Deportation Of Mahmoud Khalil, Is Trump VIOLATING The Constitution w/ PiscoLitty & GoodLawgic
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guests: Goodlawgic @GoodLawgic (YouTube) PiscoLitty @PiscoLitty (X) Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
Donald Trump has been in office and he is flooding the zone.
Basically, everybody agrees.
On the left and the right, the strategy appears to be do as much as you can as fast as you can to overwhelm activists, opposition in the courts.
So there are a lot of things that the Trump administration has done so far for which he has drawn the ire of liberals, Democrats and the left.
And we are going to debate these issues largely from a legal context.
And to kick it off, I think one of the biggest stories we've seen in the past couple of weeks has been the deportation or the revocation of visas from students, from activists, protesters and people with actual legal status in this country.
Notably, Trump revoked the legal status of five hundred and thirty thousand immigrants who actually came here legally under a program started by Joe Biden.
So we'll talk about that and a whole lot more.
We've got a couple of gentlemen joining us to engage in this debate.
I think that Trump is doing an awful thing to the Constitution.
But in this case specifically, I think there are a lot of conservatives that care about the First Amendment or at least purport to care about the First Amendment.
And there is on-point precedent from the Supreme Court that resident aliens get First Amendment rights.
So why is Donald Trump...
Doing the bidding of Israel and attacking the First Amendment rights of, for example, a green card holder who did nothing more than just indicate their view as to the situation in Palestine, it's completely unjustifiable.
I host a YouTube channel and Rumble channel called Good Logic.
I'm a New York litigator who turned podcaster after COVID.
I'm a massive free speech advocate, so much so that I actually sued Judge Murchin for his unconstitutional gag order of President Trump in pro se, in my own name, because I felt that the vote, Thank you.
was harming my First Amendment right to cover it as a member of the press.
And I took that all the way up and applying to the Supreme Court.
On this particular issue, we're talking about Mamou Khalil.
This is not a First Amendment issue.
Sometimes a free speech issue is a First Amendment issue.
Often it is, but this is not a situation like that.
Well, everybody, make sure to smash the like button.
Share the show if you do want to hear this debate or if you think people should hear this debate.
It'll get particularly interesting.
Not just the immigration issue, but of course there's a whole bunch of other issues as you already brought up with the courts and how it affects Trump in this country.
But let's just kick it off, man.
Tell us what you think.
Let me give a little bit of context.
So Mahmoud Khalil, he was one of the organizers of the protests we saw at Columbia.
He had a, I believe it was a two-year conditional green card, which got revoked by the State Department.
He is currently pending deportation, but he's not the only one.
I think there may be four others.
These are individuals who are here on legal status with legal visas who are now having their visas revoked and facing deportation.
The Trump administration says that Mahmoud was engaged in activities aligned with Hamas, and that was a national security threat.
So there's a lot more to the story, but why don't you tell us what you think first?
unidentified
Yeah, let's first start with what this is not about.
It's not about criminal activity.
It's not about alleged crimes.
I think both of you can agree that we have to take the allegations of the government.
We can't invent new rationales for why Mahmoud Khalil is deportable.
So I don't want to hear anything from people in the comments saying he occupied, he helped occupied, or that he's giving material support to Hamas.
If the government does not allege that he's giving material support to Hamas, why should we at all assume that he is and invent new rationales for deporting him?
And obviously there's no evidence that he's in connection with Hamas or giving any material support to them.
So I think that the first point is some agreement that we only discuss the allegations and the actual basis of removability for Mahmoud Khalil.
I want to be clear before we begin this, so we frame our discussion in a healthy way.
Whether we're talking about this from a legal perspective or from a moral perspective or philosophical American culture type of perspective, we can attack this as attorneys and talk about whether or not what's happening here and who's in the right and who's in the wrong.
Or we can attack this as far as from a moral and philosophical perspective.
And I want to make sure that we're both on the same page, that we don't jump back and forth, that I'll make a point about the law and you'll say philosophically that's wrong, or I'll make a point about philosophically and you'll come back to the law.
So can we pick one?
Because I'm sure that Khalil loses on any of those, any way you look at it, philosophically, legally, or as far as more...
From American constitutional perspective, like what's a healthy philosophy of our constitution, he loses every way.
So you pick the direction you want to go, and let's go there.
unidentified
So to be clear, you're not willing to concede the legal argument here.
Okay, so let's deal with that first, because I think you would agree that if you thought that the First Amendment was being violated by Trump, you would have to condemn him, wouldn't you?
I went all the way to the Supreme Court personally.
unidentified
So let's start there.
And I think that that would get into some, you know, perhaps some philosophical territory.
I'm not willing to shy away from that.
I think it's also, you know, a good idea morally, practically to have the First Amendment.
But let's stick with the First Amendment.
And so I guess my first question for you is, do you think Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident, let's take the strongest case, do they have First Amendment rights?
The Constitution is clear where it wants to refer to persons and people and where it refers to citizens.
For example, in the 14th Amendment, there's a privileges or immunities clause.
It speaks about the privileges or immunities of citizens.
When it's talking about the requirements for who's the president or for who is the senator, it says citizen.
When it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms or, for example, the right of the people to be free in their papers, persons in effect, from unreasonable searches and seizures.
That's referring to persons, and there was a concept of personhood that was broader than citizenship from the attorneys who founded this country and made the Constitution.
The 40th Amendment says, So what we've highlighted often is that it draws a distinction between persons and citizens,
specifically identifying initially all persons born, later on the clarification of what makes someone a citizen.
So there's two distinct definitions here.
The reason this has come up is actually the pro-life, pro-choice abortion debate in the question of whether or not an unborn child is a person.
Interestingly, and I don't mean to be hyper-partisan in this one, but when it comes to the liberal faction, they actually disagree with my assessment on this, arguing that, no, no, it's referring to citizens, and if you're not born, you're not a citizen.
Because when you get to the question of is the unborn a person, this clearly would protect the life of that person who is not yet a citizen, not yet born.
unidentified
Yeah, I think that's a cop-out.
I think that the courts ultimately will have to determine as a legal matter what is a person, what does that mean, purposes of constitutionality.
Now, it could be that the originalist interpretation of person as understood at the time that the Constitution was framed.
That's not an inconsistent position.
Or it could be the case that the people who founded this country would have considered a person to be someone who is in utero.
So I don't pretend to know the actual legal analysis here, but I'm glad, Tim, that you agree that even the First Amendment, let's take a look at the First Amendment, doesn't refer to persons or citizens.
It says, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
As said in the 14th Amendment, they're entitled to due process.
unidentified
And in the 5th Amendment against the federal government, which is what is at issue here, what you just said and what you acknowledge is, despite what you might think about why the country was formed, the consistent case law has been that persons in this country have access to a lot of civil liberties.
I don't know why we wouldn't extend it to the 1st Amendment if you acknowledge there's case law on point about it.
And specifically when the 1st Amendment says Congress...
And the Supreme Court has recognized, while they recognize the First Amendment right, they also have equally recognized that the First Amendment right of someone who's visiting this country are not as robust as the protections that American citizens have.
Do you admit that?
unidentified
I'm not so sure.
For people already admitted into the country.
So there's a difference that I acknowledge that the country makes between exclusion matters and for people who are in the country.
The key example of this, by the way, are the Chinese exclusion cases.
I'm sure that you guys, maybe your audience is not familiar, but there was a point, the first restrictive immigration laws in this country, up until 1870 thereabout, we had open borders policy in this country.
Complete open borders, except for the Alien Enemies Act and the Alien Friends Act, which maybe we'll get to.
This is actually pretty interesting because it actually functioned this way well after the 1800s.
I went to San Diego and was talking with people on both sides of the border.
And it's actually, I think, in the past, I don't know, what, 50, 60 years where the border became heavier.
And it used to be, even up to like the early 1900s, you could just walk into San Diego and back and forth.
Only recently, I guess, with...
National security concerns, communications, and population density.
Has it become much more rigid?
unidentified
Yeah, that's totally correct.
And the first restrictive immigration laws were against Chinese people.
It said, well, the first it was vagrants and stuff, but ultimately it said Chinese people, if you're of Chinese or Asian descent, you can't enter the country.
I'm not sure what your point is as far as that case not being overturned, as if that's still binding law today.
unidentified
So the point is, I recognize, even though I may disagree, that...
And it's interesting, I think, that Trump did not argue that it actually was a Muslim ban and seemed to assume that a Muslim ban, when he interested in his travel ban, would be unconstitutional.
So I don't know how viable that precedent is.
But in the Chinese exclusion cases, that there is a difference in the law between an exclusion matter and someone who's in the country.
So no, I actually don't recognize, and I don't know that to be the case, that individuals in this country, even if they're not permanent residents, don't have First Amendment rights.
AADC. There have been a myriad of Supreme Court cases which have recognized the fact that those who are visiting this country, not simply when they're abroad, that we're going to give...
I don't know what type of free speech limitations you think that they would be, that, oh, we're not going to promise free speech to some foreigner who's out in Greenland, or Greenland soon to be America, but who's out in the UK and say that, oh, we recognize that they have a right to speak.
That doesn't even mean anything.
unidentified
So here's the question.
Trump issued an order tomorrow and said, if you're a Jew, your student visa is being revoked.
Because the threshold minimum, the threshold minimum, and here's the thing.
I've allowed you to engage this conversation in good faith as if this is about First Amendment rights, when this is not at all a First Amendment issue.
This is purely an immigration issue.
And this is what I was saying with respect to the fact that...
While I'm a free speech advocate, I don't think that this in any way touches on free speech and the concept of First Amendment rights.
And the reason it doesn't is because when you're talking about immigration law, that is where government powers are at their zenith.
As opposed to when you're talking about the First Amendment rights of individuals, the First Amendment rights of someone who's merely visiting this country are at their nadir.
So what you are trying to postulate here is that this individual whose rights are lower than yours or mine, whose rights are not as robust with respect to his First Amendment rights, is now challenging the decision-making powers of the President of the United States with respect to international affairs and national security, which is where the Constitution carves out the strongest powers and protections and says this is the exclusive domain of the executive branch.
unidentified
That is what you're If it's true for free speech, it's true for religion clauses.
The immigration plenary power framework that you've just laid out would apply just as strongly to an argument from free speech, which is in the First Amendment, as to the religion clauses that are in the First Amendment.
Here's why he's wrong, if I could just correct that.
Now, the reason you're mistaken about that is because the Supreme Court, in its insight, has pointed out that the threshold that you have to meet on an immigration issue is that it has to be facially legitimate and bona fide.
Facially legitimate and bona fide.
So if you talk about some law that the president would throw out there saying, I don't want any...
What if he says Muslims are more likely to do terrorist acts?
If he says Muslims, so that's not – if he says that as Muslims, if he says terrorists, that's a problem.
unidentified
No, he says Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts, and it's facially legitimate.
To me, that's not facially – I don't see how that would be – Why is it not?
Because to say that everyone who's a member of this religion, which is being practiced by over a billion people, is a terror threat, is not facially legitimate and bona fide.
unidentified
Why is it facially legitimate to say anyone who advocates in support of – even just assume.
I do not take it for granted.
I just want to be clear.
I don't take it as a fact that Mahmoud Khalil supports Hamas.
I don't.
Let's assume he does.
Why is it facially legitimate to say that what would be – I think you would agree – free speech for citizens.
I think you've agreed that LPRs have First Amendment rights.
What's the legitimacy in targeting what otherwise would be clearly protected speech?
Right. So the difference, I would definitely agree that all the actions that we know of, that Mahmoud Khalil has taken, if it was taken by an American citizen, that the government would be completely out of bounds and wrong for in any way infringing on that.
I got to ask you, does the First Amendment pertain to illegal activities?
unidentified
No. Well, it defines the scope of what is and what's not legal sometimes, for example.
So the First Amendment, if there were a law that said it's illegal to talk to your neighbor, it's illegal to hand out pamphlets in support of Donald Trump, even though there's a law that says it's illegal to do criminality, the Constitution supersedes.
And so to the extent that there's an application of law, for example, in the INA that purports to make something illegal or it would have of no purchase if it conflicted with First Amendment.
In fact, there's a report that says that he purposely did not attend any of these sit-ins for the reason of that he's worried about his, the status of his grandchild.
First Amendment is not just a rise under criminal actions.
For example, if the government said that you can't get a liquor license if you're a Jew or you can't get a liquor license if you support Trump, I think that you would agree that's not a criminal action, but the First Amendment still has purchase.
Let me ask you guys for clarification, because the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 221, subsection I, says after the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the secretary of state may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation.
There's more to that.
There's exceptions.
I don't know that I need to read the whole thing.
I think you're both familiar with this.
So how does this pertain to Mahmoud?
unidentified
Yeah, so there's wide deference in this country for the Secretary of State, for the Attorney General, for the Department of Homeland Security, for the President himself, to make all kinds of decisions that would prejudice his right to be in this country.
I don't deny that there's...
The case law is that...
There's no substantive right for non-citizens to be in this country, that Congress tomorrow could pass a law that says everyone who's not a citizen needs to leave.
You don't have a substantive right to be here.
But here's the question.
Can you do it for an illegitimate purpose that's reprehensible under the Constitution?
Using the statute, not saying that the statute itself is unconstitutional facially, but as applied, could you say, for example, in my discretion, because you are a Jew, I am taking away your visa?
So far, what I've gotten from what you're saying is that it sounds like the reason the Trump administration has not accused him of a crime pertaining to those protests and has simply cited national security concerns is to avoid a hearing based on the arguments you're I don't know that they're actually doing it for the crime.
If Donald Trump said, we don't want people who are not citizens to try and influence our government.
unidentified
No, no.
If it was a pretext, right?
So if it were true that he wants to punish Mahmoud Khalil for actual criminal acts, but he's just trying to do it faster through this other method.
I do want to address it real quick because my answer is I don't know because you have two areas.
One, where the law literally says for any reason, but then you run into the constitutional argument where that law can't be applied as it goes to the First Amendment.
Laid out that for some reason you just want to toss – you want to just disregard completely when you give these – a crazy example of let's ban all Jews, let's ban all Muslims, let's ban all redheads is that facially legitimate and bona fide.
You seem to keep just walking like dancing right past that.
So in the instance where the individual walks into the store – And the owner says, sir, we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody.
Please leave.
Well, that's not an issue of racism or a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
unidentified
That's a great example, Tim, and I really appreciate it because that goes to show you the extent to which, you know, the government actually has latitude in all kinds of – they could have done it through another means.
They could have said, you know, we're doing it because there's bullshit about the lie, which we can get into on your green card application.
They could have found some other means.
They could have charged them with a crime with a neutral ground, but they didn't.
The reason they didn't, the reason they said it's because you support Hamas is because they're trying to signal, they're trying to bully private actors just like they're doing with the universities, just like – They're doing with the firms, just like we're doing with all these actors.
They're trying to put a signal and say, hey, if you disagree with us on policy on Israel, we're going to make you hurt.
And so you're right.
If they actually thought he was a security threat, why not go through the other methods of doing so?
But they said it specifically, and Rubio's coming out.
I'm so tired of leftists just coming to these conclusions as far as I can look inside his head and I know better than anyone exactly what Trump is really thinking.
Even though I've seen policy after policy that is issued that has had nothing to do whatsoever with reaching the conclusions I've reached, I'm still going to come out here and tell you I know what he's thinking.
He doesn't care about the First Amendment.
He doesn't care about due process.
He only cares about himself.
You can see one piece of evidence after another about this.
And you're going to come out there and you're going to say to yourself, oh no, I know better than you.
Everyone else, why?
Because I'm sitting here on the outside.
Even though I've been tilted and I've come across him every single way, I'm going to look at any way I possibly can to frame it against him.
unidentified
I still have a healthy understanding of what his mindset is.
There is no other explanation.
If they thought it was because of his criminal conduct, they would say so.
If they thought it was, and now they have this bullshit pretext about after the fact that he lied.
No, what they said was, let's look at what they did say.
What they said was that we consider him a national security issue.
What is this proper procedure to do?
Under that setting.
The proper procedure is laid out in the APA that I started with that you wanted to just jump away from.
The APA and the steps that they were actually taking was saying we're going to process him through an administrative immigration judge and he's going to examine this to make sure that we are not just capturing him, throwing a bag over his head.
unidentified
Like they're doing with the Venezuelans.
Like they're doing with the Venezuelans, yes?
Like they're doing with the Venezuelans, not even giving them the opportunity to file habeas petitions.
But I'll clarify, too, because one thing that frustrates me is there are, I call them the Jews people, where they think everything is Jews all the time.
I think this is purely related to American foreign policy.
I think...
This country wants to fund its foreign military operations.
Israel's a strong ally.
The U.S. wants to give them money, wants to be involved, wants military there.
I don't think it's the Jews.
I think it's a strategic location for U.S.-Middle Eastern operations.
And you've got these protests that are emerging and influence spreading across universities, which are counter to American foreign policy interests, largely that I disagree with.
So I do think Trump is trying to send a message.
That's why Romesa, I believe her name was, Ozturk, she had her visa revoked.
I believe it was presumably based on a pro-Palestinian paper that was written.
Now, that doesn't go to the question of whether or not they have the legal right to do it, but I think the motivation strongly has to do with...
unidentified
I mean, they're posting the Studio Ghibli of them deporting people.
I think Trump is trying to trick the left by doing that into defending one of the most Well, I'll defend reprehensible people if it means defending our rights.
unidentified
Right now, yeah, I'll absolutely-But the dean, that's the point.
Eight months pregnant and didn't even know where he was and has a kid on the way and is trying to get information from the administration on where he is.
Yeah. We've bumped into this one quite a bit because I've known for some time that the Constitution applies to all peoples here, and the reason that it does, and you guys correct me if I'm wrong, is that if the Fourth Amendment didn't...
There'd be no Fourth Amendment.
They'd be able to say, we just think you're not a citizen, so now we're going to raid your house.
So no, no, no, no, no.
You can't raid someone's house just because you're not a citizen.
Yeah, because the protection is for an individual, not the interpretation of whether they're here legally or not.
And so the question then comes to guns, because the Second Amendment says the people.
So I'm like, can illegal immigrants buy guns in this country?
I need to explain to you where I'm coming from with respect to illegal aliens, because I do believe very firmly that our Constitution, when we're first forming our government, our founders have in mind, why do we have a government in the first place?
It's in order to help facilitate and secure the safety of our people.
But we have this grave concern, and that concern is very obvious based on history, that once you put a government in power, however that government is run, whether it's democracy or something, Sounds like a liberal justice.
unidentified
There's a general purpose for general welfare.
I'm going to interpret these words however I want.
Correct. So my point is, as it pertains to the Second Amendment, our current understanding is a complete inversion from every different period throughout various generations of different moral worldviews.
Notably with D.C. versus Heller and then McDonald v.
Chicago is when we started to get the actual— You can actually have guns.
So it was surprising to me to actually learn this in the past few years because I didn't really pay attention to the gun stuff.
But I looked at the map of the right to keep and bear arms pre-Heller didn't exist in this country despite a Second Amendment.
You could have a dismantled, broken up piece of guns throughout your house.
It was actually legal for a state to deny you a permit to carry, deny you a permit to own, and require you to dismantle it in your own house.
unidentified
Initially, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.
The Bill of Rights were a framework to apply to the federal government.
And so that's why there's that proviso.
It only affected D.C. It only affected D.C. And so for the longest time, there was no incorporation, is the term called, of the Second Amendment.
That's why McDonald's is a case that incorporates it through the new process.
But I want to push you a little bit there because it sounds like what you're suggesting is there's nothing Trump could do because this is all mushy.
It's all woozy.
It's all wazzy.
There have been times where we're disrespected.
There's nothing Trump could do where you would say, I don't like that because of the first amendment.
What would it take for Trump to do where you would say, okay, because of the First Amendment, this shit is fucked up and I'm going to call him out for it on the First Amendment grounds.
Is there anything he could do where you would call him out for First Amendment grounds?
Okay, my point was the – Bill of Rights have been applied by those in whatever way they interpret, and then when it gets challenged to the courts, the courts reinterpret or interpret in whatever way they submit.
unidentified
Do you care about the constitutional rights or not?
Absolutely. So if you care about the constitutional rights, don't you care?
So it depends because you're going to need to do research on these constitutional principles to see to what extent is it the danger to the person that you're put in the female prison.
As I understand it, there's not an epidemic of abuse from trans people in female prisons to the female individuals.
Indeed. And if Trump threw an American citizen in jail or said that you can't get a liquor license because you did that, something that's perfectly constitutional, would you call him out for First Amendment violations?
Yes. So the only difference here is whether or not he's a resident alien or whether he's an American.
That's really the only difference.
Absolutely. But you just agreed, didn't you, that resident aliens have First Amendment rights?
Like I already mentioned, we could not sit here and define what cruel and unusual punishment is as per the Eighth Amendment.
So you're going to assert...
There are certain—so the argument really just boils down to my moral worldview.
That's the issue I take with the Bill of Rights and how we interpret them.
As you guys are all citing legal precedent, saying the court said this and the court said that, I'm sitting here being like, the only thing that really matters is whether the majority body politic determines it to be moral or not.
So, for instance, when it was a predominantly Christian nation, if you blasphemed, you'd find yourself in jail.
If you went in public and started cussing and swearing, you'd find yourself in jail.
But as we've shifted away from that moral worldview, you can now go on television and cuss up a storm like South Park did, counting how many times they swore on TV. These things change dramatically.
Right now, as a society, we don't know.
You've got the conservatives saying, and I use this because it's obviously a hot-button issue.
A judge just ruled that Trump must return two biological male individuals to a woman's prison.
Women there are upset.
And liberal activists say putting transgender individuals who are undergoing, who are affirmed, HRT, in a male prison is cruel and unusual to them.
Conservatives argue the inverse.
There's not going to be...
unidentified
I just want to take an issue with the premise there, because you said what ultimately is going to be protected by these rights is going to be determined by the body politic.
I think that's crucially misunderstanding the purpose of the rights.
These rights are meant to be applied as to the majority.
The reason that they're so difficult to get rid of is because it's supposed to be protection against the excesses of a majority.
And there's some ANCAPs or anarcho-style people here that I met who are really nice people, and they understand this, right?
And if you're an anarcho-cap...
You understand this, that there are abuses that the majority of the public can do, and the rights are to stand in contradiction to what general sentiment is, and to say, no, even if Congress wants to, right?
You're arguing extremes instead of what we're actually dealing with.
unidentified
But your framework where you're saying, well, who knows, because the Congress is always violated, that's an excuse to never apply the principle, even in clear cases.
And here we have a clear case where you acknowledge that the First Amendment, as to citizens, would protect this conduct.
And in fact, you would criticize Trump if you went after citizens for doing this conduct.
You've also accepted, I think, as a maxim or as a general principle, that resident aliens do have First Amendment rights.
So this is the problem with the law as it is written.
I completely think it is screwed up and makes no sense.
It results in people who are not racist being accused of racist and racist actually getting away with things they're not supposed to be able to get away with.
So this is the...
Okay, New York City has human rights law that protects 31 identifiable genders.
It defines in their human rights code gender identity is self-expression.
So I called a human rights lawyer, three of them actually, in New York.
And I said, I'm trying to get an understanding of how this law would actually be applied.
It says that the clothing you wear, the name you call yourself, you cannot be discriminated against in public accommodation based on these characteristics.
They all agreed, yes.
I had the law in front of me.
I said, so if there is a clearly identifiable biological male wearing a dress with lipstick on who calls himself Susan and says he's a her, they cannot discriminate.
This person gets hired for a job.
They're allowed to wear female clothing.
Absolutely. I said, okay, what if someone dresses up in a fursuit, a furry, and they refer to themselves as Volsiferon, Herald of the Winter Mists?
I'm intentionally making it absurd.
They all said...
The courts would laugh that out of the courtroom.
You'd never get through.
They would fire you in two seconds.
I said, why is a judge allowed to laugh at an individual's identity that the law supposedly protects?
And they said, because the judges can interpret as they see fit.
And I said, then there may as well be no law at all.
unidentified
I know, but that's the conclusion there.
That can't be right, right?
Because what you're saying is, then judges can't interpret the provision of the IMF.
Okay, but then you're not stating your position.
You're just stating, basically, it's a real fact that judges are going to do what judges are going to do.
Indeed. My position is, this is going to go, this will go to a hearing, and the INA gives Secretary of State the right to deport, and I don't see any reason why they can't do that.
unidentified
Okay, so, but my question for you, which you dodge, and I'm going to ask it again, is, if Trump said, we're deporting him because he's a Muslim, you would say, wait, so you would not condemn Trump for that?
221. Subsection I. After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation.
Notice of such rectification shall be communicated to the Attorney General, and such rectification shall invalidate the visa or other document from the date of issuance, provided that carriers or transportation companies...
He's held the same way that he can be denied a visa.
The Supreme Court says you can hold them to the same standard with respect to maintaining that visa or green card.
You cannot say on a form, I'm not going to do this.
And then if it turns out that they changed the status, or in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, where they actually lie on their application for one reason or another, I don't know if that lie was because they were afraid of further investigations, which would clearly throw them out.
We don't know what the issue is.
But at the end of the day, You held to the same standard while you're residing here until such time as you are fully naturalized.
Once someone is naturalized, and I believe this in my heart of hearts to be both constitutionally correct, morally correct, and legally correct, once someone is fully naturalized and becomes an American citizen, that blessing of that work to attain that is conferred upon them the very special status that America affords her own citizens.
And that status does not get afforded simply because they filled out a form of...
What Tim just said is that legally, the Secretary of State or any member of the administration, I'll even assume the law says what it says and it applies to green cards.
What's crazy about me saying America is for American citizens?
unidentified
What about for—I'm not saying that that is crazy for you to say America is for American citizens, but I think that what America is is defined largely by the Constitution, right?
America is not just a geographical space, right?
It's also—this pronouncement says, we the people of the United States are enacting, right?
We are actually doing something here with the Constitution.
America is defined by its Constitution.
So for you to say something like, yeah, America is for American citizens, well, part of what America is is the First Amendment.
And so I respect what America is in its highest— I actually think when you map the political conflict we've had over the last 15 years, you come to realize that none of this is actually true.
Neither faction really cares about any of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, the laws.
It is simply a moral worldview in battle with another moral worldview.
A few examples being the liberal faction consistently trying to take away our right to keep and bear arms in various degrees, arguing that only militias can have them, supporting assault weapons bans and calling for them more and more.
That's certainly a violent Second Amendment.
Then you've got the First Amendment as it applies to, you know, we have a right to free speech.
It's interpreted a bit beyond government passing a law with respect to an establishment of speech because it actually restricts the government from using existing law to enforce against speech.
But then you have, again, for the past 10 years, the liberal faction trying to use private Did you call that out?
Absolutely did.
But see, that's my moral worldview.
So when I say people have a right to express their political worldviews without fear of violence and harm, what are we dealing with right now?
There is no fucking reality where I am going to stand in defense of the moral worldview of the left that are firebombing Tesla dealerships in wanton destruction of vehicles.
And then they come to me and say, how could you not support Mahmoud Khalil?
I'll be like, listen.
The moral worldview you guys live in is might makes right like the fucking Nazis, okay?
So you can make any argument you want to try to appeal to my view of the Constitution, and I'm going to say demons get no quarter.
unidentified
So you're not going to stand on business because you hate the left?
I'm just telling you, this is the disingenuousness with which you're addressing this.
When we're talking about Mahmoud Khalil, you talk about things that he likely has done.
And you say, we can't bring those facts up because he's not charged by the government.
So we have to pretend that those facts had not happened and say that even if he's engaged in those, well, that doesn't count because after all, he's not charged with them.
He's not charged with them.
We have to pretend that these things never happen.
And that's when we're talking about addressing wrongs committed by someone who's associated with the left.
When you're talking about Jenna Ellis, you're saying, and you're trying to theorize how her legal advice could somehow morph into being something.
You're not following the conversation, Joe.
I am following the conversation perfectly.
What I'm saying is it's disingenuous.
The disingenuousness comes from the fact that when it comes to analyzing the left, you refuse to deal with facts that exist as they are and says because that's not charged, we can't talk about it.
When it comes to analyzing the right, however, you think it's totally fair.
To try and impugn their behavior, their conduct, and saying, well, it could be if they would have done this and start inventing brand new hypotheticals as a way of trying to now attach some possible culpability to the actions that they took.
We need the Supreme Court to rule on this as it applies because it came after the fact.
these particular facts and circumstances there's no on-point case that specifically defines this case and any lawyer worth their salt can find some way to distinguish the case and say this is on Wednesday not Tuesday.
I wanted to defend because he's attacked me saying I'm dodging things or I'm okay with one hypothetical not the other.
Requesting documents— Which they said was in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Requesting documents to get fake slates of electors and to try to steal the election.
You see, again— Yes or no?
There's—this is where the debate usually stops.
Why? In the 1960 election, I've had this debate 800 million times.
JFK, Nixon, the uncertified slate was sent for JFK, even though the election had already been called.
They did not resolve the case until after the safe harbor provisions, but they decided, we're going to send an uncertified slate anyway, and it was never considered fake.
Now, if there was Supreme Court precedent set after the fact that uncertified slates of electors, meaning electors that were not duly elected but were submitted anyway, if they set precedent saying you cannot do this and Congress passed a law saying this is expressly illegal, I'd agree with you.
But they didn't.
So the legal theory that emerges in the 2020 case, though I disagree.
I think Trump lost.
I disagree with the people who think Trump won, was they've done this in the past.
Why don't we?
Have our electors submit before the Safe Harbor provisions, just like they did in Hawaii.
Then Pence can choose to count or otherwise based upon what the judges rule.
Now, if Donald Trump takes issue with an election or anybody, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, whoever, and they say, one, we are required legally to submit any formal paperwork before the Safe Harbor deadline.
When we refer to legal advice, we are not referring to engagement in criminal activity.
And if you have two guys, and they're not lawyers, and one guy is advising the other guy on how to rob a bank, that's not legal advice.
Just because you have a law degree doesn't make it legal advice.
Okay, so your definition of legal advice, that would be legal advice.
I mean, you gave a definition that didn't say, oh, and by the way, the legal advice can't be part of a criminal conspiracy.
You're carving out the thing that would be a criminal legal advice.
To definitely understand what is our constitutional right to counsel versus what is an illegal action.
So the right to counsel doesn't mean that the counsel you're receiving is legal itself.
They're different things, and there's no contradiction in what I'm saying.
To be honest, none of it really matters.
Why? Because the interpretation of the actions of Jenna Ellis and Trump's other lawyers, I forgot their names, based in Wisconsin, was that Donald Trump approached them and said, how do I legally challenge an election?
And they said, here's how you do it, and we'll draft it for you.
And the government went, aha!
We think that's a crime, so you're under arrest.
All right, so let me change the hypothetical just to make sure that this principle is being applied consistently.
Let's say that Jenna Ellis said, okay, this won't work, this won't work.
What you have to do is you have to order the...
The military to seize the halls of Congress and hold at gunpoint all the Congress people.
And that will be, you know, that way it'll just be the best way to do it.
That's an absurdity.
You can say it's an absurdity.
It's called a hypothetical.
And you provide, wait, you provide hypotheticals to people.
unidentified
Are you going to say you're not going to answer it?
So there's the laws against, for example, lying to Congress, fair?
So do they have to list out all the possible lies you could tell to Congress in order for it to be legal?
So lying to Congress about how much money you have in the bank, lying to Congress about the effects of a law, they have to list out every single specific potential iteration of lying to Congress?
So you're saying, based on the interpretation of the state of Georgia, that they felt Jenna Ellis...
Drafting a letter for Donald Trump was part of a criminal conspiracy.
So I guess my view is then if Donald Trump wants to interpret the actions of Mahmoud Khalil as threats to state secrets or state foreign policy, he should be deported.
Why aren't you willing to condemn the potential deportation of Mahmoud Khalil?
For the exact reason you have said Jen Ellis as a lawyer should be charged is why I'm saying Mahmoud Khalil should be deported.
To test the legality of it because there's no specific law?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Because your arguments aren't based in law.
It's your interpretation of what is and your moral worldview.
Well, I mean, it's based on the Supreme Court precedent that you seem to accept that these people have First Amendment rights.
If they have First Amendment rights, what kind of First Amendment wouldn't protect someone who has that right from deportation based on protected activities?
You seem to grant that they had that right, but now you're saying, I don't really know.
Yeah. Inadmissible aliens, present in violation of law, violated non-immigrant status or condition of entry.
I think it's big four.
Also, they accuse them of fraud, too.
Correct, but there's no material.
I see, I see.
Isn't it stupid how they do this?
It's below the criminal offenses.
It's down in four under terrorism and national security.
Security and general concerns.
It's C. It's C1.
C1. Any alien whose presence or activity in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.
So Secretary of State Marco Rubio didn't cite the provision that you cited.
He cited 237-4-C-I.
And he said in his determination why he's adverse to the interests is because he supports Hamas.
Joe seemed to accept that if you ordered French bread, it wouldn't be a basis of removability, presumably because the First Amendment protects resident aliens.
I actually don't think that the protests would probably get under that rationale, except to the extent that they're worried about people being critical of Israel.
But it doesn't matter what it says, because the First Amendment...
I agree.
I think then the way the procedure would go is that we're going to get a Supreme Court hearing on whether it goes one way or the other.
He has procedural problems first and foremost because you have to exhaust the administrative procedure before he's able to go into the federal court.
But even beyond that, as I said a while ago, probably an hour ago at this point, we're at a juncture here when it comes to national security that this is the one area.
That the Supreme Court has refused to intercede on executive exclusive authority.
And that's why for you to think that when we're talking about someone whose First Amendment rights are already lessened compared to American citizens, this has no potential ramification on First Amendment rights of any citizens.
When we're talking about the fact that he's failed to...
Abide by the same terms that enabled him to obtain a visa and that he committed fraud in obtaining a green card, which throws into question his entire legitimacy of the green card whatsoever.
And would be a basis to exclude him also.
So when we're looking at it from that perspective, I think that there is such – I've debated you in the past about what the Supreme Court would do.
And I'll tell you right now, I was correct last time on the 14th Amendment issue when I told you it would be 7-2 if not 8-1 that Trump would win on the 14th Amendment issue.
I want to add, the speech is particularly that it's anti-Israel, that it's critical of Israel.
And I think the reason why I would agree with you on the court siding with the Trump administration over Mahmoud Khalil is for two reasons.
The Supreme Court tends to be deferential on issues of national security.
So even if there's rights, they allow for Barack Obama to pass the indefinite detention provision, things in the Patriot Act, torture of foreign nationals.
Barack Obama murdered American citizens, multiple, I think, four or five individuals.
So when it comes to the Trump administration saying...
We want to support Israel.
This guy came to our country and he's rallying people against Israel.
That's bad for foreign policy.
I imagine the Supreme Court's going to go, well, we don't care about rights when it comes to foreign policy.
Then you have the issue of American support for Israel is very high.
And so even if there was a principled issue of this person has a right to speech, everyone's going to be like, don't care.
We like Israel.
But I'm not trying to pull the nation here, Tim.
I'm not trying to read tea leaves about the Supreme Court tomorrow.
I get it.
I'm saying that the American people...
unidentified
I'm trying to push you guys.
And the reason I'm trying to push you guys is because you both have platforms.
I call them insurrections, some of them, just to be clear about my consistency there.
I generally am not seen as a crazy person on this issue.
I'm calling...
And I'm pushing you guys.
I'm pushing you guys because I know if someone came up with a rationale, Johnny Come Lately rationale, that said something like, we believe having Muslims in this country at all, having Muslims in this country at all is bad for our foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel.
Israel wants us to have Muslims be out of this country.
In the scenario where the Secretary of State says it's in the foreign policy interest of the United States not to have Muslim aliens in this country.
And that determination is made based on our long friendship with Israel and our long relationship with Israel and they don't want it there and we don't want to undermine that relationship.
Underbinding precedent of the Supreme Court, because there is a distinction between admission decisions and non-admission decisions, I'm telling you what the law says.
And what the law says is you can ban people from in this country if they're Chinese.
here if you're kept to the same standard while you're here that means you could be deported so that that is not the case and there are different rights at admission versus when you're in the country for example you have no procedural due process rights when it when you're outside of the country seeking admission agreed correct do have procedural due process rights when you're in the country and they're trying to force you out specifically set forth in the 14th amendment that you'll have those those due process rights as Tim read 45 minutes ago wait a second the 14th amendment says that states shall not deprive individuals to the fifth amendment the point is that the point is that kind
Congress has, and through constitutional amendment even, has recognized that when it comes to due process specifically, we're going to confer upon non-citizens that express protection that's much more akin...
Inherent in that is a right for them to pull you out of this country if, in fact, you change that position because either you lied when you got in here or you changed the position.
But my understanding is that for a lot of people who join the military, for instance, they're subject to laws that, yes, that your freedom of movement is gone.
You are legally not required to be in certain places.
As a condition of employment.
No, no.
You can get in trouble.
Like, you can get...
Maybe, but I could be totally wrong about this, but I've heard stories from my veteran friends that they engaged in a sporting activity, got injured, and got in trouble for it.
Not like they went to jail, but it was considered damage to government property or something to that regard.
I think in instances of military and in certain cases of employment, that makes sense.
So there could be some areas.
There's exceptions to everything, but here's what we're talking about.
There are.
You can't sometimes sign away your rights.
sign away your rights as a condition of employment perhaps, but not as a condition for just, you know, as a member of the community that the country has deemed you fit to enter the country as a permanent resident.
You said that people have First Amendment rights, that resident aliens have First Amendment rights, but that right is so ephemeral that it could be waived away as a condition of entering the country at all.
So real quick, if someone were enlisted and they organized a protest, I'm trying to use it specifically as Mahmoud Khalil, it is a criminal offense.
So you can actually sign away your right to engage in protest.
As a condition of employment in the military.
It's not employment.
You're subject to military code.
Listen, there can be specific cases for military service.
But real quick, you're arguing the government can...
So if I were to go to Best Buy and they said, so long as you're an employee here, we expect you not to protest.
That's a contract condition of employment.
And it makes sense.
Like the Snow White controversy, the producer's son went and reprimanded Rachel Zegler.
To go to the government and they'll say, no, no, we won't just fire you.
We will put you in prison if you speak out against us.
So differences based on private versus public, just to be clear.
So New York City human rights law that you cited before actually does protect certain kinds of expressions and off-job political activities.
So some states do impose those statutory frameworks that protect that kind of activity.
And I think that you'd probably agree with a lot of those laws that say that, for example, you can't be fired if you're a Republican.
Only in D.C. No, I think it's only in D.C. actually, yeah.
Okay. But regardless, like what we're talking about, usually the Bill of Rights does not apply as to private actors.
And so we're engaging in First Amendment analysis for people who you acknowledge have these rights.
And what you're suggesting is beyond military, which can be a category of its own and fine.
I'll even accept that it's a category of its own because military is so particular or something.
What you're suggesting is that even American citizens can be deprived of their rights by the government just choosing to condition certain benefits on that.
And that is what I mean when I say these are our rights.
When you accept certain frameworks I want to finish my statement.
you accept this framework of wide-reaching waiver, or you say, you know, rights don't really matter that much because they're just going to be interpreted, you are signing away your own rights, not just those immigrants.
See, that's, this is, oh, that's a real slippery slope that I'm talking about the rights that attach to a foreign national, or a foreign visitor, or someone holding a green card to an American citizen, when over and over again I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
When you're trying to engage in fear porn of trying to say, if we limit his rights, which the Supreme Court has already limited his rights in saying he doesn't have the same level of rights, and that that's somehow some threat to American democracy or constitutional rights or your First Amendment rights are going to be.
Literally nobody cares about anyone's constitutional rights.
If I want to go buy a gun, I have to waive my right against self-incrimination.
The government has a requirement unto me that I waive my right.
And poor Hunter Biden actually faced criminal charges because...
He did not want to self-incriminate as an illegal drug user, which he has no obligation to do.
And I actually said, I hope he wins.
I hope he challenges the Supreme Court.
Do not pardon him.
I want him to go to the Supreme Court and say, the government has no right to, as a condition of my right to keep and bear arms, to self-incriminate.
Violation of the Fifth Amendment to enforce it, so that I can enjoy my second.
Instead, they always do this.
The courts say, or the government says, let's not let that one get to precedent because then it'll actually screw over the abuses that we have.
But tell me, where is anyone ever to point out the condition set upon all the time on all of the Bill of Rights from left and right?
It's literally everybody just arguing one thing.
Might makes right.
I appreciate the passion.
We think Jen Ellis committed a crime.
The right is saying she was just providing legal advice.
Your interpretation determines whether or not a lawyer goes to prison and whether or not someone will actually seek legal counsel or lawyers will be terrified because they're like, if I try and actually assist a politician in this case, they're going to accuse me of a crime.
It happens every day that someone's going to say, in 1948, the government said it's this, therefore it's so.
And then what's going to happen is they're going to get sued.
The new Supreme Court's going to say, actually, we're erasing that and changing the precedent.
So all that's really happening is people are playing this funny word game of, I can make it sound like I'm right and you're wrong.
This is where we're at.
If you look at all of the Bill of Rights and you look at everything you're arguing, I can point to 50...
For every amendment, here's where the liberals have argued for and against the First Amendment.
They think it's right when they do it this way and wrong with it.
Here's where the conservatives do it.
All that's really happening is, can you win an election?
And what it really boils down to is, how many sad moms can we show on TV?
A lot of people aren't enforcing obscenity, but also obscenity itself is dependent on certain artistic value and national standards.
This is actually another good point of the question of rights.
There are a lot of laws in the books we never enforce anymore.
Famously, there was this story about skydiving on Sunday was illegal for women in Florida.
And they say it's not true, but there are a lot of laws like this.
There's a book called Funny Old Laws.
There was a law, I think it was in Boston, that you can't cool pies on your windowsill.
And everybody laughs at it.
But the reason why is because back when it was a very small community, cooling pies on your windowsill attracted animals and then caused problems.
They said, stop doing this.
They had laws saying you can't take baths on Tuesday because the aquifer was strained.
We don't enforce any of those laws anymore.
They're still on the books.
So we have just a society where it really is the whim of law enforcement and the body politic.
For example, in a much better example, in San Francisco, two men gave each other blowjobs in the middle of the street.
This was during Pride, in full view of children and everyone else, and the police said they're allowed to do it.
Well, clearly they're not!
I mean, it's obscenity laws across the books in every facet ban that.
Why don't the police arrest them?
Because all that really matters is if the public is willing to tolerate and accept it or not.
And if the people would...
So this is why we get leftist terrorism.
The reason why we see Tesla's being firebombed is because what's the end result?
You're going to see Vancouver, for instance, booted Tesla from their auto show saying, we can't keep it safe anymore.
This is the purpose of...
The might-make-right ethos, which we see dominant right now.
I'm not saying Democrat, liberal entirely.
I'm saying predominantly far-left.
They're enacting that, and it is used to amplify their power and the moral worldview they have.
Thus, as it pertains to the Columbia protests, what did we see?
Organizers put together these protests.
Whether you want to blame them for it, physical occupation occurred.
Physical violence against Jews occurred.
Buildings were taken over.
Faculty complained of physical threats and violence against them.
You know, I look at this and I'm just like, how do we prevent things like this from happening?
Well, we've got people having sex in the street in San Francisco and the police won't enforce it.
We have buildings being taken over and it's allowed to happen for an extended period of time.
Donald Trump says the guy who organized this is getting kicked out of the country and every legal liberal comes out and says we can't allow that to happen.
These things are all interconnected.
And so the question really becomes, are you willing to enforce against things that cause damage to your moral worldview?
The right tends not to.
They're starting to now.
The left is resistant to it.
So that's my point on all of this.
Say whatever you want about whatever you want.
So long as you've got pride events across the country where they violate every law with gay sex in public.
I'm not trying to be crude, but they do.
Then I'm going to sit here and be like, guys.
You had a violent protest.
Jews got attacked.
Buildings got taken over.
You've got no moral ground to stand on.
You're trying to cite precedence to win political power.
It's what they said about communists.
It's what they said about Jan Sixers.
It's what they say about all the people that the public hates.
You know, the public hates.
You brought up Jan Six.
Did the Republicans have a committee for May 29th?
Did they go and set up a national commission to go and hunt down?
Like I said, Republicans don't enforce against this stuff.
Is Trump wrong about whether it was a big deal or not?
One hundred fucking percent.
Okay, so was his life in danger?
Absolutely it was.
Okay. That's why they brought him into a bunker.
So he's deluded for thinking that it wasn't a danger.
Absolutely. The dude has got an ego problem.
He doesn't want to be bunker boy.
They brought him into an emergency bunker because a thousand plus far leftists tore the barricades down and were throwing firebombs at the White House.
And we never got any account...
Prove they were throwing firebombs at the White House right now.
This view, while you look it up, this view about rights and that it's all whatever because the gays are doing this, the left is doing this, it's all bullshit.
On May 29th, 1,000-plus far leftists tore the barricades down, injured over 100 law enforcement officers, set fire to St. John's Church, torched several other buildings, flipped over cars.
We were talking about whether they had thrown Molotov cocktails at the White House.
You interrupted me as I was addressing May 29th and asked me to pull up the photo, and I said I would do that for you.
Is there an image of—you said you saw an image of a guard post on fire?
What someone, one Twitter account said was a guard post.
I will concede that to you.
Okay. And this is where I'm headed.
Okay? So let's not get carried away on me.
I'll say, you know what?
You're right.
The fire may or may not have happened, but there is a post online that purports a guard post in the White House grounds was set on fire.
Yes. So let's just, you know what?
Okay. They did not firebomb the White House.
They may have, we're not entirely sure.
They did tear down the barricades, attack law enforcement, a thousand plus, over a hundred law enforcement officers were injured, and they set fire to St. John's Church.
They set fire to several buildings outside of the White House complex.
And we never got a national commission or a committee from Congress.
We did not get national raids in the 1,000-plus.
30-plus people died in those riots.
We never got law enforcement.
For 90-plus days, over 100 days, far-left extremists were lobbing explosives, mortars, at federal buildings.
They took over locations in Seattle, Portland, Minnesota, and Atlanta.
In autonomous zones— And you call them insurrections, sir?
Okay. So given that you assume you did, under the standard that you applied to these individuals in Seattle, Portland, all that situation, wouldn't Jan 6 also be an insurrection under your standard, your pre-Jan 6 standard?
No. Why?
So what's more insurrection-y about the Portland situation or the courthouse in Portland versus Jan 6?
How long were the city blocks in various cities occupied?
Well, first, you're presupposing that I used the word insurrection.
You did, but we're assuming that as a predicate.
Right. And I challenge that.
It may have been the case.
And I would argue this.
The term insurrection, as applied from January 6th on, was very specific.
The intention of individuals to stop an official proceeding to keep a president in power.
That was the definition of what insurrection was.
My argument after that is, if you're going to argue that January 6th, which included a large group of rioters and a large group of peaceful protesters all wrapped up in the same thing, then I would argue, let's also get a commission on May 29th.
And I met Republicans for continually avoiding it and doing nothing about it.
If insurrection is, as defined by the Insurrection Act, as applied to the BLM riots, it is when local law enforcement is not upholding the law, the president has the right to bring in the National Guard to enforce local law.
They don't define insurrection in the Insurrection Act, but there are a lot of circumstances, including what you just outlined.
Let's clarify for the purpose of what we're actually trying to discuss.
This word can be applied in different contexts.
In the context of the BLM riots, were this to be an insurrection, it applies to the Insurrection Act, and the Insurrection Act is when local law enforcement is not enforcing the law, the president has a right to call in the National Guard to enforce local law.
I believe that Donald Trump should have invoked the Insurrection Act.
And in that context, what they engaged in was insurrection.
Local law enforcement was not enforcing the law and was allowing far left extremists to use violence, firebombs and physical assault against individuals.
In the context of January 6th, they said, Democrats, the J6 committee.
If the argument is that if you want to use the insurrection as defined by the Insurrection Act, and that is D.C. It doesn't define it.
Exactly. So we can only apply the context of what the law does.
If Donald Trump were to have called in the National Guard on January 6th because he deemed an insurrection happening.
What I'm saying is when they come marching in there, the same way people come, people in the six previous elections, at least three or four, going back to Gore v.
Bush, there have been people who have been coming in there and screamed that they were unhappy with the way things were happening and were removed by...
I dispute that, but I think we should step back because I know it's fun to talk about the term insurrection, but really what Tim is getting at is, I disagree with his assessment.
This is anyone in the United States who wants to buy a gun.
Yeah, so what the court tells us to look at, because I'm going to take the Supreme Court and their precedent, it says you look at the time of the founding and the enactment of the Second Amendment, what were the kinds of regulations that were in place there that the framers would have considered part of their Second Amendment rights?
No one thinks that these rights are absolute in all circumstances.
For example, no one thinks that the Second Amendment prevents us from having laws that prevent access to felons or laws that prevent access of guns to the mentally incompetent.
I disagree.
I think they protect that.
So you think that felons and mentally incompetent people have a right to possess weapons?
Under the Second Amendment, yes.
Because it clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It doesn't say unless we at some point deem them to be...
Now, to be fair, to be fair, there is the argument of due process.
The reason why felons can't have guns is because the Constitution guarantees your due process.
All rights can be curtailed.
Following due process.
You think that felons should have the right to have guns, but that green card holders don't have the right to speak?
No, no, I just literally said due process can strip you of your rights.
You can have your rights of freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, everything curtailed if you are in violation of law.
In fact, you can be enslaved.
The 13th Amendment explicitly allows you to be a slave if you jaywalk.
I'm not kidding.
I know, I know.
Pull it up, pull it up.
The 13th Amendment says any crime, it doesn't specify felonies or misdemeanors, meaning you can commit a petty offense by not returning a library book, and that gives the government the right to enslave you.
Granted, those things don't get enforced that way.
Because I actually think it's such an immoral position.
To me, I look at it as someone coming from the right, and I say to myself, look...
The same way I have someone in my house, and if someone's in my house and I invite them into my house, there's an expectation they're going to comport themselves with a certain level of conduct.
I came in here before and I said, what is accepted protocol during the show here?
Because I'm a visitor here in Tim Pool's studio.
If I'm Tim Pool's kid, there's a different standard where even if I violate that, if I violate it here, he's going to throw me out of here.
And as you would agree, it's his right.
If I'm his kid, though, in that case, if his kid is now...
He grows up and is 12 years old, 10 years old, and he says, I'm going to no longer support you any longer.
We would say that that is something that could be criminal.
Green card holders don't have, and I think green card holders have some rights that felons don't have.
For example, felons don't necessarily have free speech rights to go and protest and stuff, right?
So, to be clear, I think they're not overlapping.
But these are ways in which, importantly and critically, green card holders and aliens have different rights.
For example, you can't exile a U.S. citizen if they commit a crime.
You can exile— You should be able to.
You think that you should be able to exile American citizens out of the country?
I would prefer it instead of capital punishment.
So I think capital punishment is worse than exile.
I don't trust the state to kill people.
The example I like to give to conservatives who tend to be pro-death penalty is imagine Kamala Harris pointing at someone saying, trust me, that guy should die.
They would never believe it.
I would prefer it if when it came to capital offenses, we just said, we're going to put you on a boat and kick you off.
Exactly. And now what if he said, we have circumstantial evidence that I believe proves it beyond a reasonable doubt, but nothing definitive, no video, but enough to where a jury of Americans say, we believe it, he should be killed.
Wait, no, proof beyond a reasonable doubt we have?
Yes. Yeah, put it in front of a jury, and it'll be a conviction.
Okay, so my point is, I don't believe the state should be able to murder people, with certain exceptions.
That is, a police officer literally watching someone about to rape and murder a child uses force to stop it.
Yeah, but that's self-defense, and that's imminent requirements.
The issue I take largely is...
In many circumstances, we see that—I don't want to get into a death penalty debate, but here we go.
But why do you want to send child rapists to other countries?
Because they're not child rapists.
The issue is— That's the example you gave.
Because I'm trying to choose the most evil thing imaginable, but what you're putting there is you trust the government implicitly when they accuse someone— I don't, but I also don't want them to send child rapists to fucking Cuba.
Neither do I. So then why do you want to send exile a bunch of fucking hardened criminals to other countries?
Because you're assuming they're hardened criminals, and that's not my point.
I guess they would outvote me and they would kill them.
I feel like...
The issue I take is not, of course, in defense of evil.
It is obviously if someone is about to engage in an act of great bodily harm or death against another person, we actually reserve universally the right to stop that person.
Well, actually, I would say the left largely doesn't.
But a lot of people on the left, the liberals, and almost all of conservatives do agree.
If someone's about to engage in great bodily harm, you have the right to stop it.
This is this is the easiest and one example I can cite, though there are many others in which I feel the establishment state, which includes neocons, although the neocons have now joined the Democratic Party, have waged war on the American people for the purpose of power.
They are they are violating the Constitution.
They do it every single day.
Donald Trump is responding with commensurate force against forces that were enacted against him and his his movement.
There has been no argument presented and all information released by the administration as to those they deported.
We don't have a full accounting of everyone on there.
The government admitted in its oral argument.
And I agree with you on that.
And I've, since this started, agreed Trump needs to release a list of every person he's deporting to prove to the public these are non-citizens.
But even illegal immigrants under the INA have rights even to expedited removal procedures.
One thing that Trump is doing that Joe Biden didn't do is he extended expedited removal to its maximal scope.
Agreed. But here's my point.
Joe Biden created, and so did Obama.
There's paths to legality in the United States that some would argue are extra-legal, notably DACA.
That's not a congressionally approved action.
That was an executive order.
So the view on the right would be during the Obama administration and during the Biden administration, they created special provisions that seemingly violate the moral foundation of this country and our laws to bring in as many immigrants as possible.
Claiming that everybody who came here was an asylee is an affront to reality in that many of these people, some of them came from Africa.
Certainly you can want to flee Africa, but Brazil is awesome.
And Mexico is awesome.
But asylee status is based on whether you're persecuted.
Exactly. But if you're from Africa and you come to Brazil, where you're no longer persecuted, and then you have to go through every single country, and none of those countries do you stop.
Or more importantly, when the caravans were passing through Mexico, and Mexico offered all of them asylum, and they all said no, that is an affront to the goodwill of the American people.
So assume that he didn't support Hamas under your lights, whatever that is.
I'm in favor of deportation because what I'm saying of Donald Trump is he's using commensurate force in deportation that Biden and Obama used for importation.
If you want to rescind asylee status or say that we have no procedures or whatever, pass a law.
It's very clear under established Supreme Court precedent they have no right to be here.
I said the same thing to what Obama and Biden did.
Instead of opening the southern border and saying, just claim you're an asylum seeker and we'll let it go.
You know what I got a problem with?
Donald Trump deporting alleged trend to Aragua?
I am still...
Sitting here being like, I want transparency on this issue, and I will tell them to their faces when I see them, and I will say it.
Give the public a list and prove it, because we want to believe you're doing something that's right, but as long as you pretend it's going to be in secret and you refuse to tell us who's actually being deported, we have problems here.
They've released partial lists, you're correct.
But when the news report comes out about a barber or this runner being deported because of criminals...
Do not care.
Do not exploit the goodwill of this country.
Do not lie to our faces that you need asylum when you're coming here for economic status.
But more importantly, I would prefer it didn't happen.
Yeah, but that's a substantive claim because there could be reasons why it doesn't count as a safe country under the law.
But even if it does, because that would be an argument that says his asylum claim is a loser.
I don't care.
Even if his asylum claim is a loser, doesn't he have a right under your very same framework that says that you want to protect people who are improperly accused, you want to protect even people who do child rape from the death penalty?
Indeed. Well, you take a look at these two administrations, how different they are.
Within a month of Trump getting in, border crossings dropped to a few thousand.
They've got MRAPs and tanks now patrolling the border.
No one's coming across anymore.
What happened to all the asylum seekers?
They don't need asylum anymore now that Trump's saying you've got to go through the port legally?
They're not going to the border in Mexicali and Clexico and saying, I'm an asylum seeker.
They just stopped coming.
You're lying.
He's deporting more people than Trump is.
He deported a lot of people.
But here's a fact.
CBP, as reported on The View of all places, children were coming across the border with numbers on their arms to be sold into sex slavery.
And the CBP under Biden were instructed to facilitate that.
And there were people driving vans who knew what was happening.
You got a problem with it?
Take it up with The View and Dr.
Phil. They're the ones who reported.
Yeah, so first of all, Dr. Phil is a fucking, well...
And blame the head of the CBP union who said it on camera.
I have people in my life who like Dr. Phil's content, so I'll save the aspersion.
Listen, there's very big differences in immigration policy, no doubt.
But something I would hope that we would have agreement on, regardless of how bad you think, even assume Joe Biden opened the doors to illegal immigration.
Things should be done the right way, not the wrong way.
If you want to have summary removals, then pass a law that allows for that.
Because you took issue with DACA.
Right? You took issue with DACA?
Indeed. So shouldn't you be consistent and say, well, I don't, you know, I don't support excesses of executive power when it's done in favor of immigration or against it.
The issue is, and the point I'm bringing up, the reason why Trump is doing the things he's doing and the difficult moral position I find myself in is Biden did many things which were destructive to this country and Trump is reversing those things.
Biden did a whole, so, you know, imagine it this way.
There's a great tower that every administration puts blocks on top of.
It is growing greater every single time.
We add laws, we add executive orders, we rarely rescind them.
The more that gets added to it, the greater the instability begins to wobble far to the right, then far to the left, and eventually the whole thing goes crumbling down.
How do we deal with a mass influx of 10, I'm going to use the low number, 10 million non-citizens?
Here we're calculating estimated border crossings aren't necessarily coextensive with individuals who are coming and staying here permanently.
Indeed, it could be more.
Because apprehensions and interactions don't...
I mean, some people got through.
So we're dealing with the ramifications of this both in the census, which means congressionally, in the Electoral College, how it structures our government, how we deal with...
Is it really the case that Democrat states have more illegal immigrants than Republican?
They're called sanctuary states and they don't enforce...
I thought the argument was always that Republicans are bearing a bigger brunt.
Republican states have to...
The border states, Texas...
California has more illegal immigrants than other states.
Blue states are sanctuary states that don't enforce immigration law.
And that's why Greg Abbott was sending them there.
And that's why I said it was a stupid thing to do.
Absolutely. It was funny in a lot of sense.
Like, the Martha's Vineyard thing was funny.
If these people want to be a sanctuary, then we will transport them and they can provide aid and assistance.
The problem is, as I've said, all this does is bolster their numbers in the census and give them extra votes for president.
All of these things are issues.
We have gone over and we do have to go because I've got to give a shout out to Jeremy Hambly because we're going to be rating Jeremy Hambly's show right now.
But my point ultimately is, I think I've made it a million times, Donald Trump is going to do things that are seemingly drastic the left will be angry about.
But the left did similarly drastic things.
So what we're getting is two sides arguing God is on my side effectively.
I mean that figuratively, not literally.
The left says we are morally right in how we've done this.
You are morally wrong for how you do it.
The right is saying the inverse.
The question is who will muster up the political might to actually succeed?
Abraham Lincoln arrested the Maryland legislature, large portions of it, for being sympathetic to the Confederates.
He suspended habeas corpus.
No one calls him a dictator except for the Confederates.
No. Even the Supreme Court could, in theory, issue an illegal order.
That's right.
Even the Supreme Court, because if in fact the Constitution says that they don't have a certain right to something, and a federal judge, district court judge, completely disregards what's written in the statute.
Would you agree with me?
That this black letter statute, which says something, and a fellow judge disregards that, and he issues an order in complete opposition to what is expressly written word for word.
I just want to say, because you called Trump a degenerate, you know, when you look at Donald Trump, he's had multiple wives, he's had different children from different wives.
This constitutional crisis we have right now is 100% the exclusive fault of the judiciary.
When the judiciary steps out of its bounds and says, hey, I'm going to start implementing national policy on this thing over here because, you know what, I'm some judge from Rhode Island.
And there's a national order, there's a universal order which is affecting the entire country.
And even though it's really only affecting, I don't know, 1% of the national population here in my domain, I'm going to be impacting this executive order that's nationwide throughout the country.
If you think that that is something that should be empowered to district court judges and that's something that's completely legal, what has Trump done?
Has he said, you know what, you wrote your stupid decision?
No, instead of doing that, instead of doing that, he very artfully gave deference to the court by saying, you know what?
I'm going to not tell you how stupid you are, how illegal your order is, and how ridiculous and asinine you are that you think that you're the president of the United States and there's 3,700 other district judges who are all president and have executive power.
He doesn't do that.
Instead, he very artfully avoids a constitutional crisis by saying, you know what?
I'm going to...
Pretend that this court order has deference and find some way that my actions are not going to be impeded by any stupid judge who happened to get a sign and at the same time not embarrass the court by saying I'm disregarding the order.
That is something he should be applauded for over and over again because he has saved us from a constitutional crisis that these judges are trying to insure.
I think this is time flew and I'd love to keep going.
You know, my final thoughts as sort of the, you know, although people don't really call me a fence-sitter at this point in my career, I'd simply say, for me, what I just end up hearing is, in this instance, we were right to rule the way we did.
And I would only say that when I get asked this question over and over again about what should Trump do or why should he do it, my response is, any leader should enforce a moral and just society.
Everybody actually agrees with that.
The difference is everybody's view of moral and just is dramatically different.
So there are large factions of a moral worldview.
There's two principal ones.
They're fighting for what they want, and they're going to do whatever they have to do to get it.
I don't know what that turns into, but that's where we're at.
So I don't know if you want to...
Give a final thought and shout something out before we wrap?
unidentified
Yeah, sure.
No, thanks so much for having me on.
Thank you, Joe.
It's always fun when we get into it, and we certainly do.
GoodLogic. I urge everyone to check out my podcast, which actually starts nightly right after Tim Cast finishes his.
I need him to start feeding him over to me like I'm very hamly.
So, but, and if you enjoy this conversation, I cover law, I cover politics, I try and make it enjoyable, while at the same time, at the same time, really looking at things from philosophical perspectives to right and wrong.
So that's GoodLogic, L-A-W-G-I-C, and on Twitter, I'm at TheFollowingPro.
