The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 321 - The Search For Jussie’s ‘Real’ Attackers

Episode Date: March 27, 2019

Crooked Cook County drops charges against Jussie Smollett, AOC encourages senators not to vote for the legislation she wrote and they co-sponsored, and David Brooks draws a moral equivalence between Russia hoaxers and the Russia hoaxed in the New York Times. Date: 03-27-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Cook County prosecutors abruptly and bewilderingly drop all charges against hate crime hoaxer Jesse Smollett, who now like OJ will no doubt go on the hunt for the real attackers. We analyze how this miscarriage of justice happened. Then, speaking of fakers, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez encourages her Democrat colleagues not to vote for the Green New Deal. And finally, David Brooks draws a moral equivalence between Russia hoaxers and the Russia hoaxed in the New York Times. I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles show.

The hoaxes strike back today. Jesse Smollett, the Green New Deal, even Russia. They're all striking back. Fantasy is trying to reassert itself against reality. Let's see how that works. But first, let's make a little money, honey with Mint Mobile. There are a lot of things in life that aren't right. Carpet in showers?

Eating dip with your fingers? Paying too much for your phone bill. Those things are not right at all. Thanks to Mint Mobile, you don't have to overpay for wireless anymore. With Mint Mobile, you can cut your wireless bill down to just $15 a month. They've reimagined wireless making it easy and online only, which means you can pass the savings on directly to you. You can save over $1,000 a year with Mint Mobile without sacrificing quality service.

$15 a month means $15 a month. How do they do it? It's because right now you are overpaying for, unlimited internet and data that you're never going to use, and they are gouging you for this to say nothing of all those hidden fees. With Mint Mobile, you choose between plans that have three, eight, or 12 gigabytes of 4GLTE data, and you stop paying for unlimited data you'll never use. If you're not 100% satisfied, Mint Mobile has you covered with their seven-day money-back guarantee. Ditch your old wireless bill. Start paying a fraction without sacrificing

quality service with Mint Mobile. Get your new wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month. Get the plan shipped to your door for free. Go to mintmobile.com slash knolls, KNOWLES. That's mintmobile.com slash knolls, KnoWLES. Cut your wireless bill down to 15 bucks a month and get free shipping on your Mintmobile plan at mintmobile.com slash knolls. The empire strikes back. The hoaxers strike back. Jussie Smollett walks free. a true miscarriage of justice, I got to tell you something, folks. I'm starting to have a little hunch

that maybe Chicago is corrupt. I don't want to be telling tales out of school. I don't want to be running my mouth if that isn't true, but I'm just, I don't know what it is. Something about Chicago just doesn't seem quite right. And so now Cook County prosecutors over there have dropped all charges against friend of the Obama's Jesse Smollett.

Guy who smiles in photos with the Obama's Jesse Smollett, who also come from Chicago. Now, what are the terms of this? He has to surrender his bond. So when he was arrested, he posts $10,000 bond, and he has to do 16 hours of community service. So less than one day of community service, and he surrenders his bond, and then he goes free. This is what the state attorney said. Quote, we looked at all the facts and circumstances of the case, the resources that we have, our priority of addressing violent crime, Smollett's criminal background, his lack of criminal background. He didn't have any felonies or violent felonies in his background. Based on all those facts and circumstances, this was a just outcome in the case. Here's what Jussie Smolett says about it.

First of all, I want to thank my family, my friends, the incredible people of Chicago, and all over the country and the world who have prayed for me, who have supported me, who've shown me so much love no one will ever know how much that has meant to me and I will forever be grateful I want you to know that not for a moment was it in vain I've been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one I would not be my mother's son

if I was capable of one drop of what I've been accused of this has been an incredibly difficult time honestly one of the worst of my entire life but I'm a man of faith and I'm a man that has knowledge of my history and I would not bring my family, our lives, or the movement through a fire like this. I just wouldn't. So I want to thank my legal counsel from the bottom of my heart.

And I would also like to thank the state of Illinois for attempting to do what's right. Now I'd like nothing more than to just get back to work and move on with my life. But make no mistakes, I will always continue to fight for the justice, equality, and betterment of marginalized people everywhere. So again, thank you for all the support. for faith and thank you to God. Bless y'all. Thank you very much. Where to begin? He says he's been truthful since day one of this whole ordeal. If he's been truthful, why does he have to surrender his $10,000 bond and do community service?

If he's done nothing wrong, why does he still have to be punished? I mean, look, there are so many reasons here why it's obvious that the guy did it. But just in the first place, if he actually were innocent, I mean, if he actually were innocent, you wouldn't have signed checks from him paying off the people who attacked him. You wouldn't have him getting caught in obvious lies. You wouldn't have had any of this. But even if that were, let's say he actually were innocent, then he would go out there and say, this is a miscarriage of justice. I'm not surrendering my $10,000 bond. I'm not doing community service because I did nothing wrong. And I'm going to fight hard. Of course he doesn't do that. Because this was a crooked deal. And he got let off the hook

because he's a famous rich guy because Chicago is super duper corrupt and because he plays the racial and sexual victim. And so he gets let off the hook. And it's just the arrogant. It's just the fact, I mean, I guess he's pretty good on that show empire, but he's giving a terrible performance here. And he gave a terrible performance on TV when he was first being interviewed about the attack. He says, I would never, I would never do this. I would not be my mother's son. Well, I don't know. I guess it's a wise man knows his own parents or something because this guy obviously did it. And then I would never let the movement down like that. What movement? What movement are you letting what the... I don't even know. I don't know because he plays the victim

as a gay guy. He plays the victim as a black guy. He plays the victim probably as an actor, the most oppressed group of people of all. And yet he did it. He's obviously guilty. And what's so awful about this is the state attorney's office while forcing him to take this punishment is in a sense forcing him to acknowledge guilt. But they're not explicitly forcing him to acknowledge guilt.

So he gets to go out there and say, I'm perfectly innocent. Shh, here's my $10,000. Yeah, I'll do community service for some corrupt organization. But okay, there you go. There you go. Doesn't even have to acknowledge it. You know this is bad because even left-wing former chief of staff to Barack Obama, mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, is coming out strong against these actions.

Where is the accountability in the system? You cannot have because of a person's position, one set of rules apply to them, and another set of rules apply to everybody else. in another way you're seeing this play out in the universities where people pay extra to get their kids a special position in universities. Now you have a person because of their position and background who's getting treated in a way that nobody else would ever... Sorry about that.

Don't get near. I'm doing near my sermon here. That would ever get close to this type of treatment. He makes a good point. But you don't... What he is doing is relating this to the injustice in that university. scandal saying there's one set of rules for rich famous people and there's another set of rules for everybody else. But you even see this in the relation to the Russia hoax because the hoaxers are unrepentant. This is the problem. I mean, this is why conservatives, once we finish celebrating

that this two-year narrative from Democrats completely fell apart over the weekend, now we're a little bit angry because you've got people who have been pushing this lie for two years, they're unrepentant. Say, no, yeah, no, I never mind. La, la, la, la, don't care about reality. La, la, la, la, I didn't do it. I would never do this. La, la, la, two giant Nigerian anti-black racists that I'm friends with and that I paid thousands of dollars to attack me because I'm a black gay guy. La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, that's what they're doing. It's Russian collusion all over again. And the question is, how is this going to be remembered? At least Rahm Emanuel comes out there.

At least Rahm Emanuel says this is a miscarriage of justice. But how is already this is being spun by CNN, by people who watch CNN, which I guess is just sort of people walking through airports, but by people who read the New York Times, by people who pay attention to the mainstream media, by people who are listening to gossip mills on social media. They're saying, gosh, well, I guess Jesse didn't do it. They let him off the hook. I guess he didn't do it.

Even Wolf Blitzer on CNN is saying, well, come on. I mean, maybe he didn't do it. And Rahm Emanuel goes on CNN just so that no one thinks he's mincing words and lays it out in excellent detail. Let me ask you this, mayor. Was the full picture painted by the evidence perhaps not as compelling as what was presented to the grand jury? Well, it was compelling enough. Well, wait a second, the evidence presented to the grand juries what brought the charges. But did new questions arise in the subsequent weeks from more evidence that might be obvious?

That's not what the state's attorney just said today. They said, in fact, the police did a good job and the evidence holds up, and he actually did commit the hoax. They're saying $10,000 and two days of community service is good enough. And I don't believe, not only is it not good enough, especially when he's walking around thinking that he is actually innocent, not guilty, and B, he's innocent not only legally and a criminal justice sense, he is also guilty. in my view, of a moral crime, which is to use the hate crimes to advance his own career for selfish reasons. And that, to me, is where there's a moral violation and a rip, because he went out and spoke on ABC to the country. As an African American and a gay man about being a victim of a crime. And then what comes forward, and what we actually now know to be the case, and even

the state's attorney today acknowledged, is the fact that that was all a hoax. says it very well. Rahm Emanuel, a smart guy. He's a partisan, he's a Democrat, he is what he is, but he's making a clear point here. And so you have to ask yourself, why is Rom doing this? I mean, Rom is as much a party man as anybody else. He worked for the Clintons. He worked for Obama. He's the mayor of Chicago, the most corrupt Democrat city in the country. So why is he coming out so strongly against this intersectional example of politics? Why is he coming out so strongly against this hoax. He's doing it because it's so absurd. He's doing it because it's in-defensible. If it were defensible and it would help him, he would probably defend it. But it's indefensible. It's

pure corruption. And Rahm Emanuel doesn't want to be lumped in with this. If the Cook County prosecutors want to debase themselves, I mean, I don't know if it's possible even to do that to people who are so degraded as Cook County prosecutors. But he doesn't want to be lumped in with them. national ambitions. This guy wants to run for president. He doesn't want to be a part of this. Even the Chicago Tribune says that this is indefensible. They write, quote, it's an indefensible decision, a deal hashed out in secret with, this is outrageous, Smollett not even required to take ownership of his apparent hoax. It is outrageous. We know that. But why else? Why else are these people coming out against it? Why else is maybe this not over?

You've got the Empire actor strikes back. You've got the fantasy striking back against reality. But Jesse Smollett might still face federal charges. He is actually the more serious crime than faking this 3 a.m. during a polar vortex carrying a subway salad getting attacked by anti-black Nigerians wearing maga hats or whatever nonsense. He pretended happened, hoax. More egregious than that is that he sent a... hate letter to himself and reported this as a hate crime and as a threat. That's a federal matter.

That's not up to Cook County prosecutors. That's not up to Chicago. That's not up to whatever corrupt machine Jesse Smollett has access to. That's up to the feds. Something tells me that the federal government is not going to take too kindly to this. They might take a harsher approach than these crooked prosecutors. Something tells me, Jussie Smollett, we have not heard the last of him. And so now the question is,

is he going to go back to Empire? Empire, of course, wants him back. They've got this plausibility in defending him now. He's gotten a lot of attention. The ratings will increase, so they kind of want him back. Apparently, the cast is split on this.

Half of them think that he did it, and half of them are idiots. I guess that's the breakdown. And so they're kind of split. They don't know what's going to happen. Empire would be very unwise to take this guy back. They would be wise in the short term because they'll get better ratings. They'd be very unwise in the long term because this federal matter isn't over.

And doing 16 hours of community service for some fake, bogus crooked organization in Chicago and surrendering a $10,000 bond ain't going to cut it there. And the hoax is going to reassert itself. We've got to get to the Green New Deal, speaking of hoaxes. But first, let's make a little money, honey, with bowl and branch. Bowling branch. Oh, you know, I've been on the road a lot over the last few weeks going to do campus speeches. And all I dream about when I'm able to fall asleep on the road is just getting back to my bowl and branch sheets.

Oh, how I love them. They feel so much better than everything that I had slept on for my previous bachelor days. You don't need to take sleeping pills. You don't need, if you want a good night's sleep, you just need to change your sheets. That's why you should check out Bowling Branch. Everything they make from betting to blankets is made from pure 100% organic cotton, which means they start out super soft and they get even softer over time. You can buy directly from them so you're essentially paying wholesale prices.

Luxury sheets can cost up to a thousand bucks in the store, but Bowling Branch sheets, just a couple hundred bucks. Everyone who tries Bowling Branch sheets loves them. That's why they have thousands of five-star reviews. Forbes, Wall Street Journal Fast Company are all talking about them. Even three U.S. presidents sleep on Bowling Branch sheets. shipping is free, you can try them for 30 nights. If you don't love them, send them back for a refund.

But I doubt that you'll want to send them back. There's no risk, no reason not to give them a try. Right now, my listeners, we'll get $50 off your first set of sheets at bolandbranch.com promo code Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L. Do it. You will not regret it. These things are fabulous. Bolandbranch.com for $50 off your first set of sheets, B-O-L-L-L-L-Branch.com promo code Michael. BowlingBranch.com promo code Michael.

We got another hoax, not just Jesse Smoll. we've got the Green New Deal hoax. So, you know, Cocaine Mitch, master of the Senate, comes back and schedules a vote for the Green New Deal yesterday. He schedules this vote and AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, wrote the draft legislation. All of the Democrats in the Senate who are running for president didn't just endorse it. They co-sponsored that legislation. They co-sponsored this Green New Deal.

So Mitch McConnell said, okay, let's vote on it. You're all co-sponsoring it. Let's vote on the Green New Deal. And they went nuts. Do you know how many Democrats voted for it? Zero. Zero Democrats vote. Now, they couldn't vote no on it either

because then they would be totally exposed as hypocrites and frauds. So instead what they did, at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's encouragement, is they voted present. They didn't vote for the legislation that she wrote and they all co-sponsored. Here is Maisie Hirono,

senator from Hawaii, senators from Hawaii, on the Judiciary Committee, trying to explain this bewildering action to MSNBC. On the Green New Deal, there was a procedural motion today. Why did so many Democrats vote present on it instead of voting yes for it?

Because this was just a sham, so-called debate by Mitch McConnell. He wanted to divide the Democrats. And the bottom line is that the Green New Deal is an aspirational document that says we recognize the science behind climate change. Unlike Trump and the Republicans and all of the climate deniers who want to stick their heads in the sand. Well, and this and this and that, look, is that a butterfly? And hey, look over there, right? It's just a mazy, Heron-o-shaped hole in the wall. She's trying to change the subject so much.

Just to clear up, though, which she said, is she was supposed to answer the question, why did you not vote for this? What happened yesterday in the Senate was there was a vote for the legislation. And Maisia Rona said, this is a sham. This is not a debate. Right, it's not a debate. That lady on MSNBC didn't ask you about a debate because there wasn't a debate yesterday. It was a vote. Why do you want a debate?

The reason that you have a debate, AOC said that. this too. She said, there were no committees, there were no debates. The reason you would have a debate is if someone proposes legislation and then someone objects to voting on that legislation. You need the objection there to have the debate. It would be like me saying, I go up to the candy shop and I say, okay, I want a piece of fudge, I want a piece of taffy, and I want a bar of chocolate. And the person says, okay, here you go. I say, what? You're not even going to debate me? No, sir, you asked for those things, and now I'm giving them to you. Yeah, but you're not even going to have a committee to debate?

Come on, that's a sham. Sir, you asked me very explicitly for something. You told me exactly what you wanted, and now I'm offering it to you. Why won't you take it? Because I want a debate and a committee. That's the sham. Obviously, that's the sham. This was Mitch McConnell's brilliance.

Because, of course, for so much in the Senate, you know, one side wants something. The other side says, no, I won't. give you that and then they get into a negotiation and they try to come to some compromise. But on this, the Green New Deal is so absurd on its face. It's so impossible. Ninety-three trillion dollars. Destroyes every building in the entire country within 10 years and then rebuilds all of them. Eliminates 88% of the American energy industry. Gets rid of planes, trains, and automobiles, totally upends, gets rid of most of our political liberty. Institutes socialized medicine, 100%. Institutes a universal basic income. It's all of these crazy things. It's such a joke.

that the Democrats propose it. They co-sponsor it. They say, we're in 100%. And then Mitch McConnell says, cool. Aren't you going to debate me? Nope. No, let's just vote on it.

But we need committees. No, we don't. No, you, okay, you made your case. We will not oppose what you're doing. We won't call for a debate. There you go. You're the dog that caught the car. You're going to vote for it?

And then they don't. Because they don't mean it. because they're hoaxers. So now Masey Hirono has to answer for the indefensible, and she just tries to change the subject. And make believe that climate change is not happening, and all of the growing number of natural disasters that are taking people's lives

and costing our cities, our businesses, are people billions of dollars, which, by the way, even as we speak, we are going to be dealing with the disaster relief package because of all of these many, many disasters, natural disasters that are hitting us more frequently and with greater impact. Okay, so your thesis is we're having all of these natural disasters that are happening really, really frequently.

We'll examine whether that's true or not in a little bit. And all of these natural disasters are being caused by global warming. We'll examine that in a little bit. But, okay, those are your premises. And therefore, we're not going to, going to vote to stop global warming. That's it. All of everything's going horribly because of global warming. Therefore, we're not going to vote to stop global warming. And then she starts talking about a disaster relief package, which is a different piece of legislation. But we're not asking you about that

piece of legislation. We're asking you about the central piece of legislation that all of you guys are co-sponsoring that you then didn't vote for. Very difficult to defend that. The other point she's making here, though, is she's saying, we're having all of these natural disasters because of climate change. Now, it's so funny because when Amy Klobuchar goes out and announces her presidential campaign, and she says, the central pillar of my campaign is going to be global warming and fighting global warming, and she's standing in five feet of snow, and she's got snow pouring down all over her head. And then Donald Trump points out, he says, it's kind of funny to be talking about global warming while you're covered up to your head in snow. What does the left say? The left says,

but weather isn't climate. You can't point to weather events and say that they're evidence of climate change or not evidence of climate. Okay. All right, okay, I accept that premise. Except you only do that when it's convenient for you. The minute that you can point to some disaster,

you say that was caused by global warming. Any club you char getting covered in snow while she is declaring her pre-that's not global warming, but that is global warming. everything that's convenient for me is global warming and everything that's inconvenient for me is not global warming. Weather is not climate except when it's convenient for Democrats. And then, you know, honestly, MSNBC is being honest for a little bit. I never use the words honestly in MSNBC in the same sentence, but they are being slightly honest here. They are pushing her. They're saying, why wouldn't you vote for it, though? And she stammers and stammers.

But it's not an argument that you just made to vote yes for it? I mean, McConnell may be trying to make it a show vote, but if, you signed on to this, you're one of the co-authors of it, if you believe that this is something that even if it's aspirational that needs to get done, why not take a stand and vote yes for it? And here's where the Democrats stand for. We don't care that it's a show vote. It seems like you're trying to have it both ways, not be hung by it politically,

but also not say that you don't support it. I disagree with you, Katie, that why should we engage in the kind of sham shenanigans that Mitch McConnell is really good at? He's really good at offering to let everyone vote on the thing that you guys wrote and co-sponsored. That's the, this is like what happens. I mean, good on her, good on this MSNBC lady for actually trying to be somewhat honest and consistent here. And obviously, Maisie Hirono has no answer to that. But this is like when you say, I was in Michigan the other day, and I was talking to some of the protesters at Ben's speech. And they were all talking about how we have to all accept transgenderist ideology. And I said, okay, but don't you think that this creates a problem because it ultimately erases the category of women. If men can be women and men can define femininity and men can be the arbiters of what is or what is not, then don't you diminish, if not outright eliminate women's agency? And they said, yeah, that's a

bad faith question. You're not arguing in good faith. That's a gotcha question. I said, I'm asking a perfectly logical question that follows from your premises. I'm just, there's, what else could I say that you would say is in good faith? Here, we have a clearer example of this in the Senate. they all say, we want to vote on this. We want to co-sponsor this. We wrote this. And Mitch McConnell says, okay. And they say, you're, you're, these are dirty tricks.

The dirty tricks of letting you do what you say you want to do? That's a dirty trick? Then who's the dirty trickster? You are. She then goes on. You have to hear the end of this. You have to hear as she. And then you've got to hear the best, the piestola resistance, the best part of yesterday,

which is that Alexander. Andrea Ocasio-Cortez had to argue against her own legislation. But first, we've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube. Go over to DailyWire.com. $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership. You get me, you get the Andrew Claven show, you get the Ben Shapiro show. You get to ask questions in the mailbag. Coming up tomorrow, get him in.

You get to ask questions backstage. Coming up tomorrow, 7 p.m. Eastern. 4 p.m. Pacific. Our next episode of Daily Wire backstage, Daily Wire, God King Jeremy Boring, little old me, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Claven will be sipping whiskey, smoke and stogies and laughing our way through politics and pop culture. As always, only Daily Wire subscribers get to ask the questions. So make sure to subscribe today because, of course, you get this. And you talk about extreme weather events that keep happening because of global

warming. I think the extreme weather events are happening because of the total breakdown of the leftist narrative. And that's why you're seeing waves and waves of salty tsunamis. The only way to survive them is to get your leftist tears tumbler. Go to DailyWire.com. We'll be back with a lot more. she keeps changing the subject. She keeps saying, they say, why didn't you just vote for it, though? Okay, you're saying Mitch McConnell wasn't going to vote for it. It wasn't going to pass. Okay, but why wouldn't you vote for it? Okay, maybe Mitch McConnell isn't doing it because he thinks the Green New Deal is good or serious or going to pass the Senate. But you guys co-sponsored it. You guys wrote it. Isn't it?

Doesn't it just prove Mitch McConnell's point if you don't vote for it? Why not vote for it? And this finally is the best she can muster. So he's going to keep doing this kind of thing that his goal in life is to try and divide the Democrats. He said that. Meantime, he's just shoving as many of the totally ideologically driven judges through court packing that he can. He's already said that too. What? First of all, he's not court packing. The Democrats are the ones advocating court packing. Multiple presidential candidates for the Democrats are now entertaining the idea of and endorsing the idea of adding justices to the Supreme Court.

That's not what Mitch McConnell is doing. Mitch McConnell is just bringing up judges for positions that already exist, as is his job and as is the president's job. What does court packing have to do with this? What are you actually, if Maisie Hirono is saying that Mitch McConnell's agenda in the Senate is so awful. If he's able to, I mean, she's using stupid language that isn't true, which she uses the language of court packing, but even to say he's bringing up all of these judicial nominees for confirmation votes, and that's really bad and that's terrible for the country, then shouldn't you hamper his agenda by voting for a legislation that you ostensibly want? If she's right, if she says, I don't want to allow Mitch McConnell to

enact his agenda, oh good, then try to enact your agenda. He's giving you the opportunity. It's probably the only time he's going to give you the opportunity. Shouldn't you all vote for it and then tie up the Senate and debates and committee hearings and negotiations, the president? Isn't that what you should do? No, because you don't believe in it. It's obviously you don't believe in it. He's offering you what you want and you don't really believe in it. He called their bluff and they don't want it. Here is the best that the author of the Green New Deal, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, here's the best that she could muster on the subject of this vote. Science should not be partisan. We are facing a national crisis. And if we do not ascend

to that crisis, if we do not ascend to the levels in which we were threatened at the Great Depression, when we were threatened in World War II, if we were threatened, we were, We do not ascend to those levels. If we tell the American public that we are more willing to invest and bail out big banks than we are willing to invest in our farmers and our urban families, then I don't know what we're here doing. I don't know what we're here doing. Ma'am, do you know what the word ascend means? Yes. Congresswoman, what does the word ascend mean?

Ah, it, uh, some, uh, some people say it means, uh, an old, old wooden ship. No, ma'am, that, no, ma'am, that's a line from Anchor Man. That's not, that's not what the word is sent. I, I don't know what the word ascend means. It sounded really good. I don't. Beyond her, uh, lack of familiarity with the English language, beyond her lack of facility with the English language, she, also is making a point that doesn't make a lot of sense, which is that she has told us the world will end in 12 years if we don't pass the Green New Deal. Not just if we don't pass environmentalist legislation, not just if we don't cap carbon emissions or stop producing certain vehicles or whatever. She says the world will end in 12 years. All of life on Earth will be dead if we do not pass her green new. deal, a radical revolution, all of society, all of our political system, a mobilization,

nothing short of what we saw for World War II. Those are her words. And then, Cocaine Mitch says, okay, let's vote on it. And what does she do? She encourages all of those senators who co-sponsored her bill to vote present. I've been saying this for weeks. I gave this speech last night at the University of Redlands. The Green New Deal has nothing to do with environmentalism. None of these people really believes that the world will end in 12 years. None of the people co-sponsoring the bill. None of the people writing the bill. None of the people talking about the bill with weird language like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. None of them really believes that the world will end in 12 years. Because the Green New Deal is not about the natural environment. The Green New Deal is about

socialism. It's about bringing about socialism through the back door. It's about enacting the progressive agenda that the left has wanted for 100 years. Socialist health care, universal income, universal job guarantees, massive redistribution of wealth along racial and sexual lines, a massive grab of political and economic liberty from the people to the bureaucrats, to committees that can pass any other program that they want to, according to the Green New Deal. That's what it's all about. Nothing to do with the environment. They know that it's a political loser for them to do it now, so they don't think we're going to die in 12 years, or I guess now, what, 11 years and 11 months since she said that. They're just going to wait and try to affect

their horrific and poisonous agenda another way. But the premise is dead. The premise was a hoax. there is no way to more clearly demonstrate that they don't believe the nonsense that they're spewing than this Green New Deal vote. It was a political master's stroke by Mitch McConnell, and he won in the greatest week ever continues. Speaking of fakes, frauds and hoaxers, is there anybody less genuine on planet Earth than Joe Biden? Is there anybody more disingenuous and unctuous than Joe Biden? Joe Biden thinks he's going to run for president. He tried it in 1988, and he was a faker. He was a plagiarist. He had to drop out of that race. Tried it again in 2008. The only reason he got vice president is because Barack Obama hated Hillary Clinton so much. So he got, he managed to worm his way into VP. And now he thinks he's going to run again. Here is how he's decided to launch his campaign. The question is, is he going to run as a centrist or is he going to run as a far leftist? I think we've got our.

answer. It's that we see it, do something. It's also because 28 years ago I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing of his kind, the Clarence Thomas hearing, the appointment of a lifetime appointment of the Supreme Court, and a brave lawyer, a really notable woman, Anita Hill, a professor, showed the courage of a lifetime talking about her experience being harassed by Clarence Thomas. We knew a lot less about the extent of harassment back then over 30 years ago. But she paid a terrible price. She was abused through the hearing.

She was taken advantage of. Her reputation was attacked. I wish I could have done something. I opposed Clarence Thomas nomination. I voted against him. But I also realized there was a real and perceived problem the committee faced. There were a bunch of white guys. No, I meanly sincerely, a bunch of white guys.

hearing, hearing this testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee. So when Anita Hill, when Anita Hill came to testify, she faced a committee that didn't fully understand what the hell is all about. So I think the one thing that Uncle Joe might have forgotten in his old age is that if the problem is that there was a committee of white guys who couldn't possibly understand what black people and women are going through, and therefore it was unfair for black and black people and women to go before a panel of white guys. Clarence Thomas is a black guy, you don't.

The argument you've just made is that Anita Hill didn't have a fair hearing when she baselessly accused Clarence Thomas of improper behavior because she's a black woman. Clarence Thomas is a black man, so he got an unfair hearing too. Where's that? Where's that about? So Joe Biden, I've never thought Joe Biden is going anywhere. I think it's a joke that he's running in 2016, or 2020, rather. What you hear is, oh, Joe, he's going to be the threat to Trump. Joe, he's, Joe Biden is nothing. Joe Biden is a joke. He's a punchline. That guy is going nowhere. I could always be proven wrong. I'm just looking at the track record, 1988 to present. He ain't going anywhere. And so he thinks his best hope is to downplay the moderate, downplay the centristism, downplay good old Uncle Joe from the Rust Belt, or whatever he thinks he can effect. And he is going to run to the intersectional left. He thinks that's going to work for an old white guy.

And it doesn't just stop there. It doesn't just stop with Anita Hill, which was another huge hoax and miscarriage of justice. And luckily, Clarence Thomas was able to get through, but it was awful what they did to him. It was a high-tech lynching that Joe Biden presided over. and I can't wait, I can't wait until Joe Biden runs for president to bring that up, that he conducted a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deigned to think for themselves. And he made it clear that if you don't kowtow to an old order, you will be mocked,

humiliated, and caricatured before a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree. Clarence Thomas's words, not mine. But then he goes more radical. He gets way more extreme. he questions the Anglo-American system of justice itself. This is English jurisprudential culture, a white man's culture. It's got to change. It's a change.

English jurisprudential culture equals a white man's culture. That's his claim. English jurisprudential culture. And he doesn't just mean English. He means Anglo-American because we take out. system of justice and jurisprudence from the English. And he's saying, our criminal justice system is fundamentally racist and sexist. It is fundamentally bigoted. It is fundamentally illegitimate. And we need to get rid of our entire system of jurisprudence. That's the most radical

statement that any potential 2020 presidential candidate has made. That's probably, the most radical statement that any presidential candidate has made in my lifetime. Now, the thing about Joe Biden is that he frequently says stupid things, and then he contradicts them later on. So probably that's what's happening here. Also, he frequently makes outrageous race hustling claims. He did this in 2012. Do you remember when Mitt Romney was running? And he said, Mitt Romney, he wants to put you all back in chains before an entirely black audience or a mostly black audience. What is English jurisprudence? What is English jurisprudence? culture. It's equality before the law. It's the presumption of innocence. It's due process.

It is the most just jurisprudential culture in the history of the world. It's the only reason that we even have a sense in our legal system of non-discrimination, fairness, equality. that's why, because of English jurisprudential culture. He says, that's got to change. And he's saying that in a calculated way because the left does want that to change. The left hates the presumption of innocence.

The left hates that Clarence Thomas that there wasn't evidence against him and that he got to go to the Supreme Court and they couldn't just lynch him. The left hates that certain groups aren't given special privileges. The left hates that Brett Kavanaugh

couldn't just be smeared with constantly changing contradictory nonsense accusations. They hate that. They want to see special privileges for favored racial and sexual groups. They want Jesse Smollett to get off the hook because he's a well-connected, famous black gay guy. That's what they want. So what does this mean for 2020? This means Joe Biden is not going to run as a moderate. What this also means is that Joe Biden, who's not going to run as a moderate.

who has been plotting his presidential run since, I don't, 1988, certainly, 1987, 1986, and he's been plotting this next run since he was vice president. He felt that he couldn't take on Hillary in 2016, so now he thinks he can take on the field. This means he thinks he can't run as a moderate. He thinks it ain't going to work. And he's probably right. The only reason I think he's probably making the wrong bet here is, let's say, there's a 97% chance that the Democrat nominee is some far leftist, which is why virtually all

of the candidates are jumping over themselves to prove themselves the most radical leftist. They're all co-sponsoring the Green New Deal, even though they don't vote for it. Let's say they're all trying to jump. We want reparations for slavery. We want $107 trillion worth of new social programs. We want all these things. There are certain polls that show that Democrat voters think they've gone too far, that maybe they want more. of a moderate, more of a centrist. Not the loudest voices, not even maybe the donors, but the majority of the country, especially in states that they want to win. And Joe Biden is not going to be the most far-left candidate. He simply can't be because inherent in this radical leftism

is the sort of identity, racial and sexual identity politics that Joe Biden is trying to embrace here. But he can't embrace it because he's an old white guy who's been in Congress And he's been in the Senate since he was what, since the 70s? This guy's been in the government for most of his life. It ain't going to work. He cannot do it. The only chance he has is to run for that 3% centrist, moderate can relate to the Rust Belt kind of vote. And he seems not to be doing that because while it might be his best chance,

he doesn't think it's the best chance to get the nomination, which means he's probably going nowhere, which means the best. week ever continues. We'll get to David Brooks and Cardi B. Tomorrow. I know. Talk about a cliffhanger. Get your mailbag questions in. In the meantime, I'm Michael Noles. This is The Michael Knoll's show. See tomorrow.

The Michael Noles show is produced by Robert Sterling. Executive producer Jeremy Boring. Senior producer, Jonathan Hay. Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover. And our technical producer is Austin Stevens. Edited by Danny Domego. Audio is mixed by Dylan Case. Hair and makeup is by

Jesua Olvera. Production assistant, Nick Sheehan. The Michael Null Show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019. Hey, everyone. I'm Andrew Claven. Host of the Andrew Claven show. You know, Chicago has a reputation as a corrupt Democrat machine town because it's a corrupt Democrat machine town. We saw that yesterday in the Jussie Smollett case. We saw it for eight years during the Obama administration. It's not a question of Al Capone. Where Democrats gather, it's All Capone. I'm Andrew Clavin. That's on the Andrew Claven show.