The Daily Beast Podcast - Marjorie Taylor Greene Isn’t Joking. She’s Pushing ‘War’.

Episode Date: October 18, 2022

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s hateful rhetoric isn’t a joke; she wants to start a war, proclaims podcaster Danielle Moodie on the latest episode of The New abnormal podcast. Moodie, who joined the show again as guest co-host alongside host Andy Levy, tore into Greene after she and Andy listened to a recent clip of the Republican Congresswoman making Democrats out to be child predators. Also on this episode: The Intercept investigative reporter Ken Klippenstein explains where the United States currently stands with the Trump and Putin-friendly Saudis and the Crown Prince, including that they’re gearing up to screw President Joe Biden over, big time. And for good measure, Klippenstein shares all the ways we could fuck over the Saudi Crown Prince without war, if we wanted to. Plus! Daily Beast media editor and editor of the media newsletter Confider, Andrew Kirell, joins to give Andy the inside scoop on how Fox News is handling the deranged Kayne West clips that were cut from his segment on Tucker Carlson’s show and then subsequently leaked. Kirell thinks he has an idea of who the leaker could be and him and Andy talk theories. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy and current cable news conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits pretty comfortably on the left. And I'm producer Jesse Kennett, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some great guest co-hosts, as well as some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. Our goal is to try to make some sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears. What a great show we have today.

Kent Clippenstein of The Intercept drops by to talk about the latest fuckery going on with OPEC and the Saudis. Then we're going to talk to Daily Beast senior editor Andrew Corell, and he's going to tell us all about all that's going down with Fox News, Kanye, and Parlor. But first, we have the host of Democracyish and Wokey-Up and a Daily Beast columnist, Danielle Moody.

Danielle Moody. Andy Levy. Welcome back to the new abnormal. Thanks for coming back to guest host again with us. I'm so excited to be back with you. We're so excited to have you back with us. Let's jump right into, there were a bunch of debates over the weekend, late last week, for Senate races, for House races, et cetera.

And this may come as a big surprise to you, Danielle, but a bunch of Republicans said a bunch of crazy things. Let's start with, again, not a shock. Marjorie Taylor Green and a little rant that she decided to go on. The Democrat Party is the party of child abuse. It's the party that represents grooming children and sex. them in school, teaching anti-white racism in the terms of CRT education, and genital mutilation of kids, kids that can't even get a driver's license, can't get a tattoo and cannot vote. How do you stand there and represent the Democrat Party as a father?

And do you believe in genital mutilation of children under the age of 18 and these puberty blockers that have severe health consequences? Kenya, where do you even start with this? I mean, you know, here's the thing is that ever since, since Marjorie Taylor Green entered into Congress. She's been looked at primarily as a joke, right? We have said she's the Q&ONN queen. She is the conspiracy theorist, conspiracy theorists. Like she is absolutely crazy.

She has said things about Jewish people, you know, operating lasers from outer space. But what I want folks to take away from that rant that she went on is that Marjorie Taylor Green is not representative of the fringe of the repatri of the Republican Party. She is the mainstream of the Republican Party. And when she is referring to Democrats as predators, when she is saying that we are going after children, that we are, she's talking about mutilation and all of these things, what she is signaling to the Republican Party, to her base, is that we are at war, right? That the Republican Party is, that is not a debate tactic.

that is a tactic of war that you use to dehumanize your opposition so that you can attack them and in war terms that you can kill them. We know that we're living in a time, Andy, of political violence that is at an all-time high. America is a boiling pot right now. And so when you have that kind of rhetoric from Marjorie Taylor Green, what she is saying is that these people need to be taken out, not voted out. And I want Democrats to pay attention to them. that. First of all, I couldn't agree with you more, and Jesse will back me up on this. I have been screaming for the last year that Marjorie Taylor Green is not just some lone crazy, and that she represents, in many ways, the soul of the Republican Party right now. And she needs to be taken

seriously in that way, and that it's a big mistake to not do so. And I remember having an argument with a friend about this. She was like, why are you guys always talking about Marjorie Taylor Green? Why is CNN always talking about, you know, MSNBC? They're always talking about Marjorie Telle Green, she's just one congresswoman from Georgia. It's like, no, that's not right. And you laugh at these people and shrug them off at your own peril, as you're saying. And we can't do that. And she's been doing this time and again. She has, as you put it, sort of been a call to violence in a sense, even though she doesn't come outright and say that. But she's done this before. She has said that Republicans are under attack, that Republicans are being killed by Democrats. She has used language that would make it seem as though if you're one of those people that if you commit a violent act against a Democrat or someone on the left, it is basically self-defense.

Absolutely. Could not agree with you more. I've been saying it. I hope more and more people are coming around to it. And the other thing is the things that she is bringing up, we can sit here and it's like, well, that's insane. The Democrats of the party of child abuse, the party of grooming the party of anti-white racism in the form of. CRT. But these are all, these are mainstream Republican talking points now. Anyone that thinks Mitt Romney is a better representation of the Republican Party right now than Marjorie Taylor Green

is nuts. This is her party, the party that Trump made over and that she is part and parcel of and absolutely right that this stuff has to be taken seriously at the highest levels. What concerns me, Andy, is the fact that Democrats do not have pushback for her heightened rhetoric. They've been struggling since she came into Congress and was handed a microphone, right? When she says these things, all Democrats' responses, we're not that. And then they repeat the Republican talking points in their defense of themselves, as opposed to calling out who is actually trying to abuse children. When you deny trans children and LGBTQ children, the ability to have affirming health care, what do you think happens to them? I'll tell you that a majority of them

attempt suicide. And you can check to the Trevor Project, who has been tracking LGBTQ suicide since they started their organization. And it's at an all-time high. So you want to talk about threats to our children, well, not being able to walk into a classroom and talk about yourself, talk about your family, if they are in fact queer, right? That you're asking children to invisibleize themselves because you are criminalizing them. How is that not considered child abuse? And why don't we talk about it like that. We don't have to use Republican talking points as a way to defend what it is that they are trying to do to the nation's most vulnerable children. Absolutely right. By the way, these are, in addition to the things you said, these are the people that also go after children's

hospitals. They actually, they go after places like the Trevor Project and try to, you know, flood them with denial of service attacks and stuff like that to try to prevent them from actually helping kids. So you're absolutely right. And, you know, But what ends up happening with Democrats is Joe Biden gets up there and he calls these people semi-fascists, which again is accurate as far as it goes, although I don't know that we needed the semi. And then there's like a week of pearl clutching because conservatives are mad about this. And so you get pearl clutching from the New York Times and the Washington Post and Politico and was this the wrong strategy? And that's what you get on the Democratic side, it seems to me.

You know, what I will say is that Democrats need to wake up and recognize that there is no high road to be taken anymore when Republicans have pulled us into the sewer. So either you're going to roll up your fucking sleeves and like actually begin to get dirty. And that doesn't mean that you need to demean, but it means that you need to call these people outside of their names. It means that you need to direct the American people to exactly who is taking away your rights. Exactly who is making your communities more dangerous. Exactly who is putting your children under threat, right? of being able to thrive, of being able to access the American dream, right? But threats of actual violence.

Marjorie Taylor Green had listed out all of these things that your children can't do. But let me tell you what they can do and the Republican Party is totally fine with, them being able to get AR-15s and shoot up entire schools about not having any type of age requirement around weapons of mass destruction. And so, you know, again, there are ways for us to have these conversations that don't allow us to just say, oh, well, the American people will figure it out and we'll take the high road. We are in sewer politics. We are in swamp land.

So it's time that folks learn how to swim. Yeah, agreed. And let's not forget this is the party of wanting 10-year-old rape victims to have their children. Exactly. All right. Let's move on. There were actually two debates in Georgia between Senator Warnock and his challenger, Herschel Walker, Herschel Walker only showed up for one of them.

And Senator Warnock had something to say about that at the second one where Walker was not on the stage. Because I work for Georgia, and I'm not going to be distracted about what Herschel Walker says about me. He doesn't tell the truth about himself. He said that he graduated from college. He didn't. He said he was valedictorian of his class. He wasn't. He said he started a business that doesn't even exist.

And the other night when I said he pretended to be a police officer, he presented a badge. as if that were proof that he really is a police officer. And now he wants us to think that he's a senator. I think the people of Georgia are wise and discerning. And they know that at the end of the day, I know who I work for. I work for them. Well, I hope he's right about that.

I don't know that I'm as confident as he is, Danielle. What do you think? I mean, the fact that we even have a close race here tells me that the people of Georgia may not be as bright. as Reverend Warnock would like them to be. I mean, I would love for voters to be the smartest of the smarts. But you see, I find that I believe that they are identified more with Herschel Walker making a few, quote, unquote, mistakes, which is how Republicans have liked to characterize this. Oh, he's not the brightest.

Well, they can say to themselves, well, I'm not the brightest either, but I know that I'm a hard worker and I'm about this. Whatever happened to us wanting the people that represent us to actually be better than we are, whatever happened to actually wanting to, aspire to some level of fucking intelligence. That man can't put together a sentence with a flashlight and assistance. So I'm confused about why you would want him to represent me. I wouldn't want him to represent me at the circus. Do you know what I'm saying? Like, what are you doing? Like the man is a clown. And if you can't characterize him as such, and you again, I love Reverend Warnock. Reverend Warnock is a brilliant man. So it is not hard work to make Herschel Walker look like a fool. And then say, Georgia, is this your guy?

Is this your king? Right? Come on. He said, he was asked about, sir, on this abortion receipt, is this your signature? Uh, uh, well, it kind of looks like it. Cause it is. Because it is your signature, fool. Like you don't even know how to defend yourself.

Oh, did you pretend to be a police officer? Here's my badge. That is akin to little kids. You know when they travel on planes for the first time and they get those little wings? Yes. Does that make a toddler a pilot? But that's how Herschel Walker thinks of himself as like, I'm doing the work of the people. Shut up, sir, sit down.

Well, and then he goes on the Today Show and he talks about how, like, he has a whole bunch of different badges, I guess. Yes, from everywhere, he says. He has badges from everywhere. And it's because these people look at him again, like the toddler on the plane. And they're like, oh, aren't you so nice and sweet? Here you go. Here you go, buddy. You can present that wherever you go.

He's an embarrassment. And like what I would say if I were Reverend Warnock is that, you know what, Georgia, we are on the map. The country is looking at us. Let us not embarrass ourselves. We deserve the best in representation. Right. And like list down the things that Herschel Walker has said.

He told Kristen Welker, oh, that he wants to be for clean energy. This is the same man that told us that China has bad air, that we can, I guess essentially with a straw and some will blow away. And I'm like, do they teach science in Georgia, or was that an elective? Yeah, again, yes to all of that. And after the debate where he held up the badge, and just he just looked ridiculous, I see all these takes on Twitter, again, from like, you know, New York Times people and Politico and whatever saying, well, both candidates did what they had to do in this debate.

And it's like, are you kidding me? So basically because Hersia Walker didn't stand up there. and drool all over his microphone and nobody waved shiny keys in front of his face that he started pawing out like a cat. He did well. No, the bar is the same for both people. You don't, you don't lower the bar for someone because they're a terrible candidate. Like, I don't know why we do. Again, this goes back to what you said earlier about being sort of ill-equipped to fight this stuff. And I just think in addition to the Democrats being ill-equipped, our media is incredibly ill-equipped to it and it's so frustrating to me.

Mainstream media loves to overcorrect itself, right? So here you have Republicans that have consistently talked about the media as being the liberal media that goes after Republicans. So they love this overcorrection game that they play, which is that they give people like Herschel Walker

the consistent benefit of the doubt instead of saying, do we think that he is intellectually fit to be a senator of the United States? Right? That is not a biased question. It is a real one if you have ears and can actually listen to what this man is saying out of his mouth. I wouldn't want him to teach literal like obedience training for puppies. Do you know what I'm saying? Like,

let alone stand up before the Senate and be a representative of the people of Georgia. What? So if you're if you're not calling that out and just logically saying that this is not a hard choice, Georgia, this should not even be a close decision. And frankly, if you're a Republican that refuses to vote with common sense because you're a rabid racist. And this is what you've always thought about black men is what Herschel Walker is showcasing for you, but you think that he can be a docile puppet. Like, I want those people just not to vote. He should be embarrassing to you.

And he's not. And to me, the fact that the media doesn't call out what Republicans are doing right now with some of these candidates is really just, it's disgusting. And it should be offensive to the American people. Yeah, I totally agree. and I think for me it's that they've been completely cowed by the, you know, by the conservative media. And so they have, as you called it, an overcorrection. But to me, it's that they do it mainly because they're afraid.

And they've been cowed by the conservative media establishment or sphere or whatever you want to call it. And so they go over, they bend over backwards to try to show that they're not the liberal media. And this is what we end up with. So let's move on. Ron Johnson, senator from Wisconsin was in a debate with Mandela Barnes at Marquette University. and he gave an answer that the audience didn't particularly respond well to. All right, we are down to one final question here, and both of you have said a lot tonight about each other. Now, when we traveled around the state talking with voters, we heard repeatedly from people

tired of divisive politics and attack ads. So our final question here tonight is, both of you have been successful in life. You have 30 seconds here. Mr. Barnes, you go first. What do you find admirable about your opponent? Well, no, no, seriously, I do think, you know, the senator has proven to be a family man, and I think that's admirable. You know, that's absolutely to be respected.

He speaks about his family. He's done a lot to provide for them. I absolutely respect that. Mr. Johnson. I mean, likewise, I appreciate the fact that Lieutenant Governor Barnes had loving parents, a school teacher, father at work, third shift. So he had, you know, good upbringing. I guess what puzzles me about that,

is with that upbringing, why is he turned against America? I mean, why does he find the founding of America awful? Somehow. We did not. I said something admirable. We can't even get through, say, something admirable stage without a Republican saying you've turned against America. And then the best thing is he went on Fox News, of course, the next day and blamed the

audience response on the fact that there are a bunch of left-wing college kids and that kids aren't, colleges aren't teaching history. They're teaching leftist propaganda. Ah, yes. And then he also went on to say that the FBI planted evidence on him and fed him wrong information and, you know, and the audience turned around and laughed at him. I think that Ron Johnson, much like Marjorie Taylor Green, are indicative of who the Republican Party is and where they are going. And so what bothers me is that we are still setting up these debates as if we're at a place where we're debating policy. We're not, right? Like Ron Johnson looks at this man and says, you are against America. If I'm against America, in all honesty, why would I be running for public office? Right? I would be running

an insurrection instead, what their party referred to as regular, you know, political discourse, right? Normal political discourse is what they consider. So I think we're in such a desperate need of a reframing of how we showcase these two parties because they are not the same. And you have one party that is no longer interested in debate on policy can no longer even look at the humanness, right? And that goes back to Marjorie Taylor Green, the humanness of their opponent. Because the entire design right now is dehumanization so that violence becomes an accepted form of political discourse. Right. Like that's where this is headed.

And for people who think that like that's being hyperbolic, it's like, pay attention. Right. We've been saying this that January 6th was a warm up. And still, the architects are not in prison. So you have this kind of commentary that continues. And we're all just like, ooh, boo, that's sad until they hype up one of the crazies who wants to take them at their word. Joining me now is Ken Clippenstein, investigative reporter for The Intercept. And I would imagine the bane of the government for the sheer volume of Freedom of Information Act requests he files.

Ken, thanks so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. My pleasure. So I want to talk to you about an article you wrote earlier in the week for The Intercept regarding Saudi Arabia, oil production, and Russia. So walk us through this. The story begins a little over a week ago when the member nations of OPEC Plus met in Vienna, right? That's correct. Yeah, so in interviewing people for the story, both on Capitol Hill and in the expert world, the language they used to describe what was happening was really astonishing to me,

and language I've never heard used to describe the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi, and I've been reporting on that relationship for a number of years now. What they said about this oil production cut, which has the effect of driving up oil prices, not just in the medium term, but immediately because the psychological response to what oil production quotas are registers almost immediately in the form of the stock market and other investments. The way they described it was a partisan intervention on the part of the young crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, or MBS for short, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, into American electoral politics. And I do think that there's a lot of evidence to suggest that that's the case. If you look at MBS's very close relationship with

the Trump administration, which has been ongoing since he left office, for example, two billion dollars were invested in Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his senior White House advisor's private equity firm that he started within six months of his leaving office. And another one billion was invested. And again, this is from the Saudi government. These are not private individuals. another $1 billion was invested into Steve Mnuchin's private equity firm a few weeks after his leaving the White House. And so there are all sorts of sort of these circumstantial relationships between them that I think lends credence to what these experts and folks on the Hill are saying. So just to make it clear, so what happened at this OPEC plus meeting is the Biden administration had asked OPEC and had I think specifically asked Saudi Arabia, which is sort of the, are they the de facto leader of OPEC plus? Yeah, so they're the biggest, they're the biggest producer. And just if you talk to OPEC member representatives, they'll kind of tell you, like, you know, they have the lion's share of the power and they have a lot of influence in terms of being able to coerce or compel other member nations to vote along with them.

Okay. And so the Biden administration had leading up to this meeting had asked them not to cut oil production, which, as you mentioned, has the effect. And the point of that is to raise prices for two reasons, if I'm reading this correctly. The first is the obvious one that it drives up, or, oil prices here, drives up gas prices, et cetera, it drives inflation. And the second one is that it would help Russia, because Russia is a member of OPEC plus and obviously an oil exporting nation. And the Saudis basically said, for lack of a better phrase, go fuck yourself, Joe. Essentially, yeah, because the price of oil factors into everything. I mean, people look at the price at the pump, which is perhaps the most immediate effect. But, you know, we have a fossil fuel-based global economy. So when you're shipping things across the ocean, when you're moving things by truck when you're manufacturing things. I mean, electricity overwhelmingly depends on, you know,

burning fossil fuels or, you know, expending fossil fuels. So that drives up the cost of everything. And there's plenty of evidence to show that a large part of the inflation that we are experiencing. Now that is, you know, the highest in the number of years is attributable to these changes in oil policy to, you know, having the Russian oil removed on account of sanctions. And now the Saudis pulling their own off. And according to subsequent reporting, they actually coerced other member nations in OPEC who are uneasy about going ahead with the extent of these cuts because not only will that antagonize the United States, but that can also have a destabilizing effect on the global economy. And you mentioned this earlier, but so you talked to a bunch of people,

a bunch of experts in this sort of thing, who said that this is from the Saudis, yes, it's a geopolitical move, but it's more than that, that it's actually a direct shot at Biden that is basically aimed at helping, I guess, Trump and or just the Republican Party in general. And you actually called it or people said to you that it was an October surprise, and that was part of the headline of your article. Yeah, that phrase was taken from Trita Parsley, who's the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, Center for Responsible Statecraft. And then another quote that I got from Bruce Rydell of the Brookings Institution, not usually an org that you hear, you know, really, really strong or shocking language from he said, quote, the Saudis are working to get Trump reelected and for the Maga Republicans to win the midterms. he goes on to say, higher oil prices will undermine the Democrats. And again, that is

exceptionally strong language from the foreign policy community who, you know, in general, Saudi has purchased itself very good influence in Washington. And so it can be very difficult for you to find candid discussion around these things. And I think that we're in such a crisis situation, that finally people are addressing this with the sort of straightforwardness that I wish they had before. Yeah. So I want to get to what our reaction has been, our meaning our government, I want to start with the White House and then I'll move to Congress. But what has the White House reaction to this been? Well, this is one of the most interesting parts of reporting on the story is I quickly realize

that there's some tension between Congress and the White House because Congress obviously is up for re-election and there is a sense. Staffors will tell you this privately. Publicly, all you'll hear is, you know, he's helping the Russians and he's hurting the Ukrainians, which is factually true. But that's not the only thing that's at issue here. The other part, which I would guess I don't want to say because they don't want to sound mercenary about it.

But the other one is that this is going to have a very, devastating effect on the Democrats' electoral prospects, I think. And that's certainly the impression on the part of people on the Hill, but they don't want to say that publicly. They'll just say it privately. So there's some tension because they wish that the White House would be more aggressive with regard to the Saudis. And a lot of people I talked to felt sort of betrayed that he traveled there, did the fist bump, right, you know, incurred the reputational costs that would come along with that. Because remember when he was campaigning for president, he vowed to make Saudi Arabia a pariah for the, you know, murder of Jamal Khashoggi

and other conduct under this young crown prince. And they feel so they didn't get anything out of it because we didn't end up getting, even maintaining oil production. So they wish that the White House would do more. I quote several people in the story calling for a shake-up in the NSC because the head of the Middle East policy, Brett McGirk, is just like the personification of the Washington swamp

in the sense of he's been in, I think, the last four administrations going back to George W. Bush and has been just a really steady advocate for co-execure relations with the Saudis and the Emirates and the other Gulf monarchies, and they feel as though, well, the White House needs to do something now to get this oil reinstated. Then when you look at how the White House, to answer your question, how the White House has responded, they said they're going to reassess the relationship. And I tend not to take that very seriously, frankly. Right. I mean, is that in line with a general White House tone that we usually see? Or was it, even if you don't take it seriously, was it a little stronger than we're used to?

No, you're right. Yeah, that's unusual. Well, he vowed to do the same during not just campaigning, but in the beginning of 2021, when he first, came into office, he requested a strategic reassessment of the relationship. So it's not unprecedented, but I agree with you. That is strong language coming from the White House. But yeah, but it does kind of sound like, I think there was a really old Saturday Night Live sketch with Omar Gaddafi drawing a red line or whatever. And then it kept getting crossed and he would draw it again and say, oh, but if you cross this one, and it sounds like that's sort of what's going on. I interviewed someone very senior in the intelligence community, asking him, because when you say we're going to, we're going to do a reassessment, that often means

have the intelligence community drop what the what a change adjustment in the relationship could be like and he was very frustrated sort of cynical about it he responded he said classic when you don't have a policy kick it to the intelligence community and try to get us to give you some sort of explanation right but the intelligence community look into it he said and so he's very very negative on the idea that that there was going to be meaningful change just that there were the sort of controversy was being kicked to their domain yeah okay so i was going to ask you who brett mcirk was and why this is all his fault but i think you covered that It is weird, though, in your article, like his name kept popping up.

People were, it was like, you know, shaking your fist at the sky and going, McGirk. Yeah, and what's interesting is that the frustration I found was almost uniform in the quarters of the hill that I was interviewing, but nobody wants to say anything publicly. People are very afraid of him. I think he has a lot of influence in Washington, having been, you know, a very senior mid-east hand for my entire life and having the relationships that he has. And so it sounds like there's a lot of frustration, but much less willingness to air that out publicly. So I know you can't answer this question, but I have to ask it because it's so frustrating. Why do we continue to bankroll Saudi Arabia's military? Obviously, it's bad enough we're financing their war against Yemen.

But even if you set that aside, set morality aside, which we're very good at, generally, just from a raw, like a naked real politic view, what are we getting out of these deals if they're just going to shit on us? Yeah, that's a very good point. Because you would think from a real politic perspective, we would want to compel them to come through with their side of the bargain, because we sell them billions and billions in weapons. We have U.S. personnel based in country to support and run their society in many cases. And so I think that there's a lot of dishonesty on the part of certainly the think tanks here, but in much of Washington, in terms of the leverage that we do have,

I think there's this impression, oh, you know, they've got all the oil. What can you do? We've got to let them do what they wanted to be. We have to let them create the biggest cholera epidemic in Yemen and arguably the biggest humanitarian crisis prior to the Ukraine war. and murder an American resident in Turkey and dismember him. We got to let him do all this stuff because it's great oil. But what that's not being straightforward about is the fact that we have huge leverage in the form of not just the massive weapon systems that we sell them, and that they depend on to be able to shoot down, for example, Houthi rockets and protect themselves, you know, not just from those actors in Yemen,

but they also are a target of, you know, the Iranians. Right. And so you never hear that brought up when you say, well, what can we do? So there's a whole continuum of ways that we could respond. We could suspend weapon shipments with which Congress is proposing to do right now. We can stop the military support that we provided them in the form of just like they can't even fly sordies without American technicians being able to help them run. Because these weapons systems are very complicated and they require maintenance so we can suspend maintenance. I mean, that's not even mentioning that we could use sanctions like we seem to love to do with so many other countries targeted sanctions at certain individuals.

I mean, there's a whole menu of options that we have here that just is not being discussed. Short of, it doesn't mean you have to go to war with them. There are all kinds of things short of that you can do to ratchet up the pressure on the crown prince. Yeah. So you mentioned sort of in passing, but I want to go back to it, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. And, you know, Trump sort of famously kept the heat off of MBS for that. I mean, he basically said, I saved his ass or something like that. He bragged about it.

Yeah, he bragged about it. So is this what we're seeing now when you say that, like, Like, MBS wants to help Trump and the MAGA Republicans. Is this quid pro quo? It sure looks that way. I mean, I don't know how to, I mean, I have a recording of them saying you do this for this. Sure. Sure.

It sure looks that way. Yeah. Yeah. And then, you know, between that and as you said, also, you know, Trump, I believe, I believe there were actually, correct me if I'm wrong, there were, there were attempts by Congress to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Trump vetoed them. That's correct. Three separate times. They were, they were broadly able to get bipartisan support for it, too, in one of those rare cases. You talked about, you know, there are things that Congress can do. So explain to me, because I've just been reading about this lately, what is the Yemen war powers resolution?

Well, that would essentially make it so that Congress has a say in what's going on instead of just having the executive branch in the White House able to determine much of policy. So the idea is that they have to get sign off from Congress in order to continue support for this war, which has been sort of pared down and limited over time. So, for example, we said that we don't provide targeting support and there's less support of the, of the, of the, um, sorties that go over. So, for example, they might rely on maybe Bahraini pilots or Emirati pilots to help with these sorts of things. But this would make any sort of support be contention on the approval of Congress, which I think is important in general. Because I mean, during the Trump administration, we had all of this discourse about, you know, the dangers of the unstable president of things, not unreasonably, but how much happened in the way of making it so that

there's some checks on that power. And I think this is a really good way to go about doing that. So where does that stand? Because that was brought up, that was, I think, brought to the floor or written months ago. I think was Bernie Sanders the one who originally did it? I can't remember, but they broadly have the support of the progressive caucus. And the question is how much of the rest of the Democratic Party and some of the members like Rand Paul, you know, to give them credit in the Republican Party that supported as well. And so I do get the impression just informally from staffers that I talked to that there's significant support for this and it could actually pass. It's something that's kind of on the fence right now. And then I saw just the

other day, I think it was Chris Murphy, the senator from Connecticut, Democratic Senator from Connecticut, he put out a statement saying that he not only supports freezing new military aid to Saudi Arabia, he also said, quote, we should also take swift steps in the near term that will provide immediate help to Ukraine. The U.S. should suspend the sale of advanced medium range air-to-air missiles to Saudi Arabia and repurpose these missiles to Ukraine. Sure. My question is, why are we doing that already? Right. Yeah, I mean, you look at Saudi, these Houthi missiles that are being sent their way. I mean, there are other ways they can respond to it other than military. I mean, they could actually be compelled to pursue some kind of diplomatic solution. For a while, there was a ceasefire that has since fallen apart. And so, you know, you look at these conflicts, you know, giving them all these weapon systems to defend themselves. That's one way to respond to. Another is to, you know, lean on them to find some sort of arrangement to make it so that they're not in a state of war.

Is the support of the Chris Murphy's and the people like that? Is that due to, I guess, what has happened in the last couple weeks with the, you know, the raising the prices of oil? I guess my question is, are Are we seeing, is this maybe is the Yemen war powers resolution and stuff like that, moving sort of beyond the progressive caucus and into the... Yeah, definitely. Into real politic world, as I call it, into the people that are just the raw power, realist, meathook reality type. Like Bob Menendez, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for him to come on and say something like this is extraordinary. And, you know, I'm the cynic of cynics in terms of the U.S. suggesting its relationship with Saudi Arabia. But that was really something that is without precedent, certainly in my lifetime. I mean, just without going into its own personal politics, which are extremely establishment.

For the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they have the authority to unilaterally block foreign arms transfers, which is something that he has vowed to do. So that is very significant. So just to sort of sum this whole thing up, where do you see this going? Ultimately, are we still going to be in the, you know, yes, people like, you know, Chris Murphy is going to make statements. and Bob Menendez is going to make a statement and threaten to do X and Y. But in the end, are we going to do what we always do and basically just kowtow to the Saudis? If you had to guess. Them politicizing the relationship to the extent that I have, I do think, changes the calculus.

It makes it possible for the Congress to consolidate support around some of these measures that they had been pushing for for a number of years and had just not been able to get the amount of critical mass that you need to be able to pass it. So I think the question is less if Congress is willing to go ahead, but rather what is the White House going to do? And to what extent are the Democrats in Congress willing to go to war with the Biden administration and demand that they do more than they have? And I think that sort of remains to be seen. This is something we haven't really touched on. But does Saudi Arabia doing this also signify a greater alliance with Russia? Or is that just sort of, I guess what I'm asking is, in your mind, what is the main impetus of the Saudis here?

Is it to stick it to Biden? or is it that they also want to, for whatever reason, that they want to signal their alliance with Russia? When you speak to people in the intelligence community, they have to keep taps on the Saudi leadership, the impression that you get is that MBS thinks he can ride out the next two years and then have Trump come back into office and then have everything he wants. So I think he sort of made the gamble that he is going to, you know, risk antagonize the Democrats in exchange for, you know, putting his finger on the, the scales for the Republican candidate that he very much favor. So I would guess that that is the overriding concern here. But in reporting on this in the last couple of years, it is also very clear that he has an unusually an unprecedented, warm relationship with Vladimir Putin going back to

at least, I believe it was 2015. There was a World Economic Summit where MBS first met with him instead of meeting with Obama. And my understanding is that there was a lot of resentment on MBS's part because Obama declined to meet with him. And then it was at that point from people close to, you know, the royal family and that, you know, work in the U.S. government, you know, diplomats and like, they said that it was sort of at that point that the Saudi and Russian relationship really began to blossom. And I think is only intensified. And that's what we're seeing now. It really is amazing. It's obviously not a new or original thought, but it is amazing how much of the world is based on fragile male egos. That's exactly right. Not me, though.

No, no. It doesn't apply for you. Never you. Okay, so before I let you go, you've been doing a thing on Twitter. And if you're not following Ken on Twitter, then why are you on Twitter? You keep replying to people, mainly like Republican operatives and people like that, telling them to subscribe to your newsletter. What's going on there?

Oh, well, this is a Patriots-only opportunity for people that want to hold the left hordes to account. And so I started a substack as one does to do that. So if you want to jump in there and join the, help make it so that the Patriots are in control again. I'd encourage you all to do that. I signed up a long time ago, and I have to say there's been some fascinating stuff there. Thank you. All right, Ken, thank you so much for joining us, Ken Clippenstein from The Intercept and FOIA and Twitter and pretty much anywhere else in the world. You look, he is there.

It's just a giant face of Ken Clippenstein, much like Darkside. Thanks so much for reading here, Ken. Good talking to you guys. The world of social media was rocked this morning. I mean, not really, but it's fun. By the news that Kanye West had agreed to buy the right-wing platform called Parlor. Joining me now to make fun of this, sorry, to make sense of this, is Daily Beast Senior Editor Andrew Correll. Andrew, thanks so much for being on here.

Yeah, thanks for having me for such a wonderful topic. So let me start with, for those of our listeners who may be blissfully unaware of Parlor, and truly those listeners are both the smart and lucky ones. Can you explain what it is to them? It's one of the many alternatives to Twitter that came about after Trump got banned. It's one of the ones where they're like, we're a free speech outlet claiming that unabashed free speech here. You come here, it's a haven for saying whatever absolute dog shit is on your mind that day. And we're not going to ban you.

We're not going to censor you or cancel you. And of course, they are censoring people who talk badly about parlor. Right. And it's owned by, or run by Candace Owens, the Daily Wire, ship poster, provocateur. Candice Owens is owned by her husband, George Farmer. And so there's this sort of like a side hustle for a while, right-wing media people to pimp it out. Like Dan Bongino, I think, was the original,

was one of the founding investors. And sort of become this sort of grift for right-wing media folks to sort of get involved in it and really push it as like the alternative to Twitter that will just simply never happen. So Candice Owens, as you pointed out, is married. to the CEO of Parlor. So she is at least allegedly, and certainly seems to be, she's got Kanye's year. She's in Ye's ear constantly. Ye then goes ahead and says stuff that gets him in trouble on both Instagram and Twitter. And then suddenly he, Ye is buying the social media platform that her husband just happens to be the CEO of. Is that about right? Yeah, and TMZ was reporting that basically she is in his ear.

Right. She was pictured with him at the Paris event where they were both wearing White Lives Matter shirts. And she's got his back since I think at least 2018 when she's been, she defended him back when he went into TMZ's office and said slavery was a choice. She was his big public defender. I think she sees an opportunity here to sort of launder more of the same right wing agreement through him. And it's like a perfect moment. Basically, Kanye West has gotten daily wire pilled. Right. Like several other celebrities, especially basketball players and as Anes Freedom Cantor and Jonathan Isaac are two examples of basketball players who are now in the daily wire nexus. They're, they now have. the ear of right wing media stars, which is so bizarre to think about, like, to think about Kanye of 10 years ago, five years ago even, just to think about like Kanye West caring about Candace Owens, this person that's like years, like, even just a few years ago was just like this person that you had to be seriously like oatmeal for brains, media pill, just like your life exists in this bubble like we all, you know, like I always do, just thinking these people mad are so much. And like to imagine just Kanye West caring about Candice Owens.

and like pimping out parlor. It's so bizarre. It's so surreal. Well, she's always been like sort of a mid-level grifter. And she had those, was it the Freedom Phone thing where she was claiming to sell an alternative to the iPhone? And then she got caught like her tweet still said tweeted from iPhone and stuff like that. So it feels like she's trying to, you know, she's trying to get herself up there with the big boys and girls. And it seems like in addition to having his voice be part of this parlor, which her husband owns.

it seems like a nice money-making opportunity for him to buy it from her husband, basically. Yeah, I mean, for all of Kanye's sort of public breakdowns and he's canceled, even though he's still making a shitload of money off shoes and other, you know, other ventures and his album still streamed like crazy, although they're not critically reviewed. But for all of the clout that, you know, he seems to have lost, quote, unquote, he's been canceled. He still really does set sort of a cultural tone for a lot of people. Like there are a lot of people who aren't as like, like I said, I hate using the phrase like a media pill, but like, there are all the people outside the Assella bubble who don't follow every single day of all, like every single moment, every single stupid thing he says and, and I know all these players in the right wing media circles that are now sort of circling around him.

They're not familiar with all this stuff. So they don't know and they don't understand what's necessarily going on. And it's still the old, you know, it's still Kanye. He's still like a major cultural draw. It's definitely a big, big incentive to bring him in and put his stamp of approval on parlor of all. freaking places. Well, you mentioned, you know, that Parlor is one of sort of many conservative slash alt-right slash neo-Nazi alternatives to Twitter. So you have, there's Gab, there's Getter, there's Parlor, there's Truth Social. I guess there's

telegram, though, unless I'm wrong, that wasn't the original intent. Yeah, that's always been like a messaging app. Yeah, exactly. I saw NBC's Ben Collins tweeted, basically Maga's social media is incredibly diffuse, and he said, Trump diehards are on truth social, which is owned by Trump. Edgelords are on the chans and Gab, and Q people are on Telegram, and the Donald, which is a subreddit, is an aggregator for all of them. He is basically saying that Parlor is like not even a major player. Yeah, that's true. I guess the question is, is that, you know, will that change? Or is this just not a big deal and it's just something that we media types are like gasping over, but ultimately it doesn't matter. I don't think it matters. Yeah. I mean, Getter and Parlor are the two that seem to have, like,

struggle to actually get a foothold because, you know, Getter's entire draw is like, it's Jason Miller and it's got money from like a ban and ally in China or something. Like, those things are a draw to like, I don't know, the most galaxy brain individuals, but I don't see like Kanye's like fans who are like sneaker heads or into his music being like, yeah, I'm going to get on parlor so I can like look at some random, you know, pepe 4269 telling me, you know, there's no reason to get on there. I think it's just purely a play for relevance. Does this set Trump and Ye as sort of, are they now competitors? Are they adversaries?

Yeah. There was that reporting, though, that Trump thinks Kanye's lost it, which is very funny. Of all people to think that Kanye has gone too far with his anti-Semitism. It's like, oh. No, I know. And I was, like, I was wondering about the timing of that, but I think he said that before this news came out, because it would seem like the classic Trump thing to, after someone set up something in competition with him to suddenly, you know,

completely turned against them. But it does seem this time like it was the other way around. Parlor's like a non-entity, I would argue. So I don't think Trump actually views it that way. I'm not even sure he's, I mean, I'm sure he's heard of Parlor, but I don't think he thinks about it. After January 6th, it came out that one thing Parlor was apparently good at was being a bit of a hub for people who wanted to storm the Capitol. And Apple and Google both booted it from their app stores. Amazon Web Services nuked its account, which effectively took it down completely until it found another web host, and they wouldn't let the app back on both Apple and Google until it strengthened its content moderation. So I guess it's not a free speech site. Like, how did they square that?

Well, I think there's two things. There's one, there's not enough, like, hardcore users in the way there is Twitter to really call out the system. Right. There's no, there's no, there's no, Dinesh D'Susa getting banned on parlor. Like, you know, like he would complain if he got banned on Twitter and then it would become a whole martyrdom thing. You know, you hear drips and drabs of, like, people saying I got banned on Getter for making fun of the Chinese billionaire who invested in the company or something like that. You hear stuff like that, but those are like, you know, kind of small voices. They're not the martyrs that right-wing media sort of feeds this anti-twitter and censorship, quote-unquote censorship outrage, you know, this cycle of outrage about social media

censorship. They're not quite the martyrs. I think that's why you don't ever really hear about it. I also think like the line you have to cross on a place like parlor, it's a goalpost that's very, very far out. Right, right. It has to be like outright violent. Yeah, it's like a 70-yard field goal, basically. You have to kick. Right.

Let's stick with Kanye, but move into sort of a bigger question. And, you know, you brought up, you know, imagine the Kanye 10 years ago being like the darling of Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire and conservative media and conservatives in general. And a lot of that sort of, I don't want to say culminated, because it's not over, but it sort of reached its apex for now with, an interview that was aired over two nights that Kanye did with Tucker Carlson on Fox News. And then it came out that there were some leaks of stuff that didn't make air with Kanye saying stuff that was anti-Semitic, with Kanye saying stuff that was just, you know, for lack of a better word, a little loony. So what are you hearing? You and I both are veterans of Fox News and we know what they do to leakers there is they do a pretty serious hunt. and to track those people down and get them out of there.

What are you hearing about what's going on there now? I mean, this one's got the pretty freaked out. And that's, like, obvious just because this is like a bigger ed on their face than any previous leak. I mean, you and I were both at Fox in 2012 when there was the Gawker Mole who Joe Mudo leaked pretty innocuous video of Sean Hannity, like making remarks about dressage with Mitt Romney's wife or something. It just made them look silly, like talking about, you know, rich people stuff. And dispatching to Gawker about, you know, the toilet store.

as being in disrepair, which was true on the 17th floor. But they immediately came down on Joe Mudo, and he was escorted from the building as he wrote in his memoir. And they got him really quickly for these stupidest possible leaks. Not stupid, but they were just goofy. There was nothing like particularly aggressive. But in this case, it's like these leaks really show, you know, give people a glimpse of how the sausage gets made is whatever narrative is convenient for Fox News is the one that airs.

And, you know, despite their protestations that they're a news outlet, you know, and I know Tucker doesn't count as straight news on Fox News. He's a commentator or whatever. But they withheld newsworthy stuff from the interview. Probably the most newsworthy stuff would be Kanye claiming that his children are fake or plants and they're planted in his house as like, you know, they're crisis actors or whatever. And also then making a series of openly anti-Semitic remarks, not ones that you could like say, oh, you know, well, he's, you know, you can't Hem and Hall about it like a lot of right-wing defenders would about what he said. He openly just was talking about the Jews, controlling the levers of finance in no roundabout way.

And that all got cut, you know, conveniently. It just left on the cutting room floor because it didn't fit the narrative of, you know, the Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson's taking advantage of this guy who's clearly in crisis for the last few years, taking advantage of it to further a narrative. I guess the narrative being White Lives Matter. Right. And so Fox is like, they got caught with their pants down here. Fox executives were freaked out.

And what's really stunning about it, they still haven't found the person, which is wild because Fox has run like a panopticon. Like there's, you know, like after the Mudo thing 10 years ago, they instituted even more hardcore rules about who can access video, and it tracks the digital fingerprint of like who access what footage. To get like the B-sides, the outtakes from a high-profile interview and Tucker is no, you know, Tucker is obviously in his sort of like bunker. It's crazy that somebody was able to do that, you know, Bravo,

but it's even more amazing that they haven't caught the person, at least as far as we know. Yeah, and as you pointed out, And even when Mudo did his stuff, although he didn't leak stuff like this, you know, everything was back then was still kind of analog or switching over to digital. Digital makes it both, I guess, easier to copy and leak, but also, as you pointed out, easier to track and there's just digital fingerprints all over it. And you would have to think, there's not a large group of people who could have done this. Yeah.

So just to finish up, it is like pretty amazing that as far as we know anyway, they haven't found the person yet. Yeah. We've heard, you know, some speculation from staffers. because because of the lack of communication about it internally, and I guess why would Fox executives tell low-link, why would they tell staffers, hey, we're currently searching for a mole? But, you know, it's led to a lot of speculation, some funny speculation from people, you know, insiders and people we've talked to

who are going into like all kinds of fantasies and fanfix about who could have done it, because it's just sort of hard to explain it. And you can't imagine a Tucker staffer would have done it because they're just all true believers. They're all like Hillsdale grads who believe, you know, like Trad Calf type people with Pepe the Frog in there. their avatar on social media. Like, they're all hardcore. Uh, so it's just, it's very confusing who it could be, you know, my best guess probably would be, you know, somebody on the more production side of things, a video staffer or somebody on, you know, stage managers or something, because those people

are not true believers. They're just there to do a job and then, you know, have a cigarette out back afterwards and lament their, their life choices. Yeah, and then, and hopefully get back at Fox by leaking, you know. That's the first place my mind went to as well. It has to be someone on more of the tech side, an editor or, you know, and then. a producer or something like that. And I don't mean a producer for Tucker's show. I mean, like, a video producer or, you know, a lion producer or something like that. Who isn't at Fox for ideological reasons is there because it's a job.

But at a certain point, you can't take it anymore. I think eventually they will find who it is. It seems hard to believe or almost impossible to believe that they can't track this and won't be able to. And then we'll see. But I'm definitely leaning on the side of, as you pointed out, an editor or someone like that who was in a non-ideological position there. He just was sitting there basically because not only did Fox cut that stuff,

you had Tucker on there saying that despite what they tell you, Kanye is not crazy. Yeah, he's a truth teller. And then, you know, Kanye is not crazy. Cut to the unaired footage of him saying his children are crisis actors. Right. So I can easily picture an editor sitting there going, no fucking way. Like, I can't believe, you know, it's bad enough. that we're doing this, but then to claim something that our own interview shows is not true,

except we cut those parts. So I can totally see, you know, an editor just being like, I've had it with this. Yeah. Salute to that editor. Yeah, no, absolutely. More of that, please. Yeah. Seriously. Yeah. Yeah. If you're listening, email us at confider at the DailyBeast.com With your tips. Wait, say that again, but slower? If you're the editor or anybody of Fox listening to this, email us at confider at the DailyBeast.com with any leaks. I wanted to make sure that got heard. That's Confider at the DailyBeast.com. Explain what Confider is because it's actually, it's a great newsletter that I actually, you know,

I get 8 million newsletters in my email. And I can honestly say that when that one pops up, I'm like, oh, fun. And I open it like instantly and read it. It's the Daily Beast Media team's newsletter that we launched in February that, you know, sort of weekly every Monday night. And we kind of try to do media coverage for this newsletter from a little bit more of like a peeking behind the curtain, fun little nuggets, sometimes, you know, breaking some major news, other times sort of just revealing more information about a major story in the business.

Try not to be mean, but, you know, a little snarky. And no, there are no, there are no idols. There's no, you know, everybody gets shit treatment. Everybody gets taken down a peg. And it's a lot of fun. Yeah. No, I'm just, I read it. every week and breathe a sigh of relief when my name's not in it.

Yeah, everybody loves it until they're in it, I think is the motto. Andrew, thanks so much for coming on and walking us through all of this. And hopefully we'll talk to you again soon. Yeah, thanks for having me. Danielle Moody. Andy Levy. Danielle, who's your fuck that guy for today? It is not just for today.

Andy, it is for life. And it is Kanye West is my fuck that guy. What can I say about Kanye that Kanye that Kanye doesn't say about himself? I mean, I can go from the White Lives Matters, T-shirts. I can go from his anti-Semitism about going Defcom three on Jewish people to wanting to buy parlor so that he can, you know, continue with his rhetoric. It's so amazing to me that people like Kanye West, who is now being enabled by his little mentor, Candice Owens, will say that they are independent black thinkers, which is so funny because they're aligned with white supremacy. And literally everything that comes out of their mouth is something that Trump has said, that Steve Bannon has said and lifted up, that Alex Jones has said.

And so I'm like, for them to be an independent black thinker, does that mean that like, that means to go against the grain so much that you're trying on Ku Klux Klan outfits and posing for the gram? Because that's what they're doing. And I just, Kanye makes me sick. He is 36 million followers on Twitter. 36 million. And he's talking about the fact that he watched a documentary on George Floyd that Candace Owen put out. And documentary, sir, please. He watched a documentary by Candice Owens.

And he says, oh, Derek Chauvin's knee wasn't even on George Floyd's neck. It was fentanyl that killed him. Sir, as a man that does not read and has admittedly said so, no one sent you to anybody's medical school. And it is evidence by the way that you speak that nobody really sent you to anybody's school, right? So please sit down. Please sit down and stop giving us your M.E. exam from law and order looking at the camera that Candace Owens did what about. Like it's embarrassing. And I want people to stop referring to him as a genius. And I want people to start referring to him as what he is, which is a cape for white supremacy and an anti-Semite because that is what he is. Well, at least he's not running a school now, though.

Oh, my God. Does a school have no books? Like, is it just, is a school just based on 60-second TikToks? Because that would seem all right. Oh, man. Do you want to know who my fuck that guy is? I need to know. I need to know, Andy.

So my fuck that guy is your former president, Donald J. Trump. He decided over the weekend that we needed to hear his opinion about Israel. and Jews. So he went onto his social media platform, Truth Social, and posted, no president has done more for Israel than I have. So much surprisingly, however, our wonderful evangelicals are far more appreciative of this than the people of the Jewish faith, especially those living in the U.S., and he goes further. And he says, U.S. Jews have to get their act together and appreciate what they have in Israel before it is too late with an exclamation point.

Then there became this huge argument over, is this anti-Semitic? And yeah, probably. We hear this from the right wing all the time. And Ben Shapiro is a big fan of this. He divides people into good Jews and bad Jews. And any Jewish person who is a member of the Democratic Party or on the left is a bad Jew. And that's basically what Trump is doing here. Again, he's holding up.

It's sort of this amazing double standard that we seem to have where you have to, you know, there's this belief that you have to support everything Israel does if you're a good Jew. And sorry, no, not even close. At the end, it sounds a little bit like a threat when he says before it is too late. I sort of was like, what does he mean here? And I think what he means is he's like before something bad happens to Israel is I think what he means. But it's as always hard to tell with him. It's just, you know, this is one of those things where, you know, when people of color tell white people to take a seat or have several seats, that's how I felt when I read this.

I love this for you. As a Jew, I was like, take several seats, Mr. Trump. So, yeah, he's my fuck that guy. The thing that I heard at the end of that, when he said before it's too late, that to me sounds like an absolute and complete threat. And not for before it's too late for what happens, you know, in Israel. I think, I mean, when you are signaling, here are these good white evangelicals, right, who are in my corner, and then you Jewish people,

people in America need to get your act together before it's too late. If that doesn't send red flags to everyone, especially Jewish people, but to everyone, yeah, you're not paying attention. The man is not, he's not mincing words, and we don't need to contort ourselves into figuring out what he's trying to say, because authoritarian's tell you he just did. You could take it a step further, even if you wanted to, and say that what he's saying is, U.S. Jews need to get their act together and appreciate Israel before it's too late, meaning before we have nowhere to go. Yep. And look, in this day and age, you know, when anti-Semitism seems to be the new anti-Semitism,

that's not something that Jews don't worry about. And, yeah, we all should. I got to be honest. I think you guys both got this wrong. What? Oh, no. He's seen how Israel has barely punished Netanyahu for corruption. And he's like, I'm going to run there.

Yeah, that's true. That's true. God. Two gems. Hope you enjoyed checking out this episode of the new abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. See you next time.

Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at thedailybeast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcast as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the dailybeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.