UTTER HORROR at Trump Rally, This is INSANE!

[0:00] Welcome back, everybody, to the show. Luke Beasley joined by producer Jaden and Cole. [0:05] Let's waste no time today and jump into our headline story about Trump's rally in Nevada, [0:12] and then we'll get to a deep dive into Trump's former fixer, Michael Cohen, [0:18] who was called out on a radio show by multiple callers for this bizarre 180 he's been doing, [0:24] where he went from calling out Trump correctly, calling Trump a con man, [0:29] and now he's Trump's friend again? Bizarre. That'll be our second story. It's going to be a fun one, [0:34] but let's start with this. So I know Pastor Tice spoke about Officer Abdel Nabi a few moments ago. [0:44] No, no, we're not booing. We're not booing him. He's the officer that passed away here recently. [0:51] So, and I asked, I asked if we had a moment of silence and he said we had not. So I would like [1:00] your indulgence for a moment of silence. We're going to look at a lot of clips from this rally [1:05] that Trump held in Nevada, but I want to spend a second on the one that I just played for you, [1:10] where the Nevada governor was out there and brings up an officer, a fallen officer's name, [1:18] and some people in the crowd boo. And then he goes, what? Wait, wait, wait, no, no, no, [1:24] we're not booing him. What? And a few takes on this to illustrate why I find this so horrifying. [1:30] Warren says, Officer Austin Abdel Nabi was a 30-year-old US Marine Corps veteran [1:35] with over two years in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department who died in a line of duty. They [1:40] booed him because they've been taught that people with different sounding names are bad. That's the [1:46] only assumption we can really make from that. And it's telling, but it's not unexpected. I mean, [1:52] think about how many times Trump puts extra emphasis on Hussein in Barack Obama's name. [1:57] Do you remember? Did you ever hear of a man named Barack Hussein Obama? He said, [2:03] he's done bits or little rants in hundreds of rallies going, Barack Hussein, you know that? Hussein. [2:15] Oh, whatever that radio host's name was, used to love to say Hussein Obama. Why? And why does the [2:22] crowd go, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, and then boo, boo. It's really just programming, as that expo said, [2:31] an audience of people to automatically go, oh, foreign sounding name? Boo. It's why even purposefully [2:40] you would have MAGA figures mispronouncing Kamala's name or Zoran Mamdani's name or Abdul El-Sayed's name, [2:49] because that in and of itself can discredit a politician for some section of MAGA, which is [2:58] completely detached from American principles of we're going to judge you based on your character, [3:05] based on your ideas, based on your values, and not your name or your parents' heritage or whatever. [3:13] Jake Tapper said, Officer Austin Abdel-Nabi, 30, was killed in the line of duty in Las Vegas. He [3:17] joined the force to protect and improve the lives of people in any way I can. From Greenville, [3:21] South Carolina, Abdel-Nabi was a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who left behind a wife and grieving [3:26] family. And then one other, Isaac, saying, our politicians, including and especially Trump, [3:30] have programmed people to hate. This is the reflex in politics now, so much so that when a public [3:35] speaker tees up a dead officer like this, because the name sounds foreign, there are people in the [3:40] crowd who think they're being cued to boo. I don't think the audience members who booed even knew [3:47] who this was. I think they just, as a knee-jerk reaction, have been teed up so many times. It's [3:55] like a reflex was the word used. Just sort of something you've practiced doing. Watch it again [4:02] now with that in mind. So I know Pastor Tice spoke about Officer Abdel-Nabi a few moments ago. [4:11] No, no, we're not booing. We're not booing him. I don't think the boo was someone who knew who was [4:18] being referenced. It was just, oh yeah, this is normally the part where we boo and tells you a lot. [4:23] Now, maybe this is an incorrect take, but tell me why when I saw that, I thought of this. And let me [4:31] give you this story, because I do think it connects. And then we'll get back to clips from [4:37] the rally. But a Republican congressional candidate who Trump endorsed, and normally you get Trump's [4:43] endorsement in a congressional Republican primary, and you're able to soar to getting the nomination. [4:49] Now, you may end up being unpopular in the general, but you can win in the Republican primary [4:53] because Trump still has enough of the Republican base on his side. But this candidate, Amir Hassan, [4:58] lost. And he didn't just lose. He lost against a candidate who had dropped out of the race [5:06] already. But Amir Hassan is his name. I don't want to read too much into this. What's a really, [5:16] don't look at the article. What's like a really generic white name, Jane? Just throw out anything. [5:21] Luke Beasley. No, I'm kidding. Jake, Shane. Okay. What like, what's the classic blank blank, [5:30] like, classic, just generic, here's the name, you know, that guy in the story about the name's [5:41] Thomas Smith. Okay. Because John Smith is the one I was thinking that you might think of John Smith, [5:48] Thomas Smith had dropped out of the race before the election. But his name was left on the ballot. [5:56] And he beat the Trump endorsed candidate, Amir Hassan. In the aftermath of that, Amir posted this. [6:05] Hey, good morning, everybody. I fell short last night. I make no excuse. It was a tough race. [6:15] But over the last year, I've had some incredible dealings with people across the entire district. [6:23] I've learned the issues that we are going through and are facing. And it's just strengthened my resolve. [6:30] I always speak about conservative values. And the biggest conservative value is we don't make [6:37] excuses. We see an obstacle and we figure out a way to overcome it. And this is no different. [6:45] So it's a sad video to have to post whenever you lost to someone who wasn't in the race. [6:51] I had Trump's endorsement and you lost in a primary against someone who wasn't running against you [6:58] anymore. But his name was Thomas Smith. Thomas Smith. Are we, are you going to argue to me [7:08] that the Republican voters went into the ballot box and went, I know Thomas Smith has dropped out of [7:14] the race, but his policy positions are so much better than Amir Hassan's? Or do you think there [7:22] was another reason? And you know, I rarely, I rarely bring up this topic because I think I can explain [7:28] why MAGA is bad without simplifying it down to like bigotry or something. I think it's more [7:33] complicated than that. And these two stories combined show a little bit of a pattern. I have [7:43] no clue if that played a role in Hassan's race, but it's notable. It definitely is something [7:50] that one would take note of. I'm just noticing things. I'm just asking questions. You also have [7:57] Lombardo, the Nevada governor or the gubernatorial position. I say that because Plastic Nutmeg said, [8:05] as a UK watcher, the word gubernatorial cracks me up. Just reminds me of SpongeBob SquarePants, [8:10] Goofy Gooper's song. Fun. Also had this to say. He said, people get mad at Trump saying he's just [8:16] helping out his billionaire friends. Well, he is, but that's good. You know, quite often when the press [8:31] and the media runs them down, they think about, you know, he's taking care of his billionaire [8:36] friends. But those billionaire friends provide jobs. And unless you take care of them, those jobs [8:50] are absent. And the government doesn't have the ability to hand out infinite amounts of money. [8:56] That's not how economies work. That's why they're pushing socialism so hard. [9:03] Okay. Wait, wait, wait, wait. People get onto Trump for thinking that his legacy has largely been [9:11] that of a leader helping out himself and his fellow uber rich folks. But you shouldn't be upset [9:20] about that, MAGA working class voters, because he is doing that. He didn't, I thought he was going [9:27] to dispute it. Really? If he was helping out his billionaire buddies, why did he, why is he [9:33] bringing back manufacturing? No, no, no. He goes, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, definitely. That's what he's [9:37] doing. But it's good because they create jobs. And if you don't help them out, they won't be able to [9:43] create jobs. Is that really what a single, even Republican voter sees as the problem right now? [9:49] That we're not helping out billionaires enough? That's so funny that he said that. Because it's [9:55] one thing to say that there are entrepreneurs who end up getting really wealthy, who created a lot [9:59] of value. And that's something you can applaud. But to go so far in humping the trickle down economics [10:07] idea that you say, almost the sentiment sounded like he was going, we should help them more. They [10:14] need, they need our help. If we don't quote unquote, take care of them, we have to take care of them. [10:18] They need you to take care of them. Trump had the speech bragged about how many folks in Nevada [10:26] no longer have food stamps, as if it was a product of lifting them out of poverty, when in reality, [10:31] it was likely because of the removals of folks who need it off of food stamps under the Trump [10:38] administration. And so imagine saying to a crowd, yeah, some of you lost food stamps. That's good. [10:43] You didn't want it anyways. We had to take care of the billionaires. That's the wording Lombardi used. [10:47] We have to take care of them. And then he goes, we don't have infinite money. No, you're right. But we [10:53] were getting more money from said billionaires until Trump passed a tax bill that reduced their tax [10:59] burden. So none of this is like, take all of their money, or we need infinite tax revenue. But there's [11:07] very specific mathematical equations you can run to say what Trump did, the effect that had on working [11:13] class people, and the effect that had on the billionaires. And no one in a time of record wealth inequality [11:18] thinks that the people who need to be taken care of right now are the wealthiest. Truly one of the [11:25] least politically advisable things you could possibly say. Now, there's also this clip. And I need someone [11:33] to explain why people were making certain references, because I didn't get it. Asin posted, [11:38] President Trump chases down a small child on stage. And people responded like Jay Aubrey and said, bro [11:54] thought he was back on the island. And I said, what island? What? What are we? And then Cole was like, haha, [12:01] look at this video I made. And I'm thinking, what does this have to do with Epstein? I don't get it. So [12:23] maybe some of you can explain that to me in the comments, what the, what the reference is there. [12:28] And then Aaron Rupar said, is Trump rocking a wig? Or what the hell is going on here? And I didn't [12:35] notice this at first. But what is going on with Trump's hair? It looks very different than yesterday. [12:40] More Americans are working in the United States right now than at any point in the history of our [12:48] country. Think of it. He got a glow up. He got a glow up. And what's interesting is his hair is [12:59] increasingly looking like his mother's hair, which I find notable. That also led to social media videos [13:10] like this one. We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they [13:18] don't know what the fuck they're doing. Do you understand that? Oh gosh. So that's, I don't know [13:27] what's going on with the hair, but I do know that dumb has a B. Trump kept telling us that, [13:33] but now he seems to have forgotten that it has a B and he insists it doesn't have a B. The word dumb. [13:38] Took office. We inherited a total catastrophe. Biden and the radical left. Democrats. I call [13:45] them Democrats because their policies are so dumb. Dumb. You exchange the E with the U and nobody knows [13:52] that dumb doesn't have a B. Nobody knows that dumb doesn't have a B. Whenever he used to say, [14:02] nobody knows that dumb has a B, I would be confused because I would go, people do. But actually, [14:08] that is a correct statement. Nobody knows that dumb doesn't have a B, right? That is correctly [14:14] said. Nobody knows that, of course, because it's not the case. Then try to explain this clip to me [14:20] if you can. I guess he's talking about EVs, but then it connects somehow to an EV disease. [14:29] EV being electric vehicle. A lot of people don't know that's what it stands for. [14:34] We have a thousand years of gasoline and it's what people prefer. And you know, [14:40] I ended the electric mandate. I don't want to talk about it because Elon wasn't exactly [14:44] thrilled with me, but I had to do it. We love Elon. But I ended because it said that within [14:52] a very short period of time, like 2030, everybody had to have an electric car, even though we [14:58] there was no way you could charge it. You ever see the signs you're driving along an electric car? [15:17] They have a disease. You know, it's a disease. It's called like, they get screwed up. They're driving [15:21] and they realize that battery is getting low. And they start thinking about it when it's three [15:26] quarters fill. Okay. It loses a little bit. I said, where am I going to? And you're driving [15:32] down the highway and you'll see a sign electric charging station with an arrow, 89 miles to the [15:40] right. These people are crazy. And I like electric cars. You know, we sell 7% of our car despite all [15:48] of the taxes and all of the things that we gave away 7%. But the thing is we have unlimited, [15:55] we have more gasoline, but we have more oil and gas than any country in the world. Now you add [16:01] Venezuela to it, add that. And we have the crowd. It's like, is this where we clap? I don't know. [16:08] Where's the clap line here? So he says that people have a disease in relation to EVs that's called [16:17] they get screwed up. And that was his next sentence, which I'm confused what that disease is. He also [16:25] says that Biden implemented a mandate that required everyone to have EVs by 2030. Interesting. [16:33] Interesting. Because I missed that. I missed that memo. No, I, as if I needed to, I fact check this. [16:39] That's not true. Skill issue. There was a non-binding goal of by some date, new 50% of new car builds [16:49] will be electric vehicles. That was like a, Hey, it would be cool. If by 20, whatever we could get [16:55] there or, or, you know, emissions neutral, 50% of the builds would be that by some date. Never was [17:05] there a requirement that by 2030 in four years, every American would have to have an electric vehicle [17:11] as an EV owner. He's lying. And I have no disease except for joy and saving money. And as gas prices [17:20] have spiked, I've been a very happy camper. Then on foreign countries, never our adversaries, [17:27] always our allies that Trump is very upset with. [17:30] I love tariffs, right? Because we've been, we've been screwed by tariffs used against us for years by [17:36] China, by Japan, by South Korea, by Germany, by everybody, by Canada. Canada's nasty. [17:45] They are, they're nasty. People think Canada, they're nasty. People, I love the people, but they're nasty. [17:51] Nasty leadership. And Mexico, they all did it to us. But now that doesn't work anymore because we turn [17:58] the table and everybody, and that's why you're seeing numbers like you've never seen before. [18:02] If there's one term that I think I've literally never heard in my entire life in the same sentence [18:10] as Canada, it was nasty. I've literally never heard someone, and we, you know, Americans, I know we [18:17] have a lot of Canadian viewers, we have fun with, we used to have fun with friendly, like a brother [18:21] and a sister, y'all the sister, poking fun at each other. Oh, Canadians. Yeah, maybe you don't have [18:28] much gun violence, but yeah, you're lesbians. No, I'm kidding. We're, because we're America, so take that. [18:38] But even, even in our friendly poking, I never heard nasty as the descriptor for Canada. [18:51] Very strange. Very, very strange. Roy Moore member for a month said, ah, what about the piece on top [19:03] referencing the hair? Really, my boy Trump? Clown shit. Yes. Whole W Milk said, MAGA bro became a [19:12] billionaire apologist. It's gross. Indeed. Now we get to my favorite segment of the day. We've been [19:20] following here and there, this transformation of Trump's former fixer, Michael Cohen. He, of course, [19:27] went from working for Trump for years to turning against him, exciting, calling Trump a liar, a racist, [19:38] a crook, a con man. Under oath, he was saying these things. And then all of a sudden, in the last five [19:45] months, he flipped back, had an undisclosed meeting with Trump at Bedminster, made nice with him again, [19:53] softened his language about Trump, got a radio deal on a network owned by one of Trump's billionaire [19:58] friends. And that billionaire friend got the thumbs up from Trump to let Michael Cohen have this show [20:03] on a right-wing radio station. And it's all been very disorienting. If you're not familiar, [20:09] Michael Cohen became such an anti-Trump figure, again, wonderfully, that he was a Midas touch [20:16] contributor. I mean, they did a show called Political Beatdown. They would start like this. [20:22] Welcome to Political Beatdown. I'm Ben Micellis. Join me. [20:25] Yeah. And then Michael would beat down Trump on the regular. It was great. Again, the quote from a [20:32] 2019 congressional testimony, Cohen describing his former boss, Trump, quote, a racist, a con man, [20:40] and a cheat. And now, Cohen is continually gaslighting people and going, I haven't changed [20:49] at all. What are you talking about? I'm just trying to see past politics and mend old friendships. And [20:57] it's like, why would you want to be friends with someone who you believe to be a con man and a racist [21:02] and a cheat? Like, why would you want to be even friends with someone? Okay, even if I take it at [21:06] face value that you just want to set aside politics to have this friendship with Trump, why would you want [21:12] to be friends with someone like that? By your own description, not to mention the years of content [21:18] that he did, describing his own guilt in working for Trump and the horrible things he saw and how [21:24] bad of a person Trump was and how dangerous Trump's politics were, etc. So then to flip around and go, [21:30] you know what, actually, I do think the Justice Department was weaponized against me and Trump and [21:35] actually, and then he softens a lot of his words. And I was, you know, I was calling that out before, [21:45] but I gave him some grace and said maybe he really is just finally getting something off his chest, [21:51] which he felt prosecutorily abused a little bit or pressured whenever he was a witness against Trump, [21:57] but he's still the same guy in his political analysis. But no, it's becoming very clear that he [22:03] is doing a 180. And what was fascinating, and we're going to spend probably a long time today [22:09] on this because it was so satisfying to see, was Dan Abrams had Michael Cohen on his show and took [22:17] callers and just one Luke Beasley viewer after another, I don't know for certain if they watch [22:22] the show, but they probably do, given the things they were saying, called Michael Cohen out. And I'm [22:30] almost less interested in the call-outs than I am Cohen's response that demonstrate how dishonest [22:35] he's being. And that's sad. It's sad to see someone who literally had a podcast called Mea Culpa, [22:40] who wanted to do a Mea Culpa, introspect, apologize, then go back on his entire last few years of [22:50] opposing this regime. It's just, it's sad whenever people show themselves to be dishonest and opportunistic. [22:59] And this first caller, I do apologize. The quality is horrific. The other ones are better. This one will [23:04] be really irritating to the ears, but it wraps up and then Michael Cohen responds, it sounds better. [23:08] This is Bernard calling from Florida. [23:12] Actually, Dan, I'll be honest with you. I'm a little disappointed in you. [23:16] Giving people like Michael airtime and playtime. I'm not disappointed in Michael. I never fell for [23:23] his 180 after his demise with Trump. And now he's an opportunist. He's seen the opportunity to make [23:31] money, to continue a name for himself in the public eye, and he'll do it by any means necessary. [23:37] So it shouldn't be of any great surprise. I just think at some point, what does our society start [23:44] to shun people for who they really are instead of why we keep giving people like him air? I don't get it. [23:51] Well, if you don't, if you don't get it, then you didn't listen to the topic, right? [23:55] No, he didn't. He didn't. He's just another person with Trump derangement syndrome. [24:01] Let me be crystal clear about something. My entire feud with Trump was not of my own design, [24:09] right? It's time that you start critical thinking, reading, instead of listening to the idiot at the [24:15] bar next to you who is spewing whatever garbage that you want to hear. I want to be clear. [24:21] I was subpoenaed. I hope you understand what that means. I was subpoenaed seven times to testify. [24:28] I didn't pull a Dr. Fauci. I didn't take the Fifth Amendment. I answered the questions. I sat as I sit [24:36] here with Dan right now. I took the questions and I answered them. I answered them based upon [24:42] corroborating testimony and documentary evidence, if you understand what that means. [24:47] I gave responses. I was subpoenaed to testify in a criminal and a civil action against Trump. [24:55] I'm an opportunist. I'm an opportunist. You're a moron. [24:59] So that's just teasing what is to come. But clearly, he's very self-conscious about people [25:08] pointing this out. And I don't even feel like Bernard was that rude to him. By the way, [25:11] the audio quality issue, it was not that call. It's going to be one of these upcoming calls that's [25:15] really difficult to listen to. But the points that are being made are important. And the caller is [25:21] saying, why do we keep hearing from someone who is a flip-flopper? I'm good hearing from anyone, [25:27] right-wing, super right-wing, left-wing, super left-wing, centrist, whatever, if I believe them [25:34] to be good faith. Then your voice is valuable. If you're being honest and we're all just hashing [25:40] out our views, that's democracy. Yay. But once you demonstrate yourself to maybe not really have [25:45] any deeply held principles and you just blow with the wind because you got invited to a meal with [25:50] Trump and you're like, yay. He sees me again. He sees me again, which will come through. [25:55] Michael keeps describing this as, you know, it's really an accomplishment. You're going to see this [25:59] in future classes with callers that I have prepped for you. It's really an accomplishment because [26:04] we are showing that we can be friends with people with different politics. Trump, the guy you said [26:11] was a racist comment and cheat, among many other correct labels. I don't want to be friends with [26:17] someone like that. Then Todd has something to say to Michael. What's to talk about? Todd, how you doing? [26:23] What do you got? Hey, thank you for taking my call. I just got to ask Michael one thing. He went through [26:29] and said how he was sorry for all this rotten crap that he did while he was under Trump's spell. [26:46] And now he's buddies with this guy again. It makes me think that he's never changed at all. [26:51] Trump hasn't changed. You tell me Trump's a good guy. And now you're buddies with this guy again. [26:55] You're a phony. You're a complete phony. All right. So it's okay. That's okay. So let me put [27:03] it to you this way. I understand people have an anger towards Trump. I understand that leftist [27:11] ideology, that feeling. I never said for a second that I've changed any of my positions. I still [27:20] believe as an example that the overturning of Roe versus Wade was a major, major mistake. [27:25] And I look forward to the day that they reinsert it. None of my policy positions have ever changed. [27:31] In fact, Trump used to appreciate that I would voice my opinion as opposed to others that just [27:37] become yes men. Totally different. What we have done is we've just agreed to put aside. We were very [27:44] close. We were incredibly close for 15 years for me to put aside this anger for all of the things that [27:53] have taken place over the last eight years. I think in fact that it's a unfair statement to say [28:00] your feelings towards how I should feel should be the predicate for how things move forward. And [28:08] again, while I appreciate everybody who has a feeling towards Trump, that's your feeling and [28:17] you keep it. Me, I'm happy, extremely happy that we've put aside this anger in this feud. It is a [28:25] major weight off of my head. Yes. I don't usually use phrases like this, but this sums it up the best [28:32] that I can. You are a selfish son of a bitch. Okay. The way that he describes the reason he was speaking [28:41] out against Trump as a feud between the two of them demonstrates all of the work he did for Midas Touch [28:50] with his own podcast in these testimonies was personal, not for people. I went back and watched [29:00] some of his segments with Ben Micellis and it's not like he's going, yeah, I don't like Trump personally. [29:07] He was mean and he wanted me to be in jail for things that I was doing for him. And he lied about me [29:12] and we had legal disputes with each other. But, you know, other than that, he's pretty good. No, [29:18] he was co-signing the, this is a threat to our democracy. This guy's a sociopath. He's lying [29:24] about everything. He's degrading our country. He's dividing us. And then to shift and go, wait, [29:31] but I resolved the eight year feud we had. I'm so relieved. Our little spat, our cat fight was [29:39] resolved. Oh, so that's what this was? As you told millions of people that you were a warrior [29:45] against threats to democracy for the interest of working class Americans, for the concept of decency [29:52] and compassion, that was a lie? And you really were just performing because you were bitter at Trump [29:58] for a personal feud you had? Because you should not define your political advocacy or your examination [30:05] of the facts by how personally slighted you feel about the people involved in politics, [30:11] but by the principles and then how those people interact with the principles. It's unbelievable [30:18] that he admits that. And he comes back to it over and over in the show. Hey, you shouldn't be mad at [30:22] me. We had a feud, but now I'm happy. We got past it. And now we're brothers again. So you don't [30:28] think he's a threat to democracy anymore? You don't think he's a con man and a cheat? Why'd you say that [30:32] then? You don't think he's a late, a liar and a racist? Because you said all of that. Where was [30:40] that coming from? Because you would not want to be personal friends with someone who you describe [30:44] that way. Did Trump change? Are you going to argue to us that since you said that in 2019, [30:50] Trump has changed for the better? Do you still feel though that, you know, you've called him like [30:58] a racist and a cheat, et cetera. Do you still feel that way? You know, so Dan, here's the thing. [31:03] I get asked that question all the time. Let me put it to you. My goal right now, as it relates to the [31:10] relationship with Trump is to move forward. We all said bad things about each other in the past. [31:15] I don't even want to start going back into those days. My goal is to move forward. Now to this [31:22] previous caller, do you see me right now in the White House? Well, actually, I'm in the Oval Office, [31:27] you know, right now. And as you can see, it's not Trump on the picture. It happens to be me. [31:32] Just listening to this on radio, Michael Cohen is sitting in a mock Oval Office with a picture [31:38] of himself over the fireplace. Okay, go ahead. So my point is, do you see me as the chief of staff? [31:44] Do you see me as the attorney general nominee? The answer is no. I am a host on a new 77 WABC [31:53] radio show. I have been successful with... No way! You got a show on a W77 WABC radio show? What? [32:07] Well, I'm sorry. Goodness gracious. [32:14] Did you... Oh, he does it so many times. I want to... No, we all were saying mean things about each other. [32:20] Oh my gosh. You liar. And I don't like throwing personal things like that out. [32:26] I guess it hits harder when it's someone that you... I didn't ever really associate with him. [32:32] What can I say? I got a good gut. But I don't blame other people who did. Because it was... [32:38] It's always exciting to see somebody who was intimately aware of someone's character and breaks away from [32:44] them. So then when it feels like they're a part of your coalition, and not that then they have a [32:50] genuine change of heart. But you learn, oh, I was being duped. Because I remember doing segments. [32:57] I could probably pull one up. Hyping up stuff that he was saying. And it seemed like maybe he had a [33:02] genuine change of heart. I saw Forte and Blues said Cohen's a piece of crap. He said he was tortured. [33:10] Like that's... We all heard his story where he's like, I'm tortured by what I did and associating with [33:15] him. And I saw things that... Just trust me, he's a bad guy. And then we got duped. Let me look up [33:23] Luke Beasley, Michael Cohen, Trump, or something like that. I feel like I could find a segment that [33:31] we've done about... It'll probably be too difficult to find. But I remember covering him and being like, [33:38] oh my gosh, maybe that's a genuine change of heart. Let's keep listening. This is something else. [33:44] The assistance of the president. We've put aside an eight-year feud. Plain and simple. And by the way, [33:51] I don't know, again, to the caller, if there's anybody in your life that you're fighting with [33:56] right now because of politics. Maybe you should look at what Trump and I have managed to accomplish, [34:02] right? Putting aside our differences and all of the things that were done and said over the past [34:08] eight years. And maybe try to make amends with that person. I promise you, you'll feel much better [34:13] about yourself. About yourself. Michael, I have had tons of bitter political differences with [34:21] people in my life. And then I resolved them. Or we were able to set politics aside. But do you know [34:29] why? Because we both knew that each other's hearts were decent. And you have described Trump's heart [34:35] as anything but decent. You have described him as the epitome of someone you would not want in your [34:40] life on a personal level. Now, why we should set aside politics when the guy you're setting it aside [34:45] with is the president of the United States and is doing horrific damage to so many people's lives, [34:51] which, again, speaks of his character. I don't know. But if we want to do that, we want to run [34:54] down that logic train and say, we're going to run a train on this topic. We can do it. Okay. [35:02] But, um, yeah, it still leaves you seeming irrational. Because even if I do a strange mental [35:12] exercise and say, let's set aside that Trump's president United States, and we should judge him [35:17] for the actions that are hurting people or leading to the death of people or whatever. And just think [35:23] about a person like think about it like your aunt who's right wing, and how satisfying it is when [35:29] you're able to still love each other past politics. Okay. But the reason I'm able to do that with family [35:34] members or friends is because and only because I know they have a decent compassionate heart, but just [35:43] have the wrong by my perception, political views. But that's not what you previously asserted about the [35:49] guy you're now saying you can be buddies with again. That makes sense, right? It's crazy that [35:56] he thinks he's nailing these folks. Moron. Let's go to Connecticut and Mike. Mike, how you doing? [36:05] What do you got? [36:05] Hey, Dan. I had similar concerns to Todd. I may express him quite as colorfully. But I think that [36:13] Michael's, Mr. Cohen's on and on, on again, off again relationship, and now on again, [36:18] apparently with Trump kind of diminishes his credibility as a, as a, as a commentator on this [36:24] issue. And I want to take issue with one of his follow-ups to Todd that, you know, and animosity [36:31] and, and, you know, dislike for Trump and his policies is not a leftist position. [36:37] Well, I think the previous caller made it crystal clear. He's definitively not a Republican. He's [36:43] definitively a Democrat. And that's absolutely fine. The thing that I take a little bit of [36:48] effect on this commentary, let me just finish my point. Let, okay. So the part that I take [36:53] somewhat offense to is where you think that you actually know me to the point that you're [37:00] disappointed on again, off again. We were friends for 15 years and we were not friends for eight [37:08] years. Now, if that's on again, off again, the way you want to sort of characterize it, [37:12] I would say that I would disagree with the way that you're sort of, um, putting forth, you know, [37:18] that on again, off again belief. You're getting a little stuck on the on again, off again phrase. [37:25] A little bit of mentally fixated there. Oh, so you're going to say on again, off again. It wasn't on again, [37:30] off again. It was on, off, on again. Oh, so you think it was on again, off again. Well, really, [37:38] it was on, off and then on again, bitch. What'd you think about that? And why do you have a portrait [37:44] of yourself in your mock Oval Office? It's a little much, Michael. Nobody knows who you are [37:54] beyond your on again, off again relationship with Trump, right? He never defined who Michael Cohen was. [38:06] So the self-clorifying is, is a little nauseating. No one knew who you were other than you were Trump's [38:13] henchman, then Trump's former henchman who wanted to take down Trump. And now you're [38:19] seeing past your previous divide. And if any of you are watching this and don't know him, [38:28] you might not get just how crazy this is. But if you kept up with him, especially thinking [38:33] he feels like he can push aside anything he said during testimonies. Cause he was like, [38:39] well, they were telling me I had to speak out against Trump in these testimonies, [38:42] but that doesn't apply to all of the content he did. And some of you might not be familiar with this. [38:48] That's why I keep bringing it up. It is not me at all trying to like guilt by association Midas. [38:52] I understand what they were doing, bringing on folks who broke away from Trump to speak their [38:57] mind. Fine. My point is that Midas, if you're aware of them is a, is the anti-Trump network, [39:05] right? It's like the most viewed podcast in the world. And it is almost all negative about Trump. [39:13] And so Michael was doing a show with them for them where hours and hours and hours of footage [39:23] show him espousing the exact same views I do. And Ben Micellis does. And Midas touch at large does. [39:32] So it wasn't just, yeah, I said some things during a testimony cause I felt pressure just [39:35] it was like years of being an anti-Trump influencer warning about the dangers. And the thing that I [39:43] think I'm so icked by, I know the audience probably is, is the thing we want to believe the least about [39:49] the quote unquote influencers or pundits we watch who give opinions is that it's a performance. I think [39:55] that's the most gross is that it's just a character they're playing. Because like I said, you might not [40:02] have thought of this specifically, but we all intuitively understand that a political discourse [40:06] can be very healthy and vibrant while still divided. If all of the voices are coming at it [40:16] in good faith, transparently, honestly, and expressing their actual views, things become [40:20] impossible to solve. When people say stuff, they don't mean they play a part they don't actually [40:24] align with. And people are playing characters to manipulate you and to make money. That's when [40:29] a healthy political discourse falls apart. And that's why his story the last few years [40:35] gets all called into question. Let's keep listening. Putting forth, you know, that on again, off again [40:43] belief. It's not accurate. Again, you don't see me there in DC. You don't see me taking a job [40:52] in the White House. He breaks that up again. I guess he really wants a job. Is that why he keeps saying [40:57] that? He really does want to work in the Trump administration? Administration. I'm merely speaking [41:04] facts. So when you say hypothetically that I'm not a good person within which to speak to on this [41:10] topic, I am the person that you want to speak to. I am somebody who was actually sued. Not you, my [41:17] friend. I was for 500 million dollars by the president for something very similar. So I'm speaking from [41:25] firsthand experience and knowledge. You're just speaking from anger. Aram is in Texas. Aram, how [41:32] are you doing? What do you got? I'm doing well, Dan. I don't have much for Michael. I wish him well, [41:41] but I mean, he helped somebody to do wrong things and made friends with him. So I mean, I don't, [41:47] he was his fixer. So that's what I got for Mike. But I had a question for you, Dan. Yesterday you [41:54] talked about El Sayed and you again opened today. Okay. And then it goes on to a different topic, [41:58] but I liked it the dismissive way. He was like, I don't, I never fell for that anyways. That's all [42:03] I got for you, Michael. And he called him Mike. That's all I got for Mike. All right, Dan. [42:07] Yeah, that's, that's it. Now you might've heard him referencing lawsuits. I'm the best person to [42:14] speak on this. The reason Dan Abrams had Michael Cohen on is Cohen was a lawyer and knows Trump. [42:21] And so Abrams felt he would be a good person to speak on this lawsuit that Trump has against the [42:29] BBC, the British broadcasting. I have BBC on the mind right now. I have BBC on the mind right now. [42:41] You were always on my mind. [42:44] So Trump is, is engaged in a lawsuit with BBC and it is, it is over Trump accusing them in a January [42:57] 6th documentary of misleading the viewers through their editing. Similar to the lawsuit bogus one [43:04] he brought against 60 Minutes and CBS for editing Kamala Harris's interview. Like they edit every single [43:09] interview that they ever conduct. Similar thing here. BBC. I don't know the BBC. [43:15] Yeah, the BBC edited Trump's January 6th speech to give you like a quick super cut of some of the [43:21] key moments. And then Trump said that was them putting words in his mouth. And so Cohen was on [43:29] the show and I'll show you some of his takes on this to discuss this lawsuit. And a lot of people [43:33] are saying that this is not a case Trump wants to bring to discovery because then the BBC could get [43:40] a lot of other information about January 6th out and that could make Trump look bad. [43:45] But here's Trump discussing the lawsuit in a little while you'll be seeing I'm suing the BBC for [43:49] putting words in my mouth literally to put words in my mouth. They had me saying things that I never [43:54] said coming out. I guess they used AI or something. So we'll be bringing that lawsuit. A lot of people [44:00] are asking when are you bringing that lawsuit? Even the media can't believe that one. They would [44:04] they actually put terrible words in my mouth. [44:08] So Trump asserts that the BBC was putting things in his mouth that he had not given them permission [44:15] to. But in reality, it was just an edit. Like, think about that. He's saying they used AI to make [44:22] him say something he didn't say. I'm just giving this context and then we'll look at Cohen and Abrams [44:28] kind of clashing over the take on this lawsuit. Here is a video that shows you the edited version [44:34] that ran in the documentary and then the unedited versions of these clips. You tell me if they [44:40] invented words and then put it into Trump's mouth or if they just like you do in documentaries to [44:45] make them move quickly, edited together two key points from a speech. [44:49] Hello, good evening. Tim Davey has tonight resigned as director general of the BBC, [44:55] along with the CEO of BBC News, Deborah Ternes, after a week of criticism of BBC News coverage [45:02] and allegations of editorial mistakes. [45:05] So this is the edited version in the BBC documentary. [45:22] Down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you and we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't [45:30] fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. And then here is the original [45:45] footage, the first clip, and then they play back to back the second clip from later in the speech. [45:50] Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, [45:58] we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down. We're going to walk [46:04] down. Anyone you want. But I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're [46:13] going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we're probably not [46:20] going to be cheering so much for some of them. But I said, something's wrong here. Something's [46:26] really wrong. Can't have happened. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like [46:32] hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors [46:38] have not yet begun. [46:40] So that putting back to back, let's go to the Capitol and we're going to fight like hell. [46:48] If you want to make the argument that it would have been more honest to the essence of the [46:51] speech to put like a timestamp that shows his we're going to fight like hell and let's go to [46:56] the Capitol. We're spaced out significantly in the speech. And if you wanted to throw in at one point, [47:02] he to give himself plausible deniability said peacefully and patriotically as he was talking [47:08] about fighting like hell and stuff. Okay. You can make that argument. Is this defamation? No, [47:14] no. And this is how a lot of document, I mean, this is how a lot of videos are made because it's an [47:19] hour plus, however long his speech was very long speech. It's not going to be fun to just go. [47:25] And here's what he said. And then the documentary is an hour and a half of him talking. So you're [47:29] going, look, he was saying provocative language and telling people to go to the Capitol. Those two [47:32] things did happen. And those are the two significant things that led to people attacking the Capitol. [47:36] So you should have added more context. Okay. Make that argument. Suing them for defamation and then [47:42] saying that they're putting things in your mouth when they're not is bonkers. Here was Ben Micellis [47:50] talking about this. Trump is terrified of the BBC right now. And he is definitely choking as we put [47:58] it over here on the Midas Touch account. Trump can't handle BBC. Okay. So now that you know, [48:10] here is the context or here's them talking about this case. [48:16] Michael's got a new show on 77 WABC radio. It's on Sundays at 5 p.m. It's called When You Know, [48:26] You Know. He's also on Substack at The Real Michael Cohn. And he joins us now. Michael Cohn, [48:33] thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. [48:34] Dan, good to see you. By the way, as a New Yorker yourself, can you actually give a little [48:38] oomph to the title of my new WABC radio show? When you know, you know. [48:47] Right. Well, I'm sure that that's going to make all the difference in whether people listen to it. [48:57] Okay. [48:58] He's got, putting aside whether Trump is going to move forward with this, [49:02] anyone else wouldn't have a lawsuit, wouldn't win a lawsuit here in federal court based on this. [49:07] No, I'm not so sure that that's, Dan, I'm not sure that's right, that anybody would have. You know, [49:10] I'm going to tell you, when I was alleged to have been in Prague, actually, I'll give you even a better [49:17] one. There was an allegation that was raised against me that claimed that I took $400,000 [49:24] from the former prime minister, the president of Ukraine, this guy by the name of Poroshenko, [49:30] in order to bring Poroshenko to Trump's office for a meeting. And none of that was true. It was a [49:38] lie. But that's different. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me just finish here. [49:40] That's a lie. That's something that didn't happen. You didn't go to Prague. You didn't get the $400,000. [49:47] Trump said the things he said. I just took it out of context. [49:51] I understand. But Poroshenko ended up bringing an action in the UK against the company that actually [49:59] made the allegation. And he won. He won for defamation, to pay his legal fees, and I think [50:05] it was like $100,000. I know your ears are glazing over, but just to specify, the question was, [50:13] hey, this sort of insane lawsuit from Trump against the BBC is not a case that anyone could win. [50:18] Suing over an edit that misleads viewers when it doesn't really. Everyone knows. I mean, [50:27] it's just ridiculous that anything about January 6th could be misled through a simple edit when [50:32] everything's out there and has been out there for so long. Everyone knows this is just a product of [50:38] Trump's election lies and then encouraging people to go to the Capitol. Like, there's not much that [50:42] needs to be hidden there or edited around there. And that was the question for Dan Abrams. No, [50:48] Trump wouldn't win this case. No one's going to win a case like this. And my clone's like, [50:52] I'm not sure that's true. I was sued because someone said that I was bribed to have Poroshenko [50:57] and I ended up winning a case. And that has to do with this how. [51:04] ...euros or pounds or whatever it was at the time. So my point is, people do bring these types of [51:10] lawsuits. Do I think that this is a good move for Trump at this point in time? I do not. [51:16] Right. But let's get, we'll get to that. But let's keep going a little bit back and forth on [51:21] the merits here. I mean, you're comparing this to cases where there was something said that was [51:28] false, right? And I'm not suggesting defamation cases never win. Of course they do win sometimes. [51:35] But I have never, ever seen a defamation case where someone said two things at different times. [51:43] It didn't change the fundamental meaning of what he was saying. It just left out [51:48] context that would have made it softer. Well, no, I'm not sure I can agree with you on that either, [51:53] Dan. I think it does change the essence of what was said. When you splice two different parts [51:59] together, it changes the meaning. Now, again, people can differ in their opinion. Trump obviously [52:05] believes that it did. You believe that it didn't. I'm somewhere in the center. It did, [52:10] but I don't really see. Look, let me be clear. I'm not saying it didn't change anything. I'm saying [52:16] it didn't change enough to ever win a lawsuit in a United States court. I agree. I agree with [52:22] that, by the way. Well, what are you saying? He started the question with this could not win [52:29] and Michael Cohen goes, yeah, I'm not sure about that. Maybe it could. And then at the end goes, [52:47] you're right. It couldn't. Well, then what were we even talking about? For why were we even speaking? [52:53] I really wanted to find one other. There's one other really funny part. I think it's Mike [52:59] from Texas where Cohen contradicts himself again. Can we please spend a little bit more time on this, [53:07] please, producer Jaden? Well, like St. Bernard. Okay, well, I'm going to pile on. Shocker. Look, [53:14] yeah. Shocker. No, I'm left. I'm left, but the only thing I'm left of is left of center. [53:22] Me too. And I am a never Trump. I'm a never Trumper. Anytime he loses, I win. It makes me happy. [53:30] And you brought up Roe v. Wade. Back when you worked for him, you know damn well he was pro-choice. He's, [53:39] he was pro-choice until he became MAGA. Then he did the 180 on that. So he is a phony and you have [53:48] been trying to curry favor with him for the last year because you have a conviction, which I think [53:56] prevents you from practicing law. No, that's not true. Once again, you see, hold on. Listen to that. [54:02] The guy says you have a conviction, a felony conviction, which I think prevents you from [54:06] practicing law, right? And Michael goes, no, no, but listen to where Michael's thought ends. Okay, [54:12] so hold on to that. No, no, it doesn't prevent you from practicing law. No, that's not true. Once again, [54:19] you see, hold on, hold on. It's important that you get facts straight. The way that it works with [54:25] the bar. Yes, I was disbarred. However, you have to wait seven years from the conviction date before [54:32] which you could apply for your license back. That seven years has expired for me. If I wanted it, [54:39] I can go file tomorrow for it. What was my charge? What, what, what, what were my charges? Did I, [54:45] did I do anything that would keep me out from getting my law license back? The answer to that [54:50] is no. So your premise again is. Wait, wait, wait, wait, didn't you just say that that, [54:57] that the conviction prevented you from practicing law for seven years? That's what, what? And would [55:07] the bar care about you pleading guilty to federal crimes, including campaign finance violations, [55:15] tax evasion, bank fraud, and lying to Congress? Maybe, I don't know people, I don't know if they [55:22] want lawyers who did those things. Yeah, maybe so. How dare you say I lost my ability to practice law? [55:30] I only lost it for seven years and I still don't have it, but I could go apply. Well, I could go apply [55:36] too, Michael. And I might have a better chance than you. And I never even went to law school. Wowza. [55:49] What is wrong with him? And I say all of what I just said with love. Spiral Mind said, [55:56] is Michael Cohen related to Roy Cohen? They act alike. I don't know. I don't know. But I do think [56:04] that he is related to someone named, to someone named Mr. Cohen. It's his grandpa. It's so stupid. [56:24] So, what? Okay, you can take that down. Someone has a theory on Trump's hair. Clara said, [56:41] hey, just a theory. Melania has gone missing. I think it's her hair he's wearing. And then Jaden [56:46] texted and asked if I think maybe Michael Cohen was trying to become the attorney general. Maybe so. [56:53] Who the heck knows? Now, a quick palate cleanser, which is an interesting phrase to use for this [57:02] clip. But this is on live television. One of these shopping networks where they have those stations [57:13] where they're, I think, selling stuff, stuff on screen, shoes, bags. One of the hosts was talking [57:19] about her hair and had the funniest slip up ever. And it made me laugh for like two hours. [57:28] This is on live television. I love to show the text. And then actually before I play it, [57:33] because we might title it, this video in relation to what I'm about to say, I'm going to tell you [57:39] about what this video caused me to do that put something bad on my search history. I love to show [57:47] the texture and this wave pattern. Again, it looks... So podcast listeners, it's like a lady with, [57:55] I don't know what type of hairdo that's called, but you know, like shorter hair and she's showing it. [57:59] She's turned, her back is turned to the camera. So she's kind of showing the back of her hair [58:03] to the audience for some reason. And then explaining it. Sweet, good, you know, fun. [58:08] Texture and this wave pattern. Again, it looks like you went and got a blow job at your blowout, [58:16] at your salon. Again, it looks like you went and got a blow job at your blowout, at your salon. [58:33] It looks beautiful. All right. So here's what's happening today. We're having a huge beauty sale. [58:43] Everything ships to you for free, but that goes away at the end of the day. I will remind you that [58:47] this is a one-time-only price where the price goes up at the end of the show. [58:53] And then she, she just won't turn around back to the camera after that and drops below behind the [58:59] desk. Oh, that's so hilarious. Well, picture me thinking that looks like an old clip. So I was [59:07] in preparation to talk about it on the show, searching up, trying to see if there were any [59:14] articles about this to see. Cause I didn't want to like go, look, this just happened on TV. And it's [59:18] from like 10 years ago. Um, so I was looking up to see if there's an article about this incident. [59:24] So what keywords would you put in to, to, to get, uh, Google to pull up an article about this [59:29] live TV blunder? I searched blow job blowout. Genuinely with no like ill, not like, Oh, this [59:38] will be funny. I literally just thought I'm sure this has gone so viral that if I searched those key [59:43] terms, an article will pop up. And I searched blow job blowout. And let me just tell you, [59:48] the article did not pop up. Some other things popped up. Someone commented. And I thought the [59:54] free beer at the barbershop was a good deal. I was sitting at the desk and I was like, okay, [1:00:05] let me, cause normally I just hear keywords and clips and then I'll search the keywords and then [1:00:09] something will pop up and then I'll be able to pair. Here's the clip. Here's reporting about it. [1:00:12] And I just blow job blowout and then looked at Jane. Oh no, something bad is now on my search [1:00:18] history. It was, um, a lot of, a lot of porn sites popped up to be honest. And I promptly [1:00:24] X'd out. I will have, you know, I will have, you know, very within a matter of minutes, [1:00:30] within a matter of the hour I X out, but I did eventually find an article, uh, because I put, [1:00:40] I added live TV. I didn't change the blow job blowout. I just added live TV. And then this [1:00:46] popped up. Whoops. I really blew that one is the title. Ha ha. A QVC beauty demo went hilariously [1:00:53] off the rails when one little slip of the tongue turned a blowout into a blow job and the set [1:00:58] absolutely lost it. Came as Tony Bratt was showing off one of her hair pieces, walking viewers through [1:01:04] his textures and wave pattern when things got not safe for work. Oh, sometimes life just, [1:01:12] this is what you need in life. Sometimes, you know, my Twitter feed is all just people screaming [1:01:21] at each other. And then this pops up and you're like, there is goodness in this world. There really, [1:01:26] really is. Ilia Rosa said the wig. Drizder sent five gifted memberships. Thank you so much [1:01:37] for that. Okay. Onto a much more serious topic. We've been staying up to date with the story of [1:01:45] Republican Congressman Max Miller, who's accused of physically assaulting, throwing up against the [1:01:51] wall, his now ex-wife, Emily Moreno, and potentially fracturing the collarbone of their [1:02:00] two-year-old daughter, as well as all sorts of different just psychotic behaviors from this [1:02:08] still in office running for re-election Republican congressman. And it's not just his ex-wife, [1:02:15] Emily Moreno, who happens to be the daughter of a Republican senator, Bernie Moreno, making claims like [1:02:20] this. You can go all the way back to Max Miller's high school years, and he was accused of throwing [1:02:26] a woman down the stairs or pushing a woman down the stairs. You can go to Stephanie Grisham, who worked [1:02:32] as a press secretary in the Trump administration the first term. And she, way back then, had accused [1:02:37] Max Miller of physical abuse. And he's still running for re-election. Trump refuses to call on him to step [1:02:44] down. And so does Mike Johnson. These are the same people who said even though Democrats ejected [1:02:53] Plattner very quickly after a sexual assault allegation, that that story means Democrats are [1:02:59] all okay with blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But Republicans refuse to hold their own accountable. [1:03:05] And it's gotten so severe that the Republican senator, who's the dad of Emily Moreno, Max Miller's [1:03:11] ex-wife, and the alleged victim of his abuse. The father, Bernie Moreno, recently said, [1:03:17] I sent my daughter, granddaughter, and wife out of the state to a secure place until such time as [1:03:25] they feel safe. You have a Republican senator having to put his family into hiding because of the threat [1:03:33] of a Republican congressman, and the Speaker of the House will not denounce the congressman. [1:03:38] And the president and the leader of the party will not even withdraw his support for this guy [1:03:44] running for re-election. It's damning, damning stuff. Here's Bernie Moreno. [1:03:50] I think the thing about recent that I have in my actual life, the best part of my day is when I [1:04:05] start FaceTiming her. She's a sweet little girl. I can't even express to you what it feels like [1:04:11] to have her in my life. I just wish her dad felt the same way. Thank you. [1:04:17] And so the other part of this story, which of course is not an example of the most severe [1:04:22] abuse being alleged, the physical assault or the hot water being spilled or poured onto his wife at [1:04:32] the time, or the fracturing of the child's collarbone, allegedly, are much more viscerally [1:04:39] painful stories. But there are other anecdotes that just depict a very unstable and erratic man, [1:04:47] like him, quote unquote, according to Emily Moreno's father, Bernie Moreno, holding a bunny, [1:04:55] like a stuffed animal, hostage or a doll hostage, and not returning it to the daughter and the mother [1:05:04] when the daughter was with the mother. And it's just sort of, what kind of person does that? [1:05:10] Again, that's not physical abuse, but emotionally tormenting using a doll? He denied this, of [1:05:18] course. [1:05:18] United States Congress, and that you need to look for a pathway out. And I do believe my daughter. [1:05:23] I don't know, but it's not really the issue though, right? The issue is, the one I asked [1:05:27] you about is, did you hold this doll hostage? Because that is emotionally abusive behavior. [1:05:34] Mr. Tapper, no. And just to further, I did say it's... [1:05:37] No, Mr. Tapper, no. I did not do that. And Max Miller thinks he's cooking, as they say, [1:05:45] by posting screenshots of conversations with different folks involved. He released a Dropbox [1:05:53] folder that was supposed to clear his name, and it ended up just proving a lot of his guilt. And [1:05:59] a lot of audio recordings were in there that he recorded of him talking to his wife, and he thought [1:06:03] that it cleared him, but really it showed how much of a psycho he was. And it's another example where [1:06:07] he's like, Bernie Moreno, stop lying about me. Look, I have the texts that prove I wasn't holding [1:06:12] this bunny hostage. Again, a not real bunny, a stuffed animal or some sort of toy bunny. And so [1:06:20] then Max Miller's now posting for the public to see text messages, where once again, he comes off [1:06:26] insane. So he's texting somebody named Deborah. And he says, as everyone can see in the below [1:06:34] screenshots, mine and your daughter's parenting coordinator reached about the bunny asking if [1:06:38] you could come pick it up for me. So this is where the texts start. I guess Deborah, or as I used to [1:06:42] think this name was pronounced, Deborah. I really did. I really did think that's how it was pronounced. [1:06:48] Sorry to the Deborah community. But this is the parenting coordinator who texts Max. [1:06:54] Max, so sorry to bother you about this. I guess Ruth, the daughter, left her blue bunny at your [1:06:59] house, and Emily is saying Ruth wants it back. Apparently her dad is offering to come pick it up [1:07:04] from you. Please just let me know your response. Max just responds, sure. Then the parenting coordinator [1:07:11] said, okay, thanks. I'll let Emily know her father can come to your house to get the bunny. And then [1:07:17] Max sends the parenting coordinator a screenshot where someone named Jared says, [1:07:25] hey, Max, I'm having dinner with the Moreno's. Bernie mentioned coming to swing and pick up the [1:07:30] blue bunny. Do you want to meet somewhere or put it in your mailbox and I can swing by and grab it? [1:07:34] So someone else associated with the Moreno say, hey, maybe I'll come by and grab the blue bunny. [1:07:39] Max Miller responds by instead of just going, yes, it's in the mailbox says, you texting me about [1:07:45] this is inappropriate. Our aunt coordinator said, Bernie is coming. Please stay out of our family [1:07:51] business. Thanks. And then sent that screenshot to the parenting coordinator and said, I just, [1:07:58] and then the parenting coordinator Deborah responds. I just texted with Emily and said, [1:08:01] the deal was that her dad come to your house to get the bunny. She said her dad will now do it. [1:08:06] Do you want to put it in your mailbox? That seems easiest. And then some other communications. What [1:08:13] is this from? What do you know what this is from? Some other communications from Max said, [1:08:16] it's super easy. As Kurok said, Kurok said, sending Jared over to my home as a conduit was a bad idea. [1:08:27] Have someone who I trust come in. It's easy. Is there a time today I can see her? I sadly had a [1:08:31] meeting. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So you see that he's like, no, that person can't pick it up. [1:08:35] Send someone I trust. And then Emily Moreno's lawyer is seen reaching out with this email. Pam, [1:08:47] for no apparent reason, Max is not returning the blue bunny to Emily. Dr. Kurok tried to get the [1:08:53] blue bunny back. Dr. K made clear that despite her recommendation that the blue bunny stay with [1:08:57] Emily, Max refuses to return it. Why must this be a controversy? This is totally ridiculous. [1:09:02] Please have Max return the bunny for the wit. So it's like, yeah, that's, that's what they said. [1:09:10] And he's posting this stuff. And they at least, I wish we'd have gone and censored the name, [1:09:15] but he didn't censor the name of his own daughter. Um, and it shows him going, no, no, [1:09:23] I will do a trade-off only with this person at this time. You know what I mean? Like it is the [1:09:29] type of, and then that might've been limited texts. And later he starts, uh, withholding it [1:09:35] more. Another screenshot from others, Miller and Miranda seems to say Miller adamantly refuses to [1:09:41] give the bunny back. The coordinator says, I'm not coddling him. I advised him to let your dad get [1:09:46] the bunny from preferably from the mailbox, but he adamantly refuses. But I've suggested you [1:09:50] keep the bunny at your house to avoid these situations because unfortunately in a high [1:09:54] conflict divorce, these situations blow up often. So it seems after those text messages where he [1:09:58] was going, not you, you, he ended up saying, no, not anyone, but he didn't show those texts [1:10:03] according to other texts that other people are releasing. Oh my gosh. So my point is he keeps [1:10:09] doing this cycle where to clear himself, he releases something and it only brings up a topic [1:10:14] that demonstrates his lack of a reasonable head space to say the least. The denials are making [1:10:22] him seem more guilty. Like his Jake Tapper interview in moments like this. [1:10:26] There are now three women, three women who have accused you of violent behavior. [1:10:31] Polico published a report in 2021 that says when you were in high school, you quote, pushed a girl [1:10:35] out of the dorm of his room. And she fell down some stairs after he became enraged when she resisted [1:10:40] his attempts to touch her, according to three people who were there and many more who heard [1:10:44] about the incident in the aftermath. Now you deny that, but the woman in question told mother Jones [1:10:48] reporter Abby Vesoulis just days ago that it happened and was quote, one of the more traumatic [1:10:53] nights of her life. Now that's. Hold on. I would love that individual to go on the record [1:10:57] because that. Okay. I was. Hold on because I'm not done with the list of women that have accused [1:11:02] you of violence. Then there is a former White House press secretary. Okay. You were young. Then [1:11:06] there's a former White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, who was your ex-girlfriend. She accused [1:11:10] you of being abusive and having a violent streak. She wrote in her book, quote, I could do nothing [1:11:15] right by him. I would wake up every morning, shaking with, shaking with anxiety about his [1:11:18] mood that day. I had seen his temper before and it had scared me, unquote. She has recently [1:11:23] filed a temporary restraining order against doing a defamation day. And now there are these [1:11:27] claims from your ex-wife, Emily Marino. And I guess the question is, are all three of these [1:11:32] women who don't know each other, are all three of them lying? Yes. It's, it's very easy. And [1:11:37] I can tell you why every single time. And people have asked me, you know, what are you going [1:11:42] to do? Are you going to drop out of this race? Are you going to resign? You know, are you [1:11:46] going to get out before the deadline? And my answer to you, Jake is no. And then he goes [1:11:51] on to talk about how he can still prevail. Jake Tapper, I know we went over this clip before [1:11:56] on a bonus show, but it's a really stunning one. Jake Tapper says, do you really think [1:12:00] three unrelated women are lying about you over the course of multiple decades? For what purpose? [1:12:06] I don't know. And he goes, yes. Do you know why? Because I'm still going to stay in the [1:12:12] race. Well, that's not even close to making yourself seem, uh, innocent. So pretty jarring, [1:12:19] jarring stuff there. We do have some breaking news that I'm getting to the news desk as we speak. [1:12:27] Supposedly Mitch McConnell has discharged, been discharged, um, from the hospital, which is [1:12:36] exciting. Oh shoot. I was going to, nevermind. I'm not going to say that. I don't like promoting [1:12:43] those betting sites. Um, earlier today, I was discharged from the rehab. Why don't you have a [1:12:49] video? This, you might think that video is him. It's not him. That's from July, 2023. This is just [1:12:53] for context of who Mitch McConnell is, I guess. Can we take this down? Let me find a better statement [1:12:58] from him. McConnell statement. I'm sure there's an article. Mitch McConnell says he's been discharged [1:13:05] from rehab. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Thursday that he's been discharged [1:13:10] from a rehabilitation center nearly two months after his hospitalization. He wrote, [1:13:14] earlier today, I was discharged from the rehabilitation center to continue my recovery [1:13:17] at home. Oh, nevermind. I, I, I was correct not to make the bet. I thought I was going to make [1:13:21] the statement did not. It was, will he make a vote in August? The statement did not say when [1:13:27] McConnell's expected to return to Capitol Hill, by the way, don't do those bet at these sites, [1:13:30] by the way, don't do it. Don't do it. I'm serious. Everyone's doing them now. We're just going to [1:13:35] commodify our entire life. No, thank you on the advice of my, but sometimes I, I participate on the [1:13:40] advice of my, it's a little bit addictive. It is. I'm trying to get over it, but I'm focusing [1:13:44] more on limiting my bets to a small number of dollars over an entire football season on [1:13:50] Robin Hood on the advice of my, but it still is something that you can get fixated on because [1:13:56] you get a, you get a high on the advice of my doctors. I'll maintain an intensive regimen of [1:14:00] physical therapy from home during the state work period. And I'll continue to engage with my staff [1:14:05] and colleagues on important Senate business. He said McConnell was hospitalized on June 14th. [1:14:10] Okay. Well that, I mean, there it is. He's better than ever. How dare you doubt that he proved you [1:14:18] wrong. He is triumphantly leaving the rehabilitation center and is going back to work at his house. [1:14:27] And he still hasn't released a video. How do we even know he wrote this statement? He didn't. [1:14:36] How do we even know he is at his house in a condition that we would describe as sentient? [1:14:47] How do we know this is a sentient being? We don't. These are the questions people are asking. [1:14:56] And it's, it's really a sign of this is America, baby. This is America. And let me tell you what I [1:15:04] mean. The fact that millions of people potentially are hundreds of thousands are betting on whether or [1:15:12] not Mitch McConnell will be alive enough to be voting in the Senate by a certain date is America at its [1:15:22] best. Why? Because it both demonstrates that we have folks who hold on to power so long that they [1:15:30] literally can die in office from old age. That's how long they hold on to power. And we've commodified [1:15:38] it. Yeah, baby. Yeah, baby. By the way, can I get some credit? These betting sites, [1:15:47] Polymarket, Calci, I don't know which one of them was the one more recently that sent a pitch. They [1:15:52] keep coming to us and they say, please let us give you money if you will promote us. And I say, no, [1:16:02] no, no. Now picture yourself. It's of a newsworthy nature to talk about these betting sites because [1:16:11] sometimes they actually are interesting to see like what do what percentage of bettors actually do [1:16:16] think McConnell is going to make it back to the Senate? What percentage of bettors think that [1:16:21] Ossoff is going to be the president? Like it's fun. It is interesting. So it wouldn't have to be [1:16:25] difficult at all for me to plug in a sponsorship because you literally just have to talk about [1:16:31] these sites on like you'd pull them up and be like, go bet on something. And we still say no, [1:16:39] because I don't think it's good to get people hooked on betting on everything, including world events. [1:16:45] I think that's a net bad for our society. So I will take this as an opportunity to say good for us [1:16:51] for turning down free cash out of principle. But if you think these are good guys, they're not [1:17:00] selling out. Not that every person who gets those sponsorship is. I love some of them. And I [1:17:05] understand it's fine. Maybe they don't have the same stance I do, but under my stance, it would be [1:17:08] selling out. But I want to help them out. You might think, well, you can, but I sell things I believe [1:17:16] in, right? Like Pep. This is a company. I remember talking to my brothers. They're both kind of [1:17:23] business minded. They're both actively serving the military. One of them deployed right now. And [1:17:28] we were talking about, you know, it would be, they were saying, do you want to get more sponsorships? [1:17:34] Could we help you with stuff like that? And I was like, I don't know. I don't want to just [1:17:37] become a whore to the system, you know, a corporate whore. And I use that with the utmost respect to [1:17:46] any of the people who would fill into that term. But some people, that's it. It's just like, [1:17:51] give it to me. And I said, I would only, I would want to sell something I believe in, [1:17:55] you know? And so we said, well, what if we made a product ourselves that we actually believed in [1:18:01] because it was something that was solving a problem in our life. And then you would feel [1:18:05] amazing about selling it. I was like, that's a great, great idea. And so we made Pep. That's what [1:18:11] we did. We made Pep. And it's an energy drink without the artificial sweeteners and junk that [1:18:18] a lot of energy drinks put in their drinks that are not good for your body. And instead, [1:18:22] it has active probiotics, gut friendly, soothing to the gut microbiome. And let me just tell you a [1:18:28] story. Celsius, if you take issue with anything I'm saying, it's just a personal experience. And [1:18:33] it is not me speaking for the company, Pep. But I used to drink Celsius all the time. And I would [1:18:38] go up, right? I'd be like, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, that caffeine feeling. And then I would [1:18:45] get heart palpitations. And I've heard other people say this, heart palpitations. And I would [1:18:50] always get this really anxious midday feeling, like real bad. Like my heart was pounding. [1:18:55] The come down from Celsius was like, ah, my heart, it feels like it's skipping a beat. I'm anxious. [1:19:00] And then I would come, go land on the ground, feeling all disoriented. It was terrible. [1:19:06] And then when I switched over to Pep, I've never had that hard thing again, [1:19:10] where it kind of like a tickly beat that really is spooky. The stomach pains I would get don't feel [1:19:17] anymore. And the come down is like a nice green rated ski slope. A lot of the other energy drinks, [1:19:29] it's like you're on the ski lift and then they just drop it out from under you and you slam on [1:19:33] the ground. Pep is like you're going down a smooth ski slope. Oh yeah, truly. And it's, I say that [1:19:42] because this is why I feel good selling it is it's a healthier alternative to these other drinks on the [1:19:48] market. And it will not give you that horrendous, anxious feeling and then horrible crash. So go to [1:19:54] drinkpep.com, order it directly to your doorstep, support my family business and a mission that I [1:20:00] actually think is meaningful. And again, you can go to drinkpep.com and just get it shipped straight to you. [1:20:08] And I would encourage you to sign up for a subscription. You save some money and then also [1:20:12] you don't have to worry about going on the site and reordering every time you want more and it'll [1:20:15] just get delivered however much you set it to be delivered so that you're always stocked and ready [1:20:21] to go. But I feel my point in saying all that is that Mitch could really use a SIF. You know what I [1:20:27] mean? That's my main point is that Mitch could really, really, let me show you, take this down, [1:20:33] Mitch McConnell. Let me wait, stay with me. We don't need to be this TikTok brain where you're [1:20:39] like, oh, I'm bored now. Stay with me. This is going to be worth it. So this is the rock shirtless. [1:20:48] This is what I'm about to show you is what Mitch McConnell looks like without drinking pep, right? [1:20:55] This is Mitch McConnell without drinking pep. He looks sort of saggy. He looks sort of tired in this [1:21:00] clip. He froze. And we did a test in a lab or a laboratory. It was a laboratory or laboratory. [1:21:07] I can't remember. And we had Mitch McConnell for one day, just drink pep. And this is a photo we [1:21:12] took of him right here. This is a real, this is a real photo. And so it really would change your life. [1:21:20] And don't, don't be a Mitch, be a, be a baddie. What's a, what's an itch, but positive. Be like a [1:21:29] bitch. Don't be a Mitch, be a bitch pep. You know what I mean? One of my brothers is [1:21:36] not going to love that reference that I just made. So Mitch McConnell's going home and we [1:21:45] do applaud him for that and, uh, be cautious. Don't get addicted to betting. And, um, and I [1:21:53] would still probably, if I had to say he won't make it for a vote in August, that'd probably [1:21:59] be my guess if I had to, but I won't, I won't speculate. Mama of three said, why can't they [1:22:07] fire Mitch? Can Democrats do it? No, I don't think so. I mean, Bashir could like pull a [1:22:25] maneuver. I just don't know if it would work. It would lead to a legal battle and he could just [1:22:29] declare the seat vacant and start pretending like he has to fill the seat. But then there's going to [1:22:33] be a Republican legislature in Kentucky declaring this unconstitutional and there's going to be a [1:22:37] battle. Is that worth it? I don't know. I don't know. I think Bashir's calculus is let's not push [1:22:43] it. It's nice that he's missing from the Senate. So he can't vote for Trump's stuff. Classy [1:22:49] anti-fascist said, Luke, I don't have money or food stand on principles. Thank you so much. [1:22:57] And, um, I agree. X to Z said only two industries left grift and gambling. Nine senators want the [1:23:03] CFTC to ban wildfire betting after poly market took $1.2 million on the LA fires arson risk [1:23:10] betting to burn the world down for a payout peak late stage capitalism. Exactly. That's one of the [1:23:15] reasons we don't expect, except those is because you start incentivizing behavior. We talked about [1:23:19] that one story that Cole found of people going and tampering with the thermometers that are used to [1:23:26] determine if a temperature was that temperature on a certain day and people bet on what the temperature [1:23:33] is going to be on certain days. So people will go tamper with it. And then it's much more catastrophic [1:23:36] whenever you bet on wildfires, if there's going to be a wildfire. I don't know what the specifics [1:23:40] are, but things like that. Will there be a wildfire in this month? And so then people are [1:23:44] incentivized to go start a fire that would be catastrophic because they'll make money betting [1:23:48] on it. Um, mama of three then said, Oh, I already read that one. Okay. And then Elia Rosa said, [1:23:56] that's a heartless, abusive piece of mierda needs to be in jail. Like a lot of other in government, [1:24:02] including Trump equals pedophile, get them out. Forte and blues said how I wish it was Congressman [1:24:09] Mac Miller instead. Alrighty. On to this democratic Senator, John Fetterman is barely hanging on to [1:24:22] the label democratic Senator and has been being courted by Republicans. Go ahead and just make [1:24:29] the jump. They say you're already practically on our team on everything they say. And Fetterman has [1:24:36] been on Fox news so much. You would think he has a cot at the headquarters. He's constantly on Fox [1:24:41] news and he rarely goes on more liberal leaning shows where they can actually challenge him for [1:24:49] running as a progressive Democrat and then sliding rapidly after his stroke. Some people say that's [1:24:55] involved. I don't know if that has anything to do with it. And we empathize with that very [1:24:59] significant health condition, but he ended up sliding all the way. And now he's way more focused [1:25:07] on attacking within the left than MAGA. Is it wrong to criticize the left? No, no, of course not. [1:25:15] And if you have, as he purported to, when he ran for Senate progressive principles, is it intellectually [1:25:23] honest to spend at least as much time criticizing MAGA as the left, if not much more, given they have all [1:25:30] the power and are the pressing threat? Yeah, that would be most intellectually honest. It's strange [1:25:34] when you go from progressive Democrat to I'm on Fox news talking about how terrible the democratic [1:25:38] party is every two seconds. Okay. And he also made a lot of news for saying his red line, what would [1:25:46] cause him to no longer be a Democrat is if he deems Democrats don't support Israel enough, which for [1:25:54] obvious reasons goes viral. And it's like, wait, you're, you're a one issue Senator. And [1:25:59] your one issue is a foreign policy issue related to a different country. Huh? And so I'll show you [1:26:05] Jon Stewart pressing him on that topic, but there's so many others where he's just misinformed or [1:26:09] dishonest. And he says, I don't think, you know, I don't think it's going to be too much of a [1:26:14] constitutional crisis unless Trump defies court orders. And Trump hasn't done that. Really, Jon? [1:26:20] Is that your take that Trump hasn't defied court orders? We'll fact check that after. But Jon Stewart [1:26:24] does such a good job in this interview. [1:26:26] A lot of those executive orders were just overturned or stopped by the courts. And now I know I kind of [1:26:33] took, I kind of got whacked when I said, well, what is a real constitutional crisis? That's when, [1:26:39] that's when the president is going to defy, you know, court orders. And because it doesn't describe [1:26:45] the solution in the constitution, that is a crisis. And as far as I know that the president hasn't [1:26:51] defied a single court order. Now, a lot of noise, but he hasn't defied any specific ones. [1:26:57] And that's the way the system's supposed to work. [1:26:59] Well, he has. I mean, he's, he's defied court orders and congressional law. I mean. [1:27:04] So on this first clip, let's deem how honest Fetterman's being in his right wing shift. [1:27:09] Well, you know, I don't really think, I feel like it'd only be a constitutional crisis [1:27:12] if Trump defied court orders and he hasn't defied a single one. You're right. He didn't defy a single [1:27:19] one. He defied 31 ones. Okay. The Trump administration defied federal court orders at [1:27:27] least 31 times. Review 5. [1:27:29] Give me a joke. [1:27:30] Do you remember when a court ordered them not to ship those immigrants to an El Salvadoran prison [1:27:37] camp with no due process for a life sentence? One of them being a lawful asylum seeker and the [1:27:47] Trump administration did it anyways. That wasn't a court order, even though the court then said, [1:27:52] you defied my court order. Huh. Interesting. And then you have Jon Stewart challenging Fetterman on [1:27:59] the way that he caricatures the broader quote unquote left and how it's easy to strawman [1:28:09] people's arguments, but it's not honest. [1:28:11] I feel like you're caricaturing people's views. I have not seen statements where these candidates [1:28:17] say I am pro Hamas. What I have seen is statements where they are very critical. Israel, the Israeli [1:28:25] government, the way that they have conducted themselves. And by the way, they're not alone. [1:28:29] The ICC and the UN and human rights watch have all been unbelievably critical. I feel like you're [1:28:36] caricaturing it. You're pro gay rights. Yeah. I mean, I'm coming up on the 13th. I'm on the [1:28:41] pro 13th anniversary. I was the first, first person to solemnize a gay marriage. [1:28:46] I just learned today. I was this many years old when I learned that solemnize, [1:28:53] solemnize, meaning like conducting a marriage ceremony is the word you use in that context. [1:29:03] And I love it. Solemnized and sodomized is like such a fun. I think that'll be a banner at my [1:29:12] wedding. Oh, gosh. I hope some people in my life are not watching this video. [1:29:21] I was the first first person to solemnize a gay marriage, you know, when it was illegal in [1:29:26] Pennsylvania. Yeah. Beautiful. And you're pro trans rights. What the right would say about that [1:29:31] is that you're pro mutilation of children. That would be their caricature of your position. [1:29:37] If your concern is winning elections, I don't know if you coming out and calling people pro Hamas, [1:29:44] which I think is a caricature of many of their positions. Is that helpful to them? You called [1:29:48] President Trump a jag off 2016. Yeah, I put it on a shirt. [1:29:52] And now you've been very complimentary to him. If your concern with Grant Plattner is [1:29:57] you didn't think he was very nice to women. You're ignoring an awful lot of evidence for [1:30:01] the current president about his relationship with women. There seems like there's a way to go about [1:30:07] this that embraces the 90 percent of things that you agree with and try and utilize that energy to [1:30:14] reform a party. This feels like it's playing into the hands of Republican caricatures. [1:30:20] Hmm. Why can't people on the Democratic Pied finally figure out why Trump was so competitive? [1:30:27] So you tell me, what am I supposed to do when I have deep empathy for someone whose speaking ability [1:30:37] has been hindered by a stroke? And I also like when the show is funny and then said person says [1:30:46] Democratic pie. What am I supposed to do in that situation? You tell me, what am I supposed to do? [1:30:54] Okay, fine. I'll say nothing. Okay. People on the Democratic Pied finally figure out why Trump was [1:31:01] so competitive and winning two out of the three last cycles because we keep losing and now we keep [1:31:07] returning back to some of the extreme thing. That's not a caricature. That is a fair assessment of where [1:31:13] we are with these kind of thing. Kamala Harris. I don't know what that means. I don't know what [1:31:19] that means. And the absurdity of his stance is fully embodied by Jon Stewart's next point. [1:31:25] Kamala Harris was not a progressive left candidate. I feel like... Is it in this clip or the next one? [1:31:32] Did he ask the question, do you think that... Yeah. Oh, it's in the next one. Sorry. Where he asks, [1:31:38] so you think Kamala Harris's extremism, like she was too far left, is what sunk the election for her? [1:31:46] Because maybe you can find statements when she said something about prisons and I'm not even going [1:31:55] to say it because of how much they used that clip. My goodness. But her camp... What else was she [1:32:01] supposed to do? Her campaign was like, we are going to tweak a little bit. It was literally like, [1:32:10] we are going to expand small business loans. We are going to expand the child tax credit. And we are [1:32:18] going to lower the threshold for housing builds through cutting red tape. That's too far left. [1:32:31] Really? And that's where it just gets like, you can't engage with the right wing caricature as truth [1:32:38] and then say you are engaged. Like, it's fine to point to the left, two left wing characterization [1:32:47] was one of the things the right wing used against her. Digging up old clips when she was trying to [1:32:52] seem more progressive in past campaigns or whatever. Yeah, they did find clips of her saying like, [1:32:57] yeah, universal healthcare, even for undocumented immigrants or whatever. And maybe that pushed some [1:33:01] people away or whatever. But don't assume they're being honest about how relevant that was to the [1:33:09] campaign. And maybe if more voices were able to be clear about that, we wouldn't be where we are [1:33:14] now. It's what comes up a lot with Piers Morgan where he's like, well, Kamala lost because the [1:33:19] Wokesters were too crazy. Croc of shit. And I say, okay, yeah, I'm sure there's definitely unpopular [1:33:28] voices on the left that make our views seem more wacky than they actually are. But did she not run her [1:33:38] campaign the way that I just explained? What else are you supposed to do? She's up on the stage, [1:33:41] like we're going to have a lethal fighting force military. It's like, yeah, woo. It's not exactly [1:33:49] what I hear socialists saying and talked a ton about deep patriotism campaigned with Liz Cheney. [1:33:56] Hey, John, is Liz Cheney far left? Or hey, Piers. But then the Piers Morgans of the world were [1:34:04] I'm mogging you right now. The ones not talking about the extremely dangerous aspects of Trump, [1:34:11] but talking a lot about some quote unquote woke issue. And so my point has always been you have [1:34:19] both the responsibility of the Democratic candidate in running a good campaign. And also you can point [1:34:25] to media figures who distorted the reality of the contrast between two candidates, and they should [1:34:31] also be called out. And John Fetterman plays a lot into those delusions about the state of things. [1:34:39] This clip is also really interesting. You see the people with these extreme views are breaking [1:34:44] through in Michigan and in Wisconsin and Colorado and there. Let me see if I can frame this in a [1:34:49] slightly different way. Why do you think it is? There is a kind of momentum, these more, you know, [1:34:56] as you would call them extremists, or I would say, you know, they're a mix. There's a certain nuance [1:35:00] I love Jon Stewart. I love Jon Stewart. Some people are saying he's your one for president. [1:35:05] I just want to say again, I love Jon Stewart. I think he gets it. Like there. He's not alleging [1:35:13] while setting up this point that there aren't two extreme figures in the Democratic Party. There are. [1:35:19] Absolutely are. And there are also two extremely Fetterman figures in the Democratic Party. [1:35:26] And both, I've, we just had multiple segments over the past two days calling out what I see as [1:35:32] irrational left-wing politics, irrational left-wing policies, and irrational left-wing [1:35:36] messaging. And that is present in part of the broader left. And as much as that should be called [1:35:42] out, there is irrational, whatever you call Fetterman's politics, in the Democratic Party too. [1:35:51] And that needs to be combated. And there's nuance to it. [1:35:55] Or, you know, as you would call them extremists, or I would say, you know, they're a mix. There's a [1:35:59] certain nuance to it. Don't you think that that's happening for a reason? The same sort of impulses [1:36:05] and energies that drove Donald Trump's rise, economic populism, a dissatisfaction with the [1:36:11] status quo. On the Democratic side, couldn't you say that this is happening because establishment [1:36:16] Democrats that you think is the more reasonable party hasn't delivered for people? These moments [1:36:23] don't happen out of thin air. These are conditions on the ground where people are dissatisfied with [1:36:28] the status quo. And you have candidates that come up and they present economic proposals and other [1:36:34] proposals that feel more urgent to the moment. Why are you blaming them when in some ways you could [1:36:40] be blaming yourself and your colleagues? I'm not blaming. I'm describing here where we at and what's [1:36:45] happening now too. And I'm like, when we have people winning elections saying absurd kinds of [1:36:51] positions that were absolutely toxic back in 2020, stop saying these kinds of extreme things are not [1:36:57] workable. Don't we want to win? So you think you lost in 2024 because of the extremism of Kamala [1:37:05] Harris and Tim Walz? Yeah, absolutely. Or the Joe Biden administration? Yeah, I mean, I mean, I was I was [1:37:12] on the El Syed, for example. He was a big leader in the uncommitted, uncommitted saying, don't vote [1:37:17] Democrat, don't vote for these people. It's interesting he brings up El Syed because you could have brought up [1:37:22] and I obviously called out people who ultimately did not say we should vote for Kamala. If you got [1:37:29] to the election and you weren't saying we should vote for Kamala, I think that your politics are [1:37:35] irrational. I understand and sympathize with some of the movements that were trying to leverage their [1:37:41] power to get concessions. But if you didn't see the difference between Kamala and Trump, eat with any [1:37:48] of Kamala's flaws, obviously, I have an issue with your stance. I mean, I made that clear over and over [1:37:55] and over. But he brings up El Syed. And in this article specifies that El Syed ultimately said before [1:38:04] the election that he endorsed Kamala. So that doesn't really apply here, I guess. For example, he was a big [1:38:11] leader in the uncommitted, uncommitted saying, don't vote Democrat, don't vote for these people. And anyone [1:38:16] spent time in Pennsylvania there during that election, we all understood we have a serious challenge. [1:38:21] But don't you think this new sort of energy and economic pop, did you notice how he shifted off of the [1:38:28] question? Jon Stewart said, you truly believe that the loss of Kamala and Tim Walz was because of the [1:38:35] extremism of Kamala and Tim Walz, as opposed to like economic resentment, as we saw throughout the entire [1:38:43] Western world after the pandemic era with the price searches that happened as a global phenomenon, plus the use [1:38:49] effectively by the right of, in some cases, distorted characterizations of the movement that Trump was [1:38:56] running against. And then you go down the list. You think it was because Kamala and Tim Walz were like [1:39:00] super extreme? And Fetterman goes, yeah, like El Syed. And then makes a point, what? El Syed wasn't on the [1:39:07] ticket. No, the question was about Harris and Walz. [1:39:11] I think this new sort of energy and economic populism is a response to that. [1:39:18] Well, what is that? Is that socialism? And in more, it's communism. It's, you know, that's not [1:39:23] an economic model that has never worked in the history. [1:39:27] That sounds like a caricature. El Syed is running on, he wants to ban corporate money, [1:39:31] higher taxes on billionaires for housing and education, Medicare for all. When you say that's [1:39:36] communism, that feels like a caricature. [1:39:38] No, no, I never said that. I call real communists that are cheering for communism. [1:39:43] You are a capitalist. I just want to reframe the argument a little bit because Piker, I don't think [1:39:47] is a communist. I think he said he's socialist, but do you think capitalism isn't one of the reasons [1:39:52] there's so much energy on the left now? Many people believe capitalism, as we are practicing it, [1:40:00] a lot of corruption, crony capitalism, a lot of the playing field is tilted towards capital [1:40:05] investment and away from labor. That capitalism, as it is being practiced in America, is increasing [1:40:12] inequality and leaving too many people behind. This energy is not there necessarily to destroy it, [1:40:20] but to reform it in a way that will rebalance. Don't you think this is coming from the lived [1:40:26] experience of people under the way capitalism is being practiced in America in this moment? [1:40:32] I think I return it back to this idea that AI is transforming the world 100% whether you have [1:40:40] to like it or not. If someone is going to win... Look at how perplexed John is. [1:40:45] And for me, I want America to win that because we are the good guy. The Chinese will seize the lead [1:40:53] and the kinds of damage they could inflict are untold trillions. That's my real concern for a lot [1:41:00] about that overall. No, I think I'm understanding sort of your position on AI. I'm talking about [1:41:09] the broader conversation. You're being very critical of those on the left. No, no, I'm not [1:41:14] being critical. I'm just describing and I'm saying, you know... Okay, this isn't going anywhere. [1:41:19] He just ends up saying random mumbo jumbo every time. What? So the question John Stewart's trying to [1:41:25] get at it and he explained it brilliantly is... And maybe I repurpose it for my own exact language. [1:41:34] I have no problem as we did the last two consecutive days of pulling up proposals from people on the [1:41:41] left or if you want to say far left and going, this one doesn't make sense and this one doesn't [1:41:46] make sense. This one does. Or I don't know why you're assuming this label or here's a message that [1:41:53] I don't think is resonant. I can give you examples if you want them. Like get rid of all private [1:41:58] property or we shouldn't have any private housing or get rid of all police, which some candidates [1:42:03] running right now at some point said publicly on Twitter, like this is a path to abolishing police [1:42:09] or get rid of all prisons. Or we looked at Brown and Joy Gray, who's not a candidate, but just a media [1:42:14] figure who was saying, get rid of prisons, Pentagon, police, did you see a police? Senate. And you say, [1:42:23] that's not helpful, not correct and not helpful. Hart might be the right place. Doesn't make sense to me. [1:42:30] So you call that out. Okay. And if you only call it out as some evil, as opposed to a predictable [1:42:41] response to a broken system and don't suggest alternative solutions. Like when I go, here's [1:42:48] the issues we, I think all in the broader progressive umbrella can unite around labor [1:42:54] protection, stronger unions, universal healthcare. And we go down the list and we go, you could be, [1:43:01] you could be pretty quote unquote centrist, I think, or center left. And you could be obviously [1:43:08] really far left and everything in between. And we have a list of a lot of policies and major reform [1:43:13] transformational change that we could unite around implementing. And so it's not to go, [1:43:20] you can't call out when someone's policy proposals don't make sense. You can, I do fine. But you should [1:43:28] also recognize what the source of that more quote unquote extreme position is, which is not like [1:43:35] some generally, it's not some ambition for communism. The more radical proposals, some that I think are [1:43:47] radically great, some that I think are radically irrational, but the more radical proposals, that [1:43:51] energy is happening in response to something. And the Fettermans of the world refuse to engage [1:44:02] with, sure, both the criticisms and the takeaways. And I know that that takes like a little bit of [1:44:10] nuance in your brain to both be able to say, hey, I don't, I don't, I think that starts to get into [1:44:15] wackoville. And I absolutely know why you're wanting to do anything except for the status quo. [1:44:22] Well, why, why so many people, especially my generation are so open to literally any alternative [1:44:27] if it's seemingly the exact opposite of the status quo and don't care about labels we used to [1:44:36] be completely opposed to associating with. I do think there's plenty of people in my generation who [1:44:41] would not be offended being called communist because they're just so sick of the system. Again, [1:44:47] that is not an irrational label, or excuse me, that's not a rational label to associate with, [1:44:53] or a set of policies to associate with. But I also can engage with the why, because there's such [1:45:02] deep resentment toward the system as it is, and capitalism as it is, that people, instead of [1:45:11] doing what I hope we can do, which is a bold, pragmatic, progressive, aggressive agenda to [1:45:21] fundamentally reform the system we're in while keeping the good parts. But that takes a lot of work and a [1:45:29] lot of thought and effort and nuance. A lot of people are going, you know what, scrap it all, [1:45:34] start from scratch. And you can point to that and say, ah, wait, wait, wait, really broken system. [1:45:41] But trust me, we should work within it to improve it. You also have to have takeaways, action items, [1:45:52] as to why you have to understand how you have failed Fetterman, you have failed democratic [1:45:57] establishment, you have failed quote unquote centrist to resolve this resentment. And that is way more on [1:46:06] you than left wingers, left, left, left, wherever you want to use these labels. It's way more on you [1:46:15] that you've created an environment where more extreme ideas can thrive, again, to use the [1:46:22] descriptions he would use. And the only way out is through that understanding through that resentment [1:46:35] to engage with it enough where you can use it as energy for whatever you think the pragmatic [1:46:41] solutions are. But just ignoring the very understandable underlying pulse and energy and [1:46:51] only levying attacks will embolden whatever you feel like the bad parts of the movement are. [1:47:00] John Fetterman. [1:47:01] And in his position, he's just gotten so comfortable on Fox News where they don't engage with the [1:47:09] economic resentment that is giving energy to the more far left of the Democratic Party. And they only [1:47:15] engage with, ah, whatever that is. I was using a lot of words and I ran out of them. [1:47:25] That's how I see the Fox News coverage. And then here is the clip I would say that got the most [1:47:30] attention where Jon Stewart asks Jon Fetterman about his red line relating to Israel. [1:47:38] So for you, you could agree with them 90%, but Israel is the red line. [1:47:43] Absolutely. Israel for me. Like I can't ever turn my back to Israel after where it's at. [1:47:49] So, and I mean no disrespect on this, but that is not our country. You're saying that these candidates [1:47:56] may have great ideas for our economy. They may want to do the exact same thing you want to do in [1:48:01] terms of getting money out of politics. They may want to increase the social safety net. They may [1:48:05] want to, uh, uh, change the balance of power from capital back to labor. But if they don't agree with [1:48:13] you on Israel, you don't want them in your party. Well, I don't know who you're referencing to [1:48:20] specifically. No, I'm, I'm, I'm referencing what you just said. So in other words, Syed or AOC or [1:48:28] Bernie Sanders, I assume you agree with a lot of what they say economically. [1:48:34] And what I'm saying is like, if you are a DSA member, if you are a member of a specific political [1:48:40] party, run under your own banner. And now I think Bill Maher said something very insightfully said, [1:48:47] you know, the DSA are colonizing, colonizing the democratic party. So just be Democrats. If you're [1:48:54] going to run under the democratic party for that, why have it? This doesn't, that doesn't even make [1:48:59] any sense. Let me try to explain what he thinks he's saying. His issue is he doesn't feel a part [1:49:05] of the same movement. So he doesn't like that the socialists, socialist faction is embedding [1:49:13] themselves in a democratic party that is not socialist. But the reality is we saw this with the Republican [1:49:19] party. The party is whatever the people elect. That's it. That's it. So people would have said [1:49:26] Trumpism is not Republican or conservative, but then Trump took control of the Republican apparatus [1:49:30] because the people chose that. So you will have to engage. You can't just say, well, just go, let's do [1:49:34] something else. You will have to engage with this movement. But that wasn't even the question from [1:49:38] Jon Stewart. Jon was asking if you have a different stance on Israel than Bernie, but presumably you agree [1:49:49] with Bernie on a lot of policies, domestic issues, legislative issues, on 90% of issues. Why would [1:49:57] that issue, why would that foreign policy topic or your stance on aid to Israel or support for rhetoric [1:50:07] around cause you to literally leave the party you're in and go to a party that we would assume based on [1:50:15] what you ran on when you ran for Senate, you disagree with on 90% of things, but agree with on that one [1:50:21] issue. But here's the little fold to the story. I don't think Jon agrees with 90% of issues anymore. [1:50:32] He did when he ran, he really did want to like have economic progressivism and fundamentally rein in [1:50:38] the wealth of the wealthiest and invest in people and expand health coverage and uplift workers' rights. [1:50:46] And he wanted those things when he was running, or he said he wanted them when he ran for Senate. [1:50:49] I don't think he does anymore. So Jon Stewart's right to go, that doesn't make sense if you take [1:50:56] issue with Bernie's stance on Israel, and that makes you not want to be a Democrat at all, even [1:51:02] though you presumably as an economic progressive would agree on everything else. Why wouldn't you [1:51:07] work together on everything else? But that's where the question has a little bit of something [1:51:11] incorrect, which is I don't think Fetterman is even pushing for good domestic policy. I don't even [1:51:16] think he finds himself thinking about on a regular basis, healthcare or wages or any of that. I don't [1:51:25] think that's on his mind anymore. And so I think that's more core to why he's slowly just drifting [1:51:31] on everything to the Republican side. Sad state of affairs. Christopher McCain, member for eight [1:51:38] months said, I absolutely love this community. I'm going to have to hear you read this in the future [1:51:42] because I'm a bit behind. Never change unless it is for the better. Thank you all for all you do to [1:51:48] make my life a little better. Love TLPS. That's the most beautiful message ever. I love you, Max. [1:51:54] Absolutely, I do. Keaton Wilkins said, I really want a conversation with you and Jon Stewart because [1:51:59] I do see you as a young Jon Stewart. Well, that's an amazing compliment. Thank you. Yeah, it'd be fun [1:52:04] to chat with him. Do we have another story? We do, but I'm not going to do it. I'm worn out. [1:52:11] Let's go ahead and wrap up there, but please do join us at 6 p.m. East. I was going to... [1:52:17] Yes, unless I send out a post. By the way, if you're a member especially, check this out. [1:52:25] And you go to the homepage, you see this? And you go to posts right there. That's where I'll send [1:52:33] out updates or it probably pops up in the membership tab as well. But that's where I'll send out updates [1:52:40] if we ever change like the time or we cancel a bonus show or with the main show too. That's where I [1:52:45] send out updates under the post tab on the YouTube homepage. I think we'll do a bonus show at 6 p.m. [1:52:50] Eastern time, but I'll keep you updated. And then please, podcast listeners, leave a rating [1:52:54] and a review. Much love. No. More super chats. Exodus E says, does it really matter what DSA [1:53:03] says or wants? Look at Project 2025 Republicans. No one cared about that. I mean, yeah. Influential [1:53:10] movements within a broader coalition matter what they say. Yeah, I think so. Kevin says, [1:53:19] is the new pep flavor Dollycock? No. Much love. Talk to you all next time.