The Culture War - Tim Pool - Deportation Of Mahmoud Khalil, Is Trump VIOLATING The Constitution w/ PiscoLitty & GoodLawgic
Aired: 2025-03-28
Duration: 02:14:39


=== Visiting Rights at Nadir (15:32) ===

[00:00:11]  It's been about two months.
[00:00:13]  Donald Trump has been in office and he is flooding the zone.
[00:00:17]  Basically, everybody agrees.
[00:00:18]  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.
[00:00:24]  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.
[00:00:30]  And we are going to debate these issues largely from a legal context.
[00:00:35]  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.
[00:00:48]  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.
[00:00:55]  So we'll talk about that and a whole lot more.
[00:00:57]  We've got a couple of gentlemen joining us to engage in this debate.
[00:01:00]  I'm an attorney.
[00:01:04]  I do streams on YouTube.
[00:01:06]  Peace goes our.
[00:01:08]  Well, right on.
[00:01:09]  Yeah. And what's your view?
[00:01:10]  You love Trump.
[00:01:11]  No, I hate Trump.
[00:01:13]  I think that Trump is doing an awful thing to the Constitution.
[00:01:15]  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.
[00:01:21]  And there is on-point precedent from the Supreme Court that resident aliens get First Amendment rights.
[00:01:27]  So why is Donald Trump...
[00:01:29]  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.
[00:01:43]  Right on.
[00:01:43]  Sir, do you want to grab that mic and pull it up?
[00:01:46]  Yeah, sure.
[00:01:47]  All right.
[00:01:47]  Is that better?
[00:01:48]  Joe Nierman, a.k.a.
[00:01:49]  Good Logic.
[00:01:50]  I host a YouTube channel and Rumble channel called Good Logic.
[00:01:55]  I'm a New York litigator who turned podcaster after COVID.
[00:01:58]  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.
[00:02:13]  was harming my First Amendment right to cover it as a member of the press.
[00:02:16]  And I took that all the way up and applying to the Supreme Court.
[00:02:22]  On this particular issue, we're talking about Mamou Khalil.
[00:02:25]  This is not a First Amendment issue.
[00:02:27]  Sometimes a free speech issue is a First Amendment issue.
[00:02:30]  Often it is, but this is not a situation like that.
[00:02:32]  I look forward to getting into it with you.
[00:02:33]  Right on.
[00:02:34]  Well, everybody, make sure to smash the like button.
[00:02:36]  Share the show if you do want to hear this debate or if you think people should hear this debate.
[00:02:39]  It'll get particularly interesting.
[00:02:41]  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.
[00:02:47]  But let's just kick it off, man.
[00:02:50]  Tell us what you think.
[00:02:52]  Let me give a little bit of context.
[00:02:53]  So Mahmoud Khalil, he was one of the organizers of the protests we saw at Columbia.
[00:02:57]  He had a, I believe it was a two-year conditional green card, which got revoked by the State Department.
[00:03:03]  He is currently pending deportation, but he's not the only one.
[00:03:06]  I think there may be four others.
[00:03:08]  These are individuals who are here on legal status with legal visas who are now having their visas revoked and facing deportation.
[00:03:15]  The Trump administration says that Mahmoud was engaged in activities aligned with Hamas, and that was a national security threat.
[00:03:23]  So there's a lot more to the story, but why don't you tell us what you think first?
[00:03:25]  Yeah, let's first start with what this is not about.
[00:03:27]  It's not about criminal activity.
[00:03:29]  It's not about alleged crimes.
[00:03:30]  I think both of you can agree that we have to take the allegations of the government.
[00:03:34]  We can't invent new rationales for why Mahmoud Khalil is deportable.
[00:03:37]  Do you agree with that?
[00:03:38]  Yes. Okay.
[00:03:39]  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.
[00:03:46]  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?
[00:03:53]  And obviously there's no evidence that he's in connection with Hamas or giving any material support to them.
[00:03:57]  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.
[00:04:05]  I want to be clear before we begin this, so we frame our discussion in a healthy way.
[00:04:10]  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.
[00:04:25]  Or we can attack this as far as from a moral and philosophical perspective.
[00:04:28]  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.
[00:04:37]  So can we pick one?
[00:04:39]  Because I'm sure that Khalil loses on any of those, any way you look at it, philosophically, legally, or as far as more...
[00:04:46]  From American constitutional perspective, like what's a healthy philosophy of our constitution, he loses every way.
[00:04:54]  So you pick the direction you want to go, and let's go there.
[00:04:58]  So to be clear, you're not willing to concede the legal argument here.
[00:05:00]  Which legal argument are you referring to?
[00:05:01]  It is the First Amendment argument.
[00:05:02]  You're not going to concede it.
[00:05:03]  That this is a First Amendment argument?
[00:05:05]  You're not going to concede that Trump is violating the First Amendment by...
[00:05:09]  Not even close.
[00:05:10]  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?
[00:05:17]  I would.
[00:05:18]  Yeah. Yeah.
[00:05:19]  Because the First Amendment's important to you.
[00:05:20]  You just said that you went through all this litigation.
[00:05:22]  I went all the way to the Supreme Court personally.
[00:05:23]  So let's start there.
[00:05:23]  And I think that that would get into some, you know, perhaps some philosophical territory.
[00:05:27]  I'm not willing to shy away from that.
[00:05:28]  I think it's also, you know, a good idea morally, practically to have the First Amendment.
[00:05:32]  But let's stick with the First Amendment.
[00:05:34]  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?
[00:05:41]  Yes or no?
[00:05:42]  Quick caveat.
[00:05:43]  He wasn't a permanent resident.
[00:05:44]  He had a conditional two-year green card.
[00:05:46]  Sure. But do you want to...
[00:05:48]  No, I'm not assuming anything.
[00:05:52]  You're saying he's acting unconstitutionally.
[00:05:54]  To change the nature of as far as what the actual set of facts are.
[00:05:58]  He has a conditional green card, which basically means you have to reapply after two years to get the 10-year green card visa.
[00:06:04]  But for all intents and purposes, he is an LPR.
[00:06:06]  And the government has cleared him to stay in this country.
[00:06:09]  He just needs to go through a couple extra procedures to make sure that it's not a sham marriage, that kind of thing.
[00:06:14]  Are you willing to concede the fact that he obtained that green card through deceitful and illegal means?
[00:06:19]  No, I'm not.
[00:06:20]  Not at all.
[00:06:20]  That's a pretext.
[00:06:21]  But why don't we stick to the initial issue, which is, does he even have First Amendment rights?
[00:06:26]  So I would say is the First Amendment rights that he enjoys, like any illegal alien, So, to be clear, I want to see what you think.
[00:06:38]  You agree that...
[00:06:40]  If LPRs, lawful permanent residents, even though it's conditional status, I understand that, have First Amendment rights, that is correct, right?
[00:06:47]  I don't know.
[00:06:47]  I agree that the Supreme Court has said that there is some level of First Amendment rights.
[00:06:52]  But ask yourself this, why?
[00:06:54]  Why do they have any First Amendment rights?
[00:06:56]  Why do we give them civil liberties?
[00:06:57]  Why has the Supreme Court granted them those liberties, which were created for the protection of American citizens?
[00:07:03]  So why is it for the benefit of American, right?
[00:07:05]  Because you recognize our government was created by, for, and by, for, and of the people.
[00:07:09]  It says we the people.
[00:07:10]  And the people are citizens, correct?
[00:07:12]  No, that's not true.
[00:07:13]  The Constitution is clear where it wants to refer to persons and people and where it refers to citizens.
[00:07:17]  For example, in the 14th Amendment, there's a privileges or immunities clause.
[00:07:21]  It speaks about the privileges or immunities of citizens.
[00:07:23]  When it's talking about the requirements for who's the president or for who is the senator, it says citizen.
[00:07:28]  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.
[00:07:38]  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.
[00:07:46]  They were smart people.
[00:07:47]  So I just want to add, I actually agree.
[00:07:49]  We've had this come up many times on our show.
[00:07:52]  The 40th Amendment says, So what we've highlighted often is that it draws a distinction between persons and citizens,
[00:08:20]  specifically identifying initially all persons born, later on the clarification of what makes someone a citizen.
[00:08:27]  So there's two distinct definitions here.
[00:08:28]  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.
[00:08:38]  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.
[00:08:51]  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.
[00:08:58]  Yeah, I think that's a cop-out.
[00:08:59]  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.
[00:09:06]  Now, it could be that the originalist interpretation of person as understood at the time that the Constitution was framed.
[00:09:14]  That's not an inconsistent position.
[00:09:16]  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.
[00:09:22]  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.
[00:09:30]  It says, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
[00:09:33]  Respecting an establishment, I think.
[00:09:35]  If we could just look for a moment, if we could just look in a moment at what Tim just read with respect to the 14th Amendment and the language there.
[00:09:42]  There is important, and you read it quickly, and I understand why.
[00:09:46]  But there's a distinction there as far as between citizens and persons in that 14th Amendment.
[00:09:52]  And what is promised to persons, those who are not citizens?
[00:09:56]  What's promised them is life, liberty, and due process, not the civil rights in general.
[00:10:01]  So to say that that applies, it actually is implicitly against your position.
[00:10:05]  It's actually going to the point that citizens specifically are the ones who have crafted for them Well, clearly the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
[00:10:22]  You acknowledge the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
[00:10:24]  Do you acknowledge that, yes or no?
[00:10:26]  The Wixing case that you're thinking of recognizes that there are some civil liberties that are afforded to people who are not citizens.
[00:10:35]  Including in that case, specifically the First Amendment, is that right?
[00:10:38]  Yes. Okay.
[00:10:39]  And it's not just the First Amendment.
[00:10:40]  There's procedural due process cases that aliens have access to.
[00:10:43]  I'm using the term alien here because that's the term used in the...
[00:10:46]  Because it's the proper term.
[00:10:48]  It's the proper term.
[00:10:48]  That's why.
[00:10:49]  I don't think it's a nice thing to call someone alien.
[00:10:51]  Your audience is not offended.
[00:10:52]  Don't worry.
[00:10:53]  But listen, I want to be accurate here.
[00:10:54]  It says that aliens have access to, for example, you can't just throw them out of the country summarily.
[00:10:59]  There are procedural due process issues even for people here illegally.
[00:11:04]  Even in the absence of the Administrative Procedures Act, there's a...
[00:11:07]  It's a constitutional notion of procedural due process that has purchase on persons.
[00:11:11]  As said in the 14th Amendment, they're entitled to due process.
[00:11:14]  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.
[00:11:29]  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.
[00:11:33]  And specifically when the 1st Amendment says Congress...
[00:11:38]  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.
[00:11:51]  Do you admit that?
[00:11:52]  I'm not so sure.
[00:11:53]  For people already admitted into the country.
[00:11:56]  So there's a difference that I acknowledge that the country makes between exclusion matters and for people who are in the country.
[00:12:01]  The key example of this, by the way, are the Chinese exclusion cases.
[00:12:05]  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.
[00:12:15]  Complete open borders, except for the Alien Enemies Act and the Alien Friends Act, which maybe we'll get to.
[00:12:20]  This is actually pretty interesting because it actually functioned this way well after the 1800s.
[00:12:26]  I went to San Diego and was talking with people on both sides of the border.
[00:12:30]  And it's actually, I think, in the past, I don't know, what, 50, 60 years where the border became heavier.
[00:12:36]  And it used to be, even up to like the early 1900s, you could just walk into San Diego and back and forth.
[00:12:42]  Only recently, I guess, with...
[00:12:44]  National security concerns, communications, and population density.
[00:12:47]  Has it become much more rigid?
[00:12:49]  Yeah, that's totally correct.
[00:12:50]  And the first restrictive immigration laws were against Chinese people.
[00:12:54]  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.
[00:13:01]  And that case has not been overturned.
[00:13:04]  And you acknowledge that.
[00:13:06]  So I recognize...
[00:13:07]  I'm not sure what your point is as far as that case not being overturned, as if that's still binding law today.
[00:13:13]  So the point is, I recognize, even though I may disagree, that...
[00:13:16]  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.
[00:13:23]  So I don't know how viable that precedent is.
[00:13:25]  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.
[00:13:32]  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.
[00:13:40]  Well, you should review Trump v.
[00:13:42]  Hawaii. You should review Reno v.
[00:13:44]  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...
[00:13:54]  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.
[00:14:10]  That doesn't even mean anything.
[00:14:12]  So here's the question.
[00:14:13]  Trump issued an order tomorrow and said, if you're a Jew, your student visa is being revoked.
[00:14:18]  Would that be constitutional or not?
[00:14:20]  Absolutely not.
[00:14:21]  Why not?
[00:14:21]  Because the threshold minimum, the threshold minimum, and here's the thing.
[00:14:25]  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.
[00:14:31]  This is purely an immigration issue.
[00:14:33]  And this is what I was saying with respect to the fact that...
[00:14:36]  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.
[00:14:44]  And the reason it doesn't is because when you're talking about immigration law, that is where government powers are at their zenith.
[00:14:51]  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.
[00:14:59]  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.

=== Facially Legitimate and Bona Fide (09:53) ===

[00:15:29]  That is what you're If it's true for free speech, it's true for religion clauses.
[00:15:35]  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.
[00:15:44]  Here's why he's wrong, if I could just correct that.
[00:15:46]  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.
[00:15:58]  Facially legitimate and bona fide.
[00:16:00]  So if you talk about some law that the president would throw out there saying, I don't want any...
[00:16:05]  What if he says Muslims are more likely to do terrorist acts?
[00:16:16]  If he says Muslims, so that's not – if he says that as Muslims, if he says terrorists, that's a problem.
[00:16:21]  No, he says Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts, and it's facially legitimate.
[00:16:25]  To me, that's not facially – I don't see how that would be – Why is it not?
[00:16:27]  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.
[00:16:34]  Why is it facially legitimate to say anyone who advocates in support of – even just assume.
[00:16:38]  I do not take it for granted.
[00:16:40]  I just want to be clear.
[00:16:40]  I don't take it as a fact that Mahmoud Khalil supports Hamas.
[00:16:44]  I don't.
[00:16:45]  Let's assume he does.
[00:16:46]  Why is it facially legitimate to say that what would be – I think you would agree – free speech for citizens.
[00:16:52]  I think you've agreed that LPRs have First Amendment rights.
[00:16:56]  What's the legitimacy in targeting what otherwise would be clearly protected speech?
[00:17:00]  Just one more – what was LPR?
[00:17:02]  Lawful permanent resident.
[00:17:04]  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.
[00:17:18]  At the same time...
[00:17:20]  Well, I...
[00:17:21]  I got to ask you, does the First Amendment pertain to illegal activities?
[00:17:26]  No. Well, it defines the scope of what is and what's not legal sometimes, for example.
[00:17:31]  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.
[00:17:44]  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.
[00:17:54]  Did Mahmoud Khalil occupy any buildings illegally?
[00:17:58]  I don't, there's no allegation to that effect.
[00:18:00]  And so why should we consider it?
[00:18:01]  There's no allegation of that.
[00:18:03]  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.
[00:18:10]  I could be wrong, but...
[00:18:12]  There were conversations and videos, I believe, that showed Mahmoud Khalil inside buildings that had been under, quote-unquote, student occupation.
[00:18:19]  At the time they were occupied or any time?
[00:18:21]  At the time they were occupied.
[00:18:22]  I could be wrong, though.
[00:18:24]  I read reporting that said that effectively that he was keeping away from those areas.
[00:18:29]  But even if it were true, don't you agree that Trump...
[00:18:33]  If he wants to do that, he should charge him or he should get someone to charge him with a crime.
[00:18:37]  Because in this country, there's a line between admissibility basis of removal and deportable basis of removal.
[00:18:44]  And in order to be deportable on the basis of something like, for example, occupying a building, I assume he would need a conviction.
[00:18:51]  No, no.
[00:18:52]  I'll tell you right now, it would be much worse if Trump had charged him with a crime.
[00:18:56]  If his DOJ went out and charged him with a crime, I would be much more bothered by the action.
[00:19:00]  Because that would now be...
[00:19:02]  That would be punishing him for his free speech.
[00:19:04]  The Supreme Court has said definitively that deportation and removal is not considered a punishment.
[00:19:10]  I urge you to check.
[00:19:12]  I'll give you the citations.
[00:19:13]  525-US-471.
[00:19:16]  The case is Reno v.
[00:19:18]  Anti-American Discrimination Commission.
[00:19:22]  That case spells out very clearly.
[00:19:25]  You cannot pretend, first and foremost, that it is considered criminal punishment.
[00:19:32]  I agree.
[00:19:33]  I agree that immigration is not a criminal punishment.
[00:19:36]  I totally agree that that's the precedent of the court.
[00:19:39]  So then ask yourself this.
[00:19:40]  How is it a First Amendment violation at all?
[00:19:42]  First Amendment is not just a rise under criminal actions.
[00:19:44]  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.
[00:19:53]  Yes or no?
[00:19:55]  And that, again, is not bona fide.
[00:19:57]  Wait, is that a yes?
[00:19:57]  You're trying to catch me on a gotcha moment.
[00:19:59]  You just said it was only for criminal matters, and I just want to be clear to the audience.
[00:20:02]  Is it only for criminal matters?
[00:20:04]  What I'm saying is that with respect to someone who's an illegal alien, we are talking about whether or not it's bona fide.
[00:20:10]  It's facially bona fide and legitimate.
[00:20:13]  He's not an illegal alien.
[00:20:13]  What I'm saying is someone who's not an American citizen.
[00:20:15]  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.
[00:20:32]  There's more to that.
[00:20:33]  There's exceptions.
[00:20:35]  I don't know that I need to read the whole thing.
[00:20:37]  I think you're both familiar with this.
[00:20:38]  So how does this pertain to Mahmoud?
[00:20:41]  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.
[00:20:54]  I don't deny that there's...
[00:20:56]  The case law is that...
[00:20:58]  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.
[00:21:04]  You don't have a substantive right to be here.
[00:21:06]  But here's the question.
[00:21:07]  Can you do it for an illegitimate purpose that's reprehensible under the Constitution?
[00:21:13]  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?
[00:21:24]  The answer is no, right?
[00:21:26]  Would you agree?
[00:21:27]  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.
[00:21:55]  If Donald Trump said, we don't want people who are not citizens to try and influence our government.
[00:22:02]  No, no.
[00:22:02]  If it was a pretext, right?
[00:22:04]  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.
[00:22:11]  Well, there's a lot in there.
[00:22:12]  The word punish, for instance.
[00:22:15]  I don't want to ascribe anything.
[00:22:17]  And what I'm trying to get at is if Donald Trump were to say we need pretext to remove this man.
[00:22:24]  He's going to find himself in 1A hearings.
[00:22:26]  Would he find himself an enemy of you?
[00:22:27]  Or would you condemn him for coming up with pretexts to remove people or to punish people?
[00:22:32]  But again, just to clarify, because I want to make sure we get the full point before we get into that.
[00:22:36]  The issue appears to be that the Secretary of State has the legal right for any reason in his own discretion at any time to revoke an alien's visa.
[00:22:46]  Under the law, but as applied.
[00:22:47]  Could they violate the Constitution?
[00:22:48]  So I'll ask you, Tim.
[00:22:49]  If he said, in my discretion, I'm going to revoke the visa because he's a Jew, you think that that would be illegal?
[00:22:54]  To revoke someone's visa for being a Jew?
[00:22:57]  Correct. In the actions of discretion, would you say, for example, well, it says he can revoke it for any reason.
[00:23:01]  Would you say that's legal?
[00:23:03]  It's a good question.
[00:23:04]  What I would say is...
[00:23:06]  You can say I don't know.
[00:23:08]  I do want to address it real quick because my answer is I don't know because you have two areas.
[00:23:11]  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.
[00:23:18]  I don't know.
[00:23:21]  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.
[00:23:34]  You seem to keep just walking like dancing right past that.
[00:23:37]  No, I'm not.
[00:23:38]  Wait, wait.
[00:23:38]  I acknowledge that the Chinese – Your hypotheticals are a joke because of that.
[00:23:42]  They don't meet that very tiny threshold.
[00:23:45]  So I want to be very clear.
[00:23:47]  I – Started that entire conversation by saying the Chinese exclusion laws are still good law, even though I don't necessarily agree with them.
[00:23:55]  Wait, you think that Chinese exclusion laws are not good law?
[00:23:57]  What I'm saying is that as of today, you think it's legal today to exclude Chinese?
[00:24:02]  Immigration lawyers cite that case.
[00:24:05]  Repeatedly, all the time with respect to these kind of issues with constitutionality.
[00:24:10]  Xi Jinping, Fang Weiting, these are cases that the Supreme Court is, you know, they constantly are cited there.
[00:24:15]  They have not developed anti-precedent status yet.
[00:24:17]  And I started, and I wanted, because you accused me of dancing around that issue.
[00:24:20]  I started that conversation by saying, and recognizing the law, which says that by the law, those cases have not been overturned.
[00:24:26]  What I said was, that's an exclusion decision.
[00:24:29]  That's an exclusion decision that's different than when you're in the interior of the country.
[00:24:32]  So I have a question for you guys, and I think – I have two questions.
[00:24:34]  The first one is extremely obvious.
[00:24:36]  If a black man walked into a bakery and they said, we don't serve black people, that is illegal.
[00:24:42]  That's illegal under the anti – the civil rights framework.
[00:24:47]  It's private discrimination, different situation.
[00:24:50]  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.
[00:24:59]  Please leave.
[00:25:00]  Well, that's not an issue of racism or a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
[00:25:04]  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.

=== Defending Non-Citizens' Rights (15:22) ===

[00:25:13]  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.
[00:25:18]  They could have found some other means.
[00:25:20]  They could have charged them with a crime with a neutral ground, but they didn't.
[00:25:22]  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.
[00:25:35]  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.
[00:25:41]  And so you're right.
[00:25:42]  If they actually thought he was a security threat, why not go through the other methods of doing so?
[00:25:47]  But they said it specifically, and Rubio's coming out.
[00:25:49]  So this is about the Jews?
[00:25:51]  That's what it's about?
[00:25:53]  You agree.
[00:25:54]  This is about authoritarianism and coercion.
[00:25:57]  Donald Trump doesn't give a fuck.
[00:26:02]  He's suing a pollster!
[00:26:04]  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.
[00:26:12]  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.
[00:26:22]  He doesn't care about the First Amendment.
[00:26:23]  He doesn't care about due process.
[00:26:25]  He only cares about himself.
[00:26:26]  You can see one piece of evidence after another about this.
[00:26:28]  And you're going to come out there and you're going to say to yourself, oh no, I know better than you.
[00:26:32]  Everyone else, why?
[00:26:33]  Because I'm sitting here on the outside.
[00:26:34]  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.
[00:26:39]  I still have a healthy understanding of what his mindset is.
[00:26:42]  There is no other explanation.
[00:26:43]  If they thought it was because of his criminal conduct, they would say so.
[00:26:46]  If they thought it was, and now they have this bullshit pretext about after the fact that he lied.
[00:26:49]  No, what they said was, let's look at what they did say.
[00:26:51]  What they said was that we consider him a national security issue.
[00:26:55]  What is this proper procedure to do?
[00:26:57]  Under that setting.
[00:27:00]  The proper procedure is laid out in the APA that I started with that you wanted to just jump away from.
[00:27:05]  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.
[00:27:17]  Like they're doing with the Venezuelans.
[00:27:19]  Like they're doing with the Venezuelans, yes?
[00:27:22]  Like they're doing with the Venezuelans, not even giving them the opportunity to file habeas petitions.
[00:27:26]  It's disgusting.
[00:27:27]  You're defending this regime.
[00:27:28]  Habeas petitions are not...
[00:27:30]  You're not entitled to a habeas petition the moment you get arrested.
[00:27:36]  You're mistaken.
[00:27:37]  Supreme Court does not allow you to just automatically get a habeas petition.
[00:27:41]  You cannot get it under 1252G, I believe.
[00:27:45]  You cannot go to the federal district court until such time as you've exhausted all your administrative process.
[00:27:51]  They said we didn't even need to send these people that were throwing bags over their heads, going to the tarmac and trying to get them off the...
[00:28:00]  We don't even need to tell their lawyers where they're at.
[00:28:03]  We don't even need to give them notice of the basis of their removal.
[00:28:06]  The fact that you would defend this criminal regime and say Trump cares about rights is the most preposterous thing I've ever heard.
[00:28:11]  So let's come to a conclusion here.
[00:28:13]  So you agree that Mahmoud Kalula, everything's fine.
[00:28:15]  Now you want to move on to the case.
[00:28:16]  No, no, no, no, no.
[00:28:17]  I just want to be clear because what I'm telling Tim, I saw some nodding there from Tim.
[00:28:21]  I want to see if you agree.
[00:28:25]  The nodding was the Israel stuff.
[00:28:26]  Well, it seems like that is what he's trying to do.
[00:28:28]  He's trying to signal 100%.
[00:28:30]  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.
[00:28:40]  I think this is purely related to American foreign policy.
[00:28:42]  I think...
[00:28:44]  This country wants to fund its foreign military operations.
[00:28:48]  Israel's a strong ally.
[00:28:49]  The U.S. wants to give them money, wants to be involved, wants military there.
[00:28:52]  I don't think it's the Jews.
[00:28:53]  I think it's a strategic location for U.S.-Middle Eastern operations.
[00:28:56]  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.
[00:29:06]  So I do think Trump is trying to send a message.
[00:29:08]  That's why Romesa, I believe her name was, Ozturk, she had her visa revoked.
[00:29:14]  I believe it was presumably based on a pro-Palestinian paper that was written.
[00:29:17]  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...
[00:29:23]  I mean, they're posting the Studio Ghibli of them deporting people.
[00:29:26]  They're posting ASMR.
[00:29:28]  I'll just real quick...
[00:29:29]  I know that's a little different because it's not the Israeli issue.
[00:29:30]  I just want to say, because we talked about this last night, that's a fentanyl dealer.
[00:29:35]  I understand, but the whole purpose is to send signals.
[00:29:38]  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.
[00:29:46]  Right now, yeah, I'll absolutely-But the dean, that's the point.
[00:29:49]  You're not defending our rights.
[00:29:51]  I am defending our rights.
[00:29:52]  No, it's not our rights.
[00:29:53]  Yes, it is.
[00:29:54]  Unless you're here via a green card or visa, you're not defending our rights.
[00:29:58]  You are defending the rights that America decides to confer on people who are not citizens But you just agreed.
[00:30:05]  That Mahmoud Khalil has First Amendment rights.
[00:30:06]  You just said...
[00:30:07]  I said there are limited First Amendment rights.
[00:30:09]  What is the First Amendment?
[00:30:10]  What kind of rights would it be that, okay, you have rights, but you can't say what we want you to say, otherwise we'll throw you out of the country.
[00:30:15]  What sense is that a right?
[00:30:16]  I have an honest question.
[00:30:17]  I'll answer it.
[00:30:18]  Can I answer his question?
[00:30:19]  Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[00:30:20]  How is that a right?
[00:30:21]  It's a right in that he's not sitting in a prison.
[00:30:23]  And I don't want him...
[00:30:24]  He's sitting in a jail right now.
[00:30:25]  No, what I'm saying is that's a detention awaiting for processing...
[00:30:29]  Cold comfort.
[00:30:30]  Cold comfort.
[00:30:31]  What's cold comfort?
[00:30:31]  Cold comfort for his wife, who is now...
[00:30:34]  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.
[00:30:43]  I have a question for you guys.
[00:30:45]  The Constitution applies to non-citizens.
[00:30:47]  Yes. The Bill of Rights do.
[00:30:48]  Can they buy guns?
[00:30:50]  That's an honest question.
[00:30:51]  I don't know if they can.
[00:30:52]  I think the Second Amendment, as interpreted by this court, I don't necessarily agree.
[00:30:54]  Do it.
[00:30:55]  Wait, wait.
[00:30:56]  Do it.
[00:30:56]  Do it!
[00:30:57]  Wait, wait.
[00:30:58]  Whoa, whoa, whoa.
[00:30:58]  Listen. Tell me they can buy guns.
[00:31:01]  That's right.
[00:31:01]  Load them up.
[00:31:02]  The Second Amendment is based.
[00:31:04]  Listen, and I don't necessarily agree with the court's interpretation as applied in Heller and in the follow-on case McDonald.
[00:31:12]  But that is the precedent of the Supreme Court.
[00:31:14]  And it says the right of the...
[00:31:17]  People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
[00:31:19]  That's people.
[00:31:20]  And the same logic that would protect non-citizens with respect to searches and seizures, which would protect them for torture, right?
[00:31:28]  You agree that the government can't inflict cruel and unusual punishment to illegal immigrants.
[00:31:33]  Do you agree with that?
[00:31:33]  Absolutely. You agree with that?
[00:31:35]  Do you agree with that yes or no?
[00:31:36]  That they can't torture illegal immigrants, right?
[00:31:38]  I agree with that.
[00:31:38]  Okay. And so you also agree that they can't be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, right?
[00:31:42]  Fair? That's due process.
[00:31:44]  Okay. So why would they not be protected by the Second Amendment?
[00:31:47]  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...
[00:32:00]  There'd be no Fourth Amendment.
[00:32:01]  They'd be able to say, we just think you're not a citizen, so now we're going to raid your house.
[00:32:04]  So no, no, no, no, no.
[00:32:05]  You can't raid someone's house just because you're not a citizen.
[00:32:08]  Yeah, because the protection is for an individual, not the interpretation of whether they're here legally or not.
[00:32:13]  And so the question then comes to guns, because the Second Amendment says the people.
[00:32:17]  So I'm like, can illegal immigrants buy guns in this country?
[00:32:22]  So you're saying when it says the people, that's a limitation that carves out.
[00:32:27]  So you're saying because the Second Amendment says...
[00:32:30]  I never really considered Tim's question before.
[00:32:32]  I think it's an interesting question.
[00:32:34]  And think about the recent precedent.
[00:32:35]  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?
[00:32:48]  It's in order to help facilitate and secure the safety of our people.
[00:32:51]  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.
[00:33:21]  There's a general purpose for general welfare.
[00:33:23]  I'm going to interpret these words however I want.
[00:33:25]  I'm switching into the constitutional theory, not based on this case here or that statute there.
[00:33:32]  I'm looking.
[00:33:33]  I'm just analyzing now.
[00:33:34]  I asked in the beginning, let's talk about the law.
[00:33:36]  We've explored that for 30 minutes.
[00:33:39]  Now at this point, I'm talking to you as far as constitutional.
[00:33:41]  We haven't run to ground.
[00:33:43]  We haven't run to ground.
[00:33:44]  I want to know if Tim Pool agrees that this deportation is legitimate or whether you're going to say you're agnostic about it.
[00:33:49]  I want to know whether you think that this attempted deportation is okay to do or not.
[00:33:54]  I think it's okay to do.
[00:33:56]  Why do you think it's okay to do?
[00:33:57]  I think that this is the next question I was getting into as pertains to the Constitution.
[00:34:01]  The idea that we're going to try and interpret the Constitution, to me, has become largely meaningless outside of the initial seven articles.
[00:34:09]  The construction of government makes a lot of sense.
[00:34:12]  People often say, they'll say what Trump is doing or what Biden is doing is unconstitutional.
[00:34:16]  They're usually referring to the Bill of Rights, which have never been universally understood ever.
[00:34:22]  For instance, blasphemy and obscenity were illegal.
[00:34:25]  Literally after they ratified the Constitution, you walked outside and screamed obscenities, you'd be arrested, literally arrested.
[00:34:31]  George Carlin was arrested in the 70s for swearing.
[00:34:34]  Like, there was no— There have been bad times in our history where we have not been true to the Constitution.
[00:34:39]  No, but— John Adams passed the Sedition Act, where it literally was a crime to insult the president, all right?
[00:34:45]  And then it got pulled back.
[00:34:46]  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.
[00:34:58]  Notably with D.C. versus Heller and then McDonald v.
[00:35:00]  Chicago is when we started to get the actual— You can actually have guns.
[00:35:04]  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.
[00:35:10]  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.
[00:35:17]  You could have a dismantled, broken up piece of guns throughout your house.
[00:35:21]  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.
[00:35:28]  Initially, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.
[00:35:30]  The Bill of Rights were a framework to apply to the federal government.
[00:35:33]  And so that's why there's that proviso.
[00:35:35]  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.
[00:35:41]  That's why McDonald's is a case that incorporates it through the new process.
[00:35:44]  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.
[00:35:50]  It's all woozy.
[00:35:50]  It's all wazzy.
[00:35:51]  There have been times where we're disrespected.
[00:35:52]  There's nothing Trump could do where you would say, I don't like that because of the first amendment.
[00:35:56]  Is that true?
[00:35:56]  Let me ask you.
[00:35:56]  Is it constitutional to it?
[00:35:58]  Wait, what?
[00:35:58]  Could you answer that question first?
[00:35:59]  I asked you.
[00:36:00]  You were kind of like saying it.
[00:36:02]  Ask the question.
[00:36:03]  Yeah, the first amendment.
[00:36:03]  It's all, you know, we never respected it anyway.
[00:36:05]  Who cares about it?
[00:36:07]  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.
[00:36:16]  Is there anything he could do where you would call him out for First Amendment grounds?
[00:36:19]  So the presupposition there that I have an issue with is First Amendment grounds.
[00:36:22]  I think the real question is moral grounds.
[00:36:24]  I don't care about the Constitution.
[00:36:25]  I care if he's doing something wrong.
[00:36:26]  So even if the Constitution allows him to be evil, I'm going to call him out for being evil, if it's Trump, Biden, or otherwise.
[00:36:31]  And if the Constitution says something, for example, that says – for example, you don't care about the Constitution.
[00:36:35]  I do care about the Constitution.
[00:36:37]  But you only care about the non-rights portions of the Constitution?
[00:36:40]  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.
[00:36:49]  Do you care about the constitutional rights or not?
[00:36:51]  Absolutely. So if you care about the constitutional rights, don't you care?
[00:36:54]  As I interpret them.
[00:36:55]  As you interpret them.
[00:36:56]  And you interpret them differently.
[00:36:57]  I interpret them differently.
[00:36:58]  For example, is it cruel and unusual punishment to put a male person in a female prison?
[00:37:04]  For whom?
[00:37:05]  For either.
[00:37:07]  I think that...
[00:37:09]  It could be.
[00:37:09]  If you can show, for example— It could be.
[00:37:11]  We have a problem right now.
[00:37:12]  We don't have a definitive understanding.
[00:37:13]  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.
[00:37:21]  As I understand it, there's not an epidemic of abuse from trans people in female prisons to the female individuals.
[00:37:28]  The more likely situation— Wait, wait, wait.
[00:37:30]  As I understand— I'm not trying to open that issue for debate.
[00:37:32]  The point of contention was— It's a difficult issue.
[00:37:35]  Exactly. There's an Eighth Amendment and we actually don't know.
[00:37:38]  How to apply it to certain issues affecting us today.
[00:37:41]  Here we have something clear.
[00:37:42]  Here we have something clear.
[00:37:43]  You think if an American citizen did what Mahmoud Khalil did, do you think that he should be able to go to jail under the First Amendment?
[00:37:49]  If he was occupying a building, yes.
[00:37:51]  Put that aside, because we have to put that aside, because the government's not alleging that, right?
[00:37:54]  So if all that's being alleged is an American...
[00:37:57]  He leafleted for Al-Aqsa flood.
[00:38:00]  Okay. An American citizen can do that, right?
[00:38:03]  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?
[00:38:12]  Yes. So the only difference here is whether or not he's a resident alien or whether he's an American.
[00:38:16]  That's really the only difference.
[00:38:17]  Absolutely. But you just agreed, didn't you, that resident aliens have First Amendment rights?
[00:38:22]  No! And as he pointed out, they are limited, and that's why I asked the question about guns and cruel and unusual punishment.
[00:38:26]  You agreed in the guns context.
[00:38:27]  You said, of course it's natural that you have gun rights.
[00:38:29]  And so it seems like you're granted in the guns right.
[00:38:31]  In fact, that's a hot take, and it's one that I respect you for.
[00:38:34]  But why weren't you granted in the First Amendment context?
[00:38:36]  Like I already mentioned, we could not sit here and define what cruel and unusual punishment is as per the Eighth Amendment.
[00:38:41]  So you're going to assert...
[00:38:43]  There are certain—so the argument really just boils down to my moral worldview.
[00:38:47]  That's the issue I take with the Bill of Rights and how we interpret them.
[00:38:51]  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.
[00:39:01]  So, for instance, when it was a predominantly Christian nation, if you blasphemed, you'd find yourself in jail.
[00:39:06]  If you went in public and started cussing and swearing, you'd find yourself in jail.
[00:39:11]  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.
[00:39:20]  Right now, as a society, we don't know.
[00:39:23]  You've got the conservatives saying, and I use this because it's obviously a hot-button issue.
[00:39:27]  A judge just ruled that Trump must return two biological male individuals to a woman's prison.
[00:39:34]  Women there are upset.
[00:39:35]  And liberal activists say putting transgender individuals who are undergoing, who are affirmed, HRT, in a male prison is cruel and unusual to them.
[00:39:46]  Conservatives argue the inverse.
[00:39:48]  There's not going to be...
[00:39:54]  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.
[00:40:00]  I think that's crucially misunderstanding the purpose of the rights.
[00:40:04]  These rights are meant to be applied as to the majority.
[00:40:06]  I know.
[00:40:06]  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.
[00:40:11]  And there's some ANCAPs or anarcho-style people here that I met who are really nice people, and they understand this, right?

=== First Amendment Protections (09:23) ===

[00:40:18]  And if you're an anarcho-cap...
[00:40:19]  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?
[00:40:29]  Congress shall make no law.
[00:40:30]  So even if Congress would like to violate the First Amendment rights of Mahmoud Khalil, they can't.
[00:40:35]  That's what the First Amendment has to protect.
[00:40:37]  Over and over again, they violated every...
[00:40:40]  Don't we have a requirement, just like in the Second Amendment context, and you think the Second Amendment is important.
[00:40:45]  Wasn't it important for the Supreme Court to say, in your view, that...
[00:40:49]  There is an individual right here associated with gun.
[00:40:51]  What does infringe mean?
[00:40:53]  Infringe? Yeah.
[00:40:54]  Yeah, it's going to be different.
[00:40:57]  The right to keep and bear arms has been infringed every possible way, and we're supposed to sit here and say we have a Second Amendment.
[00:41:03]  We don't.
[00:41:04]  The First Amendment, they've made—how many laws are on the books pertaining to speech, religion, or otherwise?
[00:41:08]  There's a ridiculous amount of them.
[00:41:10]  But is that just an excuse not to ever think about the First Amendment?
[00:41:12]  No, no, no.
[00:41:13]  It's a moral philosophical point that this country— There are clear cases and there are unclear cases, right?
[00:41:23]  There's a clear case of Second Amendment violation that says, every gun ownership, that's a crime.
[00:41:27]  You would say, that's a clear case that reasonable minds can't disagree about.
[00:41:31]  You're arguing extremes instead of what we're actually dealing with.
[00:41:33]  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.
[00:41:40]  And here we have a clear case where you acknowledge that the First Amendment, as to citizens, would protect this conduct.
[00:41:45]  And in fact, you would criticize Trump if you went after citizens for doing this conduct.
[00:41:48]  You've also accepted, I think, as a maxim or as a general principle, that resident aliens do have First Amendment rights.
[00:41:55]  Why does that not follow?
[00:41:57]  Why doesn't it?
[00:41:58]  I mean, I'd like to have-Yeah, okay, sorry, my bad.
[00:42:00]  Well, let me make one more point on this.
[00:42:02]  The reason I asked the question about a black I'm sorry.
[00:42:06]  Look, we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody.
[00:42:09]  Goodbye. And what can you really do?
[00:42:11]  Often in these circumstances, individuals who feel aggrieved will sue anyway, and they'll often win.
[00:42:16]  Even if it actually isn't the case that the person was discriminated against based on race.
[00:42:21]  The issue then becomes to be racist, simply just don't admit you are.
[00:42:27]  So what we have here is the INA allows them to deport Mahmoud Khalil.
[00:42:32]  And so I shrug and say, change the law if you have an issue with it.
[00:42:36]  But for the time being, there's nothing else to be done.
[00:42:39]  So if they said national security threat because he's a Muslim or deporting him, would you say the same thing?
[00:42:42]  That's the point I made about the bakery.
[00:42:44]  So would you say that?
[00:42:45]  Why wouldn't you?
[00:42:47]  So this is the problem with the law as it is written.
[00:42:50]  I completely think it is screwed up and makes no sense.
[00:42:52]  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.
[00:43:00]  So this is the...
[00:43:02]  Okay, New York City has human rights law that protects 31 identifiable genders.
[00:43:07]  It defines in their human rights code gender identity is self-expression.
[00:43:12]  So I called a human rights lawyer, three of them actually, in New York.
[00:43:17]  And I said, I'm trying to get an understanding of how this law would actually be applied.
[00:43:20]  It says that the clothing you wear, the name you call yourself, you cannot be discriminated against in public accommodation based on these characteristics.
[00:43:28]  They all agreed, yes.
[00:43:30]  I had the law in front of me.
[00:43:31]  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.
[00:43:40]  This person gets hired for a job.
[00:43:42]  They're allowed to wear female clothing.
[00:43:43]  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?
[00:43:51]  I'm intentionally making it absurd.
[00:43:54]  They all said...
[00:43:55]  The courts would laugh that out of the courtroom.
[00:43:57]  You'd never get through.
[00:43:58]  They would fire you in two seconds.
[00:44:00]  I said, why is a judge allowed to laugh at an individual's identity that the law supposedly protects?
[00:44:05]  And they said, because the judges can interpret as they see fit.
[00:44:07]  And I said, then there may as well be no law at all.
[00:44:09]  I know, but that's the conclusion there.
[00:44:11]  That can't be right, right?
[00:44:13]  Because what you're saying is, then judges can't interpret the provision of the IMF.
[00:44:17]  Okay, but then you're not stating your position.
[00:44:20]  You're just stating, basically, it's a real fact that judges are going to do what judges are going to do.
[00:44:24]  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.
[00:44:32]  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?
[00:44:41]  No, no, no, you asked me if- Would you condemn him for it?
[00:44:43]  Let me slow down.
[00:44:44]  You asked me, if Donald Trump said we're deporting him for being a Muslim, would you object to it?
[00:44:50]  I said yes.
[00:44:50]  Okay, why would...
[00:44:51]  I didn't dodge it.
[00:44:52]  I literally said yes.
[00:44:52]  Okay, so why would you not condemn him?
[00:44:54]  So the First Amendment says...
[00:44:56]  Because he's not saying it's because he's a Muslim.
[00:44:57]  No, I understand that, but this is why.
[00:44:59]  The First Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
[00:45:03]  Presumably, you would condemn him for violating the First Amendment, for violating the religion clauses of the Constitution.
[00:45:08]  Wouldn't you?
[00:45:09]  Yes. The First Amendment also says, do not abridge the freedom of speech, Congress.
[00:45:13]  So by the same provision, the INA that you cited that says he gives him the right to do it, you would condemn Trump if he cited that provision and...
[00:45:20]  In part of his rationale, he said, well, because he's Muslim.
[00:45:22]  But if another part of the First Amendment is invoked as a rationale, now it's different.
[00:45:26]  Now you're not applying that.
[00:45:27]  And my position is and has been on the Mahmoud Khalil case is that claiming he's aligned with Hamas is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
[00:45:33]  It's ridiculous.
[00:45:34]  However, the INA says they can deport non-citizens.
[00:45:38]  But it also says that if they were to put up the rationale of Muslim.
[00:45:42]  But you will condemn one and not the other.
[00:45:44]  Explain that.
[00:45:45]  No, no.
[00:45:45]  I literally condemned both.
[00:45:46]  I said claiming that he's aligned with Hamas is stupid and wrong.
[00:45:49]  But he still has...
[00:45:50]  Should he be deported because he...
[00:45:51]  Sorry, sorry.
[00:45:52]  So if Trump actually initiated deporting proceedings...
[00:45:54]  So what I understand is you have not condemned this deportation proceeding.
[00:45:58]  You haven't.
[00:45:58]  But you would condemn a hypothetical deportation proceeding because he's a Muslim.
[00:46:01]  No, no, no.
[00:46:02]  Slow down.
[00:46:03]  They can deport anybody they want.
[00:46:05]  On any basis.
[00:46:06]  It literally says that in the INA.
[00:46:08]  And you wouldn't condemn it.
[00:46:09]  On any basis and you wouldn't condemn it.
[00:46:11]  On any basis, a little bit too absolute.
[00:46:13]  I'm sure there's some rationale where I'm going to be like, a guy discovered that Trump punched a baby, so they deported him quickly.
[00:46:18]  Whoa, whoa, whoa.
[00:46:19]  So would you condemn a deportation proceeding that was based on religion, even notwithstanding the fact that you wouldn't condemn that?
[00:46:26]  I would.
[00:46:27]  I'm trying to explain.
[00:46:29]  If he said, I don't want a Muslim, get him out of here.
[00:46:32]  I don't want a black.
[00:46:33]  Get him out of here.
[00:46:33]  Whoa, whoa, whoa.
[00:46:34]  That's crazy.
[00:46:35]  That's crazy.
[00:46:35]  That's astute.
[00:46:36]  You can't do that.
[00:46:36]  That's not a real reason.
[00:46:38]  That's the rationale.
[00:46:39]  And then we go to the INA and I say, oh, Congress passed a law saying they can deport anybody they want for any reason at any time.
[00:46:44]  They haven't done that.
[00:46:45]  I don't agree with your reading of the INA, but I just want to be...
[00:46:47]  I'm assuming...
[00:46:48]  If I'm wrong, it says at his own discretion.
[00:46:50]  It says every alien...
[00:46:51]  Oh, so this is...
[00:46:52]  You're looking at section 222?
[00:46:54]  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.
[00:47:06]  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...
[00:47:15]  Okay, so all that other stuff.
[00:47:16]  The other stuff is related to like...
[00:47:18]  Go upwards.
[00:47:19]  Does this apply to LPRs?
[00:47:22]  Yes. Go upwards.
[00:47:23]  Yes. So go up.
[00:47:26]  Go up.
[00:47:27]  Go up to the top of the section.
[00:47:32]  Here's where you have a problem, Pisco.
[00:47:35]  Yeah, what's the problem?
[00:47:36]  It's that...
[00:47:37]  He's held the same way that he can be denied a visa.
[00:47:40]  The Supreme Court says you can hold them to the same standard with respect to maintaining that visa or green card.
[00:47:46]  You cannot say on a form, I'm not going to do this.
[00:47:50]  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.
[00:48:03]  We don't know what the issue is.
[00:48:04]  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.
[00:48:12]  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.
[00:48:31]  And that status does not get afforded simply because they filled out a form of...
[00:48:36]  Joe, I like you.
[00:48:38]  Oh, I'm so glad.
[00:48:39]  I like you.
[00:48:40]  What Tim just said was fucking crazy.
[00:48:42]  I need you to acknowledge that.
[00:48:44]  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.
[00:48:55]  For any reason, they can deport any alien.
[00:48:58]  I think the threshold is literally what a threshold I've said now.
[00:49:04]  Four times?
[00:49:05]  Which is facially legitimate and bona fide.
[00:49:08]  He said he would not condemn a deportation.
[00:49:11]  That's his moral.
[00:49:12]  That's his morality law.
[00:49:14]  What's crazy about me saying America is for American citizens?
[00:49:17]  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?

=== Conspiracy Answer Requested (09:00) ===

[00:49:28]  America is not just a geographical space, right?
[00:49:31]  It's also—this pronouncement says, we the people of the United States are enacting, right?
[00:49:35]  We are actually doing something here with the Constitution.
[00:49:37]  America is defined by its Constitution.
[00:49:39]  So for you to say something like, yeah, America is for American citizens, well, part of what America is is the First Amendment.
[00:49:44]  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.
[00:50:11]  Neither faction really cares about any of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, the laws.
[00:50:15]  It is simply a moral worldview in battle with another moral worldview.
[00:50:18]  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.
[00:50:31]  That's certainly a violent Second Amendment.
[00:50:33]  Then you've got the First Amendment as it applies to, you know, we have a right to free speech.
[00:50:37]  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.
[00:50:46]  But then you have, again, for the past 10 years, the liberal faction trying to use private Did you call that out?
[00:50:57]  Absolutely did.
[00:50:58]  But see, that's my moral worldview.
[00:50:59]  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?
[00:51:06]  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.
[00:51:16]  And then they come to me and say, how could you not support Mahmoud Khalil?
[00:51:19]  I'll be like, listen.
[00:51:20]  The moral worldview you guys live in is might makes right like the fucking Nazis, okay?
[00:51:24]  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.
[00:51:30]  So you're not going to stand on business because you hate the left?
[00:51:32]  Yeah, so I want to be clear.
[00:51:34]  I condemn the Tesla bombers.
[00:51:36]  That is fucking reprehensible.
[00:51:37]  I don't agree with terrorism in this country.
[00:51:39]  I'll call it terrorism, and I'll say, yes, that is terrorism.
[00:51:41]  I condemn it.
[00:51:42]  I think it's horrible.
[00:51:43]  That's me calling out the left.
[00:51:44]  Why would you say, I think that MAGA and what Trump has done to this country is a fucking disaster.
[00:51:50]  Is it unconstitutional to arrest a person's lawyers when they're facing criminal charges?
[00:51:54]  No. Why would it be unconstitutional?
[00:51:56]  So if a person is criminally charged, right?
[00:51:59]  Let's say he's indicted a mobster in New York.
[00:52:01]  He hires a lawyer.
[00:52:03]  The lawyer starts drafting his legal defense, and then the AG of New York goes and arrests his lawyers.
[00:52:08]  Depends on what's...
[00:52:09]  Rico. If the lawyer fucking shot someone, you...
[00:52:11]  No, no, no, Rico.
[00:52:12]  Okay, so...
[00:52:13]  Let me finish the question.
[00:52:14]  They go to the lawyer and say, you work with a fucking mobster, we're giving you two counts of Rico on top.
[00:52:18]  Oh, no, no, sorry.
[00:52:19]  So there you have a question of interpretation of Rico.
[00:52:21]  Can Rico apply to legal advice?
[00:52:24]  Okay, in that case, I'm going to have an issue with criminalizing conduct that amounts to legal advice, genuine legal advice.
[00:52:29]  Like when they arrested Trump's lawyers in Wisconsin and Georgia.
[00:52:33]  I just want to be clear.
[00:52:36]  There can be, in the course of pretending to give legal advice, if you're in a conspiracy to do some other crime, you would agree with this, right?
[00:52:44]  If a lawyer says, I'm giving you legal advice because I actually want you to do this crime, that's not protected.
[00:52:49]  Correct? So you answer that question.
[00:52:52]  I asked you a question.
[00:52:53]  So I said no.
[00:52:54]  Okay, so when Jenna Ellis got arrested on two Ricoh counts...
[00:52:57]  She's part of a conspiracy to steal the election in 2020.
[00:52:59]  You see, that's the point.
[00:53:00]  You decided to interpret legal advice as a crime.
[00:53:03]  No, because they're...
[00:53:05]  Sure did.
[00:53:05]  Hang on a second.
[00:53:06]  So you're taking the view that nothing with respect to lawyers...
[00:53:11]  A lawyer who drafts a letter for a client should be criminally charged for it.
[00:53:14]  What if that letter says, with respect to hiring a mobster to hit someone?
[00:53:19]  Would you say that?
[00:53:20]  A lawyer participates in the- Sorry, I'm going to ask the question again.
[00:53:25]  If the lawyer drafts a letter to a mobster to get someone assassinated, would that be protected because it's a lawyer who drafted it?
[00:53:31]  Just for clarification.
[00:53:31]  Yes or no?
[00:53:32]  I need to clarify what you mean.
[00:53:34]  You're saying the letter would instruct or attempt to bring a person into...
[00:53:39]  Either. Both.
[00:53:40]  Let's do the two examples.
[00:53:42]  You can answer both.
[00:53:42]  One is it gives advice for how to get away with hiring a mobster, or it says these are instructions for hiring this particular mobster.
[00:53:49]  Wait, I'm going to get an answer to this question.
[00:53:50]  No, no, here's why you don't deserve it.
[00:53:52]  I'll tell you why you don't deserve it.
[00:53:54]  I'll get an answer.
[00:53:55]  I don't want to speak for you.
[00:53:57]  I'm just telling you, this is the disingenuousness with which you're addressing this.
[00:54:02]  When we're talking about Mahmoud Khalil, you talk about things that he likely has done.
[00:54:05]  And you say, we can't bring those facts up because he's not charged by the government.
[00:54:10]  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.
[00:54:17]  He's not charged with them.
[00:54:18]  We have to pretend that these things never happen.
[00:54:20]  And that's when we're talking about addressing wrongs committed by someone who's associated with the left.
[00:54:24]  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.
[00:54:35]  You're not following the conversation, Joe.
[00:54:41]  I am following the conversation perfectly.
[00:54:43]  What I'm saying is it's disingenuous.
[00:54:45]  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.
[00:54:56]  When it comes to analyzing the right, however, you think it's totally fair.
[00:55:00]  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.
[00:55:12]  Tim is attacking my consistency.
[00:55:14]  In essence, he's saying these rights are ephemeral.
[00:55:16]  These rights are kind of contingent.
[00:55:17]  Your view of them are.
[00:55:18]  I think you've concluded that.
[00:55:19]  Well, if I were to cite Supreme Court precedent, would you say they're ephemeral?
[00:55:23]  Which Supreme Court precedent?
[00:55:24]  Here we have the case of Bridges v.
[00:55:27]  Wexson that says that resident aliens have First Amendment rights.
[00:55:29]  Sure do.
[00:55:30]  How does that apply to the INA?
[00:55:32]  Well, even as against the INA.
[00:55:34]  That was a case now.
[00:55:35]  It's a pre-INA case.
[00:55:37]  But it would be no different.
[00:55:39]  So it's superseded.
[00:55:40]  We need the Supreme Court to rule on this as it applies because it came after the fact.
[00:55:45]  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.
[00:55:57]  I wanted to defend because he's attacked me saying I'm dodging things or I'm okay with one hypothetical not the other.
[00:56:02]  That is completely not true so Tim?
[00:56:03]  Jen Ellis committed a crime.
[00:56:05]  Absolutely, she did.
[00:56:05]  What did she do?
[00:56:07]  A conspiracy.
[00:56:19]  What did she do?
[00:56:20]  Do you know what a conspiracy is?
[00:56:21]  What did she do?
[00:56:21]  There was a criminal meeting of the minds, an agreement.
[00:56:24]  Do you agree that conspiracy is a thing?
[00:56:27]  You can answer the question.
[00:56:28]  Yeah, so I said criminal conspiracy.
[00:56:30]  Was that an answer?
[00:56:30]  What did Jenna Ellis do?
[00:56:32]  You are deflecting.
[00:56:33]  No, no, no.
[00:56:34]  So I said criminal conspiracy.
[00:56:35]  Is that an answer?
[00:56:35]  What did she do?
[00:56:36]  She had an agreement with Donald Trump and other co-conspirators to steal the 2020 election in Georgia.
[00:56:42]  What did she do?
[00:56:44]  She had a criminal conspiracy.
[00:56:46]  That's circular.
[00:56:47]  It's not!
[00:56:47]  Hold on.
[00:56:48]  You're saying she was charged with conspiracy because she had a conspiracy?
[00:56:51]  No, no, no.
[00:56:52]  I'm asking what actions she took that violated the law.
[00:56:54]  Yeah, so the action of the overt acts of communicating with other members of the conspiracy, helping them, giving them resources.
[00:57:02]  It's not what she was charged with.
[00:57:02]  No, no.
[00:57:03]  She was charged with...
[00:57:05]  Conduct related to the attempted theft of the election.
[00:57:08]  And I don't—as I sit here, I don't know the— It was for drafting a letter.
[00:57:12]  Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[00:57:13]  Requesting, like, legal documents from the state.
[00:57:16]  Requesting documents— Which they said was in furtherance of the conspiracy.
[00:57:18]  Requesting documents to get fake slates of electors and to try to steal the election.
[00:57:22]  You see, again— Yes or no?
[00:57:25]  There's—this is where the debate usually stops.
[00:57:28]  Why? In the 1960 election, I've had this debate 800 million times.
[00:57:33]  JFK, Nixon, the uncertified slate was sent for JFK, even though the election had already been called.
[00:57:40]  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.
[00:57:51]  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.
[00:58:05]  But they didn't.
[00:58:05]  So the legal theory that emerges in the 2020 case, though I disagree.
[00:58:09]  I think Trump lost.

=== Definition of Legal Advice (14:57) ===

[00:58:10]  I disagree with the people who think Trump won, was they've done this in the past.
[00:58:14]  Why don't we?
[00:58:16]  Have our electors submit before the Safe Harbor provisions, just like they did in Hawaii.
[00:58:20]  Then Pence can choose to count or otherwise based upon what the judges rule.
[00:58:25]  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.
[00:58:37]  Afterwards, we cannot.
[00:58:39]  I don't see how that's a criminal action.
[00:58:41]  More importantly, if Trump goes— Why?
[00:58:43]  Because no one has been charged with it before?
[00:58:44]  You think it's not criminal?
[00:58:45]  Because there's no codified law saying it's illegal.
[00:58:47]  The government doesn't— There are laws against criminal rackets.
[00:58:50]  RICO does not apply.
[00:58:51]  Wait, wait.
[00:58:51]  So, RICO can't apply in any novel situation.
[00:58:56]  Is that what you're suggesting?
[00:58:58]  No, but you're making my point for me.
[00:58:59]  That you've decided to interpret legal advice as a crime to use power against a political— So I ask, can legal advice be a crime?
[00:59:07]  And you objected and you said, he doesn't need to answer it.
[00:59:10]  So I asked you a question.
[00:59:12]  Can legal advice itself be a crime?
[00:59:14]  I'm not a lawyer.
[00:59:15]  In some circumstances, I imagine it could be.
[00:59:17]  So is the answer, you don't know?
[00:59:19]  Can legal advice be a crime?
[00:59:21]  Let's broaden that.
[00:59:22]  Why don't you answer it?
[00:59:23]  You can say you don't know.
[00:59:23]  Are you not understanding the terms?
[00:59:26]  No, it can't be.
[00:59:26]  It can't be.
[00:59:27]  So if I give you legal advice on how to...
[00:59:28]  Do you agree with that, by the way?
[00:59:29]  What? Do you agree that legal advice can't be a crime?
[00:59:32]  Cannot. Cannot be a crime.
[00:59:33]  Do you agree with him?
[00:59:37]  I don't know when you're saying advice.
[00:59:38]  This is the problem.
[00:59:40]  What the fuck, guys?
[00:59:40]  No, because it doesn't make sense.
[00:59:42]  Your question doesn't make sense.
[00:59:43]  You don't understand the terms?
[00:59:44]  If someone comes to me and says, hey, this is a crime I want to commit, right?
[00:59:49]  Someone calls me up and says, hey, this is a crime I want to commit.
[00:59:52]  I cannot further assist him.
[00:59:54]  It would be wrong for me to at that point say this is how you can circle that law.
[00:59:59]  So can legal advice.
[01:00:01]  But I can tell him this is how you can get the same thing done legally.
[01:00:06]  We're going to get clear answers.
[01:00:07]  I'm answering the question.
[01:00:08]  Can legal advice be a crime?
[01:00:09]  Yes or no?
[01:00:10]  No. So what's your answer, Joe?
[01:00:12]  What I'm saying is if you're giving it ethically, it cannot be.
[01:00:16]  Okay. Assume you're giving it unethically.
[01:00:18]  Can it be a crime?
[01:00:19]  Yes or no.
[01:00:19]  We're going to get a conflict here.
[01:00:20]  No, we're not.
[01:00:21]  Yes, we are.
[01:00:22]  You're playing a semantic game.
[01:00:23]  No, it's not semantic at all.
[01:00:24]  It certainly is.
[01:00:24]  What about it is semantic?
[01:00:25]  It's 100% semantic.
[01:00:27]  Colloquially, any person who has asked, do you have a legal right to legal advice?
[01:00:33]  100% yes.
[01:00:34]  Yes. When you use the phrase legal advice, you are playing a semantic game as to the definition you are choosing.
[01:00:40]  What do you mean by legal advice then?
[01:00:41]  I'll ask you.
[01:00:42]  So if I go to a lawyer and say...
[01:00:44]  What do you mean by legal advice?
[01:00:45]  I'm telling you.
[01:00:46]  So here's an example.
[01:00:47]  We want to do a sweepstakes.
[01:00:48]  We want to actually give our members at TimCast.com, once a month we choose someone $10,000.
[01:00:54]  If a lawyer then says, that's illegal, you can't do that.
[01:00:57]  I say, oh, okay, thank you.
[01:00:59]  Now what if they say, ooh.
[01:01:01]  There's legalities which could make that illegal.
[01:01:03]  Here's how you avoid breaking the law and actually make this work.
[01:01:06]  That's not illegal.
[01:01:06]  So I'm asking you, as a definitional term, are you willing to provide a definition in your mind for what legal advice is yes or no?
[01:01:13]  Legal advice is instruction and knowledge applied to an individual to better help them understand the law and how it applies to their circumstances.
[01:01:20]  Using that definition, can legal advice be a crime?
[01:01:23]  If it's just helping them understand?
[01:01:25]  No, it cannot.
[01:01:25]  Helping them with the purpose of...
[01:01:28]  I'll just be clear.
[01:01:29]  Using that definition, providing legal advice for the purpose of helping someone carry out a crime.
[01:01:34]  No. I didn't say that.
[01:01:35]  No, no, no.
[01:01:36]  He used a broader definition of legal advice.
[01:01:38]  Okay. Let me try again.
[01:01:39]  Let me try again.
[01:01:40]  Here we go.
[01:01:41]  Here's why you're wrong.
[01:01:42]  Yeah. So a guy calls his lawyer and says, hey, man, I need money, and I'm trying to figure out how to get it.
[01:01:51]  If I were to go to a guy and point a weapon at him and say, Can I borrow 50 bucks?
[01:01:57]  Is that illegal?
[01:01:59]  And the lawyer's going to go, yeah, that's illegal.
[01:02:01]  You're robbing them.
[01:02:02]  You go to jail.
[01:02:03]  Really? What if I just put my hand in my pocket so it looked like I had a gun?
[01:02:09]  You're still robbing them.
[01:02:10]  That's illegal.
[01:02:11]  Interesting. So I can't do that?
[01:02:12]  No, you can't.
[01:02:13]  And if he doesn't like that, you'll go to jail.
[01:02:15]  All right.
[01:02:15]  Thank you for the advice.
[01:02:17]  I'm going to construct my actions now in a way that applies to the legal advice you gave me to help me carry out that crime.
[01:02:21]  No, no.
[01:02:21]  Hang on.
[01:02:21]  Is the lawyer going to jail for that?
[01:02:22]  What if the intention of a lawyer...
[01:02:25]  Was to further that crime and make it more likely.
[01:02:29]  In the criminal law, we do this all the time.
[01:02:31]  It's called mens rea.
[01:02:33]  One of the biggest things that you have to do as a criminal lawyer is, if you're a prosecutor, is to prove mens rea.
[01:02:38]  So I'll ask you, what if the purpose of the lawyer was to actually get him to commit the crime?
[01:02:43]  Like Saul Goodman.
[01:02:44]  Yeah. Wait, but I'm going to get some answers from you guys one of these days.
[01:02:49]  We give answers every time.
[01:02:50]  If the purpose of the advice is to further the crime, to make it happen, to have the...
[01:02:59]  It is no longer legal advice.
[01:03:02]  It is criminal advice.
[01:03:04]  So what you've done is you've put in your definition of legal advice.
[01:03:08]  You're saying legal advice by definition can't be illegal.
[01:03:11]  And if your definition of legal advice says it can't be illegal, then I guess you're by definition correct.
[01:03:17]  Most people's definition of legal advice doesn't include, you know, it has to be legal, legal advice.
[01:03:21]  Do people have a constitutional right to counsel?
[01:03:24]  Yes. But that means they could be providing illegal activities to a defendant.
[01:03:29]  They could be.
[01:03:30]  People have a constitutional right to some illegal activities?
[01:03:33]  So they have a constitutional right to legal advice, but it doesn't mean that it's...
[01:03:36]  This is a semantic issue.
[01:03:37]  No, no, no.
[01:03:37]  It's not semantic.
[01:03:38]  I'm happy to answer that question.
[01:03:39]  They have a legal right to legal advice, 100%, to access and retrieve that legal advice.
[01:03:43]  That doesn't mean that the advice they receive can also be a crime.
[01:03:46]  There is no contradiction there.
[01:03:47]  Do you agree there's no contradiction there?
[01:03:49]  No. What's the contradiction?
[01:03:51]  When we refer to legal advice, we are not referring to engagement in criminal activity.
[01:03:56]  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.
[01:04:01]  Just because you have a law degree doesn't make it legal advice.
[01:04:04]  Okay, so your definition of legal advice, that would be legal advice.
[01:04:07]  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.
[01:04:12]  You're carving out the thing that would be a criminal legal advice.
[01:04:15]  To definitely understand what is our constitutional right to counsel versus what is an illegal action.
[01:04:19]  So the right to counsel doesn't mean that the counsel you're receiving is legal itself.
[01:04:24]  They're different things, and there's no contradiction in what I'm saying.
[01:04:26]  To be honest, none of it really matters.
[01:04:27]  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?
[01:04:37]  And they said, here's how you do it, and we'll draft it for you.
[01:04:40]  And the government went, aha!
[01:04:42]  We think that's a crime, so you're under arrest.
[01:04:43]  All right, so let me change the hypothetical just to make sure that this principle is being applied consistently.
[01:04:47]  Let's say that Jenna Ellis said, okay, this won't work, this won't work.
[01:04:51]  What you have to do is you have to order the...
[01:04:55]  The military to seize the halls of Congress and hold at gunpoint all the Congress people.
[01:05:00]  And that will be, you know, that way it'll just be the best way to do it.
[01:05:03]  That's an absurdity.
[01:05:04]  You can say it's an absurdity.
[01:05:05]  It's called a hypothetical.
[01:05:06]  And you provide, wait, you provide hypotheticals to people.
[01:05:09]  Are you going to say you're not going to answer it?
[01:05:10]  It's an unprecedented absurdity without codified law.
[01:05:12]  Wait, are you going to answer it?
[01:05:13]  Or are you going to say it's an illegitimate?
[01:05:15]  I don't have to answer it.
[01:05:16]  I'll answer any question you ask.
[01:05:17]  So if the question is...
[01:05:19]  If the marshmallow man showed up, should Trump call in the Ghostbusters next?
[01:05:22]  So if Jenna Ellis had something to the effect of, the best way to do this, Donald Trump...
[01:05:27]  And she wanted this to happen, right?
[01:05:29]  It's for you to actually go with tanks into Congress, hold up some Congress people, kill them if you don't want, if they're challenging you.
[01:05:36]  That way, you head off any kind of impeachment.
[01:05:38]  So you're saying she instructed them to murder people?
[01:05:39]  To arrest people, to seize it, and murder if necessary.
[01:05:43]  In what prospect of law can you go to a court and murder someone in the middle of a hearing?
[01:05:47]  No, you're saying the best...
[01:05:48]  So this is why it's legal advice.
[01:05:49]  She says...
[01:05:50]  One thing that could stop you from stealing the election would be if they held impeachment proceedings and immediately impeached and removed you.
[01:05:55]  So one way to head that off from a legal perspective would be if those people could not attend their sit-ins.
[01:06:00]  And I'm just letting you know it would be really convenient if you killed them.
[01:06:03]  And I want you to do that.
[01:06:04]  So instructing someone to commit murder is legal advice.
[01:06:06]  I'm asking – wait.
[01:06:07]  That is not legal advice.
[01:06:08]  If you said, for example, in order to prevent this bad outcome, this bad judgment, you should kill a – Wait, wait.
[01:06:16]  You should kill a witness.
[01:06:18]  But there's no function of law where you're allowed to do that.
[01:06:21]  There's no legal advice.
[01:06:22]  That's a crime.
[01:06:22]  It's murder.
[01:06:23]  It's tailored to a legal matter.
[01:06:26]  It's tailored to a specific proceeding.
[01:06:28]  Here we're talking about...
[01:06:29]  It is not legal advice to instruct your client to murder someone, no.
[01:06:32]  Okay. So if your definition of legal advice excludes any illegal conspiracy, then by definition you've said legal advice.
[01:06:40]  No, you're trying to justify that Trump, under a circumstance with no codified law making it illegal...
[01:06:46]  We're backing up.
[01:06:47]  We're in very specific territory right here, Tim.
[01:06:49]  And the specific territory is...
[01:06:50]  Where in the law does it say you cannot send in your slate of electors before the Safe Harbor deadline?
[01:06:56]  Why should it have to say that?
[01:06:57]  To make it a crime.
[01:06:59]  Why? Because in this country, you can't be arrested for things the state makes up.
[01:07:02]  Okay, so does it have to...
[01:07:03]  So there's the laws against, for example, lying to Congress, fair?
[01:07:06]  So do they have to list out all the possible lies you could tell to Congress in order for it to be legal?
[01:07:10]  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?
[01:07:19]  So you're saying, based on the interpretation of the state of Georgia, that they felt Jenna Ellis...
[01:07:25]  Drafting a letter for Donald Trump was part of a criminal conspiracy.
[01:07:28]  She can be charged for that.
[01:07:28]  100%. She pled guilty because she is guilty.
[01:07:30]  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.
[01:07:38]  Wait, wait.
[01:07:39]  But you would condemn things that you feel went beyond the pale, right?
[01:07:43]  Wait, no, no.
[01:07:44]  Wait, wait.
[01:07:45]  Yes. And people can argue about whether it's legal or illegal, and that's what you're doing right now.
[01:07:50]  And you're willing to condemn the prosecution of Jen Ellis.
[01:07:53]  Fair? Yes.
[01:07:54]  Why aren't you willing to condemn the potential deportation of Mahmoud Khalil?
[01:07:57]  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.
[01:08:03]  To test the legality of it because there's no specific law?
[01:08:05]  No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
[01:08:06]  Because your arguments aren't based in law.
[01:08:08]  It's your interpretation of what is and your moral worldview.
[01:08:11]  Well, I mean, it's based on the Supreme Court precedent that you seem to accept that these people have First Amendment rights.
[01:08:17]  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?
[01:08:23]  You seem to grant that they had that right, but now you're saying, I don't really know.
[01:08:26]  They might as well test it.
[01:08:27]  So my point is the INA says they can have their visas revoked for whatever reason, whenever.
[01:08:32]  Would that include religion-based reasons?
[01:08:35]  And you said no.
[01:08:35]  It doesn't matter.
[01:08:36]  Oh, my gosh.
[01:08:36]  We've been circling around this.
[01:08:38]  There's an inherent, like, you guys know.
[01:08:40]  Just, like, circling around the same bed carcass.
[01:08:43]  And then you guess, like, that we haven't answered your question.
[01:08:46]  Yeah. Which is very, very frustrating because we answer your question over and over and over again.
[01:08:50]  Then you're like, you'll never answer this question.
[01:08:52]  You keep dodging my questions.
[01:08:53]  Two seconds after we answer your question.
[01:08:56]  We've said how many times?
[01:08:57]  Both of us have taken the position.
[01:08:58]  They have First Amendment rights.
[01:09:00]  They're not the same level as what American citizen rights are, which is one reason, by the way, this couldn't have any impact.
[01:09:06]  So if they're not the same – wait, wait, wait, Joe.
[01:09:08]  If they're not the same level, what are they?
[01:09:10]  I mean Tim is saying that based on anything, they could throw them out.
[01:09:13]  So if Mamoud Khalil said something like this, I'd like a French toast and some eggs, please.
[01:09:20]  And they said on the basis of that – You're going to be deported from the country.
[01:09:23]  Would the first amendment protect him in that instance?
[01:09:25]  Yes or no?
[01:09:26]  I think that that would not meet that low threshold that I've said over and over.
[01:09:30]  Facially legitimate.
[01:09:32]  But the INA, Tim said.
[01:09:33]  Tim said the INA.
[01:09:34]  Wait. Tim said.
[01:09:35]  Tim gave you his moral perspective.
[01:09:38]  Do you disagree with him?
[01:09:39]  Wait. Do you disagree with him?
[01:09:40]  Do I agree with him morally or legally?
[01:09:42]  Legally. Is the law wrong?
[01:09:44]  Legally, do you disagree with him?
[01:09:45]  I think legally you could not just throw someone out for ordering French bread.
[01:09:48]  Okay. But you cannot say, because he ordered French bread, I'm throwing him out.
[01:09:53]  So why can you say...
[01:09:54]  You know what you can do?
[01:09:55]  You can go, hey, this guy just fucking ordered French bread.
[01:09:58]  You're being deported under Section 221I of the Immigration and National Association.
[01:10:02]  But they didn't do that.
[01:10:03]  No, they literally did.
[01:10:04]  They didn't do that.
[01:10:05]  I'm saying they didn't give a reason.
[01:10:07]  Their reason is Marco Rubio's determination.
[01:10:10]  Marco Rubio's determination is based...
[01:10:12]  Right, that's my point.
[01:10:12]  They didn't give a reason.
[01:10:14]  They cited 2-2-1.
[01:10:15]  No, they did not cite this law.
[01:10:17]  They did not.
[01:10:17]  They cited the basis of deportability.
[01:10:19]  That's INA 237, little a, little i.
[01:10:24]  I think it's sub 4 or something like that.
[01:10:26]  So you can go to 237.
[01:10:28]  If you actually read the notice to appear, 222 is not the basis.
[01:10:31]  234? It's 237.
[01:10:33]  INA 237.
[01:10:34]  And it starts, you know, basis of deportable aliens should be the name of the statute.
[01:10:40]  It's a long subjection, but it's in sub A. 237.
[01:10:44]  Okay, hold on.
[01:10:45]  I think it's up here.
[01:10:46]  It's A4.
[01:10:47]  A4? 237 A4?
[01:10:50]  I'm not sure if it's 237.
[01:10:51]  Where does 237 start?
[01:10:53]  I see 236, and then all of a sudden it says 237.
[01:10:57]  Oh, I see.
[01:10:57]  I see.
[01:10:57]  It's at the bottom.
[01:10:58]  You see how they do that with like one sentence at the bottom and it makes the whole page 237?
[01:11:02]  Okay. So now go A4.
[01:11:04]  So we're looking.
[01:11:08]  Look at all these.
[01:11:09]  Wait. Is it A1?
[01:11:10]  There isn't one.
[01:11:11]  Is it A1?
[01:11:12]  I think it's A1.
[01:11:13]  Well, I'll just look for deportation.
[01:11:16]  Yeah. Inadmissible aliens, present in violation of law, violated non-immigrant status or condition of entry.
[01:11:22]  I think it's big four.
[01:11:26]  Also, they accuse them of fraud, too.
[01:11:28]  Correct, but there's no material.
[01:11:30]  I see, I see.
[01:11:32]  Isn't it stupid how they do this?
[01:11:34]  It's below the criminal offenses.
[01:11:36]  It's down in four under terrorism and national security.
[01:11:42]  Security and general concerns.
[01:11:44]  It's C. It's C1.
[01:11:46]  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.
[01:11:55]  So Secretary of State Marco Rubio didn't cite the provision that you cited.
[01:11:58]  He cited 237-4-C-I.
[01:12:01]  And he said in his determination why he's adverse to the interests is because he supports Hamas.
[01:12:08]  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.
[01:12:15]  Why would it be if you support French bread?
[01:12:17]  It's not a basis of removability.
[01:12:18]  Why would it be if you support Hamas?
[01:12:19]  No, I think the bare minimum threshold is he has to establish that he's legitimately considered a national security threat.
[01:12:28]  That those national security threats are not supposed to be flushed out before the public.
[01:12:31]  In fact, I think that that would be stupid to believe that a policy is supposed to be flushed.
[01:12:35]  I have a simple question.
[01:12:39]  Do you believe that support of Israel is in alignment with American foreign policy?
[01:12:43]  It depends who gets to decide, right?
[01:12:45]  I think that support for Israel probably is, yeah.
[01:12:47]  70 plus years, $250 billion?
[01:12:49]  Yeah, probably.
[01:12:50]  Do you believe that the protests are a threat to that American foreign policy?

=== Can't Sign Away Rights (15:38) ===

[01:12:54]  Yeah, I might.
[01:12:56]  I don't really think that, but I think it doesn't matter.
[01:13:01]  It doesn't matter.
[01:13:02]  So I just want to be clear.
[01:13:03]  It doesn't matter.
[01:13:04]  It cannot violate the First Amendment.
[01:13:07]  That's what's clear here.
[01:13:08]  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.
[01:13:16]  But it doesn't matter what it says, because the First Amendment...
[01:13:18]  I agree.
[01:13:18]  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.
[01:13:26]  Maybe. I would doubt that.
[01:13:28]  So I think it's fair to say this.
[01:13:30]  He has procedural problems first and foremost.
[01:13:32]  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.
[01:13:42]  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.
[01:13:52]  That the Supreme Court has refused to intercede on executive exclusive authority.
[01:13:58]  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.
[01:14:09]  When we're talking about the fact that he's failed to...
[01:14:15]  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.
[01:14:28]  And would be a basis to exclude him also.
[01:14:30]  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.
[01:14:41]  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.
[01:14:49]  Wait, I predicted he would lose too.
[01:14:50]  You thought he would lose.
[01:14:51]  Sorry, sorry.
[01:14:52]  I predicted.
[01:14:54]  We're talking about his eligibility to run.
[01:14:55]  I predicted Trump.
[01:14:56]  Wait. I predicted Trump would win too.
[01:14:58]  No. I did predict it.
[01:15:00]  No. I have a clip of it of me saying he's going to lose or he's going to win.
[01:15:03]  And I told you it would be six to three.
[01:15:04]  I said it would not be merely six to three.
[01:15:06]  I said even the liberal justices will recognize that this is so far out of bounds.
[01:15:10]  Yeah, I thought there would be one to send.
[01:15:11]  And it's going to be at least 72, if not 8 to 1. And it ended up being 9-0.
[01:15:15]  And I'm telling you now, Mahmoud Khalil is not going to win at the Supreme Court level.
[01:15:20]  I will tell you, there's no chance that he does because this is the one area where the executive authority is at its highest.
[01:15:27]  And unless you can show that they specifically hated this guy for one reason that had nothing to do with his speech.
[01:15:35]  They obviously did.
[01:15:35]  Because in this one is the one that he ends up with.
[01:15:38]  They obviously did.
[01:15:38]  It's that Muslim that because he's a Muslim, they're getting rid of him in that case.
[01:15:41]  No one believes this shit, by the way.
[01:15:44]  You realize how out of touch you sound to normal Americans?
[01:15:47]  Everyone understands that the reason they're going after these people is Because they don't like his speech.
[01:15:50]  And that's the rationale they gave.
[01:15:52]  You look at Marco Rubio, he says his support for Hamas.
[01:15:54]  But not liking his speech affects foreign policy and national security, which is the whole point if it's granted to the executive branch.
[01:16:00]  I want to add, the speech is particularly that it's anti-Israel, that it's critical of Israel.
[01:16:07]  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.
[01:16:14]  The Supreme Court tends to be deferential on issues of national security.
[01:16:17]  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.
[01:16:27]  Barack Obama murdered American citizens, multiple, I think, four or five individuals.
[01:16:32]  So when it comes to the Trump administration saying...
[01:16:35]  We want to support Israel.
[01:16:36]  This guy came to our country and he's rallying people against Israel.
[01:16:39]  That's bad for foreign policy.
[01:16:40]  I imagine the Supreme Court's going to go, well, we don't care about rights when it comes to foreign policy.
[01:16:44]  Then you have the issue of American support for Israel is very high.
[01:16:48]  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.
[01:16:55]  We like Israel.
[01:16:57]  But I'm not trying to pull the nation here, Tim.
[01:17:00]  I'm not trying to read tea leaves about the Supreme Court tomorrow.
[01:17:02]  I get it.
[01:17:03]  I'm saying that the American people...
[01:17:04]  I'm trying to push you guys.
[01:17:05]  And the reason I'm trying to push you guys is because you both have platforms.
[01:17:07]  Because if he was Tommy Robinson expressing racist views, you would not be coming here screaming about his rights.
[01:17:13]  You wouldn't be.
[01:17:15]  100% I would.
[01:17:16]  By the way, I condemned a lot of these protests.
[01:17:19]  I call them insurrections, some of them, just to be clear about my consistency there.
[01:17:23]  I generally am not seen as a crazy person on this issue.
[01:17:28]  I'm calling...
[01:17:29]  And I'm pushing you guys.
[01:17:31]  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.
[01:17:44]  Israel wants us to have Muslims be out of this country.
[01:17:47]  They want us to push them out.
[01:17:47]  And so we're going to deport all these aliens because we can, and it's our foreign policy determination.
[01:17:52]  I think that you, wouldn't you stand up and say that's wrong?
[01:17:56]  Wouldn't you?
[01:17:58]  Would you stand here and be like, well, the Supreme Court often defers to the Secretary of State's determinations about who is and who's not a threat?
[01:18:05]  Because the Secretary of State said the Muslims are all threats.
[01:18:08]  You're combining a moral question with a legal question.
[01:18:13]  So let's just make them distinct.
[01:18:15]  On the law.
[01:18:15]  So on the law, why don't you come and say this is clearly illegal?
[01:18:18]  Of course the Supreme Court should not.
[01:18:21]  In a scenario that what?
[01:18:22]  Give me one more time.
[01:18:23]  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.
[01:18:30]  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.
[01:18:37]  Do you need to write these four words down?
[01:18:39]  Facially legitimate and bona fide?
[01:18:40]  It's actually five words technically.
[01:18:41]  Do you need to write them down?
[01:18:43]  So I just want to be...
[01:18:44]  Because every time you keep putting this crazy, this extreme hypothetical of...
[01:18:48]  Banning all Muslims.
[01:18:50]  And I keep coming back to you and saying, I've never taken that position.
[01:18:52]  I don't know anyone who's ever taken that position.
[01:18:53]  So I gave you that citation.
[01:18:54]  Trump has never taken that position.
[01:18:56]  That citation.
[01:18:56]  Give me that crazy, ridiculous hypothetical.
[01:18:59]  And then I come back to you and I say, why are you giving me this hypothetical?
[01:19:01]  That citation is from Kleindienst versus Mendel.
[01:19:04]  That language comes from Kleindienst versus Mendel, as cited in Trump versus the United States.
[01:19:07]  1972. Trump versus Hawaii in the section on the Establishment Clause.
[01:19:13]  But that had to do with an admission decision.
[01:19:16]  We're not talking about admission decisions.
[01:19:18]  These are people within the country.
[01:19:19]  And the Supreme Court has said that you have to abide by the same terms while you're here that you do for admission.
[01:19:24]  Think of it like this.
[01:19:25]  Let me ask you a question.
[01:19:26]  Let me ask you a question.
[01:19:26]  No, no.
[01:19:27]  I need to ask you this question because you keep talking and trying to frame this as a First Amendment, right?
[01:19:33]  It's not at all a First Amendment issue because from the perspective of the Supreme Court that you're stuck to the same standard.
[01:19:39]  And when you know that to get in here, you can't be expressing terrorist supportive perspectives.
[01:19:45]  You can't.
[01:19:45]  You cannot do that when you're trying to get in here.
[01:19:47]  Do you agree with that part?
[01:19:48]  Let's start with this premise.
[01:19:49]  I'm going to go step by step.
[01:19:51]  Do you think that the United States of America has a right to keep people out for saying, you know what?
[01:19:56]  You express terrorist activity, support for terrorism.
[01:19:59]  We're not going to buy a visa.
[01:20:01]  Do they have a right to keep them out?
[01:20:02]  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.
[01:20:10]  And what the law says is you can ban people from in this country if they're Chinese.
[01:20:15]  If they're Asian...
[01:20:16]  That is not the law any longer.
[01:20:18]  When has it been overturned?
[01:20:20]  When has Xi Jinping been overturned?
[01:20:21]  I don't know.
[01:20:22]  It has not been overturned.
[01:20:23]  You're quoting a case and when you...
[01:20:25]  It's a famous case, the Chinese exclusion cases.
[01:20:27]  The first immigration laws on the books.
[01:20:29]  They said you could ban Chinese people from entering the country.
[01:20:32]  Look it up.
[01:20:33]  So I'm acknowledging the reality that the courts treat admission decisions very differently.
[01:20:37]  And so I acknowledge that, whether I agree or not.
[01:20:40]  So you're recognizing that they can keep someone out on that basis.
[01:20:45]  Now the Supreme Court has also said that you're kept to the same standard.
[01:20:48]  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
[01:21:17]  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...
[01:21:33]  They've also said that about the First Amendment, but your version...
[01:21:35]  That's not Congress.
[01:21:35]  That's not Congress saying that.
[01:21:37]  That's the court interpreting it.
[01:21:39]  The courts have said the same thing about the First Amendment.
[01:21:41]  Wait, wait, wait.
[01:21:43]  No, stop.
[01:21:43]  What kind of First Amendment would protect the speech?
[01:21:46]  Of someone saying, I want French bread.
[01:21:48]  And you said they can't deport a base on that.
[01:21:50]  You said that.
[01:21:50]  You said those words.
[01:21:51]  What kind of First Amendment?
[01:21:52]  I'm not embarrassed.
[01:21:53]  I know, I know.
[01:21:54]  So what kind of First Amendment where at its maximum it's protecting political speech would protect that kind of speech but not core political speech?
[01:22:01]  What are you talking about?
[01:22:02]  I'll tell you one.
[01:22:02]  What First Amendment is that?
[01:22:04]  Yeah, I do.
[01:22:05]  From a moral perspective?
[01:22:06]  No, from a legal perspective.
[01:22:07]  From a legal perspective, I'm walking through it.
[01:22:09]  How can you ever – can a person contract away their rights to free speech?
[01:22:15]  Yes. NA.
[01:22:16]  Wait, wait.
[01:22:17]  Are there fundamental rights to free speech?
[01:22:18]  Let's say a person is charged with some sort of crime, and they end up pleading out, and they say, you know what?
[01:22:26]  The DA says, I want you to promise that for the next five years, you're not going to drink any alcohol.
[01:22:31]  You're not going to meet with this person.
[01:22:33]  You're not going to go to any of these meetings where they have lots of drinking.
[01:22:37]  And they limit his right to assembly.
[01:22:39]  You can waive certain rights.
[01:22:40]  Oh, okay.
[01:22:41]  And he can waive his right to free speech also.
[01:22:44]  Inherent, inherent in coming in here and signing visa thing and filling out and saying, I'm not a terrorist and I don't support.
[01:22:50]  Where do you waive your First Amendment rights on your visa application?
[01:22:53]  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.
[01:23:03]  So could you wave away your right to protection against torture?
[01:23:12]  Sorry, answer that.
[01:23:13]  Could you wave that right away?
[01:23:15]  Yeah. Would the government say, as a condition of your green card, you accept that if we want to torture you, you get tortured?
[01:23:22]  I don't know.
[01:23:22]  Could they say that?
[01:23:23]  Why are you going to a different set of liberties?
[01:23:24]  Because I'm asking if you're consistent.
[01:23:26]  Because I don't know.
[01:23:27]  I'm sitting here and trying to figure out, as Tim pointed out earlier, it comes specifically to cruel and unusual punishment.
[01:23:33]  It's difficult to say that's a very subjective perspective.
[01:23:37]  So you're asking me, can he agree?
[01:23:40]  Could the government say something like...
[01:23:41]  I don't know.
[01:23:42]  I'll ask you right now.
[01:23:43]  Is it legal for you to make a contract that you'll let Tim cut your finger off?
[01:23:46]  Is it okay for you to actually make a contract that you'll let Tim cut your finger off if he gives you a million dollars?
[01:23:51]  Is that legal?
[01:23:52]  I think it would be legal for the government to regulate that for sure.
[01:23:54]  Okay. Illegal to regulate.
[01:23:56]  I think it would be legal for the government to regulate that conduct as between private parties.
[01:23:59]  But this is different, right?
[01:24:02]  We're talking about the government as a condition of your green card saying you sign away all due process as a condition.
[01:24:07]  You sign away your right against torture.
[01:24:09]  You sign away your right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
[01:24:11]  You think the government could do that and go, you know, every one of your rights and you can just sign?
[01:24:16]  They can.
[01:24:17]  They can, you think?
[01:24:18]  Yeah. I think it's a fact.
[01:24:20]  I don't know.
[01:24:21]  Why is that a fact?
[01:24:22]  People enlist in the military all the time and they waive their rights.
[01:24:26]  They don't waive their fundamental rights as Americans.
[01:24:29]  You think you could do that?
[01:24:30]  So my understanding is that...
[01:24:32]  Every time you sign an arbitration clause, you're signing away your right to due process.
[01:24:37]  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.
[01:24:44]  You are legally not required to be in certain places.
[01:24:47]  As a condition of employment.
[01:24:48]  No, no.
[01:24:49]  You can get in trouble.
[01:24:50]  Like, you can get...
[01:24:53]  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.
[01:25:03]  Not like they went to jail, but it was considered damage to government property or something to that regard.
[01:25:07]  I think in instances of military and in certain cases of employment, that makes sense.
[01:25:10]  So there could be some areas.
[01:25:12]  There's exceptions to everything, but here's what we're talking about.
[01:25:15]  There are.
[01:25:16]  You can't sometimes sign away your rights.
[01:25:18]  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.
[01:25:30]  That never really happened.
[01:25:31]  Think about it more specifically.
[01:25:32]  Under your waiver theory, I want to analyze your waiver theory about how shocking it is.
[01:25:39]  Under your waiver theory, could the government condition Social Security checks?
[01:25:42]  Are you waving away all your rights?
[01:25:43]  Could they condition welfare on that?
[01:25:46]  How many different hypotheticals are you going to ask me about?
[01:25:50]  Where is the relevance to talking about Social Security when we're having a discussion about the right of the government to deport illegal aliens?
[01:25:56]  That right is so ephemeral.
[01:25:58]  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.
[01:26:08]  I think your First Amendment rights could, in theory, be waived away even if you're an American citizen.
[01:26:13]  Even for getting Social Security checks?
[01:26:15]  Even for getting any government benefit at all?
[01:26:17]  I don't...
[01:26:17]  It's such a random and ridiculous perspective.
[01:26:21]  Why don't you answer it, then?
[01:26:22]  I don't, because I don't know.
[01:26:23]  I don't know the answer to a question as far as...
[01:26:25]  Wait, what do I know?
[01:26:26]  Don't tell me what I know.
[01:26:27]  I'm telling you, I don't know.
[01:26:29]  Are you calling me?
[01:26:30]  You fucking know this.
[01:26:31]  This is garbage.
[01:26:32]  I don't know why we're even...
[01:26:33]  I can't wave away social media.
[01:26:35]  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.
[01:26:47]  So you can actually sign away your right to engage in protest.
[01:26:49]  As a condition of employment in the military.
[01:26:51]  It's not employment.
[01:26:52]  You're subject to military code.
[01:26:54]  Listen, there can be specific cases for military service.
[01:26:57]  But real quick, you're arguing the government can...
[01:26:59]  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.
[01:27:05]  That's a contract condition of employment.
[01:27:07]  And it makes sense.
[01:27:08]  Like the Snow White controversy, the producer's son went and reprimanded Rachel Zegler.
[01:27:12]  To go to the government and they'll say, no, no, we won't just fire you.
[01:27:16]  We will put you in prison if you speak out against us.
[01:27:18]  So differences based on private versus public, just to be clear.
[01:27:21]  So New York City human rights law that you cited before actually does protect certain kinds of expressions and off-job political activities.
[01:27:28]  So some states do impose those statutory frameworks that protect that kind of activity.
[01:27:32]  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.
[01:27:38]  Only in D.C. No, I think it's only in D.C. actually, yeah.
[01:27:42]  Okay. But regardless, like what we're talking about, usually the Bill of Rights does not apply as to private actors.
[01:27:50]  And so we're engaging in First Amendment analysis for people who you acknowledge have these rights.
[01:27:56]  And what you're suggesting is beyond military, which can be a category of its own and fine.
[01:28:00]  I'll even accept that it's a category of its own because military is so particular or something.
[01:28:04]  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.
[01:28:12]  And that is what I mean when I say these are our rights.
[01:28:15]  When you accept certain frameworks I want to finish my statement.

=== Rights Waivers and Nihilism (06:44) ===

[01:28:22]  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.
[01:28:30]  I'm not at all.
[01:28:31]  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.
[01:28:43]  No, no, no.
[01:28:44]  Finish, finish.
[01:28:46]  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.
[01:29:04]  I just think it's also silly.
[01:29:09]  Literally nobody cares about anyone's constitutional rights.
[01:29:12]  If I want to go buy a gun, I have to waive my right against self-incrimination.
[01:29:17]  The government has a requirement unto me that I waive my right.
[01:29:21]  And poor Hunter Biden actually faced criminal charges because...
[01:29:25]  He did not want to self-incriminate as an illegal drug user, which he has no obligation to do.
[01:29:30]  And I actually said, I hope he wins.
[01:29:33]  I hope he challenges the Supreme Court.
[01:29:34]  Do not pardon him.
[01:29:35]  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.
[01:29:43]  Violation of the Fifth Amendment to enforce it, so that I can enjoy my second.
[01:29:47]  Instead, they always do this.
[01:29:49]  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.
[01:29:56]  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?
[01:30:05]  It's literally everybody just arguing one thing.
[01:30:09]  Might makes right.
[01:30:11]  I appreciate the passion.
[01:30:15]  We think Jen Ellis committed a crime.
[01:30:16]  The right is saying she was just providing legal advice.
[01:30:18]  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.
[01:30:29]  It happens every day that someone's going to say, in 1948, the government said it's this, therefore it's so.
[01:30:35]  And then what's going to happen is they're going to get sued.
[01:30:37]  The new Supreme Court's going to say, actually, we're erasing that and changing the precedent.
[01:30:41]  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.
[01:30:48]  This is where we're at.
[01:30:49]  If you look at all of the Bill of Rights and you look at everything you're arguing, I can point to 50...
[01:30:54]  For every amendment, here's where the liberals have argued for and against the First Amendment.
[01:31:00]  They think it's right when they do it this way and wrong with it.
[01:31:02]  Here's where the conservatives do it.
[01:31:03]  All that's really happening is, can you win an election?
[01:31:06]  And what it really boils down to is, how many sad moms can we show on TV?
[01:31:09]  And is the economy good or bad?
[01:31:11]  Then we'll get power to enforce the laws.
[01:31:13]  I don't believe this nihilism.
[01:31:14]  I don't believe it.
[01:31:14]  It's not nihilism.
[01:31:15]  It's a kind of form of nihilism.
[01:31:17]  It's not.
[01:31:18]  These rights have no purchase.
[01:31:20]  And in some sense, I agree in the sense that rights are...
[01:31:26]  It's not a question of the gun rights.
[01:31:41]  It's the existence of a form that says, if you want to exercise your right, waive your Fifth Amendment.
[01:31:47]  The scope exists right now and is protected by Democrats.
[01:31:50]  So I want to be clear, the scope of a right is always going to be subject to interpretation.
[01:31:55]  You're right about that.
[01:31:56]  And the First Amendment has never been thought of to be this thing, anything anyone ever says.
[01:32:01]  So for example, incitement is not protected.
[01:32:04]  Child pornography is not protected.
[01:32:07]  Obscenity is not protected.
[01:32:08]  These are well-known exceptions to First Amendment.
[01:32:11]  There are doctrines, for example— It's still not protected.
[01:32:14]  It's now.
[01:32:15]  No, it's not.
[01:32:16]  Obscenity is a category of unprotected speech.
[01:32:18]  So the issue is now we're dealing with obscenity as like a blue law, in that no one's enforcing against it.
[01:32:26]  Now, yes and no.
[01:32:28]  A lot of people aren't enforcing obscenity, but also obscenity itself is dependent on certain artistic value and national standards.
[01:32:35]  This is actually another good point of the question of rights.
[01:32:38]  There are a lot of laws in the books we never enforce anymore.
[01:32:41]  Famously, there was this story about skydiving on Sunday was illegal for women in Florida.
[01:32:46]  And they say it's not true, but there are a lot of laws like this.
[01:32:49]  There's a book called Funny Old Laws.
[01:32:51]  There was a law, I think it was in Boston, that you can't cool pies on your windowsill.
[01:32:55]  And everybody laughs at it.
[01:32:56]  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.
[01:33:03]  They said, stop doing this.
[01:33:04]  They had laws saying you can't take baths on Tuesday because the aquifer was strained.
[01:33:09]  We don't enforce any of those laws anymore.
[01:33:11]  They're still on the books.
[01:33:12]  So we have just a society where it really is the whim of law enforcement and the body politic.
[01:33:18]  For example, in a much better example, in San Francisco, two men gave each other blowjobs in the middle of the street.
[01:33:23]  This was during Pride, in full view of children and everyone else, and the police said they're allowed to do it.
[01:33:28]  Well, clearly they're not!
[01:33:29]  I mean, it's obscenity laws across the books in every facet ban that.
[01:33:33]  Why don't the police arrest them?
[01:33:34]  Because all that really matters is if the public is willing to tolerate and accept it or not.
[01:33:39]  And if the people would...
[01:33:41]  So this is why we get leftist terrorism.
[01:33:43]  The reason why we see Tesla's being firebombed is because what's the end result?
[01:33:48]  You're going to see Vancouver, for instance, booted Tesla from their auto show saying, we can't keep it safe anymore.
[01:33:55]  This is the purpose of...
[01:33:57]  The might-make-right ethos, which we see dominant right now.
[01:34:00]  I'm not saying Democrat, liberal entirely.
[01:34:02]  I'm saying predominantly far-left.
[01:34:04]  They're enacting that, and it is used to amplify their power and the moral worldview they have.
[01:34:11]  Thus, as it pertains to the Columbia protests, what did we see?
[01:34:15]  Organizers put together these protests.
[01:34:17]  Whether you want to blame them for it, physical occupation occurred.
[01:34:20]  Physical violence against Jews occurred.
[01:34:22]  Buildings were taken over.
[01:34:23]  Faculty complained of physical threats and violence against them.
[01:34:27]  You know, I look at this and I'm just like, how do we prevent things like this from happening?
[01:34:31]  Well, we've got people having sex in the street in San Francisco and the police won't enforce it.
[01:34:37]  We have buildings being taken over and it's allowed to happen for an extended period of time.
[01:34:40]  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.

=== White House Insurrection Debate (13:54) ===

[01:34:49]  These things are all interconnected.
[01:34:50]  And so the question really becomes, are you willing to enforce against things that cause damage to your moral worldview?
[01:34:55]  The right tends not to.
[01:34:57]  They're starting to now.
[01:34:58]  The left is resistant to it.
[01:34:59]  So that's my point on all of this.
[01:35:01]  Say whatever you want about whatever you want.
[01:35:02]  So long as you've got pride events across the country where they violate every law with gay sex in public.
[01:35:08]  I'm not trying to be crude, but they do.
[01:35:09]  Then I'm going to sit here and be like, guys.
[01:35:11]  You had a violent protest.
[01:35:13]  Jews got attacked.
[01:35:14]  Buildings got taken over.
[01:35:15]  You've got no moral ground to stand on.
[01:35:17]  You're trying to cite precedence to win political power.
[01:35:19]  It's what they said about communists.
[01:35:20]  It's what they said about Jan Sixers.
[01:35:24]  It's what they say about all the people that the public hates.
[01:35:26]  You know, the public hates.
[01:35:28]  You brought up Jan Six.
[01:35:31]  Did the Republicans have a committee for May 29th?
[01:35:33]  Did they go and set up a national commission to go and hunt down?
[01:35:36]  Why did Trump say it was no big deal then?
[01:35:38]  What, May 29th?
[01:35:39]  Yeah, why'd I say no big deal?
[01:35:40]  He's got an ego problem.
[01:35:41]  Okay, so he lied.
[01:35:42]  Did Trump lie, yes or no?
[01:35:44]  No. Well, you just said it was a big deal.
[01:35:46]  You're asking me if Trump's opinion is a correct statement?
[01:35:49]  Was it correct?
[01:35:50]  Is he lying about his actual opinion?
[01:35:51]  Does Trump think it was a big deal?
[01:35:52]  I think Trump thinks it's not a big deal.
[01:35:54]  Okay, so...
[01:35:55]  Like I said, Republicans don't enforce against this stuff.
[01:35:57]  Is Trump wrong about whether it was a big deal or not?
[01:35:59]  One hundred fucking percent.
[01:36:01]  Okay, so was his life in danger?
[01:36:03]  Absolutely it was.
[01:36:04]  Okay. That's why they brought him into a bunker.
[01:36:06]  So he's deluded for thinking that it wasn't a danger.
[01:36:10]  Absolutely. The dude has got an ego problem.
[01:36:12]  He doesn't want to be bunker boy.
[01:36:14]  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.
[01:36:19]  And we never got any account...
[01:36:21]  Prove they were throwing firebombs at the White House right now.
[01:36:23]  Okay. Let me pull up the picture.
[01:36:25]  Do you know about St. John's shirts, right?
[01:36:26]  Oh, yeah.
[01:36:32]  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.
[01:36:41]  You guys don't believe it.
[01:36:42]  There are some values.
[01:36:43]  I mean, we don't believe it.
[01:36:43]  No, you guys actually, I believe that you're supposed to have values, right?
[01:36:47]  You have values.
[01:36:48]  These rights have purchase on you.
[01:36:49]  You're not just going to say that only the people that I like get the rights.
[01:36:52]  Is that the White House?
[01:36:54]  You're asking me if one photo from an entire article as I'm seeking to pull up the photos?
[01:36:59]  You've asked me if one image of a Lafayette building being torched by arsonists during the George Floyd riots?
[01:37:05]  You made a specific claim, didn't you?
[01:37:06]  Would you like me to pull up the photo of the guard post on the White House grounds being set on fire?
[01:37:10]  Listen, those are videos that purport to be a guard station, but you said they were throwing Molotov cocktails at the White House.
[01:37:16]  You did say that, right?
[01:37:17]  The White House includes the grounds and the guard posts?
[01:37:19]  Oh, so torching this would include throwing at the White House, right?
[01:37:23]  What? Would torching this building in Lafayette Square...
[01:37:26]  The Lafayette Square Maintenance Building?
[01:37:28]  Yeah, so would torching this building...
[01:37:29]  I'm specifically referring to them throwing a firebomb at the White House grounds.
[01:37:33]  Here you go.
[01:37:34]  So they weren't throwing at the White House building or fence, fair?
[01:37:37]  No. You said they were throwing firebombs at the White House?
[01:37:40]  Stop playing semantic games.
[01:37:41]  So let's clarify for you.
[01:37:42]  You're representing that they were attacking the White House, the White House itself, with firebombs.
[01:37:47]  And now you're pointing to a maintenance station that was burned out.
[01:37:49]  You are pointing to a maintenance station.
[01:37:51]  Well, where's the evidence of attacking the White House?
[01:37:54]  Did the guard post get set on fire?
[01:37:55]  It wasn't a guard post.
[01:37:56]  It was a maintenance station.
[01:37:57]  That's what it says.
[01:37:58]  Whoa, whoa, whoa.
[01:37:59]  There's one Twitter account.
[01:38:00]  You're playing games.
[01:38:02]  You're playing games.
[01:38:03]  You didn't think I came up with this.
[01:38:04]  You did not come prepared for this.
[01:38:05]  Yeah, I did.
[01:38:06]  So you asked me to pull up a photo.
[01:38:08]  As I'm scrolling through an article, you asked me to stop and address an image you decided upon, and then you said, aha, that proves it?
[01:38:15]  Show the guard post.
[01:38:17]  I'll pull it up.
[01:38:18]  Yeah, it's one tweet, one guy, that says a guard post is burned down.
[01:38:23]  So have you read the report?
[01:38:25]  Let's continue this.
[01:38:26]  I just want to be clear.
[01:38:27]  Have you read the Parks Department post that says that it was a maintenance bill?
[01:38:31]  You're flailing.
[01:38:31]  What's about flailing?
[01:38:32]  Have you read the Parks Department report?
[01:38:33]  You're changing the subject.
[01:38:34]  No, the report about May 29th and May 30th.
[01:38:36]  Have you read the report about it?
[01:38:37]  Did you see...
[01:38:38]  Have you read the report about it yesterday?
[01:38:39]  You're flailing.
[01:38:40]  Have you read the report about the May 29th, May 30th protest at the White House?
[01:38:43]  You're deflecting.
[01:38:44]  What am I deflecting about?
[01:38:45]  You're changing the subject.
[01:38:46]  What subject am I changing?
[01:38:47]  Let's go back to...
[01:38:48]  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.
[01:38:58]  We were talking about whether they had thrown Molotov cocktails at the White House.
[01:39:01]  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.
[01:39:05]  You made a claim.
[01:39:06]  You said that they were attacking the White House with Molotov cocktails.
[01:39:08]  You don't have evidence for that, right?
[01:39:10]  Is there an image of—you said you saw an image of a guard post on fire?
[01:39:14]  What someone, one Twitter account said was a guard post.
[01:39:17]  I will concede that to you.
[01:39:18]  Okay. And this is where I'm headed.
[01:39:19]  Okay? So let's not get carried away on me.
[01:39:24]  I'll say, you know what?
[01:39:25]  You're right.
[01:39:25]  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.
[01:39:32]  Yes. So let's just, you know what?
[01:39:34]  Okay. They did not firebomb the White House.
[01:39:36]  They may have, we're not entirely sure.
[01:39:38]  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.
[01:39:45]  They set fire to several buildings outside of the White House complex.
[01:39:49]  And we never got a national commission or a committee from Congress.
[01:39:53]  We did not get national raids in the 1,000-plus.
[01:39:56]  30-plus people died in those riots.
[01:39:58]  We never got law enforcement.
[01:40:00]  For 90-plus days, over 100 days, far-left extremists were lobbing explosives, mortars, at federal buildings.
[01:40:05]  They took over locations in Seattle, Portland, Minnesota, and Atlanta.
[01:40:10]  In autonomous zones— And you call them insurrections, sir?
[01:40:13]  Well, May 29th is an insurrection.
[01:40:15]  Wait, wait, wait.
[01:40:15]  You did call the Black Lives Matter situations insurrections, right?
[01:40:18]  Did you or did you?
[01:40:19]  May 29th.
[01:40:20]  Yeah. You keep doing that, okay?
[01:40:23]  I referred to Seattle, Portland, Minnesota, and Atlanta and then asked me if those were all insurrections.
[01:40:28]  You said they were.
[01:40:29]  I have the videos of them.
[01:40:30]  The May 29th insurrection was in front of the White House when they ripped the barricades down and forced the president into a bunker.
[01:40:37]  Okay, whose fault is it that we don't have a report on that and a committee on that?
[01:40:40]  Republicans. Okay.
[01:40:41]  Is it also Trump's fault?
[01:40:42]  Yes. Okay.
[01:40:43]  And also to be clear, since you said this was an insurrection, you agree Jan 6 was an insurrection, fair?
[01:40:48]  No. Why not?
[01:40:49]  Jan 6 is an insurrection insofar as May 29th is, yes.
[01:40:53]  Okay. Do you think May 29th was an insurrection?
[01:40:55]  No. What's your definition of insurrection?
[01:40:58]  So the point being made at the time in the video you're referencing is that if the Democrats are going to form a committee...
[01:41:06]  Tim, you and Dan Bongino, you, Dan Bongino, other commentators on the right, I have clips of them all called the George Floyd situation insurrections.
[01:41:18]  You did.
[01:41:19]  Before Jan 6th.
[01:41:20]  No, we didn't.
[01:41:24]  You're on it saying these are insurrections.
[01:41:26]  No. That's false.
[01:41:27]  All right, I'll produce that for you, and everyone can follow.
[01:41:29]  My Twitter account is PeaceCodeLiddy.
[01:41:30]  I'll produce the video of you calling them insurrections.
[01:41:32]  Before January 6th.
[01:41:33]  Before January 6th.
[01:41:34]  Not only did you do that, you have tweets about it.
[01:41:37]  You're saying that before January 6th happened, I referred to the George Floyd advice as an insurrection.
[01:41:40]  Yes, you did.
[01:41:41]  You said you're an insurrectionist.
[01:41:42]  You also said it with respect to Washington.
[01:41:45]  If you did do that, Tim, if you did do that, wouldn't you be duty-bound to also call January 6th insurrection under your then-existing standard?
[01:41:51]  Now, why not?
[01:41:52]  If you were willing to call it out before Jan 6th, why wouldn't you call Jan 6th an insurrection?
[01:41:56]  We're talking about two different circumstances.
[01:41:57]  I know we're talking about two different circumstances.
[01:41:59]  We're comparing them in your standard for one, where you were, before Jan 6, willing to call them insurrectionists.
[01:42:03]  You're presupposing that I challenge that.
[01:42:06]  Sorry, if you did call those things insurrections, were you wrong then?
[01:42:11]  If before January 6, I referred to people taking over city blocks as insurrections.
[01:42:18]  Were you wrong to do so?
[01:42:19]  In the context of January 6, no.
[01:42:22]  No. At the time, were you wrong?
[01:42:24]  No. And would you disavow your statements?
[01:42:25]  No, I would not.
[01:42:26]  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?
[01:42:40]  No. Why?
[01:42:41]  So what's more insurrection-y about the Portland situation or the courthouse in Portland versus Jan 6?
[01:42:47]  How long were the city blocks in various cities occupied?
[01:42:51]  It depends.
[01:42:52]  Several weeks to months.
[01:42:54]  So it's the length of it?
[01:42:55]  That's length?
[01:42:56]  Is it the difference in insurrection?
[01:42:57]  Well, first, you're presupposing that I used the word insurrection.
[01:43:00]  You did, but we're assuming that as a predicate.
[01:43:02]  Right. And I challenge that.
[01:43:04]  It may have been the case.
[01:43:05]  And I would argue this.
[01:43:06]  The term insurrection, as applied from January 6th on, was very specific.
[01:43:11]  The intention of individuals to stop an official proceeding to keep a president in power.
[01:43:16]  That was the definition of what insurrection was.
[01:43:19]  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.
[01:43:31]  And I met Republicans for continually avoiding it and doing nothing about it.
[01:43:34]  And Trump himself.
[01:43:35]  That being said, Trump himself.
[01:43:36]  I think Trump's strategy was let the left burn it down so I can win an election.
[01:43:40]  I think he was wrong to do so.
[01:43:41]  I think he should have invoked the Insurrection Act and crushed these motherfuckers and locked them in prison.
[01:43:45]  Which act?
[01:43:46]  Insurrection Act.
[01:43:46]  Yeah, but assuming that you did call it an insurrection beforehand...
[01:43:50]  Perhaps that's what you're confusing.
[01:43:51]  No, no, I'm not confused about that.
[01:43:53]  I understand the Insurrection Act could apply to non-insurrections.
[01:43:57]  I think that's where the confusion...
[01:43:59]  No, it is not, because I understand those nuances.
[01:44:02]  When I use the term insurrection, I have these...
[01:44:04]  I'm going to say very in-the-weeds debates about the term insurrection and what it means.
[01:44:08]  And so I try to look and use an originalist lens on what insurrection means.
[01:44:13]  But I'm using your standards.
[01:44:14]  I'm using your standards.
[01:44:15]  You called certain Black Lives Matter riots absolutely out of control.
[01:44:19]  And I also would call some of these things insurrection.
[01:44:20]  Let's clarify that.
[01:44:22]  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.
[01:44:32]  They don't define insurrection in the Insurrection Act, but there are a lot of circumstances, including what you just outlined.
[01:44:37]  Let's clarify for the purpose of what we're actually trying to discuss.
[01:44:40]  This word can be applied in different contexts.
[01:44:43]  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.
[01:44:55]  I believe that Donald Trump should have invoked the Insurrection Act.
[01:44:59]  And in that context, what they engaged in was insurrection.
[01:45:01]  Local law enforcement was not enforcing the law and was allowing far left extremists to use violence, firebombs and physical assault against individuals.
[01:45:09]  In the context of January 6th, they said, Democrats, the J6 committee.
[01:45:22]  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.
[01:45:28]  Exactly. So we can only apply the context of what the law does.
[01:45:32]  If Donald Trump were to have called in the National Guard on January 6th because he deemed an insurrection happening.
[01:45:36]  Would you call it an insurrection?
[01:45:37]  In that regard, I would say in that context, yes.
[01:45:40]  So understanding what we're talking about is a core element of what these debates always tend to be.
[01:45:45]  So again.
[01:45:47]  In the context of the Insurrection Act, it specifically refers to when local law enforcement doesn't uphold the law.
[01:45:52]  In reference to January 6th, it is a group of people trying to overthrow the government.
[01:45:56]  And that's how it's applied to the 14th Amendment.
[01:45:58]  So I would not say that the individuals in Portland were trying to overthrow the government necessarily.
[01:46:03]  It's a riot, just like J6 was.
[01:46:06]  I mean, they established an autonomous zone.
[01:46:07]  Certainly. And they took over police buildings.
[01:46:10]  In Oregon, they were trying to tear down the courthouses.
[01:46:13]  It was in Washington that they took over for weeks and they called it the CHAZ and then the CHOP.
[01:46:20]  Yeah, but wait a second, folks.
[01:46:21]  To me, that is...
[01:46:23]  How is that not an insurrection?
[01:46:24]  That's utterly an insurrection.
[01:46:26]  If you take over a police station, that's an insurrection.
[01:46:29]  If you take over the police station, that's an insurrection.
[01:46:30]  If you take over the police station, that's an insurrection.
[01:46:31]  What about the Capitol?
[01:46:34]  They weren't trying to seize the Capitol.
[01:46:38]  It has to be a permanent takeover of the police office?
[01:46:40]  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.
[01:46:52]  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...
[01:47:01]  We're removed by the Capitol Police.
[01:47:03]  Yeah, so I have a definition of insurrection that would include some things and exclude others.
[01:47:06]  It doesn't become insurrection simply because there's thousands of you who are like that individual there.
[01:47:12]  So, no, there was no plan that we're taking over the government.
[01:47:16]  There's no plan that we're going to remove Mike Pence.
[01:47:22]  There was no plan like that.
[01:47:23]  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.
[01:47:43]  I disagree with his assessment.
[01:47:43]  I don't think that it's like, if I'm sitting here, I'm like, now because I'm in power, I want to have more of this.
[01:47:50]  I do everything I can to remain as consistent as possible.
[01:47:53]  There are times that I've seen Trump do things that I say, this is wrong.
[01:47:57]  He did one of the, this week, this week.
[01:48:00]  Lindsey Graham is pretty pro-Israel.
[01:48:10]  I don't care.
[01:48:11]  Are you racist?
[01:48:13]  I'm not racist.
[01:48:14]  I know that you're racist.
[01:48:15]  Stop it.
[01:48:16]  Stop it.
[01:48:16]  I must be pro-Israel.
[01:48:17]  Whenever you heard me express that.
[01:48:19]  No, why would you assume that?
[01:48:21]  You say you're very pro-Israel.
[01:48:23]  No, actually, what I'm saying is you're just coming out there and saying because someone is pro-Israel, that means I like Lindsey Graham.

=== Why Exile Felons? (08:54) ===

[01:48:30]  I didn't say that because some...
[01:48:31]  Oh, no, no.
[01:48:32]  It was tongue-in-cheek.
[01:48:33]  Don't act offended.
[01:48:34]  No, what I'm saying is you're just drawing these conclusions.
[01:48:36]  No one's drawing conclusions.
[01:48:38]  Left in general, I've...
[01:48:39]  I've never been racist enough to be a Democrat.
[01:48:41]  Let's try this.
[01:48:42]  Let's just try this.
[01:48:43]  How do we reconcile that problem I already mentioned, that the NICS forms requires you to waive your Fifth Amendment rights?
[01:48:50]  For the military.
[01:48:51]  No, no, no, no.
[01:48:51]  This is anyone in the United States who wants to buy a gun.
[01:48:55]  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?
[01:49:10]  No one thinks that these rights are absolute in all circumstances.
[01:49:13]  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.
[01:49:23]  I disagree.
[01:49:24]  I think they protect that.
[01:49:25]  So you think that felons and mentally incompetent people have a right to possess weapons?
[01:49:31]  Under the Second Amendment, yes.
[01:49:34]  Because it clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
[01:49:37]  It doesn't say unless we at some point deem them to be...
[01:49:40]  Now, to be fair, to be fair, there is the argument of due process.
[01:49:43]  The reason why felons can't have guns is because the Constitution guarantees your due process.
[01:49:46]  All rights can be curtailed.
[01:49:48]  Following due process.
[01:49:48]  You think that felons should have the right to have guns, but that green card holders don't have the right to speak?
[01:49:53]  No, no, I just literally said due process can strip you of your rights.
[01:49:56]  You can have your rights of freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, everything curtailed if you are in violation of law.
[01:50:02]  In fact, you can be enslaved.
[01:50:03]  The 13th Amendment explicitly allows you to be a slave if you jaywalk.
[01:50:08]  I'm not kidding.
[01:50:08]  I know, I know.
[01:50:09]  Pull it up, pull it up.
[01:50:10]  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.
[01:50:17]  Granted, those things don't get enforced that way.
[01:50:20]  Well, would you consider, like...
[01:50:22]  Let me ask you a question.
[01:50:22]  Do you think that someone who gets a green card should have more rights than a felon?
[01:50:29]  Depends on which.
[01:50:30]  Because I actually think it's such an immoral position.
[01:50:32]  To me, I look at it as someone coming from the right, and I say to myself, look...
[01:50:37]  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.
[01:50:47]  I came in here before and I said, what is accepted protocol during the show here?
[01:50:51]  Because I'm a visitor here in Tim Pool's studio.
[01:50:54]  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.
[01:51:01]  And as you would agree, it's his right.
[01:51:02]  If I'm his kid, though, in that case, if his kid is now...
[01:51:07]  He grows up and is 12 years old, 10 years old, and he says, I'm going to no longer support you any longer.
[01:51:16]  We would say that that is something that could be criminal.
[01:51:20]  Let me give you what you want.
[01:51:21]  I do agree.
[01:51:22]  American citizens have more rights than green card.
[01:51:24]  Well, thank you.
[01:51:24]  I do agree with that.
[01:51:25]  Well, thank God we got to that.
[01:51:27]  But I want to be specific.
[01:51:28]  Even felons.
[01:51:29]  Even felons.
[01:51:29]  They're not coextensive, right?
[01:51:31]  So I think felons have some rights that...
[01:51:34]  Green card holders don't have, and I think green card holders have some rights that felons don't have.
[01:51:36]  For example, felons don't necessarily have free speech rights to go and protest and stuff, right?
[01:51:41]  So, to be clear, I think they're not overlapping.
[01:51:44]  But these are ways in which, importantly and critically, green card holders and aliens have different rights.
[01:51:49]  For example, you can't exile a U.S. citizen if they commit a crime.
[01:51:52]  You can exile— You should be able to.
[01:51:54]  You think that you should be able to exile American citizens out of the country?
[01:51:57]  I would prefer it instead of capital punishment.
[01:51:59]  So I think capital punishment is worse than exile.
[01:52:03]  I don't trust the state to kill people.
[01:52:06]  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.
[01:52:12]  They would never believe it.
[01:52:13]  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.
[01:52:19]  Why don't you just be against both?
[01:52:20]  You can be against both.
[01:52:22]  What do you do with these people then?
[01:52:23]  Keep them in prison.
[01:52:24]  Who's paying for it?
[01:52:26]  I guess we are.
[01:52:27]  So you're asking people who want to...
[01:52:28]  So here's me looking at a group of people and they say, that person raped and murdered a child, they should die.
[01:52:33]  And I say, no, no, no, no, no.
[01:52:34]  We don't trust the state.
[01:52:36]  I'm glad you say that, but...
[01:52:37]  I don't like that person.
[01:52:38]  I think what they did is evil beyond belief.
[01:52:40]  And if we were to catch...
[01:52:42]  Let's unleash them on the world.
[01:52:43]  Let's throw them to other countries?
[01:52:45]  Yeah. Well, to other countries, my point is...
[01:52:49]  Wait, do you want to release child rapists into Cuba?
[01:52:51]  So the argument would be...
[01:52:54]  That presupposition is that you trust the government explicitly and implicitly.
[01:52:57]  Do you?
[01:52:58]  I don't trust the government.
[01:52:59]  So if Donald Trump came to you and said Mahmoud Khalil is a rapist and a child murderer, would you say, okay, Trump, you're right?
[01:53:06]  I'd say prove it.
[01:53:07]  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.
[01:53:17]  Wait, no, proof beyond a reasonable doubt we have?
[01:53:19]  Yes. Yeah, put it in front of a jury, and it'll be a conviction.
[01:53:23]  Okay, so my point is, I don't believe the state should be able to murder people, with certain exceptions.
[01:53:34]  That is, a police officer literally watching someone about to rape and murder a child uses force to stop it.
[01:53:39]  Yeah, but that's self-defense, and that's imminent requirements.
[01:53:42]  The issue I take largely is...
[01:53:44]  In many circumstances, we see that—I don't want to get into a death penalty debate, but here we go.
[01:53:48]  But why do you want to send child rapists to other countries?
[01:53:51]  Because they're not child rapists.
[01:53:51]  The issue is— That's the example you gave.
[01:53:53]  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.
[01:54:03]  Neither do I. So then why do you want to send exile a bunch of fucking hardened criminals to other countries?
[01:54:08]  Because you're assuming they're hardened criminals, and that's not my point.
[01:54:10]  And I'm not saying to other countries.
[01:54:12]  I mean, what country would I...
[01:54:12]  Or would you exile them?
[01:54:13]  Fucking Antarctica?
[01:54:15]  Yeah. Let me ask you a question.
[01:54:18]  Are you for the death penalty?
[01:54:19]  No. So you would ask other people to pay the bill for child rapists?
[01:54:24]  And what if they say, we refuse to do that, we're going to kill them?
[01:54:27]  I would say you can't.
[01:54:28]  What if they outvote you and they do it anyway?
[01:54:30]  I guess they would outvote me and they would kill them.
[01:54:31]  I feel like...
[01:54:33]  The issue I take is not, of course, in defense of evil.
[01:54:36]  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.
[01:54:44]  Well, actually, I would say the left largely doesn't.
[01:54:46]  But a lot of people on the left, the liberals, and almost all of conservatives do agree.
[01:54:51]  If someone's about to engage in great bodily harm, you have the right to stop it.
[01:54:55]  Yeah, self-defense.
[01:54:55]  But here we're talking about someone who's been duly convicted, whether it's murder, murder of a child, rape of a child.
[01:55:01]  I don't want to exile them and make them so they're free.
[01:55:06]  But then that's like the death penalty.
[01:55:07]  Do they not have any food there?
[01:55:09]  Do they have servants there?
[01:55:10]  So you're killing them by banishing them to a place where there's no...
[01:55:14]  Maybe. You're in favor of the death penalty by starvation and exposure.
[01:55:20]  Maybe. No, you're not!
[01:55:22]  No, no, no.
[01:55:22]  I'm saying maybe they'll die.
[01:55:23]  Yeah, maybe.
[01:55:24]  Okay, but should we be...
[01:55:27]  Okay, so...
[01:55:28]  Maybe they'll die.
[01:55:29]  I can't believe I got the liberal arguing for the death penalty.
[01:55:32]  I'm against both exile and I'm against a U.S. citizen and I'm against...
[01:55:38]  Well, fair point.
[01:55:39]  I'll concede to you this.
[01:55:40]  Exile is much more difficult in today's age because there's national boundaries everywhere.
[01:55:44]  But my argument would be penal colony is preferable to— That's a penalty?
[01:55:48]  But then you're paying for it anyway, right?
[01:55:50]  We'll put it this way.
[01:55:51]  Perhaps we actually would agree largely that we want life imprisonment.
[01:55:53]  We just disagree on the extent of how we actually implement it.
[01:55:56]  Should it be in America or should it be in a penal colony in some horrible place?
[01:56:00]  But then it's just like— Maybe it's not a horrible place.
[01:56:02]  Maybe it's just you don't get the luxuries of society.
[01:56:05]  I'm not saying nice.
[01:56:06]  But I've got to be honest.
[01:56:07]  Like, an island with a 20-mile-star comfort— This is a good drink, bro.
[01:56:10]  The expenditures are good.
[01:56:10]  Yeah. I don't trust the government.
[01:56:13]  And I don't like the idea that innocent people are killed.
[01:56:15]  And there is a high percentage, I think it's over 1% of death penalty cases end up being innocent people.
[01:56:22]  And that's horrifying.
[01:56:22]  And I appreciate that about you and I respect that.
[01:56:25]  I want to move to one issue then.
[01:56:27]  If you care about due process and you care about the innocent being faced with consequences they don't deserve, can't you condemn?
[01:56:33]  The alien enemies act deportations where these guys, they're not even given a hearing.
[01:56:37]  They're just being thrown into a slave colony in El Salvador.
[01:56:41]  How can you say that you're okay?
[01:56:42]  You want to make sure that we have this robust process where some of these people are claiming they're trying to flee Trenaragua.
[01:56:48]  That's bad.
[01:56:49]  So the issue I see largely is you and I completely disagree as to the constitutionality of the arrest of Jenna Ellis.
[01:56:56]  Okay. But is that irreconcilable on every single issue?
[01:57:00]  Can't we have common ground on this?
[01:57:01]  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.

=== Asylees and Constitutional Violations (10:50) ===

[01:57:16]  They are they are violating the Constitution.
[01:57:18]  They do it every single day.
[01:57:20]  Donald Trump is responding with commensurate force against forces that were enacted against him and his his movement.
[01:57:25]  Against some people who could be innocent.
[01:57:28]  So my point is this.
[01:57:30]  First of all, they're all illegal immigrants.
[01:57:33]  We don't know that.
[01:57:34]  Do you know that?
[01:57:34]  There has been no argument presented and all information released by the administration as to those they deported.
[01:57:41]  We don't have a full accounting of everyone on there.
[01:57:43]  The government admitted in its oral argument.
[01:57:45]  And I agree with you on that.
[01:57:46]  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.
[01:57:53]  But even illegal immigrants under the INA have rights even to expedited removal procedures.
[01:57:57]  One thing that Trump is doing that Joe Biden didn't do is he extended expedited removal to its maximal scope.
[01:58:02]  Agreed. But here's my point.
[01:58:04]  Joe Biden created, and so did Obama.
[01:58:07]  There's paths to legality in the United States that some would argue are extra-legal, notably DACA.
[01:58:13]  That's not a congressionally approved action.
[01:58:15]  That was an executive order.
[01:58:17]  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.
[01:58:29]  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.
[01:58:35]  Certainly you can want to flee Africa, but Brazil is awesome.
[01:58:40]  And Mexico is awesome.
[01:58:41]  But asylee status is based on whether you're persecuted.
[01:58:43]  And you can be persecuted in Brazil.
[01:58:44]  You can be persecuted in Africa.
[01:58:45]  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.
[01:58:52]  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.
[01:59:02]  It's also not compliant with asylee law, where you have to stop at the first safe harbor state.
[01:59:07]  And so they no longer have...
[01:59:09]  Our asylee when they get here.
[01:59:11]  But real quick, my point is that you asked me about Donald Trump's deportation of Trinidad Aragua and...
[01:59:17]  Alleged. Alleged.
[01:59:18]  My argument is we need transparency on the issue so long as the Trump administration does.
[01:59:22]  That's my biggest criticism.
[01:59:24]  My criticism of Mahmoud Khalil and the other protesters is saying they align with Hamas for having opinions that are critical of Israel is ridiculous.
[01:59:31]  Just because you don't like what Israel is doing doesn't mean you support Hamas.
[01:59:34]  That being said, if he did support Hamas, you can argue that, but still.
[01:59:37]  Wait, so if he didn't...
[01:59:38]  If he didn't support Hamas, he would be against his deportation.
[01:59:40]  Clarify. What do you mean?
[01:59:41]  So if he didn't support Hamas, and by your lights, he just supported...
[01:59:45]  I don't know that he supported Hamas.
[01:59:46]  No. Right.
[01:59:47]  So assume that he didn't support Hamas under your lights, whatever that is.
[01:59:49]  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.
[01:59:56]  But this is green card holder.
[01:59:57]  So green card holder where you said there is a difference between Hamas support and Palestinian support.
[02:00:00]  So in the situation in which...
[02:00:01]  In the situation in which...
[02:00:03]  Don't care.
[02:00:03]  Deport him.
[02:00:04]  He's not a legal green card holder.
[02:00:05]  Let me say it one more time.
[02:00:08]  Obama and Biden used special provisions executive order and outright violations of the law to bring in millions of people.
[02:00:16]  And Donald Trump isn't even going that far in the deportations.
[02:00:20]  There are questions and criticisms of the Trendy Aragua deportations.
[02:00:25]  There's judges' hearings over these things.
[02:00:26]  I demand, I will say right now, I demand transparency from the Trump administration.
[02:00:30]  I do not accept a blanket, trust us, we just did it.
[02:00:32]  They're in court saying, we don't even need to tell the court.
[02:00:35]  They're saying, we don't even need to tell.
[02:00:36]  Right, but they would need to tell an administrative procedure.
[02:00:41]  Are you talking about the alien enemies?
[02:00:42]  No, no, well that's an APA claim, the one in the D.C. Circuit system.
[02:00:47]  They're saying in court, we don't have to even tell you when the flights took off, even though they're parading, they're tweeting.
[02:00:53]  Marco Rubio is retweeting this.
[02:00:55]  Oops. And so let's just call that commensurate.
[02:00:58]  So what's good for the goose, good for the gander?
[02:01:00]  No, no, it's all bad.
[02:01:01]  It's all bad.
[02:01:04]  It's not good for the goose, good for the gander.
[02:01:05]  It's remedying the problem that they illegally made.
[02:01:08]  That's the point Tim is making.
[02:01:09]  People could be innocent.
[02:01:11]  Indeed. And the problem is Obama and Biden's fault that we are in a conflict situation with seemingly no resolution that will satisfy anybody.
[02:01:20]  Why don't you pass a law then?
[02:01:21]  Republicans control Congress.
[02:01:23]  I agree!
[02:01:24]  If you want to rescind asylee status or say that we have no procedures or whatever, pass a law.
[02:01:29]  It's very clear under established Supreme Court precedent they have no right to be here.
[02:01:33]  I said the same thing to what Obama and Biden did.
[02:01:36]  Instead of opening the southern border and saying, just claim you're an asylum seeker and we'll let it go.
[02:01:40]  You know what I got a problem with?
[02:01:42]  Donald Trump deporting alleged trend to Aragua?
[02:01:45]  I am still...
[02:01:47]  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.
[02:01:54]  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.
[02:02:03]  They've released partial lists, you're correct.
[02:02:05]  But when the news report comes out about a barber or this runner being deported because of criminals...
[02:02:11]  Do not care.
[02:02:13]  Do not exploit the goodwill of this country.
[02:02:15]  Do not lie to our faces that you need asylum when you're coming here for economic status.
[02:02:20]  But more importantly, I would prefer it didn't happen.
[02:02:22]  I don't want to see a gay barber in El Salvador.
[02:02:24]  He might have been persecuted.
[02:02:25]  Gay people are persecuted in the country.
[02:02:27]  He could have stayed in Mexico.
[02:02:28]  Mexico's awesome.
[02:02:29]  Yeah, but that's a substantive claim because there could be reasons why it doesn't count as a safe country under the law.
[02:02:33]  But even if it does, because that would be an argument that says his asylum claim is a loser.
[02:02:38]  I don't care.
[02:02:40]  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?
[02:02:51]  No, no, no, no, no, no.
[02:02:52]  From the death penalty?
[02:02:53]  No, no, no, no, no, no.
[02:02:54]  You are absolutely misunderstanding.
[02:02:56]  No, from the death penalty, sorry.
[02:02:57]  The death penalty is that evil people get what's coming to them, but the state...
[02:03:01]  Can be included among evil people.
[02:03:03]  It's not that I want to protect those people.
[02:03:05]  It's that I am concerned the innocent will die because the state wants innocent people to die.
[02:03:10]  And in order to protect the innocent, you're protecting...
[02:03:12]  Bad people.
[02:03:12]  Bad people, right.
[02:03:13]  As Benjamin Franklin and Blackstone said, it is better that the guilty go free than the innocent suffer.
[02:03:17]  Well, there you go.
[02:03:17]  You are not innocent when you illegally enter this country.
[02:03:19]  But this guy is not alleged to have illegally entered the country.
[02:03:23]  Yes, he is.
[02:03:23]  He's alleged to have presented himself at a border for inspection admission and claimed asylum.
[02:03:27]  That's... Exploitation.
[02:03:28]  What do you mean exploitation?
[02:03:29]  Joe Biden opened the border to tens of millions of people and just said, we know they're not.
[02:03:34]  He opened the border.
[02:03:35]  Indeed. Well, you take a look at these two administrations, how different they are.
[02:03:39]  Within a month of Trump getting in, border crossings dropped to a few thousand.
[02:03:43]  They've got MRAPs and tanks now patrolling the border.
[02:03:45]  No one's coming across anymore.
[02:03:47]  What happened to all the asylum seekers?
[02:03:48]  They don't need asylum anymore now that Trump's saying you've got to go through the port legally?
[02:03:51]  They're not going to the border in Mexicali and Clexico and saying, I'm an asylum seeker.
[02:03:56]  They just stopped coming.
[02:03:56]  You're lying.
[02:03:58]  He's deporting more people than Trump is.
[02:04:01]  He deported a lot of people.
[02:04:02]  But here's a fact.
[02:04:03]  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.
[02:04:10]  And the CBP under Biden were instructed to facilitate that.
[02:04:14]  And there were people driving vans who knew what was happening.
[02:04:16]  You got a problem with it?
[02:04:17]  Take it up with The View and Dr.
[02:04:18]  Phil. They're the ones who reported.
[02:04:19]  Yeah, so first of all, Dr. Phil is a fucking, well...
[02:04:22]  And blame the head of the CBP union who said it on camera.
[02:04:26]  I have people in my life who like Dr. Phil's content, so I'll save the aspersion.
[02:04:31]  Listen, there's very big differences in immigration policy, no doubt.
[02:04:35]  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.
[02:04:42]  Things should be done the right way, not the wrong way.
[02:04:44]  If you want to have summary removals, then pass a law that allows for that.
[02:04:50]  Because you took issue with DACA.
[02:04:51]  Right? You took issue with DACA?
[02:04:52]  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.
[02:05:01]  Be consistent.
[02:05:02]  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.
[02:05:15]  Biden did a whole, so, you know, imagine it this way.
[02:05:18]  There's a great tower that every administration puts blocks on top of.
[02:05:21]  It is growing greater every single time.
[02:05:23]  We add laws, we add executive orders, we rarely rescind them.
[02:05:26]  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.
[02:05:33]  How do we deal with a mass influx of 10, I'm going to use the low number, 10 million non-citizens?
[02:05:39]  Donald Trump says first...
[02:05:41]  Over a year?
[02:05:42]  You think it's over...
[02:05:42]  Four years.
[02:05:43]  Okay. Some estimate 20. I'm using the low estimate.
[02:05:46]  A lot of these are re-catches, and they're not...
[02:05:48]  We don't think that 10 million over four years actually...
[02:05:50]  No, no.
[02:05:51]  Some people estimate 20 million.
[02:05:52]  You think 20 million in the last year?
[02:05:53]  I don't.
[02:05:53]  I'm using the low estimate of 10 million.
[02:05:55]  So the ranges are 10 to 20 million.
[02:05:57]  Here we're calculating estimated border crossings aren't necessarily coextensive with individuals who are coming and staying here permanently.
[02:06:03]  Indeed, it could be more.
[02:06:05]  Because apprehensions and interactions don't...
[02:06:07]  I mean, some people got through.
[02:06:09]  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...
[02:06:20]  Republicans are doing great on that.
[02:06:21]  On the front of the census, Republicans are doing fantastic.
[02:06:24]  In the next census, they're going to...
[02:06:25]  It's not going to be enough if Kamala wins Michigan, Wisconsin.
[02:06:29]  So they're doing fine.
[02:06:30]  There's not a big threat to the allocation, the representation of the illegal immigrants.
[02:06:34]  It certainly is.
[02:06:34]  Saying that...
[02:06:35]  Republicans may win does not change the fact that California gets an extra vote for the president through non-citizenship.
[02:06:40]  But Texas has a shit ton of...
[02:06:42]  Indeed. No.
[02:06:43]  None of it.
[02:06:43]  Nobody should have that.
[02:06:44]  I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat.
[02:06:45]  It's not really distorting our democracy in that way based on...
[02:06:48]  It is.
[02:06:48]  How can you say that if it's...
[02:06:49]  You don't know, right?
[02:06:51]  Is it really the case that Democrat states have more illegal immigrants than Republican?
[02:06:55]  They're called sanctuary states and they don't enforce...
[02:06:57]  I thought the argument was always that Republicans are bearing a bigger brunt.
[02:07:00]  Republican states have to...
[02:07:01]  The border states, Texas...
[02:07:03]  California has more illegal immigrants than other states.
[02:07:05]  Blue states are sanctuary states that don't enforce immigration law.
[02:07:09]  And that's why Greg Abbott was sending them there.
[02:07:11]  And that's why I said it was a stupid thing to do.
[02:07:12]  Absolutely. It was funny in a lot of sense.
[02:07:18]  Like, the Martha's Vineyard thing was funny.
[02:07:20]  If these people want to be a sanctuary, then we will transport them and they can provide aid and assistance.
[02:07:24]  The problem is, as I've said, all this does is bolster their numbers in the census and give them extra votes for president.
[02:07:30]  All of these things are issues.
[02:07:32]  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.
[02:07:38]  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.

=== Condemning Constitutional Crises (06:32) ===

[02:07:46]  But the left did similarly drastic things.
[02:07:49]  So what we're getting is two sides arguing God is on my side effectively.
[02:07:52]  I mean that figuratively, not literally.
[02:07:53]  The left says we are morally right in how we've done this.
[02:07:56]  You are morally wrong for how you do it.
[02:07:58]  The right is saying the inverse.
[02:07:59]  The question is who will muster up the political might to actually succeed?
[02:08:02]  Abraham Lincoln arrested the Maryland legislature, large portions of it, for being sympathetic to the Confederates.
[02:08:07]  He suspended habeas corpus.
[02:08:08]  No one calls him a dictator except for the Confederates.
[02:08:11]  Today, it's.
[02:08:13]  I think he was a tyrant.
[02:08:16]  I think Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents we ever had.
[02:08:19]  He ended up being in the perfect place to do a necessary thing, which was ultimately free the slaves.
[02:08:24]  So if Trump violates a court order...
[02:08:25]  He was a tyrant in the way he handled it.
[02:08:27]  So if Trump violates a court order, like Lincoln is alleged to have done...
[02:08:30]  No, no, no.
[02:08:31]  Not every court order is a legal court order.
[02:08:33]  Not every court order is not...
[02:08:35]  I just want commitments, because I think if we're being consistent, if you're calling him a tyrant...
[02:08:38]  Not every court order is a legal court order.
[02:08:40]  Federal appellate court.
[02:08:42]  Not every court order from a federal appellate court.
[02:08:43]  Only the Supreme Court?
[02:08:44]  No. Even the Supreme Court could, in theory, issue an illegal order.
[02:08:47]  That's right.
[02:08:48]  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.
[02:09:03]  Would you agree with me?
[02:09:04]  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.
[02:09:14]  Would you agree that's an illegal order?
[02:09:16]  I agree with Marbury versus Madison, which it's emphatically the providence and duty of the judicial department to say what it was.
[02:09:20]  It has to be a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous term.
[02:09:23]  According to Trump.
[02:09:24]  So, I'm not saying they're overturned.
[02:09:25]  Marbury versus Madison just gives the power to the court to overturn the statute.
[02:09:29]  They're not overturning the statute.
[02:09:30]  If they read a statute as the inverse...
[02:09:32]  And if the Supreme Court orders Trump to do something and he defies it...
[02:09:58]  You're not going to commit to condemning that action of him defying the Supreme Court.
[02:10:03]  Oh, on a political level or as far as a legal level?
[02:10:05]  You ask me in any given hypothetical.
[02:10:07]  You ask me in any given hypothetical.
[02:10:09]  What I will tell you is this.
[02:10:11]  I'll tell you this.
[02:10:13]  As far as on a political level, I think that it's probably very foolish for him to disregard that.
[02:10:17]  Would you condemn him?
[02:10:18]  Would I condemn him?
[02:10:20]  You can't give me a hypothetical order.
[02:10:22]  I can't do that.
[02:10:23]  It really depends on the scenario.
[02:10:25]  There are many scenarios where I could see condemning Trump.
[02:10:27]  I have condemned him in certain scenarios where I thought what he was doing was politically wrong or was unethical or illegal.
[02:10:33]  I don't have a problem condemning him.
[02:10:36]  I think that he has done phenomenal work as our president.
[02:10:39]  He is an exceptional president.
[02:10:41]  He's a degenerate.
[02:10:44]  You can try and label him whatever you want.
[02:10:46]  He's a lawless person.
[02:10:46]  He is the most efficient.
[02:10:48]  The first hundred days of this presidency, we're only 75 days in, and he's been exceptional.
[02:10:53]  But I still can condemn him if he makes a mistake.
[02:10:56]  The same way I made a joke about Lindsey Graham, I'll condemn him if he does something wrong.
[02:11:00]  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.
[02:11:09]  Not for that.
[02:11:10]  The personal stuff is whatever.
[02:11:12]  It's for his violence on the Constitution and the rule of law and authoritarianism.
[02:11:15]  That's why he's...
[02:11:16]  Oh, okay.
[02:11:17]  I mean, I feel like it's a bit of a stretch to use the word degenerate.
[02:11:20]  I don't mind if you want to criticize him for your view on that.
[02:11:23]  It's degenerating the Constitution and the rule of law in the country.
[02:11:25]  I was going to say, like, if Trump...
[02:11:26]  Absolutely not.
[02:11:27]  This constitutional crisis we have right now is 100% the exclusive fault of the judiciary.
[02:11:32]  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.
[02:11:41]  And there's a national order, there's a universal order which is affecting the entire country.
[02:11:46]  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.
[02:12:00]  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?
[02:12:06]  Has he said, you know what, you wrote your stupid decision?
[02:12:11]  Essentially, yes.
[02:12:12]  No, instead of doing that, instead of doing that, he very artfully gave deference to the court by saying, you know what?
[02:12:20]  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.
[02:12:32]  He doesn't do that.
[02:12:33]  Instead, he very artfully avoids a constitutional crisis by saying, you know what?
[02:12:37]  I'm going to...
[02:12:38]  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.
[02:12:50]  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.
[02:12:57]  We've definitely gone over.
[02:12:58]  Yeah, I'm sorry.
[02:12:59]  No, no, it's absolutely fantastic.
[02:13:00]  This has been wonderful.
[02:13:01]  You guys are great.
[02:13:01]  I really do appreciate it.
[02:13:02]  I think this is time flew and I'd love to keep going.
[02:13:06]  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.
[02:13:19]  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.
[02:13:29]  Everybody actually agrees with that.
[02:13:31]  The difference is everybody's view of moral and just is dramatically different.
[02:13:33]  So there are large factions of a moral worldview.
[02:13:36]  There's two principal ones.
[02:13:37]  They're fighting for what they want, and they're going to do whatever they have to do to get it.
[02:13:41]  I don't know what that turns into, but that's where we're at.
[02:13:43]  So I don't know if you want to...
[02:13:44]  Give a final thought and shout something out before we wrap?
[02:13:46]  Yeah, sure.
[02:13:46]  No, thanks so much for having me on.
[02:13:48]  Thank you, Joe.
[02:13:48]  It's always fun when we get into it, and we certainly do.
[02:13:51]  I think we covered some topics, and so I really appreciate being on.
[02:13:54]  Peace Goes Hour on YouTube and Peace Go Litty on Twitter.
[02:13:57]  Super appreciate it, and again, always love the debates and discussions.

=== Enjoyable Law and Politics Chat (00:40) ===

[02:14:01]  Absolutely. It's fantastic.
[02:14:02]  And I'm Joe Neerman, a.k.a.
[02:14:04]  GoodLogic. I urge everyone to check out my podcast, which actually starts nightly right after Tim Cast finishes his.
[02:14:10]  I need him to start feeding him over to me like I'm very hamly.
[02:14:14]  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.
[02:14:25]  So that's GoodLogic, L-A-W-G-I-C, and on Twitter, I'm at TheFollowingPro.
[02:14:30]  Thank you so much for having me.
[02:14:30]  It was a great conversation.
[02:14:31]  I really enjoyed talking to both of you.
[02:14:33]  Yeah, this is wonderful.
[02:14:34]  For everybody else, go check out Jeremy Hambly.
[02:14:35]  He's live now, Rumble.com.
[02:14:37]  We got the link in the chat.
[02:14:39]  Thanks for hanging out.