Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 3/17/25: Trump Uses Alien Enemies Act For Deportations, Trump Bombs Yemen For Israel, Antisemitism Crackdown

Episode Date: March 17, 2025

Krystal and Saagar discuss Trump uses Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, Trump bombs Yemen for Israel, Trump antisemitism crackdown.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. is irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week

early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process.

Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited

about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. So over the weekend,

Trump announced that he is invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This is claiming wartime powers. It's only been invoked three times in the past, both all three during actual wars, 1812, World War I, and World War II, when it was infamously used to justify the internment of Japanese civilians, including others as well, Italians and Germans as well. We can put B1 up on the screen.

So the headline here from PBS, Trump invokes 18th century law declaring invasion by gangs to speed mass deportations. So his claim is that the U.S. has been invaded by a Venezuelan gang, putting us, quote unquote, at war because these powers can only be used at wartime, and handing himself the discretion to intern and summarily deport with zero due process anyone that he effectively wants. So right away after he invokes this, and there was anticipation that this was coming, there were some Venezuelan migrants who were sort of moved to this Texas ICE facility. Of course, this had been expected because he talked about on the campaign trail that this was coming all along. So the ACLU actually got out front and filed a suit to try to block these deportations, focusing in particular on these of Venezuelan migrants that they claim are in this Tren de Aragua gang, which became a big talking point on the campaign trail as well. So they take off and head to El Salvador, where they are put into a notorious prison there, where, you know, I mean,

they're just completely disappeared, right? So there's no access for journalists, no access for lawyers, whatever. There is no proof that these people actually are in the gang that Trump says that they're in. In fact, previously, they had said that some people, you know, that were held at Guantanamo were in this gang and journalists went in and turned out they weren't whatsoever. It's estimated there's only a few hundred members of this gang in the U.S. altogether. So it's sort of, okay, that's not, so it's, that's not like a very unlikely that, you know, they got all of them in this one roundup. In any case, there's, there's no proof they were given no due process, no ability to challenge the determination that they're part of this gang. And they're disappeared into this El Salvador prison that's

known for cruelty, torture, and slave labor. So after this plane takes off, a judge actually acts pretty quickly. I'm going to put this next piece up on the screen. Judge actually acts pretty quickly and hastily schedules a hearing and says, you can't do this. You know, I don't think that you have the legal right to do this. And I am blocking all of these deportations, not just the five that the case was originally about. The ACLU, you know, immediately expanded their case to include all migrants who were held in detention, said you can't do this. And even if there is a plane in the air, you need to turn that plane around and bring them back. But that does not happen. Instead, there's reporting from Axios that says that Stephen Miller and Kirsten, you know,

they were apparently the ones that were, you know, involved most closely in the execution of all of this. They debated with lawyers like, you know, should we go along with this court order or not? And basically they decided not. Now they claimed, oh, it was already in over international waters. So, you know, it's out of our hands now. Of course, this is like preposterous and nonsense. Well, why is it preposterous? Wait, why? Well, because. So do you think. First of all, look, read the quote in front of you. However, that's accomplished, whether planning it turnaround or not, or not being the operative word. However it's accomplished. The plane took off from Texas, which immediately put it over international waters within like 10 minutes.

That was 6.35 p.m. The flight landed in El Salvador at 8.35 p.m., making it clear that actually it was over international territory and not over the waters of the United States. Now, do you really believe that some federal judge here in Washington, D.C. has the authority to tell the executive to turn a military aircraft around? You believe, okay, well, then we'll test that at the Supreme Court. We will test that theory at the United States Supreme Court. And if you're right, then we can import these criminals back here. How do you know they're criminals? Well, first of all, I mean, this is where, look, you said something earlier, which I think is important. You think your country is being taken away from you because 300-something Venezuelan illegal immigrants were deported to El Salvador. How do you, what proof do you even have of that?

What? I mean, because here's the thing. Wait, that they were deported to El Salvador? No. That they were illegal immigrants? Yeah, here's the thing. They all entered the country illegally because here's the thing. Wait, that they were deported to El Salvador? No. That they were illegal immigrants? Yeah, here's the thing. They all entered the country illegally. That's their, even the ACP.

According to the government. I mean, listen, I think that is probably true. But here's what you're defending. Hundreds of people, who we don't know who they are, disappeared into a foreign prison known for torture, where no lawyers or journalists could possibly go and find out who they are and whether the government story adds up

with zero due process. That's what you're defending. What I'm telling you. Is that Trump can summarily say, these people, they're gone. I'm putting them in this prison in a foreign country, indefinitely at my discretion, and you don't get to say anything about it.

That's what happened here. So I just don't see how you can- I didn't say't get to say anything about it. That's what happened here. So I just don't see how you can say anything about it. I don't see how you can defend that. I think it should be easily challenged to the United States Supreme Court. And I think that within the context of clearly the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, from what I've been able to review, he seems well within his rights to be able to do this from a State Department or a terrorist organization. That's not, listen, you're arguing semantics.

I'm talking legal. No, I'm arguing the law. Are we at war right now? I mean, this has been invoked three times. As in, you look in the past. War of 1812, World War I, World War II. Those are the three times it's been invoked. All three times, especially during World War II,

quite shamefully in the internment of Japanese citizens. You think it's okay for our government to round up whoever, claim their criminals, and imprison them indefinitely in a foreign prison to be tortured? Well, I'll flip it around. That's insane to me. See, you seem much more concerned about that than the importation of 8 to 10 million illegal immigrants under Joe Biden. That seems to me like something my country's been taking away. So this is what I'm saying. We can play this game all day long. Do you think that's an invasion? I think that's an invasion.

8 to 10 million illegal immigrants. But that's not what he's talking about. No, no, no, no, no. He's talking specifically about Venezuelan migrants. Yes, and no, no. He's talking specifically about the Trendy Aragua. Yes. How many people are here from Trendy Aragua?

I have no idea. All right. That's my, that's not even the- Estimates say roughly several hundred. Who are we getting that from? From the ACLU or from the lawyer? No, from agencies, from international agencies that track law and order across Latin America. These are not like liberal do-gooder.

These are people who are looking at the spread of gangs around the world. Okay? Many, actually, of these people likely were fleeing violence from the very gang that you're talking about. That's probably a convenient narrative. Hold on, hold on. Yes, I think that's a very convenient narrative. In terms of who was brought to Guantanamo Bay,

okay, in prison in Gitmo, the Trump administration made the same, oh, these are gang members. These are the worst of the worst. Some of them didn't even have criminal records at all. Some of them who they claimed were in Trendy, Aragua, it was because of either they were from that state of Aragua in Venezuela and actually, like I said, had been fleeing the violence from this gang or they happened to have a tattoo that made them think like, oh, they're just in the gang. One of the people who was part of this

group is a LGBT Venezuelan who was in prison, according to his lawyer, because of his tattoo, was assumed to be in a gang. That's what we're talking about here. So there is no reason. Why is he being gay or whatever? How is that relevant? Because how do you think it's going to go for him, Sagar? What? He's an artist. How do you think? Oh, so he's magically allowed presence in the United States. Okay, then don't care that he's gay. Do you care that he was wrongfully imprisoned and disappeared into a foreign jail cell and there's nothing that anyone can do about it? Does that bother you? According to his ACLU lawyer, he's not a part of the trend. Do you truly believe? I'm supposed to trust some open borders lawyer?

Do you truly believe that they rounded up in this, they successfully rounded up every trender Aragua gang member in the country? That's it? No, I don't think so. Mission accomplished. Okay. If anything, there's probably a lot more than need to go. Now, this is actually what I'm saying, is that at the end of the day,

within the powers of the State Department, which has declared this in FTO, the powers within the executive are quite clear. I'll also note, Trump literally promised to do this on the campaign trail. So this was one of the most telegraphed actions in modern history. Are you good with it? Are you good with it? I mean, Crystal, again, are you good with 8 to 10 million illegal immigrants coming in over four years? Random people, quit changing the subject. Yes, I am. You know that I'm fine. Okay, so then we should. Are you good? Quit changing the subject. Yes, I am. You know that I'm fine. Okay, so then we should— Are you good? Quit changing the subject.

That's an important part of the story. Are you comfortable with random people being snatched up? I don't think that they're random. I think they're illegal immigrants. Okay, give me your proof. Of what? That they entered the country illegally? No, give me your proof these are gang members.

I don't have to offer that proof. Why not? And actually, even the government doesn't necessarily have to do that either for deportation purposes. But are you good with that? With what? With being able to snatch up random people. But they're not random. They're here illegally.

How do you know that? They're not citizens. So you're fine with, okay, so you say, hold on. They have criminally entered our country. You think that an appropriate punishment for people who are fleeing gang violence and coming here seeking a better life. According to you, they're fleeing gang violence and coming here seeking a better life, do you think that an appropriate punishment is to be disappeared into a foreign jail cell to be tortured indefinitely and subjected to slave labor?

What I think is that their responsibility and safety is the problem of the Venezuelan government and that they can argue to the government of El Salvador and identify these individuals and get those people. Is it okay with you? Crystal. Is it okay with you? Crystal. Is it okay with you? You think it is an appropriate punishment for someone who crossed our border seeking a better life to be disappeared with zero due process into a foreign jail cell to be tortured.

Are you good with that? First of all, look, you're offering up a lot of claims which you don't even necessarily to be true. In the same way, you can't say for certain or whatever they've been tortured. Oh, they had their head shaven by the El Salvadorian prison? No, this is what this prison is known for. Okay, okay. That's, again, those for El Salvador. That's the whole point of what this prison is known for. I think it's, look, as I continue to say, when you let in eight to 10 million people and you elect a president who says, I'm going to use the Alien and Enemies Act to mass deport people and stand in front of a sign, and then you win the popular vote, then yeah, I am okay with it. And in fact, the only

problem I have with the Trump administration is that they've been prioritizing this stupid shit like trying to deport someone like Mahmoud Khalil for some billionaire donors and not the people who came here illegally. Those people entered our country criminally and illegally. This whole, oh, fleeing a better life is BS. That's not BS. They're economic migrants. That's fleeing for a better life. I mean, are there real problems in Venezuela?

Crystal, they take advantage of our laws. They illegally use their asylum status. I'm asking a very discreet question. Yes, I understand that. You think it's okay to then randomly take people we have zero proof that these are gang members and we should very much mistrust the government because they've been proven to lie about this previously. We should trust them that they're picking up gang members

when they can pick up whoever they want and imprison them in a foreign jail to be tortured. You think that is an appropriate punishment for crossing our borders, trying to achieve a better life? No, I think that the, look, I mean, once again, I think it is clearly within the executive purview to be able to do this. Stop dodging with the executive purview. Do you think it's right or wrong? Because do you think it's right or wrong? The world is not so black and white.

Would I have preferred to do it? Do you think it's right or wrong? Would I have preferred that they release the list of all of the names and the dossier for each one of these people? Absolutely. It would actually make the histrionics coming from a lot of liberals a lot easier to deal with. And that's the whole point of having due process. No, but no. So that they can have an opportunity to prove the things you're saying about me are not true. But instead, don't you think it's telling that they had this plane ready to go so that they could avoid any of that scrutiny and that they are now disappeared into a foreign prison where there is no ability to know who these people are. And by the way, there were children as young as 14 who were part of this because the

Alien Enemies Act says it's 14 or older. So you're talking about not just grown men, you're talking about, you know, teenage boys here as well. Like that's, that's what we're talking about. We're talking about the government claiming an ability to intern, deport with summarily, with no due process, and hold in a foreign prison whoever they want. Because we have no way to know who these people are. We don't even know for sure that they're Venezuelan. We don't know for sure that they're migrants. We don't know anything about them. This is what I'm saying. The level of concern you have for a bunch of illegal immigrants is, it's honestly maddening to me that you think it's okay to let eight to 10 million people here in this country illegally, many of whom who commit crimes.

Okay, that's great. That's the job of the United Nations. Our job is to protect our country, the United States Constitution and laws, as well as the Alien Enemies Act, which is stood up to multiple constitutional traditions. Tell me how it protects our country to hand the president the ability to randomly round up and deport whoever he wants. How do you know that? What do you mean? What proof have you been given? Of what? That these are Venezuelan nationals?

Of who they are at all. Yes, actually, there is proof that they were Venezuelan nationals. But beyond that, now, again, we can criticize process in here all day long. But I do think that is a philosophical trap where look at the status quo that we were living in. 15 to 20 million illegal immigrants who entered this country, 8 to 10 million of them over a four-year period. A resounding popular vote victory for a person who said, I am going to mass deport. In fact, I think this is probably one of the most popular things that Trump will do. And if liberals want to mount a great fight on this, I say be my guest. Because this is the irony of the situation. I don't know whether it

would be popular or not. I actually kind of doubt that. I doubt that disappearing people into a foreign prison is that popular. But maybe you're right. You know what? Slavery was popular at a time. Segregation was popular at a time. You know, hating gay people was popular at a time. Yes, this is obviously the same. Separation was popular at a time. Hating gay people was popular at a time. Sometimes things that are popular can be bad, can be immoral, can be a massive authoritarian fascist power grab. This is one of those times. And I think it's insane that you can defend taking whoever they want and with zero due process defying a court order. Well, no, that's not. No, no, no. Because, again, it's actually very up to interpretation.

No, it is. I would be more sympathetic to your view, maybe, if it wasn't for Bukele, who is the head of El Salvador, coming out and saying, whoopsie, and the White House amplifying that with regard to the court order being defied. Like they openly and brazenly defied a court order here that said you have to turn the plane around. You cannot do this. So it's going to turn the plane around. You cannot do this. So it's going to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. If these are hardened gang criminals, prove it. Wouldn't you want to prove it? Wouldn't you want to show everybody? Look at all of these monsters that we found that we're now getting rid of, that we're now deporting, that we're now falling through on our promises. No, they want to hide it. They want to do it under the cover of night because they want to hide who these people are and do it under the cover of night

because they know that these are not all. No, I'm talking about the specifics of who these people are. These are not all gang criminals. When they went, when journalists were able, and this is probably why people were pulled from Guantanamo, when journalists were able to go and check, oh, who are these people that you say are these hardened criminal monsters that you put at Guantanamo Bay with no rights? Guess what they found? Many of them had zero criminal records. The ones who they claimed were gang, they were not gang members. Some of them were fleeing gang violence. And yet we're just going to disappear people now and defy court orders and say, whoopsie, and send it to, you know, this brutal human rights violation, torturing, slave labor, cesspool. I think, you know, the funny thing is,

is that, you know, as much as you love Mr. Ms. Scheinbaum over in Mexico, Bukele is the actually one of the also most popular leaders in Latin America. He dropped his crime rate from something like 6,000 murders 10 years ago to 114 just in the last year. Overwhelming amount of success. So for all of this, he's overwhelmingly popular. And it turns out that like, oh, whenever you lock a bunch of criminals up, crime drops. It's actually shocking. Beyond that, again, the histrionics and the level of concern always comes to applying the maximum force of the beauty of the United States to people who criminally entered our country. I genuinely wish there was the same level of concern for our citizens. But this is where the liberal, like, entire concern strategy just, frankly, why it loses at the ballot box.

It's genuinely internationalist and globalist. It is open border almost to its core, looking at these people as if they are full—deserve the full protections of the United States and or are equal and equivalent to U.S. citizens. Do they have rights here or no? Well, you know, under the Alien Enem citizens. Do they have rights here or no? Well, you know, under the Alien Enemies Act, if they are Trendyagua members, then no, they don't actually have due process rights in a similar way for Samir deportation. Are we at war right now? I mean, okay, are we being invaded right now? No. Yeah, exactly. So there we go. If you want to play Samantha Gaines, you can play it all game. It's preposterous to imagine that 200 people from a gang is an invasion and that puts us at war like that is

insane and so here's here's the thing okay you you hate these people you want to go you're fine to deport every migrant and imprison them in a foreign jail cell where that can be torture we got it okay do you realize though that once this door is open like like it's open for everyone, not just for Trump. Like when civil rights go, that's it. They're gone. They're going to deport who? Exactly.

Illegal immigrants? Okay, fine. That's fine. If Biden or Kamala Harris or whoever in the future wants to summarily deport somebody who is here illegally, fine. That's fine with me.

You would be comfortable with them picking up whoever they want. That's not whoever. And summarily deporting them. See, this is what I'm saying. Because we don't know. You keep putting these people on the protections of even legal or American citizens. There's no due process where we even know who these people are.

But yes, of course, if you're here, you have some rights. Otherwise, it would be like crazy. You couldn't just have some foreign tourists here and then just like torture them for the hell of it. That would be insane. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left.

In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? podcasts and subscribe today. find out he's trying to give it to his irresponsible son instead, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. So what are they going to do to get those millions back? That's so unfair.

Well, the author writes that her husband found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago. Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker, the author wants to reveal this terrible secret, even if that means destroying her husband's family in the process. So do they get the millions of dollars back or does she keep the family's terrible secret? Well, to hear the explosive finale, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation.

To most people, I'm the girl behind Voice Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024. Voice Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high.

And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you are here, yes, you have some rights. If you're an asylum seeker, yes, you have some rights. One of those rights is due process. And this is the thing. It's like, you know, they, they pick this, they paint these people as all gang members, which they're not all gang members.

There's zero chance that they're all gang members, but in any case, they paint them as that because they know that this is like a hated group. And then those, you know, rights get stripped away. And if you think that it just stays with the group that you happen to like hate or not care about or think deserve to rot and get tortured in a foreign jail cell, that's not what history shows us. And some of the most shameful moments in our history have been when a, you know, hated group is targeted like Japanese internment during World War II, which is the last time that this law was invoked. What's the key difference between that? Those were U.S. citizens who were having their Supreme Court

or their constitutional rights violated. Natural-born U.S. citizens. Is there any level of cruelty to migrants that you would not justify? No, this is what I'm saying. Deportation is not cruelty.

That's what I don't understand. This is not just deportation. They're imprisoned in a torture chamber. Okay, well, it's a prison in El Salvador. Is there any level of cruelty you would not justify

to these people? Would I justify, like, chaining them up and hanging them from their... No, absolutely. They were sent to be tortured. No, they weren't. They were sent for being imprisoned. They were sent to a prison known for torture. The government of El Salvador has agreed apparently like on some fee basis to house these people while they're there.

It is now the problem of the Venezuelan government. And by the way, actually, if this does go to the U.S. Supreme Court and they uphold what you're saying, you know what I'll say? Okay, bring them back. Go ahead. Let's do it. Strike it down. You can bring them back to the United States. So you have no moral compass outside of what the Supreme Court tells you is okay?

Look, again, this is why I think this level of, like, frankly, like, moral hypocrisy is ludicrous. Where would the line be? What would be too far? Okay, so let me ask you that. So how many illegals have to murder? What's the correct number that is justifiable in the crystal ball universe for the number of illegals to enter the United States? How many murders is that okay to balance with increasing economic GDP and their human rights? Is it one? Undocumented and documented immigrants have a lower crime rate than the native born population.

Oh, right. So they should actually be here instead. So stop smearing them all. I'm not smearing them all. Like they're criminals. But if they shouldn't be here, then the number should be zero, correct? I think the trustful number is zero. I think we need to actually have an immigration system where I would let more people in, yes,

than is legally allowed now. But yes, I would have borders. I would want to know who's coming in. I would want to make sure that criminals weren't coming in well none of that apply now and I didn't see any of this level of histrionics that was happening well 200,000 people are being sent to be tortured by our government but they're entering that's something that doesn't upset you like how does that not upset you I don't think that they're quote-unquote being tortured I think they're in a prison now second again I think that there are tens of millions of people who criminally entered our country, circumvented our laws. We have no idea in the similar way that you're talking about here who are who are either committing crimes.

Let's say it's less than the native born population. Nobody knows if that's actually true or not. But even if it is, why is that acceptable number? And you think zero. What is the appropriate policy that justifies sending people to be tortured in a foreign prison cell and disappear? You keep saying that. In a similar way, there's no evidence that that's true at all. You think that that justifies our government claiming the power to disappear people into a foreign prison cell? I will tell you this. I will, I think that considering the circumstances of the election and the genuine insanity of the status quo that we're in, that me, along with many people who saw what Trump was running on,

agreed with this idea put forward that every power of the United States government should be brought to bear to deport people who entered this country illegally. So I think that has both been affirmed at the ballot box and is within this U.S. law. You are good with random people. We don't know who they are. They get no due process being smeared as gang members. We don't know. And being disappeared into a foreign prison that is known for torture and slave labor. I mean, again, I'm just going to say like,

so you're OK with people who are coming. But it actually is. It's unironically. No, so you're okay with people coming to America. It could be pedophiles, murderers, rapists. And we have no idea who they are. But that was okay. We need fascism. That's your argument. We also need some dishwashers and somebody needs to build our houses. Because people came here without authorization, we should have fascism. This is not fat. It's ridiculous. This is the thing. But where is the, what would be too cruel? What would be where you would say, you know what, this is wrong. You know what, there should be due process. You know what, these are, yes, I don't think that they should be. Perfect example. I don't think they should be in this country, but I do think that they deserve to not be

tortured. The Mahmoud Khalil is the perfect example. Somebody who is here, screened by our government. Not only do we know who he was, somebody who has due process rights as a legal permanent resident who was arrested and is being deported for a BS free speech reason. Perfect. There you go. I think we're going to talk about a case soon on some H-1B thing.

I think the government acted outrageously on that one. On this one, this is what people really don't seem to get, is when you sit there and you just justify, again, how many people are okay to just be able to come in? We're supposed to take their word for what it is. Oh, I'm fleeing violence, and you apparently get to stay here for 25 years. And say it isn't ship and a job. It's a complete bullshit circumvention of any notion of sovereignty. Your contention is that that justifies claiming wartime powers to disappear random people. I think, I mean, I like how the phrasing is here. I will interpret yours in similarly bad faith, which is that you think it is okay for criminal illegals, pedophile rapists, murderers, all of who have been proven to have prostituted illegally and under the very asylum bad faith, which is that you think it is okay for criminal illegals, pedophile rapists,

murderers, all of who have been proven to have prostituted illegally and under the very asylum status quo that you defend. I am fine. That it's okay for them to be able to come here to commit and to murder, to rape our citizens and our children. I think they should be deported. But no, but you don't. But we don't know who these people are. Because, no, but no.

We don't know who these people are. And this administration has already been caught lying about who these people are. They've already been caught. There is zero reason to believe them. In the entire country, there are probably 300 gang members of the type that we're talking about. Amnesty International says that? No, I'm telling you, there are multiple estimates from independent groups who track gang violence across Latin America. Their estimate is, best estimate, is that there are a few hundred members of this gang. So your faith that they got them all in this one roundup, I guess we can, across Latin America, their estimate is best estimate is that there are a few hundred members

of this gang. So your faith that they got them all in this one roundup, I guess we can mission accomplished. It's all done. I didn't say it. And then they brazenly defy a court order and brag about it and celebrate it. Like, I just I just don't I truly don't understand how that can be justified. Like, I get you're upset about the number of people who came here. We have a difference of opinion about that. That's fine. But in response to that, we think it's okay to just send a group of people to be disappeared and tortured. How is that? How is that acceptable? How, how, in what world is that acceptable? I mean, in what world is it acceptable for anyone to be tortured whatsoever?

I mean, I don't think you're okay with that in general. So why, when it's this group of migrants, is it like you could do whatever you want to and I really don't care? Well, we didn't do whatever we want to. And we put them in the custody of the El Salvadorian government. So that's not the same thing. No, in a prison that is known for torture and slave labor. Yes, you can say it again. Okay, again, it's not the U.S. who's doing this.

Yes, it's the U.S. who's doing it. Who facilitated their deportation. Of course, the U.S. contracted with Bukele to put them in this prison. Yes. And they're in custody of the El Salvadorian government. They were deported, I think, legally. We'll find out at the U.S. Supreme Court.

So what are you going to say if the U.S. Supreme Court, which I fully expect them to uphold this order. My moral compass doesn't depend on what the Supreme Court says. Okay, then run, you know what, then support a candidate, then support a candidate who doesn't. The Supreme Court previously has had Dred Scott. Yeah, I mean, there's a record. Yeah, it's 1840, whatever. There's a record of terrible decisions from the Supreme Court, okay? It doesn't require a Supreme Court decision to know what's right and what's wrong. And I think to take people with zero due process where they don't get to make the case, hey, I'm actually just, I'm seeking asylum. Here's what is it? Here's why I have this

tattoo. Here's, you know, I'm actually from that state. I was fleeing gang violence. Like that would give the government an opportunity to prove what bad hombres these people were and why they deserve all the punishment. Don't you notice how you take in full faith the testimony of the Lord? Like, oh, he's gay. Again, who gives a shit if the guy is gay? What I take is the proof previously that this government lied and the proof also that the fact that they disappeared these people and clearly don't want us to know who they are and don't want us to be able to evaluate. If they were able to prove these claims in court, then they should do it. And even then, though, I mean, personally, I don't think people should be tortured. But in any case, they'd have a lot stronger justification for what they're doing here.

We are not at war. This is not an invasion of 200 gang members. Like, what are we talking about here? Yes, you're right. If you can, if you can claim these, if this president can claim these powers, any president can claim these powers. Zero due process rights to just disappear whoever they want into a jail cell in El Salvador where they are beyond the reach of any journalists or lawyers or anyone. That's what we're talking about here. Then why did the United States Congress not repeal that law after it was invoked three times if they thought it was such a horrible threat to due process? I mean, look, even the- Listen, when we were leading up to this election and I said I thought Trump was a fascist and authoritarian, you said, I think the institute,

I think he's authoritarian, but I think the institutions will constrain him. Yeah. Where are those institutional constraints? Because what we have right now is a court ruling that the president just decided, I'm just not going to do that. I'm just going to go ahead with my plans. It was open to interpretation. I remember you even saying previously when a judge was like, hey, you need to stop all of this, but it's not necessarily feasible because something is there. It's a lower court here at the district level. It will get challenged and it will go all the way to SCOTUS.

But these people are not coming back. No, I'll tell you this. Well, first of all, they might be coming back because if the Supreme Court does say that that was illegal, then yes, the United States should actually not only have to comply with that order, they should fully pay, bring these individuals back, and then we can go through that. Secondly, as we said, the idea that they're, quote, not complying is just not true. Put B4, please, up on the screen. From the White House, the administration, quote, did not refuse to comply. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has made repeatedly clear federal, or sorry, this isn't actually in the statement, but it's on the other side. This is the only current flight that's supposedly planned, considering that after the plane landed and was then over international waters,

as they're claiming, it will be adjudicated sometime soon as to whether they're going to be held in contempt of court or not. This is not some ongoing policy there from the U.S. government with respect to mass deportation flights of every Venezuelan like you are claiming. So they are actually complying. Now that the law has been, now that the judicial course has been, you may have the similar point for the level of histrionics if they were doing it every single day for the next 10 years or 10 days up until it goes to SCOTUS. But it hasn't happened. But this is not even the only court order that they

flouted in the past number of days. We have a B7 up on the screen. Another deportation that a judge blocked. Judge demands Trump admin explain why a doctor was deported despite an order. This was a doctor who was here on an H-1B visa, a citizen of Lebanon who was detained at the border and deported, again, in spite of the fact that there was a court order. Not to mention that this comes on the heels of, you know, I mean, USAID,

there were all kinds of court orders saying, hey, you have to unfreeze this money, you gotta pay these contracts, the government wouldn't do it, wouldn't do it, wouldn't do it, wouldn't do it. And so you have, if you don't want to say it's open defiance because they're still coming up with a cover story, that's fine. But it's pretty clear from the reporting that they knew what they were doing. They had the ability to turn the plane around and they just decided we're not going to listen. Yeah. Well, I don't think, I honestly think it's a crazy precedent that a lower federal court judge could be able to decide that a

military aircraft can be turned around over international water. I mean, imagine like what is somebody in the middle of a bombing operation going to go to a judge and say, hey, actually, you got to turn that around. This would circumvent the very basics of the United States government and executive authority. Government agencies were in charge of this flight. The order applied to those government agencies saying, no, you can't do this. Like, you have to turn these planes around. It says turn the plane around or not. And however that is accomplished.

However it's accomplished. So if there's a plane in there, then you have to turn it around. And again, the reporting from in the room is that they knew that they had a choice here and they decided that they were just not going to listen. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution.

But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame

one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your Not the Father Week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. Now I find out he's trying to give it to his irresponsible son instead, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. So what are they going to do to get those millions back?

That's so unfair. Well, the author writes that her husband found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago. Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker, the author wants to reveal this terrible secret, even if that means destroying her husband's family in the process. So do they get the millions of dollars back, or does she keep the family's terrible secret? Well, to hear the explosive finale,

listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. Voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a

relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I think that this is a new chapter in what our country is. If you can just claim we're at war and use it to just crush whoever's rights you want and send people to a foreign prison cell

with the expectation that they will be tortured and held indefinitely, I think that's wrong. Yeah, well, I think the Rorschach test here is that I think the last four years were 10 times more outrageous than any potential implications of this. You were okay with it. I was not. The people decided to vote for somebody who thought they wanted to have deportation. At the end of the day, we had a situation, again. But this isn't about deportation. No, but it really is. And it actually is also about Joe Biden. It's about getting rid of all the laws. And this is about saying, you know, taking people, we have no proof of who they are, and sending them to be tortured. Does it not make you think the fact that 99% of the border crossings have dropped now under the Trump administration, despite the fact that there

were no new laws passed? That was before they did this. They didn't even need to do this to accomplish that. Is that not evidence that Joe Biden was genuinely did have some executive authority to quash whatever was going on? The story that we were told was that he was fully enforcing and complying with the law when eight to 10 million people were allowed to enter our country illegally. The Trump administration has not even in violation of any executive order or any judicial authority that I know of today has been able to implement remain in Mexico and other policy to facilitate a 99% drop. We didn't have to be doing any of the stuff we are right now if we had a previous president who didn't allow all these people in. But we don't. Many of whom, many of whom did commit crimes. We don't have to be doing this now.

But we didn't have to be doing that. We don't have to be doing this now. Well, I mean, so you don't think it's who is making Trump at the end of the day. You don't think it's an urgent crisis that there are eight to 10 million people who are illegally. I do. And I think a lot of voters certainly agreed that was the number one or two reasons why a lot of people who backed up Donald Trump at the ballot box. And so let me just be clear. You think that that quote unquote crisis justifies getting suspension of core civil rights. And, you know, again, it's at the discretion of like Trump and Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller, whoever they want to round up and make a show of. If this were applied to, let's say, 5 million people and the government was openly defying an order continually as this were happening,

I may share a similar level of your concern. But we are talking here about two to 300 people, at the very least, many of which are gang members. You don't know that illegally. You don't know a single one of them as a gang. Well, you don't know that any of them are not. All right. And so like, that's my point is that at the end of the day, and you know what? Unfortunately, none of us know because they entered the country illegally. None of us know because they were denied due process. They entered the country illegally. And they were disappeared so that we can't have journalists or lawyers be able to access them. Again, you seem to think that we should provide and have the same level of concern as a country for people who violated our laws, who come here.

Yes, I think, yes, I believe humans deserve human rights. That's great. I think that human rights, no, I think that the United States has a sole obligation to look out for the interests of its U.S. citizens. Okay, a sole, so that means no one else's human rights matter? No, that's not what I said. What I said is that at the end of the day, the government and national sovereignty demand that citizens have control over their country. We lived in a status quo where that was basically violated flagrantly for 40 years. This quashing of rights is necessary to achieve that goal. And you think that that's worth it. I mean, I just think when you casually dismiss- Well, we do have a situation where we have 47,000 beds for ICE. Oh, it's just 200 people. So who really cares what happens to them?

Like, do you understand that if it is upheld at Supreme Court, we aren't just talking about a few hundred people. It will be however many people they want it to be who are sent to this, you know, torture chamber in El Salvador. It's not necessarily the plan. Actually, a lot of this is also to pressure the Maduro government to accept its own citizens, which it refuses to do. This is, look, I think that the philosophical argument in all of this really gets back to what do you think that the government's purpose is? You seem to think that America is like some transnational thing. No, I think the government's purpose is— Which is supposed to be just be pie in the sky and we're supposed to go out and look

out for the interests of all of these criminal illegal aliens. I don't. I think that people have civil rights, including people, by the way, and this is true, who are here who are undocumented. It certainly applies to people who are visa holders and who are legal permanent residents. And I think that our government should be in the business of following the law and also of preserving civil and human rights. Yes, I think that that is, I think when we let go of that, I think that can quickly go to a very scary place. I just don't think that that's true. And that's why I can't just hand wave away. Oh, it's just

200 people. So who really the hell cares what happens? I have had to listen to four years of leftists talking about Joe Biden. And then in that time period, I hear defy the Supreme Court, fire the parliamentarian, forget about norms. We need to legalize weed by executive order. We need to make it so that Harvard kids get free student loans. I mean, come on. Have I not been listening to Breonna Joy Gray and all these people talking about this for years? They never cared then because that was for ends that you thought were justified. This is a similar way. It is a crisis according to the government and the United States populace, I would say, considering how the election happened.

Those elections have consequences considering they literally said he was going to do it and then invoked the same law to facilitate that. That is genuinely not only a matter of doing what you said you were going to do, but beyond that, when you think at the basic level of where the concern and all that should come from, it is just obvious and clear to me that your concern falls with protecting, I mean, actually, you know, is this lookout for due process, supposed due process rights of criminal illegal gang aliens present in the United States, as opposed to the eight to 10 million people who enter the country illegally. I will think that the latter is a bigger problem every single day of the week. If we lived in a perfect world,

do I think that they would have published the dossier of all of the individual names, et cetera? Absolutely. We can critique process here all day long. I'm not critiquing. No, but I am critiquing process. Do you think this is- What would you say if they did that? Do you think this is moral and right? Do I think it is moral and right?

In what sense? To deport people who are here present illegally? Yes, I do think it is. No, not to deport them. To send them to this prison. I think it is. With no due process. I think it is right to facilitate mass deportation of the people who enter this country illegally.

Do you think it is moral and right? And I think that is a good idea. Do you think it is moral and right to send these 250 people to an El Salvador prison that is known for torture with no due process? There is no evidence that they're being tortured. I said very carefully, an El Salvador prison known for torture. That they should be sent there? Do you think it is moral and right for 250 people with no due process rights to be flown, to be kept in this El Salvador prison known for torture? Yes. You know why? Because I think it falls within the government purview and the promise of the government that was made by our currently democratically elected president to do everything in power to make sure that people who enter the country illegally are deported.

And at the end of the day. So everything in their power. So if that meant we were going to just line, it's, you know, Venezuela won't take them back and the prison in El Salvador is full. So now we're just gonna line them up and firing squad. We're just gonna- That's a ridiculous statement.

No, it's not because you said it's going to be, you know, they can do whatever- That's actually not within their power. That's the point. But they're claiming these wartime powers. Right. So, you know, if if you say, OK, well, they're they have the right to do whatever they possibly can to facilitate this. Like, where is the line of what would be too far of where you would say, you know what? That is that is against my moral compass.

That is too cruel. That is wrong. I mean, I think you just named it. Even if there was some legal, you know, legal fig leaf that they could claim that you would say that was too far. I think you just named it. And I'm not for mass murder. I'm not for anything. But you're for, you're okay with if they get tortured.

Well, no, I didn't say I'm okay with their getting tortured. What I'm saying is that I'm okay with deportation. And at the end of the day, what happens outside the borders, let's say we send them to Venezuela, which apparently is so horrible, as you're saying, and we deport them to Venezuela and the Venezuelan government tortures them. Are we criminally responsible for that or morally responsible for that in your eyes? That's ludicrous. You have to see the difference.

No, no, no, no, no. I actually don't. Because in this sense, they're not— We contracted with the El Salvador government. We made an intentional choice to send them to this facility. Okay, but why is that different? Let's say we send them back to Maduro, they get off the plane, and Maduro shoots them in the head. Is that supposedly different? I mean, personally, I think that people who are here should be able to claim asylum and continue with the temporary protected status that they've had from Venezuela, Haiti, and a lot of other places. The absolute vast majority of these people have bullshit asylum claims of which they

are circumventing. Okay, then they can be adjudicated. Yes. How are we supposed to adjudicate that right now where currently there are 47,000 beds for ICE, which are already a complete capacity for, to even facilitate deportation. There are 25, almost million people here already. You surge immigration judges so that you have increased capacity to be able to adjudicate asylum claims. So— And in the interim, what happens? They get to stay here illegally. Yes, exactly.

Which, at the end of the day, you think that's fine. I don't think that's fine. And luckily, the vast majority of people do not agree with that. And you think, though, in response to that, that it's okay to not just to deport them, but to send them to this prison with the expectation that they're likely to be tortured? I mean, you can say that. You're not going to put words in my mouth. I am for deportation. But again, this is why I find this incredibly tiresome. At the end of the day, you were fine. Not just you, many liberal Democrats and others facilitated the greatest social experiment in modern American history. Let's increase the foreign born population, the vast majority of them, illegal immigrants of who we have no idea

who these people are. They're coming over here. Many are committing crimes. And then we'll just decide that we are going to pretend none of it ever happened, that actually we're for border security or increased immigration judges. That's another question. Why do you now want orderly deportation when you were fine with disorderly mass migration? If that is the case, then it's an explicit acknowledgement that the previous status quo was both outrageous and was genuinely detrimental to the interests of the United States. But since they're here, now they have to stay. It's all convoluted and it makes no sense.

The logical implication of all of this is deportation of people who are here illegally. But the specifics matter of how it's done, would you not say? Well, you're in my definition on those specifics is pretty different. We can disagree very much on what the proper levels of migration

are and how that should be handled, et cetera. Now we are where we are, and there's a question of how you respond. One way to respond is to use the actual normal legal tools available and avail yourself of those while maintaining civil rights in the country. The other one is the one that Trump has chosen here to claim wartime authority when we're not at war and to summarily deport people that we don't know who they are in defiance of a court order to a foreign prison where they are likely to be tortured. There was nothing about what led up to this that necessitated that reaction. I think that it is, again, very tiresome and hypocritical, especially coming from people who I know. I wanted Joe Biden to use extraordinary interpretations of legal authority to accomplish their political goal.

No, you just wanted him to use his executive authority to write off $250 trillion in debt. Did I want Joe Biden to randomly disappear people into a prison somewhere where no lawyer or journalist can reach them to figure out who the hell they are, what's happening? No, of course I didn't. Yes, you only wanted him

to do it to mass legalize marijuana, which he didn't have the power to do, or to write off student debt, Do you not see the difference between legalizing marijuana and torturing people? I mean, these are two qualitatively very different things.

I under, look, I think that the central problem is that you really think that you're just morally correct in this one, and at the end of the day, it's a legal question, which is both up to the Supreme Court and a popular question, in which the vast majority of people do not agree with the position that you hold.

It can be both a legal question and a moral question, which you're not saying. Okay, I mean, that's fine. I think that if you want to hold that opinion, I think that's perfectly fine. You made that opinion clear. Many people who hold your opinion have held that clear. Luckily, I think it's been destroyed at the ballot box correctly because it is one that is both detrimental to our country and genuinely just ridiculous and falls apart on its own logical face. I don't remember Trump saying

that he was going to send people. He literally said he would declare the alien enemies act for deportation. I don't remember Trump running on shipping random people to a foreign prison to be tortured. Somehow I don't remember that being a core part of his pitch. But you know what? Even if it was, and even if people voted for that, again, there are certain things that have been popular throughout our history that were wrong. And I think that it's important to say that. At the time, when it's unpopular, I think it's important to be able to see those things and to call them out in real time. Japanese internment being one of them, being the last time that this law was ultimately used. There's a big difference. Again, that's a huge difference. Korematsu, that Supreme Court

decision and Japanese internment was used against citizens of the United States. Oh, but the Supreme Court said it was fine. So wasn't it fine? People voted for it. The Supreme Court said it was fine. People at the time also rioted about it. And the Supreme Court also has apologized or reversed its own decision on that. I'm not saying that it's a perfect institution or that any of these things are good and bad. However- But isn't it possible to have a separate moral judgment outside of what the electoral results said and the Supreme Court then upholding them? Yes, of course there is. I just don't think that this is the similar situation in any way.

And I think that you're ignoring the broader context which led to this entire thing, of which, frankly, in my opinion, is far more morally reprehensible, is to let in so many people with no idea who they are, many of whom commit crimes, and then to just sit and only get outraged whenever a popular revolt against that happens and have to know outrage there at the time, of which I know that there was none on your part and definitely on Democrats. I am outraged by the idea that the government could claim such broad powers and that all of us could be subject to their whims. And, you know, I think what we've- All of us are United States citizens.

It's just not even remotely comparable. I think what we've seen is, I don't think that's true. And here's, look, I think what we've already seen with the case, for example, of Mahmoud Khalil, is it's like, okay, started off with, you know, they thought he was a student visa holder. It turns out he's a legal permanent resident. And then it's like, oh, but he's still not an American citizen.

Well, now they're investigating all pro-Palestinian, or the ones at Columbia, as being the pro-Palestine protests as being terrorism. Well, that is very much about American citizens. And so that's, you know, number one, yes, I do care about human rights. But they're not, what do you mean they're American citizens at Columbia?

You're saying they're investigating people there for deportation? Yes, they're investigating what? No, they're investigating whether the pro-Palestine protests that happen on Columbia constitute terrorism. With the implication being that anyone who was involved with them could be charged with crimes related to terrorism. So my point is that when civil rights are violated, it doesn't just stay in one corner. It doesn't just stay with this group that you happen to feel comfortable with. And yes, by the way, I do think, you know, torture is wrong. And I do think due process is the way things should be done so that the government has to prove the claims that it's making in court. And I think it's outrageous that, you know, that that didn't happen in this instance.

And I don't care that it was just 200 people that were disappeared into a foreign prison without any due process whatsoever. So and nor do I think that it stops there. Like they're going to court to try to be able to pursue this path continuously, you know. And so, yeah, that's, I think that this is a, I think this is a very frightening, authoritarian, fascist power grab. And I think that our institutions have not only proven inadequate to be able to stem the tide, but also the Trump administration clearly uses whatever opportunities they can to defy court orders and pursue their own ambitions here. I think that I understand where you're coming from, and I could see how people,

liberals or whatever, could feel that way. What I would ask again is to see how did we get to this extraordinary situation, and you should make some serious political calculus, in my opinion, to look to the past and to not call out many of the outrages that have happened and the status quo change that Joe Biden and many other liberals facilitated by allowing so many people here illegally. And then to just, you know, cry tears whenever the logical consequence of that comes to bear. It just seems, you know, rewriting of history and one where it's also, it fits very well, I think, with my AOC point of the future. When she was screaming and crying in front of those deportation facilities under Donald Trump and went viral, or whenever her fist was raised and she was justifying theft and crime during

BLM, they thought, as you did, that they were morally correct, as you feel now in this moment. That not only was a rejected at the ballot box, but it was one that both actually led to worse outcomes. Because what did Biden do? Yes, even with all of this mass allowing of people in, he continued many policies under the, from the Trump administration, of which they fell silent then at that time. So it became clear that this is not true moral standards or whatever. It's about political convenience. And throughout the through line of all of this comes back to the status quo was irrevocably changed under Biden. It became not only a popular, but I think an imminent and dangerous thing to the

fabric of the United States. You just allow these mass criminal illegals here. We have no idea who they are. The vast majority of them don't speak any English. The vast majority of them don't have any education. They have no able or real ability to fit into the U.S. economy beyond the service sector, which, you know, that seems a little bit demeaning to me, and was not only affirmed, but then used to the best of their abilities, their powers, the government, to facilitate deportation. And the crazy thing is, you and I are arguing as if 10 million people are being deported tomorrow. That's not what happened at all. All of this court order is being complied with today. They're not continuing to, it's going

to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. All of this will face judicial scrutiny. If the Supreme Court orders and come back, I'll sit here and I'm relatively certain the government would comply with that order that would bring these people back. And then this alien enemies, this alien enemies thing will go through the legal process. But the point is, is that all of this, I think, again, comes back to a dramatic change to our country, of which I think you were fine with and I think many others were, and then are shocked at the genuine consequences of what that means when it interacts with the democracy. Does Trump not have agency? What? Does he not have agency in how he responds to things. Like you want to you want to say this is like somehow Biden's fault that Trump decided

that Trump decided that he was going to use a wartime power grab in order to facilitate the summary deportation of migrants into a foreign torture chamber. Like Trump, that is on Trump. Now you can object to how Biden handled migration and that's fine, but it still is on Trump, the way that he responds to that situation. And he responded with authoritarian power grab and defiance of the courts and disappearing hundreds of people

that he claims are gang members with zero proof and with a lot of proof in the other direction in order to be tortured in a foreign prison cell. Okay. That's on him. I don't think that, well, you know what? You're right. It is on him. It will face legal scrutiny. I think it will also, if you totally disagree with it, people are welcome to run for office and to revert. If you want to bring all these people back, you know, okay, be my guest if you win the election. But I mean, at a certain point, it is one of those where I don't think it's deniable that not only was this something that was literally promised to do, that was telegraphed, that I think falls within

the bounds of legal scrutiny of the way that it was carried out and which one is genuinely addressing a real problem that is facing the U.S. I just think the biggest difference between us right now is that you think that previous one was not actually a problem or was extremely diminishable and is not one which requires extraordinary action. And I'm somebody who does. I think that that was genuinely affirmed at the ballot box. Not only that, but falls within the bounds of where government scrutiny can. And it's just going to have to be not even an agree or disagree situation. It is going to be one where I genuinely am curious, not only to see how the Supreme Court

handles this decision, and if the government does openly flout that, and let's say they refuse to bring them back or they continue to do this, then I think we will be in a very similar situation to the one that you're describing as some sort of like imminent crisis. But I just don't think that we're there yet. And I don't think that we are going to get there. I don't think so. Not the way that this is all currently being handled.

Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really

actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your not the father week on the OK Storytime podcast. So we'll find out soon. This author writes,

my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. Now I find out he's trying to give it to his irresponsible son instead. But I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. So what are they going to do to get those millions back? That's so unfair. Well, the author writes that her husband found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago. Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker, the author wants to reveal this terrible secret, even if that means destroying her husband's family in the process. So do they get the millions of dollars back or does she keep the family's terrible secret? Well, to hear the explosive finale, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast,

or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind VoiceOver, the movement that exploded in 2024. VoiceOver is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing

other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, so we argued about that for a really long time, so we're going to skip a couple things. The econ and the Israel bloc are both going. We'll get to those tomorrow, but we wanted to update on Yemen, so let's go ahead and get to that.

So the United States has decided to start bombing Yemen again. For what purpose? Well, we'll get to that. So the United States has decided to start bombing Yemen again. For what purpose? Well, we'll get to that. So they released some video of the latest operation that Donald Trump ordered in retaliation against the Houthis' disruption of shipping lanes. Let's go and put this on the screen. You can see that this was released from CENTCOM operations, firing multiple missiles and projectiles onto Yemen, targeting Houthi leadership, including the use there of a U.S. aircraft carrier, which is in the region. These were some of the videos from Yemen that actually came out showing the strikes.

The retaliation was ordered by Trump for these attacks on shipping lanes. Let's go and put this up there on the screen, released from Trump's Truth Social account. Today, I have ordered the United States military to launch decisive and powerful military action against the Houthi terrorists in Yemen. They have waged an unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism against the U.S. and other ships, aircrafts, and drones. Now, the problem with this is the assumption that apparently you think you can deal with this Houthi problem with just bombs and missiles alone. In fact, Jeremy Scahill flagged something which is genuinely incredible to me, which is that just in

the last 30 years, the U.S. has used more missiles for, quote, air defense in combat against the Houthis since October 2023 than it used in all the years from Desert Storm in the 1990s. What? That's crazy. Not only bombarded Yemen, just ourselves, in retaliation for these Houthi attacks, it's also ignoring that the Saudis did not bomb Yemen for, what, five straight years as supplied by the United States, causing, who knows, untold amounts of death. The problem that they assume is that there's a military solution to this entire problem. And instead, they refuse to pursue a diplomatic solution, one which had been working whenever

there was a real ceasefire in Gaza. There's no Houthi attacks. Now, their argument there is, oh, we're allowing blackmail. It's like, well, absent a literal U.S. combat invasion of Yemen, which I don't think is worth it, this is the only option. We have diplomacy or we could have ceasefire policy. But instead, we've decided to just basically like flex the muscles and all of that. And people are saying, oh, are you arguing against the legitimacy of the operation? No, that's not what we're saying. What we're saying is we tried this. We tried it a bunch of different times. All of this has been tried by Obama, tried by Biden, by Trump, Trump last time around. We're almost eight years to the day since Trump launched a combat operation in Yemen in the first term. And in that time period, the status quo has

not only changed, it's actually gotten worse for our overall interests. The only time that anything has stopped has been a diplomatic solution in Gaza. And it's increasingly clear that there are huge headwinds in the diplomatic solution way against both from the Israelis and sections of our own government that are going to make it less likely that we pursue that. And in that event, we're going to have more problems in the Middle East. Yeah. So Trump's statement here is also very misleading because actually there haven't been U.S. ships that have been targeted by the Houthis ever since that ceasefire was instituted. I mean, this is the thing they always, the media and the administration always tries to hide the ball on both this one and the last one, by the way, which is that the Houthis have been very clear. This is in response to the

Israeli assault and genocide in Gaza. So when the ceasefire was on, guess what? There were no Houthi attacks, not on U.S. ships, not on Israeli ships, etc. What has changed is not only has that ceasefire broken down, Israel is bombing in Gaza, but more specifically, they are blocking humanitarian aid. They have reinstituted, with our support, the total and complete siege of Gaza. So the Houthis said, okay, well, this is how we're going to respond. Not even actually, I don't think they directly originally threatened U.S. ships. It was we're going to, you know, we're going to resume our threats versus Israeli ships. And so, you know, rather than us coming in and say, OK, well, let's get back to the ceasefire and let's actually pursue the ceasefire that the

Trump administration negotiated. And by the way, aid should be able to get into Gaza. You shouldn't be, you know, collectively punishing and starving an entire population. Instead, we decided to effectively do Israel's bidding here and bomb the Houthis, now putting our own ships at risk. The Houthis have claimed retaliation, sort of unconfirmed whether they were successful in that or not. But there's no doubt that our ships, and they're saying both military now and commercial flagged ships, are at risk in this passage. In addition, I don't want to gloss over the damage that our strikes did. Yemen is the poorest country in the region. Capital city, Sana'a, is very, this is a beleaguered area to begin with. And the strikes reportedly killed

31 people, injured over 100 more. Most of them were women and children. Not a lot of indication that it was like, you know, super precise military targeting. There were certain civilian targets that were hit. There's a claim that a cancer hospital was hit as part of these, as part of these strikes. So, you know, the U.S. is being accused by the Houthis of committing war crimes here as well, but all in the service, not even of our own interest, but to back up the Israelis in their desire to continue this siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip. Yeah, let's put D4 up on the screen. This was from the Houthis. They said, quote, regarding the implementation, the operation was in response to the U.S. aggression that targeted several government directorates with more than 47 airstrikes.

And then put D5 up there as well in terms of them vowing retaliation against the United States. I mean, look, do we think that they're going to sink an aircraft carrier? Yeah, probably not. But are they going to require more anti-ship missiles or other things used on behalf of the United States? And the problem, as we again have shown, is that we have tried the full-court military press solution here. That's what Biden tried to do. He tried to solve this at the time. You can't really deny that, to be honest, considering the number of munitions and the number of bombing runs and retaliations and all of that work to restore global shipping. We simply don't have the ability unless we literally occupy Yemen.

So at this point, it just comes back to me that they're basically falling into the same trap where, yeah, it's convenient to bomb them and just be like, yeah, OK, we tried or whatever. And then we just keep doing this like tit for tat approach. It's not getting us anywhere. We have the same economic consequences, the same military issues as well. I mean, you know, we never talk about this, but every time you fire one of these projectiles, it costs a million bucks or a million five. For what reason? You know, remember when we shot down all those missiles on Israel's behalf? I mean, it costs over a billion dollars just in that single operation, not to mention the depleting of stocks. For what purpose? Not ours. Last time I checked.

So it just continues where when you continue to fall in this direction, you're not moving forward to any solution, which is in any way both acceptable to the people who are firing the missiles who get a say. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but they have a say as long as they have that ability without us being able to change that unless we pursue a diplomatic course in Gaza, which I don't think, I don't know whether that's going to happen or not. That's a whole other can of worms here, but this would be more evidence to me that that should be pursued. And unfortunately it will probably be taken in the opposite direction. Yeah, well, the point about cost is an important one right now at a moment when this government, this administration is supposedly pursuing this path of austerity. So it's like, we don't have money to, you know, send out all the social security checks. But we do have money. We always

have money for this. This money just magically falls out of the sky. It's never any problem funding these sorts of things. And by the way, if you look at the Doge, there's a chart out there of like the contracts they've canceled. Next to none of them have been from the Pentagon. I believe of their claimed savings, it's like 0.05% came out of the Pentagon, which no surprise given that Elon is one of the Pentagon's larger subcontractors. There you go. All right. Well, I'm sure you've got some looks here more at Elon, anti-Semitism. Crystal, what are you taking a look at?

Well, if you had to sketch a portrait of the ideal type of person to be your neighbor, your community member, your fellow citizen, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more compelling resume than that of Mahmoud Khalil. He was born into a refugee camp in Syria. He defied the odds to ascend to one of America's preeminent Ivy League universities, met the woman of his dreams while leading a group of volunteers, including some Americans, to educate displaced Syrian children who were in Lebanon. He had just completed a master's of public administration. He was all set to settle into his new life at a new job and as a new father.

He and his wife, an American dentist raised in Michigan named Noor, are expecting in April. Even more telling of his character are the little anecdotes offered by friends and fellow students who submitted letters to the court, which paint an image of Khalil that is the polar opposite of what the government would want you to believe about him. So the government says he supports Hamas. Well, an American Jewish woman who believes in the importance of Israel as a Jewish homeland told the court, quote, I can state with full confidence Mahmoud has never expressed support for Hamas. Now, the government says his activities fuel anti-Semitism. Another Jewish student told the court that, on the contrary, when a protester

veered into anti-Semitic rhetoric, Mahmoud was the first person to object and to intervene. Now, Mahmoud himself went out of his way to tell CNN that his goal was to uplift both Jewish and Palestinian people, saying he saw the liberation of the two peoples as intertwined, quote, you cannot achieve one without the other. The government, in attempting to remove Mahmoud, is saying he would be a detriment to our society at large. Now, in my personal opinion, you see a person's character in the way that they treat the people around them in day-to-day life. Letters to the court say that Mahmoud is the kind of guy who would bring the doorman in his building chicken, tea, fruit, and cake to help him break his fast during Ramadan. That he built community with fellow Jewish students attending Shabbat at their homes.

That he was engaged in American political life. He was looking forward to being able to vote and to participate. Look, maybe the government uncovered some secret life that's going to turn the impression that many of his classmates and friends shared of a conscientious activist committed to tolerance and nonviolence on its head. But frankly, I'd be surprised. The worst thing the internet has been able to unearth is a video of him flipping off a camera, a great American tradition. But actually, the government demonization of the clean-cut Khalil is a perfect emblem of the up-is-down, left-is-right way that they have approached their authoritarian crackdown here. Because at the core of their current illiberal power grab is the weaponization of the liberal value of anti-bigratory, and specifically

anti-Semitism. They are stripping the rights of all freedom-loving people, citizen and non, in the U.S. in the name of targeting anti-Semitism. They've taken the authoritarian bent in wokeism and cancel culture at its worst and turned it up to full fascism. Now, if you think you're safe because you trust this president

or maybe you hold the correct opinions on this issue, think again. When rights are taken, they're taken from all. And the Trump admin has already moved from threatening foreign students to threatening American citizens in a single week. It is truly chilling. In addition to their arrest of Khalil, consider the sweep of their power grab around anti-Semitism in just the past 10 days. They stripped $400 million in funding

from Columbia and placed its Middle Eastern Studies Department in receivership while completely ignoring laws requiring notification, investigation, and those guarding academic freedom. They sent letters to 60 other universities threatening similar crackdowns if they do not comply with vague demands to effectively combat anti-Semitism. They're deploying AI to crawl through social media accounts in order to find additional targets for deportation based on wrong think on Israel. Perhaps as a result of this effort, another Columbia student on a student visa was forced to flee the country. Her greatest involvement in pro-Palestine protests was liking and resharing some posts

and signing on to at least one open letter calling for Palestinian liberation. She described herself as, quote, just a rando, not anywhere close to a protest leader. Four, the Department of Justice announced that the government is investigating whether to charge American students who participated in pro-Palestine protests as terrorists. Academic freedom destroyed, due process jettisoned, free speech crushed, power consolidated, all under the guise of fighting the alleged bigotry of people who were disgusted to see our government complicit in mass slaughter of civilians. Even many diehard Zionists are sounding the alarm. Eli Lake, who is nothing if not committed to hatred of pro-Palestine protesters, tweeted this,

quote, if Mahmoud Khalil is charged and convicted of an actual crime, he should be deported. If his crime is just the expression of support for a terrorist organization, then this pageant is grotesque. And yes, I realize that their harassment of Jews, destruction of property, et cetera, is not protected speech. But the legal argument thus far amounts to saying permanent legal residents can't say anything that the Secretary of State believes undermines U.S. foreign policy. That is a horrendous violation of free speech, and as much as I despise campus solidarity with baby stranglers, I love American values more. Bill Maher, to my somewhat surprise, also weighed in on behalf of Khalil, viewing the assault on him as an attack on free speech. Then there's this issue of Mahmoud Khalil. He is one of the protesters, the Palestinian protesters, and I don't agree with his point of view.

But you know what? If you're an honest person, you have to defend him if you believe in free speech because that's what free speech means. I say it all the time when it's on the other foot, and I can't change because it's now this guy. It's defending the dirt bags you hate. So this guy – now, here's what FIRE, and I love this organization, that's the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and they go after the left a lot, mostly. But they're honest.

They said if the government has got anything other than just somebody who is saying things they don't like, talking about this guy, they need to show it now, because otherwise the harm to First Amendment freedoms will be serious. And I think that's true. I don't think they have anything on this guy other than he's saying things that I

can't believe kids believe now. I did not see this coming, this bizarre alliance of jihadism and wokeism. You know, Infitada is the only solution. Really? Infatada is the only solution? Global infatada? That's where this guy is. I think it's horrible. He hates this country. He hates Western civilization. And I defend to his death the right to say it. Protecting speech you don't like is, of course, the whole point of the First Amendment. What's more, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Jews are not safe when disfavored groups start getting singled out, criminalized, rounded up by the federal government. Neither, for that matter, is anyone else. Today it's them. Tomorrow it could be you. Once a president claims the power to punish any

speech that they don't like, there are no limits to what that can ultimately mean. Today it could be anti-Semitism. Tomorrow it could be anti-racism. Today it could be anti-Semitism. Tomorrow, it could be anti-racism. Today, it could be DEI wrong think. Tomorrow, it could be climate denial. Today, it could be affiliating with Democrats. Tomorrow, it could be affiliating with Republicans. The next step in consciousness, though, is to realize that the mass campaign by people like Maher and Lake to demonize those with legitimate criticisms of Israel as violent, hateful, and pro-Hamas is exactly the ideological framework that made the current crackdown possible and easy. In Eli's tweet, he even says that Khalil expressed support for terrorists, which appears to not be true at all.

But once the pro-Palestine protests were portrayed by the liberal Biden administration as being effectively Hamas, it did not take a large leap to criminalize anyone who was affiliated with them, to throw visa holders and permanent residents out of the country altogether for participating or even for liking the wrong tweet. Even those like Khalil, who appear to have been completely law-abiding. In fairness, though, I think if it wasn't the anti-Semitism ruse, it would probably just be something else. After all, it's not like this is the only way Trump is consolidating power and crushing dissent. The anti-Semitism ploy is one branch of Trump's broader authoritarian push. He certainly doesn't care about actual anti-Semitism that for saying that an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory was, quote, the actual truth. Instead, play acting concern for anti-Semitism, it's just the most convenient excuse lying around to hobble

his enemies, crush dissent, undercut what he sees as a rival power base in the university system to stoke fear and garner compliance. Now, Trump promised in his campaign he would pursue retribution, that he would terminate the Constitution, that he would act as a dictator. And judging from his actions one way or another, he intends to make good on that pledge. Whether you're a media outlet that he deems illegal, a law firm with the temerity to represent one of his political opponents, or a government agency with an unacceptable number of liberal staffers, he wants you afraid, alone, and cowering, crushed. He will use the power of the state and his crew of loyalist goons to achieve that intended result. If crying anti-Semitism helps in his campaign, he is happy

to weaponize it. And it seems like he's just getting started. The move to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, claiming wartime powers not used since Japanese internment suggests that this dark turn is really just beginning. Next, we're going to see whether this all fuels public backlash that could stem some of the worst abuses, whether the courts can act to sufficiently forestall the authoritarian slide, whether the liberal institutions are remotely up to fighting an organized, lawless, illiberal power grab. So far, though, the indications are not all that promising. Looks like when ICE grabbed Mahmoud, they didn't realize he was a green card holder and likely didn't realize how unimpeachably upstanding he would turn out to actually be.

Sort of living embodiment of the American cultural melting pot good neighbor ideal. But whether it was intentional or not, making an example out of Mahmoud, ultimately it does serve their interests. If they can get away with it, then really no one else can feel safe. No matter how many Shabbats they attended, how many times they uplifted their Jewish friends, how courageously they protected them from hateful conduct, how academically accomplished and impressively credentialed, no matter how pregnant or how American their wife happens to be, everyone, citizen and non, will get the message that

nothing can protect them if the Trump regime decides they are to be punished. And that is precisely the point. Now the only question that remains is will they get away with it? And it really is wild once you dig into who this guy actually is, how he is the... And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father?

Well, Sam, luckily it's your not the father week on the OK Storytime podcast. So we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son. But I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars. Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results.

But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free

on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process.

Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. No. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.