The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Destiny on the Election and the Current Political Scene

Episode Date: September 19, 2024

Steven Bonnell II, commonly known as Destiny, is a prominent figure in the online gaming and political commentary sphere. Renowned for his incisive debates and unfiltered opinions, Destiny has cultivated a large following on platforms like Kick and YouTube. With a background in professional gaming, he transitioned to political discourse, often engaging in discussions on controversial topics with a focus on logic and reason. His blend of gaming, politics, and sharp rhetoric has made him a polarizing yet influential figure in digital media.

This is Live From The Table, the official podcast of the world-famous comedy seller coming at you on SiriusXM 99 Raw Comedy. Also available as a podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Also available on YouTube for a multimedia experience you won't soon forget. Dan Natterman here, comedy seller, comedian. Still hanging on, still hanging on after all these years. I guess I'm grandfathered in. I'm here with Noam Dorman.

Don't be so sure, Dan. The owner of the Comedy Cellar who makes these sorts of decisions. And we're here with returning, now Periel wrote me this intro for him. It says, Destiny, also known as Stephen Bunnell, which is ridiculous, because Stephen Bunnell's his name. You don't say Destiny, also known as Stephen Bunnell, which is ridiculous, because Stephen Bunnell's his name. You don't say Destiny, also known as... It's Stephen Bunnell, also known as Destiny, also known as Mr. Borelli by Norman Finkelstein.

One of 12 monikers I've been assigned by him, yeah. He is joining us. There's a lot going on. He's a prominent political commentator and content creator, and also a gamer, right? That's how you originally became known. I used to be. Okay, well, once a gamer, right? That's how you originally became known. I used to be. Okay, well, once a gamer, I was...

Do you play at all anymore, or just... Unfortunately, or fortunately, I got diagnosed with ADHD formally for the first time last year, and I've been on actual medication for it, so for the past year, I haven't played a single game. Because of meds? Yeah, because I can just sit and read books and stuff.

Oh, okay. Yeah. I mean, I don't feel like I have to have my attention taken by some video game or something. I mean, it seems that was your passion. It reminds me, analogously, somehow

to how I felt when I hit my late 40s and my testosterone level probably fell just enough that I could think of things other than women. No, really. Until then, I could never get through a book. And I discovered a whole new part of my through a book. Like, just like, and I discovered a whole new part of my life.

Anyway. Well, good for you. Okay, former- You can turn him up a little bit too. Former gamer. And there's a lot going on this week. We've got pagers

and walkie-talkies or as the French call it, talkie-walkies. Oh, you got pagers here? Talkie-walkies. No, we have no pagers. Okay. Blowing up all over Lebanon.

We have an ongoing presidential race. We have a continued fallout from our interview with Lord Andrew Roberts about Winston Churchill. I don't know what Noam wants to get into today. Well, what I really want to talk to Stephen about is the election because I don't agree with him. This is a person who, especially on Israel, but on many things that we spoke about last time we were here, I really see eye to eye with him, not just on the conclusions, but even the process of how you got there, which is more significant sometimes in terms of a connection with somebody, like the same kind of, but on the election, I don't always agree with you. Although I would say that I would liken it to two people in the jury room who both agree that the defendant did it, but one may think it was first degree, one may think it was third degree. espionage, blowing up pagers and then blowing up walkie talkies.

We'll have to get your comments on it. Does it, what you have any hot off the press take on it? I mean, there are so many different interesting things to talk about in regards to it. I mean the, I mean on the firsthand, it's, it's a little awesome, but like in the awesome and like the terrifying and respectful sense of the word, like people say God is awesome. The idea that thousands of pagers in a country were rigged to explode. Obviously, the implication being how vulnerable or susceptible are other pieces of technology that are in other countries, especially my country, able to be like, you know, taken over like that. That's kind of spooky. In terms of targeting or war crimes or collateral damage, that's never worth discussing in the

Middle East because literally nobody has any coherent viewpoint on that whatsoever. But for honest minds, I think there's some good questions to ask about, well, if I give you a pager, which Israel in the past has done attacks like these. There was a, I wish I could remember his name. He was, I think it was the named bomb maker in the West bank. And I think it was the year 2000 where Israel passed a cell phone along to, I think it was his uncle. And he ended up passing that phone along to him. And there was,

I think it was 15 grams of like RTX, some kind of explosive. And when they knew that he was on a phone call, they, they detonated it. But with all these pagers, you know how much collateral damage is there. Are there going to be innocent people that are hurt?

Are there children involved? I haven't looked right now at the casualty figures, but yeah. I heard that one girl was killed maybe, or killed one child. But it seems to me that in terms of precision, a precision attack on 2,500 people, you couldn't be more precise than blowing up the terrorists' pagers. If everything is measured these days in terms of terrorist to civilian ratios and people saying three civilians to one is good. This, if this is not precise enough,

what could be more precise? The only thing is I think after Munich, they did it, they, they use snipers. And that was a relative handful of people. Collateral damage. No, but you can't,

you can't have snipers for, for two fighters. Theoretically, that would be more precise. This is war. This is one thing I did when I was coming up into politics in 2016, that would be more precise. This is war. This is war. One thing I did when I was coming up into politics in 2016,

from like 2016 to 2018, the reason why I got popular initially is because I was able to just be really mean to people. My background was like internet gaming,

so I'm a very aggressive, very brutal person. Yeah, you're shit talk, I know. Yeah, and then from that point on, I tried to be a little bit more empathetic,

a little bit more compassionate so that I could, you know, step inside their frame of reference and say, hey, from your perspective, you should care about this too. One thing that I've come off of recently over the past year,

um, especially after that first failed, uh, Trump assassination attempt is I am trying to much more aggressively identify people that aren't worth talking to. So I can just make fun of them. That conversation line that you just went down, that is a red herring. It is never, ever, ever worth talking about what kind of an attack Israel can do in a country because the answer is always no. It's like when you have a friend on a couch and you're like, hey, do you want to come out tonight? He's like, oh, I don't have any gas. It's like, I can drive you. Oh, my back is kind of sore. They're not real answers. He just doesn't want to go out, right? There is no answer that makes any attack that Israel does on any surrounding country ever acceptable. You can say special forces, they tried that, they rescued a hostage, 200 people died, wasn't

acceptable. You can say precision bombs, that's not enough. That's, they still call it carpet bombing. Okay. You can, uh, no matter what you do, it's what they really want you to say is just don't ever let them attack period. That's what they're looking for. And to engage in anything else is to make a mockery, the conversation, because they're never looking for a good faith engagement there. Yeah. I agree with you, but I would say that there are people I, I, there are people I know who I haven't polled, but I'm pretty sure they would say that, no, I could not stomach the number of casualties in Gaza, the bombing, whatever it is, but this is okay with me. I think, whoever those people are, hold on to them dearly. There's my God, I would, I would bet you a lot of

money that I could go through so many people online, I would never find a single person without a money. No, most people wouldn't. My God. And this is actually an exquisite way of proving the point that it was never about all these things. No matter what Israel does, there literally is no scenario

that they're going to be okay with. And that's helpful to the cause in a way, because it's helpful to a lot of people. Look, I know people like Glenn Lowry, for instance. He's really queasy about what's going on. He vacillates, you know, he's conflicted. And I believe, I haven't spoken to him, that when he sees how, exactly what you're saying,

how nothing satisfies that side, I think he's going to say, ah, you know, I should realize who my bedfellows are here. You know, I was a little bit taken in by them. But I can't be sure. I'll find out. But yeah, like if this isn't okay, like Ken Roth is like, oh, there's some rule against booby trapping. But of course, of course, there's also sabotage is also allowed. Ken Roth, nothing would satisfy him, right? And you know, there's something about Ken Roth.

When I interviewed him, I don't know if you saw my interview with him, and he kind of self-destructed on the interview. Nice. There was one- Careful when you say that. You mean in a metaphorical sense? In a metaphorical way.

Okay. There was one thing in his bio that I didn't mention because I thought it was below the belt, but it's lingered with me ever since. You know, he's Jewish, Ken Roth. He was married in a church. And, of course, that could be meaningless. You know, like I could have seen myself getting married in a church if I was in love with a woman and it was more important to her parent. There's a million reasons why that wouldn't be a fair thing. But I do have to say that the guy is so dug in on anything anti-Israel,

anything anti-Jewish. When I asked him a question about his Jewish background, his lips tightened up, that I just wonder if we're seeing some sort of psychological thing playing out with this guy. And maybe I shouldn't have said it out loud, but when I say that it could be totally unfair, I really mean that from the bottom of my heart. I really can't draw conclusions about it, but I do wonder at some point, right along the lines of what you just said, what is going on with this guy? That he's all upset about this when you never hear him complain

about the rockets from Hezbollah. And just so the listeners know, Hezbollah, they're not Palestinians. It's not their land occupied. They're not Sunnis. You know, they're not at war with Israel. I mean, they're at war with Israel. They are simply a division of Iran.

And whatever the beefs that you think the Palestinians might have vis-a-vis Israel, these are not Hezbollah's beefs, right? Their beef is with with the jews with anyway i'm talking too long but um i agree with you so anything but any other takes on this um no nothing i've said yeah that i haven't said so far i think yeah it is a super precise attack which is interesting it'll be interesting to see how all the numbers play out like what were the number of militants killed versus civilians i'm not sure when it oh actually i am i guess i think there were examples in was it

was it after 2006 was it was that when i want to say it was an ap uh photographer was caught staging bodies it was really stupid it shouldn't have happened but i think it was in i think it was in southern lebanon i think it was after the 2006 war but um they got caught doing that and it was like this is not good uh yeah but all that to say is that I hope that obviously the numbers aren't, you know, rigged or faked, um, or any of that. Uh, I had, I had a similar experience with the background thing where I try not to. And at the end of the day, I'm not Jewish. I don't really care that much about, you know, the Jews and the Arabs and you guys fighting each other, whatever. It's not like a personal thing to me, but man, after spending so much studying the israeli stuff every time somebody's like oh debate this scholar read this

paper and i'm seeing like these very arabic last names and shit i'm like okay and it's the craziest shit i've ever fucking read in my life i'm like okay well all right well there is obviously a correlation between uh your background and how you feel about things. And for Jews, there are a lot of Jews who have complex interactions with their heritage because of all the different pressures. What do you want to say, Dan? Well, I just say, you're talking your point about people, no matter what Israel does, they're wrong in the eyes of certain people. I do think it's worth discussing for those people that do take international law seriously.

And there is this doctrine of proportionality, which is ambiguous. But it does say, well, you try to use the least the means that are least likely to cause collateral damage, given the objective. Yeah, that's the point we're saying. What could cause less than this? Well, certainly, you know, nothing. Nothing? Yeah, nothing. I can't conceive of it.

I've never seen anything I can't conceive of anything. No, I mean, other than snipers, but that would be impractical with 2,500 targets. Yeah, no, you can't. He's not going to have snipers. Well, not just because 2,500 targets. Yeah, no, you can't. He's not going to have snipers. Well, not just can't, not because 2,500 targets, but- Well, they'd have to infiltrate. They'd have to be in the territory to snipe.

It's not even a consideration, snipers. So, yeah. All right, so that's that. So, and what was the other subject you had, Dan? Oh, I missed. Are you mind-boggling the Daryl Cooper, the Martyr Mate? Lord Roberts. Tucker Carlson.

The Churchill. Yeah, there's a stupid phenomenon. I hate this. I hate everything online. I hate everything, actually, right now. I just hate everything. There's as close as I've ever been, actually, to moving to another country before. A misanthropist.

It's just this, I don't even want to call it post-fat because that term has been used so much. But sometime, okay, we're older here, okay? Yeah, I am. Okay, you go into a place, all right, with a bunch of successful people. You see a young man who's very flashy

and you can tell he needs everybody in that area to know how successful he is, how good he is, how much he's achieved, right? And I think, I don't know, maybe you guys do that at the club. I'm not sure, but, but from my impression, when I see people like that, there's, it's a huge lack of self-esteem. Self-esteem. Okay. Yeah. Or self-confidence or self-assuredness. Like you have, everyone has to know how good you are.

And it's really important that everybody knows that you're gonna do everything you can in order to make people understand that. And I feel like that's a thing that to me is immediately obvious. And if somebody were to question me on it, my desire to engage in that conversation is almost non-existent. Like somebody asking me if I want to eat like a pile of shit and then attacking me when I'm like, I don't really know. Like,

what about with some salsa? No. When there are people that there's this thing, it's, it's called, people call it now jacking off J A Q, just asking questions. No. When there are people that there's this thing, it's called, people call it now jacking off, J-A-Q, just asking questions. Okay. If you're Candace Owens, if you're any of these, if you're Tucker Carlson, any of these people, we get paid to sit way too much money to do news every day. Okay. And these people shoot sometimes like two episodes a week. Okay. Like an hour and a half, whatever. You have nothing to do with your time, but read and study and understand what you're talking about.

When these people come out and they ask these questions, we're like, isn't it kind of weird that there were wooden doors on the gas chambers? Or did you guys ever hear about the USS Liberty? It's like, yes. Not only people heard about these things, there've been tons of books written about these things. Why are you just asking this question

for the first time in your entire fucking life? Number one. And number two, why is it that five years from now, you're going to be asking the same fucking question. I haven't done absolutely no fucking reading on it. How are you still asking?

Like literally Google it. You can find any piece of information to know more than what you know. What did you do for show prep? But instead it's a bunch of these and they always do it in this disgusting, malicious way where, and the thing that I hate is it's politics is blocking people's minds because in any other circumstance, you would immediately identify this intuitively as an evil action that if I were to walk into Thanksgiving and, and, you know, say to a,

say to my dad or say to my grandpa, like, Hey, did you really look at child porn yesterday? And he's like, fuck no. And you're like, okay, I was just checking. It's an absurd thing to say. And people play this game online all the time well i'm just curious about you know maybe maybe hitler wasn't as bad as maybe blah blah blah world war ii is the most studied event of any war maybe of any singular event that's ever caught in all of human history pick up a fucking book and not one that you find in the fucking restricted section of www.daily stormer you know naziparadise.com like pick up an actual fucking book you rely on these history i made the same criticism of norm fingelstein this guy calls himself a historian he can't speak arabic or uh jewish

or hebrew what what are you studying at that point you're just regurgitating other information they'll have these historians they don't speak any of the languages so they haven't done any original research they haven't gone through any of the archives they have they always say to other debunked or or um uh humiliated historians uh who am i thinking of david uh right yeah these people that have no reputation anywhere i hate it i hate I hate it all. Yeah. Do you agree with me that, and I've been saying this for a long time, the rise of the conspiracy theorists is a really, really serious problem in America right now. They have all the more, most popular podcasts, they hide behind what I hold dear, which is free speech and free expression. But they're actually undermining support for free speech and free expression because

if the people who love free speech are going to, like for instance, I was going to write something about this. For instance, the Tucker Carlson interview got like 40 million views where Daryl Cooper says that Churchill was installed by Zionists for a reason. 40 million views plus however many online, maybe a hundred million. And then I questioned him about it and then he walked it back and he says, well, no, actually that maybe wasn't true. It was I questioned him about it and then he walked it back and he says, well, no, actually, that maybe wasn't true. It was just conjecture,

blah, blah, blah. So now, and that gets 350,000 views. So you're talking about, you know, 201, 301 views. Similarly, on the other side of the spectrum,

you saw that there was this, this affidavit on Twitter that ABC News, a whistleblower said that, that Kamalaris had the questions right and bill ackman retweets it and you know millions and millions of people and it's not true i'm sure it's not true not only is it not true how fucking stupid like she knew ahead of time that we were going to be talking about immigration and the economy like how the fuck would she have possibly known from it's such a cope oh my god so and this so it's like um the the best uh

the best defense is a good offense always that's all they do accusations after accusation and when the disparity between the offense that gets out there millions and millions and millions of people hear this stuff and they can't unhear it and even and the slight number of people who ever hear that it wasn't true and that the people who are doing this are the people who are supposedly fighting for free speech, but they're not going to be responsible about it and care about the integrity of the speech that's going out there. Then the people who really don't care about free speech to begin with, they're not going to even worry about it. They're going to move because they're going to correctly say, this is damaging.

And they're going to be wrong, and the cure is going to be worse than the disease. But we're going to learn the hard way, and maybe in an irrevocable way, when the country actually does turn away. So I see a dynamic here where this is just moving in a very, very bad direction where people are like, I don't want to say all the names, but all these huge podcasters that just give an open

forum and they never have, we saw this during COVID, like towards the end of COVID, Tucker Carlson would, I said this last week, would roll out some guy that looked like Captain Pike from Star Trek, like some quad, and say, the vaccine! You know, and people see this and they don't want to, and people die because of this stuff. And reasonable people say,

we need someone to control misinformation. And I'm like, no, you can't do that because you have to have free speech, but they're not wrong about saying this is extremely damaging to the country and it's getting worse and worse. And I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I really feel like the people who value free speech,

like FIRE and maybe the ACLU still, and people like me, we need to do more about reining in the people who actually are spreading this nonsense if we care about our own cause. Otherwise, we're going to lose the cause for free speech. Well, what about- Because modern technology is overwhelming the ability for people to

get a sense of what's true anymore. But don't you think to a large extent people that want the truth will seek it out? And people that are happy to accept that Churchill was a villain, that the gas chambers didn't exist, they're already kind of won over. And, you know, there are community notes. There are ample opportunity for people to do a little additional research and say, well, that's one point of view,

but, you know, I'm going to do a little bit of research to just verify this. I think a lot of people are already won over to that cause, but the people that want more information, there are ways to get it. Yeah. Wait, I haven't answered that,

but you said. Answer, go ahead. No, no, you go first. These topics get me so angry. How do you guys feel about guns?

Guns? Yeah. I'm agnostic. I mean, yeah. Okay. I don't like guns. Okay.

Fucking New Yorker. What's that? Fucking Neworker okay yeah but i but i respect that there is a culture of wholesome people who have them as an everyday part of their lives and they don't bother me i don't like to see a gun on the street in new york city yeah okay i used to do the driving comparison where i would say driving is a privilege okay and you have to be careful how you drive or else nobody else is gonna to want to be on the road with you. But then people will very quickly point out, well, driving isn't a constitutionally guaranteed, right? Okay. So we're ignoring the whole philosophy. We just want to go right to the fact that it's constitutional. Okay. We have a second amendment right in this country to own firearms. No one ever interprets that to mean that you can wield a firearm however you want. Uh, there are four important rules when

dealing with firearms. You treat every firearm like it's loaded. Don't put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot. Don't point it at something that you don't want to destroy. The fourth one, people don't say all the time, but be aware of what's beyond your target. So don't like target practice inside your house into drywall because you might kill a neighbor, right?

If you ever go to a range and you see somebody improperly handling a firearm, you will never hear a drill guy on the, on the range. You'll never hear a rangemaster say something like, it's okay. We've got more guns out here. So we're safe. He takes the guy and he throws him the fuck out of the range. You're not allowed here anymore. If you can't, if you can't play right with your firearm, then you get the fuck out because nobody wants to be around you because it's going to be a horrible environment. And we know that when it comes to firearms and any responsible firearm owner knows that when it

comes to firearms, for some reason, we have this stupid, this, this very naive thought about speech, that freedom of speech is good. And that if we just have more of it, the truth will always rise to the top. And it rests on this fundamental assumption that humans are truth seeking creatures, but we're not, we just find things that make us feel good. And generally that works out in most cases, because our senses deliver us things. If a piece of food tastes rotten, we don't eat it. If it tastes good, then it's good. But what about an environment where there's a bunch of food that tastes good and now we're not restricted to like hunting anymore, like sugar. Well, now we're all fat, right? That's an example of like our senses kind of like betraying us. And the idea that we

can look at the internet and now we all know this, right? Growing up on the, man, I remember even as a kid, right? Teachers would say things like, you're not going to have a calculator in your pocket all the time. Well, I've actually got a supercomputer in my pocket so fuck you um and i remember growing up thinking like man we don't have to run to the either the library the bookshelf to grab an encyclopedia to look up answers everybody the future is going to know everything because we got all this information at our fingertips and instead you have 80 of the republican party thinks the last election was rigged or you've got people that think that vaccines are going to cause your head to explode like uh that candace retweet that I just saw today, people have to come to grips with the idea that we are not

truth seeking machines. We seek things that make us feel good. And to want to find things that are true, it requires you to like move your mind in a way that you're seeking that because it's not a natural process. And people, they, they dress so much bullshit up in these aesthetics of truth, right? I've noticed this. I don't know if you guys have it. but anytime you go online any channel with anything resembling the word truth in it is always the most far-right bullshit propaganda channel the world project veritas or you know like the truth show or whatever the fuck all of these things of rationality all of them with these words in it are always the biggest pieces of like propaganda truth social truth social true yeah yeah it's it's always the worst stuff and people need to to realize that that's

not normal and because people are just so good although project paratoss has has had a few uh i don't think they have none i think every single major investigation that they've done from acorn to the abortion people to the almost all of them i think every single major one when it was independently verified was turned out to be bullshit okay we can do another episode on that but i'll take your word for it i i didn't think that but but go ahead finish your thought i mean well let me actually there was an obvious obvious to me difference between the gun and uh the speech example is that um we don't know what truth is many things that actually were uh censored by big tech turned out to to be true. There was a lot of true things about COVID that were difficult to get out.

And this is the problem. You can set up an arbiter of how guns should be handled, and it's clearly correct. It's the safe way to do it. We can't set up an arbiter of truth. We do have to depend on the system to turn out truth in this clash of ideas and marketplace of ideas.

I think the issue is that people think that that system is just a naturally occurring process, and it's not, especially when there's a bunch of bad faith actors that are trying to hijack that and use it against you. And especially in the age of the internet. And this is kind of what I'm getting at. These podcasts that are wildly popular in the way

that the supermarket tabloids, like the Weekly World News and the National Enquirer were always super popular. That's what they are in a sense, but we don't know the difference anymore because they're being sold at the same counter with the New York Times. They're doing real damage, and in the end, if they don't start policing themselves,

like, I don't mind if Jorogun has on Dr. Malone, who I think is a total quack doctor, but then the next day, he should have on the guy who takes Dr. Malone to task. Like, if you're going to be that powerful, then really make sure to have your own little clash of ideas. Make sure to try to let the, the, the thing, um, uh, the truth come to light because in the end, as I said, the people who have no respect for free speech, uh, they're not going to worry about it they're just going to use what you're doing as an excuse to

get rid of free speech and they will win and they have no respect for it themselves that's right so I mean I don't know what the answer here is part of the reason they're that powerful in the first place is because they're giving people what they want

which is this one-sided view so in the age in the 70s and 80s in the age place is because they're giving people what they want, which is this one-sided view. So in the age, in the 70s and the 80s, in the age of the gatekeepers, I'm sure there was a lot of stuff that was true, which never came to light. And I'm sure there's a lot of stuff that wasn't true that we thought, you know, in the three networks or whatever. But on the whole, those gatekeepers were, I think, basically responsible people. And certain things just didn't go, certain untruths, certain wild theories about facts. They really had no way to take over the country. They were kind of underground. And now they crowd

out everything. And a lot of things fell into place. Roger Ailes dying at Fox News, I think was a terrible event for the conservative movement because he was a responsible guy, actually. Even Jim Cramer in his book about him said that Roger Ailes was concerned about the truth, concerned about debate. Now Fox News is like Looney Tunes, right? They'll put anything on there, at least the last time I checked. I didn't even watch it anymore. Absolutely unhinged. It's unhinged. I have to, okay, I'm going to push back on one thing because my whole audience is screaming I don't.

The one thing that I don't like when people say that people got some things wrong during COVID, it is true, but the issue is that when people view at least mainstream media as getting things wrong, they have never, ever, ever, ever, ever have ever made a mistake. They never make mistakes.

It's always part of some broader. Oh, I agree with you a thousand percent. Yeah. But the thing that drives me crazy is for as much as the mainstream media might've gotten wrong about particular things relating to COVID, I be, I do believe maybe naively,

but I can appeal to a massive body of evidence of leaked messages of social media, people are generally trying to get things right. You have to start from that assumption. If you think that people are fundamentally evil, this is why when like, this is a good conspiracy heuristic. If you're going to tell me that the top leadership guy at the CIA made a plan

with one other CIA agent to go out and covertly kill like Americans, I can believe it. You're talking about two people that it's possible. But if you're going to tell me that like the entire intelligence like apparatus is involved in like going out and killing a bunch of americans that's this is generally these are normal americans that's a really that's a much tougher sale i think it's impossible but now i need some kind of evidence because right off the bat we're making a way grander claim but the issue is the issue is not not even so much that people get upset about the

um i don't know if you're right i think think you're right in general. This has been an outlier time in history. Trump has such a gravitational force on everything. Like what Trump would say in the debate, we're going to have a vaccine by January. Yeah. The major news organizations were fact-checking him as lying. Now, this was astonishing.

Obviously, the only reason they did that is because they hated Trump. Because you could call somebody at Pfizer and say, he says he'll be out in January. They must have some source there that would tell them, yeah, he's actually right. It might be out by January, right? I don't see who's doing the fact checks,

but for as much as some people, because there were some statements made where it was either Pelosi or Hillary said something like, I'm not sure if I would, I would need the FDA to say it's safe or something. That was Harris. Oh, maybe it was Harris. Yeah.

Maybe this is probably not the most responsible statements. These are worlds apart from retweeting women that are fake shaking their legs, saying that I've got like vaccine injuries. And the question is, because what you just brought up, I will hear the same Fauci quote until the day that I die. Why don't I ever hear about,

because even though it was really wrong everybody talking about the vaccines at this point we were supposed to have mass deaths mass injuries mass you ever watch a died suddenly with the stringy things that were in our blood stream all the athletes were supposed to be dead people were supposed to have horns by now we were supposed to have vaccine mandates across the world we supposed to have vaccine passports like all of this stuff none of it happened happened, but there's no accountability. Why is it that everybody who not only banked their, supposedly their reputation on saying this was going to happen, they made millions and millions of dollars off of it. Why are they all operating

with impunity and nobody held them accountable for anything? That's crazy. I don't know what the answer is. I mean, look, I mean, because people aren't looking for truth. That's why they hold Fauci accountable, but they don't hold Tim pool accountable, or that's why they hold Harris accountable, but they don't care what Trump says. It's just funny when Trump says it right. When, when, when they were making jokes about JD Vance fucking a couch, which everybody knew was bullshit. I did that. I did that in college. They got legitimately upset about that. But when Donald Trump is saying, I saw on TV that the Haitians were eating the dogs, that's like the most hilarious thing in the world. But it's like, this is like not good

because they actually believe this shit. Actually, upset about that and even within a lot of even conservatives i see this has been a bridge too far for them that's good this was the one the only positive thing are those funny videos on tiktok where they they play trump saying they're eating the dogs and you and they it's like a video of a dog making like faces like you know those like you know i don't know how they get the dogs to make those faces, but one dog dropped a ball out of his mouth when Trump said they're eating the dogs. That was pretty funny.

Lab leak was something which you couldn't tell. And getting away from COVID, the ultimate example that's really true was the Hunter Biden laptop, which it really, this is a pet peeve of yours. I mean, it really was suppressed even on 60 Minutes. I mean, talk about Biden during the debate, they asked him about it and he looked in the camera and said, it's a hoax.

It's a Russian hoax. Now he knew it was real. Obviously he knew it was real. And anybody who actually Fox on that issue, they had the evidence receipt from like eight months earlier. From Giuliani, maybe. No, not from Giuliani. Prior, the FBI had the laptop. Did they have the actual physical thing?

They just have copies of the drive. I thought it was images of the drive. Images of the drive. It was a year and a half before Giuliani ever came forward with it. Bill Barr, actually to his credit, knew during the election that the laptop was legit and he kept quiet about it the whole time which is amazing for the guy that was so maligned we would have to go through each of these stories because i have read this a lot here is my issue with the laptop story okay

is that again it's it's what we were saying before that it was deliberate and horrible rather than uh people that were trying their best so one it and you automatically can't talk about anything related to the r word, Russia. You can't say it because conservatives' minds completely shut down. Mine does. Yours does? Oh, okay, I don't know.

If my airplane pilot was a conservative and I said Russia loud enough, I think our plane would drop from the sky. They're all conservative, by the way, in that business. Yeah, okay. So there were concerns at the time that Russia was trying to intrude on social media platforms.

I believe that the concern was genuine. I think it was genuine from our intelligence agencies. And I think now we've been fully vindicated, if not more than that, based on everything that's come out even recently and before that too. But one was, there was a genuine concern from the intelligence agencies. Two,

there was never any direct or overt pressure. Now, some people who actually have read the Twitter files will say, well, fine, but it was subtle pressure. Go ahead. Go ahead.

I mean, three is if you actually read the Twitter files will say, well, fine, but it was subtle pressure. Go ahead, go ahead. Three is, if you actually read the Twitter files, none of their considerations when they're talking about that story, none of them were like, well, we have to do this because the FBI, it seemed like people that were genuinely trying to figure out, like, okay, well, what the fuck?

And then four, the last point is, that story was, you have to be honest, okay, and conservatives won't be, but everybody else will be, okay? You have to be honest, that was a crazy fucking story that sounded like misinformation when it came out, that a blind laptop repair shop got ahold of Hunter behind his laptop and turned it over to Giuliani. Not that it was, but yeah. Yes, it's a crazy sounding story. However, we knew it was true at the time. First

of all, the evidence number was, receipt number was known. But more importantly, not one person whose emails were either sent an email on the laptop or had an email sent to them on the laptop. Not one person came forward and said, no, that's not my email. There was a whole laptop of emails. It was obviously true because if I could not fabricate emails to you, put them on a laptop, in two seconds, you would call up ABC, no, no, that's not my... Well, so what the concern would be is, let's say that I find a laptop, and let's say that it is your laptop.

I could start inserting a bunch of information on that laptop, and then now I have your laptop. And I have emails from you to another person, and there's also child porn on it. And now it's like, well, fuck. I'm not saying child porn, but there was, for instance, there's stuff child porn on it. And now it's like, well, fuck. I'm not saying child porn, but there's stuff there where Hunter says to his daughter,

well, at least you don't have to give half your money to pop like I do. And she never came forward and said, no, that's ridiculous. That's a fabrication. I don't think Hunter Biden is giving half his money to his dad. There's 0% chance. No, it doesn't matter whether he does point of this it was obviously true okay the laptop was obviously real and um i mean i can show you my emails at the time this is clearly

real they they the answers where they tried to question people about it i mean listen if a laptop appeared of yours that was full of fabrications, it would take two hours to prove that it was full of fabrications. It was such a simple thing to disprove. And then even since then, now that we know it was true, and we're way off the subject, and we know that Biden looked in the camera and claimed it was a Russian hoax. This is a deep lie. Well, hold on. Joe Biden said that. Does Joe Biden know if it's true or not? Of course he knows it's true. Why would he know if it's true?

Because all the emails there that refer to him, he knows are real stories. I don't think just by emails, I don't think that'll tell you if the laptop itself is real or not, or if it's unauthentically dropped off by Hunter Biden. There's not a single email or text message that was on that laptop

that mattered to anybody. That anybody implicated in those communications couldn't have said, this is not real. Come look at my computer. You wouldn't have to suppress it. You would love it because it would be such a wonderful way of

showing that the other side was playing dirty. Nobody can publish an email of mine that has nothing to do with me without me being able to disprove it instantly that it's not real. Yeah, but I think the worry isn't going to be about whether or not an email is disprovable or not. It's that other stuff could be added to it if you don't know if it's actually that laptop. So like say for instance, so nowadays like every two days we get another email saying like, hey, 42 million passwords leaked. Hey, 12 million social security numbers leaked, right? When hackers get ahold of this information, oftentimes they'll go to

ordinary email sites or ordinary sites, whatever. And they'll just start running down the list of passwords and common usernames to see what they can unlock, right? Say somebody gets into your email address and they've got a list of all of your emails copying, uh, like emails onto another computer is trivial. If you're using outlooklook or some other pop, whatever server, you can do that very trivially. But you can also start inserting stuff. So let's say, for instance, let's say that you and I have traded emails, you've traded emails or whatever, and then a laptop gets released,

and then you see a bunch of emails come off of it, and you're like, that is mine, I've seen that. Yeah, that's definitely my laptop. Yeah, I see all these emails are mine. And then they start showing emails that aren't yours. Well, what are you going to say now? Okay, well, those ones aren't mine, but those ones are mine. Yeah, that's exactly what I would say. But you're destroyed at that point. No one would ever believe you because you already confirmed it was your laptop. And now we already see that you're

confirming these emails and other people have confirmed them. And you're going to say that the ones that are incriminating aren't yours. I say, listen, obviously they hacked some of my emails, but I never, I never emailed Joe Schmo about that that. You can come check my computer. I'll give you my password, my Google account. Both me and Joe Schmo both say this didn't exist. You could then not even believe that, but they never even had the nerve to say that. Why didn't they say

that? Because they knew they'd get caught lying. I think they didn't say it because you never want to come out and say anything because you don't know what the next thing out is going to be. It was, to my mind, if you game out, how people would react if actually there was stuff on the internet claiming to be emails, purporting to be emails from somebody and they were fabrications,

forgeries, I would immediately say, that's not mine. That's not mine. That's not mine. Uh, that's, I would, so. I understand what you're saying. I say, that's not mine. That's not mine. That's not mine. That's it. I would admit it. I understand what you're saying. I think that the public would look at that very strangely if you start confirming a bunch of stuff and say, okay, well, this new batch that just came out isn't mine. I think you're. And there was so much of it. Anyway, okay. Let's get to, there was, so, so, you know, but Trump, I don't know if you're so far gone that you won't

admit that Trump has a effect on, I mean, the resistance, democracy is not about. People really regard Trump as such a threat that it's, and the peer pressure, there's a lot of things that have happened in the last 20, 30 years. newsrooms have become like Uri Berliner talked about this on NPR the newsrooms have become so 100 percent in the same direction partisanship wise there's tremendous peer pressure to not be the guy who breaks the story that Trump was right all along I mean every every story that was in there's no story that broke the other way by mistake that actually broke against Trump by mistake. There was no story that was like, the story was how Trump was doing a good thing, Trump was telling the truth, whatever it is,

and so oops, we got it wrong, Trump was actually the bad guy. Every story has always been Trump's the bad guy, and either it would turn out to be true or it turned out to be a mistake. Because that's the way they lean. I don't think we've ever experienced that degree of diamagnetic force.

You know, like magnets push away from each other towards any candidate. Let's talk about this election. Sure. First of all, congratulations for getting on Sam Harris. You know you've arrived when you're a guest on the Sam Harris show, I think. I thought it was this one.

I was happy to be here. I was bragging to Sam about showing up at the... No, I'm just kidding. And I think you're a fan of his? Yes, I would say to be here. No, no. I was bragging to Sam about showing up at the, no, I'm just kidding. And I think you're a fan of his? Yes, I would say, cautiously. I'm a fan of his. Okay. I don't have a big buy into everybody

because everybody else is going fucking crazy. And then I'm like, fuck, I used to like this guy, but he's insane. So, you know, I try not to, Sam right now where he's at, at this particular moment in time, I like him. Was there a time when you disagreed with him? Yes, when he started, but I think he realized it.

And we both had our journeys. There were times in my life. But I think he, wasn't he originally part of that intellectual dark web? Yes. In the very beginning, yeah. And then I think he eventually was like, okay. But he's the guy who kind of stayed constant

and the rest of them kind of, I think, lost their way. Yeah. Well, depends on how you view that. But yeah, yeah. Anyway, excuse me. I was happy to see that. But I think that I view Sam as somebody who was trying to be honest

and all the people around him were like, oh my God, I actually really like this opinion. And then as he continued to be honest, when that started to butt heads with the opinions, then the opinion people all went off in a different way. So you guys had a love fest on just bashing Trump. Absolutely. Just bashing him.

Can't do it enough. And I don't feel quite the same way because it reminds me a little bit of people who want to talk about all the abuse of civil liberties that went on after 9-11 and the FISA warrants. And they're right about the excesses of government and surveillance and all this stuff that went on.

But what they never do is bring in the other side of the ledger and say, well, yes, we had these abuses of these new laws, but we stopped this hundred terrorist attacks. And now we have to grapple with the trade-off. Well, maybe we could have never had these surveillance laws, but we might've had these horrible terrorist attacks. So with Trump, before we get to January 6th, I am such a believer that racial preferences were tearing this country apart and we're going to tear this country apart. That just on that one Supreme Court decision alone, which has, you know, put the stake in the heart of racial preferences in a multiracial society where Asians can now be considered as human beings when they apply to college rather than,

you know, we want to take immigrants. We want to take them from everywhere. But once you get here, we need to know exactly where you're from. That to me was probably worth the four years of Trump because the alternative would have been a Hillary court and maybe racial preferences for the rest of my lifetime. That's the ledger. How do you feel about just that one example?

You follow me, right? Like it's easy to say. Follow you, follow you. I think that the issue is, there are some issues that are so easy to be at the front of our attention span and they're visceral they're easy to understand they're right there and racial preferences affirmative action seems

like a thing that feels really bad and it's easy to have a very strong opinion about it but i think that when those things are floating in the atmosphere for people to talk about they're stealing oxygen from things that are lurking beneath that, in my opinion, are so much more consequential, but they're just not very sexy to talk about and they're not very entertaining. And yeah, I don't know. I'm kind of like, I think I lean slightly against affirmative action. I don't have super strong feelings about it.

In some places, it seems like it can work depending on the policy. In other places, it seems like it definitely doesn't work. I think reasonable minds can disagree on that. But I think the thing that bothers me when we talk about... Go ahead, yeah. But I understand where this was going. You know, affirmative action back when I was a kid, it was supposedly, it was like,

you give a lecture nod to somebody who had a bad circumstance. And by the way, you could do much of the same thing just by actually looking at the condition of a person's life. Yeah. And by the way, you could do much of the same thing just by actually looking at the condition of a person's life. But when you have Asian immigration on track to be 15, 20, 30% of the country at some point, and you're saying that these people have to get wildly higher scores to be treated as Americans, and seeing this all through... Why don't we just say treated as Americans? Let's be very clear what we're talking about. You're saying that it's like your American right to have some guaranteed equal access

to an application to a top university in the country. Without regard to your race. Yeah, there's... Just to be clear, we're talking about a sliver of a sliver of the most privileged... It's not like these people are being blocked from all schools, or even blocked from all good schools, or even blocked from all Ivy League schools. Because I think the court case was against Harvard, right?

Yeah, Harvard. Yeah, but I mean, obviously it has implications for everybody else. Not to say that it's acceptable or good, but I'm just saying we're talking about a subsection of a subsection of a subsection, right? The highest achieving of all the Chinese immigrants of the immigrant population that are going to, yeah. But it's pervasive through not just colleges. It was becoming a almost expected way that employers were supposed to look at the world. We were, listen, we were looking, we're beginning more and more to look at the world as the country used to be

when I was a kid, uh, 85 to 90% white and, and the rest were black people. A smidgen of other things. And that had its problems obviously, especially for black people. Now the country is verging into like 20% this, 30% that, 50% white. And at the same time it's becoming that

we were being taught more and more that race was the most important thing, or ethnicity was the most important thing. Our ethnicity is the most important thing. You shouldn't cook that food. You shouldn't wear that. And this was just feeding into it that the law now, equity. During COVID, restaurants that were owned by white people were treated differently than restaurants that were owned by black people.

Vaccine, Paxlovid in New York. If you were black, you could get the medicine. If you were white, you couldn't get the medicine. Without regard to your sickness, that was considered to be the righteous way that every new thing shall be implemented. I happen to think that was horrible for America, horrible. And it was getting worse and worse. And, you know, I just think it was crucial that it would be ended. And Trump ended that.

He didn't end this notion of diversity in the workplace being, you know, there's still diversity officers at corporations. You know, that. Yeah, well, it sets the stage for that too. But you're right, you know, it gets complicated because there's certain moral latitude in private organizations than public, but there's also a lot of overlap because people take money, and then there's reinterpretations

of the civil rights laws. It's all complex. I can't even keep track of it all the time. But in general, he steered the ship. It's going in the other direction now. And like I just said, I just think that's the ledger. But then January 6th happened. And you've called January 6th an insurrection, correct? Yeah, running in parallel with a coup attempt, yeah. Now, not that this matters, it's just semantics. But it is always interesting that there are laws against insurrection. Kind of, yeah, kind of. There are, it's a crime, right?

It is, but it doesn't define insurrection as a crime. I don't think anybody's ever been charged with a federal statute before, but yeah. And they didn't charge him or anybody with insurrection. So what does insurrection mean when you use the word? I did debate on this a few months ago, but I think the way that it was defined when the 14th Amendment was framed, there were four parts to an insurrection. I think one is you needed, it was more than one person.

Two, you had to be willing to act with violence or intimidation. And then three was, it was to oppose the lawful functions of or the carrying out of some governmental operations. So fourth one, but it was minor. But those were the three big ones. I think those might have been the three that the Colorado Supreme Court appealed to for their

definition. So you think Trump's... See, the way I saw January 6th, I think the biggest... I'll fast forward. I think the biggest thing that Trump... The most outrageous thing about January 6th was what we learned that after shit hit the fan,

after they found these rioters were inside the building and they're urging Trump to do something, tweet something, stop this, he just kind of sat back and enjoyed it. That is fucking outrageous. I don't... Criminal?

Criminal? No, I don't think it's criminal. I don't think that's criminal. It could be impeachable. I don't think it's criminal. I don't think that's criminal. It could be impeachable. I don't think it's criminal. I don't think Trump meant or even conceived that they would get inside the Capitol, let alone that he thought that he could change the presidency through violence.

I don't think that. So I went back and I actually never heard Trump's whole speech on January 6th. It's really bad. So I went back this morning and I, and I cut it up, but it's, it started with Giuliani. Oh yeah.

No, it started earlier than that. I know what you're talking about. Fortunately. Well, he started with Eastman, right? Well,

Giuliani and Eastman were the two that went on right before him. Yeah. Um, but it was a whole, I think there were five or six other speakers before, but, um, yeah, there's a lot, those think there were five or six other speakers before, but, um, yeah,

there's a lot, those speeches are, especially because if you hear it, you would think that what the speech is is Trump comes up and he says, all right guys, we're going to celebrate and do whatever in protest. And I know you guys are going to be peaceful. Let's go. Well,

I, I cut it up. I actually went through the speech and I found every part where he says the word fight. Oh yeah. I'm going to play it for you. And you can tell, but,

but before, before we, before I do that in Giuliani's speech, as the clip here, he says, says um over the next 10 days let me go a little bit let me go further back to i and i might by the way you cannot this is very interesting you cannot find the entire giuliani speech or the entire trump speech on youtube you can there it's harder to find but you can i i tried a long time i found it elsewhere anyway um so gi Giuliani says, so it's perfectly reasonable and fair to get 10 days.

And they want 10 days. Democrats and our allies have not allowed us to see one machine or one paper ballot. Now, if they ran such a clean election, why wouldn't they make all the machines available? They ran such a clean election. They'd have you come in and look at the paper ballots. Who hides evidence?

Over the next 10 days, who has evidence? Criminals hide evidence, not honest people. Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent. If we're wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we're right, a lot of them will go to jail. So let's have trial by combat. I'm willing to stake my reputation. The president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we're going to find criminality there. So the plain meaning of that to me is not trial by combat violence, like David French said. It was, I want 10 days. We're going to say our facts. You say your facts. We'll have trial by combat and see whose reputation is still standing at the end. So the first tell about all this, and you've said something very smart somewhere. You said, if the truth is good enough,

why do you have to exaggerate? And this is a thing, we've heard so many people talk about Giuliani's trial by combat. He was, I think this has nothing to do with violence. This is clearly not the words of violence. So that was what it started. So then you can play that

and then we'll go through the trustee. I might ask you to stop. And I really didn't leave anything out of this. Go ahead. You press play. Turn it up. And if we're wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we're right, a lot of them will go to jail.

So let's have trial by combat. All right. So it's going to go past. I'm willing to stake my reputation. The president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we're going to find criminality there. And Rudy, you did a great job. This is following us. He's got guts. You know us. He's got guts.

You know what? He's got guts. Now, you can stop it anytime you want, Steve. The Republican Party. He's got guts. Wait, I will actually real quick. I don't know which parts you've clipped of this. Can I run you through a short story for what's happening up to this point?

Yeah. And parts I clipped, I did a transcript of it. And anything surrounding the word fight, because that's everybody's focus on the word fight, I put in here. Okay. 100% of the time to use the fight. Go ahead.

Okay. Stop me if you, what is our hard out for this? No, we've got time. Okay. Stop me if you want me to shut the fuck up. Is El Molino coming? El Molino.

Yeah, I thought we would have a special guest tonight. Okay. January 6th was always supposed to be violent. It was the absolute goal the entire time. There was no other alternative. Okay? That's my thesis. We'll start with that. Okay. of Roger Stone and Steve Bannon saying that, and if I had the video, I'd pull them up, they're on my phone, but of them saying, listen, on the night of, we don't know what's going to happen

with the mail-in ballots and what Trump's going to do. Shit's going to get crazy. He's just, this is Steve Bannon talking. He's just going to call the election. He's going to call it. He's just going to say that he's going to win. And- That's true.

I know about this. Yes. That's exactly what happened. Every now, Republicans, because they like to memory hole everything, they like to pretend that, well, nobody knew what was going. Everybody knew it was going to happen beforehand. Every single person knew, uh, Bernie Sanders, I think was on Kimmel live maybe the day or two before saying, you know, we don't know what's going to happen. Your Pennsylvania might change overnight. You know,

we don't know. You know, the, when some mail-in ballots come in, we might see some states flip that we'd every single person knew that this was going to happen. And that's why- They knew what was going to happen. That the election could change dramatically overnight as the mail-in ballots are being counted. Everybody knew that was going to happen. That was going to happen. That it could.

Well, they knew that the mail-in ballots were going to be heavily in favor of the Democrats because Trump constantly said that they were going to be rigged. Let me just add to that. The election was so close in those swing states, like a swing of 40,000 votes would have gone the other way. No one could have known it was going to happen, but people knew there was a good chance.

People knew that the mail-in ballots were going to be more democratically fit. They knew that it would move in that direction, but they didn't know if it would get over the top. True. But they knew there was a real chance, more than what people were saying. Absolutely.

So leading up to the election night, notice also for the year before, for as much as Republicans, namely Donald Trump, complained about mail-in ballots, and now I looked for this for a few days, I cannot find a single example of Donald Trump speaking about how to make mail-in ballots more secure.

It was always that we need to ban them. And he was even confronted with, hey, don't you vote by mail-in ballot? And he said, well, I'm allowed to do that. He might've won if he had just told the people to go vote. Yes, actually. Or if, yeah, no, that is true. So leading up to the election, they constantly said voter fraud was going to happen. They constantly said it was going to be rigged if he didn't win. They constantly said mail-in ballots weren't to be trusted. And on election night, okay, two huge things happen.

One, Fox News, in a way, Trump perceives it as being a backstab. Fox News calls the election for Arizona. Do you remember that, the night of? I don't know if you said it was. Yes, yes, yes, Fox News. Yeah, he hated it. Trump was furious for that

because what it hurt, what he planned to do next, which is what he tried to do anyways, he walked up on stage and he called himself the winner of the election that night. And on the second big moment that night, Pence went up afterwards and Pence said, listen, I'm sure we're going to win, you know, and we'll be glad to announce a victory after every vote has been counted. So Pence tried to walk that statement back a bit for Trump. Okay. From November 3rd, uh, it becomes clear in the days after that they're, they've lost the election. Basically. I think by the seventh, I think it basically gets called

at that point, all hell breaks loose in the Trump camp, and there are two dates now that are coming up that they're going to try to control. One is December 14th, which is when the electors vote, and then the next is January 6th, which is when the electors are certified. Now, can I pause you there? Yep, pause.

I agree with, I think I agree with everything. That's good. I just want to make the case for something. I knew this at the time. This is an article from the New York Times, October 6th, 2012, obviously before Trump was in. I look at the headline, Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises.

So prior to the Trump situation, it was considered a perfectly reasonable argument. In fact, the New York Times had an argument saying that more and more of these absentee ballots and mail-in ballots increased the risk. What's the date on that? October 6, 2012. When these articles are written and

these things happen, what happens is the counties get together and they figure out how do they tighten up their elections, which is what did happen. Which is why, when people ever bring up the Dominion voting machines and being rigged online, those things, all of them, produced a paper ballot. Every single Dominion voting machines and being rigged online, those things, all of them produced a paper ballot, every single Dominion voting machine, every single voting machine in the United States,

none of them were done purely trying to, all of them did paper ballots. That's one correction that people made because they were worried about things related to error or fraud or whatever. Maybe you're right. And maybe that was known that wasn't known, but it does seem like it was not unreasonable. It was.

Wait, hold on. Okay. Let me keep going. Okay. Okay. Stop me. Okay. Let me keep going. Okay. not unreasonable. It was. Wait, hold on. Okay, let me keep going, okay? Okay, keep going. Let me keep going, okay? Go ahead, go ahead. So election is called at this point, okay? They are desperate,

and they have to find ways to stop, basically, the election from continuing. They can't let the electors get certified on the 14th to have them vote, and they can't let the votes get counted on the 6th. So from that point, we get things like the Kraken from Sidney Powell and Giuliani anduliani and all these crazy conspiracies tell people what that is that people are not gonna remember no they don't remember no one knows what the kraken was supposedly uh the

trump and his cronies launched basically 64 court cases in different jurisdictions around the country to try to focus on these seven states to try to get the elections flipped but what happened was there was always some huge factual basis that was about to be uncovered all of it always panned every single one it wasn't that it didn't pan out is that they were fucking bullshit yes yes they were utter and total bullshit so um stalling to try to hope to find something that actually would exist no no because they knew nothing existed they were stalling so that they could steal the election okay okay so as they move through these different claims um like two i can think of off the top of my head is one do you remember the huge thing in so that they could steal the election. Okay. So, as they move through these different claims, like, two I can think of off the top of my head is,

one, do you remember the huge thing in Georgia with Ruby Freeman and her daughter and the ballot boxes being pulled out and everything else? Vaguely, yeah. This is a really big one. The Georgia one was a really big one. If you watch the video, and I hate that I've sat through dozens or hundreds of hours of these stupid fucking testimonies at this point.

If you watch the video, her name is, uh, something decent is the, the, she was the lawyer for Giuliani that presented this to the Georgia legislature. Okay. And we can find the full videos online. Okay. But if you watch their presentation, they roll this video up to like nine 59 and she says, now watch what happens to the ballot boxes here. Go forward to 10 30. Okay. Now the next day they released the full video footage and from 10 to 1030, they sealed up the ballot boxes because they thought they were going and they slid them under the table. That's what they did. That's where they came from. But in the video where she's showing this to the Senate, the Georgia Senate, she's telling him

to skip ahead to watch the video. And then when the ballot box are pulled out, she's pretending like she's never seen them before. Okay. There are a litany of egregious, blatant lie. That's a lie, right? And she's saying, we have no idea where this came from. Bitch, back up 30 minutes and watch the video footage. You just told him to skip over. You know it's a lie. Trump's behind that lie?

Trump and his campaign. Yes. Giuliani. Fast forwarding to the very end of that lie, because Ruby Freeman and something Mason, her daughter, were both implicated here because Giuliani and his cronies all called them out by name. She was running the ballots three times over and over and over again. This is a lie that was debunked that night. It was debunked by Ravensburger. It was debunked by

the Georgia, the CEO, Gabriel Sterling, I think. It was debunked by 50 different news outlets. Trump repeated this lie all the way up until January 6th. The status of that lie right now is Giuliani was taken. He was sued for defamation and Giuliani's defense in four parts on, on part three, Giuliani said, actually, I did lie, but it's my first amendment right to lie. So I should be allowed to do that. He lost a case for $147 million. That's why he's in bankruptcy proceedings right now. Okay. That was Giuliani, uh, Sidney Powell, when she got taken to court, uh, dominion was, and I won't go through all of these but the dominion was another one when sydney powell was taken to court sydney powell said i can't be sued for these statements because these weren't statements of fact and a statement has to be actionable for it to be qualified as a

defamation statement and nobody who was watching me talk about dominion machines being created in venezuela with uh orders of hugo chavez obviously this was just my opinion these weren't statements of fact despite the fact that he was in court filings, okay? So they were filing bullshit cases. They knew they were bullshit cases. And by the end, when they were forced to admit, you know, in court what was going on, they said that they fucking lied on all of them.

And every single person behind the scenes was also telling Trump and his cronies and his campaign this shit over and over and over and over. So let's take this to what it implies when we get back to the speech. It's all going to come down to this question of whether or not you think, people think that Trump knew he lost

and was just outright cheating. He did. Or people think, no, the guy's such a narcissist. No. He actually believed that. Impossible. And you believe that as a matter of a civil standard, you're more likely than not, or you think you could prove as a matter of a civil standard, you're more likely than not,

or you think you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew he lost and was cheating? Well, it depends on what the Supreme Court will let you review for evidence now, because a lot of it is not reviewable now. No, no, whatever you want. Beyond a reasonable doubt, absolutely easily. There's a huge thing, again, there are so many stories.

Also, the nice thing about my conspiracies is all of these are available in testimony, deposition, under oath, investigation stuff. None of this is like conspiratorial like oh i read this on a weird website all of this is super in the open okay you don't you don't see a psychological it's problem playing out there is a way for that donald trump psychological issue here you see if it's that bad then he needs to be institutionalized maybe he's experiencing psychosis well no yes i know a lot of people who are in denial this isn't just denial though this is him asking people around him to lie in order to further the well i listen i go back and forth go ahead go ahead but how do you go from there to this was

always meant to be violent sure so um are you familiar with the fact that on the on december 1st that bar gave an interview with the associated press, he gave a big interview with the associated press. It was pretty, people would never expect Barr to do that. Barr did it because Trump the week prior had been saying, uh, the DOJ is asleep at the wheel. We don't know where the DOJ is and the FBI, they're silent on this issue. Barr had open investigations. Uh, and in late November, he tried everything. He, Barr couldn't find anything. There was nothing to investigate because every single claim was some bullshit affidavit some stupid fucking report

from some no-name person none of it was actionable there was nothing to investigate I would wrap everything up you said in a bow and I don't have all these details in my command but I've made the following argument

to people that Bill Barr and Mike Pence both of whom were on the ballot Mike Pence directly on the ballot Bill Barr in the office who

more than any voter wanted Trump to win, were intimately involved in all the details, and they didn't even give it a second thought. It was clear to them that there was no case there. But not only that, though. And that's good enough for me. But Trump was firing those people

and bringing in people to try to make it work. Right, right. These were Trump's henchmen. Yeah, exactly. These were Trump's henchmen. So the way that they tried to make it work. Right, right. I'm saying, and the way that- These were Trump's henchmen. Yeah, exactly. These were Trump's henchmen. Yeah, but the way that they tried to make it work, so Barr quit. If there was any ambiguity to the factual record there,

Barr and Pence would have been highly motivated and within their rights to say, listen, we need to look into this. It's only fair. You know, I don't want to go back to civilian life. I'm the vice president. So give us a second. It was nothing which Mike Pence thought was significant enough that he said, hold on a

second. Let's go slow here. We need to explain this first. Nothing. Not a thing. That was basically, that was all I needed to know. So Barr quits the DOJ on the 14th because he's like, fuck this, I'm done. So now there's a funny story, supposedly where Trump threw a plate at the wall, I think on the

13th over a dinner where Trump and Barr were screaming at each other. But on the 14th, Barr resigns. The next day when a new acting attorney general, new acting deputy attorney general, it's Jeffrey Rosen and something Donahue. Donahue and Rosen come in and Trump runs through all the same election lies with them to see if they believe any of it. And then they don't. And then after that, Trump starts to speak to somebody in the DOJ called Jeffrey Clark, who was like an environment, the head of like the environmental law department. Let's not get too ragged. We're not getting too into it. This is really important. I promise I'm skipping over so much. Okay. He asks Jeff Clark,

that you know all this. I hate that. I know all this stuff. He asks Jeffrey Clark to write an email that the two new attorney general heads are going to sign to send to each of the seven states I love that you know all this. I hate that I know all this stuff. No, it's all. He asks Jeffrey Clark to write an email that the two new attorney general heads are going to sign to send to each of the seven states saying, hey, we've actually found a lot of voter fraud. So we're going to need you guys to go ahead and pull your electoral votes. Okay.

So Jeffrey Clark writes that email and then he gives it to Donahue and Rosen to sign. And they say, we're never signing this. This is fucking insane. And then Trump threatens to make clark and he does for two hours the head of the doj and this culminates in a meeting on january 3rd with like 10 different people in the oval office that ends with basically half the doj all of the associate justices had emailed in had signed onto an email because rosen and donahue were like we're going

to talk to the whole doj and figure out and they're basically half the doj is going to quit if donald trump actually goes through with making cl the head of the DOJ, which he wanted to. When Donald Trump was talking to Donahue and he was asking about this voter fraud stuff, the quote, and Donahue wrote this down. He's like, Jesus Christ. Trump said, I just need you to call the election corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republicans. The Republicans he's talking about were the 11 Republicans that he had to object to the election certification. And on the back of all of this, okay, just one more quick thing. The reason why they thought this election rejection could work is because in all seven states,

Donald Trump through Kenneth Chesbrough, who's a lawyer from Georgia. And I think it's Jason Miller, I think is his campaign guy, something Miller. He got them to go and get 79 people, okay, across all the states to falsely say, we're the electors and we're going to fill out a slip and we're going to send in our electoral votes. And that's when Donald Trump tells Pence to do the right thing. He's telling Pence to count the fake electoral votes that Trump

had his crony send in. Okay. So everything that happens on January 6th is the culmination of like all of these moving events. There are seven fake electoral slates that Trump wants pence to count he wants them to keep objecting to the certification of the vote until eventually they stop to muck it up in the courts that's why they keep saying we just need 10 more days because eastman everybody else thought they're never gonna yeah okay i got it yeah do you think trump imagined that these people were gonna get inside the capital yes that's that's to me that's where i lose you Why did he want them to come on January 6th? What was the plan when they were going to stop the steal? How are they going to stop the steal?

Well, let's, we're going to go through the speech for that. But to me, I used to joke when, when Hamas, when Hamas on October 7th was so incredibly successful, you know,

I mean, in terms of their, their horrible aspirations and they found themselves in Israel for six or seven hours on, on, on, uh, unanswered. I said, the only people more surprised than Hamas to find themselves in Israel were the January 6th protesters finding themselves, finding themselves inside the Capitol. Like there's no way you could imagine that you're going to walk into the Capitol building of the United States of America. There are guards there. They have guns. They're going to shoot you. You imagine this is the most protected building in the country, if not the world. And we have this plan. We're just going to

get a bunch of guys and we're going to walk right in there. We don't even have guns. We might have some pitchforks. I don't know what they were carrying but they nobody could count on that and it was that's what i think but i think the plan was to have such a raucous riot outside to intimidate whatever voters whatever uh senators he needed to give them their extra 10 days to go through their nonsense i don't even know what their, what their final, what you're saying could be, but thus remember my definition, insurrection can happen with intimidation.

That counts. And then the end of the story is that they had to know it was going to go to the Supreme court. The Supreme court was not going to sign off on it. They had to know that, but they thought that they thought the Supreme court wouldn't hear it because it would be a major political question. That's crazy.

That the court, the Supreme court was, of course is going to hear it. But you know, Trump gets satisfaction from this in a visceral way, even if he hasn't thought of three or even if, even if he knew it wasn't going to work out for him in the end, he would have,

if somebody said, listen, Donald, you know what? The end, the Supreme court is still going to throw you out of here. He would still do everything he did. That's why.

Yeah. But why do you think... You're so sure that the Supreme Court have heard it and that the Supreme Court have ruled on it. You have no idea. I'm 100% sure.

Absolutely don't know that. I would stake my life on it that there's no way the Supreme Court of the United States is going to let some bad faith use of some 200-year-old law undermine the country's voters

in... The Supreme Court is honorable. Like you could disagree with him. What about, I mean, look at the immunity decision. Nobody thought they would have done that. Immunity decision.

No, that's not true. Everybody knew there was going to be some immunity. There had to be some immunity. Absolutely not. No, everybody knew there was going to be some decision on immunity. And as a matter of fact,

if you read the article that just recently came out, even Sotomayor was going to work together, whatever. Nobody thinks Roberts is not an honorable guy. Roberts is a hack. He is an absolute hack. You should read Roberts. Gorsuch writes well. Kavanaugh can write well. Amy writes well. He is not a MAGA guy.

He is MAGA to the end of the earth. The Supreme Court did not stand by Trump when he was trying to keep his tax returns. Many times, they didn't stand by Trump. Roberts is a guy who upheld Obamacare. Roberts, I think, is probably a never-Trumper. Supreme Court- There was a huge article that just came out saying Roberts was taking over

writing the majority opinions on a lot of these things. He took over the majority opinion because it looked like- Alito was compromised. Alito was not compromised, but that his reputation was being, the appearance of impropriety. So he didn't want the decision to be tarnished by that.

That's a smart thing to do. This is where I really don't agree with you. The Supreme Court may be conservative. They are patriots. They are patriots. They are certainly not beholden to Donald Trump, especially Roberts. i don't think there is a true american that exists that could think that the president of the united states is

beyond criminal charge that's an unbelievable that is he didn't say that he did it's unfounded in history did not just even you're incorrect about that he just said that certain aspects couldn't be put into evidence and he sent it back to the uh the. Even Amy Coney Barrett, who concurred in the decision, wrote in her footnote, it's pretty clear to me this is not okay. Like they gave Chutkan- Hold on. That's very not true.

So Roberts outlined three, he created three new categories of behavior. Part of what you were saying is true, the Amy part wasn't true. Roberts created things called core immunity. He has actions called presumptive immunity and he has actions that give no immunity.

None of these things are found in the Constitution anyway because he's invented these things because he thinks they sound good. So core immunity is when the president is acting on his own to do whatever,

okay? Things that only the president can do that are preclusively and conclusively prescribed in the Constitution. But what does that look like? Like, for instance,

if I were to, so everything that I said about the DOJ, yeah, okay. Hold on, wait, I'm sorry, wait, I i gotta do this last thing this this decision is crazy the citations are horrible fitzgerald is misquoted and abused horrendously that was a case over civil prosecution i actually i actually think decision is correct but okay yeah somehow they couldn't an alternative decision would have meant that barack ob Obama could be charged with murder. Absolutely not.

No. Well, yes, he could. Listen. Yeah. What Roberts, and he says it in the end, you know how they say a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich? Also not true.

What's not true? All of that. That a grand jury... Federal convictions are like 98%. No, not a conviction, indictment. I understand, but you don't indict somebody if you don't think you can win a conviction. There's a reason why the indictments land at like 98%

in terms of success for federal court. Well, but we saw Trump indicted and convicted on this nonsense charge. It wasn't nonsense. It was, he was literally, he was stealing campaign. He was taking illegitimate campaign contributions to hide a story about himself and lying while falsifying business records to do so.

If a Democrat had done any of that, people would be losing their mind. It's the opposite. He didn't use campaign contributions to pay off stormy daniels that he took what counted as a contribution in kind because cohen was making the payments for him but go ahead okay sorry i think i think that's that that decision was crazy and it will be overturned in my opinion it's the one decided in front of a jury? Because New York, you have former, we have former FEC

commissioners saying, this is not a campaign contribution. You have a test which says it has to be, you would have used the money irrespective. So, Trump has paid off mistresses many times before. The whole theory

of the case was that Trump was supposed to take campaign donations and use that money to pay off Stormy Daniels. And we know goddamn well, if he took campaign donations and paid off his mistress, they would be charging him with a crime for using campaign donations to pay off a personal expense. The law could get him either way. And then it wasn't a New York law anyway. New York managed to somehow attach itself to a federal law. I didn't remember all the details. Okay. This is,

but they are trying. I didn't remember what we're talking about anymore. Sorry. So we were talking about the Roberts immunity thing. I think that it's, I just can't go that far with you to think that the Supreme court, the United States would be

not just, black patriotism would be underselling it, would be completely and totally corrupt to end American democracy on behalf of Donald Trump knowing that he lost the election and they would sit by and allow him to become president. That's just. One thing that was never addressed in for the immunity ruling.

If, if somebody was president and they ordered an assassination of a political rival in the United States, then the Supreme court has said that you can't touch that behavior now. No, the Supreme court said that certain evidence with no, let's talk about the other day. Also,

if you want to talk about this another time, you can bring any lawyer, whoever I will gladly argue this. I debated a lawyer on this. Okay. Okay, that's fine. Also, if you want to talk about this another time, you can bring any lawyer, whoever. I will gladly argue this. I debated a lawyer on this. Okay. They didn't say that. They didn't. And I guarantee you that if a president

ordered a SEAL team to kill his opponent, he would go to jail. Anyway, I can't... You're good. So I think For those of us who didn't read the Supreme Court decision on immunity, why do you think that

a president using the SEAL team to assassinate a rival would go to jail? The argument would be that it was the lower court would have to decide whether or not this was purely a governmental decision or this was purely a governmental decision or it was also a personal decision.

And the lower court would certainly find this was a personal decision and not immune. And there's just no way the Supreme Court is going to overturn that. And I think that was the whole brilliance of the Roberts decision is that he's allowing the lower courts to decide these things. Just to be clear, Roberts explicitly wrote that story that I told about the DOJ where Donald Trump was telling the DOJ, you need to send out a fake

letter to the States. Roberts explicitly said that that was off limits. That's core behavior. And that's, the president doesn't have the power to tell the DOJ to lie. Okay. They turned around and they've taken out some of the evidence and they re-indicted Trump. And Chutkin, I predict the Supreme Court is going to let that stand. They're going to appeal it against the Supreme Court and I predict you, I'll bet you $1,000 Justice Roberts will

say, whatever the lower court decides is okay with that. They are not going to once again intervene on that decision and find Trump immune. So the question is now— Do you accept the $1,000 bet? Well, I don't know if we know what we're betting over right now.

Because the issue is— Albeit gambling is illegal, the olive tree. Here's the issue. The issue is, one, the damage to our economy. But the big issue is what's going to happen now is every single charge here that's in here is now going to be looked under this presumptive immunity lens. And now Trump's lawyers and Jack Smith, they're going to be going back and forth and it's going to wind up before the Supreme Court again. So now the question is, is of every single behavior listed, will the Supreme Court say, okay, you're clear to go ahead on all of these behaviors

or are they going to take out like a few more things where they're going to say, you probably can't touch that and maybe not that and maybe not that, but everything else can stand. The issue is if you're going for a conviction beyond reasonable doubt anything you take out like makes the case weaker so it could be that by the end they take out three or four things but the case goes through but now you've got a case that's weakened because of yeah do you think it's okay for a you know partisan prosecutor to haul the president into court on some charge and then be allowed in discovery to have access to every conversation

that goes on in the Oval Office. That's how, if we don't like how our system works, then we should change our system. When you say that, and I think this is a brilliant retort that was either brought up by Ketanji Brown or or um it might have been sort of my error but they said if you're all you're saying here is the u.s uh criminal justice system is not to be trusted it's horrible that's what you're saying if you say can we really trust somebody to not bring a horrible indictment and a horrible

corrupt judge to let it go through and then a horrible corrupt discovery product like no we we know that there are corrupt indictments all the time, and of course, political temptations with someone like Donald Trump are huge. But we also know the Supreme Court created the concept of executive privilege. I mean, the court has created doctrines in the trade-offs of making everything work. We have all this love for the Constitution constitution and it is a remarkable document, but newsflash, not everything was thought through and not everything has stood the test of time in terms of being able to work for a government, which has way more responsibility and way more authority than they ever conceived of in 1789,

you know, and technology and nuclear bombs and, and there's just so much more going on. I agree. And the Supreme court is important. And I think that it's reasonable to say, you know, does executive privilege exist?

You know, maybe there are things that are said between the president, somebody else that we should know about. Sure. And Roe versus Wade was created by the Supreme court. And you support that. I don't know. I don't,

that probably wasn't a good decision. I'm saying, but like, it's not like immunity and immunity. I mean, prosecutors have immunity in law. Nobody has criminal immunity. Not criminal, but qualified immunity is a way different thing. No, qualified have immunity in law enforcement. Nobody has criminal immunity. Qualified immunity is a way different thing.

No, qualified immunity is for the police. Prosecutors have civil immunity in regular criminal cases. True, and the president has civil immunity, which was fair. The president should have civil immunity. I think some people can have civil immunity, that's fine. You want people suing prosecutors and suing the president and everything all the time? There is no question that they're going to be able to,

that unscrupulous Republicans, I mean, could you say when Joe Biden tried to legalize all the student, you know, cancel all student loan debt, that somehow there was some crime there? They can find some kind of crime. They can find some kind of crime on presidents. If that, here's the thing that defeats that argument completely. If it is the case that these prosecutors are so corrupt,

then they're just going to invent a crime anyway, right? Like, why do we have this co-ordinated protection? They'll just say, oh, well, Trump did this anyway. They'll just make something up, right? If we really believe that it's as easy as it is to indict a ham sandwich or whatever, why wouldn't they just make something up then? Because if they know that the president has significant defenses, procedural defenses available to him on the order of,

you don't get many lawsuits against lawyers or against clients where attorney-client privilege would have to be broken because people know you can't break attorney-client privilege. So that deters a lot of bullshit cases or they get out they're thrown out with summary judgment.

Anything can happen. These are robots. We're way off. I think that the I think Trump thrives on the entire January 6th I was robbed moment, regardless

of whether he actually thought he could stay in office. I don't even know if he, I've seen other people like this, if they've actually even thought through what they think is going to happen because they're so caught up in the ecstasy of this moment, the crowds, the championing, the playing the victim. So anyway, play the speech.

So this speech was sold as, and I didn't see it at the time as this call to violence. So you tell me, Dan, when you, go ahead. And I didn't leave anything out. Go ahead. He fights. There's so many weak Republicans and we have great ones, Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they're out there fighting. The house guys are fighting, but it's incredible. Did you see the other day where Joe Biden said, I want to get rid of the America first policy. What's that all about? Get rid of unbelievable what we have to go through, what we have to go through. And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight.

So stop there. There he's using fight, not as a violence. He's saying you fight them or we have to or you have to oppose them in an election. So good. But the edits are not as clear as I want them to be. Go ahead. We're going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly. No third world countries.

Just to be clear what he's saying here, what he's saying is there are Republicans right now that need to refuse to certify the election. And if they don't refuse to certify the election, we're going to primary them in 2022. That's what he's talking about, right? Yes, yes, yes. Okay, all right. To do what we caught them doing, and you'll hear about that in just a few minutes. Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It's like a boxer and we're going to have

to fight much harder. And Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. And if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our constitution. But a lot of American people do not believe the corrupt fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But you know, it used to be that they'd argue with me. I'd fight. So I'd fight, they'd fight, I'd fight, they'd fight.

Bop, bop. You'd believe me, you'd believe them. Somebody comes out, you know. With your help over the last four years, we built the greatest political movement in the history of our country, and nobody even challenges that. But our fight against the big donors, big media, big tech, and others is just getting started. But I said, something's wrong here.

Something's really wrong. Can't have happened. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. And after this, we're going to walk down

and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down and we're going to cheer on our brave senators. Now, the question to me was that when he said we're going to walk down, I'll be there with you. Was he lying? He never intended to walk down, I'll be there with you. Was he lying?

He never intended to walk down there with them? He wanted to walk down, but the Secret Service wouldn't let him. There were so many people there who had weapons. Right. So if he wanted to walk down, he didn't want to be involved in a violent riot himself. No, because he's a pussy. But he would have turned it on. Right.

But that means he didn't expect a violent riot. If he intended and wanted to walk down with them, but he also at the same time expected them to rush the Capitol. Yeah, but they were going to be violent for him. They were his soldiers. Right, but I... When the Secret Service said, sir, we can't take you down. I think they called it an off-schedule trip.

He said, no, no, no, they're here for me. It's okay. No, that was about a photo op. He said this twice. He said this in regards to the people there. And he said it when he talked about bringing 10,000 national guard troops. He's like the guard troops that are to protect my people. That's why he said, you look at the Cassidy Hutchinson, Cassidy. She's one person that's given testimony. She works at the white house. Yeah. She was the one who told me about magnetometers, let them through. She said in that testimony that he wanted them through because he wanted the photo op of a lot of people that's

what i'll show it to you right after he you can google it i can look at it now but what i'm saying is that this is where it doesn't hold together for me because if he was intending to go down there with them it becomes very hard for me to believe he expected a dangerous violent situation he wants to go down there and steal the election. What do they do? What does stop the steal mean? So they're just going to try to steal the election with no violence? With a bunch of people that he knows have weapons?

That he's called here for a historic, once-in-a-lifetime march? The most important thing you might ever do? You have to fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore? He thought they were all just going to go and chill there? No, I think he thought they would have a raucous demonstration but not rush inside the Capitol and try to hang Mike Pence. And this guy who thinks that the election I think he thought they would have a raucous demonstration, but not rush inside the Capitol and talk about, you know, try to hang Mike Pence.

And this guy who thinks that the election was apparently stolen from him through all these machines, thinks that the legislators inside in the Capitol Hall would just change their vote because of the protesters outside? No, he wanted violence. The easiest way to tell us, what did he do after they broke in? They're not going to change their vote because of the violence either. But they stopped the certification. So you think he wanted change their vote because of the violence either. But they stopped

the certification. So you think he wanted to stop the certification? Yes, absolutely. So why would he want to walk down there with them? Like that would be, what could be worse for him

than to actually go down there and put his imprimatur on that pilot? Nothing is bad until you lose. Okay, so continue, continue the thing. Congressmen and women, because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today we will see whether republicans stand strong for integrity despite all that's happened the best is yet to come okay that's it right so is that it oh go get some more we're going to walk down pennsylvania avenue i love pennsylvania avenue and we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for

being here. This is incredible. Thank you very much. So that doesn't sound to me. You can stop it. That doesn't sound to me like a call to actual violence. It just doesn't. I spent the last month creating seven fake elector slates that are at the Capitol hoping to be picked, trying to pressure Mike Pence to unilaterally flip the election, telling all of his constituents to come to Washington for the most historic March ever. And then when he's there, he repeats all the same claims of voter fraud that have been debunked in front of him over and over again. He's telling people they need to encourage weak republicans that they have to fight like hell though they're going to lose their country that the country has been stolen from them he knows

that people are here with weapons he knows that everybody's here with what weapons do they have actually i don't even know the details um the secret service spotted at least i think like one rifle and one knife the thing was is oh that's not no no no hold on the thing was and this is what he was complaining about when you mentioned the photo op i want to say 30 i'm i think it was it was like less than like 10 of the audience came through those magnum magnetometers or whatever and the vast majority of them stayed outside and the secret service trying to figure out well why are they out there and then when they started looking they see like one dude in a tree with a rifle i think they'd they'd confiscated like 500 knives that had come through the magnometers. And they saw one other person,

and they're like, okay, well, these people are probably out here because they probably have weapons. Now, they can't go and search people because you need probable cause for that, but that was the theory. That's one of the reasons why the Secret Service didn't let him go to the Capitol.

But let's say, let's roll with that. Well, maybe he just didn't know. I mean, this is so easily then viewed as, well, what happens when he goes in his office once they break in? He spends three hours with Giuliani making phone calls to lawmakers to try to get them to refuse to certify the election.

Yeah, yeah, I- Why is he doing that while the violence is happening? If he really cared, or are we saying that it just happened, they just happened to take orders perfectly and delay the certification of the election, and then he did nothing to stop it for three hours? This is why I described it as a difference

of a first-degree murder and manslaughter between us because i because there's so much of what you're saying i agree with i think this would be second degree murder also not manslaughter but with reckless indifference but the idea that of the um of the uh uh that the speech was an incitement of violence. I mean, I'm just being honest. It never struck me that way. He uses the word fight in nonviolent ways over and over. Giuliani clearly wasn't talking about violence when he said trial by combat. And it wasn't in his, it was not in his interest.

It's the worst thing that ever happened to him that it got violent. It was, no, it wasn't. It worked up until it didn't. They delayed the certification of the vote. That was the goal. But the problem is Mike Pence didn't. They delayed the certification of the vote. That was the goal. But the problem is Mike Pence didn't refuse to certify the election for him, and he couldn't get any

congressmen to obstruct for 20 hours or whatever, like Eastman wanted them to. Okay. Okay. I guess, I mean, it seems to me that if they had delayed, no one was going to, the country was not going to accept a delay in the certification. Half the country was ready to.

No, no. They would accept it if it happened. They wouldn't accept it. But it would be an easier sell if it appeared to be a deliberative decision than one which was done at the point of a gun. Once the country sees that the vote was not a vote, but was a capitulation to violence,

no one can defend that vote. Yeah, but that's the great thing about dehumanizing your opponent. But all the arguments, all the legal theories, none of that even can be brought to bear anymore because that's not why they voted that way. You held a gun to their head. Yeah, but people think that that's already happening

on the other side. And you think the Supreme Court would actually uphold a decision by the Senate that was made on TV with people figuratively holding guns to the Senator's heads and that's crazy to me.

No, what Eastman was saying was he didn't think the Supreme Court would touch it because of the political decisions and major questions, doctor. That it was too big of a decision, way too political, so the Supreme Court

wouldn't touch it. Right, I think that's ridiculous what Eastman said. That's fine if you think it was serious, but that was their plan going in. What I'm saying is that it's ridiculous even the way you're describing it. But even Eastman couldn't believe the Supreme Court would uphold a decision if he knew it was a result of a violent intimidation.

In other words, the Supreme Court might say, okay, we're going to accept it. The Senate decided. But if they know that the Senate didn't decide, that the only reason it happened is because a violent mob put a gun to their head, no, that cannot stand procedurally. It couldn't have. And that's why they could have never wanted that. What if they win the certification?

The Supreme Court decision is after January 20th. You follow my argument. I do, but what if Donald Trump disappoints six more judges to the Supreme Court? Well, now you're bringing another thing. He can't appoint six more judges. Yeah, he? Well, that's now you're bringing another thing. What if, what if he can't appoint six more judges? You're disappointed. Do you think, do you think the Republicans in the Senate are going to stand against Trump?

These guys go along with them with literally every plan he's hatched. Okay. Well, I don't think, first of all, there's this, they have to change the statute. I don't think that, I don't even know if you have to change the law.

I think it's just, no, you have to change the law because, because there's a law which says how many members are on the Supreme court. And then, I mean, that, that's why Biden can't pack the law because there's a law which says how many members are on the Supreme Court and then... I mean, that's why Biden can't pack the court. He wants to.

He proposed a... Biden doesn't want to pack the court. He explicitly said he wouldn't do that. No, but... Okay, whatever. The Democrats wanted it, but since then,

he said he's taking a look at it. The point was that there was going to be a proposal. A law had to be passed to allow for more... Right now, it's not a random number of Supreme Court justices.

There's a law which says how many justices are on the Supreme Court. They have to change that. This is where, this is where we diverge. I think, I think there is a limit.

You, you, if your worldview is correct, you had to be way, way, way more shocked than I was that Bill Barr and Mike Pence, and basically every other Republican administration didn't stand by Trump. When I started doing the deep dives on this, because I used to say over

and over again that the guardrails of our institutions held, that our institutions were stronger than I thought. I've said that over and over again, and it is absolutely not true. Who actually held strong were other republicans it were it was somebody like mike pence there's a reason why trump is not running with pence against because he wanted to die on the sixth because he didn't go along with his plot that was the whole reason why pence is there's photos of pence in the in the underground bunker looking at his phone okay because he's been evacuated all right the secret service is telling him sir you need to get in the car we have to leave and pence is saying i'm not going to allow the world or the rioters outside to watch the vice

president of the united states flee the capital and while while he's looking at his phone donald trump is tweeting out pence has failed us i think you're agreeing with me i'm saying that you think every senate is they're ready to pack the court the supreme court everybody's gonna roll over for trump and i'm like well these people are far removed from it the people closest to him the people who were considered the people covering for him. Bureaucrats. As much as people hate to say it, it was the bureaucracy.

It was the people with the institutional knowledge and wisdom. It was the lawyers in the White House. It was the Attorney General Barr. That's why he resigned on the 14th. That's why he gave that interview with the AP on the 1st. And the Vice President. It was the Vice President who stood against him and it lost everything for it

because remember, everybody that stands against Trump, he's saying it here. They'll lose everything for it. He'll primer you. He'll destroy your career. He'll bully you that stands against Trump, he's saying it here. They'll lose everything for it. He'll primary you. He'll destroy your career. He'll bully you. All of the, it's a whole other thing,

but if you ever read through the Dominion Fox News lawsuit, Fox News is saying over and over again, we know it's a lie. We're posting it anyway. They say it over and over. It's all open. You're too far gone on this.

There is more principle to these people. Not much. There's none. I'll put any of them up here in front of me. I swear to God, Jim Jordan, traitor to the United States. Giuliani and East... I don't even know if Giuliani was ever a prosecutor. Can we go on a little bit longer, by the way?

Do we have to go? You're good. Let me just read the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony. It says, this is Liz Cheney, you told us about particular comments that you heard while you were in the tent area. Begin videotaping it. Cassidy Hutchinson, when we were in the offstage announced area tent behind the stage, he, Trump, was very concerned about the shot, meaning the photograph that he would get because the rally space wasn't full. One of the reasons which I previously stated

was because he wanted it to be full and for people not to feel excluded because they had come far to watch him at the rally. He felt the magnetometers were at fault for not letting everybody in. But another leading reason and likely the primary reason because he wanted it full and he was angry we weren't letting people through with the mags, the weapons, what the Secret Service deemed as weapons and are weapons. So in other words, it was made to seem in the news reports that she said he was letting people weapons in to get Mike Pence. But actually what she had, what she testified was he was concerned about the photo opportunity. And he's like,

let them in, let them in. They're not here. They're not here to, they're not here to get me. The concern wasn't them getting through the, it's just, this is a giant speaking area.

They're outside right now. The concern is if you know that most of these people who came here to see you, by the way, that's why they flew into DC to see you, but they're not even go through the magnometer or whatever, right the way, that's why they flew into D.C. to see you, but they're not even going through the magnetometer or whatever, right? Well, that's probably because they have fucking weapons. Why the fuck are you sending that crowd of people that you've now riled up and told them they're on the verge of losing their country,

why did you send them on a stop-the-steal rally a mile away to the Capitol building? Alright, I can't agree with you. Do you, do you, I'm kidding. But do you think what he did was sufficiently irresponsible and dangerous that it should disqualify him from getting your vote. Yeah, well, this is the problem.

We should have gotten to this earlier, but we'll wrap it up here. So I think that he, what everybody has to agree is that he tried to cheat to stay in power for sure. And not that we haven't had that, and Robert Caro has said that John F. Kennedy likely cheated to win the presidency and also to win in the Senate, I think. But we don't know for sure. Nobody puts it past him. And that should be, it's not just a cheating, but as I said before, sitting there and watching what went on, people were in danger, people beseeching him to do something

and taking pleasure in it. This is all beyond despicable. So that should disqualify him, right? It should. But the question in my mind is, and Barr, who said he would never support Trump again said he's going to vote for the Republican ticket because he thinks the Democratic policies

are more dangerous I worry that Kamala Harris weakness on the world stage, especially with Israel, but also with Iran. Like, as we see today,

there's going to be a big war with Hezbollah now, probably. And this is not just for Israel, because I actually believe that Israel is kind of a little Dutch boy in an entire cascading effect of bad actors in the world who will smell that the United States is no longer a force to be reckoned with,

and it would not shock me if we could see, like, Doctor Strange in the Marvel movie, if we could see both timelines, it would not shock me if we could see, like Doctor Strange in the Marvel movie, if we could see both timelines, it would not shock me at all that allowing this cheater to be president for four more years was a less bad outcome than having her as president for four years. I know that's just what worries me. There's so much about her. All right, domestic policy, I disagree with her strong on domestic policy, but I can stomach four years of a bad domestic president, especially if the House and

if the Congress is divided in some way and nothing really happens. This equity stuff makes me sick, but there's only so much damage the president can do domestically, but in foreign, but it's a whole other conversation, but Donald Trump's foreign policy was abysmal in every sense of the word, but that's a, that's a whole other rabbit hole to go down. Yeah, but,

but, but it should, it should disqualify, but you know, it's funny, Victor Davis, Victor Davis Hanson was writing about this, who I always used to chalk him off

because he was a regular guest on Tucker and he was always pro MAGA beyond what I could accept. But then I heard him on with Michael Moynihan the other day, and he was so brilliant on the Churchill stuff and also on calling out the conspiracy theories that are growing on the right and even rebuking Tucker. I gained a new respect for him.

But anyway, he quoted Kamala Harris during the BLM riots. Now, I have to tell you, as a business owner, the BLM riots were petrifying. We were checking fire extinguishers. We were boarding windows. The mayor of New York had told the cops to stand down. We just didn't know what was going to happen. And it was just, just our good luck that nothing did happen to us, right? Our, our

elected officials just let us, left us blowing in the wind, you know? And they asked Harris, joined the BLM rights, and she said, but they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop. And this is a movement. I'm telling you, they're not going to stop. And everyone be, but they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop. And this is a movement. I'm telling you, they're not going to stop. And everyone beware because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before election day in November. And they're not going to stop after election day. Everyone should take note of that on both levels that they're not going to let up and they should not.

And we should not. Well, this is disturbing to me too. It's not, it's not disqualifying in the same way because she didn't have a fiduciary duty. Hold on. Wait, wait. Do you think when she said that, so for all of the charitability that we just granted Trump here,

he did absolutely didn't want violence. When she said they're not going to stop, is she talking about protesting against police violence? Or is she talking about writing and destroying cities and blowing up buildings and stuff? And you know what, to be honest with you, I don't have the entire context there.

Cause I'm taking it from an article. The article implies that it was during the, the violent riots, but I'm not it from an article uh the article uh implies that it was during the the violent riots but i'm not going to go on record that we'll have to we'll have to check it totally because i will say one difference is is that when biden is running for president biden has to say the violence is not acceptable and he did um they had to say that you can't have the the rioting has to stop the biden and democratic lawmakers were saying that donald trump and his kind still say that january 6th was done by antifa there's a huge difference in response the republican party you cannot tell me a time the republican party led by donald trump has tried to calm down their

own ever it has never happened they can do no wrong they acknowledge no wrong and it is yeah it's unhinged blm riots are really bad too. Absolutely they fucking were, for sure. But at least, could you imagine the BLM riots if it was with, if you had a Democrat president that was as willing to goad on his fan base as much as Trump is though? Jesus. No, I agree. Listen, my beef with Trump was always that he was unhinged. This was my beef in 2015.

I'd say, how can you have this guy as president? He's unhinged. By the way, if he gets elected again, do you have any question that he'll leave office in 2028? Donald Trump is unpredictable. Donald Trump could come in and try to destroy the legislature and the Supreme Court and be a dictator on day one, like he says,

or Donald Trump could come in and say, I won the election. See, you did it again. He didn't say he'd be a dictator on day one. He made a joke to Hannity. You've seen the clip. Donald Trump has truth socialed multiple times that he would suspend the constitution to look for voter fraud so donald trump clearly has no respect for rule of law again we can get into all of you want independent state legislature theory was how they were going to do the electoral right the

unitary executive theory was how they were going to do the doj stuff like bobbing and weaving i'm just saying donald trump has no respect he doesn't know any of the parts of government if you were to put donald trump on stage and say explain to me what a tariff is, Trump couldn't do it. If you were to say, talk to me about the three branches of government, he wouldn't be able to tell you what they do. So when you ask him what he would do when he's president, he could do nothing or he could do everything. No one knows.

But he didn't say he'd be a dictator on day one. Anyway, I think, see, this is where I lose you. There's no question in my mind. First of all, Andrew Sullivan made a very good point. Nobody was more anti-Trump than Andrew Sullivan. He says, you know, I have to admit that during COVID when he had more power than basically any president

has ever had he really made no moves to be authoritarian what is Andrew Sullivan's job? Andrew Sullivan is a writer does he do politics? when the president had more power than he ever had the state governments were the ones that were managing all of their COVID stuff as a writer. Okay, does he do politics? When the president had more power than he ever had, would the state governments were the ones

that were managing all of their COVID stuff? No, but the president, he could have taken emergency powers of any kind. He already was using it. I've heard the name before. I was just going to shove it.

You should read him. He's already used emergency powers to do policies at the border and he used COVID to do, was it Title 42 to stop people from coming in the border?

He used emergency powers to do, he did terror center presidential powers stop people from coming in the border? He used emergency powers to do, he did terrorists under presidential powers. Donald Trump has used- Not emergency powers. Well, not emergency, but he's used presidential powers and he used presidential powers

to do the seven country Muslim ban. So the idea that Donald Trump is a great guy- That was legitimate. No, it wasn't. It was legitimate within his power. I mean, no. By statute, that was- But he didn't do it genuinely because he felt like there was a threat

to America. He did it because he was signaling to his base and he was trying to find a way to ban Muslims. I don't know. Okay. Because ISIS was still around then. He chose the countries that were on Obama's list of dangerous countries.

The argument on the other side that we were vetting these people was absurd on its face to me. You can't vet people from these countries. Then how is our Muslim population generally insanely chill? Not because of vetting. Because I think they're not dangerous. America is an insanely

obnoxious country to get into. As somebody that's wrestled with the immigration process, even traveling here is very difficult. We do a lot of vetting in this country. Yeah, but I don't believe you can vet people from Somalia or whatever. I don't know which countries were on the list, but they have no computer systems. They have no records.

Everything is under the table with money. There's no vetting. There's no criminal record. So we're just really lucky that all these terrorists haven't come into our country? No, I think that we do. I think the terrorist threat is obviously not what it was,

but at the time of ISIS, you can convince me that we were worried for no reason, that it was hysterical, that it was a panic. You can convince me of that. What I'm saying is that the argument that, no, we don't have to worry because we're vetting them over there, so we know we're not getting terrorists in here,

that to me just seemed ridiculous. Let me tell you, I knew a lot of Arabic people at the time who would say to me, no, no, he has a point. That's, that's,

that's, you know, and that affected my thinking too. They were worried about when terror, when terrorism is hot, like, let's not pretend it's not real. I mean,

Obama was taking this stuff seriously as well. Anyway, we get so tossed around on this. I think that Trump was behind everything that Trump did. He was humiliated to lose.

Trump does not want to end democracy in America. Trump wanted to cheat to stay president. In 2028, when he served his two terms, he will say, I did it, everybody. He's not going to say, I can run for a third term. That's not the type of thing he does. He never went to war with the Supreme Court.

If they told him you can't do it, he didn't do it. Told him you can't do this, he obeys the court system. What's motivating him is ego, ego, ego. His ego is not tarnished by leaving office in 2028. He's victorious when he leaves the office in 2028. And that is, I think, my read on him is that, and that's why it leads me to different conclusions than you. Well, I guess here's the question.

If you think ego is what's leading him, let's say that he has a chance to win this upcoming election in what a month and a half or whatever let's say he's a chance to win and it's only by way of china or russia contacting him and saying hey listen there's a thing we can do we need you to come with us on this and we'll guarantee that you get into office do you think you'd go with it do you think saying no i would never betray my country like that he would never say i will never betray my country like that um like i feel like the fact you have to think about it says yeah of course i'm not here to tell you He would never say, I will never prepare my country like that. I feel like the fact you don't have to think about it says everything.

I'm not here to tell you Donald Trump is some... I'm not saying you are. I'm just saying that I know with Biden, the answer would be no. With Harris, the answer would be no. Let's put it a different way. If the devil came to him tonight and said, sign here, you're going to be president, he would sign there.

When it comes to making a deal with China and Russia, sign here, you can be president, he would sign there. When it comes to making a deal with China and Russia, realistically, could they do it? Could it come out? Could he commit it? There may be reasons he might say, no, I'm not getting involved in this. But yes, if he could be sure that he would be the only one who knew, would he do whatever it takes to win office? Yes. Is he the only one? The only president that fits that description? I don't know, but absolutely. I have no illusions about what Trump is capable of.

I'm just trying to say what's driving him. I do think as a final bridge, I guess. Well, the fact that you would trust Trump with foreign policy, that answer is scary, I think. But I will say the biggest reason why I want Trump to go the fuck away and all the MAGA people to just crawl in Iraq and just leave forever is because, for me at least, Kamala Harris' economic policies

are significantly, or at least quite a bit to the left of where I'd want them to be, but there is no counterbalancing force right now for policy in the United States of America because MAGA doesn't have policies. They just have Haitians eating dogs and new caravans at the borders. And I don't know if this is true, but I was saying this and I could prove it to you. I was

saying this at the time when, when, when Putin, first of all, leaving Afghanistan the way they did, I know it was Trump's deal, but leaving the way they did in a panic, losing people, weapons still there saying the Taliban is, you know, if the Taliban wants to be accepted in the community of nations, they'll have to have more female representation in government, and they'll have to treat women better. Even the notion to entertain the idea that the Taliban was going to start to treat women better and have more diverse representation in the Afghani government, however that works under the Taliban, just betrayed such a ridiculous worldview. So they run out with their tail between their legs out of Afghanistan.

Then Putin surrounds Russia. Now Putin's taking the temperature of America. How do I think America's going to react to this? Well, they look like they have no stomach for conflict right now. And then President Biden says, well, if it's a minor incursion, you know, we'll be okay with it. And if it's a major incursion, we're going to have some really serious economic sanctions.

You won't- Wait, on what? If Putin invaded Ukraine. Did I misspeak? Oh. When he surrounded Ukraine, Biden's warning to him was, if it's a minor incursion, all right.

If it's a major incursion, we're going to have some economic sanctions. Now, Putin doesn't give a shit about economic sanctions. Yeah, but what else can we do? What we could have done was said, if you go into Ukraine, we're going to arm the Ukrainians to the teeth, as we actually have done. Yeah, but we'll barely, but we don't have the political will to do it because Republicans don't want to do it at home. We could, well, it's for the Republicans. We could put some tripwires in there. I don't know the political will to do it because Republicans don't want to do it at home. We could, well, for the Republicans, we could put some tripwires in there. I don't know what we could have done.

Perhaps earlier, maybe we could have done more. There is a compelling argument that I didn't even think of because we're all like, we very much exist in the present. But I think one of the concerns was, and people forget this, I love all my Ukrainian friends, but Ukraine was one of the most fucking corrupt countries in the world prior to 2014 and even prior to the invasion. I'm sure to some extent, the states and everybody probably wanted to see what would happen a little bit.

Because like, imagine you just had this huge complaint about Afghanistan. Imagine if they invade and we do arm them to the teeth. And then the Ukrainians go, okay, well, thanks. But like, yeah, we're going to join Russia. And now it's like, wow, I can't believe the US just gave all these weapons. Obviously, Ukraine is a former Soviet satellite, one of the most important ones in all of Russia. Why would you give them all the weapons? Now they're in Putin's hands, right? They're not going to join Russia. And now it's like, wow, I can't believe the US just gave all these weapons. Obviously, Ukraine is a former Soviet satellite, one of the most important ones in all of Russia. Why would you give them all the weapons? Now they're in Putin's hands, right? They're not going to join Russia. But look, the point is that it seems to me, if you are the leader of any country that

wants to create mischief in the world, and you'll agree there's many of them, Kamala Harris is your ideal. Absolutely not. It's Donald, Donald Trump doesn't know where any of these countries are. He has no coherent vision for foreign policy. Think about who the feared. When Afghanistan, when,

when Iran misbehaved, Donald Trump did nothing. Vaporized Soleimani right there. And we didn't hear from them again. There, there was a, there was a certain, there's no way that Biden or Harris would have done that.

And that speaks loudly. Wasn't it Obama that killed? Bin Laden? No, that was. That was Obama killed Bin Laden, yeah. Oh yeah, it was. Yeah, Obama killed Bin Laden. Yeah, Bin Laden was our enemy.

So was Soleimani. And who recommended that he not kill Bin Laden or that he not take the chance of the raid was Biden. But listen, Soleimani was also an enemy for the US I think for decades. Trump, it's the madman theory.

I go back and forth. I know that's kind of like that theory is kind of made fun of. But the fact is people don't know what Trump is capable of and he's allergic to looking weak for better and worse. Well, unless the people say nice things about him.

Unless they say nice things about him. And he can get the country into a lot of trouble. I'm just, I don't have this certainty. I'm really going back and forth in my mind. He can get the country into tremendous trouble because he shoots from the hip. I like the idea of Nixon and Kissinger deliberating in the Oval Office,

gaming everything out. That's the kind of president I want. I also feel like Harris is not to be taken seriously, and that's very provocative and dangerous for the world. So I just don't know. I just don't know that taken seriously is such a meme. She was a prosecutor, an attorney general. Donald Trump is a convicted felon,

filed bankruptcies multiple times, made joke foreign policy decisions all across the world. Invicted felon. Like who's, you've seen the UN has laughed at him. You saw a group of world leaders like laughing and giggling about him. Like he's a, nobody views Donald Trump seriously. Nobody takes him seriously.

You're a very smart person. And I do agree with you way more than I don't agree with you. You're just more far gone on this than I am. You know what? You might be right. Check your mailbox tonight. Okay, I'm going to mail you a pager from my friend Eli.

All right. I appreciate the conversation, though. Well, thank you, Stephen Bunnell. Exhausting. I feel like Finkelstein. I didn't have much to say, but that's sort of the way it goes nowadays. I literally, you know, I had dental surgery yesterday, so maybe that's sort of the way it goes nowadays I literally

I had dental surgery yesterday so maybe that's part of the reason I feel a little loopy but boy I'm like wow this has gone, I'm having trouble keeping up and I don't usually have that problem. I don't know too many podcasts if any that have that degree of disagreement between the host and the guest

of course I don't listen to them all but that that was a spirited debate that i don't think zooming in trying to zoom in on where where else do you find that degree of debate uh on podcast everything he goes can you can you well with sam harris was that was more of an agree that was a love that was a love fest i guess to bring it full circle it actually finklestein obviously there was a debate it was but that was more of an agree that was a love that was a love fest i guess to bring it full circle it actually fengelstein obviously there was a debate it was but that was characterized as such to bring it full circle it goes back to the first thing you said about misinformation i imagine we would probably agree on everything we've just you and i are working from a very different set of facts i think that we've looked at but i imagine that if we were more congruent in those facts

we'd probably agree on more i'm guessing in the end of well what we're disagreeing with it about in the end is is like end is where do we really see the psychological, what's going on inside the head of Donald Trump, Justice Roberts, some senators, and how far are they ready to go?

And I just don't see them as far gone. I just don't see their motivations quite the way you see them. And the motivations actually do dictate in the end what the decisions would be. I think the Supreme Court of all these people are by far the most patriotic. And of course they have lifetime appointments. So they're not pressured. You mentioned dealing with the immigration system.

You're not, you're American, I assume. My ex-wife was Swedish. And I have a lot of friends that, because I did e-sports before, like pro gaming or whatever. So there have a lot of friends that, because I did e-sports before, like pro gaming or whatever. So there's a lot of,

for a while, there's like visas for exceptional talent or for athletes or whatever. Trump is for them. Well, we have comedians that somehow got visas for exceptional talent. Yeah. 10 to 15 years ago,

it was way more complicated. Today, it's still iffy. It's gotten better, but just compared to getting into any place in Europe, the United States is very strict on how you get into this country and you could get if you get the wrong agent at the border you could just get turned away for whatever reason i happen to somebody i know it's awful it's arbitrary and it's awful oh that's something too as an american i'm very aware because i watch all the cop videos i know what my rights are here when you're flying

into an airport when you're at the border you have no fucking rights you are the slave to whatever department of homeland security people there that whole, I'm not going to talk to, that shit doesn't work. Well, you see, there was a video that Dave Smith posted on X. I mean, I still call it Twitter, but whatever. About, what's his name? Jeremy Kaufman or something.

And then, and some, the FBI came to his house and he's, and they, did you see that video? I haven't seen it. That was interesting. Anyway, the FBI came to his house. He said, you go away. You know, they said, put the camera where he said, no, I don't seen it that was interesting anyway the FBI came to his house he said go away you know they said

put the camera away he said no I don't have to and let me see an ID you didn't see that video no okay anyway never mind

ouch I'm sorry what's what we just totally shot down no I thought maybe you had seen the video because it's about you know what

it's one of these videos where the guys the cops are saying put your camera away and he's saying no fuck you and show me your ID, and go away. You think Kamala Harris

is going to support Israel? I don't think Donald Trump supported Israel, but that's another conversation. The Israelis would beg to differ. Only the dumb ones. No, the Israelis, he did support Israel. See, this is where you're too far gone. Of course he supported Israel.

There's nothing they wanted he didn't say yes to. That's the problem though. A real lover of Israel is going to pull him back. You guys need to calm the fuck down. Not you guys, but, or maybe you guys. That's a different point. That's a different, that's a whole thing. But that's a different point you're making.

No, I know. Yeah. But do you think Harris, see Biden, I've said, I know we were supposed to end, but Biden, if you gave Biden sodium pentothal, he is pro-Israel. He comes from that generation of Americans that was the least anti-Semitic

and the most pro-Jewish of any generation there's ever been. She is not that. The first thing out of her mouth is, yes, Israel has a right to defend themselves, but I will not be silent. You can tell where she's leaning. Well, you've got like the Michigan voters and you've got like, it's a hot issue right now.

The boring answer is anybody over 40 in the United States is probably going to come out pretty hard for Israel. I think any Gen X and above is probably going to be pretty staunchly a defender of Israel, be my guess. Too much of the voting constituents are pretty pro-Israel. We're going to find out, aren't we? I hope so.

She's likely going to win, right? Who knows? I hope so. He's behaving- He's on a downward spiral right now. Since the day he got shot, he's been so undisciplined. Like this was his to win, even with her.

He just talked normally, seemed sober. Like, that's the last thing. There you go. What about the migrants? They're eating the cats and dogs. What if he had just said, listen, we've heard some rumors

about pets being eaten. I really don't know if that's true or not. But we do know, what we do know is that- Illegal immigrants are taking jobs and we need a secure border. No, no, But we do know, what we do know is that- Illegal immigrants are taking jobs and we need a secure border. No, no, no, no.

But what we do know is that Springfield is being overrun by migrants that they can't really absorb. And by the way, the Democratic mayor of New York said the migrant problem in New York was, it was going to bankrupt New York City. So even the Democratic mayor of New York City has said that this problem is not just

something to worry about. It's going to bankrupt New York City. So we have to take on this issue. He's sneaking the pet thing without, and saying it may not be true. Everybody knows, it's very easy for me to accept that 20, is it 20,000 immigrants in Springfield is probably a burden on the social services there

and everything. And certainly, the pristine case is New York City, Blue City, Democratic mayor saying, it's going to bankrupt New York City. That's all he had to say. You don't need to go in with this crazy stuff. People are offended because it's not nice to the Haitians. You're lying.

It's racist. Cats would eat us if they could. Anyway, dogs on the Haitians. That's all you lie. It's racist. Cats would eat us if they could. True. Anyway, you know. Dogs, on the other hand. But he can't do it. He can't be not crazy.

As a piece of advice, I guess, to Trump or the Republicans, I think after the election was lost in 2020, I think you can complain about it for a little bit, but the fact that he kind of

like harped on that for four years, I think he kind of, like people like trump at the end of the day whether you think he does or doesn't he has the brand of being a winner and that's what's like cool about him he's a fighter he's a winner no matter what he's got the hair the smile whatever he's a winner and he's in good spirits and it's positive they had a positive ethos and over the past like two to three years since the election loss and then especially heavily yeah they've just become so negative that like even if you you know pro-democrat or whatever it sucks it must suck i imagine if

you're some kind of patriotic republican to see at the democratic convention where they're holding american flags and cheering for america and the soldiers and the troops and now trump is like just they're just so negative on everything like jesus if he had conceded on january 5th 2020 2021 he'd be president today or he could even still try all of his stuff he just after he lost on January 5th, 2020, 2021, he'd be president today. Or he could even still try all of his stuff. He just, after he lost the coup, he should have just been like,

you know what, next election, we're going to fucking do it, whatever. He just needed to be more positive. But really, if he just, can you imagine how good he'd be looking right now if he just, you know what? All right, I lost January 5th. And then he'd be riding high. Everything, I didn't do any of the things

you said I was going to do. It was good times. He's an idiot. All right. We didn't do any of the things you said I was going to do. It was good times. He's an idiot. All right. We didn't even get to the, shout out to Laura Loomer, Trump's new girlfriend. Oh my God.

You think he's having sex with her? He was at least for a little bit, probably. And Melania's gone. She's been gone for a few months now. And Ivanka. You haven't seen Ivanka much either. Oh.

Bye. Good night, everybody. Good night.