Piers Morgan Uncensored - Dan Crenshaw vs Tim Miller On Kamala Harris and Donald Trump

Episode Date: October 10, 2024

The race for the White House remains incredibly close, and the scrutiny the candidates are under continues to intensify. Donald Trump’s detractors continue to call him an existential threat to American democracy, while critics of Kamala Harris call her a flip-flopper devoid of policies. In this debate, Piers Morgan brings together two firebrands; congressman Dan Crenshaw and podcaster Tim Miller. As expected, neither one of these men minces their words. Crenshaw has no respect for Harris’ tour of talk shows and podcasts spreading joy, but Miller responds that Trump offers nothing better. Both claim they're arguing with facts while taking metaphorical shots at each other. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On your ballot, it doesn't ask you the question of whether Donald Trump is the same as Jesus Christ. The question is, do you prefer Donald Trump or do you prefer Kamala Harris? At this point, I would think that the congressman should be able to know how to pronounce our name correctly. Yeah, get over it. Get over it. Who cares? Dan, you're not at all alarmed that the last administration ended with people storming the capital. Under Donald Trump, you had one of the best economies he had in 15 years.

I'm sorry, the way that was the tiny virus that came over. Stop interrupting me, all right? You're done here, all right? You're an emotional wreck. You're obsessed with Donald Trump. It's kind of sad to watch. Carmela Harris, she doesn't instill in me a sense of being a natural commander in chief.

It feels like something that for you and your therapist, I think, peers. Carmelah Harris interviews are a bit like bananas. You have to wait a very, very long time for them to appear, but eventually you get a big and bountiful bunch of them, all at once, and some of them are extremely sweet. Please welcome back. the next president of the United States.

You're going out to see you two at the sphere. Was that any good, by the way? Oh my God, have you been to the sphere? So would you like to have a beer with me? So I can tell people what that's like? Okay. I personally cannot understand why anyone would vote for him. A lot of it is, I think, he's getting bad information,

people are getting bad information from other channels. But do you have an explanation for this at all? I am a privileged white woman that lives in Los Angeles, and I am so aware of that. Okay, the last time I have... Last time I had beer was at a baseball game with Doug. Why do you like Formula One? These guys driving around the cars over and over again in a circle.

Oh, it's so good. One last question. If, no, when you become president, will you come back on the view? What a series of incredible grillings there. Of course, bananas are tough on the surface, but when you peel them back, there's usually a pretty mushy in a core. and they tend to bruise quite easily under pressure or exposure. You have changed your position on so many things. You are against fracking.

Now you're for it. You supported looser immigration policies. Now you're tightening them up. You are for Medicare for all. Now you're not. So many that people don't truly know what you believe or what you stand for. And I know you've heard that. In the last four years, I have been...

Vice President of the United States. And I have been traveling our country. And I have been listening to folks and seeking what is possible in terms of common ground. Sorry, what? What kind of answers that? Some people would be saying that Carmelha Harris' bananas

for a long time, and you can see why. But putting fruit to one side for a moment, this is a clear gear change by her campaign, and so far, every gear changed by the Democrats has made a significant impact. After two months, a very limited media, leading to a lot of data showing that she'd failed to define herself, this is another calculated play.

The question is whether it will change anybody's mind. Former President Trump dialed into Ben Shapiro's show to give his verdict on the Harris Media Blitz. It's fair to say it hasn't changed his mind. The woman doesn't know what she's doing. I watched her. I got to watch last night 60 minutes. And she answers questions like a child.

This is not a president. She's answering questions in the most basic way and getting killed over it and every time she does an interview, she sounds like a child. She sounds like a person with a very low IQ. This is not a president, he says, but the fact is that in 26 days,

what she could be? For all the drama and all of the twists and turns, so far the American people remain split and this race is unbeliever be close. Well, joining me for a head-to-head debate on the big issues that will, to Cybers election from the economy to the border in the Middle East, the Texan Republican Congressman and former Navy SEAL, Dan Crenshaw,

and the host of the Ball Walk podcast, Tim Miller. Welcome to both of you. Dan, let me start with you. I tweeted yesterday that the more I see of Carmelah Harris's interviews, the more words salady and inconsequential and unsubstantial, the rhetoric that comes from her mouth appears to be. There's a lot of joy that she wants to sprinkle, but no real clear idea about how this is going to happen.

What do you make of Kamala Harris, the candidate? Well, if you were in her position, you would also give word salads because you don't want to actually contend with the fact that the last four years are indeed your positions. And it's even worse than that, because she, let's not forget, she ran to the left of Joe Biden.

So her positions are generally far more progressive and far more crazy than Joe Biden's even are. She did want to. ban fracking. She did want Medicare for all. She wanted all of these things. But even if those, even if she has come to Jesus and changed her mind on all of that, we can rest assure that she is completely in favor. And she said this in an interview recently, that she wouldn't change anything from the Biden administration. And so why was Biden so unpopular? Why was Trump going to beat Biden so easily just a few months ago? Because his policies

are very unpopular. And people need to understand that those same policies and the outcomes associated with those policies belong entirely to Kamala Harris. So it doesn't surprise me one bit that she doesn't want to talk about policy. That instead she wants to talk about, I don't know, having beer on late night shows or just having this, you know, a nice little laugh on the view, whatever it is. She wants people to like her and forget about the bad policies that actually affect their lives. Yeah, I mean, Tim Miller, I thought she won the debate against Trump. He fell into her trap, lured him in, and he nibbled him in.

and he nibbled hard and she won it. So it's not that she's not capable, she is. I do feel, though, and I'm being curious what you think. Would it not have been better for the Democrats, when it was clear Biden couldn't continue and the knives came out for him, would it not have been better for the Democrats to have had an internal battle

to choose their nominee, rather than just crown Kamala Harris and hope for the best? Yeah, I mean, maybe, peers. You know, I was pushing for Joe Biden to get out of the race, because of his age, not because of his policies long before that. And unfortunately, it came too late. And he ended up with, you know, kind of at a moment where there really wasn't time to do that.

And his vice president has stepped up. As you pointed out, his vice president, Kamala Harris, crushed Donald Trump in that debate, absolutely annihilated her. So if her policies and if her rhetoric is that weak and if she's low IQ, like Donald Trump said, it's unclear why he was unable to make a single coherent argument against her that was not word salad. And frankly, I also just disagree with the congressman when it comes to the policies. I mean, I think that the Biden administration has had some policies that are too liberal for me. But much of what they passed has been bipartisan, including the infrastructure bill, including the Chips Act. The economy is coming in for a soft landing. The American economy is the envy of the world. And I think

Kamala Harris has put out a pretty detailed economic policy. That's far superior. Donald Trump's. What Donald Trump has put forth for his economic policy is a 20% across the board tariff, which I know Darren Crenshaw cannot possibly support, and just a budget-busting $5 trillion more added to our deficit. That's Donald Trump's policies. So I think when it comes to rhetoric, preparation, and policy, she's superior. And last day I would just point out that at this point, I would think that the congressman should be able to know how to pronounce her name correctly. Yeah, I mean, look, the obsession with how you pronounce her name, I think is a bit ridiculous. It's not obsession.

Just pronounce it. I don't call you poor. I've heard Democrats pronounce it about 80. Just do it. What do you mean? Who cares? Just do it. It's the first thing you have.

I've been called Pierce by every American I've known for the last 20 years. My name is peers. And yet every American's called me peers. I don't care. Well, we can argue about. But you could just get it right. It's simple. It's not emotional.

It's just get it right. It's not hard. Yeah, but my point it doesn't matter, right? Dan, just on that point, though, about Trump's economic policies and the tariffs in particular. Your response? I mean, he's way out of touch with what everyone in America knows and believes. Under Donald Trump, you had one of the best economies we had in 50 years. I'm sorry, the way that was the Chinese virus that came over.

Don't interrupt me. Are you for the 20% across the word of the tariffs? What we had under Trump policies, what we had, well, stop interrupting me, all right? You're done here, all right? You're an emotional wreck. You're obsessed with Donald Trump. It's kind of sad to watch. Now, here's the thing.

Under Donald Trump, you had 3.5% unemployment. It had one of the best economies we've had in decades. When Biden finally got control, real GDP was back to pre-pandemic levels. They had inherited an economy that was well on its way to actually recovering. That's why they got all of the job growth that they did. The other thing that you like to point out was that, okay, Donald Trump has way more deficit spending than the Biden-Harris administration. Well, what you actually have to objectively look at is two things. is two things. The two years when Trump had Republican control about the Senate and the House,

and two years when Biden had Democrat control of the Senate and the House. And guess what we find? Deficit spending under Democrats was nearly three times as high than Trump's. And they can't blame COVID for that. And what they instead did was put more bills into place like the Inflation Reduction Act, which, you know, ironically increased inflation massively in the American Rescue Plan. Both giant welfare bills. that increased demand without doing anything to increase supply, which, of course, creates inflation. You don't need an economics degree to know that,

but apparently maybe you need to be educated on it. But keep assessing over how to pronounce your name. Do you see what happens there, though? You go back to what it was happening in 2018 when Paul Ryan was the Speaker of the House. That's what we're talking about. We're not in 2018 anymore. We're talking about Donald Trump's plans in 2024.

I'm going back to policies and output. No, Congressman. Congressman. We're talking about Donald Trump's plans of 2024, which is a 20% across the board tariff that he said recently he could do without Congress. And he plans to do without Congress. So if you want to try to say, try to lecture me and say, oh, what about economics and supply demand, what do you think what happened? Are you for a 20% tariff? I'll lecture you on some basic conservative principles. Since you, you claim to be a former conservative, so maybe you need some help remembering what it's like. Yeah, I'm for free markets and free trade, not a 20% tariff across

Yeah, okay, well, this is what I'm getting at. There's, there's, there's, there's nothing in conservative principles that says tariffs are necessarily a bad thing. Conservative principles are a way to, to, to approach problems and, and assess tradeoffs. Now, if the government needs revenue, there's a variety of ways to get that revenue. Every single tax that there is, whether it's an income tax or a property tax or a consumption tax, has some sort of distortionary effect, including tariffs. Now, throughout most of our country's history, to include, since our founding, the primary revenue generator for the federal government was indeed tariffs. So it is not anti-conservatives to say that we should tax goods coming into the country necessarily.

It is another way to gain government revenue. And a lot of people might prefer that to increase, as opposed to increasing individual income taxes. Now, Donald Trump has a habit of saying something as a way to plant a negotiation flag because you can say you're for free markets all day long, but you know who isn't? China. So get your conservative principles right. What we really believe is you have to have, you have to have fair and free and open trade within our domestic economy, but you also have your eyes wide open and acknowledge that there's countries like China that will fight unfairly and that you have to negotiate with them and tariffs are a use of a useful way to do that. Let me jump in, chaps, because I'm going to remind people I'm still here. On the 60 Minutes interview,

Tim, that she did, I would just be concerned if I was a Democratic, Democrat voter or leaning towards that way. I'd be very concerned about how she answers questions about the economy. This is what happened on 60 minutes. My economic plan would strengthen America's economy. His would weaken it. My plan, Bill, if you don't mind, my plan is about saying that when you invest in small businesses, you invest in the middle class and you strengthen America's economy.

Small businesses are part of the backbone of America's economy. But pardon me, Madam Vice President. The question was, how are you going to pay for it? And Tim, she had no answer. I mean, that was an excruciating exchange and rightly got the mockery it deserved. And that's my issue with Kamala Harris, it's not that she's not intelligent.

She obviously is. She's done extremely well with her life as a lawyer, senator and so on. It's not that she isn't personable. And it's not that I don't share her vision that we'd all love to feel more joyful. How are we going to get to this YouTube? And she has single-handedly throughout all of these exchanges

declined or doesn't know how we're going to get to utopia. Does that not concern you? Yeah, no, because we're not getting to Utopia. We need somebody to run and manage the government, okay, peers. And so on this question of how she's going to pay for her plans, there isn't a good answer so she didn't give one. I agree with that. I'm a fiscal conservative. I wish that they would be balancing the budget.

But here's the thing. She's running against Donald Trump, whose answer to that question is even more incoherent. Despite Dan's attempted a history lesson over there, what Donald Trump said was how he was going to pay for his plans was that he was going to tariff China and we're going to use the tariff money as if it's like a government fee, like

we're getting this fee, and that he's going to pay for free health care. He's going to pay for child care. He's going to pay for everything with these magical tariffs. He has no coherent answer on this. And here's the other thing. What is not good for the economy is instability.

And Donald Trump is an absolute wreck of a human. We have we have no idea what he would do in the second term. He left when he left office there was a mob of people storming the Capitol trying to attack Congressman Crenshaw. That's what was happening. They were waving his flag. They were storming the Capitol. They were trying to keep in power. I'm sorry, just let me finish this. It's such a strange thing to say. Let me finish this. No, I'm sorry. This is what happened at the end of his term. And even his own supporters were like, we are concerned that he can't stay in another 14 days. They talked about the 25th Amendment. Dan Crenshaw at the time said that he was on the side of the rioters,

that the president was on the side of the rioters. That's what he said. And now, because of that, his own vice president, his own chief of staff, it's not me, it's not somebody that is obsessed with Trump, his own department of transportation, secretary of defense. All these people can't support him again because they don't know what he's going to do because he's so erratic, because he's of such low character. We can't put somebody like that in. That is dangerous for the country for a democracy, but also for the economy. But we have to go back to what you said. You've got to go back to what you said about the economy

and not knowing what he's going to do. That's nonsense. I understand you don't want to talk about January. He led the country for four years. I understand you don't want to talk about it. Well, I want to talk about what actually matters to people. And if you actually poll people and talk to regular people, what matters to them is the economy.

What matters to them is immigration. Why did you guys move to the inter? We have no idea. We're just, we have no idea what Donald Trump's going to do in the next four years. Of course we have an idea because he governed for four years. years. And you know what he did? A really good job with the economy. And I realized that you don't know that, but like 60, 70% of Americans do know that. Congressman. For you to say we just have no idea. It's all, it's all going to be all over the place. That's nonsense. We know exactly what he's

going to do. It will. Congressman, the people that were in, that were running the government with him last time, don't support him again. Most of his cabinet doesn't support him. He has a new vice president. In the box at the RNC convention, okay, in the president in the presidential nominee's box. It wasn't Dan Crenshaw. Which policies? The people around them were is Tucker Carlson? Since you know so well. What's that?

So which policies are changing? Which policies are changing? Well, for example, is it going to be, let me guess. It's going to be lower regulations and lower taxes, just like Republicans. You know what? You know, it's not. It's pretty much what our economic policies are. Let me jump in there.

Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Let me jump in. I want to play. He's not running on that, Dan. Hang on. Hang on.

Hang on. Let me respond. He had Tucker. Tim. That's what he is. I want to put, hang on, let me cut. Sorry, I am moderating this, chaps. I am here.

I want to play a clip. This is from her appearance on Colbert. And the reason I'm playing it, it plays into what you're both talking about here. Because the key determination for people is going to be, well, is she responsible for everything that Joe Biden has done? Were they a team? And is everything on her shoulders now that would have been on Biden's on this ticket? And if not, is there any point of difference? Here's what she told Colbert when he asked her that question.

Under a Harris administration, what would the major changes be and what would stay the same? Frankly, I love the American people and I believe in our country. I love that it is our character and nature to be an ambitious people. You know, we have aspirations. We have dreams. We have incredible work ethic. And I just believe that we can create and build upon the success we've achieved in a way that we continue to grow opportunity and in that way grow the strength of our nation. So, for example, my economic policies, I think of it and I've named it as creating an opportunity economy.

So it's about things like investing in small businesses. I love our small businesses. And she went on, Dan, on the view. And when they asked a similar question, she was not able to articulate a single thing. in which she would do differently if it was down to her. So she's wedded completely to everything that Joe Biden did as president. That seems a very, very risky strategy to me, given how unpopular Biden was before he pulled out.

She doesn't say at all how any of her policies would actually help small businesses. I talk to small business owners all the time. The one thing they need more than anything else is less regulation, easier to permit, less taxes. They needed to be easier to create a business. Republican policies do that. And you have to associate the policies with outcomes before you lay any blame or before you give any credit. She can't even articulate what she's even talking about. Nobody knows what her economic policy is based on these answers. And in the end, it's what we actually want is what we got under Donald Trump. I mean, under Donald Trump, you actually had wage growth. And the lowest quintile of earners had

16% wage growth under Biden and Harris? 0% because wage growth didn't outpace inflation. Inflation was created by too much government spending. Do not take my word for that. You can look at the Fed Minutes and their assessment of it, under Biden administration, by the way. And what happened was when you add too much money into the economy, which is in the form of welfare or in the form of corporate cronyism under the IRA

with hundreds of billions of dollars spent that's going to NGOs and nonprofits and venture capitalists that are then going to green renewable energy, what are you going to get? You're going to get massive inflation just like we got under Biden and Harris. That's what people are going to remember. And we can actually associate those outcomes with the policies that they implemented. All right, Tim, surely, Tim, you must recoil a bit when you see the way she responds to those kind of questions. I mean, she literally says nothing.

No, I don't. I don't. I don't because you, this is the thing. You guys don't want to show Donald Trump's answers because they're even more words out. it's lies and it's conspiracies and it's dangerous. And like that's why we're not showing his interviews where he's lying about what's happening with Hurricane Helene right now or any other debate where the Kamala mopped the floor with him. Here's the thing.

Congressman Crenshaw wants your audience to think that the Republican Party right now is the same as it was in 2017 and that the Donald Trump administration will be the same as it was when he brought in a bunch of traditional Republicans to be around him in his cabinet and to work in his staff. I'm sorry, that's just an imaginary world that the congressman wants to live in to feel comfortable. Because the world we live in now is all those people. I'm sorry, Pierce, let me finish. Let me finish. All those people are gone now.

And at the RNC at the box, the people around Trump are Matt Gates, Marjorie Taylor Green, Tucker Carlson, Tucker had a prominent spot to speak at the convention. Congressman Crenshaw did not. This new party is a nativist party that's going to be about mass deportations and tariffs and revenge on Donald Trump's enemies. If you don't believe me, listen to what Donald Trump says. And I just want to know why Congressman Crenshaw thinks that he understands where the party is better than Trump's own vice president, Mike Pence, who assesses this and says, no, this is not someone we can trust. Why does Congressman Crenshaw think that he knows better than Mike Pence

about Donald Trump's character and what kind of policies he would put him on. Dan, do you want to respond to that? Yeah, so I'll just remind everybody that we're about to vote in November. And on your ballot, it doesn't ask you the question of whether Donald Trump is the same as Jesus Christ. That's not what the question is. The question is, do you prefer Donald Trump or do you prefer Kamala Harris? And so any reasonable and objective person is going to look at that question, and they're going to say, okay, well, what things matter to me? Do I want better immigration policy?

Do I want my border to actually have law and order around it? Do I want my cities to be safe? Do I want a peace-through-strength type of foreign policy? Do I want Abraham Accords, or do I want October 7? These guys can't answer this. Do I want a better economy with less regulations? Do I want my oil and gas industry to be pummeled by regulation after regulation? Or do I want my electricity prices to go back down?

That's the question. And that's the question that people are going to be answering. That's a damning non-answer. Mass deportations, a vast majority, a vast majority. That's not a non-answer. I'm the only one actually giving facts here. It is a non-answer. The mass deportation is broadly supported by the.

American people, including Hispanics. Why shouldn't we listen to Donald Trump's vice president as chief of staff? Why shouldn't we listen to my... Ask them. I'm not here. I'm not, I'm not here to answer for them. I'm here to answer for me. Doesn't that alarm you? I'm here to lay this out very simply. You don't feel at all alarmed. You don't feel at all alarmed that the last thing that

alarm me is you're high-pitch-streying the capitol. Let me. Yeah, you know, and you know what happened? You know what happened after that? Because I was there. You know what happened after that? A few hours later, we did our jobs and we got back to business. You know what happened a few weeks later?

Donald Trump moved out of the White House without a word. That's not true. He didn't move out of the White House? Well, no. It's not true because for starters, you didn't go back. Are you confused? Who's shrieking now? For starters, he didn't, you didn't go back to business.

There were votes to overturn the election. And as you said, your colleague to the crews of Texas voted on the side of the rioters. And then Donald Trump didn't go to the inauguration for the first time in history. He went home like a petulant. I want to read something that Dan Crenshaw wrote. Here's Dan. Okay.

So you're mad that he didn't go to the inauguration. That's what it is. He didn't. We didn't have a peaceful transfer of power. He didn't. In every other transition before this, the outgoing president, their team invites the incoming team in. Okay.

This is what we do in a normal democracy. So let me just get this straight. Because he didn't sit there, because he didn't sit there in January and watch President Biden. No, Dan. No, Dan. Because he sat. transition of power that is that is such an absurd statement to make but go ahead read i'm glad you're reading quotes from my book i appreciate it go ahead dan fine then how that's not the sitting there that i care

about how about when he sat there off the oval office for hours watching tv while a mob of people carrying his flag attacked police officers and stormed the capital the president of the united states was not on the side of the capital police he sat there and watched his dvr and he ate his well-done hamburgers and did He did nothing for the Capitol Police that stood there because he was rooting for them to lose. That is not a peaceful transfer of power. That is Donald Trump's behavior that is unacceptable. And honestly, if anybody else in American public life was running against him, I would be for them, including you, including Nikki Haley, who I voted for, including almost all of the elected Democrats. All right.

That was unacceptable behavior, Dan. That was unacceptable behavior. Many people would agree with, I thought that was unacceptable behavior, but let's move forward to you. Congressman? Congressman, was it an unacceptable behavior for you? I don't need to answer these questions again. I did an entire podcast calling it what it was.

At the moment I was calling it what it was. I want to move, anyway, Tim, I want to move to where we are. Talk to somebody else if you want to get to know. Let's move to where we are today. I want to ask Dan about this. This is where Carmelah Harris appeared on The Call Her Daddy podcast and talked about female reproductive rights. Take a look at this.

Here's the thing is that you don't have to abandon your face. or deeply held beliefs to agree, the government shouldn't be telling her what to do. If she chooses, she'll talk to her priest, her pastor, her rabbi, her imam, but not the government telling you what to do. And that's what's so outrageous about it, is a bunch of these guys up in these state capitals are writing these decisions because they somehow have decided that they're in a better position to tell you what's in your best interest than you are and know what's in your own best interest. There's no doubt, Dan, that Trump is doing much better this time in 2020

with African-Americans, with Latinos, with working-class men. But I can imagine quite a few women listening to Carmela Harris talking about stuff like that in the way she talks about it, and thinking, I can vote for that person. I could vote for a first female president. Do you think that is an Achilles' heel for Trump in this campaign? I mean, that's always been a demographic that Republicans, you know, fail to sweep, of course, as younger women. And abortion tends to be one of the issues that comes first and foremost to their minds.

It doesn't mean we're going to change our position on it. I mean, I can argue all day for the pro-life position. I would argue all day that what Kamala Harris is doing is spinning the issue in a very, very dishonest way. We're not talking about somebody's body. We're not talking about doing what you want to do with your body. Unless your body magically suddenly has two different. heartbeats and 10 more fingers and 10 more toes. We're not talking about your body.

We're talking about a separate body. And so there's a human element to this. That's the argument I'll always make about why I'm pro-life. And I think Americans largely agree with that. And 60-70% of Americans believe there shouldn't even be abortions after 12 weeks. Ours is one of the only developed Western countries with abortion laws that go well, well, well past that. And we need to have a better discussion about that as Americans.

and stop gas-side people. Stop with these dishonest descriptions of what abortion actually is. It is killing a baby. It is taking a human life. And that's as simple as that. Now, as far as the politics of it go, they are what they are.

Trump has done his best to navigate that by saying it's a state's issue. To be fair, that's what Republicans have been saying, as we have sought to overturn Roby Wade, so that it can actually be a democratically held decision by the states. And that's exactly what's happening right now. Tim, the thing I have a problem with

with the way Kamala Harris and Tim Walts have come at this is they keep perpetuating the myth that Trump is advocating for a federal abortion ban. He's not. It's unbelievably disingenuous to keep saying that. When they know he's not, he's repeatedly said he's not, everything that I've seen with Trump around abortion is that actually he hovers around the kind of 15-week term limit,

which makes him actually, certainly by Republican standards, extremely moderate. Why do the Democrat leadership keep pretending and lying, frankly, that he wants a federal abortion ban? Look, I mean, I think that some of this is standard politics. I don't actually agree with that. Do we know, have we gotten a clear answer? Trump didn't really give one at the debate. You know, if the Republicans take the Senate in the House this time, which is very possible, Mike Johnson does support it, who would be the Speaker of the House, does support a federal ban. Are we sure Trump wouldn't sign that? I don't think that that's. I don't think that that's. that's out of the realm of possibility.

I would be 100% sure, not least to it, because his wife, Melania, in her new book, has just come out and said the complete opposite. Then we agree. Okay. I mean, here's my point. But Tim, hang on, Tim, you're keen, and I understand why,

you're keen to hammer Trump about not telling the truth and telling lies and so on, and there's no doubt he often tells lies. But when I see Kamala Harris and Timberts both deliberately lying in the way they are about abortion and trying, Trump's intent on that. I think that is also very unacceptable and disingenuous.

Do you agree? Yeah, I guess I wouldn't use the word unacceptable. Look, I think it is a little disingenuous. What I would call it is doing politics. I think the both sides do politics. I think Dan's been doing politics over here on this interview. I don't think it's 100% sure that the Trump administration would. I just think that's to say that you are certain that they wouldn't sign a federal abortion ban.

I think it's a legitimate risk to talk about. But here's the thing. But here's the thing. He doesn't sign a federal abortion ban to charity. The charity. No, here's the thing. $100,000 of your money against my. Let me remind him of something.

Let's remind him as something because I'm in Congress and I know what we vote on and what we don't vote on. The only thing that a Republican majority has put on the floor regarding abortion has been a born-alive bill. To say that if an abatched abortion, if the baby is still alive, you can't kill it. And only but a couple Democrats actually voted for that. And I'm sure that's a normal thing that 99% of people, including yourself, would agree with. That's the only thing that Mike Johnson or Kevin McCarthy, you've ever put on the floor. So you can guess, you can do all the guesswork in the world that you want. All we have to do is look at our own history about what we actually have done on this

issue. And you're going to get a pretty good answer about what we will do on this issue. Yeah, let me turn to, hang on, Tim, I want to move on to immigration, because I think it's another potential big Achilles Hill for Kamala Harris, which is that she, whether people want to admit it now on the left or not, indisputably, was the board. border czar, you know, MSNBC and many other Democrat skewed television pundits and networks and so on, all perpetrated this idea that she was the new border czar, that Biden had put her in charge of sorting out the southern border crisis. And it's clearly been a spectacular failure, which is why they're desperate not to call her the border czar. Now, she was asked again about this on 60 minutes.

Let's take a look. Was it a mistake to kind of allow that flood to happen in the first place? I think the policies that we have been proposing are about fixing a problem, not promoting a problem, okay? But the numbers did quadruple under your watch. Because of what we have done, we have cut the flow of illegal immigration by half. We have cut the flow of fentanyl by half. But we need Congress to be able to act to actually fix the problem. The problem, Tim, is that she can spin it any way she likes,

but the reality is the reality that the southern border remains an absolute basque case of a crisis with unbelievable numbers of people coming in on a daily basis. And it's on her, isn't it? It doesn't remain that way. It's getting better. I'm not going to disagree with your point about that I think there's a legitimate criticism. of the Biden administration in the first few years on the border. But again, I just, I don't think that the other offering is better. The idea that you, that you would trust a Donald Trump and a Stephen Miller administration

to do a mass deportation of tens of millions of people. Do you know who deported, Tim, Tim, did you know who deported? Hang on. Do you know who deported the most people in the history of the United States? Obama deported a lot of people. people. No, no, no, no, not a lot of people. Barack Obama deported over three million people,

which pro-rater made him the biggest deporter of people in the history of presidencies. A Democrat. Barack Obama. Thank you for that fact checked. But I'm not saying I'm against any deportations. Obviously, we need to deport some people. I'm saying that I do not trust the Donald Trump administration

that did child separations that has going to have Stephen Miller in charge of the immigration regime. Obama separated people, kids and kids and families. Yeah, to do a mass deportation. And another good reason not to trust them is you're doing this performative thing where I'm a little bit upset about how Kamala is exaggerating on this or that. But like Donald Trump is making up just flat out lies, inhuman lies, about people that are in this country illegally

and planning to deport them saying he will deport like the Haitian migrants who have legal status here in this country. He went on a national TV stage and said that they're stealing pets from their neighbors and eating them. Like, this is so mean and so inhumane. Think about that Asian kids. I thought that was completely wrong. And I think it backfired.

It backfired, HedDECD for him. But the bigger picture, come to town. How can you trust a person? Can I just say one last thing? I just don't, how can you trust a person like this?

How can you trust a person whose characters like this, who will tell you that he won when he lost, who will tell you that people here legally are eating, pet animals and stealing them who will tell you that we're not helping people who are suffering from Hurricane Helene like he is a bad person that lies and tells cruel and inhumane lies. I mean, all the time.

How do you just bed orange the bad orange man argument? The bad orange man. Yeah, Dan, he's bad. You know who said he was bad? You said that he was an insane idiot. That's that answer. Like literally 2015. So and and see,

You might have gotten the cats and dogs wrong, but you know what's not wrong? Lake and Riley, that's not a fake story. Here in Houston, Jocelyn Nungry, that's not a fake story. These are people who shouldn't have gotten into the country in the first place and then committed horrible rapes and murders. There are tens of thousands of more crimes that have been committed. And people are understandably upset about those crimes. Why?

Because you've already committed a crime before you committed that crime. You came in illegally. And he came in illegally because this administration undid every executive order that Trump had in place to try and fix the problem. And they created a massive, massive new problem. And you say we can't trust Trump. Like, well, again, that's, that's an emotional argument because all we have to do is look at the history of his policies, executive orders. Stop interrupting me. It is an emotional argument because an objective argument would be, okay, what is it, what is somebody going to do?

Well, they already have the job once. So I have a feeling that they're probably going to do the same policies that got the border under control the first time. And they're going to immediately re-implement those policies that got the border under control. How is that an emotional argument? You're making an emotional argument. That's an objective argument based on history. That's based on history. You're saying, I have a feeling.

This is like saying, all right, man, I got hammered at the bar. And I drove 90 miles an hour down the highway. And I spun out and we circled around. and I landed straight. And that means I should just get hammered and drive again because last time we barely survived with only a little insurrection. We had a mild insurrection.

Look, Dan, character matters. You know that. I'll help you out. I'll help you out with your metaphor. Character matters. It does. And a leader of character matters. You cannot lie about people.

You cannot advance racist lies. And you cannot tell people that our elections are fraudulent when they're real. You cannot tell people that that they're, that they're eating pets, that the government doesn't care about you, that the country's going to end, all these lies that he tells. That affects the country, man. So your argument is that you do not, you do not like his character. You've made that very clear. But again, the choice on the ballot is, is, that's fine. But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but,

but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, a question, a yes or no question on whether you think Trump has a perfect character. That's not the question on the ballot. The question on the ballot is about who will do a better job writing in the country for the next four years. And this is a really interesting case where we actually have four years from each candidate, where we know exactly what their policies are going to be and what their outcomes are going to be. And on every metric, Trump wins on those metrics. You may still not like his character.

And I'm not going to try to convince you to. But on the metrics, he wins on every single one. That's not right, though. Name one where he doesn't. The metrics only the metrics only count for him if you stop the metrics before COVID happens because COVID wasn't his fault. I actually agree with this. I don't blame Trump for COVID, but you can't say that all of the job loss that happened, the huge spiking crime that happened in 2020 while Trump was president. You cannot say that that was not his fault because of COVID, but then everything that happened in 2021 on everything, the COVID had nothing to do with any of that. That's all Biden's policies. Look, we have this huge disruption.

that happened under Trump. Of course I can. Of course I can. If you look at just the metrics of crime and jobs, it's better under Biden. Sorry, that's just fast. That was debunked in the last debate that they had on this. Let me switch. On the crime issue.

And look, and you know this very well. Like, you know that across the country, crime is spiking because left-wing district attorneys and left-wing judges are letting criminals out on $1 bonds and they go about and murder. Okay, that what do you mean crime is going down? That was debunked. That was the claim that was made by CBS during the, during the election. And yeah, let's talk about 2020. Was that a bunch of Republicans out there causing $2 billion in damage?

Was that a bunch of Republican rioters? No, but it wasn't a bunch of Biden supporters? No, of course not. Was Trump trying to, was Trump asking governors to put the National Guard in to stop it? Yes, of course he was. All right, was governors like Tim Walls preventing that from happening and allowing Minneapolis to be burned down? Of course he was. why didn't he do that in D.C.?

Again, I agree. The rioting was bad during 2020. The people that were rioting weren't waving Kamala Harris flags. They were Antifa. They were saying they were the same people that say genocide Joe. This is not the Democratic establishment.

There were Trump flags over the Capitol as cops were getting attacked. Trump flags over the Capitol as cops were getting attacked. That was Donald Trump's fault. He said there. You were saying, you were talking about Trump. You refused to talk.

You refuse to deal with that. We've already done generally sick. You're not with that. I want to turn chaps to foreign policy. Dan, with your military record, I'd be interested in what you feel about this. There are obviously going to be three big issues, it seems to me, for the incoming president, whoever that is. One, the Russia-Ukraine war. Secondly, the Israel war with Hamas, now Hezbollah, and potentially a war directly with Iran.

Who would be, obviously, I know this. that you would say Trump. But from a military perspective, who do you think the members of the American armed forces would feel more comfortable about having, at the helm, given these three, and of course, the ongoing threat of China, given these big geopolitical issues are raging right now?

Yeah, you predicted what I'm gonna say, and I'm gonna say it. And I know that based on the troops' reactions to Trump, himself. I'm still in very close touch with my own friends, most of which are still active duty. These are people who are going to support Trump. They like the four years under Trump. We didn't make a lot of huge errors. We went after the bad guys in strategic ways. I mean, Trump escalated against ISIS in Syria and pulled back. That's usually what people want to see. Under Trump, we had the Abraham Accords. We were making extreme progress towards peace in the Middle East.

You had a maximum pressure campaign on Iran. We were not soft on Iran. We didn't pay them off in the hopes that they would provide a better future. No, instead we killed one of their generals, Soleimani, which was justice for a lot of Americans, that he was responsible for killing. We said openly that we supported Israel. No questions asked. He told Putin, do not invade Ukraine.

And by the way, gave Ukraine the javelins and the stingers, and they're the only reason that Kiev wasn't taken by Russian tanks because of the... those weapons that the Obama administration had refused to give them. We didn't pull out of Afghanistan, right? And people like to blame Trump, well, you would have pulled out. Well, he didn't. And we didn't give up that strategic base in Boggham that was close to China, Pakistan, ISIS, keeping the Taliban at bay.

All of those bad foreign policy decisions happened almost immediately after Trump left. And so when you ask American military service members who they prefer, they tend to prefer the guy that actually means what he says when he says peace through strength. And I get like a lot of people on my side don't understand the strength part. You know, you mentioned Tucker Carlson. Not a fan of his, okay? He's one of them. He doesn't get the strength part.

But Trump does. And that's important. I think the people coming in on the national security front back into this administration are very much adults in the room. Mike Pompeo, Robert O'Brien. These are good people who truly understand the nature of the world and do not see it through these star-eyed glasses that I think the Obama administration did and this last administration did. Yeah, I mean, Tim Miller, when I hear Carmelah now suddenly boasting about being a gun owner and firing off her weapons, it all sounds a little bit desperate to try and present herself as a potential commander-in-chief, who at least knows how to fire a gun.

There can't be much doubt, though, that Carmelha Harris, she doesn't instill in me, and I'm sure she wouldn't in you, a sense of being a natural commander-in-chief, does she? It feels like something that for you and your therapist, I think, peers, because she does seem like that to me. I mean, she was in full command. Again, in a debate with Donald Trump, he had plenty of opportunities to demonstrate why she would not be strong

on the national stage and national security, and he didn't do it. And if you just listen to our allies, many of them, certainly in private conversations, would feel much more comfortable with Kamala Harris and her experience going to the Munich Security Conference and elsewhere. So, look, again, Tucker Carlson,

who, this is a person that me and Dan agree on, does not have smart foreign policy. He was influential in picking Trump's VP. He's going to be influential in who is around Trump. Trump's national security team from the first term that Dan keeps praising don't support him. His secretary of defense is national security advisor, his former general chief of staff, his chairman of the joint chiefs, none of them support him. So I think it could be a very different second term when it comes to Donald Trump.

And then you just look at his behavior when he's been on his own. when we have the Woodward book, where we've learned this week, that he's had maybe up to seven private one-on-one conversations with Putin during this period where Putin invaded a Democratic ally. That is deeply alarming. He was sending Putin back channel COVID tests, apparently. I think that the risk here is very high. I kind of agree with Dan that I thought his foreign policy was pretty good the first couple of years,

but the people that were executing that plan are not coming back. There's going to be a new group of. of more nationalist, more isolationist people. And Trump says this himself. He says, I know who the MAGA people are now. So I would be deeply alarmed about the second term, and I'm deeply alarmed about his relationship with Putin that has been reported between 2021.

I mean, all over the same about his original. And I was deeply alarmed, finally speaking just on a public thing, even if you don't buy the Woodward, he stood next to Zelensky and talked about how great his relationship with Putin was. I just think across the board, I would be deeply. We've been noted, though, Tim, that Putin didn't pull any stunts under Trump.

He only pulled them when Trump was out of office. And I do think there's something about Trump's way with dealing with these leaders of Russia and China and North Korea, which is oddly quite effective. I do. I think that's kind of a child of any stunts on his watch. I mean, it may be coincidence, but it didn't. Yeah, it's kind of like saying that 9-11 happened. Sorry, down. Well, yeah, I mean, again, we're just engaging in guesswork here when all we have to do is look at four years of history.

And you see all these people are gone, but they're not gone. Mike Pompeo is not gone. They're not supporting it. And again, Robert O'Brien is not gone. Yes, they are. Did you hear the name they just said? Not a secretary of defense. High likelihood they'll be in the administration.

Neither of his national security advisors are supporting him, Dan. Dan, neither of his national security advisors. Neither John Bolton nor H.R. McMaster are supporting a less of a fact. Robert O'Brien is definitely supporting Trump. I think you're confused on that. Okay, let's move on. And Robert O'Brien sees things the way we see. You're engaging in total guesswork.

You're engaging in total guesswork, and all I have to do is compare four years to four years and show people what that looks like. Let me move on to Elon. I want to move on to Elon Musk, who leapt around the stage with Trump at a rally back at the scene, of course, of the assassination attempt.

Let's take a look at this. He created the first. Major American car company and generations and his rocket company is the only reason we can now send American astronauts into space. Come here. Take over, Elon, yes. Take over. Hi, everyone.

As you can see, I'm not just MAGA, I'm Dark MAGA. What is Dark MAGA, Dan? Do you know? I actually don't know. What do you make of Elon Musk? He's all in, he says now. for Trump. Is that helpful to Trump or is that going to whip up more anti-Trump sentiment as well at the same time? I don't see what kind of anti-Trump sentiment it would whip up. I do think it's

helpful. I think, look, I mean, Elon's a major figure in U.S. culture and politics. Some people love them. Some people hate them. But I think a lot more people like him and at the very least they respect him and they respect his judgment. I mean, this is a guy who's built multi-billion dollar companies He's very successful. He's extremely smart. And I think people view him as pretty objective as well. And so to see him pushing for Trump, which is, which at first might seem outside of his more even-keeled personality, but he's doing it because of policies. And this is again what I always come back to.

We can talk about character flaws in every politician, including me, that will ever run for anything. And those character flaws are real because none of us are perfect. and maybe the little more less perfect than others. But in the end, there are policies and there are outcomes associated with those policies. And I think somebody like Elon Musk is looking at that. What is good for America? What is good for American innovation? What is good for our role as leaders around the world? And what is good for our economy?

A guy who knows, I think, a little bit about economics. And he's saying, these policies from Kamala Harris are bad. These policies from Donald Trump are much better. It's as simple as that. Yeah, Tim, I mean, he is all in for Trump. in for Trump and it's not an insignificant endorsement. He's got one of the biggest platforms in the world now as the owner of X. Are you concerned that that may help tip things Trump's way? I think it helps Trump. I think it's super significant. The only thing that concerns me with

Elon Ridley is the recklessness with which he, like for example this past week was sharing false information about how the FAA was banning recovery planes and groups that wanted to come in and help with the recovery of Helene. He was spreading a bunch of false stuff about how the FEMA is blocking that, which is untrue, until the Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg just had to call him and give him the facts.

That's a little alarming that he's engaging in that, but I do think he helps Trump. I do just because Congressman has kept coming back to this, if you don't mind, I'd just like to say very briefly, that he ended the last answer by saying that his argument is stronger because if you just look at the four years. And again, I do just need to remind us

that kind of just assumes, is acts as of 2020 didn't happen because Donald Trump left the White House in 2020 with record unemployment, with crime skyrocketing, and with blood of police officers on our Capitol. That's how he left and went back to Marlago. That's how he left. I think if you objectively look at those four years, I think you can see why his character flaws and his policy failures really, but mostly why his character flaws led to bad outcomes. And I got cut off earlier, but Dan wrote this in his book.

He wrote that a culture characterized by self-pity, indulgence, outrage, and resentment is a culture that falls apart. And I think that's true about a country and a party, that if you're led by someone that is full of self-pity, indulgence, outrage, and resentment, that describes Donald Trump better than anybody, anything I've ever heard, actually. I think that is going to lead to a country that falls apart. I think we saw that with the chaos surrounding the election and COVID as Trump left office and I think that we would see a similar chaos again if we put them back in.

Dan, final word to you in response to that. Yeah, I mean, I mean, one thing to say is you keep blaming Trump for skyrocketing crime under the last year when COVID ravaged the world. We're one of the few countries that I think came out of that much better off than others. And to the extent that certain states didn't, and the data all shows this, to the extent that certain cities had worse crime and worse out, comes under COVID. It's because they are run by Democrats who kept their businesses locked down too long and also did not enforce the law against criminals that were rioting in the streets. Now, you cannot blame

the president for that. And you know that because you know your civics lessons pretty well. You know that and yet you're making a dishonest argument and trying to lay that blame on trust, on Trump. You have to be objective about whose fault something is. And even with all of that, the reality is that Biden took control of an economy that it was already back at pre-pandemic GDP levels. With jobs massively, it's false? Fact check it. It is not false. I never say anything that I haven't fact check it.

Go look at the January 20201 number. It was back at, January 2020, unemployment was back at pre-pendemic, real GDP. No, I didn't say unemployment. I said real GDP. Unemployment was back down to 6% from 11%. It was well on its way in a recovery phase. That's what happened. And then the Democrats shoved through the American Rescue Plan almost $2 trillion dollars in just welfare spending,

massively increasing demand in an environment where supply was not ready to catch up, and you wonder how you get 9% inflation. Okay? So I'll be happy to give you civics and economic lessons all day long. And you mention my book. Look, that thing that I'm worried about, the pity and the Indian self-indulgence and the sense of resentment, yeah, that's true across all populist movements. The left is the definition of a populist movement, because what do I mean by that?

Telling people what they want to hear instead of the truth. And that's the Democrat way. Hey, something else is your fault. Somebody else is at fault. Maybe it's because they're a different gender or a different skin color, but they're at fault for your problems. You're not at fault for your problems.

So here, here's a free check. Just vote for me. That's populism. And it's bad. It doesn't matter who's doing it. It's bad. And we should, as Americans, understand that and not fall for it,

not fall for this idea that we should burn it all down and destroy everything because the other side is so evil. Okay. Well, you know what we've reached a point. I think we've reached a point, gentlemen. I have four years to look at how we governed and I'm comfortable with.

We have a point where Tim Nodson says... Don't call for it, Dan. Do the right thing. Where Tim Nodson says, I agree, it feels like a good moment to end this. Actually, rather civilized debate, and I appreciate the respectful way you've gone about it. Thank you both very much indeed.