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 the 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 access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: 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. Joining us now is Andrew Chanhe's the co
Speaker 3: owner of three sixteen, a powerhouse fashion brand here in
Speaker 3: the US of which I am a customer. And Andrew
Speaker 3: recently did a video talking about the effects of tariffs
Speaker 3: on smaller fashion brands like himself, and so we thought
Speaker 3: that it would be great to actually have him on
Speaker 3: the show and to discuss So the video you put
Speaker 3: out is three ways that the new tariffs will affect
Speaker 3: for fashion brands like yours, So why don't you just
Speaker 3: break some of this down for the audience. Andrew and
Speaker 3: tell us at some point do you actually run one
Speaker 3: of these business clothing textiles, something that obviously there's been
Speaker 3: a lot of outsourcing on will affect somebody like you.
Speaker 4: Thank you for the opportunity to come on today, and yeah,
Speaker 4: we're still trying to navigate all of this. There's a
Speaker 4: lot of uncertainty in the air. But the number one
Speaker 4: thing that we wanted to touch on was the increased
Speaker 4: costs that we face. We bring in all of our
Speaker 4: fabric for our denim, which were Denim Brand that's what
Speaker 4: we make the most of from Japan, and the new
Speaker 4: tariffs are we're looking at about a twenty four percent
Speaker 4: additional cost on fabric that's coming in. I think something
Speaker 4: that's difficult for customers to understand, and we saw this
Speaker 4: in the comments section of the video that we posted,
Speaker 4: is that a ten dollars increase in raw materials doesn't
Speaker 4: just result in a ten dollars increase at retail. You know,
Speaker 4: we're part of a value chain model, which means that
Speaker 4: we buy the fabric, we contract a factory to produce
Speaker 4: it for us in the US in San Francisco, so
Speaker 4: we are made in America company, and then we wholesale
Speaker 4: it to retail stores around the world. These wholesale accounts
Speaker 4: are store owners. They have small boutiques in parts of America,
Speaker 4: in Europe, in Japan and Asia, and then they need
Speaker 4: to mark that garment up in order to sell it
Speaker 4: to their customers. And so if our costs go up
Speaker 4: by ten dollars, in order to preserve our margins, we
Speaker 4: have to increase our wholesale cost, and then that wholesale
Speaker 4: cost needs to also translate to a higher retail cost.
Speaker 4: So that's why a ten dollars increase in just materials
Speaker 4: could result in a forty to fifty dollars increase once
Speaker 4: it hits market. And we've found a lot of customers
Speaker 4: calling that like that's greedy.
Speaker 5: Why can't you just increase.
Speaker 4: It ten dollars at the at the very end and
Speaker 4: call it a day. And the reality is that, like
Speaker 4: everybody has a business to run, we all have employees
Speaker 4: to pay, we have healthcare to cover, we have in
Speaker 4: our case, we provide retirement accounts for our small team.
Speaker 4: You can't do that if your margins continued to decrease.
Speaker 4: So that's a really difficult thing. The customer is going
Speaker 4: to face some sort of price increase, and it's going
Speaker 4: to be a lot more than just the straight raw
Speaker 4: materials that.
Speaker 5: Are coming in. A second thing that I talked about
Speaker 5: was uncertainty.
Speaker 4: As a fashion brand, we don't just design things and
Speaker 4: then release it to market. We have to design it,
Speaker 4: We bring it to trade shows, we have people pre
Speaker 4: ordered garments, and then we go to production on it
Speaker 4: based off of whatever orders they place. That helps us
Speaker 4: to be more efficient. We're not just guessing at what
Speaker 4: to make in these cases. We have to quote a
Speaker 4: price so that the retail stores can decide like is
Speaker 4: this something that my customers can afford? Is this something
Speaker 4: that I feel like I can present at a reasonable
Speaker 4: cost to them? Now, we already just went to Paris
Speaker 4: in January to sell our fall Winter twenty five collection,
Speaker 4: and we had to give them prices on it. This
Speaker 4: is pre tariffs, and so we produce garments in the US,
Speaker 4: we produce them in Peru, we produce them in India
Speaker 4: and in Portugal. So Peru's the only one that's subject
Speaker 4: right now to the flat ten percent. India has a
Speaker 4: twenty six percent additional tariff, and the EU also is
Speaker 4: facing additional tariffs. So now we stand to have to
Speaker 4: pay more for that finished garment to land in the
Speaker 4: US than what we had quoted the price on. And
Speaker 4: that's really difficult for us because somebody is going to
Speaker 4: have to take a margin, you know, a margin hit
Speaker 4: on that. It could be us, the brand, We could
Speaker 4: just eat it and then we end up not making
Speaker 4: any money at wholesale.
Speaker 5: It could be the retail store.
Speaker 4: We might have to split the difference with them if
Speaker 4: they don't want the cost to go up too much,
Speaker 4: or we might all decide like, hey, there's no way
Speaker 4: that we can function as businesses and we're going to
Speaker 4: all have to.
Speaker 5: Increase the cost.
Speaker 4: That's going to cause some stores to bow out of
Speaker 4: their their commitments. That means that we now have to
Speaker 4: you know, hold extra stock and be more inefficient as
Speaker 4: a company. That means we're going to have to discount
Speaker 4: or offload somehow. We try to be very careful with
Speaker 4: the quantities that we set. We try not to overproduce,
Speaker 4: but that's just unavoidable. We've already had some Canadian customers
Speaker 4: cancel orders this spring season because of the game of
Speaker 4: Chicken that you know, we played with Canada and Mexico
Speaker 4: just a month and a half ago with the five
Speaker 4: percent tariffs, there was too much uncertainty. They were like,
Speaker 4: hold our shipments, we can't take anything right now. Wow,
Speaker 4: they had already placed orders for fall winter twenty five.
Speaker 4: I'm almost certain that they will cancel orders. And then
Speaker 4: the third one is just deterioration of overseas markets. What
Speaker 4: happens when trade wars begin is that other nations or
Speaker 4: other regions begin to try and find ways to cooperate
Speaker 4: because they need to get their products from somewhere. So
Speaker 4: in twenty nineteen there was a free trade agreement that
Speaker 4: was established between the EU and Japan, and so all
Speaker 4: of our EU accounts are now able to bring in
Speaker 4: great denim and great clothing from Japan. This is the
Speaker 4: same country that makes our fabric, so they're very good
Speaker 4: at making this niche product that we do. And if
Speaker 4: you're a retail store in Europe and you can buy
Speaker 4: stuff from Japan with no tariffs, and then you have
Speaker 4: to be faced with the decision of am I going
Speaker 4: to buy from this American brand that's going to cost
Speaker 4: me even more than it did before, You're probably going
Speaker 4: to make your decisions Accordingly, business just goes in the path.
Speaker 5: Of least resistance of course.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we spent a decade trying to cultivate this market
Speaker 4: in the EU and we're finding success and stores like
Speaker 4: the brand, they like the product, it just becomes cost
Speaker 4: prohibitive for them.
Speaker 6: So, Andrew, let me ask you this.
Speaker 2: So I think what the President has supporters and people say,
Speaker 2: you know, this is good for the long term for
Speaker 2: the country. What they would respond is, you know, it's
Speaker 2: short term pain. Yes, we get it. We understand that
Speaker 2: this is going to cause issues for you, and it's
Speaker 2: going to cause potentially prices to go up for consumers,
Speaker 2: but it's going to create an incentive structure for business
Speaker 2: owners like yourself to bring the entire supply chain for
Speaker 2: your product here internally to the US and will create
Speaker 2: additional jobs in the US. So over the long term,
Speaker 2: this is going to be a better direction.
Speaker 6: What is your response to that?
Speaker 2: And also, you know, just walk us through, like what
Speaker 2: would it entail for that to actually occur for you?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean what I would respond to that is
Speaker 4: that a lot of these small brands don't have five
Speaker 4: years or ten years to be able to build up
Speaker 4: infrastructure and to reshure these things that America doesn't do anymore,
Speaker 4: and I'll just keep it super super focused on genes
Speaker 4: because that is what most customers know us for, they
Speaker 4: come to us for. And so a lot of people
Speaker 4: who are not familiar with our brand, when they saw
Speaker 4: this video go viral, they're like, why don't you just
Speaker 4: make it in America? And to the extent that we're
Speaker 4: able to, we do. We employ a factory in San
Speaker 4: Francisco that used to make genes for Levi's before they
Speaker 4: offshore production. We entered there fifteen years ago as the
Speaker 4: smallest brand there and now we are their biggest client
Speaker 4: and they rely on us business. But the fabric that
Speaker 4: we use, and I don't know if this is getting
Speaker 4: too niche, but it is salvage denim. It is denim
Speaker 4: that is woven the way that denham used to be
Speaker 4: made in the forties to the sixties, when it was
Speaker 4: more than just a work where fabric it was something
Speaker 4: that people needed longevity out of. And it's a slow
Speaker 4: and almost antiquated way of making denim that is largely
Speaker 4: unavailable in the US. There are a few small mills
Speaker 4: that still exist here, but the biggest one was Cone
Speaker 4: Mills White Oak in North Carolina, and they closed in
Speaker 4: twenty seventeen to lack of demand. Customers are not accustomed
Speaker 4: to paying for clothing. Derek Guy die workwear on Twitter
Speaker 4: and Blue Sky. He shared on one of his threads.
Speaker 4: In the early nineteen sixties, US household spent twelve percent
Speaker 4: of the income out apparel, and that would be four
Speaker 4: one hundred and fifty seven dollars in today's dollars. In
Speaker 4: twenty sixteen it was four percent, so eighteen hundred dollars.
Speaker 4: But that's not because people are buying less clothes. They're
Speaker 4: buying more clothes, they're buying cheap clothes. We're in niche brand,
Speaker 4: we're small. We try and make clothes the way that
Speaker 4: they used to be made. We pay attention to fabric, details, construction,
Speaker 4: and the best denim in the world is being made
Speaker 4: in Japan. It's not because they came and brought up
Speaker 4: all of our old looms.
Speaker 5: That's a rumor.
Speaker 4: Japan has a long and storied history of textile development,
Speaker 4: and they've invested into this industry, and there's also a
Speaker 4: domestic appreciation for that craft and that level of authenticity
Speaker 4: and fabric and it's just not achievable at that level.
Speaker 4: And I know that may hurt for some people to hear,
Speaker 4: but as a brand, it's our prerogative to make the
Speaker 4: best possible product for our customers, and so it's not
Speaker 4: a matter of us being scared that this is going
Speaker 4: to cost too much. We just want to maintain a
Speaker 4: level of quality, and so there are no options for us.
Speaker 4: For a little story, about six or seven years ago,
Speaker 4: an email came in our inbox. It almost seemed like
Speaker 4: a scam, but someone's like, do you want to buy
Speaker 4: all these shuttle looms? Shuttle looms are the looms that
Speaker 4: make this salvage dentim and we like, there's no way
Speaker 4: this could be. It turned out that they were. They
Speaker 4: were looms from the shuttered you know, Cone White White
Speaker 4: Oak mills. In order for this whole story to work
Speaker 4: for us to offshore, you're asking us as a brand
Speaker 4: to come and buy looms, start a factory, start making fabric.
Speaker 4: We have no expertise in this. We didn't go to
Speaker 4: school for textile development. We do know how to manage
Speaker 4: a factory. There would be so much inefficiency, we would
Speaker 4: probably mess up a ton. We would probably shut We
Speaker 4: definitely would have shut down. There's no way that there
Speaker 4: was this would have been an option for us.
Speaker 2: So basically, if you were to pursue this path of
Speaker 2: I would just do it all in the US. You
Speaker 2: would have a lower quality product and it would cost more.
Speaker 4: It would cause it would yes, if we were not
Speaker 4: going to go and own our own open our own mill,
Speaker 4: it would not be the product would not be at
Speaker 4: the level that we would want.
Speaker 3: And that's I think that's very important for people to understand,
Speaker 3: is that the administration is putting this all on you.
Speaker 3: They're not offering you any tax break, They're not offering
Speaker 3: you any relief for anything in the interim. And then
Speaker 3: even on the cultural point, I think this is so important.
Speaker 1: You know, as you.
Speaker 3: Said about Japan, they have a literal decades long history
Speaker 3: of appreciation for craft. They have a cost structure built
Speaker 3: in to preserve that their tax incentives, economics incentives, cultural
Speaker 3: incentives to build an entire ecosystem which actually does produce
Speaker 3: something that many of the people who push this policy
Speaker 3: extensibly want a return to quality away from fast fashion.
Speaker 3: And so as somebody involved and again creating an extremely
Speaker 3: high quality product, something that I literally purchase myself, what
Speaker 3: are thus you know, what are the headwinds that you
Speaker 3: are swimming against with the rise of fast fashion, which
Speaker 3: ostensibly is something that they're trying to stop and boost
Speaker 3: someone like you, Is this policy actually just going to perhaps,
Speaker 3: like you know, increase the amount of fast fashion consumed,
Speaker 3: cheaper goods that people will turn to in a time
Speaker 3: of depression, Like have you seen a reduction perhaps in
Speaker 3: demand like you said with Canada and Mexico. What is
Speaker 3: the net effect of all of this?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean the only way. So we already talked
Speaker 4: about customers going to face they are going to face
Speaker 4: increased costs. There's no way around it. I don't know
Speaker 4: when that's going to happen. I don't know when it's
Speaker 4: going to take effect. Even for us, I don't know
Speaker 4: when our next shipment of fabric is going to get hit.
Speaker 4: We have a huge shipment of denim that's supposed to
Speaker 4: land in three to four days. I don't know if
Speaker 4: that's subject to the new terraffs or the shipment after that. Like,
Speaker 4: we're not going away, so we're going to have to
Speaker 4: take another shipment. But customers will face increase costs. For
Speaker 4: the brands, it's going to be difficult because every brand
Speaker 4: is going to have to decide whether they want to
Speaker 4: increase costs or lower quality, or maybe some metric that
Speaker 4: involves both of those two things. If they feel that
Speaker 4: their customers cannot stomach and increase in costs, they're going
Speaker 4: to have to reduce quality.
Speaker 5: They're going to have to cut corners in terms of the.
Speaker 4: Fabrics they use, that construction, they may have to move
Speaker 4: to a different facility, any number of things. So there
Speaker 4: is a cost all the way around. And we've already
Speaker 4: established that. You know, it's not that people are buying
Speaker 4: less clothes, they're just spending less on them, and so
Speaker 4: I don't really see that changing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, last question for you. Your video went viral. You know,
Speaker 2: people who are trying to understand what this means for
Speaker 2: individual business owners. I think really got a lot out
Speaker 2: of it. I certainly got a lot out of it
Speaker 2: watching it. Are you nervous at all about its virality?
Speaker 2: Given you know this president can be very punitive if
Speaker 2: someone is speaking on against him. You know, you see
Speaker 2: the way that a lot of business leaders have made
Speaker 2: efforts to getting close with him so that they don't
Speaker 2: face retaliation. Is that something that concerns you all at all?
Speaker 2: In just speaking out on the basics of how this
Speaker 2: will impact your business and your future.
Speaker 5: I mean, I'm talking to the t also.
Speaker 6: Not too nervous anyway.
Speaker 5: No, it's been surprising.
Speaker 4: I think when we meet the video, we just tried
Speaker 4: to speak from the heart, and we also tried to
Speaker 4: speak in a non partisan ways, just like, hey, this
Speaker 4: is what's happening to us, this is our perspective.
Speaker 5: There was no political leaning.
Speaker 4: I don't think in the things that we shared was
Speaker 4: just the reality of like the types of decisions that
Speaker 4: we're going to need to make in the coming weeks
Speaker 4: and months. We're a pretty small fish. I hope that,
Speaker 4: you know, we're not really attracting that kind of attention,
Speaker 4: but you know, I do think that people want to
Speaker 4: hear from small businesses.
Speaker 6: Like ours, definitely that are you.
Speaker 4: Know, we're actually really trying to like making stuff in
Speaker 4: America is has been central to what we do. When
Speaker 4: we started making jeens in two thousand and eight, our
Speaker 4: first samples came from China and they didn't come in
Speaker 4: construction wise at the level that we wanted. So we
Speaker 4: went we found historic factory that had been making geens
Speaker 4: in America for decades and decades and they're staffed by
Speaker 4: I don't know if I'm opening another can of worms here,
Speaker 4: but they're staffed by immigrants. The people that make your
Speaker 4: clothes don't in America, don't always look the way that
Speaker 4: you think that they do. They're all legal citizens, but
Speaker 4: they all came to America with a skill set that
Speaker 4: America does not cultivate in a meaningful way either anymore. Right,
Speaker 4: I mean, like I want to, I had homec class
Speaker 4: in middle school. Maybe that dates how old I am,
Speaker 4: but I don't think that that really exists anymore. People
Speaker 4: don't even know how to put a button on their
Speaker 4: shirt anymore.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 4: To expect this to come back, and to expect American
Speaker 4: citizens to want to embrace these jobs. If there hasn't
Speaker 4: been a high value placed on craft and manufacturing, it's
Speaker 4: going to be tough.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, I think Soccer's point and your point that in theory,
Speaker 2: this policy is meant to support people like you. You know,
Speaker 2: it's meant to push people more towards Okay, spend a
Speaker 2: little bit more, but it'll be higher quality and it'll
Speaker 2: be you know, from companies that put an emphasis on
Speaker 2: making things here. And so the fact that even for
Speaker 2: someone such as yourself and your business. You see this
Speaker 2: as a major challenge to have to overcome. I think
Speaker 2: is very illuminating about the practical realities of the policy.
Speaker 6: Andrew.
Speaker 2: We can't thank you enough for taking the time out
Speaker 2: to talk to us and explain your perspective on all
Speaker 2: of this.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Andrew. Thank you for making the clothes that
Speaker 3: you guys do. As I said, I'm a loyal customer.
Speaker 3: I'll continue to be and I encourage everybody out there
Speaker 3: if you can, we'll put a link down on the scription.
Speaker 1: You should go check them out.
Speaker 5: Thank you for the time and the opportunity.
Speaker 6: See it's our pleasure.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go ahead and get to bib Netanyah,
Speaker 2: who's meeting with Trump at the White House. We can
Speaker 2: go ahead and put this up on the screen. Yes,
Speaker 2: ladies and gentlemen, he did once again push in the
Speaker 2: seat for his dear friend, the ICC indicted war criminal
Speaker 2: bb Netanyaho. It's especially galling because this comes on a
Speaker 2: day when we found out that the Israelis have murdered
Speaker 2: another American. This was a Palston American child who was
Speaker 2: shot dead. Two others were shot and wounded by Israeli forces.
Speaker 2: In the occupied West Bank reporting from Ryan our friends
Speaker 2: over at drop Site News. By the way, make sure
Speaker 2: and help them out because they appear to be getting
Speaker 2: significantly suppressed and buried over on Twitter. If you try
Speaker 2: to search for them, they don't come up, So make
Speaker 2: sure you're supporting Ryan and drop Site and Jeremy over there.
Speaker 2: In any case, let me go ahead and read their
Speaker 2: report and keep this up on the screen.
Speaker 6: Eric, they say.
Speaker 2: Omar Mohammad Ravella, a fourteen year old Palestinian with US citizenship,
Speaker 2: was shot and killed on Sunday by Israeli forces near
Speaker 2: the West Bank town of turmas Aya. I'm sorry, guys,
Speaker 2: northeast of Ramala. Two other Palestinian American boys, age fourteen
Speaker 2: and fifteen also shot and wounded, one in the abdomen,
Speaker 2: the other in the thigh. Both were taken to a
Speaker 2: nearby clinic. There's no dispute from the Israelis that they
Speaker 2: were responsible for this killing. They say that this American
Speaker 2: citizen was throwing rocks towards a highway, so that was
Speaker 2: the reason for his killing. The President making, i guess,
Speaker 2: not exactly making news, but reiterating his commitment to the
Speaker 2: US having a peacekeeping force in a Gaza Strip that
Speaker 2: has been ethnically cleansed of all Palestinians.
Speaker 6: Let's go ahead and take a listen to what he
Speaker 6: had to say.
Speaker 8: Well, you know how I feel about the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 8: I think it's an incredible piece of important real estate,
Speaker 8: and I think it's something that we would be involved in.
Speaker 8: But you know, having a peace force like the United
Speaker 8: States there controlling and owning the Gaza Strip would be
Speaker 8: a good thing because right now all it is is
Speaker 8: for years and years, all I hear about is killing
Speaker 8: and Hamas and problems. And if you take the people,
Speaker 8: the Palestinians and move them around to different countries, and
Speaker 8: you have plenty of countries that will do that, and
Speaker 8: you really have a freedom, a freedom zone. You call
Speaker 8: it the freedom zone, A free zone, a zone where
Speaker 8: people aren't going to be killed every day. That's a
Speaker 8: hell of a place. It's a you know what, I
Speaker 8: call it, a great location that nobody wants to live
Speaker 8: in because they really don't. And when they had good living,
Speaker 8: when they have good living living, where Hamas and all
Speaker 8: of the problems, the level of death on the Gaza
Speaker 8: Strip is just incredible. And I've said it, I don't understand.
Speaker 8: Why is your LEVI gave it up? Is you loaned it?
Speaker 8: It wasn't this man so I can say it. He
Speaker 8: wouldn't have given it up. I know him very well.
Speaker 8: There's no way they took ocean front property and they
Speaker 8: gave it to people for peace.
Speaker 5: How did that work out?
Speaker 8: Not good?
Speaker 2: Just insane, just insane. It's ocean front property. Oh, incredible killing.
Speaker 2: There the guy who's doing the killing and sitting right
Speaker 2: next to you. But in case Sager, he is apparently
Speaker 2: not joking about this.
Speaker 3: About this plan, freedom zone is like a two thousand
Speaker 3: and five like fever dream of Paul Wolfewad. Not even
Speaker 3: they would have the audacity Paul wolfo WIT's and Douglas
Speaker 3: truth to suggest the United States should take occupation of
Speaker 3: the Gaza Strip. Their mere idiocy idea was let them
Speaker 3: have elections and then we won't, you know, basically acknowledge
Speaker 3: the result of set elections and effectively allow occupation from
Speaker 3: that point forward.
Speaker 1: I don't know not.
Speaker 3: I can't even express the rage which is necessary for
Speaker 3: this idea. It just shows you that if you're my age,
Speaker 3: everything just comes around. You get to live to see
Speaker 3: twice too great recessions and US troops in the Middle
Speaker 3: East as a part of it. Literally tax dollars and
Speaker 3: global treasure going to fund foreign wars which are basically inconsequential.
Speaker 3: We just did a whole thing about trade and about China.
Speaker 3: US bilateral trade with Israel is like fifty billion. It's
Speaker 3: like a pimple on top of China. Yet with this
Speaker 3: entire domination of our politics occupation there as if we
Speaker 3: have any strategic.
Speaker 1: Interest, the whole thing is preposterous.
Speaker 3: It's not to mention the humanitarian disaster that we would
Speaker 3: eventually be responsible for. The only bull case for this
Speaker 3: is that he's bullshitting and then it won't happen. That's
Speaker 3: not really a good case to be made in the
Speaker 3: middle of a massive trade conflagration.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that we are right now.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I'm going to take him seriously. I think
Speaker 3: he definitely wants to do this and at an American
Speaker 3: boot on the ground in Gaza, occupying this area is
Speaker 3: asking for a global ignition of terrorism, of attacks on
Speaker 3: our troops, and of further conflagration intervention in the region.
Speaker 2: Like anyway, Yeah, well, and I think if there's one
Speaker 2: thing we've learned about Trump two point zero. It's that
Speaker 2: you should take him both seriously and literally.
Speaker 6: Yeah, like the idea.
Speaker 2: Oh, he says things, but he doesn't relate. No, he's
Speaker 2: doing the things. So the fact that he's said this
Speaker 2: multiple times, he's never backed away from it. He's been
Speaker 2: very consistent. I think you have to take it seriously.
Speaker 2: And also in the context of baby grabbing onto him, this.
Speaker 6: Is the greater.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you've opened up he said something like, you've opened
Speaker 2: up possibilities that never existed before. They've been actively reaching
Speaker 2: out to countries be like, hey, will you take Palestinians.
Speaker 2: So the plans are being put into place, and you know,
Speaker 2: at the same time, the genocidal cartage continues in the
Speaker 2: Gaza strip with our weaponry and our bombs and our blessing.
Speaker 2: And the latest horror is these fifteen paramedics who were
Speaker 2: shot and killed and some of them appeared to have
Speaker 2: been shot execution style, and then they were buried and
Speaker 2: the ambulances were buried by the IDF to try to
Speaker 2: cover up their blatant war crimes. They lied to the
Speaker 2: press and the international press and said that oh no, no,
Speaker 2: they were approaching us suspiciously and they didn't have their
Speaker 2: lights on, and that's why we responded in this particular way. Well,
Speaker 2: they did not retrieve the phones of the paramedics who
Speaker 2: they had slaughtered, and one of them was recording a
Speaker 2: video of everything that happened. That directly robuts the IDFs
Speaker 2: lies and Trey yinst Over on Fox News, who, to
Speaker 2: his credit, I think, has covered this onslaught in Gaza
Speaker 2: with a lot of integrity, including standing up for Palestinian journalists,
Speaker 2: something that almost none of the American press corp outside
Speaker 2: of him has actually done. He did an excellent report
Speaker 2: on catching the IDF in these blatant Wise, let's go
Speaker 2: ahead and take a listen.
Speaker 9: Paramedics from the Palestine Red Crescent dig through the earth
Speaker 9: of southern Gaza. They're recovering the bodies of their colleagues
Speaker 9: killed by Israeli forces. On March twenty third, first responders
Speaker 9: were dispatched to this area of Rufa. When they arrived,
Speaker 9: Israeli soldiers opened fire.
Speaker 10: Health workers should never be a target, and yet we're
Speaker 10: here today digging up a mass grave of first responders
Speaker 10: in paramedics.
Speaker 9: On March thirty first, the IDF provided a statement to
Speaker 9: Fox News saying quote several vehicles were identified advancing suspiciously
Speaker 9: toward IDF troops without headlights or emergency signals. Video released
Speaker 9: five days later by the Palestine Red Crescint directly contradicts
Speaker 9: that statement. The IDEF also claimed in the initial findings
Speaker 9: that nine out of the fifteen medics operatives in Hamas
Speaker 9: and Islamic jihad. Asked multiple times for evidence to support
Speaker 9: that claim, none was provided. Funerals were held late last
Speaker 9: week for those killed by Israeli bullets. Families mourning the dead,
Speaker 9: mothers trying to make sense of the senseless. He went
Speaker 9: to save the martyrs and injured, and we've been waiting
Speaker 9: for him for a week. We were told that he
Speaker 9: was either martyred or injured. But I realized that they
Speaker 9: had killed them from the very first moment. They had
Speaker 9: killed them and buried them underground. As bodies of these
Speaker 9: medics rest inside white plastic bags with a photo attached,
Speaker 9: the face of refat Radwan stands out the man who
Speaker 9: recorded his final moments with a final message forgive me mother.
Speaker 9: This is the path I chose to help that, he said,
Speaker 9: Sam Pinium.
Speaker 2: And Sager we were talking about is about this like
Speaker 2: if you are a journalist who's interacting with the IDF.
Speaker 2: At this point, how do you ever believe a word?
Speaker 2: And I'm not even just talking about this incident. How
Speaker 2: many times have they just lied flat out two journalists,
Speaker 2: face to our face. It just they'll just make up anything,
Speaker 2: and only when confronted with indisputable evidence that their narrative
Speaker 2: was complete and total bullshit, then they'll do some you know, bullshit.
Speaker 2: Oh well, we're going to conduct an investigation. We're going
Speaker 2: to figure out Okay, sure, yeah, we've heard that one before.
Speaker 1: No, I mean, it's genuinely sure.
Speaker 3: I mean, the thing is is that we just have
Speaker 3: to sit here and acknowledge the bravery of trade to
Speaker 3: even put that on the air over at Fox News.
Speaker 3: You know, I have rarely seen anything like that in
Speaker 3: the Western press. I guess the problem is is it
Speaker 3: becomes it's only whenever it's genuinely something is completely undeniable,
Speaker 3: is it able to make it to air? But then
Speaker 3: all these other bullshit claims, oh they had rifles or there.
Speaker 3: That was all also pushed by every MSNBC, you know,
Speaker 3: all these New York Times, I mean, the New York Times.
Speaker 3: Scandal of it is insane I remember Ryan alerting me
Speaker 3: to that, just being like they literally just took the
Speaker 3: Israelis word for it and then buried it in the
Speaker 3: bottom of a paragraph.
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 3: They didn't call anyone at the Palestinian or were sorry
Speaker 3: the Red Crescent, and we're like, what's going on here?
Speaker 3: You know what, like what actually happened? They did no
Speaker 3: reporting on the subject, and this is an organization which
Speaker 3: won a Pulitzer Prize for their Gaza reporting.
Speaker 5: That's right.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just nuts, But I don't know, it's
Speaker 3: I think it's horrifying. The Freedom Zone, the continued, uh,
Speaker 3: you know, the continuation of the war. They did say
Speaker 3: some words about a ceasefire, but you know, nobody's particularly
Speaker 3: optimistic right now.
Speaker 2: Well, I guess the one thing he didn't give BB
Speaker 2: is I think BB wanted the tariff's taken off of him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's rank.
Speaker 3: He didn't get that Trump is Trump is current. What's
Speaker 3: the joke is like Trump is currently employing bds. Yes,
Speaker 3: Trump is currently BDS in Israel.
Speaker 8: More.
Speaker 3: I mean, let's also just linger there on the propos
Speaker 3: and this is where you know, uh, you have a
Speaker 3: country which would not exist save for the United States,
Speaker 3: which provides it some three billion per year, which basically
Speaker 3: backstops their entire economy and extends this nuclear security umbrella
Speaker 3: over them. Where do you get off having any tariffs
Speaker 3: on American goods?
Speaker 1: It's all They don't.
Speaker 6: They actually don't.
Speaker 2: I think he rolled them back, okay before, but before then.
Speaker 6: When the trade war was threatened.
Speaker 4: How is this?
Speaker 1: Who do you think you are? You're tariffing? Are good?
Speaker 1: You wouldn't exist if it wasn't for us. Many such cases.
Speaker 1: Let's move on to Iran.
Speaker 3: This is some very important news that's coming out about
Speaker 3: potential deals. This is a potential bright spot and negotiations
Speaker 3: that are going to begin to start with Iran. Here's
Speaker 3: Trump sounding off about them, much to Bebi's discomfort.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8: I think if the talks aren't successful with Iran, I
Speaker 8: think Iran is going to be in great danger. And
Speaker 8: I hate to say it great danger because they can't
Speaker 8: have a nuclear weapon. So you know, it's not a
Speaker 8: complicated formula. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That's all
Speaker 8: there is. You can't have it. Right now, we have
Speaker 8: countries that have nuclear power that shouldn't have it. But
Speaker 8: I'm sure we'll be able to negotiate out of that
Speaker 8: too as part of this later and down the line.
Speaker 8: But Ran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and if the
Speaker 8: talks are successful, I actually think it'll be a very
Speaker 8: bad day for a rant if that's the case.
Speaker 3: So Trump says that that we are going to be
Speaker 3: continuing direct negotiations with Iran that will begin on Saturday.
Speaker 3: It does appear that they are legitimate, and there's a
Speaker 3: lot going on behind the scenes. Put E two please
Speaker 3: up on the screen so people can see. Christ is
Speaker 3: from Barak Revid the Netsa Nyah who whisper quote Natanya,
Speaker 3: who thinks that the chances of a US Iran deal
Speaker 3: are extremely low, but will present to Trump today how
Speaker 3: a good deal should look like. Netsayah, who wants the
Speaker 3: full Libya model, the full dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. Christal,
Speaker 3: can you enlighten me as to why no country on
Speaker 3: Earth whatever agree to the full Libya that's the point.
Speaker 6: How did that go for Libya?
Speaker 2: How did that go for the leader of Libya who
Speaker 2: is now dead and gone. Yeah, I earn on camera
Speaker 2: the which is that is the intent of Venettnya, who
Speaker 2: is to offer a solution that he knows Iran would
Speaker 2: in no country would.
Speaker 6: Ever agree to.
Speaker 2: And so that's why I think we should all be
Speaker 2: glad that there are potentially direct talks happening and that
Speaker 2: there is at least some gesture towards making a deal
Speaker 2: with the run. But of course the content of those
Speaker 2: talks is going to matter very much. And if BBE
Speaker 2: is pushing the quote unquote Libya model, if Trump is
Speaker 2: taking that seriously, then that is obviously going to be
Speaker 2: a non starter. We don't know whether Trump is taking
Speaker 2: that seriously, whether he has his own ideas Our friend
Speaker 2: doctor Tree to Parsi was pointing out things that Trump
Speaker 2: himself has said in the past about the quote unquote
Speaker 2: Libya model when it was being pushed visa the North Korea.
Speaker 2: He this was an attack on John Bolden. He said,
Speaker 2: what would John Bolton, one of the dumbest people in Washington. No,
Speaker 2: wasn't he the person who's so stupidly set on television
Speaker 2: Libyan solution when describing what the US was going to
Speaker 2: do from North Korea. I've got plenty of other Bolton
Speaker 2: stupid stories. So at least in theory, he knows what
Speaker 2: a dumb idea. This is whether in practice it applies
Speaker 2: in the situation.
Speaker 6: We'll have to wait to find out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: And that's where we all just really have to be
Speaker 3: very careful about what's all happening right now. For example,
Speaker 3: let's put E three up on the screen. There is
Speaker 3: massive movement of US assets in the Middle East right now,
Speaker 3: quote from Haretz, record breaking US deployment in the Middle
Speaker 3: East amid Trump's nuclear ultimatum for Iran. More US assets
Speaker 3: in the region than at any time since October seventh.
Speaker 3: Don't forget, you know, despite signal gait, it wasn't just
Speaker 3: the one off what happened with the Hoothies. We continue
Speaker 3: to bomb the Hoothies on an almost daily basis, basically
Speaker 3: continuing the Biden you know, the Biden operation that was
Speaker 3: a complete failure. Here Trump, for example, we can put
Speaker 3: this on the screen. Uh, this is a video that
Speaker 3: was released a couple of days ago. Trump says, quote
Speaker 3: these who these gathered for instructions on an attack. Oops,
Speaker 3: there will be no attack by these who thies. They
Speaker 3: will never sink our ships again.
Speaker 2: This, by the way, this was this was not who
Speaker 2: they militant rebels. These were tribesmen who were gathered for
Speaker 2: a religious ceremony. And I do think we also have
Speaker 2: to reflect on the fact that it once was a
Speaker 2: scandal when the US.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they would just classify this murdered civilians.
Speaker 2: I mean, this was you know, one of the major
Speaker 2: revelations of wikileace that created you know, international and certainly
Speaker 2: domestic scandal. And now the president just posted himself and
Speaker 2: brigs about it like that's.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no legal authority, no justificating, like, no release of
Speaker 3: like who exactly these people were, what it all meant.
Speaker 1: It's just baked in.
Speaker 3: You're basically killing people to feel good and for purposes
Speaker 3: that's not actually working. There's been no reduction in the
Speaker 3: amount of attacks from the Who theis there is no
Speaker 3: military solution to this, say for a genuine invasion of Yemen.
Speaker 1: Well, and I didn't sign up for that.
Speaker 2: And they're they're considering it, Yeah, they are considering it.
Speaker 2: So we can put this up on the screen from CNN.
Speaker 2: So they kind of, in my opinion, bury the lead here.
Speaker 2: They say, far from being cowed by US air strikes,
Speaker 2: damons who this may be relishing them. But then they
Speaker 2: go on to talk about how there are plans being
Speaker 2: formed for us to potentially assist the previous Yumeni government
Speaker 2: that you know, there's a big civil war between the
Speaker 2: who this and the Yumenis. The Hohothis basically ultimately won
Speaker 2: that civil war.
Speaker 6: But apparently we're.
Speaker 2: Gonna use our troops to support the Yumenis, maybe for
Speaker 2: a ground another ground invasion, in order to deal with
Speaker 2: the Houthis since the you know, just relentless bombing has
Speaker 2: only continued to embolden them, not that they haven't taken
Speaker 2: on damage and that they haven't you know that significant
Speaker 2: Huthi members have not been killed and their capabilities diminished,
Speaker 2: but they are still able to operate, and you know,
Speaker 2: it sort of only does strengthen their domestic position. Really,
Speaker 2: so this is these are the plans that are being
Speaker 2: hatched right now to potentially get us involved in a
Speaker 2: ground invasion in Yemen.
Speaker 3: That worked really well for the Saudias and their bombing campaign.
Speaker 3: And finally, I don't know, I still don't yet know what.
Speaker 1: To make of this.
Speaker 3: Let's put this on the screen. This is from Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 3: Whatever you think of tariffs, it is clear now it
Speaker 3: is the worst possible time for the United States to
Speaker 3: participate in military strike on Iran.
Speaker 1: We can't afford it.
Speaker 3: Thousands of Americans who die, We'd lose a war that follows.
Speaker 3: Nothing could be more destructive to our country, and yet
Speaker 3: we are closer than ever thanks to unrelenting pressure from
Speaker 3: neo cons This is suicidal. Anyone advocating for conflict with
Speaker 3: Iran is not an ally of the United States, but
Speaker 3: an enemy. I don't know what the impetus for this is.
Speaker 3: I can only assume that it's clear that he knows
Speaker 3: something that I don't know, or is hearing something clearly
Speaker 3: and takes it seriously enough to be able to put
Speaker 3: this out there. Because if you put together the bab visit,
Speaker 3: the military assets there, the houthy military campaign, the fact
Speaker 3: that Mike Wallace, the moron, gets to survive and live
Speaker 3: another day in the White House.
Speaker 1: They keep assuring me he is going to be fired
Speaker 1: in a few months.
Speaker 7: Not going to hold my breath.
Speaker 1: For that one.
Speaker 3: I think there's obviously something that's happening, like the drum
Speaker 3: beats are there. I also saw the attack on this
Speaker 3: was that it was unpatriotic to say that America would
Speaker 3: lose a war that follows or to say that it's
Speaker 3: preposterous that thousands of Americans would die.
Speaker 1: Does anyone want to alert all.
Speaker 3: Of these neocon geniuses to the number of US troops
Speaker 3: that are currently in the Middle East? Like what you
Speaker 3: think They're just going to sit there quietly the Iranians
Speaker 3: if we do start some sort of military conflict with them,
Speaker 3: is there any reason to put any of those people's
Speaker 3: lives at risk? And also, do you know how much
Speaker 3: it's cost the current just Trump military campaign two hundred
Speaker 3: and six million dollars for the current Houthy operation. I
Speaker 3: don't see dose anybody talking about that. Think about it,
Speaker 3: if you had a two hundred and six million dollar
Speaker 3: operation which was an abject to complete failure, continuation of
Speaker 3: a failed policy, that sounds like a perfect job for Doge,
Speaker 3: don't you think.
Speaker 8: So.
Speaker 3: There's so many layers upon layers of a lot of
Speaker 3: this stupidity that's happening right now.
Speaker 2: There's also some past indications that are troubling about the
Speaker 2: way Trump thinks about a potential Iran war. So he
Speaker 2: had famously claimed in twenty eleven and twenty twelve that
Speaker 2: Obama is going to start with war with Iran in
Speaker 2: order to get reelected.
Speaker 6: This is something that he tweeted.
Speaker 2: Out, thinking that oh, that would cause this rally around
Speaker 2: the flag effect and that that would help get Obama elected,
Speaker 2: which isn't I mean, that's just insane to me that
Speaker 2: to think at this point, especially where we are now,
Speaker 2: that there would be any sort of US domestic appetite
Speaker 2: for some giant war in the Middle East is complete insanity.
Speaker 2: But at least in the past he has thought that way.
Speaker 2: And so, you know, is he thinking that this would
Speaker 2: be a way to bolster his flagging domestic folitt standing.
Speaker 2: I think that's a possibility. I think when you put
Speaker 2: together so ken Klippenstein has of course been doing great
Speaker 2: reporting about the war plans that have been hatched, including
Speaker 2: potential nuclear options for a war with a RN. He's
Speaker 2: also reporting on this mass buildup of military assets in
Speaker 2: the region. I'm just read a little bit from his
Speaker 2: latest report. He says the largest single deployment of self
Speaker 2: bombers in US history, the Pentagon has sent six B
Speaker 2: two Spirit aircraft to Diego, Garcia and the Indian Ocean.
Speaker 2: The long range bombers, which are uniquely suited to evade
Speaker 2: Iranian air defenses and can carry America's most potent bunker
Speaker 2: busting weapons flew in from Missouri last week in a
Speaker 2: little noticed to operation. The B two is carried not
Speaker 2: just bombs, but a message for Iran. Do you see
Speaker 2: our sword? As one retired general told Newsmax this week.
Speaker 2: Now there is a possibility, Sager, certainly, that all of
Speaker 2: the military build up is meant as a credible military
Speaker 2: threat to try to secure a better deal with Iran.
Speaker 2: That's what we should all hoping for. But I do
Speaker 2: think there are a lot of troubling indications. And all
Speaker 2: of the neocon think tanks in DC. You cover this
Speaker 2: from Quincy Institute that's been tracking this, they are beating
Speaker 2: the war drums. And you know, if you have people
Speaker 2: like Tucker, who are obviously very well read in and
Speaker 2: very well sourced in this administration sounding the alarm, I
Speaker 2: think we should all be very concerned. So Sixty Minutes
Speaker 2: did a fantastic piece on Sunday breaking down what they
Speaker 2: were able to figure out about the men who were
Speaker 2: sent under the Alien Enemies Act to that notorious prison
Speaker 2: in El Salvador.
Speaker 6: We can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2: So the government has not released the names of these
Speaker 2: individuals these two hundred and thirty eight migrants who were
Speaker 2: sent to this Salvador In mega prison. But they were
Speaker 2: able to get their hands on some leaked government documents
Speaker 2: and dug into their you know, purported criminal records and
Speaker 2: what they found, because remember we were told these are
Speaker 2: gang members, these are the worst of the worst, et cetera.
Speaker 2: What they actually found is that for seventy five percent
Speaker 2: of these Venezuelans they had no criminal record whatsoever. There
Speaker 2: were about thirteen percent that they were not able to determine,
Speaker 2: and for the remaining twenty two percent, they did have
Speaker 2: criminal records, the vast majority for things like theft, shoplifting,
Speaker 2: and trespassing. At the same time, we can put these
Speaker 2: images up on the screen. They delved in particular into
Speaker 2: the case of Andre. He is the gay makeup artist
Speaker 2: who was legally applying for asylum and was accused by
Speaker 2: the government of being a gang member based on his tattoos.
Speaker 2: They spoke to his lawyer. They also were able to
Speaker 2: track down these horrific pictures of him being sentenced into
Speaker 2: this prison from which no one can communicate with him.
Speaker 2: He may be here now for life. And they also
Speaker 2: went back through his social media postings and found absolutely
Speaker 2: no indication of gang involvement whatsoever. So at the same time,
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court has issued a significant victory for the
Speaker 2: Trump administration with regards to these deportations to El Salvador.
Speaker 6: Can put this tear sheet up on the screen.
Speaker 2: They're lifting the temporary restraining order on Trump's removals under
Speaker 2: the Alien Enemies Act. However, this was a five to
Speaker 2: four decision. There were important to sense what this means
Speaker 2: going forward, both for people here and for those who
Speaker 2: have already been sent to This prison is a little
Speaker 2: bit complex. So we wanted to bring in some legal
Speaker 2: backup here. Let's go ahead and bring in Pisco. He's
Speaker 2: a YouTuber, but more importantly for our purposes, he's a lawyer.
Speaker 2: He's a a litigator and has done pro bono work
Speaker 2: in immigration. I've really been relying on him for his
Speaker 2: analysis of the legal challenges here.
Speaker 1: Great to have you, Peace Go appreciate it.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much, Crystal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course. So let's just start with the most
Speaker 2: basic question. Was this a true win for the administration.
Speaker 10: It was a true win for the administration. There is
Speaker 10: a core unanimous holding here that is generally good, but
Speaker 10: It's kind of something that but most people think take
Speaker 10: for granted, which is that people who are going to
Speaker 10: be deported are, you know, have access to basic procedural
Speaker 10: due process. And so a unanimous Supreme Court nine zero
Speaker 10: held that the Trump administration was violating people's procedural due
Speaker 10: process rights, or at the very least was they're entitled
Speaker 10: to notice an opportunity to be heard before they're sent
Speaker 10: off to this gulog in El Salvador. But at the
Speaker 10: end of the day, the temporary Restraining Order, which was
Speaker 10: protecting a lot of these migrants, were in fact vacated
Speaker 10: by the Supreme Court. And that's a huge win for
Speaker 10: the Tump administration for reasons that we can get into.
Speaker 3: So can you explain the upholding of due process as
Speaker 3: I understand it, It is a different way that they
Speaker 3: can apply for scrutiny. There was what was it, the
Speaker 3: Administrative Procedures Act, and instead they rule the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: says that there must be an access to a habeas corpus,
Speaker 3: but in the jurisdiction of where they're being held. So
Speaker 3: just translate the things that I just said into something
Speaker 3: a normal person can understand.
Speaker 10: So what they said was the exclusive remedy for individuals
Speaker 10: who are labeled alien enemies under the Alien Enemies Act
Speaker 10: is to go through a habeas petition and hevieous corpuses
Speaker 10: Latin for produce the body. And it essentially it's a
Speaker 10: specific kind of old writ that has traditionally been used
Speaker 10: in these kinds of cases where people will be allowed
Speaker 10: to challenge whether they in fact are alien enemies. And
Speaker 10: the court actually said maybe even suggesting they could challenge
Speaker 10: the proclamation as a whole, and contrast that to the
Speaker 10: Administrative Procedures Act, which is what some of these a
Speaker 10: remedy for a lot of these sort of agency type
Speaker 10: actions trying to strike down large agency action, and under
Speaker 10: that procedure they could apply kind of on the general
Speaker 10: policy as opposed to an individual petition to sort of
Speaker 10: attack broad policy that the petitioners think is unlawful, and
Speaker 10: in that situation you could file in DC. The ultimate
Speaker 10: effect of this is you're going to be funneled into
Speaker 10: all of these pro trump courts and tech in Louisiana
Speaker 10: in the Fifth Circuit, where they're a lot less willing to,
Speaker 10: you know, give these detainees the time of day than
Speaker 10: in DC or New York.
Speaker 6: Okay, so let's talk a.
Speaker 2: Little bit more about this, because I think this piece
Speaker 2: is really important because on the one hand, you go, okay, well,
Speaker 2: they said the Trump administration can restart these deportations under
Speaker 2: the Alien Enemies Act. On the other hand, all my
Speaker 2: justices said, what you've been doing is illegal because the
Speaker 2: administration's position was no due process whatsoever. Steven Miller has
Speaker 2: been very vocal about this.
Speaker 6: Christine know elm etcter no due process.
Speaker 2: Supreme Court is saying unanimously that is not correct. You
Speaker 2: have to offer what they describe as quote unquote reasonable notice,
Speaker 2: an opportunity to file habeas corpus lawsuits in the jurisdictions
Speaker 2: where they are being held. Can you talk to us
Speaker 2: on like a real world, practical basis what this will
Speaker 2: actually mean for immigrants who are being threatened with deportation
Speaker 2: to present under the Alien Enemies Act, Especially because you
Speaker 2: know the definition of quote unquote reasonable notice. It's not
Speaker 2: like they say you have to give them a week.
Speaker 2: You have to give them even twenty four hours. They're
Speaker 2: leaving it up to the administration to define what, in
Speaker 2: their view is quote unquote reasonable notice.
Speaker 7: Yeah, you totally hit the nail on the head.
Speaker 10: Like, on the formalism of it, it totally makes sense
Speaker 10: right that this would be a great holding. Right there,
Speaker 10: they're holding that you have procedural due process rights, you
Speaker 10: have a notice to be an opportunity be heard, and
Speaker 10: you have the right to notice, which, by the way,
Speaker 10: the Trump administration was in court arguing that we don't
Speaker 10: even need tell their lawyers where they are. So on
Speaker 10: that basic premise, you would think, wow, it's a great holding.
Speaker 10: The problem is we're leaving we're living in the real world,
Speaker 10: and the reality of the situation is the Trump administration
Speaker 10: is already running the government on emergency basis. You can
Speaker 10: see this with the tariff situation, where they're declaring fake
Speaker 10: emergencies and they're to invoke this limited kind of teriff
Speaker 10: authority to have these broad standing tariffs. And the same
Speaker 10: thing is true in respective immigration, that you can't rely
Speaker 10: on this administration to be good faith about this situation
Speaker 10: and actually give them their habeas petitions that they seem
Speaker 10: to admit that they're owned.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 10: One of the lines that the majority of the Percurium
Speaker 10: decision relies on is a notion that the Trump administration
Speaker 10: admits that these people are allowed to have habeas petitions,
Speaker 10: but that right is meaningless if you're throwing them onto
Speaker 10: a plane and taking them out of the country before
Speaker 10: they have a chance to like hire a lawyer or
Speaker 10: talk to their family. You know, most of these people
Speaker 10: probably don't have access to lawyers. Most of the people
Speaker 10: who are actually deported unlawfully, now that we know from
Speaker 10: the Supreme Court, didn't have an opportunity to have a
Speaker 10: real chance to file a petition. The problem is, of course,
Speaker 10: is the government's interpretation and the Trump administration being bad
Speaker 10: faith and they're going to interpret reasonable to me, who knows,
Speaker 10: you know, a day thirty minutes, this administration is you know,
Speaker 10: willing to do whatever it takes to get their agenda done.
Speaker 10: And you saw as soon as the decision came down,
Speaker 10: Stephen Miller is saying, you know, we're starting the planes
Speaker 10: right now, We're going to deport them right away.
Speaker 7: And so that's the big problem is that we.
Speaker 10: Live in the real world, and in the real world,
Speaker 10: all these cases are going to go to Texas in
Speaker 10: the Fifth Circuit, where they're not going to be as sympathetic,
Speaker 10: and we have an administration who's not going to be
Speaker 10: you know, inclined to give them their actual due process rights,
Speaker 10: and right now there is no order directing them not
Speaker 10: to do so, it's just like the general opinion of
Speaker 10: the court that they're not supposed to violate.
Speaker 3: What is the practical meaning of reasonable time, like, let's say,
Speaker 3: compared to a criminal justice proceding or a normal deportation hearing.
Speaker 7: Yeah, when you say what the practical meaning.
Speaker 3: Is, what, like, you know, obviously it's a term that
Speaker 3: is being said to the government. I assume they can
Speaker 3: interpret it to some sort of standard. What does it
Speaker 3: normally look like?
Speaker 10: Yeah, So it's like in the law, if you've ever
Speaker 10: seen that the picture of Atlas holding up the world
Speaker 10: and the underneath it, it's like the word reasonable. And
Speaker 10: so I can't define in strict contours what the exact
Speaker 10: amount of time is. You know, in a typical case
Speaker 10: to respond to a complaint, it's you know, a matter
Speaker 10: of weeks, two three weeks, you know, a month to
Speaker 10: respond to like a civil complaint or something like that,
Speaker 10: sometimes a bit longer. And so I think that if
Speaker 10: you were to give these individuals some weeks maybe a
Speaker 10: month to respond, I think that would be reasonable. Given
Speaker 10: the other kinds of general litigation practices.
Speaker 7: That we have and the other kind of time limits.
Speaker 10: But again, you know, is there a strict legal holding
Speaker 10: about what reasonable means in the context of removal proceedings.
Speaker 10: The government also has access to expected removal procedures peceadures
Speaker 10: in the context of the Immigration Nationality Act, where there's
Speaker 10: not much time at all and there's not much procedure
Speaker 10: other than you know, hearing before an immigration judge.
Speaker 7: And so it's a good question and one that we
Speaker 7: need to contend.
Speaker 10: With now that you know that's the words of the
Speaker 10: Supreme Court that the administration is left to interpret.
Speaker 2: What does this mean for the people who already were
Speaker 2: wrongly sent to El salvad Or with no due process.
Speaker 2: I mean, we I just covered the sixty minutes fantastic
Speaker 2: piece that they did, you know, uncovering this government document listing. Okay,
Speaker 2: here's who they actually sent indefinitely into this notorious Megaprison,
Speaker 2: seventy five percent of whom.
Speaker 6: Zero criminal record.
Speaker 2: The administration themselves has already admitted that at least one
Speaker 2: was done in complete error.
Speaker 6: So what is is there any.
Speaker 2: Recourse for these individuals who have already been sent and
Speaker 2: illegally sent at this point, according to what the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court had to say to this person.
Speaker 10: It's a great point, Crystal, this and the descent brings
Speaker 10: this up. You should think of this opinion as dovetailing
Speaker 10: with what's happening to mister Abdergo Garcia. In the case
Speaker 10: of the individual, he's Salvadorian. He was granted with holding
Speaker 10: a removal and the administration accepts that it was illegal
Speaker 10: to deport this individual to El Salvador, to scat And
Speaker 10: you're asking what can now be done for these individuals
Speaker 10: who are already deported illegally right because they weren't given
Speaker 10: their day in court, as the Supreme Court has now recognized.
Speaker 7: And the answer is, this does not resolve that question.
Speaker 10: There's another petition that's going to be before the Supreme
Speaker 10: Court asking the uncomfortable question, which is, once you are
Speaker 10: in the hands of a foreign government, can the court
Speaker 10: order the US government to bring you back? And there
Speaker 10: are complications. I want to give you a sort of
Speaker 10: an example of the Trump administration.
Speaker 2: Well, and let me put while you're talking, just guys
Speaker 2: through five F five, I believe up on the screen,
Speaker 2: which refers to the recent Supreme Court movement here with
Speaker 2: regard to this particular case where they've now temporarily blocked
Speaker 2: the order requiring an immediate return of this wrongly deported migrant,
Speaker 2: but they haven't made an actual decision on the merits here.
Speaker 10: So the Supreme Court issued an administrative stay. You shouldn't
Speaker 10: read too much into that decision. It's not a merit
Speaker 10: to stay, which means there's no indication from where the
Speaker 10: Court's going to lie ultimately on this decision. But it's
Speaker 10: important to think about this issue because it's a thorny issue.
Speaker 10: On the one hand, think of the government's perspective. Imagine
Speaker 10: that there were an order from a US court that
Speaker 10: said some of the effect of, hey, you illegally sent
Speaker 10: someone over to Gaza, and now that US citizen is
Speaker 10: a hostage, let's say we're ordering you to bring him back.
Speaker 10: You can imagine how that might seem like an unwarranted
Speaker 10: intrusion into the executive prerogative to negotiate with Gaza. Or
Speaker 10: if it were think about Britney Grinder in the hands
Speaker 10: of the Russian Federation. Supposed that the government is alleged
Speaker 10: to do something illegal that brought about that situation, and
Speaker 10: a district court somewhere just orders the United States to
Speaker 10: bring them back out of Russian detention. That could seem
Speaker 10: like a crazy standard to allow all these courts to
Speaker 10: intrude them to the executive progatives. So you have to
Speaker 10: understand the government's perspective there. But the difference here and
Speaker 10: what I think is the right outcome and why the
Speaker 10: Fourth Circuit did not get rid of this district court
Speaker 10: order to bring mister Bregogarcia back, is this is not
Speaker 10: like those situations. This is very much like a contracting relationship.
Speaker 10: The US government is hiring the El Salvadorian president to
Speaker 10: essentially operate immigration attention on the US government's behalf. And
Speaker 10: based on their statements, in the fact that the US
Speaker 10: government is not willing to say that they can't bring
Speaker 10: him back, it seems obvious who's in control here, who
Speaker 10: has the power here, and that the US government, if
Speaker 10: they wanted to, could absolutely bring mister bregog Garcia back.
Speaker 10: And it's shocking that they have admitted that he is
Speaker 10: illegally removed from to l Salvador, but they haven't even
Speaker 10: tried to bring him back at all, or even state
Speaker 10: that they couldn't. They're just saying that we don't have
Speaker 10: to and we don't have to listen to any core
Speaker 10: that says we do.
Speaker 3: What about on the merits of the Alien Enemies Act yourself?
Speaker 3: You said that they had not ruled on that and
Speaker 3: that these future future people could be able to challenge that.
Speaker 3: What does the landscape look like with respect to that
Speaker 3: as a result of this court.
Speaker 10: Decision, as Crystal laid out, a lot of these people
Speaker 10: have really good factual cases for.
Speaker 7: Not in fact being alien enemies.
Speaker 10: The proclamation declaring the or invoking the Alien Enemies Act
Speaker 10: said that you had to be a member of thrend
Speaker 10: that AHUA. The President actually limited the scope of what
Speaker 10: the proclamation could be if you wanted to and if
Speaker 10: it were a valid invocation, he could target at every
Speaker 10: single even as well and including Green card holders, but
Speaker 10: he limited himself to thn that AWA members. And so
Speaker 10: a lot of these individuals will have good factual cases
Speaker 10: to challenge whether or not they're in fact alien enemies.
Speaker 10: There's an additional legal question, which is is this even
Speaker 10: a valid invocation of the Alien Enemies Act at all?
Speaker 10: Which is, can you consider then that AWA a foreign
Speaker 10: country or if they're not a foreign country, are they
Speaker 10: actually in cahoots with the Venezuelan government, because you need
Speaker 10: that link to a foreign government.
Speaker 7: And then the additional question.
Speaker 10: Of are they invading the United States or are they
Speaker 10: threatening to invade the United States, or are they having
Speaker 10: a physical incursion into the United States. And so there
Speaker 10: are two kind of substantive merits legal questions, which are
Speaker 10: the fundamentals of the proclamation itself related to whether this
Speaker 10: is all fake and obviously it's all fake. There's no
Speaker 10: actual physical invasion into the territory of the United States.
Speaker 7: By then that ahwa.
Speaker 10: And then there's the related question of are the people
Speaker 10: actually designated, assuming the proclamation is valid, actually alien enemies
Speaker 10: and the sort of the reporting that Crystal pointed to,
Speaker 10: it seems that many of them are not. You know,
Speaker 10: there's someone with a they were just picked up because
Speaker 10: of their tattoos, someone with a tattoo for their autistic brother,
Speaker 10: some of the tattoo. You know, who's a gay barber
Speaker 10: who obviously is not a member of the by all reporting.
Speaker 10: And so those are merits determinations that are now going
Speaker 10: to be made much harder because they have to be individualized.
Speaker 10: There's not kind of a broad class action challenge, and
Speaker 10: so they've made it more difficult, but hopefully.
Speaker 2: So even that determination on the whether or not the
Speaker 2: invocation of the Alien Enemies Act itself that has to
Speaker 2: start on an individual basis with these habeas petitions.
Speaker 6: Is that what I'm hearing you to say.
Speaker 10: So if a court, like an appellate court, held that
Speaker 10: the invocation or proclamation was invalid people, and they had
Speaker 10: like direct appellent overview of whatever court system that were
Speaker 10: most like the Fifth Circuit, it would have presidential effect
Speaker 10: and the effect would be that more courts would deny
Speaker 10: the validity of the proclamation. One of the problems with
Speaker 10: doing all these individualized petitions that you could start to
Speaker 10: see divergent case law or something like that. So the
Speaker 10: end result might be that this might all be funneled
Speaker 10: into one on the actual proclamation itself.
Speaker 7: Gotcha, But it would have to start there. It couldn't
Speaker 7: start with this like kind of large case.
Speaker 6: Gotcha.
Speaker 2: And my last question for you is a piece go.
Speaker 2: I watched some of your stream last night, which was
Speaker 2: very helpful, by the way, and everybody should go subscribe
Speaker 2: to Pisco's Hour, which I've you know, really been enjoying
Speaker 2: glad to see that your growth over there. But you
Speaker 2: mentioned that you thought Roberts might be kind of playing
Speaker 2: politics here, like thinking, OK, I'm going to give the
Speaker 2: administration some w's here, so maybe I build some credibility
Speaker 2: so later on if we have to give him some ls,
Speaker 2: that'll have more you know, purchase, because we gave them
Speaker 2: things that they wanted earlier on. I've also been thinking
Speaker 2: about the fact, I mean, this is an administration that
Speaker 2: is at least playing with outright defiance of court orders.
Speaker 2: And so if you're the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: you want your institutions still to matter. So maybe you're
Speaker 2: thinking about, like, I really should go along with as
Speaker 2: much as I can so that I don't end up
Speaker 2: in a situation where he does blatantly defy a court
Speaker 2: order and then all of our purported power is just done,
Speaker 2: it's over. So what are you thinking? What is your
Speaker 2: analysis in that regard? And one last note which I
Speaker 2: also thought was interesting. Conservats were very upset about the
Speaker 2: fact Amy Cony Barrett actually joined the Liberals on the descent,
Speaker 2: which was also noteworthy here. And also there was a
Speaker 2: lot of gender dynamics that play there, since you had
Speaker 2: all the women on one side and all the men
Speaker 2: on the other side. But in case if you could
Speaker 2: lay on your analysis of what you think might be
Speaker 2: going on with some of the John Roberts politics here.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I get that impression, because, first of all, there's
Speaker 10: inside reporting that Roberts is concerned about the legitimacy of
Speaker 10: the court, and so there's direct reporting talking to that
Speaker 10: that's a state of mind. He released that statement about
Speaker 10: Judge Boseberg, who issued the opinion the District Court, and
Speaker 10: that how do you interpret that other than sort of
Speaker 10: a signaling political act. And so the fact that he's saying, hey,
Speaker 10: we shouldn't impeach this judge. The proper course to complain
Speaker 10: about overreach by the court and about whether or not
Speaker 10: you're defining orders is to repeal. And by the way,
Speaker 10: the defining orders portion of this is very much still
Speaker 10: at play. Just because the order was ultimately deemed invalid
Speaker 10: because there was no jurisdiction and doesn't mean that you
Speaker 10: still don't have an obligation to follow that order, but
Speaker 10: that it was inherently sort of a political signaling act
Speaker 10: to defend the legitimacy of the court.
Speaker 7: And so I see Judge Roberts.
Speaker 10: As very much concerned about that based on reporting, based
Speaker 10: upon his statements, and based upon these decisions, And the
Speaker 10: same thing with Trump versus the United States, where they're
Speaker 10: always trying to split the baby have a kind of
Speaker 10: middle ground approach which is not giving a full win
Speaker 10: to Trump and where the opinion seems completely untailored to
Speaker 10: precedent and completely like preposterous in view of the actual
Speaker 10: real world. Think about the Trump the United States case,
Speaker 10: where he's really putting blinders on and not realizing that
Speaker 10: justice delayed, you know, is justice denied with respect to
Speaker 10: what happened in the January sixth cases. So that seems
Speaker 10: to be his approach from what I can gather in
Speaker 10: my intuition about it and based on the reporting that
Speaker 10: we're seeing. And I think it's a dangerous game because
Speaker 10: these Trump you know, sick of fans, the administration officials
Speaker 10: are not going to be loyal to you or not
Speaker 10: going to respect you anymore, just because you've issued a
Speaker 10: couple of middle ground decisions.
Speaker 7: And I think it's one that he's walking.
Speaker 10: It's also one of the reasons why I think you
Speaker 10: couldn't you shouldn't read into too much of the administrative
Speaker 10: stay into the mister Barreirogarcia case, because in that situation,
Speaker 10: I feel like one of the reasons why he might
Speaker 10: issue an administrative stay is to if you were going
Speaker 10: to rule on the right side, in my opinion, you know,
Speaker 10: trying to get mister Bererogracia back would be to gather
Speaker 10: a consensus to actually have an opinion. If there's going
Speaker 10: to have to be a standoff between the courts and
Speaker 10: the President, have it be with the Supreme Court as
Speaker 10: opposed to the Fourth Circuit. And so I very much
Speaker 10: see him in the game of trying to protect the
Speaker 10: legitimacy of the court and the institution.
Speaker 7: But I just think that he's off the mark.
Speaker 2: I do have one last, sorry legal question for you.
Speaker 6: Piece goes.
Speaker 2: There was a question of whether or not the administration
Speaker 2: did defy court orders with regard to you know, the
Speaker 2: judge had said, even if you have to turn the
Speaker 2: planes around, this cannot go forward. They did not turn
Speaker 2: the planes around. They say the planes were gone, so
Speaker 2: we couldn't do anything, or we didn't want to do anything, we.
Speaker 6: Didn't have to do anything.
Speaker 2: And there were hearings continuing to determine whether they should
Speaker 2: be held in contempt for defiance of those orders. Wipe
Speaker 2: that out? Is that still ongoing? Like, are where do
Speaker 2: we go from here?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 10: No, you're supposed to follow court orders, even if ultimately
Speaker 10: it's determined that the court does not. It was not
Speaker 10: right in the initial instance to issue the order. And
Speaker 10: that's very much, by the way true. The holding of
Speaker 10: this court is that Boseberg did not have the jurisdiction,
Speaker 10: did not have the right venue to issue these orders.
Speaker 10: But that doesn't mean that you're not still obligated to
Speaker 10: follow that order. And so this does not eliminate the
Speaker 10: contempt proceedings and the hearings that are occurring before Bosburg
Speaker 10: about whether or not in fact they violated the order.
Speaker 10: To me, it's completely obvious that they violated the order.
Speaker 10: I mean, they're all but bragging about it. And if
Speaker 10: you look at the timeline about when the order was given,
Speaker 10: it was an oral order. But there's nothing less binding
Speaker 10: about an oral order. They're completely aware about the existence
Speaker 10: of the order. Boseburg is like talking and asking who
Speaker 10: even up to like individual lawyers, was aware of what's
Speaker 10: going on, and so he's doing some fact finding there.
Speaker 7: But they knew about it.
Speaker 10: They knew they were supposed to turn the planes around,
Speaker 10: and it's preposterous the notion that courts could not order
Speaker 10: a plane to turn around if it had, for example,
Speaker 10: US citizens on board and they were trying to abscond illegally.
Speaker 10: Which is also one of the reasons why all these
Speaker 10: decisions are very problematic, is because they apply at their
Speaker 10: maximum also to US citizens that they couldn't, you know,
Speaker 10: give that order.
Speaker 7: The order wasn't valid.
Speaker 10: And at this point, you know, they're not even trying
Speaker 10: to hide their defiance. They're invoking the state secret doctrine
Speaker 10: when they're blatantly like posting the times of when it
Speaker 10: landed and where the President of El Salvador is like
Speaker 10: meaning over the orders and flouting them. And so to me,
Speaker 10: there's not no question really about the defiance and the
Speaker 10: descent all but accuses them of flagrant disrespect for the
Speaker 10: rule of law and the judge's order.
Speaker 3: Will we see a resolution of that at the court
Speaker 3: or is that a Boseberg contempt?
Speaker 1: Like would it stay within his jurisdiction?
Speaker 10: It could definitely be appealable, and I expect this administration
Speaker 10: appeals everything, and so I would always expect them to
Speaker 10: appeal it. They're supposed to give deference to the factual
Speaker 10: findings of the lower court. That's one of the principles here.
Speaker 10: But you know, they're also not supposed to appeal tros.
Speaker 10: And there's not supposed to be jurisdiction to the Supreme
Speaker 10: Court for any appellate court to hear a kind of
Speaker 10: disagreement on a TRO. But there's always seems to be
Speaker 10: special rules when the president's evolved, special rules when Trump
Speaker 10: is involved, And so I don't know if they're going
Speaker 10: to pay deference to Judge both Boseburg's findings, and I
Speaker 10: very much expect them to appeal the order and for
Speaker 10: them to say that it's invalid if if he finds,
Speaker 10: for example, that they violated the court order, to say
Speaker 10: that that finding is not applicable as to the president,
Speaker 10: I don't think the President himself is involved, but as
Speaker 10: to the other officials, and so yeah, I don't think
Speaker 10: it'll be finally resolved in the district court, even though
Speaker 10: they're supposed to pay deference to those factual findings.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, this has been very illuminating. Thank you
Speaker 2: so much for taking some time to break these issues
Speaker 2: down for us.
Speaker 6: Peace go.
Speaker 3: Great to see you, thanks man, Thanks so much, guys, Yeah,
Speaker 3: appreciate Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Great counterpoint show for everybody tomorrow. We will see you
Speaker 3: all later.