Tim Pool Goes OFF On Leftist During Due Process Debate

Should we as a moral people allow the

prosecution of this individual? Which is

the moral question in which you say yes

and we would all say no.

>> You would say no.

>> This man, this cop should not be

prosecuted. No.

>> And you would think that was moral.

>> Yes.

>> Quite literally, we we can't prosecute

him. Like, and the only way to prosecute

someone for federal action would be

political.

>> No. No. I'm talking about morality.

>> That's what I'm saying. So, I'm saying

I'm just saying like even even in the

sense of morality, I'm like, well, I'm

not going to like advocate for charging

someone purely on political motivation.

It's just ridiculous.

>> Do you think it's immoral for the Trump

administration to not want to work with

the Minnesota state?

>> I think it is the most moral thing they

could do

>> to politicize this.

>> They're not politicizing it. It is

politicized. There's no way around it.

It's political.

>> It is political, but they are political

activist furthering it.

>> So, let me put it like this. The

American people voted for these ICE

operations. Immigration was a top issue

and Trump won and the Republicans won

everything. That doesn't mean everyone

in the country agrees with it, but the

American voter, democracy, has spoken.

So Trump is now carrying out the will of

the American voter. And the way it works

is if you got a problem with it, you

vote in the midterms and you vote in the

next election. In the meantime, this is

democracy in action. To subvert that, as

the activists are doing, politicized

what the American people voted for.

After the fact, it just is political. I

think there's things in tension with

that because yes, Americans did vote for

Donald Trump and he obviously ran on

mass deportation. So, you were

co-signing that policy most likely if

you voted for him. But I think most

Americans also care about the rule of

law. They care about the constitution.

And so when they voted for that, they

assumed that the mass deportation

program would be carried out in

conformity with the constitution. It

have been no there have been multiple

instances where people's due process

rights are violated. People are um

>> uh what's her name? Our Mahmood Khalil,

uh, Kilar Rego Garcia. These have been

>> Wait, hold on. You you cited two

examples of of constitutional uh uh

movements.

>> Yeah, they're due process. Like Kilargo

Garcia was labeled a terrorist by the

Trump administration before found.

>> What does due process mean?

>> Due process means not having um how can

I how do I put this into words?

>> Due process is people being given the

chance to make their case. Incorrect

[clears throat] before

>> that's not correct.

>> Well, hold on before you correct me. My

understanding is that people's due

process has to do with them being able

to be given a fair shot if the state

acts against them.

>> That's not what due process is. Due

process is

>> which is to say make their case. It's

brought to a brought to a judge and a

neutral who is a neutral.

>> Due process is not a proper noun. It's a

generic term literally meaning we we can

we can stop saying the phrase due

process because people think it's a

proper phrase like a proper noun like it

cites law. It's literally just a generic

phrase meaning the process by which a

person has in in in law. That's all

>> about the fourth amendment.

>> What about the fourth amendment? Which

one? Which part of it?

>> The due due process.

>> Due due process of law means in

different circumstances certain people

are entitled to certain actions.

>> Yes.

>> Kilmargo Garcia's due process. Let's

let's let's avoid him for the for the

for the time being and talk about the

>> He's the per you asked me for an

example. He's a good example going and

he had his due process.

>> No, he had his due process violated. No,

he did not. That's incorrect.

>> Yes, he did. The Supreme Court said

ordered the Trump administration to

bring him back because he had been

illegally deported.

>> So,

>> and he was deported in error, which the

Trump administration admitted and then

walked back.

>> This is incorrect. Do pro. So, we got to

break all this down. Okay. To avoid it's

going to get clipped either way. Um, an

illegal immigrant enters the country

through the southern border, right?

Let's say a guy from Mexico crosses the

border, runs full speed 60 miles into

the United States.

Can what is his due process in this

circumstance after he is apprehended?

>> That you are going to be told and read

your charges, told and read your rights,

and you're going to be given a court

date and given the chance to make your

case before

>> a judge.

>> That's not what that's not what the law

or the constitution says. The process by

which an alien is due because due

process is not a proper phrase. It's a

generic phrase meaning the word do

literally means do and process literally

means process. So we have executive

immigration courts and the judiciary has

nothing to do with it. The process by

which an illegal immigrant is due is

called expedited removal. Non-citizens

who enter this country illegally do not

have the right to a jury trial or a

court.

>> Citizens and resident aliens. That's not

correct.

>> Yes, they do. Because the fourth

amendment does not refer to citizens. It

refers to people.

>> You are incorrect.

>> Is that not what the fourth amendment

says?

>> No. Okay. Okay, that's sophistry. Okay,

if you're if I'm

>> sophistry is when you cite the literal

words of the fourth amendment in the

constitution.

>> You're doing it again

>> when I'm talking about

>> I did not say you are not correct on the

language and definitions used in the

fourth amendment. I'm saying you're not

doing soft by citing the constitution.

>> No, I'm saying it's sophistry to imply

that the phrase people refer to aliens

who run through our country across the

border illegally because it does not.

Due process refers to of your status

what you're entitled to.

>> Yeah,

>> this is what I'm referring to when I say

due process. Amendment court hearing.

The right of the people to be secure in

their persons, houses, papers, and

effects against unreasonable service

shall not be violated and no warrant

issued, but upon probable cause

supported by oath or affirmation.

Particularly describing Okay. What is

your understanding of

>> due process? Due process. Due process

refers to the legal requirement that the

government must respect all legal rights

owed to a person, ensuring fair

treatment in legal proceedings. That

doesn't mean that they get a trial.

doesn't mean that if

>> immigration law, the constitution

reserves immigration issues specifically

to the executive branch. The immigration

courts are not part of the judicial

branch. They're part of the executive

branch. And the law states that the

secretary of state has unilateral

authority to remove any non-citizen at

any point for any reason. So Ozurk

specifically, it was the discretion of

Marco Rubio under the law to say, "Your

visa has been revoked. Thank you and

have a nice day." And for that, she is

being detained and deported. That is due

process.

>> Sorry, I've been talking about the

fourth amendment. But I meant to say the

fifth amendment. Nor uh be deprived of

life, liberty, or property without due

process of law.

Fifth amendment.

>> Who who

>> any individual in which the state acts?

>> Let me pull up the entire fifth

amendment.

>> Indeed, because it's important to know

what it says.

>> When you say due process of law, it

doesn't mean that everyone gets a court

trial with a jury. It just

>> no person shall be held to answer for a

capital or otherwise infamous crime

unless on present uh presentment or

indictment of grand jury except in cases

arising in the land or naval forces or

in the militia when an actual service in

time of war or or public danger. Nor

shall any person be subject for the same

offense to be twice put in jeopardy of

life or limb. Nor shall be compelled in

any criminal case to be a witness

against himself. Nor be deprived of

life, liberty, or property without due

process of law. Nor shall private

property be taken for public use without

just compensation. That is the fifth

amendment. So now the question is what

does due process mean? Because you're

citing the fifth amendment, but you're

assuming due process means you get a

court hearing. That's not true. There

are many circumstances which someone

doesn't get a court trial even if

they're US citizens. Like if you're

insane, they they adjudicate your

insanity by paperwork and

administrative. It's called a 5150. You

don't get to go to court over this.

You're just deemed insane and locked up.

That happens. Does that person have due

process? Indeed. If you are exhibiting a

threat to yourself or others through

mental incompetence, defect, or

otherwise, you can be 50150. You don't

get to go to court. You don't get to ask

a judge. It doesn't happen.

>> I'm not saying that the government can't

take actions against you before it's all

adjudicated in a court of law presented

before. We're trying to clarify for you.

I'm saying that if they do that, then

you are able to open up a case against

the government or

>> in some circumstances, some individuals

have some rights and some do not. So the

the way the constitution works in Texas,

there was a big dispute over the

southern border when the Texas state

guard were securing the southern border

with concertino wire and [snorts] the

federal government sent in feds to cut

the wire and allow people to cross over

illegally. The issue at play, the reason

why Texas sent the immigrants to uh

Martha's Vineyard in New York was

because the constitution grants full exe

full immigration authority and foreign

relations to the executive branch. The

judiciary has zero authority on

instances of foreign affairs. When a

person crosses the border illegally, it

doesn't go to a judiciary. The reason

why progressives have been saying

judicial warrant over and over again is

because what they're saying is outside

of the process of the constitution, we

want a court to to make an argument

against the executive branch.

>> How do you mean outside of the process

of the constitution?

>> The constitution gives full for

authority on foreign affairs to the

executive branch. So what we have are

immigration courts, but these

immigration courts operate under Trump,

not the Supreme Court. That means

immigration courts are not judicial

hearings, nor does a non-citizen have a

right to a judicial hearing. They go to

federal executive immigration courts.

>> You still have due process, right? You

>> No, no, hold on. You are correct. But

due process is different from person to

person. Due process for an American

citizen is different for a non-citizen.

So I'm not saying it's not different,

but I'm saying that there are minimum

standards of due process that are

applied to every single person

for an illegal immigrant is called

expedited removal. That is if an exe a

federal immigration officer gets an

order from an from an executive judge,

not a judicial judge, for expedited

removal of an individual. They don't go

to court. There's no jury and there's no

banging of gavvel. The officer can

literally and Obama did this to the tune

of I think 3 million. They can literally

grab the person, say, "Give me your ID.

You're a non-citizen subject to

expedited removal. That is your due

process." And send them right back.

>> That doesn't You think that I won't say

that if that is true that Obama wasn't

violating people's due process rights? I

would say that he is. That would

engaging in them. Why?

>> Because the Constitution makes clear

that immigration is under the executive

branch and the process by which a

non-citizen is due varies from expedited

removal to uh uh to refugee status

hearings. And so what we've had is under

Obama, Bush, Democrat, Republican alike,

an executive immigration officer can

grant you your due process of are you a

citizen? No. Expedited removal. That's

due process.

>> That is not under the purview of the

executive. That is a right that is

guaranteed to every single individual

within the United States or that the

United States takes action against.

>> You're incorrect.

>> That doesn't hinge on whether or not the

president feels like enforcing it.

>> No, no, no. You're incorrect. The

immigration is the purview of the

executive branch and immigration courts

are not judicial. They're executive.

>> No, no. I'm not saying that immigration

isn't the purview of the executive

branch. I'm saying that due process

rights aren't a matter of if the

administration decides to grant them to

>> your point your point on the fifth

amendment, right? You brought up the

fifth amendment that like the the act of

being in the United States illegally is

not considered a capital or otherwise

>> I I got look I I think I think you're

just generally not understanding the way

the Constitution and the law works. So I

pulled this up for you. Uh, it's hard to

see if I zoom in like this. Yes, US

immigration courts are part of the

executive branch.

>> Okay, I mean that though.

>> Okay, so but this means you're not

getting a trial in a court. Immigration

courts, they're called courts, but

they're executive functions. You don't

go before a jury or a judge for issues

of immigration. This is not me making an

an opinion statement. When someone is

not a citizen, the issue of immigration

is the executive branch. They don't give

you a hearing. They snap their fingers.

Now you can argue it shouldn't be that

way but this is because the constitution

gives issues of foreign affairs solely

to the executive branch. So due process

means the legal process under the

constitution by which you are due. If

you are a foreign citizen who enters our

country that is the sole purview of the

executive branch to snap their fingers

and what you said contradicts what I

have said because I already granted that

due process looks different for every

single individual

>> which would mean Garcia got his due

process.

>> No, he had his due process rights

violated. He was sent to SECOT. He was

not supposed to be removed from this

country. He had uh because he already

had uh stave removal.

>> He had expedited removal. Indeed.

>> No. No. He had something designated on

his own immigration.

>> I Okay, look.

>> We can totally pull this up.

>> Here's here's the real challenge we're

facing right now. You don't know these

stories and you're basing it off.

>> I can't recall all of the details

accurately. So, let me pull up uh

>> Kil Margo Garcia had an order for

expedited removal, but it was stayed

because they couldn't remove him to send

him back to Guatemala. A Salvadoran man

living in the United States was

illegally deported on March 15, 2021.

What are you reading?

>> By the Wikipedia by the US Wikipedia is

not a real source

>> under the government. We can go to the

primary sources.

>> You should you should read the court

documents from ICE cuz I'll just

>> under the Trump administration which it

called an administrative error which you

disputed. No,

>> you said it wasn't

>> administrative is not a violation of due

process.

>> At the time he had never been charged

with or convicted of a crime in either

country. Despite this, he was imprisoned

without trial in the Salvador and

terrorism confinement centers he caught.

Oh, liberals are I

can't do this. I give up. Thanks

for checking out this clip from Timcast

IRL. Make sure to watch the show live

Monday through Friday at 8:00 p.m.

Subscribe to this channel and we will

see you all there.