The Adam Mockler Show - I Left MAGA Host SPEECHLESS on CNN

Episode Date: December 24, 2025

Adam Mockler with MeidasTouch Network takes on MAGA Host Scott Jennings on CNN's NewsNight with Abby Philip. Shop Adam's new merch collection ➡️ https://shop.adammockler.com/ Click below for premium Adam Mockler content 👉 https://www.youtube.com/@adammockler/join 👉 https://adammockler.com JOIN THE COMMUNITY: Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdamMockler/ Discord: https://discord.gg/y9yzMU3Gff Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adammockler/ Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/adammockler.com/ Twitter: https://x.com/adammocklerr/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@adammockler Contact: [e-mail] Business inquiries: [e-mail] Adam Mockler - Mockler Media LLC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Are you ready to be at the forefront of advocacy and campaigning? NextCampaign Summit is back, live in Toronto on Thursday, January 15th, 2026. Join campaigners, strategists, and changemakers for a full day of expert speakers and panel discussions about the future of campaigning and advocacy in Canada. Visit nextcampaign.captain.ca, to check out the amazing lineup of speakers. Use code Spotify to get 10% off and secure your spot before they're all gone. Canada can be a global leader in reducing the harm caused by smoking, but it requires actionable steps.

Now is the time to modernize Canadian laws so that adult smokers have information and access to better alternatives. By doing so, we can create lasting change. If you don't smoke, don't start. If you smoke, quit. If you don't quit, change. Visit unsmoke.ca. My entire life, Republicans have been targeting minority group after minority group.

Conservatives have been getting rich in gaining power off of this, targeting immigrants, targeting LGBTQ people, women. It's been Somalis, Haitians. But the second that certain MAGA commentators are now the subject of this exact type of bigotry, they have a stunning amount of moral clarity about it. Vivek Ramaswami only had moral clarity when anti-Indian American hatred was being spread. Republican Representative Randy Fine has a lot of moral clarity about bigotry when it's against Tim. But the way that he talks about Zohran Mamdani, the way he talks about Ilhan Omar is incredibly contradictory. You can't just stop bigotry from entering your movement when it's hitting you. You have to stop it at the door.

Do you know who Paul and Gracia is? Sure. Do you know who Paul and Gracia is? Yeah, we've debated it. Do you know what, okay, so do you know what Paul and Grascia said? Yeah, we've debated it. That he has a Nazi streak? Oh, you've debated it, but has Trump fired him or is he still a part of the administration?

I don't know where he is right now. He's a part of the administration. And you know that. You're lying right now. You know that he is a part of the administration. He is still there, and he said he, quote, has a Nazi streak. So you can sit there and play coy, but you are not having the clarity that you are talking about right now. Do you condemn Paul and Gracia?

Hey, everybody, Adam Ackler here. I just got back from a very heated debate on CNN, and this might be the best one yet. You're going to want to watch this until the end. And if you want to help boost the message, make sure that you drop a like below and make sure you're subscribed to the Adam Ackler feed. Thank you all. And check this out. The FBI back in July released this memo that I was reading where they made a few claims that were just blow. out by the Trump administration.

First of all, they said that, or blown out by the DOJ, they said that releasing any more files would require releasing child pornography. Then they said there was no evidence linking anyone else to the scheme other than Jeffrey Epstein and Geelaine Maxwell. After Congress forced the release of tens of thousands of files, we now know the FBI

was lying. Pam Bondi also lied on Fox News. She said she had the files on her desk. She was going to release them. So the entire priority of this administration has been off. The DOJ had a few goals. They said they have to release all of the files with reasonable redactions. They did neither of those things.

They didn't release all the files. They're drip-feeding them, and the redactions weren't reasonable. It was over-redacted in some parts, and as we just saw, under-redacted in other parts, and victims were exposed. And they had plenty of time to do this right. Yeah.

And I think that's one of been... That's been one of the concerns and the complaints of the victims is that they never heard from DOJ about how to do this in a way that centered their needs for justice and all of this. which is purportedly what DOJ says that they were trying to protect.

But it seems like Trump is also concerned about protecting, I don't know, other people who were palling around with Jeffrey Epstein. I don't like the pictures of Bill Clinton being shown. I don't like the pictures of other people being shown. I think it's a terrible thing. I think Bill Clinton's a big boy. He can handle it. But you probably have pictures being exposed of other people

that innocently met Jeffrey Epstein years ago. many years ago. And so to Nina's point, he's not wrong that there are some people who are photographed there, maybe they went to a concert and event, weren't involved in the larger scheme. But Bill Clinton has been targeted by Trump officials in the last few days. And his spokesperson said, we're not afraid of this being released. Please release at all. It seems that the only person who really doesn't want more released is President Trump.

Well, President Trump came out a few weeks back and was actually in support. of releasing the files and having everything be out there. I think that what the president's point here is a presumption of innocence until guilt, right, to not jump to any conclusions. But I would say we've got to extract the politics out of this whole thing. And as everyone at the table agrees on, the main point of this is getting justice for the victims and ensuring that we do it correctly. And Abby, I agree with your point.

I agree with your point that we've got to protect the victims, keep their names redacted. And even if that does mean over redacting until we, are sure, you know, what we have and what we're releasing is there. But I'm not going to go down the road of injecting politics into something that shouldn't be political at all. It's about getting justice and closure for these victims, but also doing so out of respect for the courts, like you said earlier, and having that operating with that presumption of innocence until we have some evidence that someone is guilty through the process of the courts. It's uniquely important to Donald Trump now that there's a presumption

of innocence, but he's willing to proactively say that people like Schiff, people like Letitia James are guilty. Now it's very, very important that we're super careful about what photos we're releasing. I just find it really convenient that Donald Trump is now so worried about this. I go back to the point I made earlier, is that you just tried to re-inject politics in this. You have to separate these two things. There are peoples whose lives are impacted here. I'll start to separate it when Trump's up. Be the leader and show him the way. I'm a 23-year-old. He's a president. This is the, this is the, this is the- that's Adam's go-to.

Wait. He's not wrong. I mean, one of those, one of these two is the president. The president of the United States. Maybe Adam will be a future president. Who knows? But the fact of the matter is, is that this is not about politics. No, it's all. Extract the politics out of it. And you have to do whatever it takes to get justice for these victims. I get that. But I also think that there are people are, I think, rightfully concerned that DOJ is trying to protect one man. Oh, no. And that is Donald Trump. And that concern was heightened when there were photos that were put out and then they were removed from the website and then put back out once there was some outcry about it.

So people, that suspicion is there because, not just because of the words that Trump said under duress, but because of the actions of the president and his administration when it came to this issue. Should there be boundaries? Should someone be able to go up on that stage and say, if you believe these things, you are not. part of our movement. Well, look, my personal view is that this was an event. It's the first big rally since Charlie got murdered. And specifically what Candice has been doing, terrorizing a grieving widow for the last several months with conspiracy theories, some of them wrapped up in this whole Israel nonsense, is nothing short of despicable. And I think Ben was right to call that out. I didn't hear Ben calling for the excommunication or the de-platforming of anyone,

but I do think it's more than reasonable to say, what kind of a movement, allows someone in whose job is to monetize the grief of a widow after she had to witness her husband and the leader of this organization get murdered. I think that's more than in bounds for him to talk about, look, we're a political party and a political movement. We're not a sponge. You don't have to absorb everything that oozes in under the door. I think that was Ben's point. And look, everybody's going to have a right to say whatever they want. It's not about free speech. It's about what sort of speech you want to be identified with. I, for one, don't really want to be identified with someone who is terrorizing a grieving widow.

Yeah, and we'll get to how Vance plays into this, because you mentioned it, but, you know, the New York Times wrote this. And the depths of these Republican divisions has been obscured by two things. Shared affection for Trump and a shared revulsion at the left. But Trump is no longer on the ballot, and there's increased alarm over the new right. These two factors are working together to shrink the Republican intent. Yeah, you said J.D. Vance, his opinion is important. he has had no moral clarity about any of this division whatsoever.

He refused to condemn the young Republican group chat when it came out a few months ago. They were talking about gas chambers. He's refused to condemn Paul and Gracia. He's refused to directly combat the Groyper movement growing. I just think it's my entire life, Republicans have been targeting minority group after minority group. Conservatives have been getting rich in gaining power off of this, targeting immigrants, targeting LGBTQ people, women. It's been Somalis, Haitians.

but the second that certain MAGA commentators are now the subject of this exact type of bigotry, they have a stunning amount of moral clarity about it. Vivek Ramoswamy only had moral clarity when anti-Indian American hatred was being spread. Republican Representative Randy Fine has a lot of moral clarity about bigotry when it's against him,

but the way that he talks about Zohran Mamdani, the way he talks about Ilhan Omar is incredibly contradictory. You can't just stop bigotry from entering your movements when it's hitting you. You have to stop it at the door. This is not courageous for people to speak out. It is self-preservation at this point. When you start up Mamdani, do you believe that Mamdani has shown any moral clarity when it comes to Israel and the attacks on his team?

The day after he was elected, there was a swastika drawn on a window and he immediately tweeted out and condemned it. There is no equivocation between the way there's no equivalent between the way Zoran and J.D. Vance have conducted themselves. Do you think J.D. Vance should condemn McFentz? Should J.D. Vendez. He has. He told him he could eat SHIT. Not on stage. He didn't do on stage in front of the gropers. Today, Momdani got asked, you know, there are people on your transition team who have said it's okay to kill Jews after. October the 7th, and he said, oh, well, you know, we have a diversity of political opinion. I think to throw Mom Donnie in with J.D. Vance is a huge reach. Mom Dani has been the opposite

of morally clear on. Are you joking? Let me ask you this, because I think this is actually, this is actually to Adam's point. If you are willing to condemn Mom Dany for what you just described, again, why would you not condemn conservatives for doing effectively the same thing when you have people like you know, Nick Fuentes who are out there. Are you questioning me about what I've had to say about anti-Semitism? And who should be, you need clarity about people like Paul and Rossia. You about whether you're willing to apply the same principle to Mamdani that you would apply to people in your own party. Are you willing to do that? I have repeatedly on this show said

anti-Semitism has no place in our political discourse and we don't need to be associated with it. So for the people like J.D. Vance who say, oh, well, you know, we have a lot of different viewpoints in the Republican tent, and who am I to say? Who is in and who is not? He just mentioned the Republican group chat. And that was effectively J.D. Vance's point, which is that these are just boys. Boys will be boys. They're just young men. We're not going to denounce them. We're not going to denounce them over little mistakes. Are you okay with that? J.D. Vance is going to have ample opportunity to lead this question. No, but I'm asking about you. I'm asking about you. Are you okay with that?

Let's just say in the same way that you are not okay with MomD. That's what I'm out. I get that J.D. Vance is J.D. Vance. But I'm wondering about you. What is the, what's the principle that you apply to J.D. Vance? Is it the same as what you're applying to Mom D. Donnie? Well, I don't put them anywhere near in the same universe. A. B, look, it is up to us as conservatives to decide who we want to be associated with. I can assure you, we do not want to be associated in any way, shape, or form with Nick Fuentes or anybody approximating what he has to say, period, full stop. it will destroy us if we do it i wish shady vance would say the same thing tim i was going to say i completely agree there's been several leaders in the conservative movement who pushed back on all these talking points about anti-semitism and i will completely agree with scott there is no place

in the conservative movement or in the republican party for that matter for anti-semitism or in those things i do find it ironic though that you compare the vice president who has in fact you your your litmus test was that he went on twitter and you just said the vice president didn't to condemn something from stage from the stage the vice president condemned the group chat we've talked about this on this show and you guys are completely he called this he called second let me finish earlier let me finish okay you you you said that the vice president we did and you guys are mischaracterizing the statements that the vice president made he absolutely came out and condemned and said that there is no place for any comments like that in the republic jay vans said he's going

to warn his kids so some quote unquote scumbag doesn't leak a group chat in a similar way he was implying the person who leaked the group chat was a scumbag. J.D. Vance has had the farthest thing from moral clarity this entire time. And listen, do you know who Paul and Gracia is? Sure. Do you know who Paul and Gracia is? Yeah, we've debated it. Do you know what, okay, so do you know what Paul and Gracia said? Yeah, we've debated it. That he has a Nazi streak. Oh, you've debated it, but has Trump fired him or is he still a part of the administration? I don't know where he is right now. He's a part of the administration, and you know that. You're lying right now. You know that he is a part of the administration. He is still there, and he said he, quote, has a Nazi streak.

So you can sit there and play coy, but you are not having that. clarity that you are talking about right now. Do you condemn Paul and Grascia? I certainly condemn anything. Should Trump fire Paul and Grasia? Okay, so the Republicans just have a problem. They just have a problem. I would say the Democratic Party has a problem as well. Whenever you coddle, bigots, it's going to come back to haunt you. And so Republicans do definitely have a decision to make whether or not, you know,

having free speech is one thing, but coddling people who would cradle bigotry, nurse bigotry, stand up and clap for bigotry, that is a problem. And so now, because the fractions within the Republican Party, which there are some in the Democratic Party too, are having this fight because the promise was that President Donald J. Trump was going to change the material conditions of working class people in the United States of America, and that heretofore has not happened in a way that gives people the relief that they need. And so not, you know, you have these people fighting. But bigots are going to bigot. And so leaders have a responsibility. Is Vice President J.D. Vans going to be the vice president for everybody or for certain people?

Well, first of all, Ben didn't actually bring up Israel in his speech. It wasn't really about... She brought it up. It wasn't really about Israel. So that's number one. Number two, you're very interested in Gracia, who I'm only vaguely familiar with him and they've never met. He said he's on a Nazi streak. But we're all familiar with Mamdani. So I'll ask you a similar question. Do you agree with the phrase, globalize the intifata? No. Okay. So do you condemn Zoran Mamdani for his failure to condemn people who go around chanting this at his rallies and events? It's a false equivalence. Oh, is it?

So you want to, so you want a whole Republicans responsible for a Nazi street? Quote unquote, I was on a Nazi street. We just saw an Australian brother. If you can't condemn it today, all right, and if you can't get more clarity on globalizing antiphata today, you've got a problem. Let me just hit pause because we have more on the other side of this. Next for us, J.D. Vance. You know, the issue with Israel and the Republican Party, we haven't talked much about him tonight. But Trump has been unapologetically pro-Israel, and he's very popular there, and the Jewish people in Israel appreciate him very much.

And so as it relates to his leadership, he's been unequivocal. You know, this connection between Vance and Charlie Kirk is interesting. Charlie Kirk very much supported J.D. Vance, helping get elected to the Senate. His wife has come out and endorsed him for president. If I may, just read a couple of comments. Charlie Kirk said he would, quote, never build a big tent with Nick Fuentes. I don't align with Jew haters. Sorry, I'm not going to put up with Jew hatred in the conservative movement in America.

And Erica Kirk said, what healing factor comes out of hating Jewish people? Nothing. Charlie always would say very clearly Jew hate was brain rot. He would always say it. And so if you believe what is true, which is that Vance has a very strong connection to Erica and the Kirk family, they are long on the record of opposing a line. He is not taking that message, okay? Here's what he said, this is what J.D. Vance said today to a conservative outlet.

He said, let's say you believe, as I do, that racism is bad, that we should judge people according to their deeds and not their ethnicity. Is Nick Fuentes really the problem in this country? He's a podcaster. He has a dedicated group of young fans. Some of them have been shitty to my friends and family, not least Mrs. Vance. Does that annoy me, of course. But let's keep some perspective. For the last 10 years, I've watched half of our political leadership.

go all in on the idea that discriminating against whites and college admissions and jobs is not just okay but affirmatively good. If you believe racism is bad, Fuentes should occupy one second of your focus, and the people with actual political power who worked so hard to discriminate against white men should occupy many hours of it.

Tim, I'm curious. Do you think that that is, I mean, he's basically saying affirmative action is work, worse, D.I. is worse than a Jew-hating, Nazi- sympathizing bigot. Abby, I'm going to go back to the point that we made earlier that I just want, stated very clearly. There is no place for any of these people who hate anyone for the color of their skin or who they choose to love or who they choose to worship in the Republican Party or in the conservative movement. That's very clear.

I want to go to a point that Nina said earlier. The fact of the matter is that we're not. But what about JD Vand? and his leadership. I mean, if he is going to be taking the mantle of President Trump and leading the party, taking the mantle of Charlie Kirk, is this the brand of leadership what I just described there? Those were his words.

To your point, Jady Vance has not only lived a life but has led in a career that condemns these things. You're talking about someone who, wait a second, let me finish. You're talking about someone who's a United States Marine who served with people from all walks of life across the country and served in combat in this country. So this idea that the Vice President all of a sudden doesn't believe these words, you're talking about someone who comes from nothing and built themselves up to be the Vice President of the States.

So the President doesn't just believe these words. He's a little bit of her uniform on those words. So don't give me this idea that the Vice President doesn't believe that we shouldn't have a country that where everybody's welcome. You heard him say it on there. And don't give me this. I'm not saying he doesn't believe it. about Twitter.

You know, the other point I'll make is you talked about, you know, how we weren't applying this properly across the board when it was dead silent, you, dead silent, when Jay Jones, who was going to be the attorney general in Virginia, who's going to be the attorney general of Virginia said that he wants to watch a woman's kids die, get shot so he can urinate on their grave. And you were silent. Me? What are you talking about, dude?

So don't talk to me now. Don't try to lecture us and lecture the American people about equality and what's fair and who should be allowed in the party after your party sat silent after those words and someone is now going to be the chief one. We just listen to Vivek Ramaswami. We just listen to Vivek Ramah Swamie. It's actually sickening and it's angering

because I don't make sense. We just listen to Vivek Ramoswami with a lot of moral clarity. Scott just read off Charlie Kirk and Erica Kirk quotes with a lot of moral clarity. I don't know if you were trying to convince us or J.D. Vance that there's no anti-Semitism. But there's a lot of moral clarity coming from these people,

not from J.D. Vance. Like I'm going to say, He did not condemn the young Republican group chat. You can lie and say he did. He didn't. J.D. Vance has played fast and loose with this movement the entire time because he doesn't want to alienate the grape group movements. Right now, Scott played coy about Paul and Gracia and then took the moral high ground saying that we need clarity about these types of things. You are not providing the type of moral clarity.

Can you say that Paul and Gracia shouldn't belong in the administration? I don't know Paul and Grasio. We had a Nazi streak. If he said that, can you say that? My recollection is when we debated it, I said I wouldn't waste any political capital on someone saying things this stupid. He didn't get that standard-appointed job, but he did get appointed to a... I mean, I personally wouldn't waste any capital on someone who says stupid things. It's not any capital.

It's a job offer being offered and accepted. He works in the administration now. It's as simple as that. It's the season for Christmas music, but since some of us have been listening since Halloween, like myself, there might be an overplayed song. So for tonight's News Nightcap, what is the most overplayed Christmas song for you? Adam, you're up? Listen, Rudolph has got to go.

I feel bad for the guy. I feel bad that his friends bullied him. I'm glad that he figured out the red-nosed thing, but the song is a little bit overplayed at this point. Sorry, Rudolph. That one's not for you. It's 20 years younger than you. Yeah, they shouldn't have bullied that.

As young as you are.