NEW VIDEO PROVES Woman STRUCK ICE Agent, Activist Says COME AT US w/ Kaity, Defender of the Republic

Summary

---

Timcast IRL — NEW VIDEO PROVES Woman STRUCK ICE Agent, Activist Says COME AT US w/ Kaity, Defender of the Republic (Jan 10, 2026)

Episode Overview

In this intense, wide-ranging episode, Tim Pool and his panel dissect newly-released video footage of a high-profile ICE-involved police shooting in Minnesota. The debate centers on whether the ICE agent was justified in firing shots after being struck by a vehicle driven by activist Renee Goode. The conversation spirals into legal, moral, and political territory—with side debates on due process, the role of the executive branch in deportation, and federal vs. state authority. Notably, the panel splits between pro-law enforcement and civil liberties/civil rights stances, with guest Aaron (“Straight Raid”) frequently challenging the others’ assumptions and reasoning.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Analysis of Police Shooting Footage (04:14–45:53)

• Breakdown of the Video: The panel plays and scrutinizes the cell-phone and bodycam footage frame-by-frame. The video shows Renee Goode’s vehicle make contact with the ICE agent, whose camera is jostled and feet slide on icy pavement.
  • Tim: "You can hear his body slap the hood... she’s staring at the ICE agent the whole time… she shifts and looks right at him as she starts spinning the wheel." (06:12)
• Intent and Culpability: Multiple panelists argue that Goode knowingly disobeyed lawful orders and created a dangerous situation.
  • Tim: "She created the circumstance. She committed a crime. Listen, when you commit a crime, anything that happens subsequently is your fault." (25:12)
  • Aaron counters: “I don’t think this constitutes a reasonable person’s definition of imminent threat or likelihood of death… She was attempting a multi-point turn, not trying to accelerate towards or at the agent.” (11:28)
• The ‘Drive, baby, drive’ Statement: Debate erupts over whether Goode’s wife urging her to drive deepens her culpability or changes the officer’s justification to fire.
  • Tim: “If that’s what she said, it’s a criminal charge… instructing to flee.” (27:04)
  • Aaron: "She probably would have tried to flee anyway. Why is it such a big deal what the wife said?" (27:29)

Notable Moment:

• Phil: “To deny that he was hit is to deny what you’re looking at.” (41:38)

2. What Legally Constitutes Reasonable Use of Lethal Force? (12:36–45:04)

• Is a Vehicle a Lethal Weapon?
  • Tim and Phil cite court precedent and DHS guidelines confirming cars can be “deadly weapons.”
  • Phil: “A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon under certain circumstances depending on how it is used…" (16:36)
• Law vs. Politics:
  • Tim: “We are well beyond legal machinations now. It’s literally just exertions of authority and power.” (11:15)
  • Debate: Are post-contact shots justifiable? Was the agent’s trauma from a previous drag incident relevant or disqualifying?

3. Broad Political & Media Landscape (46:14–49:29)

• Media Narratives & Tribalism:
  • Tim explores how both political tribes interpret and distort events like this, using coverage and polling to illustrate shifting narratives.
  • “Democrats said the economy was fine under Obama, bad under Trump… Republicans do the same. These are not real opinions.” (49:32)

4. Federal & State Tensions (52:15–64:04)

• Federal Shielding of ICE Agent:
  • Coverage of DOJ blocking Minnesota from investigating the ICE shooting.
  • Tim: “The federal government and the state governments have bisected and are at odds. Where does that go?” (52:15)
  • Phil: “I think the state stands down. I don’t think they’re in a position to push the issue.” (54:21)
  • Discussion of possible extradition showdowns if the agent flees to a ‘friendly’ state like Florida.
• Stakes for Law Enforcement:
  • Panel warns that prosecuting the agent would devastate ICE morale and enforcement capability.
  • “If this cop gets prosecuted, ICE will quit en masse, and Trump’s agenda collapses.” (56:23)

5. Deep Dive: Due Process & Immigration Law (66:43–121:23)

• Executive Branch Power:
  • Tim provides a civics lesson on ‘due process’ as applied differently depending on citizen status.
    • “Due process for an illegal immigrant is called expedited removal... they don’t go before a jury or a judge.” (74:57)
  • Aaron contends: “That doesn’t mean the US can do whatever it wants. There are minimum standards of due process applied to every single person.” (74:52)
• Case Study—Kilmar Abrego Garcia:
  • Tim and Aaron fiercely debate the specifics of this disputed deportation.
  • Tim: “Two courts found him to be a member of MS-13. The INA says a foreign terrorist is disqualified from reprieve.” (107:00)
  • Aaron: “There’s no good evidence—wearing a Bulls hat isn’t proof of gang membership. And ICE called it a deportation oversight, an administrative error.” (94:01, 101:25)

6. Slippery Slope: U.S. Responsibility for Foreign Human Rights Abuses (119:36–128:44)

• Is the U.S. Morally or Legally Liable?
  • Does deporting someone to face torture/prison constitute a rights violation?
  • Tim: “He went home. What his home country does is not our problem.” (121:44)
  • Aaron: “So we cooperated to facilitate his imprisonment…” (119:01)
  • Phil bluntly: “If El Salvador deems him an MS-13 member, I’m not going to invade them over it.” (120:53)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments with Timestamps

• Tim, on the video evidence:

  • "You can hear his body slap the hood of the car… She’s looking right at him as she spins the wheel." (06:12)
  • “She created the circumstance. She committed a crime. Anything that happens is your fault.” (25:12)

• Aaron (Straight Raid), dissenting:

  • “Does this constitute a reasonable person’s definition of imminent threat? I don’t think so… She was turning away from the officer, with a calm demeanor.” (11:28)
  • “You think the United States wasn’t involved in the imprisonment in an El Salvadoran prison?” (118:59)

• Phil, clarification on law:

  • “A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon under certain circumstances depending on how it is used…” (16:36)
  • “To deny that he was hit is to deny what you’re looking at.” (41:38)

• Tate, on federal vs. state conflict:

  • “The feds hold the cards… The state’s avenues toward retribution here are very limited.” (58:13)

• Group on “political prosecution”:

  • “If Minnesota brings charges, Florida won’t extradite… That would be like war.” (63:52)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [04:14–06:46] — Playing and first analysis of ICE shooting video
• [10:09–13:59] — Panel debates intent, law, and precedent
• [25:12–27:40] — Criminal culpability, felony obstruction, and “drive, baby, drive”
• [45:53–49:29] — Political tribalism in public opinion/media
• [52:15–54:29] — Breaking news: DOJ blocks Minnesota from investigation
• [56:23–58:13] — Threat to ICE and law enforcement if agent prosecuted
• [66:43–74:57] — In-depth debate: Due process, expulsion, and constitutional law
• [94:01–107:00] — Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation case analysis
• [119:36–128:44] — Morality and U.S. responsibility for foreign imprisonment

---

Tone & Style Observations

• Direct, combative, and unfiltered: Tim is relentless and somewhat combative; Aaron meets him point for point; Phil is blunt and legalistic; Tate cracks dark jokes; Defender of the Republic (Kyrie) maintains a populist, pro-sovereignty stance.
• Regular Conflict: Debates move quickly and emotionally, with accusations of "sophistry" and political tribalism traded back-and-forth.

---

Summary Takeaways

• The panel strongly divides over whether the video exonerates the ICE agent; most agree no prosecution will occur, except for Aaron, who maintains the use of force was excessive.
• Both the legal standards for police use of deadly force and the impact of state vs. federal authority are brought into sharp relief.
• Heated debates expose both the legal complexity and political polarization surrounding immigration enforcement and police actions in America.
• The episode is a raw, at-times chaotic exploration of public distrust, due process, and the consequences of deeply politicized justice.

---

Transcript

[A]

Well, the holidays have come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift, well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now. You call it an early present for next year. What do you have to lose? Give it a [e-mail] Switch limited time.

[B]

50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 month or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees.

[A]

Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy.

[B]

See terms.

[A]

Cell phone footage from the officer who fired the shots on the woman in Minnesota has been released and it shows some interesting things. First, it shows prior contact with activists and Renee Good. It shows that they actually exchanged words and you can clearly hear the impact on the hood of the car. In fact, we were talking with a former prosecutor earlier who said, ooh, wow, that's not good. So we want to analyze this footage and go over what we're currently learning. But there's quite a bit more pertaining to the footage being released. Protests from across the country. We'll talk about 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's not as interesting. Despite being more significant, the US has seized its fifth oil tanker. So we are looking at dramatic escalation. We'll talk about that and a whole lot more. We've got a police shooting in Utah. More information about the individuals that were shot in Portland. Before we get into all that, my friends, we've got a great sponsor for you. It is Tax Network USA. Head over to TN you USA.com Tim, do you owe back taxes or haven't filed in years? Now is the time to resolve your tax matters. With the 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. They're sending out more collection notices, filing more tax liens and collecting billions more than in recent years. If you owe, the IRS can take your wages, bank account, Social Security, retirement, even your home if you owe or haven't filed. It's not a question of if the IRS will act, it's when. 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. Their powerful programs and strategies can save you thousands or even eliminate your debt entirely if you qualify. Don't make a serious mistake representing yourself or calling the IRS on your own. Waiving your rights can cost you a and could cost you more money. They are not on your side. Get protected the right way with Tax Network USA and start the process of settling your tax matters once and for all today. Call 1-800-958-1000 or click the link below for your free discovery call with Tax Network USA. Don't let the IRS be the first to act. Go to tnusa.com Tim and I wanna stress we are running out of these here blueprint model boards. The hand grenade and the 50 cal are gone. While you still can get them. Get [e-mail] we've got the Richie Jackson assault wine bottle. We've got the Jason Ellis battle axe and the Cody Mac Colt. 45. Now all of these, they're nearly sold out. There's a few left. There's a chance to get one out of five limited edition golden serialized versions of these. We also have the step on SNEK and find out 2.0 of which actually there's about a hundred of these much easier to get. And there will be 10 limited edition gold serializer. Check them out at boonage q.com don't forget to smash that like button. Share the show with everyone you know. We actually have a couple of guests joining us tonight to talk about this and everything else. Ma', am, why don't you go first. Introduce yourself.

[C]

Yes, my name is Kyrie, also known as Defender of the Republic. I live in the captured state of New Jersey and on social media I help educate and free the minds of the people online to the globalists out of the globalist matrix.

[A]

And on the complete other side of that, would you like to introduce.

[B]

I'm not doing anything as cool. My name is Aaron, AKA Straight Raid. I live stream Monday through Friday on Twitch YouTube. I cover politics. You react content and yeah, right on.

[A]

Tate, what's going on?

[D]

What is going on? Patriots, this is Tate Brown here holding it down on this beautiful, beautiful Friday. Happy to be here.

[A]

Hello everybody.

[E]

My name is Phil Labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band all that Remains. I'm an anti communist and counter revolutionary. Let's go get into it.

[A]

Let's get into the first story and I gotta be honest, probably the story that dominates the entire conversation that we do have big news. We've got this newly released Video footage from the ICE agents who fired the shots in question. We're just going to. We're going to start by playing the video for you guys so you can watch it for yourself. But it is. It is changing a bit of the narrative and there's a lot to debate on this video and what we're learning. So let's roll the tape. That's fine, dude.

[B]

I'm not mad at. Boy, show your face.

[A]

I'm not mad at it. It's okay. We don't change our plates every morning. Just so you know, it'll be the same plate when you come talk to us later. That's fine, U.S. citizen. You want to come at us? You want to come at us? I said go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. Did he say.

[E]

Sure did. Holy. Just got hit by a car.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And she's dead.

[C]

You can't help that.

[A]

So let's, let's play that again real quick. There's a couple things to point out. Get out of the car.

[B]

Oh.

[C]

Whoa.

[A]

So here's a few things. First, I didn't catch this right away. I was watching this video and Phil pointed out it sounds like the wife says, drive, baby, drive, drive. Try and listen. And I. I'm not sure that's exactly what she's saying. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. It sounded like she said, drive, baby, drive, drive. You can also hear his body slap the hood. Or it sounds like it's hitting the hood of the car.

[E]

There's two things going on at the same time. It's body hitting the hood. And the first shot goes off at.

[A]

The other thing is everyone's pointing out she's staring at the ICE agent the whole time. She turns her head and she's looking right at him. And then she shifts and she's looking right at him as she starts spinning the wheel. So this does change a few things. You can see her spinning the wheel before she accelerates forward, which is because the wheels are actually facing the other direction. So she has to spin it around quite a bit. This is not even one second. Let's, let's, let's play.

[C]

Whoa.

[A]

It's about a second and a half. Can you hear the.

[E]

Can you hear a squeal of the tires plate again?

[B]

Oh.

[A]

Just like that. About a second and a half.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

So the interesting things to consider. Prior contact. She's engaged by DHS already and. And they're filming her vehicle. And she says, I believe it's oh, here, let's. Let's play it. That's fine, dude.

[B]

I'm not mad at you.

[A]

That's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you. That's okay. We don't change our plates every morning, just so you know. It'll be the same plate when you.

[B]

Come talk to us later.

[A]

He's collecting. Fine US Citizen. You want to come at us? You want to come at us? You want to come at us? Go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead. Out of the car. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. Drive, baby, drive, Drive. It sounds like she's saying, you can.

[E]

Clearly hear the other ICE agent telling her to get out of the car. She's ignoring a direct command.

[A]

So we. 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. But the second and third shot will be harder to justify. However. What is this? You're playing music? When we finished the debate, I didn't say anything. I just pressed play and showed it to him, and he went, whoa. Yeah, there's not gonna be a prosecution there. There's not gonna be a prosecution with this video footage. So I don't know what y' all think, but it sounds to me. I'll just give you my thoughts right away. Prior contact indicates the women driving the car. Renee Goode was well aware that she. That she was engaged with law enforcement. So when they approach her saying, get out of the vehicle, and she attempted to flee, this was not a panic. This was. She knew she was engaged with law enforcement to a certain degree. And this cop walking around her vehicle, filming, he's collecting evidence. When the other agent comes up and out of the car, she's smiling and staring at him. And it appears. The wife says, appears the wrong word, but it sounds like she says, drive, baby, drive, drive. I think that's gonna give her criminal culpability. And I think the speed at which you hear the body hit the car and the shots go off are gonna, like, this is a slam dunk for the agent. It's not good. It shouldn't have happened. But I think a few things to point out. The amount of time from him walking around the vehicle. She knows he's there. There's no reason for her to drive. And he's collecting evidence, so why is he there? There's a legitimate reason. The wife says, you want to come at us? You Want to come at us 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. She can clearly see the agent is standing right in front of her and she has a smile on her face. And then she goes for it and she hits him and you can hear it. And he shoots her. I don't see how this. Look, to be honest, this goes to prosecution because it's political, because Minnesota, the governor, the mayor, the state prosecutor, it's political ideology. 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. Yeah.

[E]

I mean, look, the argument that I heard this morning actually from, or maybe, maybe it was last night, but J.D. vance was saying he's got immunity because he's engaged in a lawful, you know, lawful stop. She knew that. Like you said, she knew she was dealing with, with law enforcement. Right away the guy came up and said, get out of the car. So she's trying to flee the scene. It is a pretty clear cut case. When she contact, when her car contacted his body, then he's totally in the right to, to defend himself, you know, so the idea, I don't, I, I don't think that this actually goes to trial because I think he's got immunity. I don't think the Justice Department's gonna let it happen.

[A]

It's a state charge.

[E]

I don't, I think that, I think the, the feds are gonna be like, no, you can't.

[A]

Well, the state can bring the charges regardless.

[E]

Well, I can't if he's got immunity.

[A]

Can they, he has. He, they're gonna, they're gonna try and move it to a federal court citing immunity. This is what we were debating earlier. Sovereign immunity is a federal agent. But come on, does it matter what's true?

[E]

Well, I mean, it's always what you prove in court.

[A]

No, no, no. We're not even there anymore. Like, they, they, they didn't even prove that Trump committed a crime in the fraud cases. Does it matter?

[E]

I mean, to your point, no.

[A]

I guess we are well beyond legal machinations now. It's literally just exertions of authority and power.

[D]

Yeah, I mean, I don't think most people on the left are even going to see this video. Like the resistance is already underway.

[A]

What do you think?

[B]

I think this does it. This only makes ICE look worse, in my opinion, for a few reasons. One I don't think this is not me saying that Renee Goode 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. I'm strictly talking about does this constitute a rise to the level of a reasonable person's understanding of what constitutes imminent threat or likelihood of death? I don't think so. 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. I think that she had a calm demeanor, even though she's smiling and yes, she's doing so, like to taunt him, I suppose. But one, I don't think that that constitutes a threat in and of itself. She's saying, I'm not mad. She's clearly turning right to get away from the officer. So I don't see where the kind of imminent death.

[A]

What about drive, baby, drive, drive.

[B]

Did she say that or did the other person say that?

[C]

But it sounds like you're making a lot of assumptions about her intent. If she had just complied with the officer to begin with, we wouldn't be asking.

[B]

Of course that makes sense.

[A]

Even outside of that point, intent is completely immaterial. It's a vehicle is heading towards you, that's it. I mean, her intention, I think was to flee, I think, but she, it's reckless disregard for the life of the officer.

[B]

You 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, I might be misremembering. What did you say?

[A]

So what I said was yesterday on my morning show, so, so let's go back in time. The first thing I said was she's, she's clearly timing to flee and she hit the officer. 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. So then in the morning yesterday, I said, I think she actually was intending to hit him. Then we reviewed more footage and other angles and I said, I don't think she wanted to kill the officer. I think she was trying to flee but didn't care if she did kill the officer. And so I think we're seeing the same thing right now. And this actually, I think backs up what I'm saying. She's clearly trying to flee, but she's looking dead at the officer. She Knows he's there. He walked on her car. She specifically said, it's okay, I'm not mad at you. She knows he's filming her. She knows he's around the car. Then you hear the other woman say drive baby, drive, drive. Look at her. She's staring right at him.

[B]

Right now she's looking a stare rise to the level of a reasonable awareness.

[A]

Being able to thank awareness that she's piloting a vehicle. And from here's A timestamp from 40 seconds is when the car begins to accelerate to 41. In one second he's struck.

[B]

Well, 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.

[A]

Intent doesn't matter.

[B]

Of course it matters. The intent always matters in some cases.

[A]

No, it doesn't.

[B]

As far as in law, if it's reasonable to believe that she has some sort of.

[A]

No, it doesn't.

[B]

State of mind that she wants to harm this person or hurt them.

[A]

If I pointed a gun at you, could you shoot me?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

What if I.

[B]

That's something that invokes per se self defense. No, because it's something that there is no way that you could behave with like brandish a weapon or point a.

[A]

Gun at me or accelerate a vehicle towards somebody.

[B]

No, that definitely does not fall under.

[A]

He's. He's two feet from the vehicle and she accelerates towards him so he can't read her mind and then she's doing.

[B]

So with a weapon or threatening him or so in the direction.

[A]

This is legally in law, a vehicle is a deadly weapon.

[B]

Self defense.

[A]

It is legally a deadly weapon.

[B]

Says who?

[A]

In law, the law. Precedent.

[B]

What law?

[A]

In court precedent and in law. This is a deadly weapon case.

[B]

I'm not familiar with the case. That's.

[A]

Are you joking?

[B]

I'm not joking. I'm not. I'm not.

[A]

What was the. What was the case we just had where the. The woman rear ended the. You know, the police in Min. Was it Minnesota, actually where the. The cop got. Was found dead in the snow. It was. It was the biggest. Okay, come on, guys. I don't know what you're doing. I got to. I got it. I got to pull this up.

[B]

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. Karen Reed in the commission of a very serious crime prior to engaging with.

[A]

The officer they said Karen Reed struck her boyfriend with a car. That's deadly weapon. A vehicle is like vehicular homicide has a name in law. Vehicular homicide.

[B]

I know there's such a thing as vehicular homicide 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. Yeah. Run an officer that you're not doesn't necessarily constitute a threat. Absolutely not. This is definitely all of this like Monday morning quarterbacking that we're doing is exactly how.

[A]

What Monday morning.

[B]

By going frame by frame like over literally an interaction that happens over just a few seconds.

[A]

Agreed.

[B]

This is how it's going to be.

[A]

And a reasonable person is not in a second.

[B]

Each individual action taken by the cops in this instance constitute justified self defense or use of deadly force. 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 to.

[E]

A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon under certain certain circumstances depending on how it is used in the context of the situation. According to us. Hold on. According to US law a vehicle driven by a person with the intent to harm someone is legally classified as a deadly weapon. Weapon. The principle was emphasized. The principle was emphasized by Secretary of Department Homeland Security Kristi Noem who stated that a vehicle used to harm someone is clearly established law as a deadly weapon. 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. He's in front of the car.

[A]

It is absolutely not supposed to be doing. It is.

[E]

It is absolutely capable of causing death or severe injury.

[B]

I'm not disputing that a car is capable of causing severe injury or death.

[A]

She's saying it can be a weapon.

[E]

That's the context in which it is a weapon.

[B]

But it's not assumed that it's a weapon. In the same way. If you brandish.

[A]

This is just an opinion from the.

[B]

Analysis that I saw that saying to multiple angles. It did not look to me like it hit the person. 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. How did his feet slide backwards? Because he moved back.

[A]

You think he did. You think he did double footed moonwalk slide?

[B]

No. If he was struck by the vehicle going even at that speed, wouldn't he have fallen over?

[E]

Not necessarily.

[A]

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

[C]

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

[A]

No, no, I don't think that's true. Both his feet are on the ground and both his feet slide backwards because.

[E]

His vehicle planted and he gets hit. His feet are planted and he gets hit, his feet slide back. You hear him get hit on this video. 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.

[A]

This is the point I was making earlier about politics. It's not about what's actually happen.

[B]

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.

[A]

What knocks his camera over?

[B]

I don't know.

[A]

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

[B]

Like the third video that he's thinking, this pov, the body cam. Because my understanding is this isn't the body cam. Right. He was like solving his.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, you can see his reflection.

[B]

Actually, 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.

[A]

So he's collecting evidence because she's obstructing. Eyewitnesses said that she was the ringleader. Obstructing. He's filming her license plate. To which this woman says license plate, and get a change can be the same thing. They are both engaging. He then goes around and is filming the vehicle. It's the second time he went around. She already knows she has an ICE agent filming her vehicle. Then a cop comes up and says, get out of the car. And she seeks to flee, creating. The point is this. We can argue our opinion on what a person would perceive to be reasonable. Only one thing matters. She created the circumstance. She's in commission of a crime. She's in furtherance of that crime. She stares dead at the officer. He sees it. Within a second, he's hit. He chooses to shoot. Even. Even Dave, when this. When I showed him this, he went, wow, okay, there's not gonna be a prosecution. I think there Will be because it's political. But like on the subject of case.

[B]

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?

[A]

Unless you are creating a threat to someone else's life.

[B]

Well, what's the threat here? Because the threat that we've pointed to.

[A]

This woman right here.

[B]

I know, but how is this one.

[A]

Right here is standing against the vehicle when the vehicle starts to move and there's other people standing around. So there's something we talked with Andrew Bracco about called imperfect self defense. So when I asked you the question earlier, if I point a gun at you, can you shoot me? Right. Yes. What if my intention is that it's a toy gun and I'm playing a game and I don't see you there, you can still shoot me.

[B]

No. Nobody. No. 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 gun other than. Oh, I thought you said a real handgun. If you said toy gun. If it's a toy gun, then no.

[A]

You can still shoot them. Yes, it is. It's called imperfect self defense. Meaning if you're asking me, a reasonable.

[B]

Person, my opinion, I don't think so. If you're asking me what you tell the law has been found.

[A]

How do you tell the difference between a real gun. How do you tell the difference between a real, real gun and a toy gun?

[B]

It's probably difficult in a lot of instances.

[A]

Exactly. So that means don't some have like.

[B]

Orange caps or talk about that stuff like that.

[A]

So if I, 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.

[B]

Okay, well, even 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 guy.

[A]

You stand right in front of me.

[B]

Well, even. Okay, those are circumstances where I can see an argument for imperfect self defense as you're saying. Yes.

[A]

So.

[B]

Okay, now because it becomes, if we're what we're trying to analyze is the person that's using lethal force against somebody else and their state of mind. 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. Yeah. To think that it was a real.

[A]

Gun, 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.

[B]

Okay, but what are the circumstances here?

[A]

Let's get to it. You keep going to the other woman saying, does this individual have a reason to believe he will be seriously injured by this car?

[B]

No.

[A]

Why not?

[B]

Because she's clearly. And this. This. This footage shows it. She's clearly turning away. And she said, I'm fine, dude. Or I'm go. I'm. What did she say? Like.

[A]

Well, what you said. Prior contact doesn't prove intent of anything.

[B]

I'm not saying it proves.

[A]

The point is this office, if you're asking me about struck from the front six months ago and dragged 330ft. So we're talking about his state of mind. Does he have a reason to believe that the vehicle will cause bodily harm? Yes. Cause it happened to him six months ago. He is filming evidence of a vehicle. They're antagonistic. He walks to the front, lawful orders are given. 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. The same thing is about to happen. 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.

[B]

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.

[A]

Because that's a fine argument.

[B]

I don't think a person that's subjected to what he experienced six months ago ever, like every single person would react the exact same way that he's reacting in the same set of circumstances. I think he's being way too trigger happy. And the two shots afterwards and him saying fucking bitch after.

[A]

I don't know. That was him who said fucking bitch. Because that's the other cop. I don't know who said it, but you're correct. This guy should have been taken off active duty after experience that trauma. They should have said, we're gonna put you on desk duty following this incident. It's traumatic. 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.

[B]

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.

[A]

Reckless homicide, I don't think is a thing. Negligent discharge, negligent homicide, negligent homicide.

[B]

These sorts of.

[A]

I don't think you're gonna get. You're gonna get. There's no way you're gonna 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. And then when ordered to leave within a split second, she accelerates the vehicle. They're like, tragic, shouldn't have happened. But let's just be clear. The circumstance is entirely at the fault of the woman driving. That's just it. She committed a crime. Listen, I. Look, when we talk about fault, it doesn't. So let me put it like this. Two guys go into a grocery store. They are. They decide to rob the. Rob one of the. One of the tills. They grab all the money out and then his buddy turns around and runs and slips, falls down, cracks his head on the ground and dies. His partner's at fault for that murder and they will charge him with such. When you commit a crime, anything that happens subsequently is your fault. So the way we approach this in law is did you commit a crime creating a circumstance that resulted in death, Serious bodily harm. You'll be charged for it.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So the woman committed felony obstruction and felony evading arrest. And in the process, in fact, I would argue this Renee Goode, were she to have survived, would have been criminally charged.

[E]

Everyone deserves to be connected. That's why T Mobile and US Cellular are joining forces. Switch to T Mobile and save up to 20% versus Verizon by getting built in benefits. They leave out. Check the math@t mobile.com switch. And now T Mobile is in US.

[A]

Cellular stores savings for comparable Verizon plans Plus the cost of optional benefits plan features in taxes and fees vary. Savings with three plus lines include third line free via monthly bill credits credit stop if you cancel any lines. Qualifying credit required. And I would actually argue, though it doesn't really make sense, she's responsible for her own death in the law by create. By committing two felonies which resulted in the death. In fact, I'd argue that.

[B]

Wait, what are the two felonies that she's accused?

[A]

Felony obstruction and felony evading arrest. The first of which is 8 USC 1357. I'm not sure the code on the other one, this woman right here.

[B]

But the Supreme Court has ruled that. Well, this takes us back to our earlier disagreement. 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 you can. An officer can use lethal force against you.

[A]

That's an argument for whether he perceived a threat after the fact. But I think if it's one second, as he pointed out, it's always going to be argued that it was not 1, 2, 3, it was shots fired within the span of a second. More importantly, though, there's two things to consider. This woman potentially saying drive, baby, drive, drive is I believe, should be criminal. If it is true she said that that's criminal charge.

[B]

Why would Renee Goode be on the hook for something that somebody else said?

[A]

Renee Goode?

[B]

Yeah, I don't know.

[A]

The wife. If the wife instructed Renee Goode to commit a crime, that's also a crime. That's illegal, that's a felony.

[B]

But why would Renee be on the hook for that?

[A]

Renee wouldn't be on the hook regardless.

[B]

Do you think Renee would be on.

[A]

The hook for what her wife did? Her wife would be on the hook for instructing Renee to commit a crime.

[B]

Renee probably wouldn' have driven and tried to avoid arrest, regardless of whether or not the wife had said that. Do you agree? Yes or no?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Then why is it such a big deal that the wife said drive, baby, drive, because you're almost. You're suggesting it's like an incitement of some sorts. But to me it seems like she was trying to do it already.

[A]

But that again. Well, we can look at it this way.

[B]

I don't know if it's illegal. I think it's done.

[A]

Why she says drive, baby, drive, drive before she accelerates. But 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. I was standing in front of it. I perceived a threat to myself and others. 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. Two seconds. Like, Derek Chauvin was innocent and they convicted him.

[B]

Don't you. Okay. What do you think about him calling her a. After? And also.

[A]

Well, we don't know that he did.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

The other.

[B]

Assume. Take. Take it as fact for now that he called her a bitch after.

[A]

Well, why. I can't take that as fact.

[B]

Just for the sake of hypothetical.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

For the sake of the argument. Right. Assume he called her a bitch. And also, didn't he leave the scene after he did? Okay. Does that do any. Does that change your analysis whatsoever? As far as, like, people in.

[A]

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. Well, I don't want to say gotten.

[B]

Away with PTSD and trauma. And like, I've seen.

[A]

Which actually excuses him.

[B]

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. They seem like they're hyperventilating. They're like, oh, my God.

[A]

I don't think you called her a bitch.

[B]

They're freaking the fuck out. 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.

[A]

There's too many assumptions there. We don't know we have no effects. We know that he went to the hospital.

[B]

For the sake of the argument, I'm saying that if those things are true.

[A]

No, for the fourth time. No, no, no, no, no are true. How many times did I say no?

[B]

No.

[A]

I said no already.

[B]

You know, that speaks to his state of mind that he was not actually in true fear for his life.

[A]

No.

[B]

Why not?

[A]

You can't read his mind. You don't know what he's thinking.

[B]

I'm not saying I can read his mind, but I can draw inferences off his behavior.

[A]

You can't use that in court otherwise.

[B]

Like tons of rape victims read Renee's mind and you can't read the wife's.

[A]

I completely agree, which is why I did not. I said her intent never mattered. All that matters is she creates the perception of a threat of bodily harm.

[B]

How does intent not matter 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.

[A]

You agree that she was acting in a way that was menacing or threatening?

[B]

No, that's not what I said. You want me to repeat it to you? I said, how can intent not matter if that's what it's going to come down to in a significant way?

[A]

You've argued legally, if I point a replica gun at you, you can kill me.

[B]

In that circumstance, yes, but I didn't agree.

[A]

If you don't know my intent, what I do. Does my intent matter with the replica gun?

[B]

No, it doesn't. Because you've created a circumstance where it's understandable that an objective, reasonable person could fear for their life without knowing, without that, like, regardless of what that person's state of mind was.

[A]

What's the difference?

[B]

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.

[A]

And people don't think being crushed by a car will kill you, right?

[B]

No, people do think that being crushed by a car will kill you, 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. I see the opposite, if anything, from this body cam, A guy who was.

[A]

Dragged six months ago.

[B]

The other thing, he's traumatized. Who?

[A]

This guy from being dragged 330ft?

[B]

Yes, I already said that. I said. I already said you shouldn't even be on the field. And you agreed with me?

[A]

I do agree. So do you believe this person had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm?

[B]

No.

[A]

Even though he had just been dragged and was traumatized? You said he was traumatized. So his trauma doesn't factor in his fears?

[B]

No, it does factor in his fears.

[A]

So why would he be traumatized but simultaneously not fearing getting injured? How does that make sense? No, traumatized implies he has an irrational reaction due to a past event.

[B]

Okay, I thought that you asked me, can you, like, what was the question that you had initially asked me?

[A]

Do you think he is traumatized from being dragged 330ft?

[B]

That I agreed to, correct?

[A]

Yes. Okay. If someone is traumatized, do you believe they will act the same way as someone who was not traumatized?

[B]

No.

[A]

So then this individual who was previously injured by being hit from front on by a Car and dragged. Do you think that person may. Through their trauma, which you agree he.

[B]

Has, see a similar situation that also doesn't. Maybe, but it also doesn't preclude the possibility of them just being impulsive or angry. So we're proposing that trauma is the thing that's guiding his response. Could it be something that's guiding his response? Yes, I even think that that could be. I'll be honest, given the past event.

[A]

That went through, I think you're just saying things to be on a tribe.

[B]

What do you mean?

[A]

I think you're literally just using sophistry and saying whatever you have to to justify why you don't like ice. It would matter at all whether he did or did not do anything. Right.

[B]

Wrong.

[A]

Was traumatized or otherwise. You are going to make some kind of sophistry argument as to why it's wrong.

[B]

What is sophistry that I've engaged in here?

[A]

I mean, we literally have a woman who committed two felonies.

[B]

No, no. What is sophistry that I've engaged in?

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Not a set of circumstances that we looked at. What did I do to substitute sophistry?

[A]

You making up fake arguments to justify claiming a guy who's traumatized.

[B]

Fake arguments.

[A]

He's simultaneously traumatized but not fearing for his life.

[B]

By fake arguments, you mean hypothetical. Correct.

[A]

No.

[B]

What do you mean by fake arguments then?

[A]

So the sophistry is the implication that you're using arguments to mislead.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And like agreeing he's traumatized, which presents an irrational reaction relative to the general public, which could. But that in this circumstance, he's not. He's not acting within the trauma. How could he. So the point is.

[B]

But I agree, we know for sure that that's what we're doing. I'm saying that it's.

[A]

Yeah, it's a sophistry.

[B]

That is. How is that sophistry? That's just not what's.

[A]

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. Like, okay, look, any reasonable person watching this sophistry. This is. This is the political divide in this.

[B]

Country with different terms to argue for a particular end disingenuously.

[A]

And that's what you're doing.

[B]

No. What do you think that I don't genuinely hold this position?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

I would just say if I thought.

[A]

No, because you want to fit in. You're scared of Getting canceled by liberals, you'll lose viewers, you'll lose money. So you're going to say whatever you have to justify this.

[B]

I feel like you're doing that.

[A]

No, I have no problem saying Trump shouldn't have invaded Venezuela and Trump lied about him getting run over.

[B]

Trump said that you in this circumstance wouldn't have done it and that it's a tragedy, right?

[A]

That's right. Sounds like I'm consistent.

[B]

Nonetheless, you are saying that it was justified.

[A]

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 almost committing two.

[B]

And you said in the same circumstances, even if you had that trauma, you still wouldn't have done this, right?

[A]

I didn't say if I had that trauma.

[B]

I thought you had. I thought it was pretty.

[A]

I said I've experienced life or death situations. And so when I look at something like this, I relate it to the experiences I've had. And I said I probably wouldn't have shot. My point is, so if we agree.

[B]

He had trauma, assuming that you had trauma, that's assuming you had the trauma from six months ago.

[C]

You can't assume it.

[A]

If you'd never. How do you, how do you assume an irrational reaction?

[B]

You're trying to put yourself in the same set of circumstances as this individual. So all else being equal, the answer is simply yes. Individual, it's you.

[A]

That's the point I make.

[B]

Six months of trauma, you're saying no.

[A]

No, you don't get any other way. I've already said yes.

[B]

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

[A]

The presumption is 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 six months earlier, six months earlier, very recent. Would have the same reaction, which includes myself. Because. Because my perception of behavior is based on my perceptions. This, it's, it's projection. I believe that were I to have been rammed and dragged, I would react similarly to this cop. Yes.

[B]

Rammed and dragged six months earlier.

[A]

That's very recent. That means he was in the hospital four months later.

[B]

I'm not saying it's not recent.

[A]

I'm just underscoring that.

[B]

When you say rammed and dragged, you're not referring to anything that happened around this incident. You're talking about something that happened six months before he was Rammed the vehicle, made contact with him, maybe. From what I saw I did from the New York Times, it appears he was struck. That was not. I didn't read.

[A]

I literally said it.

[B]

I didn't read the editorialization or listen to.

[A]

No, no. They literally said from the video, it appears the officer was struck.

[B]

I'm not disputing that maybe they said that. I'm saying I only watched it. I didn't listen to any of the editorialization. I didn't have the captions. So just from the consolidate the consolidated footage of them showing the two angles simultaneously. I didn't listen to any of the way that they describe the footage. I only viewed it on mute. And from what I saw, it did not look like the vehicle made contact with the officer. But it might be seniors line.

[A]

Why like come on, his feet slide on the ground.

[B]

Do we want to pull up the New York Times footage? Let me show you which frames and I will be willing to concede if I see it make contact. We'll then show it again.

[A]

Wild.

[B]

I'll be more than willing to concede if it makes contact. If it looks like it's made contact with the officer.

[A]

You now have four videos which show contact was made of the officers. And you're like, nah. But I just don't believe.

[B]

Then it should be easy to prove me wrong right now.

[A]

I've already showed you the videos.

[B]

You can show it to me again. Because I did not see at any point clear instance where it touched him. No, no, no, wait, hold on. The New York Times 1.

[A]

Watch the Magic officer's feet slide on the ground right here. You see his feet?

[B]

We're not supposed to be looking at the man.

[A]

He's better than mj. Damn moonwalk. Look at that. Slide that. Slide one foot off the ground, one foot sliding backwards because he can shift his weight. Like you ever see the 1 inch.

[B]

From Bruce New York Times footage.

[A]

What about the New York Times footage? What's the difference? This is. This is the footage of the incident.

[B]

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

[A]

Is this not footage of the incident?

[B]

I'm not saying it's not footage.

[A]

You want me to play an editorialized video where there are.

[B]

You have to listen to the editorial. You can play it on mute.

[A]

You want. The video itself is editorialized.

[B]

I want you to pull up the video and you can play it on here.

[A]

Okay. Pull up their source videos for you.

[B]

Why won't you play that video?

[A]

Because editorialized. Because they edited the footage.

[B]

Now you're the one who actually won't show it. Because it might.

[A]

I've already showed it.

[B]

I showed it 15 times, then showed for a 16th.

[A]

You're asking me to pull up editorialized, edited video to prove your point?

[B]

Sure.

[A]

How about we pull the source material?

[B]

I just prove my point to prove my point. Because you're saying, what's the problem with the source material? Contact. What's.

[A]

What's the problem with the raw video?

[B]

There's nothing wrong with this. We can get another angle from the New York Times. One that shows. Why won't you. Why won't you show. The New York Times pulled it up. Why don't you hold your Times one? Show the New York Times one?

[A]

I did.

[B]

Tim. Why don't you show it to me right now and show exactly where the car. It's on contact with the officer.

[A]

It's on the screen.

[B]

I think it's because you know that there's a good chance that maybe my losing my mind.

[A]

Did I pull the video up just now?

[B]

This is not. Is this the New York Times?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

No, the New York.

[A]

What are you talking about?

[B]

The New York Times one is the analysis that shows.

[A]

You asked me to pull up the analysis. Editorial video.

[B]

Yeah, the one that shows the two.

[A]

My presumption was you wanted the video they used showing the other angle because you said you're showing me one angle, so I pulled it up. Oh, you're asking for the editorial.

[B]

Okay, so you're just confused. No, I'm asking for the New York Times. One that shows the two angles synced at the same time.

[A]

I get it. Let's slow down. Slow down. Do you want me to pull up the editorial?

[B]

Sure.

[A]

Okay, I'll pull up the editorial. I thought you were asking for the other.

[B]

Describe as the editorial.

[A]

It's literally an editorial. It's called an editorial.

[B]

You can pull up what you describe as the editorial. Sure.

[A]

The literal definition of a video produced by a news organization is called an editorial.

[B]

Okay. You can pull up what you describe as the editorial. Yes, that's what I'm saying.

[A]

Oh, my God. See, you're a soft. This is sophistry.

[B]

No, this is being precise with my language and.

[A]

No, no, no, no clarity. The definition of the production. It's not an insult, it's not derisive. The definition of a piece of media produced by news organizations called an editorial.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

That's the word you're like. You call it that? No, the dictionary does.

[D]

Yeah. Saying what you call is like the left wing version of the Fifth. Pleading the fifth.

[A]

So here's the New York Times editorial. That's the definition of what it is called. This is not the source material. These are the distinct words we use to describe things. Source material is the original video footage that was released. The editorial is when they combine two videos and make a statement about it. Okay, you want to watch the New York Times statement about it. I have no problem with that. So we'll pull that up and go to the point where they. Here we go. See, here's the funny thing, President. This is the video I pulled up when you asked me to pull up the New York Times.

[B]

Can you go to the moment where they show.

[A]

I will. I just want to make sure this is clear that you literally just tried to argue. The same video I pulled up, which on the New York Times and that I pulled up was not the video. This is sophistry. You're just lying. Now, I'll play the video for everyone.

[D]

Trump and others said the federal agent.

[A]

Was hit by the suv, and I'm gonna mute the commentary because I don't know why you want me to play an editorial.

[B]

I said, you can play a mute. We're only trying to.

[A]

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

[B]

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

[A]

There you go. So there's the officer getting hit. They circle him even. I'm sorry. They square him, to be precise. They square him. And now they show two videos of him being hit. Okay, so what was the.

[B]

Can you go back and slow it down? It's not clear.

[A]

Absolutely. Let's slow it down as much as we can. Where's the speed? Oh, playback. Speed. Let's do the slowest possible.

[B]

Keep in mind the statement that Kristi Noem said is that this person, like, ran over.

[A]

And I said, well, Trump did, and Trump lied.

[B]

And Trump and Kristi Noem both said that. Have they retracted those statements?

[E]

Play the video. Stop changing the subject.

[A]

Do you want me to tell you that Trump lied? I'll say it again.

[B]

Same subject.

[A]

Trump lied. He put out a statement, the guy got run over, and that he's lucky to be alive.

[B]

I never retracted the statement.

[A]

Yeah, that's a bad thing. He should watch the feet slide the moonwalk. Oh, look at that slide, man. He's better than mj.

[D]

It's like a wedding.

[E]

Yeah, like, to deny that he was hit is to deny what you're looking at.

[B]

It might have made contact with him. It's unclear.

[A]

This is what sophistry is, you understand?

[B]

No, I really.

[A]

I'm saying how did his feet slide? How did his feet slide?

[B]

Because maybe either he could have moved back, he could have moved back suddenly or angled. His body could have tripped backwards.

[A]

One foot is off the ground, one foot sliding. How do you do that?

[B]

It's also possible that the vehicle made contact with him.

[D]

This is like. 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, and then they're like, well, I don't know.

[B]

Maybe.

[E]

I don't know.

[A]

Shoelace was in.

[B]

Really.

[E]

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

[A]

Yeah. For political reasons.

[E]

We brought up the thing that you wanted to bring up. You see his foot slide the other one. You see the car contact his body and he's. He's pushed out of the way because the car contacts his body.

[B]

It's not even questionably. He could have been jump. Jumping back.

[E]

He wasn't jumping back.

[A]

Look.

[E]

Sliding.

[B]

No, no. How could he have moved this way were it not for the car touching him? And I'm saying it's possible he could have jumped back to avoid coming in contact with the vehicle.

[D]

There could have been like a seance.

[A]

Jumping backwards while keeping your center of gravity stable and sliding in front of the ground is very difficult.

[D]

It is Minneapolis. There's a lot of smally black magic. Maybe a spell was cast and it like slid him back. I don't know. There's a lot of possibilities on the table.

[A]

I mean, his feet are sliding, but all.

[B]

Even Grant, even if it made contact with him, that still, to me, it does not rise to the level.

[A]

I mean, to be honest, the left always accepted that. Let's listen to what the New York Times has to say.

[B]

How does shooting somebody in a car stop?

[A]

Now we're moving the goal post.

[B]

How?

[E]

Because you're like talking about how does shooting someone in a car. It doesn't matter. The point is he was hit by the car.

[B]

It does matter because his training and his policy as for 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 in a vehicle.

[A]

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.

[B]

This is from NBC. The way ICE officers approached the vehicle involved in today's shooting was counter to their training, a senior Department of Homeland Security official told NBC News. 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 90 degree angle to prevent injury or crossfire, three, not to shoot at a moving vehicle, four, only to use force if there is immediate risk or of serious injury or death. ICE officers are also instructed that firing at a vehicle will not make it stop moving in the direction of the officer.

[A]

And what was that part about if it's going to cause bodily harm or.

[B]

Death, only use force if there's an immediate risk of serious.

[A]

Which once again, we're back to all of this.

[B]

Officers are instructed that firing at a vehicle will not make it stop moving in the direction of an officer. So again, my point was, even say.

[A]

The officers retarded, that's fine.

[B]

The 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. And then this is still not even getting. This is still not even getting to the fact that he shot her two more times after.

[A]

In a span of a second.

[B]

The side. Yes.

[A]

Yeah. In the span of one second after getting hit, he goes 1, 2, 3. Right.

[D]

TRUMP and others said the federal agent was hit by the suv, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. 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.

[A]

Looks like. It does indeed look like he's being struck by the suv. That he wasn't run over. Agreed. Trump was wrong or lied when he said he was run over. That never happened.

[B]

Right.

[A]

But it does appear in this video he was struck. And I would also say his feet sliding on the ground basically prove it. There's no way to do that. That's just not reality. His left foot is off the ground and his right foot is sliding. Okay. And then let's just do this because I love doing this. Oh, look, her tire's spinning out. While pointed at the officer, you can.

[E]

See the tire spinning and the weight.

[B]

Shift and it doesn't even knock him over. This doesn't speak to the fact that he's amazing for being able to maintain a center of gravity. 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, that he was at risk for imminent death or severe bodily injury is unreasonable to me.

[A]

I think there's two different factors at play. One, political tribesmanship results in. This is true of conservatives, but it's slightly less. I call it like 60, 40, 40, 60. There are a lot of conservatives that will say Trump can do nothing wrong, like, literally whatever he does. And it's just like, that's stupid. But it's 40% of the time. And that's because the Republican Party's historically been a little bit smaller than Democrats. And Trump only wins with this moderate coalition that eventually came in. So people like me or Elon Musk or Joe Rogan who are gonna call out Trump in two seconds when he does dumb things like, we shouldn't have gone in Venezuela. I think that was a mistake. We'll see how that plays out. Trump is lying about the cop being run over. It's clearly not true. But then there are people who are gonna be like, no, Trump is right. Doesn't matter. On the left, it's an inversion. It's more likely they're gonna just say whatever they say in the majority to defend the liberal tribe. 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. So why is it so difficult for us to get liberals to come on this show or any other show? Because they're going to get canceled after the fact just for associating. And conservatives don't do that. So liberals are more likely to just say, I will say anything to fit with the tribe so I don't get canceled. Whereas the right has that faction, but is less likely to do that because you're gonna have middle of the road people who say, Trump is lying. I don't care. You can believe whatever you want, but Trump is lying.

[B]

You think that the majority of, like, moderate voters agree with your analysis over mine?

[E]

Yes.

[A]

Well, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I would say right now, I honestly don't know. This just happened and we don't have a public perception. 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. So you'll notice that. Let me pull up civics as a good example. And you can see where the Trump bias is, and you can see where the liberal bias is. And it's funny how Democrats respond to things. And independents. Oh, actually, is it gonna. Let me do it. Okay, yeah, let's try national economy. So you can actually see the hilarity of this in the hyper partisanship of everybody. You go to Democrat, how would you rate the condition of the national economy right now? Take a look at this. For some reason, on January 20th. January 20th. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. January 2020. 2021, you immediately have this shift. Where are we at? Party Democrat. So in 2019, 2008, you have a fairly good 45, 26, fairly bad. 30 very bad. 11% unsure, blah, blah, blah. Right around election, the opinion on the economy inverts. And now the economy is very, very bad. Okay, well, that doesn't make no sense. And this is January 20th. And to be fair, Covid. Right. So let's jump to the front where we can see January of 2025. Because to be fair, January of 2020 was an election year. It was Covid. So that I should clarify. That's where things kind of make sense. It was a Trump term. Democrats actually thought things were kind of. Okay, well, hold on there. Gosh darn minute. Now we're in Biden's term. In Biden's turn, 53% of Democrats say the economy is fairly good. The moment Trump is inaugurated, they now claim the economy is very bad. That's not a real opinion, is it?

[B]

It's a real opinion, but it's biased.

[A]

Yeah, it's not a real opinion.

[E]

It's not a real opinion.

[A]

It's not a real opinion. It's just me saying I hate Trump. Because you can't be like, a week ago, the economy was perfect. A week later, the economy is bad. That's, that's, that's a lie. But hold on, though. Don't get me wrong. I got Republicans for this one, too. We ain't playing no silly games. Republicans are the exact same. That's not exactly the same, but it's similar. Take a look at this. During Joe Biden, all the Republicans said the economy was very bad. And then you get Election Day, and it starts to drop. Right at Inauguration Day, it drops 46 very bad. 41 very bad. So we've got 87% of Republicans in the economy is somewhat bad. The moment Trump gets in, it flips. And now it's 60% fairly good. That is not a real opinion. And you can see the trends. When a Democrat's in office, it's bad. When Republicans in office, it's good because this is fake. We go to independent and what do we find it more likely aligns. Now this is where you get real opinion around Covid. There's an inversion. Makes a lot of sense. You don't see the harsh turns that you'll end up seeing during elections among independent voters. 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. And the reason Trump is taking actions on institutional investors is because he's trying to get home prices lower. Earlier in the year he said that he wants home prices to be high because boomers like having their equity in homes. And I said the economy is bad, Gen Z screwed. And independent voters tend to follow that. So I would argue that the point is Republican Party historically smaller than Democrats. That's why I call it 60, 40, 40, 60 Democratic Party larger. What that means is on left aligned individuals, they tend to in the majority. And for Republican aligned individuals, they have their cult, but their coalition has independent voters. That's how Trump ended up winning in 2024. Largely suburban housewives and working class people in swing states. That's the independent voters that are pointing this out. So I can go to a conservative and I can go to a Trump supporter and say, yeah, Trump lied. Trump said outright the guy got run over. He clearly did not get run over. In fact, I doubt he was injured at all. Maybe a minor ankle sprain, if you want to be the most extreme. No, 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.

[C]

And I'm a major Trump supporter and I agree with you, Tim, I would get canceled and I don't care. Right. And so there's a faction of people that are out there and just telling the truth about how they feel. If I were to care about what other people think, then it's not really my opinion anymore. And that's the problem that I'm seeing with the social media mob is that they're more looking toward, oh, what is, what are my followers gonna think or how do I get more followers? And that's the issue.

[A]

Let's jump to this story from cnn. What's behind the highly unusual move to block Minnesota officials from investigating the ice shooting. Wait, what? This is actually pretty interesting. Oh, CNN's giving the business. We're gonna have to. We're gonna have to give CNN the business. I thought I already gave him the business, but let's. Let me log in real quick. I'm logging in. That's what I'm doing to make sure that I'm logged in. All right, here we go. I thought we already logged in. 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. 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. You know, I love about this. We did a debate show earlier. I said this was going to happen. I said, trump's not gonna let him do it. And Dave said, it's a state level thing, they'll do it. I'm like, yeah, but they're gonna pull the guy to the state and there's not gonna be charges. So let me just put it like this. I don't care whose side you're on. I don't care if you're a liberal or conservative. Just understand what time it is. The feds are not allowing a criminal investigation from the state of a cop who shot a lady. It doesn't matter if you think he was justified. It doesn't matter if you think he was not justified. The point is, the federal government and the state governments have bisected and are now at odds with each other. Where does that go? Like, is there, Phil, in your mind, a circumstance by which the federal government apologizes and says, let's come back together, boys?

[B]

Hmm.

[E]

I think that's probably unlikely.

[A]

Yeah. So what happens next? I mean, it's not rhetorical. This is not a joke question. I'm not trying to make someone scream civil war. 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? And then what do. Like what? Like, what is. What is the next thing that's going to happen legitimately?

[E]

I think the state. The state stands down. I don't think that they're. I don't think they push the issue. I don't think they're in a position where they have the ability to do it.

[A]

You think this guy won't be prosecuted?

[E]

No, I don't think so.

[A]

Really? What do you guys think?

[B]

I think they'll try to bring charges against him.

[A]

I agree. Absolutely. I think the state is going to try to bring charges.

[E]

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

[A]

No, I agree. He won't stand trial. I don't know for sure, but I would, I would say the probability lies with the federal government's not going to let them prosecute this guy.

[E]

Yeah, that's right.

[A]

But this is getting weird. Yeah.

[D]

Yeah. I mean, I don't see a world. The DOJ just lets them try to railroad this guy. They learned their lesson in 2020. Chauvin. Like the state and everybody.

[A]

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.

[E]

Trump and Vance have stated many times to. To law enforcement, we have your back and stuff. So I don't know what it means for.

[A]

And recently.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

On this specifically, I believe.

[E]

Yeah. I don't know what it means for overall. For the, the relations between the federal government and the state of Minnesota, but it's not gonna.

[A]

I'm not even talking about Minnesota. Other blue states. Yeah. Have reciprocity. So technically every state has criminal reciprocity with every other state. But not anymore. Florida would not extradite this guy.

[E]

No.

[A]

If this cop comes to Florida to lay low and Minnesota brings charges, ain't nobody in Florida gonna let them come into Florida and rendition him.

[E]

No.

[B]

No.

[C]

And think about what happens if the federal government doesn't step into these operations, into this. The ICE operations would cease. And outside of just this incident.

[A]

Right.

[C]

Right before this, they were already intimidating the police that same day. And now after this. Imagine what that environment is like. So the federal government has to step.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

It would be open season on cops. You can just ram them with your car. Like that's the precedent now is 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 Twins tickets the next morning.

[A]

JD Van Said, I want every ICE officer to know that their president, vice president, the entire administration stands behind them to the radicals assaulting them, doxxing them and threatening them. Congratulations. We're going to work even harder to enforce the Law. If the doj, the federal government, dhs, Vance, Trump, whoever you want to name, Kristi Noem allows this cop to be prosecuted in Minnesota, ICE is gonna quit en masse, and the Trump administration may as well resign on the spot because their agenda will never come close to fruition.

[E]

Yeah. I mean, that's reason enough why the Minnesota and the left would want to see him prosecuted, because they know that it would would destabilize the law.

[A]

And think of the narrative, law enforcement. If again, outside of the morality of who is right, who is 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. We are here to say that there was an officer involved shooting that requires an investigation, and based on the analysis of that investigation, a grand jury will choose to indict. They'll likely say, a grand jury has returned an indictment for which now he can stand before a jury of his peers. They're going to approach it very neutrally. Trump cannot allow this guy to face the prosecution because he will lose no matter what. Yeah. Which means the Minnesota government and Democrats will then say, Donald Trump is shielding a murderer who killed a woman in cold blood. Other blue states will line behind that. This is a. 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. Yeah.

[E]

I mean, it's one more step down the road. Right.

[A]

But a big one.

[E]

I don't.

[A]

Yeah, jump down 10 of the stairs.

[E]

I don't know. I don't know how fast things deteriorate, but this is definitely, you know, moving in the. In the direction of deteriorating.

[D]

Well, I mean, the feds hold the cards. I mean, we saw back earlier in 2025 when Trump just took the National Guard, federalized it, and then, you know, Newsom complained about it and said he's gonna do everything he could, and then nothing happened. So the state's, like, avenues towards retribution here is very, very limited. Like, again, the federal government has all the cards here in this instance.

[B]

This is what I'm saying is that I think there was a lawsuit filed. 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. And then there was another judge that saw it and overturned that and said, no, it was legal. And I Think they're still sorting it out in the courts. They are, but as far as, like, like, yeah, it's probably. If he said anything along the lines of, like, I'm gonna use every single thing that I can do to resist it, like, yeah, it's probably like saber rattling or whatever, but I mean, like, legally slow and steady wins the race. So him doing anything other than, like, you know, waiting for the court to adjudicate it would just be like LARPing, in my opinion.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Let me ask you, because, like, a.

[B]

State government's, like, never going to be able to overcome, like, the might of, like, federal agents being deployed or, like, the US Military or anything like that.

[A]

You believe there will be prosecution of the office of the agent?

[B]

I don't know. I believe they're going to bring charges. But do you mean, like, federal or state?

[A]

Well, that's what I mean. State level will bring charges against. Yes, I agree with you. I think they will. The question is, as we've discussed now 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?

[B]

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. 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.

[A]

You'Re talking about prevent prosecution.

[B]

But don't you think that would be wrong if they were trying to, like, tip the scales that much?

[A]

So here's the important thing. Let's set aside our opinions on the morality of whether it, like, whether it's good or bad. But because I agree with you, I think they will bring charges. They have to. And I believe Trump will try to shield this guy from those charges in prosecution. So I think we're in agreement that. That whether it's good or bad isn't material. That's likely what's happening.

[B]

He's like a martyr.

[A]

So the question I have for you is, should this agent, say, go to Florida, where it's, like, a very favorable state? Do you think that Minnesota should take any action to try and extradite him back to Minnesota for these charges for this trial?

[B]

Yes. And I think whether or not Florida tries to stand behind this person will come down to public opinion, because I don't think that Ron DeSantis is done trying to become president. 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.

[A]

But let's, let's, let's, let's get into nitty gritty. I mean, the only real action that.

[E]

Minnesota, everyone deserves to be connected. That's why T Mobile and US Cellular are joining forces. Switch to T Mobile and save up to 20% versus Verizon by getting built in benefits. They leave out. Check the math@t mobile.com switch and now T Mobile is in US cellular stores.

[A]

Savings versus Comparable Verizon plans plus the cost of optional benefits plan features in Texas. And fees vary. Savings with three plus lines include third line free via monthly bill credits credit stop if you cancel any lines. Qualifying credit required. It could take would be to send state troopers to Florida.

[B]

I guess so, yeah. So unless there's other ways that you can extradite somebody from another state, it's.

[A]

Gonna be by force, right?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

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.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Like arrest him, put him in a vehicle and drive him there. Do you think they should?

[B]

Yeah, of course.

[A]

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?

[B]

I mean, I think it's, again, it's gonna be a staring contest. And I don't know if it's gonna come down to what that individual precinct decides to do. I don't know if they're gonna 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. That's why I don't think that this is any sort of like principled action that would be like plan that would come from Florida. I do think it's determined almost exclusively by public opinion on what they think they should they can get away with.

[A]

I agree.

[B]

If they see Will among the base that, you know, especially the conservative base that DeSantis is trying to pick up for 20, 28 or a run after that, then he'll stand behind the officer. 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. He's just not going to tell them, get in the way of them being extradited.

[A]

So here's. Here's the thing. States never send law enforcement to other states for law enforcement. They use the feds for that. 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. We want you guys to arrest him and then send him our way. 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, you know, crime. Like, this guy fled our state. He's guilty. Like, he's wanted for charges. The federal government's not going to intervene. Minnesota can't send anybody. That would be like, I mean, we're getting into war territory. If Minnesota sends armed men to apprehend a guy in another state, really cross.

[D]

State border manhunts is just not an option.

[A]

It doesn't happen.

[B]

And you're just waiting at the clock because all you have to do is wait till the midterms and. Or wait till, 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 really.

[A]

If Trump leaves office.

[B]

Yeah, if he leaves office, if he dies, whatever it is, it's for the.

[D]

Federal courts to decide. And so, okay, you escalate it to the Supreme Court, and then the precedent is, yeah, this gets hashed out of the federal court, but they'll just go back to the original ruling, which was like, no, you can't extradite.

[A]

But you also made another really good point about DeSantis's 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. The Republicans argue this is a circuitous method by which they're trying to get the sky on charges that are trumped up or whatever. The point is DeSantis, if he has any political aspirations, cannot let. Again, hold on, let me pause. We don't know the guy would go to Florida. I'm saying hypothetical state is Florida, because Florida is very favorable 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. But so now we're in very, very fucked up territory. Like, we're there right now. Yep.

[B]

So you would think it was wrong to extradite him? Well, how do you feel about that?

[A]

I think states should not send personal state law enforcement, other states, to apprehend individuals.

[B]

I think that even if the federal government won't comply.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Okay. Do you think it would be right for the Trump administration to, like, continue standing behind this ICE officer as there are pending charges that he's supposed to be facing in his home state?

[A]

Well, we don't know this is home.

[B]

State or in Minnesota.

[A]

That's one of the challenges, too. If he lives there, it's a different picture. The challenge is now we're getting into the morality of when we would and would not allow action by government. Just because government has the power of law doesn't mean they're moral or right. And that's the lesson Godwin's Law, everybody learned from Nazi Germany. 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. 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. You would say, no, this cop should not be prosecuted.

[C]

No.

[B]

And you would think that was moral.

[D]

Yes, correctly, Quite literally. We can't prosecute him. The only way to prosecute someone for federal action would be political.

[A]

No, no, I'm talking about morality.

[D]

That's what I'm saying. I'm just saying, even in the sense of morality, I'm like, oh, I'm not gonna, like, advocate for charging someone purely on political motivation. That's just ridiculous.

[B]

Do you think it's immoral for the Trump administration to not want to work with the Minnesota state?

[A]

I think it is the most moral thing they could do to politicize this. They're not politicizing it. It is politicized. There's no way around it. It's political.

[B]

It is political, but they are furthering it.

[A]

So let me put it like this. The American people voted for these ICE operations. Immigration was a top issue, and Trump won and the Republicans won everything. That doesn't mean everyone in the country agrees with it, but the American voter. Democracy has spoken. So Trump is now carrying out the will of the American voter. And the way it works is if you got a problem with it, you vote in the midterms and you Vote in the next election. In the meantime, this is democracy in action. To subvert that, as the activists are doing, politicized what the American people voted for after the fact, it just is political.

[B]

I think there's things in tension with that because, yes, yes, Americans did vote for Donald Trump and he obviously ran on mass deportation. So you were co signing that policy, most likely, if you voted for him. But I think most Americans also care about the rule of law. They care about the Constitution. And so when they voted for that, they assumed that the mass deportation program would be carried out in conformity with the Constitution.

[A]

It is.

[B]

And there have been. No, there have been multiple instances where people's due process rights are violated. People are. What's her name? Oster Mahmoud Khalil Kilmar Abrego Garcia. These are.

[A]

You cited two examples of constitutional movements.

[B]

Yeah. They're due process. Like Kilmar Berga Garcia was labeled a terrorist by the Trump administration before it was found.

[A]

What does due process mean?

[B]

Due process means not having. How do I put this into words? Due process is people being given the chance to make their case incorrect before.

[A]

That's not correct.

[B]

Well, hold on. Before you correct me, 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.

[A]

That's not what due process is.

[B]

Due process is, which is to say, make their case. It's brought to a judge and a neutral. Who is a neutral.

[A]

Due process is not a proper noun. 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. It's literally just a generic phrase meaning the process by which a person has in law. That's all it is.

[B]

The Fourth Amendment.

[A]

What about the Fourth Amendment? Which part of it?

[B]

The due process.

[A]

Due process of law means in different circumstances, certain people are entitled to certain actions.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Kilmar Abrego Garcia's due process. Let's avoid him for the time being and talk about the day.

[B]

He's the. You asked me for an example. He's a good example to go on the.

[A]

And he had his due process.

[B]

No, he had his due process violated.

[A]

No, he did not. That's correct.

[B]

He did. The Supreme Court said he ordered the Trump administration to bring him back because he had been illegally deported.

[A]

So.

[B]

And he was deported in error, which the Trump administration admitted and then walked back.

[A]

This is incorrect. Do. So we got to break all this down, okay. To avoid it's going to get clipped either way. An illegal immigrant enters the country through the southern border, Right? Let's say a guy from Mexico crosses the border, runs full speed 60 miles into the United States, can. What is his due process in this circumstance after he has apprehended that?

[B]

You are going to be told and read your charges, told and read your rights. Incorrect. And you're going to be given a court date.

[A]

Incorrect.

[B]

Given the chance to make your case before a judge.

[A]

That's not what the law or the Constitution says. The process by which an alien is due. Because due process is not a proper phrase. It's a generic phrase meaning the word do literally means do and process literally means process. So we have executive immigration courts and the judiciary has nothing to do with it. The process by which an illegal immigrant is due is called expedited removal. Non citizens who enter this country illegally do not have the right to a jury trial or a court. Citizens and resident aliens. That's not correct.

[B]

Yes, they do.

[A]

You are incorrect.

[B]

The Fourth Amendment does not refer to citizens. It refers to people.

[A]

You are incorrect.

[B]

Is that not what the Fourth Amendment says?

[A]

No. Okay. That's sophistry. Okay.

[B]

Sophistry is when you cite the literal words of the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution.

[A]

You're doing it again when I'm talking. I did not say you are not correct on the language and definitions used in the Fourth Amendment. I'm saying.

[B]

You're not citing the Constitution.

[A]

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. Due process refers to of your status, what you're entitled to.

[B]

This is what I'm referring to when I say due process is a trial court hearing. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable features shall not be violated. And no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. That's not due process, particularly describing. Okay, what is your understanding?

[E]

Due process. Due process. 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. That doesn't mean that they get a trial. Doesn't mean that.

[A]

If immigration law. The Constitution reserves immigration issues specifically to the executive branch. The immigration courts are not part of the judicial branch. They're part of the executive branch. And the law states that the Secretary of State has unilateral authority to remove any non citizen at any point. For any reason. So Ozturk, specifically, it was the discretion of Marco Rubio under the law to say your visa has been revoked. Thank you and have a nice day. And for that she is being detained and deported. That is due process of law.

[B]

I've been talking about the fourth Amendment. I meant to say the fifth Amendment. Nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

[A]

Who? Who?

[B]

Any individual in which the state.

[A]

What does it say? What does it say?

[B]

Let me pull up the entire fifth Amendment.

[A]

Indeed. Because it's important to know what it says.

[E]

When you say due process of law. It doesn't mean that everyone gets a court trial with a jury.

[D]

It just.

[B]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on present presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia, when an 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.

[A]

And so now the question is, what does due process mean? Because you're citing the fifth Amendment, but you're assuming due process means you get a court hearing. That's not true. There are many circumstances which someone doesn't get a court trial, even if they're US Citizens. Like if you're insane, they adjudicate your insanity by paperwork and administrative. It's called the 5150. You don't get to go to court over this. You're just deemed insane and locked up. That happens. Does that person have due process? Indeed, if you are exhibiting a threat to yourself or others through mental incompetence, defect or otherwise, you can be 51 50'd you don't get to go to court. You don't get to ask a judge. It doesn't happen.

[B]

I'm not saying that the government can't take actions against you before it's all adjudicated in a court of law.

[A]

We're trying to clarify for you.

[B]

I'm saying that if they do that, then you are able to open up a case against the government.

[A]

Or in some circumstances, some individuals have some rights and some do not. 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. 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. The judiciary has zero authority on instances of foreign affairs. When a person crosses the border illegally, it doesn't go to a judiciary. 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, to. To make an argument against the executive branch.

[B]

How do you mean outside of the process of the Constitution?

[A]

The Constitution gives full authority on foreign affairs to the executive branch. So what we have are immigration courts. But these immigration courts operate under Trump, not the Supreme Court. That means immigration courts are not judicial hearings nor does a non citizen have a right to a judicial hearing. They go to federal executive immigration courts.

[B]

You still have due process rights.

[E]

No, because.

[A]

No, no, hold on. You are correct, but due process is different from person to person. Due process for an American citizen is different for a non citizen.

[B]

So I'm not saying it's not different, but I'm saying that there are minimum standards of due process agree applied to every single person.

[A]

And the due process for an illegal immigrant is called expedited removal. That is a federal immigration officer gets an order from an executive judge, not a judicial judge, for expedited removal of an individual. They don't go to court, there's no jury and there's no banging a gavel. The officer can literally, and Obama did this to the tune, I think 3 million. They can literally grab the person, say give me your id, you're a non citizen subject to expedited removal. That is your due process and send them right back.

[B]

You think that I won't say that? If that is true, that Obama wasn't violating people's due process rights, I would say that he is. That would be.

[A]

I would say you're engaging.

[B]

Why?

[A]

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. 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? No. Expedited removal, that's due process.

[B]

That is not under the purview of the Executive. That is a right that is guaranteed to every single individual within the United States or that the United States takes action against.

[A]

You're Incorrect.

[B]

That doesn't hinge on whether or not the president feels like enforcing it.

[A]

No, no, no, you're incorrect. The immigration is the purview of the executive branch. And immigration courts are not judicial. They're executives.

[B]

No, no, I'm not saying that immigration isn't the purview of the executive branch. I'm saying that due process rights are in a matter of if the administration decides to grant them to.

[E]

Your point on. Your point on the Fifth Amendment, right, You brought up the Fifth Amendment. That, like the. The act of being in the United States illegally is not considered a capital or otherwise.

[A]

I got. Look, I think. I think you're just generally not understanding the way the Constitution and the law works. So I pulled this up for you. It's hard to see if I zoom in like this. Yes, U.S. immigration courts are part of the executive branch.

[B]

Okay, I didn't see that, though.

[A]

Okay, so. But this means you're not getting a trial in a court. Immigration courts, they're called courts, but they're executive functions. You don't go before a jury or a judge for issues of immigration. This is not me making an opinion statement when someone is not a citizen. The issue of immigration is the executive branch. They don't give you a hearing. They snap their fingers. 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. So due process means the legal process under the Constitution by which you are due. If you are a foreign citizen who enters our country. That is the sole purview of the executive branch. To snap their fingers and remove it.

[B]

Contradicts what I've said because I already granted that due process looks different for every single individual.

[A]

Which would mean Kilmar Abrego Garcia got his due process.

[B]

No, he had his due process rights violated.

[A]

How?

[B]

He was sent to seekot. He was not supposed to be removed from this country.

[A]

Says who?

[B]

He had. Because he already had stayed removal.

[A]

He had expedited removal. Indeed.

[B]

No, no, no. He had something designated on his own immigration. Okay, look, look, we can totally pull this up.

[A]

Here's the real challenge we're facing right now. You don't know these stories and you're basing it off.

[B]

I can't recall all of the details accurately. I know I can pull up Kilmaro.

[A]

Borgo Garcia had an order for expedited removal, but it was stayed because they couldn't remove him to send him back to Guatemala.

[B]

Salvadoran man living in the United States was illegally deported on March 15, 2024.

[A]

Okay, what are you reading?

[B]

By the Wikipedia.

[A]

By the US Wikipedia is not a real source.

[B]

Under the government, we can go to the primary source of the world.

[A]

Indeed you should, you should read the court documents from ICE because I'll just.

[B]

Under the Trump administration, which it called an administrative error, which you disputed. No, you said it wasn't.

[A]

An administrative error. Is not a violation of due process.

[B]

At the time, he had never been charged with or convicted of a crime in either country. Despite this, he was imprisoned without trial in the Salvadoran terrorism confinement center, seacot.

[A]

Oh, liberals are fucking retarded. I can't do this. I give up.

[B]

You want to respond Trial.

[A]

What does a trial have to do with an expedited removal in a state to Guatemala? You don't know this stuff. And it's so impossible for me to give you a book, a 300 page understanding of what happened. But the problem is I have to deal with people like this who don't know, don't read and then vote on it. And no matter how many times I say it, 500,000 times, pull the documents.

[B]

And because he wasn't just removed to that country, he was also then placed in effectively a gulag or torture.

[A]

Which branch has authority? He was also then which branch has the authority?

[B]

I'm not disputing that the.

[A]

Okay, just answer the question.

[B]

I'm not disputing that. This falls under the executive.

[A]

So why would he get a trial? You read a thing that claimed he didn't have a trial.

[B]

That's a lie. They were not just trying to deport him illegally to a country that he was supposed to be removed to, but they were also trying to imprison him even though he hasn't committed or like he hadn't.

[A]

The United States did not imprison him.

[B]

No, we just deported him illegally, correct? No, we deported him illegally. And then he was imprisoned and confined at Secot, which is a torture dungeon.

[A]

Oh my God. He was. You read a bunch of activist AI slop garbage. Believe it and don't.

[B]

So you don't think that Seekot has prolific human rights violations going on?

[D]

It might. Trump sent him to the fourth country.

[B]

Said, I just read a bunch of like bullshit that made me think you.

[A]

Literally on your phone just read a bunch of AI slop garbage Activist stuff.

[B]

Wikipedia. AI slop.

[A]

Let's start this stuff. You read that he was illegally deported without a trial. I am asking you why he would get a judicial hearing when immigration is the purview of the exact.

[B]

He was imprisoned without trial.

[A]

Trial, indeed. Why would. Why would.

[B]

Okay, but why do we care about El Salvador? What? I just said so.

[A]

So do we run El Salvador's courts?

[B]

No, we don't.

[A]

Then why would we write that he got a trial or didn't? It's not. It's not related to the executive branch. It's a foreign country.

[B]

He was removed to that country specifically.

[A]

Is it his home country?

[B]

Confined? I don't. It doesn't matter.

[A]

You don't know, do you?

[B]

He was not.

[A]

Did he have a stay of deportation to El Salvador?

[B]

No, I can't remember.

[A]

He did not. It was Guatemala. This is the insufferable thing. You've taken a strong position on something you just don't understand.

[B]

So what does that matter?

[A]

The executive branch has sold Purview for deportation.

[B]

He was not supposed to be sent to that country, correct? No, no. He was supposed to be sent to that country.

[A]

Yes. He had an order for deportation. The stay was for Guatemala and the Biden administration. And Trump, through his own failures, didn't do it properly.

[B]

Why was he supposed to be sent to that country?

[A]

He had an order for immediate deportation.

[B]

From the Trump administration. You think that was right?

[A]

If the State Department wants to deport somebody, they can, yes.

[B]

I'm not asking if they can. I'm asking if you think it's right.

[A]

In the specific instance of Kilmar Grego Garcia, was it right for him to be deported? The answer is yes.

[B]

And it was right for him to be imprisoned at cecot.

[A]

I am not El Salvador. What El Salvador does is beyond the United States borders.

[B]

El Salvador. Just answer the question. Was it right for him to be imprisoned at seacot?

[A]

If he is. If El Salvador finds him to be a criminal? Yes, 100%.

[B]

So, yes, you're saying, yes, it was right for him to be in prison there.

[A]

That's it. So if El Salvador finds that their own citizen should go to prison, that's their business.

[B]

But he hasn't even been found to have.

[A]

That's not us. We are not El Salvador.

[B]

You don't have to be El Salvador to have an opinion on this.

[A]

And my opinion is El Salvador can conduct their affairs as they see fit. And if they determine he should go to prison, he should.

[B]

But they didn't determine that he was there.

[A]

They did. They put him in prison.

[B]

He was just put there because El.

[A]

Salvador decided he should be.

[B]

Yeah, but did he have a fair trial?

[A]

Does China have fair trials?

[B]

I didn't ask if China has fair trials. And that's completely irrelevant.

[A]

I Don't have a fair trial if he had an El Salvadoran fair trial or not. I'm not El Salvador, nor do I think the US should invade El Salvador or Venezuela.

[B]

No, if he had a fair trial and yet you'd be imprisoned.

[A]

He did have a fair trial.

[D]

El Salvador's policy is very clear that anyone with gang affiliation is going to get in prison and seek out. And he was found gang affiliation. That's their law.

[B]

What was the gang affiliation that he was found of? Actually, they accused him of being part of Ms. 13, was it?

[A]

He's also never credibly found. Like, do you remember when Trump, by.

[B]

Who the Trump administration was saying photoshopped Ms. 13? Yeah.

[A]

And because Trump, you just said that.

[B]

He was in wrong.

[A]

I was wrong about that.

[B]

Yeah. Okay, so what did he do then? What crime did he commit?

[A]

That's up to El Salvador to decide.

[B]

Okay. He's not a member of Ms. 13.

[A]

I don't care. I literally don't care. He's not American either.

[B]

So you don't care.

[A]

Citizen of El Salvador.

[B]

Somebody is imprisoned in seacot. No, I don't know. If they've not committed a crime and even if they've not been given, I.

[A]

Literally could care less.

[B]

Process of law or had a trial.

[E]

He was here illegally. I don't care.

[A]

No, no, no, no, no. We're not talking about it. We're talking about El Salvador. The same. For the same reason. I don't think we should remove Maduro. I don't give a fuck what El Salvador does with their own citizens. I am not El Salvador. I don't want to invade El Salvador. I don't want to impose American hegemonic democratic principles on El Salvador or Venezuela or Afghanistan, Iran, China or Russia. So right now what I can't stand is this argument that El Salvador imprisoned a guy. I don't give a fuck what they did. He's El Salvador. And in El Salvador, China's imprisoning Uyghur Muslims and raping them and forcing to get abortions. That's miserably evil. We can say we don't want to do trade deals with them. That's fine. The US went in and removed Maduro and liberals are furious about it. Yet at the same time they're arguing that we should impose American hegemonic principles on El Salvador. I'm sick of it. My principles are pretty dang simple. I'm American. I don't give a flying F what El Salvador, China or these other countries are doing with our people. 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. That being said, I think we can sanction China over the rape of the Uyghur Muslims. We shouldn't be trading with people that brutally rape women and force them to get abortions. We can make an argument that we should cut off our trade deals with El Salvador because of Seekat. My point ultimately is, but.

[B]

So if you only care about what the American government is doing, then do you agree that he should not have been sent there?

[A]

He is not an American citizen. And as someone who is not an American citizen, he should go home.

[B]

But that is.

[A]

He doesn't have legal status. He doesn't have legal status here. He came here illegally. And there is no obligation for the American people to allow a criminal to be here.

[B]

Where or how the United States government deports individuals?

[A]

Absolutely not.

[B]

You don't care if their due process rights are violated? You don't care if the government lies about that? There is a process for which I'm asking those things. No, no, no. I'm asking.

[A]

Agree.

[B]

Let me be very clear about those things.

[A]

If someone comes here from China illegally, they violate our laws and then seek to subvert the will of the American voter. They should be arrested for the crime they committed. And you know what it is? Imagine if someone broke into your house and the worst thing you did to them was give them a ride home. And then it's like a stupid thing to argue. 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? So that's what we do. A guy comes here from El Salvador illegally, we issue an order for deportation. We send him home. Then everyone's going.

[B]

A legal order, because he was not supposed to.

[A]

It was a legal order of deportation and he had a stay for removal from the country of Guatemala due to a rival gang. 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. 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 so he can be sent back to El Salvador. 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.

[B]

Never found to be a member of Ms. 13.

[A]

He was found by a court. Yes, twice.

[B]

Which court?

[A]

There's an immigration court that asserted two times that he was wearing MS.13 gear.

[B]

Making an assertion is different than them actually having evidence that he was part of.

[A]

He doesn't get judicial trials in an immigration executive branch court.

[B]

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.

[A]

What does that have to do with what we're talking about? You're changing the subject.

[B]

Just said that this person is a confirmed member of Ms. 13.

[A]

Immigration said that that was founded that he was a member of Ms. 13.

[B]

You said they asserted that he was. That's different than them finding that he was.

[A]

There's no trial for this in the executive branch. Executive is action, not judiciary.

[B]

And this was the other thing. This is Supreme Court says officials should wrongly deported Marilyn Mann. The Supreme Court has ordered the Trump admin to facilitate the return to the US of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly taken to El Salvador. A Maryland man and remains in custody there.

[A]

He's not. He's not a Maryland man. He's an El Salvadoran living who was illegally living in Maryland.

[B]

So if you live in Maryland for 10 years, you can't be considered part of like a Maryland man.

[A]

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 stay of removal to not go back to Guatemala. 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. They were going to deport him back to his home country. Then when he got there, El Salvador decided that because they thought he was a member of a gang, they imprisoned him even though he wasn't Supreme Court.

[B]

No evidence of that.

[A]

It doesn't matter what El Salvador thinks. We are not El Salvador. That's it. End of story. I'm not gonna make an argument about what Ghana thinks.

[B]

That's being used to say that he is part of. He's gang affiliated, he's part of.

[A]

You are just saying things to be.

[B]

Tribal and you're saying that because we're not in El Salvador, we can't have an opinion on it. Obviously.

[A]

No, you can have an opinion on it, but you're asking me about do you believe that the US should assert judicial authority over El Salvador.

[B]

How do you mean?

[A]

Do you think that we should force other countries to adhere to our frame of law?

[B]

It depends on the context.

[A]

What. Okay, should a. I don't.

[B]

I do. If I do believe that we should not be deporting individuals to countries where they are going to face ridiculous human rights abuses.

[A]

Going to prison as a human rights abuse.

[B]

Yes. If you have. Never.

[A]

Going to prison as a human rights.

[B]

Abuse 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 a crime.

[A]

No.

[B]

No. You're asserting rights are violated.

[A]

No. That his. Okay, you don't know. We got to pause real quick because you keep saying due process, but you don't know.

[B]

This is the other thing. In a brief, unsigned due process, the court cited liberals who had ordered a word. The order properly requires the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador 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 90 ruling. Even Trump's appointees agree that.

[A]

And they're wrong quite a bit. That's okay. We are. We are in this. We are in a state of political adjudication with back and forth. The dude's got two more pending removals. Now he's going to Ghana or where's it going? Eritrea.

[D]

One of those.

[A]

I mean, like the amount of things on Kilmar Grego Garcia are ludicrous. Right? The amount of.

[B]

I agree. But not for the same reasons.

[A]

Yeah. Liberals are defending a guy who's not a citizen and they're lying about it. They repeatedly. And don't be wrong. Conservatives are defending Republicans come out and go, non citizens don't do process. And that was never true. They're just dumb. Okay. Due process means under law. You, in your circumstances, what are you do in the courts that they must adhere to? Immigration courts are part of the executive branch, and the executive branch does not have trials for these people. A judge just said goodbye. Judicial courts can have trials or bench hearings. Liberals don't understand any of these things. And more importantly, I would say the proselytizers at the highest level just say whatever they have to to justify their ideological whims. The point is America should be America and should not be enforcing its will in other countries. And if you are not from this country, the State Department has sole discretion to remove you from this country. End of story. Even permanent residents under the law can have their permanent residency revoked in finger snap by the Secretary of the State. So this whole argument is fake. And it started with a conversation around him having his due process rights violated because liberals think due process means a jury trial.

[C]

I have a question for you though. So you don't think that someone entering the country.

[B]

Really quick, I will answer your question. Yeah, I'm just saying that the Trump administration had admitted that they had made an administrative error in sending him to El Salvador to see cot and you are even going. And then they. And then they retracted that.

[A]

Pause real quick.

[B]

And you're going further to defend all.

[A]

They retracted that. Okay, hold on. They retracted the administrative error statement?

[B]

Yeah, they walked it back because they're trying to cover their ass.

[A]

What exactly did they say in the retraction?

[B]

Trump Administration Admits Maryland Man Sent to El Salvador Prison by Mistake the Trump admin is getting blowback for confirmed and potential errors in its rush to deport hundreds of men to El Salvador last month. On Monday night, immigration officials admitted to deporting a Maryland man to El Salvador.

[E]

Due to a Everyone deserves to be connected. That's why T Mobile and US Cellular are joining forces. Switch to T Mobile and save up to 20% versus Verizon by getting built in benefits they leave out. Check the math@t mobile.com switch and now T mobile is in US cellular stores.

[A]

Savings versus Comparable Verizon plans plus the cost of optional benefits plan features in Texas if these vary. Savings with three plus lines include third line free via monthly bill credits credit stop if you cancel any lines.

[B]

Qualifying credit required A quote unquote administrative error. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who lived in the United with his US Citizen wife and child was identified as being one of on one of the three deportation flights to El Salvador last month that are the subject of several lawsuits. Immigration advocates claim those flown to El Salvador did not receive due process. The admin used the three flights to quickly deport over 300 men accused of being members of Ms. 13 I'm not.

[A]

Trying to interrupt you but just because I want to just get to the point. It's what did they say in their retraction?

[B]

Look, let's find the.

[A]

I mean so. So I'll tell you it was an administrative official not in the highest level of the cabinet who said there was an administrative error here. That was a singular statement by a low level official probably about a week after this. The highest level of Trump's cabinet said they were incorrect. We have asserted executive authority on national security issues for expedited Removal. That is our purview. Now by all means, this is to be adjudicated. 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, is it Eritrea or was it, was it Ghana? What ridiculous country? I don't know. It's just like.

[D]

It was a JV one. It was a jv.

[A]

It's just a ridiculous thing. The point is we are not dealing with functions of the Constitution and law, which was the initial argument you asked about constitutional deportations. We are dealing with hyper partisan justifications and the liberals making an argument about due process in foreign countries and the right making argument about national security threats. One thing remains 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.

[B]

Okay?

[A]

Immigration courts are a singular executive official identified as an immigration judge, but they're not judicial stamping something and saying expedited removal. End of story. That is due process.

[B]

So in 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. An ICE official called his deportation to El Salvador an oversight. In a statement submitted to the court on Monday, Robert Serna, ICE is 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 purported membership of MS.13. The admin argued against his return to the US citing alleged gang ties and claiming that he is a danger to the community. He also. They also argue that the courts lack jurisdiction in the matter because Abrego Garcia is no longer in US Custody. The admin wrote that Abrego Garcia's attorneys, quote, do not argue that the United States can exercise its will over foreign sovereign. The most they ask for is a call.

[A]

I need to ask you to read.

[B]

That retraction, treat or control a close ally.

[A]

Now please read the retract. Can you read the retraction?

[B]

No, I should retract my own claim because they actually did not issue a retraction. But what they did. What they did, as far as I could tell, no. It doesn't seem like I thought they had. It seems like what they did is just double down on defending their decisions even though they had admitted it was an error.

[D]

Do you so do you think the State Department reserves the right to deport any illegal purely for being here illegally?

[B]

I believe so, yes.

[D]

Yeah. Because it's like that's, that's part of the problem with the Abrego thing is.

[B]

It'S like there are legal means to remove people from the country.

[D]

Right.

[B]

They don't need to violate people's due process rights to do so.

[A]

So if we're able to deport, okay.

[B]

It should be easy to.

[A]

So you were wrong. Legally they did. You're right. The first time they issued a retraction. DHS.gov this is just one of the examples of an individual as an MS.13 gang member. Multiple charges and encounters with the individuals here, trafficking. His background was found with other MS.13 gang members. Very dangerous person. And what the liberal left and fake news are doing to turn him into a media darling is sickening. The retraction here in this video from Stephen Miller was that he said, let me, let me see if I can pull up the actual Trisha McLaughlin reaffirmed the MS.13 terrorist gang members where he belongs to. I think this illegal alien sounds like.

[B]

The opposite of retraction. I shouldn't have said that they retracted it. What they did is defend their decisions.

[A]

Very low rated anchor at cb.

[B]

Did you plan to ask president to help return the man who your administration says was mistakenly deported? The man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador?

[A]

Well, let me ask Pam, would you ask answer that question? Sure, President. First and foremost, he was illegal legally in our country. He had been illegally in our country. 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. Right now. It was a paperwork. It was additional paperwork had needed to be done. That's up to El Salvador. If they want to return him, that's not up to us. The Supreme Court ruled, President, that if as El Salvador wants to return this, this is international matters, foreign affairs. If they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.

[B]

So will you return him?

[A]

You are doing a great job.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

Can you just also respond to that question 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. That's why nobody's watching them. But would you answer that question also please?

[F]

Yes, gladly. So as Pam mentioned, there's an illegal alien from El Salvador. So with respect to you, he's a citizen of El Salvador. 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 startup point 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. 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. This issue was then by 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. 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 90 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 is, I'm sure you understand, rapes little girls, murders women, murders children, is engaged in the most barbaric activities in the world. And I can promise you if he was your neighbor, you would move right away.

[B]

So you don't plan that.

[A]

The Supreme Court says so. The point is initially an ICE official said that it was administrative error. The Trump administration cabinet said after the FTO designation of MS.13 that disqualified him from the the immigration stay to Guatemala.

[B]

Via they had no evidence to be even doesn't matter him as a terrorist. It doesn't matter if they don't have evidence before they labor.

[A]

They have two courts. Two courts ruled that he was Ms. 13.

[B]

So it doesn't matter to you that they had no evidence that he was actual MS.13.

[A]

Courts doesn't matter what you're saying.

[B]

Two courts ruled the west he was part of MS.13.

[A]

He was associated with known MS.13 gang members outside of MS.13 gang territory.

[B]

Knowing somebody within MS.13 means that you are part of MS.13 yourself.

[A]

Do you think if two courts rule that you are, that's enough or not enough?

[B]

I'm sorry, you didn't answer my question. So just knowing somebody in a gang, that means that you are also part of that gang?

[A]

He was. No, he was in the gang.

[B]

You said that he is associate. I said what's the evidence for that? And you said well, he associated with.

[A]

Court Found that he was wearing their gang colors, wearing their gang clothes. He was known by informants to be. What's the. What's the term? His rank? Do you remember? Let me.

[E]

Let me pull it up, Lieutenant.

[A]

And it's been sold. No, no, no, no. He was. It's a provision area. It's a. It's a Spanish word. Let me figure out what the.

[B]

What the.

[A]

There's a word for lowest. The lowest level. And is this it right here? I think I got it. Was it? No, no, no, no, no. I am not a checo Checko.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

He was a checo in Ms. 13. Meaning he was like a probationary entry level member. Two courts found this. I don't understand. I. I got it. I got it. Okay, let's just. Let's just roll with it. So the point is this. Do we have immigration courts for a reason? Let's see. Member of Princess George County. This is. This is the arrest report, I think. Which one? This? Yeah. Checo A check Checko. He was a chikayo known as manie echo and Ms. 13 in their sailors. Click. Let's see. Let's see. Officers interviewed with Jose Guillermo Domingos. During the interview officers observe tattoos and skulls covering the eyes of his mouse. Blah blah, blah, blah blah. See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil. He also tattoo of a devil on his left leg. This presents power with an Ms. Thirteen officers made contact with a past proven and reliable source of information who advised.

[B]

If they claim Dominguez the officer was indicted of the Hispanic gang culture.

[A]

An active MS.13 gang member with a sailor's clique the rank of Chiquayo in the moniker of Maniaco and that wearing.

[B]

The Chicago represents her in good standing.

[A]

With Ms. Thirteen officers that interviewed Kilmar Armando Burgo Garcia. During the interviews officer 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. Officers know such clothing to be indicative of the Hispanic gang culture. The meaning of the clothing does represent V O y kalar. See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil. Wearing the Bulls hat represents that they are a member of Chicago Bulls officers I did say Chicago Bulls wearing. The officers contacted a past proven a reliable source of information who advised Kilmar Garcia is an active member of MS.13 with the Western Click. The confidential source further advised that he is the rank of chiqueo with the moniker of Chile. Officers interviewed Jason Hozu is. How you say it? Ramirez Herrera. During the interview they Were unable to determine his gang affiliation. Officers know Ms. 13 gang members are only allowed to hang around other members or prospects for the gang. Officers will continue Blah, blah, blah. The point is, so no test. There exists evidence.

[B]

No criminal history.

[D]

What do you mean?

[A]

There's two witnesses corroborating. Just making things up.

[B]

That he's wearing certain clothes that they're trying to say is synonymous with Ms. 13 Hispanic gangs.

[A]

Is that evidence?

[B]

No.

[A]

Yes, it is. Is it proof? No. Is it evidence? Yes.

[B]

Oh, sorry. That's what I should say.

[A]

Right? And you asked before if there was evidence.

[B]

You said there was no good evidence. There is no. Is it evidence? Yes. Is it good evidence? No. Is it proof? Absolutely not.

[A]

This is. This is why we can't have nice tattoos.

[B]

The evidence is that he wears a Chicago bulls hat and has skull tattoos. You know, he has.

[A]

He has the see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil tattoos does.

[B]

And that means that he's in a gang.

[A]

That's an MS.13 gang tattoo.

[B]

So if I got. If you got that tattoo tomorrow, that would mean you're an Ms. 13?

[A]

No, but it likely is affiliation. Especially if you're hanging out like all.

[D]

Of his boys are in Ms. 13.

[A]

With Ms. 13. But he's not a member.

[E]

No.

[D]

They kicked him out. Yeah, he's like.

[A]

But he's still friends.

[D]

Yeah, you're a little too.

[B]

But if you got it, it would be. It wouldn't be.

[A]

Did you know that if you wear black and gold in Chicago, you'll get shot?

[B]

So if you had that tattoo, it wouldn't be evidence that you're an Ms. 13.

[A]

It would be evidence. Yes. Evidence and proof are two different things.

[B]

You right. I agree with you.

[A]

So you said before there was no evidence.

[B]

You're saying evidence and proof that he's on Ms. 13. That's the claim that you made.

[A]

No, no, no. Let's just be clear for everybody to make sure we're closing things up.

[B]

Yeah. You think that wearing a Chicago Let me cap and have said there was no evidence can mean that you're an Ms. 13?

[A]

Let's try and be clear here.

[B]

Yeah, I said there's no evidence in the.

[A]

Please stop. Please stop so I can make the point.

[B]

And I said it's evidence. Yeah.

[A]

Before, you said there was no evidence and perhaps that was a misspeak, but now we recognize there is some.

[B]

It was a misspeak. Sorry.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Evidence.

[A]

Two immigration courts determined the evidence was sufficient to prove he was a member of Ms. 13. Right.

[B]

Do you agree with them?

[A]

Doesn't matter.

[B]

Do you agree with them? Yes.

[A]

Yes, but it doesn't matter.

[B]

Why do you agree with them?

[A]

Because his clothing that law enforcement.

[B]

Even though no criminal history, no testimonies.

[A]

What do you mean no criminal history? He was caught trafficking people. No, he's on camera doing it.

[B]

He's been accused of trafficking individuals because he was stopped. There was a traffic stop.

[A]

He had a bunch of people from Mexico driving to Maryland that they said they were doing for work.

[B]

And he was. He has been. Yeah, but he's not been. That's still.

[A]

This is again off.

[B]

And if that's your standard for human trafficking.

[A]

Not that you're changing Greg Abbott and.

[B]

Ron DeSantis moving those illegal immigrants around the country to Martha's Vineyard, that is also changing the subject.

[A]

Subject. Did two courts find him to be a members of Ms. 13?

[B]

Two, to my understanding. There's court documents that have been submitted and this is the evidence that he's in MS.13.

[A]

Did two courts rule him to be?

[B]

No, I don't believe so.

[A]

You are wrong. They did. Two courts did court documents, judges saying he is. And then. And then he appealed. Another judge said, yes, he is.

[B]

Which judge?

[A]

Okay, let's pull it up. My God. Sophistry. Sophistry. Sophistry.

[E]

Judge.

[A]

DHS.

[B]

I found it. The judge who presided over his 2019 case said that based on the confidential information, there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Baker Garcia's gang membership. That finding was later upheld by another judge.

[A]

Okay, so do you. Do you agree that two judges found to be members of a member of Ms. 13?

[B]

Yes. Yes.

[A]

Okay, then based on the FTO designation, but based on the supersedes the stay.

[B]

From CSIS, based on the evidence that has been presented to the public, he can appeal that a very. Yeah, but that's a very. If his due process rights are on, that's a very tenuous connection, in my opinion. No, no, no.

[A]

Hold on. After. So now that two courts. Two. Two judges. Actually, it was an appellate judge. I believe it was three. So it's initially one, then three after they found that he was. And then maybe they were wrong. Maybe they were wrong. Okay. This gives the federal government the authority to deport him under the FTO designation, which is what Stephen Miller asserted. He then gets sent to his home country. There's no appeal after that. What El Salvador does with their own.

[B]

Citizens reported an error. No, he wasn't led to the circumstances where he could not.

[A]

He was not in error. Because I already showed you Stephen Miller pointing out that that was An ICE official. And they were wrong. And under the FTO designation, if Stephen.

[B]

Miller says something, that means that.

[A]

That it's true because Trump. Did Trump declare Ms. 13 a foreign terrorist organization?

[B]

Yeah, I believe so.

[A]

He did. And under, under the ina, you can remove. There's. There's no immigration protections. You are disqualified immediately upon that designation because immigration courts are executive, not judiciary. When that happens, they say the executive stay you were granted by our officials is here, bought, hereby, void, and they can deport him. And that's what they did.

[B]

So you think it's fair that he's deported and admitted in an error, and.

[A]

Then after he was not deported in an error, he was not deported to.

[B]

Another country, Was not deported, we no longer have jurisdiction, even though he shouldn't have been put there in the first place. And then the Supreme Court says that's correct. He needs. Why?

[A]

I said you're just a liar.

[B]

Why am I liar?

[A]

We've already concluded it wasn't an error.

[B]

No.

[A]

You said two judges confirmed he was Ms. 13, right?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Okay. And Ms. 13 is an FTO. Foreign terrorist organization.

[B]

Trump. The Trump administration designates this as such.

[A]

The Immigration and National Naturalization.

[B]

I will say that allows for the.

[A]

Disqualification of a stay.

[B]

Foreign terrorist organizations is a bit strange to me.

[A]

If you want to argue the law should be changed, take it up with Congress. Don't then say it was an error when we've already shown you under the law it was not.

[B]

What am I supposed to take up.

[A]

With Congress that you want the law to change? The INA says that a foreign terrorist does not is disqualified from immigration reprieve.

[B]

Do you think it's correct that he's designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations?

[A]

That's an opinion and material to weather.

[C]

No, I'm asking.

[A]

This is an opinion question immaterial to the conversation we're having.

[B]

So you think that it's correct to designate cartels as foreign terrorists?

[A]

We are not talking about that. We're talking about whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia was lawfully deported.

[B]

Can you just answer that question? If you think it's correct that. That Ms. 13 was designated a foreign terrorist organization, you don't know why?

[A]

I don't know. I don't know enough about it.

[B]

Okay? But that is the basis that's being used to deny this person due process under your argument.

[A]

I don't understand why, no matter how many times we explained due process, you.

[B]

Don'T understand what it is Trump administration says.

[A]

This is Kilmar Garcia. Get two court hearings There were two.

[B]

Judges that reviewed evidence that said that there is sufficient evidence to say that he is part of MS.13.

[A]

Is that due process? That due process? Is that due process?

[B]

Yes. I'm not saying that he agree been he has.

[A]

So he had his due process.

[B]

No. You can have due process violated in one area and then honored in another. That's not contradictory.

[A]

So two courts find it to be a member of Ms. 13 back in the immigration courts are under the executive branch, not the judiciary.

[B]

That was back.

[A]

The executive branch then designates ms.ms.13 and FTO. Then that nullifies an executive stay to deportation to Guatemala that he had. But they didn't send him to Guatemala anyway. They sent him to El Salvador after the fact. It's up to El Salvador what to do with an El Salvadoran. Sounds like due process to me.

[B]

Due process is when you deport someone in error, which you dispute.

[A]

We just agreed it wasn't an error because you said he had two courts. What was the error in 2019?

[B]

What was the error in 20?

[A]

What was the error?

[B]

He was.

[A]

What was the error? What was the error?

[B]

The error is that he was not supposed to be deported to that country.

[A]

To Guatemala.

[B]

You mean to El Salvador.

[A]

No, the stay was for Guatemala. The stay was for Guatemala.

[B]

Does not mean that he was supposed to be deported to El Salvador.

[A]

The stay was that he couldn't be sent to Guatemala.

[B]

Can you hear me? I said that does not mean that he was supposed to be deported to El Salvador.

[A]

They can deport him. They can deport him to any country they want.

[B]

I'm not saying that they can't deport him. I'm saying so how is it an.

[A]

Error supposed to be if the stay of deportation was to Guatemala and he was sent to El Salvador, what's the error?

[B]

He was sent to a. A prison in El Salvador.

[A]

No, El Salvador imprisoned him. We didn't send him there.

[B]

This is what I mean. Where it ends up being like we are not El Salvador senses 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 decline to have jurisdiction.

[A]

What was the error?

[B]

Supreme Court said 90 that he was not given adequate due process rights to make a claim against the government once they had been trying to imprison him.

[A]

Even though he had not actually been.

[B]

Found guilty of a crime.

[A]

What was the error?

[B]

Error that he had not been found guilty of a crime. Nonetheless, he was imprisoned to an El Salvador.

[A]

That wasn't the error. You said he was deported in Error. What was the error?

[B]

The error is that he had a say of removal and he was not.

[A]

Supposed to be except the stay of removal according to the INA is disqualified upon foreign terrorist designation.

[B]

But you are.

[A]

If you want to change the law.

[B]

Take it up earlier in this. You would not say that you think it's correct for drug cartels to be designated as foreign terrorists designation.

[A]

I don't know. But that's the basis why I said that. Because you're changing the subject.

[B]

That's the basis. You're changing the subject of the subject.

[A]

It's part of the if I want.

[B]

Basis for you saying that he ought to be deported.

[A]

If you want to change law, take it up with Congress.

[C]

Coming here.

[A]

Take it up with Congress. That's where Congress changes laws. Right now the INA says the President has the authority to designate an fto. And if you do, your, your, your reprieve, immigration reprieve is disqualified. That is all in the law. There's no error there.

[B]

And you think all that's correct? Correct.

[A]

It's factually correct. You think all that's moral, morally correct is take up the law. So you think the question you. So this is ad hominem.

[B]

Really quick. Ad hominem, how is that?

[A]

I'm just going to say that every time you do this the question is was there an error? And we've concluded the answer is no.

[B]

There was an error. Just because Stephen says that there was no error. Do you want me to reread it again? I can reread it again.

[A]

It's like you're intentional, like you're agreeing with everything but then failing to connect the dots.

[B]

So do you want me to reread.

[A]

It again or reread what? Your post hoc out of context statement. We've already concluded that Trump did designate the cartels foreign terrorist organizations. 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 administrator.

[B]

What's a functional administrative error?

[A]

An administrative error that causes to the function of immigration. And there wasn't one. There wasn't. The FTO nullified the state of Guatemala, which he wasn't sent to anyway.

[B]

So you do realize that Stephen Miller saying that doesn't undermine that Again, ICE calls deportation oversight. In his court filing on the Stephen.

[A]

Miller saying it was the retraction I told you they made said I was.

[B]

Aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, but still deported Abrego Garcia because of an administrative error. It's like an ICE deportation. An oversight in a statement submitted to.

[A]

The court on Monday and then they retracted it, which I showed you. Stephen Miller's statements aren't law. It's evidence of the administration retracting a statement from an ICE official at the highest levels.

[B]

They targeted him for deportation and removal, even though, well, he already was.

[A]

That was a long time ago. He had an order for deportation years.

[B]

Ago and removal years ago. Obviously, then he was granted a stay.

[A]

He was granted a stay after the fact of deportation to Guatemala, which means he could have been deported anywhere. And under the law, he was supposed to. He was supposed to leave himself. So there's no error. But I think you're just saying these things because it's. It's political tribesmanship. It's so you.

[B]

But you think this is all moral.

[A]

See, that's a totally different question. Go to the next one.

[B]

You can. You can answer the question first.

[A]

All right, so let's just do this previous conversation is concluded. Now let's talk about whether or not it is moral to deport non citizens 100%.

[B]

Do you think it was moral how Kilmar Abrego Garcia was treated?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

It was actually the utmost of morality.

[B]

And even though he had not actually been.

[A]

It's a different conversation.

[B]

Why? How was it unrelated?

[D]

You already granted that being here illegally in and of itself is grounds for deportation.

[B]

When did I grab.

[D]

When I asked you? As being here legally in and of.

[B]

Itself grounds for depression, I would say. I said that the government has the ability to deport anybody at any time. Correct. But that does not mean that they can't come up with ludicrous reasons to deport someone. In my opinion, the question I was.

[C]

Gonna ask you before was why wouldn't someone like Kilmar have gone through the process the right way? Are you okay with him not going through the process and just coming here illegally?

[B]

No, I don't think it's good that people come here illegally. Then we can support just because. No, we can't.

[C]

Wouldn't that be the first crime. Wouldn't that be the first problem before everything else that you guys were just debating?

[B]

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 overstaying visas, it's not even because they're illegally entering into the United States. It means that they have legal means to come into the United States and then something expires or here legally. 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.

[A]

The state has.

[E]

The Secretary of State has total authority to deport people. Yeah, absolutely.

[B]

No, I didn't say that. They don't have total authority. They can't do anything that they want.

[A]

Yes, they can.

[B]

In the process of doing that, when.

[E]

You have total authority, you can say, okay, we're just going to send you out. Absolutely.

[D]

But you're portraying it like we are throwing them in a gulag, which is not what's happening.

[B]

Shouts a gulag.

[D]

That's not it. And also.

[B]

We put him on a plane, Right. And then he was immediately landed in El Salvador and then transferred to that prison.

[D]

If he knew that the gulags were that bad, maybe he should have gotten his paperwork.

[B]

You're acknowledging, though, that he was put on a plane by the United States government and then put in an El Salvador prison. And you're saying that that's not the United States government.

[D]

He was deported to El Salvador.

[B]

Are you saying that that's not the actions of the United States government doing that?

[D]

Putting him in a gulag, supposedly is not. That's nothing to do with us.

[B]

Even though our plane took him to the El Salvador prison that he was.

[D]

Imprisoned in, the plane took him to San Salvador, it took him to an airport, and then El Salvador's law enforcement.

[E]

Where custody was exchanged.

[B]

So were it not for the United States government flying him to El Salvador and then him being.

[D]

If we deport someone to Uganda.

[E]

Argument. This is not an argument. Custody was transferred to El Salvador in El Salvador.

[B]

Put him in prison, facilitated his imprisonment in El Salvador in Seattle.

[E]

No, they facilitated his transport and then his. The. The. The changing hands of custody. The United States facilitated the transport to El Salvador. They then gave him to the authorities in El Salvador, then the authorities in El Salvador.

[B]

So we put him, cooperated with them. So to imprison him, we.

[E]

No, we didn't. We don't. It doesn't matter where he's going. It doesn't matter. No, we did.

[B]

We cooperated.

[E]

They cooperated with us by taking him when we transported.

[B]

It's under our jurisdiction.

[E]

Then we sent him.

[B]

No, he was under. With us. He was saying it's under our.

[E]

He was under our jurisdiction and we deported him to El Salvador. Then custody was transferred to El Salvador and they put him in prison.

[B]

We cooperated with that to help facilitate that imprisonment.

[E]

We. We facilitated getting him out of the country. If you want to say that we did. I don't care. I don't have the same, I don't have the same kind of moral hang ups that you do. You.

[B]

I clearly, I clearly. Morally reprehensible in yours.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Okay, so there you go.

[E]

This is the whole point. The whole point of all of this is her to be able to say, I'm a good person, you're a bad person.

[B]

If you want to call me a.

[E]

Bad person, I don't care.

[B]

Did I say that we have a difference?

[E]

You said morally reprehensible.

[B]

Defend something that's morally reprehensible.

[E]

You, you are saying that it's morally reprehensible. You've been dying for this argument to be about good person, bad person the entire time. That's why you keep switching between the legal argument and the moral argument. All you want to do is sit there and say, see, I'm the good person and you're the bad person. This is all, this has been the entire show. It's absolute trash.

[B]

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?

[E]

Because this has been an absolute, this has all been a BS argument. It hasn't been an actual genuine debate about anything. 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. Because this isn't about law or rule of law or whether or not someone should be deported. Because you've already said, oh, yes, these people should be deported. You've said you've agreed.

[B]

I said they can be deported. I didn't say they should be deported. That's a different.

[E]

Well, I imagine you don't think anyone should be deported.

[B]

But no, I never said that.

[E]

That's why I said. I imagine.

[A]

I didn't say you said that.

[B]

I imagine some individual should be deported. There are lawful means to remove them.

[E]

From the country and you've agreed that all of the lawful means have been. Have met. All of the lawful standards have been met.

[B]

No.

[A]

It'S the, it's the Patrick meme.

[E]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know what to tell you.

[B]

You're trying to say that the United States was not involved in the imprisonment.

[A]

No, I didn't.

[B]

In an El Salvadoran prison.

[E]

The, the El Salvadorian authorities put him in prison.

[B]

The United States cooperated. United States deported the man and we cooperated to. With El Salvador to put him in that prison.

[E]

Well, again, like I said, this is, this is all, this is all, this is all driving the conversation. So you can say, look, this was a morally wrong thing to do. And you can say, see, I'm not.

[B]

But the major thing, only thing that.

[E]

Matters today, that's the only thing that matters, is your perception of morality. I think it's more.

[B]

I also care about the United States Constitution.

[E]

If 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.

[B]

You can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can hear about two things at once.

[E]

So then why did you say that you care? Then why did you just say that you care about the rule of law and the Constitution?

[B]

Because they're not mutually exclusive.

[E]

The whole point.

[B]

Do you acknowledge that it's not mutually exclusive to care about the Constitution, the rule of law and morality?

[E]

It is mutually excuse exclusive. If you talk.

[B]

So you can only care about one or the other. You are talking about talking about the rule of law.

[E]

There are going to be times when the rule of law is going to do things that one person might consider immoral.

[D]

Well, Phil, Phil, just.

[B]

That's a descriptive claim.

[D]

Don't even, don't even grant her framework. When we exchange custody in San Salvador. Whatever El Salvador's business is, is their business. Like, it's not. We're not facilitating that. It's just the reality.

[B]

So you don't consider us putting him on a plane, flying him to El Salvador, standard deportation procedure? That was, that was standard operating procedure to put somebody on a plane, El Salvador and imprison them.

[D]

Standard. To put them on a plane and drop them off in San Salvador. Yes. That's the only international airport where he's imprisoned. If El Salvador deems him as a member of Ms. 13, I'm not going to go and like invade them over it. I mean, it's like, whatever. And it has like 90, 90% of people there.

[B]

You think that that's not the United States facilitating. That's just. You just morally discharge it and legally discharge it all to.

[D]

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.

[B]

He wasn't even supposed to be put on that plan.

[E]

He wasn't even supposed to be in the United States.

[D]

He wasn't supposed to be in the United States at first. I mean it's just like we're rearranging chairs on the Titanic. It's like popular mandate to deport all illegal immigrants. I mean it is what it is.

[A]

I think the most important thing though is just that he was never barred from being deployed deported to El Salvador. I pulled up the old court document from 2019 and it was over Guatemala. And this is like the crazy thing about this.

[B]

They deported him to just any country. It doesn't matter.

[A]

Even if it's an El Salvadoran citizen.

[B]

Even if it's not a home country.

[A]

You defend it, he's an El Salvadoran citizen. He went home.

[B]

Okay, so would you defend him being deported anywhere?

[A]

Did he go home?

[B]

Would you defend him being deported anywhere?

[A]

No, no, I think he should go home.

[B]

So you wouldn't support him being flown to France for example, and then imprisoned there?

[A]

I don't know. It didn't happen if you cut. I mean he went home and the court said he couldn't go to Guatemala.

[B]

You can't engage with the hypothetical.

[A]

It's because you're changing the subject.

[C]

Why?

[A]

Because I have a court document that says he was barred from going to Guatemala, which he didn't go to. Are you suggesting that everyone deserves to be connected?

[E]

That's why T Mobile and US Cellular are joining forces. Switch to T Mobile and save up to 20% versus Verizon by getting built in benefits they leave out. Check the math@t mobile.com switch and now T mobile is in US cellular stores.

[A]

Savings versus Comparable Verizon plans plus the cost of optional benefits plan features and taxes and fees vary. Savings with three plus lines include third line free via monthly bill credits credit stop if you cancel any lines. Qualifying credit required.

[B]

You're suggesting that unless there was a.

[A]

Change in circumstances in Guatemala that would result in the respondent's life not being threatened or that internal relocation is not possible. Therefore the respondents application for withholding to the act is granted. This stated we couldn't send him to Guatemala. And the weird thing is everyone in the media has just said El Salvador over and over again. And I have this post from Kennecoa.

[B]

The Grace suggesting that you would be uncomfortable if he had been deported to a third party.

[A]

Are you changing the subject again?

[B]

You'd been.

[A]

Anyone explained why Kilmar Roberto Garcia's deportation order stopped him from being sent to Guatemala but allowed him to be sent to El Salvador. 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 to sisters and parents in Guatemala. DHS has failed to carry their burden to show that there are changed circumstances in Guatemala that would result in respondents. So the order of deportation required him to leave. And the problem really here is that Trump sucks and Biden sucks and everybody screwed it up and it became a political issue. Now liberals are pretending like they've got some moral high ground and you've got a convoluted nonsense story where you're asking about got other countries. He went to El Salvador but was barred from going to Guatemala. I don't know what the error was.

[B]

You're not going to distract me from asking my question again, an unrelated question.

[A]

We can change the subject if you.

[C]

Want circular reasoning like exhaust you at some point.

[B]

So based on what you've argued because you're like, he's just being sent home.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

That's 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.

[A]

I don't know. Maybe.

[B]

Can you answer yes or no?

[C]

Why does it matter?

[A]

No, because I don't know.

[D]

He wouldn't have the right.

[A]

I have no strong feelings on it one way or another.

[B]

So he could have been deported to torture prison in the Sudan. You'd be okay with that?

[A]

No, I don't know.

[B]

Why not? Why can't you speak to that?

[A]

I don't have enough information on what those countries are like and what it would look like.

[B]

So I'm talking about like, so there's. It could. If it was bad.

[A]

Would you be angry if he was deported to the Sun? I don't know.

[D]

You're talking about like the Rwanda people.

[B]

You're laughing to avoid engaging with the hypothesis.

[A]

I don't know how I would feel anything that didn't happen. And it's fine to ask hypothetical, but my answer is literally, I don't know. I don't have a yes or no answer for you because these are different countries. The fact remains he was barred from going to Guatemala. He went to El Salvador. He's home. What his home country does with him.

[B]

Is not a problem to Somalia and a prison there, you would be okay with it?

[A]

No. No, I don't know.

[B]

You don't know?

[A]

No, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. It's immaterial to what happened.

[B]

If you have strong feelings. I'm asking if.

[E]

You're asking if.

[B]

If you just really can't engage with the hypothetical, and that's fine.

[A]

I can engage with the hypothetical.

[B]

No, you're refusing to because you're saying, no, I'm not.

[A]

I gave you an answer. I don't know.

[B]

No, the I don't know is the cop out.

[A]

No, it's not. No, it's not.

[C]

It's how he really feels.

[E]

I don't have strong feelings.

[A]

I'm in the middle. It could be bad, it could be good. I'll have to see.

[B]

What would you need to see so you could make a decision?

[A]

Deportation. The stay of deportation, the actions taken, the plane, the prison, the politicians involved.

[B]

So if it was like a Boeing instead of like a different kind of plane, maybe you'd be in support of it, maybe you wouldn't be, maybe not.

[A]

Because if, like, the prison, if, like, the plane had, like, uncomfortable seats and they had them in a box or something, there's a lot of circumstances here. All I can say is. But then it's hard for me.

[B]

That wouldn't change your answer, that you just say, oh, he should be deported. Not in a box in a plane.

[A]

You just meant that I don't have.

[B]

An answer for him to a different country.

[A]

Sometimes people don't know things. Sometimes I don't know is an okay answer.

[B]

I'm only saying that you're refusing to engage with the hypothetical.

[A]

But I did engage with your hypothetical.

[B]

In a substantial way because you're saying, I don't know, I don't have enough information. There's all of these circumstances that would change it with that.

[A]

So give me one.

[B]

Yeah. You just said the plane. You just said, oh, I don't know about the plane. I don't know if he would be uncomfortable. I don't know about the prison. You said the prison would be. 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, 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 because.

[A]

I genuinely do not know. And I'm not going to lie to people to pretend I have strong opinions on something that I don't understand.

[B]

It's hard for you to understand a hypoth to give a straight answer to a hypothetical like that.

[A]

In this context, yes.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Yep. Sometimes I'm wrong and I'm not smart enough to understand what that would look like. And I'm not going to make assumptions.

[B]

So I just think you're plenty smart to engage with this hypothetical on your.

[A]

And I did. I did. I don't. I don't know.

[B]

Sorry. Substantively engage, but it's also manipulative to.

[C]

Force an opinion he doesn't have.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

How am I forcing an opinion?

[C]

Because he just told you his answer.

[A]

By saying, I don't know. I'm refusing to engage. The only answer I can give you is I don't know. I think, I don't know what Somalia looks like. Is there a C cut in Somalia? How are Somali prisons? Are they good? Are they bad? Are there accusations from liberals of human court?

[B]

Ones are bad. And you don't seem to care about.

[A]

Them because El Salvador has an El Salvador citizen. Somali does not have an El Salvador citizen. See, they're different. I don't know.

[B]

Because he's a citizen of a country, they can treat him however they want.

[A]

It's their country. Should we invade El Salvador?

[B]

Why do you care about human rights abuses if it came from a different government that's not his?

[A]

But yeah, you know, to be completely honest, I don't.

[B]

Okay. Why is it difficult for you to answer the hypothetical where he's deported to Somalia?

[A]

He's not Somalian.

[B]

I know that. 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?

[A]

Because I. I don't care in the sense that I would assert law over them, but I care in the sense that they're bad. And so the issue of a person being sent to a third party country.

[B]

For him to be sent to a third country.

[A]

Yeah. There's circumstances I don't understand.

[B]

You realize the Trump admin is trying to do that, right?

[A]

I do, yeah.

[B]

Trying to send him to a third country.

[A]

Many of them we talked about, like Ghana and Eritrea and a bunch of other countries.

[B]

And how do you.

[A]

What was the other. What was the other country?

[D]

Rwanda?

[A]

Was it Rwanda?

[D]

Rwanda's like the classic scheme.

[A]

It was Sudan, wasn't it?

[D]

Rwanda's been like the third country since it was like.

[A]

All of this is convoluted hubbub nonsense where everyone who has no idea what's going on is trying to assert an opinion. I got no problem saying I don't know about that. All I know is he's from El Salvador, he went to El Salvador. What El Salvador does with their citizens. I'll put it like this. Okay, you know what? I give up. You're right. Let's invade El Salvador and shut them down. Should we?

[B]

Does that follow from what I said?

[A]

Well, they're engaging in human rights abuses without due process, so let's send in the troops.

[B]

So you're saying, yes, but it doesn't follow from El Salvador having human rights abuses. That the only solution.

[A]

Should we stop the human rights abuses?

[B]

Yes, but that's not.

[A]

How do we do it?

[B]

Diplomatic means.

[A]

Diplomatic means? Like what?

[B]

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. We can. We have embassies in these countries where we can communicate with foreign dignitaries.

[A]

No, I'm saying, like. But what if sanctions don't make appeals to the un what if sanctions don't work and they keep doing it?

[E]

So, pretty please?

[B]

I'm only answering your question. What are we supposed to do?

[E]

Sugar on top.

[B]

You asked me, what are we supposed to do short of invading them. And I'm giving you different avenues. And now you're saying, agreed.

[A]

What if they don't work Venezuela.

[B]

I'm not saying that they are guaranteed to work. I'm saying there are different ways, objectively. So let's talk about invading a country.

[A]

Let's talk about Venezuela real quick. Sanctions didn't work on Venezuela. They kept trading oil with sanctioned countries, and they were sanctioned. So should we just let them keep doing it, or should we invade Venezuela?

[B]

You realize it's a false dichotomy that you've presented, right?

[A]

What's the false dichotomy?

[B]

That it doesn't have to be one or the other.

[A]

The invasion or the sanctions?

[B]

Yeah. No.

[A]

All right. So do you have a suggestion for what we do beyond the sanctions failing?

[B]

There's other diplomatic means. Am I able to articulate what they could be?

[A]

You don't know?

[B]

I'm just saying that I'm sure there exists any number of possible. Any number of different actions. We could appeal to the un. There's other. We could work in the un. Other countries. My only. I'm only answering that there is more than. There are more options than just sanctions and invasions. Do you agree with me?

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

I don't. What do you mean?

[E]

We can say pretty please.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. 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. Like, I think it's, you know, the polymarket's not paying out Venezuelan invasion because they argued that we didn't capture territory.

[E]

Oh really?

[A]

But like we did, we took the Venezuelan compound to secure him. Just because it was for 90 minutes doesn't mean it wasn't an invasion. So the argument is how does the U.S. the U.S. does a variety of things to take over a country. We do first economic incentives, we'll make you rich. If they say no, then we try to manipulate them politically. Well, the first economic incentives things does involve sanctions. Then there's political manipulation like we've seen in, you know like the banana republics or the efforts we've made in Iraq and Afghanistan with nation building is not a great example. But we, Ukraine is probably a better example. The Euromaidan movements, before it became full blown war, the US was funding activist groups to foment support for the eu. When that doesn't work, we then go for assassinations and if that doesn't work we then go for full scale militarized invasion. So that's the playbook for how it went with Saddam Hussein. And it was because he didn't want to trade oil in dollars, he wanted to trade in euro and Muammar Gaddafi wanted to trade in gold. That's the scale of things that we do.

[B]

Did you support the Obama admins, Libya intervention?

[A]

Absolutely not. And I think Barack Obama was a scumbag who murdered children and American citizens and he should, he's a war criminal and should be arrested. And Trump doesn't get any special passes for me because he was accused of killing another American girl, the sister of Abdul Rahman Al Awlaki in Yemen. Now that one is an accusation not yet confirmed and I think we should have trial and hearing over it though it's been 10 years. The Obama killing of Abdurrahman Al Awlaki is admitted to, confessed to and they said whoopsie daisy. So if you want to confess to the murder of an American, you get locked the fuck up. So anyway, I don't think the US should be killing Saddam Hussein and evading under false pretenses to enforce the petrodollar. I 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.

[B]

The issue then comes Abdul Ramalaki was affiliated with a terrorist organization.

[A]

Abdul Rahman Al Awlaki, I'm sorry, I.

[B]

Can'T get the name right. But that individual, even if they're affiliated.

[A]

With terrorist Abdul Rahman Al Aulaqi, was not. No. He was a 16 year old from Boulder, Colorado visiting his family in Yemen.

[B]

No, I'm not Talking about that. That's. It was like an additional casualty that was incurred as a result of this. I'm talking about.

[A]

No, no, no. Abdulrahman Al Aulaqi was directly targeted and the restaurant was blown up, and he was killed. And when asked about it, they said, we thought there was a different target at the building.

[B]

So would you. If they're part of a terrorist organization, is that okay?

[A]

Depends that we did that. Anwar Al Awlaki was an American citizen.

[B]

But he was part of Al Qaeda.

[A]

Now, he. Perhaps he was argued that he was a proselytizer of Al Qaeda and he was actively engaged in war with us in a war zone. That's tough. I still lean towards. They should have had a criminal trial for him 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. Doesn't matter if they're an American citizen or a, you know, Uzbekistani or whatever. So Anwar Al Awlaki was killed in a drone strike. He was an American citizen who wasn't given due process. No charge, no trial. They just killed him. The argument they made was he was an active enemy combatant proselytizing for our enemies in enemy territory. And it's like, well, we aren't at war with Yemen, so why are we bombing Yemen? He's just a foreign guy preaching things we don't like. There should be a trial for him. Now, Abdul Rahman is wholly different. 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. That's criminal. Obama should be in prison for that. He admitted to it. His administration said, we thought it was a different target. Okay, we call that manslaughter. Okay, we call that negligent homicide. 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. You go to jail for that. Anyway, we are well over and we do need to wrap up, but I do want to give you the opportunity to put your final thoughts in and take the final word.

[B]

I don't have any additional final thoughts. Had a good time talking with all of you guys and debating throughout the afternoon. My name is Aaron, AKA Straight Raider, straightaway online. I live stream basically Monday through Friday politics react stream. So come by. It's always a good time. And thank you for having me on.

[A]

Oh, thanks for. Thanks for Coming too. And I appreciate you handling the heat in the kitchen. I know we're all kind of against you, but I do think it's. It was great to have you.

[B]

It's fun for me.

[A]

I do want to apologize to the. To the Discord members in the backstage that we didn't go through your chats or whatever because I lost my mind. But now we're 12 minutes over and we're out of time because we have limited time today. That's why we're pre recording. So. Yeah, you want to shout anything out before we go?

[C]

Yeah. So you guys can follow me. I'm mostly on x at real defender 45, 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. And so we need to act X.

[D]

And Instagram @realtape Brown. Go. Follow me.

[E]

There I am. Filler remains on Twix. The band is all that remains. We're going on tour. We're going to be in Albany on April 29th and be on tour for three weeks after that. Until the end. Just about the end of May. We're going out with Born of Osiris and Dead Eyes. You can check out all that Remains music on Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, YouTube and Deezer. Don't forget, the left lane is for crime.

[A]

I just want to say again, too, that it was great to have you and you can tell it was a good show when we go over and it's just like, you don't even notice.

[B]

Just time flies.

[A]

Yeah, I know. I'm like, I want to keep going because I'm having fun and I think it's important, but we're supposed to have a hard stop. So everybody, thank you all so much for being members. Thanks for watching the show. We're back, of course, on Monday. We got exciting stuff in the works and we will see you all then.