Timcast IRL - NEW VIDEO PROVES Woman STRUCK ICE Agent, Activist Says COME AT US w/ Kaity, Defender of the Republic

Episode Date: January 10, 2026

Tim, Phil & Tate are joined by Kaity and Erin to discuss the new bodycam footage showing more angles of the Minnesota ICE shooting of Renee Good, more information and the doxxing of the agent involved and his previous incident being struck by a moving vehicle, and debating at the end of the episode regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation.   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Tate @realTateBrown (everywhere) Producer: Serge @SearchDupre (X) Guest: Kaity @realdefender45 (X) Erin @straighterade (X)

cell phone footage from the officer who fired the shots on the woman in Minnesota has been released, and it shows some interesting things. First, it shows prior contact with activists and Renee Good. It shows they actually exchanged words, and you can clearly hear the impact on the hood of the car. In fact, we were talking with a former prosecutor earlier who said, oh, wow, that's not good. So we're going to analyze this footage and go over what we're currently learning, but there's quite a bit more pertaining to the footage being released, protests coming across the country. We'll talk about that.

New information on the ICE agent. And then bigger news, which I'd argue is actually much, much bigger, but isn't really. I suppose people don't want to talk about it. It's not as interesting, despite being more significant. The U.S. has seized its fifth oil tanker. So we're looking at dramatic escalation. We'll talk about that and a whole lot more. We've got a police shooting in Utah.

More information about the individuals that were shot in Portland. Before we get into all that, my friends, we've got a great sponsor for you. It is Tax Network USA. head over to tnusa.com slash tim do you back taxes or haven't filed in years now is the time to resolve your tax matters with a national conversation around abolishing the income tax system the irs is fighting back and proving it's here to stay by becoming more aggressive than ever before they're sending out more collection notices filing more tax liens and collecting billions more than in recent years if you owe the irs can take your wages bank accounts social security retirement even your home if you

owe or haven't filed, it's not a question of if the IRS will act, it's when. Right now, Tax Network USA is offering a completely free IRS research and discovery call to show you exactly where you stand and what they can stop before it's too late. Their powerful programs and strategies can save you thousands or even eliminate your debt entirely if you qualify. Don't make a serious mistake. Representing yourself or calling the IRS on your own, waiving your rights can cost you and could cost you more money. They are not on your side. Get protected the right. with Tax Network USA and start the process of settling your tax matters once and for all today. Call 1,800, 958,000, or click the link below for your free discovery call with Tax Network USA.

Don't let the IRS be the first to act. Go to tnusa.com slash tim. And I want to stress, we are running out of these here blueprint model boards. The hand grenade and the 50 cal are gone. While you still can get them, get them at boonieshq.com. we've got the Richie Jackson Assault Wine Bottle. We've got the Jason Ellis Battle Axe and the Cody Mac Colt 45. Now, all of these, they're nearly sold out.

There's a few left. There's a chance to get one out of five limited edition golden serialized versions of these. We also have the step on snack and find out 2.0 of which I actually think there's about a hundred of these, much easier to get. And there will be 10 limited edition gold serializer. Check them out at boonieshq.com. Don't forget to smash that like button. share the show with everyone.

You know, we actually have a couple of guests joining us tonight, talk about this and everything else. Ma'am, why don't you go first? Introduce yourself. Yes, my name is Kitey, also known as Defender of the Republic. I live in the captured state of New Jersey. And on social media, I help educate and free the minds of the people online to the globalist, out of the globalist matrix.

And on the complete other side of that, would you like to introduce us? I'm not doing anything as cool. My name is Aaron, aka Straighterade. I live stream Monday through Friday on Twitch, YouTube, I cover politics, do react content, and yeah. Right on. Take, what's going on? What is going on? Patriots, this is tape around here holding it down on this beautiful, beautiful Friday. I'm happy to be here.

Hello, everybody. My name is Philibonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal land, all that remains. I'm an anti-communist and counter-revolutionary. Let's get into it. Let's get into the first story. And I've got to be honest, probably the story that dominates the entire conversation. That we do have big news.

We've got this newly released video footage from the ICE agents who, who fired the shots in question. We're going to start by playing the video for you guys so you can watch it for yourself, but it is, it is changing a bit of the narrative. And there's a lot to debate on this video and what we're learning. So, uh, let's roll the tape. We don't change our plates every morning just so you know. It'll be the same plate when you come talk to us later.

That's fine. U.S. citizen. You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead. Now the car. Get out of the fucking car. Get out of the ball.

Did he say fucking bitch? He sure did. Holy shit. You just got hit by a car. Yeah. And she's dead. You can't help that. So let's play that again real quick.

There's a couple things to point out. Get out of the ball. Oh! So here's a few things. First, I didn't catch this right away. I was watching this video. And Phil pointed out, it sounds like the wife says drive, baby. drive, drive, try and listen.

And I'm not sure that's exactly what she's saying. Get out of the fucking car. Get out of the car. It sounded like she said, drive, baby, drive, drive. You can also hear his body slap the hood. It sounds like it's hitting the hood of the car. There's two things going on at the same time. It's body hitting the hood and the first shot goes off.

The other thing is everyone's pointing out. She's staring at the ice agent the whole time. She turns her head and she's looking right at him. And then she shifts. And she's looking right at him as she starts spinning the wheel. So this does change a few things. You can see her spinning the wheel before she accelerates forward, which is because the wheels are actually facing the other direction.

So she has to spin it around quite a bit. This is not even one second. Let's play. Oh! It's about a second and a half making. Can you hear the squeal of the tires played again? Get out of the ball. Oh!

That's it. Just like that. About a second and a half. Yeah. So the interesting things to consider, prior contact. She's engaged by DHS already. And they're filming her vehicle. And she says, I believe it's, oh, here, let's play it.

That's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you. It's okay. We don't change our plates every morning. Just so you know. There'll be the same plate when you come talk to us later. He's collecting evidence. That's fine.

U.S. citizen. You want to come out of? You want to come at us? You want to come at us? I said go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead. Out of the car. Get out of the fucking car.

Drive, baby, drive, drive. It sounds like she's saying. You can clearly hear the other ice agent telling her to get out of the car. She's ignoring a direct command. So we had a debate on this earlier, and we had a former prosecutor on who had argued initially that the first shot through the windshield is justifiable because you can see in all these angles he's being hit. But the second and third shot will be harder to justify. However, what is this? You're playing music? When we finished the debate, I didn't say anything. I just pressed to play and

showed it to him and he went. Whoa. Yeah, that's that there's not going to be a prosecution. There's not going to be a prosecution with this video footage. So I don't know what you all think, but it sounds to me, I'll just give you my thoughts right away. Prior contact indicates the woman driving the car, Renee Good, was well aware that she was engaged with law enforcement. So when they approached her saying, get out of the vehicle and she attempted to flee, this was not a panic. This was, she knew she was engaged with law enforcement to a certain degree. And this cop walking around her vehicle filming, he's collecting evidence.

When the other agent comes up, it's out of the car, she's smiling and staring at him. And it appears, the wrong word, but it sounds like she says, drive, baby, drive, drive, drive, I think that's going to give her criminal culpability. And I think the speed at which you hear the body hit the car and the shots go off are going like, this is a slam dunk for the agent. It's not good. It shouldn't happen. But I think a few things to point out, the amount of time from him walking on the

vehicle, she knows he's there. There's no reason for her to drive. And he's collecting evidence. So why is he there? There's a legitimate reason. The wife says, you want to come at us? you want to come at us and then appears to say drive, baby, drive, drive, instructing, again, I'm not entirely sure what she's saying.

But this is the argument that I think they would absolutely make and why this is not going to go. She can clearly see the agent is standing right in front of ranch. Just a smile on her face. And then she goes for it. And she hits him and you can hear it. And he shoots her. I don't see how this. Look, to be honest, this goes to prosecution because it's political.

Because Minnesota, the governor, the mayor, the state prosecutor. prosecutor, it's political ideology. I think if we were in any sane reality where this was just on the merits, yo, she hit a federal agent with her car. Yeah, I mean, look, the argument that I heard this morning, actually, or maybe it was last night, but J.D. Vance was saying he's got immunity because he's engaged in a lawful, you know, lawful stop. She knew that, like you said, she knew she was dealing with law enforcement right away. The guy came up and said, get out of the car. So she's trying to flee the scene. It is a pretty clear cut case. when she content when her car contacted his body then he's totally in the right to to defend himself

you know so the idea i don't i don't think that this actually goes to trial because i think he's got immunity i don't think the justice department's going to let it happen it's a state charge i don't i think that i think the feds are going to be like no you can't well the state can bring the charges regardless well i can't if he's got immunity can they he has they're going to they're going to try and move it to a federal court citing immunity this is what we were debating earlier sovereign immunity is a federal agent, but come on, does it matter what's true? Well, I mean, it's always what you've proven court. No, no, no. We're not even there anymore. Like, they didn't even prove that Trump committed to crime in the fraud cases. Does it matter? I mean, to your point, no, I guess.

We are well beyond legal machinations. Now it's literally just exertions of authority and power. Yeah, I mean, I don't think most people in the left are if you're going to see this video. Like, the resistance is already underway. What do you think? I think this, does it, this only, makes ice look worse in my opinion for a few reasons one i don't think and this is not me saying that uh rene good driving away from officers that have asked her to stop or have told her to get out and disobeyed not just complying with their orders is a good idea i'm strictly talking about does this constituter rise to the level of a reasonable person's understanding of what constitutes imminent threat or likelihood of death i don't think so i think this proves that it's very clear that she was

attempting to do a three-point turn or move away the opposite direction of the officer, not trying to accelerate towards him or charge towards him. I think that she had a calm demeanor, even as she's smiling and yes, she's doing so to taunt him, I suppose. But one, I don't think that that constitutes a threat in and of itself. She's saying, I'm not mad. She's clearly turning right to get away from the officer. So I don't see where the kind of imminent death threat.

What about drive, a baby drive, drive? Did she say that? or did the other person say that? But it sounds like you're making a lot of assumptions about her intent. If she had just complied with the officer to begin with, we wouldn't be asking all of the questions. Even outside of that point, intent is completely immaterial. It's a vehicle is heading towards you. That's it.

Her intention, I think, was to flee. I think, but it's reckless disregard for the life of the officer. Do you still think it was in the earlier debate we had? You said that you thought she was attempting to murder him with the vehicle based on this now? I might be misremembering. What did you say? So what I said was yesterday. in my morning show. So, so let's go back in time. The first thing I said was she's,

she's clearly timing to flee and she hit the officer. Then we went on the show and we analyzed all the footage and I was like, you can see the tire spin out in his direction. So then in the morning yesterday, I said, I think she actually was intending to hit him. Then we reviewed more footage in other angles. And I said, I don't think she wanted to kill the officer. I think she was trying to flee, but didn't care if she did kill the officer. And so I think we're seeing the same thing right now. And this actually, I think backs up what I'm saying. She's clearly trying to flee, but she's looking dead at the officer. She knows he's there.

He walked on her car. She specifically said, it's okay, I'm not mad at you. She knows he's filming her. She knows he's around the car. Then you hear the other woman say, drive, baby, drive, drive. Look at her. She's staring right at him right now. She's looking.

A stare rise to the level of a reasonable person being able to think that there's. Awareness that she's piloting a vehicle. And here's a timestamp. From 40 seconds is when the car begins to accelerate. to 41 in one second he struck. I'm not disputing that it's accelerating, but she's clearly doing a bunch of turns because she's maneuvering the vehicle's wheel

all the way from the left to the right to turn away from him. Her intent doesn't matter. Of course it matters. The intent always matters in these cases. No, it doesn't. Yes, as far as factoring in, if it's reasonable to believe

that she has some sort of state of mind that she wants to harm this person or hurt them. If I pointed a gun at you, could you shoot me? Yes. But that's something that invokes per se self-defense, no? Because it's something that there is no way that you could behave with like brandish a weapon or point a gun at me. Or accelerate a vehicle towards somebody. No, that definitely does not fall under.

He's two feet from the vehicle and she accelerates towards him. So he can't read her mind in that second. Unless she's doing so with a weapon or threatening him or so in the direction of him. This is legally conscious a weapon. I don't believe that that. In law, a vehicle is a deadly weapon. It is legally a defense. a deadly weapon. Says who? In law. The law. Precedent. What law? In court precedent and in law,

this is a deadly weapon. Can you name a case? I'm not familiar with the case. Are you joking? I'm not I'm not joking. What was the case we just had where the woman rear-ended the, you know, the police in it, it was it, Minnesota, actually, where the cop got, was found dead in the snow. It was, it was the biggest, okay, come on, guys, I don't know what you're doing. I got to, I got to pull this out. Because my understanding is, to the extent. I'm trying to Google right now. that a car or a vehicle can be used to trigger like per se self-defense, the individual has to have been caught in the commission of a very serious crime prior to engaging with the officer. They said Karen Reid struck their boyfriend with a car. That's deadly weapon. A vehicle is like

vehicular homicide has a name in law. Vehicular homicide. No, I know there's such a thing as vehicular homicide. And I'm not saying that you can't use a vehicle to kill somebody to injure somebody, but just using a vehicle around an officer that you're not complying with, yeah, run an officer that you're not complying with. Does it necessarily constitute a threat? Absolutely not. This is definitely all of this like Monday morning quarterbacking that we're doing is exactly how It's going to be by going frame by frame like over literally an interaction that happens over just a few seconds.

Agreed. This is how it's going to be decided. And a reasonable person is not a second. Each individual action taken by the cops in this instance constitute justified self-defense or use of deadly force. And certainly not for the... Like, even if I granted for the first one, the following two shots after that,

when she's clearly turning away, which this video confirms, how is that going to hold up the screen? A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon under certain circumstances, depending on how it is used in the context of the situation. According to US... Hold on.

According to U.S. law vehicle driven by a person with the intent to harm, someone is legally classified as a deadly weapon. The principal was emphasized... The principal was emphasized by Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Christy Knoem, who stated that a vehicle used to harm someone is clearly established law as a deadly weapon. Courts have consistently ruled that a car becomes a deadly weapon when it is used in a manner capable of causing death or serious physical injury. He's in front of the car.

It is absolutely capable of causing death or severe injury. I'm not disputing that a car is capable of causing severe injury or death. I'm only disputing. That's the context in which it is a weapon. But it's not assumed that it's a weapon in the same. Same way, if you brandish, what he didn't want a weapon. This is just an opinion statement. From the analysis that I saw that saying to multiple angles, it did not look to me, like it hit the person.

And the sound that's coming from this because it's the first person perspective, I'm not sure if that noise is because the vehicle touched him in any way or made contact with him. Because he moved back. You think he did double-footed mood walk slide? No. Like, if he was struck by the vehicle, going even at that speed, wouldn't you have fallen over? Not necessarily. He was going to come a mile and out where he's standing on ice and his feet slid backwards. There's a point where both his feet are off the ground at the same time.

No, no, I don't think that's true. Both his feet are on and both his feet slide backwards because the vehicle is. And he gets hit. His feet are planted and he gets hit. His feet slide back. You hear him get hit on this video. I mean, look, I'm not trying to poke at you, but I really think that you're just ignoring the facts of the situation.

This is the part I was making about politics. It's not about what's actually happening. It's just what try on me. It's a difference of opinion as far as what inference we're drawing from the same set of facts because I acknowledge you hear a noise, but it's unclear to me from this angle and from the other footage that I've seen. If that's actually, the noise coming from the video is because the car is making contact with the officer or from something else. What knocks his camera over? I don't know. He threw his phone in the air, pulled his gun out,

and then caught his phone perfectly. Like the third video that he was thinking this POV with the body cam, because my understanding is this isn't the body cam, right? He was like holding his. Yeah, you can see his reflection actually. We need. We need to. to see the cell phone, the body cam, as well as the third person perspectives, all at the same time to really get an idea of what happened. So he's collecting evidence because she's obstructing. Eyewitnesses said that she was the ringleader obstructing. He's filming her license plate to which this woman says, license plate ain't going to change. It's going to be the same thing. They are both engaging. He then goes around and is filming the vehicle. It's the second time he went around.

She already knows. She has an ICE agent filming her vehicle. Then a cop comes up and says, get out of the car and she seeks to flee creating, the point is this. We can argue our opinion on what a person would perceive to be reasonable. Only one thing matters. She created the circumstance. She's in commission of a crime. She's in furtherance of that crime. She stares dead at the officer. He sees it within a second. He's hit. He chooses to shoot. Even Dave, when this came, when I showed him this, he went, wow, okay, there's not going to be a prosecution. I think there will because it's political. But like, on the subject of case, although didn't Dave when he was on earlier say that just because you plead the scene doesn't mean that the cops are able to open fire on you because you've fled. Unless you are creating a threat to someone else's life.

But what's the threat here? Because the threat that we've pointed to so far verbally. I know, but how is Renee good going to be responsible? When the vehicle starts to move and there's other people standing around. So there's something we talked with Andrew Brock about called imperfect self-defense. So I asked you the question earlier, if I point a gun at you, can you shoot me? Yes. Yes.

What if my intention is that it's a toy gun and I'm playing a game and I don't see you there, you can still shoot me. No, nobody, no, if we're doing an objective analysis of what's reasonable, there's no reason to think that anybody who's brandishing them up and in your direction or aiming it at you is going to be doing so with any other intention other than, oh, I thought you said a real handgun. If you said toy gun, if it's a toy gun, then no. You can still shoot them.

Yes, it is. It's called imperfect self-defense, meaning a reasonable person. If you're asking me my opinion, I don't think so. If you're asking me what the law has been found to be legal, I wouldn't be surprised. How can you tell the difference between a real gun and a toy gun? It's probably difficult in a lot of instances. Exactly. So that means.

Don't some have like orange caps or sometimes like that? So if I, if I'm filming a movie scene on a property by myself, like I'm making a short film, and I have a camera pointed at me, and I have a replica gun, and you are walking down the road, And I'm going like this. And then I point at you. And then you see the gun pointed at you. You can't shoot me. Okay.

Well, then in those circumstances where it's like daylight, you can't, you're too far to be able to tell whether or not it's a toy gun or a yo gun. I didn't say that. You can be standing right in front of me. Well, even, okay, those are circumstances where I can see an argument for imperfect self-defense as you're saying. Yes. So, okay, now.

Because it because if we're, what we're trying to analyze is the person that's using lethal force against somebody else and their state of mind. And it is rational to assume that if you have a replica. gun that's being aimed at you from somebody who you don't know that, yeah, to think that it was a real gun. Even if there is no intent to kill the other person, the person with the replica gun has no intent to kill anybody, has created a real fear of death. And it's called imperfect self-defense, then that the person who is in that line of perceived fire can kill you. And they will not be criminally charged for it because they didn't know it wasn't a real gun. The point is this.

What are the circumstances here? Let's get to it. Is, does this individual, the other woman saying, Does this individual have a reason to believe he will be seriously injured by this car? No. Why not? Because she's clearly, and this footage shows it, she's clearly turning away and she said, I'm fine, dude, or I'm going, I'm, what does she say? Like, I'm good or I'm not mad at you. Prior contact doesn't prove intent of anything.

I'm not saying it proves intent. I'm saying, I'm talking, if you're asking me about my analysis of what we can see from that. Six months ago and dragged 330 feet. So, we're talking about his state of mind. Does he have a reason to believe that the vehicle? will cause bodily harm. Yes, because it happened to him six months ago. He is filming evidence of a vehicle. They're antagonistic. He walks to the front, lawful orders are given, and just like the last event

where he gave lawful orders to stop, the guy hit him with the front of the car and dragged him. The same thing is about to happen. Not only do I believe that proves his state of mind is that there's a reasonable fear of harm, but it literally proves in the real world it does happen and did recently. If trauma from six months ago makes you this trigger happy because of your PTSD, you're honestly should not be on the field, in my opinion, as a cop. Because I don't think... I don't think a person that's subjected to what he experienced six months ago, like every single person would react the exact same way that he's reacting in the same set of circumstances.

I think he's being way too trigger-happy and the two shots afterwards and him saying fucking bitch after... I don't know that was him who said. Because... You can't tell him. That's the other cop. I don't know who said it. But you're correct. This guy should have been taken off active duty.

after experienced that trauma, they should have said, we're going to put you on desk duty following this incident. It's traumatic. That doesn't change the fact that whether he should have, that's an administrative decision. And we can agree it was a wrong decision, but it doesn't mean that he should go to prison or that this was a murder. I don't know that it would necessarily mean it's a murder because it doesn't, if it's trauma that is leading him to act this way, then maybe you could say it's a mitigating circumstance. It means it's not malicious, but then I still think he could be on the hook for manslaughter or some sort of like reckless homicide. I I reckless homicide I don't think is a thing. Negligent discharge negligent homicide. Like negligent homicide these sorts of I don't think you're going to get you're going to get there's no way you're going to get a cop on negligent homicide when he's been an active engagement with the with the subject for over four minutes and they've communicated with each other and then when order to leave within a split second she accelerates the vehicle they're like tragic shouldn't have happened but let's just be clear the circumstance is entirely at the fault of woman driving. That's just it. She committed a crime. Listen, look, when we talk about fault,

it doesn't. So let me put it like this. Two guys go into a grocery store. They are, they decide to rob one of the, one of the tills. They grab all the money out. And then his buddy turns around and runs and slips, falls down, cracks the time of the ground and dies. His partner's at fault for that murder. And they will charge him with such. When you commit a crime, anything that happens happened subsequently is your fault. So the way we approach this in law is, did you commit a crime creating a circumstance that resulted in death, serious bodily harm, you'll be charged for it. So the woman committed felony obstruction and felony evading arrest.

And in the process, in fact, I would argue this, Renee Good, were she to have survived, would have been criminally charged. And I would actually argue, though it doesn't really make sense. she's responsible for her own death in the law by committing two felonies, which resulted in the death. In fact, I'd argue that... Wait, what are the two felonies that she's accused of? Felony obstruction and felony evading arrest. The first of which is 8 U.S.C. 1357.

I'm not sure the code on the other one. This woman right here... But the Supreme Court has ruled that, well, this takes us back to earlier disagreement. I don't want to loop about how the Dave was saying that just because you're fleeing arrest and trying to evade it does not necessarily mean that you can... an officer can use lethal force against you. That's an argument for whether he perceived a threat after the fact. But I think if it's one second, as he pointed out, it's always going to be argued that it was not one, two, three.

It was shots fired within the span of a second. More importantly, though, there's two things to consider. This woman potentially saying drive, baby, drive, drive is, I believe should be criminal. If it is true, she said that. I would Renee Good be on the hook for something that somebody else said. Renee Good? Yeah. No, the wife, if the wife instructed Renee good to commit a crime, that's also a crime.

That's illegal. That's a felony. But why would Renee be on the hook for that? Renee wouldn't be on the hook for what her wife did. Her wife would be on the hook for instructing Renee to commit a crime. Renee probably would have driven and tried to avoid arrest, regardless of whether or not the wife had said that. Do you agree? Yes or now?

Yes. Then why is it such a big deal that the wife said drive, baby drive? Because you're suggesting it's like an incitement of some sorts, but to me it seems like, she was trying to do it already. But that, again, well, we can look at it this way. I don't know if it's illegal. I think it's dumb. She says drive, baby, drive, drive before she accelerates.

I don't think they're going to bring charges against her. But the other consideration is that the defense will argue there was a pedestrian standing to the right of the vehicle. I was standing in front of it. I perceived a threat to myself and others. The only reason, look, I think if they have a state charge, no matter what like Dave was saying, this dude is going to get convinced. in two seconds in Minnesota. Two seconds. Like Derek Chauvin was innocent and they convicted him.

Don't you, okay. What do you think about him calling her a bitch after and also did he. Okay. The other cop. Assume take it as fact for now that he called her a bitch after. Well, why? I can't take that as fact. Just for the sake of hypothetical. For the sake of the argument, right? Assume he called her a bitch and also didn't he leave the scene after? He did. Okay. Does that do any, does that change your analysis whatsoever as far as like? People in people have said things that could be incriminating that are dismissed because it's considered like heat of the moment or High state of emotional There there are actually people who have gotten away with

Well, I don't want to say guy is like PTSD and trauma And so unlike I've seen which actually excuses him I've seen body cam footage of cops that have used lethal force on somebody that they believed was starting their life And afterwards they're freaking out they seem like they're hyperventilating. They're like oh my god, I don't think he called her a bitch They're freaking the fuck out. I know, but for the sake of the argument, if he said that in combination with leaving the scene and seeming as calm as he was to be able to continue, you know, we don't know. We don't know. We have no. We know that he went to the hospital. It's for the sake of the argument. I'm saying that if those things are true. For the fourth time, no, no, no, no, no. How many times are I say no? No. I said no already. You're going to ask the fifth time. That speaks to his state of mind that he was not actually true fear for his life. No. Why not? You can't read his mind. You don't know what he's thinking. I'm not saying I can read his mind, but I can draw inferences. off his behavior. You can't use that in court. Otherwise, like tons of rape victims would. You can't read Renee's mind. And you can't read the wife's mind. I completely agree. Which is why I did not. I said her intent never mattered. All that matters is she creates the perception of a threatly

harm. How can the intent not matter when we're trying to ascertain whether or not somebody is acting in a way that an objective, reasonable person would perceive as menacing or threatening? We have to try to understand what their intent is. You agree that she was acting in the way that was menacing or threatening. No, that's not what I said. Do you want me to repeat it? I said, if we're I said, how can intent not matter if that's what it's going to come down to in a significant way when it's argued legally. If I point a replica gun at you, you can kill me. In that circumstance, yes.

But I didn't agree to. Even if you don't know my intent? Without knowing my intent? Does my intent matter with the replica gun? No, it doesn't. So why would it hear? You've created a circumstance where it's understandable that an objective, reasonable person could fear for their life without knowing or without that, like, regardless of what that person's state of mind was. What's the difference?

The difference is that a gun or a replica gun is something that to people, they will assume, oh, that's a real gun. That could put my life in danger right away. And people don't think being crushed by a car will kill you, right? No, people do think that being crushed by a car will kill you. But in this particular circumstance, I've not seen enough factors that to me rise to the level or create, you know, set of circumstances where somebody could reasonably be fearing for their life. I see the opposite, if anything from this body cam. A guy who was dragged six months ago. The other, what sounds like the wife.

Who? This guy from being dragged three and three feet. Yes, I already said that. I already said you shouldn't even be on the field and you agreed with me. I do agree. So do you believe this person had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm? No. Even though he had just been dragged and was traumatized.

You said he was traumatized. So his trauma doesn't factor in his fears? No, it does factor in his fears. So why would he be traumatized but simultaneously not fearing getting injured? How does that make sense? No. Traumatized implies he has an irrational reaction due to a path. event. Okay. I thought that you asked me. Can you like what was the question that you would

initially ask me? Do you think he is traumatized from being dragged 330 feet? Okay. That I agreed to. Correct. Yes. Yes. Okay. If someone is traumatized, do you believe they will act the same way as someone who was not traumatized? No. So then this individual who was previously injured by being hit front on by a car and dragged, do you think that person may through their trauma, which you agree he has, see a similar situation. That also doesn't preclude maybe, but it also doesn't preclude the possibility of them just being impulsive or angry. So like, the point of the point of the only is, that trauma is the thing that's guiding his response. Could it be something that's guiding his response? Yes. I even think that that could be likely given the past. I think you're just saying things to be on

a tribe. What do you mean? I think you're literally just using sophistry and saying whatever you have to justify why you don't like ice. I don't like ice. It wouldn't matter, but at all. Uh, But whether he did or did not do anything right, wrong, was traumatized or otherwise, you are going to make some kind of sophistry argument as to why it's wrong. What is sophistry that I've engaged in here? I mean, we literally have a woman who committed two felonies. What is sophistry that I've engaged in? Okay. Not a set of circumstances that we looked at.

What did I say that constitutes sophistry? You making up fake arguments to justify claiming a guy who's trauma. He's simultaneously. He's simultaneously traumatized, but not fearing for his life. By fake arguments, you mean hypothetical, correct? No. What do you mean by fake arguments then? So the sophistry is the implication that you're using arguments to to mislead. Yeah.

And like agreeing he's traumatized, which presents an irrational reaction relative to the general public, but that in this circumstance, he's not, he's not acting within the trauma. How could he? So the point is. But I never said we know for sure that that's what we're doing. I'm saying that it's likely that his piece. How is that sophistry? That's just not what's because literally if you look at the video at car accelerates, you hear a noise that

sounds like he's being hit and she's staring at him and you're like nah like okay look any that's a disagreement that's not sophistry this is this is this is the political divide in this country fast and loose with different terms to argue for a particular end disingenuously and that's what you're doing no what do you think that i don't genuinely hold this position yes i would just say if no because you want to fit in you're scared of getting canceled by liberals you'll lose viewers you'll you'll lose money so you're going to say whatever you have to to to justify this i feel like you're doing that. No, I have no problem saying Trump shouldn't have invaded Venezuela and Trump lied about him getting run over. You've already said that you in this circumstance wouldn't have done it and that it's a

tragedy, right? Yes, right. Sounds like I'm consistent. Nonetheless, you are saying that it was justified. This guy who suffered a trauma previously after being hit front on by a car and dragged, reasonably feared the same thing would happen as one was committing two felonies. And you said in the same set of circumstances, even if you had that trauma, you still wouldn't have done this, right? I didn't say if I had that trauma. I thought you had. I thought it was pre-during her. I said, I've experienced life or death situations. And so when I look at something like this, I related to the experiences I've had and I said, I probably wouldn't have shot. My point is, if we agree he had trauma, assuming that he had the trauma, that's assuming you had the trauma from six months ago? You can't assume it if you've

never. How do you assume an irrational reaction? No, because you're trying to put yourself in the same set of circumstances as this individual. So all else being equal. But instead of this individual, it's you. That's the point I'm making. Six months of trauma. You're saying that you wouldn't have I've already said yes. I've already said yes. So yes, you would, you would have acted the exact same way if you'd had the traumatic event six months earlier. The presumption is, so the presumption is the reason why I am saying he is acting this way is because I believe any person, any rational, normal person who suffers a grievous injury being dragged by a vehicle to being hit head on. Six months earlier. Six months earlier, very recent, would have the same reaction, which includes myself. Because my perception of behavior is based on my perceptions. It's projection. I believe that were I to have been rammed and dragged, I would react similarly to this cop. Yes. And I think. Rammed and drag six months earlier. Six. That's very recent. That means he was in the hospital four months ago. I'm not saying it's not recent. I know. I'm just underscoring. When you say rammed and dragged, you're not referring to anything that happened around this incident. You're talking about something that happened six months before. He was rammed. The vehicle made contact with him. Yes. Maybe from what I'm from what I'm. I saw, I did from the New York Times analysis that I saw.

Even the New York Times said it appears he was struck. That was not. I didn't read the editorialization or listen to it. No, no, they literally said from the video it appears the officer was struck. I'm not disputing that. Maybe they said that. I'm saying I only watched it. I didn't listen to any of the editorialization.

I didn't have the captions on. What was that? What are you talking about? So just from the consolidated footage of them showing the two angles simultaneously, I didn't listen to any of the way that they described the footage. I only viewed it on mute. And from what I saw, it did not look. like the vehicle made contact with the officer, but it might have. See a news line. Why? Like, come on.

His feet slide on the ground. Do we want to pull up the New York Times footage? Let me let me show me. Let me show you which frames. And I will be willing to concede. I already showed you this. I'll be, I'll be more than willing to concede if it makes contact, if it looks like it's made contact with the officer. You now have four videos which show contact with made the officers. And you're like, nah, but I just don't believe. It should be easy to prove me wrong right now. I've already showed you the videos. You can show it to me again because I did not see at any point

of clear instance where it touched him. No, no, no, no, wait. The New York Times one. Watch the magic officer's feet slide on the ground right here. You see his feet? We're not supposed to be looking at the feet. Man, he's better than M.J.D. Moonwalk. Look that slide.

One foot off the ground, one foot sliding backwards because he can shift his weight. Like, you ever see the one inch punch from Bruce Lee? Are you going to pull up in New York Times footage? What about the New York Times? footage. What's the difference? This is the footage of the incident. The New York Times shows both angles on top of each other at the same time. Is this not footage of the incident? I'm not saying it's not footage. You want me to play an editorialized video where they're arguing. You don't have to listen

to the editorial. You can play it on mute. The video itself is editorialized. I want you to pull up the video and you can play it on mute. I'll pull up their source videos for you. Why won't you play that video? Because editorialized because they edited the footage. I think now you're the one who actually won't show it because it might qualify your argument. I've already showed it 15 times. Then showed for a 16th time. You're asking me to pull up editorialized, edited video to prove your point. Sure. How about we pull up the source material?

To disprove my point. Because you're saying that there's contact between. What's the problem with the raw video? There's nothing wrong with this. But we can get another angle from the New York Times one that shows both. Why won't you show the New York Times one? I pulled it up. Why won't you show the New York Times one?

I did. Tim, why won't you show it to me right now and show exactly where the car made contact with the officer? It's on the screen. I think it's because you know that there's a good chance that maybe it didn't Do you lose my mind. Did I pull the video up just now? This is not, is this the New York Times one? Yes!

No. The New York Times one is the analysis that shows. Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You're asking me to pull up the analysis editorial video. Yeah. Oh, oh. See, my presumption was you wanted the video they used showing the other angle because you said you're showing me one angle, so I pulled it up.

Oh, so you're asking for the editorial. Okay. So you're just confused. No, I'm asking for the New York Times one that shows the two angles synced at the same time. I get it. Slow down, slow down. Do you want me to pull up the editorial?

Sure. Okay, I'll pull up the editorial. I thought you were asking for the other... You can pull up what you describe as the editorial. It's literally an editorial. It's called an editorial. You can pull up what you describe as the editorial. Sure.

The literal definition of a video produced by a news organization is called an editorial. Okay, you can pull up what you describe as the editorial. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Oh, my God. See, this is soft. This is softestry. No. This is being precise with my language and...

No, no, no. The definition of... of the production. It's not an insult. It's not derisive. The definition of a piece of media produced by a news organization is called an editorial. Sure. That's the word. You're like, you call it that. No, the dictionary does. Yeah, saying what you call is like the left wing version of the fifth pleading the fifth. So here's the New York Times editorial. That's the definition of what it is called. This is not the source material. These are the distinct words we use to describe things. Source material is the original video footage that was released. The editorial is when they combine two videos, and make a statement about it. Okay. You want to watch the New York Times statement about it.

I have no problem with that. So we'll pull that up and go to the point where they, here we go. See, here's the funny thing. This is the video I pulled up when you asked me to pull the New York Times. Can you go to the moment where they show? I will. I just want to make sure this is clear that you literally just tried to argue the same video I pulled up, which on the New York Times and that I pulled up was not the video.

This is sophistry. You're just lying. Now I'll play the video for every video. and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV. And I'm going to mute the commentary because I don't know why you want me to play an editorial. I said you can play a mute. We're only trying to ask you. And I can't even remove the words they've included that are lies.

You can turn off close captioning in the bottom right corner of any YouTube video. Oh, there you go. So there's the officer getting hit. They circle him even. I'm sorry, they square him. To be precise, they square him. And now they show two videos of him being hit. Okay.

So what was the point in front of me? it's not clear to me if he actually is. Let's slow it down as much as we can. Where's the speed? Oh, playback speed. Let's do the slowest possible. And keep in mind, the statement that Christy Noem said is that this person like ran over in the officers. And Trump did and Trump lied. And Trump and Christy Noem both said that. Have they retracted those statements? Play the video. Stop changing the subject. Do you, do you want me to tell you that Trump lied? Same subject. Trump lied. He put out a statement the guy got one over and that he's lucky to be alive. But he never retracted the same. Yeah, that's a bad thing he should.

watch the feet slide the moonwalk oh look at that slide man he's better than MJ it's like a wedding like to deny that he was hit is to deny what you're looking at it might have made contact with him

it's uncouthous come on this is what softestries you understand no I really I'm saying how did his feet slide how did his feet slide because maybe either he could have moved back

you could have moved back suddenly or angled his body he could have tripped backwards one foot is off the ground one foot sliding How do you do that? It's also possible that the vehicle made contact with him. This is like in the NFL when your team makes the game-winning catch and then they do the replay

and it's obviously at a foot out of bounds and then they're like, well, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't want to be derisive or anything, but it really is that you're just denying the evidence right in front of your face. Yeah, for political reasons. We brought up the thing that you wanted us to bring up. You see his foot slide. The other one, you see the car, contact his body.

and he's pushed out of the way because of the car contacts his body. It's not even clear to me that his feet are sliding. He could have been jumping back. He wasn't jumping back. Look, but sliding. No, no, no. Tim asked me, how could he have moved this way? Were it not for the car touching him?

And I'm saying it's possible he could have jumped back to avoid coming in contact with the vehicle. There could have been like a seance near- because jumping backwards while keeping your center of gravity stable and sliding a fun on the ground is very difficult. Tim, it is Minneapolis. there's a lot of Somali black magic. Maybe a spell was cast and it like slid him back. I don't know. There's a lot of possibilities on the table. His feet are sliding.

But I'll even grant. Even if it made contact with him, that still to me does not rise to the level of an imminent threat of death. We can hit by a car. We can get cops now? This is. I mean, to be honest, the left always accepted that. That doesn't mean.

Let's listen to what the New York Times has to say. How does shooting somebody in a car stop? Now we're moving the goalpost. How? Because you're like talking. How does shooting someone in a car, it doesn't matter. The point is he was hit by the car. It does matter because his training and his policy as for DHS and ICE is that you're not supposed to be in front of a vehicle.

And that shooting at an individual in a vehicle does not actually eliminate a deadly threat coming your way from somebody in a vehicle. It's that you can't. And we went over this with Dave who pulled up the actual exclusions. And it was you can only use lethal force against a vehicle. If the vehicle is being driven in a way that constitutes a threat of great bodily harm or death. from NBC. The way ICE officers approached the vehicle involved in today's shooting was counter to their training, a senior department of Homeland Security official told NBC News. The official said ICE officers are trained. One, never to approach a vehicle from the front. Two, to approach vehicles or possibly armed people in a tactical, one, 90 degree angle to prevent injury or crossfire. Three, not to shoot at a moving vehicle. Four, only to use force if there is immediate risk of serious injury or death. Ice officers are also instructed that firing at a vehicle will not make it stop moving in the direction of the officer. And what was that part about if it's going to cause bodily harm or death? Only use force if there's an immediate risk of serious injury.

Once again, we're back to all of this. But again, ICE officers are instructed that firing at a vehicle will not make it stop moving in the direction of an officer. So again, my point was even if the car made contact with the officer, that's fine. He's a retard. My point is even if the car made contact with the officer, that does not mean that shooting at that person or using deadly force in this instance would be justified. And then this is still. This is still not even getting to the fact that he shot her two more times after. In a span of a second.

From the side, yes. Yeah. In span of one second after getting hit, he goes, one, two, three. Right. Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. And it's true that at this moment in this grainy low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV.

It looks like. It does Indies look like he's being. struck by the SUV. That he wasn't run over. Agreed. Trump was wrong or lied when he said he was run over. That never happened. But it does appear in this video he was struck.

And I would also say his feet sliding on the ground basically prove it. There's no way to do that. That's just not reality. His left foot is off the ground and his right foot is sliding. Okay. And then let's just do this because I love doing this. Oh, look, her tire's spinning out while pointed at the officer. You can see the tire spin and the weight shift.

The ass end goes down. And it doesn't even knock him over. This doesn't speak to the fact that he's amazing for being able to maintain a center of gravity, it speaks to me that if he made contact with the vehicle, and I'll grant for the sake of of the argument that he did, then it was at such a low acceleration that to think that he was at risk for imminent death or severe bodily injury is unreasonable to me. I think there's two different factors at play. One, political tribesmanship results in, this is true of conservatives, but it's slightly less. I call it like 60, 40, 40, 60.

there are a lot of conservatives that will say Trump can do nothing wrong, like literally whatever he does. and it's just like, that's stupid. But it's 40% of the time. And that's because the Republican Party has historically been a little small than Democrats. And Trump only wins with this moderate coalition that eventually came in. So people like me or Elon Musk or Joe Rogan who are going to call out Trump in two seconds when he does dumb things. Like we shouldn't have gone in Venezuela. I think that was a mistake.

We'll see how that plays out. Trump is lying about the cop being run over. It's clearly not true. But then there are people are going to be like, no, Trump is right. Doesn't matter. On the left, it's an inversion. It's more likely they're going to just say whatever they say in the majority to defend. the liberal tribe. And I think this is related to cancel culture because the right is less likely

to cancel you and the left is more likely to cancel you. So why is it so difficult for us to get liberals to come on this show or any other show? Because they're going to get canceled after the fact just for associating. And conservatives don't do that. So liberals are more likely to say, I will say anything to fit in with the tribe so I don't get canceled. Whereas the right has that faction but is less likely to do that because you're going to have middle of the road people who say Trump is lying. I don't care. You can believe whatever you want, but Trump is lying. You think that the majority of like moderate voters agree with your analysis over mine. Yes.

Well, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not, I would say right now, I honestly don't know this just happened and we don't have a public perception. What I would say is we tend to find when you look at wide scale polling that independent voters, swing voters, they tend to align with like my views tend to align with theirs quite a bit. So you'll notice that, let me pull up civics as a good example. And you can see where the Trump biases, you can see where the liberal bias is. And it's funny how Democrats respond to things and independence. Oh, actually, is it going to let me do it? Okay, yeah, let's try national economy.

So you can actually see the hilarity of this in the hyperpartisanship of everybody. You go to Democrat. How would you rate the condition of the national economy right now? Take a look at this. For some reason, on January 20th, January 20th, I'm sorry, January 20th. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, January 2020, 2021, you immediately have this shift. Where are we at? Party Democrat.

So in 2019, 2008, you have a fairly good, 45%, 26% fairly bad, 30% very bad, 11% on share, blah, blah, blah, blah. Right around election, the opinion on the economy inverts. And now the economy is very, very bad. Okay, well, that doesn't make no sense. And this is January 20th. Now, to be fair, COVID, right? So let's jump to the front where we can see January of 2025.

Because to be fair, January of 2020 was an election year. It was COVID. So I should clarify, that's where things kind of make sense. It was a Trump term. Democrats actually thought things were kind of okay. Well, hold on there, gosh darn minute. Now we're in Biden's term. In Biden's turn, 53% of Democrats say the economy is fairly good.

The moment Trump is inaugurated, they now claim the economy is very bad. that's not a real opinion, is it? It's a real opinion, but it's biased. It's not a real opinion. It's not a real opinion. It's not a real opinion. It's just me saying, I hate Trump. Because you can't be like a week ago, the economy was perfect.

A week later, the economy is bad. That's a lie. But hold on, don't get me wrong. I got Republicans for this one, too. We ain't playing no silly games. Republicans are the exact same. That's not exactly the same, but it's similar. Take a look at this.

During Joe Biden, all the Republicans said the economy was very bad. And then you get election day and it starts to drop. Right? at inauguration day. It drops. 46 very bad, 41 very bad. So we've got 87% of Republicans in the economy is somewhat bad. The moment Trump gets in, it flips.

And now it's 60% fairly good. That is not a real opinion. And you can see the trends when a Democrats in office, it's bad, when Republicans in office it's good, because this is fake. We go to independent and what do we find? It more likely aligns. Now, this is where you get real opinion. Around COVID, there's an inversion.

makes a lot of sense. You don't see the harsh turns that you'll end up seeing during elections among independent voters. And what I would say right now, as I've said for the past seven, eight months since Trump has been in, the economy is not good. And the reason Trump is taking actions in institutional investors is because he's trying to get home prices lower. Earlier in the year, he said that he wants home prices to be high because boomers like having their equity in homes. And I said the economy is bad. Gen Z screwed. And independent voters tend to follow that. So I would argue that you the point is Republican Party historically smaller than Democrats. That's why I call it 60 40, 40, 60. Democratic Party larger. What that means is on left aligned individuals, they tend to in the majority. And for Republican aligned individuals, they have their cult, but their coalition has independent voters. That's how Trump ended up winning in 2024, largely suburban housewives and working class people in swing states. That's the independent voters that are pointing this out. So I can go to a conservative. and I can go to a Trump supporter and say, yeah, Trump lied.

Trump said outright the guy got run over. He clearly did not get run over. In fact, I doubt he was injured at all. Maybe a minor ankle sprain if you want to be in the most extreme. No. It doesn't change whether or not he felt he was about to be crushed because we had that Amy, I forgot her name, the officer in Baltimore who was crushed in a second by a vehicle standing in the same place. And I'm a major Trump supporter and I agree with you, Tim.

I would get canceled and I don't care, right? And so there's a faction of people that are out there and just telling the truth about how they feel. If I were to care about what other people think, then it's not really my opinion anymore. And that's the problem that I'm seeing with the social media mob is that they're more looking toward, oh, what are my followers going to think? Or how do I get more followers? And that's the issue. Let's jump to this story from CNN. What's behind the highly unusual move to block Minnesota officials from investigating the ICE Shoe?

shooting. Wait, what? This is actually pretty interesting. Uh-oh. CNN's giving the business. We're going to have to we're going to give CNN the business. I thought I already gave him the business, but let's, let me log in real quick. I'm logging in. That's what I'm doing to make sure that I'm logged in. All right, here we go. I thought we already logged in. They say mutual distrust between federal and state authorities derailed plans for a joint FBI and state criminal investigation into Wednesday's shooting of a Minneapolis woman by ICE, leading to the highly unusual move by the DOJ to blanche to blow. block state investigators from participating in the probe. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said Thursday that after an initial agreement for the FBI to work with the state agency,

as well as prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minneapolis and the Hennepin County's Attorney's Office to investigate the shooting. Federal authorities reversed course, and the FBI blocked the BCA from participating in the investigation. You know I love about this? We did a debate show earlier. I said this is going to happen. I said Trump's not going to let him do it. And Dave said, it's a state-level thing. They'll do it.

I'm like, yeah, but they're going to pull the guy to the state and there's not going to be charges. So let me just put it like this. I don't care who side you're on. I don't care if you're a liberal or conservative. Just understand what time it is. The feds are not allowing a criminal investigation from the state of a cop who shot a lady. It doesn't matter if you think he was justified. It doesn't matter if you think he was not justified.

The point is the federal government and the state governments have bisected and are now at odds with each other. where does that go like is there phil in your mind a circumstance by which the federal government apologizes and says let's come back together boys hmm i think that's probably unlikely yeah so uh what happens next i mean it's i'm not it's not a rhetorical it's not a joke question i'm not trying to make someone scream civil war i'm literally asking if the federal government is now saying to the states we're not going to work with you on these things what does the state do and then what do like What, like, what is the next thing that's going to happen? Legitimately, I think the state, the state stands down.

I don't think that they're, I don't think they push the issue. I don't think that they're in a position where they have the ability to do it. You think this guy won't be prosecuted? No, I don't think so. Really? What do you guys think? I think they'll try to bring charges against him. I agree.

Absolutely. I think the state is going to try to bring charges. They may try, but I don't think that he's going to actually stand. I don't think it's trial. No, I agree. He won't stand trial. I don't know for sure, but I would, I would say the probability lies with the federal government's not going to let them prosecute this guy. Yeah, that's what I... But this is getting weird.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I don't see a whirl. The DOJ just lets them try to railroad this guy. They learned their lesson in 2020 after Chauvin, like, the state and everybody. But what are the ramifications of outstanding criminal charges in Minnesota against a cop who shot and killed a person? And the federal government being like, we're going to protect him from prosecution. Trump and Vance have stated many times to law enforcement, we have your brother. Act and stuff. So I don't know what it means for... And recently. Yeah. On this specifically, I believe.

Yeah. I don't know what it means for overall for the relations between the federal government and the state of Minnesota. But it's not going to... I'm not even talking about Minnesota. Other blue states have reciprocity. So technically, every state has criminal reciprocity with every other state. But not anymore. Florida would not extradite this guy. No. If this cop comes to Florida to lay low and Minnesota brings charges, ain't nobody in Florida are going to let them come into Florida and rendition him.

Not at all. And think about what happens if the federal government doesn't step into this, the ICE operations would cease. And outside of just this incident, right before this, they were already intimidating the police that same day. And now after

this, imagine what that environment is like. So the federal government has to step up. Yeah, it would be open season on cops. You can just ram them with your car. Exactly. The precedent now is you can just, if you feel any pressure, what's it from the police, just step on the accelerator and you'll get a, you know, you'll get a twins tickets the next morning. J.D. Vance said, I want every ICE officer to know that their president, vice president, the entire administration stands behind them. To the radicals assaulting them, doxing them and threatening them,

congratulations. We're going to work even harder to enforce the law. If the DOJ, the federal government, DHS, Vance Trump, whoever you want to name, Chrissy Nome, allows this cop to be prosecuted in Minnesota, ICE is going to quit in mass. And the Trump administration may as well resign on the spot because their agenda will never come close to fruition. Yeah, I mean, that's reason enough why the Minnesota and the left would want to see and prosecute because they know that it would destabilize the law. And think of the narrative. Law enforcement and overall.

If out, again, outside of the morality of who is right, who is wrong, if Minnesota says, here's my prediction, Jacob Frey and Waltz or anyone else, the DA, they're going to say, they're going to do a press conference where they say, we are not here to assert that this man is guilty of any crimes. we are here to say that there was an officer involved shooting that requires an investigation. And based on the analysis of that investigation, a grand jury will choose to indict. They'll likely say a grand jury has returned an indictment for which now he can stand before a jury of his peers. They're going to approach it very neutrally.

Trump cannot allow this guy to face the prosecution because he will lose no matter what. Which means the Minnesota government and Democrats will then say Donald Trump is shielding a murderer who killed a woman in cold blood. other blue states will line behind that. This is a crazy situation because I don't see an exit for anyone other than this is how things escalate to state on state or feds versus state. Yeah, I mean, it's one more step down the road, right? But a big one. This is a jump down 10 of the stairs.

I don't know how fast things deteriorate, but this is definitely, you know, moving in the direction of deteriorating. Well, I mean, the feds hold the cards. I mean, we saw back earlier in 2025, when Trump just took the National Guard, federalized it, and then Newsom complained about it and said he's going to do everything he could, and then nothing happened. So the state's avenues towards retribution here is very, very limited.

Again, the federal government has all the cards here in this instance. My understanding is that I think there was a lawsuit filed. I don't know if it was by the government in California, but then there was a California judge that said the National Guard presence is illegal, and then there was another judge that saw it and overturned that and said, no, it was legal, and I think they're sorting it out in the courts. They are. But as far as, like, yeah, it's probably, if he said anything along the lines of, like,

I'm going to use every single thing that I can do to resist it. Like, yeah, it's probably like saber rattling or whatever. But I mean, like, legally, slow and steady wins the race. So him doing anything other than, like, you know, waiting for the court to adjudicate it would just be like lirping, in my opinion. Yeah. Let me ask you. Because, like, a state government's, like, never going to be able to overcome, like, the might of, like, federal agents being deployed or, like, the U.S. military or anything like that. Let's go.

Let's go. So you believe there will be prosecution of the agent? I don't know. I believe they're going to bring charges. But do you mean like federal or state? That's what I mean. State level will bring charges against the court. I agree with you.

I think they will. The question is, as we've discussed, now I'll ask you, do you think the federal government will evacuate this guy and avoid the prosecution? Or you think they'll let him get prosecuted? I think it's, I mean, this administration has shown that they will brazenly ignore the law. They'll ignore court orders. will lie if they want to. So I would put it, I would say it's in the realm of possibility. Sure that they would definitely try to stand behind this officer to the point that you're talking about.

But don't you think that would be wrong if they were trying to like tip the scales that much? So here's the important thing. Let's let's set aside our opinions on the morality of whether it should, like whether it's good or bad. Because I agree with you. I think they will bring charges. They have to. And I believe Trump will try to shield this guy from those charges in prosecution. So I think we're in agreement that that whether it's good or bad is it material. That's likely what's going on. So then so the question I have for you is should this agent say go to Florida where it's like a very favorable state. Do you think that Minnesota should take any action to try and extradite him back to Minnesota for these charges for this trial? Yes. And I think whether or not Florida tries to like stand behind this person will come down to public opinion because I don't think that Ron DeSantis is done trying to become president. So he is going to try to read the room and see is there the political will for.

for me to stand behind this ICE officer and basically do this come and take it shit and let him turn fucking Mar-a-Lago into his like fortress. But let's let's get into nitty-gritty. I mean, the only real action that Minnesota could take would be to send state troopers to Florida. I guess so, yeah. So unless there's other ways that you can extradite somebody from another state. It's going to be by force, right? Yeah.

So Minnesota in any capacity, let's, I'll try and avoid being overly specific due to like, my point is not to bring up the laws and the regulations of state troopers, but the point is, in order to get this guy out of Florida as an example of a friendly state, they would have to send people to forcefully pull him from the state. Yes. Like arrest him, put him in a vehicle and drive him there. Do you think they should? Yeah, of course.

So that being the case, what do you think Florida law enforcement would do if Minnesota law enforcement entered extra jurisdictional territory to apprehend a man that is lawfully in their state? I mean, I think it's, again, it's going to be a staring contest, and I don't know if it's going to come down to what that individual precinct decides to do. I don't know if they're going to be looking to take orders from just people locally or if they're going to be looking to Ron DeSantis and the state government broadly to see what they can do, what they ought to do. That's why I don't think that this is any sort of like principled action that would be a like plan that would come from Florida. I do think it's almost exclusively by public opinion and what they think they should, they can get away with. I agree. If they see Will among the base that, you know, especially the conservative base that

DeSantis is trying to pick up for 2028 or a run after that, then he'll stand behind the officer. If he sees public favor turn against him, then he will be like, we can't obstruct justice or pretend like he, he won't say, I'm going to cooperate. He's just not going to tell them get in the way of them being extradited. So here's the thing. States never send law enforcement on other states for law enforcement. they use the feds for that. So typically what would happen is Minnesota would file with the federal government and local authorities and say typically what happens is because we're the United States,

Minnesota would say to Florida, hey, this guy's pending charges. We want you guys to arrest them and then send them our way. In the circumstance where a state is like we're not interested in what you're talking about, they go to the feds and say interstate, you know, crime like this guy fled our state. He's guilty. Like he's wanted for charges. The federal government's not. going to intervene. Minnesota can't send anybody. That would be like, I mean, we're getting into war territory if Minnesota sends armed men to apprehend a guy in another state. Really, at cross-state border man hunts is just not an option. It doesn't happen. You're just waiting at the clock because all you have to do is wait till the midterms and or wait till like, you know, if Trump

leaves office or something were to happen. All they have to do is wait for an administration to come along somebody that's willing to lock. If he leaves office. If he leaves office, if he dies, whatever it's for the federal courts to decide. And so, okay, you escalated to the Supreme Court. And then the precedent is, yeah, this gets hashed out of the federal court. So they'll just go back to the original ruling, which was like, no, you can't extra. But you also made another really good point about Nassantis's presidential aspirations, which means in the event, let's say the midterms happen, Democrats can get congressional authority and file subpoenas against this guy and others and then make that move to try and jail him. The Republicans argue this is a circuitous method by which they're trying to get this guy on charges that are trumped up or whatever. The point is, DeSantis, if he has any political aspirations, cannot let. Again, hold on. Let me pause. We don't know the guy would go to Florida.

I'm saying hypothetical state is Florida because Florida is very favorable. In the event that happens, anyone with political aspirations would be thinking, if I allow this guy to be taken from my state, I will never get elected. But so now we're in very, very fucked up territory. Like, we're there right now. Yep. So you would think it was wrong? Two extraditim? Well, how do you feel about that? I don't, I think states should not send personal state law enforcement and other states to apprehend individuals.

I think that, even if the federal government won't comply? Yes. Okay. Do you think it would be right for the Trump administration to, like, continue standing behind this ICE officer as there are pending charges that he's supposed to be facing in his home state? Well, we don't know this is home state. Or in Minnesota. Right. That's one of the challenges, too. If he lives there, it's a different picture. The challenge is now we're getting into the morality of when we would and would not allow action by government. Just because government has the power of law doesn't mean they're moral or right. And that's the lesson Godwin's law. Everybody learned from Nazi Germany. Just because they passed a law saying they could doesn't mean it was right and they should have and we should have allowed it. The question then becomes, should we as a moral people, allow the prosecution of this individual, which is the moral question which you say yes.

And we would all say no. You would say no? This cop should not be prosecuted, no. And you would think that was moral. Yeah. Well, quite literally, we can't prosecute him. Like, the only way to prosecute someone for federal action would be political. No, no, I'm talking about morality.

That's what I'm saying. So I'm saying, I'm just saying like, even in the sense of morality, I'm like, oh, I'm not going to like advocate for charging someone purely on political motivation. That's just ridiculous. Do you think it's a moral for the Trump administration to not want to work with the Minnesota state? I think it is the most moral thing they could do. to politicize this. They're not politicizing it. It is politicized. There's no way around it. It's political. It is political, but they are obviously furthering it. So let me put it like this. The American people voted for these ice operations. Immigration was a top issue and Trump won and the

Republicans won everything. That doesn't mean everyone in the country agrees with it, but the American voter, democracy has spoken. So Trump is now carrying out the will of the American voter and the way it works is if you got a problem with it, you vote in the midterms and you vote in the next election. In the meantime, this is democracy in action. To subvert that as the activists are doing, politicized what the American people voted for. After the fact, it just is political. I think there's things in tension with that because, yes, Americans did vote for Donald Trump, and he obviously ran on mass deportation. So you were co-signing that policy, most likely if you voted for him. But I think most Americans also care about the rule of law. They care about the Constitution.

And so when they voted for that, they assumed that the mass deportation program would be carried out in conformity with the Constitution. It is. And there have been, no, there have been possible instances where people's due process rights are violated. People are, what's her name, Ozturk, Mahmoud Khalil, Kilmer Obrigo-Garcia. You said two examples of constitutional movements. Yeah, they're due process. Like, Kilmarraga-Garcia was labeled a terrorist by the Trump administration before he had even been found. What does due process mean?

Due process means not having, how do I put this into words? Due process is people being given the chance to make their case. Incorrect. That's not correct. Well, hold on. Before you correct me, my understanding is that people's due process has to do with them being able to be given a fair shot if the state acts against them. That's not what due process is.

Which is to say make their case, it's brought to a judge. Yeah, that's not correct. To a judge who is a neutral term. Due process is not a proper noun. It's a generic term. literally meaning we can we can stop saying the phrase due process because people think it's a proper phrase like a proper noun like it cites law it's literally just a generic phrase meaning the process by which a person has in in in in law that's all it's what about the fourth amendment what about

the fourth amendment which one which part of it do do process do due process do due process of law means in different circumstances certain people are entitled to certain actions yes Kilmarra Berger-Garcia's due process. Let's let's avoid him for the for the time being and talk about the judge. You asked me for an example. Right. And he had his due process. No, he had his due process violated. No, he did not. Yes, he did. The Supreme Court said ordered the Trump administration to bring him back. He had been illegally deported. So, so. We got to break all this down. Okay, to avoid. It's going to get clipped either way. An illegal immigrant enters the country through the southern border. Right. Let's say a guy from Mexico crosses the border, runs full speed 60 miles into the United States. Can, what is his due process in this circumstance after he has apprehended? That you're going to be told and read your charges, told and read your rights, and you're going to be given a court date. Incorrect. And given the chance to make your case before a judge.

That's not what the law or the Constitution says. The process by which an alien is due because due process is not a proper phrase. It's a generic phrase, meaning the word. Word due literally means due and process literally means process. So we have executive immigration courts and the judiciary has nothing to do with it. The process by which an illegal immigrant is due is called expedited removal. Non-citizens who enter this country illegally do not have the right to a jury trial or a court. Citizens and resident aliens.

No, they do. That's not correct. Yes, they do. You are incorrect. The Fourth Amendment does not refer to citizens. It refers to people. You are incorrect. Is that not what the Fourth Amendment says?

No, okay, that's sophistry. Sofistry is when you cite the literal words of the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution. You're doing it again. When I'm talking about due process. I did not say you're not correct on the language and definitions used in the fourth amendment. I'm saying you're not correct on what is citing the Constitution. No, I'm saying it's sophistry to imply that the phrase people refer to aliens who run through our country across the border illegally because it does not. Due process refers to of your status, what you're in time.

title to. This is what I'm referring to when I say due process is a trial of a court hearing. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and teachers shall not be violated and no warrant's issue, but upon probable cause supported by author affirmation. That's not due process. Particularly describing, okay, what is your understanding of due process? Due process. Due process refers to the legal requirement that the government must respect all legal rights owed to a person ensuring fair treatment and legal proceedings. That doesn't mean that they get a trial. It doesn't mean that if immigration law. the Constitution reserves immigration issues specifically to the executive branch. The immigration

courts are not part of the judicial branch. They're part of the executive branch. And the law states that the Secretary of State has unilateral authority to remove any non-citizen at any point for any reason. So, Azturk specifically, it was the discretion of Marco Rubio under the law to say, your visa has been revoked. Thank you and have a nice day. And for that, she is being detained and deported. That is due process of law. I've been talking about the Fourth Amendment. I meant to say the Fifth Amendment, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Who? No, no.

Hold on. Who? Who? Who? Any individual in which the state acts against them. Let me pull up the entire Fifth Amendment. Indeed, because it's important to know what it says. When you say due process of law, it doesn't mean that everyone gets a court trial with a jury.

It just means the proper legal proceeding. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising arising. in the land or naval forces or in the militia. When an actual service in time of war or public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case

to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. And so now the question is, what does due process mean? Because you're citing the Fifth Amendment,

but you're assuming due process means you get a court hearing. That's not true. There are many circumstances in which someone doesn't get a court trial, even if they're U.S. citizens, like if you're insane. They adjudicate your insanity by paperwork and administrative. It's called the 5150. You don't get to go to court over this. You're just deemed insane and locked up. That happens. Does that person have due process? Indeed. If you are exhibiting a threat to yourself or others through mental incompetence, defect, or otherwise, you can be 51-50ed. You don't get to go to court. You don't get to ask a judge. It doesn't happen. I'm not saying that the government can take actions against you before it's all adjudicated in a court of law. or we're trying to clarify for you. I'm saying that if they do that, then you are able to open up a case against the government or report. In some circumstances, some individuals have some rights and some do not.

So the way the Constitution works in Texas, there was a big dispute over the southern border when the Texas State Guard were securing the southern border with concertino wire and the federal government sent in feds to cut the wire and allow people to cross over illegally. The issue at play, the reason why Texas sent the immigrants to Martha's Vineyard and New York, was because the Constitution grants full executive full immigration authority and foreign relations to the executive branch. The judiciary has zero authority on instances of foreign affairs. When a person crosses the border illegally, it doesn't go to a judiciary. The reason why progressives have been saying judicial warrant over and over again is because what they're saying is outside of

the process of the constitution, we want a court to to make an argument against the executive branch. How do you mean outside of the process of the Constitution? The Constitution gives full authority on foreign affairs to the executive branch. So what we have are immigration courts. But these immigration courts operate under Trump, not the Supreme Court. That means immigration courts are not judicial hearings, nor does a non-citizen have a right to a judicial hearing. They go to federal executive immigration courts. You still have due process, right?

No, no, no, hold on. You are correct. But due process is different from person to person. due process for an American citizen is different for a non-citizen. I'm not saying it's not different, but I'm saying that there are minimum standards of due process that are applied to every single person in which the state acts against them. For an illegal immigrant is called expedited removal. That is, a federal immigration officer gets an order from an executive judge, not a judicial judge,

for expedited removal of an individual. They don't go to court. There's no jury and there's no banging a gavel. The officer can literally, and Obama did this to the tune of, I think, three million. They can literally grab the person, say, give me your ID, you're a non-citizen subject to expedited removal. That is your due process and send them right back. You think that I won't say that if that is true that Obama wasn't violating people's due process rights, I would say that he is. I would say you're engaging in sophistry.

Why? Because the Constitution makes clear that immigration is under the executive branch and the process by which a non-citizen is due varies from expedited removal to refugee status hearings. And so what we've had is under Obama, Bush, Democrat, Republican alike, an executive immigration officer can grant you your due process of, are you a citizen? No expedited removal. That's due process. That is not under the purview of the executive. That is a right that is guaranteed to every single individual within the interior of the United States or that the United States takes action against. You're incorrect. That doesn't hinge on whether or not the president feels like enforcing it. No, no, no, you're incorrect. The immigration is the purview of the executive.

and immigration courts are not judicial. They're executive. No, no, I'm not saying that immigration isn't the purview of the executive branch. I'm saying that due process rights are in a matter of if the administration decides to grant them to. Your point on the Fifth Amendment, right, you brought up the Fifth Amendment, that like the act of being in the United States illegally is not considered a capital or otherwise. No, no, I got to look. So I think you're just generally not understanding the way the Constitution and the law works. So I pulled this up for you.

It's hard to see if I zoom in like this. Yes, U.S. immigration courts are part of the executive branch. Okay. I didn't dispute that, though. Okay. So, but this means you're not getting a trial in a court. Immigration courts, they're called courts, but they're executive functions. You don't go before a jury or a judge for issues of immigration. This is not me making an opinion statement. When someone is not a citizen, the issue of immigration is the executive branch.

They don't give you a hearing. They snap their fingers. Now, you can argue it shouldn't be that way, but this is because the constant. institution gives issues of foreign affairs solely to the executive branch. So due process means the legal process under the Constitution by which you are due. If you are a foreign citizen who enters our country, that is the sole purview of the executive branch to snap their fingers and remove you. It contradicts what I've said because I already granted that due process looks different for every single individual. Which would mean, Kilmarraigal Garcia got his due process. No. He had his due process

rights violated. How? He was sent to Seacot. He was not supposed to be removed from this country. Says who? He had, because he already had a stay of removal. He had expedited removal. No, no, no. He had something designated on his own immigration. Okay, look. We can totally pull this up. Here's the real challenge we're facing right now. You don't know these stories and you're basing off a conjecture and activist opinion. I can't recall all of the details. I know, I can pull up. Kilmorrow Brigo Garcia had an order for expedited removal, but it was stayed because they couldn't remove him to send him back to Guatemala. He's a Salvadoran man living in the United States. He's illegally deported on March 15, 2025. Okay, what are you reading? By the Wikipedia, by the

Wikipedia is not a real source. Under the government, we can go to the primary sources of the late. You should. You should read the court documents from ICE. Under the Trump administration, which it called an administrative error, which you disputed.

You said it wasn't deported. An administrative error is not a violation of due process. At the time, he had never been charged with or convicted of a crime in either country. Despite this, he was imprisoned without trial in the Salvadoran terrorism confinement centers he caught. Oh, liberals are fucking retarded. I can't do this.

I fucking give up. You want to respond to what I just said? trial? What does a trial have to do with an expedited removal in a state to Guatemala? You don't know this stuff. And it's so impossible for me to give you a book, a 300 page understanding of what happened. But the problem is I have to deal with people like this who don't know, don't read and then vote on it. And no matter how many times, I say 500,000 times, pull the documents and prove it. Because he wasn't just removed to that country. He was also then placed in effectively a gulog or torture dungeon. Which branch has authority? He was also in place. Which branch has the authority? I'm not disputing that this fall.

I'm not disputing that this falls under the executive. So why would he get a trial? You read a thing that claimed he didn't have a trial. It's a lie of an impulation. They were not just trying to deport him illegally to a country that he was not supposed to be removed to. But they were also trying to imprison him even though he hasn't committed or like he hadn't. The United States did not imprison him. No.

We just deported him illegally. Correct. No. We deported him illegally. And then he was in prison and confined at Seekot, which is a torture dungeon. Oh my God. He was. You read a bunch of activist AI slop garbage. Believe it and don't fact-check.

So you don't think that Seacott has prolific human rights violations going on. It might. It's a foreign country. I just read a bunch of like bullshit that made me think this. You literally on your phone just read a bunch of AI slop garbage activist stuff. Wikipedia is AI slop. Let's start this. You read that he was illegally deported without a trial.

I am asking you why he would get a judicial hearing when immigration is the purview of the executive branch. He was imprisoned without trial. Indeed. Why would, why would, why do we care about El Salvador? So, so do we run El Salvador's courts? No, we don't. Then why would we write that he got a trial or didn't? It's not, it's not related to the executive branch. It's a foreign country. He was removed to that country specifically. Is it his home country? Confined. I don't. It doesn't matter. You don't know, do you? He was not. Did he have a stay of deportation to El Salvador? No, I can't remember. He did not. It was Guatemala. This is the insufferable thing. You've, you've taken a strong present on something you just don't understand. So what does that matter? We, the executive branch has sole purview for deportation. He was not supposed to be sent to that country, correct? No. No, he was supposed to be sent to that country. Yes. He had an order for deportation. The state was for Guatemala. And the Biden administration and Trump through his own failures didn't do it

properly. Why was he supposed to be sent to that country? He had an order for immediate deportation. From the Trump administration, you think that was right? That, that, if the State Department wants to deport somebody, they can, yes. I'm not asking if they can. I'm asking if you think it's right. In the specific instance of Kilmer Obrigo Garcia, was it right for him to be deported? The answer is yes.

And it was right for him to be imprisoned at Seekot. I am not El Salvador. Well, Salvador does is beyond the United States borders. You don't have to be El Salvador just answer the question. Was it right for him to be in prison, Descott? If he is a, if El Salvador finds him to be a criminal, yes, 100%. So yes, you're saying. saying yes, it was right for him to be in prison there. That's a, so, so if El Salvador finds that

their own citizen should go to prison, that's their business. But he hasn't even been found to have. That's not us. We're not El Salvador. You don't have to be El Salvador. Yes, you do. And my opinion is Al Salvador can conduct their affairs as they see fit. And if they determine he should go to prison, he should. But they didn't determine that. He was just put there. They did. They did. They put him in prison. He was just put there. Because El Salvador decided he should be. Yeah, but did he have a fair trial? Does China have fair trials? I didn't ask if. China has fair trials and that's completely irrelevant. I don't care if he had an El Salvador and fair trial or not.

I'm not El Salvador, nor do I think the U.S. should invade El Salvador or Venezuela. No, if he had a fair trial. And yet, you'd be fine with him being imprisoned. He did have a fair trial. El Salvador's pause was very clear. Anyone of gang affiliation is going to get in prison in Seekot and he was found to a gang affiliation. That's their law.

What was the gang affiliation that he was found of? Trin de Arawa. Chendaa Waga. It's actually the accused him being part of M. 13. Was it? He's also... But he was never incredibly found...

By who? The Trump administration was saying that those photoshopped MS-13. Yeah. And because Trump thought... You just said that he was in... I was wrong about that. Yeah, okay. So what did he do then?

What crime did he commit? That's up to El Salvador to decide. Okay. He's not a member of MS-13, though. I don't care. I literally don't care. He's not American either. So you don't care...

If somebody is imprisoned in Seacot, even if they've not committed a crime, and even if they've not committed a crime, and even if they've not... not been given any due process of law or had a trial. He was here illegal. I don't care. No, no, no, no, no. We're not talking about it. We're talking about El Salvador. For the same reason, I don't think we should remove Maduro. I don't give a fuck what El Salvador does with their own citizens. I am that El Salvador. I don't want to invade El Salvador. I don't want to impose American hegemonic democratic principles on El Salvador or Venezuela or Afghanistan, Iran,

China, or Russia. So right now, what I can't stand is this argument that El Salvador imprisoned a guy, I don't give a fuck what they did. He's El Salvador and in El Salvador. China's imprisoning U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S.S. U.S.S. U.S.S. U.S.S. U.S.S. We can say we don't want to do trade deals with them. That's fine. The U.S.S. went in and removed Maduro, and liberals are furious about it. Yet at the same time, they're arguing that we should impose American hegemonic principles on El Salvador. I'm sick of it. My principles are pretty dang simple. I'm American. I don't give a flying F. What El Salvador, China, these other countries are doing with their people. I can have moral opposition to it,

but I'm not going to demand that we send our military or use the weight to force them to change their institutions. That being said, I think we can sanction China over the rape of the Uighur Muslims. We shouldn't be trading with people that brutally rape women and force them to get abortions. We can make an argument that we should cut off our trade deals with El Salvador because of SICAT. My point ultimately is. So if you only care about what the American government is doing, then do you agree that he should not have been sent there? He is not an American citizen.

And as someone who is not an American citizen, he should go home. But that is American government. He doesn't have legal status here. He doesn't have legal status here. He came here illegally. And there is no obligation for the American people to allow a criminal to be here. Where or how the United States government deports individuals. Absolutely not. You don't care if their due process rights are violated.

You don't care if the government lies about that. There is a process for which the answer, though. I'm asking about that hair about those things. No, no, no. I'm asking if you don't care about those things. If someone comes here from China illegally, they violate our laws and then seek to subvert the will of the American voter, they should be arrested for the crime they committed. And you know what it is?

Imagine if someone broke into your house and the worst thing you did to them was give them a ride home. And then it's like a stupid thing to argue. Like a guy broke into my house and is stealing my food. And I'm like, hey, hey, hey, whoa, would you like a ride home? So that's what we do. A guy comes here from El Salvador illegally. We issue an order for deportation.

We send him home. Then everyone's going... An illegal order because he was not supposed to be born in. It was a legal order of deportation. And he had a stay for removal from the country of Guatemala due to a rival gang. Where this goes is very confusing and weird because the argument was made in the media that he had a stay of deportation to El Salvador when in fact it was Guatemala. Now, some have argued it was a typo in the initial stay.

But I'm like, well, if that's the case when we read it says Guatemala, so he can be sent back to El Salvador. Salvador. Now, the issue of the administrative error was actually disputed in the Trump administration with Stephen Miller saying, no, as he is a member of MS-13, executive purview on matters of national security. He was found to be a member of MS-13. He was found by a court. Yes, twice. Which court? There's immigration courts that asserted two times that he was wearing MS-13 making an assertion is different than them actually having evidence that he was part of MS-13. He doesn't get judicial trials in an immigration executive branch court.

Do you acknowledge it it's two different things between actually proving that somebody is part of a gang versus somebody making the assertion that they are without evidence? What does that have to do with what we're talking about? You're changing the subject. You just said that this person is a confirmed member of MS 13. An immigration court found that that was found that he was a member of MS-13. No, he said they asserted that he was. Indeed. That's different than them finding that he was. Because there's no trial for this in the executive branch. Executive is action, not judiciary. And this was the other thing. This is Supreme Court.

says Trump officials should help return wrongly deported Maryland man. The Supreme Court has ordered the Trump admin to facilitate the return to the U.S. of Kilmer Obrigo Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly taken to El Salvador. A Maryland man. He's just lies. He's in custody there. He's not a Maryland man who was illegally living in Maryland who was illegally living in Maryland. So if you live in Maryland for 10 years, you can't be considered part of like a Maryland man. No, but the language is being used to manipulate the general public because the real issue is a man from El Salvador can hear illegally had an order for removal, argued that he'd be killed by a Guatemalan gang, got a stay of removal to not go back to Guatemala. Stephen Miller and the Trump administration argued that an immigration court

twice having found him an affiliate of MS-13. He was an entry-level guy. They were going to deport him back to his home country. Then when he got there, El Salvador decided that because they thought he was a member of a gang, they imprisoned him. Even though he was in. Even though I have no evidence of that. It doesn't matter what El Salvador thinks. We're not El Salvador. That's it. End of story. I'm not to make an argument about what Ghana thinks or what Zimbabwe thinks. That's being used to say that he's part of, he's gang affiliated. You are just saying things to be tribal. And you're saying that because we're not in El Salvador, we can't have an opinion on it.

Obviously, you can't. But you're asking me about, do you believe that the U.S. should assert judicial authority over El Salvador? How do you mean? Do you think that we should force other countries to adhere to our frame of law? It depends on the context. Okay. Should a, I don't, I do. I do believe that we should not be deporting individuals to countries where they are going to face ridiculous human rights abuses.

Going to prison as a human rights abuse? Yes. If you have never been. Going to prison as a human rights abuse. When you have not been actually found guilty of a crime, when you've not actually committed any crime, when you've not been given a trial to the same. It's true that. You don't know that his process. Okay.

You don't know what he's done. Because you keep saying due process, but you know what it means. And then this is the other thing. And a brief unsigned decision is Thursday. You keep saying it because. This is what happens when liberals read a passage but don't know what the words mean. The order properly requires the government to facilitate a rega Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador. And to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador, the Supreme Court said in its ruling.

It was a nine o ruling. Even Trump's appointees. And they're wrongful of it. Violated. That's okay. We are in this. We are in a state of political adjudication with back and force. The dudes got two more pending.

Now he's going to Ghana. Or what was it going to Eritrea? One of those. I mean, like, the amount of of things on Kilmar or Burger Garcia are ludicrous, right? The amount of... I agree, but not for the same reasons. Yeah, liberals are defending a guy who's not a citizen

and they're lying about it. They repeatedly, and don't be wrong, conservatives are fucking retarded too. Republicans come out and go, non-citizens don't get due process. And that was never true. They're just dumb. Okay? Due process means under law, you, in your circumstances,

is what are you do in the courts that they must adhere to. Immigration courts are part of the executive branch and the executive branch does not have trials for these people. A judge just said, goodbye. Judicial courts can have trials or bench hearings. Liberals don't understand any of these things. And more importantly, I would say the proselytizers at the highest level just say whatever they have to to justify their ideological whims. The point is America should be America and should not be enforcing its will in other countries. And if you are not from this country, the state department has sole discretion to remove you from this country. End of story.

Even permanent residence under the law can have their permanent residency revoked in finger snap by the Secretary of the State. So this whole argument is fake. And it started with a conversation around him having his due process rights violated. You're defending this. Even though the truth means a jury trial. I have a question for you though. So you don't think that someone entering the country.

Really quick. I will answer your question. I'm just saying that the Trump administration had admitted that they had made an administrative of error in sending him to El Salvador to Seacot. And you are even going, and then they were attracted that. Pause real quick. And you're going further to defend all of this. They retracted that. Okay. Okay. Well, no, hold on. They retracted the administrative error statement. Yeah, they walked it back because they're trying to cover their ass. What exactly they say in the retraction? Trump administration admits Maryland man sent to El Salvador prison by mistake. The Trump admin is getting

blowback for confirmed in potential errors in its rush to deport hundreds of men to El Salvador last month. On Monday night, immigration officials admitted to deporting a Maryland man to El Salvador due to a quote-unquote administrative error. Kilmer Abrigo Garcia, who lived in the United with his U.S. citizen wife and child, was identified as being on one of the three deportation flights to El Salvador last month that are the subject of several lawsuits. Immigration advocates claimed those flown to El Salvador did not receive due process. The admin used the three flights to quickly deport over 300 men accused of being members of MS-13. I'm trying to interrupt you, but just because I want to just get to the point, It's what did they say in their retraction?

Look, let's find the retraction. So I'll tell you. It was an administrative official, not in the highest level of the cabinet, who said there was an administrative error here. That was a singular statement by a low level official. Probably about a week after this, the highest level of Trump's cabinet said they were incorrect. We have asserted executive authority on national security issues for expedited removal. That is our purview. Now, by all means, this is to be adjudicated.

And right now, the Kilmar-Bregor-Garcia thing is the most convoluted bullshit of a story imaginable, because he's got like five orders of deportation now, including to like literally, is it, is it Eritrea? Or was it, was it Ghana? What's ridiculous country? I don't know. It's just like, it was a JV one. It was a JV. It's just a ridiculous thing. The point is, we are not dealing with functions of the constitution and law, which was the initial argument you asked about constitutional.

deportations. We are dealing with hyper-partisan justifications. And the liberals making an argument about due process in foreign countries and the right-making argument about national security threats, one thing remains. In the truest sense of what this law was codified to be and written down as, due process in immigration courts does not involve a judicial hearing, judicial warrant, nor jury or bench trial. Immigration courts are a singular executive official identified as an immigration judge, but they're not judicial, stamping something and saying expedited removal. End of story. That is due process. So in his court filing on Monday, the Trump admins said ICE was aware of his protection from removal

to El Salvador, but still deported to Brego Garcia because of an administrative error. An ICE official called his deportation to El Salvador an oversight in a statement submitted to the court on Monday. Robert Serna, ICE's acting field office director of enforcement and removal operations wrote that it was carried out in good faith based on the existence of a final order of removal and Abrago Garcia's purported membership of MS-13. The admin argued against his return to the U.S. citing alleged gang ties and claiming that he is a danger to the community. They also, they also argue that the court's lack jurisdiction in the matter because Abrago Garcia is no longer in U.S. custody. The admin wrote that Abrago Garcia's attorneys, quote, do not argue that the

United States can exercise its will over foreign sovereign. The most they ask for is a court order that the United States can treat or control a close ally. Now, please read the retrap. Can you read retraction? No, I should retract my own claim because they actually did not issue a retraction. But what they did, what they did, as far as I could tell, no, it doesn't seem like, I thought they had. It seems like what they did is just double down on defending their decisions, even though they had admitted it was an error. So do you think the State Department reserves the right to deport any illegal purely for being here illegally? I believe so, yes. Yeah, because it's like, that's part of the problem with the Abrago thing is it's like.

But their illegal means to remove people from the country. Right. They don't need to violate people's due process rights to do so. So if we're able to deport. If somebody is a gay, it should be easy to remove them from the country legally. They did, you're right the first time. They issued a retraction, DHS.gov. This is just one of the examples of an individual as an MS-13 gang member, multiple

charges in encounters with the individuals here trafficking in his background was found with other MS-13 gang members, a very dangerous person, and what the liberal left and fake news are doing to turn him into a media darling is sickening. The retraction here in this video from Stephen Miller was that he said, let me let me say we can pull up the actual, Tricia McLaughlin reaffirmed the MS-13 terrorist gang members where he belongs. I think this illegal alien. That sounds like the opposite of a retraction. I shouldn't have said that they retracted it. What they did is defend their decisions.

Very low-rated anchor at CB. Do you plan to ask President McAley to help return the man who your administration says was mistakenly deported? The man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador? Well, let me ask, Pam, would you answer that question? Sure, President. First and foremost, he was illegally in our country. He had been illegally in our country. and in 2019, two courts, an immigration court and an appellate immigration court ruled that he was a member of MS-13 and he was illegally in our country.

Right now, it was a paperwork. It was additional paperwork had needed to be done. That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us. The Supreme Court ruled president that if, as El Salvador wants to return him, this is international matters, foreign affairs, if they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane. And you are doing a great job. Thank you. Thank you. Can you just also respond to that question?

Because you know, it's asked by CNN, and they always ask it with a slant because they're totally slant because they don't know what's happening. That's why nobody's watching them. But would you answer that question also, please? Yes, gladly. So as Pam mentioned, there's the information. illegal alien from El Salvador. So with respect to you, he's a citizen of El Salvador. So it's very arrogant even for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador how to handle

their own citizens as a starting point. As two immigration courts found that he was a member of MS-13, when President Trump declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist organization, that meant that he was no longer eligible under federal law, which I'm sure you know, you're very familiar with the INA, that he was no longer eligible for any form of immigration relief in the United States. So he had a deportation order that was valid, which meant that under our law, he's not even allowed to be present in the United States and had to be returned because of the foreign terrorist designation. This issue was then by a district court judge completely inverted,

and a district court judge tried to tell the administration that they had to kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and fly him back here. That issue was raised with the Supreme Court. Court. And the Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful, and its main components were reversed 9-0 unanimously, stating clearly that neither Secretary of State nor the President could be compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from El Salvador, who, again, is a member of MS-13, which is, I'm sure you understand, rapes little girls, murder as women, murder's children, is engaged in the most barbaric activities in the world,

And I can promise you, if he was your neighbor, you wouldn't move right away. So you don't plan to ask for. So the point is, initially, an ICE official said that it was administrative error. The Trump administration cabinet said after the FTO designation of MS-13, that disqualified him from the immigration stay to Guatemala. They had no evidence to be even designating him as a terrorist. It doesn't matter if they don't have evidence before they label somebody a terrorist. Two courts ruled that he was MS-13. It doesn't matter to you that they had no evidence that he was actually part of MS-13.

Two courts. What-it-s-m-it-s what you're saying? Two-courts really was. He was associated with known MS-13 gang members outside of MS-13 gang territory. So just by knowing somebody within MS-13 means that you are part of MS-13 yourself? Do you think if two courts rule that you are, that's enough or not enough? I'm sorry, you didn't answer my question. So just knowing somebody in a gang, that means that you are also part of that gang.

He was, no, he was in the gang. you said that he is associate I said what's the evidence for that and you said well he associated with people found that he was wearing their gang colors wearing their gang clothes he was known by informants to be what's the what's the term

his rank do you remember let me let me pull it up was a lieutenant I have been so no no no no he was it's a provisionary it's a Spanish word let me figure out what the what the

there's a word for the lowest level and is this it right here? I think I got it. Was it? No, no, no, no, no. I am not a robot. Checo.

Was it? Checo. Checo. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He was a Checo in MS-13, meaning he was like a probationary entry-level member. Two courts found this. I don't understand. I got it. I got it.

Okay, let's just roll with it. So. The point is this. We have immigration courts for a reason. Let's see. Member of Princess George County. This is the. press report, I think. Which one? This? Yeah, Chico. A Chekeo. He was a Chiquio, known as

Maniaco in MS-13 in their Sailors' Click. Let's see. Let's see. Officers interviewed with Jose Girona-Domingos during the interview officers, observed tattoos and skulls covering the eyes, out of his mouse, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil. He also tend to have a devil on his left leg. This presents power with an MS-13 officers made contact with a past, proven and reliable source of information who advised Dominga as the officer. He was indicative of the Hispanic gang culture. An active MS-13 gang member with the sailors clicked,

the rank of Chequillo in the moniker of Maniaco. And that wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with MS-13. Officers that interviewed Kilmar, Armando Obrigo Garcia during the interview's officers. He observed his wearing a bull's hat in a hoodie with rolls of money covering his eyes, ears, and mouth of the presidents on the separated denominations.

Officers have no such clothing to be indicative of the Hispanic gang culture. the meeting of the clothing does represent Veo y calar See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil wearing the bulls hat represents that they are a member in the standing of MS-13. Officers, I did say Chicago Bulls. Wearing the officers contacted a past

proven a reliable source of information who advised Kilmar of Brigo Garcia is an active member of MS-13 with the Westerns clique. The confidential source further advised that he is the rank of Chekeo with the moniker of Chele. Officers interviewed Jason

Ho-Zoo, how you said, Ramirez Herrera during the interview. They were unable to determine his gang affiliation. Officers know MS-13 gang members are only allowed to hang around other members or prospects for the gang. Officers will continue, blah, blah, blah. The point is there. There exists evidence. No, no criminal history. What do you mean? There's two witness testimony. Corroborating evidence. That he's making things up that he's wearing certain clothes that they're trying to say is synonymous with MS-13, Hispanic gang culture. Is that evidence? No. Yes, it is. Is it proof? No. Is it evidence? Yes. Oh, sorry. That's what I should say. Right. And you asked before if there was evidence.

You said there was none. Now there is. No. Is it evidence? Yes. Is it good evidence? No. Is it proof?

Absolutely not. This is why we can't have nice things. The evidence is that he wears a Chicago Bulls hat and has skull tattoos. You know that Chicago Bulls are a widely popular basketball tattoos. And that means that he's in a gang. That's an MS-13 gang tattoo. So if you got, if you got that tattoo tomorrow, that would mean you're an MS-13. No, but it likely is affiliation, especially if you're hanging out with MS-13 gangmen.

Like all of his boys are an MS-13. You said no. But he said no, but it was like. He got gang tattoos hanging with MS-13, but he's not a member. No, they kicked them out. Yeah, he's like, but he's still friends. Yeah, you're a little too into the bowl. It would be, it wouldn't be evidence.

Did you know that if you wear black and gold in Chicago, you'll get shot? So if you had that tattoo, it wouldn't be evidence that you're in MS-13, right? It would be evidence, yes. Evidence and proof for two different things. You, right. I agree with you. So in this case, you're saying it's evidence and proof that he's on MS-13. That's the claim that you made.

No, no, no, let's just be clear for everybody to make sure we're closing things up. Yeah, you think that we're, Chicago Bulls cap and having a tattoo can mean that you're in MS-13. Let me let's try and be clear here. Yeah, I said there's no evidence in the day. And I said, please stop, please stop so I can make the point. And I said it's weak evidence.

Yeah. Before you said there was no evidence. And perhaps that was a misspeak. But now we recognize there is some. It was a misbeak. Sorry. Okay. It's extremely weak evidence.

Two immigration courts determined the evidence was sufficient to prove he was a member of MS-13. Right? Do you agree with them? Doesn't matter. Do you agree with them? Yes, but it doesn't matter. Why do you agree with them?

Because his clothing, that's it. Even though, again, no criminal history, no testimonies. What do you mean no criminal history? He was caught trafficking people. No. He's on camera doing it. He's been accused of trafficking individuals because he was stopped. There was a traffic stop.

He had a bunch of people from Mexico driving to Maryland that they said they were doing for work. And he was a bowl. Yeah, but he's not been, that's still. Okay, hold on. Again. Let's just stop. This is again, off topic. And if that's your standard for human traffic.

Then Greg Abbott and Rhonda Santos moving those illegal immigrants around the country to Martha's litter. Let's stop changing the subject. Did two courts find him to be a members of MS-13? To my understanding, there's court documents that have been submitted, and this is the evidence that he's in MS-13. Did two courts rule him to be? No, I don't believe so. You are wrong. They did.

Two courts did. Court documents being submitted saying which judges. saying, which judges? He is. And then he appealed. And another judge said, yes, he is. Which judge? Okay, let's pull it up.

My God. Sophistry, sophistry, sophistry, sophistry. DHS. I found it. The judge who presided over his 2019 case said that based on the confidential information, there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Breger Garcia's gang membership. That finding was later upheld by another judge. Okay.

So do you agree that two judges found to be a member of MS-13? Yes. Okay. Then based on the FTO designation, that supersedes to stay from CSIS. Based on the evidence that has been presented to the public, he can appeal that. A very, yeah, but that's a very if his due process rights are on. No, no, no, no, hold on. That's a very tenuous connection, in my opinion. No, no, no, hold on. After, so now that, now the two courts, two, two judges, actually was an appellate judge, I believe it was three. So it's initially one, then three. After they found that he was and then maybe they were wrong. Maybe they were wrong. Okay. This gives the.

federal government, the authority to deport him under the FTO designation, which is what Stephen Miller asserted. He then gets sent to his home country. There's no appeal after that. What El Salvador does with their own citizen is a court in error. No, he wasn't. So we led to the circumstances where he could not. He was not in error because I already showed you Stephen Miller pointing out that that was an ICE official and they were wrong. And under the FTO designation, they could. Even Miller says something. That means that it's true. Because Trump did Trump declare MS-13 a foreign terrorist organization? Yeah, I believe so. He did. And under under the INA you can remove there's there's no immigration protections you are disqualified immediately upon that designation because immigration courts are executive not judiciary when that

happens they say the executive stay you were granted by our officials is hereby hereby void and they can deport him and that's what they did so you think it's fair that he's deported in an error And then after he's removed And after he was not deported in error. He was not deported in error. He was not deported in error. Then we say we no longer have jurisdiction, even though he shouldn't have been put there in the first place. And then the Supreme Court says that's correct.

He needs to be brought back. Why am I liar? We've already concluded it wasn't an error. No. You said two judges to confirm to his MS-13, right? Yeah. Okay. The, they, and MS-13 is an FTO.

Foreign terrorist organization. The Trump administration designates as such. The immigration. and naturalization act, allows for the disqualification of a stay. Foreign terrorist organizations is a bit strange to me. If you want to argue the law should be changed, take it up with Congress. Don't then say it was an error when we've already shown you under the law. It was not.

What am I supposed to take up with Congress? That you want the law of change. The INA says that a foreign terrorist does not, is disqualified from immigration reprieve. Do you think it's correct that he's designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations? support cartels? That's an opinion. Is that what I said? No, I'm asking.

This is an opinion question immaterial to the conversation we're having. I'm, so you think that it's correct to designate cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. We are not talking about that. We're talking about whether Kilmero, Gregor Garcia was lawfully deported. Can you just answer that question? If you think it's correct that he, that MS-13 was designated a foreign terrorist organization? You don't know? Why not?

I don't know. I don't know. Okay, but that is the basis that's being used to deny this person due process under your argument. I don't understand. don't understand why, no matter how many times we explained due process, you don't understand what it is. Trump administration says this is a foreign terrorist organization. Did Kilmore or Barbara Garcia get two court hearings? There were two judges that reviewed evidence that said that there's sufficient evidence to say that he is part of MS-13. Is that due process? Is that due process? Is that due

process? Yes. I'm not saying that he has not been, he has not had any due process. No, you can have due process violated in one area and then honored in another. That's not contradictory whatsoever. So two courts find him to be a member of MS-13. Back in 2019. The immigration courts are arguing the executive branch, not the judiciary. That was back in 2019. The executive branch then desicates MS-13 and FTO, then that nullifies an executive stay to deportation to Guatemala that he had.

But they didn't send him to Guatemala anyway. They sent him to El Salvador. After the fact, it's up to El Salvador what to do with an El Salvadoran. Sounds like due process to me. Due process is when you deport someone in error, which you dispute. We just agreed. It wasn't an era because you said he had two courts. What was the error?

In 2019. What was the error? What was the error? What was the error? What was the error? The error is that he was not supposed to be deported to that country. Guatemala? To Seacot.

To Guatemala, you mean? To El Salvador. No, the stay was for Guatemala. The stay was for Guatemala. That doesn't mean that he was supposed to be deported to El Salvador. The stay was that he couldn't be sent to Guatemala. Can you hear me? I said that that does not mean that he was supposed to be deported to El Salvador.

They can deport him. I'm not saying that they can't deport him. I'm saying that he was not supposed to be. If the stay of deportation was to Guatemala and he was sent to El Salvador, what's the error? He was sent to a prison in El Salvador. No, El Salvador imprisoned him. We did send him there. This is what I mean where it ends up being a lot like, we are not El Salvador.

To justify itself, which is that they put him in a situation where he is deported to El Salvador and imprisoned there. What was the error? We declined to have jurisdiction. What was the error? The Supreme Court said 9-0 that he was not given adequate due process rights to make a claim against the government once they had been trying to impristened. prison him, even though he had not actually been found guilty of a crime. What was the error? That he had not been found guilty of a crime. No. Nonetheless, he was in prison to an El Salvador present. That wasn't the error. You said he was

deported in error. What was the error? The error is that he had a stay of removal and he was not supposed to be deported to. Except the stay of removal, according to the INA is disqualified upon foreign terrorist designation. But you already, if you want to change the law, take it up Congress. Earlier in this, you would not say that you think it's correct for drug cartels to be designated as foreign terrorist organizations. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. But that's the basis. You know why I said that? Because you're changing the subject. That's the basis. You're changing the subject. It's part of the subject. It's part of this. If I want to change the law, take it up to Congress. Take it up with Congress. Take it up with Congress. That's where Congress changes laws. Right now the INA says the president has the authority to designate an FTO. And if you do, your your, your reprieve, immigration reprieve is disqualified. That is all in the law. There's no error there. And you think all that's correct. It's factually correct. You think all that's moral? morally correct is take up the law.

So you think all that's moral? So this is ad hominine. Really correct. How is that? I'm just going to say that every time you do this. The question is, was there an error? And we've concluded the answer is no. There was an error.

Just because Stephen Miller says that there was no error, do you want me to reread it again? I can reread it again. It's like your intention, like you're agreeing with everything, but then failing to connect the dots. So do you want me to reread it again? We read what? Your post hoc out of context statement. we've already concluded that Trump did designate the cartels foreign terrorist organizations. You asked me a moral question on it, which I ignored because it's not material to the question

of whether there was a functional administrative error, to which the Trump administration said. What's a functional administrative error? An administrative error that causes to the function of immigration. And there wasn't one. There wasn't. The FTO nullified the state of Guatemala, which he wasn't sent to anyway. So you do realize that Stephen Miller's. saying that doesn't undermine that, again, ICE calls deportation and oversight.

And it's court filing on Monday. Stephen Miller saying it was the retraction, I told you they made. Said ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, but still deported to Brigo Garcia because of an administrative error. It's like an ICE official call the deportation an oversight in a statement submitted to the court on Monday. And then they retracted it, which I showed you. Stephen Miller's statements aren't law.

It's evidence of the administration retracted. a statement from an ICE official at the highest levels. They targeted him for deportation and removal, even though he already was. That was a long time ago. He had an order for deportation and removal years ago. Years ago. Then he was granted a stay. He was granted a stay after the fact of deportation to Guatemala, which means he could have

been deported anywhere and under the law, he was supposed to leave himself. So there's no error. But I think you're just saying these things because it's political tribesmanship. it's so you but you think this is all moral well see that's a totally different yeah do you want to the previous conversation go to the next one you can you can answer the question first right so let's just do this

previous conversation is concluded now let's talk about whether or not it is moral to deport non-citizens 100% do you think it was moral how Kilmar Abigail Garcia was treated yes yes it was it was actually the utmost of morality and even though he had not actually

been it's a different conversation why How was it unrelated to this? You already granted that being here illegally in and of itself is grounds for deportation. When did I grow up? When I asked you as being here legally and of itself grounds for deportation. I'm saying I said that the government has the ability to deport anybody at any time, correct. But that does not mean that they can't come up with ludicrous reasons to deport someone in my opinion.

The question I was going to ask you before was why wouldn't someone like Kilmar have gone through the process the right way? Are you okay with him not going through the process and just coming here illegally? No, I don't think it's good that people come here. here illegally. But I'm but just because no we can't. Wouldn't that be the first crime? Wouldn't that be the first problem? No. For everything else that you guys were just debating? No, because the reality is that just because you commit a crime or you come here illegally or you cross a port of entry illegally, even though the majority of illegal immigration is a result of people overseeing visas, it's not even because they're illegally entering into the United States. It means that they have legal means to come into

the United States and then something expires. They're here illegally. But if they cross a port of entry illegally, that does not mean that the state can do whatever they want in response to that. The state has total, the secretary of state has total authority to deport people. Yeah, absolutely. I didn't say that they don't have total authority.

They can't do anything that they want in the process of doing that. When you have total authority, you can say, okay, we're just going to send you out. Absolutely. But you're portraying it like we're throwing them in a gulag, which is not what's happening. You don't think she got to a gulag? It's not us. It's not us. And also, for the record, we

We literally put him on a plane. We put him on a plane. Right. And then he was immediately landed in El Salvador and then transferred to that prison. If he knew that the gulags were that bad, maybe he should have gotten his paperwork done. So, wait, but really, really quick, you're acknowledging, though, that he was put on a plane by the United States government and they put him in prison. And then put in an El Salvador prison. And you're saying that that's not the United States government.

He was deported to El Salvador. Are you saying that that's not the actions of the United States government doing that? Putting him in a gulag, supposedly. is not, that's nothing to do with us. Even though our plane took him to the El Salvador prison that he was imprisoned in. The plane took him to San Salvador. It took him to an airport. And then El Salvador's law enforcement.

Where custody was exchanged. So were it not for the United States government flying him to El Salvador and then him transferred to me. If we deported to God and they get by a line, that's on us. This is what we do it? This is an argument. This is not an argument. Custody was transferred to El Salvador and El Salvador put him in prison.

Facilitated his imprisonment in El Salvador in Seattle. No, they facilitated. He did his transport and then his the changing hands of custody. The United States facilitated the transport to El Salvador. They then gave him to the authorities in El Salvador. Then the authorities in El Salvador put him in prison. So we cooperated with them to imprison him. We, no, we didn't, we don't, it doesn't matter where he's going.

It doesn't matter. No, we did. We did. No, they cooperated with us by taking him when we transported. Oh, so it's under our jurisdiction then. We sent him. No, he was under our jurisdiction. He was under our jurisdiction.

He was under our jurisdiction. and we deported him to El Salvador. Correct. I'm saying, yes. Custody was transferred to El Salvador and they put him in prison. And we cooperated with that to help facilitate that imprisonment. We facilitated getting him out of the country. If you want to say that we did, I don't care.

I don't have the same kind of moral hangups that you do. I clearly not. I clearly find this to be morally reprehensible and you're really okay with this. This is the whole point. The whole point of all of this is her to be able to say, I'm a good person. You're a bad person. If you want to call me a bad person, I don't care. Did I call you a bad person?

Or did I say that we have a difference of beliefs? You said morally reprehensible. You are saying that it's morally reprehensible. You are saying that it's morally reprehensible. You've been dying for this argument to be about good person, bad person, the entire time. That's why you keep switching between the legal argument and the moral argument. All you want to do is sit there and say, see, I'm the good person and you're the bad person. This has been the entire show.

It's absolute trash. If you don't care about my assessment of whether or not you're good or bad person, which I never even spoke to, why are you getting so mad about it? Because this has been an absolute, this has all been a BS argument. It hasn't been an actual genuine debate about anything. You've been trying to steer the conversation into a situation where you can say, you're the good person or you're the good person and I'm the bad person or whoever you're arguing with. Because this isn't about law or rule of law or whether or not someone should be deported. What's it about? you've already said, oh, yes, these people should be deported.

You've said you've agreed to that. I said they can be deported. I didn't say they should be deported. That's a different thing. Well, I imagine you don't think anyone should be deported. No, I never said that. And that's why I said, I imagine. I didn't say to you said that.

I imagine that's my impression. There are a lawful means to remove them from the country. And you've agreed that all of the lawful means have been, all of the lawful standards have been met. No. It's the, it's the Patrick meme. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. I don't know what to tell you. You're trying to say that the United States was not involved in the imprisonment in an El Salvador in prison. The El Salvadorian authorities put him in prison. The United States deported the man. And we cooperated with El Salvador to put him in that prison. Well, again, like I said, this is this is all, this is all driving conversation.

So you can say, look, this was a morally wrong thing to do. and you can say, see, I'm the good person because I have to be... I mean, I happen to think it was a moral, but the major thing is that it's illegal. That's the only thing that matters today. That's the only thing that matters is your perception of morality. I think it's moral to get him out of the United States. If you cared about the rule of law and the constitution, then we wouldn't have had all of this, this switching from legal talk to moral talk. If all you cared about was... You know that you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

You can care about two things at once. So then why did you say that you care about morality and legality? Why did you just say that you care about the rule of law and the constitution? Because the whole point... The whole point... Do you acknowledge that it's not mutually exclusive to care about the Constitution, the rule of law, and morality? It is mutually exclusive.

If you talk... So you can only care about one or the other. If you're talking about... If you can't have morals and you can't care about the rule of law, there are going to be times when the rule of law is going to do things that one person might consider immoral. Well, Phil... That's a descriptive claim.

Don't even... Don't even grant her framework. When we exchange custody in San Salvador, whatever else Salvador's business is their business. Like it's not, we're not facilitating that. It's just the reality. So you don't consider us putting him on a plane, flying him to El Salvador, and making sure that he gets a standard operating procedure to put somebody on a flight, deport them to El Salvador and imprison them. It's standard to put them on a plane and drop them off in San Salvador, yes.

That's the only international airport. And where he's imprisoned. If El Salvador deems him as a member of MS-13, I'm not going to go and like invade them over it. I mean, it's like whatever. And this is like 90% of percent. 90% of people. You think that that's not the United States facilitating. That's just, you just morally discharge it and legally discharge it all to El Salvador.

Yes, because, again, if this was like seriously this moral injunction, he was like, oh my gosh, they're going to unjustly put me in a gulag, then he probably would have gotten his paperwork, correct. He wasn't even supposed to be put on that plan in the first place. He wasn't supposed to be in the United States at first. I mean, it's just like we're rearranging chairs on the Titanic. It's like popular mandate to deport all legal. immigrants. I mean, it is what it is. I think the most important thing, though, is just that he was never barred from being deployed, deported to El Salvador. I find, I pulled up the old

court document from 2019, and it was over Guatemala. And this is like the crazy thing about this. So if they deported him to just any country, it doesn't matter, even if it's not, El Salvadoran citizen. Even if it's not a home country, you defend it. He's an El Salvadoran citizen. He went home. Okay, so would you defend him being deported anywhere? Did he go home? Would you defend him being deported anywhere? No, no. I think he should go home. So you wouldn't support him being flown to France, for example, and then in prison there. I don't know. It didn't happen.

If you could, I mean, you went home. And the court said he could go to Guatemala. So because it didn't happen. You can't engage with the hypothetical. It's because you're changing the subject. Why? Because I have a court document that says he was barred from going to Guatemala, which he didn't go to. Read it. Read it. You're suggesting that unless there was a change in circumstances in Guatemala that would result in the respondent's life not being threatened or that internal relocation is not possible.

Therefore, the respondent's application, worth holding under the Act is granted. This stated we couldn't send him to Guatemala. And the weird thing is everyone in the media has just said El Salvador over and over again. And I have this post from Kenneco with the Great, which- You would be uncomfortable if he had been deported to a third country. Are you changing the subject again? You'd been suggested that he would be uncomfortable. He would be deported to a third country or stopped him from being sent to Guatemala, but allowed him to be sent to Al-Salvador. The judge explicitly cited the ongoing threats from Barrio 18 in Guatemala, staying at present. Even though the family has shut down the Pupusa business, Barrio 18 continues to her.

and threaten the respondents who sisters and parents in Guatemala. Deaches has failed to care at their burden to show that their changed circumstances in Guatemala that would result in respondents. So the order of deportation required him to leave. And the problem really here is that Trump sucks and Biden sucks and everybody screwed it up and it became a political issue. Now liberals are pretending like they've got some moral high ground. And you've got a convoluted nonsense story where you're asking me about other countries.

He went to El Salvador but was barred from going to Guatemala. I don't know what the error was. You're not going to distract me from asking my question again. On a related question, we can change the subject if you want. Does this circular reasoning like exhaust you at some point? So based on what you've argued, because you're like he's just being sent home. Yeah, you went home. What's implicit in that to me is a suggestion that if he had been deported to a third country, not El Salvador, not Guatemala, maybe Somalia.

You would be uncomfortable with that. I don't know, maybe. Can you answer yes or no? No, because I don't know. He wouldn't have the right to be the United States. I have no strong feelings on it one way or another. So he could have been deported to torture prison in the. In the Sudan, you'd be okay with that.

No, I don't know. Why not? Why can't you speak to that? I don't have enough information on what those countries are like and what it would look like. I just don't have much of that. So there's, if it was bad, you wouldn't be okay with that? Tim, wouldn't you be angry if he was deported to the sun? I don't know.

Are you talking about like the Rwanda? I mean, you're laughing to avoid engaging with the hypothetical because I think that you know. I don't know how I would feel in a thing that didn't happen. And it's fine to ask hypothetical, but my answer is literally, I don't know. I don't have a yes or no answer for you because there's. are different countries. The fact remains, he was barred from going to Guatemala. He went to El Salvador. He's home. What his home country does with him is not my problem. Not a problem. Had deported him to Somalia and a prison there. You would be okay with it.

No. No. I don't know. You don't know. No. I have no strong feelings one way or the other. It's immaterial to what happens. I'm asking if you have strong feelings. I'm asking if you if you just really can't engage with the hypothetical and that's fine. I can engage with hypothetical. No, you're refusing to because you're No, I'm not. I gave you an answer. It's I don't know. I don't know is the cop out. No, it's not. It's not. It really feels. I don't have strong feelings. I'm in the middle. It could be bad. It could be good. I'll have to see. What would you need to see so you could make a decision?

The circumstance of deportation, the stay of deportation, the actions taken, the plane, the prison, the prison, the prison, the prison. The prison, the plane had like, the prison's, the politician's involved. So if it was like a Boeing instead of, like, a different kind of plane, maybe you'd be in support of it. Maybe it wouldn't be? Maybe not. Because if, if like, the plane had, like, the plane had like, uncomfortable seats and they had them in a box or something. There's a lot of circumstances. There's a lot of circumstances here. All I can say is it's hard for me to assert. You just say, oh, he should be deported, not in a box, in a plane. But ultimately, he can be deported to the plane.

You just met that I literally don't know. To a different country. Sometimes people don't know things. Sometimes I don't know as an okay answer. I'm only saying that you're refusing to engage with the hypothetical. But I did engage with your hypothetical. In a substantive way because you're saying, I don't know. I don't have enough information.

There's all of these circumstances that would change it with that. So give me one. Yeah, you just said the plane. You just said, oh, I don't know about the plane. I don't know if he would be uncomfortable. I don't know about the prison. You said the prison would be a matter. But to me that suggests that if he was deported to a third country where he had no relation to and there were grave human rights abuses in a prison that they wanted to send him to in this third country, you would be against it. It's what you're suggesting or that it would at least be bad is what you're intimating, but you won't say either way. Because I genuinely do not know. And I'm not going to lie to people to pretend. I have strong opinions on something that I don't understand. It's hard for you to understand a hypothetical to give a straight answer to a hypothetical like that.

In this context, yes. Okay. Yep. Sometimes I'm wrong and I'm not smart enough to understand what that would look like and I'm not going to make assumptions. So I think you're plenty smart to engage with this hypothetical one. And I did. I did. I don't, I don't know.

Sorry, substantively engage. It's also manipulative to force an opinion he doesn't have. Yeah. How am I forcing an opinion? Because he just told you his answer. By saying, I don't know. I'm refusing to engage. The only answer I can give you is I don't know.

I don't know what Somalia looks like. Is there a Ccott in Somalia? How are Somali prisons? Are they good? Are they bad? Are there accusations? from liberals of human court abuses. The Sikot ones are bad and you don't seem to care about that. Because El Salvador has an El Salvador citizen. Somali does not have an El Salvador citizen. He's

either different. I don't know. Because he's a citizen of a country, they can treat him however they want. It's their country. Should we invade El Salvador? Why do you care about human rights abuses if it came from a different government that's not his? But you know, to be completely I don't. Okay. Why is it difficult for you to answer the hypothetical where he's supported to Somalia? He's not Somalian. I know that. I'm saying why is it difficult for you to answer the question if you don't care about human rights abuses from other countries. Because I don't care in the sense that I would assert law over them, but I care in the sense that they're bad.

And so the issue of a person being sent to a third party country. Yeah, there's circumstances I don't understand. You realize that Trump has been just trying to do that, right? I do, yeah. Trying to send him to a third country. Many of them. We talked about Ghana and Eritrea and a bunch of other countries. And how do you use it for the other country?

Rwanda. Was it Rwanda? Rwanda is like the classic scheme. It was Sudan. wasn't it? Rwanda's been like the third country scheme. Like all of this is convoluted hubbub nonsense where everyone who has no idea what's going on is trying to a certain opinion. I got no problem saying I don't know about that. All I know is he's from El Salvador. He went to El Salvador. What El Salvador does with their citizens, I'll put it like this. Okay, you know what? I give up. You're right. Let's

invade El Salvador and shut them down. Should we, uh, what do you think? Does that follow from what I said? Well, they're engaging in human rights abuses without due process. So let's send in the troops. So you're saying yes, but it doesn't follow from El Salvador having human rights abuses that the only Should we stop the human rights abuses? Yes, but that's not through diplomatic means. Diplomatic means, like what? You can introduce sanctions against their country to try to pressure the governments to act in conformity with human rights. Then you can try additional mechanisms.

We have embassies in these countries where we can communicate with foreign dignitaries. You can make appeals to the UN. What if sanctions don't work and they keep doing it? So pretty please? I'm only answering your question. What are we supposed to do short? You ask me, what are we supposed to do short of invading them? and I'm giving you different avenues.

And now you're saying, what if they don't work? Venezuela's sanctions didn't work. And I'm not saying that they are guaranteed to work. I'm saying there are different ways, objectively, than just invading a country to pressure them. Sanctions didn't work on Venezuela. They kept trading oil with sanctioned countries and they were sanctioned. So should we just let them keep doing it or should we invade Venezuela? You realize it's a false dichotomy that you presented, right?

What's the false dichotomy? That it doesn't have to be one or the other. The invasion or the sanctions? Yeah, no. All right. So do you have a suggestion for what we do beyond the sanctions failing? There's other diplomatic means. Am I able to articulate what they could be? You don't know? No. I'm just saying that I'm sure there exists any number of possible, any number of different actions we could appeal to the UN. There's other, we could work in coordination with other countries.

They're not UN countries. My only, I'm only answering that there is more than, there are more options than just sanctions and invasions. Do you agree with me? Yeah. I don't. What do you mean? We can say pretty pleased. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. But I'll clarify because I think it's fine to say that if we send in like frogmen to pull someone from their home or execute him, that's an invasion. Like I think it's, you know, the polymarket's not paying out Venezuelan invasion because they argued that we didn't capture territory. Oh, really?

But like we did. We took the Venezuelan compound to secure him just because it was for 90 minutes doesn't mean it wasn't an invasion. So the argument is how does the U.S. The U.S. is a variety of things to take over a country. we do first economic incentives. We'll make you rich. If they say no, then we try to manipulate them politically. Well, the first economic incentives to things does involve sanctions.

Then there's political manipulation like we've seen in, you know, like the banana republics or the efforts we've made in Iraq and Afghanistan with nation building. It's not a great example. But Ukraine is probably a better example. The Euro-Midem movement. Before it became full-blown war, the U.S. was funding activist groups to foment support for the EU. When that doesn't work, we then go for assassinations. And if that doesn't work, we then go for full-scale militarized invasion.

So that's the playbook for how it went with Saddam Hussein. And it was because he didn't want to trade oil and dollars. He wanted to trade in euro. And Muammar Gaddafi wanted to trade in gold. That's the scale of things that we do. Did you support the Obama admins Libya intervention? Absolutely not. And I think Barack Obama was a scumbag who murdered children and American citizens.

And he should, he's a war criminal and should be arrested. And Trump doesn't get any special passes for me because he was accused of killing another American girl, the sister of Abduraman al-Aliqi in Yemen. Now, that one is an accusation not yet confirmed, and I think we should have a trial and a hearing over it, though it's been 10 years. The Obama killing of Abdullah al-Ali-Laki is admitted to, confessed to, and they said, whoopsie, daisy. So if you want to confess to the murder of an American, you get locked the fuck up. So anyway, I don't think the U.S. should be killing Saddam Hussein and evading under false pretenses to enforce the petro dollar. I don't think that we should have gone and removed

Maduro, though I think Maduro is a bad guy. And they are wholly different things. Even if Anwar Alalaki was affiliated with a terrorist organization? Abdulraman Al-Lakki. I'm sorry, I can't get the name right, but that individual, even if they're affiliated with the terrorist relations. Abdu Ramon-A-Lal-Lakki was not, no. He was a 16-year-old from Boulder, Colorado, visiting his family in Yemen. Oh, wait, wait. I'm not talking about that.

That's, it was like an additional casualty that was incurred as a result of this. I'm talking about... No, no, no, no. Abdu Ramon Al-Lakki was directly targeted, and the restaurant was blown up and he was killed. And when asked about it, they said, we thought there was a different target at the building. So, would you... If they're part of a terrorist organization, Is that okay?

Depends. Anwar Alalaki was an American citizen. But he was part of Al-Qaeda now? Perhaps. He was argued that he was a proselytizer of Al-Qaeda, and he was actively engaged in war with us in a war zone. That's tough. I still lean towards they should have had a criminal trial form in the United States before killing an American citizen.

But it's fair to say that when you're actively engaged in war, look, if someone's running at me with a gun, they get shot. Doesn't matter if they're an American citizen or a, you know, Uzbekistanian or whatever. So Anwar Al-Aliaki was killed in a drone stream. He was an American citizen who wasn't given due process. No charge, no trial. They just killed him. The argument they made was he was an active enemy combatant proselytizing for our enemies in enemy territory. And it's like, well, we aren't at war with Yemen. So why are we bombing Yemen? He's just a foreign guy preaching things we don't like. There should be a trial for him. Now, Abdulraman is

wholly different. This was an American citizen who committed no crimes, was part of no terrorist organization who was visiting his grandparents in Yemen at a civilian restaurant when Obama blew him up. That's criminal. Obama should be in prison for that. He admitted to it. As administrative, said, we thought it was a different target. Okay, we call that manslaughter. Okay, we call that negligent homicide. If you point a gun at a guy and shoot him and say, I thought that was a murderer, we say, well, you killed an innocent person, you go to jail for that. Anyway, we are well over and we do need to wrap up, but I do want to give you the opportunity to put your final thoughts in and take the final word. I don't have any additional final thoughts. Had a good time talking with all of

you guys and debating throughout the afternoon. My name's Aaron, aka straight or straight out of just go online. I live stream basically Monday through Friday politics react stream so come by it's always a good time and thank you for having me on. Thanks for thanks for coming too and I appreciate you handling the heat in the kitchen. I know we're all kind of against you but I do think it's it was great to have you and I don't want to apologize to the to the discord members in the backstage that we didn't go through your chats or whatever because I lost my mind but now we're 12 minutes over we're out of time because we have limited time today that's why we're pre-recording so yeah you want to shout anything out before we go yeah so you guys can follow me I'm mostly on X at Real Defendant

under 45, but I will remind you all that it is important to get involved locally because a nation where its citizens don't show up can be lost, and so we need to act. X and Instagram at Real Tate Brown. Go follow me there. I am Phil the Remains on Twix. The band is all the remains. We're going on tour. We're going to be in Albany on April 29th and we'll be on tour for three weeks after

that until the end of just about the end of May. We're going out with Bournevo-O-Syris and Dead Eyes. You can check out all the remains music on Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify. YouTube and Dizer. Don't forget the left lane is for cry. I just want to say again, too, that it was great to have you. And you can tell it was a good show when we go over. And it's just like, we missed. You don't even notice just time flies. Yeah, I know. I'm like, I want to keep going because I'm having fun. And I think it's important. But we're supposed to have a hard stop. So everybody, thank you all so much for being members. Thanks for watching the show. We're back,

of course, on Monday. We got exciting stuff in the works. And we will see you all then.