The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Michael J. Stern and Joe Machi

Episode Date: December 12, 2020

Michael J. Stern is a former state and federal prosecutor. He worked for the U.S. Department of Justice for 25 years and prosecuted some of the Justice Department’s most significant cases. His expertise is in wiretap investigations, use of cooperating witnesses, and trial litigation.   Joe Machi is a stand up comic and Comedy Cellar regular. 

You're listening to The Comedy Cellar, live from the Table, the official podcast of New York's world-famous comedy cellar coming at you on Sirius XM 99, Rod Dogg, and on the Riotcast Podcast Network. Dan Aderman here coming to you all the way from the island of Aruba, located approximately 20 kilometers north of Venezuela. I'm here on a working vacation with us, of course, Noam Dorman, the owner of the world-famous comedy cellar,

Periel Ashenbrand, our producer. We also have with us Joe Mackey, comedy cellar favorite, and hopefully we'll be all working together soon. Joe, Joe is a comedian. He is part of the new wave, the Young Guns, the Mark Normans, the Sam Morales. Who else is there? Phil Hanley, et cetera, that whole new generation that's coming along and Joe Mackey is part of that scene. We have with us Michael J. Stern, 30 years experience as a litigator. He looks young, but he has 30 years experience as a litigator, 25 years as a federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, three years as an assistant DA, two years as defense counsel. There's a lot more about him, and we'll get to discussing that.

But before we do, does anybody have any questions about the island of Aruba before we get into Michael J. Stern? I heard that prostitution is legal there. I don't know if it's legal or decriminalized or just people look the other way but right now given the situation with COVID I don't know, business is down needless to say

as it is with you know, as it is with comedy but if it's not legal, it's tolerated alright, like you Joe, are we down here with the ruby ready? what's that? I'm asking mackie if he's been here no i've not been to aruba you you have no interest in performing on the aruba ray uh aruba show uh not a lot of your friends have been down here mark norman will be

here i believe and and chris di stefano as well lot of comedians look at it as a vacation, but I don't know. I don't want to take a vacation. I want to keep working. Well, I want to bring in Mr. Stern, but I do want to say, we can talk about it later after he's gone, that Joe has, I don't know if this is the case here, but Joe has a lot of anxiety about things. I mean, I've known him about decisions, going places, things like that. So maybe we could discuss that later because Dan also sweats a lot of things. So I don't know if that's the reason.

Look, it's a working vacation. You know, you get to perform, but if you're not down with it, you're not down with it. So I'm not going to try to convince you. So Noam, I know that Michael's somebody you've been looking forward to speaking with. So I're not down with it. I'm certainly not going to try to convince you. So, Noam, I know that Michael is somebody you've been looking forward to speaking with, so I'll let you take over. I cover the Aruba portion of the podcast. And just let me say, I've never prosecuted or defended a case in Aruba, so I've got nothing on that topic. Well, Aruba is a Dutch.

I believe it's a Dutch. I don't know if colony is the right word or protectorate or whatever. So I don't know whether Dutch law would apply. Actually, Mr. Stern, you know, I wanted to talk to you about your Trump stuff as we bid adieu to Trump, but I am interested, I didn't realize you were a prosecutor. Had you ever had to prosecute people for laws that you really had, you know, problems with, like, let's say, prosecuting prostitutes or, you know, a law which you really didn't agree with at all, but you're forced to prosecute? Yeah, I, when I was a DA, a baby DA, many, many decades ago, I did prosecute a nuisance case related to prostitution, but

it was more than just prostitution. There was a lot of other illegal activity going on. There were drug deals going on. There were needles being left in residential neighborhoods. And so I was comfortable doing that. I don't know if I would have been completely comfortable prosecuting exclusively a prostitution case. But fortunately, most of the cases, if not all of them, that I prosecuted, I felt very strongly about. I'm going to say once again, Michael, I guess I'll call you Michael. Would that

be the most appropriate thing? Mike, Michael. I will say that for somebody that's been, that was a baby prosecutor many years ago, you certainly look like you're in good shape. You're for whatever age you are. I'm almost 60, but I'm loving this show already. You're almost 60? Are you kidding me?

No. That's amazing. I would have said you were younger than Joe Mackey. When can I come back? And do I get the same compliment next time? Well, unless you age significantly next time. I will try not to. If you look the same, you'll get roughly the same compliment next time? Well, unless you age significantly next time. I will try not to. If you look the same, you'll get roughly the same compliments.

Anyway, there's a special place in hell for people who, in my opinion, who have sent people to jail for crimes that they commit themselves, like all the people who have gone to jail for marijuana, or what was it, Elliot Spitzer, who was prosecuting prostitutes, like ramping up prosecution of prostitutes while he himself was calling high-class call girls. It takes a special kind of person to do such horrible things.

I agree with you. I agree with you on the hypocrisy there. But unless eating huge amounts of chocolate cake and chocolate chip cookies and ice cream is a crime, I think I'm good on that front. All right. What is the choice that you have as a prosecutor? You're given a case to prosecute. You have the option of saying, well, I can't prosecute this case because I do the same thing. Is that an option? Well, you would then be admitting to committing a crime to the head prosecutor. So my guess is that doesn't happen a lot. But yeah, I mean, you could do that if you wanted. I think that there would probably have been, there could have been instances in which I would have been put in that situation. I'm fortunate that I wasn't.

But I think certainly people have smoked marijuana who have prosecuted marijuana cases. That's my guess. That's what first comes to mind as a circumstance like that. And prostitution case. People have had prostitutes. What should a DA do when presented with a case, you know, a marijuana case, let's say, and he's a marijuana user? Morally, in a moral, perfect moral universe, what should that prosecutor do? You know, if it were me, I would probably go to my supervisor and say, I don't

feel comfortable prosecuting this case. And then there would be a discussion that would ensue that would potentially get the prosecutor in trouble. But, you know, certainly at the federal level, a lot of us go through, well, all of us go through extensive background checks. And so any type of prior drug use that we've had should come up when the FBI does a background check. Certainly things came up in my FBI background check that I would prefer didn't come up that caused me some issues. Anything good? Well, I'm gay and that came up and, you know, this was 1989 when I first joined the Department of Justice. And, you know, I was young, very young. I had just come from a DA's office.

And you get hired, and then there's a period of three or four or five or six months in which your background check is done. And two FBI agents walked into my office and shut the door. And I knew something was not good at that point. And they asked me if I led an alternative lifestyle. So I'm sweating a little bit at that point and they asked me if i led an alternative lifestyle so i'm sweating a little bit at that time you know it's interesting because because being gay um you must have a special sympathy for what we're talking about now because how many people have turned out to have been gay

themselves who were making life miserable you know railing against homosexuality in churches and in government i mean mean, just a disgusting history of that stuff, right? Yeah, look at Eric Schock just came out as gay, and he was a very anti-gay congressman for a long time from Illinois. What about J. Edgar Hoover? Yeah, exactly. So it happens a lot. And, you know, that's one of the examples. If, if in fact, let's say there were some type of a law that prevented, you know, gays from having contact with sexual contact with one another, and I were asked to prosecute that type of a law, I wouldn't do it. I just wouldn't do it. Yeah. All right. Let's talk about, so you, you wrote like a column in USA Today about Trump.

And just, you know, I can't speak for everybody, but just so you know, we're not a pro-Trump podcast. I think all of us, me, Dan, and Perrielle are on record saying that we thought Biden was the best choice. However, I think Dan and I are much more Trump open than you and Perrielle are. Perrielle is the most left that any person can be, which makes her, you almost don't have to ask what her opinion is because you can't find anything which is not totally predictable about her opinions on things. So that's my take on it. Go ahead and ask her opinion. What about Joe Mackey? We didn't get to Joe Mackey. I don't know. I don't want to put Joe on the spot. He can chime in as he wants.

Was that a compliment? Were you just paying me a compliment? I couldn't tell. I just want to include Joe because we haven't touched on it. We will. I don't want to say, no, it's not a compliment. It's not necessarily a criticism I mean maybe you're right About every opinion that you have

And you know I'm just saying that Your opinions I pretty much know I don't ever have to call Perry L and say What do you think about this I just kind of know But anyway so you wrote a column on USA Today and you started it saying

this is going to be a scorched earth column. And you made a lot of accusations about Trump. Let's just go through them for the hell of it. And I'll tell you where I disagree with you and you can stand by it. Like I said, I'm not trying to convince you to think that Trump was a good president or was the person to vote for, because that's not my opinion.

But I do think that the truth is not quite as obvious as some people make it out. So anyway, so I'll read a little bit. He said, after Trump, after spending four years watching him spew unbridled bigotry. So let's talk about that, because that's always something in my heart of hearts I'm actually unsure about. What's the best example of his unbridled bigotry in your opinion? Well, I don't know what the best example is, if you had to list them all, but there are a lot of them. He referred to Mexicans generally as rapists and murderers. He's gone to court on behalf of the government and directed the department of justice to

argue that gay people should be able to be fired from their jobs simply because they're gay um he's referred to he created a muslim ban i mean don't get me started okay so let's start let's take felt it at the time. However, I also do think, and given what we heard since then, that he was speaking carelessly. He was, you know, there was an important case in the news at the time of someone who had crossed over the border a number of times and came in to commit murder. And this was-

But he wasn't talking about that case. He was talking more broadly. And this is sort of the excuse from a lot of people who creates excuses for Trump, which is that his language is careless. And I don't believe that his language is careless. When it is important to him, he knows exactly what he's saying. Simply because we don't like what he's saying, we find it grotesque and offensive, doesn't mean he didn't intend to

say it. And you know how we know that? We know that because he never changes his stance. He never apologizes or withdraws what he says. So for instance, as another example, when he said, there are very fine people on both sides, he was given ample opportunity over and over and over again to prove that he wasn't being anti-Semitic and a bigot, and he chose not to. No, no, no. That one you're not correct about. He actually said in that very statement, I'm not talking about the white supremacists. I denounced them on category. I'll actually look it up while someone else talks. But the Mexican thing, I would say in your behalf that he had ample opportunity to say, listen, it came out badly and I didn't mean it that way. And he didn't say that. And you can't defend him

on that. On the other hand, he never went back to that well again. And he did always, he never made that mistake again. And- But that's not true. He made all sorts of similar mistakes. He created a whole ban on a category of human beings. Let's not, John, I'm talking about the Mexican thing. He never put it that way again.

And the truth is, he never, ever, ever, ever, ever apologizes for anything. Well, that must mean that he doesn't think that what he's doing is wrong. People who believe what they're doing is wrong have a tendency to apologize. And he doesn't do that. So this is a character flaw. Hold on. So this is a character flaw. This is a character flaw. Hold on, but it is a character flaw for sure. But we do know that this is kind of the Roy Cohn philosophy that he was taught.

He won't, what I'm saying is that in so many cases where it would be in his interest to apologize, which wouldn't mean he was admitting to being a bigot or anything like that. He simply doesn't apologize. Anyway, okay, so I'm going to give you the Mexican one. The next one you said was what? I mentioned that he directed the Department of Justice

to go to the Supreme Court and argue that gay people should be able to be fired because they're gay. So that's not actually accurate. It is. Well, he was arguing arguing correct me if i'm wrong they were arguing that the the the the act was it the civil rights act of 64 i don't know which one it was um didn't cover homosexuality right yeah and that's a that's certainly a a credible argument. I mean, obviously, for anybody who believes in, you know, textualism or whatever it is, they would have to say, no, this isn't what, it doesn't mean they want gay people to be fired. It wasn't that credible an argument given that a Supreme Court that he stacked ruled against him. Well, but Gorsuch, a conservative.

Well, I thought, I'd be honest with you. I'm happy the case came out the way it did, but I don't think Gorsuch's argument made sense. You're saying the Supreme Court, the conservative Supreme Court that went against the conservative Trump administration was senseless. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Yeah. Just like Roe versus Wade. I think Roe versus Wade was senseless. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Just like Roe versus Wade.

I think Roe versus Wade was senseless. And I agree that I'm pro-choice. I mean, the law says that you can't discriminate on the basis of sex. And then Gorsuch basically said, I remember that sexual preference is sex. We'll say sexual preference anymore. Sexual preference is very different

than sexual orientation. Or sexual orientation is sex. Sexual preference is very different than sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is sex. But obviously, that's not what they meant when they passed the law because they could have said that in the law. If I fire someone because they're gay,

God forbid, I'm not firing them because they're a male or a female. I'm firing them because I disapprove of their behavior. The argument that prevailed that the conservative Gorsuch accepted was that sex includes different permutations of sex. And this whole notion- Okay, let me stop you there. Hold on. Let me just, so when you move past it. There are, for instance, Andrew Sullivan, who's gay,

and nobody's more credible on the issue of gay rights than Andrew Sullivan. Well, that's not true. Well, he's basically the father of gay marriage. He also tweeted out that he thought Gorsuch's opinion was a stretch. I don't think you could call it unbridled bigotry to say that anybody who thinks that Gorsuch was wrong, therefore, I mean, so call me, this is why I liked your column,

because I'm like, well, I don't think Gorsuch's opinion was right, so am I an unbridled bigot? No. All right. But I never said that anyone who didn't believe that Gorsuch was correct was an unbridled bigot. I said that Trump was an unbridled bigot. And I've given you multiple examples. We're still trying to parse the second one of them, though.

No, I'm saying I'm kind of giving you the first one, but I don't fully, but I'm going to give you 51%. I mean, I wouldn't want to have to go to court and defend them, defend the charges. What about excluding all transgender from military when they had been in the military working just fine? Yeah, I agree with you on that one. Um, the Muslim one, I'm two and a half or three so far. Can I add one? Let me just get, let me handle it. I'm going to bow off for a while. The Muslim one, we know what she thinks. The Muslim one, I happen to have had three conversations with Arabic people in the last month. All three who told me they agreed with the so-called Muslim men,

the travel ban. One of them is extremely pro-Muslim. He's extremely to the left in politics. And he's like, no, we all, you'd be, he said, you'd be amazed at how many Arabic people support this travel ban because we are scared the way other people are of the chaos in these countries.

And he says something interesting. He says that we know better than the American public. We understand better than the American public. We understand better than the American public understand how bullshit background checks are and screening is from certain parts of the world. So, you know,

and of course, these were countries identified by the Obama administration. But go ahead. I'm trying to put nuance on all this. I'm not trying to, again, I'm not trying to rehabilitate Trump into Barack Obama.

There's always going to be some mechanism by which you can shave off the sharp edge and make it appear a little bit more blunt. But when you stand back and you look at the object, you've still got a sledgehammer. ledgehammer from Trump is that he has a tremendous amount of racism and bigotry that not only does he personally believe, but that he tries to implement into law. Yeah, but I'm gonna let Joe talk and then I want to go on. Go ahead, Joe. Oh, it's important to note it only covers 12% of the world's Muslims and it also included North Korea, which isn't an Islamic nation. Yeah. And I mean, you know. Don't you think it's curious that the Muslim ban did not include any of the countries where he has financial interest? Well, I don't. I don't know. You mean like Saudi Arabia? You can probably trust a background check more than you do in Yemen.

I think that was the reasoning that went into it. But I mean, that's that's. Listen, I don't object to stronger and more stringent and effective background checks. That's never been something that I would say. And in fact, I wrote a column, I think it was also for USA Today, that got me in trouble with some people on the left, in which I said, every government, every nation has the right to decide who it's going to let into its borders. But those decisions, at least in the United States, should not be made on things like religion, race, sexuality.

It wasn't made on religion. Things like that. But I have no problem, and I support the idea that we should make every effort that we can stringently to avoid letting people into the country who we think are going to harm Americans or American interests. Well, you know, the notion that you should not have religious restrictions on immigration sounds about right, although a religion is an ideology, and isn't an ideology fair game? For example, if I decided that my religion was, I have a religion and God has commanded me to, that gay people are evil and that they should be physically assaulted in the streets. Sort of like the Christian religion that has women being stoned to death for certain offenses that are perfectly acceptable now, sort of like that? Okay, fair enough. Say, say, but I assume that most Christians no longer believe that.

But I assume that most Muslims no longer, or don't, and I don't know enough about Islam and Muslims to know specifically that they're not coming to the United States to blow up the country and kill Americans. As a general proposition, I'm just saying, shouldn't we, I'm just saying as a general proposition, the notion that religion should not be under any circumstances, a criterion, I think is misguided in that any but any her Nazis could have said our religion dictates that we have these beliefs theoretically. And God has come. Hitler, I guess, was an atheist. But suppose the Nazis said, actually, God is telling us the Norse God Woden is telling us. And by the way, some white supremacists do. Okay, so let me say this. If there is an overlap between one's religion and a clear and convincing idea that the purpose of coming into the United States is to cause harm to Americans or American

interests, sure, yes, then that overlap could be considered. But that's not what happened here, and it's not plausible to believe that Muslims as a whole come into the United States. Every Muslim who comes into the United States comes in with a religious belief that they're going to attack America. Hold on, hold on, Mr. Sir, hold on. Let's just, for the record, Trump didn't ban all Muslims. The law was not based on Islam. The law was based on countries that were identified by the Obama administration as being unreliable in terms of being able to screen out terrorists. Trump referred to it as the Muslim ban and his administration did too. And other countries like Saudi Arabia, who are apparently responsible for 9-11,

were not banned. Hold on. I don't know that Trump referred to it as the Muslim ban, but I just want to put some things in the record, just if you're listening. So Trump on Mexico, this is what he said. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best.

They're sending people who have problems. They're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. people who have problems. They're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. They are rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. So, you know, it's...

What happened to the murderers? That's what... I'm reading it verbatim. I guess either this quote is inaccurate or he didn't say murderers. I'm reading it... I'm not. Or maybe it was something else in the same speech or a similar speech. Go ahead.

I mean, I just read the quote. I thought I had won, number one. I thought I had won this one. We're not backtracking. Well, I know because, you know, you see the thing where you say unbridled bigotry. I'm like, well, you know, there's something to what he's saying there. Maybe bridled bigotry.

We'll call it bridled. That's what he said. Then also in 2016, he then said, sometimes in the heat of speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose your right words, you say the wrong thing, Trump told the crowd in North Carolina. I have done that and I regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. To be fair, he did say what I just said. So I didn't know it actually. I didn't know he said that until I just Googled now. Of course, you know that the press didn't

make much of the fact that he said such a thing, but he did say it and we have to be fair. Well, did he refer back to that issue or did he just make sort of an out of context? Sometime I say stupid things. He referred to, no, you're right. Well, he said exactly what I said. He referred to issues where he caused personal pain, but there's not that many of them. I'm surprised. And then he went on for another three and a half years to cause a lot more personal pain. So let me go forward because this is where I really, we're just leading up to the thing. So then you say this stuff and you say blatant corruption.

I don't know what you mean. We're getting right at times. But then he said. I can go into that if you want. If you can do it quick without, you know, like what's the most blatant corruption? I don't know. Maybe the thing that he got impeached for trying to use American money in order to help his reelection campaign in 2020 by contacting the Ukraine and essentially saying, I won't give you this financial amount of hundreds of millions

of dollars that's been set for you unless you find fabricated dirt on my political opponent, Joe Biden. Yeah, but he actually didn't. He was impeached for that. So I'm guessing that you were not going to contest that. Well, I will because he actually didn't do it. And, and, um, Wait, wait, wait. He did, Trump didn't do it? The money was actually never held up.

But more importantly than that, But wait a second. Hold on. Let me, let me, let me say, and then you can say, if you read the transcript, he said, I want you to work with the attorney general. But what's interesting is that now that, I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's just the truth.

Now that all this stuff came out about Hunter Biden, I don't think he would have been impeached. Certainly now there was enough smoke that Trump would have the right to say- You've completely moved into a separate issue. No, it's the exact same issue. If we had known in 2019 or whenever it was that there was an email where it said, we're going to keep 10% for the big man and that somebody was on record saying the big man was Joe Biden, certainly nobody at that point can say Trump was not within his rights to ask Ukraine to find out what's going on here.

You know, I mean, they couldn't impeach him for that. Yeah, yeah. I take a different position on that. I take the position that Trump holding up American funds in order to get dirt on a political opponent to help his reelection campaign is a violation of both law and the duty that he has. No violation of law. Now, now you're not, now you, I'm going to give it, it's not a violation of law. They never accused him of violation of law. You don't do that. You don't get accused for a violation of law necessarily in, in an impeachment proceeding because you don't have to have a violation. No, no, no, no. The Department of Justice is what-

Mr. Stern, you're wrong there. No, you are incorrect there because I'll tell you why you're incorrect. It says high crimes and misdemeanors. They went for abuse of power, which is something which many people don't even agree that that's an impeachable issue. There's a debate among constitutional scholars about that.

What there is no debate about is that you can get impeached for a crime. And many, many people were saying this was bribery. Congressmen were saying that Schumer said it was bribery. Pelosi said it was bribery. And then when it came down to the articles of impeachment, they did not accuse them of any law breaking. And there was only one, there's only one plausible reason they didn't accuse him of breaking the law is because they, they felt they couldn't defend it because certainly it would make their case stronger. That is simply not true because look at Michael,

Michael Cohn pled guilty to an indictment in the Southern district of New York in relation to, in relation to fraud. Donald Trump is listed essentially as a co-conspirator, as individual number one. That's a case that I could prove as a federal prosecutor multiple times over with one eye closed and both hands tied behind my back. By Stormy Daniels? Wait, you're talking about Stormy Daniels? You're talking about Stormy Daniels? Yes. But the political decision was made that that wouldn't be charged as part of the articles of impeachment.

But it's still a crime. No, no. I'm sorry. First of all, do you know that they dropped that case, the Stormy Daniels case, which I don't know if it was the state or the federal. They dropped it. What are you talking about? Michael Cohen pled guilty to it. No.

They decided not to charge Trump with it. I'll bring it up in a second. Trump couldn't be charged with it because the Office of Legal Counsel says that you can't charge sitting presidents. That's why Trump wasn't charged with it. No, you can't charge him, but you can impeach them for it. That's what impeachment is. If you have crimes on a president, you can't charge him with it. You're right. You can impeach him for them. Yes, he could have been, but the decision-

They chose not to accuse him of any crimes. That doesn't mean that he didn't commit the crime. Why would they not charge him for them? Why would they not try to impeach him for it? Because they made a political assessment that it was going to be easier and more expedient to prove a limited number of pieces of of crimes and evidence against trump rather than presenting the the endless panoply of illegal or unethical things that he's done okay so here it is here is from the new york time have an impeachment proceeding that was one month rather than six, they made that decision. I just have to respectfully disagree.

Stormy, this is the New York Times. I can show you the... Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. This is important. Just so you know, because he meant it. Stormy Daniels' hush money lawsuit is dismissed by judge. A federal judge says they dismissed the lawsuit brought against President Trump and his former lawyers. I mean, I'm not going to read the whole case. There was not enough evidence of a crime because essentially, I can tell you why.

Who brought that lawsuit? Was that a crime that was charged? Was that the civil lawsuit you're referring to? The legal, let me see. Was that the civil lawsuit you're referring to civil I'm trying to find it I'll find it in a second I don't know so Daniel lawsuit because that's civil and it's a completely different issue I will find it in this no my you are we discussing the question of whether an impeachment needs to have a crime attached to it? No, I'm not.

I'm saying that if they had a crime. Listen, this is what's ridiculous about the Stormy Daniels. It doesn't need a crime. Hold on. I didn't say it needed a crime. I said that. I thought you did. No.

What I said was that the vanilla impeachment is a crime. Abuse of power is something that nobody debates that you can be impeached for a crime. People do debate that you can be impeached for abuse of power. But he was. Right. But if you have him dead to rights on bribery, there is no reason in the world

you would not impeach him for it and say, simple. Sure there is. Do you want me to explain to you that reason? No, I want to go on. I want to say this, that the Stormy Daniels case, if I understand, I mean, you had a former chair of the FEC saying it was a ridiculous case because the following. The logic of that charge meant that Trump was supposed to take campaign funds and pay Stormy Daniels. In other words, a little old lady gives money to the Trump campaign, and then Trump writes a letter to pay off his mistress.

No, no, no. That's not the only reason. Now, wait. Now, of course, that would then, people would say, well, that sounds like a crime. You took campaign funds, and all of a sudden they would say, you used it for personal money. But more importantly, all right, this is just, we're not going to settle this. He was paying someone to influence the campaign. That was the crux of it. But more importantly.

When Michael Cohen pled guilty to it, that is a charge that still stood. Right, but Michael Cohen was trying to keep his ass out of jail. But more importantly, when they asked Michael Cohen, when they asked Michael Cohen, and he paid off many mistresses in the past. And when they asked Michael Cohen, what did Trump ask you to do? Trump said, take care of it.

So did you tell Trump there was a legal way to do it and an illegal? No, he said, just take care of it. Anyway, but this is the thing. Just before we leave this topic, you understand that in the indictment that Cohen pled guilty to in federal court, Trump is individual number one, the co-conspirator. People are innocent of proving guilty.

Whether Cohen tried to imply that Trump was, I mean, this is, yes, you're right, but that's not evidence of a crime. Because somebody named somebody as a, you know, if Michael Cohen named- The jury that named him as the co-conspirator, not Michael Cohen. Dude, if I'm trying to keep my ass out of jail for a crime and I say that Dan Natterman was in on it with me,

that is not evidence that Dan Natterman committed a crime. But you understand that it's the grand jury that approved that indictment. The grand jury didn't indict Trump. The grand jury indicted Michael Cohen. That's right. And included a co-conspirator, individual number one, who is Donald Trump.

Listen, like I said, there's a former, anybody can Google it, there's a former, anybody can Google it, there's a former FEC commissioner who says this is not a crime. Jonathan Edwards was acquitted of a similar thing. Who says what is not a crime? Who says the thing that Michael Cohen pled guilty to in federal court and was sentenced to is not a crime? Yes. He says that Trump paying Stormy Daniels is a personal expense, just like Trump capping his teeth in order to look better on camera, just like Trump pacing his house to look better for the electorate, just like anything that a candidate does to look better is a personal expense. He's being extortionate.

Someone had better go to Michael Cohen's judge then and tell him he sent someone to prison. When you have a consensual relationship with somebody, and then you're running for office, and that person comes and says, listen, I'm going to tell the world about this consensual relationship we had unless you pay me a million dollars. That's a personal expense. I'm thinking that you need to get ahold of the judge that sent Michael Cohen to prison and let him know he sent an innocent man to prison. Listen, you're putting the whole presumption

of innocence on its head here. No, I'm not. No, Michael Cohen may have committed a crime. I don't know what Michael, anyway, listen, but this is where it gets interesting in your thing because we got so bogged down here. And this is where I really want to say, and where I actually have,

so you said my best friend just called and discussed, say he did not recognize the country. Unfortunately, I do. It is the same country that built itself largely on the backs of slaves who had their most basic human rights stolen and whose descendants more than 150 years after emancipation still carry the weight of the chains that held them down. Now, this is where I thought

you crossed the line into something that actually disturbed me. The first part didn't disturb me because these are all reasonable people can differ issues. But what you seem to be saying there, I know quite a few Trump supporters. And what you seem to be saying there is that the only reason they could think that Trump was a better person than Biden was because somehow they are adjacent to slaveholders. Why? Well, you said, how could Trump get so many votes because this is the same country that built its back that built itself on the backs of slaves well i said i said three

things among many and one of them was that and do you want me to explain what i meant by that yes yes what i meant by that is and the other two things as well, which have nothing to do with slavery, is my friend called and said, I cannot believe that people are watching these horrible things, that they've watched Trump for four years with the list of horrors that he's done, and now they're still voting for him. I just don't recognize this country. And my response is, but I do recognize this country. This country, as well as having a lot of wonderful qualities and things that we should be admired for and things that I do admire in this country, has a host of things that this country has accepted in the past that has been bad. One of those bad things is slavery. Another one of those things is anti-gay bias. And what was the third one that I mentioned? Oh, the, you know, the screaming at Mexicans to go back to

their own country, even though they're here legitimately. Those are the three things that I mentioned of many that are indicative of a country that can do very bad things. And we need to accept that and try and change it. So you're not drawing any, any connection between people who support Trump now and slavery? No. What do you think motivates the average Trump voter to vote for Trump? The average Trump voter, I believe is,

and I had, I said this in another part of my article. I think that bigotry is part of what motivated and what does motivate Trump voters to vote for Trump. So if you're asking me that question, the answer is yes. Bigotry against? Bigotry against people who don't look like them. Bigotry against blacks, bigotry against Mexicans, bigotry against gay people. I think that's a large component of what people were galvanized to in Donald Trump. I think he allowed them to express their bigotry. I think he allowed them to come out from the shadows because it has not been acceptable

in civilized society for the last certain number of years. And he allowed them to march in the streets screaming, Jews will not replace us, and not be wildly condemned and thought to be crazy. I think that's what he allowed. And I think that's in large part what people were drawn to. Because he's the one candidate that has allowed them to express this without complete

and utter condemnation. Joe, this is obviously probably not what you expected to discuss necessarily, but do you have any thoughts about that? I don't think it's fair to take a small group of Democrats that behave poorly and extrapolate that into all Democrats. And I think the same is true for Republicans or Trump supporters or whatever. There's a lot of people who voted for Trump because in a sense, there's a war between globalism and populism in this country. And,

you know, I grew up in Pennsylvania. I saw a factory where they had to train their replacement and they shipped the factory to China. And at the same time, politicians like Joe Biden were saying, this is good for us. So there's a million reasons why people vote, how they vote. There's a big tent of Trump supporters. I know that that's a weird saying. You're right, Joe. I mean, there's Texas border towns, which are predominantly Mexican, that went for Trump.

And let me say this, Joe. You're right in the sense that it isn't fair to say that every person who voted for Trump is a flaming racist. I completely agree with that. But broadly, I think that this is what Trump allowed. And you can either be an active racist with these beliefs, or someone who tolerates these beliefs. I think that a lot of people who might not treat black people or gay people or Mexican people poorly are willing to tolerate that in Trump. And I find that to be unacceptable and the wrong thing to do. And you simply can't deny that

because everyone knows what Trump is. At least in 2016, people could fool themselves into saying he will probably be very different when he's core and 74,000 people or so, 74 million people or so voted for him nonetheless. That's what I was talking about in my article. So let's just, again, let me say it. So, you know, listen, there's something to what you're saying. I don't mean to pretend that I, that nothing, that I think what you're saying is ridiculous. It's just a matter of finding the right ratio of it. Because after all, so many Latino votes also turn towards Trump. So listen, gay votes did too.

There are, you know, there are gay people who are part of the law having Republican. So, so let me, let me just, let me just say, because I like to put it all on the record. So in the thing where Trump said, good people on both sides, which I'm not defending that, but the truth is he also said in that same speech, and it's not fair, and this is where people on your side disturb me because I think the ultimate good faith in an argument is to steal man, as they say, the other side, which is to never leave out the best defense

of the side that you're trying to criticize. Almost you need to, I think in a moral universe, you would start with what I'm about to say if you want to still make the case against Trump. And I almost never hear anybody who wants to make the case against him just say, to be fair, that he also said the following. I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that other group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay. So this is what always, this is what bothers

me about the whole thing against Trump. It's like, there are millions, if not hundreds of millions of people who know that Trump said this thing about good people on both sides who have absolutely no idea in two paragraphs later, he said what I just said. And that speaks to a press with an agenda rather than a press that seeks to, you know, bring out the facts. And that's really a bad thing. Let me ask you. Let Joe in. Go ahead, Joe. Or the kids in cages, which started the obama administration due to a court decision about you you couldn't separate the kids it was it wasn't under the trump administration it started they held the photographs and until they were from the obama administration that's why during the debate trump said who built the cages joe okay can i ask you was the statement that you just read from the same speech or was it?

I'll say, I'll say, I'll say it as you as I go. I'm reading a political fact, a political fact, uh, uh, in context, Donald Trump's very fine people on both sides of Mark transcript. And, and he's got, and, and that's there. Yeah. That you didn't even know. That's, I mean, you know, you should, I knew that he, I knew that there was a backtracking at some point, but I thought it was at a different time when he tried to clarify it. I thought there were three statements. There was the crazy statement that he made, then I thought there was this backtracking, and then he undid the backtracking, if I remember correctly. You're right that there was something after where he kind of said some dumb things again.

Again, listen, this is my point. And I think it's something maybe we can even all agree on. I'm not telling you you have to think that Trump didn't say anything. I'm not even telling you you have to say that Trump doesn't support white nationalists. What I'm telling you is that when you want to, you can be a prosecutor and just bring out the facts which are good for your side. Or you can be kind of like the way I would want to teach my kids to think, which is put everything out there on the table, the stuff that's good for my side. And then say, now make up your mind. He said this, but he also said, you know, and we,

and very, very, very few people for Trump, especially ever put everything out there on the table. Let me say something. I'm going to make a concession. So listen very closely because it happens very rarely. You are right in the sense that I agree with you. I think that if there are other things that reflect on what's said that we're condemning, it's appropriate to look at those other things and we shouldn't hide those other things and ignore them. I absolutely give you that. Appreciate it. because it's not fair. And there had been times when I've done that in articles, you know, someone wrote an article for The Root, which is an African American paper, Pete Buttigieg is a lying motherfucker. And, oh, I'm sorry. Oh, don't be. We like you more now. Anyway, that was Pete Buttigieg is a lying MF. And so he took pieces of things and didn't include Go ahead. about that because I absolutely agree with you. I think that you're right about that. Now, let me explain to you, when you're writing an op-ed column, it's not like writing a legal brief. So if I were writing a legal brief, I probably would drop a footnote saying,

Trump said this god-awful, horrible thing, but later he said something that also was not god-awful and affected it. You don't do that as part of an op-ed. You know, normally I'm given 900 words, and I'm always making my editor pull her hair out and, you know, getting us to 1,200 words when I shouldn't be. So you just don't do that. I mean, as an op-ed writer, you have a particular idea that you're going for. It doesn't mean that you're dishonest in what you're presenting, but you don't footnote everything that may cut against your idea in the smallest part. Okay, fair enough.

Because listen, I hope we can get you on again because we got to, I want to bring up one thing and then we got to let you go so we can have our other conversation. And after we go, I'm going to send you just the links to the things that I've referred to, including the FEC chair about Stormy Daniels. But let's just talk about COVID. You had said, did I have it here? Essentially, you, without having to go back and get the quote that you, you know, that Trump was responsible for, I don't know, how would you characterize what you're feeling about Trump on COVID and responsible for the deaths and stuff? So here's sort of what you're saying.

I don't blame Trump for the advent of COVID. I don't think Trump had anything to do with creating COVID. No, no, his policy. But what I do think is that his policy has been a failed policy in reacting to COVID. A lethal mismanagement of a pandemic. That's what you want. Yes. And so I am very comfortable saying, and I think most rational people are, that Trump botched the response to COVID.

Not that he created it, not even that he could have potentially stopped it from coming to the United States. But the raging epidemic that is claiming 3,000 people a day, killing 3,000 people a day, and infecting 200,000 people a day in the United States is largely due to Trump's- So let me tell you, now listen, we've been very critical of Trump on this show about COVID. We were early calls for lockdowns and we were way, way, way ahead of the curve on masks. So you're not speaking to any kind of COVID. And I called Alex Berenson a charlatan. So you're not speaking to any kind of COVID deniers here. But here is where I have trouble in good faith agreeing with you. And I'll bring it up and then you tell me

where I'm wrong. Essentially, I'm going to give you just two little portions of an argument. You can tell me where I'm wrong. This is the curve, I'm showing it here, of cumulative deaths attributed to COVID-19 in Europe. You have to pull back. Pull it back. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm rushing so much, I sound incoherent. Okay. Yeah, it looks like an abstract painting to me, but go ahead. Cumulative deaths. Now can you see it?

Yeah. Cumulative deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the European Union, United States, France, and England. This is per capita. And if we look here, we see that England is here, high. France is basically, is a touch higher than the United States, but basically the same as the United States. And the European Union, which benefits from having Germany, is lower.

So the first thing that comes to mind is that, well, the absence of Trump, and Italy is even higher too, I didn't put Italy on it, the absence of Trump did not help England and France. And the European Union is basically, you know, neck and neck with America in the last few months, and Italy is higher, and Brussels is higher. So obviously- The European Union looks way lower than the United States. Yeah, but they've been going up and down per capita with us. But as I said, the European Union benefits from having Germany, which is, I think, the most populous country in Germany.

You know, the Germans are next to the Asians. They're very good at a disciplined response. But then you add- Australia, New Zealand, also- They're not part of the- They're very good at disciplined response. But then you add- Australia, New Zealand, all sorts of- They're not part of the- No, there have been other countries that are good, but England, countries that are comparable to us, but quite left-wing,

France and England and Italy and Brussels. But let me bring the other thing in. Well, look at Boris Johnson, though. Look who's running England. It's Boris Johnson. Hold on. And then the other thing- The UK Trump.

Hold on, let me- I said I had two things, and now I'm saying. This is also from the New York Times. In the New York metro area alone, 21,800 people had died by May 3rd. Fewer than 4,300 would have died by then if control measures had been put into place. All models are only estimates,

impossible to know for certain what the exact number of people would have died, says Lauren Myers of the University of Texas at Austin. But it makes a compelling case that even slightly earlier action in New York could have been game changing. Quote, this implies that if interventions had occurred two weeks earlier, many COVID-19 death cases would have prevented by early May, not just in New York City, but throughout the United States, meaning that 30,000, 40,000 of those deaths are being attributed here in the New York Times to New York and New Jersey, and particularly New York. So then you take those earlier stats and now lower the American deaths by 30 or 40,000. And then you do have us neck and neck

with the European Union. Then you have us way out in front of France, way out in front of Germany. So you begin to say, well, then if Trump had done a good job, what will we be like? Japan? And then you say, well, that's just not plausible, is it?

To think that the United States could have had a reaction on par with these isolated countries like Australia or something. You know what is plausible? What's plausible is that the leader of the United States could have said, everyone needs to wear masks. Yes. And I'm going to wear one too, as an example. All of the people who voted for me, I am asking you to protect yourselves, protect the people you love, protect the people in your family, protect strangers, wear masks. Hold on.

Hold on. Because I- He did just the opposite. Hold on. I totally agree with you about that. As a matter of fact, he did worse than that in one aspect. While Michigan was being locked down, he was tweeting out free Michigan. Liberate.

Yeah, liberate Michigan. But my question is, and I ask myself in my heart, okay, I agree with all that, but if I look at the stats and look at the world and look at what's happening in other countries, does it really add up to the lethal management of a pandemic? And also, if we are going to talk about the lethal management of a pandemic,

what's going on that the people who were so angry with Trump give Mario Cuomo a total pass? Where you have the New York Times talking about tens of thousands, 20, 30, 40,000 deaths. And it becomes pretty clear, we don't care about what Cuomo did because this is more about Trump

than it is the lethal management of the pandemic. And I am to the right of everybody or to the left of everybody on handling COVID. I'm pro lockdown, I'm pro masks. I take it very, very seriously. As I said, I'm not on the side of people who are trying to make light of the epidemic. But I do find that the case that there's a but-for causation, that if only Trump had said, wear masks, we'd be in a really different situation now. I don't think there's data.

Yeah, but you know what you're doing? You're teasing out one of many strands of the thread. And you're saying if Trump had, nothing would change if Trump had said wear masks. Very little, something would change, not much. Okay, so I don't believe, I don't believe that very little would have changed if the president of the United States

had told his cultist followers how important it is to wear masks early on. I don't think that Barry Little would think that. Except all the deaths were in states that didn't have his cultist followers. But it is more than that. It is a whole series of things. There are many arms to the octopus. Masks are one of them. The idea of supporting individual governors and mayors who know that it's necessary to lock down and refusing to do that is another one. Pushing hydroxychloroquine and unproven and ultimately determined to be detrimental medication is another one. Failing to secure more vaccine in the summer when Pfizer said to Trump and his administration, would you like to secure more vaccine in the summer when Pfizer said to Trump and his administration, would

you like to secure more vaccine? And saying, nope, not us. Well, that wasn't Trump who did that. But you're right. That was a failure. That is the Trump administration. He's responsible for his own administration. Okay, but what you're doing here.

He's suggesting people inject themselves with bleach. There is a whole panoply of things that he failed on. Michael, he didn't suggest people inject themselves with bleach. There is a whole panoply of things that he failed on. Michael, he didn't suggest people inject themselves with bleach. He looked over at Dr. Birx and said, isn't there some type of a disinfectant that could be injected that would knock this thing out? She looked at him like, what the hell are you talking about? He did that. He kept continuing. Yeah, that's what he said. Isn't there some way way although it turned out there was the implication yeah he said he asked is in this some way we could use this in inside although the truth is it was just a a story in the news i sent it around like like three weeks

ago where they actually have a new drug which they're injecting a disinfectant in the lungs which was but besides listen no it's not bleach but's, but it's actually, you know what? I actually did some work, some studies on this. There actually is a study where they, where they aerated bleach in order to kill germs inside lungs at some point, but leaving this, I think they killed the lung too. And the person, no, no, I'll send you, but listen, what Trump said was ridiculous, but I'm just trying to be fair. Anyway, I'm saying is that it isn't an individual thing. You have to look at the broader failure. And when you look at the broader failure,

up, down, left, and right, there's a lot of failure to be had. But there's something you're doing here, which is really interesting. So you're bringing up that Trump, that somebody screwed up buying some extra doses. And we don't know the whole story on that, but it doesn't, you know- Well, the New York Times reported the story. I'm not creating it. No, I'm not saying you may.

I'm saying we don't know the whole story of who dropped the ball, why they dropped the ball. Maybe given the facts they knew at the time, it was- I don't know. Maybe it was because Trump hired Scott Atlas, the discredited radiologist, not a virologist, to run the COVID task force team.

And Scott Atlas got on television and said, it's a good thing to get infected by COVID. Then we'll get herd immunity. It's great. Everyone should get themselves infected with COVID. Sir, we want to stay tethered to what we know maybe it was that we don't know why they didn't buy those doses or whose mistake it was we don't know that but obviously something went wrong but things do go wrong but here's the thing but this is where this is where you lose credibility for me it's not because you bring bringing that up. Because there's articles here about how Operation Warp Speed is credited by everybody in the know with being responsible for putting us way, way, way ahead of where we would be otherwise. So, and again-

Are you a bright bar? No, this is the Canadian Broadcasting Company. No doubt Operation Warp this is a Canadian, this is the Canadian broadcasting company. No doubt Operation Warp Speed is a huge success, says Tinglong Dai, associate professor at Johns Hopkins University. You can like or hate Trump administration, but no doubt it's a huge success. Jesse Goodman, the former chief scientist of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, agreed. The U.S. government deserves tremendous credit for the high priority place in Operation Warp Speed. It does for the Moderna vaccine. Hold on, this is a bright spot.

This is, let me read it. The first vaccine, Pfizer, was not funded by Operation Warp Speed. Yeah, but I read it. The distribution of it was. This is a bright spot in a pandemic response. I mean, the rest of it has been dismal, said Goodman, but Operation Warp Speed is not.

And then there's actually articles out there, you can see them, which said that Pfizer, although they didn't take the money, still benefited from the infrastructure of Operation Warp Speed. The point is this, you can cherry pick something that went wrong, but if you don't want to also give the devil his due, say, you know what? Imagine if you had the article that said that somebody suggested Operation Warp Speed and Trump turned it down. You would certainly run with that article. I have a second concession coming your way. So stop talking for a minute and I'll give you my second concession. The second concession is there are aspects to Operation Warp Speed that have been very helpful.

You are absolutely correct on that. One of them is that Operation Warp Speed was funding part of the Moderna vaccine. It did not fund the research in the Pfizer vaccine, which is the first vaccine that's going to get released. The other thing is that Operation Warp Speed allegedly created an infrastructure that's going to allow for a better distribution. So I will give you that. There is, I never said, and I-

Michael, you're killing me. Why? With his concessions to you. Yeah. Because he's an intellectually honest guy. I think that we need, given the two concessions, I think we need to end this when we do with, again, how much younger I look than 60. Because that will be reasonable compensation for the concessions. But I never said that everything that happened under Trump is bad. I will not say that. I said that. No, I was the one who said that.

Most of the things that happened under Trump are bad. Most of the things are horrific. And with respect to how the pandemic progressed in the United States, Trump deserves a lot of the blame. He deserves all the blame. We're going to wrap it up. You should be a guest on our show again, because I think you're tough, you're smart, and you're the kind of person I can disagree with in a pleasant way. And you agree with me.

And you agree with him. The most important part, yeah. And I do want to send you, I do want to make email contact with you and send you some things, but I just want to reiterate that it's not that I think everything you say about Trump is out to lunch. I just would not place my dial in the red quite, in the bright red as you do. I would put it somewhere more in the middle. I think that a lot of these things have nuance. And I also- Yeah, I'm in blood red. You're right.

Yeah, and I discount certain things in the, just because I feel like Trump is a blowhard. But anyway, I think that- Wait a minute. This is an important point. People have for years made that concession to him. This notion that he's sort of this innocuous, unimportant, non-malignant type of entity, because there's a lot of puffery and ridiculousness that goes on

around him, neglects to hold him accountable for the many, many horrific things that are not just him being a blowhard, but are him being really evil in many substantial ways. Yeah, I'm not gonna, I'm gonna let that stand, even though I wouldn't say he's innocuous, but I, anyway. All right, anything else you wanna take up with this very tough adversary we got here? No, I love him, though. I'll just reiterate that he does not look like he's nearing 60.

It was all worth it. That alone made it all worth it. I assume you hear that a fair amount. He's also got muscle. I'm looking at a picture of him on his Twitter profile. He's also jacked. He's got huge thighs. Listen, listen.

The thing that I'm most upset about now, and this is a joke, so please people do not write me, is that this is one of the very first times in the last nine months I've worn anything other than sweats. I have existed in sweats for nine months. But the thing that makes me most unhappy is that when I put on these jeans after nine months of not wearing them, I discovered that someone has been breaking into my house when I'm out at the grocery store and taking all of my jeans in two inches. I don't know how this happened, but yes, I look decent in that picture. I'm not sure if I still look decent in real life. Oh, here it is. This is from biospace.com, but it's covered

other places. Inexpensive nasal spray prevents COVID-19 infection in ferrets. I don't even know ferrets. In ferrets? Really? That's how studies start, Perry. Listen, clearly that justifies Trump saying inject human beings with

bleach. I understand that. But he never said it. But it says anyway, intranasal, there's a spray, and the pathogen uses the spike protein to attach it inside the lungs, fusing to the cell wall in order to prevent COVID. My point is that when Trump was dumbly and recklessly speculating out loud. Is there any way we could use that inside the lungs?

It was a layman's, it was an idiotic thing for a president to say, but at the time- We can stop there. We all agree. Yeah, but the thing is- Is that the idiotic part of that? No, because a president shouldn't speculate. But what bothered me about that moment, I remember saying at the time, well, if someone had said that to No, because a president shouldn't speculate. But what bothered me about that moment is that

I remember saying at the time, well, if someone had said that to me in conversation, listen, do you think there's any way they could bleach seems to kill COVID? Is there any way they could use that inside the lungs? I wouldn't say, what are you, some kind of fucking idiot? I'd be like, I don't know. I don't know. Maybe if you dilute it,

you could breathe it in. I don't know. I'm not a scientist. But I wouldn't speculate out loud. I don't dispute that maybe if you dilute it, you could breathe it in. I don't know, I'm not a scientist, but I wouldn't speculate out loud. I don't dispute that bleach would kill COVID. I mean, we know that, but it also kills human tissue and cells. Yeah, so does chemotherapy. And that's the problem with chemotherapy, but there's a very tight balance that's created

to kill the cancer and not the human cells. And for the president of the United States to sit on television and look over at cells. And for the president of the United States to sit on television and look over at Dr. Birx and say, hmm, what do you think about the idea of injecting bleach? Dr. Dean Mitchell, He didn't say injecting bleach. Dr. Dean Mitchell, He said, what did he say exactly? Dr. Dean Mitchell, I don't remember. Dr. Dean Mitchell, The implication was injecting bleach.

Did anyone come away with anything other than the idea is the guy is contemplating injecting bleach? No. Maybe I shouldn't get hung up on the word injecting. He was trying to say, was there some way to use bleach in the lungs? I don't know if he meant an injection. Listen, I have to interject here because I promised Joe that we would not be going on about Trump. Okay, we got to go. Oh, I didn't know we promised him that. Okay, let's go. It's my fault, Joe.

I didn't know we promised him that. What the fuck? Why didn't you tell me? I have a show at 8.30. Okay, Michael, we're going to let you go. I'm going to email you. We'll speak again, I hope. Thank you, Michael.

Are you located in New York? No, no, no. LA is where I have a house and most of my stuff, but I travel around a lot now. Well, when you come to New York and once we have the vaccine, I hope we can meet in person. You come down to the Comedy Cellar. I would love to. Okay. All right.

Take it easy. I'll email you. Thank you, Michael. Take care. Okay. Eject him. Eject him, Perry. I'll quick.

Bye, bye. It's nice to meet you. Bye-bye. Okay, Joe. I'm sorry. I didn't you. Bye-bye. Okay, Joe. I'm sorry. I didn't know Joe didn't want to talk about Trump. Why would you bring Joe

on a show where the guy wrote a column about Trump and tell him we're not going to talk about Trump? Oh, I didn't know who it was. It's not, she promised me.

I was just like, oh, God, this again. I said we weren't going to talk about for the whole time and you made a liar out of me. Well, we're talking about this guy wrote a column on Trump. All right, go ahead. That's it. That's it. Hopefully that's it for Trump. We can be done with Trump. I have a show at eight. It's 810 now in Aruba, 710 on the East Coast of the United States. I have a show at 830 Aruba time.

Okay, so let's get to it. What's up with Joe Mackey? I'm doing some roadwork. You know, to speak to the last conversation about the COVID, a lot of the judicial power to create these lockdowns comes from Jacobson versus Massachusetts, and that was from the turn of the last century. It was a smallpox vaccination case, and it was in Boston. And if I'm wrong, I'm sorry about that, but smallpox was killing about 17% of the people in Boston. COVID is consensus killing less than 1% of the people who get it. Some say a significant amount less. So one thing he pointed out in his article, and I don't think it's really fair to bring it up without him being here, honestly.

Might as well. It's okay. It's okay. And it's a notion I get a lot where it's like a lot of people don't think COVID is real. And it's not that. It's that we question whether the government has the authority to continue these lockdowns. And he's in California, a state that's never allowed indoor dining, and they're having a spike. And the University of Oxford published a study that said, maybe masks aren't that effective.

So the idea that people say follow the science or you're not following the science is kind of stupid to me. Because it's like saying, well, when they said don't wear a mask, I didn't. And when they said wear a mask, I did. And that's what I've been doing. I've been going and getting the COVID tests. I think it's real. I think it's dangerous, especially for certain vulnerable populations. If you have comorbidities like diabetes or you're overweight or you're over 65. And I think we should be taking it seriously. but at the same time, I don't believe the Constitution went out the window. So I'm doing the real work.

I'm respecting the rules of local municipalities. Isn't it amazing that comedians, of all people, make more sense, talk more clearly, than 90% of the intellectuals I hear out there? We got Joe Mackey. Who knew Joe Mackey? What he was saying about Trump supporters, you could say, well, do Biden supporters

not care about slavery in China? It's not fair to label people all or nothing based on one thing when there's a multifaceted approach. Is it fair that people are committing suicide? Is it fair that they're missing their heart stress tests? It's a very complicated issue, and COVID is definitely real. I'm not denying that. It's just much, much bigger than red state, blue state, Republican, Democrat.

It gets frustrating to me that people, and I understand he's right. He's got a limited amount, and you don't become an op-ed writer by being in the middle. You become an op-ed writer, you get readers by having a strong opinion one way or another. You don't get millions of podcast listeners by being nuanced. That's probably a good point. I do think there's a market for that.

I do think there's a market for fair-minded. I appreciate that Noam is willing to debate people but also give give a little and i i thought that the same as mr stern i i felt like he was pretty fair-minded i'm telling you that these are some of the best discussions you're going to find in podcasting and i don't know how many people are listening to this because they're all listening to joean. But what the hell is he saying that's so goddamn interesting that he gets 10 million listeners and we get a paltry however many we get. Hey, don't hate on how many listeners we get. Anyway, I appreciate the converted because whoever's listening is listening.

Oh, can I make one more point? Yeah, of course. That's why you're here. Make more than one more point. He talked about the polls a little bit. And the day before the election, I made a tweet that I regret because I was seeing a lot of pundits say the polls are right this time. And their justification for it was look at all the other polls that agree. And I spelled rationale wrong. I left off the E, so I said the rational.

But the point is, no one was doing their due diligence. If you bothered to look at the cross tabs of the polls, you would learn two things. But one, polls have to make unscientific assertions. For instance, what percentage of independents are going to go which way. And they have to weight it. And a lot of times the weighting doesn't make any sense. They'll weight a poll D9 in an R1 state. It just, that's how you get Wisconsin coming up 17%. And they'll say, oh, shy Trump voter. And it's like, maybe it is,

but maybe the methodology of the polls were flawed. And there's conspiracy theories around that. I don't believe that. I think it's just a lot of, it's hard to do, especially without landlines anymore. And polls take a lot of unscientific assertion. Because I think what those Trump supporters

look to find in the rappies. Other than satisfying curiosity and the fact that we have freedom to inquire and to investigate, are polls beneficial to society? What is the point of a poll except to put seeds into people's minds and, you know, like, well, he's going to win anyway,

so fuck it, I'm not voting, or to get people to... I mean, is there a benefit, does society benefit from having polls? I mean, weren't the polls saying that Hillary Clinton... Sorry. I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton, sorry. I'm not saying you should outlaw polls. We have the freedom to poll. But I don't know that they do any good for society. I just don't understand how it's possible that they're so consistently inaccurate and we still look at them. Weren weren't they saying, like, Hillary Clinton was going to win by a landslide.

We heard the same thing about Joe Biden, the blue wave. He, like, barely fucking peaked high. I think that they have value, but then you shouldn't take them as scripture. I also think it's... They're not complete bollocks, just like a weather report,

but they have validity, you know, but they're not perfect. It's an easy story, too. Right now, you're at a time where a lot of people aren't doing their due diligence like uh uh there's a story uh joe biden uh polls negative ads when trump was diagnosed with covid it wasn't true they just read the press release and took it as true and i'm sure there's a million opportunities that one came to mind that you can find about the Trump administration where people didn't do due diligence. But like you have all these experts that are wrong a lot.

And how- What I want to know is who did Joe vote for? People don't trust institutions anymore. And institutions haven't been giving them a lot of good reasons to trust them. Anybody, can we take a quick poll here? Who thinks Joe voted for Trump? Raise your hand. hand no no no don't don't do that dan first of all i don't know why you can insist on doing something like that because you can always deny

it if he did and he doesn't want to admit it he doesn't deny but why listen it's it's it's a it's fascinating to me yes but it's also reckless to not condemn Trump voters. You know, I often got the question, as a comedian, you shouldn't want to poison the well. You should want to go out there not knowing what someone's going to say or what they're going to think. Because honestly, that's evolving over time. And just like when Noam said, Perrielle thinks thinks one way it's like, why poison the well, let Perry out, say what she thinks.

And if you agree, great, if not, but like, there's not a case by case basis. I don't know. I think that people are nuts right now. And you know,

anybody in show business who wants anybody to even suspect that they might've voted for Trump, he's got a death wish. You can't, unless you want to be Nick DiPaolo and cater to a particular audience, cancel culture is real, right? It can get you canceled for disagreeing that cancel culture is real.

So I would say it's pretty real. Joe Mackey, first of all, I apologize to Joe Mackey if he was upset by by by what i said joe mackie is so pure of heart that even if it came out that he voted for trump the only effect that would have is to make trump voters look better that's how pure of heart he is it would be like brian hamilton saying he voted for trump people be like all, oh, right. I don't need Trump's that bad after all. I also don't think I'm that pure of heart. We're comedians. We're scoundrels. We're narcissists. We think people should listen to us talk. Well, I mean, we do have that. But the point is that the level of credibility that

you bring to the table with your rationality and your decency is very, very high. I appreciate that, but I thought your guest tonight was pretty rational as well. I don't know about that. I think Noam, I hate to say it, I think Noam embarrassed the guy. I know, absolutely not. I don't think people would think that at all. I didn't get that impression. I thought he had to pick a winner in today, in tonight's belt. Well, that might be because you, that might be because you, you tend to agree with me. Perrielle probably thinks I got my, my clock clean,

but that's not the point. The point is that. I actually think that it's really, and I wanted to say this to Joe earlier, so I'm happy to have the opportunity to say it now. I actually think it's really nice and really important to be able to have these kinds of conversations because I think that it's easy to go railing against something and just say, this is all one way or this is all the other way, but the truth is, and everybody knows how I feel about trump but um i i do think it's important

to be able to have like these conversations and i think that the country would be in a much better place if we and i wanted to make when he said that trump voters even if they're not racist are okay with trump's racism and he made that point. One counterpoint I wanted to make is, is it ever okay to vote for somebody who is racist, assuming Trump was racist? Is that ever okay? Are there ever other considerations that are so overwhelming that racism is preferable?

Is racism preferable to mass unemployment, to communism? I mean, I'm not saying that this is what's... That's a tough question. I would say that somebody who has a racial agenda has to be disqualified. Someone who's seeking office in order to take action against a group of people based on their immutable characteristics because of his personal resentments of those people, bigoted resentments of those people. Yeah. I mean, you couldn't find anything more damaging to America. As a matter of fact, during the impeachment

arguments, I remember thinking that if it came out, because there's been this rumor that Trump actually used the N-word, even though that's maybe not impeachable according to the Constitution, I would think that would be a more impeachable offense than trying to research Hunter Biden. Because how can a president use the N-word? You can't be the president anymore. But having said that, reasonable people can differ significantly about whether Trump can be considered to be what I just described. I don't think he can be fairly described that way. And look, a lot of black people became new Trump voters, maybe not a lot, but a significant number of black people

who are new Trump voters, they don't see it that way. A lot do, though, I mean, to be fair. Trump doesn't have... I mean, would someone who fits the description of what I just said have been the president to pass that law to change, to reform criminal justice system that was being advocated by Kanye West and Kim Kardashian, you know, essentially to help black people,

you know, who have been the victims of mass incarceration. That's just not what you, you know, that's just not what a guy with an agenda against black people does, right? So it's just not that simple. I think there are lots of different ways to be racist. No. Yeah. But you know what? Barack Obama was cozying up with Reverend Wright.

One, these things are not, I mean, they have very much to do with each other because if we're going to, if we're going to have a standard, let's have a standard. So Barack Obama had this friend, Reverend Wright, who called Farrakhan a great man, who said that Farrakhan spoke the truth, who, forget about the goddamn America, who was pro-Hamas, had all kinds of anti-Semitic stuff. And Obama recently, when he was interviewed about Reverend Wright, said, well, he was taken out of context. Now, there's nothing in Trump's past to rival Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright.

And he disassociated himself with him in 2008. But now he's revisionist. Now Obama is saying, well, if it had happened now, you know, it was too complicated to explain Reverend Wright. So you tell me that if Trump didn't, if Trump had a mentor, not just someone who he played political footsie with, someone he dedicated his book to, someone who named the book after one of their phrases, someone he chose to baptize his children.

Go ahead, Joe, you wanna say something? The media sat on the picture of them together as well till after. Or Obama and Farrakhan, that's right. The Los Angeles Times had the picture. So if you want to tell me that Obama would have been treated by that same standard, then fine, then I'm all for it.

But it's not the case. It's not the fucking case. And there's nothing in Trump's association to rival the closeness that Obama had with a known anti-Semite. Nothing. Nothing. Come on now, let's be grownups here.

I am being a grownup. And again, I don't think these things are mutually exclusive. I'm not saying anything about Obama's relationship with Farrakhan. Like I said, I think there are lots of different ways to allow, excuse, and enable racism. All right. I don't know. Trump. Dan, are you, what, Dan is spraying mouth spray? Look at him. He's so handsome. But I'm getting ready for a show. You need good breath for your comedy? Just because I was goofing around. Like here I am, like, you know,

I'm in the mirror. Checking my look in the mirror. Check my look in the mirror. Dan, okay. Checking my look in the mirror. Check my look in the mirror. Dan, is it so nice to be on stage again? I never liked being on stage. I was in the sitcom. I'm not like these young guys, like, fucking, you know, Muriel, who loves, he loves it. Just like he's eating a delicious meal.

He's like a foie gras. He loves to stand up. I was never like that. These young guys, the Mackeys, the Hamiltons, not the Hamiltons, but the Mackeys, the Murills, the Normans, they love it. They love it. I got in it because I saw Seinfeld

was making $80 billion a week on a sitcom. I said, I can do this. Anyway, I got to go. If you want to continue, continue. I hate, you know me, I don't like people doing the show without me. We got to wrap it up. But I just wanted to say that we're not getting full use of Joe Mackey. Maybe you come on again next week or something,

because I love Joe Mackey so much. And you know Joe Mackey was such a reasonable, politically astute individual. We know he's funny, sure. I'm not great on these shows. I can't seem to interrupt at the right time or get my two cents in. I'm just not good at it. I feel like I'm not good at it. I get self-conscious.

You're right. You are not good. You were great. Oh, thanks. Joe, you think I'm great? Catch me in Salt Lake City. I'm wearing a mask. Wear your masks. Are you asking Norman to go? Joe, you may, go ahead.

Sorry, Gary. Sorry, go ahead. Anyway, I got to go. So if you want to go all at once, or should I go? You go. We want to talk about you after. Just like you talked about our death.

Joe, where can everybody find you and all your dates? Just joemackey.com spelled M-A-C-H-I. Well, I'm not finished. I know. I just wanted to make sure we got

that in there jesus i wanted to say that uh joe identified what is it called the peter principle where like people the worst rise to the top in an organization there is something about smart people you know being less sure of yourself is often a characteristic of intelligence because things are not that simple. And there's two sides to most issues. And what happens is that people who are shallower and ready just to speak with authority often rise to the top of politics. They get more time in conversations. As Dan was saying before, they're able to attract bigger podcast audiences because there's a market for simplistic red meat.

And people like Joe and also like our friend Coleman Hughes, who was on the Bill Maher show and didn't speak as much as we would have liked them to suffer from the same thing, which is that they're a little more humble. They're thinking about things rather than reacting reflexively. And as I said, there's more humility to them. So I appreciate that. I thought you and I believe it's Michael Stern were having a great debate. And sometimes it's better to just let people talk you know i don't know but yeah but i would have

appreciated more joe mackie and you know dan is a fuck you know like why would dan like we have a we have a nice guest so none of us are being um obsequious or phony when we say we liked him as a guest we thought he was smart and was a pleasant debater, whatever it is. And Dan has to go and say something snotty, for lack of a better word. What's the matter with him? What did he say that was snotty?

I think he got embarrassed. Like, shut up, Dan. First of all, it's not true. Second of all, even if it were true, which I really don't think it was, even if it were true, it's not gracious to say that. Someone was a guest on your show. Well, we can edit it out. No, no, I don't think it's necessary because I don't think any, I don't think any, any listener is going to think that way.

Just, I don't understand him. He does that all the time. It's like the time years ago when he saw me with a really, really hot girl and he says to me, in front of her, he goes, does she know how old you are? He said that right in front of her. Like, what the fuck is with you, Dan? Well, isn't that part of his charm

Yes it is You're right that is part of his charm But it's an issue You know that movie You bet you'll know You bet you'll like what the Albert Brooks movie Where everybody's trying to get into heaven Defending your life

You guys haven't seen that movie Oh you should watch it Joe you would love it where everybody's trying to get into heaven, defending your life. You guys haven't seen that movie? I haven't seen it. Oh, you should watch it, Joe. You would love it. And in the movie, you have to make the case as to why you should be allowed into heaven. And it's a courtroom situation.

And on the video, on the TV monitor, they bring up classic moments from your childhood that turn out to be pivotal in why you've become the person that you've become. And it's just great. But I would just love to see, there's got to be some moments in Dan Natterman's past that shaped him, you know?

You'd just love to see that. Like it turns out in Harry Potter that Snape was bullied as a child. Do you know this? Do you follow Harry Potter? Yeah. Oh boy, this is bad. I'm talking about. Illiteracy.

I have an eight-year-old. This is why I know this stuff, not from illiteracy. Anyway, and Perrielle's busy reading, you know, Philip Roth. Are we finished here? Perrielle almost banged Philip Roth, by the way. I mean, that's taking a lot of liberty.

She was on the bed naked and he decided to leave. Something like that. All right, Joe, I don't know. There's a lot of COVID going around comedians, Joe. I've heard that. Even comedians I know that have been very careful have come down with it. I don't want to say their names,

but I get tested every week. I wear my mask. And I mean, this is awful. This is awful just for everybody. I hope everyone can get through this. I hope all your families are safe. I had wanted to bring up this stat. I actually had it up on the thing,

but I didn't bring it up. It is worth, I mean, it's so stunning. It really is worth reminding everybody that out of what is this on this graphic i have here 200 and 261 000 deaths is that the right current number of covid deaths something like that. It's probably around there. Yeah. Out of 261,000 COVID deaths, under one year of age, 29. Under 54, 13,000. If you go from 13,000 to zero,

there's approximately 13, 17, 18. It looks like it's under 20,000 deaths from, from 55, from 54 down. Over 80, 82,000, over 75, between 75 and 84, 70,000. It is so weighted towards the very old. It does make you wonder whether or not there wasn't a better way to protect the high-risk population rather than to shut down the entire country. Yeah, my point in quarterbacking,

I think all these politicians did their best, and I agree that Trump didn't look good. I agree that Cuomo didn't look good. I think they did their best. I really didn't appreciate Trump's bombast during the press conferences, but I don't know that that's all to blame. And I think if we had it to do over again, maybe trying to quarantine the vulnerable would have been a better course of action, but I couldn't do their job. They should create nursing homes for these vulnerable people that's wait a second

yeah maybe but on the other hand you know you can't just write off everybody over the age of 70 and say well you know so sorry you can't do that that's

and you know it's interesting the people who seem to be implying that and there are many people who do seem to imply that a lot of these people are pro life you know you know they talk about this the sacredness of of every life but they do seem ready kind of to be done with the agent sometime. Maybe that's not fair, but I get that feeling sometimes. Anyway, it'll all be over soon. The biggest outrage is that they're taking so long with these checks that people need. I mean, this is nine months and a third of the business,

I think I read a third of the restaurants in New York will never reopen. It's criminal. I mean, in the Constitution, they're supposed to pay eminent domain. That's right. And if they're saying you can't open your business for public good, to me, that sounds like eminent domain. So it doesn't seem right to me. I agree with you a thousand percent.

People should look at it more as eminent domain. It's not exactly, it's closer to that than it is. They use the word stimulus all the time. It's not a stimulus. It's not a stimulus. It's a sustenance. They say we're closing down and therefore we're going to give you some money because we expect you to survive. I think all the politicians we were just talking about owe us a thanks at the

end of this because they're the ones that didn't have to sacrifice their job or their income. And I guess they did get criticism and somewhat unfairly, I think, because I do believe they were doing their best. But it seems like the government doesn't have to sacrifice like the rest of us. I think you're absolutely right. I don't know if they had to sacrifice like the rest. I mean, Noam and I were just talking about this. You have these politicians who are all of these people getting caught doing these things that they're demanding that we don't do. And then you see them, you know, getting their hair done, getting their nails done in restaurants.

I mean, it's crazy. I barely left my house in nine months. I mean, that's a little bit hyperbolic, but, you know, it's crazy. I barely left my house in nine months. I mean, that's a little bit hyperbolic, but you know, not by much. Yeah, these politicians that are out there in restaurants and I mean, Governor fucking Cuomo talking about bringing his mother to his house for Thanksgiving right after he said he was gonna, you know,

everybody should stay home for Thanksgiving. These people are despicable. These people are despicable. These people are despicable. Was that caught on tape? Then he changed his plans. He said it out loud by accident. Listen, and also, what was the other thing they do?

My mind's going. They're just hypocrites. Pelosi, Bernie Sanders. Your mind is not going. Will you stop saying that? Bernie Sanders said on CNN the other day, he admitted that, essentially admitted that the Democrats would refuse to go along with the $1.8 trillion bailout

prior to the election. Obviously, because they didn't want to give Trump any kind of victory prior to election day. And now they're going to have to settle for half that because now all the incentives have flipped. Now the Republicans don't give a shit. And the Democrats want this. But I mean, it's just,

it's reprehensible that she was playing politics without Trump was ready to sign it. That's actually horrible. Horrible, horrible. And I, and I'm not saying that Republicans are any better. It just, it's just whatever the incentives are at that particular moment in time. In the month prior to election day. No one was coming together for the good of the people.

Yeah. In the month prior to election Day, the incentives were such that the Democrats were worried about giving Trump anything he could brag about. And of course, their number one priority is to stay in business, just like my number one priority is to stay in business. And staying in business means re-election.

So that's it. Anyway. All right. Joe Mackey, nice to see you, Joe. You too. I hope you two are hanging in there. It was great to see you. Yeahie um nice to see you joe you too i hope you two are hanging in there it's great to see you yeah it's really nice to see you we're gonna be okay okay good night everybody email us know i'm where a podcast at comedy so.com and happy hanukkah everybody

hanukkah starts tomorrow night oh happy hanukkah happy hanukkah and email us your questions concerns dreams hopes ideas actually joe you know friday night i had the pleasure of being invited Happy Hanukkah. And email us your questions, concerns, dreams, hopes, ideas. Actually, Joe, you know, Friday night I had the pleasure of being invited to Perry Hill's house for Hanukkah dinner. Mm-hmm. And I don't want to go. First of all, you better clarify that for everybody who's listening that sounds like we're like, you know, casually having get togethers. Oh no, Perrielle and I, this is the only family we socialize with because we're all on lockdown. We all, we, there's, you know, two households that are in lockdown. But the thing is,

and it's nothing to do with Perrielle and her husband and family because they're, they couldn't be more wonderful. I just found that I don't want to leave the house anymore. He's becoming agoraphobic. Yeah. I don't want to leave the house anymore. He's becoming agoraphobic. Yeah. I don't like cashmere either. Anyway. What do you mean all you wear is cashmere? Isn't it agoraphobic?

Oh, agoraphobic. Oh, funny. You always make fun of a joke you didn't pick up on. All right. But anyway, it's something to talk about also because really i don't want to leave the house anyway we gotta go we gotta go take care bye everyone um at live from the table on instagram happy hanukkah