The Young Turks - Free Speech Hypocrites

Episode Date: March 13, 2025

Tom Homan and Marco Rubio Defend Arrest of Columbia Graduate Student. Watch: CNBC Anchors Freak Out Over Trump’s Tariff Whirlwind. U.S. & Ukraine Agree To Ceasefire Deal, Await Russia’s Response. Ben Shapiro Slams Tucker Carlson’s Take On The Fall Of Assad. Huge Cali Battery Plant Fire Leads To Illness Among Residents. Hosts: Ana Kasparian SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER ☞ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH ☞ https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Condoms for Hamas.

Hot dog is my favorite meat. needed, let's go! Welcome, welcome. Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, reporting live from my bunker here in Los Angeles County. Really excited to share the stories that we've prepared for you today, spent our whole day preparing for you today. We're going to give you an update on the ceasefire negotiations between the United States, Ukraine and Russia. There's actually some good news on that front. So I'm really excited to share that good news with you. We're also going to going to give you an update on Mahmoud Khalil, who of course is the Palestinian graduate student from Columbia who was arrested. We have a little more clarity as to the rationale the federal government under Trump is giving for violating this man's freedom of speech and potentially revoking his green card. In the second hour, John Iderola will be joining us to talk about a whole host of topics, including some stories having to do with, well, basically, Eric Adams

thinking that there's a little too much concern about Khalil and the unfairness of potentially revoking his green card, not enough attention being paid to poor, poor Mayor Adams, who he feels, you know, he feels that he's being unfairly prosecuted after taking foreign bribes, allegedly. So we'll get to that too. That story's insane. But before we get to that, just want to encourage you all to like and show the stream if you're watching us live on YouTube. You can also become a member and support us financially to keep us independent from corporate interests. We like being obligated to serve you as opposed to advertisers. So t.t.com slash join to become a member. All right. Well, without further ado, let's get into what's currently happening with tariffs. and our relationship with Canada. I think that the president is competitive versus other countries. And he could very quickly say, look, you know, he's distinguished himself as not caring about the stock market.

Well, how about their stock markets? They're crushing us. Are we really going to let the Italian stock market beat us? Is Spain going to Spain? Spain? I mean, you kidding me? I'm going to say this at risk of my job, Kelly. But what President Trump is doing is insane.

It is absolutely insane. It is about the eighth reason we've had for the tariffs. And now he's saying he's putting 50% tariffs on Canada unless they agree to become the 51st state. That is insane. There is just no other way of describing it. Well, as you can see, CNBC anchors, Steve Leisman, and Jim Kramer are absolutely losing their minds over what's currently transpiring with the stock markets as a result of Donald Trump's tariffs. His turbulent treatment of tariffs, you know, on any given day, you don't know what the tariffs are going to be. And much of the discussion, of course, has been focused on the

relationship between the United States and its northern neighbor Canada, which Trump had threatened with additional tariffs before kind of backing off. Now, let's talk a little bit about what you heard in the video you just watched. Did Trump really threaten Canada with 50% tariffs unless our northern neighbor becomes the 51st state in our union. Well, kind of. So let's get specific here. Let's break this down. So later I can tell you what's really going on with Trump's tariffs and how they could actually be negatively impacting his approval rating and his poll numbers. So Leesman or Leisman, I should say, seems to be referencing a post from Donald Trump on truth social. Here's what it's.

says, based on Ontario, Canada, placing a 25% tariff on electricity, I don't know why electricity is in quotation marks, it's weird, but nonetheless, coming into the United States, I have instructed my Secretary of Commerce to add an additional 25% tariff to 50% on all steel and aluminum coming into the United States from Canada. One of the highest tariffing nations anywhere in the world, this will go into effect tomorrow morning, March 12th. Well, it's March I want to give you the second half of his statement or his post on truth social where he says that the only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished 51st state, this would make all tariffs and everything else totally disappear. Okay, the American people

are not interested in forcing pressuring or going to war with Canada to make Canada our 51st state. I get that Trump is trolling Canada. Canadians don't appreciate it. I appreciate it. I'm honestly annoyed by it. I want to stop having a conversation about something that's not actually going to be pursued, something that's not going to happen. But the trade war is very much real. And as I've said a million times on the show before, I'm actually a lot more open-minded to the idea of tariffs than most people on the left are.

I'm more old school in my left-wing thinking back in the day not too long ago, before the Trump era, Democrats were in favor of tariffs as opposed to free trade. But anyway, obviously things are topsy-turvy right now. And more importantly, the way that Trump is doing this does lead to some cause for concern, right? So leaseman is half right, half wrong. So Trump did say that if Canada joined the union, all tariffs would cease to exist, because obviously Canada would be part of the United States, but that's not going to happen. But the 50% tariff, for steel and aluminum specifically, that's actually not going to happen. Why? Well, because Trump is actually backed off these claims. Now, Trump didn't say that Canadian statehood was the only way

for the tariffs to end or to be reduced. In fact, he's already, you know, retracted that additional 25% tariff that would have made the tariffs on steel and aluminum in Canada, or coming in from Canada, 50%, which is obviously insanely high. And the reason why Trump back, off is because Ontario suspended their 25% tariff on electricity that Trump mentioned, right? So the electricity that we would be, or the energy that we would be importing from Canada will not be struck with that 25% tariff. So what is, I'm sorry, energy that we're sending to Canada will not have that 25% tariff. But what is going into effect is that 25% tariff that Trump has imposed on all global

imports. This isn't just about Canada. All global imports on steel and aluminum. And if this all sounds confusing to you guys, I don't blame you. It changes every day. So it's really hard to keep track. I'm doing my best here and kind of giving you the latest. Now, Trump's trade advisor, Peter Navarro, said that the rapid escalation and de-escalation was a result of cooler heads prevailing. He says cooler heads prevailed. Now Canada does plan to retaliate against that 20, 25% tariff that the U.S. has imposed by announcing the implementation of their own 25% tariffs on steel, aluminum, computers, sports equipment, and cast iron products. The EU additionally is planning to implement their own retaliatory tariffs against U.S. imports into their countries.

And by the way, that will specifically impact tariffs on steel and aluminum. And their tariffs will apply to $20 billion worth of U.S. imports, such as boats, motorbikes, and alcohol. Seems like we export a lot of alcohol here in the United States. We're number one. Now, the tariffs will take effect in April, meaning the EU tariffs on U.S. goods will take place in April. And if you're wondering, well, why not right now, it's probably because they're hoping that through negotiations, they can avoid this entire mess overall. And as we've already shown you, Trump's trade policy is throwing CNBC anchors for a loop. But how do the American people specifically feel about it? Because I'm less concerned about CNBC anchors or any anchors, to be quite frank. I'm worried about the American people because there is going to be pain. Trump himself is admitted that there is going to be pain. Trump himself told Maria Bartaromo that he cannot rule out a possible recession. So let's hear from an American in regard to how President Trump is handling the economy so far.

The economy is issue number one by far for Americans, as indicated in this poll. His approval rating on this issue is 44%. Trump's disapproval rating, 56% of Americans disapprove of his handling the economy. We've never seen him that far underwater and upside. down in terms of approval and disapproval on this issue in his entire presidential career. Look here, it's usually a strong suit for him. You see we've had him at 44% approval before, but never with 56% disapproval. So that 12 point, you know, minus 12 point spread, if you will, that's the largest on issue number one for Americans we've ever had him in our polling.

Look, the American people who voted for Donald Trump did so because their top concern, their top priority in poll after poll after poll. In the lead up to election day was the economy. People were really being crushed by inflation. They needed relief and they needed it badly. And so they cast their ballots for Donald Trump thinking that he would be better for our economy compared to a democratic alternative. And immediately, Trump just kind of backs off the idea that he's going to lower inflation and instead really leans into this tariff policy. And you don't know exactly what his, you know, objective is here? Is he using these tariffs as leveraging threats, you know, or leveraging for negotiations? Is he threatening countries with tariffs that he doesn't actually intend to impose

in order to get them back to the negotiating table and renegotiate trade deal? from the past, is he actually serious about these tariffs and bringing American manufacturing jobs back to this country? I'm honestly less these days willing to buy that argument. But the final thing is, you know, is Trump intentionally attempting to cause so much economic pain to the American people where their buying power is minimized to such an extreme extent that it then persuades the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, which happens to be Donald Trump's big priority when it comes to the economy. He's really been pushing the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. So I think part of the problem here for Americans who are changing their minds on

Trump and his handling of the economy is that there is a lot of uncertainty. It feels incredibly turbulent right now. And because of that, I think people are kind of panicking. They're not seeing seeing any relief in terms of grocery store prices and things like that. So that is concerning. But believe it or not, those numbers that you just saw in regard to how Americans are feeling about Donald Trump's handling of the economy could get worse. In fact, in a recent interview with CBS Evening News, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik stated that it would be worth it if Trump's tariffs led to a recession.

He said that, then quickly added that if a recession did happen, it would be Biden, not Trump's fault. Take a look. Will these policies be worth it if they lead to a recession, even a short-term recession? These policies are the most important thing America has ever had. So it is worth it? It is worth it. A, I don't think the only reason there could possibly be a recession is because of the Biden nonsense that we had to live with. These policies produce revenues.

So you're saying when it looks chaotic and unpredictable from the outside, that there actually is a master plan when it comes to these tariffs? It is not chaotic. And the only one who thinks it's chaotic is someone who's being silly. He said reciprocal tariffs. Nobody expected him to announce 50% tariffs this morning. He needed to break some guy in Ontario who said he was going to tax American energy 25%. So there is some reporting today indicating that there are Trump administration officials who are looking to throw Howard Lutnik under the bus because of the fact that the Trump administration is getting poor marks in regard to Trump's handling of the economy. And they feel that people like Lutnik are part of the problem here. It remains to be seen if they're actually going to find a way to oust him or throw him under the bus. But nonetheless, what he said there, I think is pretty informative in regard to what they're thinking behind the scenes over.

at the Trump administration, because fact of the matter is, he says it's worth it for us to go through recession, but worth it for whom and what would the outcome be? Now, one thing that I know without a shadow of a doubt, is that because of the cheap money and because of the monetary policy that we have seen, you know, in recent decades from the Federal Reserve, certainly after the 2008 economic collapse, that has led to, you know, the artificial inflation of, shares or stock values in the stock market, right? So we've been due for an overcorrection for a very long time. And right now you see some Trump administration officials argue this is the, this is the correction. And we have to go through this pain in order to have,

you know, real value of these assets as opposed to artificially inflated value of these assets. However, why do you think the Trump administration wants to lower interest rates? I mean, sure, The cover story is we want lower interest rates, so it's cheaper for Americans to borrow. By the way, consumer debt is at record levels, and that eventually is going to really crush Americans. Defaults on credit cards are increasing month after month. So that is also something to be concerned about. But I don't really think they're really worried about ordinary Americans having access to credit. I think that these institutions, whether it be like financial institutions, corporations,

They love the cheap money. Sure, they use it to invest in expanding or building companies, but they also use it to inflate the value of their shares in the stock market, right? Cheap money, you borrow, you do some corporate stock buybacks and things like that. With that cheap money, you get a much higher return. So I'm worried about what the actual intentions are here, but we're going to have to wait and see. And I say that also because of the fact that we don't know on any given day what Trump's tariffs are actually going to look like. So what I'm more worried about long term, short term and long term, is what this is doing to our friendly relationships with our allies. There's no reason

for us to be at war with Canada. This is insane. So I understand wanting to use tariffs as a leveraging tool. But I think Trump is going a lot further than that. And the Canadian people, just based on what I've seen in their commentary and what they're willing to do, want to retaliate. They're not willing to just cower and take Trump's tariffs, you know, with no fight in return. So we'll see what happens. But that's the update we have for the tariffs and the Trump economy so far. All right, I want to do one more story before we go to break. Let's talk about some good news in regard to Ukraine.

You have nice ocean and don't feel now, but you will feel it in the fusion. God bless, you don't know that. God bless. You don't know that. Don't tell us what we're going to feel. Have you said thank you once this entire meeting? No, in this entire meeting, have you said thank you? We gave you military equipment and your men are brave, but they had to use our military. If you didn't have our military equipment, if you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks. What if anything? What if a bomb drops on your head right now?

Okay? What have they broken? This is going to be great television. I will say that. I don't wish a bomb did fall on my head right now. Now, when you first saw that insane fight that broke out in the Oval Office, you may have thought it's over. No more room for diplomacy involving Ukraine in the United States. This is a complete disaster.

However, some positive updates to report here. Thankfully, the two countries have continued to negotiate for a ceasefire, and there are some positive updates in regard to a ceasefire. Now, the good news is that Ukraine has agreed to a ceasefire proposal that has been promoted and endorsed by the United States. But the bad news is, honestly, as could have been predicted, Russia has yet to sign onto that proposal, and Trump is not happy about it. So we'll get to the Russia part of this in just a second. But first, let's actually talk about what the ceasefire proposal contains and what it would mean moving forward if Russia agrees to the ceasefire proposal. So it would end all fighting for 30 days. Interestingly, you know, Ukrainian officials,

initially did not want to stop all fighting. They only wanted to stop aerial and sea-based long-range attacks. But at the end of the day, they finally agreed to all fighting stops for 30 days. And then after that, once that 30 days is up, I mean, they're still negotiating a longer-term ceasefire during that time. And they could extend it based on a mutual agreement of all parties. Now, unsurprisingly, the 30-day pause in fight, 30-day pause in fighting does not, does not include any security guarantees from the United

States. And the Trump administration has also continued ruling out the notion that Ukraine be part of NATO. Now, and by the way, I mean, if the Trump administration came out and said, no, we support Ukraine's right to be part of NATO, well, it's going to be impossible to get Russia to the negotiating table. So I don't necessarily begrudge the Trump administration for overtly saying that. But I also think that the Trump administration, has no interest in allowing Ukraine to join NATO. So that's just how I view the whole matter. But the proposal does include some interesting, you know, details. So the two countries agree to conclude as soon as possible a comprehensive agreement for developing Ukraine's critical mineral

resources to expand Ukraine's economy and guarantee Ukraine's long-term prosperity and security. And when we talk about the two countries here, we're talking about the United States. in Ukraine. We are not talking about Russia and Ukraine, obviously. Now, there was a little bit of stenography happening there with the Washington Post because fact of the matter is this is going to be an economic deal that obviously benefits corporate interests here in the United States, business interests here in the United States as well. So let's not forget that. As a result of Ukraine agreeing to this ceasefire, the Trump administration has lifted the pause that they had implemented on U.S. military aid to Ukraine. So those weapons, that military aid has begun

flowing into Ukraine once again. And the U.S. still has almost $4 billion worth of military equipment available for Ukraine, which will now be sent overseas. And on top of that, the U.S. has resumed sharing intelligence with Ukraine. When Trump put that pause on our assistance to Ukraine. It not only had to do with military assistance, it also had to do with Intel. Now Zelensky called the negotiations positive and constructive, saying that we're not planning on playing with the narrative that we don't want to end the war, that Russia is spreading all over the world. For me, it's important to end the war. I want the president of the United States to see this for Americans to see this and to feel this. And by the way, he also thanked Americans again and

And again, in recent statements, you know, obviously attempting to placate the likes of Vice President J.D. Vance. Now, Senator Lindsey Graham was calling for Zelensky to step down as president of Ukraine following that Oval Office blow up between Zelensky, Trump, and Vance. Well, now he's singing a completely different tune. And by the way, I just want to tell you something that at the time that we reported the story, I didn't know, but now I have more clarity on it. So apparently, the Oval Office meeting and the parameters of the negotiation and all of that, that was partly negotiated with the involvement of Senator Lindsay Graham. So when things blew up, he was worried that like, you know, he was going to get decapitated, you know, obviously not literally, but he was worried that it was going to ricochet back onto him

and it was going to hurt him politically. But now all of a sudden, you have Zelensky sign on to this ceasefire deal. and Senator Lindsey Graham is singing a completely different tune on Zelensky, saying it is clear to me that President Zelensky is willing to make peace. As Secretary Rubio said, the ball is now in Russia's court. I'm extremely skeptical that Russia will accept the ceasefire, and I am very doubtful. They want to end this war. Zelensky has passed the test of wanting peace. It is now up to Putin to show his cards. And Graham also said that he will be introducing legislation by the end of the week that would implement even harsher sanctions against Russia. Now, the other thing I want to just quickly

note is there is some hope. Okay, I don't want to be too optimistic, but there is some hope that Russia could sign on, in the very least, for that 30-day pause in fighting. And the reason why I say that is because, believe it or not, they keep referencing the friendly relationship. that they have with Trump, and they don't want to ruin that relationship. So they're catching wind of Trump being very upset that Russia has yet to sign on to the ceasefire deal. And so they know that whatever diplomatic ties they have to the United States through Donald Trump could be absolutely destroyed if they don't play ball here. Will they play ball? That remains to be seen. So we're going to wait and see for that. But as mentioned earlier, they have not signed on to this. And while speaking to reporters today, Trump warned,

that the United States could use devastating measures on Russia if they fail to agree to a ceasefire. Let's watch. There are things you could do that wouldn't be pleasant in a financial sense. I can do things financially that would be very bad for Russia. I don't want to do that because I want to get peace. I want to see peace and we'll see. But in a financial sense, yeah, we could do things very bad for Russia. It would be devastated for Russia.

But I don't want to do that because I want to see peace. And we're getting close to maybe getting something done. We've got Ukraine done. We had a great success yesterday. We have a full ceasefire when it, if it kicks in, we have to see it's up to Russia now. But we've had a good relationship with both parties, actually, and we'll see. We'll be knowing people are going to Russia right now as we speak. So I think what Zelensky did here was incredibly smart.

And I say that, look, and I don't know if it was driven by strategy, but strategically speaking, what Zelensky did in signing on to that ceasefire deal was incredibly smart because it kind of shows everyone, no, no, I'm here in good faith wanting this war to end, but I want lasting peace. I want to make sure that once the war ends, Russia isn't going to invade us again, like a few months later, once the United States stops paying attention. And so what really emphasizes that point is the fact that he signed on to the ceasefire that Donald Trump wants, and Russia has failed to, making clear to the American people that the aggressor was Russia, Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia continues occupying Ukrainian territory, while obviously. slaughtering more and more Ukrainian soldiers and civilians through this war.

And even though we're trying to push for peace, Russia just won't play ball. And I think it's important for people to know that. And I also think it's important to give Trump some credit for wanting to end the war. I don't agree with robbing Ukraine of their natural resources. We don't know what the final deal is going to look like when it comes to like the minerals and all of that. But I do think that it's important to end this war. A lot of people have been dying and I don't know if it's going to be possible considering how incredibly stubborn Putin is in this situation.

But pushing for peace and doing so by attempting to create some sort of diplomatic negotiation process with the inclusion of Russia might be the best way to end this. We're going to have to wait and see. But I'm really happy that there's some positive update to this story. because after that Oval Office blow up, I didn't think there would be. So we got to take a break. But before we do, let me just let you know. We have a big update coming up next on the Columbia University student who is now being threatened with deportation because of his involvement with pro-Palestinian protests.

This is Mahmoud Khalil. Lots of updates. He had his first court hearing today, and we're going to give you more when we come back. What's up, everyone, welcome back. If you're loving the Wednesday music, just know, Bart does it for me. So you're welcome. Thank you, Bart. You're welcome. All right.

So I wanted to give you an update on, you know, What's currently happening with Khalil. Of course, this is Makfud Khalil, the Palestinian student who was arrested. And now there are threats from the Trump administration that his green card will be revoked because he's a supporter of terrorism, even though there's been no evidence of that. So without further ado, let's get into the details. Can you stay in a movie theater and yell fire? Can you slander somebody verbally?

Free speech has limitations. Free speech has limitations. That coming from our border czar, Tom Homan, who stated that, you know, you're worried about a Columbia University student's free speech rights being violated because he was involved with pro-Palestinian protesters. Free speech has its limits. Yes, that's true. That's true. You can't incite violence. That's not protected by the Constitution.

You can engage in hate speech, though. That's certainly part of the Constitution. And that's essentially what the Trump administration has accused Mahmoud Khalil of. And he is, of course, the Columbia University graduate student who was arrested earlier this week. Now that he's in detention, he's being threatened with his green card being revoked. And the argument is that he's a supporter of terrorism. Now, as an American, you can be a supporter of hate groups. You can sing the praises of the KKK or neo-Nazi groups.

and that is protected by the First Amendment. So Holman's argument that this isn't a free speech issue is hilarious to me. What's also actually not funny at all is that these pretty harsh claims have been made against Khalil and no evidence has been shown so far that he is a supporter of Hamas, a supporter of terrorism, or anything like that. But that wasn't all Homan had to say. Let's watch what he has to say about Khalil. His action, for the first one,

this action is directly contradictory to the United States foreign policy. That's a secretary of state. That's a charge on the secretary of state. We consider a national security threat. When you're on campus and say, and I hear freedom of speech, freedom of speech, freedom of speech. Can you stay in a movie theater and yell fire?

Can you slander somebody verbally? Free speech has limitations. But when you go to college campus, you incite protesting and locking down and taking over buildings and damaging property and handing out leaflets for Hamas, who is a terrorist organization, coming to this country, either on a visa or becoming a resident alien is a great privilege. Whether there are rules associated with that, you might be able to get away of that stuff

on the last administration, but you won't under this administration. I think our unwavering support for the Israeli government, regardless of what they do or how many innocent civilians they slaughter, is the real national security threat. for the United States, because we're not making any friends in the Middle East. You'd be mistaken if you think that's the case. And as little children lose every single member of their family as a result of the bombs that we've provided to the Israeli defense forces to drop on the heads of these families in Gaza, well, yeah, they're going to want revenge.

I think that's more of a national security threat as opposed to a 30-year-old graduate student from actually Syria. He actually came here from Syria, has a green card, was engaged in those protests at Columbia last year. How are you going to argue that he's a national security threat when you arrested him, not for something he just did that put anyone in any type of imminent threat? They arrested him for his involvement in the Columbia University pro-Palestinian protests last year, last year. They have yet to provide any evidence that he is a supporter of terrorism or that he had any intention of carrying out. acts of terrorism, nothing. None of that exists. None of that has been provided. During a White House press briefing yesterday, you know, you have Caroline Levitt reference that the organization

that was facilitating the protests on Columbia's campus last year was passing out naughty flyers that were supporting terrorists or, you know, terrorism. But is there, first of all, okay, I mean, any student organization, any protest group can put out any flyers they like. But are you literally going to take a flyer and you're going to make a blanket statement about anyone who has protested against what Israel is doing on the Columbia University campus? That's crazy. Has he himself said anything that indicates that he's going to carry out something that's going to harm Americans? No, he hasn't.

And even if, even if, guys, even if he said, I love Hamas, which he said, I love Hamas, which he's there's no evidence of him saying, to be clear, that's constitutionally protected speech. As much as you might find that egregious, disgusting, as much as you might disagree with it, it's constitutionally protected speech. And what's amazing to me is that you have Trump voters who purported to despise neoconservatives as I do falling for the neoconservative BS talking points, hook, line and sinker, the same talking points that managed to convince Americans to sign away their civil liberties in the aftermath of 9-11. Okay, just sign away our privacy rights, agree with the disgusting Patriot Act, which was a gross violation of our privacy rights.

Our civil liberties were dismantled bit by bit in the aftermath of 9-11 because we were scared, understandably so, because we were worried about terrorism and terror threats. threats. And I would just ask you, be careful with what you are willing to sign on to in the name of fighting terror, which is again, like, it is like the heart and center of neoconservative talking points to convince people to do what they want. And in this case, it's the erosion of our speech rights. We have to be real about that. So with that in mind, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that actually Khalil's case had nothing. nothing to do with free speech. Here's what Rubio had to say. When you come to the United States as a visitor, which is what a visa is, which is how this individual entered this country on a visitor's visa,

okay, you are here as a visitor. We can deny you that visa. We can deny you that if you tell us when you apply, hi, I'm trying to get into the United States on a student visa, I am a big supporter of Hamas, a murderous barbaric group that kidnaps children, that rapes teenage girls, that takes hostages that allows them to die in captivity, that returns more bodies than live hostages.

If you tell us that you are in favor of a group like this, and if you tell us when you apply for your visa, and by the way, I intend to come to your country as a student and rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, anti-Semitic activities, I intend to shut down your universities. If you told us all these things when you applied for a visa, we would deny your visa. I hope we would. If you actually end up doing that once you're in this country on such a visa, we will revoke it. And if you end up having a green card, not citizenship, but a green card,

As a result of that visa while you're here in those activities, we're going to kick you out. It's as simple as that. This is not about free speech. This is about people that don't have a right to be in the United States to begin with. No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right to a green card, by the way. He's right that no one has a right to a student visa or a green card. Now Khalil did not have a student visa. He did in fact have a green card. And despite the fact that the Trump administration attempted to revoke his green card and deport him immediately, A federal judge block that action from taking place, specifically because a green card isn't just some flimsy excuse to be in the United States.

It actually offers significant protections for people who are in the country. And you need a federal judge to adjudicate whether or not that green card should be revoked. So there is going to be a court case on this and we'll figure out what the federal judge has to say about it. But for now, Khalil remains in the United States. And what's also a little concerning is that during a court hearing today, Khalil's lawyers asked the judge to do something about the fact that they haven't had access to their own client. They haven't been able to speak to their own client. They've been blocked from being able to have privileged conversations with their own client.

And that if you are an American who values our constitutional rights, that is chilling and that should really concern you, regardless of what your political affiliation is, quite frankly. Okay? So the judge during the hearing, you know, said that there needs to be access for Khalil's lawyers to speak with him, to have privileged conversations with him. And I'm glad that they raised that concern during the hearing. So back to Rubio, though. So today, the Washington Post reported that a government notice for Khalil to appear in federal immigration court lists only one reason that Khalil has to do so or why Khalil has to do so. So Secretary of State Marco Rubio has determined Khalil's presence in the United States could have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences. What do you mean by that foreign policy consequences? So they're saying that the United States government and its interest in fighting terrorism is somehow hampered or made less possible with the presence of someone like Khalil in the country. So Rubio is relying on a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

That provision says that any alien whose presence or activities in the United States, the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable. So Rubio is really going to have to prove that, right? Like how is Khalil's presence in the United States getting in the way of fighting terror. Now, today Ken Clippenstein, today Ken Clippenstein published a letter condemning the arrest of Khalil that is being circulated by members of Congress. Representatives include Pramila Jayapal, Jamie Raskin, and Mary Gay Scanlon. And the letter, which is addressed to Rubio and DHS Secretary Christy Nome, demands that they answer some questions, including

how Rubio came to this determination that Khalil's presence in the United States is an issue and somehow gets in the way of the U.S. fight against terror. Again, the neocons sleeper cells, I mean, they weren't even really sleeper cells if you've been paying attention. They're very much in the Trump administration, large and in charge, okay? I love the fact that we're literally like recycling neoconservative talking points from the Bush era. Awesome, great. And they also want Rubio to answer what foreign policy consequences could Khalil's presence pose. After all, this quote from Khalil, which he gave to CNN last spring, does not really make him seem to be much of a danger here in the U.S. This is a direct quote from Khalil. As a Palestinian student,

I believe that the liberation of the Palestinian people and the Jewish people are intertwined and go hand by hand and you cannot achieve one without the other. Our movement is a movement for social justice and freedom and equality for everyone. Yeah, that might sound like something a terrorist would say to the likes of Netanyahu, Ben Gavir, those folks. But for normal people who don't like terrorism and actually want to treat everyone with dignity and respect, that's just not the statement of a terrorist or someone who supports terrorism. or devalues the lives of our Jewish brothers and sisters.

So look, there is the specific consequences for someone like Khalil, which is bad enough. But I just ask everyone who's blinded by their absolute love for Israel to take a step back and think about how much the American people are getting played if they agree to this. because the erosion of his speech rights means the erosion of our speech rights. And honestly, Maga, be careful. And I don't say this as something that I would be supportive of. This is something that I'm worried about.

Anything that happens during this administration, anything that sets a precedent for this administration, well, that precedent remains in whatever administration comes after it. At some point, I know you don't want to believe it, but at some point Democrats are going to be in charge again. And when they are, What if they determine that some of these Trump supporters bit of a terror threat? We're going to use this excuse of terror threat to violate free speech rights or other constitutionally protected actions that these individuals might engage in.

I don't want to live in that country. I know they don't want to live in this country if we're going to have those types of rights taken away from us. So be careful when the people in power tell you to support the idea of stripping rights away from someone else. Because that usually means it will ricochet right back onto you when you engage in speech that the government doesn't like. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about this really fascinating, you know, I don't like to use catfight, but it's a bit of a cat fight between Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson. We'll talk about who's right, who's wrong when we return.

All right. During our social break, I was reading a comment from Roy Lehman and I ran out of time. So I want to attempt to read it now. So he says that Rubio is a joke. in regard to the coverage we just did on Khalil in the last segment. Rubio blathered on and on and offered zero evidence that Khalil did any of what he laid out there. Little Hans Marco with less than little evidence, what a clown show. Yeah, it really bothers me.

And honestly, what bothers me the most is how susceptible Americans are to falling for neoconservative talking points that like really do seek to erode our civil liberties and constitutional rights. It's not just about Khalil, although I'm obviously concerned about Khalil. It's, you know, if you take a step back, the bigger picture here. So something to keep in mind. Okay, so I wanted to talk a little bit about this fight that Ben Shapiro has been having with Tucker Carlson. And in this case, it has to do with Syria and the differences the two have in regard to the leadership of Syria. To present them Assad is somehow completely not responsible for what happened in Syria. Well, he was dictator in Syria is kind of wild. No one in the United States was

allowed to notice this. I'm pretty sure actually we were all allowed to notice this. And many people did notice this actually and commented upon it when Assad fell, actually. And anyone who did was immediately denounced by neocons is a dangerous extremist. I have suspicions as to what Tucker means by quote unquote neocons. He means people like you. That's what he means, right? people who egged on, you know, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, like, neo-conservatives love to intervene. They love to engage in war. They feel that the United States should basically go around bullying other countries to do what we want. And so neocons still exist in the Republican Party. Unfortunately, they also exist in the Trump White House. Senator Marco Rubio is a hardcore

neocon. There's no question about that. However, Ben Shapiro's continued feud with Tucker Carlson over foreign policy matters really does highlight these ever-growing cracks within the Republican party overall when it comes to these conflicting foreign policy ideologies, right? You have the more interventionist side that's represented by neoconservatives. And then you have the isolationist side Or let's just say more isolationists. They're not necessarily isolationists, but they don't want to use up American resources to get involved in foreign wars. Now, all this started with news of mass killings that took place, mass killings and violent clashes that have been taking place in Syria. And these clashes are happening between groups who were loyal to Bashar al-Assad and his regime.

Obviously, Assad was a dictator. He did horrible things. But, you know, the argument here is that once Assad is gone, it would be foolish to think that his replacement is going to be better. And that's kind of the argument represented by Tucker Carlson. And he has a very specific reason for why he feels that, you know, Bashar al-Assad remaining in the position of power would have been better than the new regime that we're dealing with. Because the clashes, again, have to do with those loyal to Assad and those.

and those who are loyal to the new regime. Now, why would anyone be loyal to Bashar al-Assad? I mean, he was a brutal dictator, right? He used chemical weapons against his own people, right? Well, it's because he actually did protect some of the ethnic and religious minorities in Syria, whereas now the interim leader of Syria, the regime that has now taken control of the country, used to have ties with ISIS, number one, and seems less willing to protect ethnic minorities and religious minorities in Syria. And that is concerning to say the least. So in regard to these mass

killings that happened recently, nearly 1,000 people were killed last week by armed groups and foreign fighters linked to Syria's new government. And the mass killings happened in Syria's coastal region in areas that are actually dominated or, you know, mostly populated by the country's al-a-white religious minority. So in a number of extremely disturbing instances, entire families, including women, children, and individuals were killed with predominantly al-a-white cities and villages targeted in particular. Again, Assad was protecting the al-Alawites. In fact, Assad himself was al-white and provided protection for Syria's, you know, ethnic minorities. And again, while that's true, he was also a brutal dictator. Both things

can be true. The United States did arm and provide support to the rebels in Syria. And there was a lot of concern about the U.S. doing that because I think that it's a mistake to think one side good, one side bad. You know, those weapons can fall into the hands of the wrong people, terrorist groups. I don't think most Americans would celebrate the idea that we were providing any type of help or assistance to a group of people that had ties to ISIS, for instance. And so that's really what Tucker Carlson was kind of raising awareness about. Okay, so also throughout Assad's rule, the al-O-White sect became increasingly linked in the eyes of his opponents, meaning the rebels, to the atrocities committed by his regime during the Syrian. civil war. And there were atrocities committed by his regime to be sure. So here's a clip of Amy Goodman from Democracy Now explaining the violence, how it happened and more details that you should know.

But I should warn you, this is a little brutal and difficult to watch. It's graphic. So with that warning in mind, let's take a look. An estimated 1,300 people have been killed in fighting since last Thursday in Syria's coastal region, the heartland of the country's Aloit minority, the sect to which the Assad family belongs. Nearly a thousand civilians have been killed, according to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, most of them in massacres by fighters loyal to the new government. The deadly clashes began Thursday after coordinated attacks by gunmen linked to the former regime killed over 200 members of the security forces. In response, according to reports by Human Rights Watch and the Guardian.

Syrian government forces, along with armed groups and individuals, poured into Aloite villages throughout the region. By Friday, reports began to emerge that scores of civilians, including children and the elderly, were being targeted in reprisal attacks. Unverified videos show corpses piling up on the streets and men in military fatigues, executing unarmed people. The Syrian network of human rights found the vast majority. of civilians were killed by armed groups previously affiliated with Turkish back

factions fighting the Assad regime. Yeah, it's just brutal, man, what's happening in the Middle East right now. So Syria's in-term leader, Ahmed al-Shara, who of course was the individual who had ties to ISIS, but he's not really kind of trying to position himself as a moderate, promised to punish those responsible for the horrific violence and the mass killings, but he did not respond to questions regarding the role that his own forces had played in these atrocities. Now, let's get back to the argument between Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro, now that you have the context of what happened in Syria. So Carlson is very much questioning, you know, the regime change that

has occurred in Syria. Here's what he posted about the massacres that just occurred. Assad protected the Christians. The weaker Assad was, the more Christians died. During the years that neocons in the West backed the war against Assad, the percentage of Christians in Syria went from 10% to 2%. Now that Assad has been driven from power, many of the remaining Syrian Christians are being slaughtered and their holy places desecrated. And then he says, neocon projects in the Middle East invariably destroy ancient Christian communities from Iraq to Gaza and in many places in between. Can this be an accident? You wonder. Okay, so I share Tucker Carlson's concern over this new Syrian regime. However, I don't agree with just making it about Christians who are being targeted and killed. Obviously, a lot of people have been victimized. All of innocent civilians have been victimized as a result of the war in Syria. And I think we should be concerned about all lives, regardless of whatever their religious beliefs might be. But overall, I mean, I do agree with what Tucker Carlson is saying here.

Whenever there is a proxy where the United States is involved in, whenever the U.S. is backing one side, I think it would be a mistake to see the situation as black and white or to see the situation as, oh, we are helping the good guys. Because in this case, that wasn't really what was happening. We had issues with Assad for sure. But, you know, when you look at other countries like Libya, for instance, was the fall of Omar Gaddafi beneficial for the people of Libya? It wasn't. So he was a dictator. He was awful, that's for sure. But his ouster, his killing, the regime change that happened in Libya, led to more pain, more suffering in that country, a slave trade in that country. And so you kind to have to take these matters and see them for what they are, as opposed to having like this simplistic, unnuance thinking about it. Now, Ben Shapiro did not like what Tucker Carlson

had to say clearly. And so here's his response. And then Israel, in October of last year, went after Chisbalah and basically defenestrated their entire leadership with everything from the beeper attacks to the attacks killing Hassan Nasrallah and all the rest. And they hit Chisbalah so hard and Chisbalah was no longer able to support an Iran. was really no longer able to support the Assad regime in Syria, which was a terrorist genocidal regime on its own. There are no good guys in the Syrian fight, except for some of the Druze and the Kurds and the Christians. If your sort of bizarre supposition is that this is because of America as opposed to because the Middle East happens to be a long chain of terrorist

tyrannies following one another with different enemies. I don't think that you've been following Middle Eastern history very long. This is part and parcel of some of the stuff that Tucker seems to be lately, which again is the idea that all conflict in the Middle East is the fault of an evil cadre of Americans who are pushing conflict in the Middle East. No one in the Middle East apparently has any agency. Iran has no agency. Qatar certainly has no agency. I think the Tucker's worldview suggests that apparently the only actors in the Middle East who have any agency at all are the United States, Israel, and pretty much no one else. Well, the United States and Israel are the powerful countries, and we talked about Tucker Carlson's reasoning.

We gave you his exact statement, and we told you what the motivating factors are behind what Tucker Carlson is saying. Obviously, he cares deeply about Christians. He's worried about Christians being slaughtered as a result of the new regime in Syria. But let's talk a little bit about Ben Shapiro's motivating factors. What is biasing his point of view on this situation? I think it really has to do with the fact that Israel wanted to see the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime. Not because they were concerned about the treatment of Syrian civilians, but because Bashar al-Assad was not a supporter of Israel. And sure enough, you look at what's happened to Syria since the fall of Assad, and things become a little clearer.

So what do I mean by that? So obviously, Syria isn't just currently home to a number of feuding minority groups, right? So since Assad was ousted, Israel began occupying part of the country. So Israel's defense minister said, just yesterday, the IDF is prepared to stay in Syria for an unlimited amount of time. We will hold the security area in Hermann and make sure that all the security zone in southern Syria is demilitarized and clear of weapons and threats. They claim that all they're doing is building a buffer zone in order to protect Israel. I'm sure that's the case. Israeli forces, by the way, are currently occupying a 400 square kilometer demilitarized buffer zone in Syria.

And Kat stated that the IDF's presence is a necessary deterrent to any potential enemies of his country. He says every morning when the new leader of Syria opens his eyes at the presidential palace in Damascus, He will see the IDF watching him from the peak of the Hermon, and remember that we are here and in the entire security area of southern Syria to protect the Golan and Galilee residents against any of his threats and those of his jihadist friends. But Israel, by the way, is aiming to take more land, and they're aiming to do so soon. This is reported by The Guardian. They write that Israeli warplanes have launched hundreds of strikes since the fall of us. to destroy military equipment left by the former regime. And officials have described an extensive new zone stretching across much of southwestern Syria as territory that Israel will ensure is, you know, insure is demilitarized.

And it's a new wave of attacks struck targets in southern Syria earlier this week. They're going to occupy Syrian land. Okay, they didn't like Assad. They wanted Assad gone. That's the reason why both Israel and the United States supported the rebels of which you had members of ISIS. Okay, the new leader of Syria, former member of ISIS. I get that he's trying to present himself as a moderate. I'm skeptical of that.

We'll see what happens. But not a good situation in Syria. But hopefully this helps you understand why there's this fight between Shapiro and Tucker Carlson. More importantly, I think it's kind of representative of the divide within the Republican Party at the moment. I'm going to do one more story and John's going to be upset, but I have to do the story before we bring him in. So I wanted to talk a little bit about a story that one of our members and viewers sent in, So let's get into it. What you're seeing is footage of a massive fire at one of the world's largest lithium battery storage facilities.

This occurred last January and has led to illnesses among members of the local community who feel that their concerns are being ignored. Now, it also calls into question whether our reliance of these lithium batteries to combat climate change is really as smart as some have argued. It is. But I do want to thank our viewer, Juliana, who actually sent this story to us. I will say, did not know anything about this story until Juliana sent it to us. And it's because it isn't really being reported much, although the New York Times is one of the major publications that did provide some coverage of it. So let's get into some of the details of this fire. So this battery storage facility was at the Moss Landing power plant, which is a few hours away from Monterey County in Northern California. So the fire burned for five days

straight. It started on January 16th. 80% of the batteries were destroyed. Again, we're talking about lithium batteries. And it had been not the first, not the second, not the third, but the fourth fire at Moss Landing since 2019. Seems like a bit of an issue. So Vistra, the Texas-based energy company that operates the plant said there were approximately 100,000 lithium-ion battery modules inside the storage facility and that most of them had burned. So I can tell you that in burn areas of Los Angeles, Pacific Palisades, you know, Altadena, but especially the Pacific Palisades, it has been a bit of a disaster because a lot of those people who live there had. Teslas or other electric vehicles with lithium batteries. And that has kind of caused, you know, a hazardous mess in the Pacific Palisades. It's made the recovery efforts a lot more complicated. And I bring you this information because I just think that we've kind of underestimated

the potential harm that lithium batteries could cause to the environment, to local communities. I'll give you more details about this fire that happened, though, at this specific storage facility near Monterey, California. So industry experts argue that the battery storage facility was actually built in 2019, and that the technology advancements since then have improved safety. Specifically, the lithium ion batteries were stacked and made of older chemistry using nickel, manganese, and cobalt, which can cause runaway fires when ignited. And according to North County Fire District Chief Joelle Mendoza, he says that a, you know, fire suppression system that is part of every battery rack at the plant failed. And that led to a chain reaction of batteries

catching on fire. Then a broken camera system in the plant and superheated gases made it challenging for firefighters to intervene. So this fire again, burnt for five days straight. firefighters also were not able to use water to fight the fire because that could have triggered a chemical reaction causing more batteries to ignite. So disastrous situation. So that's what happened with the fire. But more importantly, what did this mean for the local community? Well, there are now serious concerns that there's contamination of the air, water, you know, in the area of the soil as well. Since the fire, over 1,200 local residents were forced to evacuate. And local residents are also now reporting that they have been suffering from weird illnesses that include headaches,

nausea, sore throats, bloody noses. Now, one resident who lived 25 miles away from the plant stated that he tasted metal for days after the fire broke out. Here's what he says. It's like breathing acid or it's like the air is so incredibly dry that it burns deep down into your lungs so it hurts to swallow. And luckily there's been some testing done. And guess what? That testing has discovered that there's contamination in the soil and in the water. So test detected cobalt, nickel, copper, manganese, heavy metals found in lithium ion batteries at wide ranging levels in soil sampled at eight sites near the plant and up to roughly five miles away from it. They tested the water and they claimed that the water is okay. Although, look, I don't know

if water filters would be effective in filtering out any of these metals, but use a water filter, please. Tests of the local drinking water found the presence of metals, but at safe levels. Air quality monitoring has not detected heavy metal particles or hydrogen fluoride, a gas associated with the batteries, county officials said. But separately, researchers at San Jose State University's Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in the Elkhorn Sloth Reserve, which is an estuary, next to the battery storage facility, actually did find levels of cobalt, nickel, and manganese that had significantly increased in top soil samples in the area compared to levels from studies that had been done just before the fire. So there is definitely contamination of these metals

in the environment as a result of the fire, which is why you now have a legal team that includes Aaron Brockovich filing a lawsuit against the operators of the facility. So I had mentioned the Texas-based company that runs the battery storage facility, they're going to be included, but they're also going after PG&E because they operate other facilities at this plant. Now, the suit alleges that the amount of cobalt, manganese, nickel, and copper in the preliminary state data exceeded federal environmental protection agency risk levels for residential soil, including for children. The lawsuit claimed the facilities fire suppression system was deficient. And I mean, that seems to be demonstrably true.

Now, what does this mean for California and other green initiatives? Honestly, I really do think it's important to take a beat and really consider whether transitioning to other, you know, types of vehicles make sense and really does carry out the objective that we're trying to carry out here. Remember, we're supposed to want to improve the environment, combat climate change, And honestly, it really remains to be seen how that's going to be the case when you have to mine for these materials to make the batteries. Okay, that's number one. That has foreign policy implications for sure.

It also has implications in regard to the damage done to the environment, to our planet, as we mine for these metals and these materials. The other concern is, okay, well, there have been more and more of these fires involving the lithium ion. batteries and it creates a hazardous, toxic situation. So what are we going to do about that? What kind of efforts have been taken or made in order to prevent the contamination of these metals in our drinking water, in our air, in our soil? So we'll see, but there are some questions about this. So Glenn Church, who's a county supervisor who represents Northern Monterey County, says this. I know green is good, but we've got to move slowly. What we're doing with this technology is way ahead of government regulations and ahead of the industry's ability to control it. And I think

that's a legitimate concern that he's bringing up. Further, he says Moss Landing was approved because we were promised it was going to be safe. That promise couldn't be fulfilled. If people want to be concerned about health and safety in their neighborhoods, what's wrong with that? So currently in California, there are 187 battery storage plants. It's a big state. I know that's not I know that sounds like a big number, but that's a big state. But it is up from 17 in 2019. So we went from 17 battery storage facilities in California in 2019 to 187. And by the way, at least 96 new battery plants are currently under construction or our plan to be built by 2027.

And that's probably in order to meet the demands of Newsom, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, who wants to ban the sale of all gas powered vehicles in the state of California. beginning in 2036, if I'm not mistaken, I might have that date a little wrong. But, you know, it's more of this problem that I keep seeing in states like California where we put the cart before the horse. And in reality, we need to stop and think and make sure that we have the safety protocols in place, that we have the infrastructure available for people who might choose, choose to have electric vehicles, not forced to, but choose to have electric vehicles, but, you know, we have a mandate here now. And according to assemblywoman Don Addis from Monterey Bay, we need these facilities, but we need to build trust when it comes to our clean energy future.

We want to be careful about siting and make, I'm sorry, about sitting and make, I think she meant citing, yeah, and make sure we aren't putting school children, local business owners and residents at risk. She's promoting legislation that would ensure that these battery storage facilities are further away from vulnerable parts of the community, homes, schools, businesses, and hospitals, or near specific environmental areas like high fire hazard severity zones. But she's facing a lot of pushback from other lawmakers in the state and also green energy groups who want to continue promoting EVs. and all of that. Look, it's fine. You can go ahead and promote EVs all you want. But can we just address that this is a real issue and it's becoming more and more of a problem? Lithium ion batteries are not safe when they catch on fire and when they create hazardous situations in our environment and make people sick. That goes against what environmental is claimed they want to accomplish here. So hopefully more effort is made to prevent stuff like this from happening in the future.

Maybe that happens through this lawsuit that has been filed against the facility, but I don't know. We're going to have to wait and see. But thank you to Giuliana for sending us that story. If you have any other updates, obviously let us know about it and we'll provide some coverage. For now, we've got to take a quick break. John Ida Rola joins us for the second hour.