Will Chamberlain
speaker
298 appearances
8 recordings
2 series
first heard Apr 2025
last heard 10 Jul
Will Chamberlain’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 7 in all, peaking in Jan 2026 with 2.
Appearances
Correct. Yeah. I mean, I think Bill Shipley, who goes by Shipwreck Crew on Twitter, he had a number of really interesting points. That was a key one. Yeah.
Right. Exactly. And I mean, you think you realize immigration judges probably handle. MS-13 issues and foreign gang issues far more often than a district court judge who is dealing with a wide, sprawling variety of cases, as opposed to an immigration judge who's just seeing deportation and removal in front of them.
So I think there's a big meta issue with regard to the lack of respect being accorded. to the immigration judge and the immigration courts here. I mean, if you read that district court opinion, it just completely dismisses the findings of the original immigration judge as being based on nothing, based on sparse evidence.
And she's doing this on, you know, in the posture of reviewing an injunction where she hasn't gotten any real factual record developed in front of her. She just is. I mean, she was just taking the word of the plaintiff's lawyer in the complaint, which was we discussed earlier, was really not a very credible person.
Yeah, it seems like if they're asking him these questions, they're kind of wondering, like, do you know this person? Because they probably identified him as maybe an MS-13 gang member himself. Maybe they know. Maybe they don't. But the fact that he would renounce knowing people in photos when being asked by police is not proof that that is true. It's not proof that he doesn't know those people.
It's even more sketchy. Yeah, I'm not one to believe that gang members are particularly fulsome with police, especially ones that have a, you know, a gang motto of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I think it actually might be see nothing, hear nothing, you know, might not quite be that, but it's something along those lines.
No, it's not. And I think maybe, you know, this is where maybe you originally think, oh, she's covering for him. But I think there's you know, you can see her pause and think really hard for a second. And I think that's that's where, you know, my analysis or my theory is that's fear. And that's fear of saying the wrong thing. And what will what will happen to her if she does?
I mean, if he is indeed an MS-13, MS-13 still operates in Maryland, and I'm sure they are not keen on people ratting out their members for even beating their wives. I don't assume they have some internal HR processes in MS-13 to deal with domestic abuse. Yeah.
Correct. I mean, he's an illegal alien. Everybody admits he's an illegal alien. He shouldn't have been granted withholding and removal in the first place. You know, just the preposterousness of his story, the fact that he was originally found to be MS-13. But he doesn't just have a right to be here because he hasn't been formally convicted of a crime or formally convicted of being an MS-13.
None of that matters. It's... The legal aliens don't have a right to be in the United States. I feel like, you know, part of the big red herring that comes from the left on immigration is the idea that it's like, well, was he convicted of a crime? Well, who cares? Ultimately, who cares? Yeah, just a question of priority. It's not a question of deportability.
I mean, only to immediately be whisked into a detention center so that further proceedings can be had on his removal. I mean, it's quite possible that they'll decide to, you know, because obviously Judge Zinnis wants him back. And we have all this, you know, shenanigans or secret events going on at the court, filings under seal.
So I think in that event, in the event that he, you know, they've actually found a way to get him released from El Salvador, he'll set foot on American soil only to be whisked into detention.
So I think the key distinction here is between the Venezuelan Trend Aragua members and the Salvadorans like Abrego Garcia. So for the Salvadorans like Abrego Garcia, my understanding, based on having read a lot of briefing, is... those individuals are simply deported nationals returned to El Salvador in custody.
There's not a continuing arrangement for our government to be paying for them to be held. There are El Salvadoran nationals who are illegal aliens. El Salvador has an obligation to take them in, and then what they do with them is within the discretion of the Salvadoran government and the Salvadoran people.
As for Trendaragua, the problem there is that the Venezuelan government has refused repatriation flights. They'd refused to take these people back. And so that creates a problem because then you have to find a third country to take them. And it's pretty challenging to find a third country willing to take hardened gangsters who, you know, took over an apartment complex in Colorado.
So the I see the the. The fact that they're in El Salvador and Seacott as sort of this temporary place where they're going to be until Venezuela agrees to own up to their responsibility and take back their nationals who are in our country illegally.
Yeah. And maybe not. Maybe because there's so much American interest in this, he'll be held in a nicer prison because he wants to keep Chris Van Hollen and all the other goofballs in the Democrat House caucus happy. OK, but it's I think it's just a different way to look at the problem.
Like, you know, there's just this default assumption that Abrego Garcia and other Salvadorans were sent there and are and are being held at the U.S. government's request. It's like, no, no, no, they're Salvadorans. This is where they go.
They and and you if you're upset with Bukele's policy, then then take it up with the El Salvadorans, hire some El Salvadoran lawyers and try and get them off there.
Well, I think what's going to happen is they're going to have to lift this administrative stay if they want to ever preserve any legitimacy they have. And it's not even – the substance aside, they didn't have jurisdiction because there was no lower court ruling to review jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is a court of review, not first view.
Showing 261–280 of 298 · page 14 of 15
← Previous
Next →