The Michael Knowles Show - 2 Liberals vs. Michael Knowles: BAR FIGHT | Mike Nellis & Michael DeFeo

Episode Date: February 14, 2026

Michael Knowles steps back into the ring for another explosive Bar Fight—this time taking on progressive commentators Mike Nellis and Michael DeFeo in front of a fired-up live crowd in Nashville. From Trump’s failure to prosecute Epstein associates exposing the rot in our federal government, to the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti proving Trump hates the Second Amendment, to Mayor Mamdani’s “warmth of collectivism” leaving 16 homeless to freeze on the streets—no topic is off-limits and no punches are pulled. It’s Knowles vs. the Left in a no-holds-barred rhetorical showdown at John Rich's Redneck Riviera. Watch the sparks fly. Bar Fight Ep. 8 For the full episode, subscribe to DailyWire+ https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe - - - 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 🔥 Friendly Fire is here! No moderator, no safe words. Now available: https://dailywire.com/show/friendly-fire 🎁  You’ve seen it played on The Michael Knowles Show. Now play the YES-or-NO game at home!               YES-or-NO Game: https://dwplus.shop/YesorNoGame               Conspiracy Expansion Pack: https://dwplus.shop/YesorNoConspiracyExpansionPack               Dating & Relationships Expansion Pack: https://dwplus.shop/YesorNoDatingExpansionPack               Politics, Philosophy, & Religion Expansion Pack: https://dwplus.shop/YesorNoPoliticsExpansionPack 📘 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

If you're chasing data down instead of seeing it in one place, you need the Intuit ERP. Intuit Enterprise Suite. All your data in one place with built-in AI for real-time insights. Learn more at intuit.com slash ERP. I wrote a little song to remind you, choice hotels, get you more of the experiences you value. The Canberia Hotels got it all. A rooftop bar, have a ball. Cocktails up here feel just right.

is Cambria your homemaid Bring a date your team Or even your mom Book direct at choiceotails.com See you on the roof You should be pissed off That the federal government is lying to you like this Did we say military run camps?

Military camps force people to be straight I like that. That's a strong idea. I want to know why you expect to be taken seriously In a political debate When you showed up to the debate in a hoodie It's called Bar Fight Welcome to Bar Fight. I'm Michael Knowles I'm joined tonight

by two guests, co-founder of white dudes for Harris, senior advisor to Kamala Harris's presidential campaign, Mike Nellis. They've lied, we should take nothing that this administration says at face value. And now our next guest, he's a liberal content creator who spends most of his time complaining about the Democrat Party, which is something that he and I actually have in common. That is Michael Defeo. Here is how this show works.

We will be debating three of the most controversial topics of our day. The bell rings. We duke it out for that round, and then our friends in the crowd can come up to the microphones and pick a fight with any of us. And anyone who comes up to the mic can win special prizes. And a seat at our VIP section sponsored by Redneck Riviera whiskey. Mike, Mike, are you ready to begin?

Michael, I am I ready to begin. It's round one. I love this. Now, Mike, that mic, you kick us off. What is your topic? My topic is Alex Pready's death proves Trump hates the Second Amendment. All right, make your case. All right.

So to the crowd for a moment, raise your hand if you ever heard of the siege of Waco, Texas. Few people, right. Did somebody woo that? We're all too weird to start. I don't know what side they're on. Yeah, I'm concerned. So after the siege of Waco, Texas, there was a massive increase in sponsorship and membership of militias and paramilitary groups here in the United States. It skyrocketed after 1993 through 2000, and then skyrocketed again in 2009 through 2012.

I wonder what happened in those four years. So during that time, people began to be concerned about American military operations here on our own soil in something called Jade Helm 15, where Obama was using special forces to do training in Texas. Governor Abbott said that he was mobilizing the National Guard to defend the Second Amendment property rights. and civil rights of Texans. They made it a whole thing on Fox News. They called it the Texas takeover, as if we need to take over Texas. It's already part of the United States.

And Alex Jones made it as mainstream as humanly possible because the United States was under siege from its military and its government who was going to take away its Second Amendment rights. Wayne LaPierre made jackbooted thugs a popular term with the NRA for years about masked agents of the state coming to take away your Second Amendment rights.

Alex Pready was exercising his Second Amendment right in Minneapolis with a registered firearm, a concealed carry permit. He never unholstered the weapon, and he was still killed by mass agents of the state. My question is, is this not the exact nightmare that Alex Jones pushed, that the NRA pushed, for decades on us? Now, Alex Jones has said that his death was not a horrible accident that deserves investigation, he said he deserves it. Donald Trump said that you should not and cannot have guns in protests. You cannot have guns around federal agents. Even the D.C. attorney said you cannot have firearms in

Washington, D.C., legal or illegal. So my question is, how is it possible that Donald Trump is the most pro-second Amendment president in history when the exact right-wing fever dream that we were fed for 25 years has come to fruition under his presidency, and he is the one who has the words coming out of his mouth saying you cannot legally carry a firearm around federal agents. If that came out of Barack Obama's mouth, I mean, you all got very mad with the tan suit. Imagine how you would react to those kinds of words.

I thought the tan suit was fashionable. I'll take that in order. So you claim that Alex Pretty's killing would prove that Donald Trump hates the Second Amendment. Now, it's worth pointing out that Trump said that he objects to the killing of ballot. Preddy. He was sad to see it. Sure. Some of us think it was totally justifiable. It's always kind of sad, but, you know, I'm not losing sleep over it. I'm sorry, is this the same Donald Trump

who said that he's an assassin? No, Trump didn't say. Trump didn't say it. Well, Trump said he was sad to know some members of his administration. But we're talking about Trump. So, so Trump says he was, he was sad to see it. He didn't want to happen. So right off the bat, I, it would be hard to arrive at the conclusion from that that Trump hates the Second Amendment because he didn't justify the killing of Alex Pruddy, though I would do so. Furthermore, though, on the point, of the Second Amendment, specifically with Trump, not Alex Jones, not Waco, Texas, not the 90s, Donald Trump. I think we would all have to agree to a handful of facts. One, Donald Trump, in his second term, rescinded some of the ATF regulations that Joe Biden had put on the gunstores.

So that's very pro-second amendment. Trump took us out of the gun-grabbing UN arms trade treaty, very pro-second amendment. President Trump has, broadly speaking, supported our traditional constitutional rights, all... Broadly speaking, with a few caveats. No, I'm giving you specific examples of this. But broadly speaking, he's been consistent for 10 years on Second Amendment. On a few things, he's backed off it like he banned Bumpstock. Some of the Second Amendment guys don't love that. But most of the Liberals were totally fine with it.

In any case, we've always had circumscription. We've always had some limits on the Second Amendment. The question here, since you bring up Alex Pready is, was the killing of Alex Pready justified? Whether or not he had a gun. That's not the question we're asking. The question is whether or not his killing and the reaction. to it from Donald Trump. She did say he was sad about it, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't that doesn't mean that he supports the Second Amendment around federal officers because he has said

he does not want people having guns around federal officers. It's a very different question than am I upset that a man was killed. I think it's entirely reasonable to be empathetic to someone being killed like that. But do you support the Second Amendment or do you not in all circumstances when you call yourself the most pro-second amendment president in history? Yeah, but I guess in some of the examples I've just cited, President Trump overwhelmingly has a pro-second Amendment policy agenda, albeit with some caveats like the bump stocks and the tightening up the background. And no guns around federal officers at protest. Well, that was a point he made, which is a prudential point, and I think this is the key here,

because if we say that Alex Prattie was carrying a weapon and therefore an officer shooting him is a violation of his Second Amendment rights, I think that fundamentally misunderstands what's going on. Alex Prattie had a conceal carry permit. That's right. His parents told CBS News that he never actually used it. He never carried the weapon until recently. I wonder why. Well, right, why did he bring it? Why did he bring a gun that was fully loaded with two magazines to obstruct law enforcement? Can I never? Hold on. Wait, wait. Wait, wait. Wait, wait. Wait, wait. Wait, wait. Wait, wait. Yeah, wait. I want to jump in here for a second because let's define the facts of the video and the facts of the case of the murder. And I believe it's a murder of Alex Pratt. Okay. Standing on the sidewalk,

goes to help a woman who got pushed down by an ICE agent, doesn't brandish the weapon, doesn't touch it, doesn't use it in any meaningful way. He gets thrown to the ground. That part's debatable. No, that's not, That part is not debatable. Go watch the video. There are questions on the video. There's going to be an investigation, but it's unclear whether or not. I'm sure this administration is going to lead

with quite the investigation, Jesus. Sorry, just gave out a little bit for me. Look, he was dragged to the ground, beaten by like eight ice agents, shot in the back three times. They had already taken his gun at the time that they shot.

But the question... Just let me finish my point because there's no reason for him to be dead right now. There's none. And then the reaction from the right is that, oh, he died because he brought a gun to a rally.

No. By the way, it wasn't even a protest. You were standing on the side. That's not really the reaction as a card carrying member of the right. The question is, was the officer justified in shooting Alex Prattie? And so then the question there would become, what would be the cause of that? The cause would be, according to federal law, the imminent threat of bodily harm to the officers or to anyone around him.

What would a reasonable officer have perceived that when a guy shows up to obstruct law enforcement to commit a crime? He did not do that, though. That's not true. He was already hit. Hold on. He was already beaten to the ground. Let me just finish the, since we're establishing that. Because you're not establishing the facts.

He's beaten on the ground. They've taken his gun. They shot him three times in the back. But you're only beginning from when he's on the ground. Eleven days earlier, he'd assaulted a law enforcement of him. He'd assaulted a law enforcement. The only thing that matters is what happened when they murdered him. You can try to filibuster, but we have to establish the facts.

You are, you are filibuster. You're just making shit up, Michael. Guys, if we're going to establish the facts, 11 days prior, I'll just finish this establishment. Then we can talk about it in the comments. 11 days prior, he had assaulted a law enforcement vehicle while obstructing ice. He then showed up again. to obstruct law enforcement. He had a loaded gun with two full magazines and a reasonable officer,

a reasonable officer while he is committing a crime certainly could believe that he was an imminent threat. Can I give you my last, can I give you my last point? Yes. Since we, while that can be debated, but my point, that part can't be doing it. No, no, no, my point that Donald Trump is anti-second amendment because of this event, Americans should not face death at the hands of the state for just carrying a registered firearm. What about carrying a registered firearm and obstructing law enforcement? That is not a death sentence. What if you pose a threat to officers?

He did not. He was already on the ground. He was not even obstructing in that. Is there any evidence that Alex Pretti would assault law enforcement? There is. He had done it 11 days prior. He kicked the car 11 days prior. Like really?

Like, come on. Questions? Outside of Twitter, that. This is an 80-20 issue. Like, this is ridiculous. Okay, I have a question for Mike number three. You know, on the right... It's the one on the way right.

On the right, people believe that Kyle Rittenhouse, like, he had a right to carry the gun to that protest. But I think we all can agree that that was unwise because of what happened. How is what Alex Pready did any different? I think under the law he did have the right to carry that gun. What he did with it was what I take objection to. He protected himself from a pedophile leftist terrorist. I take objection to him shooting people with the gun that he did legally have the right to carry.

What if they shoot him first? Or shoot at him first. So are we going to get to that now? Because the ICE agents were not, there was no gun out. First of all, Kyle Wittenhouse had his gun out and brandished. Hold on. I thought Alex Preddy had been disarmed. There was a gun out of the gun out?

I'm saying he did not. No, no, no, no. I'm telling you, he did not brandish his weapon. He did not brandish his weapon. When they got him into the ground. They are federal law enforcement officers. The first thing that a federal law enforcement was in or was the gun out? This thing that a federal law enforcement is a Schrodinger's gun.

It's a in a half the time. Hold on the time. No, no, no, no, no. Listen, my father was a 34-year veteran in the FBI, three-time Trump voter, huge Republican. I've talked to him about, who, yeah, let's go, yeah. Can we get him up here?

I want him up here. Oh, he'd be happy to do this. But he would, he would, what happened to me? So what happened to you, he says? All kids rebel. I tell you I took after my mother, but she's more conservative than my father's. All right, all right. This is a good family.

My dad will tell you, this is a bad shoot. And I've talked to, I've never heard my father say any law enforcement shooting was bad until this one. At the time that six ice agents had beaten Alex Prady, got him to the ground, the first thing they're going to do is check for a firearm. And that's what they did. And one of them took it. And then another one shot him three times in the back. I'm sure your father is a very respectable guy with a nice long history serving America. And he voted for Trump, which I love. You voted for him in all three elections, the Trump won. However, however, I think you will find that even the subjective judgment of one, law enforcement officer or another is not going to overcome the law. And even liberal lawyers seem to agree that the predicate here for the using force was totally met.

No, I think everybody will not go to prison. We did a good job getting to whether or not he deserved to die when the question was, is Trump still supporting the Second Amendment? Oh, yeah. I thought we had resolved that because, again, I'm certainly happy to defend the shooting of Alex Prady. Trump doesn't really do that himself. So that's my question. That's Trump called him a domestic terrorist over the weekend. The Trump administration has gone after him. No, no, Donald Trump himself on Truth Social posted that he was a domestic terrorist like four days ago. Was it a re-truth?

No, it was him in his own words. Interesting. Well, okay, I didn't. I mean, it was in law case, so I'm not sure he wrote a lot. I know. It's hard to catch him all. He's defending the shooting of Alex Freddie even more than he had been. Right. All right.

Do we have another question? Do we have time? No. I would like to go back to the original claim of Michael 3. Yes. Are we establishing one, two, three? Yes. Okay, great.

I'd like to go back to your premise, which is, you're saying that his description of not or request not to bring firearms around federal agents, can you describe why his request for people not to do that because it's dangerous is him being anti-second amendment? He didn't request. He said you can't do it. And that is, that decries to me a bias against the Second Amendment because he doesn't want people who he doesn't like to be around law enforcement with weapons. And that is a concerning. slippery slope because as soon as you start saying only certain groups cannot practice the Second Amendment to the whole degree.

But it wouldn't be groups. It would be certain situations, certain circumstances for any group. It would be protesters, anti-ice protesters, likely anti-Trump protesters. Yes, I agree. Criminals should not bring guns around cops. I get a bad idea. Protest is a First Amendment right. Doesn't make you a criminal.

But obstructing law enforcement is not a protest. Can you show me in the video where he obstructed justice in that incident where he was killed? Don't talk about him kicking a car because it's irrelevant to the story. Well, that is a good example. It's not an example. It's not an example because at the moment in the same example for premeditated murder if they knew who he was prior to killing him. I want to just add something a little bit broader to Michael's point here, which is that I believe that Donald Trump's support for the situation, for the Constitution, is completely situational. He wants the Second Amendment for him and his people. He wants the First Amendment for him and his people. Doesn't want it for anybody who stands up to him. And so they blame Alex Prety. What's your evidence for that? What's my evidence? Listen, they talk about being a First Amendment absolutist, but he's got no problem using the power of the FCC to silence a comedian that he doesn't like. He's got no problem. When did he do that? Which comedian? Jimmy Kimmel. He got him taken off the air. He was off the air. Doesn't mean he didn't try. He was off the air. How long was he off the air? Hold on that. He was off the air. He was off the air. He was off the few days. It came to the point where guys like Ted Cruz had to come out and say what Donald Trump did was wrong. I adore Ted Cruz. He's a good friend of mine. But we had a disagreement. He's a disagreement. He's a good friend of mine. Okay. I mean, I mean, then your support for the Constitution is situational. No, I'm a First Amendment. I'm not a First Amendment. I'm not a First Amendment. I'm not a free speech. But no. Network television is licensed through the government. So the government has a makes it okay for them to shut down a comedian because they made a joke that Trump didn't like. Yeah, basically.

I see. I just also want to note that earlier Michael was talking about how we have to have gun regulations, but if I were to suggest we do something about school shootings, be like, oh my God, it's horrible. Like, come on. What would I say? What would I say in this hypothetical situation you've invented for yourself? Oh, hypothetical situation like school shootings that happen every single day in America? No, the hypothetical is the conversation that we had in your head about school shootings.

No, because earlier you were talking about how there has to be limits on gas. Yeah, there are limits to all rights. I know. Yeah, I understand that. So what was the hypothetical point? If I was to come out and say, hey, we got to do something about school shootings. I would agree. Okay, what should we do?

We should have more armed guards in schools and we should arrest more criminals. Can we also make it harder for people to get a firearm? We should also, I'll give you a good example. There have been a lot of people who suffer for mental illnesses, especially the transgender delusion who have shot up schools and churches, and they should be put into psychiatric care and not be getting firearms. He's talking about one person. I'm talking about more than one person.

And by the way, the NRA had to come out and rebuke conservatives like Michael here for saying that transgender individuals should be able to own firearms. Constitution protects them too. It's situational for guys like you. No, I just don't think that the NRA is the infallible authority. And that, not that, which I agree. Okay.

Yeah, trans. Someone said trans. Trains? No. Are you? He has to be trans. All right, all right, that's enough. Can we get that guy up here on my tab, please?

Seems like he needs it. Okay. That's success. Which questioner goes to the VIP table? Number one or number two? Who's going to the VIP? number two. Number two. Number two. Number two. You're going over to get some delicious redneck Riviera bourbon, some nice Mayflower cigars. And you know what I'm going to do? Before I drink anymore,

you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to look at my beautiful Zbiotics. That's right, folks. Go to zbiotics.com slash bar fight after a night with drinks. I'll tell you what, I don't bounce back the way that I used to. I'm an old man now and I have three little children. It's hard. I have to make a choice. I can either have a great night or a great next day. That is, until I found Zbiotics pre-alcohol. Zbiotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by Ph.D. scientists. I'm an honorary doctor, but these are like the real PhD ones. They tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. Now, it's a build-up of this

byproduct, not dehydration, that is to blame for rough days after drinking, which I had no idea about until I looked into it. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down so that you are actually addressing the root cause. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you will feel your best tomorrow. I love it and I would guzzle more of it right now but I have to finish my drink first. Ready to try it, go to zbiotics.com slash barfite. You get 15% off your first order when you use barfite at checkout. Plus it's backed by a 100% money-back guarantee. There is no risk. Subscriptions are also available for maximum consistency, remember, head to zbiotics.com slash barfite. Use code barfite at checkout for 15% off.

It's time for round two. A giant Polish man has just moved me sitting in my chair. It's time for round two. Mike, what are we talking about? Is that a fetish of yours? Not until now. I think you keep that to yourself. This is family-friendly crowd. Barely. All right, my claim here is Trump's failure to prosecute Epstein's associates reveals the rot in our federal government. Okay. What's your case? All right. So look, there is a cabal of very rich and powerful individuals,

and it extends beyond party politics and partisanship or anything like that. I'm sorry, what's there? The evil cabal is in Minnesota. Fair enough, there is an evil cabal there too, I agree. Evil cabal everywhere, apparently. But these guys of these rich and powerful men think they can do anything they want with impunity, and it includes potentially Bill Clinton, most likely, based on the files. It includes Donald Trump,

who's been credibly on the record from people who have signed done interviews with the FBI on the record under threat of perjury that Donald Trump threatened a 14-year-old girl and you've got and look there's ton of Democrats, ton of Republicans in there

and at the end of the day nobody's been prosecuted and even just for a second set aside the powerful celebrities that we've seen the powerful politicians that we've seen. How is it possible that a thousand young girls and a thousand young boys have been trafficked

and only one person's ever gone to prison it's Jelaine Maxwell and she runs herself a minimum security person. prison. And Epstein. And Epstein, who, you know, killed himself, which I don't buy it all. And I think that Trump is, is a huge part of it. Trump has mentioned more times in the Epstein files than Harry Potter is in the entire Harry Potter series. Okay? And so Donald Trump wants to look at the American people and say, I don't know Jeffrey Epstein. I had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein, except he met his wife

at an Epstein party. He partied with Jeffrey Epstein. He's all about being friends with Epstein. Well, no, he says that they cut ties. He knows him. He says he knows him. He never said he doesn't partied all over the 90s. There's a million photos. Yeah, I'm just saying the claim you just made isn't true. You said he says he doesn't know him. He says he doesn't know him all the time. Just the other day in the Oval Office, he was like, I don't know anything about Jeffrey Epstein.

We should move on. Like, it's ridiculous. Like, there is a group of wealthy and power for people who want to pit everybody in this room against us. They want us to hate each other so that they can get away with abusing little girls and little boys. And I'm sick of this shit. And I want to talk about it with you guys. Okay. So I think that you have just accidentally undercut your whole debate premise right off the top,

even without my help. Are you going to defend what happened in the Epstein files? I'm not. I'm going to talk about the thing that you brought up in your debate. So you said, Trump's failure to prosecute Epstein's associates reveals the Rottenor federal government. But they should add, by the way, Joe Biden's failure too, because they didn't prosecute this when Biden was in office. Sure. I'm just going to, I'm just going to point out, and that actually plays into it as well. I'm going to point out you've undercut your whole debate premise because you have admitted immediately that actually the two top people in the Epstein operation, namely Epstein and Delane Maxwell, have been prosecuted. And, and, and, you know, And weirdly enough, they were arrested and charged by Donald Trump, not by Barack Obama, not by Joe Biden.

It was by Trump. And so right off the bat, the premise is false. But then let's go down further because I think a lot of people want to see more prosecutions in the Epstein case. Or any prosecutions at this point. Sure, other than the top two, sure. Yeah, but they moved Julian Maxwell to a minimum security prison and promised her a pardon. I mean, she's serving a 20-year sentence, but I agree. She's going to get pardoned at the end of the end of the term.

Listen, show hands. How many people think Jolene Maxwell was going to get pardoned at the end of Trump's term? Like, come on. Nobody thinks so, of course. She's not going to be in prison at the moment. You can pull this up. The question then becomes, though, because, okay, we agree. The premise is wrong, but the thrust is fine.

We want more prosecutions. Okay, who would you prosecute and on what grounds? Yeah, so I would start here. One, I don't believe that the DOJ has taken this case seriously at all and just separate out the names for a second. How can they traffic 1,000 young girls and 1,000 young boys without other people who help them do that, who have them recruit, recruit those girls, move them around? I'm asking a direct question.

I don't have a specific name because... That's the problem. You say, we have to prosecute people. So you think it was a mom and pop sex trafficking operation in Florida? You're inventing a bunch of things I've never said. I'm asking you questions that you can answer but you're not answering. You made a claim. You said, Trump needs to prosecute the, or the DOJ.

And I said, okay, who do you want to? Well, isn't they're distinct, but yes, they work for the administration. That's how John Lemon got arrested on Friday. I'm sure it's because they're very separate. You're trying to avoid the question. You said Trump needs to prosecute more people. I said, great. Who do you want to prosecute?

and you said, heard her, I don't know. That's not at all what I said. Who should he prosecute? I said, how is it possible? You're avoiding the question. Okay, I don't have a specific name because I'm not in the actual. Let him prosecute Bill Clinton. Yeah, start there.

Prosecuttee Bill Clinton. Okay, on what grounds? I don't like Bill Clinton, sure. Whatever the FBI has in those files is clearly. Have you looked at the files? Have any of you? I have looked at the files. Okay.

What's good enough to bring him into testify before Congress? But on what grounds are you going to prosecute Bill Clinton? On what he tells Congress when he comes in to testify in public hearing? You're going to prosecute him for something he hasn't done yet. Yeah. Okay. Who would you prosecute? Look, again, I want to find the co-conspirators who trafficked these kids. Okay. So if you're asking me for their names, and by the way, I am asking you for their names, and you won't give them. I don't know the names of most of the perpetrators because the DOJ blocked them out. Right. They had no problem releasing the private information of the victims of Epstein's crimes, but they had a huge problem releasing the names of people who preyed on little girls and little boys. That's not true. That is true. I could give you plenty of names. Adriana Ross, Nadia Marsenko, Sarah Kellan. These are the closest associates around Jeffrey Epstein, who we, We have firm facts, because I actually have gone through a lot of the files, we know that they were trafficking the girls.

Sure. Those are the ones you'd want to prosecute. All women, by the way, weirdly enough. You know, why we can't prosecute them? Because they're protected by a 2008 non-prosecution agreement long before Trump entered the scene. Which was by a Republican that Donald Trump put in his cabinet. Who else do you want to prosecute? Who else do you want to prosecute Les Wexner? On what? Sure, maybe on what grounds? Do you want to prosecute Alan Dershowitz? On what? A claim that was made and then retracted by the claimant? You want to prosecute Bill Clinton on what? You say he, he, He went after a 14, 13 year old girl. That case was already brought to court multiple times.

A California judge dismissed it, and then the claimant dropped it twice. So who are you going to prosecute? You can't give me anyone. You're saying, Trump's a bad guy for not prosecuting anyone. I say, great, who do you want to prosecute? You said, I have no idea. What I am trying to say is that there is a powerful group of people in this country who think they can get away with anything.

And right now they're getting away with abusing little boys and little girls, and they're getting away with it because multiple presidential administrations, Democrat and Republicans, sir, have refused to take these allegations seriously and investigate it. And right now, if you go look at the documents that they dropped on Friday, the names of the, of the perpetrators of the crimes are blacked out. That's not true. It is true. I just named a, I named a bunch of the associates.

I just named. No, I'm talking about the people who were abusing little girls. Yeah, me too. No, you're talking about the people who trafficked. You had their names. I'll give you credit for that. I'll go further than that. But they're still blocking out.

They are blocking out the names and they've never seriously investigated the claims that have made. And again, it's not just Donald Trump's fault. In the files, you can see the investigations. You just cited it because you were talking about the claims made by the women to the FBI. So you yourself admit they've been investigated. So you don't believe the claims is what you're saying. Well, in some cases, the claims not only were deemed not credible by the FBI across multiple administrations, but in some cases, the claims were retracted by the accusers themselves, as in the case of Alan Dersuette.

But again, we know that this is a real thing because Julian Maxwell. Do we? You're not giving me any names. What was Jolaine Maxwell found guilty of? She was of conspiracy to traffic minors. Yes. Yes, she's also a registered sex offender, so why is she in a minimum security prison after Todd Blanche put her in that part of the problem that we don't know? Yeah. We do not have a lot of these redacted names, and so we don't know, and that's part of the big problem here.

Maybe. We have a lot of the names without redactions, and you guys haven't given me an argument as to why we would go after them, and you haven't named anyone else to go after. It isn't about me wanting to go after them. It's that the DOJ has never taken this seriously. Okay, question? Michael, I tend to agree with Mike, too, this time that the whole situation is Fubar. You say Fubar? Yes. I love that word.

I agree with that. My favorite word. Before I get into the question for you, well, actually, both questions are for Michael. I just want to start with Michael, where's a good place locally here to go get a Mayflower and sit down and enjoy it? I have like five good answers for you. And I will tell you after this show. Fantastic.

But I don't want to blow up my spots on air. Absolutely. You too, you're not getting it. If you want to know the good spots in Nashville, you've got to show up to bar fight at John Riches's right in every era. He said you want a little bit of ad money, I think. Now, with regard to the upscene issue, yes, sir.

And your position, Michael Knowles, that we know all we're going to know, I'd like to know how you suggest we react when, as Mike 2 said, the situation, is so fubar not not you know not not accomplishing anything other than distractions

what what do we do with this situation what do you recommend or prescribe yes okay and to articulate my view which you alluded to my point which I've said from the beginning I've been vindicated every step of the way is just like Donald Trump total vindication I have been totally vindicated on this

there are two possibilities with Epstein either Epstein is what the mainstream narrative tells us just like a you know a kind of eccentric rich guy who was a sex freak and had no connections to intelligence or no associates or just forget about it, move along, move along. Either that's true or Epstein was something else. He was a little bit more than that. In either case, we are not going to get any more information. If it were the first mainstream narrative, which I don't believe, then we obviously already know everything we're going to know. If it's the second narrative, which is that this guy was mobbed up with like everybody with

intelligence services all over the place. People cite the CIA, the United States, or Israel, or Russia has come out in this tranche of documents, or the Arabs, or MI6, or the list goes on and on and on. It seems like this guy was mobbed up with everybody. And so we're probably not going to get much more information on it. In terms of the radical transparency, we have millions and millions of documents that were released by Donald Trump, when you look at any of the potential prosecutions, no one has been able to bring one because there is not sufficient evidence. And in the cases where there are, and those four people that I mentioned, they're already protected by a non-prosecution agreement. So I'm not telling you this to say it's like a great thing and how wonderful it is

that all but two people got off the hook in the Epstein scandal. But I'm mentioning that because that's reality. And sometimes people don't want to hear the truth, but it's a fact. And when people go on and tell you that Trump didn't prosecute Epstein's Associates, one that's a lie. And when they tell you that this is Trump's fault or something like that, it's totally ridiculous. If there were something for the White House to do, I promise you they would do it. This is politically radioactive for them. The problem is there was nothing to be done. And the idea that there would be after well over a decade of this, what is it, 15 years of this, some smoking gun document that has survived all of the intelligence agencies up until now that's finally going to blow the lid on it.

If you believe that, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. So I'd like to rebut that, if that's all right, because let's talk about how we got here. Like you say, Donald Trump released these files as if there hasn't been like a year of a cover-up in place by Pan Bondi and the DOJ at, I believe, Donald Trump's orders. Well, cover up. Trump's the one who arrested Epstein and Maxwell. Let's remember, that was in the first term. We're talking about the same.

They violated the law with how long it took for them to release the last Trump files. Well, let's, let's, let's, hold on the door. So Michael's been consistent on his show about his position, but what, my question for you, Michael, you know, a little deeper was, how do either we as normies, as a public, respond to the situation at this point, or how should the administration change anything, handle anything differently? Because the whole thing is just a botched job from end to end.

I agree with you. And I want to talk about why it's a botched job, because nobody should forget that right after the 4th of July on a Sunday night, the DOJ announced they were done with the Epstein investigation. After throughout the entire Trump campaign, they were promised to release every document to prosecute every single person that they could, they said there was nothing, that there was no files. And it took... No, they said no client list. No, they said there was no... nothing. There's no list. There's no, nothing. We're done. We've reviewed everything. We've got nothing for you. And after, by the way, embarrassing the shit out of lives of TikTok and other influencers by making them wave binders, and I thought that was super damn embarrassing. I wasn't at

that meeting. Can we agree that that was an embarrassing? Yeah, can we agree that was embarrassing? I'm glad I didn't get a binder. Yeah. That's good enough. You have better sense that lives of TikTok. But look, it should know what you was getting into. It took Democrats and Republicans coming together with a discharge petition to get that bill to move forward and to create the political conditions for Donald Trump to be so scared of the public's reaction that he was forced to sign it. And I want to remind people that according to Thomas Massey was a Republican, conservative member of Congress, he was threatened by the FBI to have his staff brought up on fraud charges if they didn't stop pushing the Epstein files. So this administration is pushing hard to make sure

you never see it. And my reaction to the gentleman, he's no longer there who asked his question is, your reaction should be anger. You should be pissed off that the federal government is lying to you like this. That's it. And what should they do about it? Well, you can't vote about The same thing Trump did, I guess. You should keep, you should keep, you should keep, Trump hasn't done anything. Come on. Other than arrest Epstein, arrest Maxwell, unlike any Democrats, and then release three and a half million files.

Other than that, he's done nothing. I know you got to protect your daddy, but this is embarrassing. Like, come on. I have to state facts truthfully in, in circumstance. Next question. Hi, Michael. This question is for you. Um, so Trump has said that he thinks it's time to move on from the Epstein files.

Um, do you agree with him? And, um, what should we do about it? it. Well, it's time to move on from the Epstein files in the sense that he released the files. I mean, the remaining files, there are like many legal reasons why they can't be released, some of which is that a lot of it's a child. But he's released three and a half million of them. We know a lot, you know, and there are redactions for all sorts of reasons. But I agree it's time to move on from the files because the files part has been accomplished. What I want to know with Epstein is a consistent question, which is, I don't need to know all the lurid details. I would like for there to be

justice for the victims. if there can be. I want to separate the credible claims from the false claims, some of which have been proven. But what I want to know is, who was Epstein working for and for what purpose? And even that is not a simple answer. Some people want to say, he was, you know, like a super spy for Mossad or for the CIA or for now the story is the Polish prime minister saying he was a super spy for Russia and for this group and that group. And the reality is there's evidence to back up like all of that. And it's very unclear what his actual mission was. Furthermore, the claim that he was a spy makes people think that he was James Bond, you know, training at Langley or something, you know, on a mission to

but I don't think that's really what he did. I think he was a dodgy influence peddler who collected connections and grease the wheels of government and business and politics around the world. And so I want to know what that is. I want to know the machinery of the corruption more than I want to know the lurid details. That needs to be pursued. That we need to continue to follow. However, I'm open to suggestions on how to do it because he obviously ran a very sophisticated operation and no one's been able to come up with answers yet. Can I jump in here with two points? The first is they have not released all the Epstein files. That is something they continue to lie about.

Should they release all the child? I, if it's actual child. Not necessarily to the public. Not to the public. Maybe the members of Congress, but like, look, I don't buy their claim that there's just a bunch of child there. You don't think there's child. I'm sure that there is. But I think the idea that the remaining files is child is all child.

Given the number of times that they've lied, we should take nothing that this administration says at face value. The second thing is, oh, on that first point, they still haven't released the names of everyone who's been accused of violence against little boys and little girls in the Abstein files. They are concealing those names and the question is why. Now, number two. Again, I want to, wait, wait, wait, wait, I let you talk. Can you let me finish, please? Thank you. And you can tell me why I'm wrong in a second, all right?

But, like, the second point I want to make is you brought up multiple times, like, is he a massage agent? What's this he's a super spy? Like, what is he? And that's a very clever thing that MAGA-oriented. influencers are doing right now because they want you focused on that so that you can be like, ooh, was he working for Putin? Oh, was he working for Benjamin Netanyahu? Instead of going, how is it possible that nobody is being prosecuted for these crimes? How is it possible that they're concealing these names and this information? I just explain that to you. Look over here. Don't look over

here. Like, come on. I just explained it to you because you can't name the crimes or the people to prosecute. I can't because I don't have all the information. There you go. Okay. They're concealing the names. They're concealing the names. How am I supposed to tell you the names of the things that are concealed? Is it possible that the names that are concealed are, it could be concealed because there's an act of investigation against those names and that creating or leaking those names out to the public could create a public just outcry against those people that would jeopardize the trial. Yes, that is true.

I would be very surprised. Another reason that it would be irresponsible to release just any name willy-nilly that's had an accusation is because it would undermine the bedrock principle of our system of justice, which is that people are innocent until proven guilty. We already know for Alex Prattie, though, he deserved to die. Well, that's pretty... That's what you said earlier. Again, that's a little...

You said it was a good shoot. Yeah, it was a good shoot. Yes, people who are actively obstructing law enforcement with guns and double mags are putting themselves in danger and unlike things are not alike. I agree with that. But to your point on why they might conceal some of the names, yeah, you can't just air totally unfounded accusations, especially accusations that have been investigated and been found, including by judges in some cases, to not be credible.

That would be reckless and would undermine the bedrock principle of American justice. Okay, any other questions? Over there, do we have any questions? Hello? Yes. I have a question for the man in green. It's a very simple question. I want to know why you expect to be taken seriously in a political debate when you showed up to the debate in a hoodie.

Wow. Wow. You want to talk about shots fired. Justifiable shots fired. Wow, that's a lot. I'm at a bar. It's called bar fight. What does that have to do with your?

By the way, they asked me a week ago what beer I wanted, I said Guinness, and then suddenly at the last minute, the Guinness tap broke. I know, it is. It's a ratified. It's out of the beginning. So. It was rigged. It was rigged. It was a rigged beer raid.

Like, look, I don't, like, the President of the United States wears a long red tie and wears a suit, two sizes too big. Like, who cares what people wear? Like, focus on the content. Like, Michael's got a nice suit on. Michael's got, I don't know, a bomber jacket on with a nice gold watch. Like, whatever. You either like me or you don't. I don't give a shit.

He doesn't care. Yeah. He's had a few. non-Ginnis beers in him. He doesn't care. Hey, bartender, three shots at tequila, one for each of us. Let's go. I got to do another show later. Hold on. I got to do who do we think won the

VIP. Who do we think what? One. It was one. It was one. That's consensus. Number one, one. You're my man. You are getting Redneck Riviera whiskey. And now, folks, it is time for the most important part of the night. This is round three. Round three is

my topic. And my claim is that Mom Donnie's warmth of collectivism just killed 16 bums in New York. Oh, hey, you probably want to watch this debate how Mamdani just froze 16 New Yorkers to death, don't you? That's probably what you thought you were going to get. But you're not unless you subscribe to Daily Wire Plus. Sorry, sorry, buddy. It's expensive to pay for all my drinks at Barfights.

So I need to separate you from your money so that we can continue to put on these great debate. great debate. You want to see, I know you want to see what happened. It's me and the mics. Just three mics up there debating Mom Donnie. Peace be upon him. Download the app. DailyWare Plus on your phone, on your iPad, on your television, on your piano, download the app, subscribe, give me your money, please. Thank you. I appreciate that. And then you get to see the rest of the show. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Any more questions? No, we have to find out who's the VIP from that round? Two. It was two. It was two. It was our lady friend, right? Yeah, okay, great. I love that.

I love that. Okay, please enjoy some Redneck Riviera. Well, we get to the most important part. In my humble opinion, nobody wins a bar fight. There are only losers. So the question is, who lost the hardest tonight? Who is buying the next round? Who is? Who is buying the next round? Who is refilling the Guinness keg. Who lost? Was it that mic? Yeah, he's going to be back for that. Was it that mic? Oh, that was more tough. Wow. Wow. Was it this mic?

Woo! Hey, wait, hey, wait, hold on. Get out of here. No. Boy, your staff turned out of you hard. Was that me? That might be me that lost. Did I? How did I win every round but lose the game? That's awful. Did I, hold, was it? The same way Trump lost in 2020, Michael. This is what it's always in that recount Was it that mic? Oh shit I don't think it was you

You had the quietest one So was it this Mike Yeah This is shocking If we did it again It might be you Okay, alright I'll take it You can try it

Mike won and Mike and Mike and Mike No Mike and Mike and Mike lost Yes Anyway See you next time See you next time Cheers Cheers

Cheers Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile, with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.

Up front payment of $45 for three-month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at MinnMobile. intemobile.com.