3/17/25: Trump Uses Alien Enemies Act For Deportations, Trump Bombs Yemen For Israel, Antisemitism Crackdown
01:14:52 Share

Are you hungry? Colleen Witt here, and Eating While Broke is back for Season 4 every Thursday on the Black Effect Podcast Network. This season, we've got a legendary lineup serving up broke dishes and even better stories. On the menu, we have Tony Baker, Nick Cannon, Melissa Ford, October London, and Carrie Harper Howey turning Big Macs into big moves. Catch Eating While Broke every Thursday on the Black Effect Podcast Network iHeartRadio app.

Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your favorite shows. Come hungry for season four. I'm Mary Kay McBrayer, host of the podcast The Greatest True Crime Stories Ever Told. This season explores women from the 19th century to now. Women who were murderers and scammers, but also women who were photojournalists, lawyers, writers, and more.

This podcast tells more than just the brutal, gory details of horrific acts. I delve into the good, the bad, the difficult, and all the nuance I can find. Because these are the stories that we need to know to understand the intersection of society, justice, and the fascinating workings of the human psyche. Join me every week as I tell some of the most enthralling true crime stories about women who are not just victims, but heroes.

or villains, or often somewhere in between. Listen to the greatest true crime stories ever told on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I'm Mark Seale. And I'm Nathan King. This is Leave the Gun, Take the Cannoli. The five families did not want us to shoot that picture. This podcast is based on my co-host Mark Seale's bestselling book of the same title. Leave the Gun, Take the Cannoli features new and archival interviews with Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Evans, James Caan, Talia Shire, and more.

and many others. Yes, that was a real horse's head. Listen and subscribe to Leave the Gun, Take the Cannoli on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our

Full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at BreakingPoints.com. So over the weekend, Trump announced that he is invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This is claiming wartime powers. It's only been invoked three times in the past, both all three during actual wars, 1812.

World War I and World War II when it was infamously used to justify the internment of Japanese civilians, including others as well, Italians and Germans as well. We can put B1 up on the screen. So the headline here from PBS, Trump invokes 18th century law declaring invasion by gangs to speed mass deportations. So his claim is that the U.S. has been invaded by a Venezuelan gang

putting us quote unquote at war because these, you know, can only, these powers can only be used at wartime and handing himself the discretion to intern and summarily deport with zero due process

anyone that he effectively wants. So right away after he invokes this and there was anticipation that this was coming, there were some Venezuelan migrants who were sort of moved to this Texas ICE facility. Of course, this had been expected because he talked about on the campaign trail that this was coming all along. So the ACLU actually got out front and filed a suit to try to block these deportations, focusing in particular on these five Venezuelan migrants.

So when Trump invokes this Alien Enemies Act, immediately a plane takes off with hundreds of Venezuelan migrants that they claim are in this Tren de Aragua gang, which became a big talking point on the campaign trail as well. So they take off and head to El Salvador,

where they are put into a notorious prison there where, you know, I mean, they're just completely disappeared. Right. So there's no access for journalists, no access for lawyers, whatever. There is no proof that these people actually are in the gang that Trump says that they're in. In fact, previously, they had said that some people, you know, that were held at Guantanamo were in this gang and journalists went in and turned out they weren't whatsoever. It's estimated there's only a few hundred members of this gang in the U.S.,

all together. So it's sort of, okay, that's not, so it's, that's not like very unlikely that, you know, they got all of them in this one roundup. In any case, there's, there's no proof. They were given no due process, no ability to challenge the determination that they're part of this gang. And they're disappeared into this El Salvador prison that's known for cruelty, torture, and slave labor. So after this

plane takes off, a judge actually acts pretty quickly. We can put this next piece up on the screen. Judge actually acts pretty quickly and hastily schedules a hearing and says, you can't do this. You know, I don't think that you have the legal right to do this. And I am blocking all of these deportations, not just the five that the case was originally about. The ACLU, you know, immediately expanded their case to include all migrants who were held in detention, said you can't do this. And even if

There is a plane in the air. You need to turn that plane around and bring them back. But that does not happen. Instead, there's reporting from Axios that says that Stephen Miller and Kirsten, you know, they were apparently the ones that were, you know, involved most closely in the execution of all of this. They debated with lawyers like, you know, should we go along with this court order or not? And basically they decided not.

Now, they claimed, oh, it was already in over international waters. So, you know, it's out of our hands now. Of course, this is like preposterous and nonsense. Wait, why? Well, because. Do you think. First of all, look, read the quote in front of you. However, that's accomplished, whether they're planning to turn it around or not or not being the operative word. Second, however, it's a plane took off from Texas, which immediately put it over international waters within like 10 minutes. That was 635 p.m. The flight landed in El Salvador at 835 p.m.

making it clear that actually it was over international territory and not over the waters of the United States. Now, do you really believe that some federal judge here in Washington, D.C., has the authority to tell the executive to turn a military aircraft around? You believe, okay, well, then we'll test that at the Supreme Court. We will test that theory at the United States Supreme Court. And if you're right, then we can import these criminals back here.

How do you know they're criminals? Well, first of all, I mean, this is where, look, you said something earlier, which I think is important. You think your country is being taken away from you because 300-something Venezuelan illegal immigrants were deported to El Salvador. How do you, what proof do you even have of that? What? I mean, because here's the thing. Wait, that they were deported to El Salvador? No. That they were illegal immigrants? Yeah.

They all enter the country illegally. According to the government. I mean, listen, I think that is probably true. But here's what you're defending. Hundreds of people who we don't know who they are disappeared into a foreign prison known for torture where no lawyers or journalists could possibly go and find out who they are and whether the government story adds up.

with zero due process. That's what you're defending. What I'm telling you- Is that Trump can summarily say, these people, they're gone. I'm putting them in this prison in a foreign country indefinitely at my discretion and you don't get to say anything about it.

That's what happened here. So I just don't see how you can say anything about it. I don't see how you can defend that. I think it should be easily challenged to the United States Supreme Court. And I think that within the context of clearly the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, from what I've been able to review, he seems well within his rights to be able to do this from a State Department or a terrorist organization. That's not, listen, you're arguing semantics. I'm talking legal. No, I'm arguing the law. Are we at war right now? I mean, he doesn't, well.

Three times. As in, you look in the past. War of 1812, World War I, World War II. Those are the three times it's been invoked. All three times, especially during World War II, quite shamefully in the internment of Japanese citizens. You think it's okay for our government to round up whoever claimed they're criminals

and imprison them indefinitely in a foreign prison to be tortured. Well, I'll flip it around. That's insane to me. You seem much more concerned about that than the importation of eight to 10 million illegal immigrants under Joe Biden. That seems to me like something my country's been taking away. So this is what I'm saying. We can play this game all day long. Do you think that's an invasion? I think that's an invasion.

8 to 10 million illegal immigrants. But that's not what he's talking about. No, but he's talking specifically about Venezuelan migrants. Yes, and no, no. He's talking specifically about the Trendy Aragua. How many people are here from Trendy Aragua? I have no idea. Estimates say roughly several hundred. Who are we getting that from? From the ACLU or from the lawyer? No, from...

from agencies, from international agencies that track law and order across Latin America. These are not like liberal do-gooder. These are people who are looking at the spread of gangs around the world. Okay. Many actually of these people likely were fleeing

violence from the very gang that you're talking about. That's probably a convenient narrative. Hold on, hold on. I think that's a very convenient narrative. In terms of who was brought to Guantanamo Bay, okay, imprisoned in Gitmo, the Trump administration made the same, oh, these are gang members. These are the worst of the worst. Some of them didn't even have criminal records at all.

Some of them who they claimed were in Trendy, Aragua, it was because of either they were from that state of Aragua in Venezuela and actually, like I said, had been fleeing the violence from this gang or they happened to have a tattoo that made them think like, oh, they're just in the gang.

One of the people who was part of this group is a LGBT Venezuelan who was in prison, according to his lawyer, because of his tattoo, was assumed to be in a gang. That's what we're talking about here. So there is no reason. Why is he being gay or whatever? How is that relevant? Because how do you think it's going to go for him, Sagar? What? He's an artist. How do you think this is going to go for him?

Oh, so he's magically allowed presence in the United States. Okay, then don't care that he's gay. Do you care that he was wrongfully imprisoned and disappeared into a foreign jail cell and there's nothing that anyone can do about it? Does that bother you? According to his ACLU lawyer, he's not a part of the trend. Do you truly believe? I'm supposed to trust some open borders lawyer? Do you truly believe that they rounded up in this, they successfully rounded up every trender Aragua gang member in the country? That's it. No, I don't. Mission accomplished. Okay.

If anything, there's probably a lot more than need to go. Now, this is actually what I'm saying, is that at the end of the day, within the powers of the State Department, which has declared this an FTO, the powers within the executive are quite clear. Also note, Trump literally promised to do this on the campaign trail. So this was one of the most telegraphed actions in modern history. Are you good with it?

Are you good with it? I mean, Crystal, again, are you good with 8 to 10 million illegal immigrants coming in over four years? Random people, quit changing the subject. Yes, I am. You know that I'm fine. Yeah, okay, so then we should... Are you good...

Quit changing the subject. That's an important part of the story. Are you comfortable with random people being snatched up? I don't think that they're random. I think they're illegal immigrants. Okay, give me your proof. Of what? That they entered the country illegally? No, give me your proof these are gang members. I don't have to offer that proof. Why not? And actually, even the government doesn't necessarily have to do that either for deportation purposes. But are you good with that? With what? With being able to snatch up random people.

But they're not random. They're here illegally. How do you know that? They're not citizens. They are. So you're fine with. OK, so you have criminally entered our country. You think that the an appropriate punishment for people who are fleeing gang violence and coming here seeking a better life. According to you. Do you think that an appropriate punishment is to be disappeared into a foreign territory?

jail cell to be tortured indefinitely and subjected to slave labor. What I think is that their responsibility and safety is the problem of the Venezuelan government and that they can argue to the government of El Salvador and identify these individuals and get those people. Answer my question. Is it okay with you? Crystal. Is it okay with you? You think it is an appropriate punishment?

for someone who crossed our border seeking a better life to be disappeared with zero due process into a foreign jail cell to be tortured. Are you good with that? First of all, look, you're offering up a lot of claims which you don't even necessarily to be true. In the same way, you can't say for certain or whatever they've been tortured. Oh, they had their head shaven by the El Salvadorian prison? No, this is what this prison is known for. Okay, okay, that's... That's the whole point of what this prison is known for. I think it's... Look, as I continue to say...

When you let in eight to 10 million people and you elect a president who says, I'm going to use the Alien and Enemies Act to mass deport people and stand in front of a sign, and then you win the popular vote, then yeah, I am okay with it. And in fact, the only problem I have with the Trump administration is that they've been prioritizing this stupid shit like trying to

deport someone like Mahmoud Khalil for some billionaire donors and not the people who came here illegally. Those people entered our country criminally and illegally. This whole, oh, fleeing a better life is BS. That's not BS. They're economic migrants. That's fleeing for a better life. I mean, are there real problems in Venezuela? Crystal, they take advantage of our laws. They illegally use their asylum status. I'm asking a very discreet question. Yes, I understand that. You think it's okay to...

To then randomly take people, we have zero proof that these are gang members. And we should very much mistrust the government because they've been proven to lie about this previously. We should trust them that they're picking up gang members when they can pick up whoever they want and imprison them in a foreign jail to be tortured. You think that is an appropriate punishment for crossing our borders, trying to

achieve a better life. No, I think that the, look, I mean, once again, I think it is clearly within the executive purview to be able to do this. Stop dodging with the executive purview. Do you think it's right or wrong? Why is there a dodge? Because do you think it's right or wrong?

The world is not so black and white. Would I have preferred to do it? Do you think it's right or wrong? Would I have preferred that they release the list of all of the names and the dossier for each one of these people? Absolutely. It would actually make it the histrionics coming from a lot of liberals a lot easier to deal with. Do you think there should be due process? And that's the whole point of having due process. No, but no. So that they can have an opportunity to prove the things you're saying about me are not true. But instead, don't you think it's telling?

that they had this plane ready to go so that they could avoid any of that scrutiny, and that they are now disappeared into a foreign prison where there is no ability to know who these people are. And by the way, there were children as young as 14 who were part of this because the Alien Enemies Act says it's 14 or older. So you're talking about not just grown men. You're talking about teenage boys here as well.

Like that's what we're talking about. We're talking about the government claiming an ability to intern, deport with some air elite with no due process and holding a foreign prison whoever they want because we have no way to know who these people are.

We don't even know for sure that they're Venezuelan. We don't know for sure that they're migrants. We don't know anything about them. This is what I'm saying. The level of concern you have for a bunch of illegal immigrants is honestly maddening to me. That you think it's okay to let 8 to 10 million people here in this country illegally, many of whom who commit crimes. I have a level of concern for human beings.

Okay, that's great. That's the job of the United Nations. Our job is to protect our country, the United States Constitution and laws, as well as the Alien Enemies Act, which has stood up to multiple constitutional traditions. Tell me how it protects our country to hand the president the ability to randomly round up and deport whoever he wants. How do you know that? What proof have you been given?

Of what? That these are Venezuelan nationals? Of who they are at all. Yes, actually, there is proof that they were Venezuelan nationals. But beyond that, now, again, we can criticize process in here all day long. But I do think that is a philosophical trap where look at the status quo that we were living in. Fifteen to twenty million illegal immigrants who entered this country, eight to ten million of them over a four year period, a resounding popular vote victory for a person who said, I am going to mass deport. In fact, I think

this is probably one of the most popular things that Trump will do. And if liberals want to mount a great fight on this, I say be my guest. But because this is the irony of the situation. I don't know whether it would be popular or not. I actually know. I actually kind of doubt that it will be. I doubt that disappearing people into a foreign prison is that popular. Maybe you're right. You know what? Slavery was popular at a time. Yes, segregation was popular at a time.

you know, hating gay people was popular at a time. Like sometimes things that are popular can be bad, can be immoral, can be a massive authoritarian fascist power grab. This is one of those times. And I think it's insane that you can defend taking whoever they want and with zero due process,

Defying the court order. Well, no, that's not. No, no, no. Because again, it's actually very up to interpretation. No, it is. I would be more sympathetic to your view, maybe, if it wasn't for Bukele, who is the head of El Salvador, coming out and saying, whoopsie, and the White House saying,

amplifying that with regard to the court order being defied. Like they openly and brazenly defied a court order here that said you have to turn the plane around. You cannot do this. So it's going to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. If these are hardened gang criminals, prove it.

Wouldn't you want to prove it? Wouldn't you want to show everybody, look at all of these monsters that we found that we're now getting rid of, that we're now deporting, that we're now falling through on our promises? No. They want to hide it. They want to do it under the cover of night. I don't think that they're hiding it. Because they want to hide who these people are and do it under the cover of night because they know that these are not all. They did a pretty shitty job of that. They broadcasted it all on video. No, I'm talking about the specifics of who these people are.

people are. Yes, their faces are literally broadcast live. That these are not all gang criminals. When they went, when journalists were able, and this is probably why people were pulled from Guantanamo, when journalists were able to go and check, oh, who are these people that you say are these hardened criminal monsters that you put at Guantanamo Bay with no rights? Guess what they found? Many of them had zero criminal records. The ones who they claimed were gang, they were not gang members. Some of them were fleeing gang violence.

And yet we're just going to disappear people now and defy court orders and say, whoopsie, and send it to, you know, this brutal, you know,

human rights violation, torturing, slave labor, cesspool with no due process. You know, the funny thing is, is that, you know, as much as you love Mr. Ms. Scheinbaum over in Mexico, Bukele is actually one of the also most popular leaders in Latin America. He dropped his crime rate from something like 6,000 murders 10 years ago to 114 just in the last year.

amount of success. So for all of this, he's overwhelmingly popular. And it turns out that like, oh, whenever you lock a bunch of criminals up, crime drops. It's actually shocking. Beyond that, again, the histrionics and the level of concern always comes to

applying the maximum force of the beauty of the United States to people who criminally entered our country. I genuinely wish there was the same level of concern for our citizens, but this is where the liberal entire concern strategy, just frankly, why it loses at the ballot box

It's genuinely internationalist and globalist. It is open border almost to its core, looking at these people as if they are full, deserve the full protections of the United States and or are equal and equivalent to U.S. citizens. Well, you know, under the Alien Enemies Act, if they are Trendy Agua members, then no, they don't actually have due process rights in a similar way for Samir deportation. Are we at war right now? I mean, OK, are we being invaded right now?

Are you going to say? Yeah, exactly. So there we go. If you want to play Samantha Gaines, you can play it all game. No, imagine that 200 people from a gang is an invasion. And that puts us at war like that is insane. And so here's here's the thing. OK, you hate these people. You want to go. You're fine to deport every migrant and imprison them in a foreign jail cell where that can be torture. We got it. OK, do you realize, though, that once this door is open, like it's open for everyone, not just for Trump.

Like when civil rights go, that's it.

They're gone. They're going to deport who exactly? Illegal immigrants. OK, fine. That's why if Biden or Kamala Harris or whoever in the future wants to. It could be somebody who is here illegally. Fine. That's fine. Be comfortable with them picking up whoever they want. That's not and summarily deporting them. See, this is what I'm saying. You keep putting people on the protection of even legal or there's no due process where we even know who these people are. But yes, of course, if you're here, you have some rights.

Otherwise, it would be like crazy. You couldn't just have some foreign tourists here and then just like torture them for the hell of it. That would be insane. This is Ashley Iaconetti from the Ben and Ashley I Almost Famous podcast. You could have lost 10 pounds already if you already started one month ago. So are you ready to start today? Find out if weight loss meds are right for you in just three minutes at tryfh.com. Tryfh.com. Try.

Results vary based on start weight and adherence to diet, exercise, and program goals. Database on independent study sponsored by Future Health. Future Health is not a healthcare services provider. Meds are prescribed at provider's discretion. Bettering your business takes working with the best. With the James Hardy Alliance, you gain access to leads, training, networking, and support from the number one brand of siding in North America. Achieve new levels of success by joining the James Hardy Alliance today.

I'm Mary Kay McBrayer, host of the podcast The Greatest True Crime Stories Ever Told. Join me every week as I tell some of the most enthralling true crime stories about women who are not just victims, but heroes or villains, or often somewhere in between. Listen to The Greatest True Crime Stories Ever Told on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

If you are here, yes, you have some rights. If you're an asylum seeker, yes, you have some rights. One of those rights is due process. And this is the thing. It's like, you know, they pick this, they paint these people as all gang members, which they're not all gang members. There's zero chance that they're all gang members. But in any case, they paint them as

that because they know that this is like a hated group. And then those, you know, rights get stripped away. And if you think that it just stays with the group that you happen to like hate or not care about or think deserve to rot and get tortured in a foreign jail cell, that's not what history shows us.

And some of the most shameful moments in our history have been when a hated group is targeted like Japanese internment during World War II, which is the last time that this law was invoked. What's the key difference between that?

Those were U.S. citizens who were having their Supreme Court or their constitutional rights violated. Natural born U.S. citizens. Is there any level of cruelty to migrants that you would not justify? No, this is what I'm saying. Deportation is not cruelty. That's what I don't understand. This is not just deportation. They're imprisoned in a torture chamber. Okay, well, it's a prison in El Salvador. Is there any level of cruelty you would not justify to these people? Would I justify like chaining them up?

and hanging them from their, uh, no, absolutely tortured. Oh no, they weren't. They were sent for being prisoned. They were sent to a prison. The government of El Salvador has agreed apparently like on some fee basis to house these people while they're there. It is now the problem of the Venezuelan government. And by the way, actually, if this does go to the U S Supreme court and they uphold what you're saying, you know what I'll say? Okay, bring them back. Go ahead. Let's do it. Strike it down. You can bring them back. So you have no moral compass outside of what the Supreme court tells you is okay. You are look,

Again, this is why I think this level of, frankly, moral hypocrisy is ludicrous. Where would the line be? What would be too far? Okay, so let me ask you that. So how many illegals have to murder? What's the correct number that is justifiable in the crystal ball universe for the number of illegals to enter the United States? How many murders is that okay to balance with increasing economic GDP and their human rights? You're aware that undocumented and documented immigrants have a lower crime rate

than the native-born population. Oh, right, so they should actually be here instead. So stop smearing them all. I'm not smearing them all. Like, they're criminals, because they're not. But if they shouldn't be here, then the number should be zero, correct? No. I think the trustful number is zero, is the number of illegal murders. We need to actually have an immigration system where I would let more people in, yes, than is legally allowed now, but...

Yes, I would have borders. I would want to know who's coming in. I would want to make sure that criminals weren't coming in. Well, none of that by now. And I didn't see any of this level of histrionics that was happening while 200,000 people are crossing the border. Because people are being sent to be tortured by our government. But they're entering. That's something that doesn't upset you? Well, first of all. How is that not upset?

I don't think that they're quote unquote being tortured. I think they're in a prison. Now, second, again, I think that there are tens of millions of people who criminally entered our country, circumvented our laws. We have no idea in the similar way that you're talking about here, who are either committing crimes. Let's say it's less than the native born population. Nobody knows if that's actually true or not. But even if it is, why is that acceptable number not zero? What is the appropriate policy? You think that justifies...

sending people to be tortured in a foreign prison cell. You keep saying that. And disappear. There's no evidence. In a similar way, there's no evidence that that's true at all. You think that that justifies our government claiming... No, our government claiming the power...

to disappear people into a foreign prison cell. - I will tell you this. I think that considering the circumstances of the election and the genuine insanity of the status quo that we're in, that me, along with many people who saw what Trump was running on, agreed with this idea put forward,

that every power of the United States government should be brought to bear to deport people who entered this country illegally. I think that has both been affirmed at the ballot box and is within this U.S. law. You are good with random people. We don't know who they are. They get no due process. Being smeared as gang members, we don't know.

in being disappeared into a foreign prison that is known for torture and slave labor. - I mean, again, I'm just gonna say like, so you're okay with people who are coming-- - This is a whataboutism saga. - It actually is. - Answer the question. - Unironically. - No, answer the question. - No, so you're okay with people coming to America who are, it could be pedophiles, murderers, rapists. - Because we had people come here. - And we have no idea who they are. - Because we had people come here illegally, we need fascism. - Because we also need-- - That's your argument. - We also need some dishwashers and somebody needs to build our houses.

Because people came here without authorization, we should have fascism. This is not fascism. This is ridiculous. But what would be too cruel? What would be where you would say, you know what, this is wrong. You know what, there should be due process. You know what, these are, yes, I don't.

I don't think that they should be. Perfect example. I don't think they should be in this country, but I do think that they deserve to not be tortured. The Mahmoud Khalil is the perfect example. Somebody who is here, screened by our government. Not only do we know who he was, somebody who has due process rights as a legal permanent resident who was arrested and is being deported for a BS free speech reason.

Perfect. There you go. I think we're going to talk about a case soon on some H-1B thing. I think the government acted outrageously on that one. On this one, this is what people really don't seem to get, is when you sit there and you just justify, again, how many people are okay to just be able to come in? We're supposed to take their word for what it is. Oh, I'm fleeing violence, and you apparently get to stay here for 25 years. It's citizenship and a job. It's a complete bullshit circumvention of any notion of sovereignty. Your contention is...

that that justifies claiming wartime powers to disappear random people. I think, I mean, I like how the phrasing is here. I will interpret yours in similarly bad faith, which is that you think it is okay for criminal illegals, pedophile rapists, murderers, all of who have been proven to have prostituted illegally and under the very asylum status quo that you defend. I am fine.

That it's okay for them to be able to come here to commit and to murder, to rape our citizens and our children. I think they should be deported. But no, but you don't. But we don't know who these people are. Because, no, but no. We don't know who these people are. And this administration has already been caught lying about who these people are.

They've already been caught. There is zero reason to believe them. In the entire country, there are probably 300 gang members of the type that we're talking about. Amnesty International says that? No, I'm telling you, there are multiple estimates from independent groups who track gang violence across Latin America. Their estimate is, best estimate, is that there are a few hundred members of this gang. So your faith that they got them all in this one roundup, I guess we can, mission accomplished, it's all done. Oh, I didn't say it was my faith. And then they brazenly defy a court order

and brag about it and celebrate it. Like, I just don't, I truly don't understand how that can be justified. Like, I get you're upset about the number of people who came here. We have a difference of opinion about that. That's fine. But in response to that, we think it's okay to just send a group of people to be disappeared and tortured? How is that fair?

How is that acceptable? In what world is that acceptable? I mean, in what world is it acceptable for anyone to be tortured whatsoever? I mean, I don't think you're okay with that in general. So why, when it's this group of migrants...

Is it like you could do whatever you want to and I really don't care? Well, we didn't do whatever we want to and we put them in the custody of the El Salvadorian government. So that's not the same thing. No, in a prison that is known for torture and slave labor. Yes, you can say it again. Okay, again, it's not the U.S. who's doing this. Yes, it's the U.S. who's doing it. Who facilitated their deportation. Of course, the U.S. contracted with Bukele to put them in this prison. Yes.

So they're in custody, El Salvadorian government. They were deported, I think, legally. We'll find out at the U.S. Supreme Court. So what are you going to say if the U.S. Supreme Court, which I fully expect them to uphold this order? My moral compass doesn't depend on what the Supreme Court says. OK, then run. You know what? Support a candidate. The Supreme Court candidate who doesn't has had Dred Scott. Yeah, I mean, there's 1840. There's a record of terrorization.

terrible decisions from the Supreme Court, okay? It doesn't require a Supreme Court decision to know what's right and what's wrong. And I think to take people with zero due process where they don't get to make the case, hey, I'm actually just, I'm seeking asylum. Here's why I have this tattoo. I'm actually from that state. I was fleeing gang violence. That would give the government an opportunity

prove what bad hombres these people were and why they deserve all the punishment. Don't you notice how you take in full faith the testimony of the Lord? Be like, oh, he's gay. No. Again, who gives a shit if the guy is gay? What I take is the proof previously that this government lied and the proof also that the fact that they disappeared these people and clearly don't want us to know who they are and don't want us to be able to evaluate. If they were able to prove these claims in court, then they should do it.

And even then, though, I mean, personally, I don't think people should be tortured. But in any case, they'd have a lot stronger justification for what they're doing here. We are not at war. This is not an invasion of 200 gang members. Like, what are we talking about here? Yes, you're right. Eight to ten million. If you can claim these – if this president can claim these powers, any president can claim these powers.

Zero due process rights to just disappear whoever they want into a jail cell in El Salvador where they are beyond the reach of any journalists or lawyers or anyone. That's what we're talking about here. But then why did the United States Congress not repeal that law after it was invoked three times if they thought it was such a horrible threat to due process? I mean, look, even the—

And I said, I thought Trump was a fascist and authoritarian. You said, I think the institute, I think he's authoritarian, but I think the institutions will constrain him. Yeah. Where are those institutional constraints? Because what we have right now is a court ruling that the president just decided, you

I'm just not going to do that. I'm just going to go ahead with my plans. It was open to interpretation. I remember you even saying previously when a judge was like, hey, you need to stop all of this, but it's not necessarily feasible because something is there. It's a lower court here at the district level. It will get challenged and it will go all the way to SCOTUS. But these people are not coming back. No, I'll tell you this. Well, first of all, they might be coming back.

because if the Supreme Court does say that that was illegal, then yes, the United States should actually not only have to comply with that order, they should fully pay, bring these individuals back, and then we can go through that. Secondly, as we said, the idea that they're, quote, not complying is just not true. Put before please up on the screen. From the White House, the administration, quote, did not refuse to comply. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has made repeatedly clear federal, or sorry, this isn't actually in the statement, but it's on the other side. This is the only current, quote,

flight that's supposedly planned, considering that after the plane land was then over international waters, as they're claiming, it will be adjudicated sometime soon as to whether they're going to be held in contempt of court or not. This is not some ongoing policy there from the U.S. government with respect to mass deportation flights of every Venezuelan like you are claiming. So they are actually complying now that the law has been, now that the judicial course has been...

You may have the similar point for the level of histrionics if they were doing it every single day for the next 10 years or, sorry, 10 days up until it goes to SCOTUS. But it hasn't happened. But this is not even the only court order that they flouted in the past number of days.

Another deportation that a judge blocked. Judge demands Trump admin explain why a doctor was deported despite an order. This was a doctor who was here on an H-1B visa, citizen of Lebanon, who was detained at the border and deported again in spite of the fact that there was a court order. Not to mention that this comes on the heels of, you know, I mean,

USAID, there were all kinds of court orders saying, hey, you have to unfreeze this money. You've got to pay these contracts. The government wouldn't do it, wouldn't do it, wouldn't do it, wouldn't do it. And so you have...

If you don't want to say it's open defiance because they're still coming up with a cover story, that's fine. But it's pretty clear from the reporting that they knew what they were doing. They had the ability to turn the plane around and they just decided we're not going to listen. Yeah, well, I don't think I honestly think it's a crazy precedent that a lower federal court judge could be able to decide that a military aircraft can be turned around over international water. I mean, imagine like what is somebody in the middle of a bombing operation?

going to go to a judge and say, hey, actually, you got to turn that around. This would circumvent the very basics of the United States government and executive authority. Government agencies were in charge of this flight. The order applied to those government agencies saying, no, you can't do this. Like, you have to turn these planes around. It says turn the plane around or not. And however that is accomplished. However it's accomplished. So if there's a plane in there, then you have to turn it around. Like,

And they and again, the reporting from in the room is that like they knew that they had a choice. And they thought they had a choice. They decided they could get. They decided that they were just not going to listen.

This is Jenny Garth from I Do Part 2. If you could lose 10.4 pounds in one month, would you try? With Future Health, you can. Future Health gives millions access to affordable weight loss meds for less than three bucks a day. Find out if weight loss meds are right for you in just three minutes at tryfh.com.

I'm Mary Kay McBrayer, host of the podcast The Greatest True Crime Stories Ever Told. Join me every week as I tell some of the most enthralling true crime stories about women who are not just victims, but heroes or villains, or often somewhere in between.

Listen to the greatest true crime stories ever told on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Love it first swipe? I highly doubt it. What's your biggest red flag? No, no, no. What's your ultimate green flag?

These days, reality TV and social media have us thinking love is instant. We're marrying strangers at first sight. We're finding love through walls or we're even judging people by balloon pops. But what really makes a relationship last? On this episode of Dope Labs, poet, author and relationship expert Young Pueblo breaks down the psychology and biology of loving better.

And he provides eye-opening insights and advice that we all need. It's a big realization moment that you should not be postponing your happiness. Like your greatest happiness is not necessarily going to like come from a relationship. Your partner, they should add to your happiness, but your happiness is really coming from within you. Listen to Dope Labs on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I think that this is a...

new chapter in what our country is. If you can just claim war, claim we're at war and use it to just crush whoever's rights you want and send people to a foreign prison cell with the expectation that they will be tortured and held indefinitely.

I think that's wrong. Yeah, well, I think the Rorschach test here is that I think the last four years were 10 times more outrageous than any potential implications of this. You were okay with it. I was not. The people decided to vote for somebody who thought they wanted to have deportation. At the end of the day, we had a situation, again. But this isn't about deportation. No, but it really is. And it actually is also about Joe Biden. It's about getting rid of all the laws.

And this is about saying, taking people, we have no proof of who they are

and sending them to be tortured. Does it not make you think the fact that 99% of the border crossings have dropped now under the Trump administration, despite the fact that there were no new laws passed? That was before they did this. They didn't even need to do this to accomplish that, Sagar. Is that not evidence that Joe Biden genuinely did have some executive authority to quash whatever was going on? The story that we were told was that he was fully enforcing and complying with the law when 8 to 10 million people were allowed to enter our country illegally. The Trump administration...

has not even in violation of any executive order or any judicial authority that I know of today, has been able to implement remain in Mexico and other policy to facilitate a 99% drop. We didn't have to be doing any of the stuff we are right now if we had a previous president who didn't allow all these people in. Many of whom did commit crimes. We don't have to be doing this now. But we didn't have to be doing that. We don't have to be doing this now. I mean...

So you don't think it's a... Who is making Trump? At the end of the day, you don't think it's an urgent crisis that there are 8 to 10 million people who are illegally. I do, and I think a lot of voters certainly agreed. That was the number one or two reason why a lot of people backed up Donald Trump at the ballot box. Okay, and so let me just be clear. You think that that quote-unquote crisis justifies getting rid of civil rights, claiming wartime authorities, and, you know, rounding people up without us knowing who they are or what they have quote-unquote supposedly done, done,

having a chance to defend themselves in court, you think it justifies a suspension of core civil rights. And, you know, again, it's at the discretion of like Trump and Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller, whoever they want to round up and make a show of. If this were applied to, let's say, 5 million people and they're,

government was openly defying an order continually as this were happening, I may share a similar level of your concern. But we are talking here about two to three hundred people, at the very least, many of which are gang members. You don't know that. Illegally. You don't know a single one of them.

as a gang member. Well, you don't know that any of them are not. All right? And so, like, that's my point is that at the end of the day, and you know what? You just take their word for it? Unfortunately, none of us know because they entered the country illegally. No, none of us know because they were denied due process. They entered the country illegally. And they were disappeared so that we can't have journalists or lawyers be able to access them. Again, you seem to think that we should provide information

and have the same level of concern as a country for people who violated our laws, who come here. Yes, I think, yes, I believe humans deserve human rights. That's great. I think that human rights are, no, I think that the United States has a sole obligation to look out for the interests of its U.S. citizens. Okay, a sole obligation.

So that means no one else's human rights matter? No, that's not what I said. What I said is that at the end of the day, the government and national sovereignty demand that citizens have control over their country. We lived in a status quo where that was basically violated flagrantly for four years. And you think that this claiming, this quashing of rights...

is necessary to achieve that goal and you think that that's worth it. I mean, I just think when you casually dismiss... Well, we do have a situation where we have 47,000 beds for ICE. Oh, it's just 200 people, so who really cares what happens to them? Like, do you understand that if it is upheld at Supreme Court, we aren't just talking about a few hundred people. It will be however many people they want it to be who are...

sent to this, you know, torture chamber in El Salvador. It's not necessarily the plan. Actually, a lot of this is also to pressure the Maduro government to accept its own citizens, which it refuses to do. This is, look, I think that the philosophical argument in all of this really gets back to

What do you think that the government's purpose is? You seem to think that America is like some transnational thing. No, I think the government's purpose is— Which is supposed to be just be pie in the sky and we're supposed to go out and look out for the interests of all of these criminal illegal aliens. No, no, no, no. I don't—I think that people have civil rights.

including people, by the way, and this is true, who are here who are undocumented. It certainly applies to people who are visa holders and who are legal permanent residents. And I think that our government should be in the business of following the law and also of preserving civil and human rights. Yes, I think that that is, I think when we let go of that

I think that can quickly go to a very scary place. I just don't think that that's true. And that's why I can't just hand wave away, oh, it's just 200 people, so who really the hell cares what happens to them? I have had to listen to four years of leftists talking about Joe Biden. And in that time period, I hear defy the Supreme Court, fire the parliamentarian, forget about norms. We need to legalize weed by executive order. We need to make it so that Harvard kids get free student loans. I mean, come on, have I not been listening to Breonna Joy Gray and all these people talking about this for years? They never

cared then because that was for ends that you thought were justified. This is a similar way. It is a crisis according to the government and the United States populace, I would say, considering how the election happened. Those elections have consequences considering they literally said he was going to do it and then invoked the same law to facilitate that.

That is genuinely not only a matter of doing what you said you were going to do, but beyond that, when you think at the basic level of where the concern and all that should come from, it is just obvious and clear to me that your concern falls with protecting—I mean, actually—

is this lookout for due process, supposed due process rights of criminal illegal gang aliens present in the United States as opposed to the 8 to 10 million people who enter the country illegally. I will think that the latter is a bigger problem every single day of the week. If we lived in a perfect world, do I think that they would have published the dossier of all of the individual names, et cetera? Absolutely. We can critique process here all day long. I'm not critiquing. No, but I am critiquing process. Do you think this is

What would you say if they did that? Do you think this is moral and right? Do I think it is moral and right in what sense? To deport people who are here present illegally? Yes, I do think it is. No, not to deport them. To send them to this prison. I think it is. With no due process. I think it is right to facilitate mass deportation of the people who enter this country illegally. Do you think it is moral and right? Something that Donald Trump ran on, and I think that is a good idea. Do you think it is moral and right to send these 250 people to a –

El Salvador prison that is known for torture with no due process. - There is no evidence that they're being tortured. - I said very carefully, an El Salvador prison known for torture. - That they should be sent there? - Yeah. - You think it is moral and right for 250 people with no due process rights

to be flown, to be kept in this El Salvador prison known for torture. Yes, you know why? Because I think it falls within the government purview and the promise of the government that was made by our currently democratically elected president to do everything in power to make sure that people who enter the country illegally are deported. And at the end of the day- So everything in their power. So if that meant we were going to just lie, it's, you know, Venezuela won't take them back.

and the prison in El Salvador is full. So now we're just going to line them up and firing squad. We're just going to... That's a ridiculous statement. No, it's not because you said it's going to be, you know, they can do whatever. That's actually not within their power. That's the point. But they're claiming these wartime powers, right? So, you know, if you say, okay, well, they have the right to do whatever they possibly can

to facilitate this? Like, where is the line of what would be too far of where you would say, you know what? That is that is against my moral compass. That is too cruel. That is wrong. I mean, I think even if there was some legal, you know, legal fig leaf

that they could claim that you would say that was too far. I think you just named it. And I'm not for mass murder. I'm not for anything. But you're for, you're okay with if they get tortured. Well, no, I didn't say I'm okay with their getting tortured. What I'm saying is that I'm okay with deportation. And at the end of the day, what happens outside the borders...

Let's say we send them to Venezuela, which apparently is so horrible, as you're saying. And we deport them to Venezuela and the Venezuelan government tortures them. Are we criminally responsible for that or morally responsible for that in your eyes? That's ludicrous. You have to see the difference. No, no, no, no, no. I actually don't. Because in this sense, they're not— We contracted with the El Salvador government. We made an intentional choice to send them to this facility. Okay, but why is that different? Let's say we send them back to Maduro. They get off the plane and Maduro shoots them in the head.

Is that supposedly different? I mean, personally, I think that they should, that people who are here should be able to claim asylum and continue with the temporary protected status that they've had from Venezuela, Haiti, and a lot of other places. The absolute vast majority of these people have bullshit asylum claims of which they are circumventing. Okay, then they can be adjudicated.

Yes. How are we supposed to adjudicate that right now where currently there are 47,000 beds for ICE, which are already a complete capacity to even facilitate deportation? There are 25 almost million people here already. You surge immigration judges so that you have increased capacity to be able to adjudicate asylum claims. So, yeah.

And in the interim, what happens? They get to stay here illegally. Yes, exactly. Which at the end of the day, you think that's fine. I don't think that's fine. And luckily, the vast majority of people do not agree with that. And you think, though, in response to that, that it's okay.

to, not just to deport them, but to send them to this prison with the expectation that they're likely to be tortured. I mean, you can say that. You're not going to put words in my mouth. I am for deportation. But again, I do, this is why I find this incredibly tiresome. With, at the end of the day, you were fine, not just you, many liberals, Democrats and others, duff,

facilitated the greatest social experiment in modern American history. Let's increase the foreign-born population, the vast majority of them, illegal immigrants of who we have no idea who these people are. They're coming over here. Many are committing crimes. And then we'll just decide that we are going to pretend none of it ever happened.

that actually were for border security or increased immigration judges. That's another question. Why do you now want orderly deportation when you were fine with disorderly mass migration? If that is the case, then it's an explicit acknowledgement that the previous status quo was both outrageous and was genuinely detrimental to the interests of the United States. But since they're here, now they have to stay. It's all convoluted and it makes no sense. The logical—

application of all of this is deportation of people who are here illegally. But the specifics matter of how it's done, would you not say? Well, you're in my definition on those specifics. We can disagree very much on what the proper levels of migration are and how that should be handled, et cetera. Now we are where we are, and there's a question of how you respond.

One way to respond is to use the actual like normal legal tools available and avail yourself of those while maintaining civil rights in the country. The other one is the one that Trump has chosen here to claim wartime authority when we're not at war.

and to summarily deport people that we don't know who they are in defiance of a court order to a foreign prison where they are likely to be tortured. There was nothing about what led up to this that necessitated that reaction. I think that it is, again, very tiresome and hypocritical, especially coming from people who I know. I wanted Joe Biden to use extraordinary interpretations of legal authority to accomplish their political goal.

No, you just wanted him to use his executive authority to write off $250 trillion in debt. Did I want Joe Biden to randomly disappear people into a prison somewhere where no lawyer or journalist can reach them to figure out who the hell they are? No, of course I didn't. Yes, you only wanted him to do it to mass legalize marijuana, which he didn't have the power to do, or to write off student debt, which they didn't have the power to do. Do you not see the difference between legalizing marijuana and torturing people? I mean, these are two different...

qualitatively very different things. Look, I think that the central problem is that you really think that you're just morally correct in this one. And at the end of the day, it's a legal question, which is both up to the Supreme Court and a popular question in which the vast majority of people do not agree with the position that you hold. It can be both a legal question

and a moral question. Okay, I mean, that's fine. I think that if you want to hold that opinion, I think that's perfectly fine. You made that opinion clear. Many people who have held your opinion have held that clear. Luckily, I think it's been destroyed at the ballot box correctly because it is one that is both detrimental to our country and genuinely just ridiculous and falls apart on its own logical face. I don't remember Trump saying that he was going to

sent people- - He literally said he would declare the alien enemies act for deportation. - I don't remember Trump running on shipping random people to a foreign prison to be tortured. Somehow I don't remember that being a core part of his pitch. But you know what, even if it was,

And even if people voted for that, again, there are certain things that have been popular throughout our history that were wrong. And I think that it's important to say that at the time when it's unpopular. I think it's important to be able to see those things and to call them out in real time.

Japanese internment being one of them, being the last time that this law was ultimately used. That's a huge difference. Korematsu, that Supreme Court decision and Japanese internment was used against citizens of the United States. Oh, but the Supreme Court said it was fine. So wasn't it fine? People voted for it. The Supreme Court said it was fine. People at the time also rioted about it. And the Supreme Court also has apologized or reversed its own decision on that. I'm not saying that it's a perfect institution or that any of these things are good and bad. How

But isn't it possible to have a separate moral judgment outside of what the electoral results said and the Supreme Court then upholding them? Yes, of course there is. I just don't think that this is the similar situation in any way. And I think that you're ignoring the broader context which led to this entire thing, of which –

frankly, in my opinion, is far more morally reprehensible, is to let in so many people with no idea who they are, many of whom commit crimes, and then to just sit and only get outraged whenever a popular revolt against that happens and have to know outrage there at the time, of which I know that there was none on your part and definitely on Democrats. I am outraged by the idea that the government could claim such broad powers.

And that all of us could be subject to their whims. And, you know, I think what we've... All of us are United States citizens. It's just not even remotely comparable. I think what we've seen is... I don't think that's true. And here's... Look, I think what we've already seen with the case, for example, of Mahmoud Khalil is it's like...

okay, started off with, you know, they thought he was a student visa holder. It turns out he's a legal permanent resident. And then it's like, oh, but he's still not an American citizen. Well, now they're investigating all pro, or the ones at Columbia as being the pro-Palestine protests as being terrorism. Well, that is very much about American citizens. And so that's

You know, number one, yes, I do care about human rights. But they're not. What do you mean they're American citizens at Columbia? You're saying they're investigating people there for deportation? Yes, they're investigating. No, they're investigating whether the pro-Palestine protests that happen on Columbia constitute terrorism, with the implication being that anyone who was involved with them could be charged with crimes related to terrorism.

So my point is that when civil rights are violated, it doesn't just stay in one corner. It doesn't just stay with this group that you happen to feel comfortable with. And yes, by the way, I do think, you know, torture is wrong. And I do think due process is the way things should be done so that the government has to prove the claims that it's making in court. And I think it's outrageous that—

you know, that that didn't happen in this instance. And I don't care that it was just 200 people that were disappeared into a foreign prison without any due process whatsoever. So, and nor do I think that it stops there. Like they're going to court to try to be able to pursue this path continuously, you know, and, and so, yeah, that's, I think that this is a, I think this is a very frightening authoritarian fascist

And I think that our institutions have not only proven inadequate to be able to stem the tide, but also the Trump administration clearly uses whatever opportunities they can to defy court orders and pursue their own ambitions here. - I think that I understand where you're coming from and I could see how people, liberals or whatever,

could feel that way. What I would ask again is to see how did we get to this extraordinary situation and you should make some serious political calculus in my opinion to look to the past and to not call out many of the outrages that have happened and the status quo change that Joe Biden and many other liberals facilitated by allowing so many people here illegally and then to just cry tears whenever the logical consequence

of that comes to bear, it just seems, you know, very rewriting of history and one where, uh, it's also, it fits very well, I think with my AOC point of the future, when she was screaming and crying in front of those deportation facilities under Donald Trump and went viral or whenever her fist was raised and she was justifying theft and crime during BLM, they thought as you did, that they were morally correct. As you feel out in this moment, that

not only was a rejected at the ballot box, but it was one that both actually led to worse outcomes because what did Biden do? Yes. Even with all of this mass, uh, allowing of people in, he continued many policies under the, from the Trump administration of which they fell silent then at that time. So it became clear that this is not true moral standards or whatever. It's about political convenience. And throughout the through line of all of this comes back to, uh,

The status quo was irrevocably changed under Biden. It became not only a popular, but I think an imminent and dangerous thing to the fabric of the United States. You just allow these mass criminal illegals here. We have no idea who they are. The vast majority of them don't speak any English. The vast majority of them don't have any education. They have no able or real ability to fit into the U.S. economy beyond the service sector.

which, you know, that seems a little bit demeaning to me, and was not only affirmed, but then used to the best of their abilities, their powers, the government, to facilitate deportation. And the crazy thing is, you and I are arguing as if 10 million people are being deported tomorrow. That's not what happened at all. All of this court order is being complied with today. They're not continuing to, it's going to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. All of this will face judicial scrutiny. If the Supreme Court orders and come back, I'll sit here and I'd

I'm relatively certain the government would comply with that order that would bring these people back. And then this alien enemies, this alien enemies thing will go through the legal process. But the point is, is that all of this, I think, again, comes back to a dramatic change to our country, of which I think you were fine with and I think many others were, and then are shocked at the genuine consequences of what that means when it interacts with the democracy. Does Trump not have agency?

What does he not have agency in how he responds to things like you want to you want to say this is like somehow Biden's fault that Trump decided that Trump decided that he was going to use a wartime power grab in order to facilitate the summary deportation of migrants into a foreign torture chamber.

Like, Trump—that is on Trump. Now, you can object to how Biden handled migration, and that's fine, but it still is on Trump, the way that he responds to that situation. And he responded with authoritarian power grab and defiance of the courts and disappearing hundreds of people that he claims are gang members with zero proof and with a lot of proof in the other direction in order to be tortured in a foreign prison cell.

Okay. That's on him. I don't think that – well, you know what? You're right. It is on him. It will face legal scrutiny. I think it will also – if you totally disagree with it, people are welcome to run for office and to – if you want to bring all these people back, okay, be my guest if you win the election. But, I mean, at a certain point, it is one of those where I don't think it's deniable.

that not only was this something that was literally promised to do, that was telegraphed, that I think falls within the bounds of legal scrutiny of the way that it was carried out, and which one is genuinely addressing a real problem that is facing the U.S. I just think the biggest difference between us right now is that you think

That previous one was not actually a problem or was extremely diminishable and is not one which requires extraordinary action. And I'm somebody who does. I think that that was genuinely affirmed at the ballot box. Not only that, but falls within the bounds of where government scrutiny can. And it's just going to have to be not even an agree or disagree situation. It is going to be one where—

where I genuinely am curious not only to see how the Supreme Court handles this decision, and if the government does openly flout that, and let's say they refuse to bring them back, or they continue to do this, then I think we will be in a very similar situation to the one that you're describing as some sort of imminent crisis. But I just don't think that we're there yet, and I don't think that we are going to get there. I don't think so. Not the way that this is all currently being handled.

This is Ashley Akedani from the Ben and Ashley I Almost Famous podcast. If you could lose 10.4 pounds in one month, would you try? Well, with Future Health, you can. Find out if weight loss meds are right for you in just three minutes at tryfh.com. That is tryfh.com. Tryfh.com.

Results may vary based on start weight and adherence to diet, exercise, and program goals. Data based on independent studies sponsored by Future Health. Future Health is not a healthcare services provider. Meds are prescribed at provider's discretion. I'm Mary Kay McBrayer, host of the podcast The Greatest True Crime Stories Ever Told. Join me every week as I tell some of the most enthralling true crime stories about women who are not just victims, but heroes, or villains, or often victims.

Ever wonder what it would be like to be mentored by today's top business leaders? My podcast, This Is Working, can help with that. Here's advice from Google CMO Lorraine Tuhill on how to treat AI like a partner.

I see AI as an incredible co-pilot. You may use different tools or toys to get the work done, but ultimately as editor, as creator,

as maker, you own it and it needs to be good. AI is just the latest flavor of that. You're still the judge of what good looks like. I'm Dan Roth, LinkedIn's editor-in-chief. On my podcast, This Is Working, leaders like Indra Nooyi, Ray Dalio, and Rich Paul share strategies for success and the real lessons that have shaped them. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

All right. So we argued about that for a really long time. So we're going to skip a couple of things. The econ and the Israel block are both going. We'll get to those tomorrow. But we wanted to update on Yemen. So let's go ahead and get to that. So the United States has decided to start bombing Yemen again. For what

purpose? Well, we'll get to that. So they released some video of the latest operation that Donald Trump ordered in retaliation against the Houthis' disruption of shipping lanes. Let's go and put this on the screen. You can see that this was released from CENTCOM operations, firing multiple missiles and projectiles onto Yemen, targeting Houthi leadership, including the use there of a U.S. aircraft carrier, which is in

the region. These were some of the videos from Yemen that actually came out showing the strikes. The retaliation was ordered by Trump for these attacks on shipping lanes. Let's go and put this up there on the screen, released from Trump's Truth Social account.

Today, I have ordered the United States military to launch decisive and powerful military action against the Houthi terrorists in Yemen. They have waged an unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism against the U.S. and other ships, aircrafts, and drones. Now, the problem with this is the assumption that apparently you think you can deal with this Houthi problem with just bombs and missiles alone. In fact, Jeremy Scahill wrote...

flag something which is genuinely incredible to me, which is that just in the last 30 years, the US has used more missiles for quote, air defense in combat against the Houthis since October 2023 than it used in all the years from Desert Storm in the 1990s. - What? - So we have-- - That's crazy. - Not only bombarded,

Yemen, just ourselves, in retaliation for these Houthi attacks. It's also ignoring that the Saudis did not bomb Yemen for, what, five straight years as supplied by the United States, causing, who knows, untold amounts of death. The problem that they assume is

is that there's a military solution to this entire problem. And instead, they refused to pursue a diplomatic solution, one which had been working whenever there was a real ceasefire in Gaza. There's no Houthi attacks. Now,

Their argument there is, oh, we're allowing blackmail. It's like, well, absent a literal U.S. combat invasion of Yemen, which I don't think is worth it, this is the only option. We have diplomacy or we could have ceasefire policy. But instead, we've decided to just basically like flex the muscles and all of that. And people are saying, oh, are you arguing against the legitimacy of the operation? No, that's not what we're saying. What we're saying is,

We tried this. We tried it a bunch of different times. All of this has been tried by Obama, tried by Biden, by Trump. Trump last time around, we're almost eight years to the day since Trump launched a combat operation in Yemen in the first term. And in that time period, the status quo has not only changed, it's actually gotten worse for our overall interests. The only time that anything has stopped has been a diplomatic solution in Gaza. And it's increasingly clear that there are huge headwinds

in the diplomatic solution way against both from the Israelis and sections of our own government that are going to make it less likely that we pursue that. And in that event, we're going to have more problems in the Middle East. Yeah, so Trump's

statement here is also very misleading because actually there haven't been U.S. ships that have been targeted by the Houthis ever since that ceasefire was instituted. I mean, this is the thing they always, the media and the administration always tries to hide the ball on both this one and the last one, by the way, which is that the Houthis have been very clear. This is in response to the Israeli assault and genocide in

Gaza. So when the ceasefire was on, guess what? There were no Houthi attacks, not on U.S. ships, not on Israeli ships, etc. What has changed is not only has that ceasefire broken down, Israel is bombing in Gaza, but more specifically, they are blocking humanitarian aid. They have reinstituted, with our support,

the total and complete siege of Gaza. So the Houthis said, okay, well, this is how we're going to respond. Not even actually, I don't think they directly originally threatened U.S. ships. It was, we're going to, you know, we're going to resume our threats versus Israeli ships. And so, you know, why?

Rather than us coming in and say, okay, well, let's get back to the ceasefire and let's actually pursue the ceasefire that the Trump administration negotiated. And by the way, aid should be able to get into Gaza. You shouldn't be collectively punishing and starving an entire population. Instead, we decided to effectively do Israel's bidding here.

and bomb the Houthis, now putting our own ships at risk. The Houthis have claimed retaliation, sort of unconfirmed whether they were successful in that or not, but there's no doubt that our ships, and they're saying both military now and commercial flagged ships,

are at risk in this passage. In addition, I don't want to gloss over the damage that our strikes did. You know, Yemen is the poorest country in the region. Capital city, Sana'a, is very, you know, this is a beleaguered area to begin with. And the strikes reportedly killed 31 people, injured over 100 more.

Most of them were women and children. Not a lot of indication that it was like, you know, super precise military targeting. There were certain civilian targets that were hit. There's a claim that a cancer hospital was hit as part of these strikes. So, you know, the U.S. is being accused by the Houthis of committing war crimes here as well, but all in the service, not even of our own interest, but to back up the Israelis in their desire to continue this siege and blockade of Israel.

the Gaza Strip. Yeah, let's put D4 up on the screen. This was from the Houthis. They said, quote, regarding the implementation, the operation was in response to the U.S. aggression that targeted several government directorates with more than 47 airstrikes and then put D5 up there as well in terms of them vowing retaliation against

the United States. I mean, look, do we think that they're going to sink an aircraft carrier? Yeah, probably not. But are they going to require more anti-ship missiles or other things used on behalf of the United States? And the problem, as we again have shown, is that we have tried the full-court military press solution here.

That's what Biden tried to do. He tried to solve this at the time. You can't really deny that, to be honest, considering the number of munitions and the number of bombing runs and retaliations and all of that were to restore global shipping. We simply don't have the ability unless we literally occupy Yemen. So at this point, it just comes back to me that they're basically falling into the same trap where, yeah, it's convenient to –

bomb them and just be like, yeah, okay, you know, we tried or whatever. And then we just keep doing this like tit for tat approach. It's not getting us anywhere. We have the same economic consequences, the same military issues as well. I mean, you know, we never talk about this, but every time you fire one of these projectiles, it costs a million bucks or a million five. For what reason? You know, remember when we shot down all those missiles on Israel's behalf? I mean, it cost a

over a billion dollars just in that single operation, not to mention the depleting of stocks. For what purpose? Not ours, last time I checked. So it just continues where when you continue to like fall in this direction, you're not moving forward to any solution which is in any way both acceptable to the people who are firing the missiles who get a say, I'm not saying it's a good thing, but they have a say as long as they have that ability without us being able to change that unless we pursue a diplomatic course

Which I don't think, I don't know whether that's going to happen or not. That's a whole other can of worms here. But this would be more evidence to me that that should be pursued. And unfortunately, it will probably be taken in the opposite direction.

direction. Yeah, well, the point about cost is an important one right now at a moment when this government, this administration is supposedly pursuing this path of austerity. That's a good point. So it's like, we don't have money to, you know, send out all the Social Security checks.

But we do have money, we always have money for this. This money just magically falls out of the sky. It's never any problem funding these sorts of things. And by the way, if you look at the Doge, there's a chart out there of like the contracts they've canceled.

Next to none of them have been from the Pentagon. I believe of their claimed savings, it's like 0.05% came out of the Pentagon, which no surprise given that Elon is one of the Pentagon's larger subcontractors. So there you go. All right. Well, I'm sure you've got some looks here more at Elon, anti-Semitism. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, if you had to sketch a portrait of the ideal type of person to be your neighbor, your community member, your fellow citizen, you'd be hard pressed.

to find a more compelling resume than that of Mahmoud Khalil. He was born into a refugee camp in Syria. He defied the odds to ascend to one of America's preeminent Ivy League universities, met the woman of his dreams while leading a group of volunteers, including some Americans, to educate displaced Syrian children who were in Lebanon. He had just completed a master's of public administration. He was all set to settle into his new life at a new job and as a new father. He and his wife, an American dentist raised in Michigan named Noor, are expecting in April.

Even more telling of his character are the little anecdotes offered by friends and fellow students who submitted letters to the court which paint an image of Khalil that is the polar opposite of what the government would want you to believe about him. So the government says he supports Hamas. Well, an American Jewish woman who believes in the importance of Israel as a Jewish homeland told the court, quote,

I can state with full confidence, Mahmoud has never expressed support for Hamas. Now, the government says his activities fuel anti-Semitism. Another Jewish student told the court that, on the contrary, when a protester veered into anti-Semitic rhetoric, Mahmoud was the first person to object and to intervene.

Now, Mahmoud himself went out of his way to tell CNN that his goal was to uplift both Jewish and Palestinian people, saying he saw the liberation of the two peoples as intertwined. Quote, you cannot achieve one without the other.

The government, in attempting to remove Mahmoud, is saying he would be a detriment to our society at large. Now, in my personal opinion, you see a person's character in the way that they treat the people around them in day-to-day life. Letters to the court say that Mahmoud is the kind of guy who would bring the doorman in his building chicken, tea, fruit, and cake to help him break his fast during Ramadan. That he built community with fellow Jewish students attending Shabbat at their homes. That he was engaged in American political life. He was looking forward to being able to vote and to participate.

Look, maybe the government uncovered some secret life that's going to turn the impression that many of his classmates and friends shared of a conscientious activist committed to tolerance and nonviolence on its head. But frankly, I'd be surprised. The worst thing the Internet has been able to unearth is a video of him flipping off a camera, a great American tradition.

But actually, the government demonization of the clean-cut Khalil is a perfect emblem of the up-is-down, left-is-right way that they have approached their authoritarian crackdown here. Because at the core of their current illiberal power grab is the weaponization of the liberal value of anti-bigotry, and specifically anti-Semitism.

They are stripping the rights of all freedom-loving people, citizen and non, in the U.S. in the name of targeting anti-Semitism. They've taken the authoritarian bent in wokeism and cancel culture at its worst and turned it up to full fascism. Now, if you think you're safe because you trust this president or maybe you hold the correct opinions on this issue, think again. When rights are taken, they're taken from all. And the Trump admin has already moved from threatening foreign students to threatening American citizens in a single week. It is truly chilling.

In addition to their arrest of Khalil, consider the sweep of their power grab around anti-Semitism in just the past 10 days. They stripped $400 million in funding from Columbia and placed its Middle Eastern Studies Department in receivership while completely ignoring laws requiring notification, investigation, and those guarding academic freedom. They sent letters to 60 other universities threatening similar crackdowns if they do not comply with vague demands to effectively combat anti-Semitism.

They're deploying AI to crawl through social media accounts in order to find additional targets for deportation based on wrong think on Israel. Perhaps as a result of this effort, another Columbia student on a student visa was forced to flee the country. Her greatest involvement in pro-Palestine protests was liking and resharing some posts and signing on to at least one open letter calling for Palestinian liberation. She described herself as, quote, just a rando, not anywhere close to a protest leader.

Four, the Department of Justice announced that the government is investigating whether to charge American students who participated in pro-Palestine protests as terrorists. Academic freedom destroyed, due process jettisoned, free speech crushed, power consolidated. All under the guise of fighting the alleged bigotry of people who were disgusted to see our government complicit in mass slaughter of civilians.

Even many diehard Zionists are sounding the alarm. Eli Lake, who is nothing if not committed to hatred of pro-Palestine protesters, tweeted this, quote, If Mahmoud Khalil is charged and convicted of an actual crime, he should be deported. If his crime is just the expression of support for a terrorist organization, then this pageant is grotesque. And yes, I realize that their harassment of Jews, destruction of property, etc. is not protected speech.

But the legal argument thus far amounts to saying permanent legal residents can't say anything that the secretary of state believes undermines U.S. foreign policy. That is a horrendous violation of free speech. And as much as I despise campus solidarity with baby stranglers, I love American values more.

Vilmar, to my somewhat surprise, also weighed in on behalf of Khalil, viewing the assault on him as an attack on free speech. Then there's this issue of Mahmoud Khalil. He is one of the protesters, the Palestinian protesters, and I don't agree with his point of view, but you know what? If you're an honest person,

You have to defend him if you believe in free speech because that's what free speech means. I say it all the time when it's on the other foot and I can't change because it's now this guy. It's defending the dirt bags you hate.

So this guy, now here's what FIRE, and I love this organization, that's the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and they go after the left a lot, mostly. But they're honest. They said if the government has got anything other than just somebody who is saying things they don't like, talking about this guy, they need to show it now because otherwise the harm to First Amendment freedoms will be serious. And I think that's true. I don't think they have anything on this guy other than

He's saying things that I can't believe kids believe now. I did not see this coming, this bizarre alliance of jihadism and wokeism. You know, "Infantata is the only solution." Really? Infantata is the only solution? Global inf-- That's where this guy is. I think it's horrible. He hates this country, he hates Western civilization, and I defend to his death the right to say it.

Protecting speech you don't like is, of course, the whole point of the First Amendment. What's more, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Jews are not safe when disfavored groups start getting singled out, criminalized, rounded up by the federal government. Neither, for that matter, is anyone else. Today it's them. Tomorrow it could be you. Once a president claims the power to punish any speech that they don't like, there are no limits to what that can ultimately mean.

Today it could be anti-Semitism, tomorrow it could be anti-racism. Today it could be DEI wrong think, tomorrow it could be climate denial. Today it could be affiliating with Democrats, tomorrow it could be affiliating with Republicans.

The next step in consciousness, though, is to realize that the mass campaign by people like Maher and Lake to demonize those with legitimate criticisms of Israel as violent, hateful, and pro-Hamas is exactly the ideological framework that made the current crackdown possible and easy. In Eli's tweet, he even says that Khalil expressed support for terrorists, which appears to not be true at all.

But once the pro-Palestine protests were portrayed by the liberal Biden administration as being effectively Hamas, it did not take a large leap to criminalize anyone who was affiliated with them, to throw visa holders and permanent residents out of the country altogether for participating or even for liking the wrong tweet. Even those like Khalil, who appear to have been completely law-abiding.

In fairness, though, I think if it wasn't the anti-Semitism ruse, it would probably just be something else. After all, it's not like this is the only way Trump is consolidating power and crushing dissent. The anti-Semitism ploy is one branch of Trump's broader authoritarian push. He certainly doesn't care about actual anti-Semitism. He regularly himself uses anti-Semitic tropes by tying all Jews to the actions of Israel as one example. His co-president, Elon, spent Inauguration Day giving two Nazi salutes and got in trouble before that.

for saying that an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory was, quote, the actual truth. Instead, play acting concern for anti-Semitism. It's just the most convenient excuse lying around to hobble his enemies, crush dissent, undercut what he sees as a rival power base in the university system to stoke fear and garner compliance.

Now, Trump promised in his campaign he would pursue retribution, that he would terminate the Constitution, that he would act as a dictator. And judging from his actions, one way or another, he intends to make good on that pledge. Whether you're a media outlet that he deems illegal, a law firm with the temerity to represent one of his political opponents, or a government agency with an unacceptable number of liberal staffers, he wants you afraid, alone, and cowering, crushed. He will use the power of the state and his crew of loyalist goons to achieve that intended result. If

If crying anti-Semitism helps in his campaign, he is happy to weaponize it. And it seems like he's just getting started. The move to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, claiming wartime powers not used since Japanese internment, suggests that this dark turn is really just beginning.

Next, we're going to see whether this all fuels public backlash that could stem some of the worst abuses, whether the courts can act to sufficiently forestall the authoritarian slide, whether the liberal institutions are remotely up to fighting an organized, lawless, illiberal power grab.

So far, though, the indications are not all that promising. Looks like when ICE grabbed Mahmoud, they didn't realize he was a green card holder and likely didn't realize how unimpeachably upstanding he would turn out to actually be. Sort of living embodiment of the American cultural melting pot good neighbor ideal. But whether it was intentional or not, making an example out of Mahmoud, ultimately it does serve their interests.

If they can get away with it, then really no one else can feel safe. No matter how many Shabbats they attended, how many times they uplifted their Jewish friends, how courageously they protected them from hateful conduct, how academically accomplished and impressively credentialed, no matter how pregnant or how American their wife happens to be, everyone, citizen and non, will get the message that nothing can protect them if the Trump regime decides they are to be punished.

And that is precisely the point. Now the only question that remains is will they get away with it? And it really is wild once you dig into who this guy actually is, how he is the... And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com.

Are you hungry? Colleen Witt here, and Eating While Broke is back for Season 4 every Thursday on the Black Effect Podcast Network. This season, we've got a legendary lineup serving up broke dishes and even better stories. On the menu, we have Tony Baker, Nick Cannon, Melissa Ford, October London, and Carrie Harper Howey turning Big Macs into big moves. Catch Eating While Broke every Thursday on the Black Effect Podcast Network iHeartRadio app.

Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your favorite shows. Come hungry for season four. I'm Mary Kay McBrayer, host of the podcast The Greatest True Crime Stories Ever Told. This season explores women from the 19th century to now. Women who were murderers and scammers, but also women who were photojournalists, lawyers, writers, and more. This podcast tells more than just the brutal, gory details of horrific acts. I delve into the good, the bad, the

the difficult, and all the nuance I can find. Because these are the stories that we need to know to understand the intersection of society, justice, and the fascinating workings of the human psyche. Join me every week as I tell some of the most enthralling true crime stories about women who are not just victims, but heroes, or villains, or often somewhere in between.

Listen to the greatest true crime stories ever told on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Mark Seale. And I'm Nathan King. This is Leave the Gun, Take the Cannoli. The five families did not want us to shoot that picture. This podcast is based on my co-host Mark Seale's bestselling book of the same title. Leave the Gun, Take the Cannoli features new and archival interviews with Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Evans, James Caan, Talia Shire, and many others.

Yes, that was a real horse's head. Listen and subscribe to Leave the Gun, Take the Cannoli on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.