The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 2040 - Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial Debate EXPLAINED in 5 Mins

Episode Date: August 18, 2026

Women around the country defend a mom who murdered her three children, a Democrat presidential hopeful accuses a random staffer of sleeping with Trump, and Roger Stone joins to Nixon-maxx. Ep. 2040 - - - Today's Sponsors: Cardiff - America’s favorite small business lender, provides the liquidity to move at the speed of business with same-day funding up to $500,000. Apply in under 3 minutes with zero credit impact.  Apply now at https://cardiff.co/knowles Policygenius - Head to https://policygenius.com/KNOWLES to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save PureTalk - At just $15 a month for your first three months on ANY plan… now’s a great time to choose PureTalk. Simply go to https://PureTalk.com/KNOWLES to claim this offer. - - - DailyWire+ Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dailywire.com/subscribe 🎆 🇺🇸 Our America 250 SALE is back! Get 3-Months of DailyWire+ for just $17.76 📜 Becoming a Daily Wire member allows you to see all of our content ad-free. 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 🍿 Run Hide Fight: Infidels will premiere on The Daily Wire, Wednesday September 16th. 📘 My book "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/Speechless 📗 My book "Reasons to Vote for Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/ReasonsToVoteForDemocrats 🕯️ Get your Michael Knowles candles: https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles 👕 Don’t dress like a squish. Shop my merch here: https://dwplus.shop/MichaelKnowlesMerch - - - Socials: YouTube — https://youtube.com/@MichaelKnowles Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/michaelknowlesshow Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/michaeljknowles TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@notmichaelknowles X — https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The midterm elections are heating up, congressional control, and President Trump's agenda hangs in the balance. Every headline has the potential to shift the odds. And in a key Senate race, James Telerico is currently trading at 52% to beat Ken Paxton. That means $100 trade pays out over $180 with a win. Use code Daily, D-A-I-L-Y to get up to $20 when you trade $20. Calshi, K-A-L-S-H-I-C-C-T-E-T-T-E-T-E-L-S-H-I-C-T-E-T-E-L-SH-I-T-E-L-C-T-E-L-E-L-SH-E-T-E-L-E-RRATION. Event-C-T-RATRES-T-E-L-E-RORSY. CalSHC-PORDS are not available in all jurisdictions.

Prices-S-H-S-E-R-E-RECTIONs-E. For more information, see calci-S-S-R-E-RORORI-RORES-E. Insurance operations today are fragmented, and policyholders expect more. That's why leading insurers run on Adion. From premium collection to claims payout, Adion supports the entire insurance value chain, giving insurers full control over how money moves, a single platform to reduce fragmentation, complexity, and risk.

Drive revenue, control claims cost, and power your next move with Adian. Learn more at adion.com. This episode is brought to you by Cardiff, America's favorite small business lender, with over 12 billion funded since 2004, applying under three minutes for same-day funding up to 500,000 at Cardiff.co slash Knowles. Women around the country are defending Lindsay Clancy, the mother of three, who allegedly murdered all of her children, before trying unsuccessfully to kill herself. Now, a crucial fact of this case is that basically no one disputes Clancy's having committed. the crime. She'll have her day in court. She'll get a formal conviction. But the women defending Clancy are kind of like the Luigi Mangione supporters in that they don't support her because they think she's innocent. They support her specifically because they think she did it

and is excused in doing it. And those Clancy defenders have now raised almost a million dollars for the alleged murder. We will examine why so many women are so crazy. They, Then, Democrat senator and presidential hopeful John Ossoff baselessly accuses a random female staffer of sleeping with President Trump because she is pretty and works in the White House. Not the strongest start to a presidential campaign for Mr. Ossoff and the Democratic Socialists of America admit explicitly that they want to destroy the U.S. Constitution. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to the show. Feel Good story of the year. You remember that lifeguard, that 16-year-old kid who saved the 10-year-old boy from the waves in Santa Cruz, heroically goes, swims out there, works his way back for minutes to try to overcome. It was just amazing, save the kid's life.

Well, President Trump just welcomed him to the Oval Office to give him a commendation. We will get to that great story. First, though, let's get to Lindsay Clancy. Lindsay Clancy, we know the details of this case. She's this woman. who allegedly murdered all of her kids. She strangled all of her kids. The eldest, I think, was five, and the youngest was eight months old. She then jumped out a window to try to kill herself, and she failed. She paralyzed herself from the waist down, but she's still alive.

She's standing trial. And a bunch of women are defending her. So Lindsay Clancy's defense is not that she was framed. Her defense is not that it was actually her husband set her up or something. There's some real wacko women who are arguing. that. There's one actress who argued that she can't have committed the crime because women don't strangle. They've clearly never met an angry Italian woman. They've never, because women do that. They definitely do that. But that's not the argument that Lindsay Clancy's attorneys are making.

The argument that they're making is, yeah, okay, she might have like committed the act, but she was insane. She was depressed. She had postpartum depression. She was on all sorts of psych drugs. And therefore, she can't be held culpable for the crimes. And she's getting a lot of support from a lot of crazy women all around the country. Here is a licensed therapist. In her social media, this woman says she's a licensed therapist, liberal voice on politics, culture, society, anti-racist, fascist, pro-LGBQ, here is her defense of Lindsay Clancy. The Lindsay Clancy trial is going to be one of the most significant trials of your lifetime.

We are all experiencing something completely unprecedented. Never before have we seen so many mothers and women rally behind somebody who confessed to killing her three children. And it is not because we cannot hold women accountable. Many of us see ourselves in Lindsay. Many of us know that we could have been only one. one step away from doing some of those horrific things because we experienced significant mental health issues after one of our children was born. And many of us know just how dark some of those thoughts get.

So yeah, that's the SSRI. This is going to be one of the most significant trials of your lifetime. Yeah, yeah, she killed all of her kids. but you know what, I see myself in Lindsay Clancy and a lot of women, we see ourselves in Lindsay Clancy. Apparently that's true because they set up a go-fund me for Lindsay Clancy. Now, it's not technically for her. I think it's technically for her family or something, but that's just a legal loophole to get around the fact that murderers are not permitted legally to profit off of their murders. So it's a loophole to try to get some money to her.

They've raised almost a million dollars. At last count it was $839,000 and counting. Let's take the therapist at her word. Let's ignore the people who were saying, no, it's all a mistake. Actually, the defense attorney's in on it and she didn't actually do it. Women don't strangle. But let's just take the greater number of women who were saying, no, no, she did it, but you know what?

I want to murder my kids too. She did it, but you know what? Postpartum depression is really bad. How do we make sense of that? First of all, the postpartum depression defense. My friend Matt Walsh got into a little bit of a hornet's nest yesterday because he said postpartum depression. is totally fake. And he said it's not, postpartner depression is not real. It's just that mothers are

really tired because they have to wake up like five times a night to feed the kid and they're really stressed and it's really hard. And I'm sure there is like an actual medical basis for postpartner depression. But yes, a lot of the difficulty when a baby is born, a lot of the difficulty the mother faces is that you just, you're not sleeping. Your hormones are a little bit out of control, but also there's a ton of stress. You have to take care of this kid. If you have other kids, it makes it even more difficult. So yeah, it's a lot of like lifestyle factors. It's a lot of the changes to your life that are doing. It's a lot of sleep deprivation. All of that is true. But the other problem with the postpartum depression defense here is that the youngest victim of Lindsay Clancy was eight months old.

So postpartum depression, that would usually go away within six months. Some very rare cases maybe further. But it would, yeah, that's not the sort of thing that you still have eight months into having a kid. So her better insanity defense is, well, I was on all of these psych drugs. I was on all of these psych drugs and therefore I'm not responsible for killing my kids. And actually, I think a lot of women, you know, I think they're with me, right? You know, let's go. Girl power. You go, girl. Sometimes we want to murder our kids. Sometimes we do it, right? And all these women rallying behind her. In other words, she is not responsible because she's on these drugs. Now, of course, one in four American women is on psych drugs. This is one of the great epidemics, one of the strangest social

facts of our time. One in five women are on psych drugs. There are men on psych drugs, too, but the number is way, way, way lower. So if the argument is that if a woman is on psych drugs, she therefore can't be held accountable for any of her actions up to an including murdering her own kids, well, okay, all of a sudden now we've got a quarter of American women who can literally get away with murder. This does remind me of the clip. Do you remember as good as it gets, one of the great Jack Nicholson movies? So year 2000 or maybe the late 90s, Nicholson plays a writer and he's got all these female fans and they ask him, how do you write women so well? How do you write women so well?

I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability. One of the all-time great movie lines, that is Lindsay Clancy's defense. Lindsay Clancy's defense and the defense being offered by all these women who are supporting her is literally, well, a woman is like a man without reason or accountability. So a lot of people are shocked by it. Obviously, the crime itself is shocking. But then the reaction is scandalizing people even more. How could all of these women defend Lindsay Clancy murdering her kids?

And I would just like to remind people, because I think this is missing from the Lindsay Clancy discourse. You know half of American women overtly defend infanticide, right? You know that, you remember that? You remember that half of women in this country, many of whom are not on psych drugs, many of whom do not have postpartum depression. Half of women in this country go to the ballot box, go on television, go to political rallies holding signs, specifically to defend murdering their own children. You remember that? We call it abortion now that we use euphemisms like women's rights.

The fact that women's rights is now a euphemism that refers exclusively to killing your own kids should mean that we are not surprised by this. It reminds me what Mother Teresa said at the United Nations. I think it was 1994 where she said the greatest threat to peace in the world is abortion. Because if a mother can kill her own kids, there's nothing that anyone can't do. So none of this should be surprising at all. It wouldn't be surprising to Jack Nicholson's character in as good as it gets. And it's certainly not surprising to any of us who've paid attention to the role of abortion politics in our country. So long as you have legal abortion, so long as abortion remains a top political issue,

she for liberal women. Why should we be surprised by Lindsay Clancy? Lindsay Clancy did the same thing. She did the same thing except it's more evocative, it's more graphic, it's harder to deny what Lindsay Clancy did. But it is the same thing. It's just killing your kids. So when these crazy liberal women come out there, the ones who say, I'm pro-Liberal, I'm pro-LGB, I'm anti-racist, I'm all the left-wing slogans. When they come out there and say, you know, I sympathize with Lindsay Clancy, I see myself in her, yeah, they're being honest. They're being much more honest than most other people in the debate. Okay. Speaking of having babies, we will move on from the Lindsay Clancy case, which some are calling the Carmelo Anthony

case for women. You know, one of those cases where it's like so obvious the person is guilty, but based purely on identity politics, you have all these people rallying to the cause of the obvious criminal. Now we will turn to a really crazy story down in Texas. A surrogate mother was commissioned, was hired to gestate a child for a couple in, I think it was California. And then the baby had a defect. You know, the baby wasn't going to come out perfectly according to a genetic test. And so the parents, the biological parents, told the surrogate that they hired to murder the baby, and the surrogate said no.

Now where it stands is in a little bit of limbo. First, though, I want to tell you about policy genius. Go to policygenius.com slash knolls. A curious thing happens when you become a husband and a father. You're really tired all the time. Well, that's one thing. The other thing that happens is you discover that everything costs money. Groceries, bills, braces, cars, and a dozen other expenses your kids have not yet invented.

Providing for a family means accepting responsibility for all of it. And those responsibilities do not just disappear if something happens to you. That is why life insurance matters. You keep a spare tire in the car and smoke detectors in the house, not because you are expecting a disaster, but because sensible adults prepare for things they hope never happen. If your family depends on your income, protecting them financially is simply part of the job. PolicyGenius makes that process straightforward.

Their online marketplace to let you compare life insurance quotes from top insurers, while licensed experts help you understand your options, handle a paperwork, and find coverage that fits your family. Because you cannot anticipate every expense, you can make sure that your family is prepared for the biggest ones. Go see why thousands of customers have given PolicyGenius five-star reviews. With Policy Genius, you can find 20-year life insurance policy starting just $276 a year for a million dollars in coverage.

coverage. Go to policygeenious.com slash Knowles, K&WLAS. Compare life insurance quotes from top companies, see how much you could save. PolicyGenius.com slash Knowles. McKenna West is this surrogate mothers. This is a woman who rented out her womb to commercial surrogacy. This couple wanted to rent a womb. So they hire her and they, you know, the father goes into some medical office and, you know, commits a gravely immoral act. And then they harvest the biological mother's eggs and then some which doctor scientists mix them together in a petri dish, and then they implant the baby into this woman who is hired for the transaction. And then they're doing medical tests. They say, okay, the baby's got a little bit of a heart condition. So then the parents who contracted this

woman's womb, the parents say, okay, well, let's just kill our baby then. We'll try again, but kill this baby. And the surrogate, to her great credit, said, I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to kill the baby just because he's not going to come out perfect in your imagination. And there was this big battle over it. Well, finally, the surrogate won and the surrogate was able to have the baby. The parents in this case are these two people, Omar Ahmed and Nashin Gilcar. Very often commercial surrogacy is used for homosexuals who want to create children to intentionally deprive them of her mother or a father, which has an additional unethical component to it, an additional kind of, grotesquery. But in this case, it was a man and a woman, and they hired this surrogate. And so they said,

okay, you're going to have the baby. We can't get you to kill the baby. Okay, fine. Now give us the baby. The reason the baby was born, in large part, was because Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, who is now running for Senate against James Tala Rico. He intervened. He filed a motion asking a Texas state court to order the doctors to help the child, not to kill the child, and then also to perform the surgery that would help the child to live later on. Now there's a fight over who gets the child because the surrogate mother wants to keep the child. And the biological parents who contracted the mother's, the surrogate's womb and who tried to kill the baby, they want the baby back. So the surrogate is saying, look, I'm not going to give you this baby back.

You tried to kill the baby. And I bet you're not going to give the baby the kind of care that he needs. So I'm going to keep the baby so that you don't kill it. And the attorney for the biological parents said, that's outrageous. this is our baby, you know, this baby belongs to us. And it's absurd to say that the parents would neglect the health of the child. According to the parents' attorney, they say that Ken Paxton turned this tragedy. What tragedy? It's a comedy. It's a happy story. The tragedy would have been if the parents succeeded at getting the surrogate to kill the kid. The comedy is the surrogate was able to

prevail and save the kid's life. But they're accusing Paxton of political theater. And they say the parents always place the health of their baby first. That's the argument from the attorney. These biological parents have always placed the health of their baby first. They literally tried to kill him. They tried to enforce a contract and bring the weight of the legal system down to force the surrogate mother to kill the kid. But they've always placed the health of the baby first. That is the most absurd statement maybe that has ever been uttered in a courtroom.

The attorney then goes on saying that the surrogates claims for custody are baseless. They're in violation of multiple court orders out of multiple states. So what are we supposed to do here? Obviously, these parents are horrifying people who tried to murder their kids. You don't want the baby to go back to the biological parents. But those are his parents. And a lot of people are very confused about abortion. A lot of people don't think deeply about abortion. A lot of people don't think deeply about abortion. abortion. A lot of people don't want to think deeply about abortion. So there are plenty of people who say that they support abortion who are good parents. There are plenty of people who might consider aborting a baby who could end up being relatively good parents, I guess. It's possible in this bizarre, confusing and fallen world, but I sure wouldn't give that baby back to those parents. then on the other hand though the baby the baby is the child of those parents the baby's DNA is the DNA of those parents the baby was created by the intent of those parents so the the surrogate doesn't really have a certainly doesn't have a legal right to the baby and even the moral right that the surrogate would have

that's a little bit unclear there's not not a ton of i mean the surrogate is the only mother that this baby has yet known but it's not it's not a morally satisfying answer just to say okay well now the baby stays with the surrogate because the parents tried to kill the baby, even though it was in the contract that the surrogate signed that the parents could try to kill the baby if the parents wanted to. The surrogate has done something wrong here too. The surrogate, by engaging in commercial surrogacy, by commoditizing human life, has done something wrong here too. By participating in a situation where this baby, even if things had gone perfectly, this baby was only ever going to know for his entire nine months this surrogate mother. And then you're just going to rip that baby away from the only mother he's

ever known. That's an evil thing to do too. Every part of this is morally fraught, which is why, as this issue comes more and more into light, as more and poor people do it, as there are more and more public subsidies for it, as the technology gets better and better, we are beginning to grapple finally, seriously with the fact that it's just wrong. The problem with IVF and surrogacy, I know many people listening right now have done IVF and surrogacy. And a lot of them have done it because they haven't thought thoroughly over the implications. A lot of them have done it because they thought, all the really negative side effects aren't going to happen. I get it. I know. And a lot of people feel very deeply about this issue because you say, well, I only got my kid because of surrogacy. I only got my

nephew because of surrogacy. I only got my grandkid. And so they feel that any means of creating human life is therefore morally justified. But no one actually believes that. The classic example would be rape. A kid who's born as a result of rape is is a good in himself. It is good that the kid is alive. We love the kid. The kid is every bit as human as every other person. But we wouldn't therefore say it justifies rape. You can't say that any means of producing a child is therefore morally illicit. We all know that. We would all agree with that. The only reason people might pretend not to agree with that is because they feel so emotional about this issue. But consider the circumstances here. Everyone is suffering as a result

of this. The parents in California are suffering. The surrogate in Texas is suffering. The baby is certainly suffering. And the baby would have seriously suffered had the baby been murdered by his parents, had the surrogate acquiesced to it. This is yet another reminder that there is just something intrinsically wrong with commoditizing human life, with establishing the domination of science and technology over the origin and destiny of human life. There's just something wrong about that in itself. And so we need to tackle that issue head on. You say, oh, yeah, one of the problems with IVF is, you know, they freeze a lot of babies and kill a lot of babies and it massively increases the number of abortions. Yeah, that's true. One of the issues is sometimes the doctors mix up

the test tubes. Yeah, that's bad. One of the issues is sometimes the doctors mix up the sperm and the eggs. They create babies as a result of parents who have never even met each other. That's really, really bad. Yeah, yeah. But, you know, these things only happen sometimes. No, no, the issue is intrinsic to the whole industry. But people don't. People don't. really want to grapple with that. It's not, it's, this is one of these issues. It's not even that people are making serious ethical arguments for commoditizing human life. They just really like the results and they don't want to deal with it that much. So they put their heads in the sand. Okay. Speaking of sexual impropriety, John Ossoff, John Ossoff, who is senator from Georgia.

He is one of the names being floated for the 2028 Democrat presidential nomination. John Ossov, he wants to frame himself as the new Obama. So you say, okay, AOC is way too crazy. Democrats, they might flirt with nominating her, but they don't really want to nominate her. Josh Shapiro, he's much more reasonable, but he's Jewish and the Democrats hate Jews, so they're not going to nominate him. Gavin Newsom, he's Patrick Bateman. You know, he's just too slick. He's too slippery.

He's probably half reptile. And they're not going to nominate him. So who do you have left? You have this guy, John Ossov, John Ossov, who's kind of a nice, clean cut. relatively well-spoken, normal-looking white guy, but he's still a lib. He's their guy, right?

So John Osov is kicking off his proto-presidential campaign. You can tell all of the camera angles, they're shooting him up, looking up at him in these very Obama-esque kinds of images. And Osov kicks off his campaign by accusing a random White House staffer

of sleeping with her boss because she's a pretty lady who has the temerity to work in politics. politics. And while the sailors on the Lincoln fight his war, while he fruitlessly drains our munitions and oil reserves, the president sleeps through his meetings. He golfs and trades stocks. See, he doesn't want to do the job.

He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the Emir of Qatar. Who wants to travel with Natalie? Did you catch that? You know what that refers to? That refers to the president's assistant, Natalie Harp. Natalie Harp, who is, I think she's a 35-year-old woman, very nice-looking lady. She's a stage two bone cancer survivor. She's a political aide whose job it is to travel with the president. She's his executive assistant. And she has publicly credited President Trump with saving her life because of the right to try act. So she has this real sort of emotional connection to the Trump political project. And what does John Assoff say about this?

Just singles out a random White House staff. Do you know how many people work for the president? Do you know how many White House staffers there are? He singles this lady out because she's relatively young and quite good looking and she's very nice and she's well spoken and singles her out. And he says, yeah, President Trump, President Trump, he loves traveling with that Natalie, huh? Yeah, that Natalie, huh? You know, I walk around in office and I walk around in office and I I see a woman at work, and I just got to assume she's sleeping with the boss. Am I right? Am I right, fellas?

These women, huh? These women, you know, these hussies. These lay, am I right? Girls, huh, women, huh? He calls a random staffer, a whore, because she works in politics. That's your new Obama. That's your new moderate, well-spoken, serious. He's not one of these, you know, bomb thrower provocateurs like Donald Trump.

No, no, no. He's the really serious one. He calls a random White House staffer a whore because she has the temerity to work for the president of the United States. No evidence whatsoever of any impropriety whatsoever. That's what he does. That's the nice Democrat. That's the moderate Democrat. That's the adult in the room.

Shows you the rot of that party. We will get, this was so egregious that even Jen Saki, the former Democrat White House press, secretary had to grill him on the comment on her show on MSNBC. First, though, I want to tell about Pure Talk.com.com slash Knowles, K&WLAS. We have reached a strange point in American life. Companies have convinced us that basic competence is now a premium feature. You want someone to answer the phone, luxury. You want decent customer service, luxury. No, that is just what companies are supposed to do. That's not, you shouldn't, it shouldn't be above and beyond, okay? And that is one of the many reasons that Pure Talk stands out. In a recent industry survey, they were the only wireless

company to earn five stars across coverage, support, value, and data. You know how you earn five stars for support? You hire a dedicated U.S.-based customer service team. You know how you earn five stars for value? Families save on average over $1,000 a year compared to big wireless. Right now, you can switch to any Peartalk plan, even unlimited, for just 15 bucks a month for your first three months. No contract, just a better option. I've had my Peartalk service for six years now. It's the best. The best service, the best customer service, it's easy. They don't lock you in for the rest of your life, the prices cannot be beat, go to puretalk.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S. That is, puretalk.com slash K-N-O-W-L-E-S. This was so ill-considered. It was so egregious by John Ossov that even

Jen Saki had to grill him on it on her TV show. Why did you decide to invoke Natalie Harp specifically in that speech? Well, Jen, thank you for having me. And here's the point. We're in wartime. The commander-in-chief has mired us in this geopolitical disaster. People have lost their lives. Our naval logistics are frayed. The global energy system is in crisis. And he retreats into this bubble of West Wing aides who are his security blanket to make him feel good about himself. This is so lame. What a

weak wimp. If you're going to make the claim, if you're going to take the swing, take the swing, bro. If you're going to go out there and call a White House staff or a whore based on nothing, and you're going to

accuse the president of sexual impropriety with his staff based on nothing, if you're going to go out there and make that kind of insinuation, which is so obviously, misogynistic that even a White House press secretary on your own side, on your side's TV network has to call you out for it. If you're going to do it, do it, own it. But instead he says, no, well, you know, the president's at war. I didn't ask you about war. I asked you why you singled out

this random White House staffer. Well, because Trump, he's just surrounding himself with staffers. Yeah, the president has staffers, but you didn't talk about staffers generally. You singled out this one nice looking lady. Why did you single her out? Well, because it's just so wrong during a war, the president has an assistant? What? What do you argument are you even making? It's wrong. During war, presidents can't have assistance. During war, the president of the United States shouldn't have an aid? You know, he has like a billion aides. You singled out one of them. This was so weak. And to her credit, Jen Saki actually pushed back. I mean, she knew this is, not only was it gross of him to make the accusation, but it's so slimy and,

weak and pathetic of him to try to squirm out of it. Oh, no, I didn't really say that. I didn't know. Can we just talk about the war again? So she pushes back. The reason I asked about Natalie Harp is because it's kind of raised this question out there, more questions about her. He is surrounded by sycophants. No question. I just talked about that. But you specifically mentioned her, and I just wonder why. Well, I've heard this particular aide referred to as his security blanket. And I think we could say that about any number of the senior aides in the White House. They're not telling him what he wants to hear.

They're telling him what he wants to hear. And the nation is at war, and we cannot afford that. We need a team in the White House. We need folks of the State Department, at the Defense Department in the United States Congress, who take their jobs seriously. Those sailors out on the Lincoln, they do their jobs with excellence and dedication.

Yeah, blah, blah, whatever. Okay, we get it. So he just doesn't want to know it. He says, no, no, no, I mean, you could really say that. You could really say that about anyone in the White House. Yeah, but you didn't. You said it about this random assistant. Well, yeah, but no, you could really say that.

I mean, the cabinet secretaries are telling him, you know, what he wants to hear. Oh, yeah, people are deferential to the president. Okay. Why didn't you talk about the cabinet secretaries? Why didn't you mention Pete Higgseth? Why didn't you mention Scott Besant? Because you're making an insinuation that you're walking away from. Totally pathetic.

This guy's not ready for prime time. He's not ready for prime time. It's like, it's the worst of all worlds. it obviously wasn't innocent. He was insinuating that Trump is sleeping with this assistant based on nothing. And then he didn't want to own the accusation. So he wouldn't even, he wouldn't fully walk it back and he wouldn't own it. It's just, it's just, he just looks like a little worm, you know. It's not, he's not ready for prime time. He's not cut out for this. AOC is going to eat this guy's lunch. It is pathetic. I actually thought for a second before I really looked that deeply into Oswaf, I thought, oh, maybe he could be a viable presidential candidate. He's nothing. That guy's nothing. He's Beto 2.0. He's Beto. He's Pete Buttigieg. He's not. He ain't ready for prime time. Trump really nailed him, though. Trump was absolutely brutal to him. Oh, I should mention, I should mention in Assoff's defense. Oswuf says that he doesn't want to run for president. He said this, in fact, on MSNBC. We saw this reporting.

Is it fair to say that you're thinking about a 2028 run for president? No. I have zero interest in running for president in 2028. in these hearings as I conduct oversight. I am trying to faithfully execute my solemn obligations under the Constitution as a United States Senator. Okay, so the way to read that, I'm going to translate for you from political ease, when you say, when you get a question,

are you going to run for president? And the answer is, I have zero interest in running for president. That means you're running for president. If he came out and said, I will not run for president in 2028, that would be a, you still couldn't totally believe it,

but that would be a more serious statement. You would have to take that seriously. When the politicians says, oh, I've no interest in it, he just doesn't want the pressure on him. He wants all the pressure on Gavin Newsom and AOC and maybe Josh Shapiro. But he's obviously running, and this was the first, this was the launch of his presidential campaign. And it was pathetic. It was gross on the one hand, and then it was weak on the other hand. Just totally, total joke.

President Trump was asked about John Ossov. And he gave us the first new nickname of the 2028 presidential side. cycle, I think it was a pretty, pretty effective one. Mr. President, what's the way John Ossef said? Do you'd rather travel with your aid, Natalie Hart, and build the ballroom than do your job as president? What is your response, John Ossep? You mean, Pee Wee-Herman?

Pee-wee-Herman look-al-like? No, I would much rather do other things. It's a, we're building a great facility here. Hey, what do you think about John Ossoff, sir? Oh, you mean, wait for it? The lights come down. the audience gets quiet. They know something's coming. Oh, hold on. Wait a second. You're talking about Pee-Wee-Herman. And so there it is. You know he's been sitting on this one for months.

And it comes out and he says, okay, John Oswee-Herman. This is a pretty effective nickname. It diminishes him. I also have diminished himself yesterday. But it diminishes him. It's pretty sticky. The closest analog is when Trump called Buttigieg, Alfredi, Newman, the guy from the cover of Mad Magazine. And I think there are a lot of similarities between Buttigieg and John Ossov. But the Pee-Wee-Herman nickname is stickier. It's actually better branding than Alfred E. Newman. Because Alfred E. Newman, I grew up reading Mad Magazine, but a lot of people did not. It's kind of like more of an old-timey thing. So that nickname doesn't totally land with millennials and Gen Z. But everyone remembers Pee-Wee-Herman. So the Pee-Wy-Herman one, I think, really sticks. It also, the Pee-We-Herman accusation

it includes, it's got a kind of a pervy connotation to it. And so it has this double effect. One, it fits him, it diminishes him, it rings true. But then it's got this kind of pervy connotation, which Assoff lived up to. This was a great moment to release this nickname because Assov comes out there and he, in an accusation, accidentally seems to make a confession. It says, yeah, you know, you see a woman working for a man in politics. You know that guy's sleeping with her. which if I were an enterprising young reporter, I would probably start calling up John Assoff's female staff present and past.

If John Assoff is just assuming that men in politics sleep with their young female staffers, it seems like it could be a confession. I'm not accusing John Osov of anything. I don't know. He might be a little too much like Pete Buttigieg. I don't know if he's going for the young female staff, but he might be.

The very fact that he made that kind of accusation does open the door. And so I think the nickname sticks really, really, really, well. Okay, my favorite comment yesterday is from hard-boiled entertainment says, we'll get to the Oregon Harvest story next, but first I want to talk about good ranchers. It's true. Don't eat the entrails of human beings living up in America's Evil Top Hat. No, no, no, you need to eat 100% quality American beef. Absolutely right. Okay, I have a very special guest coming on. Before we get to it, though, I do have to get to this last story. We'll talk about the DSA tomorrow. DSA, the

Democratic Socialists are now openly admitting that they hate the Constitution. But just one last little bit from this Oval Office, a meeting at which Trump labeled John Ossoff Pee-Wee Herman. That's Santa Cruz lifeguard. You know that kid, he was 16 years old, he goes out, he saves the 10-year-old. It was really, really beautiful. Risked his own life, comes out of it. The kid is alive. Trump invites him to the Oval Office and offers him this commendation.

We're honored to have all of you. And again, what you did was incredible. and everybody saw it and you'd watch it over and over I know when I first saw it I said roll that back I want to see that again is that really happening and both of you people have to be very proud

the whole group is proud and your father is happiest man in the world so this kid his name is Ryder Williams from Santa Cruz look at he's wearing the formal lifeguard uniform apparently there's a formal lifeguard uniform it's great he's right out of central casting

looks good, sitting respectfully, obviously perform this heroic act. Trump invites him to the White House, says, good on you. And the reason I love this, one, it's just a feel-good story and it was the right thing to do. But it really offers a contrast with the Obama era. Because Obama did this kind of stuff too. But you remember how Obama did it? It wasn't when some young kid heroically saved a life. It was when Ahmed showed up to school with a fake bomb.

That's the kid that Obama invited to the White House. Do you remember that? There was this kid, Ahmed. he shows up to high school with a fake bomb. And the way he presented it was that he had invented a clock. He had actually made a clock. He bought a clock and then disassembled the clock and put it into a suitcase to look like a bomb. And he showed up to school.

His name was Ahmed. And everyone said, hey, you shouldn't do that. You shouldn't show up with a fake bomb to school. And you probably definitely shouldn't do it if your name's Ahmed. And there was this whole little tempest in a teapot. And what did Obama do? He comes out and he says, cool clock, Ahmed. Cool clock, Ahmed.

Cool clock, Ahmed. Cool clock, Ahmed. You want to bring that clock to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like, science. It's what makes America great. It's shown up to your high school and pretending that you got a bomb in a suitcase. That's what we're going to bring you to the White House. That's what Obama recognized. That's the kind of commendation he gave. In the Trump era, it's these heroic kids who are in public service, who are saving kids from the ocean, bring them over there, give them a nice plaque. It shows you the total contrast. It shows you the stakes, too. Do you want the Ahmed bomb kind of

country, or do you want a country full of these kids who are actually engaging in public service and serving their neighbors? Okay. Now, speaking of what kind of country we want, speaking of different presidential administrations, it is my honor to bring on the legendary political consultant and style maven. I also want to talk about because my guest has a new project out that I'm personally very interested in. That would be the great Roger Stone. Roger, Thank you for coming on the show. Michael, great. Thanks for having me. So, Roger, there's a lot I want to talk to you about.

First off the bat, Wall Street Journal runs this article, that the kids are Nixon maxing. So Nixon, he's had a tough political legacy, not just on the left, but on the right. A lot of people, they don't want to focus on Nixon. They want to focus on Reagan. You know, Reagan was sunnier, he was brighter. And Nixon, we just kind of want to forget about him. Now, you worked for Nixon and Reagan and Trump. You helped convince Trump to run for president.

So you've got a long record with all these guys. But I have long felt that Richard Nixon got short shrift. I feel the left never forgave him for nailing Alger Hiss for being totally right about a communist at the top of the State Department. I think he was a great man. I think his story is inspirational. I think he was run out by the deep state. And I think you're seeing a little bit of revision to the story of Richard Nixon. Why is it happening now?

Well, it's an excellent question. This is something I've been trying to achieve for 30 years. The President Trump has asked me numerous times, why did Nixon quit? And the answer is because there was no internet in 1973, 1972 and three. You had a monolithic media, three major news networks. You didn't really have national newspapers yet. You did have very influential news magazines, Newsweek, time, life, look, and so. and they were universally hostile to Nixon. And Nixon's great crime, of course, was when he was elected, they assumed he was the ultimate hardliner. Nixon turned out to be a peacemaker. He ended the war in Vietnam, ahead of the schedule that the Pentagon wanted. He reached a strategic arms limitation with the Soviets,

something the Pentagon was opposed to. He opened the door to China at a time that China was a dirt poor, backwards agrarian society where a few people had indoor plumbing and the rural areas had no electricity. It isn't until 30 years later when Bill Clinton gives China most favored nation trading status, then extended by George W. Bush, that China becomes the dangerous nuclear and economic superpower that they are today. Nixie very skillfully played the Chinese off against the Russians to secure that strategic arms limitation agreement, which probably saved the American people billions of dollars over time. Nixon was the first president to cut defense spending

during his time in office. And there is no question that this revision of Nixon, both the reexamination of Watergate and the result in reexamination of his presidency, which is an extraordinarily consequential presidency is really kicked off by J.D. Vance. When J.D. Vance goes to the Nixon library and says accurately that Richard Nixon was taken down by the same deep state actors who tried to take Donald Trump down, he kicks off this phenomena of Nixon maxing, aided by the young guys at the Nixon Foundation, who very skillfully use social media memes and short videos on using. on Instagram, on X, and so on, to get people to take a second look at Richard Nixon. Something I've been trying to do for 30 years.

I've written two books on this. Nixon Secrets, which is the untold story of the rise and fall Watergate and the pardons. And also, Tricky Dick, the rise and fall and rise of Richard M. Nixon. I've been pounding on this door for 30 years, but thanks to J.D. Vance. Thanks to you, Michael. thanks to Chris Rufo, we're finally getting the reexamination that Richard Nixon and his presidency deserve. Now, the one thing you left out there, Roger, well, one thing is that you're now in Matt Walsh's, my friend's new Real History show about Watergate, about Nixon. But even more important than that,

people can go watch that up on Daily Wire, even more important than that. You do have a tattoo of Richard Nixon on your back. I do. But it's not a political statement. What it is, is a reminder. You can see it in the mirror every morning that in life, when you get knocked down, when you suffer defeats, when you're disappointed, when you're discouraged, when you want to give up, that's the time you have to dust yourself off, get up off the mat and get back in the fight. So the story of Nixon is a story of persistence. It's a story of resilience. It's an American story. and, you know, I've thought about the possibility at some point of adding Goldwater, Reagan, and Trump to have kind of a Mount Rushmore effect on my back, but it would be pretty painful.

That would be painful. I mean, I like the impulse. You know, I agree with the feeling, but that would be very painful. Now, before I let you go, Roger, speaking of style and aesthetics, you are doing something right now that I'm very interesting. and I have not spoken to you about this off-camera. It's the first you're hearing of it. But I saw you have a new suit collection, suits, jackets, because you, in addition to being a political consultant legend, you are, this is not flattery at all. You are well known to be a style maven in the American conservative movement. So what is the new clothing project? How do I get one of the cool double-breasted jackets? and can I ask you to do some fit checks for various figures that the producers have pulled?

First, let me just say very quickly that the documentary that Matt Walsh is introducing on the Daily Wire on Watergate is the single most complete story and exposure of what Watergate is really about. They nail it. It's a must-see documentary, and highly recommended. It's got every single angle of how the deep stay and John Dean, particularly, took Richard Nixon down. But yes, I have a new men's clothing line. You find it at rogerstone suits.com. Rogerstone suits.com is custom men's clothing. And I did this because when I speak to young people, particularly young men asked me, you know,

how can I be well-dressed? And the truth is it doesn't cost a fortune. So I basically put together a collection of the basics, navy blue blazers. Our spring summer collection includes seersucker, linen, saw a madress. And we also have shirts, dress shirts, neckties, suspenders.

All the things that are hard to find today, but are the basics for a well-dressed shirt. gentleman can be found at rogerstone suits.com. And it's all custom. We will send somebody out to measure you or there's an online program where you can put in your measurements and we make these to cut into fit you in a custom sense. All really traditional classic Ivy League, All-American or Saville-Roe, you know, affected style. I cannot wait to go online and order some Roger Stone braces for my suit. Before I, let you go, though. We do this bit on the show and on social media, which is a fit check,

where they'll ask, you know, I do care about traditional, classic American style. And so they'll say, okay, can you critique the outfit? Can you critique if it's all working? So I want to bring in the real expert here. The producers have assembled a series of pictures. Let's just get the Roger Stone expert take. Here we have, looks like Ronald Reagan wearing some kind of Brooklyn Williamsburg hipster cap and glasses. Do you have it on your screen, Roger? I do, but let's recognize that was President Reagan when he was clearing brush at his ranch in the sky outside of Santa Barbara, California. And the whole key to being well-dressed is being dressed appropriately for the activity in which you're about to engage. So in other

don't wear workout close to a five-star restaurant. Don't wear a three-piece suit to a bowling alley. Don't wear a workout clothes when you're going to the mall. So Reagan is dressed perfectly appropriately for clearing brush. A great point. It is not just a one-size-fits-all. You do different things in your life. And a friend of mine once said,

a gentleman is the sort of person who knows the occasion. You need to know the occasion. Okay, next one. Okay, George W. Well, look, this is a guy who was born in Connecticut, grew up in Massachusetts, and he's trying to look like a Texan. This is something his father did as well. Fine. If you're a faux Texan, which is really what he was, it looks great. I would never wear that, but it works okay for him.

Very diplomatic. A lot of subtlety there. Next one. Arnold. Honored. Well, look, it works well for him. He's a big guy with a big frame. Therefore, he needs a larger shoulder, what's called a roped shoulder. I think it's fine. It's one of the great disappointments to me. One said he was a Reagan Republican said at the national convention. But in his later days, he went woke on us. Yes. And to your point on the roped shoulder, you know, I love, this is another little tidbit for the young trad men who want to. dress a little better in the audience. One of the great American inventions is the sack suit. This was pioneered by places like Jay Press, Brooks Brothers, and that has a softer shoulder. It's a little, a friend of mine described it as the kind of suit that's built for a potato-shaped man. It's not darted like Italian suits. And I really like them. They're very, very comfortable.

It's a little more casual in that ivy look. And the other day, Roger, I got a sack blazer. I just wanted to get a new blazer, hadn't had one in years. I take it in to the wardrobe department and they say, Michael, that's much more flattering on you. That really, that silhouettes a lot better. And I said, well, that's kind of an insult because it's really, this is meant for a potato. Like the fat, you're calling me fat. But that's okay.

I agree. Different for Arnold. Do we have another one? Here he is. Tricky Dickie. What do you think? Yeah, I actually think he slept in a suit in all honesty. I think it's a struck because and when you see him in casual clothes, it's usually pretty clunky.

But let's recognize this is a guy who went from being, you know, dismissed from the Army, from the Navy, pardon me, at 1945, went to the most prestigious New York law firms in his double-breasted California style suit with his resume. couldn't find a job, but mentions that he's looking at a skyscraper window and he sees Dwight Eisenhower riding by in a ticker tape parade. Six years later, he is Dwight Eisenhower's running mate for vice president. He goes back to California, runs for Congress in 1946, wins a very tough race, gets reelected in 1948 when the Democrats, both parties nominate him. He's so popular. And then gets elected to the Senate and a tough case. campaign in 1950 and on to the ticket. Six years from being unemployed and leaving the Navy to being vice president of the United States, that is by anybody's measure, a meteoric rise.

Meteoric, absolutely. And you even think of his humble circumstances. I've been, you can go, if you go to the Nixon Library, you can go to his childhood home. It's on the property. This guy did not come from money. He couldn't go to Harvard. He would have gone to Harvard, but he couldn't go because his dad died and he had to stay home and help take care of the family. You know, really, heroic journey. And so he, you know, he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, wearing a white tie and tails to dinner every night. And I think, I think the guy had great style. There's that wonderful picture of him walking along the beach in Oxford shoes and a tie and his slacks.

And yes, you almost think he went swimming in a, you know, three-piece suit. Yeah, no, he was wearing hush puppies on the beach. You know, President Nixon walked my... my wife and I, through that little home where he was born, where he lived on the grounds of the Nixon Library, he said, you know, this is where I slept, it's where my brother slept. This is, this is where they're going to lay me to rest. It is one of the most incredible memories that I have. He was a great man, and I'm glad now, thanks to you and J.D. Vance and Chris Rufo and hopefully a little bit myself, people are reexamining his presidency, the end of the Vietnam War.

the passage of a strategic arms limitation, the desegregation of the public schools, the saving of Israel against a total annihilation in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the war on cancer, the 18-year-old vote, the end of the military draft. This list goes on and on. The Environmental Protection Agency at a time that we had no environmental protection. Yeah, today, I think he would look at it and realize it were over-regulated, but that's not. how it began. He was taken down by a cabal because he was going to reorganize the government, and he was going to take power away from the deep state. And that is the great story of the, of the documentary that your colleague Matt Walsh has put together. It's really amazing.

Folks have to see it. Nobody has done more to bring about the Nixon maxing than Roger Stone. That is a simple fact of history. And so everyone needs to go check out Matt's new show on it, real history, the true story of Watergate. And they can go check out Roger's suits, too. And I might have to do that because I need a new pair of braces. Roger, thank you so much for coming on the show. Michael, thanks for having me. God bless you, my brother.

All right, you too. Good to see everybody here of the Hoy-Polloy watching on YouTube and Spotify and all the other places. But it is time for the member of the segmentum. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member to use code, Noel's KennaWLA, so check out for two months free on all annual plans.