The Adam Mockler Show - Trump PANICS as he NUKES HIS OWN TERM!

Episode Date: May 23, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO KATIE 👉  @katiephangnews  Adam Mockler with MeidasTouch Network breaks with  @katiephangnews  break down how Trump’s own statements nuked his legal case against Harvard, triggering a courtroom disaster, a panic spiral on Truth Social, and one of the dumbest self-owns of his presidency. Join my Substack as a free or paid subscriber: https://www.adammockler.com/subscribe Become a member to support me! https://www.youtube.com/Adammockler/join https://patreon.com/adammockler Adam Mockler Socials: Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdamMockler/ Discord: https://discord.gg/y9yzMU3Gff Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adammockler/ Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/adammockler.bsky.social Twitter: https://x.com/adammocklerr/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/Adammockler Contact me at: [e-mail] Adam Mockler - amock LLC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. All right, you guys are going to want to check this out. Trump and his admin just got smacked in the face by a judge. And I brought on the Midas Touch Network's newest contributor, Katie Fang, who was a brilliant, brilliant lawyer to break this down. I want you guys to drop a like. I want you guys to subscribe, drop some blue hearts, share this video around, and let's jump right in. All right, I am joined today by the wonderful Katie Fang, the newest addition to the Midas Touch Network.

She's got her own channel that she's been launching. You can check it out in the description below. How are you doing today, Katie? I am great, just excited. It's the end of a pretty crazy week. But I feel like every week has been crazy. So it's kind of an evergreen statement I think I can be making to you. Yeah, well, let's hop into something that isn't depressing, which is, well, it is depressing.

I'm joking. It's a Trump administration coming down on not only universities, but law firms, courts, the media, but let's talk today about Harvard, right? Yeah. Because a judge just stopped the Trump admin's ability from banning Harvard from taking international students, just to lay the groundwork a little bit. 27% of Harvard student body is made of international students, they get, they pay their full tuition, which therefore subsidizes the tuition for domestic students and allows us to have a

smarter, a better, a more productive society. So let's talk about the legality of this. Can you explain to me how the Trump admin was clearly taking retaliatory actions when they did this attack against Harvard? Yeah, it's a clear case of retribution. In fact, Harvard University and its lawsuit that it filed this morning said that Trump is on a campaign of retribution, you just have to go back a few weeks when Donald Trump decided that he wanted to get into the university running business, apparently, because he told Harvard, just like he told Columbia and other universities, this is the type of curriculum you have to have. This is the way that you have to run your university. And of course, the universities balked, except Colombia

did bend the knee on this. But Harvard said, no, not going to do it. we are not going to do what you want us to do. And so Harvard ended up getting tagged really hard with federal funding freezes and a range of outrageous investigations that were launched by the administration. So Harvard said, number one, big middle finger, I'm going to sue you. I'm going to sue you for violating my First Amendment rights to be able to say what I want to say, to have the university, have the freedom to run its curriculum, to have its faculty and students to be able to do and say what they need to and want to do and say. So in turn, Trump doubles down and says, okay, on Wednesday, not even Thursday, which is just yesterday, Christy Noam sends a letter to Harvard saying, hey,

because we are trying to force you basically to do what we want you to do, we're now going to revoke your ability to get foreign students, which Adam is, to your point, 27% of the student population, almost 7,000 students that make up the community of Harvard. So you have to have a certain type of status to be able to be a foreign student at Harvard. And they told Harvard, we're taking that away from you. You're not allowed to have that status to be able to have these students. Less than 24 hours later, Harvard sues again the Trump administration. And then within just a few hours, the federal judge assigned to that case in district court in Massachusetts tells the Trump administration, you are now temporarily blocked.

A temporary restraining order has been entered against you. You cannot move forward with the revocation of Harvard's ability to be able to have foreign students. Do you think the Trump admin follows as TRO? Yes. And I've told people you'll know when we truly have the destruction of rule of law, when the lawyers for the administration don't even bother showing up in court. And I say that kind of tongue in cheek, but I mean it seriously. The fact that they're still going to court, the fact that she'll litigate,

these things means that they understand that these orders are entered. The problem we have, Adam, which is, I think, the true constitutional crisis is we've seen the Trump administration kind of play fast and loose with compliance. We've seen them kind of take the position, which is, well, we're kind of going to do it, but not totally. And that's why I said yesterday on one of my YouTube episodes, I was like, look, the judges need to put more teeth and sanctions into what they're ordering, because right now it's kind of like a child. that's pushing its boundaries to see how far it can get away with things until it gets slapped down. And by the way, again, you can check out Katie Fang's YouTube channel in the description below.

Can you explain to me regarding the due process clause? Explain to me like I were a 22-year-old who doesn't have a college degree because I am. That's exactly what I am right now. Explain to me how this violates the due process clause and why I should care. So due process is afforded to all people, not just. citizens, for example, in the immigration case context, not just students that are American students, right? Not just individuals. It also covers businesses and universities, even private universities like Harvard. The ability to be able to be afforded the chance to be a part of a process is due process.

In the context of Harvard, Adam, what this means is if you're going to take away something from Harvard, you have to give Harvard the chance to be able to fight back or challenge the taking away of that. Another very good example is what's happening in the immigration cases. If you're going to designate me as a terrorist or you're going to say that something about my immigration status has to be changed, then you have to give me the due process right to challenge that designation, to challenge what you say I am that merits me being kidnapped off of U.S. soil and shipped off to a country that perhaps is not even my own. In the Harvard, university context, there is a process by which Christy Noem was supposed to follow to be able to get

to the point where a university does not have the chance to have foreign students. Instead of allowing that process to roll out, it just summarily said, you know what, Harvard, you lose. And that is not America. That is not our constitution. And that is why due process takes up space and real estate in this case that Harvard has brought. So they violated the due process, not only of the institution itself, but then have students en masse that are now going to get kicked off of. Yeah, they came to the United States under certain visa and immigration statuses. They paid their way to be there. They have done full freight.

They have done what they're supposed to be doing. And now arbitrarily, just because Trump had his feelings hurt, now they are not going to have the chance to be able to stay because there's a very tight window, Adam, within which, If your status gets changed, you got to either go to another university that will take you that has the ability to take a foreign student or you actually have to go back to where you came from, which is, again, thematically, a Trump administration specialty. Go back to where you came from. If I had a dime for all the times people have said that to me just as a person, but in this instance, that's exactly what's happening. They're forcing foreign students to go, which think about how. we as Americans get cheated when that happens, all of these brilliant young minds that come to the United States that want to learn at some of these universities, some of which are the top-notch ones in the world, a lot of them will stay and they'll become contributing parts of building a better infrastructure for our country. Now it's like, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

and it's just cruel, but it's also illegal and unconstitutional. Yeah, even beyond the legality of it, brain drain is part of what makes America great, draining the smartest people from other countries. They come here and they're able to contribute to our research and development of technology and medicine. It's really a beautiful thing. And the Trump admin is now sending the message that, you know, it's funny because they used to say, we just want people to come here legally. We just want people to come here through the proper channels. Then they remove the ability to come to the proper channels. And people who are here legally and studying are then told, like you said, to go back to where they came from. It's starting to seem like the Trump admin just kind of wants white

refugees and white immigrants. If you look at some of the rhetoric, don't even get me started. Don't even get me started with the South Afrikaners that were given a red carpet rollout arrival. I said in a substack that I did, I was like, since when do refugees get federal and state officials that welcomed that at an airport with American flags and sips of fruity drinks to be able to say, welcome to the U.S. That shit doesn't happen. But I'm so glad that you bring this up? Because one, it's a reverse brain drain, right? It's smart kids that come from other countries that should stay here and be a part of our fabric of the United States. They're forced to leave or they're like, peace out. I'm not going to stay here under the threat of me not being able

to get my education. And the second point you make is this, which is, you know, we, from an immigration standpoint, like, we have given, we have told people, Adam, come here. This is the process by which to seek asylum. This is the process by which you are also giving temporary protected staff. status, right? We have now told people that are here legally. I'm talking documented, right? We've told them, psych, you don't get your TPS status anymore. You have to leave. I mean, it encompasses everybody, which is why I've also talked about habeas corpus on my YouTube channel and other places. Habeas corpus, this idea that you can challenge a wrongful detention, and that's guaranteed to you under the Constitution. It doesn't say that it's only guaranteed to

United States citizens. It's guaranteed to all people if you're here, right, in the United States. And that is why we all are going back to law school. I jokingly say we're all getting a law school education again because who would have ever thought that law and politics would be inextricably intertwined the way that they are right now? We're all going back to law school except for Christy Nome. Christy Nome is not going back to law school. She does not know what habeas corpus or habeas petition is. She's letting, wait, wait, cosplay Christy. she's letting Alina Haba cosplay being a lawyer. That's what's happening with the cosplay.

Interesting. See, I've had to learn over the past few months a lot about constitutional law. I'm now very familiar with the fifth and the 14th Amendment. They're a due process. And they say, like you said, all persons. And that's been upheld multiple times by the Supreme Court. I even read the four paid Supreme Court ruling when it came out. And I found it incredibly interesting because I had a debate going.

I had a debate for this channel named Jubilee, where they do these big debates. Yeah, yeah. It was really fun. We debated Kilmar, Armando, Abrago-Garcia. That part wasn't as fun. It was pretty serious, actually. And we talked about due process.

I talked about how when you create a new class of people with no due process, you can essentially endlessly justify putting anybody into that new class because they never get the chance to defend themselves or to say that. So I guess just to switch topics really quickly over to due process, how would you describe, okay, say you're debating a Trump supporter and they say that Abrago Garcia was here illegally in the first place. What's your response? So? They say he was illegal. They should have been deported. Okay. So what? I mean, that's my answer. As in, so he's here illegally? It doesn't mean that you can summarily deport his ass. There's a reason why due process affords him the right to challenge his

deportation. There are plenty of people that have crossed our board. orders in a way that hasn't been sanctioned. Okay. Now, I'm going to start with the baseline statement, which I don't think should be a controversial hot take. If you come to the United States, legally, and you're going to come here and commit crimes, I have a problem, period. Nobody, and this is what makes me so mad about the narrative, because I feel like the far right especially has kind of co-opted this concept, which is so stupid. Nobody wants to live in a country where they're living in fear because they're going to be violently harmed because of a bad person. It's not immigrants only that are committing crimes people. It's also United States citizens. Trust me,

I was a prosecutor for almost half my career. I would know. Okay. So if you come here illegally and you are now deemed to be subject to deportation, there's a process by which your ability to challenge that deportation is supposed to take place. That is the reason why, the Supreme Court said in a nine zero insane nine zero opinion they said you have to give people reasonable notice and the opportunity to be heard and that is due process why is that such an offensive concept to maga or the republicans wouldn't you want to be able to have that and please don't sit there and tell me that well because as a republican i never would be doing anything illegal get the fuck out of here like that is not the case and i love when i look at these stories like

I voted for Trump, but I didn't realize he was going to come and deport me or anybody else, which, by the way, you shouldn't be voting for Trump anyway or anybody if you're not a citizen. But anyway, the point is you have a process, Adam, and the process exists for a reason. And if at the end of the process, if it's lawfully done, it is deemed that you are not supposed to be here anymore, then you go. But you're not put on a plane in the middle of the night in defiance of a court order. and sent to Digibouti on the way to South Sudan. You're not sent to Seekot in El Salvador if you're Venezuelan, right? You're not sent to Libya, or they don't try to send you to Libya if you're Lauschen.

Like, these are the things that we don't do. That is not what the Constitution says that they can do. And that's the reason why we see all of these federal judges saying, mm-mm, wrong, try again, not supposed to happen this way. Yeah, and the ironic part is, you pointed this out, is that if the Trump admin would have allowed due process or that notice, it would have actually kind of saved their ass because then they would have seen that he couldn't have been deported to one country, El Salvador, because of the withholding order of removal, that happened under Trump's first administration.

So that's another thing that I brought up. I said, if this dude is such a violent criminal, as you guys claim, why did the first Trump admin, I guess a judge during that, just let him walk around for a few years? It doesn't seem like he's as violent as you guys claim. Well, everything has to be grounded in facts and evidence. I like to say that I traffic in the currency of facts and evidence. Why? Because anybody can make any accusation. I could make a claim. And unless you challenge me, Adam, to have to show and I call it show your work. Show your work. I tell my 10-year-old, show your work, right? When you're solving a problem, show your work. The same thing should apply a hundred thousand times fold if you're going to take away somebody's liberties. If you're going to take Kilmar or Brigo Garcia away from his family in the United States, you better damn well have the evidence to support your allegation that he is a terrorist. And do not tell me that his fucking tattoo is the evidence of him being a terrorist. Could it be evidence in addition to something?

Yes. But in and of itself, it is not sufficient evidence that he is a terrorist that would merit a deportation consequence. So I'm just flabbergasted how it hasn't occurred to people yet that this is an on-brand thing for Trump and the Republicans. When you ask them, and I know you get this Adam, because when you challenge, a Republican or a MAGA to have to justify or prove or have to substantiate their positions, 99% of the time, what do they do? Their default is to go to some ad hominem attack or to sit there and reduce it to a what aboutism or a false equivalency argument. And none of that is real. That's why we have courts of law. That's why we have administrative courts. That's

why we have judicial arenas where you have to comply with rules, procedures, and laws, because in the absence of it, you have anarchy, right? You don't have anything by which you can stake your claim to to be able to live safely and with some stability. And that's why Trump is intentionally trying to weaken these courts by attacking judges like Boseberg, because if he can remove checks on the executive branch, he can that expand his executive power and do whatever he wants. I want to ask you to end this. off, to go a little bit personal, do you miss being a prosecutor? I do. One of the greatest jobs I've ever had in my life.

Were you good at it? What kind of prosecutor were you? Were you assertive? What do you think? Yeah, really? Yeah. Wait, can I tell you? No, no, no, no. All kidding aside. Greatest compliment I was ever paid as a prosecutor was from members of the criminal defense bar, they said that I was the most fair prosecutor that they ever dealt with. And why? Because I still had empathy for the person. I always had empathy for the victim, the next of can't. I mean, I prosecuted death penalty cases, right? Like, I, that's how far I went in my career as a prosecutor. I always had empathy, obviously, for the victim and the families, et cetera. And the community,

by the way, right? Because when I stood up in court, I said, my name is Kathleen Fang and I represent the people of the state of Florida, right? I mean, I was, that's what I did. I was there for the people. But if you came to me, Adam, as a lawyer, and you said, this is my client, Jane, and Jane has been arrested and you're prosecuting this case, and Jane has a drug problem, or Jane has this, or whatever. And depending upon the circumstances of the case, the facts, depending upon if there's a victim or not, et cetera, I might come to you, Adam, and I'd say, so what are you looking for? And if you said to me, Katie, can we put her on probation? Let's put her on probation.

Let's give her a chance. And let's see. And within my discretion, if I was afforded it, depending upon the nature of the case, I'd put your client on probation. I'd probably extend her probation a little bit longer than perhaps what you would ask for. But then I would tell your client, I'd say, Adam, do I have permission to speak to your client directly with you there? And you'd say, yes. And I'd say, Jane, I am going to agree to this deal of probation, but I am warning you. If you violate, I will launch you.

I will launch you if you violate. And it wasn't an empty threat. I had people that came back on probation violations. And if it was willful and intentional, which is what the law required is the standard, then they would get launched. And the reason why I say this is not because I was proud of a threat or a warrant or an admonition. It was we're all human, right?

And so every case has to be looked at on a case by case basis. And I had people whose cases, we gave these second chances and they turned out to be non-violating, great, and they just needed that. And it wasn't because I was some soft-hearted, bleeding-heart, liberal. It was, there still has to be humanity in what we do, right? And that is why being told that I was one of the most fair prosecutors was the biggest compliment. It wasn't a win-loss record. It wasn't a guilty conviction. It was, you saw my client, you saw the facts, and I understood if you could or you could not deviate from something, for me, I thought that that was a really amazing way to approach a job, which is a hard job. You wear that white hat of justice, but I kind of

felt like there's a way to do this the right way, but it was one of the greatest jobs that I've ever had. Well, I think that, I think the Trump admin could learn some lessons from your empathy regarding the law, a lot of lessons, but it's good to hear that you were. They could just learn the law, Adam. They don't even learn the empathy. They just can just learn anything, please, anything. It's nice to see that you were empathetic, assertive. I'd like to do an episode sometime just talking about your experiences, especially as a woman. I'm sure you have a lot of unique experiences of people either telling you you can't do stuff. My mom, we can talk about this later, is an industrial organizational psychologist.

So she helps people in the workplace. And she's got this woman-owned business where she helps train women to be leaders in the workplace. She tells me all these stories from her life, from her personal experiences of being told, like, I don't know, just wildly, sometimes, micro statements that people say so we'll talk about that more katie thank you so much for joining me oh adam thank you for having me and this has been such a great conversation and i would actually learn so much from your mom so you tell your mom that i want to have a conversation with your mom we will definitely chat thank you so much we'll do it again let's do it again this next month absolutely