Ezra Levant details a four-hour Federal Court hearing where Rebel News sued David Lametti over his attempt to delete a government Twitter account, reactivated mid-proceedings. Lawyers Williamson and Nicol argued his actions violated the Access to Information Act, Library and Archives Canada Act, and free speech laws, exposing contradictions in the government’s "verbal promise" defense. The case follows Rebel News’ past legal wins against Trudeau’s administration, including blocked journalists and censored officials. Meanwhile, a report from Eagle Pass, Texas, reveals migrants crossing the Rio Grande for as little as 50 pesos, with Border Patrol agents unable to stop repeat attempts due to policies favoring surrender over enforcement. The episode underscores systemic failures in press freedom and border security, raising concerns about accountability and long-term economic strain on North American citizens. [Automatically generated summary]
Just finished a four-hour hearing in the case of Rebel News versus David LeMetty.
We're trying to stop him from destroying government records.
So we're going to have a debrief with the lawyer, Chad Williamson, one of two lawyers Rebel News had.
That's a head.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
And that really makes a difference for us because we don't get any government money in its shows.
So we rely on you.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, we battle David Lamedi in court for four hours.
We'll have the debrief with our lawyer, Chad Williamson.
It's February 13th.
And this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Well, I am sitting in the office of the lawyer, Chad Williamson.
We had another lawyer on the file, too.
Scott Nicol was his name.
And literally minutes ago, we ended the four-hour legal battle in the federal court of Canada.
As you may know, we are suing David LeMeni, the former and disgraced justice minister under Justin Trudeau, the one who invoked the Emergencies Act illegally, unconstitutionally.
And shortly after it was ruled to be unconstitutional and illegal, he quit parliament in a huff and he decamped for a private law firm.
But on his way out the door, he tried to delete his Twitter account.
But when he's the government minister and he's got that little gray check mark, that is not his account.
That is the government's account, the public account, the government account.
And that is actually against various laws, including laws touching on the library and archives of this Canada.
Well, we went to court right away.
We hired Chad and Scott and they worked all weekend and we had an emergency application to get a judge to put it back up.
LeMetti bent the knee and he put it back up and said, oh, you caught me.
You caught me with the hand in the cookie jar, but you know, I put it back up.
Can I please slink away now?
And we said no.
And today is actually the third hearing in two weeks.
And here to talk about it is one of the two lawyers representing Rebel News.
Chad, how are you doing?
I'm doing okay, Ezra.
It's been a grueling two weeks and a pretty crazy day in court today hearing a cauldron of peculiarities.
I think I called it on the record coming from respondents counsel.
I think there's four government lawyers there arguing that LeMetti, whoa, he's a private citizen, that it's not a government account, and that the attorney general has no control over the people that control the account.
And, you know, that reactivating his Twitter account, well, that's not an admission that he did anything wrong, of course.
And then also saying, well, you know, we don't want to consent to an order from the court that we not destroy any government records.
We'll just give you a lawyer, a little undertaking, a little promise to do that.
And it was a long day.
We were appeared before the Chief Justice Crampton himself, who's a noted and esteemed justice has been in his position for at least a decade, a very smart guy.
Long, excruciating submissions today.
Scott made most of them for us.
And I thought that they were very, very precise, concise, but they're also lengthy because there are so many different issues.
We've got the Access to Information Act, Ezra.
got the Library and Archives Canada Act.
We've got charter submissions concerning rebels' freedom of the press and freedom of expression as well.
And it's so difficult to touch on all that stuff when you only have about an hour to do so.
So Scott did a great job.
I kind of jumped in where I could.
Then the respondents got to go and it was just bizarre.
It was quite bizarre.
You know, here's the two things that struck me the most.
We've had a couple of hearings on this matter already before a different judge, and they were about an hour.
They were less than an hour.
So surprise number one, it's the chief judge himself, the big boss, the absolute big boss himself, which I thought about and I thought that makes sense because if you're suing the justice minister, if you're alleging that the former attorney general, lawyer, law professor, and the top lawyer in the country broke the law, you need a very senior judge with a lot of gravity to make that.
You don't want a judge who's just appointed.
And if you're going to weigh for or against him, you need a serious, sober-minded judge, a smart judge, also a judge who can weigh how's this going to look in terms of the rule of law?
Do we let a judge, a former justice minister off the hook because he's politically connected?
Or are we actually going to rule against him?
If you take on a justice minister, you better have a weighty guy to do it.
So I thought, you know, there's a lot of politics in this case, and they put the big boss on it.
I don't know exactly what to make of it other than they realize this is a big case.
I wasn't expecting that, to be honest with you.
Oh, no.
Me neither.
We see in a litany of previous litigation going back four years that have had to do with civil rights, we've seen relatively, maybe not junior, but relatively unknown judges presiding over fairly wide, wide-reaching and monumental cases.
So again, I was shocked.
It's starting to make a little bit more sense upon further reflection.
That's why I think these debriefs are so important.
I think the second thing that struck me, and we've already alluded to it, is the first two hearings were less than an hour.
This was supposed to be about an hour.
In fact, when some of the lawyers, oh, about half an hour, Your Honor, will only be about half an hour.
Well, it turned into four hours.
And it was a little long.
I mean, I got to answer my pants.
I can't sit for four hours.
But the judge did, and he asked a lot of questions.
So you got a combination of the most senior judge in the entire federal court, literally the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, plus four hours.
This is going to be a rigorous decision.
And I thought it was going pretty well for us.
In the end, though, it almost felt like he was going to let LeMetti get away with, like, you say, oh, Pinky Swear, I swear I won't do anything again, which is much different than a court order.
A court order comes with a certain, not just a majesty, but if you mess around with the court order, you could be in contempt of court.
Whereas an undertaking, a pinky swear, doesn't really cut a lot of ice given that this same justice Justice Minister, the one who broke the law by trying to delete his account.
I think what's important to remember when we look at this case is this all started because LeMetti or somebody acting on his behalf deleted his Twitter account or deactivated it.
There's evidence before the court that if it's deactivated for 30 days, they start trashing the data and it's gone.
We call it the pipeline of destruction.
You made a great comment online that if this was a drinking game where if every time Scott said the pipeline of destruction, well, we'd all be having a lot of fun towards the end of that because of how much we're trying to impress upon the court that David LeMetti basically put his Twitter account in the bin and the garbage man was on the way to come and pick up the trash.
And they argued, oh, well, don't you worry.
You don't need a court order now because it's against the law to delete it.
Well, yeah, that's the whole point.
That's the whole reason we're here is because David LeMetti already broke the law.
And you're saying, oh, you don't, you know, fine, you caught us.
We just pinky swear we won't do it again.
But then later on, one of his lawyers, who I'll use his pronouns, Mr. Grossman, he, him, he argued, well, once we've preserved the records with Library and Archives Canada, Mr. LeMetti can delete it all he likes because he's a private person.
He's not bound by the government anymore.
So he basically said, ha ha, we are going to delete it.
Now, he later sort of backed away from that, but I couldn't believe they, they said some things that I found astonishing.
They said he's not a government actor, so he's not bound by government laws.
And Scott Nicol, your colleague, said, well, does that mean someone can be a private person, come into public life, do a lot of public decisions, and then just snap his fingers and quit and say, I'm a private person.
You can't come at me anymore.
I can do what I like.
And there were a lot of points I saw the judge really engrossed with.
But I don't know how it's going to go.
And you don't want to read too much in the judge's expression or even his questions.
But it really is on a knife's edge, I feel.
Yeah, and I do too.
I always try to get the pulse of the justice as we're going through the case.
And at the start, I really thought that we swung the needle in our favor.
I thought it was going quite well, as is often the case when we're against a bunch of government lawyers, especially when we think that we've got a really strong case.
I usually find that their submissions also help tip the scales in our favor because usually they're rambling, they're contradictory.
You know, they try to kind of reframe our argument for us in a way that is maybe sometimes disingenuous.
So I really felt that it was swinging our way.
But just towards the end, I just started getting the feeling that, hey, wait a second.
I think that the justice realizes, obviously, that this is a very, very important decision.
There is a ton of materials that have been put before the court.
He's going to have to go and review them because we've got this network and matrix of kind of conflicting acts of parliament that also have some obligations that are kind of intertwined.
We've got charter submissions.
You know, we've got obviously a whole bunch of evidence that there probably is going to be destruction if he goes and does it again.
But I heard arguments in there.
And again, it's like you're on the battlefield, right?
You don't know if that bullet whizzed why at one o'clock or at three o'clock or maybe if it was friendly fire.
But I could have sworn I heard respondents counsel for LeMetti say, well, you know, there's no obligation for him to keep his Twitter account now that he's a private citizen.
So in one breath, he's kind of saying, well, you know, he shouldn't have to keep his Twitter account.
He's not, you know, he's not, he's a private citizen now.
There shouldn't be any court order requiring him to keep his Twitter account.
But then by the end of the day, he's saying, well, hey, we'll totally keep his Twitter account up by way of undertaking.
So it was back and forth all day.
It was really hard to kind of wake up from all this and go, well, what the heck happened in that four and a half hours?
But I saw there's so much contradictory arguments coming from the respondents, people saying, oh, he's not a government guy.
And oh, the government has no control over these Twitter accounts.
Very, very, very, very strange day.
Whereas I think that the arguments from Scott and the arguments from Rebel and from yourself as an applicant, I actually thought that they were very dialed, very consistent.
And who knows, maybe that's going to be enough to win the day.
Well, we'll probably find out within a couple of days.
He really sounded like he wanted to get it out quickly.
I wouldn't be surprised if he releases it even this week, which is not normal.
I mean, this is an emergency injunction.
We're seeking the preservation of the Twitter accounts lest he delete them again.
I want to mention one more thing.
We got the court to allow a public Zoom link.
I mean, in Canada, courts are public, but the idea of having cameras in the court is a fairly novel one.
The COVID-19 scare really forced that into happening.
So what was exciting is that we emailed out our Rebel news viewers the link to log in.
And throughout the hearing, like for four solid hours, there was between 400 and 500 people at any one time.
You know, people were coming and going, but I would imagine cumulatively over the course of the four hours, a few thousand people watched, which is impressive to me because, I mean, there were some technical legal arguments and lawyers are not the most scintillating people around.
Judges, I don't know how they keep their attention span.
I mean, I grayed out a few times, I will admit, although I was tweeting the whole time.
If people want to see, we've got that website, stopthecoverup.com, because that's really what it is.
Why on earth would he delete his Twitter account?
And our lawyers, again, and again said, we're not asking for anything.
We're not asking for any money, obviously.
We're not asking for LeMetty to actually positively do anything.
It's not mandating him to do something.
It's prohibiting from doing one thing.
Don't delete it.
Like, just, hey, just don't delete it.
Okay.
No, We don't want a court order saying don't delete it.
We'll give you a pinky swear.
And it has all sorts of wiggle room.
It's so weird how hard they're fighting this.
One thing that I would say, and this is not necessarily to look at this whole thing with a rosy hue and that, well, even if we don't get the injunction, well, we won anyway.
But I really want to impress upon everybody that this started as a government minister and government MP leaving office and deleting his Twitter account.
In the span of two weeks, we've gone from basically the destruction of what we consider to be government records to Twitter is back up online.
And from my understanding, he's tweeting again.
So he's using the account.
Moreover, we've gotten them from going, well, you know, he shouldn't have to use the government account whatsoever to saying, hey, well, what can we promise to do that will satisfy the court that we're not going to delete the records?
And that's from absolutely nothing.
If Rebel did not bring this lawsuit, the 30 days would be gone.
The information would be toast.
So whether we get the injunction or not, we've moved the needle from deleted records to basically LeMetty's lawyers going, well, what can we do to try to make sure that the court doesn't come down on us too hard for what we did in the past?
So I think there is a real victory here.
If we get the injunction, that'll be real sweet.
But I think we've already made headway.
The Twitter account's back up.
People can access it.
And now we've got LeMetty's lawyers basically saying, hey, well, we'll make promises to preserve these records.
Cabinet Messages at Risk00:07:41
I think what's most interesting is the private so-called direct messages.
On Twitter, for those who don't know, you can have public tweets if you're basically like a town crier.
Here, yeah, here.
Here's what I got to say.
You want to tell the whole world.
you can make private direct messages to other Twitter followers that the world doesn't see.
So it's like having a contact book.
It's like Facebook.
You can send a private message to your friends on Facebook that the world doesn't see.
And that's, I think, what he's afraid of, because we saw during the public order inquiry into the invocation of martial law that LeMetty floated the idea of deploying tanks.
Now, whether it was a joke, haha, that's a joke or not, I don't know.
But we caught him saying it and it wasn't in a formal means of communication.
It was a text message.
So what direct messages did he make on Twitter?
Because Twitter is even better than a text message because it's instantly contacting all of your followers.
So a lot of pretty much everyone important in the country would follow David LeMetti.
Any cop, a lot of judges, any politician, like so many people, of course, they want to, quote, follow the justice minister.
So he doesn't even have to know your phone number.
He doesn't have to know your email address.
If you are a follower, he can send you a message.
I am certain in my bones that he has direct messages that touch on his conduct as a minister.
And what I'm afraid of and what I think he's afraid of, which is why he's fighting so hard, is he doesn't want litigants or the world to see any more of these send in a tank moments, especially now that his martial law was declared illegal and people are going to start suing.
And imagine if LeMetti has some private statements like, oh, get them all, or I don't care, you know, kill them all, let God sort them out.
That's a ridiculous example.
He wouldn't say that.
But some extreme thing that he would say thinking no one would see it because he was just going to delete his Twitter account.
And here we are saying, well, slow down a minute, Mister.
My favorite aspect of litigation and being a lawyer is what's called the discovery process.
Now, it's a little different in federal court.
It's a little different in this case.
But one thing that I've seen in acting against the government in cases for over four years is every time we start seeing the evidence, and I'm a lawyer, I always say, show me the evidence.
And I'm pretty much unwilling to make any definitive statements until I see the evidence.
Most of the time when we get the evidence, there's stuff in there, correspondence, buddy-buddy, internal messages that are that are pretty gross that might should probably be.
Walk or talk.
Yeah, totally, totally.
I mean, don't think the cabinet minister is going to walk or talk.
I mean, it's stressful being a cabinet minister.
You want to blow off steam.
It's tribal.
You want to beat your chest a bit.
frustrated you're dealing with like i like i'm not saying i blame them but i'm saying if you are the cabinet minister if you're the justice minister and you're making decisions and you're using public resources and uh like a twitter account which is owned by the government it's not your own It would be like someone sending emails from work.
You send an email from work.
It actually belongs to your workplace.
It's not private.
We saw an email from Alberta Health Services during the Chris Scott stuff that they didn't want to provide.
We didn't uncover this until cross-examination at trial.
And the email said, don't let them know that this is political when they were trying to obviously shut down these events for what they purported to be public health stuff.
And then we got the email saying, hey, we'll just try not to let the air off that this is political.
And I'm paraphrasing the email.
But I want to see the emails.
I want to see the DMs.
You know what?
I fear that he's already deleted them.
I think anyone who would take over from Jodi Wilson-Rabel, Jolie Wistle and Rabel, I mean, she was a left-wing liberal.
There's no doubt about it.
But she was ethical enough that when Justin Trudeau said, hey, can you let some of my buddies at SNC Lavland out of this criminal prosecution?
Can you just let them cut a deal?
She said, yeah, no, that's not how justice works.
And so he fired her.
He fired her over that.
And he therefore obviously looked for the most unethical, ethically malleable Gumby that he could twist that he could find.
And he found David Lometetti.
David LeMetti was hired specifically because he would do whatever Trudeau said.
And we saw that when he brought in the Emergencies Act, which the federal court said was illegal, unconstitutional.
So he is a lawbreaker, a serial lawbreaker.
He broke the law in the Emergencies Act.
He broke the law by wrongly trying to delete his account.
And I'm worried this judge is going to let him off with just a slap on the wrist.
So just give us a pinky swear, Mr. LeMetti.
And you're a former justice minister, and we're all friends here, and we're all part of the same circle.
So a pinky swear is good enough.
I'm worried about that.
Listen, I'm not criticizing the judge.
I think the judge paid excellent attention, asked good questions.
I'm just worried the judge is going to rule out of, he's going to give the benefit of the doubt to LeMetty.
I suppose we're going to see what happens.
We've seen these cases go both ways.
One of the lessons that I learned as a young lawyer is you can go into that courtroom 100% wrong and come out right.
You can go into that room 100% right and still come out wrong.
So I guess only time will tell and we'll see how the judge weighs what's been put before today.
Well, Chad is one of our winningest lawyers.
That's for sure.
He was the lawyer the Rebel News hired in 2021 when Trudeau's hand-picked Election Debates Commission tried to kick us out and we won.
And we got an injunction requiring them to accredit us.
And of course, a few small fun wins when Stephen Gilbo and three other cabinet ministers, Yara Sachs, Karina Gould, and Marcy Ian, blocked Rebel News journalists.
We went to court and got them smacked down with a consent order.
So we are holding the liberals to task.
Some are bigger than others.
Some of those wins are more important than others.
But they all have one thing in common.
We're alone in the court.
Well, I mean, there were 500 people watching the whole time.
But when I say we're alone, I mean, does no one else care about a justice minister illegally deleting records?
Does no one else care about a government debates commission keeping out enemies of the prime minister?
Does no one else care about cabinet ministers censoring constituents they don't like?
I'm sure people do care, but I don't see him in court with us.
And it's a strange thing for a news company whose motto is telling the other side of the story to spend so much time, energy, and frankly money holding the government to account.
Is that our job?
Well, fact is it's fallen to us.
That's why I want to invite you to go to our website, stopthecoverup.com.
I want you to see what we've got written there, and I want you to consider chipping in.
Scott and Chad were brawling for four hours, and obviously they prepared for many more hours in advance.
And they don't work for free.
I think they're reasonably priced, frankly.
But we have a lot of bad.
Very reasonably priced.
It's true.
It's true.
And I won't say what your fee is.
It's quite modest.
But it does add up when you work 200 hours, 300 hours on a file.
I'm not sure what the exact number is on this.
It adds up.
And over the next week, you will see us take on very interesting litigation.
And it costs money.
And part of me wishes there were others in the field of play, that others were fighting for freedom of the press.
I don't see a lot of people fighting for freedom of the press now.
And if it falls to us, well, then so be it, because we've got a secret weapon that David LeMetti doesn't have.
And that secret weapon is you.
That's our show for today.
It's a little bit truncated.
Operation Lone Star: Crossing Points00:03:59
I'm in Calgary.
I was in Edmonton last night for the airing of our documentary, RAID.
It's about the Montreal Police's war on citizen journalism.
We're in Calgary, going to have that show tonight.
So I'll see you there if you're in Calgary.
I'll be back out east tomorrow and then flying around making trouble here and there.
On behalf of all of us here at the Western Outpost, you at home, wherever you are.
Until next time, good night, and keep fighting for freedom.
Texas, Eagle Pass, known to be a hotspot where illegal migrants were crossing from Mexico to the USA.
Last month, up to 4,000 a day were entering.
A group of Venezuelan migrants in the river for three hours trying to find an open spot.
Border Patrol officials saying a group of six migrants was attempting to cross the river when the drownings happened.
Shelby Park, where I'm standing right now in Eagle Pass, has had thousands of illegal immigrants who crossed over to claim refugee status.
Governor Greg Abbott has taken further steps to secure the border by launching Operation Lone Star in 2021.
Operation Lone Star was launched for the purpose of filling the gaps that are left open as Border Patrol officers are busy occupied with detaining the large number of people who are coming across the border.
And installing razor wire along the border to combat what he calls Biden lawless policies.
Joe Biden and his abject refusal to enforce the immigration laws of the United States of America.
If you want to know more, visit texasborderreports.com to watch our exclusive reports.
Here in Shelby Park, everything seems secure, but the border is long and difficult to seal completely.
I'm going to show you how easy it is for migrants to cross over and immigrate illegally here in the USA.
We met with a retired Border Patrol agent named Louis and his nephew, Ethan, who agreed to show us a popular spot for people to enter into Eagle Pass, Texas.
illegally from Mexico.
This was just miles down the road from Shelby Park.
So at one time, this, I don't know, well, you guys have researched all this stuff.
We had Title 42.
Yeah.
It was a COVID measure.
Yeah.
So that when people came across, we just kicked it back to Mexico.
So Title 42, when they did away with it, the hordes of people came across.
Every morning, 700 would walk up this road.
700 aliens, early morning, every morning.
I worked with the Border Patrol for 25 years and investigations another 10 after that.
So I had 35 years all here in Eagle Pass area.
Everything was under control to a sense.
Apprehensions went up one year and we'd catch them.
Amnesty apprehensions went up.
You know, we were encountering a lot of people.
Drug traffic could go back up, but we were always out here chasing people and people were running.
Sorry to say, ever since Biden showed up, no one's running anymore.
Luis first took us to a hill overlooking the Rio Grande River, which divided Mexico and Texas.
Within minutes, we spotted a group of migrants crossing illegally by boat.
Crossing the Border00:09:27
We recorded the crossing and then we headed down towards the river to see if we could meet them on the other side.
Honduras Where are you from?
No, no, note in English.
Honduras.
Ah, I come from Oaxaca, to walk.
Only?
Only?
Hey, hey, hey!
Sorry.
What's your country?
Mexico.
Mexico?
Ecuador.
Familia?
Si.
Si?
Comment tu cruises ici?
Solo Kamina.
Kamina?
De Honduras?
Here?
Cuanto Dolores por cousag a la otro.
No, but it's not.
Too pez?
Cuento dolores por la crusagía?
No sí doce?
No, no sí por la cuza de la de la riviera de la río.
No medigero, na damas pasi nadamas.
Está no gratís.
Es como sien pesos.
Sien pezos?
Solo sien pezos?
Por ay?
Como to Viagé to Mexico.
Pues mín estrail en lo que enconché.
Y para yeara la fonter.
Because the ligamente here.
This family here?
No.
No?
No tengo familiar esto.
Tengo problemos aido de soy.
What is the problem?
There are many.
No, much more and exorcisms.
And I think that it can be paraca.
I just killed a brother, and I had to leave my daughter to come here.
I had to ask her to come here because I didn't know her.
I didn't know her.
The government came here and came here.
It's like you travel here, just a little bit.
I don't have who to stay there, that's why I came here.
And how many dollars are you going to cross here, through the river?
How many dollars?
How many dollars are you going there?
24 dollars.
Dollars or pesos?
Pezos.
No, no mama, no papa.
No?
No.
Suit Honduras?
Sí?
Me vine de Honduras como solo les bien.
Yes, mucho mucho racismo, mucho matrato y entonces decidi vendirme cuzar si por eso me vine.
Tienes familía aquí no.
Solo tes, sí?
Vienes de Honduras, no?
Y estás pagando de Honduras paca?
No.
Are you paying from Honduras to here?
No, no compras, no, no paraza uncoyote para treita.
No, just asking for help as she comes along.
Okay, but the kids are alone.
So regalaro un por aí, but lancha que que este cobro, the boat.
How much you charge?
Y cuento paras la está amigos.
No, sé pora yuno sen contramos.
El handa con estedes, no.
No, no ta hando cusando.
No, no.
Estimas espiado para year.
No esto mo yagar.
Namas mediger un pu es puedes.
But a mexicano van ta chapa tása Mexico.
Si, por eso mismo vines condidas.
But these guys are turning themselves in.
A Mexican is going to get sent back.
Porque juntas.
Why do you get together with them?
Los encontrea yen es matrar como ligo es que.
Me bina sé caminando tlego.
Este.
No, tú no unas tú el mexicandos.
Yi esoy mexicano.
'Yo, Mexicano, 'engo de ten.' No, como cre, yo ni conos.
Merijero na másiguete tel ertera que estáí.
Thato mijero na la jerte, que da saí, sigu tel.
Y por eso, puedo de 'ponos porpuesta.
Yes, I don't know them.
Come on, Venezolo.
How about yourself?
Come on.
Cuentos a little bit.
My age, ten.
Ten?
Muel, nine years old.
And familiar, you're in like family.
Con amigos, friends.
Apollo has been here so long.
You can't come by yourself.
Venezuela.
Look at us.
Solo.
We have at this moment, a kid of 10 years old, whose name is Jorge, who is traveling alone.
He said that he had no family here.
It's really, really weird because now we have this man, they are all traveling alone.
We had a small family of people and she's from Honduras, he's from Mexico and is from Honduras.
They were from Ecuador, the family that we just saw.
No.
no family.
Solo zami pado no tengo tar que salgun familiar pora samosar del puerto no yo concre por a y por por Mexico la pregunte comos 1í que corregente que da vi veñido se cusaro lo dejaro,
pero me parece que dice que ye una lo tipa no se yaba unumeno.
No ser tar esargo un familiar por aquí, nosomos de la misma comidad yida al mismo a lugar.
I dun alde y el dive del pueblo.
Lizo ario, mizo audio.
No sabría, no nú cade visto.
No soy el mizo aldea.
No, no, no, no.
Con losas la el bosque.
Cómo estaba el paseo.
Doronios aí, many problemos.
Yes, hasta altuníamo que sabir corrindo con estas vidos.
Yadía gente que muriero nayo.
Mortos.
Más ay tirados or miras que la nos.
Okay.
Yo los papanoso nos estános papas.
Ya están aca?
No, no, no, candocier.
They didn't know the dance.
Wow.
And how did we survive it?
Whose phones?
Word Got Out00:02:47
When you give them the phones, so where are you going?
Alan is going to respond to you.
Do you have a family here in the United States?
Yes.
The three?
Yes.
And the father of this?
Do you know him?
He was a boyfriend or something different?
While we were speaking with the migrants, we noticed an helicopter flying above.
Shortly after, a border patrol agent arrived.
They just crossed, we saw him crossing from up on top.
Picked him up, I was going to take them up to the highway and call them turn them in.
They'll take care of it from here.
Unload them in order.
Solo.
Going south.
Does that happen or what?
What does that mean?
Does that happen or what?
Does that happen or what?
Do you want to accompany kids?
What do you want?
We just encountered a group, and what did they want?
They wanted to come across and call Border Patrol, and Border Patrol came down and picked up.
No one's running.
They just come across with little babies and all that kind of stuff.
And Border Patrol's job is just to gather them.
I mean, they're not running.
They gather them, load them up in their vehicles, take them to their processing centers, and release them.
And it's not Border Patrol's fault.
They're tied by the administration.
Someone were bringing them over here.
Who are those people?
I'm sure there's guys that have decided to come out here and just cross people on a regular basis and stuff.
But there is also a bunch of fishermen down here that come down here to fish.
So they're fishermen down here.
They're out here fishing with a boat and a group of aliens come up.
They'll take advantage of that situation and they'll charge them, you know, whatever the 50 pesos is.
What these guys claimed, you know, 50 pesos, they'll come, you know, they'll put down their fishing pole and bring them across.
Thank goodness for Abbott.
You know, Abbott has made a difference.
I mean, there's two different ways of looking at it.
He took control of a little bit of a river and they put up a you know they put up their stand and I think the word has gone out.
It's obvious to me that the word got out because they're not coming here anymore.
The last three days, I haven't seen anybody cross until this group.
I know of people that are trying to immigrate the right way and their spouses are in Mexico waiting for their hearing date.
And there ain't no hearing date coming anytime soon.
You know, the courts are so backed up that the people that are doing it the right way can't do it.
Word Got Out00:00:42
And it's hard to be angry at people when you see so much glee and happiness because they see it tomorrow.
It's hard to hold that against them.
You know, who wouldn't come to America?
But, you know, we can't continue.
You know, it's awful.
The cost of living is hard enough for everyday people in North America.
How are these people going to survive when American and Canadian citizens are already struggling?
What do the next 10 years look like if we continue down this path?
I suggest you to go over TexasBorderReports.com.
We will be publishing that entire interview with Louis on that website.