The Adam Mockler Show - Trump CAUGHT IN THE ACT in this SCARY VIDEO!

Episode Date: July 12, 2025

Adam Mockler with MeidasTouch Network breaks down Donald Trump's insane deportation strategy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, we have some major breaking news, and this is a serious story. A court just ruled that the Trump administration has been racially profiling in an aggressive and reckless way when stopping and detaining individuals. And of course, we know this, we've seen the videos, we've read the stories, but it's a little bit different when it's coming from a federal judge in California who is alleging that Trump admin officials and immigration officials in a top-down way have been conducting roving patrols. That's what they call it.

roving patrols and then stopping people with zero reasonable suspicion just because of their skin color or language or the way that they speak or their presence in a particular neighborhood. It is completely racist. And Trump admin officials have been now defending this on TV. You know, let's just start from the beginning. Before we read the court filing that came out yesterday, and I do want to read just the first few pages because it's very key that we surgically dissect the facts coming out. Before we read this temporary restraining order, watch this clip of Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, saying they can stop people and listen closely because he says, based on their race or their clothing or the way that they look. I've got to get your reaction to this Biden-appointed federal judge out in Los Angeles apparently expected today to issue a temporary restraining order halting your lawful operation. She says, I think it's important for the court not to burden otherwise law enforcement activities, your reaction there.

Look, if people need to understand, ICE officers and Border Patrol, they don't need probable calls to walk up somebody briefly detainment and question them. They just need this. So to tally the circumstances, right? They just got through the observation, you know, get articulable facts based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions. Like a uniform board station walks up to them at, for instance, a Home Depot. Okay. So what he's saying here is false, but he's wrapping it in the veil of truth. Yes, it is true that you don't need probable cause, but you do need reasonable suspicion, which he doesn't say there. Reasonable suspicion cannot be found solely based off of someone's race or just somebody's clothing or tattoos. We found this out in New York. Do you guys remember when Stop and Frisk Laws were a massive, massive thing in New York, the stop in Frisk Laws,

had to be shut down because they were used to racially profile people and disproportionately target, I don't know, black or minority communities. And we're seeing the same thing here. They go into majority of Latino communities in California, and they racially profile people. Not just once. It's not an isolated incident. It's happened time and time again, and this has been happening in the U.S. for years. Again, you can look at stop and frisk.

Now, the court found that this violated the Fourth Amendment, and I want to explain exactly why. This reads, on June 6th, 2025, federal law enforcement officials arrived in Los Angeles to participate in what federal officials have described as the largest mass deportation operation in history. The individuals and organizations who have brought this lawsuit argued that this operation had two key features, both of which were unconstitutional. One, roving patrols, indiscriminately rounding up numerous individuals without reasonable suspicion. That's the key word, reasonable suspicion. and having done so, denying these individuals access to lawyers who could help navigate the legal process they found themselves in. I mean, dude, you want to talk about roving gangs or roving patrol. Look at this clip of ICE raiding suburbia in West Jordan, and the people inside the house are just an utter disbelief.

They're cussing up a storm like, what are we watching right now? Jesus, what the fuck is happening? This is ice walking down my street. There's got to be 50 of them. What the fuck? is going on here. Someone on Twitter went viral saying classic fascist regime blunder. You're not supposed to let the middle class suburbanites witness the horrors so close.

This got 50,000 likes. And yeah, I mean, during World War II, when things were ramping up, the Nazis would tell the neighboring towns they were just doing shooting drills in the forest. They were just doing shooting drills. And then they would secretly be, obviously, murdering Jewish people en masse, like despicable scum. but to continue with this court ruling, because this is actually really interesting. So let me just back up for one second.

There are two unconstitutional pieces, and Donald Trump's approval rating on immigration right now is effing terrible. It's lower than any president has been. It's negative 27 right now, which kind of just shows that we are right. Here's the position that I firmly believe the average American wants a politician to hold. That if somebody is here in a legal manner committing a slew of crimes, they should go to court. court, they should get due process and access to lawyers. And if they're here for four years and have only like drunk driven and beaten somebody, then yeah, you can deport them. But on the other hand, there are so many farm workers, mothers, children, people who came here for a better life

that deserve to be here. And we should not be including these people in the quote unquote mass deportation that Trump is trying to enact. I promise you, the average American agrees with that. You can look at the polling. You can look at the interviews. You can look at what people are saying now, people thought Trump was going to do a deportation of criminals. That's kind of what he was implying during the campaign trail, but they didn't realize that in Trump's mind, anybody who's brown is a criminal. In Stephen Miller's mind, being here legally is a crime enough to send you to El Salvador. The average American doesn't agree with that.

They have a radical take. So what we need to do is make sure that we are pointing out a few things. Beyond like the Epstein list, that's an easy dunk. We can talk about the Epstein list all day. But beyond that, Trump's approval rating on immigration is negative 27%. He is way underwater, and it's solely because he overreached so damn far. And now ICE's budget will be increasing by 360% over the next few years. They'll be doing more deportations, deporting people that are mothers, people working at nail salons, or home depots,

or they camp out at courthouses and wait for, like, moms to go for their court date. Then when the mom shows up, they detain and arrest and deport her out of the country. It's effing sick. And I want to continue reading this. But I think it's important to point out that Trump's immigration policy is not popular. We have the popular position. So just say the popular position. Say, listen, if there's a terrible gang member here illegally, we can deport them.

But that's not what Trump's doing, y'all. Trump is not doing that. So to continue right here, roving patrols without reasonable suspicion, violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, and denying access to lawyers violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Those are two constitutional breaches. What the federal government would have this court believe, in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case, is that none of this is actually happening. Most of the questions before this court are fairly simple and non-controversial,

and both sides in this case agree on the answers. For example, may the federal government conduct immigration enforcement, even large-scale immigration enforcement in Los Angeles? Yes, it may. not even our, yeah, that's not even our problem with it. You can conduct immigration enforcement. No liberal has ever said you can't conduct immigration enforcement. But to continue, do all individuals, regardless of immigration status, share in the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution? Yes, they do. In the same vein that everyone should agree,

immigration enforcement is fine, is something that happens in this country. Can we all also agree that the Constitution should be respected and that the Fourth and the Fifth Amendment should be respected. We should all be able to agree, but Republicans can't. And then, is it illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based on race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status? Yes, it is. It is illegal to have a roving gang polling people based on race. Is it unlawful to prevent people from having access to lawyers who can help them in the immigration court? Yes, it is. Do you want to know what Republicans do here?

I have been in a bunch of Republican debates over the past year, and I'm really starting to pick up their chain of logic here. So I just read off these four bullet points. In Republicans' minds, they think that all Democrats don't believe in the first bullet point, therefore they can violate the other bullet points. So when I'm debating a Republican, they say, listen, Joe Biden loves having criminals in this country, and Joe Biden loves gang members here legally, therefore Donald Trump has to take it a little bit too far and break the law in the opposite direction. When their entire, like, foundation for the argument is false, they are presupposing that any Democrat would be okay with having criminal gang members when that's not the case.

So that's why I'm always very clear off the bat, hey, listen, I am not okay with a criminal gang member being here, but now that I've said that, can you, MAGA, agree that when we do these deportations, or when we do immigration enforcement, we're doing it in a legal manner. So that's basically how Republicans twist themselves into pretzels. There are really two questions in controversy that this court must decide today. First, are the individuals and organizations who brought this lawsuit likely to succeed in proving that the federal government is indeed conducting roving patrols without reasonable

suspicion? Let me just go back to this video that we saw. I don't know. Are there roving patrols walking around? I mean, here's the thing. Roving patrols and themselves are not the illegal part is the fact that they are detaining people based on race. Second, what should be done about it? The individuals and organizations who have brought this lawsuit have made a fairly modest request that this court ordered the federal government to stop. For the reasons stated below, the court grants their request. And I don't want to go through like the full entire lawsuit, but the court says, listen, we are going to file a temporary restraining order saying that one party, the federal government,

government has to stop these actions until we can figure out what the hell you're doing. And I'm going to leave it there. If you appreciate these videos, if you appreciate these actual legal breakdowns going into the polling, the statistics, how we communicate about these things, then subscribe to the Adam Mockler channel below. I love you all. I'll see in the next video. Peace out.