The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Michael Moynihan and Dov Davidoff

Episode Date: December 20, 2019

Michael Moynihan and Dov Davidoff

You're listening to The Comedy Cellar, live from the table, on the Riotcast Network, riot evening, everybody. Welcome to the Comedy Cellar Show here on SiriusXM. That is downright ominous. Dude. It's a great introduction. It's great. Interrogation line. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Where were you on the night of? Yes, sir. I was in the middle of my introduction. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize. I apologize. I'm not.

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Comedy Cellar Show here on Sirius XM Channel 99, the comedy channel. We're here at the back table of the Comedy Cellar. Dan Natterman is not here this week, so you may want to turn it off right now. My name is Noam Dorman. I'm the owner of the Comedy Cellar. I'm here with a good friend of mine, Mr. Dove Davidoff, who is a comedian and actor who may be seen regularly at the Comedy Cellar. He's also in a movie now that's streaming.

Hustlers or something? TV movie. I might get around, baby. Is a comedian and actor who may be seen regularly at the Comedy Cellar. He's also in a movie now that's streaming. Hustlers or something? TV movie. You know, I get around, baby. I get around. Our producer, Perry L. Ashenbrand. I know it doesn't sound right to say that name that way. And Michael Moynihan is the national correspondent for Vice News and co-host of the Fifth Column podcast. That's a Reason magazine?

No, there's a Reason guy on it. And I used to work at Reason a long time ago. Many, many years ago. I just don't tell people that now where I work because they get upset about it. If they know about it, they get upset about it. Does Vice have a political

point of view? They come from a particular part of the spectrum? You can ask me that right away. Because I don't know. I should know. Is it supposed to or does it? Is it going to ask me that right away? Because I don't know. I should know. Have you ever watched? Is it supposed to or does it? Is it supposed to? Reason is a libertarian outfit. Yeah, and you know,

I think I bring maybe a slightly different taste to the Vice stuff. Because, you know, I mean, it's sort of list left, yeah? But, you know, I shot something here

with the great Judy Gold on comedy on college campuses and how they're preventing people from performing because they don't like their material. So we did that and how they're preventing people from performing because they don't like their material. So he did that. So when people saw that,

it's not the typical fair advice. Advice used to be kind of a very libertarian place when it started, and it's been, you know, times change. And I'm an old man. You list libertarian, whatever that is. I don't know if that's right or left. Yeah, I don't know.

I mean, these days I have no idea what I am. I just fucking hate everyone is. I don't know if that's right or left. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, these days I have no idea what I am. I just fucking hate everyone. And I don't know. I guess that's libertarian. I mean, I guess it should be left, but it would be called right. Yeah, well, all the things that I think that should be lefty things, nobody on the left cares about anymore. So free speech is kind of a big thing of mine.

Fascist? I mean, well, and then, you know, I talk about anti-Semitism a lot. more. So free speech is kind of a big thing of mine. Fascist? I talk about anti-Semitism a lot. I used to write for a Jewish magazine. He pointed at me. I'm the only. You people. I was just gesticulating. I'm the righteous Gentile here. I'm the Raoul Wallenberg of this table. The left is failing on quite a bit. We just had Barry Weiss on our podcast.

I think it's been on this show, too. Yeah, she's a friend of the place. She's great. And so, yeah, a lot of the things that I would think that were lefty things. I grew up in Massachusetts. It's not a very right-wing place. How about treating people all the same without regard to their skin color? That's crazy.

What are you, insane? No, I do the podcast with Camille Foster, who is a black libertarian-ish guy who refuses to identify as black, by the way. He's like, race is a stupid construct. Oh, is he West Indian? I think I heard of this guy. I think Coleman Hughes, who actually referred to you, told me about him. Coleman's a great guy, and I met him through Camille. So there's a small network of guys like that

who mysteriously are not a small network when you actually ask people. It's a sort of commonly held beliefs, but nobody wants to say these things these days. So for instance, when we're recording, this is the other night, I just am terrified of talking about half the subjects. I'm just terrified of it.

It's like stepping on... I mean, I have friends who have been canceled. I mean, comics is the last place where you can get away with it, and even that seems like it's closing a little bit. It is. We had a thing done about this podcast last week by this guy, Seth Simons, who emailed me today, and he's going to come on the show.

And he tried to make the case that. Why didn't he email me back? I don't know. But I had said some stuff about how we have gotten away from all the lessons of like double blind experiments where we understand that the the person least with the least involved uh uh is actually the most objective and that we uh the the um ridiculous opposite of that is like the 1619 project that i was talking about where they were dismissing real criticisms based on the color of the skin of the of the historian that was criticizing them so anyway that got me into trouble with Seth Simons and he called me basically racist adjacent

but he sent me a nice email today he's going to talk about it but I had to say one racist adjacent and then he sent you a nice email that that's my phrase. That's a good T-shirt. But just let me digress for one second in case anybody saw that. He was right about one thing because Natalie interrupted me. So just for the record, I also did want to say that, of course, there's a place for people who are very close to something, who may always understand something with a nuance that someone else wouldn't. For instance, people who have actually been on the receiving end of Stop and Frisk certainly do have an essential role to play in the discussion of Stop and Frisk.

And I actually really was going to say that before Dan took it away. But other than that, he quoted me pretty fairly, and he's coming on soon enough so we can discuss it. So go ahead. Donald Trump, of course, got in trouble for this, I think rightfully so, when he attacked that judge. And so that judge could not adjudicate things because it was a Mexican-American. And that is kind of out of the playbook of people who are saying that only people who are of a certain race can actually talk about issues. I'm terrified of that stuff.

We did a thing on 1619. We got a huge response to it. But the whole time, my knees were knocking the whole time because I know people are going to say, you know, look, your last name's Moynihan. You're from Boston. You're white. You shouldn't be talking about this stuff. Why is cancel culture still such a part of this discussion when people from both the left and the right, I've yet to hear anybody sort of affirm it in a way that they accept that it's reasonable and or not something that should be removed from general discourse. I've yet to meet the person.

And yet there's so much discussion about it. But it's the most empowering thing you can do, right? I mean, as the canceler, you don't actually have to make an argument. There's like this parcel of words that you use. But there are so few cancelers. There are so few people doing it. are so few people doing it and so many people talking about it and so something seems disorganized about the

amount of discourse associated with this topic and the number of people actually doing it, I feel like it's such a small vocal minority, extremely vocal but you need, I mean you kind of need that Spartacus moment, right? at the end of Spartacus it says I am Spartacus and says, I am Spartacus. And everybody says they're Spartacus, right?

If you don't do that, everyone is going to, look, I've seen this happen to many friends, people. It's funny because most of them are actually innocent and didn't do anything wrong. And particularly bad because in the business that I am in, we're supposed to be probing things. And actually, you know, going things and actually going to awkward places and trying to figure things out rather than having this rote set of responses if you deviate from them that you get fucking sent off the island.

It's crazy. And they're so closely associated with the left when in fact I don't see the left. I mean, if Bill Maher's on the left and lots of other people are on the left, I don't see anybody kind of affirming their existence in a positive way. It's like...

Yeah, I mean, I would say that it happens... Who on the left with a voice or any kind of affirming their existence in a positive way. It's like... Yeah, I mean, I would say that it happens... Who on the left with a voice or any kind of creative expression affirms the idea that we should be able to cancel for... Well, I mean, look, it takes somebody like Barry Weiss. I mean, you don't have to have Barry tell you this, and I don't think she would, but just talk to anybody within the New York Times, and I've done that,

and it's a very, very hard existence to be Barry Weiss at the New York Times. Right. Imagine that. This is the newspaper of record and you have somebody who is a liberal. Barry is a liberal and you know people, somebody said to me the other day, oh I didn't know Barry was gay. I was like, what does that matter? Right. What does it matter to her argument when she writes like beautifully about the Tree of Life shooting and then you know I see five minutes later people like oh well it's barry weiss and she is toxic and she's psychologically canceled by me even if she's not by the society you cannot listen to her do not listen to her

and look that's an incredibly empowering thing because you don't have to make arguments this is these words that people use like white privilege what does that mean i don't know i'm not terribly privileged the way i grew up and i know some people who aren't white who aren't quite privileged should we have that argument no don't even bother it's actually it's absolutely not worth it and what's also dangerous is about of course no you're the boss the thing about being cancelled which is um still puzzling to me is that we really don't know what's a hall of mirrors and and what is real. So if the guy from Netflix who used the N-word in the conversation, if Netflix hadn't buckled,

nobody really cared. A lot of times these people were canceled just because somebody in corporate America didn't have the balls to say, no, I'm not doing it. As opposed to Bill Cosby. Bill Cosby is truly canceled. I think he was arrested. That wasn't cancel culture that canceled them.

It was a law. No, but I'm saying there are certain people who are truly actually. That's not cancel culture. He was a rapist. What is cancel? I know that. They've always been canceled. Long before cancel culture, if 30 women came out and said,

the guy raped me, you got canceled by society. The slight difference in that is that Hannibal Buress didn't say anything that anybody didn't know. It was the fact that it's just like, you know, feminists are right about this. It's an incredibly permissive culture, the fact that we all knew what Bill Cosby did. He'd been in front of a judge. People had already talked about this, and he was still loping around and talking about, you know, pull up your pants and stuff like that that's that was just a reminder and then people said oh yeah that's right same thing Michael Jackson with the the Neverland documentary but now I think we've listed so far in the other direction that we

there's no there's no judge there's no jury nobody adjudicates the kangaroo court of public opinion that's what I call it. Terrifying. But isn't it a paradox of people that are... Bill Cosby, I mean, Bill Clinton has not been canceled. No, he hasn't. Well, he just got ahead. There's a reassessment of him now, though. A lot of liberal journalists are writing and saying they were sorry. This guy Matt Iglesias for Vox.

Sorry for not canceling him? Sorry for not canceling him. Yeah, for not taking it seriously. So what is the nature of cancel like like so the marginalized then attempt to marginalize someone else for an perceived slight it's a weird paradox i'm still trying to wrap my head around what it really is gnome's point is is the right one too is to never forget you to never forget that it's all it's often people canceling on behalf of groups that they're not a part of right so it's it's always like you hey, let me take care of this for you.

It's like the white savior thing. Netflix won. Was it a black person that complained about that? I don't think it was. No, no, no. There's one, and this is so common that you don't even hear about it, a human rights campaign, which is a gay rights group in D.C. Same thing.

A woman was fired for using the magical word when she was saying, don't use this word. And then she got fired. It's like, well, no, no, you're not supposed to use it either. It's like, no, no, but I'm demonstrating a point.

So context and intent doesn't matter. Imagine a judicial system where intent didn't matter. And that's kind of where we're living. So let's take Louis as an example. Louis's been canceled-ish. He's canceled. No, I mean, he's still out.

If you read the Huffington Post or the places that cancel, he He's canceled. No, I mean, he's still out. If you read the Huffington Post or the places that cancel, he's been canceled. Millions of dollars in deals were canceled, but the culture hasn't. Yeah, I understand. However, I'm pretty sure he could still sell out the garden.

Yeah, no, I mean, I think that that's it. So what does that mean? It means that he... They're doing it on our behalf or they're doing it to please each other? He came... I mean, he managed to start to come back in a way. And there are gradations

of cancelization. I bet the garden wouldn't let him play there. But the fact that you even have to say something about him doing a set here and someone leaving and saying,

I'm upset, I didn't feel safe. I mean, let's just be honest. That's absolute horseshit. You're in a room with someone, you don't feel safe.

What the fuck does that even mean? Do you know how many actual rapists are in this room? Some of them are on stage. Just at this table alone. Yeah, this table alone. The term not feel safe

no longer has an actual meaning. It can just mean that I don't feel safe. I'm triggered. Yeah, I mean, like the word, I got a great email from somebody outside of my organization that said, like, they mentioned this show. It was like a podcast thing.

And they said, you know, look, we need, need god it was the phrasing it was like uh we all everyone um this was the exact thing everyone looked the same they're all white and we need a diversity of opinions right now think about that for a second it took me a second like white people have a diversity of opinions you just you just conflated skin color skin color and monolithic opinion and so like that word means nothing to me anymore. I have no idea what diversity means. Do you think it's possible just to... I was wanting to say, because there was an article, was it in the Times?

No, Wall Street Journal, about more attacks in Brooklyn against Jews. Yes. Yeah. And, you know, they always talk about the Trump effect. Are we seeing an intersectionality effect? I mean, are people being just marinated in the idea that it's okay to judge people by the color of their skin, especially white people, and eventually that comes out in people's bigotry?

Well, we have the most amazing thing now is particularly with the rise in anti-Semitism. Every year, if you look at these hate crime statistics, and they're funny because you have to self-report and they're not really accurate, but anti-Semitism, every year, if you look at these hate crime statistics, and they're funny because you have to self-report and they're not really accurate, but anti-Semitism is always the top of the list. Always. Running the tables. Per capita. Per capita, yeah.

Because of the Hasid. And oftentimes, by the way, just in pure numbers, but per capita too. But the funny thing about this is why we had two anti-Semitic shootings within the space of three weeks, and both were terror attacks. Because terrorism is a political motive, right? Wrong perpetrator. We have not exactly right. And we haven't heard nearly anything about them.

Wrong victims as well. Because we've heard the reporting. It was right across the river. We have to report it. But what we didn't have was the national conversation. If it was a white nationalist doing the exact same thing, exact same victims would have a national conversation about the Trump effect. But we don't hear about the things in Williamsburg, and I live in a Hasidic neighborhood, people getting hit with bricks and the rest of it, because the

perpetrators make this a little more complicated. And the guy, when I said to friends when that thing happened in Jersey City, I literally said, and I can confirm this, I texted him, I said, black Hebrew-Israelite, I guarantee you. And it's true. They were the ones causing trouble in Covington Catholic. Exactly. They're involved in both of those. And we forgot about the one in Florida, which was the Saudi National Air Force guy who shot up the Air Force base.

And the day of the shooting, it said, oh, we've, by the way, we found anti-Semitic stuff that he's posted, anti-Israel, and then anti-Semitic, and then sort of jihadist stuff, and that story's gone. I mean, there's missing people, too. There's four or five studies that disappeared. We've heard nothing about it because it doesn't fit a broader narrative. We have to talk narrative or it doesn't matter. So that's the thing that troubles me, particularly in the UK, too, in this election. It was a great defeat for anti-Semitism. And that narrative...

Because Jeremy Corbyn lost. That narrative is if you're not disadvantaged socioeconomically, then it doesn't matter that you've been slighted and or perpetrated upon. Well, I mean, and particularly in Jersey City, there's a video making the rounds of people in front of the kosher grocery store after it happened right saying well if these jews didn't move into our neighborhood right this wouldn't have happened the video's out there there was an article about it in the star ledger one of these i shouldn't say which one it was because i don't remember but a jersey paper saying wouldn't quote from the video but just said people are using this video as propaganda to you know make a political point it's like well yeah of course.

This is just kind of what I was getting at. So we've been hearing for a long time that gentrification is a quasi-racist thing. And people, you know, moving where they want to move. So then why wouldn't somebody say these Jews shouldn't be moving? At some point when it becomes normalized to talk that way, then it just becomes very easy to take on those attitudes and then the dominoes fall and eventually somebody gets hurt, you know? I mean it's a very fair point because, you know, this is a very uniquely modern thing to think that neighborhoods are owned by ethnicities or owned by

groups because if you look at New York at any time, any time in history, Look at a block and then look at the photos of that block everything changes every 10 years every 20 years And there's those migration patterns and ultimately, you know early immigrants are up in you know You're in Nassau County or in a Bergen County. They just move out of the city These patterns are totally natural But now when there's wealth attached to it because New York has become a safer place not, not necessarily because of, you know, Giuliani or Bloomberg or anything, but because the city's gotten richer. And that's just a fact. And so there are net benefits and there are, of course, net negatives. But it's not a grand sort of racial scheme.

You know, Marxists are ultimately right about this stuff. It's much more interesting to talk about class than it is about identity. Let me just help you out. Karl Marx was the guy who wrote about... First of all, I feel like the city is in terrible shape. Of course you do. I feel like it's more dangerous. I grew up here.

I grew up in Queens. I've lived here on and off my entire life. Statistically, it's not more dangerous. More dangerous for her. Let her talk. Let her talk. Just walking around. No, you're much less likely to get attacked. Let her talk Just walking around No, you're much less likely to get attacked

Let her talk Okay, I'm sorry No, you don't I mean, it's a conversation You don't think that the city's in a fucking shambles In the past five years You don't think the city feels like So much more of a disaster

I mean, I haven't seen a city like this since the 90s. Really? I mean, I think it's a disaster as far as managing a city. Because there's absolutely no factual basis for such a comment. I don't think that's actually true that there's no factual basis. They've decriminalized a lot of... I don't think you were living in the city in the 90s as an adult. No, but I was here.

My grandparents lived here and my aunt lived here. In the 90s, everybody I knew was mugged. We had a whole system. If waitresses had to go home late at night, we were concerned about them. Well, murder hasn't been decriminalized. I can't even remember the last time somebody told me that, as far as I know. Colin Quinn, who's always here, had a great bit about having mugger money back then. You had to have a little bit of money on you to give the mugger. If you didn't, they a great bit about having mugger money back then. That's right.

You had to have a little bit of money on you to give the mugger. If you didn't, they'd shoot you. Because they were pissed off you didn't have money. Colin Quinn is a great man. Can we talk about, I want to get back to this stuff. I want to talk about impeachment because Coleman told me that you have a whole show about impeachment. I was doing a show and we did three episodes and a bunch of live things. And then we're stopping it now because it's inevitable what's gonna happen and we're launching a new

Show in February and nightly political show. So do you have a spiel on impeachment? I mean I do I disagree. It's like I mean look the spiel on impeachment is basically that that it's this is just political theater for everybody, right? I mean I was listening to on the way in and Republicans are getting up there and giving their two cents Which is all the same thing. It's all this kind of three card money stuff. They're not talking about what Trump's accused of. They're talking about, oh, they've always wanted to do this. They've been doing this from the beginning. Well, yes, politics and, you know, Democrats are kind of heavy breathing on it. And I think making something that is bad, infinitely worse than it actually is.

And we know how it ends. It's like we know how... I mean, he'll be impeached tonight. Sometime, maybe during this recording, he'll be impeached. Remember where you were when it happened. We'll all remember. And he'll be the third president to have been impeached. And it'll go to the Senate, and

it's going to die there. And that's that. And then both sides will use it in 2020. And I think trump actually has the leg up on this so let me explain a few things to me so you know when it first broke i was actually um very persuadable that this was that he ought to be removed at first broke it seemed it was presented as like a total civil liberties violation of an American trying to like, not dig up dirt, but smear him. You know, that was the way it presented in order to affect the election.

And then for two months we heard about bribery and crimes, but now... You heard about bribery only because it's one of two words mentioned in the Constitution as something that's impeachable. Right, but there were long articles saying that it met the statutory definition of bribery, which is not necessarily the name of the Constitution since the statute came after the Constitution. But now, I can't think of any argument to impeach Trump that doesn't include, that is not based on, come on, you know, it's Trump. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Like, you have to be all in on, look, you know this guy's a dick, and you know he lies all the time. But in a normal, and I know this is not a criminal proceeding, but the lessons of rules of evidence, I mean, we have rules of evidence because they're designed to get us a more accurate result.

Yeah, it should act like a criminal proceeding're designed to get us a more accurate result. Yeah. It should act like a criminal proceeding, despite the fact that it isn't. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm not prepared to just ignore. I mean, all through this, I think to myself, would that be admissible in a court of law? Do they have anything here that would be admissible in a court of law? What about when you take out all the hearsay? Yes, they can do what they want, but what does that say about what they're doing? That they can't, I mean, so let's go through the articles of impeachment. The second one is absurd. I mean, the second one is obstruction of Congress. Not because there's anybody in this audience.

They demanded some witnesses. The White House said, no, we have executive privilege. I see, right, right, right. And then the Congress declined to take it to court. Yeah. How can that possibly be impeachable? It's a pretty thin read, yeah. Is there any read there at all?

It is. I mean, you can list this as an impeachable offense, and they adjudicate this in the House and the Senate. Why I think it's slightly different, it's strange that you couldn't, if this was a criminal trial, you wouldn't have people like John Bolton and people like John McGahn and people in the White House setting their subpoenas on fire to be like they're they're just like very blithe about this and executive privilege and all this stuff no i'll give you a perfect

analogy sure they're gonna be a witness in a criminal trial who said no no it's um attorney client privilege sure and then the and then and then the prosecutor says well you know we're not we're not gonna sue you sure we're not going to sue you. Sure. We're not going to bring contempt charges. Well, the McGahn, I mean, the judges ruled against McGahn, right? So whether or not that trickles down to the other witnesses, look, Democrats are trying to balance a couple things here. Speed. I mean, if this drags on, it doesn't work for them. It's not good if it drags on over months and months and months. People might think that that's a good thing, but people get fatigued very, very quickly at this.

Remember that Bill Clinton, when he was impeached, it had an incredible effect on him. His poll numbers went through the roof. He came out better than he went in, I mean, by a lot. But of course, Nixon, Clinton, second term, right? So this is a different ball game. I mean, you've got an election coming up, and everyone is thinking about how this plays. I'm not offended by it, because I think more people should be impeached i think the the goals of impeachment should be lower i think we should we should impeach more people in the same way that in europe you have no confidence votes against prime ministers in hung parliaments and people call elections leaving let me accept the arguendo that we should impeach more people which i i don't agree with you but even within your low

standard of impeachment, could you justify impeaching a president for the fact that he's claiming executive privilege and it should be tested in the court? Yeah, I wouldn't have. I mean, those articles of impeachment. That doesn't even meet your standard. No, no. Those articles of impeachment, I mean,

you had Jonathan Turley up there, the lawyer, who's not a right-winger, saying that these are not impeachable crimes. He said Congress was abusing power by doing it. Exactly. I think he's right. I'm sort of more pro-impeachment than you are, but I would say that I was shocked,

and Trump was shocked too. That's when he went out that day and said, this is impeachment light. The best thing about this is that NPR, which is like, I listen to it every morning and I get these fucking aneurysms. I'm screaming and yelling. And they came back from this clip when he's like, it's impeachment light.

Of course, because it's Trump, they're like, you know there's no such thing as impeachment light. It's like, no, he's fucking making a joke. I've been at so many Trump rallies and he's not a half-bad comedian. Do they do that straight face? Totally straight face. Always. They always take the stuff that he says at rallies,

which is completely absurd and usually kind of funny, and they report it straight. And perfectly well understood by the rubes. Yes. But can't be understood by the geniuses in L.A. No, I mean, everyone's laughing at this. The Trump rallies are pretty interesting places to go. And I was on the show, the impeachment thing,

I had Judy Gold on. And Judy, who's about as lefty as they come, you know, shouting and screaming. Not on Israel, she's not, but go ahead. No, she's great on Israel. But she's screaming, and I said to her, she was with Olivia Nuzzi from New York Magazine, and Olivia said to her, you should come to a Trump rally with me. And she was like, no, that's crazy.

And I was like, you know what, that'd be a great thing to shoot with you. You going to a Trump rally and actually trying to have communications with these people and actually trying to see where these people are coming from. Because when you talk to them about impeachment, they have I mean, you're, I think, making a more nuanced argument than the average kind of Sean Hannity viewer is. Because they just take this as a totally political thing.

They said this the day after, which is true. And I interviewed Rashida Tlaib a couple, like a month ago. It's Tlaib, isn't it? Yeah, I don't know. I've never heard anybody say it. I don't want to sidetrack it. Yeah, I think I said Tlaib.

I don't know if that's right. Everybody says Tlaib. Is it something? But it's spelled T-L-A-I-B. Tlaib. Go ahead. Yeah, Tlaib. And she said, let's impeach the motherfucker.

Like, she got an office. Of course they're trying to do this. Of course they've been trying. But that's the game. That's the way it goes. Republicans are trying to do this. Of course they've been trying. But that's the game. That's the way it goes. Republicans are trying to do that against Bill Clinton in the 90s. They got enough steam to get a very, very shaky artist impeachment. And 70% of the Americans didn't support it when it went through in 98.

To what degree does the left believe that the martyr variable, the martyr optic, is going to be an enormous liability moving forward? I don't think they're thinking about it, and I think it's pretty astonishing. How can you not be thinking about it if you're in a competitive election? There's a real bubble thing here that when I talk to people who are sort of foaming at the mouth about impeachment, is that they don't realize that there are people outside of their universe, and that this, like, Trump says this, Trump says that. Nobody cares. I talked to a guy I was at Rexnord's factory and Trump said I'm

going to prevent it from shipping your jobs to Mexico. He didn't do that because he can't do that. But I was with these guys in the union hall and the guy said to me, this random guy said you know what, the problem with you people are because we're all the same media. And he's like, grab him by the pussy. He's not weird to us.

We literally have no idea what you're talking about. It's not weird to Dove either. He said to me when I walked in, I haven't met him yet. But they're just like, we don't know what you're talking about. And there's such a disconnect from how this lands with people.

And I've been out on the road a couple times talking to people about this. And to everyone, it lands in one way. They're out to get him. It's proving the narrative that he started in 2015 is the media's out to get him. And look, you listen to NPR in the morning. People aren't listening. But they do.

And their thumb's pretty heavily on the scale. Which makes the likelihood. He's losing a lot of voters on NPR. So I purposely started with the second one because I figured we'd all agree that it's really, you can't even defend it. It's not. The first one is abuse of power, which is very interesting to me because, first of all, I give very little credit to the idea that abuse of power is legitimate grounds for impeachment. I know that people like Charles Black, who wrote this famous book on impeachment, and Neil Kachal have made these analogies. So I think Neil Kachal's analogy was, what if the president wanted to nuke Canada because he hated hockey?

So, yeah, I guess that would be an abuse of power that's impeachable. But then they reached, once getting there, they reached down to the most trivial examples. And then Charles Black actually said in his book that, yes, you can impeach for non-criminal reason. However, the further you get away from an actual crime, the less sure you are that it's not just a partisan exercise. And here we are at the lowest threshold. And let me just say a few other things. So I think that they shot themselves in the foot because they were talking about bribery for two months. They primed us for a crime. Now they've dropped it as if we're not going to notice.

Well, you know why? It's because Latin wasn't reading, honestly. Because quid pro quo didn't make sense to people, so they changed it to bribery. Right, but now they've given up bribery. And so it kind of, to the average person, well, you told us he committed a crime and now you just dropped it. I guess the only reason you would do that is because he didn't commit a crime. That was what was shocking and gave Trump that impeachment light speech because everybody in the Republican caucus was expecting this. Every Republican I talked to in D.C. was expecting the bribery thing to be front and center. Because look at, I mean, there are people like Andrew Napolitano, Judge Napolitano,

a libertarian guy who's on Fox News and says this meets the standard of bribery. So you can, even from a conservative side, make the case for bribery. Why they didn't do it is the subject of a lot of speculation. I don't want to be one of those people because it's boring. But I mean, they didn't do it, and that was actually the only thing that actually resonated with the American people, too. You know, I mean, the Congress stuff is just absurd. I mean, like, that hits nobody anywhere.

There's no erogenous zone being activated by, you know, being a dick to Congress. I mean, that's what everybody does all the time. But, you know, the sort of corruption charge is what you've gotten from day one. And from day one to now, look, the hearings didn't work very well for Republicans, but they didn't work great for Democrats either. It's just a wash for everybody at the end. Tell me what I'm missing here. All Trump has to do is play one of these videos of Shokin or Lutsenko or all these Ukrainian prosecutors who were saying, I don't, it's weird. I mean, we're told that it's debunked,

but you can see these interviews online where they're saying, no, we were given a list of people that we weren't allowed to touch, and we were told not to mess with Burisma because Hunter Biden and the vice president wouldn't like it. Yeah, I would say that one's kind of complicated because Victor Shokin's a bit of a scumbag. But it doesn't matter.

All he has to do is show that and say, this was reasonable for me to look into. You he has to do is show that and say, this was reasonable for me to look into. You're going to impeach me for looking into that? Oh, I don't think there's a moment where Donald Trump

thought anything about corruption in Ukraine in a sort of generic way. We have no evidence. But that was my first point. There's no argument that doesn't eventually come to, come on, it's Trump.

You know you can't trust him. But if I was running the trial, I'd ask for a change of venue because normally when the jury is polluted as you are and I mean, like if I was if I was if I was the running trial, I'd ask for a change of venue, because normally when when the jury is polluted as you are and I am with our preconceived notions of him, then it doesn't matter what facts you throw at us. You expect me to believe that Mitch McConnell said today or yesterday. It's like, you know, it's a political trial and I'm not an impartial witness. I need to be in Siberia, by the way, because everybody's been polluted. But the key is this. The 50% of the country that elected Trump, they believe this is in the national interest to look

into this. They believe that, and they're the ones who get to decide. They voted for him. So we can roll our eyes all I want, all we want, but we're going to remove a president because even though he's giving us a reason that is legitimate on its face, we just don't trust the dude anymore.

That's not proof enough. No, it's not. I mean, look, I think that they were a little over their skis in this one when, you know, it's true. They have been looking for something. I think this is kind of borderline, and I just don't think they made the case. I think that in the kind of heart of hearts way, I think I know exactly what the guy was doing. He's probably doing both. Yeah. I mean, he might be.

I mean, you can never know with him, right? You're allowed to do both. Opportunistic is not illegal. And, you know, but the political opponent stuff is unprecedented. And, you know, what level of legality does that hit to ruin from office? I mean, my argument here is that just wait. Just wait long enough for Trump. He's going to step on something else.

And make sure it's something that you can get him on and get Republicans on. Because the thing about the Nixon impeachment, it was the day that Barry Goldwater decided to walk over to the White House from Congress and say, it's over. You know, it was that moment because they said, we can't defend this anymore. Your party's going to defend you until it's indefensible. So why bring these charges when the Republicans control the Senate? Because you know that they're going to rally their troops behind them. I have an answer. It doesn't even come close to that sort of standard.

I have an answer, and I think this sounds corny. So often doing the right thing is really the right thing to do. If I were the Democrats, I would say, let's wait. Let's take these witnesses to court. Let's get John Bolton up there. Let's get Mick Mulvaney up there. I don't care if it happens a month before the election. And let's prove, if we can, that they actually did it.

And if we can really show the American people that they actually did it, then they'll vote him out, even if we don't get a chance to remove him. And I think that would happen. And then we'll go down in history as actually what it, then they'll vote him out, even if we don't get a chance to remove him. Yeah, and I think that would happen, by the way. And then we'll go down in history as actually what it was. Instead of what we're doing now is, we've got to go, the clock, it's almost 6 o'clock, we've got to get out of here. I don't think the Americans— We don't need the witnesses, we don't need proof, we just want the vote. And it rings hollow because it is hollow.

The people that voted for Trump aren't interested in that. I don't think they would vote him out. I think, I mean, outside of— No, I'm saying, but they could wait and get John Bolton in there, who seems to be telegraphing, I have some dirt. Yes, a lot, yeah. Get him on record. Let's actually get the facts out. And you think people would care?

That would be good for the country. Yeah, I think swing voters. It might be good for the country. Listen, Trump won by 70,000 votes. I think people, enough votes would care that it would be much better for the Democrats' prospects of winning than the way they're doing it now. And that would leverage the Senate into responding. And if it turns out Bolton says he didn't do anything wrong, then good. Then we know he didn't do anything wrong.

And then let the chips fall where they are. Even though the Senate wouldn't go along with Congress in the first place? I'm saying that to try to impeach him when everybody knows that. No, it's particularly a bad time now. But I'm questioning whether or not it would be, I mean, outside of something, you know, if you have pictures of him with blood on his hand, I mean, outside of something that is so undeniable in a material sense, how could you get Congress to go along? And how many people that voted for him really? No, I'm saying, I don't know if the Senate would ever actually do the right thing, but I think the American people would do the right thing if they felt this was good faith. Yeah, if they did.

And I mean, look, also important to blame Trump for 90% of this. And the way that you blame Trump for 90% of this is that when you play the type of political game that Donald Trump is playing, it's like, oh, this is unique. No one's ever done this before. All the decorum is out the window. It's like, yeah, yeah, but with that comes a bunch of other stuff. And what it comes with is when you start, when you punch as hard as he does, and you punch below the belt, one of the first things he did when he came into office was go in the

sort of atrium at the CIA and insult the intelligence community. And it's like, by the way, you know who's gonna be, don't piss those guys off. Don't piss the bouncer off. You should be strategic about who you're pissing off. And he's just a machine gun. And in that way, Bolton's a good example

of that. He talked shit about Bolton the second he left. And Trump is so outrageously and almost aggressively stupid on the particulars. He saw Bolton all the time on Fox News. He didn't realize that Bolton was like essentially a neoconservative. I mean, he's, you know, not exactly, but he's more or less. He's an interventionist, right? And Trump isn't. He's like, well, he's on Fox.

The same thing when he hired and quickly fired KT McFarlane. He just sees people on TV and he hires them. And then he fires them and says they're assholes. And then they're like, oh, my God, I have all this stuff on you. It's so funny. How did he get to be president? He's the world's greatest con man ever. He's the greatest con man in the history of the world.

But isn't it amazing because he's such a shitty con man? But we're so credulous. You can't argue with the results. Yeah, no, exactly. But he's a bad con man because everyone was talking about how they were being conned all the time. But he's also fortunate that he came along at a time when really, I'm sure this reverberated with you, people were so sick of the left and PC culture and all this stuff. Yeah, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?

And he was saying just the right things. He was tickling people's whatever it is. And he was also sounding a leftist, too, because the number of people that I met that were union guys in particular that had in the union hall pictures of Bernie Sanders and then Bernie, as they all told me, Hillary Clinton stole the

primary, and then they voted for Donald Trump because she was a free trader she called tpp the gold standard of trade and you know the next thing you know they're they're saying well trump's talking about getting our jobs back he's talking about people taking our jobs he's talking about sort of health care stuff i mean the first bill the first draft of the republican health care bill came back and he said it's mean it He said it's too mean. It's like, who is this guy? So let me just be clear here.

Do you agree with me that based on the accusations presented in the two articles of impeachment, they have not made the case? At the end of the hearings, I was like, you could make a case to get this guy removed if you had everybody voting as an impartial juror, not as a political thing. Not at the hearings, based on what they presented. But based on what they presented, that changed the calculation quite a bit. I was shocked by how wobbly it was and how weak it was. I mean, you don't go through this amount of time, call that many witnesses and all the

behind-the-scenes machinations, and come up with something that kind of flimsy. See, Trump is stupid, but he wouldn't be stupid enough to have done that. I mean, he does stuff that's miraculously stupid. What are they thinking in Congress? I mean, look, there has been such— I mean, when I was at the California Democratic Convention this summer, there was a caucus of people there booing Nancy Pelosi, lustily booing her the whole time.

She couldn't even get a word out. And I first thought it was about Medicare for all kind of stuff. But it was because she was saying, let's hold our horses on impeachment. She was actually being fairly reasonable about this stuff. She's saying, hold your horses. They're braying, this braying mob, because the problem

with fucking Democrats these days is they believe that the left flank of their party is the party now. Because they're like, oh, Bernie Sanders does well in the primary, but it's a primary. The people in the most extreme, on the right and left, always do well in the primary. Is that the same as it was in England? Yeah, pretty much. I mean, there's an enormous wake-up call

with the Corbynistas that, you know, Labour voters, I mean, there are places in England that voted for Labour for 80 years because there were coal pits there that were being closed down by Margaret Thatcher and are now voting Conservative. It's that bad.

It's gotten that bad. And the anti-Semitism thing is interesting because it only was the first time it was resonating with people in the chattering classes in London because, you know, not a lot of Jews work in the coal pits. It's just true.

We own some of the coal pits. That's kind of a joke Trump would make and get in trouble for it. So where are we? Well, I want to say one thing, but I want you to finish this. About impeachment? No, not about impeachment. I think that, and the Hunter Biden thing, I mean, my God, this is as dirty as it can get. Oh, my God.

And so it's very difficult to say, you know, how could you look into such a thing that happened in the previous administration that was even brought up within the previous administration? And they were told not to talk about it. And the prosecutors on TV saying that he was ordered by Biden. And then you had the nerve to say, I want you to talk to my attorney general about this. Yeah, we're going to remove you from office for that. But what a shitty retail politician Trump is when you're doing that and putting us on the line for Biden. It's like, honestly,

if you want to fuck over Biden, just put a microphone in front of him. The guy just drools through things. Like, we got to kill him with this Burisma stuff. It's like, that's too confusing for people. His son's a crook. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, we know that.

But by the way, everything his son did was legal, but it's unseemly. I think you're going to agree with this. But what happens is when we have these conversations, very quickly we forget to draw the line between outrageous actions of a president that we hate and impeachable offenses. Oh, yeah. You're talking about shit that makes you furious and he's an asshole and all this stuff.

Nullifying the election, I don't buy the thing it's not nullifying because pence takes over i don't think trump voters uh would agree with that either the vice president is chosen it's they didn't vote for the vice president the impeach pence movement starts that day too yeah but but clearly trump does not stand for what pence stands for and people voted for trump and people who if trump is is taken out of office people are not going to say well it's okay, it's Pence. I wasn't harmed. No, no, they're kind of different. Yeah, I mean, Pence is the one that can't be alone in a room with a woman

whether Trump prefers that. So, I think this is an exceedingly weak case, and yet I see the smartest people in the world just on TV essentially telling me I'm a total idiot for thinking this way. I think what you're saying though is that I would agree with that you can make

the case and you could build a case and that would require getting witnesses like Bolton and getting Mick Mulvaney to say what he said in a press conference when he was sworn. Maybe, yeah. And you could make that case. I agree with you though that Congress didn't make that case when they put forward these articles of impeachment

and I think that in some sense they realize that Americans don't even know what the articles of impeachment are. They don't know how they're enumerated. They don't care. It's just you either think that they did their job right on Democrats for actually bringing this guy to the book, or you're a Republican and you say, see, proves our theory. The guy's been, they go after him and they go after him and they go after him. They accuse him of bribery. It's the only impeachment that ever didn't accuse the president of a crime.

Abuse of power. That was always like an add-on. Abuse of power. The meat of Nixon, the meat of Clinton. These were crimes. But the thing is about both Nixon and Clinton, people misremember both of them. I mean, the Clinton impeachment was not about sex. Sex was what kicked off the whole thing.

There was no sexual charge. Sex was what kicked off the whole thing. But it was not about... There was no sexual charge. It was about perjury. It was about perjury, and it was about, in particular, trying to witness tamper and get Vernon Jordan to get Monica Lindsay a job at Revlon, et cetera. And in the Nixon case, people, if you ask the average person, I was in D.C. last week, and I had drinks with the two cops

that made the Watergate arrest. That's awesome. They were insane people, but it was fantastic. And as I was talking to them, they said everybody who comes and ever says, oh, you guys are the Nixon cops, they all think Nixon ordered the Watergate break-in. And it's very, very clear he didn't know anything about it. So what we remember about impeachments is often how we spin it. I mean, this is the case in most everything, but impeachments, I don't

think anyone remembers why Clinton was impeached beyond blowjobs and Mark Lewinsky or Nixon beyond those guys breaking the Watergate. It was not the fact that he was paying them to hush it up afterwards. But what is all of this? Is he eyeing people? For somebody who's more of a layman,

I'm not a political animal, and so if I'm in the audience listening, I'm just for somebody who's more of a layman, I'm not a political animal. And so if I'm in the audience listening, I'm just curious what all of this says on a more macro level about our culture and the level of division and whether or not the division is significantly worse than it was. And if that's the case, why is it so divided

in a way that it hasn't been in other administrations? I mean, the poll that I saw today, and, you know, these are all, but they're all within a point, so, I mean, they mean something. The one I saw today was actually 50-50. It was a 50-50 on impeachment. And it's like, is there any greater sort of illustration of where we are right now? It was like 60-40 against before he was even accused of any of this stuff.

Yeah, of course. Yeah, I mean, but I think that the polarization thing, I didn't believe it for a while. I just for a long time thought, well, now we have Twitter and now we have the Internet and, you know, we have polarized news networks that we didn't have before. But I think those are actually kind of the engine. And, you know, the 1960s, whether it's a good or bad thing. Meaning the symptom? Yeah, well, look, I think that I don't even necessarily think that this is a bad thing.

But the 1960s, the early 60s, you had the Fairness Doctrine, which meant that if you had a right-wing guy on your radio station, by law, you had to have a left-wing guy, too.

On broadcast. On broadcast, yeah. And you didn't have cable, right? And you didn't have directly partisan news outlets that were 24-hour things. So that changed everything, right? Right.

And then, you know, the rise of, if there was no Rush Limbaugh hitting in about 1991, 92, in the book that he published with Regan Books, the way things ought to be, it was going, you wouldn't have had the Clinton stuff. That wouldn't have happened. Talk radio was the real fuel of that. Right. And people say that in a pejorative way. It's like, well, no, I mean, there's some utility to it.

And people didn't, you know, they weren't not political prior to this happening. But if you wanted to get the kind of loony political views or the fringe ones, you had to subscribe to newsletters. There's like literally like Ron Paul got in trouble for being an anti-Semite and just being a general fucking crank.

And it was because he had a newsletter called the Ron Paul Survival Report. Right, right. It's a good memory. Yeah. It was Ron Ron Paul Survival Report. Right, right. It's a good memory. Yeah. Ron Paul Survival Report. It's like, I know my audience. They're guys in camouflage who weigh like 300 pounds.

It's like that's what they're looking for. And so the convergence, using the convergence of that narrative, talk radio, and social media, and contemporary, the way people are. The second I walk into my office and I talk to somebody, I know where they got the argument that they're making about impeachment that day. It's like, oh my, you guys, so Rachel Maddow was talking at you last night directly to you. So things have gotten cumulatively more divided. Yeah. And the outcome of that will be are you optimistic?

I mean, are we headed in a direction where you feel like that cumulative experience? Where's the natural extension? Where does it end? I don't think it doesn't. And I'm not so I'm not so sure that I lament the fact that it doesn't end either. Right. Because there is this idea out there that we can purify things, that we can actually get rid of the bad stuff. Like, I mean, the total idiocy of this campaign against poor Mark Zuckerberg, who is like an idiot for all the reasons that people say he's good for. And like, but they like attack him for this stuff.

It's like, oh, my God, you're disseminating all this fake news. Give me some numbers on this because it's not true. Yeah. I mean, that stuff like circulates there. But by the way, what do you think is the problem of the actual portal itself

or the people who are reading it and saying, that's got to be true? I know that's true. I'm just going to, I'm going to read the first line. There's all these studies

that say that people on Facebook never read beyond the first line. It's almost an inseparable experience. We're learning something about the human brain. Well, I heard from a third hand that there was something went on with Mark Zuckerberg

where they asked him, like, you know, what if the Nazis had had this tool? And my first thought was, if only they had had Facebook in the 40s, then Hitler would have never gotten where he got. This is exactly the point that nobody made. And it pissed me off because everyone said, you know what, how dangerous this is? This is Facebook and fucking Twitter are tools of freedom in places. In Iran, it's a tool of freedom. Just because some idiot like housewife retweets something that is demonstrably false that might have been cooked up by some kid named Yasha in a place in St. Petersburg doesn't mean that this is a bad

tool. People use good tools in bad ways. And why are we focusing on the bad ways? Because we don't like the guy who's benefiting from some of it. Not all of it, but some of it. Hitler managed to get his message out, you know. By the way, that's what I hear. But wouldn't the devil's advocate position be that because of, I think it's the mimesis,

you know mimesis? It's sort of the memetic nature of the human animal. We adopt a story. When you show of, I think it's the mimesis. You know mimesis? It's sort of the mimetic nature of the human animal. We adopt a story or a narrative. When you show off, I tune out, Doug. No, no, no. I just hooked it up. I heard somebody else using the term, which is when the human animal sort of adopts an idea, and that idea goes viral, and cumulatively that idea then becomes a new narrative

for all of these people that didn't previously hold that narrative. And if that's the case, then Twitter and Facebook and all these social media outlets can be as bad as they can be good. It's totally arbitrary. As a comic, and as somebody who owns a comedy salon, the first thing in this, this is actually something relative to this, but the first thing that should make you sweat a little bit is when people are trying to find solutions to this.

These bad ideas are getting out there. They try to solutions and the next thing you know they start clamping down on speech in all these ways and it's like oh everyone's like oh you know this guy in scotland who made his dog pug dog do the hitler salute yeah um count dankula which is the he's like guy making memes in scotland and then he's like gauges in his ears and and everyone's like pointing at him like oh this guy's an idiot and he probably hangs out with the alt-right. He's like, I don't give a shit who he hangs out with,

but the point of free speech, the idea of free speech is not for my speech. It's not for your speech. It's for bad people's speech. It's for crazy people's speech. Our speech doesn't need to be protected.

Which is the opposite of what identity politics does to people. Precisely. And so when you have these people out there that say, Facebook, oh man, they're really just

disseminating this stuff. We have to do something about get scared because you know what they do? In Europe, they have done things about it. And so there's, in Europe,

Angela Merkel had a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg about the stuff that is being disseminated on Facebook in Germany. And it's sort of neo-Nazi stuff.

And of course, what the Germans do is they ban Mein Kampf. Utterly idiotic thing, particularly now when you can just get it on the internet. But why ban a turgid, idiotic book of 1,300 pages, half of which are about boxing and syphilis? Nobody cares about this stuff.

No one's going to read this stuff. And their minds are going to be changed. And you shouldn't be afraid that they're going to be. So the problem all over is, remember, in the 1920s, there were hate speech laws in Germany. Right. And they were used against Nazis. There's a guy named, the head of the Berlin police named Bernhard Weiss. And he used hate speech against, Goebbels was the guy that ran the area

of Berlin there was area leaders he was Hitler's Liz yeah and he had a newspaper called the attack down group and they kept suing them for hate speech and what happened was they came to power and Bernhard Weiss disappeared even in this recent chapter I mean do you know how many fact-checking sites were just blasting the Nunes memo and just belittling everything about this FBI story? Yeah. You could imagine that would have been something which was called fake news and Facebook censoring it. Man, you're getting that. You're really Trump-side, aren't you?

You agree with me. You're like Nick DiPaolo all of a sudden. Yeah. Where are you on the FBI thing? It's outrageous. Were you surprised? Why were you surprised? I'm surprised that I was surprised,

but I did a contrition tour when I did the show last night, and I was like, I don't remember exactly what I said, but I know I was surprised, but I did a contrition tour when I did the show last night, and I was like, I don't remember exactly what I said, but I know I was way too trusting of the FBI on this for this Carter Page stuff. I was sure all along, and I never believed in the deep state, right? The analogy I made, the listeners are probably tired of it. I said that it's like the ticking time bomb torture scenario. Everybody knows torture is wrong, but obviously if it's a nuclear bomb about to go off in Times Square,

you're going to torture. If you think that Putin has taken over the presidency of the United States, the rule book is not sufficient to deal with that. So, of course, you're going to bend the rules. I mean, the people who think that are just embarrassing. I mean, look, what happened when the Mueller report came out, speaking of media, Rachel Maddow lost a million viewers. Something of that.

She was doing like three million a night and down to two because she was peddling a narrative that Carter Page was a master. I mean, Carter Page is like the dopiest guy I've ever communicated with in my life. And I feel bad for the guy, but he's nobody's mastermind. He couldn't mastermind anything. None of it was plausible. And none of it was plausible. But there is a certain John le Carre kind of like spy.

People got into it. It's the reason people like conspiracy theories. They like there to be something more and it explains it now. It's not because America's a bad place. It's because Russia's been manipulating us in doing this and that's why we've... I mean, the number of ads that Russia took out, this kind of thing, the number of clicks they got, it's infinitesimal. Nobody ever asks about this stuff, but they like the narrative.

So the other analogy I made is that usually when cops plant evidence on somebody, they plant it on somebody they think is guilty. And I think that this Steele dossier infected everybody. If you don't think about confirmation bias, it's insidious. As soon as they read all this stuff, every time Trump said anything, every time my friend put Russian dressing, anything that, aha, it sounds true. You could see Comey was going through this.

So the bias wasn't that they hate Republicans. The bias was that they thought this was really a dangerous situation. The problem with bias in the planting evidence situation is that it's too easy to believe that the black guy did it. That's where they go wrong.

It was too easy to believe that Trump did this. And they got carried away. But it was clear to me. I mean, I said it for two years. It was clear to me the FBI was bending the rules. And say one more thing.

We had David Frum on the show. David's an old friend of mine. And I said to him, there's no way that the Mueller report is going to come back with anything. And he said, why? And I said, you tell me if I'm getting it wrong, Perrielle. I said, because if Mueller had evidence that Trump was compromised by Putin, he would have to come forward immediately. He can't have Trump out there talking about pulling out of NATO. He knows that it's because Putin is telling him to pull out of NATO, and he's going to wait a year and a half to—

And Frum said, no, no, I think Mueller would wait. And I said, I was speechless. Remember that? I was like, well, this is Trump derangement syndrome. Of course Mueller wouldn't wait. I love David. He's gone I was like, well, this is Trump derangement syndrome. Of course Mueller wouldn't wait. I love David. He's gone very far in the other direction. I think that David is also, not to psychoanalyze him, but he got a lot of shit for Iraq.

And he was the one who wrote the Axis of Evil speech. And he's been running away from that for a while. And Trump gave him the opportunity to run pretty far from Republicans. And I think he's run too far. But the problem with all this stuff is they overplay their hand. Always. And it's like there is, yes, Russia was meddling in the election. No, Russia did not succeed in changing anything.

There's no proof of that. And by the way, they've been doing that since the Cheka formed in 1917. This is something we do. This is something they do. It's not something that the intelligence services were unaware of. Did they spy on the Trump campaign? Did the FBI? I don't think so, no. Well, that's it. There's a definitional thing.

I mean, spying on a day-to-day... Did they listen in on them with electronic devices? Well, they did when they got bullshit rubber-stamped FISA warrants, but the thing is, 99% is illegal spying, right? So they go through the FISA court, and the one thing you know is that Republicans are themselves responsible for this

because the FISA court was rubber stamping everything. It was a 99% rate, and our argument was during the Bush years, well, no, no, no, we filter out the bad stuff before it gets to the FISA court. But they were rubber stamping everything, and when you want to give somebody a hard time, the Republicans provided and allowed

for this incredible mechanism for you to legalize some pretty dodgy behavior by getting a FISA warrant based on everything. If the FBI had my waitresses wired up and was listening to something and came in and talking about something and they had, and then they told me, no, we didn't spy on you. I wouldn't even know what, like, by what definition of spying did you not spy on me? I mean, they're saying it's an investigation. Spying is something a little pejorative, a little more sinister. Pejorative, like you did it illegally

without hiding the fact that he was actually... His contacts were known to the CIA and you presented it to the court as if you had no idea. I mean, to the broader point, though, I think that you're right in the sense that the IG report is being massively underplayed because the civil liberties violations that we saw in the Bush years were, I don't think massively overplayed, they were correctly played.

And now this one is being wildly underplayed. I mean, Trump, when he does that rally in Hershey, Pennsylvania the other day, is shooting himself in the foot because he's doing the page struck thing. And that is immaterial. It's awesome you think that he, is shooting himself in the foot because he's doing the page struck thing. And that is immaterial. It's awesome you think that he can still shoot himself in the foot. I mean, yeah, yeah. That's very optimistic. It's all baked in.

Nothing he can do. No, that's like, it's not, this is like an advantage, not a flaw. Yeah, he's, what else is a hot topic? You had some stuff you want to talk about. Well, I just wanted to read this briefly. From January through June 2019, New York City had a record low 135 homicides,

down 13.5%. That's this year? Yeah. Now look up the number for 1993, which I think was 2,000-something homicides in a year. But this city is a fucking disaster. So you're making an argument against yourself. Well, I was just reading the facts.

She does that all the time. I was reading the facts. Hate facts. No, but yeah, your experience is your experience. The city is awesome. Thank you, Dove. That's right. I mean, statistically, you're less likely to be killed,

but you can still feel like a shit. You're not going to get beat up as much as you were in the past, but it runs horribly. I'll agree. You guys are nuts. So maybe that you want to say it like that much as you were in the past, but it runs horribly They were operating on time when you got fucking stabbed in the 90s, they were legitimate. Exactly like they were in the 90s. At least they were operating on time when you got fucking stabbed in the 90s. Now it's just like, wait forever. And there's a great piece in the Times about how much these guys make.

And the union is like, why is it getting worse and the fare going up? I mean, this is a bit insular in New York. But it's because these guys, like the guys that drive the trains, make like $180,000 a year. It's insane. And they're able to tap into overtime in a way that they claim is fraudulent. But they're at least part of it. If you're making the case that the subway has gotten worse, then I have no comment. We have no clue.

So when was the last time you were on the subway? I went one time in the last 20 years. Are you serious? I like the verb. I went one time. Somebody advised me. I went to the Barclays Center in Brooklyn. Somebody advised me to take the subway.

It'd be quicker. I would have happily taken three times longer in Uber. But anyway. Yeah, well, that's what I'm saying. If I would have snapped my finger and actually literally, like, you know, the ghost of Christmas past, you walked outside into New York in the 90s, I'm telling you, it would be horrible. I was here. No, no.

But your memory is distorted. I'm okay with the it would be horrible. I was here. No, no, but your memory is distorted. I'm okay with the way you frame it. I really can't fucking stand it when these people... I wrote a column about this for the Daily Beast a long time ago, about fake New York nostalgia. It's always like some kid from Nebraska was like, you know what, I really hate the Disneyfication of New York. And it's like, what, you like the rape and the murder?

That was authentic, cool New York. And there is that narrative. I have not seen the subways like this since I was a, that was authentic, cool New York. And there is that narrative. I have not seen the subways like this since I was a kid. There are like three homeless people. Yeah, but I'm talking about the subway, sure.

All right, well. Let's not talk about New York as a, you know. It's safer. Just acknowledge that. Well, I just read that quote, like that statistic. You read a quote,

but you didn't acknowledge it. Well, it's a fact, right? It's a material fact. Thank you, Dove, for validating it. Anytime, anytime. I'm here to validate. Fox News, unwatch fact, right? It's a material fact. Thank you, Dove, for validating. Anytime, anytime. I'm here to validate. Fox News, unwatchable, correct?

Utterly unwatchable. Worse than, it wasn't always unwatchable. It's unwatchable. It was always unwatchable. No, that's the thing. I used to like it. When Roger Ailes was running it, I knew it was biased, but I found it interesting. I don't care if something's biased.

I'm like, fine. But it is like bottom dwelling, just horrible, dumb. And Tucker seems care if something's biased. Fine. But it is bottom dwelling. Just horrible, dumb. And Tucker seems to be losing his mind. I saw Tucker the other day, by the way. And I've known him for a long time. But I was getting off the train from D.C. And a friend of my producer was like, Tucker's on the train.

I'm like, oh, I know Tucker. So waiting outside. How do you know him? I just know him from D.C. He tried to hire me one time. He's a very, very funny guy, very nice guy. And I see him coming up the stairs. I say, oh, go say hi. So I'm not paying attention. My producer looks at me like I'm fucking insane.

And I lurch towards him, and I put my hand on his shoulder, right? I didn't realize that he had four cops with him, uniformed. And I don't know if this was a private thing or if he was paying them. When they do overtime stuff, they can wear their uniform. The guy was like, hey, hey, hey. And Tucker looked at me and he's like, no, no, no, it's fine. And I just realized that no matter how crazy your views are, it's kind of insane and terrifying to me that he has to have an armed guard

walking around Midtown Manhattan. I don't think that that's... Because the city's so dangerous now. Yeah, it's for tuckers. For tuckers, yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's like he's abandoned everything he previously believed, everything. And it's like in line with Trumpist kind of populism.

But he told me once, and I was on tape when he said, probably in 2006 or 2007, like, I'm a libertarian. My DNA is libertarian DNA. I disagree with you guys on some things. You're a little too far on, you know, whatever, porn, drugs, whatever. But the general trade, free market, he is now disavowed all of that.

All of it. And you're also taking on these performative tics, the laughing and the voices and the faces. Yeah, look back. And the kind of puzzled look, which is contemptuous of something that somebody's saying. I don't like any of that. It all bothers me.

Not in an intellectual atmosphere. I mean, the thing about it is to remember is that Tucker was an amazing journalist. Do you remember? And he's supposed to be a good writer, too. Amazing. Do you remember Carla Faye Tucker? No. Do you remember that name?

She was the woman that was put to death in Texas in 1998, 1999, and it came back to haunt George Bush during the campaign, George W. Bush. And in an interview, he famously said, like, oh, you know, tough shit, he's a religious guy. And he's like, wah, wah, wah, and he makes a kind of crying motion. And that was a piece in George magazine run by John F. Kennedy Jr.

And that was a piece that Tucker wrote. And Tucker almost blew up George W. Bush's campaign because of that incredible bit of reporting. And he was a very, very, very skilled reporter. But at the end of the day, it's like, if you don't have that kind of shame that I do like I mean I could probably make a decent living saying horrible things. I mean

most everybody could. But I don't want to be that person. I always wondered what it was like when Ann Coulter lived in the West Village. She did. I mean what was it like when she walked out of her house? People hate you and that's what Tucker's dealing with now. But for a lot of money. He makes a lot of money. I think he's sincere. He doesn't strike me that he's saying something he doesn't believe

I think he's a convert to the plight of the working class I mean, I'm not Tucker by any means, but I felt disturbed by the fact that even Krugman is now admitting that NAFTA actually was exactly

what Pat Buchanan, of all people, was telling us at the time was being considered. Krugman's actually said that? Yeah, he came out, we were wrong about NAFTA. He wrote a column like a month or two months ago. Oh, surprising. That, you know, and that these,

it's not the white working class, the working class got the shaft. In some ways, yeah. Yeah, and- In other ways, they benefited greatly, though. Okay, but the Trump voters, and I mean, something's going on where they're dying younger.

There's something going on, and it's fair to say, okay, well, capitalism is not working perfectly, but once you allow that contagion into your mind, you can get carried away with it, and I think he's getting carried away with it, but I get where he's coming from. But did you ever think there'd be like a voguish moment

for socialism and social democracy at a time when we have more job listings than there are people to fill the jobs? That we're at full employment at 3.9%, that the economy's doing reasonably well. Now, granted, there's been some stagnation in wage growth, and people aren't getting rich, and the separation between rich and poor is growing,

which doesn't concern me that much. It concerns me when the poor get poorer, not when the rich get richer. But I have a very open mind to the argument that the kind of jobs that people are doing now are not as good and don't have the same security and don't offer them an old age

and there's a lot of anxiety. And I don't know enough about it. When I hear that accusation, I don't just rule that out. That yes, maybe everybody's working now, but maybe the social welfare is not quite as good as it used to be.

I grew up in a union household. My dad was in a union. My mom was a secretary. I didn't grow up in any great wealth. And I grew up in understanding what unions were like and the good things they did for us and the bad things. But one of the things that people don't often consider with unions is that the success of unions was the failure of the working class in so many ways. When you extract so many concessions from people, from whether it's an auto company and the rest of it, and then all of a sudden Japan starts producing cars and there's no import tariffs on them,

and your cars are a lot more expensive, they're made down the street, but you have to pay the guy $50 an hour when he's on overtime or something, it's like you're a victim of your own success. And a lot of those places where those union jobs have gone away and have been replaced by an enormous Amazon factory, which you can get a job, sure, but it's like $20 an hour. And not a terrible wage, but $20 an hour. It used to be $30 an hour.

And you don't have those gold-plated benefits and the pension that even the union can barely pay for. I agree with that. There's a relationship between those in that sometimes the union guys, those days are over. I mean, so over that it's, I mean, we see that in the British election. That's for the MTA. What's that?

Not the MTA. The MTA? Oh, my God. Well, those unions, public sector unions, will never go away. The ones that weren't supposed to exist. Yeah, the private sector ones go away because there's a little choice in there. We're down at like 10, 12% or something. But I do agree with one thing, that the solution to the problems that we're having

had best be left, for the most part, to the market to figure out. Because if the government comes in and tries to fix it, they'll fuck it up and then they will instantiate us. If it happens in the year 2020, that will be the reality for the next 50 years. They have, you know, nothing will move. They come in and they pour cement on the time and place that they decide things and then nothing moves.

And we're in a time of flux and technological change and unpredictable technological change. And the beauty of capitalism is it unleashes all that human ingenuity to figure stuff out and alternatives that nobody could ever think of. And that's the only hope, right? The government is not going to solve this problem. Yeah, I mean, it's going to come from the left. Well, so says the right. I mean, on the left. No, I'm on the left side. The clever people

are going to have to solve this by taking actions in their own self-interest. And they actually need more flexibility to do those kind of things. The MTA and the DMV in New York City, I think, create more libertarians than any libertarian party could ever manage to do. Because you see how government atrophies and how they can't get anything done. I mean, I think that the great failure in the U.S. is, of course, health care, which is always a big issue and too complicated in a lot of ways. But I always thought P.J. O'Rourke's comment was right about this, was, you know, if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free. Because that's unfortunately the problem is it becomes distorted incentives.

And we need some solution to that. But unfortunately, I think that the panaceas that are being offered by presidential candidates are a little too good to be true. Jim Norton, the comedian, always gives the example, and it always stays with me, that the government went bankrupt running off-track betting. Yeah, right? It's amazing. You can't lose. Literally, it allows you to print money. And they went bankrupt.

So you better consider that before you want the government involved. But anyway... But juxtapose that idea with the idea that Ray Dalio, you know Ray Dalio, the hedge fund guy, is saying... Who was that? Ray Dalio was one of the most sort of successful. He was an early, he created a hedge fund. Time magazine once called him.

Yeah, no, no, but he was a big thinker in finance as well. He wasn't just a rich guy. And he was talking about how capitalism in its current iteration, he feels is broken. And that the answer is not not capitalism. The answer is to continue to evolve capitalism. But that's going to get lost in the lack of nuance and in the political whatever's the lack of discourse. I'm really amazed. And I mean this and I don't mean this and like just insulting to people who believe this sort of thing.

I'm really amazed at how the legs that socialism has amongst not only young people, but people that are, you know, I think should know better that are in their 40s and the rest of it, that believe that the solution to this sort of things. I mean, look, the Democratic Party, if you told me you're talking about Coleman Hughes, who very bravely went in front of Congress and was fucking maumaued by everybody for talking about reparations that was a joke when I was in college David Horowitz, who's a nutbag used to come and it was like

fucking fighting Peter McNeely after you got out of prison with Mike Tyson, it was a chump fight he would fight these guys on reparations why is this not a real issue? And this year you had not a single Democratic candidate would speak against it so we've had this unbelievable shift, this tidal wave People are like, why is this not a real issue? And this year you had not a single Democratic candidate would speak against it. So we've had this unbelievable shift, this tidal wave, particularly on left-wing politics and how they've, you know, the Clintons' times, it was an incredible time for the economy, right? Tony Blair's time, the same thing in the UK.

And the response to that is, let's burn all that to the ground, get Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Elizabeth Warren, whatever it might be. I am amazed at this moment where the DSA, the Democratic Socialist America, have a big and effective party in New York City, probably more effective than any Republican party in this city. But is a lot of this just the result of a kind of laziness as it relates to people's internalizing an idea about socialism without doing any of the work necessary to understand what it is that you've just internalized. I mean, I think it's part of the problem.

It's the easiest thing in the world. It's very easy. It's very hard to learn things from books. Like my father's generation lived through the Holocaust. But nobody's reading books either now. He knew that terrible shit could happen in the world. I grew up, I didn't live through the Holocaust, obviously, books either now. He knew that terrible shit could happen in the world. I didn't live through the Holocaust, obviously, but I grew up around people who were still visceral

to them. Now it's just a black and white movie to people. And it's the same thing with anything that you think we'd know better by now. Bread lines, whatever it is that you socialism, Soviet Union, it's just a black and white movie. They read it and they cannot internalize it.

And they are destined, and will always be destined, to making the same mistakes as Santayana or whatever the historian. Yeah, and it's a very difficult thing to argue against because if you're on the debate stage and somebody says, well, we should be, I'm a social democrat, I should be a socialist, you're more like Sweden. I mean, it's a very, very hard thing for me to listen to. I mean, I made my bones as a journalist in Sweden.

I lived in Sweden for five years. I married a Swedish woman, I have a Swedish daughter. I know a lot about Sweden, and the one thing that every Swede will tell you is that it's a capitalist country with very high taxes. It is a very, very capitalist country, who a long time, up until fairly recently, had a far lower corporate tax rate than America did. Far lower. is a very, very capitalist country who a long time, up until fairly recently, had a far lower corporate tax rate than America did.

Far lower. And many billionaires per capita. They have a ton of billionaires. And by the way, they had school choice and all of these things that Republicans and libertarians and conservatives salivated over for years was actually existing in Sweden. The difference was there was a punishing tax rate. And every time the social Democrats would, would the economy would buckle,

did vote in people that would liberalize economy again. So there's all these examples, but these as to your point, it's hard to explain this shit, right? When you say to me, like, why shouldn't we get free X,

Y, and Z free college, free tuition, the bravest Democrats are those ones that are on stage. Like, are you fucking kidding me? Who's going to pay for this? This is insane. And like, Y, and Z, free college, free tuition. The bravest Democrats are those ones that are on stage and are like, are you fucking kidding me? Who's going to pay for this? This is insane. And I give Bill Maher credit

because he was the one that asked Bernie that. I was on that episode. He was doing the first, and I was on the panel, and he was sitting, they do that first interview, and he gave Bernie a hard time. And he's like, yeah, but I get it. People like you because you say you're going to give them things. Everybody likes somebody who's going to say they're going to give them something.

But who's going to pay for it? That answer is one that nobody is willing to offer because it is incredibly painful. A subsequent question would also need to be asked, which is, we've got to wrap it up. Is an education bubble the most likely extent of that policy? What are the externalities of giving away education in the first place? People are already

underemployed relative to being overeducated. So I don't think that would be the answer either even if they could give away the education. You're a comic and you're using economist terms like negative externalities? Very impressive. Yeah, I'm reading basic economics. The unintended consequences

of these policies. He subscribes to an email letter that gives you a letter. I unintended consequences of these policies. He subscribes to a newsletter, you know, an email letter that word that day. It's funny, I got his externalities today. I got that. No, no, no. I thought that word

was so critical because you're talking about the laziness as it relates to sort of adopting socialistic ideas. A lot of it's because the externality, the unintended consequences

of a policy or fucking decision. Did you know what that word meant, Noam? Externalities? I knew it meant something external. I knew what it meant. Yeah.

But if you don't get more granular and we're just adopting whatever it is that's coming down. Granular is a cereal that you're going to eat. Healthy cereal. No, where is the major liability? Where's the major pitfall? I mean, we've been in the weeds as it relates to our current specific political situation. But where does that lead culturally? Well, I was saying, to wrap it up, but I'll say this, is that that cap on it that I would say is that people think history started yesterday.

They don't have any sort of institutional knowledge of politics. And that we are in one part. And, you know, it depends on how you draw the heel of the bell And that we are in one part, and it depends on how you draw the heel or the bell curve. We're in one part of that. And as Noam said, people forget things, and the cycle starts all over again. And if you look, the 20th century was the best

century and the bloodiest century. It was the most horrifying century, and it was the most clarifying century. I mean, these things that we have learned from that, that we have taken away from this, are essentially things like the genocide that, you know... Can I give you a perfect example?

The further we get from calamity, the dumber we are. I want to give you a perfect example. We'll go back again, is my point. Yeah, we're going to go back to calamity. I want to give you an example of the phenomenon that I'm pointing to. So, in the 60s, we almost took the world to war during the Cuban Missile Crisis because it was so unacceptable to have those missiles in Cuba. Today, people will say, it's okay if Iran gets a nuclear bomb.

Arguably more of a threat than the Soviet missiles were. The geographical location doesn't really matter. Not anymore, no. But that was happening post-World war ii when it was clear to us no these terrible things can happen we can't have missiles in cuba now again like i say that's a black and white movie what's the big deal if iran has a nuclear bomb and by the way it's it's a thousand times worse when you have a regime that believes in the return of a the hidden the hidden imam no comparison yeah and it is institutionally anti-Semitic

and believes that a country in its neighborhood should not exist, versus a bearded, cigar-chomping psycho who is cozying up to the Soviets because it was helpful to him economically. The Soviets were making all the decisions. How do you classify yourself politically? Either we were drastically overreacting in the 60s,

drastically underreacting today, or somewhere in the middle, which is probably the truth. Go ahead. Sorry. No, I was just wondering how you would define yourself politically, because you and Noam don't seem far apart in general, and often quite close. I'm one of those annoying people that wants to be a liberal, but liberals won't let me be a liberal.

Right. I really desperately want to be. But I can't count identity politics. Limits on speech is something that traditionally came from the right, which is why I didn't like the right. The PMRC, by the way, which you remember in the 80s... Parents Music Research Council. It tipped a hat.

Tipper Gore. Exactly. It tipped a hat towards that was the way it was going to go to the left because Tipper Gore was actually running these things. But yeah, that kind of shit was always, to me, it was going to go to the left because Tipper Gore was actually running these things. But yeah, like that kind of shit was always to me like it was Republicans and conservatives that were prohibiting

speech and were narrowing the alleys of speech. And that's now changed. And it's astonishing to me. But the thing is is that they did a very clever thing. And the clever thing is to recast speech as violence, right? And you'll see this all the time.

Is it like protecting safety? This is the thing of like you appropriate this language and then you say that speech is violence. People literally make that argument that it's violence, it hurts you. So if a comic is on stage and says, you just offended my experience. My experience. And now it's not the biggest room down here, but imagine the number of people

who have had an experience when you're doing a set. This is crazy. And how does one correct for this? But that is not something that comes from the right anymore. And if it did, it comes from the left anymore. It comes from the right anymore than it used to be. That's why I want to be a member of sort from the left they come from the right that's why I want to be a member

of the left broadly speaking and I just can't find myself getting there final question why are we still up to just two parties that are electable I was watching some of the the big period of freedom

for the press was 200 years ago he's an idiot no he's not. Oh, my God, he's the worst. Did you ever read the debates with Hitchens? Hitchens just claimed them. I don't know about the whole debate. I'm just talking about this one example

of freedom of the press and the electability of other parties. You cannot trust anything he writes or says. He wrote a piece denouncing it, by the way, so you should like it. But this isn't really about Chomsky. It's just more about why do we have a process and a system where there are only two viable choices and nobody else has a legitimate voice?

Two quick things about that. One is that Chomsky is utterly wrong about the press because he did this thing, Manufacturing Consent, with this complete psychopath named Edward Herman who just tries to find genocides to deny. That's his hobby. And their idea is that it's the corporate press, corporate press. It was less corporate then, so it was freer. Utter horseshit. Not true, never has been true. But there were other parties, political parties,

that had electable candidates, from what I understand. They had the Whigs. But there weren't a ton. But I would say this. There are always these moments where you have the Ross Perot moment of 13%, et cetera. But it is not the best thing in the world to have multiple political parties. The best thing in the world is to have multiple representatives

of an ideology within a party. Because what happens when you have multiple political parties, everyone loves this, and everyone's always like, oh, it's the fucking best thing. Go to Europe. And you know what you have in Europe? You have Nazis in power in a lot of places because you need them for coalitions. Because everything's splintered up into eight parties.

And then you have the far right guys that have like 9% of the vote. And you need them. I saw a poll today. The far right party in Sweden, which was born out of a Nazi party, born out of a Nazi party, is now tied for first place with the Social Democrats at 25%. This is what happens because you fracture it so much and you need these people then you give them positions of power and then people say

oh, well they're not fucking things up that bad and then they grow and they grow and they grow. There's been a very malign effect and a malignant effect of these eight, nine parties. I get why people want it. Choice isn't necessarily good. Not necessarily.

For instance, in Israel, the small parties have ridiculously outsized power to the numbers. Well, that's what he's saying. But when you say two parties, it makes it seem like there's only two ideologies. But the truth is Trump came in shortly after the Tea Party was ascendant and hijacked the Republican Party and turned it into standing for something that had never stood before. That's kind of like a third party, if you ask me. It's 100% true. It's the populist conservative party. It's not the free market, neoconservative, American greatness

and foreign policy party. That doesn't exist anymore. It's the current Republican Party. That is the new Republican Party. Profligate spending. The Tea Party was ready to go to war against the spending. And keep in mind now, an important data point is that the farmer bailouts, which have happened because of the tariffs, are now over twice as expensive than the auto bailouts, which the fucking Tea Party was like screaming and smashing windows over.

Nobody cares about this. At the record show, I always supported the auto bailouts. Did you? Yeah. And I couldn't imagine letting that perfect storm of economic ridiculousness tank, you know, General Motors. I mean, it just didn't, like, why would we do that? You didn't think that they would then come back, restructure, and be stronger because

of it? I just felt that if General Motors went bankrupt during normal times, let them go. But if they were brought down, what was the risk? Prop them up. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out. But what other homeless salesman that you know could tell you what the PMRC is? Yeah.

That's good. No, you're no homeless salesman. No homeless salesman. House voting impeachment. Oh, they're voting now on impeachment. This is a nail biter. Yeah, I don't know what's going to happen here. All right, well, listen, Michael, this is a pleasure to meet you.

Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. You surpassed even Coleman's high praise for you. Really? Oh, shit, that's great. That might have meant that Coleman was just kind of mixed on me. No, Coleman, the national intellectual that he is, couldn't be here because he's studying for final exams. I know, like his trombone exam.

He had to write a six-page paper on Monet's paintings or something. You know he was a Juilliard student before he transferred. I'm a musician. We play together. He plays here sometimes with me on Friday nights. He's an amazing... Really? He's a good musician, too? He's a good rapper. He's got his SoundCloud ship. That's really good. He's a great musician. Wow. He did a gig with Colin two weeks ago. He's an amazing. Really? He's a good musician too? He's a good rapper. He's got a SoundCloud ship. That's really good.

He's a great musician. Wow. He did a gig with Colin two weeks ago. He's great. With Quinn? No, no. I have a musician I play with here sometimes named Colin Smith. And he took Coleman.

Oh, wow. So, yeah, he's a great rapper. He's a great musician. Well, thank you, Coleman. He's an intellectual in the making. He cannot draw well. This is Achilles' heel? No, just so you know.

All right. Thank you very much. Thanks, man. I appreciate it. I hope you liked it. Good night, everyone. Apparel, you want to say anything? Yeah.

Podcast at commieshow.com. Write your emails. Podcast at commieshow.com. Wait, wait. Dove. Oh, we forgot. We didn't get to synagogue. What am I doing?

What are you doing? What's going on? Where can we find you? One, I read a lot more about politics if I'm going to synagogue desecration. What am I doing? What are you doing? What's going on? Where can we find you? One, I read a lot more about politics if I'm going to sit down here again. But Tempe Improv next week, day after Christmas. And where can we find you on the? Oh, yeah, just at Dove David. Nobody needs this stuff.

Yes, everybody needs it. People plug stuff like there's no Google. And this is not the tag show in 1979. At Live From the Table. We'll just Google you. And at Live From the Table. This is not the tag show in 1979. At Live From the Table on Instagram. Good night, everybody.