June 14, 2025 • 26 mins
Progressive political commentator Ana Kasparian and MAGA YouTuber Vince Dao join me on the Brad vs Everyone podcast to discuss the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and whether the Trump administration's immigration policies have gone too far. Who do you agree with?
Subscribe to Vince on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VinceDaoTV
Follow Ana on X: https://x.com/AnaKasparian
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You do not need this standard practice of a trial
(00:02):
by jury or something to support un illegal alien.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
You have no lawyer, you have no recourse to get out.
That's dystopian. That's horrified.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Yeah, and it should scare. It should scare all of us.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
We have to focus on what Trump is doing more
than what he's saying. That's always been a good rule
of thumb. But one thing he is doing is a
total one to eighty. On the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia,
who the Trump administration says is an MS thirteen gang banger,
who Democrats have described as a Maryland man, but he
is an undocumented or illegal immigrant who'd lived here for
(00:35):
a long time, and they sent him to El Salvador,
the Trump administration dd originally in violation of a court order.
Now they've brought him back. We're going to take a
list into some news coverage of that.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
A plot twist. The salvador and migrant mistakenly deported from
Maryland to a mega prison in his home country, has
been returned to the United States to face human smuggling charges.
A federal grand jury has indicted Kilmar Abrego Garcia on
two counts for allegedly transporting thousands of illegal immigrants across
(01:07):
the United States, including children and MS thirteen gang members.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
So I have thoughts on this, but my first thought
is I don't have I have a short memory, but
I'm not quite a goldfish. So I do remember a
number of statements from the Trump administration, including this tweet
from the White House where they shared the New York
Times headline that says Senator meets with wrongly deported marilynd
(01:34):
Man in L Salvador, and they changed the headline so
they said Senator meets with deported MS thirteen illegal alien
in LL Salvador who's never coming back. We also had
people get on before Congress under oath Christy Nomes said
there is no scenario where he will return to the
(01:54):
United States. Basically, everyone said, he's not coming back. We're
not bringing him back, even though they imported him wrongfully
to El Salvador. There was a removal order prohibiting him
from being sent there. He could be deported, but just
not there. Vince, did they not have a credibility problem
here after doing such a one eighty after they were
so explicit and bold that he's not coming back. I'm
(02:17):
glad they're following the court orders to be clear and
bringing him back and giving him due process. But it's
a galling one eight defense.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Well, just to be clear, he's not being brought back
simply because the administration said, oh, now we're going to
bring him back. He's being brought back because he was
indicted by a grand jury, not by directly the administration,
by a grand jury for charges of human trafficking, and
so what they're doing is not extraditing him, so it
can be charged. Now that said, I mean, could I
see the case that it created some message in confusion
when you said one hundred percent he's not.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Being brought back and then you do. Sure.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
But I also think that to a degree, the egg here,
the greater egg here is on the Democrats face for
basically defending this guy, as you said, as the Maryland father.
But I would also argue, kind of going back to
our earlier discussion, making Omar Abrego Garcia the face the
poster child of opposing the Trump agenda on deportations. Now
he's coming back to the country to face this gigantic
(03:08):
trial on human trafficking, of all things, and if that goes,
obviously the way of him being guilty or even you know,
there's a lot of evidence or whatever it is. I
think that largely, you know, as we brought up earlier,
that's going to kind of make a big statement, Oh,
what Trump is doing on deportations is correct. Here's the
guy that you know, Democrats did all the stuff flu
to El Salvador for and it turns out, oh, he's
a human trafficker. Of that conviction comes true, So you know,
(03:31):
I understand it. I did see some people like under
my videos saying at the time it happened, he should
stay in El Salvador, no need to bring him back
with our taxpayer dollars. I get that argument as well.
But I also think the big image to the nation,
especially when this happens of a court trial on again
the poster child of illegal immigration and deportations being for
human trafficking, I think, honestly, it's a greater indictment of
(03:52):
the Democrat sort of antics and grandstanding rather than Trump the.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
F I just think the Trump administration very clearly lied though,
because they didn't just say he's not coming back. They
said we can't bring him back. They said it's not
within our power to bring him back, and that was
always not true El Salvador. We're giving the money. Their
president wants to make Trump happy. If they had asked,
they would have given him back. And look, if they
have a real case against him, great, bring him back
(04:17):
and criminally charge him, give him his day in court. Yeah,
he'll have an attorney, and if he's found guilty, he
can rot if he truly did all this horrific stuff.
But I mean, this is all really Some people made
the mistake of defending him as a human saying, no,
he's this sweet marilynd Man. But some people like myself
were just advocating the du process be followed. The Trump
administration sent him to a dystopian L Salvador prison where
(04:40):
he was just rotting in torturous conditions with no charges
and no trial. That's a violation of human rights, even
if he's the worst person in the world.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Vince, I'm not an expert on necessarily like extradition laws.
My understanding is you cannot necessarily I'm sure I believe
we have an extradition treaty with El Salvador. I'm going
to guess there, right, and so you cannot directly demand
someone who is a Salvadorian citizen the return to the
United States without the government's permission, unless, like you get
the case where oh, he's indicted, he's charged.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
So I think that's a difference here.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Again, not an expert on how the specifics of extradition
laws work, but that's my understanding of the situation.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
They could ask, and they're giving El Salvador millions of
dollars of taxpayer money that Al Salvador wants to keep,
and so they'd be inclined to grant that request, I think.
But and I'll bring in you here, Yeah, I.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
Mean, the argument that the most powerful man in the world,
who is the United States President, can't convince his friend,
the leader of El Salvador, to send a Brego Garcia back,
is laughable. And Vince, I'm sure, I'm sure that the
right will spin this story the way that you had described,
But I actually think it does give the Trump administration
(05:45):
more credibility to follow through on a unanimous United States
Supreme Court ruling indicating that the administration must facilitate the
return of a Brego Garcia. Now, in regard to the
Democrats supporting a criminal, you could make that argument had
he been convicted of human trafficking prior to the Trump
(06:06):
administration wrongfully and in their own admission, accidentally deporting him
to El Soolvador. But that hadn't happened yet. I'm happy
that he's being brought back to the United States to
face these charges because everyone deserves due process and their
day in court. And if he is found guilty of
human trafficking, absolutely he should suffer the consequences of that.
(06:29):
I hear what you guys are saying in regard to
some Democrats, know, using emotional manipulation and kind of like laundering.
This guy's reputation is like this sweet, stand up guy
when we really don't know anything about him. However, my
view is that most people on the left had a
problem with the lack of due process and what that
means for everyone else. Once you allow for the erosion
(06:51):
of due process for people who are undocumented, that leads
to the erosion of due process for American citizens as well,
and we just can't have that.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Yeah, Vince, I mean you mentioned on people on the left.
I'm not on the left, but I am a civil libertarian,
so that was my concern all along, was the due process,
not just of kil Maar Abrigo Garcia. But of the
dozens or it may even be up to hundreds of
now of people that we've sent to this El Salvador
prison with no charges, with no trials, we're paying for
them at US taxpayer expense to be imprisoned in this horrific,
(07:22):
horrific conditions. They don't have access to their lawyers many
at many times, sometimes their family doesn't know where they are.
I mean, look, I know that he ran on deporting people,
but that's not a deportation. Sending these people to see
DOT the terrorism center in El Salvador, that's an imprisonment.
Why couldn't he just if these people are here illegally,
(07:43):
just deport them the normal way, Vince, Why did he
have to go this really? Really, I don't know what
the right word is, but draconian path.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Well, I mean I think it also. You know, especially
if you send Salvadoran citizens back to their home country
and the government of El Salvador chooses to keep them imprisoned,
is that necessarily.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Many of them are Venezuela at all. Many of the
people are from Venezuela.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Correct, correct, and many of the suspected Trenda Ragua members
who are being deported are being sent there specifically because
the nation of Venezuela is in blatant violation of international
law by refusing to take back their own citizens. So
you know, there's an argument to be made I guess
in that direction as well. I'd also like to point out,
you know, there is a big thing over the Alien
Enemies Act, but when you also look at, for instance,
the Immigration and Nationality Act of nineteen fifty two, I
(08:31):
think the exact section there is two three seven that
under past existing immigration law, you do not need to
be convicted of a crime to be deported on an
expedited process on the belief of terrorism. Considering again, right
MS thirteen, the Latin American cartels, but they're not.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Being they're being imprisoned at US taxpayer expense.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Well, I mean to that, I would say that again, Well,
in the case of Venezuela, Right, we're having to do
that because Venezuela refuses to take back their citizens.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
I think, I yeah, there's no other option then sending
them to a Salvador.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Well, the other option would be what to keep them
in prison in the US.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
I mean, well, yeah, one, you could keep them detained
in the US, or you could also deport them to
other countries. I mean that's also a thing. You could
drop them off in Central America, in South America.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Do you do you think that these other countries are
willing to take back those individuals.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Well, we do deport people to other countries other than
the country of their origin.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
But listen, think that other countries would be willing to
take even suspected trend of Iragua members into the country.
I mean, if they want to do that too, I mean,
I guess that'd be fine. That's an option. But can
you just put.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yourself in the shoes for a moment, Vince, of somebody
who is picked up by immigration authorities and sent to
a prison in a foreign country that is not their
home country, with no charges and no trial based on
a very loose association that they're trend to Iragua. I mean,
they're using like tattoos and stuff, including like real Madrid
tattoos with a soccer ball, tattoos that say mom and dad,
(10:01):
you have no lawyer, you have no recourse to get out.
That's dystopian. That's horrified.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Yeah, and it should scare. It should scare all of
us because look, I'll give you a specific anecdote because
every time me and my husband travel out of the
country and then we come back, obviously we have to
go through customs. I think he has one of the
most common names ever, Christian Lopez, right, But apparently Christian
Lopez is also the name of some wanted, you know,
(10:28):
fugitive drug cartel person. So every time we come back
to the country, he gets pulled aside for like interrogations,
which is super frustrating, but it is what it is.
My concern is, if you allow for a system in
which due process flies out the window, there could be
a situation in which there's a case of mistaken identity.
Someone like my husband, who was born and raised in
(10:49):
the United States could be mistaken for some undocumented fugitive
that's wanted and wrongfully without having a day in court,
without having an opportunity to prove that he is not
the person they're looking for, gets deported to freaking out
Solvador to a terrorism center. Like, we have to be
careful in protecting our rights as we try to move
(11:12):
forward in fixing the wrongs of previous administrations or doing
what we need to do in order to you know,
deport the right people. Due process is an important part
of that process, right, So that's what I'm concerned about.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
I mean, first of all, I mean I don't think
there's been a case where a US citizen has been
supposedly accidentally deported. I'm not sure anyone disputes that. You know,
the basically everyone who's been deported is either an illegal alien,
or if you want to get semantic about it, a
case where at least temporary protective status or temporary visa
was revoked, but in the case right full discretion to
deport those individuals. But on the point of due process,
(11:48):
I think this issue is also being drastically misunderstood. Like
I was going to finish earlier, under the Immigration Nationality
Act of nineteen fifty two, it does state that, you know,
you do not need this like standard practice of trial
by jury or something to deport an illegal alien. Right. Actually,
as a matter of fact, if the you guys can
read up on this, if the Attorney General or state
(12:09):
department determine there is reasonable suspicion, right probable cause not
you know, has to be proven probable cause that a
non resident alien aka legal alien in this country has
affiliation with foreign terrorist organizations now as of January twentieth,
again Latin American cartels being a part of that. Not
only are they subject to deportation simply because of that,
(12:30):
you do not have to go prove that by jury
and court.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
But also, okay, well just let Vince finish the point.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
That was okay, But also there is not even necessarily
need for like a standard immigration court by this law,
like you can use actually this expedited process where it
can be kept secret for national security purposes, et cetera.
So what would I guess, anna, what would do process
mean to you?
Speaker 2 (12:52):
No?
Speaker 3 (12:52):
No, what you're arguing right now is fair. But what
was the what was the probable cause? Especially considering the
Trump administration's own lawyers admitted that it was an administrative
error to deport him, So like what was that?
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Like, really, what was that they did? Yeah? But not
that he was like not to be deported. My understanding
is basically they didn't finish the process correctly and then
accidentally sent him off. But it wasn't that, oh, like
he was about to be released and set free on
the streets. That was not necessarily the timeline in terms
of the probable cause. I mean, you did have the
police reports in the past, right, police officers did identify
(13:31):
him as being associated with MS thirteen. You of course
have the twenty twenty two body cam footage that he's
now being indicted for in a criminal court. So I
think it is sufficient to say this probable cause he
was affiliated with MS thirteen hasn't necessarily been proven in court. No,
But like I said, the law basically argues the probable
cause statement, not the criminal conviction statement, and I.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
Think that's for a deal. So there's two things here.
I mean, one, nobody really argues that, like every immigrant
is entitled, illegal immigrant is entitled to a jury trial
before deportation. That kind of a straw man I hear
from kind of magotypes. Now, a court hearing before an
immigration judge I think is potentially appropriate in deportation cases.
We need more immigration judges because we don't have enough
(14:12):
to process them all, and that's a very real problem.
But again, I come back to this issue that if
all they were was deported on suspicion of being a
member of Trenda Aragua and dropped off in their home country,
that would not be as much of a due process violation.
But to the extent that we are paying El Salvador
to imprison these people, then they are essentially in US
(14:34):
custody being imprisoned. So they're being imprisoned without charges or trial.
It's not just a deportation, it's an indefinite imprisonment in
horrible conditions that's being done only based on what you said,
this probable cause that they're using tattoos and other spurious evidence.
But let's concede it's probable cause. They're not just doing deportations,
(14:56):
they're doing imprisonment. That's the issue I have with it, Vince.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Again, as I'm going to keep coming back to this point,
I think then the responsibility falls back on Venezuela to
take back their own citizens. I mean, I think that
would be the cleanest solution to the problem. Anna, Like,
I don't think it's ideal that we're sending them to
Al Salvador, you know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Yeah, I mean, and it's not ideal that Venezuela isn't
complying with the United States, probably because of how the
US has treated Venezuela with like sanctions and things like that.
But nonetheless, I would argue that ultimately, what is the
least ideal is again having a government, a federal government
(15:35):
that's so powerful that they can unilaterally accuse anyone of anything,
argue that there's probable cause, invoke the Alien Enemies Act,
and then deport someone without allowing them to see a
judge at least have a day before a judge to
make their case. I don't understand why that's so complicated
and why Trump supporters are so against allowing that happen
(15:58):
when that's such an important protection of human rights, including
protection from a government against Americans potentially being wrongfully accused
of crimes and deported.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Or legal immigrants. I think that's more common, but it
can all.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
Or legal immigrants.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Yeah, Buttana, I guess to kind of. I'm not endorsing
this position, but what they say is that, listen, we've
let twenty million illegal immigrants into the country. We need
to get them all out, and it's impossible to do
that and give everyone a day in court and fair process.
That's and so they argue that the due process argument
hamstrings their ability to do what the president campaigned on,
(16:36):
was elected to do, and what they think is necessary
for national security and economic security. I don't really agree,
and I say Okay, well, then you can't do it,
is my answer. But how do you respond to that?
Because I think it's a valid frustration at the very least,
because I mean, the Biden administration opened up the border
for the refugee and asylum system to be abused. Millions
(16:57):
of people can come in here and then it's much
harder to get them out. I'm sympathetic to that frustration.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Right. Well, I'm sorry that the government is having such
a tough time dealing with a system of government that
wants to protect human rights. But human rights and the
protection of human rights differentiates countries like the United States
from dystopian, dictatorial authoritarian regimes, and I would prefer a
(17:25):
process that takes a little bit longer, but again, has
the importance of due process in human rights at the
you know, at front and center, as opposed to doing
things rapidly with a government that's so empowered that they
trample on human rights. That's my take on it.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Yeah, I mean I agree, but amitments I assume you
have a different perspective.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
What ought the process? What should the do the that's
what should do process be in that case? Because you know,
for me, it's like Okay, if you prove, whether it's
in a judge or administrative issue, whatever, you prove that
they're an illegal alias, right, they're not here in the
country and not a citizen. Obviously you should prove that part, right,
you know, rid of habeas corpus is I think what
they are legally entitled to, but necessarily, depending on the case,
(18:09):
the whole long hearing is not necessarily applying in every
single situation. If those two are true, then I think
you know you have grounds to deport. And yeah, I
mean if sure, sure the Trump administration figure out a
way to like expedite figure out how to get more
immigration judges or something, so you can have the expedited
process but also the due process.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
I guess sure. But you know, my gen, do you
think that everyone's getting their rid of habeas corpus? I don't.
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
I mean they're not.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
I mean, had how a Brego Garcia had had a
Brigo Garcia had just it's not Look, it's not that complicated.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
We're not talking about a multi month court case with
like a jury trial. It's literally giving this individual an
opportunity to make their case in front of a judge.
Had that happened, the Trump administration would not have made
that administrative error. This wouldn't have been a big story.
And by the way, let me just give the right
a word of advice. As someone who I don't even
(19:06):
know if I identify as like on the left right,
I have left wing ideas economically speaking, but when it
comes to some of the cultural things that the Democrats
have gotten involved in, I'm not in favor of it.
But that's beside the point. The left lost people when
they started engaging in activities that were deeply unpopular, but
they were so out of touch and so stubborn that
(19:29):
they refuse to see it. You're right in that currently
Trump is enjoying, you know, relative popularity and favorability when
it comes to his immigration policies. But if you notice
the numbers from the beginning of a second term to
what they are now, it's been steadily dropping. And I
think the reason why is because you have these high
(19:51):
profile cases like Abrego Garcia, where people look at it,
especially independent voters who switched over to vote for Trump.
They're looking at cases like that and thinking, hmm, that
seems super unfair, that seems like way too much power
concentrated in the executive branch. I actually really appreciate due process.
I want to protect that. So I think that the
(20:12):
right would be well suited in actually pushing back against
those types of mistakes in order to maintain support for
Trump's immigration policies. But that takes strategic thinking, and right
now we don't have a country where strategic thinking is incentivized, unfortunately.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
I think I totally hear what you're saying, but I
think you know, other things to keep in mind us.
First of all, it's kind of also, I would argue,
just a result of the presidential honeymoon wearing off. I mean,
would you acknowledge you know, sometimes yeah, there are people
who vote for things and then when they happen, they're like,
oh right. It's kind of a general trend in any
presidential term. It's like they get into office, they're riding high,
they slowly decline. Most polls you're right that show the
(20:50):
numbers dropping a bit on deportation also show the overall
approval rating dropping. And so it's also questions of like,
is it a democrat sample, more Republican sample this or that,
but still overly even despite all of the constant attacks,
you know, the constant media coverage, all this stuff. I
still continue to notice that, first of all, the approval
rating on immigration is usually at least five to ten
(21:10):
points more popular than his general approval rating, which still
tells me a lot. I think to this day, and
you know, I think even when you look back at,
you know, the election period, all this stuff. I mean,
overwhelmingly this is an issue. I think that the left
has made this argument for a long time, but they're
going to be kind of surprised to find out that
this is still overwhelmingly pretty popular with the people that
(21:31):
said I do take your point, because that's something I
think about every single day. How do we not become
like the left right? Because the left basically went from
Obama two thousand and eight to completely being kind of
like ridiculed, I guess in twenty twenty four. How do
we make sure that did not happen. But that said,
I would have to disagree. I just don't see the
deportations as one of them. Maybe something you could argue
election period, like abortion, for instance, that was something Trump
(21:52):
kind of played your cgically well. But I just disagree
on the immigration right.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
I mean, you mentioned something really interesting there, Vince, which
is how do we not become like the lef Then
I come at this as from the perspective of who
you know. Maybe I'm on the center right politically now,
but my political awakening was kind of an aversion or
being horrified at left wing excesses in hyper woke spaces.
I grew up in Massachusetts. I went to a super
far left college. What I was mortified by was the
(22:17):
attempts to suppress speech, the attempts to punish people without
due process. I was actually very One of the things
in my younger years that made me like, look a
scance at the Democratic Party was the disdain with which
Brett Kavanaugh was treated in terms of due process for
these accusations made against him, some of which were credible,
(22:38):
some of which were not, but were treated as such.
But people just determined to destroy him. And I see
the Trump administration, whether you want to call it the
woke right or not, I see them censoring people. I
see them picking people up and throwing them into unmarked
vans because they wrote an op ed criticizing Israel, right.
I see them engaging in some of these behaviors. I
(22:59):
see them talk, talking, about like protecting safe spaces from
anti Semitism, which they define very broadly. I mean, do
you not see any patterns playing out here now that
it's their turn in power? I certainly do, vince, But
what do you think well?
Speaker 1 (23:14):
I would also I mean, do you see the Palestine
campus stuff and illegal immigration as like the same issue,
because I'd argue that they're sort of, I guess, somewhat aligned,
but somewhat distinct from each other at the time.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
They're different issues, but some of the principles at stake
of free speech do process can be similar?
Speaker 1 (23:30):
I mean, look, my thing on for instance, like the
Palestine stuff, is like, yeah, do I think that people
should be deported simply for protesting? No? But I also think, hey,
if you're hearing this country generally speaking, whether it's Israel
or any other issue, right, if you're breaking laws or
you're engaged in you know, you saw some of the
situations that went on at Columbia and other universities.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Not all of the protesting is legal.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
I'll say that violence, whether that's violence or just like
trespassing and other things. I generally think that the administration
has a point. Hey, if you're here on a student visa,
and you're making laws or agitating in certain senses. I mean,
why did we bring you here to the first place. Right,
they're not saying people who broke laws. I would have
much less of an issue if they were just deporting
people who trespassed or did vandalism. They are deporting anyone,
(24:14):
in Marco Rubio's own words, whose presence undermines the US
foreign policy. Right, it just because they disagree with support
for Israel or other things. And I think that's a
dangerous precedent. I think that's a violation of civil liberties
because I mean that same logic could be used by
a future president AOC to deport pro Israel students, or
(24:34):
to deport doctor Jordan Peterson for opposing US support for
Ukraine under the Biden administration. I mean, I just a
Republicans are not going to be in power forever, and
some of the things they're doing. It feels to me
like Democrats a few years ago when they were like
getting rid of the judicial filibuster and agitating to get
rid of the philibuster and other things, Like if they
had achieved all of it would be biting them even harder.
(24:57):
Now I feel like Republicans are in a similar moment.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
I'm in favor of getting rid of the judicial filibuster,
and I say that even now, with Republicans enjoying a
slim majority in the Senate, I think we should decide
legislation on a simple majority. I think the legislative filibuster
is Yeah, it's there specifically to ensure bills go to die. Okay,
it's pathetic and it infuriates me.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
Yeah so.
Speaker 3 (25:22):
But but your point is very valid, Brad, because again,
it's so important to think about the abuses of power
that your own side is engaging in. And if you're
tempted to support it simply because your own side is
in power, well you're making a huge mistake because your
side is not always going to be in power, And
(25:43):
if you're okay with your side doing it, you have
to be okay with the opposing party doing the same.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
All right, guys, Well, I've really appreciated this conversation. Thank
you both so much for your time. We'll have to
have you back another time, but thank you both.
Speaker 3 (25:56):
Thank you
You do not need this standard practice of a trial
(00:02):
by jury or something to support un illegal alien.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
You have no lawyer, you have no recourse to get out.
That's dystopian. That's horrified.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Yeah, and it should scare. It should scare all of us.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
We have to focus on what Trump is doing more
than what he's saying. That's always been a good rule
of thumb. But one thing he is doing is a
total one to eighty. On the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia,
who the Trump administration says is an MS thirteen gang banger,
who Democrats have described as a Maryland man, but he
is an undocumented or illegal immigrant who'd lived here for
(00:35):
a long time, and they sent him to El Salvador,
the Trump administration dd originally in violation of a court order.
Now they've brought him back. We're going to take a
list into some news coverage of that.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
A plot twist. The salvador and migrant mistakenly deported from
Maryland to a mega prison in his home country, has
been returned to the United States to face human smuggling charges.
A federal grand jury has indicted Kilmar Abrego Garcia on
two counts for allegedly transporting thousands of illegal immigrants across
(01:07):
the United States, including children and MS thirteen gang members.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
So I have thoughts on this, but my first thought
is I don't have I have a short memory, but
I'm not quite a goldfish. So I do remember a
number of statements from the Trump administration, including this tweet
from the White House where they shared the New York
Times headline that says Senator meets with wrongly deported marilynd
(01:34):
Man in L Salvador, and they changed the headline so
they said Senator meets with deported MS thirteen illegal alien
in LL Salvador who's never coming back. We also had
people get on before Congress under oath Christy Nomes said
there is no scenario where he will return to the
(01:54):
United States. Basically, everyone said, he's not coming back. We're
not bringing him back, even though they imported him wrongfully
to El Salvador. There was a removal order prohibiting him
from being sent there. He could be deported, but just
not there. Vince, did they not have a credibility problem
here after doing such a one eighty after they were
so explicit and bold that he's not coming back. I'm
(02:17):
glad they're following the court orders to be clear and
bringing him back and giving him due process. But it's
a galling one eight defense.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Well, just to be clear, he's not being brought back
simply because the administration said, oh, now we're going to
bring him back. He's being brought back because he was
indicted by a grand jury, not by directly the administration,
by a grand jury for charges of human trafficking, and
so what they're doing is not extraditing him, so it
can be charged. Now that said, I mean, could I
see the case that it created some message in confusion
when you said one hundred percent he's not.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Being brought back and then you do. Sure.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
But I also think that to a degree, the egg here,
the greater egg here is on the Democrats face for
basically defending this guy, as you said, as the Maryland father.
But I would also argue, kind of going back to
our earlier discussion, making Omar Abrego Garcia the face the
poster child of opposing the Trump agenda on deportations. Now
he's coming back to the country to face this gigantic
(03:08):
trial on human trafficking, of all things, and if that goes,
obviously the way of him being guilty or even you know,
there's a lot of evidence or whatever it is. I
think that largely, you know, as we brought up earlier,
that's going to kind of make a big statement, Oh,
what Trump is doing on deportations is correct. Here's the
guy that you know, Democrats did all the stuff flu
to El Salvador for and it turns out, oh, he's
a human trafficker. Of that conviction comes true, So you know,
(03:31):
I understand it. I did see some people like under
my videos saying at the time it happened, he should
stay in El Salvador, no need to bring him back
with our taxpayer dollars. I get that argument as well.
But I also think the big image to the nation,
especially when this happens of a court trial on again
the poster child of illegal immigration and deportations being for
human trafficking, I think, honestly, it's a greater indictment of
(03:52):
the Democrat sort of antics and grandstanding rather than Trump the.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
F I just think the Trump administration very clearly lied though,
because they didn't just say he's not coming back. They
said we can't bring him back. They said it's not
within our power to bring him back, and that was
always not true El Salvador. We're giving the money. Their
president wants to make Trump happy. If they had asked,
they would have given him back. And look, if they
have a real case against him, great, bring him back
(04:17):
and criminally charge him, give him his day in court. Yeah,
he'll have an attorney, and if he's found guilty, he
can rot if he truly did all this horrific stuff.
But I mean, this is all really Some people made
the mistake of defending him as a human saying, no,
he's this sweet marilynd Man. But some people like myself
were just advocating the du process be followed. The Trump
administration sent him to a dystopian L Salvador prison where
(04:40):
he was just rotting in torturous conditions with no charges
and no trial. That's a violation of human rights, even
if he's the worst person in the world.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Vince, I'm not an expert on necessarily like extradition laws.
My understanding is you cannot necessarily I'm sure I believe
we have an extradition treaty with El Salvador. I'm going
to guess there, right, and so you cannot directly demand
someone who is a Salvadorian citizen the return to the
United States without the government's permission, unless, like you get
the case where oh, he's indicted, he's charged.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
So I think that's a difference here.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Again, not an expert on how the specifics of extradition
laws work, but that's my understanding of the situation.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
They could ask, and they're giving El Salvador millions of
dollars of taxpayer money that Al Salvador wants to keep,
and so they'd be inclined to grant that request, I think.
But and I'll bring in you here, Yeah, I.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
Mean, the argument that the most powerful man in the world,
who is the United States President, can't convince his friend,
the leader of El Salvador, to send a Brego Garcia back,
is laughable. And Vince, I'm sure, I'm sure that the
right will spin this story the way that you had described,
But I actually think it does give the Trump administration
(05:45):
more credibility to follow through on a unanimous United States
Supreme Court ruling indicating that the administration must facilitate the
return of a Brego Garcia. Now, in regard to the
Democrats supporting a criminal, you could make that argument had
he been convicted of human trafficking prior to the Trump
(06:06):
administration wrongfully and in their own admission, accidentally deporting him
to El Soolvador. But that hadn't happened yet. I'm happy
that he's being brought back to the United States to
face these charges because everyone deserves due process and their
day in court. And if he is found guilty of
human trafficking, absolutely he should suffer the consequences of that.
(06:29):
I hear what you guys are saying in regard to
some Democrats, know, using emotional manipulation and kind of like laundering.
This guy's reputation is like this sweet, stand up guy
when we really don't know anything about him. However, my
view is that most people on the left had a
problem with the lack of due process and what that
means for everyone else. Once you allow for the erosion
(06:51):
of due process for people who are undocumented, that leads
to the erosion of due process for American citizens as well,
and we just can't have that.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Yeah, Vince, I mean you mentioned on people on the left.
I'm not on the left, but I am a civil libertarian,
so that was my concern all along, was the due process,
not just of kil Maar Abrigo Garcia. But of the
dozens or it may even be up to hundreds of
now of people that we've sent to this El Salvador
prison with no charges, with no trials, we're paying for
them at US taxpayer expense to be imprisoned in this horrific,
(07:22):
horrific conditions. They don't have access to their lawyers many
at many times, sometimes their family doesn't know where they are.
I mean, look, I know that he ran on deporting people,
but that's not a deportation. Sending these people to see
DOT the terrorism center in El Salvador, that's an imprisonment.
Why couldn't he just if these people are here illegally,
(07:43):
just deport them the normal way, Vince, Why did he
have to go this really? Really, I don't know what
the right word is, but draconian path.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Well, I mean I think it also. You know, especially
if you send Salvadoran citizens back to their home country
and the government of El Salvador chooses to keep them imprisoned,
is that necessarily.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Many of them are Venezuela at all. Many of the
people are from Venezuela.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Correct, correct, and many of the suspected Trenda Ragua members
who are being deported are being sent there specifically because
the nation of Venezuela is in blatant violation of international
law by refusing to take back their own citizens. So
you know, there's an argument to be made I guess
in that direction as well. I'd also like to point out,
you know, there is a big thing over the Alien
Enemies Act, but when you also look at, for instance,
the Immigration and Nationality Act of nineteen fifty two, I
(08:31):
think the exact section there is two three seven that
under past existing immigration law, you do not need to
be convicted of a crime to be deported on an
expedited process on the belief of terrorism. Considering again, right
MS thirteen, the Latin American cartels, but they're not.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Being they're being imprisoned at US taxpayer expense.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Well, I mean to that, I would say that again, Well,
in the case of Venezuela, Right, we're having to do
that because Venezuela refuses to take back their citizens.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
I think, I yeah, there's no other option then sending
them to a Salvador.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Well, the other option would be what to keep them
in prison in the US.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
I mean, well, yeah, one, you could keep them detained
in the US, or you could also deport them to
other countries. I mean that's also a thing. You could
drop them off in Central America, in South America.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Do you do you think that these other countries are
willing to take back those individuals.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Well, we do deport people to other countries other than
the country of their origin.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
But listen, think that other countries would be willing to
take even suspected trend of Iragua members into the country.
I mean, if they want to do that too, I mean,
I guess that'd be fine. That's an option. But can
you just put.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yourself in the shoes for a moment, Vince, of somebody
who is picked up by immigration authorities and sent to
a prison in a foreign country that is not their
home country, with no charges and no trial based on
a very loose association that they're trend to Iragua. I mean,
they're using like tattoos and stuff, including like real Madrid
tattoos with a soccer ball, tattoos that say mom and dad,
(10:01):
you have no lawyer, you have no recourse to get out.
That's dystopian. That's horrified.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Yeah, and it should scare. It should scare all of
us because look, I'll give you a specific anecdote because
every time me and my husband travel out of the
country and then we come back, obviously we have to
go through customs. I think he has one of the
most common names ever, Christian Lopez, right, But apparently Christian
Lopez is also the name of some wanted, you know,
(10:28):
fugitive drug cartel person. So every time we come back
to the country, he gets pulled aside for like interrogations,
which is super frustrating, but it is what it is.
My concern is, if you allow for a system in
which due process flies out the window, there could be
a situation in which there's a case of mistaken identity.
Someone like my husband, who was born and raised in
(10:49):
the United States could be mistaken for some undocumented fugitive
that's wanted and wrongfully without having a day in court,
without having an opportunity to prove that he is not
the person they're looking for, gets deported to freaking out
Solvador to a terrorism center. Like, we have to be
careful in protecting our rights as we try to move
(11:12):
forward in fixing the wrongs of previous administrations or doing
what we need to do in order to you know,
deport the right people. Due process is an important part
of that process, right, So that's what I'm concerned about.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
I mean, first of all, I mean I don't think
there's been a case where a US citizen has been
supposedly accidentally deported. I'm not sure anyone disputes that. You know,
the basically everyone who's been deported is either an illegal alien,
or if you want to get semantic about it, a
case where at least temporary protective status or temporary visa
was revoked, but in the case right full discretion to
deport those individuals. But on the point of due process,
(11:48):
I think this issue is also being drastically misunderstood. Like
I was going to finish earlier, under the Immigration Nationality
Act of nineteen fifty two, it does state that, you know,
you do not need this like standard practice of trial
by jury or something to deport an illegal alien. Right. Actually,
as a matter of fact, if the you guys can
read up on this, if the Attorney General or state
(12:09):
department determine there is reasonable suspicion, right probable cause not
you know, has to be proven probable cause that a
non resident alien aka legal alien in this country has
affiliation with foreign terrorist organizations now as of January twentieth,
again Latin American cartels being a part of that. Not
only are they subject to deportation simply because of that,
(12:30):
you do not have to go prove that by jury
and court.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
But also, okay, well just let Vince finish the point.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
That was okay, But also there is not even necessarily
need for like a standard immigration court by this law,
like you can use actually this expedited process where it
can be kept secret for national security purposes, et cetera.
So what would I guess, anna, what would do process
mean to you?
Speaker 2 (12:52):
No?
Speaker 3 (12:52):
No, what you're arguing right now is fair. But what
was the what was the probable cause? Especially considering the
Trump administration's own lawyers admitted that it was an administrative
error to deport him, So like what was that?
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Like, really, what was that they did? Yeah? But not
that he was like not to be deported. My understanding
is basically they didn't finish the process correctly and then
accidentally sent him off. But it wasn't that, oh, like
he was about to be released and set free on
the streets. That was not necessarily the timeline in terms
of the probable cause. I mean, you did have the
police reports in the past, right, police officers did identify
(13:31):
him as being associated with MS thirteen. You of course
have the twenty twenty two body cam footage that he's
now being indicted for in a criminal court. So I
think it is sufficient to say this probable cause he
was affiliated with MS thirteen hasn't necessarily been proven in court. No,
But like I said, the law basically argues the probable
cause statement, not the criminal conviction statement, and I.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
Think that's for a deal. So there's two things here.
I mean, one, nobody really argues that, like every immigrant
is entitled, illegal immigrant is entitled to a jury trial
before deportation. That kind of a straw man I hear
from kind of magotypes. Now, a court hearing before an
immigration judge I think is potentially appropriate in deportation cases.
We need more immigration judges because we don't have enough
(14:12):
to process them all, and that's a very real problem.
But again, I come back to this issue that if
all they were was deported on suspicion of being a
member of Trenda Aragua and dropped off in their home country,
that would not be as much of a due process violation.
But to the extent that we are paying El Salvador
to imprison these people, then they are essentially in US
(14:34):
custody being imprisoned. So they're being imprisoned without charges or trial.
It's not just a deportation, it's an indefinite imprisonment in
horrible conditions that's being done only based on what you said,
this probable cause that they're using tattoos and other spurious evidence.
But let's concede it's probable cause. They're not just doing deportations,
(14:56):
they're doing imprisonment. That's the issue I have with it, Vince.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Again, as I'm going to keep coming back to this point,
I think then the responsibility falls back on Venezuela to
take back their own citizens. I mean, I think that
would be the cleanest solution to the problem. Anna, Like,
I don't think it's ideal that we're sending them to
Al Salvador, you know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Yeah, I mean, and it's not ideal that Venezuela isn't
complying with the United States, probably because of how the
US has treated Venezuela with like sanctions and things like that.
But nonetheless, I would argue that ultimately, what is the
least ideal is again having a government, a federal government
(15:35):
that's so powerful that they can unilaterally accuse anyone of anything,
argue that there's probable cause, invoke the Alien Enemies Act,
and then deport someone without allowing them to see a
judge at least have a day before a judge to
make their case. I don't understand why that's so complicated
and why Trump supporters are so against allowing that happen
(15:58):
when that's such an important protection of human rights, including
protection from a government against Americans potentially being wrongfully accused
of crimes and deported.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Or legal immigrants. I think that's more common, but it
can all.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
Or legal immigrants.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Yeah, Buttana, I guess to kind of. I'm not endorsing
this position, but what they say is that, listen, we've
let twenty million illegal immigrants into the country. We need
to get them all out, and it's impossible to do
that and give everyone a day in court and fair process.
That's and so they argue that the due process argument
hamstrings their ability to do what the president campaigned on,
(16:36):
was elected to do, and what they think is necessary
for national security and economic security. I don't really agree,
and I say Okay, well, then you can't do it,
is my answer. But how do you respond to that?
Because I think it's a valid frustration at the very least,
because I mean, the Biden administration opened up the border
for the refugee and asylum system to be abused. Millions
(16:57):
of people can come in here and then it's much
harder to get them out. I'm sympathetic to that frustration.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Right. Well, I'm sorry that the government is having such
a tough time dealing with a system of government that
wants to protect human rights. But human rights and the
protection of human rights differentiates countries like the United States
from dystopian, dictatorial authoritarian regimes, and I would prefer a
(17:25):
process that takes a little bit longer, but again, has
the importance of due process in human rights at the
you know, at front and center, as opposed to doing
things rapidly with a government that's so empowered that they
trample on human rights. That's my take on it.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Yeah, I mean I agree, but amitments I assume you
have a different perspective.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
What ought the process? What should the do the that's
what should do process be in that case? Because you know,
for me, it's like Okay, if you prove, whether it's
in a judge or administrative issue, whatever, you prove that
they're an illegal alias, right, they're not here in the
country and not a citizen. Obviously you should prove that part, right,
you know, rid of habeas corpus is I think what
they are legally entitled to, but necessarily, depending on the case,
(18:09):
the whole long hearing is not necessarily applying in every
single situation. If those two are true, then I think
you know you have grounds to deport. And yeah, I
mean if sure, sure the Trump administration figure out a
way to like expedite figure out how to get more
immigration judges or something, so you can have the expedited
process but also the due process.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
I guess sure. But you know, my gen, do you
think that everyone's getting their rid of habeas corpus? I don't.
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
I mean they're not.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
I mean, had how a Brego Garcia had had a
Brigo Garcia had just it's not Look, it's not that complicated.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
We're not talking about a multi month court case with
like a jury trial. It's literally giving this individual an
opportunity to make their case in front of a judge.
Had that happened, the Trump administration would not have made
that administrative error. This wouldn't have been a big story.
And by the way, let me just give the right
a word of advice. As someone who I don't even
(19:06):
know if I identify as like on the left right,
I have left wing ideas economically speaking, but when it
comes to some of the cultural things that the Democrats
have gotten involved in, I'm not in favor of it.
But that's beside the point. The left lost people when
they started engaging in activities that were deeply unpopular, but
they were so out of touch and so stubborn that
(19:29):
they refuse to see it. You're right in that currently
Trump is enjoying, you know, relative popularity and favorability when
it comes to his immigration policies. But if you notice
the numbers from the beginning of a second term to
what they are now, it's been steadily dropping. And I
think the reason why is because you have these high
(19:51):
profile cases like Abrego Garcia, where people look at it,
especially independent voters who switched over to vote for Trump.
They're looking at cases like that and thinking, hmm, that
seems super unfair, that seems like way too much power
concentrated in the executive branch. I actually really appreciate due process.
I want to protect that. So I think that the
(20:12):
right would be well suited in actually pushing back against
those types of mistakes in order to maintain support for
Trump's immigration policies. But that takes strategic thinking, and right
now we don't have a country where strategic thinking is incentivized, unfortunately.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
I think I totally hear what you're saying, but I
think you know, other things to keep in mind us.
First of all, it's kind of also, I would argue,
just a result of the presidential honeymoon wearing off. I mean,
would you acknowledge you know, sometimes yeah, there are people
who vote for things and then when they happen, they're like,
oh right. It's kind of a general trend in any
presidential term. It's like they get into office, they're riding high,
they slowly decline. Most polls you're right that show the
(20:50):
numbers dropping a bit on deportation also show the overall
approval rating dropping. And so it's also questions of like,
is it a democrat sample, more Republican sample this or that,
but still overly even despite all of the constant attacks,
you know, the constant media coverage, all this stuff. I
still continue to notice that, first of all, the approval
rating on immigration is usually at least five to ten
(21:10):
points more popular than his general approval rating, which still
tells me a lot. I think to this day, and
you know, I think even when you look back at,
you know, the election period, all this stuff. I mean,
overwhelmingly this is an issue. I think that the left
has made this argument for a long time, but they're
going to be kind of surprised to find out that
this is still overwhelmingly pretty popular with the people that
(21:31):
said I do take your point, because that's something I
think about every single day. How do we not become
like the left right? Because the left basically went from
Obama two thousand and eight to completely being kind of
like ridiculed, I guess in twenty twenty four. How do
we make sure that did not happen. But that said,
I would have to disagree. I just don't see the
deportations as one of them. Maybe something you could argue
election period, like abortion, for instance, that was something Trump
(21:52):
kind of played your cgically well. But I just disagree
on the immigration right.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
I mean, you mentioned something really interesting there, Vince, which
is how do we not become like the lef Then
I come at this as from the perspective of who
you know. Maybe I'm on the center right politically now,
but my political awakening was kind of an aversion or
being horrified at left wing excesses in hyper woke spaces.
I grew up in Massachusetts. I went to a super
far left college. What I was mortified by was the
(22:17):
attempts to suppress speech, the attempts to punish people without
due process. I was actually very One of the things
in my younger years that made me like, look a
scance at the Democratic Party was the disdain with which
Brett Kavanaugh was treated in terms of due process for
these accusations made against him, some of which were credible,
(22:38):
some of which were not, but were treated as such.
But people just determined to destroy him. And I see
the Trump administration, whether you want to call it the
woke right or not, I see them censoring people. I
see them picking people up and throwing them into unmarked
vans because they wrote an op ed criticizing Israel, right.
I see them engaging in some of these behaviors. I
(22:59):
see them talk, talking, about like protecting safe spaces from
anti Semitism, which they define very broadly. I mean, do
you not see any patterns playing out here now that
it's their turn in power? I certainly do, vince, But
what do you think well?
Speaker 1 (23:14):
I would also I mean, do you see the Palestine
campus stuff and illegal immigration as like the same issue,
because I'd argue that they're sort of, I guess, somewhat aligned,
but somewhat distinct from each other at the time.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
They're different issues, but some of the principles at stake
of free speech do process can be similar?
Speaker 1 (23:30):
I mean, look, my thing on for instance, like the
Palestine stuff, is like, yeah, do I think that people
should be deported simply for protesting? No? But I also think, hey,
if you're hearing this country generally speaking, whether it's Israel
or any other issue, right, if you're breaking laws or
you're engaged in you know, you saw some of the
situations that went on at Columbia and other universities.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Not all of the protesting is legal.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
I'll say that violence, whether that's violence or just like
trespassing and other things. I generally think that the administration
has a point. Hey, if you're here on a student visa,
and you're making laws or agitating in certain senses. I mean,
why did we bring you here to the first place. Right,
they're not saying people who broke laws. I would have
much less of an issue if they were just deporting
people who trespassed or did vandalism. They are deporting anyone,
(24:14):
in Marco Rubio's own words, whose presence undermines the US
foreign policy. Right, it just because they disagree with support
for Israel or other things. And I think that's a
dangerous precedent. I think that's a violation of civil liberties
because I mean that same logic could be used by
a future president AOC to deport pro Israel students, or
(24:34):
to deport doctor Jordan Peterson for opposing US support for
Ukraine under the Biden administration. I mean, I just a
Republicans are not going to be in power forever, and
some of the things they're doing. It feels to me
like Democrats a few years ago when they were like
getting rid of the judicial filibuster and agitating to get
rid of the philibuster and other things, Like if they
had achieved all of it would be biting them even harder.
(24:57):
Now I feel like Republicans are in a similar moment.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
I'm in favor of getting rid of the judicial filibuster,
and I say that even now, with Republicans enjoying a
slim majority in the Senate, I think we should decide
legislation on a simple majority. I think the legislative filibuster
is Yeah, it's there specifically to ensure bills go to die. Okay,
it's pathetic and it infuriates me.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
Yeah so.
Speaker 3 (25:22):
But but your point is very valid, Brad, because again,
it's so important to think about the abuses of power
that your own side is engaging in. And if you're
tempted to support it simply because your own side is
in power, well you're making a huge mistake because your
side is not always going to be in power, And
(25:43):
if you're okay with your side doing it, you have
to be okay with the opposing party doing the same.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
All right, guys, Well, I've really appreciated this conversation. Thank
you both so much for your time. We'll have to
have you back another time, but thank you both.
Speaker 3 (25:56):
Thank you
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides.  Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer  Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.