Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 2: So over the weekend, Trump announced that he is invoking
Speaker 2: the Foreign the Alien Enemies Act of seventeen ninety eight.
Speaker 2: This is claiming wartime powers. It's only been invoked three
Speaker 2: times in the past, both all three during actual wars
Speaker 2: eighteen twelve, World War One, and World War Two, when
Speaker 2: it was infamously used to justify the internment of Japanese civilians,
Speaker 2: including others as well, Italians and Germans as well. We
Speaker 2: can put me one up on the screen. So the
Speaker 2: headline here from PBS, Trump invokes eighteenth century law declaring
Speaker 2: invasion by gangs to speed mass deportations. So his claim
Speaker 2: is that the US has been invaded by a Venezuelan gang,
Speaker 2: putting us quote unquote at war because these, you know,
Speaker 2: can only these powers can only be used at wartime,
Speaker 2: and handing himself the discretion to intern and summarily to
Speaker 2: port with zero due process anyone that he effectively wants.
Speaker 2: So right away after he invokes this, and there was
Speaker 2: anticipation that this was coming, there were some Venezuelan migrants
Speaker 2: who were sort of moved to.
Speaker 4: This Texas ice facility. Of course, this had.
Speaker 2: Been expected because he talked about on the campaign trail
Speaker 2: that this was coming all along. So the ACLU actually
Speaker 2: got out front and filed a suit to try to
Speaker 2: block these deportations, focusing in particular on these five Venezuelan migrants.
Speaker 2: So when Trump invokes this Alien Enemies Act, immediately a
Speaker 2: plane takes off with hundreds of Venezuelan migrants that they
Speaker 2: claim are in this trender Aragua gang, which became a
Speaker 2: big talking point on the campaign.
Speaker 4: Trail as well.
Speaker 2: So they take off and head to El Salvador, where
Speaker 2: they are put into a notorious prison there where you know.
Speaker 2: I mean, they're just completely disappeared, right, So there's no
Speaker 2: access for journalists, no access for.
Speaker 4: Lawyers, whatever.
Speaker 2: There is no proof that these people actually are in
Speaker 2: the gang that Trump says that they're in. In fact,
Speaker 2: previously they had said that some people you know and
Speaker 2: that were held at Guantanamo were in this gang, and
Speaker 2: journalists went in and turned out they weren't whatsoever. It's
Speaker 2: estimated there's only a few hundred members of this gang
Speaker 2: in the US all together, so.
Speaker 1: It's sort of okay, that's not so very.
Speaker 2: Unlikely that, you know, they got all of them in
Speaker 2: this one round up. In any case, there's there's no proof.
Speaker 2: They were given no due process, no ability to challenge
Speaker 2: the determination that they're part of this gang, and they're
Speaker 2: disappeared into this El Salvador prison that's known for cruelty,
Speaker 2: torture and slave labor. So after this plane takes off,
Speaker 2: a judge actually acts pretty quickly. We can put this
Speaker 2: next piece up on the screen. Judge actually acts pretty
Speaker 2: quickly and hastily schedules a hearing and says, you can't
Speaker 2: do this. You know, I don't think that you have
Speaker 2: the legal right to do this, and I am blocking
Speaker 2: all of these deportations, not just the five that the
Speaker 2: case was originally about. The ACLU, you know, immediately expanded
Speaker 2: their case to include all migrants who were held in detention.
Speaker 2: Said you can't do this, and even if there is
Speaker 2: a plane in the air, you need to turn that
Speaker 2: plane around and bring them back.
Speaker 4: But that does not happen.
Speaker 2: Instead, there's reporting from Axios that says that Steven Miller
Speaker 2: and Kirsty you know, they were apparently the ones that
Speaker 2: were you know, involved most closely in the execution of
Speaker 2: all of this. They debated with lawyers like, you know,
Speaker 2: should we go along with this court order or not?
Speaker 4: And basically they decided not.
Speaker 2: Now they claimed, oh, it was already in over international waters,
Speaker 2: so you know it's out of our hands now. Of course,
Speaker 2: this is like preposterous, and well why nonsot?
Speaker 5: Wait?
Speaker 1: Why, well, because do you think you take things? First
Speaker 1: of all, look read the quote in front of you.
Speaker 3: However, that's accomplished, whether planning is turning around or not
Speaker 3: or not being the operative word.
Speaker 1: Second, however, it's a complane took off.
Speaker 3: From Texas, which immediately put it over international waters within
Speaker 3: like ten minutes.
Speaker 1: Those six thirty five pm.
Speaker 3: The flight landed at El Salvador at eight thirty five pm,
Speaker 3: making it clear that actually it was over international territory
Speaker 3: and not over the waters of the United States. Now,
Speaker 3: do you really believe that some federal judge here in Washington,
Speaker 3: d C. Has the authority to tell the executive to
Speaker 3: turn a military aircraft around?
Speaker 1: You believe? Okay, Well, then we'll test that at the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. We will test that here's at the United
Speaker 1: States Supreme Court.
Speaker 4: Spathetic, how do you know the criminal?
Speaker 3: First of all, I mean this is where Look, you
Speaker 3: said something earlier, which I think is important. You think
Speaker 3: your country is being taken away from you because three
Speaker 3: hundred something Venezuelan illegal immigrants were deported to El Salvador.
Speaker 2: How do you what proof do you even have of that?
Speaker 2: I mean, because here's here's the thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, here's the thing. They all entered the country illegally.
Speaker 2: That's there according to the government. I mean, listen, I
Speaker 2: think that is probably true. But here's what you're defending.
Speaker 2: Hundreds of people who we don't know who they are,
Speaker 2: disappeared into a foreign prison known for torture, where no
Speaker 2: lawyers or journalists could possibly go and find out who
Speaker 2: they are and whether the government story adds up with
Speaker 2: zero due process. That's what you're defending, is that Trump
Speaker 2: can summarily say these people they're gone.
Speaker 4: I'm putting them in.
Speaker 2: This prison and a foreign country indefinitely at my discretion,
Speaker 2: and you don't get to say anything about it.
Speaker 4: That's what happened here. So I just don't see anything.
Speaker 1: You can't say anything about it. I should see.
Speaker 3: I think you should be easily challenged to the United
Speaker 3: State Supreme Court. And I think that within the context
Speaker 3: of clearly the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, from
Speaker 3: what I've been able to review, he seems well within
Speaker 3: his rights to be able to do this from a
Speaker 3: state department or terrorist organization. That's not Listen, you're arguing semantics.
Speaker 2: I'm talking no, I'm arguing the law. Are we at
Speaker 2: war right now?
Speaker 1: I mean it doesn't involved three times.
Speaker 2: Look in the past of eighteen twelve, World War one,
Speaker 2: world War two, those are the three times that's been invoked.
Speaker 2: All three times, especially during World War two, quite shamefully
Speaker 2: in the internment of Japanese citizens. You think it's okay
Speaker 2: for our government to round up whoever claim their criminals
Speaker 2: and imprison them indefinitely in a foreign prison to be tortured.
Speaker 3: Well, that round saying to me, see, you seem much
Speaker 3: more concerned earned about that than the importation of eight
Speaker 3: to ten million illegal immigrants under Joe Biden. That seems
Speaker 3: to me, my country'smen taken away. So this is what
Speaker 3: I'm saying, Like, we can play this game all day long.
Speaker 3: Do you think that's an invasion. I think that's an
Speaker 3: invasion eight to ten million.
Speaker 4: But that's not what he's talking about.
Speaker 1: But he's talking specifically about Venezuelan migrants.
Speaker 2: Yes, no, No, he's talking specifically about the.
Speaker 4: How many people are here from trende.
Speaker 1: I have no idea, all right, that's my not even.
Speaker 4: The roughly several hundred.
Speaker 1: Who are we getting on CLU or from the lawyer.
Speaker 2: From from agencies, from international agencies that track law and
Speaker 2: order across Latin America. These are not like liberal do
Speaker 2: good or These are people who are looking at the
Speaker 2: spread of gangs around the world. Okay, many actually of
Speaker 2: these people likely were fleeing violence from the very gang
Speaker 2: that you're talking.
Speaker 3: That's probably a convenient errative. Hold on, hold on, I
Speaker 3: think that's a very convenient narrative.
Speaker 2: In terms of who was brought to Guantanamo Bay. Okay,
Speaker 2: in prison in Getmo, the Trump administration made the same
Speaker 2: Oh these are gang members. These are the worst of
Speaker 2: the worst. Some of them didn't even have criminal records
Speaker 2: at all. Some of them who they claimed were in
Speaker 2: Trende Ragua. It was because of either they were from
Speaker 2: that state of Ragua in Venezuela and actually, like I said,
Speaker 2: had been fleeing the violence from this gang, or they
Speaker 2: happened to have a tattoo that made them think like, oh,
Speaker 2: they're just in the gang. One of the people who
Speaker 2: is who was part of this group is LGBT Venezuelan
Speaker 2: who was in prison, according to his lawyer because of
Speaker 2: his tattoo, was assumed to be in a gang.
Speaker 4: That's what we're talking about here. So there is no.
Speaker 1: Reason I see him being gay or whatever.
Speaker 4: How is that relevant, because how do you think it's
Speaker 4: gonna go for him? Saga, he's an artist. How do
Speaker 4: you think this.
Speaker 3: Is my hollowed Okay, then don't care that he's gay.
Speaker 2: Do you care that he was wrongfully in prison and
Speaker 2: disappeared in a foreign jail cell? And there's nothing that
Speaker 2: anyone can do about it.
Speaker 3: Author is a CLU lawyer. He's not a part of
Speaker 3: the air Trendogou you truly, I'm supposed to trust some
Speaker 3: open borders.
Speaker 2: I believe that they rounded up in this. They successfully
Speaker 2: rounded up every trender Iragua gang member in the country.
Speaker 4: That's it. No, I don't mission accomplished.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: If anything, there's probably a lot more than need to
Speaker 3: go now. This is actually what I'm saying is that
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, within the powers of
Speaker 3: the State Department, which has declared this in ft O,
Speaker 3: the powers within the executive are quite clear. I also
Speaker 3: not Trump literally promised to do this on the campaign trail,
Speaker 3: so this was one of the most telegraphed.
Speaker 4: Okay, are you in like, are good with it? Are
Speaker 4: you good with it?
Speaker 1: I mean christ random people? Are you good with eight
Speaker 1: to ten million illegal random over four years?
Speaker 4: Changing the subject? Yes, I am. You know that I'm flying.
Speaker 1: Okay, then are you good?
Speaker 4: Quit changing the subject?
Speaker 1: That's are you comfortable part of the story.
Speaker 2: Are you comfortable with random people being snatched up?
Speaker 1: Why?
Speaker 4: Okay, give me give me your proof.
Speaker 1: Of what that they entered the country.
Speaker 4: Give me your proof these are gang members?
Speaker 3: I don't have to offer that proof, and actually even
Speaker 3: the government doesn't necessarily have to do that either, But.
Speaker 4: Good with that?
Speaker 2: With what I think being able to snatch up random people.
Speaker 1: They're not random here, you know, they're not citizens, they.
Speaker 4: Are you're flying with okay?
Speaker 2: Do you think that the appropriate punishment for people who
Speaker 2: were fleeing gang violence and coming here.
Speaker 1: Seeking about a life accord gus?
Speaker 2: Do you think that an appropriate punishment is to be
Speaker 2: disappeared into a foreign jail cell, to be tortured indefinitely
Speaker 2: and subjected to slave labor.
Speaker 3: What I think is that their responsibility and safety is
Speaker 3: the problem of the Venezuelan government, and that they can
Speaker 3: argue to the government of Bel Salvador and identify answer virtuals.
Speaker 4: My question is it okay with you? Is it okay
Speaker 4: with you?
Speaker 2: You think it is an appropriate punishment for someone who
Speaker 2: crossed our border seeking a better life to be disappeared
Speaker 2: with zero due process into a foreign jail cell to
Speaker 2: be tortured.
Speaker 4: I are you good with that?
Speaker 3: First of all, look, you're offering up a lot of
Speaker 3: claims where you don't even necessarily be true. In the
Speaker 3: same way you can't say for certain or whatever they've
Speaker 3: been tortured. Oh, they had their head shaven by the Salvador.
Speaker 4: This is what this person is known.
Speaker 1: Okay, Okay, that's again.
Speaker 3: For I think it's look, as I continue to say,
Speaker 3: when you let in eight to ten million people and
Speaker 3: you an elect a president who says I'm going to
Speaker 3: use the alien enemies active mass deport people and stand
Speaker 3: in front of a sign and then you win the
Speaker 3: popular vote, then yeah, I am okay with it. And
Speaker 3: in fact the only problem I have with the Trump
Speaker 3: administration is that they've been prioritizing the stupid shiit like
Speaker 3: trying to deport someone like mahmod Cleer for some billionaire donors,
Speaker 3: and not the people who came here illegally. Those people
Speaker 3: entered our country criminally and illegally. This whole oh fleeing
Speaker 3: a better life is bs. There's they're economic migrants.
Speaker 4: That's fleeing for a better life.
Speaker 3: But there are problems, so they take advantage of our
Speaker 3: laws they illegally use.
Speaker 1: There is a very discreet question.
Speaker 2: Yes, I understand you think it's okay to then randomly
Speaker 2: take people.
Speaker 4: We have zero proof that these are.
Speaker 2: Gang members, and we should very much mistrust the government
Speaker 2: because they've been proven.
Speaker 4: To lie about this previously.
Speaker 2: We should trust them that they're picking up gang members
Speaker 2: when they can pick up whoever they want and imprison
Speaker 2: them in a foreign jail to be tortured. You think
Speaker 2: that is an appropriate punishment for crossing our borders trying
Speaker 2: to achieve a better life.
Speaker 3: No, I think that the look I mean once again,
Speaker 3: I think it is clearly within the executive purview to
Speaker 3: be able.
Speaker 1: To do it.
Speaker 2: Stop lodging with the executive p think it's because do
Speaker 2: you do you think it's right or wrong?
Speaker 1: There's the world is not so black and white?
Speaker 3: Would I have preferred to do you think it's preferred
Speaker 3: that they release the list of all of the names
Speaker 3: and the dossier for each one of these people. Absolutely
Speaker 3: would actually make it the history onic coming from a
Speaker 3: lot of.
Speaker 2: Liberty, you think there should be, and that that's the
Speaker 2: whole point of having to do so that they can
Speaker 2: have an opportunity to prove the things you're saying about
Speaker 2: me are not true. But instead, don't you think it's
Speaker 2: telling that they had this plane ready to go so
Speaker 2: that they could avoid any of that scrutiny and that
Speaker 2: they are now disappeared into a foreign prison where there
Speaker 2: is no ability to know who these people are. And
Speaker 2: by the way, there were children as young as fourteen
Speaker 2: who were part of this, because the Alien Enemies Act
Speaker 2: says it's fourteen or older. So you're talking about not
Speaker 2: just grown men. You're talking about you know, teenage boys
Speaker 2: here as well. Like that's that's what we're talking about.
Speaker 2: We're talking about the government claiming and ability to in
Speaker 2: turn deport with summer elite with no due process and
Speaker 2: holding the foreign prison whoever they want because we have
Speaker 2: no way to know who these people are. We don't
Speaker 2: even know for sure that they're Venezuela.
Speaker 3: And we don't know we're where we enter illegal This
Speaker 3: is what I'm saying. The level of concern you have
Speaker 3: for a bunch of illegal immigrants is it's honestly maddening
Speaker 3: to me that you think it's okay to let eight
Speaker 3: to ten million people here at a level many human crimes. Okay,
Speaker 3: that's great. That's the job of the United Nations. Our
Speaker 3: job is to protect our country. The United States Constant
Speaker 3: as well as the Alien Enemies Acquistion me a multiple constitutionals.
Speaker 2: Tell me how it protects our country. To hand the
Speaker 2: president the ability to randomly round up and whoever he wants.
Speaker 4: How do you know that what proof have you been
Speaker 4: given of.
Speaker 3: What that these are Venezuelan nationals are actually there is
Speaker 3: proof that they were Venezuelan nationals.
Speaker 1: But beyond that.
Speaker 3: Now, again, we can criticize process in here all day long,
Speaker 3: but I do think that is a philosophical trap where
Speaker 3: look at the status quo that.
Speaker 1: We were living in.
Speaker 3: Fifteen to twenty million illegal immigrants who entered this country,
Speaker 3: eight to ten million of them over a four year period,
Speaker 3: or resounding popular voute victory for a person who said
Speaker 3: I am going to mask okay poor. In fact, I
Speaker 3: think this is probably one of the most popular things
Speaker 3: that Trump will do. And if liberals want to mount
Speaker 3: a great fight on this, this is I say, be
Speaker 3: my guest, But because this is the irony of the situation, I.
Speaker 4: Don't know whether it would be popular or not. I
Speaker 4: actually know, I.
Speaker 1: Actually doubt that.
Speaker 2: I doubt that disappearing people into a foreign prison is
Speaker 2: that popula. Maybe you're right, you know what, Slavery was
Speaker 2: popular at a time. Yes, ce creation was popular at
Speaker 2: a time. You know, Hating gay people was popular at
Speaker 2: a time. Like sometimes things that are popular, can be bad,
Speaker 2: can be immoral, can be a massive authoritarian, fascist power grab.
Speaker 2: This is one of those times. And I think it's
Speaker 2: insane that you can defend taking whoever they want and.
Speaker 4: With zero due process, defying a court order.
Speaker 1: Well, no, that's yeah, no, no, no, because.
Speaker 3: Again because it's actually it's very up to interpretation.
Speaker 2: I would be more sympathetic to your view maybe if
Speaker 2: it wasn't for the Kelly who is the head of
Speaker 2: Al Salvador coming out and saying whoopsie and the White
Speaker 2: House amplifying that with regard to the court order being defied,
Speaker 2: like they openly and brazenly defied a court order here
Speaker 2: that said you have to turn the plane around. You
Speaker 2: cannot do this. So if these are hardened gang criminals,
Speaker 2: prove it, wouldn't you want to prove it. Wouldn't you
Speaker 2: want to show everybody look at all of these monsters
Speaker 2: that we found, that we're now getting rid of, that
Speaker 2: we're now deporting, that we're now falling through on our promises. No,
Speaker 2: they want to hide it. They want to do it
Speaker 2: under the cover of night because they want to hide
Speaker 2: who these people are and do it under the cover
Speaker 2: of night because they know that these are not No,
Speaker 2: I'm talking about the specifics of who these people are.
Speaker 2: These are not gang criminals when they went when journalists
Speaker 2: were able, and this is probably why people were pulled
Speaker 2: from Guantanamo. When journalists were able to go and check, oh,
Speaker 2: who are these people that you say, are these hardened
Speaker 2: criminal monsters that you put at Guantanamo Bay with no rights?
Speaker 2: Guess what they found. Many of them had zero criminal records.
Speaker 2: The ones who they claimed were gang they were not
Speaker 2: gang members. Some of them were fleeing gang violence. And
Speaker 2: yet we're just going to disappear people now and defy
Speaker 2: court orders and say whoopsie and send it to you know,
Speaker 2: this brutal human rights violation, torturing, slave labor cesspool.
Speaker 3: I think you know, you know, the funny thing is
Speaker 3: is that you know, as much as you love miss
Speaker 3: Shinbaum over in Mexico, Bill Kelly is the actually one
Speaker 3: of the also most popular.
Speaker 1: Leaders in Latin America.
Speaker 3: He dropped his crime rate from something like six thousand
Speaker 3: murders ten years ago to one hundred and fourteen just
Speaker 3: in the last year, overwhelming amount of success. So for
Speaker 3: all of this, he's overwhelmingly popular and it turns out
Speaker 3: that like, oh, whenever you lock a bunch of criminals up,
Speaker 3: crime drops is actually shocking. Beyond that, again, the histrionics
Speaker 3: and the level of concern always comes to applying the
Speaker 3: maximum force of the beauty of the United States to
Speaker 3: people who criminally entered our country.
Speaker 1: I genuinely wish there was the same level of concern
Speaker 1: for our citizens.
Speaker 3: But this is where the liberal like entire concern strategy
Speaker 3: just frankly why it loses at the ballot box. It's
Speaker 3: genuinely internationalists and globalist. It is open border almost to
Speaker 3: its core, looking at these people as if they are
Speaker 3: full deserve the full protections of the United States and
Speaker 3: or are equal in equivalent US citizens. Well, you know
Speaker 3: under the alien under the Alien Enemies Act, if they
Speaker 3: are trend to AGUA members, and no, they don't actually
Speaker 3: have due process rights. In a similar way, for some
Speaker 3: mirror deportation are now I mean, okay, are we being
Speaker 3: invaded right now? You're to say, exactly, so there we go,
Speaker 3: water playman.
Speaker 2: Imagine that two hundred people from a gang is an
Speaker 2: invasion and that puts US at war like that is insane.
Speaker 2: And so here's here's the thing.
Speaker 4: Okay, you you hate these people, you want.
Speaker 2: To know, You're fine to deport everything, imprison them in
Speaker 2: a foreign jail sale where that can be torture.
Speaker 4: We got it. Okay.
Speaker 2: Do you realize though, that once the store is open, like,
Speaker 2: it's open for everyone, not just for Trump, like when
Speaker 2: civil rights go, that's it, they're gone.
Speaker 3: They're going to deport who exactly illegal immigrants? Okay, fine,
Speaker 3: that's why if Biden or Kamalain Hanris or whoever in
Speaker 3: the future wants to are it could be somebody who
Speaker 3: is here legally, fine, that's fine.
Speaker 2: Would be comfortable with them picking up whoever they want
Speaker 2: and summarily deporting them.
Speaker 1: So this is because we keep on the protection of
Speaker 1: legal or.
Speaker 2: The Americans process where we even know who these people are.
Speaker 2: But yes, of course, if you're here you have some rights.
Speaker 2: Otherwise it would be like crazy. You couldn't just have
Speaker 2: some foreign tours here and then just like torture them
Speaker 2: for the hell of it. That would be insane. If
Speaker 2: you are here, yes you have some rights. If you're
Speaker 2: an asylum seeker, yes you have some rights. One of
Speaker 2: those rights is due process. And this is the thing.
Speaker 2: It's like, you know they pick this. They paint these
Speaker 2: people as all gang members, which they're not all gang er.
Speaker 2: There's zero chants that they're all gang members. But in
Speaker 2: any case, they paint them as that because they know
Speaker 2: that this is like a hated group and then those
Speaker 2: you know, rights get stripped away. And if you think
Speaker 2: that it just stays with the group that you happen
Speaker 2: to like, hate or not care about, or think deserve
Speaker 2: to rot and get tortured in a foreign jail cell,
Speaker 2: that's not what history shows us. And some of the
Speaker 2: most shameful moments in our history have been when a
Speaker 2: you know, hated group is targeted, like Japanese internment during
Speaker 2: World War Two, which is the last time that this
Speaker 2: law was invoked.
Speaker 3: What's the key difference between that those were US citizens
Speaker 3: who are having their Supreme Court or their constitutional rights
Speaker 3: violated natural born us.
Speaker 2: Is there any level of cruelty to migrants that you
Speaker 2: would not justify?
Speaker 1: This is what this is what I'm saying. Deportation is
Speaker 1: not cruelty.
Speaker 4: That's deportation. They're imprisoned in a torture chamber.
Speaker 1: Okay, well it's else.
Speaker 4: Is there any level of cruelty you would not justify?
Speaker 1: What I justify like chaining them up and hanging them from.
Speaker 3: Their tortured They were sent for being prisoned.
Speaker 4: They were sent to a prison.
Speaker 3: Salvador has agreed, apparently like on some fee basis, to
Speaker 3: house these people while they're there. It is now the
Speaker 3: problem the Venezuelan government. And by the way, actually, if
Speaker 3: this does go to the US Supreme Court and they
Speaker 3: uphold what you're saying, you know what, I'll say, Okay,
Speaker 3: bring them back, go ahead, let's do it.
Speaker 1: Strike it down. You can bring them back to.
Speaker 4: You no moral companies outside what the Supreme Court tells you.
Speaker 4: It's okay.
Speaker 3: You look again, this is why I think this level
Speaker 3: of like frankly like moral where would the line udicous?
Speaker 4: What would be too okay?
Speaker 3: So let me ask you that how many illegals have
Speaker 3: to murder? What's the correct number that is justifiable in
Speaker 3: the crystal ball universe for the number of illegals to
Speaker 3: enter the United States?
Speaker 1: How many murders is that okay? To balance with increasing
Speaker 1: economic ge.
Speaker 4: Aware that is it?
Speaker 2: One doocumented and documented have a lower crime rate.
Speaker 1: Than the native right, so they should actually be here to.
Speaker 4: Stop smearing them all if.
Speaker 3: There shouldn't be here, then the number should be zero, correct.
Speaker 3: I think the trustful number is zero as the number.
Speaker 2: We need to actually have an immigration system where I
Speaker 2: would let more people in, yes than is legally allowed now,
Speaker 2: but yes, I would have borders. I would want to
Speaker 2: know who's coming in. I would want to make sure
Speaker 2: that criminals weren't coming in.
Speaker 3: Well, none of that now, and I didn't see any
Speaker 3: of this level of history onics that was happening.
Speaker 1: Well, two hundred people are.
Speaker 4: Sent to be tortured by our government, but they're interesting.
Speaker 4: That's something that doesn't upset you. Like, is that not
Speaker 4: upset you?
Speaker 3: I don't think that they're quote unquote being tortured. I
Speaker 3: think they're in a prison now. Second, again, I think
Speaker 3: that there are tens of millions of people who crime
Speaker 3: only entered our country, circumvented our laws. We have no
Speaker 3: idea in the similar way that you're talking about here,
Speaker 3: who are who are either committing crimes. Let's say it's
Speaker 3: less than the native born population. Nobody knows if that's
Speaker 3: actually true or not. But even if it is, why
Speaker 3: is that acceptable number? And you think zero that is
Speaker 3: the appropriate pology.
Speaker 2: I think that justifies sending people to be tortured in
Speaker 2: a foreign person.
Speaker 1: Keep saying there's evidence in the similar way there's no evidence.
Speaker 2: Do you think that that justifies do our government claim it? No,
Speaker 2: our government claiming the power to disappear people into a
Speaker 2: foreign prison set.
Speaker 1: I will tell you this.
Speaker 3: I will I think that, considering the circumstances of the
Speaker 3: election and the genuine insanity of the status quo that
Speaker 3: we're in, that me, along with many people who saw
Speaker 3: what Trump was running on, agreed with this idea put
Speaker 3: forward that every power of the United States government should
Speaker 3: be brought to bear to toport people who entered this
Speaker 3: country illegally. So I think that is open affirmed at
Speaker 3: the ballot box and is within this U. S.
Speaker 4: Law.
Speaker 2: You are good with random people we don't know who
Speaker 2: they are, they get no due process, being smeared as
Speaker 2: gang members we don't know, and being disappeared into a
Speaker 2: foreign prison that is known for torture and slave labor.
Speaker 3: I mean again, I'm just going to say, like, so
Speaker 3: you're okay with people who are coming up, but actually answer,
Speaker 3: ironically answer, hold on, this is acause.
Speaker 4: We have because we had people come.
Speaker 1: We have no idea who we had people come. That
Speaker 1: was we need fat because we also need argument. We
Speaker 1: also need some dishwashers. Company needs to build our house.
Speaker 2: Because people with authorization, we should have fascism.
Speaker 1: It's just it is not fat. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: This is where But where is the what would be
Speaker 2: too cruel? What would be where you would say, you
Speaker 2: know what, this is wrong?
Speaker 4: You know what? There should be due process? You know
Speaker 4: what these are?
Speaker 2: Yes, I I don't think that they should be. I
Speaker 2: don't think they should be in this country. But I
Speaker 2: do think that we.
Speaker 3: Deserve the not the perfect example, somebody who is here
Speaker 3: screened by our government, not only do we know who
Speaker 3: he was, somebody who has due process rights as a legal
Speaker 3: permanent resident who was arrested and is being deported for
Speaker 3: a BS free speech reason.
Speaker 1: Perfect.
Speaker 3: There you go say, we're I think we're going to
Speaker 3: talk about a case soon on some h one B thing.
Speaker 3: I think the government acted outrageously on that one. On
Speaker 3: this one. This is what you just This is what
Speaker 3: people really don't seem to get is when you sit
Speaker 3: there and you just justify again, how many people are
Speaker 3: okay to just be able to come in We're supposed
Speaker 3: to take their word for what is Oh I'm fleeing violence,
Speaker 3: and you apparently get to stay here for twenty five
Speaker 3: years and say it isen' ship in a job.
Speaker 1: It's a complete bullshit circumvention of any.
Speaker 2: Your tension is that that justifies claiming wartime powers to
Speaker 2: disappear random people?
Speaker 3: I think, I mean, I like how the phrasing is here.
Speaker 3: I will interpret yours in similarly bad faith, which is
Speaker 3: that you think it is okay for criminal illegals, pedophile,
Speaker 3: rapist murders, all of who have been proven to have
Speaker 3: crossed the illegally and under the various island status quo.
Speaker 4: I am fine, and it's okay.
Speaker 1: For them to meet here. I think they should be deported.
Speaker 4: But but we don't know who these people are.
Speaker 2: Because we don't know who these people are, and this
Speaker 2: administration has already been caught lying about who these people are.
Speaker 2: They've already been caught. There is zero reasons to believe them.
Speaker 2: In the entire country, there are probably three hundred gang
Speaker 2: members who are types internationally, like I'm telling you, there
Speaker 2: are multiple estimates from independent groups who track gang violence
Speaker 2: across Latin America. Their estimate is best estimate is that
Speaker 2: there are a few hundred members of this gang. So
Speaker 2: your faith that they got them all in this one
Speaker 2: round up, I guess we can mission accomplished.
Speaker 4: It's all done.
Speaker 2: And then they brazenly defy a court order and brag
Speaker 2: about it and celebrate it. Like I just I just don't,
Speaker 2: I truly don't understand how that can be justified. Like,
Speaker 2: I get your upset about the number of people came here.
Speaker 2: We have a difference of opinion about that. That's fine,
Speaker 2: But in response to that, we think it's okay to
Speaker 2: just send.
Speaker 4: A group of people to be disappeared and tortured. How
Speaker 4: is that? How is that acceptable?
Speaker 1: How?
Speaker 2: How in what world is that acceptable? I mean, in
Speaker 2: what a world is it acceptable for anyone to be torture?
Speaker 4: Whatsoever?
Speaker 3: Are you?
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't think you're okay with that in general?
Speaker 2: So why when it's this group of migrants, is it
Speaker 2: like you could do whatever you want to And I
Speaker 2: really don't care.
Speaker 3: Well, we didn't do whatever we want to, and we
Speaker 3: put them in the custo of the l Salvadorian government.
Speaker 4: In a prison.
Speaker 1: It's not the same.
Speaker 2: Thing, No, we in a prison that is known for
Speaker 2: torture and slavely.
Speaker 3: Yes, you can say it again. Okay, again, it's not
Speaker 3: the US who's doing this, And yes.
Speaker 4: The US is doing it.
Speaker 1: We facilitated their deportation.
Speaker 2: Of course, the US contracted with Bukelli to put them
Speaker 2: in this prison.
Speaker 3: Yes, so they're in the custody the l Salvadoran government.
Speaker 3: They were deported. I think legally, we'll find out at
Speaker 3: the US Supreme Court. So what are you going to
Speaker 3: say if the US Supreme Court, which I fully expect
Speaker 3: them to uphold.
Speaker 2: The My moral compass doesn't depend on what the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court says.
Speaker 3: He then court support the Supreme Court candidate who does.
Speaker 4: Has had dread Scott you know.
Speaker 2: I mean there's a record, there is a record of
Speaker 2: terrible decisions from the Supreme Court. Okay, it doesn't require
Speaker 2: a Supreme Court decision to know what's right and what's wrong.
Speaker 2: And I think to take people with their due process
Speaker 2: where they don't get to make the case. Hey, I'm
Speaker 2: actually just I'm seeking asylum. Here's what is Here's why
Speaker 2: I have this tattoo, here's you know, I'm actually from
Speaker 2: that state.
Speaker 4: I was fleeing the gang violence.
Speaker 2: Like that would give the government an opportunity to prove
Speaker 2: what bad embrace these and why they deserve punishment.
Speaker 1: Fate the testimony of the lord, like, oh he's getting again.
Speaker 2: I take what I take is the proof previously that
Speaker 2: this government lied, and the proof also that the fact
Speaker 2: that they disappeared these people and clearly don't want us
Speaker 2: to know who they are and don't want us to
Speaker 2: be able to evaluate. If they were able to prove
Speaker 2: these claims in court, then they should do it. And
Speaker 2: even then though I mean personally I don't think people
Speaker 2: should be tortured, but in any case, they have a
Speaker 2: lot stronger justification for what they're doing here.
Speaker 4: We are not at war.
Speaker 2: This is not an invasion of two hundred gang members,
Speaker 2: Like what are we talking about here? And if you can,
Speaker 2: if you can claim these if this president can claim
Speaker 2: these powers, any president can claim these powers, zero due
Speaker 2: process rights, to just disappear whoever they want into a
Speaker 2: jail cell in El Salvador where they are beyond the
Speaker 2: reach of any journalists or lawyers or anywhere.
Speaker 3: Then why that's what we're talking Why did the United
Speaker 3: States Congress not repeal that lawt or is invothe three
Speaker 3: times if they thought it was such a horrible threat
Speaker 3: to do process.
Speaker 2: I mean Listen, were when we were leading up to
Speaker 2: this election, and I said I thought Trump was a
Speaker 2: fascist and authoritarian. You said, I think the institution. I
Speaker 2: think he's authoritarian, but I think the institutions will constrain him. Yeah,
Speaker 2: where are those institutional constraints, because what we have right
Speaker 2: now is a court ruling that the president just decided.
Speaker 2: I'm just not going to do that. I'm just going
Speaker 2: to go out. I mean, it was open to interpretation.
Speaker 3: I remember you even saying previously when a judge was like, hey,
Speaker 3: you need to stop all of this. But it's not,
Speaker 3: let's say, feasible, because something is there. It's a lower
Speaker 3: court here at the district level. It will get challenged
Speaker 3: and it will go all the way to Scotus letus down. No,
Speaker 3: I'll tell you this, well, first of all, they might
Speaker 3: be coming back, because if the Supreme Court does say
Speaker 3: that that was illegal, then yes, the United States should
Speaker 3: actually not only have to comply with that order, they
Speaker 3: should fully pay bring these individuals back, and then we
Speaker 3: can go through that. Secondly, as we said, the idea
Speaker 3: that they're quote not complying is just not true. Put
Speaker 3: B four pleas up on the screen from the White House.
Speaker 3: The administration quote did not refuse to comply. Moreover, as
Speaker 3: a Supreme Court is made repeated clear federal or sorry.
Speaker 3: This isn't actually in a statement, but it's on the
Speaker 3: other side. This is the only current flight that's supposedly planned,
Speaker 3: considering that after the plane land was then over international waters,
Speaker 3: as they're claiming, it will be adjudicated sometime soon as
Speaker 3: to whether they're going to be held in contempt a
Speaker 3: court or not. This is not some ongoing policy there
Speaker 3: from the US government with respect to mass deportation flights
Speaker 3: of every Venezuelan like you are claiming, So they are
Speaker 3: actually complexed. This is now that the law has been
Speaker 3: now that the judge of judicial courses, you may have
Speaker 3: the similar point for the level of histronics if they
Speaker 3: were doing it every single day for the next ten
Speaker 3: years or it's our ten days, this up until it goes, but.
Speaker 1: It hasn't happened.
Speaker 2: This is not even the only court order that they
Speaker 2: flouted in the past number of days. And a B
Speaker 2: seven up on the screen another deportation that a judge blocked.
Speaker 2: Judge demands Trump admin explained why a doctor was deported
Speaker 2: despite an order. This was an doctor who was here
Speaker 2: on an H one B visa citizen of Lebanon who
Speaker 2: was detained at the border and deported again in spite
Speaker 2: of the fact that there was a court order not
Speaker 2: to mention that this comes on the heels of you know,
Speaker 2: I mean usaid. There were all kinds of court orders saying, hey,
Speaker 2: you gotta you have to unfreeze this money. You got
Speaker 2: to pay these contracts. The government wouldn't do it, wouldn't
Speaker 2: do it, wouldn't do it, wouldn't do it.
Speaker 4: And so you have.
Speaker 2: If you don't want to say it's open defiance because
Speaker 2: they're still coming up with a cover story, that's fine.
Speaker 2: But it's pretty clear from the reporting that they knew
Speaker 2: what they were doing, They had the ability to turn
Speaker 2: the plane around, and they just decided we're not going
Speaker 2: to listen.
Speaker 3: Uh yeah, Well I don't think I honestly think it's
Speaker 3: a crazy precedent that a lower federal court judge could
Speaker 3: be able to decide that a military aircraft can be
Speaker 3: turned around over international water. I mean, imagine, like, what
Speaker 3: is somebody in the middle of a bombing operation.
Speaker 1: You're going to go to a judge and say, hey, actually,
Speaker 1: you got.
Speaker 3: To turn that around because would circument the very basics
Speaker 3: of the United States government and executive authority.
Speaker 2: Government agencies were in charge of this flight. The order
Speaker 2: applied to those government agencies saying, no, you can't do this,
Speaker 2: like you have to turn these planes around, says turn the.
Speaker 1: Plane around or not, and however that.
Speaker 4: Is however it's accomplished.
Speaker 2: So if there's a plane in there and then you
Speaker 2: have to turn it around, like and they and again
Speaker 2: the reporting from in the room is that like they
Speaker 2: knew that they had a choice, and they thought they
Speaker 2: had they decided they get they decided that they were
Speaker 2: just not going to listen. I think that this is
Speaker 2: a new chapter in what our country is. If you
Speaker 2: can just claim claim we're at war and use it
Speaker 2: to just crush whoever's rights you want and send people
Speaker 2: to foreign prison cell with the expectation that they will
Speaker 2: be tortured and held indefinitely, I think that's wrong.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I think the rorshack test here is that
Speaker 3: I think the last four years were ten times more
Speaker 3: outrageous than any potential implications of this.
Speaker 1: You were okay with it. I was not.
Speaker 3: The people decided to vote for somebody who thought they
Speaker 3: wanted to have deportation.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day, we had a situation again.
Speaker 4: But this isn't about the deportivation, but.
Speaker 3: It really is actually about.
Speaker 4: Getting rid of all the laws.
Speaker 2: And this is about saying, you know, taking people, we
Speaker 2: have no proof of who they are.
Speaker 3: And does it not make you think the fact that
Speaker 3: ninety nine percent of the border crossings have dropped now
Speaker 3: under the Trump administration, despite the fact that there were no.
Speaker 2: News that was before they did this might need to
Speaker 2: do it.
Speaker 3: Is that not evidence that Joe Biden was genuinely did
Speaker 3: have some executive authority to quash whatever was going on
Speaker 3: the comp The story that we were told was that
Speaker 3: he was fully enforcing and complying with the law when
Speaker 3: eight to ten million people were allowed to enter our
Speaker 3: country illegally. The Trump administration has not, even in violation
Speaker 3: of any executive order or any judicial authority that I
Speaker 3: know of today, has been able to implement remain in
Speaker 3: Mexico and other policy to facilitating ninety nine percent drop.
Speaker 3: We didn't have to be doing any of the stuff
Speaker 3: we are right now if we had a previous president
Speaker 3: who didn't allow all these people.
Speaker 1: But we don't, many of whom many of whom didn't
Speaker 1: commit crime.
Speaker 2: We don't have to be doing this, but we we
Speaker 2: didn't have to be doing We don't have to be
Speaker 2: doing this now. Well, I mean, so you don't think
Speaker 2: it's it who is making.
Speaker 3: At the end of the day, You don't think it's
Speaker 3: an urgent crisis that there are eight to ten million
Speaker 3: people who were illegally. I do, and I think a
Speaker 3: lot of voters certainly agreed that was the number one
Speaker 3: or two reasons a lot of people.
Speaker 1: And you think that trumpet the ballot box.
Speaker 2: Okay, and so let me just be clear. You think
Speaker 2: that that quote unquote crisis justifies getting rid of civil
Speaker 2: rights claiming wartime authorities and you know, rounding people up
Speaker 2: without us knowing who they are or what they have
Speaker 2: quote unquote supposedly done, having a chance to defend themselves
Speaker 2: in court. You think it justifies a suspension of core
Speaker 2: civil rights. And you know, again, it's that the discretion
Speaker 2: of like Trump and Christin Knowman and Steven Miller whoever
Speaker 2: they want to round up and make a show of.
Speaker 3: If this were applied to let's say five million people
Speaker 3: and their government was openly defying an order continually as
Speaker 3: this were happening. I may share a similar level of
Speaker 3: your concern, But we are talking here about two to
Speaker 3: three hundred people, at the very least many of which
Speaker 3: are gang members.
Speaker 4: You know that illegally a single one of them is
Speaker 4: a gang.
Speaker 1: Well, you don't know that it.
Speaker 3: Even or not all right, and so like. That's my
Speaker 3: point is that at the end of the day, and
Speaker 3: you know what, that's the word for it. Unfortunately none
Speaker 3: of us know because they entered the country illegal.
Speaker 2: None of us know because they were denied to process
Speaker 2: after the country and they were journalists or lawyers to
Speaker 2: be able to access them.
Speaker 3: You again, you seem to think that we should provide
Speaker 3: and have the same level of concern as a country
Speaker 3: for people who violated our laws who come here.
Speaker 4: Yes, I think, yes, I believe humans deserve human rights.
Speaker 1: That's true. I think that human You don't know.
Speaker 3: I think that the United States has a sole obligation
Speaker 3: to look out for the interests of its US citizens.
Speaker 4: Okay, a soul.
Speaker 2: So that means no one else human rights matter.
Speaker 1: No, that's not what I said.
Speaker 3: What I said is that at the end of the day,
Speaker 3: the government and national sovereignty demand that citizens have control
Speaker 3: over their country, we lived in a status quo where
Speaker 3: that was basically violate, And you think that this vagrantly.
Speaker 2: For claiming, this quashing of rights is necessary to achieve
Speaker 2: that goal, and you think that that's worth it. I mean,
Speaker 2: I just think when you have a situation like this,
Speaker 2: it's just two hundred people, So who really cares what
Speaker 2: happens to them? Like, do you understand that if it
Speaker 2: is upheld at supreme, we aren't just talking about a
Speaker 2: few hundred people. It will be, however many people they
Speaker 2: want it to be who are sent to this you know,
Speaker 2: torture chamber in El Salvador.
Speaker 1: Not necessarily the plan.
Speaker 3: Actually a lot of this is also to pressure the
Speaker 3: Maduro government to accept its own citizens, which it refuses
Speaker 3: to do.
Speaker 1: This is look, I.
Speaker 3: Think that the philosophical argument in all of this really
Speaker 3: gets back to what do you think that the government's
Speaker 3: purpose is. You seem to think that the America is
Speaker 3: like some transnational No.
Speaker 4: I think the governments, which is supposed.
Speaker 1: To be just be pie in the sky and we're
Speaker 1: supposed to be I think I don't think that the
Speaker 1: interests of all of these criminal leaders.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, I don't I think that people have
Speaker 2: civil rights, including people, by the way, and this is
Speaker 2: true who are here who are undocumented. It certainly applies
Speaker 2: to people who are visa holders and who are legal
Speaker 2: permanent residents. And I think that our government should be
Speaker 2: in the business of following the law and also of
Speaker 2: preserving civil and human rights.
Speaker 4: Yes, I think that that is.
Speaker 2: I think when we let go of that, I think
Speaker 2: that can quickly go to a very scary place.
Speaker 1: I just don't think that that's true.
Speaker 2: And that's why I can't just hand wave away. Oh
Speaker 2: it's just two hundred people, So who really the hell
Speaker 2: cares what happens.
Speaker 3: I had to listen to four years of leftists talking
Speaker 3: about Joe Biden, and then in that time period I
Speaker 3: hear to fire the Supreme Court, fire the parliamentarian, forget
Speaker 3: about norms. We need to legalize weed by executive order.
Speaker 3: We need to make it so that Harvard kids get
Speaker 3: free student loans. I mean, come on, have I not
Speaker 3: been listening to Brianna Joy Gray and all these people
Speaker 3: talking about this for years.
Speaker 1: They never cared then, because that was for ends that.
Speaker 3: You thought were justified. This is a similar way. It
Speaker 3: is a crisis according to the government and the United States, populace,
Speaker 3: I would say, considering how the election happened, those elections
Speaker 3: have consequences, considering they literally said he was going to
Speaker 3: do it and then invoke the same law to facilitate that.
Speaker 3: That is genuinely not only a matter of what of
Speaker 3: doing what you said you were going to do, But
Speaker 3: beyond that, when you think at the basic level of
Speaker 3: where the concern and all that should come from, it
Speaker 3: is just obvious and clear to me that your concern
Speaker 3: falls with protecting I mean, actually, you know, is this lookout.
Speaker 1: For due process?
Speaker 3: Suppose it due process rights of criminal illegal gang aliens
Speaker 3: present in the United States, as opposed to the eight
Speaker 3: to ten million people who enter the country illegally. I
Speaker 3: will think that the latter is a bigger problem every
Speaker 3: single day of the week. If we lived in a
Speaker 3: perfect world, do I think that they would have published
Speaker 3: the dossier of all the individual names, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, you know, we process here all day long.
Speaker 4: I'm not critic.
Speaker 2: Do you think do you think this is what would
Speaker 2: you say if you think? Do you think this is
Speaker 2: moral and right?
Speaker 3: Do I think it is moral and right in what
Speaker 3: sense to deport people who are here present illegally.
Speaker 2: Yes, I do know, not to deport them, to send
Speaker 2: them to this person.
Speaker 3: I think it is I think it is right to
Speaker 3: facilitate a mass deportation of the people enter this country.
Speaker 2: Illegally, something I think it is moral right, and I
Speaker 2: think that I think it is going right to send
Speaker 2: these two hundred and fifty people to an El Salvador
Speaker 2: prison that is known for torture, with.
Speaker 3: No evidence that there are evidence that they're being tortured, I.
Speaker 2: Said, and I said very carefully, an El Salvador prison known.
Speaker 1: For torture, that they should be sent there.
Speaker 4: Do you think that is?
Speaker 2: You think it is moral and right for two hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty people with no due process rights to be
Speaker 2: flown to be kept in this El Salvador prison known
Speaker 2: for torture.
Speaker 3: Yes, you know why because I think it falls within
Speaker 3: the government purview and the promise of the government that
Speaker 3: was made by our currently democratically elected president to do
Speaker 3: everything in power to make sure that people who enter
Speaker 3: the country illegally are deported and.
Speaker 2: At the end, so everything, so everything in their power.
Speaker 2: So if that meant we were going to just lie,
Speaker 2: it's you know, Venezuela won't take them back and the
Speaker 2: prison and El Salvador is full. So now we're just
Speaker 2: going to line them up and firing squad.
Speaker 1: We're just going to that's a ridiculous state.
Speaker 2: No, it's not because you said it's going to be.
Speaker 4: You know, they can do whatever.
Speaker 1: It's actually not within their powers.
Speaker 2: Okay, the point, but what but they're they're claiming these
Speaker 2: wartime powers, right, so you know if if you say, okay,
Speaker 2: well there they have the right to do whatever they
Speaker 2: possibly can to facilitate this. Like where is the line
Speaker 2: of what would be too far of where you would say,
Speaker 2: you know what that is? That is against my moral compass,
Speaker 2: that is too cruel, that is wrong. And even if
Speaker 2: there was some legal, you know, legal fig leaf that
Speaker 2: they could claim that, you would say that was too far.
Speaker 1: I think you just named it. And I'm not for
Speaker 1: mass murder.
Speaker 4: I'm not for it, But you're for you're okay with
Speaker 4: if they get tortured.
Speaker 3: Well, no, I didn't say I'm okay with their getting tortured.
Speaker 3: What I'm saying is that I'm okay with deportation. And
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, what happens outside the borders.
Speaker 3: Let's say we send them to Venezuela, which apparently is
Speaker 3: so horrible as you're saying. And we deport them to
Speaker 3: Venezuela and the Venezuelan government tortures them. Are we called
Speaker 3: criminally responsible for that or moral responsible?
Speaker 4: That's ludicrous photograph. You have to see the no no, no no.
Speaker 1: I actually don't because we're.
Speaker 2: Not contracted with the El Salvador government. We made an
Speaker 2: intentional choice to send them to this.
Speaker 1: Okay, but whys ability?
Speaker 3: Let's say we send them back to Maduro, they get
Speaker 3: off the plane and Maduro shoots him in the head.
Speaker 1: Is that supposedly?
Speaker 4: I mean, personally, I think that they should.
Speaker 1: That people who are here, you're allowed to stay.
Speaker 2: Should be able to claim asylum and continue with the
Speaker 2: temporary protected stats that they've had Venezuela, Haiti and a
Speaker 2: lot of other places.
Speaker 3: Absolute vast majority of these people have bullshit asylum claims
Speaker 3: of which they are adjudicated.
Speaker 1: Yes, how are we supposed to adjudicate that? Right now?
Speaker 3: Where currently there are forty seven thousand beds for ICE
Speaker 3: which are already a complete capacity to even facilitate deportation.
Speaker 1: There are five almost million.
Speaker 2: Surge immigration judges, so that you have increased capacity to
Speaker 2: be able to adjudicate asylum claims.
Speaker 3: So and in the interim, what happens they get to
Speaker 3: stay here illegally, Yes, exactly, which at the end of
Speaker 3: the day you think that's fine.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's yeah. Yeah, and luckily and the
Speaker 1: vast majority of people do not agree with it.
Speaker 2: And you think, though, in response to that, that it's
Speaker 2: okay to not just to support them, but to send
Speaker 2: them to this prison with the expectation that they're likely.
Speaker 4: To be tortured.
Speaker 3: I mean, you can say that you're not going to
Speaker 3: put words in my mouth I am for a deportation,
Speaker 3: but again I do. This is why I find this
Speaker 3: incredibly tiresome. At the end of the day, you were fine.
Speaker 3: Not just you, many liberal Democrats and others facilitated the
Speaker 3: greatest social experiment in modern American history. Let's increase the
Speaker 3: foreign born population, the vast majority of them illegal immigrants,
Speaker 3: of who we have no idea who these people are.
Speaker 3: They're coming over here, many are committing crimes, and then
Speaker 3: we'll just decide that we are going to pretend none
Speaker 3: of it ever happened, that actually we're for border security
Speaker 3: or increased immigration.
Speaker 1: Judges that's another question. Why do you now want.
Speaker 3: Orderly deportation when you were fine with disorderly or disorderly
Speaker 3: mass migration. If that is the case, then this is
Speaker 3: an explicit acknowledgment that the previous status quo was both
Speaker 3: outrageous and was genuinely detrimental to the interests of the
Speaker 3: United States. But since they're here now they have to stay.
Speaker 3: It's all convoluted and it makes no sense.
Speaker 4: Okay, this is.
Speaker 1: Depoor tastes of people who are here illegal, but.
Speaker 2: The specifics matter of how it's done.
Speaker 1: Would you not say?
Speaker 4: Well, and so what.
Speaker 1: I'm saying in my definition on Pacific is pretty different.
Speaker 2: Can we can disagree very much on what the proper
Speaker 2: levels of migration are and how that should be handled,
Speaker 2: et cetera. Now where you are where we are, and
Speaker 2: there's a question of how you respond. One way to
Speaker 2: respond is to use the actual, like normal legal tools
Speaker 2: available and avail yourself of those while maintaining civil rights
Speaker 2: in the country. The other one is the one that
Speaker 2: Trump has chosen here to claim wartime authority when we're
Speaker 2: not at war and to summarily deport people that we
Speaker 2: don't know who they are. In defiance of a court
Speaker 2: order to a foreign prison where they are likely to
Speaker 2: be tortured. There was nothing about what led up to
Speaker 2: this that necessitated that reaction.
Speaker 3: I think that it is again very tiresome and hypocritical,
Speaker 3: especially coming from people who I know I wanted Joe
Speaker 3: Biden to use extraordinary interpretations of.
Speaker 4: Did I want Joe Biden to torture people you didn't
Speaker 4: want to?
Speaker 2: Did I want Joe Biden random Did I want Joe
Speaker 2: Biden to randomly disappear people into a prison somewhere where
Speaker 2: no lawyer can or journalists can reach them to figure
Speaker 2: out who the hell they are what's happened?
Speaker 4: No, of course I did.
Speaker 3: Yes, you only want them to mass legalize marijuana, which
Speaker 3: they didn't have the power to do, or to write
Speaker 3: off student.
Speaker 2: You really see the difference between like legalizing marijuana and
Speaker 2: torturing people. I mean, these are two like qualitatively very
Speaker 2: different things I underlook.
Speaker 3: I think that the central problem is that you really
Speaker 3: think that you're just morally correct in this one. And
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, it's a legal question
Speaker 3: which is both up to the Supreme Court and a
Speaker 3: popular question can be in which the vast majority of
Speaker 3: people do not question with the position that you hold.
Speaker 4: It can be both a legal question and a moral question.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's fine.
Speaker 3: I think that if you want to hold that opinion,
Speaker 3: I think that's perfectly fine. You made that opinion clear.
Speaker 3: Many people have hold your opinion, have held that clear.
Speaker 1: Luckily.
Speaker 3: I think it's been destroyed at the ballot box correctly,
Speaker 3: because it is one that is both detrimental to our
Speaker 3: country and genuinely just ridiculous and falls apart on its
Speaker 3: own logical phrase.
Speaker 4: Remember Trump saying that he was going to send.
Speaker 1: Me literally alien I don't think.
Speaker 2: I don't remember Trump running on shipping random people to
Speaker 2: a foreign prison to be tortured somehow. I don't remember
Speaker 2: that being a core part of his pitch. But you
Speaker 2: know what, even if it was, and even if people
Speaker 2: voted for that, again, there are certain things that have
Speaker 2: been popular throughout our history that were wrong, and I
Speaker 2: think that it's important to say that at the time
Speaker 2: when it's unpopular. I think it's important to be able
Speaker 2: to see those things and to call them out in
Speaker 2: real time. Japanese internment being one of them, being the
Speaker 2: last time that.
Speaker 4: Big law was ultimately used.
Speaker 3: That's a huge diff fence Kormatsu, the Supreme Court decision
Speaker 3: and Japanese in tournament was used against citizens of them.
Speaker 2: But the Supreme Court said it was fine, So it
Speaker 2: wasn't it fine? People voted for it, and the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court though it was every time.
Speaker 3: I'm so righted about it, and the Supreme Court also
Speaker 3: has apologized or reversed its own decision on that. I'm
Speaker 3: not saying that it's a perfect institution or that any
Speaker 3: of these things are good and bad, however.
Speaker 2: But isn't it possible to have a separate moral judgment
Speaker 2: outside of what the electoral results said and the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court been upholding them.
Speaker 1: Yes, of course there is.
Speaker 3: I just don't think that this is the similar situation
Speaker 3: in any way, and I think that you're ignoring the
Speaker 3: broader context which led to this entire thing, of which, frankly,
Speaker 3: in my opinion, is far more morally reprehensible. Is to
Speaker 3: let in so many people with no idea who they are,
Speaker 3: many of whom commit crimes, and then to just sit
Speaker 3: and only get outraged whenever a popular revolt against that happens,
Speaker 3: and have to know outrightage I am there at the
Speaker 3: time of which I know that there was none on
Speaker 3: your part, and definitely on rage.
Speaker 2: I am outraged by the idea that government could claim
Speaker 2: such broad powers and that all of us could be
Speaker 2: subject to their whims.
Speaker 3: And you know, I think what we also were United
Speaker 3: States citizens is just not remotely common.
Speaker 2: I think what we've seen is I don't think that's true.
Speaker 2: And here's look, I think what we've already seen with
Speaker 2: the case, for example of Mackmoud Khalil is it's like, okay,
Speaker 2: started off with you know, they thought he was a
Speaker 2: student visa holder. It turns out he's a legal permanent resident,
Speaker 2: and it's like, oh, but he's still not an American citizen. Well,
Speaker 2: now they're investigating all power or the ones at Columbia
Speaker 2: as being the pro Palestine protest as being terrorism. Well,
Speaker 2: that is very much about American citizens. And so that's
Speaker 2: you know, number one, Yes, I do care about human rights.
Speaker 3: But they're not What do you mean they're American citizens
Speaker 3: at Columbia. You're saying they're investigating people there.
Speaker 2: For yes, they're investigating what. No, they're investigating whether the
Speaker 2: pro Palestine protests that happen on Columbia constitute terrorism, with
Speaker 2: the implication being that anyone who was involved with them
Speaker 2: could be charged with crimes related to terrorism. So my
Speaker 2: point is that when when civil rights are violated, it
Speaker 2: doesn't just stay in one corner, It doesn't just stay
Speaker 2: with this group that you happen to feel comfortable with.
Speaker 2: And yes, by the way, I do think, you know,
Speaker 2: torture is wrong, and I do think due process is
Speaker 2: the way things should be done, so that the government
Speaker 2: has to prove the claims that it's making in court.
Speaker 2: And I think it's outrageous that you know that that
Speaker 2: didn't happen in this instance. And I don't care that
Speaker 2: it was just two hundred people that were disappeared into
Speaker 2: a foreign prison without any due process whatsoever. So and
Speaker 2: nor do I think that it stops there, like they're
Speaker 2: going to court to try to be able to pursue
Speaker 2: this path continuously, you know, And and so yeah, that's
Speaker 2: I think that this is a I think this is
Speaker 2: a very frightening authoritarian, fascist power grab. And I think
Speaker 2: that our institutions have not only proven inadequate to be
Speaker 2: able to stem the tide, but also the Trump administration
Speaker 2: clearly uses whatever opportunities they can to defy court orders
Speaker 2: and pursue their own ambitions here.
Speaker 3: I think that I understand where you're coming from, and
Speaker 3: I could see how people liberals or whatever could feel
Speaker 3: that way. What I would ask again is to see
Speaker 3: how did we get to this extraordinary situation, and you
Speaker 3: should make some serious political calculus, in my opinion, to
Speaker 3: look to the past and to not call out many
Speaker 3: of the outrages that have happened and the status quo
Speaker 3: changed that Joe Biden and many other liberals facilitated by
Speaker 3: allowing so many people here illegally and then to just
Speaker 3: you know, cry tears whenever the logical consequence of that
Speaker 3: comes to bear. It just seems, you know, very rewriting
Speaker 3: of history, and one where it's also it fits very well,
Speaker 3: I think with my AOC point of the future, when
Speaker 3: she was creaming and crying in front of those deportation
Speaker 3: facilities under Donald Trump and went viral, or whenever her
Speaker 3: fist was raised and she was justifying theft and crime
Speaker 3: during BLM, they thought, as you did, that they were
Speaker 3: morally correct, as you feel out in this moment that
Speaker 3: not only was a rejected at the ballot box, but
Speaker 3: it was one that both actually led to worse outcomes
Speaker 3: because what did Biden do Yes, Even with all of
Speaker 3: this mass allowing of people in, he continued many policies
Speaker 3: from the Trump administration, of which they fell silent then
Speaker 3: at that time. So it became clear that this is
Speaker 3: not true moral standards or whatever. It's about political convenience.
Speaker 3: And throughout the through line of all of this comes
Speaker 3: back to the status quo was irrevocably changed under Biden.
Speaker 3: It became not only a popular but I think an
Speaker 3: imminent and dangerous thing to the fabric of the United States.
Speaker 3: You just allow these mass criminal illegals here. We have
Speaker 3: no idea who they are. The vast majority of them
Speaker 3: don't speak any English, The vast majority of them don't
Speaker 3: have any idea occasion. They have no able or you know,
Speaker 3: real ability to fit into the US economy beyond the
Speaker 3: service sector, which you know that seems a little bit
Speaker 3: demeaning to me, and was not only affirmed but then
Speaker 3: used to the best of their abilities their powers the
Speaker 3: government to facilitate deportation. And the crazy thing is you
Speaker 3: and I are arguing is if ten million people are
Speaker 3: being deported tomorrow, that's not what happened at all.
Speaker 1: All of this court order is being complied with today,
Speaker 1: they're not continuing to It's going to go to the
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: All of this will face judicial scrutiny the Supreme Court orias,
Speaker 3: and will come back.
Speaker 1: I'll sit here and I'm relatively.
Speaker 3: Certain the government would comply with that order that would
Speaker 3: bring these people back, and then this alien enemies with
Speaker 3: this alien enemies thing will go through the legal process.
Speaker 3: But the point is is that all of this, I
Speaker 3: think again comes back to a dramatic change to our country,
Speaker 3: of which I think you were fine with and I
Speaker 3: think many others were, and then are shocked at the
Speaker 3: genuine consequences of what that means when it interacts with.
Speaker 2: Them not have what does he not have agency in
Speaker 2: how he responds to things, Like you want to say,
Speaker 2: this is like somehow Biden's fault that Trump decided that
Speaker 2: Trump decided that he was going to use a wartime
Speaker 2: power grab in order to facilitate the summary deportation of
Speaker 2: migrants into a foreign torture chamber like Trump.
Speaker 4: That is on Trump.
Speaker 2: Now you can object to how Biden handled migration, and
Speaker 2: that's fine, but it still is on Trump the way
Speaker 2: that he responds to that situation, and he responded with
Speaker 2: authoritarian power grab and defiance of the courts and disappearing
Speaker 2: hundreds of people that he claims are gang members with
Speaker 2: zero proof and with a lot of proof in the
Speaker 2: other direction, in order to be tortured in a foreign
Speaker 2: person cell.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's on him.
Speaker 3: I don't think that, well, you know what, You're right,
Speaker 3: it is on him. It will face legal scrutiny. I
Speaker 3: think it will also if you totally disagree with it.
Speaker 3: People are welcome to run for office and to revert
Speaker 3: if you want to bring all these people back, you know, Okay,
Speaker 3: be my guest if you win the if you win
Speaker 3: the election. But I mean, at a certain point, it
Speaker 3: is one of those where I don't think it's deniable
Speaker 3: that not only was this something that was literally promised
Speaker 3: to do, that was telegraphed that I think falls within
Speaker 3: the bounds of legal scrutiny of the way that it
Speaker 3: was carried out, and which one is genuinely addressing a
Speaker 3: real problem that is facing the US. I just think
Speaker 3: the biggest difference between us right now is that you
Speaker 3: think that previous one was not actually a problem or
Speaker 3: was extremely diminishable and is not one which requires extraordinary action,
Speaker 3: and I'm somebody who does I think that that was
Speaker 3: genuinely affirmed at the ballot box. Not only that, but
Speaker 3: falls within the bounds of where a government scrutiny can
Speaker 3: And it's just going to have to be not even
Speaker 3: in an agree or disagree situation, it is going to
Speaker 3: be one where I genuinely am curious not only to
Speaker 3: see how the Supreme Court handles this decision. And if
Speaker 3: the government does openly flout that U let's say, they
Speaker 3: refuse to bring them back or they continue to do this,
Speaker 3: then I think we will be in a very similar
Speaker 3: situation to the one that you're describing as some sort
Speaker 3: of like imminent crisis. But I just don't think that
Speaker 3: we're there yet, and I don't think that we are
Speaker 3: going to get there. I don't think so, not the
Speaker 3: way that this is all currently being handled.
Speaker 2: All Right, So we argued about that for a really
Speaker 2: long time. So we're going to skip a couple of things.
Speaker 2: The ECON and the Israel block are both going we'll
Speaker 2: get to those tomorrow, but we wanted to update on Yemen,
Speaker 2: so let's go ahead and get to that.
Speaker 3: So the United States has decided to start bombing Yemen
Speaker 3: again for what purpose, Well, we'll get to that. So
Speaker 3: they released some video of the latest operation that Donald
Speaker 3: Trump ordered in retaliation against the Hoothy's disruption of shipping lanes.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put this on the screen.
Speaker 3: You can see that this was released from Scentcom Operations
Speaker 3: firing multiple missiles and projectiles onto Yemen, targeting hoo They leadership,
Speaker 3: including the use there of the US aircraft carrier.
Speaker 1: Which is in the region.
Speaker 3: These were some of the videos from Yemen that actually
Speaker 3: came out showing the strikes. The retaliation was ordered by
Speaker 3: Trump for these attacks on shipping lanes. Let's go and
Speaker 3: put this up there on the screen. Released from Trump's
Speaker 3: truth social account today, I have ordered the United States
Speaker 3: military to launch decisive and powerful military action against the
Speaker 3: Houthi terrorists and Yemen.
Speaker 1: They have waged an unrelenting.
Speaker 3: Campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism against the US and
Speaker 3: other ships, aircrafts, and drones. Now, the problem with this
Speaker 3: is the assumption that apparently you think you can deal
Speaker 3: with this Houthi problem with just bombs and missiles alone.
Speaker 3: In fact, Jeremy Skahell flags something which is genuinely incredible
Speaker 3: to me, which is that just in the last thirty years,
Speaker 3: the US has used more missiles for quote, air defense
Speaker 3: in combat against the Houthies since October twenty twenty three
Speaker 3: then it used in all the years from Desert Storm
Speaker 3: in the nineteen nineties. So we have not only bombarded
Speaker 3: Yemen just ourselves in retaliation for these hoo They attacks.
Speaker 3: It's also ignoring that the Saudis did not bomb Yemen
Speaker 3: for what five straight years as supplied by the United States,
Speaker 3: causing who knows untold amounts of death. The problem that
Speaker 3: they assume is that there's a military solution to this
Speaker 3: entire problem, and instead they refuse to pursue a diplomatic solution,
Speaker 3: one which had been working whenever there was a real
Speaker 3: Ceasemirre and Gaza, there's no Hoothi attacks. Now their argument
Speaker 3: there is, oh, we're allowing blackmail. It's like, well, absent
Speaker 3: a literal US combat invasion of Yemen, which I don't
Speaker 3: think is worth it, this is the only option we
Speaker 3: have diplomacy, or we could have ceasefire policy, but instead
Speaker 3: we've decided to just basically like flex the muscles and
Speaker 3: all that. And people are saying, oh, are you arguing
Speaker 3: against the legitimacy of the operation. No, that's not what
Speaker 3: we're saying. What we're saying is we tried this. We
Speaker 3: tried it at a bunch of different times. All of
Speaker 3: this has been tried by Obama, tried by Biden, by Trump,
Speaker 3: at Trump last time around. We're almost eight years to
Speaker 3: the day since Trump launched a combat invasion in our
Speaker 3: combat operation in Yemen in the first term, and in
Speaker 3: that time period, the status quo has not only changed,
Speaker 3: it's actually gotten worse for our overall interests. The only
Speaker 3: time that anything is stopped has been a diplomatic solution
Speaker 3: in Gaza, and it's increasingly clear that there are huge
Speaker 3: headwinds in the diplomatic solution, in the diplomatic solution way
Speaker 3: against both from the Israelis and sections of our own government,
Speaker 3: that are going to make it less likely that we
Speaker 3: pursue that, and in that event, we're going to have
Speaker 3: more problems in.
Speaker 1: The Middle East.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So Trump's statement here is also very misleading because actually,
Speaker 2: there haven't been US ships that have been targeted by
Speaker 2: the who thies ever since that ceasefire was instituted. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is the thing they always the media and the
Speaker 2: administration always tries to hide the ball, and both this
Speaker 2: one and the last one, by the way, which is
Speaker 2: that the Huthis have been very clear this is a
Speaker 2: response to the Israeli assault and genocide in Gaza. So
Speaker 2: when the ceasefire was on, guess what, there were no
Speaker 2: hoothy attacks, not on US ships, not on Israelis ships,
Speaker 2: et cetera. What has changed is not only has that
Speaker 2: ceasefire broken down israel Is bombing in Gaza, but more specifically,
Speaker 2: they are blocking humanitarian aid. They have reinstituted, with our support,
Speaker 2: the total and complete siege of Gaza. So the who
Speaker 2: Thi's that? Okay, well, this is how we're going to respond.
Speaker 2: Not even actually I don't think they directly originally threatened
Speaker 2: US ships. It was we're going to you know, we're
Speaker 2: going to resume our threats versus Israeli ships. And so,
Speaker 2: you know, rather than us coming in and say, okay, well,
Speaker 2: let's get back to the ceasefire and let's actually pursue
Speaker 2: the ceasefire that the Trump administration negotiated. And by the way,
Speaker 2: age should be able to get into Gaza. You should
Speaker 2: be you know, collectively punishmenting and starving an entire population. Instead,
Speaker 2: we decided to effectively do Israel's bidding here and bomb
Speaker 2: the Houthies now, putting our own ships at risk. The
Speaker 2: Houthis have claimed retaliation, sort of unconfirmed whether they were
Speaker 2: successful in that or not, but there's no doubt that
Speaker 2: our ships, and they're saying both military now and commercial
Speaker 2: flagged ships are at risk in this passage. In addition,
Speaker 2: I don't want to gloss over the damage that our
Speaker 2: strikes did. You know, Yemen is the poorest country in
Speaker 2: the region. Capital city Sana is very you know, this
Speaker 2: is a beleaguered area to begin with, and the strikes
Speaker 2: reportedly killed thirty one people injured over one hundred more,
Speaker 2: most of them were women and children. Not a lot
Speaker 2: of indication that it was like, you know, super precise
Speaker 2: military targeting. There were certain civilian targets that were hit.
Speaker 2: There's a claim that a cancer hospital was hit as
Speaker 2: part of these as part of these strikes. So you know,
Speaker 2: the US is being accused by the Houthies of committing
Speaker 2: war crimes here as well, but all in the service
Speaker 2: not even of our own interests, but to back up
Speaker 2: the Israelis in their desire to continue this season and
Speaker 2: blockade of the Gaza strip.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's put D four up on the screen. This
Speaker 3: was from the who these they said quote regarding the
Speaker 3: implementation the operation was in response to the US aggression
Speaker 3: that targeted several government directorates with more than forty seven
Speaker 3: air strikes, and then put D five up there as
Speaker 3: well in terms of them vowing retaliation against the United States.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, do we think that they're going to
Speaker 3: sink an aircraft carrier? Yeah, probably not, But are they
Speaker 3: going to require more anti ship missiles or other things
Speaker 3: used on behalf of the United States? And the problem,
Speaker 3: as we again have shown, is that we have tried
Speaker 3: the full court military press solution here.
Speaker 1: That's what Biden tried to do. He tried to solve
Speaker 1: this at the time.
Speaker 3: You can't really deny that, to be honest, considering the
Speaker 3: number of munitions and the number of bombing runs and
Speaker 3: retaliations and all that were.
Speaker 1: To restore global shipping.
Speaker 3: We simply don't have the ability unless we literally occupy Yemen.
Speaker 3: So at this point it just comes back to me
Speaker 3: that they're basically falling into the same trap where yeah,
Speaker 3: it's convenient to bomb them and just be like yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: you know, we tried or whatever, and then we just
Speaker 3: keep doing this like tit for tat approach. It's not
Speaker 3: getting us anywhere. We have the same economic consequences, the
Speaker 3: same military issues as well. I mean, you know, we
Speaker 3: never talk about this, but every time you fire one
Speaker 3: of these projectiles it costs a million bucks or a
Speaker 3: million five for what reason. You don't remember when we
Speaker 3: shot down all those missiles on Israel's behalf. I mean,
Speaker 3: it costs over a billion dollars just in that single operation,
Speaker 3: not to mention the depleting of stocks for what purpose,
Speaker 3: not hours last time I checked. So it just continues
Speaker 3: where when you continue to like fall in this direction,
Speaker 3: you're not moving forward to any solution which is in
Speaker 3: any way both acceptable to the people who are firing
Speaker 3: the missiles who get a say, not saying it's a
Speaker 3: good thing, but they have a say as long as
Speaker 3: they have that ability without us being able to change
Speaker 3: that unless we pursue a diplomatic course in Gosam, which
Speaker 3: I don't think.
Speaker 1: I don't know whether that's going to happen or not.
Speaker 3: That's a whole other can of worms here, but this
Speaker 3: would be more evidence to me that that should be
Speaker 3: pursued and unfortunately, will probably be taken in the opposite direction.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, the point about cost is an important one
Speaker 2: right now at a moment when this government, this administration
Speaker 2: is supposedly pursuing this path of usterity. So it's like,
Speaker 2: we don't have money to send out all the Social
Speaker 2: Security checks, but we do have money for We always
Speaker 2: have money for us. This money just magically falls out
Speaker 2: of the sky. It's never any problem funding these sorts
Speaker 2: of things. And by the way, if you look at
Speaker 2: the Doge, there's a chart out there of like the
Speaker 2: contracts they've canceled. Next to none of them have been
Speaker 2: from the Pentagon, I believe. Of their claimed savings, it's
Speaker 2: zero point zero five percent came out of the Pentagon,
Speaker 2: which no surprise given that Elon is one of the
Speaker 2: Pentagon's larger subcontractors.
Speaker 4: So there you go.
Speaker 3: All right, Well, I'm sure you've got some looks here
Speaker 3: more at Elon anti semitism, Crystal, what are you taking
Speaker 3: a look at?
Speaker 2: Well, if you had to sketch a portrait of the
Speaker 2: ideal type of person to be your neighbor or your
Speaker 2: community member, your fellow citizen, you'd be hard pressed to
Speaker 2: find a more compelling resume than that of Mackmoud Khalil.
Speaker 4: He was born into a refugee camp in Syria.
Speaker 2: He defied the odds to ascend to one of America's
Speaker 2: pre eminent Ivy League universities, met the woman of his
Speaker 2: dreams while leading a group of volunteers, including some Americans,
Speaker 2: to educate displaced Syrian children who were in Lebanon. He
Speaker 2: had just completed a master's of public administration. He was
Speaker 2: all set to settle into his new life at a
Speaker 2: new job and as a new father. He and his wife,
Speaker 2: an American dentist raised in Michigan named Nor, are expecting
Speaker 2: in April. Even more telling of his character are the
Speaker 2: little anecdotes offered by friends and fellow students who submitted
Speaker 2: letters to the court, which paint an image of Khalil
Speaker 2: that is the polar opposite of what the government would
Speaker 2: want you to believe about him. So the government says,
Speaker 2: he supports from us well. An American Jewish woman who
Speaker 2: believes in the importance of Israel as a Jewish homeland
Speaker 2: told the court quote, I can state with full confidence
Speaker 2: Machmud has never expressed the port for hamas the government
Speaker 2: says his activities fuel anti Semitism.
Speaker 4: Another Jewish student told the court that on.
Speaker 2: The contrary, when a protester veered into anti Semitic rhetoric,
Speaker 2: Machmud was the first person to object and to intervene. Now,
Speaker 2: Mackmud himself went out of his way to tell CNN
Speaker 2: that his goal was to uplift both Jewish and Palestinian people,
Speaker 2: saying he saw the liberation of the two peoples as intertwined. Quote,
Speaker 2: you cannot achieve one without the other. The government, in
Speaker 2: attempting to remove Mackmud, is saying he would be a
Speaker 2: detriment to our society at large. Now, in my personal opinion,
Speaker 2: you see a person's character in the way that they
Speaker 2: treat the people around them in day to day life.
Speaker 2: Letters to the court say that Machmud is the kind
Speaker 2: of guy who would bring the doorman in his building chicken, tea,
Speaker 2: fruit and cake to help him break his fast during Ramadan,
Speaker 2: That he built community with fellow Jewish students attending Shabbad
Speaker 2: at their homes. That he was engaged in American political life.
Speaker 2: He was looking forward to being able to vote and
Speaker 2: to participate. Look, maybe the government uncovered some secret life
Speaker 2: that's going to turn the impression that many of his
Speaker 2: classmates and friends shared of a conscientious activist committed to
Speaker 2: tolerance and non violence on its head.
Speaker 4: But frankly, I'd be surprised.
Speaker 2: The worst thing the Internet has been able to unearth
Speaker 2: is a video of him flipping off a camera, a
Speaker 2: great American tradition, but actually the government demonization of the
Speaker 2: clean cut Khalil is a perfect emblem of the up
Speaker 2: and down left his right way that they have approached
Speaker 2: their authoritarian crackdown here because at the core of their
Speaker 2: current illiberal power grab is the weaponization of the liberal
Speaker 2: value of anti bagratry and specifically anti Semitism. They are
Speaker 2: stripping the rights of all freedom loving people, citizen and
Speaker 2: non in the US in the name of targeting anti Semitism.
Speaker 2: They've taken the authoritarian bent in Wolkism and cancel culture
Speaker 2: at its worst and turned it up to full fascism. Now,
Speaker 2: if you think you're safe because you trust this present,
Speaker 2: or maybe you hold the correct opinions on this issue,
Speaker 2: think again. When rights are taken, they're taken from all.
Speaker 2: And the trumpetman has already moved from threatening foreign students
Speaker 2: to threatening American citizens in a single week.
Speaker 4: It is truly chilling. In addition to.
Speaker 2: Their arrest of Khalil, consider the sweep of their power
Speaker 2: grap around anti semitism. In just the past ten days.
Speaker 2: They stripped four hundred million dollars in funding from Colombia
Speaker 2: and placed its Middle Eastern Studies department in receivership, while
Speaker 2: completely ignoring laws requiring notification investigation in those guarding academic freedom.
Speaker 2: They sent letters to sixty other universities threatening similar crackdowns
Speaker 2: if they do not comply with vague demands to effectively
Speaker 2: combat anti Semitism. They're deploying AI to crawl through social
Speaker 2: media accounts in order to find additional targets for deportation
Speaker 2: based on wrong think on Israel. Perhaps there was a
Speaker 2: result of this effort, another Columbia student on a student
Speaker 2: visa was forced to flee the country. Her greatest involvement
Speaker 2: in pro Palestine protests was liking and resharing some posts
Speaker 2: and signing on to at least one open letter calling
Speaker 2: for Palestinian liberation. She described herself as quote Justin Rando,
Speaker 2: not anywhere close to a protest leader. Four, the Department
Speaker 2: of Justice announced that the government is investigating whether to
Speaker 2: charge American students who participated in pro Palestine protests as terrorists.
Speaker 2: Academic freedom destroyed, due process, jettisoned free speech, crushed power, consolidated,
Speaker 2: all under the guise of fighting the alleged bigotry of
Speaker 2: people who were disgusted to see our government complicit in
Speaker 2: mass slaughter of civilians. Even many diehard Zionists are sounding
Speaker 2: the alarm. Eli Lake, who is nothing if not committed
Speaker 2: to hatred of pro Palestine protesters, tweeted this quote. If
Speaker 2: Maka Khalil is charged and convicted of an actual crime,
Speaker 2: he should be deported. If his crime is just the
Speaker 2: expression of support for a terrorist organization, then this pageant
Speaker 2: is grotesque. And yes, I realize that their harassment of Jews,
Speaker 2: destruction of property, etc. Is not protected speech, but the
Speaker 2: legal argument thus far amounts to saying permanent legal residents
Speaker 2: can't say anything that the Secretary of State believes undermines
Speaker 2: US foreign policy. That is a horrendous violation of free speech.
Speaker 2: And as much as I despise campus solidarity with baby stranglers,
Speaker 2: I love American values more. Bill Maher, to my somewhat surprise,
Speaker 2: also weighed in on behalf of Khalil, viewing the assault
Speaker 2: on him as an attack on free speech.
Speaker 5: Then there's this issue of Mahmoud Khalil. He is one
Speaker 5: of the protesters, the Palestinian protesters, and I don't agree
Speaker 5: with his point of view, but you know what, if
Speaker 5: you're an honest person, you have to defend him if
Speaker 5: you believe in free speech, because that's what free speech means.
Speaker 5: I say it all the time when it's on the
Speaker 5: other foot, and I can't change because it's now this guy.
Speaker 5: It's defending the dirt bags you hate. So this guy,
Speaker 5: now here's what's fire. And I love this organization that's
Speaker 5: the foundation for individual rights and expression. And they go
Speaker 5: after the left a lot mostly, but they're honest. They said,
Speaker 5: if the government has got anything other than just somebody
Speaker 5: who is saying things they don't like talking about this guy,
Speaker 5: they need to show it now because otherwise the harm
Speaker 5: to First Amendment freedoms will be serious. And I think
Speaker 5: that's true. I don't think they have anything on this
Speaker 5: guy other than he's saying things that I can't believe
Speaker 5: kids believe now. I did not see this coming, this
Speaker 5: bizarre alliance of jihadism and wokeism, you know, infatada is
Speaker 5: the only solution. Really, Infatada is the only solution global.
Speaker 5: And that's where this guy is. I think it's horrible.
Speaker 5: He hates this country, he hates Western civilization, and I
Speaker 5: defend to his death the right to.
Speaker 2: Say protecting speech you don't like is, of course the
Speaker 2: whole point of the First Amendment. What's more, doesn't take
Speaker 2: a rocket scientist to figure out that Jews are not
Speaker 2: safe when disfavored groups start getting singled out, criminalized, rounded
Speaker 2: up by the federal government. Neither, for that matter, is
Speaker 2: anyone else. Today it's them, tomorrow could be you. Once
Speaker 2: a president claims the power to punish any speech that
Speaker 2: they don't like, there are no limits to what that
Speaker 2: can ultimately mean. Today it could be anti semitism, Tomorrow
Speaker 2: could be anti racism. Today, it could be DEI wrong think.
Speaker 2: Tom could be climate denial. Today, it could be affiliating
Speaker 2: with Democrats. Tomorrow it could be affiliating with Republicans. The
Speaker 2: next step in consciousness, though, is to realize that the
Speaker 2: mass campaign by people like mar and Lake to demonize
Speaker 2: those with legitimate criticisms of Israel as violent, hateful, and
Speaker 2: pro hamas is exactly the ideological framework that made the
Speaker 2: current crackdown possible and easy. In Eli's tweet, he even
Speaker 2: says that Khalil expressed support for terrorists, which appears to
Speaker 2: not be true at all. But once the pro Palestine
Speaker 2: protests were portrayed by the liberal Biden administration as being
Speaker 2: effectively hamas, it did not take a large leap to
Speaker 2: criminalize anyone who was affiliated with them to throw visa
Speaker 2: holders and permanent residents out of the country altogether for
Speaker 2: participating or even for liking the wrong tweet, even those
Speaker 2: like Khalil who appear to have been completely law abiding.
Speaker 2: In fairness, though, I think if it wasn't the anti
Speaker 2: semitism ruse, it would probably just be something else. After all,
Speaker 2: It's not like this is the only way Trump is
Speaker 2: consolidating power and crushing descent. The anti Semitism pulued is
Speaker 2: one branch of Trump's broader authoritarian push. He certainly doesn't
Speaker 2: care about actual anti Semitism. He regularly himself uses antisemitic
Speaker 2: tropes by tying all Jews to the actions of Israel.
Speaker 2: As one example, his co president Elon spent in an
Speaker 2: augeration day giving two Nazi salutes and got in trouble
Speaker 2: before that for saying that an anti Semitic conspiracy theory
Speaker 2: was quote the actual truth instead play acting concern for
Speaker 2: anti Semitism. It's just the most convenient excuse flying around
Speaker 2: to hobble his enemies, crushed descent, undercut what he sees
Speaker 2: as a rival power base in the university system, to
Speaker 2: stoke fear and garner compliance. Now, Trump promised in his
Speaker 2: campaign he would pursue retribution, that he would terminate the constitution,
Speaker 2: that he would act as a dictator, and, judging from
Speaker 2: his actions one way or another, he intends to make
Speaker 2: good on that pledge. Whether you're a media outlet that
Speaker 2: he deems illegal, a law firm with the temerity to
Speaker 2: represent one of his political opponents, or a government agency
Speaker 2: with an unacceptable number of liberal staffers, he wants you afraid,
Speaker 2: alone and cowering crushed. He will use the power of
Speaker 2: the state and his crew of loyalist gooons to achieve
Speaker 2: that intended result. If crying anti semitism helps in his campaign,
Speaker 2: he is happy to weaponize it, and it seems like
Speaker 2: he's just getting started. The move to invoke the Alien
Speaker 2: Enemies Act of seventeen ninety eight claiming wartime powers not
Speaker 2: used since Japanese internment suggests that this dark turn is
Speaker 2: really just beginning.
Speaker 4: Next, we're going to.
Speaker 2: See whether this all fuels public backlash that could stem
Speaker 2: some of the worst abuses, whether the courts can act
Speaker 2: to sufficiently forestall the authoritarian slide, whether the liberal institutions
Speaker 2: are remotely up to fighting an organized, lawless illiberal power grab.
Speaker 2: So far, though, the indications are not all that promising.
Speaker 2: Looks like when Ice grab mock Mood, they didn't realize
Speaker 2: he was a Green card holder, and likely didn't realize
Speaker 2: how unimpeachably upstanding he would turn out to actually be
Speaker 2: sort of living embodiment of the American cultural melting pot,
Speaker 2: good neighbor ideal. But whether it was intentional or not,
Speaker 2: making an example out of mock Mood, ultimately it does
Speaker 2: serve their interests. If they can get away with it,
Speaker 2: then really no one else can feel safe, no matter
Speaker 2: how many Shabbats they attended, how many times they uplifted
Speaker 2: their Jewish friends, how courageously they protected them from hateful conduct,
Speaker 2: how academically accomplished and impressively credentialed, no matter how pregnant
Speaker 2: or how American, their wife happens to be. Everyone citizen
Speaker 2: and non will get the message that nothing can protect them.
Speaker 2: If the Trump regime decides they are to be punished,
Speaker 2: and that is precisely the point now. The only question
Speaker 2: that remains is will they get away with it? And
Speaker 2: it really is wild once you dig into who this
Speaker 2: guy actually
Speaker 3: Is, how he is the and if you want to
Speaker 3: hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber
Speaker 3: today at breakingpoints dot com.