Asmongold TV - We live in a crazy timeline | Asmongold

Episode Date: June 19, 2025

We live in a crazy timeline Subscribe to Asmongold TV on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@AsmonTV Disclaimer: This podcast is an independent project created by a viewer using content from the YouTube channel Asmongold TV. The purpose is to make his content more accessible to those who prefer audio formats, helping more people engage with the ideas presented in his videos. This podcast is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially associated with Asmongold. All rights to the original content remain with Asmongold TV. If there are any concerns or requests regarding this podcast, please reach out. ----- Keywords: twitch streamer, reaction videos, game criticism, online gaming Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bro. Bro. Bro. Last month traveled to Beirut airline, a brutal terrorist, and a visa is a privilege not a right. So there's somebody else who's getting their visa revoked as well. And the White House tweets, oh my fucking God. This is insane. How is this real?

What a fucking timeline? Oh no. Oh, God, everything's computer. Holy fucking shit, man. This case is weird. Keep going. You'll see the music video of the Lighthouse posted. I don't agree with everything. Yeah, you don't have to agree with it. This is fucking funny, man. Let me see if I can fire. There are any more of these?

Oh, God. And there's just more of these. It's so stupid. It's just so stupid. Oh my God. Um, wow. Okay, bye bye, Russia. So, so this is. again. So now we're having somebody else's green card also get removed. Last month Russia Awea traveled to Beirut

Lebanon to attend the funeral of Hassan Nashrawah. That's the guy that's that was the really smart, well-spoken terrorist guy. A brutal terrorist that led Hezbollah remember he was the guy

that every single time that he said something on like that Twitter terrorist thing, I was like this is way too smart to be a Twitch streamer, and it was always him. That's the guy. For killing hundreds of Americans over four-year decades free, OIA openly admitted to this to CBP

officers, as well as her support of natural law. A visa is a privilege not a right, glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa insurance to be denied. This is common sense security. Man. Man. Why is this a

debate? It shouldn't be. It's common sense. get them out. And I guess this is the policy now, right? Oh, here we go. Oh, they're not happy about the Alien Enemies Act. Yeah, I wonder why. Do you feel that you're using it appropriately right now? Well, this is a time of war because Biden allowed millions of people, many of them criminals, many of them at the highest level. They empty jails out. Other nations emptied their jails into the United States.

Why is Trump looking AI? Yeah, I don't know. Many, many criminals, murderers, drug dealers in the highest level, drug lords, people from mental institutions. That's an invasion. They invaded our country. So this isn't, in that sense, in this is war. Yeah, they're going to do it. Assylum seekers are not criminals.

What's to stop the government from picking up Hispanic? looking person claiming they're part of Trent Day O'Awagua than deporting in prison without due process? You seriously don't see a problem with that? I don't know what the process is either. I think that they should follow whatever the process is, but I just don't really give a shit that much about it. Right? I mean, like, that's it.

Like, I understand that like, this is again more fear mongering, right? You're taking a bunch of people that have tattoos all over them from like being part of this gang and you're acting like this is the next step is they're going to be rounding up Hispanic Americans than putting them

and sending them to El Salvador. This is, it's really not happening. This is not happening. It's ridiculous. And also it's the assumption of due process. What is the due process for a person like that? Yeah, it's so dramatic. Yeah, it's so dramatic.

And I think that's basically, one of very clear, none of us care. These are, yeah, and this is basically it. It's important to be very clear. None of us care. These are thugs who illegally broke in our country by gangs who regularly rate, murder, and steal. Democrats, like you, care more about these thugs than you ever have about the

Americans killed by the illegals. Exactly. I think people are tired of having their empathy weaponized against them in order to enable criminals. Yeah, people are tired of having their empathy weaponized against them. How do you know they're in gangs? Well, a lot of them have tattoos that are gang tattoos. It's a ridiculous argument. Yeah, it is. It's a ridiculous argument. Empathy is dumb. Well, I think that some people can be dumb because of empathy. I think that's really what it is. let me see if there's any more of this I was going to look at. I think this is just pretty much all the same post. Yeah, yeah, it pretty much is.

Let me go back. I'll go through the rest of these. And it's another feelings argument, though. It is. It is a feelings argument. And it always is. And that's the entire premise of all of this stuff is totally based off of feelings and making people scared rather than making people think and looking at what the best option is.

And I think that's really the biggest difference. and that's the reason why you have such a pushback on it? It's about balance. It is. Is that your view that if due process is what's holding back to the public safe, then finding a legal loophole around the process is okay with me as well? Well, finding a legal loophole around due process is by definition due process. Because the due process is the legal process.

So if you find a loophole around the process, then that is, of course, then part of the process. Like, skipping a loophole and just like, sorry, skipping the process is very different than expediting it through a, like, some sort of other apparatus. That's a weird gotcha? Yeah, it's a weird gotcha. And why I left this hellbent on supporting terrorists and criminals? Because they view these people as victims. That's the reason why.

They view them as victims, and that's the entire focus they have is on being victims. I get so tired of people trying to disfow those people coming in a country illegally. Yeah, I know. It is exhausting, isn't it? It can be tiresome even for me sometimes. But that's okay. That's fine. But yeah, let me see if there's any more of these. And, uh, well, Who are you, who are you with? That's the same, the same one. I don't want to talk to NBC anymore. I think you're so discredited. Yep. The loophole becomes the process, but it doesn't mean it's the same as what the people commonly called due process. Yeah, but everybody does that. I mean, if you can find a rule to expedite a process and to make it work better, then you're going to use that rule. So due process is the law. So a loophole is also the law because that's what a loophole means. So it's the difference between, and this is another component to it, right?

So you have tax avoidance and you have tax evasion. Tax evasion is when you break the law. Tax avoidance is a manipulation of the law that is technically legal. So a loophole is tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is fine. This is completely different from that? No, no, it's not. Avoidance is legal?

Yes, avoidance is legal. So, yeah, again, due process includes loopholes. And I said, by the way, I said the exact same thing. And I know people always like to play like this, this like comparison game and be like, yeah, but what about this other thing that you said that's not related? I said the exact same thing about Hunter Biden and Biden issuing pardons. And people said that it was an abuse of the system. And I said that it's totally, this is, it's not even clever use of game mechanics.

That's what pardons are for. So like that was the difference, right? Let me see here. If loopholes weren't legal, then how are people going to jail for them? Well, it depends on what it is. Yeah, I don't know who's going to jail for a loophole. I have no idea. Let me see here.

I'll read a few more of these. And check to Patriot Act section 412. They can read that if they don't understand what the due process is. Yeah, I mean, if they have the process and they have the policy, then that's the way it is, right? It's literally that simple. Let's see if I can find this. Oh, yeah, here we go. And this is another...

So, this is another person. this is very popular on Twitter is for people to post things that are people will post things that are justifications of violence. So you had this woman here who makes a post. This is verbally and physically accosted for my hat.

Literally minding my own business and unhinged man comes in verbally accosts me, screaming at me, and then he calls me every name in a book, and then he hit my hat twice. It's actually crazy that Twitter and people on Twitter have justified, well, number one, they've compared wearing a Donald Trump

Make America Healthy Again hat with Adolf Hitler, obviously. And what a big surprise. You know, it always goes right back to the same thing, doesn't it? It's amazing. I suggest you read some 1930-1935 German history. Guys, you're not going to get me to say that it's a bad thing that deporting illegal migrants that are part of gang,

that are designated as terrorist organizations is a bad thing. Again, like, if you have come out on that side of things, you have completely left the realm of rationality. And, yeah, deporting gang members is the same as a genocide. This is the kind of stuff that people do. It's the constant invocation of Hitler, of Nazis. It's so tiresome. It's so tiresome.

It's completely overused. Nobody is buying this anymore. Nobody wants to hear about this anymore. It's exhausting. So please stop. Please stop constantly comparing everything to Hitler. Please stop constantly comparing everything to Nazi Germany. It's not Hitler.

It's not Nazi Germany. It's just a bunch of retards trying to make people afraid. They're saying Jews in Europe are criminal gang members. Yeah, it's willfully suspending reality to argue an emotional fallacy. It is. And it's disappointing to see it happen. but there's a lot of people that have been completely taken over by that. But I will tell you guys this,

the moment that anybody invokes any sort of parallel to, like, Hitler or Nazi Germany, I immediately stop paying attention. Because this is 99 times out of 100, an emotional appeal that's meant to make you not have your argument because they don't want you to align with Hitler. That's it. It's same. Yeah, immediately stop listening to them.

Yeah, it's crazy. I don't be real. This isn't it? Getting beat up by a maga hat. isn't on the same level. She had not got beat up. If somebody touches you and physically assaults you over your hat, that person should not be in public life.

There is no reason why a civilized, tolerant society in Western civilization in a first world country should tolerate any form of assault or abuse on a person because of a person's attire. This is literally, yeah, this is what animals do. Absolutely not. Yeah, Sue him and lock them up. Yeah, it's always very weird for people to see.

It's weird that people keep justifying and keep trying to make excuses for literal violence. Literal violence and intimidation. USA civilized? Well, it's not because we have people like this. Trying to overthrow the government is chill, though. Fuck up. I'm going to president again. Hitting somebody because of their hat is bad.

And if you're hitting somebody because of their hat and you're violently assaulting them, then you shouldn't be in public life. It's very simple. There's really not a lot of fine print to this or a lot of common sense. Justifying violence based on the appearance of someone is wild. Yeah, same thing for the people keying Teslas. Yeah, I think so.

And it's crazy how every single person, this is what I find to be really funny about this, every single person just defaults back to trespassing on the Capitol. Since we've only had like 50 of these today, it's the same thing every single time. What have I said about this? Sox, you followed for a long time. What have I said about January 6th?

Can we block January 6th, we probably should? Because it's just such a, it's such an overused, retarded thing. And I think that every single person that brings it up is somebody who's trying to create a false equivalency. It's super redundant. I'll be honest, I don't know.

January 6 was bad, and anybody who was violent in January 6 should not have been pardoned, and I hope they stay in jail for a very long time. How's that? The people that walked into the Capitol, without being violent, without stealing anything, they were already in jail for three years.

I think a pardon for them is fine. I think spending three years in jail for that, that's acceptable. Then we agree? Okay. Yeah. This is the way most normal people think. I also agree assaulting and self-defense is wrong. Yeah.

It's not even a conversation. Yeah. What about violence against a person for what they say in public? I don't really, so unless a person says I'm going to kill you or like they're making threats at you, there's no justification to punch them or to hit them. them. So the only justification for violence for words or are if those words are a, like they're an immediate threat. Yeah, make a threat. Like, yeah, if you're threatening somebody, that's it. Should still be okay to punch a neo-Nazi in the face? No, it shouldn't be. Just because you've decided

that somebody is a neo-Nazi doesn't mean that you get to punch them in the face. Do you understand the problem that it creates when you decide that there's a, group of people that you can just punch in the face without any sort of like repercussions? No, that's not how it works. Just because you think somebody is a Nazi doesn't give you the ability to punch them in the face. That's, it's, this is a low IQ, tough guy, reddeter viewpoint that if people express this in real life, they would be in jail. Same guy saying punch a Nazi, then complaining about due process.

You know what? That's a great fucking point. The same people that are complaining about. that they're complaining about due process are saying to punch Nazis. That's a great fucking point. I'll see if there's any more of these here too. But DHS also released ICE arrest numbers. Those numbers are surpassing the Biden administration for what their arrest war.

That's a cool fucking car, man. I want one of those. Yeah, one of these like off-roaders? This is badass. All of 2024. However, when it comes to those removals and deportations, that's different. than an arrest. So we press the secretary on that. Here's what she had to say. How much is it?

How much is it? You look at the numbers and we're going through them. But the arrest numbers, we saw that Joe Biden was even manipulating those, even people that they were encountering and releasing into the United States, they were calling as arrests. So they, they capture them and then they let them go? Why would they do that? And then they say they're, um, President Trump has been extremely aggressive and making sure that we're arresting dangerous individuals, getting them out of the country. But DHS also.

I get you a brand new one for 22K. No, maybe if it was like 5K or 7K, I'd buy it. But that's way too fucking much. But, uh, yeah. Let's see here. And, uh, sexually fresh. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

People always like to make comments like that. But, uh, yeah, really not a big surprise. But yeah, basically Trump had this app. So like the Biden administration had an app that would, basically it was how the migrants would like keep track of all their benefits and everything. And Trump canceled the app on the first day. And then on the second day, or I guess not second day, but like now, he has repurposed the app for their benefits into being a self-deportation app. Trump on his first day in office, he ended that app. He ended that opportunity

for migrants seeking asylum. But now they've repurposed that app as CBP home. So we ask Secretary Gnome, is that app being utilized? Does she think it's working? Here's what she had to say about CBP home. It's building momentum all the time, and we're continuing to educate the public about it. But, yeah. Pushing migrants to self-deport. The last I checked a few days ago, it was getting, it's hundreds and hundreds.

I'm not sure if we're over thousands and thousands now, but every day as people recognize that there are criminal penalties for overstaying, especially after you have final removal orders. There's also financial penalties. Yeah, see, they're going to roach out real quick as soon as they realize they're going to get got. That's the thing. It's people like this. As soon as they start seeing other people get deported, then they start leaving. Every day that you're here for over, for a final removal order, it could be $700 a day penalty.

So if someone has been here for years past the date of their final removal order, it could be tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars. And that's a consequence they could face if they don't self-deport. Holy shit. Yep, there you go. And the incentive is that they'll face charges and they, uh, and the chance to reapply legally. Yeah. Uh, I guess so. Brought, not even U.S. American citizen has to pay, uh, has paid penalties.

Well, of course not because you're a citizen. So why would you pay penalties? Yeah. But, um, anyway, so this has been, uh, this has been what's happening, I guess, right? And it does seem like we've got, uh, bro. This is crazy. Man. Man.

Wow. I don't even know what to say. Is separate about the end-depth tour of the Salvador prisons, how they work? No, I already watched a video on that yesterday, actually. It's so good. Yeah, it's fucking funny. This is what I voted for. Well, I'll tell you guys, how many of you guys that voted for Trump, you're getting, you're getting even, it's even better than what you would hope for? Yeah. That's right. That's right. Yep, 100%. It surpassed all my expectations. I didn't, I thought he was just.

is going to take over and do fucking nothing. I did. But apparently he just doesn't give a fuck. Do you have a red line for the drug cartels that if Frost, it would automatically trigger a military response from the U.S.? Well, we'll say, but we're not going to put up with it. This country is not going to allow people to come in and dump drugs and kill our youth and other than our youth, too. I think that the majority of Americans support using military force to get rid of drug cartels.

I do. I think this is a majority opinion. and I would say actually it's probably a 60% plus opinion. Older people are very much affected, so we're not going to let that happen. Yeah, I think so. Not even American, I still agree. I mean, they have military grade gear. I'm sure some of them do.

Yeah, you're right. And I wonder, and I feel like there's also a very good question. where do they get that military grade gear that's crazy yeah what what is that where did all that come from i because like i have my idea of where i think it came from but where did it come from i wonder so you called the judge's order just earlier today quote patently unlawful end quote, and said that it was an assault on democracy itself. Does that mean that the administration is ignoring this order, and might you ignore future court orders that meet the criteria you laid out?

The president of the United States and his administration reserve all rights under the Constitution to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States. The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law. law by the founding generation of these countries. Men like John Adams was written explicitly to give the president the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States. That is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict or to restrain any way. You can read the law yourself. There's now one

clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone, district court review. Wow. So, Stephen, when you say that this person has no authority at all, this is how our system works. It starts with these judges and then continues up. At what point does it become, in your view, legal for the justice system to be looking at this and making a judgment? And I fail to see how there's any other way, but to start with where we're starting here before you get to eventually the Supreme Court. Well, so first of the first, well, there's a term in law, it's justiciable. This is not justissible.

In other words, this is not subject to judicial remedy. When the president is exercising his Article 2 powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist. That Patriot Act shit was OP, right? Damn. Yeah. Wow. This isn't a Patriot Act?

I thought part of it was. And this is from 1790. Yeah, it's from 1798. Or 89. is unlawfully in the country. He's exercising his core Article 2 powers as commander in change. Is Venezuela invading the U.S.? This is a very important point.

That is unlawfully in the country. He's exercising his core article 2 powers as commander in chief. Is Venezuela invading the U.S.? This is a very important point. This is a Title 50 authority. It's a commander in chief authority. So just to ask you a simple question, you talk about how the system works.

Does a district court judge have the right? right to direct or enjoin troop movements overseas. Yes or no? Well, Stephen, my question, if you could answer my question first, in other words, the... Uh-oh. Is Venezuela invading our country in a way that would apply this way? So under the, so I'll answer you and you'll answer your mind. Under the terms of the statute, trained there, Agua is an alien enemy force that has come here as detailed at length in the proclamation, at the direction of the Venezuelan government. The statute says that a president has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion

that is directed by a foreign government, right? Are they a state or a government? Yes, it is documented that TDA was sent by the Venezuelan government in the proclamation. And here's an even more important point. Under the Constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one or the commander-in-chief of the army and navy. the president and the president alone makes a decision of what trickers that the termination is that. So do you then think we are actually at war with Venezuela, the nation state of Venezuela? You're not hearing. It's very funny for me to see this happen because I'm actually very happy to see this because I'm finally witnessing the downfall of this emotional, leading, dishonest and disingenuous rhetoric that's been going on now for, much the entire time that I've been an adult. And I think we're finally seeing pushback against

it and this blatant emotional, yeah, it's emotional rhetoric. That's it. Thank God. Yeah, I'm so happy to see this. I don't know how long I've been waiting for this to happen. It feels so good, man. Yeah, it's, because I hate people that act like this. I hate people that that behave like this, that think like this, I completely hate them. And so I'm really glad that, you know, like for me, I got fed up with this over 10 years ago. But a lot of other people, you know, they tried to be nice. They tried to be reasonable. And now finally, this is just kind of not working anymore.

They're a designated terrorist organization and they've illegally entered the state. So yes, it's completely justified. I mean, I would assume it is. Yeah, I would. I would absolutely assume it is. And you're not understanding me. Read the statute. Alien Enemies Act, 1798. It says if a predatory incursion is perpetrated by a foreign government. So it lists three qualifying actions.

It does say in the very beginning there has to be a declared war against a nation or a state. That's what it says. Wrong. Look at the statute. It's on my account on social media. where we found it. The, yes. It says, or a predatory incursion or an invasion. Any invasion or predatory incursion against the terrorist unit by any foreign nation or government. Okay, well then there it is.

Why is she defending gangs? Because the entire narrative is built around victimhood. So it's about defending the people who are victims. and it's not about what's good or bad for people. It's about figuring out who's a victim and then defending that person. That's the reason why. It's literally like it's completely one-dimensional thinking.

Fashit delineates three criteria for triggering the enemy's act. One is a act of war, which by the way, invasion is an act of war, but put that aside. One is an invasion, which this is, One is a predatory incursion, which this is. So it actually meets all three statutory criteria,

but with respect to this particular statute, the proclamation is utilizing the incursion and invasion language in the statute. So, but this is a very important question. No, no, hold on. It's a very important question. You said the way our system works is the President of the United States commands the armed forces of the country, commands the foreign policy of the country,

and that's subject to district court review. That is fundamentally untrue. I never said that, Stephen. I did not say. That has never been true. This was not a military. I mean, the district court judge can no more enjoin the expulsion of foreign terrorists to foreign soil that he can direct the movement of Air Force One, that he can direct the movement of an aircraft carrier, then he can. This seems like it would be right.

Yeah. It seems like that would be true. Yeah. It's completely logical. direct Marco Rubio to engage in diplomacy in a country or not. Does the Supreme Court of the United States have any say over the things that you were just outlining right here?

I believe what the Supreme Court will say is what I just said, which is that the president's contact here is not subject to judicial review. You are acknowledging that they do in fact have a say here. No, he's not. He said that they would agree with them that they don't have a say. That's not what he said.

They may agree with you. what we are expecting is the Supreme Court to say what has always been the case, which is when the president is using his powers as commander-in-chief, those determinations are not subject to judicial review. In other words, the president- How she's so dumb? Because the reason why is because the people that have these viewpoints, a lot of their like, I guess normal, why is, what's this here?

Let me read it? What's the emotional rhetoric statement? I feel like calling a gang or a cartel representative of government is very emotional. Don't get me wrong. Well, they have reason to believe that. I don't know what their reasoning is, and I think that's a separate thing. If you think that's fake, that's fine. But that's generally what I'm thinking.

It's becoming hard to watch. Yeah. And it's insane how this is she's pressured into the role. Well, it's that these people have to be oppositional to this kind of stuff because they have to pretend like these people are not violent gang members. That's the reason why. And so the only way that they're able to make an argument for this is by misrepresenting him or reframing what he says in a way that is not what he said. That's it.

Designation of Tren Darawagua as a foreign terrorist organization and as an alien enemy are part of his inherent plenary authority. There is no way to, there is no way. How are you going to expel? How are you going to expel? illegal alien invaders from our country who are raping little girls, who are murdering little girls, if each and every deportation has to be a judecated in a district court judge.

That means you have no country, it means you have no sovereignty, it means you have no future. It is fundamentally incompatible to have a country and have individual expulsions adjudicated by a single district court judge. And this is the reason why these people are losing is because these guys and this guy has controlled the emotional narrative is because now

the emotional narrative is these people are justifying and keeping people in the country that are raping little girls. Right? And that's the reason why they're losing is that I think that a lot of like left wing reasoning is based completely

off of emotion and it's based off of like fear. And so if you can control that and you can use that against them, then the arguments that they have immediately fall apart. And so that's what's happened. Yeah, this is also emotional rhetoric.

It is. It is emotional rhetoric. But you have to fight fire with fire. And that's the reason why they're winning in the court of public opinion. That's the exact reason. It's because you're basically using stronger and more persuasive emotional rhetoric that people care more about. Yeah, it's the Uno Reverse card.

Exactly. that's also true the fang child rapist? Well, that's the point, right? And I think that's let's be real, it's emotional rhetoric though. Yeah, no.

And that's really what the difference is too. And he's flipping the narrative back on them. And so that's really the that's the reason why this is shifted and that's the reason why a lot of public opinion has shifted as well. It's because they've lost the emotional moral battle in the minds of people.

Is that there are no longer. being seen as sticking up for the little guy. They're being portrayed as being running, running defense for terrorism, running defense for, you know, illegal gang members and rapists. And so as soon as you shift that narrative and you're able to paint them in that picture, well, then now the entire foundation that they built their entire argument off of doesn't exist. And so that's why there's been such a cultural shift against it. You see what my point is with this?

I'm sorry, but it feels like you're showing bias here. I am biased. I agree with him. I agree with them. I want them out. Like, for sure, I'm definitely biased about this. Absolutely. But I think it's important to follow the rules for sure. But I don't really know what the rules are entirely. But it seems to me like it would be odd if, like, you're taking a military action and that has to be, you know, decided by a judge. It's a non-center issue. Yeah, exactly. And let me see if I can read a few more. you were in their narrative, what about factual reality? What's the actual extent of the problem?

I don't think that the fact is that I don't think anybody really knows that. This is my viewpoint, is that I don't really care whether these people get judicial process or not if they're illegal migrants from like foreign gangs. But if it says that they have to, then that they have to. Does that make sense? It's very simple you're here illegally, you get out?

Yeah, exactly. And so, yeah, gang, an apparel they entered the they entered illegally yeah yeah sure but um my point is that and and i'm just simply explaining the reason why this is happening and the reason why you're seeing such a big shift against it it's because these people have lost the emotional manipulation game that's that's the main reason it is impossible do you because what does the trump administration believe because we do have separation of powers in this country i hear what you're saying Yes, separation of powers.

This is the judiciary interfering in the executive function. That is the separation of powers. Did you ignore the judge's order here because you thought you could? So the judge's order and the actions taken by the departments of the defense, justice, and homeland security are not in conflict. And the department just has been clear that they are not in conflict. So you think that you did go along with the order that the judge put out? You do not think that the Trump administration defied this. order. As the Justice Department said, there's no conflict between the judge's order,

and the action is taken by the departments I just listed. But I'm making a deeper and more fundamental point. Yeah. The district court has no ability. The district court has no ability. They're so cooked, man. They are so cooked. Oh, God. The ability to in any way restrain the president's authorities under the alien enemies act or is the ability to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States. Let me, a picture for you. President Trump and Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, had engaged in intensive diplomacy to obtain a bilateral security agreement with the nation of El Salvador. If a district court judge can join that bilateral security agreement, then we do not have a democracy.

We do not have a foreign policy. We heard you say this. Did you ignore, did the administration ignore the order from the district judge? I've answered, and I've answered it. Man. I've answered it because this department just has made a filing in the court. But let me make another point. The judge in this case put the lies of every single person on those aircraft at risk. Did he know how much fuel was in those planes?

Did he know the flight conditions? Did he know the weather conditions? Did he know how many crew hours? Did he know the need for crew rest? Did he know any of that? No. I think that this is more argumentation that this guy should use. and I think that the best type of emotional argumentation is the type that basically turns somebody's empathy into somebody else's suffering.

And if you use that argumentation, it works very well on people. And I think that they should continue doing this and say this a lot more. Not this in particular, but in a general sense. I think absolutely this is the case. Because basically the problem is that the link is never really kind of explain. to like an average listener or an average viewer of like how treating these people in a certain way or being more empathetic towards them ends up hurting other people. And I think that once you establish that link, then you completely gain the like emotional upper hand and like the moral

upper hand. This judge violated the law. He violated the constitution. He defied the system of government that we have in this country. Because that does seem to be what you're arguing. These same district court judges didn't do a damn thing to stop Joe Biden from flooding this nation with millions of illegal aliens. Do these district court judges didn't issue any injunctions to save the lives of Jocelyn Nungry or Lake and Riley or anywhere else? Is that what you're saying? What I'm saying is that what you said, there's a separation of powers. The judiciary exercises judgment and relief. I don't speak for the White House.

You are here to speak for the White House. I will do. You're here to speak for the White House. I just want you to answer that one simple question. I am. Ready? Here we go. She's upset. Under a proper reading of the country. This is number four of so you think.

Yeah. And that's what happens, right? Is that the only way that thinking like this can exist is inside of a dishonest reframing. Constitution. District court judges Now, he's using an emotional argument. He is. Individual plaintiffs.

That's why it's working. Seeking relief. The strongest argument isn't an argument. And if you want to win a hundred hearts and minds of people, you don't do that through explaining to them why you're right. You do that to them by making them feel that you're right. And that's how you can get more people to vote for you, and that's how you can get people to go along with you. So it often doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. It matters whether people think that you're right or wrong. And so if you use that as a weapon

for your advantage, you will come out ahead. And I think that now, like, and that's something that I think Trump does very, very, very well. He's extremely good at that because he's been in media forever. Yeah, it's great manipulation. Yes, it is. But the debate and like debating the actual points of the law, I don't think anybody really cares about that. Most people don't care about that.

And to the extent that they do care about it, it's because they think that it's going to go in their direction. That's the reason why. But they should. Shoulds doesn't, should isn't real. Should is stupid. There's no reason to think about in terms of shoulds. District court judges do not have the authority as a general matter to enjoin the functioning of the executive branch.

But their authority is at its lowest point when the president is exercising his powers as commander-in-chief. And I asked you a question, you never answered it. Can a judge in joint troop movements overseas? Can a district court judge in joint movements overseas? Stephen, yes, sir. I am not going to get into the... Just say no. And then you'll know that I'm right.

This is a separate question. Okay, we're not talking about other truth. I need to ask you about something else. The president issued a proclamation delineating in detail. Does that go again? The Venezuelan regime sent this gang, this terrorist organization, to our shores. And by the way, and I love being here, but all the outrage that we are seeing from the Democrat Party and from the corporate media. This is the whole thing.

Yeah. And I was this annoying woman. I guess so, right, dumb CNN announcer? Yeah, I guess so. And executive branch has no authority to be the judge. These people have to be convicted for you to be deported and they weren't. I'm not sure about that. I mean, if they can issue and decide that they are a military target or something like that,

I mean, I don't think that it's that simple. And the reality is that I don't think that any of us know whether that's true or not. Like, nobody here understands the interplay between like five of these different laws. Yeah, it's been done. Yeah, exactly. I'm not really sure. I'm just wondering what do you actually do to get deported. I mean, that's what they know. Yeah, I don't know. And all of a sudden, it's too complex. Well, what my point is is that it makes sense to me that Trump can do this. If he's designating them as an invading force, it would make sense that he wouldn't have to go through judicial review because most military actions don't have to go through that either. Like every military action and every military, you know, thing that happens doesn't have to go through judicial review either. So logically, I can see what their point of view is, and I think this is correct. But I'm not sure about it either because I'm not an expert in this either. Does that make sense?

Yeah, you don't receive rights as Americans simply by crossing the border, not an invading force, but an invading force by a foreign government. Yeah, exactly. And if they were able to link the Venezuelan government to these people coming over, then I think that they have every justification to do that. Do they have a justification to sit in El Salvador? I mean, I don't know. I don't think there's really a law about that, right? I don't even know. So, and it sure feels like, it sure feels right, even if it's not checkmate.

Illegals have to go. Yeah. And that's, I think that's, and that goes back to what I said originally is that the idea that the president can't, like, can deport people that are part of a, you know, criminal migrant gang that haven't, you know, that they've crossed the border illegally. The idea that he can get rid of them, that feels like the right thing to do for, I would say, the majority of people. The majority of people would feel like, yeah, you know what?

The president should probably be able to do that.