Transcript

IHIP News: 🚨 Ex-ICE INSIDER EXPOSES Cruel Practices, It's Even WORSE Than You Imagined!

From I've Had It · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 48 min · 8,649 words · 95 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "IHIP News: 🚨 Ex-ICE INSIDER EXPOSES Cruel Practices, It's Even WORSE Than You Imagined!", an episode of I've Had It published January 24, 2026 (48 min, about 8,649 words). It mentions 14 people, works and ideas, including Donald Trump, Elliot Williams, ICE, Five Bullets, Brett Kavanaugh.

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 5:00: ICE, Dr. Lisa Cook, Elliot Williams, Five Bullets
  2. – 10:00: Donald Trump, Scott Jennings, Lindsay Halligan, Ruth Benot
  3. – 15:00: Scott Jennings, Donald Trump
  4. – 20:00: Steven Little Miller, Department of Homeland Security
  5. – 25:00: Donald Trump, Elliot Williams, Five Bullets, Scott Jennings
  6. – 30:00: Donald Trump
  7. – 35:00: Donald Trump, Bernard Gets, Scott Jennings
  8. – 45:00: Five Bullets, Bernard Gets, Scott Jennings
  9. – 47:51: Elliot Williams, Five Bullets, Kyle Rittenhouse

Notable quotes from "IHIP News: 🚨 Ex-ICE INSIDER EXPOSES Cruel Practices, It's Even WORSE Than You Imagined!"

  • Today I'm joined by CNN analyst and author of the new book Five Bullets, Elliot Williams. Elliot, how are you doing today in 2.0 Trump's America?
    about Elliot Williams · at
  • Because you know what's what people don't understand and I not only worked at the Justice Department, I worked at ICE for four and a half years.
    about ICE · at
  • The hiring of these US attorneys who haven't been confirmed by the Senate at all. You saw it in New Jersey with Alina Haba, Trump's former lawyer. Again, someone with a…
    about Alina Haba · at
  • Acquiescence to him is intentional. It's it's an intentional part of this whole autocratic play. You brought up Scott Jennings and you work, I appear on CNN sometimes. You appear on CNN sometimes.
    about Scott Jennings · at
  • But I think you just start over. maybe even break the whole Department of Homeland Security up because it's just such a behemoth that no one person can manage effective manage effectively.
    about Department of Homeland Security · at
  • We know. Stephen Miller has said that he wants to deport 100 million people. And interestingly, the data lines up that's the amount of people that are not white. And Steven Miller, we've all seen.
    about Steven Little Miller · at
  • Be go America would be going bonkers the media would be going bonkers and again it's just another instance of something on which Donald Trump really was allowed to have a free…
    about Donald Trump · at
  • I know you mentioned my book at the top of the show, something that comes up and I interviewed this guy Bernard gets the subway vigilante shooter in the book and hearing this…
    about Bernard Gets · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Donald Trump — Person · Primary political figure discussed · 11 mentions · first at
    Central reference point for claims about DOJ politicization, Supreme Court behavior, media dynamics, and immigration enforcement posture.
  • Elliot Williams — Person · Main guest · 3 mentions · first at
    CNN analyst and author interviewed about DOJ/ICE, courts, media, and authoritarian dynamics in U.S. politics.
  • Brett Kavanaugh — Person · Referenced public official (Supreme Court Justice) · 5 mentions
    Discussed as a key voice in a Supreme Court-related matter involving Lisa Cook and as an example of how the Court’s ideological center has shifted.
  • Scott Jennings — Person · Referenced media commentator / on-air foil · 8 mentions · first at
    Used as an example of pro-Trump media messaging and “permission structure” dynamics; Williams references having discussed issues with him on air.
  • Steven Little Miller — Person · Referenced political operative / immigration hardliner · 2 mentions · first at
    Cited as emblematic of the administration’s immigration agenda and rhetoric; framed as driving extreme deportation goals.
  • Bernard Gets — Person · Referenced historical figure / case study subject · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as the ‘subway vigilante shooter’ interviewed for Williams’ book; used to discuss media fear cycles, crime politics, and vigilantism.
  • Dr. Lisa Cook — Person · Referenced public official (Fed Governor) in legal/political dispute · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as the subject of a Supreme Court-related hearing/discussion that triggers broader talk about stops, authority, and institutional legitimacy.
    Know, I last night was on television about the firing of or you know the Supreme Court hearing around Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve Board Commissioner.
  • Alina Haba — Person · Referenced political appointee / attorney · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as an example of a Trump-connected legal figure placed into a U.S. attorney role without Senate confirmation, raising rule-of-law concerns.
  • Kyle Rittenhouse — Person · Referenced contemporary case study subject · 1 mention · first at
    Used as an example of algorithmic radicalization and media echo chambers potentially contributing to political violence.
    And the example I use in the last chapter in the conclusion of Five Bullets is what if Kyle Writtenhouse, remember him, from Black Lives Matter protest in 20 2021, I believe…
  • Lindsay Halligan — Person · Referenced political appointee / attorney · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as another example of an allegedly unfit U.S. attorney appointment outside Senate confirmation, used to argue institutional erosion.
    Haba, Trump's former lawyer. Again, someone with a personal connection to the president. You see it in Eastern District of Virginia with Lindseay Halligan. Also unfit for the…
  • Ruth Benot — Person · Referenced expert (authoritarianism scholar) · 1 mention · first at
    Brought up to frame Supreme Court behavior and elite impunity as part of an autocratic ‘playbook.’ (Likely refers to Ruth Ben-Ghiat.)
    And actually losing that veneer, I had on last weekend authoritarian expert, Professor Ruth Benot, the bestselling author of Strongman. And some of that flagrant behavior like the rules that.

Books & papers

  • Five Bullets — Book · Primary recommendation · 7 mentions · first at
    Elliot Williams' book discussed in the podcast, focusing on media bias and vigilante justice
    Today I'm joined by CNN analyst and author of the new book Five Bullets, Elliot Williams. Elliot, how are you doing today in 2.0 Trump's America?

Companies & orgs

  • ICE — Company · Business focus · 2 mentions · first at
    Discussed extensively regarding its policies and actions under different administrations
  • Department of Homeland Security — Company · Referenced work · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in the context of immigration enforcement and policy shifts

Full transcript with timestamps

Today I'm joined by CNN analyst and author of the new book Five Bullets, Elliot Williams. Elliot, how are you doing today in uh 2.0 Trump's America?

Uh it's it's a crazy crazy time. You know, I uh last night was on television about the firing of um or you know the Supreme Court hearing around Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve Board Commissioner. Uh today I was just on that's why for as viewers may not know this but I literally was a couple minutes late to to meet with you because I was just on television talking about this Jack Smith hearing in Congress. This is whiplash in a whirlwind time certainly in legal news my world and it's and it's just can't keep up. Okay, let's start with I noticed that Brett Kavanaaugh K Kavanaaugh was the most outspoken about the Lisa Cook thing and I'm wondering if some of this is a reaction to how badly he has been branded in public for what they're calling the Kavanaaugh stop

and I read that this this branding was really like he it really personally bothered him and the Kavanaaugh stop of course is that a an ICE agent because of the way you look and those of you that are listening. Um Elliot has a little more melanin in his skin than I do that they could legally stop him. And so what is your take on Brett Kavanaaugh?

Oh my goodness. It's uh it you know he is the great story to come out of the Supreme Court uh over this generation because we live in a world where Brett Kavanaaugh is regarded as a moderate voice on the Supreme Court. No, it is. That's how the court has shifted so much certainly in my lifetime of following the court and there are circumstances where Kavanaaugh does buck the party line somewhat. Now let's be clear it is an unabashedly conservative Supreme Court and Brett Kavanaaugh for his entire career has been uh you know an unabashed conservative and so this it is quite fascinating to watch the middle what we think of as the middle on the Supreme Court just just shift before our eyes. Now with respect to this idea of stops of citizens and and so on that that's quite profound. Now obviously we know and going back to the history of law enforcement law enforcement does have really broad authority to stop

people uh for for a host of reasons but ICE has lost the thread here. um and in the huge incentives that they've been given to carry out their immigration enforcement mission. My gosh, look at what's happening around the country.

Okay. You served inside the Justice Department. Yeah. And you're sitting here watching it get completely dismantled and you're watching um really smart, competent people that believe in justice that did not join the Justice Department to become rich because they could have. These people are so smart. They could have gone to work for a top tier law firm in Manhattan, Los Angeles, London, wherever. But they believe so much in the rule of law. And these people are gone from the Justice Department. They're going one by one. And so how vulnerable is the entire Justice Department from complete collapse as it pertains to the real rule of law?

You know, it breaks my heart to say it, Jen. Um, Jennifer, but you know, I don't know. I I really don't know. And it's because you know what's what people don't understand and I not only worked at the Justice Department, you know, I worked at ICE for four and a half years. I I Yeah, I was a senior political appointee at ICE under Obama, which you know, talk about a a volatile time. Um what people don't understand is that most of these maybe not most of these folks, but a a great percentage of these folks are actually political conservatives. This idea that that it's this left-wing deep state what behemoth out to to take over America and ruin its values is simply not true. These are people who particularly in the national security context um transcend or traverse Republican and Democratic administrations. And that's a good thing. And I'll be the first to tell you having worked in all these agencies that

fine policy is going to shift from one president to another. things were different under Bush than Obama, then Bush 41, then Clinton and and in a way that's good for America. It keeps us sort of thinking about what's truly important to us, evolving, working together, and so on. What we're seeing here is not a normal partisan shift. This is not the normal eb and flow between left and right at the Justice Department. And this is sort the erosion of core values of how the organization ought to admit and I think ought to exist. And I think to me the worst part of it is the if folks are following the the hiring of these US attorneys who haven't been confirmed by the Senate at all. You saw it in New Jersey with Alina Haba, Trump's former lawyer. Again, someone with a personal connection to the president. You see it in Eastern District of Virginia with Lindseay Halligan. Also unfit for the role, not

put in it by the president of the United States, not not confirmed by the Congress. And what supporters of the president aren't seeing is that this is actually screwing up. I was going to say a bad word, but you know, it's still early in the morning. The world's [ __ ] up cases that they want to bring.

There you go. Okay. Is that better? Does the audience better? Good. Good. No. Um, it No, it screws up uh it screws up cases that that they want to bring because the person at the top of the office,

courts are seeing that person as improperly in the role. And so it it's a problem not just for partisan reasons. It's literally damaging the very work that apparently they put their folks in to do. It's just mind-blowing.

I want to talk to you about kind of like the the guard rails that are remaining. And I think this is really interesting. My husband's a criminal defense lawyer and he says

the federal judges are doing their job holding up the rule of law. like they are really doing their job and then it gets kicked to the Supreme Court in the shadow docket

and they are completely in the tank for Donald Trump and my question is like psychologically I think about as a layman a non-awyer person when I think about a Supreme Court justice I think like Ivy League educated uber intellectual and then now I look at like Alo or Thomas and I think are they just radicalized just like Bubba is in rural Oklahoma by Fox News. Are they just like the flags that they're flying up uh the Alto's wife and are are are these people are they just so radicalized by the Heritage Foundation? Like can you lift the veil on any of that at all? Because it's fascinating to me from a psychological standpoint that somebody that has that much education is cannot critically think or is just so incredibly biased. It's really interesting. It's, you know, every president is entitled to put in people uh that share what he thinks is his uh philos the judicial vision or what he wants to put on the court. All sorts of

presidents have done it. You know, you you you really touch on something important with the Samuel Alo flags issue, which is something I've commented I commented about publicly quite a lot when it happened. It it's we're the court's allowed to have conservatives on it. It's allowed to have people that have those views. The moment you fly a flag in front of your house, uh, expressing a political view, uh, you have tainted your ability as a Supreme Court justice to hear cases on that issue. And that issue came up. You know, so Simeo had had flown a flag on his house that some January 6th folks were seen to have were seen to have flown.

And many observers thought, "Wait a second, that's endorsement of a side." You know, something I said uh Jennifer to your friend Scott Jennings uh on air when around this issue is imagine two things. One, I am an Eagle Scout proudly. Um, if I were a judge and flew a Boy Scouts of America banner on my house and the Boy Scouts had a case before me and they were being sued or suing somebody, I could not be even if I were fair in my heart, I could not be seen as fair by the public based on the public position I'd taken on how I decorated my house. And the Alto thing was exactly that. So, we've lost some of this veneer or notion that justices are or ought to be apolitical. And it it just seems to have gotten more extreme in the past years.

And actually losing that veneer, I had on last weekend um authoritarian expert, Professor Ruth Benot, the uh bestselling author of Strongman. And some of that flagrant behavior like the rules that apply to everybody else don't apply to us. and the Supreme Court's acquiescence to him is intentional. It's it's an intentional part of this whole um autocratic play. You brought up Scott Jennings and you work, you know, I appear on CNN sometimes. You appear on CNN sometimes. How helpful do you think in the media landscape having somebody and there's a lot of Scott Jennings because Scott Jennings is not unique. You have this breed of men that support Donald Trump that are submissive first and foremost.

They get on the moral high ground and said, "We're alphas and we're so tough and Donald Trump's our leader." Mind you, Donald Trump wears a full face of makeup every day. If he changes his mind in the morning, we're going to go to war with Greenland and by the evening he's been dogwalked by NATO. They go, "Oh, brilliant art of the deal." I mean, I've never seen such a They talk about women needing to be submissive to men and their Christian nationalist worldview. The submissive nature of the Scott Jennings and others towards Donald Trump. Do you think that type of whiplash is helpful in media? Because I I just I kind of don't like I don't think his messaging helps us.

Yeah. You know, it's interesting. It's uh it's definitely whiplash and all of media is figuring out who they are and what their voices are in this world now on this idea of toughness and versus submissiveness or whatever else which is something fascinating uh that I've thought about quite a bit and quite frankly in the in just here stay with me for a second in the immigration context too so much of what governs policy coming out of Washington right now is about the toughness and the masculinity and the aggressiveness you know if you look at ISIS's Twitter feed or Instagram feed. I I don't know if you do. Um

I've seen it. Unfortunately, Namaste. I I can't imagine you're you're a you're a loyal follower. But no, it's all about it's all about how tough and how mean you can be to people. And I get back to this point again and again and again. It's okay for there to be political differences, but cruelty and meanness is never okay no matter what the political party. And by way of example, the thing in immigration policy that I think is just of all the things to be to be mad about removing people from the United States to countries that they don't that they're not from and don't live in. No one, you know, if I wish folks would stop and think critical, you know, even Trump adjacent people would just stop and think about what that actually means. And we as a nation, the law says that we can remove people from the country if they're not here lawfully.

That's been the law for quite some time. But we got to make some effort to get them back to their own home. Just think about the intentional saber rattling cruelty that it is to take someone who's say from Jamaica or Mexico or whatever else and put them on the plane to subsaharan Africa where they don't speak the language and don't have family ties or anything like that. That's all about toughness and fear and not about actually solving some of the political and policy differences that we have in the country. that of all the ICE things and I say this as a former ICE person of all the ICE things that act among well I don't want to say of all of them because there's a lot that ought to break your heart right now but that's really bad

and I agree with you that it's okay to have political differences and those political differences should be televised and we should have critical thinking um conversations about these things. I do not see our my differences with the Scott Jennings of the world as political differences. I see them as moral differences. He wakes up every single day, submits to the leader as you see the speaker of the house who wields so much power, little Moses Mike Johnson. He has so much power and he was followed by Manu Raju a couple of days ago blaming Norway for keep preventing President Trump from getting a Nobel Peace Prize award. So I argue this.

Yeah, we're going to have a conversation with a conservative. Let's get on Mitt Romney. Let's have a conversation with a conservative who hasn't sold his morals out.

Let's get on the horn with somebody who is genuinely a conservative. But Scott Jennings does not represent a conservative point of view. Scott Jennings represents the moral collapse and the submissive nature of all of these triple Trumpers. And he gets on every day and provides a permission structure. These are our talking points. And I think it's really damaging because he doesn't humanize these people, these little kids that ICE is stopping and asking for their papers. There's no humanization on the other side. So for me, my differences with Jennings, not political, totally moral,

cosmic, you know, but where I think it's even more acute, and you talked about it uh in the in the leadup there, it's with Congress. And let me explain. Um and let's let's use my personal example as somebody that worked worked at ICE with a Democratic and Republican congresses, right? Both times we had tremendous pressure from Congress over the actions the agency was taking and doing. Democrats did not like when ICE would go into workplaces, uh, like a meat packing plant or whatever, and just start rounding people up. And, and the policy very early on in the Obama administration shifted because of pressure from Democrats in Congress.

Congress said, "We don't like what you're doing. It's not who we are. It's not what we're paying you to do, and you got to stop that kind of activity." Right? Great. The the we were Democratic appointees. Democratic Congress held us accountable. Congress switched in 2010 when the Republicans came in. It was much more you're not deporting enough people. We need to, you know, we need to and there was a conversation about how ICE could could could better suit what the majority in Congress wanted. But in either context, there was at least an attempt to either defy the president or hold the president and the administration accountable. That is gone from this Congress right now. It is just gone. They have they have overwhelmingly bent the knee on every issue other than I'd say Jeffrey Epstein where you did see some broad bipartisan bucking of the White House for a short time. It's not, you know, everybody's moved on to

Greenland right now, but at least for that moment, Congress came together and held the president accountable on something as fundamental as ICE or who we are as a nation, how we enforce our borders, that's the kind of thing Congress ought to be weighing in on. and those Republicans in Congress have geled or castrated themselves as a body and just chosen not to to to really engage in any meaningful accountability.

Okay. I'm going to ask you this question, personal perspective. Having worked in ICE and seeing what the Trump regime has turned ICE into,

yes, do you think ICE needs to be abolished? I No, I don't think it should be abolished. Um because every entity around the country has some interior enforcement mechanism. Denmark, even countries that we would uh want to emulate or some in America would want to emulate. I think ICE needs tremendous oversight. It needs new leadership from at the at all levels new guidance and all of the above. I think you know it it does not have to be like this. We can enforce our laws. Um we can enforce our borders. we can enforce our immigration policies, but it does not have to be like this. And and the Trump folks came in and said, "Well, because we ran on this necessarily, this is the way it has to be. We got to get all these criminals out of here." Even that fact is a huge distortion of the truth. Of course, there are people who are unlawfully present in America who have broken the law. Of course, there are. That does not

mean that nanny at the Abua at the bodega is of the same status of somebody who uh has committed a rape or arson or a homicide. And there actually aren't nearly as many of those folks that the Trump administration wants you to believe that there are. And they've used this national security crime, racially coded, if not booze shouted racism to to to drum up support for what they're doing. It does not have to be like that. we can still enforce our laws and not have it be like that. So, I don't think that's scrapping the entire like undoing the entire agency because what do you what do you replace it with? And if someone has a good idea for what to replace it with, I'm all ears for it.

But I think you just start over. Um maybe even break the whole Department of Homeland Security up because it's just such a behemoth that no one person can can manage effective manage effectively. You heard me. Um but I don't.

Do you think it needs that kind of budget, the increased budget that Trump Yeah.

And that's really problematic. It is. So, and let me So, and that's a great question. Um, when we talk about this idea of um of abolish it has that budget because what they're talking about is removing or deporting a million people a year. That's that's the budget they've given them. You don't need to do that, right? you can still uh have a robust immigration enforcement policy without the civil rights enforcement and and 3,000 people a day and a million people a day because necessarily when you have those kinds of numbers with the kind of personnel that the agency has right now, you're going to end up with the civil rights violations and nanny from the bodega and the guy who's whether it's whatever. I don't want to generalize about who immigrants are, but those are the folks who are getting rounded up. like let's have an honest conversation about the brown folks at Home Depot who are getting rounded up,

right? Who aren't necessarily uh um you know with with criminal records. And so it that budget they plus up that budget to be able to do that which does not need to happen. And if it's all about safety and national security and the folks who are killing our, you know, livestock or people, get them out, right? or just figure out.

We know it's not about that. We know it's about racism. Yeah, we know it is. We know. Stephen Miller has said that he wants to deport 100 million people. And interestingly, the data lines up that that's the amount of people that are not white. And Steven Miller, we've all seen Trump pudding boy. His brain is total mush. We've seen how cooked he is. I mean, it's just he confusing, you know, Greenland and Iceland. and he's in his Marie Antuinette era, obsessed with his ballroom. And this guy is so mentally cooked. Steven Miller, they call Mr.

Prime Minister. And this man is diabolical. This man intentionally uses Nazi language, Nazi propaganda, Nazi fonts. And he wants this to be a white country, and America is for Americans and Americans only. That's what he said, which is what Gobble said about Germany.

Yeah. And so this is about racism and I just I don't know you're smarter than me regarding this because you've been in government. I haven't. I'm a podcaster.

My impulse is to say we need to abolish ICE. But I'm always open to being evolutionary in my thoughts and I do believe we have to have, you know, some sort of border enforcement. I feel like this agency is so cooked

and I feel like the type of people it's recruited are so broken. This murderer was a 10-year veteran, a firearms instructor.

Three lethal shots. The first two weren't lethal. An autopsy is coming out right now. The third was. And afterwards, he called her a [ __ ] [ __ ]

And this whole group, you know, like my black friends were like, "Fuck, dang. If they're killing white women like that in the street,

who's we're next?" I mean, that Yeah. Um Yeah. No, it's you. I think the you know, there's a few things there. I think Yes. if uh it's just a question of you know when I'm asked the question do you think we should abolish ICE the my response is okay but then what would you replace it with right and the answer can't be nothing I think both as a as a policy and practical matter but also as a political matter you know for it's probably Democrats coming with the argument you you have to have some answer as to what's next now there might be a really smart answer to be had um of just reframing our whole thinking about immigration and our immigration apparatus. Um, so but not unlike the whole concept of defunding the police, the term means

the worst name. It's the worst name and and it means more. It's the worst name and it also means more things than just that one phrase said. So right

abolish I sit star and then you know beyond that I wanted to respond to the Greenland Iceland thing that that you noted and let's play this game. I hate playing this game but we're going to play a game called what if Obama, right? And yes, it just, you know, I it's

okay, man. You want to have an imperialist policy. Okay, that's you. Well, you know, a new president will come in soon and not have that, right? Um, if Joe Biden or Bar or George or George W. Bush had with that frequency and that consistency not even mispronounced got the name of the country wrong of an entity that was ostensibly his main focus right now the world would be go America would be going bonkers the media would be going bonkers and again it's just another instance of something on which Donald Trump really was allowed to have a free pass on something that other presidents would have been eviscerated for and again totally look I I'm I'm in public life I speak. I just wrote the book Five Bullets. I'm out there a lot. I misspeak all the time.

The internet lets me know when I misspeak and say something wrong all the time. You Oh my god. You You might You might You might have haters. I don't know. I I don't really check the internet. I don't know. But But needless to say, we there but for the grace of God go we. Right. And sometimes, you know, I said things I shouldn't say and had to walk them. Okay. Right. I'm human. Um that's a biggie. Um, and that's a biggie from an 80-year-old man. And that's a biggie from an 80-year-old man whose critics uh were quite successful in piling on another 80-year-old man who was president of the United States a few years ago. So, I just I was I'm I've been so struck by the Iceland Greenland flub.

But all of these things in my opinion are connected to everything we've spoken about. So his misspeak and it's so obvious that he the standards that Democratic politicians and presidents are held to are completely different for the um these delicate childlike standards that we have for Republicans. I mean that's abundantly obvious.

But as a a a commentator, a podcaster, I criticize both Republicans and Democrats. Yeah.

And the and taking it back to Scott Jennings, and again, he's an example uh of the one that hits the news the most of of this group of hivemind submissive men towards this um tyranny that Donald Trump is wanting to impose on the United States. And that's what he wants more than anything. He wants it to just be ruled by him. But all of these things are connected because if anybody inside that Death Star, inside this submissive,

it's fully operational, the death star. Yeah. If anybody would say, you know what, he does seem like pudding brain. He does seem cooked. Then that then that starts putting pressure on the Congress people and the constituents. But when they provide a permission structure for this batshit stuff to go on and on and on, that's where I think mainstream corporate media gives an assist. And think about how hard they were on Obama, that tan suit. Think about how hard they were on um Joe Biden. You know what? I think that's healthy. I think if you're going to run for president, big boy, you got to have thick skin and they're going to come after you. You can't play victim and have a bunch of sickopants fluffing you on CNN all the time. You've got to be ready from your own party, from everybody, every which um every which direction. But this guy, boy,

he's so thin skinned, but nobody inside his movement except for much to my surprise, Marjorie Taylor Green.

I know, man. What was that? Was that on your finger? Criticism. No. And so that's all of those things are connected. the the obsequious nature of corporate news in enabling liars, people that get on TV every night and lie and lie to the American public and say, "Oh, no, he really meant it was just a bit of ice." Or maybe he got it wrong, but what's the big deal? They're lying and gaslighting the American public and corporate media is betraying their customer base by allowing it to happen.

What I am genuinely curious about, Jennifer, I like and I think about this all the time. Um, and let's use Scott as an example, but but every person in the Trump ecosystem, and that includes members of Congress, 2026 election and 2028 election, um, they have to look to the future at some point. Yes, all the saber rattling about Donald Trump being president forever and three terms and all that, they have to look to the future at some point. At some point, there will be some fight over who the standard bearer of that movement is. And what are they going to do? like are they going to continue to sort of follow a movement that really is is modeled around a man a figure head right it's not uh you know it's I don't think if you could take Donald Trump out of MAGA and have this MAGA somebody corrected me on air for saying that once uh you could take literally I got a DM it's MAGA um from uh I you know I don't think you can

pluck Donald Trump out of MAGA and just put somebody else in and have the same movement right you can't it's it's a it's a charismatic atic figure whether you like him right it's a cult around if you want to call it that around one person so one does it look like in 2026 and two someone has to run for president somebody

and someone can whether it's JD Vance or Marco Ruby or whoever else and can purport to be carrying the mantle of MAGA right but what's that going to look like and it's going to like will it be faction it's going to be worse

it's going to be right so like because George W Bush Reagan uh corporate Democratic policies incubated this and what MAGA is incubating is going to be worse. Look no further than Nick Fuentes growing popularity in the Gropers. Look at JD Vance who becomes more psychopathic by the day. I mean he is a a man who has a a woman whose parents were um immigrants from India. He has mixed race children and he echoes white nationalist talking points. So what comes after Trump is worse. what this is incubating is far worse. Yeah.

But I also think the electorate on is getting smarter throughout all of this. I think getting off of the propaganda from corporate media is making people smarter. I think the autopsy of how the [ __ ] did we lose an election to this [ __ ] that tried to overturn the government, hang as vice president, is a convicted felon. For me personally, it has made me really look into I know I'm never going to change the Republican party. I've lived in Oklahoma. These people, these crusty old white folks, they're never going to change. I get it.

but urban areas and my participation and buying into a lot of the propaganda from the Democratic Party,

which was really um for me the Democratic Party was a savior in Oklahoma because it prevented an Obama presidency, a Kamala presidency meant that women in my state if they got raped by their uncle could go have an abortion.

Uh you know, this type of pre presidency means you're going to be completely dehumanized. But there is a big awakening I think that's happening in the Democratic party where we are starting to realize that after Citizens United.

Mhm. Um it it damaged Republicans of course, but it damaged a part of the Democratic party and we lost our way.

Yeah. And I'm really happy to see that Zoron at the perfect timing showed and whether you call him a Democratic socialist or whether he's for really regulated capitalism is irrelevant.

Yeah. It showed what the the heart and soul of the Democratic party is supposed to be.

Yeah. And look, I I repeatedly on air made the argument about Mayor Mumi as he was running, saying, you know, everybody, he's actually tapping into a lot of the arguments that Donald Trump tapped into, just in different packaging. A lot of people that's crazy. He's a socialist. He's a this. He's that. And I'm like, no, there's a ven diagram, and you don't get that far from to jump from Zora. Believe me, room of money to Donald Trump like there are corners of folks who are curious about them. something, you know, um, you know, I know you mentioned my book at the top of the show, something that comes up and I interviewed this this guy Bernard gets the subway vigilante shooter um, in the book and hearing this man from the 1980s, this this sort of bigoted white guy and all all kinds of stuff, but hearing him talk about his politics, I I said and I put it in the book, this this guy is at the intersection of RFK,

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, like his views of populists, of the media, of mainstream media, of fat fat cats and uh everybody scratching their back for some all political game and it just takes one smart politician. The first time it was Donald Trump, it'll just take another smart politician to figure out what that special sauce is that brings those folks together. But no, I think um you know to your point about what happens to MAGA, just so I don't mispronounce it again, uh all those forces are are I don't know if they're going to break up MAGA into the Nick Fentes wing into the Marco Rubio foreign policy wing into the into the economic conservative or social cons. Who knows, right? Who knows what it's going to look like? But a lot of it right now is around Donald Trump the guy, not totally MAGA the movement. He's the he's the uh leader of this authoritarian cult. He's the cult of personality. And you're going to have fi

their fissures are already happening. Yeah. You have Tucker Carlson, Marjgerie Taylor Green. But here's what's going to piss me off the most. If he either drops dead or is voted out, one of those two scenarios. Here's what's going to really piss me off the most.

The the total racist, continuing to be total racist, whatever. We all know what that is.

Yeah. It's going to be the Marco Rubios that that trot out and say, "I was trying to be uh

the voice in the room, the grown out, the voice of reason in the room." I know that those Republicans, the Scott Jennings of it, that had moral clarity on January 6 and now is completely inside the personality cult. Those are the ones that are going to piss me off the most. And um so it's going to be interesting, but I think the fissures are already happening because the strong man is frail. We all see this guy's cooked and so the the infighting is just going to escalate but the embrace of the fuentes of the white nationalism and the real anti-semitism in the world is not in college campuses it is in MAGA it is in the heart of MAGA okay go ahead

no I would say the fissures are happening and the support was always not always um has been somewhat soft when you speak about if one were to look at Latino men in the and uh um and the Rio Grand Valley for instance who who flipped quite dramatically to Trump. If you look at um black and brown progressives in New York who went to Trump or New York or New Jersey, my my home state um were to go to Trump. That's thin support. It's not, you know, they they've not created and that's not a knock on the president, but they just haven't created a generation of black conservatives in New York City. It was an economic populist. No, I'm like, come on, man. It's an economic populist message to people that felt in pain and suffering. Felt that the parties and the Democratic party was not looking out for them and didn't care about them, didn't care about their public safety, didn't care about uh their economic needs,

didn't didn't listen to them even about immigration at times. Um, and turned to what felt like an attractive option. That was a somewhat thin rationale. maybe you know what I mean when I say thin it was just it's not died in the wool deeply held beliefs and those folks for the Democratic party I do believe are getable certainly in 2020 and as you're looking you know you saw governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey and I just some of that this idea that this wave of new support for MAGA or conservatives or Republicans among died in the world Democrats I I just I I don't know if I

if I see that yeah I don't buy it totally with you on that yeah I I think there's a lot of anti- status quo sentiment going back into Trump. I think some of the some people get drunk on testosterone and bro culture for an election cycle.

Um, which is, you know, a part of us going from controlled media to now independent media, which can also be dangerous and feed some of our worst impulses. I was going to ask you that people aren't factoring into the electorate.

Yeah, I was really gonna I really wanted to ask you that. um along the lines of, you know, people are disillusioned with mainstream media. We can we can agree with that full stop. Um but what happens when and I'm really curious to hear your views. I know you talk about this a lot on the air. You know, what happens does is there a point at which media can get so factionalized that people are are calcifying in their views and not broadening their views and actually maybe even worse off. Like like what's the balance there? Yeah,

I totally think it's a it's a huge problem. I think that corporate media is cooked and year after year after year you see that just the numbers are down and that has to do with the way we view programming is completely different than the way you and I grew up you know

watching the OJ trial or what you know seeing it Greta Vancestin remember all that that was so exciting and you had 24-hour news now it's different and I think that in that you have a danger where people um are getting into cert certain ecosystems like Joe Rogan uh or um Nick Fuentes. Um and then I mean on the left I'm sure there's you know radicalization. I don't think it's as bad as the right by any stretch and I don't want to even

pretend that that that that is because that would be a total false equivalency. But I think there is you know we try in our IHIP news to start journalism needs to be the gold standard always and forever. Journalists work hard. Journalists expose injustice. Uh, journalism is a guard rail and a very important guard rail and you see it under attack by Trump sick fans buying up Tik Tok, buying up CBS News, Barry Weiss spiking stories, Jeff Bezos spiking stories. And so those of us that have microphones need to always advocate for journalists because I'm not a journalist, but I would not be able to do my job without journalism because when we get on

our to start an episode, I typically start with something that has been fact checked, an article or a story

from a journalist. And I I'm hopeful that, you know, as the media, you know, evolves and I'm going to misstep, but I always try to remind my audience of how important journalism is. And I'm just I'm a bullshitter. I sit here and talk about the journalism. Yeah. And and people feel a sense of community and there's a relatability to that, but journalism is should always be the gold standard. And I would also say, and this has been something that journalists, myself included, uh, confront, I and I try to be honest about, not all criticism of the president is partisan.

Not all criticism or challenging of the policies or the actions of ICE is partisan. Right. And I just think some things, like you said, reach a moral or rule of law point. When I talk about the Justice Department, this is not me as, oh, Elliot worked for a Democratic administration and is just anti-Trump. No, to the contrary. I came in as a prosecutor under Bush when I was young, right, when he was president and Alberto Gonzalez was attorney general and I shook his hand on his first day. And that's, you know, I look, I get it. But when we when when you have these things that we were talking about earlier, like putting in US attorneys outside of the Senate confirmation process who are not fit for the job and are just former attorneys of the president carrying his water in court and losing their top staff. They're all resigning. They're all leaving cases. That's not partisan.

That is a rule of law question. It needs to be covered. Not as we, you know, we shouldn't be shy just because it's it's a Republican president who's critical of the media. We should not be shy in saying this is this is not a left right thing. This is a moral question. This is a rule of law question. This is an identity of the United States question. And I think you know many struggle with that and and quite frankly get it just really wrong in trying hard to think well on the one hand but on the other hand um when covering Trump

well they're they're saneashing. Um, if they covered him the way that they would cover a dictator from a Muslim nation, the headlines would be very similar.

Can you imagine? Can you imagine? Oh my god. Can you imagine just Minneapolis? Can you imagine if that were what's Let's use the on the nose. If in Somalia we heard that the Somali government um and and I'm just going to be use speak in the most neutral terms possible. an arm or an agent of the Somali government shot a protester in their jeep or car. Then the president of Somalia came out and lauded the action and then there was unrest in Somalia. And then the president of Somalia and vice president of Somalia went there um

called the victim a terrorist. Called the victim a terrorist sent armed fully fatigued masked military in to keep the peace ostensibly. Let's let's just state what happened, right? Armed, masked, tacked out law enforcement. Somalia, not even Somalia. If in France we had heard that that was happening, we would be watching that with oh my god, what what a backw backwater crazy place. Um, and you know, it's it's an important point you make there, Jennifer. It's a really important point. This idea of what if elsewhere we were reading the same exact facts.

The headlines and the chirons would be damning. They would be damning. And so that's the part where I agree with individual journalists that fight to uh disinfect and shine a light on injustices. But a lot of these institutions, these corporate news institutions are beholden to the same corporations that keep Chuck Schumer and Haweim Jeff from being a true resistance party. And you know, Moses, Mike, and all of these others from being completely the submissive party to a man with full-blown dementia. And so there's going to be an autopsy. I think there's an awakening already happening and an autopsy of all of this.

But there there's so much culpability and there's been so much incubation of this MAGA movement before he ever came down the escalator. Living in a red state around Christian nationals, I was not surprised by any of this because he is a he's a he's a megaurch pastor. He's a grifter. The makeup, the swirl. I mean, this guy is just like every [ __ ] megaurch pastor in uh white evangelical America. I mean, I know this guy. He's a total con artist. But, okay, we've gone a long time, Elliot. I could talk to you for hours. Tell us about your book, Five Bullets.

Okay, great. Many people Thank you for asking. Uh, you know, um um so I've been talking about it all week and I've got a copy of it right here. Hold on. Um you know, I'll even show it. I you know, many people um will remember the 1984 subway vigilante shooting. Bernard gets shot and seriously wounded four young black unarmed teenagers in the subway. Sound familiar? Well, that's America. And so this book really is a tour through one. New York City was unsafe at the time, but what did that empower one individual guy to do? Why did he feel so empowered to act out? And all of the forces that made the Bernie get story um such national news. why Bernie gets is named in Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire because he becomes a bit of a cultural icon. Let me say, you know, something that's come up that comes up in in in a lot of I've had it broadcast and comes up a lot in my book and may resonate with your people is this idea

of media bias and corporate media and so on. And I have an entire chapter in this book, Five Bullets, about Rupert Murdoch's takeover of the New York Post in 1976 or 1977, which totally turbocharged coverage of crime in New York City to frighten people, to make them more scared, to put big headlines, wink nod, there are black folks running the streets and they're coming for you. And it was it was all, and you can read it all about this chapter in five bullets. In this chapter, in five bullets, it's all about how that one moment in a media takeover shifted the country's the the city's coverage of of of crime. All of the New York City tabloids, which you're familiar with, the Daily News and News Day and so on, started doing the same thing. And if you think about 1985, where there wasn't CNN, MSNBC, Fox, I've had it podcast, the Scott Jennings show, whatever else.

Um, there was three games in town and if the newspapers were constantly telling you, "You're scared, you're scared, you're scared, you're scared, you're scared," people would buy the newspaper, get scared, buy the newspaper again, get more scared. And it just created this cycle of fear and resentment of other people, of black people, and so on. And that was a huge moment in in in the history of news. And as I say in the book, there's it's no secret that Rupert Murdoch goes on to found the Fox News Channel decades later because a lot of their success has been in frightening people, right? You're right. You you are far, you know, you're in a red state.

You are far more likely to see images of people looting CVS than you are to see if you were to pan the camera. Okay. Looting, looting, looting. black folks stealing diapers from CVS or whatever. If you pan the camera to the right in that city, there's probably a park that has children playing in it that used to be a place where crack lords and organized crime or, you know, ran their their stuff 20 or 30 years ago. But you're not seeing that. What you're seeing is the looting, which is a crime, but that's what going back to that moment in 1977 media, that's what they've chosen to focus on. And it just makes people angrier. It hardens their fears. It makes them more bigoted. It makes them more angry. And it makes vigilante shootings like the one Bernie gets engaged in more likely and more common. So, it's really a look at it's taking one moment in America and broadening it to why are we so obsessed

with vigilantes and this guy, this white guy today. I think that sounds fascinating. I'm going to get it. I'm going to read it. I also think it's interesting uh one thing I've been saying a lot lately um is the MAGA has everything they want now. They have the executive branch, they have the Supreme Court, they have the legislative branch, they have all of the olgarchs that have bent the knee to them and they're still terrified and scared and feel oppressed and they have ascended to all of this. And so that's a very interesting component, I think, to the fear driven propaganda in right-wing media news that makes them feel like they're never safe even though they have all the power.

And you know, the one thing I would add to that, and I talk about this uh toward the end of the book, Five Bullets, um it's it's not it's not just the media, what is the media, right? It's not it's not just newspapers anymore, but it's the algorithms now that only feed you likeminded things. uh that like to your point actually is radicalizing people. And the example I use in the last chapter in the conclusion of Five Bullets is what if Kyle Writtenhouse, remember him, um from Black Lives Matter protest in 20 2021, I believe 2020, um crosses from Illinois to Wisconsin, grabs an AK or you know a a a big gun and shoots a couple people and kills some, right? What if Kyle Writtenhouse didn't have an Instagram feed or Tik Tok feed or Twitter feed constantly feeding him images of Kenosha, Wisconsin burning? What if he wasn't in an echo chamber as many people are of, you know, this Black Lives Matter and Antifa are

taking the city down and oh my god, we're going to lose Kenosha. You have to get there. Right. He might have been he might have been supportive of or you know he might have he might have been anti-BLM or supportive of you know the cause whatever but I don't know if he crosses state lines and and and brings a gun and start shooting people. It's just that's the algorithm. We are all slaves to what tech companies are sort of you know it makes us hungrier when we see things that we agree with and sort of make us matter. And the mattest stuff, the most aggressive stuff is what gets boosted. And it has occur far more, even more than any newspaper headline in Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, or maybe even more than Fox News. That's the thing that is driving people bonkers and going to lead to more violence, I think, over time.

And I think it's only going to get worse. Your next book can be How to be a good person as you navigate your algorithm. Um, Elliot Williams, thank you so much for joining me on IHIP News. I want to collaborate again.

Oh, this is great. Yeah, it was awesome.

Questions about this episode

What is discussed in "IHIP News: 🚨 Ex-ICE INSIDER EXPOSES Cruel Practices, It's Even WORSE Than You Imagined!"?

In order: 0:00 ICE, Dr. Lisa Cook, Elliot Williams, Five Bullets; 5:00 Donald Trump, Scott Jennings, Lindsay Halligan, Ruth Benot; 10:00 Scott Jennings, Donald Trump; 15:00 Steven Little Miller, Department of Homeland Security; 20:00 Donald Trump, Elliot Williams, Five Bullets, Scott Jennings; 25:00 Donald Trump; 30:00 Donald Trump, Bernard Gets, Scott Jennings; 40:00 Five Bullets, Bernard Gets, Scott Jennings; 45:00 Elliot Williams, Five Bullets, Kyle Rittenhouse.

What is mentioned in this I've Had It episode?

14 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Donald Trump, Elliot Williams, ICE, Five Bullets, Brett Kavanaugh, Scott Jennings. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "IHIP News: 🚨 Ex-ICE INSIDER EXPOSES Cruel Practices, It's Even WORSE Than You Imagined!"?

The episode runs 48 min; the transcript is about 8,649 words in 95 timestamped sections.

More from I've Had It

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 25, 2026.