Real Time with Bill Maher - Overtime – Episode #674: Tim Alberta, Laura Coates, Buck Sexton

Episode Date: October 15, 2024

Bill Maher and his guests answer viewer questions after the show. (Originally aired 10/11/24) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to an HBO podcast from the HBO late-night series, Real Time with Bill Maugh. All right, here we are. Staff writer at The Atlantic. His latest book is called The Kingdom, The Power and the Glory, Tim Alberta. She is CNN's chief legal analyst who anchors Laura Coates live on CNN, Laura Coates. And he hosts the nationally dedicated radio program, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show, Buck Sexton. All right. Okay, here are the questions from the people.

you think of Obama's comments on the campaign trail that black men should get over their reluctance to vote for Kamala, will that be effective? Yeah, he was pretty scoldy. I, you don't usually see him like that. You usually see him to kind of take this opposite. I think Wall Street Journal

and the New York Times, Paul most recently, has overall black support for Trump, over 20% by the way. I think it might have been his last... That's just men. I'm sorry, men, but we're speaking about the Obama speaking to the issue of black men, support of Kamala Harris. So Trump is making inroads with that demographic voting-wise.

He oddly does better each time with immigrants, minority groups, people have called the people who you... Maybe it's not so odd. I mean, it tells me that the Democrats are a little bit nervous, right? When you're losing 4 to 1, you're still losing badly. You are. Come on. It's just relatively, yeah. I mean, he... I mean, Democrats seem perhaps there's anxiety, but there's also the realization that I think people are criticizing Obama because there is blame to go around

for why people choose not to support a particular candidate. It might be sexism, it might be racism, it might be other factors as well. So I think to single out a particular group has ruffled some feathers. Having said that, if you're part of the group that believes you should not vote for someone on account

of those factors, then perhaps the scolding could be doled out more diplomatically, but you should hear it as well. But what is the attraction? To Obama? I can dwell on. No, no, to Trump. Machismo. Yes.

Yeah. Thank you. Yes. He's a baller. Success. Alpha dog. The whole thing. That's, that is the appeal.

I mean, every time people have this, it's like, the guy was, he's a billionaire, he's a global celebrity, he's been president. He's married to a supermodel. Yeah. And, I know, Democrats need to stop thinking that this is some big shock. Who doesn't want to commit crimes and not go to jail? Ah. We didn't even talk about law fair anyway. We didn't even talk about law fair.

But you didn't realize. Just think about where we are as society, that the criteria for being the president of the United States, but where we dare to say the leader of the free world, our president, is somebody that you are drawn to simply because of bravado, not because of policy, not because what they can do for you, not just your neighbor, what they can do for you and beyond.

That's really what's a devolution of what we think about in terms of what it looks like. On the sexism, racism thing, which we're going to start hearing a lot as the polls get worse for Kamala. The Democrat Party, overwhelmingly. Democratic Party. Sorry. Sorry.

I don't know why that's such a burn. I don't know. It's not a burn. No, but like all Republicans do that. I don't know why they think that's such a burn. I honestly, I've never heard anyone who cared about it before. This is the first time. Really? Yeah.

Really? Yeah. It just seems so. It's just. Your listeners haven't. I was like maybe a few here and there, but it's kind of a potato potato situation. I know, but it just seems. I don't get a shit.

Yes, of course. The point I was trying to make is the Democrat part, it is possible. Sorry. The Democratic Party, it is possible that Kamala Harris just is not good at this. And Democrats recognize that in 2020. And to say racism, sexism right now, after the performance she's put on, is just preposterous. And many people are voting for the Republic Party for that reason. But... That's funny. What did you make of Malania's new book where she indicates that she is pro-choice?

I didn't read that about her book. I read a few things about her book. I don't know why she's putting out a book. I thought she was like super privacy. I don't care what first ladies think about policy as a rule. Like I don't, that doesn't, I mean that. Democrat, Republican, First Lady, very nice, hopefully do some good charity work.

Or First Husband, Doug M. Off. No, it's true. They're not elected officials. I don't care what they think about it just because they're married to somebody who's been given a lot of power to represent people. So I would just say it doesn't matter to me. There's a lot of scuttlebutt in the news this week about Doug.

Believe all women, except when it comes to one who says that someone hit her across the face. Right, well, of course, we don't know if that's true. She says that it happened. I'm not saying that it happened. I'm just saying that the standard used to be believe all women. If people don't know what is going on it, the Daily Mail is reporting that three women that she talked to contemporaneously,

which has been the standard very often in these cases, that she said back in, I think, 2011 or something, they were at the con film festival. He slapped her. He thought she was flirting with the valet. And he knocked up the nanny, right? That's confirmed. That's confirmed. He definitely knocked up the nanny.

Yes. You know? But, no, I don't know. Nobody ever knows. Toxic masculinity. Okay. What I'm saying is if this becomes more credible, and we don't know yet. I mean, a lot of the conservative outlets still aren't reporting it.

So I wouldn't go after anybody for not reporting it yet because these things have to be checked out. But if it becomes more credible, certainly on the level of Brett Kavanaugh, which was, that kind of thing was reported by everybody pretty quickly. Does the liberal media keep ignoring it? Yes, they will. Absolutely. Wouldn't that make it look worse? Well, first of all, I think that, I mean, just to your point,

yes, it is prudent to be cautious about any story that's reported until you have the supporting details so that the audience is able to effectively judge the veracity of a statement. I think is fair to investigate and look into matters that involve allegations of assault or otherwise. I think that's fair to do so. What I don't think is fair is to, and I'm consistent on this on all accounts, is to tar and feather without more. I think you have to give information to people and you have to actually do your homework and background. I don't think by not reporting, and I, again, I'm not familiar with all of the allegations that are involved here,

but I think it is appropriate to investigate as it is appropriate to be cautious before you, simply put something into the ether that has no substantiation. Just be clear, though. Just politically speaking, this is a problem for the Harris campaign, in large part because she is so ill-defined. We see that in poll after poll after poll for months now, right? Americans are trying to fill in the gaps around her, around her family. This is an issue for the campaign that they're going to have to deal with now

in the last four or five weeks of the election. And I'm just saying regardless of whether more people come forward, regardless of what's confirmed or not confirmed, I think that there is now a little bit of blood in the water. The nanny thing was the first drop and now there's some more. And it's not going to be long now. I can guarantee you that there are investigative teams at the Times and the Post and elsewhere that are looking into it. The Daily Mail also had that he was basically the worst kind of office sexist predator guy. Daily Mail reported on that based on interviews for people who work in his law firm. So again, these are allegations.

I understand this. I do think it's very convenient that allegations, you know, demand more study, demand more evidence when it's really important for a Democrat that we don't all say, hold on a second. This guy seems like a huge jerk, and he is being used as a surrogate on the campaign for masculinity and talking about great things are. To be perspective here, he is not going to be president, and the guy on the republic side who's running for president did these things himself. I mean, certainly was accused by more... I mean, there was so many women who said he did. But, yeah, you know, he had, in part, at least in one instance, talking about due process in a court of law.

It was a civil matter in one instance. It was a criminal matter in another, and you have more pending. So it's not as if that only that grace, so as it is afforded to a Democrat, that's part of what the process has been when you're looking at, as you call lawfare of someone like Trump and many other. Republicans and Democrats alike who have had accusations floated and have had to confront them. Lazzang sur-gillet,

puissance-moleaned for 15 minutes. We're like to dojo. Live the pleasure with Leo Jo. The casino in line that proposes the more recent machine-assoo and games of casino in direct. Profite of 50 tours gratu on Big Bass Bonanza.

Without exigance of mis, and with the payments instantane. Hey, I've gained. Woo-hoo! Sonture the pleasure. Play-O-Jo. 188 and plus, First depot, only, exclude in Ontario.

50 tours gratuys on a machine-ass-bonanza. Depos minimum of $10. Veil to play a way to fashion responsible. The conditions is applicable. We'll say, in the phone, all the world can be a guy of the finance. Not to have a gross monger in art, to play to golf,

nor to be an pro of the crypto. Not even though, you have always made these affairs. And the apply, negotiator, T-D, you add to renouye with your instinct of negotiation. With the support 24-hour-pard-pard, no amount of minimum,

or not even free mensuel. You're made for negotiate, and the appellee Negoti's titre T-D is made to use to help. Telecharge it right now. The ride that steals

the spotlight every time it hits the road, that's the Volkswagen TIG-1. Its sleek exterior makes a first impression you can't ignore. Step inside to find available

full leather seats and wood accents. Under the hood, the available 201 turbocharged horsepower engine gives it a fun to drive edge. The refined Tiguan,

You deserve more style. Visit vW.ca to learn more. SUVW, German engineered for all. Well, I mean, for example, there were all, it was, there was mountains of evidence against Hunter Biden, and we were told, hold on, hold on, hold on. I mean, the guy broke a whole bunch of different laws and actually should have gone to prison for a long time,

but he was Joe Biden's son. No, he stood trial. No, he stood trial after the political pressure was ratchett up so much when they had already let a number of the most serious crimes, including money laundering lapse from the statute of limitations. So, but hold on the lawfare thing. Just because this is important, we didn't get to this at all today. What is more likely that Donald Trump went almost 80 years of his life,

never once having a criminal indictment because he's a guy who... He was president. Things changed. Well, I mean, all of a sudden, he's never committed a felony, and then he's running off his president and the circumstances are the same? No, well, they're going after things that were long before he was president. But, okay, fine. If you don't like that argument, there's one other argument.

They held all of these charges until the... Election. It is clear. All of the indictments, I mean, and sure of the election year. They absolutely did. Except the dressing room, right? Which they extended the statute of limitations. And then she was funded. The whole thing was a hit.

All the other ones have to do with he was in office. He was the president. He asked for civil trial for Trump. I mean, there was a civil thing with the Trump founding. There are so many that is hard to know. The nature of the investigations dealt with factual allegations that surrounded his term in office and beyond. Yes, there is a reason he.

He was never investigated for having interfered with the presidential election because he wasn't running. You also can't have it both ways because when the House moves to impeach Trump on January 13th, the cry from the right is, where's the due process? Why are you moving so fast? What's the deal? But then when Merrick Garland chooses to take his time and be deliberate in bringing these indictments, Republicans are saying, oh, you're dragging your feet now to wait until it's election season. So which is? I mean, I hope you do sports betting or something because the idea that a number of... of these different cases,

none of these, all of these charges involved conduct that was what, I mean, all of them, there's all these four different criminal cases at least four years ago. You're going to tell me that all this had to wait

until the election year to bring the charges? You're going to tell me that Jack Smith. Jack Smith, for those who don't know, was moving at lightning speed with the help of Judge Chutkin in D.C. They were moving, ask any federal prosecutor, ask anybody who has actually

looked at how long... I'm just talking about timelines, by the way. The whole thing was meant to kneecap him before he could actually get to election day, and it was meant to destroy him for political reasons in an election year. And yet it's only helped him. And yet it's only helped him. It is the biggest own goal the Democrats have ever had in their lives.

But let's ask a federal prosecutor. One's here. Why this was delayed in part was not simply a matter of proactive or affirmative motions by the prosecution. There was a defense team in multiple different jurisdictions who were filing motions to then delaying. and ask for delays and delay after delay. If the calendar had been such that what the prosecution alone wanted,

you would have had earlier resolution, at least in form of trial. Not necessarily a conviction, but he's filed motions to defend himself, and that has also delayed the calendar. Hold on. There are four different criminal proceedings against Donald Trump, okay? Four of them. Yeah. And there's New York, there's D.C., there's Atlanta.

There's Florida. Florida's been tossed out, by the way. So that's what a great trial. That's what a great case that was. By a real Trumper of it. But, you know, but you can't have it both ways. I mean, Judge Chuck can clearly hates Trump and was sending January 6th, some of them nonviolent detainees into the prison system for like 18 months. Can I ask you a more philosophical question?

Because there are people who are watching this who, I know people, because I live in Los Angeles and Hollywood and all that. And they will say, why are you even talking to him? And I just have no patience for people like this. They can kiss my ass. I will talk to you all day. First of all, half the country agrees with you. Are they all going to self-deport? court if one of the people...

No, and honestly, could I... First of all, thank you for that. And I just would add to it, like, the people who are saying that he's Hitler and the country's going to end, it's not true. It's going to be okay. He's already been president. If he becomes president again, you'll probably have a Democrat who comes around in four years.

It's not the end of the republic. Let's start... It could. You want to start... I know you got a bankroll, buddy. You know what I hear stories. I do. I do. That's my meds. Okay.

No, well, first, he could. Absolutely, he's too erratic. There's just no way you can say he's not going to do this and not going to do that. It's not going to destroy the country. He's going to do a great job, actually, but you don't agree with you. What's your definition of destroying the country? Is sabotaging the peaceful transition of power, the hallmark of American democracy? Is sabotaging that not in service of destroying the country?

I mean, how else would you define it? Joe Biden became president and has that four years, and the country has marched on, and everything has been fine. And the January 6th, which we didn't talk about, I know there's a lot of things to talk about. But, you know, there's a part of this that's left out. You know, I do have a lot of Democrat friends and Democrat people that I talk. I know this is on.

I have co-hosted. I have co-hosted. I'm going to throw them up the bus. I have co-hosted shows with Mark Lamont Hill have co-hosts. No, but I'm just saying. I was going to say something nice about you before. Oh. No, I was just going to say. No, look, these people who don't want me to talk, and they don't want you to talk to anybody who they don't already

agree with it isn't on this side. And first of all, you have done more for this country than I have than all of those people have, and I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Anyone who fought for this country? Well, CIA, but I tried to help out of it. CIA is pretty rough. We do lose people. It's a real thing. It's not the PTA. Yeah, it is not the PTA. But thank you for that. Yes, absolutely. But the frustration people have, though, to be fair, is not, it's not your presence, which is not, I mean, I'm sorry to say that much. I just thought in like one minute. I'm like, Only because he asked, because this is part of the frustration. Tim asked you a question.

You didn't answer it. I was about to, actually. No, no. No, I mean, I can. That was the frustration. He asked you what was definition of destroying the country. Is there a certain standard? I mean, that's a pretty broad question, to be fair.

Well, welcome to the land of broad. Right. And that's, that's the frustration. Sorry, though. What I was going to say is that January 6th is held in a concept. First of all, I condemned January 6th as it happened. every day since it's happened, the people who broke laws

and hurt people and committed federal crimes should pay the price for that. I've never waived from that. It's absolutely the case. I don't believe Donald Trump broke any loss. What is the law that Donald Trump broke? And by the way, whenever I say this to people, they look at me and they say... That's a problem perhaps with the law.

Okay, but I mean... And I'm not even talking about January 6th itself. To me, that was never... That's a bit of a red herring. The thing that he did so wrong is the thing he still does every day. He still has not... ceded that election. He did not

concede that election and you are fomenting something in this country that is unprecedented. So here's the context and this is where I'm trying, I swear I'm trying to come around to your point and that is that the 2020 election cannot be taken out of the

context of a 2016 election that Hillary at different times absolutely did not concede that some of my unfortunately former bosses in the intelligence community working with the Democrat Party decided to bring this absurd The Russia collusion investigation was insane. Nothing came out of this.

There were no charges out of this. The whole thing was a scam. And Hillary didn't accept that she had lost the election in the early days afterwards. Now, she showed up to the inauguration. No, she showed up the inauguration. She showed up that night. Before the cock crowed, she conceived. But there was also, in 2020, in 2020, there is a...

I got your boy in now. In 2020, January 6th was a... riots, riots are bad, riots are illegal, that should not happen. It came after months of riots that were effectively a Democrat mobilization of the BLM party. Well, I mean, I lived on my, I was on my block, and people came around, they shattered all the windows, they stole stuff, and yeah, this is for social justice. And then there were people who were boarding up their stores because they were afraid that if Donald Trump won that election, then in cities across America, there would be rioting. So the election was effectively held under a degree of duress to begin with, and Democrats were all in

favor of the riots, not only in favor of the riots that were going on, but we had the public health experts during COVID saying, oh, it's so important that we had these lunatics running around breaking things and letting them on fire, that all of a sudden the public gathering statutes or, you know, public gathering ban don't matter. When does that comment? I mean, when are these experts you're talking about? This absolutely happened. I mean, any of you can go check it out. This absolutely. This absolutely. One of the things that's exhausting, frankly, is that, and this is, this is real, is that over-talking does not make your argument more persuasive.

That's what's happening here, Buck. I'm not over-talking anybody. I'm letting you ever talk about it. You're absolutely not over-talking right now. Exactly. That was sarcasm. Oh. No, no, no. My response to you weren't over-talking me with sarcasm. My point is this. You're saying all these different aspects of it of how, you know, you're conflating January 6th with BLM, with health experts, and you have, you have actually just said that the election was held under duress. Yeah.

In what specific ways was the election held under duress? Because people were concerned about the trajectory of America and they felt that they had to turn out. Dorese is actually a legal term, and you know this quite well, in terms of how it be used from your background, the CIA, and otherwise, to suggest that our democracy, that people were turning out simply because they were under duress, that's the kind of fomenting of dishonesty that makes people, A, feel very disenchanted with the entire process. B, make them frustrated by the lunacy of simply bald assertions with no substantiation, and C, wonder where you're getting your information from.

All of those are valid points that you have to address. Before you go out and just say, this is all happening and everyone sees it, when everyone does not see what you're seeing. Well, I may respond. What you said ignored everything that I said before you started talking, which is that there were riots all through the summer of 2020, And there were business owners who were, and there are photos of this. You can see this.

This is very obvious. This isn't like I'm coming up some conspiracy that were boarding up their businesses, because, God forbid, if Donald Trump wins. There was psychic damage done to the American people by a combination of the COVID hysteria, which it was hysteria in a lot of context, by the way. We don't have time to get into everything in COVID here right now. Schools should have been open. The mask mandates were bullshit.

The lockdowns were absolutely pointless. was all total garbage. Beyond that, there was a sense that the left gets to riot, and Kamala Harris raises money for them when they're supposed to get out on bail in Minnesota. They burned down Minneapolis. Why? By the way...

I'm not clear on what any of this has to do with sabotaging the transition of power. How did we get to this point? You just changed. You just changed. I was talking about the election. I'm talking about what happened on January 6th. I'm talking about what happened leading up to November.

I'm talking about November 3rd through January. I've studied election law in all 50 states. I know better than either of you, no offense. What happened in the election and what didn't happen. I wasn't talking about anything after November. The election hell. I haven't know. There's lots of important things to get to.

Do you think the Menendez brothers deserve to be parole? There we go. Catch all new episodes of real time with Bill Maher every Friday night at 10 or watch them anytime on HBO on demand. For more information, log on to hbio.com. com.