30.200 Ontario only.

01:37:31.280 Please gamble responsibly.

01:37:32.860 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact

01:37:37.060 Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

01:37:44.340 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

01:37:47.920 Canada, it's time for more us, because we're more than just a place on a map.

01:37:54.020 We're an attitude, one with more empathy than ego, more unity than division, more grit,

01:37:59.620 go, and we got this.

01:38:00.980 The more we choose to stand up as our most flag-flying, maple-y-flying, local adventuring

01:38:07.160 selves, the more we are the true north, unbreakable, strong, and free.

01:38:12.600 It's time.

01:38:13.680 Choose Canada.

01:38:15.120 A message from the Government of Canada.

01:38:18.280 ...slippery slope that I'm talking about the rights that attach to a foreign national

01:38:21.260 or a foreign visitor or someone holding a green card to an American citizen, when over and

01:38:25.800 over again, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.

01:38:27.640 No, no, no, no, no, go finish, finish.

01:38:28.780 When you're trying to engage in fear porn of trying to say, if we limit his rights, which

01:38:39.180 the Supreme Court has already limited his rights in saying he doesn't have the same level of

01:38:42.960 rights, and that that's somehow some threat to American democracy or constitutional rights

01:38:47.680 or your First Amendment rights are going to be taken away, that is utter hogwash, and

01:38:51.560 you know it is.

01:38:52.320 I just think it's all so silly.

01:38:53.700 Literally nobody cares about anyone's constitutional rights.

01:38:56.160 If I want to go buy a gun, I have to waive my right against self-incrimination.

01:39:01.840 The government has a requirement unto me that I waive my right, and poor Hunter Biden actually

01:39:07.880 faced criminal charges because he did not want to self-incriminate as an illegal drug user,

01:39:13.180 which he has no obligation to do.

01:39:15.140 And I actually said, I hope he wins.

01:39:17.320 I hope he challenges the Supreme Court.

01:39:19.080 Do not pardon him.

01:39:20.140 I want him to go to the Supreme Court and say, the government has no right to, as a condition

01:39:24.560 of my right to keep and bear arms to self-incriminate, violation of the Fifth Amendment to enforce

01:39:29.100 it so that I can enjoy my second.

01:39:31.180 Instead, they always do this.

01:39:33.500 The courts say, or the government says, let's not let that one get to precedent because then

01:39:38.100 it'll actually screw over the abuses that we have.

01:39:40.200 But tell me, where is anyone ever to point out the condition set upon all the time on all

01:39:47.800 of the Bill of Rights from left and right?

01:39:50.440 It's literally everybody just arguing one thing.

01:39:53.620 Might makes right.

01:39:54.320 That's all they're arguing.

01:39:55.300 I don't believe that's what they're arguing.

01:39:56.540 I appreciate the passion.

01:39:57.760 Liberals are saying, we think Jenelle's committed a crime.

01:40:00.600 The right is saying, she was just providing legal advice.

01:40:02.860 Your interpretation determines whether or not a lawyer goes to prison and whether or not

01:40:05.760 someone will actually seek legal counsel or lawyers will be terrified because they're

01:40:09.560 like, if I try and actually assist a politician in this case, they're going to accuse

01:40:12.920 me of a crime.

01:40:13.680 It happens every day that someone's going to say, in 1948, the government said it's

01:40:18.460 this, therefore it's so.

01:40:19.600 And then what's going to happen is they're going to get sued.

01:40:21.600 The new Supreme Court's going to say, actually, we're erasing that and changing the precedent.

01:40:25.000 So all that's really happening is people are playing this funny word game of, I can make

01:40:29.560 it sound like I'm right and you're wrong.

01:40:31.520 And then this is where we're at.

01:40:33.920 If you look at all of the Bill of Rights and you look at everything you're arguing, I can

01:40:37.480 point to 50 for every amendment and be like, here's where the liberals have argued

01:40:42.840 for and against the first amendment.

01:40:44.180 They think it's right when they do it this way and wrong with it is here's where's the

01:40:46.800 conservatives do it.

01:40:47.960 All that's really happening is can you win an election?

01:40:50.360 And what it really boils down to is how many sad moms can we show on TV?

01:40:54.100 And is the economy good or bad?

01:40:55.580 Then we'll get power to enforce the laws.

01:40:57.360 I don't believe it's nihilism.

01:40:58.120 I don't believe it because it's a kind of form of nihilism.

01:41:01.640 It's not.

01:41:02.440 These rights have no purchase.

01:41:03.700 They're not.

01:41:04.620 And in some sense, I agree in the sense that, you know, rights are what humans invent them

01:41:08.600 and they mean different things to different people.

01:41:10.400 Absolutely.

01:41:10.660 People have different interpretations.

01:41:11.420 But your interpretation of the second amendment has perches on you.

01:41:14.220 I just saw you get very fiery and passionate about an issue that you care a lot about.

01:41:17.480 It's not like an amendment.

01:41:18.320 It's when you said, can the government condition you to waive your rights?

01:41:22.500 They've done it on the NICS form.

01:41:24.440 It's not a question of the gun rights.

01:41:25.780 It's the existence of a form that says, if you want to exercise your right, waive your

01:41:30.900 fifth amendment.

01:41:31.780 But the scope exists right now and is protected by Democrats.

01:41:35.080 So I want to be clear.

01:41:36.420 The scope of a right is always going to be subject to interpretation.

01:41:39.780 You're right about that.

01:41:40.760 And the First Amendment has never been thought of to be this thing, anything anyone ever

01:41:45.600 says.

01:41:45.900 So for example, incitement is not protected.

01:41:48.800 Child pornography is not protected.

01:41:51.240 Obscenity is not protected.

01:41:52.940 These are well-known exceptions to First Amendment.

01:41:55.500 There are doctrines, for example-

01:41:56.540 Obscenity is not protected.

01:41:57.420 It's still not protected.

01:41:58.380 It's now protected.

01:41:59.560 No, it's not.

01:42:00.380 Obscenity is a category of unprotected speech.

01:42:02.380 Now, well, so the issue is now we're dealing with obscenity as like a blue law in that no

01:42:08.200 one's enforcing against it.

01:42:10.420 Now, yes and no.

01:42:12.160 A lot of people aren't enforcing it.

01:42:13.320 It's obscenity.

01:42:13.860 But also obscenity itself is dependent on certain artistic value and national standards.

01:42:18.700 It's very-

01:42:19.080 Let me-

01:42:19.460 This is actually another good point of the question of rights.

01:42:22.680 There are a lot of laws in the books we never enforce anymore.

01:42:24.720 True.

01:42:25.300 Famously, there was this story about skydiving on Sunday was illegal for women in Florida.

01:42:29.320 And they say it's not true, but there are a lot of laws like this.

01:42:33.640 There's a book called Funny Old Laws.

01:42:35.560 There was a law, I think it was in Boston, that you can't cool pies on your windowsill.

01:42:39.360 And everybody laughs at it.

01:42:40.760 But the reason why is because back when it was a very small community, cooling pies on

01:42:44.320 your windowsill attracted animals and then caused problems.

01:42:47.740 They said, stop doing this.

01:42:48.920 They had laws saying you can't take baths on Tuesday because the aquifer was strained.

01:42:53.860 We don't enforce any of those laws anymore.

01:42:55.740 They're still on the books.

01:42:56.600 So we're just in a society where it really is the whim of law enforcement and the body

01:43:02.020 politic.

01:43:02.780 For example, in a much better example, in San Francisco, two men gave each other blowjobs

01:43:07.100 in the middle of the street.

01:43:08.100 This was during Pride, in full view of children and everyone else.

01:43:11.080 And the police said they're allowed to do it.

01:43:12.760 Well, clearly they're not.

01:43:14.220 I mean, it's obscenity laws across the books in every facet.

01:43:16.760 Ban that.

01:43:17.480 Why don't the police arrest them?

01:43:18.700 Because all that really matters is if the public is willing to tolerate and accept it or not.

01:43:23.640 And if the people would—so this is why we get leftist terrorism.

01:43:27.800 The reason why we see Tesla's being firebombed is because what's the end result?

01:43:32.340 You're going to see—Vancouver, for instance, booted Tesla from their auto show saying,

01:43:38.240 we can't keep it safe anymore.

01:43:39.740 This is the purpose of the might-make-right ethos, which we see dominant right now in—I'm

01:43:44.860 not saying Democrat, liberal entirely.

01:43:46.580 I'm saying predominantly far left.

01:43:47.940 They're enacting that, and it is used to amplify their power and the moral worldview they have.

01:43:55.400 Thus, as it pertains to the Columbia protests, what did we see?

01:43:59.740 Organizers put together these protests.

01:44:01.580 Whether you want to blame them for it, physical occupation occurred.

01:44:04.240 Physical violence against Jews occurred.

01:44:06.100 Buildings were taken over.

01:44:07.440 Faculty complained of physical threats and violence against them.

01:44:09.900 You know, I look at this, and I'm just like, how do we prevent things like this from happening?

01:44:16.120 Well, we've got people having sex in the street in San Francisco, and the police won't enforce it.

01:44:21.180 We have buildings being taken over, and it's allowed to happen for an extended period of time.

01:44:24.760 Donald Trump says, the guy who helped organize this is getting kicked out of the country,

01:44:27.840 and every legal liberal comes out and says, we can't allow that to happen.

01:44:33.320 These things are all interconnected.

01:44:35.000 And so the question really becomes, are you willing to enforce against things that cause damage to your moral worldview?

01:44:39.900 The right tends not to.

01:44:41.320 They're starting to now.

01:44:42.240 The left is resistant to it.

01:44:43.600 So that's my point on all of this.

01:44:45.580 Say whatever you want about whatever you want.

01:44:47.020 So long as you've got pride events across the country where they violate every law with gay sex in public.

01:44:52.600 I'm not trying to be crude, but they do.

01:44:54.160 Then I'm going to sit here and be like, guys, you had a violent protest.

01:44:57.440 Jews got attacked.

01:44:58.160 Buildings got taken over.

01:44:59.340 You've got no moral ground to stand on.

01:45:01.120 You're trying to cite precedence to win political power.

01:45:03.600 It's what they said about communists.

01:45:05.080 It's what they said about Jan Sixers.

01:45:08.160 It's what they say about all the people that the public hates.

01:45:10.980 You know, the public hates Trenza Rawa.

01:45:12.980 Did Donald Trump—

01:45:13.740 Wait, no, let me finish this.

01:45:14.880 You brought up Jan Six.

01:45:16.020 Did the Republicans have a committee for May 29th?

01:45:18.180 Did they go and set up a national commission to go and hunt down—

01:45:20.900 Why did Trump say it was no big deal then?

01:45:22.720 What, May 29th?

01:45:23.600 Yeah, why did he say no big deal?

01:45:24.400 He's got an ego problem.

01:45:25.380 Okay, so he lied.

01:45:26.880 Did Trump lie, yes or no?

01:45:28.200 No.

01:45:28.960 Well, you just said it was a big deal.

01:45:30.680 You're asking me if Trump's opinion is a correct statement?

01:45:33.340 Is it—was it correct?

01:45:34.280 Is he lying about his actual opinion?

01:45:35.600 Does Trump think it was a big deal?

01:45:36.620 Is he—I think Trump thinks it's not a big deal.

01:45:38.920 Okay, so—

01:45:39.620 Like I said, Republicans don't enforce against this stuff.

01:45:41.700 Is Trump wrong about whether it was a big deal or not?

01:45:44.380 100 fucking percent.

01:45:46.020 Okay, so was his life in danger?

01:45:47.820 Absolutely it was.

01:45:48.660 Okay.

01:45:49.160 That's why they brought him into a bunker.

01:45:50.640 So he's deluded for thinking that it wasn't a danger.

01:45:54.180 Absolutely.

01:45:54.720 The dude has got an ego problem.

01:45:56.360 He doesn't want to be bunker boy.

01:45:58.320 They brought him into an emergency bunker because 1,000-plus far leftists tore the barricades

01:46:02.060 and were throwing firebombs at the White House.

01:46:03.820 And we never got any accounts of their guns.

01:46:05.320 Prove they were throwing firebombs at the White House right now.

01:46:07.400 Okay.

01:46:07.880 Let me pull up the picture.

01:46:08.640 Yep.

01:46:09.240 Do you know about St. John's shirts, right?

01:46:10.680 Oh, yeah.

01:46:16.360 This view—while you look it up—this view about rights and that it's all whatever

01:46:21.340 because the gays are doing this, the left is doing this, it's all bullshit.

01:46:25.580 You guys don't believe it.

01:46:26.400 There are some values—

01:46:27.300 I mean, we don't believe it.

01:46:28.020 No, you guys actually—I believe that you're supposed to have values, right?

01:46:31.260 You have values.

01:46:32.160 These rights have perches on you.

01:46:33.100 You're not just going to say that only the people that I like get the rights.

01:46:36.620 Is that the White House?

01:46:38.920 You're asking me if one photo from an entire article as I'm seeking to pull up the photos?

01:46:43.340 You've asked me if one image of a Lafayette building being torched by arsonists during the George Floyd rights?

01:46:49.100 You made a specific claim, didn't you?

01:46:50.720 Would you like me to pull up the photo of the guard post on the White House grounds being set on fire?

01:46:54.000 Listen, those are videos that purport to be a guard station, but you said that they were throwing Molotov cocktails at the White House.

01:47:00.880 You did say that, right?

01:47:01.920 The White House includes the grounds and the guard posts?

01:47:03.680 Oh, so torching this would include throwing it at the White House, right?

01:47:07.540 What?

01:47:08.160 Would torching this building in Lafayette Square—

01:47:10.660 The Lafayette Square Maintenance Building?

01:47:12.560 Yeah, so would torching this building—

01:47:14.060 I'm specifically referring to them throwing a firebomb at the White House grounds.

01:47:17.840 Here you go.

01:47:18.620 So they weren't throwing at the White House building or fence, fair?

01:47:21.780 No, what do you—

01:47:22.540 You said that they were throwing firebombs at the White House?

01:47:24.220 Stop playing semantic games.

01:47:25.680 So let's clarify for you.

01:47:26.820 You're representing that they were attacking the White House—the White House itself—

01:47:30.480 They did.

01:47:30.760 —with firebombs.

01:47:31.580 And now you're pointing to a maintenance station that was burned down.

01:47:33.760 No, you are pointing to a maintenance station.

01:47:35.600 Well, where's the evidence of attacking the White House?

01:47:38.300 Did the guard post get set on fire?

01:47:40.120 It wasn't a guard post.

01:47:40.780 It was a maintenance station.

01:47:41.320 That's what it says.

01:47:41.780 Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,

01:47:46.500 you're playing games, you're playing games, you're playing games.

01:47:47.320 So you didn't think I came prepared for this?

01:47:48.020 We're not—you did not come prepared for this.

01:47:50.000 Yeah, I did.

01:47:50.540 So you asked me to pulp a photo.

01:47:52.900 As I'm scrolling through an article, you asked me to stop and address an image you decided

01:47:57.280 upon, and then you said, aha, that proves it?

01:47:59.880 Show the guard post.

01:48:01.520 I'll pull it up.

01:48:02.400 Yeah, it's one tweet, one guy that says a guard post is burned down.

01:48:06.820 There's no idea.

01:48:07.680 So have you read the—

01:48:08.560 Have you read the report?

01:48:09.420 Let's continue this.

01:48:10.600 I just want to be clear.

01:48:11.100 Wait, wait, have you read the Parks Department post that says that it was a maintenance

01:48:14.940 bill?

01:48:15.100 You're flailing.

01:48:15.860 What's about flailing?

01:48:16.680 Have you read the Parks Department report?

01:48:17.520 You're changing the subject.

01:48:18.200 No, no, the report about May 29th and May 30th.

01:48:20.880 Have you read the report about it?

01:48:21.880 Did you see—

01:48:22.560 Have you read the report about it, yes or no?

01:48:23.640 You're flailing.

01:48:24.120 Have you read the report about the May 29th, May 30th protests at the White House?

01:48:27.480 Have you or no?

01:48:28.000 You're deflecting.

01:48:29.020 What am I deflecting about?

01:48:29.640 You're changing the subject.

01:48:30.440 What subject am I changing?

01:48:31.560 Let's go back to, on May 29th, a thousand-plus far leftists tore the barricades down, injured over

01:48:36.960 a hundred law enforcement officers, set fire to St. John's Church,

01:48:39.840 torched several other buildings, flipped over cars.

01:48:42.240 Who's changing the—we were talking about whether they had thrown Molotov cocktails

01:48:44.940 at the White House.

01:48:45.380 You interrupted me as I was addressing May 29th and asked me to pull up the photo, and

01:48:49.280 I said I would do that for you.

01:48:49.980 You made a claim.

01:48:50.720 You said that they were attacking the White House with Molotov cocktails.

01:48:52.780 You don't have evidence for that, right?

01:48:54.600 Is there an image of—you said you saw an image of a guard post on fire?

01:48:58.920 What someone, one Twitter account said was a guard post.

01:49:01.200 I will concede that to you.

01:49:02.340 Okay.

01:49:02.580 And this is where I'm headed, okay?

01:49:03.840 So, let's not get carried away on me—I'll say, you know what, you're right.

01:49:10.100 The fire may or may not have happened, but there is a post online that purports a guard

01:49:14.880 post on the White House grounds was set on fire.

01:49:16.720 Yes.

01:49:17.160 So, let's just—you know what?

01:49:18.380 Okay.

01:49:19.040 They did not firebomb the White House.

01:49:21.100 They may have—we're not entirely sure.

01:49:22.740 They did tear down the barricades, attack law enforcement, a thousand-plus, over a hundred

01:49:26.120 law enforcement officers were injured, and they set fire to St. John's Church.

01:49:29.020 They set fire to several buildings outside of the White House complex.

01:49:33.920 And we never got a national commission or a committee from Congress.

01:49:38.060 We did not get national raids in the thousand-plus.

01:49:40.720 Thirty-plus people died in those riots.

01:49:42.800 We never got law enforcement.

01:49:44.160 For 90-plus days, over a hundred days, far-left extremists were lobbing explosives, mortars,

01:49:49.000 at federal buildings.

01:49:50.140 They took over locations in Seattle, Portland, Minnesota, and Atlanta.

01:49:54.980 In autonomous zones, they created—

01:49:55.920 And you call them insurrections, fair?

01:49:57.880 Well, May 29th is an insurrection.

01:49:59.440 Wait, wait, wait.

01:49:59.860 You did call the Black Lives Matter situations insurrections, right?

01:50:02.680 May 29th.

01:50:03.360 What did you do or did you?

01:50:03.900 May 29th.

01:50:05.100 Yeah.

01:50:05.340 You keep doing that.

01:50:06.700 Yeah.

01:50:06.940 Okay?

01:50:07.400 I referred to Seattle, Portland, Minnesota, and Atlanta, and then asked me if those were

01:50:11.840 all insurrections.

01:50:13.040 You said they were.

01:50:13.760 I have the videos of them.

01:50:14.660 The May 29th insurrection was in front of the White House when they ripped the barricades

01:50:19.320 down and forced the president into a bunker.

01:50:20.960 Okay.

01:50:21.400 Donald Trump—

01:50:22.320 Whose fault is it that we don't have a report on that and a committee on that?

01:50:24.240 Republicans.

01:50:25.100 Okay.

01:50:25.420 Is it also Trump's fault?

01:50:26.820 Yes.

01:50:27.320 Okay.

01:50:27.860 And also to be clear, since you said this was an insurrection, you agree Jan 6th was

01:50:31.480 an insurrection, fair?

01:50:32.240 No.

01:50:32.640 Why not?

01:50:33.900 Jan 6th is an insurrection insofar as May 29th is yes.

01:50:37.580 Okay.

01:50:38.140 Do you think May 29th was an insurrection?

01:50:39.720 No.

01:50:40.640 What's your definition of insurrection?

01:50:41.700 So the point being made at the time in the video you're referencing is that if the Democrats

01:50:46.580 are going to form a committee, accuse the rioters at the Capitol building of being engaged in

01:50:50.440 insurrection, my response is, okay, then May 29th was also an insurrection.

01:50:54.360 Tim, you and Dan Bongino, you, Dan Bongino, other commentators on the right, I have clips

01:50:59.020 of them all called the George Floyd situation insurrections.

01:51:02.660 You did.

01:51:02.920 You did before Jan 6th.

01:51:04.160 So using your...

01:51:04.880 No, we didn't.

01:51:05.440 Yes.

01:51:05.820 I have the clips.

01:51:06.600 You're wrong.

01:51:07.040 Completely wrong.

01:51:08.340 You're on it saying these are insurrections.

01:51:10.240 No.

01:51:10.900 That's false.

01:51:11.340 All right.

01:51:11.440 I'll produce that for you.

01:51:12.640 And everyone can follow.

01:51:13.560 My Twitter account is PeaceCodeLiddy.

01:51:15.040 I'll produce the video of you calling them insurrections.

01:51:16.980 Before January 6th.

01:51:17.880 Before January 6th.

01:51:18.580 Not only did you do that, you have tweets about it.

01:51:21.300 You're saying that before January 6th happened, I referred to the George Floyd advice as an

01:51:24.240 insurrection.

01:51:24.920 Yes, you did.

01:51:25.680 You said that you're an insurrectionist.

01:51:26.900 You also said it with respect to Washington.

01:51:29.320 If you did do that, Tim, if you did do that, wouldn't you be duty bound to also call January

01:51:32.980 6th insurrection under your then existing standard?

01:51:35.220 Now, why not?

01:51:36.420 If you were willing to call it out before Jan 6th, why wouldn't you call Jan 6th an insurrection?

01:51:40.160 We're talking about two different circumstances.

01:51:42.280 I know we're talking about two different circumstances.

01:51:43.540 We're comparing them in your standard for one, where you were before Jan 6th, willing to call

01:51:47.140 them insurrectionists.

01:51:47.820 You're presupposing that I challenged that.

01:51:50.140 Sorry.

01:51:51.040 If you did call those things insurrections, were you wrong then?

01:51:56.000 If before January 6th, I referred to people taking over city blocks as insurrections.

01:52:03.000 Were you wrong to do so?

01:52:04.160 In the context of January 6th, no.

01:52:06.240 No.

01:52:06.860 At the time, were you wrong and would you disavow your statements?

01:52:09.720 No, I would not.

01:52:10.240 Okay.

01:52:10.840 So given that you assume you did, when under the standard that you applied to these individuals

01:52:17.220 in Seattle, Portland, all that situation, wouldn't Jan 6th also be an insurrection under your

01:52:21.980 standard, your pre-Jan 6th standard?

01:52:24.480 No.

01:52:25.440 Why?

01:52:25.920 So what's more insurrection-y about the Portland situation or the courthouse in Portland versus

01:52:31.020 Jan 6th?

01:52:31.660 How long were the city blocks in various cities occupied?

01:52:35.720 It depends.

01:52:36.880 Several weeks to months.

01:52:38.400 So it's the length of it?

01:52:39.560 That's length?

01:52:40.220 Is it the difference in insurrection?

01:52:41.740 Well, first, you're presupposing that I used the word insurrection.

01:52:44.420 You did.

01:52:44.820 Before assuming that as a predicate.

01:52:46.080 Right.

01:52:46.840 And I challenge that.

01:52:48.500 It may have been the case.

01:52:49.220 And I would argue this.

01:52:51.000 The term insurrection as applied from January 6th on was very specific.

01:52:55.660 The intention of individuals to stop an official proceeding to keep a president in power.

01:53:00.760 That was the definition of what insurrection was.

01:53:03.400 My argument after that is, if you're going to argue that January 6th, which included a large

01:53:08.820 group of writers and a large group of peaceful protesters all wrapped up in the same thing,

01:53:12.340 then I would argue, let's also get a commission on May 29th.

01:53:15.160 And I met Republicans for continually avoiding it and doing nothing about it.

01:53:18.860 And Trump himself.

01:53:19.320 That being said, Trump himself.

01:53:21.000 I think Trump's strategy was let the left burn it down so I can win an election.

01:53:24.420 I think it was wrong to do so.

01:53:25.620 I think he should have invoked the insurrection act and crushed these motherfuckers and locked

01:53:28.820 them in prison.

01:53:29.300 Which act?

01:53:30.260 Insurrection act.

01:53:30.800 Yeah.

01:53:31.080 So, and, but assuming that you did call it an insurrection beforehand.

01:53:34.680 Perhaps that's what you're confusing.

01:53:36.020 No, no, I'm not confused about that.

01:53:37.220 So I understand the insurrection is, the insurrection act could apply to non-insurrections.

01:53:41.440 And I think that's where the confusion is.

01:53:43.180 No, it is not.

01:53:43.680 Because I understand those nuances.

01:53:46.220 And listen, when I use the term insurrection, I have these, I'm going to say, you know,

01:53:48.960 very in the weeds debates about the term insurrection and what it means.

01:53:53.040 And so I try to look and use an originalist lens on what insurrection means.

01:53:57.120 But I'm using your standards.

01:53:58.800 I'm using your standards.

01:53:59.720 You called certain Black Lives Matter riots and absolutely out of control.

01:54:03.280 And I also would call some of these things insurrections.

01:54:04.780 Let's clarify that.

01:54:06.260 If insurrection is, as defined by the Insurrection Act, as applied to the BLM riots, it is when

01:54:11.420 local law enforcement is not upholding the law, the president has the right to bring in

01:54:14.460 the National Guard to enforce local law.

01:54:16.240 They don't define insurrection in the Insurrection Act.

01:54:18.400 But there are a lot of circumstances, including what you just outlined.

01:54:21.300 Let's clarify for the purpose of what we're actually trying to discuss.

01:54:23.880 Yep.

01:54:24.020 This word can be applied in different contexts.

01:54:27.820 In the context of the BLM riots, were this to be an insurrection, it applies to the Insurrection

01:54:32.480 Act.

01:54:33.080 And the Insurrection Act is when local law enforcement is not enforcing the law, the president has

01:54:36.980 a right to call in the National Guard to enforce local law.

01:54:40.060 I believe that Donald Trump should have invoked the Insurrection Act.

01:54:43.360 And in that context, what they engaged in was insurrection.

01:54:46.300 Local law enforcement was not enforcing the law and was allowing far left extremists to use

01:54:50.600 violence, firebombs and physical assault against individuals, government buildings and otherwise.

01:54:55.600 In the context of January 6th, they said, these are people trying to overthrow the government

01:55:00.080 itself.

01:55:01.240 And that's an insurrection.

01:55:03.220 The argument that...

01:55:04.560 Who's they?

01:55:05.060 The Democrats.

01:55:05.680 The J6 Committee.

01:55:06.620 If the argument is that, if you want to use the insurrection as defined by the Insurrection

01:55:10.720 Act, and that is, D.C...

01:55:12.040 It doesn't define it.

01:55:13.060 Exactly.

01:55:13.800 So we can only apply the context of what the law does.

01:55:16.560 If Donald Trump were to have called in the National Guard on January 6th because he deemed an

01:55:20.040 insurrection happening...

01:55:20.940 You call it insurrection?

01:55:21.800 In that regard, I would say, in that context, yes.

01:55:25.140 So understanding what we're talking about is a core element of what these debates always

01:55:29.000 tend to be.

01:55:29.820 So again, in the context of the Insurrection Act, it specifically refers to when local law

01:55:35.300 enforcement doesn't uphold the law.

01:55:36.720 In reference to January 6th, it is a group of people trying to overthrow the government.

01:55:40.480 And that's how it's applied to the 14th Amendment.

01:55:42.360 So I would not say that the individuals in Portland were trying to overthrow the government

01:55:46.760 necessarily.

01:55:47.520 Generally, it's a riot, just like J6 was.

01:55:49.980 I mean, they established an autonomous zone.

01:55:52.140 Certainly.

01:55:52.800 And they took over police buildings.

01:55:54.400 In Oregon, they were trying to tear down the courthouses.

01:55:57.980 And it was in Washington that they took over for weeks, and they called it the Chaz, and

01:56:03.700 then the Chop.

01:56:04.040 Yeah, but wait a second, folks.

01:56:05.080 I mean...

01:56:05.620 And to me, that is...

01:56:07.980 How is that not an insurrection?

01:56:08.980 That's utterly an insurrection.

01:56:10.440 Okay.

01:56:10.800 If you take over a police station, that's an insurrection.

01:56:13.720 If you...

01:56:14.100 If you take over the police station as an insurrection, what about the Capitol?

01:56:15.920 They weren't trying to seize the Capitol.

01:56:21.980 It was like...

01:56:22.740 It has to be a permanent takeover of the police?

01:56:24.560 What I'm saying is, when they come marching in there, the same way people come...

01:56:29.100 People in the six previous elections, or at least three or four, going back to Gore v. Bush,

01:56:37.240 there have been people who have been coming in there and screamed that they were unhappy

01:56:40.980 with the way things were happening, and were removed by the Capitol Police.

01:56:47.720 Yeah.

01:56:48.000 So I have a definition of insurrection that would include some things and exclude other things.

01:56:50.820 Looking for the ultimate online casino experience?

01:56:54.600 Step into the BetMGM Casino app, where every deal, spin, and goal brings Las Vegas excitement

01:57:00.420 into the palm of your hand.

01:57:02.240 Take your seat at Premium Blackjack Pro, where strategy meets top-tier gameplay.

01:57:07.420 Drop in on the exciting, sugar-rushing, crazy-time slot games, or play the dazzling MGM Grand

01:57:13.540 Emerald Knights, a slot experience that captures the magic of MGM.

01:57:17.660 With so many games, it's time to make your move.

01:57:21.160 Download the app and visit BetMGM Ontario today to experience the next level of gaming.

01:57:27.220 Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

01:57:30.080 19 plus to wager, Ontario only.

01:57:32.360 Please gamble responsibly.

01:57:33.940 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

01:57:37.460 please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

01:57:44.960 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

01:57:49.520 When you're not weighed down by high interest rates, life lightens up.

01:57:54.180 MBNA TrueLine MasterCards have low interest rates on balance transfers and purchases to

01:57:59.400 give your finances a lift.

01:58:01.520 Find the credit card that's right for you.

01:58:03.560 Visit mbna.ca slash TrueLineCards.

01:58:07.040 Give your finances a lift.

01:58:09.160 It doesn't become insurrection simply because there's thousands of you who are like that

01:58:13.300 individual there.

01:58:15.140 So, no, there was no plan.

01:58:16.860 There was no plan that we're taking over the government.

01:58:18.980 There's no plan that we're going to remove Mike Pence.

01:58:24.600 There was no plan like that.

01:58:26.040 I dispute that.

01:58:27.020 But I think we should step back because I know it's fun to talk about the term insurrection.

01:58:31.460 But really what Tim is getting at is what his perceived inconsistency on the left wing

01:58:35.940 and the right wing with respect to rights.

01:58:37.480 What we're here about is rights.

01:58:38.540 And I don't think, and I think that you agree, that rights mean more to you than just what

01:58:43.140 the majority of the population thinks or the power.

01:58:45.200 I disagree with his assessment.

01:58:45.680 Yeah, okay.

01:58:46.140 I don't think that it's like if I'm sitting here, I'm like, now because I'm in power,

01:58:50.660 I want to have more of this.

01:58:52.380 I do everything I can to remain as consistent as possible.

01:58:56.220 There are times that I've seen Trump do things that I say, this is wrong.

01:58:59.640 He did one of the, this week, this week, he endorsed Lindsey Graham as senator.

01:59:04.720 To me, that should have been a violation of his First Amendment rights right there, just

01:59:08.760 uttering that phrase.

01:59:10.300 So, yeah.

01:59:11.120 Lindsey Graham is pretty pro-Israel.

01:59:12.560 I don't care.

01:59:13.380 See, what, are you racist?

01:59:15.500 You assume because I'm Jewish that I must be pro-Israel?

01:59:19.660 Oh, now you guys are sensitive.

01:59:19.960 Whenever you heard me express that.

01:59:21.700 No, why would you, why would you assume that?

01:59:23.760 You're very, you say you're very pro-Israel.

01:59:25.580 I know.

01:59:25.980 It's a public position.

01:59:26.940 Actually, what I'm saying is you're just coming out there and saying because someone is pro-Israel,

01:59:31.700 that means I like Lindsey Graham.

01:59:32.440 I didn't say that because some, oh, no, no.

01:59:34.840 It was tongue-in-cheek.

01:59:35.900 Don't act offended.

01:59:36.580 No, what I'm saying is you're just drawing these conclusions about it.

01:59:38.920 No one's drawing conclusions.

01:59:40.400 Left in general, I've never been racist enough to be a Democrat.

01:59:43.900 Let's try this.

01:59:44.600 Let's just try this.

01:59:45.260 How do we reconcile that problem I already mentioned?

01:59:48.000 Yeah.

01:59:48.240 The NICS forms requires you to waive your Fifth Amendment rights.

01:59:52.340 For the military.

01:59:53.420 No, no, no, no.

01:59:53.820 This is anyone in the United States who wants to buy a gun must waive their Fifth Amendment

01:59:57.440 rights in order to exercise their second.

01:59:58.720 Yeah, so what the court tells us to look at, because I'm going to take the Supreme Court

02:00:02.260 and their precedent, it says you look at the time of the founding and the enactment of

02:00:07.080 the Second Amendment, what were the kinds of regulations that were in place there that

02:00:10.760 the framers would have considered part of their Second Amendment rights?

02:00:13.160 No one thinks that these rights are absolute in all circumstances.

02:00:15.620 For example, no one thinks that the Second Amendment prevents us from having laws that

02:00:19.180 prevent access to felons or laws that prevent access of guns to the mentally incompetent.

02:00:24.720 These are well-established.

02:00:26.160 I disagree.

02:00:26.680 I think they protect that.

02:00:28.200 So you think that felons and mentally incompetent people have a right to possess weapons?

02:00:33.940 Under the Second Amendment, yes.

02:00:36.060 Because it clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

02:00:39.700 It doesn't say unless we at some point deem them to be...

02:00:42.800 Now, to be fair, to be fair, there is the argument of due process.

02:00:45.740 The reason why felons can't have guns is because the Constitution guarantees a due process.

02:00:48.780 All rights can be curtailed following due process.

02:00:51.160 So you think that felons should have the right to have guns, but that green card holders don't

02:00:54.460 have the right to speak?

02:00:55.320 I mean...

02:00:55.880 No, no, no.

02:00:56.140 I just literally said due process can strip you of your rights.

02:00:58.900 You can have your right to freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, everything

02:01:02.580 curtailed if you are in violation of law.

02:01:04.540 In fact, you can be enslaved.

02:01:06.240 The 13th Amendment explicitly allows you to be a slave if you jaywalk.

02:01:10.340 I'm not kidding.

02:01:11.120 I know.

02:01:11.580 I know.

02:01:11.840 Yeah, pull it up.

02:01:12.340 Pull it up.

02:01:12.640 The 13th Amendment says any crime, it doesn't specify felonies or misdemeanors, meaning

02:01:15.960 you can commit a petty offense by not returning a library book, and that gives the government

02:01:19.060 the right to enslave you.

02:01:20.340 Granted, those things don't get enforced that way.

02:01:22.840 Well, would you consider like...

02:01:24.080 Let me ask you a question.

02:01:25.220 Do you think that an illegal...

02:01:26.540 Do you think that someone who gets a green card has more rights, should have more rights

02:01:29.520 than a felon?

02:01:31.780 Depends on which...

02:01:32.360 Because I actually think that's such an immoral position.

02:01:34.840 To me, I look at it as someone coming from the right, and I say to myself, look, the same

02:01:41.080 way I have someone in my house, and if someone's in my house and I invite them into my house,

02:01:46.380 there's an expectation they're going to comport themselves with a certain level of conduct.

02:01:49.660 I came in here before and I said, what is accepted protocol during the show here?

02:01:54.180 Because I'm a visitor here in Tim Pool's studio.

02:01:57.000 If I'm Tim Pool's kid, there's a different standard where even if I violate that, if I

02:02:01.520 violate it here, he's going to throw me out of here.

02:02:03.620 And as you would agree, it's his right.

02:02:05.160 Let me give you what you want.

02:02:06.180 If his kid, though, in that case, if his kid is now, he grows up and is 12 years old,

02:02:12.540 10 years old, and he says, I'm going to no longer support you any longer, we would say

02:02:19.300 that that is something that could be criminal.

02:02:22.380 Let me give you what you want.

02:02:23.460 I do agree.

02:02:24.420 American citizens have more rights than green card.

02:02:26.600 Well, thank you.

02:02:27.120 I do agree with that.

02:02:28.060 Well, thank God we got to that.

02:02:29.440 But I want to be specific.

02:02:30.180 Even felons.

02:02:31.360 Even felons.

02:02:32.260 They're not coextensive, right?

02:02:33.520 So I think felons have some rights that green card holders don't have, and I think green

02:02:37.540 card holders have some rights that felons don't have.

02:02:39.180 For example, felons don't necessarily have free speech rights to go and protest and stuff,

02:02:43.380 right?

02:02:43.640 So just to be clear, I think they're not overlapping.

02:02:46.280 But these are ways in which, importantly and critically, green card holders and aliens

02:02:49.920 have different rights.

02:02:51.600 For example, you can't exile a U.S. citizen if they commit a crime.

02:02:54.900 You can exile.

02:02:55.800 You shouldn't be able to.

02:02:56.800 You think that you should be able to exile American citizens out of the country?

02:02:59.380 I would prefer it instead of capital punishment.

02:03:01.300 So I think capital punishment is worse than exile.

02:03:06.240 I don't trust the state to kill people.

02:03:08.780 The example I like to give to conservatives who tend to be pro-death penalty is imagine

02:03:11.880 Kamala Harris pointing at someone saying, trust me, that guy should die.

02:03:14.720 They would never believe it.

02:03:16.160 I would prefer it if when it came to capital offenses, we just said, we're going to put

02:03:21.240 you on a boat and kick you off.

02:03:21.880 Why not just be against both?

02:03:23.140 You can be against both.

02:03:24.420 What do you do with these people then?

02:03:25.780 Keep them in prison.

02:03:27.100 Who's paying for it?

02:03:28.480 I guess we are.

02:03:29.180 So you're asking people who want to kill.

02:03:30.980 So here's me looking at a group of people and they say, that person raped and murdered

02:03:35.120 a child.

02:03:35.520 They should die.

02:03:36.060 And I say, no, no, no, no, no, no.

02:03:37.220 We don't trust the state.

02:03:38.540 I'm glad you say that, but.

02:03:39.900 I don't like that person.

02:03:41.020 I think what they did is evil beyond belief.

02:03:43.240 And if we were to, if we were to catch.

02:03:44.840 Let's unleash them on the world.

02:03:46.240 Let's throw them to other countries.

02:03:48.120 Yeah.

02:03:49.080 Well, to other countries.

02:03:50.440 My point is.

02:03:51.260 Wait, do you want to release like child rapists into Cuba?

02:03:53.460 So the argument would be that presupposition is that you trust the government explicitly

02:03:59.080 and implicitly.

02:03:59.960 Do you?

02:04:00.860 I don't trust the government.

02:04:02.180 So if Donald Trump came to you and said, Mahmoud Khalil is a rapist and a child murderer,

02:04:06.900 would you, would you say, okay, Trump, you're right.

02:04:08.840 I'd say prove it.

02:04:09.840 Exactly.

02:04:10.380 And now what if he said, we have circumstantial evidence that I believe proves it been a reasonable

02:04:14.940 doubt, but nothing definitive, no video, but enough to where a jury of Americans say,

02:04:18.920 we believe it.

02:04:19.440 He should be killed.

02:04:20.080 Wait, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt we have.

02:04:22.000 Yes.

02:04:22.700 Then put it, yeah, put it in front of a jury and it'll be a conviction.

02:04:26.040 Okay.

02:04:26.300 So if, so my point is, I don't believe the state should be able to murder people.

02:04:35.060 There are, with certain exceptions.

02:04:37.160 That is, a police officer literally watching someone about to rape and murder a child uses

02:04:41.420 force to stop.

02:04:41.980 Yeah, but that's self-defense and that's imminent requirement.

02:04:44.180 The issue I take largely is, in many circumstances, we see that, I don't want to get into a death

02:04:50.420 penalty debate, but here we go.

02:04:51.100 Why do you want to send child rapists to other countries?

02:04:53.280 Because they're not child rapists.

02:04:54.180 The issue is-

02:04:54.640 That's the example you gave.

02:04:55.840 Because I'm trying to choose the most evil thing imaginable, but the, the, the, what

02:04:59.280 you're putting there is, you trust the government implicitly when they accuse someone of a

02:05:03.200 brother.

02:05:03.320 I don't, but I also don't want them to send child rapists to fucking Cuba.

02:05:06.080 Neither do I.

02:05:06.980 So then why do you want to send exile, you know, a bunch of fucking hardened criminals

02:05:09.920 to other countries?

02:05:10.620 Because you're assuming they're hardened criminals and that's not my point.

02:05:12.800 Oh.

02:05:13.140 And I'm not saying to other countries.

02:05:14.260 I mean, what country would I-

02:05:14.980 Or would you exile them?

02:05:15.940 Fucking Antarctica?

02:05:17.120 Antarctica?

02:05:18.000 Yeah.

02:05:19.780 Let me ask you a question.

02:05:20.600 Are you for the death penalty?

02:05:21.460 No.

02:05:21.740 So what, so you would ask other people to pay the bill for child rapists?

02:05:27.160 And what if they say, we refuse to that, we're going to kill them?

02:05:29.660 I would say you can't.

02:05:30.680 What if they vote, outvote you and they do it anyway?

02:05:32.380 I guess they would outvote me and they would kill them.

02:05:34.120 I feel, I feel like the, the issue I take is not of course in the defense of evil.

02:05:38.900 It is obviously if someone is about to engage in an act of great bodily harm or death against

02:05:42.740 another person, we actually reserve universally the right to stop that person.

02:05:46.600 Well, actually I would say the left largely doesn't.

02:05:48.260 But, uh, a lot of people on the left, the liberals and almost all of conservatives do

02:05:53.480 agree.

02:05:54.240 If someone's about to engage in great bodily harm, you have the right to-

02:05:57.360 Yeah, self-defense.

02:05:57.920 But here we're talking about someone who's been duly convicted, uh, whether it's murder,

02:06:01.500 murder of a child, rape of a child.

02:06:03.420 I don't want to throw them in.

02:06:04.860 I don't want to exile them and make it that they're free.

02:06:07.740 Put them in a-

02:06:08.160 But then that's like the death penalty.

02:06:10.120 Do they not have any food there?

02:06:11.500 Do they have servants there?

02:06:12.560 I guess you're-

02:06:12.900 None.

02:06:13.480 So you're killing them by banishing them to a place where there's no-

02:06:16.560 Maybe.

02:06:16.760 Okay, then you're in favor of the death penalty, just five-year-old death penalty by starvation

02:06:20.400 and, uh, exposure.

02:06:22.480 Maybe.

02:06:23.360 No, you're not!

02:06:24.400 You're not in favor-

02:06:24.840 No, no, no, no.

02:06:25.040 I'm saying maybe they'll die.

02:06:25.960 Yeah, maybe.

02:06:26.800 Okay, but should we be-

02:06:29.820 Okay, so maybe they'll die.

02:06:32.020 I can't believe I got the liberal arguing for the death penalty.

02:06:33.760 No.

02:06:34.360 Wait, wait, wait.

02:06:35.160 I'm against both exile.

02:06:36.920 I'm against both exile and I'm against a U.S. citizen and I'm against, um-

02:06:41.220 Well, fair point.

02:06:42.200 I'll concede to you this.

02:06:43.220 Exile is much more difficult in today's day and age because there's national boundaries everywhere.

02:06:46.540 Yeah.

02:06:47.080 But my argument would be penal colony is preferable to-

02:06:50.540 That's a penalty?

02:06:51.120 So perhaps-

02:06:51.740 Then you're paying for it anyway, right?

02:06:52.720 We'll put it this way.

02:06:53.380 Perhaps we actually would agree largely that we want life imprisonment.

02:06:56.260 We just disagree on the extent of how we actually implement it.

02:06:58.560 Should it be in America or should it be in a penal colony in some horrible place?

02:07:02.680 But then it's just-

02:07:03.060 Maybe it's not a horrible place.

02:07:05.060 Maybe it's just you don't get the luxuries of society.

02:07:07.380 I'm not saying nice.

02:07:08.440 But I got to be honest, like, an island with a 20-miles circumference-

02:07:11.620 This is a good drink, bro.

02:07:12.400 The expenditures are good.

02:07:13.140 Yeah.

02:07:13.560 I would-

02:07:14.020 I don't trust the government and I don't like the idea that innocent people are killed.

02:07:18.020 And there is a high percentage, I think it's over 1% of death penalty cases end up being innocent people.

02:07:24.300 And that's horrifying.

02:07:25.120 And I appreciate that about you and I respect that.

02:07:27.800 I want to move to one issue then.

02:07:29.440 If you care about due process and you care about the innocent being faced with consequences they don't deserve, can't you condemn the alien enemies' act deportations where these guys, they're not even given a hearing.

02:07:40.140 They're just being thrown into a slave colony in El Salvador.

02:07:43.880 How can you say that you're okay?

02:07:45.040 You want to make sure that we have this robust process where some of these people are claiming they're trying to flee Trenaragua.

02:07:50.920 That's bad.

02:07:52.200 So the issue I see largely is you and I completely disagree as to the constitutionality of the arrest of Jenna Ellis.

02:07:58.900 Okay.

02:07:59.720 But is that irreconcilable on every single issue?

02:08:02.420 Can't we have common ground on this?

02:08:03.880 This is the easiest and one example I can cite, though there are many others, in which I feel the establishment state, which includes neocons, although the neocons have now joined the Democratic Party, have waged war on the American people for the purpose of power.

02:08:18.680 They are violating the constitution.

02:08:20.940 They do it every single day.

02:08:22.640 Donald Trump is responding with commensurate force against forces that were enacted against him and his movement.

02:08:28.120 Against some people who could be innocent.

02:08:30.640 So my point is this.

02:08:32.660 First of all, they're all illegal immigrants.

02:08:35.400 We don't know that.

02:08:36.300 Do you know that?

02:08:37.160 There has been no argument presented and all information released by the administration as to those he deported.

02:08:44.120 We don't have a full accounting of everyone on there.

02:08:45.640 The government admitted in its oral argument.

02:08:47.240 And I agree with you on that.

02:08:48.100 Yeah.

02:08:48.440 And I've since this started agreed Trump needs to release a list of every person he's deporting to prove to the public these are noncitizens.

02:08:55.080 But even illegal immigrants under the INA have rights even to expedited removal procedures.

02:08:59.960 One thing that Trump is doing that Joe Biden didn't do is he extended expedited removal to its maximal scope.

02:09:05.080 Agreed.

02:09:05.440 But here's my point.

02:09:06.920 Joe Biden created, and so did Obama, paths to legality in the United States that some would argue are extra legal, notably DACA.

02:09:15.880 That's not a congressionally approved action.

02:09:18.160 That was an executive order.

02:09:19.020 So the view on the right would be during the Obama administration and during the Biden administration, they created special provisions that seemingly violate the moral foundation of this country and our laws to bring in as many immigrants as possible.

02:09:32.120 Claiming that everybody who came here was an asylee is an affront to reality in that many of these people, some of them came from Africa.

02:09:38.100 Certainly you can want to flee Africa, but Brazil is awesome.

02:09:41.660 And Mexico is awesome.

02:09:43.620 But asylee status is based on whether you're persecuted.

02:09:45.640 And you can be persecuted in Brazil.

02:09:46.900 You can be persecuted in Africa.

02:09:48.140 Exactly.

02:09:48.480 But if you're from Africa and you come to Brazil, where you're no longer persecuted, and then you have to go through every single country, and none of those countries do you stop.

02:09:55.180 Or more importantly, when the caravans were passing through Mexico, and Mexico offered all of them asylum, and they all said no, that is an affront to the goodwill of the American people.

02:10:04.400 It's also not compliant with asylee law, where you have to stop at the first safe harbor state.

02:10:10.220 And so they no longer are asylee when they get here.

02:10:13.540 But real quick, my point is that you asked me about Donald Trump's deportation of Trinidad Aragua and—

02:10:19.400 Alleged.

02:10:20.020 Alleged.

02:10:20.500 My argument is we need transparency on the issue, so long as the Trump administration does.

02:10:25.180 That's my biggest criticism.

02:10:26.560 My criticism of Mahmoud Khalil and the other protesters is saying they align with Hamas for having opinions that are critical of Israel is ridiculous.

02:10:34.080 Just because you don't like what Israel is doing doesn't mean you support Hamas.

02:10:37.320 That being said, if he did support Hamas, you can argue that, but still—

02:10:39.940 Wait, so if he didn't support Hamas, you would be against his deportation?

02:10:42.960 Clarify.

02:10:43.340 What do you mean?

02:10:43.620 So if he didn't support Hamas, and by your lights, he just supported Hamas?

02:10:47.600 I don't know that he supported Hamas.

02:10:48.860 No, right.

02:10:49.500 So assume that he didn't support Hamas under your lights, whatever that is.

02:10:52.000 I'm in favor of deportation because what I'm saying of Donald Trump is he's using commensurate force in deportation that Biden and Obama used for importation.

02:10:59.120 But this is green card holder.

02:10:59.980 So green card holder, where you said there is a difference between Hamas support and Palestinian support.

02:11:02.740 So in the situation in which—

02:11:03.740 Not a legal green card holder.

02:11:04.360 In the situation in which Mahmoud—

02:11:05.660 Don't care.

02:11:06.220 Deport him.

02:11:06.980 He's not a legal green card holder.

02:11:08.140 Let me say it one more time.

02:11:10.700 Obama and Biden used special provisions, executive order, and outright violations of the law to bring in millions of people.

02:11:18.800 And Donald Trump isn't even going that far in the deportations.

02:11:22.480 There are questions and criticisms of the Trendy Aragua deportations.

02:11:27.340 There's judges' hearings over these things.

02:11:28.820 I demand—I will say it right now.

02:11:30.240 I demand transparency from the Trump administration.

02:11:32.600 I do not accept.

02:11:33.460 Blanket.

02:11:33.880 Trust us.

02:11:34.320 We just did it.

02:11:35.140 But they're in court saying we don't even need to tell the court.

02:11:37.800 They're saying we don't even need to tell—

02:11:38.980 Right.

02:11:39.520 But they wouldn't need to tell an administrative procedure act.

02:11:43.340 Are you talking about the alien enemies?

02:11:44.960 No, no.

02:11:45.240 Well, that's an APA claim, the one in the D.C. circuit system.

02:11:50.160 They're saying in court, we don't have to even tell you when the flights took off.

02:11:53.600 Even though they're parading, they're tweeting, Marco Rubio is retweeting this, oops.

02:11:58.040 And so let's just call that commensurate.

02:12:00.740 So what's good for the goose, good for the gander.

02:12:02.500 No, no.

02:12:03.120 It's all bad.

02:12:03.900 It's all bad.

02:12:04.860 No, it's also—

02:12:05.700 It's not good for the goose, good for the gander.

02:12:08.120 It's remedying the problem that they illegally made.

02:12:10.900 That's the point Tim is making.

02:12:11.920 People could be innocent.

02:12:13.420 Indeed.

02:12:14.260 And the problem is Obama and Biden's fault that we are in a conflict situation with seemingly no resolution that will satisfy anybody.

02:12:22.960 Why don't you pass a law then?

02:12:24.340 Republicans control Congress.

02:12:26.060 I agree.

02:12:26.840 If you want to rescind asylee status or say that we have no procedures or whatever, pass a law.

02:12:32.280 It's very clear under established Supreme Court precedent they have no right to be here.

02:12:35.620 I say the same thing to what Obama and Biden did.

02:12:38.540 Why?

02:12:39.080 Instead of opening the southern border and saying, just claim you're an asylum seeker and we'll let it go.

02:12:42.700 You know what I got a problem with?

02:12:44.540 Donald Trump deporting alleged trend to Aragua.

02:12:48.060 I am still sitting here being like, I want transparency on this issue, and I will tell them to their faces when I see them, and I will say it.

02:12:56.440 Give the public a list and prove it because we want to believe you're doing something that's right, but as long as you pretend it's going to be in secret and you refuse to tell us who's actually being deported, we have problems here.

02:13:05.900 They've released partial lists.

02:13:07.040 You're correct.

02:13:07.440 But when the news report comes out about a barber or this runner being deported because of criminals, do not care.

02:13:15.600 Do not exploit the goodwill of this country.

02:13:17.780 Do not lie to our faces that you need asylum when you're coming here for economic status.

02:13:22.340 But more importantly, I would prefer it didn't happen.

02:13:24.540 I don't want to see a gay barber in El Salvador.

02:13:26.660 He might have been persecuted.

02:13:27.840 Gay people are persecuted in the country.

02:13:29.720 He could have stayed in Mexico.

02:13:30.620 Mexico's awesome.

02:13:31.200 Yeah, but that's a substantive claim because there could be reasons why it doesn't count as a safe country under the law, but even if it does, because that would be an argument that says his asylum claim is a loser.

02:13:40.780 I don't care.

02:13:41.340 Even if his asylum claim is a loser, doesn't he have a right under your very same framework that says that you want to protect people who are improperly accused, you want to protect even people who do child rape from the death penalty?

02:13:54.120 No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

02:13:55.020 From the death penalty.

02:13:55.520 No, no, no, no, no, no.

02:13:56.520 You are absolutely misunderstanding.

02:13:58.240 Oh, from the death penalty, sorry.

02:13:59.240 The death penalty is that evil people get what's coming to them, but the state can be included among evil people.

02:14:05.840 It is not that I want to protect those people.

02:14:07.680 It's that I am concerned the innocent will die because the state wants innocent people to die.

02:14:12.020 Right, and in order to protect the innocent, you're protecting bad people.

02:14:15.160 Bad people, right.

02:14:15.780 As Benjamin Franklin and Blackstone said, it is better that the guilty go free than the innocent suffer.

02:14:19.380 Well, there you go.

02:14:20.000 You are not innocent when you illegally enter this country.

02:14:22.280 But this guy is not alleged to have illegally entered the country.

02:14:25.120 Yes, he is.

02:14:25.700 He's alleged to have presented himself at a border for inspection and mission and claimed asylum.

02:14:29.360 That's exploitation.

02:14:30.480 What do you mean exploitation?

02:14:31.660 Joe Biden opened the border to tens of millions of people and just said,

02:14:35.100 Asilees.

02:14:35.760 We know they're not.

02:14:36.720 He opened the border.

02:14:38.100 Indeed.

02:14:38.940 Well, you take a look at these two administrations, how different they are.

02:14:41.740 Within a month of Trump getting in border crossings dropped to a few thousand.

02:14:45.400 They've got MRAPs and tanks now patrolling the border.

02:14:48.100 No one's coming across anymore.

02:14:49.500 What happened to all the asylum seekers?

02:14:50.900 They don't need asylum anymore now that Trump's saying you got to go through the port legally.

02:14:53.540 They're not going to the border in Mexicali and Clexico and saying,

02:14:57.560 I'm an asylum seeker.

02:14:58.280 They just stopped coming.

02:14:59.000 You're alleging that Joe Biden did not enforce immigration law.

02:15:01.120 It's a fact.

02:15:02.120 He's deporting more people than Trump is.

02:15:03.780 He deported a lot of people.

02:15:04.800 But here's a fact.

02:15:05.940 CBP, as reported on The View of all places,

02:15:08.860 children were coming across the border with numbers on their arms to be sold into sex slavery.

02:15:13.400 And the CBP under Biden were instructed to facilitate that.

02:15:16.980 And there were people driving vans who knew what was happening.

02:15:19.040 You got a problem with it?

02:15:19.740 Take it up with The View and Dr. Phil.

02:15:20.980 They're the ones who reported it.

02:15:22.120 Yeah.

02:15:22.240 So first of all, Dr. Phil is a fucking, well, I have people in my life who like Dr. Phil's content.

02:15:31.160 So I'll save the aspersion.

02:15:33.860 Listen, there's very different, big differences in immigration policy, no doubt.

02:15:38.020 But something I would hope that we would have agreement on, regardless of how bad you think,

02:15:41.860 even assume Joe Biden opened the doors to illegal immigration.

02:15:44.860 Things should be done the right way, not the wrong way.

02:15:47.140 If you want to have summary removals, then pass a law that allows for that.

02:15:51.460 Or, right, because you took issue with DACA, right?

02:15:54.380 You took issue with DACA?

02:15:55.200 Indeed.

02:15:55.560 So shouldn't you be consistent and say, well, I don't, you know, I don't support excesses of executive power

02:16:01.360 when it's done in favor of immigration or against it.

02:16:03.900 Be consistent.

02:16:04.700 The issue is, and the point I'm bringing up, the reason why Trump is doing the things he's doing

02:16:09.080 and the difficult moral position I find myself in is,

02:16:11.640 Biden did many things which were destructive to this country, and Trump is reversing those things.

02:16:17.380 Biden did a whole, so, you know, even it is, imagine it this way.

02:16:20.540 There's a great tower that every administration puts blocks on top of.

02:16:24.000 It is growing greater every single time.

02:16:25.960 We add laws, we add executive orders, we rarely rescind them.

02:16:28.800 The more that gets added to it, the greater the instability begins to wobble far to the right,

02:16:32.780 then far to the left, and eventually the whole thing goes crumbling down.

02:16:35.000 How do we deal with a mass influx of 10, I'm going to use the low number, 10 million non-citizens.

02:16:41.900 Donald Trump says first.

02:16:43.460 Over a year?

02:16:44.280 You think it's over?

02:16:44.860 Four years.

02:16:45.240 Okay.

02:16:46.040 Some estimate 20.

02:16:47.340 A lot of these are.

02:16:47.880 I'm using the low estimate.

02:16:48.520 A lot of these are re-catches, and they're not, it's, we don't think that 10 million over four years actually.

02:16:53.260 No, no, some people estimate 20 million.

02:16:54.820 You think 20 million in the last year?

02:16:55.680 I don't.

02:16:56.120 I'm using the low estimate of 10 million.

02:16:57.620 So the ranges are 10 to 20 million.

02:16:59.360 Here we're calculating like estimated border crossings aren't necessarily co-extensive with individuals

02:17:04.420 who are coming and staying here permanently.

02:17:06.160 Indeed, it could be more.

02:17:07.100 Okay.

02:17:07.400 Because apprehensions and interactions don't mean some people got through.

02:17:11.960 So we're dealing.

02:17:13.700 Looking for the ultimate online casino experience?

02:17:16.500 Step into the BetMGM Casino app, where every deal, spin, and goal brings Las Vegas excitement

02:17:22.740 into the palm of your hand.

02:17:24.580 Take your seat at Premium Blackjack Pro, where strategy meets top-tier gameplay.

02:17:29.740 Drop in on the exciting, sugar-rushing, crazy-time slot games.

02:17:33.300 Or play the dazzling MGM Grand Emerald Knights, a slot experience that captures the magic of MGM.

02:17:40.440 With so many games, it's time to make your move.

02:17:43.480 Download the app and visit BetMGM Ontario today to experience the next level of gaming.

02:17:49.540 Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

02:17:52.400 19 plus to wager.

02:17:53.600 Ontario only.

02:17:54.660 Please gamble responsibly.

02:17:55.300 If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

02:18:07.720 BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

02:18:11.320 When you're not weighed down by high interest rates, life lightens up.

02:18:16.500 MBNA TrueLine MasterCards have low interest rates on balance transfers and purchases to give your finances a lift.

02:18:23.840 Find the credit card that's right for you.

02:18:25.900 Visit MBNA.ca slash TrueLineCards.

02:18:29.360 Give your finances a lift.

02:18:31.140 With the ramifications of this, both in the census, which means congressionally, in the Electoral College, how it structures our government, how we deal with...

02:18:40.800 Republicans are doing great on that.

02:18:42.100 On the front of the census, Republicans are doing fantastic.

02:18:44.760 In the next census, they're going to...

02:18:46.460 It's not going to be enough if Kamala wins Michigan.

02:18:48.840 Indeed.

02:18:49.140 Wisconsin.

02:18:49.580 So they're doing fine.

02:18:50.600 So...

02:18:50.920 It's not a big threat to the allocation, the representation.

02:18:53.920 It certainly is.

02:18:55.240 Saying that Republicans may win does not change the fact that California gets an extra vote for the president through non-citizenship.

02:19:00.660 But Texas has a shit ton of...

02:19:02.660 Indeed.

02:19:03.260 No.

02:19:03.700 None of it.

02:19:04.100 Nobody should have that.

02:19:04.880 I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat.

02:19:05.740 It's not really distorting our democracy in that way based on...

02:19:08.560 It is.

02:19:09.080 How can you say that if it's...

02:19:10.600 You don't know, right?

02:19:11.560 Is it really the case that Democrat states have more illegal immigrants than Republican?

02:19:16.000 They're called sanctuary states and they don't enforce...

02:19:17.700 I thought the argument was always that Republicans are bearing a bigger brunt.

02:19:20.680 Republican states have to...

02:19:21.620 You know, the border states, Texas, you know...

02:19:23.980 California has more illegal immigrants than other states.

02:19:26.600 Blue states are sanctuary states that don't enforce immigration law.

02:19:29.400 And that's why Greg Abbott was sending them there.

02:19:31.600 And that's why I said it was a stupid thing to do.

02:19:33.740 Because what it does...

02:19:34.400 You were saying it was a brilliant thing to do.

02:19:35.380 You think it was stupid?

02:19:36.360 Absolutely.

02:19:37.520 It was funny in a lot of sense.

02:19:39.080 Like the Martha's Vineyard thing was funny.

02:19:40.760 If these people want to be a sanctuary, then we will transport them and they can provide aid and assistance.

02:19:44.740 The problem is, as I've said, all this does is bolster their numbers in the census and give them extra votes for president.

02:19:50.280 All of these things are issues.

02:19:52.840 We have gone over and we do have to go because I've got to give a shout out to Jeremy Hambly because we're going to be raiding Jeremy Hambly's show right now.

02:19:58.740 But my point ultimately is, I think I've made it a million times, Donald Trump is going to do things that are seemingly drastic the left will be angry about.

02:20:07.160 But the left did similarly drastic things.

02:20:09.840 So what we're getting is two sides arguing God is on my side effectively.

02:20:13.240 I mean that figuratively, not literally.

02:20:14.620 The left says we are morally right in how we've done this.

02:20:16.940 You are morally wrong for how you do it.

02:20:18.360 The right is saying the inverse.

02:20:19.840 The question is, who will muster up the political might to actually succeed?

02:20:23.200 Abraham Lincoln arrested the Maryland legislature, large portions of it, for being sympathetic to the Confederates.

02:20:27.960 He suspended habeas corpus.

02:20:29.580 No one calls him a dictator except for the Confederates.

02:20:32.280 Do you?

02:20:33.560 It's a difficult question.

02:20:34.680 It is.

02:20:34.980 I think he was a tyrant.

02:20:36.660 I think Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents we ever had.

02:20:39.000 He ended up being in the perfect place to do a necessary thing, which was ultimately free the slaves.

02:20:44.600 So if Trump violated the court order.

02:20:46.360 He was a tyrant in the way he had.

02:20:47.840 So if Trump violates a court order, like Lincoln is alleged to have done with respect to habeas corpus.

02:20:51.420 Not every court order is a legal court order.

02:20:53.640 If he violates a court order.

02:20:56.000 I just want commitments, because I think if we're being consistent, if you're calling him a tyrant.

02:20:58.800 Not every court order is a legal court order.

02:20:59.700 If he violates a court order from a federal appellate court.

02:21:02.460 Not every court order from a federal appellate court.

02:21:03.620 Only the Supreme Court?

02:21:04.440 No.

02:21:04.680 Even the Supreme Court could, in theory, issue an illegal order.

02:21:08.300 That's right.

02:21:08.980 Even the Supreme Court.

02:21:10.200 Because if, in fact, the Constitution says that they don't have a certain right to something.

02:21:18.540 And a federal judge, district court judge, completely disregards what's written in the statute.

02:21:23.640 Would you agree with me?

02:21:24.740 That this black letter statute, which says something, and a federal judge, completely disregards that.

02:21:29.620 And he issues an order in complete opposition to what is expressly written word for word.

02:21:34.880 Would you agree that's an illegal order?

02:21:36.500 I agree with Marbury v. Madison, which it's emphatically the providence and duty of the judicial department to say what it was.

02:21:41.020 It has to be a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous term.

02:21:43.820 According to Trump.

02:21:44.520 So, I'm not saying they're overturned.

02:21:46.280 Marbury v. Madison just gives the power to the court to overturn the statute.

02:21:49.820 They're not overturning the statute.

02:21:51.100 If they read a statute as the inverse of what the written words of the statute means, and the district court judge were to do that.

02:21:57.220 So, I'm going to do this.

02:21:58.420 I'm going to, you know what, I don't care that it says this.

02:22:00.720 I don't care what the statute says.

02:22:01.900 I'm going to write this.

02:22:02.740 That would be an illegal order.

02:22:03.760 If that illegal order got affirmed at the circuit level, that would still be an illegal order.

02:22:07.900 And if the Supreme Court orders Trump, if the Supreme Court, in fact, did it, that still would be an illegal order.

02:22:13.580 And so, you're telling us right now that if the Supreme Court orders Trump to do something and he defies it, you're not going to commit to condemning that action of him defying the Supreme Court.

02:22:23.400 Oh, on a political level or as far as a legal level?

02:22:25.700 You ask me in any given hypothetical.

02:22:26.900 You ask me in any given hypothetical.

02:22:29.500 What I will tell you is this, as far as on a political level, I think that it's probably very foolish for him to disregard that.

02:22:38.140 Would you condemn him?

02:22:39.220 Would I condemn him?

02:22:41.220 You can't give me a hypothetical order.

02:22:43.040 Okay.

02:22:43.460 I can't do that.

02:22:44.160 It really depends on the scenario.

02:22:45.400 There are many scenarios where I could see condemning Trump.

02:22:47.380 I have condemned him in certain scenarios where I thought what he's doing was politically wrong or was unethical or illegal.

02:22:54.280 I don't have a problem condemning him.

02:22:56.180 I think that he happens to have done phenomenal work as our president.

02:22:59.920 He is an exceptional president.

02:23:01.480 He's a degenerate.

02:23:04.420 You can try and label him whatever you want.

02:23:06.840 He's a degenerate, a lawless person.

02:23:07.480 He is the most efficient president, which in the first hundred days of this presidency, we're only 75 days in, and he's been exceptional.

02:23:13.240 But I still can condemn him if he makes a mistake.

02:23:17.260 The same way I made a joke about Lindsey Graham, I'll condemn him if he does something wrong.

02:23:20.400 I feel like you're in the room right now.

02:23:21.420 I just want to say, because you called Trump a degenerate, you know, when you look at Donald Trump, he's had multiple wives.

02:23:28.200 He's had different children from different wives.

02:23:29.520 Not for that.

02:23:30.640 The personal stuff is whatever.

02:23:32.640 It's for his violence on the Constitution and the rule of law and authoritarianism.

02:23:36.160 That's why he's—

02:23:36.860 Oh, okay.

02:23:37.480 I mean, I feel like it's a bit of a stretch to use the word degenerate.

02:23:41.100 I don't mind if you want to criticize him for your view on that.

02:23:43.500 It's degenerating the Constitution and the rule of law in the country.

02:23:45.600 I was going to say, like, if Trump—

02:23:47.340 Absolutely not.

02:23:48.000 This constitutional crisis we have right now is 100% the exclusive fault of the judiciary.

02:23:53.040 When the judiciary steps out of its bounds and says, hey, I'm going to start implementing national policy on this thing over here because, you know what?

02:23:59.860 I'm some judge from Rhode Island, and there's a national order, there's a universal order which is affecting the entire country.

02:24:07.180 And even though it's really only affecting, I don't know, 1% of the national population here in my domain, I'm going to be impacting this executive order that's nationwide throughout the country.

02:24:20.640 If you think that that is something that should be empowered to district court judges and that's something that's completely legal, what has Trump done?

02:24:27.380 Has he said, you know what?

02:24:28.620 You wrote your stupid decision.

02:24:30.660 You go enforcing.

02:24:32.240 Essentially, yes.

02:24:32.480 No, instead of doing that, instead of doing that, he very artfully gave deference to the court by saying, you know what?

02:24:41.220 I'm going to not tell you how stupid you are, how illegal your order is, and how ridiculous and asinine you are that you think that you're the president of the United States and there's 3,700 other district judges who are all president and have executive power.

02:24:53.040 He doesn't do that.

02:24:53.960 Instead, he very artfully avoids a constitutional crisis by saying, you know what?

02:24:58.380 I'm going to pretend that this court order has deference and find some way that my actions are not going to be impeded by any stupid judge who happened to get a sign and at the same time not embarrass the court by saying I'm disregarding the order.

02:25:10.800 That is something he should be applauded for over and over again because he has saved us from a constitutional crisis that these judges are trying to insure to.

02:25:17.880 We've definitely gone over.

02:25:18.760 Yeah, I'm sorry.

02:25:19.540 No, no, it's absolutely fantastic.

02:25:20.800 This has been wonderful.

02:25:21.580 You guys are great.

02:25:22.160 I really do appreciate it.

02:25:23.120 I think this is time flu and I'd love to keep going.

02:25:26.000 So, you know, my final thoughts as sort of the, you know, although people don't really call me a fence sitter at this point in my career, I'd simply say, for me, what I just end up hearing is in this instance, we were right to rule the way we did.

02:25:40.000 And I would only say that when I get asked this question over and over again about what should Trump do or why should he do it, my response is any leader should enforce a moral and just society.

02:25:50.400 Everybody actually agrees with that.

02:25:51.620 The difference is everybody's view of what moral and just is dramatically different.

02:25:54.420 So there are large factions of a moral worldview.

02:25:57.240 There's two principal ones.

02:25:58.220 They're fighting for what they want and they're going to do whatever they have to do to get it.

02:26:01.600 I don't know what that turns into, but that's where we're at.

02:26:03.800 So I don't know if you want to give a final thought and shout something out before we wrap.

02:26:07.020 Yeah, sure.

02:26:07.360 No, thanks so much for having me on.

02:26:08.640 Thank you, Joe.

02:26:09.060 It's always fun when we get into it and we certainly do.

02:26:11.760 I think we covered some topics and so I really appreciate being on.

02:26:14.820 PeaceGo's Hour on YouTube and PeaceGoLitty on Twitter.

02:26:18.180 Super appreciate it.

02:26:19.220 And again, always love the debates and discussions.

02:26:21.840 Absolutely.

02:26:22.260 It's fantastic.

02:26:22.640 And I'm Joe Nierman, a.k.a. GoodLogic.

02:26:25.180 I urge everyone to check out my podcast, which actually starts nightly right after Tim Kass finishes his.

02:26:31.360 I need him to start feeding him over to me like I'm Henry Hamley.

02:26:35.200 But if you enjoy this conversation, I cover law.

02:26:38.480 I cover politics.

02:26:39.180 I try and make it enjoyable while at the same time really looking at things from a philosophical perspective as to right and wrong.

02:26:46.400 So that's GoodLogic, L-A-W-G-I-C.

02:26:48.400 And on Twitter, I'm at TheFollowingPro.

02:26:50.400 Thank you so much for having me.

02:26:51.260 It was a great conversation.

02:26:52.160 I really enjoyed talking to both of you.

02:26:53.380 Yeah, this is wonderful.

02:26:54.660 For everybody else, go check out Jeremy Hamley.

02:26:56.240 He's live now.

02:26:57.440 Rumble.com.

02:26:58.080 We got the link in the chat.

02:26:59.600 Thanks for hanging out.

02:27:00.500 We'll see you all tonight at 8 p.m. at Tim Kass IRL.

02:27:04.900 The wait is over.

02:27:07.820 Mumford & Sons Return.

02:27:11.920 Live across North America with special guests.

02:27:16.580 Sign up for presale access at MumfordAndSons.com.

02:27:20.460 Canada.

02:27:21.140 It's time for more us.

02:27:23.380 Because we're more than just a place on a map.

02:27:26.100 We're an attitude.

02:27:27.060 One with more empathy than ego.

02:27:29.300 More unity than division.

02:27:30.940 More grit.

02:27:31.680 Go.

02:27:32.060 And we got this.

02:27:32.940 The more we choose to stand up as our most flag-flying,

02:27:36.600 maple-leaf-buying, local-adventuring selves,

02:27:39.980 the more we are the true north, unbreakable, strong, and free.

02:27:44.640 It's time.

02:27:45.740 Choose Canada.

02:27:47.200 A message from the Government of Canada.

02:27:48.800 Canada to the Government of Canada.

02:27:49.800 Go.

02:27:50.000 Florida to the Mat令ers live,

02:27:50.320 head by!

02:27:50.400 Goodwill and Kennedy.

02:27:51.260 Goodwill and Kennedy.

02:27:51.940 Goodwill and Kennedy

02:27:57.040 hoffe我們 on snap

02:28:06.480 la.

02:28:06.900 You know,

02:28:08.760 I'm from Valley

02:28:10.040 and you

02:28:10.640 on that.

02:28:10.820 Hopefully you

02:28:11.820 have joined us.

02:28:12.920 Whether it was a

02:28:13.200 goal,

02:28:13.880 a solution.

02:28:15.000 Do its own

02:28:15.800 source case.

02:28:16.240 But

02:28:16.840 overall it's Para

The Culture War - Tim Pool - March 28, 2025

Deportation Of Mahmoud Khalil, Is Trump VIOLATING The Constitution w⧸ PiscoLitty & GoodLawgic

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript