On today's show, we discuss the newly released footage from the shooting of an immigrant woman by ICE agents in Minnesota, as well as the recent shooting of a woman in Portland, Oregon, and the seizure of a fifth oil tanker by the U.S. government in Utah. We also have a special guest on the show, Kaidi from Defend the Republic.
00:01:31.000new information on the ICE agent, and then bigger news, which I'd argue is actually much, much bigger, but isn't really, I suppose people don't want to talk about it.
00:01:40.000It's not as interesting despite being more significant.
00:01:42.000The U.S. has seized its fifth oil tanker.
00:01:46.000So we are looking at dramatic escalation.
00:02:04.000Do you owe back taxes or haven't filed in years?
00:02:06.000Now is the time to resolve your tax matters.
00:02:09.000With a national conversation around abolishing the income tax system, the IRS is fighting back and proving it's here to stay by becoming more aggressive than ever before.
00:02:17.000They're sending out more collection notices, filing more tax liens, and collecting billions more than in recent years.
00:02:23.000If you owe, the IRS can take your wages, bank accounts, social security, retirement, even your home.
00:02:28.000If you owe or haven't filed, it's not a question of if the IRS will act, it's when.
00:02:33.000Right now, Tax Network USA is offering a completely free IRS research and discovery call to show you exactly where you stand and what they can stop before it's too late.
00:02:41.000Their powerful programs and strategies can save you thousands or even eliminate your debt entirely if you qualify.
00:08:22.000So we had a debate on this earlier, and we had a former prosecutor on who had argued initially that the first shot through the windshield is justifiable because you can see in all these angles he's being hit.
00:08:34.000But the second and third shot will be harder to justify.
00:10:01.000And then appears to say, drive, baby, drive, drive, instructing, again, I'm not entirely sure what she's saying, but this is the argument that I think they would absolutely make and why this is not going to go.
00:10:12.000She can clearly see the agent is standing right in front of her and she's a smile on her face.
00:10:24.000Look, to be honest, this goes to prosecution because it's political.
00:10:27.000Because Minnesota, the governor, the mayor, the state prosecutor, it's political ideology.
00:10:32.000I think if we were in any sane reality where this was just on the merits, yo, she hit a federal agent with her car.
00:10:38.000Yeah, I mean, look, the argument that I heard this morning, actually, or maybe it was last night, but JD Vance was saying he's got immunity because he's engaged in a lawful, you know, lawful stop.
00:10:50.000She knew that, like you said, she knew she was dealing with law enforcement right away.
00:10:54.000The guy came up and said, get out of the car.
00:12:00.000This only makes ICE look worse, in my opinion, for a few reasons.
00:12:04.000One, I don't think, and this is not me saying that Renee Good driving away from officers that have asked her to stop or have told her to get out and disobey and not just complying with their orders is a good idea.
00:12:16.000I'm strictly talking about: does this constitute her rise to the level of a reasonable person's understanding of what constitutes imminent threat or likelihood of death?
00:12:25.000I think this proves that it's very clear that she was attempting to do a three-point turn or move away the opposite direction of the officer, not trying to accelerate towards him or charge towards him.
00:12:36.000I think that she had a calm demeanor, even if she's smiling.
00:12:38.000And yes, she's doing so to taunt him, I suppose.
00:12:42.000But one, I don't think that that constitutes a threat in and of itself.
00:13:10.000I mean, her intention, I think, was to flee.
00:13:13.000I think I've said, but she, it's reckless disregard for the life of the officer.
00:13:16.000I still think it was in the earlier debate we had, you think that you said that you thought she was attempting to murder him with the vehicle based on this now.
00:14:22.000From 40 seconds is when the car begins to accelerate to 41 in one second, he's struck.
00:14:29.000I'm not disputing that it's accelerating, but she's clearly doing a bunch of turns because she's maneuvering the point is wheel all the way from the left to the right to her.
00:14:44.000Yes, as far as factoring in, if it's reasonable to believe that she has some sort of state of mind that she wants to harm this person or hurt them.
00:14:52.000If I pointed a gun at you, could you shoot me?
00:14:56.000That's something that invokes per se self-defense.
00:14:59.000Because it's something that there is no way that you could behave with like brandish a weapon or point the gun at me or accelerate a vehicle towards somebody.
00:15:53.000My understanding is to the extent that a car or a vehicle can be used to trigger, like, per se, self-defense, the individual has to have been caught in the commission of a very serious crime prior to engaging with the officer.
00:16:07.000They said Karen Reid struck her boyfriend with a car.
00:16:11.000A vehicle is like vehicular homicide has a name in law, vehicular homicide.
00:16:16.000I know there's such a thing as vehicular homicide.
00:16:18.000And I'm not saying that you can't use a vehicle to kill somebody, to injure somebody, but just using a vehicle around an officer that you're not complying with.
00:16:27.000Yeah, run an officer that you're not complying with.
00:16:29.000Doesn't necessarily constitute a threat.
00:16:45.000And a reasonable person has each individual action taken by the cops in this instance constitute justified self-defense or use of deadly force.
00:16:55.000And certainly not for the, like, even if I granted for the first one, the following two shots after that, when she's clearly turning away, which this video confirms, how is that going to hold up?
00:17:06.000A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon under certain circumstances, depending on how it is used in the context of the situation.
00:17:19.000The principle was emphasized by Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Christy Noam, who stated that a vehicle used to harm someone is clearly established law as a deadly weapon.
00:17:26.000Courts have consistently ruled that a car becomes a deadly weapon when it is used in a manner capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
00:17:46.000That's the context in which it is a weapon.
00:17:49.000But it's not assumed that it's a weapon in the same way if you brandish it.
00:17:52.000But hold on, but this is just a little bit of a problem from the analysis that I saw that saying to multiple angles, it did not look to me like it hit the person.
00:18:02.000And the sound that's coming from this, because it's a first-person perspective, I'm not sure if that noise is because the vehicle touched him in any way or something.
00:18:38.000I mean, look, I'm not trying to poke at you, but I really think that you're just ignoring the facts of the situation.
00:18:44.000This is the problem being heard about politics.
00:18:45.000It's not about what's actually happening.
00:18:47.000It's a difference of opinion as far as what inference we're drawing from the same set of facts because I acknowledge you hear a noise, but it's unclear to me from this angle and from the other footage that I've seen if that's actually the noise coming from the video is because the car is making contact with the officer or from something else.
00:19:19.000Yeah, you can see his reflection actually.
00:19:20.000We need to see the cell phone, the body cam, as well as the third-person perspectives all at the same time to really get an idea of what happened.
00:19:27.000So he's collecting evidence because she's obstructing.
00:19:29.000Eyewitnesses said that she was the ringleader obstructing.
00:19:32.000He's filming her license plate, to which this woman says, Liza's plate ain't going to change.
00:20:18.000On the subject of case law, though, didn't Dave, when he was on earlier, say that just because you flee the scene doesn't mean that the cops are able to open fire on you because you've fled?
00:20:28.000Unless you are creating a threat to someone else's life.
00:20:58.000If we're doing an objective analysis of what's reasonable, there's no reason to think that anybody who's brandishing a weapon in your direction or aiming it at you is going to be doing so with any other intent.
00:21:10.000Other than, oh, I thought you said a real handgun.
00:21:12.000If you said toy gun, if it's a toy gun, then no, that's not a gun.
00:21:31.000So that means- Don't some have like orange caps or sometimes stuff like that?
00:21:35.000So if I'm filming a movie scene on a property by myself, like I'm making a short film, and I have a camera pointed at me and I have a replica gun and you are walking down the road and I'm going like this and then I point at you and then you see the gun pointed at you, you can't shoot me.
00:21:50.000Okay, well then in those circumstances where it's like daylight, you can't, you're too far to be able to tell whether or not it's a toy gun.
00:21:57.000You can be standing right in front of me.
00:21:59.000Well, even, okay, those are circumstances where I can see an argument for imperfect self-defense, as you're saying.
00:22:07.000Because what we're trying to analyze is the person that's using lethal force against somebody else and their state of mind.
00:22:13.000And it is rational to assume that if you have a replica gun that's being aimed at you from somebody who you don't know, that to think that it's a real gun.
00:22:21.000Even if there is no intent to kill the other person, the person with the replica gun has no intent to kill anybody, has created a real fear of death, and it's called imperfect self-defense, then that the person who is in that line of perceived fire can kill you, and they will not be criminally charged for it because they didn't know it wasn't a real gun.
00:22:40.000Okay, but what is the circumstances here?
00:23:33.000Not only do I believe that proves his state of mind, is that there's a reasonable fear of harm, but it literally proves in the real world it does happen and did recently.
00:23:41.000If trauma from six months ago makes you this trigger happy because of your PTSD, you honestly should not be on the field, in my opinion, as a cop.
00:23:50.000I don't think a person that's subjected to what he experienced six months ago, like every single person would react the exact same way that he's reacting in the same set of circumstances.
00:23:59.000I think he's being way too trigger happy.
00:24:01.000And the two shots afterwards and him saying fucking bitch after.
00:24:05.000I don't know if that was him who said fucking bitch because that's the other cop.
00:24:20.000That doesn't change the fact that whether he should have, that's an administrative decision, and we can agree it was a wrong decision, but it doesn't mean that he should go to prison or that this was a murder.
00:24:29.000I don't know that it would necessarily mean it's a murder because it doesn't, if it's trauma that is leading him to act this way, then maybe you could say it's a mitigating circumstance that means it's not malicious, but then I still think he could be on the hook for manslaughter or some sort of like reckless homicide.
00:24:45.000Reckless homicide, I don't think is a thing.
00:24:50.000Or like negligent homicide, these sorts of things.
00:24:52.000I don't think you're going to get there's no way you're going to get a cop on negligent homicide when he's been in active engagement with the subject for over four minutes and they've communicated with each other.
00:25:04.000And then when ordered to leave within a split second, she accelerates the vehicle.
00:25:08.000They're like tragic shouldn't have happened.
00:25:56.000So the woman committed felony obstruction and felony evading arrest.
00:26:01.000And in the process, in fact, I would argue this.
00:26:04.000Renee Goode, were she to have survived, would have been criminally charged.
00:26:08.000And I would actually argue, though it doesn't really make sense, she's responsible for her own death in the law by committing two felonies, which resulted in the death.
00:26:16.000In fact, I'd argue that- Wait, what are the two felonies that she's accused?
00:26:20.000Felony obstruction and felony evading arrest.
00:26:27.000But the Supreme Court has ruled that, well, this takes us back to our earlier disagreement.
00:26:31.000I don't want to loop, about how Dave was saying that just because you're fleeing arrest and trying to evade it does not necessarily mean that an officer can use lethal force against you.
00:26:41.000And that's an argument for whether he perceived a threat after the fact.
00:26:45.000But I think if it's one second, as he pointed out, it's always going to be argued that it was not one, two, three.
00:26:52.000It was shots fired within the span of a second.
00:26:54.000More importantly, though, there's two things to consider.
00:26:56.000This woman potentially saying drive, baby, drive, drive is, I believe, should be criminal.
00:27:46.000She says drive, baby, drive, drive before she accelerates.
00:27:50.000I don't think they're going to bring charges against her, but the other consideration is that the defense will argue there was a pedestrian standing to the right of the vehicle.
00:27:59.000I perceived a threat to myself and others.
00:28:01.000The only reason, look, I think if they have a state charge, no matter what, like Dave was saying, this dude is going to get convicted in two seconds in Minnesota.
00:28:35.000Does that change your analysis whatsoever?
00:28:37.000As far as like, people in people have said things that could be incriminating, that are dismissed because it's considered like heat of the moment or high state of emotional, there are actually people who have gotten away with.
00:28:49.000Well, I want to say this guy is like PTSD, in trauma, and so I'm like I've seen which actually excuses him.
00:28:55.000I've seen body cam footage of cops that have used lethal force on somebody who they believed was threatening their life and afterwards they're freaking out.
00:29:02.000They seem like they're hyperventilating, they're like, oh my god, they're freaking the fuck out.
00:29:07.000I know, but for the sake of the argument, if he said that in combination with leaving the scene and seeming as calm as he was to be able to continue on, there's too many assumptions there.
00:29:51.000When we're trying to ascertain whether or not somebody is acting in a way that an objective, reasonable person would perceive as menacing or threatening, we have to try to understand what their intent is.
00:30:00.000You agree that she was acting in a way that was menacing or threatening?
00:30:06.000I said, how can intent not matter if that's what it's going to come down to in a significant way?
00:30:11.000You want to agree when it's argued legally, if I point a replica gun at you, you can kill me in that circumstance?
00:30:17.000Yes, but I didn't agree what I did without knowing my intentions.
00:30:21.000Does my intent matter with the replica gun?
00:30:23.000No, it doesn't because, like you said, you've created a circumstance where it's understandable that an objective, reasonable person could fear for their life without knowing or without that like, regardless of what that person's state of mind was, what's the difference?
00:30:35.000The difference is that a gun or a replica gun is something that, to people, they will assume, oh, that's a real gun that could put my life in danger, and people don't think being crushed by a car will kill you, right?
00:30:46.000No, people do think that being crushed by a car will kill you.
00:30:49.000But in this particular circumstance, i've not seen enough factors that, to me, rise to the level or create you know set of circumstances where somebody could reasonably be fearing for their life.
00:31:51.000So then this individual who was previously injured by being hit front on by a car and dragged, do you think that person may, through their trauma, which you agree he has?
00:32:01.000That also doesn't preclude, maybe, but it also doesn't preclude the possibility of them just being impulsive or angry.
00:32:07.000So like we're presupposing that trauma is the thing that's guiding his response.
00:32:12.000Could it be something that's guiding his response?
00:33:25.000Because literally, if you look at the video, a car accelerates, you hear a noise that sounds like he's being hit, and she's staring at him, and you're like, nah.
00:33:33.000Like, okay, look, any reasonable person watching this is sophistry.
00:33:37.000This is the political divide in this case.
00:33:38.000This is fast and loose with different terms to argue for a particular end disingenuously.
00:34:09.000Nonetheless, you are saying that it was justified.
00:34:13.000This guy who suffered a trauma previously after being hit front on by a car and dragged reasonably feared the same thing would happen as one was committing two.
00:34:20.000And you said in the same set of circumstances, even if you had that trauma, you still wouldn't have done this, right?
00:34:56.000So yes, you would have acted the exact same way if you'd had the traumatic event six months earlier.
00:35:02.000So the presumption is the reason why I am saying he is acting this way is because I believe any person, any rational, normal person who suffers a grievous injury being dragged by a vehicle to being hit head on.
00:36:12.000So just from the consolidated footage of them showing the two angles simultaneously, I didn't listen to any of the way that they described the footage.
00:42:01.000It's also possible that the vehicle made contact with him.
00:42:05.000This is like in the NFL when your team makes the game-winning catch and then they do the replay and it's obviously at a foot out of bounds.
00:42:09.000And then they're like, well, I don't know.
00:42:40.000Tim asked me how could he have moved this way were it not for the car touching him.
00:42:44.000But I'm saying it's possible he could have jumped back to avoid coming in contact with the vehicle.
00:42:49.000It could have been like a seance near the edge of the street.
00:42:50.000He could have articulated jumping backwards while keeping your center of gravity stable and sliding a foot on the ground is very difficult.
00:43:34.000It does matter because his training and his policy, as per DHS and ICE, is that you're not supposed to be in front of a vehicle and that shooting at an individual in a vehicle does not actually eliminate a deadly threat coming your way from somebody in a vehicle.
00:43:47.000It's that you can't, and we went over this with Dave who pulled up the actual exclusions and it was you can only use lethal force against a vehicle if the vehicle is being driven in a way that constitutes a threat of great bodily harm or death.
00:44:00.000The way ICE officers approached the vehicle involved in today's shooting was counter to their training.
00:44:04.000A senior Department of Homeland Security official told NBC News.
00:44:07.000The official said ICE officers are trained, one, never to approach a vehicle from the front, two, to approach vehicles or possibly armed people in a tactical one, a 90-degree angle to prevent injury or crossfire.
00:44:17.000Three, not to shoot at a moving vehicle.
00:44:19.000Four, only to use force if there is immediate risk of serious injury or death.
00:44:23.000ICE officers are also instructed that firing at a vehicle will not make it stop moving in the direction of the officer.
00:44:29.000And what was that part about if it's going to cause bodily harm or death?
00:44:33.000Only use force if there's immediate risk of serious injury.
00:44:35.000Which, once again, we're back to all this dispute.
00:44:37.000Again, ICE officers are instructed that firing at a vehicle will not make it stop moving in the direction of an officer.
00:44:43.000So again, my point was, even if the car made controversy, that's fine.
00:44:48.000My point is, even if the car made contact with the officer, that does not mean that shooting at that person or using deadly force in this instance would be justified.
00:44:58.000And then this is still not even getting.
00:45:00.000This is still not even getting to the fact that he shot her two more times after in the span of a second.
00:45:55.000This doesn't speak to the fact that he's amazing for being able to maintain a center of gravity.
00:45:59.000It speaks to me that if he made contact with the vehicle, and I'll grant for the sake of the argument that he did, then it was at such a low acceleration that to think that he was at risk for imminent death or severe bodily injury is unreasonable to me.
00:46:14.000I think there's two different factors at play.
00:46:19.000One, political tribesmanship results in, this is true of conservatives, but it's slightly less.
00:47:18.000So liberals are more likely to just say, I will say anything to fit with the tribe so I don't get canceled.
00:47:24.000Whereas the right has that faction, but is less likely to do that because you're going to have middle-of-the-road people who say Trump is lying.
00:47:43.000This just happened and we don't have a public perception.
00:47:45.000What I would say is we tend to find when you look at wide-scale polling that independent voters, swing voters, they tend to align with, like my views tend to align with theirs quite a bit.
00:47:56.000So you'll notice that, let me pull up civics as a good example.
00:48:01.000And you can see where the Trump bias is and you can see where the liberal bias is.
00:48:05.000And it's funny how Democrats respond to things and independents.
00:48:08.000Oh, actually, is it going to let me do it?
00:48:09.000Okay, yeah, let's try national economy.
00:48:11.000So you can actually see the hilarity of this in the hyper-partisanship of everybody.
00:51:36.000It doesn't change whether or not he felt he was about to be crushed because we had that Amy, I forgot her name, the officer in Baltimore who was crushed in a second by a vehicle standing in the same place.
00:51:47.000And I'm a major Trump supporter, and I agree with you, Tim.
00:51:50.000I would get canceled, and I don't care, right?
00:51:52.000And so there's a faction of people that are out there and just telling the truth about how they feel.
00:51:58.000If I were to care about what other people think, then it's not really my opinion anymore.
00:52:03.000And that's the problem that I'm seeing with the social media mob is that they're more looking toward, oh, what are my followers going to think?
00:52:40.000They say mutual distrust between federal and state authorities derailed plans for a joint FBI and state criminal investigation into Wednesday's shooting of a Minneapolis woman by ICE, leading to the highly unusual move by the DOJ to block state investigators from participating in the probe.
00:52:55.000The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said Thursday that after an initial agreement for the FBI to work with the state agency, as well as prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minneapolis and the Hennepin County's attorney's office to investigate the shooting, federal authorities reversed course and the FBI blocked the BCA from participating in the investigation.
00:54:08.000I'm not trying to make someone scream civil war.
00:54:10.000I'm literally asking, if the federal government is now saying to the states, we're not going to work with you on these things, what does the state do?
00:54:17.000And then what do, like, what, like, what is, what is the next thing that's going to happen?
00:54:21.000Legitimately, I think the state stands down.
00:54:23.000I don't think that they're, I don't think they push the issue.
00:54:26.000I don't think that they're in a position where they have the ability to do it.
00:54:29.000You think this guy won't be prosecuted?
00:54:54.000I mean, I don't see a world in what the DOJ just lets them try to railroad this guy.
00:54:58.000But they learned their lesson in 2020 from Chauvin, like the state and everybody.
00:55:01.000But what are the ramifications of outstanding criminal charges in Minnesota against a cop who shot and killed a person and the federal government being like, we're going to protect him from prosecution?
00:55:13.000Trump and Vance have stated many times to law enforcement, we have your back and stuff.
00:55:19.000So I don't know what it means for recently.
00:55:44.000If this cop comes to Florida to lay low and Minnesota brings charges, ain't nobody in Florida going to let them come into Florida and rendition him.
00:56:16.000You can just, if you feel any pressure whatsoever from the police, just step on the accelerator and you'll get a, you know, you'll get a twin's tickets the next morning.
00:56:23.000JD Van said, I want every ICE officer to know that their president, vice president, the entire administration stands behind them.
00:56:29.000To the radicals assaulting them, doxing them, and threatening them, congratulations.
00:56:32.000We're going to work even harder to enforce the law.
00:56:34.000If the DOJ, the federal government, DHS, Vance, Trump, whoever you want to name, Christy Noam, allows this cop to be prosecuted in Minnesota, ICE is going to quit and mess.
00:56:44.000And the Trump administration may as well resign on the spot because their agenda will never come close to fruition.
00:56:50.000Yeah, I mean, that's reason enough why Minnesota and the left would want to see him prosecuted because they know that it would destabilize the law.
00:56:59.000If, again, outside of the morality of who was right, who was wrong, if Minnesota says, here's my prediction: Jacob Frey and Waltz or anyone else, the DA, they're going to say, they're going to do a press conference where they say, we are not here to assert that this man is guilty of any crimes.
00:57:17.000We are here to say that there was an officer involved shooting that requires an investigation.
00:57:22.000And based on the analysis of that investigation, a grand jury will choose to indict.
00:57:28.000They'll likely say a grand jury has returned an indictment for which now he can stand before a jury of his peers.
00:57:34.000They're going to approach it very neutrally.
00:57:36.000Trump cannot allow this guy to face the prosecution because he will lose no matter what.
00:57:41.000Which means the Minnesota government and Democrats will then say, Donald Trump is shielding a murderer who killed a woman in cold blood.
00:57:47.000Other blue states will line behind that.
00:57:50.000This is a crazy situation because I don't see an exit for anyone other than this is how things escalate to state on state or feds versus state.
00:58:02.000Yeah, I mean, it's one more step down the road, right?
00:58:07.000I don't know how fast things deteriorate, but this is definitely moving in the direction of deteriorating.
00:58:12.000Well, I mean, the feds hold the cards.
00:58:14.000I mean, we saw back earlier in 2025 when Trump just took the National Guard, federalized it, and then Newsome complained about it and said he was going to do everything he could, and then nothing happened.
00:58:24.000So the state's avenues towards retribution here is very, very limited.
00:58:29.000Again, the federal government has all the cards here in this instance.
00:58:35.000I don't know if it was by the government in California, but then there was a California judge that said the National Guard presence is illegal.
00:58:40.000And then there was another judge that saw it and overturned that and said, no, it was legal.
00:58:44.000And I think they're still sorting it out in the courts.
00:58:46.000But as far as like, yeah, it's probably if he said anything along the lines of like, I'm going to use every single thing that I can do to resist it.
00:58:52.000Like, yeah, it's probably like saber rattling or whatever.
00:58:55.000But I mean, like, legally, slow and steady wins the race.
00:58:58.000So, him doing anything other than like, you know, waiting for the court to adjudicate it would just be like LARPing, in my opinion.
00:59:05.000Um, because, like, a state government's like never going to be able to overcome like the might of like a fed of like federal agents being deployed or like the U.S. military or anything like that.
00:59:15.000So, you believe there will be prosecution of the office of the agent?
00:59:27.000The question is, as we've discussed, now I'll ask you, do you think the federal government will evacuate this guy and avoid the prosecution, or you think they'll let him get prosecuted?
00:59:40.000I think it's, I mean, this administration has shown that they will brazenly ignore the law, they'll ignore court orders, they will lie if they want to.
00:59:47.000So, I would put it, I would say it's in the realm of possibility, sure, that they would definitely try to stand behind this officer to the point that you're talking about.
00:59:55.000But don't you think that would be wrong if they were trying to like tip the scales?
00:59:58.000So, here's the important thing: let's set aside our opinions on the morality of whether it should, like whether it's good or bad.
01:00:16.000So, the question I have for you is, should this agent say go to Florida, where it's like a very favorable state?
01:00:25.000Do you think that Minnesota should take any action to try and extradite him back to Minnesota for these charges for this trial?
01:00:32.000And I think whether or not Florida tries to like stand behind this person will come down to public opinion because I don't think that Ron DeSantis is done trying to become president.
01:00:42.000So he is going to try to read the room and see, is there the political will for me to stand behind this ICE officer and basically do this come and take it shit and let him turn fucking Mar-a-Lago into his like fortress?
01:01:06.000So, Minnesota in any capacity, let's, I'll try and avoid being overly specific due to like, my point is not to bring up the laws and the regulations of state troopers, but the point is, in order to get this guy out of Florida as an example of a friendly state, they would have to send people to forcefully pull him from the state.
01:01:23.000Like arrest him, put him in a vehicle and drive him there.
01:01:28.000So that being the case, what do you think Florida law enforcement would do if Minnesota law enforcement entered extra jurisdictional territory to apprehend a man that is lawfully in their state?
01:01:44.000I mean, I think it's, again, it's going to be a staring contest, and I don't know if it's going to come down to what that individual precinct decides to do.
01:01:50.000I don't know if they're going to be looking to take orders from just people locally or if they're going to be looking to Ron DeSantis and the state government broadly to see what they can do, what they ought to do.
01:02:01.000That's why I don't think that this is any sort of like principled action that would be a like plan that would come from Florida.
01:02:06.000I do think it's determined almost exclusively by public opinion and what they think they should they can get away with.
01:02:11.000If they see Will among the base that, you know, especially the conservative base that DeSantis is trying to pick up for 2028 or a run after that, then he'll stand behind the officer.
01:02:21.000If he sees public favor turn against him, then he will be like, we can't obstruct justice or pretend like he, he won't say, I'm going to cooperate.
01:02:29.000He's just not going to tell them, get in the way of them being extradited.
01:02:40.000So typically what would happen is Minnesota would file with the federal government and local authorities and say, typically what happens is because we're the United States, Minnesota would say to Florida, hey, this guy's pending charges.
01:02:53.000We want you guys to arrest him and then send him our way.
01:02:56.000In the circumstance where a state is like, we're not interested in what you're talking about, they go to the feds and say, interstate crime, like this guy fled our state.
01:03:22.000Then you're just waiting at the clock because all you have to do is wait until the midterms or wait until, you know, if Trump leaves office or something were to happen, all they have to do is wait for an administration to come along, somebody that's willing to cooperate.
01:03:36.000If he leaves office, if he dies, whatever it is.
01:03:38.000It's for the federal courts to decide.
01:03:40.000And so, okay, you escalate it to the Supreme Court and then the precedent is, yeah, this gets hashed out of the federal court.
01:03:45.000So they'll just go back to the original ruling, which was like, no, you can't extradite.
01:03:48.000But you also made another really good point about DeSantis' presidential aspirations, which means in the event, let's say the midterms happen, Democrats can get congressional authority and file subpoenas against this guy and others and then make that move to try and jail him.
01:04:06.000The Republicans argue this is a circuitous method by which they're trying to get this guy on charges that are trumped up or whatever.
01:04:12.000The point is, DeSantis, if he has any political aspirations, cannot let.
01:04:19.000We don't know the guy would go to Florida.
01:04:20.000I'm saying hypothetical state is Florida because Florida is very favorable.
01:04:23.000In the event that happens, anyone with political aspirations would be thinking, if I allow this guy to be taken from my state, I will never get elected.
01:04:32.000But so now we're in very, very fucked up territory.
01:04:53.000Do you think it would be right for the Trump administration to continue standing behind this ICE officer as there are pending charges that he's supposed to be facing in his home state?
01:05:22.000Godwin's law, everybody learned from Nazi Germany.
01:05:24.000Just because they passed a law saying they could doesn't mean it was right and they should have and we should have allowed it.
01:05:28.000The question then becomes, should we as a moral people allow the prosecution of this individual, which is the moral question which you say yes and we would all say no.
01:05:53.000I'm just saying, like, even in the sense of morality, I'm like, oh, I'm not going to advocate for charging someone purely on political motivation.
01:08:00.000It's a generic term, literally meaning we can stop saying the phrase due process because people think it's a proper phrase, like a proper noun, like it cites law.
01:08:08.000It's literally just a generic phrase meaning the process by which a person has in law.
01:08:54.000An illegal immigrant enters the country through the southern border, right?
01:08:58.000Let's say a guy from Mexico crosses the border, runs full speed 60 miles into the United States.
01:09:05.000What is his due process in this circumstance after he is apprehended?
01:09:09.000That you are going to be told and read your charges, told and read your rights, and you're going to be given a court date and given the chance to make your case before.
01:09:18.000That's not what the law or the Constitution says.
01:09:20.000The process by which an alien is due, because due process is not a proper phrase, it's a generic phrase, meaning the word due literally means due, and process literally means process.
01:09:31.000So we have executive immigration courts, and the judiciary has nothing to do with it.
01:09:36.000The process by which an illegal immigrant is due is called expedited removal.
01:09:41.000Non-citizens who enter this country illegally do not have the right to a jury trial or a court.
01:10:12.000You said I was doing sophistry by citing the Constitution.
01:10:15.000No, I'm saying it's sophistry to imply that the phrase people refer to aliens who run through our country across the border illegally because it does not.
01:10:22.000Due process refers to, of your status, what you're entitled to.
01:10:27.000What I'm referring to, when I say due process, is a trial court hearing.
01:10:30.000Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable procedures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
01:10:45.000Due process refers to the legal requirement that the government must respect all legal rights owed to a person, ensuring fair treatment in legal proceedings.
01:10:52.000It doesn't mean that they get a trial.
01:10:54.000It doesn't mean that if immigration law, the Constitution reserves immigration issues specifically to the executive branch.
01:11:00.000The immigration courts are not part of the judicial branch.
01:11:46.000No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
01:12:47.000I'm not saying that the government can take actions against you before it's all adjudicated in a court of law.
01:12:55.000I'm saying that if they do that, then you are able to open up a case against the government or some circumstances.
01:13:01.000Some individuals have some rights and some do not.
01:13:04.000So the way the Constitution works, in Texas, there was a big dispute over the southern border when the Texas State Guard were securing the southern border with concertina wire, and the federal government sent in feds to cut the wire and allow people to cross over illegally.
01:13:17.000The issue at play, the reason why Texas sent the immigrants to Martha's Vineyard in New York was because the Constitution grants full immigration authority and foreign relations to the executive branch.
01:13:30.000The judiciary has zero authority on instances of foreign affairs.
01:13:34.000When a person crosses the border illegally, it doesn't go to a judiciary.
01:13:38.000The reason why progressives have been saying judicial warrant over and over again is because what they're saying is outside of the process of the Constitution, we want a court to make an argument against the executive branch.
01:13:51.000How do you mean outside of the process of the Constitution?
01:13:53.000The Constitution gives full authority on foreign affairs to the executive branch.
01:13:57.000So what we have are immigration courts, but these immigration courts operate under Trump, not the Supreme Court.
01:14:03.000That means immigration courts are not judicial hearings, nor does a non-citizen have a right to a judicial hearing.
01:14:09.000They go to federal executive immigration courts.
01:14:12.000You still have due process rights even.
01:14:14.000No, because I'm not saying it's not different, but I'm saying that there are minimum standards of due process that are applied to every single person.
01:14:27.000The due process for an illegal immigrant is called expedited removal.
01:14:32.000That is, a federal immigration officer gets an order from an executive judge, not a judicial judge, for expedited removal of an individual.
01:15:05.000Because the Constitution makes clear that immigration is under the executive branch, and the process by which a non-citizen is due varies from expedited removal to refugee status hearings.
01:15:17.000And so what we've had is under Obama, Bush, Democrat, Republican alike, an executive immigration officer can grant you your due process of, are you a citizen?
01:15:30.000That is not under the purview of the executive.
01:15:32.000That is a right that is guaranteed to every single individual within the interior of the United States or that the United States takes action against.
01:15:48.000No, no, no, I'm not saying that immigration isn't the purview of the executive branch.
01:15:51.000I'm saying that due process rights aren't a matter of if the administration decides to grant them to your point on your point on the Fifth Amendment, right?
01:16:41.000Now, you can argue it shouldn't be that way, but this is because the Constitution gives issues of foreign affairs solely to the executive branch.
01:16:48.000So due process means the legal process under the Constitution by which you are due.
01:16:53.000If you are a foreign citizen who enters our country, that is the sole purview of the executive branch to snap their fingers and what you said contradicts what I've said because I already granted that due process looks different for every single individual.
01:17:04.000Which would mean that Kilmaro Brego Garcia got his due process.
01:18:51.000They were not just trying to deport him illegally to a country that he was not supposed to be removed to, but they were also trying to imprison him, even though he hasn't committed or like he hadn't.
01:18:59.000The United States did not imprison him.
01:19:02.000No, we just deported him illegally, correct?
01:22:31.000If somebody is imprisoned in Seacot, even if they've not committed a crime, and even if they've not been given the process of law or had a trial.
01:23:29.000I don't give a flying F what El Salvador, China, or these other countries are doing with their people.
01:23:33.000I can have moral opposition to it, but I'm not going to demand that we send our military or use the weight to force them to change their institutions.
01:23:43.000That being said, I think we can sanction China over the rape of the Uyghur Muslims.
01:23:47.000We shouldn't be trading with people that brutally rape women and force them to get abortions.
01:23:51.000We can make an argument that we should cut off our trade deals with El Salvador because of Seacot.
01:25:13.000And he had a stay for removal from the country of Guatemala due to a rival gang.
01:25:18.000Where this goes is very confusing and weird because the argument was made in the media that he had to stay of deportation to El Salvador when in fact it was Guatemala.
01:25:24.000Now, some have argued it was a typo in the initial stay, but I'm like, well, if that's the case, when we read, it says Guatemala.
01:25:31.000So he can be sent back to El Salvador.
01:25:33.000Now, the issue of the administrative error was actually disputed in the Trump administration with Stephen Miller saying no, as he is a member of MS-13 executive purview on matters of national security.
01:25:42.000He was never found to be a member of MS-13.
01:25:47.000There's an immigration court that asserted two times that he was wearing MS-13.
01:25:53.000Making an assertion is different than them actually having evidence that he was part of MS-13.
01:25:56.000He doesn't get judicial trials in an immigration executive branch court.
01:26:02.000Do you acknowledge that it's two different things between actually proving that somebody is part of a gang versus somebody making the assertion that they are?
01:26:09.000What does that have to do with what we're talking about?
01:26:30.000This is Supreme Court says Trump officials should have wrongly deported Maryland man.
01:26:35.000The Supreme Court has ordered the Trump admin to facilitate the return to the U.S. of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly taken to El Salvador.
01:26:42.000A Maryland manager is in custody there.
01:26:46.000He's an El Salvadoran who was illegally living in Maryland.
01:26:50.000So if you live in Maryland for 10 years, you can't be considered part of a Maryland man.
01:26:55.000No, but the language is being used to manipulate the general public because the real issue is a man from El Salvador came here illegally, had an order for removal, argued that he'd be killed by a Guatemalan gang, got a state of removal to not go back to Guatemala.
01:27:07.000Stephen Miller and the Trump administration argued that an immigration court twice having found him an affiliate of MS-13, he was an entry-level guy.
01:27:15.000They were going to deport him back to his home country.
01:27:18.000Then when he got there, El Salvador decided that because they thought he was a member of a gang, they imprisoned him.
01:27:23.000Even though he was praying, even though there's no evidence of that?
01:27:26.000It doesn't matter what El Salvador thinks.
01:28:10.000If you have never been able to do that.
01:28:10.000Going to prison as a human rights abuse.
01:28:12.000When you have not been actually found guilty of a crime, when you've not actually committed any crime, when you've not been given process rights are violated, that you don't know that his process.
01:28:35.000The order properly requires the government to facilitate a Brego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador.
01:28:39.000And to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador, the Supreme Court said in its ruling, it was a 9-0 ruling.
01:28:48.000Even Trump's appointees agree that it's not that they didn't violate it.
01:29:39.000Judicial courts can have trials or bench hearings.
01:29:42.000Liberals don't understand any of these things.
01:29:44.000And more importantly, I would say the proselytizers at the highest level just say whatever they have to to justify their ideological whims.
01:29:51.000The point is, America should be America and should not be enforcing its will on other countries.
01:29:57.000And if you are not from this country, the State Department has sole discretion to remove you from this country.
01:30:11.000And it started with a conversation around him having his due process rights violated.
01:30:15.000You're definitely not going to be afraid of the fact that it's not a good question.
01:30:15.000Because liberals think due process means jury trial.
01:30:18.000i have a question for you though but so you don't think that someone entering the country really quick i will answer your question I'm just saying that the Trump administration had admitted that they had made an administrative error in sending him to El Salvador to Seacot.
01:30:31.000And you are even going to pause real quick.
01:30:35.000And you're going further to defend all of that.
01:30:39.000They retracted the administrative error statement?
01:30:41.000Yeah, they walked it back because they're trying to cover their ass.
01:30:44.000What exactly did they say in the retraction?
01:30:46.000Trump administration admits Maryland man sent to El Salvador prison by mistake.
01:30:50.000The Trump admin is getting blowback for confirmed and potential errors in its rush to deport hundreds of men to El Salvador last month.
01:30:55.000On Monday night, immigration officials admitted to deporting a Maryland man to El Salvador due to a quote-unquote administrative error.
01:31:01.000Kilmar Brego-Garcia, who lived with his U.S. citizen wife and child, was identified as being on one of the three deportation flights to El Salvador last month that are the subject of several lawsuits.
01:31:11.000Immigration advocates claim those flown to El Salvador did not receive due process.
01:31:15.000The admin used the three flights to quickly deport over 300 men accused of being members of MS13.
01:31:19.000I'm trying to interrupt you, but just because I want to just get to the point, it's what did they say in their retraction?
01:31:55.000Now, by all means, this is to be adjudicated.
01:31:58.000And right now, the Kilmar Brego-Garcia thing is the most convoluted bullshit of a story imaginable because he's got like five orders of deportation now, including to like literally, is it Eritrea?
01:32:17.000The point is, we are not dealing with functions of the Constitution and law, which was the initial argument you asked about constitutional deportations.
01:32:25.000We are dealing with hyper-partisan justifications and the liberals making an argument about due price in foreign countries and the right making an argument about national security threats.
01:32:38.000In the truest sense of what this law was codified to be and written down as, due process in immigration courts does not involve a judicial hearing, judicial warrant, nor jury or bench trial.
01:32:49.000Okay, immigration courts are a singular executive official identified as an immigration judge, but they're not judicial, stamping something and saying expedited removal.
01:33:00.000So in his court filing on Monday, the Trump admin said ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, but still deported Abrego Garcia because of an administrative error.
01:33:08.000An ICE official called his deportation to El Salvador an oversight in a statement submitted to the court on Monday.
01:33:13.000Robert Cerna ICE's acting field office director of enforcement and removal operations wrote that it was carried out in good faith based on the existence of a final order of removal and Abrego Garcia's reported membership of MS-13.
01:33:23.000The admin argued against his return to the U.S., citing alleged gang ties and claiming that he is a danger to the community.
01:33:29.000They also argue that the courts lack jurisdiction in the matter because Abrego Garcia is no longer in U.S. custody.
01:33:33.000The admin wrote that Abrego Garcia's attorneys, quote, do not argue that the United States can exercise its will over a foreign sovereign.
01:33:40.000And most they ask for is a court order that the United States can treat or control a close ally.
01:34:25.000This is just one of the examples of an individual that is an MS-13 gang member, multiple charges and encounters with individuals here, trafficking in his background, was found with other MS-13 gang members.
01:34:33.000And what the liberal left and fake news are doing to turn him into a media darling is sickening.
01:34:37.000The retraction here in this video from Stephen Miller was that he said, let me see if I can pull the actual, Trisha McLaughlin reaffirmed the MS-13 terrorist gang member is where he belongs.
01:35:17.000And in 2019, two courts, an immigration court and an appellate immigration court, ruled that he was a member of MS-13 and he was illegally in our country.
01:35:39.000The Supreme Court ruled, President, that if, as El Salvador wants to return him, this is international matters, foreign affairs, if they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.
01:35:59.000Can you just also respond to that question?
01:36:01.000Because, you know, it's asked by CNN and they always ask it with a slant because they're totally slanting because they don't know what's happening.
01:36:13.000So as Pam mentioned, there's an illegal alien from El Salvador.
01:36:18.000So with respect to you, he's a citizen of El Salvador.
01:36:23.000So it's very arrogant even for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens as a starting point.
01:36:31.000As two immigration courts found that he was a member of MS-13, when President Trump declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist organization, that meant that he was no longer eligible under federal law, which I'm sure you know, you're very familiar with the INA, that he was no longer eligible for any form of immigration relief in the United States.
01:36:50.000So he had a deportation order that was valid, which meant that under our law, he's not even allowed to be present in the United States and had to be returned because of the foreign terrorist designation.
01:37:02.000This issue was then, by a district court judge, completely inverted, and a district court judge tried to tell the administration that they had to kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and fly him back here.
01:37:14.000That issue was raised to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components were reversed 9-0 unanimously, stating clearly that neither Secretary of State nor the President could be compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from El Salvador, who again is a member of MS-13, which as I'm sure you understand, rapes little girls, murders women, murders children, is engaged in the most barbaric activities in the world.
01:37:44.000And I can promise you, if he was your neighbor, you would move right away.
01:37:49.000So the point is, initially, an ICE official said that it was an administrative error.
01:37:54.000The Trump administration cabinet said after the FTO designation of MS-13, that disqualified him from the immigration stay to Guatemala that he had said they had no evidence to be even designating him as a terrorist.
01:38:09.000It doesn't matter if they don't have evidence before they labeled the city.
01:39:59.000Officers interviewed with Jose Guillaramo Domingo's during the interview, officers observed tattoos and skulls covering the eyes of his mouth.
01:40:05.000Blah, See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil.
01:40:08.000He has a tattoo of a devil on his left leg.
01:40:24.000And that wearing the Chicago hat represents a member and good standing with MS-13.
01:40:29.000Officers that interviewed Kilmar Armando Obergo Garcia during the interview as officers, he observed he's wearing a bull's hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering his eyes, ears, and mouth of the presidents on the separated denominations.
01:40:39.000Officers know such clothing to be indicative of Hispanic gang culture.
01:40:41.000The meaning of the clothing is to represent they oy calar.
01:40:45.000See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil.
01:40:47.000Wearing the bull's hat represents that they are a member and good standing of MS-13.
01:40:51.000Officers, I did say Chicago Bulls, wearing the officers contacted the past proven a reliable source of information who advised Kilmar Obrego Garcia as an active member of MS-13 with the Westerns click.
01:41:02.000The confidential source further advised that he is the rank of Chico with the moniker of Chele.
01:41:07.000Officers interviewed Jason Josu, is how you said, Ramirez Herrera during the interview.
01:41:12.000They were unable to determine his gang affiliation.
01:41:14.000Officers know MS-13 gang members are only allowed to hang around other members or prospects for the gang.
01:41:18.000Officers will continue, blah, blah, blah.
01:43:36.000And if that's your standard for human trafficking, Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis moving those illegal immigrants around the country to Martha's village.
01:44:22.000The judge who presided over his 2019 case said that based on the confidential information, there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Breger-Garcia's gang membership.
01:45:35.000And under the INA, you can remove, there's no immigration protections.
01:45:41.000You are disqualified immediately upon that designation because immigration courts are executive, not judiciary.
01:45:48.000When that happens, they say the executive stay you were granted by our officials is hereby void, and they can deport him, and that's what they did.
01:45:59.000So you think it's fair that he's deported in an error?
01:46:03.000And then after he's removed, after he's remotely deported to another country, he was not deported.
01:46:08.000And we say we no longer have jurisdiction, even though he shouldn't have been put there in the first place.
01:46:12.000And then the Supreme Court says that's correct.
01:49:07.000This is what I mean where it ends up being like circumstances to justify itself, which is that they put him in a situation where he is deported to El Salvador and imprisoned there, and then we declined to have jurisdiction.
01:49:21.000The Supreme Court said 9-0 that he was not given adequate due process rights to make a claim against the government once they had been trying to imprison him, even though he had not actually been found guilty of a crime.
01:50:52.000Your post hoc out of context statement?
01:50:55.000We've already concluded that Trump did designate the cartels foreign terrorist organizations.
01:51:00.000You asked me a moral question on it, which I ignored because it's not material to the question of whether there was a functional administrative error to which the Trump administration.
01:51:08.000What's a functional administrative error?
01:51:10.000An administrative error that causes to the function of immigration?
01:51:19.000The FTO nullified the stay to Guatemala, which he wasn't sent to anyway.
01:51:24.000So you do realize that Stephen Miller saying that doesn't undermine the, again, ICE calls deportation oversight and it's court filing on the market.
01:51:30.000Stephen Miller saying that was the retraction I told you they made.
01:51:34.000He said ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, but still deported Obrego Garcia because of an administrative error.
01:51:40.000It's like an ICE official called his deportation an oversight in a statement submitted to the court on Monday.
01:51:47.000And then they retracted it, which I showed you.
01:53:34.000For everything else that you guys were just debating?
01:53:36.000No, because the reality is that just because you commit a crime or you come here illegally or you cross a port of entry illegally, even though the majority of illegal immigration is a result of people overseeing visas, it's not even because they're illegally entering into the United States.
01:53:48.000It means that they have legal means to come into the United States and then something expires.
01:56:55.000If you don't care about my assessment of whether or not you're a good or bad person, which I never even spoke to, why are you getting so mad about it?
01:57:01.000Because this has all been a BS argument.
01:57:05.000It hasn't been an actual genuine debate about anything.
01:57:08.000You've been trying to steer the conversation into a situation where you can say, you're the good person or you're the good person and I'm the bad person or whoever you're arguing with.
01:57:16.000Because this isn't about law or rule of law or whether or not someone should be deported.
01:57:21.000Because you've already said, oh, yes, these people should be deported.
01:58:33.000I also care about the total law and the Constitution.
01:58:36.000you cared about the rule of law in the constitution then we wouldn't have had all of this this switching from legal legal talk to moral talk if all you cared about was you can walk and chew gum at the same time You can care about two things at once.
01:58:47.000So then why did you say that you care about morality and why did you just say that you care about the rule of law and the Constitution?
01:58:53.000Because they're not mutually exclusive.
01:58:55.000Do you acknowledge that it's not mutually exclusive to care about the Constitution, the rule of law, and morality?
01:59:50.000And this is like 90%, 90% of the time.
01:59:53.000You think that that's not the United States facilitating?
01:59:55.000That's just, you just morally discharge it and legally discharge it all together.
01:59:59.000Yes, because again, if this was like seriously this moral injunction, he was like, oh my gosh, they're going to unjustly put me in a gulag, then he probably would have gotten his paperwork correct.
02:00:08.000He wasn't even supposed to be put on that plane.
02:00:10.000He wasn't even supposed to be in the United States.
02:00:11.000He wasn't supposed to be in the United States at first.
02:00:13.000I mean, it's just like we're rearranging chairs on the Titanic.
02:00:18.000It's like popular mandate to deport all illegal immigrants.
02:01:12.000Unless there was a change in circumstances in Guatemala that would result in the respondent's life not being threatened or that internal relocation is not possible.
02:01:19.000Therefore, the respondent's application for withholding of the act is granted.
02:01:22.000This stated we couldn't send him to Guatemala.
02:01:25.000And the weird thing is, everyone in the media has just said El Salvador over and over again.
02:01:29.000And I have this post from Kenneth College.
02:01:30.000You're suggesting that you would be uncomfortable if he had been deported to a third country.
02:01:37.000Has anyone explained why Kilmar or Bruno Garcia's deportation order stopped him from being sent to Guatemala, but allowed him to be sent to El Salvador?
02:01:43.000The judge explicitly cited the ongoing threats from Barrio 18 in Guatemala, stating at present, even though the family has shut down the Pupusa business, Barrio 18 continues to harass and threaten the respondents whose sisters and parents in Guatemala.
02:01:54.000DHS has failed to carry out their burden to show that there are changed circumstances in Guatemala that would result in respondents.
02:01:59.000So the order of deportation required him to leave.
02:02:03.000And the problem really here is that Trump sucks and Biden sucks and everybody screwed it up and it became a political issue.
02:02:09.000Now, liberals are pretending like they've got some moral high ground, and you've got a convoluted nonsense story where you're asking me about other countries.
02:02:15.000He went to El Salvador, but was barred from going to Guatemala.
02:02:31.000What's implicit in that to me is a suggestion that if he had been deported to a third country, not El Salvador, not Guatemala, maybe Somalia, you would be uncomfortable with that.
02:04:50.000You said the prison would be a matter.
02:04:52.000But to me, that suggests that if he was deported to a third country where he had no relation to and there were grave human rights abuses in a prison that they wanted to send him to in this third country, you would be against it.
02:05:02.000Is what you're suggesting, or that it would at least be bad is what you're intimating, but you won't say either way.
02:07:25.000You can introduce sanctions against their country to try to pressure the governments to act in conformity with human rights, then you can try additional mechanisms.
02:08:50.000But I'll clarify because I think it's fine to say that if we send in like frogmen to pull someone from their home or execute them, it's an invasion.
02:08:58.000I think it's, you know, the polymarket's not paying out Venezuelan invasion because they argued that we didn't capture territory.
02:09:20.000If they say no, then we try to manipulate them politically.
02:09:24.000Well, the first economic incentives things does involve sanctions.
02:09:27.000Then there's political manipulation like we've seen in the banana republics or the efforts we've made in Iraq and Afghanistan with nation building.
02:10:07.000And I think Barack Obama was a scumbag who murdered children and American citizens, and he should be a war criminal and should be arrested.
02:10:13.000And Trump doesn't get any special passes for me because he was accused of killing another American girl, the sister of Abdurrahman al-Alalaki in Yemen.
02:10:20.000Now, that one is an accusation not yet confirmed, and I think we should have a trial and hearing over it, though it's been 10 years.
02:10:24.000The Obama killing of Abdurrahman al-Alaki is admitted to, confessed to, and they said, whoopsie-daisy.
02:10:29.000So if you want to confess the murder of an American, you get locked the fuck up.
02:10:32.000So anyway, I don't think the U.S. should be killing Saddam Hussein and invading under false pretenses to enforce the petrodollar.
02:10:41.000don't think that we should have gone and removed maduro though i think maduro is a bad guy and they are wholly different things the issue that comes was affiliated with the terrorist organization Abdul Rahman Al-Laki.
02:10:51.000I'm sorry, I can't get the name right, but that individual, even if they're affiliated with the terrorist alliance.
02:11:31.000I still lean towards they should have had a criminal trial form in the United States before killing an American citizen, but it's fair to say that when you're actively engaged in war, look, if someone's running at me with a gun, they get shot.
02:11:40.000Doesn't matter if they're an American citizen or a Uzbekistanian or whatever.
02:11:44.000So Anwar al-Alaki was killed in a drone strike.
02:11:47.000He was an American citizen who wasn't given due process.
02:12:06.000This is an American citizen who committed no crimes, was part of no terrorist organization, who was visiting his grandparents in Yemen at a civilian restaurant when Obama blew him up.