ICE agent CAUGHT on camera making SHOCKING threat

It's not illegal to record. >> Exactly. >> Yeah, >> that's what we're doing. >> Yeah. Why are you taking my information. down? >> Because we have a nice little database. >> Oh, good. >> And now you're considered a domestic. terrorist. SO, [laughter]. >> WE'RE videotaping you. >> Are you crazy? >> This is Democracy Watch. Mark, that was. a clip of an ICE agent in Portland, Maine, telling just a person on the. street who has a legal right to record. anything on the street that she is a. domestic terrorist for recording him and.

then saying that he's going to add her. to his nice little database. So, I have. to ask right at the top the legality of. any of the things that he's saying, designating her as a domestic terrorist. and basically announcing that he has a. database that ICE adds people to when. they commit the crime of recording them. in public. Okay. So, both of these. things are violative of the US. Constitution. So, number one, the fact. that you have a federal official. threatening uh a citizen for exercising.

their first amendment rights, that's not. allowed. That is that violates the. Constitution. If in fact there is a. database, now I'm putting the if here. because I don't know whether he made. this up or not, but if in fact there is. a database that the federal government. is keeping that ICE agents are keeping. of people who are doing lawful activity. so that they can be labeled, you know, as troublemakers. I mean, just take a. step back and think about that. Yes, that would violate the constitution. It. goes way though past that line, right? We are not a country in which we allow.

the government to maintain databases of. people who are engaged in peaceful. protests. People who are engaged, not. even in this case, I don't even think. she's protesting. I think she's. actually, like you said, just doing what. she's allowed to do. The courts, the. Supreme Court has said that you're. allowed to videotape law enforcement as. long as you're not interfering with. them. And if if if the government if. Donald Trump's administration is. maintaining a secret database of of. dissident, that is authoritarianism.

That is an absolute violation of the. constitution. And it is something that. should be right now a five alarm fire. for every civil libertarian for every. frankly small government conservative. You know, the Rand Pauls of the world. [snorts] And the legacy media should be. putting that video on the front page of. their newspapers and leading their. newscast. But of course, Brian, to find. that video, you know where I'm going to. you know where I found out about it from. you. From what you're about to what. you're putting on your channel, which is. the reason why everyone needs to sign up.

for this because you're not seeing that. video leading uh you know Tony uh Dopa, whatever his name is on uh CBS, right? He's not he's not doing that while Barry. Weiss is kissing Donald Trump on the. cheek. And by the way, I'm not making. that up. Literally, apparently when they. met, uh, they gave each other kisses on. the cheek. Like, you're not seeing that. on CBS. CBS. I was just on as you were. like telling me about this. I went to. the New York Times website, didn't see. it there. Went to the Washington Post. site, didn't see it there, you know. So, please make sure you subscribe to to to.

this channel. Make sure you are you're. you ring the bell because I learn about. this stuff from Brian. Well, I would. also add to that that if you're not yet. subscribed to Democracy Docket, that is. the news outlet Mark founded to focus on. everything voting in elections, especially in light of the failures that. we're seeing from legacy media that. continues to pander and cowtow and suck. up to Trump. We need to elevate. independent media that's actually. holding the powerful to account. And. there's no better example of that than. Democracy Docket. So, that link is in. the post description of this video right. here. Mark, in terms of actually um.

getting to the bottom of this, should, for example, the ACLU, in hearing what. this ICE agent said on this video, bring. about a lawsuit to compel uh Department. of Homeland Security officials to reveal. whether or not they're actually doing. this and kind of as an addition to that, how do we know that we can even trust. whatever Christine M says, >> right? So, a couple of things, you know, whether it's the ACLU or it's someone. else, I certainly hope someone uh gets. to the bottom of this, brings. litigation. I don't know whether this. woman herself wishes to be a plaintiff.

That I don't know. Uh, you know, but she. would have a very strong case on, like I. said, a number of grounds. Not just. whether there's this database, but. frankly, how she was treated by this. official, you know, being labeled a. domestic terrorist by by someone who's. wearing a badge and has a gun, you know, is no small thing. So, you know, I don't. know whether it's the ACLU or it's one. of the other civil liberty. organizations. Uh, but someone needs to. get to the bottom of this. It is also. worth noting, Brian, as you did at the. top, and I want to make sure everyone. heard what you said, this was not.

Minnesota, right? I mean, this is now in. in did you say Portland, Maine, but in. Maine, right? And and and so this is. spreading across the country. You know, if you think you're immune from this. kind of activity because you don't live. in Minnesota, well, first of all, shame. on you for not having, you know, solidarity with the people in Minnesota, but but you're not safe anywhere. And. so, this is spreading from state to. state. And so, yes, we need litigation. Yes, we need state legislators to maybe. hold hearings. We need Congress, we. need, you know, congressional Democrats.

to be raising a ruckus about this. Uh we. need an all hands- on deck moment uh. around this stuff because if in fact. they are building this database, then it. is precisely the kind of thing that that. people have been warning you about. And. look, you know, I'll tie it to a piece. of litigation that my firm is involved. in that you and I have talked about, which is they're trying to create a. national database of voters, right? They're trying to get the sensitive, most sensitive voting information about. you, whether you're a registered. Democrat or Republican, your date of. birth, your your social security number,

uh what elections you voted in, you. know, they're trying to get that data. Does that database somehow tie to this? Are they trying to like, you know, cross. reference this? This is very This is. very sinister stuff. I mean, this is. very dangerous and I'm glad you brought. this to my attention and I'm glad we're. doing this video bring it to everyone. else's attention. >> So, you said something that caught my. attention and that was this idea that um. that there are implications for a law. enforcement official wearing a badge to. label somebody um at least publicly a.

domestic terrorist. So, can you talk. about that a little bit? like if if I. were to just go out and call somebody a. domestic terrorist, I have freedom of. speech and it doesn't carry any weight. But what does it mean if you've been. kind of prejudged uh a domestic. terrorist by a law enforcement official. erroneously? >> Yeah. So, the reason why it would have. no legal implication if you did it is. for the reasons you said, which is that. as much as I like you, Brian, like you. deciding that someone is a domestic. terrorist doesn't actually mean.

anything. Yeah. [laughter] Sorry. But in all seriousness, but when like I. said, when when someone who is acting. under color of law, right, someone who. is acting with official authority says. you are a domestic terrorist and you're. going in a database. I mean, look, we. know that the Department of State, for. example, uh has a list of foreign. terrorists, right? There are no fly. lists for people who are deemed to be. genuine terrorists. I mean, is this. woman going on that list? I mean, this.

is not just idle chatter. This is not. rhetoric, right? We excuse if someone. standing on the side of the road, G, you. know, shouts at you, Brian, right? Because they recognize you while you. walk down the street and they shout at. you, you know, there goes Brian Tyler. Conn, that communist domestic terrorist. It's unfortunate. It is, you know, it's. it's not great, but you know, unless. they are menacing you physically in some. way or inciting a, you know, a a violent.

mob, that, as you, as you say, a first. amendment right. But where it's someone. who is acting under color of state law, where we know that there are some kinds. of databases that involve terrorism, it. carries a whole different thing. It can. have an impact on that person's ability. to get a job. It can have an impact on. the willingness of people who their. neighbors willing to socialize with. them. Uh it can stigmatize them in their. community and that and it can also. inflict enormous uh emotional uh uh harm.

and distress on someone. I mean you know. Brian if if if if your local police. officer came up to you and said, you. know uh uh you know Brian Tyler Conn, you ought to know you're in a database. that we maintain of people uh with known. gang ties. you'd be like, "Wait a. second. What do you mean I'm in a gang?". >> And these are people who who know where. I live, for example, who can have access. to, you know, to to my home, to my. property, to my family members, you. know? >> Yeah. This is this is authoritarianism.

I mean, you know, for people who keep. saying we are on the precipice of or we. are on the verge of or we are on the. road to authoritarianism, you guys are missing the boat. Okay? You're you're you're you're you're. clinging to nostalgia when we cannot. afford to cling to nostalgia. Okay? This. is not the country that you think it is. This is the country in which federal. government officials go to the White. House and lie. the president of the.

United States lies and in which you have. a militarized force uh in the form of. ICE and others that are terrorizing our. city streets. They are grabbing US. citizens and they are terrorizing them. God knows what they are doing to the. migrants who are here legally and those. who are here without documentation. But. this is not this stuff never gets. better. you know, people who thought, well, this will just start in LA in a.

parking lot where there are, you know, uh, uh, people who are, you know, try, you know, trying to keep ICE agents from. going into a Home Depot. If you thought. it was going to end in LA, then shame on. you. If you thought it was then going to. end in Portland, shame on you. If you. thought it was going to end in Chicago, shame on you. Now you're seeing it in. Minnesota, it's not going to end there. And now it's in Portland, Maine, but. it's not going to end there. and and the. tactics that they will use will only get. more and more abusive, more and more.

contemptuous of the US Constitution. And. yes, Brian, there will be an opportunity. for a lawsuit. Yes, if if that happens. to you, Brian, you could consider a. lawsuit. But are you really going to sue. or are most of the people not going to. be not going to want to put themselves. further into the spotlight? I hope this. woman does. I hope everyone stands up. for her and I hope uh groups find ways. to bring litigation without her. necessarily having to be the plaintiff. But you know the administration is.

counting on you being terrorized by them. into inaction into not speaking out and. we all need to stand up. I want to I. want to talk about something um that I. think is along those lines, which is. this idea that, you know, we're able to. clearly identify what ICE is and isn't. able to do um and what wouldn't stand up. in court, but for an administration like. this that doesn't care what the law is,

like this is a fundamentally lawless. administration. So when we say, "Oh, they can't do that." And then and then. their response or their behavior is. just, "Okay, but we are." How do you. bridge that divide that we're seeing. right now where, you know, those of us. who actually care about the rule of law. can can refer back to it until we're. blue in the face? But but the disconnect. here is that the Trump administration. just doesn't give a And so and so, you know, us holding up the law and. saying, "Oh, this law subsection, whatever, you know, prevents you from. doing this." And they go, "Okay, well,

that's all well and good, but but like. here we are I mean it's it's what it was. like in in Airbud them saying like a dog. can't play can't play basketball as the. dog as Airbud dunks on you over and over. and over again. It's like you can say. that this can't happen, but it is. And. so what is the recourse in an. administration that doesn't care what. the law says and so this stuff just. happens to the point where they're okay. saying it on camera even though that in. and of itself would normally be. actionable. >> Yeah. Look, this is I'm it's a really. great point and that's why I said we.

can't afford nostalgia, right? Because. like what I mean by that is you know. people who say this is not who we are. No, no. This is who we are, >> right? You know, >> all you have to do is look, look at the. videos. It's happening. It's like. >> the government the government I mean. probably the best example is, you know, people are saying, well, the government. needs a warrant. >> or uh otherwise uh they can't, you know, break down your door, right? Or they. need probable cause under a very, you. know, a relatively high legal standard. or they can't execute, you know, an.

arrest without a warrant, right? And the. fact is they're breaking down doors. Like so like it's all well and good that. you're saying they can't break down. doors. That ICE doesn't have the. authority to just break down doors and. snatch people, but they are breaking. down doors and grabbing people. So like. what does it mean to say they can't? And. this is the paradox of this time that on. the one hand what we say is it's not. normal, but on the other hand, it's not. unusual, right? Like we're someplace in. between those two things because um the. Department of Justice is not going to. prosecute those ICE officials, right?

the states can't easily prosecute uh or. or stop that, >> right? Because because ICE can just can. the federal government can just uh. invoke the supremacy clause and say. those people are our responsibility. >> immunity, right? And and so when when we. heard a lot of this when when um when JD. Vance said the ICE officials have. absolute immunity, you had a lot of. lawyers, myself including, you know, being like, "Oh, no, no, they don't have. absolute immunity. They have qualified. immunity." But then you take a step back. and you're like, well, but but actually.

if the administration's position is they. will never be prosecuted. >> then in effect. >> and they'll be pardoned. [laughter]. So. >> then in effect they do have absolute. immunity. >> I was going to say so like who's right. in that debate? And so we need to both. be able to hold two thoughts. simultaneously. The first is we cannot. give up on the rule of law. We cannot. give up on the idea that what they are. doing is illegal and unlawful. On the. other hand, we have to recognize that we.

are in many respects on our own. I said. this in a video um that you and I did a. while back that you know I read the. comments to these videos. So please do. me a favor, leave a comment to this. video. Also share it with your friends. But, you know, in that video at one. point I said like, you know, Brian, like, let's be honest, if you and I got, you know, assaulted in Washington DC, right, a city controlled by the by by. the federal government, do you really. think the FBI would investigate that. crime? Like, do you think the FBI would.

go after the right-wing asalants? No. Right. Like, we are in some sense on our. own, even though all of that would be. illegal. And I think that that's kind of. where we are now. I back then we were. sort of positing as a hypothetical as. like a isn't this theoretically where we. are like that is not theoretical. anymore. This woman is is is doing. exactly what she's allowed to do under. the Constitution. She's not doing. anything that the agent could find. threatening. She's not obstructing him. And this is how she's being treated. And.

so, you know, what does it mean to say. we have a rule of law? So, we have it. and we can't give up on it. But we also. need to recognize that we are on our. own. >> Yeah. And look, the I think given that. the backdrop of of that exact reality, it is that much more important for folks. who are watching right now to help. elevate our voice. That's the best thing. we have. It's the biggest weapon that we. have at our disposal. So, if you're not. yet subscribed to Democracy Docket, that. is how Mark can reach you. Even if the. administration leans on these social. media companies to suppress any voices. that are critical of the Republican.

party, the best way to make sure that he. can reach you directly is to subscribe. to Democracy Docket. So, I'm going to. put that link right here on the screen. and also in the post description of this. video. And by that same token, if you'd. like to hear more from me and watch this. series more, please make sure to. subscribe to this channel. That link is. on the screen as well. I'm Brian Taylor. Cohen. >> I'm Mark Elias. >> This is Democracy Watch. [music].