Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 4/8/25: US Clothing Brand Sounds Alarm On Tariffs, Trump Pulls Chair For Bibi, Tucker Warns On Iran War, SCOTUS Greenlights Trump Deportations

Episode Date: April 8, 2025

Krystal and Saagar discuss US made clothing brand sounds alarm on tariffs, Trump pulls chair out for Bibi backing troops in Gaza, Tucker warns Trump on Iran war, SCOTUS greenlights Trump El Salvador deportations.   Pisco: https://www.youtube.com/@PiscosHour Andrew Chen: https://www.3sixteen.com    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. I went through while I was down in prison for two years. Through that process, learn, learn from. Check out this exclusive episode with Ja Rule on Rock Solid. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Rock Solid, and listen now. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated.

I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of starts that a little bit, man.

We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two 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. Joining us now is Andrew Chen. He's the co-owner of 316, a powerhouse fashion brand here in the U.S. of which I am a customer. And Andrew recently did a video talking about the effects of tariffs on smaller fashion brands like himself. And so we thought that it would be great to actually have him on the show and to discuss. So the video you put out is three ways that the new tariffs will affect fashion brands like yours. So why don't you just break some of this down

for the audience, Andrew, and tell us as somebody who actually runs one of these business, clothing, textile, something that obviously there's been a lot of outsourcing on will affect somebody like you. Thank you for the opportunity to come on today. And yeah, we're still trying to navigate all of this. There's a lot of uncertainty in the air. But the number one thing that we wanted to touch on was the increased costs that we face. We bring in all of our fabric for our denim,

which we're denim brand, that's what we make the most of from Japan. And the new tariffs are, we're looking at about a 24% additional cost on fabric that's coming in. I think something that's difficult for customers to understand, and we saw this in the comment section of the video that we posted, is that a $10 increase in raw materials doesn't just result in a $10 increase at retail. We're part of a value chain model, which means that we buy the fabric, we contract a factory to produce it for us in the US, in San Francisco. So we are a made in America company.

And then we wholesale it to retail stores around the world. These wholesale accounts are store owners. They have small boutiques in parts of America, in Europe, in Japan, in Asia. And then they need to mark that garment up in order to sell it to their customers. And so if our costs go up by $10 in order to preserve our margins, we have to increase our wholesale cost. And then that wholesale cost needs to also translate to a higher retail cost. So that's why a $10 increase in just materials could result in a $40 to $50 increase once it hits market. And we've had a lot of customers calling that like, that's greedy. Why can't you just increase it $10 at the very end and call it a day? And the reality is that everybody has a business to run. We all have employees to pay we have health care to cover we have in our case we we provide retirement accounts for you know our small team you can't do that if your margins

continue to decrease so that's a really difficult thing the customer is going to face some sort of price increase and it's going to be a lot more than just the straight raw materials that are coming in. A second thing that I talked about was uncertainty. As a fashion brand, we don't just design things and then release it to market. We have to design it, we bring it to trade shows, we have people pre-order garments, and then we go to production on it based off of whatever you know orders they place that helps us to be more efficient we're not just guessing at what to make in these cases we have to quote a price so that the retail stores can decide like is this

something that my customers can afford is this something that i feel like i can present at a reasonable cost to them now we already just went to went to Paris in January to sell our fall-winter 25 collection, and we had to give them prices on it. This is pre-tariffs. And so we produce garments in the US. We produce them in Peru. We produce them in India and in Portugal. So Peru is the only one that's subject right now to the flat 10%. India has a 26% additional tariff. And the EU also is facing additional tariffs. So now we stand to have to pay more for that finished garment to land in the US than what we had quoted the price on. And that's really difficult for us because somebody is going to have to take a margin,

you know, a margin hit on that. It could be us, the brand. We could just eat it and then we end up not making any money at wholesale. It could be the retail store. We might have to split the difference with them if they don't want the cost to go up too much. Or we might all decide like, hey, there's no way that we can function as businesses and we're going to all have to increase the cost. That's going to cause some stores to bow out of their commitments. That means that we now have to hold extra stock and be more inefficient as a company.

That means we're going to have to discount or offload it somehow. We try to be very careful with the quantities that we set. We try not to overproduce, but that's just unavoidable. We've already had some Canadian customers cancel orders this spring season because of the game of chicken that we played with Canada and Mexico just a month and a half ago with the 5% tariffs. There was too much uncertainty. They were like, hold our shipments. We can't take anything right now. They had already placed orders for fall, winter 25. I'm almost certain that they will cancel orders. And then the third one is just deterioration

of overseas markets. What happens when trade wars begin is that other nations or other regions begin to try and find ways to cooperate because they need to get their products from somewhere. So in 2019, there was a free trade agreement that was established between the EU and Japan. And so all of our EU accounts are now able to bring in great denim and great clothing from Japan. This is the same country that makes our fabric. So they're very good at making, you know, this niche product that we do. And if you're a retail store in Europe, and you can buy stuff from Japan with no tariffs, and then you, you know, have to be faced with the decision of, am I going to buy

from this American brand that's going to cost me even more than it did before, you're probably going to make your decisions accordingly. Business just goes in the path of least resistance. Of course, yeah. We spent a decade trying to cultivate this market in the EU, and we're finding success. And stores like the brand, they like the product, it just becomes cost prohibitive for them. So, Andrew, let me ask you this. So, I think what the president and his supporters and people say, you know, this is good for the long term for the country, what they would respond is, you know, it's short-term pain. Yes, we get it. We understand that this is going to cause issues for you, and it's going to cause potentially prices to go up

for consumers. But it's going to create an incentive structure for business owners like yourself to bring the entire supply chain for your product here internally to the U.S. and will create additional jobs in the U.S. So over the long term, this is going to be a better direction. What is your response to that? And also, you know, just walk us through, like, what would it entail for that to actually occur for you? Yeah, I mean, I would what I would respond to that is that a lot of these small brands don't have five years or 10 years to be able to build up infrastructure and to reshore these things that America doesn't do anymore. And I'll just keep it super, super focused on jeans because that is what most customers know us for. They come to us for. And so a lot of people who are not familiar with our brand, when they saw this video go viral, they're like, why don't you just make it in America? And to the extent that we're able to, we do. We employ a factory in San

Francisco that used to make jeans for Levi's before they offshored production. We entered there 15 years ago as the smallest brand there, and now we are their biggest client. And they rely on us for business. But the fabric that we use, and I don't know if this is getting too niche, but it is selvedge denim. It is denim that is woven the way that denim used to be made in the 40s to the 60s when it was more than just a workwear fabric. It was something that people needed longevity out of. And it's a slow and almost antiquated way of making denim that is largely unavailable in the U.S. There are a few small mills that still exist here, but the biggest one was Cone Mills White Oak in North Carolina, and they closed in 2017 due to lack of demand. Customers are not accustomed to paying for clothing.

Derek Guy, Dye Workwear on Twitter and Blue Sky um he shared in on on one of his threads in the early 1960s u.s households spent 12 of the income on apparel and that would be 4 157 in today's dollars in 2016 it was four percent yeah so eighteen hundred dollars um but that's not because people are buying less clothes they're buying more clothes they're buying cheap clothes um we're a niche brand we're small we try and make clothes the way that they used to be made. We pay attention to fabric, details, construction. And the best denim in the world is being made in Japan. It's not because they came and bought up all of our old looms. That's a rumor. Japan has a long and storied history of textile development. And they've invested into

this industry. And there's also a domestic appreciation for that craft and that level of authenticity and fabric. And it's just not achievable at that level. And I know that may hurt for some people to hear. But as a brand, it's our prerogative to make the best possible product for our customers. And so it's not a matter of us being scared that this is going to cost too much. We just want to maintain a level of quality. And so there are no options for us. For a little story about six or seven years ago, an email came to our inbox. It almost seemed like a scam, but someone's like, do you want to buy all these shuttle looms? Shuttle looms are the looms that make this salvaged denim. And

we're like, there's no way this could be. It turned out that they were looms from the shuttered, you know, cone white, white oak mills. In order for this whole story to work for us to offshore, you're asking us as a brand to come and buy looms, start a factory, start making fabric. We have no expertise in this. We didn't go to school for textile development. We don't know how to manage a factory. There would be so much inefficiency. We would probably mess up a ton. We would probably shut. We definitely would have shut down. There's no way that there was this would have been an option for us. So basically, if you were to pursue this path of, oh, it would just do it all in the US.

Yeah. You would have a lower quality product and it would cost more. It would cost, it would, yes. If we were not going to go and own our own, open our own mill, it would not be, the product would not be at the level that we would want. And that's, I think that's very important for people to understand is that the administration is putting this all on you. They're not offering you any tax break. They're not offering you any relief or anything in the interim. And then even on the cultural point, I think this is so important. As you said about Japan, they have a literal decades-long history of appreciation for craft. They have a cost structure built in to preserve that, their tax incentives, economic incentives, cultural

incentives to build an entire ecosystem which actually does produce something that many of the people who push this policy ostensibly want a return to quality away from fast fashion and so as somebody involved and again creating an extremely high quality product something that i literally purchase myself what are the you know what are the headwinds that you are swimming against with the rise of fast fashion which ostensibly is something that they're trying to stop and boost someone like you. Is this policy actually just going to perhaps increase the amount of fast fashion consumed, cheaper goods that people will turn to in a time of depression? Have you seen a reduction perhaps in demand, like you said, with Canada and Mexico? What is the net effect of all of this? Yeah. I mean, the only way, so we already talked

about what customers are going to face. They're going to face increased costs. There's no way around it. I don't know when that's going to happen. I don't know when it's going to take effect. Even for us, I don't know when our next shipment of fabric is going to get hit. We have a huge shipment of denim that's supposed to land in three to four days. I don't know if that's subject to the new tariffs or the shipment after that. We're not going away, so we're going to have to take another shipment. But customers will face increased costs. For the brands, it's going to be difficult because every brand is going to have to decide whether they want to increase costs or lower quality, or maybe some metric that involves both of those two things. If they feel that their

customers cannot stomach an increase in costs, they're going to have to reduce quality. They're going to have to cut corners in terms of the fabrics they use, the construction. They may have to move to a different facility, any number of things. So there is a cost all the way around. And we've already established that it's not that people are buying less clothes, they're just spending less on them. And so I don't really see that changing. Yeah. Last question for you. Your video went viral. You know, people who are trying to understand what this means for individual business owners, I think really got a lot out of it. I certainly got a lot out of it watching it. Are you nervous at all about

its virality, given, you know, this president can be very punitive if someone is speaking out against him? You know, you see the way that a lot of business leaders have made efforts to get in close with him so that they don't face retaliation. Is that something that concerns you at all in just speaking out on the basics of how this will impact your business and your future? I mean, I'm talking to the T also. Not too nervous anyway. No, it's been surprising. I think when we made the video, we just tried to speak from the heart.

And we also tried to speak in a nonpartisan way. It was just like, hey, this is what's happening to us. This is our perspective. There was no political leaning, I don't think, in the things that we shared. It was just the reality of like the types of decisions that we're going to need to make in the coming weeks and months. We're a pretty small fish. I hope that, you know, that we're not really attracting that kind of attention. But, you know, I do think that people want to hear from small businesses like ours.

Definitely. You know, we're actually really trying to, like, making stuff in America has been central to what we do. When we started making jeans in 2008, our first samples came from China. And they didn't come in construction-wise at the level that we wanted. So we went and we found a historic factory that had been making jeans in America for decades and decades. And they're staffed by, I don't know if I'm opening another can of worms here, but they're staffed by immigrants. The people that make your clothes in America don't always look the way that you think that they do. They're all legal citizens, but they all came to America with a skill set that America does not cultivate in a meaningful way anymore.

Right. I mean, like I went to I had home ec class in middle school. Maybe that dates how old I am, but I don't think that that really exists anymore. People don't even know how to put a button on their shirt anymore. So to expect this to come back and to expect American citizens to want to embrace these jobs if there hasn't been a high value placed on craft and manufacturing, it's going to be tough. Yeah. Well, I think Sagar's point and your point that in theory, this policy is meant to support people like you. You know, it's meant to push people more towards, okay, spend a little bit more, but it'll be higher quality and it'll be, you know, from companies that put an emphasis on making things here.

And so the fact that even for someone such as yourself and your business, you see this as a major challenge to have to overcome, I think is very illuminating about the practical realities of the policy. Andrew, we can't thank you enough for taking the time out to talk to us

and explain your perspective on all of this. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you for making the close you guys do. As I said, I'm a loyal customer. I'll continue to be. And I encourage everybody out there, if you can, we'll put a link down in the description. You should go check them out. Thank you for the time and the opportunity. It's our pleasure. 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. Thank you. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case.

They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking.

Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops call this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that Taser told them.

From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multibillion-dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1,

Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Add free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. All right, let's go ahead and get to Bibi Netanyahu's meeting with Trump at the White House. We can go ahead and put this up on the screen.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, he did once again push in the seat for his dear friend, the ICC-indicted war criminal, Bibi Netanyahu. It's especially galling because this comes on a day when we found out that the Israelis have murdered another American. This was a Palestinian-American child who was shot dead. Two others were shot and wounded by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank, reporting from Ryan and our friends over at Dropsite News. By the way, make sure and help them out because they appear to be getting significantly suppressed and buried over on Twitter. If you try to search for them, they don't come up.

So make sure you're supporting Ryan and Dropsite and Jeremy over there. In any case, let me go ahead and read their reporting. Keep this up on the screen, Eric. They say Omar Mohamed Rebea, a 14-year-old Palestinian with U.S. citizenship, was shot and killed on Sunday by Israeli forces near the West Bank town of Tumasaya, I'm sorry guys, northeast of Ramallah. Two other Palestinian American boys, age 14 and 15, also shot and wounded, one in the abdomen, the other in the thigh. Both were taken to a nearby clinic.

There is no dispute from the Israelis that they were responsible for this killing. They say that this American citizen was throwing rocks towards a highway. So that was the reason for his killing. The president making, I guess not exactly making news, but reiterating his commitment to the U.S. having a peacekeeping force in a Gaza Strip that has

been ethnically cleansed of all Palestinians. Let's go ahead and take a listen to what he had to say. Well, you know how I feel about the Gaza Strip. I think it's an incredible piece of important real estate. And I think it's something that we would be involved in. But, you know, having a peace force like the United States there controlling and owning the Gaza Strip would be a good thing. Because right now, all it is is for years and years. All I hear about is killing and Hamas and problems. And if you take the people, the Palestinians, and move them around to different countries and you have plenty of countries that will do that. And you really have a freedom, a freedom zone. You call it the freedom zone, a free zone, a zone where people aren't going to be killed

every day. That's a hell of a place. It's a you know what I call it, a great location that nobody wants to live in because they really don't. And when they had good when they have good living, real living, where Hamas and all of the problems they have, the level of death on the Gaza Strip is just incredible. And I've said it. I don't understand why Israel ever gave it up. Israel owned it. It wasn't this man, so I can say it. He wouldn't have given it up. I know him very well. There's

no way. They took oceanfront property and they gave it to people for peace. How did that work out? Not good. Just insane. Just insane. It's oceanfront property. Oh, incredible killing there.

The guy who's doing the killing is sitting right next to you. But in case soccer, he is apparently not joking about this plan. Freedom Zone is like a 2005 fever dream of Paul Wolfowitz. Not even they would have the audacity, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas. True.

To suggest the United States should take occupation of the Gaza Strip. Their mere idiocy idea was let them have elections and then we won't basically acknowledge the result of said elections. And effectively allow occupation from that point forward. I don't know. I can't even express the rage which is necessary for this idea. It just shows you that if you're my age, everything just comes around. You get to live to see twice two great recessions and U.S. troops in the Middle East as a part of it, literally tax dollars and global treasure going to fund foreign wars, which are basically inconsequential. We just did a whole thing about trade and about China. U.S. bilateral trade with

Israel is like 50 billion. It's like a pimple on top of China. Yet with this entire domination of our politics, occupation there, as if we have any strategic interest. The whole thing is preposterous. It's not to mention the humanitarian disaster that we would eventually be responsible for. The only bull case for this is that he's bullshitting and that it won't happen. That's not really a good case to be made in the middle of a massive trade conflagration that we are right now. So yeah, I'm going to take him seriously. I think he definitely wants to do this. And an American boot on the ground in Gaza occupying this area is asking for a global ignition of terrorism, of attacks on our troops, and further conflagration intervention in the region. Like, anyway, yeah. I don't even know what to say.

Well, and I think if there's one thing we've learned about Trump 2.0, it's that you should take him both seriously and literally. Yeah. Like the idea, oh, he says things, but he doesn't really. No, he's doing the things. So the fact that he's said this multiple times, he's never backed away from it. He's been very consistent. I think you have to take it seriously. And also in the context of Bibi grabbing onto him.

This is great. Yeah, you've opened up. You said something also in the context of Bibi grabbing onto him. This is great. Yeah, you've opened up. You said something like you've opened up possibilities that never existed before. They've been actively reaching out to countries. Be like, hey, will you take Palestinians? So the plans are being put into place. And, you know, at the same time, the genocidal carnage continues in the Gaza Strip with our weaponry and our bombs and our blessing. And the latest horror is these 15 paramedics who were shot and killed, and some

of them appear to have been shot execution style. And then they were buried, and the ambulances were buried by the IDF to try to cover up their blatant war crimes. They lied to the press and the international press and said that, oh, no, no, they were approaching us suspiciously and they didn't have their lights on. And that's why we responded in this particular way. Well, they did not retrieve the phones of the paramedics who they had slaughtered. And one of them was recording a video of everything that happened that directly rebuts the IDF's lies. And Trey Yinks over on Fox News, who to his credit, I think has covered this onslaught in Gaza with a lot of integrity, including standing up for Palestinian journalists, something that almost none of the American press corps outside of him has actually done. He did an excellent report on catching the IDF in these

blatant lies. Let's go ahead and take a listen. Paramedics from the Palestine Red Crescent dig through the earth of southern Gaza. They're recovering the bodies of their colleagues killed by Israeli forces. On March 23rd, first responders were dispatched to this area of Rafah. When they arrived, Israeli soldiers opened fire. Health workers should never be a target, and yet we're here today digging up a mass grave of first responders and paramedics. On March 31st, the IDF provided a statement to Fox News saying, quote, several vehicles were identified advancing suspiciously toward IDF troops without headlights or emergency signals. Video released five days later by the Palestine Red Crescent directly

contradicts that statement. The IDF also claimed in the initial findings that nine out of the 15 medics were operatives in Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Asked multiple times for evidence to support that claim, none was provided. Funerals were held late last week for those killed by Israeli bullets. Families mourning the dead, mothers trying to make sense of the senseless. He went to save the martyrs and injured, and we've been waiting for him for a week. We were told that he was either martyred or injured, but I realized that they had killed them from the very first moment. They had killed them and buried them underground.

As bodies of these medics rest inside white plastic bags with a photo attached, the face of Rithat Radwan stands out, the man who recorded his final moments with a final message. Forgive me, mother. This is the path I chose to help you, he said. And Sagar, we were talking about this, like if you were a journalist who's interacting with the IDF at this point, how do you ever believe a word? And I'm not even just talking about this incident. How many times have they just lied flat out to journalists face to our face? It just, they'll just make up anything. And only when confronted with indisputable evidence that their narrative was complete and total bullshit, then they'll do some, you know, bullshit. Oh, we're going to conduct an investigation.

We're going to figure out. Okay, sure. Yeah, we've heard that one before. No, I mean, it's genuinely true. I mean, the thing is, is that we just have to sit here and acknowledge the bravery of Trey to even put that on the air over at Fox News.

You know. I have rarely seen anything like that in the Western press. I guess the problem is, is it becomes undeniable. It's only whenever it's genuinely something is completely undeniable. Right. Is it able to make it to air? But then all these other bullshit claims, oh, they had rifles or they're, that was all also pushed by everybody, MSNBC, you know, all these New York Times. I mean, the New York

Times scandal of it is insane. I remember Ryan alerting me to that, just being like, they literally just took the Israelis' word for it and then buried it in the bottom of a paragraph. They didn't call anyone at the Palestinian, or sorry, the Red Crescent, and were like, what's going on here? You know, like, what actually happened? They did no reporting on the subject. And this is an organization which won a Pulitzer Prize for their Gaza reporting. I mean, it's just nuts. But I don't know. I think it's horrifying. The Freedom Zone, the continuation of the war.

They did say some words about a ceasefire, but nobody's particularly optimistic right now. Well, I guess the one thing he didn't give Bibi is I think Bibi wanted the tariffs taken off of him. Yeah, that's right. I think he didn't get that. Trump is, what's the joke? Is like Trump is currently employing BDS. Trump is currently BDSing Israel. I mean, let's also just linger there on the purport. have a country which would not exist save for the United States, which provides it some $3 billion per year, which basically backstops their entire economy and extends its nuclear security umbrella over them. Where do you get off having any tariffs on American goods? It's not that much.

They actually don't. I think he rolled them back before when the trade war was threatened. How is this possible? Who do you think you are? You're tariffing our goods. You wouldn't exist if it wasn't for us. Many such cases. 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 reexamining 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. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast hell and gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders.

I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter.

She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time,

have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multibbillion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated.

I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Let's move on to Iran. This is some very important news that's coming out about potential deals. Let's move on to Iran.

This is some very important news that's coming out about potential deals. This is a potential bright spot and negotiations that are going to begin to start with Iran. Here's Trump sounding off about them, much to Bibi's discomfort. Let's take a listen. I think if the talks aren't successful with Iran, I think Iran is going to be in great danger. And I hate to say it, great danger, because they can't have a nuclear weapon. You know, it's not a complicated formula. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That's all there is. Right now, we have countries that have nuclear power that shouldn't have it. But I'm sure we'll be able to negotiate out of that too as part of this later on down the line. But Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. And if the talks

are successful, I actually think it'll be a very bad day for Iran if that's the case. So Trump says that we are going to be continuing direct negotiations with Iran that will begin on Saturday. It does appear that they are legitimate and there's a lot going on behind the scenes. Put E2 please up on the screen so people can see. This is from Barack Ravid, the Netanyahu whisperer, quote, Netanyahu thinks that the chances of a U.S.-Iran deal are extremely low, but will present to Trump today how a good deal should look like. Netanyahu wants the full Libya model, the full dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. Crystal, can you enlighten me as to why no country on earth would ever agree to the full Libya model?

That's the point. How did that go for Libya? How did that go for the leader of Libya, who is now dead and gone? Yeah. Murdered on camera. Which is, that is the intent of Netanyahu is to offer a solution that he knows Iran would, and no country, would ever agree to. And so that's why I think we should all be glad that there are potentially direct talks happening and that there is at least some gesture towards making a deal with Iran. But of course, the content of those talks is going to matter very much. And if Bibi is pushing the quote unquote Libya model, if Trump is taking that seriously, then that is obviously going to be a nonstarter. We don't know whether Trump is taking that seriously, whether he has his own ideas. Our friend Dr. Trita Parsi was pointing out things that Trump himself has said in the past about the quote unquote Libya model when it was being pushed

vis-a-vis North Korea. This was an attack on John Bolton. He said, what would John Bolton, one of the dumbest people in Washington know? Wasn't he the person who so stupidly said on television, Libyan solution, when describing what the US was going to do for North Korea? I've got plenty of other Bolton stupid stories. So at least in theory, he knows what a dumb idea this is. Whether in practice it applies in this situation, we'll have to wait to find out. Yeah, exactly. And that's where we all just really have to be very careful about what's all happening right now. For example, let's put E3 up on the screen. There is massive movement of U.S. assets in the Middle East right now, quote, from Haaretz, record-breaking U.S. deployment in the Middle East amid Trump's

nuclear ultimatum for Iran. More U.S. assets in the region than at any time since October 7th. Don't forget, you know, despite Signalgate, it wasn't just a one-off what happened with the Houthis. We continue to bomb the Houthis on an almost daily basis, basically continuing the Biden operation that was a complete failure. Here, Trump, for example, we can put this on the screen. This is a video that was released a couple of days ago. Trump says, quote,

these Houthis gathered for instructions on an attack. Oops, there will be no attack by these Houthis. They will never sink our ships again. By the way, this was not Houthi militant rebels. These were tribesmen who were gathered for a religious ceremony. And I do think we also have to reflect on the fact that it once was a scandal when the U.S. Yeah, they would just classify this stuff. Murdered civilians.

I mean, this was, you know, one of the major revelations of WikiLeaks that created, you know, international and certainly domestic scandal. And now the president just posted himself and brags about it. Like, that's how far we've come. Yeah, no legal authority, no justification, like, no release of, like, who exactly these people were, what it all meant. It's just baked in. You're basically killing people to feel good and for purposes that's not actually working. There's been no reduction in the amount of attacks from the Houthis. There is no military solution to this, save for a genuine invasion of Yemen. Well, and. I didn't sign up for that. And they're

considering it. They are considering it. So we can put this up on the screen from CNN. So they kind of, in my opinion, bury the lead here. They say far from being cowed by U.S. airstrikes, Yemen's Houthis may be relishing them. But then they go on to talk about how there are plans being formed for us to potentially assist the previous Yemeni government that, you know, there's a big civil war between the Houthis and the Yemenis. The Houthis basically ultimately won that civil war. But apparently we're going to use our troops to support the Yemenis maybe for another ground invasion in order to deal with the Houthis since the, you know, just relentless bombing has only continued to embolden them. Not that they haven't taken on damage and that they

haven't, you know, that significant Houthi members have not been killed and their capabilities diminished, but they are still able to operate and, you know, it sort of only does strengthen their domestic position really. So this is, these are the plans that are being hatched right now to potentially get us involved in a ground invasion in Yemen. That worked really well for the Saudis and their bombing campaign. And finally, I don't know.

I still don't yet know what to make of this. Let's put this on the screen. This is from Tucker Carlson. Whatever you think of tariffs, it is clear now it is the worst possible time for the United States to participate in a military strike on Iran. We can't afford it. Thousands of Americans would die. We'd lose a war that follows. Nothing could be more destructive to our country, and yet we are closer than ever,

thanks to unrelenting pressure from neocons. This is suicidal. Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy. I don't know what the impetus for this is. I can only assume that it's clear that he knows something that I don't know what the impetus for this is. I can only assume that it's clear that he knows something that I don't know or is hearing something clearly and takes it seriously enough to be able to put this out there. Because if you put together the BD visit, the military assets there, the Houthi military campaign, the fact that Mike Walsh, the moron, gets to survive and live another day in the White House, they keep assuring me he's going to be fired in a few months. Not going to hold my breath. For that one, I think there's obviously something that's happening.

Like the drumbeats are there. I also saw the attack on this was that it was unpatriotic to say that America would lose a war that follows, or to say that it's preposterous that thousands of Americans would die. Does anyone want to alert all of these neocon geniuses to the number of US troops that are currently in the Middle East? Like what, you think they're just going to sit there quietly, the Iranians, if we do start some sort of military conflict with them? Is there any reason to put any of those people's lives at risk? And also, do you know how much it's cost the current just Trump military campaign? $206 million for the current Houthi operation.

I don't see Doge or anybody talking about that. Think about it. If you had a $206 million operation, which was an abject, complete failure, continuation of a failed policy, that sounds like a perfect job for Doge, don't you think? So there's so many layers upon layers of a lot of this stupidity that's happening right now. There's also some past indications that are troubling about the way

Trump thinks about a potential Iran war. So he had famously claimed in 2011 and 2012 that Obama is going to start with war with Iran in order to get reelected. This is something that he tweeted out thinking that, oh, that would cause this rally around the flag effect and that that would help get Obama elected, which isn't, I mean, that's just insane to me that to think at this point, especially where we are now, that there would be any sort of U.S. domestic appetite for some giant war in the Middle East is complete insanity. But at least in the past, he has thought that way. And so, you know, does is he thinking that this would be a way to bolster his flagging domestic political standing? I think that's

a possibility. I think when you put together so Ken Klippenstein has, of course, been doing great reporting about the war plans that have been hatched, including potential nuclear options for a war with Iran. He's also reporting on this mass buildup of military assets in the region. I'll just read a little bit from his latest report. He says, in the largest single deployment of stealth bombers in U.S. history, the Pentagon has sent six B-2 Spirit aircraft to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, the long-range bombers, which are uniquely suited to evade Iranian air defenses and can carry America's most potent bunker-busting weapons, flew in from Missouri last week in a little-noticed operation. The B-2s carry not just bombs but a message for Iran.

Do you see our sword, as one retired general told Newsmax this week. Now, there is a possibility, Sagar, certainly, that all of the military buildup is meant as a credible military threat to try to secure a better deal with Iran. That's what we should all be hoping for. But I do think there are a lot of troubling indications and all of the neocon think tanks in DC, we cover this from Quincy Institute that's been tracking this,

they are beating the war drums. And if you have people like Tucker who are obviously very well read in and very well sourced in this administration sounding the alarm, I think we should all be very concerned. 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 reexamining 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. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast hell and gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of

messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her and it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about

what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad.

It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Add free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. So 60 Minutes did a fantastic piece on Sunday breaking down what they were able to figure out about the men who were sent under the Alien Enemies Act

to that notorious prison in El Salvador. We can put this up on the screen. So the government has not released the names of these individuals, these 238 migrants who were sent to this Salvadoran mega prison, but they were able to get their hands on some leaked government documents and dug into their purported criminal records. And what they found, because remember, we were told these are gang members, these are the worst of the worst, et cetera. What they actually found is that for 75 percent of these Venezuelans, they had no criminal record whatsoever. There were about 13 percent that they were not able to determine.

And for the remaining 22 percent, they did have criminal records, the vast majority for things like theft, shoplifting and trespassing. At the same time, we can put these images up on the screen. They delved in particular into the case of Andri. He is the gay makeup artist who was legally applying for asylum and was accused by the government of being a gang member based on his tattoos. They spoke to his lawyer. They also were able to track down these horrific pictures of him being sentenced into this prison from which, you know, no one can communicate with him. He may be here now for life. And they also went back through his social media postings and found absolutely no indication of gang involvement whatsoever. So at the same time, the Supreme Court has issued a significant victory

for the Trump administration with regards to these deportations to El Salvador. You can put this tear sheet up on the screen. They're lifting the temporary restraining order on Trump's removals under the Alien Enemies Act. However, this was a five to four decision. There were important dissents. What this means going forward, both for people here and for those who have already been sent to this prison, is a little bit complex. So we wanted to bring in some legal backup here. Let's go ahead and bring in Pisco. He's a YouTuber, but more importantly for our purposes, he's a lawyer, he's a litigator,

and has done pro bono work in immigration. I've really been relying on him for his analysis of the legal challenges here. Great to have you, Pisco. Appreciate it. Thank you so much, Crystal. Yeah, of course. So let's just start with the most basic question. Was this a true win for the administration? It was a true win for the administration. There is a core unanimous holding here that is generally good, but it's kind of something that most people think take for granted, which is that people who are going to be deported have access to basic procedural due process. And so a unanimous Supreme Court 9-0 held that the Trump administration was

violating people's procedural due process rights, or at the very least, they're entitled to notice an opportunity to be heard before they're sent off to this gulag in El Salvador. But at the end of the day, the temporary restraining order, which was protecting a lot of these migrants, were in fact vacated by the Supreme Court. And that's a huge win for the Trump administration for reasons that we can get into. So can you explain the upholding of due process? As I understand it, it is a different way that they can apply for scrutiny. There was, what was it, the Administrative Procedures Act, and instead they rule the Supreme Court says that there must be an access to a habeas corpus, but in the jurisdiction of where they're being held. So just translate the things that I just said into something a normal person can understand.

So what they said was the exclusive remedy for individuals who are labeled alien enemies under the Alien Enemies Act is to go through a habeas petition. And habeas corpus is Latin for produce the body. And it essentially, it's a specific kind of old writ that has traditionally been used in these kinds of cases where people will be allowed to challenge whether they in fact are alien enemies. And the court actually said maybe even suggesting they could challenge the proclamation as a whole and contrast that to the Administrative Procedures Act, which is what some of these, a remedy for a lot of these sort of agency type actions trying to

strike down large agency action. And under that procedure, they could apply kind of on the general policy as opposed to an individual petition to sort of attack broad policy that the petitioners think is unlawful. And in that situation, you could file in in D.C. The ultimate effect of this is you're going to be funneled into all of these pro-Trump courts in Texas and Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit where they're a lot less willing to give these detainees the time of day than in D.C. or New York. Okay. So let's talk a little bit more about this because I think this piece is really important

because on the one hand you go, okay, well, they said the Trump administration can restart these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. On the other hand, all nine justices said, what you've been doing is illegal because the administration's position was no due process whatsoever. Stephen Miller's been very vocal about this, Kristi Noem, et cetera. No due process. Supreme Court is saying unanimously that is not correct. You have to offer what they describe as quote unquote reasonable notice and opportunity to file habeas corpus lawsuits in the jurisdictions where they are being held. Can you talk to us on like a real world practical basis what this will actually

mean for immigrants who are being threatened with deportation to prison under the Alien Enemies Act, especially because, you know, the definition of, quote, unquote, reasonable notice, it's not like they say you have to give them a week. You have to give them even 24 hours. They're leaving it up to the administration to define what, in their view, is, quote, unquote, reasonable notice. Yeah, you totally hit the nail on the head. Like, on the formalism of it, it totally makes sense, right, that this would be a great holding, right? They're holding that you have procedural due process rights, you have a notice to be heard, an opportunity to be heard, and you have the right to notice, which by the

way, the Trump administration was in court arguing that we don't even need to tell their lawyers where they are. So on that basic premise, you would think, wow, it's a great holding. The problem is we're living in the real world. And the reality of the situation is the Trump administration is already running the government on emergency basis. You can see this with the tariff situation where they're declaring fake emergencies and they're to invoke this limited kind of tariff authority to have these broad standing tariffs. And the same thing is true in respect to immigration, that you can't rely on this administration to be good faith about this situation and actually give them their habeas petitions that they seem to admit that they're

owed, right? One of the lines that the majority of the per curiam decision relies on is the notion that the Trump administration admits that these people are allowed to have habeas petitions. But that right is meaningless if you're throwing them onto a plane and kicking them out of the country before they have a chance to hire a lawyer or talk to their family. Most of these people probably don't have access to lawyers. Most of the people who are actually deported unlawfully now that we know from the Supreme Court didn't have an opportunity to have a real chance to file a petition.

The problem is, of course, is the government's interpretation and the Trump administration being bad faith, and they're going to interpret reasonable to mean, who knows, a day, 30 minutes. This administration is willing to do whatever it takes to get their agenda done. And you saw as soon as the decision came down, Stephen Miller is saying, we're starting the planes right now. We're going to deport them right away. And so that's the big problem is that we live in the real world. And in the real world, all of these cases are going to go to Texas in the Fifth Circuit where they're not going to be as sympathetic. And we have an administration who's not going to be inclined to give them their actual due process rights.

And right now there is no order directing them not to do so. It's just like the general opinion of the court that they're not supposed to violate. What is the practical meaning of reasonable time? Like let's say compared to a criminal justice proceeding or a normal deportation hearing. When you say what the practical meaning is. Like obviously that's a term that is being said to the government. I assume they can interpret it to some sort of standard. What does it normally look like?

Yeah, so it's like in the law, if you've ever seen that picture of Atlas holding up the world and underneath it, it's like the word reasonable. And so I can't define in strict contours what the exact amount of time is. In a typical case to respond to a complaint, it's a matter of weeks, two, three weeks, a month to respond to a civil complaint or something like that, sometimes a bit longer. And so I think that if you were to give these individuals some weeks, maybe a month to respond, I think that would be reasonable given the other kinds of general litigation practices that we have given the other kinds of general litigation practices that we have and the other kind of time limits. But again, you know, is there a strict legal holding about what reasonable means in the context of removal proceedings? The government also has

access to expedited removal procedures in the context of the Immigration Nationality Act, where there's not much time at all and there's not much procedure other than, you know, hearing before an immigration judge. And so it's a good question and one that we need to contend with now that that's the words of the Supreme Court that the administration is left to interpret. What does this mean for the people who already were wrongly sent to El Salvador with no due process? I mean, I just covered the 60 Minutes fantastic piece that they did, you know, uncovering this government document listing, OK, here's who we they actually sent indefinitely into this notorious mega prison, 75 percent of whom zero criminal record. The administration themselves has already admitted that at least one was done in complete error. So what is is there any recourse for these individuals who have already been sent

and, you know, illegally sent at this point, according to this, what the Supreme Court had to say to this prison? It's a great point, Crystal. This, and the dissent brings this up. You should think of this opinion as dovetailing with what's happening to Mr. Abrego Garcia in the case of the individual. He's El Salvadorian. He was granted withholding of removal and the administration accepts that it was illegal to deport this individual to El Salvador, to SICOT. And you're asking what can now be done for these individuals who are already deported illegally, right? Because they weren't given their day in court as the Supreme Court has now recognized. And the answer is, this does not resolve that question.

There's another petition that's going to be before the Supreme Court asking the uncomfortable question, which is, once you are in the hands of a foreign government, can the court order the U.S. government to bring you back? And there are complications. I want to give you sort of the example of the Trump administration. Well, and let me put, while you're talking, just guys through five, five, I believe, up on the screen, which refers to the recent Supreme Court movement here with regard to this particular case where they've now temporarily blocked the order requiring an immediate return of this wrongly deported migrant. But they haven't made an actual decision on on the merits here. So the Supreme Court issued an administrative stay. You shouldn't read too much into that

decision. It's not a merit stay, which means there's no indication from where the court's going to lie ultimately on this decision. But it's important to think about this issue because it's a thorny issue. On the one hand, think of the government's perspective. Imagine that there were an order from a U.S. court that said some of the effect of, hey, you illegally sent someone over to Gaza, and now that U.S. citizen is a hostage, let's say, we're ordering you to bring him back. You can imagine how that might seem like an unwarranted intrusion into the executive prerogative to negotiate with Gaza. Or if it were, think about Brittany Griner in the hands of the Russian Federation, suppose that the government is alleged to do something illegal that brought

about that situation. And a district court somewhere just orders the United States to bring them back out of Russian detention. That could seem like a crazy standard to allow all these courts to intrude into the executive prerogatives. So you have to understand the government's perspective there. But the difference here, and what I think is the right outcome and why the Fourth Circuit did not get rid of this district court order to bring Mr. Arbego Garcia back is this is not like those situations. This is very much like a contracting relationship. The U.S. government is hiring the El Salvadorian president to essentially operate immigration detention on the U.S. government's behalf. And based on their statements and the fact that the U.S. government is not willing to say that

they can't bring him back, it seems obvious who's in control here, who has the power here, and that the U.S. government, if they wanted to, could absolutely bring Mr. Arbego Garcia back. And it's shocking that they have admitted that he is illegally removed to El Salvador, but they haven't even tried to bring him back at all or even state that they couldn't. They're just saying that we don't have to and we don't have to listen to any court that says we do. What about on the merits of the Alien Enemies Act yourself? You said that they had not ruled on that and that these future people could be able to challenge that. What does the landscape look like with respect to that as a result of this court decision?

As Crystal laid out, a lot of these people have really good factual cases for not in fact being alien enemies. The proclamation declaring the alien or invoking the Alien Enemies Act said that you had to be a member of Tren de Aragua. The president actually limited the scope of what the proclamation could be if he wanted to. And if it were a valid invocation, he could target every single event as well, including green card holders. But he limited himself to Tren de Aragua members. And so a lot of these individuals will have good factual cases to challenge whether or not they're in fact alien enemies. There's an additional legal question, which is, is this even a valid invocation of the Alien Enemies Act at all? Which is, can you consider Tren de Aragua a foreign country? Or if they're not a foreign country, are they actually in cahoots with the Venezuelan

government? Because you need that link to a foreign government. And then the additional question of, are they invading the United States? Or are they threatening to invade the United States? Or are they having a physical incursion into the United States? And so there are two kind of substantive merits legal questions, which are the fundamentals of the proclamation itself related to whether this is all fake. And obviously it's all fake. There is no actual physical invasion into the territory of the United States by Tenerawa.

And then there's the related question of are the people actually designated, assuming the proclamation is valid, actually alien enemies? And sort of the reporting that Crystal pointed to, it seems that many of them are not. You know, there's someone with a, they were just picked up because of their tattoo, someone with a tattoo for their autistic brother, someone with a tattoo, you know, who's a gay barber, who obviously is not a member of the Ndrawa

by all reporting. And so those are merits determinations that are now gonna be made much harder because they have to be individualized. There's not kind of a broad class action challenge. And so they've made it more difficult, but hopefully- So even that determination on whether or not the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act itself, that has to start on an individual basis with these habeas petitions? Is that what I'm hearing you to say? So if a court, like an appellate court, held that the invocation or proclamation was invalid, people, and it had like direct appellate overview of whatever court system they were,

most like the Fifth Circuit, it would have precedential effect. And the effect would be that more courts would deny the validity of the proclamation. One of the problems with doing all these individualized petitions is you could start to see divergent case law or something like that. So the end result might be that this might all be funneled into one on the actual proclamation itself. Gotcha. But it would have to start there. It couldn't start with this like kind of, you know, large case. Gotcha. And my last question for you is, Pisco, I watched some of your stream last night, which was very helpful, by the way.

And everybody should go subscribe to Pisco's Hour, which I've really been enjoying. Glad to see your growth over there. But you mentioned that you thought Roberts might be kind of playing politics here, like thinking, OK, I'm going to give the administration some W's here. So maybe I build some credibility. So later on, if we have to give them some L's, that'll have more, you know, purchase because we gave them things that they wanted earlier on. I've also been thinking about the fact, I mean, this is an administration that is at least playing without right defiance of court orders. And so if you're the chief justice of the Supreme Court, you want your institution still to matter. So maybe you're thinking about like, I really should go along with as much as I can so that I don't end up in a situation where he does blatantly defy a court order. And then all

of our purported power is just done. It's over. So what are you thinking? What is your analysis in that regard? And one last note, which I also thought was interesting, conservatives were very upset about the fact Amy Coney Barrett actually joined the liberals on the dissent, which was also, you know, noteworthy here. And also there was a lot of gender dynamics that play there since you had all the women on one side and all the men on the other side. But in any case, if you could lay out your analysis of what you think might be going on with some of the John Roberts politics here. Yeah, I get that impression because, first of all, there's inside reporting that Roberts is concerned about the legitimacy of the court. And so there's direct reporting talking about that's his state of mind. He released that statement about Judge Boasberg, who issued the opinion, the district court. And that how do you interpret that other than sort of a signaling political act? And so the fact that he's saying, hey, we shouldn't impeach this judge, the proper course to complain

about overreach by the court and about whether or not you're defining orders is to repeal. And by the way, the defying orders portion of this is, you know, very much still at play just because the order was ultimately deemed invalid because there was no jurisdiction doesn't mean that you still don't have an obligation to follow that order. But that – it was inherently sort of a political signaling act to defend the legitimacy of the court. And so I see Judge Roberts as very much concerned about that based on reporting, based upon his statements, and based upon these decisions. And the same thing with Trump versus the United States where they're always trying to split the baby, have a kind of middle ground approach, which is not giving a full win to Trump. And where the opinion seems completely untailor to precedent and completely like preposterous in view of the actual real world. Think about the Trump versus United States case where he's really putting blinders on and not realizing that justice delayed, you know, is justice denied with respect to what happened in the January 6th cases.

So that seems to be his approach from what I can gather and my intuition about it. And based on the reporting that we're that we're seeing. And I think it's a dangerous game because these Trump sycophants, the administration officials are not going to be loyal to you or not going to respect you anymore just because you've issued a couple of middle ground decisions. And I think it's one that he's walking. It's also one of the reasons why I think you couldn't you shouldn't read into too much of the administrative stay into the Mr. Arbrego-Garcia case, because in that situation, I feel like one of the reasons why he might issue an administrative

stay is to if you were going to rule on the right side, in my opinion, you know, trying to get Mr. Arbrego-Gar Garcia back would be to gather a consensus to actually have an opinion. If there's going to have to be a standoff between the courts and the president, have it be with the Supreme Court as opposed to the Fourth Circuit. And so I very much see him in the game of trying to protect the legitimacy of the court and the institution. But I just think that he's off the mark. I do have one last, sorry, legal question for you, Pisco. There was a question of whether or not the administration did defy court orders with regard to, you know, the judge had said, even if you have to turn the planes around, this cannot go forward. They did not turn the planes around.

They say the planes were gone, so we couldn't do anything or we didn't want to do anything. We didn't have to do anything. And there were hearings continuing to determine whether they should be held in contempt for defiance of those orders. Does this wipe that out? Is that still ongoing? Like, where do we go from here? Yeah, no, you're supposed to follow court orders, even if ultimately it's determined that the court was not right in the initial instance to issue the order.

And that's very much, by the way, true. The holding of this court is that Boasberg did not have the jurisdiction, did not have the right venue to issue these orders. But that doesn't mean that you're not still obligated to follow that order. And so this does not eliminate the contempt proceedings and the hearings that are occurring before Boesberg about whether or not, in fact, they violated the order. To me, it's completely obvious that they violated the order. I mean, they're all but bragging about it.

And if you look at the timeline about when the order was given, it was an oral order, but there's nothing less binding about an oral order. They're completely aware about the existence of the order. Boasberg is like talking and asking who even up to like individual lawyers was aware of what's going on. And so he's doing some fact finding there, but they knew about it. They knew they were supposed to turn the planes around. And it's preposterous, the notion that courts could not order a plane to turn around if it had, for example, U.S. citizens on board and

they were trying to abscond illegally, which is also one of the reasons why all these decisions are very problematic is because they apply at their maximal also to U.S. citizens, that they couldn't give that order. The order wasn't valid. And at this point, they're not even trying to hide their defiance. They're invoking the state secret doctrine when they're blatantly like posting the times of when it landed and where the president of El Salvador is like memeing over the orders and flouting them. And so to me, there's no question really about the defiance and the dissent all but accuses them of flagrant disrespect for the rule of law and the judge's order. Will we see a resolution of that at the court, or is that a Boasberg contempt? Would it stay within his jurisdiction? It could definitely be appealable, and I expect this administration appeals everything, and so I would always expect them to

appeal it. They're supposed to give deference to the factual findings of the lower court. That's one of the principles here, but they're also not supposed to appeal TROs and there's not supposed to be jurisdiction to the Supreme Court or for any appellate court to hear a kind of disagreement on a TRO. But there's always seems to be special rules when the president's involved, special rules when Trump is involved. And so I don't know if they're going to pay deference to Judge Boasberg's findings. And I very much expect them to appeal the order and for them to say that it's invalid if he finds, for example, that they violated the court order

to say that that finding is not applicable as to the president. I don't think the president himself is involved, but as to the other officials. And so, yeah, I don't think it'll be finally resolved in the district court, even though they're supposed to pay deference to those factual findings.

I didn't know that. All right, well, this has been very illuminating. Thank you so much for taking some time to break these issues down for us. Peace go. Great to see you. Thanks, man. Thanks so much, guys. Yeah, pleasure.

Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate it. Great CounterPoint show for everybody tomorrow. We will see you all later. What up, y'all? This your main man, Memphis Bleak, right here. Host of Rock Solid Podcast. June is Black Music Month. So what better way to celebrate than listening to my exclusive conversation with my bro, Ja Rule.

The one thing that can't stop you or take away from you is knowledge. So whatever I went through while I was down in prison for two years, through that process, learn. Learn from me. Check out this exclusive episode with Ja Rule on Rock Solid. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search

Rock Solid, and listen now. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott.

And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We met them at their homes. We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios. Stories matter

and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.