Transcript of Breaking: Trump Officials Rush to Throw Each Other Under the Bus as Chaos Spreads

We have some major news right now. The Knives continue to be out in this White House today as the fallout following the Alex Pretty murder is only growing right now as Christie Noem and Steven Miller are trying to stab each other in the back, throw each other under the bus in the public press. And well, it's not a good look. The Department of Homeland Security is completely walking back. Almost all of its claims that it made about Alex Pretty in the hours after the murder. And well, even Steven Miller is now saying, We got to review Customs and Border Patrol, whether or not they were following protocol, why they weren't following protocol. A clear sign that things are not going well inside the White House this afternoon. And it comes as Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is testifying on Capitol Hill. And his testimony has actually exposed the White House in a number of ways, which we'll talk about just shortly. But before I do, make sure to like, comment, share, and subscribe. The more you like, the more people see this. And please consider supporting my work by subscribing to my sub stack. Click the link below.

So this afternoon, we're learning that a new Department of Homeland Security report does not actually say anything about Alex Pretty brandishing a firearms or imposing a threat to law enforcement, primarily because he wasn't imposing a threat to law enforcement, and he didn't brandish a firearms. Despite claims, from the White House. Two federal officials fired their guns during the Alex Pretty murder, according to an initial review conducted by the Department of Homeland Security. This preliminary report was put together by Customs and Border Protection, internal investigation led by the Office of Professional Responsibility. It was sent to the House, Homeland Security, and Judiciary Committees. Now, significantly, who isn't investigating the ICE officer, the CVP officer who shot and killed Alex Pretty? Well, the Department of Justice, the Civil Rights Division, has not opened up an investigation, and likely will not open up an investigation despite the fact that what we saw was a murder. Now, the report does not make any mention of Alex Pretty attacking officers, no mention of him brandishing a firearms, despite the fact that that's what Christie Noem claimed in the aftermath of the shooting. And we know from various videos and eyewitness, Pretty did not hold a weapon.

He had a phone out. His his firearms was actually removed from his pocket or side by federal officials. And here we are. Border Patrol agents said he had possession of Pretty's gun, which was then secured in his vehicle. What I want to know, though, is where is Alex Pretty's phone? Where is Alex Pretty's phone? Because that ultimately will dictate some things in of what Alex Pretty was able to capture in the minutes before his death. Well, this isn't good for the Department of Homeland Security. So what are they doing? They are walking back almost all of their claims. They're distancing themselves from their statement that Pradee violently resisted CBP agents. They're distancing themselves from saying that Pradee wanted to massacre law enforcement. The initial statement was based on reports from CBP from a very chaotic scene on the ground. That's precisely why an investigation is underway, and DHS will let the facts lead the investigation. Asked if DHS stood by, Homeland Security Secretary Christine Holmes comments. Trisha McLauchland, the Agency Spokes, said, I think that's why the investigation is so important so we can get accurate facts. Stephen Miller said that the initial statement was based on reports from on the ground.

They are evaluating why CDP did not appear to follow proper protocol. So they're walking back all of their claims. And here's why. Because you have more Republican senators right now coming out saying that Christie Noem, Stephen Miller, incompetence. That is the way to describe the job that they're doing. And when asked, well, Donald Trump called Tom Tillis a loser. Tillis said, I'm thrilled about that. That makes me qualified to be Homeland Security Secretary and Senior Advisor to the President of the United States. It also comes as now the German government is warning its travelers in Minneapolis and other US cities to remain mindful of, quote, Violent clashes at protests. In Minneapolis and other cities, demonstrations sometimes lead to violent clashes with immigration and security authorities. Be vigilant and stay away from crowds where violence might occur. Germany reminded its citizens that identification requirements exist in several states, adding, quote, remain calm and follow the instructions of the authorities and local security forces. You now have foreign governments saying, You got to be mindful of what you're doing here in the United States of America. That is where the United States of America currently is as a nation.

And it comes as Secretary of State Marco Rubios testifying on Capitol Hill today, primarily around what's been happening in Venezuela. And while it's not going too well for him, because he just admitted that while the Trump administration invoked a Wartime Alien Enemies Act law to conduct the deportations of undocumented migrants to places like the SICOT Terrorism Facility. He admitted we're not actually at war with Venezuela despite claims to invoke that act. So take a listen to this. Yes.

Thank you. Mr. Secretary, last March, the President invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a notorious wartime law last used for Japanese internment. He said that he was responding to the Madura regime's supposed invasion or other acts of war against the United States. But in recent weeks, you, the Department of Justice, and our friends across the aisle have repeatedly said that we are not at war with Venezuela. Secretary Rubio, if that is true and we are not at war with Venezuela, will Can you advise the President to rescind his invocation of the Wartime Alien Enemies Act?

Well, that was a mechanism to remove people from our country that prevents grave danger. For example, we know for a fact that Tresnede Agua was a very dangerous gang. In fact, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, I may have been the first member of Congress.

This is a wartime act, Mr. Secretary. Are we currently at war with Venezuela?

No, we're not in a state of war in Venezuela. Okay.

The Supreme Court has described the Alien Enemies Act as a wartime power, our Supreme Court. Before now, the Alien Enemies Act was only invoked during the war of 1812, World War I, World War II, when it was used to intern thousands of innocent civilians. Are you really arguing that the President should be able to wield an internment law?

No, but we're talking about two separate things here. You're talking about the state of Venezuela or are describing the regime. We're talking about- I am talking about the alien- No, but what the President designated- The President invoked the Alien Enemies Act. I know, Senator, but let me be clear with you.

No, but- It's right there. But she wasn't the only one. You had outside a Republican senator going after Marco Rubio. Take a to this from Senator Rampal.

Our founders debated extensively over which branch of government should have the power to declare or initiate war. Virtually unanimously, they decided, and what was entered into the Constitution was that the declaration or initiation of war would be the power of Congress. Now, we have many advocates, many of whom are here today, who have been advocates for an expansive notion of presidential power. They often argue that wars are not really wars, that they're kinetic actions or drug busts. I think, though, if you reverse the circumstances, it becomes very difficult for these arguments to hold up. I would ask you, if a foreign country bombed our air defense missiles was captured and removed our President, and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war?

Well, I think your question is about the... I will acknowledge you've been very consistent on all these points the entire career. I no matter who's in charge. I will point to two things. The first is it's hard for us to conceive that an operation that lasted about four and a half hours and was a law enforcement operation to capture someone we don't recognize as a head of state, indicted in the United States, wanted with a $50 million bouncer.

My question would be if it only took four hours to take our president. It's very short, nobody dies on the other side, nobody dies on our side. It's perfect. Would it be an act of war?

We just don't believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of war.

But would it be an an act of war if someone did it to us. Nobody dies. A few casualties, they're in and out. Boom, it's a perfect military operation. Would that be an act of war? Of course it would be an act of war.

I'm probably the most-Of course it would be an act of war. He's right. 100% right. That's the news right now. Make sure to like, comment, share, and subscribe. Spread the word. Subscribe to my sub stack. Click the link below. See you soon. Hey, folks. Thanks so much for watching. Feel free to add this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or anywhere you watch for the latest breaking news and daily hits day. Make sure to follow, subscribe. See you soon for.