4/8/25: US Clothing Brand Sounds Alarm On Tariffs, Trump Pulls Chair For Bibi, Tucker Warns On Iran War, SCOTUS Greenlights Trump Deportations

Krystal and Saagar discuss US made clothing brand sounds alarm on tariffs, Trump pulls chair out for Bibi backing troops in Gaza, Tucker warns Trump on Iran war, SCOTUS greenlights Trump El Salvador deportations.

 

Pisco: https://www.youtube.com/@PiscosHour

Andrew Chen: https://www.3sixteen.com 

 

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com

 

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.

Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Joining us now is Andrew Chanhe's the co
owner of three sixteen, a powerhouse fashion brand here in
the US of which I am a customer. And Andrew
recently did a video talking about the effects of tariffs
on smaller fashion brands like himself, and so we thought

(00:47):
that it would be great to actually have him on
the show and to discuss So the video you put
out is three ways that the new tariffs will affect
for fashion brands like yours, So why don't you just
break some of this down for the audience. Andrew and
tell us at some point do you actually run one
of these business clothing textiles, something that obviously there's been
a lot of outsourcing on will affect somebody like you.

Speaker 4 (01:08):
Thank you for the opportunity to come on today, and yeah,
we're still trying to navigate all of this. There's a
lot of uncertainty in the air. But the number one
thing that we wanted to touch on was the increased
costs that we face. We bring in all of our
fabric for our denim, which were Denim Brand that's what
we make the most of from Japan, and the new

(01:29):
tariffs are we're looking at about a twenty four percent
additional cost on fabric that's coming in. I think something
that's difficult for customers to understand, and we saw this
in the comments section of the video that we posted,
is that a ten dollars increase in raw materials doesn't
just result in a ten dollars increase at retail. You know,

(01:51):
we're part of a value chain model, which means that
we buy the fabric, we contract a factory to produce
it for us in the US in San Francisco, so
we are made in America company, and then we wholesale
it to retail stores around the world. These wholesale accounts
are store owners. They have small boutiques in parts of America,

(02:12):
in Europe, in Japan and Asia, and then they need
to mark that garment up in order to sell it
to their customers. And so if our costs go up
by ten dollars, in order to preserve our margins, we
have to increase our wholesale cost, and then that wholesale
cost needs to also translate to a higher retail cost.
So that's why a ten dollars increase in just materials

(02:34):
could result in a forty to fifty dollars increase once
it hits market. And we've found a lot of customers
calling that like that's greedy.

Speaker 5 (02:42):
Why can't you just increase.

Speaker 4 (02:44):
It ten dollars at the at the very end and
call it a day. And the reality is that, like
everybody has a business to run, we all have employees
to pay, we have healthcare to cover, we have in
our case, we provide retirement accounts for our small team.
You can't do that if your margins continued to decrease.
So that's a really difficult thing. The customer is going

(03:05):
to face some sort of price increase, and it's going
to be a lot more than just the straight raw
materials that.

Speaker 5 (03:10):
Are coming in. A second thing that I talked about
was uncertainty.

Speaker 4 (03:15):
As a fashion brand, we don't just design things and
then release it to market. We have to design it,
We bring it to trade shows, we have people pre
ordered garments, and then we go to production on it
based off of whatever orders they place. That helps us
to be more efficient. We're not just guessing at what
to make in these cases. We have to quote a

(03:37):
price so that the retail stores can decide like is
this something that my customers can afford? Is this something
that I feel like I can present at a reasonable
cost to them? Now, we already just went to Paris
in January to sell our fall Winter twenty five collection,
and we had to give them prices on it. This
is pre tariffs, and so we produce garments in the US,

(04:00):
we produce them in Peru, we produce them in India
and in Portugal. So Peru's the only one that's subject
right now to the flat ten percent. India has a
twenty six percent additional tariff, and the EU also is
facing additional tariffs. So now we stand to have to

(04:20):
pay more for that finished garment to land in the
US than what we had quoted the price on. And
that's really difficult for us because somebody is going to
have to take a margin, you know, a margin hit
on that. It could be us, the brand, We could
just eat it and then we end up not making
any money at wholesale.

Speaker 5 (04:37):
It could be the retail store.

Speaker 4 (04:38):
We might have to split the difference with them if
they don't want the cost to go up too much,
or we might all decide like, hey, there's no way
that we can function as businesses and we're going to
all have to.

Speaker 5 (04:47):
Increase the cost.

Speaker 4 (04:49):
That's going to cause some stores to bow out of
their their commitments. That means that we now have to
you know, hold extra stock and be more inefficient as
a company. That means we're going to have to discount
or offload somehow. We try to be very careful with
the quantities that we set. We try not to overproduce,
but that's just unavoidable. We've already had some Canadian customers

(05:09):
cancel orders this spring season because of the game of
Chicken that you know, we played with Canada and Mexico
just a month and a half ago with the five
percent tariffs, there was too much uncertainty. They were like,
hold our shipments, we can't take anything right now. Wow,
they had already placed orders for fall winter twenty five.
I'm almost certain that they will cancel orders. And then
the third one is just deterioration of overseas markets. What

(05:32):
happens when trade wars begin is that other nations or
other regions begin to try and find ways to cooperate
because they need to get their products from somewhere. So
in twenty nineteen there was a free trade agreement that
was established between the EU and Japan, and so all
of our EU accounts are now able to bring in
great denim and great clothing from Japan. This is the

(05:54):
same country that makes our fabric, so they're very good
at making this niche product that we do. And if
you're a retail store in Europe and you can buy
stuff from Japan with no tariffs, and then you have
to be faced with the decision of am I going
to buy from this American brand that's going to cost
me even more than it did before, You're probably going

(06:15):
to make your decisions Accordingly, business just goes in the path.

Speaker 5 (06:19):
Of least resistance of course.

Speaker 4 (06:20):
Yeah, we spent a decade trying to cultivate this market
in the EU and we're finding success and stores like
the brand, they like the product, it just becomes cost
prohibitive for them.

Speaker 6 (06:30):
So, Andrew, let me ask you this.

Speaker 2 (06:33):
So I think what the President has supporters and people say,
you know, this is good for the long term for
the country. What they would respond is, you know, it's
short term pain. Yes, we get it. We understand that
this is going to cause issues for you, and it's
going to cause potentially prices to go up for consumers,
but it's going to create an incentive structure for business
owners like yourself to bring the entire supply chain for

(06:56):
your product here internally to the US and will create
additional jobs in the US. So over the long term,
this is going to be a better direction.

Speaker 6 (07:05):
What is your response to that?

Speaker 2 (07:06):
And also, you know, just walk us through, like what
would it entail for that to actually occur for you?

Speaker 4 (07:13):
Yeah, I mean what I would respond to that is
that a lot of these small brands don't have five
years or ten years to be able to build up
infrastructure and to reshure these things that America doesn't do anymore,
and I'll just keep it super super focused on genes
because that is what most customers know us for, they

(07:34):
come to us for. And so a lot of people
who are not familiar with our brand, when they saw
this video go viral, they're like, why don't you just
make it in America? And to the extent that we're
able to, we do. We employ a factory in San
Francisco that used to make genes for Levi's before they
offshore production. We entered there fifteen years ago as the
smallest brand there and now we are their biggest client

(07:58):
and they rely on us business. But the fabric that
we use, and I don't know if this is getting
too niche, but it is salvage denim. It is denim
that is woven the way that denham used to be
made in the forties to the sixties, when it was
more than just a work where fabric it was something
that people needed longevity out of. And it's a slow

(08:21):
and almost antiquated way of making denim that is largely
unavailable in the US. There are a few small mills
that still exist here, but the biggest one was Cone
Mills White Oak in North Carolina, and they closed in
twenty seventeen to lack of demand. Customers are not accustomed
to paying for clothing. Derek Guy die workwear on Twitter

(08:46):
and Blue Sky. He shared on one of his threads.
In the early nineteen sixties, US household spent twelve percent
of the income out apparel, and that would be four
one hundred and fifty seven dollars in today's dollars. In
twenty sixteen it was four percent, so eighteen hundred dollars.
But that's not because people are buying less clothes. They're
buying more clothes, they're buying cheap clothes. We're in niche brand,

(09:09):
we're small. We try and make clothes the way that
they used to be made. We pay attention to fabric, details, construction,
and the best denim in the world is being made
in Japan. It's not because they came and brought up
all of our old looms.

Speaker 5 (09:24):
That's a rumor.

Speaker 4 (09:25):
Japan has a long and storied history of textile development,
and they've invested into this industry, and there's also a
domestic appreciation for that craft and that level of authenticity
and fabric and it's just not achievable at that level.
And I know that may hurt for some people to hear,
but as a brand, it's our prerogative to make the
best possible product for our customers, and so it's not

(09:49):
a matter of us being scared that this is going
to cost too much. We just want to maintain a
level of quality, and so there are no options for us.
For a little story, about six or seven years ago,
an email came in our inbox. It almost seemed like
a scam, but someone's like, do you want to buy
all these shuttle looms? Shuttle looms are the looms that
make this salvage dentim and we like, there's no way

(10:10):
this could be. It turned out that they were. They
were looms from the shuttered you know, Cone White White
Oak mills. In order for this whole story to work
for us to offshore, you're asking us as a brand
to come and buy looms, start a factory, start making fabric.
We have no expertise in this. We didn't go to

(10:30):
school for textile development. We do know how to manage
a factory. There would be so much inefficiency, we would
probably mess up a ton. We would probably shut We
definitely would have shut down. There's no way that there
was this would have been an option for us.

Speaker 2 (10:44):
So basically, if you were to pursue this path of
I would just do it all in the US. You
would have a lower quality product and it would cost more.

Speaker 4 (10:52):
It would cause it would yes, if we were not
going to go and own our own open our own mill,
it would not be the product would not be at
the level that we would want.

Speaker 3 (11:00):
And that's I think that's very important for people to understand,
is that the administration is putting this all on you.
They're not offering you any tax break, They're not offering
you any relief for anything in the interim. And then
even on the cultural point, I think this is so important.

Speaker 1 (11:12):
You know, as you.

Speaker 3 (11:13):
Said about Japan, they have a literal decades long history
of appreciation for craft. They have a cost structure built
in to preserve that their tax incentives, economics incentives, cultural
incentives to build an entire ecosystem which actually does produce
something that many of the people who push this policy
extensibly want a return to quality away from fast fashion.

(11:35):
And so as somebody involved and again creating an extremely
high quality product, something that I literally purchase myself, what
are thus you know, what are the headwinds that you
are swimming against with the rise of fast fashion, which
ostensibly is something that they're trying to stop and boost
someone like you, Is this policy actually just going to perhaps,
like you know, increase the amount of fast fashion consumed,

(11:57):
cheaper goods that people will turn to in a time
of depression, Like have you seen a reduction perhaps in
demand like you said with Canada and Mexico. What is
the net effect of all of this?

Speaker 4 (12:07):
Yeah, I mean the only way. So we already talked
about customers going to face they are going to face
increased costs. There's no way around it. I don't know
when that's going to happen. I don't know when it's
going to take effect. Even for us, I don't know
when our next shipment of fabric is going to get hit.
We have a huge shipment of denim that's supposed to
land in three to four days. I don't know if
that's subject to the new terraffs or the shipment after that. Like,

(12:29):
we're not going away, so we're going to have to
take another shipment. But customers will face increase costs. For
the brands, it's going to be difficult because every brand
is going to have to decide whether they want to
increase costs or lower quality, or maybe some metric that
involves both of those two things. If they feel that

(12:51):
their customers cannot stomach and increase in costs, they're going
to have to reduce quality.

Speaker 5 (12:56):
They're going to have to cut corners in terms of the.

Speaker 4 (12:58):
Fabrics they use, that construction, they may have to move
to a different facility, any number of things. So there
is a cost all the way around. And we've already
established that. You know, it's not that people are buying
less clothes, they're just spending less on them, and so
I don't really see that changing.

Speaker 2 (13:15):
Yeah, last question for you. Your video went viral. You know,
people who are trying to understand what this means for
individual business owners. I think really got a lot out
of it. I certainly got a lot out of it
watching it. Are you nervous at all about its virality?
Given you know this president can be very punitive if

(13:35):
someone is speaking on against him. You know, you see
the way that a lot of business leaders have made
efforts to getting close with him so that they don't
face retaliation. Is that something that concerns you all at all?
In just speaking out on the basics of how this
will impact your business and your future.

Speaker 5 (13:52):
I mean, I'm talking to the t also.

Speaker 6 (13:55):
Not too nervous anyway.

Speaker 5 (13:56):
No, it's been surprising.

Speaker 4 (13:59):
I think when we meet the video, we just tried
to speak from the heart, and we also tried to
speak in a non partisan ways, just like, hey, this
is what's happening to us, this is our perspective.

Speaker 5 (14:08):
There was no political leaning.

Speaker 4 (14:11):
I don't think in the things that we shared was
just the reality of like the types of decisions that
we're going to need to make in the coming weeks
and months. We're a pretty small fish. I hope that,
you know, we're not really attracting that kind of attention,
but you know, I do think that people want to
hear from small businesses.

Speaker 6 (14:31):
Like ours, definitely that are you.

Speaker 4 (14:33):
Know, we're actually really trying to like making stuff in
America is has been central to what we do. When
we started making jeens in two thousand and eight, our
first samples came from China and they didn't come in
construction wise at the level that we wanted. So we
went we found historic factory that had been making geens
in America for decades and decades and they're staffed by

(14:56):
I don't know if I'm opening another can of worms here,
but they're staffed by immigrants. The people that make your
clothes don't in America, don't always look the way that
you think that they do. They're all legal citizens, but
they all came to America with a skill set that
America does not cultivate in a meaningful way either anymore. Right,
I mean, like I want to, I had homec class

(15:16):
in middle school. Maybe that dates how old I am,
but I don't think that that really exists anymore. People
don't even know how to put a button on their
shirt anymore.

Speaker 7 (15:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (15:24):
To expect this to come back, and to expect American
citizens to want to embrace these jobs. If there hasn't
been a high value placed on craft and manufacturing, it's
going to be tough.

Speaker 6 (15:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (15:38):
Well, I think Soccer's point and your point that in theory,
this policy is meant to support people like you. You know,
it's meant to push people more towards Okay, spend a
little bit more, but it'll be higher quality and it'll
be you know, from companies that put an emphasis on
making things here. And so the fact that even for
someone such as yourself and your business. You see this

(16:00):
as a major challenge to have to overcome. I think
is very illuminating about the practical realities of the policy.

Speaker 6 (16:06):
Andrew.

Speaker 2 (16:06):
We can't thank you enough for taking the time out
to talk to us and explain your perspective on all
of this.

Speaker 3 (16:11):
Thank you, Andrew. Thank you for making the clothes that
you guys do. As I said, I'm a loyal customer.
I'll continue to be and I encourage everybody out there
if you can, we'll put a link down on the scription.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
You should go check them out.

Speaker 5 (16:20):
Thank you for the time and the opportunity.

Speaker 6 (16:22):
See it's our pleasure.

Speaker 2 (16:26):
All right, let's go ahead and get to bib Netanyah,
who's meeting with Trump at the White House. We can
go ahead and put this up on the screen. Yes,
ladies and gentlemen, he did once again push in the
seat for his dear friend, the ICC indicted war criminal
bb Netanyaho. It's especially galling because this comes on a
day when we found out that the Israelis have murdered

(16:49):
another American. This was a Palston American child who was
shot dead. Two others were shot and wounded by Israeli forces.
In the occupied West Bank reporting from Ryan our friends
over at drop Site News. By the way, make sure
and help them out because they appear to be getting
significantly suppressed and buried over on Twitter. If you try

(17:10):
to search for them, they don't come up, So make
sure you're supporting Ryan and drop Site and Jeremy over there.
In any case, let me go ahead and read their
report and keep this up on the screen.

Speaker 6 (17:18):
Eric, they say.

Speaker 2 (17:19):
Omar Mohammad Ravella, a fourteen year old Palestinian with US citizenship,
was shot and killed on Sunday by Israeli forces near
the West Bank town of turmas Aya. I'm sorry, guys,
northeast of Ramala. Two other Palestinian American boys, age fourteen
and fifteen also shot and wounded, one in the abdomen,
the other in the thigh. Both were taken to a
nearby clinic. There's no dispute from the Israelis that they

(17:41):
were responsible for this killing. They say that this American
citizen was throwing rocks towards a highway, so that was
the reason for his killing. The President making, i guess,
not exactly making news, but reiterating his commitment to the
US having a peacekeeping force in a Gaza Strip that

(18:02):
has been ethnically cleansed of all Palestinians.

Speaker 6 (18:05):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to what he
had to say.

Speaker 8 (18:07):
Well, you know how I feel about the Gaza Strip.
I think it's an incredible piece of important real estate,
and I think it's something that we would be involved in.
But you know, having a peace force like the United
States there controlling and owning the Gaza Strip would be
a good thing because right now all it is is

(18:28):
for years and years, all I hear about is killing
and Hamas and problems. And if you take the people,
the Palestinians and move them around to different countries, and
you have plenty of countries that will do that, and
you really have a freedom, a freedom zone. You call
it the freedom zone, A free zone, a zone where
people aren't going to be killed every day. That's a

(18:49):
hell of a place. It's a you know what, I
call it, a great location that nobody wants to live
in because they really don't. And when they had good living,
when they have good living living, where Hamas and all
of the problems, the level of death on the Gaza
Strip is just incredible. And I've said it, I don't understand.

(19:11):
Why is your LEVI gave it up? Is you loaned it?
It wasn't this man so I can say it. He
wouldn't have given it up. I know him very well.
There's no way they took ocean front property and they
gave it to people for peace.

Speaker 5 (19:24):
How did that work out?

Speaker 8 (19:25):
Not good?

Speaker 2 (19:26):
Just insane, just insane. It's ocean front property. Oh, incredible killing.
There the guy who's doing the killing and sitting right
next to you. But in case Sager, he is apparently
not joking about this.

Speaker 3 (19:37):
About this plan, freedom zone is like a two thousand
and five like fever dream of Paul Wolfewad. Not even
they would have the audacity Paul wolfo WIT's and Douglas
truth to suggest the United States should take occupation of
the Gaza Strip. Their mere idiocy idea was let them
have elections and then we won't, you know, basically acknowledge
the result of set elections and effectively allow occupation from

(20:00):
that point forward.

Speaker 1 (20:01):
I don't know not.

Speaker 3 (20:01):
I can't even express the rage which is necessary for
this idea. It just shows you that if you're my age,
everything just comes around. You get to live to see
twice too great recessions and US troops in the Middle
East as a part of it. Literally tax dollars and
global treasure going to fund foreign wars which are basically inconsequential.

(20:22):
We just did a whole thing about trade and about China.
US bilateral trade with Israel is like fifty billion. It's
like a pimple on top of China. Yet with this
entire domination of our politics occupation there as if we
have any strategic.

Speaker 1 (20:38):
Interest, the whole thing is preposterous.

Speaker 3 (20:40):
It's not to mention the humanitarian disaster that we would
eventually be responsible for. The only bull case for this
is that he's bullshitting and then it won't happen. That's
not really a good case to be made in the
middle of a massive trade conflagration.

Speaker 1 (20:55):
Yeah, that we are right now.

Speaker 3 (20:56):
So yeah, I'm going to take him seriously. I think
he definitely wants to do this and at an American
boot on the ground in Gaza, occupying this area is
asking for a global ignition of terrorism, of attacks on
our troops, and of further conflagration intervention in the region.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
Like anyway, Yeah, well, and I think if there's one
thing we've learned about Trump two point zero. It's that
you should take him both seriously and literally.

Speaker 6 (21:23):
Yeah, like the idea.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
Oh, he says things, but he doesn't relate. No, he's
doing the things. So the fact that he's said this
multiple times, he's never backed away from it. He's been
very consistent. I think you have to take it seriously.
And also in the context of baby grabbing onto him, this.

Speaker 6 (21:39):
Is the greater.

Speaker 2 (21:40):
Yeah, you've opened up he said something like, you've opened
up possibilities that never existed before. They've been actively reaching
out to countries be like, hey, will you take Palestinians.
So the plans are being put into place, and you know,
at the same time, the genocidal cartage continues in the
Gaza strip with our weaponry and our bombs and our blessing.

(22:05):
And the latest horror is these fifteen paramedics who were
shot and killed and some of them appeared to have
been shot execution style, and then they were buried and
the ambulances were buried by the IDF to try to
cover up their blatant war crimes. They lied to the
press and the international press and said that oh no, no,

(22:27):
they were approaching us suspiciously and they didn't have their
lights on, and that's why we responded in this particular way. Well,
they did not retrieve the phones of the paramedics who
they had slaughtered, and one of them was recording a
video of everything that happened. That directly robuts the IDFs
lies and Trey yinst Over on Fox News, who, to

(22:50):
his credit, I think, has covered this onslaught in Gaza
with a lot of integrity, including standing up for Palestinian journalists,
something that almost none of the American press corp outside
of him has actually done. He did an excellent report
on catching the IDF in these blatant Wise, let's go
ahead and take a listen.

Speaker 9 (23:07):
Paramedics from the Palestine Red Crescent dig through the earth
of southern Gaza. They're recovering the bodies of their colleagues
killed by Israeli forces. On March twenty third, first responders
were dispatched to this area of Rufa. When they arrived,
Israeli soldiers opened fire.

Speaker 10 (23:30):
Health workers should never be a target, and yet we're
here today digging up a mass grave of first responders
in paramedics.

Speaker 9 (23:36):
On March thirty first, the IDF provided a statement to
Fox News saying quote several vehicles were identified advancing suspiciously
toward IDF troops without headlights or emergency signals. Video released
five days later by the Palestine Red Crescint directly contradicts
that statement. The IDEF also claimed in the initial findings

(23:57):
that nine out of the fifteen medics operatives in Hamas
and Islamic jihad. Asked multiple times for evidence to support
that claim, none was provided. Funerals were held late last
week for those killed by Israeli bullets. Families mourning the dead,
mothers trying to make sense of the senseless. He went
to save the martyrs and injured, and we've been waiting

(24:20):
for him for a week. We were told that he
was either martyred or injured. But I realized that they
had killed them from the very first moment. They had
killed them and buried them underground. As bodies of these
medics rest inside white plastic bags with a photo attached,
the face of refat Radwan stands out the man who
recorded his final moments with a final message forgive me mother.

(24:44):
This is the path I chose to help that, he said,
Sam Pinium.

Speaker 2 (24:50):
And Sager we were talking about is about this like
if you are a journalist who's interacting with the IDF.
At this point, how do you ever believe a word?
And I'm not even just talking about this incident. How
many times have they just lied flat out two journalists,
face to our face. It just they'll just make up anything,
and only when confronted with indisputable evidence that their narrative

(25:15):
was complete and total bullshit, then they'll do some you know, bullshit.
Oh well, we're going to conduct an investigation. We're going
to figure out Okay, sure, yeah, we've heard that one before.

Speaker 1 (25:25):
No, I mean, it's genuinely sure.

Speaker 3 (25:26):
I mean, the thing is is that we just have
to sit here and acknowledge the bravery of trade to
even put that on the air over at Fox News.
You know, I have rarely seen anything like that in
the Western press. I guess the problem is is it
becomes it's only whenever it's genuinely something is completely undeniable,
is it able to make it to air? But then

(25:46):
all these other bullshit claims, oh they had rifles or there.
That was all also pushed by every MSNBC, you know,
all these New York Times, I mean, the New York Times.
Scandal of it is insane I remember Ryan alerting me
to that, just being like they literally just took the
Israelis word for it and then buried it in the
bottom of a paragraph.

Speaker 10 (26:05):
Right.

Speaker 3 (26:05):
They didn't call anyone at the Palestinian or were sorry
the Red Crescent, and we're like, what's going on here?
You know what, like what actually happened? They did no
reporting on the subject, and this is an organization which
won a Pulitzer Prize for their Gaza reporting.

Speaker 5 (26:20):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (26:20):
I mean, it's just nuts, But I don't know, it's
I think it's horrifying. The Freedom Zone, the continued, uh,
you know, the continuation of the war. They did say
some words about a ceasefire, but you know, nobody's particularly
optimistic right now.

Speaker 2 (26:34):
Well, I guess the one thing he didn't give BB
is I think BB wanted the tariff's taken off of him.

Speaker 1 (26:40):
Yeah, that's rank.

Speaker 3 (26:41):
He didn't get that Trump is Trump is current. What's
the joke is like Trump is currently employing bds. Yes,
Trump is currently BDS in Israel.

Speaker 8 (26:49):
More.

Speaker 3 (26:50):
I mean, let's also just linger there on the propos
and this is where you know, uh, you have a
country which would not exist save for the United States,
which provides it some three billion per year, which basically
backstops their entire economy and extends this nuclear security umbrella
over them. Where do you get off having any tariffs

(27:10):
on American goods?

Speaker 1 (27:11):
It's all They don't.

Speaker 6 (27:12):
They actually don't.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
I think he rolled them back, okay before, but before then.

Speaker 6 (27:16):
When the trade war was threatened.

Speaker 4 (27:18):
How is this?

Speaker 1 (27:20):
Who do you think you are? You're tariffing? Are good?
You wouldn't exist if it wasn't for us. Many such cases.
Let's move on to Iran.

Speaker 3 (27:30):
This is some very important news that's coming out about
potential deals. This is a potential bright spot and negotiations
that are going to begin to start with Iran. Here's
Trump sounding off about them, much to Bebi's discomfort.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 8 (27:43):
I think if the talks aren't successful with Iran, I
think Iran is going to be in great danger. And
I hate to say it great danger because they can't
have a nuclear weapon. So you know, it's not a
complicated formula. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That's all
there is. You can't have it. Right now, we have

(28:04):
countries that have nuclear power that shouldn't have it. But
I'm sure we'll be able to negotiate out of that
too as part of this later and down the line.
But Ran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and if the
talks are successful, I actually think it'll be a very
bad day for a rant if that's the case.

Speaker 3 (28:25):
So Trump says that that we are going to be
continuing direct negotiations with Iran that will begin on Saturday.
It does appear that they are legitimate, and there's a
lot going on behind the scenes. Put E two please
up on the screen so people can see. Christ is
from Barak Revid the Netsa Nyah who whisper quote Natanya,
who thinks that the chances of a US Iran deal

(28:46):
are extremely low, but will present to Trump today how
a good deal should look like. Netsayah, who wants the
full Libya model, the full dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. Christal,
can you enlighten me as to why no country on
Earth whatever agree to the full Libya that's the point.

Speaker 6 (29:02):
How did that go for Libya?

Speaker 2 (29:04):
How did that go for the leader of Libya who
is now dead and gone. Yeah, I earn on camera
the which is that is the intent of Venettnya, who
is to offer a solution that he knows Iran would
in no country would.

Speaker 6 (29:19):
Ever agree to.

Speaker 2 (29:20):
And so that's why I think we should all be
glad that there are potentially direct talks happening and that
there is at least some gesture towards making a deal
with the run. But of course the content of those
talks is going to matter very much. And if BBE
is pushing the quote unquote Libya model, if Trump is
taking that seriously, then that is obviously going to be

(29:43):
a non starter. We don't know whether Trump is taking
that seriously, whether he has his own ideas Our friend
doctor Tree to Parsi was pointing out things that Trump
himself has said in the past about the quote unquote
Libya model when it was being pushed visa the North Korea.
He this was an attack on John Bolden. He said,
what would John Bolton, one of the dumbest people in Washington. No,
wasn't he the person who's so stupidly set on television
Libyan solution when describing what the US was going to

(30:06):
do from North Korea. I've got plenty of other Bolton
stupid stories. So at least in theory, he knows what
a dumb idea. This is whether in practice it applies
in the situation.

Speaker 6 (30:16):
We'll have to wait to find out.

Speaker 1 (30:17):
Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 3 (30:18):
And that's where we all just really have to be
very careful about what's all happening right now. For example,
let's put E three up on the screen. There is
massive movement of US assets in the Middle East right now,
quote from Haretz, record breaking US deployment in the Middle
East amid Trump's nuclear ultimatum for Iran. More US assets

(30:39):
in the region than at any time since October seventh.
Don't forget, you know, despite signal gait, it wasn't just
the one off what happened with the Hoothies. We continue
to bomb the Hoothies on an almost daily basis, basically
continuing the Biden you know, the Biden operation that was
a complete failure. Here Trump, for example, we can put

(31:01):
this on the screen. Uh, this is a video that
was released a couple of days ago. Trump says, quote
these who these gathered for instructions on an attack. Oops,
there will be no attack by these who thies. They
will never sink our ships again.

Speaker 2 (31:15):
This, by the way, this was this was not who
they militant rebels. These were tribesmen who were gathered for
a religious ceremony. And I do think we also have
to reflect on the fact that it once was a
scandal when the US.

Speaker 3 (31:30):
Yeah, they would just classify this murdered civilians.

Speaker 2 (31:33):
I mean, this was you know, one of the major
revelations of wikileace that created you know, international and certainly
domestic scandal. And now the president just posted himself and
brigs about it like that's.

Speaker 3 (31:47):
Yeah, no legal authority, no justificating, like, no release of
like who exactly these people were, what it all meant.

Speaker 1 (31:54):
It's just baked in.

Speaker 3 (31:55):
You're basically killing people to feel good and for purposes
that's not actually working. There's been no reduction in the
amount of attacks from the Who theis there is no
military solution to this, say for a genuine invasion of Yemen.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
Well, and I didn't sign up for that.

Speaker 2 (32:10):
And they're they're considering it, Yeah, they are considering it.
So we can put this up on the screen from CNN.
So they kind of, in my opinion, bury the lead here.
They say, far from being cowed by US air strikes,
damons who this may be relishing them. But then they
go on to talk about how there are plans being
formed for us to potentially assist the previous Yumeni government

(32:32):
that you know, there's a big civil war between the
who this and the Yumenis. The Hohothis basically ultimately won
that civil war.

Speaker 6 (32:39):
But apparently we're.

Speaker 2 (32:40):
Gonna use our troops to support the Yumenis, maybe for
a ground another ground invasion, in order to deal with
the Houthis since the you know, just relentless bombing has
only continued to embolden them, not that they haven't taken
on damage and that they haven't you know that significant
Huthi members have not been killed and their capabilities diminished,

(33:03):
but they are still able to operate, and you know,
it sort of only does strengthen their domestic position. Really,
so this is these are the plans that are being
hatched right now to potentially get us involved in a
ground invasion in Yemen.

Speaker 3 (33:15):
That worked really well for the Saudias and their bombing campaign.
And finally, I don't know, I still don't yet know what.

Speaker 1 (33:21):
To make of this.

Speaker 3 (33:22):
Let's put this on the screen. This is from Tucker Carlson.
Whatever you think of tariffs, it is clear now it
is the worst possible time for the United States to
participate in military strike on Iran.

Speaker 1 (33:30):
We can't afford it.

Speaker 3 (33:31):
Thousands of Americans who die, We'd lose a war that follows.
Nothing could be more destructive to our country, and yet
we are closer than ever thanks to unrelenting pressure from
neo cons This is suicidal. Anyone advocating for conflict with
Iran is not an ally of the United States, but
an enemy. I don't know what the impetus for this is.
I can only assume that it's clear that he knows

(33:52):
something that I don't know, or is hearing something clearly
and takes it seriously enough to be able to put
this out there. Because if you put together the bab visit,
the military assets there, the houthy military campaign, the fact
that Mike Wallace, the moron, gets to survive and live
another day in the White House.

Speaker 1 (34:13):
They keep assuring me he is going to be fired
in a few months.

Speaker 7 (34:16):
Not going to hold my breath.

Speaker 1 (34:17):
For that one.

Speaker 3 (34:18):
I think there's obviously something that's happening, like the drum
beats are there. I also saw the attack on this
was that it was unpatriotic to say that America would
lose a war that follows or to say that it's
preposterous that thousands of Americans would die.

Speaker 1 (34:34):
Does anyone want to alert all.

Speaker 3 (34:36):
Of these neocon geniuses to the number of US troops
that are currently in the Middle East? Like what you
think They're just going to sit there quietly the Iranians
if we do start some sort of military conflict with them,
is there any reason to put any of those people's
lives at risk? And also, do you know how much
it's cost the current just Trump military campaign two hundred
and six million dollars for the current Houthy operation. I

(34:59):
don't see dose anybody talking about that. Think about it,
if you had a two hundred and six million dollar
operation which was an abject to complete failure, continuation of
a failed policy, that sounds like a perfect job for Doge,
don't you think.

Speaker 8 (35:11):
So.

Speaker 3 (35:11):
There's so many layers upon layers of a lot of
this stupidity that's happening right now.

Speaker 2 (35:16):
There's also some past indications that are troubling about the
way Trump thinks about a potential Iran war. So he
had famously claimed in twenty eleven and twenty twelve that
Obama is going to start with war with Iran in
order to get reelected.

Speaker 6 (35:31):
This is something that he tweeted.

Speaker 2 (35:32):
Out, thinking that oh, that would cause this rally around
the flag effect and that that would help get Obama elected,
which isn't I mean, that's just insane to me that
to think at this point, especially where we are now,
that there would be any sort of US domestic appetite
for some giant war in the Middle East is complete insanity.
But at least in the past he has thought that way.

(35:54):
And so, you know, is he thinking that this would
be a way to bolster his flagging domestic folitt standing.
I think that's a possibility. I think when you put
together so ken Klippenstein has of course been doing great
reporting about the war plans that have been hatched, including
potential nuclear options for a war with a RN. He's
also reporting on this mass buildup of military assets in

(36:19):
the region. I'm just read a little bit from his
latest report. He says the largest single deployment of self
bombers in US history, the Pentagon has sent six B
two Spirit aircraft to Diego, Garcia and the Indian Ocean.
The long range bombers, which are uniquely suited to evade
Iranian air defenses and can carry America's most potent bunker
busting weapons flew in from Missouri last week in a

(36:40):
little noticed to operation. The B two is carried not
just bombs, but a message for Iran. Do you see
our sword? As one retired general told Newsmax this week.
Now there is a possibility, Sager, certainly, that all of
the military build up is meant as a credible military
threat to try to secure a better deal with Iran.
That's what we should all hoping for. But I do

(37:02):
think there are a lot of troubling indications. And all
of the neocon think tanks in DC. You cover this
from Quincy Institute that's been tracking this, they are beating
the war drums. And you know, if you have people
like Tucker, who are obviously very well read in and
very well sourced in this administration sounding the alarm, I
think we should all be very concerned. So Sixty Minutes

(37:23):
did a fantastic piece on Sunday breaking down what they
were able to figure out about the men who were
sent under the Alien Enemies Act to that notorious prison
in El Salvador.

Speaker 6 (37:35):
We can put this up on the screen.

Speaker 2 (37:36):
So the government has not released the names of these
individuals these two hundred and thirty eight migrants who were
sent to this Salvador In mega prison. But they were
able to get their hands on some leaked government documents
and dug into their you know, purported criminal records and
what they found, because remember we were told these are
gang members, these are the worst of the worst, et cetera.

(37:58):
What they actually found is that for seventy five percent
of these Venezuelans they had no criminal record whatsoever. There
were about thirteen percent that they were not able to determine,
and for the remaining twenty two percent, they did have
criminal records, the vast majority for things like theft, shoplifting,
and trespassing. At the same time, we can put these

(38:21):
images up on the screen. They delved in particular into
the case of Andre. He is the gay makeup artist
who was legally applying for asylum and was accused by
the government of being a gang member based on his tattoos.
They spoke to his lawyer. They also were able to
track down these horrific pictures of him being sentenced into

(38:44):
this prison from which no one can communicate with him.
He may be here now for life. And they also
went back through his social media postings and found absolutely
no indication of gang involvement whatsoever. So at the same time,
the Supreme Court has issued a significant victory for the
Trump administration with regards to these deportations to El Salvador.

Speaker 6 (39:07):
Can put this tear sheet up on the screen.

Speaker 2 (39:10):
They're lifting the temporary restraining order on Trump's removals under
the Alien Enemies Act. However, this was a five to
four decision. There were important to sense what this means
going forward, both for people here and for those who
have already been sent to This prison is a little
bit complex. So we wanted to bring in some legal
backup here. Let's go ahead and bring in Pisco. He's

(39:30):
a YouTuber, but more importantly for our purposes, he's a lawyer.
He's a a litigator and has done pro bono work
in immigration. I've really been relying on him for his
analysis of the legal challenges here.

Speaker 1 (39:41):
Great to have you, Peace Go appreciate it.

Speaker 7 (39:43):
Thank you so much, Crystal.

Speaker 2 (39:44):
Yeah, of course. So let's just start with the most
basic question. Was this a true win for the administration.

Speaker 10 (39:51):
It was a true win for the administration. There is
a core unanimous holding here that is generally good, but
It's kind of something that but most people think take
for granted, which is that people who are going to
be deported are, you know, have access to basic procedural
due process. And so a unanimous Supreme Court nine zero
held that the Trump administration was violating people's procedural due

(40:14):
process rights, or at the very least was they're entitled
to notice an opportunity to be heard before they're sent
off to this gulog in El Salvador. But at the
end of the day, the temporary Restraining Order, which was
protecting a lot of these migrants, were in fact vacated
by the Supreme Court. And that's a huge win for
the Tump administration for reasons that we can get into.

Speaker 3 (40:31):
So can you explain the upholding of due process as
I understand it, It is a different way that they
can apply for scrutiny. There was what was it, the
Administrative Procedures Act, and instead they rule the Supreme Court
says that there must be an access to a habeas corpus,
but in the jurisdiction of where they're being held. So

(40:55):
just translate the things that I just said into something
a normal person can understand.

Speaker 10 (41:00):
So what they said was the exclusive remedy for individuals
who are labeled alien enemies under the Alien Enemies Act
is to go through a habeas petition and hevieous corpuses
Latin for produce the body. And it essentially it's a
specific kind of old writ that has traditionally been used
in these kinds of cases where people will be allowed

(41:21):
to challenge whether they in fact are alien enemies. And
the court actually said maybe even suggesting they could challenge
the proclamation as a whole, and contrast that to the
Administrative Procedures Act, which is what some of these a
remedy for a lot of these sort of agency type
actions trying to strike down large agency action, and under
that procedure they could apply kind of on the general

(41:43):
policy as opposed to an individual petition to sort of
attack broad policy that the petitioners think is unlawful, and
in that situation you could file in DC. The ultimate
effect of this is you're going to be funneled into
all of these pro trump courts and tech in Louisiana
in the Fifth Circuit, where they're a lot less willing to,

(42:04):
you know, give these detainees the time of day than
in DC or New York.

Speaker 6 (42:08):
Okay, so let's talk a.

Speaker 2 (42:09):
Little bit more about this, because I think this piece
is really important because on the one hand, you go, okay, well,
they said the Trump administration can restart these deportations under
the Alien Enemies Act. On the other hand, all my
justices said, what you've been doing is illegal because the
administration's position was no due process whatsoever. Steven Miller has
been very vocal about this.

Speaker 6 (42:27):
Christine know elm etcter no due process.

Speaker 2 (42:29):
Supreme Court is saying unanimously that is not correct. You
have to offer what they describe as quote unquote reasonable notice,
an opportunity to file habeas corpus lawsuits in the jurisdictions
where they are being held. Can you talk to us
on like a real world, practical basis what this will
actually mean for immigrants who are being threatened with deportation

(42:53):
to present under the Alien Enemies Act, Especially because you
know the definition of quote unquote reasonable notice. It's not
like they say you have to give them a week.
You have to give them even twenty four hours. They're
leaving it up to the administration to define what, in
their view is quote unquote reasonable notice.

Speaker 7 (43:14):
Yeah, you totally hit the nail on the head.

Speaker 10 (43:16):
Like, on the formalism of it, it totally makes sense
right that this would be a great holding. Right there,
they're holding that you have procedural due process rights, you
have a notice to be an opportunity be heard, and
you have the right to notice, which, by the way,
the Trump administration was in court arguing that we don't
even need tell their lawyers where they are. So on
that basic premise, you would think, wow, it's a great holding.
The problem is we're leaving we're living in the real world,

(43:36):
and the reality of the situation is the Trump administration
is already running the government on emergency basis. You can
see this with the tariff situation, where they're declaring fake
emergencies and they're to invoke this limited kind of teriff
authority to have these broad standing tariffs. And the same
thing is true in respective immigration, that you can't rely
on this administration to be good faith about this situation

(43:56):
and actually give them their habeas petitions that they seem
to admit that they're owned.

Speaker 7 (44:01):
Right.

Speaker 10 (44:01):
One of the lines that the majority of the Percurium
decision relies on is a notion that the Trump administration
admits that these people are allowed to have habeas petitions,
but that right is meaningless if you're throwing them onto
a plane and taking them out of the country before
they have a chance to like hire a lawyer or
talk to their family. You know, most of these people
probably don't have access to lawyers. Most of the people

(44:22):
who are actually deported unlawfully, now that we know from
the Supreme Court, didn't have an opportunity to have a
real chance to file a petition. The problem is, of course,
is the government's interpretation and the Trump administration being bad
faith and they're going to interpret reasonable to me, who knows,
you know, a day thirty minutes, this administration is you know,
willing to do whatever it takes to get their agenda done.

(44:43):
And you saw as soon as the decision came down,
Stephen Miller is saying, you know, we're starting the planes
right now, We're going to deport them right away.

Speaker 7 (44:49):
And so that's the big problem is that we.

Speaker 10 (44:50):
Live in the real world, and in the real world,
all these cases are going to go to Texas in
the Fifth Circuit, where they're not going to be as sympathetic,
and we have an administration who's not going to be
you know, inclined to give them their actual due process rights,
and right now there is no order directing them not
to do so, it's just like the general opinion of
the court that they're not supposed to violate.

Speaker 3 (45:08):
What is the practical meaning of reasonable time, like, let's say,
compared to a criminal justice proceding or a normal deportation hearing.

Speaker 7 (45:16):
Yeah, when you say what the practical meaning.

Speaker 3 (45:18):
Is, what, like, you know, obviously it's a term that
is being said to the government. I assume they can
interpret it to some sort of standard. What does it
normally look like?

Speaker 10 (45:27):
Yeah, So it's like in the law, if you've ever
seen that the picture of Atlas holding up the world
and the underneath it, it's like the word reasonable. And
so I can't define in strict contours what the exact
amount of time is. You know, in a typical case
to respond to a complaint, it's you know, a matter
of weeks, two three weeks, you know, a month to
respond to like a civil complaint or something like that,

(45:49):
sometimes a bit longer. And so I think that if
you were to give these individuals some weeks maybe a
month to respond, I think that would be reasonable. Given
the other kinds of general litigation practices.

Speaker 7 (46:01):
That we have and the other kind of time limits.

Speaker 10 (46:03):
But again, you know, is there a strict legal holding
about what reasonable means in the context of removal proceedings.
The government also has access to expected removal procedures peceadures
in the context of the Immigration Nationality Act, where there's
not much time at all and there's not much procedure
other than you know, hearing before an immigration judge.

Speaker 7 (46:21):
And so it's a good question and one that we
need to contend.

Speaker 10 (46:23):
With now that you know that's the words of the
Supreme Court that the administration is left to interpret.

Speaker 2 (46:29):
What does this mean for the people who already were
wrongly sent to El salvad Or with no due process.
I mean, we I just covered the sixty minutes fantastic
piece that they did, you know, uncovering this government document listing. Okay,
here's who they actually sent indefinitely into this notorious Megaprison,
seventy five percent of whom.

Speaker 6 (46:49):
Zero criminal record.

Speaker 2 (46:51):
The administration themselves has already admitted that at least one
was done in complete error.

Speaker 6 (46:57):
So what is is there any.

Speaker 2 (47:00):
Recourse for these individuals who have already been sent and
illegally sent at this point, according to what the Supreme
Court had to say to this person.

Speaker 10 (47:10):
It's a great point, Crystal, this and the descent brings
this up. You should think of this opinion as dovetailing
with what's happening to mister Abdergo Garcia. In the case
of the individual, he's Salvadorian. He was granted with holding
a removal and the administration accepts that it was illegal
to deport this individual to El Salvador, to scat And

(47:32):
you're asking what can now be done for these individuals
who are already deported illegally right because they weren't given
their day in court, as the Supreme Court has now recognized.

Speaker 7 (47:40):
And the answer is, this does not resolve that question.

Speaker 10 (47:42):
There's another petition that's going to be before the Supreme
Court asking the uncomfortable question, which is, once you are
in the hands of a foreign government, can the court
order the US government to bring you back? And there
are complications. I want to give you a sort of
an example of the Trump administration.

Speaker 2 (48:00):
Well, and let me put while you're talking, just guys
through five F five, I believe up on the screen,
which refers to the recent Supreme Court movement here with
regard to this particular case where they've now temporarily blocked
the order requiring an immediate return of this wrongly deported migrant,
but they haven't made an actual decision on the merits here.

Speaker 10 (48:20):
So the Supreme Court issued an administrative stay. You shouldn't
read too much into that decision. It's not a merit
to stay, which means there's no indication from where the
Court's going to lie ultimately on this decision. But it's
important to think about this issue because it's a thorny issue.
On the one hand, think of the government's perspective. Imagine
that there were an order from a US court that

(48:40):
said some of the effect of, hey, you illegally sent
someone over to Gaza, and now that US citizen is
a hostage, let's say we're ordering you to bring him back.
You can imagine how that might seem like an unwarranted
intrusion into the executive prerogative to negotiate with Gaza. Or
if it were think about Britney Grinder in the hands

(49:00):
of the Russian Federation. Supposed that the government is alleged
to do something illegal that brought about that situation, and
a district court somewhere just orders the United States to
bring them back out of Russian detention. That could seem
like a crazy standard to allow all these courts to
intrude them to the executive progatives. So you have to
understand the government's perspective there. But the difference here and

(49:20):
what I think is the right outcome and why the
Fourth Circuit did not get rid of this district court
order to bring mister Bregogarcia back, is this is not
like those situations. This is very much like a contracting relationship.
The US government is hiring the El Salvadorian president to
essentially operate immigration attention on the US government's behalf. And
based on their statements, in the fact that the US

(49:42):
government is not willing to say that they can't bring
him back, it seems obvious who's in control here, who
has the power here, and that the US government, if
they wanted to, could absolutely bring mister bregog Garcia back.
And it's shocking that they have admitted that he is
illegally removed from to l Salvador, but they haven't even
tried to bring him back at all, or even state
that they couldn't. They're just saying that we don't have

(50:03):
to and we don't have to listen to any core
that says we do.

Speaker 3 (50:05):
What about on the merits of the Alien Enemies Act yourself?
You said that they had not ruled on that and
that these future future people could be able to challenge that.
What does the landscape look like with respect to that
as a result of this court.

Speaker 10 (50:21):
Decision, as Crystal laid out, a lot of these people
have really good factual cases for.

Speaker 7 (50:27):
Not in fact being alien enemies.

Speaker 10 (50:29):
The proclamation declaring the or invoking the Alien Enemies Act
said that you had to be a member of thrend
that AHUA. The President actually limited the scope of what
the proclamation could be if you wanted to and if
it were a valid invocation, he could target at every
single even as well and including Green card holders, but
he limited himself to thn that AWA members. And so
a lot of these individuals will have good factual cases

(50:50):
to challenge whether or not they're in fact alien enemies.
There's an additional legal question, which is is this even
a valid invocation of the Alien Enemies Act at all?
Which is, can you consider then that AWA a foreign
country or if they're not a foreign country, are they
actually in cahoots with the Venezuelan government, because you need
that link to a foreign government.

Speaker 7 (51:12):
And then the additional question.

Speaker 10 (51:13):
Of are they invading the United States or are they
threatening to invade the United States, or are they having
a physical incursion into the United States. And so there
are two kind of substantive merits legal questions, which are
the fundamentals of the proclamation itself related to whether this
is all fake and obviously it's all fake. There's no
actual physical invasion into the territory of the United States.

Speaker 7 (51:32):
By then that ahwa.

Speaker 10 (51:34):
And then there's the related question of are the people
actually designated, assuming the proclamation is valid, actually alien enemies
and the sort of the reporting that Crystal pointed to,
it seems that many of them are not. You know,
there's someone with a they were just picked up because
of their tattoos, someone with a tattoo for their autistic brother,
some of the tattoo. You know, who's a gay barber
who obviously is not a member of the by all reporting.

(51:57):
And so those are merits determinations that are now going
to be made much harder because they have to be individualized.
There's not kind of a broad class action challenge, and
so they've made it more difficult, but hopefully.

Speaker 2 (52:08):
So even that determination on the whether or not the
invocation of the Alien Enemies Act itself that has to
start on an individual basis with these habeas petitions.

Speaker 6 (52:18):
Is that what I'm hearing you to say.

Speaker 10 (52:20):
So if a court, like an appellate court, held that
the invocation or proclamation was invalid people, and they had
like direct appellent overview of whatever court system that were
most like the Fifth Circuit, it would have presidential effect
and the effect would be that more courts would deny
the validity of the proclamation. One of the problems with

(52:40):
doing all these individualized petitions that you could start to
see divergent case law or something like that. So the
end result might be that this might all be funneled
into one on the actual proclamation itself.

Speaker 7 (52:50):
Gotcha, But it would have to start there. It couldn't
start with this like kind of large case.

Speaker 6 (52:56):
Gotcha.

Speaker 2 (52:56):
And my last question for you is a piece go.
I watched some of your stream last night, which was
very helpful, by the way, and everybody should go subscribe
to Pisco's Hour, which I've you know, really been enjoying
glad to see that your growth over there. But you
mentioned that you thought Roberts might be kind of playing
politics here, like thinking, OK, I'm going to give the
administration some w's here, so maybe I build some credibility

(53:20):
so later on if we have to give him some ls,
that'll have more you know, purchase, because we gave them
things that they wanted earlier on. I've also been thinking
about the fact, I mean, this is an administration that
is at least playing with outright defiance of court orders.
And so if you're the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
you want your institutions still to matter. So maybe you're

(53:41):
thinking about, like, I really should go along with as
much as I can so that I don't end up
in a situation where he does blatantly defy a court
order and then all of our purported power is just done,
it's over. So what are you thinking? What is your
analysis in that regard? And one last note which I

(54:01):
also thought was interesting. Conservats were very upset about the
fact Amy Cony Barrett actually joined the Liberals on the descent,
which was also noteworthy here. And also there was a
lot of gender dynamics that play there, since you had
all the women on one side and all the men
on the other side. But in case if you could
lay on your analysis of what you think might be
going on with some of the John Roberts politics here.

Speaker 10 (54:22):
Yeah, I get that impression, because, first of all, there's
inside reporting that Roberts is concerned about the legitimacy of
the court, and so there's direct reporting talking to that
that's a state of mind. He released that statement about
Judge Boseberg, who issued the opinion the District Court, and
that how do you interpret that other than sort of
a signaling political act. And so the fact that he's saying, hey,

(54:43):
we shouldn't impeach this judge. The proper course to complain
about overreach by the court and about whether or not
you're defining orders is to repeal. And by the way,
the defining orders portion of this is very much still
at play. Just because the order was ultimately deemed invalid
because there was no jurisdiction and doesn't mean that you
still don't have an obligation to follow that order, but

(55:04):
that it was inherently sort of a political signaling act
to defend the legitimacy of the court.

Speaker 7 (55:09):
And so I see Judge Roberts.

Speaker 10 (55:11):
As very much concerned about that based on reporting, based
upon his statements, and based upon these decisions, And the
same thing with Trump versus the United States, where they're
always trying to split the baby have a kind of
middle ground approach which is not giving a full win
to Trump and where the opinion seems completely untailored to
precedent and completely like preposterous in view of the actual
real world. Think about the Trump the United States case,

(55:33):
where he's really putting blinders on and not realizing that
justice delayed, you know, is justice denied with respect to
what happened in the January sixth cases. So that seems
to be his approach from what I can gather in
my intuition about it and based on the reporting that
we're seeing. And I think it's a dangerous game because
these Trump you know, sick of fans, the administration officials

(55:54):
are not going to be loyal to you or not
going to respect you anymore, just because you've issued a
couple of middle ground decisions.

Speaker 7 (56:00):
And I think it's one that he's walking.

Speaker 10 (56:02):
It's also one of the reasons why I think you
couldn't you shouldn't read into too much of the administrative
stay into the mister Barreirogarcia case, because in that situation,
I feel like one of the reasons why he might
issue an administrative stay is to if you were going
to rule on the right side, in my opinion, you know,
trying to get mister Bererogracia back would be to gather
a consensus to actually have an opinion. If there's going

(56:24):
to have to be a standoff between the courts and
the President, have it be with the Supreme Court as
opposed to the Fourth Circuit. And so I very much
see him in the game of trying to protect the
legitimacy of the court and the institution.

Speaker 7 (56:34):
But I just think that he's off the mark.

Speaker 2 (56:35):
I do have one last, sorry legal question for you.

Speaker 6 (56:38):
Piece goes.

Speaker 2 (56:39):
There was a question of whether or not the administration
did defy court orders with regard to you know, the
judge had said, even if you have to turn the
planes around, this cannot go forward. They did not turn
the planes around. They say the planes were gone, so
we couldn't do anything, or we didn't want to do anything, we.

Speaker 6 (56:52):
Didn't have to do anything.

Speaker 2 (56:53):
And there were hearings continuing to determine whether they should
be held in contempt for defiance of those orders. Wipe
that out? Is that still ongoing? Like, are where do
we go from here?

Speaker 7 (57:04):
Yeah?

Speaker 10 (57:04):
No, you're supposed to follow court orders, even if ultimately
it's determined that the court does not. It was not
right in the initial instance to issue the order. And
that's very much, by the way true. The holding of
this court is that Boseberg did not have the jurisdiction,
did not have the right venue to issue these orders.
But that doesn't mean that you're not still obligated to
follow that order. And so this does not eliminate the

(57:25):
contempt proceedings and the hearings that are occurring before Bosburg
about whether or not in fact they violated the order.
To me, it's completely obvious that they violated the order.
I mean, they're all but bragging about it. And if
you look at the timeline about when the order was given,
it was an oral order. But there's nothing less binding
about an oral order. They're completely aware about the existence

(57:46):
of the order. Boseburg is like talking and asking who
even up to like individual lawyers, was aware of what's
going on, and so he's doing some fact finding there.

Speaker 7 (57:55):
But they knew about it.

Speaker 10 (57:56):
They knew they were supposed to turn the planes around,
and it's preposterous the notion that courts could not order
a plane to turn around if it had, for example,
US citizens on board and they were trying to abscond illegally.
Which is also one of the reasons why all these
decisions are very problematic, is because they apply at their
maximum also to US citizens that they couldn't, you know,
give that order.

Speaker 7 (58:14):
The order wasn't valid.

Speaker 10 (58:15):
And at this point, you know, they're not even trying
to hide their defiance. They're invoking the state secret doctrine
when they're blatantly like posting the times of when it
landed and where the President of El Salvador is like
meaning over the orders and flouting them. And so to me,
there's not no question really about the defiance and the
descent all but accuses them of flagrant disrespect for the

(58:35):
rule of law and the judge's order.

Speaker 3 (58:38):
Will we see a resolution of that at the court
or is that a Boseberg contempt?

Speaker 1 (58:44):
Like would it stay within his jurisdiction?

Speaker 10 (58:48):
It could definitely be appealable, and I expect this administration
appeals everything, and so I would always expect them to
appeal it. They're supposed to give deference to the factual
findings of the lower court. That's one of the principles here.
But you know, they're also not supposed to appeal tros.
And there's not supposed to be jurisdiction to the Supreme
Court for any appellate court to hear a kind of
disagreement on a TRO. But there's always seems to be

(59:10):
special rules when the president's evolved, special rules when Trump
is involved, And so I don't know if they're going
to pay deference to Judge both Boseburg's findings, and I
very much expect them to appeal the order and for
them to say that it's invalid if if he finds,
for example, that they violated the court order, to say
that that finding is not applicable as to the president,
I don't think the President himself is involved, but as

(59:31):
to the other officials, and so yeah, I don't think
it'll be finally resolved in the district court, even though
they're supposed to pay deference to those factual findings.

Speaker 1 (59:38):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (59:39):
All right, Well, this has been very illuminating. Thank you
so much for taking some time to break these issues
down for us.

Speaker 6 (59:44):
Peace go.

Speaker 3 (59:45):
Great to see you, thanks man, Thanks so much, guys, Yeah,
appreciate Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate it.
Great counterpoint show for everybody tomorrow. We will see you
all later.