NEW VIDEO PROVES Woman STRUCK ICE Agent, Activist Says COME AT US | Timcast IRL
Ads Friday Jan 9: BAERSkin -- Tax Network USA
Text TIM to 36912 to get 60% off the BAERSkin Hoodie today! Or click: https://baer.skin/tim
Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/timShow more SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/
Join - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwNTXWEjVd2qIHLcXxQWxA/join
Hosts:
Tim @Timcast (everywhere)
Phil @PhilThatRemains (X)
Producer:
Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere)
Guest: Kaity Defender of the Republic @realdefender45 on X
Podcast available on all podcast platforms! Show less
Cell phone footage from the officer who fired the shots on the woman in Minnesota has been released, and it shows some interesting things.
First, it shows prior contact with activists and Renee Good.
It shows that they actually exchanged words, and you can clearly hear the impact on the hood of the car.
In fact, we were talking with a former prosecutor earlier who said, ooh, wow, that's not good.
So we're going to analyze this footage and go over what we're currently learning.
But there's quite a bit more pertaining to the footage being released, protests from across the country.
We'll talk about that.
new information on the ICE agent, and then bigger news, which I'd argue is actually much, much bigger, but isn't really, I suppose people don't want to talk about it.
It's not as interesting despite being more significant.
The U.S. has seized its fifth oil tanker.
So we are looking at dramatic escalation.
We'll talk about that.
And a whole lot more.
We've got a police shooting in Utah, more information about the individuals that were shot in Portland.
Before we get into all that, my friends, we've got a great sponsor for you.
It is Tax Network USA.
Head over to tnusa.com/slash Tim.
Do you owe back taxes or haven't filed in years?
Now is the time to resolve your tax matters.
With a national conversation around abolishing the income tax system, the IRS is fighting back and proving it's here to stay by becoming more aggressive than ever before.
They're sending out more collection notices, filing more tax liens, and collecting billions more than in recent years.
If you owe, the IRS can take your wages, bank accounts, social security, retirement, even your home.
If you owe or haven't filed, it's not a question of if the IRS will act, it's when.
Right now, Tax Network USA is offering a completely free IRS research and discovery call to show you exactly where you stand and what they can stop before it's too late.
Their powerful programs and strategies can save you thousands or even eliminate your debt entirely if you qualify.
Don't make a serious mistake.
Representing yourself or calling the IRS on your own, waiving your rights can cost you and could cost you more money.
They are not on your side.
Get protected the right way with Tax Network USA and start the process of settling your tax matters once and for all today.
Call 1-800-958-1000 or click the link below for your free discovery call with Tax Network USA.
Don't let the IRS be the first to act.
Go to tnusa.com slash Tim.
And I want to stress, we are running out of these here blueprint model boards.
The hand grenade and the 50 cal are gone.
While you still can get them, get them at boonieshq.com.
We've got the Richie Jackson Assault Wine Bottle.
We've got the Jason Ellis Battle Axe and the Cody Mac Colt 45.
Now, all of these, they're nearly sold out.
There's a few left.
There's a chance to get one out of five limited edition golden serialized versions of these.
We also have the Step on Snack and Find Out 2.0, of which I actually think there's about 100 of these, much easier to get.
And there will be 10 limited edition gold serialized.
So check them out at boonieshq.com.
Don't forget to smash that like button.
Share the show with everyone.
You know, we actually have a couple of guests joining us tonight to talk about this and everything else.
So we had a debate on this earlier, and we had a former prosecutor on who had argued initially that the first shot through the windshield is justifiable because you can see in all these angles he's being hit.
But the second and third shot will be harder to justify.
When we finished the debate, I didn't say anything.
I just pressed play and showed it to him, and he went, Whoa, yeah, there's not going to be a prosecution.
There's not going to be a prosecution with this video footage.
So I don't know what y'all think, but it sounds to me, I'll just give you my thoughts right away.
Prior contact indicates the woman driving the car, Renee Goode, was well aware that she was engaged with law enforcement.
So when they approached her saying, get out of the vehicle, and she attempted to flee, this was not a panic.
This was she knew she was engaged with law enforcement to a certain degree.
And this cop walking around her vehicle filming, he's collecting evidence.
When the other agent comes up and says, out of the car, she's smiling and staring at him.
And it appears the wife says, appears the wrong word, but it sounds like she says, drive, baby, drive, drive.
I think that's going to give her criminal culpability.
And I think the speed at which you hear the body hit the car and the shots go off are going to, like, this is a slam dunk for the agent.
It's not good.
It shouldn't have happened.
But I think a few things to point out.
The amount of time from him walking around the vehicle, she knows he's there.
There's no reason for her to drive.
And he's collecting evidence.
So why is he there?
There's a legitimate reason.
The wife says, you want to come at us?
You want to come at us?
And then appears to say, drive, baby, drive, drive, instructing, again, I'm not entirely sure what she's saying, but this is the argument that I think they would absolutely make and why this is not going to go.
She can clearly see the agent is standing right in front of her and she's a smile on her face.
And then she goes for it.
And she hits him.
And you can hear it.
And he shoots her.
I don't see how this.
Look, to be honest, this goes to prosecution because it's political.
Because Minnesota, the governor, the mayor, the state prosecutor, it's political ideology.
I think if we were in any sane reality where this was just on the merits, yo, she hit a federal agent with her car.
Yeah, I mean, look, the argument that I heard this morning, actually, or maybe it was last night, but JD Vance was saying he's got immunity because he's engaged in a lawful, you know, lawful stop.
She knew that, like you said, she knew she was dealing with law enforcement right away.
The guy came up and said, get out of the car.
So she's trying to flee the scene.
It is a pretty clear-cut case.
When her car contacted his body, then he's totally in the right to defend himself.
So the idea, I don't think that this actually goes to trial because I think he's got immunity.
I don't think the Justice Department is going to let it happen.
It's a state charge.
I think the feds are going to be like, no, you can't.
This only makes ICE look worse, in my opinion, for a few reasons.
One, I don't think, and this is not me saying that Renee Good driving away from officers that have asked her to stop or have told her to get out and disobey and not just complying with their orders is a good idea.
I'm strictly talking about: does this constitute her rise to the level of a reasonable person's understanding of what constitutes imminent threat or likelihood of death?
I don't think so.
I think this proves that it's very clear that she was attempting to do a three-point turn or move away the opposite direction of the officer, not trying to accelerate towards him or charge towards him.
I think that she had a calm demeanor, even if she's smiling.
And yes, she's doing so to taunt him, I suppose.
But one, I don't think that that constitutes a threat in and of itself.
She's saying, I'm not mad.
She's clearly turning right to get away from the officer.
So I don't see where the kind of imminent death is.
I still think it was in the earlier debate we had, you think that you said that you thought she was attempting to murder him with the vehicle based on this now.
I'm not disputing that it's accelerating, but she's clearly doing a bunch of turns because she's maneuvering the point is wheel all the way from the left to the right to her.
That's something that invokes per se self-defense.
No?
Because it's something that there is no way that you could behave with like brandish a weapon or point the gun at me or accelerate a vehicle towards somebody.
My understanding is to the extent that a car or a vehicle can be used to trigger, like, per se, self-defense, the individual has to have been caught in the commission of a very serious crime prior to engaging with the officer.
I know there's such a thing as vehicular homicide.
And I'm not saying that you can't use a vehicle to kill somebody, to injure somebody, but just using a vehicle around an officer that you're not complying with.
Yeah, run an officer that you're not complying with.
Doesn't necessarily constitute a threat.
Absolutely not.
This is definitely all of this like Monday morning quarterbacking that we're doing is exactly how Monday morning quarterbacking.
And a reasonable person has each individual action taken by the cops in this instance constitute justified self-defense or use of deadly force.
So she couldn't.
And certainly not for the, like, even if I granted for the first one, the following two shots after that, when she's clearly turning away, which this video confirms, how is that going to hold up?
A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon under certain circumstances, depending on how it is used in the context of the situation.
According to U.S., hold on.
According to U.S. law, a vehicle driven by a person with the intent to harm someone is legally classified as a deadly weapon.
The principle was emphasized.
The principle was emphasized by Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Christy Noam, who stated that a vehicle used to harm someone is clearly established law as a deadly weapon.
Courts have consistently ruled that a car becomes a deadly weapon when it is used in a manner capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
But it's not assumed that it's a weapon in the same way if you brandish it.
But hold on, but this is just a little bit of a problem from the analysis that I saw that saying to multiple angles, it did not look to me like it hit the person.
And the sound that's coming from this, because it's a first-person perspective, I'm not sure if that noise is because the vehicle touched him in any way or something.
It's a difference of opinion as far as what inference we're drawing from the same set of facts because I acknowledge you hear a noise, but it's unclear to me from this angle and from the other footage that I've seen if that's actually the noise coming from the video is because the car is making contact with the officer or from something else.
On the subject of case law, though, didn't Dave, when he was on earlier, say that just because you flee the scene doesn't mean that the cops are able to open fire on you because you've fled?
If we're doing an objective analysis of what's reasonable, there's no reason to think that anybody who's brandishing a weapon in your direction or aiming it at you is going to be doing so with any other intent.
Other than, oh, I thought you said a real handgun.
If you said toy gun, if it's a toy gun, then no, that's not a gun.
So that means- Don't some have like orange caps or sometimes stuff like that?
So if I'm filming a movie scene on a property by myself, like I'm making a short film, and I have a camera pointed at me and I have a replica gun and you are walking down the road and I'm going like this and then I point at you and then you see the gun pointed at you, you can't shoot me.
Because what we're trying to analyze is the person that's using lethal force against somebody else and their state of mind.
And it is rational to assume that if you have a replica gun that's being aimed at you from somebody who you don't know, that to think that it's a real gun.
Even if there is no intent to kill the other person, the person with the replica gun has no intent to kill anybody, has created a real fear of death, and it's called imperfect self-defense, then that the person who is in that line of perceived fire can kill you, and they will not be criminally charged for it because they didn't know it wasn't a real gun.
If you're asking me about that, he already been struck from the front six months ago and dragged 330 feet.
So we're talking about his state of mind.
Does he have a reason to believe that the vehicle will cause bodily harm?
Yes, because it happened to him six months ago.
He is filming evidence of a vehicle.
They're antagonistic.
He walks to the front.
Lawful orders are given.
And just like the last event where he gave lawful orders to stop, the guy hit him with the front of the car and dragged him.
The same thing is about to happen.
Not only do I believe that proves his state of mind, is that there's a reasonable fear of harm, but it literally proves in the real world it does happen and did recently.
I don't think a person that's subjected to what he experienced six months ago, like every single person would react the exact same way that he's reacting in the same set of circumstances.
I think he's being way too trigger happy.
And the two shots afterwards and him saying fucking bitch after.
After experience that trauma, they should have said, we're going to put you on desk duty following this incident.
It's traumatic.
That doesn't change the fact that whether he should have, that's an administrative decision, and we can agree it was a wrong decision, but it doesn't mean that he should go to prison or that this was a murder.
I don't know that it would necessarily mean it's a murder because it doesn't, if it's trauma that is leading him to act this way, then maybe you could say it's a mitigating circumstance that means it's not malicious, but then I still think he could be on the hook for manslaughter or some sort of like reckless homicide.
I don't think you're going to get there's no way you're going to get a cop on negligent homicide when he's been in active engagement with the subject for over four minutes and they've communicated with each other.
And then when ordered to leave within a split second, she accelerates the vehicle.
They're like tragic shouldn't have happened.
But let's just be clear.
The circumstance is entirely at the fault of the woman driving.
That's just it.
She committed a crime.
Listen, look, when we talk about fault, it doesn't, so let me put it like this.
Two guys go into a grocery store.
They decide to rob one of the one of the tills.
They grab all the money out, and then his buddy turns around and runs and slips, falls down, cracks him in the ground, and dies.
His partner's at fault for that murder, and they will charge him with such.
When you commit a crime, anything that happens subsequently is your fault.
So the way we approach this in law is, did you commit a crime creating a circumstance that resulted in death, serious bodily harm?
So the woman committed felony obstruction and felony evading arrest.
And in the process, in fact, I would argue this.
Renee Goode, were she to have survived, would have been criminally charged.
And I would actually argue, though it doesn't really make sense, she's responsible for her own death in the law by committing two felonies, which resulted in the death.
In fact, I'd argue that- Wait, what are the two felonies that she's accused?
But the Supreme Court has ruled that, well, this takes us back to our earlier disagreement.
I don't want to loop, about how Dave was saying that just because you're fleeing arrest and trying to evade it does not necessarily mean that an officer can use lethal force against you.
She says drive, baby, drive, drive before she accelerates.
I don't think they're going to bring charges against her, but the other consideration is that the defense will argue there was a pedestrian standing to the right of the vehicle.
I was standing in front of it.
I perceived a threat to myself and others.
The only reason, look, I think if they have a state charge, no matter what, like Dave was saying, this dude is going to get convicted in two seconds in Minnesota.
Two seconds.
Like, Derek Chauvin was innocent, and they convicted him.
As far as like, people in people have said things that could be incriminating, that are dismissed because it's considered like heat of the moment or high state of emotional, there are actually people who have gotten away with.
Well, I want to say this guy is like PTSD, in trauma, and so I'm like I've seen which actually excuses him.
I've seen body cam footage of cops that have used lethal force on somebody who they believed was threatening their life and afterwards they're freaking out.
They seem like they're hyperventilating, they're like, oh my god, they're freaking the fuck out.
I know, but for the sake of the argument, if he said that in combination with leaving the scene and seeming as calm as he was to be able to continue on, there's too many assumptions there.
When we're trying to ascertain whether or not somebody is acting in a way that an objective, reasonable person would perceive as menacing or threatening, we have to try to understand what their intent is.
No, it doesn't because, like you said, you've created a circumstance where it's understandable that an objective, reasonable person could fear for their life without knowing or without that like, regardless of what that person's state of mind was, what's the difference?
The difference is that a gun or a replica gun is something that, to people, they will assume, oh, that's a real gun that could put my life in danger, and people don't think being crushed by a car will kill you, right?
No, people do think that being crushed by a car will kill you.
But in this particular circumstance, i've not seen enough factors that, to me, rise to the level or create you know set of circumstances where somebody could reasonably be fearing for their life.
So then this individual who was previously injured by being hit front on by a car and dragged, do you think that person may, through their trauma, which you agree he has?
Because literally, if you look at the video, a car accelerates, you hear a noise that sounds like he's being hit, and she's staring at him, and you're like, nah.
Like, okay, look, any reasonable person watching this is sophistry.
This guy who suffered a trauma previously after being hit front on by a car and dragged reasonably feared the same thing would happen as one was committing two.
So the presumption is the reason why I am saying he is acting this way is because I believe any person, any rational, normal person who suffers a grievous injury being dragged by a vehicle to being hit head on.
So just from the consolidated footage of them showing the two angles simultaneously, I didn't listen to any of the way that they described the footage.
I only viewed it on mute.
And from what I saw, it did not look like the vehicle made contact with the officer, but it might be.
It does matter because his training and his policy, as per DHS and ICE, is that you're not supposed to be in front of a vehicle and that shooting at an individual in a vehicle does not actually eliminate a deadly threat coming your way from somebody in a vehicle.
It's that you can't, and we went over this with Dave who pulled up the actual exclusions and it was you can only use lethal force against a vehicle if the vehicle is being driven in a way that constitutes a threat of great bodily harm or death.
The way ICE officers approached the vehicle involved in today's shooting was counter to their training.
A senior Department of Homeland Security official told NBC News.
The official said ICE officers are trained, one, never to approach a vehicle from the front, two, to approach vehicles or possibly armed people in a tactical one, a 90-degree angle to prevent injury or crossfire.
Three, not to shoot at a moving vehicle.
Four, only to use force if there is immediate risk of serious injury or death.
ICE officers are also instructed that firing at a vehicle will not make it stop moving in the direction of the officer.
My point is, even if the car made contact with the officer, that does not mean that shooting at that person or using deadly force in this instance would be justified.
And then this is still not even getting.
This is still not even getting to the fact that he shot her two more times after in the span of a second.
This doesn't speak to the fact that he's amazing for being able to maintain a center of gravity.
It speaks to me that if he made contact with the vehicle, and I'll grant for the sake of the argument that he did, then it was at such a low acceleration that to think that he was at risk for imminent death or severe bodily injury is unreasonable to me.
Well, no, I would say right now, I honestly don't know.
This just happened and we don't have a public perception.
What I would say is we tend to find when you look at wide-scale polling that independent voters, swing voters, they tend to align with, like my views tend to align with theirs quite a bit.
So you'll notice that, let me pull up civics as a good example.
And you can see where the Trump bias is and you can see where the liberal bias is.
And it's funny how Democrats respond to things and independents.
Oh, actually, is it going to let me do it?
Okay, yeah, let's try national economy.
So you can actually see the hilarity of this in the hyper-partisanship of everybody.
You go to Democrat.
How would you rate the condition of the national economy right now?
Take a look at this.
For some reason, on January 20th, January 20th, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, January 2020, 2021, you immediately have this shift.
Where are we at?
Party Democrat.
So in 2019, 2008, you have a fairly good 45%, 26% fairly bad, 30% very bad, 11% unsure, blah, blah, blah.
Right around election, the opinion on the economy inverts.
And now the economy is very, very bad.
Okay, well, that doesn't make no sense.
And this is January 2010.
To be fair, COVID, right?
So let's jump to the front where we can see January of 2025.
Because to be fair, January of 2020 wasn't election year.
It was COVID.
So I should clarify, that's where things kind of make sense.
It was a Trump term.
Democrats actually thought things were kind of okay.
Well, hold on there, gosh darn minute.
Now we're in Biden's term.
In Biden's turn, 53% of Democrats say the economy is fairly good.
The moment Trump is inaugurated, they now claim the economy is very bad.
It doesn't change whether or not he felt he was about to be crushed because we had that Amy, I forgot her name, the officer in Baltimore who was crushed in a second by a vehicle standing in the same place.
What's behind the highly unusual move to block Minnesota officials from investigating the ICE shooting?
Wait, what?
This is actually pretty interesting.
Uh-oh, CNN's given the business.
We're going to have to have to give CNN the business.
I thought I already gave him the business, but let me log in real quick.
I'm logging in.
That's what I'm doing to make sure that I'm logged in.
All right, here we go.
I thought we already logged in.
They say mutual distrust between federal and state authorities derailed plans for a joint FBI and state criminal investigation into Wednesday's shooting of a Minneapolis woman by ICE, leading to the highly unusual move by the DOJ to block state investigators from participating in the probe.
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said Thursday that after an initial agreement for the FBI to work with the state agency, as well as prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minneapolis and the Hennepin County's attorney's office to investigate the shooting, federal authorities reversed course and the FBI blocked the BCA from participating in the investigation.
You know, I love about this.
We did a debate show earlier.
I said this was going to happen.
I said Trump's not going to let him do it.
And Dave said it's a state-level thing.
They'll do it.
I'm like, yeah, but they're going to pull the guy to the state and there's not going to be charges.
So let me just put it like this.
I don't care whose side you're on.
I don't care if you're a liberal or conservative.
Just understand what time it is.
The feds are not allowing a criminal investigation from the state of a cop who shot a lady.
It doesn't matter if you think he was justified.
It doesn't matter if you think he was not justified.
The point is the federal government and the state governments have bisected and are now at odds with each other.
Where does that go?
Like, is there, Phil, in your mind, a circumstance by which the federal government apologizes and says, let's come back together, boys?
But what are the ramifications of outstanding criminal charges in Minnesota against a cop who shot and killed a person and the federal government being like, we're going to protect him from prosecution?
You can just, if you feel any pressure whatsoever from the police, just step on the accelerator and you'll get a, you know, you'll get a twin's tickets the next morning.
JD Van said, I want every ICE officer to know that their president, vice president, the entire administration stands behind them.
To the radicals assaulting them, doxing them, and threatening them, congratulations.
We're going to work even harder to enforce the law.
If the DOJ, the federal government, DHS, Vance, Trump, whoever you want to name, Christy Noam, allows this cop to be prosecuted in Minnesota, ICE is going to quit and mess.
And the Trump administration may as well resign on the spot because their agenda will never come close to fruition.
If, again, outside of the morality of who was right, who was wrong, if Minnesota says, here's my prediction: Jacob Frey and Waltz or anyone else, the DA, they're going to say, they're going to do a press conference where they say, we are not here to assert that this man is guilty of any crimes.
We are here to say that there was an officer involved shooting that requires an investigation.
And based on the analysis of that investigation, a grand jury will choose to indict.
They'll likely say a grand jury has returned an indictment for which now he can stand before a jury of his peers.
They're going to approach it very neutrally.
Trump cannot allow this guy to face the prosecution because he will lose no matter what.
Which means the Minnesota government and Democrats will then say, Donald Trump is shielding a murderer who killed a woman in cold blood.
Other blue states will line behind that.
This is a crazy situation because I don't see an exit for anyone other than this is how things escalate to state on state or feds versus state.
I mean, we saw back earlier in 2025 when Trump just took the National Guard, federalized it, and then Newsome complained about it and said he was going to do everything he could, and then nothing happened.
So the state's avenues towards retribution here is very, very limited.
Again, the federal government has all the cards here in this instance.
Um, because, like, a state government's like never going to be able to overcome like the might of like a fed of like federal agents being deployed or like the U.S. military or anything like that.
The question is, as we've discussed, now I'll ask you, do you think the federal government will evacuate this guy and avoid the prosecution, or you think they'll let him get prosecuted?
I think it's, I mean, this administration has shown that they will brazenly ignore the law, they'll ignore court orders, they will lie if they want to.
So, I would put it, I would say it's in the realm of possibility, sure, that they would definitely try to stand behind this officer to the point that you're talking about.
But don't you think that would be wrong if they were trying to like tip the scales?
And I think whether or not Florida tries to like stand behind this person will come down to public opinion because I don't think that Ron DeSantis is done trying to become president.
So he is going to try to read the room and see, is there the political will for me to stand behind this ICE officer and basically do this come and take it shit and let him turn fucking Mar-a-Lago into his like fortress?
So, Minnesota in any capacity, let's, I'll try and avoid being overly specific due to like, my point is not to bring up the laws and the regulations of state troopers, but the point is, in order to get this guy out of Florida as an example of a friendly state, they would have to send people to forcefully pull him from the state.
So that being the case, what do you think Florida law enforcement would do if Minnesota law enforcement entered extra jurisdictional territory to apprehend a man that is lawfully in their state?
I mean, I think it's, again, it's going to be a staring contest, and I don't know if it's going to come down to what that individual precinct decides to do.
I don't know if they're going to be looking to take orders from just people locally or if they're going to be looking to Ron DeSantis and the state government broadly to see what they can do, what they ought to do.
That's why I don't think that this is any sort of like principled action that would be a like plan that would come from Florida.
I do think it's determined almost exclusively by public opinion and what they think they should they can get away with.
If they see Will among the base that, you know, especially the conservative base that DeSantis is trying to pick up for 2028 or a run after that, then he'll stand behind the officer.
If he sees public favor turn against him, then he will be like, we can't obstruct justice or pretend like he, he won't say, I'm going to cooperate.
He's just not going to tell them, get in the way of them being extradited.
States never send law enforcement to other states for law enforcement.
They use the feds for that.
So typically what would happen is Minnesota would file with the federal government and local authorities and say, typically what happens is because we're the United States, Minnesota would say to Florida, hey, this guy's pending charges.
We want you guys to arrest him and then send him our way.
In the circumstance where a state is like, we're not interested in what you're talking about, they go to the feds and say, interstate crime, like this guy fled our state.
He's guilty.
Like he's wanted for charges.
The federal government's not going to intervene.
Minnesota can't send anybody.
That would be like, I mean, we're getting into war territory if Minnesota sends armed men to apprehend a guy in another state.
Then you're just waiting at the clock because all you have to do is wait until the midterms or wait until, you know, if Trump leaves office or something were to happen, all they have to do is wait for an administration to come along, somebody that's willing to cooperate.
But you also made another really good point about DeSantis' presidential aspirations, which means in the event, let's say the midterms happen, Democrats can get congressional authority and file subpoenas against this guy and others and then make that move to try and jail him.
The Republicans argue this is a circuitous method by which they're trying to get this guy on charges that are trumped up or whatever.
The point is, DeSantis, if he has any political aspirations, cannot let.
Again, hold on, let me pause.
We don't know the guy would go to Florida.
I'm saying hypothetical state is Florida because Florida is very favorable.
In the event that happens, anyone with political aspirations would be thinking, if I allow this guy to be taken from my state, I will never get elected.
But so now we're in very, very fucked up territory.
Do you think it would be right for the Trump administration to continue standing behind this ICE officer as there are pending charges that he's supposed to be facing in his home state?
The challenge is now we're getting into the morality of when we would and would not allow action by government.
Just because government has the power of law doesn't mean they're moral or right.
And that's the lesson.
Godwin's law, everybody learned from Nazi Germany.
Just because they passed a law saying they could doesn't mean it was right and they should have and we should have allowed it.
The question then becomes, should we as a moral people allow the prosecution of this individual, which is the moral question which you say yes and we would all say no.
It's a generic term, literally meaning we can stop saying the phrase due process because people think it's a proper phrase, like a proper noun, like it cites law.
It's literally just a generic phrase meaning the process by which a person has in law.
That you are going to be told and read your charges, told and read your rights, and you're going to be given a court date and given the chance to make your case before.
The process by which an alien is due, because due process is not a proper phrase, it's a generic phrase, meaning the word due literally means due, and process literally means process.
So we have executive immigration courts, and the judiciary has nothing to do with it.
The process by which an illegal immigrant is due is called expedited removal.
Non-citizens who enter this country illegally do not have the right to a jury trial or a court.
No, I'm saying it's sophistry to imply that the phrase people refer to aliens who run through our country across the border illegally because it does not.
Due process refers to, of your status, what you're entitled to.
What I'm referring to, when I say due process, is a trial court hearing.
Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable procedures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
Due process refers to the legal requirement that the government must respect all legal rights owed to a person, ensuring fair treatment in legal proceedings.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Some individuals have some rights and some do not.
So the way the Constitution works, in Texas, there was a big dispute over the southern border when the Texas State Guard were securing the southern border with concertina wire, and the federal government sent in feds to cut the wire and allow people to cross over illegally.
The issue at play, the reason why Texas sent the immigrants to Martha's Vineyard in New York was because the Constitution grants full immigration authority and foreign relations to the executive branch.
The judiciary has zero authority on instances of foreign affairs.
When a person crosses the border illegally, it doesn't go to a judiciary.
The reason why progressives have been saying judicial warrant over and over again is because what they're saying is outside of the process of the Constitution, we want a court to make an argument against the executive branch.
Because the Constitution makes clear that immigration is under the executive branch, and the process by which a non-citizen is due varies from expedited removal to refugee status hearings.
And so what we've had is under Obama, Bush, Democrat, Republican alike, an executive immigration officer can grant you your due process of, are you a citizen?
No, no, no, I'm not saying that immigration isn't the purview of the executive branch.
I'm saying that due process rights aren't a matter of if the administration decides to grant them to your point on your point on the Fifth Amendment, right?
Okay, so but this means you're not getting a trial in a court.
Immigration courts, they're called courts, but they're executive functions.
You don't go before a jury or a judge for issues of immigration.
This is not me making an opinion statement.
When someone is not a citizen, the issue of immigration is the executive branch.
They don't give you a hearing.
They snap their fingers.
Now, you can argue it shouldn't be that way, but this is because the Constitution gives issues of foreign affairs solely to the executive branch.
So due process means the legal process under the Constitution by which you are due.
If you are a foreign citizen who enters our country, that is the sole purview of the executive branch to snap their fingers and what you said contradicts what I've said because I already granted that due process looks different for every single individual.
Which would mean that Kilmaro Brego Garcia got his due process.
They were not just trying to deport him illegally to a country that he was not supposed to be removed to, but they were also trying to imprison him, even though he hasn't committed or like he hadn't.
If someone comes here from China illegally, they violate our laws and then seek to subvert the will of the American voter.
They should be arrested for the crime they committed.
And you know what it is?
Imagine if someone broke into your house and the worst thing you did to them was give them a ride home.
And it's like a stupid thing to argue.
Like a guy broke into my house and is stealing my food and I'm like, hey, hey, hey, whoa, would you like a ride home?
So that's what we do.
A guy comes here from El Salvador illegally.
We issue an order for deportation.
We send him home.
Then everyone's going a legal order because he was not supposed to.
It was a legal order of deportation.
And he had a stay for removal from the country of Guatemala due to a rival gang.
Where this goes is very confusing and weird because the argument was made in the media that he had to stay of deportation to El Salvador when in fact it was Guatemala.
Now, some have argued it was a typo in the initial stay, but I'm like, well, if that's the case, when we read, it says Guatemala.
So he can be sent back to El Salvador.
Now, the issue of the administrative error was actually disputed in the Trump administration with Stephen Miller saying no, as he is a member of MS-13 executive purview on matters of national security.
Do you acknowledge that it's two different things between actually proving that somebody is part of a gang versus somebody making the assertion that they are?
This is Supreme Court says Trump officials should have wrongly deported Maryland man.
The Supreme Court has ordered the Trump admin to facilitate the return to the U.S. of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly taken to El Salvador.
No, but the language is being used to manipulate the general public because the real issue is a man from El Salvador came here illegally, had an order for removal, argued that he'd be killed by a Guatemalan gang, got a state of removal to not go back to Guatemala.
Stephen Miller and the Trump administration argued that an immigration court twice having found him an affiliate of MS-13, he was an entry-level guy.
They were going to deport him back to his home country.
Then when he got there, El Salvador decided that because they thought he was a member of a gang, they imprisoned him.
When you have not been actually found guilty of a crime, when you've not actually committed any crime, when you've not been given process rights are violated, that you don't know that his process.
The order properly requires the government to facilitate a Brego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador.
And to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador, the Supreme Court said in its ruling, it was a 9-0 ruling.
Even Trump's appointees agree that it's not that they didn't violate it.
i have a question for you though but so you don't think that someone entering the country really quick i will answer your question I'm just saying that the Trump administration had admitted that they had made an administrative error in sending him to El Salvador to Seacot.
Trump administration admits Maryland man sent to El Salvador prison by mistake.
The Trump admin is getting blowback for confirmed and potential errors in its rush to deport hundreds of men to El Salvador last month.
On Monday night, immigration officials admitted to deporting a Maryland man to El Salvador due to a quote-unquote administrative error.
Kilmar Brego-Garcia, who lived with his U.S. citizen wife and child, was identified as being on one of the three deportation flights to El Salvador last month that are the subject of several lawsuits.
Immigration advocates claim those flown to El Salvador did not receive due process.
The admin used the three flights to quickly deport over 300 men accused of being members of MS13.
It was an administrative official, not in the highest level of the cabinet, who said there was an administrative error here.
That was a singular statement by a low-level official.
Probably about a week after this, the highest level of Trump's cabinet said they were incorrect.
We have asserted executive authority on national security issues for expedited removal.
That is our purview.
Now, by all means, this is to be adjudicated.
And right now, the Kilmar Brego-Garcia thing is the most convoluted bullshit of a story imaginable because he's got like five orders of deportation now, including to like literally, is it Eritrea?
The point is, we are not dealing with functions of the Constitution and law, which was the initial argument you asked about constitutional deportations.
We are dealing with hyper-partisan justifications and the liberals making an argument about due price in foreign countries and the right making an argument about national security threats.
One thing remains.
In the truest sense of what this law was codified to be and written down as, due process in immigration courts does not involve a judicial hearing, judicial warrant, nor jury or bench trial.
Okay, immigration courts are a singular executive official identified as an immigration judge, but they're not judicial, stamping something and saying expedited removal.
So in his court filing on Monday, the Trump admin said ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, but still deported Abrego Garcia because of an administrative error.
An ICE official called his deportation to El Salvador an oversight in a statement submitted to the court on Monday.
Robert Cerna ICE's acting field office director of enforcement and removal operations wrote that it was carried out in good faith based on the existence of a final order of removal and Abrego Garcia's reported membership of MS-13.
The admin argued against his return to the U.S., citing alleged gang ties and claiming that he is a danger to the community.
They also argue that the courts lack jurisdiction in the matter because Abrego Garcia is no longer in U.S. custody.
The admin wrote that Abrego Garcia's attorneys, quote, do not argue that the United States can exercise its will over a foreign sovereign.
And most they ask for is a court order that the United States can treat or control a close ally.
This is just one of the examples of an individual that is an MS-13 gang member, multiple charges and encounters with individuals here, trafficking in his background, was found with other MS-13 gang members.
Very dangerous person.
And what the liberal left and fake news are doing to turn him into a media darling is sickening.
The retraction here in this video from Stephen Miller was that he said, let me see if I can pull the actual, Trisha McLaughlin reaffirmed the MS-13 terrorist gang member is where he belongs.
First and foremost, he was illegally in our country.
He had been illegally in our country.
And in 2019, two courts, an immigration court and an appellate immigration court, ruled that he was a member of MS-13 and he was illegally in our country.
Right now, it was a paperwork.
It was additional paperwork had needed to be done.
That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him.
That's not up to us.
The Supreme Court ruled, President, that if, as El Salvador wants to return him, this is international matters, foreign affairs, if they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.
So as Pam mentioned, there's an illegal alien from El Salvador.
So with respect to you, he's a citizen of El Salvador.
So it's very arrogant even for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens as a starting point.
As two immigration courts found that he was a member of MS-13, when President Trump declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist organization, that meant that he was no longer eligible under federal law, which I'm sure you know, you're very familiar with the INA, that he was no longer eligible for any form of immigration relief in the United States.
So he had a deportation order that was valid, which meant that under our law, he's not even allowed to be present in the United States and had to be returned because of the foreign terrorist designation.
This issue was then, by a district court judge, completely inverted, and a district court judge tried to tell the administration that they had to kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and fly him back here.
That issue was raised to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components were reversed 9-0 unanimously, stating clearly that neither Secretary of State nor the President could be compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from El Salvador, who again is a member of MS-13, which as I'm sure you understand, rapes little girls, murders women, murders children, is engaged in the most barbaric activities in the world.
And I can promise you, if he was your neighbor, you would move right away.
So the point is, initially, an ICE official said that it was an administrative error.
The Trump administration cabinet said after the FTO designation of MS-13, that disqualified him from the immigration stay to Guatemala that he had said they had no evidence to be even designating him as a terrorist.
Officers that interviewed Kilmar Armando Obergo Garcia during the interview as officers, he observed he's wearing a bull's hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering his eyes, ears, and mouth of the presidents on the separated denominations.
Officers know such clothing to be indicative of Hispanic gang culture.
The meaning of the clothing is to represent they oy calar.
See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil.
Wearing the bull's hat represents that they are a member and good standing of MS-13.
Officers, I did say Chicago Bulls, wearing the officers contacted the past proven a reliable source of information who advised Kilmar Obrego Garcia as an active member of MS-13 with the Westerns click.
The confidential source further advised that he is the rank of Chico with the moniker of Chele.
Officers interviewed Jason Josu, is how you said, Ramirez Herrera during the interview.
They were unable to determine his gang affiliation.
Officers know MS-13 gang members are only allowed to hang around other members or prospects for the gang.
And if that's your standard for human trafficking, Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis moving those illegal immigrants around the country to Martha's village.
The judge who presided over his 2019 case said that based on the confidential information, there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Breger-Garcia's gang membership.
This is what I mean where it ends up being like circumstances to justify itself, which is that they put him in a situation where he is deported to El Salvador and imprisoned there, and then we declined to have jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court said 9-0 that he was not given adequate due process rights to make a claim against the government once they had been trying to imprison him, even though he had not actually been found guilty of a crime.
We've already concluded that Trump did designate the cartels foreign terrorist organizations.
You asked me a moral question on it, which I ignored because it's not material to the question of whether there was a functional administrative error to which the Trump administration.
No, because the reality is that just because you commit a crime or you come here illegally or you cross a port of entry illegally, even though the majority of illegal immigration is a result of people overseeing visas, it's not even because they're illegally entering into the United States.
It means that they have legal means to come into the United States and then something expires.
They're here legally.
But if they cross a port of entry illegally, that does not mean that the state can do whatever they want in response to that.
It hasn't been an actual genuine debate about anything.
You've been trying to steer the conversation into a situation where you can say, you're the good person or you're the good person and I'm the bad person or whoever you're arguing with.
Because this isn't about law or rule of law or whether or not someone should be deported.
Because you've already said, oh, yes, these people should be deported.
you cared about the rule of law in the constitution then we wouldn't have had all of this this switching from legal legal talk to moral talk if all you cared about was you can walk and chew gum at the same time You can care about two things at once.
So then why did you say that you care about morality and why did you just say that you care about the rule of law and the Constitution?
Yes, because again, if this was like seriously this moral injunction, he was like, oh my gosh, they're going to unjustly put me in a gulag, then he probably would have gotten his paperwork correct.
Unless there was a change in circumstances in Guatemala that would result in the respondent's life not being threatened or that internal relocation is not possible.
Therefore, the respondent's application for withholding of the act is granted.
This stated we couldn't send him to Guatemala.
And the weird thing is, everyone in the media has just said El Salvador over and over again.
Has anyone explained why Kilmar or Bruno Garcia's deportation order stopped him from being sent to Guatemala, but allowed him to be sent to El Salvador?
The judge explicitly cited the ongoing threats from Barrio 18 in Guatemala, stating at present, even though the family has shut down the Pupusa business, Barrio 18 continues to harass and threaten the respondents whose sisters and parents in Guatemala.
DHS has failed to carry out their burden to show that there are changed circumstances in Guatemala that would result in respondents.
So the order of deportation required him to leave.
And the problem really here is that Trump sucks and Biden sucks and everybody screwed it up and it became a political issue.
Now, liberals are pretending like they've got some moral high ground, and you've got a convoluted nonsense story where you're asking me about other countries.
He went to El Salvador, but was barred from going to Guatemala.
So, based on what you've argued, because you're like, he's just being sent home.
Yeah, you want to.
What's implicit in that to me is a suggestion that if he had been deported to a third country, not El Salvador, not Guatemala, maybe Somalia, you would be uncomfortable with that.
But to me, that suggests that if he was deported to a third country where he had no relation to and there were grave human rights abuses in a prison that they wanted to send him to in this third country, you would be against it.
Is what you're suggesting, or that it would at least be bad is what you're intimating, but you won't say either way.
You can introduce sanctions against their country to try to pressure the governments to act in conformity with human rights, then you can try additional mechanisms.
We have embassies in these countries where we can communicate with foreign dignitaries.
And I think Barack Obama was a scumbag who murdered children and American citizens, and he should be a war criminal and should be arrested.
And Trump doesn't get any special passes for me because he was accused of killing another American girl, the sister of Abdurrahman al-Alalaki in Yemen.
Now, that one is an accusation not yet confirmed, and I think we should have a trial and hearing over it, though it's been 10 years.
The Obama killing of Abdurrahman al-Alaki is admitted to, confessed to, and they said, whoopsie-daisy.
So if you want to confess the murder of an American, you get locked the fuck up.
So anyway, I don't think the U.S. should be killing Saddam Hussein and invading under false pretenses to enforce the petrodollar.
don't think that we should have gone and removed maduro though i think maduro is a bad guy and they are wholly different things the issue that comes was affiliated with the terrorist organization Abdul Rahman Al-Laki.
He was argued that he was a proselytizer of Al-Qaeda, and he was actively engaged in war with us in a war zone.
That's tough.
I still lean towards they should have had a criminal trial form in the United States before killing an American citizen, but it's fair to say that when you're actively engaged in war, look, if someone's running at me with a gun, they get shot.
Doesn't matter if they're an American citizen or a Uzbekistanian or whatever.
So Anwar al-Alaki was killed in a drone strike.
He was an American citizen who wasn't given due process.
No charge, no trial.
They just killed him.
The argument they made was he was an active enemy combatant proselytizing for our enemies in enemy territory.
And it's like, well, we aren't at war with Yemen.
So why are we bombing Yemen?
He's just a foreign guy preaching things we don't like.
There should be a trial for him.
Now, Abdulrahman is wholly different.
This is an American citizen who committed no crimes, was part of no terrorist organization, who was visiting his grandparents in Yemen at a civilian restaurant when Obama blew him up.
That's criminal.
Obama should be in prison for that.
He admitted to it.
As administration said, we thought it was a different target.
Okay, we call that manslaughter.
Okay.
We call that negligent homicide.
If you point a gun at a guy and shoot him and say, I thought that was a murderer, we say, well, you killed an innocent person.
You go to jail for that.
Anyway, we are well over and we do need to wrap up.
But I do want to give you the opportunity to put your final thoughts in and take the final word.