He said he wasn't a member of a
gang, and then they looked and on his
knuckles, he had MS thirteen. There's a dispute.
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. He had
MS thirteen on his knuckles tattoo. He had
some tattoos that are interpreted that way, but
let's move on. Wait a minute. I Terry
Terry
Terry. You did not have the letter MS13.
It says m s one three. That was
photoshopped.
So let me just That was photoshopped, Terry.
You can't do that. Hey. They're giving you
the big break of a lifetime. You know,
you're doing the interview. I picked you because,
frankly, I never heard of you, but that's
okay. I'm I picked you, Terry. Hey. But
you're not being very nice. He had MS
13 tattoos. We'll agree to disagree. I want
to move on to something else. Terry,
do you want me to show you the
picture? I saw the picture. We'll we'll bring
this to you.
Here we go. Here we go. Don't Photoshop
it. Go look at his hand. He had
mister He did have tattoos that can be
interpreted that way. I'm not an expert on
them. I wanna turn to Ukraine. No. No.
No.
No. No. He had MS as clear as
you can be, not interpreted. This is why
people no longer believe Well the news because
When he was in in in
El Salvador, they aren't there. But let's just
go He is. They aren't there when he's
in El Salvador. Oh oh, they weren't there.
They're there now. Right? No. But they're they're
they're in your picture. Kerry. Ukraine, sir. He's
got MS thirteen on his knuckles. Alright.
Okay? Then we'll take a look. It's it's
such a disservice. We'll take a look at
that, sir. Just say it. Yes. He does.
It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality. Reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours
breaks free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Wednesday, 04/30/2025.
Quite the opening video.
I mean, I'm I'm actually when I saw
that yesterday late, I was mad actually because
we could've talked about it yesterday, but I'm
glad I get to give it more attention
because it's not excuse me. Something went in
my mouth.
It's it's not probably dog hair. It's it's
not something that really changes.
It's it's a small part of the story.
It's actually really incredible how insane it is
to see
somebody who is doubling down on something that
is clearly not true and is such a
high level of power around something that is
being used to argue we know for sure
that he's MS thirteen.
When that first came out,
I we talked about it right when it
came out, and I said, you know, that's
that can't He definitely doesn't think that's really
there. Like, I can't believe I actually gave
him the benefit of the doubt. Now whether
he's being dishonest or he actually doesn't know
that those aren't on his hand, the crazy
part about this is the way it's it's
kind of cascading through the conversation as always.
Now we're gonna have a couple quick points
before we get to that part early in
the show. But just to say before we
get to it from that clip, the reality
of this is that he has tattoos on
his on his knuckles. Nowhere is it the
letter m, the letter s, or the one
or a three. That's not the reality.
Now that picture was shown
because somebody gave that to Trump, and it
was shown in his office. Now I said
at the time, he's clearly just saying that
that's what they stand for. It was such
an obvious photoshopped
typed letter thing. It was very strange.
And now you can very clearly see that
he is he he pushed back. No. No.
Not interpreted.
MS.
Like, there's no way to misunderstand what he's
doing. And despite that, they're getting people who
are claiming that he's right.
They're just doubling down on him saying that
as if that is the reality even though
you could prove it's not, as I showed
with the pictures
before and after,
as well as the fact that on another
side of it, there's another edge of the
conversation and his support base that are saying,
he never actually said that. No. No. No.
You're just being the fake news, and you're
claiming he meant and he really just meant
the tattoos mean that. No. You can very
clearly see what he says. And so it's,
again, this weird exercise in in futility where
just this
experiment and how
what's the right word for it? Just how
easy it is to manipulate people using social
media, using, you know,
news, whatever you if you wanna call it
that. But there's a there's something to you
know, it's more it goes beyond just propaganda.
This is something that is creating this kind
of tribalist idea, this this, you know,
superseding everything kind of concept. And it's not
new, but it's really pronounced right now. But
I wanted you guys to see that at
the gate. We're gonna go over that as
well as the new information around this. And
and, really, the important part, like, that one
idea, I want to over kind of,
overarching whole conversation today, which is that
and it's not left or right, not unique
to one side or the other or Biden
or Trump or any individual president, but the
we the way in this country and just
propaganda in general that we're seeing this weird
development beyond the nuance
to where we have the same story, we
just kinda perceive it differently, to where now
we're getting just literally
false presentations where Miller,
yeah, Stephen Miller claiming that they want a
nine zero Supreme Court ruling when it was
quite literally the opposite. And that's very clearly
fleshed out, but there are still people that
follow them that just keep arguing otherwise
because that's what he would they were told,
and they believe that over anything else because
everyone else is fake news even though there's
a hell of a lot of fake information
out there. It's really strange, but
we see this kind of everywhere right now.
Whether it's and and the question is whether
he's deceiving everybody or he's being deceived. And
I really want you to think about that
because I find it hard to believe that
he the way he's doing that with the
kind of amount of hubris that Trump and
a lot of people in that position carry,
that he'd be willing to make himself look
the fool just to carry out an agenda.
Certainly possible. That that's I argue more often
not what happens. But with him, I just
find that hard to wrap my mind around.
So the question is, who is being deceived
here? Clearly, people out there falling for it,
but where is that stop? With him, people
behind him? And then everything else we're seeing
in a large sense, like just the claims
of Garcia in general or the the
blatant misrepresentations
and outright lies coming from ICE or the
DOJ around a lot of the things they're
dealing with. And be again, to make sure
you hear this. It's not unique to the
current administration.
That's the only way people can make sense
of this stuff right now. But if you
stand back and look at the big problem,
which is why they don't do that because
it feels insurmountable,
well, if it's everybody, then we're screwed. That's
kind of the way that people think. That's
what Blackfield actually is.
Just how clear it shows you that we're
either being guided by people that have no
insight.
They're literally just going with what they were
told by who they think they can trust,
even at the highest levels of power,
or we're being
conditioned to accept,
you know, at face value what we're told.
Whether it's Twitter files, whether it's whatever the
last thing the politician said that you believe
in, it is everywhere right now. And that's
kind of an alarming thing to think about
or to see, to watch how there's an
entire faction of the conversation that will continue
to argue both of the things I argued
or that I pointed out
even though both are provably wrong, whether it's
he actually still said that and he believes
that and you're wrong, it's actually there, or
he never actually said that.
It's pretty terrifying. But now other than that,
we're gonna get into, another opening point to
reiterate some things around the Pfizer conversation and
and Moderna
And and Brooke Jackson, I'll be interviewing interviewing
her coming up in a week
around her case that is important. And don't
forget, and I'll show you again, she made
the point to tell you that and this
was yesterday's show, that Trump has sided with,
Trump's d o d o DOJ has sided
with Pfizer. And that's what that's what she
wrote, and I think that's pretty clear. And
that's obviously not even new information if you're
paying attention. You know? Stargate, everybody. It's not
hard to see where this is going, but
it's important to see that and understand what
that really means in a larger sense.
And then I think the only other point
we're gonna get into is a couple a
couple of small points that I think are
relevant to include. I I actually, what I
was saying to begin here today, and I'll
go into this in a second, after the
Pfizer part, it's the Columbus Day point. You
You know, these things that are rooted in
just ridiculous complete falsities, and yet it's just
because it's a it's a it is the
culture war dynamic, the left and the right,
the bro flakes, the snowflakes. It's the same
thing. The point is that I'll I'll get
to it when we get there. The idea
that that has any real bearing to American
anything for that matter, It's it's interesting.
And if you don't know what I mean
by that, then you're sure as hell gonna
find out. What you were taught in school
is not correct, and everybody literally knows that
today. But it's all about the fighting the
left is what that point's supposed to be.
But the rest of the show today is
focused on the importance of this constitutional dynamic,
what's happening, people that are almost being sent
to El Salvador as American citizens yet again,
people who are almost being sent there, who
have no criminal record, who are here legally,
they just got caught in the wrong place
at the wrong time, many of which are
already sent. Happened more than once already. Nothing
other than being there, and the person on
record said, well, take that person anyway.
There's there's 18 year old kid is one
example who's currently in El Salvador for being
the right skin color in the wrong place
at the right time for the for the
fries.
And, okay, just like we said in the
beginning, there are people that will hear that
and go, no. That's not true because they
don't want it to be, or they can't
accept that that could be happening from their
chosen ID log even though it is, and
it's easy to prove. It's everywhere.
And some really alarming developments, we're gonna go
into that topic from yesterday that we, and
I'm glad I waited. There's more to add
to it around the judge from, I think,
Milwaukee, but others that are dealing with the
same situation.
Lawyers and doctors and and immigration
people in the field are getting sent letters
from the DOJs telling them to self deport,
and then then then then kind of them
being told, oopsie. It was a mistake, even
though we're now seeing people the the ICE
is going to people's doors who are involved
in immigration
litigation and threatening them. This is more than
once, this has been pointed out.
So this is not an accident. We're seeing
chilling scare tactics, and I think that's what
a lot of this is. A lot of
it. Or the due process point, which is
important, seeing as how it turns out, one
of the main things of today, which we
briefly touched on yesterday, that a DOJ memo
from the Donald Trump administration and, really, I
argue it's really no different. If you look
back at other examples of other emergencies or
whatever else we're dealing with, always important to
hear that, guys. It's not a partisan thing.
This is just the current arm of this
agenda.
The point, though, is that the the memo
they put out at March 14
makes it very clear that they argue at
the very least that they that their alien
enemies act gives them the ability to
kick your door down because they think you
might have an immigrant in there,
which basically means at this point, the fourth
the the constitution no longer exists in their
minds if they have narrative to insert. Here's
the excuse for why these things are on
hold. Remember we said during COVID nineteen, well,
you don't just get to say these things
no longer apply because pathogen, there's not an
asterisk in the constitution. Well, that applies to
everything else, and you damn well know it.
But now the same thing's happening. So they
did it to the left, now they're doing
it to the right. Always how this works.
Those of us that are not trapped in
that childish illusion are aware how clear it
is that this is being played against itself,
and I believe most people are beginning to
see that. But this DOJ memo, which as
somebody rightly pointed out in the chat early
before we started, that apparently this overshadows the
constitutional law at this point. The memo from
the current executive branch
argue simply that they can
break the law, violate the constitution should they
argue this is necessary to fight what they
manufactured this into.
And I don't mean illegal immigration because that's
up. They're illegal immigrants. They should be charged
with the crime. They could be deported.
But what's happening is the the framing of
going after people who are
terrorists and and rapists and human traffickers and
every single one of the people they've they've
labeled that who have been
not to say that there's not some of
those involved with who they sent there. But,
weirdly, they've never given you an example to
prove that, but I wouldn't dispute it. My
point is the ones we can prove are
not. People that were here legally,
Visa card, green Visa, green card,
and then they revoke it a a day
before they grab them because of an old
track traffic ticket from a year ago. That's
an actual case. I think it was more
than a year ago with the point being,
and then they removed them because they're breaking
the law. But they only break the law
because they removed the visa based on an
arbitrary charge that was already dismissed and then
kicked them out of the country. No tattoos,
no gang memberships, no criminal activity. But others
that are here illegally,
meh.
Trump can wave the hand because, well, they
work at restaurants, and we need them for
farms.
So that doesn't mean that they're also illegal
or or or criminals
just because they're here illegally. In fact, the
numbers are clearly coming out showing you that
most of them are not, which contradicts these
narratives, but that they're just here illegally. So
the point is that you're removing people who
are here legally, who are actually have jobs
and going to school and yet allowing people
that just suit your interests. It's all hypocrisy,
guys. And, really, those are all internal dynamics.
I think this is much bigger than that.
Whether it's about destroying
the foundational aspects of this country for the
interest of technocracy and a consolidation power of
power or for a foreign government or both
those things at the same time. The evidence
is clear. It's all around you if you
can just pull out of the partisan game.
Plenty more to talk about, but I'll leave
it there to start. Let's get into,
this was what did we use last time?
This one. This was the show from yesterday.
Trump DOJ sides with Pfizer in Brooke Jackson
lawsuit, and Garcia moved to prison for non
gang members, which I'll actually reiterate that briefly
again because it's relevant to a new thing
from today. But this ongoing kind
of mission creep, if you will, around this
narrative where it's like, you know, all the
things keep falling on the wayside, then it
becomes, you know, well, he's not the father
of the year. Well, he has a claim
of domestic abuse.
What I I don't care. Get a hundred
thousand domestic abuse claim. That has no relevance
to the claim of whether he was given
due process around the allegation of being an
MS thirteen member when they sent him this
recent time. And even before that, as I
won't go over for the umpteenth time, the
information is based on nothing but hearsay and
a bull's hat that's been circulated around, and
that was I'll show you that part again,
reiterated by the recent judge in the supreme
court.
All of this is completely flimsy, and they
know that. Otherwise, they would easily produce this
stuff and nail it down, but they don't.
The point is that they have now moved
him to another prison that is exclusively for
people with not even the allegation of gang
members.
So it's all falling away, and all they
can do is go, well, he's a bad
guy for other reasons, and even those are
completely up in the air. It just is
insulting.
It truly is because I don't believe people
in this country or anywhere, for that matter,
are generally this stupid. We all have our
low points and our high points, but I
don't think that the average person is just
this
willing to be deceived
or easily deceived. And I think truly it's
because they're choosing to for many different reasons.
There is a group out there that falls
for just about anything, but I argue that
most people out there are choosing to
because of politics or because they think they
should or, you know, on and on and
on. But on the Pfizer side of this,
Brooke Jackson, again, this is from yet '28,
said Trump sides with Pfizer. The DOJ explained
to the court that it has had continued
access to Pfizer vaccine trial data, which we
don't, apparently.
So they're saying we've been looking this whole
time, even though we know that nothing has
changed in regard to what we already saw
and the continuation of less information is not
gonna change the years that that you can
clearly see. They are killing people, and they're
still supporting these things. Even the and especially
the Trump administration, rolling out Stargate, an mRNA
platform,
rolling forward Moderna shots and Moderna platforms.
And it says, and the vaccine's effective. So
the DOJ from Trump's administration, along with rolling
out MMR vaccines
and promoting the mRNA platform in general and
a lot of other things that should have
already happened or, you know, not pulling the
shots like it we promised. They're telling you
that the original ones are good, just like
Trump's been telling you. So either 40,000 DHS
or he actually believes that or doesn't care
that he's hurting you.
We'll post their legal brief later. You bet
you guys have read the same lies for
years now. Nothing new to see here.
Now the reason I bring it up is
just because I want you to recognize oh,
and I to to reiterate that I'm gonna
be interviewing her next week, and we'll talk
about that more in-depth. Because I don't think
you're gonna get a really honest in-depth discussion
about this from most anybody out there in
the partisan conversation, because it's either gonna be
going after Trump when when it's unnecessary
or pulling punches for him when it is
necessary. The reality is that Brooke Jackson will
break it down as she always has in
our interviews for why this matters regardless of
who's president and call out anybody that does
not point the truth out regardless of what
side they're on.
Now Danny Rancourt adds this to something we
highlighted, and this is Trump putting out the
whole proximal you know, the the
origin lab leak theory point, reiterating that and
everyone going, oh my god. I just proved
everything by pointing to the same things we
already saw and knew before.
So why would it be now proof when
before well, you know, it's just it's it's
partisan
manipulation.
Whether or not you think this is true
information, it's just that the crowd goes along
and goes, well, we did it. It's over.
We won. And we did it and improve
this or whatever whatever the thing we're supposed
to be screaming, it happened. That that like,
Ben and Johnson is just like a absolute
this is every day. And I'll actually make
a point about this in a second. You
know, we're they're in this meeting and they're
calling Vance calls out the corporate media for
lying. He's like, incredible.
It's like, incredible?
Calling out the media for lying is incredible?
Literally everybody does that every day. And it's
just funny that it's about, may every moment
is the biggest new thing we're winning all
the time. That's kind of a vehicle for
that moment, that that feel right now. Every
moment of everything you're doing is the winning
golden age, changing the world constantly, even though
most of it seems to be going the
direction that they told you we shouldn't go
in when Biden was doing it.
But I said, so we're just going back
to square one.
As the state Republicans pointed out, one million
Americans lost lot lives lost at the hands
of China's Coronavirus. Are we really going back
to square one with everything we can prove
from how clearly they work together on whatever
we're talking about?
China must be held accountable.
This it's just it's kinda crazy that especially
the Republicans are falling for this or choosing
to ignore that it's ridiculous.
Danny Renko, which I include his interview in
this, the one specifically talking about,
this is the link right here, that it's
an illusion, the main point, the crux of
it, really, and that he now later argues
that it's could additionally added to that is
the biological stress induced bacterial pneumonia. I recommend
you check out his work. He simply says,
this dangerous war propaganda is opposed opposite of
the truth. The COVID military operation was designed
and executed by the US deep state. So
think about that for those pretending you're fighting
the deep state while you now have an
example of Donald Trump's administration
pointing to the the,
basically, playing for the deep state in exactly
the ways you'd expect whether they know it
or not. Now if you agree with Danny
Rancu, and I do. He says the excess
mortality was caused by the response, not the
pathogen.
So wake up, guys. They're lying to you,
and that's where this goes. And so these
are all points to highlight that this is
not different than it was before. I'll play
a brief part of this as Brooke Jackson
just says, oop. And this is Donald Trump
from 2023,
Milk Bar TV making a great compilation of
all the times he said that he's this
is his thing, and vaccines are good, and
I'm the father of the vaccine.
The past nine months, my administration has initiated
the single greatest mobilization
in US history, pioneering developing and manufacturing
therapies and vaccines
in record time. Yes. In a certain way,
I'm the father of the vaccine because I
was the one that pushed it. You know,
to get it done in less than nine
months was a miracle. No medical breakthrough of
this scope and magnitude has ever been achieved
this rapidly, this quickly,
and we're very proud of it. Well, Fauci
said it would take three to five years.
He thought it was, something that just wouldn't
be that effective because it would take so
long to get. Would you make sure you
get the president the information that a vaccine
that you make and start testing in You
get it. It goes on and it's all
the same thing for her. I just wanna
point that out that Brooke's sharing that and
highlighting the fact that, you know, it's not
about left to right. She's calling out the
current administration because they're doing the same thing
Biden's administration was, which again, it just simply
to to simplify that, she's pointing out that
the US government is doing the same thing
that US government was doing last time. That's
it.
And there it's all part of the agenda.
And, I mean, it's really wild to me
that we can see such obvious examples. You
know, what just getting away from the term
deep state, which is still a valid thing
to consider in many context to what it
means. We all think it's something different. And
whenever you whoever you ask, it seem to
have different opinions of it. And that's the
game that played today with the manipulation of
definitions like regime change often point out.
My point is that it's weird to watch
this administration rolling out exactly what anybody like,
aside from the politics, you go back a
couple years and you just laid out agendas
and said, what would this mean to you?
Of all groups, the conservatives have been like,
great reset, the deep state, and now they're
doing all of it. And I still argue
a lot of them, if not the majority,
are calling it out, but the people at
the core top of the of the conversation
with all the influence of the region are
pointing anywhere else. And it's very strange to
see.
Now Elon Musk highlights what Mario Notfall says,
you know, his his PR person or whatever
you wanna call this little relationship they have.
And he goes, study, forty five percent of
COVID deaths in Athens weren't really from COVID.
Oh my god.
Funny how we're always rehashing, like, the TLAB
reports from 2021. Is that is that what
this all is? And he says, oh my
god. Look. The things were yes. Okay. As
always, the same old question you get. Isn't
it good at least the report? Yes. Don't
even finish the sentence. Yes. It's good that
it's being pointed to. Yes. That's always a
positive. But then, are there negatives that may
overshadow that positive even though it still remains
a positive? K? It's not all or nothing
and everything, guys. The point is that this
is real.
And it's a newer study that's showing you
the same information we were showing you all
the way back then, that these the majority
of whatever was happening were not due from
whatever they were calling COVID nineteen, which is,
like, a it's a it's
a it's a it's a it's a whole
muddy conversation because the reality is
whatever we're calling that could be the mix
of flow and flow and pneumonia, PCR false
positives, co vaccine side effects. So it becomes
near impossible to nail it down to, like,
the COVID thing versus others. But the reality
is you can clearly show many ways around
that all of these things were not actually
what they were pointing to
for a long time now. But then Elon
goes way more than 45. Oh, what a
truth telling bombshell.
He's the real guy right there because he's,
you know, four years too late. No. Good.
Still good to point it out. My point
though is that this is happening now while
a lot while they're rolling out an mRNA
platform for cancer and four or five other
things they're including, while they're still pushing COVID
shots despite the floated idea that they may
pull them off the child's schedule. Hey, if
it happens, I'll cheer it on. Hasn't happened
yet. And all the different examples of keeping
the same childhood schedule, pushing MMR shots. Come
on, guys.
It's just insane to think this is actually
anything other than placation. I hope it's not.
But I said, yep. And agreeing that it
was way more and that this was not
COVID the COVID what that caused this. But
I said, yep. It was the mRNA injections
that you all still support, and you are
rolling out even more using AI right now.
When will that breaking report be coming out,
Mario Narfel? Of course, it won't.
Then, of course, Brooke highlights another development that's
interesting. For the first time in judicial history,
an appellate court fifth circuit has effectively held
that hospital execs, not the FDA, CDC, or
HHS, will determine a drug's classification and market
conditions,
stripping the s e secretary
Kennedy
junior of his constitutional authorities.
Very interesting. Now to be clear before I'm
gonna I'm gonna circle back to this in
more detail when I knew about this in
particular because I find this fascinating.
But remember, this is an appellate court ruling
that doesn't necessarily change, like, the legal realities
of who's in control of these you know,
basically, the HHS being able to dictate these
things down to their other health agencies
in certain circumstances. But this has set a
legal precedent,
which is really interesting. Now the question is,
how do you perceive that? Do you perceive
that as the deep state, otherwise, in this
case, the judicial system trying to stop RFK
from doing what they think or what
people think he should be doing? That certainly
does appear that way in an interesting way.
Like, so this first of all, I'll put
it this way.
Having the having them argue that they can
dictate what these things are, I disagree with
flatly. But what's interesting to me that from
my perspective, as you know, that I see
these people as the government,
Not necessarily no. Look. There's different branches, and
they don't have the same opinion. My point,
though, is that these things are largely cultivated
in my opinion. And the idea is you're
creating a circumstance where you're saying he's his
hands are tied. Okay. Maybe that's not the
reality. Maybe that's a way to make it
seem like he's trying and can't get it
done, which is very common.
Or another way to look at it, and
these are all possibilities,
that that's happening because the Trump administration doesn't
want him to do the things that he
says he wants to do, which actually stands
out to me as a lot more possible
because of how many things we've already seen.
I mean, immediate shifts from him saying things
right before this and now them doing something
completely different or having him get hamstrung with
the people around him from Trump putting them
there. We've seen a lot of these examples.
So either way, just to make that quick,
I found that interesting. And what Brooks says
is simply when the constitution takes a back
seat now think about this in the larger
context of everything happening today.
Your private employer can mandate it,
experimental or not.
If you refuse, you have no right to
object, and you can be fired even though
federal law says you have an option to
refuse.
So, obviously, that's just about the shot
dynamic. But realizing that any context, when the
constitution takes a back seat, they can do
whatever they want.
Doesn't mean the constitution goes away. That means
they're ignoring your inherent rights. But it's important
to think about all this. Now that will
be relevant a second more because of where
this goes. But think about what how that
makes sense. And, really, just remember, a precedent
not necessarily changing anything on record or really
saying that when the when when another situation
comes to pass where there's a dispute between
who gets to decide, this will be pointed
to.
So it's interesting.
Now before we come back to that in
general, I wanna reiterate something that's been going
around. This is from
July 2. Now I I would also wanna
add that I I've mixed the dates up
on these things in the past, just kind
of referencing off the off the top of
my head. January 17 was for this discussion,
which I'll show you in a second. This
one was 07/02/2024.
HHS provides a hundred and $76,000,000
to develop pandemic influenza mRNA based vaccine, which,
yes, is still happening. I'll show you that
in a second. Despite and even though it's
July 2, the point is, as of right
now, if they wanted to stop this, they
would they could absolutely
absolutely stop this.
Maybe they could lose some money. Right? But
they could pull they could fully stop this
as of right now, and it wouldn't go
forward. Very clear. And I'll show you even
Grock telling you that. But the other one,
which is then the one from January 17,
'3 days before Trump took office, they also
they added even more. They it provides 590,000,000
to accelerate pandemic influenza mRNA based vaccine development
and enhance platform capability for other diseases. That's
what they're working on with Stargate. That's why
another reason why this is also still continuing.
So realize that we're talking about
almost $800,000,000
to going to Moderna for exactly what we
were told they were gonna stop. And, yeah,
the then you get the the typical, oh,
well, it was Biden, and they're not allowed
to stop it now. Yeah. They actually are
legally in every other way able to stop
this entirely.
But it's funny how you get the argument
in other context that this apparently King Trump
can do whatever he wants because he's the
president and the mandate and all that, except
this one is anti tide. Too late. It's
just whatever makes sense for you to not
acknowledge that this is what you know?
Anything you can do to make it not
the person's fault. Right? Or Twitter censoring people,
and now they're all blaming Yacarino. It's like,
well, obviously, we told you that, World Economic
Forum Yacarino. But to just pretend that you
know Musk isn't the person or in any
other context, it's all like like with Brooke's
case.
Barnes saying it's a holdover Democrat from the
DOJ. Well, I'd like to see evidence for
that. And if it's the case, then put
them in jail. But, otherwise, it seems like
an easy way to just assume that it
isn't the person that we all know it
is.
But the point about these two things is
they are continuing. There are some reports going
around pointing to this as if it was
a new story. It's not. These are all
from before. But the reality is that they
could stop these, and this is the major
direction it is all going in. Just keep
that in mind. And it is all about
it's all about bird flu. Now I ask,
because it's important to the same way I
always tell you I'm asking because I want
people to see it from the perspective they
think is the trustworthy one even though we
should doubt all of them, especially ones being
put together by DARPA.
After HHS provided a hundred and seventy six
million to develop pandemic influenza and money based
vaccine vaccines, And I that that even right
here, I I said January 17 and technically
the $1.76 was earlier. It it picks up
on that and you'll see what has been
done with that money because I wanted to
see what it said. Now it says the
hundred and 76,000,000 provided by the,
by The US, the HHS
by HHS to Moderna, and it does say
July 2, just so you can see it
corrects that, was aimed at accelerating the development
of what we just talked about, influenza, mRNA
based vaccines,
specifically, bird flu.
Now Moderna has been leveraging the funds to
support the development of mRNA
one zero one eight. You know, just like
mRNA one two seven seven three, I think,
and that was the COVID vaccine. Just showing
you that this is the same thing. Like,
I shouldn't need to make that obvious, you
know, it's the same lettering, but just for
people that haven't connected the dots. This is
the extension of what Maduro was doing during
COVID nineteen. And it's happening now through the
Trump administration that hasn't
yet been
he hasn't grasped that yet. And it says,
which targets
different strains of bird flu?
And it says right now, what that fund
the funding that they gave is continuing through
the phase one and two clinical studies, and
they could easily stop this right now should
they want to, which is why I asked
right here. Oh, wait.
Oh, oh, it's down there. I ask it
secondly.
So the funds are supporting the the preparations
to advance mRNA one zero one eight. So
when that comes to pass,
hopefully, we're not hopefully not, but clearly it's
going to, and the Trump administration puts that
forward. Remember that they could've stopped it.
And it's expected to begin the trials this
year.
And it says the award is being used
to leverage Moderna's existing US domestic large scale
commercial mRNA manufacturing platforms originally for COVID nineteen.
You see the point? That's what Stargate is
doing. This ensures the capability for rapid scale
in response to
public threats.
The funding supports this establishment and additional pandemic
influenza vaccine response capabilities.
Oh, good. So the funding not only helped
build this, but other pandemic response, which we
all know what those mean. Allowing Moderna to
quickly adapt mRNA platform platform to target various
disease oh, so exactly like we were worrying
about. The Moderna plug and play platform, like
we all like, literally from the Moderna point,
we always knew we'd come back to. That
is the operating system, which is your body.
This is their terms. Then plug and play,
which means they can just trade in different
ant with different antigens and or in many
cases, arguing that they could do that internally
in your body. All these things are happening.
Now it says HHS secured a fair price
agreement with Moderna as part of the award
to ensure equitable access to vaccines.
Funny how these buzzwords this is the Trump
administration. Now it says, it's worth clarifying that
on January 17, it it awarded another 590,000,000
to Moderna to further accelerate the mRNA based
influenza
development,
the vaccine.
And
it says
that this later funding builds on the $1.76.
As of April 30, today, the one seventy
six has been primarily used to advance these
trials. Just make that clear. Now I asked
if the Trump admin wanted to stop this,
are they able to? Very simple. Now there's
definitely more information about other legal nuances around
like I talked about, like whether they've already
begun the project and money's been committed. But
that's not the same point of whether they
can stop it and lose that money. Right?
So the reality is, as it says, the
Trump administration has the authority to review, modify,
and potentially terminate that contract.
Simple.
This is and this is specifically for mRNA
vaccines, the subsequent five ninety awarded on January
17 as well. However, their ability to stop
these contracts outright depends on several legal contract
contractual
practical factors. Below is the analysis, and you
can read it for yourself. It's exactly what
I'm talking about. The bottom line is they
can end the process of this and the
protect the production of it, obviously.
But they're committed, in some cases, to what
they might have already put forward or what
they might have already used or blah blah
blah.
But bottom line, they have the authority to
review, modify, or potentially terminate this contract, and
it's not. They're continuing the same contract. And
on top of that, which by the way
just means more mRNA
bird flu injections and platforms and all the
stuff that we all knew was coming. This
is a new contract for HHS
with,
how do you say that? Securus
Securus,
s e q I r u s, Inc,
that goes until, apparently, potential end date, 01/31/2034
for the construction of vaccine manufacturing facilities.
$2,100,000,000,
but not a small project.
And just since the second, on my birthday,
in fact, they gave another hundred and 10,000
from Trump's administration. So it's still going.
A program started back, well before Donald Trump
even. 02/2009 has started. Right? And so it's
continued through multiple left and right administrations,
building
vaccine manufacturing facilities. Right? So this is a
long term agenda that they're continuing.
That's the point to to really understand. Now
Jeffrey Tucker addresses a big question going around.
He says, every day I get calls from
people, not activists, but normal people, who ask
the same question. Why?
With RFK and the other power others in
power, have these mRNA shots not been pulled?
Very simple.
He says, I really don't have an answer.
I assume it's something has to do with
big pharma hegemony.
Really, man?
Like, I mean, that's certainly possible. Right? But
how do we not immediately go? It's also
just as likely that they're not what they
promised they would do or not what they
they're not who they pro said they were.
They're not doing what they promised they would.
That's that's the most obvious example here. I
mean, that it's not just one thing. It's
not just the shot. It is MMR. It's
the it's it's I mean, we've gone over
many different examples. It's all of these different
these different events that challenge everything they've always
claimed they believe in, in particular, RK Junior.
But as Sasha Sasha Latapova
says respectfully, Tucker, Jeffrey Tucker, it is not
a pharma issue. Albeit, pharma, in this case,
is acting as part of the Department of
War, not defense explicitly.
You know why? COVID is a classified national
security military campaign. And, clearly, RFK Jr is
is being a head of a civilian health
agency,
cannot terminate the deployment of military weapons.
Now if you agree with that, and it
makes a lot of sense to me,
maybe that's why they can't cancel the other
ones either. Maybe they're not even able to,
which then you should be asking who's actually
in charge of that or everything else.
And and Jeffrey says, yes. This seems absolutely
correct. Incredibly, it's not his domain.
Think about that, guys.
Now I'll include our interview with Sasha Latypova,
how Pfizer and the Department of Defense defrauded
the public. It's a great interview,
As well as the Stargate discussion that Derek
put out. Trump's partners with technocrats to promote
mRNA injections, AI, and transhumanism.
So it's important just to see how all
that ties together still. It's all very clear.
And how we can pretend that it's not
very obvious that they're not doing what was
I mean, I see a post every thirty
seconds. Problem is just made. Problem is just
kept. And usually, pretty flimsy things on the
side, not the major issues. I mean, not
even the immigration point has come to where
are the mass deportations? Now you may argue
that that's what's happened, but it's not. In
regard to what they were pointing to, that's
not what actually happened. And I'm I'm glad
because the reality would've it would've been even
more
chaotic as we'll get to in a second.
Not to say that we shouldn't be removing
illegal aliens, but the process is there for
a reason. We need to be the government
needs to prove its claims no matter what
it is doing or who it's accusing. That's
the reality of why it exists.
The point, though, is to see how much
this continues.
And just oh, put out my
shot up there.
And, you know, and just it's it's
there's so many examples to show you that
these people are not actually following through with
the major examples of what they promised, but
the narrative wins today over facts, apparently, in
some people's minds. But on that same point,
to kind of overlap this with this
I I don't even there's gotta be a
word for this or a like, a a
a a term, maybe new, maybe old, to
describe this kind of
not just the culture war back and forth,
but this use of completely fabricated information today.
Or, like, like, just using something that's not
rooted in reality and just making that an
argument. It's very strange. So this one, to
start that, Trump says he's bringing back Columbus
Day from the ashes. Very small point.
But, you know, okay. So what does that
even mean? Because the point is from their
side of it, while the lefties were fighting
that, well, they never really went away. It
was like this idea that they, oh, they've
told it for different names.
Well, if you understand the reality of this,
one,
he's not American. Didn't exist that time. He's
Italian, Spanish, different disputes on that. Didn't discover
America. Are we still pretending that's the case?
Bahamas is what he found. Okay. So what
does this have to do with America? It's
because of the the narrative we still tell
ourselves. Then he discovered America,
and we changed the world. Well, that's propaganda.
It's not true.
And, of course, he also went on to
ethnically I do you know, genocide
entire people. You know, these are realities, guys.
It's not disputed. You can look back other
than the political narratives, but all it comes
down to is we want to pretend that
what we said was the case because the
lefties you know, and both sides are ridiculous
about it. Right? One side is an over
overreaction to the the lies. One side is
the rooted in the false narrative, and both
of them fight at that. And they wanna
push it back because one side, the lefties
are bad. The other side, the righties are
bad. That's how this works.
The the simple way to frame this,
I and and this is Trump. The the
White House put Christopher Columbus is so back.
God. It's like they're it's like they're speaking
from the nineties. It's so weird. The way
that they're putting themselves forward to me is
embarrassing. Like, they're trying to seem hip and
cool, and they're just making themselves look stupid
to anybody that's not blindly adhering to their
doctrine.
And, again, if you think that's any different
than sleepy, you know, decrepit
Joe Biden, then you're not paying attention. But
the White House, Christopher Columbus is so back,
and Trump says, I'm bringing Columbus Day back
from the ashes. The Democrats, as I said,
did everything possible to destroy Christopher Columbus. Okay.
What does that have to do with anything?
His reputation and all the Italians that love
him so much? They tore down his statues
and put up nothing but woke or even
worse. I mean, you get where this goes.
I'm hereby reinstating Columbus Day. Well, I said,
oh, cool. So we get an MRE platform,
MMR shots, no Epstein files, but we'll go
back to pretending that an Italian Spanish explorer
discovering The Bahamas has anything to do with
The United States other than culture war BS.
Right. So
Woke Right.
Broflakes, snowflake. It is the exact thing on
the other side of the conversation. We're gonna
jam back in the irrelevant false story because
the lefties argue that he's a you know,
whatever. It's it's a back and forth culture
war, both usually rooted in false information.
I mean, we this is insulting.
It's embarrassing.
The world is very aware of this information.
You don't think they know that? It's all
because they're trying to aim at the lowest
common denominator. The people that are the actually
uneducated on this and believe because
the American doctor story we tell ourselves is
more important than the facts that they fall
for it or people that go along with
Trump because they do that no matter what.
It is embarrassing to people that are actually
aware of the reality, not just the point
about Columbus, but this this interest in just
screening the lie because the other side sucks.
Like, we have been boiled down to the
most juvenile politics, and I mean more than
I've ever seen in my life. It's always
been a bit juvenile in the way this
works in this country. But today, it's it's
pretty embarrassing. Now here's another example of that.
Benny Benny Johnson says, there it is.
The way he frames it is so funny.
VP Vance just asked the real question.
I can tell you right now, the question
is, why are you all beat lying media?
Why are you all lying about us instead
of focusing on what we want you to
focus
on? Is that even remotely new? I've heard
that exact framing a hundred thousand times.
Bombshell!
He goes straight up calls out the fake
news. Yeah, like literally everybody all the time,
man. He goes, Incredible!
But he says, why is the press so
focused on the fake BS rather than what's
going on in this country? I mean, look.
That statement, you could have put
anywhere in the last forty years or maybe
more so
more accurately in the last twenty years. It's
always been the reality, but people have been
calling it out more.
And on either side of the conversation, left
or right, mainstream alternative media. I mean, it's
exactly what happens literally every day, but that's
how this works. Right? You guys are doing
the thing even though we both do it,
but they only point out half the problem.
So when we call it out, the problem
never stops. It's pretty simple.
But then, of course, the clip is a
selectively clipped thing, and I'll show you the
full clip. And you can tell me if
you think it changes the context.
But here's what he says.
Seen this deployable.
Oh, sorry. So he's asking That's not the
one.
Oh, that's yeah. That's the first one we
played. Here's the one. Why is it that
the press is so focused
on the fake BS
rather than what's really going on in the
country? I think that we what we've shown,
sir, is that you can do a lot.
You can do a lot in a hundred
days, but you've also unfortunately revealed that too
much of the American media hasn't learned the
lessons of the past forty years. And what's
that lesson that you should focus on this
the false news that we wanna focus on?
I mean, let's be clear.
That's never that this is the reality around
the mainstream alternative media, the corporate media. They're
always gaslighting and lying and deceiving. It's not
just half the story. It's pretty embarrassingly clear
to the world at very least, most Americans.
And so the idea is that why are
you focusing on the fake news, which they
are, instead of focusing on our fake news?
Like, what's going on in The US? I
mean, what are you actually talking about? I
mean, what and many of the people are
talking about the like, what he actually is
referring to right there, which is why Benny
Johnson slices it out, I think, because the
real full picture and so this isn't even
the full discussion.
These weird with all their red hats, like,
they're
it's so stupid.
The way they're all sitting around this table
and acting like this is any different because
they just verbalize their their grief, their gripes
about whatever the news said that day. Like,
it feels childish to me.
I mean, we don't need this fake this
fake front of them sitting around the table
acting like that's what hap just put the
information out, guys. We don't need this show.
But see, this is what it comes down
to so the Johnson of the world can
go, he did it incredible. We changed everything
because Vance said the thing you've heard 75,000
times. But here's the bigger clip. And and
let me just make one other observation
because
it's interesting. I've seen the data. I've
monitored it. I've looked at it. Mhmm. But
the most underreported
fact Substantive. Of the first one hundred days
is that we came in with a massive
recruitment shortfall.
And in one hundred days of secretary Hegseth
and president Trump's leadership,
we now have people breaking down the doors
to join our military. Okay. So that's what
he wants you to focus on. Right? All
not all the other stuff that we think
doesn't matter. Well, they can decide for themselves
what they think is important. They they lie
like all the media does. But the idea
that, by the way, what he's citing there
is actually kind of dishonest and not the
full picture, but that's the idea is we
want you to vote we want you to
come out and say we changed everything. Trump
did everything in the first hundred days. I
mean, I Keith Levitt actually called it, like,
the most influential in any in any president,
pulling a very bombastic Trump statement out of
there. Right? The typical
hyperbolic statements. And I think one of the
people online said, well, you might wanna discuss
that around the civil war and see. And
it's like, clearly, that first hundred days is
not you know, what they're doing is trying
to create the momentum that they want to
feel.
In reality, I you could actually call this
one of the most
important,
but in a bad way, first hundred days,
in my opinion, because they're rolling out the
the the if if it happens, what will
change this country irrevocably forever?
That's what they're doing. So, yeah, maybe they're
in they're right in a very dark way.
They want you to think what they're doing
is about changing you know, bringing back freedom
and liberty while they're destroying all those things
in rapid succession. And it's not just this.
It's Biden handing up the Trump and whoever
comes next. That's how this goes.
To the media assembled here, it's a really
interesting question. Why does that happen? Completely aside
from the fact that I think it's a
good thing or I think that president Trump
deserves political credit for it. Why did we
go from a military where people didn't wanna
serve to now all of a sudden they
do wanna serve? That's a story you guys
should cover. Yeah. I mean, it's it's a
fair question, and I'm I have seen a
lot of people talk about it.
But what what do you what do you
are you saying we know for sure why?
Like, you can point to whatever you want
to point to. Both sides will always do
that. It's all because of what we did,
and we're the ones that changed everything. Even
though half the time you look back and
it goes, oh, well, that actually is because
of the presence before, or the the problem
actually started in your first days and you
blame it on the present before or, you
know, whichever way it works. They're always doing
this. But the idea is that that's not
actually not even the you know, this technically
started as somebody points out before.
Either way, guys, there's always these transitions. And,
of course, whenever you've got this massive focus
on some war, you know, with Israel or
whatever's going on, you will get more people
that choose to try to sign up because
of their political intentions.
That's one of the reasons. But, again, maybe
maybe it's because they all just love the
country more. I don't know. But the idea
that that should overshadow
I mean, why is that even newsworthy?
It's it's it's it's noteworthy to say that's
a change,
but is that news? What I find more
important is the ongoing warfare, the ongoing illegal
actions, the ongoing, you know, or or the
ongoing positive actions that have changed people's lives
for the better, which are pretty nil as
far as I can tell. There's few of
them that have happened. The discussions around food
things from RFK that are beginning, it seems.
That's news. That's because there's things that have
changed, not the the kind of abstract idea
that things have shifted a different way for
the military because of what you claim. It
just seems like such a lazy thing to
put out. But compared to that, how much
time have you instead focused on the fact
that we deported
an MS thirteen gang member? Nope.
Right. So even still to this point, they're
still claiming that that's the case
when at best, it's it's
unproven. But the reality is the evidence quite
frankly proves that the only thing they have
is
hearsay from a
a corrupt cop that was fired. That's it.
And then he wore a bull's hat. That
is the the entirety of the information that
then cascaded through multiple documents during deportation hearings,
none of which is actual evidence of being
part of MS thirteen, as even the judges
tell you.
But here he is reiterating it yet again.
And the point is that's why this gets
clipped out. But, oh, look at you're focusing
on, what, the largest constitutional crisis this country
seems to have ever been through. At least
in living memory, you could argue that the
suspension of habeas corpus from Lincoln was probably
exactly the same conversation. My point though is
that this is monumentally important.
Even if you think it's the right thing,
it's it is a major newsworthy discussion. The
the president
bucking and ignoring Supreme Court rulings? Yeah. Pshaw.
What a small, useless story. Focus on how
we're bettering the military. I mean, that's
childish.
But he continues. With a valid deportation order
and why A valid deportation order.
I
mean, that's a flat out lie, guys. That's
insane to me. You are talking about the
Trump's administration in 02/2019
giving him the withhold of removal, which allowed
him to stay. No information come to changes
since then. They just decide to randomly do
that now.
And guess guess what? No actual due process
because they never actually presented the evidence in
front of a judge. So, no, he did
not. They're pointing back to the old discussions
and saying because they used the enemy the
Alien Enemies Act, they can just revoke the
with with withholder of removal.
The point is that requires process like every
other action. They know that. They don't care.
They're banking on
their blind followers,
screaming
things like the MS thirteen on his knuckles,
where despite despite the obvious evidence proving they're
lying to you.
Why is it that the press is so
focused an MS thirteen gang member with a
valid deportation order, and why is it that
the press is so focused
on the fake BS
rather than what's really going on in the
country? I think that we And so then
you get the dynamic where what he just
called you is what you know, that's the
fake BS. So people then scream that we
know those things are fake. And all it
is is because you look at a dem
you look at the Democrat media.
It's easy to do that.
Cast the the person challenging your thought as
the other, the dehumanized. It's what it's it's
what they do.
I still don't think most people are stupid
enough to fall for it, but it's working
for some. And it's I mean, look. If
it's 1%, that's millions of people. That's a
lot of people, guys. What we've shown, sir,
is that you can do a lot. You
can do a lot in a hundred days,
but you've also unfortunately revealed that too much
of the American media
hasn't learned the lessons of the past forty
years. Whatever they think those lessons are. Right?
And, of course, the my point is that
they're all been the same for a very
long time. It is an establishment controlled structure
that is constantly even if not even if
every person within that is aware whether or
not they're aware of that.
As Allison Morrow would tell you, most of
them are not. That it's manufactured
consent as,
kind of
Noam Chomsky has pointed out in the past,
the reality that this is that's what the
whole manufacturing consent, you know, research book and
conversations around is that, ultimately, they wouldn't be
there if they didn't already hold certain preconceived
beliefs. They don't even realize that they're positioned
for that. And so it's it's a very
interesting dynamic. And so what we're seeing here
is a situation where people are continuing to
push these narratives for the interest of the
state, for the establishment,
and the back and forth false binary is
how they use that, and that's how they
keep it going.
So the point is he's wrong, and he's
lying. And he's still reiterating this game,
you know, that
that's the only thing that matters is pointing
to how bad the Democrats are. That's what
these people
lap up. It's incredible they said the news
is lying. No. It's because all you're trying
to highlight here is that the Democrats lied
to us. Everything else they say is false.
Now he Big Fish highlighted the real exchange,
the larger one. And this person just added
that's actually not true, though. Military sign ups
picked up in December before those two were
even in office, which is true. Now, again,
I argue it's the same point. That's why
I think it's because of the Ukraine and
different dynamics that we're continuing. That they this
is the
what you see when people get more
reason to feel
or more more propaganda
driven to make you more jingoistic, more prop
more patriotic.
So on that note, coming from the conversation
of just belligerent labor, really, just, you know,
manufacturing
consent with lies,
here we're back to this clip again. So
if you didn't see the opening part of
this, this is absolutely flooring.
I mean,
the fact that anybody is still trying to
claim that he didn't just clearly establish that
this is what he thought, that now they're
trying to act like word maps were misrepresenting
it, which will become the narrative in these
circles, which will challenge the factual like, you
could have a signed affidavit from Trump saying
he thinks it's literally those letters, and they
would still try to argue you're wrong. But
you made it up or it's not true.
Or don't show me because if I don't
see it, then I'll I can always pretend
like you lied. That's it's just it's self
serving.
Self it's it's willful ignorance.
So I said, so it looks like I
gave Trump too much credit.
As he clearly thinks that this was actually
the letter m, the letter s, and the
number one and three tattooed on his knuckles,
not just not just not just illustrating
what they assumed the actual tattoos meant. Because
even that, by the way, is an assumption.
And I'll go through that too. Lindsey Graham
tried to make a point about it in
court and or in in excuse me, in
a in a hearing,
and their their, you know, their chosen guy
basically says that it's subjective. That's not what
they're framing it as. I'll show you the
article. But it's it at best I mean,
guys, you've realized that literally anybody could get
those tattoos. Maybe even somebody that wants to
be MS thirteen. That's that's assuming those tattoos
even mean that, which I don't think they
do. There's people with MS thirteen tattooed actually
on their knuckles or major MS thirteens on
their back. And, yes, there are other associated
things that you can argue that they tend
to get, but the reality is these people
don't hide their membership. It's not a secret
code. They're very and this look it up.
It's actually very prominent in the conversation.
So what's insane to me is that we're
pretending that the marijuana leaf, which clearly could
be an m and the smiley face could
be an s or it could be a
death symbol with the eyes closed, but that
the cross guaranteed means one and that somehow
the skull is three?
You realize what they're saying is that the
skull was tattooed over the three. That's what
they're now saying. Because the guy in court
tries to go and what from here, it
looks like a backward three. The narrative is
just fluctuating to make sense of it however
they can. All it shows you is that
best, that is their interpretation of it.
Now even if you think he is and
that's what that shows, that's not proof. And
in a court of law, that would not
stand. You'd have to have more evidence to
back it up, and that has to matter
to you because otherwise, the government can accuse
anybody of whatever they want at any time,
and they could just simply say, well, because
we called them an illegal alien that they
don't get any process even though the reality
is the opposite.
I mean, that's the same point to really
continue to reiterate here, guys.
Every time.
If you are if you are of the
mind, first of all, incorrectly, that illegal aliens
don't have constitutional rights, you're wrong. Over and
over, you are wrong. It's easy to prove.
Scafrino versus Flores, Supreme Court rulings over and
over, the constitution itself. I mean, everybody who
has a brain who knows these things are
clearly trying to tell you to ask rock,
it'll tell you point blank. The point is
that if you're gonna argue
incorrectly that they don't have due process and
then they can deport an alien because they
can't.
Okay? All that means is the government can
say, you're an illegal alien,
whether are you whether you are or not,
and you're gone. Wait. I mean and now
we're being told that's not we can't even
bring them back. Right? So how will we
ever find out? Well, I mean, or if
whether it's not a legal alien. Let's say
it's somebody who is, you know, like we've
seen already, Visa card, green card, but they
just go, you're an illegal alien and deport
them, and you never hear from them again.
How would you ever know they're not a
US citizen? The point is you would know
if there was a process.
Now, obviously, you could argue that there are
documented people that are here illegally, but even
then, the argument is that this has to
be a process where you prove it. That
is the reality of the constitution. You don't
get to pick and choose how it applies.
But in most cases, they don't know for
sure. People get picked up in circumstances. And
then now we're seeing people get scooped up,
and they
can
arbitrarily deem them all illegal aliens, which they've
done. And I'm a give you four cases
today of people that were just barely held
back from being deported who we can now
prove are simply a brown skinned person who
is at the wrong place.
So, again, the point is, if you're arguing
that they don't have to do that, all
you're doing is open the door for them
to do it to anybody they want with
no process to verify that they're even correct.
Or and, again, the the the largest point
for people that don't believe that that's even
possible, what if they're just wrong?
And your argument is they don't ever have
to prove anything because whatever your your logic
is, even though it's wrong. So that means
that innocent people could be sent to wherever
they wanna send them because they have no
process. I mean, the the the continual point
is that's obviously why it exists,
and it does. You can prove that.
So here is this clip
of Donald Trump speaking, and I'll show you
the the images of his hand. Actually, they're
over they're clipped into the video I made.
I mean, this is the one I did
to open. He said he wasn't a member
of a gang, and then they looked and
on his knuckles, he had MS thirteen. There's
a dispute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
He had MS thirteen on his knuckles tattoo.
We had some tattoos that are interpreted that
way, but let's move on. Wait a minute.
I'm a territory.
You know what? Hold on. I'm gonna, bring
this in.
Not that it matters for you guys. I
was using the thing on the side. I
I'm gonna bring it as a video at
the bottom because I wanna be able to
pause it at a certain point, but I'll
let it play. Here it is again. And
he wasn't a member of a gang,
and then they looked and on his knuckles,
he had MS thirteen. There's there's a dispute.
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. He had
MS thirteen on his knuckles tattoo. Oh, he
had some tattoos that are interpreted that way,
but let's move on. Wait a minute. Okay.
Terry Terry. Okay. So interpreted that way.
That's the first point. It's that's language. It's
very clear. And Trump
seemingly exhausted by trying to defend what is
wrong.
He stops him. Terry Terry Terry Terry. Don't
do it. But the point is interpreted that
way. That way. But let's move on. Wait
a minute. Terry Terry Terry. You did not
have the letter MS13.
It says MS13.
That was Okay. Again,
he says it didn't have MS13. In terms
of goes, it had MS13.
And for the podcast, he was I can
resume it in on his hand. It's not
there. Wasn't there before, which is one of
the images you'll see in a second, and
it wasn't there after he was in El
Salvador.
It's not
there. The fact that we have to go
through this is wild to me. It's so
obviously a a photoshopped. And I don't even
mean that in the sense that it for
all I know, it wasn't deliberately done to
deceive anybody. That it was just done to
illustrate what they argued, and somehow Trump believes
that, or he's trying to deceive you. I
can't make sense of it. Photoshopped.
So let me That was photoshopped. Terry, you
can do that. Hey, they're giving you the
big break of a lifetime. You're doing the
interview. I picked you because frankly, I never
heard of you, but that's okay. Know, the
typical petty small minded kind of stuff because
he's feeling he's feeling insecure. He's feeling threatened
or attacked or called out, and so he
lashes out at the guy, which is just
childish.
It's you know, people seem people that are,
I think, also childish love it because they
think that make that's, like, somehow he's being
strong. It's it is the lowest common denominator,
guys. It's it is juvenile.
I'm not saying you have to be any
certain way. I'm just saying it's embarrassing as
an American to see the person who represents
us in other people's minds act like a
child. That's not necessary. You don't need to
down on this person because you feel like
you're being called out. Just
show you know, people who are wordsmiths, people
that can debate or people that are good,
you know, orators,
they could talk circles around people like this.
And if he was at if on the
side of the facts and not just kind
of regurgitating
narratives with nothing to back it up, then
he would be able to slam it down.
But, no, he has to make fun of
the guy because then his audience goes after
the guy personally, and that's called the straw
man. That's how this tends to work. Anytime
you see this or the guy, apparently initiating
some impeachment process, they're going they're digging through
his background and going, look at what he
did here. And, sure, he's probably a criminal,
but has no bearing on whether or not
it's valid that this person should be charged
with something.
Same with Garcia, by the way. Well, he
beat his wife. Maybe.
Does it have anything to do with whether
they gave due process around the one claim
that mattered? No. It doesn't. But that's what
you're hearing more than anything now. Well, he
wasn't father of the year. That shows you
they know something is up.
Because, frankly, I never heard of you, but
that's okay.
I picked you, Terry. Hey, but you're not
being very nice. He had MS 13 tattoos.
We'll agree to disagree. I wanna move on
to something else. Terry.
Look. Do you want me to show you
the picture? I saw the pic. Okay. K.
Just look closely if you guys haven't seen
it. Okay? There's it's not there. That was
before. I showed you after.
Trump won't let it go.
Do you want me to show you the
picture? I saw the picture.
And you think it was a shot?
So best, I guess Trump is the newest
victim of the Twitter files.
Did did you see the picture?
Well, no. I literally shook his hand or,
you know, whoever's actually seen him. Right? Like,
I know. I can see his hands. They're
not there.
But the picture is what matters because that's
what he saw.
You know, we're in a weird time. Deepfakes
and maybe people are being conditioned to believe
whatever they see, whatever this put in front
of them. We're go we're regressing in this
country in a lot of really alarming ways,
quite frankly. Here we go. Here we go.
Photoshop it. Go look at his hand. He
had mister He did have tattoos that can
be interpreted that way. I'm not an expert
on them. I wanna turn to Ukraine. No.
No. No. No. No. No. He had m
s as clear as you can be, not
interpreted. This That's the most important part.
There's no air in that con there's no
way
you can pretend it means anything else.
He said, it's clear as day.
M s 13. And then he responds to
what he said. No. Not interpreted.
So there's no way you could pretend that
he's claiming that those are letters put there
to describe what the tattoos mean unless he
just doesn't speak English.
Very clear. And, again, it's almost it's almost
laughable that we even have to do this.
This should be an end of story point
where everyone goes, wow. That was really embarrassing.
He's clearly wrong. His own audience knows that.
But then we dive into the game of
social engineering today where whatever Elon Musk circles
up on Twitter becomes the focal point regardless
of the facts. Right.
No. No. I wanna get an expert on
them. I wanna turn to Ukraine. Go look
at his hand. He had an investor. You
did have tattoos that can be interpreted
turn to Ukraine.
Ukraine. No. No.
No. No. He had
MS as clear as you can be, not
interpreted. This is why people no longer believe
Well, I the news because You see? And
all you do if you lean in to
the bad media, which let's be honest. It's
left and right as we all know if
you're not blinded by partisanship.
But then all you do is say that
and people then go, yeah. They're a liar
media. Well, they are, though. We know that.
Doesn't doesn't mean you know for sure that
he's wrong.
He isn't.
When he was photographed in in in El
Salvador, they aren't there. But let's just go.
They aren't there when he's in El Salvador.
Oh oh, they want to look at the
book. There now. Right? No. But they're they're
in the picture. Terry. Ukraine, sir. He's got
MS thirteen on his knuckles. Alright.
Okay? We'll take a look. It's it's you
Well, such a disservice. We'll take a look
at that. Why don't you just say yes,
he does and Because it's not true, Trump.
It's crazy.
This, yeah, this has gotten insane.
Like, just in a level to a level
that I just can't
you know, I think oh, you know what?
I forgot that I had the the full
one. The court has ordered you to facilitate
that. Let let's watch through this real quickly
since, you know, it should be somewhat shorter
today. Let me let me play this too.
But the court has ordered you to facilitate
that. I'm not the one making this decision.
We have lawyers that don't wanna do this.
Do whatever the buck stops in this office?
No. No. No. No. I follow the law.
You want me to follow the law? If
I would
How insane is that? Claiming that he's not
responsible, like, if the buck stops over there.
I mean, it's look. There's actual an argument
to be made that since he is El
Salvadorian
or Salvadorian
and now is there
that, you know, there there I mean, there's
a legal claim that could be made, like,
in the context that now he's there, now
it's our responsibility, but it doesn't change the
the the constitutional
violations or the the the breaking of the
law that was that Trump's administration committed by
doing it in the first place. So even
if they're incapable of getting him back, which
I disagree with, clearly, since they're paying him
to keep him, you understand.
That's just so silly how all this is.
The point is that they would still be
charged with crimes for doing it in the
first place. But he's just trying to water
it down by saying, oh, we're not responsible.
It's it's really
this is disheartening in a way that anybody's
falling for this. But as Sebas points in
the chat, or I wanna reference this, Trump
is just playing an idiot. These people are
masters of deception. I look. That's a very
that's certainly one of the possibilities. Like I
said before, though, I just have a hard
time
believing or or
or I just don't think that Trump, as
as the person he is, would allow himself
to play the idiot,
to play the idiot for anything.
I just don't think that's who he is,
but I definitely could be wrong. But I
think that's it's just weird to me that
we can see in every other context, this
guy will literally make himself look dumb to
defend like like he's doing now. You know
what I mean? Like, it just it's it
to me that this wouldn't be this would
be because he truly doesn't wanna be wrong
or look wrong or he actually believes it.
That's what my gut tells me. But, again,
consider what he's saying. It very well could
be an organized way to distract from something
else.
For the president that just wanted to do
anything, I'd probably keep him right where he
is. Court. Says what the law is. Listen.
I was elected
to
take care of a problem.
They always go to this argument.
It's not a fair argument.
I don't care if you were I don't
care if 80% of the country wanted you
to do a certain if it's against the
law, it doesn't change the current reality. Now
that's that philosophical question. I don't first of
all, I don't think you you can pretty
much prove that's not the case. At best,
you've got a portion of his side that
truly believes this should be happening, and a
huge portion of them that are calling out
that it's a constitutional issue. So it's clearly
not the reality. But it is an interesting
conversation to have about that, whether or not
if 80 if a % of the country
wanted him to violate the law, would that
then make it okay?
Two ways to look at it. Would it
make
it acceptable, moral, or and then, alternatively, would
it make it legal?
And as an act I it's hard. I
don't even know. It's worth an actual, like,
debate or even just long term conversation about
that because it is fascinating to think about
because, technically, what we understand is that it's
not the truth if we're actually paying attention,
but our collective will is what guides the
government. Such a childish thing to think today.
But either way, the argument would be then
that if we did feel that way, that
they could suddenly just do something different. But
doesn't that in and of itself violate an
inherently a constitution outlined on inherent rights? It's
it's fascinating.
I really I mean that. I would really
enjoy a conversation like that because I don't
think it would ever really end with a
conclusion, but it would be worth feeling out
the different perspectives on it.
But the point was though that if you
keep saying that, then let's that gave me
you know, remember my opinion. I don't think
your vote translates to the outcome. I think
it's very obvious to prove that. But
even if it does, you can't simply argue
that what's what even all of your base
wanted somehow means that you're allowed to violate
the constitution of the law. It's not how
that works.
That was it was a
a unforced error that was made by a
very incompetent man. A man that turned out
to be incompetent that you always said was
wonderful, great genius. Right? And now you find
out all of the media now, they're saying
what a mistake they made.
A man who was grossly incompetent allowed us
to have open borders where millions of people
float in.
And in my opinion, that's how this works.
Problem reaction solution. Right? They're now you're getting
the you they're using that to execute the
agenda that Biden was already halfway rolling out.
Now whether you think they're connected or not,
you can't miss the continual
linear progression of the agenda that goes back
through many administrations. It's never stopped.
Maybe he doesn't know that. I don't know.
But you can't deny it. It's clear.
I can't paint on that issue.
I wouldn't say it was my number one
issue, but it was pretty
close. I campaigned on that issue.
I've done an amazing job. I have closed
borders. He said you couldn't do it. You
wouldn't be able to do it. It would
No. That's just not accurate. Now definitely wildly
reduced. Never happened. Well, it happened, and it
happened very quickly. Wait a minute.
When we have criminals, murderers,
criminals in this country,
we have to get them out, and we're
doing it by law. And you're allowed to
do that.
Right? That's by law is what he says.
Due process is required. Whether you like it
or not and whether it's gonna take longer
than you want or not, It is the
current reality.
You'll pick out one man, but even the
man that you picked out, he's got a
he said he wasn't a member of a
gang And you saw this part already. Right?
So then they they they go right to
the one thing and they lie about it.
So So you have to realize if that's
the best they've got, they're in a bad
position.
And
then they looked and on his knuckles, he
had MS thirty's there's a dispute about it.
Just just, you know, that you already saw
this. That way the other part wasn't cut
at all. I just added in the screenshots
so you could see the actual knuckles. Let
me just jump past it so I'm gonna
have to listen to it again. Big break
of a lifetime. You know? You never heard
of you. He had MS thirteen tattoos. Agree
to disagree. I'll move on to something else.
Terry,
do you want me to show you the
picture? My god. Picture. I still think I'll
be Photoshop.
Here we go. Here we go. And by
the way, I haven't seen comment on this.
Even though there's, like, a thousand articles already
written about this going, like, my god. He's
very wrong. We all know it. Photoshop, but
go look at his hand. He had MS
thirty. He did have tattoo now.
He had MS
as clear as you can be, not interpreted.
This is why people no longer believe Well
the news because When he was photographed in
El Salvador,
they aren't there. But let's just go they
aren't there when he's in El Salvador. Oh
oh, they want to look at the photo.
Now. Right? Right? No. What? They're they're in
that picture. Terry, Ukraine, sir. He's got MS
thirteen on his knuckles.
Alright.
Okay? Then we'll take a look. It's such
a
disservice. We'll take a look at that, sir.
Say yes. He does.
Oh, I thought there was more at the
end of Alright. Well, that that's that was
the the longer clip.
And I and I and I've here included
the full interview if you wanna watch for
yourself, as always. That's how we roll. You
guys can watch it. There's a lot more
they get into.
Everyone seems to be in the right trying
to focus on the Hegseth point and everything
else for obvious reasons.
And this is the bull work that shared
this to begin with going, this is going
well.
Just perfect. But, again, if you haven't seen
it, that one's a little out of focus,
but you can clearly tell there's no MS
thirteen on the knuckles. Here is the one
where he meets him. That's the actual shot
it's taken from. It's it's not hard. It's
very clear. It's not there.
And then, of course, the one before. I
mean, I find this to be most the
most humorous because MG Truth Ultra, which is
a major MAGA Trump account,
posted this back when this first came around
as the argument that,
see, those things mean MS 13, like it
was some kind of a slam dunk. And
now his photograph is now debunking what Trump
is saying. I find that funny. I'm sure
this tweet's probably deleted by this point, but
I've this is a save a picture from
before, and you can clearly see, not there.
And, again, just to be clear, by the
way, that skull is there too. The argument
that that's somehow tattooed over the three I
mean, everyone's making up whatever they can to
make this make sense. And it very again,
it feels very Israeli propaganda style where they
just go, we'll throw out from 17 different
accounts, 17 different theories, and and just push
them all, and you can pick which one
you like, which is what seem people seem
to do today.
Now, this is Aaron Melnick making the same
point. So he goes, so to recap, randos
on Twitter claimed to decode the tattoos because
that's where it did start. People like MJ
Truth, people that just made those claims, and
now they're getting people in their government positions
to make the case that that is the
reality. It's pretty clumsy
how it always works. If this was some
kind of a DEA investigation where they pointed
those things out, that's where it would have
started. Now people circulating images online and making
comments about it in the truth social circles
and then having him point to it. But
it says,
the so so recap, Rando's on Twitter claiming
to decode the the tattoos
that multiple experts on MS thirteen have said
had nothing to do with MS thirteen. That
is true. Now clearly, there are people on
Trump's you know, on the government side of
this that are arguing that they could,
which is the best they're getting, could mean
that.
But, plenty of people that are experts on
this have already made this case well before
this, by the way. They're making arguments about
the tattoos they're pointing to that aren't even
remotely associated with the actual gang. But it
goes, someone at the White House took that
idea and crudely put MS 13 on the
image, and Trump actually believed that that's what
it said. That's one of the possibilities anyway.
And there's the actual clip.
Now here's the interesting parts of this.
This these are the reactionary
type of responses.
So after it's posted,
z strong, I'm not familiar with, but nothing
huge, MAGA Trump account, says, why is she
hiding his knuckles?
I guess a random image that who knows
if that's even what she put on it
or somebody added that to make this feel
like it's being hidden?
But what's funny about it is, look closer.
You could actually literally see that this is
even before I mean, that may not even
be him. You know, it's hard to tell.
They actually look like a different person. The
point is, his knuckle tattoos aren't there at
all.
Funny.
But the point is for them claiming, why
is she hiding it? As if that then
proves somehow that that's the case. And I
said, here you go, bud.
Posted the images showing his knuckles. Of course,
no response.
Vince Lagman showing the same clip
says, this is why I love president Trump.
He won't allow fake news. Terry Morgan, you
know, the one he invited for the interview,
to get away with trying to hide the
fact that the Maryland man had MS thirteen
on his hand.
Now, again,
Terry very clearly said, yes, there were tattoos
that people interpret to mean that. So he's
not hiding the tattoo point. He's claiming it
didn't say the MS thirteen, which it didn't.
And this guy just says, that's why I
love Trump because he shouts down the fake
news. No. He just literally was the fake
news. That's what happened.
And n y r fan for life says,
you have to talk to these people like
you're speaking to a child. If Terry believes
it's photoshopped, why doesn't he take a trip
to go verify for himself? Tattoos don't lie,
nor can they be removed. Go check it
out, Terry. The media is the enemy of
the people.
I, you know, and I who knows whether
that person is of the mind that Trump
didn't really mean the actual letters despite it
being in undeniable.
Either way, Terry clearly did not say the
tattoos were false. So these people are lost
in their own broken scenario. It's it's wild.
Read through these comments for yourself, guys. This
person says in my in response to me
and so here I post this twenty hours
ago with very clearly saying that he actually
thought it was MS thirteen tattooed. Right? And
the video where he very clearly makes the
case that this is MS they're not interpreted,
MS thirteen. Okay. This guy says, it's code,
dumbass. M marijuana, s smiley.
Now, again, let's not forget, half half or
more could be bots for all we know.
But it's it's just like this is what
you have to deal with today. And this
Steve Steven says, I could literally tattoo MS
thirteen on my knuckles, and it doesn't mean
I've ever been affiliated with them. You could.
That's why this has to be more than
just assumptive points or,
associated points. He goes, denying your gang affiliation
as an MS thirteen member is a death
sentence. Like, to them, by the way. One
of the many other points that shows that
it's unlikely but not impossible,
other than the obvious evidence that now shows
that they're lying about all this. Right?
But
above party says, holy s h I t.
He actually thought that the very obvious labels
were tattoos. I mean, guys, just look at
the picture, though. Like, that's it's wild to
think that you actually thought that those were
I mean,
again, Horry just is blind to you.
Casey Bird says, looks like MS thirteen to
me,
of course, with that that Trump fight picture
in her in her in her bio. He
goes, you can't put a pic underneath all
the put a pic underneath all day long.
It says m at 13. What the f
is going on?
Sebas James says, the m s one and
three aren't tattooed on his skin, but rather
added to the photo to indicate how someone
interpreted each tattoo.
Casey Bird says, prove it.
That's my point. So so if nobody and
this this is what I said, actually. I
said, here you go, bud, and gave the
same pictures. Of course, no response. And I
said, now the real question is, had no
one posted these under your nose, would you
have carried on claiming this was false because
you chose to never look for yourself?
That's what's going on.
See if there's a response. Nope.
Vince Langman, again, saying, that's why I love
Trump because he shouts down the fake news.
Right?
Stephen Cunningham simply posted what I said, showing
that this is not the case, but I
don't think it's gonna matter.
Now this one
is from Forbes
from
where's the date? April 30 today. And it
says the conspiracy
behind Kimar Abrego
Abrego Garcia's tattoos explained after Trump insists doctor
Emma thirteen Inc is real.
And it simply says, social media meet social
media or some social media users have suggested
the marijuana leaf represents m. The smiley face
represents s. Those those seem at least very
possible. Right? That's an obvious potential.
And the cross and skulls
are coverups
for one and three.
So you're now you're telling me that he's
tattooed over his tattoos, but he's still a
member of the gang? That doesn't seem to
make much. Like, it's just becoming so abstract.
And, again, that's backed up that some people
put that out. Some people claim the tattoo
somehow the skull means three. Some people claim
that it's actually a backward three. Everyone's got
a different narrative, which pretty much shows you
that everyone's guessing to make sense of what
they want it to be.
But it goes and and and, and the
the skull and cross are cover ups for
one and three. Trump seemed to insist during
the interview that actual letters and numbers were
tattooed on his hands. That's very clear. Now
it says the White House, when asked if
Trump believes
he actually has the MS and one and
three tattooed on his knuckles, They said, quote,
which shows you that I think they know
exactly what's happening, quote,
ask any law or immigration enforcement official who's
been on the ground about his tattoos,
their MS thirteen.
You didn't answer the question.
Clearly, they're just going, that's what those tattoos
mean. Well, that wasn't the point. That's the
argument. Everyone knows that's the argument. There's plenty
of experts not associated with the government that
tell you that's not what they mean, but
you can decide for yourself. The question was
whether he actually thought that's what it meant.
Their answer shows you that they know that.
That's how that's how whether it's Obama or
Bush, that's always what they do. They they
give you right down the middle. Trump's an
expert at that.
Now,
Ozarkistan
oh, how do you say that? Ozarkistanian
says, sick of this and this is in
response to people that are pretending
like he didn't actually claim the MS and
13 were on there. He says, sick of
this BS. It's disqualifying
if you can't admit that Trump clearly said
that he thinks that the photoshopped image was
real. He said that. And that dude actually
had the letters on his hands. It's insane
that we can't own any mistakes this man
makes. This is a Trump supporter.
Of course, you can't see the response because
Twitter's totally not a censorship platform.
Always the case, guys. It's everywhere you look.
Now you could find it. It's on there.
I I always find them in other people's
comments or other tags or responses to it.
But somehow, there's plenty of ways where they
just don't let you see responses for obvious
reasons, especially when they're pushing back on the
agenda. That's how that works. Now I've included
the interview. Watch it for yourself. There's information
in there that's relevant.
Here's what Fox News put out. Many reasons
this is relevant. This is today.
Graham, Lindsey Graham, mocks Democrats as which, again,
that is that's the golden goose. Right?
Democrats are dumb. And then whatever you say
next is gospel. And he says, as Trump
DEA nominee confirms MS thirteen gang tattoos. Clearly
not even close to what it actually even
says in the article, but confirms that they
might be is what you would actually write.
Of course, Fox doing its job. Now, of
course, to be the counterbalance guys, recognize that
the left does the same state the same
stupid thing.
Republicans are Nazis, and then whatever you say
next is accepted as gospel by the team
sport politics side. I don't think that's the
majority of either side right now.
Now it
says,
Graham that asked whether MS thirteen members in
a in a kind of trying to make
fun of how they're like, making it sound
stupid to ask whether this is identifying,
ask whether members have membership cards or anything
similar to the public to identify them. Like,
he's they're she like, what he's doing there
is trying to make it sound like it's
dumb for us to prove that they're gay
members.
I just it's
not just insulting
and embarrassing.
Like, this is wildly what they're doing step
by step is, like, fundamentally destroying the things
that maybe still hold this country together.
And what he's saying is that alluding to
the fact that they we don't have cards,
so we have to trust what they tell
you. No. That's why due process is there
so they can present the evidence. That's why
the system is set up the way it
is. Of course, they don't have membership cards.
But for you to argue that they don't
have that, therefore, our we what we tell
you these tattoos mean even though Trump just
got caught lying about the tattoos is absolute.
Lindsey Graham is a is a cartoon in
this conversation as usual, but then give is
given disputes about what they mean. Now it
says based on your time and experience and
expertise with the DEA. Now explain for me
why even the DEA would be an expert
on tattoos of gang members.
Wouldn't that be Homeland Security?
They're they're focused on drug and there's an
overlap clearly.
But you tell me what you think. I
just think it's funny that they're just going
after whatever they can. I'd imagine the DEA
agent was the one willing to do whatever
they were told. That's my my gut feeling.
But he says, what does that photo or
those markings suggest to you? And he said
suggest to be clear. And he then he
goes, well, they suggest
that he's an MS thirteen member.
He says that those are his markings. The
this his brand.
So a smiley face of skull across and
a and a weed plant or his unique
markings. Now let's be clear that even they
are the in this same government response in
the past, like, the last couple of weeks,
have made the argument,
what was it? That,
that, oh, that he was part of the
western clique that only is in New York,
which he's never been to? Or on top
of that, that he is a specific I
think it's Chiquito,
which I think it means small, but the
point is they claim that's his his member
or his level, which means he's a leader
of the gang, which is what they keep
saying. Even though that ex experts who actually
know what they're talking about have said that
term means that they're not even part of
the gang yet, but trying to be.
Now they're lying, guys. They're lying about everything
they're talking about. None of that is the
reality, seeing as how the best they have
assumption. But everything they're pointing to to claim
that we know about him are things that
prove in a way that he's never been
a part of it. Not from New York,
never been there. That term doesn't even mean
what they claim it means. So he's not
a leader, I'm a third, human trafficking, rapist,
monster, terrorist. None of those things have even
remotely been proven about most of the people
they're talking about, If if any, as far
as I could tell. But it says to
to dispel further criticism
oh, he goes on to say, when asked
what the leaf on his first knuckle stood
for,
as if you could know that for sure,
Cole said it was a marijuana, which starts
with m.
That's his answer. Not that we know for
sure that that always means m on on
your and gang tattoos, but that, well, marijuana
starts with an m.
Wow. Bombshell. And then he says, the second
finger was a smiley face, he said, which
starts with s.
Breaking new stuff here, guys. Yeah. We all
know what starts with s. Now does that
prove anything? No. It does not. And then
he says, followed by the number one, and
then says what looks like a backward three
from here.
Wow. This is some pretty compelling stuff. And
here's what Lindsey Graham I remember. This is
what Fox News framed as, confirms
the tattoos.
Guys, these people are ridiculous. These are cartoons.
Like, we should be making fun of this.
But the problem is that partisans ignore how
dumb it is on their side.
Then it says, based on your time and
experience with the DEA or sorry. The next
one says, to dispel further criticism,
Graham went on to ask if there might
be any other organizations that would use that
series of symbols. And his response is a
negative.
What do you I mean, so this is
just so ridiculous to me that you can
contrive this and argue that somehow that you
these symbols don't just like, I'm willing to
bet you anything that you can look
and look up a tattoo shop and you're
gonna find a does an endless amount of
pat leaves, crosses, skulls,
everything we're talking about.
And, yes, it also could just mean that
he secretly wants to show you he's part
of a gang that is supposed to be
proud about it.
No. Never have we argued that that's not
the case.
The evidence does not
support that. There's no proof of any kind.
My point is that he never got due
process. That's it. Even if he is a
gang member, he still did not get due
process. And that's the only part of this
that we've been talking about. What we're going
through is showing you there lies around it
to hide that fact.
It is wild.
The controversy over Garcia's tattoos also boiled over
during a recent interview with Terry Morgan.
This is all they said.
Quote, wait a minute. He had MS thirteen
on his knuckles, Trump said. Before Morgan countered
that, there were, quote, some tattoos that were
interpreted that way.
Oh, you'd be forgiven for expecting more. No.
No. No. They they just cemented in the
debate so you could pretend you could choose
to side with Trump.
You think they can't do their due diligence
on that and be like, yeah. That's actually
not true? No. They have an interest in
backing their side, like all of the media
does that are not honest.
Now Aram Melnick follows up with some reports
around Garcia that I think are very relevant.
Even the New York Times put some stuff
out that I think is irrelevant in this.
He says, this is pretty outrageous. The Trump
administration,
after repeatedly saying it couldn't do anything about
Garcia or or Abrego Garcia, for the first
time, inquired about releasing him.
And Bu Bucole said no, or so we're
told.
Even though mister Abrego has never
been convicted of any crime,
neither in El Salvador or The United States,
by the way, and is being imprisoned without
trial.
So
Michael Schmidt says the Trump administration recently sent
a diplomatic note to officials in El Salvador.
Clearly on the record, you you there's ways
they could have done this without making it
something that you could see. Right? I think
this is set up to make it appear
that they can do nothing. You can decide
for
yourself to inquire about releasing Abrego Garcia. Now
why would they suddenly do that when they've
been telling you that they're never going to,
never coming back? Well, because they wanted this
to appear now that they couldn't.
I mean or or they're losing and they
tried and they failed. Either way, it shows
you that they are not honest about this.
That your narrative you've been spinning out there,
if you blindly support this, is false, and
they know that. And it says, but Bukele
the Bukele government said no. All this adds
to increasing confusion from the Trump administration about
whether it's really trying to compel the court
or really trying to comply
with the court order to return him, which
is the law.
That's why he skipped over the point of
the supreme court because that's a big deal.
They have ordered him to do so. And
I'll read it from the article about this
whole game they're playing with the word facilitate.
It says Trump said in ABC News interview
that he does have the ability to help
return him, but is not willing to
because he believes he's a gang member. The
one thing that we have no evidence for
or one of the many things anyway, but
the point is we can there are other
parts that you can discuss and prove about
this. That's the one that they've been lying
about. So they're using the lie they manufactured
to push in why he can't be returned.
Now the overlapping idea on this is that
the Supreme Court has ruled that he has
to bring him back. Now remember, they said
facilitate and effectuate.
And they made this really crazy response about
why effectuate somehow was, like,
taking the federal the executive branch power, which
I disagree with, but certainly you could make
that argument when you get mired down in
the definitions. But the point is they didn't
find, facilitate,
knowing what that meant. But the reason they
did this, which we can clearly see, is
that they knew that effectuate
was impossible to play this game with. So
they pulled that out, and now they could
pretend, like, all we gotta do is just
sit back and wait for him to show
up. Right?
No. And look. Let's be clear. The court
justices have said that's not what that means,
and they just go they're just acting like
they're lost, though. Isn't that what it means?
They're playing they're playing everybody for fools, and
it's embarrassing. It really is.
Now here's the article. We'll read for directly
from it. Full articles here. Diplomatic note possibly
explains this leak won't a week long delay.
Now this is just one of these breaking
reports saying the Trump administration recently sent a
diplomatic note to El Salvador to inquire about
releasing
Garcia,
who whom the government officials have been ordered
by the Supreme Court to help free, according
to the three people with the knowledge of
the knowledge of the matter. But the authoritarian
government, Abucale, the leader of El Salvador, said
no. Two of the people said, the Abucale
administration claimed the man should stay in El
Salvador because he's a Salvadorian citizen. So I
think this was clearly cultivated to make that
statement,
which, again, isn't there's like I said, there's
a valid point to try to make be
making made in there. But what's incredible about
this is any other time in the past
you've seen Donald Trump say he wants to
do something and then he gets pushed back
from somebody that he can bully around, what
do you expect?
Bowling around.
Except not now.
Suddenly, apparently, Boukale is more powerful than Trump.
And he says, shut up, Trump. I'm a
do what I want. And Trump goes, okay.
I'm sorry.
I'm I'm joking. But the point is that
you could interpret it that way. And now
even putting it out there may trigger Trump
to lash out because that's the kind of
person he is. The point is, I feel
this is being cultivated for that reason, and
you would expect Trump to act differently if
he was actually being bucked by somebody that
he thinks he's controlling.
Or maybe he is.
Now this one,
Trump says he could free Abrego Garcia from
El Salvador, but won't. Now, actually, I don't
think I had any oh, I think it's
right here. Okay. I did have some. Go
through this.
New York Times article
says president Trump, whose administration has insisted he
could not bring Elmore Abrego Garcia back
from El Salvador to The United States, said
he does have the ability to help return
him,
but is not willing to. So overlap that
with what we just heard. In the interview
and the other reports from Rubio that we
can't do that, he's El Salvador. It was
not even our responsibility.
Except in the middle of you saying that,
you were over here going, we want him
back. Can you do that? Is that okay?
Or now, on the record, after pretending you
can't, saying, of course I can, but I
don't want to.
I mean, again, there's some point to always
be made about whether this whole tactic is
actually by design,
to just literally confuse everybody. So you don't
know what statement you're pointing back there. You're
saying he's not allowed to, but here he
just said today that he could, but he
doesn't want to. And so everyone's pointing at
something different. I mean, there's a real point
to be made about, like, social engineering where,
like,
asymmetrical warfare. Like, this is about trying to
kind
of confuse everybody.
Or he's just
stumbling through these choices and getting exposed for
being a liar. I mean, you can decide
for yourself. The bottom line is that he's
contradicting what he what one of the central
points was that he's not even able to.
It's not my responsibility, but now he's making
it clear that he could, just doesn't want
to. That's embarrassing.
It says, quote, you could get him back,
but there's a phone on this desk, Harry
said. That's in the interview.
And the Supreme Court or, oh, no. The
Supreme Court ordered him to do so, and
he says I could.
It says, quote, and if there were gentlemen
and if he were the gentleman that you
say he is, which I don't think any
of them are even saying that. They're just
using that to claim Democrats think he's a
saint and I'm telling you he's not. No.
I I'm really I don't see anybody making
that argument. It's that you're breaking the law.
But he goes,
if he was the gentleman you say he
was, I would do that. But he's not.
Pointing to nothing but assumptive arguments and complete
conjecture and says, the mister Trump added that
government lawyers do not want to help bring
mister Abrego back to The United States.
Again, to reiterate the obvious point.
If he were the gentleman you say he
is has no bearing on whether or not
the law applies. So by that argument, if
Trump thinks you're a bad person, he can
just say your rights don't matter.
Because remember, the principle does not change based
on whether you're an alien, a legal alien,
or American citizen. It the constitutional principle is
the same. Just like I said, by deporting
people in the same way that the principle
is the same for
you, not not even to get into whether
he's, you know, the five times he's floated
that that wants they want to send Americans.
But just recognize that. By saying that is
the way to get you to go, well,
he beats his wife or whatever you're assuming
around all that, which has no bearing on
whether or not he should be given due
process abound around the claims being loaded at
him.
Now it says mister Trump's comments not only
undermine previous statements by his top aids, but
were a blunt sign that his administration's intention
to double down on on and defy the
courts, which is a huge deal.
Whatever side you're on, guys, even if you
agree with him, you have to acknowledge that
this is a big deal. What's happening right
now is this the kind of disillusion. Like,
if if the Supreme Court is ruling we
should do something and he denies it, what
would usually follow would be impeachment article articles
of impeachment.
Even as a threat to get him to
fall in line, not even in the sense
that you like, the point is Trump supporters
seem to look at that and act like
that's, like, unprecedented.
Like, the the judicial power branch taking the
power of the no. It's not. You guys
are blinded by these narratives coming from people
that either don't know what they're talking about
or are trying to trick you for politics.
That is the way the system is supposed
to work.
It it look. If the Supreme Court could
take that ruling and the argument being that
this is, you know, there's six conservative judges
on that on the on the the the
nine there,
and that they're ruling that he broke the
law and that he has to comply. Now
if he doesn't wanna find himself in legal
troubles, he could simply comply. It wouldn't be
that difficult. But if they did,
that starts the other problem where now he's
gonna be exposed that you broke the law
in a lot of other more egregious ways.
And that's why they're not that's why they're
just kind of standing their ground. But if
they do not do this and nothing happens
to reprimand the president for not following supreme
court, then nothing means anything anymore.
And you know my opinion. I think we've
been in a similar point for a long
time, but this
is showing people that. And maybe actions will
change by a lot of people that are
very bad people because they never really recognized
that they weren't gonna be held accountable. I
don't know. It's not a good thing. Let's
be clear about that. I'm looking forward to
discussing this again with Bruce Fine and and
and Jeffrey on on their our the podcast
we have now, you know, the the bit
shoot podcast they invite me on rather. And
the and it's because Bruce Fine knows what
he's talking about. He's an expert in the
field and comes from the government, the background,
like the Reagan administration.
You know? And the point is that there's
these arguments are very, like, foundational to what
this country
claims that it is. And moment by moment,
we're being destroyed, and I think it's obvious
why.
Now it says Trump officials have said that
because he was now in a Salvadoran prison,
it was up to the Salvadoran government to
release him. But, apparently, Trump is now challenging
that by saying he could if he wanted
to, which I really do think if you
my you know my opinion of the kind
of childish nature of him is that this
is ultimately him just be feeling like he
doesn't wanna admit that he can't do what
he you know? Oh, I can't I can
do what I want. I'm powerful. I'm in
control. You know? I I don't know. That
it's it seems like a stupid move for
him to say this now. That's why.
What it says the justice department has argued
that it can respond to the supreme court's
demand,
excuse me, that the administrations
facilitate
his release by doing little more than letting
him enter should he come along.
During that meeting, Stephen Miller, Trump's dep Trump
mister Trump's deputy chief of staff and, relevant,
the architect of his immigration agenda.
So you have a very, very obviously dishonest
Zionist,
proud Zionist who is leading this whole thing.
One of the other many examples showing you
where this all I there I don't think
we can hide how clearly this is connected
to the Zionist agenda.
Whether that's what's driving it or they're just
gaining from it clearly by their weaponized migration
discussion that they're all proudly discussed. That is
part of it. But, again, remember that this
is this is important for the US government
too. So they're probably working together to manufacture
it all.
All just thoughts, consider the points.
But it says, also, he argued that any
question about releasing a Abrego Garcia needed to
be directed to Bukele rather than Trump. Again,
all of them looking stupid now because Trump
came out and said the opposite. Mister Bukele
also refused to help bring Garcia back to
The United States, arguing it would be akin
to releasing a terrorist despite them having no
criminal charges. The White House did not respond
to request for comment, of course. Mister Trump
also told ABC News his administration was right
to send Garcia to the prison in El
Salvador designed for terrorists
known as Cicotte,
despite various government officials previously saying in court
that the deportation was an administrative error. It's
just it's ridiculous where we are. Garcia, who
entered The United States illegally in 2012, was
arrested in February
while looking for work at Home Depot. We've
gone over all of this. Now I think
oh, there's three more things.
Just very quickly wanted to show I'll I'll
I'll jump through these.
Remember,
in the show we did yesterday, guys, or
day before oh, no. It was yesterday. They've
now moved Garcia
to a, specifically, a prison
in in El Salvador for people who are
not gang members.
It says the prison categorically excludes anyone, even
accused of being a gang member.
So their central claim, this guy is a
gang member terrorist, has now been broken down
even by their actions in multiple different ways,
and we're still hearing these lies. It says
we only house the common people. No gang
members here.
It says for human rights advocates in El
Salvador, The United States, and details of Al,
Garcia's transfer from the from Cicotte, a supermax
prison specifically designed for gang members, to a
low security prison from which gang members are
excluded, contradicts a central claim made by both
governments that he is a dangerous member of
this gang and a terrorist, all of which
they've never proven and everybody denies, and evidence
has been presented to make that case.
Wild.
And on top of that
what was the other one?
Oh, well, just the the over I'll include
this again. My breakdown of this, which is
about fifty eight minutes going through all the
legal realities of the case,
showing you and here here are all the
documents from the court literally highlighting for you
that they've been lying about this the entire
time. This is the 02/2019 Omedipa point. The
claims from a corrupt cop that was later
fired of an anonymous source, that's the one
thing they point to. That's the source that
made the claim, if that even exists, from
the corrupt cop to claim he was a
member. They have information that it never presented
that got recirculated through two different documents. That's
what they point to as the two documents.
And and and then Trump's own administration deemed
he was not a risk and let him
stay with the holding of removal because of
the threat from El Salvador.
Nothing has changed since then. They just decided
to argue this and went forward because of
the obvious Israel agenda that is happening here.
Oh, and the deportation, the immigration point, and
the rolling out of the biometric control structure,
and all the things that this adds to.
So watch this if you really wanna understand
how obvious this is. And I said right
now, it's paramount that Americans understand two things.
One, even illegal immigrants have due process rights.
Here's Grock.
Do they have do illegal aliens have the
right to due process the same as Americans?
Yes.
Illegal aliens have the right to due process.
You shouldn't need and this is another one.
Why do you say that?
Zadadis versus Davis, however you pronounce that name,
another 02/2001 precedent saying the same.
But please watch it. I think it's important
to understand how they've been lying about this.
Now back to that.
That's what they're saying is that
that February
is all they're pointing to. Now it says
this
is a MS thirteen gang member, Trump said
during the interview. Mister Abreu Garcia has never
been charged with or convicted of being a
gang member anywhere.
During his deportation proceedings, some evidence was introduced
that he belonged to MS thirteen, and judges
decided it was enough to keep him in
custody While the matter was resolved,
now that was again the anonymous source, the
corrupt cop, and a bull's hat. That's it.
It says, but other judges have expressed doubt
about that evidence. Now I'm gonna read from
you directly what judge, judge Zenas said about
this in this recent ruling. Where it says
the evidence against Garcia consisted of nothing more
than his Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie
and a vague, uncorroborated
allegation from a confidential informant claiming to belong
he belonged to MS thirteen.
It's specifically their western clique in New York,
a place he never lived, and the title
they said they gave him was not accurate.
And then on top of all of it,
that this is ultimately,
what was it? The
well, just continuing. It says, a place he
never lived, who it says, judge Zenas, who
was overseeing the efforts to bring him back
to The United States, wrote in order this
month.
So and this is what they've continued to
cascade through the conversation.
He looked at it and argued, we know
for sure this is nothing but hearsay repeated
more than once. Now that doesn't therefore prove
he's not
to be as as to be objective just
like the rest of the administration refuses to
be. It could be.
And as you know what's coming,
you know how we could find out?
Due process.
And in reverse, in the same way, why
you can have people sent illegally without, you
know, Americans end up in a prison of
foreign government, the lack of due process, even
by mistake.
Now, again, moved him to a non gang
prison, showing you yet again another example of
this.
And I'll include the the show we did.
This is this is the crux of it
right here. It's an hour long of just
the article around this, but the title was
the unprecedented gaslighting and lies around Abrego Garcia.
Again, the the no one's at least honest
out there is claiming we know for sure
that this guy is the the best guy
in town. I don't know that.
All I can prove is what the evidence
we have, and none of that backs up
the claims they're making.
Now here are some other examples. Oh, actually,
before we get to that, the to reiterate
the point about due process that we went
over yesterday.
I wanna reiterate this importantly that Rubio,
as the as the daily beast, a Republican
platform, says splits with Trump and attorney general,
Pam Bondi, on due process.
Now it says secretary
Mark of state Marco Rubio
forgot the gospel according to Donald Trump on
Sunday by admitting that anyone on US soil
is entitled to a fair hearing before being
removed from the country.
And we'll play this for you now.
Oh, at least I
I don't know how I do that sometimes.
I guess I didn't grab it. Hold on
a sec. It's right here.
So this is interesting. And I wanna I
the reason I wanted to bring it up
again is I I I wanted to play
for you
what what is actually being stated
and how very clear this is. That he
says with that, he said, yes. Absolutely. Starts
the conversation with that and then tries to
water it down acting like,
I'll make the case as it goes through.
Because I I'm just down just trying to
fill the time while this is downloading.
All he's really doing
is trying to argue that
the the illegality of his presence
somehow changes that. Even though he started by
saying very clearly, literally anybody, which you now
know if you're paying attention, has due process.
So here's the YouTube video.
Or is it not done yet?
One second.
Why is that not downloading?
Apologies, guys.
That's what I get for not having it
ready.
So
I also wanna note too that I think
that he looks
uncomfortable.
Just my my personal opinion. He look he
looks very unhappy. If you look at the
way that Rubio looks in the in the
the kind of line of the even just
on the the main image here.
You can just see his face. He looks
you know, I I get the sense that
he is feeling worried.
Like, we saw for the first part where
Trump tried to throw the whole thing at
at Rubio and Rubio tried to throw it
back at Trump. That's that shows you that
there's something going on here. Let's not forget
that Rubio and Trump don't like each other.
They've made these statements all over the place
before he was put in this position. And
even his own stat his own people were
like, no. Rubio is not gonna happen. That's
crazy. And then they picked him and they
go, yay, he's the best one ever. Typical,
typical partisan.
But trust me, guys, you could see that
they're not happy with each other.
Oh, you're kidding me.
Apparently, it's gonna take a really long time
to download.
We're able to come back to it.
So let's do
this. I'll play this first clip.
I'm not familiar with this guy, Billy Binion,
reporter for reason, which of course in some
people's minds will just absolutely dismiss anything he
says despite it being proven or vice versa,
left and right, always how it goes. The
point is what he's saying is true. It's
accurate. Easy to prove. I just think it's
a good compilation of these basic things that
people have a hard time understanding right now.
So play this, and I'll see if I
can deal with that video.
Yeah. It looks like I did this too.
I must have done something today where I
skipped over some of this stuff. This one's
quick, though. I can do this from the
Twitter download.
But it's a it's a good kind of
overview of pretty much everything we've already been
telling you about due process, but it really
is just disconcerting that so many people don't
seem to understand the most basic essential rights
that, you know, the foundational rights that people
point to
from, you know, left and right, by the
way. And yet make these arguments around why
this is the most important thing in our
country and then somehow don't even understand these
things. And I mean, like, at the highest
levels of power.
Binion, criminal justice reporter at Reason. You've probably
heard some wild takes on due process lately.
Let's clear the air.
Vice president JD Vance said, the entire American
media and left wing industrial complex has decided
the most important issue today is that the
Trump admin deported an MS thirteen gang member
and illegal alien. Don't you love the
left what do they call it? American media
and left wing
The entire American media and left wing industrial
complex. Left wing industrial complex.
It's just so clumsy.
You know, military industrial complex. There's terms that
we've used in the past. Like, if you're
gonna try to carve that carve that out
about just one side, it just this is
why people are waking up to this stuff.
It's you know, you couldn't just call it
the you know, you know, and we can
go off forever. My point is that you
can clearly see they're trying to turn this
into some kind of controlled entity, even though
all of them are that. It's your government,
guys. That's the complex. You know, it's just
it's wild to me how easy this is
to sway people because they have been convinced
to hate whoever they're pointing to, whether it's
the Yemenis or the or the Gaza or
whatever it is or your neighbor.
Has decided the most important issue today is
that the Trump admin deported an MS thirteen
gang member and illegal alien.
Okay. So this has nothing to do with
being left wing and everything to do with
the Trump administration illegally deporting someone in violation
of of a court order and binding law
to a prison with many others where they're
being held without due process. So what is
due process exactly? Put simply, it is the
legal principle that promises people the right to
challenge the evidence against them before the government
takes away their liberty. Is it possible that
some people sent to a Salvadoran prison were
in a gang?
Yes. Is it also possible some were not
in a gang?
Yes. Which is precisely why we have to
process. To test the integrity of the government's
allegations. This is an American value, not a
left wing value.
Right wing influencer Jack Posobiec said, did Rachel
Moran get due process? Did Lake and Riley
get due process?
No one ever asks that. So Rachel Moran
and Lake and Riley were murdered by immigrants
and that is horrible and tragic. But Posobiex
post implies he doesn't understand what due process
is at a basic level. By his logic,
we should abolish the doctrine for anyone accused
of bad acts which is exactly backwards. The
point of due process is to provide fairness
to people accused of crimes because the government
doesn't always get it right. Because we said
so isn't good enough. The constitution protects unpopular
people for a reason.
Founder of OutKick Clay Travis said, if the
president can't deport illegal immigrants,
then we have no border at all. Okay.
So there is a big difference between merely
deporting people and sending them to a notorious
prison in El Salvador. President Maibukele suspended basic
civil liberties there over three years ago, like
freedom of assembly and due process. So he
could imprison people indefinitely without giving them their
day in court. And it isn't relevant that
the people deported weren't US citizens because the
Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that even immigrants
suspected of being in The US illegally
are still entitled to due process of law.
And to be very clear, even those
proven to be here illegally
still have due process. That's Reno versus Flores,
specifically in deportation cases.
Just to make that clear, that is the
reality roundly held up upheld by Supreme Court.
Read it for
yourself.
Former Libertarian party chair Angela McArdle said, I
can't fully articulate this problem
yet, but I think that libertarianism
has been hijacked by radical empathy and that
we don't fully understand the concept of a
right to a fair trial and the presumption
of innocence.
Got it. If only we could be overtaken
by radical empathy, that would be fantastic. But
unfortunately, that's not what's actually happening. Libertarians have
elevated it over all other rights and factors.
So unless you wanna argue that people like
George Washington and James Madison
have fallen prey to radical empathy, this argument
doesn't make sense. The founders made due process
central to the constitution,
not because they loved criminals, but because they
understood that any system of justice will give
people a chance to publicly challenge the evidence
against them before the government takes away their
liberty indefinitely as the government has done here.
That should be important to anyone who cares
about the constitution and rule of law. Libertarians
who believe the government is perfect and trustworthy
is not a coherent ideology.
If you love the constitution,
then you have to love due process.
Seems pretty simple to me. I really am
blown away that there's anybody out there that
doesn't understand these basic fundamental things. Like, I
mean, some literally just people talking about this
conversation like, oh, I just looked up due
process. And it's like, how is that not
something that literally everyone in this country is
very aware of? Well, because we're not taught
these things. Like, you're not taught about the
Fed or the Rockefellers and Rothschilds. You know,
whatever these foundational parts of what this country
was and built on that we don't get
taught about for obvious reasons.
I mean, there's so many things like that
or jury nullification. They don't want you to
know how you can really affect things. The
bottom line,
we're all constantly being deceived by the very
structure that's pointing at itself. It's everywhere you
look. Now here is a crack.
Now you can decide for yourself why this
happened.
Because let's be clear, this is a wild
shift. Like, even Trump's saying he could now
and not. This is all happening in the
last couple of days. This was from two
days ago.
And he makes it clear. And I think
that he's try I think he's trying to
put himself in a separate separate
category
because he's not dumb. And he knows that
he can see people are now whether that
you think it ever translates to actual actual
accountability, which I'd love to see that ever.
So hard to believe it's gonna happen now,
but I hope so. Or just that he
they know they're losing control of this or
they know it'll affect their money or their
next campaign. Whatever is driving it, I think
he's recognizing
that people are seeing this, and this is
him putting himself out on the other side
of this, which probably got pushed back from,
you know, from their own team. You can
decide.
Let's talk now, about some new reporting that
came in, overnight. I wanna just go through
it for you and for our audience.
Three US citizen children have been deported
with their mothers. Now this is according to
the Washington Post. The family's lawyer says one
of them is a four year old with
stage four cancer,
deported without medication or ability to contact
doctors. The family's lawyers are also saying their
clients were denied communication with family and legal
representatives before being deported, and it's raising concerns
about the issue of due process that it's
being violated. So let me ask you,
is everyone
on US soil, citizens and noncitizens,
entitled to due process?
Yes. Of course. But let me tell you,
it looks in immigration standing, the laws are
very specific. If you're in this country unlawfully,
you have no right to be here, and
you must be removed. That's what the law
says. Somehow, over the last twenty years, we've
completely lost this notion that somehow or or
completely adopted this idea that, yes, we have
immigration laws, but once you come into our
country illegally, it triggers all kinds of rights
that can keep you here indefinitely. That's why
we were being flooded at the border. I
mean okay. Let's this is important to break
down. Like, I don't know where if you
missed the immediate manipulation, the side step.
So he made it clear that, yes, they
do, which we all should know. Yes. Illegal
immigrants have rights, constitutional rights upheld by our
constitution and the supreme court,
especially due process, especially around deportation.
So what he does there is he goes,
yes. But then goes on to make the
case that somehow they're illegally, they should be
well, yeah. No one's arguing that's not the
case. You guys are skipping what you just
said is the first point, the process. You're
just getting rid of them because you claim
they're illegal. Well, how do we know that?
We already have countless examples of them removing
people who were not here illegally, who had
no criminal record over and over and over.
So let's not pretend like this is not
a clear sidestep.
Listen again.
Reporting that came have been deported
with their mother's or ability to contact nation
with about this
Is everyone
on US soil, citizens and noncitizens,
entitled to due process?
Well, you know what? She does say it
in a way that leaves the open possibility
for illegal immigrants being different, but that's not
true. Just in case we have to nail
that down for the forty thousandth time, it
does apply to illegal immigrants.
Yes. Of course. But let me tell you
that it looks in immigration standing, the laws
are very specific. If you're in this country
unlawfully, you have no right to be here,
and you must be removed. That's what Yes.
Yes. No one disagrees with that who's not
a moron. But, again, you'd have to make
that case. Otherwise, you could accuse literally anybody
you don't like as being a legal immigrant,
which would then argue that you have no
no requirement to prove that.
How does anybody not see the slippery slope
there? It's not even a slippery slope. I
mean, that's that's just basic corruption. That you
could simply just apply it however you want
to whoever you want because you made a
little carve out for as long as you
call them that, you get away with it,
at least in the beginning.
The law says, somehow, over the last twenty
years, we've completely lost this notion that somehow
or or completely adopted this idea that, yes,
we have immigration laws, but once you come
into our country illegally, it triggers all kinds
of rights that can keep you here indefinitely.
No. This isn't see, this is either him
proving, like, we've still already seen that he
doesn't actually understand talking about or he's trying
to manipulate you. Because if you're claiming that
you're triggering right those are existing, inalienable,
god given, always existing rights that apply to
literal
like, he just told you to everyone in
the country.
Right? So are you now arguing that we
wanna change the existing inherent rights that have
always been there? Well, that's what he's arguing.
Or are you saying that something has now
shifted, which I can prove they have not?
Either there's not new legislation that argues some
new things should be he's talking about due
process.
And all he's really trying to make it
sound like is what Trump and the and
got home in and, you know, what he
mumbled at you and said, these people are
20,000,000 people, which is not accurate. We there's
countless ways you can prove that. It's a
lot of people still. And, yes, if they're
illegal, then they should be deported. But it
has to go through the process back to
the original point. Otherwise, they can do whatever
they want, which they always will.
But what he's trying to make it sound
like is that somehow it's gonna trigger all
these things and they could be here forever.
All he's highlighting is the constitution. So either
you agree with it or you don't.
They do have the right to prove or
out to argue that there's not the case.
Now what you could get into
are the arguments of asylum.
That's a fair conversation to have. But, again,
the reality is there's laws that exist in
that conversation. If we want them to be
different, then that's how you would go into
it, not just deeming them no longer a
ballot even though people will live here for
decades under those asylum under asylum grants or
whatever else. But you could have this conversation
as the American people. I don't I don't
argue that there's no constitutional reality of guaranteeing
somebody has the right to come here, unless
there's something that I'm missing in that. Let
me know what you think. But the point
is that ultimately, we've always framed ourselves as
being the, you know, give me your hungry,
your poor, and all that. Right? So it
just seems contradictory in a thousand different ways.
But the core point
is that he was already here. He was
already granted a withholding of removal, which is
not necessarily asylum, but if you know, look
it look it up for yourself. It is
a legal granted allowance to stay here. And
for fourteen years, he went every single time
they called with no question and proved he
was good, had a family, blah blah blah.
So all they really are doing is manufacturing
this whole story to make it sound like
what they're doing is taking advantage when all
they're doing is following the law, and he
is not.
That's why we were being flooded at the
border. And we then case that gets taken
up taken out of context, I'm not talking
about illegal aliens. I'm talking about people that
were here legally and, of course, in this
case or asylum cases or seeking citizenship and
all the different overlaps.
That's, you know, to make again, to reiterate,
if you're illegally here, then that's not what
we're discussing.
But it would still require due process to
prove that.
That, and that's why you don't you see
a historically low number of people not just
trying to cross our border, trying to cross
the border into Panama all the way down
in the Darien Gap. I mean, it's been
a huge help for those countries as well.
On the headline, that's a misleading headline. K?
Three US citizens ages four, seven, and two
were not deported. Their They were. Their mothers
who are legally in this country were deported.
The They were too. Children went with their
mothers. Now here's the important part about this.
We just talked about it yesterday. The evidence
has now come out through court that ultimately
the agents were
basically, the idea is that the mother was
with the child, and they were and they
were saying that the the the father was
trying to get in communication with the mother
so they could ultimately let the child stay
here and that the ICE agents would not
let it in fact, there was a moment
in a certain court documents where they were
on the phone. The mother was trying to
call the husband, and they literally grabbed the
phone out of her hand and hung it
up.
And now make it sound like this was
their choice because they know that there's no
one for them no one to speak for
them. And if they do, they'll call them
illegal aliens and terrorists. So at the end
of the day, these people are monsters, guys.
And it's not because of just this one
thing. You know, they also support genocide in
a very, very bombastic way. They are not
people that care about human life.
So what we're talking about is another example
of abuse when you're talking about children who
are US citizens. How does that not matter?
Who did want to stay with their father
and they wouldn't let it happen?
That's what the information is showing. Again, if
more information comes out, it'll evolve. But right
now, that's what was recently shown from the
for as usual, from the actual exchange of
information during court as opposed to what he
screams on a show. There if those children
are US citizens, they can come back into
The United States if there's their father or
someone here who wants to assume them. He
was already there, and they wouldn't let it
happen. But, ultimately, who was deported was their
mother, who their mothers who were here illegally.
The children just went with their mothers. Yeah.
But, again, the game to play so you're
to claim they weren't deported even though they
literally were deported is just the kind of
stupidity we're used to now.
And you could make the argument that they
were deported, but there's a nuance for why
that's okay. But to just claim that they
weren't deported is what you see online now.
And then many people actually argue that they
weren't, and that gets contorted into they never
even got removed. They're still here with their
it's insane the kind of ways this cascades
through the the conversation
because they know what they're doing.
They're they're they're I mean, in many ways,
doing this against themselves, deceiving their own people.
Now who does that help, guys?
But it it wasn't like you guys make
it sound like ICE agents kicked down the
door and grabbed the two year old and
threw him on an airplane. That's misleading. Yeah.
That's just Well, nobody even said that, by
the way. What's misleading is what you're doing.
Now, yes, clearly, the corporate media lies all
the time. And, yes, they play up things
to suit their interest like you all do,
but the truth is what we've just gone
through.
And, ultimately, what you're doing is trying to
make it sound like it wasn't deportation, which
it clearly was. So you you could say
they're both doing the same thing in different
ways. It's not true. Just to be clear,
because I I do wanna get to the
overhaul at the state department.
Is it The US policy to deport children,
even
US citizens,
with their families, and I hear what you're
saying, without due process. Just Okay.
It's amazing that we despite look. Look. The
corporate media on left and right are not
to be trusted.
But information is information. You should check it
for yourself regardless of how often somebody lies.
The truth is what she's saying is important.
And the reality is regardless of the claim,
every single person and most importantly,
American citizens
have due process.
I only say most importantly because of the
context of the way people view this. In
principle, it's no different. But understand that we're
talking about three children, US citizens,
whether their mother was illegal or not. Again,
in principle, it hasn't changed. They weren't given
a process. They were removed, and they wouldn't
even allow them to speak with the father
to potentially let them stay. One of these
kids had cancer, apparently.
So be very clear there. Well, no. No.
No. No. No. Again, if someone's in this
country unlawfully, illegally, that person gets deported. Okay.
See, he did it again. She asked explicitly
about the due process in between those two
things, and all he says is if they're
illegal, they get deported.
Yeah. She just agreed with you. The point
is, are they given due process and you're
admitting yet again that they do not or
that you don't care about the the reality
of the constitution. If that person is with
a two year old child or has a
two year old child and says, I want
to take my child with you with me.
Well, then what you have two choices. You
can say yes. Of course, you can take
your child whether they're a citizen or not
because it's your child, or you can say,
yes. You can go, but your child must
stay behind. And then your headlines would read
US holding hostage.
Probably. He's probably right about that. The point
though is that that's a false binary like
everything else they do. You're skipping the option
where the father was trying to get in
contact with the mother because they wanted him
to stay here and you guys wouldn't let
that happen to the point of physically removing
the phone from their hands.
But you see, people like this don't care
about any of that, whether he even knows
about it. Two year old, four year old,
seven year old, one mother deported. So the
mother the parents make that choice. I imagine
those three US citizen children have fathers here
in The United States. Oh, you imagine? See,
you we all know this yesterday. Go through
the documentation
and just get it'll give you chills how
disgusting this person is, who knows about this,
who knows that these people did and you
stopped it from happening. And what you're doing
is downplaying the act like, well, if they're
if they'd even come around. Probably at some
point, if it gets pushed far enough, they'll
start to suggest the parents are bad people.
Well, the father's not father of the years.
Typical. And again, which would have nothing to
do with the legal reality of the case.
They can stay with their father. That's up
to their family to decide where the children
go. Children go with their parents. Parents decide
where their children Oh, how nice of you
to now say that even though in the
past, you guys were both sides separating families.
Now whatever you think about that, the point
is it's insane for them to now push
this argument that it's, like, common knowledge. Well,
of course, we let them decide. No. That's
not really been your policy in the past,
but now they're trying to push it in
because it's not even the reality. They're trying
to play the narratives back and forth. So
The US deported their mothers who were illegally
in America. Thanks for
So here's a clip from Patrick Henningsen, twenty
first century
wire. Important. Same point. And I I think
he makes excellent argument here about the larger
idea of this. Right? Not just that these
are obvious violations of the constitution, but what
does that mean if you're a politician doing
this and you're knowingly violating this?
Sacrosanct of all the amendments is the first
amendment.
All other amendments,
the rights are derived from that ability
to have a first amendment, inalienable rights.
Any anyone within US jurisdiction, legal or not,
is entitled to those rights.
And by the way, the president of United
States
and his, advisors or whoever has to swear
an oath, I'm not sure if anybody does
these days or if they do whether they
actually mean it.
If they swear an oath
if you're a soldier, you swear this oath,
don't you? Look at the oath.
It's
swear to protect and defend the US constitution
from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
So if you're a US Politician
and you are undermining or attacking
the first amendment of The United States on
behalf of a foreign government, then you're an
enemy of the US constitution.
You are a domestic enemy
of the US constitution. If you're a foreign
lobby paying for that access
to cajole, manipulate,
coerce,
blackmail,
pay off, bribe
US Officials and office holders
in order to undermine the first amendment so
as to eliminate any criticism or opposition
to what that foreign country is doing like
Israel, in this case, carrying out a brutal
genocide.
So anybody
involved
in that,
selling out of the US constitution,
that, unfortunately, is tantamount to treason.
Maybe the media, maybe the Democrats should take
a look at that.
It's like an open goal for the for
the opposition, but they won't take it. They
won't take the shot.
The Democrats won't take it.
AOC won't take it. Bernie certainly won't take
it.
Now don't mistake that for him acting like
left versus right. He knows what he's talking
about. What he's doing is highlighting the fact
that the same thing we point out, which
is that if we're gonna pretend this is
Democrats fighting Republicans or the Republicans fighting the
deep state, which are the Democrats,
explain why they're not going after the open
goal. The obvious reality that they could destroy
I mean, or any number of different examples.
The the what they've been doing so far,
the Donald Trump or this this current Trump
administration
has done many things that they could go
after. What about the not signing ethics pledges?
I brought that up four different times before
this started and said, if they don't do
anything about it, that'll be very telling. And
here we are.
The supposed people fighting Trump's administration
let him slide by without even
clearly because I think they're all involved with
the agenda we're discussing.
The influence from something else.
But his point is important here.
Look at how obvious this is. Now there's
people in the media. There's Van Hollins out
there calling it out. But what are they
doing about it?
There's nothing there's no impeachment, no articles impeachment.
Maybe they'll change, but right now, you need
to see what that shows you. I think
it's because they're all invested in the same
agenda. You can decide for yourself.
Mm-mm. Because both parties are bottom out to
treason.
Maybe the media, maybe the Democrats should take
a look at that.
It's like an open goal for the for
the opposition, but they won't take it. They
won't take the shot.
The Democrats won't take it.
AOC won't take it. Bernie certainly won't take
it.
Mm-mm.
Because both parties are bought and paid for
in The United States. Both parties.
And that's really sad. Now you're seeing the
result of having no opposition
is
when the nefarious
elements get get done with the politicians
and they start going for the machinery of
government. They start attacking the US constitution because
no one domestically will defend it.
And all these so called conservatives
who've been,
showboating for the last four years fighting the
woke, when it comes to actually defending the
US constitution,
they ran a mile.
Most of them support Israel, so that's that.
You know, they're not going to lift a
finger. They love deporting their opposition. They don't
want any critics. They don't want students protesting
on campus.
Important to think about.
Right? I mean, you know, we're talking about
a very important reality here where they are
violating what, like, the most sacred part of
this, you know, whatever you wanna call it,
the constitution or or social agreement,
the law. He says dive into why the
first amendment is considered the cornerstone of all
freedoms in The United States. Expose the hypocrisy
when it comes to defending the first amendment
and the dangers of having no political opposition.
I mean, we're talking about the first amendment.
You look no further than the antisemitism act,
which is still going forward. We'll talk about
that in the next show, possibly tomorrow, but
I we'll see if that ends up the
point is it's coming. We're gonna get into
the continuation of that, which undermines the major
point or other highlights the major point that
they don't believe in the first amendment.
That is a direct contradiction to that,
or saying you can't you can't BDS or
any number of things where they're showing you
that they are violating your rights for Israel.
This just adds to it. And he says,
this clip highlights the threats of The US
constitution and the rise of nefarious elements.
Our leader are are are our leaders no
longer swearing an oath to protect the constitution?
Well, first, remember, Donald Trump swore himself in
without his hand on the bible.
If that I I think that matters, especially
as a Christian. But either way, she was
standing right next to him with the bible
in her hand, and he chose not to.
Maybe it was an accident. I find that
a major thing to over overlook.
I think there might be a reason for
that.
He adds constitutional
conservatism in America has been completely usurped and
destroyed by a foreign lobby and its extremist,
quasi religious, ethnonationalist
ideology.
Now new, this was, Washington Examiner writes, house
Republicans vote to hinder Democrats' ability to investigate
Trump administration.
Now they we haven't seen many examples like
this to make it harder for them to,
to hold them in contempt in regard to
the judicial system.
Now you look. You you can argue this
is because they are fighting a corrupt entity
like the deep state. They have to do
this to fight off the what maybe you're
right. The point we've always made Catherine made
this right in the beginning. The idea that
if you're gonna do this the wrong way,
like, if you're gonna do this in a
way that
ensures that it won't stay or that it
will be reversed, then you're not actually doing
it. And and the point we're making here
in this is that
in regard to the, hindering their ability to
investigate. Basically, you know, the idea being that
they're creating it under the
hindering their ability to investigate. Basically, you know,
the idea being that they're creating it under
the guise of fighting the thing, they're doing
the thing. To make it as simple as
possible. Right? We're saying we're gonna fight their
ability. You know, they're attacking their freedom in
this country and constitution, and so we'll destroy
the constitution to to stop them.
Yeah. Maybe you think that's what makes sense.
It's sort of like lesser of evils, isn't
it? That's how this goes. But recognize that
you shouldn't support this if you've got principles,
if you understand what they're doing.
They passed a rule Tuesday that hinders Democrats
and really understand guys. That's how they frame
this so it makes sense to people that
hate Democrats.
The right way to read it is, house
Republicans passed a rule Tuesday that hinders
the ability
to use power in the minority to launch
investigations into the current administration. That's all it
means. You could frame that currently because that's
how they want you to look at it.
But all this means is, let's say, next
time, it's reversed. And all of a sudden,
the Democrats control the houses and the Republicans
are the minority. And now what? Now they
can't call out the deep state?
I just it's so stupid how we can't
recognize in a larger sense how obvious these
things are. Now
Bonnie and Hegseth have also ordered to look
into how military can be used in domestic
operations.
No worry there, guys.
The violation of the posse comitatus in regard
to what they're doing all over in this
case or the border or now the rollout
of the immigration dynamic or the Palantir discussion,
all these things are coming together all under
the guise of the same thing, whatever the
current thing is that you support right now,
left and right.
That is insane, and it's happening one by
one, and people are allowing it because they
don't wanna look like they challenge their party.
Now the memo that we talked about yesterday
is just important to reiterate.
What shows you the direct I mean, this
is the important part about this is it
shows you not just a we believe we're
doing this maybe the wrong thing for the
right reasons or that this is about trying
to, you know, not violate the constitution, but
do it in a way that maneuvers legally.
This shows you that they knew what they
were doing, that they knew that they were
violating your rights and did it anyway.
That's what this shows you. And this is
DOJ memo offers blueprint to trend the aragu
deportation plan, which by for for the record,
by the way, that overlaps MS 13 too.
In most of these things, they're that's like
trend the aragu slash MS 13.
But it says Trump administration officials directed law
enforcement nationwide
to pursue and this is a March 14
document, which, of course, we have for you
right here.
The Trump administration officials directed law enforcement nationwide
to pursue suspected
gang members into their homes or if they
think they're in your home, which is what
this really is about, in some cases, without
any sort of warrant.
According to the copy of the directive exclusively
attained by USA Today, the directive issued March
14 by Bondi
provides the first public view
of the specific implementation of the 1798
Alien Enemies Act invoked to deport migrants
accused
of being members of the gang.
After a day after the announcement, March 15,
immigration officials apprehended and flew more than 200
Venezuelans to El Salvador.
See, the day after, this is what happened.
They scooped him up. No process. No warrants.
Now remember, when we called that out, what'd
they say?
Of course, we're following the law. Of course,
we did all of that. People are lying.
No. You're lying. They did nope.
Law. They're they got they now they're retroactively
finding out, and we knew already, like we
saw with Ozturk, for example, masks, no identification,
no warrants.
They didn't care. They think writing this memo
somehow gives them super they can supersede the
constitution apparently. Talk about an illegal action. Like
or insulting, like, undermining of what we
the the foundational concepts of this country. They
can just write a memo and be like,
that doesn't matter right now.
That's exactly what we've always been fighting.
For weeks, news organizations, members of congress, the
courts, and advocates have pressed the administration to
provide operational details and evidence to support its
claims that they were trendy,
a new designated foreign terrorist organization. That they
they designated this right before they did this
for the reason of making this feel like
it made sense.
You know, wartime act requires a state entity,
so they call them a terrorist organization for
that to make sense, but it's not working.
People have very quickly broke it down and
said, you actually, it's it's the bottom of
the article. I'll hold back for that. But,
Bruce Stein made the same point that that
this violates the the proper use of this
in every way. They don't care.
What I was gonna say
I just lost the thought that I was
gonna get into. I was keep reading. I
was told I was gonna jump into up
here.
But yeah. So it says,
press them to provide evidence to support these
claims. Oh, well, that was that's what it
was. That ultimately, this whole time, what have
they been telling you? That these are confirmed
members. From day one, they've confirmed. We know.
And then every single one that we got
any information for either immediately proved that they
were not even remotely that or that they
had nothing to actually prove it. And at
best, they had a certain tattoo that they
claimed meant that. There's
plenty of evidence now showing people that had
no tattoos, that had no criminal record, that
were here legally. They're just currently in El
Salvador, which is still absolutely insane to me.
But they said they were they were absolute.
Right? Even Garcia, they are are absolute. And
they just added human trafficking for good measure,
even though they're lying about that and everything
else. But now this document is showing you
that they never even cared to prove it,
that they didn't need any of that. They
just scooped up people as they're gonna explain
for you if they checked certain boxes, which
very clearly shows you what we've always been
talking about. It says,
the memo was provided to USA Today by
the open group government group Property of the
People, which they obtained through records requests. Legal
experts examine the documents that reveal the following.
Now again, here's it is. You can go
through it, verify it all for yourself.
There's force to the the was it the
I think oh, there was here. I'll I'll
read through it in here. This is important
to read through though because it just really
does walk you through
the internal memo that was given that does
not have any real legal standing. Like, they
can't just write a memo that it's really
like a direction that then argues you could
just not follow the constitution.
It's crazy.
But it says it provides directives to frontline
officers apprehending suspected
gang members,
suggesting officers obtain a warrant
of remove
and and of apprehension or removal,
quote, as much as practical
practical
excuse me, practicable.
Those administrative
warrants are signed by immigration officers, not judges,
like criminal warrants. So they're superseding that. That
was like the judicial warrant point. They are
superseding the entire dynamic of this and go
and just working through their channels. And it
says due to a dynamic nature of law
enforcement procedures,
officers are free to, quote, apprehend aliens
based on their reasonable belief that they meet
the definitions
that the memo states or that the the
point is apprehend aliens. Well, how do you
even know that they're aliens
without any real process to prove that? Now
I guarantee in some cases, like I said
before, that they are people that they have,
you know, records of. Right? My point though
is that many of them, even those people
though still require due process whether they're certain
or not. That's how it works because I
trust the government should never be the argument.
But what we're talking about is people that
they're claiming are that that we've now proven
weren't even actually illegal aliens.
So they're just I mean, it's also quite
possible that they knew they were doing this.
So the only two ways to look at
it is this was overly broad, and they
just didn't really care or that they were
deliberately going for people that they knew weren't
allowed, maybe for Israelists.
Qatar USA is saying get all of them.
I don't know.
But it says it purports to grant authority
to for police to enter suspected alien enemies'
residence
if circumstances
render it impractical impractical to first obtain a
warrant.
It's just there that is going
caveat,
constitution doesn't apply when it gets too when
it's too difficult.
The memo told law enforcement that immigrants deemed
alien enemies, so whatever they decide is the
point, that's how that all works, are not
entitled to a hearing,
appeal, or judicial review.
Flatly wrong. Illegal, unconstitutional,
as everyone has now ruled, including supreme court.
Realize even the supreme court in both cases,
nine to zero or the seven to two
follow-up,
they said the May the main point was
that they are required to give habeas relief
due process to people in this context. And,
of course, said
reasonable time to to seek it out, and
now they've put down a
a mandate that it was something like twelve
hours they were giving them knowing that that
wouldn't give them the process. Now they're going
back. It's this
tit for tat game that they're playing with
people's lives knowing that they're breaking the law.
That's how I see it anyway. So the
idea that they literally wrote down not entitled
to a hearing, but then argued in many
cases, they did do that. Like, you know,
Pullman and Rubio, we gave them due process.
They literally wrote down, we don't have to
do that. If we declare them an alien
enemy you know, that sounds like Obama's discussion
where they said you're a combatant if you're
in the area we're bombing.
That's how your government works, guys, and that's
the point. They're not different.
DOJ did not respond for comment. Administration officials
defend the deportations, they say, are based on
internal intelligence and criminal histories of some of
the Venezuelans. Of course, they've never proven any
of that. Never given you a shred of
evidence to back up anything other than they
were there with the right tattoos or just
happened to be there also.
Government lawyers say the special designation as a
terrorist organization and the Alien Enemies Act affords
it a wide berth to respond to national
security threat,
if that's even what's really happening and if
that's even a real I mean, all of
these are based on these ideas
that there's a state actor, that it's a
coordinated invasion,
and it's a tax terrorist organization, none of
which is actually true.
Despite its emergency rulings on the issue now
to be clear, the argument even they're making
is that just the amount of illegal immigrants
that were allowed in represents an invasion, not
necessarily that Train Nicaragua
is coordinating an actual invasion as a state
actor, which is what it requires to make
this legally reality.
Nobody cares.
Again, where are the Democrats? You could rip
this apart right now if you actually wanted
to.
But that's the point. They're on the same
side.
But it says despite its emergency ruling on
the issue, Supreme Court has yet to tackle
the overall question, why,
of whether the Alien Enemies Act grants the
president the authority to expel alleged members of
the gang. Now to be clear, they kinda
did when they said you have to give
them due process. So you are you have
to prove the case, which is obviously the
stat static reality.
So they did in a way. Already rule
on that. But it says, the home under
all constitutional
law is the most sacred place where you
have a right to privacy. According to one
of the experts, it says, by this standard,
spurious allegations of gang affiliation means the government
can knock down your door, which we are
seeing. I just played you the clip. I
might even still have it. Let me see.
From the last show, which is just wild
to see, where they were literally kicking in
the door
of US citizens. I think it was Michigan.
Now it looks like I I, you,
download over it. But in Michigan, they were
kicking in doors of US citizens. Why? Because
they took part in protest against Israel.
It's very easy. Look it up. It's it's
happening all over this country right now.
Now it says, quote, I would anticipate this
will be challenged in court.
It would be a departure from the law.
It would also it would allow searches of
homes without warrants under if they just claim
they think there's an alien in there, which
we just discussed.
Now Lee,
gel how do you say that? Jalernet?
That's a crazy last name. Lee
Jalernet,
the ACLU's
lead counsel in the chat, in the challenges
to use of the Alien Enemies Act, said
the DOJ directives run counter to the constitution's
protection from unreasonable search and seizures. Another way
to say that more simply is that it's
unconstitutional.
Quote, the administration's unprecedented use of a wartime
authority during peacetime was bad enough.
Now we find out the justice department was
authorizing officers to ignore the most bedrock principle
of the fourth amendment by authorizing officers to
enter homes without a judicial warrant.
Judicial warrant is the main that's the important
part. The impact of the assertion that suspects
that suspects are not entitled to any judicial
review has been challenged already in federal courts,
and restraining orders for deportations are already active
in New York, Texas, Colorado. And yet this
is where they point and go, judicial coup.
And even though all they're doing is upholding
the reality of the constitution, which in my
opinion is their only job.
It says on April 7, a split US
Supreme Court, which is weird they say split
seeing as how it was six, seven to
two,
directed the administration to provide detainees a chance
to challenge their case in a proper venue
before such removal occurs. In other words, in
other words, for due process.
That's what they ruled, and they're still not
doing that. Quote, the documents reveal the Trump
administration has authorized every single law enforcement officer
in the country, including traffic cops,
to engage in immigration roundups
explicitly outside due process.
Fantastic.
Bondi's memo attached a copy of the alien
enemies validation guide that has been scrutinized by
immigration attorneys nationwide.
It assigns
a point system based on a person's court
record.
Not whether they're part of the gang, not
whether they're actually a legal ear, but whether
they have a traffic ticket or which is
one of the things we're talking about, which
we've already seen used. But it goes based
on their court record in the past. But
also subjective measures
such as phone calls
with members of the gang, observations of hand
signs, use of graffiti, clothing, tattoos.
So all the point is, as we already
can see, if they have a tattoo that
they've somehow you know, Michael Jordan
Or apparently, the autism awareness tattoo, which there's
apparently two people that have been taking because
of that. It's a it's an effing rainbow
flag.
I just don't understand. I mean, it seems
like it's almost just deliberate use.
Tattoo,
a bull's hat, a skin color.
That is apparently enough till we get sent
to El Salvador right now.
Even though you might you're in as many
cases here legally in the country.
So
here's the the memo, which I recommend you
read for yourself.
Here is just a follow-up, same conversation, Daily
Beast. Seek Trump this is a couple extra
points. Secret Trump memo tells ICE to break
into homes without warrants. Now it says, it
stated the ICE can curb the proactive procedures
put in place to obtain a warrant.
Just a weirdo way to say we don't
have to do what the law requires since
they, quote, will not always be realistic or
effective in swiftly identifying and removing them. Okay.
So what you're saying is, again, the argument
of the the we can't do it in
too much process, which is not a valid
argument,
if it's not realistic or effective. So if
we don't get what we want out of
the process, then don't even go for the
warrant. Get what we want, oh, and due
process later, if ever. Seems like we've heard
that before. You know, like when Trump said
due process later about guns in his last
administration.
I was just playing that in fact, and
the point is this is important to understand
that this has been a repeated concept.
That one is about free speech. I don't
have it off the side. I won't grab
it again.
Given the the the dynamic nature of enforcement
operations, officers in the field are authorized to
apprehend aliens upon a reasonable belief.
That's not how law works. That alien meets
all four requirements to be validated,
to be validated.
You see, they're acting like your assumptive points
validate anything. The validation would be the due
process where you prove this in a court
of law. See, the subjective points will be
enough to arrest somebody to then make a
case about it.
They didn't do any of that. They used
the assumptive points to claim he is and
remove them forever, apparently, for life.
It added this authority includes entering an alien
enemy's residence or as they've already pointed out,
even if they suspect it's in your house
or they just decide to use that claim
to get inside for some reason, which they've
already done, to make alien enemies act of
apprehension where circumstances rendered impracticable
to first obtain a signed notice and warrant
of apprehension and removal.
Down here, it says, but then or but
since then, the administration has been apprehending and
deporting immigrants who are
not Venezuelans,
who have no criminal record.
This is which is one of the most
provable things that we can see in this.
And they just go, well, they sure they
were here illegally, and many of them weren't.
They just don't know what to say. So
the point is they're making this this very
strong argument that they have to meet all
these different things. And it says, I proclaim
that all Venezuelans,
citizens 14 years of age or older who
are members of the Tran de Aragua gang,
not suspected but are, are within The United
States and are not actually
naturalized or
lawful permanent residents of The United States are
liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed.
So
you can you just heard all that. Right?
Like, the reality of what he said. That's
Donald Trump.
So what about the people that were here
legally? Right? Who were, in fact, Brett, maybe
Khalil had a green card.
None of the rest applies. But going back
to the people that are Venezuelans, say, okay,
Venezuelan, certainly age 14, there's plenty of those
in this country
who are members, but they don't know that.
That's the point. They're they're making the claim
without proving it. But then the idea is
it very clearly says not actually naturalized or
even lawful residents.
There the El Salvadorian prison is packed now
from this 200 plus people they sent with
people who are actually here legally.
They don't care.
And again, even they say, but then they
went on to remove people who were not
Venezuelan or who were here legally. No criminal
record.
Finishes by saying the alien enemies act can
only be invoked when there is a declared
war between The United States and a foreign
government or nation or an invasion or predatory
incursion
perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the country by
a foreign nation. That's what it reads as.
There's no you don't just get to make
it into what you want, but that's what
our government always does. Many have argued that
Trump's crackdown on immigration regarding members of the
Trendy Nicaragua gang does not meet the act's
requirements of war, invasion, or predatory incursion. It
doesn't pretty flatly.
Doesn't matter, apparently.
Now a couple of other points I think
are important to highlight, other things that are
happening. We just reported this the other day,
but I want you to see it because
it's really important to hear. ICE invades wrong
home. So this go this really goes back
to the due process point, guys. If they
never have to verify what they're doing or
prove it or even get warrants, which would
then require a judge to sign off on
it, right, all of this stuff. That this
this is what happens. And they're doing this
because they've been given endless leash apparently to
just do whatever they want with no real
if they just think. If they if they're
if the person might be, grab them anyway,
and we keep hearing this. That's the team.
Right? Just get him anyway. Now he's in
El Salvador.
That's a real story. Team wrongly sent to
El Salvador.
The people that were there heard the ICE
agent say, that's not the one. And the
guy the leader said, take him anyway.
No tattoos.
No criminal record,
here legally.
He is now in El Salvador. It's a
very public case.
I mean, it's just I don't know how
anybody who is an honest person
can actually pretend like this is okay.
Unless you just genuinely hate anybody who's brown,
I guess. I don't even know how this
makes sense.
ICE invades wrong home,
steals their life savings,
and then leaves. Now, this is the kind
of story that they go, that's fake news,
democrat. No. It's very real. It's a very
public
story. Now it says in Oklahoma City, which
we already went over this briefly,
20 federal immigration agents raided the wrong home.
These are US citizens, guys.
Forcing a woman out of the house with
her three daughters, not even leaving them enough
time to get dressed,
then seize their phones, their laptops, their life
savings, and then didn't even leave them a
business card to get the find out how
to get it back. They identify themselves, didn't
present a warrant. We are literally living in
times where we are watching the absolute breakdown
of everything we ever said was sacred.
How do you explain this?
How are you okay with that?
Again, US citizens, which it shouldn't matter in
principle at the same point,
search and seizure.
So here we are, 20 agents bursting into
your home
in the middle of the night, you're in
your underwear, forced outside, apparently, it's freezing. That's
what they were saying.
And then took everything. Why? Now realize the
point of this is the warrant was for
the the location,
but apparently, the people had moved away. And
this has all been verified. They they they
rented the house. They moved in. So it
shows you this archaic information they're acting on.
Right? That this is they're not even verifying
this stuff. And then even though they were
there and re realized it's not the right
people, they just decided to steal everything from
them anyway. Now, how does that even make
sense other than civil asset forfeiture? How does
that have to do with immigration at all?
It's corrupt.
In in in my opinion,
in fact, it go this doesn't make sense
unless there's something else driving this. Again, I
would love someone to background research. Who who
are these people? Were they part of an
Israeli protest?
Are they on someone's list somewhere? I mean,
why would that make sense to anybody? Like,
this is a wild overstep even before all
of this. Now it says the woman had
only moved into the house two weeks earlier
after relocating to Oklahoma from Maryland, Maryland, which
is interesting. The armed agents told the woman,
identified by local TV station f k f
o r as Marissa,
that they had a search warrant, but the
name suspects on the warrant didn't leave the
house and weren't connected to anyone in the
family. Now realize,
according to the family, they never produced the
warrant.
They said they had a warrant, but they
didn't produce it. This is so this is
chilling, guys.
That says, we just moved in from Maryland.
We're citizens. That's what I keep saying. We
are citizen.
US American citizens. The agents who identify themselves
as US marshals, immigration, customs, and enforcement, and
FBI agents. Think about that. Didn't he seem
to care?
Waking the family, forcing them outside in their
underwear, ransacking the house, taking their belongings as,
quote, evidence. They still haven't gotten it back,
by the way.
Quote, I told them before they left, I
said, you took my phone.
We have no money. I just moved here.
We have to feed my children. I'm going
to need gas money. I need to be
able to get around. Like, how do you
just leave me here with nothing like an
abandoned dog?
You know, for those that again, for it
should matter more to your whatever. The The
people out there that wanna make this make
sense, it only matter when it's an American
even though it applies to everybody. American citizens
of The United States are being kicked out
of their homes in the middle of the
night,
stolen from by the government with no warrant
presented, all because
we're fighting gangs,
terrorism.
Do you realize that this in any other
context would be a monumental story, but right
now, we're we're buried in all sorts of
other criminal activity? These people are getting left
to the wayside by the government they probably
support.
Most Americans, my point. Whether left or right,
support the government.
Now it says, they were very dismissive, very
rough, very careless.
I kept pleading. I kept telling them we're
we're we weren't criminals.
We were treat they were treating us like
criminals. What happened to ill get innocent until
proven guilty in this country even though we
know that doesn't exist? That's what we pretend.
Right?
This is we were here by ourselves. We
didn't do anything. One agent told the family,
I know this was a little rough this
morning.
It says, quote, it was so dis disc
denigrating
that you do all of this to my
family, to women, fellow citizens.
And and it was, quote, a little rough.
You literally traumatized me and my daughters for
life. We're going to have to get help
to get over this somehow. The agents told
her that it could take days or months
for the family stuff to return
and wouldn't even give her a business card.
It it if if it says it all
fits a pattern of cruelty as as they're
framing it, but I would agree from the
Trump administration and its efforts to deport as
many people as it can. The White House
doesn't believe in due process or following the
law or even standards of basic decency. The
violent raid in Oklahoma City would be wrong
even against a family of undocumented immigrants. I
agree.
Let alone US citizens like Marissa and her
daughters. Hopefully, she and her and she and
other victims of the administration's wants and behavior
can get rest restitution.
I mean, how are they feeding themselves right
now? They took everything, their phones, their computers,
their money.
How do they go how do they go
to work?
I mean, everything about this is so incredible.
This can't be what we're okay with in
this country. I know I like, I know
in my heart that we're better than this.
And I know people out there are seeing
this, and it's scary, and it's real. But
you need to do something about it. You
need to speak out about this.
This is not a one off. This is
not the Elon Musk in the White House
going, well, we're gonna make mistakes. No. That
Gaza conum story was one of a hundred
thousand examples of them prove being facetious, but
a lot of examples of them provably lying
to you, not making mistakes, knowingly deceiving you,
and then when they really get caught going,
you know, well, we're gonna make mistakes. That's
not what this is.
There this is policy, not not byproduct. Okay?
What they're doing was deliberate by the memo
we can see, and now they're going into
Americans' homes and just stealing everything. Whether that's
the one example or not, they're kicking in
your door because of narrative, because of excuse.
What happened to shall not be infringed? What
happened to inalienable guys? Weren't you just saying
that?
Melnick points out other example. They were going
to send a this is a different teenager,
by the way. They were gonna send a
teenager
to be imprisoned in El Salvador without a
trial
because an ICE officer thought a blue and
white water pistol was a real gun.
He has no criminal record, was attending school,
and was in the process of asylum,
Which whether or not you agree with that,
that is the legal process and he was
seeking asylum and that was the if you're
in that process, you're not here illegally.
And has never gotten into trouble.
But it says he been this is a
Guardian article about this. Tracking this case since
he was a young man from Venezuela. No
tattoos. No criminal record. Immigration court date on
the books. Was sent to Texas from Virginia
and almost removed from the country
except for the Supreme Court order.
So he's not a criminal. He's not a
gang member. There's no tattoos. Right? So what
are we talking about? How is this not
as clear as day? He would be in
El Salvador for life right now if they
hadn't stood up. And yet now we're calling
this Democrat activism, even though there were six
conservative judges that ruled on this.
It's we're lost right now. Some people anyway.
And as I said before, there's already a
teen.
Lost in El Salvador forever because he was
in the wrong place at the wrong time
with the right skin color.
This is actually wild. So Melinda points points
this out. Venezuelan men who narrowly avoided being
imprisoned, like this guy, by the way. Right?
That's one of the kids
in the larger conversation. Now this specific point,
Venezuelan men in this place that were avoid
that were about to be deported.
Seba, the Supreme Court
spelled out SOS
to a Reuters drone camera
that was flying over the facility. That's real,
guys. Now that doesn't necessarily prove anything, but
it's interesting. These people that are in a
group I mean, every second, we're finding more
examples of people that are not criminals, who
are here legally or at the very least
seeking asylum, no tattoos, who are being sent
to a foreign concentration camp forever.
So it's not hard to wrap your mind
around the fact that most of them probably
are the same.
Or some of them, any of them, it
matters, guys.
And again,
should we care to go through the due
process we're afforded, we would know for sure
in all other cases.
But it says buses to the airport were
turned around the last second. That that they
would be in El Salvador right now.
Here's the article.
April 30. Migrants held in Texas fear notorious
El Salvador in prison. Now it says, with
a Reuters drone flying nearby, 31 men formed
a letter in in the dirt yard of
the facility on Monday. The letter is SOS.
Ten days earlier, dozens of Venezuelan detainees at
the center were given notices by immigration officials
that alleged that alleged they were members of
the gang
and subject to deportation under the wartime act
according to the documents shown in Reuters.
And and the court,
recorded calls and and proceedings. The families of
seven detainees interviewed by Reuters said they were
not gang members and that they refused to
sign the document. Now,
of course, the reflexive argument from people that
wanna support this go, oh, they're they're just
lying. Well, you know how we could overshore?
Same old thing. The problem is that they're
denying this, didn't even sign the document. So
that's where this comes to play. The government's
accusing you of being part of the gang,
and you're you're claiming you're not. The only
way you have the opportunity to present your
your challenge evidence to that would be for
due process to happen.
Now if they had been sent already, this
would never even be shown. They already be
in El Salvador forever.
Again, I just if you're if you're watching
this, you're following along, and you started this
by thinking that this was right, if you're
already if you're still going this makes sense,
then I this is not the show for
you. Facts don't matter because it's obvious that
what this is is a violation. Even if
you agree that they should be deported in
a in a normal sense,
this is wrong. And there are people that
are being sent to a prison for life
who are not criminals and not breaking the
law even in this country
because
they're probably lying.
Nevertheless, hours later on Friday, April 18, they
were loaded onto a bus bound for the
airport to take them to El Salvador
before the America, this the they basically stepped
up and stopped this Supreme Court ruling and
and and human rights groups that are pushing
this in their face that got this to
be paused. The buses were turned around at
the last second.
Think how close that is.
Children, teenagers.
That night, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked their
deportations. The Department of Homeland Security declined to
comment on that deportation, Paul did. It was
a reprieve for the group of Venezuelan detained
at this location who still face being potentially
sent to Cicotte.
The notorious, you know, the the concentration camp
in El Salvador that Trump's paying this send
all sorts of people there.
Now it says deny, denied
denied access to the to the facility at
ICE. Reuters flew a small plane over the
center last week as well as the drone,
which is what you saw.
Two of the people are one of them
is 29 or 24, one of them is
19.
Now it says hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans
have come to The United States over the
past few years fleeing economic collapse, which is
what The US has been engineering and what
critics call an authoritarian crackdown under Maduro.
I I disagree with the general framing of
that. I don't think any government's really on
your side, but overall, that's irrelevant. The point
is whatever it is, and I clear the
US government's manufacturing that even if he is
a tyrant, is that that is what drove
a lot of people into this country. And
let's not forget, Marco Rubio himself was responsible
for saying, come I mean, I showed his
tweets on the show before. Right in this
time frame was going, come into The United
States. We'll protect you.
Many of them came and then got arrested.
That that happened back then. But now the
point is that they are here under the
guise that they're gonna be allowed to flee
from what you're pointing to as for asylum.
And now those people are being yanked and
sent to a foreign prison.
I mean, think about how grotesque that is
to claim that you're gonna save them from
the group that you're destroying and then use
them in the next agenda and send them
to a foreign prison for life.
The people that are just regular Venezuelans fleeing
from whatever you claim is happening, and yet
you're calling them terrorists now. That's that's that's
the promises of the US government.
Now it says under the administration of Joe
Biden, many were actually given some of that
temporary protection, and now they're trying to revoke
it. Same point in a different way.
Just that was a legal con a contract
that was entered into saying we will protect
you from x y and z. They've been
here for years. They've made their lives. And
Trump just goes never mind.
Now it's not unique to Trump and Biden.
It's just the game that's played with this
government for obvious reasons. Now Now it says
in one recent video call, the, the the
younger I think the younger no. The older
one, 24 year old Milan, told his wife
that they hadn't been given much food. And
he tried to sleep more so they wouldn't
realize how hungry he was. Something that other
detainees also said.
Now maybe you don't care about that because
you convince yourself they're all terrorists even though
we can prove they're not. It just shows
you a problem here. Now this very much
overlaps with the mindset of what we're seeing
in the world today.
The spokesperson for the location, the the corporation
that runs this, so a for profit
prison, which is just disgusting, which runs the
facility, said all the detainees housed receive meals
based on a menu that's been approved by
a certified dietitian,
ensuring recommended daily caloric intake is met. Doesn't
that seem does that seem comparable to what
Gavir and the rest were saying that we're
making sure that they're getting the bare minimum
of calories?
Clearly seems like a similar concept. Now I
can't stop seeing these overlaps to the way
they're treating these people. I if you don't
recognize Israel's hand in all this as they're
pointing to groups that are may giving them
lists, I don't think you wanna see it.
That stuff just stands out to me as
almost like they're trying to punish these people
for something else.
Several of the men wanted to know how
it was possible for them to be classified
as alien enemies when they were not gang
members and had committed no crime. Seems like
a valid question.
They they must be under the illusion they
somehow have a process that will be given
to them. That they might have a day
in court.
Morons, right? Stupid stupid aliens don't even know
the rights of the kind. Oh, no. They
do actually know the rights. They're not being
given those rights.
If you don't have have a criminal record
in the three countries in which I have
lived in, how are they gonna send me
to El Salvador?
One of the men in the recording asked,
Reuters is not it wasn't immediately able to
establish his identity. The point is, he's never
been there. He's not El Salvadorian, and he
has no criminal record anywhere he's ever been.
Now you're gonna send him to El Salvadorian
prison?
Several of the men at court hearings in
their immigration cases that were scheduled,
and now they don't get to use them.
So what the point is they were in
the process of adhering with the law. So
many of these people are coming to the
gates and saying, I wanna be an American
citizen.
Talk about that American dream. Right? And in
the process of seeking it, they got the
wrong skin color. Trump sweeps in and sends
them to foreign prison forever.
Milan has been in a pending asylum case.
So one of them has immigration cases in
in regard to citizenship, one has an asylum
case.
These things are all legal realities,
but apparently not anymore.
On top of that, Melnick reports this. This
was on the thirtieth today. Two weeks ago,
Donald Trump was stopped from sending more people
to be imprisoned in El Salvador.
Now we're learning who they were,
and the stories are outrageous. Now we went
into one part of it. One guy was
accused of being trendy to Uruguay because of
his tattoos,
which include Pikachu,
Toad, and Patrick from SpongeBob.
All this stuff is so easy to prove,
and it's almost embarrassing at this point, but
it's so real. Mother Jones, our investigation, and
this is the one we were talking about
the other day. Based on first gen accounts
from and Texas reveals how Venezuelans were nearly
removed from the country under this act
because of allegations, many of which we can
prove aren't true.
Now here's one. This case is interesting because
this is one of the ones we were
following. This is a guy that was overlapped
with Khalil,
was one of these people at Columbia who
was part of the protest and everything.
No criminal record. No I mean, other than
allegations because he supports Palestine that, therefore, he
is a terrorist. That's the best they can
do, which is not true.
They had to release him.
Now this is important.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of
what happens when they have to go through
due process. They lose, which is exactly why
they are fighting tooth and nail to not
have to do that anywhere else.
Now it says a federal judge in Vermont
ordered the release on Wednesday of Moshe Madi,
a Colombian University student who was arrested two
weeks ago by ICE
after he went to his immigration. It was,
I think it was immigration meeting,
which is interesting. So they allowed him I
think that's the one if I'm remembering this
correctly.
We'll read through it. The point is he
was going to they they kind of lulled
him into this, then they arrested him. He
didn't break the law. Now it says, quote,
two weeks of detention so far. Two weeks
of detention with no crime. No no charge.
No allegation.
This is insane.
Two weeks in detention so far demonstrate great
harm to a person who has been charged
with no crime. US District Judge Jeffrey Crawford
said at a hearing Wednesday, mister Amati, I
order you released, he says.
Now it says judge Crawford who ruled to
release, me. He's
this is, Motti speaking.
Judge Crawford who ruled to release me against
all of the heinous accusations,
horrible acts, chills of speech, free first amendment
violations.
He had made a very brave decision to
let me out.
And this is what justice is. And for
anybody who's doubting justice, this is a light
of hope. I hope and faith in the
justice system in America.
Now I don't have as much hope that
it's gonna go that direction, but it he's
right. It is an example of how the
system appropriately works. And he says to for
president Trump and his cabinet,
I am not afraid of you, which probably
is not gonna be in his interest. I'm
willing to bet you of any group we're
talking about right now, they would hate that
and will
go after him because he said that, which
which just shows you the kind of petty,
childish, juvenile nature of all this, but yet
with people that have tremendous power, which is
terrifying.
But we'll see what happens. This will be
a case to follow because
what they've done so far is essentially prove
that he's not what they claimed he was,
and that's why he's been released. So as
this goes forward, we'll see how this plays
out. It says Mahdi, who cofounded the university
organization called the Palestinian Student Union and with
detained Columbia student, Mohammed Khalil, was born and
raised in a refugee camp in the West
Bank. And now you see why it matters
so much. Before moving to 02/2004 in 02/2014
to The United States where he has been
a legal resident for ten years. No criminal
activity, no tattoos, no support for Hamas. None
of the claims they're making. He simply supports
people fighting against genocide.
Mahdi, who is expected to graduate from Columbia
next month, which I'm sure they'll try to
stop, was arrested at a US arrest arrested
at a US citizenship and immigration services office
in Vermont, where he was taking his last
steps
in the process to become a US citizen.
I mean, imagine that, guys. You're literally going
through the right steps to be the thing
they claim you're not, and they arrest you
right before you can get that to happen,
lulling you into the meeting where you're doing
that and grabbing you at the at the
meeting. I mean, it's just it's
it's like
a I don't wanna say a violation of
this. You know, they're just they're abusing the
things they claim they hold sacred.
Judge Crawford noted at Wednesday's hearing that Mahdi
received letters of support, this is important as
well, from over 90 community members,
including members of the Jewish community,
who have, quote, who have inconsistent pattern described
him as peaceful.
Same thing about Khalil.
That's this is why they're failing all these,
guys, because this is counter to the obvious
reality and the facts,
just whatever Israel wants, apparently.
His lawyers believe that like Khalil,
he's being targeted by the Trump administration under
immigration and nationality act section two seven three
a four c I, which assert
that the secretary of state can deem a
person deportable
if they have reasonable ground to believe that
the person's presence or activities in The US
could have adverse foreign policy consequences. By god,
that could literally mean anybody for any reason
whatsoever because they say so. That's the point.
Now, here is where Mabry versus Madison is
important.
Supreme Court ruling, I think 18 o three,
the reality being is if it's repugnant to
the constitution, no matter how many people agree
with it, it is null and void. So
here, just because they passed this does not
therefore mean that it is a play that
it's not that that it's constitutional or legal.
The reality is that's fundamental. That's a contradiction
to the reality of the constitution.
Of course, they obviously have.
You can't just randomly choose to do that
because you claim their ideas are suddenly a
problem, which is what it says.
They're doing that though and pretending like it's
somehow not a direct violation of the constitution.
But
because it's
is and you can prove it,
it's not legally valid is the point.
At Columbia, Mahdi was a an outspoken critic
of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, and that
is why this is happening. My opinion anyway,
but I think it's quite obvious, quote, he's
being detained based solely on his first amendment
rights, his speech.
This is one of his attorneys speaking. That's
a violation of the law. That's a violation
of the constitution,
And he should be released immediately as a
result of the detention. There's just no question
there, guys.
It's wild.
Now I forgot my note here.
Oh, yeah. Just like I already made. And
this is why due process is important, guys.
I mean, the reality is that if this
hadn't happened,
you would I mean, I'm I'm I wanna
make sure I didn't actually misread that. I
mean, that's the point they made at the
beginning. I I assumed it was the same
one.
Oh, oh, well, that's okay. I'm actually glad
I already read this. So the first point
was obviously, like, that's why this whole process
is important. But as I wrote to myself,
my own note,
this is why they avoid
due process.
They know they'll lose.
But I kinda didn't say at the beginning,
but think about that. Right? They clearly know
that if they go through this, the evidence
they don't have will be shown to be
faulty faulty unless they can manipulate the court
process, which is what they're trying to do,
which is what we'll end with here. The
chilling threats to judges to hope they just
blindly rule in your favor.
Very American. Right? Very all in line with
the constitution. The scary part, though,
they know if they go through that process
that this won't work, so they're trying to
create the momentum to argue we don't need
to.
Now Melnick points
out, April 22, Josh Marshall says, purported ICE
agents
raid a courthouse in Charlottesville in plain clothes
without badges, IDs, or warrants.
Carved off two men without explanation.
One of these three men was masked, and
the detainees were ushered into an unmarked van.
And I guess we assume that's ICE. Right?
For for all we know, that was a
kidnapping. I mean, this is why this stuff
matters.
But it's everywhere you look right now because
of the memo we already know exists. So
they're literally pretending their memo give them the
right to just violate constitutional rights of everybody,
including Americans, but the principle's the same regardless.
Melnick says, these kind of very public courthouse
arrests are going to send the message to
undocumented immigrants, I would argue, to any immigrants,
seeing as how we can prove that people
who are actually have valid visas are actually
validly going through the process are being targeted
almost.
So now they're gonna be hiding. And I
think I think let me let me read
the sentiment the sentence, and then I'll give
you this thought that I think this is
deliberate.
It's it's to send the message to undocumented
immigrants not to show up to court. That
is a bad idea, he says. As a
society, we want to encourage people to attend
their hearings in court. This does the opposite.
Now here's the point.
That step that's one way to that's one
first way to look at it. The second
is, like I said, there's people that already
know, like we do, that they're doing this
to people that are legally here. So now
you're gonna have immigrants that are afraid to
be taken advantage of that don't show up
to court hearings they're required to show up
to. Then guess what happens? Then they use
that lack of showing up to deport them
anyway.
I'm telling you guys, this is a a
coordinated thing using old traffic tickets to argue
that it's a violate I mean, it's it's
everywhere you look. They're just grabbing people for
the whether they're legally
applicable or not.
Removing visas hours before they go get them
and then claiming that the visa is invalid,
and that's why they get removed. It's it's
just gross. Everywhere you look, this is happening.
Now, this is the New York Times. Wisconsin
judge arrest
what we know.
Now this is interesting because look. Like, I
I briefly went over yesterday. This is incredible
the way they're doing this. But you could
clearly argue that what she did was,
you know, borderline
I mean, you could argue it's illegal. I
mean, I think what's hard this it comes
down to intent.
And it does seem like she was frustrated
about it and clearly took action that was
meant to
circumvent what they were doing. Now is that
is that is that
justifiable to arrest a judge and perp walk
her out the street and said, when ultimately,
now it's released and waiting for a hearing?
You know? Or was that deliberately meant to
to instill fear that this is we're gonna
go after everybody?
Now let's read through it. You can decide
for yourself because what's interesting about this is
they are breaking the law, guys, from a
judge's perspective in a hundred different ways. And
so for her to try to circumvent that,
I would argue is still wrong
because that that's if we're you play that
game, it's tit for tat and you end
up doing the same thing. That's what our
government does every day. Oh, they did it
first. All the Democrats started it. Well, then
you're just as stupid and bad.
Stand by your principles. Right? Don't do what
they do because they started it. That's childish.
So my point is that I think what
she did here was,
the wrong it was wrong. I mean, it
was it was circumventing the the current legal
real I guess, I see it's hard to
say because they're breaking the law. But
from her perspective to do that, like I
said, would just be adding to the problem.
That's the best way to say it. Nonetheless,
the way that they responded
is very chilling.
FBI agents arrested on Friday at a Milwaukee
Judge accused of obstructing justice. Now that's also
the point, accused
by directing an unwanted immigrant out of a
courtroom through a side door while federal immigration
agents waited in the hallway to arrest him.
But the US Attorney General, Pam Bondi, defends
the move, saying judge Dugan's arrest sent a
strong message. Well, they're basically telling you it's
about threat it's sending a message.
If you don't do what we say, we're
gonna go after you. But she goes to
judges, the Trump administration will prosecute them if
they obstruct justice
by escorting a criminal defendant at the back
door. Now that's a even that is taking
liberties with this. Clearly, it seems that she
kind of directed her out that door, but
did not walk her out the door and
not or did not harbor anybody.
So it seems they're trying to make this
bombastic, maybe even knowing that it won't actually
stick, but just to send the chilling message,
which is what they do. I mean, you
know, they don't need to add, embellish these
things. They could just say that she directly
tried to circumvent what we she knew we
were gonna do. But you see, that's not
as you could argue that that would not
necessitate the kind of action they took, so
they have to embellish it. Right? But it
says, and after the arrest, the FBI director,
Cash Patel, posted a photo of her handcuffs
on x, adding no one is above the
law, which is so crazy to me. Because
they're now using this to point to everything
else too, which I'll show you at the
end,
which
is exactly the point. And I don't really
think they recognize what they're doing there. The
whole point of all of this is that
no one's above the law. Right? And so
what the current administration is doing is clearly
putting themselves above the law.
Saying that because of this and because of
that, we can just say that this doesn't
apply, warrants aren't there. They're the best example
everywhere. And now pointing at the judge is
trying in many cases to hold them accountable
as the ones trying to stop what's legally
it's insane.
And so as when they come out and
say no one's above the law, as you
arrest a judge in a circumstance that's pretty
borderline, it's it's almost like they're making everyone's
point for them. But what they want is
just to convince the people out there that
will blindly support them that the judges are
trying to break the law and we're just
upholding the law even though even if she
is breaking the law, which it's a question
to be asked how this went down. I'll
read more and you can decide for yourself.
But clearly, the Trump administration is doing it
in bombastic ways. You know? No. I mean,
I wouldn't say no more or less than
previous. I think right now is a special
circumstance.
But if it was Biden that was here,
I think he'd be doing the same thing.
That's my point. But it says on April
18, '6 federal officers arrived at the Milwaukee
County Courthouse
to arrest Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a Mexican national
who was there for a hearing on battery
charges. Before the hearing,
a lawyer a lawyer, excuse me, told judge
Dugan that agents from ICE were outside her
courtroom
according to a a criminal complaint against her.
Now even so right there, you could argue
that they lied about that. Like, you'll see
this process come. I don't think it's the
case. I think this is pretty clear. But
my point is that what's recognized, how easy
it is to take at face value, what
the authority tells you, despite how often, even
just today, we've proven they've been caught lying.
But it says she called the situation absurd
and left the bench. So the process is
that she was told she got up and
walked out to to to say something to
them and says judge Dugan then spoke to
the federal agents telling them they needed a
judicial warrant
and to speak with the chief judge of
the Milwaukee County. Now so in her mind,
this is not to justify it, just to
understand why she took the action.
She's of the mind that they're breaking the
law or the very least skirting the constitutional
reality.
So you if you wanna try to understand
why she might have done this, that would
probably be why. Or maybe she hates Trump.
So that's very likely as well. But nonetheless,
the way that this was handled and the
way that they're embellishing it shows you something
else. It says one of the officers talked
to the chief judge, Carl Ashley, who told
the officer that there was a policy in
the works about where in the courthouse they
could be they could arrest people.
But he emphasized that such action should not
be take place in courtrooms or other private
locations.
She Ashley chief judge Ashley told the agent
that hallways were areas where an arrest could
be made.
As mister Flores Ruiz and his lawyer left
the courtroom, judge Dugan told them, wait. Come
with me according to the courtroom deputy who
overheard it. So I would argue that is
pretty trustworthy, but it questioned everything. The deputy
saw her usher them through a door that
leads to a non public area of the
courthouse. Now to be clear about that, that
means that she went up and said,
come over here and and walked them, you
know, a few more feet to the door
and let them out the door. Now, yeah,
you could argue that
that's ushering or that that in that process,
she was harboring them, but we all know
that's a pretty
a pretty broad stretch of what that was.
Doesn't change the fact that what she did
does seem to be
trying to circumvent that.
But it says agents then saw mister Flores
Ruiz and his lawyer in a public hallway,
and one agent entered an elevator and with
them and watched them leave the building, but
did not immediately make the arrest, the complaint
said. Other agents then arrested him on the
street. Okay. So at the end of the
day, they got it anyway.
That which doesn't change the fact that you
shouldn't, you know, discuss and call it out
if you think the blob was broken there.
But the argument comes down to this idea
that she's harboring something that they arrested anyway.
That doesn't even make sense. This is my
point about the way that they're embellishing this.
A week later, FBI agents arrested her. A
week later
in the at the courthouse. Why?
Because they're trying to clearly send a message.
They could have sent her they could have
said come in. They could have gone to
her house. They went there for a reason.
And then literally perp walked her through the
front door in handcuffs.
She's not a she's not a violent criminal.
Like, this was an overstep in a lot
of ways, but it's no different than them
kicking in
nonviolent crimes and doors full SWAT gear and
arresting people in the same way. It's that
police state we live in today,
even more now than ever.
Now it says she was charged with obstructing
immigration officers and concealing somebody to prevent an
arrest. Now in other context, they've they've literally
I think it was Bondy used the term
harboring an, a,
a criminal or something like that. Craig Mastantano,
a lawyer who represented judge Dugan at her
brief court appearance as a defendant on Friday,
called her arrest highly unusual,
noting that federal law enforcement officers could have
first contacted her for questioning or asked her
to turn herself in. Now I'm not really
of the one that's gonna, you know, that
required to show reverence because of your position.
That should be equally applied to everybody. But
that's also the same point in reverse is
this is not clearly not their equal application
of this. They're going it's it's like the
way they're going after Tesla people or the
one that sold her purse. They're going wildly
over the top to make a statement showing
you how personal it is, how
subjective it is. But but the point is
either way. Because there's also arguments being made
that somehow they shouldn't have done this because
it it's a,
you know, undermines the corporate I don't care
about that. Like,
if it undermines the reality of all this,
that's the fault of
the the judge or whatever else. My point
is it should be applied equally,
and neither side of that seems to be
actually what's happening. Judge Duke in '65 spent
much of her career providing legal services to
poor people, specializing in housing, public public benefits.
After her court appear which you could argue
that would mean mean maybe she's more, you
know, willing to help somebody who she sees
as being persecuted. But it says after her
court appearance on Friday, judge Dugan was released
on her own recognizance.
Her legal team vowed to contest the charges.
A preliminary hearing is scheduled for May 15.
So we'll find out more. On May 15,
we'll find out more information.
I'm willing to bet you this goes pretty
much nowhere.
They'll try. I bet I bet you they're
gonna do try to put her in prison,
I would argue.
But I bet you because the way this
went down, it's very difficult to prove intent
in regard to trying to circumvent that other
than as people have already argued, maybe she
just try was trying to avoid the commotion
right outside right out front the the the
court, which does make sense. Now look. My
gut tells me she was very clearly trying
to get to help them avoid what was
gonna happen. Maybe because she felt that it
was wrong. In many cases, you can prove
that it is illegal,
but doesn't change the fact that what she
did would be considered cert you know,
what's the best word for it? It's you
know, that you could argue illegal, but I
feel like that's a bit harsh in the
reality of what we're talking about.
That ultimately, she is trying to circumvent something
that you can't argue in many ways is
already breaking the law. So it changes this.
It's just it's nuance.
But we'll see how it goes forward. I
find it a very interesting case.
And then, oh, this last part was
might affect the judge's behavior. That well, that's
I think that's the bottom of the article.
I just skipped it or missed it. That's
what they're arguing. Right? It appeared designed to
make judges afraid to take any position out
of step with the Trump administration.
I think that's pretty obvious.
Now I think I think this one, there
are a few points I'll add to this,
and we're pretty much done. How long how
long are we today? Oh, man. How come
nobody's telling me I haven't been showing this
the whole time?
I guess it's only been me reading. Right?
That's too bad.
Yeah. I mean, I guess I've just been
reading it, so I guess it doesn't really
matter. New usually, guys let me know in
the chat. So this was what I had
up. At least maybe I pulled it down
an accident. Either way, it's all it was
was me reading the article. But so that's
where it was in case you didn't see
it. Wisconsin judge arrest what we now know
from New York Times.
And
then this is where we're at now. And
this is the article from the twenty ninth
I was briefly talking about yesterday. Some overlap,
but ultimately,
the points I think are relevant here are,
earlier this month, they ICE
arrested her.
Same conversation. Administrative warrant. An administrative
warrant is not signed by a judge and
does not allow agents to enter private spaces
to make an arrest like a judicial warrant
would.
While the agent sat in the hallway outside
the courtroom,
Dugan said or told Flores Ruiz and his
attorney to use the side door. The door
exit into the same public hallway, and one
agent rode the same elevator down. They got
him anyways is the point. But last week,
FBI agents appeared at the courthouse to arrest
her. She's been charged with obstructing justice and
harboring an individual.
The first one, you could argue that. But
harboring, I mean, it's it's a stretch.
Both felonies. Soon
after her arrest and before she made her
initial appearance for in front of a judge,
Donald Trump,
president Trump and and and general attorney general
Pam Bondi and and Patel were discussing the
case on social media and television, accusing Dugan
of being deranged. Okay. That's I'm glad I
remember to talk about this. So this is
what we're getting at. This is getting insane
in in a totally different way.
So what they do is I mean, in
many ways, you could argue this is essentially
a like, how are you gonna go to
court after the president who is part of
this or the agency involved are literally going
on news organizations and going, she's insane. She's
deranged. She's a criminal.
Don't you think that's going to influence the
case and the outcome of the ruling? Now,
whether it goes to a jury or not
is different, but the point is nonetheless the
same is that you're tainting the perception of
all this and saying that she's deranged. And
it's just it's a very interesting conversation. I
think there's a point to be made about
all that. Bobby said on Fox News Friday
that the charges were filed against Dugan to
show the administration was willing to go after
even
judges.
And it says, from the beginning, the case
displayed many missteps in an effort to show
force and draw attention.
It looks like the prosecutors are completely this
is the one of their opinions, was completely
co opted in Trump world and aren't really
using very good judgment.
You should look at the at the facts
and law,
and there's just no chance they'll be able
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that judge
Dugan was corruptly intending to avoid a government
subpoena. That was my point.
That you could argue that there clearly seems
to be something, but they're gonna give it
an argument like, well, we didn't want it
to be crowd you know, didn't want them
to be arrested in front of the courtroom,
so we went out the different door. And
that's you can't prove they're lying. So that's
and that they know this.
But it says or that she was harboring
a fugitive.
You know? So whether it again, seems that
she probably was doing that in a court
of law beyond a reasonable doubt is what's
necessary. And it says during the initial arrest,
he questions why the DEA or FBI agents
are appearing at the courthouse for immigration enforcement
actions and why so many agents were even
needed to do this for an administrative warrant.
They had DEA, FBI, and everybody for one
person
who's not you know, it it they're trying
to present this in very clear ways for
a response and for,
hopefully, chilling effects,
and people don't speak up.
I think I'll leave it there, general, but
to kinda wrap this up,
David Icke highlighted another example. Alright. Go. Excuse
me. This is that drug. This is the
one being arrested for Dugan, and this is
what David Icke said. Trump regime
arresting judges.
Reading the comments to post to the post
below is like watching turkeys voting for Christmas.
Amazing how many support fascism until it applies
to them. This is not about a migrant
and a single judge. It is about neutering
the judiciary as Trump has neutered Capitol Hill.
So the separation of power is deleted
to become a dictatorship.
It's one way to look at it for
sure.
Of course, this is Stephen Miller making the
same point. Well, first, this is Amy Klobuchar.
Again, the democrat side going, this is wrong.
So they go, well, if they say it,
it must be right.
Basic, ridiculous, childish, bottom of the barrel, the
reverse psychology. But she goes, I know. That's
who knows if that's the design or not?
That's how I look at it mostly.
She says it's not normal. The administration's arrest
of a sitting judge in Wisconsin is a
drastic move that threatened the rule of law.
While we don't have all the details, this
is a grave step that undermines our system
checks and balances.
Not really getting into the actual arguments. That's
why I I question these are things are
valid, like, or genuine. It's meant to give
you that fake left right discussion
usually on false points.
Miller steps in using it like you'd expect
and says, no. One is above the law.
My point from before is the same. You're
making our point for us, Miller, as you
literally get caught breaking the law everywhere. And
whether this is the one example you could
use to actually somewhat be looked seen as
doing what is within the law, every other
example of what you're doing is literally violating
the law in the most bombastic ways we've
ever seen. And that's what your argument is
as you I mean, just to jump to
this,
Caroline Leavitt refuses to rule out the arrest
of Supreme Court judges. You don't you see
what they're doing here? And they're they're hoping,
I think, this pushes back on what they're
doing.
And he goes, a judge harbored and concealed
a criminal alien. You know? It's just it
they can't like, you if you could frame
this in ways that are
exactly what happened, and it would still probably
work for you. But just like every other
Zionist propagandist, they have to make it bought
cartoonish.
Harvard? Really?
Look up the definition. Or the idea of
criminal alien? No. That's not that wasn't that
that's not the reality of the circumstance. What
they're doing is insane, and they just people
are buying it, like Trump's tattoo discussion.
And then we get stuff like this.
Everyone and by the way, guess, man, this
is m a m j truth ultra, the
one that shared the original image of his
knuckles making the claim that that's what proved
his case with now inadvertently disproving Trump's allegation.
I'm sure they're not talking about that. Kat
George says, oh my god. They're arresting judges.
Like like, that's not an important thing. Like,
look, even if they broke the law, arresting
judges is a major important step or other
news story. It's huge.
For them to downplay it, like, it's just
so funny. These people are such ridiculous.
Maybe we'll find out later they're not even
real. I mean, I don't think that. I
think they're just people that are going along
to get along, don't care that they're childish
and cartoonish every day or blindly support somebody
they've never even met. But it says says
the party who arrested president over fake political
reasons.
You really think that's even a logical thing
to say? So it doesn't matter that they're
doing the same thing because you did it
first? Yes. You're a six year old. Like,
every other time, well, the Democrats started it.
Like, it's just so stupid. Like, these people
are children.
And same things, you know, these are all
they're posting all of these. Have no one's
above the law that Joe Biden said or
Democrat said. Okay.
Well, it stands no matter who says it.
Right? I mean, it's it's weird to think
that that is somehow making their point.
Like, every democrat is I mean, guys,
this is a crazy step.
And if the best they can do is
act like the democrats
were lying about it before, it shows you
how weak their argument is. And as always,
this is why I think people are seeing
it.
And they're and and, you know, when she
was asked, she didn't say it that she
would, but she didn't rule out the when
asked specifically, she made the the bottom line
point that nothing's off the table as they
always do. So you can make that a
nothing answer. I think it's important to see
that this is about building the argument or
rather the understanding
that you could be next like they do
with you, like they do with everybody.
And what does that lead to?
Does that bring us to a place where
we're more free, more liberty, where constitutional rights
are upheld, or does that create a very
problematic circumstance where they can do whatever they
want and no one's willing to call it
out? Which by the way is pretty much
exactly where we are right now. Not nobody
in the context of people in the media
and rather independent media, but in the power
structure.
That's I think it was,
Patrick Henninson said. I mean, they've they've neutered
DC. I mean, it's Capitol Hill. It's gone.
No one's pushing back. Not even the democrats
who they want you to believe with the
deep state fighting Trump. But, no, they don't
say a word about this stuff in the
context of real legal action or something that's
the full picture that could actually change something.
You get the
Amy Klobuchar,
you know, part stories that are really just
designed to keep the two party illusion divided.
Either way,
all of this is important as you damn
well know, and everybody out there knows. What's
happening right now is
monumental.
It's tectonic, guys. We're watching these things shift
in ways that I don't think we'll ever
be able to come back from if we
don't stop it as soon as we can.
And that's not just about the techno tech,
technocratic direction.
It's about the way that they're setting precedents,
even if just in the minds of people
that support them that allow them to, I
mean, even float the idea of sending Americans
to foreign prisons, guys.
And we must be able to recognize how
real this is.
So I will leave you with a clip
that, you know, makes that point since we
ended with it.
Thank you for tuning in today, guys.
Really trying to, you know,
multiple things, obviously, trying to
refocus a little bit on things, you know,
despite as I still find them to be
very important with the what's going on on
just, you know, what's the the factual re
reporting of what's going on and
and stop letting the distractions of the day
draw into the conversation again as much as
I do think they're important today and get
back to just getting, you know, more workout
as possible. Now the more you guys can
support TLAB in general, the more it'll make
that easy. And, you know, as opposed to
me trying to find other ways to generate
revenue, you know, to to keep this going
and allow myself the time to be here
as much as possible or to bring on
more writers and keep the clips going. But
as I said, regardless of any of that,
I'm gonna keep doing this to believe in
it. I believe in you. So if you
believe in us, show us that.
I love you guys as always. Question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
Tom respects. It's just as bad now, the
authoritarianism,
that is coming, Gerald. I am really, really
fearful for the president of The United States
Of America to suggest as he did on
Air Force One on Sunday night,
that American
citizens could be deported
for his press secretary to say, we're looking
into,
a way to see if this is legal.
We don't know if it's legal or not.
A is terrifying.
B betrays such a profound ignorance of first
principles to which he is sworn. He is
sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution
and to enforce,
federal law. You mentioned that you're open to
deporting,
individuals that aren't foreign aliens but are criminals
to El Salvador. Does that in does that
include potentially US citizens fully naturalized in Ukraine?
If they're criminals and if they hit people
with baseball bats over their head that happen
to be 90 years old, and if
rape
87 year old women in Coney Island, Brooklyn,
yeah. Yeah. That includes them. What? Do you
think they're special category of person? They're as
bad as anybody that comes in. We have
bad ones too. Profoundly un American, utterly unconstitutional,
and I am sorry to say is coming.