Final Thoughts of the Week: Harvard V. Trump * Smokey Robinson * Bill Maher re: Cassie * ICE arrests
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Lad with.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
In today's political climate, often encounter people who blindly support
whatever the party leadership supports, no real understanding of actual issues,
just blind support, no consideration of whether something is an
actual principle or just a naked political act. I'm real
big on principles, but I bet you didn't know this.
As of twenty twenty, and since Liberty University was the
(00:40):
fourth fastest growing endowment in the country and outpaced all
Ivy League schools, he don't have to take my word
for it. That comes straight from the university website, and
Christians don't ever lie, so it must be true. Liberty
University also has six hundred students from seventy five different countries.
Liberty Universities then President Jerry Fallwell Junior, pumped millions of
(01:02):
the nonprofit religious institutions funds into Republican causes and efforts
to promote the Trump administration, and Fallwell formally endorsed Trump
in the twenty twenty cycle. Liberty University receives close to
a billion dollars in federal funding you know, pel grants,
financial aid packages, YadA YadA, YadA, blah blah blah. It
also spent more than two hundred thousand dollars in lobbying
(01:25):
just last year. And although it's a private Christian university,
it is and has always been overtly political and anti
Democratic Party politicians and their causes. None of what I
just told you is illegal, nor is it debatable. BYU's
endowment is fifty percent healthier than liberties and features double
(01:45):
the amount of foreign students, but publicly BYU is politically neutral.
Like I said at the beginning, I'm real big on principles,
and I'm really really really big on people answering simple yes,
no questions.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
So here we go. Here's the question, and it's a
very simple one.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Is it now acceptable for sitting presidents to go after
individual universities or institutions for not being in political alignment
with him being the president? Of course, I'm making a
comparison to the Trump administration and Harvard University.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
But before you answer, remember this.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Supposedly this was always and only about whether Harvard had
addressed the alleged anti semitism on his campus in the
wake of the pro Palestine and Gaza protests in recent
history protecting Jewish students, but there were no federal lawsuits
levied against Harvard by the DOJ Civil Rights Division, which
(02:39):
is designed to address exactly those things.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Just trust me. I studied this.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
There were no federal criminal charges against any staff or
university administration official as to criminal conduct. To put it
another way, there was nothing that anyone could point to
as wrongdoing on the part of Harvard in a civil
or criminal sense on a federal level. So there's no
(03:07):
legal predicate here, not a legal not a civil rights violation.
No laws were involved here, So that only leaves say
it with me, politics just politics. So back to my
simple yes, no question. Is it now acceptable for sitting
presidents to go after individual universities for not being in
(03:27):
political alignment with him?
Speaker 3 (03:29):
The president?
Speaker 2 (03:29):
I'm talking about the person, not the law, but the
person or personal politics, because this would mean the next
Democratic president, and there will be one some day. But
the next Democratic president could conceivably strip Liberty University of
its three quarters of a billion dollars in federal funding,
or say not teaching about the gay rights movement or
(03:50):
not teaching critical race theory. Oh my god, you'd be
okay with that, right, Or we could say Liberty losing
all of its federal funding for not handing over condu
records of its international students when demanded, regardless of reason.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
You'd be okay with that right.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Or how about this, try to strip Liberty of its
tax status as a nonprofit tax exempt institution for engaging
in political lobbying, which I said it did, and endorsement
of political candidates, which it did and it's part of
the public record. You'd be okay with that right because
all of that has been attempted by the Trump administration
with Harvard just talking about apples to apples.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
I know, I know that must be different. No, it isn't.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Like I said, no law has been broken, no legal
implication involved, except for the countersuits by the university against
the president. These are super simple questions because I need
to know if your support is for the principles or
just a person and their politics, because you can't support
President Trump's personal war against Harvard on principle and also
(04:55):
not see how Liberty University just for example, could be
ended and f to close its doors for good just
by using the same yardstick and same tactics. Because it
just seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, doubt it,
but it just seems to me that some people just
like freedom of speech, just as long as you get
(05:15):
to tell people what they're free to say.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
It seems like and correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
It seems like you're okay with private universities having autonomy
and being able to enroll foreign students, just as long
as the federal government and the president that you like
dictate the terms. Be clear, we're not talking about visas.
The federal government has told Harvard University it cannot enroll
international students without its approval. That's wholly different from visas.
(05:46):
We're talking about enrollment. Are you ready to lie to
me tonight and say that you would have been okay
with Joe Biden telling Liberty University who it can or
can't admit at the institution?
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Go ahead, lie to me.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
It's like the whole idea government slash government overreach is
not really a principle, but a clothing style which might
change with the season. Stylish today, maybe not after next election.
To support this war on Harvard on the supposed merits
and not blind allegiance to one person is to suggest
that Liberty University, among others, they're fair pickings to endure
(06:22):
the same in the future. I personally don't care. I
have no educational dog in this fight. I didn't go
to Harvard, but I do care about the implications I
have no idea of. This is connected to the rumor
that Baron Trump was denied admission to Harvard. I don't
know if this is revenge for the dissolution of Trump University.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
But here's what I do know that there's a reason
that the phrase quote unquote dangerous precedent exists. If you
can't stand on principle, you can't stand at all. And
principle doesn't only work in one direction, because that's a
boy band, not a form of governance.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
For KFI ams is forty.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
I'm Moe Kelly.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Some time ago we told you about how iconic singer
and songwriter Smokey Robinson was being sued by four of
his former housekeepers due to allegations of forcible rape and
other forms of sexual assault over the course of many years.
What I didn't tell you Since that time, detectives are
now investigating to see if criminal charges will be brought
(07:39):
in reference to the original complaint. It could get much
worse for Robinson in terms of legal jeopardy, but that
remains to be seen if there will be any probable
cause to file criminal charges. But now Robinson, on his end,
his striking back with a five hundred million dollar countersuit
(08:02):
against his accusers. In Robinson's countersuit, he accuses his four
accusers of defamation, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, elder
abuse huh yeah, elder abuse yeah, and invasion of privacy.
Is he the elder that he's alleging who got abused?
Speaker 3 (08:23):
I don't know. Well, he is elderly, he's eighty five.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
With either lawsuit, we don't know exactly where the truth falls,
but we do know that this is going to ruin
the legacy of Smoky Robinson full stop. Because in both
of these lawsuits, assuming neither is dropped and neither is settled,
there will be discovery and revelations which will be leaked
to the press. It will be embarrassing, probably disgusting, and
(08:48):
more just in the public disclosure of the complaints available
to us will be more than most of us can handle.
We're getting ready to learn way too much about people,
sexual acts, positions, proclivities and such a one eighty five
year old man and nobody, absolutely nobody who is generally private,
(09:10):
wants their sex life or ledged sex life up for
public consumption. I'm positive if you hear about the personal
sex lives of your favorite singer, actor, entertainer, you probably
won't like them much. And I hate to break it
to all my fans out there who think I'm too sexy.
I have admission to make. I'm not a virgin. Stop laughing, Carnesia,
(09:31):
I'm not a vision. Nope, i am not did. I
would not want anyone to know. Mike kink. Yes, I
have one or two or five, but that's not the point.
Only one person needs to know, and that's it. Nobody
in this studio needs to know, So stop asking Mark.
No one even wants to know. I'd be mortified. I
(09:51):
don't know if want to get this. I just assumed
it was. I don't know how to get through this.
I'd be mortified if my business were put in a lawsuit.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about alleged criminal
or illegal behavior. I'm just talking about the stuff that
simply is not meant for public consumption. I don't want
to know what gets an eighty five year old Smokey
Robinson off, But we're getting ready to find out, and
(10:14):
it's going to make me hear the song my Girl
a little bit differently.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Or Baby Baby, I'm gonna land a little bit differently.
Just wait till you hear Tears of a Clown again.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
You knew where I was going who It's not gonna
sound the same.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
My point is there are some things I just don't
want to know.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
I don't want to know what floats Stephan's boat, or
Twalla's or Marx.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Yes you do.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
In this age of social media and ease of access
to court documents, we're getting ready to find out way
too much. Of course, that is secondary to the larger
issue of whether Smoky Robinson was sexually assaulting and abusing
his form or staff. Let's not lose sight of that.
But this is another example of trying, at least to
separate the artists from the artist. Try but no matter
(11:08):
how this ends, we will all lose. This was not
about how the career of Smokey Robinson was supposed to end.
This should have been a period of celebration as he
enters his final chapter of performance and possibly life. But no,
none of his accusers can come up with five hundred
million dollars or any approximation thereof in this countersuit. So
let's be clear, this lawsuit is about sending the message
(11:32):
that he's going to fight the allegations little else. He's
not actually going to recruit anything close to five hundred million.
But the worst part will be all the revelations which
inevitably are going to come out. No pun intended that
absolutely none of us needed to know or want to know.
It's too bad that all this has to end this way,
(11:52):
horribly publicly and nauseatingly for KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
I'm Moe Kelly.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Bill Maher. First and foremost, he's a comedian. He is
always going for the joke. He is also a provocateur,
meaning he is also looking to make people feel uncomfortable.
And that's fine because that's what he does, but it
doesn't mean that he is above critique. On his Friday
edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, in his New
(12:30):
Rules segment, he touched upon the Ditty trial. You know,
he made some jokes about Diddy and said he was
a horrible guy. But not surprisingly, he pointed most of
his ire at Cassie Ventura specifically and female accusers. More
generally in this post meto world. Here's just a snippet
of it.
Speaker 4 (12:49):
I'm aware that it can be difficult to leave an
abusive relationship. Most of what I watch on TV is
the Lifetime channel. But but this should be society's new
grand bargain. We take every accusation seriously, but don't tell
me any more about your contemporaneous account that you said
(13:12):
to two friends ten years ago. Tell the police right away,
don't wait a decade, don't journal about it, don't turn
it into a one woman show, and most importantly, don't
keep feeing him.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
Bill Maher is exhibit a as to why women then
and now are apprehensive about coming forward Because what woman
wishes to be both not believed and ridiculed, with her
name and abuse serving as the punchline for comedians what
woman Bill Maher conveniently left out that Cassie Ventura did
try to leave multiple times, once was even caught on tape.
Speaker 3 (13:47):
She was punched, kicked, and.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
Dragged back to her hotel room by her hair in
broad daylight. The hotel security was bought off and the
tape buried. That was just one beating which happened to
be caught on video, and it still didn't matter even
when it happened. Mar has since seen that video as
you have, as I have, and it still didn't matter,
and he still blames the victim. That's what she got
(14:12):
for coming forward. Kid Cuddy's car was firebombed, Ventura's family
was threatened allegedly, and Cassie's supposed to think that her
life and her family's lives are not variables in how
she comes forward or when she comes forward. Mar also
conveniently leaves out that New York had to change the
law for Ventura to come forward when she did, in
(14:33):
the form of the New York Adult Survivors Act. It
was a confluence of events, the law, the surface video,
the whole frickin' metob movement, and did he actually being
remanded to prison and not out on bail for Cassie
to testify because the same mother father who dragged her
by her hair could have been a threat to her
(14:53):
if he wasn't still in prison. But Bill doesn't want
to talk about that. Bill wants us to make sure
that he like his abuse and try women to a
day watching the Lifetime channel. How is America supposed to
take domestic violence claim seriously when mar himself and his
platform use them as a punchline. Yes, the world has
(15:14):
changed in the past ten years, no one can deny that.
But you know who actually has not changed, Bill Maher.
Here's just a sampling of the mar headlines which give
you a sense of where Bill Maher keeps landing on
these very same issues. Again, these are just the headlines.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Bill Maher flat out believes Woody Allen amids sexual abuse allegations,
slams actors who regret working with him. Bill Maher thinks
Louis c k should be welcomed back despite sexual misconduct charges.
Real Time with Bill Maher sued over allegations of sexual harassment.
Bill Maher under fire for nineteen ninety eight comments condoning
(15:55):
sex between a thirty five year old woman and twelve
year old boy, condoning Rose McGowan accuses Bill Maher of
making sexual remark to her on his show In the
nineteen nineties. Bill Maher sued by Laura Lumer for one
hundred and fifty million dollars over Donald Trump affair allegations.
Do you notice the pattern to you? Because I sure
as hell do men get the pass? Women get the blame.
(16:20):
Oh you didn't hear me. Men get the pass, Women
get the blame. There is no equivocation between Diddy and
Cassie none. There is only one person on trial, Sean Combs,
and that trial isn't even on radio, TV or being streamed.
The defense hasn't even started with their presentation. And here
(16:40):
is Bill out here freelancing without even the pertinent facts
which are not in dispute, and he is telling Cassie
indirectly to stop effing him. Bill Maher is not on
the side of women, and he never will be, so
he should be the last person we should listen to
about what's best for women. He is why many women
(17:03):
do not come forward dudes just like him. For KFIM
six forty, I'm Kelly. Here is basically an addendum to
(17:25):
a final thought I had last week, because there's now
new information goes a.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Little something like this.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
It could be said that you have fewer and fewer
true friends as you age. I can attest to this,
but nonetheless there are limits to friendship. Age and wisdom
don't make you omniscient or knowledgeable about the sexual habits
of your friends. I know, crazy, right, You don't know
what goes on in anyone's bedroom, no matter how long
you might have been friends with them or party with them,
(17:54):
You don't know what they've done, what they're doing, what they're.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
Capable of doing.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
Nick POULIO'CHINNI put best to me off air tonight. Somebody's
yuck is somebody else's young, and vice versa, something like that.
But you don't know what that is necessarily for anyone,
regardless of how long you may have been friends with someone.
In fact, it's not uncommon that couples who have been
married for decades are unaware of their partner's secret lives, infidelity,
(18:21):
or time spent outside their presence. Actor leon Isaac Kennedy
has come out in support a friend of sixty years,
Smokey Robinson, calling the allegations against him preposterous. Leon Isaac
Kennedy is best known for being Jane Kennedy's husband and
also the actor in the Penitentiary movies as the boxer
Too Sweet. I know it's a deep dive, hold on
(18:42):
to that for a name that movie called classic, but
I digress. In his forty three minute posted commentary today,
Kennedy spoke to the attorneys on both sides of the
issue and detailed his long and close relationship in history
with Smokey Robinson. His friendship is admirable, and his desire
to serve is a character witness understandable. But until and
(19:03):
unless Kennedy can offer direct testimony to contradict the allegations
against Robinson, Kennedy is respectfully irrelevant. Unless Kennedy can attest
that he was a witness to one, some or any
of the alleged sexual assaults, he can't speak on anything
other than that he and Smoking Robinson are close friends
and nothing else. But Kennedy used his forty three minutes
(19:24):
to try to deconstruct and delegitimize the accusations against Robinson.
Speaker 5 (19:30):
Jane Doe was raped in this blue bedroom seven times.
Let me state that these women were not in the
house singularly working. There were usually two or three working simultaneously.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Obviously the women all worked together. Some of their shifts
did overlap.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
So there was always an overlap. So now, if you
were raped in this blue beroom one time, why would
you go upstairs and stay upstairs and be alone with
this man again? If you think this is going to
happen again.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
And you get the general point, yes, what has been
alleged goes against what he believes he knows about Robinson.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
It goes against his public image.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
But the allegations are not subject to opinions of the
unrelated or popularity of the accused. Although Kennedy sought an
audience in the court of public opinion, you know, you, me,
everyone else, it is not the court which will ultimately
decide Robinson's fate, or whether law enforcement which will eventually
file criminal charges.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Smokey.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Robinson is going to have to ride this out all
by himself in an actual court. And I like to
use t'uala as my foil, but he gets wide. And
although we've known each other for decades and I mean decades,
I don't need or expect him to produce a forty
minute video responding to accusations or allegations about me. Heaven forbid,
if it should ever happen, he couldn't possibly speak to them.
I don't know why he's laughing out there in the hall,
(21:01):
but that's okay. He doesn't know about the dirt I
might have done, or I wouldn't know about his unless
we were in the same room when it happened. And
I don't mean that in a whole Hamilton sense in
the room where it happened, and that would make him
an accomplice or an accessory if it were true. The
burden of proof is on the accusers here, and I
could absolutely respect leon Isaac Kennedy's desire to speak up
(21:23):
in support of his friend. I could even get his
desire to try to poke holes in the accusers' cases.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
But he's really not helping.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
He's not privy to what Smoky Robinson did or did
not do in whatever room. There is no talking Smoky
out of this situation. What Kennedy is seemingly forgetting is
that there will be discovery, There will be text messages,
there will be revelations that not even leon Isaac Kennedy
will be able to defend, and he will look foolish
despite his best intentions. And that's the lesson right here
(21:51):
for you and me and the rest of us. Even
the people you think you know, you don't know on
that level, and you never will. The accusers deserve their
day in court to tell their story, and Smoking Robinson
deserves his day to defend himself. Kennedy thinks he's helping,
but here's the point. He's not. This just might blow
up in his face and it would have been completely avoidable,
(22:12):
even though he may have done it with the best
of intentions. Smokey Robinson will have to go through this
storm in a legal sense by himself. So let's let
the case play out for KF I am six forty.
I'm mo Kelly. A number of reputable media outlets have
(22:42):
reported that ICE agents have been ordered ordered to arrest
more would be immigration offenders even without warrants. And you
heard that right, even without warrants, I say, would be
because we've already crossed the rubicon, as they say, as
it relates to due process. It's clear you can be
arrested and deported to a country not of your origin
(23:04):
and to a prison without having committed a criminal offense.
And I'll explain that just a second, and all that
could be done without receiving any due process along the way.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
Here is the law, not my opinion.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
Undocumented presence in the US without proper authorization is a
civil violation, as our littering, speeding and the like. But
those undocumented individuals in the US without proper authorization may
also be subject to a fine, but cannot be charged
with a criminal offense solely for being present without authorization.
(23:41):
That's per federal law, not my opinion. Merely being in
this country illegally is not a criminal offense. For example,
you could overstay your visa. That's not criminal. The Supreme
Court recently granted Trump administration the power to revoke the
humanitarian parole status of people from including, yet not limited to, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Sudan,
(24:03):
and Haiti. This means that someone's legal status can now
change overnight, but there is no breaking of the law here,
no criminal offense committed. It just means that those individuals
no longer enjoy protected status and can be removed. No
crime has been committed and should not be subject to arrest,
not by law at least.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Here's where it becomes criminal.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
It becomes a criminal offense if you're found to have
illegally entered originally or re entered the country after deportation.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
That's a violation of federal law.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
First time offense can be a misdemeanor or felony, depending
on the specific circumstances.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
But how do you know someone entered illegally? Oh? That
requires due process? Like, how does.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
One know that someone actually violated a speeding law or
a literary law due process.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
They are inextricably linked.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
The only way one could determine if someone is either
unlawfully in the country or over state of visa the iedocumented,
humanitarian parole, or illegally entered the country is by due process.
Speaker 3 (25:06):
Period.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
You don't get to just look at someone and say, oh,
Mark Roner looked like he just walked across the border
unless you are actually at the border while it's happening,
and even then there's still a form of due process.
Why am I talking about all this, Well, let me
go back to the top and tell you one more time.
The latest news, The Guardian and other reputable media outlets
have reported that ICE agents have been ordered to arrest
(25:28):
more would be immigration offenders even without warrants. To specifically
order ICE agents to arrest, which means criminal behavior. To
arrest people without warrants is to instruct ICE agents to
break the law, not my law.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
The law.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Remember, this country is supposedly about law and order. Here's
what the law says about immigration arrests and warrants. ICE
officers can make arrests without a warrant, but it must
be in public spaces and private spaces, they are required
by law to produce a signed judicial warrant or be
(26:05):
given homeowner consent to enter a home or private area
to arrest someone. To specifically instruct ICE officers to make
these arrests even without warrants or criminal conduct, that's the
key phrase, is to instruct them to wholly disregard the
law and violate private spaces. Now, if you're okay with that,
(26:28):
it's only because you think it won't happen to you
or it applies not to you. And if that's the case,
you need to stop lying about how important law and
order or the Constitution is. Supposedly, the Constitution doesn't only
apply to people you like or the people who vote
your way.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
And we've covered this before.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
You should remember the Constitution and its protections cover all
persons within the borders of this country, not only citizens.
Stop telling that lie otherwise. The only time it doesn't
is when martial law has been lawfully declared, and as
of yet, we're not under martial law.
Speaker 3 (27:03):
Maybe by next month, but not yet.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
At least, One of the emails from ICE's acting Executive
Associate Director of ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations long ass title.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
His name is Marcus Charles.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
He instructed ICE officials to even go after people they
may coincidentally encounter. Collaterals are the people ICE agents may
encounter when affecting an.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Arrest of a particular person. You know.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
That could be family members, that could be friends, could
be just folks hanging around the location of an encounter.
Here's from the email quote. All collateral encounters need to
be interviewed, and anyone that is found to be a
minimal to removal needs to be arrested. We need to
turn up the creative knob up to eleven and push
the envelope close. Quote the email said needs to be
(27:49):
arrested despite what I just told you about the law
about mere undocumented presence not being a criminal offense.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
That would be like arresting people for littering.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
That would be like arresting people for speeding parking violations.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
No exaggeration.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
Either this is about upholding law or it's about disregarding
it when politically expedient.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
It's one or the other. You know how.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
I always say that there is no in between. Either
humanitarian parole status matters or it doesn't.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
It can't be only.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
For fifty nine Afrikaners from South Africa, but not the Sudanese,
where there is an actual and ongoing civil war which
is murdered more than one hundred and fifty thousand people.
I tell you we are an unserious nation. But despite that,
here's the larger question. Does the federal law only serve
as a suggestion? Is it for guidance sake? Is it
(28:44):
for shits and giggles? I need to know. I hate
the sound Shakespearean, but that is the question. And it's
also a rhetorical one, because warrantless arrest here be outside
the boundaries of the law are both unconstitutional and Unamerican.
And I would be remiss get ready to go there
if I didn't already acknowledge that the targeted revocation of
(29:06):
humanitarian parole status of only Central American, of only South American,
of only indigenous African nations is nakedly indefensible. It also
only confirms this is not about who is illegally here
in the country, because all of those humanitarian.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Paroles I just told you about they were here legally.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
The status of humanitarian parole is not to be confused
with criminal parole. It is a discretionary decision made by
the US government that allows a non citizen to enter
the US even if they are otherwise inadmissible due to
urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Humanitarian paroles were
(29:49):
here legally in this country. Revoking their statuses is only
about removing who you don't want in the country, irrespective
of them actually fallo allowing the law to get here.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
Oh and almost forgot. I don't know if you caught
the news today.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
The Trump administration announced a travel band today preventing travel
into the US from twelve countries. Ask me where those
twelve countries are? Ask me, ask me where are those
twelve countries? I know, I know it's America and Afra.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Connors.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
First, I'm clear, and I said what I said for
KF I am since forty I'm MO Kelvin
Lad with.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
In today's political climate, often encounter people who blindly support
whatever the party leadership supports, no real understanding of actual issues,
just blind support, no consideration of whether something is an
actual principle or just a naked political act. I'm real
big on principles, but I bet you didn't know this.
As of twenty twenty, and since Liberty University was the
(00:40):
fourth fastest growing endowment in the country and outpaced all
Ivy League schools, he don't have to take my word
for it. That comes straight from the university website, and
Christians don't ever lie, so it must be true. Liberty
University also has six hundred students from seventy five different countries.
Liberty Universities then President Jerry Fallwell Junior, pumped millions of
(01:02):
the nonprofit religious institutions funds into Republican causes and efforts
to promote the Trump administration, and Fallwell formally endorsed Trump
in the twenty twenty cycle. Liberty University receives close to
a billion dollars in federal funding you know, pel grants,
financial aid packages, YadA YadA, YadA, blah blah blah. It
also spent more than two hundred thousand dollars in lobbying
(01:25):
just last year. And although it's a private Christian university,
it is and has always been overtly political and anti
Democratic Party politicians and their causes. None of what I
just told you is illegal, nor is it debatable. BYU's
endowment is fifty percent healthier than liberties and features double
(01:45):
the amount of foreign students, but publicly BYU is politically neutral.
Like I said at the beginning, I'm real big on principles,
and I'm really really really big on people answering simple yes,
no questions.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
So here we go. Here's the question, and it's a
very simple one.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Is it now acceptable for sitting presidents to go after
individual universities or institutions for not being in political alignment
with him being the president? Of course, I'm making a
comparison to the Trump administration and Harvard University.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
But before you answer, remember this.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Supposedly this was always and only about whether Harvard had
addressed the alleged anti semitism on his campus in the
wake of the pro Palestine and Gaza protests in recent
history protecting Jewish students, but there were no federal lawsuits
levied against Harvard by the DOJ Civil Rights Division, which
(02:39):
is designed to address exactly those things.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Just trust me. I studied this.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
There were no federal criminal charges against any staff or
university administration official as to criminal conduct. To put it
another way, there was nothing that anyone could point to
as wrongdoing on the part of Harvard in a civil
or criminal sense on a federal level. So there's no
(03:07):
legal predicate here, not a legal not a civil rights violation.
No laws were involved here, So that only leaves say
it with me, politics just politics. So back to my
simple yes, no question. Is it now acceptable for sitting
presidents to go after individual universities for not being in
(03:27):
political alignment with him?
Speaker 3 (03:29):
The president?
Speaker 2 (03:29):
I'm talking about the person, not the law, but the
person or personal politics, because this would mean the next
Democratic president, and there will be one some day. But
the next Democratic president could conceivably strip Liberty University of
its three quarters of a billion dollars in federal funding,
or say not teaching about the gay rights movement or
(03:50):
not teaching critical race theory. Oh my god, you'd be
okay with that, right, Or we could say Liberty losing
all of its federal funding for not handing over condu
records of its international students when demanded, regardless of reason.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
You'd be okay with that right.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Or how about this, try to strip Liberty of its
tax status as a nonprofit tax exempt institution for engaging
in political lobbying, which I said it did, and endorsement
of political candidates, which it did and it's part of
the public record. You'd be okay with that right because
all of that has been attempted by the Trump administration
with Harvard just talking about apples to apples.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
I know, I know that must be different. No, it isn't.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Like I said, no law has been broken, no legal
implication involved, except for the countersuits by the university against
the president. These are super simple questions because I need
to know if your support is for the principles or
just a person and their politics, because you can't support
President Trump's personal war against Harvard on principle and also
(04:55):
not see how Liberty University just for example, could be
ended and f to close its doors for good just
by using the same yardstick and same tactics. Because it
just seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, doubt it,
but it just seems to me that some people just
like freedom of speech, just as long as you get
(05:15):
to tell people what they're free to say.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
It seems like and correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
It seems like you're okay with private universities having autonomy
and being able to enroll foreign students, just as long
as the federal government and the president that you like
dictate the terms. Be clear, we're not talking about visas.
The federal government has told Harvard University it cannot enroll
international students without its approval. That's wholly different from visas.
(05:46):
We're talking about enrollment. Are you ready to lie to
me tonight and say that you would have been okay
with Joe Biden telling Liberty University who it can or
can't admit at the institution?
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Go ahead, lie to me.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
It's like the whole idea government slash government overreach is
not really a principle, but a clothing style which might
change with the season. Stylish today, maybe not after next election.
To support this war on Harvard on the supposed merits
and not blind allegiance to one person is to suggest
that Liberty University, among others, they're fair pickings to endure
(06:22):
the same in the future. I personally don't care. I
have no educational dog in this fight. I didn't go
to Harvard, but I do care about the implications I
have no idea of. This is connected to the rumor
that Baron Trump was denied admission to Harvard. I don't
know if this is revenge for the dissolution of Trump University.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
But here's what I do know that there's a reason
that the phrase quote unquote dangerous precedent exists. If you
can't stand on principle, you can't stand at all. And
principle doesn't only work in one direction, because that's a
boy band, not a form of governance.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
For KFI ams is forty.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
I'm Moe Kelly.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Some time ago we told you about how iconic singer
and songwriter Smokey Robinson was being sued by four of
his former housekeepers due to allegations of forcible rape and
other forms of sexual assault over the course of many years.
What I didn't tell you Since that time, detectives are
now investigating to see if criminal charges will be brought
(07:39):
in reference to the original complaint. It could get much
worse for Robinson in terms of legal jeopardy, but that
remains to be seen if there will be any probable
cause to file criminal charges. But now Robinson, on his end,
his striking back with a five hundred million dollar countersuit
(08:02):
against his accusers. In Robinson's countersuit, he accuses his four
accusers of defamation, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, elder
abuse huh yeah, elder abuse yeah, and invasion of privacy.
Is he the elder that he's alleging who got abused?
Speaker 3 (08:23):
I don't know. Well, he is elderly, he's eighty five.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
With either lawsuit, we don't know exactly where the truth falls,
but we do know that this is going to ruin
the legacy of Smoky Robinson full stop. Because in both
of these lawsuits, assuming neither is dropped and neither is settled,
there will be discovery and revelations which will be leaked
to the press. It will be embarrassing, probably disgusting, and
(08:48):
more just in the public disclosure of the complaints available
to us will be more than most of us can handle.
We're getting ready to learn way too much about people,
sexual acts, positions, proclivities and such a one eighty five
year old man and nobody, absolutely nobody who is generally private,
(09:10):
wants their sex life or ledged sex life up for
public consumption. I'm positive if you hear about the personal
sex lives of your favorite singer, actor, entertainer, you probably
won't like them much. And I hate to break it
to all my fans out there who think I'm too sexy.
I have admission to make. I'm not a virgin. Stop laughing, Carnesia,
(09:31):
I'm not a vision. Nope, i am not did. I
would not want anyone to know. Mike kink. Yes, I
have one or two or five, but that's not the point.
Only one person needs to know, and that's it. Nobody
in this studio needs to know, So stop asking Mark.
No one even wants to know. I'd be mortified. I
(09:51):
don't know if want to get this. I just assumed
it was. I don't know how to get through this.
I'd be mortified if my business were put in a lawsuit.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about alleged criminal
or illegal behavior. I'm just talking about the stuff that
simply is not meant for public consumption. I don't want
to know what gets an eighty five year old Smokey
Robinson off, But we're getting ready to find out, and
(10:14):
it's going to make me hear the song my Girl
a little bit differently.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Or Baby Baby, I'm gonna land a little bit differently.
Just wait till you hear Tears of a Clown again.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
You knew where I was going who It's not gonna
sound the same.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
My point is there are some things I just don't
want to know.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
I don't want to know what floats Stephan's boat, or
Twalla's or Marx.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Yes you do.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
In this age of social media and ease of access
to court documents, we're getting ready to find out way
too much. Of course, that is secondary to the larger
issue of whether Smoky Robinson was sexually assaulting and abusing
his form or staff. Let's not lose sight of that.
But this is another example of trying, at least to
separate the artists from the artist. Try but no matter
(11:08):
how this ends, we will all lose. This was not
about how the career of Smokey Robinson was supposed to end.
This should have been a period of celebration as he
enters his final chapter of performance and possibly life. But no,
none of his accusers can come up with five hundred
million dollars or any approximation thereof in this countersuit. So
let's be clear, this lawsuit is about sending the message
(11:32):
that he's going to fight the allegations little else. He's
not actually going to recruit anything close to five hundred million.
But the worst part will be all the revelations which
inevitably are going to come out. No pun intended that
absolutely none of us needed to know or want to know.
It's too bad that all this has to end this way,
(11:52):
horribly publicly and nauseatingly for KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
I'm Moe Kelly.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Bill Maher. First and foremost, he's a comedian. He is
always going for the joke. He is also a provocateur,
meaning he is also looking to make people feel uncomfortable.
And that's fine because that's what he does, but it
doesn't mean that he is above critique. On his Friday
edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, in his New
(12:30):
Rules segment, he touched upon the Ditty trial. You know,
he made some jokes about Diddy and said he was
a horrible guy. But not surprisingly, he pointed most of
his ire at Cassie Ventura specifically and female accusers. More
generally in this post meto world. Here's just a snippet
of it.
Speaker 4 (12:49):
I'm aware that it can be difficult to leave an
abusive relationship. Most of what I watch on TV is
the Lifetime channel. But but this should be society's new
grand bargain. We take every accusation seriously, but don't tell
me any more about your contemporaneous account that you said
(13:12):
to two friends ten years ago. Tell the police right away,
don't wait a decade, don't journal about it, don't turn
it into a one woman show, and most importantly, don't
keep feeing him.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
Bill Maher is exhibit a as to why women then
and now are apprehensive about coming forward Because what woman
wishes to be both not believed and ridiculed, with her
name and abuse serving as the punchline for comedians what
woman Bill Maher conveniently left out that Cassie Ventura did
try to leave multiple times, once was even caught on tape.
Speaker 3 (13:47):
She was punched, kicked, and.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
Dragged back to her hotel room by her hair in
broad daylight. The hotel security was bought off and the
tape buried. That was just one beating which happened to
be caught on video, and it still didn't matter even
when it happened. Mar has since seen that video as
you have, as I have, and it still didn't matter,
and he still blames the victim. That's what she got
(14:12):
for coming forward. Kid Cuddy's car was firebombed, Ventura's family
was threatened allegedly, and Cassie's supposed to think that her
life and her family's lives are not variables in how
she comes forward or when she comes forward. Mar also
conveniently leaves out that New York had to change the
law for Ventura to come forward when she did, in
(14:33):
the form of the New York Adult Survivors Act. It
was a confluence of events, the law, the surface video,
the whole frickin' metob movement, and did he actually being
remanded to prison and not out on bail for Cassie
to testify because the same mother father who dragged her
by her hair could have been a threat to her
(14:53):
if he wasn't still in prison. But Bill doesn't want
to talk about that. Bill wants us to make sure
that he like his abuse and try women to a
day watching the Lifetime channel. How is America supposed to
take domestic violence claim seriously when mar himself and his
platform use them as a punchline. Yes, the world has
(15:14):
changed in the past ten years, no one can deny that.
But you know who actually has not changed, Bill Maher.
Here's just a sampling of the mar headlines which give
you a sense of where Bill Maher keeps landing on
these very same issues. Again, these are just the headlines.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Bill Maher flat out believes Woody Allen amids sexual abuse allegations,
slams actors who regret working with him. Bill Maher thinks
Louis c k should be welcomed back despite sexual misconduct charges.
Real Time with Bill Maher sued over allegations of sexual harassment.
Bill Maher under fire for nineteen ninety eight comments condoning
(15:55):
sex between a thirty five year old woman and twelve
year old boy, condoning Rose McGowan accuses Bill Maher of
making sexual remark to her on his show In the
nineteen nineties. Bill Maher sued by Laura Lumer for one
hundred and fifty million dollars over Donald Trump affair allegations.
Do you notice the pattern to you? Because I sure
as hell do men get the pass? Women get the blame.
(16:20):
Oh you didn't hear me. Men get the pass, Women
get the blame. There is no equivocation between Diddy and
Cassie none. There is only one person on trial, Sean Combs,
and that trial isn't even on radio, TV or being streamed.
The defense hasn't even started with their presentation. And here
(16:40):
is Bill out here freelancing without even the pertinent facts
which are not in dispute, and he is telling Cassie
indirectly to stop effing him. Bill Maher is not on
the side of women, and he never will be, so
he should be the last person we should listen to
about what's best for women. He is why many women
(17:03):
do not come forward dudes just like him. For KFIM
six forty, I'm Kelly. Here is basically an addendum to
(17:25):
a final thought I had last week, because there's now
new information goes a.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Little something like this.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
It could be said that you have fewer and fewer
true friends as you age. I can attest to this,
but nonetheless there are limits to friendship. Age and wisdom
don't make you omniscient or knowledgeable about the sexual habits
of your friends. I know, crazy, right, You don't know
what goes on in anyone's bedroom, no matter how long
you might have been friends with them or party with them,
(17:54):
You don't know what they've done, what they're doing, what they're.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
Capable of doing.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
Nick POULIO'CHINNI put best to me off air tonight. Somebody's
yuck is somebody else's young, and vice versa, something like that.
But you don't know what that is necessarily for anyone,
regardless of how long you may have been friends with someone.
In fact, it's not uncommon that couples who have been
married for decades are unaware of their partner's secret lives, infidelity,
(18:21):
or time spent outside their presence. Actor leon Isaac Kennedy
has come out in support a friend of sixty years,
Smokey Robinson, calling the allegations against him preposterous. Leon Isaac
Kennedy is best known for being Jane Kennedy's husband and
also the actor in the Penitentiary movies as the boxer
Too Sweet. I know it's a deep dive, hold on
(18:42):
to that for a name that movie called classic, but
I digress. In his forty three minute posted commentary today,
Kennedy spoke to the attorneys on both sides of the
issue and detailed his long and close relationship in history
with Smokey Robinson. His friendship is admirable, and his desire
to serve is a character witness understandable. But until and
(19:03):
unless Kennedy can offer direct testimony to contradict the allegations
against Robinson, Kennedy is respectfully irrelevant. Unless Kennedy can attest
that he was a witness to one, some or any
of the alleged sexual assaults, he can't speak on anything
other than that he and Smoking Robinson are close friends
and nothing else. But Kennedy used his forty three minutes
(19:24):
to try to deconstruct and delegitimize the accusations against Robinson.
Speaker 5 (19:30):
Jane Doe was raped in this blue bedroom seven times.
Let me state that these women were not in the
house singularly working. There were usually two or three working simultaneously.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Obviously the women all worked together. Some of their shifts
did overlap.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
So there was always an overlap. So now, if you
were raped in this blue beroom one time, why would
you go upstairs and stay upstairs and be alone with
this man again? If you think this is going to
happen again.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
And you get the general point, yes, what has been
alleged goes against what he believes he knows about Robinson.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
It goes against his public image.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
But the allegations are not subject to opinions of the
unrelated or popularity of the accused. Although Kennedy sought an
audience in the court of public opinion, you know, you, me,
everyone else, it is not the court which will ultimately
decide Robinson's fate, or whether law enforcement which will eventually
file criminal charges.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Smokey.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Robinson is going to have to ride this out all
by himself in an actual court. And I like to
use t'uala as my foil, but he gets wide. And
although we've known each other for decades and I mean decades,
I don't need or expect him to produce a forty
minute video responding to accusations or allegations about me. Heaven forbid,
if it should ever happen, he couldn't possibly speak to them.
I don't know why he's laughing out there in the hall,
(21:01):
but that's okay. He doesn't know about the dirt I
might have done, or I wouldn't know about his unless
we were in the same room when it happened. And
I don't mean that in a whole Hamilton sense in
the room where it happened, and that would make him
an accomplice or an accessory if it were true. The
burden of proof is on the accusers here, and I
could absolutely respect leon Isaac Kennedy's desire to speak up
(21:23):
in support of his friend. I could even get his
desire to try to poke holes in the accusers' cases.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
But he's really not helping.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
He's not privy to what Smoky Robinson did or did
not do in whatever room. There is no talking Smoky
out of this situation. What Kennedy is seemingly forgetting is
that there will be discovery, There will be text messages,
there will be revelations that not even leon Isaac Kennedy
will be able to defend, and he will look foolish
despite his best intentions. And that's the lesson right here
(21:51):
for you and me and the rest of us. Even
the people you think you know, you don't know on
that level, and you never will. The accusers deserve their
day in court to tell their story, and Smoking Robinson
deserves his day to defend himself. Kennedy thinks he's helping,
but here's the point. He's not. This just might blow
up in his face and it would have been completely avoidable,
(22:12):
even though he may have done it with the best
of intentions. Smokey Robinson will have to go through this
storm in a legal sense by himself. So let's let
the case play out for KF I am six forty.
I'm mo Kelly. A number of reputable media outlets have
(22:42):
reported that ICE agents have been ordered ordered to arrest
more would be immigration offenders even without warrants. And you
heard that right, even without warrants, I say, would be
because we've already crossed the rubicon, as they say, as
it relates to due process. It's clear you can be
arrested and deported to a country not of your origin
(23:04):
and to a prison without having committed a criminal offense.
And I'll explain that just a second, and all that
could be done without receiving any due process along the way.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
Here is the law, not my opinion.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
Undocumented presence in the US without proper authorization is a
civil violation, as our littering, speeding and the like. But
those undocumented individuals in the US without proper authorization may
also be subject to a fine, but cannot be charged
with a criminal offense solely for being present without authorization.
(23:41):
That's per federal law, not my opinion. Merely being in
this country illegally is not a criminal offense. For example,
you could overstay your visa. That's not criminal. The Supreme
Court recently granted Trump administration the power to revoke the
humanitarian parole status of people from including, yet not limited to, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Sudan,
(24:03):
and Haiti. This means that someone's legal status can now
change overnight, but there is no breaking of the law here,
no criminal offense committed. It just means that those individuals
no longer enjoy protected status and can be removed. No
crime has been committed and should not be subject to arrest,
not by law at least.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Here's where it becomes criminal.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
It becomes a criminal offense if you're found to have
illegally entered originally or re entered the country after deportation.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
That's a violation of federal law.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
First time offense can be a misdemeanor or felony, depending
on the specific circumstances.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
But how do you know someone entered illegally? Oh? That
requires due process? Like, how does.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
One know that someone actually violated a speeding law or
a literary law due process.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
They are inextricably linked.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
The only way one could determine if someone is either
unlawfully in the country or over state of visa the iedocumented,
humanitarian parole, or illegally entered the country is by due process.
Speaker 3 (25:06):
Period.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
You don't get to just look at someone and say, oh,
Mark Roner looked like he just walked across the border
unless you are actually at the border while it's happening,
and even then there's still a form of due process.
Why am I talking about all this, Well, let me
go back to the top and tell you one more time.
The latest news, The Guardian and other reputable media outlets
have reported that ICE agents have been ordered to arrest
(25:28):
more would be immigration offenders even without warrants. To specifically
order ICE agents to arrest, which means criminal behavior. To
arrest people without warrants is to instruct ICE agents to
break the law, not my law.
Speaker 3 (25:44):
The law.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Remember, this country is supposedly about law and order. Here's
what the law says about immigration arrests and warrants. ICE
officers can make arrests without a warrant, but it must
be in public spaces and private spaces, they are required
by law to produce a signed judicial warrant or be
(26:05):
given homeowner consent to enter a home or private area
to arrest someone. To specifically instruct ICE officers to make
these arrests even without warrants or criminal conduct, that's the
key phrase, is to instruct them to wholly disregard the
law and violate private spaces. Now, if you're okay with that,
(26:28):
it's only because you think it won't happen to you
or it applies not to you. And if that's the case,
you need to stop lying about how important law and
order or the Constitution is. Supposedly, the Constitution doesn't only
apply to people you like or the people who vote
your way.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
And we've covered this before.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
You should remember the Constitution and its protections cover all
persons within the borders of this country, not only citizens.
Stop telling that lie otherwise. The only time it doesn't
is when martial law has been lawfully declared, and as
of yet, we're not under martial law.
Speaker 3 (27:03):
Maybe by next month, but not yet.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
At least, One of the emails from ICE's acting Executive
Associate Director of ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations long ass title.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
His name is Marcus Charles.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
He instructed ICE officials to even go after people they
may coincidentally encounter. Collaterals are the people ICE agents may
encounter when affecting an.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Arrest of a particular person. You know.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
That could be family members, that could be friends, could
be just folks hanging around the location of an encounter.
Here's from the email quote. All collateral encounters need to
be interviewed, and anyone that is found to be a
minimal to removal needs to be arrested. We need to
turn up the creative knob up to eleven and push
the envelope close. Quote the email said needs to be
(27:49):
arrested despite what I just told you about the law
about mere undocumented presence not being a criminal offense.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
That would be like arresting people for littering.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
That would be like arresting people for speeding parking violations.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
No exaggeration.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
Either this is about upholding law or it's about disregarding
it when politically expedient.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
It's one or the other. You know how.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
I always say that there is no in between. Either
humanitarian parole status matters or it doesn't.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
It can't be only.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
For fifty nine Afrikaners from South Africa, but not the Sudanese,
where there is an actual and ongoing civil war which
is murdered more than one hundred and fifty thousand people.
I tell you we are an unserious nation. But despite that,
here's the larger question. Does the federal law only serve
as a suggestion? Is it for guidance sake? Is it
(28:44):
for shits and giggles? I need to know. I hate
the sound Shakespearean, but that is the question. And it's
also a rhetorical one, because warrantless arrest here be outside
the boundaries of the law are both unconstitutional and Unamerican.
And I would be remiss get ready to go there
if I didn't already acknowledge that the targeted revocation of
(29:06):
humanitarian parole status of only Central American, of only South American,
of only indigenous African nations is nakedly indefensible. It also
only confirms this is not about who is illegally here
in the country, because all of those humanitarian.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
Paroles I just told you about they were here legally.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
The status of humanitarian parole is not to be confused
with criminal parole. It is a discretionary decision made by
the US government that allows a non citizen to enter
the US even if they are otherwise inadmissible due to
urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Humanitarian paroles were
(29:49):
here legally in this country. Revoking their statuses is only
about removing who you don't want in the country, irrespective
of them actually fallo allowing the law to get here.
Speaker 3 (30:02):
Oh and almost forgot. I don't know if you caught
the news today.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
The Trump administration announced a travel band today preventing travel
into the US from twelve countries. Ask me where those
twelve countries are? Ask me, ask me where are those
twelve countries? I know, I know it's America and Afra.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Connors.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
First, I'm clear, and I said what I said for
KF I am since forty I'm MO Kelvin
Later, with Mo'Kelly News
Popular Podcasts
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.
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.