Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - NEW VIDEO PROVES Woman STRUCK ICE Agent, Activist Says COME AT US | Timcast IRL

00:01:01.000 Cell phone footage from the officer who fired the shots on the woman in Minnesota has been released, and it shows some interesting things.

00:01:09.000 First, it shows prior contact with activists and Renee Good.

00:01:13.000 It shows that they actually exchanged words, and you can clearly hear the impact on the hood of the car.

00:01:19.000 In fact, we were talking with a former prosecutor earlier who said, ooh, wow, that's not good.

00:01:24.000 So we're going to analyze this footage and go over what we're currently learning.

00:01:26.000 But there's quite a bit more pertaining to the footage being released, protests from across the country.

00:01:30.000 We'll talk about that.

00:01:31.000 new 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.

00:01:40.000 It's not as interesting despite being more significant.

00:01:42.000 The U.S. has seized its fifth oil tanker.

00:01:46.000 So we are looking at dramatic escalation.

00:01:48.000 We'll talk about that.

00:01:49.000 And a whole lot more.

00:01:50.000 We've got a police shooting in Utah, more information about the individuals that were shot in Portland.

00:01:55.000 Before we get into all that, my friends, we've got a great sponsor for you.

00:01:58.000 It is Tax Network USA.

00:02:00.000 Head over to tnusa.com/slash Tim.

00:02:04.000 Do you owe back taxes or haven't filed in years?

00:02:06.000 Now is the time to resolve your tax matters.

00:02:09.000 With 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.

00:02:17.000 They're sending out more collection notices, filing more tax liens, and collecting billions more than in recent years.

00:02:23.000 If you owe, the IRS can take your wages, bank accounts, social security, retirement, even your home.

00:02:28.000 If you owe or haven't filed, it's not a question of if the IRS will act, it's when.

00:02:33.000 Right 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.

00:02:41.000 Their powerful programs and strategies can save you thousands or even eliminate your debt entirely if you qualify.

00:02:47.000 Don't make a serious mistake.

00:02:48.000 Representing yourself or calling the IRS on your own, waiving your rights can cost you and could cost you more money.

00:02:56.000 They are not on your side.

00:02:57.000 Get protected the right way with Tax Network USA and start the process of settling your tax matters once and for all today.

00:03:04.000 Call 1-800-958-1000 or click the link below for your free discovery call with Tax Network USA.

00:03:12.000 Don't let the IRS be the first to act.

00:03:14.000 Go to tnusa.com slash Tim.

00:03:18.000 And I want to stress, we are running out of these here blueprint model boards.

00:03:21.000 The hand grenade and the 50 cal are gone.

00:03:25.000 While you still can get them, get them at boonieshq.com.

00:03:28.000 We've got the Richie Jackson Assault Wine Bottle.

00:03:31.000 We've got the Jason Ellis Battle Axe and the Cody Mac Colt 45.

00:03:36.000 Now, all of these, they're nearly sold out.

00:03:38.000 There's a few left.

00:03:39.000 There's a chance to get one out of five limited edition golden serialized versions of these.

00:03:45.000 We also have the Step on Snack and Find Out 2.0, of which I actually think there's about 100 of these, much easier to get.

00:03:50.000 And there will be 10 limited edition gold serialized.

00:03:53.000 So check them out at boonieshq.com.

00:03:55.000 Don't forget to smash that like button.

00:03:56.000 Share the show with everyone.

00:03:58.000 You know, we actually have a couple of guests joining us tonight to talk about this and everything else.

00:04:02.000 Ma'am, why don't you go first? 0.91

00:04:03.000 Introduce yourself.

00:04:03.000 Yes, my name is Kaidi, also known as Defender of the Republic.

00:04:07.000 I live in the captured state of New Jersey.

00:04:10.000 And on social media, I help educate and free the minds of the people online to the globalists out of the globalist matrix.

00:04:19.000 And on the complete other side of that, would you like to introduce?

00:04:22.000 I'm not doing anything else cool.

00:04:23.000 My name is Aaron, aka Straderaid.

00:04:25.000 I live stream Monday through Friday on Twitch, YouTube.

00:04:28.000 I cover politics, D-React content, and yeah.

00:04:31.000 Right on.

00:04:32.000 That's great.

00:04:33.000 Take what's going on.

00:04:34.000 What is going on, Patriots?

00:04:35.000 This is Tate Brown here holding it down on this beautiful, beautiful Friday.

00:04:38.000 Happy to be here.

00:04:39.000 Hello, everybody.

00:04:39.000 My name is Philabonte.

00:04:40.000 I'm the lead singer of the Heavy Middle Land, all that remains.

00:04:42.000 I'm an anti-communist and counter-revolutionary.

00:04:44.000 Let's get into the first story.

00:04:44.000 Let's get into it.

00:04:45.000 And I got to be honest, probably the story that dominates the entire conversation.

00:04:48.000 That we do have big news.

00:04:50.000 We've got this newly released video footage from the ICE agents who fired the shots in question.

00:04:57.000 We're going to start by playing the video for you guys so you can watch it for yourself.

00:05:00.000 But it is, it is changing a bit of the narrative.

00:05:03.000 And there's a lot to debate on this video and what we're learning.

00:05:07.000 So let's roll the tape.

00:05:25.000 I'm not mad for it.

00:05:25.000 Are you checking?

00:05:27.000 Show your face.

00:05:28.000 It's okay.

00:05:28.000 I'm not mad at it.

00:05:29.000 We don't change our plates every morning.

00:05:31.000 Just so you know, it'll be the same fight when you come talk to us later. 1.00

00:05:35.000 You have citizen fucking fucking night. 1.00

00:05:35.000 That's fine. 1.00

00:05:40.000 You want to come at us?

00:05:41.000 I said, go get yourself some lunch, big boy.

00:05:43.000 Go ahead. 1.00

00:05:45.000 Get out of the fucking car. 1.00

00:05:48.000 I think you're not done! 1.00

00:05:48.000 Get out of the mall! 1.00

00:05:49.000 Oh! 1.00

00:05:55.000 Did he say fucking bitch? 1.00

00:05:57.000 He sure did. 1.00

00:05:57.000 Sure did. 1.00

00:05:58.000 Holy shit. 1.00

00:06:00.000 You just got hit by a car. 1.00

00:06:01.000 Yeah.

00:06:02.000 And she's dead.

00:06:02.000 We can't help that.

00:06:03.000 So let's play that again real quick.

00:06:05.000 There's a couple things to point out.

00:06:07.000 Get out of the room! 1.00

00:06:09.000 Oh! 1.00

00:06:13.000 Bitch. 1.00

00:06:16.000 So here's a few things. 1.00

00:06:18.000 First, I didn't catch this right away.

00:06:20.000 I was watching this video, and Phil pointed out it sounds like the wife says, drive, baby, drive, drive.

00:06:26.000 Try and listen.

00:06:27.000 And I'm not sure that's exactly what she's saying. 1.00

00:06:30.000 Get out of the fucking car. 1.00

00:06:32.000 Get out of the car. 1.00

00:06:36.000 It sounded like she said drive, baby, drive, drive.

00:06:38.000 You can also hear his body slap the hood or it sounds like it's hitting the hood of the.

00:06:42.000 There's two things going on at the same time.

00:06:44.000 It's body hitting the hood and the first shot goes off.

00:06:46.000 The other thing is everyone's pointing out.

00:06:49.000 She's staring at the ice agent the whole time.

00:06:51.000 She turns her head and she's looking right at him.

00:06:53.000 And then she shifts and she's looking right at him as she starts spinning the wheel.

00:06:58.000 So this does change a few things.

00:07:00.000 You can see her spinning the wheel before she accelerates forward, which is because the wheels are actually facing the other direction. 0.88

00:07:08.000 So she has to spin it around quite a bit.

00:07:10.000 This is not even one second.

00:07:12.000 Let's play.

00:07:16.000 It's about a second and a half mate.

00:07:18.000 Can you hear Squeal of the Tires plate again?

00:07:22.000 Get out of the ball.

00:07:22.000 Magic not done!

00:07:24.000 Oh! 0.60

00:07:28.000 Magic not done!

00:07:32.000 Just like that.

00:07:33.000 About a second and a half.

00:07:35.000 So the interesting things to consider, prior contact.

00:07:39.000 She's engaged by DHS already.

00:07:42.000 And they're filming her vehicle.

00:07:45.000 And she says, I think it's here.

00:07:47.000 Let's play it.

00:07:49.000 That's fine.

00:07:51.000 That's fine, dude.

00:07:52.000 I'm not mad at you.

00:07:53.000 I'm not mad at it.

00:07:53.000 Just look at our plates every morning.

00:07:59.000 He's classified. 1.00

00:08:00.000 U.S. citizen, former fucking guy. 1.00

00:08:03.000 You want to come at us? 1.00

00:08:06.000 You said go get yourself some lunch, big boy.

00:08:08.000 Yeah, go ahead.

00:08:09.000 Get out of the car. 1.00

00:08:10.000 Get out of the fucking car. 1.00

00:08:12.000 Get out of the car. 1.00

00:08:16.000 Drive, baby, drive, drive.

00:08:17.000 It sounds like she's saying.

00:08:18.000 You can clearly hear the other ICE agent telling her to get out of the car.

00:08:20.000 She's ignoring a direct command.

00:08:22.000 So 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.

00:08:34.000 But the second and third shot will be harder to justify.

00:08:38.000 However, what is this?

00:08:41.000 You're playing music?

00:08:45.000 When we finished the debate, I didn't say anything.

00:08:48.000 I just pressed play and showed it to him, and he went, Whoa, yeah, there's not going to be a prosecution.

00:08:54.000 There's not going to be a prosecution with this video footage.

00:08:56.000 So I don't know what y'all think, but it sounds to me, I'll just give you my thoughts right away.

00:09:00.000 Prior contact indicates the woman driving the car, Renee Goode, was well aware that she was engaged with law enforcement.

00:09:06.000 So when they approached her saying, get out of the vehicle, and she attempted to flee, this was not a panic.

00:09:10.000 This was she knew she was engaged with law enforcement to a certain degree.

00:09:16.000 And this cop walking around her vehicle filming, he's collecting evidence.

00:09:19.000 When the other agent comes up and says, out of the car, she's smiling and staring at him.

00:09:25.000 And it appears the wife says, appears the wrong word, but it sounds like she says, drive, baby, drive, drive.

00:09:33.000 I think that's going to give her criminal culpability. 1.00

00:09:35.000 And I think the speed at which you hear the body hit the car and the shots go off are going to, like, this is a slam dunk for the agent.

00:09:44.000 It's not good.

00:09:45.000 It shouldn't have happened.

00:09:46.000 But I think a few things to point out.

00:09:48.000 The amount of time from him walking around the vehicle, she knows he's there.

00:09:53.000 There's no reason for her to drive.

00:09:55.000 And he's collecting evidence.

00:09:56.000 So why is he there?

00:09:57.000 There's a legitimate reason.

00:09:58.000 The wife says, you want to come at us? 1.00

00:10:00.000 You want to come at us?

00:10:01.000 And 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.

00:10:12.000 She can clearly see the agent is standing right in front of her and she's a smile on her face.

00:10:17.000 And then she goes for it.

00:10:19.000 And she hits him.

00:10:20.000 And you can hear it. 0.99

00:10:21.000 And he shoots her.

00:10:22.000 I don't see how this.

00:10:24.000 Look, to be honest, this goes to prosecution because it's political.

00:10:27.000 Because Minnesota, the governor, the mayor, the state prosecutor, it's political ideology.

00:10:32.000 I think if we were in any sane reality where this was just on the merits, yo, she hit a federal agent with her car.

00:10:38.000 Yeah, 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.

00:10:50.000 She knew that, like you said, she knew she was dealing with law enforcement right away.

00:10:54.000 The guy came up and said, get out of the car.

00:10:56.000 So she's trying to flee the scene.

00:10:58.000 It is a pretty clear-cut case.

00:11:02.000 When her car contacted his body, then he's totally in the right to defend himself.

00:11:07.000 So the idea, I don't think that this actually goes to trial because I think he's got immunity.

00:11:12.000 I don't think the Justice Department is going to let it happen.

00:11:14.000 It's a state charge.

00:11:17.000 I think the feds are going to be like, no, you can't.

00:11:19.000 Well, the state can bring the charges regardless.

00:11:21.000 Well, if he's got immunity, can they?

00:11:25.000 They're going to try and move it to a federal court citing immunity.

00:11:28.000 This is what we were debating earlier.

00:11:29.000 Sovereign immunity is a federal agent, but come on.

00:11:32.000 Does it matter what's true?

00:11:34.000 Well, I mean, it's always what you can prove in court.

00:11:36.000 No, no, no.

00:11:37.000 We're not even there anymore.

00:11:38.000 Like, they didn't even prove that Trump committed a crime in the fraud cases.

00:11:42.000 Does it matter?

00:11:43.000 I mean, to your point, no, I guess.

00:11:46.000 We are well beyond legal machinations.

00:11:50.000 Now it's literally just exertions of authority and power.

00:11:53.000 Yeah, I mean, I don't think most people on the left are even going to see this video.

00:11:56.000 Like, the resistance is already underway.

00:11:58.000 I think this does it.

00:11:58.000 What do you think?

00:12:00.000 This only makes ICE look worse, in my opinion, for a few reasons.

00:12:04.000 One, 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.

00:12:16.000 I'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?

00:12:24.000 I don't think so.

00:12:25.000 I 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.

00:12:36.000 I think that she had a calm demeanor, even if she's smiling.

00:12:38.000 And yes, she's doing so to taunt him, I suppose.

00:12:42.000 But one, I don't think that that constitutes a threat in and of itself.

00:12:45.000 She's saying, I'm not mad.

00:12:46.000 She's clearly turning right to get away from the officer.

00:12:51.000 So I don't see where the kind of imminent death is.

00:12:53.000 What about drive, baby, drive, drive?

00:12:56.000 Did she say that, or did the other person say that?

00:12:58.000 But it sounds like you're making a lot of assumptions about her intent.

00:13:02.000 If she had just complied with the officer to begin with, we wouldn't be asking.

00:13:06.000 Even outside of that point, intent is completely immaterial.

00:13:08.000 It's a vehicle is heading towards you.

00:13:10.000 That's it.

00:13:10.000 I mean, her intention, I think, was to flee.

00:13:13.000 I think I've said, but she, it's reckless disregard for the life of the officer.

00:13:16.000 I 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.

00:13:24.000 I might be misremembering.

00:13:25.000 What did you say?

00:13:25.000 So what I said was yesterday in my morning show.

00:13:28.000 So let's go back in time.

00:13:30.000 The first thing I said was, she's clearly attempting to flee and she hit the officer.

00:13:34.000 Then we went on the show and we analyzed all the footage and I was like, you can see the tires spin out in his direction.

00:13:40.000 So then in the morning yesterday, I said, I think she actually was intending to hit him.

00:13:43.000 Then we reviewed more footage and other angles and I said, I don't think she wanted to kill the officer.

00:13:48.000 I think she was trying to flee, but didn't care if she did kill the officer. 0.99

00:13:54.000 And so I think we're seeing the same thing right now.

00:13:55.000 And this actually, I think, backs up what I'm saying.

00:13:58.000 She's clearly trying to flee, but she's looking dead at the officer.

00:14:01.000 She knows he's there.

00:14:02.000 He walked in her car.

00:14:03.000 She specifically said, It's okay.

00:14:05.000 I'm not mad at you.

00:14:06.000 She knows he's filming her.

00:14:07.000 She knows he's around the car.

00:14:09.000 Then you hear the other woman say, drive, baby, drive, drive. 0.95

00:14:12.000 Look at her.

00:14:12.000 She's staring right at him right now.

00:14:14.000 She doesn't see a stare rise to the level of a reasonable awareness that she's piloting a vehicle.

00:14:21.000 And from here, here's a time stamp.

00:14:22.000 From 40 seconds is when the car begins to accelerate to 41 in one second, he's struck.

00:14:29.000 I'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.

00:14:39.000 It doesn't matter.

00:14:40.000 Of course it matters.

00:14:41.000 The intent always matters in these cases.

00:14:43.000 No, it doesn't.

00:14:44.000 Yes, 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. 0.96

00:14:52.000 If I pointed a gun at you, could you shoot me? 0.95

00:14:54.000 Yes.

00:14:56.000 That's something that invokes per se self-defense.

00:14:59.000 Because 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.

00:14:59.000 No?

00:15:08.000 No, that definitely does not fall underneath.

00:15:10.000 He's two feet from the vehicle and she accelerates towards him.

00:15:13.000 So he can't read her mind in that.

00:15:15.000 Unless she's doing so with a weapon or threatening him or doing so in the direction of that in law, a vehicle is a deadly weapon.

00:15:24.000 It is legally a deadly weapon.

00:15:26.000 Says who? 0.65

00:15:28.000 The law, precedent.

00:15:29.000 What law?

00:15:31.000 In court precedent and in law, this is a deadly name of case.

00:15:34.000 I'm not familiar with the case.

00:15:36.000 Are you joking?

00:15:36.000 I'm not joking.

00:15:37.000 I'm not.

00:15:38.000 What was the case we just had where the woman rear-ended the police in Minneapolis?

00:15:43.000 Was it Minnesota, actually?

00:15:45.000 Where the cop got was found dead in the snow?

00:15:49.000 It was the biggest.

00:15:50.000 Okay, come on, guys.

00:15:51.000 I don't know what you're doing.

00:15:52.000 I got to pull this out.

00:15:53.000 My 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.

00:16:07.000 They said Karen Reid struck her boyfriend with a car.

00:16:10.000 That's a deadly weapon.

00:16:11.000 A vehicle is like vehicular homicide has a name in law, vehicular homicide.

00:16:16.000 I know there's such a thing as vehicular homicide.

00:16:18.000 And 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.

00:16:27.000 Yeah, run an officer that you're not complying with.

00:16:29.000 Doesn't necessarily constitute a threat.

00:16:31.000 Absolutely not.

00:16:32.000 This is definitely all of this like Monday morning quarterbacking that we're doing is exactly how Monday morning quarterbacking.

00:16:37.000 I'm telling you, vehicles are deadly weapons.

00:16:39.000 By going frame by frame, like over literally an interaction that happens over just a few seconds.

00:16:44.000 Agreed.

00:16:44.000 This is how it's going to be decided.

00:16:45.000 And a reasonable person has each individual action taken by the cops in this instance constitute justified self-defense or use of deadly force.

00:16:55.000 So she couldn't.

00:16:55.000 And 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?

00:17:06.000 A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon under certain circumstances, depending on how it is used in the context of the situation.

00:17:11.000 According to U.S., hold on.

00:17:13.000 According to U.S. law, a vehicle driven by a person with the intent to harm someone is legally classified as a deadly weapon.

00:17:17.000 The principle was emphasized.

00:17:19.000 The 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.

00:17:26.000 Courts 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.

00:17:32.000 He's in front of the car.

00:17:34.000 It is absolutely capable of it.

00:17:36.000 It is absolutely capable of causing death or severe injury.

00:17:40.000 Wait, I'm not disputing that a car is capable of causing severe injury or death.

00:17:45.000 She's saying it's a weapon.

00:17:46.000 That's the context in which it is a weapon.

00:17:49.000 But it's not assumed that it's a weapon in the same way if you brandish it.

00:17:52.000 But 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.

00:18:02.000 And 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.

00:18:09.000 How did his feet slide backwards?

00:18:11.000 Because he moved back.

00:18:13.000 You think he did a double-footed moonwalk slide?

00:18:15.000 No, like, if he was struck by the vehicle, going even at that speed, wouldn't he have fallen over?

00:18:21.000 He was going like a mile an hour and he's standing on ice and his feet slid backwards.

00:18:21.000 Not necessarily.

00:18:24.000 There's a point where both his feet are off the ground at the same time.

00:18:28.000 No, no, I don't think that's true.

00:18:29.000 Both his feet are on the ground and both his feet slide backwards because his vehicle planted and he gets hit.

00:18:33.000 His feet are planted and he gets hit.

00:18:35.000 His feet slide back.

00:18:36.000 You hear him get hit on this video.

00:18:38.000 I mean, look, I'm not trying to poke at you, but I really think that you're just ignoring the facts of the situation.

00:18:44.000 This is the problem being heard about politics.

00:18:45.000 It's not about what's actually happening.

00:18:47.000 It'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.

00:19:03.000 What knocks his camera over?

00:19:04.000 I don't know.

00:19:05.000 He threw his phone out in the air, pulled his gun out, and then caught his phone perfectly.

00:19:08.000 Like the third video is in the creek.

00:19:11.000 He's thinking this POV with the body cam because my understanding is this isn't the body cam, right?

00:19:17.000 He was like holding his hand.

00:19:19.000 Yeah, you can see his reflection actually.

00:19:20.000 We 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.

00:19:27.000 So he's collecting evidence because she's obstructing.

00:19:29.000 Eyewitnesses said that she was the ringleader obstructing.

00:19:32.000 He's filming her license plate, to which this woman says, Liza's plate ain't going to change.

00:19:36.000 It's going to be the same thing.

00:19:37.000 They are both engaging.

00:19:38.000 He then goes around and is filming the vehicle.

00:19:40.000 It's the second time he went around.

00:19:42.000 She already knows.

00:19:43.000 She has an ICE agent filming her vehicle.

00:19:46.000 Then a cop comes up and says, get out of the car.

00:19:48.000 And she seeks to flee, creating The point is this.

00:19:53.000 We can argue our opinion on what a person would perceive to be reasonable.

00:19:57.000 Only one thing matters.

00:19:58.000 She created the circumstance.

00:20:00.000 She's in commission of a crime. 0.86

00:20:02.000 She's in furtherance of that crime.

00:20:04.000 She stares dead at the officer.

00:20:06.000 He sees it.

00:20:07.000 Within a second, he's hit. 0.86

00:20:09.000 He chooses to shoot.

00:20:11.000 Even Dave, when I showed him this, he went, wow, okay, there's not going to be a prosecution.

00:20:15.000 I think there will be because it's political.

00:20:17.000 But like.

00:20:18.000 On 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?

00:20:28.000 Unless you are creating a threat to someone else's life.

00:20:31.000 But what's the threat here?

00:20:32.000 Because the threat that we've pointed to is the idea.

00:20:35.000 I know, but how is it going to be a matter of time?

00:20:36.000 This woman right here is standing against the vehicle when the vehicle starts to move and there's other people standing around. 0.99

00:20:42.000 So there's something we talked with Andrew Brock about called imperfect self-defense.

00:20:47.000 So I asked you the question earlier, if I point a gun at you, can you shoot me?

00:20:51.000 Yes. 0.99

00:20:52.000 What if my intention is that it's a toy gun and I'm playing a game and I don't see you there? 0.99

00:20:56.000 You can still shoot me.

00:20:58.000 If 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. 0.80

00:21:10.000 Other than, oh, I thought you said a real handgun.

00:21:12.000 If you said toy gun, if it's a toy gun, then no, that's not a gun. 0.99

00:21:14.000 You can still shoot them. 0.99

00:21:15.000 Yes, it is. 0.96

00:21:16.000 It's called imperfect self-defense.

00:21:17.000 Meaning, my opinion, I don't think so.

00:21:21.000 If you're asking me what the law has been found to be, how do you tell the difference between a real gun and a toy gun?

00:21:29.000 It's probably difficult in a lot of instances.

00:21:31.000 Exactly.

00:21:31.000 So that means- Don't some have like orange caps or sometimes stuff like that?

00:21:35.000 So 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.

00:21:50.000 Okay, 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.

00:21:57.000 You can be standing right in front of me.

00:21:59.000 Well, even, okay, those are circumstances where I can see an argument for imperfect self-defense, as you're saying.

00:22:04.000 Yes.

00:22:05.000 So, okay, now.

00:22:07.000 Because what we're trying to analyze is the person that's using lethal force against somebody else and their state of mind.

00:22:13.000 And 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.

00:22:21.000 Even 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.

00:22:40.000 Okay, but what is the circumstances here?

00:22:42.000 Let's get to it.

00:22:43.000 But you keep it in the middle of the middle.

00:22:45.000 Does this individual have a reason to believe he will be seriously injured by this car?

00:22:49.000 No.

00:22:50.000 Why not?

00:22:50.000 Because she's clearly, and this footage shows it.

00:22:54.000 She's clearly turning away and she said, I'm fine, dude, or I'm going.

00:22:58.000 What did she say?

00:22:58.000 Like, I'm not sure if I can do it.

00:22:59.000 Well, what's your prior contact?

00:23:00.000 It doesn't prove intent of anything.

00:23:02.000 I'm not saying it proves that.

00:23:03.000 The point is this.

00:23:04.000 If you're asking me about that, he already been struck from the front six months ago and dragged 330 feet.

00:23:10.000 So we're talking about his state of mind.

00:23:12.000 Does he have a reason to believe that the vehicle will cause bodily harm?

00:23:17.000 Yes, because it happened to him six months ago.

00:23:19.000 He is filming evidence of a vehicle.

00:23:22.000 They're antagonistic.

00:23:23.000 He walks to the front.

00:23:24.000 Lawful orders are given.

00:23:26.000 And just like the last event where he gave lawful orders to stop, the guy hit him with the front of the car and dragged him.

00:23:31.000 The same thing is about to happen.

00:23:33.000 Not 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.

00:23:41.000 If 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.

00:23:49.000 That's a fine argument.

00:23:50.000 I 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.

00:23:59.000 I think he's being way too trigger happy. 0.99

00:24:01.000 And the two shots afterwards and him saying fucking bitch after. 1.00

00:24:05.000 I don't know if that was him who said fucking bitch because that's the other cop. 1.00

00:24:09.000 I don't know who said it. 0.99

00:24:11.000 But you're correct.

00:24:12.000 This guy should have been taken off active duty.

00:24:14.000 After experience that trauma, they should have said, we're going to put you on desk duty following this incident.

00:24:19.000 It's traumatic.

00:24:20.000 That 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.

00:24:29.000 I 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.

00:24:45.000 Reckless homicide, I don't think is a thing.

00:24:48.000 Negligent discharge, negligent arguments.

00:24:50.000 Or like negligent homicide, these sorts of things.

00:24:52.000 I 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.

00:25:04.000 And then when ordered to leave within a split second, she accelerates the vehicle. 0.99

00:25:08.000 They're like tragic shouldn't have happened.

00:25:10.000 But let's just be clear.

00:25:11.000 The circumstance is entirely at the fault of the woman driving.

00:25:14.000 That's just it.

00:25:15.000 She committed a crime.

00:25:16.000 Listen, look, when we talk about fault, it doesn't, so let me put it like this.

00:25:20.000 Two guys go into a grocery store.

00:25:23.000 They decide to rob one of the one of the tills.

00:25:27.000 They grab all the money out, and then his buddy turns around and runs and slips, falls down, cracks him in the ground, and dies.

00:25:36.000 His partner's at fault for that murder, and they will charge him with such.

00:25:39.000 When you commit a crime, anything that happens subsequently is your fault.

00:25:45.000 So the way we approach this in law is, did you commit a crime creating a circumstance that resulted in death, serious bodily harm?

00:25:55.000 Yeah, the whole thing.

00:25:55.000 You'll be charged for it.

00:25:56.000 So the woman committed felony obstruction and felony evading arrest. 1.00

00:26:01.000 And in the process, in fact, I would argue this.

00:26:04.000 Renee Goode, were she to have survived, would have been criminally charged. 1.00

00:26:08.000 And 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.

00:26:16.000 In fact, I'd argue that- Wait, what are the two felonies that she's accused?

00:26:20.000 Felony obstruction and felony evading arrest.

00:26:22.000 The first of which is 8 USC 1357.

00:26:24.000 I'm not sure the code on the other one.

00:26:26.000 This woman right here.

00:26:27.000 But the Supreme Court has ruled that, well, this takes us back to our earlier disagreement.

00:26:31.000 I 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.

00:26:41.000 And that's an argument for whether he perceived a threat after the fact.

00:26:45.000 But 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.

00:26:52.000 It was shots fired within the span of a second.

00:26:54.000 More importantly, though, there's two things to consider.

00:26:56.000 This woman potentially saying drive, baby, drive, drive is, I believe, should be criminal. 1.00

00:27:02.000 If it is true, she said that.

00:27:03.000 That's criminal.

00:27:04.000 Renee Good be on the hook for something that somebody else said. 1.00

00:27:07.000 Renee Goode?

00:27:08.000 Yeah, I don't know.

00:27:09.000 No, the wife, if the wife instructed Renee Goode to commit a crime, that's also a crime. 1.00

00:27:14.000 That's illegal.

00:27:15.000 That's a felony.

00:27:16.000 But why would Renee be on the hook for that? 1.00

00:27:17.000 Renee wouldn't be on the hook. 0.72

00:27:18.000 Regardless, do you think?

00:27:19.000 Renee would be on the hook for what her wife did. 1.00

00:27:21.000 Her wife would be on the hook for instructing Rene to commit crime. 0.93

00:27:23.000 Renee probably would have driven and tried to avoid arrest, regardless of whether or not the wife had said that. 1.00

00:27:28.000 Yes or no?

00:27:28.000 Do you agree?

00:27:29.000 Yes.

00:27:30.000 Then why is it such a big deal that the wife said drive, baby, drive? 0.99

00:27:34.000 A conversation?

00:27:35.000 Because you're suggesting it's like an incitement of some sorts, but to me, it seems like she was time to do it already.

00:27:40.000 But again, well, we can look at it this way.

00:27:43.000 I don't know if it's illegal.

00:27:44.000 I'm going to dawn.

00:27:45.000 Why?

00:27:46.000 She says drive, baby, drive, drive before she accelerates. 0.84

00:27:50.000 I 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.

00:27:57.000 I was standing in front of it.

00:27:59.000 I perceived a threat to myself and others.

00:28:01.000 The 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.

00:28:10.000 Two seconds.

00:28:11.000 Like, Derek Chauvin was innocent, and they convicted him.

00:28:13.000 Don't you, okay. 0.99

00:28:14.000 What do you think about him calling her a bitch after? 0.99

00:28:17.000 And also, we don't know that he did. 0.99

00:28:18.000 Okay.

00:28:18.000 The other cop.

00:28:19.000 Assume, take it as fact for now that he called her a bitch after. 1.00

00:28:24.000 Well, why? 0.99

00:28:24.000 I can't take that as fact. 0.99

00:28:25.000 Just for the sake of hypothetical, for the sake of the argument, right? 0.98

00:28:29.000 Assume he called her a bitch and also didn't he leave the scene after? 0.99

00:28:32.000 He did. 1.00

00:28:33.000 Okay.

00:28:33.000 Does that do anything?

00:28:35.000 Does that change your analysis whatsoever?

00:28:37.000 As 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.

00:28:49.000 Well, I want to say this guy is like PTSD, in trauma, and so I'm like I've seen which actually excuses him.

00:28:55.000 I'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. 0.78

00:29:02.000 They seem like they're hyperventilating, they're like, oh my god, they're freaking the fuck out.

00:29:07.000 I 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.

00:29:15.000 We don't know.

00:29:17.000 We know that he went to the hospital.

00:29:18.000 For the sake of the argument, i'm saying that if those things for the fourth time no, they're true.

00:29:24.000 How many times I say no?

00:29:25.000 No, I said no already.

00:29:26.000 You don't have to hit that.

00:29:27.000 That speaks to his state of mind that he was not actually in true fear for his life.

00:29:31.000 No, why not?

00:29:32.000 You can't read his mind.

00:29:33.000 You don't know what he's thinking.

00:29:34.000 I'm not saying I can read his mind but I can draw inferences off his behavior.

00:29:37.000 You can't use that in court, otherwise everyone can't read Renee's mind and you can't read the wife's mind. 1.00

00:29:42.000 I completely agree, which is why I did not.

00:29:45.000 I said her intent never mattered.

00:29:47.000 All that matters is she creates the perception of a threat of body harm. 1.00

00:29:50.000 Intent not matter.

00:29:51.000 When 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.

00:30:00.000 You agree that she was acting in a way that was menacing or threatening?

00:30:02.000 No, that's not what I said.

00:30:03.000 Do you want me to accelerating?

00:30:06.000 I said, how can intent not matter if that's what it's going to come down to in a significant way? 0.96

00:30:11.000 You want to agree when it's argued legally, if I point a replica gun at you, you can kill me in that circumstance?

00:30:17.000 Yes, but I didn't agree what I did without knowing my intentions.

00:30:21.000 Does my intent matter with the replica gun?

00:30:23.000 No, 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?

00:30:35.000 The 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?

00:30:46.000 No, people do think that being crushed by a car will kill you.

00:30:49.000 But 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.

00:30:59.000 I see the opposite.

00:31:00.000 If anything from this body cam I I see.

00:31:02.000 A guy who was dragged six months ago.

00:31:05.000 You think he's traumatized?

00:31:06.000 Who?

00:31:07.000 This guy from being dragged 330.

00:31:09.000 Yes, I already said that.

00:31:10.000 I already said he shouldn't even be on the field, and you agreed with me.

00:31:13.000 I do agree.

00:31:14.000 So do you believe this person had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm?

00:31:17.000 No.

00:31:18.000 Even though he had just been dragged and was traumatized, you said he was traumatized.

00:31:20.000 So his trauma doesn't factor in his fears?

00:31:22.000 No, it does factor in his fear.

00:31:24.000 So why would he be traumatized, but simultaneously not fearing getting injured?

00:31:28.000 How does that make sense?

00:31:29.000 No.

00:31:30.000 Traumatized implies he has an irrational reaction due to a past event.

00:31:34.000 Okay.

00:31:35.000 I thought that you asked me.

00:31:38.000 What was the question that you would initially ask me?

00:31:40.000 Do you think he is traumatized from being dragged 330 feet to be hospitalized?

00:31:43.000 That I agree to, correct.

00:31:45.000 If someone is traumatized, do you believe they will act the same way as someone who was not traumatized?

00:31:45.000 Okay.

00:31:45.000 Yes.

00:31:50.000 No.

00:31:51.000 So 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?

00:32:01.000 That also doesn't preclude, maybe, but it also doesn't preclude the possibility of them just being impulsive or angry.

00:32:07.000 So like we're presupposing that trauma is the thing that's guiding his response.

00:32:12.000 Could it be something that's guiding his response?

00:32:14.000 Yes.

00:32:15.000 I even think that that could be given the past event.

00:32:18.000 I think you're just saying things to be on a tribe.

00:32:20.000 What do you mean?

00:32:21.000 I think you're literally just using sophistry and saying whatever you have to to justify why you don't like ICE.

00:32:27.000 Like it wouldn't matter at all whether he did or did not do anything right, wrong, was traumatized or otherwise.

00:32:35.000 You are going to make some kind of sophistry argument as to why it's wrong.

00:32:39.000 What is sophistry that I've engaged in here?

00:32:41.000 I mean, we literally have a woman who committed two felonies.

00:32:43.000 No, no, no.

00:32:44.000 What is sophistry that I've engaged in?

00:32:46.000 Not a set of circumstances that we've looked at.

00:32:46.000 Okay.

00:32:48.000 What did I say would constitute sophistry?

00:32:50.000 You making up fake arguments to justify claiming a guy who's traumatized by the people who are not going to be able to do that.

00:32:56.000 You simultaneously traumatize but not fearing for you.

00:32:58.000 By fake arguments, you mean hypothetical, correct?

00:33:00.000 No.

00:33:01.000 What do you mean by fake arguments then?

00:33:02.000 So the sophistry is the implication that you're using arguments to mislead.

00:33:06.000 And like agreeing he's traumatized, which presents an irrational reaction relative to the general public, which could be a case.

00:33:06.000 Yeah.

00:33:12.000 But that in this circumstance, he's not.

00:33:14.000 He's not acting within the trauma.

00:33:17.000 So the point is.

00:33:17.000 How could he?

00:33:18.000 But I never said we know for sure that that's what we're doing.

00:33:21.000 I'm saying that it's a sophistry.

00:33:23.000 How is that sophistry?

00:33:24.000 That's just not what I'm saying.

00:33:25.000 Because 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.

00:33:33.000 Like, okay, look, any reasonable person watching this is sophistry.

00:33:37.000 This is the political divide in this case.

00:33:38.000 This is fast and loose with different terms to argue for a particular end disingenuously.

00:33:43.000 And that's what you're doing.

00:33:44.000 No.

00:33:45.000 Do you think that I don't genuinely hold this position?

00:33:47.000 Yes.

00:33:48.000 I would just say if I thought it was a good idea.

00:33:49.000 No, because you want to fit in.

00:33:50.000 You're scared of getting canceled by liberals.

00:33:53.000 You'll lose viewers.

00:33:54.000 You'll lose money.

00:33:54.000 So you're going to say whatever you have to justify this.

00:33:58.000 I feel like you're doing that.

00:33:59.000 No, I have no problem saying Trump shouldn't have invaded Venezuela and Trump lied about him getting in the middle.

00:34:03.000 You already said that you, in this circumstance, wouldn't have done it and that it's a tragedy, right?

00:34:07.000 Yes, right.

00:34:08.000 Sounds like I'm consistent.

00:34:09.000 Nonetheless, you are saying that it was justified.

00:34:13.000 This 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.

00:34:20.000 And you said in the same set of circumstances, even if you had that trauma, you still wouldn't have done this, right?

00:34:24.000 I didn't say if I had that trauma.

00:34:26.000 I thought you had.

00:34:26.000 I thought it was predominant.

00:34:27.000 I said, I've experienced life or death situations.

00:34:30.000 And so when I look at something like this, I relate it to the experiences I've had.

00:34:33.000 And I said, I probably wouldn't have shot.

00:34:35.000 My point is if we agree he had trauma.

00:34:37.000 Assuming that you had the trauma?

00:34:38.000 That's assuming you had the trauma from six months ago?

00:34:41.000 You can't assume it.

00:34:42.000 Never.

00:34:43.000 Yeah, how do you assume an irrational reaction?

00:34:44.000 Because you're trying to put yourself in the same set of circumstances as this individual.

00:34:48.000 So all else being equal, this individual.

00:34:51.000 That's the point I make.

00:34:51.000 It's you.

00:34:52.000 Six months of trauma.

00:34:53.000 You're saying that you're not going to be able to say that you wouldn't have reacted any other way.

00:34:55.000 I've already said yes.

00:34:56.000 So yes, you would have acted the exact same way if you'd had the traumatic event six months earlier.

00:35:02.000 So 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.

00:35:17.000 Six months earlier.

00:35:18.000 Six months earlier, very recent, would have the same reaction, which includes myself.

00:35:24.000 Because my perception of behavior is based on my perceptions.

00:35:29.000 It's projection.

00:35:30.000 I believe that were I to have been rammed and dragged, I would react similarly to this cop.

00:35:35.000 Yes.

00:35:35.000 And rammed and dragged six months earlier.

00:35:37.000 That's very recent.

00:35:39.000 That means he was in the hospital four months.

00:35:40.000 I'm not saying it's not recent.

00:35:41.000 I'm just underscoring that.

00:35:43.000 When you say rammed and dragged, you're not referring to anything that happened around this incident.

00:35:46.000 You're talking about something that happened six months before.

00:35:49.000 He was rammed.

00:35:50.000 The vehicle made contact with him.

00:35:52.000 Maybe from what I saw, I didn't, from the New York Times analysis.

00:35:57.000 I said it appears he was struck.

00:35:58.000 That was not.

00:35:59.000 I didn't read it.

00:36:00.000 They literally said it.

00:36:00.000 I didn't read the editorialization or listen to it.

00:36:02.000 No, no, they literally said from the video, it appears the officer was struck.

00:36:05.000 I'm not disputing that.

00:36:06.000 Maybe they said that.

00:36:07.000 I'm saying I only watched it.

00:36:08.000 I didn't listen to any of the editorialization.

00:36:10.000 I didn't have the captions on it.

00:36:12.000 So 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.

00:36:20.000 I only viewed it on mute.

00:36:22.000 And from what I saw, it did not look like the vehicle made contact with the officer, but it might be.

00:36:26.000 See, you're lying.

00:36:27.000 Why?

00:36:28.000 Like, come on.

00:36:29.000 His feet slide on the ground.

00:36:31.000 Do we want to pull up the New York Times footage?

00:36:34.000 Let me show you which frames, and I will be willing to concede.

00:36:38.000 If I see it make contact, we'll then show it again.

00:36:40.000 It's wild.

00:36:42.000 I'll be more than willing to concede if it makes contact, if it looks like it's made contact with the officer.

00:36:47.000 You now have four videos which show content was made of the officers, and you're like, nah, but I just don't believe that.

00:36:53.000 Then it should be easy to prove me wrong right now.

00:36:55.000 I've already showed you the videos.

00:36:57.000 You can show it to me again because I did not see at any point a clear instance where it touched him.

00:37:03.000 No, no, no, no.

00:37:03.000 Wait.

00:37:04.000 Hold on.

00:37:05.000 The New York Times one.

00:37:07.000 Watch the magic officer's feet slide on the ground right here. 0.99

00:37:09.000 You see his feet?

00:37:11.000 We're not supposed to be looking at the video.

00:37:13.000 Man, he's better than MJ then moonwalk.

00:37:15.000 Look at that slide.

00:37:16.000 One foot off the ground, one foot sliding backwards because he can shift his weight.

00:37:20.000 Like, you ever see the one-inch punch from Bruce?

00:37:22.000 New York Times footage?

00:37:23.000 What about the New York Times footage?

00:37:24.000 What's the difference?

00:37:24.000 This is the footage of the incident.

00:37:25.000 The New York Times shows both angles on top of each other at the same time.

00:37:29.000 Is this not footage of the incident?

00:37:31.000 I'm not saying it's not footage on the video.

00:37:32.000 You want me to play an editorialized video where there aren't.

00:37:34.000 You don't have to listen to the editorial.

00:37:36.000 You can play it on mute.

00:37:37.000 The video itself is editorialized.

00:37:39.000 I want you to pull up the video and you want to pull up their source videos for you.

00:37:43.000 Why won't you play that video?

00:37:44.000 Because editorialized.

00:37:45.000 Because they edited the footage.

00:37:47.000 Now you're the one who actually won't show it because it might be a video.

00:37:50.000 I've already showed it.

00:37:51.000 I've shown it 15 times.

00:37:52.000 Then showed it for a 16 minutes.

00:37:53.000 You're asking me to pull up editorialized edited video to prove your point.

00:37:57.000 Sure.

00:37:58.000 How about we pull up the source?

00:37:59.000 Not to prove my point.

00:38:00.000 To disprove my point.

00:38:02.000 Because you're saying that you're not going to contact.

00:38:05.000 What's the problem with the raw video?

00:38:06.000 There's nothing wrong with this.

00:38:07.000 If we can get another angle from the New York Times one that shows me, why won't you show the New York Times one?

00:38:13.000 Why won't you show the New York Times one?

00:38:14.000 Why won't you show the New York Times one?

00:38:16.000 Tim, why won't you show it to me right now and show exactly where the car in contact with the officer?

00:38:16.000 I did.

00:38:21.000 It's on the screen.

00:38:22.000 I think it's because you know that there's a good chance that maybe it did.

00:38:24.000 Am I losing my mind?

00:38:25.000 Did I pull the video up just now?

00:38:27.000 This is not.

00:38:27.000 Is this the New York Times one?

00:38:28.000 Yes.

00:38:29.000 No.

00:38:30.000 What are you talking about?

00:38:31.000 The New York Times one is the analysis that shows.

00:38:34.000 Oh, you're asking me to pull up the analysis editorial video.

00:38:39.000 The one that shows the two.

00:38:39.000 Yeah.

00:38:41.000 See, my presumption was you wanted the video they used showing the other angle because you said you're showing me one angle.

00:38:46.000 So I pulled it up.

00:38:47.000 Oh, you're just an editorial.

00:38:48.000 Okay.

00:38:48.000 So you're just confused.

00:38:49.000 No, I'm asking for the New York Times one that shows the two angles synced at the same time.

00:38:54.000 Slow down, slow down. 0.76

00:38:54.000 I get it. 0.76

00:38:56.000 Do you want me to pull up the editorial?

00:38:57.000 Sure.

00:38:58.000 Okay, I'll pulp the editorial.

00:38:59.000 I thought you were asking me to say that.

00:38:59.000 You can see that.

00:39:00.000 I'm not pulling up what you describe as the editorial shit. 0.99

00:39:02.000 It's literally an editorial. 0.99

00:39:03.000 It's called an editorial.

00:39:04.000 You can pull up what you describe as the editorial.

00:39:05.000 Sure.

00:39:06.000 The literal definition of a video produced by a news organization is called an editorial.

00:39:09.000 Okay, you can pull up what you describe as the editorial.

00:39:12.000 That's what I'm saying.

00:39:12.000 Yes.

00:39:13.000 See, you're a sophist.

00:39:13.000 Oh, my God.

00:39:14.000 This is sophistry.

00:39:15.000 No, this is being precise with my language and the definition of the production.

00:39:22.000 It's not an insult.

00:39:23.000 It's not derisive.

00:39:24.000 The definition of a piece of media produced by a news organization is called an editorial.

00:39:29.000 Sure.

00:39:29.000 That's the word.

00:39:30.000 You're like, you call it that.

00:39:31.000 No, the dictionary does.

00:39:32.000 Yeah, saying what you call is like the left-wing version of the fifth, pleading the fifth.

00:39:37.000 So here's the New York Times editorial.

00:39:39.000 That's the definition of what it is called.

00:39:42.000 This is not the source material.

00:39:43.000 These are the distinct words we use to describe things.

00:39:46.000 Source material is the original video footage that was released.

00:39:49.000 The editorial is when they combine two videos and make a statement about it.

00:39:53.000 You want to watch the New York Times statement about it.

00:39:53.000 Okay.

00:39:55.000 I have no problem with that.

00:39:57.000 So we'll pull that up and go to the point where they, here we go.

00:40:02.000 See, here's the funny thing.

00:40:05.000 This is the video I pulled up when you asked me to pull up the New York Times.

00:40:07.000 Can you go to the moment where they're?

00:40:09.000 I just want to make sure this is clear that you literally just tried to argue.

00:40:09.000 I will.

00:40:13.000 The same video I pulled up, which is on the New York Times and that I pulled up, was not the video.

00:40:18.000 This is sophistry.

00:40:19.000 You're just lying.

00:40:20.000 Now I'll play the video first.

00:40:21.000 Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV.

00:40:24.000 And I'm going to mute the commentary because I don't know why you want me to play an editorial.

00:40:29.000 I said you can play it mute.

00:40:30.000 We're only trying to.

00:40:31.000 And I can't even remove the words they've included that are lies.

00:40:34.000 You can turn off closed captioning in the bottom right corner of any YouTube video.

00:40:37.000 Oh, there you go.

00:40:40.000 So there's the officer getting hit.

00:40:43.000 They circle him even.

00:40:44.000 I'm sorry, they square him.

00:40:45.000 Let's be precise.

00:40:46.000 They square him.

00:40:50.000 And now they show two videos of him being hit.

00:40:52.000 Okay.

00:40:53.000 So what was the.

00:40:54.000 Can you go back and slow it down?

00:40:55.000 It's not clear.

00:40:55.000 Yeah.

00:40:56.000 Absolutely.

00:40:57.000 Let's slow it down as much as we can.

00:40:58.000 Where's the speed?

00:41:00.000 Oh, playback speed.

00:41:01.000 Let's do the slowest possible.

00:41:02.000 And keep in mind the statement that Christy Noam said is that this person like ran over.

00:41:07.000 Well, Trump did, and Trump lied.

00:41:09.000 And Trump and Christy Noam both said that.

00:41:10.000 Have they retracted those statements?

00:41:13.000 Play the video.

00:41:14.000 Stop changing the subject.

00:41:15.000 Do you want me to tell you that Trump lied?

00:41:16.000 I'll say it again.

00:41:17.000 Same subject.

00:41:18.000 Trump lied.

00:41:19.000 He put out a statement the guy got run over and that he's lucky to be alive.

00:41:22.000 He never retracted the same event.

00:41:23.000 Yeah, that's a bad thing.

00:41:24.000 He should.

00:41:28.000 Watch the feet slide.

00:41:29.000 The moonwalk.

00:41:34.000 Oh, look at that slide. 0.93

00:41:35.000 Man, he's better than MJ.

00:41:37.000 It's like a wedding.

00:41:39.000 To deny that he was hit is to deny what you're looking at.

00:41:43.000 It might have made contact with him.

00:41:44.000 It's unclear.

00:41:45.000 Oh, my God.

00:41:46.000 Come on.

00:41:47.000 This is what sophistry is.

00:41:48.000 Do you understand?

00:41:48.000 No, I really.

00:41:50.000 How did his feet slide?

00:41:51.000 How did his feet slide?

00:41:52.000 Because maybe either he could have moved back.

00:41:54.000 He could have moved back suddenly or angled his body.

00:41:56.000 He could have tripped backwards.

00:41:58.000 One foot is off the ground, one foot sliding.

00:42:00.000 How do you do that?

00:42:01.000 It's also possible that the vehicle made contact with him.

00:42:05.000 This 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.

00:42:09.000 And then they're like, well, I don't know.

00:42:10.000 Maybe shoelaces really.

00:42:13.000 I don't know.

00:42:15.000 I don't want to be derisive or anything, but it really is that you're just denying the evidence right in front of your face.

00:42:21.000 Yeah, for political.

00:42:23.000 We brought up the thing that you wanted us to bring up.

00:42:25.000 You see his foot slide.

00:42:27.000 The other one, you see the car contact his body and he's pushed out of the way because the car contacts his body.

00:42:33.000 It's not even telling me that his feet are steady.

00:42:35.000 He could have been jumping back.

00:42:36.000 He wasn't jumping back. 0.99

00:42:37.000 Look the fuck sliding. 0.99

00:42:39.000 No, no, no. 0.99

00:42:40.000 Tim asked me how could he have moved this way were it not for the car touching him.

00:42:44.000 But I'm saying it's possible he could have jumped back to avoid coming in contact with the vehicle.

00:42:49.000 It could have been like a seance near the edge of the street.

00:42:50.000 He could have articulated jumping backwards while keeping your center of gravity stable and sliding a foot on the ground is very difficult.

00:42:57.000 This is just crazy.

00:42:58.000 Tim, it is Minneapolis.

00:42:59.000 There's a lot of small-y black magic.

00:43:00.000 Maybe a spell was cast and it like slid him back.

00:43:03.000 There's a lot of possibilities on the table.

00:43:03.000 I don't know.

00:43:05.000 I mean, his feet are sliding.

00:43:06.000 But I'll even grant, even if it made contact with him, that still, to me, does not rise to the level of animals.

00:43:13.000 He's hit by a car.

00:43:13.000 We can hit a cop.

00:43:16.000 This car is coming in contact with the colour.

00:43:17.000 I mean, to be honest, the left always accepted that.

00:43:19.000 That's true.

00:43:20.000 Let's listen to what the New York Times has to say.

00:43:22.000 How does shooting somebody in a car stop?

00:43:25.000 Now we're moving the goalpost.

00:43:27.000 How?

00:43:28.000 Because you're like talking about how to shooting someone in a car, it doesn't matter.

00:43:31.000 The point is, he was hit by the car.

00:43:34.000 It 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.

00:43:47.000 It'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.

00:43:59.000 This is from NBC.

00:44:00.000 The way ICE officers approached the vehicle involved in today's shooting was counter to their training.

00:44:04.000 A senior Department of Homeland Security official told NBC News.

00:44:07.000 The 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.

00:44:17.000 Three, not to shoot at a moving vehicle.

00:44:19.000 Four, only to use force if there is immediate risk of serious injury or death.

00:44:23.000 ICE officers are also instructed that firing at a vehicle will not make it stop moving in the direction of the officer.

00:44:29.000 And what was that part about if it's going to cause bodily harm or death?

00:44:33.000 Only use force if there's immediate risk of serious injury.

00:44:35.000 Which, once again, we're back to all this dispute.

00:44:37.000 Again, ICE officers are instructed that firing at a vehicle will not make it stop moving in the direction of an officer.

00:44:43.000 So again, my point was, even if the car made controversy, that's fine.

00:44:48.000 My 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.

00:44:58.000 And then this is still not even getting.

00:45:00.000 This is still not even getting to the fact that he shot her two more times after in the span of a second.

00:45:05.000 The side, yes.

00:45:06.000 Yeah, in the span of one second after getting hit, he goes one, two, three.

00:45:09.000 Right.

00:45:10.000 Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle.

00:45:19.000 And it's true that at this moment in this grainy, low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV.

00:45:27.000 It does indeed look like he's being struck by the SUV that he wasn't run over.

00:45:32.000 Agreed, Trump was wrong or lied when he said he was run over.

00:45:35.000 That never happened.

00:45:36.000 But it does appear in this video, he was struck.

00:45:38.000 And I would also say his feet sliding on the ground basically prove it.

00:45:42.000 There's no way to do that.

00:45:43.000 That's just not reality.

00:45:44.000 His left foot is off the ground and his right foot is sliding.

00:45:47.000 And then let's just do this because I love doing this.

00:45:47.000 Okay.

00:45:49.000 Oh, look, her tire's spinning out while pointed at the officer. 1.00

00:45:51.000 You can see the tire spin and the weight shift.

00:45:53.000 And it doesn't even knock him over.

00:45:55.000 This doesn't speak to the fact that he's amazing for being able to maintain a center of gravity.

00:45:59.000 It 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.

00:46:14.000 I think there's two different factors at play.

00:46:19.000 One, political tribesmanship results in, this is true of conservatives, but it's slightly less.

00:46:26.000 I call it like 60, 40, 40, 60.

00:46:29.000 There are a lot of conservatives that will say Trump can do nothing wrong, like literally whatever he does. 1.00

00:46:33.000 And it's just like, that's stupid. 1.00

00:46:35.000 But it's 40% of the time. 0.99

00:46:37.000 And that's because the Republican Party has historically been a little bit smaller than Democrats.

00:46:40.000 And Trump only wins with this moderate coalition that eventually came in. 0.93

00:46:43.000 So people like me or Elon Musk or Joe Rogan who are going to call out Trump in two seconds when he does dumb things.

00:46:48.000 Like, we shouldn't have gone in Venezuela. 0.84

00:46:50.000 We'll see how that plays out.

00:46:50.000 I think that was a mistake.

00:46:52.000 Trump is lying about the cop being run over.

00:46:53.000 It's clearly not true.

00:46:55.000 But then there are people who are going to be like, no, Trump is right.

00:46:57.000 On the left, it's an inversion.

00:46:57.000 Doesn't matter.

00:46:59.000 It's more likely they're going to just say whatever they say in the majority to defend the liberal tribe.

00:47:04.000 And I think this is related to cancel culture because the right is less likely to cancel you and the left is more likely to cancel you.

00:47:09.000 So why is it so difficult for us to get liberals to come on this show or any other show?

00:47:13.000 Because they're going to get canceled after the fact just for associating.

00:47:17.000 And conservatives don't do that. 0.93

00:47:18.000 So liberals are more likely to just say, I will say anything to fit with the tribe so I don't get canceled.

00:47:24.000 Whereas 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.

00:47:30.000 I don't care.

00:47:31.000 You can believe whatever you want, but Trump is lying.

00:47:33.000 You think that the majority of like moderate voters agree with your analysis over mine?

00:47:39.000 Well, no, I would say right now, I honestly don't know.

00:47:39.000 Yes.

00:47:43.000 This just happened and we don't have a public perception.

00:47:45.000 What 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.

00:47:56.000 So you'll notice that, let me pull up civics as a good example.

00:48:01.000 And you can see where the Trump bias is and you can see where the liberal bias is.

00:48:05.000 And it's funny how Democrats respond to things and independents.

00:48:08.000 Oh, actually, is it going to let me do it?

00:48:09.000 Okay, yeah, let's try national economy.

00:48:11.000 So you can actually see the hilarity of this in the hyper-partisanship of everybody.

00:48:17.000 You go to Democrat.

00:48:18.000 How would you rate the condition of the national economy right now?

00:48:21.000 Take a look at this.

00:48:23.000 For some reason, on January 20th, January 20th, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, January 2020, 2021, you immediately have this shift.

00:48:34.000 Where are we at?

00:48:34.000 Party Democrat.

00:48:36.000 So in 2019, 2008, you have a fairly good 45%, 26% fairly bad, 30% very bad, 11% unsure, blah, blah, blah.

00:48:49.000 Right around election, the opinion on the economy inverts.

00:48:53.000 And now the economy is very, very bad.

00:48:55.000 Okay, well, that doesn't make no sense.

00:48:57.000 And this is January 2010.

00:48:58.000 To be fair, COVID, right?

00:49:00.000 So let's jump to the front where we can see January of 2025.

00:49:05.000 Because to be fair, January of 2020 wasn't election year.

00:49:08.000 It was COVID.

00:49:09.000 So I should clarify, that's where things kind of make sense.

00:49:12.000 It was a Trump term.

00:49:13.000 Democrats actually thought things were kind of okay. 0.98

00:49:15.000 Well, hold on there, gosh darn minute. 0.58

00:49:16.000 Now we're in Biden's term. 0.92

00:49:18.000 In Biden's turn, 53% of Democrats say the economy is fairly good.

00:49:21.000 The moment Trump is inaugurated, they now claim the economy is very bad.

00:49:27.000 That's not a real opinion, is it?

00:49:29.000 It's a real opinion, but it's biased.

00:49:31.000 It's not a real opinion.

00:49:33.000 It's just me saying I hate Trump.

00:49:35.000 Because you can't be like, a week ago, the economy was perfect.

00:49:37.000 A week later, the economy is bad.

00:49:39.000 That's a lie.

00:49:40.000 Don't get me wrong.

00:49:40.000 But hold on, though.

00:49:41.000 I got Republicans for this one too.

00:49:42.000 We ain't playing no silly games. 0.74

00:49:44.000 Republicans are the exact same. 0.91

00:49:46.000 It's not exactly the same, but it's similar.

00:49:48.000 Take a look at this.

00:49:49.000 During Joe Biden, all the Republicans said the economy was very bad.

00:49:52.000 And then you get Election Day and it starts to drop.

00:49:55.000 Right at Inauguration Day, it drops.

00:49:59.000 46 very bad, 41 very bad.

00:50:01.000 So we've got 87% of Republicans in the economy is somewhat bad.

00:50:04.000 The moment Trump gets in, it flips.

00:50:08.000 And now it's 60% fairly good.

00:50:11.000 That is not a real opinion.

00:50:12.000 And you can see the trends.

00:50:14.000 When a Democrat's in office, it's bad.

00:50:15.000 When Republicans in office, it's good.

00:50:17.000 Because this is fake.

00:50:18.000 We go to independent and what do we find?

00:50:20.000 It more likely aligns.

00:50:22.000 Now, this is where you get real opinion.

00:50:24.000 Around COVID, there's an inversion.

00:50:25.000 Makes a lot of sense.

00:50:26.000 You don't see the harsh turns that you'll end up seeing during elections among independent voters.

00:50:32.000 And what I would say right now, as I've said for the past seven, eight months since Trump has been in, the economy is not good.

00:50:37.000 And the reason Trump is taking actions on institutional investors is because he's trying to get home prices lower.

00:50:43.000 Earlier in the year, he said that he wants home prices to be high because boomers like having their equity in homes.

00:50:49.000 And I said the economy is bad. 0.95

00:50:50.000 Gen Z is screwed. 0.98

00:50:51.000 And independent voters tend to follow that. 0.96

00:50:53.000 So I would argue that the point is Republican Party historically smaller than Democrats.

00:50:58.000 That's why I call it 60, 40, 40, 60.

00:51:00.000 Democratic Party larger.

00:51:02.000 What that means is on left-aligned individuals, they tend to in the majority.

00:51:07.000 And for Republican-aligned individuals, they have their cult, but their coalition has independent voters.

00:51:12.000 That's how Trump ended up winning in 2024, largely suburban housewives and working class people in swing states. 0.97

00:51:19.000 That's the independent voters that are pointing this out.

00:51:21.000 So I can go to a conservative and I can go to a Trump supporter and say, yeah, Trump lied.

00:51:26.000 Trump said outright the guy got run over.

00:51:28.000 He clearly did not get run over.

00:51:30.000 In fact, I doubt he was injured at all.

00:51:32.000 Maybe a minor ankle sprain, if you want to be in the most extreme.

00:51:36.000 No.

00:51:36.000 It 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.

00:51:47.000 And I'm a major Trump supporter, and I agree with you, Tim.

00:51:50.000 I would get canceled, and I don't care, right?

00:51:52.000 And so there's a faction of people that are out there and just telling the truth about how they feel.

00:51:58.000 If I were to care about what other people think, then it's not really my opinion anymore.

00:52:03.000 And 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?

00:52:11.000 Or how do I get more followers?

00:52:13.000 And that's the issue.

00:52:15.000 Let's jump to this story from CNN.

00:52:17.000 What's behind the highly unusual move to block Minnesota officials from investigating the ICE shooting?

00:52:23.000 This is actually pretty interesting.

00:52:23.000 Wait, what?

00:52:24.000 Uh-oh, CNN's given the business.

00:52:26.000 We're going to have to have to give CNN the business.

00:52:29.000 I thought I already gave him the business, but let me log in real quick.

00:52:32.000 I'm logging in.

00:52:33.000 That's what I'm doing to make sure that I'm logged in.

00:52:37.000 All right, here we go.

00:52:38.000 I thought we already logged in.

00:52:40.000 They 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.

00:52:55.000 The 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.

00:53:11.000 You know, I love about this.

00:53:12.000 We did a debate show earlier.

00:53:14.000 I said this was going to happen.

00:53:16.000 I said Trump's not going to let him do it.

00:53:18.000 And Dave said it's a state-level thing.

00:53:20.000 They'll do it.

00:53:21.000 I'm like, yeah, but they're going to pull the guy to the state and there's not going to be charges.

00:53:24.000 So let me just put it like this.

00:53:26.000 I don't care whose side you're on.

00:53:27.000 I don't care if you're a liberal or conservative.

00:53:29.000 Just understand what time it is.

00:53:31.000 The feds are not allowing a criminal investigation from the state of a cop who shot a lady.

00:53:39.000 It doesn't matter if you think he was justified.

00:53:41.000 It doesn't matter if you think he was not justified.

00:53:43.000 The point is the federal government and the state governments have bisected and are now at odds with each other.

00:53:50.000 Where does that go?

00:53:52.000 Like, is there, Phil, in your mind, a circumstance by which the federal government apologizes and says, let's come back together, boys?

00:53:59.000 I think that's probably unlikely.

00:54:01.000 Yeah.

00:54:02.000 So what happens next?

00:54:05.000 And I mean, it's not rhetorical.

00:54:07.000 It's not a joke question.

00:54:08.000 I'm not trying to make someone scream civil war.

00:54:10.000 I'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?

00:54:17.000 And then what do, like, what, like, what is, what is the next thing that's going to happen?

00:54:21.000 Legitimately, I think the state stands down.

00:54:23.000 I don't think that they're, I don't think they push the issue.

00:54:26.000 I don't think that they're in a position where they have the ability to do it.

00:54:29.000 You think this guy won't be prosecuted?

00:54:30.000 No.

00:54:31.000 I don't think so.

00:54:32.000 Really?

00:54:33.000 What do you guys think?

00:54:34.000 I think they'll try to bring charges against him.

00:54:36.000 I agree.

00:54:37.000 Absolutely.

00:54:37.000 I think the state is going to try to bring charges.

00:54:40.000 They may try, but I don't think that he's going to actually stand.

00:54:42.000 No, I agree.

00:54:42.000 I don't think it's.

00:54:43.000 He won't stand trial.

00:54:44.000 I don't know for sure, but I would say the probability lies with the federal government's not going to let them prosecute this guy.

00:54:50.000 Yeah, that's right.

00:54:51.000 But this is getting weird.

00:54:53.000 Yeah.

00:54:54.000 I mean, I don't see a world in what the DOJ just lets them try to railroad this guy.

00:54:58.000 But they learned their lesson in 2020 from Chauvin, like the state and everybody.

00:55:01.000 But 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?

00:55:13.000 Trump and Vance have stated many times to law enforcement, we have your back and stuff.

00:55:19.000 So I don't know what it means for recently.

00:55:21.000 On this specifically, I believe.

00:55:21.000 Yeah, I don't know.

00:55:23.000 Yeah, I don't know what it means for overall for the relations between the federal government and the state of Minnesota.

00:55:30.000 But it's not going to.

00:55:31.000 I'm not even talking about Minnesota.

00:55:33.000 Other blue states have reciprocity.

00:55:36.000 So technically, every state has criminal reciprocity with every other state, but not anymore.

00:55:42.000 Florida would not extradite this guy.

00:55:44.000 If 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.

00:55:52.000 Not at all.

00:55:53.000 And think about what happens if the federal government doesn't step into these operations into this.

00:55:57.000 The ICE operations would cease.

00:55:59.000 And outside of just this incident, right before this, they were already intimidating the police that same day.

00:56:07.000 And now, after this, imagine what that environment is like.

00:56:10.000 So the federal government has to step up.

00:56:12.000 Yeah, it would be open season on cops.

00:56:13.000 You can just ram them with your car.

00:56:14.000 Like that's the precedent now.

00:56:16.000 You 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. 0.72

00:56:23.000 JD Van said, I want every ICE officer to know that their president, vice president, the entire administration stands behind them.

00:56:29.000 To the radicals assaulting them, doxing them, and threatening them, congratulations.

00:56:32.000 We're going to work even harder to enforce the law.

00:56:34.000 If 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.

00:56:44.000 And the Trump administration may as well resign on the spot because their agenda will never come close to fruition.

00:56:50.000 Yeah, 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.

00:56:57.000 And think of the narrative.

00:56:58.000 Law enforcement overall.

00:56:59.000 If, 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.

00:57:17.000 We are here to say that there was an officer involved shooting that requires an investigation.

00:57:22.000 And based on the analysis of that investigation, a grand jury will choose to indict.

00:57:28.000 They'll likely say a grand jury has returned an indictment for which now he can stand before a jury of his peers.

00:57:34.000 They're going to approach it very neutrally.

00:57:36.000 Trump cannot allow this guy to face the prosecution because he will lose no matter what.

00:57:41.000 Which means the Minnesota government and Democrats will then say, Donald Trump is shielding a murderer who killed a woman in cold blood.

00:57:47.000 Other blue states will line behind that.

00:57:50.000 This 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.

00:58:02.000 Yeah, I mean, it's one more step down the road, right?

00:58:04.000 But a big one.

00:58:04.000 I don't know.

00:58:05.000 This is a jump down 10 of the stairs.

00:58:07.000 I don't know how fast things deteriorate, but this is definitely moving in the direction of deteriorating.

00:58:12.000 Well, I mean, the feds hold the cards.

00:58:14.000 I 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.

00:58:24.000 So the state's avenues towards retribution here is very, very limited.

00:58:29.000 Again, the federal government has all the cards here in this instance.

00:58:31.000 This is not a problem.

00:58:32.000 I think there was a lawsuit filed.

00:58:35.000 I 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.

00:58:40.000 And then there was another judge that saw it and overturned that and said, no, it was legal.

00:58:44.000 And I think they're still sorting it out in the courts.

00:58:45.000 They are.

00:58:46.000 But 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.

00:58:52.000 Like, yeah, it's probably like saber rattling or whatever.

00:58:55.000 But I mean, like, legally, slow and steady wins the race.

00:58:58.000 So, him doing anything other than like, you know, waiting for the court to adjudicate it would just be like LARPing, in my opinion.

00:59:04.000 Yeah, let me ask you.

00:59:05.000 Um, 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.

00:59:15.000 So, you believe there will be prosecution of the office of the agent?

00:59:19.000 Um, I don't know.

00:59:20.000 I believe they're going to bring charges, but do you mean like federal or state?

00:59:23.000 That's what I mean.

00:59:24.000 State level will bring charges against you.

00:59:26.000 I think they will.

00:59:26.000 I agree with you.

00:59:27.000 The 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?

00:59:40.000 I 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.

00:59:47.000 So, 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.

00:59:55.000 But don't you think that would be wrong if they were trying to like tip the scales?

00:59:58.000 So, 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.

01:00:04.000 Because I agree with you.

01:00:05.000 I think they will bring charges.

01:00:07.000 They have to.

01:00:08.000 And I believe Trump will try to shield this guy from those charges and prosecution.

01:00:11.000 So, I think we're in agreement that that, whether it's good or bad, isn't material.

01:00:14.000 That's likely what it is.

01:00:15.000 Like a martyr.

01:00:16.000 So, the question I have for you is, should this agent say go to Florida, where it's like a very favorable state?

01:00:25.000 Do you think that Minnesota should take any action to try and extradite him back to Minnesota for these charges for this trial?

01:00:32.000 And 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.

01:00:32.000 Yes.

01:00:42.000 So 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? 0.99

01:00:52.000 Well, let's get into nitty-gritty. 0.98

01:00:54.000 I mean, the only real action that Minnesota could take would be to send state troopers to Florida.

01:00:59.000 I guess so, yeah.

01:01:00.000 So, uh, unless there's other ways that you can extradite somebody from another state, it's going to be by force, right?

01:01:06.000 Yeah.

01:01:06.000 So, 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.

01:01:23.000 Like arrest him, put him in a vehicle and drive him there.

01:01:23.000 Yes.

01:01:26.000 Do you think they should?

01:01:27.000 Yeah, of course.

01:01:28.000 So 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?

01:01:44.000 I 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.

01:01:50.000 I 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.

01:02:01.000 That'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.

01:02:06.000 I do think it's determined almost exclusively by public opinion and what they think they should they can get away with.

01:02:11.000 If 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.

01:02:21.000 If 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.

01:02:29.000 He's just not going to tell them, get in the way of them being extradited.

01:02:33.000 So here's the thing.

01:02:36.000 States never send law enforcement to other states for law enforcement.

01:02:39.000 They use the feds for that. 0.94

01:02:40.000 So 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.

01:02:53.000 We want you guys to arrest him and then send him our way.

01:02:56.000 In 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.

01:03:05.000 Like he's wanted for charges.

01:03:05.000 He's guilty.

01:03:07.000 The federal government's not going to intervene.

01:03:09.000 Minnesota can't send anybody.

01:03:12.000 That would be like, I mean, we're getting into war territory if Minnesota sends armed men to apprehend a guy in another state.

01:03:18.000 Or at least a cross-state border manhunt is just not an optimal situation.

01:03:21.000 It doesn't happen.

01:03:22.000 Then 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.

01:03:34.000 If Trump leaves office.

01:03:35.000 Yeah. 0.51

01:03:36.000 If he leaves office, if he dies, whatever it is.

01:03:38.000 It's for the federal courts to decide.

01:03:40.000 And so, okay, you escalate it to the Supreme Court and then the precedent is, yeah, this gets hashed out of the federal court.

01:03:45.000 So they'll just go back to the original ruling, which was like, no, you can't extradite.

01:03:48.000 But 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.

01:04:06.000 The Republicans argue this is a circuitous method by which they're trying to get this guy on charges that are trumped up or whatever.

01:04:12.000 The point is, DeSantis, if he has any political aspirations, cannot let.

01:04:17.000 Again, hold on, let me pause.

01:04:19.000 We don't know the guy would go to Florida.

01:04:20.000 I'm saying hypothetical state is Florida because Florida is very favorable.

01:04:23.000 In 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. 0.97

01:04:32.000 But so now we're in very, very fucked up territory. 0.95

01:04:35.000 Like we're there right now. 0.96

01:04:37.000 So you would think it was wrong to extradite him?

01:04:41.000 Well, how do you feel about that?

01:04:44.000 I think states should not send personal state law enforcement to other states to apprehend individuals.

01:04:49.000 I think that even if the federal government won't comply.

01:04:52.000 Yes.

01:04:53.000 Do 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?

01:04:53.000 Okay.

01:05:03.000 Well, we don't know if this is his home state.

01:05:05.000 Or in Minnesota.

01:05:07.000 That's one of the challenges, too.

01:05:08.000 If he lives there, it's a different picture.

01:05:10.000 The challenge is now we're getting into the morality of when we would and would not allow action by government.

01:05:17.000 Just because government has the power of law doesn't mean they're moral or right.

01:05:21.000 And that's the lesson.

01:05:22.000 Godwin's law, everybody learned from Nazi Germany. 0.90

01:05:24.000 Just because they passed a law saying they could doesn't mean it was right and they should have and we should have allowed it.

01:05:28.000 The 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.

01:05:38.000 You would say no.

01:05:40.000 This cop should not be prosecuted, no.

01:05:41.000 And you would think that was moral.

01:05:43.000 Yeah, quite literally, we can't prosecute him.

01:05:46.000 The only way to prosecute someone for federal action would be political.

01:05:50.000 No, no, I'm talking about morality.

01:05:51.000 That's what I'm saying.

01:05:53.000 I'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. 0.96

01:05:59.000 That's just ridiculous.

01:06:00.000 Do you think it's immoral for the Trump administration to not want to work with the Minnesota state? 0.87

01:06:05.000 I think it is the most moral thing they could do.

01:06:07.000 To politicize this?

01:06:09.000 They're not politicizing it.

01:06:10.000 It is politicized.

01:06:11.000 There's no way around it.

01:06:12.000 It's political.

01:06:13.000 It is political, but they are furthering it.

01:06:16.000 So let me put it like this.

01:06:17.000 The American people voted for these ICE operations.

01:06:20.000 Immigration was a top issue, and Trump won, and the Republicans won everything.

01:06:25.000 That doesn't mean everyone in the country agrees with it, but the American voter, democracy, has spoken.

01:06:31.000 So Trump is now carrying out the will of the American voter.

01:06:33.000 And the way it works is if you've got a problem with it, you vote in the midterms and you vote in the next election.

01:06:37.000 In the meantime, this is democracy in action.

01:06:40.000 To subvert that, as the activists are doing, politicized what the American people voted for.

01:06:45.000 After the fact, it just is political.

01:06:48.000 I think there's things in tension with that because, yes, Americans did vote for Donald Trump, and he obviously ran on mass deportation.

01:06:55.000 So you were co-signing that policy, most likely, if you voted for him.

01:06:59.000 But I think most Americans also care about the rule of law.

01:07:01.000 They care about the Constitution.

01:07:02.000 And so when they voted for that, they assumed that the mass deportation program would be carried out. in conformity with the Constitution.

01:07:09.000 It is.

01:07:09.000 And there have been, no, there have been multiple instances where people's due process rights are violated.

01:07:14.000 People are, what's her name?

01:07:16.000 Oz Turk, Mahmoud Khalil, Kilmar Brego-Garcia.

01:07:21.000 You cited two examples of constitutional movements.

01:07:25.000 Like Kilmar Brego Garcia was labeled a terrorist by the Trump administration before what does due process mean?

01:07:25.000 Yeah, they're due process.

01:07:32.000 Due process means not having, how do I put this into words?

01:07:37.000 Due process is people being given the chance to make their case.

01:07:41.000 Incorrect.

01:07:42.000 That's not correct.

01:07:43.000 Well, hold on before you correct me.

01:07:44.000 My understanding is that people's due process has to do with them being able to be given a fair shot if the state acts against them.

01:07:51.000 That's not what due process is.

01:07:53.000 Due process is.

01:07:54.000 Which is to say, make their case.

01:07:55.000 It's brought to a judge.

01:07:56.000 It's not brought to a judge who is in neutral.

01:07:59.000 Due process is not a proper noun.

01:08:00.000 It'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.

01:08:08.000 It's literally just a generic phrase meaning the process by which a person has in law.

01:08:14.000 That's all.

01:08:16.000 What about the Fourth Amendment?

01:08:18.000 The due process.

01:08:18.000 Which part of it?

01:08:20.000 Due process of law means in different circumstances, certain people are entitled to certain actions.

01:08:27.000 Yes.

01:08:27.000 Kilmar Brego Garcia's due process.

01:08:30.000 Let's avoid him for the time being and talk about.

01:08:33.000 You asked me for an example.

01:08:34.000 He's a good example of that.

01:08:35.000 And he had his due process.

01:08:36.000 No, he had his due process violated.

01:08:38.000 No, he did not.

01:08:39.000 Yes, he did.

01:08:39.000 The Supreme Court said he ordered the Trump administration to bring him back because he had been illegally deported.

01:08:45.000 And he was deported in error, which the Trump administration admitted and then walked back.

01:08:48.000 This is incorrect.

01:08:50.000 Due process.

01:08:50.000 So we got to break all this down, okay, to avoid it.

01:08:52.000 It's going to get clipped either way.

01:08:54.000 An illegal immigrant enters the country through the southern border, right? 0.97

01:08:58.000 Let's say a guy from Mexico crosses the border, runs full speed 60 miles into the United States. 0.99

01:09:05.000 What is his due process in this circumstance after he is apprehended?

01:09:09.000 That 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.

01:09:18.000 That's not what the law or the Constitution says.

01:09:20.000 The 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.

01:09:31.000 So we have executive immigration courts, and the judiciary has nothing to do with it.

01:09:36.000 The process by which an illegal immigrant is due is called expedited removal.

01:09:41.000 Non-citizens who enter this country illegally do not have the right to a jury trial or a court. 0.91

01:09:47.000 Citizens and resident aliens. 1.00

01:09:49.000 That's not correct.

01:09:49.000 No, they don't.

01:09:50.000 Yes, they do.

01:09:51.000 You are incorrect.

01:09:51.000 The Fourth Amendment does not refer to citizens.

01:09:53.000 It refers to people.

01:09:55.000 You are incorrect.

01:09:57.000 Is that not what the Fourth Amendment says?

01:09:59.000 No, okay, that's sophistry.

01:10:00.000 Okay.

01:10:01.000 Sophistry is when you cite the literal words of the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution.

01:10:06.000 You're doing it again.

01:10:07.000 When I'm talking about the Constitution.

01:10:08.000 I did not say you are not correct on the language and definitions used in the Fourth Amendment.

01:10:12.000 I'm saying that's the same thing.

01:10:12.000 You said I was doing sophistry by citing the Constitution.

01:10:15.000 No, 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.

01:10:22.000 Due process refers to, of your status, what you're entitled to.

01:10:27.000 What I'm referring to, when I say due process, is a trial court hearing.

01:10:30.000 Right 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.

01:10:39.000 That's not due process.

01:10:42.000 Okay.

01:10:42.000 What is your understanding of the process?

01:10:43.000 Due process.

01:10:44.000 Due process.

01:10:45.000 Due process refers to the legal requirement that the government must respect all legal rights owed to a person, ensuring fair treatment in legal proceedings.

01:10:52.000 It doesn't mean that they get a trial.

01:10:54.000 It doesn't mean that if immigration law, the Constitution reserves immigration issues specifically to the executive branch.

01:11:00.000 The immigration courts are not part of the judicial branch.

01:11:02.000 They're part of the executive branch.

01:11:03.000 And the law states that the Secretary of State has unilateral authority to remove any non-citizen at any point for any reason.

01:11:10.000 So Oz Turk, specifically, it was the discretion of Marco Rubio under the law to say, your visa has been revoked.

01:11:17.000 Thank you and have a nice day.

01:11:18.000 And for that, she is being detained and deported.

01:11:20.000 That is due process.

01:11:21.000 Sorry, I've been talking about the Fourth Amendment.

01:11:22.000 I meant to say the Fifth Amendment.

01:11:24.000 Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

01:11:28.000 Hold on, hold on.

01:11:30.000 Who?

01:11:31.000 Any individual in which the state of the law?

01:11:33.000 What does it say?

01:11:34.000 Let me pull up the entire Fifth Amendment. 1.00

01:11:36.000 Indeed, because it's important to know what it says.

01:11:39.000 When you say due process of law, it doesn't mean that everyone gets a court trial with a jury.

01:11:45.000 It just means that.

01:11:46.000 No 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.

01:12:13.000 That is the Fifth Amendment. 0.75

01:12:14.000 And so now the question is: what does due process mean?

01:12:17.000 Because you're citing the Fifth Amendment, but you're assuming due process means you get a court hearing.

01:12:21.000 That's not true.

01:12:23.000 There are many circumstances which someone doesn't get a court trial, even if they're U.S. citizens.

01:12:26.000 Like if you're insane, they adjudicate your insanity by paperwork and administrative.

01:12:31.000 It's called a 5150.

01:12:32.000 You don't get to go to court over this.

01:12:33.000 You're just deemed insane and locked up.

01:12:35.000 That happens.

01:12:36.000 Does that person have due process?

01:12:37.000 Indeed.

01:12:38.000 If you are exhibiting a threat to yourself or others through mental incompetence, defect, or otherwise, you can be 5150.

01:12:44.000 You don't get to go to court.

01:12:45.000 You don't get to ask a judge.

01:12:46.000 It doesn't happen.

01:12:47.000 I'm not saying that the government can take actions against you before it's all adjudicated in a court of law.

01:12:55.000 I'm saying that if they do that, then you are able to open up a case against the government or some circumstances.

01:13:01.000 Some individuals have some rights and some do not.

01:13:04.000 So 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.

01:13:17.000 The 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.

01:13:30.000 The judiciary has zero authority on instances of foreign affairs.

01:13:34.000 When a person crosses the border illegally, it doesn't go to a judiciary.

01:13:38.000 The 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.

01:13:51.000 How do you mean outside of the process of the Constitution?

01:13:53.000 The Constitution gives full authority on foreign affairs to the executive branch.

01:13:57.000 So what we have are immigration courts, but these immigration courts operate under Trump, not the Supreme Court.

01:14:03.000 That means immigration courts are not judicial hearings, nor does a non-citizen have a right to a judicial hearing. 0.96

01:14:09.000 They go to federal executive immigration courts.

01:14:12.000 You still have due process rights even.

01:14:14.000 No, 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.

01:14:27.000 The due process for an illegal immigrant is called expedited removal.

01:14:32.000 That is, a federal immigration officer gets an order from an executive judge, not a judicial judge, for expedited removal of an individual.

01:14:42.000 They don't go to court.

01:14:43.000 There's no jury, and there's no banging a gavel.

01:14:45.000 The officer can literally, and Obama did this to the tune of, I think, 3 million.

01:14:48.000 They can literally grab the person, say, give me your ID.

01:14:52.000 You're a non-citizen, subject to expedited removal. 0.91

01:14:54.000 That is your due process, and send them right back.

01:14:56.000 You think that I won't say that if that is true, that Obama wasn't violating people's due process rights?

01:15:01.000 I would say that he is.

01:15:02.000 That would be another thing.

01:15:04.000 Why?

01:15:05.000 Because 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.

01:15:17.000 And 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?

01:15:27.000 No, expedited removal.

01:15:29.000 That's due process.

01:15:30.000 That is not under the purview of the executive.

01:15:32.000 That 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.

01:15:39.000 You're incorrect.

01:15:40.000 That doesn't hinge on whether or not the president feels like enforcing it.

01:15:43.000 No, no, no, you're incorrect.

01:15:44.000 Immigration is the purview of the executive branch and immigration courts are not judicial.

01:15:47.000 They're executive.

01:15:48.000 No, no, no, I'm not saying that immigration isn't the purview of the executive branch.

01:15:51.000 I'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?

01:15:58.000 You brought up the Fifth Amendment.

01:16:01.000 The act of being in the United States illegally is not considered a capital or otherwise.

01:16:05.000 No, no, no.

01:16:06.000 I got to look.

01:16:08.000 I think you're just generally not understanding the way the Constitution and the law works.

01:16:11.000 So I pulled this up for you.

01:16:13.000 It's hard to see if I zoom in like this.

01:16:14.000 Yes, U.S. immigration courts are part of the executive branch.

01:16:18.000 I can't dispute that, though.

01:16:19.000 Okay, so but this means you're not getting a trial in a court.

01:16:24.000 Immigration courts, they're called courts, but they're executive functions.

01:16:28.000 You don't go before a jury or a judge for issues of immigration.

01:16:31.000 This is not me making an opinion statement.

01:16:34.000 When someone is not a citizen, the issue of immigration is the executive branch.

01:16:38.000 They don't give you a hearing.

01:16:39.000 They snap their fingers.

01:16:41.000 Now, 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.

01:16:48.000 So due process means the legal process under the Constitution by which you are due.

01:16:53.000 If 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. 0.98

01:17:04.000 Which would mean that Kilmaro Brego Garcia got his due process.

01:17:08.000 No.

01:17:08.000 He had his due process rights violated.

01:17:11.000 He was sent to Seacott.

01:17:12.000 He was not supposed to be removed from this country.

01:17:14.000 Says who? 0.65

01:17:15.000 He had, because he already had a stay of removal.

01:17:18.000 He had expedited removal in Daniel.

01:17:19.000 No, no, no.

01:17:20.000 He had something designated on his own.

01:17:23.000 Okay, look.

01:17:24.000 We can totally pull this up.

01:17:25.000 Here's the real challenge we're facing right now.

01:17:27.000 You don't know these stories, and you're basing it off.

01:17:30.000 I can't recall all of the details accurately.

01:17:31.000 I know.

01:17:33.000 Kilmaro Brego-Garcia had an order for expedited removal, but it was stayed because they couldn't remove him to send him back to Guatemala.

01:17:38.000 A Salvadoran man living in the United States was illegally deported on March 15, 2020.

01:17:42.000 What are you reading?

01:17:43.000 By the Wikipedia.

01:17:43.000 By the United States.

01:17:44.000 And then Wikipedia is not a real source.

01:17:47.000 We can go to the primary source of the USA.

01:17:49.000 Indeed, you should.

01:17:50.000 You should read the court documents from ICE.

01:17:52.000 Under the Trump administration, which it called an administrative error, which you disputed.

01:17:55.000 No.

01:17:56.000 You said it wasn't divided by the law.

01:17:57.000 And administrative error is not a violation of due process.

01:17:59.000 At the time, he had never been charged with or convicted of a crime in either country.

01:18:03.000 Despite this, he was imprisoned without trial in the Salvadoran Terrorism Confinement Center Seacot. 1.00

01:18:07.000 Oh, liberals are fucking retarded. 1.00

01:18:09.000 I can't do this. 1.00

01:18:10.000 I fucking give up. 0.99

01:18:12.000 You want to respond to that? 0.99

01:18:13.000 Why would I get a trial?

01:18:14.000 What does a trial have to do with an expedited removal in a state to Guatemala?

01:18:18.000 You don't know this stuff.

01:18:19.000 And it's so impossible for me to give you a book, a 300-page understanding of what happened.

01:18:25.000 The problem is I have to deal with people like this who don't know, don't read, and then vote on it.

01:18:29.000 And no matter how many times, I say 500,000 times, pull the documents and pay attention to.

01:18:33.000 Because he wasn't just removed to that country.

01:18:34.000 He was also then placed in effectively a gulag or tortured.

01:18:38.000 Which branch has authority?

01:18:40.000 He was also enslaved.

01:18:41.000 Which branch has the authority.

01:18:42.000 I'm not disputing that the fall of the executive question.

01:18:44.000 I'm not disputing that this falls under the executive branch.

01:18:46.000 So why would he get a trial?

01:18:48.000 You read a thing that claimed he didn't have a trial.

01:18:50.000 That's a lie.

01:18:51.000 They 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.

01:18:59.000 The United States did not imprison him.

01:19:02.000 No, we just deported him illegally, correct?

01:19:05.000 No.

01:19:06.000 We deported him illegally, and then he was imprisoned and confined at Seacot, which is a torture dungeon.

01:19:11.000 Oh, my God. 0.99

01:19:13.000 You read a bunch of activist AI slop garbage. 0.99

01:19:16.000 Believe it and don't forget to. 0.98

01:19:17.000 So you don't think that Seacott has prolific human rights violations going on?

01:19:22.000 It's a foreign country. 1.00

01:19:22.000 Trump said himself. 1.00

01:19:23.000 You said I just read a bunch of like bullshit that made me think this literally on your phone. 1.00

01:19:28.000 You just read a bunch of AI slop, garbage activist stuff. 1.00

01:19:31.000 Wikipedia AI slop. 0.98

01:19:33.000 Let's stop this.

01:19:35.000 You read that he was illegally deported without a trial.

01:19:37.000 I am asking you why he would get a judicial hearing when immigration is the purview of the executive branch.

01:19:42.000 I said he was imprisoned without trial.

01:19:44.000 Indeed.

01:19:45.000 Why would you just characterize what I just said?

01:19:49.000 So do we run El Salvador's courts?

01:19:51.000 No, we don't.

01:19:52.000 Then why would we write that he got a trial or didn't?

01:19:55.000 It's not related to the executive branch.

01:19:56.000 It's a foreign country. 1.00

01:19:57.000 He was removed to that country specifically.

01:19:59.000 Is it his home country?

01:20:01.000 Confined.

01:20:02.000 It doesn't matter.

01:20:03.000 You don't know, do you?

01:20:04.000 He was not.

01:20:04.000 Did he have a stay of deportation to El Salvador?

01:20:07.000 No, I can't remember.

01:20:08.000 He did not.

01:20:09.000 It was Guatemala.

01:20:10.000 This is the insufferable thing.

01:20:13.000 You've taken a strong position on something you just don't understand.

01:20:16.000 So what does that matter?

01:20:18.000 The executive branch has sole purview for deportation.

01:20:21.000 He was not supposed to be sent to that country, correct?

01:20:24.000 No.

01:20:25.000 No, he was supposed to be sent to that country?

01:20:27.000 He had an order for deportation.

01:20:27.000 Yes.

01:20:28.000 The stay was for Guatemala.

01:20:30.000 And the Biden administration and Trump, through his own failures, didn't do it properly.

01:20:34.000 Why was he supposed to be sent to that country?

01:20:36.000 He had an order for immediate deportation.

01:20:38.000 From the Trump administration.

01:20:39.000 You think that was right?

01:20:42.000 If the State Department wants to deport somebody, they can, yes.

01:20:45.000 I'm not asking if they can.

01:20:46.000 I'm asking if you think it's right.

01:20:48.000 In the specific instance of Kilmar Obergo Garcia, was it right for him to be deported?

01:20:52.000 The answer is yes.

01:20:53.000 And it was right for him to be imprisoned at Seacot.

01:20:55.000 I am not El Salvador.

01:20:56.000 Well, Salvador does it beyond the United States borders.

01:20:58.000 El Salvador just answers the question.

01:20:59.000 Was it right for him to be imprisoned at Seacot?

01:21:02.000 If El Salvador finds him to be a criminal, yes, 100%.

01:21:05.000 So yes, you're saying yes, it was right for him to be imprisoned there.

01:21:09.000 So if El Salvador finds that their own citizen should go to prison, that's their business.

01:21:14.000 But he hasn't even been found to have.

01:21:16.000 That's not us.

01:21:17.000 We're not El Salvador.

01:21:18.000 You don't have to be El Salvador to have an opinion on this.

01:21:21.000 And my opinion is El Salvador can conduct their affairs as they see fit.

01:21:24.000 And if they determine he should go to prison, he should.

01:21:26.000 But they didn't determine that he was just put there.

01:21:28.000 They put him in prison.

01:21:28.000 They did.

01:21:29.000 He was just put there.

01:21:30.000 Because El Salvador decided he should be. 0.93

01:21:32.000 Yeah, but did he have a fair trial?

01:21:34.000 Does China have fair trials?

01:21:36.000 I didn't ask if China has fair trials, and that's completely irrelevant.

01:21:38.000 Did he have a fair trial?

01:21:40.000 If he had an El Salvadoran fair trial or not, I'm not El Salvador, nor do I think that you should invade El Salvador or Venezuela.

01:21:45.000 No, if he had a fair trial, and yet you'd be fine with him being imprisoned.

01:21:51.000 He did have a fair trial.

01:21:52.000 El Salvador's policy is very clear.

01:21:53.000 Anyone with gang affiliation is going to get in prison in Seacot, and he was found for a gang affiliation.

01:21:58.000 That's their law.

01:21:59.000 What was the gang affiliation that he was found of?

01:22:00.000 Tran de Aragon.

01:22:01.000 Tendi Araga.

01:22:02.000 Tende Aragua.

01:22:03.000 Actually, they accused him of being part of MS-13.

01:22:05.000 Was it?

01:22:06.000 He's also credibly found.

01:22:08.000 Like, do you remember when Trump was the Trump administration was saying Photoshop MS-13?

01:22:13.000 Because Trump was a fighter.

01:22:13.000 Yeah.

01:22:14.000 You just said that he was in Chanda Awau.

01:22:17.000 I was wrong about that.

01:22:17.000 I got it wrong.

01:22:18.000 Yeah, okay.

01:22:19.000 So what did he do then?

01:22:20.000 What crime did he commit?

01:22:22.000 That's up to El Salvador to decide.

01:22:24.000 Okay.

01:22:25.000 He's not a member of MS-13.

01:22:27.000 I literally don't care.

01:22:27.000 I don't care.

01:22:28.000 He's not American either. 0.90

01:22:29.000 So you don't care.

01:22:31.000 If 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.

01:22:39.000 He was here illegally. 0.97

01:22:40.000 I don't care.

01:22:40.000 No, We're not talking about it.

01:22:41.000 We're talking about El Salvador.

01:22:43.000 For the same reason, I don't think we should remove Maduro. 0.99

01:22:46.000 I don't give a fuck what El Salvador does with their own citizens. 0.98

01:22:50.000 I am not El Salvador. 0.99

01:22:51.000 I don't want to invade El Salvador.

01:22:53.000 I don't want to impose American hegemonic democratic principles on El Salvador or Venezuela or Afghanistan, Iran, China, or Russia.

01:23:01.000 So right now, what I can't stand is this argument that El Salvador imprisoned a guy. 0.99

01:23:05.000 I don't give a fuck what they did. 0.99

01:23:06.000 He's El Salvadoran in El Salvador. 1.00

01:23:08.000 China's imprisoning Uyghur Muslims and raping them and forcing them to get abortions. 1.00

01:23:13.000 That's miserably evil. 0.99

01:23:14.000 We can say we don't want to do trade deals with them.

01:23:16.000 That's fine.

01:23:17.000 The U.S. went in and removed Maduro, and liberals are furious about it.

01:23:20.000 Yet at the same time, they're arguing that we should impose American hegemonic principles on El Salvador.

01:23:25.000 I'm sick of it.

01:23:26.000 My principles are pretty dang simple.

01:23:28.000 I'm American.

01:23:29.000 I don't give a flying F what El Salvador, China, or these other countries are doing with their people.

01:23:33.000 I 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.

01:23:43.000 That being said, I think we can sanction China over the rape of the Uyghur Muslims. 1.00

01:23:47.000 We shouldn't be trading with people that brutally rape women and force them to get abortions. 0.89

01:23:51.000 We can make an argument that we should cut off our trade deals with El Salvador because of Seacot. 0.86

01:23:55.000 My point ultimately is.

01:23:57.000 So if you only care about what the American government is doing, then do you agree that he should not have been sent there?

01:24:05.000 He is not an American citizen.

01:24:07.000 And as someone who is not an American citizen, he should go home. 0.99

01:24:10.000 But that is legal government.

01:24:13.000 He doesn't have legal status here.

01:24:15.000 He came here illegally. 0.85

01:24:16.000 And there is no obligation for the American people to allow a criminal to be here.

01:24:21.000 Where or how the United States government deports individuals?

01:24:25.000 Absolutely not.

01:24:26.000 You don't care if their due process rights are violated.

01:24:28.000 You don't care if the government lies about that.

01:24:30.000 There is a process for which the government is not a personality.

01:24:33.000 I'm asking you about those things.

01:24:35.000 I'm asking if you're not going to be able to do that.

01:24:35.000 No, no, no.

01:24:38.000 If someone comes here from China illegally, they violate our laws and then seek to subvert the will of the American voter. 1.00

01:24:46.000 They should be arrested for the crime they committed.

01:24:48.000 And you know what it is?

01:24:50.000 Imagine if someone broke into your house and the worst thing you did to them was give them a ride home. 1.00

01:24:56.000 And it's like a stupid thing to argue. 0.97

01:24:57.000 Like a guy broke into my house and is stealing my food and I'm like, hey, hey, hey, whoa, would you like a ride home? 0.99

01:25:03.000 So that's what we do.

01:25:03.000 A guy comes here from El Salvador illegally.

01:25:06.000 We issue an order for deportation.

01:25:07.000 We send him home.

01:25:08.000 Then everyone's going a legal order because he was not supposed to.

01:25:11.000 It was a legal order of deportation.

01:25:13.000 And he had a stay for removal from the country of Guatemala due to a rival gang.

01:25:18.000 Where 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.

01:25:24.000 Now, 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.

01:25:31.000 So he can be sent back to El Salvador. 0.98

01:25:33.000 Now, 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.

01:25:42.000 He was never found to be a member of MS-13.

01:25:45.000 He was found by a court, yes, twice.

01:25:47.000 Which court?

01:25:47.000 There's an immigration court that asserted two times that he was wearing MS-13.

01:25:53.000 Making an assertion is different than them actually having evidence that he was part of MS-13.

01:25:56.000 He doesn't get judicial trials in an immigration executive branch court.

01:26:02.000 Do 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?

01:26:09.000 What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

01:26:11.000 You're changing the subject.

01:26:12.000 You just said that this person is a confirmed member of MS-13.

01:26:15.000 An immigration. 0.97

01:26:17.000 You found that he was a member of MS-13.

01:26:20.000 You said they asserted that he was.

01:26:21.000 That's different than them finding that he was.

01:26:23.000 There's no trial for this in the executive branch.

01:26:26.000 Executive is action, not judiciary.

01:26:29.000 And this was the other thing.

01:26:30.000 This is Supreme Court says Trump officials should have wrongly deported Maryland man.

01:26:35.000 The 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.

01:26:42.000 A Maryland manager is in custody there.

01:26:45.000 He's not a Maryland man.

01:26:46.000 He's an El Salvadoran who was illegally living in Maryland.

01:26:50.000 So if you live in Maryland for 10 years, you can't be considered part of a Maryland man.

01:26:55.000 No, 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.

01:27:07.000 Stephen 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.

01:27:15.000 They were going to deport him back to his home country.

01:27:18.000 Then when he got there, El Salvador decided that because they thought he was a member of a gang, they imprisoned him.

01:27:23.000 Even though he was praying, even though there's no evidence of that?

01:27:26.000 It doesn't matter what El Salvador thinks.

01:27:28.000 We're not El Salvador.

01:27:29.000 That's it.

01:27:29.000 End of story.

01:27:30.000 I'm not going to make an argument on what Ghana thinks about.

01:27:36.000 He's gang-affiliated.

01:27:37.000 You are just saying things to be tried.

01:27:40.000 And you're saying that because we're not in El Salvador, we can't have an opinion on it, obviously.

01:27:43.000 No, you can have an opinion on it.

01:27:45.000 But you're asking me about, do you believe that the U.S. should assert judicial authority over El Salvador?

01:27:50.000 How do you mean?

01:27:51.000 Do you think that we should force other countries to adhere to our frame of law?

01:27:55.000 It depends on the context.

01:27:57.000 Okay.

01:27:58.000 Should a.

01:28:01.000 I do believe that we should not be deporting individuals to countries where they are going to face ridiculous human rights abuses.

01:28:07.000 Going to prison as a human rights abuse?

01:28:09.000 Yes.

01:28:10.000 If you have never been able to do that.

01:28:10.000 Going to prison as a human rights abuse.

01:28:12.000 When 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.

01:28:23.000 Okay.

01:28:23.000 You don't know what you're doing.

01:28:24.000 We have to pause real quick because you keep saying due process.

01:28:26.000 No, this is the other thing.

01:28:27.000 A brief issue.

01:28:30.000 The court cited with liberals right now.

01:28:34.000 That's not what the word means.

01:28:35.000 The order properly requires the government to facilitate a Brego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador.

01:28:39.000 And 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.

01:28:48.000 Even Trump's appointees agree that it's not that they didn't violate it.

01:28:51.000 That's okay.

01:28:54.000 We are in a state of political adjudication with back and forth.

01:28:58.000 The dude's got two more pending removals.

01:29:00.000 Now he's going to Ghana.

01:29:02.000 Where's he going to Eritrea?

01:29:04.000 One of those.

01:29:04.000 I mean, like, the amount of things on Kilmar, Barbara Garcia are ludicrous, right?

01:29:09.000 The amount of...

01:29:10.000 I agree, but not for the same reasons.

01:29:12.000 Yeah.

01:29:12.000 Liberals are defending a guy who's not a citizen and they're lying about it.

01:29:16.000 They repeatedly and don't be wrong, conservatives are fucking retarded. 1.00

01:29:19.000 Liberals are defending issues. 1.00

01:29:20.000 Republicans come out and go to the bank.

01:29:22.000 Non-citizens don't get due process. 1.00

01:29:23.000 And that was never true. 1.00

01:29:24.000 They're just dumb. 1.00

01:29:26.000 Okay. 0.99

01:29:26.000 Due process means under law, you, in your circumstances, what are you do in the courts that they must adhere to? 0.99

01:29:33.000 Immigration courts are part of the executive branch and the executive branch does not have trials for these people.

01:29:37.000 A judge just said, goodbye.

01:29:39.000 Judicial courts can have trials or bench hearings.

01:29:42.000 Liberals don't understand any of these things.

01:29:44.000 And more importantly, I would say the proselytizers at the highest level just say whatever they have to to justify their ideological whims.

01:29:51.000 The point is, America should be America and should not be enforcing its will on other countries.

01:29:57.000 And if you are not from this country, the State Department has sole discretion to remove you from this country.

01:30:01.000 End of story.

01:30:02.000 Even permanent residents under the law can have their permanent residency revoked in fingersnap by the Secretary of the State.

01:30:10.000 So this whole argument is fake.

01:30:11.000 And it started with a conversation around him having his due process rights violated.

01:30:15.000 You're definitely not going to be afraid of the fact that it's not a good question.

01:30:15.000 Because liberals think due process means jury trial.

01:30:18.000 i 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.

01:30:31.000 And you are even going to pause real quick.

01:30:35.000 And you're going further to defend all of that.

01:30:37.000 They retracted that?

01:30:38.000 Okay.

01:30:38.000 Hold on, hold on.

01:30:39.000 They retracted the administrative error statement? 1.00

01:30:41.000 Yeah, they walked it back because they're trying to cover their ass. 0.96

01:30:44.000 What exactly did they say in the retraction? 0.98

01:30:46.000 Trump administration admits Maryland man sent to El Salvador prison by mistake.

01:30:50.000 The Trump admin is getting blowback for confirmed and potential errors in its rush to deport hundreds of men to El Salvador last month.

01:30:55.000 On Monday night, immigration officials admitted to deporting a Maryland man to El Salvador due to a quote-unquote administrative error.

01:31:01.000 Kilmar 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.

01:31:11.000 Immigration advocates claim those flown to El Salvador did not receive due process.

01:31:15.000 The admin used the three flights to quickly deport over 300 men accused of being members of MS13.

01:31:19.000 I'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?

01:31:29.000 Look.

01:31:30.000 Let's find the retraction.

01:31:31.000 So I'll tell you.

01:31:34.000 It was an administrative official, not in the highest level of the cabinet, who said there was an administrative error here.

01:31:39.000 That was a singular statement by a low-level official.

01:31:42.000 Probably about a week after this, the highest level of Trump's cabinet said they were incorrect.

01:31:48.000 We have asserted executive authority on national security issues for expedited removal.

01:31:53.000 That is our purview.

01:31:55.000 Now, by all means, this is to be adjudicated. 0.61

01:31:58.000 And 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? 0.73

01:32:09.000 Or was it Ghana? 0.99

01:32:11.000 What ridiculous country? 0.99

01:32:12.000 I don't know. 0.99

01:32:13.000 It's just like it was a JV one.

01:32:14.000 It was a JV country. 1.00

01:32:15.000 It's just a ridiculous thing.

01:32:17.000 The point is, we are not dealing with functions of the Constitution and law, which was the initial argument you asked about constitutional deportations.

01:32:25.000 We 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.

01:32:36.000 One thing remains.

01:32:38.000 In 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.

01:32:49.000 Okay, immigration courts are a singular executive official identified as an immigration judge, but they're not judicial, stamping something and saying expedited removal.

01:32:59.000 End of story, that is due process.

01:33:00.000 So 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.

01:33:08.000 An ICE official called his deportation to El Salvador an oversight in a statement submitted to the court on Monday.

01:33:13.000 Robert 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.

01:33:23.000 The admin argued against his return to the U.S., citing alleged gang ties and claiming that he is a danger to the community.

01:33:29.000 They also argue that the courts lack jurisdiction in the matter because Abrego Garcia is no longer in U.S. custody.

01:33:33.000 The admin wrote that Abrego Garcia's attorneys, quote, do not argue that the United States can exercise its will over a foreign sovereign.

01:33:40.000 And most they ask for is a court order that the United States can treat or control a close ally.

01:33:44.000 Now please read the retraction.

01:33:45.000 Can you read the retraction?

01:33:46.000 No, I should retract my own claim because they actually did not issue a retraction.

01:33:50.000 But what they did, what they did, as far as I could tell, I thought they had.

01:33:55.000 It seems like what they did is just double down on defending their decisions, even though they had admitted it was an error.

01:34:00.000 So do you think the State Department reserves the right to deport any illegal purely for being here illegally?

01:34:05.000 I believe so, yes.

01:34:06.000 Yeah, because it's like, that's part of the problem with the abrego thing is it's like.

01:34:09.000 There are legal means to remove people from the country.

01:34:12.000 They don't need to violate people's due process rights to do so.

01:34:12.000 Right.

01:34:15.000 If somebody isn't gang, if it's error, it should be easy to remove illegally.

01:34:15.000 So for able to do it.

01:34:20.000 They did.

01:34:21.000 You're right the first time.

01:34:22.000 They issued a retraction, DHS.gov.

01:34:25.000 This 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.

01:34:32.000 Very dangerous person.

01:34:33.000 And what the liberal left and fake news are doing to turn him into a media darling is sickening.

01:34:37.000 The 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.

01:34:48.000 I think this illegal alienation.

01:34:50.000 It sounds like the opposite of a retraction.

01:34:52.000 So I shouldn't have said that they retracted it, but they did.

01:34:55.000 Defend their decision.

01:34:56.000 Very low-rated anchor at CBC.

01:34:58.000 Would you plan to ask President Ridley to help return the man who your administration says was mistakenly deported?

01:35:04.000 The man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador?

01:35:07.000 Well, let me ask Pam, would you ask to answer that question? 0.97

01:35:10.000 Sure, President.

01:35:11.000 First and foremost, he was illegally in our country. 0.94

01:35:14.000 He had been illegally in our country. 0.55

01:35:17.000 And 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.

01:35:29.000 Right now, it was a paperwork.

01:35:31.000 It was additional paperwork had needed to be done.

01:35:34.000 That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him.

01:35:38.000 That's not up to us.

01:35:39.000 The 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.

01:35:53.000 So will you return him?

01:35:55.000 And you are doing a great job.

01:35:56.000 Thank you.

01:35:57.000 Thanks.

01:35:58.000 Wait a minute.

01:35:59.000 Can you just also respond to that question?

01:36:01.000 Because, 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. 0.56

01:36:08.000 That's why nobody's watching them.

01:36:10.000 But would you answer that question also, please?

01:36:12.000 Yes, gladly.

01:36:13.000 So as Pam mentioned, there's an illegal alien from El Salvador.

01:36:18.000 So with respect to you, he's a citizen of El Salvador.

01:36:23.000 So 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.

01:36:31.000 As 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.

01:36:50.000 So 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.

01:37:02.000 This 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.

01:37:14.000 That 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. 0.59

01:37:44.000 And I can promise you, if he was your neighbor, you would move right away.

01:37:47.000 So you don't plan to ask him?

01:37:49.000 So the point is, initially, an ICE official said that it was an administrative error.

01:37:54.000 The 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.

01:38:09.000 It doesn't matter if they don't have evidence before they labeled the city.

01:38:11.000 They have two courts.

01:38:12.000 Two courts ruled that he was MS-13.

01:38:14.000 So it doesn't matter to you that they had no evidence that he was actually courts.

01:38:19.000 It doesn't matter what you're saying.

01:38:20.000 Two courts are not that.

01:38:22.000 He was associated with known MS-13 gang members outside of MS-13 gang terrorists.

01:38:27.000 Knowing somebody within MS-13 means that you are part of MS-13 yourself.

01:38:31.000 Do you think if two courts rule that you are, that's enough or not enough?

01:38:34.000 I'm sorry.

01:38:34.000 You didn't answer my question.

01:38:36.000 So just knowing somebody in a gang, that means that you are also part of that gang.

01:38:40.000 He was, no, he was in the gang.

01:38:43.000 You said that he is associated.

01:38:44.000 I said, what's the evidence for that?

01:38:45.000 And you said, well, he associated with the game.

01:38:47.000 The courts found that he was wearing their gang colors, wearing their gang clothes.

01:38:51.000 He was known by informants to be, what's the term?

01:38:55.000 His rank?

01:38:55.000 Do you remember?

01:38:56.000 Let me pull it up.

01:38:57.000 He was a lieutenant.

01:38:58.000 No, no, no, no.

01:38:59.000 It's a provisionary.

01:39:05.000 It's a Spanish word.

01:39:08.000 Let me figure out what the...

01:39:12.000 There's a word for the lowest level.

01:39:15.000 And is this it right here?

01:39:16.000 I think I got it.

01:39:18.000 Was it?

01:39:19.000 Officer Basilan?

01:39:20.000 No, I am not a wrong person.

01:39:22.000 Chico.

01:39:23.000 Was it Checo?

01:39:24.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

01:39:24.000 Checo.

01:39:25.000 He was a Checo in MS-13. 1.00

01:39:26.000 Meaning he was like a probationary entry-level member.

01:39:29.000 Two courts found this.

01:39:30.000 I don't understand.

01:39:31.000 I got it.

01:39:32.000 Okay, let's just roll with it.

01:39:32.000 I got it.

01:39:34.000 So the point is this.

01:39:38.000 We have immigration courts for a reason. 1.00

01:39:41.000 Let's see, member of Princess George County.

01:39:44.000 This is the arrest report, I think.

01:39:45.000 Which one?

01:39:47.000 This?

01:39:48.000 Yeah, Chico.

01:39:49.000 He was a Chico known as Maniaco and MS-13 in their Sailors clique.

01:39:49.000 Chico.

01:39:56.000 Let's see.

01:39:58.000 Let's see.

01:39:59.000 Officers interviewed with Jose Guillaramo Domingo's during the interview, officers observed tattoos and skulls covering the eyes of his mouth.

01:40:05.000 Blah, See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil. 0.91

01:40:08.000 He has a tattoo of a devil on his left leg.

01:40:10.000 This presents power within MS-13.

01:40:11.000 Officers made contact with a past proven and reliable source of information who advised Dominguez the officer.

01:40:16.000 It was indicative of the Hispanic gang culture. 1.00

01:40:18.000 An active MS-13 gang member with the Sailors clique, the rank of Chico in the moniker of Maniaco.

01:40:23.000 With his button.

01:40:24.000 And that wearing the Chicago hat represents a member and good standing with MS-13.

01:40:29.000 Officers 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.

01:40:39.000 Officers know such clothing to be indicative of Hispanic gang culture.

01:40:41.000 The meaning of the clothing is to represent they oy calar.

01:40:45.000 See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil.

01:40:47.000 Wearing the bull's hat represents that they are a member and good standing of MS-13.

01:40:51.000 Officers, 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.

01:41:02.000 The confidential source further advised that he is the rank of Chico with the moniker of Chele.

01:41:07.000 Officers interviewed Jason Josu, is how you said, Ramirez Herrera during the interview.

01:41:12.000 They were unable to determine his gang affiliation.

01:41:14.000 Officers know MS-13 gang members are only allowed to hang around other members or prospects for the gang.

01:41:18.000 Officers will continue, blah, blah, blah.

01:41:20.000 The point is no criminal history.

01:41:23.000 What do you mean?

01:41:23.000 There's two witness testimonies corroborating things up.

01:41:26.000 That he's wearing certain clothes that they're trying to say is synonymous with MS-13 and Hispanic gangs.

01:41:32.000 Is that evidence?

01:41:34.000 Yes, it is.

01:41:34.000 No.

01:41:35.000 Is it proof?

01:41:36.000 Is it evidence?

01:41:36.000 No.

01:41:37.000 Yes.

01:41:37.000 Oh, sorry, that's what I should say.

01:41:39.000 And is it poor if there was evidence?

01:41:39.000 Right.

01:41:41.000 No, there is.

01:41:41.000 Is it good evidence?

01:41:42.000 No.

01:41:43.000 Yes.

01:41:43.000 Is it evidence?

01:41:43.000 Is it good evidence?

01:41:44.000 No.

01:41:44.000 Is it proof?

01:41:45.000 Absolutely not.

01:41:46.000 This is why we can't have a title.

01:41:47.000 The evidence is that he wears a Chicago bull's hat and has skull tattoos.

01:41:51.000 You know that's the same thing.

01:41:53.000 He has the see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil tattoo.

01:41:57.000 And that means that he's in a gang?

01:41:58.000 That's an MS-13 gang tattoo.

01:41:59.000 So if I got, if you left that tattoo tomorrow, that would mean you're an MS-13.

01:42:03.000 No, but it likely is affiliation, especially if you're hanging out with MS-13 gang titles.

01:42:07.000 Like all of his boys are in MS-13.

01:42:08.000 No, but he said he was hanging out with MS-13, but he's not a member of the game.

01:42:11.000 No, they kicked him out.

01:42:12.000 Yeah, he's like, but he's still friends.

01:42:13.000 Yeah, you're a little too bad.

01:42:14.000 But if you got it, it wouldn't be available. 0.85

01:42:16.000 Did you know that if you wear black and gold in Chicago, you'll get shot?

01:42:20.000 So if you had that tattoo, it wouldn't be evidence that you're an MS-13.

01:42:23.000 It would be evidence, yes.

01:42:25.000 Evidence and proof are different things.

01:42:26.000 Right.

01:42:27.000 I agree with you.

01:42:28.000 So you said before there was no evidence.

01:42:30.000 You're saying it's evidence and proof that he's an MS-13.

01:42:33.000 That's the claim that you made.

01:42:34.000 No, no, no.

01:42:35.000 Let's just be clear for everybody to make sure we're closing things up.

01:42:38.000 Yeah, you think that wearing a Chicago bulls cap and having a case of the case?

01:42:40.000 Before you said there was no evidence.

01:42:41.000 That doesn't mean that you're an MS-13.

01:42:43.000 Let's try and be clear here.

01:42:45.000 Yeah, I said there's no evidence in the library.

01:42:46.000 Please stop so I can make the point.

01:42:46.000 Please stop.

01:42:47.000 And I said it's not evidence.

01:42:49.000 Before you said there was no evidence, and perhaps that was a misspeak, but now we recognize there is no evidence.

01:42:54.000 It was a misspeak.

01:42:55.000 Sorry.

01:42:55.000 Okay.

01:42:56.000 Just told you, family evidence.

01:42:58.000 Two immigration courts determined the evidence was sufficient to prove he was a member of MS-13.

01:43:07.000 Do you agree with them?

01:43:07.000 Right?

01:43:08.000 Doesn't matter.

01:43:09.000 Do you agree with them?

01:43:09.000 Yes, yes, but it doesn't matter.

01:43:11.000 Why do you agree with them?

01:43:12.000 Because his clothing is.

01:43:13.000 Law enforcement.

01:43:14.000 Even though, again, no criminal history, no testimonies.

01:43:17.000 We're not raising history.

01:43:18.000 He was caught trafficking people.

01:43:19.000 No.

01:43:20.000 He's not standing.

01:43:21.000 He's been accused of trafficking individuals because he was stopped.

01:43:25.000 There was a traffic stop.

01:43:26.000 He had a bunch of people from Mexico driving to Maryland that they said they were doing for work.

01:43:30.000 And he was a bull.

01:43:31.000 Yeah, but he's not been.

01:43:32.000 That's still a good idea.

01:43:33.000 Hold on.

01:43:34.000 He's not actually.

01:43:35.000 This is, again, off the stage.

01:43:36.000 And if that's your standard for human trafficking, Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis moving those illegal immigrants around the country to Martha's village. 0.94

01:43:44.000 That is also yours.

01:43:45.000 Changing the subject.

01:43:46.000 Did two courts find him to be members of MS-13?

01:43:51.000 To my understanding, there's court documents that have been submitted, and this is the evidence that he's in MS-13.

01:43:56.000 Did two courts rule him to be.

01:44:00.000 You are wrong.

01:44:01.000 They did.

01:44:02.000 Two courts did. 0.92

01:44:04.000 Court documents saying judges.

01:44:07.000 He is.

01:44:08.000 And then he appealed, and another judge said, yes, he is.

01:44:11.000 Which judge?

01:44:12.000 Okay, let's pull it up.

01:44:13.000 My God.

01:44:14.000 Sophistry, sophistry, sophistry.

01:44:16.000 Judge.

01:44:19.000 DHS.

01:44:22.000 The 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.

01:44:22.000 I got it.

01:44:29.000 That finding was later upheld by another judge.

01:44:31.000 Okay.

01:44:32.000 So do you agree that two judges found to be a member of MS-13?

01:44:37.000 Yes.

01:44:37.000 Okay.

01:44:38.000 Then, based on the FTO designation, he supersedes the stay from CSIS.

01:44:43.000 Based on the evidence that has been presented to the public, he could admit that.

01:44:46.000 That is a very, yeah, but that's a very, if his due process rights are on the right.

01:44:49.000 No, hold on.

01:44:50.000 That's a very tenuous connection, in my opinion.

01:44:51.000 No, hold on.

01:44:53.000 After, so now that two courts, two, two judges, actually, it was an appellate judge, I believe it was three.

01:44:58.000 So it's initially one, then three.

01:44:59.000 After they found that he was, and then maybe they were wrong.

01:45:04.000 Maybe they were wrong.

01:45:05.000 Okay, this gives the federal government the authority to deport him under the FTO designation, which is what Stephen Miller asserted.

01:45:10.000 He then gets sent to his home country.

01:45:13.000 There's no appeal after that.

01:45:15.000 What El Salvador does with their own citizens. 0.64

01:45:16.000 He's reported an error.

01:45:17.000 No, he was.

01:45:18.000 He actually led to the circumstances where he could not.

01:45:21.000 He was not in error because I already showed you Stephen Miller pointing out that that was an ICE official and they were wrong.

01:45:26.000 And under the FTO designation, Stephen Miller says something that means that it's true.

01:45:31.000 Because Trump, did Trump declare MS-13 a foreign terrorist organization?

01:45:34.000 Yeah, I believe so.

01:45:35.000 He did.

01:45:35.000 And under the INA, you can remove, there's no immigration protections.

01:45:41.000 You are disqualified immediately upon that designation because immigration courts are executive, not judiciary.

01:45:48.000 When 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.

01:45:59.000 So you think it's fair that he's deported in an error?

01:46:03.000 And then after he's removed, after he's remotely deported to another country, he was not deported.

01:46:08.000 And we say we no longer have jurisdiction, even though he shouldn't have been put there in the first place.

01:46:12.000 And then the Supreme Court says that's correct.

01:46:14.000 He needs to remember that. 0.99

01:46:14.000 This is why we say you're just a liar. 0.99

01:46:16.000 Why am I liar? 0.92

01:46:17.000 We've already concluded it wasn't an error.

01:46:18.000 No, you didn't.

01:46:19.000 You said two judges confirmed it was MS-13, right?

01:46:22.000 Yeah.

01:46:23.000 Okay.

01:46:24.000 And MS-13 is an FTO.

01:46:27.000 Foreign terrorist organization.

01:46:28.000 The Trump administration designates this as such.

01:46:31.000 The immigration and naturalization allows for the disqualification of a stay of foreign terrorist organizations is a bit strange to me.

01:46:40.000 If you want to argue the law should be changed, take it up with Congress.

01:46:43.000 Don't then say it was an error when we've already shown you under the law it was not.

01:46:48.000 What am I supposed to take up with Congress?

01:46:49.000 That you want the law to change.

01:46:51.000 The INA says that a foreign terrorist does not is disqualified from immigration retrieve.

01:46:58.000 Do you think it's correct that he's designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations?

01:47:02.000 That's an opinion.

01:47:04.000 No, I'm asking.

01:47:06.000 This is an opinion question, immaterial to the conversation we're having.

01:47:09.000 So you think that it's correct to designate cartels as foreign terrorist organizations?

01:47:13.000 We are not talking about that.

01:47:14.000 We're talking about whether Kilmaro Brego-Garcia was lawfully deported.

01:47:17.000 Can you just answer that question?

01:47:18.000 If you think it's correct that MS-13 was designated a foreign terrorist organization, you don't know.

01:47:23.000 Why not?

01:47:24.000 I don't know.

01:47:24.000 I don't know if about it.

01:47:25.000 Okay, but that is the basis that's being used to deny this person due process under your argument.

01:47:30.000 I don't understand why no matter how many times we explain due process, you don't understand what it is.

01:47:36.000 Trump administration says this is a foreign terrorist.

01:47:37.000 Did Kilmar Obrego-Garcia get two court hearings?

01:47:40.000 There were two judges that reviewed evidence that said that there's sufficient evidence to say that he is part of MS-13 within his lawyer.

01:47:47.000 Is that due process?

01:47:48.000 Is that due process?

01:47:50.000 I'm not saying that he has not been subjected.

01:47:50.000 Yes.

01:47:52.000 He has not any due process.

01:47:54.000 No, you can have due process violated in one area and then honored in another.

01:47:57.000 That's not contradictory.

01:47:58.000 So two courts find him to be a member of MS-13.

01:48:00.000 Back in 2019.

01:48:01.000 Immigration courts are under the executive branch, not the judiciary.

01:48:04.000 That was back in 1999.

01:48:04.000 The executive branch then designates MS-13 an FTO.

01:48:08.000 Then that nullifies an executive stay to deportation to Guatemala that he had, but they didn't send him to Guatemala anyway.

01:48:13.000 They sent him to El Salvador.

01:48:15.000 After the fact, it's up to El Salvador what to do with an El Salvadoran. 0.97

01:48:17.000 Sounds like due process to me.

01:48:19.000 Due process is when you deport someone in error, which you dispute.

01:48:23.000 We just agreed it wasn't an error because you said he had two courts.

01:48:27.000 What was the error?

01:48:28.000 In 2019, in 2019 he was found.

01:48:31.000 What was the error?

01:48:32.000 The error is that he was not supposed to be deported to that country to Seacot.

01:48:38.000 To Guatemala, you mean?

01:48:39.000 No, the stay was for Guatemala.

01:48:39.000 To El Salvador.

01:48:41.000 The stay was for Guatemala.

01:48:42.000 What does that mean that he was supposed to be deported to El Salvador?

01:48:44.000 The stay was that he couldn't be sent to Guatemala.

01:48:47.000 Can you hear me?

01:48:48.000 I said that that does not mean that he was supposed to be deported to El Salvador.

01:48:51.000 They can deport him.

01:48:52.000 They can deport him at any country.

01:48:53.000 I'm not saying that they can't deport him.

01:48:55.000 I'm saying that he was supposed to be.

01:48:58.000 If the stay of deportation was to Guatemala and he was sent to El Salvador, what's the sent to a prison in El Salvador?

01:49:04.000 No, El Salvador imprisoned him.

01:49:06.000 We didn't send him there.

01:49:07.000 This 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.

01:49:20.000 What was the error?

01:49:21.000 The 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.

01:49:30.000 What was the error?

01:49:31.000 That he had not been found guilty of a crime yet.

01:49:33.000 Nonetheless, he was imprisoned to an El Salvador.

01:49:35.000 That wasn't the error.

01:49:36.000 You said he was deported in error.

01:49:38.000 What was the error?

01:49:40.000 The error is that he had a stay of removal and he was not supposed to be deported.

01:49:43.000 Except the stay of removal, according to the INA, is disqualified upon foreign terrorist designation.

01:49:48.000 But you already have to change the law, take up the corporations.

01:49:51.000 Earlier in this, you would not say that you think it's correct for drug cartels to be designated as foreign terrorist organizations.

01:49:57.000 I don't know.

01:49:57.000 But that's the basic idea.

01:49:58.000 Is that why I said that?

01:49:59.000 Because you're changing the subject.

01:50:00.000 You're changing the subject.

01:50:00.000 That's the basis.

01:50:02.000 It's part of the subject.

01:50:02.000 If I'm the basis for you saying that he ought to be deported.

01:50:05.000 If you want to change the law, take it up with Congress.

01:50:08.000 Take it up with Congress.

01:50:09.000 Congress changes laws.

01:50:10.000 Right now, the INA says the president has the authority to designate an FTO.

01:50:14.000 And if you do, your reprieve, immigration reprieve is disqualified.

01:50:19.000 That is all in the law.

01:50:20.000 There's no error there.

01:50:21.000 And you think all of that's correct?

01:50:23.000 It's factually correct.

01:50:25.000 Do you think all that's moral?

01:50:26.000 Morally correct is take up the law.

01:50:28.000 So you think all that is.

01:50:31.000 Really quick.

01:50:31.000 This is ad hominem.

01:50:32.000 Ad hominin.

01:50:33.000 How is that an ad hominem?

01:50:33.000 I'm just going to say that every time you do this, the question is, was there an error?

01:50:36.000 And we've concluded the answer is no.

01:50:38.000 There was an error.

01:50:39.000 Just because Stephen Miller says that there was no error.

01:50:41.000 Do you want me to reread it again?

01:50:43.000 I can reread it again.

01:50:44.000 It's like you're intentional, like you're agreeing with everything, but then failing to connect the dots.

01:50:49.000 So do you want me to reread it again?

01:50:50.000 Reread what?

01:50:52.000 Your post hoc out of context statement?

01:50:55.000 We've already concluded that Trump did designate the cartels foreign terrorist organizations.

01:51:00.000 You 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.

01:51:08.000 What's a functional administrative error?

01:51:10.000 An administrative error that causes to the function of immigration?

01:51:15.000 And there wasn't one.

01:51:18.000 There wasn't.

01:51:19.000 The FTO nullified the stay to Guatemala, which he wasn't sent to anyway.

01:51:24.000 So 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.

01:51:30.000 Stephen Miller saying that was the retraction I told you they made.

01:51:34.000 He said ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, but still deported Obrego Garcia because of an administrative error.

01:51:40.000 It's like an ICE official called his deportation an oversight in a statement submitted to the court on Monday.

01:51:47.000 And then they retracted it, which I showed you.

01:51:51.000 Stephen Miller's statements aren't law.

01:51:53.000 It's evidence of the administration retracting a statement from an ICE official at the highest levels.

01:51:59.000 They targeted him for deportation and removal, even though he already was.

01:52:04.000 That was a long time ago.

01:52:05.000 He had an order for deportation years ago.

01:52:06.000 Deportation and removal.

01:52:07.000 Years ago.

01:52:08.000 Obviously.

01:52:08.000 Then he was granted a stay.

01:52:10.000 He was granted a stay after the fact of deportation to Guatemala, which means he could have been deported anywhere.

01:52:16.000 And under the law, he was supposed to leave himself.

01:52:20.000 So there's no error, but I think you're just saying these things because it's political tribesmanship.

01:52:28.000 It's ill.

01:52:29.000 So you, but you think this is all moral?

01:52:32.000 See, that's a totally different question.

01:52:33.000 Do you want to answer this conversation and go to the next one?

01:52:36.000 You can answer the question first.

01:52:37.000 All right, so let's just do this.

01:52:38.000 Previous conversation is concluded.

01:52:40.000 Now let's talk about whether or not it is moral to deport non-citizens. 0.50

01:52:43.000 100%.

01:52:44.000 Do you think it was moral how Kilmar Brego-Garcia was treated?

01:52:47.000 Yes.

01:52:47.000 Yes?

01:52:49.000 It was actually the utmost of morality.

01:52:52.000 And even though he had not actually been a different conversation.

01:52:56.000 Why?

01:52:57.000 How is that unrelated to that?

01:52:58.000 You already granted that being here illegally in and of itself is grounds for deportation.

01:53:01.000 When did I grant?

01:53:02.000 When I asked you as being here illegally in and of itself grounds for deportation.

01:53:05.000 I'm saying I said that the government has the ability to deport anybody at any time, correct?

01:53:09.000 But that does not mean that they can't come up with ludicrous reasons to deport someone, in my opinion.

01:53:14.000 The question I was going to ask you before was why wouldn't someone like Kilmar have gone through the process the right way?

01:53:21.000 Are you okay with him not going through the process and just coming here illegally?

01:53:25.000 No, I don't think it's good that people come here illegally. 0.99

01:53:27.000 Then we can't do that.

01:53:29.000 But just because.

01:53:30.000 No, we can't.

01:53:31.000 Wouldn't that be the first crime?

01:53:32.000 Wouldn't that be the first problem?

01:53:34.000 No.

01:53:34.000 For everything else that you guys were just debating?

01:53:36.000 No, 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.

01:53:48.000 It means that they have legal means to come into the United States and then something expires. 0.71

01:53:52.000 They're here legally.

01:53:53.000 But if they cross a port of entry illegally, that does not mean that the state can do whatever they want in response to that.

01:54:02.000 The Secretary of State has total authority to deport people.

01:54:05.000 Yeah, absolutely.

01:54:07.000 No, I didn't say that they don't have total authority.

01:54:09.000 So that they can't do anything that they want in the process of doing that.

01:54:13.000 When you have total authority, you can say, okay, we're just going to send you out.

01:54:15.000 Absolutely.

01:54:16.000 But you're portraying it like we are throwing him in a gulag, which is not what's happening.

01:54:19.000 You don't think she thought it's a gulag?

01:54:21.000 That's not us.

01:54:22.000 That's El Salvador.

01:54:23.000 And also, for the recording of the city, we facilitated, we literally put him on a plan.

01:54:28.000 We put him on a plane.

01:54:30.000 Right.

01:54:30.000 And then he was immediately landed in El Salvador and then transferred to that prison.

01:54:35.000 If he knew that the gulags were that bad, maybe he should have gotten his paperwork done.

01:54:40.000 You're acknowledging, though, that he was put on a plane by the United States government.

01:54:43.000 They put him on the plane.

01:54:44.000 And then put in an El Salvador prison.

01:54:46.000 And you're saying that that's not the United States government.

01:54:48.000 He was deported to El Salvador.

01:54:50.000 Are you saying that that's not the actions of the United States government doing that?

01:54:53.000 Putting him in a gulag, supposedly, is not, that's nothing to do with us.

01:54:57.000 Even though our plane took him to the El Salvador prison that he was imprisoned at.

01:55:00.000 The plane took him to San Salvador.

01:55:02.000 It took him to an airport.

01:55:03.000 And then El Salvador's law enforcement was exchanged.

01:55:06.000 So were it not for the United States government flying him to El Salvador and then him being transported to the United States?

01:55:10.000 Because we deported someone you got and they get by a lot of people. 1.00

01:55:16.000 This is not an argument.

01:55:17.000 Custody was transferred to El Salvador and El Salvador to put him in transportation.

01:55:21.000 They facilitated his imprisonment in El Salvador in San Salvador.

01:55:24.000 No, they facilitated his transport and then the changing hands of custody.

01:55:28.000 The United States facilitated the transport to El Salvador.

01:55:31.000 They then gave him to the authorities in El Salvador.

01:55:33.000 Then the authorities in El Salvador were in the same place.

01:55:36.000 So we cooperated with them to imprison him.

01:55:39.000 No, we didn't.

01:55:40.000 It doesn't matter where he's going.

01:55:42.000 It doesn't matter.

01:55:42.000 No, we did.

01:55:44.000 We cooperated.

01:55:45.000 They cooperated with us by taking him when we transferred.

01:55:48.000 Oh, so it's under our jurisdiction then.

01:55:50.000 We sent him.

01:55:51.000 No, because they cooperated with us.

01:55:53.000 We're saying it was under our jurisdiction.

01:55:54.000 He was under our jurisdiction and we deported him to El Salvador.

01:55:58.000 Correct.

01:55:59.000 Custody was transferred to El Salvador and they put him in prison.

01:56:02.000 And we cooperated with that to help facilitate that imprisonment.

01:56:06.000 We facilitated getting him out of the country.

01:56:08.000 If you want to say that we did, I don't care.

01:56:11.000 I don't have the same kind of moral hang-ups that you do.

01:56:14.000 I clearly not.

01:56:15.000 I clearly find it.

01:56:16.000 I'm not morally reprehensible in your journey.

01:56:17.000 Yes, okay.

01:56:18.000 So there you go.

01:56:18.000 This is the whole point.

01:56:19.000 The whole point of all of this is her to be able to say, I'm a good person, you're a bad person.

01:56:24.000 If you want to call me a bad person, I don't care.

01:56:27.000 I think the guy should have been deported.

01:56:28.000 Or did I say that we have a difference of something that's morally reprehensible?

01:56:34.000 You are saying that it's morally reprehensible.

01:56:35.000 You realize that somebody can defend something.

01:56:37.000 You've been dying for this argument to be about good person, bad person the entire time.

01:56:42.000 That's why you keep switching between the legal argument and the moral argument.

01:56:46.000 All you want to do is sit there and say, see, I'm the good person and you're the bad person.

01:56:51.000 This has been the entire show. 1.00

01:56:53.000 It's absolute trash. 0.97

01:56:55.000 If 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? 0.99

01:57:01.000 Because this has all been a BS argument.

01:57:05.000 It hasn't been an actual genuine debate about anything.

01:57:08.000 You'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.

01:57:16.000 Because this isn't about law or rule of law or whether or not someone should be deported.

01:57:21.000 Because you've already said, oh, yes, these people should be deported.

01:57:25.000 You've said you've agreed to depart.

01:57:26.000 I said they can be deported.

01:57:27.000 I didn't say they should be deported.

01:57:28.000 That's a different.

01:57:29.000 Well, I imagine you don't think anyone should be deported.

01:57:31.000 No, I never said that.

01:57:33.000 That's why I said, I imagine.

01:57:34.000 I didn't say that.

01:57:35.000 I agree that to the extent that I believe some individuals should be deported, there are lawful means to remove them from the country.

01:57:40.000 And you've agreed that all of the lawful means have been all of the lawful standards have been met.

01:57:45.000 No.

01:57:49.000 It's the Patrick meme.

01:57:50.000 Yeah.

01:57:53.000 I don't know what to tell you.

01:57:55.000 You're trying to say that the United States was not involved in the imprisonment in an El Salvadoran prison.

01:58:01.000 The El Salvadorian authorities put him in prison.

01:58:06.000 The United States deported the man.

01:58:09.000 And we cooperated with El Salvador to put him in that prison.

01:58:15.000 Again, like I said, this is all driving conversations.

01:58:20.000 So you can say, look, this was a morally wrong thing to do.

01:58:23.000 And you can say, see, I'm not sure if you're a person.

01:58:25.000 I mean, I happen to think it was immoral, but the majority of the people.

01:58:27.000 That's the only thing that matters today.

01:58:29.000 That's the only thing that matters is your perception of morality.

01:58:32.000 I think it's moral.

01:58:33.000 I also care about the total law and the Constitution.

01:58:36.000 you 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.

01:58:47.000 So 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?

01:58:53.000 Because they're not mutually exclusive.

01:58:55.000 Do you acknowledge that it's not mutually exclusive to care about the Constitution, the rule of law, and morality?

01:58:55.000 The whole point.

01:59:00.000 It is mutually exclusive.

01:59:02.000 If you talk about it.

01:59:02.000 Oh, so you can only care about one or the other.

01:59:05.000 You can't care about the law.

01:59:05.000 You are talking about it.

01:59:06.000 You're just talking about it.

01:59:07.000 You can't care about the law of law.

01:59:08.000 There are going to be times when the rule of law is going to do things that one person might consider immoral.

01:59:13.000 Well, Phil, Phil, just so.

01:59:15.000 That's a descriptive claim.

01:59:16.000 Don't even grant her framework.

01:59:17.000 When we exchange custody in San Salvador, whatever El Salvador's business is, is their business. 0.90

01:59:23.000 We're not facilitating that.

01:59:24.000 It's just the reality.

01:59:26.000 So you don't consider us putting him on a plane, flying him to El Salvador, and deportation procedure.

01:59:33.000 It's a standard operating procedure to put somebody on a flight of the state.

01:59:36.000 Deport them to El Salvador and imprison them.

01:59:38.000 That is the process of the process.

01:59:39.000 It's standard to put them on a plane and drop them off in San Salvador.

01:59:42.000 Yes.

01:59:42.000 That's the only international airport.

01:59:43.000 And where he's imprisoned.

01:59:45.000 If El Salvador deems him as a member of MS-13, I'm not going to go and invade them over it.

01:59:49.000 I mean, it's like whatever.

01:59:50.000 And this is like 90%, 90% of the time.

01:59:53.000 You think that that's not the United States facilitating?

01:59:55.000 That's just, you just morally discharge it and legally discharge it all together.

01:59:59.000 Yes, 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.

02:00:08.000 He wasn't even supposed to be put on that plane.

02:00:10.000 He wasn't even supposed to be in the United States.

02:00:11.000 He wasn't supposed to be in the United States at first.

02:00:13.000 I mean, it's just like we're rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

02:00:18.000 It's like popular mandate to deport all illegal immigrants.

02:00:22.000 I mean, it is what it is.

02:00:23.000 I think the most important thing, though, is just that he was never barred from being deployed, deported to El Salvador.

02:00:29.000 I pulled up the old court document from 2019, and it was over Guatemala.

02:00:33.000 And this is like the crazy thing.

02:00:34.000 So if they deported him to just any country, it doesn't matter.

02:00:38.000 Even if it's an El Salvadoran citizen.

02:00:40.000 Even if it's not a home country, you defend it.

02:00:42.000 He's an El Salvadoran citizen.

02:00:43.000 He went home.

02:00:44.000 Okay, so would you defend him being deported anywhere?

02:00:47.000 Did he go home?

02:00:48.000 Would you defend him being deported anywhere?

02:00:50.000 No, no, I think he should go home.

02:00:52.000 So you wouldn't support him being flown to France, for example, and then imprisoned there.

02:00:57.000 I don't know, it didn't happen.

02:00:59.000 He went home.

02:01:00.000 And the court said that he was afraid of the city because it didn't happen.

02:01:01.000 You can't engage with the hypothetical?

02:01:03.000 It's because you're changing the subject.

02:01:04.000 Why?

02:01:05.000 Because I have a court document that says he was barred from going to Guatemala, which he didn't go to.

02:01:09.000 You're suggesting that.

02:01:12.000 Unless 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.

02:01:19.000 Therefore, the respondent's application for withholding of the act is granted.

02:01:22.000 This stated we couldn't send him to Guatemala.

02:01:25.000 And the weird thing is, everyone in the media has just said El Salvador over and over again.

02:01:29.000 And I have this post from Kenneth College.

02:01:30.000 You're suggesting that you would be uncomfortable if he had been deported to a third country.

02:01:35.000 You'd been successful.

02:01:37.000 Has 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?

02:01:43.000 The 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.

02:01:54.000 DHS has failed to carry out their burden to show that there are changed circumstances in Guatemala that would result in respondents.

02:01:59.000 So the order of deportation required him to leave. 0.99

02:02:03.000 And the problem really here is that Trump sucks and Biden sucks and everybody screwed it up and it became a political issue. 0.99

02:02:09.000 Now, 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. 0.99

02:02:15.000 He went to El Salvador, but was barred from going to Guatemala.

02:02:18.000 I don't know what the error was.

02:02:19.000 You're not going to distract me from asking my question again.

02:02:21.000 An unrelated question?

02:02:22.000 We can change the subject if you want.

02:02:23.000 Circular reasoning exhausts you at some point.

02:02:26.000 So, based on what you've argued, because you're like, he's just being sent home.

02:02:30.000 Yeah, you want to.

02:02:31.000 What'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.

02:02:40.000 I don't know, maybe.

02:02:41.000 Can you answer yes or no?

02:02:43.000 Why does it matter?

02:02:43.000 No, because I don't know.

02:02:44.000 He wouldn't have the right to speak.

02:02:45.000 I have strong feelings on it one way or another.

02:02:47.000 So he could have been deported to a torture prison in the Sudan.

02:02:52.000 You'd be okay with that.

02:02:52.000 No, I don't know.

02:02:54.000 Why not?

02:02:55.000 Why can't you speak to that?

02:02:56.000 I don't have enough information on what those countries are like and what it would look like.

02:02:59.000 So I'm talking about like a certain amount of time.

02:03:01.000 So if it was bad, he wouldn't be able to do that.

02:03:04.000 Wouldn't you be angry if he was deported to the sun?

02:03:06.000 I don't know.

02:03:08.000 You're talking about like the Rwanda seats.

02:03:10.000 I mean, you're laughing to avoid engaging with the hypothesis.

02:03:11.000 No, no, no, no, because we don't think you are.

02:03:13.000 I don't know how I would feel on a thing that didn't happen.

02:03:16.000 And it's fine to ask hypothetical, but my answer is literally, I don't know.

02:03:19.000 I don't have a yes or no answer for you because these are different countries.

02:03:22.000 The fact remains, he was barred from going to Guatemala.

02:03:24.000 He went to El Salvador.

02:03:25.000 He's home.

02:03:26.000 What his home country does.

02:03:27.000 If the Trump administration had deported him to Somalia and a prison there, you would be okay with it. 1.00

02:03:33.000 No.

02:03:34.000 No.

02:03:35.000 I don't know.

02:03:37.000 You don't know.

02:03:38.000 No.

02:03:38.000 I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

02:03:41.000 It's immaterial to me.

02:03:42.000 I'm not asking if you have strong feelings.

02:03:43.000 I'm asking if you just really can't engage with the hypothetical, and that's fine.

02:03:47.000 I can engage with the hypothetical.

02:03:48.000 No, you're refusing to because you're saying that.

02:03:50.000 I gave you an answer.

02:03:50.000 No, I'm not.

02:03:51.000 It's I don't know.

02:03:52.000 No, I don't know is a cop-out.

02:03:53.000 No, it's not how he really feels.

02:03:56.000 I don't have strong feelings.

02:03:57.000 I'm not 100% legal.

02:03:58.000 It could be bad.

02:03:58.000 It could be good.

02:03:59.000 I'll have to see.

02:04:00.000 What would you need to see so you could make a decision?

02:04:03.000 You can understand the deportation, the state of deportation, the actions taken, the plane, the prison, the politicians involved.

02:04:09.000 So if it was like a Boeing instead of like a different kind of plane, maybe you'd be in support of it.

02:04:13.000 Maybe you wouldn't be.

02:04:14.000 Maybe not.

02:04:15.000 Because if the plane had uncomfortable seats and they had him in a box or something, there's a lot of circumstances here.

02:04:20.000 All I can say is hard for me to do that.

02:04:24.000 That wouldn't change your answer.

02:04:25.000 You just say, oh, he should be deported, not in a box, in a plane.

02:04:28.000 You just meant that I don't have an answer to that.

02:04:29.000 You're just deported to the plane.

02:04:30.000 You just meant that I literally don't.

02:04:30.000 It's not a different country.

02:04:31.000 Sometimes people don't know things.

02:04:33.000 Sometimes I don't know is an okay answer.

02:04:35.000 I'm only saying that you're refusing to engage with the hypothetical.

02:04:38.000 But I did engage with your hypothetical.

02:04:39.000 In a substantive way, because you're saying, I don't know.

02:04:41.000 I don't have enough information.

02:04:42.000 There's all of these circumstances that would change it with that.

02:04:45.000 So give me one.

02:04:46.000 Yeah, you just said the plane.

02:04:47.000 You just said, oh, I don't know about the plane.

02:04:48.000 I don't know if he would be uncomfortable.

02:04:49.000 I don't know about the prison.

02:04:50.000 You said the prison would be a matter.

02:04:52.000 But 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.

02:05:02.000 Is what you're suggesting, or that it would at least be bad is what you're intimating, but you won't say either way.

02:05:07.000 Because I genuinely do not know.

02:05:09.000 And I'm not going to lie to people to pretend I have strong opinions on something that I don't understand.

02:05:14.000 It's hard for you to understand to give a straight answer to a hypothetical like that.

02:05:19.000 In this context, yes.

02:05:21.000 Sometimes I'm wrong and I'm not smart enough to understand what that would look like.

02:05:21.000 Okay.

02:05:21.000 Yep.

02:05:24.000 And I'm not going to make assumptions.

02:05:25.000 So I just.

02:05:26.000 I think you're plenty smart to engage with this hypothetical on your statement.

02:05:29.000 I did.

02:05:30.000 I don't know.

02:05:30.000 Sorry, substantively engage.

02:05:32.000 It's also manipulative to force an opinion he doesn't have.

02:05:35.000 Yeah.

02:05:36.000 How am I forcing an opinion?

02:05:37.000 Because he just told you his answer.

02:05:38.000 I'm just going to say by saying, I don't know.

02:05:39.000 I'm refusing to engage.

02:05:41.000 The only answer I can give you is I don't know.

02:05:43.000 I don't know what Somalia looks like.

02:05:45.000 Is there a CCO in Somalia?

02:05:46.000 How are Somali prisons?

02:05:47.000 Are they good?

02:05:48.000 Are they bad?

02:05:48.000 Are there accusations from liberals of human protection?

02:05:50.000 The Seacot ones are bad, and you don't seem to care about that.

02:05:52.000 Because El Salvador has an El Salvador citizen.

02:05:54.000 Somali does not have an El Salvador citizen.

02:05:56.000 See, they're different.

02:05:57.000 Because he's a citizen of a country.

02:05:59.000 They can treat him however they want.

02:06:01.000 It's their country.

02:06:02.000 Should we invade El Salvador?

02:06:03.000 Why do you care about human rights abuses if it came from a different government that's not his?

02:06:08.000 Yeah, you know, to be completely honest, I don't.

02:06:10.000 Okay.

02:06:11.000 Why is it difficult for you to answer the hypothetical where he supported to Somalia?

02:06:15.000 He's not Somalian. 0.97

02:06:16.000 I know that.

02:06:17.000 I'm saying, why is it difficult for you to answer the question if you don't care about human rights abuses from other countries?

02:06:23.000 Because I don't care in the sense that I would assert law over them, but I care in the sense that they're bad.

02:06:28.000 And so the issue of a person being sent to a third country.

02:06:31.000 It would be bad for him to be sent to a third country.

02:06:33.000 Yeah, there's circumstances I don't understand.

02:06:35.000 You realize that Trump has been just trying to do that, right?

02:06:37.000 I do, yeah.

02:06:38.000 Trying to send him to a third country?

02:06:39.000 Many of them.

02:06:40.000 We talked about it around, like Ghana and Eritrea and a bunch of other countries.

02:06:44.000 What was the other country?

02:06:45.000 Rwanda.

02:06:46.000 Was it Rwanda?

02:06:47.000 Rwanda's like the classic scheme. 0.98

02:06:48.000 It was Sudan, wasn't it? 0.96

02:06:50.000 Rwanda's been like a third country scheme. 0.80

02:06:52.000 All of this is convoluted hubbub nonsense where everyone who has no idea what's going on is trying to assert an opinion.

02:06:57.000 I got no problem saying I don't know about that.

02:06:59.000 All I know is he's from El Salvador.

02:07:01.000 He went to El Salvador.

02:07:02.000 What El Salvador does with their citizens, I'll put it like this. 0.99

02:07:05.000 Okay, you know what?

02:07:06.000 You're right.

02:07:06.000 I give up.

02:07:06.000 Let's invade El Salvador and shut him down.

02:07:08.000 Should we?

02:07:09.000 Does that follow from what I said?

02:07:11.000 Well, they're engaging in human rights abuses without due process, so let's send in the troops.

02:07:14.000 So you're saying yes, but it doesn't follow from El Salvador having human rights abuses that the only solution is to be able to do that.

02:07:19.000 Should we stop the human rights abuses?

02:07:21.000 Yes, but that's not diplomatic means.

02:07:24.000 Diplomatic means?

02:07:25.000 You 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.

02:07:25.000 Like what?

02:07:33.000 We have embassies in these countries where we can communicate with foreign dignitaries.

02:07:36.000 No, I'm saying, like, but what if sanctions?

02:07:38.000 We can make appeals to the UN.

02:07:39.000 What if sanctions don't work and they keep doing it?

02:07:41.000 So pretty please?

02:07:43.000 I'm only answering your question.

02:07:45.000 What are we supposed to do short of sugar on top?

02:07:47.000 You asked me, what are we supposed to do short of invading them?

02:07:49.000 And I'm giving you different avenues.

02:07:50.000 And now you're saying what if they don't work?

02:07:51.000 Venezuela's sanctions.

02:07:52.000 And I'm not saying that they are guaranteed to work.

02:07:54.000 I'm saying there are different ways, objectively, than just invading a country.

02:07:59.000 Let's talk about Venezuela real quick.

02:08:00.000 Sanctions didn't work on Venezuela.

02:08:02.000 They kept trading oil with sanctioned countries and they were sanctioned.

02:08:06.000 So should we just let them keep doing it or should we invade Venezuela?

02:08:10.000 You realize it's a false dichotomy that you've presented, right?

02:08:12.000 What's the false dichotomy?

02:08:13.000 That it doesn't have to be one or the other.

02:08:15.000 The invasion or the sanctions?

02:08:17.000 Yeah, no.

02:08:18.000 All right.

02:08:18.000 So do you have a suggestion for what we do beyond the sanctions failing?

02:08:21.000 There's other diplomatic means.

02:08:22.000 Am I able to articulate what they could be?

02:08:25.000 You don't know.

02:08:25.000 No.

02:08:25.000 I'm just saying that I'm sure there exists any number of different actions we could appeal to the UN.

02:08:31.000 There's other, we could work in coordinates.

02:08:32.000 In the UN and other countries.

02:08:36.000 I'm only answering that there are more options than just sanctions and invasions.

02:08:40.000 Do you agree with me?

02:08:42.000 Yeah, I don't.

02:08:45.000 What do you mean?

02:08:45.000 We could say pretty please.

02:08:47.000 Yeah.

02:08:47.000 Sure.

02:08:48.000 Yeah.

02:08:50.000 But 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.

02:08:58.000 I think it's, you know, the polymarket's not paying out Venezuelan invasion because they argued that we didn't capture territory.

02:09:04.000 Oh, really?

02:09:05.000 But like, we did.

02:09:06.000 We took the Venezuelan compound to secure him. 0.97

02:09:09.000 Just because it was for 90 minutes doesn't mean it wasn't an invasion.

02:09:12.000 So the argument is, how does the U.S., the U.S. does a variety of things to take over a country?

02:09:17.000 We do first economic incentives.

02:09:19.000 We'll make you rich.

02:09:20.000 If they say no, then we try to manipulate them politically.

02:09:24.000 Well, the first economic incentives things does involve sanctions.

02:09:27.000 Then 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.

02:09:35.000 It's not a great example.

02:09:36.000 But Ukraine is probably a better example, the Euromaidan movement.

02:09:40.000 Before it became full-blown war, the U.S. was funding activist groups to foment support for the EU.

02:09:46.000 When that doesn't work, we then go for assassinations.

02:09:49.000 And if that doesn't work, we then go for full-scale militarized invasion.

02:09:52.000 So that's the playbook for how it went with Saddam Hussein. 0.79

02:09:55.000 And it was because he didn't want to trade oil in dollars, he wanted to trade in Euro.

02:09:59.000 And Muamar Gaddafi wanted to trade in gold.

02:10:02.000 That's the scale of things that we do.

02:10:03.000 Did you support the Obama administrative intervention?

02:10:06.000 Absolutely not. 0.99

02:10:07.000 And I think Barack Obama was a scumbag who murdered children and American citizens, and he should be a war criminal and should be arrested. 0.99

02:10:13.000 And 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. 0.99

02:10:20.000 Now, 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.

02:10:24.000 The Obama killing of Abdurrahman al-Alaki is admitted to, confessed to, and they said, whoopsie-daisy. 0.97

02:10:29.000 So if you want to confess the murder of an American, you get locked the fuck up. 0.54

02:10:32.000 So anyway, I don't think the U.S. should be killing Saddam Hussein and invading under false pretenses to enforce the petrodollar.

02:10:41.000 don'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.

02:10:51.000 I'm sorry, I can't get the name right, but that individual, even if they're affiliated with the terrorist alliance.

02:10:55.000 Abdul Rahman Al-Laki was not, no.

02:10:56.000 He was a 16-year-old from Boulder, Colorado, visiting his family in Yemen.

02:10:59.000 Oh, wait, wait, wait.

02:11:00.000 I'm not talking about that.

02:11:01.000 That's, uh, it was like an additional casualty that was incurred as a result of this.

02:11:05.000 Abdurrahman al-Laki was directly targeted and the restaurant was blown up and he was killed.

02:11:05.000 No, no, no, no, no.

02:11:05.000 I'm talking about...

02:11:09.000 And when asked about it, they said, we thought there was a different target at the building.

02:11:14.000 So would you, if they're part of a terrorist organization, is that okay?

02:11:18.000 Depends.

02:11:19.000 Anwar al-Alaki was an American citizen.

02:11:21.000 But he was part of Al-Qaeda, no?

02:11:23.000 Perhaps.

02:11:24.000 He was argued that he was a proselytizer of Al-Qaeda, and he was actively engaged in war with us in a war zone.

02:11:30.000 That's tough.

02:11:31.000 I 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.

02:11:40.000 Doesn't matter if they're an American citizen or a Uzbekistanian or whatever.

02:11:44.000 So Anwar al-Alaki was killed in a drone strike.

02:11:47.000 He was an American citizen who wasn't given due process.

02:11:49.000 No charge, no trial.

02:11:50.000 They just killed him.

02:11:51.000 The argument they made was he was an active enemy combatant proselytizing for our enemies in enemy territory.

02:11:56.000 And it's like, well, we aren't at war with Yemen.

02:11:59.000 So why are we bombing Yemen?

02:12:01.000 He's just a foreign guy preaching things we don't like. 1.00

02:12:03.000 There should be a trial for him.

02:12:04.000 Now, Abdulrahman is wholly different.

02:12:06.000 This 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.

02:12:13.000 Obama should be in prison for that.

02:12:13.000 That's criminal.

02:12:15.000 He admitted to it.

02:12:16.000 As administration said, we thought it was a different target.

02:12:19.000 Okay, we call that manslaughter.

02:12:21.000 We call that negligent homicide.

02:12:21.000 Okay.

02:12:23.000 If you point a gun at a guy and shoot him and say, I thought that was a murderer, we say, well, you killed an innocent person. 0.99

02:12:28.000 You go to jail for that.

02:12:29.000 Anyway, we are well over and we do need to wrap up.

02:12:31.000 But I do want to give you the opportunity to put your final thoughts in and take the final word.

02:12:35.000 I don't have any additional final thoughts.

02:12:37.000 Had a good time talking with all of you guys and debating throughout the afternoon.

02:12:41.000 My name is Aaron, aka Spiritist Radio at Underscore Online.

02:12:44.000 I live stream basically Monday through Friday politics, React streams.

02:12:48.000 So come by.

02:12:48.000 It's always a good time.

02:12:49.000 And thank you for having me on.

02:12:50.000 Thanks for coming too.

02:12:51.000 And I appreciate you handling the heat in the kitchen.

02:12:54.000 I know we're all kind of against you, but I do think it was great to have you.

02:12:57.000 It's fun for me.

02:12:58.000 I do want to apologize to the Discord members in the backstage that we didn't go through your chats or whatever because I lost my mind.

02:13:03.000 But now we're 12 minutes over.

02:13:04.000 We're out of time because we have limited time today.

02:13:05.000 That's why we're pre-recording.

02:13:07.000 So, yeah, do you want to shout anything out before we go?

02:13:09.000 Yeah, so you guys can follow me.

02:13:11.000 I'm mostly on X at RealDefender45.

02:13:14.000 But I will remind you all that it is important to get involved locally because a nation where its citizens don't show up can be lost.

02:13:23.000 And so we need to act.

02:13:25.000 X and Instagram at RealTate Brown.

02:13:28.000 Go follow me there.

02:13:29.000 I am Phil that Remains on Twix.

02:13:31.000 The band is all that remains.

02:13:32.000 We're going on tour.

02:13:32.000 We're going to be in Albany on April 29th.

02:13:34.000 We'll be on tour for three weeks after that until the end of, which is about the end of May.

02:13:38.000 We're going out with Born of Osiris and Dead Eyes.

02:13:40.000 You can check out all the remains music on Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, YouTube, and Deezer.

02:13:44.000 Don't forget the left lane is for crime.

02:13:45.000 I just want to say again, too, that it was great to have you.

02:13:47.000 And you can tell it was a good show when we go over and it's just like we don't even notice as time flies.

02:13:53.000 Yeah, I know.

02:13:54.000 I'm like, I want to keep going because I'm having fun and I think it's important, but we were supposed to have a hard stop.

02:13:59.000 So everybody, thank you all so much for being members.

02:14:01.000 Thanks for watching the show.

02:14:02.000 We're back, of course, on Monday.

Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - January 09, 2026

NEW VIDEO PROVES Woman STRUCK ICE Agent, Activist Says COME AT US | Timcast IRL

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript