The Michael Knowles Show - 2 Liberals vs. 1 Conservative: BAR FIGHT | Sisson & Chris Mowrey

Episode Date: February 7, 2026

Michael Knowles faces off against viral liberal commentators Harry Sisson and Chris Mowrey in this heated episode of Bar Fight. The fired-up live audience in Nashville joins in the action as they tackle the hottest topics: Trump ICE raids, Epstein files, and stolen land claims at the Grammys. Expect intense clashes and unfiltered arguments in this rhetorical showdown—live at John Rich's Redneck Riviera! - - - Today's Sponsor: Zbiotics - Go to  https://zbiotics.com/BARFIGHT and use BARFIGHT at checkout for 15% off any first time orders of ZBiotics probiotics. - - - Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://dailywire.com/subscribe 🍿 The Pendragon Cycle: Rise of the Merlin is now streaming exclusively on DailyWire+               Watch now: https://dwplus.watch/ThePendragon               Subscribe here: https://pendragonseries.com 📘 My book "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/Speechless 🕯️ Get your Michael Knowles candles: https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles 🪒 Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today: https://jeremysrazors.com 👕 Don’t dress like a squish. Shop my merch here: https://dwplus.shop/MichaelKnowlesMerch - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Harry! Where's Harry? Joe Biden was one of the most productive presidents in modern American history. We got a boot a man. I think most Americans agree with that. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Only enforce the law when I want to. What happened? You voted for him.

You voted for a fellow. She was shocked. You were just defending the floor in the house. At the time when cops were being beaten and your daddy, pardoned the cop eaters. Well, welcome to Bar Fight. I'm Michael Knowles. I'm joined tonight by two guests. That's just wrong. That's his rock.

He is the Roy to Harry's Siegfried. Chris Mowrie. Joe Biden signed more fiscal legislation into law. Hold on. Did he sign it? And I saw you get walked by Adam Adler on this. Can you be quiet? The crown prince of left-wing social media, Harry Sisson.

Now, here is how it works. We will be debating three of the most controversial topics of our day. The bell will ring. We will duke it out for that round. And then our friends in the crowd can come up to the mind. microphone to pick a fight with any of us. Anyone who comes up to the mic can win special prizes and a seat at our VIP table sponsored by Redneck Riviera Whiskey. Gentlemen, are you ready? Let's do it. Round one! Hey! Hey! Come on.

It's now round three, I think, actually. Harry, it's your topic. Oh, we're going with me first. What is your claim? My claim is that the Trump cover-up of the Epstein files is one of the worst scandals in American history. Okay. What's your argument? What's your argument? I mean, look, what we've seen from Donald Trump in the past, whatever, how six months or ever since he got into office has been nothing short of gross. And this is a serious. We're having fun, but this is a serious topic, right? We're talking about kids, women, and even some men being abused. You know, he never wanted the files to come out when there was the discharge petition. He was calling up Lauren Bobert and all the Republicans and tell him, don't put your name on it. And he was threatening them essentially. And that's even what Lauren Bobert said. She's stolen Congress. She's still in his good graces. And even when the files are out, it's kind of been a trickle. Right. We've had some and then some and then some. and even the files we've all seen now, which they're claiming all of them, they're not, some redactions are there that make me a little nervous, make me uncomfortable, and I think they should unredact everything that they can within the law. But there's emails out there where they're pretty clearly talking about committing crimes,

and it's still redacted. I think the American people deserve to know who those names are. And I think Donald Trump should have to answer for his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, which goes much deeper than I think the right likes to let on. You disagree? I'll talk to you. Whatever. Whatever. conversation. Okay, so your claim really has two claims. Sure. The first is that Trump has covered up

the Epstein files, and then the second claim is that that is the worst scandal in American history. It's one of the worst, yeah. One of the worst, okay. I think you are impressively wrong on both counts. I love to hear. The first being, uh, the fact that Trump not only has not covered up the Epstein files, but he has in fact, to date released three and a half million Epstein files, which is the single largest declassification in American history, and it's not even really close. Why did he do that? Did he want to? He did it? Oh, but did he want to? Did he try to stop it?

Well, he released some files along the way. But he arrested Jeffrey Epstein. He redacted some of the files, and he opposed the release of all of them, some of which is child. And he was calling up Republicans telling him not to vote? But if he wanted the files to come out, why was he telling Lauren Boeber not to do it? The claim that you made is that Trump covered up the Epstein files. That's part of my claim. That's part of the cover-up, right?

Him calling members... That is your claim. Yeah, right. So him calling up members of Congress, telling him not to release the files, not to vote to release a file. We have to establish the first fact before we get to the second.

Sure. The first fact is you're claiming he covered up the Epstein files, but then you are admitting that Trump not only released all of those Epstein files, Joe Biden didn't release a single Epstein file. Well, I would talk about that.

Donald Trump, Donald Trump released three and a million of them, which is the single largest release of classified information in Americanism? If you're attempting a cover-up, that's still a cover-up, right? So Donald Trump just failed. He got pressured by law and Congress, but he still tried to cover them up.

Don't you think that him calling Lauren Boeber telling her not to put her name on the discharge petition is concerned? Well, I actually do agree that not all of those files should be released. I think some of that is a little bit reckless. I think it undermines certain principles of American justice like innocent until proven guilty. I think a lot of those claims have been debunked, which we saw in the files. And I think some of it is actually child sexual abuse material, which obviously should not be released. But we know that there are still more documents out there. Like that I don't know, aside from, aside from.

and some claims that have been disproving even in courts, even by judges. So obviously those names shouldn't be released. Nevertheless, on the first point, there is no arguing. It is the largest release ever in American history, therefore he didn't cover it up. To the second point, that if it were true that he had done the opposite of what he actually did, would that be one of the worst scandals in American history? And I can think of a few others. I'll try to go through them quickly.

Aaron Burr, former vice president of the United States, tried to establish a brand-new country in America. That seems to me like a bigger scandal. T-pot Dome, do you remember that one from, you remember from social studies? T-pot Dome, where the Secretary of the Interior went to jail because he took bribes to sell Navy oil. I'm thinking of another one more recent. Let's say, Trump's stealing classified documents might be. Which classified documents? Trump's stealing classified documents. Oh, hold on you, the documents that he's stored at a lower degree and less egregious ways than Joe Biden. Well, hold him next to his crack his son. Robert Herbert. Robert Herf on no intent on Joe Biden's behalf. It's not one of the worst. But just a couple others that

to mind, a few others come to mind. U.S. Grant, 100 people went to jail over a scandal that also implicated his private secretary. That's probably a bigger scandal. Bill Clinton using his intern as a human humidor in the Oval Office and then perjuring himself about it. I think that's a bigger scandal. What about Trump actually assaulting women? Well, no, one last, we'll get to that one second. The last scandal I'll mention is when a sitting Democrat senator drunk drove his mistress into a pond and then left her there to drown and remain the lion of the Senate. I think all of those and many others are much bigger than the supposed scandal of Trump not declassifying the Epstein documents, which he would

have been well within his rights to do. I actually might have favored some of that. But regardless, he didn't do it because he declassified three and a million. So everything you just mentioned in terms of scandals, I agree that those are bad. That's why I said it's one of the worst scandals. But it's not worse than President Trump hypothetically not releasing criminal information. Michael, we're talking about rich, powerful men connected to the government, connected internationally, abusing children, trafficking children. I think that's a pretty bad scandal. And I think covering that up and protecting the men who did it is a bad scandal. Which he obviously didn't do.

What? Donald Trump not protecting them. He didn't cover it out. So we just found an email in the Epstein files of somebody, their name is redacted. We don't know who it is. It's sent to Jeffrey Epstein saying last night was fun. Your littlest girl was a little naughty. Should that be unredacted? Whoever is implicated in that should be prosecuted. I agree with that. Okay, great, but they're not doing that. The name is redacted. We don't know who it is. Why? If it's not a cover-up, why is the name redacted? Who do you think in the Epstein files, who do you think we should prosecute?

Oh, no, no, I'm asking about this in particular, this name that's redacted, right? Because we don't know who it is. I can't give you an answer in terms of this specific email. So should that be redacted, is Donald Trump wrong for redacting? The question about the redactions are not redacting names. Can you talk about the specific email? Well, I could talk about the specific email. The question is, are, is there sufficient evidence of a crime and have there been investigations?

Do you think that's sufficient evidence of a crime? Not necessarily, because there are a lot of false claims. Really? You mentioned that Trump is all over the files. An email to Epstein's personal email saying your littlest girl is a little naughty? You don't think that's evidence of a crime? It certainly could be evidence of a crime. Do we think that's evidence of crime?

Does anybody disagree? Okay, good. We have some people agree. How about Republicans? I see a MAGA hat there. Do you guys think that's evidence of a crime? Harry, let's... No?

Come on, guys. That's the bad position to take. Let's try to bring it to a tangible question. You said Trump's all over the Epstein files. What are the charges? What are the claims? Do you think you should be prosecuted? I mean, if we don't have all the files.

So maybe there is something in there that indicates Donald Trump. Well, what we know, I think the behavior is morally abhorrent. And it's not just information that's can be. contained in the Epstein files, we got a Wall Street Journal article that was published December 30th of 2025 that talked about how Donald Trump in the 1990s and early 2000s would send young girls to Epstein's house to give him massages. That is only a perk that was given to members of Mar-a-Lago. Epstein was not a member of Mar-a-Lago.

He specifically made an exception for Epstein to get massages at his house, and everybody in the spa knew that Epstein was creepy. Donald Trump continued to send them. I'll reiterate my question that you ignore. Wait, wait, wait, I'm not done yet. Marla Maples, Donald Trump's wife at the time, even confided in Donald Trump, said that Epstein is creepy, you shouldn't hang out with him, he continued to do it. Will you answer my question, though? Is there any evidence of a crime that Donald Trump committed that you alluded to that

you think he should be prosecuted for? Well, I mean, well, I'll let you answer if you want to. Perfect. In the Epstein files we have so far, because there are still millions out there. I don't think there's enough evidence to prosecute Donald Trump. However, however, when you're looking at Donald Trump, if he had knowledge that he was sending young girls to Epstein's house to be abused, do you think he should be prosecuted? That's a big if. If wishes were worse and we have a, we have a Wall Street Journal on that. We have dozens. We have dozens. really interesting. Not an op-ed. It was fact-checked by the entire Wall Street Journal department fact-checked. Do you think that if Donald Trump was found, and we have all these Mar-a-Lago employees saying that this happened?

Well, this is what I'm asking you? What is the evidence? Okay, so that Wall Street Journal article. If Donald Trump was- What is the specific crime? He knew that Epstein was creepy and he was actively sending girls. Knowing someone's creepy is not a crime. What is the crime? Wait, wait, wait, wait. If he's sending young girls, You said in this article, sending young girls to Jeffs. The circumstance, how old is that not facilitating sex trafficking? It's all based on hypotheticals. The details of which neither are you provided.

How old are the girls? Everybody in the spa. When did it happen? Wait, it doesn't, if they're 18 in getting abused, it's still a crime, right? So it doesn't, like, they could, the age is. What do we mean by abuse? Assaulted. No.

Assaulted. What do you mean by assault? Virginia Joufrey was picked up from Maralago and assaulted by Jeffrey. What claims did Virginia Jufre make? I mean, she was, it was awful. I mean, it was awful. It was everything. Against him. Against him. Against Jeffrey Epstein.

Against Jeffrey Epstein. And Galane Maxwell. And Prince Andrew. And who else? I mean, I don't know. Who else? There was a very, the biggest case involving Virginia Joufrey involved Alan Dershowitz. That's one of the biggest guys. Right. Now, here's one of the problems for this. And it's one of the problems for all the claims you guys are making. Sure. She retracted that claim. In the case of the allegations about Donald Trump, there is a case in which they say that a 13-year-old girl decades ago was raped by Donald Trump.

So you say, well, we should look into that if that really happens, shouldn't we? And then when we look a little deeper, we find, oh, actually, this has been adjudicated. There was not only one court case, there were multiple court cases. One in California, one second. One in California where it was dismissed by a judge. Two other times she brought it up, represented by Lisa Bloom, and both times she retracted her lawsuit. You're not arguing against what I'm saying. I'm bringing up the specific.

I'm saying these are unsubstantiated claims and you say, well, I've got the Wall Street Journal making big allegations. We have the Wall Street Journal talking, we have the Wall Street Journal talking to multiple Marlago employees. It's not just random people. Okay, but we can't name any crimes. Very interesting. I think that's a crime. What is the crime? I just said you wouldn't prosecute.

Facilitating sex trafficking. You just said you wouldn't prosecute. Facilitating sex trafficking. Okay, on what occasion and what circumstance? I just told you, in the 1990s in the early 2000s, Epstein was actively having young girls come to his house for Mar-Lago spa. There were a variety of ages. Give me some numbers. There were a variety of ages.

Okay, if you know the ages, what are the ages? There were some kids. Virginia Drew Frey was a kid when she worked at the Mar-a-Lago spa. But she did not retracted her claims. That's the point of that I made. Do you think that Virginia Jufrey lied about the assaults from Epstein? She said did she lied about the assaults. Oh, wow.

Okay. Wow. Wow. Do you have questions? I'm just trusting her. I believe all women. What's your claim? Oh, so you agree that Donald Trump's racist?

All right. Harry, I have a question for you. Let's establish one fact. First. Jeffrey Epstein died in 2019. Joe Biden became president in 2020. The liberal media will do anything. to hate on Donald Trump, whether he solve world hunger or, you know, even find peace in Gaza

or something crazy. There's no peace in Gaza right now, by the way. So they'll do anything to hate on him. If Biden could find something in the Epstein files to, you know, have against Donald Trump, why would he not release those? Sure, happy to answer it. He had four years to do it. Why didn't he do it?

Happy to answer that. Four years. I heard you the first time. Unlimited access to these documents and he didn't release them. What's that about? I heard you. We are just... So,

Galane Maxwell's case was still working the way through the courts, right? She was still appealing. There was still a lot going on there, which does restrict certain documents from being released because that's DOJ law. If they're part of an active criminal investigation or prosecution, they can't be released. But Kamala Harris was actually asked this question on Jimmy Kimmel recently.

She said, you know, Kimmel said, why didn't she release the Epstein files? And Kamala Harris said, we had an independence between the presidency and the DOJ, which has disappeared under Donald Trump. So Joe Biden, nor Kamala Harris, went to the DOJ and said, well, we'll release all the Epstein files because we want to hurt Donald Trump. They respected that independence, which should exist, but no longer exists under Donald Trump. The same, the same, the same DOJ that's a very good point. The same DOJ that terrorized people that they shouldn't have, the same DOJ that Biden militarized, that same DOJ that's same DOJ that independent.

I don't want to lose the point because you make a very good point. You say, well, hold on, it would have been inappropriate for Joe Biden to intervene with the DOJ and to encourage them to release these files. But weren't you just criticizing Donald Trump for not releasing the files? No, no. You actually did end up releasing. You're misunderstanding my point. I'm very confused.

You're misunderstanding my point. Okay. There was an act of law working its way through Congress, and Donald Trump got involved in that, and he's obviously been communicating with the DOJ. A law to mandate this unprecedented release of classified material. I agree, which I'm circumspect about my question. myself. Okay. I think there's plenty of good reasons to you. He was actively involved in this. He was actively taking a role in it. Joe Biden took no role in releasing the Epstein files. He let the DOJ

do its own thing. So if the DOJ under President Trump decided not to release the Epstein files, you would support that. Donald Trump, no, regarding the release of the Fstein files following a lot. No, listen, you're misunderstanding my point. Okay. The president should not take a position in this. They should be independent. So Donald Trump took a firm position of no files released. Joe Biden took no position, said, hey, you guys are the lawyers, you're the experts. You're the DOJ. We don't want to be involved. So you would prefer if President Trump had never voiced an opinion on this hot political matter. You would be, you would prefer if the DOJ.

I would prefer Donald Trump not interfere with the process. You would prefer if the DOJ did not release a single document under trial. I would prefer Donald Trump on this point in particular DOJ independence. I would prefer Donald Trump not take a position and be involved. And therefore, you would prefer the DOJ not to release a single document. Well, I mean, they're mandated by, they're mandated by law to do so. Before the law was passed, the law that President Trump did campaign against. Hold on.

I would want the DOJ without a law to release the files regardless. But once the law is passed, once the law is... Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Can I interject you can interject you. Can I interject? Can I interject you? The federal government right now is set up in a way that is unpresented for modern American history. For all of modern American history, these three letter agencies, the DOJ, the FBI, the CDC, they have been largely independent from the presidency, shielded from political pressure. Donald Trump ran on the idea of unitary executive theory, outlined in Project 2025. The idea that true. The idea... Unitary executive goes a little further back than Project 2020.

No, of course. Of course. It's been a theory forever. But conservatives have an arguing... A good theory. Correct here. Conservatives have been arguing that the president should have sole control over these agencies for decades. Donald Trump on his first day in office, signed Schedule F, giving him the ability for the first time ever to mass fire civil servants at these three-letter agencies that's not for the first time ever. I mean, the civil services existed for a long time.

Of course, but the idea that he could, without any reasoning, fire whoever he wishes at the these agencies. Oh, he is reasoning. And fill, hold on, and fill these agencies with loyalists. Now the DOJ does whatever Donald Trump wants him to do. And so if the DJs- But hold on, they just released all those documents. But you said the Trump did want to release a doctor. They released all the documents after he needed a political offer. So the DOJ doesn't, hold on, hold on. The DOJ does what Congress wants them to do? The DOJ does what Donald Trump wants to do. Congress, Congress is useless because it's a bunch of, but I thought you said it was only, the documents were only released because of Congress, not because of Trump. Hold on. But then you said that-

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. They were forced by the law. No, no, no, no, no. They were forced by the law because Trump and all of his Republicans' friends in Congress who listened to whatever he says needed a political off-ramp. He's getting killed on this issue because he said, I'm going to release the files on day one. He can do whatever he wants. He can force his DOJ to release all the files. Then Pam Bondi says, I have the files on my desk.

Then the files don't exist. Then the whole thing's a hoax, and we want to stop talking about it. The client list didn't exist, which it doesn't. But for weeks, it was, oh, we don't want to release the files. files, the files don't exist, they may exist. And politically, he's getting murdered on this issue, so his friends in Congress passed the law, and he's forced, he's forced

at that point to do it. So the problem with Trump is that he didn't release all the files, and he did release all the files. I think the problem, I think, I don't know. Hold on. Hold on. I think I think the problem, I think the problem is the premise of the question. To the person over there who asked, Biden had these files for four years, it's just, that is a gross misunderstanding of how the American government works. The Department

of Justice was largely indefinitely. from the presidency through all of modern American history up until right now. So Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were not going to hyper politicize whatever was going into the DOJ. Was independent and not politicized when he was spying on Catholic churches under Joe Biden? That's it. You think it was not not political? Actually, actually. Actually, actually.

Actually, actually. Actually, yes. Actually, yes. Oh, interesting. And to that person's point. Well, then we got to clear out the DOJ. I'm glad Trump did that. No, no.

No, no. To the person's point. It's like they're almost there. They say, oh, if Joe Biden had the, The file, if the DOJ was hyper-politicized, they threw all these charges on Trump, then, you know, he didn't release the files because he didn't care. It's like, you're almost there, actually. The DOJ indicted Trump not for political reasons because Donald Trump committed. The DOJ went after the groups you're referring to because there is right-wing extremism in the United States. It's one of the largest domestic terror issues of our time.

What was that crime that Trump committed? These are just, Donald Trump false by business records in the first degree. Well, that, that was the case in New York. What's the federal case? The classified documents. Or did you mind destroy those classes of documents? Hold on, hold on, hold on. Next question.

The intent was completely different. The intent was completely different. Where is Harry? Who the hell is this guy? Who the hell is this guy? Baby, Harry, sweet Harry. You've been talking about scandals, about obfuscation.

Oh, yeah, I knew. We called it. Go ahead. Hiding and cover-ups. Nice. Brother in Christ, brother in Molah. We didn't have a president for four years. And you covered it up.

How is that not worse? You didn't go the direction we thought you were going to go. So where'd you think he was going to go? We had a man in severe cognitive decline for four years. Yeah. Not running the country. You talk about the DOJ's independent because it was. Yeah.

Because there was no head of state. How is that not worse? Okay. Are you done? Yeah, no. It's hard to make that argument when Joe Biden, and you're going to hate this, Joe Biden was one of the most productive presidents in modern American history.

Hey, hey. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Absolutely. Absolutely. I want to talk to you right there. You. I'm going to sit back.

Go sit back. Absolutely. I love to. I bet you and I. I love to. Go ahead. I'm a leg of you start. You and I could go back and forth on legislation.

We could we go bar for bar. I just want to, hold on. Before here he goes, I do want to point out, Joe, regardless of if you hated every piece of legislation that was signed into law under Joe Biden. Hold on. Joe Biden signed more fiscal legislation into law. Hold on. Did he sign it? Hold on. Can I finish? Can I want to point something out?

Can I get to the policy? I'm going to let you speak. I'm not let you speak. More fiscal legislation into law than any president in the last 70 years. Up to this point, Donald Trump, who many of you voted for, this huge mandate, he has better lines in Congress. Republicans control the House. Republicans control the Senate. Republicans control their presidency. Up to this point, Donald Trump has passed less legislation than any president in 70 years. All right. Listen, it's 70 years. It's absolutely true. Hold on. So I just to clarify, this is sort of a new, I wish this were its own debate.

I submitted. Joe Biden is the most productive president in recent America. That is true. That is absolutely. By the way, Donald Trump is taking credit for some of Biden's policies. So everybody's like booing it. Like he's taking credit. You're cheering for it then. Can anybody name a piece of legislation Donald Trump passed in his first or second term? I want to hear his point. Who said that? We'll talk about that second. Defending the incredible efficacy of the Democratic legislative.

is not a defense of the sleeping Joe Biden. When Joe Biden passed the largest infrastructure bill in American history that rebuilt roads and bridges and removed every single lead. Wait, be quiet, please. Removed every single lead pipe in America so everybody is clean drinking water. Just to be, everybody is against lead pipe removal. Dude, dude, dude, dude. No, no, okay.

All right. And then went by. Where do the bills come from Harry? Hey, hey, wait over there. I want to hear Harry's point. Michael says he wants to hear me. You listen to him. It's too good to miss.

Yeah, exactly. When Joe Biden passed the Pact Act. which invested in healthcare for veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits abroad? Who's against that? Anyone? Okay, right. It's a bill.

Who loves the Candy and Puppies Act? I love the Candy and Pupply's Act. When Joe Biden passed the Chips and Science Act to invest in these little chips we have on our phones and these microphones, everything you're looking at, to make them here in America not abroad. Anybody against that? That wasn't an executive order.

It was a bill. It came from Congress. Wait, be quiet. Be quiet. What? When do they do that? You're saying Intel laid off 18% of the workforce right after that back passed. And has that, how that trend continued or has gotten better?

Has that trend continued or gotten better? You fire a good to the company. You know, it's only going to get better from there. And the economy continues to get worse under Donald Trump. You're talking about mass layoffs. Look at Donald Trump. You're talking about all-time stock market highs. You're talking about inflation.

And inflation still up. No, no. You're talking about. What happened? Wait, wait, wait, what happened to. What happened to inflation being eradicated on day one? Manufacturing confidence has gone up. Manufacturing, we've lost manufacturing jobs for 14 straight months under Donald J. Trump.

It's hard to rebuild manufacturing after 50 years of deindustrialization. So, wait, wait, wait, wait, Joe Biden did it. He created 800,000 manufacturing jobs in his four years. Yeah, the thing is, when you shut an entire economy down artificially and then you restart it. Who was president? It was, unfortunately, unfortunately, President Trump allowed, unfortunately President Trump allowed the Democrat governors to destroy the economy. That's true. He did.

I'm sorry, right, right. It's a Democrat somehow. Hold on, hold on. Is Donald Trump- Republican states reopened early? Can we just point out, though, that I just named three of Biden's biggest policies, not a single person in this room except that dude with the weird hat back there, objected to the policies. You all like it.

Yeah, because you name the easy policies that people like. Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. Let's protect our veterans back to 2011. These are not easy policies to get done. Donald Trump said it was infrastructure week his entire first term. He didn't get in any infrastructure bill passed. The, the razor-thin Republican majority in the House does make it tough to legislate. Joe Biden had a smaller majority.

The executive orders have been excellent. And his economic performance has beaten all of the majority and he got it done. He Joe Biden had a smaller majority and got it done. What's Donald Trump's excuse? Because the Democrats are in lockstep and the Republicans are like, well, Republicans voted for it. All of these are bipartisan. All of the Republicans voted for it.

So are you against any of those bills? Are you against any of those bills? Yeah. Why? Because the infrastructure bill had a ton of pork in it. What pork? What pork? What?

You're talking about like individual bridge projects? Yeah. People being able to drive is a pretty good thing. Not only with the infrastructure bill, not only, the infrastructure bill and the inflation reduction act the problem with those with those bills is that they passed a lot of nonsense spending the damage the economy brought what like what specific damage the economy what specifically it increased inflation to nine percent under i don't know there's no there's what's the connection of what's the connection what's the connection where's the economy i think what's the connection

where's the the the connection where's the the tie even bernie sanders admitted that the inflation reduction act i don't want to ask you with him here because what's the connection what's the connection agrees with the republicans so when all the years i'll give it economics one-oh one sure when you spend a bunch of money on nonsense over a 10 year period goes up. Over a 10-year period. But Donald Trump has spent a bunch of money. Donald Trump spent more money than Joe Biden did.

Under which law? Under his entire term. Hold on. But which law are his first four years? His first four years. Because you were previously criticizing Trump for not doing anything. But then when it was convenient for you, you criticized him for doing a lot of things. When you have the tax cuts, when you reduce revenue, you spend more money.

There's more debt, right? So under Donald Trump's first four years, he spent more than Joe Biden did in his four years. because of the you're talking about because of the lockdowns or because of the tax cuts. Are you getting the tax cuts? Joe Biden. Tax cuts cut matter.

Got it. He cut taxes for people and that is spending in the mind of the democracy. And he tax cuts for wealthy people. I don't think there's any billionaires in the crowd. Okay, Mark. Hey, Michael, long time.

What's going on, man? I'm glad to see you here. First time caller, yeah. First of all, I want to say Chris and Harry, thank you for coming here. Like, it genuinely Thank you, man. To face people that you know

disagree with you and some may hate you that really take. speaks balls. Speaking of balls, the First Lady of France. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Good night, everybody. I do have an actual, like, substantive question. You talk a lot about subverting democracy and the will of the people, but you endorsed a candidate who was nominated to be president without a single vote cast. How? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. How is that not subversion? I don't know. Okay, can I respond? Yeah, well, a couple of things here. Who, first

with Joe Biden, with Joe Biden dropping out, there is nobody else at that point in time, the moment Kamala Harris announces that she's going to run for president. There is nobody whose primaries Kamala Harris. People say, why was there not an open primary? Why didn't we get to vote? Because nobody ran against her.

Everybody immediately got their, you know, through their support, all Democrats through the support behind Kamala Harris, Joe Biden threw support behind Kamala Harris. And again, we actually did vote. We technically, well, the delegate process wasn't in Chicago. But to make it simple, we as registered Democrats got to vote for delegates

who then went to Chicago and every single delegate voted for Kamala Harris to be the nominee. So that's not subverting democracy. That's absurd. If Democrats wanted a primary process, then somebody has to primary Kamala Harris. Nobody primary Kamala Harris. Why not? Because she was just such a great candidate. She was a good candidate.

Wait, wait, wait. I think to Harry's point, the Biden-Harris administration was incredibly productive. They did a lot of good things. Yeah, that's just wrong. That's just wrong. That's just wrong. That's just wrong.

Again, past more fiscal legislation than any administration in seven decades, they showed for the first time in a long time that with bipartisan support, you can get things done. So yes, Kamala Harris was a very strong candidate. With bipartisan support, you can make eggs cost $11 a dozen. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Yeah, two things. You answered the question.

Exactly. What did Joe Biden do to cause that? You guys talk a lot about the DNC. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. Wait, wait, hold on. All the other countries are going to pay. I want at this point, because you talk about, oh, we could vote on delegates. The DNC and the RNC, for that matter, are private clubs.

Yeah. So they can make the rules. They can do whatever they want. And there is no actual democracy in those private clubs. They can pick whoever they want. They can change the rules to be like, oh, if Joe Biden falls down the stairs, then, you know, Hillary Clinton is automatically the nominee. She would push him. I agree, Michael.

But it's not really a democratic process. Wait, but I don't understand that I... Then what's the question? Like, you say, we talk about... Hold on, hold on. Hold on, because we're talking about subverting democracy. I mean, Donald Trump lost an election, knew he lost an election, spent months perpetrating the lie that he won the 2020 election.

Hold on. He went... Yeah. Oh, really? He lost stolen. Hold on. Hold on. We're gonna...

Hold on. You're an idiot. Yeah, yeah. We're going to come back to that. But again, Donald Trump, Donald Trump spent months perpetrating a lie that he won the 20th. 2020 election when all of his advisors told him that he lost. He still believes he lost a 2020 election. He's,

we're witnessing the largest expanse of executive authority in our entire lifetimes. Okay, Donald Trump is interested in nothing but power. I don't understand how's expanded. Wait, wait, wait, but to this person's point, I don't understand how that relates to like, because you guys say you're such lower-case D Democrats and power to the people and more involvement for more people is good. And you don't even want voter ID. You want that many people to be involved.

and you don't want to discourage anyone. And yet, then, out of the other side of your mouth, you say, no, it's great. These parties are private clubs, and if they just pick the nominee, that's fine. I don't think we've ever said it's great, right? Like, they make great for the person. You're defending. That was, I think that was specifically the argument. No, no, no, no, no.

What I was defending is that people say, why was there not a primary? And I just say, there literally can't be a primary when there's nobody else running. If there, if Democrats won a primary, someone else has to run. Kamala Harris was just too good. She was just too good. I mean, it's a truth. So the question, who wins? the VIP round? Who gets to go to the table?

I hear number one. I hear number two. Mr. Davies, I can't, at the mic, who was it? Who votes for three? Who says it was? Who says it was Mark? I don't know. Who do we said? It's like Mark one. All right. Hold on, can we

do a recount of the votes? Yeah, can we get any of recount? This is some Bush v. Gors stuff. A lady, you are coming over here. So, this is very exciting. You are going to be drinking Redneck Riviera bourbon. We're all having our drinks up here, but you know what you have to have first? It's called Zbiotics.

You've got to go to Zbiotics.com slash bar fight. Go there right now. After a night with drinks, you know, I'm an old man now. I'm not as young as these two fellas. I don't bounce back the way I used to. I have to make a choice. I can either have a great night or a great next day. That is until I found Zibiotics, free hours.

Z-biotics-free alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists, not those fake scientists like Dr. Jill Biden. This is how you can tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink alcohol, it gets converted into a toxic byproduct in your gut. Now, the buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, is actually what is to blame for those rough days after drinking, drinking, which I had no idea about until I looked into the pre-alcohol product. Free alcohol produces this enzyme to break the byproduct down.

So you're actually addressing the root cause. Now, just remember to make free alcohol your first drink of the night or my third, I guess in this case. Drink responsibly. You will feel your best tomorrow. I love it. I love it so much. I don't know if you guys are going to. We're attempting.

I got no nails. Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. It's well sealed. Cheers.

Cheers. We're attempting. There you go. I don't fucking got nail. Delicious. Are you ready to try? Go to Zbiotics.com slash bar fight right now. You will get 15% off your first order when you go to Bar Fight. Code Bar Fight at checkout.

It's backed by 100% money back guarantee. There's no risk. Subscriptions are available for maximum consistency. Zbiotics. This is the longest dad ever. Zbiotics.com slash Bar Fight. Code Bar Fight at checkout for 15% off. It is time for round two.

We tried our best. I actually like these things. Oh, you can just twist it. Oh, all right. Mike. No, we're late to the party. Cheers. Cheers.

Chin chin. Nice. I poisoned it. No, I didn't. Wouldn't be crazy if I did not. Okay. Chris, what's your topic? My topic is Trump's ice raids respect no limits.

No limits. Okay. What's your argument? Look, my argument is this. Donald Trump, especially with, again, the expansion of executive authority, we have seen, there are mass agents running around our communities to, obviously, the dismay of the American people for political gain, okay? These people at ICE, the actual individuals within ICE

themselves are not qualified to be ICE agents. A lot of them are being hired with a few, little oversight, I should say. Pam, the organization itself lowering the requirements for ICE agents. They're running ads, targeting people who show up at specific bars, who are interested in certain conservative ideals. They're hiring people who are... We've got to get on the list for this show, I think. We've got to get some ice agents. They're hiring people who are pro-Trump, who are very conservative, and they can, frankly, do whatever they want. They have the backing of the federal government.

We saw two U.S. citizens executed in broad daylight on video, and though the DOJ was not interested in investigating those cases, Donald Trump backing it up and saying, I love it. There's no limits here. Michael, they do. Okay, a few points here. One, there are no investigations into the officer involved killing, say, Renee Good. There's no federal investigation. No, I think if we're, I think if we're being good faith, there is no investigation. Immediately, after what happened with Alex Pready, the DOJ came out and they said, immediately, Pam Bondi said, this guy's a domestic terrorist. The administration, J.D. Vance said, he's a domestic terrorist. He was there to do all this horrible stuff. It's pretty clear they immediately laid the groundwork for, we don't need to investigate this. And as far as I'm aware...

It's like a very factual question. Are there investigations into the shooting? I am not aware of the DOJ currently investigating the shooting, the actual officer himself, involved in Alex Predich shooting. What about Renee Good? There are investigations in that... I don't... I think that the DOJ... My understanding is that the DOJ is more interested in investigating what happened as opposed to potential wrongdoing.

They're more interested in investigating if Renee Good is a criminal... As opposed to what I said. ...the civil rights division of the Department of Justice, like eight or ten prosecutors, because the specific division that's used to investigate police shootings said that they were not investigating it. Yeah, I would say that as many people as can resign from those civil rights offices is probably for the better. Because it often is, it often is liberal. If you're discriminated against you on it. Do you have any evidence of that?

That the civil rights offices are run by. Yeah, well, here's some evidence. And this actually does relate to another recent case, which is that on the topic of like the Face Act, which is a version of a civil rights law, it's only ever applied to protect abortion clinics and virtually never pride to protect churches, including the church that was at issue in Minnesota. Wait, wait, but that's not your claim is that there's like this almost... My claim is that the civil rights regime tends to only track left

and doesn't actually protect the rights of people on the right. That's my claim. However, it's a slightly side point. The chief topic you're making, or the chief claim you're making, is that Trump's ICE respects no limits. How about the differences between how ICE operates in red states versus blue states? In red states, the majority of people that ICE picks up are already in prison, have already been arrested.

The majority of- Hold on, no, no, no, no, no. Is it because in the blue states, the governors and the mayors will not cooperate with ICE to hand over the criminal illegally aliens? No, no, you don't care about crime. You don't care about crime.

I do care about it. You voted for a convicted felon. Yeah, I care about the real criminals. That's a real crime. It went to a jury, you got convicted. Fulsifying business records in the first degree. He was also indicted three other jurisdictions. What's the penalty?

Well, he didn't get a penalty because he got elected president. Hold on, and, well, the civil penalty. What do you mean? It was a criminal case. In the case of falsifying business records, there was a penalty to be paid, which had a dollar number on. Oh, yeah. I mean, there's a fine or possible jail time, but he didn't get any of that. And why, even before he was elected president, why would the penalty have been reduced by the judge? Why would the penalty have been reduced?

Because it was excessive and it was obviously. No, it depends on a variety of factors if he's a repeat offender, for example. That's why they might reduce or increase a penalty. But Donald Trump, the reason that Donald Trump is not sitting and they're going to hate this, one as well. The reason that Donald Trump is not sitting in prison right now is because he got elected president of the United States. And that's the truth. In the case of the, I mean, in the case of the, we're getting a little far afield here. In the case of the falsifying business records, it is interesting that a judge actually weighed in and said this is an excessive penalty

for what's basically a bogus crime. But it's a side point. Well, we'll get back. Yeah. So yeah, so back to this point. Again, they're clearly operating. Can you name the instances? I mean, we're clearly seeing the majority of ICE agents in these blue states. It's clearly for political gain. I mean, Donald Trump is sending ICE agents into places like Minnesota, which is historically close to the southern border. That's right there, isn't it?

I'm aware. And furthermore, furthermore. Hold on. Just to the, these blue states and these blue cities are openly declaring themselves sanctuary cities and states. They are saying,

we want illegal aliens to come here. And you're shocked that the border patrol and ICE will go in and say, well, maybe we'll arrest those illegal aliens where they say that they are. Wait, wait. So you believe that the role of the federal government is to enforce federal immigration law.

So, wait, wait, wait, wait, even against the will, even against the will of states and against the will of the federal law, even if it's a supremacy clause in our Constitution. And I also, I also, I also, you know, I don't care about federal. I also want to point out that like, again, this actually goes back to the premise, the idea that you, for some reason, believe that illegal immigration and Donald Trump believes that a legal immigration is this massive problem that requires. Yeah, there's like 20 million of them in our country. No, first of all, there's not, no, no, no, no, no, first of all, there's not 20 million. There's 10, there was a maximum of 10 million border encounters under Joe Biden. obviously if Border Patrol encounters somebody. Illegal immigration. I mean, that is a shocking number, but illegal immigration actually predates Joe Biden. Believe it or not. Of course. But my point, but my point being here is that

why are we demonizing these communities and demonizing? Because they're criminals and they have no right to be here. You voted for a criminal. You voted for a criminal. You can't get away from that. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Besides the fact, besides the fact that they enter the United States illegally, why do you not, why do you think that this is such a big problem? That Donald Trump, needs to be sending federal agents into cities. Yes. Militurizing our cities. Because many decades ago, the United States Congress passed a law.

Hold on, hold on. Let me just answer your question. You say, why do I care that people are violating our basic laws and coming into our country and committing crimes and using our resources? No, no, no. That's what you're asking. That's what they're doing. So my answer is, because many moons ago, the American people elected legislators to Congress,

and Congress passed laws about our immigration system. And they said, some people can come in, some people can't stay here, there's a way to come in. And there's a federal law. That's how our democracy is supposed to function. Because of that, people elected Donald Trump with the popular vote in 2024, specifically to deport the illegal aliens who are here. Both parties agreed on this until very, very recently, well up through the Obama administration. So you spoke up when- So that's why I care, because I want the law to be.

When Kilmar-O-Gar-Bregor-Gar-Gar-Gar-Gar-Gargear-Gar-Gasio was illegally deported, which, by the way, the Trump administration admitted in court themselves. And the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against that. When the illegal alien, when Kilmart? When-Wiard? When-Wi-Wi-Wing-Header got deported? Wait, wait, wait. When Kilmer?

I did not shed a single tier. Oh, wait, okay. Michael, so you see, you pick and choose and you care about federal law. No, no, I'm glad that he got deported. The und, well, but it's against federal law, the Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump. Was Kilmar-Brigo Garcia an American citizen, or was he an illegal resident? Wait, you're taking- No, no, you're missing-interpreting by point.

It's a very simple question. You think. You won't answer it, though. Wait, what was your question? Was Kilmar-Brigo Garcia an American citizen? Or was he was here legally? He was. Yes.

He was not here legally. Yes, he was. He was not here legal. He was absolutely. He had humanitarian parole. There we go. Which is legal. That's a legal.

Wait, wait, wait, that's a legal. Hold on, Michael, you can't claim to care, you can't claim to care about federal law. You can't claim to care about federal law while also endorsing Donald Trump ignoring a 90 Supreme Court ruling. Yeah, I would say that when we, uh, when we, you know, you know, it's just, you can't, you we have people who've entered this country illegally, whether they have a temporary protective status, whether they are on their path to becoming an American citizen. If they are people who are not good for our country, who have no legal right to be here permanently, we got to boot them out. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,

the law regardless. Hold on. The law. Right, right, the law regard. We'll bring it back. We'll bring it back. Hey, guys, this is Mary Margaret. I'm Dalywire's White House correspondent. Oh, my dear. Wait, what he said? She's the Daily Wire. White House correspondent, Mary Margaret Olin. Very nice. All right, I have a 2028 question for you guys.

Do we think that J.D. Vance or Gavin Newsom has a better chance? And is Gavin Newsom telling the truth when he says that he doesn't really support men and women's sports? That's a fascinating question. That is a fascinating question. Actually, I got a question. We raised the caliber with Mary Margaret. That's nice. That's a great question.

Well, look, you want to take it first? You want me to go. Yeah, yeah. Let me start with the first question. You got it. Which was Gavin Newsom or J.D. Vance. Okay. The Trump administration is historically unpopular.

They are underwater in every single issue that got them elected. I know. Hold, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. You're losing now, brother. Because I know how we all feel about polls, right? But the polls that got him elected have flipped on their head. A CNN poll from October.

Hold on. No, no, I know. I know. Hold on. Hold on. Don't cry. Don't cry. This is just one example. A CNN poll from October of 2024.

From October 24, Donald Trump was plus elected. on inflation in the economy. It's why he won the election. That same poll right now, he's underwater 27 points. A Fox News poll showed that, like, 68% of Americans felt like ICE was going too far and the things that they were doing. They're historically unpopular.

J.D. Vance sucks. He doesn't believe in anything, okay? At least, no, no, he does. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. How many of you, how many of you like Donald Trump in this room? Okay, okay. Pause, pause, pause, pause. So in 2015, when J.D. Vance said that Donald Trump

was America's Hitler. that he was an awful guy. Did he just stop believing that? What happened there? He was... Oh, we don't make the mistake. He was persuaded by evidence. Like my friend Ben Shapiro.

Ben Shapiro was very anti-crubroth. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. He wasn't persuaded by evidence. He lost all of his values and his morals because he got to be vice president of the United States. And in the Republican Party, and in the Republican Party, you cannot be an elected official and not bow down to Donald Trump. Are you accusing Ben Shapiro losing his values and morals?

Are you accusing Glenn Beck? No, I'm not so down. No, no, no, no, no, no. Because you know he's a political threat in 28. No, no, no, that's a straw man. They all said the same things about Trump in 2016. And they all changed their mind. Hold on.

I've changed my views over time. I'm just, in this particular instance, J.D. Vance, obviously was a completely different. But you don't apply the same standard to Ben Shapiro. I don't apply the same standard when J.D. Vance could become vice president to the United States. No, no, no, no, no, no. His entire, no, his entire. His entire career depends on him loving Donald Trump, just like all these other Republican elected officials who hate. hated Donald Trump previously, who we know they probably still hate him now, but they don't have a choice.

Why did the other never Trumpers change your minds? Why did what? What never? Yeah, what never Trumpers changed their minds? Ben Shapiro and Glenn Beck. Okay, I would- Because he became the Republican nominee. They're going to vote for him no matter why.

So you think it was just, so now you're changing your opinion. Now you say they were just cynical their liars. No, no, no, no. I mean, I feel like you're trying to. I'm just trying to clarify why you're trying, why you're by a different standard to J.D. Vance than you are to everyone else. Because I think that J.D. Vitt, it's just a one unique person who's in a unique spot to be vice president.

States. Everybody else might have their different reasons. I agree. You're nervous about 28. No, no, no, no, no, no. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Has J. J.D. Vance, has J.D. Vance ever explained what caused him to change his life? Many times. Yes, I don't know. I've never heard a good answer for that question. President Trump's performance in office. Yeah. I mean, I just want to point out, I just want to point out, I'm just want to point out. We didn't go from, oh, I don't love Donald Trump to I like him. We, he said, quote, Donald Trump is America's Hitler to apparently loving him so much. He's now the vice president of the United States. Turns out he wasn't Hitler. It was actually pretty good. Harry, before we go, you had a point you said you're not afraid of...

Oh, no, I'm not afraid of J.D. Vance. And on her question was right, nobody should be afraid of J.D. Vance. You said a little afraid. But you don't. I'm not afraid of J.D. Vance. I think Gavin Newsom has a better chance. If you're just looking at it from a data standpoint, you want the data doesn't lie. If you're looking at it from a data standpoint, Gavin Newsom, I believe, has a better chance right now. And then what was your... The follow-up? Was that it? Whether it was going to be Newsome or Vance, Mary Margaret, What was the follow-up? Did we answer everything?

Oh, women's sports? Oh, yeah, that's right. You think he's telling the truth? Yeah, I think he's telling the truth. So, hold on, the truth about what? What is Newsom's current claim? You asked, does Gavin Newsom agree with men not playing in women's sports? Is that right?

Oh, it's not her? Oh, where is she? So I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. I'm flattered that he thinks I'm Mary Margaret. So he says, Gavin Newsom now says men shouldn't be in women's sports. But he previously did not say that. We were just talking about me.

Well, he can't do you think. Do you think, well, the question is, do you think that was a sincere change of part? I do think he's telling it. I do think he's telling him. I do think he's telling him. Why did Gavin Newsom just a few weeks ago say he wants to see more trans kids? I think, I mean, what was the context of what he was talking about? He was at, I don't remember the specific.

Okay, well, that's, okay, right. So that's a big problem. If you don't remember the context. I think it speaks for itself. I want to see more trans kids. You know what probably the context is, is should more people feel comfortable coming out as who they are? Okay. He's probably saying, yeah.

But they shouldn't be able to play sports. What do you mean, boo? Hold on, but Harry. So they should come out as trans, and he wants to see more of that, but he just doesn't want to let them play sports? Well, those are two different topics. I mean, they're just two different topics. But they're pretty related, I would say. No, they're not pretty related.

They're two different topics and two different debates. Here's my question. Sure. Building on Mary Margaret's question. Gavin, you believe Gavin Newsom is sincere when he flipped his opinion on transgenderism in sports and says that he no longer wants to see men and women's sports. But Gavin Newsom at the same time says he wants to see more trans kids. So therefore, we must conclude Gavin Newsom does not want.

want the trans kids to be able to play sports. Do you really think that Gavin Newsom wants trans kids to say out of all sports? Like you can't play soccer. No, he doesn't believe that. So then he's lying about changing his thinking of the middle of sports. No, you're saying that Gavin Newsom said that trans kids shouldn't play sports, period. Well, that's what you agree with. Well, don't throw under the bus. She's lovely. That's what you agreed with, though. No, no, no. Gavin Newsom is saying that trans people should play sports, but the role of trans men or trans women going into a different sport of

the sport that aligns with the gender that they've now chosen, that's where he takes it. But I do think he's being genuine. So what sports are they going to play? You're going to say the trans women have to play in the women's-like? No, I think Gavin Newsom holds a similar position to mine, which is let's let these independent sporting agencies make the rules. I don't think the government should be involved. And by the way, Michael, Michael-

You can't have it both ways. Wait, wait, wait, no, no. Gavin Newsom's a governor. He's saying the government shouldn't legislate this, right? And so I would- I would say he doesn't support men and women's sports. Can I finish briefly? Gavin Newsom is saying he doesn't want the government involved in this. Part of a small government over here and I want the government everywhere.

I like appropriate government. Well, no, you are you are. advocate for small government, now you want bigger. I don't advocate for small government. Oh, you don't? You want big government? I, no, I advocate. Okay, so you guys are nice. Okay.

Anyway, Gavin Newsom is taking the position. The nice deflection. Wow. Enough torment for Harry. No, you're right. We got to go back to the mic. Question. All right.

Hello, Michael. I'd like to engage in a little bit of friendly spiritual tete-a-tete with you. I have, I'll admittedly say that I skimmed your article about Christian Zionism and I've heard your comments about Israel. Yeah.

And as a Protestant, I have slightly different views toward the state of Israel and the Jewish, well, not the Jewish people, the Israeli people. I like the Israeli people. I think we might share that view. How do you reconcile this anti-Christian Zionism might be an extreme way to put it, with the biblical truth that we are grafted onto as Christians,

the Jewish faith essentially, and the fact that Jews have had Israel as their ancestral homeland for thousands of years. And can you acknowledge that the, again, anti-Israel seems very extreme, but that's the phrase I'm going to use. A rhetoric that's starting to come from the right has contributed to the rise in anti-Semitism in recent months, recent years. Well, in the last point, I think it can coincide, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment can coincide. Not necessarily so, but it can. So that's true. I don't know that one is the cause of the other. Probably the cause would go, more likely, in the other direction.

When it comes to ancestral claims from indigenity, the reason that I reject that is really more an historical and political opinion. It's because I don't think that just because a people was in a place a long time ago, it means they have a right to it now. If that were the case, we would have to give the Mount Rushmore back to the Lakota Sioux, which is arguments that maybe some of my liberal friends would make them. Maybe not. A lot of people on the left do, but I reject that. I don't really think that's a basis for international law. So I reject it as that matter, of course. To the point on Christian Zionism specifically, you know, that is a religious position that's a relatively modern one. It really comes from the 19th century. It's a specific subset of Protestantism. Obviously, I'm not a Protestant. I'm a Catholic. I'm a mackerel snapper. Many Protestants don't hold that view either, but that's a specific view that argues that because God gave the land to the Jews in antiquity, they have a divine right to it now. Now, this is contrary to the traditional Christian perspective shared by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and some mainline Protestants, which holds that the church

is the spiritual Israel, is the new Israel. And so we like the Jews. They're great. You know, they're wonderful. And we all, you know, want to. follow God. However, the specific land claims that are figured in the Old Testament are really fulfilled in the New Testament. So we don't focus on those specific land claims. Then there's an added problem, which is the issue of Zionism, which begins as a secular ideology, though it's difficult to separate the religious from the secular when it comes to the Jewish people because they're a tribe. But the origins of Zionism really are secular, and it arises with nationalism, like in the revolutions of the 1840s and the ideology that is really a 19th century ideology that I find

a little bit modern. I don't believe that the only proper form of political order is a nation state. I think empires have a lot to recommend them. And so for all of those reasons, I guess I would say I reject every single aspect of what undergirds Christian Zionism, but I'm very phylo-Semitic and I'm generally pro-Israel. So I'm actually in the worst position of anybody. I seem to be taking the bullets from all sides here. But that's why.

This view, which is prevalent among American evangelicals, has predominated in recent decades. But it's really not the historic view of Christians, and it's not the majority view of Christians worldwide. And so I would make one prudential argument to people who support the state of Israel, which is it probably would behoove them to, to... to give people an opportunity to support the state of Israel for practical reasons, reasons of international law, reasons of alliances that do not require them to adopt a novel theological view that's really a minority view.

I think probably practically that is much better for even the state of Israel in the end. That was a little off topic for moving out. I was like, wow, yeah, I was. What do you guys think about timeism? Hey, hey, that's all you, brother. Come on. Hello, my question is for Harry Siss, and I'm a huge, fan of you. I actually follow your Twitter

pretty actively. And I just want to go back to the ICE topic that we were on a bit earlier. Because Harry Sisson has some interesting tweets about Alex Pretti specifically accusing him of sorry, I want to apologize. He accuses directly Nick Shirley of being responsible for the death of

Alex Pretti and Renee Good for his reporting on Minnesota. And so then, you know, I just want to be super clear here that once again, Harry Sisson has lied repeatedly about ICE. He said that the ice agent that shot René Good said she was a fucking bitch right after he shot her. That actually was another ice officer, completely different ice officer.

Oh, so much better. Wait, that's great. To watch her colleague execute somebody live on camera and be like, wow. That's wonderful. My question is for Harry. When an ice officer gets killed because of your lies and your rhetoric, are you going to feel bad? Are you going to have issues sleeping at night like you accused Nick Shirley of being? That is absurd.

That was a really, I think it was a really bad question. like genuinely, I think that was a bad question. So, Chris actually tweeted something similar as well regarding Nick Shirley. Yeah, that's a bad question, but he said it too. No, no, no, look. But we both agree on it. We both agree. And I'll stand by this.

That Nick Shirley, his lies about fraud in Minnesota caused a surgence of federal agents into the state. And if that surgence of federal agents into the state never happened and he never lied about these learning centers, these child daycare centers, there was no, somebody said. No, no, no. Well, hold on. Well, hold on. What's your claim? Wait, wait, wait, hold on.

I'm responding directly. So if that never happened, whatever. If that never happened, Renee Good and Alex Pready would still be alive today. 100%. And they were murdered in broad daylight. And anybody, I think everybody in this room, she'd be able to look at Alex Pretty,

who didn't take out a gun. He was tackled by eight ICE agents. Are you anti-Second Amendment now? Hold on. Wait, so you should be executed for just having a gun, even if it's holster? He was legally carrying it. He had a permit to carry.

He's not threatened. So, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. There's where he should be executed. Can you relax for the first time? Hold on. He had a legal permit to carry. He never took out the gun. So, wait, what do you mean so?

He wasn't a threat to anybody. He wasn't a threat to anybody. He wasn't a threat to anybody. He was tackled by eight ice agents on the ground and then shot in the back of the head nine times. Hold on, Harry, Harry. What are you talking about? What are you talking about? Harry, you just said that Renee good.

I don't hear from you. Can I just said, hold on. Wait, one second, Mark. You just said, You just said, Harry, that Renee Good was murdered by an ICE officer. Do you not think that being hit by an SUV is a justification for using deadly force? If you're looking at the footage, frame by frame, and I saw you get walked by Adam Mochler on this. Can you be quiet?

By my God. How did I get walked? Well, I'm up here. You're over there. I'm meant to be talking. Harry, here's a question. Did Renee Good? Did Renee Good hit the officer with her SUV?

Wait, wait, wait. If you look at the frame by frame. It's a simple question. You don't need a paragraph. Michael, Michael, if this is a more nuanced issue. Michael, you would agree that this is a more nuanced issue. I would not agree with that. Did this woman hit the officer with her SUV?

Her SUV bumped the officer, which still does not justify. She's-be-bbed. Michael, Michael, Michael, if I tapped you- That justifies deadly for us here. If I tapped you on the shoulder right now, can you shoot me in the face? If you tapped me with your SUV, I probably would, yeah. What if she's going three miles an hour? What if she's going through miles an hour?

Do we have any more questions? Do we have no more? Okay, here we go. We gotta figure out who won that round. Who do we get to pick? I thought your colleague actually asked a really good question. So were we going... Mary Margaret, she comes.

Mayer do you want to? Do you want to get this guy... Mary Margaret goes to the VIP. I defer. I defer. I thought she asked a good question. I am going to... Maybe I'll separately buy that fake Harry fan out there a drink afterward, but Mary Margaret

gets to go to the VIP. By the way, Mark, I interrupted you. You had a point to make. Yes. I had several points. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. So the Alex Predig shooting, you're saying he was legally carrying a gun. Yeah.

But Minnesota state law requires... you to carry your ID and a permit. I see you over there. I see you over there. They're not based like Tennessee where you can have constitutional carry. So that's not really legally. So you're saying he wasn't legally carrying it.

That's a good point. But also, as a responsible gun owner myself, you basically are drilled into you that if you always carry a gun, that's fine. But if you only carry a gun in certain situations, it seems like you're looking for trouble. And I know personally, if I'm out carrying a gun, I'm the biggest

in the world like a hundred because if someone talks, if someone talks to me, if someone talks to me, I let it go because literally anything

what you're carrying a guy there is a huge responsibility because literally anything can become a deadly encounter so it was incredibly irresponsible of him to go into that situation. Hold on really quickly, really quickly two things.

You can start to talk about the nuance of whatever the specific law is in Minnesota about how you carry but again, I still don't believe that that, If you could prove to me right now without a shadow of a doubt that Alex Pretti, who was, again, taking care of our veterans as a nurse,

if you could prove to me without a shadow of doubt that he was Satan on earth, I still don't believe that that makes it justifiable that he's executed in broad daylight. It's an important point, though. Hold on, hold on, hold on. And so I do want to point out, although I appreciate, and you may be correct, on the Minnesota law, about whatever he was required to have, even if you could prove to me right now that he was illegally carrying, I still don't believe that that then somehow justifies, even if he's looking for trouble, him being executed in broad daylight. The gun was taken out by another ICE officer, so he is unarmed with, what, five or six ICE officers?

Did he aim the firearm at any ICE officer? I don't think that was 100% clean shit. Did he aim the firearm at any ice agent? There was a lot of stuff happening in that time, but also talking about rhetoric and Hitler, the left is just constantly drag. So you don't wait, Donald Trump said that Kamla Harris and Joe Biden. Wait, wait, wait. Donald Trump said that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are fascists. So if you're using the same, Donald Trump called Kamala Harris a fascist. They called him Hitler and then right after he got John.

Wait, wait. And then in your view, they must be equally guilty. Can you name? In your view, they must be equally guilty then. Can you name? Guys, guys, guys, guys, listen. All right, all right. All right. We can't let, we can't let Mark gang up on you? Mike, answer me a question. Can you name what's the one prominent political figure right now who called on a stage Donald Trump Hitler? That would be J.D. Vance. His vice president who called him America's Hitler, there's been no elected Democrats. Buddy, there are a lot more people who called Trump Hitler.

Well, I just want to point out. Wait, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Hang on, hang on. All right, Mark, this is the director of Mark. Gavin Newsom just didn't call him Hitler. He did, they, no, he did not. The Newsom press team just referred to the Trump administration. Okay, Mike.

Please, Mike, all right, give it to me. We love Mike, give some love to Mike. We love Mike. They don't get right. Because I love listening to conservatives lecture liberals about gun rights and the way you ditch the Second Amendment so quickly when it's not convenient for you is unbelievable to me. I am, oh, stop it. I'm a gun owner.

I have my concealed carry license. I have the right to carry a gun in the Constitution, same as everybody else. Alex Prattie left his house. He's protesting ice. He's recording ice. He didn't brandish the gun. He didn't need it. He didn't need it.

He didn't use it. He didn't brandish it. They threw him to the ground. They beat him. They shot him three times. If that happened to a conservative, you would be b-honed and moan it and you'd be absolutely right to. And I heard conservatives like you. Conservatives don't obstruct law enforcement

generally. Oh, no, they just raid the Capitol. He was not. Right, they just made the Capitol. Let's take selfies in the Capitol. They just raid the Capitol and they beat police officers. To say that Alex Pretti was obstructing law enforcement. Bro, he kicked in the real, the tail light on a federal law enforcement vehicle.

Therefore, he deserves death. Therefore, he deserves death. No, I'm just saying he obstructed law enforcement. I'm just making a very modest point. And he's denying for some reason. Well, let me make a modest point for you. Michael, this is also. Shooting just for Mark over there.

You guys complained about Ashley Barbitts. Ashley Babbitt who was trying to break into the Capitol. Thank you. And she deserved to die. Okay? Uh, I disagree. I mean, I'm sorry that you don't like to hear that. Don't have shock.

You were just defending the shooting of Dallas Freddie, right? You're right there. When cops were being beatings and your daddy, part of the cop eaters. So don't lecture me. I'm not lecturing you. Let's go Mike. You want to lecture and I was just suck. Anyway, they're right.

We can just retire, right. Yeah. We'll just go out of line. No. Yeah, but basically, I just, I just, just. To sum this up, to sum this up, to quote the great little John, don't start no shit, won't be no shit. Great point. The great philosopher, little John.

So you agree. It's not a death sentence. We're filming ice agents is not a death sentence. You agree with what happened Ashley Babick, correct? It is time. Oh, God. We already picked the VIP. It is time for rounds.

My favorite time of the night is my topic. And my topic is, America isn't stolen. Billy Eilish is wrong about that. But even if it were stolen, we would deport the illegals just the same. So Billy Eilish makes a claim at the Grammys. She says no one is illegal on stolen land, which is not true. It's not true because if you're on stolen land and you murder somebody, that's still illegal. That's still a crime.

You can't murder people or rape people, even if it's stolen land. But the second reason that her claim was false is that America is not stolen land by any measure, any way that we think of international law or history in anything resembling a global standard. By that standard, America is not stolen. So before I even go on with my diatribe, you guys are relatively more, slightly more reasonable, maybe? Do you think America is stolen land? I think two things I think that the phrase America no one is illegal on stolen land

shouldn't be I think it's an issue when you take it so literally I think the point is that obviously America was founded on or we were all immigrants we came over here we were not all immigrants

hold on hold on hold on hold on let me finish I just disagree that no okay okay okay we're all immigrants we traveled over here we killed a bunch of people we took land I mean all play all land is technically stolen land

all countries were founded I don't agree with that hold on all countries were founded on some amount of I think the more important point of this is that I don't understand to the latter half why the demonization of illegal immigrants. The point of the phrase- It's not a demonization. We just want to enforce the law.

Okay, but why? You don't answer that question from earlier. Why? Because it's the law. Okay, okay, but there's a lot of laws we don't enforce. Hold on. We should enforce them. Okay, well, there's a lot that we don't.

Give me it, why do you believe besides it just being law, it should be enforced? Because, hold on. I'll answer that if you'd like me to. Please. Because a nation is defined geographically by, its borders. The most basic right that defines a political community is the right to define who is part of it and who is not part of it. So it is beyond the laws passed by Congress that are supposed to be enforced by the executive, they're upheld by the judiciary. It is a basic tenet

of any political community that you get to determine who's in and who's out. If we do not enforce that most basic law, we would cease in any meaningful sense to be a political community. Both parties agreed on that until very reason. I don't believe that there's anybody advocating for not at some level enforcing immigration law. You don't think anyone's like advocating open borders. I don't think there is, I don't think that there's a single problem. The court was not a Democrat. No one's saying that no one is illegal on stolen land.

Hold on, no, no, no, no. But the second point of this is that everybody believes that at some level we should have a better immigration reform. We're just going to disagree about how to do that. Should we deport the illegal? No, no, no, no. No, no. Then I guess we did.

No, no, no, no, no. Hold on, hold on, hold on. I believe that undocumented individuals in the United States are, you're generally a net benefit currently for the American people. No, no, people are going to laugh. The Cato, hold on, hold on, hold on. The Cato Institute. It's a right-wing think take. Let me put this out. It's not. It's a libertarian thing thing. Okay. The Cato Institute this week, this week, released a study that since from 1994 to now, undocumented people have paid the federal government roughly $10 trillion in taxes. Wow, that's a million. Hold on, hold on, hold on,

Hold on, $10 trillion in taxes, and they have used benefits from the U.S. government about $6 trillion. Let's say $4 trillion surplus. And they analyzed why economically are they a net benefit? Yeah. Libertarians like open borders. Hold on. Hold on. Those numbers are wrong. But why are they wrong?

Why do you think they're wrong? Hold on. Because they actually are net takers. And if you don't want to look at the Kato Institute, you can look at the center of immigration studies. One is pro-mast migrant. One is anti-mass migrant. But it's evading the question because we're talking about the law.

Do you think that the American people have the right to enforce the law? Duly passed by Congress to have their on borders and define who's in the country. I think I think yes or no, hold on, hold on. No, no, because I think it's a dishonest premise. There's a simple question. There are so many laws. I think that we should. I'm not asking about so many laws.

I'm asking about this one. Look, can I just say something really quick? Can you answer the question? Right now, right now in the United States, we do not have enough native born. I'm just giving one example before you speak. We do not have enough native born U.S. citizens to work every single job. If every single undocumented person right now was was deported this instant. I'm going to bet one second.

I'm going to bet you in the front row, $20. I'm going to bet you right now $20 that he will not answer my question. I'm going to answer a question. Hold on. No, no, no, no, no. I'm going to answer the question. I'm going to answer the opposite. He's going to answer it.

Okay. Is it a matter of law? I will just please quickly, again, there's clearly like that example I just gave, if every undocumented person was deported from the United States tomorrow, our economy, just as one example, would fall apart overnight. Simple question. I am going to answer the question. You promise me that for about six minutes now.

It's very clear that in the current setup of the United States, we should allow undocumented people to have a process to find, get legal immigration status, and we should pass immigration reform to increase security at the border and make it easier to get into the United States legally. I think the premise, the answer to your question, I believe you know me 20 bucks. No, no, no, no.

No, no. No, no. No. The answer is that we should enforce laws in a civil way. And currently, I- The civil way is to enforce them. No, I disagree, and there's so many...

It's literally what it's called. There's so many good examples of U.S. laws that we don't enforce all the time. Yeah, yeah. Will you answer my question, or is Harry paying me 20 bucks? What is it? Should we deport the illegals?

I don't, I disagree with the premise of the question. 20 bucks, buddy. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Easiest money I ever made. No, no, no, no. I believe, I believe. Actually, that might be the hard. I believe, I believe we should report.

The blank book was easiest money I ever made. That was a little harder. Hold on. I believe we should deport undocumented individuals who have committed violent crimes. Yes. That is why take-

deport the illegals. No, I think, I think, but wait, I think, but wait, that is an answer. I would have to you know me $20. I believe, I believe, I believe it's a more nuanced topic.

We should, we should deport undocumented people who have committed violent crimes, yes. So I think there are a lot, I think there are a lot of undocumented immigrants in this country who have lived here. I'm not asking a general question.

I'm not asking that question. I'm asking you, it isn't good faith. It's not in good faith. It's a simple question. Michael, Michael, who wants to operate with until like five minutes ago? No, no, no, you would, you would, you would concede that there's... But I want, I don't want you to think I'm stealing your 20 bucks.

Oh my God. Should we deport? Should we deport the illegal aliens in America? I just answered it. Yes or no. I don't. Yes or no. Wait, Michael, Michael, Michael, I don't believe 20 bucks, my God.

I don't think the answer is. Yes or no. Michael, Mike, it's a nuanced question, right? Yes, it is. Because I think, I think you might... Bill Clinton knew how to answer it. I think you might find... Obama, even when he ran to answer.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, I find some people in here who would agree that somebody who's been here for 30 years has never committed a crime. Hey, wait, wait, Mikey, you let me finish. I think you might find maybe not in here. I don't know. But Republicans generally, you might find some people who argue and would agree with me that if you've been here for like 30 years, you've paid your taxes, you've never committed a violent crime. Even if you have a speeding ticket, whatever. If you're given back to your community, why would we deport that person instead of giving them a pathway to citizenship? If they're giving back to America, which is exactly what we want from immigrants, why would we deport them?

Because it's the law. You voted for a felon. I don't care. You voted for a felon. You can't talk about them being undocumented and breaking a law if you voted for a felon. Right? You right there. I see you.

Really quickly. You voted for a criminal. No, no, no. I do want to point out to your point. You said it's a simple yes or no question. You voted for a criminal. You talk about them breaking the law. You don't care about Donald Trump being a convicted felon.

He has not had one sip of his tequila. And he is belligerent right now. He is belligerent. Okay, we need to figure out, do we have another question at the mic? Do we have, we do? Okay. Really quickly, sorry, Mike. You're not getting his money back.

I just want to put out even Obama had a nuanced take on this. His take, well, eventually he undermined his own. Hold on, hold on, regardless of how, let's say, Obama's immigration policy was enforced, he obviously had a setup where he wanted to only be focusing on people within like 100 miles of the border because he believed that if you were within 100 miles of the border, you just came across the United States, he believed we should focus on criminals. But if you were, let's say, in Minnesota. for example, and you were undocumented, it was far more likely that you were here with a family,

you had built a life. And so we first wanted to focus on within 100 miles of the border. So if you asked, you know what I remember? You know what I remember? Hold on. Answering your point. If you asked. Obama said that executive amnesty would be unconstitutional and then he did it anyway.

So I remember, you're right. He did have nuanced views in as much as they contradicted themselves. Yeah. Okay. I just, to your question of should we deport the illegals, even Obama would say that's a dishonest framing of the question. What did Bill Clinton say? It's a nuanced question.

It's not your show. We don't care of Bill Clinton said. I don't care what Bill Clinton said. We're a different party now. We have a nuanced take that would help the United States. You guys nominated Hillary less than 10 years ago. I would argue that Hillary in 2016 was different than Bill Clinton in his presidency. Hillary Clinton was not calling for social services to be defunded. But we in the Democratic Party have a nuanced view of immigration that is far better for the United States than you, who is just like, should we deport everybody or not. It's not an absolute. It's not an absolute. Only enforce the law when I want to. That's not. You voted for a convict of a felon. You voted for a felon. You voted for a felon. All right, sorry. I'm back this time for you, boys.

Ah, okay. Early on, I think it was hairy, but it could have been either one of you. You're just confused. They all look the same, huh? Generic white guys. Generic white guys do look very similar, yes. But you made the claim that right-wing political violence is more prominent than left-wing political Yes, absolutely.

Which is an insane claim to make when in September, Charlie Kirk was assassinated on a college campus debating people in friendly debate. And since then, we have only seen a rise in left-wing violence. We see them openly chanting for people to be killed, including Donald Trump. Oh, violence is violence now? People, including Nick Shirley, who went out to do journalism, independent journalism. Nick Shirley is not a journalist. Yeah, he's not a jury. He's an idiot. They told him he would get Kirk.

Okay, okay, wait. Hold on, hold on. I'm going to let Harry answer this. I want to let it Harry answer this. I just want to say two things briefly. What happened to Charlie Kirk was absolutely abhorrent and wrong and terrible. I want to point that out. Number one. Number two, Nick Shirley is not a journalist, okay? He expel. I'll explain. If you let me, please look at these people freaking out. He's not a journalist because he actually breaks news stories. No, there's nothing, nothing, nothing about what Nick Shirley, the stupid video, nothing was uncovered, right? We've been going after this fraud and minute. for a long time. The Biden, hold on, the Biden DOJ literally brought charges against like 55 different people in Minnesota. Relating, relating.

With nothing to do with political violence. I know, I'm just, I just quickly, Nick Shirley didn't expose anything that we didn't already know and it was full of a much of lies, hate and racism. That's all I'm saying. Look, it's a truth. Here, here. Look, we both Chris and I, first of all, on a serious note, the day that Charlie Kirk was shot and murdered, we both got out there on every platform and said it is horrific. Horrific. Horrific. We condemn it. I am not accusing you too specific. Political violence is bad. Political violence is bad. We disagree with it. We still disagree with it. We don't make jokes about it. We don't laugh about it.

It was horrific. We all saw it on our timelines. It was awful. Great. Now, on the topic of political violence, Melissa Hortman in Minnesota was murdered by a Trump supporter who told the New York Post he was a Trump supporter.

And when Donald Trump was asked, why didn't you lower the flags for Melissa Hortman? Why did you do it for Charlie Kirk, not her? He said, who? When Nancy Pelosi's husband, was beaten over the head with a hammer. Donald Trump Jr. posted a photo on Instagram mocking it. Donald Trump also mocked it saying,

how's Paul Pelosi doing right now? Might I add, January 6th was the largest example of political violence in modern American... Harry, Harry. Wait, wait, wait, can I finish this point? It wasn't even the largest example of political violence at the Capitol. It's the largest example of political violence in modern American history. And what happened?

What about when the Puerto Rican nationalist shot up the House floor and shot five members of Congress? It's bad. That's bad. What about what about when the anti-Catthaghan? Let me answer a question. Let me answer a problem in the capital. Let me answer a question. But this is all recent.

And I'm happy to talk about, condemn all of it. That was the largest example of political violence in recent American history. And by what happened to those people? They beat police officers. They got prosecuted by a proper DOJ and then Donald Trump pardon them. By the way, many of them have been convicted again or charged again on serious crimes like child pornography possession. Right. So you want to talk about political violence?

Look at your own side. Donald Trump mocks political violence. Whereas we condemn all of it, whether you're a Democrat, Republican, You should be able to say what you want when you want. Do Democrats condemn all of it? Yes. Because there was a very interesting article in a magazine I very rarely read called The Atlantic, which pointed out that as of last year, contrary to previous trends,

political violence became predominantly a left-wing phenomenon rather than a right-wing phenomenon. Now, this was based on evidence from a generally more left-leaning institute, obviously in the Atlantic, which is left-leaning. And what's funny about it is, even using their own data, their data, which Exclude instances of left-on-right political violence, including one that I experienced myself when Antifa showed up and threw an explosive That's telling when I was on state. It was great. It was okay. We survived. The poor cop was injured, but she made it out okay eventually. Good. That wasn't even counted in the data sets of political violence. The BLM violence, which killed dozens of people wasn't counted in the data sets of political life So hold on the point I'm making here he is. Go ahead.

Even using data sets which by and large exclude left-wing political violence, even the election Atlantic Magazine admitted that today, political violence in America is predominantly a left-wing, not a right-wing phenomenon. So I, but there's data undercounted on both sides. I'm sure. I've had political violence against me by Republicans in the streets. It was awful and obviously I'm fine. I made it, but that was not counted in any of these studies. If I may ask. You can ask. Well, it was funny. We were in the bar in New York City. My friends and I were walking around. These guys came up to me. They were like, oh, Harry's this and they shoved the phone in my face. They threw a beer and we threw some punches. It's fine. I've never, I've never talked.

Are you breaking news on me? No, no, no, no, no. But you and I've also have also both been swatted before. I've also, I've been swatted. I've had the FBI sent to my, my, or the, yeah, I guess the FBI sent to my house, my school, all that crap. It's been, it's been bad. But do you condemn what Donald Trump did by mocking Paul Pelosi's assault? Okay, good. But that would that, hold on, but that was, by the way, but that wasn't, hold on. Wait, hold on. Michael, Michael, Michael. Did you condemn Donald Trump pardoning the police officers? I don't condemn Donald Trump. He's the greatest president of my lifetime. Well, that's super fucking weird. Okay. So that's the difference. That's great. Wait, wait, wait. I cannot condemn Donald Trump in anyway. Michael, Michael, Michael. Michael.

And then I'm going to ask the crowd as well. Do you condemn Donald Trump pardoning people who be police officers who be police officers on police officers? It's, uh, which, which people? You're talking about Alex. You're talking about Alex. No, on January 6th. Do you condemn Alex Freddie and Renee good in their political behaviors? I agree. Do you condemn the people who beat police officers on January 6th? I think that January 6th was one of the most, was one of the most. 20 bucks. 20 bucks? 20 bucks. 20 bucks? Do you, do you condemn Donald Trump? Do you condemn Donald Trump pardoning people who beat police officers? I don't. Can I wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

I know, I want to ask the crowd. Wait, wait, wait. Wait, hold on. I'm going to ask the crowd as well. Do you guys condemn Donald Trump pardoning people who beat police officers almost to death? I don't care about you. Yes or no, yes? A trust supporter is the only person who died is the answer.

Wait, wait. He said, this guy over here said who died on January 6. I want to point out there has been four Capitol police officers since that day who have taken their own life in relation. Hold on, can I finish? That's not the question he asked. Hold on, hold on. Hold on.

In relation to that event, because they had a bunch of MAGA people telling them that they were part of a deep state conspiracy. They had nowhere to go. They had families. They took their own life. So that's number one. I don't think it's reasonable to say that the only... You're now expanding the definition of political violence to include ex-respect of suicide? I'm not. I'm not. He made it, he made a claim... I think you are. No, he made a claim that the only person who died at January 6th, for example, is Ashley Babbitt. That's correct. I think it's dishonest to not talk about the police officers who have PTSD and then took their... You don't condemn it. You don't condemn... And I also want to point out... You don't fully condemn political violence. Hold on. I want to point out... I don't fully condemn political violence. In as much as you're... I don't fully condemn political violence in as much as much as... You're

You all agree with that? No, I don't. Someone clip that? Clip that? Okay, okay. A political violence that's motivated. How about this? How about this?

How about this? How about this? The death penalty is just by political violence. Two weeks ago, two weeks ago, a man named Andrew Johnson, who was found guilty of assaulting a police officer on January 6th. He had a prison sentence of, I think it was two or three years. He had not started his prison sentence yet. He was, he was pardoned. God damn.

He was, it's so loud. He was pardoned by Donald Trump. I know, you're right. He was pardoned by Donald Trump, so he never served his sentence for assaulting a police officer in January 6th. He was just arraigned in court because he molested an 11-year-old boy three times with subpoena text messages of him telling this 11-year-old boy, quote, I was a January 6er. I'm going to win a bunch of money because I'm an American hero. I'm going to leave it in my will for you. And he was basically trying to, you know, obviously he was a predator, right?

And so my point being is that Donald Trump pardoned this guy. This 11-year-old boy-old-old-old-old-old-old- He pardoned him for child abuse. It's pardoned him. He's hardging out of his own. It's almost as if some- It's a completely disingenuous analogy. If somebody is willing to assault a police officer on January 6th, it's almost like they are more likely to commit violent crimes within all of our communities.

This 11-year-old boy, no, this is, they commit less than crimes. I'm talking about, I'm talking about a, and you don't want to deport them. And that's why I won 20 bucks for Mary. I'm talking to the 20 bucks on that. He answered the question. I'm talking about, I'm talking about a Donald Trump supporter. The guy went to a Donald Trump supporter who at the direction of Donald Trump

showed up to the Capitol, beat a police officer, got pardoned, and then molested an 11-year-old boy and we're defending it. What are we talking about? I don't think anyone's defending it. Why do you believe that boy would not have got molested?

Hi, is this question about stolen land and immigration? I think it was supposed to be. You can ask whatever you want. I have a two-part question on that that I really, really want to ask. So I come from the grand. land of the chieftain Elizabeth Warren. And I would like to know, A, A, first of all, please describe to me

the agreements that the Puritans had with the natives that were there that was not stolen. And B, probably even more important, and this goes right to you, Harry. What I want to know is, Morah Healy is our governor. And she has asked

citizens of Massachusetts to take illegal immigrants into their home. and house them because they don't have enough housing for all of them. So I just want to know, answer my question first, not only in the stolen land, and second, Harry, are you willing to house the illegal immigrants that you want to have in this country? Please answer both questions. Well, I'll start with your latter one.

You're going to have to repeat the first question again because I... We do not live on stolen land completely because... we have had agreements since the time of the Puritan. So hold on. The last question for here. What's the question for Harry? The question is, are you willing to do what Morrithy asks the citizens of Massachusetts to do and house

illegal immigrants in your own home? Because she asked us to do that. I wasn't willing to do that, but I was wondering with you and your great heart if you are willing. And that's exactly the point I'm about to make. You don't, you're very easily entertained. You with the way. Very easily entertained. So you're making the point I was about to make, which is it's voluntary. She's asking

citizens to step up if they want. Nobody's forcing you. And by the way, we already have programs. Be quiet. You're right there. Be quiet. The question is, will you? I know, I'm getting to it. I'm getting, I'm getting, just be quiet. I'm getting to it. If you listen, if you listen. If you listen. He says he's going to get to it. I'll believe him for now. Okay. So, you don't have to. It's voluntary. By the way, we

already have programs where people have sponsors in the United States of America. Those are programs that existed under Donald Trump and Joe Biden, now Donald Trump. So you can have a sponsor. This is nothing new. What your governor is talking about is nothing. new. So I don't know why you're taking particular objection to that. Because she's encouraging it. She's calling on people to do it as an active measure. It's voluntary, correct? It is. Okay. Great. No problem. So the government's not infringing on you whatsoever. It's voluntary. And unfortunately, I will not be taking anybody in because I have a one bedroom in New York City. It's very expensive.

Hold on you have a one bedroom. You don't have a studio. No, I do not. A lot of New Yorkers have have studios. Well, it depends on where you live? It depends on where you live? But if you live, where do you live? I can say it. I can say it. But you have a one bedroom. Yes, I do. A lot of people. A lot of People have studios in New York, so you have an extra room. No, I'm so, unfortunately, I don't, unfortunately, I don't have any space. Unfortunately, for now, I don't have any space. But if you have space in your home and you want to play into a program that we've already had for a very long time, you can do so. But nobody's forcing you to take anybody in your home.

Nobody's forcing you to take anybody or in your home. Wow, to hear, I live in a one bedroom in New York, and I don't have any spats. I don't know. I don't know New York. Well, you're from New York. I am. There's no space in New York. My one bedroom's a shoebox.

You know that. Okay, man, I don't think these migrants, I don't think they need a lot of space. You know, you give them a nice little bed anyway. Do you have another question? Is it technically stolen land? Can you speak up a little bit? Yeah, is it technically stolen land if you can't protect it? Yeah, great.

Okay, and this actually ties in with the previous question. So, yeah, I totally reject the point you made even at the top of this, that we're all immigrants and all the land is stolen and it's all sin. And I don't really agree with any of that. Some of our ancestors are immigrants. Some of them were settlers. There's a distinction between those two things. The land was acquired in America for a variety of ways.

The question was about the Indians and the pilgrims who came on the Mayflower, which is a great cigar company, by the way. So some of my ancestors were on there. And I think that the narrative from the left, that the pilgrims came, the English came, and they just ran roughshod over the poor, sweet little Pocahontas. I think that actually does a great injustice to the Indians, because these were real men, they were real statesmen, they formed alliances. The English pilgrims actually helped the Wampanog Nation, Chief Massasota in particular, to create a great political polity. Massasoit allied with them against the Massachusetts when the Massachusetts wanted to wipe the English out. Unfortunately, it all fell apart in King Phillips War when the Indians made a mistake, but these are real people.

So we acquired that land through treaties, through some wars, treaties that followed wars. It's doing... But war... So, you know, some war part is doing a lot of heavy. Yeah. Anyway. I don't know if you guys are history buffs. The Indians also acquire their territory through the war.

We're not... I feel like that was my original... That was part of my original thing. But I don't think... Most places were founded through some amounts of sin. But I don't think that's sin necessarily. Wars can be justified. Oh.

And this goes back to antiquity. They obviously can be justified. So the American country was founded through treaties, through wars, through purchases. Obviously, we doubled the size of the country and the Louisiana purchase. And it is recognized by any way you slice international law, including the Law of Conquest,

which is recognized all the way up to 1907 in the Hague Convention. It's recognized through the doctrine of discovery. It's recognized through the United Nations, the United Nations charter. So there is actually no way. I mean, it's kind of a funny thing to debate Billy Eilish. But some of the libs very seriously claim this is stolen land. Well, look, we're not going out there and saying stolen land. Yes.

But we believe, I fundamentally believe, on this topic of Billy Eilish, that there are probably more important issues out there than what Billy Elish says at the Grammys. I think maybe we should be focusing on housing prices and grocery prices and things like that. You'd rather talk about Billy Elish. Or the Epstein files. Well, we talked about that. I didn't want to double program it. But I would love to.

The point is, it's not just Billy Elish. Many Democrats. In fact, I think who claims that this is stolen land? AOC, Rishita Talib. Do you think this is a majority position in the Democratic Party? Do you think this is a majority position in the Democratic Party? I think it is a growing position and I think it's a broad position. Look, as somebody in the Democratic Party, I can sure you're saying America is not

stolen land? I'm not of the view. I'm not going to go around saying that America's stolen land. So you don't think it's stolen land? I'm not going to go around saying that. No. I'm not asking what you're saying. You don't think it's stolen land. Do you think America's stolen land? I don't know. You say it's not a mainstream view. Half of you, he just said he doesn't know. That doesn't mean he's taking the view. He doesn't seem to believe he's got stolen land. I do want to point out, I do want to point out to to the question. The point I made earlier is that like when I see that, I don't, again, take the position so literally. I think the point of saying no one is illegal on stolen land. Again, comes back to at least some of our roots are based

as... They are based, I agree. They're very, very based. Some of our roots are based in immigration, and we shouldn't be demonizing a bunch of people just because they don't look like me who came to America just to have a better life. Is there a distinction between legal and illegal immigration? Is there a distinction? Yeah.

Yes. Okay. I think then you just made a disingenuous point, because you tried to conflate illegal immigration, which is what people take issue with immigration. No, no, no, I think the point was... It matters why people come to the United States. And if some of us in our past came looking for a better life, we were, at least some of America was built off immigration. We should remember that based on the American dream, even though we would probably agree that our immigration system has been broken for a long time. We need some massive reforms.

We want people here the right way and legally right now because that system is so broken, it has caused people to be here either on expired visas or be here. What is broken about it that caused illegal immigration? Part of what's, I mean, well, part of that is that if you request a visa, like, if you request a visa, it may take, you might have a court date in eight or nine years. So the problem is we don't take enough people. Wait, that's not what I said. Hold on, you're claiming what's broken about it is we don't take enough people. But we've been taking legally a million people a year. I know.

I didn't say, I didn't say, I didn't say, I didn't say it's, that we don't take enough. I said that it takes so long, even if you have a justifiable reason and you want to follow the American dream like we all supposedly believe in. So we shouldn't take more legal immigrants. I believe that we should inc— Joe Biden— So you do think we should take more legal— I do believe we should take more illegal— Jesus Christ, I do believe we should take more legal immigration.

Joe Biden tried to pass a massive immigration bill. I was just confused because you just said you weren't saying you wanted more legal immigration. Hold on, hold on. Joe Biden tried to pass a massive immigration bill that would have increased the amount of legal immigrants. I know, I'm glad that big. Why? Why? Obviously not bipartisan enough. It was written by a Republican. Next question. Hey, quick question.

So throughout this entire time— Oh, my gosh. I love this guy. Sorry, go ahead. Who's up there? Oh, no. Yeah, no, I love who. Go ahead.

So throughout this entire conversation of immigration, I keep hearing from Chris and I believe Harry as well, then we need to deport only violent criminal illegals. Yeah. It is insane that on a public platform you would be willing to put your fellow countrymen aside for foreigners who do not have any right to be here. And this is the reason. Wait.

This is the reason I say that. This is my reasoning. My reasoning is I'm sick and tired of seeing articles of like Trenda Aragua, rapes a woman in this state. MS-13 rapes a man in this state or woman or whatever it be. They're freaking crazy. My issue is all of these people, you can't say violent criminal aliens because we didn't know they were violent before we looked into them.

We have no idea who these people are. I'll answer. That's a great point. Hold on. I like this guy. He's a bad point, though. I want to say two things. You say, like, cast your fellow Americans aside, I think at all levels, immigration helps

American citizens. I thought that this- - I will focus on us... Hold on, hold on, hold on, I will focus on this point. Molly Tibbitts. Because, you know what? No, you don't.

Who said that? Who said, who said, Lakin Riley? Who's Molly Tibbets? Exactly. Because she was a woman killed under Donald Trump. So you pick on the woman that was killed under Joe Biden. By an illegal, you mean. By an undocumented immigrant.

Yeah, right? So she was, she was, listen to what I'm saying to you. Listen to what I'm saying to you. The illegals didn't all just disappear because Trump entered off. Hold on, Michael. You specifically. You know Lake and Riley's name for a political reason. I ask you who's Molly Tibbitts, a woman who is killed.

You don't know her because it happened under Donald Trump, and you don't care if it happens under Donald Trump. In fairness, President. And I want to ask lovely. You don't know who she is. You don't know who she is. To this, to this. To this point.

Oh, you don't care that she was murdered. You don't care that she was murdered. Well, there's a federal law. You just said I don't care. Do you, do you care or no? Well, you don't know. Well, you don't care enough. Excuse me.

Hold on. However here is still evading Jacob's question. You don't care enough because you didn't know her name. Regardless. You didn't know her name. You don't know what you was. Okay, disgraceful. It's disgraceful.

It's disgraceful that so many Americans are killed by illegal. Undocumented immigrants commit significantly less crime than native-born Americans. It's not even close. And that's my point, regardless of the economic data that shows that undocumented people support the United States fiscally for a variety of reasons. It's also, through two separate studies, undocumented individuals are less likely to commit violent crimes than native-born U.S. citizens. We are, hold on. Okay. Hold on two things.

I said violent crime, number one. I said violent crime, so sure, if they're in the... Which is what we should be focused on. Right, which is what we should be focused on. You talked about how people are dying, people are talking about Lake and Riley. We obviously all think that violent crime is unacceptable, but undocumented individuals are less likely... I'm going to just fill it down to his point. ...are less likely to commit violent crimes than Native U.S.

...theircine citizens. We're doing a lot of public... I'm going to just still down the point. Jacob's question is, why would you throw your native fellow Americans under the bus because you say we should deport the violent criminal native... Hold on, illegal aliens, but we only know that they're violent criminals once they have committed the crime. And the premise here is that none of these crimes, not a single one of them, would have been committed if the illegals had simply been deported in the first place. You voted for, that's the point.

It's mind-numbing to me that you keep bringing up certain crimes by certain people, but you again voted for a convicted felon. Because they have no right to be here. We have to deal with the people who are. You clearly don't care about violations a law that much. You're totally distracting to the point. It's important. It's a philosophical view. Focus on this point. It's a philosophical view.

But we're talking about a specific issue. We're talking about a crime, right? We have to deal with the American citizens who commit crimes. We can't just deport them. We have to deal with them. Sure. The illegal aliens who are here who go on to commit more violent crimes, we don't have to deal with them. So every single violent crime that an illegal alien commits is unnecessary.

And to Jacob's point, as he's asking you, why would you allow, why would you open yourself up and your fellow Americans up to even one of those violent crimes or rape or murder when you don't have to, and it's against the law anyway. You were part of the people that opened us up to the crimes of Donald Trump. You're trying to distract because you say... It's not because you don't care about the law. You don't care about the law. The beginning of the Trump was a beginning. Totally ridiculous. The beginning of the question is why would you open up your fellow Americans to this,

suggesting that illegal immigration or immigration as a whole is this massive disservice. I disagree. We're speaking about illegal immigration. I disagree with the premise. I disagree with the premise of the question. The premise being the suggesting that illegal immigrants are somehow much more likely to be committing violent crime. That's not the premise.

You're straw manning that. I know. That's not the premise. I just told you the premise. The premise is any crime that is committed by an illegal in America is unnecessary. Why would you therefore support illegal immigration? Because that's the premise. Do you disagree with that?

We don't support. We don't want people to come in illegally. We don't want illegal immigration. No, no, but listen. Michael, this is why it's nuanced, right? We don't want, we want everybody to come in legally. We actually care about the law over here. Follow the law coming legally.

We don't want people to come in illegally. but we recognize that the immigration system right now is broken. There are people who are facing gang violence in their respective countries that want a better life for their kids. I'm sure that everybody in this room can put themselves in the shoes of an undocumented immigrant who's being targeted. Their kids are being targeted. And they would do anything to save their family.

Is anybody going to answer Jacob's question or no? It's nuanced. That's why I'm explaining it right now. It's all nuanced. Is anyone going to answer it? Just to be clear. We want legal immigration. We recognize the system is broken.

We wanted to fix it. Joe Biden introduced a bill. Donald Trump shut it down. You're right. That bill would have exacerbated the problem. I think it does. I think it does. Because it would have given more.

more illegal aliens, a path to citizenship in the United States, and it would have encouraged more mass migration. Encouraging people to become legal citizens is bad now? Yes. Wait, so now, okay, so we don't want to reward the crime and create more of it. You just hate all, you just hate all immigrants, legal or illegal. Is that my understanding? Where did you get that from?

Well, you just said that we shouldn't bring, we shouldn't give undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship making them legal. Right, we should not reward their crimes, and you don't fix a problem by just redefining the problem, which is what that law would do. If they've been given, if they've been in the United States for 30 years, they've given back to their community by working a job, they haven't committed a crime. Why shouldn't they be rewarded citizenship? They can go back and apply to become American citizens. With the broken system as it stands right now? What are they going to go face gang violence? They're all facing gang violence. Man, we got a lot of hypotheticals here. We should enforce. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Didn't your hypotheticals start with if there's an undocumented person here and they happen to commit a violent crime, then therefore it's an atrocity? Yeah, that was the question that neither of you will answer.

Okay, because we're not going to answer. I disagree. Okay, you won't answer it, I give up. Who won that round? Do we believe it was the liberals? Thanks, Mike. Thank you, Mike. We didn't even get the other one. That's great.

Okay, and who thinks it was the conservative side? Okay. All right. Are we going to pick a VIP for it? Are we going to get a VIP over there? I defer. Jacob wants it. Who gets it?

I want, oh, he didn't ask a question. Oh, I got to go with my guy in the, I forget his name, baseball cap. I'm sorry. Jacob, right? Jacob. Is that Jacob? I'm sorry, Jacob. I told you. I should remember your name. I apologize.

Jacob was very nice to us all day. Yes. He was nice to you? He was nice to you? He was nice. I gave him explicit instructions to be a huge jerk. Okay. Jacob, you've been great. Come on. In my opinion, nobody wins a bar fight.

They're only losers. So the question is, who lost the hardest tonight? Which is related to who's buying the next round, which is not related to, but it is coincident with. When is Harry giving me my 20 bucks? Now, who thinks the biggest loser? was hairy. It was rigged from the start.

Okay, who thinks the biggest loser was Chris? Wow. Unbelievable. All right, man. Who thinks the biggest loser was me? Come on, whoa. And they have microphones, so it's kind of louder. Okay, I guess it was Harry.

That was, I knew it from the minute he walked out. I had a feeling. minute he walked out. I had a feeling. That means you killed him. Oh, thanks. Thank you, Harry. I'm glad. I love this week. Thank you all for being here. Thank you both for being here. I will see you all at the next bar fight. USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With USAA, you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a quote at usa.com slash bundle. Restrictions apply.

You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed. Pour your money back.

Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash Spotify. Terms apply.